Scribd
Upload
9 views2 pages

1 Oposa

Oposa v. Factoran is a landmark case in which a group of minors petitioned to cancel timber licenses, arguing that logging operations violated their constitutional right to a healthy environment and represented future generations. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioners, recognizing intergenerational responsibility and affirming that the right to a balanced ecology is fundamental and enforceable. This case established legal standing for future generations and confirmed that environmental rights are justiciable and constitutionally protected.

Uploaded by

Romavel Delos santos
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
9 views2 pages

1 Oposa

Oposa v. Factoran is a landmark case in which a group of minors petitioned to cancel timber licenses, arguing that logging operations violated their constitutional right to a healthy environment and represented future generations. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioners, recognizing intergenerational responsibility and affirming that the right to a balanced ecology is fundamental and enforceable. This case established legal standing for future generations and confirmed that environmental rights are justiciable and constitutionally protected.

Uploaded by

Romavel Delos santos
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

Oposa v.

Factoran – Environmental rights, intergenerational equity

Oposa v. Factoran (G.R. No. 101083, July 30, 1993):

Facts:

 A group of minors, represented by their parents and led by Juan Antonio Oposa, filed a
petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus against Fulgencio Factoran, Jr.,
then Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR).
 The petition sought to cancel all existing timber license agreements (TLAs) and stop
the DENR from issuing new ones.
 The petitioners argued that logging operations were destroying the country’s remaining
virgin forests, violating their constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology.
 They also asserted that they were acting on behalf of future generations, invoking the
principle of intergenerational responsibility.

Issue:

 Whether minors can file a case on behalf of future generations to protect the
environment.
 Whether the constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology can be
enforced through a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus.

Ruling:

 The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioners.


 It recognized the concept of intergenerational responsibility, stating that the
petitioners could represent future generations.
 The Court held that the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is fundamental, self-
executory, and enforceable independently of any specific law.
 The Court emphasized that this right is linked to the constitutional right to life, stating
that life cannot be enjoyed and fulfilled if the environment is degraded.
 However, the Court did not cancel the existing timber license agreements, citing
procedural reasons. Instead, it upheld the petitioners’ legal standing and recognized the
legitimacy of their cause.
Significance:

 Oposa v. Factoran is a landmark case in Philippine and international environmental


law.
 It established legal standing for future generations, laying the groundwork for
intergenerational equity.
 It affirmed that environmental rights are justiciable and constitutionally protected.

• Marcos v. Manglapus – Executive power vs. return of a dictator

You might also like