Digest - Oposa vs. Factoran

 

G.R. No. 101083 July 30, 1993 Juan Antonio, Anna Rosario and Jose Alfonso, all surnamed Oposa, vs.The Honorable Fulgencio S. Factoran, Jr. Consti Cons ti tuti onal Pr ovision ovision wh en exec executor utor ; Capac Capacit it y to F il e Suit  ; Art. II, Sec. 15 of the 1987 Constitution states that it is among the policies of the State to protect and promote the right to health of the people and instil health consciousness among them. Sec. 16 of the same Article reads that State shall protect and advance the right of the people to a balanced and healthful

ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature. FACTS: 1.  The case is a class suit instigated by petitioners who are minors, represented by their  parents along with the Philippine Ecological Network, Inc,, a non-stock, non- profit corporation concerned with the protection of environment and natural resources. The  petitioners are represented by Oposa Law Office 2.  Petitioners lobbied for the revocation of the Timber License Agreements (TLA) granted  by DENR, as represented by b y then Secretary Fulgencio Factoran, respondent, based o on n the right of the Filipinos to a balanced and healthful ecology. They wish to assert the rights of their generation as well as the generation yet unborn. 3.  The cause of action stated by the petitioners made mention of the alleged facts about the following: a.  decline of the country’s landmass covered by forest from 16 million hectares to 850,000 hectares in just a matter of 25 years  b.  with the rate of deforestation of about 200 000 hectares per annum, the Philippines would be bereft of forest resources by the end of the 1990s, depriving the unborn generation of their right to balanced and healthful environment, which they may not even see c.   plaintiffs have hav e a constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology and are entitled to protection by the state in its capacity capacit y as the the parens  parens partiae partiae   4.  The petition was initially filed with the Regional Trial Court, NCR. In response, respondent Sec. Factoran filed for a Motion to Dismiss based on two grounds:

 

a.   the have of action against him; and which properly pertains to  b. the plaintiffs issue raised byno thecause plaintiffs is a political question the legislative or executive branches of Government 5.  Respondent Judge issued an order granting the aforementioned motion to be dismissed. In the said order, not only was the defendant's claim  —   that the complaint states no cause of action against him and that it raises a political question  —  sustained,   sustained, the respondent Judge further ruled that the granting of the relief prayed for would result in the impairment of contracts which is prohibited by the fundamental fund amental law of the land. 6.  Petitioners filed for instant special civil action for certiorari certiorari under  under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court and asked the Supreme Court to rescind and set aside the dismissal order on the ground that the respondent Judge gravely abused his discretion in dismissing the action. ISSUE:

 

1.  Whether or not the petitioners have a justiciable cause of action rising from their claim of a right to balanced and healthful ecology as stated in the Declaration of Principles and State Policies 2.  Whether or not the case is a political question which should be addressed to the legislative and executive branches 3.  Whether or not cancellation of the TLA will result to impairments of contracts and whether such impairment will be against the fundamental laws of the land

HELD: 1.  The Supreme Court held in favor of the petitioners, it stated that the complaint focuses on one specific fundamental legal right  —   the right to a balanced and healthful ecology which, for the first time in our nation's constitutional history, is solemnly incorporated in the fundamental law, Section 16, Article II of the 1987 Constitution. And although the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is to be found under the Declaration of Principles and State Policies and not under the Bill of Rights, it does not follow that it is less important than any of the civil and political rights enumerated in the latter. Such a right belongs to a different category of rights altogether for it concerns nothing less than self-preservation and self-perpetuation  —   aptly and fittingly stressed by the  petitioners —   petitioners  —  the  the advancement of which may even be said to predate all governments and constitutions. As a matter of fact, these basic rights need not even be written in the Constitution for they are assumed to exist from the inception of humankind. If they are now explicitly mentioned in the fundamental charter, it is because of the well-founded fear of its framers that unless the rights to a balanced and healthful ecology and to health are mandated as state policies by the Constitution itself, thereby highlighting their continuing importance and imposing upon the state a solemn obligation to preserve the first and protect and advance the second, the day would not be too far when all else would be lost not only for the present generation, but also for those to come  —   generations which stand to inherit nothing but parched parch ed earth incapable of sustaining life. The minors' assertion of their right to a sound environment constitutes, at the same time, the performance of their obligation to ensure the protection of that right for the generations to come. 2.  Supreme Court held that the petition is not a political question. The case filed principally involves the enforcement of a right vis-a-vis vis-a-vis policies  policies already formulated and expressed in legislation. It must, nonetheless, be emphasized that the political question doctrine is no longer, the insurmountable obstacle to the exercise of judicial power or the impenetrable shield that  protects executive and legislative actions from judicial inquiry or review. The second  paragraph of section 1, Article VIII of the Constitution states states that:

 

Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government. 3.  Supreme Court decided that the position of the RTC Judge was shockingly unacceptable. They stated that Sec. Factoran did not even invoke the non-impairment clause when he filed for Motion to Dismiss petition. He was aware that as correctly pointed out by the  petitioners, into every timber license must be read Section 20 of the Forestry Reform Code (P.D. No. 705) which provides: . . . Provided  . Provided , That when the national interest so requires, the President may amend, modify, replace or rescind any contract, concession, permit, licenses or any other form of privilege granted herein . . .  Needless to say, all licenses may thus be b e revoked or rescinded by executive action. It is not a contract, property or a property right protested by the due process clause of the Constitution.