Oposa V Factoran (GR No 101083) Digest

OPOSA v. FACTORAN 224 SCRA 792 July 30, 1993 Art. II, Sec. 16. The 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. Plaintiffs filed a taxpayers’ class suit, Civil Case No. 90-77, against original defendant then DENR Sec. Fulgencio Factoran, who was subsequently replaced by new Sec. Angel Alcala 2. Complaint prayed for defendant to: a. Cancel all existing timber license agreements (TLA) b. Cease and desist from receiving and approving new TLAs 3. In their cause of action, plaintiffs have alleged that, among others: a. Only 850, 000 hectares of old-growth rainforest are left in the Philippines b. Defendant’s predecessors have granted TLAs to cut 3.8-M ha of forests c. Petitioners had sent a final demand to cancel logging permits d. Defendant’s refusal to cancel TLAs is against Philippine Environmental Policy and the Constitution (Art. XII, XIV, and II) 4. On July 18, 1991, the court granted Sec. Factoran’s motion to dismiss on the following grounds: a. Plaintiffs failed to cite a specific legal right violated by defendant b. Issue is a political question which may violate separation of powers c. TLAs cannot be revoked as it is tantamount to “impairment of contracts” 5. Plaintiffs filed for certiorari, citing violations in: the Civil Code; E.O. No. 192; P.D. No. 1151, and the Constitution ISSUES: 1. Whether petitioners’ complaint has a valid cause of action. 2. Whether issue raised by petitioners is a political question that affects the Executive and Legislative branches of Government 3. Whether petition violates “non-impairment clause” of contracts HELD: 1. YES. Section 16, Article II of the Constitution explicitly provides for the State to protect the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology. Conforming to this, Section 1 of Title XIV, Book IV of the Administrative Code of 1987 says that the State shall ensure the conservation of the country’s forest, with Section 2 specifically making this the mandate of the DENR. Thus, the DENR’s refusal to cancel the TLAs is an ommission that violates the said right, making for a valid cause of action. 2. YES.

Under Section 1, Article VIII of the Constitution, judicial power includes the duty of the courts to determine whether there has been a grave abuse of discretion in any branch of the Government. Thus, executive and legislative actions are not immune to judicial review. 3. NO. In Tan v. Director of Forestry, the Court held that timber licenses are not contracts, but privileges that can be revoked if dictated by public welfare. Regardless, assuming that a law has passed requiring such cancellations, contract rights are not absolute and must yield to the police power of the state.