Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
No. 101083)
This case is unique in that it is a class suit brought by 44
children, through their parents, claiming that they bring Nature of the case
the case in the name of their generation as well as
those generations yet unborn. Aiming to stop Class action seeking the cancellation and non-issuance
deforestation, it was filed against the Secretary of the of timber licence agreements which allegedly infringed
Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the constitutional right to a balanced and healthful
seeking to have him cancel all the timber license ecology (Section 16); non-impairment of contracts;
agreements (TLAs) in the country and to cease and Environmental law; judicial review and the political
desist from accepting and approving more timber license question doctrine; inter-generational responsibility;
agreements. The children invoked their right to a Remedial law: cause of action and standing; Directive
balanced and healthful ecology and to protection by the principles; Negative obligation on State
State in its capacity as parens patriae. The petitioners
claimed that the DENR Secretary's refusal to cancel the Summary
TLAs and to stop issuing them was "contrary to the
highest law of humankind-- the natural law-- and
violative of plaintiffs' right to self-preservation and An action was filed by several minors represented by
perpetuation." The case was dismissed in the lower their parents against the Department of Environment and
court, invoking the law on non-impairment of contracts, Natural Resources to cancel existing timber license
so it was brought to the Supreme Court on certiorari. agreements in the country and to stop issuance of new
ones. It was claimed that the resultant deforestation and
damage to the environment violated their constitutional
Issue rights to a balanced and healthful ecology and to health
(Sections 16 and 15, Article II of the Constitution). The
Did the children have the legal standing to file the case? petitioners asserted that they represented others of their
generation as well as generations yet unborn.
Ruling
Finding for the petitioners, the Court stated that even
Yes. The Supreme Court in granting the petition ruled though the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is
that the children had the legal standing to file the case under the Declaration of Principles and State Policies of
based on the concept of intergenerational the Constitution and not under the Bill of Rights, it does
responsibility. Their right to a healthy environment not follow that it is less important than any of the rights
carried with it an obligation to preserve that environment enumerated in the latter: [it] concerns nothing less than
for the succeeding generations. In this, the Court self-preservation and self-perpetuation, the
recognized legal standing to sue on behalf of future advancement of which may even be said to predate all
generations. Also, the Court said, the law on non- governments and constitutions. The right is linked to
impairment of contracts must give way to the exercise of the constitutional right to health, is fundamental,
the police power of the state in the interest of public constitutionalised, self-executing and judicially
welfare. enforceable. It imposes the correlative duty to refrain
from impairing the environment.
Relevance
The court stated that the petitioners were able to file a
class suit both for others of their generation and for
The case of Oposa vs. Factoran has been widely cited succeeding generations as the minors' assertion of their
worldwide for its concept of intergenerational right to a sound environment constitutes, at the same
responsibility, particularly in cases related to ecology and time, the performance of their obligation to ensure the
the environment. For example: protection of that right for the generations to come.
order" is, perforce, implied. NOTE: original application of the BPC to have its plant site in
HOWEVER, writs of mandamus and Bataan and the product naphta as feedstock
Facts:
1. Whether or not the petition present a negotiations with developed countries. Within the
2. Whether or not the provisions of the blocs to push their economic agenda more
Agreement Establishing the World Trade decisively than outside the Organization. Which is
Organization and the Agreements and Associated not merely a matter of practical alliances but a
Legal Instruments included in Annexes one (1), negotiating strategy rooted in law. Thus, the basic
two (2) and three (3) of that agreement cited by principles underlying the WTO Agreement
petitioners directly contravene or undermine the recognize the need of developing countries like
letter, spirit and intent of Section 19, Article II and the Philippines to share in the growth in
Sections 10 and 12, Article XII of the 1987 international trade commensurate with the needs
3. Whether or not certain provisions of the In its Declaration of Principles and State
Agreement unduly limit, restrict or impair the Policies, the Constitution adopts the generally
4. Whether or not certain provisions of the the law of the land, and adheres to the policy of
Agreement impair the exercise of judicial power by peace, equality, justice, freedom, cooperation and
this Honorable Court in promulgating the rules of amity, with all nations. By the doctrine of
5. Whether or not the concurrence of the Senate accepted principles of international law, which are
in the ratification by the President of the considered to be automatically part of our own
Philippines of the Agreement establishing the laws. A state which has contracted valid
World Trade Organization implied rejection of the international obligations is bound to make in its
aspects of their state power in exchange for Petitioner filed a petition before the Supreme
greater benefits granted by or derived from a Court to compel the GSIS to allow it to match the bid
of Renong Berhad. It invoked the Filipino First
convention or pact. After all, states, like
Policy enshrined in 10, paragraph 2, Article XII of the
individuals, live with coequals, and in pursuit of 1987 Constitution, which provides that in the grant of
mutually covenanted objectives and benefits, they rights, privileges, and concessions covering the
national economy and patrimony, the State shall give
also commonly agree to limit the exercise of their
preference to qualified Filipinos.
otherwise absolute rights. As shown by the
foregoing treaties Philippines has entered, a II. THE ISSUES
portion of sovereignty may be waived without 1. Whether 10, paragraph 2, Article XII of the 1987
violating the Constitution, based on the rationale Constitution is a self-executing provision and does not
that the Philippines adopts the generally accepted need implementing legislation to carry it into effect;
2. Assuming 10, paragraph 2, Article XII is self-
principles of international law as part of the law executing, whether the controlling shares of the
of the land and adheres to the policy of Manila Hotel Corporation form part of our patrimony
as a nation;
cooperation and amity with all nations.
3. Whether GSIS is included in the term State, hence, own inherent potency and puissance, and from which
mandated to implement 10, paragraph 2, Article XII all legislations must take their bearings. Where there
of the Constitution; and is a right there is a remedy. Ubi jus ibi remedium.
4. Assuming GSIS is part of the State, whether it should
give preference to the petitioner, a Filipino
corporation, over Renong Berhad, a foreign 2. YES, the controlling shares of the
corporation, in the sale of the controlling shares of the Manila Hotel Corporation form part of our
Manila Hotel Corporation. patrimony as a nation.
Obviously, the provision is not intended to compel the At any rate, Pamatong was eventually declared a
State to enact positive measures that would nuisance candidate and was disqualified.
accommodate as many people as possible into public
office. Moreover, the provision as written leaves much to
be desired if it is to be regarded as the source of positive
rights. It is difficult to interpret the clause as operative in
the absence of legislation since its effective means and
reach are not properly defined. Broadly written, the
myriad of claims that can be subsumed under this rubric
appear to be entirely open-ended. Words and phrases
such as "equal access," "opportunities," and "public
service" are susceptible to countless interpretations
owing to their inherent impreciseness. Certainly, it was
not the intention of the framers to inflict on the people
an operative but amorphous foundation from which
innately unenforceable rights may be sourced.