Oposa vs. Factoran 2

8/11/2019 Oposa vs. Factoran 2

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/oposa-vs-factoran-2 1/23

Don Wade B. Comoro

Kokok Dolar



This petition bears upon the right of Filipinos to a balanced and healthfuecology which the petitioners dramatically associate with the concepts of "intergenerational responsibility" and "inter-generational justice." Specifically, it touches onthe issue of whether the said petitioners have a cause of action to "prevent themisappropriation or impairment" of Philippine rainforests and "arrest the unabatedhemorrhage of the country's vital life support systems and continued rape of MotherEarth."



Timeline of Events

Civil Case

No. 90-77filed

beforeBranch 66(Makati)of RTC

On June

22, 1990,defendant

filed amotion toDismiss

thecomplaint.

On July18, 1991,

the motionto dismiss

wasgranted

Petitioner s filed the

instantcivil

action forcertiorari



Oposa v Factoran

G.R. No. 101083 July 30, 1993



The petitioners are all minors duly represented and joined by their respective parents.Impleaded as an additional plaintiff is the Philippine Ecological Network, Inc. (PENI), adomestic, non-stock and non-profit corporation organized for the purpose of, inter alia,engaging in concerted action geared for the protection of our environment and naturalresources.





The complaint was instituted as a taxpayers' class suit and alleges that the pl"are all citizens of the Republic of the Philippines, taxpayers, and entitled to the fullbenefit, use and enjoyment of the natural resource treasure that is the country's virgintropical forests." The same was filed for themselves and others who are equallyconcerned about the preservation of said resource but are "so numerous that it isimpracticable to bring them all before the Court." The minors further asseverate thatthey "represent their generation as well as generations yet unborn."



Consequently, it is prayed for that judgment be rendered ordering defendant, hisagents, representatives and other persons acting in his behalf to

(1) Cancel all existing timber license agreements in the country;(2) Cease and desist from receiving, accepting, processing, renewing or approving newtimber license agreements and granting the plaintiffs ". . . such other reliefs just and equitableunder the premises."



The complaint contains general averments stating the rich and vast natural resourcesthat the Philippines is gifted with, and the distortion and disturbance of this balancehave resulted to numerous tragedies Plaintiffs further assert that the adverse anddetrimental consequences of continued and deforestation are so capable ofunquestionable demonstration that the same may be submitted as a matter of judicialnotice. This notwithstanding, they expressed their intention to present expertwitnesses as well as documentary, photographic and film evidence in the course of

the trial.



Plaintiffs replead by reference the foregoing allegations.Twenty-five (25) years ago, the Philippines had some sixteen (16) million hectares ofrainforests constituting roughly 53% of the country's land mass.Satellite images taken in 1987 reveal that there remained no more than 1.2 million hectaresof said rainforests or four per cent (4.0%) of the country's land area.More recent surveys reveal that a mere 850,000 hectares of virgin oldgrowth rainforests areleft, barely 2.8% of the entire land mass of the Philippine archipelago and about 3.0 million

hectares of immature and uneconomical secondary growth forests.Public records reveal that the defendant's, predecessors have granted timber licenseagreements ('TLA's') to various corporations to cut the aggregate area of 3.89 millionhectares for commercial logging purposes.



At the present rate of deforestation, i.e. about 200,000 hectares per annum or 25 hectareper hour — nighttime, Saturdays, Sundays and holidays included — the Philippinebereft of forest resources after the end of this ensuing decade, if not earlier.The adverse effects, disastrous consequences, serious injury and irreparable damage of thiscontinued trend of deforestation to the plaintiff minor's generation and to generations yetunborn are evident and incontrovertible. As a matter of fact, the environmental damagesenumerated in paragraph 6 hereof are already being felt, experienced and suffered by thegeneration of plaintiff adults.The continued allowance by defendant of TLA holders to cut and deforest the remainingforest stands will work great damage and irreparable injury to plaintiffs — especialminors and their successors — who may never see, use, benefit from and enjoy this rare unique natural resource treasure. This act of defendant constitutes a misappropriation and/orimpairment of the natural resource property he holds in trust for the benefit of plaintiff minorsand succeeding generations.



Plaintiffs have a clear and constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology and areentitled to protection by the State in its capacity as the parens patriae .Plaintiff have exhausted all administrative remedies with the defendant's office. On March 2,1990, plaintiffs served upon defendant a final demand to cancel all logging permits in thecountry.Defendant, however, fails and refuses to cancel the existing TLA's to the continuing seriousdamage and extreme prejudice of plaintiffs.

The continued failure and refusal by defendant to cancel the TLA's is an act violative of therights of plaintiffs, especially plaintiff minors who may be left with a country that is desertified(sic ), bare, barren and devoid of the wonderful flora, fauna and indigenous cultures which thePhilippines had been abundantly blessed with.





Finally, defendant's act is contrary to the highest law of humankind — the natuand violative of plaintiffs' right to self-preservation and perpetuation. There is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in law other than the instant action toarrest the unabated hemorrhage of the country's vital life support systems and continuedrape of Mother Earth.



The original defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss the complaint based on the grthat

(1) the plaintiff have no cause of action against him and that(2) the issue raised by the plaintiffs is a political question which properly pertains to thelegislative or executive branches of Government.



In Opposition to the Motion, the petitioners maintain that(1) the complaint shows a clear and unmistakable cause of action,(2) the motion is dilatory and(3) the action presents a justiciable question as it involves the defendant's abuse ofdiscretion.

The respondent judge granted the motion to dismiss, thus the plaintiffs filed a mthe instant civil action certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court and ask this Cto rescind and set aside the dismissal order on the ground that the respondent Judge gravelyabused his discretion in dismissing the action. Again, the parents of the plaintiffs-minors notonly represent their children, but have also joined the latter in this case.



Oposa v Factoran

G.R. No. 101083 July 30, 1993



Whether or not the petitioners have cause ofaction.Whether or not the issues raised by the plaintiffis a justiciable question .



Oposa v Factoran

G.R. No. 101083 July 30, 1993



There is a valid class suit in this case, however they represent not just their generationbut also the generation yet unborn. This is based on the concept of intergenerationalresponsibility insofar as the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is concerned.

The petitioners have “rhythm and harmony in nature” as a right to protect and

needless to say that for the full enjoyment of a “healthful and balanced ecology”, everygeneration has the obligation to protect that rhythm and harmony.

The minors' assertion of their right to a sound environment constitutes, at the sametime, the performance of their obligation to ensure the protection of that right for thegenerations to come.



The court rules in favor of petitioners and rule against the respondent Judge'schallenged order for having been issued with grave abuse of discretion amounting tolack of jurisdiction.

The complaint focuses on one specific fundamental legal right — the right to

balanced and healthful ecology which, for the first time in our nation's constitutionalhistory, is solemnly incorporated in the fundamental law.

While the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is to be found under theDeclaration of Principles and State Policies and not under the Bill of Rights, it doesnot follow that it is less important than any of the civil and political rights enumeratedin the latter. Such a right belongs to a different category of rights altogether for itconcerns nothing less than self-preservation and self-perpetuation.

The instant Petition is hereby GRANTED, and the challenged Order of respondentJudge of 18 July 1991 dismissing Civil Case No. 90-777 is hereby set aside. Thepetitioners may therefore amend their complaint to implead as defendants the holdersor grantees of the questioned timber license agreements.



Basically, the fundamental cause of action is rooted from the very concept opreservation and perpetuation . Petitioners contend that their right to a balance ahealthful ecology constitutes to a judicial action.

To quote, the Supreme Court stated that “As a matter of fact, these basic rights neednot even be written in the Constitution for they are assumed to exist from theinception of humankind . If they are now explicitly mentioned in the fundamentalcharter, 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 theConstitution itself, thereby highlighting their continuing importance and imposing uponthe state a solemn obligation to preserve the first and protect and advance thesecond, the day would not be too far when all else would be lost not only for thepresent generation, but also for those to come — generations which stand to inhnothing but parched earth incapable of sustaining life.”



THE END,THANK YOU

Date post:	02-Jun-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	jo-vanne-trivilegio
View:	222 times
Download:	0 times

Oposa vs. Factoran 2

Documents