Oposa v. Factoran

Minors, represented and joined by their parents, together with the Philippine Ecological Network, Inc., filed a taxpayers' class suit in RTC Makati, Branch 66, against the DENR Secretary. They prayed that he be ordered to cancel all existing timber license agreements (TLAs) and to stop receiving, processing, renewing or approving new ones. They alleged massive deforestation and its environmental consequences. The minors claimed to "represent their generation as well as generations yet unborn." The Secretary moved to dismiss on two grounds: no cause of action, and a political question. On July 18, 1991, the respondent Judge granted the motion, sustaining both grounds. He also ruled that granting the relief would impair contracts. The plaintiffs filed a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65, charging grave abuse of discretion.

1. 1Whether the petitioners, including minors suing for succeeding generations, could maintain the suit as a class suit.
2. 2Whether the complaint stated a cause of action or instead raised a political question.
3. 3Whether the relief sought was barred by the non-impairment clause.

The petition was granted. The case was a valid class suit under Section 12, Rule 3: the subject matter is of common and general interest to all citizens, the parties are too numerous to bring before the court, and the plaintiffs are representative enough. The minors may sue "for themselves, for others of their generation and for the succeeding generations." Their personality to sue for future generations rests on "the concept of intergenerational responsibility." On the motion to dismiss, the complaint's allegations are hypothetically admitted. The only question is whether, admitting those facts, the court may render a valid judgment according to the prayer. The complaint rested on "one specific fundamental legal right," the right to a balanced and healthful ecology under Section 16, Article II. That right carries a correlative duty to refrain from impairing the environment, and the DENR has the duty under E.O. No. 192 and the Administrative Code of 1987 to protect and advance it. This was enough to show a prima facie cause of action. However, TLA holders are indispensable parties to any cancellation. The case raised no political question: it sought enforcement of a right against policies already legislated, and Section 1, Article VIII expanded judicial power in any event. The non-impairment clause did not apply because timber licenses are privileges, not contracts. In any case, it yields to police power. The dismissal order was set aside, and petitioners may amend the complaint to implead the TLA holders.