Oposa vs. Factoran, Jr.

224 SCRA 782

July 1993

FACTS:

Plaintiffs, who are minors represented by their parents, alleged that the then DENR Secretary
Fulgencio Factoran, Jr.s continued approval of the Timber License Agreements (TLAs) to
numerous commercial logging companies to cut and deforest the remaining forests of the
country will work great damage and injury to the plaintiffs and their successors. Defendant,
through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), avers that the plaintiffs failed to state a
specific right violated by the defendant and that the question of whether logging should be
permitted in the country is a political question and cannot be tried in the Courts. The RTC of
Makati, Branch 66, granted defendants motion to dismiss.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the case at bar subject to the judicial power of the Court

COURT RULING:

Being impressed with merit, the Supreme Court granted the petition and set aside the Order of
the RTC which dismissed the case.

The case at bar is subject to judicial review by the Court. Justice Davide, Jr. precisely
identified in his opinion the requisites for a case to be subjected for the judicial review by the
Court. According to him, the subject matter of the complaint is of common interest, making
this civil case a class suit and proving the existence of an actual controversy. He strengthens
this conclusion by citing in the decision Section 1, Article 7 of the 1987 Constitution.

Although concurring in the result, Justice Feliciano penned his separate opinions on a number
of topics pointed by Justice Davide, Jr. in this Court decision. Justice Feliciano said that the
concept of the word class is too broad to cover the plaintiffs and their representatives alone,
and that the Court may be deemed recognizing anyones right to file action as against both the
public administrative agency and the private entities of the sector involved in the case at bar,
to wit:

Neither petitioners nor the Court has identified the particular provisions of the Philippine
Environment Code which give rise to a specific legal right which petitioners are seeking to
enforce.

Justice Feliciano further stated that the Court in the case at bar in effect made Sections 15
and 16 of Article 2 of the 1987 Constitution to be self-executing and judicially enforceable even
in its present form, and that these implications are too large and far reaching in nature ever to
be hinted in this instant case.