Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 334 views

    Oposa vs. Factoran Case Digest (G.R. No. 101083, July 30, 1993)

    Uploaded by

    Abju Haree
    The Oposa vs. Factoran case involved minor plaintiffs representing their generation as well as future generations in a class action suit against the Department of Environment and Natural Resources Secretary. The plaintiffs argued the Secretary's approval of logging permits was impairing the country's forests and violating their constitutional right to a balanced ecology. The Supreme Court ruled the minors could sue on behalf of themselves and future generations based on the concept of intergenerational responsibility regarding environmental rights. The Court said each generation has a duty to preserve the environment for future generations to fully enjoy a balanced ecology.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Oposa vs. Factoran Case Digest (G.R. No. 101083, July 30, 1993)

    Uploaded by

    Abju Haree
    334 views1 page
    The Oposa vs. Factoran case involved minor plaintiffs representing their generation as well as future generations in a class action suit against the Department of Environment and Natural Resources Secretary. The plaintiffs argued the Secretary's approval of logging permits was impairing the country's forests and violating their constitutional right to a balanced ecology. The Supreme Court ruled the minors could sue on behalf of themselves and future generations based on the concept of intergenerational responsibility regarding environmental rights. The Court said each generation has a duty to preserve the environment for future generations to fully enjoy a balanced ecology.

    Original Description:

    D

    Original Title

    3

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Oposa vs. Factoran case involved minor plaintiffs representing their generation as well as future generations in a class action suit against the Department of Environment and Natural Resources Secretary. The plaintiffs argued the Secretary's approval of logging permits was impairing the country's forests and violating their constitutional right to a balanced ecology. The Supreme Court ruled the minors could sue on behalf of themselves and future generations based on the concept of intergenerational responsibility regarding environmental rights. The Court said each generation has a duty to preserve the environment for future generations to fully enjoy a balanced ecology.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    334 views1 page

    Oposa vs. Factoran Case Digest (G.R. No. 101083, July 30, 1993)

    Uploaded by

    Abju Haree
    The Oposa vs. Factoran case involved minor plaintiffs representing their generation as well as future generations in a class action suit against the Department of Environment and Natural Resources Secretary. The plaintiffs argued the Secretary's approval of logging permits was impairing the country's forests and violating their constitutional right to a balanced ecology. The Supreme Court ruled the minors could sue on behalf of themselves and future generations based on the concept of intergenerational responsibility regarding environmental rights. The Court said each generation has a duty to preserve the environment for future generations to fully enjoy a balanced ecology.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Oposa vs. Factoran Case Digest (G.R. No.

    101083, July 30, 1993)

    FACTS:

    The plaintiffs in this case are all minors duly represented and joined by their parents. The first
    complaint was filed as a taxpayer's class suit against defendant (respondent) Secretary of the Department
    of Environment and Natural Reasources (DENR). Plaintiffs alleged that they are entitled to the full benefit,
    use and enjoyment of the natural resource treasure that is the country's virgin tropical forests. They further
    asseverate that they represent their generation as well as generations yet unborn and asserted that
    continued deforestation have caused a distortion and disturbance of the ecological balance and have
    resulted in a host of environmental tragedies.
    They prayed that judgment be rendered ordering the defendant, his agents, representatives and other
    persons acting in his behalf to cancel all existing Timber Licensing Agreements (TLA) in the country, cease
    and desist from receiving, accepting, processing, renewing, or appraising new TLAs; and granting the
    plaintiffs “such other reliefs just and equitable under the premises.” They alleged that they have a clear
    and constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology and are entitled to protection by the State in
    its capacity as parents patriae. Furthermore, they claim that the act of the defendant in allowing TLA
    holders to cut and deforest the remaining forests constitutes a misappropriation and/or impairment of
    the natural resources property he holds in trust for the benefit of the plaintiff minors and succeeding
    generations.

    Issues:

    Whether or not the petitioner-minors have a cause of action in filing a class suit to “prevent the
    misappropriation or impairment of Philippine rainforests” considering that that they represent their
    generation as well as generations yet unborn and considering further that the respondents contend that
    complaint had no cause of action against him and that it raises a political question.

    Held:

    Yes. Petitioner-minors assert that they represent their generation as well as generations to come.

    The Supreme Court ruled that they can, for themselves, for others of their generation, and for
    the succeeding generation, file a class suit. Their personality to sue in behalf of succeeding generations is
    based on the concept of intergenerational responsibility insofar as the right to a balanced and healthful
    ecology is concerned. Such a right considers the “rhythm and harmony of nature” which indispensably
    include, inter alia, the judicious disposition, utilization, management, renewal and conservation of the
    country’s forest, mineral, land, waters, fisheries, wildlife, offshore areas and other natural resources to
    the end that their exploration, development, and utilization be equitably accessible to the present as well
    as the future generations.

    Needless to say, every generation has a responsibility to the next to preserve that rhythm and
    harmony for the full enjoyment of a balanced and healthful ecology. Put a little differently, the minor’s
    assertion of their right to a sound environment constitutes at the same time, the performance of their
    obligation to ensure the protection of that right for the generations to come.

    You might also like