1. Minor plaintiffs filed a class suit against the Secretary of DENR seeking to cancel all existing timber licenses and prevent further deforestation, arguing they have a constitutional right to a balanced ecology as representatives of current and future generations.
2. The defendant claimed the case raised a political question outside the court's jurisdiction and that the plaintiffs had no cause of action.
3. The Supreme Court ruled the minor plaintiffs could represent current and future generations, based on the concept of intergenerational responsibility regarding the right to a balanced ecology. This right considers sustaining the environment for future enjoyment.
1. Minor plaintiffs filed a class suit against the Secretary of DENR seeking to cancel all existing timber licenses and prevent further deforestation, arguing they have a constitutional right to a balanced ecology as representatives of current and future generations.
2. The defendant claimed the case raised a political question outside the court's jurisdiction and that the plaintiffs had no cause of action.
3. The Supreme Court ruled the minor plaintiffs could represent current and future generations, based on the concept of intergenerational responsibility regarding the right to a balanced ecology. This right considers sustaining the environment for future enjoyment.
1. Minor plaintiffs filed a class suit against the Secretary of DENR seeking to cancel all existing timber licenses and prevent further deforestation, arguing they have a constitutional right to a balanced ecology as representatives of current and future generations.
2. The defendant claimed the case raised a political question outside the court's jurisdiction and that the plaintiffs had no cause of action.
3. The Supreme Court ruled the minor plaintiffs could represent current and future generations, based on the concept of intergenerational responsibility regarding the right to a balanced ecology. This right considers sustaining the environment for future enjoyment.
The issues raised by the plaintiffs is a political question
which properly pertains to the legislative or executive branches Natural and Environmental Laws; Constitutional Law: of the government. Intergenerational Responsibility GR No. 101083; July 30 1993 ISSUE: Do the petitioner-minors have a cause of action in filing a class FACTS: suit to “prevent the misappropriation or impairment of A taxpayer’s class suit was filed by minors Juan Antonio Oposa, Philippine rainforests?” et al., representing their generation and generations yet unborn, and represented by their parents against Fulgencio Factoran Jr., HELD: Secretary of DENR. They prayed that judgment be rendered Yes. Petitioner-minors assert that they represent their ordering the defendant, his agents, representatives and other generation as well as generations to come. The Supreme Court persons acting in his behalf to: ruled that they can, for themselves, for others of their generation, and for the succeeding generation, file a class suit. Their 1. Cancel all existing Timber Licensing Agreements (TLA) personality to sue in behalf of succeeding generations is based in the country; on the concept of intergenerational responsibility insofar as the 2. Cease and desist from receiving, accepting, processing, right to a balanced and healthful ecology is concerned. Such a renewing, or appraising new TLAs; and granting the plaintiffs right considers the “rhythm and harmony of nature” which “such other reliefs just and equitable under the premises.” They indispensably include, inter alia, the judicious disposition, alleged that they have a clear and constitutional right to a utilization, management, renewal and conservation of the balanced and healthful ecology and are entitled to protection by country’s forest, mineral, land, waters, fisheries, wildlife, the State in its capacity as parens patriae. Furthermore, they offshore areas and other natural resources to the end that their claim that the act of the defendant in allowing TLA holders to exploration, development, and utilization be equitably cut and deforest the remaining forests constitutes a accessible to the present as well as the future generations. misappropriation and/or impairment of the natural resources property he holds in trust for the benefit of the plaintiff minors Needless to say, every generation has a responsibility to and succeeding generations. the next to preserve that rhythm and harmony for the full enjoyment of a balanced and healthful ecology. Put a little The defendant filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the differently, the minor’s assertion of their right to a sound following grounds: environment constitutes at the same time, the performance of their obligation to ensure the protection of that right for the 1. Plaintiffs have no cause of action against him; generations to come.