Professional Documents
Culture Documents
PAGES 41-59
PAGES 257 TILL THE END
RPEC.
Oposa vs Factoran
Natural and Environmental Laws; Constitutional Law: Intergenerational Responsibility
GR No. 101083; July 30 1993
FACTS:
A taxpayer’s class suit was filed by minors Juan Antonio Oposa, et al., representing their
generation and generations yet unborn, and represented by their parents against Fulgencio
Factoran Jr., Secretary of DENR. They prayed that judgment be rendered ordering the defendant,
his agents, representatives and other persons acting in his behalf to:
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 parens 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.
The defendant filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the following grounds:
ISSUE:
Do the petitioner-minors have a cause of action in filing a class suit to “prevent the
misappropriation or impairment of Philippine rainforests?”
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.
FACTS:
The complaint by the residents alleged that the water quality of the Manila Bay had
fallen way below the allowable standards set by law, specifically Presidential Decree
No. (PD) 1152 or the Philippine Environment Code and that ALL defendants (public
officials) must be jointly and/or solidarily liable and collectively ordered to clean up Manila
Bay and to restore its water quality to class B, waters fit for swimming, diving, and other
forms of contact recreation.
ISSUES:
(1) WON Sections 17 and 20 of PD 1152 under the headings, Upgrading of Water Quality
and Clean-up Operations, envisage a cleanup in general or are they limited only to
the cleanup of specific pollution incidents;
(2) WON petitioners be compel led by mandamus to clean up and rehabilitate the Manila
Bay.
APPLICABLE LAWS:
HELD:
(1) Sec. 17 does not in any way state that the government agencies concerned ought
to confine themselves to the containment, removal, and cleaning operations when a
specific pollution incident occurs. On the contrary, Sec. 17 requires them to act even
in the absence of a specific pollution incident, as long as water quality “has
deteriorated to a degree where its state will adversely affect its best usage.” Section 17 &
20 are of general application and are not for specific pollution incidents only. The fact that
the pollution of the Manila Bay is of such magnitude and scope that it is well -nigh
impossible to draw the line between a specific and a general pollution incident.
(2) The Cleaning or Rehabilitation of Manila Bay Can be Compelled by Mandamus. While
the implementation of the MMDA's mandated tasks may entail a decision-making
process, the enforcement of the law or the very act of doing what the law exacts to be
done is ministerial in nature and may be compelled by mandamus. Under what other
judicial discipline describes as “continuing mandamus ,” the Court may, under
extraordinary circumstances, issue directives with the end in view of ensuring that its
decision would not be set to naught by administrative inaction or indifference.
RPEC governs procedure in all civil criminal and all special involving enforcement or
violation of environmental or other related laws
Is mediation mandatory? Yes. Court will ask of they have settle the case.
Immediately executory.
- A legal action filed to harass, vex, exert undue pressure or stifle any legal recourse
that any person, institution or the government has taken or may take in the
enforcement of environmental laws, protection of the environment or assertion of
environmental rights shall be treated as a SLAPP and shall be governed by these
Rules.
Civil cases
Yes. Slapp may be used as evidence
Criminal cases
Yes. Slapp may be used as evidence
WRIT OF KALIKASAN
Manchester Ruling:
Ocular inspection
Bailable offenses.
EVIDENCE
Precautionary Principle*
The court in upholding the rights of the people…. Benefit of the doubt… (SEARCH)
Court shall give.. the benefit of the doubt