Juan Antonio, Anna Rosario and Jose Alfonso Oposa, Minors, and Represented by their Parents Antonio and Rizalina Oposa, et al. v. The Honorable Fulgencio S. Factoran, Jr., in his Capacity as the Secretary of the DENR (Philippines)

The petition challenged the continued issuance of timber license agreements (logging licenses). The petitioners, who are minors, brought the claim on behalf of their generation, as well as generations yet unborn. They argued that if current logging rates continue, the Philippine would be bereft of forest resources within 10 years. The adverse effects, disastrous consequences, serious injury and irreparable damage of this continued trend of deforestation to the minor petitioners' generation and to generations yet unborn was evident and incontrovertible. Thus, granting new timber license agreements was a grave abuse of discretion and a violation of their right to maintain a balanced and a healthful ecology. The respondent asserted that there was no cause of action and that the issue was a political question.

The court ruled that the petitioners could file a class suit for themselves, for others of their generation, and for the succeeding generations. The petitioners’ 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. The Court noted that while the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is to be found under the Declaration of Principles and State Policies and not under the Bill of Rights, it does not follow that it is less important than any of the civil and political rights enumerated in the latter. Such a right belongs to a different category of rights altogether for it concerns nothing less than self-preservation and self-perpetuation, the advancement of which may even be said to predate all governments and constitutions. As a matter of fact, these basic rights need not even be written in the Constitution for they are assumed to exist from the inception of humankind.

Furthermore, the court found that the timber licenses were not contracts amounting to a property right. The licenses could be revoked or rescinded by executive action. Even if the licenses were contracts, the non-impairment clause must yield to the police power of the State.