The Philippines

Minors Oposa v. Secretary of the Department of Environmental and Natural Resources

Year filed: N/A
Year of most recent ruling: 1993
Court(s): Supreme Court
Status: Decided
Plaintiff(s): Juan Antonio Oposa and others; Philippine Ecological Network, Inc.
Respondent(s): Secretary of the Department of Environmental and Natural Resources

Facts

Plaintiffs, primarily minors representing themselves and future generations, sued to limit the number of timber license agreements on the grounds that continued deforestation would continue to result in negative impacts to the environment. Citing scientific evidence suggesting that over half the Philippines’ land area should remain forested in order to maintain the country’s uniquely rich biodiversity, the plaintiffs alleged that continuing deforestation and its attendant environmental damage violated their right to a sound, balanced and healthful ecology as reflected in the Constitution and various statutes. The plaintiffs additionally cited elements of criminal and natural law, and noted that the Secretary of the Department and Natural Resources had a legal obligation to safeguard the peoples’ R2HE. In response, the Secretary – as defendant to the case – argued that the plaintiffs had failed to state a cause of action, that the issues raised were nonjusticiable as political matters and that canceling the existing licenses would result in a violation of due process of law. After the trial court dismissed the plaintiffs’ complaint, they appealed to the Supreme Court.

Decision

The Supreme Court found for the plaintiffs, reversing the lower court’s ruling and holding that the plaintiffs did have standing to bring their claim on behalf of future generations. Moreover, the Court found that the plaintiffs had adequately asserted the right to a balanced and healthful ecology (R2HE) and that the issues they raised were justiciable legal questions, contrary to the defendant’s claim that they were nonjusticiable as ‘political questions’ unsuited for the courts. Lastly, the Court held that the state’s police power superseded non-impairment of contract rules and that timber licenses could be canceled without violating due process of law, because such licenses did not technically constitute contractual or property rights protected by due process.