Gisela Sin Gomiz 7/30/93 Gisela Sin Gomiz 7/30/93

Minors Oposa v. Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources 33 I.L.M. 173 (1994) - Philippines

Background

This action was initiated by (among others) a group of children in the Philippines, who represented themselves and generations yet to be born, and The Philippine Ecological Network, Inc. They demanded that the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (“DENR”) discontinue existing and further timber license agreements (“TLA”) in view of deforestation, on the basis of a fundamental right to a balanced and healthful ecology which was embodied in the Constitution and various legislations. Their action was however dismissed at lower court on the basis that (i) there was a lack of a legally recognised wrong giving raise to the claim, (ii) the issue raised was a political question and (iii) on the ground of the non-impairment of contracts clause in the Constitution. The applicants appealed to the Supreme Court, which had to rule on whether there was a legally recognised wrong that could give raise to a claim to "prevent [and stop] the misappropriation or deterioration" (p. 2) of the Philippine rainforests.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court first considered the procedural issue in respect of standing, which it concluded that not only were the child applicants entitled to represent themselves and others of their generation, they were also entitled to sue on behalf of the future generations based on the concept of intergenerational responsibility. By asserting their right to a healthy environment, the applicants were also, at the same time, performing their obligation to protect the right to full enjoyment of a balanced and healthful ecology for the future generations.

The Court recognised that the right to a balanced and healthful ecology was so fundamental that it was “assumed to exist from the inception of humankind” (p. 9). Such right was provided for in the Constitution and various legislations, hence imposing upon the state a correlative obligation to preserve the right to a balanced and healthful ecology. DENR’s duty to protect and advance the right to a balanced and healthful ecology was also clearly stated under its mandate and by virtue of its statutory powers and functions. Hence, DENR’s refusal to refrain from harming the environment by continuing to grant and/or renew the TLAs would therefore constitute a legally recognised wrong that could give raise to a claim, as it was an act or omission in violation of the plaintiffs’ legal rights. The Court further concluded that the issue in question was not one concerning policy formulation or determination by the state, rather, it involved the enforcement of a certain right in the face of formulated policies and written legislation. Lastly, the court considered that all TLAs could be revoked or rescinded by executive action, given that the TLAs were simply instruments for the state to regulate the utilization and disposition of forest resources, instead of contracts or properties being protected by the Constitution.

Remedy

The court found in favour of the applicants and set aside the lower court’s dismissal order. The Court ruled that the applicants might amend their complaint to include as respondents the holders or grantees of the challenged timber license contracts.

Role of children

Forty-five children based in the Philippines were the applicants in this case and asserted their rights to a balanced and healthful ecology. The children applicants also represented the succeeding generations based on an intergenerational responsibility.

Enforcement and other outcomes

In practice, the case did not result in the cancellation of the existing TLAs. Indeed, since the early 1990s the issuance of TLAs had been discontinued. However, it had an immediate effect contributing to forest protection in the Philippines: a logging ban from 1991 was imposed in old-grown forests and the number of TLAs holders was reduced. Legal remedies to stop threats or degradation to the environment are now available and documented in the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases (2010).

Significance of the case from a CRSL perspective

This case declared that the constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology is justiciable. More importantly, this case expressly confirms the standing of future generations to sue, where future generations would be able to assert their rights through the present generations. As a result, this case paved the way for other strategic litigation cases on the basis of intergenerational equity and justice, and has since opened up opportunities for future child rights litigation particularly in the area of climate litigation (e.g Metropolitan Manila Development Authority v. Concerned Residents of Manila Bay) as well as being cited in by litigators in other countries seeking to assert the environmental rights of children and future generations.

Country

Republic of the Philippines

Forum and date of decision

Supreme Court

July 30, 1993

CRC provisions and other international law provisions/sources

Not applicable

Domestic law provisions