Facts:

A taxpayers class suit was initiated by the Philippine Ecological Network Incorporated (PENI) together
with the minors Oposa and their parents. All were duly represented. They claimed that as taxpayers they
have the right to the full benefit, use and enjoyment of the natural resources of the countrys rainforests.
They prayed that a judgment be rendered ordering Honorable Factoran Jr, his agents, representatives and
other persons acting in his behalf to cancel all existing timber license agreements in the country and cease
and desist from receiving, accepting, processing, renewing or approving new timber license agreements.
This case is unique in that it is a class suit brought by 44children, through their parents, claiming that they
bring the case in the name of their generation as well as those generations yet unborn. Aiming to stop
deforestation, it was filed against the Secretary of theDepartment of Environment and Natural
Resources, seeking to have him cancel all the timber license agreements (TLAs) in the country and to
cease and desist from accepting and approving more timber license agreements. The children invoked
their right to a balanced and healthful ecology and to protection by theState in its capacity as parens
patriae.
The petitioners claimed that the DENR Secretary's refusal to cancel the TLAs and to stop issuing them
was "contrary to the highest law of humankind-- the natural lawand violative of plaintiffs' right to selfpreservation and perpetuation." The case was dismissed in the lower court, invoking the law on nonimpairment of contracts, so it was brought to theSupreme Courton certiorari.
The complaint2 was instituted as a taxpayers' class suit 3 and alleges that the plaintiffs "are all citizens of
the Republic of the Philippines, taxpayers, and entitled to the full benefit, use and enjoyment of the
natural resource treasure that is the country's virgin tropical forests." The same was filed for themselves
and others who are equally concerned about the preservation of said resource but are "so numerous that it
is impracticable to bring them all before the Court." The minors further asseverate that they "represent
their generation as well as generations yet unborn." 4Consequently, it is prayed for that judgment be
rendered:

1]
Cancel
all
existing
timber
license
agreements
in
the
country;
2] Cease and desist from receiving, accepting, processing, renewing or approving new timber license
agreements.

Plaintiffs further assert that the adverse and detrimental consequences of continued and deforestation are
so capable of unquestionable demonstration that the same may be submitted as a matter of judicial notice.
Issue:
Whether or not petitioners have a cause of action?
Decision: Yes, petitioners have a cause of action. The case at bar is of common interest to all Filipinos.
The right to a balanced and healthy ecology carries with it the correlative duty to refrain from impairing
the environment. The said right implies the judicious management of the countrys forests. This right is

also the mandate of the government through DENR. A denial or violation of that right by the other who
has the correlative duty or obligation to respect or protect the same gives rise to a cause of action. All
licenses may thus be revoked or rescinded by executive action.
Yes. The Supreme Court in granting the petition ruled that the children had the legal standing to file the
case based on the concept of intergenerational responsibility. Their right to a healthy environment
carried with it an obligation to preserve that environment for the succeeding generations. In this, the
Court recognized legal standing to sue on behalf of future generations. Also, the Court said, the law on
non-impairment of contracts must give way to the exercise of the police power of the state in the interest
of public welfare
petitioners have a cause of action. The case at bar is of common interest to all Filipinos. The right to a
balanced and healthy ecology carries with it the correlative duty to refrain from impairing the
environment. The said right implies the judicious management of the countrys forests. This right is also
the mandate of the government through DENR. A denial or violation of that right by the other who has the
correlative duty or obligation to respect or protect the same gives rise to a cause of action. All licenses
may thus be revoked or rescinded by executive action.