Locus Standi and Inter-generational Responsibility

There is an interesting case regarding the topic on Locus Standi.

In Oposa vs. Factoran, Jr.[1], the case involved thirty four minors who went to Court represented by their parents pleading the cause of “intergenerational responsibility” and “inter-generational justice” and asking the Supreme Court to order the Secretary of Natural Resources to cancel all existing timber licenses agreements and to “cease and desist from receiving, accepting or approving new timber license agreements. They alleged that the massive commercial logging in the country is causing vast abuses on rainforest[2].

The issue was whether or not the petitioners have a locus standi.

The Supreme Court said that: “We find no difficulty in ruling that they can, for themselves, for others of their generation and for the succeeding generations, file a class suit.” Their personality to sue in behalf of the succeeding generations can only be based on the concept of intergenerational responsibility insofar as the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is concerned as stated in Article 2, Section 16 of the 1987 Constitution[3].

[1] 224 SCRA 792 (1993)

[2] Bernas, The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines: A Commentary, p.90, 2009 Ed.

[3] The State shall protect and advance the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature.