Oposa v. Factoran

Last updated

Oposa v. Factoran
Minors Oposa
Seal of the Supreme Court of the Republic of the Philippines.svg
Court Supreme Court of the Philippines en banc
Full case name
Juan Antonio, Anna Rosario and Jose Alfonso, all surnamed Oposa, minors, and represented by their parents Antonio and Rizalina Oposa, Roberta Nicole Sadiua, minor, represented by her parents Calvin and Roberta Sadiua, Carlo, Amanda Salud and Patrisha, all surnamed Flores, minors and represented by their parents Enrico and Nida Flores, Gianina Dita R. Fortun, minor, represented by her parents Sigrid and Dolores Fortun, George II and Ma. Concepcion, all surnamed Misa, minors and represented by their parents George and Myra Misa, Benjamin Alan V. Pesigan, minor, represented by his parents Antonio and Alice Pesigan, Jovie Marie Alfaro, minor, represented by her parents Jose and Maria Violeta Alfaro, Maria Concepcion T. Castro, minor, represented by her parents Fredenil and Jane Castro, Johanna Desamparado, minor, represented by her parents Jose and Angela Desamprado, Carlo Joaquin T. Narvasa, minor, represented by his parents Gregorio II and Cristine Charity Narvasa, Ma. Margarita, Jesus Ignacio, Ma. Angela and Marie Gabrielle, all surnamed Saenz, minors, represented by their parents Roberto and Aurora Saenz, Kristine, Mary Ellen, May, Golda Marthe and David Ian, all surnamed King, minors, represented by their parents Mario and Haydee King, David, Francisco and Therese Victoria, all surnamed Endriga, minors, represented by their parents Baltazar and Teresita Endriga, Jose Ma. and Regina Ma., all surnamed Abaya, minors, represented by their parents Antonio and Marica Abaya, Marilin, Mario Jr. and Mariette, all surnamed Cardama, minors, represented by their parents Mario and Lina Cardama, Clarissa, Ann Marie, Nagel, and Imee Lyn, all surnamed Oposa, minors and represented by their parents Ricardo and Marissa Oposa, Philip Joseph, Stephen John and Isaiah James, all surnamed Quipit, minors, represented by their parents Jose Max and Vilmi Quipit, Bughaw Cielo, Crisanto, Anna, Daniel and Francisco, all surnamed Bibal, minors, represented by their parents Francisco Jr. and Milagros Bibal, and the Philippine Ecological Network, Inc. v. The Hon. Fulgencio S. Factoran Jr., in his capacity as the Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, and the Hon. Eriberto U. Rosario, Presiding Judge of the RTC, Makati, Branch 66
DecidedJuly 30, 1993 (1993-07-30)
CitationG.R. No. 101083 (224 S.C.R.A. 792)
Case history
Appealed from Makati Regional Trial Court Branch 66: Minors Oposa v. Factoran (Civil Case No. 90-77)
Ponente Hilario Davide, Jr.
Court membership
Judges sitting Andres Narvasa (Chief Justice), Hilario Davide Jr., Isagani Cruz, Teodoro Padilla, Abdulwahid Bidin, Carolina Griño-Aquino, Florenz Regalado, Flerida Ruth Pineda-Romero, Rodolfo A. Nocon, Josue Bellosillo, Jose Melo, Camilo Quiason, Florentino P. Feliciano, Reynato Puno, Jose C. Vitug
MajorityDavide, Jr., joined by Cruz, Padilla, Bidin, Griño-Aquino, Regalado, Romero, Nocon, Bellosillo, Melo, Quiason
ConcurrenceFeliciano
Narvasa, Puno, Vitug took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.

Oposa v. Factoran, G.R. No. 101083, 224 S.C.R.A. 792 (1993), alternatively titled Minors Oposa v. Factoran or Minors Oposa, is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the Philippines recognizing the doctrine of intergenerational responsibility on the environment in the Philippine legal system. The case is a contributor to the development of international environmental law.

Contents

Background

In 1987, a new Philippine constitution was drafted during a period of growing concern over the preservation of the natural environment and resources of the Philippines. [1] Section 16 of Article II of the 1987 Constitution provides the following state policy: "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." [2] On June 10, the Aquino administration created the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) under Executive Order 192. [3]

Around that time, Antonio Oposa, fresh out of law school, formed the Philippine Ecological Network (PEN), one of the first environmental law organizations in the country. [4] In March 1990, PEN, led and counseled by Oposa, filed a suit against DENR Secretary Fulgencio S. Factoran, Jr. on behalf of several minor petitioners, including Oposa's children and relatives. [5] The suit sought to enjoin the DENR Secretary to cancel all existing timber license agreements in the country and to "cease and desist from receiving, accepting, processing, renewing or approving new timber license agreements." The complaint was instituted as a taxpayers' class suit with the petitioners attempting to represent "their generation as well as generations yet unborn." [6] According to Oposa, the case should be called Oposa with Factoran because his friend Kuya Jun Factoran, a human rights lawyer, actually encouraged to sue the government using his name as the Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, and to include the dozens of children as real-parties-in-interest, while it was the Solicitor-General and the rest of the government making it tougher for him, with Sec. Factoran already imposing new orders that discouraged illegal logging. [7]

In their cause of action, the petitioners stated that the defendant Secretary had granted timber license agreements to various corporations thus cutting an aggregate area of 3.89 million hectares for commercial logging purposes. The petitioners argued that the act of the defendant Secretary constituted a "misappropriation of the natural property resources that he holds in trust for the benefit of the plaintiff minors and succeeding generations." In support of their claim, they invoked their right to a healthy environment under the Constitution, cited the enabling legislation of the DENR, and appealed to natural law. [8] On June 22, 1990, the respondent Secretary filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that the petitioners had no sufficient cause of action, and that the issue raised was political, not justiciable. [6]

On July 18, 1991, without hearing oral arguments, [9] the Regional Trial Court of Makati granted the motion to dismiss. While acknowledging "that the plaintiffs have the noblest intentions," the court sustained both of the defendant's claims while adding that the relief prayed for would violate the non-impairment of contract clause of the Constitution. [10] The plaintiffs then filed an action for certiorari asking the Supreme Court to rescind and set aside the dismissal on the ground that the lower court judge gravely abused his discretion in dismissing the action. [6]

Decision

Justice Hilario Davide Jr. delivered the unanimous judgment, joined by ten other justices, while Justice Florentino Feliciano gave a separate concurring opinion. The Court granted the petition for certiorari and set aside the decision of the lower court dismissing the initial action. [6] With regards to the cancellation of timber license agreements, however, the Court ordered that the various holders of the agreements be impleaded as indispensable parties to the motion. [11] [6]

Justice Hilario Davide Jr., author of the ponente majority opinion Hilario Davide.jpg
Justice Hilario Davide Jr., author of the ponente majority opinion

Doctrine of intergenerational responsibility

Despite the fact that the respondents did not take issue with the petitioners' legal standing, the Court nevertheless addressed the "special and novel element" of the petitioners representing "their generation and generations yet unborn." [12] In the ponente, the Court spoke of the doctrine of intergenerational responsibility: [13]

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. Such a right, as hereinafter expounded, considers the "rhythm and harmony of nature." Nature means the created world in its entirety. Such rhythm and harmony indispensably include, inter alia, the judicious disposition, utilization, management, renewal and conservation of the country's forest, mineral, land, waters, fisheries, wildlife, off-shore areas and other natural resources to the end that their exploration, development and utilization be equitably accessible to the present as well as future generations. Needless to say, every generation has a responsibility to the next to preserve that rhythm and harmony for the full enjoyment of a balanced and healthful ecology. Put a little differently, the minors' assertion of their right to a sound environment constitutes, at the same time, the performance of their obligation to ensure the protection of that right for the generations to come. [6]

Right to a balanced and healthful ecology

On the merits of the petition, whether the petitioners had a cause of action, the Court recognized the constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology under Section 15 and 16 of Article II of the 1987 Constitution as self-executory and judicially enforceable in their present form. [14] The Court interpreted the provisions, stating:

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 — aptly and fittingly stressed by the petitioners — 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. If they are now explicitly mentioned in the fundamental charter, it is because of the well-founded fear of its framers that unless the rights to a balanced and healthful ecology and to health are mandated as state policies by the Constitution itself, thereby highlighting their continuing importance and imposing upon the state a solemn obligation to preserve the first and protect and advance the second, the day would not be too far when all else would be lost not only for the present generation, but also for those to come — generations which stand to inherit nothing but parched earth incapable of sustaining life. [6]

Justice Feliciano concurring opinion

In his concurring opinion, Justice Feliciano departs in part with the majority in that he found Sections 15 and 16 of Article II were not self-executing and judicially enforceable in their present form. [15] Thus, although voting to grant the petition for certiorari "because the protection of the environment is of extreme importance of the country," he noted that the decision of the Court should be "subjected to closer examination." Justice Feliciano suggested that the decision of the Supreme Court should be understood as saying that "a more specific right may well exist in our corpus of law, considering the general policy principles of the Constitution" and that "the trial court should have given petitioners an effective opportunity so to demonstrate, instead of aborting the proceedings on a motion to dismiss." He suggests that the petitioners show a "more specific legal right" than the provisions of the Constitution to the trial court. [6]

Aftermath

The petitioners did not pursue a new case after the Supreme Court remanded the case back to the trial court. [16]

After the decision, the Philippine government had inventoried the remnant old growth forests and restricted logging in those areas. [17] The case is recognized in its contribution in the development of international environmental law. [18] [19]

Legacy

In 2008, Antonio Oposa, a Filipino lawyer, was awarded by the Center for International Environmental Law for his contributions to the development and implementation of international environmental law in his native country and internationally. [20]

International environmental law

The case has been used and cited in other national legal jurisdictions in litigation as well as policy formation. [21]

    Related Research Articles

    <span class="mw-page-title-main">Environmental law</span> Branch of law concerning the natural environment

    Environmental laws are laws that protect the environment. Environmental law is the collection of laws, regulations, agreements and common law that governs how humans interact with their environment. This includes environmental regulations; laws governing management of natural resources, such as forests, minerals, or fisheries; and related topics such as environmental impact assessments. Environmental law is seen as the body of laws concerned with the protection of living things from the harm that human activity may immediately or eventually cause to them or their species, either directly or to the media and the habits on which they depend.

    <span class="mw-page-title-main">Manila Bay</span> Natural harbor on the island of Luzon, Philippines

    Manila Bay is a natural harbor that serves the Port of Manila, in the Philippines. Strategically located around the capital city of the Philippines, Manila Bay facilitated commerce and trade between the Philippines and its neighboring countries, becoming the gateway for socio-economic development even prior to Spanish occupation. With an area of 1,994 km2 (769.9 sq mi), and a coastline of 190 km (118.1 mi), Manila Bay is situated in the western part of Luzon and is bounded by Cavite and Metro Manila on the east, Bulacan and Pampanga on the north, and Bataan on the west and northwest. Manila Bay drains approximately 17,000 km2 (6,563.7 sq mi) of watershed area, with the Pampanga River contributing about 49% of the freshwater influx. With an average depth of 17 m (55.8 ft), it is estimated to have a total volume of 28.9 billion cubic meters. Entrance to the bay is 19 km (11.8 mi) wide and expands to a width of 48 km (29.8 mi). However, width of the bay varies from 22 km (13.7 mi) at its mouth and expanding to 60 km (37.3 mi) at its widest point.

    <span class="mw-page-title-main">Supreme Court of the Philippines</span> Highest court in the Philippines

    The Supreme Court (Filipino: Kataas-taasang Hukuman; colloquially referred to as the Korte Suprema, is the highest court in the Philippines. The Supreme Court was established by the Second Philippine Commission on June 11, 1901 through the enactment of its Act No. 136, an Act which abolished the Real Audiencia de Manila, the predecessor of the Supreme Court.

    <span class="mw-page-title-main">Foundation University (Philippines)</span> Private university in Negros Oriental, Philippines

    Foundation University, also referred to by its acronym FU or simply Foundation, is a private non-sectarian basic and higher education institution in Dumaguete, Philippines. It was founded by Dr. Vicente Guzman Sinco, former president of the University of the Philippines and an alumnus of Silliman University. It offers over 60 specialized higher education areas of study accredited with the PAASCU, CHED, and the Philippine Association of Colleges and Universities Commission on Accreditation. The university is known as the birthplace of Negros Oriental's Buglasan Festival. The university is also known as an eco-friendly school. In 2015, Foundation University was awarded National Champion by the DENR - Environmental Management Bureau (EMB) for being the Most Sustainable and Eco-Friendly Campus.

    The 1994 amendment to the Constitution of Argentina was approved on 22 August 1994 by a Constitutional Assembly that met in the twin cities of Santa Fe and Paraná. The calling for elections for the Constitutional Convention and the main issues to be decided were agreed in 1993 between President Carlos Menem, and former president and leader of the opposition, Raúl Alfonsín.

    <span class="mw-page-title-main">Public trust doctrine</span>

    The public trust doctrine is the principle that the sovereign holds in trust for public use some resources such as shoreline between the high and low tide lines, regardless of private property ownership.

    <span class="mw-page-title-main">Department of Environment and Natural Resources</span> Philippine government agency

    The Department of Environment and Natural Resources, abbreviated as DENR, is the executive department of the Philippine government responsible for the conservation, management, development, and proper use of the country’s environment in natural resources, specifically forest and grazing lands, mineral resources, including those in reservation and watershed areas, and lands of the public domain, as well as the licensing and regulation of all natural resources as may be provided for by law in order to ensure equitable sharing of the benefits derived therefrom for the welfare of the present and future generations of Filipinos.

    Today, environmental problems in the Philippines include pollution, mining and logging, deforestation, threats to environmental activists, dynamite fishing, landslides, coastal erosion, biodiversity loss, extinction, global warming and climate change. Due to the paucity of extant documents, a complete history of land use in the archipelago remains unwritten. However, relevant data shows destructive land use increased significantly in the eighteenth century when Spanish colonialism enhanced its extraction of the archipelago's resources for the early modern global market. The Philippines is projected to be one of the most vulnerable countries to the impacts of climate change, which would exacerbate weather extremes. As the Philippines lies on the Pacific Ring of Fire, it is prone to natural disasters, like earthquakes, typhoons, and volcanic eruptions. In 2021, the Philippines ranked the fourth most affected country from "weather-related loss events", partly due to the close proximity of major infrastructure and residential areas to the coast and unreliable government support. One of the most devastating typhoons to hit the archipelago was Typhoon Haiyan, known locally as Yolanda, in 2013 that killed 6,300 people and left 28,689 injured. Congress passed the Clean Air Act of 1999, the Philippine Clean Water Act of 2004, the Climate Change Act of 2009 to address environmental issues. The country is also a signatory to the Paris Agreement. However, research has found that outside of cities, the general public doesn't feel equally informed. Environmental activists and land defenders, consisting mostly of Indigenous communities who have been attempting to bring attention to the environmental issues in the country have been met with violence or murder. As a result, the Philippines has been ranked one of the most dangerous places in the world for environmental activists.

    Abortion is illegal in the Philippines.

    <span class="mw-page-title-main">Roberto Concepcion</span> Chief Justice of the Philippines from 1966 to 1973

    Roberto Reyes Concepcion was the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Philippines from June 17, 1966 until April 18, 1973. He is remembered in the history of the Philippine Supreme Court for protecting the independence of court, and for having fought decisions which would have legitimized the dictatorship of President Ferdinand Marcos. In recognition of his efforts against authoritarian rule, Concepcion's name was inscribed on the Wall of Remembrance at the Bantayog ng mga Bayani in 1994.

    Foundation for the Rights of Future Generations (FRFG), also known as Stiftung für die Rechte zukünftiger Generationen (SRzG), is a German think tank and activist group focused on intergenerational justice and sustainability. Established in 1997, the foundation is based in Stuttgart, Germany. The FRFG has been called the most important extra-parliamentary think tank on the topic of intergenerational justice in Germany, and has members from around the world. The organization rose to national prominence while campaigning to include a provision for sustainability and the protection of future generations into the German constitution. It has also campaigned for age-independent voting rights. FRFG publishes the English-language journal Intergenerational Justice Review in collaboration with the University of Tübingen and the Intergenerational Foundation.

    Antonio Gabriel "Tony" Maestrado La Viña is at present Associate Director for climate policy and international relations and concurrently Head, Klima Center of Manila Observatory and a professor of law, philosophy, politics and governance in several universities in the Philippines. He is also a member of the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague, the Chair of the Jurisprudence and Legal Philosophy Department of the Philippine Judicial Academy. the founding President of the Movement Against Disinformation, and the founding Chair of the Mindanao Climate Justice Resource Facility.

    Dean Tony is the former Dean of the Ateneo de Manila University School of Government, co-founder of Ashoka Philippines and the Legal Rights and Natural Resources Center, and a former environmental undersecretary of the Philippines. He obtained his doctorate and master of laws degrees from Yale University and his JD and AB Philosophy degrees from the University of the Philippines and Ateneo de Manila University respectively. He placed third in the 1998 bar examinations.
    <span class="mw-page-title-main">Malolos Constitution</span> 1899 constitution of the First Philippine Republic

    The Political Constitution of 1899, informally known as the Malolos Constitution, was the constitution of the First Philippine Republic. It was written by Felipe Calderón y Roca and Felipe Buencamino as an alternative to a pair of proposals to the Malolos Congress by Apolinario Mabini and Pedro Paterno. After a lengthy debate in the latter part of 1898, it was promulgated on January 21, 1899.

    The Constitution of the Philippines is the constitution or the supreme law of the Republic of the Philippines. Its final draft was completed by the Constitutional Commission on October 12, 1986, and ratified by a nationwide plebiscite on February 2, 1987.

    <i>Quinto v. COMELEC</i>

    Quinto v. COMELEC is a controversial decision of the Supreme Court of the Philippines which paved the way, albeit temporarily, for incumbent appointive executive officials to stay in office after filing their certificates of candidacy for election to an elective office. The decision was first decided by a slim majority of 8-6, but was eventually reversed 10-5 upon a motion for reconsideration after the retirement of one justice and the appointment of two new ones.

    <span class="mw-page-title-main">Japan–Philippines Economic Partnership Agreement</span>

    The Japan-Philippines Economic Partnership Agreement (日本・フィリピン経済連携協定) or in or commonly known as JPEPA is an economic partnership agreement concerning bilateral investment and free trade agreement between Japan and the Philippines. It was signed in Helsinki, Finland on September 9, 2006, by Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi and Philippine President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo. It is the first bilateral trade treaty which the Philippines has entered since the Parity Right Agreement of 1946 with the United States. This treaty consists of 16 Chapters and 165 Articles, with 8 Annexes.

    A Writ of Kalikasan is a legal remedy under Philippine law that provides protection of one's constitutional right to a healthy environment, as outlined in Section 16, Article II of the Philippine Constitution, which states that 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." Kalikasan is a Filipino word for "nature".

    <span class="mw-page-title-main">South African environmental law</span> Legal rules relating to management of the environment

    South African environmental law describes the legal rules in South Africa relating to the social, economic, philosophical and jurisprudential issues raised by attempts to protect and conserve the environment in South Africa. South African environmental law encompasses natural resource conservation and utilization, as well as land-use planning and development. Issues of enforcement are also considered, together with the international dimension, which has shaped much of the direction of environmental law in South Africa. The role of the country's Constitution, crucial to any understanding of the application of environmental law, also is examined. The National Environmental Management Act (NEMA) provides the underlying framework for environmental law.

    <span class="mw-page-title-main">Rights of nature</span> Legal theory

    Rights of nature or Earth rights is a legal and jurisprudential theory that describes inherent rights as associated with ecosystems and species, similar to the concept of fundamental human rights. The rights of nature concept challenges twentieth-century laws as generally grounded in a flawed frame of nature as "resource" to be owned, used, and degraded. Proponents argue that laws grounded in rights of nature direct humanity to act appropriately and in a way consistent with modern, system-based science, which demonstrates that humans and the natural world are fundamentally interconnected.

    The judiciary of the Philippines consists of the Supreme Court, which is established in the Constitution, and three levels of lower courts, which are established through law by the Congress of the Philippines. The Supreme Court has expansive powers, able to overrule political and administrative decisions, and with the ability to craft rules and law without precedent. It further determines the rules of procedure for lower courts, and its members sit on electoral tribunals.

    References

    1. ↑ Bernas 2009, p. 90; Luminarias 2012, p. 675.
    2. ↑ Constitution (1987), Art. II § 16 (Phil.).
    3. ↑ Houck 2010, p. 47.
    4. ↑ Houck 2010, p. 49.
    5. ↑ Allen 1994, p. 715; Houck 2010, p. 51.
    6. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Oposa, et al. v. Factoran, Jr., et al., G.R. No. 101083, 224 S.C.R.A. 792 (July 30, 1993) (Phil.).
    7. ↑ "The Joy and Journey of Jun (Factoran)". April 22, 2020.
    8. ↑ Allen 1994, p. 715–6.
    9. ↑ Houck 2010, p. 51.
    10. ↑ Allen 1994, p. 715.
    11. ↑ La Vina 1994, p. 250.
    12. ↑ Gatmaytan 2003, p. 456–7.
    13. ↑ Gatmaytan 2003, p. 462, 468–72; La Vina 1994, p. 247.
    14. ↑ Bernas 2009, p. 90–1; Luminarias 2012, p. 661; La Vina 1994, p. 248.
    15. ↑ La Vina 1994, p. 249.
    16. ↑ Manguiat & Yu 2003, p. 488; Gatmaytan 2003, p. 467.
    17. ↑ Robinson, Nicholas (Fall 1997). "Attaining Systems for Sustainability through Environmental Law". Natural Resources & Environment. 12 (2). American Bar Association: 86–88, 140–141. JSTOR   40924349.
    18. ↑ Hassan, Parvez (2017). "Role of the South in the Development of International Environmental Law". Chinese Journal of Environmental Law. 1 (2): 133–157. doi: 10.1163/24686042-12340011 .
    19. ↑ Schrijver, Nico; Weiss, Friedl, eds. (January 2004). International Law And Sustainable Development: Principles And Practice . Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. pp.  660–662. ISBN   9789004141735.
    20. ↑ "Pinoy wins top US environmental law award". ABS-CBN. ABS-CBN News. April 24, 2009. Retrieved March 6, 2018.
    21. ↑ Manguiat & Yu 2003, p. 494.

    Sources

    • Allen, Ted (1994). "The Philippine Children's Case: Recognizing Legal Standing for Future Generations". Georgetown International Environmental Law Review. 6 (3): 713–42 – via HeinOnline.
    • Bernas, Joaquin G. (2009). The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines: A Commentary. Manila: Rex Publishing. pp. 90–1. ISBN   978-971-23-5326-0.
    • Gatmaytan, Dante B. (2003). "The Illusion of Intergenerational Equity: Oposa v. Factoran as Pyrrhic Victory". Georgetown International Environmental Law Review. 15 (3): 457–86 – via HeinOnline.
    • Houck, Oliver A. (2010). Taking Back Eden: Eight Environmental Cases that Changed the World. London: Island Press. pp. 43–61. ISBN   978-1-59726-647-5.
    • La Vina, Antonio G. M. (1994). "The Right to a Sound Environment in the Philippines: The Significance of the Minors Oposa Case". Review of European, Comparative & International Environmental Law. 3 (4): 246–52 – via HeinOnline.
    • Luminarias, Coleen Claudette R. (2012). "Limit of a Function: Calculating the Implications of Oposa v. Factoran in Saving the Pine Trees". Ateneo Law Journal. 57 (2): 659–84 – via HeinOnline.
    • Manguiat, Ma. Socorro Z.; Yu, Vicente B. (2003). "Maximizing the Value of Oposa v. Factoran". Georgetown International Environmental Law Review. 15 (3): 487–96 – via HeinOnline.
    This page is based on this Wikipedia article
    Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
    Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.