Practice question
Children allege that a State authorization for destructive logging threatens the ecology on which they and future generations depend. They invoke Article II, Section 16, and identify an existing statutory duty of environmental protection. The defendant seeks dismissal solely because the right appears in Article II rather than the Bill of Rights. Under Oposa, which is the best answer to that objection?
- It is decisive because Article II can never support an enforceable right.
- It is decisive unless Congress transfers the provision to Article III.
- It is insufficient: Oposa recognized the ecological right and correlative duty despite the provision's location.
- It proves that every government permit is automatically invalid.
- It requires an award of damages without proof of the elements of the claim.
Legal references
- 1987 Constitution, Article II Section 16: https://lawphil.net/consti/cons1987.html
- Oposa v. Factoran, G.R. No. 101083, July 30, 1993, main decision: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1993/jul1993/gr_101083_1993.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.