Case Analysis

 The case at hand can be a source of much legal implications.  The following may be some of these.

1. Proper Party in interest

Ordinarily, the Rules and law require that only actual parties with actual interest on the matter in litigation can appear and avail of the remedies and procedures available in court.

This rule has been stipulated as such by our Rule of Procedure.

Who may be parties; plaintiff and defendant. -Only natural or juridical persons or entities authorized by law may be parties in a civil action…  (Rule 3, Section 1)

Parties in interest - A real party in interest is a party who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgement in the suit…  (Rule 3, Section 2)

The case at hand is novel and unique in the sense that there has been a shift in this view so as to include parties whose existence are yet contingent and merely possible, but certain.  

Indeed, parties can only be such if they are in reality, in existence.  How else can such non-existent party litigate his rights when in the first place he possess none of such, as one only acquires the same by being in actual life.

The acceptability of the principle of inter-generational responsibility as accepted by the Court however is logically acceptable.  Common sense tells us that there is a continuum of affectivity and thus of responsibility between the relationship of man and his environment.

Analogically, such a continuum can be likened to that of the interconnectedness of every strand, bit, and part of a rope tied at the opposite ends to poles set at a distance afar from each other.  Weaken a part by removing some strands of a segment, and endanger the intactness of the whole.  Sever a part, and thus sever the whole.  

In effect therefore, whatever we do to our resources at present, we do for our children and our children's children as a result of the inevitable domino effect.  Prudence therefore is necessary to protect the interest at resent as the same interests holds true for those ,in the future.

It becomes our responsibility therefore to protect mother nature as we owe it not only to her but likewise to ourselves as also to the generations yet not existing but certainly possible.

We cannot bite the hand that feeds us and our children.  Ungratefulness results to nothing else but a collective tragedy.

b.   A Unique Precedence 

The novelty of the matter disallows, however, the principle of allowing such aforesaid parties to litigate, to be a source of a general rule.  The same may only be made applicable to matters of very like circumstances, as unique as the extraordinary case herein.  

We cannot invoke the same for the claim of our civil rights nor for the vindication thereof.  Civil rights are mere creatures of civil necessity.

The rights in the herein case are far beyond our civil interest.  They emanate from a higher law i.e. lex naturalis or natural law.  The right to life is first and foremost a natural right.  The obligation to protect life is a natural obligation.   The protection therefore of our ecosystem is both a natural obligation  for the protection of a natural right.   This is as defending our source of survival  will n effect be defending our very own life-source.

The Supreme Court, I believe, relied more on the same principles just stated than anything else i.e. a collective responsibility for a collective right, for both those born and yet to be conceived.

This uniqueness of the matter here sought to have been defended, and has been defended well, thus becomes a class of its own.

c. Past Legislation

The concern and recognition for the utmost importance of a balanced ecology is not new.  Our legislation do not appear as numb and callous to such a concern for a harmony in our ecosystem.  We find laws that attempts to provide some protection to the environment in the advocacy for the protection of the same.

Among them is PD 1151.

Presidential Decree 1151 (1977) or the Philippine Environmental Policy which  declares the intents of our state on the matter.  To wit;

1. To create, develop, maintain and improve conditions under which man and nature can thrive a productive and enjoyable harmony with each other
2. To fulfil the social, economic and other requirements of the present and future generations of Filipinos
3. To ensure the attainment of an environmental quality that is conducive to a life of dignity and well being

The principle of inter-generational responsibility hence, has been recognized even since before, by implication.  The same has thus been likewise enshrined in many other laws that followed as the Philippine Environmental Code (PD1152), Pollution Control Law (PD 984) and the Environmental Impact Assessment Law (PD 1586)

Conclusion

The crusade for eco-centrism has reached new heights at this new age.  The battle is now taken in the chambers of the courts.  As advocates of the law, and as human, it becomes a matter of obligation to ultimately work under the law for environmental protectionsm.  The time is now when the law and jurisprudence is on the side of the advocacy.