The  novel principles  laid down in the Oposa vs Factoran case, 
are  largely to influence profoundly the direction and course of the protection and management of the environment in the Philippines. 

But while it is not the first environmental case in the Philippines, it is however  the first case which expressly interprets the constitutional right to  a balanced  and healthful ecology as enshrined in Section 16, Article II of the 1987 Constitution – in that the State shall protect and advance the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm of harmony and nature.
 
On the other hand, Sierra Club vs Morton paved the way for the filing of  many lawsuits in the U.S. by citizens and community groups as a way of trying to stop pollution and the destruction of the environment. 

  The open access status to  common resources like air, water, forests, lands, etc.,  and the wrong perception that these   resources are  free and inexhaustible, contribute to our  ever worsening environmental degradation. The failure      to internalize in their usage the cost of their consumption makes the situation  all the more problematic. It  results in a free-for-all environment where everyone gets his share without paying for it.  And to  be blunt about it, in our present system  of governance, the actual cost of exploitation of  natural  resources to the whole society is totally ignored. 

If we take logging as an example, the government allows holders of  Timber License Agreements (TLAs) to  exploit our timber resources  at a very low   forests charges. These charges are  way below the actual cost of  trees to a point of being ridiculous,  not to mention  the ecological damage their activities inflict on our natural resource base, among others, loss of biological diversity, the cost of soil erosion and climate changes and destruction  to human lives and property due to flash floods. 

This is a painful reality and oftentimes we, ordinary  citizens  are left without any recourse but to contend with it. “Bahala na” as we always say it.  On the table, the laws are  in place but  on the ground, our environmental problems  remain discouraging. The destruction of our forest lands remain unabated and pollution is a deplorable sight everywhere. 

The questions what can be done to protect  the environment and who can initiate it, bring us to these two landmark  cases,  Sierra Club and  Oposa.

 The Sierra Club  is  one of the oldest nature conservation groups and a major environmental organization in the U.S.  One of the honorary  members of the Sierra Club was Walt Disney. In recognition of his many movies  about nature, Sierra Club awarded him with an honorary membership but ironically,  the Walt Disney Company was the target of Sierra Club’s suit. 

In early 1930s portions of California were set aside by then President Harrison as public parks and national preserves, including the famous Sierra Nevada of California and Mineral King. In 1961 Disneyland wanted to construct a major ski resort that would cut a huge portion of  Mineral King Preserve to give way to  roads that would accommodate thousands of cars per hour. Sierra Club filed a suit on the  ground that the  construction of roads would violate the game refuge in the area. 

Sierra Club argued that if its voice  will not be heard, then who is going to speak for the future generations and for whose benefit Congress intended the fragile Sierra  bowls and  valleys to be preserved?

The pivotal  issue in this case is  whether or not Sierra Club has the standing to sue. In law, standing to sue means that a party has a sufficient stake in an otherwise justiciable controversy to obtain  judicial resolution  of that controversy. Otherwise stated, would  Sierra Club suffer any damage or injury resulting from  the construction of  roads at Mineral King? 
 
In his dissenting opinion, Justice Douglas said : 

“Contemporary public concern  for protecting nature’s ecological equilibrium should lead to the conferral of standing upon environmental objects to sue for their own preservation. Those  who have that intimate relation with the inanimate object about to be injured, polluted, or otherwise despoiled are its legitimate spokesmen.” 

 While  in   the end, the  U.S. Supreme Court decided  that Sierra Club had no standing to sue, yet it established a rule that  a litigant may only  demonstrate  some sort of “identifiable trifle” in order to have standing. For example, a hiker or birdwatcher who enjoys nature walks at  Mineral King  would have standing in court. 

In the Philippines, the Oposa case as in the Sierra Club exemplifies  the concept of intergenerational  responsibility. 

This  case  was brought by  children all over the Philippines 
in their own  name and in the name of generations  yet unborn, claiming that they are entitled to the full benefit, use and enjoyment of the natural resource that is the country’s virgin tropical rainforests, to compel the Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources  (DENR)  to cancel all  existing Timber License Agreements (TLAs)  and to prevent him from  renewing or processing new applications. 

While the issue on standing to sue was never raised in this case, nevertheless, the Supreme Court proceeded and discussed the same, it said : 
 

“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 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.”
 

With this decision,  the Supreme Court  has  effectively  recognized  in  the  present      generation the right  to sue in  its   behalf    and  in  behalf of     the  succeeding generations. 

Accordingly, the assertion of a right to a sound environment 
constitutes the performance of an  obligation to ensure the protection of that right for the generations to come.

Because of this decision, the constitutional  provision on the right to a balanced environment is an actionable right, even absent any further legislation. Thus, an ordinary person may sue any person or entity engaging in environmentally destructive acts without showing  of direct injury to his person  as a result therefrom. 

Conserving and preserving nature is more than anybody’s concern. It is a social responsibility. It is in the sharing of this responsibility that we may be able to discharge our role as trustee and guardian of the environment for the generations to come.  This is the real essence  of intergenerational responsibility.