Petitioners contend that their Cause of Action contains sufficient allegations concerning their right to a sound environment based on the following : 

1. Article 19, 20, 21 of the Civil Code ( Human Relations );
2. Section 4 of Executive Order  No. 192 creating DENR;
3. Section 3 of Presidential Decree No. 1151   which  is the Philippine Environmental Policy;
4. Article II Section 16 of  the 1987  Constitution  recognizing the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology;
5. The concept of Generational Genocide in Criminal Law;
6.   The concept of Man’s inalienable right to self- preservation and self-                                                     perpetuation  embodied in Natural  Law. 
 
Distortions and disturbances  of this balance have, according to them,  resulted in a host of environmental tragedies, hence, ordering the defendant-respondent, his agents, representatives and other persons acting in his behalf to  

1. Cancel all existing timber  license agreements in the country;
2. Cease and desist from receiving, accepting, processing, renewing or approving new timber license agreements;
3. And granting the plaintiff’s such other reliefs just and equitable under the premises.

The Supreme Court found no difficulties in ruling that indeed they have
the personality to sue. As aptly said by the High Court, they can, for themselves and for others of their generation file a class suit.

A Class Suit, under Rule 3 Section 12 of the Rules of Court, must meet the following requisites:

1. The subject matter of the controversy is one of common or general interest to many persons so numerous;
2. That it is impractible to join all as parties;

Hence, a number of them which the court finds to be sufficiently numerous and representatives as to fully protect the interests of all concerned may sue or defend for the benefit of all. Any party in interest shall have the right to intervene to protect his individual interest. 

All the requisites for the  filing of a valid class suit under  such Rule  are present both in the said Civil case and in  this instant petition, the latter being an incident to the former.

However,  the case has  “special and novel element”. The  minors  asserted that  they represent not  just their generation  but as well as generations yet  unborn.  

It was  my first time  then to hear a case where generations yet unborn are being represented in a case. Based on what I learned , a person has  the personality to sue, hence, can institute a civil action, if he has a present, existing and actual right  to be enforced and  protected.

Notwithstanding the fact that the case focused on one specific fundamental legal right ------ the right to a balanced and healthful ecology ----- one can not help but ask if the generation yet unborn has a present, existing  and actual right to be enforced and protected in the instituted case.