Such responsibility was inscribed in the Oposa vs. Factoran,Jr case decided by the Supreme Court.

  It was a civil suit filed by minors duly represented by their respective parents and also by the Philippine Ecological Network, Inc. praying for the cancellation of timber license agreements in the country and asking the Department of Environment and Natural Resources to cease and desist from receiving, accepting, processing, renewing or approving new timber license agreements for the reason that as citizens of the Republic of the Philippines, they are entitled to the full benefit, use and enjoyment of the natural resources treasure which is  the country’s virgin tropical rainforests.

 Article 2, Section 16 of the 1987 Constitution provides: “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.” This section takes cognizance of the continuing deterioration of the Philippine environment which is a matter of national concern which when left unprotected could lead to the suffering of the future generations, for the quality of life of the people cannot be advanced unless the living environment is nurtured and the valuable natural resources are protected and preserved.

 The defendants originally represented by Fulgencio Factoran,Jr., then substituted by the new DENR Secretary Angel Alcala questioned the plaintiffs’ capacity to sue on the ground that they have no cause of action when they failed to allege in their complaint a special legal right violated when they said that they represent their generation and for generations yet unborn. In short, the defendants argued that the complaint is vague and nebulous.

 The issue which prompted the Supreme Court to decide is whether or not the plaintiffs has a valid cause of action  as they represent their generation and for generations yet unborn. Is it possible? The Supreme Court ruled in the affirmative based on the concept of Intergenerational Responsibility. This concept means that every generation has a responsibility to the next to preserve that rhythm and harmony for the full enjoyment of a balanced and healthful ecology. It also constitute the performance of their obligation to ensure the protection of that right for generations to come.

 That is the concept that the highest Tribunal would like to imply why these minors has locus standi on this case.

 In the end, we can never attain the goal of advancing the right of the people and the future generation to a healthful environment without applying the concept of Intergenerational Responsibility.

 They say that, “He who plants a tree, plants hope.” This is true because every gardener hopes that his tree will grow tall and give him shade, or flowers, or fruits. He hopes that long after he is dead, his children will enjoy the fruit of the tree he has planted. He hopes that they will rest under its shade and remember him who planted.