The action filed by the petitioners minors represented and joined by their parents and in representation of their generation and the generations yet to come, against the Secretary of Department of Environment and Natural Resources was dismissed by the respondent judge.

     The action prayed for the  cancellation of all timber license agreement in the country and to order the respondent Secretary to cease and desist from receiving, accepting , processing, renewing timber license agreement. The action is based on the right to a balanced and healthful ecology enshrined in the constitution and statutes.

     The supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioners. The order of dismissal was reversed.

     One of the  significant rulings on the issues of the case related to Environmental Law is the recognition of  the locus standi of the petitioners  to represent their own generation as well as the generations yet to come in the assertion and protection of their right to a balanced and healthful ecology. The Supreme Court    considers the action as not only an assertion of one’s right but also the performance of an “ inter-generational responsibility”. This ruling implies that it is  the duty and obligation of a particular generation to preserve and maintain a balanced and healthful ecology only for themselves but also for the generations yet to come. The right to a balanced ecology carries with it the obligation to refrain from impairing the environment. This ruling also implies that every citizen can institute an action in representation of the whole populace  even in behalf of  the next generation for the protection and preservation of the environment.

      Contrary to  contention of the respondent judge that the  petitioners failed to allege in their complaint with sufficient definiteness a specific right they are seeking to enforce, the  Court ruled that the complaint focuses on  one specific legal right—the right to a balanced  and healthful ecology enshrined in the constitution; and this right is not inferior to the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights for it concerns nothing less than self-preservation and self perpetuation. This right need not even be explicitly expressed in the constitution for it predates all constitution  and governments. This particular ruling implies that even in the absence of any statutory provision the right  to a balanced and healthful ecology is enforceable and in case of violation thereof, relief is availing. In other words the constitutional provision  on  the people’s right to a balanced ecology is self-executory.