One of the issues in this case is the “locus standi” of the minors. Do they have the legal standing in our courts of law to represent themselves and the generations to come? Technically, it is a well-settled rule in our jurisprudence, that only proper parties have the legal standing in our courts of law.  Proper parties refer only to those who stand to be benefited or be affected, directly or indirectly, by the outcome of the case.

 In this particular case however, the Supreme Court set aside technicalities to give due course to the petition based on paramount considerations - environmental protection and conservation.
 The petition focuses on one specific fundamental legal right - the right to a balanced and healthful ecology - which, is embodied in Section 16, Article II of the 1987 Constitution. Said provision explicitly provides that “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 means that the people, including the minors and future generations, in promotion of their health, have the right to live in a pleasant environment, free from pollution, floods etc. 

Thus, the SC ruled that the minors’ personality to sue in behalf of the succeeding generations can only be based on the concept of intergenerational responsibility. This means that they can, for themselves, for others of their generation, and for succeeding generations, file a suit, in so far as their right to a balanced and healthful ecology is concerned. Their assertion of the 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. Because the right concerns nothing less than self-preservation and self-perpetuation, every generation has a responsibility to their successors, to preserve that rhythm and harmony for the full enjoyment of a balanced and healthful ecology. Unless intergenerational responsibility is recognized, future generations may be left with a country that is deserted, barren and devoid of the natural resources which our country has been blessed with.

 However, as a general rule, the Declaration of Principles and State Policies of the 1987 Constitution are not self-executory. There is still a need for a legislation to implement and execute these Principles and State Policies. In this particular case, by finding the minors’ cause of action as anchored on a legal right embodied in a constitutional statement above noted, the Supreme Court is in effect saying that Section 16 of Article II of the 1987 Constitution is self-executing and is judicially enforceable even in its present form, without need or any implementing legislation.