The case of Oposa vs. Factoran, promulagated by the Supreme Court on July 31, 1993, is a landmark case in environmental law but it is not a victory.  The effects of the pronouncements of the Supreme Court on intergenerational responsibility and th self- executing character of  Section 16, Article II of the 1987 Constitution are yet to be seen.

 In brief, the petitioners in this case filed a suit for the cancellation of all existing Timber License Agreements (TLA's) basing their cause of action on Section 16, Article II  of the Constitution which is deemed to not self-executory.  They further alleged that they were not bringing the suit only in their behalf but also in behalf of the "generations yet unborn."  The Supreme Court granted their petition.

 Section 16, Article II states:

 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."
 

 It would seem that the rendition of this section to be self-executing would encounter much difficulty in its implementation.  Broad in scope and verbose in  character, it is very difficult to imagine it as a specific right whose violation would arise in a specific injury and consequent specific damage peculiar only to the plaintiff.  It would mean that each person shall have the personality to sue another despite the fact that  the parties are not privity to each other and that the plaintiff sustained no direct injury  from the act complained of.

 Given, however, the argument of the Supreme Court that the right to a balanced  and healthful ecology "concerns nothing less than self-perpetuation and self-preservation,  it would seem that the Supreme Court has the mindset that the right itself is specific despite its verbosity, clear enough despite its broadness and the violation of which is a  specific injury to the whole of the Filipino population.  Constructed like this, every  Filipino indeed shall have a direct cause of action against any person who shall violate  such right.  This would now bring us to the concept of a class suit.
 

 It should be stressed in this point that the case never questioned the capacity of the plaintiffs to sue in behalf of the entire nation.  In fact the court, on its own, pronounced that it is a class suit.  What unsettled prevailing law and jurisprudenceis the court's  pronouncement on intergenerational responsibility.

 "Every generation has a responsibility to the next to preserve that rhythm and  harmony for the full enjoyment of a balanced and healthful ecology."  This is  intergenerational responsibility as said by the court.

 The profound effect of the above statement is that the generation yet unborn is  given by the Supreme Court the legal personality to sue.  It is a settled principle that in a  class suit, the party in whose behalf  the suit was filed  must be a natural or a juridical  person.  Indirectly, he is deemed to be a party to a civil action.  

 Section 1, Rule 3 of the Rules on Civil Procedure states: "Only natural or juridical persons or entities authorized by law may be parties to a civil action."  It cannot be said  that the generations yet unborn belong to the category of  "entities authorized by law"  because the authority to do so belongs to the legislature and not to the judiciary.  In effect,  the Judiciary has arrogated itself into the realm of the Legislature.

  Procedural matters aside however, these pronouncements are a positive response  to the fight against environmental degradation.  The Supreme Court has taken notice that  the earth shall not cease to exist at the moment of the present generation's death.  

Consequently, there is a need to review the country's environmental laws which at most  just paid lip service to this right to a balanced and healthful ecology.  At present, these  laws are nothing but mere reiterations of the State's policy on environmental protection.  

They are re-affirmations and re-statements with meager or no substantial roots to plant themselves firmly in Philippine laws.  No wonder the plaintiffs in Oposa vs. Factoran  could not find a specific right to base its claim.  Maybe this is the subtle way of the  Supreme Court on reminding the Legislature to act on the country's environmental  problems.  The effect of these pronouncements we still have to see.  Environmental law is full of rhetorics, let us hope that Oposa vs. Factoran will not end up as one.