This could probably be the reason  for the High Court  to say  that it does  not follow  that it (balance  and healthful ecology)   is less  important  than any  of the   civil and political  rights.   Such a right   belongs  to a different   category   of rights  altogether  for it  concerns  nothing less than self-preservation  and self-perpetuation.  These basic   rights  need not   even be  written  in the Constitution  for they  are assumed   to exist  from the  inception  of human kind  and thereby  imposing upon  the state  a solemn  obligation  to preserve, protect and advance it.  The day would   not be too  far when  all  else  would be  lost  not only  for the present generation, but also  for those to come – generations which stand to inherit  nothing  but parched  earth  incapable  of sustaining life.

Additionally,  in Justice Feliciano’s concurring   opinion he said,   one specific   fundamental   legal right  is the right  to a balanced  and  healthful ecology.  The list of particular claims   which can be  subsumed under this   rubric  appears to be entirely open-ended:  prevention  and control of emission  of toxic fumes and smoke  from factories   and   motor vehicles;   of discharge   of oil, chemical effluents, garbage and raw sewage into rivers, and coastal    waters  by vessels, oil rigs, factories, mines  and whole   communities;   of dumping  of organic   and inorganic wastes  on open-end, streets  and thoroughfares; failure to rehabilitate   and  strip-mining  or open-mining; kingpin or slash-and-burn farming; destruction  of fisheries, coral reefs and other  living sea  resources through   the use  of dynamite or cyanide and other chemicals;   contamination of ground water   resources;  loss  of certain   species   of fauna  and flora; and so on.

In the court’s awakening concern over  the environment, the decision is telling  the country’s  constituents   that there  is a need  to be involved  on the nature’s preservation.  The High Tribunal  says   that if the people is not  now  equipped   with the   needed  care  and  diligence   it needs to  observe, the  generation  to come  may  have  nothing  for themselves anymore.
Therefore the concern  must  be now, not tomorrow, or next week or next month.  This  could be   the very reason   why  the Court   gave  the minors   a locus standi.   Its their  future   that must   be protected   so much   so that  when their   generation would come, they  would show   the same   concern  for the future   generations to come after them.

 The involvement of the State  is on enactment of laws,   procedures and other  regulations   and their  enforcement.  Ultimately, however, it must   be   the citizens who must show ample concern   to help preserve  the ecology   where   without  it we may not live   a second longer.

There are many things  regarding  ecology  that are   beyond the scope   of enactment   and enforcement  of laws,   it is more  of self-discipline  that each  and every citizen   must  have.   These minor   activities   such as proper   waste classification and disposal, family   birth control, planting   trees   and others  may collectively   give  the needed concern   the future generation pleads.
 Everyone  feels a child   should  be cared   and  assuring  fort his growth, let us not limit  the assurance   to the child    but for his  generations to come.