What are the legal implications of the SC decision in the Oposa on intergenerational responsibility?
Niceforo Villafuerte Solis

Did the Supreme Court of the Philippines act in grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in this particular case?  Legally speaking, it would be absurd and incredible to have a positive answer on that question. The constitution itself does not provide for any provision which would allow the other branches of the government to question its decision and promulgation.  To do otherwise, as worded by law, is a potent encroachment of power.  However, this case of OPOSA gave us a vivid picture of the seemingly infinite power of the SC to interpret the acts of the other branches of the government, particularly the executive.  Invoking the fundamental law, the SC in this case, sided with the petitioners because of their inherent and protected right to a balanced and healthful ecology as completely stated by Section 16, Article II.  From a distance, this landmark decision seems to take us into a higher ground as it emphasizes intergenerational responsibility and intergenerational justice.  But inspite of this noble reason, there appears to be some more legal implications that need to be elucidated to better appreciate the importance of having a Supreme Court that decides with integrity, honesty and responsibility.  Firstly, how far and up to what extent can the Supreme Court uphold the right of the citizens to a balanced and healthful ecology?  As rightfully noticed by Associate Justice Feliciano, the language of the law is very broad and all encompassing that it is difficult to fashion the scope and character of a balanced and healthful ecology.  Our present society poses a great threat to this right, as it becomes more and more complicated and advanced everyday.  The activities of the industries and even the collective and personal conduct of human beings are evidently detrimental to our environment that makes everyone of us guilty and violators of the said right.  Now, if such is the case, should the Supreme Court also prohibit the emission of toxic fumes and smoke from factories and motor vehicles?  Should it also prohibit the discharge of oil, chemical, garbage and raw sewage into the rivers and seas?  Should it also prohibit smoking, as all of these are risks to a balanced and healthy ecology?  The legal implication of this point is that, if the Supreme Court can cancel timber license because of the right of every citizens to a balanced and rightful ecology, it means that it can also cancel and interfere with other franchises and licenses grants to factories and vehicles which go against the said right.  Is this legally correct and permissible?  If yes, then how far can the Supreme Court interpret "the right to a balanced and healthy ecology”?    Secondly, did the Supreme Court interfered or encroached into the executive branch by virtue of its decision?  Many instances in the past when the executive claims foul as to the legal authority of the Supreme Court to pass upon judgement and interpretation to executive functions.  The latest of which that I can remember was the sale of Manila Hotel to a foreign corporation which was nullified buy the SC because of the enshrined constitutional principle of “national patrimony”.  And because of this flexible and virtual power of the Supreme Court to interpret acts and decisions of the other branches, does this mean that the SC is impliedly more powerful than the other two?  Of course not!  However, there seems to be a ground of truth to believe that it is.  If we assess the SC decision in OPOSA, we can validly infer that the Supreme Court has a wide and apparently unlimited discretion to interpret the constitution.  Such accepted and inherent power of the SC can sometimes be called an implied encroachment of power that nobody can question.  If this accepted norm in our government should continue, how can the executive department perform its functions independently and efficiently if anytime, the SC can come in and interfere invoking broad and encompassing constitutional provisions?  Thirdly, the OPOSA decision however, envisions a positive hope, a beautiful dream for our country and the generations to come.  We can say that, the SC made a radical stand in this controversy for a greater consideration; that is the balanced and healthy well being of the future Filipinos.  The SC pointed out, that as caretakers of the present Philippines, it is our utmost responsibility and absolute obligation to prepare a better Philippines for the generations to come.  With such task, we are then asked to protect our environment, preserve its bounty and beauty and at the same time improve the quality of life that is ought to be in the future.  If we continue to neglect and give a little concern about the depleting condition of our environment, what kind of future are we giving our children?  Our present generation is undeniably connected with the future as the past generations to ours.  We have benefited from the abilities of our ancestors to create a human world for us, thus; in return, we must also give the same to those next line.  This is what the SC called intergenerational responsibility and justice.  Justice that is universal and unchanging.  Justice that is true across generation and culture.    Therefore, this particular decision of the SC somehow gave as a breather; knowing that there is a part of our government which can protect and best serve the interest of the people without heavy politics; that is the Supreme Court no less.  The SC has an immense power to create, interpret and decide issues and controversies which in one way or another can make our break our government and our country as a whole.  Therefore, I say it again, that indeed, it is very important to have a Supreme Court that has credibility, honesty and integrity.   With its wide discretion and power to interpret and decide controversies, it is prone to abuse.  But if it has sincerity and dedication to the general welfare of the people, it can uphold a generation as shown in the case at bar.