District Court Judge Ann Aiken issued a landmark decision in the constitutional and public trust climate change case brought by 21 young people, Juliana v. United States of America, where she denied the United States government defendants’ and fossil fuel industry intervenor-defendants’ motions to dismiss the case. 31 Ruling in favor of the youth plaintiffs, Judge Aiken referenced the Philippine Supreme Court’s decision in Minors Oposa twice in her opinion. Drawing in part from the Philippines’ constitutional protection of “a balanced and healthful ecology,” Judge Aiken determined that the U.S. Constitution provides a fundamental right to a stable climate system.32 She stated that “the right to a climate system capable of sustaining human life is fundamental to a free and ordered society. . . a stable climate system is quite literally the foundation ‘of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress.’”33 Judge Aiken also cited Minors Oposa for the proposition that the public trust doctrine is an inherent aspect of sovereignty, stating that “the right of future generations to a ‘balanced and healthful ecology’ is so basic that it ‘need not even be written in the Constitution for [it is] assumed to exist from the inception of humankind.’” 34 She wrote that public trust rights, which “both predated the Constitution and are secured by it,” cannot be “legislated away.”35 This Commission should follow in the courageous footsteps of Judge Aiken by issuing a strong statement affirming the public trust rights of current and future generations of Filipinos to a stable climate system, which is undoubtedly essential to maintain a “balanced and healthful ecology” for current and future generations of Filipinos. In addition to the duties that the public trust doctrine imposes on sovereign States for the protection of domestic natural resources, States have responsibilities to safeguard resources shared in common with other nations. For example, the atmosphere, oceans, and climate system are shared planetary resources that cannot be divided, and the harm of climate change occurs within and outside the national borders of the agents causing the damage. These facts necessitate States to act as co-tenants and co-trustees of these global trust resources.36 States, therefore, have a shared sovereign obligation to manage the borderless natural resources of this global trust in a manner that avoids waste and destruction of the resources, as is required of any co-tenant to a shared piece of property. 37 Pursuant to the jurisprudence in the Philippines and abroad, as 288 (“the public trust doctrine provides the background and context for the [U.S.] Constitution”); see also Const. of Norway, art. 112 (2014); Const. of Kenya (2010); Const. of The Republic of Ecuador, tit. 2, ch. 7, art. 71–74 (2008); S. Afr. Const., § 24 (1996); Const. of Ukraine, tit. I, art. 13 (1991). 31 For background information on the case, see Landmark U.S. Federal Climate Lawsuit, Our Children’s Trust, https://www.ourchildrenstrust.org/us/federal-lawsuit/ (last visited Nov. 16, 2016). 32 Order and Opinion Denying Motions to Dismiss, Juliana, et al. v. United States of America, et al., Case No. 6:15cv-01517-TC, 29-32 (D. Or. Nov. 10, 2016), available at https://www.ourchildrenstrust.org/s/Order-MTDAiken.pdf. 33 Id. at 32. 34 Id. at 50. 35 Id. at 49. 36 Mary Christina Wood, Nature’s Trust: Environmental Law for a New Ecological Age, 213 (2013) [hereinafter Nature’s Trust]; see also Peter H. Sand, Sovereignty Bcounded: Public Trusteeship for Common Pool Resources, 4 Global Envtl. Pol. 47, 57 (2004). 
 37 For a discussion of the doctrine of waste relative to co-tenancy, see Joseph William Singer, Property Law: Rules, Policies, and Practices 664–65 (5th ed. 2010); 20 Am. Jur. 2d, Co-tenancy and Joint Ownership, § 1 (2012). For its application to the global trust, see Wood, Nature’s Trust, at 212-213; Evan Fox-Decent, From Fiduciary States to Joint Trusteeship of the Atmosphere: The Right to a Healthy Environment Through a Fiduciary Prism, Chapter in Fiduciary Duty and the Atmospheric Trust 263 (Ken Coghill et al. eds., 2012) (discussing the global trust through Our Children’s Trust Amicus Curiae Brief 7