LIBERALIZING OUR LAWS ON LEGAL STANDING

Oposa Vs. Factoran

G.R. No. 101083
July 30, 1993
Facts:
The principal petitioners in this case are all minors duly represented and joined by their
respective parent. The complaint was instituted as a taxpayers class suit and alleges that the
plaintiffs "are all citizens of the Republic of the Philippines, taxpayers, and entitled to the full
benefit, use and enjoyment of the natural resource treasure that is the country's virgin tropical
rainforests." The same was filed for themselves and others who are equally concerned about
the preservation of said resource but are "so numerous that it is impracticable to bring them
all before the Court. They pray that the court render judgment ordering defendants to cancel
all existing timber license agreements in the country, and cease and desist from receiving,
accepting, processing, renewing or approving new timber license agreements.
Issue:
Weather or not petitioners have locus standi.
Held:
YES. They can, for themselves, for others of their generation and for the succeeding
generations, file class suit. Their personality to sue in behalf of the succeeding generations
can only be based on the concept of intergenerational responsibility insofar as the right to a
balanced and healthful ecology is concerned. Such a right, as hereinafter expounded,
considers the "rhythm and harmony of nature." Nature means the created world in its entirety.
Such rhythm and harmony indispensably include, inter alia, the judicious disposition,
utilization, management, renewal and conservation of the country's forest, mineral, land,
waters, fisheries, wildlife, off-shore areas and other natural resources to the end that their
exploration, development and utilization be equitably accessible to the present as well as
future generations. Needless to say, every generation has a responsibility to the next to
preserve that rhythm and harmony for the full enjoyment of a balanced and healthful ecology.
Put a little differently, the minors' assertion of their 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.
REMEDY IN THE WRIT OF CONTINUING MANDAMUS
MMDA vs Concerned Residence of Manila Bay
G.R. Nos. 171947-48
February 15, 2011
Facts:

On December 18, 2008, this Court rendered a Decision in G.R. Nos. 171947-48
ordering petitioners to clean up, rehabilitate and preserve Manila Bay in their different
capacities. The case is now in the execution phase of the final and executory December 18,
2008 Decision. The Manila Bay Advisory Committee was created to receive and evaluate the
quarterly progressive reports on the activities undertaken by the agencies in accordance with
said decision and to monitor the execution phase. In the absence of specific completion
periods, the Committee recommended that time frames be set for the agencies to perform
their assigned tasks.
Issue:
Whether or not the subsequent resolutions of the Court is an encroachment over the
powers and functions of the Executive Branch headed by the President of the Philippines.
Held:
No. The issuance is simply an exercise of judicial power under Art. VIII of the
Constitution, because the execution of the Decision is but an integral part of the adjudicative
function of the Court. While additional activities are required of the agencies like submission
of plans of action, data or status reports, these directives are but part and parcel of the
execution stage of a final decision under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court.
Moreover, the submission of periodic reports is sanctioned by Secs. 7 and 8, Rule 8 of
the Rules of Procedure for Environmental cases.
Sec. 7. Judgment.--If warranted, the court shall grant the privilege of the writ of
continuing mandamus requiring respondent to perform an act or series of acts until the
judgment is fully satisfied and to grant such other reliefs as may be warranted resulting
from the wrongful or illegal acts of the respondent. The court shall require the
respondent to submit periodic reports detailing the progress and execution of the
judgment, and the court may, by itself or through a commissioner or the
appropriate government agency, evaluate and monitor compliance. The petitioner
may submit its comments or observations on the execution of the judgment.
Sec. 8. Return of the writ.--The periodic reports submitted by the respondent
detailing compliance with the judgment shall be contained in partial returns of the writ.
Upon full satisfaction of the judgment, a final return of the writ shall be made to the court
by the respondent. If the court finds that the judgment has been fully implemented, the
satisfaction of judgment shall be entered in the court docket. (Emphasis supplied.)
With the final and executory judgment in MMDA, the writ of continuing mandamus
issued in MMDA means that until petitioner-agencies have shown full compliance with the
Court's orders, the Court exercises continuing jurisdiction over them until full execution of the
judgment.

BORACAY FOUNDATION INC VS PROVINCE OF AKLAN

G.R. No. 196870 June 26, 2012

Facts:
Respondent Province of Aklan conceptualized the expansion of the port facilities at
Barangay Caticlan. Sangguniang Barangay of Caticlan, Malay Municipality, issued Resolution
No. 13, s. 2008 on April 25, 2008 stating that it had learned that respondent Province had filed
an application with the DENR for a foreshore lease of areas along the shorelines of Barangay
Caticlan.
Sometime in April 2009, respondent Province entered into an agreement with the
Financial Advisor/Consultant that won in the bidding process held a month before, to conduct
the necessary feasibility study of the proposed project for the Renovation/Rehabilitation of the
Caticlan Passenger Terminal Building and Jetty Port, Enhancement and Recovery of Old
Caticlan Coastline, and Reclamation of a Portion of Foreshore for Commercial Purposes (the
Marina Project), in Malay, Aklan.
On July 27, 2010, the MOA was confirmed by respondent PRA Board of Directors
under its Resolution No. 4130. Respondent PRA wrote to respondent Province on October
19, 2010, informing the latter to proceed with the reclamation and development of phase 1 of
site 1 of its proposed project. Phase 1 started in December 2010 without the necessary
permits.
Petitioner, opposes the reclamation project, contending that respondent DENR-EMB
RVI willfully and deliberately disregarded its duty to ensure that the environment is protected
from harmful developmental projects because it allegedly performed only a cursory and
superficial review of the documents submitted by the respondent Province for an ECC, failing
to note that all the information and data used by respondent Province in its application for the
ECC were all dated and not current, as data was gathered in the late 1990s for the ECC
issued in 1999 for the first jetty port. Thus, petitioner alleges that respondent DENR-EMB RVI
ignored the environmental impact to Boracay, which involves changes in the structure of the
coastline that could contribute to the changes in the characteristics of the sand in the beaches
of both Caticlan and Boracay.
Petitioner insists that reclamation of land at the Caticlan side will unavoidably
adversely affect the Boracay side and notes that the declared objective of the reclamation
project is for the exploitation of Boracays tourist trade, since the project is intended to
enhance support services thereto. But, petitioner argues, the primary reason for Boracays
popularity is its white-sand beaches which will be negatively affected by the project.
On June 1, 2011, petitioner filed the instant Petition for Environmental Protection
Order/Issuance of the Writ of Continuing Mandamus. On June 7, 2011, this Court issued a
Temporary Environmental Protection Order (TEPO).
Issue:
Whether or not the writ of continuing mandamus is available remedy for petitioner.

Held:
YES. Although petitioner was not a party to the proceedings where the decision to
issue an ECC was rendered, it stands to be aggrieved by the decision, because it claims that

the reclamation of land on the Caticlan side would unavoidably adversely affect the Boracay
side, where petitioners members own establishments engaged in the tourism trade. As noted
earlier, petitioner contends that the declared objective of the reclamation project is to exploit
Boracays tourism trade because the project is intended to enhance support services thereto;
however, this objective would not be achieved since the white-sand beaches for which
Boracay is famous might be negatively affected by the project. Petitioners conclusion is that
respondent Province, aided and abetted by respondents PRA and DENR-EMB RVI, ignored
the spirit and letter of our environmental laws, and should thus be compelled to perform their
duties under said laws.
The new Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases, A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC, provides
a relief for petitioner under the writ of continuing mandamus, which is a special civil action that
may be availed of to compel the performance of an act specifically enjoined by law[140] and
which provides for the issuance of a TEPO as an auxiliary remedy prior to the issuance of
the writ itself.[141] The Rationale of the said Rules explains the writ in this wise:
Environmental law highlights the shift in the focal-point from the initiation of
regulation by Congress to the implementation of regulatory programs by the appropriate
government agencies.
Thus, a government agencys inaction, if any, has serious implications on the future
of environmental law enforcement. Private individuals, to the extent that they seek to change
the scope of the regulatory process, will have to rely on such agencies to take the initial
incentives, which may require a judicial component. Accordingly, questions regarding the
propriety of an agencys action or inaction will need to be analyzed.
This point is emphasized in the availability of the remedy of the writ of mandamus,
which allows for the enforcement of the conduct of the tasks to which the writ pertains: the
performance of a legal duty.
The writ of continuing mandamus permits the court to retain jurisdiction after
judgment in order to ensure the successful implementation of the reliefs mandated under the
courts decision and, in order to do this, the court may compel the submission of compliance
reports from the respondent government agencies as well as avail of other means to monitor
compliance with its decision.
According to petitioner, respondent Province acted pursuant to a MOA with
respondent PRA that was conditioned upon, among others, a properly-secured ECC from
respondent DENR-EMB RVI. For this reason, petitioner seeks to compel respondent Province
to comply with certain environmental laws, rules, and procedures that it claims were either
circumvented or ignored. Hence, we find that the petition was appropriately filed with this
Court under Rule 8, Section 1, A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC.
Petitioner had three options where to file this case under the rule: the Regional Trial
Court exercising jurisdiction over the territory where the actionable neglect or omission
occurred, the Court of Appeals, or this Court.

Petitioner had no other plain, speedy, or adequate remedy in the ordinary course of
law to determine the questions of unique national and local importance raised here that
pertain to laws and rules for environmental protection, thus it was justified in coming to this
Court.

THE PROGRESS OF WRIT OF KALIKASAN CASES IN COURTS

LNL ARCHIPELAGO MINERALS, INC., VS. AGHAM PARTY LIST

G.R. No. 209165, April 12, 2016
Facts:
Petitioner LNL Archipelago Minerals, Inc. (LAMI) is the operator of a mining claim
located in Sta. Cruz, Zambales, which embarked on a project to build a private, noncommercial port in Brgy. Bolitoc, Sta. Cruz, Zambales. On 24 April 2012, Mayor Marty issued
an order directing LAMI to refrain from continuing with its clearing works and directed the Sta.
Cruz Municipal Police Chief Generico Binan to implement his order. earlier, or on 6 June
2012, respondent Agham Party List (Agham), through its President, former Representative
Angelo B. Palmones (Rep. Palmones), filed a Petition for the issuance of a Writ of Kalikasan
against LAMI, DENR, PPA, and the Zambales Police Provincial Office (ZPPO).
Agham alleged that LAMI violated: (1) Section 68 of PD No. 705,[24] as amended by
Executive Order No. III, or the Revised Forestry Code; and (2) Sections 57 and 69 of
Republic Act No. 7942, or the Philippine Mining Act of 1995 (Philippine Mining Act). Agham
added that LAMI cut mountain trees and flattened a mountain which serves as a natural
protective barrier from typhoons and floods not only of the residents of Zambales but also the
residents of some nearby towns located in Pangasinan.
Issue:
Whether or not a writ of kalikasan may be issued.
Held:
NO. It is well-settled that a party claiming the privilege for the issuance of a Writ of
Kalikasan has to show that a law, rule or regulation was violated or would be violated. In the
present case, the allegation by Agham that two laws - the Revised Forestry Code, as
amended, and the Philippine Mining Act - were violated by LAMI was not adequately
substantiated by Agham. Even the facts submitted by Agham to establish environmental
damage were mere general allegations.
Second, Agham's allegation that there was a "mountain" in LAM's port site was earlier
established as false as the "mountain" was non-existent as proven by the testimonies of the
witnesses and reports made by environmental experts and persons who have been educated
and trained in their respective fields.

Third, contrary to Agham's claim that LAMI had no ECC from the DENR, the DENR
restored LAMI's ECC. After LAMI was issued a Notice of Violation of its ECC dated 1 June
2012 by the DENR-EMB R3, LAMI complied with all the requirements and its ECC had been
reinstated.
The Rules are clear that in a Writ of Kalikasan, petitioner has the burden to prove the
(1) environmental law, rule or regulation violated or threatened to be violated; (2) act or
omission complained of; and (3) the environmental damage of such magnitude as to prejudice
the life, health or property of inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces. Even the
Annotation to the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases states that the magnitude of
environmental damage is a condition sine qua non in a petition for the issuance of a Writ of
Kalikasan and must be contained in the verified petition.
The Court finds that LAMI did not cause any environmental damage that prejudiced the
life, health or property of the inhabitants residing in the municipality of Sta. Cruz, the province
of Zambales or in the neighboring province of Pangasinan. Agham, as the party that has the
burden to prove the requirements for the issuance of the privilege of the Writ of Kalikasan,
failed to prove (1) the environmental laws allegedly violated by LAMI; and (2) the magnitude
of the environmental damage allegedly caused by LAMI in the construction of LAMI's port
facility in Brgy. Bolitoc, Sta. Cruz, Zambales and its surrounding area.

JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION OF THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE

INTERNATIONAL SERVICE FOR THE ACQUISITION OF AGRI-BIOTECH APPLICATIONS,
INC., PETITIONER, VS. GREENPEACE SOUTHEAST ASIA (PHILIPPINES)
G.R. No. 209271, December 08, 2015
Facts:
(UPMFI), in pursuance of a collaborative research and development project on
eggplants that are resistant to the fruit and shoot borer. Under the regulatory supervision of
NCBP, a contained experiment was started in 2007 and officially completed on March 3, 2009.
The NCBP thus issued a Certificate of Completion of Contained Experiment stating that
"During the conduct of the experiment, all the biosafety measures have been complied with
and no untoward incident has occurred."[16]
As indicated in the Field Trial Proposal submitted by the implementing institution
(UPLB), the pest-resistant crop subject of the field trial was described as a "bioengineered
eggplant." The crystal toxin genes from the soil bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) were
incorporated into the eggplant (talong) genome to produce the protein CrylAc which is toxic to
the target insect pests. CrylAc protein is said to be highly specific to lepidopteran larvae such
as the fruit and shoot borer (FSB), the most destructive insect pest of eggplant.
Under the regulatory supervision of NCBP, a contained experiment was started in 2007
and officially completed on March 3, 2009. The NCBP thus issued a Certificate of Completion
of Contained Experiment stating that "During the conduct of the experiment, all the biosafety
measures have been complied with and no untoward incident has occurred."[16]

BPI issued Biosafety Permits[17] to UPLB on March 16, 2010 and June 28, 2010. Thereafter,
field testing of Bt talong commenced on various dates in the following approved trial sites:
Kabacan, North Cotabato; Sta. Maria, Pangasinan; Pili, Camarines Sur; Bago Oshiro, Davao
City; and Bay, Laguna.
Greenpeace, et al. argued that this case calls for the application of the precautionary
principle, the Bt talong field testing being a classic environmental case where scientific
evidence as to the health, environmental and socio-economic safety is insufficient or
uncertain and preliminary scientific evaluation indicates reasonable grounds for concern that
there are potentially dangerous effects on human health and the environment. ISAAA argued
that the allegations regarding the safety of Bt talong as food are irrelevant in the field trial
stage as none of the eggplants will be consumed by humans or animals, and all materials that
will not be used for analyses will be chopped, boiled and buried following the Biosafety Permit
requirements.
Issue:
Whether or not precautionary principle is applicable in the case at bar.
Held:
CA held that the precautionary principle applies in this case since the risk of harm from
the field trials of Bt talong remains uncertain and there exists a possibility of serious and
irreversible harm. The Court observed that eggplants are a staple vegetable in the country
that is mostly grown by small-scale farmers who are poor and marginalized; thus, given the
country's rich biodiversity, the consequences of contamination and genetic pollution would be
disastrous and irreversible. It was reaffirmed in SCs December 2015 decision.
However, last July 2016, new one is ENTERED DISMISSING the Petition for Writ of
Continuing Mandamus and Writ of Kalikasan with Prayer for the Issuance of a Temporary
Environmental Protection Order (TEPO) filed by respondents Greenpeace Southeast Asia
(Philippines), JUagsasaka at Siyentipiko sa Pagpapaunladng Agrikultura, and others on the
ground of mootness.