Narrative Report For Writ of Kalikasan

WRIT OF KALIKASAN
Rule 7, A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC

Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases
DELA CERNA, Hannah Keziah

PIANG, Anna Sophia Tarhata
SANTIAGO, Reginald Matt
III-Manresa 2019-2020
Ateneo de Davao College of Law
WRIT OF KALIKASAN 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. HISTORY AND ORIGIN OF THE WRIT OF KALIKASAN...............................4
Concept and Nature.................................................................................... 4
History...................................................................................................... 4
II. SUBSTANTIVE BASIS............................................................................. 5
Constitutional Bases.................................................................................... 5
Environmental Justice.................................................................................. 5
Precautionary Principle................................................................................ 6
Doctrinal Basis........................................................................................... 6
Oposa v. Factoran.................................................................................... 6
III. PROCEDURE......................................................................................... 9
Nature of Writ............................................................................................ 9
Contents and Form of the Petition............................................................... 10
How the Writ is Served.............................................................................. 11
Penalty for Refusing to Issue or Serve the Writ............................................. 11
Return of Respondent................................................................................ 12
Prohibited Pleadings and Motions.................................................................13
Effect of Failure to File Return..................................................................... 13
Hearing and Preliminary Conference............................................................ 14
Discovery Measures................................................................................... 15
A. Ocular Inspection.................................................................................. 15
B. Production or Inspection of Documents or Things.......................................16
Indirect Contempt..................................................................................... 16
Submission of Case for Decision; Memoranda............................................... 17
Judgment and Reliefs Granted.................................................................... 17

WRIT OF KALIKASAN 3
Appeal..................................................................................................... 18
Separate Actions....................................................................................... 18
Writ of Kalikasan v. Writ of Continuing Mandamus......................................... 19
Flowchart of Procedure.............................................................................. 20
IV. JURISPRUDENCE ON THE WRIT OF KALIKASAN................................... 21
I. Legal Standing...................................................................................... 21
Most Rev. Pedro Arigo v. Scott H. Swift..................................................... 21
II. Precautionary Principle.......................................................................... 25
ISAAA et al., v. Greenpeace (Philippines), et al...........................................25
West Tower Condominium v. First Philippine Industrial................................ 29
III. Evidentiary Matters.............................................................................. 33
Paje v. Casiño........................................................................................ 33
Pilar Cañeda Braga v. Hon. Abaya.............................................................37
LNL Archipelago Minerals, Inc., v. Agham Party List.................................... 40
Victoria Segovia v. Climate Change Commission......................................... 43
Mayor Osmeña v. Garganera.................................................................... 45
ABOGADO v. DENR................................................................................. 50
WRIT OF KALIKASAN 4
I. HISTORY AND ORIGIN OF THE WRIT OF KALIKASAN
Concept and Nature

Under Philippine law, the writ of kalikasan is a remedy available to persons
whose constitutional right to “a balanced and healthful ecology” had been violated by
any unlawful act or omission of a public official, employee, or private individual or
entity. The Filipino term ‘kalikasan’ means ‘nature’ in English.
History
The conception of the writ of kalikasan can be attributed to former Chief
Justice Reynato Puno recognition of the right to a healthy environment as a ‘third-
generation human right’. In a speech given in 2007 to the Silliman University Law
Alumni Association, Puno stated that human rights have evolved through
generations: the ‘first-generation’ consists of individual and civil rights which are
essential to human nature. The ‘second generation’ refers to social, economic and
cultural rights which came to be after the Industrial Revolution in Europe. The ‘third
generation’, to which the right to a healthy environment belongs, consists of
collective rights, which also include the right to development and the rights of
indigenous communities. These rights are offshoots of globalization.1
Expounding on the collective nature of the right to a healthy environment,

Puno said that it does not belong only to an individual; rather it belongs to the entire
populace and can be claimed even by the international community. As such, the duty
to preserve a healthy environment is demandable by the people as a collectivity
against a State, an individual, a group, or a community.2
As a legal remedy, the history of the writ can be traced back to 2009 when the
Supreme Court, which was still led by Puno, held a forum on environmental issues
called the Forum on Environmental Justice: Upholding the Right to a Healthful and
Balanced Ecology. Held simultaneously in the cities of Baguio, Iloilo, and Davao on
April 16 and 17, 2009, the forum was aimed at determining ways through which the
courts can help in promoting, protecting, upholding, and preserving the environment
and ensuring the various government agencies’ commitment to environmental
justice.3
One of the fruits of the forum was the Rules of Procedure for Environmental
Cases. The forum had in attendance more than 400 participants from various
1 Former Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno, Speech at the University Convocation and Presentation of the 2007
Outstanding Silliman University Law Alumni Association (SULAW) Award to Prof. Rolando V. del Carmen and 19th
SULAW General Assembly and Alumni Homecoming: No Turning Back on Human Rights (August 25, 2007).
2 Supra
3 2009 Supreme Court Annual Reports
WRIT OF KALIKASAN 5
sectors, concerned government agencies, and the courts. The Supreme Court
directly solicited from these participants inputs which were used for the drafting of
the Rules.4
In drafting the Rules, the Supreme Court had created the writ of kalikasan and
prescribed it as remedial measure that can be resorted to. The writ is meant to
address the potentially exponential nature of large-scale ecological threats.
Acknowledging that environmental damage occurs in spatial scales and that such
concern is not only confined to a specific border or territory, the writ was designed to
address questions on jurisdiction by allowing the petition for its issuance to be filed
with the Supreme Court or with any station of the Court of Appeals. This rule
addresses such questions because both courts have nationwide jurisdictions.5
The Rules were drafted by the Sub-Committee on the Rules of Procedure for
Environmental Cases which had Puno as its chairperson. The Rules of Procedure on
Environmental Cases were approved by the Supreme Court on April 13, 2010 and
took effect on April 29, 2010.6
II. SUBSTANTIVE BASIS
Constitutional Bases
The construction of environmental rights under the 1987 Philippine Constitution was
framed in such a way that these were shaped as policies and declarations of the state
instead of forming part of the Bill of Rights.
The main provision on environmental rights is Section 16 of Article II, supplemented

by Section 15 of the same Article.7
Section 16. 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.
Section 15. The State shall protect and promote the right to health of the people and
instill health consciousness among them.
Environmental Justice
In the Rationale to the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases, the rights-based
approach to environmental justice was used as a basis.
4 Supra
5 Rationale to the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases
6 A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC
7 Rationale to the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases
WRIT OF KALIKASAN 6
The first is the anthropocentric approach to environmental protection. Under this

approach, the goal of preserving the environment is to satisfy the health, aesthetic
and economic interests of man.
The second is the ecocentric approach, wherein plants and themselves have legal
rights. But it was discussed that the trouble of strictly applying this approach is that
man may be impeded from exploiting natural resources for his survival.
With the criticisms of the above approaches in mind, a development of a more

nuanced approach was created which is now known as the ‘sustainability principle’ to
strike a delicate balance between competing interests of economic exploitation and
environmental protection. In other words, this seeks to protect posterity, or inter-
generational equity. To adopt the precautionary principle is to accede to the notion
that taking action
Precautionary Principle
Given the general sphere of uncertainty encompassing environmental science,
protection and regulation, the newer approach of precaution looks to transcend the
standards of prevention and instead address potential harm even with minimal
predictability at hand. To adopt the precautionary principle is to accede to the notion
that taking action before the risk becomes known is the more prudent approach to
environmental protection today. The Supreme Court has adopted precautionary
principle recognizing the consideration of scientific uncertainty plays a crucial role in
environmental plaintiffs a better chance of proving their cases, where the risks are of
environmental harm may be difficult to prove.
Doctrinal Basis
In the landmark case of Oposa v. Factoran (G.R. No. 101083, July 30, 1993), the
Supreme Court recognized the doctrine of “Intergenerational Responsibility.”
Oposa v. Factoran
G.R. No. 101083 July 30, 1993
Facts: The principal petitioners of this case, all minors, joined and represented by
their respective parents filed a taxpayers’ class suit impleading then Secretary of
the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Fulgencio Factoran, Jr.,
later on substituted by the new secretary, Honorable Angel C. Alcala.
Allegations
1. Plaintiffs are all citizens of the Philippines, taxpayers, entitled to the full benefit,
us, and enjoyment of the natural resource treasure that is the country’s virgin
tropical forests;
WRIT OF KALIKASAN 7
2. This is filed not only for themselves but for 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.”
3. The minors further allege that they “represent their generation as well as
generations yet unborn.”
Prayers
1. To order defendant and his agents to cancel all existing timber license
agreements in the country; and
2. To cease and desist from receiving, accepting, processing, renewing or
approving new timber license agreements
Plaintiffs here further assert that the adverse and detrimental consequences of
continued deforestation are so capable of unquestionable demonstration that the
same may be submitted as a matter of judicial notice.
They contend that the act of defendant constitutes misappropriation and/or

impairment of the natural resource property he holds in trust for the benefitof
plaintiff, minors and succeeding generations.
Issue 1: Whether or not the petitioners have legal standing. -YES.

Held:
Valid Class Suit. - The Court ruled that the said civil case is indeed a class suit.
The subject matter of the complaint is of common and general interest not just to
several, but to all citizens of the Philippines. Consequently, since the parties are so
numerous, it, becomes impracticable, if not totally impossible, to bring all of them
before the court. We likewise declare that the plaintiffs therein are numerous and
representative enough to ensure the full protection of all concerned interests.
Intergenerational Responsibility. - They can, for themselves, for others of their

generation and for the succeeding generations, file a 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 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.
Issue 2: Whether or not petitioners were able to allege a specific legal right. -YES.
WRIT OF KALIKASAN 8
The Court did not agree with the trial court's conclusions that the plaintiffs failed to
allege with sufficient definiteness a specific legal right involved or a specific legal
wrong committed, and that the complaint is replete with vague assumptions and
conclusions based on unverified data.
Right to a Balanced and Healthful Ecology. - The complaint focuses on one

specific fundamental legal right — the right to a balanced and healthful ecology
which, for the first time in our nation's constitutional history, is solemnly
incorporated in the fundamental law, namely in Section 16, Article II of the 1987
Constitution and in Section 15 of the same.
Said Right is a Basic Right and Need Not Even be Written in the
Constitution. - While the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is to be found
under the Declaration of Principles and State Policies and not under the Bill of
Rights, it does not follow that it is less important than any of the civil and political
rights enumerated in the latter. Such a right belongs to a different category of
rights altogether for it concerns nothing less than self-preservation and self-
perpetuation — aptly and fittingly stressed by the petitioners — the advancement
of which may even be said to predate all governments and constitutions. As a
matter of fact, these basic rights need not even be written in the Constitution for
they are assumed to exist from the inception of humankind. If they are now
explicitly mentioned in the fundamental charter, it is because of the well-founded
fear of its framers that unless the rights to a balanced and healthful ecology and to
health are mandated as state policies by the Constitution itself, thereby
highlighting their continuing importance and imposing upon the state a solemn
obligation to preserve the first and protect and advance the second, 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.
Objectives of the Writ of Kalikasan

⚫ For protection and promotion of constitutional right to a balanced and healthful
ecology;
⚫ For simplified, speedy and inexpensive procedure in the enforcement of
environmental rights and duties;
⚫ To introduce and adopt innovations in ensuring the effective enforcement of
remedies and redress for violation of environmental laws; and
⚫ To enable the courts to monitor and exact compliance with orders and judgments
in environmental cases
WRIT OF KALIKASAN 9
III. PROCEDURE
Nature of Writ
Section 1. Nature of the writ. - The writ is a remedy available to a natural or juridical
person, entity authorized by law, people’s organization, non-governmental organization,
or any public interest group accredited by or registered with any government agency, on
behalf of persons whose constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology is
violated, or threatened with violation by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or
employee, or private individual or entity, involving environmental damage of such
magnitude as to prejudice the life, health or property of inhabitants in two or more cities
or provinces.
Writ of Kalikasan, When Available

The Writ of Kalikasan is available to provide redress of environmental damage
of such magnitude as to prejudice the life, health, or property of inhabitants in two or
more cities or provinces.
Section 2. Contents of the petition. - The verified petition shall contain the following:
(a) The personal circumstances of the petitioner;
(b) The name and personal circumstances of the respondent or if the name and personal
circumstances are unknown and uncertain, the respondent may be described by an
assumed appellation;
(c) The environmental law, rule or regulation violated or threatened to be violated, the act
or omission complained of, and the environmental damage of such magnitude as to
prejudice the life, health or property of inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces.
(d) All relevant and material evidence consisting of the affidavits of witnesses,
documentary evidence, scientific or other expert studies, and if possible, object evidence;
(e) The certification of petitioner under oath that:

(1)petitioner has not commenced any action or filed any claim involving the same
issues in any court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency, and no such other action or
claim is pending therein;
(2)if there is such other pending action or claim, a complete statement of its present
status;
(3)if petitioner should learn that the same or similar action or claim has been filed or
is pending, petitioner shall report to the court that fact within five (5) days
therefrom; and
(f) The reliefs prayed for which may include a prayer for the issuance of a TEPO.
WRIT OF KALIKASAN 10
Contents and Form of the Petition

1. Petition must be VERIFIED
2. It should contain the mandatory contents enumerated in the abovementioned
provision
3. There must be an allegation that the environmental damage is of such
magnitude to prejudice the life, health, or property of inhabitants in two or
All relevant evidence must be attached to the petition to allow the court to determine
whether the immediate issuance of the writ is warranted. TEPO is a relief available,
as in the Writ of Continuing Mandamus.8
Section 3. Where to file. - The petition shall be filed with the Supreme Court or with any
of the stations of the Court of Appeals.
Venue. The magnitude of the environmental damage is the reason for limiting
where the writ may be file, to the Supreme Court or Court of Appeals whose
jurisdiction is national in scope.9
Section 4. No docket fees. - The petitioner shall be exempt from the payment of docket
fees.
Exemption from payment of docket fees. The exemption from docket fees is
consistent with the character of the reliefs available under the writ, which excludes
damages for personal injuries. This exemption also encourages public participation in
availing of the remedy.10
Issuance of Writ
Section 5. Issuance of the writ. - Within three (3) days from the date of filing of the
petition, if the petition is sufficient in form and substance, the court shall give an order: (a)
issuing the writ; and (b) requiring the respondent to file a verified return as provided in
Section 8 of this Rule. The clerk of court shall forthwith issue the writ under the seal of the
court including the issuance of a cease and desist order and other temporary reliefs
effective until further order.
If found to be sufficient in form and substance, the Writ of Kalikasan shall be

issued within 3 days from the date of the filing of the petition. Likewise, the court
shall require the respondent to file a verified return, setting up the defenses.
Verified Return
8 A.M. 09-6-8-SC Annotation by PHILJA

9 Ibid.
10 Ibid.
This contains the defenses and grounds for the dissolution of the Writ of
Kalikasan. A verified return, not a motion to dismiss, must be filed by the respondent
within a NON-EXTENDIBLE PERIOD OF 10 DAYS from the service of the writ.
How the Writ is Served
Section 6. How the writ is served. - The writ shall be served upon the respondent by a
court officer or any person deputized by the court, who shall retain a copy on which to
make a return of service. In case the writ cannot be served personally, the rule on
substituted service shall apply.
Manner of Service. The writ should be served against the respondent,

preferably in person. If personal service cannot be made, the rules on substituted
service shall apply.11
Penalty for Refusing to Issue or Serve the Writ
Section 7. Penalty for refusing to issue or serve the writ. - A clerk of court who unduly
delays or refuses to issue the writ after its allowance or a court officer or deputized
person who unduly delays or refuses to serve the same shall be punished by the court for
contempt without prejudice to other civil, criminal or administrative actions.
Section 8. Return of respondent; contents . - Within a non-extendible period of ten (10)

days after service of the writ, the respondent shall file a verified return which shall
contain all defenses to show that respondent did not violate or threaten to violate, or
allow the violation of any environmental law, rule or regulation or commit any act
resulting to environmental damage of such magnitude as to prejudice the life, health or
property of inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces.
All defenses not raised in the return shall be deemed waived.
The return shall include affidavits of witnesses, documentary evidence, scientific or other
expert studies, and if possible, object evidence, in support of the defense of the
respondent.
A general denial of allegations in the petition shall be considered as an admission thereof.
Return of Respondent
When the petition is found to be sufficient in form and substance, the court
shall order the issuance of the writ. The writ is issued by the Clerk of Court and the
11 Ibid.
writ shall be served to the respondent. After the service of the writ, the respondent
shall then file a return.
Form and Contents

The return shall be verified and shall contain the following:
1. All defenses to show that respondent did not violate or threaten to violate or
allow the violation of any environmental damage of such magnitude as to
prejudice the life, health or property of inhabitants in two or more cities or
provinces;
In support of the defense of the respondent, the return shall also include:
2. Affidavits of witnesses
3. Documentary evidence
4. Scientific or other expert studies
5. If possible, object evidence
Policy to Submit All Relevant and Material Evidence

The return of the respondent, as directed by Section 8, already includes the
affidavits, documentary and even object evidence. Unlike the 1997 Rules on Civil
Procedure, the answer in the case of a defendant, usually does not include the
evidence because the practice before was that the evidence is submitted and marked
during the pre-trial.
However, with the advent of the 2019 Amended Rules on Civil Procedure12, it
is now similar with the return under 2010 Rules of Procedure for Environmental
Cases, where “pleading[s] shall contain in a methodical and logical form xxx ultimate
facts, including the evidence on which the party pleading relies for his or her claim or
defense as the case may be.13”
The Revised Rules now also required an answer to contain or append the
judicial affidavits, documentary, and object evidence in support of the allegations14.
Notably, the return in cases of Writ of Kalikasan already requires that returns should
contain the evidence in support of the defenses of the respondent, even before the
Revised Rules required such for answers.
Effect of Failure to Raise Defense
Section 8 provides that all defenses not raised in the return shall be deemed
waived. This is similar to Section 1 of Rule 9 of the Rules of Civil Procedure where
defenses that are not pleaded are also deemed waived.
12 A.M. No. 19-10-20-SC, 2019 Proposed Amendments to Rules of Civil Procedure, takes effect on May 1, 2020
13 Id. Rule 8. Section 1.
14 Baker Mackenzie (6 March 2020). Amendments to PH Rules of Civil Procedure and Evidence Take Effect on 1 May
2020. Accessed March 21, 2020 from

https://www.bakermckenzie.com/en/insight/publications/2020/03/amendments-civil-procedure-and-evidence
General Denial, Deemed an Admission

Section 8 also provides that a general denial of allegation in the petition shall
be considered as an admission thereof. This means that there must be no general
denial, this requirement is consistent with the policy to submit all relevant and
material evidence15. This provision is similar to Section 11 of Rule 916 of the Rules on
Civil Procedure which provides that material averments not specifically denied shall
be deemed admitted.
Section 9. Prohibited pleadings and motions . - The following pleadings and motions are
prohibited:
(a) Motion to dismiss;
(b) Motion for extension of time to file return;
(c) Motion for postponement;
(d) Motion for a bill of particulars;
(e) Counterclaim or cross-claim;
(f) Third-party complaint;
(g) Reply; and
(h) Motion to declare respondent in default.
Prohibited Pleadings and Motions

These enumerated pleadings and motions are prohibited for the purpose of
expediting the hearing of the petition. Note that a motion for intervention is not
included, thus it is allowed. This is a reaffirmation of public participation aspect in the
Writ of Kalikasan recognizing that there may be a large, qualified pool of possible
representatives interested in availing of the remedy offered by the Writ of Kalikasan
.
Section 10. Effect of failure to file return . - In case the respondent fails to file a return,
the court shall proceed to hear the petition ex parte.
Effect of Failure to File Return

If the respondent fails to file a return within the period provided for by the
Rules, the court shall continue to hear the petition ex-parte. This is due to the
urgency of the need for the issuance of the writ, the failure to file a return is not a bar
to the court to hear the petition18.
Section 11. Hearing. - Upon receipt of the return of the respondent, the court may call a
preliminary conference to simplify the issues, determine the possibility of obtaining
15 PHILJA. Annotation to the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases, p. 136.

16 Amended by A.M. No. 19-10-20-SC.
18 Id. p. 137.
stipulations or admissions from the parties, and set the petition for hearing.
The hearing including the preliminary conference shall not extend beyond sixty (60) days
and shall be given the same priority as petitions for the writs of habeas corpus, amparo
and habeas data.
Hearing and Preliminary Conference

Upon receipt of the return was provided for in Section 8, the court, in its discretion,
may call a Preliminary Conference to:
a. Simply the issues
b. Determine the possibility of obtaining stipulations or admissions
c. Setting the petition for hearing.
Duration of Hearing
It shall not extend beyond 60 days, including the preliminary conference. It shall
also be given the same priority as petitions for the writ of habeas corpus, amparo
and habeas data due to the nature of the writ.
Hearing is Not Summary

In a hearing involving the Writ of Kalikasan, the environmental damage subject of
the writ may involve issues that are of complex character, and for this reason, the
hearing is not summary. The abbreviated time frame that is required however
insures that the proceedings are expedited thus the provision on the 60-day period
and the priority given19.
Section 12. Discovery Measures. - A party may file a verified motion for the following
reliefs:
(a) Ocular Inspection; order — The motion must show that an ocular inspection order is
necessary to establish the magnitude of the violation or the threat as to prejudice the life,
health or property of inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces. It shall state in detail
the place or places to be inspected. It shall be supported by affidavits of witnesses having
personal knowledge of the violation or threatened violation of environmental law.
After hearing, the court may order any person in possession or control of a designated
land or other property to permit entry for the purpose of inspecting or photographing the
property or any relevant object or operation thereon.
The order shall specify the person or persons authorized to make the inspection and the
date, time, place and manner of making the inspection and may prescribe other
conditions to protect the constitutional rights of all parties.
19 Id. p. 137.
(b) Production or inspection of documents or things; order – The motion must show
that a production order is necessary to establish the magnitude of the violation or the
threat as to prejudice the life, health or property of inhabitants in two or more cities or
provinces.
After hearing, the court may order any person in possession, custody or control of any
designated documents, papers, books, accounts, letters, photographs, objects or tangible
things, or objects in digitized or electronic form, which constitute or contain evidence
relevant to the petition or the return, to produce and permit their inspection, copying or
photographing by or on behalf of the movant.
The production order shall specify the person or persons authorized to make the
production and the date, time, place and manner of making the inspection or production
and may prescribe other conditions to protect the constitutional rights of all parties.
Discovery Measures
Similar with the Modes of Discovery in the Rules of Civil Procedure, the rules
also provide for discovery measures for the Writ of Kalikasan. Discovery measures
are available to all parties to the writ. The following discovery measures are
available to the parties through a verified motion.
A. Ocular Inspection
Motion for Ocular Inspection

[1] The motion should show that the ocular inspection is necessary to establish the
magnitude of the violation or the threat as to prejudice the life, health or property of
inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces.
[2] It shall also state in detail the place or places to be inspected.
[3] It shall be supported by affidavits of witnesses having personal knowledge of the

violation or threatened violation of environmental law.
Order for Ocular Inspection

The Court, after hearing, may order any person in possession or control of a
designated land or other property to permit entry for the purposes of inspecting or
photographing the property or any relevant object or operation thereon. The order
shall specify the:
1. Person or persons authorized to make the inspection, and
2. The date, time, place and manner of making the inspection, and
3. The court may prescribe other conditions to protect the constitutional right of
all the parties.
B. Production or Inspection of Documents or Things

Motion for Production or Inspection

[1] The motion must show that a production order is necessary to establish the
magnitude of the violation or the threat as to prejudice the life, health or property of
Production Order
The Court, after hearing, may order any person in possession, custody or control of
any designated documents or objects (even if in electronic form) which constitute or
contain evidence relevant to the petition or the return, to produce and permit their
inspection, copying or photographing by or on behalf of the movant. The production
order shall specify the:
1. Person or persons authorized to make the production and,
2. The date, time, place and manner of making the inspection or production, and
3. The court may prescribe other conditions to protect the constitutional rights of
all the parties.
Limitation of Discovery Measures

Considering that these measures are invasive, the court may prescribe conditions in
any order granting such measures to safeguard constitutional rights.
Section 13. Contempt. - The court may after hearing punish the respondent who refuses
or unduly delays the filing of a return, or who makes a false return, or any person who
disobeys or resists a lawful process or order of the court for indirect contempt under Rule
71 of the Rules of Court.
Indirect Contempt
The court may, after hearing, punish the following for indirect contempt under Rule
71 of the Rules of Court:
1. Respondent who refuses who refuses or unduly delay the filing of a return; or
2. Respondent who makes a false return, or
3. Any person who disobeys or resists a lawful process or order of the court.
Section 14. Submission of case for decision; filing of memoranda . - After hearing, the
court shall issue an order submitting the case for decision. The court may require the
filing of memoranda and if possible, in its electronic form, within a non-extendible period
of thirty (30) days from the date the petition is submitted for decision.
Submission of Case for Decision; Memoranda

After the hearing, the court shall order an order submitting the case for
decision. The order may require the filing of memoranda. The court’s discretion of
requiring the filing of memoranda in electronic form if possible is for the purpose of
expediting the proceedings20.
The memoranda must be filed within 30 days from the date the petition is
submitted for decision and the period is non-extendible.
Section 15. Judgment. –
Within sixty (60) days from the time the petition is submitted for decision, the court shall
render judgment granting or denying the privilege of the writ of kalikasan. The reliefs that
may be granted under the writ are the following:
(a) Directing respondent to permanently cease and desist from committing acts or
neglecting the performance of a duty in violation of environmental laws resulting in
environmental destruction or damage;
(b) Directing the respondent public official, government agency, private person or entity
to protect, preserve, rehabilitate or restore the environment;
(c) Directing the respondent public official, government agency, private person or entity
to monitor strict compliance with the decision and orders of the court;
(d) Directing the respondent public official, government agency, or private person or
entity to make periodic reports on the execution of the final judgment; and
(e) Such other reliefs which relate to the right of the people to a balanced and healthful
ecology or to the protection, preservation, rehabilitation or restoration of the
environment, except the award of damages to individual petitioners.
Judgment and Reliefs Granted

Within 60 days from the time the petition is submitted for decision, the court
shall render judgment either granting or denying the privilege of the writ of
kalikasan.
Reliefs
The reliefs that may be granted under the writ are broad, comprehensive and are not
-exclusive. The reliefs as to monitoring and period reports are to ensure the
enforcement of the judgment of the court21.
The reliefs are the following:
20 PHILJA. Annotation on the Rules of Procedure in Environmental Cases. p. 139.

1. Cease and desist commission of violative acts or neglect of performance;

2. Protection, preservation, rehabilitation or restoration of the environment;
3. Monitoring strict compliance with the decision and orders of the court;
4. Make periodic report of the execution of the final judgment; and
5. Other reliefs related to the right to a balanced and healthful ecology.
Section 16. Appeal. - Within fifteen (15) days from the date of notice of the adverse
judgment or denial of motion for reconsideration, any party may appeal to the Supreme
Court under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. The appeal may raise questions of fact.
Appeal
Within 15 days from the notice of:
1. Adverse judgment, or
2. Denial of motion for reconsideration
Any party may appeal to the Supreme Court (if filed with the Court of Appeals) under
Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
Appeal may Raise Questions of Fact

Given the extraordinary nature of circumstances surrounding the issuance of a Writ
of Kalikasan, Section 16 allows an appeal to raise questions of fact not ordinarily
allowed in a Rule 45 petition, thus it constitutes as an exception to the rule that the
Supreme Court shall entertain only questions of law similar to Writs of Amparo22.
Section 17. Institution of separate actions - The filing of a petition for the issuance of the
writ of kalikasan shall not preclude the filing of separate civil, criminal or administrative
actions.
Separate Actions
A petition may file a separate civil, criminal or administrative action which is allowed
to proceed separately from the petition for the issuance of the writ since they have
different actions with different objectives23. An example is a case for the recovery of
damages for the injuries suffered24.
Writ of Kalikasan v. Writ of Continuing Mandamus

While both are considered as Special Civil Actions found in the Rules of
Procedure for Environmental Cases there are marked differences between the two:
WRIT OF WRIT OF
22 Id. p.140.
24 Id. p. 139.
KALIKASAN CONTINUING MANDAMUS

(Rule 7) (Rule 8)
Subject Matter
Available against unlawful act or omission Directed against
of a public official or employee or private [1] Unlawful neglect in performance of an
individual or entity involving environmental act which law requires resulting from an
damage of such magnitude as to prejudice office, trust or station, or
the life, health or property of inhabitants in
two or more cities or provinces. [2] Unlawful exclusion of another from the
use or enjoyment of such right
In both [1] and [2] there must be no other

plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the
ordinary course of law
Who May File
Broad range of persons such as natural or Available only to one who is personally
juridical person, entity authorized by law, aggrieved by the unlawful act or omission.
accredited NGOs or public interest group on
behalf of persons whose right to a
balanced and healthful ecology is violated
or threatened to be violated.
Respondent
May either be a public official or Only against government or its officers
employee or even a private individual
or entity
Docket Fees
Exempted Exempted
Jurisdiction
May only be filed with the 1. RTC exercising jurisdiction over
1. Supreme Court the territory where actionable
2. Any stations of Court of Appeals neglect or omission occurred;
2. Court of Appeals
3. Supreme Court
Flowchart of Procedure
FILING OF PETITION Within 3 days ORDER

with the Supreme Court or to issue the writ and requiring
any of the stations of the the respondent to file a return
Court of Appeals
CLERK OF COURT
[1] Issues the writ, and

[2] Effect the service of the
writ either personally or by
substituted service.
Within 10 days from

service of the writ
RETURN
A verified return shall be filed
by the respondent
If return is filed If no return is filed
PRELIMINARY CONFERENCE AND HEARING EX PARTE HEARING

Which shall not extend beyond 60 days,
including the preliminary conference
SUBMISSION FOR DECISION

Within 60 days
from submission
DECISION
MR
APPEAL TO THE SC
(If filed with the CA)
Via Rule 45 but may raise questions of
fact as an exception
IV. JURISPRUDENCE ON THE WRIT OF KALIKASAN
The cases are discussed and categorized under the following topics:
1. Legal Standing
2. Precautionary Principle
3. Evidentiary Matters
I. Legal Standing
The first Supreme Court case ever in Philippine jurisprudential history to rule
on a petition for the issuance of a writ of kalikasan is the case of Arigo, et.al., vs.
Scott H. Swift. Its most significant pronouncement is on the issue of legal standing.
Most Rev. Pedro Arigo v. Scott H. Swift

G.R. No. 206510, September 16, 2014
Nominal Parties:
MOST REV. PEDRO D. ARIGO - Vicar Apostolic of Puerto Princesa

SCOTT H. SWIFT - Commander of the U.S. 7th Fleet
Facts:
This case concerns the Tubbataha Reefs, which are located in the middle of
Central Sulu Sea, 150 kilometers southeast of Puerto Princesa City. On April 6,
2010, Congress passed Republic Act No. 10067, also known as the
“Tubbataha Reefs Natural Park (TRNP) Act of 2009” “to ensure the
protection and conservation of the globally significant economic, biological,
sociocultural, educational and scientific values of the Tubbataha Reefs into
perpetuity for the enjoyment of present and future generations.”
Relevant to the case is the entry of the USS Guardian, an Avenger-class

mine countermeasures ship of the US Navy, in Philippine waters.
In December 2012, the US Embassy in the Philippines requested diplomatic

clearance for the said vessel “to enter and exit the territorial waters of the
Philippines and to arrive at the port of Subic Bay for the purpose of routine ship
replenishment, maintenance, and crew liberty.”
On January 6, 2013, the ship left Sasebo, Japan for Subic Bay, arriving on
January 13, 2013 after a brief stop for fuel in Okinawa, Japan.
On January 15, 2013, the USS Guardian departed Subic Bay for its next port
of call in Makassar, Indonesia.
On January 17, 2013 at 2:20 a.m. while transiting the Sulu Sea, the ship ran
aground on the northwest side of South Shoal of the Tubbataha Reefs, about 80
miles east-southeast of Palawan. No one was injured in the incident, and there
have been no reports of leaking fuel or oil.
Petitioners claim that the grounding, salvaging and post-salvaging

operations of the USS Guardian cause and continue to cause environmental
damage of such magnitude as to affect the provinces of Palawan, Antique, Aklan,
Guimaras, Iloilo, Negros Occidental, Negros Oriental, Zamboanga del Norte,
Basilan, Sulu, and Tawi-Tawi, which events violate their constitutional rights to a
balanced and healthful ecology.
In addition to praying for the issuance of a writ of kalikasan which would

enjoin the operations of the Guardian, the petitioners also cited the following
violations committed by US respondents under R.A. No. 10067:
1. unauthorized entry (Section 19);

2. non-payment of conservation fees (Section 21);
3. obstruction of law enforcement officer (Section 30);
4. damages to the reef (Section 20); and
5. destroying and disturbing resources (Section 26[g]).
Issue no. 1: Whether or not petitioners have legal standing. – Yes.
Held:
Locus standi is “a right of appearance in a court of justice on a given

question.” Specifically, it is “a party’s personal and substantial interest in a case
where he has sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result” of the act being
challenged, and “calls for more than just a generalized grievance.” However, the
rule on standing is a procedural matter which this Court has relaxed for non-
traditional plaintiffs like ordinary citizens, taxpayers and legislators when the
public interest so requires, such as when the subject matter of the controversy is of
transcendental importance, of overreaching significance to society, or of
paramount public interest.
In the landmark case of Oposa v. Factoran, Jr., we recognized the “public

right” of citizens to “a balanced and healthful ecology which, for the first time in
our constitutional history, is solemnly incorporated in the fundamental law.” We
declared that the right to a balanced and healthful ecology need not be written in
the Constitution for it is assumed, like other civil and political rights guaranteed in
the Bill of Rights, to exist from the inception of mankind and it is an issue of
transcendental importance with intergenerational implications. Such right carries
with it the correlative duty to refrain from impairing the environment.
On the novel element in the class suit filed by the petitioner’s minors in
Oposa, this Court ruled that not only do ordinary citizens have legal standing to
sue for the enforcement of environmental rights, they can do so in representation
of their own and future generations.
Issue no. 2: Whether or not US respondents may be held liable for damages
caused by USS Guardian. – Yes.
The US respondents were sued in their official capacity as commanding

officers of the US Navy who had control and supervision over the USS Guardian
and its crew. The alleged act or omission resulting in the unfortunate grounding of
the USS Guardian on the TRNP was committed while they were performing official
military duties. Considering that the satisfaction of a judgment against said
officials will require remedial actions and appropriation of funds by the US
government, the suit is deemed to be one against the US itself. The principle of
State immunity therefore bars the exercise of jurisdiction by this Court over the
persons of respondents Swift, Rice and Robling.
During the deliberations, Senior Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio took the
position that the conduct of the US in this case, when its warship entered a
restricted area in violation of R.A. No. 10067 and caused damage to the TRNP reef
system, brings the matter within the ambit of Article 31 of the United Nations
Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). He explained that while historically,
warships enjoy sovereign immunity from suit as extensions of their flag State, Art.
31 of the UNCLOS creates an exception to this rule in cases where they fail to
comply with the rules and regulations of the coastal State regarding passage
through the latter’s internal waters and the territorial sea.
According to Justice Carpio, although the US to date has not ratified the
UNCLOS, as a matter of long-standing policy the US considers itself bound by
customary international rules on the “traditional uses of the oceans” as codified in
UNCLOS.
Moreover, Justice Carpio emphasizes that “the US refusal to join the

UNCLOS was centered on its disagreement with UNCLOS” regime of deep seabed
mining (Part XI) which considers the oceans and deep seabed commonly owned by
mankind,” pointing out that such “has nothing to do with its the US’ acceptance of
customary international rules on navigation.”
The Court also fully concurred with Justice Carpio’s view that non-
membership in the UNCLOS does not mean that the US will disregard the rights of
the Philippines as a Coastal State over its internal waters and territorial sea. We
thus expect the US to bear “international responsibility” under Art. 31 in
connection with the USS Guardian grounding which adversely affected the
Tubbataha reefs.
In fine, the relevance of UNCLOS provisions to the present controversy is

beyond dispute. Although the said treaty upholds the immunity of warships
from the jurisdiction of Coastal States while navigating the latter’s
territorial sea, the flag States shall be required to leave the territorial sea
immediately if they flout the laws and regulations of the Coastal State,
and they will be liable for damages caused by their warships or any other
government vessel operated for non-commercial purposes under Article
31.
Issue no. 3: Whether or not the waiver of immunity from suit under VFA applies
in this case. – No.
Held:
The waiver of State immunity under the VFA pertains only to criminal
jurisdiction and not to special civil actions such as the present petition for
issuance of a writ of Kalikasan. In fact, it can be inferred from Section 17,
Rule 7 of the Rules that a criminal case against a person charged with a
violation of an environmental law is to be filed separately.
The Court considered a view that a ruling on the application or non-

application of criminal jurisdiction provisions of the VFA to US personnel who may
be found responsible for the grounding of the USS Guardian, would be premature
and beyond the province of a petition for a writ of Kalikasan.
The Court also found unnecessary at this point to determine whether such
waiver of State immunity is indeed absolute. In the same vein, we cannot grant
damages which have resulted from the violation of environmental laws. The Rules
allows the recovery of damages, including the collection of administrative fines
under R.A. No. 10067, in a separate civil suit or that deemed instituted with the
criminal action charging the same violation of an environmental law.
DISCUSSION:
• Relaxed Rule of Legal Standing

The Court also cited the case of Oposa vs. Factoran, Jr. when it ruled
that the petitioners had a legal standing to file the petition because they, as
citizens, “have the public right to a balanced and healthful ecology”. It
emphasized that the traditional rules on legal standing are relaxed for non-
traditional plaintiffs like ordinary citizens, taxpayers and legislators when the
public interest so requires, such as when the subject matter of the controversy
is of transcendental importance, of overreaching significance to society, or of
paramount public interest.
• Nature of a Writ of Kalikasan: A Special Civil Action

In this case, the Court, taking notice of the fact that the waiver of
immunity under the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) pertained only to
criminal cases, ruled that a writ of kalikasan is a special civil action.
II. Precautionary Principle

In ruling on environmental cases, the Rules of Procedure for Environmental
Cases provide for the precautionary principle. The precautionary principle only
applies when the link between the cause, that is the human activity sought to be
inhibited, and the effect, that is the damage to the environment, cannot be
established with full scientific certainty.
ISAAA et al., v. Greenpeace (Philippines), et al.

G.R. No. 209271, December 08, 2015
Facts:
A Memorandum of Undertaking (MOU) was executed between UP Los Banos,

ISAAA and UP Mindanao in pursuance of a collaborative research and development
project on eggplants that are resistant to the fruit and shoot borer.
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 Cry1Ac which is toxic to the target insect pests.
The Bureau of Plant Industry (BPI) issued Biosafety Permits to UPLB on early
2010. Thereafter, field testing of Bt talong commenced on various dates in the
following approved trial sites: (1) Kabacan, North Cotabato (2) Sta. Maria,
Pangasinan (3) Pili, Camarines Sur (4) Bago Oshiro, Davao City; and (5) Bay,
Laguna
In April 2012, Greenpeace, MASIPAG and individual respondents

(Greenpeace, et al.) filed a petition for writ of kalikasan and writ of continuing
mandamus with prayer for the issuance of a Temporary Environmental Protection
Order (TEPO). They alleged that the Bt talong field trials violate their constitutional
right to health and a balanced ecology.
On July 10, 2012, the Court issued a Resolution referring the case to the
Court of Appeals for acceptance of the return of the writ and for hearing, reception
of evidence, and rendition of judgment.
In a Decision dated May 17, 2013, the CA ruled in favor of respondents and
directed petitioners to permanently cease and desist from conducting the Bt talong
field trials.
Main allegations of the plaintiffs:
The field trials of the bioengineered aubergine were a violation of their

constitutional right to health and balanced ecology because:
1. the environmental compliance certificate No.1151 was not secured
prior to the project implementation and
2. because there is no scientific peer reviewed studies that shows that

the Bt gene used in the genetically modified organism is safe for
human consumption and for the environment.
3. In addition to that, the plaintiffs claimed that the field test project did
not comply with the required public consultation under Section 26 &
27 of the Local Government code.
Consequently, the plaintiffs called for the application of the precautionary principle
to this case.
Defendants:
They argued that:

1. They had respected all measures of environmental law and
2. that there was no evidence that the Bt gene of the aubergine could
cause any environmental damage or prejudice the life, health and
property of the neighbouring inhabitants.
Both petitioner and respondents submitted documentary evidence

consisting of reports of scientific studies and articles in support of their respective
positions on the benefits and risks of GM plants.
NOTE: The Biosafety permits had expired in June 2012 and the field trials were
terminated on August 10, 2012. As such, the Court held that the case was
already moot and academic. However, it proceeded to rule on the merits because
it was capable of future repetition.
Issue: Whether or not there is enough evidence to prove that genetically

modified foods are dangerous to human health. – No. (However, the testing
was still banned.)
In relation to this:
Should the writ of kalikasan be granted? – Yes.
Held:
Application of the Precautionary Principle

The precautionary principle only applies when the link between the cause,
that is the human activity sought to be inhibited, and the effect, that is the damage
to the environment, cannot be established with full scientific certainty. The
precautionary principle finds direct application in the evaluation of evidence in
cases before the courts. The precautionary principle bridges the gap in cases where
scientific certainty in factual findings cannot be achieved. By applying the
precautionary principle, the court may construe a set of facts as warranting either
judicial action or inaction, with the goal of preserving and protecting the
environment. This may be further evinced from the second paragraph where bias is
created in favor of the constitutional right of the people to a balanced and healthful
ecology. In effect, the precautionary principle shifts the burden of evidence

of harm away from those likely to suffer harm and onto those desiring to
change the status quo. An application of the precautionary principle to the rules
on evidence will enable courts to tackle future environmental problems before
ironclad scientific consensus emerges.
For purposes of evidence, the precautionary principle should be treated as a

principle of last resort, where application of the regular Rules of Evidence would
cause in an inequitable result for the environmental plaintiff
— (a) settings in which the risks of harm are uncertain; (b) settings in which harm
might be irreversible and what is lost is irreplaceable; and (c) settings in which the
harm that might result would be serious.
When these features — uncertainty, the possibility of irreversible

harm, and the possibility of serious harm — coincide, the case for the
precautionary principle is strongest. When in doubt, cases must be resolved in
favor of the constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology.
Parenthetically, judicial adjudication is one of the strongest fora in which the

precautionary principle may find applicability.
Assessing the evidence on record, as well as the current state of GMO

research worldwide, the Court finds all the three conditions present in this case -
uncertainty, the possibility of irreversible harm and the possibility of serious harm.
Eggplants (talong) are a staple vegetable in the country and grown by small
-scale farmers, majority of whom are poor and marginalized. While the goal of
increasing crop yields to raise farm incomes is laudable, independent scientific
studies revealed uncertainties due to unfulfilled economic benefits from Bt crops
and plants, adverse effects on the environment associated with use of GE
technology in agriculture, and serious health hazards from consumption of GM
foods.
Alongside the aforesaid uncertainties, the non-implementation of the NBF in
the crucial stages of risk assessment and public consultation, including the
determination of the applicability of the EIS requirements to GMO field testing, are
compelling reasons for the application of the precautionary principle. There exists a
preponderance of evidence that the release of GMOs into the environment
threatens to damage our ecosystems and not just the field trial sites, and
eventually the health of our people once the Bt eggplants are consumed as food.
Adopting the precautionary approach, the Court rules that the principles of
the NBF need to be operationalized first by the coordinated actions of the
concerned departments and agencies before allowing the release into the
environment of genetically modified eggplant. The more prudent course is to
immediately enjoin the Bt talong field trials and approval for its propagation or
commercialization until the said government offices shall have performed their
respective mandates to implement the NBF.
Discussion:
• The Precautionary Principle: A Principle of Last Resort

The Supreme Court held that for purposes of evidence, the
precautionary principle should be treated as a principle of last resort, where
application of the regular Rules of Evidence would cause in an inequitable
result for the environmental plaintiff. It takes into consideration the following
features:
(a) settings in which the risks of harm are uncertain;

(b) settings in which harm might be irreversible and what is lost is
irreplaceable; and
(c) settings in which the harm that might result would be serious.
When these features — uncertainty, the possibility of irreversible harm,

and the possibility of serious harm — coincide, the case for the precautionary
principle is strongest. When in doubt, cases must be resolved in favor of the
constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology.
On July 26, 2016, a Motion for Reconsideration (MR) was filed by the
petitioners and they argued, among others, that the case should have been
dismissed for mootness in view of the completion and termination of the Bt
talong field trials and the expiration of the Biosafety Permits. Before the
decision granting the writ was made, the permits had already expired, and the
trials had already been completed. The Supreme Court granted the MR and
ruled in this wise:
To recount, these cases, which stemmed from herein respondents

petition for Writ of Kalikasan, were mooted by the undisputed expiration
of the Biosafety Permits issued by the BPI and the completion and term
ination of the Bt talong field trials subject of the same. These incidents
effectively negated the necessity for the reliefs sought by respondents
in their petition for Writ of Kalikasan as there was no longer any field
test to enjoin. Hence, at the time the CA rendered its Decision dated
May 17, 2013, the reliefs petitioner sought and granted by the CA were
no longer capable of execution.
However, it is worth noting that based on the facts of the

original case, the rationale of the Court in granting the writ was based
on the fact that the extent of the harms and damages of conducting
the trials were uncertain and that it was wiser to take pre-caution by
enjoining
West Tower Condominium v. First Philippine Industrial

G.R. No. 207257, February 03, 2015
Facts:
FPI C operates two pipelines since 1969, viz: (1) the White Oil Pipeline
(WOPL) System, which covers a 117-kilometer stretch from Batangas to the
Pandacan Terminal in Manila and transports diesel, gasoline, jet fuel and kerosene;
and (b) the Black Oil Pipeline (BOPL) System which extends 105 kilometers and
transports bunker fuel from Batangas to a depot in Sucat, Parañaque. These
systems transport nearly 60% of the petroleum requirements of Metro Manila and
parts of the provinces of Bulacan, Laguna, and Rizal.
With regard to the writ of kalikasan, this case mainly centers on a

leak caused by the WOPL pipeline.
In May 2010, however, a leakage from one of the pipelines was suspected
after the residents of West Tower Condominium (West Tower) started to smell gas
within the condominium. A search made on July 10, 2010 within the condominium
premises led to the discovery of a fuel leak from the wall of its Basement. Owing to
its inability to control the flow, West Tower's management reported the matter to
the Police Department of Makati City, which in turn called the city's Bureau of Fire
Protection.
On October 28, 2010, the University of the Philippines-National Institute of

Geological Sciences (UP-NIGS), which the City of Makati invited to determine the
source of the fuel, found a leak in FPIC's WOPL about 86 meters from West Tower.
On November 15, 2010, West Tower Condominium Corporation (West Tower

Corp.) interposed the present Petition for the Issuance of a Writ of Kalikasan on
behalf of the residents of West Tower and in representation of the surrounding
communities in Barangay Bangkal, Makati City. West Tower Corp. also alleged that
it is joined by the civil society and several people's organizations, non-
governmental organizations and public interest groups who have expressed their
intent to join the suit because of the magnitude of the environmental issues
involved.
Petitioners prayed that respondents FPIC and its board of directors and
officers, and First Gen Corporation (FGC) and its board of directors and officers be
directed to [among others]:
xxx
(2) continue to check the structural integrity of the WOPL pipeline and to
replace the same;
(3) make periodic reports on their findings with regard to the WOPL pipeline
and their replacement of the same;
(4) rehabilitate and restore the environment, especially Barangay Bangkal

and West Tower, at least to what it was before the signs of the leak became
manifest; and
xxx
Furthermore, petitioners pray that respondents be prohibited from

opening the pipeline and allowing the use thereof until the same has been
thoroughly checked and replaced and be temporarily restrained from
operating the pipeline until the final resolution of the case.
To bolster their petition, petitioners argued that FPIC's omission or failure to

timely replace. its pipelines and to observe extraordinary diligence caused the
petroleum spill in the City of Makati. Thus, for petitioners, the continued use of the
now 7-year old pipeline would not only be a hazard or a threat to the lives, health,
and property of those who live or sojourn in all the municipalities in which the
pipeline is laid, but would also affect the rights of the generations yet unborn to
live in a balanced and "healthful ecology," guaranteed under Section 16, Article II
of the 1987 Constitution.
On November 19, 2010, the Court issued the Writ of Kalikasan with a
Temporary Environmental Protection Order (TEPO) requiring respondents
FPIC, FGC, and the members of their Boards of Directors to file their respective
verified returns. The TEPO enjoined FPIC and FGC to:
(a) cease and desist from operating the WOPL until further orders;
(b) check the structural integrity of the whole span of the 117-kilometer
WOPL while implementing sufficient measures to prevent and avert any
untoward incident that may result from any leak of the pipeline; and
(c) make a report thereon within 60 days from receipt thereof.
On January 21, 2011, FPIC, in compliance with the writ, submitted its 4-
page "Report on Pipeline Integrity Check and Preventive Maintenance Program." In
gist, FPIC reported the following: (I) For the structural integrity of the 117-
kilometer pipeline, (a) the DOE engaged the services of UP-NIGS to do borehole
testing on 81 pre-identified critical areas of the WOPL in eight cities and
municipalities-all the boreholes showed negative presence of petroleum vapors;
(b) pressure tests were conducted after the repair of the leak and results showed
negative leaks and the DOE's pipeline expert, Societe General de Surveillance, New
Zealand, has developed a pressure test protocol requiring a 24-hour operation of
running a scraper pig through the pipeline to eliminate air gap; (c) In-Line
Inspection Test, was conducted by NDT through MFL and ultrasonic. The NDT
later cleared the WOPL from any damage or corrosion.
Subsequently, the Department of Energy (DOE) issued a

certification attesting to the safety of the WOPL for continued commercial
operations.
To expedite the resolution of the controversy, the Court remanded the case
to the Court of Appeals (CA). However, the CA found FPIC's tests and
maintenance program to be insufficient and inconclusive to establish the
WOPL' s structural integrity for continued commercial operation.
Issue no. 1: Should the TEPO be lifted? – No.
In relation to this:
Has the writ of kalikasan become functus officio? – No.
Held:
The DOE certification is not an absolute attestation as to the WOPL's

structural integrity. Consider also the fact that the DOE itself imposed several
conditions upon FPIC for the resumption of the operations of the WOPL. This,
coupled with the submission by the DOE of its proposed preparatory
activities for its reopening and timetable, is a clear and unequivocal
message coming from the DOE that the WOPL's soundness for resumption
of and continued commercial operations is not yet fully determined. And it
is only after an extensive determination by the DOE of the pipeline's actual
physical state through its proposed activities, and not merely through a short-form
integrity audit, that the factual issue on the WOPL's viability can be settled. The
issue, therefore, on the pipeline's structural integrity has not yet been
rendered moot and remains to be subject to this Court's resolution.
Consequently, We cannot say that the DOE's issuance of the certification
adverted to equates to the writ of kalikasan being functus officio at this
point.
Issue no. 2: Does the precautionary principle apply in this case – No.
Held:
The precautionary principle only applies when the link between the cause,
that is the human activity sought to be inhibited, and the effect, that is the damage
to the environment, cannot be established with full scientific certainty.
Here, however, such absence of a link is not an issue. Detecting the

existence of a leak or the presence of defects in the WOPL, which is the issue in the
case at bar, is different from determining whether the spillage of hazardous
materials into the surroundings will cause environmental damage or will harm
human health or that of other organisms. As a matter of fact, the petroleum
leak and the harm that it caused to the environment and to the residents
of the affected areas is not even questioned by FPIC.
It must be stressed that what is in issue in the instant petition is the WOPL’s
compliance with pipeline structure standards so as to make it fit for its purpose, a
question of fact that is to be determined on the basis of the evidence presented by
the parties on the WOPL’s actual state. Hence, Our consideration of the numerous
findings and recommendations of the CA, the DOE, and the amici curiae on the
WOPL’ s present structure, and not the cited pipeline incidents as the dissent
propounds.
Discussion:
• Writ of Kalikasan still in effect because of the uncertainty of pipeline’s

structural integrity
The Court acknowledged that the DOE has the expertise to properly rule
and analyze the situation regarding the WOPL. However, it also scrutinized the
details of the DOE’s certification and concluded that the soundness of its
structural integrity has not yet been fully determined. As such, the writ was
still in effect.
• The Precautionary Principle: When Not Applicable

The Court also discussed the inapplicability of the precautionary
principle. The Court emphasized that the principle applies only when a
question on the damage to the environment cannot be established with full
scientific certainty. It can be gleaned from the ruling that if the issue at hand is
not related to the question of whether or not the human activity in question
will cause significant environmental damage, then the precautionary principle
will not apply. In the case, the issue was concerned with the structural
integrity of the pipeline – a question which can be answered with scientific
certainty. It is also worth noting that it does not relate to any concern relating
to environmental damage.
III. Evidentiary Matters

The Supreme Court has ruled that as a basic rule, the prescribed requisites for
the issuance of a writ of kalikasan must be proven by the petitioners. The Court has
also held that the quantum of proof for petitions concerning the writ is not specifically
stated and that whether the damage alleged warrants the granting of the same is to
be determined on a case-to-case basis. The following cases are instructive on the
topic:
Paje v. Casiño
G.R. No. 207257, February 03, 2015
Facts:
In February 2006, Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority· (SBMA), a government

agency organized and established under Republic Act No. (RA) 7227,4 and Taiwan
Cogeneration Corporation (TCC) entered into a Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU) expressing their intention to build a power plant in Subic Bay which would
supply reliable and affordable power to Subic Bay Industrial Park (SBIP).
On July 28, 2006, SBMA and TCC entered into another MOU, whereby TCC
undertook to build and operate a coal-fired power plant.
On April 4, 2007, the SBMA Ecology Center issued SBFZ Environmental

Compliance Certificate (ECC) No. EC-SBFZ-ECC-69-21-500 in favor of Taiwan
Cogeneration International Corporation (TCIC), a subsidiary of TCC,9 for the
construction, installation,and operation of 2x150-MW Circulating Fluidized Bed
(CFB) Coal-Fired Thermal Power Plant at Sitio Naglatore.
On June 6, 2008, TCC assigned all its rights and interests under the MOU
dated July 28, 2006 to Redondo Peninsula Energy, Inc. (RP Energy).
On August 1, 2011, the Sangguniang Panglalawiganof Zambales issued

Resolution No. 2011-149, opposing the establishment of a coal-fired thermal
power plant at Sitio Naglatore, Brgy. Cawag, Subic, Zambales.26
On August 11, 2011, the Liga ng mga Barangay of Olongapo City issued
Resolution No. 12, Series of 2011, expressing its strong objection to the coal-fired
power plant as an energy source.
On July 20, 2012, the Casiño Group filed before this Court a Petition for Writ
of Kalikasan against RP Energy, SBMA, and Hon. Ramon Jesus P. Paje, in his
capacity as Secretary of the DENR.
On July 31, 2012, this Court resolved, among others, to refer the case to the
CA for hearing and reception of evidence and rendition of judgment.
On September 11, 2012, the Petition for Writ of Kalikasan was docketed as CA-
G.R. SP No. 00015 and raffled to the Fifteenth Division of the CA.
In the Petition, the Casiño Group alleged, among others, that:
1. the power plant project would cause grave environmental

damage;
2. that it would adversely affect the health of the residents of the
municipalities of Subic, Zambales, Morong, Hermosa, and the City of
Olongapo;
3. that the ECC was issued and the LDA entered into without the prior
approval of the concerned sanggunians as required under Sections 26
and 27 of the Local Government Code (LGC);
4. that the LDA was entered into without securing a prior certification from
the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) as required
under Section 59 of RA8371 or the Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act of
1997 (IPRA Law);
5. that Section 8.3 of DENR Administrative Order No. 2003-30 (DAO 2003-
30) which allows amendments of ECCs is ultra vires because the DENR
has no authority to decide on requests for amendments of previously
issued ECCs in the absence of a new EIS;
6. and that due to the nullity of Section 8.3 of DAO 2003-30, all
amendments to RP Energy’s ECC are null and void.
Issue: Whether or not the Casino Group failed to substantiate its claims that the
construction and operation of the power plant will cause environmental damage.
– Yes.
Held:
The writ is categorized as a special civil action and was, thus, conceptualized
as an extraordinary remedy, which aims to provide judicial relief from threatened
or actual violation/s of the constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology
of a magnitude or degree of damage that transcends political and territorial
boundaries. It is intended "to provide a stronger defense for environmental rights
through judicial efforts where institutional arrangements of enforcement,
implementation and legislation have fallen short" and seeks "to address the
potentially exponential nature of large-scale ecological threats."
Under Section 1 of Rule 7, the following requisites must be present to avail

of this extraordinary remedy:
(1) there is an actual or threatened violation of the constitutional right to
a balanced and healthful ecology;
(2) the actual or threatened violation arises from an unlawful act or
omission of a public official or employee, or private individual or entity; and
(3) the actual or threatened violation involves or will lead to an
environmental damage of such magnitude as to prejudice the life, health or
property of inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces.
Expectedly, the Rules do not define the exact nature or degree of

environmental damage but only that it must be sufficiently grave, in terms of the
territorial scope of such damage, so as to call for the grant of this extraordinary
remedy. The gravity of environmental damage sufficient to grant the writ
is, thus, to be decided on a case-to case basis.
If the petitioner successfully proves the foregoing requisites, the

court shall render judgment granting the privilege of the writ of kalikasan.
Otherwise, the petition shall be denied.
If the petition is granted, the court may grant the reliefs provided for under
Section 15 of Rule 7, to wit:
Section 15. Judgment. — Within sixty (60) days from the time the petition is
submitted for decision, the court shall render judgment granting or denying the
privilege of the writ of kalikasan.
The reliefs that may be granted under the writ are the following:
(a) Directing respondent to permanently cease and desist from committing

acts or neglecting the performance of a duty in violation of
environmental laws resulting in environmental destruction or damage;
(b) Directing the respondent public official, government agency, private

person or entity to protect, preserve, rehabilitate or restore the
environment;
(c) Directing the respondent public official, government agency, private

person or entity to monitor strict compliance with the decision and orders
of the court;
(d) Directing the respondent public official, government agency, or private

person or entity to make periodic reports on the execution of the final
judgment; and
(e) Such other reliefs which relate to the right of the people to a balanced
and healthful ecology or to the protection, preservation, rehabilitation or
restoration of the environment, except the award of damages to
individual petitioners.
It must be noted, however, that the above enumerated reliefs are non-
exhaustive. The reliefs that may be granted under the writ are broad,
comprehensive and non-exclusive.
IN THE CASE:
The three witnesses presented by the Casiño Group are not experts on the
CFB technology or on environmental matters. These witnesses even admitted on
cross-examination that they are not competent to testify on the environmental
impact of the subject project. What is wanting in their testimonies is their technical
knowledge of the project design/implementation or some other aspects of the
project, even those not requiring expert knowledge, vis-à-vis the significant
negative environmental impacts which the Casiño Group alleged will occur. Clearly,
the Casiño Group failed to carry the onus of proving the alleged significant
negative environmental impacts of the project. In comparison, RP Energy
presented several experts to refute the allegations of the Casiño Group.
The appellate court correctly ruled that the Casiño Group failed to
substantiate its claims that the construction and operation of the power plant will
cause environmental damage of the magnitude contemplated under the writ of
kalikasan. On the other hand, RP Energy presented evidence to establish that the
subject project will not cause grave environmental damage, through its
Environmental Management Plan, which will ensure that the project will operate
within the limits of existing environmental laws and standards.
Discussion:
• Requisites for the Issuance of a Writ of Kalikasan:

(1) there is an actual or threatened violation of the constitutional right to a
balanced and healthful ecology;
(2) the actual or threatened violation arises from an unlawful act or
omission of a public official or employee, or private individual or entity;
and
(3) the actual or threatened violation involves or will lead to an
environmental damage of such magnitude as to prejudice the life,
health or property of inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces.
• Significant Environmental Damage Must Be Proven

The Court emphasized that before a writ of kailkasan may be granted,
the petitioner must properly substantiate the claim that significant
environmental damage will occur if the act in question is not enjoined.
Otherwise, the writ will not be issued.
Pilar Cañeda Braga v. Hon. Abaya

G.R. No. 223076, September 13, 2016
Facts:
In 2011, the Sasa Wharf was pegged for privatization under the PPP
scheme.
In 2012, the PPA commissioned a feasibility study (PPA study) on the

current condition of the Sasa Wharf and its potential new targets in volume
increase expansion. The study, which was completed in 2012, was conducted by
Science & Vision For Technology, Inc.
The PPA study estimated that the modernization project would cost an
estimated 3.5 Billion pesos for the purchase of new equipment and the installation
of new facilities.
However, the DOTC commissioned another firm, Hamburg port Consultants,

to conduct a second feasibility study (DOTC study) which was concluded in 2013.
The DOTC study has a projected cost of 18 billion pesos and requires the expansion
of Sasa Wharf by 27.9 hectares.
The DOTC study served as one of the primary considerations for current
Sasa Wharf expansion project.
On December 21, 2014, the Regional Development Council for Region XI

(the Council) endorsed the project through Resolution No. 118 subject to the
following conditions that must be met before its implementation:
(1) The DOTC shall immediately secure the acquisition of 6.4 hectares of
right of way, per recommendation of the National Economic and
Development Authority - Investment Coordination Committee (NEDA-
ICC);
(2) The DOTC shall ensure that appropriate compensation is paid to the
owners of the properties to be acquired as additional right of way;
(3) The DOTC shall ensure the proper relocation/resettlement of the

informal settlers affected by the project; and
(4) The DOTC shall ensure the project will also benefit the port users and
the people of Davao by providing better, more affordable service, and
generating sustainable employment opportunities.
On April 10, 2015, the DOTC published an invitation to pre-qualify and bid
for the Project.
On March 15, 2016, the petitioners - all stakeholders from Davao City and
Samal, Davao del Norte - filed this Urgent Petition for a Writ of Continuing
Mandamus and/or Writ of Kalikasan.
The Petition
They argue that the DOTC's implementation of the project - one that as a
significant impact on the environment - without preparing an Environmental
Impact Statement, securing an ECC, or consulting the affected stakeholders,
violates their constitutional right to a healthy and balanced ecology.
The Counter-arguments
(1) The respondents, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG),
invoke the prematurity of the petition. They argue that the Project is
still in the bidding process; thus, there is still no proponent to
implement it.
(2) The proponent — not the respondents — has the duty to initiate the
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process and to apply for the
issuance of the ECC. Until the bidding process is concluded, the EIA
process cannot be undertaken and it would be premature to impute
noncompliance with the Environmental Impact Statement System.
(3) Moreover, consultation with the stakeholders and the local

government is premature and speculative at this point because the
proponent has not yet identified the actual details of the project's
implementation. Again, compliance with the consultation
requirements of the LGC remains premature pending the award of the
contract.
(4) They further argue that the allegations do not warrant the issuance of
a writ of kalikasan because the petitioners failed to prove the threat of
health, or property of inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces.
Issue: Should the writ of kalikasan be issued? – No.
Held:
The petition does not warrant a writ of Kalikasan.
The writ is a remedy to anyone whose constitutional right to a balanced and

healthful ecology is violated or threatened with violation by an unlawful act or
omission. However, the violation must involve environmental damage of such
magnitude as to prejudice the life, health, or property of inhabitants in two or
more cities or provinces in order to arrant the issuance of the writ.
The petitioners allege that the respondents have begun the process of
transgressing their right to health and a balanced ecology through the bidding
process. They cite The Competitiveness of Global Port-Cities: Synthesis Report to
identify the four major negative impacts related to port operations: 1)
environmental impacts, 2) land use impacts, 3) traffic impacts, and 4) other
impacts. The synthesis report claims that most of these impacts affect the
surrounding localities.
They claim that the environmental impacts of port operations "are within the
field of air emissions, water quality, soil, waste, biodiversity, noise and other
impacts. These environmental impacts can have consequences for the health of the
population of the port city, especially the poorer parts of port cities."
The petitioners also cite Managing Impacts of Development in Coastal Zone,

a joint publication of the DENR, the Bureau of Fisheries Aquatic Resources (BFAR),
the Department of the Interior and Government (DILG), and the DENR Coastal
Resource Management Project (CRMP) that identified the effects of coastal
construction and reclam including ports and offshore moorings.[46] The petition
alleges that:
According to Managing Impacts, "Coastal construction has been the most

widespread of activities affecting coastal resources" since "Any construction that
modifies the shoreline will invariably change currents, wave action, tidal
fluctuations, and the transport of sediments along the coast" while "Coastal
construction that restricts the circulation of coastal water bodies can also degrade
water quali[t]y and coastal ecosystems."
However, these allegations are insufficient to warrant a writ of

kalikasan.
First, the petition failed to identify the particular threats from the Project
itself. All it does is cite the negative impacts of operating a port inside a
city based on the Synthesis Report.
Second, the joint publication is titled Managing Impacts of Development in

the Coastal Zone for a reason; it identifies the potential environmental impacts and
proposes mitigation measures to protest the environment. The petition is
misleading because it only identified the risks but neglected to mention
the existence and availability of mitigating measures.
Moreover, this Court does not have the technical competence to assess the
Project, identify the environmental threats, and weigh the sufficiency or
insufficiency of any proposed mitigation measures. This specialized competence is
lodged in the DENR, who acts through the EMB In the EIA process. As we have
already established, the application of the EIS System is premature until a
proponent is selected.
Further, we fail to see an environmental risk that threatens to prejudice the

inhabitants of two or more cities or municipalities if we do not restrain the conduct
of the bidding process. The bidding process is not equivalent to the implementation
of the project. The bidding process itself 'cannot conceivably cause any
environmental damage.
Finally, it is premature to conclude that the respondents violated the

conditions of Resolution No. 118 issued by the Regional Development Council of
Region XI. Notably, the Resolution requires compliance before the implementation
of the project. Again, the project has not yet reached the implementation
stage.
Discussion:
• Filing a petition before any act has been committed will make such
petition premature
The Court emphasized that before a writ of kalikasan may be issued, it
must be proven that an unlawful act has been committed and that the said act
will cause great environmental damage.
• Environmental Damage Must be Significant: Must affect two or more

cities or provinces
The Court also discussed that the environmental damage must be of
great magnitudes. The writ of kalikasan is meant to remedy damages that
affect at least two (2) cities or provinces.
LNL Archipelago Minerals, Inc., v. Agham Party List

G.R. No. 209165, April 12, 2016
Facts:
LNL Archipelago Minerals, Inc. (LAMI) is the operator of a mining claim

located in Sta. Cruz, Zambales. LAMI's mining area is covered by Mineral
Production Sharing Agreement No. 268-2008-III dated 26 August 2008 by virtue
of an Operating Agreement dated 5 June 2007 with Filipinas Mining Corporation.
LAMI embarked on a project to build a private, non-commercial port in Brgy.

Bolitoc, Sta. Cruz, Zambales.
LAMI secured the following permits and compliance certificates for the port
project: (1) Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR)
Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC) R03-1104-182 dated 2 May 2011
covering the development of causeway, stockpile and related facilities on LAMI’s
property with an area of 18,142 sq.m.; (2) DENR provisional foreshore lease
agreement with LAMI; (3) Philippine Ports Authority (PPA) Clearance to Develop a
Port; (4) PPA Permit to Construct a Port; (5) PPA Special Permit to Operate a
Beaching Facility; and (6) Tree Cutting Permit/Certification from the Community
Environment and Natural Resources Office (CENRO) of the DENR.
The Bolitoc community - the barangay, its officials and residents -gave
several endorsements supporting the project. Even the Sangguniang Bayan of Sta.
Cruz gave its consent to the construction of the port.
However, LAMI allegedly encountered problems from the local government

of Sta. Cruz, headed by Mayor Luisito E. Marty (Mayor Marty). LAMI stated that
Mayor Marty unduly favored some mining companies in the municipality and
allegedly refused to issue business and mayor’s permits and to receive payment of
occupation fees from other mining companies despite the necessary national
permits and licenses secured by the other mining companies.
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 Biñan to implement his order.
Thereafter, Rep. Dan Fernandez, a member of the Committee on Ecology of

the House of Representatives, passed House Resolution No. 117 (HR 117) entitled
"Resolution Directing the Committee on Ecology to Conduct an Inquiry, in Aid of
Legislation, on the Implementation of Republic Act No. 7942, Otherwise Known as
the Philippine Mining Act of 1995, Particularly on the Adverse Effects of Mining on
the Environment."
The DENR PENRO team found that LAMI violated some of its conditions
under the ECC. Accordingly, a Notice of Violation (NOV) dated 1 June 2012 was
issued against LAMI for violation of certain conditions of the ECC with a cease and
desist order from further constructing and developing until such time that the ECC
conditions were fully complied.
On 8 June 2012, a technical conference was held where LAMI presented its
reply to the NOV. The DENR-EMB R3 ascertained that LAMI's violations of the four
conditions of its ECC constitute minor violations since they only pertain to non-
submission of documents. However, the leveling of the elevated portion of
the area was a major violation.
On 11 June 2012, LAMI wrote a letter to the DENR-EMB R3 regarding the

commitments agreed upon during the technical conference. LAMI signified
compliance with the conditions of DENR-EMB R3.
The composite team found that LAMI's activities in its property would not
result to any environmental damage to its surrounding communities.
Thereafter, the DENR-EMB R3 lifted the cease and desist order after
LAMI was found to have complied with the requirements.
Meanwhile, 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).
In a Decision dated 23 November 2012, the Court of Appeals decided the

case in favor of petitioner. The appellate court found that the government, through
the CENRO, authorized LAMI to cut trees and LAMI strictly followed the proper
guidelines stated in the permit.
Agham filed a Motion for Reconsideration with the Court of Appeals.

In an Amended Decision dated 13 September 2013, the Court of Appeals
reversed and set aside its original Decision dated 23 November 20. It
granted the writ.
Issue: Did LAMI commit any violations which would cause environmental
damage of such magnitude as to prejudice the life, health or property of
inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces? – No.
The Writ of Kalikasan, categorized as a special civil action and

conceptualized as an extraordinary remedy, covers environmental damage of such
magnitude that will prejudice the life, health or property of inhabitants in two or
In the present case, Agham, in its Petition for a Writ of Kalikasan, cited two
laws which LAMI allegedly violated: (1) Section 68 of the Revised Forestry Code, as
amended; and (2) Sections 57 and 69 of the Philippine Mining Act.
The allegations were negated by Director Lormelyn E. Claudio, the Regional

Director for Region III of the Environment Management Bureau of the DENR, who
reported that:
1. There is no illegal cutting of trees since a Tree Cutting Permit was issued by
the Community Environment and Natural Resources Office (CENRO).
Monitoring of the compliance with the conditions of the said Permit was also
undertaken by the CENRO; and
2. There is no leveling of a mountain. As certified by the Mines and
Geosciences Bureau Region 3, the landform in the area is an elongated
mound which is 164 meters in length and 94 meters in width and its
maximum elevation is 26 meters above mean sea level.
The allegations 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.
Discussion: There was failure to substantiate their claims. As a result, the Curt
denied the petition.
Victoria Segovia v. Climate Change Commission
GR No. 211010, March 07, 2017
Facts:
Petitioners filed a petition for the issuance of writs of kalikasan and

continuing mandamus to compel the implementation of the following
environmental laws and executive issuances—Climate Change Act (RA 9729) and
Clean Air Act (RA 8749); EO 774; AO 254, s. 2009; and AO 171, s. 2007.
The Climate Commission is the lead policy-making body of the government

which is tasked to coordinate, monitor and evaluate the programs and action plans
of the government relating to climate change.
Petitioners are Carless People of the Philippines. They claim that they are
entitled to the issuance of the extraordinary writs due to the alleged failure and
refusal of respondents to perform an act mandated by environmental laws, and
violation of environmental laws resulting in environmental damage of such
magnitude as to prejudice the life, health and property of all Filipinos. The thrust
of the petition is to compel the respondents to act one way to implement
the Road Sharing Principle—to bifurcate all roads in the country to devote
half to sidewalk and bicycling, and the other to Filipino-made transport.
Issue: Whether or not a writ of Kalikasan and/or Continuing Mandamus should

issue. – No.
Held:
For a writ of kalikasan to issue, the following requisites must concur:
1. there is an actual or threatened violation of the constitutional right to

a balanced and healthful ecology;
2. the actual or threatened violation arises from an unlawful act or

omission of a public official or employee, or private individual or
entity; and
3. the actual or threatened violation involves or will lead to an

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 this case, apart from repeated invocation of the constitutional right to

health and to a balanced and healthful ecology and bare allegations that their right
was violated, the petitioners failed to show that public respondents are guilty of
any unlawful act or omission that constitutes a violation of the petitioners' right to
a balanced and healthful ecology.
While there can be no disagreement with the general propositions put forth
by the petitioners on the correlation of air quality and public health, petitioners
have not been able to show that respondents are guilty of violation or
neglect of environmental laws that causes or contributes to bad air
quality. Notably, apart from bare allegations, petitioners were not able to
show that respondents failed to execute any of the laws petitioners cited.
In fact, apart from adducing expert testimony on the adverse effects of air
pollution on public health, the petitioners did not go beyond mere allegation
in establishing the unlawful acts or omissions on the part of the public
respondents that have a causal link or reasonable connection to the actual
or threatened violation of the constitutional right to a balanced and
healthful ecology of the magnitude contemplated under the Rules, as
required of petitions of this nature.
Moreover, the National Air Quality Status Report for 2005-2007 (NAQSR)
submitted by the petitioners belies their claim that the DENR failed to reduce air
pollutant emissions - in fact, the NAQSR shows that the National Ambient Total
Suspended Particulates (TSP) value used to determine air quality has steadily
declined from 2004 to 2007, and while the values still exceed the air quality
guideline value, it has remained on this same downward trend until as recently as
2011.
The RPEC did liberalize the requirements on standing, allowing the filing of
citizen's suit for the enforcement of rights and obligations under environmental
laws. However, it bears noting that there is a difference between a petition for the
issuance of a writ of kalikasan, wherein it is sufficient that the person filing
represents the inhabitants prejudiced by the environmental damage subject of the
writ; and a petition for the issuance of a writ of continuing mandamus, which is
only available to one who is personally aggrieved by the unlawful act or omission.
Under the RPEC, the writ of kalikasan is an extraordinary remedy covering

environmental damage of such magnitude that will prejudice the life, health or
property of inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces. It is designed for a
narrow but special purpose: to accord a stronger protection for environmental
rights, aiming, among others, to provide a speedy and effective resolution of a
case involving the violation of one's constitutional right to a healthful and balanced
ecology that transcends political and territorial boundaries, and to address the
potentially exponential nature of large-scale ecological threats.
At the very least, the magnitude of the ecological problems contemplated

under the RPEC satisfies at least one of the exceptions to the rule on hierarchy of
courts, as when direct resort is allowed where it is dictated by public welfare. Given
that the RPEC allows direct resort to this Court, it is ultimately within the Court's
discretion whether or not to accept petitions brought directly before it.
Discussion: The Court held that there was a failure to show that public respondents
were guilty of any unlawful act or omission that constitutes a violation of the
petitioners' right to a balanced and healthful ecology.
Mayor Osmeña v. Garganera

G.R. No. 231164, March 20, 2018
Facts:
On April 6, 1993, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources

(DENR) issued an Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC) to the Solid Waste
Sanitary Landfill Project at Inayawan landfill proposed by the Metro Cebu
Development Project Office (MCDPO). Thereafter, the Inayawan landfill served as
the garbage disposal area of Cebu City.
Sometime in 2011, the Cebu City Local Government (City Government)

resolved to close the Inayawan landfill per Cebu City Sangguniang Panlunsod (SP)
Resolution and Executive Order of former Cebu City Mayor Michael Rama (former
Mayor Rama).
On June 15, 2015, through former Mayor Rama's directive,

Inayawan landfill was formally closed.
In 2016, however, under the administration of Mayor Osmeña, the City

Government sought to temporarily open the Inayawan landfill, through a letter
dated June 8, 2016, by then Acting Cebu City Mayor Margot Osmeña (Acting Mayor
Margot) addressed to Regional Director Engr. William Cuñado (Engr. Cuñado) of
the Environmental Management Bureau (EMB) of the DENR.
In his reply letter dated June 27, 2016, Engr. Cuñado informed Acting Mayor
Margot that although the EMB had no authority to issue the requested notice, it
interposed no objection to the proposed temporary opening of the Inayawan
landfill provided that the Cebu City will faithfully comply with all its commitments
and subject to regular monitoring by the EMB.
Thus, in July 2016, the Inayawan landfill was officially re-opened by

Acting Mayor Margot.
On September 2, 2016, a Notice of Violation and Technical Conference was

issued by the EMB to Mayor Osmeña, regarding City Government's operation of the
Inayawan Landfill and its violations of the ECC.
On September 6, 2016, the Department of Health (DOH) issued an

Inspection Report wherein it recommended, among others, the immediate closure
of the landfill due to the lack of sanitary requirements, environmental, health and
community safety issues, as conducted by the DOH Regional Sanitary Engineer,
Henry D. Saludar.
On September 23, 2016, Joel Capili Garganera for and on his behalf, and in
representation of the People of the Cities of Cebu and Talisay and the future
generations, including the unborn (respondent) filed a petition for writ of
kalikasan with prayer for the issuance of a Temporary Environmental Protection
Order (TEPO) before the CA.
Respondent asserted that:

1. the continued operation of the Inayawan landfill causes serious
environmental damage which threatens and violates their right to a
balanced and healthful ecology;
2. that the Inayawan landfill has already outgrown its usefulness and
has become ill-suited for its purpose;
3. that its reopening and continued operation violates several
environmental laws and government regulations, such as: R.A. 9003;
R.A. 8749 or the "Philippine Clean Air Act of 1999"; R.A. 9275 or the
"Philippine Clean Water Act of 2004"; Presidential Decree (P.D.) No.
856 or the "Code on Sanitation of the Philippines"; and DENR
Administrative Order (DAO) No. 2003-30 or the "Implementing Rules
and Regulation (IRR) for the Philippine Environmental Impact
Statement System."
The CA, in a Resolution dated October 6, 2016, granted a writ of

kalikasan, required petitioner to file a verified return and a summary
hearing was set for the application of TEPO.
In petitioner's verified return, he alleged that:

1. respondent failed to comply with the condition precedent which
requires 30-day notice to the public officer concerned prior to the
filing of a citizen’s suit under R.A. 9003 and R.A. 8749; and
2. that Inayawan landfill operated as early as 1998 and it conformed to
the standards and requirements then applicable.
The CA, in a Decision dated December 15, 2016, granted the

privilege of the writ of kalikasan which ordered Mayor Osmeña and/or his
representatives to permanently cease and desist from dumping or
disposing of garbage or solid waste at the Inayawan landfill and to
continue to rehabilitate the same.
Issue no. 1: Whether the 30-day prior notice requirement for citizen suits under
R.A. 9003 and R.A. 8749 is needed prior to the filing of the instant petition. - No.
Held:
Petitioner's argument does not persuade.
Section 5, Rule 2 of the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases (RPEC),

is instructive on the matter:
Section 5. Citizen suit. —Any Filipino citizen in representation of others,

including minors or generations yet unborn, may file an action to enforce
rights or obligations under environmental laws. Upon the filing of a citizen
suit, the court shall issue an order which shall contain a brief description of
the cause of action and the reliefs prayed for, requiring all interested parties
to manifest their interest to intervene in the case within fifteen (15) days
from notice thereof. The plaintiff may publish the order once in a newspaper
of a general circulation in the Philippines or furnish all affected barangays
copies of said order.
Citizen suits filed under R.A. No. 8749 and R.A. No. 9003 shall be governed
by their respective provisions.
Section 1, Rule 7 of the RPEC also provides:
Section 1. Nature of the writ.- The Writ is a remedy available to a natural or

juridical person, entity authorized by law, people's organization, non-
governmental organization, or any public interest group accredited by or
registered with any government agency, on behalf of persons whose
constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology is violated, or
threatened with violation by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or
employee, or private individual or entity, involving environmental damage of
such magnitude as to prejudice the life, health or property of inhabitants in
two or more cities or provinces.
Here, the present petition for writ of kalikasan under the RPEC is a
separate and distinct action from R.A. 9003 and R.A. 8749.
Moreover, Section 3, Rule 7 of RPEC allows direct resort to this Court or with
any of the stations of the CA, which states:
Section 3. Where to file. - The petition shall be filed with the Supreme Court
or with any of the stations of the Court of Appeals.
Given that the writ of kalikasan is an extraordinary remedy and the RPEC
allows direct action to this Court and the CA where it is dictated by public welfare,
this Court is of the view that the prior 30 day notice requirement for citizen
suits under R.A. 9003 and R.A. 8749 is inapplicable. It is ultimately within
the Court's discretion whether or not to accept petitions brought directly
before it.
Issue no. 2: Whether the CA correctly ruled that the requirements for the grant
of the privilege of the writ of kalikasan were sufficiently established. – Yes.
Held:
We affirm the CA when it ruled that the requirements for the grant
of the privilege of the writ of kalikasan were sufficiently established.
The Court is convinced from the evidence on record that the respondent has
sufficiently established the aforementioned requirements for the grant of the
privilege of the writ of kalikasan. The record discloses that the City Government's
resumption of the garbage dumping operations at the Inayawan landfill has raised
serious environmental concerns.
Based on the Compliance Evaluation Report (CER) drafted by the EMB, the
dumping operation at the Inayawan landfill has violated the criteria specified under
DENR Administrative Order No. 34-01 specifically as to the proper leachate
collection and treatment at the landfill and the regular water quality monitoring of
surface and ground waters and effluent, as well as gas emissions thereat. At the
same time, as admitted by Mr. Marco Silberon from the DENR-7 during the Cebu
SP Executive Session dated 16 August 2016, the Inayawan landfill has already
been converted to a dumpsite operation despite its original design as sanitary
landfill which is violative of Section 17(h)40 of R.A. 9003 expressly prohibiting
open dumps as final disposal sites.
xxxx
Contrary to respondents' belief, the magnitude of the environmental

damage can be gleaned from the fact that the air pollution has affected resident
not just from Cebu City but also from the neighboring city of Talisay. Also, in light
of the EMB's finding that the proper treatment of the leachate at the Inayawan
landfill has not been complied with prior to its discharge to the Cebu strait, there is
no question that the scope of the possible environmental damage herein has
expanded to encompass not just the City of Cebu but other localities as well that
connects to such strait. Since leachate is contaminated liquid from decomposed
waste, it is not difficult to consider the magnitude of the potential environment
harm it can unleash if this is released to a receiving water body without being
sufficiently treated first, as in this case. In view of the foregoing, the Court
finds that that (sic) the closure of the Inayawan landfill is warranted in
this case.
It may not be amiss to mention that even the EMB's own official has recognized the
need of closing the Inayawan landfill due to the environmental violations
committed by the City Government in its operation. This was the sentiment
expressed by Mr. Amancio Dongcoy, a representative from the DENR-EMB, during
the Cebu SP Executive Session on 20 February 2015, thus:
xxxx
Actually, DENR, way back in late 2010, my companion conducted Water

Quality Monitoring and we took samples of the waste water coming from the
leachate pond and it is not complying with the Clean Water Act We wrote a letter to
Mayor Rama, advising him to take measures, so that the Clean Water Act can be
complied with. So, that's why, the first reaction of Mayor Rama, is to decide that it
must be closed because it is necessary that it must stop operation.
Also, the air and water quality impact assessment of the EMB Compliance
Evaluation Report (CER) dated August 18, 2016, made remarks that the air quality
poses a threat to nearby surroundings/habitat while the water quality (leachate)
poses threat of water pollution. The report also stated that the foul odor from
the landfill already reached neighboring communities as far as SM Seaside
and UC Mambaling which have disrupted activities causing economic loss
and other activities for improvement particularly for SM Seaside.
Moreover, the DOH Inspection Report dated September 6, 2016, observed

that the Inayawan landfill had been in operation for 17 years, which exceeded the
7-year estimated duration period in the projected design data.
As to the health impact, the DOH found that the residents, commercial
centers, shanties and scavengers near the dump site are at high risk of acquiring
different types of illness due to pollution, considering the current status of the
dump site.
The DOH highly recommended the immediate closure of the Inayawan

sanitary landfill. It was further stated that the disposal area is not anymore
suitable as a sanitary landfill even if rehabilitated considering its location within the
city, the number of residents and the increasing population of the city, the
neighboring cities and towns, and the expected increase in number of commercial
centers, transportation and tourist concerns.
Lastly, as much as this Court recognizes the parties' good intention and
sympathize with the dilemma of Mayor Osmeña or the City Government in looking
for its final disposal site, considering the garbage daily disposal of 600 tons
generated by the city and its duty to provide basic services and facilities of garbage
collection and disposal system, We agree with the appellate court that the
continued operation of the Inayawan landfill poses a serious and pressing
danger to the environment that could result in injurious consequences to
the health and lives of the nearby residents, thereby warranting the
issuance of a writ of kalikasan.
Discussion: The Court granted the issuance of the writ because there was sufficient
evidence of the presence of the three (3) requisites:
1. There is an actual or threatened violation of the constitutional right to

a balanced and healthful ecology.
• The DOH found that the residents, commercial centers, shanties and
scavengers near the dump site are at high risk of acquiring different
types of illness due to pollution
2. The actual or threatened violation arises from an unlawful act or

omission of a public official or employee, or private individual or
entity.
• The dumping operation at the Inayawan landfill has violated the criteria
specified under DENR Administrative Order No. 34-01 specifically as to
the proper leachate collection and treatment at the landfill and the
regular water quality monitoring of surface and ground waters and
effluent, as well as gas emissions thereat.
• The Inayawan landfill has already been converted to a dumpsite
operation despite its original design as sanitary landfill which is violative
of Section 17(h)40 of R.A. 9003 expressly prohibiting open dumps as
final disposal sites.
3. The actual or threatened violation involves or will lead to an

• In light of the EMB's finding that the proper treatment of the leachate at
the Inayawan landfill has not been complied with prior to its discharge
to the Cebu strait, there is no question that the scope of the possible
environmental damage herein has expanded to encompass not just the
City of Cebu but other localities as well that connects to such strait.
ABOGADO v. DENR
G.R. No. 246209, September 03, 2019
Facts:
On April 16, 2019, a Petition was filed by the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines, members of the Kalayaan Palawan Farmers and Fisherfolk Association,
along with Nilo Labrador, Wilfredo Labandelo, and Rolando Labandelo, who were
residents of Sitio Kinabuksan, Cawag, Zambales.
They sought the issuance of writs of kalikasan and continuing mandamus

under A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC, or the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases,
over Panatag Shoal (Scarborough Shoal), Panganiban Reef (Mischief Reef), and
Ayungin Shoal (Second Thomas Shoal), located within the Philippines' exclusive
economic zone.
Petitioners relied on the Permanent Court of Arbitration's findings in its July

12, 2016 Arbitral Award that Chinese fisherfolk and China's construction of artificial
lands have caused severe environmental damage to the marine environment of
these areas. They alleged that their "constitutional right to a balanced and
healthful ecology" was being threatened and was being violated due to the
"omissions, failure, and/or refusal of Respondents to enforce Philippine laws in
Panatag Shoal, Ayungin Shoal, and Panganiban Reef."
Respondents in this case include:

1. the Department of Environment and Natural Resources,
2. the Department of Agriculture,
3. the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources,
4. the Philippine Navy,
5. the Philippine Coast Guard,
6. the Philippine National Police,
7. the Philippine National Police Maritime Group, and
8. the Department of Justice
On May 3, 2019, this Court issued a Writ of Kalikasan and ordered

respondents to file a verified return within a non-extendible period of 10 days from
receipt of notice.
On May 24, 2019, respondents, through the Office of the Solicitor General,
filed their Verified Return with Comment. They argued that the Petition suffered
from fatal procedural infirmities, which should have warranted its dismissal. They
alleged that the Petition failed to state a cause of action since petitioners merely
relied on the 2016 Arbitral Award as evidence and failed to attach the required
judicial affidavits of witnesses.
Respondents likewise made several factual allegations to substantiate their

argument that they complied with environmental laws and regulations in the
protection and preservation of Panatag Shoal (Scarborough Shoal), Panganiban
Reef (Mischief Reef), and Ayungin Shoal (Second Thomas Shoal). They submitted
that since the case involved the conduct of foreign relations, the remedies sought
by petitioners were diplomatic and political in nature, and hence "transcend[ed]
mere enforcement of environmental laws.”
It was apparent throughout the course of the proceedings that the counsels
and their clients were not able to properly communicate with one another with
regard to the petition. In fact, 19 out of 40 fisherfolk-petitioners requested that
their sihnatures be withdrawn from the petition. They claimed they did not read
and was not explained to them before signing. They stated that they had been
misinformed about the nature of the Petition filed before this Court. Thinking that
the respondents would be the foreign nationals who caused the environmental
damage, they said that they were surprised to hear that the case was instead filed
against the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources and the Philippine Navy,
whom they considered allies.
Eventually, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Board of Governors

adopted resolutions requesting the Petition's withdrawal. A Motion to Withdraw
was then filed.
Issue: Should the Motion to Withdraw be granted? – Yes.

Held:
Discussion on the evidentiary requirements for a Writ of Kalikasan
In civil, criminal, and administrative cases, parties are clear as to the

quantum of evidence necessary to prove their case. Civil cases require a
preponderance of evidence, or "evidence which is of greater weight, or more
convincing, that which is offered in opposition to it[.]" Administrative cases require
substantial evidence, or "such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might
accept as adequate to support a conclusion, even if other minds equally reasonable
might conceivably opine otherwise." Criminal cases require proof beyond
reasonable doubt, or "that degree of proof which produces conviction in an
unprejudiced mind." In petitions for the issuance of a writ of kalikasan,
however, the quantum of evidence is not specifically stated.
A petition for the writ of kalikasan may be filed on behalf of those whose
right is violated. The Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases only requires that
the public interest group is duly accredited. Filing through representation is also
allowed for other extraordinary writs such as habeas corpus, amparo and habeas
data.
This Court has explained that "the Rules [of Procedure for Environmental Cases]
do[es] not define the exact nature or degree of environmental damage but only
that it must be sufficiently grave, in terms of the territorial scope of such

damage[.]" Every petition, therefore, must be examined on a case-to-case basis.
It is imperative, however, that even before a petition for its issuance can
be filed, the petition must be verified and must contain:
(a) The personal circumstances of the petitioner;
(b) The name and personal circumstances of the respondent or if the

name and personal circumstances are unknown and uncertain, the
respondent may be described by an assumed appellation;
(c) The environmental law, rule or regulation violated or threatened to

be violated, the act or omission complained of, and the environmental
damage of such magnitude as to prejudice the life, health or property of
(d) All relevant and material evidence consisting of the affidavits of

witnesses, documentary evidence, scientific or other expert studies, and
if possible, object evidence;
(e) The certification of petitioner under oath that: (1) petitioner has not
commenced any action or filed any claim involving the same issues in
any court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency, and no such other action or
claim is pending therein; (2) if there is such other pending action or
claim, a complete statement of its present status; (3) if petitioner
should learn that the same or similar action or claim has been filed or is
pending, petitioner shall report to the court that fact within five (5) days
therefrom; and
(f) The reliefs prayed for which may include a prayer for the issuance of
a TEPO.
Parties that seek the issuance of the writ of kalikasan, whether on

their own or on others' behalf, carry the burden of substantiating the
writ's elements. Before private parties or public interest groups may
proceed with the case, they must be ready with the evidence necessary for
the determination of the writ's issuance.
The records of this case painfully chronicle the embarrassingly inadequate

evidence marshalled by those that initially filed the Petition for a Writ of Kalikasan.
Even with the most conscientious perusal of the records and with the most
sympathetic view for the interests of the community and the environment,
the obvious conclusion that there was not much thought or preparation in
substantiating the allegations made in the Petition cannot be hidden. Legal

advocacy for the environment deserves much more.
The imminence or emergency of an ecological disaster should not be an

excuse for litigants to do away with their responsibility of substantiating their
petitions before the courts. As with any special civil action for extraordinary writs,
parties seeking the writ of kalikasan must be ready with the evidence required to
prove their allegations by the time the petition is filed. Hasty slipshod petitions,
filed in the guise of environmental advocacy, only serve to undermine that
advocacy
A writ of kalikasan cannot and should not substitute other remedies that
may be available to the parties, whether legal, administrative, or political. Mere
concern for the environment is not an excuse to invoke this Court's jurisdiction in
cases where other remedies are available:
The writ of kalikasan is not an all-embracing legal remedy to be wielded like

a political tool. It is both an extraordinary and equitable remedy which assists to
prevent environmental catastrophes. It does not replace other legal remedies
similarly motivated by concern for the environment and the community's
ecological welfare. Certainly, when the petition itself alleges that remedial and
preventive remedies have occurred, the functions of the writ cease to exist. In
case of disagreement, parties need to exhaust the political and
administrative arena. Only when a concrete cause of action arises out of
facts that can be proven with substantial evidence may the proper legal
action be entertained.
Discussion: The Supreme Court emphasized that the burden of proof lies with the
petitioners and that mere concern or passion for the environment will not be enough
to warrant the issuance of the writ.
The Court also held that if there are any other legal and adequate remedies
available to solve the issue at hand, then the writ will not be granted. The mere fact
that the issue is related to ecological welfare is insufficient to immediately resort to
the writ of kalikasan.

Narrative Report For Writ of Kalikasan

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Narrative Report For Writ of Kalikasan

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

WRIT OF KALIKASAN

Rule 7, A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC

DELA CERNA, Hannah Keziah

Concept and Nature.................................................................................... 4

II. SUBSTANTIVE BASIS............................................................................. 5

Contents and Form of the Petition............................................................... 10

How the Writ is Served.............................................................................. 11

Penalty for Refusing to Issue or Serve the Writ............................................. 11

Prohibited Pleadings and Motions.................................................................13

Effect of Failure to File Return..................................................................... 13

Hearing and Preliminary Conference............................................................ 14

B. Production or Inspection of Documents or Things.......................................16

Submission of Case for Decision; Memoranda............................................... 17

Judgment and Reliefs Granted.................................................................... 17

Writ of Kalikasan v. Writ of Continuing Mandamus......................................... 19

IV. JURISPRUDENCE ON THE WRIT OF KALIKASAN................................... 21

Most Rev. Pedro Arigo v. Scott H. Swift..................................................... 21

II. Precautionary Principle.......................................................................... 25

ISAAA et al., v. Greenpeace (Philippines), et al...........................................25

West Tower Condominium v. First Philippine Industrial................................ 29

III. Evidentiary Matters.............................................................................. 33

Pilar Cañeda Braga v. Hon. Abaya.............................................................37

LNL Archipelago Minerals, Inc., v. Agham Party List.................................... 40

Victoria Segovia v. Climate Change Commission......................................... 43

Mayor Osmeña v. Garganera.................................................................... 45

I. HISTORY AND ORIGIN OF THE WRIT OF KALIKASAN

Concept and Nature

Expounding on the collective nature of the right to a healthy environment,

II. SUBSTANTIVE BASIS

The main provision on environmental rights is Section 16 of Article II, supplemented

The first is the anthropocentric approach to environmental protection. Under this

With the criticisms of the above approaches in mind, a development of a more

They contend that the act of defendant constitutes misappropriation and/or

Issue 1: Whether or not the petitioners have legal standing. -YES.

Intergenerational Responsibility. - They can, for themselves, for others of their

Right to a Balanced and Healthful Ecology. - The complaint focuses on one

Objectives of the Writ of Kalikasan

Writ of Kalikasan, When Available

(e) The certification of petitioner under oath that:

Contents and Form of the Petition

If found to be sufficient in form and substance, the Writ of Kalikasan shall be

8 A.M. 09-6-8-SC Annotation by PHILJA

How the Writ is Served

Manner of Service. The writ should be served against the respondent,

Penalty for Refusing to Issue or Serve the Writ

Section 8. Return of respondent; contents . - Within a non-extendible period of ten (10)

All defenses not raised in the return shall be deemed waived.

A general denial of allegations in the petition shall be considered as an admission thereof.

Form and Contents

Policy to Submit All Relevant and Material Evidence

2020. Accessed March 21, 2020 from

General Denial, Deemed an Admission

Prohibited Pleadings and Motions

Effect of Failure to File Return

15 PHILJA. Annotation to the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases, p. 136.

Hearing and Preliminary Conference

Hearing is Not Summary

Motion for Ocular Inspection

[3] It shall be supported by affidavits of witnesses having personal knowledge of the

Order for Ocular Inspection

B. Production or Inspection of Documents or Things

Motion for Production or Inspection

Limitation of Discovery Measures