Writ of Kalikasan

Nature of the Writ.

A Writ of Kalikasan is available against 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 such magnitude as to prejudice the life, health or property
of inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces. (Rule 7,
Sec. 1) Sec. 1)
Contents of the petition:
a) personal circumstances of petitioner and respondent
b) environmental law violated and magnitude of
environmental damage environmental damage
c) all relevant and material evidence
d) sworn certification of non-forum shopping ) t t pp g
e) Reliefs such as TEPO. (Rule 7, Sec. 2)
Who May file.
It is available to a broad range of persons such as 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 right to a balanced and healthful ecology is violated or on behalf of persons whose right to a balanced and healthful ecology is violated or
threatened to be violated. (Rule 7, Sec. 1)
Respondent.
A private individual or entity or public official or employee. (Rule 7, Sec. 1)
Exemption fromdocket fees. (Rule 7, Sec. 4)
Venue.
Supreme Court or any of the stations of the Court of Appeals. (Rule 7, Sec. 3)
Discovery Measures Discovery Measures.
Ocular inspection order and production order.
Damages for personal injury. Damages for personal injury.
No damages may be awarded in a petition for the issuance of a Writ of
Kalikasan consistent with the public-interest character of the petition. A party who
avails of this petition but who also wishes to be indemnified for injuries suffered avails of this petition but who also wishes to be indemnified for injuries suffered
may file another suit for the recovery of damages since the Rule on the Writ of
Kalikasan allows for the institution of separate civil, criminal or administrative
actions. (Rule 7, Sec. 17)
Issuance of writ (Rule 7 Secs 5 and 8) Issuance of writ. (Rule 7, Secs. 5 and 8)
If petition is sufficient in form and substance, court shall:
a) Issue writ
b) Require respondent to file verified return within ten
(10) days from service of writ showing non-violation of
environmental law or no environmental damage.
Hearing. g
Conduct preliminary conference upon receipt of p y p p
respondent's return
Hearing not beyond sixty (60) days. (Rule 7, Sec. 11) Hearing not beyond sixty (60) days. (Rule 7, Sec. 11)
Case submitted for decision and filing of memoranda in
thirty (30) days. (Rule 7, Sec. 14) thirty (30) days. (Rule 7, Sec. 14)
Judgment is rendered within sixty (60) days from Judgment is rendered within sixty (60) days from
date case is submitted for decision.
If warranted the Court shall grant the privilege of If warranted, the Court shall grant the privilege of
the Writ of Kalikasan and direct respondent to:
) tl d d i t f itti g a) permanently cease and desist from committing
acts in violation of environmental laws.
b) protect, preserve, rehabilitate or restore the
environment. environment.
c) monitor strict compliance with the decision.
d) s bmit period reports on the e ec tion of final d) submit period reports on the execution of final
judgment. (Rule 7, Sec. 15)
Appeal to the Supreme Court under Rule 45 of the
Rules of Court in fifteen (15) days from notice of
judgment. (Rule 7, Sec. 16) j g ( , )
Prohibited Pleadings. (Section 9)
a) Motion to dismiss;
b) Motion for extension of time to file return; b) Motion for extension of time to file return;
c) Motion for postponement;
d) M i f bill f i l d) Motion for a bill of particulars;
e) Counterclaim or cross-claim;
f) Third-party complaint;
g) Reply; and g) Reply; and
h) Motion to declare respondent in default.
Writ of Continuing Mandamus Writ of Continuing Mandamus
N t f th W it A W it f C ti i g M d Nature of the Writ. A Writ of Continuing Mandamus
is directed against (a) the unlawful neglect in the
performance of an act which the law specifically
enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust or enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust or
station in connection with the enforcement or
violation of an environmental law rule or regulation violation of an environmental law rule or regulation
or a right therein; or (b) the unlawful exclusion of
f f another from the use or enjoyment of such right
and in both instances, there is no other plain,
speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course
of law (Rule 8 Sec 1) of law. (Rule 8, Sec. 1)
Contents of the petition Same as Writ of Kalikasan Contents of the petition: Same as Writ of Kalikasan
Who May file. One who is personally aggrieved by the
unlawful act or omission (Rule 8 Sec 1) unlawful act or omission. (Rule 8, Sec. 1)
Respondent. Only the government or its officers. (Rule 8,
S 1) Sec. 1)
Exemption from docket fees. (Rule 8, Sec. 3)
Venue. A petition for the issuance of a Writ of Continuing
Mandamus may be filed in the following: (a) the Regional
C Trial Court exercising jurisdiction over the territory where
the actionable neglect or omission occurred; (b) the Court
of Appeals; or (c) the Supreme Court (Rule 8 Sec 2) of Appeals; or (c) the Supreme Court. (Rule 8, Sec. 2)
Discovery measures. The Rule on the Writ of Continuing
Mandamus does not contain any provision for discovery Mandamus does not contain any provision for discovery
measures.
Damages for personal injury The Writ of Continuing Damages for personal injury. The Writ of Continuing
Mandamus allows damages for the malicious neglect of
the performance of the legal duty of the respondent, the performance of the legal duty of the respondent,
identical to Rule 65, Rules of Court. (Rule 8, Sec. 1)
Iss ance f Writ (R le 8 Secs 4 and 5) Issuance of Writ (Rule 8, Secs. 4 and 5)
If petition is sufficient in form and substance, court
shall: shall:
a) Issue writ
b) Require respondent to comment on the
petition within ten (10) days from receipt of writ. pet t o t te ( 0) days o ece pt o t
c) Issue orders to expedite proceedings and
grant TEPO for the preservation of rights of parties grant TEPO for the preservation of rights of parties
pending proceedings.
Hearing.
Conduct summary hearing or require parties to submit
memoranda after comment is filed. (Rule 8, Sec. 6)
Judgment is rendered within sixty (60) days from date case Judgment is rendered within sixty (60) days from date case
is submitted for decision.
If warranted, the court shall grant the privilege of the writ of
continuing mandamus and require respondent to:
a) perform an act or series of acts until judgment is fully
satisfied
b) submit periodic reports detailing the progress and
execution of judgment. execution of judgment.
c) submit final return of the writ upon full satisfaction of
the judgment (Rule 8 Secs 6 7 and 8) the judgment. (Rule 8, Secs. 6, 7 and 8)
Cases on :
Writ of Continuing Mandamus
The case upheld a request for a multi-faceted injunctive
relief to prevent pollution discharges from choking Manila
B I d li h f i Bay. It exacted compliance on the part of various
government agencies to clean and protect the Manila Bay
for the benefit of future generations. The Court held: for the benefit of future generations. The Court held:
Even assuming the absence of a categorical legal
provision specifically prodding petitioners to clean up the provision specifically prodding petitioners to clean up the
bay, they and the men and women representing them
cannot escape their obligation to future generations of g g
Filipinos to keep the waters of the Manila Bay clean and
clear as humanly as possible. Anything less would be a
betrayal of the trust reposed in them (Metropolitan Manila betrayal of the trust reposed in them. (Metropolitan Manila
Development Authority v. Concerned Residents of Manila
Bay, 574 SCRA 661 [2008])
Th S C t E B h g t d th i il g th The Supreme Court En Banc has granted the privilege on the
writ of continuing mandamus and ordered the respondents
Provincial Government of Aklan the Philippine Reclamation Provincial Government of Aklan, the Philippine Reclamation
Authority (PRA), and the Department of Environment and
Natural Resources Environmental Management Bureau Natural Resources-Environmental Management Bureau
Regional Office VI (DENR-EMB RVI) to stop from continuing the
implementation of the reclamation project involving 2 64 implementation of the reclamation project involving 2.64
hectares of foreshore and offshore areas in Barangay Caticlan
and Boracay Island known as the Boracay Marina Project and Boracay Island, known as the Boracay Marina Project.
It further ordered:
11. Respondent DENR to revisit and review the reclamation
project;
2. Respondent Province of Aklan to fully cooperate with
DENR in its review of the reclamation project and secure
approvals from local government units and hold proper
consultations with NGO's and other stakeholders;
3. Respondent PRA to closely monitor the submission by
respondnet Province of the requirements to be issued by
the DENR;
4. Petitioner Boracay Foundation and the three (3)
respondents to submit their respective reports to the
Supreme Court regarding their compliance with the
requirements provided in the decision. (G.R. No. 196870,
Boracay Foundation, Inc. v. The Province of Aklan, June 26,
2012)
WRIT OF KALIKASAN
Chief Justice Renato Corona issued the foremost Writ of Kalikasan
and Temporary Environmental Protection Order (TEPO) against First
Philippine Industrial Corporation (FPIC), ordering it to cease and
desist from operating its pipeline found to be leaking fuel in a
id ti l i M k ti Cit Th titi id t f W t residential area in Makati City. The petitioners, residents of West
Tower Condominim and Barangay Bangkal, Makati City, invoking
their constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology alleged their constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology, alleged
that the omission or failure of FPIC to timely replace the old, spilling
and damaged pipelines and to observe extraordinary diligence as g p p y g
required from it as a common carrier, particularly in ensuring that the
pipelines are in good condition, especially since the goods that it
transports are hazardous to those exposed to it, caused the
petroleum spill. They prayed that FPIC be prohibited from opening
the pipeline and using the same until the said pipeline has been the pipeline and using the same, until the said pipeline has been
thoroughly checked and replaced. (West Tower Condominium
Corporation vs First Philippine Industrial Corporation, G.R. No. Co po at o s st pp e dust a Co po at o , G o
194239, March 29, 2011)
WRIT OF KALIKASAN
Th titi f th i f W it f K lik fil d b id t f The petition for the issuance of Writ of Kalikasan was filed by residents of
Makati and Pasay cities against Manila Electric Company (MERALCO)
before the Court of Appeals, seeking to prevent the latter from installing pp , g p g
and activating high-tension wires within their barangays. They claimed that
said wires pose environmental and health hazards.
However, the appellate court junked the petition and ruled that
Meralco's power lines do not pose a threat, immediate or otherwise to the p p ,
petitioners' health and no bases may be culled from any of petitioners'
evidence to warrant the issuance of a Writ of Kalikasan. . . In the instance
b f h b d f f li i h i i I f ili h before us, the burden of proof lies with petitioners. In failing to prove the
causal like between the illnesses feared and the EMF generating from
Meralco's power lines, petitioners have, in fact, failed to discharge this Meralco s power lines, petitioners have, in fact, failed to discharge this
evidentiary evidence. The CA stressed that the data gathered and
presented by the petitioners to support their claim are purely statistical in
nature and lack scientific evidence or conclusion that the high-tension
wires emit electromagnetic fields (EMFs) which cause leukemia to children.
It noted that scientists themselves are currently unable to establish It noted that scientists themselves are currently unable to establish
between leukemia and EMFs.
WRIT OF KALIKASAN O S
In ruling that Meralco did not violate environmental laws in
mounting the high-voltage wires, the court said that the disputed mounting the high voltage wires, the court said that the disputed
installations met the height and distance requirements imposed by
the Philippine Electric Code for installations of electric posts.
Likewise, the CA ruled that Meralco complied with all the
environmental standards mandated under existing laws, as shown in
f the clearances issued by the Department of Environment and Natural
Resources (DENR). We emphasize that Meralco's operation is not
illegal or unlawful to begin with More importantly Meralco's illegal or unlawful to begin with. More importantly, Meralco s
installations were undertaken in compliance firstly to the requisites
under various statues, environmental and otherwise. (Gemma dela under various statues, environmental and otherwise. (Gemma dela
Cruz, et al. vs MERALCO, G.R. No. 116742, January 20, 2011)
The Court issued the writ to stop the field trials and commercial p
products of the genetically-modified Bacillus Thuringiensis (Bt)
eggplants being done in various parts of the country. Undergoing
testing are eggplants which have been genetically altered with a
gene from the Bt bacteria which allow it to produce its own pesticide.
(G R N 201390 G E i t l M g t (G.R. No. 201390, Greenpeace v. Environmental Management
Bureau of the DENR, May 2, 2012)
The Court issued the writ of kalikasan to stop the mining of ore
along the shore and offshore areas of Pangasinan, Ilocos Sur, and g g , ,
Ilocos Norte. (G.R. No. 201509, Pimentel v. Aquino, May 8, 2012)
The Court also granted the issuance of a writ of Kalikasan
sought by Agham Party List Rep. Angelo Palmones in an effort to
t i i g fi f l lli g t i i B g B lit stop a mining firm from levelling a mountain in Barangay Bolitoc,
Sta. Cruz, Zambales. (G.R. No. 201918, Agham Party List v. LNL
Archipelago Minerals Inc June 13 2012) Archipelago Minerals, Inc., June 13, 2012)