Writ of Kalikasan

Nature of the Writ.

A Writ of Kalikasan is available against an unlawful act oromission of a public official or employee, or privateindividual or entity, involving environmental damage ofsuch magnitude as to prejudice the life health or propertysuch magnitude as to prejudice the life, health or propertyof 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 damageenvironmental damagec) all relevant and material evidenced) sworn certification of non-forum shopping) t t pp ge) 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, orany 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 oron behalf of persons whose right to a balanced and healthful ecology is violated orthreatened to be violated. (Rule 7, Sec. 1) Respondent.

A private individual or entity or public official or employee. (Rule 7, Sec. 1) Exemption from docket fees. (Rule 7, Sec. 4) Venue.

Supreme Court or any of the stations of the Court of Appeals. (Rule 7, Sec. 3) Discovery MeasuresDiscovery 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 ofKalikasan consistent with the public-interest character of the petition. A party whoavails of this petition but who also wishes to be indemnified for injuries sufferedavails of this petition but who also wishes to be indemnified for injuries sufferedmay file another suit for the recovery of damages since the Rule on the Writ ofKalikasan allows for the institution of separate civil, criminal or administrativeactions. (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 writb) 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 ofp y p prespondent's returnHearing 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 inthirty (30) days. (Rule 7, Sec. 14)thirty (30) days. (Rule 7, Sec. 14)

Judgment is rendered within sixty (60) days fromJudgment is rendered within sixty (60) days fromdate case is submitted for decision.

If warranted the Court shall grant the privilege ofIf warranted, the Court shall grant the privilege ofthe Writ of Kalikasan and direct respondent to:

) tl d d i t f itti ga) permanently cease and desist from committingacts in violation of environmental laws.

b) protect, preserve, rehabilitate or restore theenvironment.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 theRules of Court in fifteen (15) days from notice ofjudgment. (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 ld) Motion for a bill of particulars;e) Counterclaim or cross-claim;f) Third-party complaint;g) Reply; andg) Reply; andh) Motion to declare respondent in default.

Writ of Continuing MandamusWrit of Continuing Mandamus

N t f th W it A W it f C ti i g M dNature of the Writ. A Writ of Continuing Mandamusis directed against (a) the unlawful neglect in theperformance of an act which the law specificallyenjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust orenjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust orstation in connection with the enforcement orviolation of an environmental law rule or regulationviolation of an environmental law rule or regulationor a right therein; or (b) the unlawful exclusion of

f fanother from the use or enjoyment of such rightand in both instances, there is no other plain,speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary courseof law (Rule 8 Sec 1)of law. (Rule 8, Sec. 1)

Contents of the petition Same as Writ of KalikasanContents of the petition: Same as Writ of Kalikasan

Who May file. One who is personally aggrieved by theunlawful 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 ContinuingMandamus may be filed in the following: (a) the Regional

CTrial Court exercising jurisdiction over the territory wherethe actionable neglect or omission occurred; (b) the Courtof 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 ContinuingMandamus does not contain any provision for discoveryMandamus does not contain any provision for discoverymeasures.

Damages for personal injury The Writ of ContinuingDamages for personal injury. The Writ of ContinuingMandamus allows damages for the malicious neglect ofthe 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, courtshall:shall:

a) Issue writb) 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 tc) 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 submitmemoranda after comment is filed. (Rule 8, Sec. 6) Judgment is rendered within sixty (60) days from date caseJudgment is rendered within sixty (60) days from date caseis submitted for decision.

If warranted, the court shall grant the privilege of the writ ofcontinuing mandamus and require respondent to:

a) perform an act or series of acts until judgment is fullysatisfied

b) submit periodic reports detailing the progress andexecution of judgment.execution of judgment.

c) submit final return of the writ upon full satisfaction ofthe 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 injunctiverelief to prevent pollution discharges from choking ManilaB I d li h f iBay. It exacted compliance on the part of variousgovernment agencies to clean and protect the Manila Bayfor the benefit of future generations. The Court held:for the benefit of future generations. The Court held:

Even assuming the absence of a categorical legalprovision specifically prodding petitioners to clean up theprovision specifically prodding petitioners to clean up thebay, they and the men and women representing themcannot escape their obligation to future generations ofg gFilipinos to keep the waters of the Manila Bay clean andclear as humanly as possible. Anything less would be abetrayal of the trust reposed in them (Metropolitan Manilabetrayal of the trust reposed in them. (Metropolitan ManilaDevelopment Authority v. Concerned Residents of ManilaBay, 574 SCRA 661 [2008])

Th S C t E B h g t d th i il g thThe Supreme Court En Banc has granted the privilege on thewrit of continuing mandamus and ordered the respondentsProvincial Government of Aklan the Philippine ReclamationProvincial Government of Aklan, the Philippine ReclamationAuthority (PRA), and the Department of Environment andNatural Resources Environmental Management BureauNatural Resources-Environmental Management BureauRegional Office VI (DENR-EMB RVI) to stop from continuing theimplementation of the reclamation project involving 2 64implementation of the reclamation project involving 2.64hectares of foreshore and offshore areas in Barangay Caticlanand 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 reclamationproject;2. Respondent Province of Aklan to fully cooperate withDENR in its review of the reclamation project and secureapprovals from local government units and hold properconsultations with NGO's and other stakeholders;3. Respondent PRA to closely monitor the submission byrespondnet Province of the requirements to be issued bythe DENR;4. Petitioner Boracay Foundation and the three (3)respondents to submit their respective reports to theSupreme Court regarding their compliance with therequirements 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 Kalikasanand Temporary Environmental Protection Order (TEPO) against FirstPhilippine Industrial Corporation (FPIC), ordering it to cease anddesist 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 tresidential area in Makati City. The petitioners, residents of WestTower Condominim and Barangay Bangkal, Makati City, invokingtheir constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology allegedtheir constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology, allegedthat the omission or failure of FPIC to timely replace the old, spillingand damaged pipelines and to observe extraordinary diligence asg p p y grequired from it as a common carrier, particularly in ensuring that thepipelines are in good condition, especially since the goods that ittransports are hazardous to those exposed to it, caused thepetroleum spill. They prayed that FPIC be prohibited from openingthe pipeline and using the same until the said pipeline has beenthe pipeline and using the same, until the said pipeline has beenthoroughly checked and replaced. (West Tower CondominiumCorporation vs First Philippine Industrial Corporation, G.R. No.Co po at o s st pp e dust a Co po at o , G o194239, March 29, 2011)

WRIT OF KALIKASAN

Th titi f th i f W it f K lik fil d b id t fThe petition for the issuance of Writ of Kalikasan was filed by residents ofMakati and Pasay cities against Manila Electric Company (MERALCO)before the Court of Appeals, seeking to prevent the latter from installingpp , g p gand activating high-tension wires within their barangays. They claimed thatsaid wires pose environmental and health hazards.

However, the appellate court junked the petition and ruled thatMeralco's power lines do not pose a threat, immediate or otherwise to thep 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 instanceb f h b d f f li i h i i I f ili hbefore us, the burden of proof lies with petitioners. In failing to prove thecausal like between the illnesses feared and the EMF generating fromMeralco's power lines, petitioners have, in fact, failed to discharge thisMeralco s power lines, petitioners have, in fact, failed to discharge thisevidentiary evidence. The CA stressed that the data gathered andpresented by the petitioners to support their claim are purely statistical innature and lack scientific evidence or conclusion that the high-tensionwires emit electromagnetic fields (EMFs) which cause leukemia to children.It noted that scientists themselves are currently unable to establishIt noted that scientists themselves are currently unable to establishbetween leukemia and EMFs.

WRIT OF KALIKASANO S

In ruling that Meralco did not violate environmental laws inmounting the high-voltage wires, the court said that the disputedmounting the high voltage wires, the court said that the disputedinstallations met the height and distance requirements imposed bythe Philippine Electric Code for installations of electric posts.Likewise, the CA ruled that Meralco complied with all theenvironmental standards mandated under existing laws, as shown in

fthe clearances issued by the Department of Environment and NaturalResources (DENR). We emphasize that Meralco's operation is notillegal or unlawful to begin with More importantly Meralco'sillegal or unlawful to begin with. More importantly, Meralco sinstallations were undertaken in compliance firstly to the requisitesunder various statues, environmental and otherwise. (Gemma delaunder various statues, environmental and otherwise. (Gemma delaCruz, et al. vs MERALCO, G.R. No. 116742, January 20, 2011)

The Court issued the writ to stop the field trials and commercialpproducts of the genetically-modified Bacillus Thuringiensis (Bt)eggplants being done in various parts of the country. Undergoingtesting are eggplants which have been genetically altered with agene 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 ManagementBureau of the DENR, May 2, 2012)

The Court issued the writ of kalikasan to stop the mining of orealong the shore and offshore areas of Pangasinan, Ilocos Sur, andg g , ,Ilocos Norte. (G.R. No. 201509, Pimentel v. Aquino, May 8, 2012)

The Court also granted the issuance of a writ of Kalikasansought by Agham Party List Rep. Angelo Palmones in an effort tot i i g fi f l lli g t i i B g B litstop a mining firm from levelling a mountain in Barangay Bolitoc,

Sta. Cruz, Zambales. (G.R. No. 201918, Agham Party List v. LNLArchipelago Minerals Inc June 13 2012)Archipelago Minerals, Inc., June 13, 2012)