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,
life health or property
of inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces. (Rule 7,
Sec. 1)
Contents of the petition:
a) personal circumstances of petitioner and respondent
b) environmental law violated and magnitude of
environmental damage
c) all relevant and material evidence
t
t
of non-forum shopping
pp g
d)) sworn certification
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
threatened 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 Measures.
Measures
Ocular inspection order and production order.
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
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.
writ (Rule 7,
7 Secs.
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 p
preliminaryy conference upon
p
receipt
p
of
respondent's return
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)

Judgment is rendered within sixty (60) days from

date case is submitted for decision.
If warranted,
warranted the Court shall grant the privilege of
the Writ of Kalikasan and direct respondent to:
a)) permanently
tl cease and
d desist
d i t from
f
committing
itti g
acts in violation of environmental laws.
b) protect, preserve, rehabilitate or restore the
environment.
c) monitor strict compliance with the decision.
d) submit
s bmit period reports on the e
execution
ec tion 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
jjudgment.
g
((Rule 7,, Sec. 16))
Prohibited Pleadings. (Section 9)
a) Motion to dismiss;
b) Motion for extension of time to file return;
c) Motion for postponement;
d) Motion
M i for
f a bill off particulars;
i l
e) Counterclaim or cross-claim;
f) Third-party complaint;
g) Reply; and
h) Motion to declare respondent in default.

Writ of Continuing Mandamus

Nature
N
t
off the
th Writ.
W it A Writ
W it off Continuing
C ti i g Mandamus
M d
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
station in connection with the enforcement or
violation of an environmental law rule or regulation
or a right therein; or (b) the unlawful exclusion of
another from
f
the use or enjoyment off such right
and in both instances, there is no other plain,
speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course
of law.
law (Rule 8,
8 Sec.
Sec 1)
Contents of the petition:
petition Same as Writ of Kalikasan

Who May file. One who is personally aggrieved by the

unlawful act or omission.
omission (Rule 8,
8 Sec.
Sec 1)
Respondent. Only the government or its officers. (Rule 8,
S 1)
Sec.
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
Trial Court
C
exercising jurisdiction over the territory where
the actionable neglect or omission occurred; (b) the Court
of Appeals; or (c) the Supreme Court.
Court (Rule 8,
8 Sec.
Sec 2)
Discovery measures. The Rule on the Writ of Continuing
Mandamus does not contain any provision for discovery
measures.
Damages for personal injury.
injury
The Writ of Continuing
Mandamus allows damages for the malicious neglect of
the performance of the legal duty of the respondent,
identical to Rule 65, Rules of Court. (Rule 8, Sec. 1)

Iss ance off Writ (R

Issuance
(Rule
le 8,
8 Secs
Secs. 4 and 5)
If petition is sufficient in form and substance, court
shall:
a) Issue writ
b) Require respondent to comment on the
petition
pet
t o within
t
te
ten ((10)
0) days from
o receipt
ece pt o
of writ.
t
c) Issue orders to expedite proceedings and
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
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.
c) submit final return of the writ upon full satisfaction of
the judgment.
judgment (Rule 8,
8 Secs.
Secs 6,
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
Bay.
I exacted
It
d compliance
li
on the
h part off various
i
government agencies to clean and protect the Manila Bay
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
bay, they and the men and women representing them
cannot escape their obligation
g
to future g
generations of
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.
them (Metropolitan Manila
Development Authority v. Concerned Residents of Manila
Bay, 574 SCRA 661 [2008])

The Supreme
Th
S
C t En
Court
E Banc
B
h granted
has
g t d the
th privilege
i il g on the
th
writ of continuing mandamus and ordered the respondents
Provincial Government of Aklan,
Aklan the Philippine Reclamation
Authority (PRA), and the Department of Environment and
Natural
Resources Environmental
Resources-Environmental
Management
Bureau
Regional Office VI (DENR-EMB RVI) to stop from continuing the
implementation of the reclamation project involving 2.64
2 64
hectares of foreshore and offshore areas in Barangay Caticlan
and Boracay Island,
Island known as the Boracay Marina
Marina Project.
Project

It further ordered:
1. 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
residential
id ti l area in
i Makati
M k ti City.
Cit
Th petitioners,
The
titi
residents
id t off West
W t
Tower Condominim and Barangay Bangkal, Makati City, invoking
their constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology,
ecology alleged
that the omission or failure of FPIC to timely replace the old, spilling
and damaged
g
pipelines
p
p
and to observe extraordinaryy diligence
g
as
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,
same until the said pipeline has been
thoroughly checked and replaced. (West Tower Condominium
Corporation
Co
po at o vss First
st Philippine
pp e Industrial
dust a Co
Corporation,
po at o , G
G.R. No.
o
194239, March 29, 2011)

WRIT OF KALIKASAN
The petition
Th
titi for
f the
th issuance
i
off Writ
W it off Kalikasan
K lik
was filed
fil d by
b residents
id t off
Makati and Pasay cities against Manila Electric Company (MERALCO)
before the Court of Appeals,
pp
, seeking
g to p
prevent the latter from installing
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 p
power lines do not p
pose a threat,, immediate or otherwise to the
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
before
us, the
h burden
b d off prooff lies
li with
i h petitioners.
ii
I failing
In
f ili to prove the
h
causal like between the illnesses feared and the EMF generating from
Meralco'ss power lines, petitioners have, in fact, failed to discharge this
Meralco
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
between leukemia and EMFs.

WRIT O
OF KALIKASAN
S

In ruling that Meralco did not violate environmental laws in

mounting the high
high-voltage
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
the clearances issued by the Department off Environment and Natural
Resources (DENR). We emphasize that Meralco's operation is not
illegal or unlawful to begin with.
with
More importantly,
importantly Meralco
Meralco'ss
installations were undertaken in compliance firstly to the requisites
under various statues, environmental and otherwise.
otherwise. (Gemma dela
Cruz, et al. vs MERALCO, G.R. No. 116742, January 20, 2011)

The Court issued the writ to stop

p the field trials and commercial
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 No.
(G.R.
N
201390 Greenpeace
201390,
G
v. Environmental
E i
t l Management
M
g
t
Bureau of the DENR, May 2, 2012)
The Court issued the writ of kalikasan to stop the mining of ore
along
g the shore and offshore areas of Pangasinan,
g
, Ilocos Sur,, and
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
stop
t
a mining
i i g firm
fi
f
from
l lli g a mountain
levelling
t i in
i Barangay
B
g Bolitoc,
B lit
Sta. Cruz, Zambales. (G.R. No. 201918, Agham Party List v. LNL
Archipelago Minerals,
Minerals Inc.,
Inc June 13,
13 2012)