Which involves the grounding of the USS Guardian on the south shoal of the Tubataha reefs.

It is a
UNESCO world heritage site. So in this case, the court underscored that a ruling on the application or
non application of the criminal jurisdictions of the VFA to US personnel who may be found responsible
for the grounding of the USS Guardian is beyond the province of a petition for a writ of kalikasan. So
hindi proper remedy dito yung writ of kalikasan since it involves nga other questions like the provisions
of the VFA or other suits. So hindi magwowork dito yung writ of kalikasan. So hindi the court did not
granted it.

Also, remember that you may institute separate actions. The filing of a petition for the issuance of the
writ of kalikasan shall not preclude the filing of a separate civil, criminal, or administrative sanctions. So
separate remedy siya. It does not preclude nor prevent you from instituting other actions.

Before we proceed, let us first go back to Section 2 on the contents of the petition for the issuance of he
writ of kalikasan.

First is that it must be verified. So take note that that a petition must be verified which means that the
affiant must attest that he has read the pleading and that the allegations are true of his or her own
knowledge. So kailangan binasa niya and must attest. Yun yung meaning ng verified.

Second is that the petition may be filed even where the name and personal circumstances of the
respondent are unknown and uncertain. Parang kung sa criminal case, parang john doe. So kahit hindi
moa lam kung sino yun siya specifically, pwede mo paring maavail itong writ of kalikasan.

Also remember that unlike in ordinary civil actions where only the ultimate facts are required to be
alleged in the complaint, this section 2(d) requires that All relevant and material evidence consisting
of the affidavits of witnesses, documentary evidence, scientific or other expert studies, and if
possible, object evidence must not only be alleged but must be attached in the petition. The purpose
of this requirement is to convince the court to issue within 3 days from the date of filing the writ of
kalikasan and require the respondent to file a verified return.

So and writ of kalikasan, there are also prohibited pleadings. So ang prohibited pleadings are there
in order to expedite the hearing of the petition. So what are the prohibited pleadings? So under
section 9, 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.

So take note that hindi kasali sa prohibited pleadings ang motion for intervention. Why? It is not a
prohibited pleading since the magnitude of the environmental damage entails a large number of
parties that may avail of the writ of kalikasan. Meaning, pwedeng anytime may affected pa since
grabe nga yung lawak niya, pwedeng anytime may magjoin claiming that ako affected din ako diyan
or kung hindi affected, Nakita yung damage to the environment. So that is why a motion for
intervention is not a prohibited pleading when it comes to a petition for the issuance of a writ of
kalikasan.

So going back pala doon sa topic natin on discovery measures. Why is it na encouraged yung
discovery measures? And why does the rule provide courts with means and methods to obtain
sufficient information? Babalik parin tayo dun sa case ni Paje vs. Casiño wherein the court stated
that the rules of procedure for environmental cases liberally provide the courts with means and
methods to obtain sufficient information in order to adequately protect and safeguard the right to a
healthful and balanced ecology. The court also explained in this wise- the writ of kalikasan was
refashioned as a tool to breach the gap between allegation and proof by providing a remedy for
would be environmental litigants to compel the production of information within the custody of the
environment. The writ would effectively serve as a remedy for the enforcement of the right to
information about the environment.

So the scope of the fact finding power could be:

first, anything related to the issuance; grant of a government permit issued, or information controlled
by the government or private entity;

second, information contained in documents suh as Environmental Compliance Certificate and other
government records.

In addition, the writ may also be employed to compel the production of information, subject to
constitutional limitations. This function is analogous to a discovery measure and may be availed of
upon application of the writ. So clearly, in environmental cases, ineencourage yung discovery
measures in order to protect the right to a healthful and balanced ecology.