JURISTS BAR REVIEW CENTER™

Preweek Pointers
in Special Proceedings
Prof. Manuel R. Riguera

10 January 2022
• Anticipated number of questions in
Special Proceedings (including RPEC).

2
RULE 102.
HABEAS CORPUS
 Writ of Habeas Corpus
It is a writ available in cases of:

1. Illegal confinement or detention or

2. where the rightful custody of any

person is withheld from the person
entitled thereto.
• Habeas corpus is the proper remedy for a
person deprived of liberty due to
mistaken identity. In such cases, the
person is not under any lawful process
and is continuously being illegally
detained. (In re Datukan Malang Salibo,
8 April 2015).
 Jurisdiction
• Concurrent jurisdiction among the SC,
CA, SB (in aid of appellate jurisdiction),
and the RTC.
The MTC has special jurisdiction in the
absence of all the RTC judges in the
province or city. (S35 B.P. Blg. 129).
 Venue
• If filed with the RTC, the venue is with
the RTC in the judicial region where the
writ is sought to be enforced. (2 FLORENZ
D. REGALADO 156-57 [9th rev. ed., 3rd
printing]).
 Enforceability of the writ
• Writs issued by the Supreme Court, the
Court of Appeals, and the
Sandiganbayan are enforceable
anywhere in PH. Those issued by the RTC
and MTC are enforceable only within the
judicial region to which they belong.
Where writ is made returnable to RTC

• Even though the writ of habeas corpus

was issued by the CA but it designated
the RTC as the court to which the writ is
made returnable, the decision of the RTC
is its own and not that of the CA. (In re
Datukan Malang Salibo, 8 April 2015).
 Substantial compliance rule
• Strict compliance with the technical
requirements for a habeas corpus
petition may be dispensed with where
the allegations in the application are
sufficient to make out a case for habeas
corpus.
Fletcher v Director, 17 July 2009
A court must issue the writ if there is
evidence that a person is unjustly
restrained of his liberty even if there is no
application therefor. A petition which is
deficient in form, such as a petition-
letter, may be entertained so long as its
allegations sufficiently make out a case
for habeas corpus.
 When writ not allowed (PCJ)
• If the person to be restrained of his
liberty is in the custody of an officer
under process issued by a court of
competent jurisdiction. (S4 R102).
 • Sgt. Osorio validly arrested
and detained for
Osorio v. kidnapping. Kidnapping is
not part of the functions of
Navera
a soldier. Thus, the RTC and
(26 Feb not the courts martial have
2018) jurisdiction over him.
(Osorio v. Navera, 26
February 2018, Leonen, J.).
 • The writ of habeas
Writ as a corpus cannot be availed
post- of in cases of detention
conviction by virtue of a judicial
remedy process or valid
judgment. Exceptions
where the writ may be
availed of as a post-
conviction remedy: (JEC)
 JEC
(a) There has been a deprivation of a
constitutional right resulting in the
restraint of a person;
(b) The court had no jurisdiction to
impose the sentence; or >
 (c) An excessive penalty has been
imposed, as such sentence is void as to
such excess. (Harden v. Director of Prisons,
81 Phil. 741; Go v. Dimagiba, G.R. No.
151876, 21 June 2005).
 Adonis v Tesoro, 5 Jun 2013, Reyes, J.

• Adm. Cir. 08-2008 (Rule of preference in

the imposition of penalties in libel) not a
ground for the release on habeas corpus
of reporter. The circular cannot be given
retroactive effect where judgment in
criminal case already final and executory.
Rappler, 13 Nov 2016 (Common Error)

• The 1987 Constitution, however, allows

the President to suspend the writ of
habeas corpus "in case of invasion and
rebellion, when the public safety requires
it."
 Writ cf privilege of the writ
Writ Privilege of the writ
The order requiring the The further order inquiring
production of the body of into the cause of the
the person and to justify detention and directing
his detention (S5 R102) the release of the person
(S15 R102)
Not appealable Appealable
May not be suspended by May be suspended by the
the President President (S18 A7 Consti)
• Withholding of rightful custody
 Examples where writ
may be availed of
• 1. Parents to obtain custody of their
child as against the grandparent.
2. Mother to obtain custody of her child
under 7 years of age as against father.
(See Article 213, Family Code).
3. A judicial guardian who was unduly
deprived of custody of her ward.
(Hernandez v. San Juan-Santos, 7 August
2009).
 Jurisdiction
• A verified petition for habeas corpus
involving custody of minors shall be filed
with the Family Court. The petition may
be filed with the regular court in the
absence of the presiding judge of the FC,
provided, however, that the regular court
shall refer the case to the FC as soon as
its presiding judge returns to duty. >
 The petition may also be filed with the
regular courts in places where there are no
FCs. The petition may likewise be filed
with the SC, CA, or with any of its
members.
 Tujan-Militante v. Cada-Deapera,
28 July 2014
• A.M. No. 03-04-04-SC.

1. Petition for custody of minors (§2

et seq.)
2. Petition for writ of habeas corpus
involving custody of minors. (§20).
 Tujan-Militante v. Cada-Deapera,
28 July 2014
• Sec. 3 of A.M. No. 03-04-04-SC, which
states that “the petition for custody of
minors shall be filed with the Family
Court of the province or city where the
petitioner resided or where the minor
may be found,” is not applicable because
it refers to a petition for custody of
minors. >
 What applies is Sec. 20 which covers
petition for a writ of habeas corpus
involving custody of minors.
Such a petition may be filed with any of
the proper RTCs within the judicial region
where enforcement thereof is sought. <
 Tujan-Militante v. Cada-Deapera,
28 July 2014
• Service of summons is not required in a
habeas corpus petition, be it under R102
or A.M. No. 03-04-04-SC. A writ of
habeas corpus plays a role comparable to
a summons in ordinary civil actions, in
that the court acquires jurisdiction over
the person of the respondent upon
service of the writ. <
• Where both parents have joint custody of
a child, the writ may be availed of if a
father is deprived of his right to see his
child. (Salientes v. Abanilla, G.R. 162734,
29 August 2006).
 Appeal in habeas corpus proceedings

• 48 hours from notice of the judgment or

final order. (S2 R41, S39 BP 129). The
appeal is taken by filing a notice of
appeal. If an MR filed and denied, the
movant has a fresh 48 hours from notice
of the denial (Neypes v Court of
Appeals).
 Bagtas v Santos, 27 Nov 2009
• A habeas corpus case involving a minor is
not limited to the production of the
minor before the court. The main
purpose is to determine who has rightful
custody over the child. The court should
still proceed to determine who should
have the rightful custody of the child.
RULE ON THE
WRIT OF AMPARO
(eff. 24 October
2007)
 Petition for a Writ of Amparo
• A remedy available to any person whose
right to life, liberty, and security has been
violated or is threatened with violation
by a public or private individual or entity.
The writ covers extralegal killings and
enforced disappearances or threats
thereof. (S1, Rule on the Writ of Amparo
[RWA]).
• A petition for issuance of a writ
of Amparo is a special proceeding. It is a
remedy by which a party seeks to
establish a status, a right or particular
fact. It is not a civil nor a criminal action,
hence, the application of the Rule on
Summary Procedure is misplaced. (De
Lima v Gatdula, 19 Feb 2013)
 • The Rule on the Writ of
Amparo (eff. 24 Oct 2007)
was issued as an exercise
of the SC’s power to
promulgate rules
Legal/Constitutional
concerning the protection
Basis and enforcement of
of WOA; Aim constitutional rights. (Sec.
5[5], Art. VIII). It aims to
address concerns regarding
extrajudicial killings &
enforced disappearances.
 EKED
• The coverage of the Writ of Amparo is
confined to cases of extralegal killings
and enforced disappearances or to
threats thereof. Hence the writ cannot be
availed of by an alien detained by the
Bureau of Immigration by virtue of legal
process. (Mison v. Gallegos, 23 June
2015, e.b.).
 Not available v mere trespass
• Writ of amparo not available against
Brgy. Captain’s alleged trespass of
Petitioner’s property since merely a
violation of Petitioner’s property rights.
(Sps. Pador v. Arcayan, 12 March 2013).
 Caram v. Segui
5 August 2014, Villarama, J.
• A petition for a writ of amparo is not
available in order for a biological mother
to recover custody of child from the
DSWD since there is no enforced
disappearance.
 Ladaga v Mapagu, 13 Nov 2012, e.b.
Perlas-Bernabe, J.
• The inclusion of petitioners' names in the
Order of Battle List does not, by itself,
constitute an actual threat to their rights
to life, liberty and security as to warrant
the issuance of a writ of amparo.
 Writ covers violations of
the right to security
• Privilege of Writ granted to person
“invited” to Mayor’s house and allegedly
tortured. Grant of petition proper even
where petitioner released since writ
serves both curative and preventive
roles. The writ covers violation of the
right to security. (Mamba v. Bueno, 7 Feb
2017 [e.b.], Reyes, J.)
• Court may motu proprio dismiss a
petition for Writ of Amparo, regardless of
the filing of a motion to dismiss, if it is
clear that the case falls outside the
purview of the Rules on the Writ of
Amparo. (Santiago v. Tulfo, 21 Oct 2015,
Perlas-Bernabe, J.).
 Where WOA filed
• It may be filed with the RTC of the place
where the threat, act or omission was
committed or any of its elements
occurred, or the SB, CA, SC or any justice
thereof.
 Who may file
• The petition may be filed by the
aggrieved party or by any qualified
person or entity in the following order:
(IRC)
(1) Immediate family of aggrieved party:
spouse, children and parents.
(2) Ascendant, descendant, or relative
within 4th degree.
(3) Concerned citizen or organization if
no known immediate family member or
relative of the aggrieved party. (S2
RWA).
• There is no requirement in §5 of the RWA
that petition should state the probable
whereabouts of the victim. The
application and implementation of the
rule of amparo adopted in Mexico or in
any other country could only be
persuasive at best. (Republic v. Cayanan,
7 Nov 2017, e.b., Bersamin, J.).
• Before a concerned citizen may file a
petition for writ of amparo in behalf of a
non-relative, the petitioner must allege
that there were no known members of
the immediate family or relatives of the
aggrieved party in line with Sec. 2(c) of
the RWA. (Boac v Cadapan, 31 May
2011).
• President may not be impleaded as
respondent because of presidential
immunity from suit. (Rubrico v.
Macapagal-Arroyo, G.R. No. 183871, 18
February 2010; Burgos v. Macapagal-
Arroyo, 22 June 2010).
 Return
• The respondent shall file a verified return
within 5 working days after service of the
writ. The period to file a return cannot
be extended except on highly
meritorious grounds.
Effects of failure to file return (WEC)

(1) The respondent waives any defense

that he may have had. Under S10 RWA,
all defenses shall be raised in the return;
otherwise, they shall be deemed waived.
(2) The court shall proceed to hear the
petition ex parte. (S12 RWA).
 (3) The court may cite for contempt a
respondent who refuses to make a return.
(S16 RWA).
 • The RTC judge acted
with grave abuse of
discretion in ordering
the Respondents De
Return, Lima et al., to file an
answer rather than a
not return. A return is
answer different from and
serves a different
function from an answer.
(De Lima v. Gatdula, 19
February 2013).
 Interim Reliefs (PWIT)
• Upon the filing of the petition or at
anytime before final judgment, the court
may grant any of the following reliefs:
(a) TEMPORARY PROTECTION ORDER
(TPO). Upon motion or motu proprio,
the court may order the aggrieved party
and any member of the immediate family
be protected in a government agency or
by an accredited person or private
institution capable of securing their
safety.
(b) INSPECTION ORDER (IO). Upon
verified motion and after due hearing,
the court may order the inspection or
photographing of property or relevant
object or operation thereon. If opposed
on the ground of national security or
evidentiary privilege, the court may
conduct an in camera hearing.
(c) PRODUCTION ORDER (PO). Upon
verified motion and after due hearing,
the court may order production of
designated objects for inspection or
copying. If opposed on the ground of
national security or evidentiary privilege,
the court may conduct an in camera
hearing.
(d) WITNESS PROTECTION ORDER
(WPO). Upon motion or motu proprio,
the court may refer witnesses to the DOJ
for admission to the witness protection
program. Witnesses may also be
referred to other government agencies or
accredited persons or private institutions
for safekeeping.
 Yano v Sanchez
• While the RWA provides for the interim
reliefs of TPO IO, and PO, these
provisional reliefs are intended to assist
the court before it arrives at a judicious
determination of the amparo petition. >
For the appellate court to, in the present
case, still order the inspection of the
military camps and order the army units to
conduct an investigation into the
disappearance of Nicolas and Heherson
after it absolved petitioners is thus not in
order. (Yano v. Sanchez, 11 February 2010
[e.b.]).
 Rodriguez v Macapagal-Arroyo
• Interim reliefs can be granted only before
a final adjudication of the case is made.
In any case, it must be underscored that
the privilege of the writ of amparo, once
granted, necessarily entails the
protection of the aggrieved party. >
Thus, since petitioner was granted the
privilege of the writ of amparo, there is
no need to issue a TPO independently of
the former. The order restricting
respondents from going near Rodriguez
is subsumed under the privilege of the
writ. (Rodriguez v. Macapagal-Arroyo, 15
November 2011).
Production order cf search warrant
• The production order under
the Amparo Rule should not be confused
with a search warrant under the
Constitution. The requirements of a
search warrant do not apply to the grant
of a production order. (Sec. of National
Defense v. Manalo, 7 Oct 2008, e.b.,
Puno, C.J.).
 Primacy of criminal action
• When a criminal action has been
commenced, no separate petition for the
writ shall be filed. (S22 RWA)
 Reyes v Gonzalez, 3 Dec 09
Leonardo-De Castro, J.
• Fr. Reyes’ petition for writ of amparo to
set aside his inclusion in the HDO list was
denied since he should have filed the
appropriate motion in the RTC where the
rebellion case filed against him was
pending pursuant to S22 RWA.
 Re prohibited papers/pleadings
RSP/R70 Amparo & HD Cases
MTD prohibited except if MTD on any ground
on JB prohibited
Compulsory counterclaim All counterclaims not
allowed allowed
Petition for relief Petition for relief not
prohibited prohibited
MR of interlocutory orders MR of interlocutory orders
allowed but of judgment prohibited but of judgment
n.a. allowed
 Appeal
• Any party may appeal from the final
judgment or order to the Supreme Court
under R45. The period of appeal shall be
5 working days from notice of the
adverse judgment. (S19 RWA) The appeal
may raise questions of fact or law or
both. (S19 RWA).
• Neypes rule applicable to a Writ of
Amparo case. (Mamba v. Bueno, 7 Feb
2017, [e.b.] Reyes, J.)
 Quantum of proof
• Quantum of proof needed for the parties
to establish their claims: Substantial
evidence or that amount of relevant
evidence which a reasonable mind might
accept as adequate to support a
conclusion. (S17 RWA; S5 R133).
 Basic minimum test (RC)
• Technical rules of evidence not strictly
observed in writ of amparo case. Rules
reduced to basic test of reason – i.e., to
the relevance of the evidence to the
issue at hand and its consistency with all
other pieces of adduced evidence. >
 Hearsay admissible
Thus, even hearsay evidence can be
admitted if it satisfies this basic minimum
test. The courts should exercise flexibility in
the consideration of evidence, including
hearsay evidence, in extrajudicial killings
and enforced disappearance cases. (Razon
v. Tagitis, 3 December 2009, Brion, J.)
 Standard of diligence
• Standard of diligence required of the
respondent in the performance of a duty:
Ordinary diligence if the respondent is a
private individual or entity and
extraordinary diligence if the respondent
is a public official or employee. >
 The respondent public official or
employee cannot invoke the presumption
that official duty has been regularly
performed to evade responsibility or
liability. (S17 RWA).
• The failure to establish that the public
official observed extraordinary diligence
in the performance of duty does not
result in the automatic grant of the
privilege of the amparo writ. It does not
relieve the petitioner from establishing
his or her claim by substantial evidence.
>
The omission or inaction on the part of the
public official provides, however, some
basis for the petitioner to move and for the
court to grant certain interim reliefs. (Yano
v. Sanchez, 11 February 2010 [e.b.]).
Decision automatically executory
There is no need to file a motion for
execution for an amparo or habeas
corpus decision. Summary proceedings
are immediately executory without
prejudice to appeal. (Boac v Cadapan, 31
May 2011, Carpio Morales, J. [e.b.]).
RULE ON THE WRIT
OF HABEAS DATA
(eff. 2 February
2008)
 Writ of Habeas Data
• Petition for Writ of Habeas Data vs.
President Duterte should be dismissed
because of presidential immunity. (De
Lima v. Duterte, 15 Oct 2019, Bersamin,
C.J.).
 Writ of Habeas Data
• A remedy available to any person whose
right to privacy in life, liberty or security
is violated or threatened by an unlawful
act or omission of a public or private
individual or entity engaged in the
gathering or storing of data or
information >
regarding the person, family, home, and
correspondence of the aggrieved party.
(S1, Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data
[RHD]).
 Vivares v. St. Theresa’s College,
29 September 2014
• Nothing in the Rule would suggest that
the habeas data protection shall be
available only against abuses of a person
or entity engaged in the business of
gathering, storing, and collecting of data.
It is enough that the person or entity is
engaged in the gathering or storing or
collecting of data. >
Regularity • To “engage” in something is
in the
gathering different from undertaking a
or business endeavor. To
storing of “engage” means “to do or
data not take part in something.” It
essential does not necessarily mean
that the activity must be
done in pursuit of a
business. The element of
regularity is not essential. <
 • There is no right to
informational
privacy on photos
Vivares v. St. posted on
Theresa’s Facebook. That the
photos are
College, viewable by
29 September “friends only” does
not necessarily
2014 bolster the
petitioners’
contention. >
 Digital images under this
setting still remain to be
outside the confines of the
zones of privacy in view of
the sheer number of
Facebook “friends” and the
facility in which photos can be
shared even to those who are
not “friends.” <
 Gamboa v Chan, 24 July 2012 e.b.
• Contending that her right to privacy was
violated and her reputation maligned and
destroyed, Mayor Gamboa filed a
petition for the issuance of a writ of
habeas data against respondents officials
of the PNP-Ilocos Norte >
for including her in the list of persons
maintaining private armed groups (PAGs)
and for forwarding such list and related
reports to the Zenarosa Commission. >
 The SC upheld the dismissal of the
petition. The right to informational
privacy, as a specific component of the
right to privacy, may yield to an overriding
legitimate state interest. <
 Where filed*
• Filed with the RTC where petitioner or
respondent resides or where the data or
information is gathered or stored, at
petitioner’s option.
May also be filed with the SC, CA, and
SB if the petition concerns public data files
of government offices. (S3 RHD)
 Who may file a petition
for habeas data?
• The aggrieved party. However, in cases
of extralegal killings and enforced
disappearances may be filed by a
member of the aggrieved party’s
immediate family (SPC) or in default
thereof by a relative within the 4th civil
degree. (S2 RHD).
 Return
• RETURN: The respondent shall file a
verified return together with supporting
affidavits within 5 working days after
service of the writ. The period to file a
return may be reasonably extended by
the court for justifiable reasons. (S10
RHD).
 Effects of failure to file return (EC)
• (1) The court shall proceed to hear
the petition ex parte granting the
petitioner such relief as the petition may
warrant unless the court in its discretion
requires the petitioner to submit
evidence. (S14 RHD).
 (2) The court may cite for contempt a
respondent who refuses to make a return.
(S11 RHD). <
 Hearing in chambers
• A hearing in chambers (in camera) may
be conducted where the respondent
invokes the defense that the release of
the data or information will compromise
national security or state secrets, or
when the data or information cannot be
divulged due to its nature or privileged
character. (S12 RHD).
• When a criminal action has been
commenced, no separate petition for the
writ shall be filed. The reliefs under the
writ shall be available by motion in the
criminal case. (S22 RHD).
• Any party may appeal from the final
judgment or order to the Supreme Court
under R45. The period of appeal shall be
5 working days from notice of the
adverse judgment. (S19 RHD) The appeal
may raise questions of fact or law or
both. (S19 RHD).
 Quantum of proof
• Quantum of proof of the allegations in a
writ of habeas data case: Substantial
evidence or that amount of relevant
evidence which a reasonable mind might
accept as adequate to support a
conclusion. (S16 RHD; S5 R133).
RULES OF
PROCEDURE FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL
CASES (RPEC)
 Scope & Applicability
• Civil and criminal actions before the
MTCs and RTCs involving
enforcement or violations of
environmental laws, rules and
regulations.
 • Any real party in
Who may file interest, including the
an government and
environmental
juridical entities
civil action?
authorized by law,
may file such action.
>
 A citizen suit may
also be filed by any
Filipino citizen in
representation of others,
including minors or
Citizen Suit generations yet unborn, to
enforce rights or
obligations under
environmental laws.
• A real party in interest need not be a
Filipino citizen, but only a Filipino
citizen can bring a citizen suit.
 Filing Fees in Environmental Civil
Action
• The payment of filing and other legal fees
by the plaintiff shall be deferred until
after judgment unless the plaintiff is
allowed to litigate as an indigent. It shall
constitute a first lien on the judgment
award. >
 Filing Fees in Citizen Suit
For a citizen suit, the court shall defer
the payment of filing and other legal fees
that shall serve as first lien on the
judgment award.
• Q May a court issue a TRO or WPI
against lawful actions of government
agencies that enforce environmental
laws or prevent violations thereof?
No, except for the SC.
 1. COMPLAINT.
2. ANSWER which may
Pleadings include COMPULSORY
& COUNTERCLAIMS & CROSS-
CLAIMS.
motions
3. MOTION FOR
allowed INTERVENTION.
under 4. MOTION FOR
RPEC DISCOVERY.
(3CA RID) 5. MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION OF
JUDGMENT.
 Motion for postponement, motion
for new trial and petition for relief
from judgment shall be allowed in
highly meritorious cases or to prevent a
manifest miscarriage of justice.
• Note that permissive counterclaims
are not allowed under the RPEC but
compulsory counterclaims are.
• Verified answer must be filed within
15 days from service of summons.
(S14)
Prohibited • (a) Motion to dismiss
pleadings the complaint;
& motions (b) Motion for a bill of
(4M [D particulars;
BED] RRT) (c) Motion for
extension of time to file
pleadings, except to file
answer, the extension not
to exceed 15 days; >
 (d) Motion to
declare the defendant
Prohibited in default;
pleadings & (e) Reply and
rejoinder; and
motions
(f) Third party
complaint. <
Case shall be referred to mediation
• At the start of the pre-trial conference,
the court shall inquire from the parties if
they have settled; otherwise, the court
shall immediately refer the parties or their
counsel, if authorized by their clients, to
the Philippine Mediation Center (PMC)
unit for mediation. If not available, the
court shall refer the case to the clerk of
court or legal researcher for mediation.
• If mediation fails, the court will schedule
the continuance of the pre-trial.
The judge shall exert best efforts to
persuade the parties to arrive at a
settlement of the dispute. The judge may
issue a consent decree approving the
agreement between the parties.
 • Consent decree
refers to a judicially-
approved
settlement between
Consent concerned parties
based on public
Decree interest and public
policy to protect and
preserve the
environment.
 • EPO refers to an order
issued by the court
directing or enjoining
any person or
Environmental government agency to
Protection perform or desist from
performing an act in
Order order to protect,
preserve or
rehabilitate the
environment.
When may a Temporary Environmental
Protection Order be issued?
• If it appears from the verified
complaint with a prayer for the
issuance of an Environmental
Protection Order (EPO) that the
matter is of extreme urgency and the
applicant will suffer grave injustice
and irreparable injury, >
the executive judge of the multi-sala
court before raffle or the presiding
judge of a single-sala court as the case
may be, may issue ex parte a TEPO
effective for only 72 hours from date of
the receipt of the TEPO by the party or
person enjoined.
 TEPO may be extended
Within said period, the court where the
case is assigned, shall conduct a
summary hearing to determine whether
the TEPO may be extended until the
termination of the case.
Applicant is exempted from posting
a bond.
 Reliefs that may be granted
in a citizen suit (PARS)
• 1. Protection, preservation or
rehabilitation of the environment.
2. Attorney’s fees, costs of suit
and other litigation expenses (ACL).
3. Submission of a
rehab/restoration program.
4. Contribution to a special trust
fund.
 • No damages (except ACL)
can be awarded in a citizen
suit. The only recourse of a
No party or person who wishes
damages to recover damages for
injury suffered is to file a
separate action under S4
R2.
• The policy is that a citizen suit is filed in
the public interest, and in effect, it is the
environment which is vindicated in the
action. >
 Hence, a party or person who suffers
damage or injury arising from an
environment prejudice which is also the
same subject of citizen suit cannot claim
for damages in a citizen suit since it is the
environment that is vindicated in the
action. >
• A person who suffers damage or injury
arising from an environmental prejudice
which is also the same subject of a
citizen suit can file a separate action
under S4 R2 to recover for his personal
injury. Here, a citizen suit can take place
simultaneously with the filing of an
individual complaint.
 Judgment immediately executory
• Judgment directing the protection,
preservation or rehabilitation (PPR) of
the environment is executory pending
appeal.
• In the judgment, the court may
convert the TEPO to a permanent
EPO or issue a writ of continuing
mandamus directing the performance
of acts which shall be effective until
the judgment is fully satisfied.
 Strategic • A legal action filed to harass
Lawsuit or stifle any legal recourse
that any person, institution,
against or the government has taken
Public or may take in the
enforcement of
Participation environmental laws,
(SLAPP) protection of the
environment or assertion of
environmental rights.
• Defendant may file an answer
interposing as a defense that the
case is a SLAPP; and, by way of
counterclaim, pray for damages,
attorney’s fees and costs of suit.
• The affirmative defense of a SLAPP
shall be resolved within 30 days after
the summary hearing. If the court
dismisses the action, the court may
award damages, attorney’s fees and
costs of suit under a counterclaim if
such has been filed. The dismissal
shall be with prejudice.
• SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION FOR THE
ISSUANCE OF A WRIT OF
KALIKASAN
 Writ of Kalikasan
• The writ is available in an environmental
case involving environmental damage of
such magnitude as to prejudice the life,
health, or property of the inhabitants in
two or more cities or provinces (≥2PC).
 Where filed
• The verified petition shall be filed with
the Supreme Court or with any of the
stations of the Court of Appeals. The
petitioner shall be exempt from the
payment of docket fees.
 When shall the writ issue?
• 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.
•Q Does the service of a Writ of
Kalikasan ipso facto enjoin the
respondent from doing the act subject
of the petition for a Writ of Kalikasan?
• No. Issuance of a Writ of Kalikasan
and service upon respondent requires
the latter to file a verified return
within 10 days from service but
does not ipso facto enjoin or restrain
the respondent unless a TEPO or
CDO was issued.
 Omnibus Waiver
• All defenses not raised in the return shall
be deemed waived.
 Prohibited Pleadings & Motions
5M (BED DP) RTCC
• (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) Motion to declare respondent in
default. >
• (e) Counterclaim or cross-claim;
• (f) Third-party complaint; and
• (g) Reply. <
 Osmeña v. Garganera (20 Mar 2018)

• In 2016, Respondent Garganera for

and on his behalf, and in
representation of the people of the
cities of Cebu and Talisay and the
future generations, filed against the
petitioner Cebu City Mayor a petition
for writ of kalikasan with prayer for the
issuance of a TEPO before the CA. >
 Respondent asserted that the
continued operation of the Inayawan
landfill causes serious environmental
damage which threatens and violates
their right to a balanced and healthful
ecology. >
• The CA granted a writ of kalikasan. In
petitioner's verified return, he alleged
that respondent failed to comply with
the condition precedent which
requires 30-day notice to the public
officer concerned prior to the filing of
a citizens suit under R.A. 9003 >
(Ecological Solid Waste
Management Act) and R.A. 8749
(Clean Air Act). Is the 30-day notice
under R.A. 9003 and R.A. 8749 a
requirement for the filing of a petition
for Writ of Kalikasan?
 No. A petition for writ of kalikasan
under the RPEC is a separate and distinct
action from R.A. 9003 and R.A. 8749. A
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. >
Given that the writ of kalikasan is an
extraordinary remedy and the RPEC allows
direct action to the SC and the CA where it
is dictated by public welfare, the prior 30-
day notice requirement for citizen suits
under R.A. 9003 and R.A. 8749 is
inapplicable. (Osmeña v. Garganera, 20
March 2018, e.b., Tijam, J.).
Discovery Measures & Interim Reliefs

• A party may file a verified motion for

the following reliefs:
1. OCULAR INSPECTION;
ORDER.
2. PRODUCTION OR
INSPECTION OF DOCUMENTS OR
THINGS; ORDER
 JUDGMENT
• Within 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.
 Remedy from Judgment
• Within 15 days from notice of the
adverse judgment or denial of motion
for reconsideration, any party may
appeal to the Supreme Court under
Rule 45. The appeal may raise
questions of fact.
• WRIT OF CONTINUING
MANDAMUS
• Available when any government
agency or officer neglects the
performance of a ministerial duty in
connection with the enforcement of
an environmental law or rule or in
connection with the violation of an
environmental right; >
 Or when a government agency or
officer unlawfully excludes another from
the use or enjoyment of an environmental
right.
Petitioner is entitled to damages
sustained by reason of the malicious
neglect to perform the ministerial duty.
 Where filed
• RTC exercising jurisdiction over the
territory where the actionable neglect or
omission occurred or with CA or SC.
Petitioner shall be exempt from
docket fees.
 When writ issues; comment
• If the verified petition is sufficient in
form and substance, the court shall
issue the writ and require the
respondent to comment on the
petition within 10 days from receipt of
a copy thereof.
 TEPO
• The court in which the petition is
filed may issue such orders to
expedite the proceedings, and it may
also grant a TEPO for the
preservation of the rights of the
parties pending such proceedings.
 Judgment
• If warranted, the court shall grant the
privilege of the writ of continuing
mandamus requiring respondent to
perform an act or series of acts until the
judgment is fully satisfied and to grant
such other reliefs as may be warranted
resulting from the wrongful or illegal acts
of the respondent.
• CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
 Who may file a criminal complaint for
violation of environmental laws?
• Any offended party, peace officer or
any public officer charged with the
enforcement of an environmental law
may file a complaint before the proper
officer in accordance with the Rules
of Court. (S1 R9 RPEC).
 Institution of Criminal & Civil Action

• When a criminal action is instituted,

the civil action ex delicto shall be
deemed instituted with the criminal
action unless the complainant waives
the civil action, reserves the right to
institute it separately or institutes the
civil action prior to the criminal action.
• Unless the civil action has been
instituted prior to the criminal action,
the reservation of the right to institute
separately the civil action shall be
made during arraignment.
 Warrantless Arrest
• A peace officer or an individual
deputized by the proper government
agency may, without a warrant, arrest
a person:
(a) When, in his presence, the
person to be arrested has committed,
is actually committing or is attempting
to commit an offense; or >
 (b) When an offense has just been
committed, and he has probable cause
to believe based on personal
knowledge of facts or circumstances
that the person to be arrested has
committed it.
 No Citizen’s Arrest?
• Note: Compare with S5 R113 which
allows a private person to make a
warrantless arrest.
Procedure in the custody & disposition
of seized items
• The custody and disposition of seized
items shall be in accordance with the
applicable laws or rules promulgated
by the concerned government
agency.
In the absence of such applicable laws
or regulations:
• 1. Apprehending office shall
inventory the seized items.
2. The court may direct the auction
sale of the seized items.
3. The proceeds of the auction sale
shall be held in trust and deposited with a
government depository bank. <
 BAIL
• Basically the same as in R114.
 Setting the arraigment
• The court shall set the arraignment of
the accused within 15 days from the
time it acquires jurisdiction over the
accused, with notice to the public
prosecutor and offended party or
concerned government agency that it
will entertain plea-bargaining on the
date of the arraignment.
• After the arraignment, the court shall
set the pre-trial conference within 30
days.
• All agreements or admissions made
or entered during the pre-trial
conference shall be reduced in writing
and signed by the accused and
counsel; otherwise, they cannot be
used against the accused.
• EVIDENCE
 Precautionary Principle
• It is the principle which states that when
human activities may lead to threats of
serious and irreversible damage to the
environment that is scientifically plausible
but uncertain, the court shall take actions
to avoid or diminish that threat
notwithstanding that there is a lack of full
scientific certainty in establishing a
causal link between human activity and
environmental effect. >
 Burden of Evidence Shifted
• 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. Application of the
precautionary principle to the rules on
evidence will enable courts to tackle future
environmental problems before ironclad
scientific consensus emerges.
 Standards for application of
precautionary principle (LPG)
• 1) threats to human life or health;
(2) inequity to present or future
generations; or
(3) prejudice to the environment
without legal consideration of the
environmental rights of those affected.
• Photographs, videos and similar
evidence shall be admissible when
authenticated by the person who took
the same, by some other person
present when said evidence was
taken, or by any other person
competent to testify on the accuracy
thereof.
• These are now considered as
documentary evidence under the
2020 Rules on Evidence.
• Official records are prima facie evidence
of the facts stated therein.
This just reiterates the Rules on
Evidence.
BEST OF LUCK IN
THE BAR EXAM
FROM YOUR
JURISTS FAMILY!