The Environmental Rules of Court

1. The overall framework of environmental litigation

2. The Writ of Kalikasan

Writ of Kalikasan, a special civil action, is a legal remedy available to a natural or

juridical person, entity authorized by law, people’s organization, NGO, or any
public interest group accredited by or registered with any government agency, on
behalf of persons whose constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology
is violated or threatened with violation, by an unlawful act or omission of a public
official or employee, or private individual or entity, involving environmental
damage to such magnitude as to prejudice the life, health, or property of
inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces.

This remedy allows the grant of relief directing the respondent to permanently
cease and desist from committing acts/neglecting the performance of a duty in
violation of environmental laws resulting in environmental destruction or
damage; directing the respondent to protect, preserve, rehabilitate, or restore
the environment; directing the respondent to monitor strict compliance with the
decisions and orders of the court; directing the respondent to make periodic

reports on the execution of the final judgment; and such other reliefs which
relate to the right of the people to a balance and healthful ecology or to the
protection, preservation, rehabilitation, or restoration of the environment.

This remedy provides protection of one's constitutional right to a healthy

environment, as outlined in Section 16, Article II of the Philippine Constitution.
Since Section 16, Article II of the Philippines' 1986 Constitution was not a self-
executing provision, provision for the Writ of Kalikasan was written under Rules of
Procedure for Environmental Cases as a Special Civil Action.
The “remedy is available to a 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 constitutional right to a balanced and healthful
ecology is violated, or threatened with violation by 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 of inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces.

Requisites • That there is an actual or threatened violation of the constitutional right to a balanced and
healthful ecology; • The actual or threatened violation is due to an unlawful act or omission of a public
official or employee, or private individual or entity; • The environmental damage is of such magnitude as
to prejudice the life, health or property of inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces. (Segovia v.
Climate Change Commission, GR No. 211010, March 7, 2017. Caguioa, J.)

Case must be an environmental case; all relevant evidence must be attached to the petition • Petitioner
must specify that the verified petition is an environmental case in order to be given priority. • The cities
or provinces need not be contiguous; it is only necessary that the inhabitants of the cities or provinces
suffer or are threatened to suffer damage from the same cause. • All relevant and material evidence,
such as the affidavit of witnesses, documentary evidence, scientific or expert studies and, if possible,
object evidence must be attached to the petition, especially so where a TEPO is prayed for.

 Where to file • The petition shall be filed with the Supreme Court or with any of the stations of the
Court of Appeals. (Sec. 3, id.)  The magnitude of the environmental damage is the reason for limiting
where the writ may be filed – to the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals whose jurisdiction is
national in scope.  But where the magnitude of the damage affects the inhabitants of less than two
cities or provinces, then the suit may be filed before the regional trial court which has territorial
jurisdiction over the case.

 Judgment • Within sixty (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. • The reliefs that may be
granted under the writ are:  Directing respondent to permanently cease and desist from committing
acts or neglecting the performance of a duty in violation of environmental laws resulting in
environmental destruction or damage;  Directing the respondent public official, government agency,
private person or entity to protect, preserve, rehabilitate or restore the environment;  Directing the
respondent public official, government agency, private person or entity to monitor strict compliance
with the decision and orders of the court;  Directing the respondent public official, government agency,
or private person or entity to make periodic reports on the execution of the final judgment. (Sec. 15, id.)

 Appeal • Within fifteen (15) days from the date of notice of the adverse judgment or denial of motion
for reconsideration, any party may appeal to the Supreme Court under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
The appeal may raise questions of fact. (Sec. 16, id.) • Institution of separate actions • The filing of a
petition for the issuance of the writ of kalikasan shall not preclude the filing of separate civil, criminal or
administrative actions. (Sec. 17, id.)
3. COntinuing Mandamus

 Petition for continuing mandamus • When any agency or instrumentality of the government or officer
thereof unlawfully neglects 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 unlawfully excludes another from the use or
enjoyment of such right and there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course
of law, • the person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court, alleging the facts
with certainty, attaching thereto supporting evidence, specifying that the petition concerns an
environmental law, rule or regulation, and • praying that judgment be rendered commanding
respondent to do an act or series of acts until the judgment is fully satisfied, and to pay damages
sustained by the petitioner by reason of the malicious neglect to perform the duties of the respondent,
under the law, rules or regulations. (Sec. 1, Rule 8)  Expediting proceedings; 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. (Sec. 5, id.) • Proceedings after
comment is filed • After the comment is filed or the time for the filing thereof has expired, the court
may hear the case which shall be summary in nature or require the parties to submit memoranda. • The
petition shall be resolved without delay within sixty (60) days from the date of the submission of the
petition for resolution. (Sec. 6, id.)  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. • The court shall require the respondent to submit periodic
reports detailing the progress and execution of the judgment, and the court may, by itself or through a
commissioner or the appropriate government agency, evaluate and monitor compliance. The petitioner
may submit its comments or observations on the execution of the judgment. (Sec. 7, id.)  In Braga v.
Abaya, GR No. 223976, Sept. 13, 2016, the Court (per Brion, J.), did not issue a writ of mandamus
because the Sasa Wharf Modernization Project had not yet reached the construction stage. The bidding
process had not even been concluded when the present petition was filed. On this account, the Court
held that the petition for a writ of continuing mandamus was premature, thus: “The writ of continuing
mandamus cannot be resorted to when the respondent is not the person obliged to perform the duty
under the law (as is the case under the EIS System) or when the period for the respondent to perform its
legal duty has not yet expired (as is the case with the consultation requirements of the LGC).

Continuing mandamus is a writ issued by a court in an environmental case

directing any agency or instrumentality of the government or officer thereof to
perform an act or series of acts decreed by final judgment which shall remain
effective until judgment is fully satisfied.

The concept of continuing mandamus gained prominence in the case of MMDA v.

Concerned Residents of Manila Bay. This case started when the respondents,
Concerned Residents of Manila Bay, filed a complaint before the Regional Trial
Court (RTC) in Imus, Cavite against several government agencies, among them the
petitioners, for the clean-up, rehabilitation, and protection of the Manila Bay. In
their individual causes of action, respondents alleged that the continued neglect
of petitioners in abating the pollution of the Manila Bay constitutes a violation of
environmental laws. Inter alia, respondents, as plaintiffs a quo, prayed that
petitioners be ordered to clean the Manila Bay and submit to the RTC a concerted
concrete plan of action for the purpose. The RTC rendered a decision in favor of
the respondents. The petitioners, before the Court of Appeals, were one in

arguing, among others, that the cleaning of the Manila Bay is not a ministerial act
which can be compelled by mandamus. The Court of Appeals, however, sustained
the RTC.

The Supreme Court agreed with the respondents declaring that the petitioners'
obligation to perform their duties as defined by law, on one hand, and how they
are to carry out such duties, on the other, are two different concepts. While the
implementation of the MMDA's mandated tasks may entail a decision-making
process, the enforcement of the law or the very act of doing what the law exacts
to be done is ministerial in nature and may be compelled by mandamus. A
discretionary duty is one that "allows a person to exercise judgment and choose
to perform or not to perform." Any suggestion that the MMDA has the option
whether or not to perform its solid waste disposal-related duties ought to be

dismissed for want of legal basis.

This remedy allows the court to monitor compliance of its orders, seeking periodic
reports from authorities on the progress in implementing them.  This happens in a
situation which cannot be remedied instantly but requires a solution over a long
time, at times going on for years.

4. SLAPP Cases

5. Precautionary principle as a rule of evidence

– principle which states that where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full
scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent
environmental degradation

The “precautionary principle” is premised on “the notion that environmental regulators often have to
act on the frontiers of knowledge and in the absence of full scientific certainty.” Thus, “scientific
uncertainty should not be used as a reason not to take action with respect to a particular environmental
concern and those engaging in a potentially damaging activity should have the burden of establishing
the absence of environmental harm.”

When there is a lack of full scientific certainty in establishing a causal link between human activity and
environmental effect, the court shall apply the precautionary principle in resolving the case before it.
The constitutional right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology shall be given the benefit of
the doubt.

This principle advocates that the potential harm should be addressed even with minimal predictability at
hand.155 The Precautionary Principle requires a high degree of prudence on the part of the
stakeholders. Decision makers are not only mandated to account for scientific uncertainty but can also
take positive action, e.g., restrict a product or activity even when there is scientific uncertainty

Under Rule 20 of the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases, the Precautionary Principle is adopted
as a rule of evidence. The Supreme Court’s adoption of the Precautionary Principle in the newly
promulgated Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases affords plaintiffs a better chance of proving
their cases where the risks of environmental harm are not easy to prove.
The principle states that when human activities may lead to threats of serious and
irreversible damage to the environment that is scientifically plausible but
uncertain, actions shall be taken to avoid or diminish that threat.

The court shall apply the precautionary principle in resolving the case before it
when there is a lack of full scientific certainty in establishing a causal link between
human activity and environmental effect. In applying the principle, the following
factors may be considered: Threats to human life or health; Inequity to present
or future generations; or Prejudice to the environment without legal

consideration of the environmental rights of those affected.

This is a reasonable device to prevent serious damage to the environment. As it is

used, the precautionary principle says that for a human activity project or
program wherein science has no consensus yet, the government must take
precautionary measures to mitigate its effects. However, it is better if the law also
incorporate provision regarding adaptation of technological advancements. Since
we live in a fast-paced environment, we should consider using technology to
prevent damage to our environment.