PAJE V. CASIÑO, G.R. 207257, FEB.

3, 2015
FACTS:
The Department of Environment and Natural Resources, issued an Environmental
Compliance Certificate for a proposed coal-fired power plant at Subic, Zambales to be
implemented by RP Energy.

Hon. Teodoro Casino and a number of legislators filed a Petition for Writ of Kalikasan
against RP energy, SBMA, and Hon. Ramon Paje as the DENR secretary on the ground
that actual environmental damage will occur if the power plant project is implemented
and that the respondents failed to comply with certain laws and rules governing or
relating to the issuance of an ECC and amendments thereto.

The Court of Appeals denied the petition for the Writ of Kalikasan and invalidated the
ECC. Both the DENR and Casino filed an appeal, the former imputing error in
invalidating the ECC and its amendments, arguing that the determination of the validity
of the ECC as well as its amendments is beyond the scope of a Petition for a Writ of
Kalikasan; while the latter claimed that it is entitled to a Writ of Kalikasan.

ISSUES:
1. Whether the parties may raise questions of fact on appeal on the issuance of a
writ of Kalikasan; and
2. Whether the validity of an ECC can be challenged via a writ of Kalikasan

RULING:
1. Yes, the parties may raise questions of fact on appeal on the issuance of a writ of
Kalikasan because the Rules on the Writ of Kalikasan (Rule 7, Section 16 of the
Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases) allow the parties to raise, on
appeal, questions of fact— and, thus, constitutes an exception to Rule 45 of the
Rules of Court— because of the extraordinary nature of the circumstances
surrounding the issuance of a writ of Kalikasan.
2. Yes, the validity of an ECC can be challenged via a writ of Kalikasan because
such writ is principally predicated on an actual or threatened violation of the
constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology, which involves
environmental damage of a magnitude that transcends political and territorial
boundaries.

A party, therefore, who invokes the writ based on alleged defects or irregularities in the
issuance of an ECC must not only allege and prove such defects or irregularities, but
must also provide a causal link or, at least, a reasonable connection between the defects
or irregularities in the issuance of an ECC and the actual or threatened violation of the
constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology of the magnitude contemplated
under the Rules. Otherwise, the petition should be dismissed outright and the action re-
filed before the proper forum with due regard to the doctrine of exhaustion of
administrative remedies.

In the case at bar, no such causal link or reasonable connection was shown or even
attempted relative to the aforesaid second set of allegations. It is a mere listing of the
perceived defects or irregularities in the issuance of the ECC.

ARIGO V. SWIFT, G.R. 206510, SEPT. 16, 2014

FACTS:
While transiting the Sulu Sea, the USS Guardian, a US Navy ship, ran aground on the
South Shoal of Tubbataha Reefs, a restricted and marine protected area. The US
Government provided compensation for the damaged caused and undertook salvage
operations to remove the grounded ship from the coral reef.

Petition: issuance of a Writ of Kalikasan with prayer for the issuance of a Temporary
Environmental Protection Order (TEPO) under Rule 7 of A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC, otherwise
known as the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases (Rules), involving violations
of environmental laws and regulations in relation to the grounding of the US military ship
USS Guardian over the Tubbataha Reefs

ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the Court has jurisdiction over the US respondents who did not
submit any pleading or manifestation in the case.
2. Whether or not there is a waiver of immunity from suit in the Visiting Forces
Agreement (VFA) that would make the US respondents liable.

RULING:
1. Immunity of foreign states from the jurisdiction of local courts

The inhibition to implead a foreign state in a local jurisdiction is expressed

in the maxim par in parem, non habet imperium. That is, all states are
sovereign equals and cannot assert jurisdiction over one another. This is
also applicable to complaints filed against officials of the state for acts
allegedly performed by them in the discharge of their duties. The rule is
that if the judgment against such officials will require the state itself to
perform an affirmative act to satisfy the same, such as the appropriation
of the amount needed to pay the damages awarded against them, the suit
must be regarded as against the state itself although it has not been
formally impleaded.

The alleged act or omission resulting in the unfortunate grounding of the

USS Guardian on the TRNP was committed while the US respondents
were performing official military duties and working as commanding
officers of the US Navy who had control and supervision over the USS
Guardian and its crew. The suit is deemed to be one against the US itself
as the satisfaction of a judgment against said officials will require
remedial actions and appropriation of funds by the US government.
Therefore, the principle of State immunity bars the exercise of jurisdiction
by this Court over the persons of respondents Swift, Rice and Robling.

2. The waiver of state immunity under the VFA pertains only to criminal jurisdiction
and not to special civil actions such as the present petition for issuance of a writ
of Kalikasan. A ruling on the application or non-application of criminal jurisdiction
provisions of the VFA to US personnel who may be found responsible for the
grounding of the USS Guardian, would be premature and beyond the province of
a petition for a writ of Kalikasan.

The VFA is an agreement which defines the treatment of United States

troops and personnel visiting the Philippines to promote “common
 security interests” between the US and the Philippines in the region. It
provides for the guidelines to govern such visits of military personnel, and
further defines the rights of the United States and the Philippine
government in the matter of criminal jurisdiction, movement of vessel and
aircraft, importation and exportation of equipment, materials and supplies.
The invocation of US federal tort laws and even common law is thus
improper considering that it is the VF A which governs disputes involving
US military ships and crew navigating Philippine waters in pursuance of
the objectives of the agreement.

INTERNATIONAL SERVICE FOR THE ACQUISITION OF AGRI BIOTECH

APPLICATION V. GREENPEACE SOUTHEAST ASIA, G.R. 209271, JULY 26, 2016
FACTS:
From 2007 to 2009, the University of the Philippines Los Baños conducted contained
tests on bioengineered eggplants called the BT Talong. BT Talong was genetically
engineered to kill certain pests attacking eggplants. The tests were in partnership with
International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications, Inc. (ISAA). After
the success of the contained tests, ISAA, in 2010, proceeded with field tests to be
conducted in five provinces.

In 2012, Greenpeace Southeast Asia Philippines filed before the Supreme Court a
Petition for Writ of Kalikasan and Writ of Continuing Mandamus with prayer for
Temporary Environmental Protection Order against UPLB and ISAA. Greenpeace
sought to enjoin ISAA and UPLB from conducting further field tests as it argued, among
others, that BT Talong, without the tests being peer reviewed, is presumed to be harmful
to human health and the environment. Further, Greenpeace contended that since the
scientific evidence as to the safety of BT Talong remained insufficient or uncertain, and
that preliminary scientific evaluation shows reasonable grounds for concern, the
precautionary principle should be applied and, thereby, the field trials be enjoined – this
is in accordance with Rule 20 of the Rules of Procedure on Environmental Cases.

ISAA and UPLB argued that the issue is already moot and academic considering that
the tests were already done.

ISSUE: Whether or not a Writ of Kalikasan and Writ of Continuing Mandamus should be
issued.

HELD:
In December 2015, the Supreme Court ruled in the affirmative. The SC held that the
precautionary principle applies in this case since the risk of harm from the field trials of
BT Talong remains uncertain and there exists a possibility of serious and irreversible
harm. The SC observed that eggplants are a staple vegetable in the country that is
mostly grown by small-scale farmers who are poor and marginalized; thus, given the
country’s rich biodiversity, the consequences of contamination and genetic pollution
would be disastrous and irreversible.

On the issue of mootness, the SC held that it can still pass upon the case on the
grounds that (a) the exceptional character of the situation and the paramount public
interest is involved; and (b) the case is capable of repetition yet evading review.
However, in July 2016, the SC granted the motion for reconsideration filed by ISAA and
UPLB on the ground that the issue indeed became moot and academic. The SC ruled
that it erred when it ruled that this case falls under the Paramount Public Interest
Doctrine and the Capable of Repetition Yet Evading Review Doctrine.

This case does not fall under the paramount public interest exception because the tests
were already done and there is nothing to be enjoined by the writ of kalikasan anymore.

This case case is not one capable of repetition yet evading review. Again, the tests were
already done in 2010. The permits for the tests already expired in 2012. No new permits
were granted. Greenpeace failed to prove that the same tests will be conducted again.

However, the SC emphasized that ISAA and UPLB cannot just simply commercially
propagate BT Talong as it appears that there are strict guidelines to be complied with
particularly those outlined by a joint circular by the DOST, DA, and the DENR.

SEGOVIA V. THE CLIMATE CHANGE COMMISSION, G.R. 211010, MARCH 7, 2017

FACTS:
This is a petition for the issuance of Writs of Kalikasan and continuing mandamus to
compel the implementation of the following environmental laws and executive issuances
- Republic Act No. (RA) 9729 (Climate Change Act), and RA 8749 (Clean Air Act);
Executive Order No. 774 (BO 774); AO 254, s. 2009 (AO 254); and Administrative Order
No. 171, S. 2007 (AO 171).

In gist, petitioners contend that respondents' failure to implement the foregoing laws and
executive issuances resulted in the continued degradation of air quality, particularly in
Metro Manila, in violation of the petitioners' constitutional right to a balanced and
healthful ecology, and may even be tantamount to deprivation of life, and of life sources
or "land, water, and air" by the government without due process of law.

Respondents, through the Office of the Solicitor General, assert that petitioners are not
entitled to a writ of Kalikasan because they failed to show that the public respondents
are guilty of an unlawful act or omission; state the environmental law/s violated; show
environmental damage of such magnitude as to prejudice the life, health or property of
inhabitants of two or more cities; and prove that non- implementation of Road Sharing
Principle will cause environmental damage.

ISSUES: Whether or not a Writ of Kalikasan and/or continuing Mandamus should be

issued.

RULING:
NO. The petitioners failed to establish the requisites for the issuance of the writs prayed
for. For a writ of Kalikasan to issue, the following requisites must concur:
a) there is an actual or threatened violation of the constitutional right to a
balanced and healthful ecology;
b) the actual or threatened violation arises from an unlawful act or omission
of a public official or employee, or private individual or entity; and
c) the actual or threatened violation involves or will lead to an environmental
damage of such magnitude as to prejudice the life, health or property of
inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces.
It is well-settled that a party claiming the privilege for the issuance of a writ of Kalikasan
has to show that a law, rule or regulation was violated or would be violated. In this case,
apart from repeated invocation of the constitutional right to health and to a balanced and
healthful ecology and bare allegations that their right was violated, the petitioners failed
to show that public respondents are guilty of any unlawful act or omission that
constitutes a violation of the petitioners' right to a balanced and healthful ecology.

LNL ARCHIPELAGO MINERALS INC. V. AGHAM PARTYLIST, G.R. 209165, APRIL

12, 2016
FACTS: Petitioner LNL Archipelago Minerals, Inc. (LAMI) is the operator of a mining
claim located in Sta. Cruz, Zambales and the mining area is covered by Mineral
Production Sharing Agreement No. 268-2008-III dated 26 August 2008 by an Operating
Agreement dated 5 June 2007 with Filipinas Mining Corporation. It embarked on a
project to build a private, non-commercial port in Brgy. Bolitoc, Sta. Cruz, Zambales
which is a vital infrastructure to the operations of a mining company to ship out ores and
other minerals extracted from the mines and make the venture economically feasible.
Brgy. Bolitoc, about 25 kilometers away from the mine site, makes it an ideal location to
build a port facility. LAMI secured the permits and compliance certificates for the port
project.

Rep. Dan Fernandez passed House Resolution No. 117 (HR 117) entitled "Resolution
Directing the Committee on Ecology to Conduct an Inquiry, in Aid of Legislation, on the
Implementation of Republic Act No. 7942, or the Philippine Mining Act of 1995
Particularly on the Adverse Effects of Mining on the Environment." HR 117 was issued to
conduct an alleged ocular inspection of the port site in aid of legislation.

The DENR-EMB R3 ascertained that LAMI’s violations of the four conditions of its ECC
constitute minor violations since they only pertain to non-submission of documents.
Agham filed a Petition for the issuance of a Writ22 of Kalikasan against LAMI, DENR,
PPA, and the Zambales Police Provincial Office (ZPPO).

ISSUES:
1. Whether or not LAMI violated the environmental laws as alleged by Agham.
2. Whether or not LAMI flattened any mountain and caused environmental damage
of such magnitude as to prejudice the life, health or property of inhabitants in two
or more cities or provinces.

RULING:
1. No. Lami did not violate the environmental laws as. In the case, the Court held that
since LAMI strictly followed the permit issued by the CENRO and even passed the
evaluation conducted after the issuance of the permit, then clearly LAMI had the
authority to cut trees and did not violate Section 68 of the Revised Forestry Code, as
amended. Agham did not give proper justification for citing Sections 57 and 69 of the
Philippine Mining Act and did not even present any evidence that LAMI violated the
mining law or any mining undertakings in relation to LAMI’s construction of a port
facility. Agham only alleged in very general terms that LAMI was destroying the
environment and leveling a mountain without conducting any scientific studies or
submitting expert testimonies that would corroborate such allegations.
2. No. LAMI did not flatten any mountain and did not cause environmental damage of
such magnitude as to prejudice the life, health or property of inhabitants in two or
more cities or provinces. Based from the testimonies of those experts in their fields,
show that there is in fact no mountain in Brgy. Bolitoc, Sta. Cruz, Zambales.
Considering that its elevation is only 23 to 26 meters above mean sea level and
which is 16 meters above the barangay road and vicinity, the elevated landform
present in the LAMI port facility is neither a hill or mountain. Its elevation of 16
meters above its vicinity is lower than a hill (30 meters). It is well-settled that a party
claiming the privilege for the issuance of a Writ of Kalikasan has to show that a law,
rule or regulation was violated or would be violated. In the present case, the
allegation by Agham that two laws – the Revised Forestry Code, as amended, and
the Philippine Mining Act – were violated by LAMI was not adequately substantiated
by Agham. Even the facts submitted by Agham to establish environmental damage
were mere general allegations. Agham’s allegation that there was a "mountain" in
LAMI’s port site was earlier established as false as the "mountain" was non-existent
as proven by the testimonies of the witnesses and reports made by environmental
experts and persons who have been educated and trained in their respective fields.