A. What is the Writ of Kalikasan? Give an example on how it is obtained.

“The Writ of Kalikasan is a 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 of such magnitude as to prejudice the life, health, or property of
inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces.” (A.M. 09-6-08-SC)

In the case of Abogado, et al. v. Department of Environment and Natural

Resources, et al., the Supreme Court issued a Writ of Kalikasan to protect, preserve,
rehabilitate, and to restore the marine environment in Scarborough Shoal (also known as
Panatag Shoal), Ayungin Shoal, and Panganiban Reef (also known as Mischief Reef).
The Court granted the prayer for the issuance of a Writ of Kalikasan by the petitioners
Monico A. Abogado, et al. to prevent violations of Philippine environmental laws in the
Philippine Waters and in the Philippine Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) in the above
areas. The petitioners are members of the Kalayaan Palawan Farmers and Fisherfolk
Association who are members of the fisherfolk community in the Municipality of Kalayaan,
Province of Palawan, while the others are residents of Sitio Kinabukasan, Cawag,
Zambales.
B. What is the Writ of Continuing Mandamus? Give an example of how it is applied.

“When any agency or instrumentality of the government or officer 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 the 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” (A.M. 09-6-08-SC)

In the case of Dolot v. Paje, the Supreme Court granted the petition for Writ of
Continuing Mandamus filed by Maricris D. Dolot praying for the following reliefs: (1) the
issuance of a writ commanding the respondents to immediately stop the mining
operations in the Municipality of Matnog; (2) the issuance of a temporary environment
protection order or TEPO; (3) the creation of an inter-agency group to undertake the
rehabilitation of the mining site; (4) award of damages; and (5) return of the iron ore,
among others. With the grant of the said petition, the issuing court retained jurisdiction
over the case to ensure that the government agency concerned is performing its tasks as
mandated by law and to monitor the effective performance of said tasks until such time
that the judgment was fully satisfied, as determined by the issuing court.
C. Compare the Writ of Kalikasan with the Writ of Continuing Mandamus, citing
their similarities and differences.

The 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, health or property of inhabitants in two or more
cities or provinces. The Writ of Continuing Mandamus is directed against the unlawful
neglect in the performance of an act specifically enjoined by law in connection with the
enforcement/ violation of an environmental rule or the unlawful exclusion of another from
the use or enjoyment of such right and in both instances, there is no other plain, speedy
and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.

In the Writ of Kalikasan, the petition can be filed by natural and juridical persons,
entities authorized by law and public organizations, non-government organizations and
public interest groups on behalf of persons whose right to a balanced and healthful
ecology is violated or threatened to be violated; in the Writ of Continuing Mandamus, only
the persons personally aggrieved may file the petition.

As regards to the respondent, the respondent in a petition for Writ of Kalikasan

may be public or private individual or entity; in a petition for Writ of Continuing Mandamus,
the respondent may be the Government or its officers.

As to the venue, a petition for Writ of Kalikasan may be filed with the Supreme
Court or the Court of Appeals. A petition for Writ of Continuing Mandamus may be filed
with the Regional Trial Court exercising territorial jurisdiction, or the Court of Appeals, or
the Supreme Court.