ARGUMENTS

1. Section 1, Rule 7, Part III of the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases provide that the writ is
remedy available “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.”

The party seeking the issuance of a writ of kalikasan must demonstrate that a particular law , rule, or
regulation was or would be violated by the respondent.

Considering all the foregoing, the petition is not sufficient in form and substance as petitioners failed to
prove the requirements for the issuances of Writ of Kalikasan. There is no clear showing that
respondents committed an act or omission violative of any environmental law which resulted or will
result in an environmental damage of such magnitude that would infringe the right of the people to a
balanced and healthful ecology.

2.The adoption of the doctrine of “jura regalia” that all natural resources are owned by the State is
embodied in the Constitution, hence, it prompted the adoption of the constitutional policy of full control
and supervision by the state in the exploration, development, and utilization of the country’s natural
resources. Corollary with these are State’s direct undertaking or by entering into co-production, joint
venture, or production sharing agreements, or by entering into agreement with foreign-owned
corporations for large-scale exploration, development and utilization.

Given these considerations, there is no clear showing that respondent has transcended the bounds
demarcated by Executive Order No. 279 for the exercise of his rule-making power as it specifically
authorizes the DENR to promulgate supplementary rules and regulations. The adopted regulations are in
harmony with the provisions of the law.