PROCEDURAL

SUBSTANTIVE
LAW
LAW

THE 1987 CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES – ARTICLE III

ARTICLE III
BILL OF RIGHTS
Section 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of
law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.
Due process of law has two aspects: substantive and
procedural due process. In order that a particular act may not
be impugned as violative of the due process clause, there must
be compliance with both substantive and the procedural
requirements thereof. (Tupas vs. Court of Appeals, 193 SCRA 597 [1991])

In the present context, substantive due process refers to the

intrinsic validity of a law that interferes with the rights of a
person to his property. (Ynot vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, 148 SCRA
659 [1987]) On the other hand, procedural due process means
compliance with the procedures or steps, even periods,
prescribed by the statute, in conformity with the standard of
fair play and without arbitrariness on the part of those who
are called upon to administer it. (Tupas vs. Court of Appeals, supra; Tatad
vs. Sandiganbayan, 159 SCRA 70 [1988])
The Rules of Procedure in
Environmental Cases
(RPEC)
AM No. 09-6-8-SC
Atty. Delmer L. Riparip
Chief, Legal Unit
EMB Caraga Region
August 30, 2018
Scope
Objective
Civil Procedure

to enforce, redress, or protect their legal rights 
through court orders and monetary awards…
Special Civil Action
Criminal Procedure

used by the government to protect and
 provide relief to the general public by 
attempting to punish an individual.
Evidence
Landmark Cases
Oposa v. Factoran, Jr., G.R. No.101083, July 30, 1993

Championed two (2) important ideas for environmental

justice:

1. Representatives of minors and generations yet unborn have

legal standing to enforce environmental rights; and

2. These environmental rights are so fundamental, they need

not be enshrined in a Constitution, for they predate
mankind.
 G.R. No. 180771, April 21, 2015
RESIDENT MARINE MAMMALS OF THE PROTECTED SEASCAPE TANON
STRAIT, E.G., TOOTHED WHALES, DOLPHINS, PORPOISES, AND OTHER
CETACEAN SPECIES, JOINED IN AND REPRESENTED HEREIN BY HUMAN
BEINGS GLORIA ESTENZO RAMOS AND ROSE-LIZA EISMA-OSORIO, IN THEIR
CAPACITY AS LEGAL GUARDIANS OF THE LESSER LIFE-FORMS AND AS
RESPONSIBLE STEWARDS OF GOD'S CREATIONS, Petitioners, v. SECRETARY
ANGELO REYES, IN HIS CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF THE DOE, SECRETARY
JOSE L. ATIENZA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF THE DENR, LEONARDO
R. SIBBALUCA, DENR RD-REGION VII AND IN HIS CAPACITY AS
CHAIRPERSON OF THE TANON STRAIT PROTECTED SEASCAPE
MANAGEMENT BOARD, BFAR DIRECTOR MALCOLM I. SARMIENTO, JR.,
BFAR RD-REGION VII ANDRES M. BOJOS, JAPAN PETROLEUM EXPLORATION
CO., LTD. (JAPEX), AS REPRESENTED BY ITS PHILIPPINE AGENT, SUPPLY
OILFIELD SERVICES, INC., Respondents.
WHETHER OR NOT PETITIONERS HAVE LOCUS STANDI TO FILE THE
INSTANT PETITION.

Our own 1997 Rules of Court demand that parties to a suit

be either natural or juridical persons, or entities
authorized by law. xxxxx For this reason, many
environmental cases have been dismissed for failure of the
petitioner to show that he/she would be directly injured
or affected by the outcome of the case.

In light of the foregoing, the need to give the Resident

Marine Mammals legal standing has been eliminated by
our Rules, which allow any Filipino citizen, as a steward of
nature, to bring a suit to enforce our environmental laws.
 G.R. Nos. 171947-48 February 15, 2011

MMDA, DENR, DECS, DOH, DA, DPWH, DBM, PCG, PNPMG, and
DILG, Petitioners,
vs.
CONCERNED RESIDENTS OF MANILA BAY, represented and joined by
DIVINA V. ILAS, SABINIANO ALBARRACIN, MANUEL SANTOS, JR.,
DINAH DELA PEÑA, PAUL DENNIS QUINTERO, MA. VICTORIA
LLENOS, DONNA CALOZA, FATIMA QUITAIN, VENICE SEGARRA,
FRITZIE TANGKIA, SARAH JOELLE LINTAG, HANNIBAL AUGUSTUS
BOBIS, FELIMON SANTIAGUEL, and JAIME AGUSTIN R. OPOSA,
Respondents.
This Court rendered a Decision in G.R. Nos. 171947-48
ordering petitioners to clean up, rehabilitate and preserve
Manila Bay in their different capacities.

Even assuming the absence of a categorical legal provision

specifically prodding petitioners to clean up the bay, they and
the men and women representing them cannot escape their
obligation to future generations of Filipinos to keep the
waters of the Manila Bay clean and clear as humanly as
possible. Anything less would be a betrayal of the trust
reposed in them.
The era of delays, procrastination, and ad hoc measures is
over. Petitioners must transcend their limitations, real or
imaginary, and buckle down to work before the problem at
hand becomes unmanageable. Thus, we must reiterate that
different government agencies and instrumentalities cannot
shirk from their mandates; they must perform their basic
functions in cleaning up and rehabilitating the Manila Bay. We
are disturbed by petitioners hiding behind two untenable
claims: (1) that there ought to be a specific pollution incident
before they are required to act; and (2) that the clean-up of
the bay is a discretionary duty.
The case of West Tower Condominium Corp., et al. v. First
Philippine Industrial Corp., et al. is worthy of note, In
November 2010, four months after an oil leak was
discovered in the basement of a condominium, the high
tribunal issued the country’s first Writ of Kalikasan, leading
to the temporary closure of the FPIC pipeline which
transports fuel products from one of the provinces to an oil
depot in Manila in the meantime that the Court of Appeals
was hearing the Petition.
In Cosalan, et al v. City of Baguio, et al., petitioner therein
sought the closure of a dumpsite following the death of six
(6) people, including three (3) children, when a “trashslide”
buried them alive under a mountain of trash. After hearing
with the Court of Appeals, the parties and the local
government agreed to settle the case amicably and later
entered into a Consent Decree, wherein the local
government undertook, among other things, to
permanently close the dumpsite and convert the area to an
environment-friendly Eco-Park. A Writ of Kalikasan was thus
granted and a writ of Continuing Mandamus was issued
ordering the Department of Environment and Natural
Resources (DENR) to strictly monitor compliance of all
concerned to the said decree.
In Agham Party List, et al. v. Ramon Paje, petitioners questioned
the use of and management of the Taal Volcano Protected
Landscape (TVPL). Considering that numerous fish cages were
erected and several livestock operators lined the banks of the Taal
Lake, it was claimed that the mishandling of these enterprises
affected the water quality and health of the Taal Lake. The parties
therein entered into a Memorandum of Agreement, which was
approved by the Court of Appeals. Among other things, the
Protected Area Management Board of the Taal Volcano Protected
Landscape undertook to be strict in the issuance of appropriate
clearances to all projects in the Taal Volcano Protected Landscape.
The Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR)
also agreed to intensify its efforts in monitoring the livestock
density of fish cages in the area. A Writ of Continuing Mandamus
was also issued requiring the parties to faithfully and promptly
comply with the conditions of the Memorandum of Agreement, as
well as, to submit a quarterly progressive report.
The precautionary principle was recently applied by the Court of
Appeals in the case of Greenpeace Southeast Asia (Philippines), et
al. v. Environmental Management Bureau of the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources. The Court of Appeals therein
granted a petition filed by environmental organizations and
advocates to stop the nationwide field trials of genetically modified
eggplant. The Court of Appeals stated that the precautionary
principle is especially relevant since the controversy deals with a
genetically-modified organism that would be introduced into our
ecosystem and eventually to the Philippine market for human
consumption. In the end, the CA upheld the petitioners’ right to a
balanced and healthful ecology and opined that the field trials
cannot be declared as safe to human health and the environment
since the over-all safety guarantee of the project remains to be
unknown.