Jurisprudence on

RPEC
The Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases
Outline
● Overview on RPEC
● Some cases on RPEC on the ff:
○ Writ of Kalikasan
■ Osmeña v. Garganera and the Future Generations including the
Unborn
○ SLAPP Suits
■ PH: SLAPP Suit against Ifugaos in Didipio Dismissed
○ Precautionary Principle
■ Telstra Corporation Ltd. v. Hornsby Shire Council
● Observation and Analysis
A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC
R E S O L U T I O N

Acting on the recommendation of the Chairperson of the Sub-

committee on the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases
submitting for this Court’s consideration and approval the
proposed Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases, the
Court Resolved to APPROVE the same.

These Rules shall take effect within fifteen (15) days

following its publication once in a newspaper of general
circulation.

April 13, 2010.

Cases on the ff:
● Writ of
Kalikasan
● SLAPP Suits
● Precautionary
Principles
 Writ of
Kalikasan
Osmeña v. Garganera and the
Future Generations including
the Unborn
FACTS: The Department of Environment and
Natural Resources (DENR) issued an
The Osmeña
v. Garganera
Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC) to
the Solid Waste Sanitary Landfill Project at
Inayawan landfill proposed by the Metro Cebu

Case
Development Project Office (MCDPO).
Thereafter the Inayawan landfill served as the
herbage disposal area of Cebu, City.

The Cebu city local government resolved to

close the Inayawan landfill per SP resolution and G.R. No. 231164, March 20, 2018

EO of former Cebu City mayor Rama. In 2015, MAYOR TOMAS R. OSMEÑA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS
Inayawan landfill was formally closed. CITY MAYOR OF CEBU, Petitioner, v. JOEL
CAPILI GARGANERA, FOR AND ON HIS BEHALF,
AND IN REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE OF THE
However under the administration of Mayor
CITIES OF CEBU AND TALISAY, AND THE FUTURE
Osmena the city government sought to GENERATIONS, INCLUDING THE UNBORN,
temporarily open the Inayawan Landfill. Acting Respondent.
mayor Margot Osmena officially re opened the
said landfill on 2016.
Notice of violation and technical conference was
The Osmeña
v. Garganera
issued by the EMB to Mayor Osmena regarding
City, Governments operation of the Inayawan
Landfill and its violations of the ECC. The DOH

Case
issued an inspection report wherein it
recommended among others the immediate closure
of the landfill due to the lack of sanitary
requirements, environmental, health and
community safety issues.
G.R. No. 231164, March 20, 2018

Respondent filed a petition for writ of kalikasan
with prayer for the issuance of TEPO before the
CA. He asserted that the continued operation of
the Landfill causes serious environmental damage
which threatens and violates their right to a
balanced and healthful ecology.
MAYOR TOMAS R. OSMEÑA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS
CITY MAYOR OF CEBU, Petitioner, v. JOEL
CAPILI GARGANERA, FOR AND ON HIS BEHALF,
AND IN REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE OF THE
CITIES OF CEBU AND TALISAY, AND THE FUTURE
GENERATIONS, INCLUDING THE UNBORN,
Respondent.
 The Osmeña
The CA granted the privilege of the writ of
kalikasan which ordered Mayor Osmena and his
v. Garganera
representatives to permanently cease and desist
from dumping or disposing of garbage or solid
waste at the Inayawan landfill and to continue to
Case
rehabilitate the same.
G.R. No. 231164, March 20, 2018
Mayor Osmena’s motion for reconsideration was
MAYOR TOMAS R. OSMEÑA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS
denied hence this petition. CITY MAYOR OF CEBU, Petitioner, v. JOEL
CAPILI GARGANERA, FOR AND ON HIS BEHALF,
AND IN REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE OF THE
CITIES OF CEBU AND TALISAY, AND THE FUTURE
GENERATIONS, INCLUDING THE UNBORN,
Respondent.

ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the 30 day prior notice
requirement for citizen suits under RA 9003 and RA
8749 is needed prior to the filing of the instant
petition.
2. Whether or not the CA correctly ruled that
the requirements for the grant of the privilege of
the writ of kalikasan were sufficiently established.
The Osmeña
v. Garganera
Case
G.R. No. 231164, March 20, 2018
MAYOR TOMAS R. OSMEÑA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS
CITY MAYOR OF CEBU, Petitioner, v. JOEL
CAPILI GARGANERA, FOR AND ON HIS BEHALF,
AND IN REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE OF THE
CITIES OF CEBU AND TALISAY, AND THE FUTURE
GENERATIONS, INCLUDING THE UNBORN,
Respondent.
RULING:
The Osmeña
* NO, the present petition for the writ of kalikasan
under the RPEC is a separate and distinct action
from RA 9003 and RA 8749. A writ of kalikasan is
v. Garganera
an extraordinary remedy covering environmental
damage of such magnitude that will prejudiced the
life, health or property of inhabitants in two or
Case
more cities or provinces. It is designed for a narrow
but special purpose: to accord a stronger G.R. No. 231164, March 20, 2018
protection for environmental rights, aiming among MAYOR TOMAS R. OSMEÑA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS
others, to provide a speedy and effective resolution CITY MAYOR OF CEBU, Petitioner, v. JOEL
of a case involving the violation of one’s CAPILI GARGANERA, FOR AND ON HIS BEHALF,
AND IN REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE OF THE
constitutional right to a healthful and balanced CITIES OF CEBU AND TALISAY, AND THE FUTURE
ecology that transcends political and territorial GENERATIONS, INCLUDING THE UNBORN,
boundaries and to address the potentially Respondent.
exponential nature of large-scale ecological threats.
Sec 3 rule 7 of RPEC allows direct resort to this
court with any of the stations of the CA which
states:
Sec 3. Where to file - the petition shall be filed with
the Supreme Court or with any of the stations of the
court if appeals.
Given that the writ of Kalikasan is an extraordinary
remedy and the RPEC allows direct action to this
Court and the CA where it is dictated by public
welfare, this Court is of the view that the prior 30
day notice requirement for the citizen suits under
RA 9003 and RA 8749 is inapplicable. It is
ultimately within the courts discretion whether or
not to accept petitions brought directly before it.
The Osmeña
v. Garganera
Case
G.R. No. 231164, March 20, 2018
MAYOR TOMAS R. OSMEÑA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS
CITY MAYOR OF CEBU, Petitioner, v. JOEL
CAPILI GARGANERA, FOR AND ON HIS BEHALF,
AND IN REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE OF THE
CITIES OF CEBU AND TALISAY, AND THE FUTURE
GENERATIONS, INCLUDING THE UNBORN,
Respondent.
* YES, the court affirmed the CA when it ruled that
The Osmeña
the requirements for the grant of the privilege of the
writ of kalikasan were sufficiently established. v. Garganera
Case
Under section 1 of rule 7 of the RPE, the following
requisites must be present to avail of this
extraordinary remedy: (1) there is an actual or
threatened violation if the constitutional right to a
balanced and healthful ecology; (2) the actual or
G.R. No. 231164, March 20, 2018
threatened violation arises from an unlawful act or
omission of a public officer or employer or private MAYOR TOMAS R. OSMEÑA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS
CITY MAYOR OF CEBU, Petitioner, v. JOEL
individual or entity and (3) the actual or threatened
CAPILI GARGANERA, FOR AND ON HIS BEHALF,
violation involves or will lead to an environmental AND IN REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE OF THE
damage of such magnitude as to prejudice the life, CITIES OF CEBU AND TALISAY, AND THE FUTURE
GENERATIONS, INCLUDING THE UNBORN,
health or property of inhabitants in to more cities or
Respondent.
provinces.
 The Osmeña
Expectedly, the rules do not define the exact nature
or degree of environmental damage but only that it
v. Garganera
must be sufficiently grave, in terms of the territorial
scope of such damage, so as to call for the grant of
this extraordinary remedy. The gravity of
Case
environmental damage sufficient to grant the writ is,
G.R. No. 231164, March 20, 2018
thus, to be decided on a case to case basis.
MAYOR TOMAS R. OSMEÑA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS
Wherefore the petition is denied. CITY MAYOR OF CEBU, Petitioner, v. JOEL
CAPILI GARGANERA, FOR AND ON HIS BEHALF,
AND IN REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE OF THE
CITIES OF CEBU AND TALISAY, AND THE FUTURE
GENERATIONS, INCLUDING THE UNBORN,
Respondent.
SLAPP Suits
●PH: SLAPP
Suit against
Ifugaos in
Didipio

CAMPAIGN UPDATE – PHILIPPINES: SLAPP
SUIT AGAINST IFUGAOS IN DIDIPIO
DISMISSED
https://www.culturalsurvival.org
Cultural Survival
Campaign
A municipal judge inUpdate
the Philippines dismissed
charges against nine Ifugao Indigenous people
who are members of the Didipio Earth Savers
Mulitpurpose Association (DESAMA). DESAMA
has long claimed that the charges were trumped
up in an attempt to intimidate and harass
Indigenous people who oppose construction of
an OceanaGold mine in their community. Mine
construction has displaced Indigenous
landowners and threatens the water supply in
this agricultural region. The judge’s decision
reinforces DESAMA’s opinion that the charges
constituted a “Strategic Lawsuit Against Public
Participation” (SLAPP) suit, a tactic aimed at
eliminating public opposition to corporate
projects.
Resources Center
Press Release — September 9,
2011
The case was filed against nine (9) indigenous Ifugaos for allegedly violating Section 69 of the P.D. No. 705 or the Revised
Forestry Code branding them as “illegal forest occupants”. The majority of the 9 indigenous Ifugaos are leaders and members
of DESAMA, an organization resisting the large-scale mining project in Didipio, Nueva Vizcaya awarded to OceanaGold, an
Australian mining company.

According to Atty. Minerva Quintela, legal counsel of the accused from the Legal Rights & Natural Resources Center (LRC),
“These are Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP) cases filed against members of our partner community which
are invalid and abusive suits designed to chill the opposition against large-scale mining in Baranggay Didipio. Based on the
new Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases, this is ground for dismissal under Rule 19. Our partners cannot be accused
as ‘illegal forest occupants’ because they have legally occupied their lands since the 1960’s and 1970’s in pursuit of livelihood
based on various legal tenurial instruments. Also, the revised Forest Code, Section 53 clearly shows that ‘cultural minorities
and other occupants who entered into forest lands and grazing lands before May 19, 1975, without permit or authority shall
not be prosecuted’.”

“This decision by Judge Atorba reinvigorates our resolve to continue the fight for our rights and our lands. To continue our two
decade struggle against large-scale mining project in our village. That in the end, truth, law and history is on our side,” avers
Manong Tolentino Inlab, Chairperson of the indignant DESAMA.
Contd...
LRC Executive Director, Judy Pasimio says that, “Filing SLAPP suits against community rights
defenders is one of the common tactics employed by mining companies designed to break the resolve
of resisters opposing their mining projects. What is deplorable in this case is that the DENR has lent
itself to be part of the mining company’s tactics to silence the DESAMA leaders and members. It is
fortunate that the resolve of the Ifugaos of Didipio is unwavering, and that they were able to overcome
this particular hurdle. Many others have not been this fortunate. This situation only bolsters the urgent
need for a new law on mining and minerals management; a new law that promotes and safeguards the
rights of the people, most importantly that of the indigenous peoples,” Pasimio said.
Precautionary Principle (Telstra
Case)
 Telstra Corporation Limited v
Hornsby Shire Council
(March 24, 2006)
This case dealt with the application of the precautionary principle in the case of
emission of radiofrequency electromagnetic energy. A telecommunications carrier,
Telstra, wished to address the inadequate mobile telephone coverage in a
community called Cheltenham by building a mobile telephone base station in the
community. This proposal, however, caused a section of the community of
Cheltenham and Hornsby Shire Council much concern. They were concerned that
the proposed facility would emit electromagnetic energy that would harm the
health and safety of the residents of Cheltenham. The Council therefore refused
the development application for the proposal. Telstra appealed to this Court
seeking consent for the proposal.
The court noted that it had to address the following questions:
*What is the precautionary principle and how is it to be applied when
thinking about public health and safety and the environment?
*How can it be invoked to respond to public fear?

The issue of the effect of electromagnetic energy emitted from the proposed
base station raised the question of the ecological sustainability of the
development, and in particular the applicability of the precautionary
principle to the development. The court outlined the basic concept of
ecologically sustainable development and its applicability to the
determination of development applications. It then focused on the
precautionary principle and its applicability to the proposed development in
this case.
It was of the view that the emission levels complied with the adopted
public health and safety standard. The precautionary principle was not
applicable where there was no threat of serious or irreversible
environmental damage. There was no probative evidence on which the
court could find an adverse effect on the amenity of the location or on
public health and safety due to the development. The corresponding
perception of adverse effects was unsubstantiated and without rational
foundation. The court had to make its determination on the basis of
reason and substantiated evidence. Therefore there was not basis for a
refusal of the proposal. The appeal was upheld and development consent
was granted subject to conditions.
Observation and Analysis
SOURCES
● http://cpcabrisbane.org/Kasama/2011/V25n3and4/Didipio.htm?
fbclid=IwAR04UjkO219Di5FYSmGJdUbUIpy6tADXPeON-4fRYHWJ0cenkyoR9ffvzcQ
● https://www.culturalsurvival.org/news/campaign-update-philippines-slapp-
suit-against-ifugaos-didipio-dismissed?
fbclid=IwAR2wswAXfqrs7JdwHgmDMwsWDxEZRvgAg5y3taA8lN44ppghChQzCLRySnU
● https://www.informea.org/en/court-decision/telstra-corporation-limited-
v-hornsby-shire-council