The Supreme Court yesterday promulgated the Rules of Procedure

for Environmental Cases which will serve as a significant catalyst

in support of sweeping and far-reaching reforms in environmental
litigation and protection. The Rules are the first of its kind in the
world.
Highlights of the Rules include provisions on: (1) citizen suits, (2)
consent decree, (3) environmental protection order, (4) writ of
kalikasan, (5) writ of continuing mandamus, (6)strategic lawsuits
against public participation (SLAPP) and (7) the precautionary
principle.
The provision on citizen suits liberalizes standing for all cases filed
enforcing environmental laws. Citizen suits have proven critical in
forcing government and its agencies to act on its duty to protect
and preserve the environment. The terminology of the text
reflects the doctrine first enunciated in Oposa v. Factoran (G.R.
No. 101083, July 30, 1993). To further encourage the protection of
the environment, the Rules enable litigants enforcing
environmental rights to file their cases as citizen suits. As a
procedural device, citizen suits permit deferred of payment of
filing fees until after the judgment
The use of a consent decree is an innovative way to resolve
environmental cases. It allows for a compromise agreement
between two parties in environmental litigation over issues that
would normally be litigated in court, and other matters that may
not necessarily be of issue in court.
An environmental protection order refers to an order issued by the
court directing or enjoining any person or government agency to
perform or desist from performing an act in order to protect,
preserve or rehabilitate the environment. It integrates both

prohibitive and mandatory reliefs in order to appropriately

address the factual circumstances surrounding the case. This
remedial measure can also be prayed for in the writs of kalikasan
and continuing mandamus.

the issuance of the writ of kalikasan is immediate in nature. It

contains a very specific set of remedies which may be availed of
individually or cumulatively, to wit it is available to a natural or
juridical person, entity authorized by law, peoples organization,
non-governmental organization, 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. The petition for the
issuance of a writ of kalikasan can be filed with the Supreme
Court or with any of the stations of the Court of Appeals. Likewise,
the summary process leading to the issuance of the writ of
kalikasan dispenses with extensive litigation; this facilitates the
prompt disposition of matters before the court.
Another innovation is the rule on the writ of continuing
mandamus which integrates the ruling in Concerned Residents of
Manila Bay v. MMDA G.R. Nos. 171947-48, December 8, 2008) and
the existing rule on the issuance of the writ of mandamus.
Procedurally, its filing before the courts is similar to the filing of an
ordinary writ of mandamus. However, the issuance of a
Temporary Environmental Protection Order is made available as
an auxiliary remedy prior to the issuance of the writ itself.
As a special civil action, the writ of continuing Mandamus may be

availed of to compel the performance of an act specifically

enjoined by law. It permits the court to retain jurisdiction after
judgment in order to ensure the successful implementation of the
reliefs mandated under the court's decision. For this purpose, the
court may compel the submission of compliance reports from the
respondent government agencies as well as avail of other means
to monitor compliance with its decision.
Its availability as a special civil action likewise complements its
role as a final relief in environmental civil cases and in the writ of
kalikasan, where continuing mandamus may likewise be issued
should the facts merit such a relief.
Both petitions for the issuance of the writs of kalikasan and
mandamus are exempt from the payment of docket fees.
Since formidable legal challenges may be mounted against those
who seek to enforce environmental law, or to assert
environmental rights, in light of this, the Rules make available a
formidable defense in these by creating a rule on strategic lawsuit
against public participation (SLAPP). . These legal challenges may
be pre-emptive in character and may be done in order to chill
the latter.
Another significant aspect of the Rules that derives from the
transboundary and temporal nature of ecological injury is the
adoption of the precautionary principle. In this context, the
precautionary principle finds direct application in the evaluation of
evidence in cases before the courts. The precautionary principle
bridges the gap in cases where scientific certainty in factual
findings cannot be achieved. By applying the precautionary
principle, the court may construe a set of facts as warranting
either judicial action or inaction, with the goal of preserving and
protecting the environment. This may be further evinced from the

second paragraph where bias is created in favor of the

constitutional right the people to a balanced and healthful
ecology.
Some important provisions on criminal procedure can also be
found under the Rules.
The rule on bail makes available to the accused the privilege of
bail from any court, within and outside the jurisdiction of the court
which had issued the warrant of arrest. The immediate availability
of bail is intended to obviate long periods of detention.
One important innovation under the rule on bail is the execution
of an undertaking by the accused and counsel, empowering the
judge to enter a plea of not guilty, in the event the accused fails
to appear at the arraignment. This authorization permits the court
to try the case in absentia, thereby addressing a fundamental
concern surrounding the prosecution of criminal cases in general,
where the accused jumps bail and the court unable to proceed
with the disposition of the case in view of the absence of the
accused and the failure to arraign the latter.
Several environmental advocates have lauded the Supreme Court
for serving as the major bulwark for fundamental reforms in
environmental protection:
Atty. Antonio Oposa, Jr.: This is a new day for the life sources of
land, air and water. Ordinary citizens like us are now empowered
to take legal action where our political leaders will not. We thank
the Supreme Court for this truly landmark achievement, the first
of its kind in the world. It happened during Chief Justice Punos
stewardship of the Supreme Court. We salute you, Chief Justice
Puno, the entire Supreme Court, and everyone who played a role
in the drafting of this milestone for the movement of citizens who
care for our sources of life! You have made a great difference and

will forever be remembered for this legacy. Mabuhay po kayo!

Atty. Gloria Estenzo Ramos (Global Legal Action on Climate
Change): A new era of nurturing for our threatened natural
support system has ushered in with the Supreme Courts
promulgation of the much awaited Rules on Environmental Cases.
This will transform the legal profession and the practice of law in
our country and instill a mindset of sustainability among
stakeholders, especially the lawyers, government agencies and
the corporate sector. Lawyers will become stewards of both the
law and the environment. The wide gap existing between the law
and reality will narrowed down as the trail-blazing remedies such
as the writ of kalikasan, writ of continuing mandamus, citizen suit
and anti-SLAPP, afforded to the people, ecological stewards and
dedicated civil servants will render the violation or noncompliance of environmental laws a very expensive and tedious
option. This legacy of Chief Justice Puno and the justices of the
Supreme Court will be enshrined as one of the greatest gifts not
just to Filipinos and the future generations of this biodiversity rich
nation, but to our climate challenged planet as well. Mabuhay ang
SC! Mabuhay si Chief Justice Puno!
Atty. Roan Libarios (Integrated Bar of the Philippines, Governor):
A.M. No. 09-6-8 is a major breakthrough that will finally bridge
the wide gap between Philippine environmental protection laws
and their enforcement. Mother Nature will rejoice from the
innovative legal weapons created and unleashed for its defense
by the SC the citizens right, EPO, writs of kalikasan and
continuing mandamus. Truly, no other set of rules can match the
potency of A.M. No. 09-6-8 in promoting environmental
accountability. With its potency, it will energize, if not transform
the field of legal advocacy in environmental protection.
The Sub-committee who finalized the Rules was chaired by Chief

Justice Reynato S. Puno, its other members include Justice

Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., Justice Diosdado M. Peralta, Justice Lucas
P. Bersmain, Justice Ma. Alicia Austria-Martinez (ret.), Commission
on Climate Change Commissioner Mary Ann Lucille L. Sering,
Judge Myrna Lim-Verano, and the U.S. Department of Interiors incountry representative, Atty. Asis G. Perez.
The Rules will take effect within fifteen (15) days following its
publication once in a newspaper of general circulation

One of the basic principles stated and reiterated in the Agenda 21

is the concept of inter-generational responsibility. It states that:
Man ... bears a solemn responsibility to protect and improve the
environment for present and future generations. 1 Essentially, the
principle means that we hold the natural resource treasures of the
earth in trust for the benefit, enjoyment and use of the
generations of humankind yet to come. It is therefore a trust
endowed upon us as trustee and depository to use and enjoy.
While our generation has the right to use the earths resources, as
a trustee and depository, we are also duty bound not to misuse or
exhaust it, so that those of our species to come in much later
years will still have something to use. This, in simple terms is the
meaning of sustainable development, using natural resources
without exhausting them. The time frame is not limited to nor
extending only until the generation of our children and of our
childrens children. Rather, it extends up to a horizon of
reasonable perpetuity, i.e. up to the time when the species homo
sapiens is still around and that they will still need the lifesupport
systems of the natural resource treasures of the earth. This
concept was tested in the legal forum in the Philippines. On July
30, 1993, one year after the Earth Summit that produced Agenda
21, the Philippine Supreme Court had the occasion to rule on the
legal standing of children to sue before a court of law on a
question of nationwide significance the issue of deforestation. 2
GEO

STRATEGIC AND TACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS 4.1 Choice of the

parties: 4.1.1 Plaintiff: While the present generation was and will
continue to suffer the ecological malfunctioning as a result of
forest destruction, it is the generation of our children and those to
follow that will suffer what in legal parlance is called irreversible
damage and irreparable injury. Under the rules on procedure, they

are the real parties in interest. 4.1.2 Defendant: Who should be

the defendant/s? The necessary defendants are: a. The holders of
the license. b. The issuer of the license. To unnecessarily pick a
fight with 92 multimillion logging companies, with their battery of
topnotch lawyers and their massive political clout, may not be an
act of heroism but of foolhardy quixotism. The art of war teaches
us to choose the line of least resistance. Thus, the issuer, the
Government, was the easier target.3 Besides, under the Regalian
doctrine, Government (representing the State) is the owner of the
countrys natural resources. Being the owner and possessor of
authority, Government is also bestowed with responsibility. As the
temporal representative of this generation, Government is duty
bound to care for the natural resources of the Philippines and to
keep it in good, if not in a better, condition for the benefit of the
present and future generations of Filipinos. In fact this line of
thinking was already present in our existing environmental laws.
An environmental provision had even been recently enshrined in
the 1987 Constitution. 4.2 Choice of the action: A cause of action
in an environmental legal action with a policy (a.k.a. political)
complexion must not only be sufficient, it must also appear
sufficient, clear, unmistakable, and palpable. Otherwise, it can
suffer the setback of early dismissal for failing to state a cause of
action. The clear and unmistakable cause of action was in the fact
that: There were only 800,000 hectares left of virgin forests
THE LEGAL ACTION On March 20, 1990, (two years before Agenda
21) Civil Case No. 90-777 for mandatory injunction was initiated
before the Regional Trial Court of Makati, Metro Manila. The
plaintiffs, forty three children from all over the Philippines filed a
legal action against the Secretary of the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) and prayed for the
cancellation of all logging concessions in the country. The legal
and philosophical basis are as follows. 5.1. Constitution: The 1987
Constitution states that, The State shall protect and advance the
right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology in accord

with the rhythm and harmony of nature (Article 2, Section 16). 5.2
Common Law: This generation, represented by the Government, is
the trustee of the natural resource treasures of the country. As
such, it must properly care for these treasures so that succeeding
generations the beneficiary may still enjoy, use and benefit from
these resources until and up to an horizon of reasonable
perpetuity. The Trustier, of course, is the Creator of Nature. 5.3
Civil Law: Whoever does damage to another in a manner that is
contrary to morals and public policy shall be liable for the damage
done. Public policy is contained in the Constitution and in the
various dormant environment laws of the country. All of them
state, in effect, that we hold these natural resources for the
benefit of future generations. If this public policy is violated by our
act of willful and continued forest depletion, there is actionable
damage. 5.4 Natural law: Plaintiff minors alleged that the act of
allowing the total decimation of the forest resources of the
country violated their right (and instinct) of self-preservation and
self-perpetuation. It is an at tantamount to generational genocide.

The Supreme Court of the Philippines rendered an en banc and

unanimous decision on July 30, 1993.4 The following legal issues
and clarifications may be of interest: 7.1 Class suit The subject
matter of the complaint is of common and general interest not
just to several, but to all the citizens of the Philippines. Since the
parties are so numerous, it is impossible to bring them all before
the court. The case was ruled as a proper class suit. It was also
ruled that the petitioners are numerous and representative
enough to ensure full protection of all the concerned interests.5
7.2 Legal personality to sue: The Supreme Court clarified the
question of the childrens legal right of action, their locus standi. It
said: Petitioners minors assert that they represent their
generation as well as generations yet unborn. We find no difficulty
in ruling that they can, for themselves, for others of their

generation and for the succeeding generations, file a class suit.

Their personality to sue in behalf of the succeeding generations
can only be based on the concept of inter-generational
responsibility insofar as the right to a balanced and healthful
ecology is concerned. Such a right considers the rhythm and
harmony of Nature. Nature means the created world in its
entirety. Such rhythm and harmony indispensably include, inter
alia, the judicious disposition of the natural resources to the end
that their development be equitably accessible to the present as
well as future generations. Needless to say, every generation has
a responsibility to the next to preserve that rhythm and harmony
for the full enjoyment of a balanced and healthful ecology. Put a
little differently, the minors assertion of their right to a sound
environment constitutes, at the same time, the performance of
their obligation to ensure the protection of that right for the
generations to come. The Court also clarified the legal status of
the right to a sound environment. It noted that:
While the right to a balanced ecology is found under the
Declaration of Principles and State Policies and not under the Bill
of Rights, it does not follow that it is less important than any of
the civil and political rights enumerated in the latter. Such right
belongs to a different category of right altogether for it concerns
nothing less than self-preservation and self-perpetuation the
advancement of which may be said to predate all governments
and constitutions. As a matter of fact, these basic rights need not
even be written in the Constitution for they are assumed to exist
from the inception of humankind. If they are now explicitly
mentioned in the fundamental charter, it is because of the wellfounded fear of its framers that unless the rights are mandated by
the Constitution itself, the day would not be too far when all else
would be lost not only for the present generation, but also for
those to come Generations which stand to inherit nothing but
parched earth incapable of sustaining life.

A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC

Special remedy available
to a natural or juridical person, entity authorized by law, peoples
organization, non-governmental organization, 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.
Coverage:
Constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology.
Rights violated:
There is an actual or threatened violation of ones right to a
healthful and balanced ecology involving environmental damage.
Who may file:
A natural or juridical person, entity authorized by law, peoples
organization, non-governmental organization, or any public
interest
group accredited by or registered with any government agency.