Writ of Kalikasan and Writ of Continuing Mandamus

For decades, various global environmental movements have been promoting the
protection of the environment and conservation of our natural resources. One of
the well-known organizations supporting such cause is the United Nations (UN).
The UN, through the adoption of the Declaration of the United Nations Conference
on the Human Environment or the Stockholm Declaration on June 16, 1972, put
more emphasis on the necessity of having common principles in the preservation
and the enhancement of the human environment1. This was further reaffirmed
through the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development of 19922.

On a local setting, the importance of environment was recognized when it formed

part of Section 16, Article II of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, to wit:

“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.”

In addition to that, several laws and rules and regulations were enacted to further
strengthen not only the protection of the environment but also the rights of the
Filipino people to a balanced and healthful ecology. And to implement these laws
and rules and regulations effectively, the Supreme Court, acting on the
recommendation of the former Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno, the then
Chairperson of the Sub-committee on the Rules of Procedure for Environmental
Cases, approved A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC otherwise known as the Rules of Procedure
for Environmental Cases (RPEC)3.

As stated on Section 1, Rule 1 of RPEC, “These Rules shall govern the procedure in
civil, criminal, and special civil actions xxx involving enforcement or violations of
environmental and other related laws, rules and regulations xxx.” And, specifically

1
Stockholm 1972 – Declaration of the United Nations. Retrieved from https://www.ipcc.ch › apps › njlite › srex ›
njlite_download
2
Rio Declaration on Environment and Development 1992 – UiO. Retrieved from https://www.jus.uio.no ›
portrait.a4.pdf
3
The LAWPHIL Project. Retrieved from https://www.lawphil.net/courts/supreme/am/am_09-6-8-sc_2010.html
discussed under Part III of these Rules are the remedies for Special Civil Actions
such as the Writ of Kalikasan and the Writ of Continuing Mandamus under Rules 7
and 8, respectively.

Rule 7 of RPEC refers to Writ of Kalikasan that contains 17 Sections, which

thoroughly discussed the procedure from its nature until institution of separate
actions. In addition to the guidelines laid out in the said Rule, the Court, through its
rulings, further explained some of the provisions of the Rules.

Section 1 of the said Rule referred to the Nature of the Writ, to wit:

Section 1. Nature of the writ. – The writ is a remedy available to a

natural or juridical person, entity authorized by law, people’s
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 pubic 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.

First is the locus standi or standing of the people who may file for such petition.
The landmark case of Oposa vs Factoran, Jr.4 involved the act of granting Timber
License Agreements (TLA) which would further deforestation in the country. The
Court ruled that “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 intergenerational responsibility insofar as the right to a

4
Oposa vs. Factoran, G.R. No. 101083, July 30, 1993. Retrieved from
https://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1993/jul1993/gr_101083_1993.html
balanced and healthful ecology is concerned.” With such, it could be concluded that
the RPEC relaxed the ruling on the standing.

Second is the consideration of the merits of the Petition based on the number of
Petitioners. The case of West Tower Condominium Corporation vs. FPIC, et. al.5
involved the leak in the oil pipeline owned by the First Philippine Industrial
Corporation (FPIC) in Makati City which is not only a threat to the lives of those who
sojourn in all the municipalities in which the pipeline is laid, but would also affect
the rights of the generations yet unborn to live in a balanced and “healthful
ecology.” The Court ruled that “It is of no moment that only five residents of West
Tower signed their acquiescence to the filing of the petition for the issuance of the
Writ of Kalikasan, as the merits of such petition is, as aptly put by the CA, not
measured by the number of persons who signified their assent thereto, but on the
existence of a prima facie case of a massive environmental disaster.” The Court, in
trying cases in relation to Petition for the Issuance of Writ of Kalikasan does not
rely on the number of the Petitioners but on the existence of a prima facie case of
a massive environmental disaster.

Third is the compliance with the requisites of the issuance of Writ of Kalikasan. The
case of LNL Archipelago Minerals, Inc. vs. Agham Party List6 involved the cutting of
mountain trees and flattening of the mountain which serves as a natural protective
barrier from typhoons and floods not only of the residents of Zambales but also the
residents of some nearby towns located in Pangasinan. The Court enumerated the
requisites of the issuance of Writ of Kalikasan, to wit:

“The following requisites must be present to avail of this remedy: (1)

there is an actual or threatened violation of the constitutional right to
a balanced and healthful ecology; (2) the actual or threatened
violation arises from an unlawful act or omission of a public official or
employee, or private individual or entity; and (3) the actual or

5
West Tower Condominium Corporation vs. First Philippine Industrial Corporation, First Gen Corporation and their
Respective Board of Directors and Officers, John Does, and Richard Does, G.R. No. 194239, June 16, 2915.
Retrieved from https://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jun2015/gr_194239_2015.html
6
LNL Archipelago Minerals, Inc. vs. Agham Party List, G.R. No. 209165, April 12, 2016. Retrieved from
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2016/apr2016/gr_209165_2016.html
 threatened violation involves or will lead to an environmental damage
of such magnitude as to prejudice the life, health or property of
inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces.”

And, non-compliance with the abovementioned requisites gives rise to the denial
of the petition for the issuance of the Writ of Kalikasan.

Fourth is the applicability of the Writ of Kalikasan in cases where a treaty exists.
The case of Arigo vs. Swift7 involved violations of environmental laws and
regulations in relation to the grounding of the US military ship USS Guardian over
the Tubbataha Reef. The Court ruled that “As held in BAYAN (Bagong Alyansang
Makabayan) v. Exec. Sec. Zamora, the VFA was duly concurred in by the Philippine
Senate and has been recognized as a treaty by the United States as attested and
certified by the duly authorized representative of the United States government.
The VF A being a valid and binding agreement, the parties are required as a matter
of international law to abide by its terms and provisions. The present petition under
the Rules is not the proper remedy to assail the constitutionality of its provisions.
WHEREFORE, the petition for the issuance of the privilege of the Writ of Kalikasan
is hereby DENIED.” With such, the Writ of Kalikasan cannot be at all times invoked
in cases related to the violation of environmental laws as there are laws, rules and
regulations, and even treaties that can be considered as exceptions to the
applicability of the Writ of Kalikasan.

On the other hand, Rule 8 of RPEC refers to the Writ of Continuing Mandamus that
contains 8 sections, which, like the provision on Writ of Kalikasan, thoroughly
discussed the procedures from its nature until the return of the writ. There are also
several cases where the Court made clarifications in regard to this remedy.

Section 1 of the said Rule referred to the Petition for continuing

mandamus, to wit:

7
Arigo vs. Swift, G.R. No. 206510, September 16, 2014. Retrieved from
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/sep2014/gr_206510_2014.html#fnt42
 Section 1. Petition for continuing mandamus. - When any agency or
instrumentality of the government or officer thereof 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. The petition shall also contain a
sworn certification of non-forum shopping.

First is the proprietary of the issuance of mandamus. The landmark case of MMDA
vs Concerned Residents of Manila Bay8 involved the prayer of the respondents, the
residents of Manila Bay, to compel MMDA and its other co-petitioners to clean or
rehabilitate Manila Bay. The Court ruled that “the petitioners, government
agencies, are enjoined, as a matter of statutory obligation, to perform certain
functions relating directly or indirectly to the cleanup, rehabilitation, protection,
and preservation of the Manila Bay.” The Court further explained that “mandamus
is available to compel action, when refused, on matters involving discretion, but
not to direct the exercise of judgment or discretion one way or the other.” In the
Resolution issued by the Court following its Decision, the Court also added that
“With the final and executory judgment in MMDA, the writ of continuing
mandamus issued in MMDA means that until petitioner-agencies have shown full

8
MMDA, et al vs. Concerned Residents of Manila Bay, G.R. No. 171947-48, December 18, 2008. Retrieved from
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html
compliance with the Court’s orders, the Court exercises continuing jurisdiction over
them until full execution of the judgment.”

Another case in relation to the proprietary of issuance of the Writ of Continuing

Mandamus is the case of Segovia, et. al. vs. The Climate Change Commission, et.
al.9 which involved the bifurcation of roads to devote for all-weather sidewalk and
bicycling and Filipino-made transport vehicles. The Court ruled that “the petitioners
are seeking to compel is not the performance of a ministerial act, but a
discretionary act - the manner of implementation of the Road Sharing Principle.
xxx. Absent a showing that the executive is guilty of "gross abuse of discretion,
manifest injustice or palpable excess of authority,"44 the general rule applies that
discretion cannot be checked via this petition for continuing mandamus. Hence,
the continuing mandamus cannot issue.”

Second is the requirement that the petition should be sufficient in form and
substance. The case of Dolot vs. Paje, et. al.10 involved Dolot’s protest against the
illegal iron ore operations in Matnog of the private respondents due to its negative
environmental impacts. The Court ruled, to wit:

“Section 4, Rule 8 of the Rules requires that the petition filed should be
sufficient in form and substance before a court may take further
action; otherwise, the court may dismiss the petition outright.

xxx.

Sufficiency in form and substance refers to the contents of the petition

filed under Rule 8, Section 1.

xxx.

On matters of form, the petition must be verified and must contain

supporting evidence as well as a sworn certification of non-forum
shopping. xxx. Sufficiency of substance, on the other hand, necessitates

9
Victoria Segovia, et. al. vs. The Climate Change Commission, et. al., G.R. No. 211010, March 7, 2017. Retrieved
from https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/mar2017/gr_211010_2017.html#fnt35
10
Maricris D. Dolot vs. Hon. Ramon Paje, et. al., G.R. No. 199199, August 27, 2013. Retrieved from
https://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/aug2013/gr_199199_2013.html
 that the petition must contain substantive allegations specifically
constituting an actionable neglect or omission and must establish, at
the very least, a prima facie basis for the issuance of the writ, xxx.

The final court decree, order or decision erroneously alluded to by the

RTC actually pertains to the judgment or decree that a court would
eventually render in an environmental case for continuing mandamus
and which judgment or decree shall subsequently become final.

xxx.

There is nothing in Rule 8 that compels the inclusion of judicial

affidavits, albeit not prohibited. It is only if the evidence of the
petitioner would consist of testimony of witnesses that it would be the
time that judicial affidavits (affidavits of witnesses in the question and
answer form) must be attached to the petition/complaint.”

Third is where the petition for a writ of continuing mandamus shall be filed. The
case of Boracay Foundation, Inc. vs. The Province of Aklan, et. al.11 involved Boracay
Foundation, Inc.’s prayer to compel respondent Province to comply with certain
environmental laws, rules, and procedures that it claims were either circumvented
or ignored. This is in relation to the expansion of the port facilities at Caticlan
through rehabilitation of the existing terminal buildings and ports and reclamation
of a portion of Caticlan foreshore which shall adversely affect the frail ecological
balance of the are. The Court ruled that “Petitioner had three options where to file
this case under the rule: the Regional Trial Court exercising jurisdiction over the
territory where the actionable neglect or omission occurred, the Court of Appeals,
or this Court.

Petitioner had no other plain, speedy, or adequate remedy in the ordinary course of
law to determine the questions of unique national and local importance raised here

11
Boracay Foundation, Inc. vs. The Province of Aklan, represented by Governor Carlito S. Marquez, The Philippine
Reclamation Authority, and the DENR-EMB (Region VI), G.R. No. 196870, June 26, 2012. Retrieved from
https://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/jun2012/gr_196870_2012.html
that pertain to laws and rules for environmental protection, thus it was justified in
coming to this Court.”

After discussing cases relevant to the two (2) writs, we, now, go to its comparison.

First, the subject matter in Writ of Kalikasan refers to unlawful act or omission of a
public official or employee, or private individual or entity, involving environmental
damage that will prejudice the life, health, or property of inhabitants in two or
more cities or provinces; while the subject matter in Writ of Continuing Mandamus
refers to unlawful neglect of duty of a public official or a public organization
involving violation of an environmental law, rule or regulation, or a right.

Second, the persons who may file in Writ of Kalikasan are any natural or juridical
persons, entities authorized by law, or people’s organization or any public interest
group; while the persons who may file in Writ of Continuing Mandamus are persons
who are personally aggrieved by the unlawful act or omission.

Third, the respondents in Writ of Kalikasan are government and its officers or
private individual or entity; while the respondents in Writ of Continuing Mandamus
are government and its officers only.

Fourth, the venue in Writ of Kalikasan are the Court of Appeals and the Supreme
Court; while the venue in Writ of Continuing Mandamus does not only include the
two (2) courts prior mentioned but also includes the Regional Trial Court that has
jurisdiction over the territory where the neglect or omission occurred.

Fifth, the discovery measure in Writ of Kalikasan are ocular inspection order and
production order; while there is none in Writ of Continuing Mandamus.

Lastly, there are no damages for personal injury in Writ of Kalikasan unless the
parties file a separate action for the recovery of damages; while Writ of Continuing
Mandamus allows damages for the malicious neglect of performance of the legal
duty of the respondent.