Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases

A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC, April 13, 2010

WRIT OF KALIKASAN

I. Writ of Kalikasan

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 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 (Section 1).

The Writ of Kalikasan, categorized as a special civil action and conceptualized as an

extraordinary remedy, covers environmental damage of such magnitude that will
prejudice the life, health or property of inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces. The
writ is available against an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or
private individual or entity (LNL Archipelago Minerals, Inc. v. Agham Party List, G.R. No.
209165, [April 12, 2016]).

II. Essential Requisites

For a writ of kalikasan to issue, the following requisites must concur:

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 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.

• It is well-settled that a party claiming the privilege for the issuance of a writ of
kalikasan has to show that a law, rule or regulation was violated or would be
violated (Segovia v. Climate Change Commission, G.R. No. 211010, [March 7,
2017]).

• The RPEC did liberalize the requirements on standing, allowing the filing
of citizen's suit for the enforcement of rights and obligations under

Victor Kenner S. Galang

environmental laws. This has been confirmed by this Court's rulings in Arigo
v. Swift, and International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-BioTech Applications,
Inc. v. Greenpeace Southeast Asia (Philippines). However, it bears noting that
there is a difference between a petition for the issuance of a writ of kalikasan,
wherein it is sufficient that the person filing represents the inhabitants
prejudiced by the environmental damage subject of the writ; and a petition for
the issuance of a writ of continuing mandamus, which is only available to one
who is personally aggrieved by the unlawful act or omission (Segovia v. Climate
Change Commission, G.R. No. 211010, [March 7, 2017]).

o The liberalized rule on standing is now enshrined in the Rules of

Procedure for Environmental Cases which allows the filing of a citizen
suit in environmental cases. The provision on citizen suits in the Rules
"collapses the traditional rule on personal and direct interest, on the
principle that humans are stewards of nature," and aims to "further
encourage the protection of the environment." There is therefore no
dispute on the standing of respondents to file before this Court their
petition for writ of kalikasan and writ of continuing mandamus
(International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications, Inc. v.
Greenpeace Southeast Asia (Phils.), G.R. Nos. 209271, 209276, 209301 &
209430, [December 8, 2015]).

o Oposa v. Factoran, Jr. signaled an even more liberalized policy on

locus standi in public suits. In said case, we recognized the "public
right" of citizens to "a balanced and healthful ecology which, for the
first time in our nation's constitutional history, is solemnly
incorporated in the fundamental law." We held that such right need not
be written in the Constitution for it is assumed, like other civil and
political rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, to exist from the
inception of mankind and it is an issue of transcendental importance
with intergenerational implications. Such right carries with it the
correlative duty to refrain from impairing the environment. Since the
Oposa ruling, ordinary citizens not only have legal standing to sue for
the enforcement of environmental rights, they can do so in
representation of their own and future generations (International Service
for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications, Inc. v. Greenpeace Southeast
Asia (Phils.), G.R. Nos. 209271, 209276, 209301 & 209430, [December 8,
2015]).

o This is so considering that the filing of a petition for the issuance of a

writ of kalikasan under Sec. 1, Rule 7 of the Rules of Procedure for
Environmental Cases does not require that a petitioner be directly
affected by an environmental disaster. The rule clearly allows juridical
persons to file the petition on behalf of persons whose constitutional
right to a balanced and healthful ecology is violated, or threatened with
violation. Thus, as parties to the case, they are entitled to be furnished

Victor Kenner S. Galang

 copies of all the submissions to the Court, including the periodic
reports of FPIC and the results of the evaluations and tests conducted
on the WOPL (West Tower Condominium Corp. v. First Phil. Industrial
Corp., G.R. No. 194239, [June 16, 2015]).

• In the case of Segovia v. Climate Change Commission, the Court refused to

issue the writ because --- while there can be no disagreement with the general
propositions put forth by the petitioners on the correlation of air quality and
public health, petitioners have not been able to show that respondents are
guilty of violation or neglect of environmental laws that causes or contributes
to bad air quality. Notably, apart from bare allegations, petitioners were not
able to show that respondents failed to execute any of the laws petitioners
cited. In fact, apart from adducing expert testimony on the adverse effects of
air pollution on public health, the petitioners did not go beyond mere
allegation in establishing the unlawful acts or omissions on the part of the
public respondents that have a causal link or reasonable connection to the
actual or threatened violation of the constitutional right to a balanced and
healthful ecology of the magnitude contemplated under the Rules, as required
of petitions of this nature.

• The Rules are clear that in a Writ of Kalikasan petitioner has the burden to
prove the:

1) Environmental law, rule or regulation violated or threatened to be

violated;

2) Act or omission complained of; and

3) The environmental damage of such magnitude as to prejudice the life,

health or property of inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces.

Even the Annotation to the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases states
that the magnitude of environmental damage is a condition sine qua non in
a petition for the issuance of a Writ of Kalikasan and must be contained in
the verified petition. Agham, in failing to prove any violation of the Revised
Forestry Code, as amended, and the Philippine Mining Act, shifted its focus
and then claimed that LAMI allegedly flattened or leveled a mountain (LNL
Archipelago Minerals, Inc. v. Agham Party List, G.R. No. 209165, [April 12, 2016]).

III. Prohibited Pleadings

The following pleadings and motions are prohibited:

1) Motion to dismiss;
2) Motion for extension of time to file return;
3) Motion for postponement;

Victor Kenner S. Galang

 4) Motion for a bill of particulars;
5) Counterclaim or cross-claim;
6) Third-party complaint;
7) Reply; and
8) Motion to declare respondent in default (Section 9).

IV. Discovery Measures

A party may file a verified motion for the following reliefs (Section 12).

1) Ocular Inspection

• The motion must show that an ocular inspection order is necessary to

establish the magnitude of the violation or the threat as to prejudice the
life, health or property of inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces.

• It shall state in detail the place or places to be inspected.

• It shall be supported by affidavits of witnesses having personal knowledge

of the violation or threatened violation of environmental law.

• After hearing, the court may order any person in possession or control of
a designated land or other property to permit entry for the purpose of
inspecting or photographing the property or any relevant object or
operation thereon. The order shall specify the person or persons
authorized to make the inspection and the date, time, place and manner of
making the inspection and may prescribe other conditions to protect the
constitutional rights of all parties.

2) Production or inspection of documents or things

• The motion must show that a production order is necessary to establish the
magnitude of the violation or the threat as to prejudice the life, health or
property of inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces.

• After hearing, the court may order any person in possession, custody or
control of any designated documents, papers, books, accounts, letters,
photographs, objects or tangible things, or objects in digitized or electronic
form, which constitute or contain evidence relevant to the petition or the
return, to produce and permit their inspection, copying or photographing
by or on behalf of the movant.

• The production order shall specify the person or persons authorized to

make the production and the date, time, place and manner of making the

Victor Kenner S. Galang

 inspection or production and may prescribe other conditions to protect the
constitutional rights of all parties.

V. Procedural Overview

1) A verified petition (Section 2) shall be filed before the Supreme Court or with any
of the stations of the Court of Appeals (Section 3).

• Contents of the Petition (Section 2) - the verified petition shall contain the
following:

(1) The personal circumstances of the petitioner;

(2) The name and personal circumstances of the respondent or if the name
and personal circumstances are unknown and uncertain, the
respondent may be described by an assumed appellation;
(3) The environmental law, rule or regulation violated or threatened to be
violated, the act or omission complained of, and the environmental
damage of such magnitude as to prejudice the life, health or property
of inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces.
(4) All relevant and material evidence consisting of the affidavits of
witnesses, documentary evidence, scientific or other expert studies,
and if possible, object evidence;
(5) The certification of petitioner under oath that: (1) petitioner has not
commenced any action or filed any claim involving the same issues in
any court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency, and no such other action
or claim is pending therein; (2) if there is such other pending action or
claim, a complete statement of its present status; (3) if petitioner should
learn that the same or similar action or claim has been filed or is
pending, petitioner shall report to the court that fact within five (5) days
therefrom; and
(6) The reliefs prayed for which may include a prayer for the issuance of a
TEPO.

• The petitioner shall be exempt from the payment of docket fees (Section 4).

• The filing of a petition for the issuance of the writ of kalikasan shall not
preclude the filing of separate civil, criminal or administrative actions
(Section 17).

• The magnitude of the ecological problems contemplated under the

RPEC satisfies at least one of the exceptions to the rule on hierarchy of
courts, as when direct resort is allowed where it is dictated by public
welfare. Under the RPEC, the writ of kalikasan is an extraordinary remedy
covering environmental damage of such magnitude that will prejudice the
life, health or property of inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces. It

Victor Kenner S. Galang

 is designed for a narrow but special purpose: to accord a stronger
protection for environmental rights, aiming, among others, to provide a
speedy and effective resolution of a case involving the violation of one's
constitutional right to a healthful and balanced ecology that transcends
political and territorial boundaries, and to address the potentially
exponential nature of large-scale ecological threats. At the very least, the
magnitude of the ecological problems contemplated under the RPEC
satisfies at least one of the exceptions to the rule on hierarchy of courts, as
when direct resort is allowed where it is dictated by public welfare. Given
that the RPEC allows direct resort to this Court, it is ultimately within the
Court's discretion whether or not to accept petitions brought directly
before it (Segovia v. Climate Change Commission, G.R. No. 211010, [March 7,
2017]).

2) Within three (3) days from the date of filing of the petition, if the petition is
sufficient in form and substance, the court shall give an order (Section 5).

• Contents of the Order: (1) The order shall contain the issuance of the writ;
and (2) It shall require the respondent to file a verified return as provided
in Section 8 of the Rule.

• The clerk of court shall forthwith issue the writ under the seal of the court
including the issuance of a cease and desist order and other temporary
reliefs effective until further order.

3) The writ shall be served upon the respondent by a court officer or any person
deputized by the court, who shall retain a copy on which to make a return of
service. In case the writ cannot be served personally, the rule on substituted service
shall apply (Section 6).

• A clerk of court who unduly delays or refuses to issue the writ after its
allowance or a court officer or deputized person who unduly delays or
refuses to serve the same shall be punished by the court for contempt
without prejudice to other civil, criminal or administrative actions (Section
7).

4) Within a non-extendible period of ten (10) days after service of the writ, the
respondent shall file a verified return (Section 8).

• The verified return must contain all defenses to show that respondent did
not violate or threaten to violate, or allow the violation of any
environmental law, rule or regulation or commit any act resulting to
environmental damage of such magnitude as to prejudice the life, health
or property of inhabitants in two or more cities or province (Id.).

• All defenses not raised in the return shall be deemed waived (Id.).

Victor Kenner S. Galang

 • The following are among the prohibited motions: motion to dismiss,
motion for extension of time to file return, counterclaim, cross-claim or a
third-party complaint (Section 9).

• The return shall include affidavits of witnesses, documentary evidence,

scientific or other expert studies, and if possible, object evidence, in
support of the defense of the respondent (Id.).

• A general denial of allegations in the petition shall be considered as an

admission thereof (Id.).

• In case the respondent fails to file a return, the court shall proceed to hear
the petition ex parte (Section 10).

• The petitioner cannot file a Motion to Declare Defendant in Default because

it is a prohibited pleading.

• Indirect contempt – the court may after hearing punish the respondent
who refuses or unduly delays the filing of a return, or who makes a false
return, or any person who disobeys or resists a lawful process or order of
the court for indirect contempt under Rule 71 of the Rules of Court (Section
13).

5) Upon receipt of the return of the respondent, the court may call a preliminary
conference to simplify the issues, determine the possibility of obtaining
stipulations or admissions from the parties, and set the petition for hearing (Section
11).

• The hearing including the preliminary conference shall not extend beyond
sixty (60) days and shall be given the same priority as petitions for the writs
of habeas corpus, amparo and habeas data (Id.).

6) After hearing, the court shall issue an order submitting the case for decision. The
court may require the filing of memoranda and if possible, in its electronic form,
within a non-extendible period of thirty (30) days from the date the petition is
submitted for decision (Section 14).

7) Within sixty (60) days from the time the petition is submitted for decision, the
court shall render judgment granting or denying the privilege of the writ of
kalikasan.

• The reliefs that may be granted under the writ are the following:

(a) Directing respondent to permanently cease and desist from

committing acts or neglecting the performance of a duty in

Victor Kenner S. Galang

 violation of environmental laws resulting in environmental
destruction or damage;

(b) Directing the respondent public official, government agency,

private person or entity to protect, preserve, rehabilitate or restore
the environment;

(c) Directing the respondent public official, government agency,

private person or entity to monitor strict compliance with the
decision and orders of the court;

(d) Directing the respondent public official, government agency, or

private person or entity to make periodic reports on the execution
of the final judgment; and

(e) Such other reliefs which relate to the right of the people to a
balanced and healthful ecology or to the protection, preservation,
rehabilitation or restoration of the environment, except the award
of damages to individual petitioners (Section 15).

o The creation of a trust fund for similar future contingencies is

beyond the limited purpose of a writ of kalikasan. A reading
of the petition and the motion for partial reconsideration
readily reveals that the prayer is for the creation of a trust fund
for similar future contingencies. This is clearly outside the
limited purpose of a special trust fund under the Rules of
Procedure for Environmental Cases, which is to rehabilitate or
restore the environment that has presumably already suffered.
Hence, the Court affirms with concurrence the observation of
the appellate court that the prayer is but a claim for damages,
which is prohibited by the Rules of Procedure for
Environmental Cases. As such, the Court is of the considered
view that the creation of a special trust fund is misplaced.

The present ruling on petitioners' prayer for the creation of a

special trust fund in the instant recourse, however, is without
prejudice to the judgment/s that may be rendered in the civil
and/or criminal cases filed by petitioners arising from the same
incident if the payment of damages is found warranted (West
Tower Condominium Corp. v. First Phil. Industrial Corp., G.R. No.
194239, [June 16, 2015]).

8) Within fifteen (15) days from the date of notice of the adverse judgment or denial
of motion for reconsideration, any party may appeal to the Supreme Court under
Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. The appeal may raise questions of fact (Section 16).

Victor Kenner S. Galang