SC cases involving

Writ of Kalikasan and

Writ of Continuing
Mandamus
Subtitle

Greenpeace Southeast Asia (Philippines) v.

Environmental Management Bureau of the
Department of Environment and Natural Resources

Facts:
The petitioners alleged that government
ministries
failed
to
adopt
sufficient
biosafety protocols for field trials and
feasibility studies of genetically-modified
organisms, specifically talong (eggplant).
The petition also alleged that entities
(primarily universities) failed to obtain an
environmental clearance certificate prior to
conducting field trials of bt talong. The
court considered the question whether the
field trials violated the constitutional right
of the people to a balanced and healthy

The court applied the precautionary

principle, stating it is clear that there is no
full scientific certainty yet as to the effects
of the bt talong field trials to the
environment and the health of the people.
This is where the precautionary principle
sets in which states that, when human
activities may lead to threats of serious and
irreversible damage to the environment
that is scientifically plausible but uncertain,
actions shall be taken to avoid or diminish
that threat. . . . It is in this light that this
Court finds that the issuance of a writ of
kalikasan
is
warranted
under
the
circumstances[.]
Pages
19-20.

With regard to the constitutional claim,

the court explained: In the instant case, the
field trials of bt talong involve the willful and
deliberate alterative of the genetic traits of
a living element of the ecosystem and the
relationship of living organisms that rely on
each other for their survival. Consequently,
the field trials of bt talong could not be
declared by this Court as safe to human
health and to our ecology, with full scientific
certainty, being an alteration of an
otherwise natural state of affairs in our
ecology. Pages 22-23.

Ruling:
The Court directed the respondents to: 1)
permanently cease and desist from further
conducting bt talong field trials; and 2)
protect, preserve, rehabilitate and restore
the environment. Page 24.
On a motion for reconsideration filed by
government officials asking the Court to
reverse the ban, the Court upheld its
decision in September 2013, stating the
writ of kalikasan and continuing writ of
mandamus it had issued in favor of the
petitioners were "justified and warranted".

MMDA vs Concerned Citizens of Manila Bay

Facts:
The complaint by the residents alleged
that the water quality of the Manila Bay
had
fallen
way below
the
allowable
standards
set
by
law,
specifically
Presidential Decree No. (PD) 1152 or the
Philippine Environment Code and that ALL
defendants (public officials) must be jointly
and/or solidarily liable and collectively ordered
to clean up Manila Bay and to restore its water
quality to class B, waters fit for swimming,
diving, and other forms of contact recreation.

ISSUES:
(1) WON Sections 17 and 20 of PD 1152
under the headings, Upgrading of Water
Quality
and
Clean-up
Operations,
envisage a cleanup in general or are
they limited only to the cleanup of
specific pollution incidents;
(2) WON petitioners be compel led by
mandamus to clean up and rehabilitate the
Manila Bay.

HELD:
(1) Sec. 17 does not in any way
state
that the
government
agencies
concerned ought to confine themselves
to
the
containment, removal,
and
cleaning operations
when a specific
pollution incident occurs. On the contrary,
Sec. 17 requires them to act even in
the absence of a specific pollution
incident, as long as water quality has
deteriorated to a degree where its state
will adversely affect its best usage.
Section 17 & 20 are of general application
and are not for specific pollution incidents
only. The fact that the pollution of the
Manila Bay is of such magnitude and

2) The Cleaning or Rehabilitation of Manila

Bay Can be Compelled by Mandamus. While
the implementation of the MMDA's mandated
tasks may entail a decision-making process,
the enforcement of the law or the very act of
doing what the law exacts to be done is
ministerial in nature and may be compelled
by mandamus. Under what other judicial
discipline
describes
as
continuing
mandamus , the Court
may,
under
extraordinary circumstances, issue directives
with the end in view of ensuring that its
decision
would not be set to naught
by
administrative inaction or indifference.