Professional Documents
Culture Documents
E. WRIT OF KALIKASAN
Overview
Then Chief Justice Reynato Puno said that while the writ of habeas corpus originated in
England as a legal recourse for those wrongly detained, and the writ of amparo came
from Latin America to address its own brush with human rights violations, the writ of
kalikasan is proudly Philippine-made to deal with cases in the realm of ecology.
History
In 2009, the Supreme Court held a forum on environmental protection in Baguio City
where difficulties in the prosecution of ecology-related crimes and the huge backlog
pending in the courts were identified as among the issues affecting the implementation
of environmental laws.
The high court then came out with the writ of kalikasan the following year when it
issued the rules of procedure for environmental cases as a special civil action to deal
with environmental damage of such magnitude that it threatens life, health or property
of inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces.
Provision for the Writ of Kalikasan was written in 2010 by the Supreme Court of the
Philippines under Rule 7 of the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases as a Special
Civil Action. The Supreme Court under Chief Justice Reynato Puno took the initiative
and issued Rules of Procedure for Environmental Case because Section 16, Article II of
the Philippines' 1986 Constitution was not a self-executing provision.
A non-self-executing provision refers to one that cannot be invoked before the courts as
it is. There must first be an enabling legislation or some other legal means by which the
same can be effectuated and be a basis of a legal cause of action. (See: Tanada v. Angara,
G.R. No. 118295. May 2, 1997)
Definition
A Writ of Kalikasan is a legal remedy under Philippine law that provides protection of
one's Constitutional right to a healthy environment, as outlined in Section 16, Article II
of the Philippine Constitution, which says 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.
The Writ of Kalikasan means a legal remedy available to any 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.
(Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC Rule 7, Sec. 1)
who falsifies a return, or d) any one who disobeys or resists a lawful process of court
order. (Rule 7, Section 13)
In further recognition of the importance of a speedy resolution, the following filings are
prohibited:
a)
motion to dismiss
b)
c)
d)
e)
counterclaim or cross-claim
f)
third-party complaint
g)
reply, and
h)
a)
Directing respondent to permanently cease and desist from committing acts or
neglecting the performance of a duty in 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. (Rule 7, Section 15)
Appeal to the Supreme Court, under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court (i.e. a petition for
review on certiorari), is available within 15 days from the notice of the judgment or
denial of motion for reconsideration. It is important to note that this appeal may raise
questions of fact. (Rule 7, Section 16)
This writ is an innovation of the Philippine Supreme Court as one of the legal means to
combat the destruction of the environment. This writ is one of a kind, available only
within Philippine jurisdiction. It is extraordinary in nature, meaning to say, that it can
be resorted to only when other ordinary legal remedies such as injunction or damage
suit are unavailing.
The writ of kalikasan forms part of the new procedures in civil, criminal and special civil
actions involving environmental laws. (Rule 1, Section 2, Rules of Procedure for
Environmental Cases)[1]
There are 2 special civil actions in the new rules for
environmental cases, one is the writ of continuing mandamaus and the other is the writ
of kalikasan.
Features of the Writ of Kalikasan
The underlying condition for the writ to be issued is that, the magnitude requirement
with regards to the destruction or imminent destruction of the environment which is
sought to be prevented, must be present.
The entities to whom the writ can be directed against, the Rules provides that it could be
anybody. They could be public officials, employees or even private persons, for as so
long as it could be proven that they violated or threatened with violation the
constitutional right to a healthy environment of other people.
The Rules likewise provides for various reliefs that could be granted by the courts under
the writ which includes, among others, the issuance of order against the respondent to
cease or refrain from committing acts violative of the rights of the petitioners asking for
the writ. It can also be an order commanding the respondent to perform positive acts to
preserve or protect the environment as well as to make reports of their compliance with
these responsibilities. (Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC
Rule 7, Sec. 15)
Writ of Kalikasan, applied
Currently, there are at least two (2) instances wherein the writ of kalikasan was availed
of. The first one was directed against an electric power distribution company and the
second one was against an oil pipeline operator. The first case is still pending trial while
the latter was successfully granted by the Philippine Supreme Court.
The USS Guardian did not have a permit to enter [the Tubbataha Reefs Natural Park],
the petition said. The vessel did not inform the marine park rangers of its presence and
situation and was later discovered only through radar at 4 a.m. on [Jan. 17, 2013].
In September 2014, the Philippine Supreme Court ruled unanimously against issuing a
writ of kalikasan against the United States Government over the grounding of the USS
Guardian on the Tubbataha Reef in 2013.
Court of Appeals permanently stops fi eld testing of genetically
modifi ed eggplants in the country
In a landmark decision upholding the precautionary principle, the Court of Appeals
has granted a petition filed by environmental groups and activists to permanently put to
a stop nationwide field trials of genetically modified eggplants popularly known as
Bacillus thuringiensis (bt) talong being conducted by a collaboration among the
University of the Philippines in Los Baos and various government and private agencies.
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, said the appellate courts
Special 13th Division, speaking through Associate Justice Isaias P. Dicdican.
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.
Appellate Associate Justices Myra V. Garcia-Fernandez and Nina G. AntonioValenzueala concurred in the decision.
The court said even the bevy of local and foreign experts presented by proponents of the
purportedly pest-resistant eggplants are all agreed that aside from the fact that there are
no laws regulating the field testing of genetically-modified plants, their safety cannot
fully be guaranteed. For this reason, the court said This is where the precautionary
principle sets in which states that, when human activities may led to threats of serious
and irreversible damage to the environment that is scientifically plausible but uncertain,
actions shall be taken to avoid or diminish the threat.
The petitioners, led by the well-known environmental group Greenpeace and Masipag
the latter an organization of farmers and scientists for sustainable agriculture earlier
brought the suit in April 26 last year before the Supreme Court under the High Courts
new environmental protection procedures. The petitioners were represented in the suit
by lawyers from the Roque and Butuyan Law Offices, led by Prof. Harry L. Roque Jr.
and Roger R. Rayel.
http://harryroque.com/tag/writ-of-kalikasan/
http://business.inquirer.net/123697/court-of-appeals-stops-field-trials-ofgenetically-modified-eggplant
http://notocoal.weebly.com/writ-of-kalikasan.html#.VTfd9SFViko
Writ of Amparo
(2) Under the Rules on the Writ of Amparo, interim relief orders may be issued by the
Court except:
a) production order;
b) witness protection order;
c) hold departure order;
d) temporary protection order.