Writ of Kalikasan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A Writ of Kalikasan is a legal remedy under Philippine law which provides for the protection one's
right to "a balanced and healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature," as
provided for in Section 16, Article II of the Philippine Constitution. It is compared with the writ of
amparo but protects one's right for a healthy environment rather than constitutional rights. [1]
Provision for the Writ of Kaliksaan was made 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. [2] 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.[3]
The writ of Kailkasan may be sought to deal with environmental damage of such magnitude that it
threatens life, health, or property of inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces. [4]

What is a Writ of Kalikasan?

A writ of kalikasan is a legal remedy designed for the protection of one's
constitutional right to a healthy environment.
The 1987 Philippine Constitution proclaimed, as one of the policies of the State, the
protection of the environment. Section 16, Article II of the Philippine Constitution
provides 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."
This provision, however, is deemed as non self-executing. 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)
The Philippine Supreme Court then took the initiative in giving flesh to this
constitutional mandate. It provided for the writ of kalikasan as the legal means.
Writ of Kalikasan, defined
"Kalikasan" is a Filipino word which in English, means "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)
The writ of kalikasan may be sought by anyone a) whose constitutional right to a
balanced and healthful ecology is violated, or b) whose constitutional right to a
balanced and healthful ecology isthreatened with violation, by an unlawful act of
omission of a public official or employee, or private individual or entity and such
violation or threat involves environmental damage of such magnitude as to prejudice
1

the life, health or property of inhabitants of two or more cities, or provinces. (Rule
7, Section 1)
The petition for the writ of kalikasan shall be filed with the Supreme Court or with
any of the stations of the Court of Appeals. (Rule 7, Section 3) Note, however, that
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. (Rule 7, Section 17)
Within 3 days from filing the petition deemed sufficient in form and substance, the
Court shall issue the writ and require the respondent to file a return. (Rule 7, Section
5)
In response, the respondent is required to file a return containing his defenses and
supporting evidence within a non-extendible 10-day period after the service to him of
the writ. He must raise all defenses in the return, otherwise they are deemed
waived. A general denial of the petitioners allegations shall be deemed an admission
by the respondent. (Rule 7, Section 8) If the petition fails to file a return, the hearing
shall proceed ex parte (i.e., the hearing will proceed with only 1 side being heard).
(Rule 7, Section 10)
The penalty of indirect contempt may be meted out to a) a respondent who refuses to
file the return, b) a respondent who unduly delays the filing of a return, c) a
respondent 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)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
g)
h)

motion to dismiss
motion for extension of time to file return
motion for postponement
motion for a bill of particulars
counterclaim or cross-claim
third-party complaint
reply, and
motion to declare respondent in default. (Rule 7, Section 9)

However, the following motions are allowed:

1. motion for ocular inspection (1) indicating the place/s sought to be inspected
and (2) supported by affidavits of witnesses having personal knowledge of the
violation or threatened violation of environmental law. and
2. motion for production or inspection of documents or things. (Rule 7, Section
12)
When the court receives the return, it 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. The petition shall be given the same
priority as petitions for the writ of habeas corpus, amparo and habeas data; thus, the
hearing and the preliminary conference shall be all done within 60 days (Rule 7,
Section 11)
After the hearing, the case shall be submitted for decision in which case, the court
may require the filing of memoranda within a non-extendible 30-day period from the
date the case is submitted for decision.
2

Within 60 days from the time the petition is submitted for decision, the court shall
grant or deny 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 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
3

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.