Writ of Kalikasan

Writ means Legal action

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A Writ of Kalikasan is a legal remedy under Philippine law which provides for the protection ones 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 ones right for a healthy environment rather than constitutional rights.

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. 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.

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.

Writ of Amparo

Recurso de amparo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The writ of amparo (also called recurso de amparo or juicio de amparo) is a remedy for the protection of
constitutional rights, found in certain jurisdictions. In some legal systems, predominantly those of the
Spanish-speaking world, the amparo remedy or action is an effective and inexpensive instrument for the
protection of individual rights.

Amparo, generally granted by a supreme or constitutional court, serves a dual protective purpose: it
protects the citizen and his basic guarantees, and protects the constitution itself by ensuring that its
principles are not violated by statutes or actions of the state that undermine the basic rights enshrined
therein.

It resembles, in some respects, constitutional remedies such as the writ of security available in Brazil and
the constitutional complaint (Verfassungsbeschwerde) procedure found in Germany.

In many countries, an amparo action is intended to protect all rights other than physical liberty, which
may be protected instead by habeas corpus remedies. Thus, in the same way that habeas corpus
guarantees physical freedom, amparo protects other basic rights. It may therefore be invoked by any
person who believes that any of his rights, implicitly or explicitly protected by the constitution (or by
applicable international treaties), is being violated.

Habeas corpus
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Habeas corpus ; Latin: you must present the person in court) is a writ (legal action) which requires a
person under arrest to be brought before a judge or into court. This ensures that a prisoner can be
released from unlawful detention, in other words, detention lacking sufficient cause or evidence. The
remedy can be sought by the prisoner or by another person coming to the prisoners aid. The legal right
to apply for a habeas corpus is also called by the same name. This right originated in the English legal
system to assist wealthy landowners, but it is now available in many nations. It has historically been an
important legal instrument safeguarding individual freedom of certain individuals against arbitrary state
action.

A writ of habeas corpus, also known as the Great Writ, is a summons with the force of a court order; it is
addressed to the custodian (a prison official for example) and demands that a prisoner be taken before
the court, and that the custodian present proof of authority, allowing the court to determine whether
the custodian has lawful authority to detain the person. If the custodian does not have authority to
detain the prisoner, then they must be released from custody. The prisoner, or another person acting on
his or her behalf, may petition the court, or a judge, for a writ of habeas corpus. One reason for the writ
to be sought by a person other than the prisoner is that the detainee might be held incommunicado.

Most civil law jurisdictions provide a similar remedy for those unlawfully detained, but this is not always
called habeas corpus. For example, in some Spanish-speaking nations, the equivalent remedy for
unlawful imprisonment is the amparo de libertad (protection of freedom).

Habeas corpus has certain limitations. It is technically only a procedural remedy; it is a guarantee against
any detention that is forbidden by law, but it does not necessarily protect other rights, such as the
entitlement to a fair trial. So if an imposition such as internment without trial is permitted by the law
then habeas corpus may not be a useful remedy. Furthermore, in many countries, the process may be
suspended due to a national emergency.

The right to petition for a writ of habeas corpus has nonetheless long been celebrated as the most
efficient safeguard of the liberty of the subject. The jurist Albert Venn Dicey wrote that the British
Habeas Corpus Acts declare no principle and define no rights, but they are for practical purposes worth
a hundred constitutional articles guaranteeing individual liberty.

The writ of habeas corpus is one of what are called the extraordinary, common law, or prerogative
writs, which were historically issued by the English courts in the name of the monarch to control
inferior courts and public authorities within the kingdom. The most common of the other such
prerogative writs are quo warranto, prohibito, mandamus, procedendo, and certiorari.

The due process for such petitions is not simply civil or criminal, because they incorporate the
presumption of non-authority. The official who is the respondent has the burden to prove his authority
to do or not do something. Failing this, the court must decide for the petitioner, who may be any
person, not just an interested party. This differs from a motion in a civil process in which the movant
must have standing, and bears the burden of proof.
THE WRIT OF CONTINUING MANDAMUS

"The writ of continuing mandamus is a special civil action that may be availed of "to compel the
performance of an act specifically enjoined by law." 33 The petition should mainly involve an
environmental and other related law, rule or regulation or a right therein. The RTC's mistaken notion on
the need for a final judgment, decree or order is apparently based on the definition of the writ of
continuing mandamus...:

'(c)Continuing mandamus is a writ issued by a court in an environmental case directing any agency or
instrumentality of the government or officer thereof to perform an act or series of acts decreed by final
judgment which shall remain effective until judgment is fully satisfied. (Emphasis ours)

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.'

Under the Rules, after the court has rendered a judgment in conformity. with Rule 8, Section 7 and such
judgment has become final, the issuing court still retains jurisdiction over the case to ensure that the
government agency concerned is performing its tasks as mandated by law and to monitor the effective
performance of said tasks. It is only upon full satisfaction of the final judgment, order or decision that a
final return of the writ shall be made to the court and if the court finds that the judgment has been fully
implemented, the satisfaction of judgment shall be entered in the court docket. A writ of continuing
mandamus is, in essence, a command of continuing compliance with a final judgment as it "permits the
court to retain jurisdiction after judgment in order to ensure the successful implementation of the
reliefs mandated under the court's decision."

||| (Dolot v. Paje, G.R. No. 199199, August 27, 2013)