WRIT OF KALIKASAN
CASE NUMBER/TITLE/G.R NO/PONENTE
(1) MOST REV. PEDRO D. ARIGO, Vicar
Apostolic of Puerto Princesa D.D., ET. AL
vs. SCOTT H. SWIFT in his capacity as
Commander of the US. 7th Fleet, MARK A.
RICE in his capacity as Commanding Officer
of the USS Guardian, PRESIDENT BENIGNO
S. AQUINO III in his capacity as
Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces
of the Philippines, HON. ALBERT F. DEL
ROSARIO, Secretary, pepartment of Foreign
Affair.s, HON. PAQUITO OCHOA, JR.,
Executiv~.:Secretary, Office of the
President, . HON. VOLTAIRE T. GAZMIN,
Secretary, Department of National Defense,
HON. RAMON JESUS P. P AJE, Secretary,
Department of Environment and Natural
Resoz!rces, VICE ADMIRAL JOSE LUIS M.
ALANO, Philippine Navy Flag Officer in
Command, Armed Forces of the Philippines,
ADMIRAL RODOLFO D. ISO RENA,
Commandant, Philippine Coast Guard,
COMMODORE ENRICO EFREN
EVANGELISTA, Philippine Coast Guard
Palawan, MAJOR GEN. VIRGILIO 0.
DOMINGO, Commandant of Armed Forces
of the Philippines Command and LT. GEN.
TERRY G. ROBLING, US Marine Corps
Forces. Pacific and Balikatan 2013 Exercise
Co-Director
CASE RULING
WRIT OF KALIKASAN AS A SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION – IS NOT COVERED BY THE IMMUNITY FROM SUIT /
RELIEFS THAT MAYBE GRANTED IN A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF KALIKASAN
As it is, THE WAIVER OF STATE IMMUNITY UNDER THE VFA pertains only to criminal jurisdiction and not to special civil actions
such as the present petition for issuance of a writ of Kalikasan. In fact, it can be inferred from Section 17, Rule 7 of the Rules
that a criminal case against a person charged with a violation of an environmental law is to be filed separately: SEC. 17.
Institution of separate actions.- 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.
In any case, it is our considered view that a ruling on the APPLICATION OR NON-APPLICATION OF CRIMINAL JURISDICTION
PROVISIONS OF THE VFA TO US PERSONNEL who may be found responsible for the grounding of the USS Guardian, would be
premature and beyond the province of a petition for a writ of Kalikasan. We also find it unnecessary at this point to determine
whether such waiver of State immunity is indeed absolute. In the same vein, we cannot grant damages which have resulted
from the violation of environmental laws. The RULES ALLOWS THE RECOVERY OF DAMAGES, including the collection of
administrative fines under R.A. No. 10067, in a separate civil suit or that deemed instituted with the criminal action charging the
same violation of an environmental law.
SECTION 5, Rule 7 enumerates the RELIEFS WHICH MAY BE GRANTED IN A PETITION FOR ISSUANCE OF A WRIT OF KALIKASAN,
to wit: SECTION 15: JUDGMENT - 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
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,

(2) HON. RAMON JESUS P. PAJE, in his
capacity as SECRETARY OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND
NATURAL RESOURCES (DENR), vs. HON.
TEODORO A. CASIÑO, HON. RAYMOND V.
PALATINO, HON. RAFAEL V. MARIANO,
HON. EMERENCIANA A. DE JESUS,
CLEMENTE G. BAUTISTA, JR., HON. ROLEN
C. PAULINO, HON. EDUARDO PIANO, HON.
JAMES DE LOS REYES, HON. AQUILINO Y.
CORTEZ, JR., HON. SARAH LUGERNA
LIPUMANO-GARCIA, NORAIDA
VELARMINO, BIANCA CHRISTINE GAMBOA
ESPINOS, CHARO SIMONS, GREGORIO
LLORCA MAGDARAOG, RUBELH PERALTA,
ALEX CORPUS HERMOSO, RODOLFO
SAMBAJON, REV. FR. GERARDO GREGORIO
P. JORGE, CARLITO A. BALOY, OFELIA D.
PABLO, MARIO ESQUILLO, ELLE LATINAZO,
EVANGELINE Q. RODRIGUEZ, JOHN CARLO
DELOS REYES, G.R. No. 207257
February 3, 2015
PONENTE: DEL CASTILLO, J.:
(3) WEST TOWER CONDOMINIUM
CORPORATION, on behalf of the Residents
of West Tower Condominium and in
representation of Barangay Bangkal, and
others, including minors and generations
yet unborn vs FIRST PHILIPPINE INDUSTRIAL
CORPORATION, FIRST GEN CORPORATION
and their RESPECTIVE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS AND OFFICERS, JOHN DOES, and
preservation, rehabilitation or restoration of the environment, except the award of damages to individual petitioners. (Emphasis
supplied.)
REQUISITES OF A WRIT OF KALIKASAN
The RULES ON THE WRIT OF KALIKASAN, which is Part III of the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases, was issued by the
Court pursuant to its power to promulgate rules for the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights, in particular, the
individual’s right to a balanced and healthful ecology. Section 1 of Rule 7 provides:
SECTION 1. NATURE OF THE WRIT.- The WRIT is a remedy available to a natural or juridical person, entity authorized by law,
people’s organization, nongovernmental 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.
The WRIT is categorized as a special civil action and was, thus, conceptualized as an extraordinary remedy, which aims to provide
judicial relief from threatened or actual violation/s of the constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology of a magnitude
or degree of damage that transcends political and territorial boundaries. It is intended "to provide a stronger defense for
environmental rights through judicial efforts where institutional arrangements of enforcement, implementation and legislation
have fallen short" and seeks "to address the potentially exponential nature of large-scale ecological threats."
Under Section 1 of Rule 7, the FOLLOWING REQUISITES MUST BE PRESENT TO AVAIL OF THIS EXTRAORDINARY REMEDY: (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.
PARTIES IN A WRIT OF KALIKASAN – LOCUS STANDI IS WAIVED IN A WRIT OF KALIKASAN
This is so considering that the FILING OF A PETITION FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A WRIT OF KALIKASAN under Sec. 1, Rule 745 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.
RICHARD DOES, G.R. No. 194239
June 16, 2015

PONENTE: VELASCO, JR., J.:

(4) LNL ARCHIPELAGO MINERALS, INC., vs.
AGHAM PARTY LIST (represented by its
President Rep. Angelo B. Palmones), G.R.
No. 209165
PONENTE: CARPIO, J.:
BURDEN OF PROOF IN A WRIT OF KALIKASAN
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.

SECTION 2(C), RULE 7, PART III OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CASES provides: Section 2. CONTENTS OF
THE PETITION. - The VERIFIED PETITION SHALL CONTAIN THE FOLLOWING: (c) 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.