Natural Resources

Submitted by: Charmaine Fhaye Casquejo

Submitted to: Atty. Joey Montemayor M.D.
University of Manila

Writ of Kalikasan

Under Rule 7 Sec. 1 of A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC, The Writ of Kalikasan is a remedy
available to a 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.

Procedure:
1. The verified petition shall be filed with the Supreme Court or with Court

of Appeals.
2. No docket fees are required to be paid
3. Within three (3) days from the date of filing of the petition, the court shall

give an order:
a. issuing the writ; and
b. requiring the respondent to file a verified return
4. Within a non-extendible period of ten (10) days after service of the writ,

the respondent shall file a verified return which shall contain all defenses
to show that respondent did not violate or threaten to violate, or allow the
violation of any environmental law, rule or regulation or commit any act
resulting to environmental damage of such magnitude as to prejudice the
life, health or property of inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces.
5. The court 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.
6. The hearing including the preliminary conference shall not extend beyond
sixty (60) days and shall be given the same priority as petitions for the
writs of habeas corpus, amparo and habeas data.
7. After hearing, the court shall issue an order submitting the case for

decision. The court may require the filing of memoranda and if possible,
in its electronic form, within a non-extendible period of thirty (30) days
from the date the petition is submitted for decision.
8. 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.
a. The reliefs that may be granted under the writ are the following:
 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;
 Directing the respondent public official, government agency,
private person or entity to protect, preserve, rehabilitate or
restore the environment;
 Directing the respondent public official, government agency,
private person or entity to monitor strict compliance with the
decision and orders of the court;
 Directing the respondent public official, government agency, or
private person or entity to make periodic reports on the execution
of the final judgment; and
 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.
9. Within fifteen (15) days from the date of notice of the adverse judgment or

denial of motion for reconsideration, any party may appeal to the Supreme
Court under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. The appeal may raise questions
of fact.

Cases:
For a writ of kalikasan to issue, the following requisites must concur:
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.34
It is well-settled that a party claiming the privilege for the issuance of a writ
of kalikasan has to show that a law, rule or regulation was violated or would be
violated. (Victoria Segovia v. The Climate Change Commission, G.R. No.
211010, March 7, 2017)

The waiver of State immunity under the VF A 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. (Most Rev. Pedro D. Arigo v. Scott Swift,
G.R. No. 206510, September 16, 2014)
 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.
Thus, as parties to the case, they are entitled to be furnished copies of all
the submissions to the Court, including the periodic reports of FPIC and the
results of the evaluations and tests conducted on the WOPL. (West Tower
Condominium Corporation v. First Philippine Industrial Corporation, G.R.
No. 194239, June 16, 2015)

The parties to this case appealed from the decision of the appellate court
pursuant to Section 16, Rule7 of the Rules of Procedure for Environmental
Cases, viz:
Section 16. Appeal.- Within fifteen (15) days from the date of notice of the
adverse judgment or denialof motion for reconsideration, any party may appeal
to the Supreme Court under Rule45 of the Rules of Court. The appeal may raise
questions of fact. (Emphasis supplied)
It is worth noting that the Rules on the Writ of Kalikasan allow the parties
to raise, on appeal, questions of fact— and, thus, constitutes an exception to
Rule 45 of the Rules of Court— because ofthe extraordinary nature of the
circumstances surrounding the issuance of a writ of kalikasan. (Hon. Ramon
Jesus P. Paje, v. Hon. Teodoro A. Casiño, G.R. No. 207257, February 3,
2015)

The writ of kalikasan is principally predicated on an actual or threatened

violation of the constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology, which
involves environmental damage of a magnitude that transcends political and
territorial boundaries. A party, therefore, who invokes the writ based on alleged
defects or irregularities in the issuance of an ECC must not only allege and prove
such defects or irregularities, but must also provide a causal link or, at least, a
reasonable connection between the defects or irregularities in the issuance of an
ECC and the actual or threatened violation of the constitutional right to a
balanced and healthful ecology of the magnitude contemplated under the Rules.
Otherwise, the petition should be dismissed outright and the action re-filed
before the proper forum with due regard to the doctrine of exhaustion of
administrative remedies. This must be so ifwe are to preserve the noble and
laudable purposes of the writ against those who seek to abuse it.
An example of a defect or an irregularity in the issuance of an ECC, which
could conceivably warrant the granting of the extraordinary remedy of the writ
of kalikasan, is a case where there are serious and substantial
misrepresentations or fraud in the application for the ECC, which, if not
immediately nullified, would cause actual negative environmental impacts of the
magnitude contemplated under the Rules, because the government agenciesand
LGUs, with the final authority to implement the project, may subsequently rely
on such substantially defective or fraudulent ECC in approving the
implementation of the project.
To repeat, in cases of defects or irregularities in the issuance of an ECC, it
is not sufficient to merely allege such defects or irregularities, but to show a
causal link or reasonable connection with the environmental damage of the
magnitude contemplated under the Rules. In the case at bar, no such causal
link or reasonable connection was shown or even attempted relative to the
aforesaid second set of allegations. It is a mere listing of the perceived defects or
irregularities in the issuance of the ECC. This would havebeen sufficient reason
to disallow the resolution of such issues in a writ of kalikasan case. (Hon. Ramon
Jesus P. Paje, v. Hon. Teodoro A. Casiño, G.R. No. 207257, February 3,
2015)

The courts' relation with administrative agencies is not limited to reviewing

their acts in the exercise of their quasi-judicial functions. Whenever technical
issues are brought to the court for determination, courts may ask for their
conclusions on the status of private sector activities within their jurisdiction and
on matters within their specialized knowledge. This is especially true for cases
filed under A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC, otherwise known as the Rules of Procedure for
Environmental Cases (Rules).
The Rules provide for remedies to enforce rights to a "balanced and
healthful ecology[.]"33 A party may file: (1) a complaint alleging violation of
environmental laws;34 (2) a petition for the issuance of a writ of kalikasan
alleging violation of the right to healthful ecology;35 or (3) a petition for the
issuance of continuing mandamus alleging neglect in the performance of duty to
enforce environmental laws.36
Filing a complaint or a petition may result in the issuance of a temporary
environmental protection order upon the finding that the complainant will suffer
grave injustice or irreparable injury if no protection order is issued.37 This
temporary environmental protection order may be converted to a permanent
environmental protection order after judgment. (Dissenting Opinion, Leonen,
J. West Tower Condominium Corporation v. First Philippine Industrial
Corporation, G.R. No. 194239, June 16, 2015)