WRIT OF KALIKASAN

Submitted by:

Maboloc, Jeffrey Emmanuel Q.

Legal writing 1, A

Atty. Arnold Barba

September 9, 2016
WRIT OF KALIKASAN

Due to the need to address the threat of climate change

to our environment and in aid of prosecution in environmental
and ecological related crimes, the Supreme Court issued the
writ of Kalikasan. The provision for Writ of Kalikasan was
created last the 13th of April 2010 by the Supreme Court of
the Philippines led by Chief Justice Reynato Puno. The rules
of the same shall govern the procedure in Civil, Criminal, and
special civil actions involving enforcement or violations of
environmental and other related laws, rules and regulations.
Not only it is a legal remedy under the Philippine law, which
provides for the protection of one’s right to “a balanced and
healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of
nature” drawing its force under section 16, Article II of the
1987 Constitution, but It also provides a simplified, speedy
and inexpensive procedure for the enforcement of
environmental rights and duties recognized under the
Constitution, existing laws, rules and regulations, and
International agreements; to introduce and adopt innovations
and best practices ensuring the effective enforcement and
redress for violation of environmental laws; and to enable the
courts to monition and exact compliance with orders and
judgments in environmental cases.

Under the rule 7 section 1 of the Writ, it is a remedy

available to a natural of juridical person, entity authorized by
law, people’s organization, non-governmental organization,
or any public interest group accredited by or registered with
any governmental 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. 1

1
A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC
GOVERNING LAW

The laws that is enforced as the need may arise or may

be violated includes but not limited to Act. No. 3572,
Prohibition Against Cutting of Tindalo, Akli, and Molave Trees;
P.D. Marine Pollution Decree; P.D. No. Philippine
Environmental Policy of 1977; R.A No. Philippine Mining Act;
R.A No. Wildlife Conservation and Protection Act, R.A No.
9483, Oil Spill Compensation Act of 2007.2

JURISDICTION AND APPLICABLE RULES

The cases are heard before the Regional Trial Courts,

Metropolitan Trial Courts, and Municipal Trial Courts in Cities,
Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts.

One of the rules that is applicable to compel the parties

involved to comply with the court order is the Writ of
Continuing Mandamus, it is when an agency or any
instrumentality of the Government or officer thereof
unlawfully neglects the performance of an act which the law
urges as a duty resulting from an office in connection with the
enforcement or violation of an environmental law.

The Court is also empowered to issue provisional

remedies under the writ which is the Environmental Protection
Order and Temporary Environmental Protection Order
pursuant to section 8 of rule 2, it is an immediate action to
protect the environment.

Under section 5 of rule 2, allows Filipino citizens in

representation of others, including minors or generations yet
unborn to file suits enforcing rights or obligations under the
environmental laws.

Another important rule which bridges the gap “When

there is a lack of full scientific certainty in establishing a causal
link between human activity and environmental effect” is the
Precautionary principle pursuant to article Rule 20 section 1
thereof.

On rule 14 under the criminal procedure, bail may be

filed with the court where the case is pending, or in the
absence or unavailability of the judge thereof, with any

2
A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC
regional trial judge, metropolitan trial judge, municipal trial
judge or municipal circuit trial judge in the province, city or
municipality.3

JURISPRUDENCE

The following are some cases which are related to the

issues discussed:

ARIGO vs SWIFT, G.R. No. 206510, September 16, 2014

The said case is the petition for the issuance of writ of
Kalikasan with a prayer for the issuance of a Temporary
Environmental protection under Rule 7 of A.M. No. 09-6-8-
SC.
“On January 15, 2013, the USS Guardian departed Subic
Bay for its next port of call in Makassar, Indonesia. On January
17, 2013 at 2:20 a.m. while transiting the Sulu Sea, the ship
ran aground on the northwest side of South Shoal of the
Tubbataha Reefs, about 80 miles east-southeast of Palawan.
No one was injured in the incident, and there have been no
reports of leaking fuel or oil.”
“Petitioners claim that the grounding, salvaging and
post-salvaging operations of the USS Guardian cause and
continue to cause environmental damage of such magnitude
as to affect the provinces of Palawan, Antique, Aklan,
Guimaras, Iloilo, Negros Occidental, Negros Oriental,
Zamboanga del Norte, Basilan, Sulu, and Tawi-Tawi, which
events violate their constitutional rights to a balanced and
healthful ecology.”4
The case above demonstrated the power of law to
alleviate the ailing environment through prosecution of
environmental related crimes, where the United States was
obligated to pay “$1.4 million in compensation for the damage
caused by a US warship to the Tubbataha Reef.”5

MMDA vs Concerned Citizens of Manila Bay, G.R. Nos.

171947-48, December 18, 2008

In this case, MMDA was compelled through the

continuing mandamus issued by the Supreme Court to clean,
3
A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC
4
MOST REV. PEDRO ARIGO, et. al. vs SCOTT H. SWIFT et. al., G.R. No. 206510, September 16, 2014
5
Yap, Dj. “Philippines asking $1.4 M from US for Tubbataha Reef damage” The Philippines daily inquirer.
April 16, 2013
rehabilitate, and preserve Manila Bay, and restore and
maintain its waters to a certain level that will make them fit
for swimming, skin-diving, and all forms of contact recreation.

International Service for the acquisition of Agri-Biotech

Applications, Inc. Vs Greenpeace Southeast Asia
(Philippines), et al. G.R. No. 209271
Environmental Management Bureau of the Department
of Environmental and Natural Resources et. al vs Court
of Appeals et. al, G.R No. 209276
University of the Philippines vs Greenpeace Southeast
Asia (Philippines) et. al G.R. No. G.R. No. 209301 July
26, 2016
The consolidated case above is about the petition filed
by the environmental groups to permanently halt the
nationwide field trials of genetically modified eggplants also
known as “BT Talong.” On May 2, 2012 the Supreme Court
issued Writ of Kalikasan asking the respondents to answer the
petition contesting that the field trials violated the
constitutional right of the people to a balanced and healthful
ecology because of the threat that the technology used
therein may contaminate the indigenous genetic resources of
the country.6

Oposa vs Factoran, Jr., G.R. No. 101083, July 30, 1993

This case is the petition that bears upon the right of
Filipinos to a balanced and healthful ecology which the
petitioners dramatically associate with the twin concepts of
"inter-generational responsibility" and "inter-generational
justice."
“An action was filed by several minors represented by
their parents against the Department of Environment and
Natural Resources to cancel existing timber license
agreements in the country and to stop issuance of new ones.
It was claimed that the resultant deforestation and damage
to the environment violated their constitutional rights to a
balanced and healthful ecology and to health (Sections 16 and
15, Article II of the Constitution). The petitioners asserted

6
Roque, Harry. "Writ of Kalikasan." Harry Roque. N.p., n.d. Web
that they represented others of their generation as well as
generations yet unborn.”7
Although this case does not involve the Writ of Kalikasan,
however it is worth mentioning as this is the first case which
invokes that Section 16 article II of the 1987 Constitution is a
readily executable right to which the writ is based from.

7
“Oposa et. al. v. Fulgencio S. Factoran Jr. et al (G.R. No. 101083)” ESCR-Net.
https://www.escr-net.org/caselaw/2006/oposa-et-al-v-fulgencio-s-factoran-jr-et-al-gr-no-101083