Understanding the

Mechanics of and
Defense Strategies for
Rules of Procedure for
Environmental Cases
Flow of Presentation
Overview of Rules
Comparing and
Contrasting the
Two
Writs Writ
of Kalikasan
and
Writ of
Continuing Mandamus
Environmental
Protection
Order
14 Possible Defenses
7 Actual Cases
using Rules
Overview of Rules of
Procedure for
Environmental Cases
A.M. 0968SC
effective: April 29,
2010
Objectives

Balanced and Healthful Ecology

Simplified, Speedy and Inexpensive Procedure
Best Practices
Compliance with Judicial Orders
Scope

Laws on Environment: Environmental

Cases arising from laws on the
conservation, development,
preservation, protection and
utilization of the environment and
natural resources (Enumeration
Inclusive)
Mining Laws: Philippine Mining Act,
Peoples SmallScale Mining Act
Other Relevant Laws: Clean Air Act, Clean
Water Act, Indigenous Peoples Rights Act,
Wildlife Conservation and Protection Act
 3 kinds of actions covered:
Civil Action citizen suits; TEPO
Special Civil Action
Writ of Kalikasan
Writ of Continuing Mandamus

Criminal Actions
Innovations

Liberalizes locus standi and citizens suit

(allows minors; NGOs/ POs/ PIGs)
Ensures Speedy Disposition of Cases (All
In Approach; 1year Trial; Prohibited
Pleadings; Affidavits in lieu of Direct
Examination: Extensive PreTrial; In
Criminal Cases, Trial in absentia)
Provides Consent Decree (Court
approved settlement; consistent with
public interest, public policy, pro
environment)
Innovations

Recognizes Precautionary Principle

(lessens evidentiary burden;
scientifically plausible but uncertain;
threat of irreversible/ grave damage)
Incorporates Strategic Lawsuit Against Public
Participation or SLAPP (any case; against any
person; harassment or stifle legal recourse;
has taken or may take; environmental
protection)
Introduces Remedial Measures
Writ of Kalikasan and Continuing Mand
Similarities and Differences

Writ of Kalikasan Continuing Mandamus

Unlawful Act or Omission; Life, Neglect or Exclusion;
Subject Matter
Health or Property; Magnitude Law, Rule or Right
Any person or representative/ One who is personally
Petitioner
agent (PO/ NGO/PIG) aggrieved
Public or Private
Respondent Government or Officers
Entity or Individual
TEPO Ancillary Remedy Ancillary Remedy
Venue SC or CA SC, CA or RTC
Discovery Ocular Inspection or
No enumeration
Measures Production of Documents
Allows Damages for Malicious
Damages None; Separate Suit
Neglect of Duty
Stages

1st Stage: Upon filing of Petition, Court

issues Writ of Kalikasan requires
respondent to file a
Verified Return all defenses in.
2nd Stage: After Trial, Court grants or
denies Privilege of the Writ of
Kalikasan
Procedure
Petition (may include prayer for
issuance of Temporary Environmental
Protection Order [TEPO])
Court Action: issues Writ (may include
Cease and Desist Order) and requires
Respondent(s) to File Verified Return (within
3 days from filing of Petition which is
sufficient in form and substance)
Service of Writ
Respondent files Return; Raise all
Defenses (10 days)
Judgment/ Reliefs

Granting or Denying the Privilege of the Writ

Permanent Cease and Desist
Protect, Preserve, Rehabilitate or
Restore Environment
Monitor Strict
Compliance Periodic
Reports
Other Reliefs (except Damages to
Individual Petitioners)
Environmental Protection Order
(EPO)
Instrument: Courtissued Order
Nature: Ancillary Remedial Measure
Subject: Any Person or Government
Agency Object: Direct/ Perform or Enjoin/
Desist from performing an Act
Purpose: Protect, Preserve or Rehabilitate
Environment
Temporary EPO (TEPO)

Complaint/ Petition: contains prayer for EPO

Conditions: Extreme urgency and grave
injustice and reparable injury
Issuing Authority: Executive Judge
Issuance: Exparte (hearing during 72 hours)
Temporary EPO (TEPO)

Duration: 72 hours (may be extended until case

terminated)
Respondents Recourse: Motion to Dissolve
Conversion: TEPO may be converted to EPO
or Writ of Continuing Mandamus
14 Possible Defenses

1. No environmental damage
2. No environmental damage caused by
Respondent
3. Environmental damage caused by another
4. Not environmental case
5. Not violate environmental law
6. Not prejudice life, health or
property of inhabitants
7. Not affect 2 or more cities or provinces
14 Possible Defenses

8. No evidence
9. No causal link between act and damage
10.There is plain, speedy and adequate
remedy exhaustion of administrative
remedies.
11.Compliance with all laws and regulations
12.Compliance with all ECC conditions
13.Case amounts to SLAPP
14.Constitutional issues against the Rules
 violates Doctrine of Separation of Powers
Executive has full control and supervision
over exploration, development and utilization
of natural resources.
Deprivation of property without due process of
law.
Expansion of Supreme Courts original
jurisdiction judicial legislation
7 Actual Cases using the

Rules of Procedure for

Environmental Cases.
(1) FPIC Pipeline

Parties: West Tower vs. First Philippine

Industrial Corporation (FPIC)
Area Affected: Batangas to Manila
Law Involved: Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act
Damage: Damaged pipeline bearing
dangerous chemicals; soil and water
contamination
Defense: Exercised diligence; damage in
Makati only
(1) FPIC Pipeline

Writ of Kalikasan GRANTED

1. Cease and Desist pipeline operation
2. FPIC to check structural integrity of pipeline
3. Temporary Environmental Protection Order issued
(2) Meralco Transmission Lines

Parties: Residents of Makati and Pasay vs. Meralco

Area Affected: Makati and Pasay
Law Involved: Constitution, Sanitation Code
Damage: Prolonged exposure to
electromagnetic radiation
Defense: Health Hazard, not Environmental Harm
(2) Meralco Transmission Lines

Writ of Kalikasan DENIED

1. Meralco complied with all environmental
standards embodied in ECC
2. Transmission lines not pose a threat
3. No evidence showing causal link
between electromagnetic field and
illnesses
(3) Barrick Gold and Placer
Dome
Parties: Hernandez et.al. vs. Barrick and Placer
Area Affected: Marinduque, Batangas,
Romblon and Quezon
Law Involved: Constitution
Damage: Pollution of rivers and bays
Evidence: Studies; AMD linked to
deteriorating health; tailings seepage
(3) Barrick Gold and Placer
Dome
Writ of Kalikasan GRANTED
TEPO issued
SC remanded to CA for hearing,
reception of evidence and rendition of
judgment
(4) Mining in Surigao

Parties: Tribal Coalition vs. Taganito,

Platinum, Oriental Synergy, Shenzou and
Marcventures
Area Affected: Surigao del Norte and Sur
Law Involved: Constitution, IPRA, Mining
Act, Clean Water Act
Damage: Failure to provide siltation
dams; water pollution; mangrove
destruction
Defense: Compliant with ECC; not show
damage in more than 2 provinces
(5) Philex Silangan

(6) Marcventures
Ground: Mining activities causing river pollution/
affecting water supply
Court Order: 72hour TEPO issued; Not
extended or expired since no evidence
presented
(7) Zamboanga

Ground: Mining activities causing pollution

Area Affected: Zamboanga Peninsula
Court Order: Writ of Kalikasan
Thank you.
Source of presentation: Atty. Alberto C. Agra Former
Secretary, Department of Justice.
Annotation to the Rules of Procedure Supreme Court Sub
committee