Writ of Kalikasan

SUMMARY

WHEN FILED : The writ 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.
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

WHO MAY FILE: 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.

RESPONDENT: The government or private individual or entity

PAYMENT OF DOCKET FEES: Exempted from payment of docket fees

VENUE: 1. Supreme Court

2. Any station of Court of Appeals
MODES OF DISCOVERY: Incorporates the procedural environmental right of
access to information through use of discovery measures such as ocular inspection
order or production order.

AWARD FOR DAMAGES: No damages may be awarded in a petition for the issuance
of Writ of Kalikasan consistent with the interest character of the petition. A party who
avails of this petition but who also wishes to be indemnified for injuries suffered may file
another suit for the recovery of the damages since the Rules allow for the institution of
separate actions.
 RULE 7
WRIT OF KALIKASAN

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, 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.

Section 2. Contents of the petition. - The verified petition shall contain the following:

(a) The personal circumstances of the petitioner;

(b) The name and personal circumstances of the respondent or if the name and
personal circumstances are unknown and uncertain, the respondent may be described
by an assumed appellation;

(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.

(d) All relevant and material evidence consisting of the affidavits of witnesses,
documentary evidence, scientific or other expert studies, and if possible, object
evidence;

(e) The certification of petitioner under oath that: (1) petitioner has not commenced any
action or filed any claim involving the same issues in any court, tribunal or quasi-judicial
agency, and no such other action or claim is pending therein; (2) if there is such other
pending action or claim, a complete statement of its present status; (3) if petitioner
should learn that the same or similar action or claim has been filed or is pending,
petitioner shall report to the court that fact within five (5) days therefrom; and

(f) The reliefs prayed for which may include a prayer for the issuance of a TEPO.

Section 3. Where to file. - The petition shall be filed with the Supreme Court or with any
of the stations of the Court of Appeals.

Section 4. No docket fees. - The petitioner shall be exempt from the payment of docket

fees.
Section 5. Issuance of the writ. - Within three (3) days from the date of filing of the
petition, if the petition is sufficient in form and substance, the court shall give an order:
(a) issuing the writ; and (b) requiring the respondent to file a verified return as provided
in Section 8 of this Rule. The clerk of court shall forthwith issue the writ under the seal
of the court including the issuance of a cease and desist order and other temporary
reliefs effective until further order.

Section 6. How the writ is served. - The writ shall be served upon the respondent by a
court officer or any person deputized by the court, who shall retain a copy on which to
make a return of service. In case the writ cannot be served personally, the rule on
substituted service shall apply.

Section 7. Penalty for refusing to issue or serve the writ. - A clerk of court who unduly
delays or refuses to issue the writ after its allowance or a court officer or deputized
person who unduly delays or refuses to serve the same shall be punished by the court
for contempt without prejudice to other civil, criminal or administrative actions.

Section 8. Return of respondent; contents. - 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.

All defenses not raised in the return shall be deemed waived.

The return shall include affidavits of witnesses, documentary evidence, scientific or

other expert studies, and if possible, object evidence, in support of the defense of the
respondent.

A general denial of allegations in the petition shall be considered as an admission

thereof.

Section 9. Prohibited pleadings and motions. - The following pleadings and motions are
prohibited:

(a) Motion to dismiss;

(b) Motion for extension of time to file return;

(c) Motion for postponement;

(d) Motion for a bill of particulars;

(e) Counterclaim or cross-claim;

(f) Third-party complaint;

(g) Reply; and

(h) Motion to declare respondent in default.

Section 10. Effect of failure to file return. - In case the respondent fails to file a return,
the court shall proceed to hear the petition ex parte.

Section 11. Hearing. - Upon receipt of the return of the respondent, 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.

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.

Section 12. Discovery Measures. - A party may file a verified motion for the following
reliefs:

(a) Ocular Inspection; order — The motion must show that an ocular inspection order is
necessary to establish the magnitude of the violation or the threat as to prejudice the
life, health or property of inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces. It shall state in
detail the place or places to be inspected. It shall be supported by affidavits of
witnesses having personal knowledge of the violation or threatened violation of
environmental law.

After hearing, the court may order any person in possession or control of a designated
land or other property to permit entry for the purpose of inspecting or

photographing the property or any relevant object or operation thereon.

The order shall specify the person or persons authorized to make the inspection and the
date, time, place and manner of making the inspection and may prescribe other
conditions to protect the constitutional rights of all parties.

(b) Production or inspection of documents or things; order – The motion must show that
a production order is necessary to establish the magnitude of the violation or the threat
as to prejudice the life, health or property of inhabitants in two or more cities or
provinces.

After hearing, the court may order any person in possession, custody or control of any
designated documents, papers, books, accounts, letters, photographs, objects or
tangible things, or objects in digitized or electronic form, which constitute or contain
evidence relevant to the petition or the return, to produce and permit their inspection,
copying or photographing by or on behalf of the movant.
The production order shall specify the person or persons authorized to make the
production and the date, time, place and manner of making the inspection or production
and may prescribe other conditions to protect the constitutional rights of all parties.

Section 13. Contempt. - The court may after hearing punish the respondent who refuses
or unduly delays the filing of a return, or who makes a false return, or any person who
disobeys or resists a lawful process or order of the court for indirect contempt under
Rule 71 of the Rules of Court.

Section 14. Submission of case for decision; filing of memoranda. - 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.

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, preservation, rehabilitation or restoration of the

environment, except the award of damages to individual petitioners.

Section 16. Appeal. - 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.

Section 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.
 JURISPRUDENCE

REQUISITES:
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 ofinhabitants in two or more cities or
provinces. 
Expectedly, the Rules do not define the exact nature or
degree of environmental damage but only that it must be sufficiently grave, in
terms of the territorial scope of such damage, so as to call for the grant of this
extraordinary remedy. The gravity of environmental damage sufficient to grant
the writ is, thus, to be decided on a case-to-case basis
 (Osmeña v. Garganera, G.R. No. 231164, [March 20, 2018])
|||

Requisites for issuance of Writs of

Kalikasan 
We find that the petitioners failed to establish the requisites for the
issuance of the writs prayed for.
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 ofinhabitants in two or more cities or
provinces. 
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. 
In this case, apart from repeated invocation of the constitutional right to
health and to a balanced and healthful ecology and bare allegations that their
right was violated, the petitioners failed to show that public respondents are
 guilty of any unlawful act or omission that constitutes a violation of the
petitioners' right to a balanced and healthful ecology.
While there can be no disagreement with the general propositions put
forth by the petitioners on the correlation of air quality and public health,
petitioners have not been able to show that respondents are guilty of violation
or neglect of environmental laws that causes or contributes to bad air quality.
Notably, apart from bare allegations, petitioners were not able to show that
respondents failed to execute any of the laws petitioners cited. In fact, apart
from adducing expert testimony on the adverse effects of air pollution on
public health, the petitioners did not go beyond mere allegation in establishing
the unlawful acts or omissions on the part of the public respondents that have
a causal link or reasonable connection to the actual or threatened
violation of the constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology of the
magnitude contemplated under the Rules, as required of petitions of this
nature. 
Moreover, the National Air Quality Status Report for 2005-2007
(NAQSR) submitted by the petitioners belies their claim that the DENR failed
to reduce air pollutant emissions — in fact, the NAQSR shows that the
National Ambient Total Suspended Particulates (TSP) value used to
determine air quality has steadily declined from 2004 to 2007,  and while the
values still exceed the air quality guideline value, it has remained on this
same downward trend until as recently as 2011. 
On the other hand, public respondents sufficiently showed that they did
not unlawfully refuse to implement or neglect the laws, executive and
administrative orders as claimed by the petitioners. Projects and programs
that seek to improve air quality were undertaken by the respondents, jointly
and in coordination with stakeholders, such as: priority
tagging of expenditures for climate change adaptation and mitigation, the
Integrated Transport System which is aimed to decongest major
thoroughfares, Truck Ban, Anti-Smoke Belching Campaign, Anti-Colorum,
Mobile Bike Service Programs, and Urban Re-Greening Programs.
In fact, the same NAQSR submitted by the petitioners show that the
DENR was, and is, taking concrete steps to improve national air quality, such
as information campaigns, free emission testing to complement the anti-
smoke-belching program and other programs to reduce emissions from
industrial smokestacks and from open burning of waste.  The efforts of local
governments and administrative regions in conjunction with other executive
agencies and stakeholders are also outlined.
(Segovia v. Climate Change Commission, G.R. No. 211010, [March 7, 2017])
APPLICABILITY

As earlier noted, 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 (Environmental Compliance Certificate) 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 if we
are to preserve the noble and laudable purposes ofthe 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 ofkalikasan, 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 agencies and 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
have been sufficient reason to disallow the resolution of such issues in
a writ of kalikasan case.
However, inasmuch as this is the first time that we lay down this
principle, we have liberally examined the alleged defects or irregularities in the
 issuance of the ECC and find that there is only one group of allegations,
relative to the ECC, that can be reasonably connected to an environmental
damage of the magnitude contemplated under the Rules. This is with respect
to the allegation that there was no environmental impact assessment relative
to the first and second amendments to the subject ECC. If this were true, then
the implementation of the project can conceivably actually violate or threaten
to violate the right to a healthful and balanced ecology of the inhabitants near
the vicinity of the power plant. Thus, the resolution of such an issue could
conceivably be resolved in a writ ofkalikasan case provided that the case
does not violate, or is an exception to the
doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies and primary jurisdiction
 (Paje v. Casiño, G.R. Nos. 207257, 207276, 207282 & 207366, [February 3,
|||

2015])