Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Writ of Kalikasan and Continuing Mandamus - Justice Reyes (Compatibility Mode)
Writ of Kalikasan and Continuing Mandamus - Justice Reyes (Compatibility Mode)
Issuance of writ.
writ (Rule 7,
7 Secs.
Secs 5 and 8)
If petition is sufficient in form and substance, court shall:
a) Issue writ
b) Require respondent to file verified return within ten
(10) days from service of writ showing non-violation of
environmental law or no environmental damage.
Hearing.
g
Conduct p
preliminaryy conference upon
p
receipt
p
of
respondent's return
Hearing not beyond sixty (60) days. (Rule 7, Sec. 11)
Case submitted for decision and filing of memoranda in
thirty (30) days. (Rule 7, Sec. 14)
Nature
N
t
off the
th Writ.
W it A Writ
W it off Continuing
C ti i g Mandamus
M d
is directed against (a) the unlawful neglect in the
performance of an act which the law specifically
enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust or
station in connection with the enforcement or
violation of an environmental law rule or regulation
or a right therein; or (b) the unlawful exclusion of
another from
f
the use or enjoyment off such right
and in both instances, there is no other plain,
speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course
of law.
law (Rule 8,
8 Sec.
Sec 1)
Contents of the petition:
petition Same as Writ of Kalikasan
Hearing.
Conduct summary hearing or require parties to submit
memoranda after comment is filed. (Rule 8, Sec. 6)
Judgment is rendered within sixty (60) days from date case
is submitted for decision.
If warranted, the court shall grant the privilege of the writ of
continuing mandamus and require respondent to:
a) perform an act or series of acts until judgment is fully
satisfied
b) submit periodic reports detailing the progress and
execution of judgment.
c) submit final return of the writ upon full satisfaction of
the judgment.
judgment (Rule 8,
8 Secs.
Secs 6,
6 7 and 8)
Cases on :
Writ of Continuing Mandamus
The case upheld a request for a multi-faceted injunctive
relief to prevent pollution discharges from choking Manila
B
Bay.
I exacted
It
d compliance
li
on the
h part off various
i
government agencies to clean and protect the Manila Bay
for the benefit of future generations. The Court held:
Even assuming the absence of a categorical legal
provision specifically prodding petitioners to clean up the
bay, they and the men and women representing them
cannot escape their obligation
g
to future g
generations of
Filipinos to keep the waters of the Manila Bay clean and
clear as humanly as possible. Anything less would be a
betrayal of the trust reposed in them.
them (Metropolitan Manila
Development Authority v. Concerned Residents of Manila
Bay, 574 SCRA 661 [2008])
The Supreme
Th
S
C t En
Court
E Banc
B
h granted
has
g t d the
th privilege
i il g on the
th
writ of continuing mandamus and ordered the respondents
Provincial Government of Aklan,
Aklan the Philippine Reclamation
Authority (PRA), and the Department of Environment and
Natural
Resources Environmental
Resources-Environmental
Management
Bureau
Regional Office VI (DENR-EMB RVI) to stop from continuing the
implementation of the reclamation project involving 2.64
2 64
hectares of foreshore and offshore areas in Barangay Caticlan
and Boracay Island,
Island known as the Boracay Marina
Marina Project.
Project
It further ordered:
1. Respondent DENR to revisit and review the reclamation
project;
2. Respondent Province of Aklan to fully cooperate with
DENR in its review of the reclamation project and secure
approvals from local government units and hold proper
consultations with NGO's and other stakeholders;
3. Respondent PRA to closely monitor the submission by
respondnet Province of the requirements to be issued by
the DENR;
4. Petitioner Boracay Foundation and the three (3)
respondents to submit their respective reports to the
Supreme Court regarding their compliance with the
requirements provided in the decision. (G.R. No. 196870,
Boracay Foundation, Inc. v. The Province of Aklan, June 26,
2012)
WRIT OF KALIKASAN
WRIT OF KALIKASAN
The petition
Th
titi for
f the
th issuance
i
off Writ
W it off Kalikasan
K lik
was filed
fil d by
b residents
id t off
Makati and Pasay cities against Manila Electric Company (MERALCO)
before the Court of Appeals,
pp
, seeking
g to p
prevent the latter from installing
g
and activating high-tension wires within their barangays. They claimed that
said wires pose environmental and health hazards.
However, the appellate court junked the petition and ruled that
Meralco's p
power lines do not p
pose a threat,, immediate or otherwise to the
petitioners' health and no bases may be culled from any of petitioners'
evidence to warrant the issuance of a Writ of Kalikasan. . . In the instance
b f
before
us, the
h burden
b d off prooff lies
li with
i h petitioners.
ii
I failing
In
f ili to prove the
h
causal like between the illnesses feared and the EMF generating from
Meralco'ss power lines, petitioners have, in fact, failed to discharge this
Meralco
evidentiary evidence. The CA stressed that the data gathered and
presented by the petitioners to support their claim are purely statistical in
nature and lack scientific evidence or conclusion that the high-tension
wires emit electromagnetic fields (EMFs) which cause leukemia to children.
It noted that scientists themselves are currently unable to establish
between leukemia and EMFs.
WRIT O
OF KALIKASAN
S