RULE 6 The court shall direct the plaintiff or adverse
STRATEGIC LAWSUIT AGAINST PUBLIC
PARTICIPATION
Section 1. Strategic lawsuit against
public participation (SLAPP).
A legal action filed to harass, vex, exert
undue pressure or stifle any legal recourse
that any person, institution or the
government has taken or may take in the
enforcement of environmental laws,
protection of the environment or assertion of
environmental rights shall be treated as a
SLAPP and shall be governed by these
Rules.
SLAPP as a suit to stifle enforcement
of environmental laws
- Recognizes the formidable
challenges may be mounted against
those who seek to enforce
environmental laws, or to assert
environment rights. These legal
challenges may be preemptive in
character and may be done in order
to chill the latter.
- This section identifies the legal
action that constitutes a SLAPP. The
consti rights to freedom of speech,
expression and assembly (in
certain cases, the right to petition the
government for redress of
grievances) in relation to the right
to a balanced and healthful
ecology are affected by SLAPP.
Section 2. SLAPP as a defense; how
alleged
In a SLAPP filed against a person involved
in the enforcement of environmental laws,
protection of the environment, or assertion
of environmental rights, the defendant may
file an answer interposing as a defense that
the case is a SLAPP and shall be supported
by documents, affidavits, papers and other
evidence; and, by way of counterclaim, pray
for damages, attorneys fees and costs of
suit.
party to file an opposition showing the suit is
not a SLAPP, attaching evidence in support
thereof, within a non-extendible period of
five (5) days from receipt of notice that an
answer has been filed.
The defense of a SLAPP shall be set for
hearing by the court after issuance of the
order to file an opposition within 15 days
from filing of the comment or the lapse of
the period.
Countering a SLAPP suit
A SLAPP suit is a harassment suit and
the insult against consti rights is the very
reason why no pending legal action
is required to counter a SLAPP suit. A
SLAPP suit may occur in the following
scenarios:
1. X files a complaint in an
environmental case against A)
violator of environmental laws)
an A retaliates by filing a
complaint for damages against X
2. X is a witness in a pending
environment case against A and
the latter retaliates by filing a
complaint for damages or libel
against X
3. X is an environmental advocate
who rallies for the protection of
environmental rights and a
complaint for damages is filed
against A
Since a motion to dismiss is a prohibited
pleading
- SLAPP as an affirmative defense
should be raised in the answer
along with other defenses that may
be raised in the case alleged to be a
SLAPP
Section 3. Summary hearing.
The hearing on the defense of a SLAPP
shall be summary in nature.
- The parties must submit all available
evidence in support of their
respective positions.
 - The party seeking the dismissal of
the case must prove by
substantial evidence that his act
for the enforcement of environmental
law is a legitimate action for the
protection, preservation and
rehabilitation of the environment.
- The party filing the action assailed
as a SLAPP shall prove by
preponderance of evidence that
the action is not a SLAPP and is a
valid claim.
Summary Hearing
- The hearing for the defense of a
SLAPP is summary to expedite the
proceedings.
- Party seeking dismissal of case
alleged to be SLAPP
o Defense: Substantial
evidence amount of
relevant evidence which a
reasonable mind might
accept as adequate to justify
a conclusion
- If court finds a SLAPP defense valid
plaintiff required to prove
1. Case is not SLAPP
2. Case is meritorious
o Prove by: Preponderance of
Evidence more convincing
to the court as worthy of
belief than that which is
offered in opposition thereto
the case. The action shall proceed in
accordance with the Rules of Court.
Priority given the resolution of a
SLAPP defense
- While SLAPP defense is raised in an
answer along w/ other defenses, the
court is required to prioritize the
hearing and resolution of a SLAPP
defense.
- The prioritization in hearing a
SLAPP defense is another mode of
expediting the proceedings
Effect of the courts resolution
- The dismissal of a SLAPP suit
constitutes res judicata
- The denial of a SLAPP defense
allows the action to proceed in
accordance with the Rules of Court
- Since the evidence adduced in the
hearing of a SLAPP defense
remains on record, the plaintiff is
not required to offer again the
evidence already adduced

Section 4. Resolution of the defense of a

SLAPP.
The affirmative defense of a SLAPP shall
be resolved within 30 days after the
summary hearing. If the court dismisses the
action, the court may award damages,
attorneys fees and costs of suit under a
counterclaim if such has been filed. The
dismissal shall be with prejudice.

If the court rejects the defense of a

SLAPP, the evidence adduced during the
summary hearing shall be treated as
evidence of the parties on the merits of

PART III
SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS
RULE 7
WRIT OF KALIKASAN
Section 1. Nature of the writ.
The writ is a remedy available to:
a) a natural or juridical person,
b) entity authorized by law,
c) peoples organization,
d) non-governmental organization, or
e) 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.
Nature of the writ of kalikasan
1) It is an extraordinary remedy which may
be issued depending on the magnitude
of the environmental damage
- Environmental damage must be
of such magnitude as to prejudice
life, health, or property of inhabitants
in 2 or more cities or provinces or
that which transcends political and
territorial boundaries
2) Seeks to address the potentially
exponential nature of large-scale
ecological threats.
- Similar to the writs of habeas
corpus, amparo and habeas data,
the writ of kalikasan was recast as a
different and unique legal device
drawing as models available writs in
the country
3) Distinct from other available remedies in
the ordinary rules of court
- the writ of kalikasan is designed to
accord a stronger protection for
environmental rights
- Aim: to provide a speedy and
effective resolution of a case
involving the violation of ones
constitutional right to a healthful and
balanced ecology
4) The writ is categorized as a special civil
action and was conceptualized as an
extraordinary remedy
- Aim: To provide judicial relief from
threatened or actual violations of the
consti right to healthful ecology of a
magnitude or degree of damage that
transcends political and territorial
boundaries.
- Intention:
1. To provide a stronger
defense for environmental
rights thru judicial efforts
where institutional
arrangements of
enforcement, implementation
and legislation have fallen
short
2. To address the potentially
exponential nature of large-
scale ecological threats
Under Sec. 1 Rule 7 the following requisites
to avail of this remedy:
1) There is an actual/threatened violation
of consti right to a balance 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
3) The actual or threatened violation
involves or will lead to an environmental
damage of such magnitude as to
prejudice life, health or property of
inhabitants in 2 or more cities/provinces
If the petitioner successfully proves the
foregoing requisites court shall render
judgement granting the privilege of write of
kalikasan. Otherwise denied.
Who may file the petition
 - Those who may file for this remedy th y
must represent the inhabitants e f
prejudiced by the environmental ab o
damage subject of the writ.
- The requirement of accreditation us r
of a group or organization is for the e m
purpose of verifying its existence. of
o The accreditation is a di o
mechanism to prevent fly by sc f
night groups from abusing
ret a
the writ.
io b
Differences between a Rule 65 n u
certiorari petition and Rule 7 to s
kalikasan petition be e
gr o
Rul Rul
av f
e 65 e 7
e d
Cert Kali
i
iora kas
s
ri an
Sub Gra - A c
ject ve n r
Mat abu y e
ter se u ti
of n o
disc l n
retio a a
n w s
amo f l
unti u o
ng l n
to a g
lac/ c a
exc t/ s
ess o it
of m c
juris i o
dicti s n
on s s
- Req i ti
uir o t
es n u
th - A t
at n e
s n
a t
n Wh Only -
u o aggr Loc
n may ieve us
l file d stan
a pers di is
w ons liber
f are alize
u the d
l petit -
a ione Ope
c r n to
t/ a
o broa
m d
i rang
s e of
s suito
i rs to
o -incl
n ude
i eve
n n an
v entit
o y
l auth
v oriz
i ed
n by
g law,
t peo
h ples
e org,
e or
n any
v publi
ir c
o inter
n est
m grou
e p
accr
 edit ers or
ed entit
by y
or Exe Not Exe
regi mpt exe mpt
ster ion mpt ed
ed fro ed
w/ m
any doc
govt ket
age fees
ncy Ven - -
- On ue RTC File
beh exer d
alf cisin dire
of g ctly
pers juris with
ons dicti CA
who on or
se over SC
right the
to a territ
bala ory
nce whe
d re
and act
heal is
thful com
ecol mitt
ogy ed
is - CA
viola - SC
Exh Appl Not
ted
aus icabl appli
or
tion e cabl
thre
of e
aten
ad
ed
Res Gov May min
pon ern be istr
den men priv ativ
t t or ate e
its indiv rem
offic idual edie
s uncertain, the respondent may be
Peri 60 Not described by an assumed
od day subj appellation;
to s ect
Respondent
file from to
Sec. 2 (b) petition may be filed even
noti limiti where the name and personal
ce ng circumstances of respondent are
of timel unknown and uncertain provided that he
judg ines may be described by an assumed
appellation
eme
nt or c) The environmental law, rule or
deni regulation violated or threatened to
al of be violated, the act or omission
moti complained of, and the
environmental damage of such
on
magnitude as to prejudice the life,
for health or property of inhabitants in
reco two or more cities or provinces.
nsid
erati Factual allegations
on - The petitioner must specify the
particular environmental law, rule or
to regulation that is being
file violated/threatened to be violated.
Dis Not Avai o Necessary in order that the
cov avail lable court may immediately
ery able determine whether the
mea petition is an environmental
case that should be given
sur
priority.
es - No requirement that cities or
provinces must be contiguous to one
Subject matter which ordinarily cannot another. It is only necessary that the
properly be subject of a certiorari inhabitants of the cities/provinces
petition can be the subject of a suffer or is threatened to suffer
kalikasan petition damage.
o This magnitude standard is
the reason for filing the
Section 2. Contents of the petition. petition for this kind of writ
The verified petition shall contain the may be filed only with SC
following: and CA.

a) The personal circumstances of the d) All relevant and material evidence

petitioner consisting of the affidavits of
b) The name and personal witnesses, documentary evidence,
circumstances of the respondent or scientific or other expert studies, and
if the name and personal if possible, object evidence;
circumstances are unknown and
 Unlike in ordinary civil actions where
only the ultimate facts are required to be
alleged in the complaint, Sec 2 (d)
requires that all relevant & material
evidence such as
1. affidavit of witnesses,
2. documentary evidence,
3. scientific or expert studies
4. and if possible, object evidence
- Must not only be alleged but
attached to the petition.
Purpose: To convince the court to issue w/in
3 days from date of filing, the writ of
kalikasan and require respondent to file a
verified return.
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 5 days therefrom;
f) The reliefs prayed for which may
include a prayer for the issuance of
a TEPO.
Verification
The petition must be verified which
means that the affiant must attest that
he has read the pleading and that the
allegations are true of his/her knowledge
as provided for in Sec. 4 Rule 7 of ROC.
Rule 7 requires that the petition should
contain a certificate of non-forum
shopping
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.
Venue:
1) Magnitude of environmental damage
is reason for limiting where the write
may be filed SUPREME COURT
or CA
o Because jurisdiction is
national in scope
2) Magnitude of the damage or threat
affects the inhabitants of less than 2
cities or provinces RTC
o Has territorial jurisdiction
over the case where the
petitioner may ask for the
issuance of the appropriate
environmental protection
order (EPO) or avail of the
petition for the writ of
continuing mandamus
Section 4. No docket fees.
The petitioner shall be exempt from the
payment of docket fees.
Petitioner exempted to encourage
public participation in the suit
- While similar to the rule on filing fees
for civil and criminal cases under the
rules the exemption from payment
of docket fees is a necessary
consequence of the fact that no
award of damages to private
individuals can be made under the
writ.
- In comparison to civil or criminal
cases under the Rules filing fees
need not be paid at the time of filing
but the same shall be imputed from
the award of damages that may be
given to the complainant in the
judgement
Section 5. Issuance of the writ.
Within 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;
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 of kalikasan 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.
Service of the writ
- The writ shall then be served on the
respondent personally or thru
substituted service if the former
cannot apply
Section 8. Return of respondent;
contents.
Within a non-extendible period of 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.
Filing of return
- Respondents verified return must be
filed w/in a non-extendible period of
10 days from the service of the writ
Shall contain the following:
1. All defenses which shows that
a) the respondent did not violate/
threaten to violate/ allow the
violation of any environmental law,
rule or regulation or
b) commit any act resulting to
environmental damage of such
magnitude that transcends political
and territorial boundaries
- Otherwise defenses not raised are
deemed waived
2. Affidavits of witnesses, documentary
evidence, scientific or other expert
studies, and if possible, object
evidence supporting the respondents
defense
Respondents failure to include a specific
denial of the allegations in the petition -
considered as an admission thereof.
Respondents failure to file a verified
return will not result in his being declared in
default, nor bar the court from proceeding to
hear the petition ex parte.
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.
The enumerated are prohibited to
expedite the hearing of the petition.
A motion for intervention not
prohibited pleading since the magnitude
of the environmental damage entails a
large number of parties that may avail of
the writ of kalikasan.
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 60 days
and shall be given the same priority as
petitions for the writs of habeas corpus,
amparo and habeas data.
Preliminary conference and hearing
- The environmental damage subject
of the writ may involve issues that
are of complex character therefore,
hearing is not summary
- The abbreviated time required
insures that the proceedings are
expedited
- Preliminary conference takes
place of trial
The period of hearing, including preliminary
conference, to 60 days
- Should be given the same priority as
petitions for the writ of habeas
corpus, amparo and habeas data
- The court is allowed to entertain
verified motions for ocular inspection
and for the production or inspection
of documents or things - from the
date of the filing of the petition
and w/in the 60-day period
Rules allow any of the parties to avail of
these discovery measures to establish the
magnitude of the violation or threat thereto,
or to show the absence or exact degree of
magnitude of the dame or threat
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.
Motion for ocular inspection must state
that the same is necessary to establish :
a. the magnitude of the violation or
the threat thereof
b. place/places to be inspected
c. duly supported by affidavits of
witnesses having personal
knowledge of such facts
If motion is substantiated court may
order any person in possession or
control of a designated land/ other
property to permit entry for the
purpose of inspecting/photographing
the property or any relevant
object/operation thereon.
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.
Does not require the movant to specify
in detail the documents or things to be
produced
- Motion must show that a
production order is necessary to
establish the magnitude of the
violation or threats to prejudice the
life, health or property of inhabitants
in 2 or more cities or provinces
- Must specify the person authorized
to make the production as well as
the date, time, place and manner of
making the inspection or production.
Rules provide courts w/ means and
methods to obtain sufficient
information to protect right to health
and balanced ecology
The Rules of Procedure for Environmental
Cases liberally provide courts w/ means and
methods to obtain sufficient info in order to
adequately protect/safeguard the right to
healthful and balanced ecology (Paje vs
Casino)
- Sec. 6 (1) Rule 3 when failure to
settle, the judge shall determine the
necessity of engaging the services
of a qualified expert as a friend of
the court (amicus curiae)
- Sec. 12 Rule 7 party may avail of
discovery measures (ocular
inspection & production/ inspection
of documents/things.
- The writ would effectively serve
as a remedy for the enforcement of
the right to information about the
environment.
- The scope of fact-finding power
could be:
1. Anything related to issuance,
grant of govt permit issued or
information controlled by the
govt/ private entity
2. Information contained in
documents such as ECC and
other govt records
- The writ may also be employed to
compel the production of
 information, subject to consti
limitations.
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.
Contempt proceedings
- Indirect contempt the respondent
is given an opportunity to file a
comment on the charge and to be
heard by himself or counsel
- Treated as criminal in nature even
when acts complained of are
incidents of civil actions.
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.
Submission of memoranda in
electronic form
- Memoranda may be filed in
electronic form to hasten the
resolution of the petition
Section 15. Judgment.
Within 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.
Period to render judgement
- Period: 60 days from date the
petition is submitted for decision to
render judgement w/ or w/o
memoranda
- If parties/court require them to file
memoranda the court has only the
remaining days from the date of
filing of last memorandum or last day
of filing the same, but not exceed 60
days counted from the submission of
the case for decision w/in which to
render judgement
Reliefs
- IF court finds the petition meritorious
shall grant the privilege of the writ
of kalikasan
- Due to great number of inhabitants
that may be involved in the petition
for writ of kalikasan:
Sec. 15 prohibits the award of
personal damages as this would
require the reception of evidence
 which would delay the immediate
resolution of the petition
o This is why Sec. 17 allows
petitioner to file separate
civil, criminal or admin action
against respondent
Reliefs not covered by a writ of
kalikasan
(Paje vs Casino)
- The Casino group claims that the
ECC was issued in violation of
1. DENR Rules on the issuance
and amendment of an ECC
DAO 2003-30 and Revised
Procedural Manual for DAO
2003-30
2. Sec. 59 of the IPRA law
3. Sec. 26 & 27 of the LGC
4. LDA entered into between
SBMA and RP Energy
violated Sec. 59 of IPRA Law
- These allegations cannot come
within coverage of Writ of Kalikasan
bec. no causal link or reasonable
connection was shown bet. The
defects or irregularities in the
issuance of the ECC and actual or
threatened violation of the consti
right to balanced and healthful
ecology of the magnitude
contemplated in the Rules.
(Arigo vs Swift)
- Petitioner sought directive from the
Court for the institution of civil,
admin and criminal suits for acts
committed in violation of envi laws
and regulations in connection w/ the
grounding of the USS Guardian on
the South Shoal of Tubbataha Riefs
a UNESCO World Heritage Site
- Court declared that since US
respondents were sued in their
official capacity as commanding
officers of the US Navy and
satisfaction of a judgement would
require the appropriation of funds by
the US government, the principle of
State Immunity bars the exercise of
jurisdiction by the Court over
persons of said respondents.
Further, while Rules allows recovery of
damages including collection of admin
fines under RA10067 the action
should be filed in a separate civil suit or
deemed instituted w/ crim action not in
a writ of kalikasan petition
Ruling on the application or non-
application of the criminal jurisdiction
provisions of the VFA to US personnel
who may be found responsible for the
grounding of the USS Guardian
BEYOND the province of petition for writ
of kalikasan
WON Visiting Forces Agreement is a
valid and binding agreement Writ of
Kalikasan under the Rules is NOT the
proper remedy to assail constitutionality
of its provisions
First writ of kalikasan
- The 1st writ of kalikasan w/ a TEPO
was issued by SC thru CJ Corona
on Nov 19, 2010 in the case of West
Tower Condo vs First PH Industrial
Corporation (FPIC)
- The court ordered FPIC to:
a) Cease and desist from operating
the leaking pipeline until further
orders from the Court
b) Check the structural integrity of
the whole span of 117 km
pipeline while implementing
sufficient measures to prevent
and avert any untoward incidents
that may result from any leak of
the pipeline
c) Make a report thereon w/in 60
days from receipt thereof
- The TEPO was based on petition by
residents of West Tower Condo and
Brgy. Bangkal in Makati City who
claimed to have suffered health and
envi hazards from leaking FPICs oil
pipeline that runs from Batangas to
Pandacan oil depot in Manila
o Petitioners alleged that
continuous use of the
 pipeline not only hazard
health and property but also
affect rights of the
generations yet unborn to
live in a balanced and
healthful ecology.
o Violation of Clean Water Act,
Clean Air Act and PH
Environmental Code.
Writ will not lie where alleged
environmental damage is not
substantiated
(Paje vs Casino)
- Court denied the petition for a writ of
kalikasan on ground that Casino
group (respondents) failed to
substatntiate their claims that the
construction and operation of the
coal-fired thermal power plant in
Subic Bay to supply reliable and
affordable power to Subic Bay
Industrial Park (SBIP) will cause envi
damage of the magnitude
contemplated under writ of
kalikasan.
- Casino group claimed that the
construction and operation of the
power plant will
a) Thermal pollution of coastal
waters
b) Air pollution due to dust and
combustion gases
c) Water pollution from toxic
coal combustion waste
d) Acid deposition in aquatic
and terrestrial ecosystems
which whill adversely affect
residents of Bataan,
Zambales Subic, Morong,
Hermosa and Olongapo
o Court was
unconvinced
- HELD: Casino group failed to carry
the onus of proving the alleged
significant negative envi impacts of
the project.
o The witnesses presented by
the Casino group are not
experts on the CFB
technology or on envi
matters and they even
admitted on cross-exam that
they are not competent to
testify on the envi impact of
the project
o Wanting in their testimonies
is their technical knowledge
of the project design/
implementation or some
other aspects of the project
- Court noted that RP Energy
controverted in detail the allegations
of the Casino Group on the 4 areas
of envi damage that will allegedly
occur upon the construction and
operation of the power plant.
Section 16. Appeal.
Within 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.
By means of a petition for review on
certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules
of Court (ROC)
The petition may include an
application for a writ of preliminary
injunction or other provisional
remedies.
Allows appeal to raise questions of
fact- by way of exception to Rule 45
of the ROC precisely bec. of the
inherent nature of environmental
cases wherein question fof fact
would inevitable arise.
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.
 RULE 8
WRIT OF CONTINUING MANDAMUS

Section 1. Petition for continuing

mandamus
When any agency or instrumentality of the
government or officer thereof unlawfully
neglects 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 unlawfully excludes
another from the use or enjoyment of such
right and there is no other plain, speedy and
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of
law, the person aggrieved thereby may file a
verified petition in the proper court, alleging
the facts with certainty, attaching thereto
supporting evidence, specifying that the
petition concerns an environmental law, rule
or regulation, and praying that judgment be
rendered commanding the respondent to do
an act or series of acts until the judgment is
fully satisfied, and to pay damages
sustained by the petitioner by reason of the
malicious neglect to perform the duties of
the respondent, under the law, rules or
regulations. The petition shall also contain a
sworn certification of non-forum shopping.

Functions of mandamus
- Mandamus is employed to compel
the performance when refused of a
ministerial duty this being its chief
use and not a discretionary duty.
 - Distinguished from injunction a
preventive remedy; Mandamus to
set in motion and to compel action
- Mandamus lies to command the
doing of what ought to be done and
not to undo what has been done
Writ of continuing mandamus
- Commands the respondent to do an
act or series of acts until the
judgement is fully satisfied
- It is a special civil action to compel
the performance of an act
specifically enjoined by law
- Permits court to retain jurisdiction
after judgement in order to ensure
the successful implementation of
reliefs mandated under courts
decision
o Court may compel the
submission of compliance
reports from the respondent
govt agencies as well as
avail of other means to
monitor compliance
- Final relief in environmental civil
cases and in writ of kalikasan
Section 2. Where to file the petition.
The petition shall be filed with the Regional
Trial Court exercising jurisdiction over the
territory where the actionable neglect or
omission occurred or with the Court of
Appeals or the Supreme Court.
Section 3. No docket fees.
The petitioner shall be exempt from the
payment of docket fees.
Section 4. Order to comment.
If the petition is sufficient in form and
substance, the court shall issue the writ and
require the respondent to comment on the
petition within ten (10) days from receipt of
a copy thereof. Such order shall be served
on the respondents in such manner as the
court may direct, together with a copy of the
petition and any annexes thereto.
Section 5. Expediting proceedings;
TEPO.
The court in which the petition is filed may
issue such orders to expedite the
proceedings, and it may also grant a TEPO
for the preservation of the rights of the
parties pending such proceedings.
Section 6.Proceedings after comment is
filed
After the comment is filed or the time for the
filing thereof has expired, the court may
hear the case which shall be summary in
nature or require the parties to submit
memoranda. The petition shall be resolved
without delay within sixty (60) days from the
date of the submission of the petition for
resolution.
Section 7. Judgment.
If warranted, the court shall grant the
privilege of the writ of continuing mandamus
requiring respondent to perform an act or
series of acts until the judgment is fully
satisfied and to grant such other reliefs as
may be warranted resulting from the
wrongful or illegal acts of the respondent.
The court shall require the respondent to
submit periodic reports detailing the
progress and execution of the judgment,
and the court may, by itself or through a
commissioner or the appropriate
government agency, evaluate and monitor
compliance. The petitioner may submit its
comments or observations on the execution
of the judgment.
(MMDA vs Concerned Residents of
Manila Bay)
- A group of concerned citizens filed a
complaint against several govt
agencies, among them: MMDA for
the cleanup, rehabilitation and
protection of the Manila Bay.
- Court affirmed the judgement of the
RTC ordering MMDA and other govt
agencies jointly and solidarily to
clean up and rehab Manila Bay and
restore its waters to SB classification
to make it fit for swimming, skin-
diving and other forms of contact
recreation.
- Decision became final in Jan 2009
for the meantime court created the
 Manila Bay Advisory Committee to
receive and evaluate the quarterly Upon full satisfaction of the judgment, a final
progressive reports on the activities return of the writ shall be made to the court
undertaken by the agencies & by the respondent. If the court finds that the
monitor the execution phase of the judgment has been fully implemented, the
decision this orders are in the satisfaction of judgment shall be entered in
nature of Continuing Mandamus the court docket.
- Ruling: Final judgement includes
not only what appears upon its face
to have been so adjudged but also
matters actually and necessarily
included therein or necessart
thereto
o Submission of periodic
reports is sanctioned by Sec.
7 & 8 of Rule 8 of RPEC

(Vineet Narain vs Union of India and

M.C. Mehta vs Union of India)
- Vineet case: Highly positioned public
officials receiving money from
terrorist groups.
o Petitioners filed a petition for
writ of mandamus to compel
Central Bureau of
Investigation and other govt
agencies to investigate.
o SC of India issued a writ of
continuing mandamus in
order to monitor CBIs
compliance with its order to
investigate the offenses and
ensure investigation is done
w/ impartiality and objectivity
- MC Case: sought closure of
tanneries tro prevent pollution of
Ganges River
(T.N. Godavarman vs Union of India &
Ors)
- SC of India issued a writ of
continuing mandamus in order to
monitor compliance w/ order to
preserve and rehabilitate an Indian
forest

Section 8. Return of the writ.

The periodic reports submitted by the
respondent detailing compliance with the
judgment shall be contained in partial
returns of the writ.
DIFFERENCES MANDAMUS KALIKASAN
Subject Matter a) Unlawful neglect in the Against an unlawful act or
perforamance of an act which the omission of a public official or
law specifically enjoins as a duty employee or private individual
resulting from the office, trust or or entity involving
station in connection w/ environmental damage of
enforcement or violation of an such magnitude as to
environmental law rule or prejudice life, health or
regulation or a right therein property of inhabitants in 2 or
b) Unlawful exclusion of another more cities or provinces.
from the use or enjoyment of such
right The magnitude of the envi
c) No other plain, speedy and damage is a condition sine
adequate remedy in the ordinary qua non in a petition for writ of
course of law kalikasan and must be
specified in the verified
petition
Who may file One who is personally aggrieved by Broad range of persons such
the unlawful act/omission as
a) natural or juridical
person
b) entity authorized by
law
c) peoples organization
d) any public interest
group accredited or
registered w/ any
govt agency
on behalf of persons
whose right to a balanced
and healthful ecology is
violated or threatened to
be violated
Respondent Only government or its officers May be private individual or
entity
Exemption from docket fees Exempted Exempted
Venue a) RTC exercising jurisdciction over Only filed in SC or any of the
the territory where the actionable stations of the CA in Manila,
neglect or omission occurred Cebu or Cagayan de Oro City
b) CA
c) SC
Discovery Measures No discovery measures Incorporates the procedural
environmental right to acces
information thr u the use of
discovery measures such as
ocular inspection and
production order
Damages for personal injury Allows the payment of damages for
the malicious neglect of the
performance of the legal duty of the
respondent
PART IV
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
RULE 9
PROSECUTION OF OFFENSES
Section 1. Who may file.
1. Any offended party,
2. Peace officer or
3. Any public officer charged with the
enforcement of an environmental
law
may file a complaint before the proper
officer in accordance with the Rules of
Court.
Section 2. Filing of the information.
An information, charging a person w/ a
violation of an environmental law and
subscribed by the prosecutor, shall be filed
with the court.
The filing of information initiates the
criminal action
The preliminary investigation conducted by
the fiscal for the purpose of determining
whether a prima facie case exists
warranting the prosecution of the accused
is terminated upon the filing of the
information in the proper court.
The filing of said information sets in motion
the criminal action against the accused in
court.
Does not allow payment of
damages consistent w/ the
public-interest character of the
petition. A party who avails of
this petition may file another
suit for the recovery of
damages since it allows for
the institution of separate
actions
Once an information is filed in court, any
disposition of the case as its dismissal/
conviction/ acquittal of the accused rests in
the sound discretion of the court.
Section 3. Special prosecutor.
In criminal cases, where there is no private
offended party, a counsel whose services
are offered by any person or organization
may be allowed by the court as special
prosecutor, with the consent of and subject
to the control and supervision of the public
prosecutor.
Intervention of a special prosecutor
Aim: Encourage public participation in
criminal litigation by permitting the
appearance of a special prosecutor.
This provision recognizes the possibility of
intervention from a special prosecutor even
in the absence of a private offended party.
The special prosecutor complements the
public prosecutor in advancing public
interest in environmental cases.
Sec 3 - applies to those instances of
victimless offenses where there is no
private offended party who has a direct or
material interest to prosecute a criminal
action. Most environmental cases involve
violations of environmental law (ex.
dynamite fishing/ illegal logging)
These situations are likened to public
interest environmental litigation prevalent in
foreign jurisdictions where it is usually a
concerned peoples organization, non-
governmental organization or citizens
ground that pushes and pursues the
criminal action

Offenses under the Revised Forestry
Code
(PD 705 Sec. 68)
(As amended by PD 1159 and E0 277)
2 acts violated:
1) Cutting, Gathering and/or collecting
Timber, or Other Forest Products
without License.
Any person who shall cut, gather,
collect, removed timber or other forest
products from any forest land, or timber
from alienable or disposable public land,
or from private land, without any
authority
DEFENSE:
Legality of the acts of cutting,
gathering, collecting or removing
timber or other forest products by
presenting the authorization issued
by the DENR
2) Possess timber or other forest
products without the legal
documents as required under
existing forest laws and regulations
DEFENSE:
- Immaterial whether the cutting,
gathering, collecting, and
removal of the forest products is
legal or not.
- Mere possession of forest
products w/o the proper
documents consummates the
crime.
- WON the lumber comes from a
legal source is immaterial
because EO2077 considers the
mere possession of timber or
other forest products w/o the
proper legal documents as
malum prohibitum.
shall be punished with the penalties under
Art.309 and 310 of the RPC(Qualified Theft)
That in the case of partnerships,
associations, or corporations, the
officers who ordered the cutting, gathering,
collection or possession shall be liable, & if
such officers are aliens, they shall, in
addition to the penalty, be deported w/o
further proceedings on the part of the
Commission on Immigration and
Deportation.
The court shall further order the
confiscation in favor of the government of
the timber or any forest products cut,
gathered, collected, removed, or possessed
as well as the machinery, equipment,
implements and tools illegally used in the
area where the timber or forest products are
found.
DENR AO No. 59, Series of 1993 -
specifies the documents required
for the transport of timber and other
forest products.
Sec. 3 of DENR AO No. 59
materially requires that the transport
of lumber be accompanied by a
certificate of lumber origin duly
issued by DENR-CENRO
PD 705 is a special penal statute that
punishes acts essentially malum
prohibitum
In offenses considered as mala prohibita or
when the doing of an act is prohibited by a
special law, such as that committed under
PD 705 the commission of the prohibited
act is the crime itself.
- It is sufficient that the offender
1. has the intent to perpetrate the
act prohibited by the special law,
2. that it is done knowingly and
consciously.
In the 2nd offense WON the lumber
comes from a legal source is immaterial
because the Revised Forestry Code is a
special law which considers the mere
possession of timber/ other forest products
w/o proper documentation as malum
prohibitum.
PD 705 is a special penal statute that a) Poaching in Philippine Waters
punishes acts essentially malum prohibitum. b) Fishing Through Explosives,
As such, prosecutions under its provisions, Noxious or Poisonous Substance,
claims of good faith are by no means and/or Electricity.
reliable as defenses because the offense c) Use of Fine Mesh Net
is complete and criminal liability attaches d) Use of active gear in municipal
one the prohibited acts are committed. waters and other fishery
Violation of Sec. 68 of PD 705 is management areas
punished as QUALIFIED THEFT e) Ban on Coral Exploitation and
Exportation
Violation of Sec.68 of PD 705, as amended, f) Conversion of Mangroves
is punished as qualified theft. The law g) Fishing in Overfished Area and
treats cutting, gathering, collecting and During Closed Season.
possessing timber or other forest products h) Fishing in Fishery Reserves, Refuge
w/o license as an offense as grave and and Sanctuaries
equivalent to the felony of qualified theft.
- Sec. 68 refers to Art. 309 and 310 of Under Sec. 124 of the Fisheries Code the
the RPC for the penalties to be following are authorized to enforce the
imposed on violators Code and other fishery laws, rules and
regulations:
OFFENSES UNDER THE MINING ACT
(RA 7942) 1. Law enforcement officers of the
Department,
Illegally sourced minerals or mineral 2. Philippine Navy,
products those which are mined, 3. Philippine Coast Guard,
extracted, removed and/or disposed of w/o 4. Philippine National Police (PNP),
authority or permit under existing mining 5. PNP-Maritime Command,
laws, rules and regulation. 6. law enforcement officers of the
LGUs
The transport of all minerals/ mineral 7. Other government enforcement
products and by-products, including gold agencies,
bullions w/o the corresponding permit 8. Other competent government
documents (e.g. ore transport permits) shall officials and employees,
be considered prima facie evidence of 9. Punong barangays and officers
illegal mining and as basis for the filing 10. Members of fisherfolk associations
of a complaint for theft of minerals who have undergone training on law
enforcement may be designated in
The Regional Office concerned, permittee, writing by the Department as deputy
contractor, permit holder and/or other duly fish wardens
deputized personnel shall file the
complaint w/ the proper court for
violation of Sec. 103 of the Act (Theft of OFFENSES UNDER THE WATER CODE
Minerals) (PD 1067)

PROHIBITIONS UNDER THE FISHERIES

CODE Chapter 8 of the Water Code of the
(RA 8550) Philippines enumerates acts punishable
thereunder which includes:
Chapter 6 Prohibitions and
Penalties a) Appropriation of subterranean or
Some Prohibitions: ground water for domestic use by an
 overlying landowner without
registration required by the Council.
b) Failure to comply with any of the
terms or conditions in a water permit
or a water rights grant.
c) Unauthorized use of water for a
purpose other than that for which a
right or permit was granted.
d) Failure to provide adequate facilities
to prevent or control diseases when
required by the Council in the
construction of any work for the
storage, diversion, distribution and
utilization of water.
e) Drilling of a well without permission
of the Council.
f) Illegal taking or diversion of water in
an open canal, aqueduct or
reservoir.
g) Appropriation of water without a
water permit, unless such person is
expressly exempted from securing a
permit by the provisions of this
Code.
h) Unauthorized obstruction of an
irrigation canal.
i) Establishment of a cemetery or a
waste disposal area near a source of
water supply or reservoir for
domestic municipal use without
permission.
j) Dumping mine tailings and
sediments into rivers or waterways
without permission.
PROSECUTION FOR MULTIPLE
VIOLATIONS
Under Sec. 3(e), Rule 117 of the 1985
Rules of Criminal Procedure, duplicity of
offenses in a single information is a ground
to quash the Information. The rules prohibit
the filing of such Information to avoid
confusing the accused in preparing his
defense.
(Loney vs People)
FACTS:
Loney, Reid and Hernandez are the
President, CEO and Senior Manager
and Resident Manager for Mining
Operation of Marcopper in Marinduque.
Marcopper built concrete plug at the
tunnels discharging tons of tailing into
Boac and Makalupnit rivers.
DOJ then filed separate charges against
the petitioners in MTC Marinduque for
violation of
1. Art.19 the Water Code of the
Philippines (PD 1067)
2. Sec.8 of National Pollution Control
Decree (PD 984)
3. Sec. 108 of the Philippine Mining Act
of 2005 (RA 7942)
4. Art. 365 of the RPC for reckless
imprudence resulting in damage to
property.
Petitioners moved to quash the
information saying that the
1. information was duplicitous for it
charges more than one offense
for a single act,
2. that Loney and Reid were not yet
officers when this incident took
place
3. that the informations contain
allegations which constitute legal
excuse or justification.
MTC:
1. Partially granted the quashing of the
informations for violation of PD 1067
and PD 984 but maintained violation
of RA 7942 and RPC.
2. MTC then issued a consolidated
order in so far as the offense against
RPC. With such, petitioners filed a
petition for certiorari with RTC-
Marinduque assailing the
Consolidated Order.
RTC:
1. Granted appeal but denied the
petition for certiorari.
2. Consolidated Order was affirmed
and ordered the reinstatement of the
information pertaining to the violation
of PD 1967 and PD 984.
Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari with
the CA alleging grave abuse of discretion
reiterating the defense that the informations
were made out from a single act
CA: affirmed RTC
ISSUE: Whether all the charges filed
against petitioners except one should be
quashed for duplicity of charges and only
the charge for Reckless Imprudence
Resulting in Damage to Property should
stand.
SC: No duplicity. Duplicity of charges
means a single complaint or information
charges more than on offense. The filing of
several charges is proper. A single act or
incident might offend two or more entirely
distinct and unrelated provisions of law thus
justifying the prosecution for more than one
offense. The only limit is double jeopardy.
precaution on its part to prevent the
damage to property
RA 7942 (Philippine Mining Act) the
additional fact that must be established is
the willful violation and gross neglect on
the part of the accused to abide by the
terms and conditions of the ECC,
particularly Marcopper should ensure the
containment of run-off and silt materials
from reaching the Mogpog and Boac
Rivers.
- If there was no violation or neglect and
accused satisfactorily proved that
Marcopper should ensure the
containment of run-off and silt materials
not liable
- It does not follow that they cannot be
prosecuted under the Water Code, Anti-
Pollution Law and RPC bec of the
violation of the ECC is not an essential
element of these laws

The Court ruled that petitioners erroneously Art. 365 of the RPC additional element
invoked duplicity of charges as a ground to is the lack of necessary or adequate
quash the information. A comparative precaution, negligence, recklessness and
analysis of the 4 laws, there is 1 essential imprudence on the part of the accused to
element not required of the others, thus: prevent damage to property. This element
is not required under the previous laws.
PD 1067 (Water Code) additional element
to be established is the dumping of mine
tailings into the Makulapnit River and the
entire Boac River System
- The gravamen of the offense here is
the absence of the proper permit to
dump said mine tailings.
- One can be validly prosecuted for
violating the Water Code even in the
absence of actual pollution or even if
complied with ECC or even if took
necessary precautions to prevent
damage to the property

PD 984 (Anti-Pollution Law) additional

fact that must be proved is the existence
of actual pollution.
- The gravamen is the pollution itself
- In the absence of any pollution, the
accused must be exonerated under this
law although there was unauthorized
dumping of mine tailings or lack of
 3. institutes the civil action prior to the
criminal action.

Unless the civil action has been instituted

prior to the criminal action, the reservation
of the right to institute separately the
civil action shall be made during
arraignment.

GR: Civil action is deemed instituted

with the criminal action

Rule on the award of damages

In case civil liability is imposed or
damages are awarded
- the filing and other legal fees shall be
imposed on said award in accordance
with Rule 141 of the Rules of Court
- the fees shall constitute a first lien on
the judgment award.
The damages awarded in cases where
there is no private offended party, less the
filing fees, shall accrue to the funds of the
agency charged with the implementation
of the environmental law violated. The
award shall be used for the restoration and
rehabilitation of the environment adversely
affected.

Institution of actions
- This provision different from the
traditional rule on institution of civil
actions under Rule 111 of the Rules on
Crim Pro provides for applicable rule
RULE 10 on the disposition of damages where
PROSECUTION OF CIVIL ACTIONS there is no private offended party
- Codifies the essence of the restorative
Section 1. Institution of criminal and civil justice when it requires that the award
actions. shall be given to the concerned govt
When a criminal action is instituted, the agency.
civil action for the recovery of civil liability
arising from the offense charged, shall be
deemed instituted with the criminal action
unless the complainant
1. waives the civil action,
2. reserves the right to institute it
separately