CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 CASE DIGEST

4-MANRESA (2018-2019)

DY vs. PEOPLE
Isay Abad Within six (6) months from notice of the said Decision, the PNP and
PNP-CIDG were ordered to undertake their respective
investigations, and within fifteen (15) days from completion, the AFP
and PNP shall submit a full report of their investigations to the RTC
isleading the public by dissemination of documents suggesting
which, in turn, shall have thirty (30) days to submit its Full Report to
reasons and rationales for a course of action which were not in fact
this Court for Final Action.
the ultimate reasons for the agency's action." 53
In a Final Report, the RTC discussed the contents of the confidential
Under RA 9285,54 orders of an arbitral tribunal are appealable to the
AFP Report. It highlighted the contents of Gonzales's testimony
courts. If an official is compelled to testify before an arbitral tribunal
(Gonzales was repeatedly mentioned in James Balao’s journal). The
and the order of an arbitral tribunal is appealed to the courts, such
RTC opined that the investigation of James's abduction had reached
official can be inhibited by fear of later being subject to public
an impasse,thereby recommending that these cases be archived,
criticism, preventing such official from making candid discussions
considering that the investigation of the AFP had reached a standstill
within his or
with its conclusion that Maj. Tokong did not conduct surveillance
operations on James, and that the testimony of Gonzales presented
a new angle in the abduction that must be further verified. The RTC
noted that while archived, these cases may still be re-opened by any
FACTS: The case arose when James M. Balao (James), founding
interested party should new evidence arise.
member of the Cordillera Peoples Alliance (CPA), a coalition of non-
government organizations working for the cause of indigenous
ISSUE: Whether or not the Court should adopt the recommendation
peoples in the Cordillera Region, was abducted by five (5)
of the RTC to archive the cases. NO
unidentified armed men on September 17, 2008. After efforts to find
him proved futile, James's siblings, namely: Arthur Balao et. al
RULING: The SC rejected the recommendation of the RTC to
together with CPA Chairperson Beverly Longid filed a petition for the
archive the cases.
issuance of a writ of amparo in James's favor before the RTC.
At the outset, the Court observes that exhaustive efforts and
RTC granted the privilege of the writ of amparo, thereby directing
extraordinary diligence were exercised by the PNP, AFP, and CHR
several public officers including the then President Gloria
in investigating the abduction of James, pursuant to the parameters
Macapagal-Arroyo, Executive Secretary, Defense Secretary, Interior
laid down in the December 13, 2011 Decision. On the part of the
and Local Government Secretary, National Security Adviser, AFP
AFP, the Court notes its active participation in the RTC proceedings,
Chief of Staff General, PNPPolice Director General etc. to: (a)
and as gleaned from the AFP Report, it investigated the possible
disclose where James is being detained or confined; (b) release him
involvement of Maj. Tokong, but who was subsequently cleared from
from his unlawful detention; and (c) cease and desist from inflicting
any participation in James's abduction for lack of evidence. The AFP
harm on his person. The RTC held that James's unlawful
likewise stated that it compared the results of the cartographic
disappearance was due to his activist/political leanings and because
sketches with their personnel, but still, did not yield any significant
the CPA was seen as a front of the Communist Party of the
developments.
Philippines-New People's Army (CPP-NPA).The RTC further ruled
that the investigation conducted by the public officers was "very
On the part of the PNP, records show that it keenly investigated the
limited, superficial[,] and one-sided" which, thus, unmistakably
ownership of the vehicles that were reportedly used for surveillance
violated James's right to security of his person.
on James. According to its Formal Report, the SITG-Balao traced
the vehicles ownership history, as well as the activities and trips of
In the December 13, 2011 Decision, the Supreme Court reversed
the vehicle on the day of James's abduction, but found no
the grant of the privilege of the writ of amparo, holding that the
considerable leads. It must, however, be stressed that the angle
totality of evidence presented did not fulfill the evidentiary standard
raised by Gonzales in his testimony - i.e., that James could have
provided for by Amparo rule so as to establish that James was a
been possibly abducted by CPA members - presented a significant
victim of an enforced disappearance. The Court ruled that
development that is worth investigating.
government involvement in the abduction of James could not be
simply inferred based on past incidents in which the victims also
Under Section 20 of the Amparo rule, the court is mandated to
worked or were affiliated with left-leaning groups. After a judicious
archive, and not dismiss, the case should it determine that it could
review of the records, the Court found that the participation of
not proceed for a valid cause, viz.:
members of the AFP or PNP in the abduction of James was not
sufficiently proven. It highlighted that no concrete evidence was
Section 20. Archiving and Revival of Cases. — The court
presented by Balao, et al. which would have satisfactorily showed
shall not dismiss the petition, but shall archive it, if upon
that James's abductors were connected with them. Relatedly, Balao,
its determination it cannot proceed for a valid cause such
et al. likewise failed to present adequate proof that James was being
as the failure of petitioner or witnesses to appear due to
held or detained upon the orders or with acquiescence of
threats on their lives.
government agents.
A periodic review of the archived cases shall be made by the
However, the Court concurred with the RTC's observations
amparo court that shall, motu proprio or upon motion by any party,
describing the investigations made by the public officers as "very
order their revival when ready for further proceedings. The petition
limited, superficial[,] and one-sided" and, hence, ineffective.In order
shall be dismissed with prejudice upon failure to prosecute the case
to safeguard the constitutional right to liberty and security of James
after the lapse of two (2) years from notice to the petitioner of the
who remained missing to date, the Courtremanded the case to the
order archiving the case.
RTC so as to monitor and ensure that the investigative efforts by the
public officers would be discharged with extraordinary diligence.It
ordered that the RTC may conduct hearings, as it may deem
necessary, to validate the results of the investigation.
1
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 CASE DIGEST
4-MANRESA (2018-2019)

The clerks of court shall submit to the Office of the Court
Administrator a consolidated list of archived cases under this Rule
not later than the first week of January of every year.
Jurisprudence states that archiving of cases is a procedural
measure designed to temporarily defer the hearing of cases in which
no immediate action is expected, but where no grounds exist for
their outright dismissal. Under this scheme, an inactive case is kept
alive but held in abeyance until the situation obtains in which action
thereon can be taken. To be sure, the Amparo rule sanctions the
archiving of cases, provided that it is impelled by a valid cause, such
as when the witnesses fail to appear due to threats on their lives or
to similar analogous causes that would prevent the court from
effectively hearing and conducting the amparo proceedings which,
however, do not obtain in these cases.
On June 18, 2009, while the members of the Task Force were on
their way to bring the respondent and Haber to the police station,
they were met by P/Supt. Buenaobra of the Philippine National
Police (PNP) Cagayan Regional Office. Thereafter, the respondent's
custody was transferred to the PNP Cagayan Regional Office.
Maritess then went to the office of Mayor Mamba, but she was told
to come back at later date since Mayor Mamba was still on official
leave. When Mayor Mamba arrived in Tuao on June 20, 2009, a
conference was immediately held. Maritess requested that the
members of the Task Force be brought to Mayor Mamba's office.
Almost all of the members of the Task Force arrived. However,
Maritess was unable to pinpoint who among them took custody of
his son. Mayor Mamba then advised her to file a complaint in court
should she be able to identify the responsible persons.

Here, while it may appear that the investigation conducted by the On the other hand, the Bueno alleged that:
AFP reached an impasse, it must be pointed out that there was still
an active lead worth pursuing by the PNP. Thus, the investigation
At around 3:00 p.m. of June 14, 2009, Tumaliuan and Dayag, both
had not reached a deadend - which would have warranted the
members of the Task Force, upon the order of Baligod, then
case's archiving - because the testimony of Gonzales set forth an
Municipal Administrator of Tuao, fetched the Bueno from the police
immediate action on the part of the PNP which could possibly solve,
station and brought him to Mayor Mamba's house. Sometime in the
or uncover new leads, in the ongoing investigation of James's
evening of even date, the respondent was made to board a white
abduction. Therefore, the RTC's recommendation that these cases
van driven by Aggangan. Inside the van, he was beaten with a gun
should be archived is clearly premature, and hence, must be
by Malana, who later threatened him that he would be killed.
rejected.
Thereafter, he was brought back to Mayor Mamba's house.

The SC instead DIRECTED the PNP to further investigate the angle

That same evening, Haber, likewise a minor, was invited by the
presented by Bryan Gonzales and to ascertain the identities of
barangay captain in his place, accompanied by about 10
"Uncle John" and "Rene" (the alleged housemates of James) who
barangay tanods and two police officers, for questioning as regards
are persons-of-interest in these cases.
the robbery of the canteen. Haber was brought to the police station
where he spent the night.
MAMBA vs. BUENO
Jessa Noble
On June 15, 2009, Haber was brought to Mayor Mamba's house.
The respondent and Haber were then tortured to force them to admit
FACTS: Bueno and Haber were suspected to have robbed the
to their involvement in the robbery. They were made to roll on the
canteen owned by Emelita N. Mamba (Emelita) in Tuao, Cagayan
grass while being kicked and beaten with a cue stick by Malana; hot
on June 13, 2009. Emelita is the mother of Mayor Mamba, then
wax was poured over their bodies to force them to admit to the
Mayor of the Municipality of Tuao, Cagayan and Atty. Mamba, then
robbery, but they denied any involvement therein. Thereafter, they
a Malacanang official. The Task Force Lingkod Bayan (Task Force),
were blindfolded and were questioned by Atty. Mamba regarding the
an agency created by the Sangguniang Bayan of Tuao to help the
robbery of the canteen. When his blindfold was taken off, the
local police force in maintaining peace and order in the municipality,
respondent saw Atty. Mamba sitting nearby. On June 16, 2009,
undertook an investigation on the robbery.
Malana brought the respondent and Haber, together with Robin and
Raymund, to the office of the Task Force, where they all spent the
The day after several members of the Task Force, Malana, night.
Aggangan and Sagalon, together with barangay officials Cinabre
and Encollado, went to the house of the Bueno, then still a minor, to
Meanwhile, Maritess went to the Tuao police station to look for her
invite him for questioning on his supposed involvement in the
son; she was told that the respondent was brought to Mayor
robbery. Bueno and his mother, Maritess Bueno (Maritess ),
Mamba's house. However, when Maritess went to Mayor Mamba's
acceded to the invitation. Thereupon, Bueno was brought to the
house, she was not permitted to see her son. Maritess was able to
Tuao police station.
talk to Mayor Mamba who told her that she should not condone the
acts of her son. Maritess then sought the assistance of P/Supt.
Buenaobra regarding the respondent's disappearance from the
police station. The PNP Cagayan Regional Office was then
The petitioners claimed that: preparing a case for habeas corpus when the respondent was
released on June 18, 2009 to the local SWD office.
When they reached the Tuao police station, there were no police
investigators or any representative from the local Social Welfare and Bueno, assisted by the CHR, filed a Petition for the Issuance of a
Development (SWD) office and, hence, the investigation could not Writ of Amparo with the CA. The CA, gave due course to the petition
proceed. There were allegedly several witnesses in the police and directed the issuance of the writ of amparo
station pointing Bueno and Lorenzo (Haber) as culprits of the
robbery incident. Bueno's custody was then referred to the Task ISSUE: Whether or not the writ of amparo was properly issued. YES
Force. Haber was later invited to the police station for questioning
regarding his involvement in the robbery. However, his custody was
RULING: The writ of amparo is a protective remedy aimed at
likewise referred to the Task Force since there were still no police
providing judicial relief consisting of the appropriate remedial
investigators.
measures and directives that may be crafted by the court, in order to
2
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 CASE DIGEST
4-MANRESA (2018-2019)
address specific violations or threats of violation of the constitutional
rights to life, liberty or security. Section 1 of A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC
specifically delimits the coverage of the writ of amparo to extralegal
killings and enforced disappearances, viz.:
Sec. 1. Petition. - The petition for a writ of amparo is a
remedy available to any person whose rights to life, liberty
and security is violated or threatened with violation by an
unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or
of a private individual or entity.
The writ shall cover extralegal killings and enforced
disappearances or threats thereof.
Extralegal killings are killings committed without due process of
law, i.e., without legal safeguards or judicial proceedings. On the
other hand, enforced disappearance has been defined by the Court
as the arrest, detention, abduction or any other form of deprivation of
liberty by agents of the State or by persons or groups of persons
acting with the authorization, support or acquiescence of the State,
followed by a refusal to acknowledge the deprivation of liberty or by
concealment of the fate or whereabouts of the disappeared person,
which place such a person outside the protection of the law.
In an amparo action, the parties must establish their respective
claims by substantial evidence. Verily, the totality of the evidence
presented by the respondent meets the requisite evidentiary
threshold. To corroborate his allegations, the respondent presented
the testimony of Haber who, during the hearing conducted by the CA
on October 6, 2009, averred that on June 15, 2009, he was brought
to Mayor Mamba's house where he and the respondent were
tortured. Haber testified that hot wax was dripped onto their bodies
while they were handcuffed; that they were kicked and beaten with a
cue stick and an alcohol container. Thereafter, Haber testified that
he and the respondent were brought to the guardhouse where they
were suffocated by placing plastic bags on their heads. He also
testified that a wire was inserted inside their penises.
Bueno’s claim was further corroborated by Dr. Tiangco who testified
that on June 18, 2009, she examined the respondent and found that
he suffered several injuries and multiple second degree bums.
Layus also attested that she saw the scars incurred by the
respondent on his head, arms, and back when she interviewed him
on July 26, 2009.
In contrast, the respective testimonies of the witnesses for the
petitioners merely consisted in denial and the allegation that the
respondent was indeed the one who robbed the canteen. Clearly,
against the positive testimony of the respondent, which was
corroborated by his witnesses, the petitioners' allegations must fail.
Further, even if the respondent was indeed guilty of a crime,
assuming it to be true, it does not justify his immediate
apprehension, in the guise of an invitation, and the subsequent acts
of torture inflicted on him.
It is undisputed that the respondent, after four days of detention, had
been released by the members of the Task Force on June 18, 2009.
This fact alone, however, does not negate the propriety of the grant
of a writ of amparo.
In the seminal case of Secretary of National Defense, et al. v.
Manalo, et al., the Court emphasized that the writ
of amparo  serves both preventive and curative roles in
3
addressing the problem of extralegal killings and enforced
disappearances. It is preventive in that it breaks the expectation of
impunity in the commission of these offenses; it is curative in that
it facilitates the subsequent punishment of perpetrators as it
will inevitably yield leads to subsequent investigation and
action.
Accordingly, a writ of amparo may still issue in the respondent's
favor notwithstanding that he has already been released from
detention. In such case, the writ of amparo  is issued to facilitate
the punishment of those behind the illegal detention through
subsequent investigation and action.
More importantly, the writ of amparo likewise covers violations of the
right to security. At the core of the guarantee of the right to security,
as embodied in Section 2, Article III of the Constitution, is the
immunity of one's person, including the extensions of his/her
person, i.e., houses, papers and effects, against unwarranted
government intrusion. Section 2, Article III of the Constitution not
only limits the State's power over a person's home and possession,
but more importantly, protects the privacy and sanctity of the person
himself.
In Manalo, the Court further opined that the right to security of
person yields various permutations of the exercise of the right, such
as freedom from fear or, in the amparo context, freedom from threat;
a guarantee of bodily and psychological integrity or security; and a
guarantee of protection of one's rights by the government. As
regards the right to security, in the sense of the guarantee of
protection of one's rights by the government, the Court explained:
In the context of the writ of amparo, this right is built into the
guarantees of the rights to life and liberty under Article III,
Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution and the right to security of
person (as freedom from threat and guarantee of bodily and
psychological integrity) under Article III, Section 2. The right to
security of person in this third sense is a corollary of the policy that
the State "guarantees full respect for human rights" under Article II,
Section 11 of the 1987 Constitution. As the government is the chief
guarantor of order and security, the Constitutional guarantee of the
rights to life, liberty and security of person is rendered ineffective if
government does not afford protection to these rights especially
when they are under threat. Protection includes conducting effective
investigations, organization of the government apparatus to extend
protection to victims of extralegal killings or enforced
disappearances (or threats thereof) and/or their families, and
bringing offenders to the bar of justice.
In this case, it is incumbent upon the petitioners, who all hold
positions in the local government of Tuao, to conduct, at the very
least, an investigation on the alleged illegal arrest, illegal detention
and torture of the respondent. The petitioners, nevertheless, claim
that the Office of the Mayor and the police station of Tuao, unknown
to the respondent, are conducting an investigation on the incident.
However, other than their bare assertion, they failed to present any
evidence that would prove the supposed investigation. Mere
allegation is not a fact. Absent any evidence that would corroborate
the said claim, it is a mere allegation that does not have any
probative value.
Verily, the petitioners failed to point to any specific measures
undertaken by them to effectively investigate the irregularities
alleged by the respondent and to prosecute those who are
responsible therefor. Worse, the illegal detention and torture
suffered by the respondent were perpetrated by the members of the
Task Force themselves.
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 CASE DIGEST
4-MANRESA (2018-2019)
Instead of effectively addressing the irregularities committed against
the respondent, the petitioners seemingly justify the illegal arrest and
detention and infliction of bodily harm upon the respondent by
stating that the latter is a habitual delinquent and was the one
responsible for the robbery of the canteen. As stated earlier, even if
the respondent committed a crime, the petitioners, as local
government officials, are not at liberty to disregard the respondent's
constitutionally guaranteed rights to life, liberty and security. It is
quite unfortunate that the petitioners, all local government officials,
are the very ones who are infringing on the respondent's
fundamental rights to life, liberty and security.
Clearly, there is substantial evidence in this case that would warrant
the conclusion that the respondent's right to security, as a guarantee
of protection by the government, was violated. Accordingly, the CA
correctly issued the writ of amparo in favor of the respondent.
BRAGA vs. ABAYA
Peter Vega
FACTS: This is an Urgent Petition for a Writ of Continuing
Mandamus and/or Writ of Kalikasan with a prayer for the issuance of
a temporary environmental protection order (TEPO). The petition is
directed against the Department of Transportation and
Communications (DOTC) and the Philippine Ports Authority's (PPA)
modernization project: the Davao Sasa Wharf (the project), a 30-
year concession to develop, operate, and manage the port under the
Public-Private Partnership (PPP) scheme.
The project is allegedly being carried out without the necessary
Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC) or Environmental
Impact Statements required under Presidential Decree No. (P.D.)
15861 and P.D. 1151.2 The project also allegedly failed to conduct
local consultation and to secure prior Sanggunian approval as
required by the Local Government Code.
The petitioners allege: (1) that the DOTC issued the notice of public
bidding despite noncompliance with Resolution No. 118; (2) that the
DOTC did not conduct prior consultation and public hearings nor
secure the approval of the Sanggunian concerned as required under
Sections 26 and 27 of the LGC; (3) that the Davao City Sanggunian
had passed a resolution objecting to the project for its
noncompliance with the LGC; and (4) that the DOTC has not yet
obtained an Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC) as
required under P.D. 1586.
They argue that the DOTC's implementation of the project - one that
as a significant impact on the environment - without preparing an
Environmental Impact Statement, securing an ECC, or consulting
the affected stakeholders, violates their constitutional right to a
healthy and balanced ecology.
The petitioners seek to restrain the implementation of the Project -
including its bidding and award - until the respondents secure an
ECC and comply with the LGC.
The respondents, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG),
invoke the prematurity of the petition. They argue that the Project is
still in the bidding process; thus, there is still no proponent to
implement it.
The proponent — not the respondents — has the duty to initiate the
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process and to apply for
the issuance of the ECC.9 Until the bidding process is concluded,
the EIA process cannot be undertaken and it would be premature to
impute noncompliance with the Environmental Impact Statement
System.10chanrobleslaw
4
Moreover, consultation with the stakeholders and the local
government is premature and speculative at this point because the
proponent has not yet identified the actual details of the project's
implementation. Again, compliance with the consultation
requirements of the LGC remains premature pending the award of
the contract.
They further argue that the allegations do not warrant the issuance
of a writ of kalikasan because the petitioners failed to prove the
threat of environmental damage of such magnitude as to prejudice
the life, health, or property of inhabitants in two or more cities or
provinces.11chanrobleslaw
ISSUE: Whether or not the issuance of the Writ of Kalikasan is
proper. NO
RULING: The Court cannot issue a writ of kalikasan based on the
petition. The writ is a remedy to anyone whose constitutional right to
a balanced and healthful ecology is violated or threatened with
violation by a lawful act or omission. However, the violation must
involve environmental damage of such magnitude as to prejudice
the life, health, or property of inhabitants in two or more cities or
provinces in order to warrant the issuance of the writ.
First, the petition failed to identify the particular threats from the
Project itself. All it does is cite the negative impacts of operating a
port inside a city based on the Synthesis Report. However, these
impacts already exist because the Port of Davao has been operating
since 1900. The Project is not for the creation of a new port but the
modernization of an existing one. At best, the allegations in support
of the application for the writ of kalikasan are hazy and speculative.
Second, the joint publication is titled Managing Impacts of
Development in the Coastal Zone for a reason; it identifies the
potential environmental impacts and proposes mitigation measures
to protest the environment. The petition is misleading because it only
identified the risks but neglected to mention the existence and
availability of mitigating measures.48chanrobleslaw
Moreover, this Court does not have the technical competence to
assess the Project, identify the environmental threats, and weigh the
sufficiency or insufficiency of any proposed mitigation measures.
This specialized competence is lodged in the DENR, who acts
through the EMB In the EIA process. As we have already
established, the application of the EIS System is premature until a
proponent is selected.
Further, we fail to see an environmental risk that threatens to
prejudice the inhabitants of two or more cities or municipalities if we
do not restrain the conduct of the bidding process. The bidding
process is not equivalent to the implementation of the project. The
bidding process itself cannot conceivably cause any environmental
damage.
Finally, it is premature to conclude that the respondents violated the
conditions of Resolution No. 118 issued by the Regional
Development Council of Region XI. Notably, the Resolution requires
compliance before the implementation of the project. Again, the
project has not yet reached the implementation stage.
Act No. (RA) 9729 (Climate Change Act), and RA 8749 (Clean Air
Act); Executive Order No. 774 (EO 774); AO 254, s. 2009 (AO 254);
and Administrative Order No. 171, s. 2007 (AO 171).
In 2009, Congress passed the Climate Change Act. It created the
Climate Change Commission which absorbed the functions of the
Presidential Task Force on Climate Change (PTFCC) and became
the lead policy-making body of the government which shall be
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 CASE DIGEST
4-MANRESA (2018-2019)

tasked to coordinate, monitor and evaluate the programs and action

plans of the government relating to climate change. For a writ of kalikasan to issue, the following requisites must concur:

Accordingly, the Petitioners seek to compel: (a) the public
respondents to: (1) implement the Road Sharing Principle in all
roads; (2) divide all roads lengthwise, one-half (1/2) for all-weather
sidewalk and bicycling, the other half for Filipino-made transport
vehicles; (3) submit a time-bound action plan to implement the Road
Sharing Principle throughout the country; (b) the Office of the
President, Cabinet officials and public employees of Cabinet
members to reduce their fuel consumption by fifty percent (50%) and
to take public transportation fifty percent (50%) of the time; (c) Public
respondent DPWH to demarcate and delineate the road right-of-way
in all roads and sidewalks; and (d) Public respondent DBM to
instantly release funds for Road Users' Tax.
In gist, petitioners contend that respondents' failure to implement the
foregoing laws and executive issuances resulted in the continued
degradation of air quality, particularly in Metro Manila, in violation of
the petitioners' constitutional right to a balanced and healthful
ecology, and may even be tantamount to deprivation of life, and of
life sources or "land, water, and air" by the government without due
process of law. They also decry the "unequal" protection of laws in
the prevailing scheme, claiming that ninety-eight percent (98%) of
Filipinos are discriminated against by the law when the car-owning
two percent (2%) is given almost all of the road space and while
large budgets are allocated for construction and maintenance of
roads, hardly any budget is given for sidewalks, bike lanes and non-
motorized transportation systems.
Respondents also seek the dismissal of the petition on the ground
that the petitioners failed to adhere to the doctrine of hierarchy of
courts, reasoning that since a petition for the issuance of a writ
of kalikasan must be filed with the Supreme Court or with any of the
stations of the Court of Appeals then the doctrine of hierarchy of
courts is applicable. Specifically, respondents assert that petitioners
are not entitled to a writ of kalikasan because they failed to show
that the public respondents are guilty of an unlawful act or omission;
state the environmental law/s violated; show environmental damage
of such magnitude as to prejudice the life, health or property of
inhabitants of two or more cities; and prove that non-implementation
of Road Sharing Principle will cause environmental damage.
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 of inhabitants 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.

Petitioners, on the other hand, cite the same provision and argue
Moreover, the National Air Quality Status Report for 2005-2007
that direct recourse to the SC is available, and that the provision
(NAQSR) submitted by the petitioners belies their claim that the
shows that the remedy to environmental damage should not be
DENR failed to reduce air pollutant emissions - in fact, the NAQSR
limited to the territorial jurisdiction of the lower courts.
shows that the National Ambient Total Suspended Particulates
(TSP) value used to determine air quality has steadily declined from
ISSUE: Whether or not a writ of Kalikasan should issue. NO
2004 to 2007, and while the values still exceed the air quality
guideline value, it has remained on this same downward trend until
RULING: Under the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases,
as recently as 2011.
the writ of kalikasan is an extraordinary remedy covering
environmental damage of such magnitude that will prejudice the life,
On the other hand, public respondents sufficiently showed that they
health or property of inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces. It
did not unlawfully refuse to implement or neglect the laws, executive
is designed for a narrow but special purpose: to accord a stronger
and administrative orders as claimed by the petitioners. Projects and
protection for environmental rights, aiming, among others, to provide
programs that seek to improve air quality were undertaken by the
a speedy and effective resolution of a case involving the violation of
respondents, jointly and in coordination with stakeholders, such as:
one's constitutional right to a healthful and balanced ecology that
priority tagging of expenditures for climate change adaptation and
transcends political and territorial boundaries, and to address the
mitigation, the Integrated Transport System which is aimed to
potentially exponential nature of large-scale ecological threats. At
decongest major thoroughfares, Truck Ban, Anti-Smoke Belching
the very least, the magnitude of the ecological problems
Campaign, Anti-Colorum, Mobile Bike Service Programs, and Urban
contemplated under the RPEC satisfies at least one of the
Re-Greening Programs.
exceptions to the rule on hierarchy of courts, as when direct resort is
allowed where it is dictated by public welfare. Given that the RPEC
In fact, the same NAQSR submitted by the petitioners show that the
allows direct resort to this Court, it is ultimately within the Court's
DENR was, and is, taking concrete steps to improve national air
discretion whether or not to accept petitions brought directly before
quality, such as information campaigns, free emission testing to
it.
complement the anti-smoke-belching program and other programs
5
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 CASE DIGEST
4-MANRESA (2018-2019)

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.

- END -
M.M.