LIL KALIKASAN SHORTIE

Continuing mandamus

A petition for continuing mandamus may be filed when a government agency, instrumentality, or
officer unlawfully neglects the performance of an act in connection with the enforcement or violation
of the environmental law, regulation, or right, or excludes another person from the use or enjoyment
of that right. It "should mainly involve an environmental and other related law, rule, regulation, or a
right therein”

A writ of continuing mandamus should not be issued when it, directly or indirectly, substitutes
judicial discretion for executive or legislative prerogatives. Thus, every petition for a writ of continuing
mandamus should clearly allege:

(a) the serious and systematic inability of the respondents to meet their constitutional or
statutory obligations to protect and preserve the environment despite repeated demands;

(b) convincing circumstances that the non-issuance of the writ will result in to irreparable
damage to our ecology within the scope provided in our rules; and

(c) specific, measurable, attainable, realistic, and timebound objectives that have rational
relation to the irreparable damage sought to be avoided.

A proceeding for the issuance of a writ of continuing mandamus necessarily requires the
submission of evidence and evaluation of facts. Petitioners seek to compel respondents to do
certain acts, but the determination of whether or not respondents have failed to abide by their legal
duty with respect to the immunization program would involve factual matters which have not been
established before any court.

It is the policy of the courts not to interfere with the discretionary executive acts of the
executive branch unless there is a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack
or excess of jurisdiction. Mandamus does not lie against the legislative and executive branches or
their members acting in the exercise of their official discretionary functions. This emanates from the
respect accorded by the judiciary to said branches as co-equal entities under the principle of
separation of powers.

When a writ of continuing mandamus is issued and the judgment has attained finality, the court
"retains jurisdiction over the case to ensure that the government agency concerned is performing its
tasks as mandated by law and to monitor the effective performance of said tasks." In essence, the
writ is a "command of continuing compliance with a final judgment." The judgment will be satisfied
only upon the final return of the writ when the court deems that the judgment has been fully
implemented.

Mandamus lies to compel the performance of duties that are purely ministerial in nature, not
those that are discretionary, and the official can only be directed by mandamus to act but not to
act one way or the other. The duty being enjoined in mandamus must be one according to the terms
provided in the law itself. Thus, the recognized rule is that, in the performance of an official duty or
act involving discretion, the corresponding official can only be directed by mandamus to act, but not
to act one way or the other.

Writ of Kalikasan

The extraordinary remedy of a writ of kalikasan is only issued whenever the environmental
damage is of such magnitude as to affect the life, health or property of inhabitants in two or more
cities or provinces.

The magnitude of environmental damage is a condition sine qua non in a petition for the
issuance of a writ of kalikasan and must be contained in the verified petition. So extraordinary is
the nature of the remedy of a writ of kalikasan that this Court, in promulgating the RPEC, has
expressly reserved its issuance only for cases which are sufficiently grave in terms of territorial
scope.

A writ of kalikasan is aimed to provide a stronger protection of environmental rights in order to

accord an effective and speedy remedy where the constitutional right to a healthful and balanced
ecology is violated, and address any possible large-scale ecological threats.

Necessarily, the party seeking the issuance of a writ of kalikasan must demonstrate that a
particular law, rule or regulation was or would be violated by the respondent.

It has the burden to prove:

(1) the environmental law, rule or regulation violated or threatened to be transgressed;

(2) respondent's act or omission complained of; and

(3) the environmental damage of such magnitude as would impair the life, property, or health
of the inhabitants of two or more provinces or cities.

The contents of the petition which must include all the material and relevant evidence — the
witnesses' affidavits as well as documentary or object evidence. Definitely, any party that seeks for
issuance of a writ of kalikasan must be ready with the essential evidence for the determination of the
issuance of the writ.

The Environmental Management Bureau (EMB) is tasked to issue an Environmental Compliance

Certificates (ECC) relative to environmentally critical projects that have adequate safeguards to
preserve the environment. The ECC indicates that the proposed undertaking will not result in any
notable negative environmental impact based on the representation of the project proponent. It
certifies that the proponent complied with the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) which, in turn,
indicates a detailed description of the nature, configuration, and all other related activities of the
planned project. The EIS also contains an Environmental Management Plan which specifies the
preventive, compensatory, as well as the mitigating and contingent measures to improve the positive
impact of the project and minimize its environmental risks.

Writ of Continuing Mandamus cannot be an auxiliary remedy to the Writ of Kalikasan because
these are separate and distinct special civil actions.
Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation or SLAPP

A Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation or SLAPP generally refers to claim suits filed
against private individuals as a retaliation to the latter's recourse to the government on an issue of
public concern. SLAPP actions do not forward any genuine cognizable interest but are only used to
oppose and to suppress the defendants' political activities.an auxiliary remedy to the Writ of
Kalikasan because these are separate and distinct special civil actions.

The development of SLAPP suits into three stages

First, a citizen addresses the government on a matter of public concern. The citizen espouses a view
contrary to that of another individual or group, who is inevitably threatened by the citizen's actions
because this undermines their interest, which is often monetary.

Second, those threatened by the communication to the government will file a case to intimidate the
citizen, who, in turn, is compelled to spend time and money to defend themselves.

Third, the defendant-citizen must raise the defense that their communication to the government was
constitutionally-protected.

Regardless of the result of the SLAPP suit, the plaintiffs goal is achieved once damage and
hardship are caused to the defendant who was forced to participate in a litigious process. As a
result, SLAPP suits not only silence defendants for engaging in political activities, they also create a
chilling effect by discouraging everyone else from doing the same.

It is this political retaliation, through the law, that distinguishes SLAPP suits from the
commonly observed intimidation and retaliation through litigation between commercial
competitors, business partners, labor and management, and regulatory agencies and licensees.
Strategic lawsuits against public participation, on the other hand, claim injury from citizen efforts to
influence a government body or the electorate on an issue of public significance.

To constitute SLAPP, the following elements must be present:

1. a civil complaint or counterclaim (for monetary damages and/or injunction);

2. filed against non-governmental individuals and/or groups;

3. because of their communications to a government body, official, or the electorate; and

4. on an issue of some public interest or concern.

In our jurisdiction, our anti-SLAPP rule is narrowly applied only to environmental cases. The
anti-SLAPP provision under the Rules is founded on the Constitutional rights to freedom of
speech and expression, freedom of assembly, and the right to petition the government for redress of
grievances. Owing to its application to environmental concerns, the provision is also hinged on the
Constitutional right to balanced and healthful ecology.
In alleging the defense of SLAPP, the following conditions must concur:

(1) the defendant has taken or may take a legal recourse in the enforcement of environmental laws,
protection of the environment, or assertion of environmental rights;

(2) a legal action is filed against this person, whether civil, criminal, or administrative; and

(3) the action was filed to harass, vex, exert due pressure, or stifle the legal recourse of the
defendant.

Since a motion to dismiss is prohibited in environmental cases, SLAPP may be raised as an

affirmative defense by the defendant in its answer. The defendant may likewise pray for damages,
attorney's fees, and costs of suit by way of counterclaim. When the defense of SLAPP is raised, the
plaintiff is ordered to file an opposition to show that it is not.

The hearing on the defense of a SLAPP is summary in nature and the defendant must show that
its acts for enforcement of environmental law is a legitimate action for the protection,
preservation, and rehabilitation of the environment. On the other hand, the plaintiff must prove by
preponderance of evidence that the action is valid, and not a SLAPP

When the action is dismissed for being a SLAPP, the court may award damages, attorney's fees,
and costs of suit in favor of the defendant. To deter parties from filing SLAPP, the rules allow the
award of compensatory and punitive damages, reasonable costs, and attorney's fees to defendants.
The award of these costs will not only disincentivize SLAPP, but it will also defray the costs of excess
litigation.

Anti-SLAPP is a legal remedy given to ordinary citizens who are exercising their constitutional
rights of free speech and petition for redress to the government. At its core, SLAPP-backs are
intended as a tool to address lawsuits designed to squelch the people's exercise of basic
constitutional rights. It is not a blanket provision which may be invoked in any event.

The remedy of anti-SLAPP cannot be haphazardly invoked by any defendant in an

environmental case. SLAPP is a defense that may only be invoked by individuals who became target
of litigation due to their environmental advocacy. It is not a remedy of powerful corporations to stifle
the actions of ordinary citizens who seek to make them accountable. More so, it is not a tool given to
large concessionaires who have their obligations and responsibilities under the law. On the other
hand, citizens are favored under our Constitution to hold corporations accountable for the way that
they discharge their responsibility as contractors and as agents of government in utilizing and
developing natural resources that should benefit all.

An anti-SLAPP motion is an extraordinary remedy deliberately crafted to address lawsuits

tending to squelch an ordinary citizen's constitutional rights to free speech and petition to the
government for redress of grievances. We cannot authorize the use of this remedy to a case for
which it was never intended. To do otherwise would be a misuse of our environmental rules and a
betrayal of social justice
The Public Land Act

Members of indigenous cultural communities may apply for confirmation of their title to land
in the public domain under Section 48(c) of Commonwealth Act No. 141 or The Public Land Act,
so long as the applicant is able to prove continuous possession in the concept of an owner for at
least 30 years. Section 48(c) of The Public Land Act is one statutory way through which ancestral
land ownership may be recognized.

The Public Land Act which allowed members of indigenous cultural communities to apply for
title over land within the public domain, whether disposable or not, so long as it is suitable for
agriculture and the applicant has possessed and occupied the land for at least 30 years.

They are presumed – in the absence of evidence to the contrary – to have satisfied all legal
requirements. By the same token, the DENR is presumed to have regularly issued the free patent in
the ordinary course of the performance of its duties.

There is no such thing as an automatic grant of free patent based solely on an application. There is
first an investigation and verification done by the DENR.

Only extrinsic fraud may be raised as a ground to "review or reopen a decree of registration."
Extrinsic fraud has a specific meaning under the law. It refers to that type of fraud that "is
employed to deprive parties of their day in court and thus prevent them from asserting their right to
the property registered in the name of the applicant."

Forest land is considered part of the public domain and cannot be the subject of registration
under the Torrens System, as it is beyond the power and jurisdiction of a cadastral court.
However, a recognized exception to the rule on inalienability of public land is if the forest or mineral
land has been statutorily reclassified and considered as ancestral land, openly and continuously
occupied by a member of an indigenous cultural community

Ancestral Lands — Subject to Section 56 hereof, refers to land occupied, possessed and
utilized by individuals, families and clans who are members of the ICCs/IPs since time
immemorial, by themselves or through their predecessors-in-interest, under claims of individual or
traditional group ownership, continuously, to the present except when interrupted by war, force
majeure or displacement by force, deceit, stealth, or as a consequence of government projects and
other voluntary dealings entered into by government and private individuals/corporations, including,
but not limited to, residential lots, rice terraces or paddies, private forests, swidden farms and tree
lots.

"Where such possessors shall not be able to produce title deeds, it shall be sufficient if they
shall show that ancient possession, as a valid title by prescription." It may be that this means
possession from before 1700; but, at all events, the principle is admitted. As prescription, even
against Crown lands, was recognized by the laws of Spain we see no sufficient reason for hesitating
to admit that it was recognized in the Philippines in regard to lands over which Spain had only a paper
sovereignty.
The Indigenous Peoples' Rights Act included "such concepts of territories which cover not only the
physical environment but the total environment including the spiritual and cultural bonds to the
areas which the [indigenous cultural communities or indigenous peoples] possess, occupy and use
and to which they have claims of ownership." The law likewise acknowledged the indigenous
concept of ownership in which ancestral domains are "community property which belongs to all
generations and therefore cannot be sold, disposed or destroyed."

P.D. 705 Confiscation

The DENR Secretary's authority to confiscate forest products under Sec. 68-A of P.D. No. 705 is
distinct from and independent of the confiscation of forest products in a criminal action
provided for in Section 68 of P.D. 705.

RTC covers the confiscation of the timber or forest products as well as the machinery, equipment,
implements and tools illegally used in the area where the timber or forest products are found; it is
the DENR that has jurisdiction over the confiscation of forest products and, to stress, all
conveyances used in the commission, of the offense

The original and exclusive jurisdiction over the confiscation of "all conveyances used either by
land, water or air in the commission of the offense and to dispose of the same" is vested in the
[DENR] secretary or a duly authorized representative. The DENR secretary has supervision and
control over the enforcement of forestry, reforestation, parks, game and wildlife laws, rules and
regulations.

It must be emphasized, however, that the above jurisdiction of the DENR to confiscate all
conveyances used in violations of P.D. No. 705 must be exercised "in accordance with pertinent
laws, regulations or policies on the matter."

DENR-Administrative Order (DAO) No. 97-32 outlines the procedure to be followed in the
administrative disposition of such conveyances, among others.

Apprehension takes place first;

followed by the official seizure of the items apprehended;

then confiscation in favor of the Government after summary administrative proceedings;

and finally, forfeiture in favor of the Government when the items administratively confiscated are
submitted by the DENR in judicial proceedings (e.g., in a criminal case and the accused therein is
found guilty of the offense charged).

Does this mean now that the RTC can no longer order the confiscation and forfeiture of the
subject truck? The Court answers in the negative.

Article 45 of the RPC may be applied suppletory to P.D. No. 705.

Such proceeds and instruments or tools shall be confiscated a n d forfeited in favor of the
Government, unless they be property of a third person not liable for the offense, but those
articles which are not subject of lawful commerce shall be destroyed.