“The writ requires evidence of environmental harm to life, health, or property in ‘two or more cities or provinces’”
ON JULY 8 and 9, the Malcolm Theater at the UP College of Law was a hub for the BIICL (British Institute of International & Comparative Law) Global Toolbox on Corporate Climate Litigation, stirring discussions on responses to environmental issues and the judiciary’s vital role.
But the effectiveness of remedies, particularly the groundbreaking Writ of Kalikasan, received limited spotlight.
This article examines court actions on the scope of ecological damage to justify the writ and its potential to redefine environmental justice.
Provision for the Writ of Kalikasan was written in 2010 by the Supreme Court under Rule 7 of the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases as a Special Civil Action, the writ addresses major environmental concerns like oil pipeline leaks, open dump sites, hazardous plastic use, and GMO (Genetically Modified Organisms) experimentation.
The case of Paje v. Casiño (G.R. 207257, Feb. 3, 2015) highlights its role in offering judicial relief where legislative and administrative actions fall short.
The writ – issued only by the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals – can be sought by individuals, entities, or groups on behalf of those whose Constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology is violated.
It requires evidence of environmental harm to life, health, or property in “two or more cities or provinces.”
Many remain perplexed about the writ’s impact and why certain activities persist even after its issuance.
This confusion stems from its two types: First, a preliminary writ, issued immediately after filing a petition, which requires a respondent to answer under oath within 10 days but does not halt perceived violations.
Second is a judgment on the privilege, issued after pleadings or affidavits and a trial.
If granted, this can mandate actions like permanently stopping acts or directing government or private entities, or individuals, to preserve, rehabilitate, or restore the environment.
On May 14, 2024, the Court of Appeals addressed a petition for such writ in Batan v. Mines and Geosciences Bureau (CA-G.R. SP 00037-WK) after the Supreme Court referred the case to it to hear evidence and render a decision.
Following a clash between police and protesters, the Bantay Kalikasan ng Sibuyan sought to stop Altai Philippines Mining Corp. from operating in San Fernando, Sibuyan, Romblon because of APMC’s lack of environmental compliance certificate and community acceptance.
The Office of the Solicitor General and APMC questioned whether the allegations met the required scale of damage.
The court deemed the privilege of the writ inappropriate because the harm if true was limited to a single municipality within an island province.
The conclusion reflects the Supreme Court’s tendency to deny this type of writ without proof of widespread ecological damage.
Consider LNL Archipelago Minerals, Inc. v. Agham Party List (G.R. 209165, April 12, 2016), where the evidence failed to show how constructing an access road on a low ridge impacts the communities of Zambales and Pangasinan; Braga v. Abaya (G.R. 223076, Sept. 13, 2016), where the bidding process for expanding Sasa Wharf in Davao City was not considered a threat to residents of multiple cities; Dela Cruz v. Meralco (G.R. 197878, Nov. 10, 2020), where the installation of transmission lines at NAIA III in Pasay City involved only a narrow strip across two barangays; and Citizens for a Green and Peaceful Camiguin, Sulog Inc. v. King Energy, Inc. (G.R. 213426, June 29, 2021), where concerns over a diesel plant were confined to Camiguin island comprising municipalities.
In contrast, the Court of Appeals granted the privilege of writ to halt the propagation and sale of Golden Rice and Bt Eggplant (Magsasaka at Siyentipiko Para Sa Pag-unlad ng Agrikultura v. Secretary of Department of Agriculture, CA-G.R. SP 00038-Kalikasan, April 17, 2024), and order the listing of non-environmentally friendly plastic products (Oceana Philippines International v. National Solid Waste Management, CA-G.R. SP 00035-WK, July 9, 2024), citing potential “national impact” in both petitions.
There lies the rub. Fortunately, legal innovation thrives.
The absence of a writ should encourage exploring alternative avenues, recognizing appellate courts may lack the time and expertise to resolve technical disputes thoroughly and administrative agencies or lower courts with specialized training are better suited for such assessments.
It is imperative to develop “specialist environmental tribunals” (Environmental Law: Text, Cases and Materials, 2nd Ed. [2019]) or revitalize “green benches” created under SC Administrative Circular 23-2008 to customize the writ for lower courts and bring it closer to the communities.
Example, marginalized groups/witnesses traveling from Luzon’s isolated areas to Manila for watershed destruction hearings face high costs, logistical hurdles, or personal risks, often discouraging pursuit of the writ.
Another troubling illustration is in Abogado v. DENR (G.R. 246209, Sept. 3, 2019), where fisherfolk of Kalayaan Islands and Zambales either withdrew their petition or became unreachable after filing it at the Supreme Court.
The lesson of the tragedy demands collective disruptions of the rules.
As Justice Marvic M.V.F Leonen admits, “[W]e cannot presume that only the Supreme Court can conscientiously fulfill the ecological duties required of the entire state.”
(NBL, a director/general counsel at Global Ferronickel Holdings, Inc and a UP College of Law alumnus, teaches evidence, special proceedings, and special writs; MLI, a senior legal officer at Platinum Group Metals Corporation. and DLSU-Tañada-Diokno School of Law graduate, lectures on special proceedings and criminal procedure).
