Special Rules and Proceedings: Writ of Kalikasan
Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases (A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC)
Section 1. Nature of the writ. —
The writ is a remedy available to a natural or juridical person, entity authorized by law, people’s organization, non-governmental organization, or 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
Definition: A remedy available to protect the constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology.
Grounds:
Violation or threatened violation of this right by an unlawful act or omission of:
A public official or employee, or
A private individual or entity.
Magnitude Requirement:
Must involve environmental damage of such magnitude that it prejudices the life, health, or property of inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces.
π§⚖️ Who May File
Natural or juridical person.
Entity authorized by law.
People’s organization (POs), non-governmental organization (NGOs), or public interest group accredited by or registered with any government agency.
On behalf of affected persons.
π Coverage (Applicable Laws)
The Writ of Kalikasan covers violations under the following (examples):
Forestry:
Act No. 3572 (Prohibition Against Cutting Tindalo, Akli, Molave Trees)
P.D. 705 (Revised Forestry Code)
Pollution and Sanitation:
P.D. 856 (Sanitation Code)
P.D. 979 (Marine Pollution Decree)
R.A. 8749 (Clean Air Act)
R.A. 9275 (Clean Water Act)
Environmental Protection and Conservation:
P.D. 1151 (Philippine Environmental Policy)
P.D. 1586 (Environmental Impact Statement System)
R.A. 7586 (National Integrated Protected Areas System Act)
R.A. 9147 (Wildlife Resources Conservation and Protection Act)
R.A. 9003 (Ecological Solid Waste Management Act)
Other Specific Areas:
R.A. 7942 (Philippine Mining Act)
R.A. 7076 (People's Small-Scale Mining Act)
R.A. 7611 (Strategic Environmental Plan for Palawan)
R.A. 9072 (National Caves and Cave Resources Management Act)
General Provisions:
C.A. No. 141 (Public Land Act)
R.A. 7160 (Local Government Code)
R.A. 6657 (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law)
R.A. 7900 (High-Value Crops Development Act)
Other environmental laws and regulations are also included.
π‘️ Locus Standi (Legal Standing to File)
Liberalized Standing:
Oposa v. Factoran: Recognizes standing for minors and future generations ("generations yet unborn").
Citizen suit provision allows any Filipino citizen to file a case on behalf of others (stewardship of nature).
⚖️ Case: Arigo vs. Swift, G.R. No. 206510, September 16, 2014
A group of petitioners—including church leaders (e.g., Most Rev. Pedro D. Arigo, the Vicar Apostolic of Puerto Princesa) and various environmental/social organizations—filed a petition for a writ of kalikasan seeking a Temporary Environmental Protection Order (TEPO) on the alleged violations of environmental laws resulting from the grounding of the U.S. military vessel USS Guardian on or near the Tubbataha Reefs—an ecologically sensitive area designated as a National Marine Park.
They sought to immediately halt or mitigate what they argued was causing or could cause irreparable damage to the unique coral ecosystem of the Tubbataha Reefs. Ultimately, they wanted particular provisions of the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) to be declared unconstitutional.
Whether the petitioners were entitled to the extraordinary remedy of a writ of kalikasan. NO
No dispute exists regarding the petitioners' legal standing to file the case.
The Supreme Court has relaxed standing rules for citizens, taxpayers, and legislators in cases of transcendental public interest.
In Oposa v. Factoran, the Court recognized the intergenerational responsibility and the right to a balanced and healthful ecology.
Minors were allowed to file a class suit on behalf of present and future generations.
This liberalized rule on standing is now reflected in environmental procedural rules allowing citizen suits.
Jurisdiction and State Immunity
In this case, US naval officers were acting within official military duties, so the suit is deemed against the US itself. Thus, State immunity bars jurisdiction of Philippine courts over the US respondents.
VFA governs military visits, not civil suits like writs of Kalikasan.
VFA’s waiver pertains only to criminal jurisdiction, not civil remedies.
Petitions for Kalikasan do not preclude filing separate civil/criminal actions for damages.
Mootness and Executive Action
Petition was moot as salvage operations had been completed.
However, petitioners still entitled to reliefs for environmental rehabilitation.
US and PH governments are coordinating for damage assessment and compensation.
Court defers to the Executive Branch on compensation and diplomacy matters under the VFA and foreign relations principles.
π Key Doctrines:
Petitioners entitled to relief for protection and rehabilitation, even if the salvage was completed.
Political Question Doctrine applied regarding compensation/diplomatic issues with the US.
⚖️ Case: Resident Marine Mammals vs. Secretary Angelo Reyes, G.R. No. 180771, April 21, 2015.
The case involves two consolidated petitions challenging Service Contract No. 46 (SC-46), which allowed petroleum exploration in TaΓ±on Strait, a protected seascape between Negros and Cebu.
G.R. No. 180771: Resident Marine Mammals (whales, dolphins, etc.), represented by Gloria Estenzo Ramos and Rose-Liza sawEisma-Osorio as legal guardians.
G.R. No. 181527: Central Visayas Fisherfolk Development Center (FIDEC) and subsistence fisherfolk.
The petitioners contended that SC-46, which authorizes petroleum exploration, development, and exploitation in the TaΓ±on Strait (a vital marine ecosystem between Negros and Cebu), violates the 1987 Constitution, as well as international and municipal laws.
They argued that the oil exploration activities would lead to environmental degradation through suspected fish kills, destruction of marine habitats, and the impairment of the public trust and the rights of coastal communities.
Whether the implementation of SC-46—which facilitates petroleum exploration in TaΓ±on Strait—constitutes a violation of constitutional and legal mandates on environmental protection, thereby justifying the issuance of the writ of kalikasan. NO
The stewards claim the right to represent the Resident Marine Mammals, citing their role in environmental advocacy and the government's failure to uphold its duty under the public trust doctrine.
Marine mammals lack legal standing as they are not juridical persons.
Strict standing requirements in Philippine law, which traditionally require parties to be natural or juridical persons.
However, human stewards (Ramos and Eisma-Osorio) have standing under the doctrine of intergenerational responsibility.
The Court recognized the environmental concerns raised by the petitioners but held that the evidence presented did not establish the level of imminent and irreparable harm required to trigger the extraordinary remedy.
The writ of kalikasan is an extraordinary remedy reserved exclusively for situations where there is a clear, immediate, and irreparable threat to the environment.
The writ should not be used to challenge government contracts or policies on environmental grounds unless a direct and specific act is shown to result in irreversible environmental damage.
π Key Doctrines:
Resident marine mammals and stewards granted legal standing.
SC emphasized the simplification of procedures and court access in environmental cases.
Citizen suit allows enforcement of environmental laws even without direct injury to the petitioners.
Retroactive application of procedural rules permitted.
π Reliefs Available
Court can issue orders to:
Protect,
Rehabilitate,
Restore the environment.
Even if the act/omission has already occurred (e.g., salvaging completed, but restoration still ordered).
⚙️Procedural Characteristics
⚡Summary in Nature: Faster relief compared to ordinary proceedings.
π No Requirement for Criminal Proof: Only substantial evidence needed.
π Retroactive Application: Procedural rules can apply to pending cases without violating vested rights.
π Magnitude of Environmental Damage
Environmental damage must be of such magnitude as to prejudice the life, health, or property of inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces.
π SEC. 2. Contents of the Petition
A verified petition must contain the following: PR-EE-CR
Personal circumstances of the petitioner.
Name and personal circumstances of the respondent, or if unknown, describe by an assumed appellation.
Environmental law, rule, or regulation violated or threatened to be violated, the act or omission complained of, and the environmental damage of such magnitude as to prejudice inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces.
Relevant and material evidence:
Affidavits of witnesses
Documentary evidence
Scientific or other expert studies
Object evidence, if possible
Certification under oath by the petitioner stating:
No action or claim involving the same issues has been filed or is pending;
If there is a pending action, a complete statement of its status;
Duty to inform the court within 5 days if a similar action or claim is filed.
Reliefs prayed for, which may include a prayer for the issuance of a Temporary Environmental Protection Order (TEPO).
π️ SEC. 3. Where to File (Sec. 3)
Supreme Court; or
Any station of the Court of Appeals.
π° SEC. 4. Docket Fees (Sec. 4)
❌ No docket fees required for filing the petition.
The exemption encourages the public to avail of the remedy.
π Requisites for Issuance of a Writ of Kalikasan
All of the following must concur:
Actual or threatened violation of the constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology.
The violation arises from an unlawful act or omission of:
A public official or employee, or
A private individual or entity.
The actual or threatened violation involves or will lead to environmental damage of such magnitude prejudicing the life, health, or property of inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces.
A violation of a law, rule, or regulation must be shown.
❗ Mere invocation of the constitutional right is not sufficient.
⚖️ Case: Segovia vs. Commission, G.R. No. 211010, March 7, 2017
A collective petition was filed for the issuance of writs of kalikasan and a continuing mandamus.
Petitioners included representatives of the “carless people,” children, and other concerned citizens.
The petition sought to compel various government agencies—such as the Climate Change Commission, DOTC, DPWH, DILG, DENR, DBM, MMDA, and DA—to effectively implement key environmental laws and executive issuances.
Specifically, the petition demanded measures like enforcing the Road Sharing Principle on all roads (which involved dividing roads for all-weather sidewalks/bicycle lanes and for Filipino-made transport vehicles), reducing fuel consumption (including among government officials), delineating road right-of-ways, and releasing funds for environmental projects (e.g., Road Users’ Tax).
Those who have less in wheels must have more in road.
Petitioners argued that the failure to implement these laws and policies has led to deteriorating air quality and other environmental harms—effects that endanger public health and the future well-being of the environment.
Whether the state’s failure to enforce and implement the prescribed environmental and climate change laws (and their accompanying measures) amount to an immediate and irreparable threat, thereby justifying the extraordinary remedy of the writ of kalikasan. NO
The Court acknowledged the liberalized standing requirements in environmental cases, thereby minimally siding with petitioners’ assertion of standing as a citizens’ suit.
The Supreme Court acknowledged the public interest in robust environmental protection and the significance of the measures sought. However, the petitioners did not demonstrate an immediate and irreparable injury to the environment—a core requirement for granting a writ of kalikasan.
While environmental policy lapses are concerning, they do not automatically trigger the extraordinary remedy unless a clear, direct, and imminent threat is proven.
The writ of kalikasan is an extraordinary remedy available only when there is a clear, immediate, and irreparable threat to the environment.
The remedy is not designed to force the government to implement broader, long-term environmental policies or reforms unless an immediate harmful impact is evident.
Petitioners could not compel discretionary acts, like the manner of implementing the Road Sharing Principle, as respondents had discretion in application methods.
π Key Doctrines:
Petitioners failed to show:
Any unlawful act or omission by public respondents.
A violation of specific environmental laws.
Bare allegations and general expert testimony are not enough.
No causal link or reasonable connection between respondents' actions and alleged environmental damage of required magnitude.
πSEC. 5. Issuance of the Writ
⏳ Timeframe:
Within three (3) days from filing of the petition.
✅ Conditions:
If the petition is sufficient in form and substance, the court shall:
Issue the writ.
Require the respondent to file a verified return under Section 8.
Additional Orders:
Clerk of Court shall issue the writ under court seal.
May also issue a Cease and Desist Order and other temporary reliefs, effective until further order.
π♀SEC. 6. How the Writ is Served
Service:
By a court officer or any person deputized by the court.
Officer must retain a copy for return of service.
If personal service is not possible:
Apply the Rules on Substituted Service.
π© SEC. 7 Penalty for Delay or Refusal
Grounds:
Clerk of court unduly delaying or refusing issuance.
Court officer or deputized person unduly delaying or refusing service.
Penalty:
Contempt of court.
Without prejudice to civil, criminal, or administrative actions.
π SEC. 8. Verified Return of Respondent
⏳ Deadline:
Within a non-extendible period of ten (10) days after service of the writ.
π Contents of the Return:
All defenses showing that the respondent did not:
Violate;
Threaten to violate;
Allow the violation of any environmental law, rule, or regulation;
Commit any act resulting in environmental damage of such magnitude prejudicing life, health, or property in two or more cities or provinces.
Evidence Required:
Affidavits of witnesses.
Documentary evidence.
Scientific or expert studies.
Object evidence, if possible.
Important Rules:
❗All defenses not raised are deemed waived.
General denial = Admission of allegations.
‼️ Note: Unlike Writs of Amparo or Habeas Data, here general denial is treated as admission.
In writs of amparo and habeas data, such general denial, while prohibited, is not deemed as an admission of the allegations in the petition.
⛔ SEC. 9. Prohibited Pleadings and Motions
Prohibited Pleadings:
Motion to dismiss
Motion for extension of time to file return
Motion for postponement
Motion for a bill of particulars
Counterclaim or cross-claim
Third-party complaint
Reply
Motion to declare respondent in default
⚡️ Purpose: Avoid delay and expedite proceedings due to environmental urgency.
Comparison with Writs of Amparo and Habeas Data:
In Writs of Amparo and Habeas Data, additional prohibited pleadings include:
Intervention
Memorandum
Motion for reconsideration of interlocutory or interim relief orders
Petition for certiorari, mandamus, or prohibition against interlocutory orders
⚠️ SEC. 10. Effect of Failure to File Return
If respondent fails to file a return:
The court shall hear the petition ex parte (without respondent’s participation).
π SEC. 11. Hearing
Upon receipt of return:
Court may call a preliminary conference to:
Simplify issues.
Secure stipulations or admissions.
Set the petition for hearing.
Timeline:
Hearing, including preliminary conference, must not extend beyond sixty (60) days.
Priority:
Same priority as cases involving writs of habeas corpus, amparo, and habeas data.
π SEC. 12. Discovery Measures
Reliefs available:
Ocular Inspection Order
Production or Inspection of Documents or Things
✅ Requirements for Ocular Inspection:
A verified motion must show that ocular inspection is necessary to establish the magnitude of the violation or threat prejudicing life, health, or property of inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces.
The motion must state in detail the place(s) to be inspected.
It must be supported by affidavits from witnesses with personal knowledge of the violation/threat.
π Court Action:
After hearing, the court may order any person controlling the property to allow inspection/photography.
The order specifies:
Authorized persons,
Date, time, place, and manner of inspection, an
Conditions to protect constitutional rights.
✅ Requirements for Production or Inspection of Documents/Things:
The verified motion must show that production is necessary to establish the magnitude of the violation or threat.
π Court Action:
After hearing, the court may order any person controlling relevant documents or objects to allow inspection/copying/photography.
The order specifies:
Authorized persons,
Date, time, place, and manner of inspection, an
Conditions to protect constitutional rights.
π Scope of Production:
Documents, papers, books, accounts, letters, photographs, objects, or things (including digital/electronic formats) relevant to the petition/return.
π’ SEC. 13. Contempt
Grounds for Contempt:
Refusing or unduly delaying the filing of a return;
Making a false return;
Disobeying or resisting lawful processes or court orders.
π Contempt is punished after a hearing under Rule 71 of the Rules of Court.
π SEC. 14. Submission of Case for Decision; Filing of Memoranda
After the hearing, the court shall issue an order submitting the case for decision.
The court may require memoranda (preferably electronic form) within a non-extendible period of 30 days from submission.
⚖️ SEC. 15. Judgment
⌛ Timeline:
The court must render judgment within 60 days from submission.
Reliefs the Court May Grant: PPM-PR
Permanent cease and desist order to stop acts/omissions violating environmental laws;
Order to protect, preserve, rehabilitate, or restore the environment;
Order to monitor compliance with court decisions and orders;
Order for periodic reports on the execution of the judgment;
Other reliefs related to the right to a balanced and healthful ecology, excluding the award of damages to individual petitioners.
π Important: No award of individual damages — the writ protects collective environmental rights, not private interests.
ππ» SEC. 16. Appeal
Appeal lies to the Supreme Court via Rule 45 (Petition for Review on Certiorari).
Must be filed within 15 days from notice of judgment or denial of a motion for reconsideration.
Questions of fact may be raised (special to Writ of Kalikasan, unlike ordinary Rule 45 appeals).
π️ SEC. 17. Institution of Separate Actions
Filing a Writ of Kalikasan does not preclude the filing of separate:
➔ Civil actions,
➔ Criminal actions, or
➔ Administrative actions.π The petitioner may still pursue other remedies aside from the writ for further reliefs or accountability.