WRIT OF KALIKASAN the Executive Judge to the RTC of Sorsogon, Branch 53

being the designated environmental court.

1. DOLOT v. PAJE In the Order, the case was summarily dismissed for
lack of jurisdiction.
FACTS:
On September 15, 2011, petitioner Maricris D. The petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration but it
Dolot (Dolot), together with the parish priest of the Holy was denied. Aside from sustaining the dismissal of the
Infant Jesus Parish and the officers of Alyansa Laban sa case for lack of jurisdiction, the RTC further ruled that:
Mina saMatnog (petitioners), filed a petition for (1) there was no final court decree, order or
continuing mandamus, damages and attorney’s fees decision yet that the public officials allegedly failed to act
with the RTC of Sorsogon. on, which is a condition for the issuance of the writ of
The petition contained the following pertinent continuing mandamus;
allegations: (2) the case was prematurely filed as the
(1) sometime in 2009, they protested the iron ore petitioners therein failed to exhaust their administrative
mining operations being conducted by Antones remedies; and
Enterprises, Global Summit Mines Development (3) they also failed to attach judicial affidavits
Corporation and TR Ore in Barangays Balocawe and and furnish a copy of the complaint to the government
Bon-otDaco, located in the Municipality of Matnog, to no or appropriate agency, as required by the rules.
avail; Petitioner Dolot went straight to this Court on
pure questions of law.
(2) Matnog is located in the southern tip of Luzon and
there is a need to protect, preserve and maintain the ISSUE:
geological foundation of the municipality; Whether the petition is dismissible on the grounds that:
(1) there is no final court decree, order or decision that
(3) Matnog is susceptible to flooding and landslides, and the public officials allegedly failed to act on; (2) the case
confronted with the environmental dangers of flood was prematurely filed for failure to exhaust
hazard, liquefaction, ground settlement, ground administrative remedies; and (3) the petitioners failed to
subsidence and landslide hazard; attach judicial affidavits and furnish a copy of the
complaint to the government or appropriate agency.
(4) after investigation, they learned that the mining
operators did not have the required permit to operate; HELD:

(5) Sorsogon Governor Raul Lee and his predecessor In dismissing the petition for lack of jurisdiction, the RTC
Sally Lee issued to the operators a small-scale mining apparently relied on SC Administrative Order (A.O.) No.
permit, which they did not have authority to issue; 7 defining the territorial areas of the Regional Trial
Courts in Regions 1 to 12, and Administrative Circular
(Admin. Circular) No. 23-2008, designating the
(6) the representatives of the Presidential Management
environmental courts “to try and decide violations of
Staff and the Department of Environment and Natural environmental laws x xx committed within their
Resources (DENR), despite knowledge, did not do respective territorial jurisdictions.”
anything to protect the interest of the people of Matnog;
[5] and Thus, it ruled that its territorial jurisdiction was
limited within the boundaries of Sorsogon City
(7) the respondents violated Republic Act (R.A.) No. and the neighboring municipalities of Donsol, Pilar,
7076 or the People’s Small-Scale Mining Act of 1991, Castilla, Casiguran and Juban and that it was “bereft of
R.A. No. 7942 or the Philippine Mining Act of 1995, and jurisdiction to entertain, hear and decide the case, as
the Local Government Code. such authority rests before another coequal court.”
Such reasoning is plainly erroneous. The RTC
Thus, they prayed for the following reliefs: (1) the cannot solely rely on SC A.O. No. 7 and Admin. Circular
issuance of a writ commanding the respondents to No. 23-2008 and confine itself within its four corners in
immediately stop the mining operations in the determining whether it had jurisdiction over the action
Municipality of Matnog; (2) the issuance of a temporary filed by the petitioners. By virtue of Batas Pambansa
environment protection order or TEPO; (3) the creation (B.P.) Blg. 129 or the Judiciary Reorganization Act of
of an inter-agency group to undertake the rehabilitation 1980, jurisdiction over special civil actions for certiorari,
of the mining site; (4) award of damages; and (5) return prohibition and mandamus is vested in the
of the iron ore, among others.The case was referred by RTC.Particularly, Section 21(1) thereof provides
that the RTCs shall exercise original jurisdiction –
in the issuance of writs of certiorari, prohibition, Now cast in stone under Rule 8 of the Rules, the writ of
mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus and injunction continuing mandamus enjoys a distinct procedure than
which may be enforced in any part of their respective that of ordinary civil actions for the
regions. enforcement/violation of environmental laws, which are
covered by Part II (Civil Procedure). Similar to the
A.O. No. 7 and Admin. Circular No. 23-2008 was procedure under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court for
issued pursuant to Section 18 of B.P. Blg. 129, special civil actions for certiorari, prohibition and
which gave the Court authority to define the territory mandamus, Section 4, Rule 8 of the Rules requires that
over which a branch of the RTC shall exercise its the petition filed should be sufficient in form and
authority. These administrative orders and circulars substance before a court may take further action;
issued by the Court merely provide for the venue otherwise, the court may dismiss the petition outright.
where an action may be filed. The Court does not
have the power to confer jurisdiction on any court Courts must be cautioned, however, that the
or tribunal as the allocation of jurisdiction is lodged determination to give due course to the petition or
solely in Congress. The RTC need not be reminded that dismiss it outright is an exercise of discretion that must
venue relates only to the place of trial or the be applied in a reasonable manner in consonance with
geographical location in which an action or proceeding the spirit of the law and always with the view in mind of
should be brought and does not equate to the seeing to it that justice is served.
jurisdiction of the court. It is intended to accord
convenience to the parties, as it relates to the place of Sufficiency in form and substance refers to the contents
trial, and does not restrict their access to the courts. of the petition filed under Rule 8, Section 1: When any
Consequently, the RTC’s motu proprio dismissal of Civil agency or instrumentality of the government or officer
Case No. 2011-8338 on the ground of lack of thereof unlawfully neglects the performance of an act
jurisdiction is patently incorrect.At most, the which the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting
error committed by the petitioners in filing the case from an office, trust or station in connection with the
with the RTC of Sorsogon was that of improper enforcement or violation of an environmental law
venue. rule or regulation or a right therein, or unlawfully
excludes another from the use or enjoyment of such
A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC or the Rules of Procedure for right and there is no other plain, speedy and adequate
Environmental Cases (Rules) specifically states that a remedy in the ordinary course of law, the person
special civil action for continuing mandamus shall be aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the
filed with the “RTC exercising jurisdiction over the proper court, alleging the facts with certainty, attaching
territory where the actionable neglect or omission thereto supporting evidence, specifying that the petition
occurred x xx.” concerns an environmental law, rule or regulation, and
praying that judgment be rendered commanding the
In this case, it appears that the alleged actionable respondent to do an act or series of acts until the
neglect or omission occurred in the Municipality of judgment is fully satisfied, and to pay damages
Matnog and as such, the petition should have been filed sustained by the petitioner by reason of the malicious
in the RTC of Irosin. neglect to perform the duties of the respondent, under
But even then, it does not warrant the outright dismissal the law, rules or regulations.
of the petition by the RTC as venue may be waived. The petition shall also contain a sworn certification of
Moreover, the action filed by the petitioners is not non-forum shopping. On matters of form, the petition
criminal in nature where venue is an essential element must be verified and must contain supporting evidence
of jurisdiction. In Gomez-Castillo v. Commission on as well as a sworn certification of non-forum shopping.
Elections, the Court even expressed that what the RTC It is also necessary that the petitioner must be one who
should have done under the circumstances was to is aggrieved by an act or omission of the government
transfer the case (an election protest) to the proper agency, instrumentality or its officer concerned.
branch. Similarly, it would serve the higher interest of Sufficiency of substance, on the other hand, necessitates
justice if the Court orders the transfer of Civil Case to that the petition must contain substantive allegations
the RTC of Irosin for proper and speedy resolution, with specifically constituting an actionable neglect or omission
the RTC applying the Rules in its disposition of the case. and must establish, at the very least, a prima facie basis
The concept of continuing mandamus was first for the issuance of the writ, viz:
introduced in Metropolitan Manila Development (1) an agency or instrumentality of government or its
Authority v. Concerned Residents of Manila Bay. officer unlawfully neglects the performance of an act or
unlawfully excludes another from the use or enjoyment Indeed, as pointed out by the respondents, the Panel
of a right; has jurisdiction over mining disputes. But the petition
filed below does not involve a mining dispute. What was
(2) the act to be performed by the government agency, being protested are the alleged negative environmental
instrumentality or its officer is specifically enjoined by impact of the small-scale mining operation being
law as a duty; conducted by Antones Enterprises, Global Summit Mines
(3) such duty results from an office, trust or station in Development Corporation and TROre in the Municipality
connection with the enforcement or violation of an of Matnog; the authority of the Governor of Sorsogon to
environmental law, rule or regulation or a right therein; issue mining permits in favor of these entities; and the
and perceived indifference of the DENR and local
government officials over the issue. Resolution of these
(4) there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy matters does not entail the technical knowledge and
in the course of law. expertise of the members of the Panel but requires an
exercise of judicial function. Thus, in Olympic Mines and
The writ of continuing mandamus is a special civil
Development Corp. v. Platinum Group Metals
action that may be availed of “to compel the
Corporation, the Court stated – Arbitration before the
performance of an act specifically enjoined by law.”
Panel of Arbitrators is proper only when there is a
The petition should mainly involve an environmental and disagreement between the parties as to some provisions
other related law, rule or regulation or a right therein. of the contract between them, which needs the
The RTC’s mistaken notion on the need for a final interpretation and the application of that particular
judgment, decree or order is apparently based on the knowledge and expertise possessed by members of that
definition of the writ of continuing mandamus under Panel. It is not proper when one of the parties
Section 4, Rule 1 of the Rules, to wit: (c) Continuing repudiates the existence or validity of such contract or
mandamus is a writ issued by a court in an agreement on the ground of fraud or oppression as in
environmental case directing any agency or this case. The validity of the contract cannot be subject
instrumentality of the government or officer thereof to of arbitration proceedings. Allegations of fraud and
perform an act or series of acts decreed by final duress in the execution of a contract are matters within
judgment which shall remain effective until judgment the jurisdiction of the ordinary courts of law. These
is fully satisfied. questions are legal in nature and require the application
and interpretation of laws and jurisprudence which is
The final court decree, order or decision erroneously necessarily a judicial function.
alluded to by the RTC actually pertains to the judgment
or decree that a court would eventually render in an Consequently, resort to the Panel would be completely
environmental case for continuing mandamus and which useless and unnecessary. The Court also finds that the
judgment or decree shall subsequently become final. RTC erred in ruling that the petition is infirm for failure
to attach judicial affidavits. As previously stated, Rule 8
Under the Rules, after the court has rendered a requires that the petition should be verified, contain
judgment in conformity with Rule 8, Section 7 and such supporting evidence and must be accompanied by a
judgment has become final, the issuing court still retains sworn certification of non-forum shopping. There is
jurisdiction over the case to ensure that the government nothing in Rule 8 that compels the inclusion of judicial
agency concerned is performing its tasks as mandated affidavits, albeit not prohibited. It is only if the evidence
by law and to monitor the effective performance of said of the petitioner would consist of testimony of witnesses
tasks. It is only upon full satisfaction of the final that it would be the time that judicial affidavits
judgment, order or decision that a final return of the writ (affidavits of witnesses in the question and answer form)
shall be made to the court and if the court finds that the must be attached to the petition/complaint. Finally,
judgment has been fully implemented, the satisfaction of failure to furnish a copy of the petition to the
judgment shall be entered in the court docket. A writ of respondents is not a fatal defect such that the case
continuing mandamus is, in essence, a command of should be dismissed. The RTC could have just required
continuing compliance with a final judgment as it the petitioners to furnish a copy of the petition to the
“permits the court to retain jurisdiction after judgment in respondents. It should be remembered that “courts are
order to ensure the successful implementation of the not enslaved by technicalities, and they have the
reliefs mandated under the court’s decision.”The Court, prerogative to relax compliance with procedural rules of
likewise, cannot sustain the argument that the even the most mandatory character, mindful of the duty
petitioners should have first filed a case with the Panel to reconcile both the need to speedily put an end to
of Arbitrators (Panel), which has jurisdiction over mining litigation and the parties’ right to an opportunity to be
disputes under R.A. No. 7942. heard.”
 power plant, as originally planned, it now sought
to construct a 1x300-MW coal-fired power plant.
 On May 26, 2011, the DENR-EMB granted the
request and further amended the ECC (second
amendment).
 The SangguniangPanglalawiganofZambales
2. PAJE vs. CASINO issued Resolution No. 2011-149, opposing the
establishment of a coal-fired thermal power
FACTS: plant.
 The Liga ng mgaBarangayofOlongapo City
 In February 2006, Subic Bay Metropolitan
issued Resolution No. 12, Series of 2011,
Authority (SBMA), a government agency
expressing its strong objection to the coal-fired
organized and established under Republic Act
power plant as an energy source.
No. (RA) 7227, and Taiwan Cogeneration
 Hon. Casino’s group filed for a writ of
Corporation (TCC) entered into a Memorandum
kalikasanagainst RP energy, SBMA, DENR. The
of Understanding (MOU) expressing their
Casiño Group alleged, among others, that the
intention to build a power plant in Subic Bay
power plant project would cause environmental
which would supply reliable and affordable
damage. that it would adversely affect the
power to Subic Bay Industrial Park (SBIP).
health of the residents of the municipalities of
 On July 28, 2006, SBMA and TCC entered into
Subic, Zambales, Morong, Hermosa, and the City
another MOU, whereby TCC undertook to build
of Olongapo.
and operate a coal-fired power plant.
 While the case was pending in the CA, RP
 On April 4, 2007, the SBMA Ecology Center
Energy applied for another amendment to its
issued SBFZ Environmental Compliance
ECC proposing the construction and operation of
Certificate (ECC) in favor of Taiwan
a 2x300-MW coal fired power plant
Cogeneration International Corporation (TCIC),
a subsidiary of TCC, for the construction,
installation, and operation of 2x150-MW CA:
Circulating Fluidized Bed (CFB) Coal-Fired
Thermal Power Plant at SitioNaglatore. Denied the writ of kalikasandue to the failure of
 On June 6, 2008, TCC assigned all its rights and the Casiño Group to prove that its constitutional
interests under the MOU dated July 28, 2006 to right to a balanced and healthful ecology was
Redondo Peninsula Energy, Inc. (RP Energy). violated or threatened
 RP Energy then contracted GHD Pty., Ltd. (GHD)
- no reason also to nullify sec 8.3 of DAO 2003-
to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement
30) which allows amendments of ECCs. Not ultra
(EIS) for the proposed coal-fired power plant
vires, as the express power of the Secretary of
and to assist RP Energy in applying for the
DENR, director and regional directors of the EMB
issuance of an ECC from the Department of
to issue an ECC impliedly includes the incidental
Environment and Natural Resources (DENR).
power to amend the same.
 The SangguniangPanglungsod of Olongapo City
- The validity of the said section cannot be
issued Resolution No. 131, Series of 2008,
collaterally attacked in a petition for a writ of
expressing the city government’s objection to
kalikasan
the coal-fired power plant as an energy source
and urging the proponent to consider safer But invalidated the ECC for non-compliance with the
alternative sources ofenergy for Subic Bay. IPRA law and LGC and failure to affix the signature
 On December 22, 2008, the DENR, through in the sworn statement of full responsibility
former Secretary Jose L. Atienza, Jr., issued an
ECC for the proposed 2x150-MW coal-fired - Non-compliance with sec 59 of IPRA Law
power plant. (enjoins all departments and other
 Sometime thereafter, RP Energy decided to governmental agencies from granting any lease
include additional components in its proposed without a prior certification that the area
coal-fired power plant. On July 8, 2010, the affected does not overlap with any ancestral
DENR-EMB issued an amended ECC (first domain)
amendment) allowing the inclusion of additional - The CA also invalidated the LDA entered into by
components, among others. SBMA and RP Energy as it was issued without
 Several months later, RP Energy again the prior consultation and approval of all the
requested the DENR-EMB to amend the ECC. sanggunians concerned as required under
Instead of constructing a 2x150-MW coal-fired Sections 26 and 27 of the LGC
 - For failure of Luis Miguel Abolitz, director of RP A party, therefore, who invokes the writ based on
Energy to affix his signature in the sworn alleged defects or irregularities in the issuance of an ECC
statement of full responsibility (integral part of must not only allege and prove such defects or
the ECC) irregularities, but must also provide a causal link or, at
- The first and second amendment for failure to least, a reasonable connection between the defects or
comply with the restrictions in the ECC which irregularities in the issuance of an ECC and the actual or
requires that any expansion of the project threatened violation of the constitutional right to a
beyond the project description or any change in balanced and healthful ecology of the magnitude
the activity shall be subject to a new contemplated under the Rules. Otherwise, the petition
environmental impact assessment should be dismissed outright and the action re-filed
before the proper forum with due regard to the doctrine
Invalidated the LDA entered into by SBMA and RP of exhaustion of administrative remedies.
Energy

- Issued without prior consultation and approval In the case at bar, no such causal link or reasonable
of all the sanggunians concerned as under secs connection was shown or even attempted relative to the
26 and 27 of the LGC aforesaid second set of allegations. It is a mere listing of
- In violation of sec 59 chapter VIII of the IPRA the perceived defects or irregularities in the issuance of
Law which enjoins all departments and other the ECC.
governmental agencies from granting any lease
without a prior certification that the area The appellate court correctly ruled that the Casino group
affected does not overlap with any ancestral FAILED to substantiate its claims that the construction
domain and operation of the power plant will cause
environmental damage of the magnitude contemplated
- no CNO was secured from the NCIP under the writ of kalikasan. On the other hand, RP
prior to the execution of the LDA and Energy presented evidence to establish that the subject
that the CNO dated October 31, 2012 project will not cause grave environmental damage
was secured during the pendency of the through its environmental management plan which will
case and was issued in connection with ensure that the project will operate within the limits of
RP Energy’s application for a 2x300 MW existing environmental laws and standars.
Coal fired plant
3. ARIGO v. SWIFT
ISSUE
FACTS:
1. Whether the parties may raise questions of fact
on appeal on the issuance of a writ of Kalikasan;
In 2013, the USS Guardian of the US Navy ran aground
and
on an area near the Tubbataha Reefs, a marine habitat
2. Whether the validity of an ECC can be
of which entry and certain human activities are
challenged via a writ of Kalikasan
prevented and afforded protection by a Philippine law.
The grounding incident prompted the petitioners to seek
RULING for issuance of Writ of Kalikasan with TEPO from the
SC.Among those impleaded are US officials in their
Yes, the parties may raise questions of fact on appeal on capacity as commanding officers of the US Navy. As
the issuance of a writ of Kalikasan because the Rules on petitioners argued, they were impleaded because there
the Writ of kalikasan (Rule 7, Section 16 of the Rules of was a waiver of immunity from suit between US and PH
Procedure for Environmental Cases) allow the parties to pursuant to the VFA terms.
raise, on appeal, questions of fact— and, thus,
constitutes an exception to Rule 45 of the Rules of Court Petitioners claimed that the grounding, salvaging and
— because of the extraordinary nature of the post-salvaging operations of the USS Guardian violated
circumstances surrounding the issuance of a writ their constitutional rights to a balanced and healthful
of kalikasan. ecology since these events caused and continue to cause
environmental damage of such magnitude as to affect
Yes, the validity of an ECC can be challenged via a writ other provinces surrounding the Tubbataha Reefs. Aside
of Kalikasan because such writ is principally predicated from damages, they sought a directive from the SC for
on an actual or threatened violation of the constitutional the institution of civil, administrative and criminal suits
right to a balanced and healthful ecology, which involves for acts committed in violation of environmental laws
environmental damage of a magnitude that transcends and regulations in connection with the grounding
political and territorial boundaries. incident. They also prayed for the annulment of some
VFA provisions for being unconstitutional.
ISSUE: Hence, non-membership in the UNCLOS does not mean
1. Whether the US Government has given its consent to that the US will disregard the rights of the Philippines as
be sued through the VFA a Coastal State over its internal waters and territorial
2. Whether the US government may still be held liable sea. It is thus expected of the US to bear “international
for damages caused to the Tubbataha Reefs responsibility” under Art. 31 in connection with the USS
Guardian grounding which adversely affected the
HELD: Tubbataha reefs. ##

1. No. The general rule on state’s immunity from suit Other Issues
applies in this case.
Claim for Damages Caused by Violation of
First, any waiver of State immunity under the VFA Environmental Laws Must be Filed Separately
pertains only to criminaljurisdiction and not to special
civil actions such as for the issuance of the writ of The invocation of US federal tort laws and even common
kalikasan. Hence, contrary to petitioners’ claim, the US law is improper considering that it is the VFA which
government could not be deemed to have waived its governs disputes involving US military ships and crew
immunity from suit. navigating Philippine waters in pursuance of the
objectives of the agreement.As it is, the waiver of State
Second, the US respondents were sued in their official immunity under the VFA pertains only to criminal
capacity as commanding officers of the US Navy who jurisdiction and not to special civil actions. Since
have control and supervision over the USS Guardian and jurisdiction cannot be had over the respondents for
its crew. Since the satisfaction of any judgment against being immuned from suit, there is no way damages
these officials would require remedial actions and the which resulted from violation of environmental laws
appropriation of funds by the US government, the suit is could be awarded to petitioners.
deemed to be one against the US itself. Thus, the
principle of State Immunity – in correlation with the In any case, the Rules onWrit of Kalikasan provides that
principle of States as sovereign equals “par in parem non a criminal case against a person charged with a violation
habetnon imperium” – bars the exercise of jurisdiction of an environmental law is to be filed separately. Hence,
by the court over their persons. a ruling on the application or non-application of criminal
jurisdiction provisions of the VFA to a US personnel who
2. Yes. The US government is liable for damages in may be found responsible for the grounding of the USS
relation to the grounding incident under the customary Guardian, would be premature and beyond the province
laws of navigation.The conduct of the US in this case, of a petition for a writ of Kalikasan.
when its warship entered a restricted area in violation of
RA 10067 and caused damage to the TRNP reef system, Challenging the Constitutionality of a Treaty Via a
brings the matter within the ambit of Article 31 of the Petition for the Issuance of Writ of Kalikasan is
UNCLOS. While historically, warships enjoy sovereign Not Proper
immunity from suit as extensions of their flag State, Art.
31 of the UNCLOS creates an exception to this rule in
The VFA was duly concurred in by the Philippine Senate
cases where they fail to comply with the rules and
and has been recognized as a treaty by the US as
regulations of the coastal State regarding passage
attested and certified by the duly authorized
through the latter’s internal waters and the territorial
representative of the US government. The VFA being a
sea.
valid and binding agreement, the parties are required as
a matter of international law to abide by its terms and
Although the US to date has not ratified the UNCLOS, as provisions. A petition under the Rules on Writ of
a matter of long-standing policy, the US considers itself Kalikasan is not the proper remedy to assail the
bound by customary international rules on the constitutionality of its provisions.
“traditional uses of the oceans”, which is codified in
UNCLOS.But award for damages is not one of the reliefs
4. RESIDENT MARINE MAMMAL v. REYES IN HIS
granted in a Writ of Kalikasan suit.
CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF DEPT OF ENERGY
As to the non-ratification by the US, it must be noted FACTS:
that the US’ refusal to join the UNCLOS was centered on
its disagreement with UNCLOS’ regime of deep seabed On 13 June 2002, the Government of the
mining (Part XI) which considers the oceans and deep Philippines, acting through the Department of Energy
seabed commonly owned by mankind. Such has nothing (DOE) entered into a Geophysical Survey and
to do with the acceptance by the US of customary Exploration Contract-102 (GSEC-102) with Japan
international rules on navigation. (Justice Carpio). Petroleum Exploration Co., Ltd. (JAPEX).
 The studies included surface geology, sample destruction of the “payao” or the
analysis, and reprocessing of seismic and magnetic data. artificial reef.
Geophysical and satellite surveys as well as oil and gas - The ECC obtained by the respondents is
sampling in Tañon Strait was conducted. invalid because there is no public
On 12 December 2004, DOE and JAPEX converted consultations and discussions prior to its
GSEC-102 to Service Contract No. 46 (SC-46) for the issuance.
exploration, development, and production of petroleum - SC-46 is null and void for having
resources in a block covering approximately 2,850 sqm. violated Section 2, Article XII of the
offshore the Tañon Strait. 1987 Constitution, considering that
From 9-18 May 2005, JAPEX conducted seismic there is no general law prescribing the
surveys in and around Tañon Strait, including a multi- standard or uniform terms, conditions,
channel sub-bottom profiling covering approximately 751 and requirements for service contracts
kms. to determine the area’s underwater composition. involving oil exploration and extraction
During the 2nd sub-phase of the project, JAPEX - FIDEC alleges that it was barred from
committed to drill one exploration well. Since the same entering and fishing within a 7-kilometer
was to be drilled in the marine waters of Aloguisan and radius from the point where the oilrig
Pinamungajan where the Tañon Strait was declared a was located, an area grated than the
protected seascape in 1988, JAPEX agreed to comply 1.5-kilometer radius exclusion zone
with the Environmental Impact Assessment stated in the Initial Environmental
requirements under Presidential Decree No. 1586 (PD Examination
1586), entitled “Establishing an Environmental Impact The respondents in both petitions are: the late
Statement System, Including Other Environmental Angelo T. Reyes, DOE Secretary; Jose L. Atienza, DENR
Management Related Measures and For Other Secretary; Leonardo Sibbaluca, DENR-Region VII
Purposes.” Director and Chairman of Tañon Strait PAMB; JAPEX, a
On 31 January 2007, the Protected Area Japanese company; and Supply Oilfield Services, Inc.
Management Board (PAMB) of the Tañon Strait issued (SOS) as the alleged Philippine agent of JAPEX. Their
Resolution No. 2007-01 where it adopted the Initial counter-allegations are:
Environmental Examination commissioned by JAPEX, and - The “Resident Marine Mammals” and
favourably recommended the approval of the latter’s “Stewards” have no legal standing to file
application for an Environmental Compliance Certificate the petition.
(ECC). - SC-46 is constitutional.
On 6 March 2007, DENR-EMB Region VII granted an - The ECC was legally issued.
ECC to DOE and JAPEX for the offshore oil and gas - The case is moot and academic since
exploration project in Tañon Strait. SC-46 is mutually terminated on 21 June
From 16 November 2007 to 8 February 2008, JAPEX 2008.
drilled an exploratory well with a depth of 3,150 meters
near Pinamungajan town.
On 17 December 2007, two separate original ISSUE:
petitions were filed commonly seeking that the
1. Whether the petitioners have a legal standing?
implementation of SC-46 be enjoined for violation of the
1987 Constitution. HELD:
The petitioners in G.R. No. 180771 are the “Resident
Marine Mammals” which inhibit the waters in and around Yes. In our jurisdiction, locus standi in environmental
the Tañon Strait, joined by “Stewards” Gloria Estenzo cases has been given a more liberalized approach. The
Ramos and Rose-Liza Eisma-Osorio as their legal Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases allow for a
guardians and friends seeking their protection. Also “citizen suit,” and permit any Filipino citizen to file an
impleaded as unwilling co-petitioner is former President action before our courts for violation of our
Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. In G.R. No. 181527, the environmental laws on the principle that humans are
petitioners are the Central Visayas Fisherfolk stewards of nature:
Development Center (FIDEC), a non-stock, non-profit,
non-governmental organization established for the “Section 5. Citizen suit. – Any
welfare of the marginal fisherfolk in Region VII and Filipino citizen in
representatives of the subsistence fisherfolk of the representation of others,
municipalities of Aloguinsan and Pinamungajan, Cebu. including minors or
Their contentions are: generations yet unborn,
- A study made after the seismic survey may file an action to enforce
showed that there is a drastic reduce in rights or obligations under
fish catch by 50-70% attributable to the environmental laws. Upon
the filing of a citizen suit, the
 court shall issue an order which placing blame on the construction activities on the roads
shall contain a brief description surrounding West Tower.
of the cause of action and the
reliefs prayed for, requiring all On November 15, 2010, West Tower Condominium
interested parties to manifest Corporation (West Tower Corp.) interposed the present
their interest to intervene in the Petition for the Issuance of a Writ of Kalikasan on behalf
case within fifteen (15) days of the residents of West Tower and in representation of
from notice thereof. The plaintiff the surrounding communities in Barangay Bangkal,
may publish the order once in a Makati City. West Tower Corp. also alleged that it is
newspaper of general circulation joined by the civil society and several people’s
in the Philippines or furnish all organizations, non-governmental organizations and
affected baragngays copies of public interest groups who have expressed their intent to
said order. join the suit because of the magnitude of the
environmental issues involved.
Citizen suits filed under R.A. No.
8749 and R.A. No. 9003 shall be Issue and Ratio:
governed by their respective
provisions. (Emphasis supplied)” 1. Whether a Permanent Environmental Protection
Order should be issued to direct the respondents
Although the petition was filed in 2007, years before the to perform or to desist from performing acts in
effectivity of the Rules of Procedure for Environmental order to protect, preserve, and rehabilitate the
Cases, it has been consistently held that rules of affected environment?
procedure may be retroactively applied to actions
pending and undetermined at the time of their passage NO, To recall, petitioners’ persistent plea is for the
and will not violate any right of a person who may feel conversion of the November 19, 2010 TEPO into a
that he is adversely affected, inasmuch as there is no Permanent Environmental Protection Order (PEPO)
vested rights in rules of procedure.Moreover, even pursuant to Sec. 3,46 Rule 5 of the Rules of Procedure for
before the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases Environmental Cases. For its part, respondent FPIC
became effective, the SC had already taken a permissive asserts that regular testing, as well as the measures that
position on the issue of locus standi in environmental are already in place, will sufficiently address any concern
cases. In Oposa, the SC allowed the suit to be brought of oil leaks from the WOPL.
in the name of generations yet unborn “based on the
concept of intergenerational responsibility insofar as the
right to a balanced and healthful ecology is concerned.”
2. Whether FGC and the directors and officers of
It is also worth noting that the Stewards in the present respondents FPIC and FGC may be held liable
case are joined as real parties in the Petition and not under the environmental protection order?
just in representation of the named cetacean species.
NO, Individual directors and officers of FPIC and FGC
5. WEST TOWER CONDOMINIUM vs. PHIL IND. are not liable due to the explicit rule in the Rules of
CORP. Procedure for Environmental cases that in a petition for
a writ of kalikasan,the Court cannot grant the award of
damages to individual petitioners under Rule 7, Sec.
FACTS: 15(e) of the Rules of Procedure for Environmental
Cases. 
Respondent FPIC operates two pipelines since 1969, (1)
the White Oil Pipeline (WOPL) System, which covers and As duly noted by the CA, the civil case and criminal
(b) the Black Oil Pipeline (BOPL) System. complaint filed by petitioners against respondents are
the proper proceedings to ventilate and determine the
In May 2010, however, a leakage from one of the
individual liability of respondents.
pipelines was suspected after the residents of West
Tower Condominium (WestTower) started to smell gas
within the condominium. Petitioner FPIC initially
disowned any leak from its oil pipeline.

On October 29, 2010, FPIC admitted that indeed the

source of the fuel leak is the WOPL, which was already
closed since October 24, 2010, but denied liability by