Environmental Law – Gullas Law School

Based on Syllabus, Activities & Bar Questions

1|P a g e ATTY. MARIE AILEEN BARRIENTOS-ASEJO

BAR QUESTIONS
(B) The writ of continuing mandamus is a writ issued
Remedial Law (2016) by a court in an environmental case directing any
agency or instrumentality of the government or
Hannibal, Donna, Florence and Joel, concerned residents officer thereof to perform an act or series of acts
of Laguna de Bay, filed a complaint for mandamus decreed by final judgment which shall remain
against the Laguna Lake Development Authority, the effective until judgment is fully satisfied.
Department of Environment and Natural Resources,
the Department of Public Work and Highways, Remedial Law (2015)
Department of Interior and Local Government, VI.
Department of Agriculture, Department of Budget,
and Philippine National Police before the RTC of A law was passed declaring Mt. Karbungko as a protected
Laguna alleging that the continued neglect of area since it was a major watershed. The protected
defendants in performing their duties has resulted in area covered a portion located in Municipality A of the
serious deterioration of the water quality of the lake Province I and a portion located in the City of Z of
and the degradation of the marine life in the lake. The Province II. Maingat is the leader of Samahan ng
plaintiffs prayed that said government agencies be Tagapag-ingat ng Karbungko (STK), a people's
ordered to clean up Laguna de Bay and restore its organization. He learned that a portion of the
water quality to Class C waters as prescribed by mountain located in the City of Z of Province II was
Presidential Decree No. 1152, otherwise known as the extremely damaged when it was bulldozed and leveled
Philippine Environment Code. Defendants raise the to the ground, and several trees and plants were cut
defense that the cleanup of the lake is not a down and burned by workers of World Pleasure
ministerial function and they cannot be compelled by Resorts, Inc. (WPRI) for the construction of a hotel
mandamus to perform the same. The RTC of Laguna and golf course. Upon inquiry with the project site
rendered a decision declaring that it is the duty of the engineer if they had a permit for the project, Maingat
agencies to clean up Laguna de Bay and issued a was shown a copy of the Environmental Compliance
permanent writ of mandamus ordering said agencies Certificate (ECC) issued by the DENR-EMB, Regional
to perform their duties prescribed by law relating to Director (RD-DENR-EMB). Immediately, Maingat and
the cleanup of Laguna de Bay. STK filed a petition for the issuance of a writ of
continuing mandamus against RD-DENR-EMB and
(a). Is the RTC correct in issuing the writ of WPRI with the RTC of Province I, a designated
mandamus? Explain. (2.5%) environmental court, as the RD-DENR-EMB
negligently issued the ECC to WPRI. On scrutiny of
(b). What is the writ of continuing mandamus? the petition, the court determined that the area where
(2.5%) the alleged actionable neglect or omission subject of
the petition took place in the City of Z of Province II,
and therefore cognizable by the RTC of Province II.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Thus, the court dismissed outright the petition for
lack of jurisdiction.
(A) Yes, the RTC is correct. In MMDA v. Concerned
Residents of Manila Bay, 18 December 2008, the
(a). Was the court correct in motu proprio dismissing
SC held that the cleaning or rehabilitation of
the petition? (3%)
Manila Bay can be compelled by mandamus. The
ruling in MMDA may be applied by analogy to the
Assuming that the court did not dismiss the petition, the
cleanup of the Laguna de Bay.
RD-DENR-EMB in his Comment moved to dismiss the
petition on the ground that petitioners failed to appeal
While the term issued by the RTC of Laguna is
the issuance of the ECC and to exhaust
a permanent writ of mandamus, this should be
administrative remedies provided in the DENR Rules
considered only as a semantic error and that
and Regulations.
what the RTC really intended to issue is a writ
of continuing mandamus. There is no such thing
(b). Should the court dismiss the petition? (3%)
as a permanent writ of mandamus since the writ
shall cease to be effective once the judgment is
SUGGESTED ANSWERS:
fully satisfied.

JDD 08062018
 Environmental Law – Gullas Law School
Based on Syllabus, Activities & Bar Questions
2|P a g e ATTY. MARIE AILEEN BARRIENTOS-ASEJO

(A) No, the court was not correct in motu proprio

dismissing the petition for lack of jurisdiction. The Supreme Court has held that in
environmental cases, the defense of failure to
In a case involving similar facts, the Supreme exhaust administrative remedies by appealing the
Court held that the requirement that the petition ECC issuance would apply only if the defect in the
be filed in the area where the actionable neglect issuance of the ECC does not have any causal
or omission took place relates to venue and not to relation to the environmental damage.
subject-matter jurisdiction. Since what is
involved is improper venue and not subject- Here the issuance of the ECC has a direct causal
matter jurisdiction, it was wrong for the court to relation to the environmental damage since it
dismiss outright the petition since venue may be permitted the bulldozing of a portion of the
waived. (Dolot v. Paje, 27 August 2013). mountain and the cutting down and buring of
several trees and plants. (See Paje v. Casiño, 3
(B) No, the court should not dismiss the petition. February 2015).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ACTIVITIES
1. Define SLAPP suit. 4. Are local government units within the scope of the
2. What is the E-NIPAS Act all about? Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) System? Cite your
3. Digest Arigo et. al. vs. Swift G.R. No. 206510, 16 authority.
September 2014. 5. Explain the different stages of EIA process.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

RULES OF PROCEDURE IN ENVIRONMENTAL CASES

1. Administrative Order No. 23-2008 11. National Caves & Cave Resources Management
Act (R.A. No. 9072)
Re: Designation of Special Courts to Hear, Try 12. Wildlife Conservation & Protection Act (R.A. No.
and Decide Environmental Cases 9147)
13. Chainsaw Act (R.A. No. 9175)
In the interest of an efficient administration of justice and 14. Clean Water Act (R.A. No. 9275)
pursuant to Sec. 23 of B.P Blg. 129, the following
branches of the first and second level courts are committed within their respective territorial
hereby designated as Special Courts to try and jurisdictions.
decide violations of environmental laws, including
but not limited to the following:

1. Revised Forestry Code (P.D. No. 705)

2. Marine Pollution (P.D. No. 979)
3. Toxic Substances and Hazardous Waste Act (R.A.
No. 6969)
4. People's Small-Scale Mining Act (R.A. No. 7076)
5. National Integrated Protected Areas System Act
(R.A. No. 7586) DISCUSSION:
6. Philippine Mining Act (R.A. No. 7942)
7. Indigenous People's Rights Act (R.A. No. 8371)  This was promulgated pursuant to the Rule-Making
8. Philippine Fisheries Code (R.A. No. 8550) Power of the Supreme Court, the basis of which is
9. Clean Air Act (R.A. No. 8749) enshrined in the Constitution [Article VIII, Section 5 (5)
– “Promulgate rules concerning the protection and
10. Ecological Solid Waste Management Act (R.A.
enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading,
No. 9003)
JDD 08062018
 Environmental Law – Gullas Law School
Based on Syllabus, Activities & Bar Questions
3|P a g e ATTY. MARIE AILEEN BARRIENTOS-ASEJO

practice, and procedure in all courts, the admission to other related laws, rules and regulations such as
the practice of law, the Integrated Bar, and legal but not limited to the following:
assistance to the underprivileged. Such rules shall
provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the (a) Act No. 3572, Prohibition Against Cutting of
speedy disposition of cases, shall be uniform for all Tindalo, Akli, and Molave Trees;
courts of the same grade, and shall not diminish, (b) P.D. No. 705, Revised Forestry Code;
increase, or modify substantive rights. Rules of (c) P.D. No. 856, Sanitation Code;
procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies (d) P.D. No. 979, Marine Pollution Decree;
shall remain effective unless disapproved by the (e) P.D. No. 1067, Water Code;
Supreme Court”]. (f) P.D. No. 1151, Philippine Environmental
Policy of 1977;
 In 2008, The SC under the leadership of CJ Puno issued (g) P.D. No. 1433, Plant Quarantine Law of 1978;
AM designating Special Courts to try and decide (h) P.D. No. 1586, Establishing an Environmental
environmental cases. Impact Statement System Including Other
Environmental Management Related
 If you go through the cases listed in the criminal Measures and for Other Purposes;
procedure, there are only 14, but take note of the (i) R.A. No. 3571, Prohibition Against the
operative phrase – “including but not limited to”. Even Cutting, Destroying or Injuring of Planted or
if a specific case is not listed but involves the Growing Trees, Flowering Plants and Shrubs
environment, the courts may exercise its jurisdiction. In or Plants of Scenic Value along Public Roads,
essence, all environmental cases fall under the in Plazas, Parks, School Premises or in any
jurisdiction of our environmental courts. Other Public Ground;
(j) R.A. No. 4850, Laguna Lake Development
 There are actually 117 environmental or “green” courts Authority Act;
that were created pursuant to AO No. 23-2008. (k) R.A. No. 6969, Toxic Substances and
Hazardous Waste Act;
 What if there is no designated environmental court in a (l) R.A. No. 7076, People’s Small-Scale Mining
certain location? Act;
Answer: (m) R.A. No. 7586, National Integrated Protected
If there is no environmental court in the area, the Areas System Act including all laws, decrees,
regular courts shall exercise the power of the orders, proclamations and issuances
environmental courts until such time an establishing protected areas;
environmental court shall be designated in the (n) R.A. No. 7611, Strategic Environmental Plan
area. for Palawan Act;
(o) R.A. No. 7942, Philippine Mining Act;
(p) R.A. No. 8371, Indigenous Peoples Rights Act;
(q) R.A. No. 8550, Philippine Fisheries Code;
2. Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases (r) R.A. No. 8749, Clean Air Act;
(AM No. 09-6-8-SC) (s) R.A. No. 9003, Ecological Solid Waste
Management Act;
(t) R.A. No. 9072, National Caves and Cave
a. Scope and applicability of the rule Resource Management Act;
(u) R.A. No. 9147, Wildlife Conservation and
PART I Protection Act;
RULE 1 (v) R.A. No. 9175, Chainsaw Act;
GENERAL PROVISIONS (w) R.A. No. 9275, Clean Water Act;
(x) R.A. No. 9483, Oil Spill Compensation Act of
SEC. 2. Scope. - These Rules shall govern the procedure in 2007; and Provisions in C.A. No. 141, The
civil, criminal and special civil actions before the Public Land Act; R.A. No. 6657,
Regional Trial Courts, Metropolitan Trial Courts, Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of
Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, Municipal Trial 1988; R.A. No. 7160, Local Government Code
Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts involving of 1991; R.A. No. 7161, Tax Laws
enforcement or violations of environmental and Incorporated in the Revised Forestry Code

JDD 08062018
 Environmental Law – Gullas Law School
Based on Syllabus, Activities & Bar Questions
4|P a g e ATTY. MARIE AILEEN BARRIENTOS-ASEJO

and Other Environmental Laws (Amending exception. In availing of the exception, the movant must overcome
the presumption of regularity in the performance of a duty by the
the NIRC); R.A. No. 7308, Seed Industry respondent government agency or official. The judge must then
Development Act of 1992; R.A. No. 7900, require a higher standard and heavier burden of proof.
High-Value Crops Development Act; R.A. No.
8048, Coconut Preservation Act; R.A. No. R.A. No. 8975 amended P.D. 605 and P.D. 1818.25 Pursuant to the mandate
of R.A. No. 8975, only the Supreme Court has the authority to issue a
8435, Agriculture and Fisheries temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction and preliminary
Modernization Act of 1997; R.A. No. 9522, mandatory injunction against the Government or any of its
The Philippine Archipelagic Baselines Law; instrumentalities, officials and agencies in cases such as those filed by
R.A. No. 9593, Renewable Energy Act of bidders or those claiming to have rights through such bidders
involving such contract or project. R.A. No. 8975 prohibits lower
2008; R.A. No. 9637, Philippine Biofuels Act; courts from issuing injunctive orders in connection with the
and other existing laws that relate to the implementation of government infrastructure projects unless the
conservation, development, preservation, case pertains to matters of extreme urgency involving constitutional
protection and utilization of the environment issues such that unless a temporary restraining order is issued, grave
injustice and irreparable injury will arise.
and natural resources.
This provision is distinct from the previous section on the issuance of a
TEPO28 where the latter is premised on the violation of an
environmental law or a threatened damage or injury to the
environment by any person, even the government and its agencies,
DISCUSSION: the prohibition against the issuance of a TRO or preliminary injunction
is premised on the presumption of regularity on the government and
 Courts covered – RTC, MeTC, MTCC, MTC, & MCTC its agencies in enforcing environmental laws and protecting the
environment. This section is formulated to support government and
its agencies in their responsibilities and tasks. Therefore, in the
 Operative phrase “involving but not limited” – absence of evidence overcoming this presumption of regularity, no
basta involving the environment, apply the Envi. court can issue a TRO or injunctive writ. It is only the Supreme Court
Rules of Procedure. which can issue a TRO or an injunctive writ in exceptional cases.

 The Envi. Rules of Procedure is specific, so una

dapat i-follow in environmental cases. Suppletory
ra ang Rules of Procedure (Rules of Court) nato. DISCUSSION:
Only when silent and Envi Rules, pwede ma-apply
suppletorily ang atong Rules of Court.  It states there nga dili pwede mu issue og TRO
against actions of government agencies that
enforce our environmental laws (DENR, BFAR).
While in the performance of their mandates to
b. Civil Procedure enforce our laws, dili xa pwede issue-han og TRO
EXCEPT kung ang SC mu-issue.
i. Prohibition against temporary
restraining order and preliminary
injunction ii. Pre-trial conference; consent decree
SEC. 10. Prohibition against temporary restraining order RULE 3
(TRO) and preliminary injunction. – Except the PRE-TRIAL
Supreme Court, no court can issue a TRO or writ
of preliminary injunction against lawful actions of SEC. 5. Pre-trial conference; consent decree. – The judge
government agencies that enforce environmental shall put the parties and their counsels under oath,
laws or prevent violations thereof. and they shall remain under oath in all pre-trial
conferences.
ANNOTATIONS:
The judge shall exert best efforts to persuade the parties
Prohibition against TRO and preliminary injunction. The formulation of this to arrive at a settlement of the dispute. The judge
section is derived from the provisions of P.D. 60523 and likewise may issue a consent decree approving the
covers the provisions of P.D. 1818. To obviate future conflict between agreement between the parties in accordance
the present provision and these two laws, the prohibition on the
issuance of a TRO remains the general rule while its issuance is the
with law, morals, public order and public policy to

JDD 08062018
 Environmental Law – Gullas Law School
Based on Syllabus, Activities & Bar Questions
5|P a g e ATTY. MARIE AILEEN BARRIENTOS-ASEJO

protect the right of the people to a balanced and

healthful ecology. DISCUSSION:

Evidence not presented during the pre-trial, except  The objective is to discourage delays.
newly-discovered evidence, shall be deemed  When will know we know if environmental cases
waived. ang involved? It is required under the rules that sa
complaint mismo, istate nila nga this is an
environmental case involving the violation of such
ANNOTATIONS: environmental law.
 What is a bill of particulars? It’s like asking for
Consent decree. This section encourages parties to reach an agreement
regarding settlement through a consent decree, which gives clarification. Not allowed, disregard gihapon na xa,
emphasis to the public interest aspect in the assertion of the right to mupadayon gihapon ang case.
a balanced and healthful ecology.  Counterclaim – gikiha mo, unya mucounter mog
kiha for damages also
 Cross claims – kiha kag damages sa party not
involved in the case
DISCUSSION:  When do you file a reply? Kung naa nay answer,
makadugay xa. If maka-file na og answer diritso na
 Just like in civil cases, we also have pre-trial. But dayon xa. Dili na hulaton nga naa bay reply ifile.
what’s novel is the CONSENT DECREE.  Motion to declare defendant in default – in
 What is consent decree? So during pre-trials, if ordinary civil cases, if dili mu-file og reply ang
magkasinabot ang mga parties, they will arrive at a defendant ipadeclare xa in default, meaning
settlement and this settlement is approved by the mupadayon ang kaso maski wala ang defendant. In
judge. Taking into consideration that these envi cases, dili xa allowed, PATUBAGON GYUD
agreements is not against the law, morals, public USUALLY.
order or public policy to protect the right of the o There are 2 gov’t na under the rules dapat
people to a healthful and balanced ecology, then gyud xa furnishan og copies sa complaint
pwede xa ma-approve by the court. – DENR (they are the specialized agency)
 Once approved by the court, that would serve as and also the OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR
the judgment of the case and we call that our GENERAL (since they are the lawyer of the
consent decree. State, so once they feel nga dili sila angay
 Equivalent to this is the compromise agreement in involved sa kaso, mu-manifest rana sila).
civil cases.

iv. Temporary environmental

iii. Prohibited pleadings and motions
protection order (TEPO)
PART II
PART II
CIVIL PROCEDURE
RULE 2
RULE 2
PLEADINGS AND PARTIES
SEC. 8. Issuance of Temporary Environmental Protection
Order (TEPO). – If it appears from the verified
SEC. 2. Prohibited pleadings or motions. – The following
complaint with a prayer for the issuance of an
pleadings or motions shall not be allowed:
Environmental Protection Order (EPO) that the
(a) Motion to dismiss the complaint;
matter is of extreme urgency and the applicant
(b) Motion for a bill of particulars;
will suffer grave injustice and irreparable injury,
(c) Motion for extension of time to file pleadings,
the executive judge of the multiple-sala court
except to file answer, the extension not to
before raffle or the presiding judge of a single-sala
exceed fifteen (15) days;
court as the case may be, may issue ex parte a TEPO
(d) Motion to declare the defendant in default;
effective for only seventy-two (72) hours from
(e) Reply and rejoinder; and
date of the receipt of the TEPO by the party or
(f) Third party complaint.
person enjoined. Within said period, the court

JDD 08062018
 Environmental Law – Gullas Law School
Based on Syllabus, Activities & Bar Questions
6|P a g e ATTY. MARIE AILEEN BARRIENTOS-ASEJO

where the case is assigned, shall conduct a v. Judgment and execution; relief’s in a
summary hearing to determine whether the TEPO citizen’s suit
may be extended until the termination of the
case. SEC. 5. Citizen suit. – Any Filipino citizen in representation
of others, including minors or generations yet
The court where the case is assigned, shall periodically unborn, may file an action to enforce rights or
monitor the existence of acts that are the subject obligations under environmental laws. Upon the
matter of the TEPO even if issued by the executive filing of a citizen suit, the court shall issue an order
judge, and may lift the same at any time as which shall contain a brief description of the cause
circumstances may warrant. of action and the reliefs prayed for, requiring all
interested parties to manifest their interest to
The applicant shall be exempted from the posting of a intervene in the case within fifteen (15) days from
bond for the issuance of a TEPO. notice thereof. The plaintiff may publish the order
once in a newspaper of a general circulation in the
Philippines or furnish all affected barangays copies
ANNOTATIONS:
of said order.
TEPO. The temporary environmental protection order (TEPO) integrates
both prohibitive and mandatory reliefs in order to appropriately Citizen suits filed under R.A. No. 8749 and R.A. No. 9003
address the factual circumstances surrounding the case. This is shall be governed by their respective provisions.
derived from the nature of an EPO, which, as defined, is an “order
issued by the court directing or enjoining any person or government
agency to perform or desist from performing an act in order to
protect, preserve, or rehabilitate the environment.” ANNOTATIONS:

The procedure for the issuance of the TEPO stems from the same Citizen suit. To further encourage the protection of the environment, the
procedure for the issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order, as it Rules enable litigants enforcing environmental rights to file their
appears in Sections 521 and 622 of Rule 58 of the Rules of Court. cases as citizen suits. This provision liberalizes standing for all cases
filed enforcing environmental laws and collapses the traditional rule
The Rules provide that an applicant who files for the issuance of a TEPO is on personal and direct interest, on the principle that humans are
exempt from the posting of a bond, but the Rules also provide for stewards of nature. The terminology of the text reflects the doctrine
safeguards for the possible pernicious effects upon the party or first enunciated in Oposa v. Factoran, insofar as it refers to minors and
person sought to be enjoined by the TEPO: generations yet unborn.

1. A TEPO may only be issued in matters of extreme urgency and the While the Rules liberalize the requirements for standing, in the case of non-
applicant will suffer grave injustice and irreparable injury, the government organizations (NGOs) and people’s organizations (POs),
TEPO effective for only seventy two (72) hours; and proof of their juridical personality (i.e. accreditation, recognition or
registration) given the relative ease by which a number of groups can
2. The court should periodically monitor the existence of acts which loosely organize and label themselves as NGOs or POs. The same
are the subject matter of the TEPO, the TEPO can being lifted proof of juridical personality is also required in a petition for a writ of
anytime as the circumstances may warrant. kalikasan.

While the TEPO may be issued ex parte, this is more of the exception. The Unlike the previous section on real party in interest, Sec. 5 is a suit limited
general rule on the conduct of a hearing, pursuant to due process, to Filipino citizens and one that is filed in the public interest hence,
remains. no proof of personal injury is required. A Filipino citizen may be an
individual or a corporation so long as the requirements of Philippine
citizenship are complied with. The reliefs that may be awarded in a
citizen suit are discussed in Rule 5, Sec. 1, infra.

DISCUSSION: As a procedural device, citizen suits permit deferment of payment of filing

fees until after the judgment.
 The TEPO is equivalent to the TRO in the ordinary The provision permits the plaintiff to publish the order containing a brief
in civil cases. description of the action in order to allow other persons to join as co-
 TEPO is usually issued ex parte only for 72 hours. plaintiffs and to sufficiently apprise the judge of persons interested to
 Within the 72 hours na effective ang TEPO, the join as such, consistent with the public character of the citizen suit.
This adopts the features of the general rule on publication found in
judge or the court will conduct a summary hearing cases in rem, and is meant to reflect the distinct nature of
of whether to extend or until what period i-extend environmental cases. In this Rule, however, publication is permissive
xa or until materminate ang case. and non-jurisdictional and is meant only to encourage public
participation.

JDD 08062018
 Environmental Law – Gullas Law School
Based on Syllabus, Activities & Bar Questions
7|P a g e ATTY. MARIE AILEEN BARRIENTOS-ASEJO

Citizen suits may be filed for all types of environmental cases. In deference ANNOTATIONS:
to the legislature, however, the provision adds as a caveat that citizen
suits under the Clean Air Act of 1999) and the Ecological Solid Waste Conversion of a TEPO to a permanent EPO or a writ of continuing
Management Act of 2000 shall be governed by their respective mandamus. In this provision, continuing mandamus is made available
provisions. as a final relief. As a remedy, continuing mandamus is decidedly an
attractive relief. Nevertheless, the monitoring function attached to
the writ is decidedly taxing upon the court. Thus, it is meant to be an
exceptional remedy. Among others, the nature of the case in which
the judgment is issued will be a decisive factor in determining
DISCUSSION: whether to issue a writ of continuing mandamus.
 What is a real party in interest? If you are a person
who stands to be prejudiced or you will suffer A TEPO may be converted into a writ of continuing mandamus should the
circumstances warrant.
damage or DIRECT injury. Then you are a real party
in interest, you can file an civil environmental case.
 Filing of civil cases as real party in interest – pwede
Filipino citizen or alien. What if foreigner diay ang DISCUSSION:
nagsuffer og injury kay wala ninyo na implement  This writ of continuing mandamus was originally
og tarong inyong solid management waste act? enunciated in the case of the Clean Act of Manila
Pwede xa mukiha IF MAKA-PROVE SYA OG DIRECT Bay (MMDA Case). The gov’t agencies
INJURY. gireklamohan sila
 With regards to citizen suit, ONLY FILIPINOS MAY
FILE.
 Citizen’s suit, dili xa ingon direct injury. You are
vii. Strategic Lawsuit against Public
filing in representation of others.
 Unsa then ang buhaton sa court kung nay citizen’s Participation
suit? Tungod kay this is involving a lot of citizens in
representation of others, muissue og order ang RULE 6
court nga ipublish or ifurnish ang tanan barangay STRATEGIC LAWSUIT AGAINST PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
giving notice na those who are interested to join
the suit, naa moy 15 days to intervene in the case SEC. 1. Strategic lawsuit against public participation
(SLAPP). – A legal action filed to harass, vex, exert
undue pressure or stifle any legal recourse that any
person, institution or the government has taken or
vi. Permanent Environmental may take in the enforcement of environmental
laws, protection of the environment or assertion of
Protection Order; Writ of Continuing environmental rights shall be treated as a SLAPP
Mandamus and shall be governed by these Rules.

SEC. 3. Permanent EPO; writ of continuing mandamus. – In

the judgment, the court may convert the TEPO to a ANNOTATIONS:
permanent EPO or issue a writ of continuing
SLAPP. These sections on SLAPP are the distillation of existing provisions of
mandamus directing the performance of acts which Philippine law and analgous provisions from several jurisdictions.
shall be effective until the judgment is fully
satisfied. The Rules recognize that formidable legal challenges may be mounted
against those who seek to enforce environmental law, or to assert
environmental rights. These legal challenges may be preemptive in
The court may, by itself or through the appropriate character and may be done in order to “chill” the latter. In light of
government agency, monitor the execution of the this, the Rules make available a formidable defense in these
judgment and require the party concerned to provisions.
submit written reports on a quarterly basis or
This section identifies the legal action that constitutes a SLAPP. The
sooner as may be necessary, detailing the progress constitutional rights to freedom of speech, expression and assembly
of the execution and satisfaction of the judgment. (and in certain cases, the right to petition the government for redress
The other party may, at its option, submit its of grievances) in relation to the right to a balanced and healthful
comments or observations on the execution of the ecology are affected by a SLAPP.
judgment.

JDD 08062018
 Environmental Law – Gullas Law School
Based on Syllabus, Activities & Bar Questions
8|P a g e ATTY. MARIE AILEEN BARRIENTOS-ASEJO

c. Special Proceedings SEC. 2. Contents of the petition. – The verified petition shall
contain the following:
i. Writ of Kalikasan
xxx xxx xxx
PART III
SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS (c) The environmental law, rule or regulation violated
RULE 7 or threatened to be violated, the act or omission
WRIT OF KALIKASAN complained of, and the environmental damage of
such magnitude as to prejudice the life, health or
SEC. 1. Nature of the writ. – The writ is a remedy available property of inhabitants in two or more cities or
to a natural or juridical person, entity authorized by provinces.
law, people’s organization, non-governmental
organization, or any public interest group xxx xxx xxx
accredited by or registered with any government
agency, on behalf of persons whose constitutional SEC. 3. Where to file. – The petition shall be filed with the
right to a balanced and healthful ecology is Supreme Court or with any of the stations of the
violated, or threatened with violation by an Court of Appeals.
unlawful act or omission of a public official or
employee, or private individual or entity, involving
environmental damage of such magnitude as to ANNOTATIONS:
prejudice the life, health or property of inhabitants
Venue. The magnitude of the environmental damage is the reason for
in two or more cities or provinces. limiting where the writ may be filed, to the Supreme Court or Court
of Appeals whose jurisdiction is national in scope.

ANNOTATIONS:

Extraordinary remedy. The underlying emphasis in the Writ of Kalikasan is

ii. Prohibited pleadings and
magnitude as it deals with damage that transcends political and motions
territorial boundaries. Magnitude is thus measured according to the
qualification set forth in this Rule — when there is environmental
damage that prejudices the life, health or property of inhabitants in
SEC. 9. Prohibited pleadings and motions. – The following
two or more cities or provinces. pleadings and motions are prohibited:
(a) Motion to dismiss;
Who may avail of the writ. The petition for the issuance of a Writ of (b) Motion for extension of time to file return;
Kalikasan can be filed by any of the following: (1) a natural or juridical
person; (2) entity authorized by law; or (3) people’s organization, non-
(c) Motion for postponement;
governmental organization, or any public interest group accredited (d) Motion for a bill of particulars;
by or registered with any government agency “on behalf of persons (e) Counterclaim or cross-claim;
whose constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology is (f) Third-party complaint;
violated… involving environmental damage of such magnitude as to
prejudice the life, health or property of inhabitants in two or more
(g) Reply; and
cities or provinces.” Those who may file for this remedy must (h) Motion to declare respondent in default.
represent the inhabitants prejudiced by the environmental damage
subject of the writ. The requirement of accreditation of a group or
organization is for the purpose of verifying its existence. The
accreditation is a mechanism to prevent “fly by night” groups from iii. Discovery measures
abusing the writ.
SEC. 12. Discovery Measures. — A party may file a verified
Acts covered by the writ. The Writ of Kalikasan is a special remedy available motion for the following reliefs:
against an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee,
or private individual or entity, involving environmental damage of (a) Ocular Inspection; order — The motion must
such magnitude as to prejudice the life, health or property of show that an ocular inspection order is necessary
inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces. to establish the magnitude of the violation or the
threat as to prejudice the life, health or property
of inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces.
It shall state in detail the place or places to be
inspected. It shall be supported by affidavits of

JDD 08062018
 Environmental Law – Gullas Law School
Based on Syllabus, Activities & Bar Questions
9|P a g e ATTY. MARIE AILEEN BARRIENTOS-ASEJO

witnesses having personal knowledge of the SEC. 1. Petition for continuing mandamus. – When any
violation or threatened violation of agency or instrumentality of the government or
environmental law. officer thereof unlawfully neglects the
performance of an act which the law specifically
After hearing, the court may order any person in enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust or
possession or control of a designated land or station in connection with the enforcement or
other property to permit entry for the purpose of violation of an environmental law rule or regulation
inspecting or photographing the property or any or a right therein, or unlawfully excludes another
relevant object or operation thereon. from the use or enjoyment of such right and there
is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in
The order shall specify the person or persons the ordinary course of law, the person aggrieved
authorized to make the inspection and the date, thereby may file a verified petition in the proper
time, place and manner of making the inspection court, alleging the facts with certainty, attaching
and may prescribe other conditions to protect the thereto supporting evidence, specifying that the
constitutional rights of all parties. petition concerns an environmental law, rule or
regulation, and praying that judgment be rendered
(b) Production or inspection of documents or things; commanding the respondent to do an act or series
order – The motion must show that a production of acts until the judgment is fully satisfied, and to
order is necessary to establish the magnitude of pay damages sustained by the petitioner by reason
the violation or the threat as to prejudice the life, of the malicious neglect to perform the duties of
health or property of inhabitants in two or more the respondent, under the law, rules or regulations.
cities or provinces. The petition shall also contain a sworn certification
of non-forum shopping.
After hearing, the court may order any person in
possession, custody or control of any designated SEC. 2. Where to file the petition. – The petition shall be
documents, papers, books, accounts, letters, filed with the Regional Trial Court exercising
photographs, objects or tangible things, or jurisdiction over the territory where the actionable
objects in digitized or electronic form, which neglect or omission occurred or with the Court of
constitute or contain evidence relevant to the Appeals or the Supreme Court.
petition or the return, to produce and permit their
inspection, copying or photographing by or on
behalf of the movant. ANNOTATIONS:

Writ of Continuing Mandamus. This rule integrates the ruling in

(c) The production order shall specify the person or Concerned Residents of Manila Bay v. MMDA and the existing rule
persons authorized to make the production and on the issuance of the writ of mandamus. Procedurally, its filing
the date, time, place and manner of making the before the courts is similar to the filing of an ordinary writ of
mandamus. However, the issuance of a Temporary Environmental
inspection or production and may prescribe other Protection Order is made available as an auxiliary remedy prior to the
conditions to protect the constitutional rights of issuance of the writ itself.
all parties.
As a special civil action, the Writ of Continuing Mandamus may be availed
of to compel the performance of an act specifically enjoined by law.
It permits the court to retain jurisdiction after judgment in order to
ANNOTATIONS:
ensure the successful implementation of the reliefs mandated under
Discovery measures. The discovery measures are available to all parties to
the court’s decision. For this purpose, the court may compel the
the writ. Considering that these measures are invasive, the court may
submission of compliance reports from the respondent government
prescribe conditions in any order granting such measures to
agencies as well as avail of other means to monitor compliance with
safeguard constitutional rights.
its decision.

Its availability as a special civil action likewise complements its role as a

iv. Writ of continuing mandamus final relief in environmental civil cases and in the Writ of Kalikasan,
where continuing mandamus may likewise be issued should the facts
merit such a relief.
RULE 8
WRIT OF CONTINUING MANDAMUS The section on TEPO is similar to Section 7, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.

Writ of Continuing Mandamus versus Writ of Kalikasan

JDD 08062018
 Environmental Law – Gullas Law School
Based on Syllabus, Activities & Bar Questions
10 | P a g e ATTY. MARIE AILEEN
BARRIENTOS-ASEJO

Some main differences between the Writ of Continuing Mandamus and the ii. Institution of criminal and civil
Writ of Kalikasan are:
action
(1) Subject matter. A Writ of Continuing Mandamus is directed
against (a) the unlawful neglect in the performance of an act
SEC. 2. Filing of the information. – An information, charging
which the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an
office, trust or station in connection with the enforcement or a person with a violation of an environmental law
violation of an environmental law rule or regulation or a right and subscribed by the prosecutor, shall be filed
therein; or (b) the unlawfully exclusion of another from the use with the court.
or enjoyment of such right and in both instances, there is no
other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary
course of law. SEC. 3. Special prosecutor. – In criminal cases, where there
is no private offended party, a counsel whose
A Writ of Kalikasan is available against an unlawful act or services are offered by any person or organization
omission of a public official or employee, or private individual
may be allowed by the court as special prosecutor,
or entity, involving environmental damage of such magnitude
as to prejudice the life, health or property of inhabitants in two with the consent of and subject to the control and
or more cities or provinces. In addition, magnitude of supervision of the public prosecutor.
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.
ANNOTATIONS:
(2) Who may file. A Writ of Continuing Mandamus is available only
Special prosecutor. This provision aims to encourage public participation in
to one who is personally aggrieved by the unlawful act or
criminal litigation by permitting the appearance of a special
omission. On the other hand, a petition for the issuance of a
prosecutor. Unlike the general rule subsisting under the Rules of
Writ of Kalikasan is available to a broad range of persons such
Criminal Procedure, this provision recognizes the possibility of
as natural or juridical person, entity authorized by law, people’s
intervention from a special prosecutor even in the absence of a
organization, non-governmental organization, or any public
private offended party. The special prosecutor complements the
interest group accredited by or registered with any government
public prosecutor in advancing public interest in environmental cases.
agency, on behalf of persons whose right to a balanced and
healthful ecology is violated or threatened to be violated.
In deference to the executive department’s prerogative to prosecute
cases, the intervention by the special prosecutor shall be subject to
(3) Respondent. The respondent in a petition for continuing
the consent and control of the public prosecutor.
mandamus is only the government or its officers, unlike in a
petition for a Writ of Kalikasan, where the respondent may be
This provision thus applies to those instances of “victimless offenses,”
a private individual or entity.
where there is no private offended party who has a direct or material
interest to prosecute a criminal action. Most environmental cases
(4) Venue. A petition for the issuance of a Writ of Continuing
involve violations of environmental law or damage to the
Mandamus may be filed in the following: (a) the Regional Trial
environment without an injured private person (i.e. dynamite fishing
Court exercising jurisdiction over the territory where the
in marine sanctuaries, illegal logging in forests, etc…). These
actionable neglect or omission occurred; (b) the Court of
situations are likened to public interest environmental litigation
Appeals; or (c) the Supreme Court. Given the magnitude of the
prevalent in foreign jurisdictions where it is usually a concerned
damage, the application for the issuance of a Writ of Kalikasan
people’s organization, non-governmental organization or citizen’s
can only be filed the in Supreme Court or any of the stations of
group that pursues the criminal case.
the Court of Appeals.

RULE 10
d. Criminal Procedure
PROSECUTION OF CIVIL ACTIONS
i. Who may file
SEC. 1. Institution of criminal and civil actions. – When a
PART IV criminal action is instituted, the civil action for the
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE recovery of civil liability arising from the offense
RULE 9 charged, shall be deemed instituted with the
PROSECUTION OF OFFENSES criminal action unless the complainant waives the
civil action, reserves the right to institute it
SEC. 1. Who may file. – Any offended party, peace officer separately or institutes the civil action prior to the
or any public officer charged with the enforcement criminal action. Unless the civil action has been
of an environmental law may file a complaint instituted prior to the criminal action, the
before the proper officer in accordance with the reservation of the right to institute separately the
Rules of Court. civil action shall be made during arraignment.

JDD 08062018
 Environmental Law – Gullas Law School
Based on Syllabus, Activities & Bar Questions
11 | P a g e ATTY. MARIE AILEEN
BARRIENTOS-ASEJO

In case civil liability is imposed or damages are awarded, Arrest; hot pursuit. In order to validly effect warrantless arrest, the arrest
must be done immediately after the commission of the offense.
the filing and other legal fees shall be imposed on
said award in accordance with Rule 141 of the Rules Warrantless arrest. Deputized individuals, effecting citizen’s arrest, enjoy
of Court, and the fees shall constitute a first lien on the presumption of regularity traditionally given to public officers
the judgment award. The damages awarded in under this provision. The process of deputization shall continue to be
governed by the respective laws and regulations promulgated by the
cases where there is no private offended party, less appropriate government agency governing deputization. The “proper
the filing fees, shall accrue to the funds of the government agency” is one tasked to enforce environmental laws. To
agency charged with the implementation of the enjoy the presumption of regularity, proper documents pertaining to
environmental law violated. The award shall be deputization must be made available,if feasible, to the individual
about to be arrested.
used for the restoration and rehabilitation of the
environment adversely affected. A specific reference to the Rules on Evidence in the Rules of Court is made
to indicate the source of the presumption of regularity attributed to
deputized individuals.
ANNOTATIONS:

Institution of actions. This provision departs from the traditional rule on iv. Strategic lawsuit against public
institution of civil actions under Rule 111 of the Rules on Criminal
Procedure in that it provides for an applicable rule on the disposition participation
of damages where there is no private offended party.
RULE 19
The provision likewise codifies the essence of restorative justice when it
requires that the award shall be given to the concerned government
STRATEGIC LAWSUIT AGAINST PUBLIC
agency. This is restorative justice transposed into the context of PARTICIPATION IN CRIMINAL CASES
environmental law.
SEC. 1. Motion to dismiss. – Upon the filing of an
information in court and before arraignment, the
iii. Arrest without warrant, when accused may file a motion to dismiss on the ground
valid that the criminal action is a SLAPP.

RULE 11
ARREST ANNOTATIONS:

SLAPP as criminal cases; motion to dismiss. This section pertains pertain to

SEC. 1. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. – A peace SLAPP filed as criminal cases. The manner by which to allege that a
officer or an individual deputized by the proper criminal action is a SLAPP is through a motion to dismiss rather than
government agency may, without a warrant, arrest a motion to quash. A motion to dismiss allows the action to be
challenged as a SLAPP, while a motion to quash is directed at the
a person: Information.

(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested Moreover, granting a motion to dismiss bars the refiling of a SLAPP in
has committed, is actually committing or is accordance with the law of the case. In contrast, the grant of a motion
to quash does not bar the filing of a subsequent Information.
attempting to commit an offense; or
(b) When an offense has just been committed, and he There is no provision on prohibited pleadings under criminal procedure in
has probable cause to believe based on personal environmental cases (Part IV) as such the defense of SLAPP can be
knowledge of facts or circumstances that the validly raised in a motion to dismiss. Under Part II, Civil Procedure in
environmental cases, a motion to dismiss is a prohibited pleading so
person to be arrested has committed it. the defense of a SLAPP can only be raised through an answer.

Individuals deputized by the proper government agency A summary hearing has likewise been provided for in order to facilitate the
who are enforcing environmental laws shall enjoy speedy resolution of the case assailed as SLAPP.
the presumption of regularity under Section 3(m),
Rule 131 of the Rules of Court when effecting
arrests for violations of environmental laws. SEC. 2. Summary hearing. — The hearing on the defense of
a SLAPP shall be summary in nature. The parties
must submit all the available evidence in support of
ANNOTATIONS: their respective positions.

JDD 08062018
 Environmental Law – Gullas Law School
Based on Syllabus, Activities & Bar Questions
12 | P a g e ATTY. MARIE AILEEN
BARRIENTOS-ASEJO

The party seeking the dismissal of the case must prove by of the crime. The court shall, after hearing, fix the
substantial evidence that his acts for the minimum bid price based on the
enforcement of environmental law is a legitimate recommendation of the concerned government
action for the protection, preservation and agency. The sheriff shall conduct the auction.
rehabilitation of the environment. The party filing
the action assailed as a SLAPP shall prove by (d) The auction sale shall be with notice to the
preponderance of evidence that the action is not a accused, the person from whom the items were
SLAPP. seized, or the owner thereof and the concerned
v. Procedure in the custody and government agency.
disposition of seized items (e) The notice of auction shall be posted in three
conspicuous places in the city or municipality
SEC. 1. Custody and disposition of seized items. – The where the items, equipment, paraphernalia, tools
custody and disposition of seized items shall be in or instruments of the crime were seized.
accordance with the applicable laws or rules
promulgated by the concerned government (f) The proceeds shall be held in trust and deposited
agency. with the government depository bank for
disposition according to the judgment.

ANNOTATIONS:
ANNOTATIONS:
Custody by administrative agency. Under this provision, the administrative
Seizure. The foregoing provisions concern two aspects of seizure. The first
agency which has authority under law to regulate the item subject of
aspect concerns the chain of custody of the seized items, equipment,
seizure likewise retains authority to assume custody over and dispose
paraphernalia, conveyances, and instruments. Subparagraphs (a) and
of seized items, should their existing rules provide or such. This is
(b) are meant to assure the integrity of the evidence after seizure, for
without prejudice to the applicability of the next succeeding section,
later presentation at the trial. The second aspect deals with the
infra.
disposition of the seized materials. This addresses the concern of
deterioration of the materials, most of which are perishable, while in
custodia legis.
SEC. 2. Procedure. – In the absence of applicable laws or
The provision contains procedural safeguards to assure the preservation of
rules promulgated by the concerned government
the value of the seized materials, should the case eventually be
agency, the following procedure shall be observed: decided in favor of their owner or possessor. Subparagraph (b) makes
the provision cover both seizures with warrant and warrantless
(a) The apprehending officer having initial custody seizures. The motion to direct the auction sale under subparagraph
(c) may be filed by “any interested party” to obviate any oppressive
and control of the seized items, equipment,
use of seizure to the prejudice of any party.
paraphernalia, conveyances and instruments
shall physically inventory and whenever
practicable, photograph the same in the presence vi. Bail
of the person from whom such items were seized.
RULE 14
(b) Thereafter, the apprehending officer shall submit BAIL
to the issuing court the return of the search
warrant within five (5) days from date of seizure SEC. 1. Bail, where filed. – Bail in the amount fixed may be
or in case of warrantless arrest, submit within five filed with the court where the case is pending, or in
(5) days from date of seizure, the inventory the absence or unavailability of the judge thereof,
report, compliance report, photographs, with any regional trial judge, metropolitan trial
representative samples and other pertinent judge, municipal trial judge or municipal circuit trial
documents to the public prosecutor for judge in the province, city or municipality. If the
appropriate action. accused is arrested in a province, city or
municipality other than where the case is pending,
(c) Upon motion by any interested party, the court bail may also be filed with any Regional Trial Court
may direct the auction sale of seized items, of said place, or if no judge thereof is available, with
equipment, paraphernalia, tools or instruments any metropolitan trial judge, municipal trial judge

JDD 08062018
 Environmental Law – Gullas Law School
Based on Syllabus, Activities & Bar Questions
13 | P a g e ATTY. MARIE AILEEN
BARRIENTOS-ASEJO

or municipal circuit trial judge therein. If the court entertain plea-bargaining on the date of the
grants bail, the court may issue a hold-departure arraignment.
order in appropriate cases.
SEC. 2. Plea-bargaining. – On the scheduled date of
arraignment, the court shall consider plea-
ANNOTATIONS: bargaining arrangements. Where the prosecution
Bail; hold-departure order. This section makes available to the accused the
and offended party or concerned government
privilege of bail from any court, within and outside the jurisdiction of agency agree to the plea offered by the accused,
the court which issued the warrant of arrest. The immediate the court shall:
availability of bail is intended to obviate long periods of detention.
(a) Issue an order which contains the plea-bargaining
arrived at;
SEC. 2. Duties of the court. – Before granting the (b) Proceed to receive evidence on the civil aspect of
application for bail, the judge must read the the case, if any; and
information in a language known to and (c) Render and promulgate judgment of conviction,
understood by the accused and require the accused including the civil liability for damages.
to sign a written undertaking, as follows:

(a) To appear before the court that issued the ANNOTATIONS:

warrant of arrest for arraignment purposes on the
date scheduled, and if the accused fails to appear Consent. The provision requires the consent of the prosecutor, the
offended party or concerned government agency in order to
without justification on the date of arraignment, successfully arrive at a valid plea-bargaining agreement. Plea-
accused waives the reading of the information bargaining is considered at arraignment in order to avoid the situation
and authorizes the court to enter a plea of not where an initial plea is changed in the course of the trial in view of a
guilty on behalf of the accused and to set the case successful plea bargain.
for trial;
(b) To appear whenever required by the court where
the case is pending; and
viii. Pre-trial
(c) To waive the right of the accused to be present at
RULE 16
the trial, and upon failure of the accused to
PRE-TRIAL
appear without justification and despite due
notice, the trial may proceed in absentia.
SEC. 1. Setting of pre-trial conference. – After the
arraignment, the court shall set the pre-trial
ANNOTATIONS: conference within thirty (30) days. It may refer the
case to the branch clerk of court, if warranted, for
Execution of undertaking by the accused. A key innovation in this section a preliminary conference to be set at least three (3)
is the execution of an undertaking by the accused and counsel,
days prior to the pre-trial.
empowering the judge to enter a plea of not guilty, in the event the
accused fails to appear at the arraignment. This authorization permits
the court to try the case in absentia, within the period provided under SEC. 2. Preliminary conference. – The preliminary
these Rules. This addresses a fundamental concern surrounding the conference shall be for the following purposes:
prosecution of criminal cases in general, where the accused jumps
(a) To assist the parties in reaching a settlement of
bail and the court unable to proceed with the disposition of the case
in view of the absence of the accused and the failure to arraign the the civil aspect of the case;
latter. (b) To mark the documents to be presented as
exhibits;
(c) To attach copies thereof to the records after
vii. Arraignment and plea comparison with the originals;
(d) To ascertain from the parties the undisputed facts
SEC. 1. Arraignment. – The court shall set the arraignment and admissions on the genuineness and due
of the accused within fifteen (15) days from the execution of documents marked as exhibits;
time it acquires jurisdiction over the accused, with (e) To consider such other matters as may aid in the
notice to the public prosecutor and offended party prompt disposition of the case;
or concerned government agency that it will

JDD 08062018
 Environmental Law – Gullas Law School
Based on Syllabus, Activities & Bar Questions
14 | P a g e ATTY. MARIE AILEEN
BARRIENTOS-ASEJO

(f) To record the proceedings during the preliminary conference shall be reduced in writing and signed
conference in the Minutes of Preliminary by the accused and counsel; otherwise, they cannot
Conference to be signed by the parties and be used against the accused. The agreements
counsel; covering the matters referred to in Section 1, Rule
(g) To mark the affidavits of witnesses which shall be 118 of the Rules of Court shall be approved by the
in question and answer form and shall constitute court.
the direct examination of the witnesses; and
(h) To attach the Minutes and marked exhibits to the SEC. 6. Record of proceedings. – All proceedings during the
case record before the pre-trial proper. pre-trial shall be recorded, the transcripts prepared
and the minutes signed by the parties or their
The parties or their counsel must submit to the branch counsels.
clerk of court the names, addresses and contact
numbers of the affiants. SEC. 7. Pre-trial order. – The court shall issue a pre-trial
order within ten (10) days after the termination of
SEC. 3. Pre-trial duty of the judge. – During the pre-trial, the pre-trial, setting forth the actions taken during
the court shall: the pre-trial conference, the facts stipulated, the
(a) Place the parties and their counsels under oath; admissions made, evidence marked, the number of
(b) Adopt the minutes of the preliminary conference witnesses to be presented and the schedule of trial.
as part of the pre-trial proceedings, confirm The order shall bind the parties and control the
markings of exhibits or substituted photocopies course of action during the trial.
and admissions on the genuineness and due
execution of documents, and list object and
testimonial evidence; ix. Subsidiary liabilities
(c) Scrutinize the information and the statements in
the affidavits and other documents which form RULE 18
part of the record of the preliminary investigation SUBSIDIARY LIABILITY
together with other documents identified and
marked as exhibits to determine further SEC. 1. Subsidiary liability. – In case of conviction of the
admissions of facts as to: accused and subsidiary liability is allowed by law,
i. The court’s territorial jurisdiction relative to the court may, by motion of the person entitled to
the offense(s) charged; recover under judgment, enforce such subsidiary
ii. Qualification of expert witnesses; and liability against a person or corporation subsidiarily
iii. Amount of damages; liable under Article 102 and Article 103 of the
(d) Define factual and legal issues; Revised Penal Code.
(e) Ask parties to agree on the specific trial dates and
adhere to the flow chart determined by the court
which shall contain the time frames for the ANNOTATIONS:
different stages of the proceeding up to
Annotation. This provision codifies the ratio decidendi in Philippine Rabbit
promulgation of decision; Bus Lines v. Court of Appeals and applies the principle therein to
(f) Require the parties to submit to the branch clerk environmental criminal cases, to facilitate recovery of damages and
of court the names, addresses and contact other relief from persons subsidiarily liable in the event of insolvency
of the accused.
numbers of witnesses that need to be summoned
by subpoena; and The phrase “person entitled to recover” was employed in this provision to
(g) Consider modification of order of trial if the indicate that other parties apart from the prevailing party may be
accused admits the charge but interposes a lawful entitled to recover.
defense.

SEC. 4. Manner of questioning. – All questions or e. Evidence

statements must be directed to the court.
i. Precautionary principle
SEC. 5. Agreements or admissions. – All agreements or
admissions made or entered during the pre-trial PART V
EVIDENCE
JDD 08062018
 Environmental Law – Gullas Law School
Based on Syllabus, Activities & Bar Questions
15 | P a g e ATTY. MARIE AILEEN
BARRIENTOS-ASEJO

RULE 20
Judicial standards for application. Section 2 of this Rule enumerates judicial
PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE standards for applying the precautionary principle. While its
phraseology is couched in general terms, thus permitting ample
SEC. 1. Applicability – When there is a lack of full scientific judicial discretion in its application, the application of the
certainty in establishing a causal link between precautionary principle is limited in cases where there is truly a doubt
in the evidence available. (Supra, Sec. 1)
human activity and environmental effect, the court
shall apply the precautionary principle in resolving
the case before it. ii. Documentary evidence
The constitutional right of the people to a balanced and RULE 21
healthful ecology shall be given the benefit of the DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
doubt.
SEC. 1. Photographic, video and similar evidence. –
Photographs, videos and similar evidence of
ANNOTATIONS:
events, acts, transactions of wildlife, wildlife by-
Margin of safety in all decision-making. The precautionary principle finds products or derivatives, forest products or mineral
application in judicial adjudication under this Rule. More specifically, resources subject of a case shall be admissible
within this context, the precautionary principle finds direct
when authenticated by the person who took the
application in the evaluation of evidence in cases before the courts.
The precautionary principle bridges the gap in cases where scientific same, by some other person present when said
certainty in factual findings cannot be achieved. By applying the evidence was taken, or by any other person
precautionary principle, the court may construe a set of facts as competent to testify on the accuracy thereof.
warranting either judicial action or inaction, with the goal of
preserving and protecting the environment. This may be further
evinced from the second paragraph where bias is created in favor of SEC. 2. Entries in official records. – Entries in official records
the constitutional right the people to a balanced and healthful made in the performance of his duty by a public
ecology. In effect, the precautionary principle shifts the burden of officer of the Philippines, or by a person in
evidence of harm away from those likely to suffer harm and onto
performance of a duty specially enjoined by law,
those desiring to change the status quo. An application of the
precautionary principle to the rules on evidence will enable courts to are prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated.
tackle future environmental problems before ironclad scientific
consensus emerges.
ANNOTATIONS:
For purposes of evidence, the precautionary principle should be treated as
a principle of last resort, where application of the regular Rules of Evidentiary matters in environmental cases. These provisions seek to
Evidence would cause in an inequitable result for the environmental address specific evidentiary concerns in environmental litigation,
plaintiff — (a) settings in which the risks of harm are uncertain; (b) where evidence is often difficult to obtain and preserve. They
settings in which harm might be irreversible and what is lost is supplement the main Rules on Evidence, which have full applicability
irreplaceable; and (c) settings in which the harm that might result to environmental cases.
would be serious. When these features — uncertainty, the possibility
of irreversible harm, and the possibility of serious harm — coincide,
the case for the precautionary principle is strongest. When in doubt,
cases must be resolved in favor of the constitutional right to a
balanced and healthful ecology.

Parenthetically, judicial adjudication is one of the strongest fora in which

the precautionary principle may find applicability.

SEC. 2. Standards for application – In applying the

precautionary principle, the following factors,
among others, may be considered: (1) threats to
human life or health; (2) inequity to present or
future generations; or (3) prejudice to the
environment without legal consideration of the
environmental rights of those affected.

ANNOTATIONS:
JDD 08062018
 Environmental Law – Gullas Law School
Based on Syllabus, Activities & Bar Questions
16 | P a g e ATTY. MARIE AILEEN
BARRIENTOS-ASEJO

JURISPRUDENCE

1. International Service for the Acquisition of TEMPORARILY ENJOINED any application for
Agri-Biotech Applications, Inc. vs. Greenpeace contained use, field testing, propagation and
Southeast Asia Philippines G.R. No. 209271 | commercialization, and importation of
December 8, 2015 genetically modified organisms until a new
administrative order is promulgated in
FACTS: accordance with law.
Petitioners (Greenpeace, et al.) filed a petition for a writ NOTE:
of kalikasan and continuing mandamus alleging that
the field trials of the Bt Talong (a type of eggplant  However, on July 29, 2016, the Supreme Court,
bio-engineered to develop resistance to through Perlas-Bernaba, J., set aside its decision
lepidopteran larvae) violated their constitutional which stopped the field testing of the genetically
right to a healthful and balanced ecology, there modified product, favoring the petition filed by
being no independent study on its safety for human the environmental group Greenpeace.
consumption.
 The SC unanimously ruled to instead dismiss the
ISSUE: Greenpeace petition on the ground of mootness.
Should the field testing of BT talong be temporarily
 It agreed with the argument in the motions for
enjoined for propagation and commercialization
reconsideration that the petition of Greenpeace
until its safety for food consumption is fully
should have been dismissed following the
determined?
completion and termination of the bt talong field
RULING: trials and the expiration of the biosafety permits.

Applying the precautionary principle, the Court held that

the three features of uncertainty, the possibility of
irreversible harm, and the possibility of serious harm
2. Resident Mammals of the Protected Seascape
all coincide which justifies the application of that Tañon Strain vs. Reyes, et. al. G.R. No. 180771.
principle. FACTS:
There exists a preponderance of evidence that the On June 13, 2002, the government, through the DOE,
release of GMOs (genetically modified organisms) entered into a Geophysical Survey and Exploration
into the environment threatens to damage our Contract (GSEC-102, later on converted as SC-46)
ecosystems and not just the field trial sites, and with Japan Petroleum Exploration Co. (JAPEX) for the
eventually the health of our people once the Bt exploration, development and production of
eggplants are consumed as food. petroleum resources covering 2,850 sq. km. in the
The Court thus: Tañon Strait, declared as a protected seascape in
1988. The EMB granted an ECC for the project.
PERMANENTLY ENJOINED the conduct of the
assailed field testing for Bt talong; Petitioners resident mammals (whales, dolphins,
porpoises etc.), represented by the Stewards, “as
Declared NULL AND VOID Department of Agriculture their legal guardians,” filed with the SC a petition to
Administrative Order No. 08, series of 2002; and enjoin respondents DENR, et al. from implementing
JDD 08062018
 Environmental Law – Gullas Law School
Based on Syllabus, Activities & Bar Questions
17 | P a g e ATTY. MARIE AILEEN
BARRIENTOS-ASEJO

SC-46 for violation, among others, of the A group of concerned citizens filed with the Manila RTC
Constitution and the NIPAS Act. Petitioners claim a complaint against several government agencies,
that the oil exploration activities have drastically among them MMDA, alleging that the continued
reduced fish catch in the area. neglect of petitioners in abating the pollution of the
Manila Bay constitutes a violation of their
ISSUES:
constitutional right to life, health and to a balanced
(1) Do petitioners marine mammals, rep. by the and healthful ecology. The trial court granted the
Stewards, have the legal standing to file the petition and ordered respondents to clean up and
suit? rehabilitate Manila Bay and restore its waters to SB
(2) Is the SC-46 valid? classification to make it fit for swimming, skin-diving
and other forms of contact recreation.
RULING:
ISSUE:
Rule 2, Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases,
permits any Filipino citizen to file an action before Can respondents, now petitioners, be compelled by
the courts for violations of environmental laws and mandamus to clean up and rehabilitate the Manila
collapses the traditional rule on personal and direct Bay?
interest, on the principle that humans are stewards
RULING:
of nature. In Oposa, it was held that a suit may be
brought in the name of generations yet unborn. While the implementation of the MMDA's mandated
tasks may entail a decision-making process, the
Hence, the need to give resident mammals legal standing
enforcement of the law or the very act of doing what
has been eliminated by the Rules, which allow any
the law exacts to be done is ministerial in nature and
Filipino citizen, as steward of nature, to bring suit to
may be compelled by mandamus.
enforce environmental laws.
Under petitioners' respective charters or like enabling
The Court further held that SC-46 is null and void for non-
statutes, they may be enjoined as a statutory duty to
compliance with the twin requirements of the 1987
perform certain functions relating directly or
Constitution, i.e., (a) that the President be a
indirectly to the cleanup, rehabilitation, protection,
signatory to SC-46, and (b) that Congress be notified
and preservation of the Manila Bay. Thus, the Court
of such contract. (Sec. 2, par. 4, Art. XII).
ordered –
Petroleum exploration and extraction may only be
(1) the DENR to fully implement its Operational Plan
authorized by a law passed by Congress, since the
for the Manila Bay Coastal Strategy for the
Tañon Strait is a NIPAS area. Here, there is none.
rehabilitation, restoration, and conservation of
SC-46 declared NULL AND VOID for violating the 1987 the Manila Bay at the earliest possible time.
Constitution, RA No. 7586 and PD No. 1586.
(2) the DILG to inspect all factories, commercial
3. Paje vs. Casiño, GR No. 207257. establishments, and private homes along the
banks of the major river systems in their
respective areas of jurisdiction.

(3) the MWSS to provide, install, operate, and

maintain the necessary adequate waste water
4. MMDA, et al. vs. Concerned residents of treatment facilities in Metro Manila, Rizal, and
Manila Bay, G.R. Nos. 171947-48. Cavite where needed at the earliest possible
time.
FACTS:
JDD 08062018
 Environmental Law – Gullas Law School
Based on Syllabus, Activities & Bar Questions
18 | P a g e ATTY. MARIE AILEEN
BARRIENTOS-ASEJO

(4) the LWUA to provide, install, operate, and expenses relating to the cleanup, restoration,
maintain sewerage and sanitation facilities and and preservation of the water quality of the
the efficient and safe collection, treatment, and Manila Bay, in line with the country‟s
disposal of sewage in the provinces of Laguna, development objective to attain economic
Cavite, Bulacan, Pampanga, and Bataan where growth in a manner consistent with the
needed at the earliest possible time. protection, preservation, and revival of our
marine waters.
(5) the BFAR to improve and restore the marine life
of the Manila Bay and to assist the LGUs in Metro (12) the heads of petitioner-agencies, in line with the
Manila, etc. in developing the fisheries and principle of “continuing mandamus,” to each
aquatic resources in the Manila Bay. submit to the Court a quarterly progressive
report of the activities undertaken in accordance
(6) the PCG to apprehend violators of PD 979, RA
with the decision.
8550, and other existing laws and regulations.
The decision became final in January 2009.
(7) the PPA to adopt such measures to prevent the
discharge and dumping of solid and liquid wastes Meantime, the Court created the Manila Bay
and other ship-generated wastes into the Manila Advisory Committee to receive and evaluate the
Bay waters from vessels docked at ports and quarterly progressive reports by the agencies
apprehend the violators. pursuant to the decision and to monitor the
execution phase thereof.
(8) the MMDA, as the lead agency and implementor
of programs and projects for flood control In a subsequent resolution dated February 15, 2011,
projects and drainage services in Metro Manila, the Court ruled that its final judgment includes
to dismantle and remove all structures, not only what appears upon its face to have been
constructions, and other encroachments so adjudged but also those matters "actually and
established or built in violation of RA No. 7279, necessarily included therein or necessary
and other applicable laws and to establish, thereto."
operate, and maintain a sanitary landfill, as
Moreover, the submission of periodic reports is
prescribed by RA No. 9003, within a period of
sanctioned by Sections 7 and 8, Rule 8 of the
one (1) year from finality of the Court‟s decision.
Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases.
(9) the DOH to determine if all licensed septic and
sludge companies have the proper facilities for 5. Sison v. Peo
the treatment and disposal of fecal sludge and How are photographs, videos and similar evidence be
sewage coming from septic tanks. made admissible in Court?
(10) the DepEd to integrate lessons on pollution Photographs, videos and similar evidence may be
prevention, waste management, environmental made admissible in court when authenticated by:
protection, and like subjects in the school
curricula of all levels to inculcate the importance a) the person who took the same;
of maintaining a balanced and healthful b) by some other person present when said
ecosystem in the Manila Bay and the entire evidence was taken; or
Philippine archipelago. c) by any other person competent to testify on the
accuracy thereof.
(11) the DBM to consider incorporating an adequate (Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases,
budget in the General Appropriations Act of Part V, Rule 21, Section 1)
2010 and succeeding years to cover the
JDD 08062018
 Environmental Law – Gullas Law School
Based on Syllabus, Activities & Bar Questions
19 | P a g e ATTY. MARIE AILEEN
BARRIENTOS-ASEJO

The admissibility of a photo is determined by its accuracy Should FPIC be ordered to cease and desist from
in portraying the scene of the crime. The correctness operating the (leaking) pipeline?
of the photo as a faithful representation of the object
Action taken:
portrayed can be proved prima facie, therefore,
either by the person who took it or by other On June 16, 2015, the SC directed (a) FPIC to continue gas
competent witnesses who can testify to its exactness testing along the right of way (b) DOE to determine
and accuracy (Sison v. People, 250 SCRA 58). These if the activities and the results of the test run would
witnesses may be warrant the re-opening of the WOPL, and in the
event that the WOPL is safe for continued
persons who are in the photo, or members of the
commercial operations, DOE shall issue an order
apprehending team.
allowing FPIC to resume the operations of the
pipeline, (c) FPIC to continue the remediation,
6. Segovia v. Climate Change Commission, GR rehabilitation and restoration of the affected
No. 211010, March 7, 2017. Caguioa, J. Barangay Bangkal environment until full restoration
of the affected area to its condition prior to the
leakage is achieved, and (d) if DOE is satisfied that
the WOPL is safe for continued commercial
7. West Tower Condominium v. First Phil.
operations, it shall issue an order allowing FPIC to
Industrial Corporation (FPIC), GR No. resume the operations of the pipeline.
194239, June 16. 2015.
Note:
FACTS:
FPIC said it will abide by the order.
Petitioners West Tower Condominium alleged that the
continued use of respondent FPIC‟s 117km. leaking
oil pipeline that transports diesel, gasoline, etc. from 8. Arigo v. Swift, GR No. 206510, Sept. 16,
Batangas to the Manila Pandacan oil depot has 2014. Villarama, J.
posed not only a hazard or threat to the lives, health
FACTS:
and property of those who live in areas where the
pipeline is laid (Osmeña highway, Makati) but would On Jan. 17, 2013, the US naval ship USS Guardian ran
“also affect the rights of the generations yet unborn aground damaging some 2,345.67 square meters of
to live in a balanced and healthy ecology.” highly valuable coral reef the Tubbataha, Palawan.
On November 19, 2010, the Court issued the writ of Petitioners led by Rev. Fr. Arigo claimed that the
kalikasan with a TEPO requiring respondents to: grounding, salvaging and post-salvaging operations
of the USS Guardian caused and continue to cause
(a) cease and desist from operating the white oil pipeline
environmental damage of such magnitude as to
(WOPL) system until further orders; (b) check the
affect the provinces of Palawan, Antique, Aklan,
structural integrity of the whole span of the 117-
Guimaras, Iloilo, etc. which violate their
kilometer WOPL while implementing sufficient
constitutional rights to a balanced and healthful
measures to prevent and avert any untoward
ecology.
incident that may result from any leak of the
pipeline; and (c) make a report thereon within 60 BUT the principle of state immunity from suit BARS the
days from receipt thereof. exercise of jurisdiction by the Court over the
persons of Swift, Rice and Robling, all of whom are
ISSUE:

JDD 08062018
 Environmental Law – Gullas Law School
Based on Syllabus, Activities & Bar Questions
20 | P a g e ATTY. MARIE AILEEN
BARRIENTOS-ASEJO

officers of the US Navy performing official military The Boracay Foundation, Inc. prayed for the issuance of
duties. an Environmental Protection Order (EPO) in the
nature of a continuing mandamus against the
The recovery of damages, including the collection of
Province of Aklan to stop its land reclamation of 2.64
administrative fines under R.A. 10067, are to be
hectares by way of beach enhancement of the old
made in a separate civil suit or that one deemed
Caticlan coastline for the rehabilitation and
instituted with any criminal action.
expansion of the existing jetty port.
A ruling on the application or non-application of criminal
Petitioner cited a preliminary geohazard assessment
jurisdiction provisions of the VFA to US personnel is
study about the vulnerability of the coastal zone
beyond the province of the writ of kalikasan.
within the proposed project site and the nearby
Justice Carpio in Arigo v. Swift - explained that while, coastal area due to the effects of sea level rise and
historically, warships enjoy sovereign immunity climate change which will affect the social,
from suit as extensions of their flag State, Art. 31 of economic, and environmental situation of Caticlan
the UNCLOS creates an exception to this rule in and nearby communities.
cases where they fail to comply with the rules and
Action taken: On June 7, 2011, the Court issued a
regulations of the coastal State regarding passage
Temporary Environmental Protection Order (TEPO)
through the latter's internal waters and the
pursuant to which respondent Province immediately
territorial sea.
issued an order to the Provincial Engineering Office
UNCLOS provisions and the contractor to refrain from conducting any
construction activities until further orders from the
“The flag State shall bear international responsibility for Court.
any loss or damage to the coastal State resulting
from the non-compliance by a warship or other The new Rules of Procedure for Environmental
government ship operated for non-commercial Cases, provides a relief for petitioner under the
purposes with the laws and regulations of the writ of continuing mandamus, a special civil
coastal State concerning passage through the action "to compel the performance of an act
territorial sea or with the provisions of this specifically enjoined by law" and which provides
Convention or other rules of international law.” for the issuance of a TEPO "as an auxiliary
(Art. 31) remedy prior to the issuance of the writ itself."

Note: The Court held that the reclamation is classified as a

national project that affects the environmental and
Although the US to date has not ratified the UNCLOS, as ecological balance of local communities, and
a matter of long-standing policy the US considers requires prior consultation with the affected local
itself bound by customary international rules on the communities, and prior approval of the project by
"traditional uses of the oceans" as codified in the appropriate sanggunian – which were not
UNCLOS. (Carpio, J.) complied with. The Court required:
9. Boracay Foundation, Inc. v. Province of Respondenta to (a) cooperate with the DENR in its
Aklan, GR No. 196870. June 26, 2012. review of the reclamation project proposal and
Leonardo-De Castro, J. (b) secure approvals from local government
units and hold proper consultations with other
FACTS: stakeholders.

JDD 08062018
 Environmental Law – Gullas Law School
Based on Syllabus, Activities & Bar Questions
21 | P a g e ATTY. MARIE AILEEN
BARRIENTOS-ASEJO

Respondents shall immediately cease and desist The Sangguniang Panlungsod of Davao City enacted
from continuing the implementation of the Ordinance No. 0309, series of 2007, to impose a ban
project covered by ECC-R6-1003-096-7100 until against aerial spraying as an agricultural practice by
further orders from the Court. all agricultural entities within Davao City. The Pilipino
Banana Growers and Exporters Association, Inc.
Respondent Philippine Reclamation Authority to closely
(PBGEA), et al. challenged before the RTC the
monitor the submission by respondent Province of
constitutionality of the ordinance, alleging that it is
the requirements to be issued by respondent DENR-
an unreasonable exercise of police power; violated
EMB RVI in connection to the environmental
the equal protection clause; amounted to the
concerns raised by petitioner.
confiscation of property without due process of law;
Petitioner Boracay Foundation, Inc. and the respondents and lacked publication pursuant to Local
Province of Aklan, et al. to submit their respective Government Code.
reports to the Court regarding their compliance with
The RTC held that the City of Davao had validly exercised
the requirements set forth in the decision not later
police power under the general welfare clause; that
than three (3) months from the date of promulgation
the ordinance was consistent with the equal
of the Decision.
protection clause; and that aerial spraying was
distinct from other methods of pesticides application
because it exposed the residents to a higher degree
10. Braga v. Abaya, GR No. 223976, Sept. 13, of health risk caused by aerial drift.
2016
The ordinance identifies aerial spraying of pesticides as a
In Braga v. Abaya, GR No. 223976, Sept. 13, 2016, the nuisance because of the unstable wind direction
Court (per Brion, J.), did not issue a writ of mandamus during the aerial application.
because the Sasa Wharf Modernization Project had not
On appeal, the CA declared the ordinance void for being
yet reached the construction stage. The bidding process
unreasonable and oppressive in view of the technical
had not even been concluded when the present petition
requirements of switching from aerial spraying to
was filed. On this account, the Court held that the
truck-mounted boom spraying.
petition for a writ of continuing mandamus was
premature, thus: ISSUES:
“The writ of continuing mandamus cannot be resorted to (a) Does the ordinance violate the due process and the
when the respondent is not the person obliged to equal protection clauses; and
perform the duty under the law (as is the case under
the EIS System) or when the period for the (b) Is the prohibition against aerial spraying a lawfully
respondent to perform its legal duty has not yet permissible method that the local government unit
expired (as is the case with the consultation of Davao City may adopt to prevent the purported
requirements of the LGC).” effects of aerial drift?

RULING:

The claim that aerial spraying produces more aerial drift

11. Mosqueda v. Pilipino Banana Growers, GR
cannot be sustained in view of the petitioners' failure
NO. 18U9185, Aug. 16, 201. Bersamin, J. to substantiate the same. The imposition of the ban
FACTS: is too broad because the ordinance applies
irrespective of the substance to be aerially applied
and irrespective of the agricultural activity to be
JDD 08062018
 Environmental Law – Gullas Law School
Based on Syllabus, Activities & Bar Questions
22 | P a g e ATTY. MARIE AILEEN
BARRIENTOS-ASEJO

conducted. The ordinance suffers from being cultivation not only of banana but of other crops as
"underinclusive" because the classification does not well.; and seriously hampers the operations of the
include all individuals tainted with the same mischief banana plantations that depend on aerial technology
that the law seeks to eliminate. The ordinance to arrest the spread of the Black Sigatoka disease and
discriminates against large farmholdings that are the other menaces that threaten their production and
only ideal venues for the investment of machineries harvest.
and equipment capable of aerial spraying; denies the
12. Secretary of DENR vs. PICOP,G.R. Nos. 162243,
affected individuals the technology aimed at
164516. 171875
efficient and cost-effective operations and

JDD 08062018