Environmental Rationale PDF
Environmental Rationale PDF
Environmental Rationale PDF
ME COU
RE
UP R
T
S
RE PU
N ES
PI
BL
BATA
IC S A T BAYAN
IP
OF IL
T HE PH
RULES OF PROCEDURE
FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CASES
EFFECTIVE APRIL 29, 2010
MANILA, PHILIPPINES
APRIL 2010
2 A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC
SUB-COMMITTEE ON
THE RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL CASES
Chairperson
CHIEF JUSTICE REYNATO S. PUNO
Members
JUSTICE PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
JUSTICE DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
JUSTICE LUCAS P. BERSAMIN
JUSTICE MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ (RET.)
COMMISSIONER MARY ANN LUCILLE L. SERING
JUDGE MYRNA LIM-VERANO
ATTY. ASIS G. PEREZ
Secretary
ATTY. ABIGAIL T. SZE
Asst. Secretary
ATTY. FERMIN NESTOR A. GADRINAB
Secretariat
ATTY. MARIA CAMILLE G. LANTION
JAMES CHRISTIAN A. BITANGA, ESQ.
MS. LIDA A. PILAPIL
MS. CLARITA T. ESCARDA
Rationale to the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases 3
Table of Contents
Page
Resolution ..................................................................... 5
PART I
PART II
CIVIL PROCEDURE
PART III
SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS
PART IV
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
3
4 A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC
PART V
EVIDENCE
RATIONALE ............................................................... 40
ANNOTATION ............................................................. 98
ME COU
RE
UP R
T
S
RE PU
N ES
PI
BL
BATA
IC S A T BAYAN
IP
OF IL
T HE PH
EN BANC
RESOLUTION
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
5
6 A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC
(on leave)
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice Associate Justice
PART I
RULE 1
GENERAL PROVISIONS
7
8 A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC
PART II
CIVIL PROCEDURE
RULE 2
RULE 3
PRE-TRIAL
Failure to file the pre-trial brief shall have the same effect as
failure to appear at the pre-trial.
SEC. 3. Referral to mediation.—At the start of the pre-trial
conference, the court shall inquire from the parties if they have
settled the dispute; otherwise, the court shall immediately refer the
parties or their counsel, if authorized by their clients, to the Philippine
Mediation Center (PMC) unit for purposes of mediation. If not
available, the court shall refer the case to the clerk of court or legal
researcher for mediation.
Mediation must be conducted within a non-extendible period
of thirty (30) days from receipt of notice of referral to mediation.
The mediation report must be submitted within ten (10) days
from the expiration of the 30-day period.
SEC. 4. Preliminary conference.—If mediation fails, the court
will schedule the continuance of the pre-trial. Before the scheduled
date of continuance, the court may refer the case to the branch clerk
of court for a preliminary conference for the following purposes:
(a) To assist the parties in reaching a settlement;
(b) To mark the documents or exhibits to be presented by the
parties and copies thereof to be attached to the records
after comparison with the originals;
(c) To ascertain from the parties the undisputed facts and
admissions on the genuineness and due execution of the
documents marked as exhibits;
(d) To require the parties to submit the depositions taken
under Rule 23 of the Rules of Court, the answers to
written interrogatories under Rule 25, and the answers to
request for admissions by the adverse party under Rule
26;
(e) To require the production of documents or things requested
by a party under Rule 27 and the results of the physical
and mental examination of persons under Rule 28;
(f) To consider such other matters as may aid in its prompt
disposition;
Rationale to the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases 17
RULE 4
TRIAL
RULE 5
RULE 6
PART III
SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS
RULE 7
WRIT OF KALIKASAN
RULE 8
PART IV
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
RULE 9
PROSECUTION OF OFFENSES
SECTION 1. Who may file.—Any offended party, peace officer
or any public officer charged with the enforcement of an
environmental law may file a complaint before the proper officer in
accordance with the Rules of Court.
30 A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC
RULE 10
RULE 11
ARREST
RULE 12
RULE 13
PROVISIONAL REMEDIES
RULE 15
RULE 16
PRE-TRIAL
RULE 17
TRIAL
RULE 18
SUBSIDIARY LIABILITY
RULE 19
stifle any legal recourse that any person, institution or the government
has taken or may take in the enforcement of environmental laws,
protection of the environment or assertion of environmental rights.
If the court denies the motion, the court shall immediately
proceed with the arraignment of the accused.
PART V
EVIDENCE
RULE 20
PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE
RULE 21
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
RULE 22
FINAL PROVISIONS
1
See HARALD HOHMANN, PRECAUTIONARY LEGAL DUTIES AND PRINCIPLES OF MODERN
INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAW 1-2 (1994).
40
Rationale to the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases 41
2 Id.
3 Id. (The anthropocentric approach calls for the preservation of nature to the extent
that it may continue to satisfy the needs of man, whereas the sustainability principle claims that
nature must also be maintained for its own sake and sustainable indefinitely spanning future
generations.).
4
Id.
5 Id.
6 Id.
7
Id. at 2.
42 A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC
8
Id.
9 Id. at 3.
10 Id. at 2-3.
11
Id. at 2.
12 Id. at 1.
13 Id. at 2.
14
Id.
15 Id.
Rationale to the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases 43
16
See e.g., Principle 15, U.N. Conference on Environment and Development, Rio de
Janeiro, Braz., June 3-14, 1992, Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, U.N.
Doc. A/CONF.151/26 (Vol. I) (Aug. 12, 1992) [hereinafter Rio Declaration].
44 A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC
19
Id.
20 Id.
21 Id. at 23 (enumerating the conventions where the principle is found in the preamble
and are thus non-binding insofar as the principle is concerned: 1980 Athens Protocol for the
Protection of the Mediterranean Sea against Pollution from Land-Based Sources and Activities
(as amended in Syracuse on 7 March 1996); the 1990 OPRC Convention; the 1992 Helsinki
Convention on the Transboundary Effects of Industrial Accidents; the 1993 Lugano Convention
on Civil Liability Damage Resulting From Activities Dangerous to the Environment; and the
2000 London Protocol on Preparedness, Response, and Co-Operation to Pollution Incidents by
Hazardous and Noxious Substances).
22 Id. (enumerating the conventions where the principle is found in operative provisions:
the 1985 ASEAN Agreement on the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources; the 1991
Convention on the Protection of the Alps; the 1992 Porto Agreement to establish the European
Rationale to the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases 45
Economic Area (EEA); the 1992 OSPAR Convention; the 1992 Helsinki Convention on the
Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses and International Lakes; the 1992 Helsinki
Convention on the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea Area; the 1994
Agreements concerning the Protection of the Scheldt and Meuse Rivers; the 1994 Convention
on Co-Operation for the Protection and Sustainable Use of the Danube River; the 1976 Barcelona
Convention for the Protection of the Mediterranean Sea against Pollution (as amended in 1995);
the 1996 London Protocol to the Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping
of Wastes and Other Matter; and the 1998 Rotterdam Convention on the Protection of the
Rhine).
23 Id. at 33-36.
24 Id.
25
Id. at 61.
26 Id.
27 Id. at 72.
28
Id. at 73.
29 Id.
46 A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC
30
Id. at 63.
31 Id. at 62 (describing the Trail Smelter case, wherein the Dominion of Canada was
held liable for a foundry’s causing of pollutants to be discharged in the atmosphere, and that it
had a duty to protect other states against injurious acts caused by individuals within its jurisdiction).
32
Id. at 18.
33 Id.
34 Id. at 3-4.
Rationale to the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases 47
There are three main purposes for environmental law under the
traditional approach:
1. protecting the safety and health of human beings from
harm and the risk of potential or impending harm;
2. assuring the general welfare of man (protection against
nuisance, fulfillment of recreational and esthetic needs,
etc.); and
3. protecting economic interests (especially in the fields of
agriculture, forestry, fish farming, energy production and
drinking water supply) from detrimental effects of
pollution.35
These purposes reflect important qualities: protecting man from
environmental harm and protecting the environment in such a way
that man’s interests (e.g. economic, esthetic) are not impeded. The
qualities reveal shades of the anthropocentric approach.
The more progressive paradigm is the modern resource-
economical and ecological approach. Under this approach, the
economic and esthetic interests of man are protected, but also
tempered with the protection of the environment through sustainable
use and optimal management of resources.36 In contrast to the
traditional approach, the modern resource-economical and ecological
approach reflects the sustainability principle. In this regard, the
survival of future generations is vital, demanding that environmental
protection be done in such a manner that guarantees sustainable use
of natural resources.37
Taking sustainability a step further, environmental law received
a boost from components of the international community. Yet
another, newer angle took into account the now recognized
intersection between environmental rights and human rights, which
aptly reflects the interdependent relationship of man and nature. In
1994, Fatma Zohra Ksentini, Special Rapporteur on Human Rights
and Environment finalized a seminal report entitled “Human Rights
35
Id. at 3.
36 Id. at 4.
37 Id.
48 A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC
Part I
40 Id. at 74.
41
HOHMANN, supra note 1, at 2-4.
Rationale to the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases 49
42
See e.g., Universal Declaration of Human Rights, G.A. Res. 217A (III), U.N. Doc.
A/810 (1948) (Although the Declaration itself is non-binding in nature, some international law
scholars believe that at least some of its principles have risen to the level of binding customary
international law.).
43 Id.
45
CONSTITUTION, Art. VIII, Sec. 5, par. (5) (“The Supreme Court shall have the following
powers…Promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights,
pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts…”).
46 Id.
47
The United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP) has a database of environmental
law instruments that date back to 1933 available at http://www.unep.org/Law/Law_instruments/
index.asp.
48 Sumudu Atapattu, The Right to a Healthy Life or the Right to Die Polluted?: The
49
Franz Perrez, Key Questions Concerning the Human rights and Environment Debate
– An Introduction, in HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE ENVIRONMENT: PROCEEDINGS OF A G ENEVA
ENVIRONMENT NETWORK ROUNDTABLE 4, (2004) [hereinafter Geneva Roundtable].
50 Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
51
Id.
52 A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC
52 Vid Vukasovic, Human Rights and Environmental Issues in HUMAN RIGHTS AND
SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT (1990) (A good number of human rights instruments
guarantee a human right to a healthy and safe environment, some of these are:
a. Universal Declaration of Human Rights: Articles 22, 25, and 27.
b. ICESC: Articles 1, 6, 7, 11, 12, 13, and 15.
c. Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women Articles
11 and 14.
d. Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination: Articles 2 and
5.
e. Convention on the Rights of the Child: Articles 24 and 27.
f. ILO Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention (No. 169): Article 7.).
53 See generally The National Human Rights Consultation – Engaging in the Debate
55
The Vietnam War exacted a huge toll on the economies of the world (as the US
suspended the convertibility of the dollar to gold in 1971), two massive oil shocks caused LDC
trade deficits to balloon, cracks in the welfare system first began to show in the West, and mass
marketing in cities, along with the break-up of the traditional family structure, produced
widespread alienation. Protests were rife – against the North-South divide, against the indifference
and cruelty of the ‘Establishment,’ against the conservatism of previous decades.
56 The United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, June 5-16, 1972.
57
The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCEP) June
3-14, 1992.
54 A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC
Naturally, one must always have in mind the other side of the
coin. Moreover, so-called soft law does not automatically mean
more regulation and further progress in the field. In some cases,
it leads to a proliferation of documents with very little or no
importance at all, and it could even hinder the process of legal
regulation. In other cases, however, including the fields of science,
technology, the environment and some other cognate domains, non-
58
G.A. Res. 3384, 10 November 1975 available at http://www2.ohchr.org/english/
law/mankind.htm.
Rationale to the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases 55
59
Draft Principles On Human Rights And The Environment, E/CN.4/Sub.2/1994/9,
Annex I (1994) available at http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/1994-dec.htm on 19 May
2009.
Rationale to the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases 57
61
Commonwealth Constitution, Chapter 2 section 24.
62 Constitution of October 4, 1958 available at http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/
english/8ab.asp.
63 Constitution of the Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste August 2001 available at
http://www.timor-leste.gov.tl/constitution/constitution.htm.
Rationale to the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases 59
1. T H E C O N S T I T U T I O N AND JURISPRUDENCE ON
ENVIRONMENTAL RIGHTS
67
See generally James R. May, Constituting Fundamental Environmental Rights
Worldwide, 23 PACE ENVIRONMENTAL LAW R EVIEW 173 (2005-2006) (listing countries whose
constitutions contained some reference to environmental protection treating environmental rights
as fundamental rights and referring to environmental rights as policy statements).
68 This section states:
The state shall protect and advance the right of the people to a balanced and healthful
ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature.
69 This section states:
The state shall protect and promote the right to health of the people and instill health
consciousness among them.
60 A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC
71
CONSTITUTION, Art. II, Sec. 10.
72 CONSTITUTION, Art. II, Sec. 11.
74
CONSTITUTION, Art. III, Sec. 1.
75 JOAQUIN G. BERNAS, S.J., THE 1987 CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES:
A COMMENTARY (2003).
76 IV R ECORD , C ONSTITUTIONAL C OMMISSION 688 (In response to the question of
Commissioner Bennagen if the state should make a conscious effort to enhance social, economic,
and political conditions in relation to human rights, Commissioner Nolledo replied, “….when
we talk of human rights, we talk of the whole gamut of human rights.”).
Rationale to the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases 61
78
Id.
62 A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC
79
Id. at 187.
80 G.R. No. 110120, March 16, 1994, 231 SCRA 292 (Balancing between the
responsibility of the city government to take care of its garbage and the right of the people
living near the dumpsite to a pollution-free environment, the Court ruled that the right to health
is a constitutionally enshrined right over which no impairment can be made. The Court further
said that the Philippines is a party to international instruments which recognizes the right to
health as a fundamental right.).
81
G.R. No. 158290, October 23, 2006, 505 SCRA 104 (This petition focuses on one
fundamental legal right of petitioners, their right to clean air. While the Court recognized the
right of the petitioner, it ruled, however, that the lack of legislation on the matter served as a
restriction on the prayer to grant mandamus.).
82 G.R. No. 156052, March 7, 2007, 545 SCRA 92 (The petitioners filed with the
Court an original action for mandamus praying to compel Manila Mayor Atienza to enforce
Ordinance No. 8027 which reclassifies certain portions of Pandacan and Sta. Ana from industrial
to commercial and directs businesses not falling under the following classifications to “cease
and desist from their operations” or relocate to another area. Among the businesses affected
were the oil terminals of Caltex, Petron, and Shell. The Supreme Court granted the petition
and ordered the immediate removal of the terminals of the said oil companies. The Court held
that “there is nothing that legally hinders [Mayor Atienza] from enforcing Ordinance No.
8027.).
Rationale to the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases 63
85
Id.
86 Id.
64 A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC
87 Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., Speech at the 3rd Annual Symposium on the
Confluence of Human Rights and the Environment: Manila Bay: A Daunting Challenge in
Environmental Rehabilitation and Protection (February 20, 2009).
88
Id.
Rationale to the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases 65
89 Ysmael vs. Deputy Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 79538, October 18, 1990.
90 Republic vs. Marcopper, G.R. 137174, July 10, 2000; Laguna Lake Development
Authority vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. 120865-71, December 7, 1995; Pollution Adjudication
Board, vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 93891, March 11, 1991; Technology Developers. Inc.
vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 94759, January 21, 1991.
91
Loney vs. People, G.R. No. 152644, February 10, 2006; Mustang Lumber, Inc. vs.
Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 104988, June 18, 1996 (The Court boldly stated that, “The
Government must not tire in its vigilance to protect the environment by prosecuting without fear
or favor any person who dares to violate our laws for the utilization and protection of our
forests.”).
92
Social Justice Society, et al. vs. Atienza, Jr., G.R. No. 156052, March 7, 2007;
Taño vs. Socrates, G.R. No. 110249, August 21, 1997).
93
Province of Rizal vs. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 129546, December 13, 2005.
66 A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC
96
See e.g., Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727 (1972).
97 Id.
99
Oposa v. Factoran, Jr., supra note 77.
100 Id. at 802-803; See also Henares, et al. v. LTFRB, supra note 81.
102
Id.
68 A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC
SECTION 41. Citizen Suits. — For purposes of enforcing the provisions of this
Act or its implementing rules and regulations, any citizen may file an appropriate
civil, criminal or administrative action in the proper courts against:
(a) Any person who violates or fails to comply with the provisions of this Act or its
implementing rules and regulations; or
(b) The Department or other implementing agencies with respect to orders, rules
and regulations issued inconsistent with this Act; and/or
(c) Any public officer who willfully or grossly neglects the performance of an act
specifically enjoined as a duty by this Act or its implementing rules and
regulations; or abuses his authority in the performance of his duty; or, in any
manner, improperly performs his duties under this Act or its implementing
rules and regulations: Provided, however, That no suit can be filed until after
thirty-day (30) notice has been given to the public officer and the alleged violator
concerned and no appropriate action has been taken thereon.
The court shall exempt such action from the payment of filing fees, except fees for
actions not capable of pecuniary estimations, and shall, likewise, upon prima facie showing
of the non-enforcement or violation complained of, exempt the plaintiff from the filing of
an injunction bond for the issuance of a preliminary injunction.
Within thirty (30) days, the court shall make a determination if the complaint herein
is malicious and/or baseless and shall accordingly dismiss the action and award attorney’s
fees and damages.
104 This section provides:
SECTION 52. Citizen Suits. — For purposes of enforcing the provisions of this
Act or its implementing rules and regulations, any citizen may file an appropriate
civil, criminal or administrative action in the proper courts/bodies against:
Rationale to the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases 69
(a) Any person who violates or fails to comply with the provisions of this Act or its
implementing rules and regulations; or
(b) The Department or other implementing agencies with respect to orders, rules
and regulations issued inconsistent with this Act; and/or
(c) Any public officer who willfully or grossly neglects the performance of an act
specifically enjoined as a duty by this Act or its implementing rules and
regulations; or abuses his authority in the performance of his duty; or, in any
manner, improperly performs his duties under this Act or its implementing
rules and regulations: Provided, however, That no suit can be filed until after
thirty-day (30) notice has been given to the public officer and the alleged violator
concerned and no appropriate action has been taken thereon.
The Court shall exempt such action from the payment of filing fees and shall, likewise,
upon prima facie showing of the non-enforcement or violation complained of, exempt the
plaintiff from the filing of an injunction bond for the issuance of a preliminary injunction.
In the event that the citizen should prevail, the Court shall award reasonable attorney’s
fees, moral damages and litigation costs as appropriate.
105 Trent A. Dougherty, et al., Environmental Enforcement and the Limits of Cooperative
Federalism: Will Courts Allow Citizen Suits to Pick up the Slack? 20 DUKE ENVTL. L. & POL’Y
F. 1, 10 (2010).
106
Id. at 11.
70 A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC
107 Cass R. Sunstein, What’s Standing After Lujan? Of Citizen Suits, “Injuries,” and
Article III, 91 MICH. L. REV. 163, 183-184 (1992); See also Matthew D. Zinn, Policing
Environmental Regulatory Enforcement: Cooperation, Capture, and Citizen Suits 21 STAN.
ENVTL. L.J. 81, 83 (2002).
108
Barry Boyer & Errol Meidinger, Privatizing Regulatory Enforcement: A Preliminary
Assessment of Citizen Suits under Federal Environmental Laws, 34 BUFF. L. REV. 833, 843-844
(1985).
109 Id.
110
Dougherty, et al., supra note 105, at 15.
111 Id.
113
Id. at 949.
Rationale to the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases 71
1. CIVIL CASES
116 Id.
117
Id. at 954.
118 Id., at 955.
2. CRIMINAL CASES
from judgment.
122 RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CASES, Rule 3.
123
RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CASES, Rule 4, Sec. 2.
124 RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CASES, Rule 4, Sec. 5.
125 RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CASES, Rule 16.
Rationale to the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases 73
126
RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CASES, Rule 17, Sec. 2.
127 RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CASES, Rule 17, Sec. 4.
128 RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CASES, Rule 14.
129
RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CASES, Rule 14, Sec. 2.
130 RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CASES, Rule 7, Sec. 5.
131 RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CASES, Rule 7, Sec. 11.
132
RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CASES, Rule 7, Sec. 15.
133 RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CASES, Rule 7, Sec. 9.
134 RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CASES, Rule 7, Sec. 11.
74 A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC
C. CONSENT DECREE
135
RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CASES, Rule 8, Sec. 5.
136 Robert V. Percival, The Bounds of Consent: Consent Decrees, Settlements and
Federal Environmental Policy Making, 1987 U. CHI. LEGAL F. 327, 331 (1987).
137 David L. Callies, The Use of Consent Decrees in Settling Land Use and
Environmental Disputes, 21 STETSON L. REV. 871, 873 (1992) (citing settlement through consent
decrees of several cases in the United States).
138
William B. Johnson, Propriety of Negotiated Settlements in Government Cleanup
Actions under Federal Hazardous Waste Statutes, 114 A.L.R. Fed. 1.
139
Id.
140 Id.
141 Id.
Rationale to the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases 75
D. REMEDIAL MEASURES
Adjudication in the Philippines, 52 ATENEO L.J. 744 (2008); See, e.g. U.S. v. The Boc Group,
Inc., 2007 EPA Consent LEXIS 35 (W.D.W. 2007); U.S. v. Davis, et al. 1998 EPA Consent
LEXIS 80 (D.R.I. 1998).
143 Judge Harry Pregerson, The Freeway with a Heart: My Life as a Consent Decree
145
RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CASES, Rule 7, Rule 1, Sec. 4 par. e.
76 A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC
153
See also S.P. Sathe, Judicial Activism in India, 6 WASH. U. J. L. POL’Y 29 (2001).
154 M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, 4 SCC 463 (1987).
157
MMDA v. Concerned Residents of Manila Bay, supra note 84, at 693-697.
78 A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC
3. WRIT OF KALIKASAN
158
CONSTITUTION, Art. VIII, Sec. 5, par. 5.
159 Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno, Speech at the University Convocation and Presentation
of the 2007 Outstanding Silliman University Law Alumni Association (SULAW) Award to
Prof. Rolando V. del Carmen and 19th SULAW General Assembly and Alumni Homecoming:
No Turning Back on Human Rights (August 25, 2007).
Rationale to the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases 79
162
The foundation of the doctrine on transboundary environmental harm first received
international attention in the Train Smelter case. According to Stephen Wood, “Trail Smelter is
revered in that young field as the germ from which the entire law of transboundary environmental
harm sprang. It is remembered as the earliest articulation of two core principles of international
environmental law: that states have a duty to prevent transboundary environmental harm, and
that they have an obligation to pay compensation for the harm they cause.”
163 See generally, HENK FOLMER & IGNAZIO MUZU, ENVIRONMENTAL AND RESOURCES
ECONOMICS 102-116 (1992).
164 RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CASES, Rule 7, Sec. 3.
80 A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC
the writ adds weight to the operative provisions for the implementation
of the procedural environmental rights of access to information,
participation in decision-making and access to justice and indicates
that such procedural rights are not ends in themselves, but are
meaningful precisely as means towards the end of protecting the
individual’s substantive right to live in a healthy environment.
165
DE SADELEER, supra note 17, at 150.
166 Id. at 151.
167 Id.
168
Id. at 152.
169 Id. at 153.
82 A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC
170
Id. at 23.
171 Id. at 61.
173
Cass R. Sunstein, Irreversible and Catastrophic, John M. Olin Law & Economics
Working Paper No. 242, 2d series at 8 (2005).
174
Id.
Rationale to the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases 83
176
No. VII., Ministerial Declaration, Second International Conference on the Protection
of the North Sea.
177
Article 3, No. 3, U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change.
178 The Wingspread Consensus Statement on the Precautionary Principle.
179 Id.
180
Id.
84 A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC
181
Sunstein, supra note 183 at 8 (citing B JORN L O M B O R G , T HE S KEPTICAL
ENVIRONMENTALIST 348 (2001)).
182
Id. (quoting the testimony of Dr. Brent Blackwelder, President, Friends of the
Earth, before the Senate Appropriations Committee, Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human
Services (Jan. 24, 2002)).
183 Id. at 9.
Rationale to the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases 85
184 United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) World
Commission on the Ethics of Scientific Knowledge and Technology (COMEST) published March
2005.
86 A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC
185 Notably, the definition also lays down the scope of the principle.
important because it shifts the burden of proof from the “regulator to the person responsible for
the harmful activity.” Principle 3, “the “burden of proof” is shifted from the regulator to the
person or persons responsible for the potentially harmful activity, who will now have to
demonstrate that their actions are not/will not cause harm to the environment.”
Rationale to the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases 87
187 See Edward W. Mcbride, The Empire State SLAPPs Back: New York’s Legislative
Response to SLAPP Suits, 17 VT. L. REV. 925 (1993) (SLAPP was initially analyzed by Penelope
Canan and George W. Pring of the University of Denver).
188
Id. at 926.
189 See Sheri Coover, The 2nd Annual Goddard Forum Symposium: Global Warming:
Causes, Effects and Mitigation Strategies for States and Localities, 12 PENN ST. ENTL. L. REV.
263, 264 (2004).
190
Id. at 263.
88 A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC
191 See First Amendment, The Constitution of the United States of America.
193
See Coover, supra note 199, at 267-68 (Footnote 23 states: “The Noerr-Pennington
doctrine is based on two Supreme Court cases - Eastern R.R. Presidents Conference v. Noerr
Motor Freight, Inc., 365 U.S. 127 (1961) and United Mine Workers v. Pennington, 381 U.S.
657 (1965). Although both of these cases dealt with anti-trust litigation, the Noerr-Pennington
doctrine has been extended to protect other action in which a citizen or organization petitions
the government. Barnes Found v. Township of Lower Merion, 927 F. Supp 874 at 876 (E.D.
Pa. 1996).”)
194 See Mcbride, supra note 197, at 927.
196
Id.
Rationale to the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases 89
197 See Oregon Anti-SLAPP Law - Title 3. Remedies and Special Actions and
Proceedings, Chapter 31. Tort Actions, Special Motion to Strike, ORS § 31.150 (2007).
198 Northon v. Rule, 494 F. Supp. 2d 1183, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51537 (D. Or.
Participation (SLAPP) suits by governmental entities prohibited, Fla. Stat. §768.295 (2009).
90 A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC
202 See e.g., Title 9. Courts and Civil Procedure Generally, Chapter 33. Limits on
Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation, R.I. Gen. Laws §9-33-2 (2009).
203 See Oregon Anti-SLAPP Law.
204
See Coover, supra note 199, at 277-78.
205 See Oregon Anti-SLAPP Law, at par. (4).
206 Osborn and Thaler, Feature: Maine’s Anti-SLAPP Law: Special Protection Against
Improper Lawsuits Targeting Free Speech and Petitioning, 23 MAINE BAR J. 32, 34 (2008).
207 Id.
Rationale to the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases 91
208 Id.
209
See Exercise of rights of freedom of speech and right to petition government for
redress of grievances; legislative findings; verification of claims; definitions; procedure on
motions; exception; attorney’s fees and expenses, §O.C.G.A. 9-11-11.1 (2009).
210 Id.
211
Id.
212 Id.
213 Id.
214
Oregon Anti-SLAPP Law, at par. (3).
215 Id.
216 Id.
92 A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC
insofar as the SLAPP plaintiff has the burden of proving that the
defendant’s petition was a sham petition and thus did not qualify for
immunity.217 In both these examples, the burden-shifting aspect is
that which makes the Anti-SLAPP motion to dismiss different from
the motion to dismiss falling under the normal rules of civil procedure.
The Washington Anti-SLAPP law provides for a more definitive
burden of proof for the SLAPP plaintiff in a defamation suit. It
states that the defamed party must show by clear and convincing
evidence that the defendant did not act in good faith when alleging
a SLAPP.218 In contrast, the Anti-SLAPP law in Georgia suggests
that neither party has the burden of proof on a motion to dismiss or
strike under its Anti-SLAPP law “because this issue is a matter of
law for the trial court’s determination based upon the pleadings
rather than upon evidence presented by either party.” 219
A “SLAPP-back” is a method for a party targeted by an alleged
SLAPP, to counter that SLAPP by instituting his or her own SLAPP.
Some jurisdictions such as Oregon, California, and Rhode Island
have Anti-SLAPP-back provisions that provide for damages to be
awarded to a plaintiff who successfully debunks the assertion that
his or her claim was a SLAPP action.220 In Oregon, the court can
direct a defendant found to have brought a frivolous Anti-SLAPP
motion to strike to pay reasonable costs and attorney fees to the
plaintiff defending against the motion.221 In California, the court is
authorized to direct costs against a defendant if it is found that the
motion to strike was merely made to cause delay. 222 Other
jurisdictions, such as Pennsylvania do not have such provisions.
As a matter of policy, Rhode Island does not allow SLAPP-
Backs, as they find the ruling on a motion to dismiss (with its
218 See Gilman v. MacDonald, 74 Wn. App. 733, 875 P.2d 697, review denied, 125
Wn.2d 1010, 889 P.2d 498 (1994); Right-Price Recreation, LLC v. Connells Prairie Cmty.
Council, 146 Wn.2d 370, 46 P.3d 789 (2002).
219 Browns Mill Dev. Co. v. Denton, 247 Ga. App. 232, 543 S.E.2d 65 (2000), aff’d,
221 Id.
222
Id.
Rationale to the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases 93
223
See Palazzo v. Alves, 944 A.2d 144, 2008 R.I. LEXIS 33 (R.I. 2008).
224 See Stetson, Mamie, Reforming SLAPP Reform: New York’s Anti-SLAPP Statute,
226 Id.
227
Coover, supra note 199, at 268 (citing Prof’l Real Estate Investors, Inc. v. Columbia
Pictures Indus., Inc., 508 U.S. 49, 60-62 (1993)).
228
Id.
94 A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC
229 Id.
231
Id. at 279.
232 Id. at 279-280.
234
Georgia Anti-SLAPP Law, at par. (f).
235 See Palazzo, at 33.
Rationale to the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases 95
237 Id.
238
Id.
239 Florida Anti-SLAPP Law, at par. (6).
240 Id.
241
See Hagemann v. Berkman Wynhaven Assoc., L.P., 290 Ga. App. 677, 660 S.E.2d
449 (2008).
96 A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC
H. ADMISSION OF EVIDENCE
VI. CONCLUSION
243
Id.
244 Id.
246
Id., at par. (5)(b).
Rationale to the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases 97
247 Forum Bulletin, Day 1, Public Information Office, Supreme Court of the Philippines.