The Writ of Kalikasan

Rucheska N. Jacinto

From the highest law of the land to the statutes and even local government orders, it is evident that
environmental protection is quickly manifesting itself in the Philippine legal system. Article II, Section 16 of the
1987 Constitution provides that: “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.” This self-executing provision is only
present in the current constitution for the 1935 and 1973 constitutions do not contain a provision about
environmental protection. Therefore, one can see how the legislature is responding to today’s climate crisis—by
enacting a plethora of laws and regulations guided by the constitutional state policy on the right to a balance and
healthful ecology.1 These laws and regulations include the Solid Waste Management Act, The Clean Air Act, and
the Mining Act among others, all of which cater mainly to environmental protection. These laws are then executed
by the Executive Department.

Aside from legislative enactment and execution by the executive, the state policy is also clearly applied in
the judiciary. The Writ of Kalikasan 2 is one of two3 remedies that one can bring before to the court if he or she has
experienced any environmental wrong by the inaction of the government or even a private person. This article aims
to give a comprehensive discussion of this remedy which is the first of its kind.

Defining the Writ

The Tagalog word, “Kalikasan”, literally translates to “nature” in English. While a writ is “an order or
mandatory process in writing issued in the name of the sovereign or of a court or judicial officer commanding the
person to whom it is directed to perform or refrain from performing an act specified therein”. 4 Therefore the legal
meaning of the “Writ of Kalikasan” is “a remedy available to a natural or juridical person, entity authorized by law,
people’s organization, non-governmental organization, or any public interest group accredited by or registered with
any government agency, on behalf of persons whose constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology is
violated, or threatened with violation by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or private
individual or entity, involving environmental damage of such magnitude as to prejudice the life, health or property
of inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces” 5

By this definition, one can tell the requisites of filing a petition for a “Writ of Kalikasan”, which are:
1. There is an actual or threatened violation of the constitutional right to a balanced
and healthful ecology;
2. The actual or threatened violation arises from an unlawful act or omission of a
public official or employee, or private individual or entity; and
3. The actual or threatened violation involves or will lead to an environmental
damage of such magnitude as to prejudice the life, health or property of inhabitants
in two or more cities or provinces.6

Authors have emphasized that this is an extraordinary remedy that one must take only if the environmental
damage is of such magnitude as to prejudice the life, health, or property of inhabitants in two or more provinces or
cities.7 Therefore, these requisites must be strictly complied with.

The first requisite is that there should be “an actual or threatened violation of the constitutional right to a
balanced and healthful ecology”. This requisite is very broad as the word “actual” and “threatened” can be open to
various interpretations. However, the “precautionary principle” 8 will allow a better understanding of this requisite.
This principle tells us that if there is uncertainty, the possibility of irreversible harm, and the possibility of serious
harm, the case must be resolved in favor of a balanced and healthful ecology. 9 Thus, for as long as these requisites
of the precautionary principle are present, one can file such petition provided that the other requisites are present.

1
Section 16, Article II, 1987 Constitution
2
Writ of Kalikasan; https://www.lawphil.net/courts/supreme/am/am_09-6-8-sc_2010.html
3
NOTE: The other being the Writ of Continuing Mandamus
4
Merriam Webster dictionary https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/writ
5
Rule 7, Section 1 of “The Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases”, AM 09-6-8 https://www.lawphil.net/courts/supreme/am/am_09-6-
8-sc_2010.html
6
Segovia vs The Climate Change Commission, GR: 211010, March 7, 2017
7
Annotation to the Rules of Procedure in Environmental Cases, no author, Philippine Law Journal
http://philja.judiciary.gov.ph/files/learning_materials/A.m.No.09-6-8-SC_annotation.pdf
8
RULES OF PROCEDURE IN ENVIRONMENTAL CASES, RULE 20, PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE
SEC. 1. Applicability – When there is a lack of full scientific certainty in establishing a causal link between human activity and environmental
effect, the court shall apply the precautionary principle in resolving the case before it. The constitutional right of the people to a balanced and
healthful ecology shall be given the benefit of the doubt.
9
Ibid 14, page 159
 The second requisite pertains to who the case should be filed against. It must be noted that said respondent
may either be a public officer, public employee, or even a private person.

The third requisite requires the magnitude of the damage. The damage or possible damage must affect two
or more cities or provinces. If such magnitude is not reached, then other remedies that the petitioner can avail of
could be to file a complaint for the violation of the specific law involved or to file a petition for the writ of
continuing mandamus.

Relevant Jurisprudence

To be able to file an environmental case and to petition for the issuance of a Writ of Kalikasan and
Temporary Environmental Protection Order (TEPO), the petitioners must be proven to have legal standing. In the
case of Arigo vs Swift10

“Petitioners claim that the grounding, salvaging and post-salvaging operations of the
USS Guardian cause and continue to cause environmental damage of such magnitude
as to affect the provinces of Palawan, Antique, Aklan, Guimaras, Iloilo, Negros
Occidental, Negros Oriental, Zamboanga del Norte, Basilan, Sulu, and Tawi-Tawi,
which events violate their constitutional rights to a balanced and healthful ecology.
They also seek a directive from this Court for the institution of civil, administrative
and criminal suits for acts committed in violation of environmental laws and
regulations in connection with the grounding incident.”11

The court defined Locus Standi in relation to the said Writ in its ruling thereby setting in stone the
requirements for a Party to such action:

“Locus standi is "a right of appearance in a court of justice on a given

question." Specifically, it is "a party's personal and substantial interest in a case where
he has sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result" of the act being challenged,
and "calls for more than just a generalized grievance." However, the rule on standing is
a procedural matter which this Court has relaxed for non-traditional plaintiffs like
ordinary citizens, taxpayers and legislators when the public interest so requires, such as
when the subject matter of the controversy is of transcendental importance, of
overreaching significance to society, or of paramount public interest.” 12

This ruling was rendered with reference to its earlier ruling in the case of Oposa v. Factoran:

“In the landmark case of Oposa v. Factoran, Jr., we recognized the "public right" of
citizens to "a balanced and healthful ecology which, for the first time in our
constitutional history, is solemnly incorporated in the fundamental law." We declared
that the right to a balanced and healthful ecology need not be written in the Constitution
for it is assumed, like other civil and polittcal rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, to
exist from the inception of mankind and it is an issue of transcendental importance with
intergenerational implications.1âwphi1 Such right carries with it the correlative duty to
refrain from impairing the environment.

On the novel element in the class suit filed by the petitioners minors in Oposa, this
Court ruled that not only do ordinary citizens have legal standing to sue for the
enforcement of environmental rights, they can do so in representation of their own and
future generations.”13

In view of the aforecited ruling, it may be inferred that the Plaintiffs in a petition for the issuance of the writ are the
so-called “non-traditional” plaintiffs in that direct damage is not a necessary requisite to seek relief under the vested
right to a balanced and healthful ecology. The writ itself may issue upon the petition of a party or parties who
sufficiently proves that there was indeed a violation of the constitutional right even in representation of future
generations.

There are some instances however, where the writ was previously issued and subsequently reversed by the
Supreme Court. Such an instance presented itself in the case of International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-
Biotech Applications, Inc., v. Greenpeace Southeast Asia et al. whereby Greenpeace Southeast Asia and the other
respondents claimed that the trials being conducted on bio-engineered eggplants violated their constitutional right to
a healthful and balanced ecology as, among other reasons, there was no independent, peer-reviewed study showing
the same as healthy for human consumption.14

10
G.R. No. 206510, 16 September 2014
11
Ibid.
12
Id. 24
13
Id. 24
14
International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications, Inc. v. Greenpeace Southeast Asia, G.R. No. 209271, July 26, 2016
 In the said case, the Court of Appeals granted the petition citing the precautionary principle in that actions
should be taken to avoid or diminish the threat of human activities that may lead to serious or irreversible damage to
the environment, even if such damage is uncertain, where the same is scientifically plausible. The Supreme Court
earlier ruled upholding the ruling of the lower court stating that when in doubt, cases must be resolved in favor of
the constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology.

However, the permits issued by the Bureau of Plant Industry (BPI) and other government agencies to
conduct the contested testing of the crops had already expired prior to the issuance of the Court’s ruling. As such,
Motions for Reconsideration were filed by the Petitioners seeking the dismissal of the case for mootness. The
Supreme Court then reversed its decision and ruled dismissing the Respondent’s claims for mootness:

“Accordingly, the Court is not empowered to decide moot questions or abstract

propositions, or to declare principles or rules of law which cannot affect the result as to
the thing in issue in the case before it. In other words, when a case is moot, it becomes
non-justiciable.

…Therefore, it was improper for the Court to resolve the merits of the case which
had become moot in view of the absence of any valid exceptions to the rule on
mootness, and to thereupon rule on the objections against the validity and
consequently nullify DAO 08-2002 under the premises of the precautionary
principle.

…All told, with respondents' petition for Writ of Kalikasan already mooted by the
expiration of the Biosafeoty Permits and the completion of the field trials subject of these
cases, and with none of the exceptions to the mootness principle properly attending, the
Court grants the instant motions for reconsideration and hereby dismisses the aforesaid
petition. With this pronouncement, no discussion on the substantive merits of the same
should be made…”15

Conclusion

The Writ of Kalikasan is a unique remedy considered the first of its kind in the world. It is a unique action
for instances provided under the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases along with Environmental Protection
Orders, citizen’s suits, and the Writ of Continuing Mandamus. These actions would be the resort of individuals who
seek to prevent environmental damage of such magnitude as to prejudice the life, health, or property of inhabitants
in two or more cities or provinces.

However, it is a sad reality in today’s society that the justice system, while surely upholding the principles
of equity and justice, does so slowly due to a variety of factors. As a result, meritorious cases may often find
themselves set aside or dismissed for mootness as the issues raised thereon have already passed long before the
issuance of any decision or ruling to be able of any merit. In such cases, it must be noted that there are many
alternative modes to seek and obtain relief and should urgent instances present themselves, these alternative modes
should be resorted to rather than subject the claimant to lengthy litigation.

While this may not entirely address each and every concern brought about by prospective claimants, it is an
important step in the evolution of our legal system to ensure that the same keeps up with the times and the ever-
changing landscape of today.

15
Ibid. 28