TOWARD ACCESS TO ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE: THE 2010 RULES OF

PROCEDURE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CASES

By: Cheryl L. Daytec-Yangot1

I. Legal Framework for Environmental Justice

A. International Conventions and Declarations
B. 1987 Constitution, Section 16, Article II
1. A self-enabling provision
C. Statutes
D. Administrative Issuances

II. Legal and Philosophical Underpinnings of Judicial Role in Enforcement of

Environmental Justice
1987 Constitution
Johannesburg Principles
Oposa v. Factoran, 224 SCRA 792 (1993)
Article VIII of the Philippine Constitution-Rule-making power
Principle 10 of the Rio Declaration

III. Objectives of Rules

IV. Scope of Rules
A. Nature of Actions Covered
1. Civil cases
2. Criminal cases
3. Special civil actions
a. Writ of Kalikasan
b. Writ of Continuing Mandamus
MMDA v. Concerned Residents
M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, 4 SC 463 (1987)
B. Laws Covered

1. Environmental laws, rules and regulations

a. Constitution
b. Statutes
c. International agreements
d. LGU Ordinances
e. Administrative issuances
2. Other related laws, rules and regulations
3. Causal Link Consideration
Paje v Casino, G.R. No. 207257 (2015)

V. Innovations

A. Liberalized standing
1. Minors as parties
2. The unborn as parties
Oposa v. Factoran, 224 SCRA 792 (1993).

1 201213 Hubert Humphrey Fellow, University of Minnesota Law School, Minneapolis, Minnesota;
2009-2011 Open Society Justice Initiative Fellow; Asst. Secretary General for Research and Founding
Member, National Union of Peoples Lawyers, Philippines. A lecturer, human rights activist, litigator,
and poet, Ms. Daytec-Yagot holds B.A.C., LL.B., M.M. and LL.M. degrees.
 Arigo v Swift, G.R. No. 206510 (2014)
3. Actio Popularis
See, De Nieuwe Meer Case, SupremeCourt of the Netherlands, 17 June 1986
4. Citizens Suit
Also see: Sec. 41, Philippine Clean Air Act; and Sec. 52, Ecological
Solid Waste Management Law
5. Right of Non-humans to sue
Resident Marine Mammals , v. Secretary, , G.R. No. 180771 ( 2015)
B. Docket fee and TEPO bond
a. For civil environmental cases
b. For Kalikasan cases

Also see, Sec. 41, Philippine Clean Air Act; Sec. 52, RA 9003

C. Summary Proceedings

1. 1year Trial
2. Prohibited Pleadings
3. Affidavits in lieu of Direct Examination
4. Extensive PreTrial; In Criminal Cases
5. Trial in absentia
D. The Use of Precautionary principle
E. Availability of Environmental Protection Order (EPO).
1. Temporary EPO
2. Permanent EPO
3. Compared to PD 1818 and Republic Act No. 8975
F. Prohibition against temporary restraining order (TRO)
and preliminary injunction for government enforcement of envi laws
G. Government consent decree-Requirement of consent by concerned
government agencies in case of plea bargaining
H. Provision on Strategic Legal Action Against Public Participation (SLAPP)
See also, Sec. 53, RA 9003; Sec 43, Clean Air Act
I. Submission of Memoranda through email

VI. Special Civil Actions

A. Writ of Kalikasan
1. Special Features
2. Procedure
3. Ultimate Reliefs
B. Writ of Continuing Mandamus
1. Special Features
2. Procedure
3. Ultimate Reliefs
C. Writ of Kalikasan vs. Continuing Mandamus
1. Subject matter
2. Who may file
3. Respondent
4. Venue
5. Discovery Measures
6. Damages for Personal Injury

VII. Causes of Action/Defenses in Environmental Cases

A. Environmental Damage
1. actual or threatened, or real or imminent (Kalikasan cases)
2. linked or with nexus to, e.g.:
a. No approval of concerned Sanggunian
Sec. 27, RA 7160
Lina, Jr. v. Hon. Pao, 416 Phil. 438 (2001).
Bangus Fry Fisherfolk v Lanzanas, G.R. No. 131442 (2003)
b. No public consultations
Sec. 2(c), 26, RA 7160
c. No Environmental Impact Assessment
Republic v Davao City, G.R. No. 148622 (2002)
PD 1586, in relation to PD 1151 and Letter of Instruction No. 1179
d. Invalid, defective ECC
Paje v Casino, G.R. No. 207257 (2015)
e. No fencing/building permit
h. No EGGAR
i. No Free, Prior, Informed, Consent
i. No Certification Precondition
j. No tree-cutting permits
k. No development permit
l. No Social Acceptability of Project
Sec 2 (c), RA 7160
Boracay v Aklan, G.R. No. 196870 (2012)

B. Defenses, e.g.:
1. Non-exhaustion of administrative remedies
2. Private property rights
3. State immunity from suit
Arigo v Swift, G.R. No. 206510 (2014)
4. No causal link between violation of law and environmental damage
Paje v Casino, G.R. No. 207257 (2015)
5. Another tribunal has primary jurisdiction