Writ of Kalikasan

Question 1

To whom is a Writ of Kalikasan available?

Answer 1

This is a remedy available to a

what kind of person:
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

what was violated: constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology is violated, or threatened with violation

how is the right viol8d: by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or private individual or entity,

what does it involve: involving environmental damage of such magnitude as to prejudice the life, health or property of inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces. (Sec. 1, Rule 7, A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC, Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases)

Question 2

Give the requisites for the writ to be issued:

Answer 2

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. (Segovia v. Climate Change)

Question 3

Carless People of the Philippines and Car-owners. They claim that they are entitled to the issuance of the extraordinary writs of Kalikasan and Mandamus due to the alleged failure and refusal of Climate Change Commission to implement the Road Sharing Principle, an act mandated by environmental laws, and violation of environmental laws resulting in environmental damage of such magnitude as to prejudice the life, health and property of all Filipinos. Should the writ of Kalikasan and Mandamus be issued to the petitioners?

Answer 3

NO. The petitioners failed to establish the requisites for the issuance of the writs prayed for.

With regard to the Writ of Kalikasan, apart from the repeated invocation of the constitutional right to health and to a balanced and healthful ecology and bare allegations that their right was violated, the petitioners failed to show that public respondents are guilty of any unlawful act or omission that constitutes a violation of the petitioners’ right to a balanced and healthful ecology.

Petitioners have not been able to show that respondents are guilty of violation or neglect of environmental laws that causes or contributes to bad air quality.

Question 4

Other grounds in Segovia v. Climate Change Commission.

Answer 4

First, the petitioners failed to prove direct or personal injury arising from acts attributable to the Climate Change Commission to be entitled to the writ.

Second, the Road Sharing Principle is merely a principle. It cannot be considered an absolute imposition to encroach upon the province of the Commission to determine the manner by which this principle is applied in their policy decisions.

Mandamus lies to compel the performance of duties that are purely ministerial in nature, not those that are discretionary. (Victoria Segovia et. al. v.. The Climate Change Commission)