ENVIRONMENTAL

REMEDIES
SPECIAL REMEDIES
• One of the primary objectives of the recently promulgated Rules of
Procedure for Environmental Cases is “to protect and advance the
constitutional right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology.”
• Thus, the said Rules seek to provide special remedies which are peculiar to
environmental cases, given the unique nature of these cases. The remedies
are intended to address the problems encountered by both the
government and the private individuals or entities who handle
environmental cases.

• This chapter will discuss the novel judicial remedies provided for under the
Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases. A brief background will
precede each discussion, followed by a step-by-step guide in pursuing each
special remedy.
A. Strategic Lawsuit Against Public
Participation
• Brief Overview

• Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP) cases are

instituted to claim damages from non-governmental individuals or
groups as an obstacle to the speedy resolution of the cases instituted
by these entities to enforce a right or to vindicate a wrong. It also has
the purpose of augmenting litigation costs and expenses to the
prejudice of the petitioning party.
• The special remedy against SLAPP suits was originally based on the
United States Constitution’s First Amendment which provides for the
right of freedom of speech and the right to petition the government
to redress grievances of a public matter.

• Prior to the promulgation of the Rules of Procedure for Environmental

Cases, two laws have been issued containing provisions against SLAPP
cases. The first one is the Philippine Clean Air Act which was passed
into law on June 23, 1999. Section 43 of the said law provides:
• SEC. 43. Suits and Strategic Legal Actions Against Public Participation
and the Enforcement of this Act. – Where a suit is brought against a
person who filed an action as provided in Section 41 of this Act, or
against any person, institution or government agency that
implements this Act, it shall be the duty of the investigating
prosecutor or the court, as the case may be, to immediately make a
determination not exceeding thirty (30) days whether said legal
action has been filed to harass, vex, exert undue pressure or stifle
such legal recourses of the person complaining or enforcing the
provisions of this Act. Upon determination thereof, evidence
warranting the same, the court shall dismiss the case and award
attorney’s fees and double damages
• This provision shall also apply and benefit public officers who are
sued for acts committed in their official capacity, there being no grave
abuse of authority, and done in the course of enforcing this act.”
• SEC. 53. Suits and Strategic Legal Action Against Public Participation
(SLAPP) and the Enforcement of this Act – Where a suit is brought
against a person who filed an action as provided in Section 52 of this
Act, or against any person, institution or government agency that
implements this Act, it shall be the duty of the investigating
prosecutor or the Court, as the case may be, to immediately make a
determination not exceeding thirty (30) days whether said legal
action has been filed to harass, vex, exert undue pressure or stifle
such legal recourses of the person complaining or enforcing the
provisions of this Act. Upon determination thereof, evidence
warranting the same, the Court shall dismiss the case and award the
attorney’s fees and double damages.
• This provision shall also apply and benefit public officers who are
sued for acts committed in their official capacity, there being no grave
abuse of authority, and done in the course of enforcing this Act
2. SLAPP Defined
• As defined in the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases, a
SLAPP refers to any “action whether civil, criminal or administrative,
brought against any person, institution or any government agency or
local government unit or its officials and employees, with the intent
to harass, vex, exert undue pressure or stifle any legal recourse that
such person, institution or government agency has taken or may take
in the enforcement of environmental laws, protection of the
environment or assertion of environmental rights.”
• A SLAPP suit may come in a variety of forms either as a legal action or
a claim, counterclaim or a cross-claim.
3. Using SLAPP as a Defense
• SLAPP can be used as a defense in an environmental case when a
person, institution or government agency has taken or may take any
legal recourse for the following purposes:
• a. Enforcement of environmental laws; b. Protection of the
environment; or
• c. Assertion of environmental rights.
Procedure for Using SLAPP as a Defense in a
Civil Case
• The first step to defeat a SLAPP in an environmental case is to file an
answer and interpose as a defense the ground that the case is a SLAPP.
The answer must contain the following:
• a. Supporting documents, affidavits, papers, and other evidence
establishing that the case filed is a SLAPP suit; and
• b. Prayer for damages, attorney’s fees, and costs of suit, by way of
counterclaim
• The other party will then be directed to file an opposition, within five
(5) days from receipt of notice that an answer has been filed,
showing:

• a. The suit is not a SLAPP; and

• b. Supporting evidence. The period within which the opposition

should be filed is non-extendible
• After the issuance of an order to file an opposition, the court shall set
the defense of SLAPP for a summary hearing within fifteen (15) days
from the filing of the comment, or the lapse of the period to do so.
Both parties shall submit evidence supporting their respective
positions:
Procedure for Using SLAPP as a Defense in a
Criminal Case
• There is a slight difference in the procedure of using the special
remedy of SLAPP in criminal cases vis-à-vis in civil cases. The
determining factor on what procedure to use depends on whether
the SLAPP is a criminal or civil action
• The accused in a SLAPP must file a motion to dismiss based on the
ground that the criminal action is a SLAPP after the information has
been filed, but prior to his arraignment. Afterwards, a summary
hearing shall be set by the court to resolve the motion to dismiss. The
required degree of evidence shall be the same as that in a summary
hearing for the defense of SLAPP in a civil case.
• The court shall resolve the motion to dismiss by either granting such
motion, or denying it. The motion to dismiss shall be granted if the
court finds that the criminal case is a SLAPP – that is, it has been filed
with intent to harass, vex, exert undue pressure or stifle any legal
recourse that is taken, or is to be taken to enforce environmental laws,
protect the environment, or to assert environmental rights. If the
court finds otherwise, the court shall proceed with the arraignment of
the accused
Writ of Kalikasan
• There is an increasing awareness of the need to protect the
environment and conserve the finite resources of the Earth. In fact,
the urgent call for the preservation of the environment was
recognized by the international community as early as June 16, 1972
during the Stockholm Declaration. After almost two decades, the
Stockholm Declaration was reaffirmed by the Rio Declaration
• From Principle 1, it can be inferred that the right to a healthful
environment is a recognized principle of international law. This is also
reiterated in Principle 1 of the Rio Declaration: “Human beings are at
the center of concerns for sustainable development. They are entitled
to a healthy and productive life in harmony with nature.”
Nature of the Writ of Kalikasan
• The Writ of Kalikasan is an extraordinary remedy which may be issued
depending on the magnitude of the environmental damage.
• The environmental damage must be one which prejudices the life,
health or property of inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces,
or that which transcends political and territorial boundaries
• It is also a remedy which enforces the right to information by
compelling the government or a private entity to produce information
regarding the environment that is within their custody
Persons Who May File a Petition for a Writ of
Kalikasan
• The Writ of Kalikasan may be availed of by any of the following:
• a. Natural or juridical persons;
• b. Entities authorized by law; or
• c. People’s organizations, non-governmental organizations, or any
public interest group accredited by or registered with any government
agency.
• The petition must be “on behalf of persons whose constitutional right
to a balanced and healthful ecology is violated” and involving
environmental damage that injures the life, health or property of
inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces
4. Persons Against Whom a Petition for a Writ
of Kalikasan is Filed
• As mentioned in the foregoing paragraphs, the Writ of Kalikasan may
be applied against:
• a. The government, as represented by a public official or employee; or
b. A private individual or entity
Courts Where the Petition for a Writ of
Kalikasan is Filed
• The petition is filed either with (a) the Supreme Court; or (b) any
station of the Court of Appeals.The rationale for this is that the
jurisdiction of both tribunals is national in scope which corresponds
with the magnitude of the environmental damage contemplated by
the Rules.
Procedure for the Issuance of a Writ of
Kalikasan
• The petitioner shall file his application for a Writ of Kalikasan with the
proper tribunal as specified in the preceding paragraph. The filing of
a petition for the writ does not preclude the filing of separate civil,
criminal or administrative actions, as discussed in the preceding
chapter. The petitioner does not need to pay docket fees.

• While this is similar to the rule on filing fees for civil and criminal
cases under the Rules, the exemption from payment of docket fees
under this remedy is a necessary consequence of the fact that no
award of damages to private individuals can be made under the writ
• In comparison to civil or criminal cases under the Rules of Procedure,
the filing fees need not be paid at the time of filing but the same shall
be imputed from the award of damages that may be given to the
complainant in the judgment.
• The petition shall contain the following:
• a. The personal circumstances of the petitioner;
• b. The name and personal circumstances of the respondent or if the
name and personal circumstances are unknown and uncertain, the
respondent may be described by an assumed appellation
• c. The environmental law, rule or regulation violated or threatened to
be violated, the act or omission complained of, and the
environmental damage of such magnitude as to prejudice the life,
health or property of inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces;
• d. All relevant and material evidence consisting of the affidavits of
witnesses, documentary evidence, scientific or other expert studies,
and if possible, object evidence;
• e. The certification against forum-shopping;
• f. The reliefs prayed for which may include a prayer for the issuance
of a TEPO.
• If the petition is sufficient in form and substance, the court shall issue
an order within three (3) days from the filing of the petition,
containing the following:
• (a) issuing the writ; and
• (b) requiring the respondent to file a verified return. It may also
include such temporary reliefs that the court may deem sufficient.
• The writ shall then be served on the respondent personally, or
through substituted service if the former cannot apply. If a clerk of
court unduly delays or refuses to issue the Writ of Kalikasan, or a
court officer or deputized person unduly delays or refuses to serve
the same, the court shall punish the offending persons with contempt.
This is without prejudice to civil, criminal, or administrative actions
that may be taken against them
The respondent’s verified return must be filed within a non-
extendible period of ten (10) days from the service of the writ.
It shall contain the following
• a. All defenses which show that the respondent did not violate, or
threaten to violate, or allow the violation of any environmental law,
rule or regulation or commit any act resulting to environmental
damage of such magnitude that transcends political and territorial
boundaries, otherwise, defenses not raised in the return are deemed
waived;

• b. Affidavits of witnesses, documentary evidence, scientific or other

expert studies, and if possible, object evidence supporting the
respondent’s defense
• Upon receipt of the respondent’s return, a preliminary conference
may be held by the court in order to
• (a) simplify the issues;
• (b) obtain stipulations or admissions from the parties; and
• (c) set the petition for hearing.
Both the hearing and the preliminary conference shall not extend
beyond 60 days from the filing of the petition.
C. Writ of Continuing Mandamus
• On December 18, 2008, the Supreme Court promulgated a landmark decision in
the case of Metropolitan Manila Development Authority v. Residents of Manila
Bay.

• In this case, the Supreme Court played a large role in the urgent call for the
clean-up of Manila Bay. The examination of Manila Bay revealed that it had fecal
coliform in the amounts ranging from 50,000 to 80,000 most probable number
(MPN) per 1 ml, which is way above the prescribed safe level of 200 MPN per 100
ml.
• The Regional Trial Court (RTC) ordered several executive agencies to clean up the
Bay and perform their mandates with respect to the rehabilitation of the Bay.
Among these agencies were: the Department of Environment and Natural
Resources (DENR), the Philippine Ports Authority (PPA), the Metropolitan Manila
Development Authority (MMDA), the Philippine Coast Guard (PCG), and the
Philippine National Police (PNP) Maritime Group.
• From the RTC’s decision, the petitioners appealed to the Court of
Appeals (CA) contending, among other things:
• (1) that there are no funds allocated for the cleaning of the Manila
Bay;
• (2) that there should be a specific pollution incident, instead of a
general one, before they are required to act; and
• (3) that the order of the RTC to rehabilitate the Bay is not compellable
by mandamus. Nonetheless, the RTC decision was sustained by the
CA and later on by the Supreme Court.
Writ of Continuing Mandamus Defined
• According to the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases, a Writ
of Continuing Mandamus is “a writ issued by a court in an
environmental case directing any agency or instrumentality of the
government, or officer thereof to perform an act or series of acts
decreed by final judgment which shall remain effective until judgment
is fully satisfied.”
Grounds to Avail of a Writ of Continuing
Mandamus
• A person may file a verified petition for a Writ of Continuing Mandamus
when any of the following instances are present:
• (1) When the respondent either:

• a. Unlawfully omits to perform a duty specifically enjoined by law, arising

from an office, trust or station, in relation to the enforcement or violation
of an environmental law, rule or regulation or a right therein; or

• b. Unlawfully excludes another from the use or enjoyment of such right;

and
(2) There is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary
course of law.
Person Who May File a Petition for a Writ of
Continuing Mandamus
• Any person personally aggrieved by the unlawful act or omission.
Persons Against Whom a Petition for a Writ of
Continuing Mandamus is Filed
• A petition is filed against any agency, instrumentality of the
Government, or an officer thereof.

• In comparison to a petition for a Writ of Kalikasan, this special

remedy is not available against any private individual or entity
Court Where the Petition for a Writ of
Continuing Mandamus is Filed
• A petition for a Writ of Continuing Mandamus may be filed with the
following courts:
• a. Regional Trial Court that has territorial jurisdiction over the
unlawful act or omission;
• b. Court of Appeals; or
• c. Supreme Court.
Procedure for the Issuance of a Writ of
Continuing Mandamus
• The petitioner shall file his application for a Writ of Continuing Mandamus
with the proper venue as specified in the preceding paragraph. No docket
fees shall be paid
• The petition should be verified, and shall include the following:
• a. Allegation of facts;
• b. Supporting evidence;
• c. That the petition concerns environmental law, rule or regulation;
• d. Prayer that the judgment shall direct the respondent to do an act or
series of acts until the judgment is fully satisfied;
• e. That damages shall be paid to the petitioner for the injury suffered by
reason of the unlawful act or omission of the respondent; and
• f. A sworn certification against non-forum shopping.
• If the petition is sufficient in form and substance, the court shall
• (1) issue the Writ of Continuing Mandamus; and
• (2) require the respondent to comment on the petition within ten
(10) days from receipt of a copy thereof.
• The court may also issue a Temporary Environmental Protection Order
(TEPO) for two reasons:
• (1) to expedite the proceedings; and
• (2) to preserve the rights of the parties pending litigation.

• The Environmental Protection Order (EPO) shall be further discussed

later on in this chapter
• The court shall set the petition for a summary hearing or require the
parties to file their respective memoranda after (1) the respondent
files his comment; or (2) the period for the filing of the comment has
already expired
• After hearing, judgment shall be rendered within sixty (60) days from
the date of submission of the petition for resolution. The court may
either
• (1) grant the privilege of the Writ of Continuing Mandamus; or
• (2) deny the petition. Should the court grant it, the respondent shall
be required to perform an act or series of acts and to satisfy other
reliefs as may be warranted.
• To ensure compliance with the judgment, the respondent shall also
submit periodic reports that shall describe the manner and progress
of the execution of the judgment.
• These periodic reports shall be contained in partial returns of the
Writ of Continuing Mandamus.
• A final return of the Writ of Continuing Mandamus shall be
submitted by the respondent once the judgment is fully satisfied
• The court may also evaluate and monitor compliance with the Writ of
Continuing Mandamus, and the petitioner may comment on the
respondent’s satisfaction of the judgment. Upon submission of the
final return of the writ, the court shall enter the satisfaction of the
judgment on the court dockets
Environmental Protection Order
• The Supreme Court introduced the Environmental Protection Order
(EPO) in the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases in order to
respond to the peculiar nature of an environmental case which often
necessitates immediate action in order to avoid further
environmental damage, or to prevent an imminent environmental
threat
• In other countries, the EPO is a remedy established through a
legislative act. The Environmental Protection Act of 1994 in
Queensland, Australia was enacted in order to “protect Queensland’s
environment while allowing for development that improves the total
quality of life, both now and in the future, in a way that maintains the
ecological processes on which life depends
Environmental Protection Order Defined
• According to the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases, an EPO
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.”

• The EPO performs a similar function as a prohibitory or mandatory

injunction, but the EPO specifically applies to environmental cases.
Procedure for the Issuance of a Temporary
Environmental Protection Order (TEPO)
• The TEPO is a remedy available for both civil and criminal
environmental cases.
• Since the procedure for the issuance of a TEPO in a criminal case is
similar to a civil case, the procedure that will hereinafter be discussed
shall apply to both civil and criminal cases
• The TEPO may also be availed of under the Writ of Kalikasan and the
Writ of Continuing Mandamus, as a relief or as a means of expediting
the proceedings and preserving the rights of the parties
The TEPO can be availed of when all of the
following are present
• (1) The matter is of extreme urgency; and
• (2) The applicant will suffer grave injustice and irreparable injury.
• The first step is for the applicant to file a verified complaint which
shall contain the following:
• (1) All the supporting evidence proving his cause of action;
• (2) A statement that it is an environmental case, and the law involved;
(3) Sworn certification against forum shopping; and
• (4) A prayer for the issuance of an EPO
• If the court where the complaint is filed finds that the issuance of the
TEPO is warranted, as when the matter is of extreme urgency and the
applicant will suffer grave injustice and irreparable injury, a TEPO may
be issued ex parte which shall be effective for 72 hours from the date
of the receipt of the TEPO by the party enjoined.
• No bond shall be required for the issuance of TEPO.
• Afterwards, a summary hearing shall be conducted in order to
determine whether an extension of the TEPO is warranted until the
termination of the case.
• The court shall also periodically monitor whether the acts which
warranted the TEPO still exists, and may lift the TEPO should the
circumstances permit.
• The issuance of a TEPO ex parte is an exception to the general
requirement of due process which requires the other party to be
heard.
• For this reason, the Supreme Court laid down the following
procedural safeguards: (1) limiting the period of effectivity which is
seventy-two (72) hours; and (2) constant monitoring of the existence
of acts subject matter of the TEPO.
• After the hearing, the court may dissolve the TEPO when it finds that
its “issuance or continuance would cause irreparable damage to the
party or person enjoined while the applicant may be fully
compensated for such damages as he may suffer.”

• The person or party enjoined must file a sufficient bond to answer

for the damages that the applicant may suffer
• The judge shall thereafter report any action on the TEPO to the
Supreme Court within ten (10) days from the action taken. The report
shall be made to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA)
Preliminary Injunction
• According to the Rules of Court, a preliminary injunction is an “order
granted at any stage of an action or proceeding prior to the judgment
or final order, requiring a party or a court, agency or a person to
refrain from a particular act or acts. It may also require the
performance of a particular act or acts, in which case it shall be
known as a preliminary mandatory injunction

• It is an ancillary remedy for the purpose of preserving the status quo

or preventing future violations of a right, and protecting and
preserving the interests of the parties during the pendency of an
action
Grounds for the Issuance of a Preliminary
Injunction
• The following are the grounds for the issuance of a Preliminary Injunction:
• That the applicant is entitled to the relief demanded, and the whole or part
of such relief consists in restraining the commission or continuance of the
act or acts complained of, or in requiring the performance of an act or acts,
either for a limited period or perpetually;
• b. That the commission, continuance or non-performance of the act or acts
complained of during the litigation would probably work injustice to the
applicant; or
• c. That a party, court, agency or a person is doing, threatening, or is
attempting to do, or is procuring or suffering to be done, some act or acts
probably in violation of the rights of the applicant respecting the subject of
the action or proceeding, and tending to render the judgment ineffectual.
Procedure for the Grant of a Preliminary
Injunction
• A verified application for a Preliminary Injunction must be filed with
the court where the action is pending.

• “If the action or proceeding is pending in the Court of Appeals or in

the Supreme Court, it may be issued by said court or any member
thereof.
The application for the issuance of a Preliminary Injunction or
Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) must meet the following
requirements:
• a. The application must be verified;

• b. The application must state the facts which entitle the applicant to
the relief demanded; and

• c. The application must be accompanied by a bond, in the amount

fixed by the court, to answer for any and all damages which the
respondent may sustain by reason of the injunction or TRO
• After the payment of the bond, the injunction or TRO shall be issued.
If the application is included in an initiatory pleading, the case shall
be raffled after notice to the adverse party and in the adverse party’s
presence
• The notice shall be preceded or accompanied by the following:
• a. Service of summons, except when any of the following
circumstances are present:
• i. The summons could not be served personally or by substituted
service despite diligent efforts; or
• ii. The adverse party is a Philippine resident temporarily absent
therefrom; or
• iii. The adverse party is a non-resident.
• b. Copy of the complaint or initiatory pleading;
• c. Applicant’s affidavit; and d. Applicant’s bond.
• A summary hearing shall be conducted by the court within twenty-four (24)
hours after the sheriff’s return of service and/or the records are received
by the branch selected by raffle.

• The requirement of hearing and prior notice to the adverse party is

indispensable, unless “it shall appear from [the] facts shown by [the]
affidavits or by the verified application that great or irreparable injury
would result to the applicant before the matter can be heard on notice, the
court to which the application for preliminary injunction was made, may
issue ex parte a temporary restraining order to be effective only for a
period of twenty (20) days from service on the party or person sought to
be enjoined, except as herein provided.”
• During the 20-day period, the court, through an order, shall give the
adverse party the opportunity to be heard to show cause why the
injunction should not be granted.999 The court shall also determine
whether or not the preliminary injunction shall be granted

• The executive judge of a multiple-sala court, or a presiding judge of a

single-sala court may also issue ex parte a TRO effective for seventy-
two (72) hours, if the matter is of extreme urgency and the applicant
will suffer grave injustice or irreparable injury
• Within the said 72-hour period, the judge shall conduct a summary
hearing in order to determine whether the TRO can be extended until
the hearing for the application for preliminary injunction.
• The total period within which a TRO shall be effective is twenty (20)
days, including the first 72-hour period. In instances where the Court
of Appeals issues the TRO, it shall be effective sixty (60) days from
service to the adverse party; if the Supreme Court issues the TRO, it
shall be effective until further orders
• Thus, the following are the non-extendible periods within which the
TRO is effective:
• a. Lower court where the action is pending – total of twenty (20) days
including the 72-hour period.
• b. Court of Appeals – sixty (60) days from service to the adverse party.
c. Supreme Court – until further orders.

• The TRO shall be deemed automatically vacated when the application

for injunction is not resolved within the prescribed periods
• The court may resolve the application by either
• (1) granting the application for Preliminary Injunction; or
• (2) denying or dissolving the injunction or TRO
• The court may deny the application for Preliminary Injunction based
on the following grounds:
• a. Upon showing of its insufficiency;
• b. Upon affidavits of the party or person enjoined;
• c. Upon showing that “the issuance or continuance thereof, as the
case may be, would cause irreparable damage to the party or person
enjoined while the applicant can be fully compensated for such
damages as he may suffer, and the former files a bond in an amount
fixed by the court conditioned that he will pay all damages which the
applicant may suffer by the denial or the dissolution of the injunction
or restraining order;”
• d. Upon showing that the extent of the Preliminary Injunction or TRO
is too great, it may be modified
Final Injunction
• A final injunction may be granted when the court finds after trial that
the applicant is entitled to have the unlawful act or omission
permanently enjoined. It shall perpetually restrain the adverse party
from committing the acts complained of
Prohibition in Relation to the Enforcement of
Environmental Laws
• The Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases provide that “except
the Supreme Court, no court can issue a TRO or writ of preliminary
injunction against lawful actions of government agencies that enforce
environmental laws or prevent violations thereof.”

• This section is premised on the regularity of performance of the

government agency’s functions in fulfilling its mandate to enforce
environmental laws, while the issuance of a TEPO is premised on the
violation of an environmental law, not only by a government agency,
but by a private entity as well.
• This general rule admits of an exception but the applicant must be
able to “overcome the presumption of regularity in the performance
of a duty” by the public respondent