ENVIRONMENTAL AND NATURAL RESOURCES LAW

A. CONSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK

ARTICLE II – DECLARATION OF STATE POLICIES

Section 16. The State shall protect and advance the right of the
people to balanced and healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm
and harmony of nature.

OPOSA v. FACTORAN

Facts:

The minor plaintiffs, represented by their parents, filed a complaint

against the Secretary of Department of Environment and Natural
Resources. In their complaint, the plaintiffs, among others, alleged that
the adverse and detrimental consequences of continued deforestation to
the plaintiff minor’s generation and to generations yet unborn are evident
and incontrovertible—this, according to them, violated their constitutional
right to a balanced and healthful ecology. Furthermore, they averred that
the continued allowance by the DENR to TLA holders to cut and deforest
the remaining forest stands will work great damage and irreparable injury
to plaintiff—especially plaintiff minors and their successors—who may
never see, use, benefit from and enjoy this rare and unique natural
resource treasure.

The defendant, on the other hand, moved for the dismissal of the
complaint on the ground that the plaintiffs have no cause of action against
him. The lower court granted the motion to dismiss, ruling that the
plaintiffs have no cause of action, among others.

Hence, this petition.

The petitioners contend that the complaint clearly and unmistakably

states a cause of action as it contains sufficient allegations concerning
their right to a sound environment based on Article 19, 20, and 21 of the
Civil Code, Section 4 of EO No. 192, and Section 16, Article II of the 1987
Constitution recognizing the right of the people to a balanced and
healthful ecology.

On the other hand, the respondents aver that the petitioners failed to
allege in their complaint a specific legal right violated by the respondent
Secretary for which any relief is provided by law.

Issue/s:
 1. Whether or not the plaintiffs have a legal standing to file a class suit
2. Whether or not the petitioners have a cause of action

Held:

LEGAL STANDING:

The Court held that the petitioners can, for themselves, for others of their
generation and for the succeeding generations, file a class suit. Their
personality to sue in behalf of the succeeding generations can only be
based on the concept of intergenerational responsibility insofar as the
right to a balanced and healthful ecology is concerned. Such a right
considers the “rhythm and harmony of nature. Nature means the created
world in its entirety. Such rhythms and harmony indispensably include the
judicious disposition, utilization, management, renewal and conservation
of the country’s forest, mineral, land, waters, fisheries, wildlife, off-shore
areas and other natural resources to the end that their exploration,
development, and utilization be equitably accessible to the present as well
as future generations. Needless to say, every generation has a
responsibility to the next to preserve that rhythm and harmony for the full
enjoyment of a balanced and healthful ecology. Put a little differently, the
minors’ assertion of their right to a sound environment constitutes, at the
same time, the performance of their obligation to ensure the protection of
that right for the future generations to come.

CAUSE OF ACTION

The Court held that the petitioners have a cause of action. The complaint
focuses on one specific fundamental legal right— the right to a balanced
and healthful ecology which is solemnly incorporated in the fundamental
law. Sec. 16, Article II of the 1987 Constitution explicitly provides:

Sec. 16. The State shall protect and advance the right of the people
to a balanced and healthful ecology in accord to the rhythms and
harmony of nature.

Sec. 15. The State shall protect and promote the right to health of
the people and instill health consciousness among them.

While the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is to be found under

the Declaration of Principles and State Policies and not under the Bill of
Rights, it does not follow that it is less important than any of the civil and
political rights enumerated in the latter. Such right belongs to a different
category of rights altogether for it concerns nothing less than self-
preservation and self-perpetuation.
As a matter of fact, these basic rights need not even be written in the
Constitution for they are assumed to exist from the inception of
humankind.

DELA CRUZ v. MANILA ELECTRIC CO.

Facts:

In 2001, the Ninoy Aquino Int’l Airport Terminal III’s operator, the
Philippine International Air Terminals Co., Inc (PIATCO), applied for electric
service with the MERALCO, herein respondent.

To fully operate, NAIA III required the construction of a nearby power

substation, as well as the installation of transmission lines, to carry
electricity to the substation. MERALCO determined that the most feasible
route for the transmission lines would be through 10 th and 11th Streets in
Brgy. 183, Zone 20, Villamor, Pasay City.

MERALCO commenced the excavation works along the said streets,

however, said excavation works were suspended when, upon the
complaint of some residents of the affected barangay, the City
Engineering Office of Pasay issued a cease and desist order.

In the said complaint, some residents of Barangay 183 filed a petition for
issuance of Writ of Prohibitory Injunction before the RTC of Pasay, claiming
that the installation of transmission lines near their residences impinged
on their right to health under Section 15, Article II of the Constitution.

However, upon the petition of herein defendant MERALCO, the lower court
issued an order commanding the City Engineering Office to lift the said
cease and desist order. Thus, MERALCO resumed the installation works in
Brgy. 183, and completely installed the transmission lines on November
2010.

Gemma dela Cruz, with the other residents of Brgy. 183 and of the
adjacent Magallanes Village in Makati City, filed before the appellate court
a Petition for the Issuance of a Writ of Kalikasan with prayer for issuance
of a temporary environmental protection order. They averred that the
installation of the transmission lines near their homes endangered their
health and safety.

The CA denied Dela Cruz et al.’s Petition for Issuance of a Writ of

Kalikasan. It held that Dela Cruz et al. erred in filing the Petition for the
Issuance of a Writ of Kalikasan to protect their right to health. According
to the CA, the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases is clear that a
writ of kalikasan only covers the right to a balanced and healthful ecology,
an entirely different right from the right to health.

Further, it stated that the writ of kalikasan relates primarily to the

protection of the environment under the precept that the destruction of
the environment contributes greatly to the destruction of the people’s life,
property and/or health. Hence, the Rules require that a petition for
issuance of a writ of kalikasan contain an allegation of the environmental
laws allegedly violated or are threatened to be violated.

Hence, this petition.

Arguments:

Petitioners Defendants

[Topic: Sec. 16, Article II) [No Cause of Action]

Citing Oposa v. Factoran and MERALCO submits that the Petition

Laguna Lake Dev’t Authrity v. CA, failed to state a cause of action. In
they argue that the constitutional its view, a writ of kalikasan does
right to a balanced and healthful not cover the right to health as it is
ecology is but an offshoot of the an independent and separate
right to health. They claim that the constitutional right from the right
concomitant obligation to protect to a balanced and healthful
the environment emanates from ecology. Thus, the privilege of the
the State’s duty to promote and writ of kalikasan should not be
protect the health of its granted.
constituents. Therefore, the writ of
kalikasan, which protects the right MIAA: no environmental law was
to a balanced and healthful violated in this case. MERALCO
ecology, necessarily covers complied with the requirements
violations of the right to health. under the Environment Impact
System, and was issued
[Topic: Precautionary Principle] environmental compliance
certificates by the DENR.
Due to the installation of
transmission lines, the right of the
residents was allegedly violated.
These transmission lines,
according to the petitioners,
produce a prolonged exposure to
electromagnetic fields, which have
been found to increase the risk of
developing leukemia and other
cancer-related disorders in
children.

Given that the studies cited by the

petitioners could not determine—
because of limitations in
methodology—the exact causal
link between exposure to
electromagnetic fields and the
dev’t of cancer in children, they
pray that the Court apply the
precautionary principle.

Under Rule 20, Section 1 of the

Rules of Procedure for
Environmental Cases on the
application of the precautionary
principle as a rule of evidence, the
constitutional right to a balanced
and healthful ecology should be
given the benefit of the doubt, and
that a lack of full scientific
certainty in establishing a causal
link between human activity and
environmental effect should be
resolved in favor of protecting the
environment.

Issue/s:

1. Whether or not the installation of transmission lines in

Barangay 183 violated petitioners’ right to a balanced and
healthful ecology, entitling petitioners to any of the reliefs
granted under a writ of kalikasan; and
2. Whether or not the precautionary principle applies in this
case.

Whether or not the installation of transmission lines in Barangay

183 violated petitioners’ right to a balanced and healthful
ecology, entitling petitioners to any of the reliefs granted under a
writ of kalikasan.

Held: No. A suit for the issuance of the writ of kalikasan is a special civil
action. The writ of kalikasan is extraordinary in nature and is issued not
only when there is actual violation of the constitutional right to a balanced
and healthful ecology. Threat of violation through unlawful act is enough,
whether the threat be committed by a natural or juridical person, or a
public or private person or entity.

Moreover, the Court ruled that in order for the Court to grant the privilege
of a writ of kalikasan, three requisites must be satisfied.

1. The petitioner must sufficiently allege and prove “the actual or

threatened violation of the constitutional right to balanced and
healthful ecology”;
2. The actual or threatened violation must arise from an unlawful act
or omission of a public official or employee, or private individual or
entity;
3. The actual or threatened violation must involve or must be shown to
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.

In the case at bar, the petitioners failed to discharge the required burden
of proof. Specifically, they only complied with the first requisite for the
issuance of a writ of kalikasan, and failed to satisfy the second and third
requisites.

Article II

Section 15. The State shall protect and promote the right to health of the
people and instill health consciousness among them.

Section 16. 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.

The rights provided in the above-cited constitutional provisions are

actionable in and of themselves, and while appearing in separate
constitutional provisions, the rights to health and to a balanced and
healthful ecology are inextricably linked.

A petition for the issuance of a writ of kalikasan may be brought if actual

or threatened violation to the right to health may be proved.

In the case at bar, the petitioners satisfied the first requisite in arguing
that the electromagnetic fields emitted by high-tension wires allegedly
cause leukemia in children, petitioners allege a threatened violation of the
right to health of the children in their barangays. As discussed, the right to
health is intrinsic in the right to a balanced and healthful ecology
protected by the writ of kalikasan.
Whether or not the precautionary principle applies in this case.

Held: NO. The Court ruled that the precautionary principle does not apply
in the case at bar.

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 is given the benefit of the doubt.

Sec. 2. Standards for Application. – In applying the precautionary

principle, the following factors, among others, may be considered:
(1) threats to human life or health; (2) inequity to present and future
generations; or (3) prejudice to the environment without legal
consideration of the environmental rights of those affected.

In sum, the Court rules that the precautionary principle does not apply
precisely because regulatory precautions have already been taken. It is
not uncertain that exposure to high-frequency electromagnetic fields has
health effects, with some studies even claiming that electromagnetic
fields cause leukemia in children.

PTK2 H2O CORP. v. CA

Facts: Tagaytay City Water District (TCWD) entered into a water supply
contract with petitioner PTK2 H2O Corp. (PTK2) for the supply of
3,600,000 cubic meters or water annually to the TCWD for a period of 20
years. The volume of water supply was dramatically increased over the
next months from the time the parties entered into the agreement, with
the permission of the National Water Resources Board.

PTK2 mainly sourced out the water from 4 major rivers, namely, Lambak,
Indang, Saluysoy, and Ikloy, all located in Indang, Cavite. Considering the
increase of the demand of water supply under the contract, PTK2 applied
for and was granted Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC) by the
DENR. However, the ECC covered the Ikloy River only, and was limited to
a maximum capacity of 20,000 cubic meter per day.

PTK2 then started with the construction of intake structure in Ikloy River.
However, on July 2014, the RD of DENR CALABARZON issued a
Memorandum recommending that PTK2 temporarily cease in the
construction of the project and pay penalty for alleged violations of the
conditions and restrictions of its ECC.

Private respondents, on the other hand, the Indang residents and other
environment conservation groups vehemently protested the project and
made a strong stand against it. In fact, a study prepared by Prof. Sedigo of
Cavite State University concluded that the project was not
environmentally sound. Further, the respondents cite the writings of
Wright and Nebel on environment and sustainability which advocate a
maximum threshold of thirty percent (30%) of the surface water flow for
appropriation. The water permits granted to PTK2, however, allow the
extraction of more than the said threshold quantity.

Thus, premised on these factors, private respondents filed a Petition for

Writ of Kalikasan (with Prayer for TEPO) against PTK2, NWRB, TCWD, and
DENR, praying that the CA order PTK2 and TCWD to permanently cease
and desist from extracting water from the Ikloy, Lambak, and Saluysoy
rivers as well as from undertaking construction works within the vicinity,
and for said entities to protect, preserve, rehabilitate, or restore Ikloy
River and the affected areas in Brgy. Kayquit II, Indang, Cavite.

The CA granted the petition and issued a Writ of Kalikasan with TEPO
directing PTK2 and TCWD to cease and desist from extracting water from
Ikloy, Indang, Lambak, and Saluysoy rivers, from excavating, cutting
trees, and/or undertaking related construction works, and from
implementing and/or executing any and all acts in furtherance of the
challenged contracts and activities, among others.

In sum, the CA found that, based on evidence, the allowed harvest of

surface water at the particular site of Ikloy River is not sustainable and
may even serve to disrupt and prejudice the water needs of other places
of Cavite.

The CA likewise denied PTK2’s MR, and held that the constitutional right of
the people to a balanced and healthful ecology must be given preference
and sustained over PTK2’s bare assertion that the project will be
beneficial, as this latter posture is in stark contrast with studies conducted
by private respondents’ witnesses.

Hence, this petition.

Issue:

Whether the CA erred in granting the writ of kalikasan

Held:
The Court ruled in favor of the respondents and upheld the ruling of the
Court of Appeals, that the requirements for the grant of the privilege of
the writ of kalikasan were sufficiently established.

Under Section 1 of Rule 7 of RPEC, the following requisites must be

present to avail of this extraordinary remedy:

1. There is an actual or threatened violation of the constitutional right

to balanced and healthful ecology”;
2. The actual or threatened violation must arise from an unlawful act
or omission of a public official or employee, or private individual or
entity;
3. The actual or threatened violation must involve or must be shown to
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.

Expectedly, the Rules do not define the exact nature or degree of

environment damage but only that it must be sufficiently grave, in terms
of the territorial scope of such damage, so as to call for the grant of this
extraordinary remedy. The gravity of environmental damage sufficient to
grant the writ is, thus, to be decided on a case-to-case basis.

In the case at bar, the Court is convinced from the evidence on record
that private respondents have sufficiently established the aforementioned
requirements for the grant of the privilege of the writ of kalikasan.

The first and second requisites are present. There is a threatened violation
of the constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology arising from
the irregularities committed by the government agencies involved in the
approval of the project and from the acts of PTK2.

For one, PTK2’s commitment to provide TCWD 50,000 cubic meters of

water per day EXCEEDS the maximum volume allowed to be harvested
under the permits from NWRB. Likewise, the same violates the ECC issued
to PTK2 which covered only the Ikloy River and for the extraction of only
20,000 cubic meters a day.