Cheryl L. Daytec-Yañgot: Cordillera Indigenous Peoples Legal Center (Dinteg)
Cheryl L. Daytec-Yañgot: Cordillera Indigenous Peoples Legal Center (Dinteg)
Cheryl L. Daytec-Yañgot: Cordillera Indigenous Peoples Legal Center (Dinteg)
by
CHERYL L. DAYTEC-YAGOT
Cordillera Indigenous Peoples Legal
Center
(DINTEG)
THE WRIT OF
KALIKASAN:
NORMATIVE
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE is now a recognized
human right at this time that the planet is facing an
FOUNDATIONS
ecological timebomb with threats of environmental
disaster in different parts of the globe.
WE DO NOT
INHERIT THE LAND
FROM OUR
ANCESTORS; WE
BORROW IT FROM
OUR CHILDREN.- A
proverb common to indigenous peoples
OBJECTIVES OF THE
OF
KALIKASAN
1. WRIT
Protection and
promotion
of constitutional right to
CONSTITUTIONAL
FRAMEWORK
RIGHT TO A BALANCED AND
HEALTHFUL
ECOLOGY
(Sec. 16, Art. 2 of Phil. Consti.) The state shall advance
the right of the people to a balanced and healthful
ecology in accordance with the rhythm and harmony of
nature
RULE ON WRIT OF
KALIKASAN
Where Rule is found: It is incorporated as Rule VII of
RULE ON WRIT OF
Respondent: A public official or employee, or private
KALIKASAN
individual or entity.
Contents of Petition:
(1) Name/s and personal circumstances of petitioner/s,
and of respondent/s who if unknown and uncertain,
may be described under assumed appellation;
(2) The environmental law, rule or regulation violated or
threatened to be violated , the act or omission
complained of, and the environmental damage
sustained.
(3) Evidence to be attached: affidavits of witnesses,
documentary evidence, scientific or other expert
studies, and object evidence;
(4) The certification of non-forum shopping
(5) The reliefs prayed for which may include a prayer for
the issuance of a Temporary Protection Order
RULE ON WRIT OF
When is a Temporary Environmental Protection
KALIKASAN
Order (or TEPO, which is equivalent to the
TRO in ordinary jurisprudence) available? In
case of extreme urgency and the applicant will suffer
grave injustice and irreparable injury, the court may
issue ex parte a TEPO effective for only seventy-two
(72) hours from date of the receipt of the TEPO by the
party or person enjoined. Within said period, the court
where the case is assigned shall conduct a summary
hearing to determine whether the TEPO may be
extended until the termination of the case.
The court should periodically monitor the existence of
acts which are the subject matter of the TEPO, the
TEPO can being lifted anytime as the circumstances
may warrant.
RULE ON WRIT OF
KALIKASAN
RULE ON WRIT OF
Why prohibit certain
Prohibited
Pleadings:
KALIKASAN
pleadings? To expedite
A motion for
intervention is not a
prohibited pleading.
Thus, any interested
party may file such a
motion which affirms
the public interest
nature of the Writ of
Kalikasan, a remedy
which a large segment
of the community may
wish to avail of.
RULE ON WRIT OF
Filing of Pleading: Personal filing, filing by
KALIKASAN
RULE ON WRIT OF
KALIKASAN
Ultimate Reliefs to be prayed for/ granted:
Permanent Cease and Desist Order
Order for rehabilitation or Restoration of damage
Order for respondent to monitor strict compliance
THE PROCEDURE AT A
GLANCE
PROCEDURE: AT A
GLANCE
PROCEDURE: AT A
GLANCE
FEATURES OF WRIT OF
A homegrown judicial remedy available only in the
KALIKASAN
Philippines
Summary in nature; expedited disposition of cases
Liberal rule on locus standi; organizations can stand
in representation of communities or of those who
suffered actual damage.
No docket fee required to be paid by petitioner to
strike a balance between ecological and economic
development concerns.
Allows submission of memorandum through
FEATURES OF WRIT OF
Allows discovery procedure in gathering evidence ( such as
KALIKASAN
ocular inspection, production or inspection of documents or
things)
Applies PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE: When human
activities
may lead to threats of serious and irreversible damage to the
environment that is scientifically plausible but uncertain, actions
shall be taken to avoid or diminish that threat and lack of full
scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing
cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.
Thus, this principle modifies the rules on evidence in writ of
kalikasan cases where the burden is on the respondents to
prove that their activity that may cause damage to the
environment is not in fact damaging.
PENDING KALIKASAN
CASES
involving
mining