Sei sulla pagina 1di 9

Writ of Kalikasan, defined

"Kalikasan" is a Filipino word which in English, means "Nature".

The Writ of Kalikasan means a legal remedy available to any 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 constitutional right to a balanced
and healthful ecology is violated, or threatened with violation by an unlawful act or
omission of a public official or employee, or private individual or entity, involving
environmental damage of such magnitude as to prejudice the life, health or
property of inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces. (Rules of Procedure for
Environmental Cases A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC Rule 7, Sec. 1)

The writ of kalikasan may be sought by anyone a) whose constitutional right to a


balanced and healthful ecology is violated, or b) whose constitutional right to a
balanced and healthful ecology is threatened with violation, by an unlawful act of
omission of a public official or employee, or private individual or entity and such
violation or threat involves environmental damage of such magnitude as to
prejudice the life, health or property of inhabitants of two or more cities, or
provinces. (Rule 7, Section 1)

The petition for the writ of kalikasan shall be filed with the Supreme Court or with
any of the stations of the Court of Appeals. (Rule 7, Section 3) Note, however,
that the filing of a petition for the issuance of the writ of kalikasan shall not
preclude the filing of separate civil, criminal or administrative actions. (Rule 7,
Section 17)

Within 3 days from filing the petition deemed sufficient in form and substance, the
Court shall issue the writ and require the respondent to file a return. (Rule 7,
Section 5)

In response, the respondent is required to file a return containing his defenses and
supporting evidence within a non-extendible 10-day period after the service to him
of the writ. He must raise all defenses in the return, otherwise they are deemed
waived. A general denial of the petitioners allegations shall be deemed an
admission by the respondent. (Rule 7, Section 8) If the petition fails to file a
return, the hearing shall proceed ex parte (i.e., the hearing will proceed with only 1
side being heard). (Rule 7, Section 10)

The penalty of indirect contempt may be meted out to a) a respondent who refuses
to file the return, b) a respondent who unduly delays the filing of a return, c) a
respondent who falsifies a return, or d) any one who disobeys or resists a lawful
process of court order. (Rule 7, Section 13)

In further recognition of the importance of a speedy resolution, the following filings


are prohibited:

a) motion to dismiss
b) motion for extension of time to file return
c) motion for postponement
d) motion for a bill of particulars
e) counterclaim or cross-claim
f) third-party complaint
g) reply, and
h) motion to declare respondent in default. (Rule 7, Section 9)

However, the following motions are allowed:


1. motion for ocular inspection (1) indicating the place/s sought to be inspected
and (2) supported by affidavits of witnesses having personal knowledge of
the violation or threatened violation of environmental law. and
2. motion for production or inspection of documents or things. (Rule 7, Section
12)

When the court receives the return, it may call a preliminary conference to simplify
the issues, determine the possibility of obtaining stipulations or admissions from
the parties, and set the petition for hearing. The petition shall be given the same
priority as petitions for the writ of habeas corpus,amparo and habeas data; thus,
the hearing and the preliminary conference shall be all done within 60 days (Rule 7,
Section 11)

After the hearing, the case shall be submitted for decision in which case, the court
may require the filing of memoranda within a non-extendible 30-day period from
the date the case is submitted for decision.

Within 60 days from the time the petition is submitted for decision, the court shall
grant or deny the privilege of the writ of kalikasan. The reliefs that may be granted
under the writ are the following:

a) Directing respondent to permanently cease and desist from committing acts


or neglecting the performance of a duty in violation of environmental laws
resulting in environmental destruction or damage;

b) Directing the respondent public official, government agency, private


person or entity to protect, preserve, rehabilitate or restore the environment;

c) Directing the respondent public official, government agency, private


person or entity to monitor strict compliance with the decision and orders of the
court;

d) Directing the respondent public official, government agency, or private


person or entity to make periodic reports on the execution of the final judgment;
and

e) Such other reliefs which relate to the right of the people to a balanced and
healthful ecology or to the protection, preservation, rehabilitation or restoration of
the environment, except the award of damages to individual petitioners. (Rule 7,
Section 15)

Appeal to the Supreme Court, under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court (i.e. a petition for
review on certiorari), is available within 15 days from the notice of the judgment or
denial of motion for reconsideration. It is important to note that this appeal may
raise questions of fact. (Rule 7, Section 16)

This writ is an innovation of the Philippine Supreme Court as one of the legal means
to combat the destruction of the environment. This writ is one of a kind, available
only within Philippine jurisdiction. It is extraordinary in nature, meaning to say, that
it can be resorted to only when other ordinary legal remedies such as injunction or
damage suit are unavailing.

The writ of kalikasan forms part of the new procedures in civil, criminal and special
civil actions involving environmental laws. (Rule 1, Section 2, Rules of Procedure for
Environmental Cases)[1] There are 2 special civil actions in the new rules for
environmental cases, one is the writ of continuing mandamaus and the other is the
writ of kalikasan.

A Writ of Kalikasan is a legal remedy under Philippine law that provides protection
of one's Constitutional right to a healthy environment, as outlined in Section 16,
Article II of the Philippine Constitution, which says 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."[1] "Kalikasan" is a Filipino word for "nature".[1]
The writ is comparable to the writ of amparo and the writ of habeas corpus. In
contrast, this writ protects one's right for a healthy environment rather than
constitutional rights.[2] The writ of kalikasan is "proudly Philippine-made", unlike the
other two writs that have roots in European and Latin American law.
Provision for the Writ of Kalikasan was written in 2010 by the Supreme Court of the
Philippines under Rule 7 of the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases as a
Special Civil Action.[3] The Supreme Court under Chief Justice Reynato Puno took
the initiative and issued Rules of Procedure for Environmental Case because Section
16, Article II of the Philippines' 1986 Constitution was not a self-executing
provision.[4]

Cases
The writ of Kalikasan may be sought to deal with environmental damage of such
magnitude that it threatens life, health, or property of inhabitants in two or more
cities or provinces.[5]
In September 2014, the Philippine Supreme Court ruled unanimously against
issuing a writ of kalikasan against the United States Government over
the grounding of the USS Guardian on the Tubbataha Reef in 2013.

A writ of kalikasan is a legal remedy designed for the protection of one's


constitutional right to a healthy environment.

The 1987 Philippine Constitution proclaimed, as one of the policies of the State, the
protection of the environment. Section 16, Article II of the Philippine Constitution
provides that "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."

This provision, however, is deemed as non self-executing. A non self-executing


provision refers to one that cannot be invoked before the courts as it is. There must
first be an enabling legislation or some other legal means by which the same can be
effectuated and be a basis of a legal cause of action. (See: Tanada v. Angara, G.R.
No. 118295. May 2, 1997)

The Philippine Supreme Court then took the initiative in giving flesh to this
constitutional mandate. It provided for the writ of kalikasan as the legal means.

Features of the Writ of Kalikasan

The underlying condition for the writ to be issued is that, the magnitude
requirement with regards to the destruction or imminent destruction of the
environment which is sought to be prevented, must be present.

The entities to whom the writ can be directed against, the Rules provides that it
could be anybody. They could be public officials, employees or even private
persons, for as so long as it could be proven that they violated or threatened with
violation the constitutional right to a healthy environment of other people.

The Rules likewise provides for various reliefs that could be granted by the courts
under the writ which includes, among others, the issuance of order against the
respondent to cease or refrain from committing acts violative of the rights of the
petitioners asking for the writ. It can also be an order commanding the respondent
to perform positive acts to preserve or protect the environment as well as to make
reports of their compliance with these responsibilities. (Rules of Procedure for
Environmental Cases A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC Rule 7, Sec. 15)

Writ of Kalikasan, applied

Currently, there are at least two (2) instances wherein the writ of kalikasan was
availed of. The first one was directed against an electric power distribution company
and the second one was against an oil pipeline operator. The first case is still
pending trial while the latter was successfully granted by the Philippine Supreme
Court.

Continuing Mandamus or Structural Interdict or Structural Injunction is a


relief given by a court of law through a series of ongoing orders over a long period
of time, directing an authority to do its duty or fulfill an obligation in general public
interest, as and when a need arises over the duration a case lies with the court,
with the court choosing not to dispose the case off in finality. This happens in a
situation which cannot be remedied instantaneously but requires a solution over a
long time, at times stretching to years. With this procedural innovation of the writ
of Mandamus or a mandatory order, the court monitors compliance of its orders,
seeking periodic reports from authorities on the progress in implementing them.

It may enlist senior advocates to assist it as amicus curiae in court, or as court


commissioners in the field, and subject experts or expert bodies to report back to it
on the facts and ground-realities of the case. It may appoint a court committee or a
court commission, independent from the Executive, as its oversight or monitoring
agency. It may require the subject-matter covered by the case, be taught in
schools and universities, making it part of textbooks and syllabi, or be given wide
publicity through the media.[4] Contempt is a remedy it may use in case of non-
compliance or poor implementation of its orders.[5] It may recommend that the
legislature frame a policy in the matter, for the future.

Mandamus ("We command") is a judicial remedy in the form of an order from a


superior court,[1] to any government subordinate court, corporation, or public
authority, to do (or forbear from doing) some specific act which that body is obliged
under law to do (or refrain from doing), and which is in the nature of public duty,
and in certain cases one of a statutory duty. It cannot be issued to compel an
authority to do something against statutory provision. For example, it cannot be
used to force a lower court to reject or authorize applications that have been made,
but if the court refuses to rule one way or the other then a mandamus can be used
to order the court to rule on the applications.

Mandamus may be a command to do an administrative action or not to take a


particular action, and it is supplemented by legal rights. In the American legal
system it must be a judicially enforceable and legally protected right before one
suffering a grievance can ask for a mandamus. A person can be said to be
aggrieved only when he is denied a legal right by someone who has a legal duty to
do something and abstains from doing it.

Legal requirements[edit]

The applicant pleading for the writ of mandamus to be enforced should be able to
show that he or she has a legal right to compel the respondent to do or refrain from
doing the specific act. The duty sought to be enforced must have two qualities:[2] It
must be a duty of public nature and the duty must be imperative and should not
be discretionary. Furthermore, mandamus will typically not be granted if adequate
relief can be obtained by some other means, such as appeal.[3]

Purpose

The purpose of mandamus is to remedy defects of justice. It lies in the cases where
there is a specific right but no specific legal remedy for enforcing that right.
Generally, it is not available in anticipation of any injury except when the petitioner
is likely to be affected by an official act in contravention of a statutory duty or
where an illegal or unconstitutional order is made. The grant of mandamus is
therefore an equitable remedy; a matter for the discretion of the court, the exercise
of which is governed by well-settled principles.[4]

Mandamus, being a discretionary remedy, the application for that must be made in
good faith and not for indirect purposes. Acquiescence cannot, however, bar the
issue of mandamus. The petitioner must, of course, satisfy the Court that he has
the legal right to the performance of the legal duty as distinct from mere discretion
of authority.[5] A mandamus is normally issued when an officer or an authority by
compulsion of statute is required to perform a duty and that duty, despite demand
in writing, has not been performed. In no other case will a writ of mandamus issue
unless it be to quash an illegal order.

There are three kinds of mandamus:

1. Alternative Mandamus: A mandamus issued upon the first application for


relief, commanding the defendant either to perform the act demanded or to
appear before the court at a specified time to show cause for not performing
it.
2. Peremptory Mandamus: An absolute and unqualified command to the
defendant to do the act in question. It is issued when the defendant defaults
on, or fails to show sufficient cause in answer to, an alternative
mandamus.[6][7]
3. Continuing Mandamus: A mandamus issued to a lower authority in general
public interest asking the officer or the authority to perform its tasks
expeditiously for an unstipulated period of time for preventing miscarriage of
justice.

GR No 197878. Weve appealed the case to the Supreme Court

The Manila Bay Case led to the formal placement of the procedural innovation of
continuing mandamus in statute books in the Philippines, where it is being
resorted to by litigants in other cases.

case digest on Environmental Law


EN BANC[G.R. No. 195482 : June 21, 2011]ELIZA M. HERNANDEZ, ET AL. V.
PLACER DOME, INC."G.R. No. 195482 (ELIZA M. HERNANDEZ, ET AL. v.
PLACER DOME, INC.)
Nota Bien:
If you were to search this case using the above-cited G.R. No., you will see a mere
resolution of the Court without any defined statement of facts, issues or ruling. So
what I did was to research on the factual antecedents which culminated into this
petition. Please, verify it if you cannot understand the following discussions.
Antecedent Facts:
Placer Dome is the parent corporation of Marcopper Mining Company. It is engaged
in the mining operations in Marinduque from 1964 1997. In May 2006, Placer
Dome merged with Barrick Gold Corporation, a foreign entity.
In March 1996, the disaster came about. A fracture in the drainage tunnel of a large
pit containing leftover mine tailings led to a discharge of toxic mine waste into the
Makulapnit-Boac river system and caused flash floods in areas along the river.
Barangay Hinapulan, was buried in six feet of muddy floodwater, causing damage
to people and their families, as well as livestock, marine resources and maritime
life.
Placer Dome entered into a contract with then President Fidel V. Ramos to
rehabilitate the waters of Marinduque. It did not reach fruition.
Start of Court Process:
In 2011, three residents of Marinduque, Eliza M. Hernandez, Mamerto M. Lanete
and Godofredo L. Manoy, represented by Father Joaquin Bernas, filed a petition for
writ of kalikasan. In their petition, they argued that said Placer Dome should be
held liable for expelling some 2 million cubic meters of toxic industrial waste into
the Boac river when a drainage plug holding toxic mining waste from its operations
ruptured.
The writ of Kalikasan was granted. In March 2011, the Court issued a resolution
which referred the case to the Court of Appeals for hearing, reception of evidence,
and rendition of judgment. CA then issued a resolution requiring the petitioners to
issue a subpoena against Placer Dome.
Issue:
After receiving the resolution issued by CA, Barrick Gold, currently the owner of
Placer Dome, filed a Clarificatory Manifestation to clarify which court exercises
jurisdiction over the case in order to shed light to the procedural paths available to
the parties.
Supreme Court Resolution:
Pursuant to Section 3, Rule VII of the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases,
petitions for the Writ of Kalikasan "shall be filed with the Supreme Court or with any
of the stations of the Court of Appeals." It was in consonance with this provision
that, on 8 March 2011, the Court issued the Resolution which, after granting the
Writ of Kalikasan sought by petitioners, referred the case to the CA for hearing,
reception of evidence and rendition of judgment. Considering said referral of the
case to the CA, its re-docketing of the petition as CA-G.R. SP No. 00001 and its
conduct of proceedings relative thereto, it is imperative that the various motions
and incidents filed by the parties, together with the entire records of the case, be
likewise referred to said Court in observance of the doctrine of hierarchy of courts
and in the interest of the orderly and expeditious conduct of the proceedings in the
case.

G.R. No. 194239 : November 22, 2011


WEST TOWER CONDOMINIUM CORPORATION, ON BEHALF OF THE
RESIDENTS OF WEST TOWER CONDO., AND IN REPRESENTATION OF
BARANGAY BANGKAL, AND OTHERS, INCLUDING MINORS AND
GENERATIONS YET UNBORN V. FIRST PHILIPPINE INDUSTRIAL
CORPORATION, FIRST GEN CORPORATION AND THEIR RESPECTIVE BOARD
OF DIRECTORS AND OFFICERS, JOHN DOES AND RICHARD ROES

Sirs/Mesdames:
Please take notice that the Court en banc issued a Resolution dated May 31,
2011which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 194239 (West Tower Condominium Corporation, on behalf of the
Residents of West Tower Condo., and in representation of Barangay Bangkal, and
others, including minors and generations yet unborn v. First Philippine Industrial
Corporation, First Gen Corporation and their respective Board of Directors and
Officers, John Does and Richard Roes)
RESOLUTION
I
On November 15, 2010, petitioners filed their Petition for Issuance of a Writ
ofKalikasan.[1]
On November 19, 2010, Chief Justice Renato C. Corona issued a Writ
of Kalikasan[2]with a Temporary Environmental Protection Order (TEPO), requiring
the First Philippine Industrial Corporation (FPIC) and First Gen Corporation (FGC) to
make a Verified Return within a non-extendible period of ten (10) days from receipt
thereof pursuant to Section 8, Rule 7 of the Rules of Procedure for Environmental
Cases. The TEPO enjoined FPIC and FGC to: (a) cease and desist from operating
the pipeline until further orders; (b) check the structural integrity of The
whole span of the 117-kilometer pipeline while implementing sufficient
measures to prevent and avert any untoward incidents that may result from any
leak of the pipeline; and (c) make a Report thereon within 60 days from receipt
thereof.
Consequent to the Court's issuance of the Writ of Kalikasan and the accompanying
TEPO, FPIC ceased operations on both (a) the White Oil Pipeline System (WOPL
System), which extends 117 kilometers from Batangas to Pandacan Terminal in
Manila and transports diesel, gasoline, jet fuel and kerosene; and (b) the Black Oil
Pipeline System (BOPL System), which extends 105 kilometers and transports
bunker fuel from Batangas to a depot in Sucat, Paraaque City.
Through a letter dated May 9, 2011, Department of Energy (DOE) Undersecretary
Atty. Jose M. Layug, Jr. seeks clarification and confirmation on the coverage of the
Writ of Kalikasan and the accompanying TEPO, i.e., whether they cover both the
WOPL and the BOPL.
It is apparent from the Petition for Issuance of a Writ of Kalikasan that what
petitioners sought to stop operating is the WOPL, where the leak was found,
affecting the vicinity of West Tower Condominium. Only the WOPL is covered by the
Writ ofKalikasan and the TEPO.
WHEREFORE, the Court hereby clarifies and confirms that what is covered by the
November 19, 2010 Writ of Kalikasan and TEPO is only the WOPL System of
respondent FPIC. Consequently, the FPIC can resume operation of its BOPL System.
II
On March 29, 2011, the Court issued a Resolution setting the conduct of an ocular
inspection on April 15, 2011 of the While Oil Pipeline System (WOPL System).
On April 15, 2011, the ocular inspection in the vicinity and basement of West Tower
Condominium was conducted in the presence of counsels of the parties, officers of
respondent First Philippine Industrial Corporation (FP1C), and residents of petitioner
West Tower Condominium, among others.
As required by the Court, representatives of the University of the Philippines-
National Institute of Geological Sciences (UP-NIGS) and the UP Institute of Civil
Engineering attended the ocular inspection. After the ocular inspection, the Court
asked the representatives of UP-N1GS and the UP Institute of Civil Engineering for
their opinions and recommendations through a report, among others, on (1) the
issue of whether to grant FPIC's urgent motion to temporarily lift the Temporary
Environmental Protection Order for a period of not more than 48 hours in order to
conduct pressure controlled leak tests to check the structural integrity of the WOPL
which entails running a scraper pig to eliminate air gaps within the pipeline prior to
the conduct of said test, as recommended by the international technical consultant
of the Department of Energy; and (2) testing procedures that may be used by the
FPIC regarding the maintenance and checking of the structural integrity of the
WOPL.
On May 10, 2011, the UP Institute of Civil Engineering sent a letter to the Court
asking pertinent documents from FPIC relative to testing protocols undertaken by
FPIC and other proposals, and that it be given one week within which to file its
report after receipt of the documents.
WHEREFORE, finding the request of the UP Institute of Civil Engineering to be
meritorious, FPIC is hereby DIRECTED to submit documents regarding testing
protocols it has undertaken to check for leaks and the structural integrity of the
WOPL, the results thereof and other related proposals it has committed to
undertake to the UP Institute of: Civil Engineering within five (5) days from notice.
The UP Institute of Civil Engineering is granted one (1) week from receipt of the
requested documents from FPIC within which to file its report.
The Court further Resolved to
(a) NOTE the Manifestation with Motion dated April 14, 2011 filed by counsel for
petitioners, relative to the resolution of March 29, 2011;
(b) NOTE the Letter (Report) dated April 21, 2011 of Dr. Carlo A. Arcilla, Director,
National Institute of Geological Sciences, College of Science University of the
Philippines, Diliman, Quezon City, in compliance with the resolution of March 29,
2011; and
(c) NOTE the Letter dated May 24, 2011 of Atty. Justin Christopher C. Mendoza of
Poblador Bautista & Reyes Law Offices, counsel for First Philippine Industrial
Corporation, and GRANT his request for a copy of Dr. Carlo Arcilla's April 21, 2011
Report filed in compliance with the resolution of March 29, 2011."

Boracay Foundation, Inc. v. Province of Aklan


G.R. No. 196870, June 26, 2012

FACTS:
Claiming that tourist arrivals to Boracay would reach 1 million in the future,
respondent Province of Aklan planned to expand the port facilities at Barangay
Caticlan, Municipality of Malay. Thus, on May 7, 2009, the Sangguniang
Panlalawigan of Aklan Province issued a resolution, authorizing Governor Carlito
Marquez to file an application with respondent Philippine Reclamation Authority
(PRA) to reclaim the 2.64 hectares of foreshore area in Caticlan. In the same year,
the Province deliberated on the possible expansion from its original proposed
reclamation area of 2.64 hectares to forty (40) hectares in order to maximize the
utilization of its resources.
After PRAs approval, on April 27, 2010, respondent Department of
Environment and Natural Resources-Environmental Management Bureau-Region VI
(DENR-EMB RVI) issued to the Province Environmental Compliance Certificate-R6-
1003-096-7100 (the questioned ECC) for Phase 1 of the Reclamation Project to the
extent of 2.64 hectares to be done along the Caticlan side beside the existing jetty
port.
On May 17, 2010, the Province finally entered into a MOA with PRA which
stated that the land use development of the reclamation project shall be for
commercial, recreational and institutional and other applicable uses. It was at this
point that the Province deemed it necessary to conduct a series of public
consultation meetings.
On the other hand, the Sangguniang Barangay of Caticlan, the Sangguniang
Bayan of the Municipality of Malay and petitioner Boracay Foundation, Inc. (BFI), an
organization composed of some 160 businessmen and residents in Boracay,
expressed their strong opposition to the reclamation project on environmental,
socio-economic and legal grounds.
Despite the opposition, the Province merely noted their objections and issued
a notice to the contractor on December 1, 2010 to commence with the construction
of the project. Thus, on June 1, 2011, BFI filed with the Supreme Court the instant
Petition for Environmental Protection Order/Issuance of the Writ of
Continuing Mandamus. Thereafter, the Court issued a Temporary Environmental
Protection Order (TEPO) and ordered the respondents to file their respective
comments to the petition.
The Petition was premised on the following grounds, among others:
a) the Province failed to obtain the favorable endorsement of the LGU
concerned;
b) the Province failed to conduct the required consultation procedures as
required by the Local Government Code (LGC).
The Province responded by claiming that its compliance with the
requirements of DENR-EMB RVI and PRA that led to the approval of the reclamation
project by the said government agencies, as well as the recent enactments of the
Barangay Council of Caticlan and the Sangguniang Bayan of the Municipality of
Malay favorably endorsing the said project, had categorically addressed all the
issues raised by the BFI in its Petition. It also considered the Petition to be
premature for lack of cause of action due to the failure of BFI to fully exhaust the
available administrative remedies even before seeking judicial relief.

ISSUES:
WON the petition is premature because petitioner failed to exhaust
administrative remedies before filing this case?
WON there was proper, timely, and sufficient public consultation for the
project?

RULING:
On the issue of prematurity due to failure to exhaust administrative
remedies
The Court held that the petition is not premature for failing to exhaust
administrative remedies and to observe the hierarchy of courts as claimed by the
respondents.
The Court reiterated their ruling in Pagara v. Court of Appeals where they
clarified that the rule regarding exhaustion of administrative remedies is not a hard
and fast rule. It is not applicable where, among others, there are circumstances
indicating the urgency of judicial intervention such as in the instant case. The rule
may also be disregarded when it does not provide a plain, speedy and adequate
remedy or where the protestant has no other recourse.
Meanwhile, the new Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases, A.M. No.
09-6-8-SC, provides a relief for petitioner under the writ of continuing mandamus,
which is a special civil action that may be availed of to compel the performance of
an act specifically enjoined by law and which provides for the issuance of a TEPO
as an auxiliary remedy prior to the issuance of the writ itself.
The writ of continuing mandamus allows an aggrieved party to file a verified
petition in the proper court when any government agency or instrumentality or
officer thereof unlawfully neglects the performance of an act which the law
specifically enjoins as a duty xxx in connection with the enforcement or violation of
an environmental law rule or regulation or a right therein, xxx and there is no other
plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Such proper
court may be the Regional Trial Court exercising jurisdiction over the territory
where the actionable neglect or omission occurred, the Court of Appeals, or the
Supreme Court.
Here, the Court found that BFI had no other plain, speedy, or adequate
remedy in the ordinary course of law to determine the questions of unique national
and local importance raised that pertain to laws and rules for environmental
protection.

Potrebbero piacerti anche