Rule 7 Writ of Kalikasan
for issuance of Writ of Kalikasan with TEPO from the SC.
Nature – a legal remedy that provides the protection of
one’s Constitutional right to a balanced and healthful
ecology violated or threatened with violation by an
unlawful act or omission of a public official or private
individual or entity, involving environment damage.
Who may avail of this remedy? (Sec. 1)
1. Natural or juridical person;
2. An entity authorized by law;
3. People’s organization;
4. Non-governmental organization; or
5. 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.
Contents of the petition (Sec. 2)
1. Personal circumstances of the petitioner;
2. Name and personal circumstances of the
respondents;
3. Environmental law or regulation violated;
4. All relevant evidence;
5. Certification of petitioner under oath that there
has been no any action filed
Where to file (Sec. 3)
1. Supreme Court
2. Court of Appeals
Issuance of Writ – within 3 days from the filing of the
petition
Return of respondent – Within 10 days after service
of the write (nonextendible), a verified return containing
all defenses
Hearing – Upon receipt of the return, the court may call
a preliminary conference which shall not extend beyond
60 days.
Judgment – Within 60 days from the time the petition
is submitted for decision, the court must grant or deny
the petition
Appeal – Within 15 days from the date of notice of the
adverse judgment or denial of the MR.
Available Reliefs (Sec. 15)
1. Permanently cease and desist from committing
acts or neglecting performance of a duty;
2. To protect, preserve, rehabilitate or restore the
environment;
3. To monitor strict compliance with the decision
and orders of the court;
4. To make periodic reports on the execution of the
final judgment.
Arigo, et. al. vs. Swift
Facts:
In 2013, the USS Guardian of the US Navy ran aground
on an area near the Tubbataha Reefs, a marine habitat
of which entry and certain human activities are
prevented and afforded protection by a Philippine law.
The grounding incident prompted the petitioners to seek
Among those impleaded are US officials in their capacity
as commanding officers of the US Navy. As petitioners
argued, they were impleaded because there was a
waiver of immunity from suit between US and PH
pursuant to the VFA terms.
Petitioners claimed that the grounding, salvaging and
post-salvaging operations of the USS Guardian violated
their constitutional rights to a balanced and healthful
ecology since these events caused and continue to
cause environmental damage of such magnitude as to
affect other provinces surrounding the Tubbataha Reefs.
Aside from damages, they sought a directive from the
SC for the institution of civil, administrative and criminal
suits for acts committed in violation of environmental
laws and regulations in connection with the grounding
incident. They also prayed for the annulment of some
VFA provisions for being unconstitutional.
Issue 1: W/N the US Government has given its
consent to be sued through the VFA
No. The general rule on state’s immunity from suit
applies in this case.
First, any waiver of State immunity under the VFA
pertains only to criminal jurisdiction and not to special
civil actions such as for the issuance of the writ of
kalikasan. Hence, contrary to petitioners’ claim, the US
government could not be deemed to have waived its
immunity from suit.
Second, the US respondents were sued in their official
capacity as commanding officers of the US Navy who
have control and supervision over the USS Guardian and
its crew. Since the satisfaction of any judgment against
these officials would require remedial actions and the
appropriation of funds by the US government, the suit
is deemed to be one against the US itself. Thus, the
principle of State Immunity – in correlation with the
principle of States as sovereign equals “par in parem
non habet non imperium” – bars the exercise of
jurisdiction by the court over their persons.
Issue 2: W/N the US government may still be held
liable for damages caused to the Tubbataha Reefs
Yes. The US government is liable for damages in
relation to the grounding incident under the customary
laws of navigation.
The conduct of the US in this case, when its warship
entered a restricted area in violation of RA 10067 and
caused damage to the TRNP reef system, brings the
matter within the ambit of Article 31 of the UNCLOS.
While historically, warships enjoy sovereign immunity
from suit as extensions of their flag State, Art. 31 of the
UNCLOS creates an exception to this rule in cases where
they fail to comply with the rules and regulations of the
coastal State regarding passage through the latter’s Kalikasan is not the proper remedy to assail the
internal waters and the territorial sea. constitutionality of its provisions.

Although the US to date has not ratified the UNCLOS, as

a matter of long-standing policy, the US considers itself
bound by customary international rules on the
“traditional uses of the oceans”, which is codified in
UNCLOS.

As to the non-ratification by the US, it must be noted

that the US’ refusal to join the UNCLOS was centered on
its disagreement with UNCLOS’ regime of deep seabed
mining (Part XI) which considers the oceans and deep
seabed commonly owned by mankind. Such has nothing
to do with the acceptance by the US of customary
international rules on navigation. (Justice Carpio)

Hence, non-membership in the UNCLOS does not mean

that the US will disregard the rights of the Philippines as
a Coastal State over its internal waters and territorial
sea. It is thus expected of the US to bear “international
responsibility” under Art. 31 in connection with the USS
Guardian grounding which adversely affected the
Tubbataha reefs. ##

Other Issues

Claim for Damages Caused by Violation of

Environmental Laws Must be Filed Separately

The invocation of US federal tort laws and even common

law is improper considering that it is the VFA which
governs disputes involving US military ships and crew
navigating Philippine waters in pursuance of the
objectives of the agreement.

As it is, the waiver of State immunity under the VFA

pertains only to criminal jurisdiction and not to special
civil actions. Since jurisdiction cannot be had over the
respondents for being immuned from suit, there is no
way damages which resulted from violation of
environmental laws could be awarded to petitioners.

In any case, the Rules on Writ of Kalikasan provides that

a criminal case against a person charged with a violation
of an environmental law is to be filed separately. Hence,
a ruling on the application or non-application of criminal
jurisdiction provisions of the VFA to a US personnel who
may be found responsible for the grounding of the USS
Guardian, would be premature and beyond the province
of a petition for a writ of Kalikasan.

Challenging the Constitutionality of a Treaty Via a

Petition for the Issuance of Writ of Kalikasan is
Not Proper

The VFA was duly concurred in by the Philippine Senate

and has been recognized as a treaty by the US as
attested and certified by the duly authorized
representative of the US government. The VFA being a
valid and binding agreement, the parties are required as
a matter of international law to abide by its terms and
provisions. A petition under the Rules on Writ of