Title
Abogado vs. Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Case
G.R. No. 246209
Decision Date
Sep 3, 2019
Farmers and fisherfolk sought writs of kalikasan against government agencies for failing to enforce environmental laws in contested South China Sea areas, but the Supreme Court dismissed the case due to procedural flaws, lack of evidence, and diplomatic complexities.
Font Size:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 246209)

Facts:

  1. Petitioners and Respondents:

    • Petitioners include the Kalayaan Palawan Farmers and Fisherfolk Association, represented by Monico A. Abogado and others, along with Nilo Labrador, Wilfredo Labandelo, and Rolando Labandelo. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) also joined as a petitioner.
    • Respondents are various government agencies, including the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), Department of Agriculture (DA), Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR), Philippine Navy, Philippine Coast Guard, Philippine National Police (PNP), and Department of Justice (DOJ).
  2. Subject of the Petition:

    • Petitioners sought the issuance of writs of kalikasan and continuing mandamus under the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases (A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC) concerning Panatag Shoal (Scarborough Shoal), Panganiban Reef (Mischief Reef), and Ayungin Shoal (Second Thomas Shoal), all within the Philippines' exclusive economic zone (EEZ).
    • They alleged that Chinese fisherfolk and China's construction of artificial lands caused severe environmental damage to these areas, threatening their constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology.
  3. Legal Basis:

    • Petitioners relied on the Permanent Court of Arbitration's July 12, 2016 Arbitral Award, which found China in violation of environmental laws in the South China Sea.
    • They claimed that respondents failed to enforce Philippine environmental laws in the contested areas.
  4. Procedural History:

    • On April 16, 2019, the Petition was filed.
    • On May 3, 2019, the Supreme Court issued a Writ of Kalikasan, requiring respondents to file a verified return within 10 days.
    • On May 24, 2019, respondents filed their Verified Return, arguing that the Petition lacked a cause of action and failed to include required judicial affidavits.
    • On June 4, 2019, the Court set the case for oral arguments.
    • During oral arguments, 19 of the 40 fisherfolk-petitioners submitted affidavits withdrawing their support for the Petition, claiming they were misinformed about its nature and did not intend to sue government agencies.
  5. Key Allegations:

    • Petitioners alleged that respondents neglected their duty to enforce environmental laws, leading to ecological damage in the contested areas.
    • Respondents countered that the Petition was procedurally flawed and that the issues raised were diplomatic and political, not just legal.

Issue:

  • (Unlock)

Ruling:

  • (Unlock)

Ratio:

  1. Procedural Requirements:

    • Petitions for writs of kalikasan and continuing mandamus must comply with procedural rules, including the submission of judicial affidavits and a clear statement of the cause of action. Failure to meet these requirements warrants dismissal.
  2. Evidence and Factual Disputes:

    • The Court cannot resolve petitions involving factual disputes without proper evidence. The absence of judicial affidavits and the withdrawal of petitioners' support undermined the Petition's credibility.
  3. Diplomatic and Political Nature:

    • Issues involving foreign relations and diplomatic actions are not appropriate for resolution through writs of kalikasan and continuing mandamus. These remedies are limited to enforcing environmental laws against domestic entities.
  4. Hierarchy of Courts:

    • Petitioners should have first sought relief from lower courts or regulatory agencies, as the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts. The doctrine of hierarchy of courts must be observed unless purely legal questions are involved.
  5. Enforcement of International Awards:

    • While the Arbitral Award is a significant victory for the Philippines, its enforcement is a diplomatic and political challenge. Domestic courts cannot compel foreign states to comply with international rulings.


Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.