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.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 246209)

Petition for Writs of Kalikasan and Continuing Mandamus

On April 16, 2019, petitioners sought writs of kalikasan and continuing mandamus under A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC, alleging respondents’ omissions and failures to enforce environmental laws, thereby threatening their constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology (1987 Constitution, Art. II, Sec. 16; Art. XII, Sec. 2).

Respondents’ Verified Return and Procedural Objections

By verified return (May 24, 2019), respondents raised procedural infirmities: absence of judicial affidavits of witnesses, lack of cause of action, and the political/diplomatic nature of the remedies sought. They also detailed their compliance efforts and urged dismissal.

Issuance of Writ of Kalikasan and Hearing Schedule

On May 3, 2019, the Court issued the writ of kalikasan and set a 10-day non-extendible period for respondents’ verified return. A preliminary conference and En Banc oral arguments ensued on June 18 and July 2 & 9, 2019, with parties submitting opening statements, tables of authorities, and slide presentations.

Manifestation with Fisherfolk Affidavits Renouncing Petition

On July 9, 2019, Solicitor General Calida orally manifested additional affidavits from 19 fisherfolk-petitioners disavowing their signatures and alleging they were misled by petitioners’ counsel. They claimed they never intended to sue Philippine agencies (BFAR, Navy, Coast Guard).

Motion to Withdraw Petition and Counsel’s Withdrawal Request

Petitioners’ counsels objected to the OSG’s intervention as unethical and, on July 19, 2019, filed an Omnibus Motion confirming that six Palawan fisherfolk and one Zambales fisherman wished to withdraw. The IBP Board of Governors likewise adopted resolutions for withdrawal. They also sought leave to withdraw as counsel for twenty petitioners deemed beyond communication.

Court’s Instruction for Additional Efforts and Compliance

In a July 30, 2019 Resolution, the Court deferred action on counsel’s withdrawal, directing them to: (a) use all communication means to reach clients; (b) prove the others’ actual knowledge of the petition; and (c) justify counsel withdrawal without leaving petitioners unrepresented—within seven days.

Final Compliance Filings by Petitioners’ Counsels

By August 14, 2019, petitioners’ counsels filed a compliance pleading, detailing efforts of IBP-Zambales and IBP-Palawan Chapters to meet and obtain withdrawal letters from petitioners (Wilfredo Labandelo, Nilo Labrador, Ricardo Natural, and via videoconference twelve more). They submitted a municipal certification of no telecommunications service on Pag-asa Island and sought additional time to file affidavits.

Grant of Motion to Withdraw Petition and Dismissal

Finding the inevitable withdrawal by fisherfolk-petitioners and to protect the remaining unrepresented petitioners, the Court granted the motion to withdraw the petition. The petition was dismissed without passing on any substantive issues. Petitioners’ counsel received a stern warning under the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Nature of the Writ of Kalikasan under the 1987 Constitution

Pursuant to Rule 7, Sec. 1, A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC, the writ of kalikasan is an extraordinary remedy for actual or threatened violations of the right to a balanced and healthful ecology, affecting inhabitants of two or more provinces through environmental damage of significant magnitude, arising from unlawful acts or omissions of public or private entities.

Requisites and Reliefs of the Writ of Kalikasan

Under Rule 7, Sec. 1–2, petitioners must allege: (a) actual or threatened violation of ecological rights; (b) unlawful act or omission; (c) widespread environmental damage prejudicing life, health, or property in multiple localities; and support these with judicial affidavits, scientific studies, and documentary evidence. Reliefs (Rule 7, Sec. 15) include cease-and-desist orders, mandates to protect, rehabilitate or restore, monitoring, periodic reports, and other environment-related remedies (excluding individual damages).

Burden of Proof and Standards of Evidence

Petitioners bear the burden to prove writ elements at the time of filing. While civil, criminal, and administrative actions have settled evidentiary standards, kalikasan petitions require

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.

About Privacy Terms