Case Summary (G.R. No. 197878)
Petitioners
A coalition of homeowners contending that excavation, pole installation, and energization of high‐tension lines near their residences threaten their constitutional rights—primarily health and a balanced, healthful ecology—and were undertaken without proper public consultation.
Respondents
MERALCO: Executed the works in accordance with its permits and technical standards.
Barangay Officials: Issued working permits and barangay resolutions authorizing the project.
MIAA: Supported uninterrupted power supply for public‐interest airport operations.
Key Dates
• 2001: PIATCO applies for NAIA III electric service.
• 2002: Completion of MERALCO substation.
• September 10 to December 3, 2009: Excavation works along 10th Street.
• December 2009–August 2010: Competing injunction proceedings in Pasay RTC.
• November 19, 2010: Completion of transmission‐line installation.
• January 20, 2011: Court of Appeals denies writ of kalikasan petition.
• July 14, 2011: CA denies motion for reconsideration.
• August 16, 2011: Petition for review filed before the Supreme Court.
• November 10, 2020: Supreme Court decision rendered.
Applicable Law
• 1987 Philippine Constitution, Articles II, Sections 15 (right to health) and 16 (right to a balanced, healthful ecology)
• Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases (A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC) – Writ of kalikasan provisions
• Code on Sanitation and its Implementing Rules (DoH Administrative Order No. 0033-07)
• Philippine Electrical Code (clearance requirements)
• Local Government Code (barangay permit and consultation requirements)
Factual Background
MERALCO determined that a route through Barangay 183’s 10th, 12th, and 27th Streets was the most feasible for new transmission lines feeding the NAIA III substation. After completing the substation in 2002, MERALCO began excavation in 2009 but stopped under a Pasay City Engineering Office cease‐and‐desist order following residents’ complaints. Parallel injunctive actions ensued: residents sought a prohibitory injunction; MIAA obtained a preliminary mandatory injunction directing the lifting of the cease‐and‐desist. Once works resumed, lines were energized in November 2010. Unsuccessful barangay‐level appeals prompted the filing of a writ of kalikasan petition before the Court of Appeals.
Court of Appeals Ruling
The CA held that:
- A writ of kalikasan protects the right to a balanced and healthful ecology, distinct from—but related to—the right to health; petitioners erred in invoking it solely for health concerns.
- Petitioners failed to prove that electromagnetic fields (EMFs) from the lines exceeded safety limits or posed a significant health hazard; DOH certification confirmed EMFs were well below 833 mG.
- MERALCO complied with the Philippine Electrical Code: horizontal and vertical clearances greatly exceeded the 2.87 m and 22.6 m minima.
- Identical parties, subject matter, and causes between the earlier prohibitory‐injunction case and the kalikasan petition amounted to forum shopping.
- No proof of environmental damage “of such magnitude” affecting inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces, a jurisdictional requirement.
Accordingly, the petition was denied.
Issues before the Supreme Court
- Whether petitioners committed forum shopping.
- Whether the transmission‐line installation violated the right to a balanced and healthful ecology, warranting a writ of kalikasan.
- Whether the precautionary principle applied given scientific uncertainty about EMF risks.
Supreme Court Analysis
I. Forum Shopping
- Forum shopping requires substantial identity of parties, issues, and reliefs. The Supreme Court found no identity of petitioners between the prohibitory‐injunction and kalikasan actions; community of interest alone was insufficient. No forum shopping occurred.
II. Writ of Kalikasan Requisites
Under Rule 7, Section 1, a kalikasan petition must allege:
(a) actual or threatened violation of the right to a balanced, healthful ecology;
(b) resulting from unlawful act or omission;
(c) environmental damage of such magnitude as to prejudice inhabitants in two or more cities/provinces.
(a) Right to Ecology vs. Right to Health
The Court recognized that the right to health (Art. II, Sec. 15) is intrinsically linked to the right to a balanced, healthful ecology (Art. II, Sec. 16). Threatened health effects from EMFs may ground a kalikasan petition. The first requisite was satisfied.
(b) Unlawful Act or Omission
- Petitioners claimed violation of old Sanitation Code IRR § 7.3.1, which prohibited high‐tension lines in residential areas. However, DoH AO 0033-07 amended that provision, replacing it with compliance standards drawn from the Philippine Electrical Code and EMF exposure limits.
- MERALCO demonstrated full compliance: clearances of 27.4–32 m (well above the 2.87 m/22.6 m minima) and EMF emissions certified at 16.7 mG (below the 83.33 mG limit).
- Alleged failure of barangay consultation under Local Government Code § 27 was unrelated to environmental damage and did not constitute an unlawful act for purposes of kalikasan.
(c) Magnitude of Environmental Damage
- The damage alleged was confined to a narrow corridor between two adjacent barangays and d
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 197878)
Facts
- In 2001, PIATCO applied to MERALCO for electric service to fully operate Ninoy Aquino International Airport Terminal III (NAIA III), requiring a new power substation and transmission lines.
- MERALCO built the substation in 2002 and, on September 10, 2009, began excavation and pole installation along 10th Street in Barangay 183, Zone 20, Villamor, Pasay City.
- On December 3, 2009, the Pasay City Engineering Office issued a cease and desist order upon residents’ complaint, halting works.
- On December 4, 2009, some residents filed a prohibitory injunction case in the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City; Manila International Airport Authority (MIAA) separately sought to lift the cease and desist order.
- Branch 118 granted a preliminary mandatory injunction on July 23, 2010; Branch 111 declared the prohibitory injunction moot on August 31, 2010. MERALCO resumed work, completing the 115 kV transmission lines on November 19, 2010.
- Resident Gemma Dela Cruz and others petitioned the Court of Appeals for a writ of kalikasan, claiming the lines endangered their health without prior public consultation.
Procedural History
- The Court of Appeals held a conference on December 13, 2010, then directed memoranda on three issues: appropriateness of the writ, danger posed by high-tension wires, and violation of the right to a balanced and healthful ecology.
- In its January 20, 2011 Decision, the CA denied the writ for lack of merit, finding misjoinder of health concerns, insufficient proof of danger, compliance with clearance and EMF limits, and forum shopping.
- The CA also denied reconsideration in its July 14, 2011 Resolution.
- Petitioners filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari (August 16, 2011); respondents filed comments and memoranda; case submitted for decision.
Issues
- Did petitioners commit forum shopping?
- Did the transmission-line installation violate the constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology, warranting a writ of kalikasan?
- Does the precautionary principle apply to justify injunctive relief?
Forum Shopping Analysis
- Forum shopping involves multiple actions on the same facts with identical parties, issues, and reliefs, leadi