Michael Christopher C.

De Castro

Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases

Civil Procedure
Environmental Protection Order (EPO), Temporary Environmental
Protection Order
Provisions: Rule 1 Sec 4(d), Rule 2 Sec 8
An EPO is similar to a Preliminary Injunction in that both require the defendant to
"perform or desist from performing an act. There is no distinction similar to the
one between a preliminary injunction and a preliminary mandatory injunction.
Inasmuch as an EPO is similar to a Preliminary Injunction, a TEPO is similar to a
TRO. A 72-hour TEPO may issue when there is a showing of "extreme urgency
and the applicant will suffer grave injustice and irreparable injury. There is no 20day TEPO. Moreover, no bond similar to that in an application for a TRO is
required in an application for a TEPO.
More will be discussed under Evidence.
Continuing Mandamus
Provisions: Rule 1 Sec 4 (c ), Rule 5 Sec 3, Rule 8
A Writ of Continuing Mandamus is similar to an ordinary writ of mandamus in that
both require the defendant to "perform an act or series of acts. A key difference
however is that continuing mandamus allows the court to retain jurisdiction after
judgment to ensure the successful implementation of the reliefs granted in a
decision. To that effect, government agencies are required to submit compliance
reports.

Real Party in Interest

Provisions: Rule 2 Sec 4
Ordinarily a real party in interest is the person who "stands to be benefited or
injured by the judgment in the suit, or the party entitled to the avails of the suit.
The Environmental Rules retain the same meaning but its scope has been

expanded considering that environmental rights are enjoyed by all individuals.

Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP)
Provisions: Rule 1 Sec 4(g), Rule 6, Rule 19
A SLAPP is a legal action filed to harass, vex, exert undue pressure or stifle any
legal recourse that any person, institution or the government has taken or may
take in the enforcement of environmental laws, protection of the environment or
assertion of environmental rights.
In the Civil Procedure under the Environmental Rules, SLAPP is raised as a
defense in the Answer because a Motion to Dismiss is a prohibited Pleading.
In the Criminal Procedure of the same rules, SLAPP is raised in a motion to
dismiss.
Citizen Suit, Filing Fees
Provisions: Rule 2 Sec 5, Sec 12
Standing, a part of the four-prong test in constitutional litigation, has been defined
by jurisprudence as that "personal and substantial interest in a case such that
the party has sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result of the
governmental act that is being challenged. This rule has been vastly liberalized
in the Environmental Rules by allowing any Filipino citizen in representation of
others, including minors or generations yet unborn to file an action based on
environmental rights.
Moreover, the payment of docket fees is ordinarily jurisdictional. Failure to pay
the prescribed docket fees at the time of filing the complaint will result in the
complaint being dismissed. In environmental cases however the payment of filing
fees may be deferred.
Allowed and Prohibited Pleadings
Provisions: Rule 2 Secs 1, 2
Only the following pleadings and motions are allowed in a civil case under the
Environmental rules:

complaint,
answer which may include compulsory counterclaim and cross-claim,

motion for intervention,

motion for discovery and
motion for reconsideration of the judgment.

The following are allowed only in highly meritorious cases or to prevent a

manifest miscarriage of justice:

Motion for postponement,

motion for new trial and
petition for relief from judgment

The following are prohibited:

Motion to dismiss the complaint;

Motion for a bill of particulars;
Motion for extension of time to file pleadings, except to file answer, the
extension not to exceed fifteen (15) days;
Motion to declare the defendant in default; Reply and rejoinder; and
Third party complaint.

The 1991 Revised Rules of Summary Procedure only allows the filing of the
complaint, the answer with the compulsory counterclaims and cross-claims and
the answers thereto. Everything else is prohibited with no qualification
whatsoever.
Appeal
Provision: Rule 7 Sec 16
In environmental cases, an appeal from an adverse decision is filed by way of a
Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 to the Supreme Court. The key
difference here is that questions of fact may also be raised.
Judgement Not Stayed by Appeal
Provision: Rule 5 Sec 2
In civil procedure, an appeal ordinarily stays the execution of the decision. The
exceptions are discretionary execution, Injunction, receivership, accounting,
support, and such other judgments declared to be immediately executory. One
such example of the last exception can be found in the Environmental rules
because Rule 5 Sec 2 explicitly states that judgments under this rule are
executory pending appeal unless restrained by the appellate court.

Criminal Procedure

Special Prosecutor
Provision: Rule 9 Sec 3
Under criminal procedure, only a public prosecutor or a private prosecutor, when
authorized by the former, can prosecute criminal actions. In the Environmental
Rules a special prosecutor may prosecute a criminal case under an
environmental law where there is no private offended party, when the public
prosecutor consents and when allowed by the court.
Damages If No Private Offended Party
Provision: Rule 10 Sec 1
Under criminal procedure, no damages are awarded if there is no private
offended party. When there is no private offended party in a criminal prosecution
under an environmental law, however, damages may still be awarded and it
accrues to the funds of the agency charged with the implementation of the
environmental law violated. This award will be used to restore the environment.
Warrant of Arrest
Provision: Rule 11 Sec 2
Ordinarily, a warrant of arrest may not even be presented at the time of arrest.
Under the environmental rules, however, a certified true copy of the information
must also be attached to the warrant of arrest and it is deemed notice to the
accused of the charges against him.
Bail, Hold Departure Order (HDO)
Provision: Rule 14 Sec 1
Under ordinary criminal procedure, only RTCs can issue a hold departure order
in criminal cases within their exclusive jurisdiction (SC Circular No. 39-97). Under
the environmental rules a HDO may be issued at the same time an application
for bail is granted.
Arraignment

Provision: Rule 15 Sec 1

Under ordinary criminal procedure, the private offended party is required to
appear in the arraignment for purposes of the plea bargaining. Under the
environmental rules, however, the concerned governmental agency may also be
served with notice so it can attend the arraignment.

Evidence

Precautionary Principle
Provisions: Rule 1 Sec 4 (f), Rule 20
The Precautionary Principle states that "when human activities may lead to
threats of serious and irreversible damage to the environment that is scientifically
plausible but uncertain, actions shall be taken to avoid or diminish that threat.
The keyword here is uncertainty. This has repercussions in the application for an
EPO/TEPO, the burden of proof and the quantum of proof required.
Ordinarily, an application for an injunction must be premised on a clear and
unmistakable right possessed by the applicant. In environmental cases, however,
where there is almost always uncertainty as to the possible effects of a product
or action, this requirement has been dispensed with in favor of the precautionary
principle.
Moreover, an applicant for an injunction has the burden of proving his clear and
unmistakable right. In an application for an EPO/TEPO, however, the burden is
reversed, and the defendant must prove that the product or action is
environmentally safe.
Lastly, the quantum of proof required in civil procedure is mere preponderance of
evidence. That quantum is taken to an extreme low for environmental cases
because damage that is scientifically plausible but uncertain is sufficient. The
applicant must merely prove that the danger is plausible in environmental cases.