Supreme Court OK’s writ of kalikasan

Environmental advocates have been given a new weapon in the writ of kalikasan (nature) as the Supreme Court promulgated on Wednesday fresh reforms in the judicial system. The move paves the way for speedier legal action on environmental cases filed in the nation’s courts, and the writ was described by officials as a world first. The high court defined the writ of kalikasan as a "remedy available to a natural or juridical person, entity authorized by law, people’s organization, non-governmental organization, or 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 with violation by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or private individual or entity, involving environmental damage of such magnitude as to prejudice the life, health or property of inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces." It is a "remedial measure meant to immediately stop the alleged violation," court administrator Jose Midas Marquez said, likening it to the Supreme Court’s 2007 decision to promulgate the writ of amparo (protection) to safeguard human rights. Based on the rules, the high court will have to rule on petitions for a writ of kalikasan within 60 days. Regular courts, meanwhile, can also grant a 72-hour temporary environment protection order, similar to a regular restraining order, if the case is deemed a matter of "extreme urgency" where the petitioner faces "grave injustice and irreparable injury." The court may convert the order to either a permanent one or extend the status until the environmental protection or rehabilitation is fully complied with. The new rules are not stacked in favor of complainants; they also provide a recourse for defendants called strategic lawsuits against public participation. Marquez said petitions for the writ would be deemed "preemptive in character," which means the defendant could invoke it "to chill" the one seeking the enforcement of the environmental law." The mining industry, facing objections from indigenous communities in many mining concession areas, has adopted a wait-and-see attitude on the impact of the new rules. In a text message, Nelia C. Halcon, Chamber of Mines executive vice-president, said: "We have yet to come up with the implications. But for sure, it will have both positive and maybe negative impact depending on how this will be utilized." "This may be a concern... If any individual feels there is a violation, it could pose a big problem. Things like these can be handled by regulatory authorities," mining industry observer Richard Mills said. Marquez said the high court had consulted the mining industry while drafting the rules. Magsaysay awardee for the environment Antonio Oposa Jr., the lawyer responsible for the high court’s decision ordering the government to clean up Manila Bay, said: "Ordinary citizens like us are now empowered to take legal action where our political leaders will not." Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno first announced the writ of kalikasan to the media last January. He then said he wanted to finalize the rules of procedure as soon as possible. Puno will retire on May 17. — BusinessWorld