[color=#0000FF]98 A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC
ANNOTATION TO THE RULES OF
PROCEDURE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CASES
The Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases. The effort
to formulate this separate set of rules is a response to the long felt
need for more specific rules that can sufficiently address the
procedural concerns that are peculiar to environmental cases. Most
of the provisions included here are therefore remedies that are
directed to the actual difficulties encountered at present by concerned
government agencies, corporations, practitioners, people’s
organizations, non-governmental organizations, and public-interest
groups handling environmental cases.
In order to shed light on specific provisions of these Rules,
the Secretariat of the Sub-committee on these Rules developed this
Annotation to the Rules to serve as guidelines for better understanding
and application of the same.
PART I
RULE 1
GENERAL PROVISIONS
SECTION 1. Title. – These Rules shall be known as “The
Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases.”
Environmental cases. These refer to those cases covered by
Sec. 2 of these Rules, infra.
SEC. 2. Scope. – These Rules shall govern the procedure in
civil, criminal and special civil actions before the Regional Trial
Courts, Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts in
Cities, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial
Courts involving enforcement or violations of environmental and
other related laws, rules and regulations such as but not limited
to the following:
(a) Act No. 3572, Prohibition Against Cutting of Tindalo,
Akli, and Molave Trees;
(b) P.D. No. 705, Revised Forestry Code;
98
Annotation to the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases 99
(c) P.D. No. 856, Sanitation Code;
(d) P.D. No. 979, Marine Pollution Decree;
(e) P.D. No. 1067, Water Code;
(f) P.D. No. 1151, Philippine Environmental Policy of 1977;
(g) P.D. No. 1433, Plant Quarantine Law of 1978;
(h) P.D. No. 1586, Establishing an Environmental Impact
Statement System Including Other Environmental
Management Related Measures and for Other
Purposes;
(i) R.A. No. 3571, Prohibition Against the Cutting,
Destroying or Injuring of Planted or Growing Trees,
Flowering Plants and Shrubs or Plants of Scenic Value
along Public Roads, in Plazas, Parks, School Premises
or in any Other Public Ground;
(j) R.A. No. 4850, Laguna Lake Development Authority
Act;
(k) R.A. No. 6969, Toxic Substances and Hazardous Waste
Act;
(l) R.A. No. 7076, People’s Small-Scale Mining Act;
(m) R.A. No. 7586, National Integrated Protected Areas
System Act including all laws, decrees, orders,
proclamations and issuances establishing protected
areas;
(n) R.A. No. 7611, Strategic Environmental Plan for
Palawan Act;
(o) R.A. No. 7942, Philippine Mining Act;
(p) R.A. No. 8371, Indigenous Peoples Rights Act;
(q) R.A. No. 8550, Philippine Fisheries Code;
(r) R.A. No. 8749, Clean Air Act;
(s) R.A. No. 9003, Ecological Solid Waste Management
Act;
(t) R.A. No. 9072, National Caves and Cave Resource
Management Act;
(u) R.A. No. 9147, Wildlife Conservation and Protection
Act;
100 A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC
(v) R.A. No. 9175, Chainsaw Act;
(w) R.A. No. 9275, Clean Water Act;
(x) R.A. No. 9483, Oil Spill Compensation Act of 2007;
and
(y) Provisions in C.A. No. 141, The Public Land Act;
R.A. No. 6657, Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law
of 1988; R.A. No. 7160, Local Government Code of
1991; R.A. No. 7161, Tax Laws Incorporated in the
Revised Forestry Code and Other Environmental Laws
(Amending the NIRC); R.A. No. 7308, Seed Industry
Development Act of 1992; R.A. No. 7900, High-Value
Crops Development Act; R.A. No. 8048, Coconut
Preservation Act; R.A. No. 8435, Agriculture and
Fisheries Modernization Act of 1997; R.A. No. 9522,
The Philippine Archipelagic Baselines Law; R.A. No.
9593, Renewable Energy Act of 2008; R.A. No. 9637,
Philippine Biofuels Act; and other existing laws that
relate to the conservation, development, preservation,
protection and utilization of the environment and
natural resources.
Scope versus jurisdiction. It must be noted that the Rules remain
consistent with prevailing jurisprudence regarding the doctrine of
exhaustion of administrative remedies and primary jurisdiction.
Laws, rules and regulations. These Rules apply to environmental
cases arising from laws that relate to the conservation, development,
preservation, protection and utilization of the environment and natural
resources. These may include environmental laws and those laws
that may contain provisions that relate to the environment but are
not environmental laws per se (e.g. C.A. No. 141, “The Public
Land Act”; R.A. No. 7160, “The Local Government Code of 1990”,
etc…). While this section includes a list of such applicable laws,
it is not meant to be exhaustive.
In addition, since this section covers “civil, criminal and special
civil actions…involving enforcement or violations of environmental
and other related laws” (emphasis added), these Rules may apply
in other suits not necessarily based on environmental laws or laws
containing environmental provisions. Specifically, for example, if
Annotation to the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases 101
a defendant in a civil damages or defamation suit (the case of which
is governed by the regular rules of civil/criminal procedure) invokes
a SLAPP defense (see Rule 6 and 19 infra.), then these Rules shall
apply insofar as the SLAPP defense is concerned.
The courts referred to in this section are those designated as
special courts to try hear, try and decide environmental cases under
Administrative Order No. 23-20081 and those that may be designated
as such thereafter.
SEC. 3. Objectives. – The objectives of these Rules are:
(a) To protect and advance the constitutional right of the
people to a balanced and healthful ecology;
(b) To provide a simplified, speedy and inexpensive
procedure for the enforcement of environmental rights
and duties recognized under the Constitution, existing
laws, rules and regulations, and international
agreements;
(c) To introduce and adopt innovations and best practices
ensuring the effective enforcement of remedies and
redress for violation of environmental laws; and
(d) To enable the courts to monitor and exact compliance
with orders and judgments in environmental cases.
Objectives. This section contains the principal objectives of
the Rules and is not meant to be an exhaustive listing of objectives.
This section states in very broad terms the basic principles and
objectives animating the rules. They are likewise intended to be
guideposts in construing the Rules. It re-affirms the Court’s
recognition of environmental rights and provides a backdrop for the
construction of the provisions of contained herein.
Subparagraph (a) recognizes the right to “a balanced and
healthful ecology” pursuant to Section 16, Article II of the
Constitution.2
1 A.O. No. 23-2008, Re: Designation of Special Courts to Hear, Try and Decide
Environmental Cases, January 28, 2008.
2 CONSTITUTION, Article II, § 16 (emphasis supplied). The State shall protect and advance
the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and
harmony of nature.
102 A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC
Subparagraph (b) promotes access to justice by supporting the
adoption of procedural mechanisms to ensure a simplified, speedy
and inexpensive procedure for the enforcement of environmental
rights. This subparagraph also enumerates the various sources for
such rights.
Subparagraph (c) refers to innovative provisions of these Rules
regarding the defense against strategic lawsuits against public
participation (SLAPP) and the precautionary principle.
Finally, Subparagraph (d) gives emphasis to the means by
which the courts carry their jurisdiction to effect. It pertains to the
adoption of the writs of kalikasan and continuing mandamus, as well
as the issuance of an Environmental Protection Order (EPO) and
Temporary Environmental Protection Order (TEPO) to ensure the
enforcement of court orders and judgments in environmental cases.
SEC. 4. Definition of Terms. –
(a) By-product or derivatives means any part taken or
substance extracted from wildlife, in raw or in
processed form including stuffed animals and
herbarium specimens.
By-product or derivates. This definition was taken
from Sec. 5 (b) of R.A. No. 9147, “The Wildlife
Resources Conservation and Protection Act.”
(b) Consent decree refers to a judicially-approved
settlement between concerned parties based on public
interest and public policy to protect and preserve the
environment.
Consent decree. The designation of a consent decree
as a mode of settlement gives emphasis to the public
interest aspect in environmental cases and encourages
the parties to expedite the resolution of litigation.
A consent decree derives its contractual nature from
the fact of their being entered into by the parties themselves
through which they arrive at a certain compromise with
respect to the issues involved in the case, whereas their
judicial feature is acquired through the approval of the
Annotation to the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases 103
court. It has a number of advantages:3
(1) It encourages the parties (the government and the
violators) to come up with comprehensive, mutuallyacceptable
solutions to the environmental problem,
and since the agreement was arrived at voluntarily,
there is a greater possibility of actual compliance;
(2) It is open to public scrutiny;
(3) It allows the parties to address issues other than
those presented to the court; and
(4) It is still subject to judicial approval and can be
enforced through a court order.
(c) Continuing mandamus is a writ issued by a court in an
environmental case directing any agency or
instrumentality of the government or officer thereof to
perform an act or series of acts decreed by final
judgment which shall remain effective until judgment
is fully satisfied.
Continuing mandamus. The Philippine concept of a
continuing mandamus traces its origin to the cases of
T.N. Godavarman v. Union of India & Ors, 2 SCC 267
(1997), and Vineet Narain v. Union of India, 1 SCC 266
(1998). In the Godavarman case, the Supreme Court of
India in the former case issued this novel writ to save the
country’s forests from rapid deterioration due to illegal
logging, and in view of the nature of the case which
requires the court to continuously monitor compliance
with its orders. In the Narain case, the writ was issued
for the enforcement of the court order to clean up the
Ganges River. Comments made regarding such issuances
harp upon how the judiciary took upon itself policy making
functions, and as in any other jurisdiction where the
principle of separation of powers is recognized, such
judicial move received accolades as well as criticisms.
3 See Justice Consuelo Ynares-Santiago, Framework for Strengthening Environmental
Adjudication in the Philippines, 52 ATENEO L.J. 744 (2008).
104 A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC
In Philippine jurisprudence, the concept of continuing
mandamus was originally enunciated in the case of
Concerned Residents of Manila Bay v. MMDA.4 The
Rules now codify the Writ of Continuing Mandamus as
one of the principal remedies which may be availed of in
environmental cases.
(d) Environmental protection order (EPO) refers to an order
issued by the court directing or enjoining any person
or government agency to perform or desist from
performing an act in order to protect, preserve or
rehabilitate the environment.
EPO. The EPO is one of the remedial measures
adopted to ensure the effective enforcement of
environmental laws.
(e) Mineral refers to all naturally occurring inorganic
substance in solid, gas, liquid, or any intermediate
state excluding energy materials such as coal,
petroleum, natural gas, radioactive materials and
geothermal energy.
Minerals. This definition was taken from Sec. 3
(aa) of R.A. No. 7942, “The Philippine Mining Act of
1995.”
(f) 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.
Precautionary principle. The adoption of the
precautionary principle as part of these Rules, specifically
relating to evidence, recognizes that exceptional cases
may require its application. The inclusion of a definition
of this principle is an integral part of Part V, Rule on
Evidence (infra.) in environmental cases in order to ease
the burden on the part of ordinary plaintiffs to prove their
cause of action.
4 G. R. Nos. 171947-98, December 18, 2008.
Annotation to the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases 105
In its essence, the precautionary principle calls for
the exercise of caution in the face of risk and uncertainty.
While the principle can be applied in any setting in which
risk and uncertainty are found, it has evolved
predominantly in and today remains most closely
associated with the environmental arena.
The Rules acknowledge the peculiar circumstances
surrounding environmental cases in that “scientific
evidence is usually insufficient, inconclusive or uncertain
and preliminary scientific evaluation indicates that there
are reasonable grounds for concern” that there are
potentially dangerous effects on the environment, human,
animal, or planet health. For this reason, principle
requires those who have the means, knowledge, power,
and resources to take action to prevent or mitigate the
harm to the environment or to act when conclusively
ascertained understanding by science is not yet available.
In effect, the quantum of evidence to prove potentially
hazardous effects on the environment is relaxed and the
burden is shifted to proponents of an activity that may
cause damage to the environment.
There are numerous formulations5 of the
precautionary principle and it is recited in many
international declarations and treaties, so much so that
“while not all scholars agree to its status as that of
customary international law, many respected scholars
do.”6
In formulating the definition of the precautionary
principle in the Rules, the definitions found in the Rio
Declaration of 1992,7 the 1999 Canadian Protection Act
5 Noted legal scholar Cass Sunstein has listed more than twenty definitions of this
principle. See generally, Cass R. Sunstein, Irreversible and Catastrophic, Cornell L. Rev. 841
(2006).
6 John O. McGinnis, The Appropriate Hierarchy of Global Multilateralism and Customary
International Law: The Example of the WTO, 44 Va. J. Int’l L. 269 (2008), cited in Jonathan
Remy Nash, Essay: Standing and the Precautionary Principle, 108 Colum. L. Rev. 494 (2003).
7 Principle 15. In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be
widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or
106 A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC
(CEPA 1999),8 and the World Commission on the Ethics
of Scientific Knowledge and Technology (COMEST) 20059
were considered.
(g) Strategic lawsuit against public participation
(SLAPP) refers to an action whether civil, criminal or
administrative, brought against any person, institution
or any government agency or local government unit or
its officials and employees, with the intent to harass,
vex, exert undue pressure or stifle any legal recourse
that such person, institution or government agency
has taken or may take in the enforcement of
environmental laws, protection of the environment or
assertion of environmental rights.
SLAPP. The SLAPP provisions under these Rules
are innovations of the doctrine first introduced by Dr.
George W. Pring,10 as well as doctrines and practices in
other jurisdictions. The main purpose of a SLAPP suit is
to harass, vex, exert undue pressure or stifle any legal
recourse on any person, including the government from
enforcing environmental laws or protecting or asserting
environmental rights.
irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing
cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.
8 The precautionary principle has been incorporated into CEPA 1999 in the “Preamble”,
“Administrative Duties” section and in the provisions with respect to controlling toxic substances.
The principle is stated thus:
Whereas the Government of Canada is committed to implementing the
precautionary principle that, where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage,
lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective
measures to prevent environmental degradation.
9 Precautionary principle, a working definition. When human activities may lead to
morally unacceptable harm that is scientifically plausible but uncertain, actions shall be taken to
avoid or diminish that harm. Morally unacceptable harm refers to harm to humans or the
environment that is (1) threatening to human life or health; (2) serious and effectively irreversible;
(3) inequitable to present or future generations; or (4) imposed without adequate consideration
of the human rights of those affected. See The Precautionary Principle, World Commission on
the Ethics of Scientific Knowledge and Technology (COMEST), United Nations Educational,
Scientific and Cultural Organizations (UNESCO) [2005], available at unesdoc.unesco.org/
images/0013/001395/139578e.pdf (last accessed on July 11, 2009).
10 George Pring and Penelope Canan, SLAPPS: Getting Sued and Speaking Out (1996).
Annotation to the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases 107
This provision applies not only to suits that have
been filed in the form of a countersuit, but also to suits
that are about to be filed with the intention of discouraging
the aggrieved person from bringing a valid environmental
complaint before the court. Specific SLAPP provisions
in these Rules are directed separately, against civil and
criminal actions.11 The Rules pertaining to each, however,
are interrelated.
(h) Wildlife means wild forms and varieties of flora and
fauna, in all developmental stages including those which
are in captivity or are being bred or propagated.
Wildlife. This definition was taken from Sec. 5 (x)
of R.A. No. 9147, the “Wildlife Resources Conservation
and Protection Act.”
PART II
CIVIL PROCEDURE
RULE 2
PLEADINGS AND PARTIES
SEC. 1. Pleadings and motions allowed. – The pleadings and
motions that may be filed are complaint, answer which may
include compulsory counterclaim and cross-claim, motion for
intervention, motion for discovery and motion for reconsideration
of the judgment.
Motion for postponement, motion for new trial and petition
for relief from judgment shall be allowed in highly meritorious
cases or to prevent a manifest miscarriage of justice.
Exclusive list. The enumeration in this section is exclusive and
must be read in conjunction with the succeeding provision, infra.
SEC. 2. Prohibited pleadings or motions. – The following
pleadings or motions shall not be allowed:
11 RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CASES, Rules 6 and 19.
108 A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC
(a) Motion to dismiss the complaint;
(b) Motion for a bill of particulars;
(c) Motion for extension of time to file pleadings, except
to file answer, the extension not to exceed fifteen (15)
days;
(d) Motion to declare the defendant in default;
(e) Reply and rejoinder; and
(f) Third party complaint.
Prohibited pleadings. While the enumeration of prohibited
pleadings have been adopted in part from the Rule on Summary
Procedure12 in response to the question of delay which often
accompanies regular cases, summary procedure is not adopted in
its entirety given the complex and wide range of environmental
cases. Procedural safeguards have been introduced for truly complex
cases which may necessitate further evaluation from the court.
Among these are the exclusion of the motions for postponement,
new trial and reconsideration, as well as the petition for relief from
the prohibition.
Motion for postponement, motion for new trial and petition for
relief from judgment shall only be allowed in certain conditions –
12 Revised Rules on Summary Procedure, Sec. 19. This provision states:
Sec. 19. Prohibited pleadings and motions. — The following pleadings, motions or
petitions shall not be allowed in the cases covered by this Rule:
(a) Motion to dismiss the complaint or to quash the complaint or information
except on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, or failure to
comply with the preceding section;
(b) Motion for a bill of particulars;
(c) Motion for new trial, or for reconsideration of a judgment, or for opening
of trial;
(d) Petition for relief from judgment;
(e) Motion for extension of time to file pleadings, affidavits or any other
paper;
(f) Memoranda;
(g) Petition for certiorari, mandamus, or prohibition against any interlocutory
order issued by the court;
(h) Motion to declare the defendant in default;
(i) Dilatory motions for postponement;
(j) Reply;
(k) Third party complaints; and
(l) Interventions.
Annotation to the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases 109
highly meritorious cases or to prevent a manifest miscarriage of
justice. The satisfaction of these conditions is required since these
motions are prone to abuse during litigation.
Motion for intervention is permitted in order to allow the public
to participate in the filing and prosecution of environmental cases,
which are imbued with public interest.
Petitions for certiorari are likewise permitted since these raise
fundamentally questions of jurisdiction. Under the Constitution, the
Supreme Court may not be deprived of its certiorari jurisdiction.13
SEC. 3. Verified complaint. – The verified complaint shall
contain the names of the parties, their addresses, the cause of
action and the reliefs prayed for.
The plaintiff shall attach to the verified complaint all
evidence proving or supporting the cause of action consisting of
the affidavits of witnesses, documentary evidence and if possible,
object evidence. The affidavits shall be in question and answer
form and shall comply with the rules of admissibility of evidence.
The complaint shall state that it is an environmental case
and the law involved. The complaint shall also include a
certification against forum shopping. If the complaint is not an
environmental complaint, the presiding judge shall refer it to
the executive judge for re-raffle.
13 CONSTITUTION, Article VIII, § 5(2). The Supreme Court shall have the following
powers:
x x x
(2) Review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal or certiorari, as the law
or the Rules of Court may provide, final judgments and orders of lower courts in:
(a) All cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty, international
or executive agreement, law, presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction,
ordinance, or regulation is in question.
(b) All cases involving the legality of any tax, impost, assessment, or toll, or
any penalty imposed in relation thereto.
(c) All cases in which the jurisdiction of any lower court is in issue.
(d) All criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua or
higher.
(e) All cases in which only an error or question of law is involved.
110 A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC
Evidence all in; complaint misfiled as an environmental
complaint. The provision requires the attachment of all evidence
then available. This is to facilitate complete presentation of facts by
the parties. This likewise entails a relaxation of the technical rules
on admissibility.
The appropriate action to be taken by the presiding judge if a
complaint is misfiled as an environmental complaint is to refer the
complaint to the executive judge for re-raffle, the complaint should
not be dismissed.
SEC. 4. Who may file. – Any real party in interest, including
the government and juridical entities authorized by law, may
file a civil action involving the enforcement or violation of any
environmental law.
Real party in interest. The phrase “real party in interest” in
this provision retains the same meaning under the Rules of Civil
Procedure14 and jurisprudence.It must be understood, however, in
conjunction with the nature of environmental rights, which are
enjoyed in general by all individuals. Under this section, both a
Filipino citizen and an alien can file a suit so long as they are able
to show direct and personal injury. This provision on real party in
interest must be read in conjunction with citizen suit provisions —
Sec. 5 of this Rule15 and Sec. 1, Rule 5.16
A person who suffers damage or injury arising from an
environmental prejudice which is also the same subject of a citizen
suit can file a separate action under this section to recover for his
personal injury. In this instance, a citizen suit can take place
simultaneously with the filing of an individual complaint.
SEC. 5. Citizen suit. – Any Filipino citizen in representation
of others, including minors or generations yet unborn, may file
an action to enforce rights or obligations under environmental
14 Rules of Court, Rule 3, Sec. 2. Parties in interest. — A real party in interest is the
party who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit, or the party entitled to the
avails of the suit. Unless otherwise authorized by law or these Rules, every action must be
prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party in interest.
15 RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CASES, Rule 2, Sec. 5.
16 RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CASES, Rule 5, Sec. 1.
Annotation to the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases 111
laws. Upon the filing of a citizen suit, the court shall issue an
order which shall contain a brief description of the cause of
action and the reliefs prayed for, requiring all interested parties
to manifest their interest to intervene in the case within fifteen
(15) days from notice thereof. The plaintiff may publish the
order once in a newspaper of a general circulation in the
Philippines or furnish all affected barangays copies of said order.
Citizen suits filed under R.A. No. 8749 and R.A. No. 9003
shall be governed by their respective provisions.
Citizen suit. To further encourage the protection of the
environment, the Rules enable litigants enforcing environmental
rights to file their cases as citizen suits. This provision liberalizes
standing for all cases filed enforcing environmental laws and
collapses the traditional rule on personal and direct interest, on the
principle that humans are stewards of nature. The terminology of
the text reflects the doctrine first enunciated in Oposa v. Factoran,17
insofar as it refers to minors and generations yet unborn.
While the Rules liberalize the requirements for standing, in
the case of non-government organizations (NGOs) and people’s
organizations (POs), proof of their juridical personality (i.e.
accreditation, recognition or registration) given the relative ease by
which a number of groups can loosely organize and label themselves
as NGOs or POs. The same proof of juridical personality is also
required in a petition for a writ of kalikasan.18
Unlike the previous section on real party in interest, Sec. 5 is
a suit limited to Filipino citizens and one that is filed in the public
interest hence, no proof of personal injury is required. A Filipino
citizen may be an individual or a corporation so long as the
requirements of Philippine citizenship are complied with. The
reliefs that may be awarded in a citizen suit are discussed in Rule
5, Sec. 1, infra.
As a procedural device, citizen suits permit deferment of
payment of filing fees until after the judgment.19
17 G.R. 101083, July 30, 1993.
18 RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CASES, Rule 7, Sec. 1.
19 RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CASES, Rule 2, Sec. 12.
112 A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC
The provision permits the plaintiff to publish the order containing
a brief description of the action in order to allow other persons to
join as co-plaintiffs and to sufficiently apprise the judge of persons
interested to join as such, consistent with the public character of the
citizen suit. This adopts the features of the general rule on publication
found in cases in rem, and is meant to reflect the distinct nature of
environmental cases. In this Rule, however, publication is permissive
and non-jurisdictional and is meant only to encourage public
participation.
Citizen suits may be filed for all types of environmental cases.
In deference to the legislature, however, the provision adds as a
caveat that citizen suits under the Clean Air Act of 1999) and the
Ecological Solid Waste Management Act of 2000 shall be governed
by their respective provisions.
SEC. 6. Service of the complaint on the government or its
agencies. – Upon the filing of the complaint, the plaintiff is
required to furnish the government or the appropriate agency,
although not a party, a copy of the complaint. Proof of service
upon the government or the appropriate agency shall be attached
to the complaint.
Service of complaint upon government or its agencies. This
provision makes it mandatory for plaintiffs to notify the concerned
branch of government. Two agencies have been noted in particular:
the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR)
and the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG). If their participation
should prove unwarranted, they may file a manifestation to that
effect.
The service of the complaint would apprise the government of
the pendency of the case and the agencies may intervene if warranted.
The government agency may thus employ its resources, as well as
expertise, to successfully pursue the case.
SEC. 7. Assignment by raffle. – If there is only one (1)
designated branch in a multiple-sala court, the executive judge
shall immediately refer the case to said branch. If there are two
(2) or more designated branches, the executive judge shall
conduct a special raffle on the day the complaint is filed.
Annotation to the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases 113
SEC. 8. Issuance of Temporary Environmental Protection
Order (TEPO). – If it appears from the verified complaint with
a prayer for the issuance of an Environmental Protection Order
(EPO) that the matter is of extreme urgency and the applicant
will suffer grave injustice and irreparable injury, the executive
judge of the multiple-sala court before raffle or the presiding
judge of a single-sala court as the case may be, may issue ex parte
a TEPO effective for only seventy-two (72) hours from date of
the receipt of the TEPO by the party or person enjoined. Within
said period, the court where the case is assigned, shall conduct
a summary hearing to determine whether the TEPO may be
extended until the termination of the case.
The court where the case is assigned, shall periodically
monitor the existence of acts that are the subject matter of the
TEPO even if issued by the executive judge, and may lift the
same at any time as circumstances may warrant.
The applicant shall be exempted from the posting of a bond
for the issuance of a TEPO.
TEPO. The temporary environmental protection order (TEPO)
integrates both prohibitive and mandatory reliefs in order to
appropriately address the factual circumstances surrounding the
case. This is derived from the nature of an EPO, which, as defined,
is an “order issued by the court directing or enjoining any person
or government agency to perform or desist from performing an act
in order to protect, preserve, or rehabilitate the environment.”20
The procedure for the issuance of the TEPO stems from the
same procedure for the issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order,
as it appears in Sections 521 and 622 of Rule 58 of the Rules of Court.
20 RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CASES, Rule 1, Sec. 4 (d).
21 Sec. 5. Preliminary injunction not granted without notice; exception. — No preliminary
injunction shall be granted without hearing and prior notice to the party or person sought to be
enjoined. If it shall appear from facts shown by affidavits or by the verified application that
great or irreparable injury would result to the applicant before the matter can be heard on notice,
the court to which the application for preliminary injunction was made, may issue ex parte a
temporary restraining order to be effective only for a period of twenty (20) days from service
on the party or person sought to be enjoined, except as herein provided. Within the said twentyday
period, the court must order said party or person to show cause, at a specified time and
114 A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC
The Rules provide that an applicant who files for the issuance
of a TEPO is exempt from the posting of a bond, but the Rules also
provide for safeguards for the possible pernicious effects upon the
party or person sought to be enjoined by the TEPO:
1. A TEPO may only be issued in matters of extreme urgency
and the applicant will suffer grave injustice and
irreparable injury, the TEPO effective for only seventytwo
(72) hours; and
2. The court should periodically monitor the existence of
acts which are the subject matter of the TEPO, the TEPO
place, why the injunction should not be granted, determine within the same period whether or
not the preliminary injunction shall be granted, and accordingly issue the corresponding order.
However, and subject to the provisions of the preceding sections, if the matter is of
extreme urgency and the applicant will suffer grave injustice and irreparable injury, the executive
judge of a multiple-sala court or the presiding judge of a single-sala court may issue ex parte a
temporary restraining order effective for only seventy-two (72) hours from issuance but he shall
immediately comply with the provisions of the next preceding section as to service of summons
and the documents to be served therewith. Thereafter, within the aforesaid seventy-two (72)
hours, the judge before whom the case is pending shall conduct a summary hearing to determine
whether the temporary restraining order shall be extended until the application for preliminary
injunction can be heard. In no case shall the total period of effectivity of the temporary
restraining order exceed twenty (20) days, including the original seventy-two hours provided
herein.
In the event that the application for preliminary injunction is denied or not resolved
within the said period, the temporary restraining order is deemed automatically vacated. The
effectivity of a temporary restraining order is not extendible without need of any judicial
declaration to that effect and no court shall have authority to extend or renew the same on the
same ground for which it was issued.However, if issued by the Court of Appeals or a member
thereof, the temporary restraining order shall be effective for sixty (60) days from service on
the party or person sought to be enjoined. A restraining order issued by the Supreme Court or
a member thereof shall be effective until further orders.
22 SEC. 6. Grounds for objection to, or for motion of dissolution of, injunction or
restraining order. — The application for injunction or restraining order may be denied, upon a
showing of its insufficiency. The injunction or restraining order may also be denied, or, if
granted, may be dissolved, on other grounds upon affidavits of the party or person enjoined,
which may be opposed by the applicant also by affidavits. It may further be denied, or, if
granted, may be dissolved, if it appears after hearing that although the applicant is entitled to the
injunction or restraining order, the issuance or continuance thereof, as the case may be, would
cause irreparable damage to the party or person enjoined while the applicant can be fully
compensated for such damages as he may suffer, and the former files a bond in an amount fixed
by the court conditioned that he will pay all damages which the applicant may suffer by the
denial or the dissolution of the injunction or restraining order. If it appears that the extent of the
preliminary injunction or restraining order granted is too great, it may be modified.
Annotation to the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases 115
can being lifted anytime as the circumstances may
warrant.
While the TEPO may be issued ex parte, this is more of the
exception. The general rule on the conduct of a hearing, pursuant
to due process, remains.
SEC. 9. Action on motion for dissolution of TEPO. – The
grounds for motion to dissolve a TEPO shall be supported by
affidavits of the party or person enjoined which the applicant
may oppose, also by affidavits.
The TEPO may be dissolved if it appears after hearing that
its issuance or continuance would cause irreparable damage to
the party or person enjoined while the applicant may be fully
compensated for such damages as he may suffer and subject to
the posting of a sufficient bond by the party or person enjoined.
SEC. 10. Prohibition against temporary restraining order
(TRO) and preliminary injunction. – Except the Supreme Court,
no court can issue a TRO or writ of preliminary injunction
against lawful actions of government agencies that enforce
environmental laws or prevent violations thereof.
Prohibition against TRO and preliminary injunction. The
formulation of this section is derived from the provisions of P.D.
60523 and likewise covers the provisions of P.D. 1818.24 To obviate
23 Banning the Issuance by Courts of Preliminary Injunctions in Cases Involving
Concessions, Licenses and Other Permits Issued by Public Administrative Officials or Bodies for
the Exploitation of Natural Resources:
Section 1. No court of the Philippines shall have jurisdiction to issue any restraining
order, preliminary injunction or preliminary mandatory injunction in any case involving or
growing out of the issuance, approval or disapproval, revocation or suspension of, or any action
whatsoever by the proper administrative official or body on concessions, licenses, permits,
patents, or public grants of any kind in connection with the disposition, exploitation, utilization,
exploration, and/or development of the natural resources of the Philippines.
24 Prohibiting Courts From Issuing Restraining Orders or Preliminary Injunctions in
Cases Involving Infrastructure and Natural Resources Development Projects Of and Public
Utilities Operated by the Government:
Section 1. No court in the Philippines shall have jurisdiction to issue any restraining
order, preliminary injunction, or preliminary mandatory injunction in any case, dispute, or
controversy involving an infrastructure project, or a mining, fishery, forest or other natural
resource development project of the government, or any public utility operated by the government,
116 A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC
future conflict between the present provision and these two laws,
the prohibition on the issuance of a TRO remains the general rule
while its issuance is the exception. In availing of the exception, the
movant must overcome the presumption of regularity in the
performance of a duty by the respondent government agency or
official. The judge must then require a higher standard and heavier
burden of proof.
R.A. No. 8975 amended P.D. 605 and P.D. 1818.25 Pursuant
to the mandate of R.A. No. 8975,26 only the Supreme Court has the
authority to issue a temporary restraining order, preliminary
injunction and preliminary mandatory injunction against the
Government or any of its instrumentalities, officials and agencies
in cases such as those filed by bidders or those claiming to have
rights through such bidders involving such contract or project. R.A.
No. 8975 prohibits lower courts from issuing injunctive orders in
connection with the implementation of government infrastructure
projects unless the case pertains to matters of extreme urgency
involving constitutional issues such that unless a temporary restraining
order is issued, grave injustice and irreparable injury will arise.27
This provision is distinct from the previous section on the
issuance of a TEPO28 where the latter is premised on the violation
including among others public utilities for the transport of the goods or commodities, stevedoring
and arrastre contracts, to prohibit any person or persons, entity or governmental official from
proceeding with, or continuing the execution or implementation of any such project, or the
operation of such public utility, or pursuing any lawful activity necessary for such execution,
implementation or operation.
25 R.A. 8975, An Act to Ensure the Expeditious Implementation and Completion of
Government Infrastructure Projects by Prohibiting Lower Courts from Issuing Temporary
Restraining Orders, Preliminary Injunctions or Preliminary Mandatory Injunctions, Providing
Penalties for Violations thereof, and for Other Purposes, November 7, 2000. The provision
states:
Section 9. Repealing Clause. - All laws, decrees, including Presidential Decree No.
605, 1818 and Republic Act No. 7160, as amended, orders, rules and regulations or parts thereof
inconsistent with this Act are hereby repealed or amended accordingly.
26 Section 3. Prohibition on the Issuance of Temporary Restraining Orders, Preliminary
Mandatory Injunctions.
27 WT Construction, Inc. vs. Department of Public Works and Highways, G.R. 163352,
July 31, 2007.
28 RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CASES, Rule 2, Sec. 8.
Annotation to the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases 117
of an environmental law or a threatened damage or injury to the
environment by any person, even the government and its agencies,
the prohibition against the issuance of a TRO or preliminary injunction
is premised on the presumption of regularity on the government and
its agencies in enforcing environmental laws and protecting the
environment. This section is formulated to support government and
its agencies in their responsibilities and tasks. Therefore, in the
absence of evidence overcoming this presumption of regularity, no
court can issue a TRO or injunctive writ. It is only the Supreme
Court which can issue a TRO or an injunctive writ in exceptional
cases.
SEC. 11. Report on TEPO, EPO, TRO or preliminary
injunction. – The judge shall report any action taken on a TEPO,
EPO, TRO or a preliminary injunction, including its modification
and dissolution, to the Supreme Court, through the Office of the
Court Administrator, within ten (10) days from the action taken.
Report on action taken. As an additional measure to ensure the
proper issuance of such court orders, the Rules provide a
requirement for the issuing judge to report any action taken on such
court issuances. The report shall be submitted to the High Court
through the Office of the Court Administrator within ten (10) days
from the action taken.
SEC. 12. Payment of filing and other legal fees. – The
payment of filing and other legal fees by the plaintiff shall be
deferred until after judgment unless the plaintiff is allowed to
litigate as an indigent. It shall constitute a first lien on the
judgment award.
For a citizen suit, the court shall defer the payment of filing
and other legal fees that shall serve as first lien on the judgment
award.
SEC. 13. Service of summons, orders and other court
processes. – The summons, orders and other court processes
may be served by the sheriff, his deputy or other proper court
officer or for justifiable reasons, by the counsel or representative
of the plaintiff or any suitable person authorized or deputized by
the court issuing the summons.
118 A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC
Any private person who is authorized or deputized by the
court to serve summons, orders and other court processes shall
for that purpose be considered an officer of the court.
The summons shall be served on the defendant, together
with a copy of an order informing all parties that they have
fifteen (15) days from the filing of an answer, within which to
avail of interrogatories to parties under Rule 25 of the Rules of
Court and request for admission by adverse party under Rule
26, or at their discretion, make use of depositions under Rule 23
or other measures under Rules 27 and 28.
Should personal and substituted service fail, summons by
publication shall be allowed. In the case of juridical entities,
summons by publication shall be done by indicating the names of
the officers or their duly authorized representatives.
Service by a suitable person. The “suitable person” indicated
in the first paragraph of this section is required to perform the
duties of a sheriff. The role is also similar to that of a process
server. The next paragraph imposes the duties and responsibilities
of an officer of the court on a private person authorized or deputized
to serve summons.
Under the last paragraph, service by publication is deemed a
sufficient compliance with the requirement of due process. The
plaintiff, however, must file a motion in order to avail of this mode
of service. This mode of service by publication is an innovation to
the traditional rule on service of summons and applies to
environmental cases.
SEC. 14. Verified answer. – Within fifteen (15) days from
receipt of summons, the defendant shall file a verified answer to
the complaint and serve a copy thereof on the plaintiff. The
defendant shall attach affidavits of witnesses, reports, studies of
experts and all evidence in support of the defense.
Affirmative and special defenses not pleaded shall be deemed
waived, except lack of jurisdiction.
Cross-claims and compulsory counterclaims not asserted
shall be considered barred. The answer to counterclaims or
Annotation to the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases 119
cross-claims shall be filed and served within ten (10) days from
service of the answer in which they are pleaded.
Attachment of all evidence in support of defense. The term
“evidence” is used in its broad sense and is meant to be inclusive
of all types of evidence peculiar to an environmental case. Evidence
attached to the verified answer includes affidavits of witnesses,
reports and studies of experts on a particular environmental theory.
SEC. 15. Effect of failure to answer. – Should the defendant
fail to answer the complaint within the period provided, the
court shall declare defendant in default and upon motion of the
plaintiff, shall receive evidence ex parte and render judgment
based thereon and the reliefs prayed for.
RULE 3
PRE-TRIAL
SEC. 1. Notice of pre-trial. – Within two (2) days from the
filing of the answer to the counterclaim or cross-claim, if any,
the branch clerk of court shall issue a notice of the pre-trial to
be held not later than one (1) month from the filing of the last
pleading.
The court shall schedule the pre-trial and set as many pretrial
conferences as may be necessary within a period of two (2)
months counted from the date of the first pre-trial conference.
Issuance of notice of pre-trial. A time limit to the issuance of
the notice of pre-trial inasmuch as the setting of pre-trial sets the
entire proceedings in motion.
SEC. 2. Pre-trial brief. – At least three (3) days before the
pre-trial, the parties shall submit pre-trial briefs containing the
following:
(a) A statement of their willingness to enter into an
amicable settlement indicating the desired terms
thereof or to submit the case to any of the alternative
modes of dispute resolution;
(b) A summary of admitted facts and proposed stipulation
of facts;
120 A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC
(c) The legal and factual issues to be tried or resolved.
For each factual issue, the parties shall state all evidence
to support their positions thereon. For each legal issue,
parties shall state the applicable law and jurisprudence
supporting their respective positions thereon;
(d) The documents or exhibits to be presented, including
depositions, answers to interrogatories and answers to
written request for admission by adverse party, stating
the purpose thereof;
(e) A manifestation of their having availed of discovery
procedures or their intention to avail themselves of
referral to a commissioner or panel of experts;
(f) The number and names of the witnesses and the
substance of their affidavits;
(g) Clarificatory questions from the parties; and
(h) List of cases arising out of the same facts pending
before other courts or administrative agencies.
Failure to comply with the required contents of a pre-trial
brief may be a ground for contempt.
Failure to file the pre-trial brief shall have the same effect
as failure to appear at the pre-trial.
Contents of pre-trial brief. The contents of a pre-trial brief
was generally taken from A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC, “Rule on Guidelines
to be Observed by Trial Court Judges and Clerks of Court in the
Conduct of Pre-Trial and Use of Deposition-Discovery Measures”
(Guidelines on Pre-trial).29
Sanctions. The last paragraph imposes a sanction on the failure
to file a pre-trial brief. Nevertheless, the judge may proceed in
setting the pre-trial, to keep the case docketed. A show-cause order
may likewise be issued seeking an explanation as to why either or
both the parties failed at pre-trial. The Rules provide a more
lenient approach to a party who fails to file a pre-trial brief since
it is important for evidence to be submitted given the peculiar nature
29 August 16, 2004.
Annotation to the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases 121
of an environmental case and the complex character of evidence
involved.
SEC. 3. Referral to mediation. – At the start of the pre-trial
conference, the court shall inquire from the parties if they have
settled the dispute; otherwise, the court shall immediately refer
the parties or their counsel, if authorized by their clients, to the
Philippine Mediation Center (PMC) unit for purposes of
mediation. If not available, the court shall refer the case to the
clerk of court or legal researcher for mediation.
Mediation must be conducted within a non-extendible period
of thirty (30) days from receipt of notice of referral to mediation.
The mediation report must be submitted within ten (10)
days from the expiration of the 30-day period.
Mediation. If the parties have not settled their dispute at this
stage, the provision makes it mandatory for the judge to refer the
parties to mediation. Another innovation in the provision is the
availability of the services of the legal researcher for the conduct
of mediation in the absence of the PMC or the clerk of court. This
is in recognition of the fact the mediation services by the PMC is
not available in some areas and the heavy workload of the clerk of
court may not permit the latter’s participation in mediation
proceedings.
SEC. 4. Preliminary conference. – If mediation fails, the
court will schedule the continuance of the pre-trial. Before the
scheduled date of continuance, the court may refer the case to
the branch clerk of court for a preliminary conference for the
following purposes:
(a) To assist the parties in reaching a settlement;
(b) To mark the documents or exhibits to be presented by
the parties and copies thereof to be attached to the
records after comparison with the originals;
(c) To ascertain from the parties the undisputed facts and
admissions on the genuineness and due execution of
the documents marked as exhibits;
(d) To require the parties to submit the depositions taken
under Rule 23 of the Rules of Court, the answers to
122 A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC
written interrogatories under Rule 25, and the answers
to request for admissions by the adverse party under
Rule 26;
(e) To require the production of documents or things
requested by a party under Rule 27 and the results of
the physical and mental examination of persons under
Rule 28;
(f) To consider such other matters as may aid in its prompt
disposition;
(g) To record the proceedings in the “Minutes of
Preliminary Conference” to be signed by both parties
or their counsels;
(h) To mark the affidavits of witnesses which shall be in
question and answer form and shall constitute the direct
examination of the witnesses; and
(i) To attach the minutes together with the marked exhibits
before the pre-trial proper.
The parties or their counsel must submit to the branch
clerk of court the names, addresses and contact numbers of the
affiants.
During the preliminary conference, the branch clerk of
court shall also require the parties to submit the depositions
taken under Rule 23 of the Rules of Court, the answers to written
interrogatories under Rule 25 and the answers to request for
admissions by the adverse party under Rule 26. The branch
clerk of court may also require the production of documents or
things requested by a party under Rule 27 and the results of the
physical and mental examination of persons under Rule 28.
Use of depositions. The sole purpose for the use of depositions
at pre-trial is to obtain admissions. This excludes the presentation
of evidence.
SEC. 5. Pre-trial conference; consent decree. – The judge
shall put the parties and their counsels under oath, and they
shall remain under oath in all pre-trial conferences.
The judge shall exert best efforts to persuade the parties to
arrive at a settlement of the dispute. The judge may issue a
Annotation to the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases 123
consent decree approving the agreement between the parties in
accordance with law, morals, public order and public policy to
protect the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology.
Evidence not presented during the pre-trial, except newlydiscovered
evidence, shall be deemed waived.
Consent decree. This section encourages parties to reach an
agreement regarding settlement through a consent decree, which
gives emphasis to the public interest aspect in the assertion of the
right to a balanced and healthful ecology.
SEC. 6. Failure to settle. – If there is no full settlement, the
judge shall:
(a) Adopt the minutes of the preliminary conference as
part of the pre-trial proceedings and confirm the
markings of exhibits or substituted photocopies and
admissions on the genuineness and due execution of
documents;
(b) Determine if there are cases arising out of the same
facts pending before other courts and order its
consolidation if warranted;
(c) Determine if the pleadings are in order and if not,
order the amendments if necessary;
(d) Determine if interlocutory issues are involved and
resolve the same;
(e) Consider the adding or dropping of parties;
(f) Scrutinize every single allegation of the complaint,
answer and other pleadings and attachments thereto,
and the contents of documents and all other evidence
identified and pre-marked during pre-trial in
determining further admissions;
(g) Obtain admissions based on the affidavits of witnesses
and evidence attached to the pleadings or submitted
during pre-trial;
(h) Define and simplify the factual and legal issues arising
from the pleadings and evidence. Uncontroverted issues
and frivolous claims or defenses should be eliminated;
124 A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC
(i) Discuss the propriety of rendering a summary
judgment or a judgment based on the pleadings,
evidence and admissions made during pre-trial;
(j) Observe the Most Important Witness Rule in limiting
the number of witnesses, determining the facts to be
proved by each witness and fixing the approximate
number of hours per witness;
(k) Encourage referral of the case to a trial by
commissioner under Rule 32 of the Rules of Court or
to a mediator or arbitrator under any of the alternative
modes of dispute resolution governed by the Special
Rules of Court on Alternative Dispute Resolution;
(l) Determine the necessity of engaging the services of a
qualified expert as a friend of the court (amicus curiae);
and
(m) Ask parties to agree on the specific trial dates for
continuous trial, comply with the one-day examination
of witness rule, adhere to the case flow chart
determined by the court which shall contain the
different stages of the proceedings up to the
promulgation of the decision and use the time frame
for each stage in setting the trial dates.
Amicus curiae. The engagement of an amicus curiae involves
a prior determination by the court that the person summoned is an
expert. There is no requirement that the amicus curiae be qualified
as an expert. In selecting an expert, the court may take into
consideration, in addition to or in lieu of formal education the expert’s
skill, experience and other factors. The expert, however, is subject
to cross examination.
SEC. 7. Effect of failure to appear at pre-trial. – The court
shall not dismiss the complaint, except upon repeated and
unjustified failure of the plaintiff to appear. The dismissal shall
be without prejudice, and the court may proceed with the
counterclaim.
If the defendant fails to appear at the pre-trial, the court
shall receive evidence ex parte.
Annotation to the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases 125
Failure to appear at pre-trial. Some leeway is provided for the
plaintiff in an environmental case insofar as the complaint is not
immediately dismissed on account of a single failure to appear at
pre-trial. The dismissal of the case to judicial discretion as to the
number of absences involved. In fairness to the defendant, the
counterclaim filed shall be allowed to proceed, unless the
counterclaim is determined to be a SLAPP.
SEC. 8. Minutes of pre-trial. – The minutes of each pretrial
conference shall contain matters taken up therein, more
particularly admissions of facts and exhibits, and shall be signed
by the parties and their counsel.
SEC. 9. Pre-trial order. – Within ten (10) days after the
termination of the pre-trial, the court shall issue a pre-trial
order setting forth the actions taken during the pre-trial
conference, the facts stipulated, the admissions made, the
evidence marked, the number of witnesses to be presented and
the schedule of trial. Said order shall bind the parties, limit the
trial to matters not disposed of and control the course of action
during the trial.
SEC. 10. Efforts to settle. – The court shall endeavor to
make the parties agree to compromise or settle in accordance
with law at any stage of the proceedings before rendition of
judgment.
Power of the court to impose participation and cooperation in
pre-trial. Alternative modes of dispute resolution should be
encouraged because of the nature of environment cases which require
broader settlements that are more appropriate to negotiation or
agency action. In recognition of this, the Rules emphasize the
court’s role to encourage participation and cooperation between the
parties during pre-trial.
RULE 4
TRIAL
SEC. 1. Continuous trial. – The judge shall conduct
continuous trial which shall not exceed two (2) months from the
date of the issuance of the pre-trial order.
126 A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC
Before the expiration of the two-month period, the judge
may ask the Supreme Court for the extension of the trial period
for justifiable cause.
Continuous trial. One of the key features of the Rules is the
abbreviated timeline available and permitted to the courts in resolving
environmental cases. This appears prominently in the provisions on
trial, which traditionally occupies the greater amount of time in
litigation.
This section provides for the conduct of continuous trial. This,
however, does not warrant the conduct of trial on a day-to-day
basis. Emphasis is simply made on the timeframe within which the
trial must be conducted.
SEC. 2. Affidavits in lieu of direct examination. – In lieu of
direct examination, affidavits marked during the pre-trial shall
be presented as direct examination of affiants subject to crossexamination
by the adverse party.
Affidavits in lieu of direct examination. Affidavits are employed
in lieu of direct examination in order to obviate delays in procedure
which have been identified and known to accompany direct
examinations. The preparation of affidavits narrows the scope of
examination, as well as focuses the inquiry on the very merits of the
controversy. Prior to their presentation as evidence, this provision
presupposes that the admissibility of the affidavits have already
been considered at pre-trial.
SEC. 3. One-day examination of witness rule. – The court
shall strictly adhere to the rule that a witness has to be fully
examined in one (1) day, subject to the court’s discretion of
extending the examination for justifiable reason. After the
presentation of the last witness, only oral offer of evidence shall
be allowed, and the opposing party shall immediately interpose
his objections. The judge shall forthwith rule on the offer of
evidence in open court.
SEC. 4. Submission of case for decision; filing of memoranda.
– After the last party has rested its case, the court shall issue an
order submitting the case for decision.
Annotation to the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases 127
The court may require the parties to submit their respective
memoranda, if possible in electronic form, within a nonextendible
period of thirty (30) days from the date the case is
submitted for decision.
The court shall have a period of sixty (60) days to decide
the case from the date the case is submitted for decision.
Submission of memoranda. The section provides for the
submission of the memoranda in electronic form. This is in response
to developments in information technology and in anticipation of
further developments in the legal system with respect to the use of
computers and the internet.
The court has a disposition period of sixty (60) days from the
date that the case is submitted for decision. The period applies with
or without a memorandum being filed.
SEC. 5. Period to try and decide. – The court shall have a
period of one (1) year from the filing of the complaint to try and
decide the case. Before the expiration of the one-year period,
the court may petition the Supreme Court for the extension of
the period for justifiable cause.
The court shall prioritize the adjudication of environmental
cases.
Prioritization of environmental cases. The designated
environmental courts will try and decide environmental cases on
top of their other caseload.
RULE 5
JUDGMENT AND EXECUTION
SEC. 1. Reliefs in a citizen suit. – If warranted, the court
may grant to the plaintiff proper reliefs which shall include the
protection, preservation or rehabilitation of the environment
and the payment of attorney’s fees, costs of suit and other litigation
expenses. It may also require the violator to submit a program
of rehabilitation or restoration of the environment, the costs of
which shall be borne by the violator, or to contribute to a special
trust fund for that purpose subject to the control of the court.
128 A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC
Reliefs in a citizen suit. The Rule provides for a number of
broad reliefs in a citizen suit which are not confined to monetary
awards, these include the protection, preservation or rehabilitation
of the environment and the payment of attorney’s fees, costs of suit
and other litigation expenses. The broad range of reliefs provided
under the Rules is in line with the ruling in the Manila Bay case
where the respondents were ordered to maintain a fund for the
restoration and rehabilitation of Manila Bay. The Court in the
Manila Bay case did not specify an amount for restoration, but
instead ordered the respondents to restore and rehabilitation Manila
Bay whatever the costs. The Court’s decision in the Manila Bay
case is also reflected in Article 1167 of the Civil Code, the first
paragraph of which states, “If a person obliged to do something
fails to do it, the same shall be executed at his cost.”30
The phrase “litigation expenses” in this provision encompasses
expenses for preparation of witnesses, witness fees and other fees
which cannot be paid for under the present rules.
No damages can be awarded in a citizen suit. This measure
is in line with the policy that a citizen suit is filed in the public
interest, and in effect, it is the environment which is vindicated in
the action. Hence, a party or person who suffers damage or injury
arising from an environment prejudice which is also the same subject
of citizen suit cannot claim for damages in a citizen suit since it is
the environment that is vindicated in the action. The only recourse
of a party or person who wishes to recover damages for injury
suffered is to file a sepa

Is this the full text of the law?