Citizen suit allowed in environmental cases

Dear PAO,

I have been noticing some neighbors dumping trash in a nearby creek across our subdivision. It is not part of my property, nor am I directly injured or damaged by the acts of the said persons. However, I have been noticing that the once thriving creek seems to be losing its vibrance in terms of plants and animals. There are fewer fishes caught according to local fishermen and the plants that used to flourish are no longer there. Can I file a case even if I am not directly affected?

Zeph

Dear Zeph,

Please be informed of the Supreme Court’s ruling in the case of Resident Marine Mammals of the Protected Seascape Tañon Strait vs. Sec. Angelo Reyes, et al., GR 180771 and 181527, April 21, 2015, penned by Chief Justice Teresita Leonardo-de Castro, where it was provided that the rule on legal standing (locus standi) was relaxed in environmental cases, viz.:

“It had been suggested by animal rights advocates and environmentalists that not only natural and juridical persons should be given legal standing because of the difficulty for persons, who cannot show that they by themselves are real parties-in-interests, to bring actions in representation of these animals or inanimate objects. For this reason, many environmental cases have been dismissed for failure of the petitioner to show that he/she would be directly injured or affected by the outcome of the case. However, in our jurisdiction, locus standi in environmental cases has been given a more liberalized approach. While developments in Philippine legal theory and jurisprudence have not progressed as far as Justice Douglas’s paradigm of legal standing for inanimate objects, the current trend moves towards simplification of procedures and facilitating court access in environmental cases.

“Recently, the Court passed the landmark Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases, which allow for a “citizen suit,” and permit any Filipino citizen to file an action before our courts for violations of our environmental laws:

“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 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.” (Emphasis Ours)

As stated above, the new rules of procedure in environmental cases relaxed the application of the principle of locus standi and allowed a citizen’s suit. This means that direct damage to the person bringing the suit is no longer stringently applied. Realizing the significance of protecting our environment, the Honorable Supreme Court elucidated that every human being is a “steward” of nature and thus has a right to ensure that it is protected and preserved. According to the Supreme Court in the same case:

“Explaining the rationale for this rule, the Court, in the Annotations to the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases, commented:

“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, insofar as it refers to minors and generations yet unborn. (Emphasis supplied, citation omitted.) Although this petition was filed in 2007, years before the effectivity of the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases, it has been consistently held that rules of procedure “may be retroactively applied to actions pending and undetermined at the time of their passage and will not violate any right of a person who may feel that he is adversely affected, inasmuch as there is no vested rights in rules of procedure.”

Considering the foregoing, you, as a concerned citizen, may file an environmental case for the protection and preservation of the local creek in your area.

This opinion is solely based on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when the facts are changed or elaborated on. We hope that we were able to enlighten you on the matter.

Editor’s note: Dear PAO is a daily column of the Public Attorney’s Office. Questions for Chief Acosta may be sent to [email protected]