The Philippines, being situated in the Pacific Ring of Fire, is prone to natural disasters such as typhoons and earthquakes. Based on news, the recent onslaught of typhoons “Carina” and “Butchoy” in the Philippines alone affected approximately 4.8 million Filipinos.

Netizens across social media platforms aired their sentiments and had their theories on what must be done to hold accountable those who are liable for the environmental harms brought by the consequences of these disasters.

On the legal perspective, two remedies come to mind — writ of kalikasan and environmental tort. Both are meant to address the damage arising from environmental harm but they differ as to purpose and reliefs that may be awarded.

Under the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases, the Supreme Court or Court of Appeals may issue a writ of kalikasan if the following are present: (1) sufficient allegation and proof of the actual or threatened violation of the constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology; (2) the actual or threatened violation should stem from the unlawful act or omission of a public official/employee, or private individual/entity; and (3) the said violation should be shown to lead to environmental damage of such magnitude as to prejudice the life, health, or property of inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces.

In the 2023 case of Indigenous Cultural Communities (ICCs) of BICAMM Ancestral Domain, Brooke’s Point, Palawan v. Office of the Secretary of DENR, et. al. (G.R. 268140), the Supreme Court issued a writ of kalikasan against the relevant government agencies and mining companies/operators after the ICCs established that the mining operations may cause irreparable environmental damage to the Mt. Mantalingahan protected area and the ICCs’ ancestral domain, as exhibited by extreme flooding and contamination of fishing areas, which continually prejudice the life, health, and property of the residents.

This writ of kalikasan is meant to direct respondents to protect or rehabilitate the environment by requiring them to cease and desist from committing acts or neglecting the performance of a duty in violation of laws resulting in environmental destruction.

However, this remedy may not be availed of if one seeks the award of damages to redress the loss suffered by him/her due to the fault/negligence of another. Instead, the litigant may file a separate complaint for damages based on environmental tort.

As explained in the 2021 case of Sanggacala, et. al. v. NAPOCOR (G.R. 209538), environmental tort is a hybrid of two disciplines — tort law and environmental law. It provides a means to address environmental harms, where the harm is to a well-defined area or specific person or class of persons, is readily supported by general and specific causation, and closely fits the traditional elements of a tort cause of action.

In the Sanggacala case, the Supreme Court awarded monetary damages in favor of the farmers and fishpond owners along Marawi’s Lake Lanao shore whose properties were inundated by flood due to the following negligent acts: (1) failing to maintain the normal maximum level of the lake; and (2) failing to build and maintain benchmarks warning the inhabitants in the area of the prohibition on cultivation of land below a certain elevation.

For more of Dean Nilo Divina’s legal tidbits, please visit www.divinalaw.com. For comments and questions, please send an email to cad@divinalaw.com.