RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR

ENVIRONMENTAL CASES

A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC

Overview
Rules of Procedure for Environmental
Cases
A judicial initiative for the protection of
environmental rights and social justice
Forum on Environmental Justice

Rule 1: General Provisions

Objectives (Sec 2, Rule 1):
a. To protect and advance the constitutional
right of the people to 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;

Rule 1: General Provisions

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.

Laws Covered (Sec. 2, Rule

1)

(a) Act No. 3572, Prohibition Against Cutting of Tindalo,

Akli, and Molave Trees;
(b) P.D. No. 705, Revised Forestry Code;
(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;

Laws Covered

(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, Peoples Small-Scale Mining Act;
(m) R.A. No. 7586, National Integrated Protected
Areas System Act including all laws, decrees,
orders, proclamations and issuances establishing

Laws Covered

(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;
(v) R.A. No. 9175, Chainsaw Act;
(w) R.A. No. 9275, Clean Water Act;

Laws Covered

(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

Rule 1: General Provisions

3 Kinds of Actions Covered:
Civil Actions

Special Civil Actions

citizen suits
TEPO
Writ of Kalikasan
Writ of Continuing Mandamus

Criminal Actions

Rule 1: General Provisions

Salient Provisions of the Rule
Lowered the threshold of locus standi and
the encouragement of citizen's suits
Prescribed the use of mediation
Continuous trial
Writ of Kalikasan
Writ of Continuing Mandamus
Citizen's arrest and seizure
Precautionary principle

Rule 2: Pleadings and

Parties
Pleadings and Motions allowed (Sec.1,
Rule 2)
Complaint
Answer
Compulsory counterclaim
Cross-claim
Motion for Intervention
Motion for Discovery
Motion for Reconsideration of the Judgment

Rule 2: Pleadings and

Parties
Prohibited Pleadings (Sec. 2, Rule 2)
Motion to dismiss the complaint
Motion for a bill of particulars
Motion for extension of time to file
pleadings, except file to answer, the
extension not to exceed fifteen (15) days
Motion to declare the defendant in default
Reply and rejoinder
Third party complaint

Rule 2: Pleadings and

Parties
Citizen suit (Sec. 5, Rule 2)
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. (Sec.5, Rule 2)

Rule 2: Pleadings and

Parties
A citizen suit liberalizes requirements for locus standi
Filed in the public interest and no proof of personal injury is
required.
What is required is Filipino citizenship only.
Reliefs in a citizen suit
Protection, preservation or rehabilitation of the environment
and the payment of attorneys fees, costs of suit and other
litigation expenses.
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.

Rule 2: Pleadings and

Parties
Verified Complaint (Sec. 3,
Rule 2)

Verified Answer (Sec. 3,

Rule 14)

Names, addresses, cause of

action and reliefs prayed for

Shall be filed within 15 days

from receipt of summons

Evidence proving or
supporting the cause of action

Shall attach affidavits of

witnesses, reports, studies of
experts and all evidence in
support of the defense

Shall state that it is an

environmental case law
Certification against forum
shopping

*Note: Affirmative defenses

not pleaded are considered
waived
Cross-claims and compulsory
counterclaims not asserted
are considered barred

Rule 2: Pleadings and

Parties
Issuance of Temporary Environmental Protection
Order (TEPO) (Sec. 8, Rule 2)
It must appear in the verified complaint that the
matter is of extreme urgency and the the applicant
will suffer grave injustice and irreparable injury
The Court may issue a TEPO effective only for 72
hours
Within such period, the court shall conduct a
summary hearing to determine whether the TEPO
may be extended until termination of the case
Applicant exempted from the posting of a bond for
the issuance of the TEPO

Rule 2: Pleadings and

Parties
Who may issue TEPO
Executive judge of a multiple- sala court
before raffle or the presiding judge of a
single- sala court

Rule 2: Pleadings and

Parties
Safeguards
TEPO effective only for seventy-two hours from
date of receipt by the party or person enjoined.
Within the same period of 72 hours, the court
shall conduct a summary hearing to determine
whether the TEPO may be extended until the
termination of the case.
If, after hearing, it appears that the issuance or
continuance of the TEPO would cause irreparable
damage to the party or person enjoined while the
applicant may be fully compensated for such
damages as he may suffer, the TEPO may be
dissolved upon bond posted by the party or

Rule 2: Pleadings and

Parties
Prohibition against TRO (Sec. 10, Rule
2)
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.
With the exception of the Supreme
Court.

Hernandez vs. NAPOCOR (March 23,

2006
Facts: NAPOCOR began the construction of 29
decagon-shaped steel poles or towers with a height of
53.4 meters to support overhead high tension cables in
connection with its 230 Kilovolt Sucat-AranetaBalintawak Power Transmission Project.
Alarmed by the sight of the towering steel towers,
petitioners scoured the internet on the possible adverse
effects that such a structure could cause to their health
and well-being. Petitioners got hold of published articles
and studies linking the incidence of a fecund of illnesses
to exposure to electromagnetic fields. These illnesses
range from cancer to leukemia.
Petitioners filed a Complaint for Damages with Prayer for
the Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order and/or a
Writ of Preliminary Injunction against NAPOCOR. Such

Hernandez vs NAPOCOR (March 23,

2006)
NAPOCOR filed a Petition for Certiorari with Prayer for
Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary
Injunction with the Court of Appeals assailing the
above order by the trial court. Alluding to Presidential
Decree No. 1818 (1981), "Prohibiting Courts from
Issuing Restraining Orders or Preliminary Injunctions
in Cases Involving Infrastructure and Natural
Resource Development Projects of, and Public
Utilities Operated by, the Government.
Issue: WON the trial court may issue a TRO or
preliminary injunction to restrain NAPOCOR's
construction and operation of the towers

Hernandez vs. NAPOCOR

(March 23,

2006)
Held: Although Presidential Decree No. 1818
prohibits any court from issuing injunctions in cases
involving infrastructure projects, the prohibition
extends only to the issuance of injunctions or
restraining orders against administrative acts in
controversies involving facts or the exercise of
discretion in technical cases. On issues clearly
outside this dimension and involving questions of
law, this Court declared that courts could not be
prevented from exercising their power to restrain or
prohibit administrative acts.
There is adequate evidence on record to justify the
conclusion that the project of NAPOCOR probably
imperils the health and safety of the petitioners so

WT Construction, Inc. vs. DPWH (July 31,

2007)
Facts: Petitioner WT Construction, Inc., and Chiara
Construction formed a joint venture for the purpose of
participating in the bidding for and undertaking the
construction of the Flyover Project, should it be so awarded.
However, it was found out by BAC Region VII that petitioners
lacked the special license issued by Philippine Construction
Accreditation Board (PCAB) for such joint ventures, As such,
even though declared as having the lowest bid, the petitioners
were not awarded said project. The Flyover Project was
awarded instead to respondent WTG Construction.
Issue: WON there was a violation of the policy of hierarchy of
courts with the filing of a Petition for Preliminary Mandatory
Injunction with Temporary Restraining Order with the SC by
petitioners

WT Construction, Inc. vs. DPWH (July

31, 2007)
Held: Pursuant to the mandate of Republic Act No. 8975
(R.A. 8975), 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. 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. The foregoing
provisions, however, do not deprive the lower courts of

Rule 3: Pre-trial
Notice of Pre-trial (Sec. 1, Rule 3)
Within 2 days from the filing of the answer
to the counter-claim or cross-claim, the
branch clerk of court shall issue a notice of
the pre-trial to be held not later than 1
month from the filing of the last pleading.
The pre-trial shall be scheduled and set as
many pre-trial conferences necessary
within 2 months counted from the date of
the first pre-trial conference.

Rule 3: Pre-trial
Pre-trial brief (Sec. 2, Rule 3)

A statement of willingness to enter into an amicable

settlement with the terms thereof or to submit the case to any
mode of alternative dispute resolution is stated

Summary of admitted facts and proposed stipulation of facts

Legal and factual basis to be tried of resolved

The documents and exhibits to be presented

Manifestation of their having availed of discovery procedures

or intention to avail of referral to a commissioner or panel of
experts

The number and names of the witnesses and the substance of

their affidavits

Clarificatory questions from the parties

List of cases arising out of the same facts pending before other
courts or administrative agencies

Rule 3: Pre-trial
Referral to Mediation (Sec.3, Rule 3)
If the parties have not yet settled the dispute, the
court shall immediately refer the parties to the
Philippine Mediation Center (PMC) unit for
mediation.
If not available, the case shall be referred to the
clerk of court or legal researcher for mediation.
Mediation is only for 30 days, non-extendible,
from the receipt of notice of referral to mediation.
Mediation report must be submitted within the 10
days from the expiration of the 30-day period.

Mediation
What is mediation?
A process whereby an impartial third person called
a mediator facilitates communication and
negotiation between parties for the purpose of
assisting them to reach a voluntary agreement
regarding their dispute.
The decision-making authority rests with the parties
What is the purpose?
To facilitate communication and promote
understanding and help the parties arrive at a
mutually acceptable resolution to their dispute.

Mediation
What is the role of the Philippine
Judicial Academy (PHILJA)?
Designated by the Supreme Court as its
component unit for court-referred, courtrelated mediation cases and other forms
of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)
mechanisms.

Rule 3: Pre-trial
Consent decree (Sec. 5, Rule 3)
Refers to a judicially-approved
settlement between concerned parties
based on public interest and public
policy to protect and preserve the
environment

Rule 3: Pre-trial
Advantages of a consent decree
Encourages the parties to come up with
comprehensive, mutually-acceptable
resolutions to the environmental problem,
with greater possibility of actual compliance;
Open to public scrutiny;
Allows the parties to address issues other
than those presented to the court; and
Still subject to judicial approval and can be
enforced through a court order.

Rule 3: Pre-trial
Failure to settle (Sec. 6, Rule 3)
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;

(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.

Rule 4: Trial
Continuous Trial (Sec.1, Rule 4)
Judge shall conduct continuous trial not
exceeding 2 months from the issuance of
the pre-trial order.
The judge may ask for an extension to
the Supreme Court before the expiration
of the period for justifiable cause.

Rule 4: Trial
Affidavits in lieu of direct examination (Sec.
2, Rule 4)
Affidavits marked during the pre-trial shall be
presented as direct examination of affiants
subject to cross-examination by the adverse
party.
Period to try and decide (Sec. 5, Rule 4)
The court shall have 1 year from the filing of the
complaint to try and decide the case.
The court shall prioritize the adjudication of
environmental cases

Rule 5: Judgment and

Execution
Judgment immediately executory (Sec. 2, Rule 5)
May not be stayed by the posting of a bond under
Rule 39 of the Rules of court and the only remedy lies
with the appellate court
Conversion of a TEPO to a permanent EPO
The court may convert the TEPO to a permanent EPO
or issue a writ of continuing mandamus directing the
performance of acts which shall be effective until the
judgment is fully satisfied
The court continues to monitor the progress of the
execution phase until judgment is fully satisfied

Rule 5: Judgment and

Execution
Monitoring compliance with judgment
(Sec. 4, Rule 5)
Enforcement of judgment may be
referred to commissioner appointed by
the court who shall file with the court
written progress reports on a quarterly
basis or more frequently when necessary

Rule 6: Strategic Lawsuit Against Public

Participation
Strategic Lawsuit Against Public
Participation (SLAPP) (Sec. 1, Rule 6)
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 are treated as a SLAPP
and shall be governed by these Rules.

Rule 6: Strategic Lawsuit Against Public

Participation
SLAPP as a defense (Sec. 2, Rule 6)
Defendant may file an answer interposing as a
defense that the case is a SLAPP and shall be
supported by documents, affidavits, papers and
other evidence
By way of counterclaim, pray for damages,
attorney's fees and costs of suit.
Adverse party shall be directed to file an
opposition showing the suit is not a SLAPP
Note: The hearing on the defense of a SLAPP shall be
summary in nature.

Rule 6: Strategic Lawsuit Against Public

Participation
Resolution of a SLAPP defense (Sec. 4, Rule
6)
Shall be resolved within 30 days after the
summary hearing
If dismissed, the court may award damages,
attorney's fees and costs of suit and shall be
with prejudice.
If court rejects the defense of a SLAPP, evidence
adduced shall be treated as evidence of the
parties on the merits of the case and shall then
proceed in accordance with the Rules of Court

Rule 7: Writ of Kalikasan

Nature of the writ (Sec. 1, Rule 7)
An extraordinary remedy which may be used depending
on the magnitude of the environmental damage which it
must be of such magnitude as to prejudice life, health or
property of inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces,
or that which transcends political and territorial
boundaries.
Available to a natural or juridical person, entity authorized
by law, POs, NGOs, or any public interest group accredited
by or registered with any government agency, on behalf
of persons whose environmental rights are violated
Directed against the unlawful act or omission by a public
official or employee, or private individual or entity.

Rule 7: Writ of Kalikasan

Contents of the petition (Sec. 2, Rule 7)
The personal circumstances of the petitioner
The name and personal circumstances of the
respondent, or if unknown, by description of an
assumed appellation
The environmental law, rule or regulation
violated or threatened to be violated,the act or
omission complained of, and the environmental
damage of such magnitude as to prejudice the
life, health or property in two or more cities or
provinces

Rule 7: Writ of Kalikasan

All relevant and material evidence

consisting of the affidavits of witnesses,
documentary evidence, scientific or
other expert studies, and if possible,
object evidence
Certification of petitioner against forum
shopping

Rule 7: Writ of Kalikasan

Where to file (Sec. 3, Rule 7)
Filed with the Supreme Court
With any stations of the Court of Appeals
Issuance of the Writ (Sec. 5, Rule 7)
If sufficient in form and substance, the court
shall issue within 3 days from the date of the
filing of the petition, an order:
Issuing the writ
Requiring respondent to file a verified return
as provided in Section 8.

Rule 7: Writ of Kalikasan

Filing of return (Sec. 8, Rule 7)
All defenses which show that respondent did not
violate, or threaten to violate, or allow the violation
of any environmental law, rule or regulation or
commit any act resulting to environmental damage
of such magnitude that transcends political and
territorial boundaries, otherwise, defenses not
raised are deemed waived.
Affidavits of witnesses, documentary evidence,
scientific or other expert studies, and if possible,
object evidence supporting the respondent's
defense.

Rule 7: Writ of Kalikasan

Hearing (Sec. 11, Rule 7)
Shall not extend beyond 60 days and shall
be given the same priority as petitions for
the writ of habeas corpus, amparo and
habeas data
Judgment; reliefs
Judgment granting or denying the privilege
of the writ of kalikasan must be within 60
days from the time petition is submitted for
decision

Rule 7: Writ of Kalikasan

Reliefs (Sec. 15, Rule 7)
Directing respondent to permanently cease
and desist from committing acts or
neglecting the performance of a duty in
violation of environmental laws resulting in
environmental destruction or damage
Directing the respondent public official,
government agency, private person or
entity to protect, preserve, rehabilitate or
restore the environment

Rule 7: Writ of Kalikasan

Directing the respondent public official, government

agency, private person or entity to monitor strict
compliance with the decision and orders of the court
Directing the respondent public official, government
agency, private person or entity to make periodic
reports on the execution of the final judgment
Such other reliefs which relate to the right of the
people to a balanced and healthful ecology or to the
protection, preservation, rehabilitation, or restoration
of the environment, except the award of damages to
individual petitioners

West Tower Condominium vs. FPIC

(May 31, 2011)
Petitioners allege that the continuous use of the pipeline is
not only a threat or hazard t the lives, health and property of
those who live where the pipelines are laid, but would also
affect the rights of generations yet unborn to live in a
balanced and healthful ecology. Likewise, the continuous
use would be a violation of the Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act
and the Philippine Environmental Code
Chief Justice Corona issued a Writ of Kalikasan with a
Temporary Environmental Protection Order (TEPO), requiring
the First Philippine Industrial Corporation (FPIC) and First Gen
Corporation (FGC) to make a Verified Return within a nonextendible period of ten (10) days from receipt thereof
pursuant to Section 8, Rule 7 of the Rules of Procedure for
Environmental Cases.

West Tower Condominium vs FPIC (May

31, 2011)
The TEPO enjoined FPIC and FGC to: (a) cease and desist from
operating the pipeline until further orders; (b) check the structural
integrity of the whole span of the 117-kilometer pipeline while
implementing sufficient measures to prevent and avert any
untoward incidents that may result from any leak of the pipeline;
and (c) make a Report thereon within 60 days from receipt
thereof.
Consequent to the Court's issuance of the Writ of Kalikasan and
the accompanying TEPO, FPIC ceased operations on both (a) the
White Oil Pipeline System (WOPL System), which extends 117
kilometers from Batangas to Pandacan Terminal in Manila and
transports diesel, gasoline, jet fuel and kerosene; and (b) the
Black Oil Pipeline System (BOPL System), which extends 105
kilometers and transports bunker fuel from Batangas to a depot in
Sucat, Paraaque City.

Rule 8: Writ of Continuing Mandamus

Petition for continuing mandamus; function (Sec. 1,
Rule 8)

When any agency or instrumentality of the government

or officer thereof unlawfully neglects the performance of
an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty
resulting from an office, trust or station in connection
with the enforcement or violation of an environmental
law rule or regulation or a right therein, or unlawfully
excludes another from the use or enjoyment of such
right and there is no other plain, speedy and adequate
remedy in the ordinary course of law, the person
aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the
proper court, alleging the facts with certainty, attaching
thereto supporting evidence, specifying that the petition
concerns an environmental law, rule or regulation, and
praying that judgment be rendered commanding the

Rule 8: Writ of Continuing Mandamus

Where to file the petition (Sec. 2, Rule 8)
Filed with the RTC which has jurisdiction over the
territory where the actionable neglect or
omission occurred
With the Court of Appeals
With the Supreme Court
Hearing (Sec. 6, Rule 8)
Summary hearing or parties may be required to
submit memoranda.
Petition to be resolved without delay within 60
days from the date of submission of the petition
for resolution

Rule 8: Writ of Continuing Mandamus

Judgment (Sec. 7, Rule 8)
Upon the granting of the privilege,
respondent is required to perform an act or
series of acts until the judgment is fully
satisfied and to grant such other reliefs as
may be warranted resulting from the
wrongful or illegal acts of said respondent.
Respondent may likewise be required to
submit periodic reports detailing the
progress and execution of the judgment.

Differences between Writ of Kalikasan and

Writ of Continuing Mandamus
Writ of Continuing
Mandamus

Writ of Kalikasan

Subject matter

Unlawful neglect or
exclusion

Unlawful act or
omission

Petitioner

Personally aggrieved

Natural or juridical
persons, POs, NGOs,
PIGs

Respondent

Government of
officers

Private individual or
entity

Docket fees

Exempted

Exempted

Venue

RTC/ CA/ SC

SC or any branch of
the CA

Discovery
measures

No enumeration

Ocular inspection
order and
production order

Damages

Allows damages for

Separate suit

Rule 9: Prosecution of
Offenses
Who may file (Sec. 1, Rule 9)
Any offended party, peace officer, or any public
officer charged with the enforcement of an
environmental law
Prosecution of offenses
Revised Forestry Code

Section 77 of the code punishes two distinct and

separate offenses: (1) cutting, gathering, collecting
and removing of timber or other forest products from
any forest land, or timber from alienable or disposable
land, or from private land without any authority

Rule 9: Prosecution of
Offenses
(2) the possession of timber or other forest products
without the legal documents required under existing
laws and regulations

Fisheries Code

Poaching in Philippine waters, fishing through

explosives, noxious or poisonous substances and/or
electricity, use of fine mesh net, use of active gear
in municipal waters and other fishery management
areas, ban coral exploitation and exportation,
conversion of mangroves, fishing in overfished
areas during closed season, fishing in fishery
reserves, refuge and sanctuaries, and others.

Rule 9: Prosecution of
Offenses

Water Code

(a)Appropriation of subterranean or ground water for

domestic use by an overlying landowner without
registration required by the Council.
(b) Non-observance of any standard of beneficial use
of water.
(c) Failure of the appropriator to keep a record of
water withdrawal, when required.
(d) Failure to comply with any of the terms or
conditions in a water permit or a water rights grant.
(e) Unauthorized use of water for a purpose other
than that for which a right or permit was granted.

Rule 9: Prosecution of
Offenses

(f) Construction or repair of any hydraulic work or

structure without duly approved plans and
specifications, when required.
(g) Failure to install a regulating and measuring device
for the control of the volume of water appropriated,
when required.
(h) Unauthorized sale, lease, or transfer of water and/or
water rights.
(i) Failure to provide adequate facilities to prevent or
control diseases when required by the Council in the
construction of any work for the storage, diversion,
distribution and utilization of water.
(j) Drilling of a well without permission of the Council.

Rule 9: Prosecution of
Offenses

(k) Utilization of an existing well or ponding or

spreading of water for recharging
subterranean or ground water supplies
without permission of the Council.
(l) Violation of or non-compliance with any
order, rules, or regulations of the Council.
(m) Illegal taking or diversion of water in an
open canal, aqueduct or reservoir.
(n) Malicious destruction of hydraulic works or
structure valued at not exceeding P5,000.00.

Rule 9: Prosecution of
Offenses
Intervention of a Special Prosecutor
(Sec. 3, Rule 9)
When there is no private offended party,
a counsel whose services are offered by
any person or organization may be
allowed by the court as special
prosecutor.

Taopa vs People (Nov. 25,

2008)
Facts: The Community Environment and Natural Resources
Office of Virac, Catanduanes seized a truck loaded with
illegally-cut lumber and arrested its driver, Placido Cuison. The
lumber was covered with bundles of abaca fiber to prevent
detection. On investigation, Cuison pointed to petitioner
Amado Taopa and a certain Rufino Ogalesco as the owners of
the seized lumber.
Taopa, Ogalesco and Cuison were thereafter charged with
violating Section 68 of Presidential Decree (PD) No. 705,1 as
amended, in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Virac,
Catanduanes.
Issue: WON the acts of Taopa (and of his co-accused
Ogalesco) constituted possession of timber or other forest
products without the required legal documents.

Taopa vs People

(Nov. 25, 2008)

Held: Section 68 of PD 705, as amended,7

refers to Articles 309 and 310 of the Revised
Penal Code (RPC) for the penalties to be
imposed on violators. Violation of Section 68
of PD 705, as amended, is punished as
qualified theft. The law treats cutting,
gathering, collecting and possessing timber
or other forest products without license as
an offense as grave as and equivalent to the
felony of qualified theft.

Rule 10: Prosecution of Civil Actions

Civil action is deemed instituted with the criminal
action
Unless there is waiver
Reserves the right to institute separately or institute
prior to criminal action
Award of damages
Filing and other legal fees shall be imposed on the
award in accordance with Rule 141 of the Rules of
Court
When there is no private offended party, damages
awarded shall accrue to the funds of the agency
charged with the implementation of the law violated.