G.R. No. 221823 , June 21, 2022
REP. NICASIO M. ALIPING, JR., PETITIONER, VS. COURT OF APPEALS (FORMER 4TH DIVISION), BISHOP CARLITO J. CENZON, ARCHBISHOP SOCRATES B. VILLEGAS, SHEREE M. NOLASCO, MARIE A. BALANGUE, NONNETTE C. BENNETT, DR. TERESITA F. DE VENECIA, ANTONIO J. SUPREMIDO, JR., AND PASTOR GENER TANDOC, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

On July 8, 1940, President Manuel L. Quezon issued Proclamation No. 581 creating the Santo Tomas Forest Reserve in Tuba, Benguet. The reserve is a critical watershed, hosting natural springs that sustain three reservoir dams of the Baguio Water District (supplying potable water to Tuba and Baguio City) and comprise the headwaters of the Bued River (the principal water source for the San Fabian River Irrigation System supporting farmlands in Pangasinan).
In April 2014, reports of tree-cutting and excavation activities at Mount Santo Tomas within the reserve prompted an investigation by the Community Environment and Natural Resources Office (CENRO). The investigation found that the activities were for the construction of two new roads (totaling 2.64 kilometers) within the forest reserve, undertaken without the required Environmental Compliance Certificate, Tree Cutting Permit, or Excavation Permit. An estimated 306 trees and 455 saplings were cut, causing total damage of P10,314,531.40. The earth-moving activities caused heavy soil erosion that silted tributaries supplying water to Amliang Dam 3. The investigation tagged petitioner, then Congressman Nicasio M. Aliping, Jr., as the person responsible, with the roads originating from a piece of land within the reserve claimed by him.
Consequently, a criminal complaint was filed against petitioner and involved construction companies for violations of the Revised Forestry Code. The Environmental Management Bureau (EMB) also issued a Notice of Violation and Cease and Desist Order and later imposed a P50,000 penalty on petitioner for undertaking an excavation project without an environmental permit. The Baguio Water District filed a complaint for violation of the Clean Water Act, attributing turbidity in Amliang Dam 3 to the road construction and small-scale mining.
Respondents (Bishop Carlito J. Cenzon et al.) filed a Petition for the Issuance of a Writ of Kalikasan and a Writ of Continuing Mandamus before the Supreme Court against petitioner and various government officials. They alleged that the illegal tree-cutting, earth-moving, small-scale mining, expansion of vegetable gardens/residential areas, and installation of relay towers within the Santo Tomas Forest Reserve caused soil erosion and pollution, violating the constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology of the inhabitants relying on the affected water sources.
The Supreme Court referred the petition to the Court of Appeals (CA) for reception of evidence. The CA found merit in the petition, ruling that the road construction and other anthropogenic activities degraded the watershed. It granted the Writ of Kalikasan and issued a Writ of Continuing Mandamus, directing petitioner and the concerned government agencies to undertake rehabilitation and restoration measures, and permanently enjoining petitioner from conducting any activity within the forest reserve without the required permits. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in granting the Writ of Kalikasan and the Writ of Continuing Mandamus against petitioner.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals. The CA correctly granted the Writ of Kalikasan and the Writ of Continuing Mandamus.
The Writ of Kalikasan is available when the unlawful act or omission of a public official or private entity violates the constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology and involves environmental damage of such magnitude that prejudices the life, health, or property of inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces. All elements were present: (1) Petitioner, a public official, committed unlawful acts (illegal tree-cutting and earth-moving without permits) within the Santo Tomas Forest Reserve; (2) These acts violated the right to a balanced and healthful ecology; and (3) The environmental damage—degradation of the watershed supplying water to Baguio City (a highly urbanized city), the municipality of Tuba in Benguet, and the municipality of San Fabian in Pangasinan—prejudiced inhabitants across multiple geographical areas.
The evidence, including the CENRO and EMB findings and petitioner’s own admissions, conclusively established his responsibility for the illegal activities that caused significant damage to the forest reserve and its critical watershed functions. The CA also correctly issued the Writ of Continuing Mandamus, as the government agencies concerned (DENR, EMB, local government of Tuba) had a ministerial duty to protect the forest reserve but failed to fully perform their mandates, necessitating judicial oversight to ensure the implementation of rehabilitation and preventive measures. The permanent injunction against petitioner from conducting any activity within the reserve without permits was proper to prevent further environmental damage.