G.R. No. 246209, September 3, 2019
MONICO A. ABOGADO, ET AL. (COLLECTIVELY KNOWN AS THE “KALAYAAN PALAWAN FARMERS AND FISHERFOLK ASSOCIATION”), ET AL., AND INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONERS, VS. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Petitioners sought the issuance of writs of kalikasan and continuing mandamus against various Philippine government agencies. Their causes of action included claims of violations of environmental law by China within the Philippine Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). Petitioners based their claims on factual findings made by the Arbitral Tribunal in its Award in PCA Case No. 2013-19 (“Republic of the Philippines v. The People’s Republic of China”), which interpreted and applied the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). Petitioners, invoking these arbitral findings of environmental violations, sought to compel the respondent government agencies to comply with their duties to protect and preserve the marine environment under the Philippine Fisheries Code of 1998, as amended. Subsequently, petitioners decided to withdraw the action they filed.

ISSUE

Whether the Supreme Court should grant the motion to withdraw the petition and dismiss the case without passing upon the issues raised, and what procedural guidance should be provided regarding the filing of such petitions.

RULING

The Separate Opinion of Justice Jardeleza concurs with the majority in granting the motion to withdraw the petition and dismissing the case without passing upon any of the issues raised. However, the opinion provides a clarification regarding the proper forum for such actions. It emphasizes that while the Supreme Court shares original and concurrent jurisdiction with the Court of Appeals (for writs of kalikasan and continuing mandamus) and the Regional Trial Courts (for writs of continuing mandamus only), petitioners must still observe the rule on hierarchy of courts. Immediate resort to the Supreme Court is proper only for resolving pure questions of law. Proceedings for the issuance of writs of kalikasan and continuing mandamus necessarily involve the evaluation of evidence and resolution of factual questions, which the Supreme Court, not being a trier of facts, is not suited to undertake in the first instance. Therefore, unless the questions involved are purely legal, the doctrine of hierarchy of courts should be observed, and such matters should first be presented before a trier of fact equipped to receive and evaluate evidence.