GR 246209 Peralta (Digest)
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 filed a Petition for the Issuance of The Writ of Kalikasan and The Writ of Continuing Mandamus against various government agencies and officials. They alleged that the respondents omitted, failed, and/or refused to enforce Philippine environmental laws at Panatag Shoal, Ayungin Shoal, and Panganiban Reef against foreign fishermen and entities. During oral arguments, petitioners’ counsel admitted that no judicial affidavits were attached to the petition to support these allegations. Petitioners also did not implead the alleged foreign violators as respondents. The Office of the Solicitor General disputed the allegations of malicious neglect by the respondents. Petitioners subsequently filed a motion to withdraw their petition.
ISSUE
Whether the Petition for the Issuance of The Writ of Kalikasan and The Writ of Continuing Mandamus should be dismissed outright due to procedural and substantive defects.
RULING
The Separate Opinion of Justice Peralta agreed that the motion to withdraw the petition should be granted. However, it opined that the petition should have been dismissed outright for the following reasons:
1. For the writ of kalikasan: The petition failed to attach the required judicial affidavits and relevant evidence to support the claim of respondents’ failure to enforce laws. The foreign violators, who are indispensable parties, were not impleaded. The factual and evidentiary issues raised should have been referred to the Court of Appeals for resolution.
2. For the writ of continuing mandamus: The petition contained no clear allegation or judicial affidavits showing how respondents unlawfully neglected their duties, as distinguished from mere negligence. The factual issues also necessitated that the petition be filed first with the Court of Appeals.
The opinion distinguished the case from MMDA v. Concerned Residents of Manila Bay, where the Court took judicial notice of undisputed facts. Here, the facts were disputed, and the procedural rules requiring evidence were not complied with.