Alyansa ng mga Grupong Haligi ng Agham at Teknolohiya para sa Mamamayan vs. Japan Tobacco International (Philippines), Inc.

A writ of kalikasan requires the petitioner to allege and prove: (1) the specific environmental law, rule, or regulation violated or threatened; (2) the respondent’s unlawful act or omission; and (3) environmental damage of such magnitude as to prejudice the life, health, or property of inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces.

AGHAM is a people’s organization represented by its president, Angelo B. Palmones, while the respondents are JTI-Phil., Holcim, and the DOF, DENR, and BIR. JTI-Phil. is part of Japan Tobacco International and acquired Mighty Corporation’s assets and trademarks, and Holcim operates cement plants used for co-processing. The petition invoked the writ of kalikasan under Section 1, Rule 7, Part III of the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases, which addresses violations or threatened violations of the constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology involving environmental damage of such magnitude as to prejudice inhabitants of two or more cities or provinces. AGHAM also invoked DAO 2010-06, RA 6969, RA 8749, and RA 9003.

On March 6, 2017, a joint operation by the Bureau of Customs and the Bureau of Internal Revenue seized 4.7 million packs of cigarettes with counterfeit tax stamps from Mighty Corporation. The cigarettes were under the brand names “Mighty Mentol 100s,” “Marvels FK,” and “Marvels King Full.” The government filed a case against the officers of Mighty Corporation for tax law violations but withdrew the complaint after Mighty Corporation offered to settle its tax liabilities in the amount of P25 Billion and shut down its operations. Japan Tobacco International (Philippines), Inc. acquired Mighty Corporation. In November 2017, DOF and BIR officials caused the burning and destruction of batches of Mighty cigarettes to prevent pilferage inside the compound of Holcim in Bunawan, Davao City. The DOF and BIR were also set to destroy additional batches of Mighty cigarettes, including those confiscated in San Simon, Pampanga consisting of 66,245 cases; in San Ildefonso, Bulacan consisting of 163,183 cases; and other stockpiles in Tacloban and Cebu. At the time of the filing of the petition, the DOF and BIR had ordered the destruction of Mighty cigarettes in Holcim’s plant in Norzagaray, Bulacan, which is within the watershed area of the Angat and La Mesa Dams.

According to AGHAM, DOF, BIR, and Holcim officials claimed that the Mighty cigarettes were being destroyed through co-processing, or the process of using waste as raw material or source of energy, or both, to replace mineral resources and fossil fuels in industrial processes. AGHAM alleged that there was no evidence that co-processing was indeed undertaken because no media were allowed during the destruction of the cigarettes. AGHAM further alleged that JTI-Phil., Holcim, DENR, DOF, and BIR violated the right of the people to a balanced and healthy ecology, and that the use of cigarettes in co-processing violated DENR Administrative Order No. 2010-06 in relation to RA 6969, RA 8749, and RA 9003.

JTI-Phil. countered that it was improperly impleaded on the erroneous claim that it owned Mighty cigarettes, because it acquired various assets of Mighty Corporation, including its trademarks, only after the seizure of the subject cigarettes. It stated that on November 3, 2017, the BIR authorized and approved the destruction of the seized Mighty cigarettes subject to certain conditions, and that Holcim coordinated with a BIR team which supervised the destruction in the presence of representatives from the Office of the President, DOF, DOH, DENR, COA, anti-smoking non-government organizations, and the media. The actual destruction occurred on November 26, 2017 at the Holcim Geocycle compound in Bunawan, Davao City, and on December 12, 2017 at the Holcim Geocycle compound in Norzagaray, Bulacan, with BIR and BOC officials, including those from NGOs and the media, present. JTI-Phil. argued that the petition must be dismissed outright for failure to show environmental damage of such magnitude as to prejudice the life, health, or property of inhabitants of two or more cities or provinces; that AGHAM merely relied on the possibility that air, water, and land resources would be contaminated even if there is no body of water connecting the Holcim plant and the La Mesa Dam; that AGHAM failed to prove any law violated due to co-processing; that co-processing is an acceptable and safe method of disposing waste materials globally; and that AGHAM submitted no evidence that residents of Davao and Bulacan were adversely affected.

Holcim contended that co-processing of waste materials, such as cigarettes, is authorized by law. It stated that during the co-processing of cigarettes on November 26, 2017 in Davao and December 12, 2017 in Bulacan, representatives from the OP, DOF, DOH, DENR, and COA were present, and members of the media also attended, making the endeavor open and transparent. Holcim’s plants in Davao and Bulacan had the necessary permits for co-processing issued on July 18, 2017 and May 8, 2017, respectively. It claimed that AGHAM’s assertion of environmental damage was without basis because co-processing results in zero solid or liquid waste, and the resulting ash chemically binds with the precursor product and eventually becomes part of the cement. Its plants have continuous emission monitoring systems that observe and record emission levels of carbon dioxide, dust, hydrogen chloride, and the like on an hourly and daily basis, with data submitted quarterly to the DENR Environmental Management Bureau as part of Holcim’s self-monitoring report. Per its latest self-monitoring reports, emissions, including during the co-processing of the subject cigarettes, were within the limits prescribed by the National Emission Standards for Source Specific Air Pollutants under DAO 2010-06. Its quality, environmental, and health and safety management systems were certified as meeting ISO standards.

The DOF, DENR, and BIR, through the Office of the Solicitor General, asserted that AGHAM made a misleading claim that their officials conducted the destruction of the subject cigarettes when the truth is that Mighty Corporation and Holcim were the ones which conducted the co-processing. The BIR only approved the application of Mighty Corporation for the co-processing of the cigarettes, and representatives from the DOF and DENR witnessed its destruction. Public respondents emphasized that the DENR had issued an Environmental Compliance Certificate to Holcim, and that the DENR is deemed to have aptly assessed the environmental impact of using waste materials as alternative fuel resources in Holcim’s facilities before issuing the ECC. They also explained that co-processing differs from mere burning or incineration because it entails thermal destruction wherein waste materials are subject to such temperature and almost no residue remains after the process except for some mineral contents. In sum, public respondents insisted that AGHAM did not establish any reasonable connection between the complained act and the supposed violation of the people’s right to a balanced and healthful ecology. In its reply, AGHAM essentially reiterated the contentions it raised in the petition.

• Violation of Environmental Laws: AGHAM alleged that JTI-Phil., Holcim, DENR, DOF, and BIR violated the right of the people to a balanced and healthy ecology, and that the use of cigarettes in co-processing violated DAO 2010-06 in relation to RA 6969, RA 8749, and RA 9003.
• Absence of Proof of Co-Processing: AGHAM contended that there was no showing that respondents indeed conducted co-processing for the destruction of the Mighty cigarettes, emphasizing that the media was not allowed when the destruction took place.
• Watershed Threat: AGHAM alleged that the DOF and BIR had ordered the destruction of Mighty cigarettes in Holcim’s plant in Norzagaray, Bulacan, which is within the watershed area of the Angat and La Mesa Dams.

• Improper Impleader (JTI-Phil.): JTI-Phil. countered that it was improperly impleaded on the erroneous claim that it owned Mighty cigarettes, because it acquired various assets of Mighty Corporation, including its trademarks, only after the seizure of the subject cigarettes.
• Failure to Show Magnitude (JTI-Phil.): JTI-Phil. argued that the petition must be dismissed outright because AGHAM failed to show that the environmental damage caused by the destruction of the cigarettes is of such magnitude as to prejudice the life, health, or property of inhabitants of two or more cities or provinces, and that AGHAM merely relied on the possibility of contamination even if there is no body of water connecting the Holcim plant and the La Mesa Dam.
• No Violation of Law (JTI-Phil.): JTI-Phil. maintained that AGHAM failed to prove that any law was violated due to the co-processing method, that co-processing is not an acceptable and safe method of disposing waste materials globally, and that residents of Davao and Bulacan were adversely affected.
• Authorized Co-Processing (Holcim): Holcim contended that co-processing of waste materials is authorized by law; that government representatives and media attended the co-processing events; that its Davao and Bulacan plants had the necessary permits issued on July 18, 2017 and May 8, 2017; that co-processing results in zero solid or liquid waste and the resulting ash becomes part of the cement; that its continuous emission monitoring systems showed emissions within the limits under DAO 2010-06; and that its management systems were ISO certified.
• No Reasonable Connection / ECC (Public Respondents): The DOF, DENR, and BIR asserted that AGHAM misleadingly claimed that their officials conducted the destruction when Mighty Corporation and Holcim conducted the co-processing; that the BIR only approved Mighty Corporation’s application and DOF and DENR representatives witnessed the destruction; that the DENR issued an ECC to Holcim; that co-processing differs from mere burning or incineration; and that AGHAM did not establish any reasonable connection between the complained act and the supposed violation.

• Writ of Kalikasan: Whether a writ of kalikasan must be issued in the case.

• Writ of Kalikasan: No. The petition was dismissed because AGHAM failed to discharge its burden to allege and prove the requisites under Section 1, Rule 7, Part III of the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases: a specific environmental law violated or threatened, an unlawful act or omission, and environmental damage of such magnitude as to prejudice inhabitants of two or more cities or provinces.

• Writ of Kalikasan: Section 1, Rule 7, Part III of the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases defines the writ as a remedy available to a natural or juridical person, entity authorized by law, people’s organization, non-governmental organization, or any public interest group accredited by or registered with any government agency, on behalf of persons whose constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology is violated or threatened by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or private individual or entity, involving environmental damage of such magnitude as to prejudice the life, health, or property of inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces. The writ is aimed at providing stronger protection of environmental rights and an effective and speedy remedy for violations of the constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology and to address possible large-scale ecological threats. Necessarily, the party seeking the issuance of a writ of kalikasan must demonstrate that a particular law, rule, or regulation was or would be violated by the respondent. It has the burden to prove: (1) the environmental law, rule, or regulation violated or threatened to be transgressed; (2) respondent’s act or omission complained of; and (3) the environmental damage of such magnitude as would impair the life, property, or health of the inhabitants of two or more provinces or cities. In this case, other than stating in general terms that respondents violated RA 6969, RA 8749, and RA 9003, AGHAM did not propound on the specific acts or omissions committed by respondents that would amount to a violation of the cited laws and as required under the Rules. AGHAM did not also adduce evidence that respondents are indeed guilty of any illegal act or omission violative of the rights of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology. AGHAM contended that there was no showing that respondents indeed conducted co-processing for the destruction of the Mighty cigarettes, underscoring that the media was not allowed when the destruction took place. However, evidence revealed that representatives from different government agencies and the media witnessed the destruction of the subject cigarettes through co-processing. Media outlets released various articles regarding the matter, and the articles indicated that co-processing was undertaken. Moreover, the BIR authorized the co-processing of the cigarettes. Taken together, the circumstances bolstered the absence of any unlawful act or omission committed by Holcim, among other respondents, in destroying the Mighty cigarettes. In LNL Archipelago Minerals, Inc. vs. Agham Party List, AGHAM applied for the issuance of a writ of kalikasan, but the Court dismissed the petition for AGHAM’s failure to clearly allege and prove the violation of an environmental law committed by LNL Archipelago Minerals, Inc. as well as environmental damage. The situation in LNL is similar to the present case because AGHAM did not submit proof to substantiate its allegations against respondents. In Abogado vs. Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the Court elucidated that the Rules do not specify the exact extent of environmental damage required for the issuance of a writ of kalikasan, but “it must be sufficiently grave, in terms of the territorial scope of such damage.” The Court likewise highlighted that the petition must include all the material and relevant evidence—the witnesses’ affidavits as well as documentary or object evidence—and that any party seeking issuance of a writ of kalikasan must be ready with the essential evidence for the determination of the issuance of the writ. AGHAM failed to comply with this requirement; thus, the petition must fail. As confirmed by public respondents, the EMB issued Environmental Compliance Certificates to Holcim in connection with putting up an “environmentally-sound industrial waste management infrastructure.” In Braga, et al. vs. DOTC Secretary Abaya, et al., the Court explained that the EMB is tasked to issue an ECC relative to environmentally critical projects that have adequate safeguards to preserve the environment; that the ECC indicates that the proposed undertaking will not result in any notable negative environmental impact based on the representation of the project proponent; that it certifies that the proponent complied with the Environmental Impact Statement; and that the EIS contains an Environmental Management Plan specifying preventive, compensatory, mitigating, and contingent measures. Because the EMB had issued ECCs to Holcim, it is beyond cavil that Holcim is armed with the proper authority to conduct co-processing and make use of alternative fuels and raw materials for its cement production. Moreover, Holcim adhered to Section 7 of DAO 2010-06, which requires cement plants that intend to engage in co-processing of waste materials to be ISO or its equivalent compliant, among others. Holcim’s ISO certification specifically pertains to its “provision of waste management services through cement kiln co-processing,” further supporting the legitimacy of its conduct of co-processing in its plants in Davao and Bulacan. Considering all the foregoing, the petition is not sufficient in form and substance as AGHAM failed to discharge the burden to prove the requirements for the issuance of a writ of kalikasan. There is no clear showing that respondents committed an act or omission violative of any environmental law which resulted or will result in environmental damage of such magnitude that would infringe the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology.

• Writ of Kalikasan — A remedy available to a natural or juridical person, entity authorized by law, people’s organization, non-governmental organization, or any public interest group accredited by or registered with any government agency, on behalf of persons whose constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology is violated or threatened by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or private individual or entity, involving environmental damage of such magnitude as to prejudice the life, health, or property of inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces. The Court applied this definition and found that AGHAM failed to satisfy the requisites for its issuance.
• Requisites for a Writ of Kalikasan — The party seeking the writ must demonstrate that a particular law, rule, or regulation was or would be violated by the respondent. It has the burden to prove: (1) the environmental law, rule, or regulation violated or threatened to be transgressed; (2) respondent’s act or omission complained of; and (3) environmental damage of such magnitude as would impair the life, property, or health of inhabitants of two or more provinces or cities. The Court found that AGHAM failed to prove these requisites.
• Environmental Damage of Sufficient Magnitude — The Rules do not specify the exact extent of environmental damage required for the issuance of a writ of kalikasan, but it must be sufficiently grave in terms of the territorial scope of such damage. The Court held that AGHAM failed to show environmental damage of such magnitude as to prejudice inhabitants of two or more cities or provinces.
• Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC) — The EMB is tasked to issue an ECC relative to environmentally critical projects that have adequate safeguards to preserve the environment. The ECC indicates that the proposed undertaking will not result in any notable negative environmental impact based on the representation of the project proponent, and it certifies that the proponent complied with the Environmental Impact Statement, which contains an Environmental Management Plan. Because the EMB had issued ECCs to Holcim, the Court held that Holcim was armed with the proper authority to conduct co-processing and make use of alternative fuels and raw materials for its cement production.
• Co-Processing under DAO 2010-06 — Section 7 of DAO 2010-06 requires cement plants that intend to engage in co-processing of waste materials to be ISO or its equivalent compliant, among other qualifications. The Court found that Holcim’s ISO certification specifically pertained to its “provision of waste management services through cement kiln co-processing,” which supported the legitimacy of its co-processing operations.

• "The writ is a remedy available to a natural or juridical person, entity authorized by law, people's organization, non-governmental organization, or any public interest group accredited by or registered with any government agency, on behalf of persons whose constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology is violated, or threatened with violation by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or private individual or entity, involving environmental damage of such magnitude as to prejudice the life, health or property of inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces." — This passage defines the nature and extent of the writ of kalikasan under Section 1, Rule 7, Part III of the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases and supplies the controlling requisites applied by the Court.
• "Necessarily, the party seeking the issuance of a writ of kalikasan must demonstrate that a particular law, rule or regulation was or would be violated by the respondent." — This states the threshold requirement that the petitioner must identify a specific legal violation, which AGHAM failed to do.
• "It has the burden to prove: (1) the environmental law, rule or regulation violated or threatened to be transgressed; (2) respondent's act or omission complained of; and (3) the environmental damage of such magnitude as would impair the life, property, or health of the inhabitants of two or more provinces or cities." — This enumerates the three-part burden of proof for a writ of kalikasan, which the Court found AGHAM did not discharge.
• "Because the EMB had issued ECCs to Holcim, it is beyond cavil that the latter is armed with the proper authority to conduct co-processing and make use of alternative fuels and raw materials for its cement production." — This passage explains the legal significance of the ECCs issued to Holcim and supports the finding that Holcim’s co-processing was authorized.

• LNL Archipelago Minerals, Inc. vs. Agham Party List, 784 Phil. 456 (2016) — Cited as a similar case in which AGHAM’s petition for a writ of kalikasan was dismissed for failure to clearly allege and prove the violation of an environmental law and environmental damage; the Court used it to support the conclusion that AGHAM did not substantiate its allegations.
• Abogado vs. Department of Environment and Natural Resources, G.R. No. 246209, September 3, 2019 — Relied upon for the rule that the Rules do not specify the exact extent of environmental damage required, but it must be sufficiently grave in terms of territorial scope, and that the petition must include all material and relevant evidence, including witness affidavits and documentary or object evidence.
• Braga, et al. vs. DOTC Secretary Abaya, et al., 794 Phil. 662 (2016) — Cited to explain the significance of an Environmental Compliance Certificate and the EMB’s role in issuing it for environmentally critical projects with adequate safeguards; applied to hold that Holcim had authority to conduct co-processing.
• Segovia, et al. vs. The Climate Change Commission, et al., 806 Phil. 1019, 1033 (2017) — Cited for the purpose of a writ of kalikasan, namely, to provide stronger protection of environmental rights and an effective and speedy remedy where the constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology is violated, and to address possible large-scale ecological threats.

• Section 1, Rule 7, Part III, Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases (A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC, April 13, 2010) — Defines the nature and extent of the writ of kalikasan and its requisites. The Court applied this provision to deny the petition because AGHAM failed to allege and prove the required elements.
• Section 7, DENR Administrative Order No. 2010-06 — Provides the minimum qualifications of co-processing facilities, including that existing and operational cement plants intending to engage in co-processing of waste materials must be ISO or its equivalent compliant, among other requirements. The Court applied this provision in finding that Holcim’s ISO certification supported the legitimacy of its co-processing.
• Republic Act No. 6969 — The Toxic Substances and Hazardous and Nuclear Wastes Control Act of 1990. AGHAM cited it as a law violated by respondents, but the Court found no specific violation alleged or proved.
• Republic Act No. 8749 — The Philippine Clean Air Act of 1999. AGHAM cited it as a law violated by respondents, but the Court found no specific violation alleged or proved.
• Republic Act No. 9003 — The Ecological Solid Waste Management Act of 2000. AGHAM cited it as a law violated by respondents, but the Court found no specific violation alleged or proved.

Gesmundo, C.J., Perlas-Bernabe, Leonen, Hernando, Carandang, Lazaro-Javier, Zalameda, M. Lopez, Delos Santos, Gaerlan, Rosario, and J. Lopez, JJ., concur. Caguioa, J., no part.