Even though cases were filed before the effectivity of the Rules of Procedure for

Environmental Cases, it has been consistently held that the rules of procedure may be
retroactively applied to actions pending and undetermined at the time of their passage
and will not violate any right of a person who may feel that he is adversely affected,
inasmuch as there is no vested rights in rules of procedure. (Resident Marine Mammals
of the Protected Seascape Tañon Strait vs. Reyes) (2015)
The Rules of Procedure on Environmental Cases liberalize the requirements on
standing, allowing the filing of citizen's suit for the enforcement of rights and obligations
under environmental laws. (Segovia, et.al v. Aquino) (2017). The liberalized rule on
standing is now enshrined in the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases which
allows the filing of a citizen suit in environmental cases. The provision on citizen suits in
the Rules "collapses the traditional rule on personal and direct interest, on the principle
that humans are stewards of nature," and aims to "further encourage the protection of the
environment." (International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications, Inc.
vs. Greenpeace Southeast Asia) (2015)
There is a difference between a petition for the issuance of a writ of kalikasan,
wherein it is sufficient that the person filing represents the inhabitants prejudiced by the
environmental damage subject of the writ; and a petition for the issuance of a writ of
continuing mandamus, which is only available to one who is personally aggrieved by the
unlawful act or omission. (Segovia, et.al v. Aquino) (2017)
The purpose of a writ of continuing mandamus is to compel the respondent to
perform his duties under the law. This remedy is available when any government agency,
instrumentality, or officer unlawfully neglects a specific legal duty 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 writ of kalikasan
is a remedy to anyone whose constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology is
violated or threatened with violation by an lawful act or omission. However, the violation
must involve environmental damage of such magnitude as to prejudice the life, health, or
property of inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces in order to arrant the issuance
of the writ. (Braga vs. Abaya) (2016)
The explicit rule in the Rules of Procedure for Environmental cases is that in a
petition for a Writ of Kalikasan, the Court cannot grant the award of damages to individual
petitioners under Rule 7, Sec. 15(e) of the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases.
(West Tower Condominium Corporation vs. First Philippine Industrial Corp. (2015)