The Court of Appeals has dismissed a petition filed by residents of Payatas in Quezon City seeking the issuance of a writ of Kalikasan against the expansion of the Payatas sanitary landfill.
In a 10-page decision, the CA’s Tenth Division through Associate Justice Mariflor Punzalan Castillo ruled that the petitioners led by resident Leonita Panoy and several homeowners associations failed to comply with the requirement of Section 52( c ) of Republic Act No. 9003, otherwise known as the “Philippine Ecological Solid Waste Management Act of 2000.”
Section 52 provides that “no suit can be filed until a notice has been given to the public officer and the alleged violator concerned 30 days prior to the filing of the case.
The appellate court noted that petitioners’ statement in their letter dated July 14, 2014 to respondent QC Mayor Herbert Bautista that they will “be forced to pursue other remedies to address the imminent threat to the lives of our clients and the rest of then Payatas community cannot be considered as a notice to sue.”
“Petitioners simply conveyed that they would pursue other remedies if respondents failed to take action within 5 working days from receipt of the letter. We find no express intention that they will actually file a suit or action in court if respondents fail to act,” the CA stressed.
According to the appellate court, the statement to “pursue other remedies” is too broad that it may be interpreted as an administrative remedy, arbitration or mediation, or any other means to address a violation of right.
“The notice or letter should specifically state that the complainant intends to file a suit if no action is taken by the public officer concerned within 30mdays. Such intention or statement was not categorically expressed in petitioners’ letter dated July 14, 2014,” the CA ruled.
“Thus, for failure to comply with this mandatory requirement of the law, we are constrained to dismiss the instant petition without prejudice to the refiling of the action before the proper court,” the appellate court added.
Last September , the Supreme Court abandoned its earlier decision denying the petition for being incomplete in form and insufficient in substance.
The Court also ruled that the magnitude of environmental damage required by the Rules on the Writ of Kalikasan (must affect the life, health or property of residents of two or more cities or provinces) has not been met as no evidence has been shown prima facie to support any such claim of damage.
The Court also noted the lack of affidavits, scientific studies or documentary evidence to support the claimed environmental damage, as required by the Rules on the Writ of Kalikasan.
However, in reversing itself, the Court ordered Bautista and Department of Environment and Natural Resources-Environmental Management Bureau (DENR-MB) – to answer the petition.
The High Tribunal also referred the case to the CA for hearing and resolution.
The SC issued the new order after granting the motion for reconsideration filed by petitioners last July 10.
The petitioners sought the issuance of a writ of Kalikasan against the Quezon City government’s expansion of its sanitary landfill which petitioner’s claim will encroach upon the area where their houses are built.
The petitioners argued that the sanitary landfill endangers the health of the people living around the facility.
The petitioners, mostly residents living near the landfill, also sought the closure of the facility for violating the provisions of Republic Act 9003 or the Ecological Solid Waste Management Act and other environmental laws such as the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Toxic Substances and Hazardous and Nuclear Wastes Control Act.
