Writ of kalikasan: Protection for all?

The author seeks to prove that the “two (2) city or province affected ”requirement of the Writ of Kalikasan is unconstitutional, because it violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution. Equal protection requires that persons similarly situated must be treated alike, the only exception is...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Chiongson, Sharlene Anjelica L.
Format: text
Language:English
Published: Animo Repository 2014
Subjects:
Online Access:https://animorepository.dlsu.edu.ph/etd_masteral/6378
https://animorepository.dlsu.edu.ph/context/etd_masteral/article/13443/viewcontent/11087897_CHIONGSON_THESIS2.pdf
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Institution: De La Salle University
Language: English
id oai:animorepository.dlsu.edu.ph:etd_masteral-13443
record_format eprints
spelling oai:animorepository.dlsu.edu.ph:etd_masteral-134432023-06-21T06:46:32Z Writ of kalikasan: Protection for all? Chiongson, Sharlene Anjelica L. The author seeks to prove that the “two (2) city or province affected ”requirement of the Writ of Kalikasan is unconstitutional, because it violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution. Equal protection requires that persons similarly situated must be treated alike, the only exception is when there is a circumstance that would validly distinguish a person from the other persons belonging to the same classification. The writ aims to remedy/promote the right to life and healthful and balanced ecology3, hence, a classification following territorial “titles” is not a valid classification for running against the very purpose that the writ was created for. This is because it discriminates against single big cities or provinces, which may more or less have the same territorial or population size as other two cities or provinces combined; Persons who seek relief against an environmental danger will not be permitted to avail of the writ of kalikasan merely because the danger they seek to prevent/remedy affects only a single territory “title”. As a result, regardless of the territorial magnitude or irreparable damage that may occur, no immediate remedy can be acquired, counter acting the very purpose which the writ was created for, to protect the right to life. In line with this, the author will conduct several surveys and analysis of cases where the writ has already been granted, and these will be compared to single large cities or provinces. Furthermore, the writ will also be compared to other available legal remedies, which proves why the Writ of Kalikasan cannot be substituted with other remedies. 2014-03-01T08:00:00Z text application/pdf https://animorepository.dlsu.edu.ph/etd_masteral/6378 https://animorepository.dlsu.edu.ph/context/etd_masteral/article/13443/viewcontent/11087897_CHIONGSON_THESIS2.pdf Master's Theses English Animo Repository Environmental law—Philippines Environmental protection—Philippines Environmental Law
institution De La Salle University
building De La Salle University Library
continent Asia
country Philippines
Philippines
content_provider De La Salle University Library
collection DLSU Institutional Repository
language English
topic Environmental law—Philippines
Environmental protection—Philippines
Environmental Law
spellingShingle Environmental law—Philippines
Environmental protection—Philippines
Environmental Law
Chiongson, Sharlene Anjelica L.
Writ of kalikasan: Protection for all?
description The author seeks to prove that the “two (2) city or province affected ”requirement of the Writ of Kalikasan is unconstitutional, because it violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution. Equal protection requires that persons similarly situated must be treated alike, the only exception is when there is a circumstance that would validly distinguish a person from the other persons belonging to the same classification. The writ aims to remedy/promote the right to life and healthful and balanced ecology3, hence, a classification following territorial “titles” is not a valid classification for running against the very purpose that the writ was created for. This is because it discriminates against single big cities or provinces, which may more or less have the same territorial or population size as other two cities or provinces combined; Persons who seek relief against an environmental danger will not be permitted to avail of the writ of kalikasan merely because the danger they seek to prevent/remedy affects only a single territory “title”. As a result, regardless of the territorial magnitude or irreparable damage that may occur, no immediate remedy can be acquired, counter acting the very purpose which the writ was created for, to protect the right to life. In line with this, the author will conduct several surveys and analysis of cases where the writ has already been granted, and these will be compared to single large cities or provinces. Furthermore, the writ will also be compared to other available legal remedies, which proves why the Writ of Kalikasan cannot be substituted with other remedies.
format text
author Chiongson, Sharlene Anjelica L.
author_facet Chiongson, Sharlene Anjelica L.
author_sort Chiongson, Sharlene Anjelica L.
title Writ of kalikasan: Protection for all?
title_short Writ of kalikasan: Protection for all?
title_full Writ of kalikasan: Protection for all?
title_fullStr Writ of kalikasan: Protection for all?
title_full_unstemmed Writ of kalikasan: Protection for all?
title_sort writ of kalikasan: protection for all?
publisher Animo Repository
publishDate 2014
url https://animorepository.dlsu.edu.ph/etd_masteral/6378
https://animorepository.dlsu.edu.ph/context/etd_masteral/article/13443/viewcontent/11087897_CHIONGSON_THESIS2.pdf
_version_ 1769841923094216704