The Writ of Kalikasan issued against Placer Dome and Barrick Gold

Scars left behind in a Marcopper mine site

The Supreme Court of the Philippines issued a Writ of Kalikasan in March 2011 in favor of three residents of Marinduque who filed a petition for issuance of the writ against Placer Dome, Inc. and Barrick Gold Corporation for the Marcopper mining incident in 1996. The writ is a remedy available to persons, people's and non-government organizations, and public interest groups whose constitutional right to a balanced and healthy ecology is violated or threatened by private or public entities involving environmental damage that prejudice the life, health or property of inhabitants in cities and provinces. Read

Writ of Kalikasan

The following report on the matter is found in Barrick Gold Corporation’s 2012 Annual Report:

On February 25, 2011 a Petition for the Issuance of a Writ of Kalikasan with Prayer for Temporary Environmental Protection Order was filed in the Supreme Court of the Republic of the Philippines in Eliza M. Hernandez, Mamerto M. Lanete and Godofredo L. Manoy versus Placer Dome Inc. and Barrick Gold Corporation, SC G.R. No. 195482 (the "Petition").  On March 8, 2011, the Supreme Court issued an En Banc Resolution and Writ of Kalikasan and directed service of summons on Placer Dome Inc. and the Company, ordered Placer Dome Inc. and the Company to make a verified return of the Writ with ten (10) days of service and referred the case to the Court of Appeal for hearing.

The Petition alleges that Placer Dome Inc. violated the petitioners' constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology as a result of, amongst other things, the discharge of tailings into Calancan Bay, the 1993 Maguila-Guila dam break, the 1996 Boac river tailings spill and Marcopper's failure to properly decommission the Marcopper mine.  The petitioners have pleaded that the Company is liable for the alleged actions and omissions of Placer Dome Inc. which was a minority indirect shareholder of Marcopper at all relevant times and is seeking orders requiring the Company to environmentally remediate the areas in and around the mine site that are alleged to have sustained environmental impacts. 

The petitioners purported to serve the Company on March 25, 2011.  On March 31, 2011, the Company filed an Urgent Motion For Ruling on Jurisdiction with the Supreme Court challenging the constitutionality of the Rules of Procedure in Environmental Cases (the “Environmental Rules”) pursuant to which the Petition was filed, as well as the jurisdiction of the Court over the Company.  As required by the Environmental Rules, by special appearance and without submitting to the jurisdiction of the Court, on April 4, 2011 the Company filed its Return Ad Cautelam to the Writ seeking the dismissal of the Petition with prejudice. 

Click here for updated version dated Oct.2 , 2013.