EPISTOLARY JURISDICTION AND PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

IN THE PHILIPPINES

Exzie G. Calubayan
Arellano University School of Law

INTRODUCTION
In a democratic state like the Philippines, the division of power and the sphere of responsibilities
are properly delineated under proper constitutional precepts. The separation of powers and the system of
checks and balances are safeguards that are instituted to assure that no encroachment on the part of any
branch vis-à-vis the other branches can be forthcoming.

Among the three branches of the government, the judiciary may be deemed as the most
impersonal branch of the government towards the populace. While the members of the executive and
legislative branches are primarily voted for by the people in elections, members of the judiciary are
unelected. Moreover, access to courts of justice had been proven to be highly technical and may be
considered not “people-friendly.” That is, compliance with technical rules and legal formalities are highly
observed.

In many parts of the world, including the Philippines, there exists a wide perception of the
judiciary to be favouring the rich. As such, the challenges faced by the courts are in varied proportions.
Questions on access to justice has become more pronounced that some courts were calibrated to some
extent do away with its traditional function to provide some remedies to some perceived social wrongs.

Hence, the birth of what is termed as Public Interest Litigation (PIL). Public Interest Litigation
(PIL), though not a new concept has been adopted in many jurisdictions particularly in many developing
countries in the Philippines. Very notable in the practice of Public Interest Litigation is India though the
concept had been adopted in many Asian countries, including the Philippines. In some areas the
achievements have been quite spectacular. For example, the South Asian judiciary is said to lead the
world as a guarantor of the legal protection of sustainable development and the environment. The courts
in these countries have expanded on substantive rights and removed the constraints of procedural law
inhibiting access to the courts.1

The concept of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) basically deals with the liberalization or relaxation
of the rule on standing or locus standi whereby groups and proactive individuals are allowed to approach
the court on behalf of disadvantaged individuals and groups to seek remedy for their social infirmities.
Anent the concept of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) is epistolary jurisdiction, whereby the Court, through
a letter sent to it may act on a certain case. Popularized in India, epistolary jurisdiction has been used in
some jurisdictions to demand courts to take on social issues which would in some instances, would
otherwise had been traditionally the scope of executive or legislative departments. Oftentimes, invoking
epistolary jurisdiction is couched under the universal right of access to justice, which is a fundamental
and universal human right.

1
Nicholas A. Robinson, ‘A Common Responsibility: Sustainable Development and Economic Social and
Environmental Norms’, 4 Asia Pac. J. Envtl. L., 195, 195 (2000) as cited in Gurdial, Singh Nijar, Public Interest
Litigation: A Matter of Justice an Asian Perspective, Kuala Lumpur, 08 October 2006.

1
EPISTOLARY JURISDICTION: CONCEPT AND
EVOLUTION

The word “epistolary” came from the word ‘epistle’ which letters were written to the fledgling
churches and individual believers in the earliest days of Christianity which formed part of the New
Testament. The Apostle Paul wrote a number of these letters which constituted about one-fourth of the
entire New Testament. Of the thirteen (13) letters written by the Paul, four letters, the Prison Epistles,
were composed while he was confined in prison.2 This exact situation reflects the evolution of epistolary
jurisdiction as may be discussed herein.

As to jurisdiction, it has the qualifying characteristic of “sua moto”. The Latin term ‘sua moto’
means ‘on its own motion’ and is approximately equivalent to the term ‘sua sponte’ that means ‘of his,
her, its, their or their own accord”, which contemplates an act of authority that demands no prompting or
motivation from another party.

Taken altogether, epistolary jurisdiction is defined as “a legal innovation devoid of many

procedural technicalities through which the wronged or those seeking redress from the Courts may
channel their concerns to the courts by way of informal documentation such as letters, telegrams, and
newspaper articles, amongst others.”3

Similarly, epistolary jurisdiction is considered to be an innovation through liberal interpretation

of the locus standi where any person can apply to the Court on behalf of those who are economically or
physically unable to come before it or are unaware of their legal entitlements. In India particularly, where
the term was first coined, the Court has allowed actions to be brought on their behalf by social activists
and lawyers. Judges, themselves have in some cases initiated suo moto action based on newspaper articles
or letters.4

Accordingly, epistolary jurisdiction is a response to the need to make the judicial process more
accessible to poor, down trodden, socially and economically disadvantaged sections of the society. In
India, for example where it is considered as the most important innovations in the Indian judicial process,
it was primarily the judges of the higher judiciary who have innovated the concept of epistolary
jurisdiction. It was done through judicial activism while exorcising the jurisdiction for dispensing judges
to the poor and the downtrodden. Epistolary jurisdiction in layman’s term is often equated with what is
known as Public Interest Litigation.5

Though the two terms epistolary jurisdiction and Public Interest Litigation are oftentimes treated
synonymous to each other, there are contentions that the two are not exactly the same. That is, epistolary
jurisdiction is a specialized branch of public interest litigation.6

While both concepts departed from the traditional rule on locus standi, Public Interest Litigation
intimated that where a legal wrong or legal injury is caused to a person or to a class of persons by reason

2
Fairchild, Mary. “The Epistles.” 08 July 2015. Available at: http://christianity.about.com/books of thebible/qt/The-
Epistles.htm
3
As cited in Ritei, Paranta Edward. “Access to Justice: Epistolary Jurisdiction as a Means of Improving Access to
Justice in Kenya, Strathmore University. 08 January 2016.
4
Farid, Cynthia. “New Paths to Justice: A Tale of Social Justice Lawyering in Bangladesh. Wisconsin International
Law Journal, 15 April 2015.
5
Chopra, Abhimanyu. “Inception of Epistolary Jurisdiction.” Rostrum Law Review, Volume I, Issue II. August
2013.
6
See note 3.

2
of violation of their constitutional or legal right, and such person or class of person is by reason of
poverty or disability or socially or economically disadvantaged position unable to approach the court for
relief, any member of the public or social action group acting bona fide can institute an action on his or
her own behalf.7

This concept however, was expanded. India, which institutionalized the concept of epistolary
jurisdiction had affirmed and reaffirmed in its various Court decisions where it has acted on non-formal
petitions especially letters to the court by persons or organizations engaged in the cause of upholding
human rights, treating the letter as a writ petition.8 In the later part of this paper, the concept of epistolary
jurisdiction and PIL will be used interchangeably.

Though epistolary jurisdiction may have been institutionalized in India, it was however, exercised
first in the United States in the 1963 landmark case of Gideon vs Wainwright9 whereby the Court agreed
to hear the case based on a writing on pencil on prison stationery sent by the accused to the United States
Supreme Court.

Gideon was charged with burglary and at trial, he appeared in court without a counsel. In open
court, he asked the judge to appoint a counsel for him because he could not afford one. The trial judge
denied Gideon’s request because Florida law only permitted appointment of counsel for poor defendants
charged with capital offenses. Gideon was forced to defend himself but despite his efforts, he was
sentenced to five years imprisonment.

While in prison after denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus in the Florida Supreme Court
challenging his conviction and sentence on the ground of the judge’s refusal to appoint counsel in
violation of his constitutional rights, Gideon next filed a handwritten petition to the Supreme Court of the
United States. The Court agreed to hear the case to resolve the question of whether the right to counsel is
guaranteed under the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution for defendants in state court.

In India, the landmark case of Sunil Batra vs Delhi Administration10, the Indian Court (apex
Court) treated a letter written by another prisoner sent to the Court complaining of a brutal assault
committed by a Head Warder to another prisoner. The letter was converted into a habeas corpus
proceeding.

The petitioner, a convict under death sentence, through a letter to one of the judges of the Court,
alleged that torture was committed to one of the prisoners by a jail warder, to extract money from the
victim through his visiting relations. The letter was converted into a habeas corpus proceeding. The Court
then issued notice to the State and the concerned officials. It also appointed amicus curiae to visit prison,
and conduct investigation to inform themselves about the surrounding circumstances of the case.

The amicus curiae who visited the jail and conducted interviews to witnesses found that the
prisoner sustained serious anal injury to inflict human torture. Said victim was then brought to the
hospital and later on found out that torture was done because of an unfulfilled demand of the warder for
money, and that attempts were made by the departmental officers to cover up the crime and to provide an
explanation that the injury was due to a fall of self-infliction or due to piles. The court allowed the said
writ petition. Consequently, the Court issued a judgment directing suitable actions against the erring
official and pronounced that:

7
Ibid.
8
Ibid.
9
372 U.S. 335, 1963.
10
1980 AIR 1579, 1980 SCR (2) 557, 20 December 1979.

3
 “…technicalities and legal niceties are no impediment to the court entertaining even an
informal communication as a proceeding for habeas corpus if the basic facts are found…”

Further, in the same case, the Indian Court speaking through Justice Krishnaiyer opined:

“xxx

Where injustice, verging on inhumanity, emerges from hacking human rights guaranteed
in Part III and the victim beseeches the Court to intervene and relieve, this court will be a
functional futility as a constitutional instrumentality if its guns do not go into action until
the wrong is righted. The court is not a distant abstraction omnipotent in the books but an
activist institution which is the cynosure of public hope. We hold that the court can issue
writs to meet the new challenges. Lord Scarman's similar admonition, in his English
Law-The New Dimensions, is an encouraging omen. The objection, if any, is absolute
because in a prison situation, a Constitution Bench of this Court (Batra and Sobraj) did
imprison the powers of prison officials to put an under-trial under iron fetters or confine
in solitary cells convicts with death sentences under appeal.

Once jurisdiction is granted-and we affirm in unmistakable terms that the court has,
under Art. 32 and so too under Art. 226, a clear power and, therefore, a public duty to
give relief to sentences in prison settings-the next question is the jurisprudential backing
for the play of that jurisdiction. Here again, Batra has blazed the trial, and it binds.”

The Indian Court even went further from letters as acceptable informal mechanisms to exercise its
jurisdiction and even entertained telegrams, and applications highlighting a newspaper article.11 On 01
December 1988, the Supreme Court of India, acting on its administrative powers issued a notification on
what issues to e entertained as Public Interest Litigation (PIL), epistolary jurisdiction, encapsulated
therein. These included matters concerning bonded labor, neglected children, petitions from prisoners,
petitions against the police, petitions against atrocities on women, children and scheduled castes and
scheduled tribes. Petitions on environmental matters, adulteration of drugs and food, maintenance of
heritage and culture and other matters of public importance could also be entertained.12

An examination of Public Interest Litigation (PIL, including epistolary jurisdiction) in an Asian

perspective would reveal that courts in Asian countries have generally adopted PIL as an essential
component of its justice delivery system. The successes can be remarkable, more particularly on areas of
sustainable development and the environment. More particular is that the courts in these countries have
expanded on substantive rights and relaxed or liberalized constraints on procedure impeding access to the
courts.13 In the Philippines in particular, public interest litigation take significance in cases involving
enforcement of environmental laws.

EPISTOLARY JURISDICTION AND PUBLIC

INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) IN THE
PHILIPPINES
11
Parmanand Katara vs Union of India, 1978 , 4 SCC 494.
12
See note 3.
13
Gurdial, Singh Nijar, Public Interest Litigation: A Matter of Justice an Asian Perspective, Kuala Lumpur, 08
October 2006.

4
 In 1981 Justice P. N. Bhagwati in .S. P. Gupta v. Union of India, articulated the concept of PIL as
follows, “Where a legal wrong or a legal injury is caused to a person or to a determinate class of persons
by reason of violation of any constitutional or legal right or any burden is imposed in contravention of
any constitutional or legal provision or without authority of law or any such legal wrong or legal injury or
illegal burden is threatened and such person or determinate class of persons by reasons of poverty,
helplessness or disability or socially or economically disadvantaged position unable to approach the court
for relief, any member of public can maintain an application for an appropriate direction, order or writ in
the High Court under Article 226 and in case any breach of fundamental rights of such persons or
determinate class of persons, in this court under Article 32 seeking judicial redress for the legal wrong or
legal injury caused to such person or determinate class of persons.”14

The rule of locus standi have been relaxed and a person acting bonafide and having sufficient
interest in the proceeding of Public Interest Litigation will alone have a locus standi and can approach the
court to wipe out violation of fundamental rights and genuine infraction of statutory provisions, but not
for personal gain or private profit or political motive or any oblique consideration.15

In the Philippines, the concept of epistolary jurisdiction was unheard of until the emergence of the
case of Resident Mammals of the Protected Seascape Tanon Strait, et al. vs. Reyes16 whereby on the
question of standing, petitioners Resident Marine Mammals and Stewards adduced the argument that the
Court may lower the benchmark in locus standi as an exercise of epistolary jurisdiction. Though the
concept was adduced by the petitioners, no significant meaning nor discussion was offered to attempt at
the very least, define epistolary jurisdiction.

One thing is certain though, and that is, petitioners were asking the Court on the relaxation on the
rules on standing, in reference to the case of Oposa vs Factoran17 which confirmed the right of a group of
minors to bring an action on their behalf and on behalf of generations yet unborn to cancel existing
Timber License Agreements (TLAs) issued by the Secretary of the Department of Environment and
Natural Resources (DENR) in asserting their right to a balanced and healthful ecology under Article II,
Section 16 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution.

In the Philippines, the prevailing rule in constitutional litigation is that no question involving the
constitutionality or validity of a law or government act may be heard and decided by the Court unless
there is compliance with the legal requisites for judicial inquiry namely: (1) there must be an actual case
or controversy calling for the exercise of judicial power; (2) the person challenging the act must have the
standing to question the validity of the subject act or issuance; (3) the question of constitutionality must
be raised at the earliest opportunity; and (4) the issue of constitutionality must be the very lis mota of the
case. Of these requisites, case law states that the first two are the most important.18

Legal standing or locus standi is a “party’s personal and substantial interest in a case where he
has sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result of an act being challenged and calls for more than just
a generalized grievance.”19 Stated otherwise, where the plaintiff, as a representative of the public, assails
an official act for contravening a public right, it is not sufficient that the plaintiff has a general interest

14
Mohd Haris Usmani. “Public Interest Litigation.” Available at: http://www.legalserviceindia.com/article/l273-
Public-Interest-Litigation.html
15
Ibid.
16
G.R. Nos. 180771, & 181527, 21 April 2015.
17
G.R. No. 101083, 30 July 1993.
18
Belgica, et al. vs. Sec. Paquito Ochoa, G.R. No. 208566, 19 November 2013.
19
Ibid.

5
common to all members of the public; he must show that he has a personal and substantial interest in the
case such that he has sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result of the official act complained of.
Failure to make such demonstration may result in the dismissal of the action.20

In the Philippines, however, standing is viewed as a mere procedural technicality and may be
waived by the Court in its discretion. Where the issues involved are of transcendental importance to the
public, the Court has been inclined to relax the requirements for standing and allow a suit to prosper
despite the lack of indirect injury to the parties seeking judicial review.21

The relaxation of the rule on standing or locus standi in the Philippines was immortalized in the
internationally-heralded case of Oposa vs Factoran wherein as previously mentioned, the Supreme Court,
took cognizance of the case in a petition filed by several minors by themselves, represented and joined in
by their parents for their generation and for the succeeding generations. It is notwithstanding the fact that
this case had likewise revolutionized environmental rights litigation in the country.

In the complaint, petitioners prayed for the cancellation of Timber License Agreements (TLAs) in
the country issued by the DENR Secretary. They likewise prayed that the DENR shall cease and desist
from receiving, accepting, processing, renewing or approving new timber license agreements. The trial
court however, dismissed the complained and ruled that its stated no cause of action and that the issue
involved raises a political question.

The Supreme Court, however, took cognizance of the case treating the petition as a class suit
under Section 12, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court. In granting locus standi to the petitioners, the Court has
this to say:

“This case, however, has a special and novel element. Petitioners minors assert that they
represent their generation as well as generations yet unborn. We find no difficulty in
ruling that they can, for themselves, for others of their generation and for the succeeding
generations, file a class suit. Their personality to sue in behalf of the succeeding
generations can only be based on the concept of intergenerational responsibility insofar as
the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is concerned. Such a right, as hereinafter
expounded, considers the "rhythm and harmony of nature.” xxx”

In 2015, the Supreme Court rendered a decision in the case of Resident Mammals of the Protected
Seascape Tanon Strait, et al. vs. Reyes. The petitioners in this case (G.R. No. 180771), collectively
referred to as the "Resident Marine Mammals" in the petition, were the toothed whales, dolphins,
porpoises, and other cetacean species, which inhabit the waters in and around the Tañon Strait. They were
joined by Gloria Estenzo Ramos (Ramos) and Rose-Liza Eisma-Osorio (Eisma-Osorio) as their legal
guardians and as friends (to be collectively known as "the Stewards") who allegedly empathize with, and
seek the protection of, the aforementioned marine species. They protested the ecological impact of
JAPEX’s oil exploration in Tanon Strait, among others.

On the issue of standing, the Resident Marine Mammals, through the Stewards, "claim" that they
have the legal standing to file this action since they stand to be benefited or injured by the judgment in
this suit. They likewise claimed that they assert their right under the concept of stipulation pour autrui.

20
Corona, Renato. “Class Action, Public Interest Litigation and the Enforcement of Shared Legal Rights and
Common Interests in the Environment and Ancestral Lands in the Philippines.
21
Ibid.

6
 For their part, the Stewards contend that there should be no question of their right to represent the
Resident Marine Mammals as they have stakes in the case as forerunners of a campaign to build
awareness among the affected residents of Tañon Strait and as stewards of the environment since the
primary steward, the Government, had failed in its duty to protect the environment pursuant to the public
trust doctrine.

Petitioners Resident Marine Mammals and Stewards also aver that this Court may lower the
benchmark in locus standi as an exercise of epistolary jurisdiction.

In opposition, public respondents averred that petitioners have no standing, as the resident
mammals are not a natural or a juridical person in accordance with Section 1, Rule III of the Rules of
Court. As regards the Stewards, the public respondents likewise challenge their claim of legal standing on
the ground that they are representing animals, which cannot be parties to an action. Moreover, the public
respondents argue that the Stewards are not the real parties-in-interest for their failure to show how they
stand to be benefited or injured by the decision in this case.

In its Decision, the Court allowed the petition to prosper. In its decision, the Court opined:

“xxx in our jurisdiction, locus standi in environmental cases has been given a more
liberalized approach. While developments in Philippine legal theory and jurisprudence
have not progressed as far as Justice Douglas's paradigm of legal standing for inanimate
objects, the current trend moves towards simplification of procedures and facilitating
court access in environmental cases.”

Said argument has been further strengthened when the Court passed the landmark Rules of
Procedure for Environmental Cases, which allow for a "citizen suit," and permit any Filipino citizen to
file an action before our courts for violations of our environmental laws:

SEC. 5. Citizen suit. - Any Filipino citizen in representation of others, including

minors or generations yet unborn, may file an action to enforce rights or obligations
under environmental laws. Upon the filing of a citizen suit, the court shall issue an order
which shall contain a brief description of the cause of action and the reliefs prayed for,
requiring all interested parties to manifest their interest to intervene in the case within
fifteen (15) days from notice thereof. The plaintiff may publish the order once in a
newspaper of a general circulation in the Philippines or furnish all affected barangays
copies of said order.

Taking this into consideration, it can be clearly opined that cases in the field of enforcement of
environmental rights may not necessarily be instituted as a class suit. While Oposa vs Factoran might
have presupposed the action on public interest litigation to be in the nature of a class suit, such notion has
changed. As clearly deduced from the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases, an individual may
initiate and represent others, including minors and generations yet unborn, to enforce obligations under
environmental laws.

Moreover, though Philippine rules on standing might not necessarily contemplate the traditional
epistolary jurisdiction as may have been practiced in India, particularly, the relaxation of rules on
standing cannot be denied. Given the foregoing, and considering the possibility of the Court’s leaning
toward liberalization of its rules, the Philippines can be considered a fertile ground for public interest
cases. Needless to say, protection of the environment may just be the beginning.

7
8