The Hernandez versus Placer Dome case, as an illustrative example of the application of the Writ of Kalikasan, fails to elucidate. First of all, it strictly limits itself to the procedural aspects of the case. Second, it hides the factors that would have made sense of the technical exchanges between the parties. This post tries to supply the lacuna with with life-giving factual antecedents that may help understand the case.
Category: Natural Resources Law
Published March 18, 2016