environmental law digests

7/25/2019 Environmental Law Digests

1/26

Oposa vs. Factoran Case Digest (G.R. No. 101083,July 30, 13!

F"C#$%

The plaintifs in this case are all minors duly represented and joined by their parents. The rstcomplaint was led as a taxpayer's class suit at the Branch 66 (Makati Metro Manila! o" the

#e$ional Trial %ourt &ational capital udicial #e$ion a$ainst de"endant (respondent! ecretary o"the )epartment o" *n+ironment and &atural #easources ()*!. ,laintifs alle$ed that they areentitled to the "ull benet use and enjoyment o" the natural resource treasure that is thecountry's +ir$in tropical "orests. They "urther asse+erate that they represent their $eneration aswell as $enerations yet unborn and asserted that continued de"orestation ha+e caused adistortion and disturbance o" the ecolo$ical balance and ha+e resulted in a host o" en+ironmentaltra$edies.

,laintifs prayed that jud$ement be rendered orderin$ the respondent his a$entsrepresentati+es and other persons actin$ in his behal" to cancel all existin$ Timber -icense$reement (T-! in the country and to cease and desist "rom recei+in$ acceptin$ processin$renewin$ or appro+in$ new T-s.

)e"endant on the other hand led a motion to dismiss on the $round that the complaint had nocause o" action a$ainst him and that it raises a political /uestion.

The #T% ud$e sustained the motion to dismiss "urther rulin$ that $rantin$ o" the relie" prayed"or would result in the impairment o" contracts which is prohibited by the %onstitution.

,laintifs (petitioners! thus led the instant special ci+il action "or certiorari and asked the courtto rescind and set aside the dismissal order on the $round that the respondent #T% ud$e $ra+elyabused his discretion in dismissin$ the action.

&$$'$%

(0! 1hether or not the plaintifs ha+e a cause o" action.(2! 1hether or not the complaint raises a political issue.(3! 1hether or not the ori$inal prayer o" the plaintifs result in the impairment o" contracts.

R')&NG%

4irst 5ssue %ause o" ction.

#espondents a+er that the petitioners "ailed to alle$e in their complaint a specic le$al ri$ht+iolated by the respondent ecretary "or which any relie" is pro+ided by law. The %ourt did nota$ree with this. The complaint "ocuses on one "undamental le$al ri$ht 77 the ri$ht to a balanced

and health"ul ecolo$y which is incorporated in ection 06 rticle 55 o" the %onstitution. The saidri$ht carries with it the duty to re"rain "rom impairin$ the en+ironment and implies amon$ manyother thin$s the judicious mana$ement and conser+ation o" the country's "orests. ection 8 o"*.9. 0:2 expressly mandates the )* to be the primary $o+ernment a$ency responsible "or the$o+ernin$ and super+isin$ the exploration utili;ation de+elopment and conser+ation o" thecountry's natural resources. The policy declaration o" *.9. 0:2 is also substantially re7stated in

Title ?. Both *.9. 0:2 and dministrati+e %ode o"0:>? ha+e set the objecti+es which will ser+e as the bases "or policy "ormation and ha+e denedthe powers and "unctions o" the )*. Thus ri$ht o" the petitioners (and all those theyrepresent! to a balanced and health"ul ecolo$y is as clear as )*'s duty to protect and ad+ancethe said ri$ht.


2/26

denial or +iolation o" that ri$ht by the other who has the correlati+e duty or obli$ation torespect or protect or respect the same $i+es rise to a cause o" action. ,etitioners maintain thatthe $rantin$ o" the T- which they claim was done with $ra+e abuse o" discretion +iolated theirri$ht to a balance and health"ul ecolo$y. @ence the "ull protection thereo" re/uires that no"urther T-s should be renewed or $ranted.

"ter care"ul examination o" the petitioners' complaint the %ourt nds it to be ade/uate enou$hto show prima "acie the claimed +iolation o" their ri$hts.

econd 5ssue ,olitical 5ssue.

econd para$raph ection 0 o" rticle =555 o" the constitution pro+ides "or the expandedjurisdiction +ested upon the upreme %ourt. 5t allows the %ourt to rule upon e+en on the wisdomo" the decision o" the *xecuti+e and -e$islature and to declare their acts as in+alid "or lack orexcess o" jurisdiction because it is tainted with $ra+e abuse o" discretion.

Third 5ssue =iolation o" the non7impairment clause.

The %ourt held that the Timber -icense $reement is an instrument by which the state re$ulatesthe utili;ation and disposition o" "orest resources to the end that public wel"are is promoted. 5t isnot a contract within the pur+iew o" the due process clause thus the non7impairment clausecannot be in+oked. 5t can be +alidly withdraw whene+er dictated by public interest or publicwel"are as in this case. The $rantin$ o" license does not create irre+ocable ri$hts neither is itproperty or property ri$hts.

Moreo+er the constitutional $uaranty o" non7impairment o" obli$ations o" contract is limit by theexercise by the police power o" the tate in the interest o" public health sa"ety moral and$eneral wel"are. 5n short the non7impairment clause must yield to the police power o" the tate.

The instant petition bein$ impressed with merit is hereby A#&T*) and the #T% decision is *T5)*.

*etropolitan *anila Develop+ent "utority vsConcerne- Resi-ents o *anila /ayA# &o. 0?0:8?78>)ecember 0> 2>

F"C#$%

The complaint by the residents alle$ed that the water /uality o" the Manila Bay had "allenway below the allowable standards set by law specically ,residential )ecree &o. (,)!00C2 or the ,hilippine *n+ironment %ode and that -- de"endants (public oDcials! must be

jointly andEor solidarily liable and collecti+ely ordered to clean up Manila Bay and to restore itswater /uality to class B waters t "or swimmin$ di+in$ and other "orms o" contact recreation.

&$$'$%

(0! 19& ections 0? and 2 o" ,) 00C2 under the headin$s Fp$radin$ o" 1ater Guality and%lean7up 9perations en+isa$e a cleanup in $eneral or are they limited only to thecleanup o" specic pollution incidentsH(2! 19& petitioners be compel led by mandamus to clean up and rehabilitate the Manila Bay.

,,-5%B-* -1


3/26

,) 00C2 ,hilippine *n+ironmental %ode ection 0?. Fp$radin$ o" 1ater Guality.II 1here the/uality o" water has deteriorated t o a de$ree where it s state will ad+ersely afect itsbest u sa$e the $o+ernment a$encies concerned shall take such measures as may benecessary to up$rade the /uality o" such water to meet the prescribed water /ualitystandards. ection 2. %lean7up 9perations.II5t shall be the responsibility o" the polluter tocontain remo+e and clean 7 up water pollution incidents at his own expense. 5n case o"his "ailure to do so the $o+ernment a$encies concerned shall undertake containmentremo+al and clean7up operations and expenses incurred in said operation shall be char$eda$ainst the persons andE or entities responsible "or such pollution.)D%

(0! ec. 0? does not in any way state that the $o+ernment a$encies concerned ou$ht toconne themsel+es to the containment remo+al and cleanin$ operations when a specicpollution incident occurs. 9n the contrary ec. 0? re/uires them to act e+en in theabsence o" a specic pollution incident as lon$ as water /uality Jhas deteriorated to ade$ree where its state will ad+ersely afect its best usa$e.K ection 0? L 2 are o" $eneraapplication and are not "or specic pollution incidents only. The "act that the pollution o" theManila Bay is o" such ma$nitude and scope that it is well 7ni$h impossible to draw theline between a specic and a $eneral pollution incident.

(2! The %leanin$ or #ehabilitation o" Manila Bay %an be %ompelled by Mandamus. 1hile theimplementation o" the MM)'s mandated tasks may entail a decision7makin$ process theen"orcement o" the law or the +ery act o" doin$ what the law exacts to be done isministerial in nature and may be compelled by mandamus. Fnder what other judiciadiscipline describes as Jcontinuin$ mandamus K the %ourt may under extraordinarycircumstances issue directi+es with the end in +iew o" ensurin$ that its decision would notbe set to nau$ht by administrati+e inaction or indiference.

&9T* This continuin$ mandamus is no lon$er applicable since this is institutionali;ed in therules o" procedure "or en+ironmental cases.2 days I Temporary restrainin$ order

Carino v. &nsular Govern+ent? ,hil 032 I %i+il -aw I -and Titles and )eeds I ncestral )omain I ncestral -and %laim

F"C#$%

%arino is an 5$orot o" the ,ro+ince o" Ben$uet where the land lies led "or writ o" error becausethe %45 and % dismissed his petition "or application

4or more than C years be"ore the Treaty o" ,aris pril 00 0>:: he and his ancestors had heldthe land as reco$ni;ed owners by the 5$orots. ($rand"ather maintain "ences "or holdin$cattle"ather had culti+ated parts and used parts "or pasturin$ cattlehe used it "or pasture!

0>:370>:8 L 0>:670>:? he made an application but with no a+ail

0:0 petition alle$in$ ownership under the mort$a$e law and the lands were re$istered to himbut process only established possessory title

*+en i" the applicant ha+e title he cannot ha+e it re$istered because the ,hilippine%ommission's ct &o. :26 o" 0:3 excepts the ,ro+ince o" Ben$uet amon$ others "rom itsoperation

&$$'%


4/26

1E& %arino has ownership and is entitled to re$istration.

)D%

N*. ,etition Aranted.-and was not re$istered and there"ore became i" it was not always public land.

panish -aw O1here such possessors shall not be able to produce title deeds it shall besuDcient i" they shall show that ancient possession as a +alid title by prescription.O 4orculti+ated land 2 years uninterrupted is enou$h. 4or unculti+ated 3.

pplicant's possession was not unlaw"ul and no attempt at any such proceedin$s a$ainst him orhis "ather e+er was made.

*+ery nati+e who had not a paper title is not a trespasser.

There must be a presumption a$ainst the $o+ernment when a pri+ate indi+idual claims propertyas his or her own. 5t went so "ar as to say that the lands will be deemed pri+ate absent contraryproo".

CR' 2. NC&

Facts%

,etitioners 5sa$ani %ru; and %esar *uropa led a suit "or prohibition and mandamus as citi;ensand taxpayers assailin$ the constitutionality o" certain pro+isions o" #epublic ct &o. >3?0otherwise known as the 5ndi$enous ,eoplePs #i$hts ct o" 0::? (5,#! and its implementin$ rulesand re$ulations (5##!. The petitioners assail certain pro+isions o" the 5,# and its 5## on the$round that these amount to an unlaw"ul depri+ation o" the tatePs ownership o+er lands o" thepublic domain as well as minerals and other natural resources therein in +iolation o" the re$alian

doctrine embodied in section 2 rticle


5/26

F"C#$%

9n &o+ember 0 0:?> then ,resident Marcos issued ,roc. &o. 0>0 declarin$ Boracay 5slandamon$ other islands ca+es and peninsulas in the ,hilippines as tourist ;ones and marinereser+es under the administration o" the ,hilippine Tourism uthority (,T!. ,resident Marcoslater appro+ed the issuance o" ,T %ircular 37>2 dated eptember 3 0:>2 to implement,roclamation &o. 0>0.

%laimin$ that ,roclamation &o. 0>0 and ,T %ircular &o 37>2 precluded them "rom lin$ anapplication "or judicial conrmation o" imper"ect title or sur+ey o" land "or titlin$ purposesrespondents7claimants Mayor . Nap r. and others led a petition "or declaratory relie" with the#T% in Ralibo klan

5n their petition respondents7claimants alle$ed that ,roc. &o. 0>0 and ,T %ircular &o. 37>2raised doubts on their ri$ht to secure titles o+er their occupied lands. They declared that theythemsel+es or throu$h their predecessors7in7interest had been in open continuous exclusi+eand notorious possession and occupation in Boracay since une 02 0:8C or earlier since timeimmemorial. They declared their lands "or tax purposes and paid realty taxes on them#espondents7claimants posited that ,roclamation &o. 0>0 and its implementin$ %ircular did notplace Boracay beyond the commerce o" man. ince the 5sland was classied as a tourist ;one itwas susceptible o" pri+ate ownership. Fnder ection 8>(b! o" the ,ublic -and ct they had theri$ht to ha+e the lots re$istered in their names throu$h judicial conrmation o" imper"ect titles.

The #epublic throu$h the 9A opposed the petition "or declaratory relie". The 9A counteredthat Boracay 5sland was an unclassied land o" the public domain. 5t "ormed part o" the mass o"lands classied as Jpublic "orestK which was not a+ailable "or disposition pursuant to ection3(a! o" the #e+ised 4orestry %ode as amended. The 9A maintained that respondents7claimantsP reliance on ,) &o. 0>0 and ,T %ircular &o. 37>2 was misplaced. Their ri$ht to

judicial conrmation o" title was $o+erned by ,ublic -and ct and #e+ised 4orestry %ode asamended. ince Boracay 5sland had not been classied as alienable and disposable whate+erpossession they had cannot ripen into ownership.

9n uly 08 0::: the #T% rendered a decision in "a+or o" respondents7claimants declarin$ thatJ,) 0>0 and ,T %ircular &o. 37>2 #e+ised 4orestry %ode as amended.

The 9A mo+ed "or reconsideration but its motion was denied. The #epublic then appealed tothe %. 9n 5n 28 the appellate court aDrmed in toto the #T% decision. $ain the 9A sou$htreconsideration but it was similarly denied. @ence the present petition under #ule 8C.

9n May 22 26 durin$ the pendency the petition in the trial court ,resident Aloria Macapa$al7rroyo issued ,roclamation &o. 068 classi"yin$ Boracay 5sland partly reser+ed "orest land(protection purposes! and partly a$ricultural land (alienable and disposable!.

9n u$ust 0 26 petitioners7claimants acayand other landowners in Boracay led with this%ourt an ori$inal petition "or prohibition mandamus and nullication o" ,roclamation &o. 068.

They alle$e that the ,roclamation in"rin$ed on their Jprior +ested ri$htsK o+er portions o"Boracay. They ha+e been in continued possession o" their respecti+e lots in Boracay since timeimmemorial.

9n &o+ember 20 26 this %ourt ordered the consolidation o" the two petitions

&$$'%


6/26

The main issue is whether pri+ate claimants ha+e a ri$ht to secure titles o+er their occupiedportions in Boracay.

)D%

,etitions )*&5*). The % decision is re+ersed.

*xcept "or lands already co+ered by existin$ titles Boracay was an unclassied land o" the publicdomain prior to ,roclamation &o. 068. uch unclassied lands are considered public "orestunder ,) &o. ?C.

,) &o. ?C issued by ,resident Marcos cate$ori;ed all unclassied lands o" the public domain aspublic "orest. ection 3(a! o" ,) &o. ?C denes a public "orest as Ja mass o" lands o" the publicdomain which has not been the subject o" the present system o" classication "or thedetermination o" which lands are needed "or "orest purpose and which are not.K pplyin$ ,) &o?C all unclassied lands includin$ those in Boracay 5sland are ipso "acto considered public"orests. ,) &o. ?C howe+er respects titles already existin$ prior to its efecti+ity.

The 0:3C %onstitution classied lands o" the public domain into a$ricultural "orest or timbersuch classication modied by the 0:?3 %onstitution. The 0:>? %onstitution re+erted to the 0:3C%onstitution classication with one addition national parks. 9" these only a$ricultural lands maybe alienated. ,rior to ,roclamation &o. 068 o" May 22 26 Boracay 5sland had ne+er beenexpressly and administrati+ely classied under any o" these $rand di+isions. Boracay was anunclassied land o" the public domain.

positi+e act declarin$ land as alienable and disposable is re/uired. 5n keepin$ with thepresumption o" tate ownership the %ourt has time and a$ain emphasi;ed that there must be apositi+e act o" the $o+ernment such as a presidential proclamation or an executi+e orderH anadministrati+e actionH in+esti$ation reports o" Bureau o" -ands in+esti$atorsH and a le$islati+e actor a statute. The applicant may also secure a certication "rom the $o+ernment that the landclaimed to ha+e been possessed "or the re/uired number o" years is alienable and disposable.

The burden o" proo" in o+ercomin$ such presumption is on the person applyin$ "or re$istration(or claimin$ ownership! who must pro+e that the land subject o" the application is alienable ordisposable.

5n the case at bar no such proclamation executi+e order administrati+e action report statuteor certication was presented to the %ourt. The records are bere"t o" e+idence showin$ thatprior to 26 the portions o" Boracay occupied by pri+ate claimants were subject o" a$o+ernment proclamation that the land is alienable and disposable. Matters o" land classicationor reclassication cannot be assumed. They call "or proo".

,roc. &o. 0>0 cannot be deemed the positi+e act needed to classi"y Boracay 5sland as alienableand disposable land. 5" ,resident Marcos intended to classi"y the island as alienable anddisposable or "orest or both he would ha+e identied the specic limits o" each as ,resident

rroyo did in ,roclamation &o. 068. This was not done in ,roclamation &o. 0>0.

&9T*

0. ,ri+ate claimantsP reliance on nkron and )e ldecoa is misplaced. nkron and )e ldecoawere decided at a time when the ,resident o" the ,hilippines had no power to classi"y lands o"the public domain into mineral timber and a$ricultural. t that time the courts were "ree tomake correspondin$ classications in justiciable cases or were +ested with implicit power to doso dependin$ upon the preponderance o" the e+idence. ct &o. 2>?8 promul$ated in 0:0: andreproduced in ection 6 o" ,ublic -and ct $a+e the *xecuti+e )epartment throu$h the,resident the exclusi+e prero$ati+e to classi"y or reclassi"y public lands into alienable or


7/26

disposable mineral or "orest. ince then courts no lon$er had the authority whether express orimplied to determine the classication o" lands o" the public domain.

2. *ach case must be decided upon the proo" in that particular case ha+in$ re$ard "or its presentor "uture +alue "or one or the other purposes. 1e belie+e howe+er considerin$ the "act that it isa matter o" public knowled$e that a majority o" the lands in the ,hilippine 5slands are a$riculturallands that the courts ha+e a ri$ht to presume in the absence o" e+idence to the contrary that ineach case the lands are a$ricultural lands until the contrary is shown. 1hate+er the landin+ol+ed in a particular land re$istration case is "orestry or mineral land must there"ore be amatter o" proo". 5ts superior +alue "or one purpose or the other is a /uestion o" "act to be settledby the proo" in each particular case

4orests in the context o" both the ,ublic -and ct and the %onstitution classi"yin$ lands o" thepublic domain into Ja$ricultural "orest or timber mineral lands and national parksK do notnecessarily re"er to lar$e tracts o" wooded land or expanses co+ered by dense $rowths o" treesand underbrushes. The discussion in @eirs o" munate$ui +. )irector o" 4orestry is particularlyinstructi+e

"orested area classied as "orest land o" the public domain does not lose such classicationsimply because lo$$ers or settlers may ha+e stripped it o" its "orest co+er. ,arcels o" landclassied as "orest land may actually be co+ered with $rass or planted to crops by kain$inculti+ators or other "armers. J4orest landsK do not ha+e to be on mountains or in out o" the wayplaces. wampy areas co+ered by man$ro+e trees nipa palms and other trees $rowin$ inbrackish or sea water may also be classied as "orest land. The classication is descripti+e o" itsle$al nature or status and does not ha+e to be descripti+e o" what the land actually looks like.Fnless and until the land classied as J"orestK is released in an oDcial proclamation to that efectso that it may "orm part o" the disposable a$ricultural lands o" the public domain the rules onconrmation o" imper"ect title do not apply.

There is a bi$ diference between J"orestK as dened in a dictionary and J"orest or timber landKas a classication o" lands o" the public domain as appearin$ in our statutes. 9ne is descripti+eo" what appears on the land while the other is a le$al status a classication "or le$al purposest any rate the %ourt is tasked to determine the le$al status o" Boracay 5sland and not look intoits physical layout. @ence e+en i" its "orest co+er has been replaced by beach resortsrestaurants and other commercial establishments it has not been automatically con+erted "rompublic "orest to alienable a$ricultural land.

3. ll is not lost howe+er "or pri+ate claimants. 1hile they may not be eli$ible to apply "orjudicial conrmation o" imper"ect title under ection 8>(b! o" % &o. 080 as amended this doesnot denote their automatic ouster "rom the residential commercial and other areas they possessnow classied as a$ricultural. &either will this mean the loss o" their substantial in+estments ontheir occupied alienable lands. -ack o" title does not necessarily mean lack o" ri$ht to possess.

4or one thin$ those with law"ul possession may claim $ood "aith as builders o" impro+ements.

They can take steps to preser+e or protect their possession. 4or another they may look intoother modes o" applyin$ "or ori$inal re$istration o" title such as by homestead or sales patentsubject to the conditions imposed by law.

More realistically %on$ress may enact a law to entitle pri+ate claimants to ac/uire title to theiroccupied lots or to exempt them "rom certain re/uirements under the present land laws. There isone such bill now pendin$ in the @ouse o" #epresentati+es.

Resi-ent *arine *a++als o te rotecte-$eascape #anon $trait vs. $ecretary "ngelo Reyes


8/26

ummaryThe upreme %ourt o" the #epublic o" the ,hilippines ruled that a ser+ice contract "or oiexploration de+elopment and production issued by the $o+ernment o" the ,hilippines in theprotected area o" the Tanon trait was unconstitutional.

F"C#$%

Two sets o" petitioners led separate cases challen$in$ the le$ality o" er+ice %ontract &o. 86(%786! awarded to apan ,etroleum *xploration %o. (,* ,*< and the $o+ernment o" the,hilippines mutually terminated the ser+ice contract and oil exploration acti+ities ceased. Theupreme %ourt consolidated the cases "or the purpose o" re+iew.

5n its decision the upreme %ourt rst addressed the important procedural point o" whether thecase was moot because the ser+ice contract had been terminated. The %ourt declared thatmootness is Jnot a ma$ical "ormula that can automatically dissuade the courts in resol+in$ acase.K 5d. p. 02. )ue to the alle$ed $ra+e constitutional +iolations and paramount publicinterest in the case not to mention the "act that the actions complained o" could be repeatedthe %ourt "ound it necessary to reach the merits o" the case e+en thou$h the particular ser+icecontract had been terminated. 5d.

#e+iewin$ the numerous claims led by the petitioners the upreme %ourt narrowed them downto two 0! whether marine mammals throu$h their stewards ha+e le$al standin$ to pursue thecaseH and 2! whether the ser+ice contract +iolated the ,hilippine %onstitution or other domesticlaws. 5d. p. 00.

s to standin$ the %ourt declined to extend the principle o" standin$ beyond natural andjuridical persons e+en thou$h it reco$ni;ed that the current trend in ,hilippine jurisprudenceJmo+es towards simplication o" procedures and "acilitatin$ court access in en+ironmentacases.K 5d. p. 0C. 5nstead the %ourt explained Jthe need to $i+e the #esident Marine Mammalsle$al standin$ has been eliminated by our #ules which allow any 4ilipino citi;en as a steward o"nature to brin$ a suit to en"orce our en+ironmental laws.K 5d. p. 0670?.

The %ourt then held that while %786 was authori;ed ,residential )ecree &o. >? on oil extractionthe contract did not "ulll two additional constitutional re/uirements. ection 2 rticle


9/26

)aguna )a5e Develop+ent "utority vs C"

F"C#$%

The -a$una -ake )e+elopment uthority (--)! was created throu$h #epublic ct &o. 8>C. 5twas $ranted inter alia exclusi+e jurisdiction to issue permits "or the use o" all sur"ace water "or

any project or acti+ity in or afectin$ the said re$ion includin$ na+i$ation construction andoperation o" shpens sh enclosures sh corrals and the like.Then came # ?06 the -ocal Ao+ernment %ode o" 0::0. The municipalities in the -a$una -akere$ion interpreted its pro+isions to mean that the newly passed law $a+e municipal $o+ernmentsthe exclusi+e jurisdiction to issue shin$ pri+ile$es within their municipal waters.

&$$'%

1ho should exercise jurisdiction o+er the -a$una -ake and its en+irons inso"ar as the issuance o"permits "or shin$ pri+ile$es is concerned the --) or the towns and municipalities comprisin$the re$ionQ

)D%

--) has jurisdiction o+er such matters because the charter o" the --) pre+ails o+er the -ocaAo+ernment %ode o" 0::0. The said charter constitutes a special law while the latter is a$eneral law. 5t is basic in statutory construction that the enactment o" a later le$islation which isa $eneral law cannot be construed to ha+e repealed a special law. The special law is to be takenas an exception to the $eneral law in the absence o" special circumstances "orcin$ a contraryconclusion.5n addition the charter o" the --) embodies a +alid exercise o" police power "or the purpose o"protectin$ and de+elopin$ the -a$una -ake re$ion as opposed to the -ocal Ao+ernment %odewhich $rants powers to municipalities to issue shin$ permits "or re+enue purposes.

Thus it has to be concluded that the charter o" the --) should pre+ail o+er the -ocaAo+ernment %ode o" 0::0 on matters afectin$ -a$una de Bay.

)oney vs. eopleG.R. No. 16799, Fe:. 10, 700

Facts%

,etitioners ohn *ric -oney te+en ,aul #eid and ,edro B. @ernande; are the ,res.and %*9enior Mana$er and #esident Mana$er "or Minin$ 9perations respecti+ely o" Marcopper Minin$

%orp. a corporation en$a$ed in minin$ in the pro+ince o" Marindu/ue. Marcopper had beenstorin$ tailin$s (mine waste! "rom its operations in a pit in Mt. Tapian Marindu/ue. t the base o"the pit ran a draina$e tunnel leadin$ to the Boac and Makulapnit ri+ers. 5t appears thatMarcopper had placed a concrete plu$ at the tunnelPs end. 9n March 28 0::8 tailin$s $ushedout o" or near the tunnelPs end. 5n a "ew days Mt. Tapianpit had dischar$ed millions o" tons o"tailin$s in to the Boac and Makalupnit ri+ers. 5n u$ust 0::6 the )9 separately char$edpetitioners in the MT% o" Boac Marindu/ue with +iolation o" rt. :0 (B! subpara$raphs C and 6 o",.). &o. 06? or the 1ater code o" the ,hil. ec. > o" ,.). &o. :>8 or the &ational ,ollution)ecree o" 0:?6 ec.0> o" #.. &o. ?:82 or the ,hil. Minin$ ct o" 0::C and rt. 36C o" the #,%"or #eckless 5mprudence #esultin$ to )ama$e to ,roperty. 5n the %onsolidated 9rder o" MT%$rantin$ partial reconsideration to its oint 9rder /uashin$ the in"ormation "or +iolation o" ,)06? and ,) :>8. The MT% maintained the 5n"ormations "or +iolation o" # ?:82 and rt. 36C o"


10/26

the #,%. ,etitioners subse/uently led a petition "or certiorari with the #T% assailin$ that theportion o" the %onsolidated 9rder maintainin$ the 5n"ormation "or +iolation o" # ?:82 and thepetition was raSed to Br. :8while public respondentPs appeal assailin$ that portion o" the%onsolidated 9rder /uashin$ the 5n"o. "or +iolation o" ,.). 06? and ,.). :>8 and this appeal wasconsolidated with petitioners petition. MT% Br. :8 $ranted the public respondentPs appeal butdenied petitionerPs petition. ,etitioners then led "or certiorari with the %ourt o" ppeals alle$in$that Br. :8 acted with $ra+e abuse o" discretion because 0.the 5n"ormation "or +iolation o" ,)06? ,) :>8 #?:82 and the rt. 36C o" the #,% Jproceeded "rom are based on a sin$le act orincident o" pollutin$ the ri+ers thru dumpin$ o" mine tailin$s and the char$e "or +iolation o" rt36C o" the #,% absorbs the other char$es since the element o" Jlack o" necessary or ade/uateprotection ne$li$ence recklessness and imprudenceK is common amon$ them 2. Theduplicitous nature o" the 5n"ormation contra+enes the rulin$ in ,eople +. #elo+a. The %ourt o"ppeals aDrmed the Br. :8 rulin$.

&ssue%

0. 1hether or not all the char$es led a$ainst petitioners except one should be /uashed "orduplicity o" char$es and only the char$e "or #eckless 5mprudence #esultin$ in )ama$e to,roperty should stand2. whether or not Br. :8Ps rulin$ as aDrmed by the %ourt o" ppeals contra+enes ,eople +.#elo+a.

Ruling%

The petition has no merit. )uplicity o" char$es simply means a sin$le complaint or in"ormationchar$es more than one ofense as ec. 03 o" #ule 00 o" the 0:>C #ules o" %riminal ,rocedure.s early as the start o" the last century the court ruled that a sin$le act or incident mi$ht ofenda$ainst two or more entirely distinct and unrelated pro+isions o" law thus justi"yin$ theprosecution o" the accused "or more than one ofense and the only limit is the %onstitutionalprohibition that no person shall be twice put in jeopardy o" punishin$ "or the same ofense. 5n,eople +s. )ori/ue; the court held that two or more ofenses arisin$ "orm the same act are notthe same. nd so double jeopardy is not an issue because not all its elements are present. 9npetitioners claim that the char$es "or +iolation o" rt. 36C o" the #,% JabsorbsK the char$es "or+iolation o" ,) 06? ,) :>8 and # ?:82 suDce it to say that a mala in se "elony (such as#eckless 5mprudence #esultin$ to )ama$e in ,roperty! cannot absorb malap rohibita crimes(such as those +iolatin$ ,) 06? ,) :>8 and # ?:82!. 1hat makes the "ormer "elony iscriminal intent (dolo! or ne$li$ence (culpa! and what makes the latter crimes are the special lawsenactin$ them. ,etitioners reiterate their contention in that their prosecution contra+enes rulin$in ,eople +s. #elo+a. 5n particular petitioners cite the courtPs statement in #elo+a that the lawseeks to pre+ent harassment o" the accused by Jmultiple prosecutions "or ofenses which thou$hdiferent "rom one another are nonetheless each constituted by a common set or o+erlappin$sets o" technical elements. Thus #elo+a is no authority "or petitionersP claim a$ainst multipleprosecutions based on a sin$le act not only because the /uestion o" double jeopardy is not anissue here but also because as the %ourt o" ppeals held petitioners are bein$ prosecuted "or

an act or incident punished by "our national statutes and not by an ordinance and a nationalstatute. 5n short petitioners i" e+er "all under the rst sentence o" ec. 20 rt. 555 which prohibitsmultiple prosecution "or the same ofense and not as in #elo+a "or ofenses arisin$ "rom thesame incident.

))D" v. $* ri+e ol-ings, &nc.

F"C#$%


11/26

The instant petition arose "rom an inspection conducted on 4ebruary 8 22 by the,ollution %ontrol )i+ision o" the --) o" the wastewater collected "rom respondentPs M%ity Manila branch.

ample collected "rom the said "acility "ailed to con"orm with the eSuent standards "orinland water imposed in accordance with law.

9n March 02 22 --) in"ormed M %ity Manila o" its +iolation

7directin$ the same to per"orm correcti+e measures to abate or control the pollutioncaused by the said companyH and

7orderin$ the latter to pay ,0 per day o" dischar$in$ polluti+e wastewater to becomputed "rom 4ebruary 8 22 (date o" inspection! until "ull cessation o" dischar$in$polluti+e wastewater

March 23 22 5n a letter respondentPs ,ollution %ontrol 9Dcer re/uested the --) toconduct a re7samplin$ o" their eSuent claimin$ that they already took the measures toenable their sewa$e treatment plant to meet the standards set "orth by the --).

5n an 9rder to ,ay dated 9ctober 2 22 petitioner re/uired respondent to pay a ne o",C which represents the accumulated daily penalty computed "rom 4ebruary 8 IMarch 2C 22.

The respondent issued "ollow up letters which the petitioner treated as Motion "or#econsideration where respondent asked "or a wai+er o" the ne assessed by the --) inits March 02 22 &otice o" =iolation and 9rder o" 9ctober 2 22

#e/uests "or reconsideration were denied. 9n May 2? 23 the --) issued another 9rder to ,ay re/uirin$ payment o" the ne

within 0 days "rom respondentPs receipt o" a copy o" the said order.

$$rie+ed respondent led a petition "or certiorari with the % prayin$ "or the nullicationo" the 9rders o" the --).

% rendered its )ecision $rantin$ and settin$ aside the assailed 9rders o" the --)

#ulin$ that an administrati+e a$encyPs power to impose nes may not be implied The %

"ound that under its charter # 8>C the --) is not expressly $ranted any power orauthority to impose nes "or +iolations o" eSuent standards set by law. The assailed9rders o" the petitioner are issued without jurisdiction and with $ra+e abuse o" discretion.

&$$'%

1hether or not the -a$una -ake )e+elopment uthority has the power to impose nes

)D%

Nes The --) has the power to impose nes in the exercise o" its "unction as a re$ulatoryand /uasi7 judicial body with respect to pollution cases in the -a$una -ake re$ion. (,acicteam -aundry 5nc. +. --)!

Fnder ection 87 o" # 8>C the --) is entitled to compensation "or dama$es resultin$"rom "ailure to meet established and eSuent standards.

5n addition ection 8 (d! o" *9 &o. :2? which "urther denes certain "unctions and powers

o" the --) pro+ides that the --) has the power to Jmake alter or modi"y ordersre/uirin$ the discontinuance o" pollution speci"yin$ the conditions and the time withinwhich such discontinuance must be accomplished.K

ection 8 (i! o" the same *9 states that the --) is $i+en authority to exercise suchpowers and per"orm such other "unctions as may be necessary to carry out its duties andresponsibilities.K

lso ection 8 (c! authori;es the --) to Jissue orders or decisions to compel compliancewith the pro+isions the *9 and its implementin$ rules and re$ulations only a"ter propernotice and hearin$.K

The intendment o" the law as $leaned "rom ection (i! o" *9 &o. :2? is to clothe the --)

not only with the express powers $ranted to it but also those which are implied or


12/26

incidental but nonetheless are necessary or essential "or the "ull proper implementationo" its purposes and "unctions. ,etition is A#&T*). The 9rders o" the --) are reinstatedand aDrmed.

aci;c $tea+ )aun-ry v. ))D"

F"C#$%

,etitioner ,acic team -aundry 5nc. (petitioner! is a company en$a$ed in the business o"laundry ser+ices. 9n 6 une 20 the *n+ironmental Mana$ement Bureau o" the )epartment o"*n+ironment and &atural #esources ()*! endorsed to respondent -a$una -ake )e+elopmentuthority (--)! the inspection report on the complaint o" black smoke emission "rompetitionerPs plant located at 008 #oose+elt +enue Gue;on %ity. 9n 22 une 20 --)conducted an in+esti$ation and "ound that untreated wastewater $enerated "rom petitionerPslaundry washin$ acti+ities was dischar$ed directly to the an 4rancisco )el Monte #i+er.4urthermore the 5n+esti$ation #eport stated that petitionerPs plant was operatin$ without --)clearance %E,97*5 and )ischar$e ,ermit "rom --). 9n C eptember 20 the *n+ironmentaGuality Mana$ement )i+ision o" --) conducted wastewater samplin$ o" petitionerPs eSuent.

The result o" the laboratory analysis showed non7compliance with eSuent standards particularlyTotal uspended olids (T! Biochemical 9xy$en )emand (B9)! 9ilEArease %oncentration and%olor Fnits. %onse/uently --) issued to petitioner a &otice o" =iolation. ,etitioner submitted itsapplication "or --) %learance and )ischar$e ,ermit and in"ormed --) that it would undertakethe necessary measures to abate the water pollution. &o compliance "ollowed. 5t was reportedthat petitionerPs wastewater treatment "acility was under construction. ubse/uently anotherwastewater samplin$ was conducted but the results still "ailed. ,ollution %ontrol andbatement case was led a$ainst petitioner be"ore the --). ,etitioner re/uested another test.

This time it showed compliance. #espondent prayed that the &otice o" =iolation issued on 39ctober 20 and its correspondin$ daily penalty beset aside and that the imposable penalty bereckoned "rom the date o" actual hearin$ and not on C eptember 20. 5t is respondentPsposition that the &otice o" =iolation and the imposition o" the penalty had no le$al and "actual

basis because it had already installed the necessary wastewater treatment to abate the waterpollution. This ,ublic @earin$ %ommittee nds respondentPs ar$uments de+oid o" merit,residential )ecree &o. :>8 prohibits the dischar$e o" polluti+e wastewater and any person "oundin +iolation thereo" shall pay a ne not exceedin$ +e thousand pesos (,h,C.! sicU "ore+ery day durin$ which such +iolation continues. The mere dischar$e o" wastewater notcon"ormin$ with the eSuent standard is the +iolation re"erred to in ,) &o. :>8.% held that --)has the power to impose nes.

&$$'%

19& --) ha+e the implied power to impose nes as set "orth in ,) :>8.

)D%

N*. ,etitioner asserts that --) has no power to impose nes since such power to impose penalsanctions which was once lod$ed with the &ational ,ollution %ontrol %ommission (&,%%! is nowassumed by the ,ollution djudication Board pursuant to *xecuti+e 9rder &o. 0:2 (*9 0:2!. %disa$ree. ,residential )ecree &o. :>8 (,) :>8! created and established the &,%% under the9Dce o" the ,resident. *9 0:2 which reor$ani;ed the )* created the ,ollution djudicationBoard under the 9Dce o" the )* ecretary which assumed the powers and "unctions o" the&,%% with respect to adjudication o" pollution cases. Fnder *xecuti+e 9rder &o. :2? (*9 :2?!


13/26

--) is $ranted additional powers and "unctions to efecti+ely per"orm its role and to enlar$e itsprero$ati+es o" monitorin$ licensin$ and en"orcement. Fnder ection 8(h! o" *9 :2? --) mayOexercise such powers and per"orm such other "unctions as may be necessary to carry out itsduties and responsibilities.O 5n -a$una -ake )e+elopment uthority +. %ourt o" ppeals the %ourtupheld the power o" --) to issue anex7parte cease and desist order e+en i" such power is not expressly con"erred by law holdin$that an administrati+e a$ency has also such powers as are necessarily implied in the exercise o"its express powers. The %ourt ruled that --) in the exercise o" its express powers under itscharter as a re$ulatory and /uasi7judicial body with respect to pollution cases in the -a$una-ake re$ion has the implied authority to issue a Ocease and desist order.O 5n the same mannerwe hold that the --) has the power to impose nes in the exercise o" its "unction as are$ulatory and /uasi7judicial body with respect to pollution cases in the -a$una -ake re$ion.

#e "le


14/26

Opromul$ate ambient and eSuent standards "or water and air /uality includin$ the allowablele+els o" other pollutants and radiations.O

,owers o" the --) to 5mpose ,enalty--) by +irtue o" its special charter has the responsibility to protect the inhabitants o" the-a$una -ake re$ion "rom the deleterious efects o" pollutants emanatin$ "rom the dischar$e o"wastes "rom the surroundin$ areas. Fnder ection 87 o" # 8>C as amended --) is entitledto compensation "or dama$es resultin$ "rom "ailure to meet established water and eSuent/uality standards. 5t is clear that the responsibility to comply with $o+ernment standards lies with

T%% because ,hil #ealty turned o+er the project to T%% +e years be"ore --) ad+ised T%%that its wastewater did not meet $o+ernment eSuent standards. 5" as claimed by T%% the non7compliance was due to the omission and "ault o" ,hil #ealty T%%Ps recourse is to le an actioni" warranted a$ainst ,hil #ealty in a proper court. T%% cannot escape its liability to --) byshi"tin$ the blame to ,hil #ealty. @ence the --) did not abuse its discretion in issuin$ its 8eptember 23 9rder.

R'/)&C OF # &)&&N$ vs. *"RCOR*&N&NG COROR"#&ON

F"C#$%

#espondent MM% was issued a temporary permit to operate a tailin$s sea disposal system. 5n themeantime the &ational ,ollution %ontrol %ommission (&,%%! was abolished by *9 &o. 0:2dated

une 0 0:>? and its powers and "unctions were inte$rated into the *n+ironmental Mana$ementBureau and into the ,ollution djudication Board (,B!.9n pril 00 0:>> the )* ecretary inhis capacity as %hairman o" the ,B issued an 9rder directin$ MM% to Ocease and desist "romdischar$in$ mine tailin$s into %alancan Bay.O This was appealed by the MM% with the 9Dce o"the ,resident (9,!.5n line with the directi+e "rom the 9, the %alancan Bay #ehabilitation ,roject(%B#,! was created and MM% remitted the amount o" ,3. a day startin$ "rom May 030:>> to the *colo$y Trust 4und (*T4! thereo". @owe+er on une 3 0::0 MM% stoppeddischar$in$ its tailin$s in the Bay hence it likewise ceased "rom makin$ "urther deposits to the

*T4. The ,B sou$ht "or the en"orcement o" the order issued by the 9, howe+er the % acted onMarcopperPs petition and ordered the ,B to re"rain and desist "rom en"orcin$ a"oresaid 9rder.@ence the instant petition.

&$$'%

The %ourt o" ppeals erred in rulin$ that #epublic ct &o. ?:82 repealed the pro+isions o"#epublic ct &o. 3:30 as amended by ,residential )ecree &o. :>8 with respect to the powerand "unction o" petitioner ,ollution djudication Board to issue renew or deny permits "or thedischar$e o" the mine tailin$s.

)D%

The % held that the % erred in rulin$ that the ,B had no authority to issue the 9rder "rom therulin$ o" the %ourt o" ppeals that the ,B has been di+ested o" authority to act on pollution7related matters in minin$ operations is anchored on the pro+isions o" # ?:82(,hilippine Minin$ct o" 0::C!. @owe+er ection 0: o" *9 0:2 +ested the ,B with the specic power to adjudicatepollution cases in $eneral. ec. 2 par. (a! o" ,) :>8 denes the term OpollutionO as re"errin$ toany alteration o" the physical chemical and biolo$ical properties o" any water air andEor landresources o" the ,hilippines or any dischar$e thereto o" any li/uid $aseous or solid wastes aswill or is likely to create a harm"ul en+ironment. 9n the other hand the authority o" the minesre$ional director is complementary to that o" the ,B. 1hile the mines re$ional director hasexpress administrati+e and re$ulatory powers o+er minin$ operations and installations it has no


15/26

adjudicati+e powers o+er complaints "or +iolation o" pollution control statutes and re$ulations%ontrary to the rulin$ o" the % # ?:82 does not +est /uasi7judicial powers in the Mines#e$ional )irector. The authority is +ested and remains with the ,B. &either was such authoritycon"erred upon the ,anel o" rbitrators and the Mines djudication Board which were created bythe said law. The scope o" authority o" the ,anel o" rbitrators and the Mines djudication Boardcon"erred by # ?:82 clearly exclude adjudicati+e responsibility o+er pollution cases.

**D" v. Concerne- Resi-ents o *anila /ay

The need to address en+ironmental pollution as a cause o" climate chan$e has o" late $ainedthe attention o" the international community. Media ha+e nally trained their si$hts on the ilefects o" pollution the destruction o" "orests and other critical habitats oil spills and theunabated improper disposal o" $arba$e. nd ri$htly so "or the ma$nitude o" en+ironmentaldestruction is now on a scale "ew e+er "oresaw and the wound no lon$er simply heals by itsel".But amidst hard e+idence and clear si$ns o" a climate crisis that need bold action the +oice o"cynicism naysayers and procrastinators can still be heard.

This case turns on $o+ernment a$encies and their oDcers who by the nature o" their respecti+eoDces or by direct statutory command are tasked to protect and preser+e at the rst instance

our internal waters ri+ers shores and seas polluted by human acti+ities. To most o" thesea$encies and their oDcial complement the pollution menace does not seem to carry the hi$hnational priority it deser+es i" their track records are to be the norm. Their ca+alier attitudetowards sol+in$ i" not miti$atin$ the en+ironmental pollution problem is a sad commentary onbureaucratic eDciency and commitment.

t the core o" the case is the Manila Bay a place with a proud historic past once brimmin$ withmarine li"e and "or so many decades in the past a spot "or diferent contact recreation acti+itiesbut now a dirty and slowly dyin$ expanse mainly because o" the abject oDcial indiference o"people and institutions that could ha+e otherwise made a diference.

Facts%

9n anuary 2: 0::: respondents %oncerned #esidents o" Manila Bay led a complaint be"orethe #e$ional Trial %ourt (#T%! in 5mus %a+ite a$ainst se+eral $o+ernment a$encies "or thecleanup rehabilitation and protection o" the Manila Bay.

The complaint alle$ed that the water /uality o" the Manila Bay had "allen way below theallowable standards set by law specically ,residential )ecree &o. (,)! 00C2 or the ,hilippine*n+ironment %ode.

5n their indi+idual causes o" action respondents alle$ed that the continued ne$lect o" petitionersin abatin$ the pollution o" the Manila Bay constitutes a +iolation o" amon$ others

(0! #espondentsP constitutional ri$ht to li"e health and a balanced ecolo$yH

(2! The *n+ironment %ode (,) 00C2!H

(3! The ,ollution %ontrol -aw (,) :>8!H

(8! The 1ater %ode (,) 06?!H

(C! The anitation %ode (,) >C6!H

(6! The 5lle$al )isposal o" 1astes )ecree (,) >2C!H


16/26

(?! The Marine ,ollution -aw (,) :?:!H

(>! *xecuti+e 9rder &o. 0:2H

(:! The Toxic and @a;ardous 1astes -aw (#epublic ct &o. 6:6:!H

(0! %i+il %ode pro+isions on nuisance and human relationsH

(00! The Trust )octrine and the ,rinciple o" AuardianshipH and

(02! 5nternational -aw

5nter alia respondents as plaintifs a /uo prayed that petitioners be ordered to clean the ManilaBay and submit to the #T% a concerted concrete plan o" action "or the purpose.

&ssues%

a! 1hether or not pertinent pro+isions o" the *n+ironment %ode (,) 00C2! relate only to thecleanin$ o" specic pollution incidents and do not co+er cleanin$ in $eneral.

b! 1hether or not the cleanin$ o" the Manila Bay is not a ministerial act which can be compelledby mandamus.

el-%

#e$ional Trial %ourtPs 9rder to %lean Fp and #ehabilitate Manila Bay

9n eptember 03 22 the #T% rendered a )ecision in "a+or o" respondents. 4indin$ merit inthe complaint the %ourt ordered de"endant7$o+ernment a$encies jointly and solidarily to cleanup and rehabilitate Manila Bay and restore its waters to B classication to make it t "orswimmin$ skin7di+in$ and other "orms o" contact recreation.

To attain this de"endant7a$encies with de"endant )* as the lead a$ency are directed withinsix (6! months "rom receipt hereo" to act and per"orm their respecti+e duties by de+isin$ aconsolidated coordinated and concerted scheme o" action "or the rehabilitation and restorationo" the bay.

5n particular

)e"endant M1 is directed to install operate and maintain ade/uate sewera$eU treatment"acilities in strate$ic places under its jurisdiction and increase their capacities.

)e"endant -1F to see to it that the water districts under its win$s pro+ide construct and

operate sewa$e "acilities "or the proper disposal o" waste.

)e"endant )* which is the lead a$ency in cleanin$ up Manila Bay to install operate andmaintain waste "acilities to rid the bay o" toxic and ha;ardous substances.

)e"endant ,, to pre+ent and also to treat the dischar$e not only o" ship7$enerated wastes butalso o" other solid and li/uid wastes "rom dockin$ +essels that contribute to the pollution o" thebay.

)e"endant MM) to establish operate and maintain an ade/uate and appropriate sanitarylandll andEor ade/uate solid waste and li/uid disposal as well as other alternati+e $arba$edisposal system such as re7use or recyclin$ o" wastes.


17/26

)e"endant ) throu$h the Bureau o" 4isheries and /uatic #esources to re+itali;e the marineli"e in Manila Bay and restock its waters with indi$enous sh and other a/uatic animals.

)e"endant )BM to pro+ide and set aside an ade/uate bud$et solely "or the purpose o" cleanin$up and rehabilitation o" Manila Bay.

)e"endant ),1@ to remo+e and demolish structures and other nuisances that obstruct the "reeWow o" waters to the bay. These nuisances dischar$e solid and li/uid wastes which e+entuallyend up in Manila Bay. s the construction and en$ineerin$ arm o" the $o+ernment ),1@ isordered to acti+ely participate in remo+in$ debris such as carcass o" sunken +essels and othernon7biode$radable $arba$e in the bay.

)e"endant )9@ to closely super+ise and monitor the operations o" septic and slud$e companiesand re/uire them to ha+e proper "acilities "or the treatment and disposal o" "ecal slud$e andsewa$e comin$ "rom septic tanks.

)e"endant )*% to inculcate in the minds and hearts o" the people throu$h education theimportance o" preser+in$ and protectin$ the en+ironment.

)e"endant ,hilippine %oast Auard and the ,&, Maritime Aroup to protect at all costs the ManilaBay "rom all "orms o" ille$al shin$.

The %ourt o" ppeals ustained the #T%Ps )ecision

The M1 -ocal 1ater Ftilities dministration (-1F! and ,, led be"ore the %ourt o" ppeals(%! indi+idual &otices o" ppeal. 9n the other hand the )* )epartment o" ,ublic 1orks and@i$hways (),1@! Metropolitan Manila )e+elopment uthority (MM)! ,hilippine %oast Auard(,%A! ,hilippine &ational ,olice (,&,! Maritime Aroup and +e other executi+e departments anda$encies led directly with this %ourt a petition "or re+iew under #ule 8C.

5n the li$ht o" the on$oin$ en+ironmental de$radation the %ourt wishes to emphasi;e theextreme necessity "or all concerned executi+e departments and a$encies to immediately act anddischar$e their respecti+e oDcial duties and obli$ations. 5ndeed time is o" the essenceH hencethere is a need to set timetables "or the per"ormance and completion o" the tasks some o" themas dened "or them by law and the nature o" their respecti+e oDces and mandates.

The importance o" the Manila Bay as a sea resource play$round and as a historical landmarkcannot be o+er7emphasi;ed. 5t is not yet too late in the day to restore the Manila Bay to its"ormer splendor and brin$ back the plants and sea li"e that once thri+ed in its blue waters. Butthe tasks ahead dauntin$ as they may be could only be accomplished i" those mandated withthe help and cooperation o" all ci+ic7minded indi+iduals would put their minds to these tasks andtake responsibility. This means that the tate throu$h petitioners has to take the lead in thepreser+ation and protection o" the Manila Bay.

o it was that in 9posa +. 4actoran r. the %ourt stated that the ri$ht to a balanced and health"ulecolo$y need not e+en be written in the %onstitution "or it is assumed like other ci+il andpolitical ri$hts $uaranteed in the Bill o" #i$hts to exist "rom the inception o" mankind and it is anissue o" transcendental importance with inter$enerational implications. *+en assumin$ theabsence o" a cate$orical le$al pro+ision specically proddin$ petitioners to clean up the baythey and the men and women representin$ them cannot escape their obli$ation to "uture$enerations o" 4ilipinos to keep the waters o" the Manila Bay clean and clear as humanly aspossible. nythin$ less would be a betrayal o" the trust reposed in them.


18/26

By a )ecision o" eptember 2> 2C the % denied petitionersP appeal and aDrmed the)ecision o" the #T% in toto stressin$ that the trial courtPs decision did not re/uire petitioners todo tasks outside o" their usual basic "unctions under existin$ laws.

rovince o Ri=al vs. u$ust 0::C is subject to the pro+isions o" the-ocal Ao+ernment %ode which was appro+ed "our years earlier on 0 9ctober 0::0.

ection 2(c! o" the said law declares that it is the policy o" the state7 Oto re/uire all national

a$encies and oDces to conduct periodic consultation with appropriate local $o+ernment unitsnon7$o+ernmental and people's or$ani;ation and other concerned sectors o" the communitybe"ore any project or pro$ram is implemented in their respecti+e jurisdiction.O -ikewise ection2? re/uires prior consultations be"ore a pro$ram shall be implemented by $o+ernmentauthorities ans the prior appro+al o" the an$$unian is obtained.O %orollarily as held in -ina r.+. ,aXo ection 2 (c! re/uirin$ consultations with the appropriate local $o+ernment units shouldapply to national $o+ernment projects afectin$ the en+ironmental or ecolo$ical balance o" theparticular community implementin$ the project.

#elati+e to the case durin$ the oral ar$uments at the hearin$ "or the temporary restrainin$order )irector Fran;a o" the MM) olid 1aste Mana$ement Task 4orce declared be"ore the%ourt o" ppeals that they had conducted the re/uired consultations. @owe+er the ambi+alence


19/26

o" his reply was brou$ht to the "ore when at the hei$ht o" the protest rally and barricade madeby the residents o" petitioners to stop dump trucks "rom reachin$ the site all the municipalmayors o" the pro+ince o" #i;al openly declared their "ull support "or the rally and notied theMM) that they would oppose any "urther attempt to dump $arba$e in their pro+ince.

Moreo+er ection 88? which enumerates the powers duties and "unctions o" themunicipality $rants the san$$unian$ bayan the power to amon$ other thin$s Jenactordinances appro+e resolutions and appropriate "unds "or the $eneral wel"are o" the municipalityand its inhabitants pursuant to ection 06 o" th(e! %ode.K These include

(0! ppro+in$ ordinances and passin$ resolutions to protect the en+ironment and imposeappropriate penalties "or acts which endan$er the en+ironment such as dynamite shin$ andother "orms o" destructi+e shin$ ille$al lo$$in$ and smu$$lin$ o" lo$s smu$$lin$ o" naturalresources products and o" endan$ered species o" Wora and "auna slash and burn "armin$ andsuch other acti+ities which result in pollution acceleration o" eutrophication o" ri+ers and lakesor o" ecolo$ical imbalanceH ection 88? (0!(+i!U

(2! ,rescribin$ reasonable limits and restraints on the use o" property within the jurisdiction o"the municipality adoptin$ a comprehensi+e land use plan "or the municipality reclassi"yin$ landwithin the jurisdiction o" the city subject to the pertinent pro+isions o" this %ode enactin$inte$rated ;onin$ ordinances in consonance with the appro+ed comprehensi+e land use plansubject to existin$ laws rules and re$ulationsH establishin$ re limits or ;ones particularly inpopulous centersH and re$ulatin$ the construction repair or modication o" buildin$s within saidre limits or ;ones in accordance with the pro+isions o" this %odeHection 88? (2!(+i7ix!U

(3! ppro+in$ ordinances which shall ensure the eDcient and efecti+e deli+ery o" the basicser+ices and "acilities as pro+ided "or under ection 0? o" this %ode and in addition to saidser+ices and "acilities Ypro+idin$ "or the establishment maintenance protection andconser+ation o" communal "orests and watersheds tree parks $reenbelts man$ro+es and othersimilar "orest de+elopment projects Y.and subject to existin$ laws establishin$ and pro+idin$"or the maintenance repair and operation o" an eDcient waterworks system to supply water "orthe inhabitants and puri"yin$ the source o" the water supplyH re$ulatin$ the constructionmaintenance repair and use o" hydrants pumps cisterns and reser+oirsH protectin$ the purityand /uantity o" the water supply o" the municipality and "or this purpose extendin$ theco+era$e o" appropriate ordinances o+er all territory within the draina$e area o" said watersupply and within one hundred (0! meters o" the reser+oir conduit canal a/ueduct pumpin$station or watershed used in connection with the water ser+iceH and re$ulatin$ the consumptionuse or wasta$e o" water.Kection 88? (C!(i! L (+ii!U

BrieWy stated under the -ocal Ao+ernment %ode two re/uisites must be met be"ore a nationaproject that afects the en+ironmental and ecolo$ical balance o" local communities can beimplemented

(0! prior consultation with the afected local communities and(2!prior appro+al o" the project by the appropriate san$$unian.

bsent either o" these mandatory re/uirements the projectPs implementation is ille$al.

/oracay Foun-ation, &nc. v. rovince o "5lan

F"C#$%

%laimin$ that tourist arri+als to Boracay would reach 0 million in the "uture respondent ,ro+inceo" klan planned to expand the port "acilities at Baran$ay %aticlan Municipality o" Malay. Thuson May ? 2: the an$$unian$ ,anlalawi$an o" klan ,ro+ince issued a resolution authori;in$Ao+ernor %arlito Mar/ue; to le an application with respondent ,hilippine #eclamation uthority


20/26

(,#! to reclaim the 2.68 hectares o" "oreshore area in %aticlan. 5n the same year the ,ro+incedeliberated on the possible expansion "rom its ori$inal proposed reclamation area o" 2.68hectares to "orty (8! hectares in order to maximi;e the utili;ation o" its resources. "ter ,#Psappro+al on pril 2? 20 respondent )epartment o" *n+ironment and &atural #esources7*n+ironmental Mana$ement Bureau7#e$ion =5 ()**MB #=5! issued to the ,ro+ince*n+ironmental %ompliance %erticate7#67037:67?0 (the /uestioned *%%! "or ,hase 0 o" the#eclamation ,roject to the extent o" 2.68 hectares to be done alon$ the %aticlan side beside theexistin$ jetty port. 9n May 0? 20 the ,ro+ince nally entered into a M9 with ,# whichstated that the land use de+elopment o" the reclamation project shall be "or commercialrecreational and institutional and other applicable uses. 5t was at this point that the ,ro+incedeemed it necessary to conduct a series o" public consultation meetin$s. 9n the other hand thean$$unian$ Baran$ay o" %aticlan the an$$unian$ Bayan o" the Municipality o" Malay andpetitioner Boracay 4oundation 5nc. (B45! an or$ani;ation composed o" some 06 businessmenand residents in Boracay expressed their stron$ opposition to the reclamation project onen+ironmental socio7economic and le$al $rounds. )espite the opposition the ,ro+ince merelynoted their objections and issued a notice to the contractor on )ecember 0 20 to commencewith the construction o" the project. Thus on une 0 200 B45 led with the upreme %ourt theinstant ,etition "or *n+ironmental ,rotection 9rderE5ssuance o" the 1rit o" %ontinuin$ Mandamus

Therea"ter the %ourt issued a Temporary *n+ironmental ,rotection 9rder (T*,9! and ordered therespondents to le their respecti+e comments to the petition. The ,etition was premised on the"ollowin$ $rounds amon$ others a! the ,ro+ince "ailed to obtain the "a+orable endorsement o"the -AF concernedH b! the ,ro+ince "ailed to conduct the re/uired consultation procedures asre/uired by the -ocal Ao+ernment %ode (-A%!. The ,ro+ince responded by claimin$ that itscompliance with the re/uirements o" )**MB #=5 and ,# that led to the appro+al o" thereclamation project by the said $o+ernment a$encies as well as the recent enactments o" theBaran$ay %ouncil o" %aticlan and thean$$unian$ Bayan o" the Municipality o" Malay "a+orably endorsin$ the said project hadJcate$orically addressed all the issuesK raised by the B45 in its ,etition. 5t also considered the,etition to be premature "or lack o" cause o" action due to the "ailure o" B45 to "ully exhaust thea+ailable administrati+e remedies e+en be"ore seekin$ judicial relie".

&$$'$%

19& the petition is premature because petitioner "ailed to exhaust administrati+e remediesbe"ore lin$ this caseQ 19& there was proper timely and suDcient public consultation "or theprojectQ

R')&NG%

9n the issue o" prematurity due to "ailure to exhaust administrati+e remediesThe %ourt held that the petition is not premature "or "ailin$ to exhaust administrati+e remediesand to obser+e the hierarchy o" courts as claimed by the respondents. The %ourt reiterated theirrulin$ in ,a$ara +. %ourt o" ppeals where they claried that the rule re$ardin$ exhaustion o"administrati+e remedies is not a hard and "ast rule. 5t is not applicable where amon$ others

there are circumstances indicatin$ the ur$ency o" judicial inter+ention such as in the instantcase. The rule may also be disre$arded when it does not pro+ide a plain speedy and ade/uateremedy or where the protestant has no other recourse. Meanwhile the new #ules o" ,rocedure"or *n+ironmental %ases .M. &o. :767>7% pro+ides a relie" "or petitioner under the writ o"continuin$ mandamus which is a special ci+il action that may bea+ailed o" Jto compel the per"ormance o" an act specically enjoined by lawK and which pro+ides"or theissuance o" a T*,9 Jas an auxiliary remedy prior to the issuance o" the writ itsel".K The writ o"continuin$ mandamusallows an a$$rie+ed party to le a +eried petition in the proper court when any $o+ernmenta$ency or instrumentality or oDcer thereo"Junlaw"ully ne$lects the per"ormance o" an act whichthe law specically enjoins as a duty xxx in connection with the en"orcement or +iolation o" an


21/26

en+ironmental law rule or re$ulation or a ri$ht therein xxx and there is no other plain speedyand ade/uate remedy in the ordinary course o" law.K uch proper court may be the #e$ional Trial%ourt exercisin$ jurisdiction o+er the territory where the actionable ne$lect or omission occurredthe %ourt o" ppeals or the upreme %ourt. @ere the %ourt "ound that B45 had no other plainspeedy or ade/uate remedy in the ordinary course o" law to determine the /uestions o" uni/uenational and local importance raised that pertain to laws and rules "or en+ironmental protection.Moreo+er the writ o" continuin$ mandamus Jpermits the court to retain jurisdiction a"ter

jud$ment in order to ensure the success"ul implementation o" the relie"s mandated under thecourtPs decisionK and in order to do this Jthe court may compel the submission o" compliancereports "rom the respondent $o+ernment a$encies as well as a+ail o" other means to monitorcompliance with its decision.K9n the issue o" whether or not there was proper timely and suDcient public consultation "or theprojectThe %ourt "ound that there was no proper timely and suDcient public consultation "or theproject. The -ocal Ao+ernment %ode (-A%! establishes the duties o" national $o+ernmenta$encies in the maintenance o" ecolo$ical balance and re/uires them to secure prior publicconsultations and appro+al o" local $o+ernment units. 5n,ro+ince o" #i;al +. *xecuti+e ecretary the %ourt emphasi;ed that under the -ocal Ao+ernment%ode two re/uisites must be met be"ore a national project that afects the en+ironmental andecolo$ical balance o" local communities can be implemented (0! prior consultation with theafected local communities and (2! prior appro+al o" the project by the appropriate san$$unian.

The absence o" either o" such mandatory re/uirements will render the projectPs implementationas ille$al. @ere the %ourt classied the reclamation project as a national project since it afectsthe en+ironmental and ecolo$ical balance o" local communities. 5n one rulin$ the %ourt notedthat such national projects mentioned in ection 2? o" the -A% include those that may causepollution and brin$ about climate chan$e amon$ others such as the reclamation project in thiscase. lso )* )9 2373 pro+ides that project proponents should Jinitiate publicconsultations early in order to ensure that en+ironmentally rele+ant concerns o" stakeholders aretaken into consideration in the *5 study and the "ormulation o" the mana$ement planK.

Thus the law re/uires the ,ro+ince bein$ the dele$ate o" the ,#Ps power to reclaim land in thiscase to conduct prior consultations and prior appro+al. @owe+er the in"ormation disseminationconducted months a"ter the *%% had already been issued was insuDcient to comply with there/uirements under the -A%. 4urthermore the lack o" prior public consultation and appro+al isnot corrected by the subse/uent endorsement o" the reclamation project by the an$$unian$Baran$ay o" %aticlan and the an$$unian$ Bayan in 202 which were both undoubtedlyachie+ed at the ur$in$ and insistence o" the ,ro+ince.

Dolot v. a>e

F"C#$%

9n eptember 0C 200 petitioner Maricris ). )olot ()olot! to$ether with the parish priest o"

the @oly 5n"ant esus ,arish and the oDcers o" lyansa -aban sa Mina sa Matno$ (petitioners!

led a petition "or continuin$ mandamus dama$es and attorneyPs "ees with the #T% o" orso$on

docketed as %i+il %ase &o. 2007>33>.8The petition contained the "ollowin$ pertinent

alle$ations (0! sometime in 2: they protested the iron ore minin$ operations bein$

conducted by ntones *nterprises Alobal ummit Mines )e+elopment %orporation and T# 9re in

Baran$ays Balocawe and Bon7ot )aco located in the Municipality o" Matno$ to no a+ailH (2!

Matno$ is located in the southern tip o" -u;on and there is a need to protect preser+e and

maintain the $eolo$ical "oundation o" the municipalityH (3! Matno$ is susceptible to Woodin$ and

landslides and con"ronted with the en+ironmental dan$ers o" Wood ha;ard li/ue"action $round
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/aug2013/gr_199199_2013.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/aug2013/gr_199199_2013.html#fnt4


22/26

settlement $round subsidence and landslide ha;ardH (8! a"ter in+esti$ation they learned that

the minin$ operators did not ha+e the re/uired permit to operateH (C! orso$on Ao+ernor #aul

-ee and his predecessor ally -ee issued to the operators a small7scale minin$ permit which

they did not ha+e authority to issueH (6! the representati+es o" the ,residential Mana$ement taf

and the )epartment o" *n+ironment and &atural #esources ()*! despite knowled$e did not

do anythin$ to protect the interest o" the people o" Matno$H Cand (?! the respondents +iolated

#epublic ct (#..! &o. ??6 or the ,eoplePs mall7cale Minin$ ct o" 0::0 #.. &o. ?:82 or the

,hilippine Minin$ ct o" 0::C and the -ocal Ao+ernment %ode.6Thus they prayed "or the

"ollowin$ relie"s (0! the issuance o" a writ commandin$ the respondents to immediately stop the

minin$ operations in the Municipality o" Matno$H (2! the issuance o" a temporary en+ironment

protection order or T*,9H (3! the creation o" an inter7a$ency $roup to undertake the

rehabilitation o" the minin$ siteH (8! award o" dama$esH and (C! return o" the iron ore amon$

others.?

The case was re"erred by the *xecuti+e ud$e to the #T% o" orso$on Branch C3 bein$ the

desi$nated en+ironmental court.>5n the 9rder:dated eptember 06 200 the case was

summarily dismissed "or lack o" jurisdiction.

The petitioners led a motion "or reconsideration but it was denied in the #esolution0dated9ctober 0> 200. side "rom sustainin$ the dismissal o" the case "or lack o" jurisdiction the

#T%00"urther ruled that (0! there was no nal court decree order or decision yet that the public

oDcials alle$edly "ailed to act on which is a condition "or the issuance o" the writ o" continuin$

mandamusH (2! the case was prematurely led as the petitioners therein "ailed to exhaust their

administrati+e remediesH and (3! they also "ailed to attach judicial aDda+its and "urnish a copy o"

the complaint to the $o+ernment or appropriate a$ency as re/uired by the rules. 02

,etitioner )olot went strai$ht to this %ourt on pure /uestions o" law.

&$$'%

1hether the #T%7Branch C3 has jurisdiction to resol+e %i+il %ase &o. 2007>33>. The other issueis whether the petition is dismissible on the $rounds that (0! there is no nal court decree orderor decision that the public oDcials alle$edly "ailed to act onH (2! the case was prematurely led"or "ailure to exhaust administrati+e remediesH and (3! the petitioners "ailed to attach judicialaDda+its and "urnish a copy o" the complaint to the $o+ernment or appropriate a$ency.

)D%

5n dismissin$ the petition "or lack o" jurisdiction the #T% in its 9rder dated eptember 06 200

apparently relied on % dministrati+e 9rder (.9.! &o. ? denin$ the territorial areas o" the

#e$ional Trial %ourts in #e$ions 0 to 02 and dministrati+e %ircular (dmin. %ircular! &o. 2372>03desi$natin$ the en+ironmental courts Oto try and decide +iolations o" en+ironmental laws

x x x committed within their respecti+e territorial jurisdictions.O08Thus it ruled that its territoria

jurisdiction was limited within the boundaries o" orso$on %ity and the nei$hborin$ municipalities

o" )onsol ,ilar %astilla %asi$uran and uban and that it was Obere"t o" jurisdiction to entertain

hear and decide theU case as such authority rests be"ore another co7e/ual court.O0C

uch reasonin$ is plainly erroneous. The #T% cannot solely rely on % .9. &o. ? and dmin.

%ircular &o. 2372> and conne itsel" within its "our corners in determinin$ whether it had

jurisdiction o+er the action led by the petitioners.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/aug2013/gr_199199_2013.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/aug2013/gr_199199_2013.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/aug2013/gr_199199_2013.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/aug2013/gr_199199_2013.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/aug2013/gr_199199_2013.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/aug2013/gr_199199_2013.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/aug2013/gr_199199_2013.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/aug2013/gr_199199_2013.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/aug2013/gr_199199_2013.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/aug2013/gr_199199_2013.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/aug2013/gr_199199_2013.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/aug2013/gr_199199_2013.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/aug2013/gr_199199_2013.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/aug2013/gr_199199_2013.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/aug2013/gr_199199_2013.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/aug2013/gr_199199_2013.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/aug2013/gr_199199_2013.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/aug2013/gr_199199_2013.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/aug2013/gr_199199_2013.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/aug2013/gr_199199_2013.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/aug2013/gr_199199_2013.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/aug2013/gr_199199_2013.html#fnt15


23/26

&one is more well7settled than the rule that jurisdiction which is the power and authority o" the

court to hear try and decide a case is con"erred by law.065t may either be o+er the nature o" the

action o+er the subject matter o+er the person o" the de"endants or o+er the issues "ramed in

the pleadin$s.0?By +irtue o" Batas ,ambansa (B.,.! Bl$. 02: or the udiciary #eor$ani;ation ct o"

0:> jurisdiction o+er special ci+il actions "or certiorari prohibition and mandamus is +ested in

the #T%. ,articularly ection 20(0! thereo" pro+ides that the #T%s shall exercise ori$ina

jurisdiction I

in the issuance o" writs o" certiorari prohibition mandamus /uo warranto habeas corpus and

injunction which may be en"orced in any part o" their respecti+e re$ions. (*mphasis ours!

.9. &o. ? and dmin. %ircular &o. 2372> was issued pursuant to ection 0> o" B.,. Bl$. 02:

which $a+e the %ourt authority to dene the territory o+er which a branch o" the #T% shall

exercise its authority. These administrati+e orders and circulars issued by the %ourt merely

pro+ide "or the +enue where an action may be led. The %ourt does not ha+e the power to con"er

jurisdiction on any court or tribunal as the allocation o" jurisdiction is lod$ed solely in

%on$ress.0>5t also cannot be dele$ated to another oDce or a$ency o" the Ao+ernment. 0:ection

0> o" B.,. Bl$. 02: in "act explicitly states that the territory thus dened shall be deemed to be

the territorial area o" the branch concerned "or purposes o" determinin$ the +enue o" all suitsproceedin$s or actions. 5t was also claried in 9Dce o" the %ourt dministrator +. ud$e

Matas2that I

dministrati+e 9rder &o. 3 denin$ the territorial jurisdiction o" the #e$ional Trial %ourts in the

&ational %apital udicial #e$ionU and in like manner %ircular &os. 03 and 0: did not per se

con"er jurisdiction on the co+ered re$ional trial courts or its branches such that non7obser+ance

thereo" would nulli"y their judicial acts. The administrati+e order merely denes the limits o" the

administrati+e area within which a branch o" the court may exercise its authority pursuant to the

jurisdiction con"erred by Batas ,ambansa Bl$. 02:.20

The #T% need not be reminded that +enue relates only to the place o" trial or the $eo$raphica

location in which an action or proceedin$ should be brou$ht and does not e/uate to the

jurisdiction o" the court. 5t is intended to accord con+enience to the parties as it relates to the

place o" trial and does not restrict their access to the courts. 22%onse/uently the #T%Ps motu

proprio dismissal o" %i+il %ase &o. 2007>33> on the $round o" lack o" jurisdiction is patently

incorrect.

t most the error committed by the petitioners in lin$ the case with the #T% o" orso$on was

that o" improper +enue. .M. &o. :767>7% or the #ules o" ,rocedure "or *n+ironmental %ases

(#ules! specically states that a special ci+il action "or continuin$ mandamus shall be led with

the O#T%U exercisin$ jurisdiction o+er the territory where the actionable ne$lect or omissionoccurred x x x.O235n this case it appears that the alle$ed actionable ne$lect or omission occurred

in the Municipality o" Matno$ and as such the petition should ha+e been led in the #T% o"

5rosin.28But e+en then it does not warrant the outri$ht dismissal o" the petition by the #T% as

+enue may be wai+ed.2CMoreo+er the action led by the petitioners is not criminal in nature

where +enue is an essential element o" jurisdiction.265n Aome;7%astillo +. %ommission on

*lections2?the %ourt e+en expressed that what the #T% should ha+e done under the

circumstances was to trans"er the case (an election protest! to the proper branch. imilarly it

would ser+e the hi$her interest o" justice2>i" the %ourt orders the trans"er o" %i+il %ase &o. 200
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/aug2013/gr_199199_2013.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/aug2013/gr_199199_2013.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/aug2013/gr_199199_2013.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/aug2013/gr_199199_2013.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/aug2013/gr_199199_2013.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/aug2013/gr_199199_2013.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/aug2013/gr_199199_2013.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/aug2013/gr_199199_2013.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/aug2013/gr_199199_2013.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/aug2013/gr_199199_2013.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/aug2013/gr_199199_2013.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/aug2013/gr_199199_2013.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/aug2013/gr_199199_2013.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/aug2013/gr_199199_2013.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/aug2013/gr_199199_2013.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/aug2013/gr_199199_2013.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/aug2013/gr_199199_2013.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/aug2013/gr_199199_2013.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/aug2013/gr_199199_2013.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/aug2013/gr_199199_2013.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/aug2013/gr_199199_2013.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/aug2013/gr_199199_2013.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/aug2013/gr_199199_2013.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/aug2013/gr_199199_2013.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/aug2013/gr_199199_2013.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/aug2013/gr_199199_2013.html#fnt28


24/26

>33> to the #T% o" 5rosin "or proper and speedy resolution with the #T% applyin$ the #ules in its

disposition o" the case.

t this juncture the %ourt aDrms the continuin$ applicability o" dmin. %ircular &o. 2372>

constitutin$ the diferent O$reen courtsO in the country and settin$ the administrati+e $uidelines

in the raSe and disposition o" en+ironmental cases. 1hile the desi$nation and $uidelines were

made in 2> the same should operate in conjunction with the #ules.

.M. &o. :767>7% #ules o" ,rocedure "or *n+ironmental %ases

5n its #esolution dated 9ctober 0> 200 which resol+ed the petitionersP motion "or

reconsideration o" the order o" dismissal the #T% "urther ruled that the petition was dismissible

on the "ollowin$ $rounds (0! there is no nal court decree order or decision yet that the public

oDcials alle$edly "ailed to act onH (2! the case was prematurely led "or "ailure to exhaust

administrati+e remediesH and (3! there was "ailure to attach judicial aDda+its and "urnish a copy

o" the complaint to the $o+ernment or appropriate a$ency. 2:The respondents and e+en the

9Dce o" the olicitor Aeneral in behal" o" the public respondents all concur with the +iew o" the

#T%.

The concept o" continuin$ mandamus was rst introduced in Metropolitan Manila )e+elopment

uthority +. %oncerned #esidents o" Manila Bay.3&ow cast in stone under #ule > o" the #ules

the writ o" continuin$ mandamus enjoys a distinct procedure than that o" ordinary ci+il actions

"or the en"orcementE+iolation o" en+ironmental laws which are co+ered by ,art 55 (%i+i

,rocedure!. imilar to the procedure under #ule 6C o" the #ules o" %ourt "or special ci+il actions

"or certiorari prohibition and mandamus ection 8 #ule > o" the #ules re/uires that the petition

led should be suDcient in "orm and substance be"ore a court may take "urther actionH

otherwise the court may dismiss the petition outri$ht. %ourts must be cautioned howe+er that

the determination to $i+e due course to the petition or dismiss it outri$ht is an exercise o"

discretion that must be applied in a reasonable manner in consonance with the spirit o" the law

and always with the +iew in mind o" seein$ to it that justice is ser+ed.30

uDciency in "orm and substance re"ers to the contents o" the petition led under #ule > ection

0

1hen any a$ency or instrumentality o" the $o+ernment or oDcer thereo" unlaw"ully ne$lects the

per"ormance o" an act which the law specically enjoins as a duty resultin$ "rom an oDce trust

or station in connection with the en"orcement or +iolation o" an en+ironmental law rule or

re$ulation or a ri$ht therein or unlaw"ully excludes another "rom the use or enjoyment o" such

ri$ht and there is no other plain speedy and ade/uate remedy in the ordinary course o" law the

person a$$rie+ed thereby may le a +eried petition in the proper court alle$in$ the "acts withcertainty attachin$ thereto supportin$ e+idence speci"yin$ that the petition concerns an

en+ironmental law rule or re$ulation and prayin$ that jud$ment be rendered commandin$ the

respondent to do an act or series o" acts until the jud$ment is "ully satised and to pay dama$es

sustained by the petitioner by reason o" the malicious ne$lect to per"orm the duties o" the

respondent under the law rules or re$ulations. The petition shall also contain a sworn

certication o" non7"orum shoppin$.1wphi1

9n matters o" "orm the petition must be +eried and must contain supportin$ e+idence as wel

as a sworn certication o" non7"orum shoppin$. 5t is also necessary that the petitioner must be
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/aug2013/gr_199199_2013.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/aug2013/gr_199199_2013.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/aug2013/gr_199199_2013.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/aug2013/gr_199199_2013.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/aug2013/gr_199199_2013.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/aug2013/gr_199199_2013.html#fnt31


25/26

one who is a$$rie+ed by an act or omission o" the $o+ernment a$ency instrumentality or its

oDcer concerned. uDciency o" substance on the other hand necessitates that the petition

must contain substanti+e alle$ations specically constitutin$ an actionable ne$lect or omission

and must establish at the +ery least a prima "acie basis "or the issuance o" the writ +i; (0! an

a$ency or instrumentality o" $o+ernment or its oDcer unlaw"ully ne$lects the per"ormance o" an

act or unlaw"ully excludes another "rom the use or enjoyment o" a ri$htH (2! the act to be

per"ormed by the $o+ernment a$ency instrumentality or its oDcer is specically enjoined by law

as a dutyH (3! such duty results "rom an oDce trust or station in connection with the

en"orcement or +iolation o" an en+ironmental law rule or re$ulation or a ri$ht thereinH and (8!

there is no other plain speedy and ade/uate remedy in the course o" law.32

The writ o" continuin$ mandamus is a special ci+il action that may be a+ailed o" Oto compel the

per"ormance o" an act specically enjoined by law.O33The petition should mainly in+ol+e an

en+ironmental and other related law rule or re$ulation or a ri$ht therein. The #T%Ps mistaken

notion on the need "or a nal jud$ment decree or order is apparently based on the denition o"

the writ o" continuin$ mandamus under ection 8 #ule 0 o" the #ules to wit

(c! %ontinuin$ mandamus is a writ issued by a court in an en+ironmental case directin$ any

a$ency or instrumentality o" the $o+ernment or oDcer thereo" to per"orm an act or series o" actsdecreed by nal jud$ment which shall remain efecti+e until jud$ment is "ully satised

(*mphasis ours!

The nal court decree order or decision erroneously alluded to by the #T% actually pertains to

the jud$ment or decree that a court would e+entually render in an en+ironmental case "or

continuin$ mandamus and which jud$ment or decree shall subse/uently become nal.

Fnder the #ules a"ter the court has rendered a jud$ment in con"ormity with #ule > ection ?

and such jud$ment has become nal the issuin$ court still retains jurisdiction o+er the case to

ensure that the $o+ernment a$ency concerned is per"ormin$ its tasks as mandated by law and to

monitor the efecti+e per"ormance o" said tasks. 5t is only upon "ull satis"action o" the nal

jud$ment order or decision that a nal return o" the writ shall be made to the court and i" the

court nds that the jud$ment has been "ully implemented the satis"action o" jud$ment shall be

entered in the court docket.38 writ o" continuin$ mandamus is in essence a command o"

continuin$ compliance with a nal jud$ment as it Opermits the court to retain jurisdiction a"ter

jud$ment in order to ensure the success"ul implementation o" the relie"s mandated under the

courtPs decision.O3C

The %ourt likewise cannot sustain the ar$ument that the petitioners should ha+e rst led a

case with the ,anel o" rbitrators (,anel! which has jurisdiction o+er minin$ disputes under #..

&o. ?:82.

5ndeed as pointed out by the respondents the ,anel has jurisdiction o+er minin$ disputes.36But

the petition led below does not in+ol+e a minin$ dispute. 1hat was bein$ protested are the

alle$ed ne$ati+e en+ironmental impact o" the small7scale minin$ operation bein$ conducted by

ntones *nterprises Alobal ummit Mines )e+elopment %orporation and T# 9re in the

Municipality o" Matno$H the authority o" the Ao+ernor o" orso$on to issue minin$ permits in

"a+or o" these entitiesH and the percei+ed indiference o" the )* and local $o+ernment oDcials

o+er the issue. #esolution o" these matters does not entail the technical knowled$e and expertise
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/aug2013/gr_199199_2013.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/aug2013/gr_199199_2013.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/aug2013/gr_199199_2013.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/aug2013/gr_199199_2013.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/aug2013/gr_199199_2013.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/aug2013/gr_199199_2013.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/aug2013/gr_199199_2013.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/aug2013/gr_199199_2013.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/aug2013/gr_199199_2013.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/aug2013/gr_199199_2013.html#fnt36


26/26

o" the members o" the ,anel but re/uires an exercise o" judicial "unction. Thus in 9lympic Mines

and )e+elopment %orp. +. ,latinum Aroup Metals %orporation3?the %ourt stated I

rbitration be"ore the ,anel o" rbitrators is proper only when there is a disa$reement between

the parties as to some pro+isions o" the contract between them which needs the interpretation

and the application o" that particular knowled$e and expertise possessed by members o" that

,anel. 5t is not proper when one o" the parties repudiates the existence or +alidity o" such

contract or a$reement on the $round o" "raud or oppression as in this case. The +alidity o" the

contract cannot be subject o" arbitration proceedin$s. lle$ations o" "raud and duress in the

execution o" a contract are matters within the jurisdiction o" the ordinary courts o" law. These

/uestions are le$al in nature and re/uire the application and interpretation o" laws and

jurisprudence which is necessarily a judicial "unction.3>(*mphasis supplied in the "ormer and ours

in the latter!

%onse/uently resort to the ,anel would be completely useless and unnecessary.

The %ourt also nds that the #T% erred in rulin$ that the petition is inrm "or "ailure to attach

judicial aDda+its. s pre+iously stated #ule > re/uires that the petition should be +eried

contain supportin$ e+idence and must be accompanied by a sworn certication o" non7"orumshoppin$. There is nothin$ in #ule > that compels the inclusion o" judicial aDda+its albeit not

prohibited. 5t is only i" the e+idence o" the petitioner would consist o" testimony o" witnesses that

it would be the time that judicial aDda+its (aDda+its o" witnesses in the /uestion and answer

"orm! must be attached to the petitionEcomplaint.3:

4inally "ailure to "urnish a copy o" the petition to the respondents is not a "atal de"ect such that

the case should be dismissed. The #T% could ha+e just re/uired the petitioners to "urnish a copy

o" the petition to the respondents. 5t should be remembered that Ocourts are not ensla+ed by

technicalities and they ha+e the prero$ati+e to relax compliance wit

environmental law digests

Documents