P. 1
CONSOLIDATED DIGESTED CASES.docx

CONSOLIDATED DIGESTED CASES.docx

|Views: 5|Likes:
Published by Nineteen

More info:

Published by: Nineteen on Jan 14, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

01/14/2013

pdf

text

original

Baguio City vs Masweng feb 4, 2009 DOCTRINE Even if respondents had established ownership of the land, they cannot

simply put up fences or build structures thereon without complying with applicable laws, rules and regulations FACTS Respondents Joseph Jude Carantes, Rose Carantes and the heirs of Maximino Carantes are in possession of a 30,368-square meter parcel of land . On June 20, 1997, they obtained Certificate of Ancestral Land. On the strength of said CALC, respondents secured a building permit from the Building Official of Baguio City, Teodoro G. Barrozo. Before long, they fenced the premises and began constructing a residential building thereon. Soon, respondents received a letterdated February 9, 1999 from Digna D. Torres, the Zone Administrator of the Philippine Economic Zone Authority (PEZA), informing them that the house they built had overlapped PEZA‟s territorial boundary. Torres advised respondents to demolish the same within sixty (60) days from notice. Otherwise, PEZA would undertake its demolition at respondents‟ expense. Without answering PEZA‟s letter, respondents filed a petition for injunction, with prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order (TRO) and writ of preliminary injunction before the RTC of Baguio City. By Order dated April 8, 1999, the RTC of Baguio City issued a TRO, which enjoined PEZA to cease and desist from threatening respondents with the demolition of their house before respondents‟ prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction can be heard. On September 19, 2001, the RTC likewise issued an Order, which directed the parties to maintain the status quo pending resolution of the case The trial court ruled that respondents are entitled to possess, occupy and cultivate the subject lots on the basis of their CALC. On appeal, the CA affirmed the RTC ruling. In the assailed Decision dated October 26, 2007, the appellate court echoed the trial court‟s declaration that the subject lots have been set aside from the lands of the public domain. ISSUE: WHether the Petitioner or the City Engineer has the power to issue permits HELD SC ruled in the negative. Respondents being holders of a mere CALC, their right to possess the subject land is limited to occupation in relation to cultivation. Unlike No. 1,[26] Par. 1, Section 1, Article VII of the same DENR DAO, which expressly allows ancestral domain claimants to reside peacefully within the domain, nothing in Section 2 grants ancestral land claimants a similar right, much less the right to build permanent structures on ancestral lands – an act of ownership that pertains to one (1) who has a recognized right by virtue of a Certificate of Ancestral Land Title. On this score alone, respondents‟ action for injunction must fail. Even if respondents had established ownership of the land, they cannot simply put up fences or build structures thereon without complying with applicable laws, rules and regulations Province of North Cotabato vs GRP Peace Panel oct 14, 2008 DOCTRINE The Presidential Adviser on the Peace Process committed grave abuse of discretion when he failed to carry out the pertinent consultation process, as mandated by E.O. No. 3, Republic Act No. 7160, and Republic Act No. 8371. The furtive process by which the MOA-AD was designed and crafted runs contrary to and in excess of the legal authority, and amounts to a whimsical, capricious, oppressive, arbitrary and despotic exercise thereof. It illustrates a gross evasion of positive duty and a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined. FACTS the Government of the Republic of the Philippines (GRP) and the MILF, through the Chairpersons of their respective peace negotiating panels, were scheduled to sign a Memorandum of Agreement on the Ancestral Domain (MOA-AD) Aspect of the GRP-MILF Tripoli Agreement on Peace of 2001 in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Consummation of the MOA-AD between the GRP and the MILF did not take place, however, for upon motion of petitioners, specifically those who filed their cases before the scheduled signing of the MOA-AD, this Court issued a Temporary Restraining Order enjoining the GRP from signing the same.

1

involving as it does the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the State. territorial or political subdivision not recognized by law. Undoubtedly. docketed as G. petitioners pray that the MOA-AD be declared unconstitutional. 3. the recovery of the Marcoses' alleged ill-gotten wealth. are unconstitutional. which directly affects the lives of the public at large. In sum.Mid 2008. The MOA-AD cannot be reconciled with the present Constitution and laws. The Memorandum of Agreement on the Ancestral Domain Aspect of the GRP-MILF Tripoli Agreement on Peace of 2001 is declared contrary to law and the Constitution. As the petitions involve constitutional issues which are of paramount public interest or of transcendental importance. Courts decline to issue advisory opinions or to resolve hypothetical or feigned problems. the associative relationship envisioned between the GRP and the BJE. b) to revise or amend the Constitution and existing laws to conform to the MOA. Invoking the right to information on matters of public concern. are matters of public concern. the Court found that the regularity of real estate transactions entered in the Register of Deeds. or mere academic questions. and the identity of party-list nominees. for Mandamus and Prohibition with Prayer for the Issuance of Writ of Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order. the Province of North Cotabato and Vice-Governor Emmanuel Piñol filed a petition. pending the disclosure of the contents of the MOA-AD and the holding of a public consultation thereon. petitioners-in-intervention and intervening respondents the requisite locus standi in keeping with the liberal stance adopted in David v. HELD The power of judicial review is limited to actual cases or controversies. No. particularly Section 3(g) & Chapter VII (DELINEATION. In previous cases. the Court grants the petitioners. oppressive. Tano vs Socrates aug 1. Macapagal-Arroyo. among others. 7160. In fact. arbitrary and despotic exercise thereof. Republic Act No. as mandated by E. Whether by signing the MOA. The furtive process by which the MOA-AD was designed and crafted runs contrary to and in excess of the legal authority. whether the Executive Branch has the authority to so bind the Government of the Republic of the Philippines.] If in the affirmative. respondents admit that the MOA-AD is indeed of public concern. 183591. the Presidential Adviser on the Peace Process committed grave abuse of discretion when he failed to carry out the pertinent consultation process. and amounts to a whimsical. for the concept presupposes that the associated entity is a state and implies that the same is on its way to independence. The limitation of the power of judicial review to actual cases and controversies defines the role assigned to the judiciary in a tripartite allocation of power. to assure that the courts will not intrude into areas committed to the other branches of government.O. petitioners seek to compel respondents to disclose and furnish them the complete and official copies of the MOA-AD including its attachments. c) to concede to or recognize the claim of the Moro Islamic Liberation Front for ancestral domain in violation of Republic Act No. RECOGNITION OF ANCESTRAL DOMAINS)[. 2. No. the need for adequate notice to the public of the various laws. the civil service eligibility of a public employee. and to prohibit the slated signing of the MOAAD. Not only its specific provisions but the very concept underlying them. Supplementarily. namely. 8371 (THE INDIGENOUS PEOPLES RIGHTS ACT OF 1997). It illustrates a gross evasion of positive duty and a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined. The Law is valid and applies to the same 2 . the MOA-AD subject of the present cases is of public concern. the proper management of GSIS funds allegedly used to grant loans to public officials. That the subject of the information sought in the present cases is a matter of public concern faces no serious challenge. and Republic Act No. capricious. or a juridical.R. Whether the constitutionality and the legality of the MOA is ripe for adjudication. 1997 DOCTRINE There is absolutely no showing that any of the petitioners qualifies as a subsistence or marginal fisherman. the Government of the Republic of the Philippines would be BINDING itself a) to create and recognize the Bangsamoro Juridical Entity (BJE) as a separate state. ISSUES 1. 8371.

1993 which reads as follows: “In the interest of public service and for purposes of City Ordinance No. the SC opted to resolve this case on its merits considering that the lifetime of the challenged Ordinances is about to end. Branch 50 of the Regional Trial Court of Palawan was bent on proceeding with Criminal Case No. petitioner Airline Shippers Association of Palawan is described as “a private association composed of Marine Merchants”. Puerto Princesa Wharf or at any port within the jurisdiction of the City to any point of destinations [sic] either via aircraft or seacraft. undoubtedly. 15-92 of the City of Puerto Princesa is effective only up to 1 January 1998. Eulogio Tremocha. Besides. Aforementioned respondents likewise maintained that there was no violation of due process and equal protection clauses of the Constitution. AN ORDINANCE BANNING THE SHIPMENT OF ALL LIVE FISH AND LOBSTER OUTSIDE PUERTO PRINCESA CITY FROM JANUARY 1. 2 of the Province of Palawan. TRADE.. these Ordinances were undoubtedly enacted in the exercise of powers under the new LGC relative to the protection and preservation of the environment and are thus novel and of paramount importance.” The Ordinance. Series of 1993. As to the former. as a valid exercise of the Provincial Government‟s power under the general welfare clause They claimed that in the exercise of such powers. It is of course settled that laws (including ordinances enacted by local government units) enjoy the presumption of constitutionality. CALLING OR PROFESSION OR HAVING IN HIS POSSESSION ANY OF THE ARTICLES FOR WHICH A PERMIT IS REQUIRED TO BE HAD.FACTS On December 15. TO OBTAIN FIRST A MAYOR‟S PERMIT” and “City Ordinance No. 1993 TO JANUARY 1. a substantial distinction existed “between a fisherman who catches live fish with the intention of selling it live. Ordinance No. 1993 TO JANUARY 1. is effective for only five (5) years. within its territory remain healthy for the future generation. Romualdo Tano. covered only live marine coral dwelling aquatic organisms which were enumerated in the ordinance. After a scrunity of the challenged Ordinances and the provisions of the Constitution petitioners claim to have been violated. There is absolutely no showing that any of the petitioners qualifies as a subsistence or marginal fisherman. 1992. had a lawful purpose and employed reasonable means. OCCUPATION. 11223 against petitioners Danilo Tano. both under the Constitution and applicable laws.” i. PD426-14-74. they further asserted. public hearings were conducted before the enactment of the Ordinance which. Series of 1993 dated January 22.” Further. In their petition. No further delay then may be allowed in the resolution of the issues raised. 1998. 3 . In their comment public respondents Governor Socrates and Members of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Palawan defended the validity of Ordinance No. Andres Lemihan and Angel de Mesa for violation of Ordinance No. the SC found petitioners‟ contentions baseless and so hold that the former do not suffer from any infirmity. otherwise known as „AN ORDINANCE REQUIRING ANY PERSON ENGAGED OR INTENDING TO ENGAGE IN ANY BUSINESS. On 1993. while as to the latter. you are hereby authorized and directed to check or conduct necessary inspections on cargoes containing live fish and lobster being shipped out from the Puerto Princesa Airport. 23. Lucero issued Office Order No. while Ordinance No. 15-92. and a fisherman who catches live fish with no intention at all of selling it live. where fish dwells [sic]. petitioners filed an Urgent Plea for the Immediate Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order claiming that despite the pendency of this case. the Sangguniang Panlungsod ng Puerto Princesa City enacted Ordinance No. ISSUE Whether or not the TRO is proper HELD Notwithstanding the foregoing procedural obstacles against the first set of petitioners. “the former uses sodium cyanide while the latter does not. PENALTIES AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES THEREOF” To implement said city ordinance. 15-92 which took effect on January 1. the Ordinance applied equally to all those belonging to one class. Baldomero Tano. 1998 AND PROVIDING EXEMPTIONS. Alfredo Tano. 2 of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Palawan. then Acting City Mayor Amado L. 1993 entitled: “AN ORDINANCE BANNING THE SHIPMENT OF ALL LIVE FISH AND LOBSTER OUTSIDE PUERTO PRINCESA CITY FROM JANUARY 1. the Province of Palawan had “the right and responsibilty… to insure that the remaining coral reefs.2.e. enacted on 19 February 1993. The purpose of the inspection is to ascertain whether the shipper possessed the required Mayor‟s Permit issued by this Office and the shipment is covered by invoice or clearance issued by the local office of the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources and as to compliance with all other existing rules and regulations on the matter.

EO 149 transferred LLDA from the Office of the President to the DENR “for policy and program coordination and/or administrative supervision x x x.” Hence.000 from 26 March 1999 until full cessation of pollutive wastewater discharge. TACC filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals with a prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order.petitioners Robert Lim and Virginia Lim. PhilRealty was required to submit its condominium plans to the Building Official of Pasig City. ISSUE Whether the Court of Appeals erred in disregarding TACC‟s exhaustive efforts in complying with the government‟s standards on effluent discharge.”[13] Under EO 149. Alexandria Condo vs LLDA sept 11. DENR only has administrative power over LLDA. which reorganized the DENR. Executive Order No. LLDA likewise imposed upon TACC a daily fine of P1.” while the rest of the petitioners claim to be “fishermen. mandates the DENR to “promulgate rules and regulations for the control of water. 34.Nothing in the record supports a finding that any petitioner falls within these definitions. In a Notice of Violation dated 6 May 1999. LLDA informed TACC that it must put up its own Sewage Treatment Plant (STP) for its effluent discharge to meet government standards.” without any qualification. including NPCC‟s function to “serve as arbitrator for the determination of reparation. TACC should have first resorted to an administrative remedy before the DENR Secretary prior to filing a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals. 192 (EO 192). A premature invocation of a court‟s intervention renders the complaint without cause of action and dismissible. the Human Settlements Regulatory Commission issued a Development Permit to Phil Realty to develop Cluster A of the project. as to their status. Administrative power is concerned with the work of applying policies and enforcing orders as determined by proper governmental organs. The Court of Appeals ruled that the proper remedy should have been to resort to an administrative remedy before the DENR Secretary prior to judicial action. HELD The Court of Appeals ruled that due to the transfer of LLDA to the DENR under Executive Order No. LLDA directed TACC to submit corrective measures to abate or control its water effluents discharged into the Laguna de Bay. or restitution of the damages and losses resulting from pollution. TACC has an administrative recourse before the DENR Secretary which it should have first pursued before filing a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals. A building permit was issued Shortly after Laguna Lake Development Authority (LLDA) advised TACC that its wastewater did not meet government effluent standards provided in Sections 68 and 69 of the 1978 National Pollution Control Commission Rules and Regulations (NPCC) as amended by Department of Energy and Natural Resources (DENR) Administrative Order No. air and land pollution” and to “promulgate ambient and effluent standards for water and air quality including the allowable levels of other pollutants and radiations. The doctrine of non-exhaustion of administrative remedies requires that resort be first made with the administrative authorities in the resolution of a controversy falling under their jurisdiction before the controversy may be elevated to a court of justice for review. they should be construed in their general and ordinary sense. 2009 DOCTRINE TACC has an administrative recourse before the DENR Secretary which it should have first pursued before filing a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals FACTS On 2 September 1987.[14] However. The Court of Appeals sustained LLDA‟s contention that the petition for certiorari was prematurely filed. while a subsistence fisherman is one whose catch yields but the irreducible minimum for his livelihood.” EO 192 created the Pollution Adjudication Board under the Office of the DENR Secretary which assumed the powers and functions of the NPCC with respect to the adjudication of pollution cases. as “merchants. Since the Constitution does not specifically provide a definition of the terms “subsistence” or “marginal” fishermen. however. In the Development Permit. 4 . A marginal fisherman is an individual engaged in fishing whose margin of return or reward in his harvest of fish as measured by existing price levels is barely sufficient to yield a profit or cover the cost of gathering the fish. 149[10] (EO 149).

It ruled that (A) LLDA is not among those quasi-judicial agencies of government appealable only to the Court of Appeals. The LLDA filed motions to dismiss thecases against it on jurisdictional grounds.should exercise jurisdiction over the Laguna Lake and its environs insofar as the issuance of permits for fishery privileges is concerned? 5 . Collection of Fees. All fishpens. 7160 provides: "Sec. Also. Big fish pen operators took advantage of the occasion to establish fish pens and fishcages to the consternation of the Authority. which will be shared in the following manner: 20percent of the fee shall go to the lakeshore local governments. irrigation. and operation of fish pens. The Authority is hereby empowered to collect fees for the use of the lake water and its tributaries for all beneficial purposes including but not limited to fisheries. prohibition and injunction. Unregulated fish pens and fishcages occupied almost one-third the entirelake water surface area. the power to grant permits devolved to respective localgovernment units concerned. municipal. the provisions of PD 813. construction. that therates of the fees to be collected. the present petition for certiorari. cities and provinces encompassed by the term "Laguna de Bay Region". In view of the foregoing circumstances. SEC. The Mayor's permit to construct fishpens and fishcages were all undertaken in violation of the policies adopted by the Authority on fishpen zoning and the Laguna Lake carrying capacity. Municipal governments thereupon assumed the authority to issue fishing privileges and fish pen permits. 7160. (D) in view of the aforesaid repeal.the LLDA or the towns and municipalities comprising the region. and the sharing with other government agencies and political subdivisions. the Authority sent notices to the concerned owners of the illegally constructed fishpens. Meanwhile. To effectively perform the role of the Authority under RA 4850. 3. and waste disposal purpose. FACTS Congress enacted RA 4850 creating the "Laguna Lake Development Authority. The motions to dismiss were denied. 1995 DOCTRINE Section 4 (k) of RA 4850. fishcages and other aqua-culture structures in the Laguna de Bay Region. agricultural. thereafter. otherwise. the Authority served notice to the general public that: “ 1. fish corrals and the like. recreation. except fish pen fee. fish corrals and the like.A. industrial.000 ha in 1990 to almost 21. The CA dismissed the LLDA‟s consolidated petitions. if necessary. including navigation. fish enclosures. One month. pertinent to the i ssues in this case are the following provisions of EO 927 which include in particular the sharing of fees: Sec 2: xxx the Authority shall have exclusive jurisdiction to issue permit for the use of all surface water for any projects or activities in or affecting thesaid region including navigation. Hence. demolition shall be effected. specifically provide that the LLDA shall have exclusive jurisdiction to issue permits for the use or all surface water for any projectsor activities in or affecting the said region. the Chief Executive issued EO 927further defined and enlarged the functions and powers of the Authority and named and enumerated the towns. TRO/writs of preliminary mandatory injunction were issued enjoining the LLDA from demolishing the fishpens andsimilar structures in question. 149. and Section 2 of EO 927. (B) the LLDA charter does vest LLDA with quasi-judicial functions insofar as fishpens are concerned. Fees and Charges (a) Municipalities shall have the exclusive authority to grant fishery privileges in the municipal waters andimpose rental fees or charges therefor in accordance with the provisions of this Section. (C) the provisions of the LLDA charter insofar asfishing privileges in Laguna de Bay are concerned had been repealed by the Local Government Code of 1991. Then came Republic Act No. ISSUE Which agency of the Government . Fishery Rentals. Provided. construction. shall be subject to the approval of the President of the Philippines upon recommendation of the Authority's Board. 5 percent shall go to the Project Development Fund which shall be administered by aCouncil and the remaining 75 percent shall constitute the share of LLDA. which were not registered or to which no application forregistration and/or permit has been filed with Laguna Lake Development Authority as of March 31.LLDA vs CA dec 7." This agency was supposed to accelerate the development and balanced growth of the Laguna Lake. The municipalities in the Laguna Lake Region interpreted the provisions of this law to mean that the newly passed law gave municipal governments the exclusive jurisdiction to issue fishing privileges within their municipal waters because R. navigation. and operation of fishpens. increasing the occupation drastically from 7.000 hain 1995. fishcages and other aqua-culture structures advising them to dismantle the irrespective structures within 10 days from receipt thereof. 1993 are hereby declared outrightly as illegal. The fishpen owners filed injunction cases against the LLDA. fish enclosures.

– LLDA has jurisdiction. mussels or other aquatic beds or bangus fry area within a definite zone of the municipal waters. LLDA‟s motions to dismiss were denied by the RTC and affirmed by the CA. RA 7160 has granted to the municipalities the exclusive authority to grant fishery privileges in municipal waters. It has to be conceded that there was no intent on the part of the legislature to repeal Republic Act No. Accordingly. fish corrals and the like. RA 7160 is a general law. was partially amended by Marcos due to the rapid expansion of Metro Manila and its impact on the environment. unless the intent to repeal or alter is manifest. Thus. 4850 and its amendments. specifically provide that the LLDA shall have exclusive jurisdiction to issue permits for the use or all surface water for any projects or activities in or affecting the said region. fish enclosures. Where there is a conflict between a general law and a special statute. Thus. oyster. ISSUE/S: Which agency of the Government (the LLDA or the towns and municipalities comprising the region) should exercise jurisdiction over the Laguna Lake and its environs insofar as the issuance of permits for fishery privileges is concerned. It has to be conceded that the charter of the LLDA constitutes a special law. although the terms of the general law are broad enough to include the cases embraced in the special law. 120865-71 December 7. LLDA‟s charter constitutes a special law while the LGC is a general law. LLDA‟s charter should prevail over the LGC. the special statute should prevail since it evinces the legislative intent more clearly than the general statute. including navigation. the LLDA notified the public that all unregistered fishpen or fishcages are declared illegal and dismantled otherwise demolition will be effected. . The repeal of laws should be made clear and expressed. On the other hand. The provisions of RA7160 do not necessarily repeal the laws creating the LLDA and granting the latter water rights authority over Laguna de Bay and the lake region. and operation of fish pens. The Local Government Code of 1991 does not contain any express provision which categorically expressly repeal the charter of the Authority. Subsequently. Hizon vs CA dec 13. It is basic in statutory construction that the enactment of a later legislation which is a general law cannot be construed to have repealed a special law. 1996 DOCTRINE 6 . This further defined and enlarged the functions and powers of LLDA. Because of this. Municipal governments thereupon assumed the authority to issue fishing privileges and fishpen permits. fishcages and other aqua-culture structures is for the purpose of effectively regulating and monitoring activities in the Laguna de Bay region and for lake quality control and management. The power of the local government units to issue fishing privileges was clearly granted for revenue purposes. which created the Laguna Lake Development Authority (LLDA). LAGUNA LAKE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (LLDA) VS COURT OF APPEALS (CA) G. On the other hand. The LGC does not contain any express provision which categorically expressly repeal the charter of the LLDA. The CA held that the power to grant fishing permits is now vested with the LGUs and the provisions of the LLDA charter insofar as fishing privileges in Laguna de Bay are concerned had been repealed by the LGC. Fishpen operators took advantage of the occasion which gave rise to sharp increase in unregulated fishpen and fish cages. the LLDA has the exclusive jurisdiction to issue permits for the enjoyment of fishery privileges in Laguna de Bay to the exclusion of municipalities situated therein and the authority to exercise such powers as are by its charter vested on it. the power of the LLDA to grant permits for fishpens. The affected fishpen owners filed injunction cases against the LLDA. Jr. and Section 2 of EO 927. Nos. 1995 Ponente: Hermosisima. The Sangguniang Bayan may grant f ishery privileges to erect fish corrals. FACTS: RA 4850. RATIO: The LGC do not necessarily repeal the aforementioned laws creating the Laguna Lake Development Authority and granting the latter water rights authority over Laguna de Bay and the lake region.R. the provisions of PD 813. the charter of the LLDA which embodies a valid exercise of police power should prevail over the LGC on matters affecting Laguna de Bay. the LGC took effect. construction.Held: LLDA Section 4 (k) of RA 4850. where the municipalities in the Laguna Lake Region interpreted the provisions of this law to mean that the newly passed law gave municipal governments the exclusive jurisdiction to issue fishing privileges within their municipal waters.

All the documents of the boat and the fishermen were in order. Jr.D. that petitioners were charged with illegal fishing with the use of poisonous substances. respectively. this petition ISSUE: whether or not the conviction was proper HELD Not Guilty. Petitioners invoke the provisions of the Constitution and the Clean Air Act in their prayer for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to require PUVs to use CNG as an alternative fuel. 33. they claimed that they are legitimate fishermen of the First Fishermen Industries. take or gather or cause to be caught. Petitioners were charged with illegal fishing penalized under sections 33 and 38 of P. finally. crocodiles. the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court. sharks or other large dangerous fishes. Factoran. -. the trial court found the thirty one petitioners guilty. educational or scientific purposes only. This method of fishing needs approximately two hundred (200) fishermen to execute. albeit under suspicious circumstances. further. As defense.. Illegal fishing. of more or less one (1) ton of assorted live fishes which were illegally caught thru the use of obnoxious/poisonous substance (sodium cyanide). may be allowed. Inc. subject to the approval of the Secretary.. The authorities found nothing on the boat that would have indicated any form of illegal fishing. the members of the PNP Maritime Command and the Task Force Bantay Dagat were the ones engaged in an illegal fishing expedition. Apparently. n July 9. On appeal. obnoxious or poisonous substance or electricity to catch.It shall be unlawful for any person to catch. and Section 4 of Republic Act No. It was only after the fish specimens were tested. HENARES V. It was only after the fish specimens were tested. Although both are general 7 . 8749otherwise known as the "Philippine Clean Air Act of 1999”. petitioners contend that thebases for their petition for a writ of mandamus to order the LTFRB to require PUVs to use CNG as an alternative fuel. or by the use of electricity as defined in paragraphs (l).The authorities found nothing on the boat that would have indicated any form of illegal fishing. of section 3 hereof: Provided. Hence. dealing in illegally caught fish or fishery/aquatic products. 704 which provide as follows: “Sec. the use of explosives. That the Secretary may. Petitioners were arraigned and they pled not guilty to the charge. What the apprehending officers instead discovered were twenty eight (28) fishermen in their discovered were twenty eight (28) fishermen in their sampans fishing by hook and line. taken or gathered fish or fishery/aquatic products in Philippine waters with the use of explosives. 1993. The prosecution failed to explain the contradictory findings on the fish samples and this omission raises a reasonable doubt that the one ton of fishes in the cage were caught with the use of sodium cyanide. LTFRB Petitioners challenge this Court to issue a writ of mandamus commanding respondents LTFRB and DOTC to require PUVs to use compressed natural gas (CNG) as alternative fuel. Issue: WON LTFRB CAN BE COMPELLED TO REQUIREPUVs TO USE CNG THROUGH A WRIT OF MANDAMUS? Held: NO. Asserting their right to clean air.. All the documents of the boat and the fishermen were in order. Article II of the 1987 Constitution. lie in Section 16. That mere possession of such explosives with intent to use the same for illegal fishing as herein defined shall be punishable as hereinafter provided: Provided. Inc. caught fish with use of obnoxious or poisonous substance (sodium cyanide). FACTS Accused crew members and fishermen of F/B Robinson owned by First Fishermen Fishing Industries. illegal possession of explosives intended for illegal fishing. that petitioners were charged with illegal fishing with the use of poisonous substances. That the use of chemicals to eradicate predators in fishponds in accordance with accepted scientific fishery practices without causing deleterious effects in neighboring waters shall not be construed as the use of obnoxious or poisonous substance within the meaning of this section: Provided. our ruling in Oposa v. albeit under suspicious circumstances. upon recommendation of the Director and subject to such safeguards and conditions he deems necessary. a domestic corporation licensed to engage in fishing. (m) and (d). That the use of mechanical bombs for killing whales. obnoxious or poisonous substance. allow for research. They alleged that they catch fish by the hook and line method and that they had used this method for one month and a half in the waters of Cuyo Island. take or gather fish or fishery/aquatic products in the specified area: Provided.

but also for those to come. entitled Implementing the Natural Gas Vehicle Program for Public Transport (NGVPPT). Mandaluyong. FACTS Garbage was on the rise. however. thereby highlighting their continuing importance and imposing upon the state a solemn obligation to preserve the first and protect and advance the second. mandamus will not generally lie from one branch of government to a coordinate branch. Regrettably. and urgently requiring resort to drastic measures to reduce air pollutants emitted by motor vehicles. To a certain extent. denying. 41330. parts of the Marikina Watershed Reservation were set aside by the Office of the President. Marikina. it is timely to reaffirm the premium we have placed on the protection of the environment in the landmark case of Oposa. 290.certain events we shall relate below have inclined us to address some of the more pertinent issues raised in the petition for the guidance of the herein respondents. A case to the CA for the closure of the landfill stalled. the petition for certiorari.mandates that do not specifically enjoin the use of any kind of fuel. a writ of mandamus is unavailing. In the same manner that we have associated the fundamental right to a balanced and healthful ecology with the twin concepts of "intergenerational responsibility" and "inter-generational justice" in Oposa. Besides. A petition filed by the Province of Rizal. for lack of cause of action. with the present fuels deemed toxic as they are to the environment. 290. 635. as serious as the statistics are on air pollution. as fatal as these pollutants are to the health of the citizens. Although the petitioners may be deemed to have waived or abandoned the issues raised in their previous pleadings but not included in the memorandum. No. took effect on February 24. where we upheld the right of future Filipinosto prevent the destruction of the rainforests. It appears to us that more properly. we must admit in particular that petitioners are unable to pinpoint the law that imposes an indubitable legal duty on respondents that will justify a grant of the writ of mandamus compelling the use of CNG for public utility vehicles. A thorough reading of the executive order assures us that implementation for a cleaner environment is being addressed. so do we recognize. through Proclamation No. 8 . Yet. Here. In fact. 2004.O. Pasig. had already been in operation since 19 February 1990 for the solid wastes of Quezon City."It is the firm belief of this Court that in this case. Province of Rizal vs Executive Secretary dec 13. prohibition and mandamus with application for a temporary restraining order/writ of preliminary injunction assailing the legality and constitutionality of Proclamation No. especially when what is prayed for is procedurally infirm. for use as a sanitary landfill and similar waste disposal applications. At the height of the garbage crisis plaguing Metro Manila and its environs. Pateros. in this petition. particularly the use of CNG. In Oposa we said that if the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is now explicitly found in the Constitution even if the right is "assumed to exist from the inception of human kind. 635 dated 28 August 1995. the instant petition had been mooted by the issuance of E. Executive Order No.R. it is because of the well-founded fear of its framers [of the Constitution] that unless the rights to a balanced and healthful ecology and to health are mandated as state policies by the Constitution itself. and pursuant to our symbolic function to educate the bench and bar. and Taguig. comity with and courtesy to a coequal branch dictate that we give sufficient time and leeway for the coequal branches to address by themselves the environmental problems raised in this petition. the day would not be too far when all else would be lost not only for the present generation. the legislature should provide first the specific statutory remedy to the complex environmental problems bared by herein petitioners before any judicial recourse by mandamus is taken. extending to more or less 18 hectares. The need for future changes in both legislation and its implementation cannot be preempted by orders from this Court. there is an executive order implementing a program on the use of CNG by public vehicles. San Juan. the municipality of San Mateo. Mandamus is available only to compel the doing of an act specifically enjoined by law as a duty. and various concerned citizens for review on certiorari of the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G. there is no law that mandates the respondents LTFRB and the DOTC to order owners of motor vehicles to use CNG. ISSUE Whether or not the landfill is contrary to law HELD: SC held that the San Mateo Landfill will remain permanently closed. An order for closure is in order. Further. 2005 DOCTRINE: The law and the facts indicate that a mere MOA does not guarantee the dumpsite’s permanent closure. SP No. for the obvious reason that neither is inferior to the other. the right of petitioners and the future generation to clean air. this site.

2008. Oposa as their lawyer) filed a complaint before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Imus. and other non-biodegradable garbage in the bay. The Pollution Control Law (PD 984). the freedom of contract is not absolute. health. The Water Code (PD 1067). DPWH is ordered to actively participate in removing debris. G. 9 . MMDA vs Concened Residents of Manila Bay December 18. 5. or the “SB” level. and a balanced ecology. January 29. 1999. The Illegal Disposal of Wastes Decree (PD 825). These nuisances discharge solid and liquid wastes which eventually end up in Manila Bay.The law and the facts indicate that a mere MOA does not guarantee the dumpsite‟s permanent closure. respondents Concerned Residents of Manila Bay (with Atty. And within 6 months have a concerted. The Environment Code (PD 1152). The Marine Pollution Law (PD 979).000 most probable number (MPN)/ml when what DENR Administrative Order No. Civil Code provisions on nuisance and human relations. rehabilitation. with the full support of all the mayors of Rizal Province caused the MMDA to agree that it would abandon the dumpsite after six months. The complaint alleges that the water quality of the Manila Bay had fallen way below the allowable standards set by law. Respondents‟ constitutional right to life. The Trust Doctrine and the Principle of Guardianship. Cavite against several government agencies. The Toxic and Hazardous Wastes Law (Republic Act No. 6969). The RTC held the petitioners and other agencies jointly and solidarily. for the cleanup. the municipal mayors allowed the use of the dumpsite until 20 July 1999. Factoran. Executive Order No. That the continued neglect of petitioners in abating the pollution of the Manila Bay constitutes a violation of: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) 4. Nos. among them the petitioners. to clean up and rehabilitate Manila Bay and restore its waters to SB classification to make it fit for swimming. In return. to remove and demolish structures and other nuisances that obstruct the free flow of waters to the bay. Were it not for the TRO. The rally and barricade staged by the people of Antipolo on 28 January 1999. consolidated and coordinated plan for the cleanup of the bay. 3. specifically Presidential Decree No. and International Law It was shown by the respondents that the amount of fecal coliform content ranged from 50. is one not exceeding 200 MPN/100 ml. 34-90 prescribed as a safe level for bathing and other forms of contact recreational activities. 2. As the construction and engineering arm of the government. and protection of the Manila Bay. such as carcass of sunken vessels. (PD) 1152 or the Philippine Environment Code. 171947-48 (Mickey) Facts: 1. then President Estrada‟s instructions would have been lawfully carried out. The Sanitation Code (PD 856). skin-diving and other forms of contact recreation. The various agencies have been instructed to perform their duties including defendant DPWH.000 to 80.R. 192. for as we observed in Oposa v.

waterways. 17 and 20 of the Environment Code Include Cleaning in General 10 . are two different concepts.6. CA affirmed in toto the trial court‟s decision as it did not require petitioners to do tasks outside of their usual basic functions under existing laws. can dismantle and remove all structures. and marine waters. PPA. the aforementioned enabling laws and issuances are in themselves clear. constructions. brackish. PCG. DBM and MMDA. e. DPWH. It is a “simple. and esteros in Metro Manila. g. h. a. garbage dumps. A ministerial duty is one that “requires neither the exercise of official discretion nor judgment. and revival of the quality of our fresh. shorelines.” b. parks and playgrounds. 7. on one hand. on the other. It is a ministerial act. DOH. its duty being a statutory imposition. and other public places such as sidewalks. Sec. We need not belabor the issue that their tasks include the cleanup of the Manila Bay. The MMDA. that the cleaning of the Manila Bay is not a ministerial act which can be compelled by mandamus. A discretionary duty is one that “allows a person to exercise judgment and choose to perform or not to perform.” It connotes an act in which nothing is left to the discretion of the person executing it. A writ of mandamus lies to require the execution of a ministerial duty. Furthermore it is enshrined in RA 9275 or the Philippine Clean Water Act of 2004. DILG. f. Is the cleaning and/or restoration of Manila Bay a ministerial act of the petitioners that can be compelled by mandamus? Does sec. The petitioners appealed to the CA contending: 1. and complete as to what are the obligations and mandate of each agency/petitioner under the law. Yes. 3(c) of Republic Act No. Secs. DA. Any suggestion that the MMDA has the option whether or not to perform its solid waste disposalrelated duties ought to be dismissed for want of legal basis. preservation. waterways. arguing in the main that the pertinent provisions of the Environment Code (PD 1152) relate only to the cleaning of specific pollution incidents and do not cover cleaning in general and 2. 17 and 20 of PD 1152 pertain only to specific cleaning of pollution and not cleaning in general? *Note: It is the MMDA and DPWH together with the LGUs that are the primary agencies tasked to remove and demolish the nuisance structures and obstructions along the bay Held: I. definite duty arising under conditions admitted or proved to exist and imposed by law. LGUs. c. MWSS. LWUA. and how they are to carry out such duties. The following agencies are therefore precluded from choosing not to perform these duties DENR. d. categorical. 28 of the Urban Development and Housing Act of 1992 (RA 7279). II. in coordination with the DPWH. and concerned agencies. (RA) 7924 creating the MMDA. eviction or demolition may be allowed “when persons or entities occupy danger areas such as esteros. The court said that the obligation to perform their ( based on MMDA‟s argument) duties as defined by law. and other encroachments built in breach of RA 7279 and other pertinent laws along the rivers. Lastly the court said that said: “All told. railroad tracks. as lead agency. The MMDA‟s duty to put up an adequate and appropriate sanitary landfill and solid waste and liquid disposal as well as other alternative garbage disposal systems is ministerial.” II. This law stresses that the State shall pursue a policy of economic growth in a manner consistent with the protection.” i. roads. Issue: I. This is provided in Sec. riverbanks. DepEd.

in fact even enlarged the operational scope of Sec. these unauthorized structures would be on top of the list. ii. The cleanup and/or restoration of the Manila Bay is only an aspect and the initial stage of the long-term solution.” the Court may. Factoran. 17 in relation to Sec. Under what other judicial discipline describes as “continuing mandamus. h. Art. as long as water quality “has deteriorated to a degree where its state will adversely affect its best usage. In fine. 17 & 20 of general application rather than limiting them to specific pollution incidents. issue directives with the end in view of ensuring that its decision would not be set to naught by administrative inaction or indifference. i. and connecting waterways. e. 20 of PD 1152. the Court stated that the right to a balanced and healthful ecology need not even be written in the Constitution for it is assumed. Also Sec.a. i. d. iii. g. 17 requires them to act even in the absence of a specific pollution incident. under extraordinary circumstances. Finally they reiterate what has been said in Oposa v. Jr. like other civil and political rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. Judicial notice may likewise be taken of factories and other industrial establishments standing along or near the banks of the Pasig River. 62(g) of RA 9275(Clean Water Act). the underlying duty to upgrade the quality of water is not conditional on the occurrence of any pollution incident. It thus behooves the Court to put the heads of the petitioner-department-agencies and the bureaus and offices under them on continuing notice about. and to enjoin them to perform. their mandates and duties towards cleaning up the Manila Bay and preserving the quality of its water to the ideal level. The Court wishes to emphasize the extreme necessity for all concerned executive departments and agencies to immediately act and discharge their respective official duties and obligations. The Court can take judicial notice of the presence of shanties and other unauthorized structures which do not have septic tanks along drainage ways of the river system. They should have their waste treatment facilities or otherwise should be forced to transfer or shutdown. The Court then calls for sufficient sanitary landfills now more than ever be established as prescribed by the Ecological Solid Waste Management Act (RA 9003). Particular note should be taken of the blatant violations by some LGUs and possibly the MMDA. f. c. i. The preservation of the water quality of the bay after the rehabilitation process is as important as the cleaning phase. The Court finds for the respondents and their emphasis that Sec. The court then cites the ADB commissioned study on the garbage problem of Metro Manila in The Garbage Book which emphasizes on the alarming quantity of lead and leachate or liquid run-off. far from being a delimiting provision. 11 . 51 of PD 1067 or the Water Code prohibits the building of structures within a given length along banks of rivers and other waterways. If there is one factor responsible for the pollution of the major river systems and the Manila Bay. 20. The Court quoting the CA decision: “PD 1152 aims to introduce a comprehensive program of environmental protection and management. This is better served by making Secs. other major rivers. by including accidental spills as among the water pollution incidents contemplated in Sec. i. to exist from the inception of mankind and it is an issue of transcendental importance with intergenerational implications.” b.

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->