Laguna Lake Development Authority vs. Court of Appeals (December 7, 1995) Ponentia: Hermosisima, Jr., J.

Facts:

1.

Republic Act No. 4850 created the Laguna Lake Development Authority (Authority) a Government Agency that works toward environmental protection and ecology, navigational safety, and sustainable development. This agency is responsible for the development of the Laguna Lake area and the surrounding provinces, cities and towns in view of the national and regional plans. President Ferdinand E. Marcos then passed Presidential Decree No. 813 amending certain sections of R.A. No. 4850 as response to the deteriorating environmental condition of the Metropolitan Manila area and the surrounding areas of the Laguna de Bay. Problems include the environmental impact of development of water quality, inflow of polluted water, increasing urbanization and floods in Metropolitan Manila. Sec. 1 of P.D. 813 established a policy of development with environmental management and control, among others for the Laguna Lake Development Authority. Special powers, pertinent to this case, were also granted under Sec. 3. which include the exclusive jurisdiction of the Authority to issue new permit for the use of the lake waters for any projects or activities in or affecting the said lake including navigation, construction, and operation of fishpens, fish enclosures, fish corrals and the like. The Authority also has the power to collect fees for these activities and projects which may be shared with other governmental agencies and political sub-divisions. The Authority was further empowered by Executive Order No. 927 which enlarged its functions and powers. Said Order also named and enumerated towns, cities and provinces encompassed by the term Laguna de Bay Region. The Chief Executive based this Order on an assessment that the land and waters of the Laguna Lake Region are limited natural resources requiring judicious management. Under Sec. 2 of E.O. 927, the Authority shall have exclusive jurisdiction to issue permit for the use of all surface water for any projects or activities in or affecting the said region. Coverage for Laguna de Bay Region included several provinces, cities and towns around the Laguna Lake. Under Sec. 3, the collection of fees for the use of the lake water and its tributaries were enforced by the Authority. Then, Republic Act No. 7160, the Local Government Code of 1991 was enforced. Municipalities around the Laguna Lake Region interpreted this law as delegating the exclusive jurisdiction to issue fishing privileges within their municipal waters. Municipal governments started issuing fishing privileges and fishing permits to big fishpen operators. These unregulated issuances of Mayors permits to construct fishpens were clear violations of the policies implemented by the Authority. To solve the problem, the Authority issues a notice to the general public declaring as illegal all fishpens, fishcages and other aqua-culture structures in the Bay Region that were not registered with the Authority. The notice includes a threat of penalty of demolition and imprisonment and/or fine. After a month,

2.

the Authority sent notices to the concerned owners stating that demolition shall be effected within 10 days. 10. Affected fishpen owners filed seven injunction cases against the Authority in various trial courts. Authority filed a motion to dismiss the cases on jurisdictional grounds which was denied by the lower court. Temporary restraining order/writs of preliminary injunction was issued enjoining the Authority from demolishing the structures in question. Authority appealed the case to the Court of Appeals but the Court dismissed the consolidated petitions of the Authority. CA established that LLDA is not a quasi-judicial agency of the government and it cannot exercise quasi-judicial functions as far as fishpens are concerned. CA the Local Government Code of 1991 repealed the provisions of the LLDA Charter thereby devolving the power to grant permits to the local government units concerned. Authority appealed to the Supreme Court with petitions for prohibition, certiorari and injunction against the respondents. Issue: WON the Laguna Lake Development Authority should exercise jurisdiction over the Laguna Lake insofar as the issuance of permits for fisheries privileges is concerned. Held: Yes. The LLDA should exercise jurisdiction over the Laguna Lake insofar as the issuance of permits for fisheries is concerned. Petitions for prohibition, certiorari and injunction are hereby granted, insofar as they related to the authority of the LLDA to grant fishing privileges within the Laguna Lake Region. Restraining orders and/or writs of injunction issued against the LLDA are declared null and void and ordered set aside for having been issued with grave abuse of discretion. Municipal Mayors of the Laguna Lake Region are hereby prohibited from issuing permits to construct and operate fishpens, fishcages and other aqua-culture structures within the Laguna Lake Region. Previous issuances are null and void. The fishpens, fishcages and other aqua-culture structures put by operators by virtue of permits issued by Municipal Mayors within the Laguna Lake Region are hereby declared illegal structures subject to demolition by the LLDA. Ratio: (1) Provisions of the Local Government Code of 1991 (RA No. 7160) do not repeal the laws creating the LLDA. Therefore, LLDA maintains its exclusive authority over issuances of permits. The charter of the LLDA is a SPECIAL LAW while the Local Government Code of 1991 is a GENERAL LAW. A basic rule of statutory construction is that the enactment of a later legislation which is a general law cannot be construed to have repealed a special law. When there is conflict between a general law and a special law, the special law will prevail since it evinces the legislative intent more clearly than the general statute. A special law cannot be repealed, amended or altered by a subsequent law by mere implications.

3.

4. 5.

6.

7.
8.

9.

In Manila Railroad Company v. Rafferty, this basic rule is upheld with an exception when the subsequent general law has a manifest intent to repeal or alter the special law. In this case, such intent is not proven in this case.

(2) Legislative intent is for the Authority to proceed with its mission of environmental protection, navigational safety, and sustainable development for the Laguna Lake Region. The power of the local government units, exercised through fragmented management policies, is interested in fishing privileges for REVENUE PURPOSES. In contrast, the power of the Authority is aimed at effectively regulating and monitoring activities in the Laguna de Bay Region for QUALITY CONTROL and MANAGEMENT. Thus, the Authority is in a better position to manage the issuance of permits. (3) Charter of the Authority prevails because it is a valid exercise of POLICE POWER of the State.

(4)

Although the LLDA is not co-equal to the RTCs, LLDA is still a quasi-judicial body with respect to pollution cases that can issue cease and desist order (Laguna Lake Development Authority v. CA). Padilla, J. (Concurring Opinion): I fully concur. But I just want to say guys that the LGUs can still impose on those who apply for permit with an additional local permit or license for revenue purposes. This would harmonize RA No. 4850 with RA No. 7160 (LGC 1991).