P. 1
Consti Cases

Consti Cases

|Views: 180|Likes:
Published by smoochy_snickerz

More info:

Published by: smoochy_snickerz on Jun 25, 2011
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

02/14/2013

pdf

text

original

1. 2nd LT. SALVADOR PARREO represented by his daughter Myrna P. Caintic, Petitioner, G.R. No. 162224 COMMISSION ON AUDIT .

June 7, 2007 x---------------------------------------------------x DEC ISION CARPIO, J.: The Case cralawBefore the Court is a petition for certiorari[1] assailing the 9 January 2003 Decision[2] and 13 January 2004 Resolution[3] of the Commission on Audit (COA). The Antecedent Facts cralawSalvador Parreo (petitioner) served in the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) for 32 years.On 5 January 1982, petitioner retired from the Philippine Constabulary with the rank of 2nd Lieutenant.Petitioner availed, and received payment, of a lump sum pension equivalent to three years pay.In 1985, petitioner started receiving his monthly pension amounting to P13,680. cralawPetitioner migrated to Hawaii and became a naturalized American citizen.In January 2001, the AFP stopped petitioners monthly pension in accordance with Section 27 of Presidential Decree No. 1638[4] (PD 1638), as amended by Presidential Decree No. 1650.[5]Section 27 of PD 1638, as amended, provides that a retiree who loses his Filipino citizenship shall be removed from the retired list and his retirement benefits terminated upon loss of Filipino citizenship.Petitioner requested for reconsideration but the Judge Advocate General of the AFP denied the request. cralawPetitioner filed a claim before the COA for the continuance of his monthly pension. The Ruling of the Commission on Audit cralawIn its 9 January 2003 Decision, the COA denied petitioners claim for lack of jurisdiction.The COA ruled: cralawIt becomes immediately noticeable that the resolution of the issue at hand hinges upon the validity of Section 27 of P.D. No. 1638, as amended.Pursuant to the mandate of the Constitution, whenever a dispute involves the validity of laws, the courts, as guardians of the Constitution, have the inherent authority to determine whether a statute enacted by the legislature transcends the limit imposed by the fundamental law.Where the statute violates the Constitution, it is not only the right but the duty of the judiciary to declare such act as unconstitutional and void.(Tatad vs. Secretary of Department of Energy, 281 SCRA 330) That being so, prudence dictates that this Commission defer to the authority and jurisdiction of the judiciary to rule in the first instance upon the constitutionality of the provision in question. cralawPremises considered, the request is denied for lack of jurisdiction to adjudicate the same.Claimant is advised to file his claim with the proper court of original jurisdiction.[6] cralawPetitioner filed a motion for reconsideration.Petitioner alleged that the COA has the power and authority to incidentally rule on the constitutionality of Section 27 of PD 1638, as amended.Petitioner alleged that a direct recourse to the court would be dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.Petitioner further alleged that since his monthly pension involves government funds, the reason for the termination of the pension is subject to COAs authority and jurisdiction. cralawIn its 13 January 2004 Resolution, the COA denied the motion.The COA ruled that the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies does not apply if the administrative body has, in the first place, no jurisdiction over the case.The COA further ruled that even if it assumed jurisdiction over the claim, petitioners entitlement to the retirement benefits he was previously receiving must necessarily cease upon the loss of his Filipino citizenship in accordance with Section 27 of PD 1638, as amended. cralawHence, the petition before this Court.

Whether Section 27 of PD 1638, as amended, is constitutional;

2. Whether the COA has jurisdiction to rule on the constitutionality ofSection 27 of PD 1638, as amended; and 3. Whether PD 1638, as amended, has retroactive or prospective effect.[7]chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

The Ruling of this Court cralawThe petition has no merit. Jurisdiction of the COA cralawPetitioner filed his money claim before the COA.A money claim is a demand for payment of a sum of money, reimbursement or compensation arising from law or contract due from or owing to a government agency.[8]Under Commonwealth Act No. 327,[9] as amended by Presidential Decree No. 1445,[10] money claims against the government shall be filed before the COA.[11]chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary cralawSection 2(1), Article IX(D) of the 1987 Constitution prescribes the powers of the COA, as follows: cralawSec. 2. (1)The Commission on Audit shall have the power, authority, and duty to examine, audit, and settle all accounts pertaining to the revenue and receipts of, and expenditures or uses of funds and property, owned or held in trust by, or pertaining to, the Government, or any of its subdivisions, agencies, or instrumentalities, including government-owned or controlled corporations with original charters, and on a postaudit basis; (a) constitutional bodies, commissions and offices that have been granted fiscal autonomy under this Constitution;(b) autonomous state colleges and universities; (c) other government-owned or controlled corporations and their subsidiaries; and (d) such non-governmental entities receiving subsidy or equity, directly or indirectly, from or through the Government, which are required by law or the granting institution to submit such audit as a condition of subsidy or equity.However, where the internal control system of the audited agencies is inadequate, the Commission may adopt such measures, including temporary or special pre-audit, as are necessary and appropriate to correct the deficiencies.It shall keep the general accounts of the Government and, for such period as may be provided by law, preserve the vouchers and other supporting papers pertaining thereto. cralawThe jurisdiction of the COA over money claims against the government does not include the power to rule on the constitutionality or validity of laws.The 1987 Constitution vests the power of judicial review or the power to declare unconstitutional a law, treaty, international or executive agreement, presidential decree, order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation in this Court and in all Regional Trial Courts.[12]cralawPetitioners money claim essentially involved the constitutionality ofSection 27 of PD 1638, as amended.Hence, the COA did not commit grave abuse of discretion in dismissing petitioners money claim. cralawPetitioner submits that the COA has the authority to order the restoration of his pension even without ruling on the constitutionality ofSection 27 of PD 1638, as amended.The COA actually ruled on the matter in its 13 January 2004 Resolution, thus: Furthermore, assuming arguendo that this Commission assumed jurisdiction over the instant case, claimants entitlement to the retirement benefits he was previously receiving must necessarily be severed or stopped upon the loss of his Filipino citizenship as prescribed in Section 27, P.D. No. 1638, as amended by P.D. No. 1650.[13]chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary The COA effectively denied petitioners claim because of the loss of his Filipino citizenship. Application of PD 1638, as amended Petitioner alleges thatPD 1638, as amended, should apply prospectively.The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) agrees with petitioner.The OSG argues that PD 1638, as amended, should apply only to those who joined the military service after its effectivity, citing Sections 33 and 35, thus: cralawSection 33.Nothing in this Decree shall be construed in any manner to reduce whatever retirement and separation pay or gratuity or other monetary benefits which any person is heretofore receiving or is entitled to receive under the provisions of existing law.

The Issues xxxx cralawPetitioner raises the following issues:

cralawSection. 35.Except those necessary to give effect to the provisions of this Decree and to preserve the rights granted to retired or separated military personnel, all laws, rules and regulations inconsistent with the provisions of this Decree are hereby repealed or modified accordingly. The OSG further argues that retirement laws are liberally construed in favor of the retirees.Article 4 of the Civil Code provides: Laws shall have no retroactive effect, unless the contrary is provided.Section 36 of PD 1638, as amended, provides that it shall take effect upon its approval.It was signed on 10 September 1979.PD 1638, as amended, does not provide for its retroactive application.There is no question that PD 1638, as amended, applies prospectively. cralawHowever, we do not agree with the interpretation of petitioner and the OSG that PD 1638, as amended, should apply only to those who joined the military after its effectivity.Since PD 1638, as amended, is about the new system of retirement and separation from service of military personnel, it should apply to those who were in the service at the time of its approval. In fact, Section 2 of PD 1638, as amended, provides that th[e] Decree shall apply to all military personnel in the service of the Armed Forces of the Philippines.PD 1638, as amended, was signed on 10 September 1979.Petitioner retired in 1982, long after the approval of PD 1638, as amended.Hence, the provisions of PD 1638, as amended, apply to petitioner. Petitioner Has No Vested Right to his Retirement Benefits cralawPetitioner alleges that Section 27 of PD 1638, as amended, deprives him of his property which the Constitution and statutes vest in him.Petitioner alleges that his pension, being a property vested by the Constitution, cannot be removed or taken from him just because he became a naturalized American citizen.Petitioner further alleges that the termination of his monthly pension is a penalty equivalent to deprivation of his life. cralawThe allegations have no merit.cralawPD 1638, as amended, does not impair any vested right or interest of petitioner.Where the employee retires and meets the eligibility requirements, he acquires a vested right to the benefits that is protected by the due process clause.[14]At the time of the approval of PD 1638 and at the time of its amendment, petitioner was still in active service.Hence, petitioners retirement benefits were only future benefits and did not constitute a vested right.Before a right to retirement benefits or pension vests in an employee, he must have met the stated conditions of eligibility with respect to the nature of employment, age, and length of service.[15]It is only upon retirement that military personnel acquire a vested right to retirement benefits.Retirees enjoy a protected property interest whenever they acquire a right to immediate payment under pre-existing law.[16]chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary cralawFurther, the retirement benefits of military personnel are purely gratuitous in nature.They are not similar to pension plans where employee participation is mandatory, hence, the employees have contractual or vested rights in the pension which forms part of the compensation.[17] Constitutionality of Section 27 of PD 1638 cralawSection 27 of PD 1638, as amended, provides: cralawSection 27.Military personnel retired under Sections 4, 5, 10, 11 and 12 shall be carried in the retired list of the Armed Forces of the Philippines. The name of a retiree who loses his Filipino citizenship shall be removed from the retired list and his retirement benefits terminated upon such loss. cralawThe OSG agrees with petitioner that Section 27 of PD 1638, as amended, is unconstitutional.The OSG argues that the obligation imposed on petitioner to retain his Filipino citizenship as a condition for him to remain in the AFP retired list and receive his retirement benefit is contrary to public policy and welfare, oppressive, discriminatory, and violative of the due process clause of the Constitution.The OSG argues that the retirement law is in the nature of a contract between the government and its employees.The OSG further argues that Section 27 of PD 1638, as amended, discriminates against AFP retirees who have changed their nationality. cralawWe do not agree. cralawThe constitutional right to equal protection of the laws is not absolute but is subject to reasonable classification.[18] To be reasonable, the classification (a) must be based on substantial distinctions which make real differences; (b) must be germane to the purpose of the law; (c) must not be limited to existing conditions only; and (d) must apply equally to each member of the class.[19]chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary cralawThere is compliance with all these conditions.There is a substantial difference between retirees who are citizens of the Philippines and retirees who lost their Filipino citizenship by naturalization in another country, such as petitioner in the case before us.The constitutional right of the state to require all citizens to render

personal and military service[20] necessarily includes not only private citizens but also citizens who have retired from military service.A retiree who had lost his Filipino citizenship already renounced his allegiance to the state. Thus, he may no longer be compelled by the state to render compulsory military service when the need arises.Petitioners loss of Filipino citizenship constitutes a substantial distinction that distinguishes him from other retirees who retain their Filipino citizenship.If the groupings are characterized by substantial distinctions that make real differences, one class may be treated and regulated differently from another.[21] cralawRepublic Act No. 7077[22] (RA 7077) affirmed the constitutional right of the state to a Citizen Armed Forces.Section 11 of RA 7077 provides that citizen soldiers or reservists include ex-servicemen and retired officers of the AFP.Hence, even when a retiree is no longer in the active service, he is still a part of the Citizen Armed Forces.Thus, we do not find the requirement imposed by Section 27 of PD 1638, as amended, oppressive, discriminatory, or contrary to public policy.The state has the right to impose a reasonable condition that is necessary for national defense.To rule otherwise would be detrimental to the interest of the state. cralawThere was no denial of due process in this case.When petitioner lost his Filipino citizenship, the AFP had no choice but to stop his monthly pension in accordance withSection 27 of PD 1638, as amended.Petitioner had the opportunity to contest the termination of his pension when he requested for reconsideration of the removal of his name from the list of retirees and the termination of his pension.The Judge Advocate General denied the request pursuant to Section 27 of PD 1638, as amended. cralawPetitioner argues that he can reacquire his Filipino citizenship under Republic Act No. 9225[23](RA 9225), in which case he will still be considered a natural-born Filipino.However, petitioner alleges that if he reacquires his Filipino citizenship under RA 9225, he will still not be entitled to his pension because of its prior termination.This situation is speculative.In the first place, petitioner has not shown that he has any intention of reacquiring, or has done anything to reacquire, his Filipino citizenship.Secondly, in response to the request for opinion of then AFP Chief of Staff, General Efren L. Abu, the Department of Justice (DOJ) issued DOJOpinion No. 12, series of 2005, dated 19 January 2005, thus: [T]he AFP uniformed personnel retirees, having re-acquired Philippine citizenship pursuant to R.A. No. 9225 and its IRR, are entitled to pension and gratuity benefits reckoned from the date they have taken their oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines.It goes without saying that these retirees have no right to receive such pension benefits during the time that they have ceased to be Filipinos pursuant to the aforequoted P.D. No. 1638, as amended, and any payment made to them should be returned to the AFP. x x x.[24] cralawHence, petitioner has other recourse if he desires to continue receiving his monthly pension.Just recently, in AASJS Member-Hector Gumangan Calilung v. Simeon Datumanong,[25] this Court upheld the constitutionality of RA 9225.If petitioner reacquires his Filipino citizenship, he will even recover his naturalborn citizenship.[26]In Tabasa v. Court of Appeals,[27] this Court reiterated that [t]he repatriation of the former Filipino will allow him to recover his natural-born citizenship x x x. cralawPetitioner will be entitled to receive his monthly pension should he reacquire his Filipino citizenship since he will again be entitled to the benefits and privileges of Filipino citizenship reckoned from the time of his reacquisition of Filipino citizenship. There is no legal obstacle to the resumption of his retirement benefits from the time he complies again with the condition of the law, that is, he can receive his retirement benefits provided he is a Filipino citizen. cralawWe acknowledge the service rendered to the country by petitioner and those similarly situated.However, petitioner failed to overcome the presumption of constitutionality of Section 27 of PD 1638, as amended.Unless the provision is amended or repealed in the future, the AFP has to apply Section 27 of PD 1638, as amended. cralawWHEREFORE, we DISMISS the petition.We AFFIRM the9 January 2003 Decision and 13 January 2004 Resolution of the Commission on Audit. G.R. Nos. 146184-85 January 31, 2008

MANILA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY and ANTONIO P. GANA, petitioners, vs. OLONGAPO MAINTENANCE SERVICES, INC. and TRIPLE CROWN SERVICES, INC., respondents. x-------------------------------------------x G.R. No. 161117 January 31, 2008

ANTONIO P. GANA (in his capacity as Gen. Manager of the Manila International Airport Authority) and MANILA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY, petitioners,

vs. TRIPLE CROWN SERVICES, INC., respondent. x-------------------------------------------x G.R. No. 167827 January 31, 2008

In reply, MIAA wrote TCSI and OMSI reiterating its disinclination to renew the latter¶s contracts, adding that it was to the government¶s advantage to instead just negotiate with other contractors. The MIAA said that awarding a contract through negotiation was in accordance with Section 9 of Executive Order No. (EO) 903; Sec. 82 of Republic Act No. (RA) 8522, otherwise known as the General Appropriations Act for 1998; and Sec. 417 of the Government Accounting and Auditing Manual (GAAM).15 Consequently, OMSI and TCSI instituted civil cases against MIAA to forestall the termination of their contracts and prevent MIAA from negotiating with other service contractors. Civil Case Nos. 98-1875 and 98-1885 On October 26, 1998, OMSI filed with the Pasay City RTC a Complaint for Injunction and Damages with Prayer for Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction16 against MIAA (OMSI case). Docketed as Civil Case No. 98-1875, the case was raffled to Branch 119 of the court. Two days after, TCSI filed Civil Case No. 98-1885 (first TCSI case) for Prohibition, Mandamus and Damages with Prayer for Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and Injunction17 against Gana and Goodline Staffers & Allied Services, Inc. (Goodline), a service contractor that was awarded the contract heretofore pertaining to TCSI. This was raffled to the RTC, Branch 113, Pasay City. The OMSI and TCSI cases are now the consolidated cases G.R. Nos. 146184-85. Both Branches 113 and 119 granted TROs to OMSI and TCSI.18 Subsequently, on November 18, 1998, Branch 119 granted a preliminary injunctive writ19 in favor of OMSI. A day after, Branch 113 also granted a similar writ20 in favor of TCSI. Without filing any motion for reconsideration, MIAA assailed as void the issuance of the injunctive writs before the CA through petitions for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, docketed as CA-G.R. SP Nos. 50087 and 50131.21 Meanwhile, even as the cases were pending before the CA, Branch 113 continued to hear the first TCSI case. On February 1, 2001, the trial court rendered a Decision declaring as null and void the negotiated contract award to Goodline and the Resolution of the MIAA Board dated October 2, 1998, which authorized Gana to negotiate the award of the service contract, and ordered the holding of a public bidding on the janitorial service contract. Branch 113 also ordered the writ of preliminary injunction in the case enforced until after a qualified bidder is determined.22 In its Decision, the trial court said MIAA and Gana violated TCSI¶s right to equal protection and that the authority to negotiate the MIAA Board granted to Gana was tainted with grave abuse of discretion as Gana¶s exercise of the management¶s prerogative to choose the awardee of a service contract was done arbitrarily. Gana, the RTC added, should have conducted a public bidding, noting that Gana erred in relying on the law and executive issuances he cited because those do not do away with the required public bidding, as held in National Food Authority v. Court of Appeals.23 Following the denial of Gana¶s motion for reconsideration, MIAA and Gana appealed before the CA, their recourse docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 67092. Civil Case Nos. 02-0517 and 03-0025 During the pendency of the appeal of the first TCSI case before the CA in CA-G.R. SP No. 67092, MIAA and TCSI engaged in several exchanges regarding payment of TCSI employees¶ salaries. It appears that MIAA promised to pay TCSI¶s employees who were allegedly not paid their salaries on time. According to MIAA, it had not paid TCSI the monthly billings per contract owing to the non-submission by TCSI, as required in the contract, of the proper billing requirements and proof of actual payment of TCSI¶s employees for the payroll period. On September 9, 2002, TCSI sent a demand letter24 to MIAA for contract billings since late June 2002. In the letter, TCSI also protested MIAA¶s unilateral precondition that the former submit proof of actual wage payment to its employees. TCSI claimed MIAA¶s delay in payment resulted in financial losses for TCSI. TCSI reiterated its demand on October 4, 2002 for the periods covering July to September 2002, TCSI this time accusing MIAA of deliberately delaying payment which had adversely affected TCSI¶s business since it could not increase its manpower nor buy enough janitorial supplies and materials, making it liable to MIAA for liquidated damages. TCSI appealed to MIAA to waive the liquidated damages it was charging TCSI for the period July to September 2002. On October 30, 2002, MIAA informed TCSI that it was terminating the latter¶s contract effective 10 days from receipt of the notice or on November 14, 2002.25 As reason therefor, MIAA alleged that TCSI¶s manpower

TRIPLE CROWN SERVICES, INC., petitioner, vs. MANILA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY and THE COURT OF APPEALS, respondents. x-------------------------------------------x DEC ISION VELASCO, JR., J.: The rationale behind the requirement of a public bidding, as a mode of awarding government contracts, is to ensure that the people get maximum benefits and quality services from the contracts. More significantly, the strict compliance with the requirements of a public bidding echoes the call for transparency in government transactions and accountability of public officers. Public biddings are intended to minimize occasions for corruption and temptations to abuse of discretion on the part of government authorities in awarding contracts. Before us are three separate petitions from service contractors that question the legality of awarding government contracts without public bidding. The first petition, docketed as G.R. Nos. 146184-85, assails the November 24, 2000 Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in consolidated cases CA-G.R. SP Nos. 50087 and 50131. The CA affirmed the November 18, 1998 Order2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 119, Pasay City in Civil Case No. 98-1875 entitled Olongapo Maintenance Services, Inc. v. Manila International Airport Authority and Antonio P. Gana, granting an injunctive writ to respondent Olongapo Maintenance Services, Inc. (OMSI). The same CA Decision likewise upheld the November 19, 1998 Order3 of the RTC, Branch 113, Pasay City, granting an injunctive writ to respondent Triple Crown Services, Inc. (TCSI) in Civil Case No. 98-1885 entitled Triple Crown Services, Inc. v. Antonio P. Gana (In his capacity as General Manager of the Manila International Airport Authority) and Goodline Staffers & Allied Services, Inc. The second, docketed as G.R. No. 161117,4 assails the November 28, 2003 CA Decision5 in CA-G.R. SP No. 67092, which affirmed the Decision6 dated February 1, 2001 of the RTC, Branch 113, Pasay City and its April 16, 2001 Order7 in Civil Case No. 98-1885, extending the November 19, 1998 injunctive writ adverted to earlier, ordering petitioners to conduct a public bidding for the areas serviced by respondent TCSI, and denying petitioners¶ motion for reconsideration, respectively. In the third, docketed as G.R. No. 167827,8 TCSI assails the September 9, 2004 CA Decision9 in CA-G.R. SP No. 76138, as veritably reiterated in the CA¶s April 13, 2005 Resolution,10 which granted Manila International Airport Authority¶s (MIAA¶s) petition for certiorari charging TCSI with forum shopping. The CA lifted the March 19, 2003 Writ of Mandamus11 issued by the RTC, Branch 115 in Civil Case No. 03-0025 entitled Triple Crown Services, Inc. v. Manila International Airport Authority for Mandamus with Damages. We consolidated G.R. Nos. 146184-85 with G.R. No. 161117 and G.R. No. 167827 as they all arose from the cancellation of the service contracts of OMSI and TCSI with MIAA.12 The antecedent facts are as follows: OMSI and TCSI were among the five contractors of MIAA which had janitorial and maintenance service contracts covering various areas in the Ninoy Aquino International Airport. Before their service contracts expired on October 31, 1998, the MIAA Board of Directors, through Antonio P. Gana, then General Manager (GM) of MIAA, wrote OMSI and TCSI informing them that their contracts would no longer be renewed after October 31, 1998.13 On September 28, 1998, TCSI, in a letter to Gana, expressed its concern over the award of its concession area to a new service contractor through a negotiated contract. It said that to award TCSI¶s contract by mere negotiation would violate its right to equal protection of the law. TCSI thus suggested that a public bidding be conducted and that the effectivity of its service contract be meanwhile extended until a winning bid is declared. A similar letter from OMSI to MIAA followed.14

was insufficient and, thus, was delinquent in the delivery of supplies²both in violation of paragraph 9.0226 of the service contract. TCSI protested the termination which it viewed as violative of the injunctive writ issued by Branch 113. It blamed MIAA for deliberately refusing and delaying to pay TCSI, which forced TCSI into a situation where it could not comply with its contract. TCSI accused MIAA of arbitrarily terminating its contract to replace TCSI with another outfit and for ignoring Article VIII of the contract, the arbitration clause. It also posited that par. 9.02 was a clause of adhesion and could not be enforced. On November 11, 2002, TCSI sent a demand letter27 for PhP 18,091,957.94 to MIAA, the amount representing, among others, claims for janitorial services, illegal deductions made from billing for janitorial services, and arbitrary deductions made for alleged undelivered supplies. In its letter-reply28 of November 13, 2002, MIAA asserted that the termination of TCSI¶s service contract did not violate the injunctive writ as the writ covered only the extension of the contract period until such time that a new awardee was chosen through public bidding. To MIAA, the writ did not enjoin contract termination for cause, such as for violation of par. 9.02 of the contract. Moreover, MIAA asserted that TCSI did not comply with Art. 1, par. 1.03 of the "status quo contract" which stipulates that TCSI shall strictly and fully comply with the procedures/instructions issued by MIAA, as part of the invitation to bid, and instructions that may be issued by MIAA from time to time±±all integral parts of the contract. According to MIAA, it was TCSI that chose to ignore these instructions and did not present proof of actual payment to TCSI employees. On the eve of November 18, 2002, MIAA refused entry to TCSI employees and took over the janitorial services in the area serviced by TCSI. Subsequently, on November 25, 2002, TCSI filed a Petition for Contempt with Motion to Consolidate,29 impleading Edgardo Manda who took over as GM of MIAA. The petition, entitled Triple Crown Services, Inc. v. Edgardo Manda, in his capacity as General Manager of the Manila International Airport Authority and docketed as Civil Case No. 02-0517 (second TCSI case for contempt), was raffled to the RTC, Branch 108, Pasay City. In it, TCSI mainly alleged that the unilateral termination by MIAA of their service contract on alleged contract violation brought about by MIAA¶s refusal to pay TCSI was a blatant and contumacious violation of the injunctive writ issued by Branch 113. TCSI also prayed that the petition for contempt be consolidated with the first TCSI case. On the same day that the petition for contempt was filed, MIAA sent a reply30 to TCSI¶s demand letter asserting that MIAA could not pay the items TCSI demanded because TCSI had not presented any billings for the period it wanted to be paid, among other reasons. Meanwhile, pending resolution of the second TCSI case for contempt, TCSI filed on January 24, 2003 a Petition for Mandamus with Damages31 against MIAA entitled Triple Crown Services, Inc. v. Manila International Airport Authority, docketed as Civil Case No. 03-0025 (third TCSI case for mandamus) and again raffled to Branch 115, wherein TCSI sought to maintain the status quo order issued by Branch 113 in the first TCSI case and to compel MIAA to pay PhP 18 million to TCSI. In its Comment, MIAA denied all of TCSI¶s allegations and accused TCSI of forum shopping. On March 4, 2003, in the third TCSI case for mandamus, Branch 115 granted32 the Writ of Mandamus to TCSI and ordered MIAA to comply with the Writ of Preliminary Injunction issued by Branch 113 in the first TCSI case. A week after and because MIAA refused to allow TCSI to peacefully continue its contract services, TCSI filed an Urgent Manifestation With Prayer for the Court to Cite Respondent Motu Proprio in Contempt.33 After the trial court denied MIAA¶s Motion for Reconsideration,34 Manda, in compliance with the trial court¶s show cause order, explained that the writ of mandamus had not yet become final and executory and a writ of execution was still needed before mandamus could be enforced. On March 24, 2003, MIAA assailed the March 4, 2003 and March 19, 2003 Orders of the trial court before the CA through a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 in CA-G.R. SP No. 76138, praying for a TRO and/or writ of preliminary injunction for the trial court to desist from further proceedings with the third TCSI case for mandamus. A day after, in the second TCSI case for contempt, the RTC directed the arrest of Manda for his failure to comply with the orders of the court. This did not materialize because two days after, the CA granted a TRO enjoining the enforcement of the assailed orders and the writ of mandamus and, consequently, lifted the warrant of arrest for Manda.

Thereafter, Manda filed a Manifestation and Motion to Dismiss the second TCSI case for contempt on the ground of forum shopping. The trial court denied the motion on the ground that the contempt case was an entirely distinct and separate cause of action from the mandamus case pending in another RTC branch. It said the contempt case was grounded on the alleged disobedience of Manda of the RTC, Branch 113 Order and injunctive writ in the first TCSI case appealed before the CA which could not be considered final and executory. Hence, the trial court ruled that the contempt case was prematurely filed and it thus had not acquired jurisdiction over it. The Ruling of the Court of Appeals in the consolidated cases docketed CA-G.R. SP Nos. 50087 and 50131 involving the injunctive writs issued in the OMSI case and First TCSI case Recall that MIAA assailed the injunctive writs issued by the trial court thru petitions for certiorari under Rule 65 before the CA, docketed as CA-G.R. SP Nos. 50087 and 50131. On November 24, 2000, the CA rendered the assailed Decision, denying due course to and dismissing the petitions.35 The CA stated that respondentsjudges did not gravely abuse their discretion in issuing the injunctive writs enjoining MIAA from terminating the service contracts of OMSI and TCSI. Relying on Manila International Airport Authority v. Mabunay (Mabunay)36 and National Food Authority,37 the CA said that MIAA and Gana failed to satisfactorily show why the aforementioned cases should not apply. Moreover, the appellate court explained that notwithstanding the expiration of the service contracts of OMSI and TCSI, they both have extant interests as possible applicants. Aggrieved by the CA Decision, MIAA and Gana filed the instant petition docketed as G.R. Nos. 146184-85. The Ruling of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 67092 Recall likewise that the RTC in the first TCSI case granted an injunctive writ in favor of TCSI. On appeal, on November 28, 2003, the CA in CA-G.R. SP No. 67092 rendered the assailed Decision, affirming that of the RTC38 and reasoning that Sec. 1(e) of EO 301, series of 1987, entitled Decentralizing Actions on Government Negotiated Contracts, Lease Contracts and Records Disposal, relied upon by Gana and MIAA, does not apply to service contracts but only to requisitions of needed supplies. The CA applied our ruling in Kilosbayan, Incorporated v. Morato (Kilosbayan),39 where we held that the "supplies" mentioned as exceptions in EO 301 refer only to contracts for the purchase of supplies, materials, and equipment, and do not refer to other contracts, such as lease of equipment, and that in the same vein, "supplies" in Sec. 1(e) of EO 301 only include materials and equipment and not service contracts, which are included in the general rule of Sec. 1. The CA, relying on Mabunay40 and National Food Authority, explained that Sec. 9 of EO 903, Sec. 82 of RA 8522, and Sec. 417 of the GAAM must be harmonized with the provisions of EO 301 on public biddings in all government contracted services. The rationale for public bidding, the CA said, is to give the public the best possible advantages through open competition. Without filing a motion for reconsideration, Gana and MIAA now question the above Decision of the appellate court in CA-G.R. SP No. 67092 through a Petition for Review on Certiorari docketed as G.R. No. 161117 before us. The Ruling of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 76138 On September 9, 2004, the CA rendered the assailed Decision, granting MIAA¶s petition for certiorari. It annulled and set aside the March 4, 2003 Order and March 19, 2003 Writ of Mandamus and dismissed the third TCSI case for mandamus with prejudice.41 The CA found TCSI guilty of forum shopping when it filed the third TCSI case for mandamus while the second TCSI case for contempt was pending. Further, the CA observed that the two cases have identical parties, prayed for the same reliefs, and were anchored on the same writ of preliminary injunction issued in the first TCSI case. Citing Philippine Commercial International Bank v. Court of Appeals,42 the CA concluded that elements of litis pendentia were present and TCSI was guilty of forum shopping. TCSI¶s motion for reconsideration was likewise denied in the April 13, 2005 CA Resolution. TCSI now assails the above Decision and Resolution before us in a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 docketed as G.R. No. 167827. The Issues In G.R. Nos. 146184-85, MIAA and Gana raise the following issues for our consideration: 1. Whether [or not] the Court of Appeals erred in declaring that respondents had extant interests in the awarding of the service contracts. 2. Whether [or not] the Court of Appeals erred in holding that petitioners had no power to award the service contracts through negotiation.43

In G.R. No. 161117, Gana and MIAA raise the following issues for our consideration: Whether [or not] the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the exception in Section 1 (e) of [EO] 301 applies only to requisition of needed supplies and not to the contracting of public services. Whether [or not] the Court of Appeals erred in holding that respondent is not estopped from questioning the negotiated contract between MIAA and [Goodline]. Whether there was a violation of respondent¶s right to equal protection.44 In G.R. No. 167827, TCSI raises the following issues for our consideration: I. Whether or not the respondent can be compelled by Mandamus to maintain the status quo ante, as earlier ordered by this Honorable Court and be held liable for damages for unilaterally terminating the service contract of the petitioner in violation of said status quo order. II. Whether or not the herein petitioner is guilty of forum shopping. III. Whether or not the herein private respondent complied with the requisites for the institution of a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the Court of Appeals.45 Propriety of the issuance of the injunctions We will jointly tackle G.R. Nos. 146184-85 and 161117 since the issues raised are closely interwoven. The incidents in the two assailed decisions not only arose from the first TCSI case, but also involved the same issue of the propriety of preliminary and permanent injunctions. MIAA and Gana strongly assert that OMSI and TCSI have no right to be protected by the injunctive writs as the term of their service contracts had already expired on October 31, 1998. Petitioners rely on National Food Authority, where we held that no court can compel a party to agree to a contract or its extension through an injunctive writ since an extension of a contract is only upon mutual consent of the parties. MIAA and Gana also argue that OMSI and TCSI are estopped from questioning the validity of a contract acquired through negotiations since the service contracts of OMSI and TCSI with MIAA were also negotiated contracts and did not undergo public bidding. These negotiated contracts are among the exceptions in Sec. 1 of EO 301. MIAA and Gana posit that the exceptions in Sec. 1 cover both contracts for public services and contracts for supplies, materials, and equipment. And, since TCSI¶s contract expired on October 31, 1998, and MIAA refused to extend the contracts, OMSI and TCSI have no right of renewal or extension of their service contract. We agree with MIAA and Gana. It is undisputed that the service contracts of OMSI and TCSI expired on October 31, 1998 and were not extended by MIAA. Hence, all the rights and obligations arising from said contracts were extinguished on the last day of the term. As a result, OMSI and TCSI had already lost their rights to render janitorial and maintenance services for MIAA starting November 1, 1998. Such being the case, the Court rules that the TROs and writs of preliminary injunction issued in favor of OMSI and TCSI are irregular and without legal basis for the following reasons, to wit: (1) The November 18, 1998 injunctive writ in favor of OMSI in the OMSI case and the November 19, 1998 injunctive writ in favor of TCSI in the first TCSI case were in the nature of writs of mandatory preliminary injunction. In Bautista v. Barcelona,46 we made clear that a mandatory injunction is an extreme remedy and will be granted only on a showing that (a) the invasion of the right is material and substantial; (b) the right of the complainant is clear and unmistakable; and (c) there is an urgent and paramount necessity for the writ to prevent serious damage.47 It is apparent that OMSI and TCSI have no more legal rights under the service contracts and, therefore, they have not met the vital procedural requirement that they must have material and substantial rights that have to be protected by courts.

(2) The service contracts of OMSI and TCSI may not be extended through the instrumentality of an injunctive writ. It is a doctrine firmly settled in this jurisdiction that courts have no power to make a contract for the parties nor can they construe contracts in such a manner as to change the terms of the contracts not contemplated by the parties.48 Verily, under Art. 1308 of the Civil Code, the contract between the parties is the law between them; mutuality being an essential characteristic of contracts giving rise to reciprocal obligations.49 And under Art. 1306 of the Code, the parties may establish stipulations mutually acceptable to them for as long as such are not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order, or public policy. And where a determinate period for a contract¶s effectivity and expiration has been mutually agreed upon and duly stipulated, the lapse of such period ends the contract¶s effectivity and the parties cease to be bound by the contract. It is undisputed that the service contracts were to terminate on October 31, 1998. Thus, by the lapse of such date, where no contract extension had been mutually agreed upon by the parties, the trial court cannot force the parties nor substitute their mutual consent to a contract extension through an injunction. Indeed, MIAA¶s decision not to extend the service contracts of OMSI and TCSI is a valid exercise of management prerogative. Certainly, there is no law that prohibits management discretion, even if it be a governmental agency or instrumentality or a government-owned or controlled corporation, from extending or not extending a service contract. Certainly, MIAA¶s management can determine, in the exercise of its sound discretion and the options available, given the factual and economic milieu prevailing, whether or not it is to its interest to extend a service contract for janitorial and maintenance services. From the foregoing premises, the RTCs in Civil Case Nos. 98-1875 and 98-1885 have erred in issuing the assailed writs of mandatory injunction. Hence, these writs must be nullified. The next issue to be resolved is whether MIAA, in the context of this case, can be barred from entering into negotiated contracts after the expiration of the service contracts of OMSI and TCSI on October 31, 1998. The answer is in the affirmative. Exceptions in EO 301 apply to purchase of supplies, materials and equipment not to contracts for public services We cannot agree with the contention of MIAA and Gana that the exceptions to the public bidding rule in Sec. 1 of EO 301 cover both contracts for public services and for supplies, material, and equipment. Their reliance on Sec. 1(e) of EO 301 for the award of a service contract for janitorial and maintenance services without public bidding is misplaced. For clarity, we quote in full Sec. 1 of EO 301: Section 1. Guidelines for Negotiated Contracts. Any provision of the law, decree, executive order or other issuances to the contrary nothwithstanding, no contract for public services or for furnishing supplies, materials and equipment to the government or any of its branches, agencies or instrumentalities shall be renewed or entered into without public bidding, except under any of the following situations: a. Whenever the supplies are urgently needed to meet an emergency which may involve the loss of, or danger to, life and/or property; b. Whenever the supplies are to be used in connection with a project or activity which cannot be delayed without causing detriment to the public service; c. Whenever the materials are sold by an exclusive distributor or manufacturer who does not have sub-dealers selling at lower prices and for which no suitable substitute can be obtained elsewhere at more advantageous terms to the government; d. Whenever the supplies under procurement have been unsuccessfully placed on bid for at least two consecutive times, either due to lack of bidders or the offers received in each instance were exorbitant or nonconforming to specifications; e. In cases where it is apparent that the requisition of the needed supplies through negotiated purchase is most advantageous to the government to be determined by the Department Head concerned; and f. Whenever the purchase is made from an agency of the government. (Emphasis supplied.) In Andres v. Commission on Audit, this Court explained the rationale behind EO 301, upholding the general rule that contracts shall not be entered into or renewed without public bidding, thus:

57 On January 10. and the GAAM are not discriminatory against them precisely because. EO 903. cited in Mabunay. Part B of this Executive Order applies to leases of buildings. Sec. . that E. EO 262. the denial of equal justice is still within the prohibition of the Constitution. 5359 of RA 9184 in particular authorizes negotiated procurement.51 we ruled that Sec. then MIAA can be directed to conduct a public bidding instead of resorting to a negotiated contract. in denying Kilosbayan Incorporated¶s motion for reconsideration and debunking its contention that EO 301 covers all types of contracts for public services. no express provision of law has granted MIAA the right to forego public bidding in negotiating the award of contracts for janitorial and maintenance services.)50 It is only in the instances enumerated above that public bidding may be dispensed with and a contract closed through negotiations. (Emphasis supplied. Sec. Considering that the negotiated contract is contextually illegal under EO 301. Worse. and equipment. 1(e) of EO 301 includes contracts for public services and is not limited to supplies. It directly applies to the legal issue in the instant consolidated cases that public bidding is required for the award of service contracts. Moreover.Executive Order No. our ruling in National Food Authority. and alternative modes of procurement for public service contracts and for supplies. characterized as it is by red tape and too much delay in the processing and final approval of the required transaction or activity. We find such act illegal and irregular because of the wrong application of the laws by MIAA and not because the pertinent laws are discriminatory against them. or parts inconsistent with her EO. and applies to all forms of contracts. It does not cover contracts of lease of equipment like the [Equipment Lease Agreement]. do not do away with the general rule on public bidding. orders. and is the current law on government procurement. . yet if applied and administered by the public authorities charged with their administration x x x with an evil eye and unequal hand so as to practically make unjust and illegal determination. . E. President Arroyo issued EO 40 which repealed. No. the Court finds no law that is discriminatory against them in relation to their expired service contracts. what can be discriminatory is the intended negotiation of the new service contracts by MIAA which prevents OMSI and TCSI from participating in the bidding. in a Resolution. This law still requires public bidding as a preferred mode of award. XVI60 of RA 9184. The CA has discretion to give due course to the petition We now tackle the procedural issues raised in G. While we have previously explained that OMSI and TCSI have no right to a writ of mandatory injunction to have their service contracts extended by the courts beyond the fixed term. 301 applies only to contracts for the purchase of supplies. or equipment. 417 of the GAAM. TCSI contends that MIAA failed to raise any genuine jurisdictional issues correctable by certiorari.R. 1594. reiterated its original ruling and held that EO 301 was promulgated merely to decentralize the system of reviewing negotiated contracts of purchase for the furnishing of supplies. Further. as RA 7845 "is not the governing law on the award of the service contracts by government agencies nor does it do away with the general requirement of public bidding"54 and that "administrative discretion may not transcend the statutes"55 that require public bidding. EO 302. 1(e). and Presidential Decree No. Sec. as the issues raised by MIAA were all factual matters which involved questions of error of judgment and not of jurisdiction. On October 8." hence. Thus. . or extraordinary circumstances. among others. particularly Sec. materials and equipment." While the lease of equipment was the subject of Kilosbayan. or modified all executive issuances. EO 40. Reyes Construction. the ruling therein can very well apply to the cases at bar. CA: [A]lthough the law be fair on its face. conditions. include contracts for public services cannot be sustained. EO 301. While affirming the general policy that contracts shall not be entered into or renewed without public bidding. In its preamble.53 Sec. particularly its Sec. Clearly. likewise relied upon by MIAA and Gana for grant of authority to negotiate service contract. Inc. In Kilosbayan. Moreover. We are not convinced. RA 8522. and Sec. Thus. 2003. corollarily.61 Given the antecedent facts of these consolidated cases. the acts of MIAA and Gana smack of arbitrariness and discrimination as they not only did not call for the required public bidding but also did not even accord OMSI and TCSI the opportunity to submit their proposals in a public bidding. materials. not of equipment. 1 of EO 301 "applies only to the contracts for the purchase of supplies. is still valid. while other alternative methods of procurement are set forth under Art. 1(e) relied upon by MIAA and Gana. we agree with the courts a quo that the constitutional right of OMSI and TCSI to equal protection is violated by MIAA and Gana when no public bidding was called precisely because the latter were going to award the subject service contracts through negotiation. 298. . In the instant case. and equipment. 417 of the GAAM. materials. At most. 82 of RA 8522 or the General Appropriations Act for 1998. and impartial in appearance. there has to be public bidding where OMSI and TCSI are allowed to participate. 2005. MIAA. We stressed in Genaro R. we reiterate the legal requirement of competitive public bidding for all government public service contracts and procurement of materials. as amended. We are not persuaded. We concluded: In sum.. amended. in its Section 1.58 which expressly repealed. "guidelines for negotiated contracts" thenceforth to be followed. Thus. With regard to the prayer for a mandatory preliminary injunction. 301 was issued on July 26. the situation is different with respect to their right to participate in the public bidding prescribed by law. for reviewing and approving negotiated contracts . this express enumeration excludes all others in accord with the elemental principle in legal hermeneutics. supplies. Since the hiring of said employees dispensed with the need for getting service contractors. MIAA can enter into negotiated contracts in the exceptional situations allowed by RA 9184. 1 of EO 301 and the exceptions to the bidding rule enumerated therein only pertain to contracts for the procurement of supplies. and other existing laws. 82. however. then they have satisfactorily shown that they have material and substantial rights to be protected and preserved by a mandatory injunctive writ against MIAA.) 52 It is thus clear that the contention of MIAA and Gana that the exceptions in EO 301. 2. enacted on October 15. . and it was merely to change the system of administrative review of emergency purchases. and equipment. " It then laid down. materials. and equipment as well as lease contracts of buildings. then the relief of requiring MIAA to conduct public bidding is already unavailing and has become moot and academic. eventually discarded the negotiation of new contracts with prospective service contractors and has decided to hire personnel to render janitorial and messengerial services starting July 31. No.O. 301 explicitly permits negotiated contracts in particular identified instances. as theretofore prescribed by E. does not dispense with the requirement of public bidding to award a contract for janitorial and maintenance services. and Sec. in Kilosbayan. x x x. In Abaya v. 2001. RA 9184 provides for alternative procurement procedures In sum. we could grant the prayer for an order directing a public bidding. 1900. EO 903.O. the "need to decentralize the processing and final approval of negotiated contracts . 1987. v. EO 903. suffice it to say that Sec. However. materials. On the ground of uneven protection of law. is not included in the exceptions. OMSI and TCSI have amply demonstrated their right to require the holding of a public bidding for the service contracts with MIAA. What OMSI and TCSI got was a terse reply that their contracts will not be renewed and that MIAA would negotiate contracts lower than those of OMSI and TCSI without granting them the opportunity to submit their own bids or proposals. Since they were the previous service contractors of MIAA and have manifested their desire to participate in the public bidding for the new contracts. (Emphasis supplied. and the subsequent laws and issuances. On the claim of OMSI and TCSI that their rights to equal protection of laws were violated by the negotiation of the contracts by MIAA with other service contractors. 22. expressio unius est exclusio alterius or the express inclusion of one implies the exclusion of all others. RA 8522. such action is already foreclosed by the decision of MIAA not to hire any service contractor. 82 of RA 8522. . TCSI argues that MIAA¶s petition for certiorari under Rule 65 before the CA should have been outrightly dismissed for manifest violation of par. Competitive public bidding may not be dispensed with nor circumvented." and to the unsatisfactory character thereof in that "such centralized administrative system is not at all µfacilitative¶ particularly in emergency situations. and equipment may only be resorted to in the instances provided for by law. MIAA and Gana posit the view that Sec. 9 of EO 903. 167827 on whether MIAA complied with the requirements of Rule 65 before the CA and whether forum shopping is present. In Mabunay. this Court. No. it adverted to the then existing set-up of "a centralized administrative system . like a contract of lease of equipment. rules and regulations.56 this Court outlined the history of Philippine procurement laws from the introduction of American public bidding through Act No.O. A contract for janitorial and maintenance services. under the present law. Unfortunately. materials. Furthermore. We agree with the apt observation of OMSI and TCSI that Sec. 1 of Rule 65 in failing to attach the required certified true copies of the assailed RTC Orders. the employment of said personnel is within the realm of management prerogatives of MIAA allowed under its charter. No. we ruled that RA 7845 or the General Appropriations Act for 1995 cannot be construed to eliminate public bidding in the award of a contract for security services. as the Court ruled. RA 9184 allows exceptions to public bidding rule in certain instances. Ebdane. particularly Sec. and therefore does not govern the lease contract in this case. EO 301. President Arroyo signed into law RA 9184.

64 We uphold the CA¶s finding that TCSI was guilty of forum shopping: An examination of the two petitions filed by [TCSI] reveals that the elements of litis pendentia are present. pursuant to Section 8. under the circumstances of the case. not arbitrarily or oppressively. MIAA before the Pasay City RTC. SP No. MIAA had no other plain. Edgardo Manda. 76138 shows that not all the issues the latter raised were factual issues. private respondent could likewise claim damages in the petition for contempt filed by it with Branch 108. still it allows the filing of a special civil action of certiorari under Rule 65 when there is grave abuse of discretion in the issuance of the order. 2003. of the parties who represent the same interest in both actions. The reliefs prayed for in the two petitions are likewise founded on the same fact. and Damages with Prayer for TRO and Injunction would not be considered in determining whether forum shopping was resorted to by TCSI when it subsequently filed the second TCSI case for contempt and the third TCSI case for mandamus. should the Presiding Judge thereof find him guilty of violating the writ of preliminary injunction. The test to ascertain whether an order is interlocutory or final is: "Does it leave something to be done in the trial court with respect to the merits of the case? If it does. and a sworn certification of non-forum shopping as provided in the third paragraph of Section 3. Both petitions are based on the alleged violation by petitioner of the writ of preliminary injunction dated November 19. i. and granting such incidental reliefs as law and justice may require. Court of Appeals is instructive. We will not delve into this issue to bear on the instant petition. otherwise. II. the person adjudged guilty of contempt may also be ordered to make complete restitution to the party injured by such violation of the property involved or such amount as may be alleged and proved. but in a reasonable manner in consonance with the spirit of the law. or when a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in another. Antonio P.e. MIAA raised issues alleging grave abuse of discretion on the part of the RTC TCSI argues that MIAA only raised factual matters before the CA which the trial court has ruled upon in the exercise of its jurisdiction and thus are not reviewable by certiorari but only by appeal. This discretion must be exercised. 98-1885 entitled TCSI v. 2000 CA Decision in CA-G. to explain why he should not be cited for contempt for defying the Order dated March 4..65 If the first TCSI case for Prohibition. The above provision clearly vests the CA the authority and discretion to give due course to the petitions before it or to dismiss them when they are not sufficient in form and substance. board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction. the causes of action in the second and third cases are substantially identical because the basis is the disobedience or breach of the writ of injunction. alleging the facts with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered annulling or modifying the proceedings of such tribunal. 98-1875. is accordingly reversed and set aside. Petition for certiorari. a final order is one which leaves to the court nothing more to do to resolve the case. or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Contrary to TCSI¶s contention." It "refers to something between the commencement and end of the suit which decides some point or matter but it is not the final decision on the whole controversy.R. The CA has exercised its discretion in giving due course to MIAA¶s petition before it. (2) The November 24.R. speedy. and (3) identity of the two preceding particulars. copies of all pleadings and documents relevant and pertinent thereto. the court a quo did not err when it ruled that the reliefs in the second and third TCSI cases in effect prayed for the enforcement of the November 19. MIAA assailed the lack or excess of jurisdiction of the RTC resulting from grave abuse of discretion when it issued the questioned orders. respondent Judge directed petitioner to immediately comply with the writ of preliminary injunction. board or officer. 50087 and 50131. Neither has TCSI shown any manifest bias. 146184 (CA-G. the elements of litis pendentia amounting to res judicata do not exist. as the latter is founded on the same set of facts. 2003 granting the writ of mandamus. but leaves something to be done by the court before the case is finally decided on the merits. 2003 and March 19. 2003 and March 19. In fact. Forum shopping exists TCSI¶s contention is devoid of merit. 98-1875 (1) We rule to nullify the November 18. and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. 2003 Orders granting mandamus and denying MIAA¶s motion for reconsideration. 2003. respondent Judge directed petitioner¶s General Manager. Branch 119 Re: November 18. at least. Rule 71 of the Rules of Court provides that if the contempt consists in the violation of writ of injunction. Certiorari is a proper remedy for an interlocutory order granting mandamus (Third TCSI case for Mandamus) The March 4. it is interlocutory. a person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court. 2003 for his failure to comply with the Orders dated March 4. respectively. affirming the aforementioned November 18. speedy. the required pleadings and documents are not attached to them. Moreover. a warrant of arrest shall be issued against him. Abuse of discretion is precisely the thrust in a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. the alleged disobedience or violation of the writ of preliminary injunction by petitioner. temporary restraining order or status quo order. Section 7. 1998 issued in Civil Case No. 1998 Order in Civil Case No. MIAA and Goodline (first TCSI case) before the Pasay City RTC. However. What we held in Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company v. Respondent Judge found the explanation of Manda devoid of merit and directed the latter to allow private respondent to re-assume its post at the airport terminal immediately. and no sworn certificate on non-forum shopping is submitted. TCSI has not shown that the CA has arbitrarily or oppressively exercised its sound discretion. the mandamus writ is an interlocutory one. That private respondent did not find the petition for contempt to be an adequate and speedy remedy as no action has been taken by Branch 108 as of the date of the filing of the petition for mandamus with damages only shows that private respondent indulged in forum shopping. G. 98-1875 entitled OMSI v. TCSI argues it was not guilty of forum shopping when it filed the second TCSI case for contempt and the third TCSI case for mandamus. No. Pasay City. as these are two distinct and separate cases. SP Nos.R. Nor has it shown that the appellate court was not able to or could not go over the pertinent documents in resolving the instant case on review before it. and there is no appeal. a close perusal of the issues raised by MIAA in CA-G. Mandamus."62 TCSI argues that since the trial court still has to hear the issue on damages in Civil Case No. Certainly. In the assailed Order dated March 4. nor any plain. always with the view in mind of seeing to it that justice is served. Rule 46." Conversely. In the Order dated March 12. a warrant of arrest was issued against Manda on March 25. Gana. forum shopping is present. 1998 injunctive writ. fraud.²When any tribunal. 50087) Civil Case No. and cannot be subject of an appeal. Rule 71 of the Rules of Court. 98-1885 [first TCSI case] enjoining the latter to maintain the status quo until after a qualified winning bidder is chosen by way of a public bidding. 50131) TCSI contends that the CA committed reversible error when it held TCSI resorted to forum shopping. and adequate remedy other than a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. According to TSCI. SP No. The Court¶s Dispositions G. are clearly interlocutory orders. anchored as they were on the alleged breach by MIAA of the November 19. The petition shall be accompanied by a certified true copy of the judgment.Sec. however. Such being the case. thus: It has been held that "[a]n interlocutory order does not terminate or finally dismiss or finally dispose of the case. 1 of Rule 65 pertinently provides: SECTION 1.R. In other words. 03-0025 for mandamus and no final decision has yet been rendered. such that any judgment rendered in the other action will amount to res judicata in the action under consideration or will constitute litis pendentia. if it does not. Thus. Rule 41 clearly states that while an interlocutory order cannot be subject of an appeal and the aggrieved party has to await the decision of the court.66 Hence. 2003.R. (2) identity of the rights asserted and relief prayed for.63 There is forum shopping when the following elements concur: (1) identity of the parties or. Moreover. then there could have been merit in TCSI¶s claim of non-forum shopping. SP No. it is final. or illegal consideration on the part of the CA to merit reconsideration for the grant of due course. 1998 writ of preliminary injunction. the same penalty could be imposed on Manda in the petition for contempt filed by private respondent with the RTC. Moreover. is the second and third TCSI cases stemmed from the first TCSI case. order or resolution subject thereof. Branch 108. No. 146185 (CA-G. Branch 113 . Civil Case No. Forum shopping exists when the elements of litis pendentia are present.R. 1998 Order granting the injunctive writ for want of any legal right on the part of OMSI to be entitled to a writ of mandatory injunction. The fact. 1998 Order granting writ of preliminary injunction in Civil Case No.

(Chairperson).On May 27. 167827 (CA-G. CARBONELL. 2003 CA Decision in CA-G. 98-1875 and the November 19. 03-0025 is likewise null and void. 1 of the February 1.On July 24. 6415. No pronouncement as to costs and attorney¶s fees. Branch 119 in Civil Case No. 2003. 67092 and the February 1. SP No. the petition in G. Branch 115 in Civil Case No.. San Fernando. (3) The writ of preliminary injunction is nullified. Nos. cralawAustria-Martinez. The November 24. MIAA (third TCSI case for mandamus) before the Pasay City RTC.R. which was affirmed by the CA. she narrated the incident to her parents. On March 5. G.versus -Ynares-Santiago. it follows that the March 19. La Union in Criminal Case No. is likewise reversed and set aside. are null and void. cralawArzadon moved for reconsideration and requested that a panel of prosecutors be constituted to review the case. Branch 113 in Civil Case No. 98-1875. 76138 is AFFIRMED. it would be legally improper to require MIAA to contract out such services by public bidding since this involves management decisions and prerogative. 2006[3] Order denying petitioners motion for reconsideration. SP Nos. 1998 Order in Civil Case No. the case was provisionally dismissed. The hiring of employees to render janitorial and maintenance services by GM Gana and/or the MIAA management is declared VALID and LEGAL.He told her to go near him and upon reaching his side. The Court declares the service contracts of OMSI and TCSI to have been legally and validly terminated on October 31. for being moot and academic.R. Branch 113 in Civil Case No. 1998. III. should said petitioners decide to procure the services of a contractor for janitorial and maintenance services. 2001 RTC Decision in Civil Case No. 146184-85 is GRANTED. The negotiated contract by and between the respondents and the resolution of the MIAA Board. dated October 2. Branch 115 Re: March 19. However. 161117 is PARTLY GRANTED. The November 28. requiring MIAA and Gana to hold a public bidding. a decision is hereby rendered.Thus. No. 98-1885. We.R. subject to certain exceptions. No. La Union on February 6. the lights had been turned off and the gate was closed.Thereafter. if applicable.June 8.However. ANTONIO A. dismissing the rape case filed against private respondent Jaime O. 03-0025 entitled TCSI v. docketed as Criminal Case No. 2 and 3 of said RTC Decision. 67092) Civil Case No. petitioner filed a complaint for rape against Arzadon. 1998 Order of the Pasay City RTC.R. authorizing MIAA¶s management and/or GM Gana to negotiate and award service contracts upon the expiration of the present service contract on October 31. as follows: WHEREFORE. Respondents. J. WHEREFORE. cralawPetitioner worked as a secretary at the Arzadon Automotive and CarServiceCenter from February 28. J. 2001 Decision in Civil Case No.R. SP. petitioner testified before the investigating prosecutor. 2 of the February 1. as TCSI has not shown any legal basis for the grant thereof. The writ of preliminary injunction is RECALLED and NULLIFIED. Antonio P. 98-1875. 1998 by virtue of the expiration of the contracts¶ term and their non-renewal. The petition in G. 98-1885 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE.Promulgated: San FernandoCity. 1998. 171465 Petitioner. No. 167827 is DENIED for lack of merit and the September 9. Petitioner did not report the incident because Arzadon threatened to kill her and her family.R. she failed to attend the next hearing hence. 2000 CA Decision in CA-G. Arzadon asked her to deliver a book to an office located at another building but when she returned to their office. cralawOn September 16. (2) We rule that. Chico-Nazario. 3.: cralawThis petition for certiorari[1] assails the December 16. and its February 3. and 4. Arzadon moved for reconsideration and during the clarificatory hearing held on October 11. petitioner appeared for clarificatory questioning. Assistant City Prosecutor Imelda Cosalan issued a Resolution[4] finding probable cause and recommending the filing of an information for rape. 98-1885 entitled TSCI v. 98-1885. 2000 CA Decision in CA-G. (2) The November 24. on October 31. set forth in RA 9184 or the Government Procurement Act. We. The case was assigned to 2nd Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Georgina Hidalgo.R. 2001 Decision of the Pasay City RTC. she saw Arzadon standing beside a parked van holding a pipe.*G. 1998 Order of the Pasay City RTC. SP No. the investigating prosecutor issued a Resolution[6] finding that a prima facie case of rape exists and recommending the filing of the information. Branch 113 Decision in Civil Case No.On June 11. both the November 18. Present: . ARZADON. SP No. 6983.Re: November 19. 2004.R. 1998 Order granting the writ of mandatory injunction in the absence of any real and substantial right on the part of TCSI entitling it to such writ under the rules and applicable jurisprudence. is also accordingly reversed and set aside. therefore. JAIME O. and inserted his penis into her vagina. Arzadon filed a Motion to Hold in .During the preliminary investigation. therefore. Likewise.R. 2003 a Resolution[7] finding probable cause and denying Arzadons motion for reconsideration.She wept and cried out for help but to no avail because there was nobody else in the premises. 67092. she went inside to get her handbag. 1998. therefore. But when she discovered that she was pregnant as a consequence of the rape. Arzadon for lack of probable cause. JJ.Nevertheless. then they are ordered to hold a public bidding for said services. a panel of prosecutors was created and after the clarificatory questioning. IV. No. HON. 2001 at about 6:30 p. 2003 CA Decision in CA-G. Branch 113. 3 of the February 1. 1998 are hereby declared NULL and VOID.R. Branch 27.m. MIAA was required by EO 301 to conduct public bidding. 1998 Order granting the injunctive writ (1) We rule to nullify the November 19. set aside par.R. The November 28. and Nachura. MIAA and Goodline (first TCSI case) Re: February 1.x DECISION YNARES-SANTIAGO. The Pasay City RTC. in his capacity as Presiding Judge. G. San Fernando. 2007 x ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------. 98-1885. and the negotiated contract for services with Goodline is prohibited and null and void. We. 2002. 161117 (CA-G. Branch 27. 2002. Gana. On her way out. for want of legal basis. 50087 and 50131 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS. Branch 27. 2001 to August 16. No. authorizing MIAA management and/or respondent GM Gana to negotiate and award service contracts upon the expiration of the present service contract. affirm par. 2004 Decision in CA-G. AAA. petitioner filed another Affidavit-Complaint[5] with a comprehensive account of the alleged rape incident. 98-1885 (1) We rule that the negotiated contract between MIAA and Goodline and the resolution of the MIAA Board dated October 2. SP No. 1998 Order of the Pasay City RTC. affirming the November 18. ordering as follows: 1. However. Branch 119 is ordered to continue with the proceedings in Civil Case No. 03-0025 Since the November 19. 50087 and 50131. 2003 Writ of Mandamus in Civil Case No. he threatened her with the pipe and forced her to lie on the pavement. 2. SP No. The petition in G. 2001. 76138) Civil Case No. 2003 Writ of Mandamus issued in Civil Case No. the panel issued on October 13. cralawAn Information[8] for rape was filed before the Regional Trial Court. 2001 Decision of the Pasay City RTC. 2003. La Union and ENGR. 2001 Pasay City RTC. 98-1885 (first TCSI case) granting the injunctive writ is.R. affirming the aforementioned pars. in 1998. 2002. 2005[2] Order of the Regional Trial Court. set aside par. Nos. null and void.He removed her pants and underwear.R. Regional Trial Court. since MIAA decided against hiring contractors for janitorial and maintenance services and instead directly hired employees for the purpose.

WHEREFORE. 6983 for lack of probable cause. habeas corpus and injunction. to any Court in Metro Manila. We rule in the affirmative.That failure may even be construed as a confirmation of the Defenses contention reflected in the case record. and not Rule 45. Record also shows in no unclear terms that in all the scheduled hearings of the case. no warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce. 2005. The petition has merit. compel us to resolve the present controversy in order to avoid further delay. petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration claiming that the documentary evidence sufficiently established the existence of probable cause.[18] While petitioner claims to have brought the instant action under Rule 45. A petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 is distinct from a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 in that the former brings up for review errors of judgment while the latter concerns errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The issues for resolution are 1) whether the petition should be dismissed for being the wrong mode of appeal. Branch 25. 6983. 6983 for lack of probable cause on the ground that petitioner and her witnesses failed to comply with his orders to take the witness stand. she likewise filed a petition[14] with this Court for the transfer of venue of Criminal Case No. for utter lack of probable cause. the accused had always been present. Respondent Judge Carbonell argues in his Comment[17] that the finding of probable cause by the investigating prosecutor is not binding or obligatory. has apparently convinced petitioner Beltran that the Constitution now requires the judge to personally examine the complainant and his witnesses in his determination of probable cause for the issuance of warrants of arrest. Meanwhile.Petitioners motion for reconsideration was denied hence.The case was raffled to the Regional Trial Court of Manila. 6415.Pending resolution thereof. a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 may be considered a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 where it is alleged that the respondents abused their discretion in their questioned actions. as indubitably borne out by the case record and considering that the Private Prosecutor. On July 9. this Court in the exercise of its discretion and sound judgment finds and so holds that NO probable cause was established to warrant the issuance of an arrest order and the further prosecution of the instant case. La Union. the Court shall treat the same as a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. Instead of taking the witness stand. the private complainant failed to appear during the last four (4) consecutive settings despite due notice without giving any explanation. In a Resolution[15] dated January 18. 2004. he may opt to personally evaluate the report and supporting documents submitted by the prosecutor or he may disregard the prosecutors report and require the submission of supporting affidavits of witnesses.It is well-settled that although the Supreme Court. DESPITE THE SUPREME COURT RESOLUTION OF JANUARY 18. Petitioner raises the following issues:[16]chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary I RESPONDENT JUDGE ACTED WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OF OR IN EXCESS OF JURISDICTION WHEN IT GRANTED THE MOTION FOR DETERMINATION OF PROBABLE CAUSE FILED BY THE PRIVATE RESPONDENT AND THE SUBSEQUENT DENIAL OF THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION II RESPONDENT JUDGE COMMITTED FURTHER ACTS CONSTITUTING GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR IN EXCESS OF JURISDICTION WHEN IT ORDERED THE COMPLAINANT AND WITNESSES TO TAKE THE STAND FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING PROBABLE CAUSE III RESPONDENT JUDGE ACTED WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION WHEN HE REFUSED TO INHIBIT FROM FURTHER HANDLING THE CASE DESPITE WHISPERS OF DOUBT ON HIS BIAS AND PARTIALITY IV RESPONDENT JUDGE ACTED WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION WHEN IT ISSUED THE ORDER OF FEBRUARY 3. cralaw Arzadon also appealed the Resolution of the panel of prosecutors finding probable cause before the Department of Justice. prodded by the accuseds alleged hostile siblings to continue with the case. formerly Criminal Case No. cralawArzadon claims that the petition should be dismissed outright for being the wrong mode of appeal. . August 11. prohibition. 2006. 2004 Resolution and issued another Resolution[11] finding that probable cause exists. 2006. 6983. this petition. San FernandoCity. 6983. Arzadon filed an Urgent Motion for Judicial Determination of Probable Cause for the Purpose of Issuing a Warrant of Arrest.This is not an accurate interpretation.[21] He claims that under Section 2. the gravity of the offense charged and the length of time that has passed since the filing of the complaint for rape. in the leading case of Soliven v. then Acting Secretary of Justice Merceditas Gutierrez found no probable cause and directed the withdrawal of the Information in Criminal Case No. from the Regional Trial Court. 6983 for lack of probable cause. 2005 and eight (8) other similar Orders issued in open Court that directed the complainant/witnesses to take the witness stand to be asked probing/clarificatory questions consonant with cited jurisprudential rulings of the Supreme Court. The case was docketed as Administrative Matter No. Court of Appeals and the Regional Trial Courts have concurrent jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari. despite several admonitions contumaciously nay contemptuously refused to comply/obey this Courts Orders of March 18.However. we must point out the procedural error committed by petitioner in directly filing the instant petition before this Court instead of the Court of Appeals. 2004. the proceedings have been suspended pending the resolution of this petition. 06242289. and that he was justified in requiring petitioner and her witnesses to take the witness stand in order to determine probable cause.[22] the Court explained that this constitutional provision does not mandatorily require the judge to personally examine the complainant and her witnesses.Abeyance All Court Proceedings Including the Issuance of a Warrant of Arrest and to Determine Probable Cause for the Purpose of Issuing a Warrant of Arrest. it appearing that the issues raised by petitioner properly fall under an action for certiorari under Rule 65. a new Information[12] for rape was filed against Arzadon docketed as Criminal Case No. Thus In RESUME therefore.However. however. However. 05-12-756-RTC and entitled Re: Transfer of Venue of Criminal Case No. cralawConsequently. mandamus. the instant case is hereby ordered DISMISSED. as in the instant case. Secretary of Justice Raul Gonzales reversed the July 9. the grounds raised herein involve an alleged grave abuse of discretion on the part of respondent Judge Carbonell. However. such concurrence does not give the petitioner unrestricted freedom of choice of court forum. Article III of the 1987 Constitution. 2005. thereby violating the principle of judicial hierarchy of courts. 2006. however. Accordingly. premises considered. that the only party interested in this case is the Private prosecutor. 2004. and docketed as Criminal Case No. Branch 27. of the Rules of Court.Thus.Instead. GRANTING THE TRANSFER OF VENUE cralawPetitioner contends that the judge is not required to personally examine the complainant and her witnesses in satisfying himself of the existence of probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest. 6983 for lack of probable cause. respondent Judge Carbonell granted the motion and directed petitioner and her witnesses to take the witness stand.[20] We thus proceed to the issue of whether respondent Judge Carbonell acted with grave abuse of discretion in dismissing Criminal Case No. Grave abuse of discretion is not an allowable ground under Rule 45. Makasiar. the Court granted petitioners request for transfer of venue.She argues that respondent Judge Carbonell should have taken into consideration the documentary evidence as well as the transcript of stenographic notes which sufficiently established the existence of probable cause.A contrario. quo warranto. Carbonell granted the motion and directed petitioner and her witnesses to take the witness stand for determination of probable cause. respondent Judge Carbonell issued the assailed Order dismissing Criminal Case No. respondent Judge Antonio A.[19] In this case. and 2) whether respondent Judge Carbonell acted with grave abuse of discretion in dismissing Criminal Case No. which to the mind of the Court may indicate an apparent lack of interest in the further prosecution of this case. Respondent Judge Carbonell dismissed Criminal Case No.[9]On March 18.[10]chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary Upon motion for reconsideration by petitioner. on December 16. DENYING THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION.Thus: The addition of the word personally after the word determined and the deletion of the grant of authority by the 1973 Constitution to issue warrants to other responsible officers as may be authorized by law.[13] In an Order dated August 11. 6415.

of September 6. Respondent judges finding of lack of probable cause was premised only on the complainants and her witnesses absence during the hearing scheduled by the respondent judge for the judicial determination of probable cause. and the specific time and place of the incident.The gravamen of rape is the carnal knowledge by the accused of the private complainant under any of the circumstances provided in Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code. Regional Trial Court. They then swiftly established a checkpoint in Acop. judges merely determine the probability. The facts of the case as gleaned from the records are: In an Information dated September 22. or (2) if on the basis thereof he finds no probable cause.[24] where we held that before issuing warrants of arrest. it was unnecessary for him to take the further step of examining the petitioner and her witnesses. The Informtion reads: That on or about the 6th day of September 1998. Respondents. Province of Benguet. submitted to the court by the investigating prosecutor upon the filing of the Information. and with intent of gain and without the knowledge and consent of the owner thereof. the petition is GRANTED. recounting her ordeal in detail during the preliminary investigations. She attended several clarificatory hearings that were conducted in the instant case.Moreover. 6983 for lack of probable cause are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. petitioners. otherwise judges would by unduly laden with the preliminary examination and investigation of criminal complaints instead of concentrating on hearing and deciding cases filed before their courts. Gutierrez. issue a warrant of arrest. 1998. pleaded not guilty to the charge.m. Manila is DIRECTED to take cognizance of the case and let the records thereof be REMANDED to the said court for further proceedings. Benguet was loaded with Benguet pine lumber. the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Benguet Province charged Mabini Epie. Atok.[28] we stressed that the judge should consider not only the report of the investigating prosecutor but also the affidavit and the documentary evidence of the parties. unlawfully and feloniously possess and transport 870 bd. La Union dated December 16. the counter-affidavit of the accused and his witnesses. docketed as Criminal Case No. 2003 Resolution of the panel of prosecutors. 96. 98-CR-3138. on the basis thereof. Trial then ensued.: Assailed in this Petition for Review on Certiorari is the Decision1 of the Court of Appeals dated September 15. there are cases where the circumstances may call for the judges personal examination of the complainant and his witnesses.In doing so. and the Information in the said case is hereby REINSTATED. It is only then that the truth as to Arzadons innocence or guilt can be determined. AYB 117 at Km. Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court. the abovenamed accused. Indeed. all of which sustain a finding of probable cause against Arzadon. In this case. Benguet. Branch 10. . Benguet (presided by respondent Judge Nelsonida T.360. 2005. NELSONIDA T. 2007 MABINI EPIE. not the certainty. Branch 25. to the damage and prejudice of the GOVERNMENT in the actual sum aforesaid.[23] We reiterated the above ruling in the case of Webb v. La Trinidad. After a careful examination of the records. Probable cause is that which engenders a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and that the respondent is probably guilty thereof and should be held for trial.[29]If the report.She also claimed that she bore a child as a result of the rape and.00). The case was raffled to the Regional Trial Court. and February 3.The Regional Trial Court. 55684. THE HON. conspiring. Jr. the judge may rely on the report of the investigating prosecutor. La Trinidad. presented the child and her birth certificate as evidence. ft. did then and there willfully. a full-blown trial is to be preferred to ferret out the truth.[33]Petitioner has categorically stated that Arzadon raped her. 705. SP No. Petitioners.Suffice to say that the credibility of petitioner may be tested during the trial where the respective allegations and defenses of the complainant and the accused are properly ventilated. SPO2 Alberto Ngina of the Philippine National Police (PNP) Tublay Station received an information from a confidential agent that a jeepney with Plate No.Considering there is ample evidence and sufficient basis on record to support a finding of probable cause. No. Arzadon merely relied on the defense of alibi which is the weakest of all defenses. it is not compulsory that a personal examination of the complainant and his witnesses be conducted. with violation of Section 68 of Presidential Decree No. with the assistance of counsel de parte. 2003. if any. respondent Judge Carbonell dismissed Criminal Case No. SPO2 Ngina immediately relayed the information to SPO4 Rentao Quitoriano and SPO1 Domingo Pulig. he may disregard the fiscals report and require the submission of supporting affidavits of witnesses to aid him in arriving at a conclusion as to the existence of probable cause. judges do not conduct a de novo hearing to determine the existence of probable cause. In contrast. of Benguet Pine lumber having a total market value of TWENTY FOUR THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED SIXTY PESOS (P24. confederating. belonging to the REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES. WHEREFORE.In Okabe v. San Fernando. 6983 for lack of probable cause on the ground that petitioner and her witnesses failed to take the witness stand.The determination of probable cause for purposes of issuing the warrant of arrest is made by the judge. is sufficient to sustain a finding of probable cause.[35]As it were.[27]Otherwise. ULAT-MARREDO. the incidents of this case have been pending for almost five years without having even passed the preliminary investigation stage. he erred in holding that petitioners absences in the scheduled hearings were indicative of a lack of interest in prosecuting the case. both petitioners. Tublay. he shall: (1) personally evaluate the report and the supporting documents submitted by the fiscal regarding the existence of probable cause and. When arraigned.2 as amended. 1998. Petitioner narrated in detail the alleged rape incident both in her Sinumpaang Salaysay[30] dated July 24. along the Halsema National Highway at Acop. 2002 shows that she positively identified Arzadon as her assailant. But it must be emphasized that such personal examination is not mandatory and indispensable in the determination of probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest. Municipality of Tublay. he failed to evaluate the evidence in support thereof. and the July 1. the judge is not required to personally examine the complainant and his witnesses. Ulat-Marredo).It is well-settled that a finding of probable cause need not be based on clear and convincing evidence beyond reasonable doubt. Benguet and THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES.[25] It is well to remember that there is a distinction between the preliminary inquiry which determines probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest and the preliminary investigation proper which ascertains whether the offender should be held for trial or be released. 2005 Resolution of the Department of Justice. 2006 dismissing Criminal Case No. Taken with the other evidence presented before the investigating prosecutors. DEC ISION SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ. G.The preliminary investigation proper whether or not there is reasonable ground to believe that the accused is guilty of the offense charged is the function of the investigating prosecutor. The evidence for the prosecution shows that at around 2:30 p. as amended. 148117 March 22.They just personally review the initial determination of the prosecutor finding a probable cause to see if it is supported by substantial evidence.R.It does not require that the evidence would justify conviction. De Leon. CONTRARY TO LAW. Branch 10. Branch 27. and RODRIGO PALASI. 2003 Resolution of 2nd Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Georgina Hidalgo. 2000 in CA-G.The transcript of stenographic notes[32] of the hearing held on October 11.In fact. [34] It is clear therefore that respondent Judge Carbonell gravely abused his discretion in dismissing Criminal Case No. Sound policy dictates this procedure. such is sufficient for purposes of establishing probable cause. Needless to say. vs.R. taken together with the supporting evidence. in support of her contentions.What the Constitution underscores is the exclusive and personal responsibility of the issuing judge to satisfy himself of the existence of probable cause.The necessity arises only when there is an utter failure of the evidence to show the existence of probable cause. we find that there is sufficient evidence to establish probable cause. J. provided that he likewise evaluates the documentary evidence in support thereof. and Rodrigo Palasi. Philippine Currency. of guilt of an accused.Following established doctrine and procedure. what the law requires as personal determination on the part of the judge is that he should not rely solely on the report of the investigating prosecutor. JR. and mutually aiding each other and without any authority of law or without any license or permit granted by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). the records show that she has relentlessly pursued the same.In satisfying himself of the existence of probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest. the October 13.The Orders of the Regional Trial Court.[26] True. Presiding Judge. as well as the transcript of stenographic notes taken during the preliminary investigation. 2002 and Complaint-Affidavit[31] dated March 5. 6983 without taking into consideration the June 11. Moreover.

m. Sarap.m. This right to undisturbed privacy is guaranteed by Section 2. and (7) exigent and emergency circumstances. the search involved a moving vehicle. a confidential informer disclosed to SPO2 Ngina that a passenger jeepney with Plate No. SP No. No.m. it was denied in a Resolution dated September 27. that he received a tip from an asset that a bundle of marijuana was being transported by appellant to Huyon-huyon from another barangay in Tigaon. Municipality of Tigaon. he found some pieces of lumber under it. Armando Palasi. Camarines Sur. Verily. 2001. affirming in toto the judgment2 of the Regional Trial Court of Camarines Sur. Subsequently. of dried marijuana leaves (Indian Hemp) without the necessary license. and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce. Benguet to intercept the jeepney. unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession. appellee. Petitioners then filed a motion for reconsideration.6 The above rule. the above-named accused. and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. the instant petition raising the sole issue of whether the police officers have a probable cause to believe that the subject vehicle was loaded with illegal cargo and that. AYB 117 loaded with Benguet pine lumber was at Km. We recall that at around 2:30 p.: Subject of this appeal is the Decision1 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G. La Trinidad. a search and seizure must be carried through with judicial warrant. SALVADOR PEÑAFLORIDA. Hence. This ruling squarely applies to the present case. Probable cause is the existence of such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonable. In a Resolution4 dated July 26. that the search conducted without warrant by the police officers is valid. Branch 30. The police officers flagged appellant down and found marijuana wrapped in a cellophane and newspaper together with other grocery items. [o]ne bundle estimated to be one (1) kilo more or less. (3) search in violation of customs laws. Camarines Sur. possess and to deliver with the use of a bicycle.7 we listed the exceptions where search and seizure may be conducted without warrant. Petitioners could not produce the required DENR permit to cut and transport the same. with intent to sell. provides that any evidence obtained in violation of the above provision shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding. The police officers confiscated these items and took photographs thereof. In People v. Here. Appellant was then brought to the headquarters where he was booked. The lumber was covered with assorted vegetables. (5) search when the accused himself waives his right against unreasonable searches and seizures. La Trinidad where it finally halted.R.8 In People v.5 They overtook appellant who was on a bicycle. 1998. control and custody. therefore. permit or authority to sell. Hence. In People v. Trial ensued. However. 1994. dated 31 July 2006. When SPO4 Quitoriano lifted a womboc. SP No. Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court. thus: (1) search incident to a lawful arrest. give away to another. through counsel. vs. Article III of the Constitution which provides: The right of the people to be secure in their persons. administer. probable cause must only be based on reasonable ground of suspicion or belief that a crime has been committed or is about to be committed.9 we ruled that in warrantless searches. of the same day. J. it can be stopped and searched without a warrant. distribute. PO3 Pillos and PO2 Edgar Latam. they chased the vehicle up to Shilan.00 was also found in appellant's possession.m. DEC ISION TINGA. recounted that at around 1:00 p. 55684 assailing the said Resolutions of the trial court. we DENY the petition and AFFIRM the assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G. Marso Insiong Dumpit. 96. (4) seizure of the evidence in plain view. Aruta. holding that respondent judge did not commit grave abuse of discretion tantamount to lack or excess of jurisdiction. At around 4:00 p. in an apparent attempt to dissuade the police from proceeding with their inspection. papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable. A PNP roadblock was then placed in Acop. respondent judge denied the motion. The team boarded the police mobile car and proceeded to Sitio Nasulan in Barangay Huyon-huyon. Province of Camarines Sur. Tublay. CR No. docketed as CA-G. 1999. and that the confiscated pieces of lumber are admissible in evidence against the accused. there exists probable cause to justify a reasonable belief on the part of the law enforcers that the persons on board said vehicle were officers of the law or that the vehicle contained objects which were instruments of some offense. who was the chief intelligence officer of Tigaon PNP. in the afternoon thereat. Callo saw the . however. at Barangay Huyon-huyon. 1999. in Criminal Case No. Hence. Benguet. petitioners filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for certiorari and prohibition. After the prosecution presented its evidence. WHEREFORE. The only issue we should determine is whether there was probable cause to justify such warrantless search and seizure. (6) stop and frisk. SPO3 Vicente Competente (Competente) narrated that in his capacity as chief of the Investigation and Operation Division of the Philippine National Police (PNP) station in Tigaon. In this jurisdiction. an instance where a warrantless search and seizure may be conducted by peace officers. the police spotted the vehicle. 55684. Two police officers and one forensic chemist testified for the prosecution. SPO2 Ricardo Callo (Callo). the members of the police team caught a man riding a bicycle who turned out to be appellant. appellant pleaded not guilty. forcing the police to chase it until it reached Shilan. the Court of Appeals rendered its Decision dismissing the petition. 01219. There is no hard and fast rule or fixed formula in determining probable cause for its determination varies according to the facts of each case. such search and seizure constitutes derogation of a constitutional right. on 7 June 1994. SPO1 Portugal. JR. They flagged it down but it did not stop. The police immediately arrested and investigated petitioners. (2) search of a moving motor vehicle. of September 6. houses. discreet. Likewise. is not devoid of exceptions. the PNP operatives spotted the jeepney heading toward La Trinidad.4 Major Domingo Agravante (Agravante).R. chief of police of Tigaon. The only requirement in these exceptions is the presence of probable cause. filed a "Motion to Suppress Evidence of the Prosecution" on the ground that the pieces of Benguet pine lumber were illegally seized. petitioners.R. otherwise. 175604 April 10. T-1476. appellant. it was denied in a Resolution5 dated April 11. A search of the vehicle disclosed several pieces of Benguet pine lumber. 2008 THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. Atok. dispatch in transit or transport any prohibited drug from a competent officer as required by law. G. The trial court found appellant Salvador Peñaflorida y Clidoro guilty of transporting marijuana and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay a fine of one million pesos. The Information against appellant reads: That on or about the 7th day of June. also of Article III. like womboc3 and chili. The police saw five persons inside the jeepney then loaded with assorted vegetables.3 Upon arraignment. The driver and his companions admitted they have no permit to transport the lumber.10 we ruled that where a vehicle sped away after noticing a checkpoint and even after having been flagged down by police officers. Vinecarao. deliver. 6 Callo.R. did then and there. ACTS CONTRARY TO LAW. and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and that the objects sought in connection with the offense are in the place to be searched. The amount of P1550. While they were in Nasulan. the fundamental law of the land recognizes and protects the right of a person to privacy against unreasonable intrusions by the agents of the State.At around 4:00 p. Section 3(2). Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration of the Decision. then organized a team composed of Competente as team leader.. On September 15. he was called by Competente and was briefed about the operation. as a general rule. the Court of Appeals did not err in holding that respondent judge did not commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when she ruled that the warrantless search is valid and that the lumber seized is admissible in evidence against petitioners. 2000. Y CLIDORO. willfully. and Ben Arinos. Costs against petitioners. They flagged it down but it did not stop. of that same day. Only petitioners were charged with violation of Section 68 of the Revised Forestry Code.

the court is convinced that the accused Salvador Peñaflorida[. as amended by R. She related that after taking a representative sample from the 928-gram confiscated dried leaves. Rightly so. thus: Now going over the evidence adduced. In assailing his conviction. to Gonzales. was presented as an expert witness to identify the subject marijuana leaves. appellant maintains that he is not aware of the contents of the package.10 Miranda corroborated the testimony of appellant that the two of them went to San Francisco.Jr. the parties were given to file their supplemental briefs.] on the roadside at Nasulan. upon receipt of the information from the asset. Acting on an asset's tip. Tigaon. failed to get the dog. This court. in case of insolvency for the fine and for him to pay the costs. the police did not determine the contents and weight of the package. they met Obias who requested appellant to bring a package. why did you not get a [w]arrant of [a]rrest? xxx Q: The tip that was given to you that it was Salvador Peñaflorida [who] will be dealing marijuana on that date and according to you Salvador was to travel from a certain town to Tigaon. Upon reaching the town proper. Appellant is wrong in concluding that the asset did not name appellant.17 Prefatorily.8 Appellant denied the accusations against him. because it appears undisputed that on June 7. because a person caught illegally possessing or transporting drugs is subject to the warrantless search. the defense counsel even assumed that according to the asset's tip it was appellant who was assigned to deliver the contraband. The accused Salvador Peñaflorida[. V. conduct and attitude under grilling examination. the conclusion is inevitable that the presumption that the police officers were in the regular performance of their duties apply. including their assessment of the witness' credibility are entitled to great weight and respect by this Court. a police team was organized to apprehend appellant who was allegedly about to transport the subject marijuana. 6425. The latter accompanied appellant to the house of Arnel Dadis in San Francisco. the trial court is in the best position to assess the credibility of witnesses since it has observed firsthand their demeanor. No. Q: Where and who? A: He said that marijuana is being transported from Tigaon town to Bgy. SO ORDERED.Jr] shall be six (6) years of prision correccional. In view of the "vague" information supplied by the asset. Camarines Sur. we find no cogent reason to disregard this time-honored principle. on cross-examination. This is so. The dispositive portion of the decision reads: WHEREFORE. hereby recommends to His Excellency. of transporting it. Appellant tried to explain that the package was owned by Obias but the police did not believe him. otherwise known as The Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972. instead of arbitrarily arresting him. accordingly. They. he claims that the alleged asset did not name the person who would transport the marijuana to Huyon-huyon. prompting them to leave. appellant submits that there is doubt that he had freely and consciously possessed marijuana. Camarines Sur [. as charged. the police officers should have first investigated and tried to obtain a warrant of arrest against appellant.Jr. a forensic chemist at the PNP Crime Laboratory Regional Office No. and we quote: Q: Did your [a]sset tell you the place and the person or persons involved? A: Yes[.00) Pesos. the instant case is now before this Court on automatic review.] sir[. So.] by the said police officers being lawful.Jr. at about 1:00 o'clock in the afternoon police officers Vicente Competente and his four (4) other co-police officers apprehended the accused Salvador Peñaflorida[. a thing wrapped in a newspaper and found to be 928 grams of marijuana. The appellate court affirmed appellant's conviction on 31 July 2006. testified that in the morning of 7 June 1994. Jr.11 On 26 October 1998. the trial court rendered judgment finding appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of transporting a prohibited drug. Camarines Sur. D-26-94 dated 9 June 1994. Upon inspection of the package in his bicycle.) No. the latter should have been presented in court.A. they parted ways. as minimum.000. 7 Major Lorlie Arroyo (Arroyo).] That he would deliver marijuana. Third. 1994. the same was tested positive of marijuana. there is no need for the warrant for the seizure of the fruit of the crime.13 In view of the penalty imposed. Camarines Sur in the morning of 7 June 1994 to buy a dog. Both parties manifested their intention not to file any supplemental brief since all the issues and arguments have already been raised in their respective briefs. Second. Q: Now. however. otherwise. On their way back to the town proper of Tigaon. And the witness under cross-examination affirmed it was indeed appellant who would be making the delivery according to the tip: Q: Will you inform this Honorable Court who has given you the tip that the accused was going to deliver that marijuana[?] [W]ho is [this] person? A: It was a confidential tip. he was about to transport the contraband.] sir[. No ill-motive has been presented by the defense against the police officers Vicente Competente and companions by falsely testifying against the accused Salvador Peñaflorida.] I was in the office. with subsidiary imprisonment in accordance with law. Huyon-huyon by Salvador Peñaflorida. being too harsh. Besides.18 Indeed. possession thereof being mala prohibita. the accused Salvador Peñaflorida[. We shall retrace the series of events leading to the arrest of appellant and resolve the issues raised by him.Jr. through the Honorable Secretary of Justice to commute the above penalty herein imposed. He was sent to jail.21 Moreover. he first went to the house of Igmidio Miranda (Miranda) in Sagnay. if not.]sir. The confiscation of the marijuana subject of the instant case and the arrest of the accused Salvador Peñaflorida[. however. which Miranda thought contained cookies. but [sic] on June 1 you were in your office? A: Yes[. appellant argues that the findings of the forensic expert are questionable because there is doubt as to the identity of the package examined. Appellant. object in the "plain view" of an officer who has the right to be in the position to have that view are subject to seizure and may be presented as evidence.] then riding on his bicycle and placed on the still structure at its front. the President of the Philippines. particularly when the Court of Appeals affirm the findings.000.] shall be entitled to full credit of his preventive imprisonment if he agreed to abide with the rules imposed upon convicted person. the court hereby orders its confiscation in favor of the Government to be destroyed in accordance with law. to eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor. The findings were reflected in Chemistry Report No. Q: Since your office is just near the Municipal Trial Court of Tigaon and you were given a tip that Salvador Peñaflorida[. is that the tip? A: Yes[. Article II of Republic Act (R. On their way home. he shall be entitled to four-fifth (4/5) credit thereof.] is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of reclusion perpetua and to pay a fine of One Million (P1. Pursuant to our decision in People v.19 After a review of the records of this case. . if they so desire. Tigaon to buy a dog. On his way home. the said penalty imposed to accused Salvador Peñaflorida[. factual findings of the trial courts. as maximum.Jr. this case was referred to the Court of Appeals. He and Miranda parted ways when they reached the place. upon arrival at the headquarters. As early as 16 November 1996.marijuana wrapped in a cellophane and newspaper in the bicycle of appellant so the latter was brought to the police headquarters and turned over to the desk officer. In a Resolution15 dated 14 February 2007. the trial court lent credence to the testimonies of the police officers.14 however.] committed the offense of illegal possession of 928 grams of marijuana. 7659. the same being incidental to the lawful arrest. they met Boyet Obias (Obias) who requested appellant to bring a package wrapped in a newspaper to Jimmy Gonzales (Gonzales). Jr.Jr. Tigaon. he was flagged down by the police and was invited to go with them to the headquarters.] will be delivering marijuana. who is a resident of Huyon-huyon. Mateo. the police discovered the subject marijuana. Huyon-huyon. the case was directly appealed to this Court on automatic review. The subject marijuana consisting of 928 grams.16 Hence.A.12 In convicting appellant. Fourth. Appellant dropped by the grocery store and the blacksmith to get his scythe. Fifth. First. It further cited excerpts from the result of the preliminary investigation conducted by the judge on Competente. Tigaon. a violation of Section 4. appellant through counsel had already conceded in his Memorandum20 filed with the trial court that based on the tip.9 Appellant placed it in the basket in front of his bicycle and Gonzales proceeded to the Tiagon town proper. having been caught in flagrante delicto.

] [B]ut the tip is he will deliver from Tigaon to Huyonhuyon. sir. Q: And upon reaching the place together with the other member of the team.] Jr. Barangay Huyon-huyon.22 [Emphasis supplied] Prescinding from the above argument.Jr. xxx Q: After you talked with the person with marijuana[.24 In this case. Appellant resorts to a challenge on the validity of his arrest predicated on lack of a warrant of arrest. the most that you will do is first see the Judge of Tigaon in as much as you have not seen yet [sic] the said person carrying marijuana? A: There was no time for us to apply. xxx Q: And after stopping the accused in this case.] [I]f it is illegally confiscated it cannot be used in court. Q: If that is true.] together with the team? Q: Are you aware of the law that illegally confiscated marijuana cannot be used in court? A: When we saw the marijuana and other groceries in his bicycle we invited him to the headquarters. y Clidoro. He invoked the court ruling in People v.] Jr. Libag cannot find application in this case. Q: How is that person related to the accused in this case now? A: He is the one. Mr. The OSG correctly justifies the failure to apply for an arrest warrant because at that point.Jr. [W]e are in Nasulan when we met the man who had with him the marijuana. upon reaching the place. We saw the edges of the marijuana. however. Q: Kindly describe to us the marijuana that you are able to tell that it was marijuana? A: It was wrapped on [cellophane] and newspaper. [sic] what place was that? A: Sitio Nasulan. what did you do? A: We used the mobile and proceeded to the place. Q: When you reached there[. Tigaon. what did you find if you found any? A: We overtook our suspect while riding in a bicycle and we stopped him.28 The police officers succinctly testified on this point when cross-examined. Libag. Salvador was nowhere to be seen. Q: So. In that case.] sir. but [sic] on June 1 you were in your office? A: Yes[. appellant insists that the asset should have been presented in court. who is that person? A: It was a confidential tip. Callo also confirmed that he saw appellant transporting and in possession of the subject marijuana: A: Yes.] sir[. xxx Q: And did the suspect stop? A: Yes[. He saw the marijuana in a package which appellant was carrying inside his basket. CLEDERA: Despite that prohibition under the rules[. Q: Tell us the name of your suspect? A: Salvador Peñaflorida[. His testimony as a poseur-buyer was indispensable because it could have helped the trial court in determining whether or not the appellant had knowledge that the bag contained marijuana. sir[. why did you not get a [w]arrant of [a]rrest from the court? A: There was no time to apply for a search warrant because just after the information was received. noting in the same breath that there is no law requiring investigation and surveillance upon receipt of tips from assets before conducting police operations. Q: When you said we to whom are you referring to? A: The team.] what happened next? A: We saw on his bicycle a wrap[ped] marijuana. thus: Q: And so as the team leader x x x and in connection with the instruction of Chief Domingo Agravante.25 Competente testified that his team caught up with appellant who was riding a bicycle. that is why we chased him. because the marijuana is being delivered so we have no more time to see the Judge.26 FISCAL SOLANO: Conclusion of law. .27 These positive and categorical declarations of two police officers deserve weight and credence in light of the presumption of regularity accorded to them and the lack of motive on their part to falsely testify against appellant. A: It was like a shape of ½ ream of coupon bond and the color is green.Q: So.] without warrant of arrest inspite of the fact that you know that restriction? A: Our apprehension was in plain view. Q: How can you see that it was in open view when according to you the house of Salvador is 120 meters[?] [H]ow can you see that distance? A: I could see that because the marijuana was carried in his bicycle. Camarines Sur.] if any[.] you insisted in apprehending Salvador Peñaflorida[. the crime charged was the sale of shabu where the informant himself was a poseur-buyer and a witness to the transaction. kindly describe to us the edges of the marijuana[.] will be delivering marijuana. ATTY. what else did you do[. to the route where the marijuana was being transported. Q: Who was in possession of that? A: Salvador Peñaflorida[.] I was in the office. you have not seen the shadow of Salvador? A: When the tip was given to us[. time was of the essence in appellant's apprehension. The rule is that the presentation of an informant in an illegal drugs case is not essential for conviction nor is it indispensable for a successful prosecution because his testimony would merely be corroborative and cumulative. Informants are generally not presented in court because of the need to hide their identity and preserve their invaluable service to the police.] what happened next? A: We have not reached yet [sic] the Huyon-huyon proper. sir.23 wherein the non-presentation of the informant was fatal to the case of the prosecution. Q: Now.] I have not seen him[.] its appearance and color. Competente that you were given a tip. we have seen it. Q: For the [record]. such knowledge being an essential ingredient of the offense for which he was convicted. the asset was not present in the police operation. viz: Q: Will you inform this Honorable Court who has given you the tip that the accused was going to deliver that marijuana. Q: Since your office is just near the Municipal Trial Court of Tigaon and you were given a tip that Salvador Peñaflorida[. at the time that you form[ed] a team. Q: Were you able to go to the place as you said? A: Yes. we proceeded.

R. The Constitution guarantees the right of the people to be secure in their persons.] that he does not know that the thing wrapped in a newspaper which Boyet Obias. in the main. Indeed. No. From these series of events. search or seizure without valid warrant is not only ancient. Sale. however.G. The burden of evidence is thus shifted to the possessor to explain absence of animus possidendi. deliver. This was observed by the court during the trial of the case. one is expected to inquire about the contents of a wrapped package especially when it is a mere acquaintance who requests the delivery and. for the enforcement of no statute is of sufficient importance to justify indifference to the basic principles of government. J.. hence. asserts that he did not freely and consciously possess marijuana.32 Appellant. Distribution and Transportation of Prohibited Drugs. Administration. JJ.A. Thus. still it must be exercised and the law implemented without contravening the constitutional rights of the citizens. as a state of mind. The pictures of appellant.33 In criminal cases involving prohibited drugs. But the trial court rejected his contention. to a certain Jimmy Gonzales. because marijuana has a distinct sweet and unmistakable aroma very different from (and not nauseating) unlike tobacco.] Sitio Nasulan. when delivery is to a place some distance away.34 Knowledge refers to a mental state of awareness of a fact. Anent appellant's claim that the package examined by Arroyo was not the one confiscated from him. 7659. Certainly. x x x29 The police was tipped off at around 1:00 p.A. depict a package containing dry leaves suspected to be marijuana. 2007 x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x DEC ISION TINGA. unless authorized by law.36 Furthermore. 7659. Rightly so. No. requested the accused Peñaflorida[. On the other hand. It is subject to contrary proof and may be rebutted by evidence that the accused did not in fact exercise power and control over the thing in question.[2]chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary cralawOn appeal is the Decision[3] of the Court of Appeals dated 28 July 2005. No. La Union dated 31 March 2004 finding petitioner Arsenio Vergara Valdez guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 11 of Republic Act No. Chairperson. or shall act as broker in any of such transactions. For the accused Peñaflorida[. dispatch in transit or transport any prohibited drug. they had no time to secure an arrest warrant as appellant was already in transit and already committing a crime. Article II of R. T-1476. ² The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death and a fine ranging from five hundred thousand pesos to ten million pesos shall be imposed upon any person who. Forensic Chemist Arroyo testified that the specimen she examined was delivered to her by Major Agravante on June 9. more so. 6425. x x x. now dead.35 Appellant failed to satisfactorily establish his lack of knowledge of possession in the instant case.: cralawThe sacred right against an arrest. 9165 (R. 4. the warrantless arrest is justified. Under the circumstances. He was seen riding his bicycle and carrying with him the contraband.000. First. Q: About what time did you see him? A: 1:00 o'clock sir. He admitted that he was about to convey the package. shall sell. demonstrating that a crime was then already being committed. give away to another. The arrest was effected after appellant was caught in flagrante delicto. may be determined on a case-to-case basis by taking into consideration the prior or contemporaneous acts of the accused. affirming the Judgment[4] of the Regional Trial Court (RTC). the decision of the Regional Trial Court of San Jose. it can be inferred that the package confiscated from appellant and the specimen delivered to Forensic Chemist Arroyo for laboratory examination were one and the same. 1994 or two days after the apprehension.Jr. J.A. while the power to search and seize may at times be necessary to the public welfare. In the ordinary course of things.A.R. the appellate court went on to declare that being mala prohibita. is AFFIRMED in toto. Animus possidendi is only prima facie. administer. was a marijuana. No. noting that it was impossible for appellant not to be aware of the contents of the package because "marijuana has a distinct sweet and unmistakable aroma x x x which would have alarmed him.00.170180 Petitioner. distribute. 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act) as amended. Agoo. as well as the surrounding circumstances.Jr. It is also zealously safeguarded.00). Since courts cannot penetrate the mind of an accused and thereafter state its perceptions with certainty. and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay a fine of One Million Pesos (P1."30 In the instant case.Jr. houses. the appellate court had this to say: SPO3 Competente testified that marijuana was confiscated from appellant. it is very hard for the court to accept the claim of the accused Salvador Peñaflorida[. as amended by R. resort to other evidence is necessary. Third."31 Taking one step further. not to notice it is hard to believe. Branch 30 in Criminal Case No. Its odor is different especially from tobacco. Jurisprudence defines "transport" as "to carry or convey from one place to another. 6425 by R. in view of the foregoing. finding appellant Salvador Peñaflorida y Clidoro guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 4. which contained marijuana.m. Respondent.] would deliver to a certain Jimmy Gonzales whose present whereabouts is not known.37 Despite intense grilling from the defense counsel. or that animus possidendi is shown to be present together with his possession or control of such article. The same observation was reached by the trial court: Finally. motive or knowledge thereof is not necessary. states: SEC. Arroyo never faltered and was in fact consistent in declaring that she received the specimen from Agravante on 9 June 1994 and immediately conducted the laboratory test. and did not intend to do so. Appellant. Camarines Sur. Tigaon. ARSENIO VERGARA VALDEZ. No. together with the items seized from him.A. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES.cralawPromulgated: November 23.Q: In what street? A: Huyon-huyon[. it is incredulous that appellant did not ask Obias what the package contained when the latter requested him to do the delivery errand since the package was wrapped in a newspaper and weighed almost one kilogram.A. that appellant was transporting marijuana to Huyon-huyon. Camarines Sur. one commits the crime under R. Section 4 of R. Animus possidendi. it appeared from the cross-examination of appellant that Obias was an acquaintance. Its existence may and usually must be inferred from the attendant events in each particular case. CARPIO MORALES.[6]chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary . cralawTINGA. papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures.]. the police officers first readily saw in plain view the edges of the marijuana leaves jutting out of the package. Intent. No. the police had probable cause to believe that appellant was committing a crime.A. This aroma would have alarmed him. -versus-CARPIO. everytime the wrapper containing the subject marijuana with a volume of 928 grams is brought to court its odor is noticeable. Present: cralawQUISUMBING.000. the lower courts correctly sentenced appellant to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay a fine of one million pesos by virtue of the amendment to Section 4. there can be no conviction unless the prosecution shows that the accused knowingly possessed the prohibited articles in his person. Article II. No.000. Second. denies any knowledge that the package in his possession contained marijuana. 6425 by mere possession of a prohibited drug without legal authority. Finally. and VELASCO. No. Delivery. Branch 31. appellant was riding his bicycle when he was caught by the police. 9165)[5] and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of imprisonment ranging from eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor medium as minimum to fifteen (15) years of reclusion temporal medium as maximum and ordering him to pay a fine of P350.[1] Any evidence obtained in violation of said right shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding. the marijuana was found in the bicycle he himself was driving.38 WHEREFORE.

lugging a bag. that he had knowledge neither of how the marijuana was taken from petitioner nor of how the said substance reached the police officers. He disclosed on cross-examination. he claimed that at Mercados house. cralawAratas and Ordoo corroborated Bautistas testimony on most material points.A. misunderstood or misapplied.[8] cralawOn arraignment. the person to be arrested has committed. that the warrantless arrest effected against him by the barangay tanod was unlawful and that the warrantless search of his bag that followed was likewise contrary to law. we observe that nowhere in the records can we find any objection by petitioner to the irregularity of his arrest before his arraignment. without first securing the necessary permit. trial on the merits ensued with the prosecution presenting the three (3) barangay tanods of San Benito Norte. he was conducting the routine patrol along the National Highway in Barangay San Benito Norte.e. it was petitioner himself who brought out the contents of his bag upon orders from Mercado. As he was walking. as earlier intimated. in his presence. he arrived in Aringay from his place in Curro-oy.I. accused-appellant himself testified that the marijuana wrapped in a newspaper was taken from his bag. Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court.] the existence of the marijuana and his possession thereof. As the defenses sole witness. They chased him. It observed further: cralawThat the prosecution failed to establish the chain of custody of the seized marijuana is of no moment. finding no cogent reason to overturn the presumption of regularity in favor of the barangay tanod in the absence of evidence of ill-motive on their part. tested positive of marijuana. In this case. the unlawfulness of petitioners arrest stands out just the same. Aratas admitted that he himself brought out the contents of petitioners bag before petitioner was taken to the house of Mercado.000. It was then that petitioner was taken to the police station for further investigation. prosecution witness Ordoo. the RTC rendered judgment against him and sentenced him to suffer indeterminate imprisonment ranging from eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor medium as minimum to fifteen (15) years of reclusion temporal medium as maximum and ordered him to pay a fine of P350. or is attempting to commit an offense. After alighting from the bus. No. however. cralawBautista testified that at around 8:00 to 8:30 p. in itself. he averred that it was one of the tanod who did so at Mercados house and that it was only there that they saw the marijuana for the first time.m. Aringay. cralawOn 26 June 2003. On 28 July 2005. put him under arrest and thereafter brought him to the house of Barangay Captain Orencio Mercado (Mercado) where he.A peace officer or a private person may. 9165 in an Information[7] which reads: cralaw That on or about the 17th day of March 2003. he was brought to the police station and charged with the instant offense. his bag was opened by the tanod and Mercado himself. however. He claimed to have been threatened with imprisonment by his arrestors if he did not give the prohibited drugs to someone from the east in order for them to apprehend such person. It was at this point that Bautista and Aratas joined them.[15]chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary cralawAggrieved. to determine the admissibility of the seized drugs in evidence. Although petitioner divulged that it was he who opened and took out the contents of his bag at his friends house. However. Such circumstance finds prominence only when the existence of the seized prohibited drugs is denied. For his part. a sachet of the substance weighing 23. After inspecting all the contents of his bag. conducted as it was without a warrant.[16] cralaw In this appeal.00. Considering this and his active participation in the trial of the case. without a warrant. it is indispensable to ascertain whether or not the search which yielded the alleged contraband was lawful. Petitioner maintains. the appellate court affirmed the challenged decision. did then and there willfully. however. of 17 March 2003. petitioner prays for his acquittal and asserts that his guilt of the crime charged had not been proven beyond reasonable doubt. petitioner was charged with violation of Section 11. Petitioner replied that he was going to his brothers house. The Court of Appeals. the reasonable conclusion is that the arrest of petitioner without a warrant is not lawful as well. the forensic chemist who conducted the examination of the marijuana allegedly confiscated from petitioner. . a cousin of his brothers wife.10 grams and contained in a plastic bag. alight from a mini-bus. was amply proven by accused-appellant Valdezs own testimony. the marijuana leaves purportedly seized from him are inadmissible in evidence for being the fruit of a poisonous tree.[13]chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary Petitioner maintained that at Mercados house.[14]chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary Even casting aside petitioners version and basing the resolution of this case on the general thrust of the prosecution evidence. petitioner claimed that he went to the house of a friend to drink water and then proceeded to walk to his brothers house. in a nutshell. Rule 113 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure provides the only occasions on which a person may be arrested without a warrant. be the basis of his acquittal. jurisprudence dictates that petitioner is deemed to have submitted to the jurisdiction of the trial court. It was Aratas who carried the bag until they reached their destination. who arrested petitioner. and (c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or temporarily confined while his case is pending. control and custody dried marijuana leaves wrapped in a cellophane and newspaper page. The legality of an arrest affects only the jurisdiction of the court over his person. The charges were denied by petitioner. which later turned out to be marijuana leaves. Ordoo testified that it was he who was ordered by Mercado to open petitioners bag and that it was then that they saw the purported contents thereof. Rogelio Bautista (Bautista). Province of La Union. in the Municipality of Aringay. arrest a person: (a) When. Petitioner denied ownership thereof.m. Ordoo then purportedly requested to see the contents of his bag and appellant acceded. Well-settled is the rule that the findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies are accorded great respect and weight. allegedly approached him and asked where he was going. i. Nestor Aratas (Aratas) and Eduardo Ordoo (Ordoo). he could not identify whose marking was on the inside of the cellophane wrapping the marijuana leaves. as averred by Bautista. petitioner appealed the decision of the RTC to the Court of Appeals. agreed with the trial court that there was probable cause to arrest petitioner. They took out an item wrapped in newspaper. Aringay. the Court finds and so holds that a reversal of the decision a quo under review is in order. or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another. he maintains. Thereafter.[11]chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary cralawThe prosecution likewise presented Police Inspector Valeriano Laya II (Laya). the above-named accused. Arrest without warrant. (b) When an offense has just been committed and he has probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it. who appeared suspicious to them. The search. The corpus delicti of the crime.[. he testified that at around 8:30 p. in the absence of any clear showing that some facts and circumstances of weight or substance which could have affected the result of the case have been overlooked. They thus approached him but the latter purportedly attempted to run away. that after he was approached by the tanod and asked to show the contents of his bag.[18] Petitioners warrantless arrest therefore cannot. cralawCONTRARY TO LAW. As petitioner declined. thereby curing any defect in his arrest. La Union namely. it was Aratas who carried his bag. He argues. Moreover. On cross-examination. petitioner pleaded not guilty. eighteen pieces of eggplant and dried marijuana leaves wrapped in newspaper and cellophane. Section 5. 2(2) of R. La Union. is justified only if it were incidental to a lawful arrest. Petitioners bag allegedly contained a pair of denim pants. is actually committing. weighing more or less twenty-five (25) grams. he was simply herded without explanation and taken to the house of the barangay captain.[19] Evaluating the evidence on record in its totality. par. seemed to be looking for something. Laya maintained that the specimen submitted to him for analysis.[9]chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary Finding that the prosecution had proven petitioners guilt beyond reasonable doubt. when lawful.[10] Nonetheless. on 17 March 2003. On their way there. La Union together with Aratas and Ordoo when they noticed petitioner. unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession. At the outset. Consequently. Santol. He denies ownership over the contraband allegedly found in his bag and asserts that he saw it for the first time at the barangay captains house. license or prescription from the proper government agency. to wit: Section 5. was ordered by Mercado to open his bag.[12]chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary II.[17]chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary After meticulous examination of the records and evidence on hand. The tanods observed that petitioner. petitioner testified that he was restrained by the tanod and taken to the house of Mercado. albeit for the first time on appeal.

is considered no consent at all within the contemplation of the constitutional guarantee.[22] Of persuasion was the Michigan Supreme Court when it ruled in People v. not one of these circumstances was obtaining at the time petitioner was arrested. it being the very corpus delicti of the crime. As we explained in Caballes v. where the buy-bust team failed to mark the confiscated marijuana immediately after the apprehension of the accused. Bacla-an A waiver of an illegal warrantless arrest does not also mean a waiver of the inadmissibility of evidence seized during an illegal warrantless arrest.e.[29] As we pronounced in People v. following Terry v. In its Comment. for. who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof. It is not unreasonable to expect that petitioner. Flight per se is not synonymous with guilt and must not always be attributed to ones consciousness of guilt. he was neither caught in flagrante delicto committing a crime nor was the arrest effected in hot pursuit. Rule 113 to operate. petitioners flight lends itself just as easily to an innocent explanation as it does to a nefarious one. Consequently. Orteza[39]. in line with our assumption from the start.[26] If at all.xxx It is obvious that based on the testimonies of the arresting barangay tanod. is actually committing. specific. it cannot therefore be reasonably argued that the warrantless search conducted on petitioner was incidental to a lawful arrest." Even granting that petitioner admitted to opening his bag when Ordoo asked to see its contents.[25]chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary Indeed. cannot be viewed as sufficient to incite suspicion of criminal activity enough to validate his warrantless arrest. and under the circumstances of this case. (4) the education and intelligence of the defendant. connot[es] penal knowledge on the part of the arresting officer. petitioners waiver of his right to question his arrest notwithstanding. The right of the accused to be secure against any unreasonable searches on and seizure of his own body and any deprivation of his liberty being a most basic and fundamental one. but must be shown by clear and convincing evidence. nor did he appear to be then committing an offense. his implied acquiescence. the marijuana leaves allegedly taken during the search cannot be admitted in evidence against him as they were seized during a warrantless search which was not lawful.[35] The existence of dangerous drugs is a condition sine qua non for conviction for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs. That he purportedly attempted to run away as the tanod approached him is irrelevant and cannot by itself be construed as adequate to charge the tanod with personal knowledge that petitioner had just engaged in. Moreover. It is the State which has the burden of proving. the prosecution failed to prove any specific statement as to how the consent was asked and how it was given.[20] The tanod did not have probable cause either to justify petitioners warrantless arrest. (2) arrests effected in hot pursuit. there appears nothing in the record showing that police officers complied with the proper procedure in the custody of seized drugs as specified in People v. and. People. the following elements must concur: (1) proof that the transaction took place. and should be grounded upon a genuine reason. It negates the presumption that official duties have been regularly performed by the police officers. petitioners act of looking around after getting off the bus was but natural as he was finding his way to his destination. Alone. as we pointed out in People v. The question whether a consent to a search was in fact voluntary is a question of fact to be determined from the totality of all the circumstances. Even taking the prosecutions version generally as the truth. have the same physically inventoried and photographed in the presence of the accused.[21] Here.Hence. in Zarraga v.[37] There can be no crime of illegal possession of a prohibited drug when nagging doubts persist on whether the item confiscated was the same specimen examined and established to be the prohibited drug. and (9) the possibly vulnerable subjective state of the person consenting. (2)whether he was in a public or secluded location. to warrant the belief that the person detained has weapons concealed about him.The last includes a valid warrantless search and seizure pursuant to an equally valid warrantless arrest. Notably. it is apparent that petitioner was already under the coercive control of the public officials who had custody of him when the search of his bag was demanded. Relevant to this determination are the following characteristics of the person giving consent and the environment in which consent is given: (1) the age of the defendant. and or his representative.[27] must precede a warrantless arrest. the supposed acts of petitioner. could not have been more than mere passive conformity given under coercive or intimidating circumstances and hence. the search most permissible for the tanod to conduct under the prevailing backdrop of the case was a stop-andfrisk to allay any suspicion they have been harboring based on petitioners behavior. a stop-and-frisk situation. the consent is unequivocal.The following searches and seizures are deemed permissible by jurisprudence: (1) search of moving vehicles (2) seizure in plain view (3) customs searches (4) waiver or consent searches (5) stop and frisk situations (Terry Search) and (6) search incidental to a lawful arrest.[24] [t]he phrase in his presence therein. Tudtud. and intelligently given. i. was actually engaging in or was attempting to engage in criminal activity. We likewise find that it has failed to convincingly establish the identity of the marijuana leaves purportedly taken from petitioners bag. we have ruled as fatal to the prosecutions case its failure to prove that the specimen submitted for laboratory examination was the same one allegedly seized from the accused. to wit: (1) arrests in flagrante delicto. More importantly. The Court thus acquitted the accused due to the prosecutions failure to indubitably show the identity of the shabu. The failure of the agents to comply with the requirement raises doubt whether what was submitted for laboratory examination and presented in court was actually recovered from appellant. walking the street at night. where we deemed the prosecution to have failed in establishing all the elements necessary for conviction of appellant for illegal sale of shabu First.. uncontaminated by any duress or coercion. Accordingly. Court of Appeals[31]chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary Doubtless. (7) the nature of the police questioning. However. in light of the police officers experience and surrounding conditions. would attempt to flee at their approach. The consent must be voluntary in order to validate an otherwise illegal detention and search. By their own admission. Kimura. consent to a search is not to be lightly inferred. if at all. immediately after seizure or confiscation. this Court has ruled that two (2) elements must be present: (1) the person to be arrested must execute an overt act indicating that he has just committed. be limited to the persons outer clothing. Shabaz[23] that [f]light alone is not a reliable indicator of guilt without other circumstances because flight alone is inherently ambiguous. the inadmissibility in evidence of the seized marijuana leaves for being the fruit of an unlawful search is not the lone cause that militates against the case of the prosecution. (8) the environment in which the questioning took place. the conclusion will not be any different.[28]chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary i. More recently. petitioners lack of objection to the search and seizure is not tantamount to a waiver of his constitutional right or a voluntary submission to the warrantless search and seizure.e. following the theory of the prosecution albeit based on conflicting testimonies on when petitioners bag was actually opened. after being closely observed and then later tailed by three unknown persons.[30] When petitioner was arrested without a warrant. We are not convinced. the Court held that the deviation from the standard procedure in anti-narcotics operations produced doubts as to the origins of the marijuana.[36]chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary In a line of cases. by clear and positive testimony.[32] In the case at bar. any apprehending team having initial control of said drugs and/or paraphernalia should.[33] As a result. In all prosecutions for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act. the constitutional immunity against unreasonable searches and seizures is a personal right which may be waived. petitioner testified that he did not run away but in fact spoke with the barangay tanod when they approached him. an arrest is considered legitimate if effected with a valid warrant of arrest.[34]chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary III. For the exception in Section 5(a).[38] As we discussed in People v. even assuming that they appeared dubious. The Court made a similar ruling in People v. the statute or rule that allows exception to the requirement of a warrant of arrest is strictly construed. nor the specific words spoken by petitioner indicating his alleged "consent. (3) whether he objected to the search or passively looked on. (3) arrests of escaped prisoners. the Court held that the material inconsistencies with regard to when and where the markings on the shabu were made and the lack of inventory on the seized drugs created reasonable doubt as to the identity of the corpus delicti. where the Narcom operatives failed to place markings on the seized marijuana at the time the accused was arrested and to observe the procedure and take custody of the drug. the Court concluded that the prosecution failed to establish the identity of the corpus delicti. the Rules of Court recognize permissible warrantless arrests. Moreover. and (2) presentation in court of the corpus delicti or the illicit drug as evidence. that the necessary consent was obtained and that it was freely and voluntarily given. (5) the presence of coercive policeprocedures. In People v. .. the Office of the Solicitor General posits that apart from the warrantless search being incidental to his lawful arrest. petitioner was not committing an offense at the time he alighted from the bus. or is attempting to commit a crime. if there be any. Ohio. while as a rule. petitioner had consented to the search. Its application cannot be extended beyond the cases specifically provided by law. Verily. (6) the defendant's belief that no incriminating evidence will be found. Laxa. and (2) such overt act is done in the presence or within the view of the arresting officer. Lim.

he ran out of the joint followed by his companions. neglected to explain the discrepancies. The nonpresentation. In a while. The information against petitioner alleged ² That on or about the 4th day of February. the said accused. storage.8 Afterwards.[52] In the same vein. how it reached the police authorities or whose marking was on the cellophane wrapping of the marijuana. were having drinks in front of the police station. as minimum.00 to P50. and (1) day of reclusion temporal. dated December 14. The chain of evidence is constructed by proper exhibit handling. . together with one Mario Ilagan. Here. As she removed her brassieres. A final word. Each person who takes possession of the specimen is duty-bound to detail how it was cared for. finding petitioner Felipe Navarro guilty beyond reasonable doubt of homicide and sentencing him to ten (10) years of prision mayor. the appellate court narrowed on petitioners testimony that the marijuana was taken from his bag. within ten (10) days from notice. the floor manager. No costs. No. including petitioner Navarro. vs. J. Stanley Jalbuena and Enrique "Ike" Lingan. 1992. Lucena City. to report the incident. law enforcers and public officers alike have the corollary duty to preserve the chain of custody over the seized drugs. let this serve as an admonition to police officers and public officials alike to perform their mandated duties with commitment to the highest degree of diligence. After the three had seated themselves at a table and ordered beer. the Receipt[41] issued by the Aringay Police Station merely acknowledged receipt of the suspected drugs supposedly confiscated from petitioner. Philippines. although petitioner testified that the marijuana was taken from his bag. Three of the policeman on duty. the burden of proving the guilt of the accused rests upon the prosecution. We find it fitting to take this occasion to remind the courts to exercise the highest degree of diligence and prudence in deliberating upon the guilt of accused persons brought before them. despite these material inconsistencies. Even more damning to its cause was the admission by Laya. which affirmed the judgment of the Regional Trial Court. because this is my job. approached Jalbuena and demanded to know why he took a picture. 1999 FELIPE NAVARRO. However.3 Jalbuena replied: "Wala kang pakialam. Province of Quezon. as a consequence of which said Ike Lingan suffered cerebral concussion and shock which directly caused his death. Jalbuena declined and went to the desk officer. but increased the death indemnity awarded to the heirs of the victim. Plainly. where authorities are supposed to be engaged in the discharge of their duties.2 At that point. after the arrest of petitioner by the barangay tanod.[44] Furthermore. petitioner. 1990. courts are duty-bound to be [e]xtra vigilant in trying drug cases lest an innocent person be made to suffer the unusually severe penalties for drug offenses.[49] for those who become addicted to it not only slide into the ranks of the living dead. the totality of the evidence presented utterly fails to overcome the presumption of innocence which petitioner enjoys. In conjunction with this. from P30. Jalbuena brought out his camera and took a picture. Nevertheless.Thus.[45] Among the constitutional rights enjoyed by an accused. went to the Entertainment City following reports that it was showing the nude dancers.[50] whereas peddlers of drugs are actually agents of destruction.: This is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision1 of the Court of Appeals. by boxing the said Ike Lingan in the head with the butt of a gun and thereafter when the said victim fell. MENDOZA. being then a member of the Lucena Integrated National Police. the prosecution neglected to establish the crucial link in the chain of custody of the seized marijuana leaves from the time they were first allegedly discovered until they were brought for examination by Laya. The evidence show that. what is worse. with a security guard. law enforcers resort to the practice of planting evidence to extract information or even harass civilians. Accordingly. Enrique "Ike" Lingan. The prosecution. by banging his head against the concrete pavement. of the police officers who conducted the inquest proceedings and marked the seized drugs. the havoc created by the ruinous effects of prohibited drugs on the moral fiber of society cannot be underscored enough.7 Sioco and Liquin were met by petitioner Navarro who talked with them in a corner for around fifteen minutes. where the circumstances are shown to yield two or more inferences. the evidence of the defense is weak and uncorroborated.[46] Moreover. in the rightfully vigorous campaign of the government to eradicate the hazards of drug use and drug trafficking. said to him: "Putang ina. he consistently denied ownership thereof. righteousness and respect for the law. if such was the case. the most primordial yet often disregarded is the presumption of innocence. 1994. Branch 5. pushing him to the wall. in the City of Lucena. without taking the statement in full context. they become a grave menace to the safety of law-abiding members of society. one inconsistent with the presumption of innocence and the other compatible with the finding of guilt. and they asked Jalbuena and his companions to join them. The Court of Appeals found as irrelevant the failure of the prosecution to establish the chain of custody over the seized marijuana as such [f]inds prominence only when the existence of the seized prohibited drug is denied. Añonuevo. Dante Liquin. Petitioner Arsenio Vergara Valdez is ACQUITTED on reasonable doubt. they also gave conflicting testimony on who actually opened the same. To buttress its ratiocination.The Director of the Bureau of Corrections is directed to cause the immediate release of petitioner. unlawfully and feloniously assault one Ike Lingan inside the Lucena police headquarters. and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court. The Joint Affidavit[40] executed by the tanod merely states that they confiscated the marijuana leaves which they brought to the police station together with petitioner. without justifiable reason.This elementary principle accords every accused the right to be presumed innocent until the contrary is proven beyond reasonable doubt. Liquin and Sioco arrived on a motorcycle.[47]chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary IV.000. 121087 August 26. respondents. safeguarded and preserved while in his or her control to prevent alteration or replacement while in custody.00. The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty invoked by the prosecution and relied upon by the courts a quo cannot by itself overcome the presumption of innocence nor constitute proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. it cannot be permitted to run roughshod over an accuseds right to be presumed innocent until proven to the contrary and neither can it shirk from its corollary obligation to establish such guilt beyond reasonable doubt. the court must acquit the accused for the reason that the evidence does not satisfy the test of moral certainty and is inadequate to support a judgment of conviction. the records only show that he was taken to the house of the barangay captain and thereafter to the police station.[51] Indeed.[48] and one of the most pernicious evils that has ever crept into our society. at around 8:40 in the evening of February 4. unless the latter is being lawfully held for another cause.R. WHEREFORE. Sgt. Concededly. cralaw Drug addiction has been invariably denounced as an especially vicious crime. is fatal to the case.5 When Jalbuena saw that Sioco was about to pull out his gun. in the nighttime. In this case. this [c]annot be used to advance the cause of the prosecution as its evidence must stand or fall on its own weight and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the defense. We are not oblivious to the fact that in some instances.6 Jalbuena and his companions went to the police station to report the matter. and fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months. 1990. petitioner Navarro turned to Jalbuena and. G. Likewise. This guarantee of the integrity of the evidence to be used against an accused goes to the very heart of his fundamental rights.In the case at bar. the assailed Decision is REVERSED and SET ASIDE.[43] Contrary to the Court of Appeals findings. Alex Sioco. as maximum. we note that the courts a quo neglected to give more serious consideration to certain material issues in the determination of the merits of the case. Not only did the three tanod contradict each other on the matter of when petitioners bag was opened.000. and must exist from the time the evidence is found until the time it is offered in evidence. THE COURT OF APPEALS and the PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. The onus of proving culpability in criminal indictment falls upon the State. a scantily clad dancer appeared on stage and began to perform a strip act. especially in light of the fundamental rights at stake."4 Sioco pushed Jalbuena towards the table as he warned the latter that he would kill him. The failure of the prosecution to prove all the elements of the offense beyond reasonable doubt must perforce result in petitioners exoneration from criminal liability. with intent to kill.[42] We cannot agree. labeling and recording. who were reporters of the radio station DWTI in Lucena City. did then and there willfully. dated July 27. that he did not know how the specimen was taken from petitioner. the forensic chemist. and to inform the Court of the date of his release. or the reasons for his continued confinement. it defies logic to require a denial of ownership of the seized drugs before the principle of chain of custody comes into play.

this court finds that the evidence for the prosecution is the more credible. lacked any motive to make false accusation. arrived and. I'm the best media man. ni Stanley. The appeal is without merit. the station commander. between his left and right eyebrows. Lingan fell on the floor. buti nga. Do not fight with me. Apparently. His right hand was trembling and he simply wrote his name in print. The defense's evidence which consists of outright denial could not under the circumstance overturn the strength of the prosecution's evidence. Alisin ko daw ang baril ko. Ang kaso lang . Casañada. Pare. Lingan: You are challenging me and him.23 Capt. but petitioner Navarro gave him a fist blow on the forehead which floored him. . Lingan suffered lacerated wounds in his left forehead. si Ike Lingan and naghamon. . hinamon ako. anak yan ni Kabo Liquin.nêt xxx xxx xxx Wala sa akin yan. sige. who said: "O. Tahimik lang naman ako. Lingan intervened and said to petitioner Navarro: "Huwag namang ganyan pumarito kami para magpa-blotter. ganoon?"18 As Lingan was about turn away. Eva Yamamoto confirms the detailed account given by Stanley Jalbuena on how Lingan sustained head injuries. But Lingan died from his injuries. Lingan said: "Masyado kang abusado.16 Finally. I am here to mediate. hinamon ako sa harap ni Stanley. . It is in fact contradicted by the number. Sa harap ni Alex.1âwphi1. ilagay mo diyan. concrete and sufficient to create that moral certainty in the mind of the court that accused herein is criminally responsible. uutasin na kita?"10 At this point. suntok lang ang inabot nyan. He tried to get up. nature and location of Lingan's injuries as shown in the postmortem report (Exh."21 He then poked his gun at the right temple of Jalbuena and made him sign his name on the blotter. appellant's explanation as how Lingan was injured is too tenuous and illogical to be accepted. these injuries could not have been resulted from Lingan's accidental fall. ABSURD OR IMPOSSIBLE. Wala ka namang masasabi sa akin dahil nag-tatrabaho lang ako ng ayon sa serbisyo ko. In fact."11 Petitoner Navarro replied: "Walang press. Huwag mong sabihin na . Certainly.). the same motivation that led him into assailing Jalbuena must have provoked him into also attacking Lingan who had interceded for Jalbuena and humiliated him and further challenged to a fist fight. Do not say bad things against me."12 He then turned to Sgt. Lingan: Navarro: Lingan: Navarro: Lingan: Navarro: Pati ako kalaban ninyo. dalawa kami. Petitioner Navarro questions the credibility of the testimony of Jalbuena on the ground that he was a biased witness. hinamon ako. called petitioner Navarro to his office. ITS CONCLUSION IS A FINDING BASED ON SPECULATION. appellant's unwarranted assault upon Jalbuena. press. And yet. ITS FINDING IS CONTRADICTED BY EVIDENCE ON RECORD. you are abusing yourself. the postmortem report issued by Dra. Lahat.13 This angered Lingan. testify falsehood or cause accusation of one who had neither brought him harm or injury. more particularly Stanley Jalbuena. Said post-mortem report together with the testimony of Jalbuena sufficiently belie the claim of the defense that the head injuries of deceased Lingan were caused by the latter's falling down on the concrete pavement head first. but he (petitioner) was able to duck both times.22 Jalbuena could not affix his signature. Testigo kayo. each time hitting his head on the concrete. On the other hand. I'm out of the problem. ITS JUDGMENT IS BASED ON A MISAPPREHENSION OF FACTS. Boy. AND ITS FINDING IS DEVOID OF SUPPORT IN THE RECORD. said "Ano. This court finds that the prosecution witnesses. and that Lingan was so drunk he fell on the floor twice. Añonuevo: "Ilagay mo diyan sa blotter sa harap ni Alex Sioco at Dante Liquin. this appeal. Petitioner Felipe Navarro claims that it was the deceased who tried to hit him twice. petitioner Navarro hit him with the handle of the pistol above the left eyebrow. Talagang kalaban namin ang press."15 The two then had a heated exchange. . THE INFERENCE IT MADE IS MANIFESTLY MISTAKEN. Who is that abusing? (Sounds of a scuffle) Navarro: Hinamon ako nyan! Pare hinamon ako nyan! Pare hinamon ako nyan.kinakalaban mo si Kabo Liquin. hindi lang ikaw! You are wrong. . Do not include me in the problem.26 In giving credence to the evidence for the prosecution. Navarro: loko ka! Lingan: Huwag tayong mag-lokohan sa ganyan! Huwag na tayong mag-takotan! Huwag mong sabihing I'm brave also. Coronado. the mere fact that Jalbuena was himself a victim of appellant's aggression does not impair the probative worth of his positive and logical account of the incident in question. while a policeman took Lingan to the Quezon Memorial Hospital."20 He said to Sgt. Going over the evidence on record. hinamon ako. left eyebrow. Sige. Hinamon ako nyan. I'm the number one loko sa media. Añonuevo and told him to make of record the behavior of Jalbuena and Lingan. Mayabang ka ah! First. hindi mo ba kilala?"9 Petitioner Navarro then pulled out his firearm and cocked it. According to the defense. Pare. alisin mo yang baril mo at magsuntukan na lang tayo. D). pare.25 The following is an excerpt from the tape recording: Lingan: Navarro: Lingan: xxx Navarro: Pare. . In the first place. . Lingan: Kalaban mo ang media. the trial court stated: After a thorough and in-depth evaluation of the evidence adduced by the prosecution and the defense. I just came here to ayusin things. Hinamon ako nyan. blood flowing down his face. Pulis tayo eh. . Ako at si Stanley. . clearly betrays his violent character or disposition and his capacity to harm others."17 Petitioner Navarro replied: "Ah. Pambihira ka Ike. buhay kang testigo. Bakit kalaban nyo ang press? Pulis ito! Aba! Alisin mo ang baril mo! Alisin mo ang baril mo! Suntukan tayo. mag-sampu pa kayo. and contusion in the right temporal region of the head (Exh. Puta. xxx xxx We are far from being convinced by appellant's aforesaid disquisition. learning that Lingan had been taken to the hospital. IT COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION. E. far from proving his innocence. Hence. The Court of Appeals affirmed: I'm here to mediate. Parang minomonopoly mo eh. The station manager of DWTI. pressing it on the face of Jalbuena. Okay.19 Petitioner Navarro turned to Jalbuena and said: "Kita mo yan ha. .24 Unknown to petitioner Navarro. ni Joe. Navarro: Ay walastik ka naman Ike! Pag may problema ka dito sinasabihan kita na may balita tayong maganda. Jalbuena was able to record on tape the exchange between petitioner and the deceased. having a grudge against him. We have carefully evaluated the conflicting versions of the incident as presented by both parties. The testimony of a witness who has an interest in the conviction . and. kinig nyo ha. SURMISE OR CONJECTURE. testigo kayo. which the defense has virtually admitted. proceeded there. na si Ike Lingan ang naghamon. dalhin nyo sa hospital yan. Lingan fell two times when he was outbalanced in the course of boxing the appellant. distort the truth. Petitioner Navarro contends: THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS HAS DECIDED THE CASE NOT IN ACCORD WITH LAW AND WITH THE APPLICABLE DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT. Navarro: Ay lalo na ako. di ilagay mo diyan"14 Petitioner Navarro retorted: "Talagang ilalagay ko. and we find the trial court's factual conclusions to have better and stronger evidentiary support.

for which the penalty under Art. A voice recording is authenticated by the testimony of a witness (1) that he personally recorded the conversations. and tones of voice of a witness while testifying. Eva Yamamoto. or meaning of the same or any part thereof.38 And it must immediately precede the act so much so that there is no interval between the provocation by the offended party and the commission of the crime by the accused. or by using any other device or arrangement. 33735. caused the subdivision thereof into small lots for the purpose of selling them to bona fide occupants. 1990. could it cause shock? A Possible. Jalbuena testified that he personally made the voice recording. (2) that the tape played in the court was the one he recorded. or to furnish transcriptions thereof. xxx xxx xxx accused. of any communication or spoken word secured either before or after the effective date of this Act in the manner prohibited by this law. either verbally or in writing. declaring that two parcels of land bordering on Laguna de Bay and identified as Lots 1 and 2 form an integral part of the Hacienda de San Pedro Tunasan belonging to the Colegio de San Jose. unreliable.A. together with an adjoining unregistered land.31 that the tape played in the court was the one he recorded. 1929. the remarks of Lingan. containing the following findings: Possible.00 is in accordance with the current jurisprudence. It is argued that the mitigating circumstances of sufficient provocation or threat on the part of the offended party immediately preceding the act should have been appreciated in favor of petitioner Navarro.34 dated February 5. The three parcels of land acquired by the Government became known as the Tunasan Homesite. to the Government. 1994 of the respondent Court 2 in CA-G. J. Furthermore. In December. inciting or irritating anyone. to secretly overhear.of the accused is not. 117247 April 12. Thus.46 WHEREFORE.00 to P50. be he a participant or not in the act or acts penalized in the next preceding sentence. or any information therein contained obtained or secured by any person in violation of the preceding sections of this Act shall not be admissible in evidence in any judicial.33 A sufficient foundation was thus laid for the authentication of the tape presented by the prosecution. vs. with the latter getting the worst of it. it must be adequate to excite a person to commit the wrong. As there were two mitigating circumstances and one aggravating circumstances. substance. Indeed.43 The crime committed as found by the trial court and the Court of Appeals was homicide.41 In People v. and the maximum of which is reclusion temporal in its minimum period. and (3) that the voices on the tape are those of the persons such are claimed to belong. 4. petitioner Navarro should be sentenced to an indeterminate penalty. Colegio de San Jose 4. Block 78 of the Tunasan Homesite. By a Resolution dated October 23.32 and that the speakers on the tape were petitioner Navarro and Lingan. who performed the autopsy on the body of Lingan. which prohibits wire tapping. which must accordingly be proportionate in gravity. PANGANIBAN.37 To be sufficient.42 the mitigating circumstance of lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong as that committed was appreciated in favor of the accused while finding him guilty of homicide. to knowingly possess any tape record. wire record. the law prohibits the overhearing. a policeman. After careful deliberation on the submissions of the parties. or however otherwise described: It shall also be unlawful for any person.:p Does the judgment in a land registration case denying the application filed in court in 1957 by the parents of the herein petitioner for the registration of land allegedly formed by alluvial deposits.30 In the instant case. No. and containing an area of 5. Any communication or spoken word. Second. Islands vs. this mitigating circumstance should be considered in favor of petitioner Navarro. this mitigating circumstance should be taken into account in determining the penalty that should be imposed on petitioner Navarro. Dr. gestures.R.44 Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law. sir. Ten years later. the minimum of which is within the range of the penalty next lower degree. its tape recording is not prohibited. prision mayor. or copies thereof. 1995. contents. respondents.000. SP No. to tap any wire or cable. i. The answer is in the affirmative. or record such communication or spoken word by using a device commonly known as dictaphone or dictagraph of dectectaphone or walkie-talkie or tape-recorder. which was part of Lot 2.158 square meters. Lot 19 of the same . constitute res judicata as to bar a subsequent application by the herein petitioner to register the same property? This is the question tackled by this Court in the instant petition for review on certiorari assailing the Decision 1 dated September 6. or to replay the same for any other person or persons. the First Division of this court transferred the instant case to the Third. That the use of such record or any copies thereof as evidence in any civil. Nor is there any question that it was duly authenticated.29 Since the exchange between petitioner Navarro and Lingan was not private. 1995. as minimum. which judgment was eventually affirmed by the Court of Appeals in 1968 and became final. was sold by the RPA to Apolonio Diaz. which was charged with the administration and disposition of the homesite. who shot a motorist after the latter had repeatedly taunted him with defiant words. How about striking with a butt of a gun. constituted sufficient provocation. legislative or administrative hearing or investigation. the penalty should be fixed in its minimum period. Lot 17.40 we appreciated this mitigating circumstance in favor of the MANUEL I. sir. criminal investigation or trial of offenses mentioned in section 3 hereof. to any other person: Provided. The offense in this case was committed right in the police station where policemen were discharging their public functions.39 In the present case. for the writing of the herein Decision. shall not be covered by this prohibition. petitioner. effect. The allowance of this mitigating circumstance is consistent with the rule that criminal liability shall be incurred by any person committing a felony although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended. 4200. Jalbuena's testimony is confirmed by the voice recording had made. capable of exciting.. intercepting. 1940. The voice recording made by Jalbuena established: (1) that there was a heated exchange between petitioner Navarro and Lingan on the placing in the police blotter of an entry against him and Jalbuena. or recording of private communications. 1948. petitioner Navarro has not shown that the trial court erred in according weight to the testimony of Jalbuena. The frantic exclamations of petitioner Navarro after the scuffle that it was Lingan who provoked him shows that he had no intent to kill the latter. who assumed his position as a member of the Court on October 10. are competent to determine whether his or her testimony should be given credence. Castro. The Rural Progress Administration (RPA). and the subsequent Resolution 3 denying petitioner's motion for reconsideration. The law provides: Sec.28 In the instant case. Antecedent Facts In August. the Colegio de San Jose sold the said two lots. Hence. not being authorized by all the parties to any private communication or spoken word. purport. Furthermore. the Supreme Court rendered a decision in Government of the Phil. No. Thus. intercept. In People v. It shall be unlawful for any person. issued the medical certificate. 1996 Sec. Third. and (2) that some form of violence occurred involving petitioner Navarro and Lingan. the mitigating circumstance that the offender had no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed should also be appreciated in favor of petitioner. 249 of the Revised Penal Code is reclusion temporal.45 The indemnity as increased by the Court of Appeals from P30. which have the opportunity observe the facial expressions.R. which immediately preceded the act of petitioner.e. In May. for this reason alone.27 Trial courts. whether complete or partial. or the existence.000. G. However.36 The provocation must be sufficient and should immediately precede the act. 1. this case was assigned to the undersigned ponente. the aggravating circumstance of commission of a crime in a place where the public authorities are engaged in the discharge of their duties should be appreciated against petitioner Navarro. COURT OF APPEALS and ESMERALDO PONCE. the decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED with the modification that petitioner Felipe Navarro is hereby SENTENCED to suffer a prison terms of 18 years of prision mayor. disc record. or any other such record. Macaso.35 The above testimony clearly supports the claim of Jalbuena that petitioner Navarro hit Lingan with the handle of his pistol above the left eyebrow and struck him on the forehead with his fist. Provocation is defined to be any unjust or improper conduct or act of the offended party. as maximum. or to communicate the contents thereof. RAMIREZ. quasi-judicial. to 14 years and 8 months of reclusion temporal. It may be asked whether the tape is admissible in view of R.

inasmuch as the Government was the previous owner of Lots 17 and 19. 27. B-526 exist since they both sought registration of the land formed by alluvial deposits. 425). that was not to he the end of the story. the petition was called for hearing. As a final attempt to have the land in dispute decreed in their names. 1960. 3004 (Exh. The principal question raised. B-46) with the then Court of First Instance of Laguna in May. The appellate court upheld the findings of the lower court since the applicants-spouses failed to show any fact or circumstance of weight which was overlooked or misinterpreted by the trial court. p. Rollo) which refer to the same property consisting of 11. In its decision of October 31. is sufficient to vest title in them by acquisitive prescription. In its assailed Decision of September 6. 28938-R) was simply whether the accretion came into existence only in 1943 . Herein petitioner. there was. . B-526 approving the application over the accretion was improper since the earlier application in Case No.) 7 Thereafter. both in the lower court and on appeal before the Court of Appeals (in CA-G. The Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources approved the deeds of transfer of rights executed by the heirs of Apolonio Diaz. based on preponderance of evidence. Laguna 6. but such oral evidence cannot prevail over the solemn recitals of the documents. nor by any patent issued by said office (Exh. There is no question that the judgment in Case No. states that the land applied for registration is not covered by any kind of public land application filed by third persons. The respondent Court ratiocinated: There is merit in petitioner's principal submission that res judicata had set in when private respondent applied for registration in 1989 over the same lot because of the previous rejection of the application of private respondent's parents in 1960. N-198605 issued by the LRA pursuant thereto are hereby SET ASIDE. 281. wife of Arcadio Ramirez (said spouses being the parents of herein petitioner). constituted res judicata. dated December 12. B-526. mailing and posting of notices. 28938-R. "U". as the buyer of Lots 17 and 19 from his parents. There is equally no doubt that Case No. (sic) the Director of the Land Management Bureau in its "COMPLIANCE WITH REPORT". The fact that private respondent was not a party in the first registration case (p. in LRC Case No. 496. No. 1958. as the applicant-spouses claimed. of subject matter and parties (should be cause of action). 88. In fact. the latter cannot claim ownership of the accretion and the same should be declared as part of the Government's patrimonial property. Biñan. . The Issues The instant petition for review on certiorari raises two issues: I. The appellate court further stated: Considering that the Colegio de San Jose was the owner of Lot 2 (of which Lots 17 and 19 are part) to which the accretion in question is contiguous. the evidence clearly demonstrates that from 1918 to 1940 it was Juan Ponce who was in possession of the land. p. Rollo) is of no moment because private respondent is a successor-in-interest of his parents who acquired the disputed lot by title in 1988 subsequent to the commencement of the first registration case in 1960 (Section 49[b]. As the appellate Court noted. who paid the balance of the purchase price for the lots. The Order in LRC Case No. It was only a matter of time before herein private respondent ² son of the late Canuto Ponce ² became aware of the situation. (CA Decision. Rules of Court. promulgated on July 6. 36. B-526 is hereby ordered DISMISSED. it follows that the Colegio de San Jose also became the owner of said accretion at the time of its formation. "T").055 square meters (later increased to 11. Branch XXV. Rollo) which was not appealed. B-526. Rollo) and Case No. 1981 pursuant to the Forestry Administrative Order No. Neither the applicants nor their predecessors can lay a claim of ownership over the land because it is clear from the documents that the property sold by the Government to Apolonio Diaz which was in turn conveyed to the applicants (herein petitioner's parents) was just a little more than one-half hectare. must have been gradual and dated back even before the acquisition of the Tunasan Homesite by the Government in 1939. and that the land in question is a part of the public domain. there is no dispute that identity of causes of action between Case No. meters). 5 The decision of the Court of Appeals in the above case. followed by an original certificate of title. which could already be confirmed and registered. m. Pursuant to said order. and in July. Besides. Respondent Hon. Similarly. the respondent Court upheld herein private respondent's contention that the judgment in LRC Case No. Court of Appeals committed grave error in the interpretation and application of the doctrine of res judicata. 39. B-526 dated May 13." and II. resolution of said question rested on the credibility of witnesses presented. After due publication. between Case No. who testified that the function of said office is to know whether the property involved is alienable and disposable. Respondent Hon. and denied the application for registration.311 sq. 1968 (p. B-46 (p. Laguna certified and declared as such on September 28. B-46 and LRC Case No. xxx xxx xxx are present which prevent private respondent from relitigating the same issue of registration of the identical lot. Rule 39. Moreover. Court of Appeals committed grave error when it violated the provisions of Section 38 of Act No. 4-1627 per BFIC Map No. and issuance of a decree of registration. However. although his son Pastor Diaz was made to appear as the vendee. and considering that only the two lots ² excluding the accretion ² were sold to the predecessors of the applicant-spouses. 28938-R on July 6. 10-A of San Pedro. It had for its subject matter a parcel of land on the eastern side of Lot 17. The Director of Lands opposed the application on the grounds that the applicants did not possess sufficient title to the land sought to be registered. Among petitioner's witnesses was Mario Lantican. In January. and the possession of Canuto Ponce commenced from 1940 and extends up to the time this case was being tried. as maintained by the oppositors. 1982 Ed. an application for registration of the same land formed by accretion. B-46 had been denied. after it has been inspected/investigated. was verified to be within the alienable and disposable land under the Land Certification Project No. Rollo) became final after it was affirmed in CA-G. holding that the accretion. was acquired by Apolonio Diaz. 1991: The REPORT of the Community Environment and Natural Resources states that the parcel of land. on the ground that. Canuto Ponce (herein private respondent's predecessor) also filed an opposition claiming that the land applied for is foreshore land covered by a revocable permit granted to him in June 1956 by the Bureau of Lands. All of the requisites of res judicata . 5. 1990. the court a quo found for the oppositors. He testified that he conducted an inspection to determine the status of the subject property and prepared a report to the effect that the land is indeed disposable. the respondent Court ruled as follows: WHEREFORE. only substantial identity of parties is required (San Diego vs. 1991 and Decree No. B-526.170 square meters. which denial.. 1989. with an area of 11. with an area of 1. Revised Rules of Court). which was claimed by the applicants as an accretion to their land gradually formed by alluvial deposits. 1957. tacked to that of their predecessors. or as far back as 1918. the heirs of Apolonio Diaz transferred their rights to both Lots 17 and 19 to Marta Ygonia. the court a quo. the application (in) LRC Case No. B-46 (p. as previously affirmed by the respondent Court in CA-G. An original application for registration was filed by spouses Marta Ygonia and Arcadio Ramirez (docketed as LRC Case No . which was also apart of Lot 2. the petition is hereby given DUE COURSE. . the applicants claim that their possession of the land. more particularly on the issue of "public domain. identity of parties.) Thus.R. considering the testimonial and documentary evidence on record. filed on May 17. 70 Phil. B-46 and Case No. 1994.homesite. Laguna. 1955. However. and ordered 8 registration and confirmation of title over the claimed accretion in favor of herein petitioner. as amended (The Land Registration Act) relative to the doctrine of non-collateral attack of a decree or title. 13.R. No. p. ruled that applicant (herein petitioner) possessed an imperfect title to the accretion. The Land Tenure Administration likewise opposed the application on behalf of the Republic of the Philippines. No. Likewise.311 sq. 1994 which this Court referred to the Court of Appeals for appropriate action) seeking to annul the land decree issued in favor of petitioner and the judicial proceedings had in LRC Case No. became final and executory for failure of the applicants-spouses (parents of herein petitioner) to appeal therefrom. Cardona. there is identity of subject matter from a mere perusal of Case No. 1968. the heirs of Apolonio Diaz cannot pretend to convey what did not belong to them. the Land Tenure Administration executed a deed of sale in favor of Marta Ygonia over Lots 17 and 19. rollo. True it is that the applicants tried to prove that the heirs of Apolonio Diaz verbally agreed with them to include the accretion in the transfer deeds. before the Regional Trial Court of Laguna. and since the testimonies of the witnesses for the applicants-spouses were either not credible or else tended to support the oppositors' position instead. a decree of registration was eventually issued. The trial court also noted the following findings in its Order of May 13. 48. He filed a special civil action for certiorari on February 14. chief of the Forest Engineering and Infrastructure Unit at Los Baños.R. B-526 (p. There is therefore no basis for the applicants' claim of acquisitive prescription. Accordingly. Lastly. 2 Martin. B-46 was rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the same subject matter and parties.

Director of Lands vs. 10 as follows: But granting for a moment.: The Petitions HON. et al. Region VIII. Tacloban City. and there is really no need to delve into the second. PEDRO F. YNARES-SANTIAGO. 2008 x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x DEC ISION VELASCO. B-46. Court of Appeals. GOBENCIONG. NACHURA. Respondents. Before the Court are these three petitions. all of Eastern Visayas Regional Medical Center. combined with his own possession (counted from 1988 when he purchased the accretion from his parents) gave him sufficient title thereto by acquisitive prescription. because of the different relevant periods of possession being referred to. Dr. REGIONAL DIRECTOR of the Department of Health. In Case No. two interposed under Rule 45 and one under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. B-46 is actually different from that in Case No. x-------------------------------------------x DR. tacked to that of their predecessors Apolonio Diaz. the basis of the application in Case No. A judicial declaration that a parcel of land is public.versus - Promulgated: March 31. premises considered. QUISUMBING. Gobenciong. 1991 issued by the RTC of Laguna. CARPIO MORALES. (emphasis supplied) 11 After careful deliberation and consultation. Pedro F. Dr. 173212 . as we shall soon see. CJ. that the defenses (sic) of res adjudicata was properly raised by petitioner herein. Court of Appeals. it is evident that one of the elements of res judicata is lacking in the case at bar. as amended. 159883 Present: PUNO. CORONA. 13 In other words. 33735 before the respondent Court. et al. COURT OF APPEALS. Babula. factually. WE still hold that.. 526. CARPIO. TINGA. Administrative Officer IV. GOBENCIONG and the HON. G. applicants-spouses Arcadio Ramirez and Marta Ygonia (herein petitioner's parents) claimed that their possession of the land. JR. The assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby SET ASIDE and the Order dated May 13. Omega. because a decision in a cadastral proceeding declaring a lot public land is not the final decree contemplated in Sections 38 and 40 of the Land Registration Act. Seen from the perspective offered by the aforequoted ruling..R. DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN (VISAYAS). and FLORA DELA PEA. in LRC Case No.R.R. Chief of Hospital. and LEONARDO-DE CASTRO. CHICO-NAZARIO. Supply Officer IV. and as long as said public land remains alienable and disposable (now sections 3 and 4. 16 WHEREFORE. 9 which quoted from the decision in an earlier but similarly titled case. the resolution of this case hinges on the first issue. GOBENCIONG.However. was sufficient to vest title in them by acquisitive prescription. The Main Issue: Res Judicata Petitioner argues that res judicata did not apply in the instant case because of the ruling of this Court in the case of Director of Lands vs. x-------------------------------------------x OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN. there is no prior final judgment at all to speak of. No. . . JJ. B46 and Case No. . (allegedly from 1953 onwards).D. Br. 141. 14 As to the parties' pleas 15 before the respondent Court for the issuance of an order to cause the taking of a verification survey to determine whether they are referring to the same parcel of land or to two different properties. Respondents. COURT OF APPEALS (CEBU CITY). G. Stated in another way.versus DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN (VISAYAS). Respondents. No. SP No. 1073). Respondent Court declared that "identity of causes of action between Case No.R. AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ.. No costs. 12 On the other hand. These petitions stemmed from OMB-VIS-ADM-97-0370 entitled Dr. R-526. PEDRO F. VELASCO. Incidentally. B-526 exist since they both sought registration of the land formed by alluvial deposits". but failed to recognize that the basis for claiming such registration was different in each case. we find ourselves in agreement with petitioner's contention. suffice it to say that the disposition of this case is not a bar to such a survey. Rafael C. Region VIII. Petitioner. JR. B-526. Crisologo R. the Solicitor General reached essentially the same conclusion in his Comment filed in CA-G. P. petitioner claimed that the duration of possession by his parents (commencing allegedly in 1958). does not preclude even the same applicant from subsequently seeking a judicial confirmation of his title to the same land. there was no res judicata to bar the proceedings in LRC Case No.versus DR. REGIONAL DIRECTOR of the Department of Health. Hence. No. Petitioner. J. the instant petition is hereby GRANTED. 168059 G. and FLORA DELA PEA. provided he thereafter complies with the provisions of Section 48 of Commonwealth Act No. 41 does not constitute a bar to the application of respondent Manuela Pastor. PEDRO F. 25 granting registration and confirmation of title in favor of petitioner is hereby AFFIRMED. DR. Petitioner. AZCUNA. No. The decision in Cadastral Case No. Flora de la Pea v. the right to relief in one case rests upon a set of facts different from that upon which the other case depended. REYES.

an administrative complaint before the Office of the Ombudsman-Visayas. 2000 Order despite being notified of his appeal in CA-G. 1998. 1996 was issued covering two units of nebulizer and one unit particle counter with specifications 23 Parameters. 36162.R. and RIV EO-1-96. After public bidding where Alvez Commercial. Disbursement Voucher No. 2006. Like his earlier similar motion. 0786. Jr. Alvez addressed a letter to EVRMC to assure the hospital that it would be replacing the yet to-be-delivered slightly defective hemoanalyzer with another unit. as tainted with grave abuse of discretion. electric 220V. GOBENCIONG. such as Sales Invoice No. via a Memorandum[13] dated November 11.R. In addition. 2000 and August 10. without awaiting the Office of the Ombudsmans action on his motion for reconsideration. The instant case started when Dr. Gobenciong wrote Dr. PO EO-5-96. On November 12.[11] Following his receipt on November 9. Alvez actually delivered the promised replacementa Genius particle counter with Serial No. of the CA in CA-G. requesting the deferment of the implementation of the preventive suspension until after his to-be-filed motion for reconsideration shall have been resolved. seeks to nullify the Decision[1] and Resolution[2] dated November 26.817. 0815. in the case of Gobenciong. the CA issued a TRO enjoining then Deputy Ombudsman-Visayas Arturo Mojica and Arteche from implementing the order of preventive suspension in OMB-VIS-ADM-97-0370. 1996. 50 feed shelves capacity with a handwritten unit price quotation of PhP 1. Similarly. Subsequently. denying petitioner Gobenciongs petition for certiorari under Rule 65 and. 168059. The decretal portion of the Ombudsmans Decision partly reads: WHEREFORE.817. of the respondents in OMB-VIS-ADM-97-0370 under preventive suspension and directed the proper DOH officer to immediately implement the Order. this motion was neither denied nor granted by the CA. 1996 of the covered hemoanalyzer. however. 2003.The first. CRISOLOGO R. Italy. a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45. 1998 of a copy of the said order. Babula signed Sales Invoice No. Gobenciong sought reconsideration of the August 24. net of creditable VAT. No. 2006. On its face. placing all. Appended to DV 101-96121986 were documents adverted to earlier. the Ombudsman rendered on March 21. 2005 and May 29. This turn of events impelled Gobenciong to move that Arteche and Mojica be cited in contempt. were falsified. and incurred under his direct supervision. RIV EO-1-96 carried. the appropriate EVRMC office issued Requisition and Issue Voucher No. both to be considered as en banc cases. by an Order. 61687. SP No. but the Ombudsman. signed the voucher to attest that the expense covered thereby was necessary. PEDRO F. followed. 159883 with G. 173212. or little over three months after the supposed delivery of the hemoanalyzer. a public hospital in Tacloban City. 2000 a Decision.35. 49585. for the hemoanalyzer. lawful. 1997 and inspected the following day by Jocano and Gobenciong. it is respectfully recommended that they be meted the penalty of SUSPENSION FROM THE SERVICE FOR ONE (1) YEAR WITHOUT PAY.998.[8] The consolidation of G. 1998. for Gobenciong failed to get back to his work or get his salary until after the lapse of the suspension period in May 1999. finding Gobenciong and several others guilty in OMB-VIS-ADM-97-0370. OMEGA. In a related move.195. thus. of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G. respectively.R.R. On December 26. the Court ordered the consolidation of G. was one-year suspension from office without pay. preventively suspending him from office. Lilia O. for PhP 1. the Certification of Acceptance.R.817. and Supply Officer III Crisologo R. issued an Order. docketed as G. Gross Neglect of Duty and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service against Gobenciong and three others. 0786. Babula. 49585. which. The Ruling of the Ombudsman in OMB-VIS-ADM-97-0370 Before the CA could resolve CA-G. went to the CA on a petition for certiorari. the appeal docketed as CA-G. It was installed on April 2.[15] (Emphasis added. SP No. among other documents. On January 17. per Certification of Acceptance they signed to attest having accepted all the articles delivered by Alvez per Sales Invoice No. No. the COA Inspection Report. the Office of the Ombudsman-Visayas. informed the affected respondents in OMB-VIS-ADM-97-0370 that their six-month preventive suspension shall take effect immediately upon their receipt of the memorandum. 2000 Order[6] in OMB-VIS-ADM-97-0370 but only insofar as it imposed a penalty of one-year suspension on Gobenciong. there being no actual delivery on December 20. through Director Virginia P. Arteche.[16] directed the DOH Regional Office No. The issuance on December 27. Gobenciong appealed from the above decision and order to the appellate court. effectively affirming the assailed Order[3] dated August 24.161. with a plea for the issuance of temporary restraining order (TRO). 1997 for Grave Misconduct. The complaint was docketed as OMB-VIS-ADM-97-0370. and three other EVRMC officers with Falsification of Public Documents and Misconduct. the Decision[4] dated April 29. by an Order of August 10. Jocano. Babula.161. SP No. 1998 of the Deputy OmbudsmanVisayas. 2005 of the CA in CA-G. 456359 in the amount of PhP 1. which then purportedly issued Receipt No. (PO) EO-5-96 dated December 9. a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45. Ombudsman Ordered Preventive Suspension On August 24.[9] The Facts During the period material. Flora dela Pea. VIII to immediately implement its Decision and impose the penalties decreed therein. 1996. 1997. 1996 of Landbank Check No. dela Pea also filed a complaint with the Department of Health (DOH) which forthwith formed a committee to look likewise into the alleged anomalous purchase of the expensive hemoanalyzer. No. Jocano. it was made to appear in a Commission on Audit (COA) Inspection Report that Jocano and Gobenciong had certified as correct the finding/recommendation that the two nebulizers and the hemoanalyzer had been inspected as to quality and quantity as per Sales Invoice No. Inc. 2002 and August 27. Gobenciong. the Office of the Ombudsman assails. On November 16. SP No. which set aside the Ombudsmans Decision[5] of March 21. except one. did not act on the motion. 1998 preventive suspension order.R. Gobenciong held the position of Administrative Officer IV in Eastern Visayas Regional Medical Center (EVRMC). et al. 61687. But due to the virtual denial of his plea for the deferment of his preventive suspension. moved for reconsideration. 2000. among other items. SP No. 159883. In due time. 61687.R. .R. 61687. On March 31. seeks to set aside the Decision and Resolution[7] dated April 29. 1998. The third. On December 3.R. Genius. (DV) 101-9612-1986.R. on June 20. The investigation culminated in the filing by the DOH Secretary of a Formal Charge[10] dated October 29. BABULA. On December 11. denied their motion. No. 0786. the nebulizers and the hemoanalyzer appeared to have been delivered on December 20. 2000. 1996 and accepted by Engr. No. which sustained the aforesaid March 21. Head of the EVRMC Laboratory Unit. finding substantial evidence to hold respondents RAFAEL C. DOH Regional Director for Region VIII. 168059. JOCANO of Conduct Grossly Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service.R. Conformably with the Ombudsmans directive. the Deputy Ombudsman-Visayas. a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 and docketed as G. docketed as G. 2000. fully automated at the unit price as aforestated. Purchase Order No. upon dela Peas motion. filed. among others. was prepared.[12] Arteche. 2000 rulings in OMB-VIS-ADM-970370. 1997. Gobenciong moved that Santiago be cited in contempt of court[17] for issuing the November 16.R. the specifications electric 220V. In the second. evidently went unheeded. Jose M. As hospital documents would show. On April 1. while duly served. Gobenciong. 0786 to acknowledge receipt in good condition of the articles covered thereby. Gobenciong. There was thus no legal basis for the issuance of DV 101-9612-1986 and the corresponding Landbank check for PhP 1. The petition was docketed as CA-G. Santiago. The CA. 49585. and JOSE M. 2000 and Order of August 10.R.) The above guilty verdict was mainly predicated on the finding that the Certification of Acceptance and the COA Inspection Report.35. 1997. On November 19.[14] As later developments would show.161. 1998. the TRO. SP No. respectively. No. SP No.35 in favor of Alvez. (Alvez) emerged as the best bidder. (RIV) EO-1-96 for one unit hemoanalyzer (also called particle counter). 173212 with the first two cases later followed. charging Gobenciong.

for a maximum period of six months. 2000 of the Ombudsman.R. II. B. all but three categories of public officials and employees under investigation by his office and to direct the immediate implementation of the corresponding suspension order. THE INTENT TO CREATE AN EFFECTIVE. III. ART.R. DESPITE THE FACT THAT ITS IMPLEMENTATION VIOLATED PETITIONERS RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW. THE LATTER PROVISIONS STILL EMPOWER THE OMBUDSMAN TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH ITS RECOMMENDATIONS. in view of the foregoing premises. now docketed as G. AND IN THE DELIBERATIONS ON. SP No. Hence.[21] On the other hand. 49585 Long after the issuance of the Decision dated March 21. (RA) 6770. The interplay of both sections expressly empowers the Ombudsman. SO ORDERED. 2005. on the postulate that the disciplinary authority of the Office of the Ombudsman is merely recommendatory. VESTING THE OMBUDSMAN WITH FULL DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY IS ABSOLUTELY IN CONSONANCE WITH THE SOVEREIGN INTENT. CONGRESS. 2006. No.R. Thus. judgment is hereby rendered by us GRANTING the petition filed in this case and SETTING ASIDE the Decision dated March 21.R. The Office of the Ombudsman. this means that the Ombudsman cannot compel the DOH to impose the penalty recommended in its underlying Decision of March 21. on January 16. 61687 On April 29. x x x DISPOSSESSING THE OMBUDSMAN OF ITS DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY. No pronouncement as to costs. 2000 and the Order dated August 10. SP No. 2000 in OMB-VIS-ADM-97-0370.R. petitioner Office of the Ombudsman raises the following grounds for the allowance of its petition: I. The Issues In G. I. The Ruling of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.E.[22] which the CA denied via its Resolution dated May 29. on November 26.[18] The CA dismissed Gobenciongs petition on the strength of Section 24 in relation to Sec. RATHER THAN EFFETE. 2000 rendered and issued by the Office of the Ombudsman in OMB-VIS-ADM-97-0370 insofar as said office directly imposes upon the petitioner the penalty of suspension from the service for one (1) year without pay. the parties availed themselves of different remedies to contest before this Court the above decision of the CA. AND D. THE RELIANCE BY THE HONORABLE [CA] ON THE OBITER DICTUM IN TAPIADOR VS. Gobenciong filed his Motion for Partial Reconsideration of the Decision dated April 29. AND D.The Ruling of the Court of Appeals in CA-G. CONGRESS CONSTITUTIONALLY CLOTHED THE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN WITH FULL ADMINISTRATIVE DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY IN GENERAL. THE 1987 CONSTITUTION EXPRESSLY AUTHORIZED CONGRESS TO GRANT THE OMBUDSMAN ADDITIONAL POWERS. No. BOTH PURSUANT TO ITS EXPRESS CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY IN THE CASE OF THE OMBUDSMAN. 2003.[19] In G. 2005.R. x x x WHEN IT UPHELD THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PREVENTIVE SUSPENSION ORDER THE DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY GRANTED TO THE OMBUDSMAN INCLUDES THE AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE THE PENALTY AND TO CAUSE THE SAME TO BE IMPLEMENTED BY THE HEAD OF AGENCY CONCERNED. No. CONSIDERING THAT: A. petitioner Gobenciong submits that the CA erred: A. DESPITE THE FACT THAT TO DO SO WOULD SANCTION AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL APPLICATION OF SECTIONS 27(1) AND THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF SECTION 24 OF [RA] 6770. C. the Petition for Review on Certiorari in G. and the implementation thereof. as gleaned from the CA Decision. the CA wrote: WHEREFORE.R. 173212. assailed the above decision through a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65. CONSITUTES A GRAVE ERROR CONSIDERING THAT: A CONTRARY RULE CAN ONLY RESULT IN FURTHER LEGAL AND PRACTICAL ABSURDITIES. x x x WHEN IT UPHELD THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PREVENTIVE SUSPENSION ORDER DESPITE THE [TRO] IT ISSUED AND THE CONTINUED DEFIANCE OF PUBLIC RESPONDENTS OF THE [TRO]. 1.. ascribing grave abuse of discretion on the part of the appellate court. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN. No. [RA] 6770 CONTAINS EXPRESS PROVISIONS GRANTING THE OMBUDSMAN THE AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE AND CAUSE THE IMPLEMENTATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTIES. 61687. Office of the Ombudsman. C. 2002. denying Gobenciongs petition for certiorari assailing the directive. Dispositively. AND IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS PLENARY LEGISLATIVE POWERS. THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT BAR THE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN FROM EXERCISING ADMINISTRATIVE DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY OVER PUBLIC OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES IN GENERAL. ENACTED [RA] 6770 PROVIDING THEREIN THE OMBUDSMANS FULL AND COMPLETE ADMINISTRATIVE DISCIPLINARY POWER AND DUTY. the foregoing premises considered. the petition for certiorari is DENIED DUE COURSE and hereby DISMISSED. THERE IS NOTHING IN THE SAID STATUTORY GRANT OF ADMINISTRATIVE DISCIPLINARY POWER WHICH CAN BE REMOTELY CONSIDERED INCONSISTENT WITH THE 1987 CONSTITUTION. Therefrom. partially granting due course to Gobenciongs appeal and effectively modifying the Decision dated March 21.R. 168059. COMPLETE WITH ALL THE REQUISITE COMPONENTS AS CONTAINED IN [RA] 6770. 159883. AS EXPRESSED BY THE LETTER OF. to preventively suspend. CONSIDERING THAT: A. the CA. B. Invoked as part of the ratio decidendi of the CA Decision was Tapiador v. SP No. rendered a Decision in CA-G. 2000. under defined conditions. 2005. Gobenciong retired from the service. 2. B. AND 3. No. PROTECTOR OF THE PEOPLE INSULATED FROM POLITICAL INFLUENCE. DESPITE THE FACT THAT ITS IMPLEMENTATION VIOLATED PETITIONERS RIGHT TO THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS.R. EVEN ASSUMING THAT THE IMPLEMENTATION OF PENALTIES ASSESSED BY THE OMBUDSMAN IS SUBJECT TO SECTION 13(3). Gobenciongs motion for reconsideration of the above decision was rejected by the appellate court on August 27. the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari filed by Gobenciong. In the meantime. 159883. x x x IN NOT HOLDING PUBLIC RESPONDENTS GUILTY OF CONTEMPT OF COURT FOR DEFYING THE [TRO].[20] which the appellate court viewed as declaring that the disciplinary power of the Ombudsman in administrative cases is limited only to recommending to the disciplining authority the appropriate penalty to be meted out. XI OF THE CONSTITUTION. THE 1987 CONSTITUTION. C. 49585. AND THE INDEPENDENT FIRST PART OF SECTION 15(3) OF [RA] 6770. In the concrete. rendered its Decision in CA-G. IV. 168059. otherwise known as the Ombudsman Act of 1989. docketed as G. A DISCIPLINARY POWER BEREFT OF THE NECESSARY COMPONENT OF DETERMINING THE PENALTY AND CAUSING THE IMPLEMENTATION THEREOF IS OTIOSE. SP No. The decretal portion of the CA Decision reads: WHEREFORE. the CA. . for the immediate execution of his preventive suspension. 27 of Republic Act No.

pushed to its logical conclusion. despite his having moved for reconsideration. AT ANY STAGE FROM ANY INVESTIGATORY AGENCY OF GOVERNMENT. Prescinding from the foregoing premises. THE INVESTIGATION OF SUCH CASES. the former must be so repugnant as to be irreconcilable with the latter act. which is purportedly derived from said Sec. whether the disciplinary power of the Ombudsman is merely recommendatory and excludes the authority to ensure compliance of his recommendations. Provided. both sections in question can validly be harmonized and given effect at the same time. In this regard. 27 of RA 6770 and Sec. B. THE OMBUDSMAN LAW. First Main Issue: Provisionary Orders of the Ombudsman Immediately Executory As Gobenciong argues. Civil Service law which allows an appeal from an order of preventive suspension and does not consider the same as immediately executory. [INSOFAR] AS THEY GRANT TO THE OMBUDSMAN AND HIS DEPUTIES THE AUTHORITY TO INVESTIGATE AND PROSECUTE ANY ACT OR OMISSION. FOR BEING VIOLATIVE OF PETITIONERS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS. ADMINISTRATIVE OR OTHERWISE. 27. but just as applicable and effective. The Court. 8. SUCH A STATEMENT IS AND HAS REMAINED AN OBITER DICTUM WHICH DOES NOT HAVE THE STATUS OF A LEGAL DOCTRINE. ADMINISTRATIVE OR OTHERWISE. his timely filing of a motion for reconsideration of the subject preventive suspension order stripped such order of its otherwise quality of immediacy. violated his right to due process and to the equal protection of law. has for the most part fully settled them. intentionally omitted the matter of immediate execution. Sec. AND TO IMPOSE SUSPENSION. We are not convinced. FROM ANY INVESTIGATORY AGENCY OF GOVERNMENT. whether RA 6770. vis--vis the implementation of a preventive suspension order. to wit: first. For. SECTIONS 15 (1). RA 6770 is deemed repealed for not being incorporated or carried into the Ombudsman Rules of Procedure. that is. A motion for reconsideration of any order. directive or decision imposing the penalty of public censure or reprimand. 27 of RA 6770 Sec. Finally. if this outlandish posture of Gobenciong is. What was once the five-day reglementary period fixed under Sec. a motion for reconsideration or reinvestigation may only be entertained if filed within ten (10) days from receipt of the decision by the respondent on any of the following grounds: a) New evidence had been discovered which materially affects the order. EITHER PREVENTIVE OR AS PENALTY. x x x IN REFUSING TO CITE DIRECTOR VIRGINIA PALANCA-SANTIAGO OF THE OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN (VISAYAS) IN CONTEMPT OF COURT. we agree with the CAs holding on the absence of an irreconcilable conflict. Effectivity and Finality of Decisions.All provisionary orders of the Office of the Ombudsman are immediately effective and executory. ANY ACT OR OMISSION. Gobenciong makes reference to the matter of the CA having issued a TRO. between Sec. second. Rule III of the Ombudsman Rules of Procedure.[24] Sec. 8. 8.[23] Even as we concede the Ombudsmans authority to amend certain procedural rules of RA 6770. Pushing the point. D. The above rules may be amended or modified by the Office of the Ombudsman as the interest of justice may require. suspension of not more than one months salary shall be final and unappealable. The grounds relied upon and the errors assigned may be reduced into three issues. FOR BEING AN INVALID DELEGATION OF LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY. (2) Errors of law or irregularities have been committed prejudicial to the interest of the movants. prosecute and penalize any act or omission. x x x WHEN IT UPHELD THE DECISION OF THE DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN (VISAYAS) FINDING PETITIONER GUILTY OF CONDUCT GROSSLY PREJUDICIAL TO THE BEST INTEREST OF THE SERVICE. and to the CAs subsequent refusal to resolve his contempt motion. the filing in due time of a motion to reconsider the corresponding order notwithstanding. AT ANY STAGE. SECTIONS 15 (1). He points out that while Sec. Repeals by implication are not favored. as laws are presumed to be passed with full knowledge of all existing legislations on the subject. Rule III of the Ombudsman Rules of Procedure. directive or decision. in a catena of recent cases.R. In order that one law or what passes for one may operate to repeal another law.Whenever allowable. As it were. as articulated in his twin Petitions for Review on Certiorari. directive or decision of the Office of the Ombudsman must be filed within five (5) days after receipt of written notice and shall be entertained only on any of the following grounds: (1) New evidence has been discovered which materially affects the order. Ombudsman Rules of Procedure. The motion for reconsideration shall be resolved within three (3) days from filing. x x x WHEN IT DID NOT DECLARE AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL [RA] 6770. No. from any investigatory agency of Government. 27. RA 6770 is now 10 days under Sec. The Courts Ruling There is nothing novel about the underlying determinative issues raised by any of the petitioners. is unconstitutional insofar as it grants the Ombudsman and his deputies the authority to investigate. subscribe to Gobenciongs contention that Sec. at any stage. the conflict concerns only the period for filing a motion for reconsideration. Indeed. AND 21. and the corresponding dispositions in those cases militate against Gobenciongs cause. or to take over. Gobenciong would then argue that this omission contextually worked to repeal part of said Sec. 173212. Motion for Reconsideration or reinvestigation. and the hearing officers shall resolve the same within five (5) days from receipt thereof. which both the DOH and the Deputy Ombudsman-Visayas ignored. OF ANY PUBLIC OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE. 19. petitioner Gobenciong argues that the CA committed errors of law: A. the two laws must be inconsistent. SUCH A PASSING STATEMENT MUST BE INTERPRETED TO MEAN THAT THE OMBUDSMAN CANNOT DIRECTLY IMPLEMENT ITS ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS. 27. he cites the more lenient. E. C. 27 of RA 6770 provides for the immediate execution of provisionary orders of the Ombudsman. the repeal is within the Ombudsmans power to effect under the last paragraph of Sec. 19. That only one motion for reconsideration shall be entertained. To Gobenciong. administrative or otherwise. the investigation of such cases. directive or decision. OF ANY PUBLIC OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE.A. THE INVESTIGATION OF SUCH CASES. For reference. 21. PROSECUTE AND PENALIZE. we reproduce the pertinent provisions of both issuances: Sec. whether the preventive suspension ordered by the Ombudsman is immediately executory. OR TO TAKE OVER. x x x Any order. of any public officer or employee. [INSOFAR] AS THEY GRANT TO THE OMBUDSMAN AND HIS DEPUTIES THE AUTHORITY TO INVESTIGATE. 8. Rule III of the Ombudsman Rules of Procedure Sec. Only one motion for reconsideration or reinvestigation shall be allowed. and third. under the premises. Grounds. OR TO TAKE OVER. Gobenciong would posit the view that the immediate implementation of his preventive suspension. We cannot. on the ground of undue delegation of legislative authority and under the equal protection clause. but augur well for the Ombudsmans petition. RA 6770. x x x WHEN IT ACQUIESCED TO THE DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN (VISAYAS)S VIOLATION OF [RA] 6770. AND B. x x x WHEN IT DID NOT DECLARE AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL [RA] 6770. b) Grave errors of facts or laws or serious irregularities have been committed prejudicial to the interest of the movant. 27. 27(2). Apart from this change. Rule III. then any and all related provisions of RA . In G. 8. 24 AND 25. there exists no irreconcilable inconsistency between the two sets of provisions respecting the immediate implementability of a preventive suspension order emanating from the Ombudsman. 27(1). accordingly.

This much was recognized by this Court in the earlier cited case of Garcia v. instead of the civil service provisions of the Administrative Code. The fundamental guarantee is not breached by a law which applies only to those persons falling within a specified class. thus: . The unqualified use of the phrase immediately effective and executory in Sec. the Court held that the Ombudsman and his deputies have the discretion to exercise such determination. if this be the case. (b) the charges would warrant removal from the service. the Office of the Ombudsman can.[25] At any rate. or grave misconduct or neglect in the performance of duty. Accordingly. Among these statutory protections are fiscal autonomy. The Court made this abundantly clear in Ledesma v. that is. of the right to move for reconsideration does not motu proprio stay the immediate execution of the provisionary order of preventive suspension.) For good measure. Court of Appeals[30] and subsequently in Office of the Ombudsman v. to the public official concerned. of any officer to comply with an order of the Ombudsman to penalize an erring officer or employee is a ground for disciplinary action. Firstly. suspend. exercising sound judgment. merely an obiter dictum and. which cannot be cited as a doctrinal pronouncement of the Court. as it is unsupported by sufficient explanation. the equal protection clause is against undue favor and individual or class privilege. as well as hostile discrimination. not being a penalty for an administrative infraction. of Article XI of the 1987 Constitution. Preventive Suspension. And it is usually made immediately effective and executory to prevent the respondent from using his/her position or office to influence prospective witnesses or tamper with the records which may be vital to the prosecution of the case. Several reasons militate against a literal interpretation of the subject constitutional provision.6770 not touched upon in the Ombudsman Rules of Procedure would be considered abrogated. and direct and compel the head of the office or agency concerned to implement the penalty imposed. between those who fall within such class and those who do not. oppression. For their part. being violated as a result of the immediate implementation of his preventive suspension. validly order the immediate execution of a preventive suspension after determining the propriety of the imposition. . Court of Appeals. if it applies alike to all persons within such class and provided further that there is a substantial distinction . thus: There can be no question in this case as to the power and authority of respondent Deputy Ombudsman to issue an order of preventive suspension against an official like the petitioner. We are not persuaded. citing Tapiador v. or censure is merely advisory or recommendatory has to be rejected outright. it cannot be cited as a doctrinal declaration of this Court nor is it safe from judicial examination. 27(1) of RA 6770 suggests this conclusion. x x x By stating that the Ombudsman recommends the action to be taken against an erring officer or employee. 24 of RA 6770 is present. thus: In essence. a cursory reading of Tapiador reveals that the main point of the case was the failure of the complainant therein to present substantial evidence to prove the charges of the administrative case. or (c) the respondents continued stay in office may prejudice the case filed against him. In other words. Mojica. any suggestion that its power to remove. or (c) the respondents continued stay in office may prejudice the case filed against him. The foregoing considered. the Ombudsman has no authority to directly dismiss the petitioner from the government service Under Section 13. at best.[33] Expounding on the limitation adverted to.[31] In Ledesma. albeit the 60-day preventive suspension limit under the Local Government Code was involved. which authorizes the Ombudsman to impose a six-month preventive suspension. Moreover. is susceptible to varying interpretations. 8. it merely concerns the procedural aspect of the Ombudsmans functions and not its jurisdiction. The Court need not belabor the absurdity of Gobenciongs logic. we ruled against any violation of the constitutional proscription against the equal protection of the law. and the Judiciary. . in Garcia v. and (2) that any of the following circumstances are present: (a) the charge against such officer or employee involves dishonesty. Besides. as a matter of statutory empowerment. 27(1) of RA 6770 and Sec. is correct. the cited portion of Tapiador being a mere obiter dictum. (b) the charges would warrant removal from the service. it does not demand absolute equality. Hence. or any of his deputies. Accordingly. which limits the disciplining authoritys prerogative to only imposing a prevention suspension for a period not exceeding 90 days. And if only to stress a point. violates the equal protection guarantee. except when the delay in the disposition of the case by the Office of the Ombudsman is due to the fault. without pay. including the power to determine the penalty therefor and to cause the same to be implemented by the head of the government agency concerned. the Court has held that a preventive suspension order shall issue only if the Ombudsman. except impeachable officials. Sec. regardless of the absence of real conflicts.The Ombudsman or his Deputy may preventively suspend any officer or employee under his authority pending an investigation. is imposable without prior hearing. has really no legal leg to stand on. to prevent that official from using his office to intimidate or to influence witnesses or to tamper with records that might be vital to the prosecution of the case against him. The proper interpretation of the Courts statement in Tapiador should be that the Ombudsman has the authority to determine the administrative liability of a public official or employee at fault. we further stated: x x x That the refusal. Sandiganbayan. An order of preventive suspension is a preliminary step in an administrative investigation. negligence or petition of the respondent. the Ombudsman can only recommend the removal of the public official or employee found to be at fault. there are stricter safeguards for imposition of preventive suspension by the Ombudsman. which in this case would be the head of the BID. for the preventive suspension had been served and the CA had. And the CAs reference to Tapiador[29] to underpin its conclusion on the recommendatory nature of the Ombudsmans disciplinary authority is misplaced and erroneous. determines that the evidence of guilt is strong and that any of the three conditions set forth in Sec. the provisions of the Constitution and in RA 6770 intended that the implementation of the order be coursed through the proper officer. a preventive suspension. The Constitution has endowed the Ombudsman with unique safeguards to ensure immunity from political pressure. The Ombudsman Act of 1989 requires that the Ombudsman determine: (1) that the evidence of guilt is strong. The statement that made reference to the power of the Ombudsman is. We agree with the ratiocination of public respondents. [the dissenting opinion] avers that there is no substantial distinction between preventive suspensions handed down by the Ombudsman and those imposed by executive officials.[28] Second Main Issue: Ombudsman has power to ensure compliance with imposition of penalties pursuant to his administrative disciplinary authority The Office of the Ombudsmans assertion. Gobenciong parlays the theory that the application of RA 6770. On the contrary. Office of the Ombudsman. for all intents and purposes. assuming arguendo. as what precisely is before us in this case. that petitioner were (sic) administratively liable. oppression or grave misconduct or neglect in the performance of duty. where the issue of equal protection was raised. that the Ombudsmans action is only advisory in nature rather than one having any binding effect. 24. it is at once apparent that the immediately executory quality of a preventive suspension order does not preclude the preventively suspended respondent from seeking reconsideration of such order. is a strong indication that the Ombudsmans recommendation is not merely advisory in nature but is actually mandatory within the bounds of law. Gobenciongs lament about his right to due process. Thus. Jurisprudence on the matter is settled.[27] In Miranda v.[32] (Emphasis ours. in which case the period of such delay shall not be counted in computing the period of suspension herein provided.[26] As things thus stand. fixed term of office and classification as an impeachable officer. In fine. if in his judgment the evidence of guilt is strong. ratiocinating as follows: Petitioner insists that the word recommend be given its literal meaning. Mojica. members of Congress. and (a) the charge against such officer or employee involves dishonesty. Rule III of the Ombudsman Rules of Procedure. This brings us to the issue of the alleged violation of the equal protection clause. there is a world of difference between them. without just cause. 24 of RA 6770 thus provides: Sec. about being in possession of full administrative disciplinary authority over public officials and employees. we held that the pronouncement in Tapiador on the authority of the Ombudsman is at most an obiter dictum. the matters of the issuance by the CA of a TRO bearing on the implementation of the preventive suspension in question and Gobenciongs unacted contempt motions have become moot and academic. Reading and harmonizing together the aforequoted Sec. subparagraph (3). regardless of the remedy of reconsideration made available under the law to the suspended respondent. denied the said motions. At its most basic. the existence and availment. RA 6770 itself contains limiting bars to the exercise by the Ombudsman or his deputies of the power to impose preventive suspension. the Solicitor General and the Office of the Ombudsman argue that the word recommend must be taken in conjunction with the phrase and ensure compliance therewith. The preventive suspension shall continue until the case is terminated by the Office of the Ombudsman but not more than six months.

Nos. Gobenciong asseverates that the grant unto the Ombudsman under RA 6770 of the power to take over a disciplinary case. All powers are susceptible to misuse and abuse. Thus. summon witnesses and require the production of documents. suspension. that what Gobenciong considers as a question of a constitutional nature is absolutely necessary to the disposition of this case. No. Gobenciongs submission about the Office of the Ombudsman taking over the case from the DOH strikes us as a clear case of a misleading afterthought.[47] Third Main Issue: RA 6770 provisos granting investigative. and (4) the constitutional question raised is the very lis mota of the case. The Office of the Ombudsman shall have the following powers. employee. but that is hardly a reason to strike down the law. hold hearings in accordance with its rules of procedure. adding that RA 6770 does not provide any guiding standard. or inefficient. the law requires that the question of constitutionality of a statute must be raised at the earliest opportunity.[34] And to put to rest any uncertainty that might have been occasioned by a misreading of Tapiador. We are not persuaded. et al.[48] And so it was that RA 6770 was enacted empowering. improper. Withal. The exercise of such power is well founded in the Constitution and Republic Act No. from any investigatory agency of government. it cannot be considered on appeal. SP No. In Matibag v. it is the 1987 Constitution no less which granted and allowed the grant by Congress of sweeping prosecutorial. The records tend to show that the Office of Ombudsman-Visayas took cognizance of and assumed jurisdiction of what would later be OMB-VIS-ADM-97-0370 on June 20. in Office of the Ombudsman. 2000 and the Order dated August 10. Finally.[38] Among others.[44] possessing full administrative disciplinary authority. As earlier discussed.[50] The issue of constitutionality was not raised at the earliest possible opportunity. not merely a passive one. 2000 of the Ombudsman in OMB-VIS-ADM-97-0370 are hereby REINSTATED and AFFIRMED IN TOTO. functions and duties: (1)cralawInvestigate on its own. at any stage. .[37] which reads: Sec. For our purpose. the Court similarly upholds the Office of the Ombudsmans power to impose the penalty of removal. under Sec. 1997 with an offense arising from the anomalous procurement of a hemoanalyzer. such that. of the CA in CA-G. the authority of the Ombudsman to conduct administrative investigations is of constitutional origin. among the latest of which were Commission on Audit. 2002 and August 27. Benipayo. The mere filing of the formal charge. however. it is imperative that the petitioner shows a clear and unequivocal breach of the Constitution. we proceeded to explain in Office of the Ombudsman that the Office of the Ombudsmans basic constitutional mandate as [protector] of the people is embodied in Sec. including the power to impose the penalty of removal and to prosecute a public officer or employee found to be at fault. but cannot impose. 2005 and May 29. impose the said penalty. 13(1). Clearly then.R. respectively. or otherwise. The Court. it cannot be considered at the trial. as it were.R. and to direct the implementation of a preventive suspension order constitutes unconstitutional delegation of authority. Butuan City v. and even corruption. respectively. if it was not raised in the pleadings before a competent court. Unequivocally. this means before the Office of the Ombudsman.[41] 23. devoid of any limitation and check-and-balance mechanism. once it attaches. 13. the petitions in G. 2006. The petition for certiorari in G. This is not to say. investigatory. the investigation of cases [of which he has primary jurisdiction]. to investigate any act or omission. Sandiganbayan. Hinampas[46] and Office of the Ombudsman v. SP No. 168059 is hereby GRANTED. the provisions cited in Office of the Ombudsman were Secs. inter alia.[49] And it is basic that the matter of constitutionality shall. 19. we stressed that the history of RA 6770 bears out the conclusion that Congress intended the Office of the Ombudsman to be an activist watchman. be considered if it is the lis mota of the case and raised and argued at the earliest opportunity. 6770. fine. if not considered in the trial. 61687 are ANNULLED and SET ASIDE.[45] gave validation to the legislative intent adverted to. the Office of the Ombudsman is a creature of the Constitution. demotion. 159883 and 173212 are hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit. Jurisdiction. 2003. in Uy v. office or agency. such unbridled power and wide and sweeping authority are laden with perilous opportunities for partiality and abuse. 1997 when dela Pea filed her complaint for falsification and misconduct against Gobenciong and other hospital officials. at any stage of the investigation. Regional Office No. For the fact of the matter is that the Deputy Ombudsman-Visayas did not wrest jurisdiction from the DOH over the administrative aspect of this ghost delivery case. He describes the exercise by the Ombudsman and his deputies of such powers as a roving commission. we held that the earliest opportunity to raise a constitutional issue is to raise it in the pleadings before a competent court that can resolve the same.R. the Court may exercise its power of judicial review only if the following requisites are present: (1) an actual and appropriate case and controversy. the unconstitutionality of a law must clearly be demonstrated. the Court reiterated its ruling in Ledesma. did not as it cannot oust the Office of the Ombudsman of its jurisdiction over the administrative case. or at least before the CA. censure. administrative. to borrow from Office of the Ombudsman: cover the entire gamut of administrative adjudication which entails the authority to. left it to Congress to invest the office with more broad powers to enforce its own action. 13[35] of RA 6770. Far from it. it cannot now be considered in Gobenciongs petitions for review. administrative sanctions over erring public officers and employees. conduct investigations. The parallel holdings in Ledesma and Office of the Ombudsman would later be echoed in a slew of cases. in the exercise of its administrative disciplinary authority. not merely a doubtful or argumentative one. the espoused theory of undue delegation of authority is untenable. As a final point. the Ombudsman to take over. WHEREFORE. of the CA in CA-G. and the assailed Decision and Resolution dated April 29. when such act or omission appears to be illegal. in the ultimate analysis. This was four months before the DOH formally charged Gobenciong. (2) a person and substantial interest of the party raising the constitutional question. proceeding as it does from Sec. continues until the case is concluded. with sufficient bite and muscle to enable it to carry out its mandate as protector of the people against the inept. the Decision dated March 21. They. The framers of the 1987 Constitution intended the office to be strong and effective. any act or omission of any public official.[42] and 25[43] of RA 6770.In Office of the Ombudsman. 15[36] of the same RA. the Ombudsman full administrative disciplinary authority as said statute is replete with provisions that. Ranada formulates the rule in the following wise: When the issue of unconstitutionality of a legislative act is raised. as a rule. 49585 are AFFIRMED IN TOTO. however.R. It cannot be predicated on speculations or hypothetical fears that its provisions may be perverted or the powers granted abused. or on complaint by any person. necessarily. Accordingly. unjust. prosecutorial and disciplinary powers to the Ombudsman not unconstitutional We now come to the concluding inquiry. For. only the third requisite is in question. 13. Santiago. Not to be overlooked of course is RA 6770 which grants. on October 29.[39] 21. abusive.[40] 22. To Gobenciong. on the core issue of whether the Ombudsman can only recommend. place under preventive suspension public officers or employees as warranted by the evidence. and disciplinary powers to the Ombudsman. and. receive complaints. Estarija v. while its specific constitutional functions are substantially reiterated in Sec. and corrupt in the Government. and. and the appealed Decision and Resolution dated November 26. Article XI of the Constitution. While the Court may declare a law or portions thereof unconstitutional. or prosecution of a public officer or employee found to be at fault. Lest it be overlooked. (3) the exercise of judicial review is pleaded at the earliest opportunity. 15(1) thereof. without more. observing: In the present case.

chemical mists. 8749. This shall include the setting up of a funding or guarantee mechanism for cleanup and environmental rehabilitation and compensation for personal damages. solid particles of any kind. or any discharge thereto of any liquid. a. it is the policy of the State to maintain a quality of air that protects human health and welfare. Scope .It is the policy of the State to: a.These Rules shall be known and cited as the "Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Philippine Clean Air Act of 1999. water vapor. that is detrimental to health or the environment.The following terms as used in these Implementing Rules and Regulations shall be defined as follows: "Act" refers to Republic Act No. program or activity.These Rules shall lay down the powers and functions of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Encourage cooperation and self-regulation among citizens and industries through the application of market-based instruments.IMPLEMENTING RULES AND REGULATIONS OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. Title. The right to participate in the decision-making process concerning development policies. 192. Section 3. or other legitimate purposes. soot. planning. The right to utilize and enjoy all natural resources according to the principles of sustainable development. "Air quality performance rating" refers to a rating system to be developed by the Department through the Bureau. Purpose. and the inert gases all in their natural or normal concentrations. The right to be informed of the nature and extent of the potential hazard of any activity. Air Quality Policies. . b. Air Quality Principles. The State shall promote and protect the global environment to attain sustainable development while recognizing the primary responsibility of local government units to deal with environmental problems. contaminated steam and radioactive substances. Formulate and enforce a system of accountability for short and long-term adverse environmental impact of a project. gases. d. The State recognizes that a clean and healthy environment is for the good of all and should therefore be a concern of all.Pursuant to the above-declared principles. 8749. implementation and monitoring of environmental policies and programs and in the decision-making process. the rights and obligations of stakeholders and the rights and duties of the people with respect to the Air Quality Management and Control Program. commercial. 8749 PHILIPPINE CLEAN AIR ACT OF 1999 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 51 of Republic Act No." Section 2. c. The State recognizes that the responsibility of cleaning the habitat and environment is primarily area-based and that air quality management and control is most effective at the level of airsheds. to compel the rehabilitation and cleanup of affected area. agricultural. . The right to bring action in court or quasi-judicial bodies to enjoin all activities in violation of environmental laws and regulations. RULE II DECLARATION OF STATE POLICY Section 1. RULE V RIGHTS Section 1. the Department of Trade and Industry.It is the policy of the State to protect and advance the right of people to a balanced and healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature. Section 4. . "Air pollutant" means any matter found in the atmosphere other than oxygen. safety or welfare or which will adversely affect their utilization for domestic. Series of 1987. the following rights of citizens are hereby sought to be recognized and the State shall seek to guarantee their enjoyment: a. Promote public information and education and to encourage the participation of an informed and active public in air quality planning and monitoring. Formulate a comprehensive national program of air pollution management that shall be implemented by the government through proper delegation and effective coordination of functions and activities. RULE III AIR QUALITY PRINCIPLES Section 1. Declaration of Policy. fly ash. The right to bring action in court for compensation of personal damages resulting from the adverse environmental and public health impact of a project or activity. plans and programs projects or activities that may have adverse impact on the environment and public health. cinder. c. . The air quality performance ratings will be grouped by industry. d. which includes but not limited to smoke. or injurious to public health. recreational. detrimental. The State recognizes the principle that "polluters must pay" and the important role of economic instruments in air quality management and control. The right to breathe clean air. undertaking or project and to be served timely notice of any significant rise in the level of pollution and the accidental or deliberate release into the atmosphere of harmful or hazardous substances. fumes. d. and h. industrial. c. the Department of Energy and all other concerned agencies. . the Department of Environment and Natural Resources hereby adopts and promulgates the following rules and regulations: PART I GENERAL PROVISIONS RULE I PRELIMINARY PROVISIONS Section 1. . carbon dioxide. Focus primarily on pollution prevention rather than on control and provide for a comprehensive management program for air pollution. Sustainable development shall refer to development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. "Air pollution" means any alteration of the physical. It is also the policy of the State to attain and maintain a balance between development and environmental protection. Finally.These Implementing Rules and Regulations shall be liberally construed to carry out the national policy of balancing development and environmental protection through the pursuance of the framework of sustainable development. dust. RULE IV AIR QUALITY POLICIES Section 1. The right of access to public records which a citizen may need to exercise his or her rights effectively under this Act. . g. Recognition of Rights. . RULE VI DEFINITION OF TERMS Section 1." and by virtue of Executive Order No. and e. otherwise known as the "Philippine Clean Air Act of 1999".The purpose of these Rules is to provide guidelines on the operationalization of the Philippine Clean Air Act of 1999. Construction. chemical and biological properties of the atmosphere. nitrogen. Definitions. gaseous or solid substances that will or is likely to create or to render the air resources of the country harmful. f. e. and will compare emissions data for . b. the Department of Transportation and Communication. b. The right to participate in the formulation. and to seek the imposition of penal sanctions against violators of environmental laws. otherwise known as the "Philippine Clean Air Act of 1999.

quantity. %. liquid or gaseous chemicals from housekeeping and disinfecting procedures. kilograms of particulate emitted per megagram of coal burned). drugs and chemicals that have been returned from wards. It may include not only parts and components but also subassemblies and assemblies. result in lower air emissions but in a cost-effective manner. A = activity rate. "Best Available Control Technology" refers to approaches. organs. When estimating emissions for a long time period (e. "Episode" means a series of short-term air pollution events that significantly alter the ambient air quality of an affected area. This will enable the Department to anticipate the type of development control that is necessary in the planning area. Sources that are subject to different allowable emission rates.. Such record shall be the basis of the firm¶s compliance with the emission standards. evaluating stages of deterioration or enhancement of the air quality. at any time. process or trade. volume and toxicity of emissions from an industrial or mobile source. g. The plan must include a schedule that will be enforceable. "Criteria Pollutants" are air pollutants for which National Ambient Air Quality Guideline Values have been established. "Department" refers to the Department of Environment and Natural Resources. "Ambient air quality standard" means the concentration of an air pollutant which. or duration of the activity emitting the pollutant (e. "Equivalent Method" refers to any technique or procedure for sampling and/or analyzing an air pollutant which has been approved by the Bureau and demonstrated to have a consistent and quantitatively known relationship with the designated standard method.g. or are to be discarded or any reason. chemical wastes and sharps defined as follows: "Pathological wastes" include all human tissue (whether infected or not) such as limbs. Emission averaging is computed on an annual potential ton per year basis. heavy metals) that are cumulative or persistent in the body. "Emission Charge" refers to a fee corresponding to the quality. pollutant. "Ambient air quality" refers to the atmosphere¶s average purity in a broad area as distinguished from discharge measurements taken at the source of pollution or the present characteristic or nature of the surrounding atmosphere. An emission credit is equal to one ton of an air pollutant. "Eco-profile" shall refer to the geographic-based instrument for planners and decision-makers which presents an evaluation of the environmental quality and carrying capacity of an area.g. must estimate the minimum regulatory level on the standard that provides the lowest annual allowable tonnage. "Director" means the Director of the Bureau. "Emission factor" refers to a representative value that attempts to relate the quantity of a pollutant released to the atmosphere with an activity associated with the release of that pollutant. Such factors facilitate estimation of emissions from various sources of air pollution. resulting in ignition. "Emission averaging" is a technique whereby a facility having more than one source of a given pollutant may. Noncompliance with an undertaking or agreement submitted to the Department shall likewise be a ground for issuance of a CDO. it may be an approved monitoring system for continuously measuring the emission of a pollutant from an affected source or facility and as such. and ER= overall emission reduction efficiency. e. The owner of the facility must submit the plan within two months of notification of non-compliance by the Bureau. volume.. animal or plant life. Section V. distance. gas stream or unwanted sound from a known source which is passed into the atmosphere. these factors are simply averages of all available data of acceptable quality. or abating health impacts from air pollution. are expired or contaminated. both the device and the capture efficiency terms should account for upset periods as well as routine operations. These values shall be used for air quality management purposes such as determining time trends. "Certificate of Conformity" refers to the certificate issued by the Department to a vehicle manufacturer/assembler or importer certifying that a particular new vehicle or vehicle type meets the requirements provided under this Act and its Implementing Rules and Regulations. It is the result of the integration of various primary and secondary data and information on natural resources and anthropogenic activities on the land which are evaluated by various environmental risk assessment and forecasting methodologies. "Authority to Construct" refers to the legal authorization granted by the Bureau to install a new source or modify an existing source. used as a basis for taking positive action in preventing. "Detoxification process" refers to the process of diminishing or removing the poisonous quality of any substance using chelating agents to prevent or reverse toxicity particularly for those substances (e. fetuses and body fluid. axle assemblies. may be used in computing annual emission fees. "Chemical wastes" include discarded solid. "Cease and Desist Order" refers to the ex parte Order directing the discontinuance of the operation resulting in the emission or discharge of pollutants exceeding the emission standards or whenever such emission or discharge constitutes imminent threat to human. Further. transmissions. These factors are usually expressed as the weight of pollutant divided by a unit weight.. chassis and body assemblies. Emission factors may be used to calculate emission fees. "Continuous Emission Monitoring System" means the total equipment. in order to protect public health and/or public welfare. and provide a permanent record of emissions or process parameters. e. animal carcasses and tissue from laboratories. "Pharmaceutical wastes" include pharmaceutical products. In general. "Compression Ignition Engine" means an internal combustion engine in which atomized fuel temperature is raised through compression. BACT results in lower emission rates than those specified in the National Emission Standards for Source Specific Air Pollutants "Bio-medical waste" refers to pathological wastes. The general equation for emission estimation is: E = A x EF x (1-ER/100) where: E = emissions. used to sample and condition (if applicable).g. . "Completely Built-up Unit (CBU)" refers to vehicles imported into the country either brand new or used and ready for operation.. "Compliance Plan" refers to a plan submitted to the Bureau for approval which details how an existing stationary air emissions source will be brought into compliance. "Emission Credits" are generated by sources that reduce their annual mass emissions below the equivalent minimum regulatory level by either installing and operating pollution control devices or by using other Bureau approved methods. have been spilled or soiled. "Emission" means any measurable air contaminant. In most cases. public health or public safety. EF = emission factor.. required under these Implementing Rules and Regulations or as directed by the Bureau.ER is further defined as the product of the control device destruction or removal efficiency and the capture efficiency of the control system. engines. under certain circumstances and with EMB approval. "Airshed" refers to areas with common weather or meteorological conditions and sources of air pollution which affect the interchange and diffusion of pollution in the surrounding atmosphere. "Emissions Trading" refers to a market-based approach to air pollution control which allows for transferring emission credits between different facilities for use as a form of regulatory compliance. together with all related swabs and dressings. controlling. "Bureau" or "EMB" refers to the Central Office of the Environmental Management Bureau and its Regional Offices under the Department. analyze. pharmaceutical wastes. Standards are enforceable and must be complied with by the owner or person in-charge of an industrial operation. techniques or equipment which when used. reduce emissions from one or more sources sufficiently so that the average of all the facility's source emissions is equal to or below the applicable standard for a particular pollutant. The equivalent minimum regulatory level is based upon the lowest annual emissions in tons that results when the source operates at its permitted emission rate for its typical annual operating hours. diesel engines. "Completely Knocked-Down" (CKD) refers to new parts and components and/or engines that are imported in disassembled condition for purposes of assembly. "Ambient air quality guideline values" refers to the concentration of air over specified periods classified as short-term and/or long-term which are intended to serve as goals or objectives for the protection of health and/or public welfare. one year). shall not be exceeded in the breathing zone. such as National Emission Standards and Ambient Air Quality Standards. as indicated in Rule VI.industrial sources to the relevant National Ambient Air Quality Standards and the relevant National Emissions Standards for Source Specific Air Pollutants. g.

"National Motor Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program" refers to the set of projects and other activities and efforts all designed to reduce the damaging impact of air pollution and unsafe vehicles on health and safety of the people. This also refers to "Light Commercial Vehicles. and oxides of nitrogen. resistance to the detoxification process. "Light Duty Vehicles" are motor vehicles whose gross vehicle weight is equal to or less than 3. and a series of measures to ensure compliance with them. or which results in the emission of any air pollutant (to which a standard applies) into the atmosphere not previously permitted. constructed and operated principally for the conveyance of persons or the transportation of property or goods. with respect to automotive gasoline for use in a motor vehicle or a class thereof. and the others that can potentially or can reasonably be expected to induce global warming. etc. "Installation" means any structure." "Lowest Achievable Emission Rate" refers to any technology or combination of technology and process controls that results in the lowest possible emissions of a given air pollutant. intended to be protective of public health. taillight and stoplight. waste from dialysis treatment area. equipment. "Greenhouse gases" refers to those gases such as carbon dioxide. repair and replacement shall not be considered physical changes if not intended to extend the useful life beyond the equipment manufacturer¶s design. shall be reclassified and considered a new source. any foreign state or country. but not limited to. including carcinogenicity (which in some cases may result in acute exposure but with a long latent period). "Motorcycle" refers to any two-wheeled motor vehicle with at least one headlight. or substantial portion of such class. and operated on the highways of the Philippines. "Gross Vehicle Mass or Weight" means the gross vehicle mass or weight as declared by the vehicle manufacturer.500 kgs. as amended. halons. or any source for which construction has been offered for bidding or actual construction has commenced prior to the date of effectivity of these Implementing Rules and Regulations Any existing source which in the opinion of the Department has undergone a modification after the date of adoption of an applicable rule and regulation. business or establishment which generates. without knocking. including combustion of carbon-based or other fuel. "New Source" means any plant. whether imported. gloves. cultures and stocks of infectious agents from laboratory work. facility or appurtenances thereto. or skin absorption. refers to the minimum octane rating or such automotive gasoline which such manufacturer recommends for the efficient operation of such motor vehicle. "Modification" means any physical change or alteration in the method of operation of an existing source which increases the amount of any air pollutant (to which a standard applies) emitted into the atmosphere by that source. An increase in the production rate providing the facility is permitted to operate at the increased level and that such increase does not exceed the designed capacity of the existing source. "Incinerator" refers to a facility. "Operator" means a person or entity that manages a transport business but not necessarily a vehicle owner. or immunization of human beings or animals. or the potential to pollute underground or surface waters. "Mandatory Inspection" refers to the interval between testing and the tests performed. or (2) long-term toxicity upon repeated exposure. all materials which may contain pathogens in sufficient concentration or quality that exposure to could result in disease. plus the Motor Octane Number (MON). "Owner" means the person or entity identified as the motor vehicle owner in the motor vehicle registration or by a valid deed of sale. "Medium/Heavy Duty Vehicles" refers to motor vehicles whose gross vehicle weight is greater than 3. corrosivity or other skin or eye contact hazard or the risk of fire explosion. installed. safety. the octane requirement. Cost is not a consideration in determining applicable LAER for a given source. treatment. and general welfare. "Imported Used/Second-Hand Vehicle" means any used or second-hand motor vehicle imported and registered in the country of origin. biomedical or hazardous wastes. through adoption of standards for emission and vehicle safety. "Normal Cubic Meter" (Ncm) means the volume of dry gas which occupies a cubic meter measured at twenty five degrees Celsius (25o) at an absolute pressure equivalent to seven hundred sixty (760) mm Hg. "Municipal waste" refers to the waste materials generated from communities within a specific locality. "National Ambient Air Quality Guideline Values" are limits on criteria air pollutant concentrations published by the Department. motorcycles shall include motorcycles with attached cars also known as "tricycles". manufactured. emits or disposes air emissions into the atmosphere and constructed after the date of effectivity of these Implementing Rules and Regulations. "Mobile source" means any vehicle/machine propelled by or through oxidation or reduction reactions. dialysis equipment. chlorofluorocarbons. equipment. "Octane Rating" or the "Anti-Knock Index" (AKI) means the rating of the anti-knock characteristics of a grade or type of automotive gasoline as determined by dividing by two (2) the sum of the Research Octane Number (RON). as partial pre-condition for the renewal of registration of in-use motor vehicles. furnace or other similar structure which burns municipal. otherwise known as the Land Transportation Code."Existing Source" means any source already erected. and one or more saddle seats. "Motor Vehicle Registration" refers to the official recording of a motor vehicle by the Land Transportation Office (LTO) subject to the conformance of the vehicle to the safety and emission standards provided under Section 21 of the Act. methane. and the like. including the pre-evaluation of the documents/requirements pursuant to Section 5 of Republic Act 4136. "Governing Board" refers to a multi-sectoral body created under Section 9 of the Act to effectively carry out and implement the air quality action plan of an airshed. "Guideline" means an official recommendation or guidance on the protection of human beings or receptors in the environment from the adverse effects of air pollutants. materials which have been in contact with persons or animals suffering from infectious diseases. "Hazardous substances" refers to those substances which present either: (1) short-term acute hazards such as acute toxicity by ingestion. "Opacity" means the amount of light obscured by particle pollution in the atmosphere. For purposes of these rules. and in operation. chloroflouro-carbons.500 kgs. or installation in any trade. and An increase in hours of operation provided that the facility is permitted to operate for the increase in hours. however. "Manufacturer or Assembler" means any entity or person who manufactures or assembles motor vehicles. "Ozone Depleting Substances" (ODS) refers to those substances that significantly deplete or otherwise modify the ozone layer in a manner that is likely to result in adverse effects on human health and the environment such as. "Infectious waste" refers to soiled surgical dressings. technical feasibility is. which process emits toxic and poisonous fumes. or assembled by a manufacturer. swabs and other contaminated waste from treatment areas. "Motor Vehicle" means any vehicle propelled by a gasoline or diesel engine or by any means other than human or animal power constructed and operated principally for the conveyance of persons or the transportation of goods. or in the production or testing of biologicals. . in research pertaining thereto. The following are exempted from the said definition: Routine maintenance. for eventual use in the Philippines. "In-Use Vehicle" means a motor vehicle duly registered with the LTO. waste from patients in isolation wards. operation of which may be a source of pollution or a means to control the same. This includes any existing stationary source transferred or moved to a different location or site for the purpose of installation. apparatus and disposable gowns. aprons. towels. operation or use after such date. that emit air pollutants as a reaction product. The technology must be reasonably demonstrated to be appropriate and reliable for each application. equipment. inhalation. "New Motor Vehicle" means a vehicle constructed entirely from new parts that has never been sold or registered with the DOTC or with the appropriate agency or authority. "Medical waste" means any solid waste that is generated in the diagnosis.

on a routine basis. Gravimetric. "Stationary source" refers to any building or fixed structure. Part 50. fuel used and similar characteristics. "Rebuilt Motor Vehicle" means a locally assembled vehicle using new or used engine. furan. manner of transmission. production processes. "Permit" refers to the legal authorization to engage in or conduct any construction. twigs. PART II NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY GUIDELINES RULE VII NATIONAL AIR QUALITY Section 1. "Regional Office" means one of the Regional Offices of the Bureau. DDT. Information Circular No. "Pollution control device" refers to any device or apparatus that is used to prevent. operation or activity which will be reasonably be expected to be a source of pollution. Appendix J Sulfur Dioxide Gas Bubbler and Pararosaniline Method (West and Gaeke Method). (d) Other equivalent methods approved by the Bureau may be adopted. Part 50. and used for measuring smoke opacity. Part 50. "Persistent Organic Pollutants" (POPs) means organic compounds that persist in the environment. and include but are not limited to dioxin. USEPA 40 CFR. "Pollution control technology" refers to pollution control devices. . dieldrin. such as aldrin. "Potential to emit" refers to the annual mass emissions that would result from a source when operating 8. other than uncombined water. f Provisional limits for Suspended Particulate Matter with mass median diameter less than 10 m m and below until sufficient monitoring data are gathered to base a proper guideline. "Permit to Operate" refers to the legal authorization granted by the Bureau to operate or maintain any installation for a specified period of time. Appendix G (c) An analyzer based on the principles and methods cited above will be considered a reference method only if it has been designated as a reference method in accordance with 40 CFR. and meet standards of road worthiness and engine emissions. "Useful Life of Vehicles and Engines" refers to the period of time a vehicle and/or engine can be used. chemical and biological degradation. "Permit Condition" refers to a statement or stipulation issued with a permit. Appendix B PM-10 High Volume with 10 micron particle-size inlet. "Siga" means the traditional small scale method of burning of wastes resulting from cleaning the backyard such as fallen leaves. body configuration. Appendix D Carbon Monoxide Non-dispersive Infra-red Spectrophotometry (NDIR). 8333 and No. organochlorine pesticides. National Ambient Air Quality Guideline Values (a) Pursuant to Section 12 of Republic Act 8749. A minimum of twelve sampling days per quarter or forty-eight sampling days each year is required for these methods. engine type. Part 53. in coordination with other concerned agencies and programs such as the National Research and . stems.Gravimetric. Appendix F Ozone Neutral Buffer Potassium Iodide (NBKI). Actual emissions are based on the actual hours of operation per year. These compounds resist photolytic. fuel combustion processes or other means that effectively prevent or reduce emissions or effluents. and other similar matter from plants and trees in the backyard where the burning is done."Particulate Matter" or "Suspended Particulates" means any material. Part 50. e. or Chemiluminescence Method. hexachlorobenzene. 7718. e Annual Geometric Mean. USEPA 40 CFR. and pose a risk of causing adverse effects to human health and the environment. Appendix C Lead High Volume and Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometry. major parts or components "Reference Mass or Weight" means the mass or weight of the vehicle in running order with a full fuel tank and including the set of tools and spare wheel. c SO2 and Suspended Particulate matter are sampled once every six days when using the manual methods.S. Review of Air Quality Guideline Values. control. Part 50. toxaphene and chlordane. USEPA 40 CFR. compliance with which is necessary for continued validity of the permit. or Flame Photometric Detector. USEPA 40 CFR. USEPA 40CFR. "Regional Director" means the Regional Director of any Regional Office. "Vehicle Type" means a category of power-driven vehicles which do not differ in such essentials as reference mass or weight. "Smoke Opacity Meter (or Opacimeter)" means an instrument which determines the smoke opacity in exhaust gases emitted by the engine system. g Evaluation of this guideline is carried out for 24-hour averaging time and averaged over three moving calendar months. Part 50. b Arithmetic mean. "Semi-Knocked Down (SKD)" refers to parts and components and/or engines that are imported in partially assembled condition for assembly purposes. "Spark-Ignition Engine" means an internal combustion engine in which the air/fuel mixture is ignited by a spark plug. lindane.. "Poisonous and toxic fumes" means any emission and fumes which do not conform to internationally accepted standards.g. which exists in a finely divided form as a liquid or solid. a gasoline engine. Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs). Appendix A Nitrogen Dioxide Gas Bubbler Griess-Saltzman. USEPA 40 CFR. plus 100 kilograms but does not include the mass or weight of the passengers and driver. bioaccumulative through the food web. Daily sampling may be done in the future once continuous analyzers are procured and become available. or Chemiluminescence Method. including but not limited to World Health Organization (WHO) guideline values. Bureau of Mines. facility or installation that emits or may emit any air pollutant. d Limits for Total Suspended Particulate Matter with mass median diameter less than 25-50 m m. USEPA 40 CFR. operation. This includes semi-assembled vehicles and cars without tires and batteries. number of cylinders. (b) The applicable methods for sampling and measurement of the above pollutants are as follows: TSP High Volume . Part 50. the initial set of National Ambient Air Quality Guideline Values necessary to protect public health and safety and general welfare shall be as follows Photochemical Oxidants as Ozone a Maximum limits represented by ninety-eight percentile (98%) values not to exceed more than once a year. modification or expansion of any installation. "Standard of performance" means a standard for emission of air pollutants which reflects the degree of emission limitation achievable through the application of the best system of emission reduction. taking into account the cost of achieving such reduction and any non-air quality health and environment impact and energy requirement as determined by the Department through the Bureau. Section 2. The monitored average value for any three months shall not exceed the guideline value. or abate the pollution of air caused by emissions from identified sources at levels within the air pollution standards established by the Department.The Department through the Bureau shall.760 hours per year. "Ringelmann Chart" means the chart described in the U.

Selection of the appropriate control technology will be made in consultation and with the approval of the Bureau but in no case shall it result in non-compliance with requirements of Section 1.GENERAL Section 1. or An increase in existing ambient air levels above the levels shown below: PM-10. Hydrogen Sulfide: Sources shall install and operate a CEMS for this parameter that meets criteria provided in USEPA 40 CFR Part 60 Appendix B. one at maximum permitted operations. c. Section 4. Method 5 for modified sources. Section 2.New or modified sources must comply with National Emission Standards for Source Specific Air Pollution and Ambient Air Quality Standards pertaining to the source. safety and general welfare. according to manufacturer specifications. Standards. therefore. and will review and revise these designations from time to time as relevant data become available. Air Quality Indices.The Bureau shall revise area designations as additional data. The plan must include a schedule that will be enforceable and may provide for as long as eighteen (18) months to meet the applicable standards after notice of non-compliance by the Bureau. . Particulate matter: Sources shall install and operate a CEMS for opacity that meets criteria provided in USEPA 40 CFR Part 60 Appendix B. which details how the source will be brought into compliance. Rule IX that the source has the POTENTIAL to emit in quantities equal to or greater than 100 tons per year. . Carbon Monoxide 100 tons per year Nitrogen Oxides 40 tons per year Sulfur Dioxide 40 tons per year TSP 25 tons per year PM10 15 tons per year Volatile Organic Compounds 40 tons per year Hydrogen Sulfide 10 tons per year RULE X NEW/MODIFIED SOURCES IN ATTAINMENT AREAS . Performance Specification 7. Designation of Attainment Areas. CEMS shall be applied as follows: All sources subject to this section: Sources shall install and operate a CEMS for carbon dioxide and oxygen that meets criteria provided in USEPA 40 CFR Part 60 Appendix B. Section 3.GENERAL RULE IX EXISTING SOURCES IN ATTAINMENT AREAS Section 1. Sulfur Dioxide and Nitrogen Oxides: Sources shall install and operate a CEMS for these parameters that meet criteria provided in USEPA 40 CFR Part 60 Appendix B. annual arithmetic mean 20 micrograms per cubic meter Sulfur Dioxide. as appropriate meet the following requirements. 24-hr maximum 91 micrograms per cubic meter Nitrogen Dioxide. PART III MAINTENANCE OF ATTAINMENT AREAS RULE VIII ATTAINMENT AREAS . continuous emission monitoring systems (CEMS) for each applicable pollutant listed in Section 4. Annex A contains the air quality indices and recommended actions that each LGU may opt to follow. Section 1. Modification of Sources. Section 3. The calibration curve shall cover the full range of reasonably expected operating conditions and/or process rates of the source and shall consist of at least three data points. . and one at 80% of the maximum permitted rate. . annual arithmetic mean 25 micrograms per cubic meter In the case of multiple point sources at a single facility. Additionally. d. Publication of Revised Values. including meteorological data. Results from reviews of area designations will be made available for public comment. Section 2. . and shall designate such areas as "attainment areas.Sources subject to provision of this Rule shall not be eligible for emission averaging however they may generate emission credits for purposes of an acceptable emission trading program.The Bureau shall delineate areas where the existing ambient air quality is at or below (that is. unless a specific provision requires CEMS for volatile organic compounds is included in the facility¶s permit to operate. .Compliance plans submitted under Section 2 above may include use of emission averaging and emission trading as approved by the Bureau and described in Rules XXI and XXII. Exceedance of the National Ambient Air Quality Guideline Values.New and modified sources shall install and operate. and in conjunction with the Department of Health (DOH) may formulate a pollution standard index of air quality to protect public health. PART IV MANAGEMENT OF NON-ATTAINMENT AREAS RULE XI NON-ATTAINMENT AREAS .Sources not in compliance with Section 1 above must submit a Compliance Plan to the Bureau for approval. Performance Specification 3. Performance Specification 1. review the list of Hazardous Air Pollutants and Guideline Values and recommend to the Secretary of the Department the revision thereof whenever necessary to protect public health and safety. Section 3. 24-hr maximum 30 micrograms per cubic meter Sulfur Dioxide. a. Section 4. The owner of the facility must submit the plan within two (2) months of notification of non-compliance by the Bureau. Emission Averaging and Emission Trading.Existing sources must comply with National Emission Standards for Source Specific Air Pollution and Ambient Air Quality Standards pertaining to the source. Continuous Emission Monitoring. consistent with the requirements of Rule XVII. Non-compliance. Performance Specification 2. as well as to volatile organic compounds. Implementation and enforcement of corrective actions contained in the index will be at the local government unit (LGU) level. Appendix A.Any existing source in an attainment area making a change or modification to its process or production which results in an increase of POTENTIAL emissions equal to or greater than the following shall be considered significant and subject to Rule X for the affected pollutant(s). The owner shall have the additional requirement of establishing a calibration curve showing the relationship between opacity as measured by the CEMS and mass particulate emission rate as determined by Method 5. Section 4. b.Sources subject to this Rule shall. Standards.No new source may be constructed or existing source modified if emissions from the proposed source or modification will. TSP and PM-10 fractions are not differentiated for purposes of this section.The Department through the Bureau. the revised Ambient Air Quality Guideline Values shall be published in one (1) newspaper of general circulation and shall be posted on a public Internet website. ." Designation of attainment areas will be based on monitoring data collected using the reference methods in Part II and/or other relevant information. The CEMS requirements under this Section shall not apply to refinery flares. complies with) National Ambient Air Quality Guideline Values given in Part II. . Emission Averaging and Emission Trading. applicability will be determined by the total particulate matter expected to be emitted for new sources. . Best Available Control Technology. each source shall.Upon approval by the Secretary. . become available. and general welfare. The Bureau may waive one test point if the permitted rate and maximum design capacity rate are the same. Section 3. and data covering existing nearby sources. result in. in addition to meeting the requirements of Section 1 of this Rule. respectively. . . The Department through the Bureau will designate attainment and non-attainment areas. Section 2. the net emissions from all affected sources shall be included in a single increment analysis. The Bureau may grant an extension of up to twelve (12) months for good-faith actions from the source owner. one at maximum design capacity. or as collected by 40 CFR Part 60. source or general knowledge. whether monitoring. Review of Area Designation. . based on computer dispersion modeling. annual arithmetic mean 17 micrograms per cubic meter PM-10. Carbon Monoxide: Sources shall install and operate a CEMS for this parameter that meets criteria provided in USEPA 40 CFR Part 60 Appendix B. install and operate Best Available Control Technology for each regulated pollutant with the potential to be emitted in quantities equal to or greater than 100 tons per year. Performance Specification 4 or 4A. Section 5. Installation of the control equipment will be at the time of source construction or modification. Increment Consumption.Development Program for the Prevention and Control of Air Pollution.

Section 3. Initial Designation of National Airsheds. Section 3. the Bureau shall coordinate with the Governing Boards Section 3.The Bureau. Section 4. and (e) Other pertinent qualitative and quantitative information concerning the extent of air pollution and the air quality performance rating of industries in the country.. .The Bureau shall revise and/or confirm area designations as additional data. Review of Area Designation.Sections 5 and 6 of Rule XII above shall apply to new and modified sources in non-attainment areas. The Department through the Bureau will designate attainment and non-attainment areas. (b) An analysis and evaluation of the current state.The Secretary of the Department. Penalty and Fine Surcharge. Emission Averaging and Emission Trading. . .New and modified sources must provide offsets in existing actual emission within the non-attainment area in a ratio of 1:1. The plan must include a schedule that will be enforceable and may provide for as long as eighteen (18) months to meet the applicable standards after notice of non-compliance by the Bureau. RULE XII EXISTING SOURCES IN NON-ATTAINMENT AREAS Section 1.Designation of airsheds shall be on the basis of. Section 6. .Any existing source located in a non-attainment area and making a change in process or production which increases POTENTIAL emissions from the source of the pollutant for which the area is designated non-attainment. . . Application.Sources not in compliance with Section 1 above must submit a Compliance Plan to the Bureau for approval which details how the source will be brought into compliance. refurbishment. Designation of Non-Attainment Areas. a system of planning and coordination shall be established and a common action plan shall be formulated for each airshed. within three (3) years from the date of effectivity of these Rules.The Bureau shall designate and delineate areas where the existing ambient air quality is not in conformance with National Ambient Air Quality Guideline values given in Part II as "non-attainment areas. Section 2. according to manufacturer specifications. RULE XV AIRSHEDS Section 1. PART V AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM RULE XIV AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM Section 1. (c) An identification of critical areas.The Bureau shall. Special consideration will be given to populated areas where greater numbers of people may be exposed to unhealthy air. 150% of base) on the annual emission fees for the pollutant(s) for which the area is designated non-attainment.New and modified sources subject to the nonattainment provisions may not use emission trading or emission averaging for compliance purposes.New or modified sources must comply with all National Emission Standards for Source Specific Air Pollution and Ambient Air Quality Standards pertaining to the source. The Bureau will approve the use of lowest achievable emission rate control technologies on a case-by-case basis. Section 5. Section 2. The proposed offsets are subject to approval by the Bureau.2 to the POTENTIAL emission level of the proposed new or modified source. and every three (3) years thereafter. Emission Averaging and Emission Trading. . Emission Fee. demonstrable. but not limited to. meteorology and topology which affect the interchange and diffusion of pollutants in the atmosphere. Equipment overhaul. the Bureau shall impose penalties and fines to be computed retroactive from the time the notification of noncompliance was served. Results from reviews of area designations will be made available for public comment/review. or upgrade to extend the life of the equipment beyond its normal useful life is considered to be a modification if it result in the increase of POTENTIAL emissions for purposes of this Section.. design and establish an Ambient Air Monitoring Network for the assessment of ambient air quality. . National Air Quality Status Report. whether monitoring. RULE XIII NEW/MODIFIED SOURCES IN NON-ATTAINMENT AREAS Section 1. Section 6.Sources subject to the non-attainment provisions will be assessed a 50% surcharge (i. The Ambient Air Monitoring Network shall be expanded gradually to cover the entire country. . The National Air Quality Status Report and other related reports shall be made available to the public. The affected firm will propose technologies it believes will meet the intent of this regulation. and will review and revise these designations from time to time as relevant data become available. except as a generator (not user) of emission reduction credits." Designation of non-attainment areas will be based on monitoring data collected using the reference methods in Part II or as may be reasonably expected from existing nearby sources and meteorological conditions. Should the source failed to comply with its commitment within the specified period in the compliance plan. . per type of pollutant and per type of source.Sources subject to the non-attainment provisions will be subject to a 100% surcharge (i.New and modified sources must install and operate. shall prepare the Annual National Air Quality Status Report which shall contain: (a) A summary of the extent of air pollution in the country. areas with similar climate. . upon the recommendation of the Bureau. . source specific or general knowledge. (d) Recommendations for necessary executive and legislative action. . The owner of the facility must submit the plan within two (2) months of notification of non-compliance by the Bureau. activities. . 200% of base) for any penalties or fines relating to a violation of the non-attainment provisions. Standards. and will review and revise these designations from time to time as relevant data becomes available.The Bureau and the National Statistical Coordination Board shall design the Air Quality Database which shall be computerized and stored in a manner accessible to the public and shall contain data collected from the Ambient Air Monitoring Network and the Emissions Inventory. Section 3. The Bureau shall maintain and update the Air Quality Database. installation and operation of the CEMS shall meet criteria provided in Rule X Section 5. Section 5. Penalty and Fine Surcharge. Designation of airsheds shall be revised as additional data. Section 4.Existing sources located in non-attainment areas will be allowed to use emission averaging for compliance purposes however.For a more effective air quality management. make an inventory of emissions from stationary. Section 2. . The offsets may be made from any existing source in the non-attainment area but must be actual. Upon approval by the Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources. or areas which share common interest or face similar development programs.e. becomes available. Air Quality Database. Non-compliance. or projects which will need closer monitoring or regulation. Emissions Inventory. .The Bureau shall. shall be classified as modified and subject to Rule XIII. enforceable and permanent. Emission Offsets. Continuous Emission Monitoring. .. Ambient Air Monitoring Network. Section 2. . . the National Air Quality Status Report shall be submitted to the Office of the President and to Congress on or before March 31 of every year and shall cover the preceding calendar year. sampling. An area may be designated as non-attainment for one or more criteria pollutants. needs or situations arise.New and modified sources (as defined in Section 4 of Rule XII) shall install and operate air pollution control technology which will provide the lowest achievable emission rate (LAER) of the pollutant for which the area is designated non-attainment. they will not be allowed to participate in emission trading for the pollutant or pollutants for which the area is designated as a non-attainment area. Section 4.. and may be an attainment area for the remaining criteria pollutants. shall divide the geo-political regions of the country into airsheds. . continuous emission monitoring devices for each pollutant for which the area is in non-attainment and which the source emits.Section 1. Lowest Achievable Emission Rate. within two (2) years from the effectivity of these Rules. trends and projections of air pollution..The Department through the Bureau will designate attainment and non-attainment areas. Where possible.e. Emission Fee Surcharge.Existing sources must comply with all National Emission Standards for Source Specific Air Pollution and Ambient Air Quality Standards pertaining to the source. Modification of Sources. Standards. Section 2. prospects or problems. Extensions or grace periods will not be allowed in non-attainment areas. Designation of Airsheds. Authority. mobile and area sources.

the Secretary of the Department. This Annual Report will be available within two months after the budget year used by the Air Quality Management Fund Section 5. and (f) running costs of Governing Boards and their Technical Secretariats Section 3.. establish a National Research and Development Program for the Prevention and Control of Air Pollution..Each Governing Board will assign a dedicated. In order to promote transparency and accountability the Department will formulate business standards. project management. shall. and clean-up operations of the Government in air pollution cases. One-third of the Fund will be reserved for national purposes while the remaining two-thirds will be allocated among the airsheds. Section 7.Section 4. Section 10. . Section 8.The Bureau shall give special emphasis to research on and the development of improved methods having industry-wide application for the prevention and control of air pollution. political and economic implications of air quality management and pollution control. (c) Coordination of functions among its members. in coordination with the Department of Science and Technology. (c) costs for special events related to air quality monitoring.. project reporting and project accounting) on which decision making of requests for support from Air Quality Management Fund will be based. to support research. . Section 9. .Pursuant to Section 9 of the Act. shall. the emissions inventory and the mass rate of emission standards. of persons who have a TOR directly related to implementation of AQAP. There shall be two Deputy Chairpersons. 2 Deputy Chairs and 4 members elected by the at large governing board. The Department is responsible for allocating funds from the Air Quality Management Fund. (b) Preparation of a common action plan. . NGOs and POs. and (d) Submission and publication of an annual Air Quality Status Report for each airshed. Chairperson. Technical Working Groups. Air Emission Fees For Stationary Sources and For Mobile Sources. . (b) running costs for special campaigns: monitoring. 1586.. Development of Air Quality Guidelines. full-time technical-administrative secretariat with a separate budget. and (f) Representatives from the private sector. the Department Regional Executive Director and Regional Director in the region where the airshed is located. Section 4. together with a summary of initiatives supported and refused. Decision Making on the Use of the Air Quality Management Fund. Prior to implementation thereof. . enforcement and monitoring activities and capabilities of the relevant agencies. The base air emission fee may be adjusted in later years as new data becomes available regarding the success of individual components of the Clean Air Act.The air emission fee will initially be determined by the amount of revenue necessary to assure the successful implementation of the Clean Air Act as described in these implementing rules and regulations. . (d) Representatives from people's organizations. Development of Industry-Wide Applicable Methods. Section 11.The National Research and Development Program for the Prevention and Control of Air Pollution shall develop air quality guidelines and air quality guideline values in addition to internationally-accepted standards. Such fund may likewise bye allocated per airshed for the undertakings herein stated.Governing rules shall be formulated by and for the individual Governing Boards..Each Governing Board shall perform the following functions within its jurisdiction (airshed): (a) Formulation of policies and standard-setting. .The Air Quality Management Fund will be used for activities that are in direct support of objectives outlined in the Air Quality Action Plan and Control Action Plan of the airsheds. the private sector. Where possible.The National Research and Development Program for the Prevention and Control of Air Pollution shall be established by the Department through the Bureau.An Air Quality Management Fund to be administered by the Environmental Management Bureau as a special account in the National Treasury is hereby established to finance containment.An Executive Committee will be formed consisting of seven persons. It is expected that the ratio of the number of Board representatives from government agencies to those from non-government agencies or organizations will be on the order of 60/40. other agencies. which will describe the scrutiny mechanisms of proposals as well as maximum response times. . Individual Governing Boards shall set up special committees for this purpose with members drawn from both the government. (e) research on air related issues.Technical working groups will be formed to ensure broad based participation in the work of the Governing Boards. enforcement etc. reporting or management. and (e) a limited percentage (5-10%) of the proceeds of the Program Loan for the Metro Manila Air Quality Improvement Project. Representatives will be selected from the appropriate region. Governing Rules. (d) funding of temporary staff positions in accredited organizations. Executive Committee. .The Bureau. other agencies. (c) fines and penalties for non-compliance with environmental standards. upon recommendation of the Bureau. RULE XVIII EMISSION QUOTAS Section 1. National Research and Development Program for the Prevention and Control of Air Pollution. Section 3. among others. This can mean support. .The Department will provide basic funding for the conduct of regular meetings of the Governing Boards. Re-designation of Airshed Boundaries.Each Governing Board shall be headed by the Secretary of the Department as chairman. The necessary revenue will be based on relevant agency's budgets. members of the Committee will be selected for their expertise in the subject area. guarantee restoration of ecosystems and rehabilitate areas affected by the acts of violators of this Act.Upon consultation with appropriate local government authorities. (d) grants from both private sector and donor organizations.The Bureau may allow each regional industrial center that is designated as a special airshed to allocate emission quotas to pollution sources within its jurisdiction that qualify under an environmental impact assessment system programmatic compliance program pursuant to the implementing rules and regulations of Presidential Decree No. enforcement or public awareness raising. Uses of Fund. the Department shall consider. but not limited to: (a) purchase of equipment related to air quality monitoring. Section 2. RULE XVII AIR POLLUTION RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM Section 1. (e) Representatives from non-government organizations. removal. Composition and Organizational Set-up of the Board. Technical-Administrative Secretariat. Individual Governing Boards shall follow these criteria in allocating those funds that are put at their disposal by the Department. Section 6. It shall consider the socio-cultural. Section 5. . . Functions of the Board. It will formulate a detailed set of criteria (project design. The members shall be as follows: (a) Provincial Governors from areas belonging to the airshed. private sector and civil society members of each Governing Board. grant. (b) air emission charges from motor vehicles. the academe. Meetings. in coordination with the Department of Science and Technology (DOST). RULE XVI AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT FUND Section 1. as well as to provide technical assistance to the relevant agencies. . Section 12. finance or otherwise assist activities such as. This relates to both vehicular and industrial related air pollution. This cost will then be apportioned to stationary and mobile source owners based on estimated annual mass emissions. . Air Quality Management Fund. The Department will ensure the publication of an Annual Report which specifies income and expenditure of the Air Quality Management Fund. namely. a Governing Board will be created for each airshed to effectively carry out the formulated action plans. Governing Board.Sources for the Air Quality Management Fund shall include: (a) air emission charges for industrial facilities. . NGOs and POs. Sources for the Air Quality Management Fund. revise the designation of airsheds utilizing eco-profiling techniques and undertaking scientific studies. (c) A representative from each concerned government agency. (b) City/Municipal Mayors from areas belonging to the airshed. These governing rules shall be submitted for review and approval to the Department. from time to time. the private sector. the academe. Emission Quotas. Section 2.

operation or activity sought to be covered by the Authority to Construct. The specifications shall be in sufficient detail so that. e. The Authority to Construct shall be issued subject to such conditions as the Department through the Bureau may deem reasonable to impose and upon payment of the fees in accordance with the following schedule: In case the application is denied. or data gathering techniques acceptable to the Bureau. the emission rate and annual mass emission objectives. Applications shall be filed in four (4) copies and supported by the official receipt of the filing fees and by such documents. and shall include the existing ambient air concentrations as a baseline. A vicinity map adequately identifying the street address. Action on the Application for Permit to Operate. New or modified sources must first obtain an Authority to Construct. The plans and specifications of the installation and its control facilities (in standard size of 50 cm by 90 cm) duly certified by a registered professional mechanical engineer. The Permit to Operate shall be issued or renewed every year subject to such conditions as the Department through the Bureau through the may deem reasonable to impose. within 10 days from notice of such denial. the applicant may. planning. including their accessories. The owner shall conduct source testing using methods and techniques approved by the Bureau as part of the demonstration. In case the application is denied. a statement of compliance or non-compliance with Rule XXVIII). location and size of the pollution control equipment or facilities. Application for Permit to Operate. Section 8. Where confidential records are involved. together with other relevant information. The Department through the Bureau may deny an application having incomplete requirements when the applicant fails or refuses to complete the same despite being given reasonable time to do so.All sources of air pollution subject to these Implementing Rules and Regulations must have a valid Permit to Operate. . concentrations and quantities of all emissions to the atmosphere. b. Section 4. Filing Fees for Applications.A fee to be determined by the Department through Bureau shall be paid upon the filing of any of the following applications: a. information and data as may be required by the Department through the Bureau. Section 2. . A certification signed by the applicant attesting to the accuracy and completeness of the application. d.All proposed or planned source construction or modification requires an Authority to Construct which must be approved by the Bureau before construction or modification activities take place. together with a copy of the official receipt of the filing fees and including the following: a. Section 7. Section 6. The information listed in Section 3 of this Rule. if any.A permit duly issued by the Department through the Bureau shall be valid for the period specified therein but not beyond one (1) year from the date of issuance unless sooner suspended or revoked. the proposed control facilities. if warranted. the applicant may. and upon payment of the permit fees for air pollution source and control facilities. information and data as may be required by the Bureau. d. the Bureau may approve the use of actual ambient air test data to demonstrate compliance with the Ambient Air Quality Standards. . act on the application for Authority to Construct either by issuing the corresponding Authority to Construct or by denying the application in writing stating the reason or reasons therefor. filed in triplicate copies. to determine if the proposed construction or modification will result in a violation of an applicable air quality standard. sanitary engineer or chemical engineer or a combination of any two or all of them as may be required by the Bureau depending upon the nature of the construction. Authority to Construct. so long as the location and conditions of the testing conform to a "worst case" scenario as demonstrated by air dispersion modeling. (such as stack sampling test data). Any interested person. Filing fees for applications which have been denied shall not be refunded nor applied to subsequent applications. the Bureau may limit the full disclosure of the same after discussions with the applicant. c.For purposes of sampling.An application for a Permit to Operate shall be filed for each source emitting regulated air pollutants. within 60 days of startup. Life and General Conditions of Permit. Existing sources must obtain a permit issued by the Director unless exempted by Executive Order. b. . . A valid Permit to Operate will be issued once the owner has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the authorizing agency that all permit conditions have been or will be met and that no air quality standards or guidelines will be exceeded. The decision on said petition shall become final after 10 days from receipt thereof. Permits Required. Transfer of an existing and valid Permit to Operate by reason of transfer of location of the installation or change of permittee. A compliance action plan for sources not meeting regulatory requirements. issued by the Director. The design criteria. The project proponent shall conduct an air quality impact analysis using Bureau-approved computer dispersion models and techniques. may issue a Temporary Permit to Operate no to exceed ninety (90) days. For cases in which source sampling and analysis is not practical. The design efficiencies of the proposed air control equipment and the quantities and types of pollutants in the final emissions shall be indicated. Conversion of Authority to Construct to Permit to Operate. they clearly reveal the proposed means and methods for the control of pollution and their expected performance efficiency. The impact analysis will be used by the Bureau. the Environmental Management Bureau may conduct a public hearing on the application. The statement of compliance shall be supported by dispersion modeling data using modeling techniques and sampling approved by the Bureau. Applications shall be made in a format prescribed by the Department through the Bureau. and other relevant information. file only one written petition for reconsideration. b. in the case of incinerators. furnishing a copy thereof to the applicant may before its approval. Permit to Operate. The compliance plan may include provision for use of emission averaging and/or trading as allowed under Parts III and IV. Revision of any existing and valid Authority to Construct or Permit to Operate involving alteration or replacement of the installation. An engineering report covering the plant description and operations. The impact analysis shall estimate the resulting ambient air concentrations for all significant pollutants from the facility. . c. Section 3. provided the requirements below are met for each individual source. Other documents. of the location or premises of the installation. oppose such application in writing. The statement of compliance shall be supported with actual test data. the Department through the Bureau. including the following: a. the estimated types. within 10 days from notice of such denial file only one written petition for reconsideration. The plans shall clearly show in adequate detail the proposed arrangement. Renewal of an expired Authority to Construct or Permit to Operate. Ambient Air Quality Standards. . Facilities having more than one source may group the sources under a single permit application. A signed copy of the appointment or designation of the pollution control officer of the applicant. Temporary Permit to Operate. shall be based on the results of laboratory and pilot plant scale studies. It may be renewed by filing an application for renewal at least thirty (30) days before its expiration date and upon payment of the required fees and compliance with requirements. National Emission Standards For Source Specific Air Pollutants (or. d. provided that the applicant has a pending application for a Permit to Operate under Section 5. f.Once new source construction or modification is completed the source owner shall. cross-sections and construction details. A statement of compliance or non-compliance with Rule XXV. the design criteria for air pollution control equipment to be used. In such a case. when read in conjunction with the plans. or both. . e. Authority to Construct. request the authorizing agency (generally the Department through the Bureau) to convert the Authority to Construct to a Permit to Operate. A statement of compliance or non-compliance with Rule XXVI. Section 5. c. The decision on said petition shall become final after 10 days from receipt thereof. .PART VI AIR POLLUTION CLEARANCES AND PERMITS FOR STATIONARY SOURCES RULE XIX PERMIT REGULATIONS Section 1. research and other similar purposes. within a reasonable time. upon submission of satisfactory proof.Within thirty (30) days from submission of the complete requirements. and f. Any other application for a permit not otherwise enumerated above. The Bureau shall. the Department through the Bureau shall act on the application for Permit to Operate by approving or denying the same in writing.

Financial Guarantee Mechanisms.Financial liability instruments may be in the form of a trust fund. No person shall willfully deface. Section 13. The choice of the guarantee instrument or combinations thereof shall depend. Section 2.The owner or the pollution control officer in charge of the installation subject to the provisions of these Implementing Rules and Regulations shall keep a record of its operational data and control test indicating its operational efficiency. forge. The Bureau must approve the compliance plan and application of emission trading for it to be effective. upon showing: a. locations. among others. That a higher degree of treatment is necessary to effect the intents and purposes of the applicable provisions of these Rules and Regulations. Section 14. Tax Incentives. The Department through the Bureau shall be notified when the condition causing the failure or breakdown has been corrected and such source equipment or facility is again in operation In such a case.After due notice and public hearing. . provided that the permittee is given reasonable time to comply with such new or additional conditions. e. or e. (c) install.In case of sale or legal transfer of a facility covered by a permit. Approach. Posting of Permit. Section 3. installation and operation of the CEMS shall meet criteria provided in Rule X Section 5. Liability for damages shall continue even after the termination of a program or project.Facilities must install a Bureau approved continuous emission monitoring system for the pollutant(s) to which emission trading is being applied. and/or permit conditions. Section 2. the permittee may be subject to the payment of fines or penalties as provided under Part XIII of these Implementing Rules and Regulations. . It shall be the duty of the transferee to file an application for transfer of the permit in his name within ten (10) days from notification of the Department through the Bureau. Section 2. c. . on the assessment of risks involved. Non-payment of the appropriate fees.In the event that the permittee is temporarily unable to comply with any of the conditions of the Permit to Operate due to a breakdown of the installation covered by the permit for any cause. RULE XXI EMISSION AVERAGING Section 1. require any person who owns or operates any emissions source or who is subject to any requirement of this Act to : (a) establish and maintain relevant records. Facilities located in different airsheds may use trading as approved by the Bureau.Issuance of the permit shall not relieve the permittee from complying with the requirements of the Act and these Rules and that commencement of the work or operation under such permit shall be deemed acceptance of all the conditions therein specified.Facility owners wishing to use emission averaging for compliance purposes must do so through an enforceable compliance plan submitted as a part of the operating permit application.Facility owners wishing to use emission trading for compliance purposes must do so through an enforceable compliance plan submitted as a part of the operating permit application of each facility. Requirements. . Plant Operational Problems.The Environmental Management Bureau or its duly accredited entity shall. which shall install pollution control devices or retrofit their existing facilities with mechanisms that reduce pollution shall be entitled to tax incentives such as but not limited to tax credits and/or accelerated depreciation deductions.Industries. Section 11. The Bureau must approve the compliance plan and application of emission averaging for it to be effective. use and maintain monitoring equipment or methods.As part of the environmental management plan attached to the environmental compliance certificate (ECC) pursuant to Presidential Decree No. letters of credit.After due notice and hearing. b. False or inaccurate information in the application for permit that led to the issuance of the permit. c. . In the event that the permit cannot be so placed. or falsify any permit. d. Approach. as the case may be. In case of failure to do so. it shall be mounted in an accessible and visible place near the installation covered by the permit. the permittee shall notify the Department through the Bureau of such and the name and address of the transferee within thirty (30) days from the date of sale or transfer. Applicability. RULE XXIII SYSTEM OF INCENTIVES Section 1. these Rules and Regulations. (b) make relevant reports. Section 10. Application. RULE XXIV RECORD-KEEPING. (e) keep records on control equipment parameters. the Department through the Bureau may modify any existing and valid permit by imposing new or additional conditions. he or his pollution control officer shall immediately notify the Department through the Bureau of such cause(s). d. surety bonds. where such damages are clearly attributable to that program or project and for a definite period to be determined by the Bureau and incorporated into the ECC. Monitoring and Reporting. production variables or other . and the steps being taken to solve the problem and prevent its recurrence. b. . Grounds for Modification of Permit Conditions. Section 3. Applicability. That the area in which the permitted facility is located has been changed from an undesignated area or an attainment area to a non-attainment area for one or more criteria pollutants. installation and operation of the CEMS shall meet criteria provided in Rule X Section 5. the intent toward reconstruction or repair of such installation and such other relevant information or data as may be required by the Department through the Bureau. That a change in the environment or surrounding conditions requires a modification of the installation covered by a permit to conform to applicable air quality standards. environmental insurance. Financial Liability Instruments. Other valid purposes. Transfer of Permits. . . That an improvement in emission quality or quantity can be accomplished because of technological advance without unreasonable hardship. Required Relevant Reports and Records. counterfeit. MONITORING AND ENTRY Section 1. The continuous emission monitoring system must be installed on each source that is being used to generate the emission reduction credits for the remaining sources. .Emissions trading may be allowed among pollution sources within an airshed as provided in Parts III and IV. the Bureau shall require program and project proponents to put up financial guarantee mechanisms to finance the needs for emergency response. as well as self-insurance. Non-compliance with. Section 12.The permittee shall display the permit upon the installation itself in such manner as to be clearly visible and accessible at all times.Facilities having multiple sources within a contiguous property and owned by the same entity may use emission averaging for compliance purposes if provided for in either Part III or Part IV. . alter. Application. The Bureau may promulgate guidelines for the effective implementation of said financial guarantee mechanisms. Proponents required to put up guarantee instruments shall furnish the Bureau with evidence of availment of such instruments. Grounds for Suspension or Revocation of Permits. intervals and manner prescribed by the Environmental Management Bureau. (d) sample emission. 1586 and rules and regulations. and shall furnish a copy of the same to the Department through the Bureau quarterly in accordance with the procedures and/or programs approved by the Department through the Bureau for this purpose. RULE XX FINANCIAL LIABILITY FOR ENVIRONMENTAL REHABILITATION Section 1. Section 9. RULE XXII EMISSIONS TRADING Section 1. Refusal to allow lawful inspection conducted by the Department through the Bureau of duly authorized personnel. . Requirements. That the Act or these Rules and Regulations requires the modification of the permit conditions. clean-up or rehabilitation of areas that may be damaged during the program or actual project implementation. . he shall be liable for any violation of these Rules and Regulations that the transferee may commit by reason of such transfer. in accordance with the methods. . The continuous emission monitoring system must be installed on each source that is being used to generate the emission reduction credits. or violation of any provision of Act. . .Facilities must install a Bureau approved continuous emission monitoring system for the pollutant(s) to which emission averaging is being applied. INSPECTION. . the Department through the Bureau may suspend or revoke any existing and valid permit on any of the following grounds: a. after proper consultation and notice. including the estimated duration of the breakdown.

National Emission Standards for Source Specific Air Pollutants. a. and (f) provide such other information as the Environmental Management Bureau may reasonably require. furnace room or control room. b Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometry. e. c All new geothermal power plants starting construction by 01 January 1995 shall control H2S emissions to not more than 150 g/GMW-Hr. control device. would divulge secret methods or processes entitled to protection as intellectual property. report or information. provided further. which reflection shall be visible from the boiler room. Section 3. process. through its authorized representatives. Inside these centers or population are some scattered industrial establishments.Sampling for compliance purposes shall be conducted using the methods prescribed above or other equivalent method as approved by the Department through the Bureau. Visible Emission Standards for Smoke and Opacity. h Industrial Area means a well-defined. and provided finally. Steel plant. PART VII POLLUTION FROM STATIONARY SOURCES RULE XXV STATIONARY SOURCES . b. if made public. Records Available to the Public. Window or opening through which an unobstructed view of the top of the stack may be obtained from the boiler room. . i Other Areas means all areas other than an urban or industrial area. if so required by the Department through the Bureau. e Best available control technology for air emissions and liquid discharges. water supply. d All existing geothermal power plants shall control H2S emissions to not more than 200 g/GMW-Hr. manufacturing and other industry mixes with provisions for common support infrastructures. communication systems. that this provisions shall not apply to cases of dark emissions resulting from cold-start and up-set conditions. or control room.For any trade. j Other Stationary Sources (particulates) means a trade. b. Stationary Fuel-Burning Equipment The owner or operator of a stationary fuel-burning equipment shall. the concentration at the point of emission shall not exceed the limits set in Table 2. visible emissions shall not appear darker than shade 1 on the Ringelmann Chart. etc. Sampling Methods. when compared in the appropriate manner with the Ringelmann Chart method. parks or area. and (c) test any emission. Right of Entry. .Any record. or control room. industrial boilers. furnace room and control room the density of smoke being discharged. . Primary copper smelter (including NOx) d.Pursuant to the Act. facilities and services such as roads. The opacity of light or dark smoke emitted from any emission point in all stationary sources shall be such that. storm drainage. the owner or operator of an industrial plant or stationary source shall conduct its operation or process by the best practicable means as may be necessary to prevent or minimize air pollution through the employment of cleaner production technology and sound environmental management practices. All oil-burning equipment shall have heaters capable of heating oil to a temperature appropriate for the oil and burner. These areas which are usually from 200 to 500 hectares in size as registered with the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) or any other duly authorized government entities as industrial estates. furnace room.Visible opacity standards for smoke are as follows: c. Such record. A smoke density indicator and alarm installed so as to indicate adequately in the boiler room. nor exceed 20% opacity using USEPA Method 9. incinerators. Fossil-fuel fired power plant (including NOx) k Provisional guideline. f Emission limit of Nickel Carbonyl shall not exceed 0. or an equivalent method approved by the Department through the Bureau. industrial plant. whether or not dark smoke is discharging from any stack or such installation. process. or fuel burning equipment other than thermal power plant. such mean may include one or more of the following: a. fuel-burning equipment or industrial plant emitting air pollutants. smelting furnaces.GENERAL Section 1. Section 2. Appendix A). Part 60. g Urban Area means a poblacion or central district of cities or municipalities having at least 50. report or information shall likewise be incorporated in the Environmental Management Bureau¶s industrial rating system. Inspection and Testing. report or information obtained under this section shall be made available to the public. except upon a satisfactory showing to the Environmental Management Bureau by the entity concerned that the record. housing. Any similar device which may be approved by the Secretary.000 population. b. industrial wastewater treatment facilities. A mirror so placed as to reflect the top of the stack. exclusive land use area in various stages of development that are primarily established for industrial subdivisions. b. or twin political subdivisions with contiguous boundary which essentially form one community whose population is more than 50. Section 3. sanitary sewerage systems. shall have the right of: (a) entry of access to any premises including documents and relevant materials as referred to in the herein preceding paragraph. or control room. Section 4. The following major industries are required to install continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS) for particulates and sulfur oxide emissions: a. Miscellaneous Provisions and Equipment. . Operating conditions at the facility during compliance testing will be used by the Bureau to establish permit conditions under which the facility may operate. welfare and comfort of the general population.000 inhabitants. Absence of Emission Standard for Other Air Pollutants. that at no time should the opacity be darker than shade 3 of the chart. Measurements of opacity shall be made in the manner specified by the approved method employed for this purpose. industry. c. furnace room. Compliance with air and water quality standards is required. petrochemical industries (including NOx) l Other Stationary Sources (sulfur oxides) refers to existing and new stationary sources other than those caused by the manufacture of sulfuric acid and sulfonation process. or parts thereof. or using USEPA Method 9 (40 CFR. d. Export processing zones also fall under this category of land use.indirect data when direct monitoring of emissions is impractical. the Bureau. Section 5. Exceptions to the requirements stated herein may be allowed under the following circumstances: The opacity limit hereinbefore prescribed shall not apply to the emission of dark smoke for less than five (5) minutes in a period of one (1) hour provided that the total period of such emission shall not exceed an aggregate of fifteen (15) minutes in any twenty-four (24) hours. furnace room. monitoring equipment or method required. provide a means to the satisfaction of Secretary whereby a person in charge of such a plant or equipment may at all times ascertain without leaving the boiler room. The absence of the ambient air or emission standard for a specific air pollutant shall not preclude the Department through the Bureau to take appropriate action to control such pollutants to assure the health. fuel burning equipment and incineration. Where no emission or ambient standard is prescribed hereof for a specific air pollutant that is potentially harmful to public health and/or public welfare.5 mg/Ncm. Sampling shall be conducted under routine operating conditions at the facility. . (b) inspect any pollution or waste source. a. Petroleum refinery. Table 2 National Emission Standards for Source Specific Air Pollutants (NESSAP) a Other equivalent methods approved by the Department may be used. cement plants. A closed circuit television installation with the receiver located in the boiler room. power supply. ferro-alloy production facility (particulates only) . Section 2.

construction. ink. fly ash or fumes. . paint booths and similar equivalent shall be so designed that when operating. but not be limited to.Each existing stationary source shall submit to the Bureau Regional Office where the facility is located a self-monitoring report of its emission rates. nor be less stringent than such standards and with the standards set forth in this Rule. Section 10. government or private entity or organizations shall be allowed to burn or cause open burning of waste materials in their premises. erect install or use any article. Miscellaneous Equipment. pump. To minimize the escape of smoke. or operate. quarry or clearing of lands. including a determination of the EMS's conformity to PNS 1701. Volatile Organic Compounds or Organic Solvent Emissions No person shall store.Proof of an approved EMS shall be in the form of an EMS audit report prepared internally by the person or party responsible for the facility. demolition or wrecking or industry related activities such as loading. 2. Further. the use of which will conceal an emission which would otherwise constitute a violation of any of the provisions of these Implementing Rules and Regulations. but not be limited to. through the Pollution Adjudication Board (PAB) may waive certain penalties or fines to be imposed upon stationary sources proven to exceed emission rates provided that the person or party responsible for the source enters into a consent agreement with the Bureau in which the responsible party shall: a. construction.The Department. setting the schedule of implementation of the revised standards. Nuisance No person shall discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which constitute nuisance as defined under Articles 694 to 707 of Republic Act No. modify. with emphasis on pollution prevention methods and not limited to installation of pollution control devices. Section 13. ambient air concentration greater than the ambient air quality standards specified in Section 12 (b) of the Act. No plant or source shall operate at capacities which exceed the limits of operation or capability of a control device to maintain the air emission within the standard limitations imposed by the Act or by relevant permit conditions issued by the Department through the Bureau. Re-heating furnaces. The standards. . suffer or allow the emission of particulate matter from any source whatsoever. but not limited to. there is no free flow of objectionable gases into the atmosphere. No person shall build. the grinding of rock. or as the need arises. Use. and 3. Implement an Environmental Management System (EMS) within eighteen (18) months of entering into said agreement using scope and procedures specified in Philippine National Standard 1701 on establishing an EMS. Post a performance bond acceptable to the PAB. Installation and use of hoods fans and fabric filters or other suitable control devices to enclose and vent the handling of dusty materials. This report. Section 11. otherwise known as the Civil Code of the Philippines. alternation. petroleum related compound. Consent Agreement. and other related concerns. . whichever is applicable. company. equipment or other contrivance. Compliance Timetable Beyond Eighteen (18) Months. General Restrictions 1.The Bureau shall provide industries. together with the concentrations of existing air pollutants. which shall be forfeited upon failure to submit proof of an approved EMS within eighteen (18) months. oil water. Application of asphalt. Pursuant to Section 19 of the Act. Review and Revision of Emission Standard. Open Burning No person shall be allowed to burn any materials in any quantities which shall cause the emission of toxic and poisonous fumes. or suitable chemicals on roads. The audit report shall be prepared by a person or company certified under an international EMS standard such as ISO 14001 or an equivalent approved by EMB. vehicular movement. permit. Application. Such emission standards shall be based on mass rate of emission for all stationary sources of air pollution based on internationally-accepted standards. revise and publish emissions standards to further improve the emission standards for stationary sources of air pollution. Section 8. or implant any new source. No person shall build. of water or chemicals for control of dust in the demolition of existing buildings or structure. wastes containing heavy metals. Failure to Comply with Consent Agreement. volatile compound or organic solvents without applying known existing vapor emission control devices or systems deemed necessary and approved by the Department through the Bureau. Submit an approvable Environmental Management Plan (EMP) derived from the EMS process within six (6) months of entering into a consent agreement. unload or use in any process or installation. endeavor to achieve the harmonization of national emissions standards with those set by regional bodies such as the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN). Adequate containment methods shall be employed during sandblasting or other similar operations. The EMP shall specify a timetable for attaining compliance with all environmental regulations as well as the means with which to accomplish compliance. Section 9.000 depending on the size of the facility.Failure of the stationary source to comply with the timetable specified in the consent agreement shall be sufficient grounds for closure through a Cease and Desist Order (CDO) issued by the Bureau. the following: 1. no establishment. Further.e. Harmonization with International Standards. polyvinyl chloride. b). and provided that an extension of not more than twelve (12) months may be allowed by the Bureau on meritorious grounds. industrial wastes. not to exceed P500." without taking reasonable precautions to prevent such emission. machine. which the Bureau may subject to independent verification if it deems necessary. install. 3. Fugitive Particulates. . . handle. . bake ovens. Section 12. let. Violators upon determination by the Department through the Bureau shall be penalized in accordance with the provisions of Part XIII of these Implementing Rules and Regulations. 385. process.In the review and revision of emission standards. or by any other means release or take action which would result in. Proof of an Environmental Management System. Section 6. The self-monitoring report shall be submitted to the Bureau within six months of the effectivity of these IRRs. firm. c. All existing sources falling under paragraph (3) e) shall comply with the requirements of installing CEMS within twenty-four (24) months from the effectivity of these Implementing Rules and Regulations. or rebuild an existing source. appropriate air pollution control facilities shall be installed. 2. as appropriate. the Bureau shall. polypropylene. c) and d) and new sources falling under paragraph (3) e) shall comply with the requirements of installing CEMS upon the effectivity of these Implementing Rules and Regulations. b. Section 7. Cement Plant (particulates only) New and existing sources falling under paragraph (3) a).Sources proposing timetables longer than eighteen (18) months for reaching compliance shall be required to first conduct a public consultation before the consent agreement may be finalized. where possible. shall be submitted for review and acceptance by the EMB Regional Director within eighteen (18) months from the signing of a consent agreement. the Department through the Bureau shall review. including recognized or unrecognized dumpsites in any quality or quantity. The party or person responsible for the source shall assume responsibility for demonstrating proof of compliance. including. or one prepared by a third party EMS auditor. construct. the facility owner shall be subject to the reimposition of the original penalty (subject of the waiver) as well as additional appropriate penalties computed on a daily basis pursuant to Section 45 of the Act. Such reasonable precaution shall include. installation and operation of the CEMS shall meet criteria provided in Rule X Section 5. area of jurisdiction. and other surface which create airborne dust problem. . The consent agreement shall incorporate requirements for environmental performance through timetables and reporting of performance.000 but not less that P50. storing or "handling. in addition to commitments and procedures adopted in the EMP. organic chemicals. Self-Monitoring Report. erect. operations. paints. coffee heaters. varnish kettles. . and within six months of each official revision of emission standards applicable to the source. determination of the technical feasibility of the revised standards. materials stockpiles. Such materials include but not limited to plastic. odors. transportation of materials. smoke ovens. non-government organizations (NGOs) and other stakeholders the opportunity to participate in the formulation and revision of standards. shall be the limit on the acceptable level of pollutants emitted from a stationary source for the protection of the public's health and welfare. indicating the status of compliance with current standards. ozone depleting substances and other similar toxic and hazardous substances. Prohibited Acts. No person shall cause.

. shall issue. 3 Other equivalent methods approved by the Department through the Bureau may be used. hereby defined as the burning of municipal. RULE XXV SOURCE SPECIFIC AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS Section 1. environmentally-sound and safe thermal and non-burn technologies for the .20 0. bio-medical and hazardous wastes.The Bureau may establish an Air Quality Control Techniques Database. The Bureau shall. non-government organizations (NGOs) and other stakeholders the opportunity to participate in the formulation and revision of standards. 4.13 30 60 Colorimeteric-Pararosaline Suspended Particulate Matter ² TSP PM-10 300 200 --60 0. Section 2.07 30 Methylene Blue Lead 20 30 AASb Nitrogen Dioxide 375 260 0. energy requirement. Cadmium. Arsenic. Review of Ambient Air Quality Standards. National Ambient Air Quality Standards. the Bureau shall promote the use of state-of-the-art. Sampling shall be done at an elevation of at least two (2) meters above the ground level and at the location of highest expected concentration and under worst case meteorological conditions.. emissions reduction benefits.The Bureau shall provide industries. and c.Pursuant to Section 20 of the Act.03 470 30 4-Aminoantipyrine 60 Gravimetric Gravimetric Antimony 0.Simultaneous with the issuance of the Ambient Air Quality Guideline Values. . setting the schedule of implementation of the revised standards. revise information on air pollution control techniques. Best available technology economically achievable which refers to the technological basis/standards for emission limits applicable to existing. b.13 30 Volhard Titration with Iodine solution Hydrogen Sulfide 100 0. incineration. processes and operating methods which will result in the elimination or significant reduction of emissions. through the National Research and Development Program contained in the Act. Nitric Acid and Sulfuric Acid Mists in the 1978 NPCC Rules and Regulations may be considered as guides in determining compliance. Best available technology and alternative methods of prevention. RULE XXVII AIR QUALITY CONTROL TECHNIQUES Section 1. All pollution control devices and systems shall be properly and consistently maintained and correctly operated in order to maintain emission in compliance with the provisions and standards of Section 19 of the Act.01 30 Tischer Method Chlorine and Chlorine cmpds expressed as CL2 100 0. Location and meteorological conditions shall be determined using dispersion modeling. .3 mg/Ncm Nitric Acid 0. RULE XXVIII NON-BURN TECHNOLOGIES Section 1. 2 Ninety-eight percentile (98%) values of 30-min.02 mg/Ncm -Arsenic 0. direct industrial emitters of non-conventional and toxic pollutants.14 30 60 Griess-Saltzman Phenol 100 Sulfur Dioxide 340 0. conceals or dilutes any emission of air contaminant which would otherwise violate the provisions of permit regulations of Rule XIX. .02 mg/Ncm -Cadmium 0. Publication of Revised Standards. the discharge of air pollutants that result in airborne concentrations in excess of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards shown in Table 3 shall not be permitted. government agencies and LGUs. except with the permission of the Department through the Bureau when special circumstance arise. which process emits toxic and poisonous fumes is prohibited. in coordination with other concerned agencies. and other related concerns. Incineration Prohibited. and from time to time. However.04 30 Chromotropic Acid method or MBTH Colorimetric method Hydrogen Chloride 200 0. the revised Ambient Air Quality Standards shall be published in at least one (1) newspapers of general circulation and may be posted on a public internet website.For any industrial establishment or operation. management and control of air pollution. Asbestos.01 mg/Ncm -Asbestos 2 x 106 Particulates/Ncm (over 5 micrometer in size) -30 Light Microscopy Sulfuric Acid 0.18 0. and general welfare. Bureau-approved techniques shall be followed in developing sampling plans.No person shall cause or permit the installation or use of any device or any means which. Alternative fuels.4 mg/Ncm -Notes: 30 30 30 AASb AASb AASb -30 30 Titration Titration 1 Pertinent ambient standards for Antimony. determination of the technical feasibility of the revised standards. Non-Burn Technologies. Section 3. Section 2. Such information may also include data relating to the cost of installation and operation. Air Quality Control Techniques. on an annual basis. .028 30 Nesselerization / Indo Phenol Carbon Disulfide 30 0. Section 2. sampling measured at 25oC and one atmosphere pressure. Air Quality Control Techniques Database. Table 3 National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Source Specific Air Pollutants from Industrial Sources/Operations Concentration a Averaging Time (min) Method of Analysis/Measurement c Pollutants m g/Ncm Ppm Ammonia 200 . the Bureau may approve the adoption of a different procedure in the choice of the location of the monitoring equipment depending upon the physical surrounding and other relevant factors in the area where the sampling is to be conducted. without resulting in reduction in the total amount of air contaminant emitted. the Bureau. Such information shall include: a.03 5 Methyl Orange Formaldehyde 50 0. . .Upon approval by the Secretary of the Department. No facilities shall be operated without the control equipment in proper operation.With due concern on the effects of climate change. and upon consultation with the appropriate advisory committees. review the list of Hazardous Air Pollutants and the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Source Specific Air Pollutants under Section 12 of the Act and recommend to the Secretary of the Department the revision thereof when necessary to protect public health and safety. and environmental impact or the emission control technology.

The prohibition shall not apply to traditional small-scale method of community/neighborhood sanitation "siga". (c) Compliance with all other relevant requirements of these Implementing Rules and Regulations. expressed as cobalt (Co) Copper and its compounds. Section 5. in the interest of public safety and conservation of the environment. . (c) Implementation of the National Motor Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program including accreditation and authorization of private emission testing centers and certification of inspectors and mechanics. Scope. . or (b) Fire is not used within the destruction chamber. thermal destruction. cancel or revoke such a certificate. utilization.1 nanogram/Ncm a These average values cover gaseous and the vapor forms of the relevant heavy metal emission as well as their compounds. marketed and/or operated in the country. Provided.Emissions from thermal treatment facilities and non burning technologies shall be deemed toxic and poisonous when they result from the processing of chlorinated compounds. that those motor vehicle types already covered by the COC at the time of the effectivity of these rules shall not be subject to these provisions unless the Department finds justifiable to suspend. and disposal of sorted. CO. whether of a solid. un-recycled.05mg/Ncm Thallium and its compounds.05 mg/Ncm Antimony and its compounds. implement or enforce a ban on smoking inside a public building or an enclosed public place including public vehicles and other means of transport or in any enclosed area outside of one's private residence. . provided. liquid. Section 2. (b) Installation and approved use of CEMS measuring PM. sol or gel form. Dioxins and Furans . expressed as lead ( Pb) Chromium and its compounds. . are applicable with respect to: (a) Manufacture. expressed as mercury (Hg) 0. the more restrictive requirements shall apply. Ban on Smoking.handling. expressed as tin (Sn) Dioxins and Furans 0. The DOTC shall collect fines and penalties provided for under Section 46 of the Act from those found to be in violation of the applicable emissions standards for other mobile sources. expressed as total organic carbon 10 mg/Ncm 20 mg/Ncm Hydrogen chloride (HCl) 10 mg/Ncm 60 mg/Ncm Hydrogen fluoride (HF) 1 mg/Ncm 4 mg/Ncm Sulfur dioxide (SO2) 50 mg/Ncm 200 mg/Ncm Nitrogen monoxide (NO) and Nitrogen dioxide (NO2). decomposition or conversion of wastes other than through the use of combustion and which comply with at least one of the following conditions: (a) The environment within the destruction chamber is free of Oxygen. . Regulation of Other Sources. expressed as arsenic (As) Lead and its compounds. PART VIII POLLUTION FROM OTHER SOURCES RULE XXIX POLLUTION FROM OTHER SOURCES .Treatment Facilities Using Non-burn Technologies Item Average Valuesa Cadmium and its compounds. expressed as nickel (Ni) Vanadium and its compounds. within six (6) months from the effectivity of these Implementing Rules and Regulations.Existing incinerators dealing with a biomedical wastes shall be phased out on or before 17 July 2003 provided that in the interim. the Department through the Bureau shall formulate and establish the necessary standard for these other mobile sources. and food preparation and crematoria. gaseous. Monitoring. cultural. Emission Standards for Thermal Treatment Facilities/Non-Burn Technologies. local assembly or importation into the country of new motor vehicle shall be covered by a Certificate of Conformity (COC) to be issued pursuant to the following sections of this Rule.These provisions.GENERAL Section 1. private place or work or any duly designated smoking area. or (c) The source of heat is not fire. facilities that process or treat biomedical wastes shall utilize state-of the art. expressed as antimony (Sb) total 0. is used to destroy the waste. or when they exceed the following emission standards set forth in Tables 4 and 5: Table 4 Daily and Half Hourly Average Limits ²Treatment Facilities Using Non-burn Technologies Item Daily Average Values Half Hourly Average Values Particulates (total dust) 10 mg/Ncm 30 mg/Ncm Gaseous and vaporous organic substances. such units shall be limited to the burning of pathological and infectious wastes.5 mg/Ncm Arsenic and its compounds. agricultural. Section 3. NO2. After the said grace period. The average values shall be measured over a sample period of a minimum of four (4) hours and a maximum of eight (8) hours. and. expressed as cadmium (Cd) total 0. Chlorine and temperature. expressed as thallium (Tl) Mercury and its Compounds.There shall be public participation in the monitoring of thermal treatment facilities. Non-applicability of the Prohibition. . that the emission of dioxins and furans into the air shall be reduced by the most progressive techniques. In cases where the requirements of this Rule are more restrictive than those of the other requirements of the Implementing Rules and Regulations. . expressed as chromium (Cr) Cobalt and its compounds. expressed as copper (Cu) Manganese and its compounds. traditional. Non-burn technologies may be used provided that the following conditions are strictly complied with: (a) Applicable emission standards are not exceeded. PART IX POLLUTION FROM MOTOR VEHICLES RULE XXX MOTOR VEHICLE COVERAGE Section 1. un-composted. expressed as manganese (Mn) Nickel and its compounds. Phase-out of Incinerators Dealing with Biomedical Wastes. except that all averages of dioxins and furans shall be measured over a sample period of a minimum of six (6) hours and maximum of eight (8) hours. expressed as nitrogen dioxide for incineration plants with a capacity of 3 tonnes per hour or less 300 mg/Ncm -Ammonia 10 mg/Ncm 20 mg/Ncm Table 5 Limits for Metals. and subject to close monitoring by the Bureau. however. (b) Enforcement of permissible emission levels of vehicles to be manufactured. treatment. . Non-burn technologies are technologies used for the destruction.The DOTC shall regulate and implement emission standards on mobile sources other than those referred to under Section 21 of the Act. or (d) A heat-conducting material or medium. Section 4. Section 6. expressed as vanadium (V) Tin and its compounds.The Local Government Units (LGUs) shall. expressed as nitrogen dioxide for incineration plants with a capacity exceeding 3 tonnes per hour 200 mg/Ncm 400 mg/Ncm Nitrogen monoxide (NO) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2). For this purpose. health. environmentally-sound and safe non-burn technologies. biomedical and hazardous wastes.

0 27.065 Opacity under free acceleration should not exceed the approved level by more than 0. the certificate of compliance to emission standards authenticated by the Philippine Embassy/Consulate from the country of origin or manufacture of subject vehicle shall be valid and sufficient.1470 76 91 CO (g/kWh) (g/kWh) (g/kWh) 11. While the DOTC/LTO is developing inspection capability for the vehicle type approval system test. the limits for emission of gaseous pollutants as a function of given reference mass shall be as provided hereunder: 22.A COC shall be issued by the Department through the Bureau to a vehicle manufacturer. (b) Vehicles assembled in the Philippines using original and brand new parts and components imported into the country either semi knocked down (SKD) or completely knocked down (CKD).1 2150 110 132 28.4 Conformity of Production Table 8 Smoke Emission Limits Under Steady State Conditions (Reference No. 24-03) Nominal Flow (liters/second) Absorption Coefficient (m-1) 42 2. regulation and guidelines supervision of the DENR.0 All Vehicles Type II Test Maximum Concentration of CO at end of last urban cycle = 3.26 100 1.5 29.As a condition for the issuance of a COC. The facility where the tests will be conducted shall be chosen by the DENR utilizing the vehicle type approval system testing center of the DOTC/LTO.3 1931 ² 2150 101 121 26.6 1251 .5 m-1.0 35. (c) New vehicles completely built up (CBU) imported into the country.495 200 1. New motor vehicles shall refer to the following: (a) Vehicles designed and manufactured in the Philippines using brand new engines and spare parts. The emission test for type approval shall be carried out by the DOTC/LTO under the policy.4 14. ECE Reg.5 33. Section 2. .0 31.0 23.4 1701 ² 1930 93 112 25.0 23. exhaust emission limits for new vehicle types.5 25. to be manufactured/assembled in the country up to 31 December 2002. For motorcycles.5% All Vehicles Type III Test No Crankcase Emissions Permitted For medium and heavy duty motor vehicles with compression-ignition engine.0 grams per test. RULE XXXI EMISSION CONTROL FOR NEW VEHICLES Section 1. ECE Reg.5 1471 ² 1700 85 101 23. Section 3. Fuel evaporative emissions for spark ignition engines shall not exceed 2.8 751 ² 850 58 70 19. Certificate of Conformity. Transitory Emission Limits. ECE Reg. assembler. Test Procedures to Determine Exhaust Emissions Under Transitory Standards The test procedures for the determination of gaseous exhaust emissions under the transitory standards shall be as follows: For cars and light duty motor vehicles ECE Regulation 15-04 "Uniform provision concerning the approval of vehicle equipped with positive-ignition engine or with compression-ignition engine with regard to emission of gaseous pollutant by the engine" .8 851 ² 1020 58 70 19. 49-01) Table 6 Exhaust Emission Limits of Gaseous Pollutants for Cars and Light Duty Motor Vehicles (Reference No. 15-04) Reference Mass (kg) CO g/km HC + NO3g/km Type I Test Type Approval Conformity of Production 750 58 70 19. shall not exceed the following: For cars and light duty motor vehicles. .8 1021 ² 1250 67 80 20.(d) Roadside inspection of motor vehicles. or importer certifying that a vehicle type complies with the emission standards in this Rule. CO emissions at idle shall not exceed 6% for all types. It shall also have visitorial powers over the LTO Motor Vehicle Inspection Center and Vehicle Type Approval System Testing Center where these tests are carried out. No new motor vehicle shall be allowed initial registration unless a valid COC issued by the Department through the Bureau is granted.2 Type Approval HC NOx 2. the limit for the emission of gaseous pollutant shall be as provided hereunder: Table 7 Exhaust Limits of Gaseous Pollutants for Medium and Heavy Duty Motor Vehicles Equipped with Compression-Ignition Engine (Reference No.0 23.

5+17. which is equivalent to Euro 1. (Mopeds are vehicles of less than 400 kg equipped with an engine having a cylinder capacity of less than 50 cubic centimeters.17 6. For engines of 85 kW or less.14 0.I) engines and vehicles equipped with C. 21 of the Act. crankcase emission and durability of vehicle fueled with unleaded petrol. 24-03) Nominal Flow (liters/second) 42 Light Absorption Coefficient(m-1) .Limitation of emission of gaseous pollutant by the engine. Table 11 Emission Limits for Heavy Duty Vehicle Type Approval (Directive 91/542/EEC) CO (g/k Wh) HC (g/k Wh) NOx (g/k Wh) PM2 (g/k Wh) Type Approval Conformity of Production Type Approval Conformity of Production Type Approval Conformity of Production Type Approval Conformity of Production 4.0 grams hydrocarbons per test.13 0. evaporative emission.16 Class 2(1251<>1700) 5.72 3.40 1.23 8. Section 5.5(R-100))/200 21+21(R-100))/200 4.16 0. including motorcycles and mopeds. evaporative emission.) For mopeds.6 0.4 For Compression ignition vehicles only.As a condition for issuance of a COC. Durability of pollution control equipment for spark-ignition and compression-engines shall conform to the deterioration factor prescribed in the test procedure.2 8 100-300 (17.9 1. it shall not allow any emission of gases from crankcase ventilation system into the atmosphere. engines with regards to the emission of pollutant by the engine" For the determination of CO emission Test procedure for the determination of CO emission shall be at idling speed. Likewise.I. Table 10 Emission Limits for Passenger/Light Commercial Vehicles as a Function of the Given Reference Mass Type Approval (Directive 93/59/EEC) CO HC+NOX PM1 Class of Vehicle Type Approval Conformity of Production Class 1(<1250 Kg) 2. Section 4.29 Approval The standards set forth in the above paragraphs of this section refer to the exhaust emitted over a driving schedule or engine speed. Table12 Smoke Emission Limits Under Steady State Conditions (Reference No. engine with regards to the emission of pollutants by the engine" For the determination of CO emission The test procedure for the determination of CO emission shall be at idling speed as provided in the Emission Test Procedure for Vehicles Equipped with Spark-Ignition Engines and the Free Acceleration Test Procedure for Vehicles Equipped with Compression-Ignition Engines Section 6. crankcase ventilation emission and durability of pollution control equipment as set forth in the test procedures indicated in the succeeding section. Table 13 Emission Limits for Motorcycle Type Approval with 4-stroke Engines ECE Regulation 40.97 1. assembler or importer shall provide all new motor vehicles with a service manual or written instructions for the proper use and maintenance of the motor vehicle.Every motor vehicle manufacturer.10 1.0 Class 3(>1700 Kg) 6.I. emission of crankcase gases and durability of pollution control equipment for cars and light duty motor vehicles ECE Regulation 83-01/02.13 0.5 4.22 1. For Medium and Heavy Duty Motor Vehicles with compression-ignition engines ECE Regulation 49-01/02. Fuel evaporative emission for spark-ignition engines shall not exceed 2. All newly manufactured or imported gasoline-fuelled vehicles.4(R100))/200 >300 35 42 8 9. Conformity of Production Type Type Approval Conformity of Production 0.18 For Compression-ignition engines only. ECE Reg.0 .97 1. Emission Standards Effective Year 2003. the limit value for particulate emissions is increased by multiplying the quoted limit by a coefficient of 1.For medium and heavy duty motor vehicles with compression-ignition engines ECE Regulation 49-01 "Uniform provision concerning the approval of compression ignition (C. fuel evaporative emission. series of amendment approval B and C: "Uniform provision concerning the approval of vehicles with regards to the emission of gaseous pollutants by the engine according to engine fuel standards" Approval B . crankcase emission and durability of pollution control devices of motor vehicles fueled with diesel fuel.19 0.36 0. General Requirements.Test Procedures to Determine Exhaust Emissions and Other Standards Effective in Year 2003.495 200 1.14 0.7. exhaust emission limits for motor vehicle types with spark ignition engines and compression ignition engines to be introduced into the market beginning 01 January 2003 shall refer to the provisions of Sec.26 100 1.) engines and vehicles with C. .25 0. CO emissions at idle shall not exceed 6% for all types.Limitation of emission of gaseous and particulate pollutants. For Compression Ignition vehicles only.4 Conformity of Production Notes: 1) Reference weight (R) = Motorcycle weight + 75 kg.5 m-1.5 21 4.72 3.2+1.18 1. to be introduced into the market or imported in to the Philippines shall be designed to operate on unleaded gasoline upon the effectivity of these Implementing Rules and Regulations.01 Reference Weight R(1)(kg) CO (g/km) HC (g/km) Type Approval Conformity of Production Type Approval Conformity of Production <100 17.0 0. The test procedures for the determination of emissions and other standards effective in 2003 shall be as follows: For exhaust emissions.0 9.0 0. 2. . as follows: Table 9 Emission Limits for Passenger Car/Light Duty Vehicle Type Approval (Directive 91/441/EEC) CO (g/km) HC + NOx (g/km) PM1 (g/km) Type Approval Conformity of Production Type Approval Type Approval Conformity of Production 2.8(R-100) (6+2.9 8.7 2. including all relevant service information or specifications to ensure proper functioning of the emission control system and compliance with emission standards.065 Opacity under free acceleration should not exceed the approved level by more than 0.I. Approval C . series of amendment (49/02) "Uniform provision concerning the approval of compression-ignition (C.

ignition timing. Emission Standards for Rebuilt Vehicles and Imported Second Hand Vehicles. idle CO. (c) Engine type displacement in metric units. . m1)* Naturally Aspirated Turbo charged Registered for the first time prior to12/31/2002 Registered on or after 01/01/2003 1.Failure to comply with any of the requirements of this Rule shall justify the revocation or suspension of the COC. Submission of Vehicle Identification Number. the vehicle engine number. importer or their duly authorized representatives. COC as Requisite for Registration. chassis number. For vehicles with spark-ignition engines except motorcycles. Section 2.The manufacturer. assembled. .000 m increase in elevation 2. (c) Details of the fuel feed system.For purposes of vehicle registration. not later than sixty (60) days after its manufacture or entry into the country. The label shall contain the following information lettered in the English language in block letters and numerals with a legible print size. a Certificate of Emission Compliance duly authenticated by the Philippines Embassy/Consulate from the country of origin shall be valid and sufficient. (b) Full corporate name and trademark. It shall be accompanied by the following particulars in triplicate copies: (a) Complete and detailed descriptions of motor vehicle and the engine. and (e) Other particulars which may be required by the DENR. 1997 but before January 1. of durable material.All in-use motor vehicles. assembler or importer of any motor vehicle or motor vehicle engine. idle speed drop). and Table 16 Emission Standards for Vehicles with Spark-Ignition Engines (Gasoline) Except Motorcycles Vehicle Category CO(% by volume) HC(ppm as hexane) Registered prior to January 1.0%.The application for a Certificate of Conformity (COC) shall be submitted to the Bureau by the motor vehicle manufacturer. or under the seat in case of a motorcycle. air conditioning. . . .5 4. initial injection timing and valve lash (as applicable) as well as other parameters deemed necessary by the manufacturer.5%. The DOTC/LTO shall conduct the vehicle test utilizing the Motor Vehicle Inspection Station (MVIS) or its duly authorized and accredited inspection centers consistent with the R. .A fee to be determined by the Department through the Bureau shall be paid upon the filing of the COC application. and vehicles with updated/enhanced engine whose chassis are pre-registered with DOTC/LTO will only be allowed renewal of registration upon proof of compliance of the emission standard described below. Validity of COC. . engine type. among others. Filing Fees for Application for COC. emission control system.g. 7394 otherwise known as the Consumer Act of the Philippines within sixty (60) days prior to date of registration. suspension and interior and exterior trimmings shall not be construed as a change in vehicle type and there will be no need to apply for a new COC. the idle air-fuel mixture setting procedure and value (e.03)* * or in accordance with manufacturer's specificationFor vehicles with compression-ignition engines 100 Table 17 Emission Standards for Vehicles with Compression-Ignition (Diesel) Engines (light absorption coefficient.New motor vehicles shall be registered with the LTO of the DOTC only upon presentation of a copy of a valid COC issued by the Bureau. For purposes of registration. (d) International emission regulation code. if available.A. shall affix a permanent legible label. and of a color that contrasts with the background of the label: (a) The label heading: Vehicle Emission Control Information. the Bureau shall issue a COC within a reasonable time. Filing fees for applications that have been denied shall not be refundable. Modifications of the brake system. Section 12. . CO emissions at idle shall not exceed 6.Upon a determination that the vehicle type meets the general requirements of this Rule and upon payment of the corresponding application fees. vehicle type and color.500) 0. and the vehicle identification number (VIN) plate of the type and in a manner described below: The label. Emission Control Labeling. As a condition for the issuance of a CCES. high idle speed. Emission Standards for In-Use Vehicles. nor applicable to subsequent applications. The DOTC may however seek verification through actual testing in the MVIS. .3 (l = 1+/-0. Section 8. 2002.2 2.5 800 Registered on or after January 1.2 * Using the free acceleration test.5 600 Registered on or after January 1. (d) Previous emission test results of pre-production engine vehicle type duly authenticated by the Philippine Embassy/Consulate of the country of origin. exhaust emission standards of vehicles enumerated previously shall not exceed the standards described below. assembler or importer of any motor vehicle covered by a COC under these Implementing Rules and Regulations shall submit to the Bureau. Section 13.5 3. 2002 CO emissions at idle shall not exceed 4. Section 11. For motorcycles registered for the first time after December 31. 1997At Idle 4.To ensure that new vehicles manufactured. respectively. the following emission standards shall apply: (a) new vehicles described in the Certificate. As a requirement for the issuance of a CCES by DOTC for imported second hand vehicles.Section 7. assembler. Application for Certificate of Conformity. Likewise.The manufacturer. Section 10. assembler or importer in such a manner that it cannot be removed without defacing such label. Section 14. In the case of locally rebuilt vehicles. . the COC shall be valid for six (6) years from the date of issue unless sooner revoked or suspended. it shall be a condition of the COC that the manufacturer. 2003At Low IdleAt High Idle (rpm > 2. or imported conform in all material respects to the design specifications described in the COC. of the new motor vehicles covered by the COC. In case of suspension. idle air-fuel ratio. Section 9. the COC shall cover only: (e) Engine tune-up specification and adjustment as recommended by the manufacturer including but not limited to idle speed(s). a sticker with the Department logo. is required. or (b) new vehicle types which conform in all material respects to the design specifications applicable to the particular vehicle type as described in the application for COC and which are produced in accordance with the particulars of a valid COC.No rebuilt or second hand-CBU imported into the country or pre-registered vehicles retrofitted with second hand engines shall be allowed registration or renewal of registration without valid Certificate of Compliance to Emission Standard (CCES) issued by the DOTC. or initially by LTO MVIS. shall be affixed by the manufacturer. subject to the applicable emission standards prescribed by the Department. assembler or importer shall consent to all the inspections by the Department through the Bureau of the vehicle engine. Ground for Revocation of COC. For motorcycles registered for the first time on or before December 31. should be strictly followed. the 6-year validity period shall not be extended by the period of suspension. Approval of Application. . Emission test procedures as given in Annex B and Annex C for registered or in-use motor vehicles equipped with spark-ignition or compression-ignition engines. COC number and date of issue and a brief statement that the vehicle complies with the provisions of the Act and its Implementing Rules and Regulations shall be conspicuously displayed on the front windshield of the motor vehicle RULE XXXII EMISSION CONTROL FOR IN-USE VEHICLES Section 1. 1.50. Section 15. Consent to Inspection as Condition of COC. a CCES issued by the DOTC on the basis of an inspection by the DOTC Vehicle Type Approval System. (b) Description of the emission control system installed in the motor vehicle. steering. 2003At Idle 3. It shall be affixed in a readily visible position in the engine compartment or any conspicuous area under the hood.5 3.2 .

Review and Revision of Standards. the Department through the Bureau. The LTO or other authorized MVIS shall conduct the vehicle tests for emissions. The DOTC/LTO shall also establish a roadside inspection system to ensure that vehicles comply with the in-use emission standards. Use of tamper-resistant odometers and fuel management systems. Section 4. The DTI shall ensure that these specifications are met by the accredited private emission testing centers. as a requisite for renewal of registration. . a ² For spark-ignition (gasoline-fueled) motor vehicles b ² For compression-ignition (diesel-fueled) motor vehicles. the DOTC may authorize private emission testing centers previously accredited with the DTI. the Department is responsible for regulating the specifications of the emission testing equipment to be used by private emission testing centers. and submit the documentary requirements as may be required by the DOTC in subsequent regulations.All private in-use motor vehicles and vehicles with updated/enhanced engine whose chassis are pre-registered with Land Transportation Office (LTO) will only be allowed renewal of annual registration when. National Motor Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program. In order to accommodate all vehicles for emission testing. Section 6. These regulations shall include provisions for ensuring the durability of emission devices. upon inspection by the LTO or other authorized private Motor Vehicle Inspection Station (MVIS). or for rebuilt and imported second hand vehicles and engines. to be authorized as an emission testing center. shall review the standards every two (2) years or as the need arises. automotive industry. an application form shall be submitted by the applicant to the DTI Provincial Office located in the province where the applicant operates or resides. Section 3. Section 3. . The Vehicle Inspection Report shall be valid for a maximum of six (6) months. Participation of Stakeholders.Emission testing of vehicles as a consequence of roadside inspection. The vehicle inspection will be initially conducted in the LTO-operated MVIS or LTO Motor Vehicle Registration Centers. the Department shall endeavor to achieve the harmonization of national emission standards with internationallyaccepted standards. . it will supersede them. adequate equipment and facilities.5% 0. The Department. Phased Implementation.5] m-1 RULE XXXIV NATIONAL MOTOR VEHICLE INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE PROGRAM Section 1. the Director of DTI Provincial Office shall approve the application and issue a certification to the applicant. Private emission testing centers shall be commissioned by the Government through accreditation by DTI and authorization by DOTC. The National Motor Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program is described in detail in Rule XXXIV and the Roadside Inspection System is described in Rule XXXV. Priority shall be given to the immediate testing of diesel-powered vehicles. . Useful Life of For-Hire Vehicles. To obtain accreditation from the DTI. RULE XXXIII REVIEW AND REVISION OF STANDARDS Section 1. the DTI. 2002At Idle Registered for the first time on or after January 1. The facilities shall be inspected prior to the issuance of the authorization to determine compliance with the authorization requirements. "Functional equivalence" means exhaust emission limits and test procedures whose numerical values are almost the same or identical with other types of emission limits and test procedures. Section 5. Emission tests may be conducted within sixty (60) days prior to the renewal of registration. Section 2. The applicant must comply with the requirements of area. the DTI shall promulgate the necessary regulations prescribing the useful life of vehicles and engines including devices in order to ensure that such vehicles will conform to the emission they were certified to meet. to undergo mandatory inspection to determine compliance with the in-use emission standards. The DOTC shall issue the procedural guidelines on the authorization process. non-government organizations (NGOs) and other stakeholders the opportunity to participate in the formulation and revision of standards.Pursuant to Section 22 of the Act.To further improve the emission standards. Section 3. qualified persons may file an application with the DOTC through LTO or its designated agency. in coordination with DOTC and DTI. . for voluntary inspection after vehicle maintenance. shall study the feasibility of adopting EURO II or III standards or other appropriate standards in the Philippines to further reduce emissions from motor vehicles. the DTI shall prescribe regulations requiring the disclosure of odometer readings and the use of tamper-resistant odometers for all motor vehicles including tamper-resistant fuel management systems for the effective implementation of the inspection and maintenance program.The Department shall provide the motoring public. determination of the technical feasibility of the revised standards. Table 18 Emission Standards for Rebuilt Vehicles and Imported Second Hand Vehicles* COa HCa Smokeb[turbocharged] Registered for the first time prior to December 31. figure in brackets relate to turbocharged vehicles. The inspection and maintenance program shall require all vehicles. the Department through the Bureau shall revise the exhaust emission standards for new and in-use motor vehicles. The DTI and DOTC shall accredit and authorize emission testing centers in accordance with the procedural guidelines thereon.5 [3.5] m-1 2. The applicant shall comply with the accreditation requirements and submit its organizational manual to the DTI.The DOTC/LTO shall ensure that the Motor Vehicle Inspection System shall be fully operational in Metro Manila by January 2003. Nationwide implementation shall follow in twelve (12) to eighteen (18) months thereafter. and the Department shall develop and implement the National Motor Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program that will ensure the reduction of emissions from motor vehicles and promote the efficient and safe operation of motor vehicles. 11 dated 09 October 1992.Pursuant to Section 21(d) of the Act. In seeking authorization from DOTC. Section 2. . The Department. safety and welfare of the general public. .5% 500 ppm 100 ppm 2. Upon a favorable recommendation of the DTI Evaluation Panel / Committee. NEDA and DOF may develop and implement a program to ensure for-hire vehicles to continue to meet emission standards hereto described. . DTI. 2003At Idle 3. may be done in a private emission testing center. Test Procedures for Measurement of Exhaust Emission. The revised standards must be published in a newspaper of general circulation or be filed in triplicate copies with the University of the Philippines (UP) Law Center pursuant to Presidential Memorandum Circular No. in coordination with the DOTC and DTI. Control of Emissions from In-use Vehicles. . DOTC/LTO. Such testing centers shall be authorized to conduct emission tests on vehicles apprehended for non-compliance with the in-use emission standards. in coordination with the DOTC/LTO. Harmonization with International Standards. DOTC/LTO. Where necessary to achieve substantial improvement in air quality for the health. Pursuant to Section 21 of the Act. . such vehicles meet the in-use emission standards set forth in Section 1 of Rule XXXII hereof. Pursuant to its standard-setting functions. DOTC Authorization and DTI Accreditation of Private Emission Testing Centers. may adopt or formulate the functional equivalence of the emission limits and test procedures.The Department shall prescribe the type of smoke opacity meter to be used in the emission testing of vehicles with diesel engines. The facilities of the applicant shall then be inspected. For considerations of public health and welfare. and in consultation with the motor vehicle manufacturers and other stakeholders. The test procedures for measurement of exhaust emissions for in-use motor vehicles with spark-ignition engines and compression-ignition engines are described in Annexes B and C. Public Utility Vehicles submitted to DOTC/LTO for renewal of registration shall only be allowed upon presentation of a valid Vehicle Inspection Report issued on the basis of the inspection following the standard described hereto from the MVIS or its authorized testing center.In the review and revision of emission standards.5 [3. and other related concerns. The results of such test shall be presented within sixty (60) days from the date of the test and may be presented to the LTO motor vehicle registration offices as a prerequisite to renewal of registration.The DTI through the Bureau of Import Services (BIS) shall formulate regulations and guidelines that will ensure rebuilt and imported second hand motor vehicles and engines will satisfy the emission standards for rebuilt and imported second hand motor vehicles as provided in these Implementing Rules and Regulations. * If the in-use emission standard of the country of origin is more stringent than these maximum limits. setting the schedule of implementation of the revised standards. trained personnel. the Department.

To ensure proper and effective enforcement of the vehicle emission standard. together with the DOTC through LTO or DOTC. The deputized agents shall undergo a mandatory training on emission standards and regulations. the Department of Energy (DOE). This program shall include training in the correct use. whichever is applicable and which were confiscated as a consequence of that specific violation. In the latter case. (3) the use of a single application form for both accreditation and authorization. .The DOTC through LTO or DOTC. in consultation with the Bureau of Product Standards (BPS) of the DTI. the vehicle plate(s) will be surrendered to the apprehending officer and the driver will be issued a temporary pass allowing him to take possession of the vehicle for the purpose of undertaking the needed repairs within a period not later than seven (7) days from the date the vehicle is temporarily released. (e) Motor vehicles released for purposes of repairs shall not be operated or used in public roads except for the purpose of transporting the same to the service center for repairs and to the authorized emission testing center for emission testing.Vehicles found emitting excessive smoke while operating in any public highway shall be subjected to an emission test by properly-equipped DOTC through LTO and/or DOTCdesignated enforcement unit(s) and/or its deputized agents. Section 2. On the basis of such specifications. . Section 7. the driver shall recover his vehicle or his vehicle plates. DOST. The accredited emission testing center must secure the authorization of the DOTC to conduct emission tests on vehicles apprehended for non-compliance with the in-use standards. Failure of enforcers to observe said procedure shall merit review of the apprehension by the adjudication service and/or waiver of fines and penalties. Self-Regulation. Should the results show an exceedance of the emission limits.The DOE shall specify the allowable content of additives in all types of fuels and fuel-related products. (d) Upon payment of the fine at the DOTC through LTO or DOTC.The accredited testing center shall make available to DTI or its appointed assessors all documents and shall allow the latter to inspect its facilities. . The CEC will have no validity period. through LTO or DOTC-designated enforcement unit(s) shall establish a roadside inspection system to ensure that vehicles comply with the in-use emission standards set forth in these Implementing Rules and Regulations The DOTC shall establish and chair an oversight committee for the purpose of monitoring smoke belching violations. academe and the consumers shall. . To facilitate the process of accreditation and authorization. Certification of Emission Test Equipment. Section 3. . within six (6) months from the effectivity of these Implementing Rules and Regulations. the DOST. government agencies and private entities to conduct roadside inspection and to apprehend vehicles which do not comply with the in-use standards set forth in these Implementing Rules and Regulations. however. relevant sector organizations and civil society shall compose the membership of the oversight committee headed by the LTO. Section 3.The DOTC shall encourage self-regulation among transport stakeholders. among others.designated enforcement unit(s) or deputized agency or private entity. The DOTC through LTO or its designated enforcement unit(s). . The procedure for the apprehension of noncompliant vehicles and the deputation of agents to perform roadside inspection are set forth in Section 4 of this Rule. Section 5. (g) Once the vehicle meets the standards. No individual shall be deputized without satisfactorily completing the training. its sole purpose is to secure the release of the impounded vehicle or the vehicle license plates. the same shall be the reference fuels for emission and testing procedures to be established in accordance with the provisions of this Act. PART X FUELS. Mechanism for Setting Fuel Specifications.designated enforcement unit(s) may deputize qualified government employees. RULE XXXV ROADSIDE INSPECTION OF MOTOR VEHICLES Section 1. (f) When the repairs are made. the DOTC.Pursuant to Section 46 of the Act. the following specifications set in Table 19 on or before the deadline set forth in the Act: The fuels characterized above shall be commercially available.designated enforcement unit(s). . to determine whether the vehicle complies with the emission standards. the Department.Pursuant to Section 46 of the Act. together with the Department shall oversee the training program. and modified apprehension procedures to reduce smoke belching.In the event the driver of the apprehended vehicle contests the fine imposed and/or the violation of emission standards. For this purpose. . Deputation.The fuel formulations shall meet. the Department. (b) The apprehending officer shall conduct an emission test of the vehicle using portable emission testing equipment and using test procedures given in Annex B and Annex C. Appellate Procedure. the computerized print-out. Specification of Allowable Additive Content. Section 6. he may appeal the same with the DOTC-designated Traffic Adjudication Service where he will be given the opportunity to be heard. sealing of injections pumps. pre-registration testing. . (1) the creation of a "one-stop shop" where an applicant may complete the process of accreditation and authorization. the vehicle must undergo an emission test at a DOTC/LTO testing center or its authorized and accredited emission testing center to ascertain if it already meets the emission standards. (2) the imposition of one fee. (h) Upon presentation of the Certificate of Emission Compliance. Likewise. Representatives from concerned government agencies. Section 2. Roadside Inspection. co-chaired by the Department.Pursuant to Section 26 of the Act. (c) Should the test result show that there is an exceedance of the standards. The DOTC shall encourage private sector initiated projects which integrate preventive maintenance. Section 8. among others. the DOTC and DTI shall enter into an inter-agency agreement to develop and implement a uniform procedure for accreditation and authorization of emission testing centers. to improve fuel composition for increased efficiency and reduced emissions: Provided. driver training. That the specifications for all types of fuel and fuelrelated products set-forth pursuant to this section shall be adopted by the BPS as Philippine National Standards (PNS). the representatives of the fuel and automotive industries. Such standards shall be based primarily on threshold levels of health and research studies. Apprehension and Impounding of Vehicles Exceeding Emission Limits. Data Collection and Management. Fuel Specifications. the procedure for apprehension and impounding of motor vehicles which emit pollutants beyond the allowable limits shall be as follows: (a) A vehicle suspected of violation of emission standards through visual signs shall be flagged down by the apprehending officer. SUBSTANCES AND POLLUTANTS RULE XXXVI STANDARDS FOR FUELS AND ADDITIVES Section 1. . and (4) the issuance of a single certificate of accreditation and authorization signed by both DOTC and DTI representatives. from the DOTC through LTO and/or DOTC. . through the Bureau.designated enforcement unit(s) which has custody over the vehicle or vehicle plates. set the specifications for all types of fuel and fuel-related products. LGUs. Should the test results show that there is an exceedance of the standards. the motor vehicle registration shall be suspended for a period of one (1) year. a ticket will be issued to the driver and a warrant of constructive or actual distraint to any owner of the motor vehicle as provided for in Republic Act 4136 shall commence unless the vehicle has been previously found violating the standards three (3) or more times within the last 365-day period. the Philippine National Police (PNP) and other concerned agencies and private entities shall design a training program. The ongoing computerization of LTO vehicle registration shall be linked to the MVIS and roadside inspection data base to be established. shall certify the conformity to standards of emission test equipment before it can be used for mandatory emission tests. Agency Responsible for Enforcement. the DOTC/LTO testing center or its authorized and accredited emission testing center shall issue a Certificate of Emission Compliance to the driver of the vehicle. DTI. ADDITIVES. a ticket will be issued to the driver and the vehicle will be impounded and shall remain in the custody of the LTO or deputized agency or private entity until the fines are paid. whichever is applicable. Further refinement of the apprehension procedure stated in the Act shall be developed and/or approved by the DOTC. Other agencies involved in the performance of this function shall be required to coordinate with the DOE and transfer all documents and information necessary for the implementation of this provision.The DOTC/LTO shall improve its system of managing and collecting data from the Motor Vehicle Inspection Stations and from roadside inspection/apprehensions for violation of emission standards. All apprehensions shall be made strictly adopting the above procedure. the DOE shall limit the content or begin the phase-out of additives in all types of fuels and fuel-related products as it may deem necessary. Section 4. The DOTC and DTI shall study. maintenance and calibration of smoke testing equipment. or other test result generated by the portable emission testing equipment shall serve as prima facie evidence of violation of the emission standards. .

Section 2. prepare and implement a national plan consistent with the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and other international agreements. PART XI INSTITUTIONAL MECHANISMS RULE XLIV IMPLEMENTING AGENCIES . production. (e) Care should be taken in collecting and storing samples in containers that will protect them from changes in content such as loss of volatile fractions by evaporation or leaching into the container.Every two (2) years thereafter or as the need arises and subject to public consultations. Import and Sale of Fuels Not According to Legally Prescribed Specifications. in any manner leaded gasoline and engines and components requiring the use of leaded gasoline. Requiring Leaded Gasoline. introduce into commerce.The DOE shall develop an information database of registered fuels and additives and other related data which shall be accessible to the public provided that information which are in the nature of trade secrets shall be subject to the non-disclosure and confidentiality agreement in Section 4 of this Rule. 2000 no person shall manufacture. the Department through the Bureau shall enforce the Philippine Ozone Depleting Substances (ODS) Phase Out Schedule as published in the June 27.Consistent with the terms and conditions of the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer and other international agreements and protocols to which the Philippines is a signatory. handling. sell.Section 4. (b) The chosen sampling procedure must be suitable for sampling fuel under definite storage. RULE XXXIX OZONE-DEPLETING SUBSTANCES Section 1.Information on fuels and fuel additives registered with the Department of Energy which are considered trade secrets shall be covered by a non-disclosure and confidentiality agreement between the company and the Department of Energy for a period of fifteen (15) years. RULE XLIII HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS Section 1. the Bureau shall. National Programs on Reduction and Elimination of POPs. . The list and control measures shall be source-specific by industry and shall be designed to protect Filipinos from unnecessary risk to health or welfare. Manufacture. Such guidelines and procedures shall. in coordination with the Bureau and other concerned government agencies. storage. import. incident to the establishment or possession of nuclear energy facilities and radioactive materials.In order to prevent the disabling of any emission control device by lead contamination. except where the fuel is intended for export to a country which allows fuel specifications lower than are prescribed in the Philippines.The Department through the Bureau.The Department through the Bureau. importation and sale of fuels which do not meet the specifications prescribed in these Rules and Regulations or which may be prescribed by the DOE in the future is prohibited. Manila Bulletin. Misfuelling. Prior to registration. . offer for sale. Section 3. RULE XL GREENHOUSE GASES Section 1.The Department through the Bureau shall issue and maintain a list of hazardous air pollutants and required control measures. shall. . . RULE XXXVII REGULATION OF FUELS AND ADDITIVES Section 1. . (c) Samples must be obtained in such a manner and from such locations in the tank or other container that the sample will be truly representative of the gasoline. . . or introduce into commerce such fuel or additive unless the same has been registered with the DOE. consider the following: (a) Fuel samples collected must be truly representative of the fuel sampled. offer for sale.Effective December 23. shall regulate the use of any fuel or fuel additive. processor or trader shall provide the DOE with the following relevant information: (a) Product identity and composition to determine the potential health effects of such fuels and additives. Section 2. transport. . in coordination with the Department and the BPS. Section 2. within one (1) year from the effectivity of these Implementing Rules and Regulations. including but not limited to report formats and submission deadlines. processor or trader of any fuel or additive may import.Compliance with the fuel specifications set in the Act shall be monitored through fuel sampling. convey or otherwise dispose of. . . shall regulate all projects which will involve the use of atomic and/or nuclear energy. Peoples Balita.When necessary. and Sale of Leaded Gasoline and of Engines and/or Components. design and implement a national government program on the reduction and elimination of POPs such as dioxins and furans. transportation.No manufacturer. National Action Plan. and use of radioactive materials. . . Monitoring Compliance through Fuel Sampling. . The DOE shall issue a separate regulation or circular detailing registration procedures. Regulation on Atomic and/or Nuclear Energy Use. and will entail release and emission of radioactive substances into the environment. within (6) months from the adoption and publication of these Implementing Rules and Regulations. Revision of the List of Ozone Depleting Substances. no person shall introduce or cause or allow the introduction of leaded gasoline into any motor vehicle equipped with a gasoline tank filler inlet and labeled "unleaded gasoline only". . . Section 2. This prohibition shall also apply to any person who knows or should know that such vehicle is designed solely for the use of unleaded gasoline. Information Database. Import. Review and Revision of Fuel Specifications. within one (1) year after the establishment of the inventory list referred to in the preceding section. (c) Recommended range of concentration. Section 4. together with concerned agencies and local government units. and container conditions. Compounds shall be considered for inclusion on the list as reasonable data or information become available. RULE XXXVIII PROHIBITED ACTS Section 1. Agencies Responsible for Regulating Fuels and Additives. Registration of Fuels and Additives. among others. (b) Description of the analytical technique that can be used to detect and measure the additive in any fuel. shall. the specifications of unleaded gasoline and of automotive and industrial diesel fuels shall be reviewed and revised for further improvement in formulation and in accordance with the provisions of this Act. 2000 editions of the Manila Times.The manufacture. RULE XLI PERSISTENT ORGANIC POLLUTANTS Section 1. Section 5. together with concerned agencies and local government units. Monitoring results shall be made available to the public through an annual report to be published by the DOE.Pursuant to Section 32 of the Act. National Plan for Reduction of Greenhouse Gas Emissions. . the Bureau shall revise the list of substances which are known to cause harmful effects on the stratospheric ozone layer which was initially published pursuant to Section 30 of the Act. sell. Guidelines and procedures for the conduct of fuel sampling shall be developed by the DOE within six (6) months from the effectivity of these Implementing Rules and Regulations. Manufacture.The DOE. (d) It must be ensured that the samples represent the general character and average condition of the fuel. the manufacturer. Enforcement of Philippine Ozone Depleting Substances Phase Out Schedule.The Philippine Nuclear Research Institute (PNRI). Philippine Star. conventions and protocols on the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. RULE XLII RADIOACTIVE EMISSIONS Section 1. within one (1) year from the effectivity of these Implementing Rules and Regulations establish an inventory list of all sources of Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) in the country. and Abante. Business World. Non-disclosure and Confidentiality Agreement. and (d) Purpose in the use of the fuel and additive. Designation and Management of Hazardous Air Pollutants. Section 3.

The Secretary may delegate such authority and other powers and function to the Director. (b) To closely supervise all or parts of the air quality action plans until such time that the local government concerned can assume the function to enforce the standards set by the Department. The DOE shall have the authority to. assist in the formulation and implementation of the National Motor Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program. control devise. (c) Contribute towards the establishment of procedures for inspection of motor vehicles. (i) To exercise such other authority vested by the Act and as provided for in these Implementing Rules and Regulations. 7160 and to exercise powers and duties set forth in Section 37 of the Act. (c) Accredit private emission testing centers (duly authorized by the DOTC). from time to time. 7160) and other pertinent laws. set the specifications for all types of fuel and fuel-related products. (i) To review. nongovernment organizations (NGOs). the private sector. . (d) To designate areas where specific pollutants have already exceeded ambient standards as non-attainment areas and to revise the designation of such areas after consultation with local government authorities. (k) To require any person who owns or operates any emission source or who is subject to any requirement of the Act to (i) establish and maintain relevant records. (h) To require program and project proponents to put up financial guarantee mechanisms to finance the needs for emergency response. The proposed line bureau staffing pattern shall be submitted to the Department of Budget ad Management for approval. Other Implementing Agencies. and to test any emission. (b) Participate in the formulation of an Action Plan for the control and management of air pollution from motor vehicles. for violations of standards for stationary sources. in coordination with the Department of Science and Technology (DOST). in cooperation with the National Statistical Coordination Board (NCSB). in coordination with other concerned agencies. (e) Establish a roadside inspection system. The Department. among others: (a) Implement the emission standards for motor vehicles pursuant to and as provided in the Act. (c) In coordination with the Department and BPS. the Bureau shall reorganize and increase the number of its personnel to effectively implement the Act and the Implementing Rules and Regulations. (f) To establish a National Research and Development Program for the prevention and control of air pollution. (f) Contribute towards design of training program for law enforcement officials and deputized agents on vehicle emission testing. other agencies. and the Department of Trade and Industry. impose on and collect regular emission fees from industrial dischargers as part of the emissions permitting system based on environmental techniques. among others: (a) To prepare annual National Quality Status Report pursuant to Section 6 of the Act. government agencies and LGUs. in accordance with the methods. NGOs and POs. (d) Develop and implement standards and procedures for the certification of training institutions. retrieval and exchange. It shall be comprised of a Central Office and the necessary regional. Section 2. revise and publish emission standards to further improve the emission standards for stationary sources of air pollution as well as emission standards for motor vehicles. assist in the formulation and implementation of the National Motor Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program. the Department of Energy. A. review and/or revise and publish annually a list of hazardous air pollutants with corresponding ambient guideline values and/or standard necessary to protect public health and safety. city or municipality in accordance with the provisions of Section 484 of the R. The DTI shall have the authority to.The other agencies primarily responsible for the implementation of the Act are the Department of Transportation and Communications. (b) To design and develop. Section 3. regulate the use of any fuel or fuel additive. provincial and such other offices as may be established in pertinent administrative orders issued by the Secretary. city. the Local Government Units (LGUs) shall have the following roles within their respective territorial jurisdiction: (a) To share the responsibility in the management and maintenance of air quality within their respective territorial jurisdiction. (e) Prescribe regulations requiring the disclosure of odometer readings and use of tamper-resistant odometers. (f) To design. revise information on air pollution control techniques upon consultation with the appropriate committees. . (e) To. or as the need therefore arises. The Bureau shall establish and operationalize its regional offices within two (2) years from the effectivity of these Implementing Rules and Regulations. (d) To issue and. (iv) sample emission. people's organization (POs) and concerned sectors. (h) To impose fines. 8 and 9 of the Act. RULE II ROLE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNITS Subject to Section 36 of the Act and pursuant to the Local Government Code (R.Section 1. (l) To exercise such other powers and functions as provided by the law.A. use and maintain monitoring equipment or methods. (ii) make relevant reports. The Department shall have the following authority. The Bureau. among others: (a) Participate in the formulation of an Action Plan for the control and management of air pollution from motor vehicles. the Act and these Implementing Rules and Regulations. the designation of airshed utilizing eco-profiling techniques and undertaking scientific studies. including tamper resistant fuel management systems. (j) To have the right of entry or access to any premises including documents and relevant materials. consistent with Sections 7. and general welfare. (b) Contribute towards the establishment of procedures for inspection of motor vehicles. (e) To administer the Air Quality Management Fund. and manner prescribed by the Department. among others: (a) In coordination with other relevant agencies. through the Pollution Adjudication Board. (c) To establish an Environment and Natural Resources Office (ENRO) in every province. to inspect any pollution or waste source.The Environmental Management Bureau shall be a line bureau primarily responsible for the implementation and enforcement of the Act pursuant to Section 34 thereof. among others: (a) To promulgate rules and regulations as may be necessary to implement the intent and provisions of the Act. The DOTC shall have the authority to. locations. or municipality which shall be headed by the environment and natural resources officer appointed by the chief executive of every province. The Bureau shall have the following powers and functions. instructors and facilities and licensing of qualified private service centers and their technicians. (g) To institute administrative proceedings pursuant to Section 40 of the Act. an information network for data storage. from time to time. (d) Authorize private emission testing centers (duly accredited by DTI). and (v) keep records. (b) To implement air quality standards set by the Governing Board. (b) Specify allowable content of additives in all types of fuel and fuel-related products. (c) To revise.The Department is the primary government agency responsible for the implementation and enforcement of the Act. (c) To serve as the central depositary of all data and information related to air quality. intervals. For this purpose. . the academe. (g) To issue permit as it may determine necessary for the prevention and abatement of air pollution. clean-up or rehabilitation of areas that may be damaged during the program or project's actual implementation. (iii) install. . monitoring equipment or method required.

locations. or by this act. . Right of Entry. Participation of Other Organizations. or parts thereof. participate. Consistent with Section 7 of the Act. (4) and other concerned sectors. through its authorized representatives. Rules and Regulations of other Government Agencies.Without prejudice to the right of any affected person to file an administrative action. orders and appropriate legal documents hereinafter promulgated shall be issued and authenticated with the official seal of the Department or other government agencies designated by this Act. report or information. the Bureau shall endeavor to institutionalize consultation with a multisectoral commission tasked to coordinate the plans and efforts of government agencies and non-government organizations in addressing air pollution in an organized and systematic manner. The PAB shall adopt and promulgate the rules of practice and procedure in air pollution cases from stationary sources under this Act. if made public. local assemblers. shall apply. Awareness Campaign for Mobile Sources. with the assistance from the Department. RULE V PUBLIC EDUCATION AND INFORMATION CAMPAIGN Section 1.Pursuant to Section 35 of the Act. . Section 3. RULE IV RECORD-KEEPING. . (b) make relevant reports. (ii) the technological options available to the transport sector to prevent smoke belching. The advertising industry. Closure or Suspension of Development. production variables or other indirect data when direct monitoring of emissions is impractical. the existing rules of the PAB. . Administrative Action. Records Available to the Public. Authentication with Official Seal.In addition to the fines prescribed under the Act and these Implementing Rules and Regulations. . The Pollution Adjudication Board. . use and maintain monitoring equipment or methods. Linkage with Coordinative Multisectoral Body. intervals and manner prescribed by the Bureau. rules and regulations. Administration and Enforcement. Section 3. Section 2. (e) keep records on control equipment parameters. . the broadcasting industry and the print media shall participate and cooperate in the formulation and implementation of public awareness raising campaigns in connection with the emission standards without any profit to claim in connection with their involvement. owners/operators and users of all motor vehicles. rule or regulation issued by the Department with respect to such standard or limitation. training and a continuing capability-building program to prepare them to undertake full administration of the air quality management and regulations within their territorial jurisdiction. Unless otherwise revised or amended. Section 2. shall have the right of: (a) entry of access to any premises including documents and relevant materials as referred to in the herein preceding paragraph. and all other matters related thereto. provided that the Department through the Bureau shall maintain its authority to independently inspect the enforcement procedure adopted. . Section 3. (e) To prepare and implement a program and other measures including relocation. or private enterprises in the furtherance of the objectives of the Act and these Implementing Rules and Regulations. POs. Inspection and Testing. PART XII ACTIONS RULE XLIX ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT Section 1. Construction or Operations of a Stationary Source. except as may be provided by law. whenever necessary. report or information obtained under this Rule shall be made available to the public. To ensure the cooperation of these groups. report or information shall likewise be incorporated in the Bureau's industrial rating system. RULE XLVI LINKAGE MECHANISM Section 1. executive orders or memorandum circulars. (d) sample emission. MONITORING AND ENTRY Section 1. and (c) test any emission. Such record. an action plan consistent with the Integrated Air Quality Framework to attain and maintain the ambient of air quality standards within their respective airsheds as provided in Section 9 of the Act. may at its discretion. and (iii) the commitment of the government to fully enforce emission standards through strengthening of apprehension activities. Section 2. environmental groups and other private entities in the formulation and implementation of a multi-sectoral information campaign. and (f) provide such other information as the Bureau may reasonably require. (g) To perform such other powers and functions as may be provided by applicable laws. except upon a satisfactory showing to the Bureau by the entity concerned that the record. the PAB shall order the closure or suspension of development.Any record. . . cooperate and enter into agreement with other government agencies. as defined in these Implementing Rules and Regulations.The rules and regulations issued by other government agencies and instrumentalities for the prevention and/or abatement of pollution not consistent with this Act shall supplement the rules and regulations issued by the Department through the Bureau. The Department shall provide the LGUs with technical assistance. Section 2.The Pollution Adjudication Board (PAB) shall have sole and exclusive jurisdiction over all cases of air pollution. the academe. institute administrative proceedings against any person who violates: (a) Standards of limitation provided under this Act. (f) To develop and submit to the Department through the Bureau a procedure for carrying out the action plan for their jurisdiction. or with affected non-governmental (NGOs) or peopleÕs organizations (POs). on its own instance or upon verified complaint by any person. The Bureau shall study the creation of a multisectoral commission headed by the Secretary of the Department and composed of representatives from the following sectors: (1) government agencies involved in the task of air pollution control and management. (3) business. the Department of Agriculture (DA) and the Philippine Information Agency (PIA). . The commission shall serve as an oversight body to ensure the systematic and effective management of air quality. Public Education and Information Campaign. construction or operation of the stationary sources until such time that proper environmental safeguards are put in place. (2) civil society.These Implementing Rules and Regulations shall be administered by the Department and/or its authorized representatives or through other government agencies designated or deputized by the Department. . . Provided. after proper consultation and notice. such campaign shall encourage the participation of other government agencies and the private sector including NGOs. control device. . that the Department or the DOTC as the case may be. PAB Resolution No.The Department through the Bureau or its duly accredited entity shall. in accordance with the methods. require any person who owns or operates any emissions source or who is subject to any requirement of this Act to: (a) establish and maintain relevant records. Required Relevant Reports and Records. The abatement of public nuisance as defined under the Civil Code of the Philippines and special laws shall not affect or stay the proceedings before the Department or the DOTC as the case may be. Awareness raising will be focused on the transport sector and will concentrate in communicating: (i) the harmful impact of gas emission on general public and workers in the transport sector. . and others. 1-C. the Bureau. (c) install. provided however. to protect the health and welfare of residents in the area.The enforcement and implementation of emission standards requires the active cooperation of the importers. there is a need for an intensified and sustained awareness raising campaign. the Department of Education. Culture and Sports (DECS).The Department shall consult. INSPECTION.The Department through the bureau shall have exclusive and original jurisdiction to control and abate air pollution from stationary sources within the territorial jurisdiction. RULE L ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS AND PROCEDURES IN AIR POLLUTION CASES INVOLVING STATION SOURCES Section 1. Section 4. (b) inspect any pollution or waste source. including the imposition of administrative sanctions.(d) To prepare and develop. the Department shall. the Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG). or (b) Any order. Jurisdiction. monitoring equipment or method required. Section 2. take appropriate steps in the interest of justice and public welfare.A continuing air quality information and education campaign shall be promoted by the Department. That an establishment found liable for a third offense shall suffer permanent closure immediately. Series of 1997.Pursuant to the Act. would divulge secret methods or processes entitled to protection as intellectual property.All decisions.

the complainant shall be allowed to present evidence in support of the charge with the testimony of each witness taken under oath. vex.The Order of Closure or suspension is without prejudice to the immediate issuance of an ex parte order by the PAB for such closure. such as for declaratory relief and/or injunction. Section 3. exert undue pressure or stifle such legal resources of the person complaining or enforcing the provisions of the Act or these Implementing Rules and Regulations. Section 4. the full names of all parties. Section 7. time and place indicated in the notice of hearing which shall not be later than five (5) days from receipt thereof. failure to take action within the prescribed 30-day period may also be ground for the initiation of an administrative or criminal action against the government official concerned before the Office of the Ombudsman. This shall be a condition precedent to the filing of a civil or criminal case in court against the polluting establishment and against the government official concerned. safety or general welfare. Damages. Section 5. . In the absence of any extenuating or aggravating circumstances. the proceedings herein provided shall be summary in nature.Actions for any violation of any of the motor vehicle pollution control laws and/or these Implementing Rules and Regulations may be commenced by any person by filing a written complaint. Duty of the Investigating Prosecutor. The Rules of Court shall not apply in proceedings before the Board except in a supplementary character and only whenever applicable. degree of willfulness. the administrative action having been extensively treated in the preceding Rules. suspension or development or construction. Bond. The availability of technical data secured through the monitoring conducted by the Department through the Bureau. shall be stated in the caption of the original pleadings. Section 5. where there is a prima facie showing by the plaintiff that the defendant establishment's emission is beyond the standards allowed by the law and these Implementing Rules and Regulations. who violates or fails to comply with the provisions of this Act. or by the DOTC on its own initiative. the amount of fine for negligence shall be equivalent to one-half of the fine for willful violation. Purposes. For this purpose. shall be deemed service to Respondent. Filing Fees. physical injury or damage to property as a result of air pollution may be included in the action filed against the government official concerned and the polluting establishment.The legal actions contemplated under this section are for civil and criminal remedies. . as far as they are known. . In the case of a private complaint. (b) Any Government agency which may issue any order or rules inconsistent with this Act. Fine Rating System.Damages arising from illness. motion. . Order/Decision. . unless the inconsistency is so blatant as to manifest evident bad faith. Section 2. except that the charge sheet shall already include a notice requiring the Respondent to appear and answer the charge of the date. including actual and moral damages alleged to have resulted from the air pollution. the Hearing Officer shall decide the same within three (3) days from its submission. Caption and Title. Service of the copy upon the driver of Respondent. either in Filipino or in English. the Hearing Officer shall on that same day.The government official as well as the person in violation shall be given notice of thirty (30) calendar days to undertake the necessary measures to abate the pollution. subject to the objections interposed. Party Defendants. . The technical rules of evidence obtaining in courts of law shall not bind the Traffic Adjudication Service of the LTO. Forms and Contents of Complaints and Charge Sheet. Commencement of Action. Malicious Actions The Court shall. as well as all information pertinent thereto.The legal actions shall be against: (a) Any private natural or juridical person. etc). within thirty (30) days from receipt of the complaint. the Respondent shall be allowed to present this evidence. including government owned and controlled corporations. It may specify the relief and such further remedies as may be deemed just and equitable. Said ex parte order shall be based upon prima facie evidence that there is imminent threat to life. history of non-compliance and degree of recalcitrance subject to conditions set forth in the Act. prohibitory and mandatory injunction.In coordination with the Supreme Court. or the presence of a photograph showing a visibly opaque emission shall be sufficient evidence to prove that the case is neither malicious nor baseless. issue an order imposing the appropriate fines and directing the grounding of the apprehended motor vehicle. The charge sheet shall be filed immediately. It shall recite the ultimate facts constituting the cause(s) of action and/or the violations of the motor vehicle pollution control laws and/or these Implementing Rules and Regulations.If the Respondent admits the charge. Section 8. Hearing on Apprehended Motor Vehicles. Only upon the presentation of the CEC and the official receipt certifying full payment of fines shall the grounded motor vehicle be released upon a written order duly issued by the Hearing Officer. The government official who was made a respondent in said civil action shall be sued in his official capacity and shall not be liable for damages. Section 4. Nature and Procedure. RULE LI ACTIONS. . the hearing officer shall set the case for hearing and require the Respondent to appear and answer the complaint on the date. notices and processes to be served upon them. Notice. (b) If the case is commenced by the Secretary or its deputized agent.g. or where there is a showing that the government official concerned has grossly neglected to perform his duty or has abused his authority. or by the filing of a charge by any deputized agent of the DOTC before the hearing officer. institution or government agency that implements the Act or these Implementing Rules and Regulations. if there be any. Section 4.Where a suit is brought against a person who filed an action under the preceding Rule. The Supreme Court may also waive the payment of the nominal filing fee for actions not capable of pecuniary estimation (e. The fees shall however be recorded to enable the Court to collect the appropriate amount recovered by the plaintiff in the event a monetary judgment is rendered in favor of the plaintiff in the citizen suit. the citizen suit under this Rule. . Section 3. In case of negligence.. The Hearing Officer shall then issue another order allowing the said motor vehicle to resume operation. Filing and Service of Complaint and Charge Sheet. . declaratory relief. . time and place indicated therein which shall not be less than one (1) day nor more than three (3) days from receipt hereof. or to plant or animal life. make a preliminary determination whether the case is malicious and/or baseless. Section 6. to immediately make a determination not exceeding thirty (30) days whether said legal action has been filed to harass. RULE LII CITIZEN SUIT Section 1. public health. or against any person. resolution. In addition. and other evidence. If the litigation of the case continues.In coordination with the Supreme Court. or whenever there is an exceedance of the emission standards set by the Department and/or the Board or the appropriate LGU. if any.The complaint or charge sheet shall be in writing and drawn in clear and concise language. (c) Any public officer who willfully or grossly neglects to perform the duties provided for under the Act.In all cases cognizable by the Traffic Adjudication Service. as the case may be. the Hearing Officer shall admit all the evidence presented. . . Section 7. Scope. degree of negligence. . order or decision and in all summons.(a) As soon as the parties enter their appearances and manifest their readiness to proceed with the hearing of the case. shall be exempt from filing fees and other court fees. after which the Respondent shall present his evidence. Section 6.The purposes of this section are to: (a) promote the participation of the citizens in the enforcement of the Act. (b) serve as a prod to government officials to take the necessary and appropriate action to abate and/or control pollution. the Court shall exempt the plaintiff from the posting of a bond for the issuance of a restraining order or preliminary injunction. Said decision shall become final and executory if no appeal is taken therefrom to the Secretary within fifteen (15) days from notice thereof. it shall be the duty of the investigating prosecutor or the court. Section 2. . but not later than twenty-four (24) hours from knowledge of the violation. .The PAB shall prepare a fine rating system to adjust the maximum fine prescribed under Section 45 of the Act based on the violator's ability to pay. In case of doubt. PLEADINGS AND HEARING PROCEDURES FOR MOTOR VEHICLES BEFORE THE LTO Section 1. the first-time offender's ability to pay may likewise be considered by the PAB. or who abuses his authority or in any manner improperly performs his duties under the Act and its Implementing Rules and Regulations.The complaint or charge sheet shall be filed in two (2) copies before the Hearing Officer whose office covers the territorial jurisdiction where the Respondent was apprehended. or cessation of operations during the pendency of the pollution case before the PAB.Subject to the basic requirements of due process. the action available under this heading shall only be civil in nature. the hearing shall proceed directly with the presentation of results of the smoke meter or CO/HC tests as the case may be. . . RULE LIII SUITS AND STRATEGIC LEGAL ACTIONS Section 1. Thereafter.

trustees. otherwise known as the New Civil Code of the Philippines.Any person who burns hazardous substances and wastes in violation of Section 1 of Rule XXV shall be punished with four (4) years and one (1) day to six (6) years imprisonment. RULE LVI FINES AND PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS OF OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT Section 1. conveys or otherwise disposes of. in case of insolvency of the respondent violator. Penalties for Gross.Any violation of the provisions of Section 21 paragraph (d) with regard to national inspection and maintenance program. Conveyance or other Disposition of Leaded Gasoline.Any person who manufactures. Sale. transports or introduces into commerce industrial diesel fuel in violation of Section 3 of Rule XXXI or which do not meet the fuel specifications as revised by the DOE shall be punished with three (3) years and one (1) day to five (5) years imprisonment and liable for the appropriate fine as provided in Section 1. Fines to Be Imposed. (b) Three (3) or more specific offenses within three (3) consecutive years. sells. Sale. (c) Blatant disregard of the orders of the PAB.00).For violations of all other provisions provided in the Act and these Implementing Rules and Regulations. Section 2. Dispensation.Any person who manufactures. Smoking in Public Places. (b) Second offense . RULE LV FINES AND PENALTIES FOR VIOLATION OF STANDARDS FOR MOTOR VEHICLES Section 1. . imports.a fine in the amount of one thousand pesos (P 1. Section 7. If the offender is a juridical person. Sale. including technicians and facility compliance shall be penalized with a fine of not less than thirty thousand pesos (P 30.Any person who manufactures. Introduction into Commerce.This Rule shall apply and benefit persons who filed an action under the preceding Rule or Section 41 of the Act and any person.000. discontinuance or cessation of operation. (d) Irreparable or grave damage to the environment as a consequence of any violation or omission of the provisions of the Act or these Implementing Rules and Regulations.Any person who manufactures. . Introduction into Commerce. . Section 6. The fines herein prescribed shall be increased by at least ten percent (10%) every three (3) years to compensate for inflation and to maintain the deterrent function of the fines. private place of work or any duly designated smoking area shall be punished with six (6) months and one (1) day to one (1) year imprisonment or a fine of ten thousand pesos (P 10. Manufacture.000. . Conveyance or other Disposition of Engines and/or Engine Components Requiring Leaded Gasoline. Section 2. . offers for sale. . 386. enjoy preference subsequent to laborer's wages under Article 2241 and 2242 of Republic Act No. directors. . . in any manner leaded gasoline shall be punished with three (3) years and one (1) day to five (5) years imprisonment and liable for the appropriate fine as provided in Section 1. Trade of Fuel or Fuel Additive Without Prior Registration of the Fuel or Fuel Additive with the DOE. Section 4. . Manufacture.000.00). Dispensation. the pollution control officer or officials directly in charge of the operations shall suffer the penalty herein provided.00) or cancellation of license of both the technician and the center. offers for sale. .000. directors. Section 2. Section 4.000. transports or introduces into commerce unleaded premium gasoline fuel in violation of Section 3 of Rule XXXI or which do not meet the fuel specifications as revised by the DOE shall be punished with three (3) years and one (1) day to five (5) years imprisonment and liable for the appropriate fine as provided in Section 1. Importation. manager.Violations In case of gross violations of the Act or these Implementing Rules and Regulations. Such lien shall. Offer for Sale.The driver and operator of the apprehended vehicle found to have exceeded the emission standards shall suffer the following penalties. conveys or otherwise disposes of.00) or six (6) years imprisonment or both shall be imposed. Action of the Court. Transportation or Introduction into Commerce of Industrial Diesel Fuel which do not Meet the Fuel Specifications. Fines and Penalties for Violation of Vehicle Emission Standards. Section 5. . Scope. or engages in the trade of any fuel or fuel additive without having the fuel or fuel additive registered with the DOE shall be punished with two (2) . introduces into commerce. (a) First offense . trustees. Gross Violation Defined. Processing. Section 3. . the president. and (c) Third offense -a fine in the amount of five thousand pesos (P 5.Any person who smokes inside a public building or an enclosed public place. .Gross violations of the Act or these Implementing Rules and Regulations shall mean: (a) Three (3) or more specific offenses within a period of one (1) year. Lien Upon Personal and Immovable Property. in any manner engines and/or engine components which require the use of leaded gasoline shall be punished with three (3) years and one (1) day to five (5) years imprisonment and liable for the appropriate fine as provided in Section 1. there being no grave abuse of authority. the PAB shall recommend to the proper government agencies the filing of appropriate criminal charges against the violators. sells. offers for sale.Fines and penalties imposed pursuant to the Act or these Implementing Rules and Regulations shall be liens upon personal and immovable properties of the violator. . Importation. institution or government agency that implements the Act or these Implementing Rules and Regulations. Section 9. the pollution control officer or officials directly in charge of the operations shall suffer the penalty herein provided.Upon determination made under the preceding section. introduces to commerce. offers for sale. Manufacture.000. Burning of Hazardous Substances and Wastes. an additional penalty of suspension of the Motor Vehicle Registration (MVR) for a period of one (1) year shall be imposed. Dispensation. including public utility vehicles or other means of public transport or in any enclosed area outside of his private residence. offers for sale. Transportation or Introduction into Commerce of Unleaded Gasoline Fuel which do not Meet the Fuel Specifications. manager. . . dispenses. Offer for Sale.00) and the offender must undergo a seminar on pollution control and management conducted by the DOTC/LTO. Further. sells. Section 3. transports or introduces into commerce automotive diesel fuel in violation of Section 3 of Rule XXXI or which do not meet the fuel specifications as revised by the DOE shall be punished with three (3) years and one (1) day to five (5) years imprisonment and liable for the appropriate fine as provided in Section 1. Offenders shall be punished with imprisonment of not less than six (6) years but not more than ten (10) years at the discretion of the court. Offer for Sale. and done in the course of enforcing the Act or these Implementing Rules and Regulations.For actual exceedance of any pollution or air quality standards under the Act or these Implementing Rules and Regulations. Manufacture. Manufacture. Importation. the court shall dismiss the case and award attorney's fees and double damages. If the offender is a juridical person. if evidence warrants the same. dispenses. it shall also apply and benefit public officers who are sued for acts committed in their official capacity. or operating despite the existence of an order for closure. PART XIII FINES AND PENALTIES RULE LIV FINES AND PENALTIES FOR VIOLATION OF STANDARDS FOR STATIONARY SOURCES Section 1.Any person who burns bio-medical waste in violation of Section 4 of Rule XXV shall be punished with four (4) years and one (1) to six (6) years imprisonment.000. Offer for Sale. padlocks and other similar devices.Any person who manufactures. imports. . Fines for Violation of the Provisions of Section 21(d) of the Act. Importation. Sale.Any person who burns municipal waste in violation of Sections 1 and 3 of Rule XXV shall be punished with two (2) years and one (1) day to four (4) years imprisonment.Section 2. Section 3. Offer for Sale. Importation. Burning of Bio-Medical Waste. In case the third offense was committed within a year from the commission of the first offense. Section 8.00) but not more than One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P 100.00). Transportation or Introduction into Commerce of Automotive Diesel Fuel which do not Meet the Fuel Specifications. Sale. Section 11. fine of not less than Ten Thousand Pesos (P 10. Burning of Municipal Waste. as determined by the DOTC.Any person who manufactures. the PAB shall impose a fine of not more than One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P 100. Section 10. the president.000.00) for every day of violation against the owner or operator of a stationary source until such time that the standards have been complied with. processes. such as but not limited to the breaking of seals. Fines and Penalties for Violations of Other Provisions in the Act. or both. . . sells.a fine in the amount of three thousand pesos (P 3. sells. The PAB shall assist the public prosecutor in the litigation of the case. Manufacture. dispenses.

sentence. RULE LVIII REPEALING AND AMENDING CLAUSE Department Administrative Order No.00).years and one (1) day to four (4) years of imprisonment and liable for the appropriate fine as provided in Section 1. .000. Misfuelling. the remaining parts of these Implementing Rules and Regulations shall not be affected thereby. . 2000-03 and all orders. section or provision of these Implementing Rules and Regulations is held or declared unconstitutional or invalid by a competent court. PART XIV FINAL PROVISIONS RULE LVII SEPARABILITY CLAUSE If any clause.Misfuelling refers to the act of introducing or causing or allowing the introduction of leaded gasoline into any motor vehicle equipped with a gasoline tank filler inlet and labeled "unleaded gasoline only." Any person who misfuels shall be punished with one (1) year and one (1) day to three (3) years imprisonment or a fine of twenty thousand pesos (P20. RULE LIX EFFECTIVITY These Implementing Rules and Regulations shall take effect fifteen (15) days from the date of its publication in the Official Gazzette or in at least two (2) newspapers of general circulation. Section 12. rules and regulations inconsistent with or contrary to the provisions of these Implementing Rules and Regulations are hereby repealed or modified accordingly.

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)//-->