You are on page 1of 8

1.

LLDA vs CA gr 120865-71, statutory construction that the provisions of the IPRA and its IRR on
GR No. 120865-71; Dec. 7 1995 enactment of a later legislation which is the ground that these amount to an
a general law, cannot be construed to unlawful deprivation of the States
FACTS: have repealed a special law. The special ownership over lands of the public
The Laguna Lake Development law is to be taken as an exception to the domain as well as minerals and other
Authority (LLDA) was created through general law in the absence of special natural resources therein, in violation of
Republic Act No. 4850. It was granted, circumstances forcing a contrary the regalian doctrine embodied in
inter alia, exclusive jurisdiction to issue conclusion. section 2, Article XII of the Constitution.
permits for the use of all surface water In addition, the charter of the LLDA
for any project or activity in or affecting embodies a valid exercise of police power ISSUE:
the said region including navigation, for the purpose of protecting and Do the provisions of IPRA contravene
construction, and operation of fishpens, developing the Laguna Lake region, as the Constitution?
fish enclosures, fish corrals and the like. opposed to the Local Government Code,
Then came RA 7160, the Local which grants powers to municipalities to HELD:
Government Code of 1991. The issue fishing permits for revenue No, the provisions of IPRA do not
municipalities in the Laguna Lake purposes. contravene the Constitution. Examining
region interpreted its provisions to mean the IPRA, there is nothing in the law
that the newly passed law gave Thus it has to be concluded that the that grants to the ICCs/IPs ownership
municipal governments the exclusive charter of the LLDA should prevail over over the natural resources within their
jurisdiction to issue fishing privileges the Local Government Code of 1991 on ancestral domain. Ownership over the
within their municipal waters. matters affecting Laguna de Bay. natural resources in the ancestral
domains remains with the State and the
ISSUE: rights granted by the IPRA to the
Who should exercise jurisdiction over 2. Isagani cruz vs sec of DENR gr ICCs/IPs over the natural resources in
the Laguna Lake and its environs 135385, their ancestral domains merely gives
insofar as the issuance of permits for GR. No. 135385, Dec. 6, 2000 them, as owners and occupants of the
fishing privileges is concerned, the land on which the resources are found,
LLDA or the towns and municipalities FACTS: the right to the small scale utilization of
comprising the region? Petitioners Isagani Cruz and Cesar these resources, and at the same time, a
Europa filed a suit for prohibition and priority in their large scale development
HELD: mandamus as citizens and taxpayers, and exploitation.
LLDA has jurisdiction over such matters assailing the constitutionality of certain
because the charter of the LLDA provisions of Republic Act No. 8371, Additionally, ancestral lands and
prevails over the Local Government otherwise known as the Indigenous ancestral domains are not part of the
Code of 1991. The said charter Peoples Rights Act of 1997 (IPRA) and lands of the public domain. They are
constitutes a special law, while the its implementing rules and regulations private lands and belong to the ICCs/IPs
latter is a general law. It is basic in (IRR). The petitioners assail certain by native title, which is a concept of
private land title that existed alleging that the RTC had no they are authorized to... represent the
irrespective of any royal grant from the jurisdiction over the case. Talaandig tribe.
State. However, the right of ownership
and possession by the ICCs/IPs of their Certificate of Ancestral Domain That petitioners are the real parties in
ancestral domains is a limited form of Title (CADT) interest can be gleaned from the Entry
ownership and does not include the right of Appearance with Motion to Refer the
to alienate the same. As awardees of a CADT, petitioners Case to the Regional
argued that NCIP has exclusive and
3. Loloy unduran vs ramon original jurisdiction over the case, as the Hearing Office of the NCIP[12] filed by
aberasturi gr 181284, subject matter concerns a dispute and the NCIP Special Transition Team-
controversy over an ancestral Quick Response Unit (STRAT-QRU).
Facts: land/domain of Indigenous Cultural The STRAT-QRU counsels alleged
Petitioners... are members of the therein that the respondents' complaint
Miarayon, Lapok, Lirongan, Talaandig Communities (ICCs)/Indigenous Peoples for recovery of ownership (accion...
Tribal Association (MILALITTRA), or (IPs). reinvidicatoria) sought to recover an
Talaandig tribe, who claimed to have unregistered real property situated in
been living since birth on the land On July 1, 2004, the NCIP through Atty. Miarayon, Bukidnon, from petitioners,
located at Barangay Miarayon, Melanie Pimentel, filed a Motion to all of whom are, with the exception of
Talakag,... Bukidnon, Mindanao, which Refer the Case to the Regional Hearing Nestor Macapayag and Mark Brazil,
they inherited from their forefathers. Office-National Commission on member-beneficiaries of CADT No. R10-
Indigenous Peoples (RHO-NCIP), TAL-0703-0010 issued by the NCIP in
Respondents, represented by attorney- alleging that the RTC had no the name of... the Talaandig Indigenous
in-fact Ramon Aberasturi, claimed to be jurisdiction over the subject matter. Peoples, located at Talakag, Province of
the lawful owners and possessor of an Bukidnon. In support of their allegation,
unregistered parcel of agricultural land Issues: In resolving the pivotal issue of petitioners presented a certification[13]
which between the RTC and the NCIP that the disputed land is within the area
On March 3, 2004, respondents filed a has jurisdiction over the respondents' covered by the same CADT, and the
Petition for Accion Reivindicatoria, with amended complaint, NCIP List of Beneficiaries of
Prayer for the Issuance of a Temporary
Restraining Order or Preliminary Ruling: The petition has no merit. Talaandig Ancestral Domain of
Prohibitory Injunction with Damages... Miarayon, Lirongan, Lapok, San Miguel,
before the Regional Trial Court of Court disagrees with their contention Talakag, Bukidnon.[
Manolo Fortich, Bukidnon (RTC) that petitioners do not have legal In contrast, respondents failed to submit
capacity or standing and locus standi to any evidence to dispute petitioners'
On March 23, 2004, the rest of the file the petition, for failure to show that claim that they are members of the
petitioners filed their Motion to Dismiss, they are members of IPs/ICCs, or that Talaandig Tribe. Hence, respondents'
contention... that petitioners have no
legal standing to file the petition, is the jurisdiction of the NCIP under under Section 66 of the IPRA to include
without merit. Section 66 of the IPRA, to wit: such disputes where the parties do not
belong to the same ICC/IP.
Having spelled out the jurisdictions A careful review of Section 66 shows
conferred by law to the RTC and the that the NCIP shall have jurisdiction WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED
NCIP over the subject matters of their over claims and disputes involving Court of Appeals Decision
respective cases, the Court now rights of ICCs/IPs only when they arise AFFIRMED.
examines the allegations in the original between or among parties belonging to
and amended complaints to find out the same ICC/IP. Principles:
which tribunal may properly exercise Locus standi is defined as a right of
jurisdiction over this... case. The qualifying provision requires two appearance in a court of justice on a
conditions before such disputes may be given question. In private suits,
respondents traced the provenance of brought before the NCIP, namely: (1) standing is governed by the "real parties
their title over said land to one Mamerto exhaustion of remedies under customary in interest"
Decano, a Chieftain of Talaandig tribe, laws of the parties, and (2) compliance
by virtue of a Deed of Sale executed on with condition precedent through the The nature of an action, as well as which
July 27, 1957 said certification by the Council of court or body has jurisdiction over it, is
determined based on the allegations
They claimed that by means of fraud, Elders/Leaders. contained in the complaint... of the
stealth and surreptitious means, plaintiff, irrespective of whether or not
petitioners entered the said... land, In this case, while most of the the plaintiff is entitled to recover upon
without permission and against the petitioners belong to all or some of the claims asserted
consent of the landowners, caused therein.
damages therein and harassed Talaandig Tribe, respondents do not
respondents by indiscriminately firing belong to the same ICC/IP. Once vested by the allegations in the...
upon their farm workers. complaint, jurisdiction also remains
Thus, even if the real issue involves a vested irrespective of whether or not the
The Court therefore finds that the CA dispute over land which appear to be plaintiff is entitled to recover upon all or
correctly ruled that the subject matter of located within the ancestral domain of some of the claims asserted therein."[15]
the amended complaint based on the Talaandig Tribe, it is not the NCIP
allegations therein was within the but the RTC which shall have the power Section 3 (f) of the IPRA defines
jurisdiction of the RTC. to hear, try and... decide this case. the customary laws as a body of written
Court declares Rule IX, Section 1 of the and/or unwritten rules, usages, customs
contrary to petitioners' contention, the IPRA-IRR, Rule III, Section 5 and Rule and practices traditionally and
mere fact that this case involves IV, Sections 13 and 14 of the NCIP continually recognized, accepted and
members of ICCs/IPs and their ancestral Rules as null and void insofar as they observed by respective ICCs/IPs. From
land is not enough to for it to fall under expand the jurisdiction of the NCIP this restrictive definition, it can be
gleaned that it is only... when both not belong to the same ICC/IP, viz.:... pollution statutory and regulatory
parties to a case belong to the same conflicting claims among ICCs/IPs on... provisions, have been remarkably
ICC/IP that the abovesaid two conditions the boundaries of ancestral domain forbearing in its efforts to enforce the
can be complied with. If the parties to a claims,... fraudulent claims by parties applicable standards vis-a-vis Solar.
case belong to different ICCs/IPs which who are not members of the same Solar, on the other hand, seemed very
are recognized to have their own ICC/IP, to wit: casual about its continued discharge of
separate and distinct customary laws untreated, pollutive effluents into the
and Council of Elders/Leaders, they... Considering the general rule that the river. Petitioner Board issued an ex
will fail to meet the abovesaid two jurisdiction of the NCIP under Section parte Order directing Solar immediately
conditions. The same holds true if one of 66 of the IPRA covers only disputes and to cease and desist from utilizing its
such parties was a non-ICC/IP member claims between and among members of wastewater pollution source
who is neither bound by customary laws the same ICCs/IPs involving their rights installations. Solar, however, with
as contemplated by the IPRA nor under the IPRA, as well as the basic preliminary injunction against the
governed by such council. Indeed, it administrative law principle that an... Board, went to the Regional Trial Court
would be violative of the principles of administrative rule or regulation must on petition for certiorari, but it was
fair play and... due process for those conform, not contradict the provisions of dismissed upon two (2) grounds, i.e.,
parties who do not belong to the same the enabling law that appeal and not certiorari from the
ICC/IP to be subjected to its customary questioned Order of the Board as well as
laws and Council of Elders/Leaders. "[J]urisdiction over a subject matter is the Writ of Execution was the proper
conferred by the Constitution or the law remedy, and that the Board's
parties belonging to different ICC/IPs or and rules of procedure yield to subsequent Order allowing Solar to
where one of the parties is a non-ICC/IP, substantive law. operate temporarily had rendered
the case shall fall under the jurisdiction Solar's petition moot and academic.
of the proper Courts of Justice, instead 4. Pollution adjudication board vs Dissatisfied, Solar went on appeal to the
of the NCIP. CA gr 93891 Court of Appeals, which reversed the
Order of dismissal of the trial court and
GR: the NCIP does not have jurisdiction FACTS: Respondent, Solar Textile remanded the case to that court for
over a case if one of the parties is not a Finishing Corporation was involved in further proceedings. In addition, the
member of the tribe EXCS: 1: Claims bleaching, rinsing and dyeing textiles Court of Appeals declared the Writ of
over boundary disputes 2. fraudulent with wastewater being directly Execution null and void. At the same
claims by parties who are not members discharged into a canal leading to the time, the CA said that certiorari was a
of the same ICC/IP adjacent Tullahan- Tinerejos River. proper remedy since the Orders of
Petitioner Board, an agency of the petitioner Board may result in great and
There are, however, exceptional cases Government charged with the task of irreparable injury to Solar; and that
where the NCIP shall still have determining whether the effluents of a while the case might be moot and
jurisdiction over such claims and particular industrial establishment academic, "larger issues" demanded that
disputes even if the parties involved do comply with or violate applicable anti- the question of due process be settled.
Petitioner Board moved for threat to life, public health, safety or The Court gave due course on the
reconsideration, without success. welfare, or to animal and plant life." In Petition for Review and the Decision of
the instant case, according to Solar, the the Court of Appeals and its Resolution
Arguing that that the ex parte Order inspection reports before the Board were set aside. The Order of petitioner
and the Writ of Execution were issued in made no finding that Solar's wastewater Board and the Writ of Execution, as well
accordance with law and were not discharged posed such a threat. as the decision of the trial court were
violative of the requirements of due reinstated, without prejudice to the right
process; and the ex parte Order and the ISSUE: Whether or not the Court of of Solar to contest the correctness of the
Writ of Execution are not the proper Appeals erred in reversing the trial basis of the Board's Order and Writ of
subjects of a petition for certiorari, Oscar court on the ground that Solar had been Execution at a public hearing before the
A. Pascua and Charemon Clio L. Borre denied due process by the Board. Board.
for petitioner asked the Supreme Court
to review the Decision and Resolution HELD: The Court found that the Order
promulgated by the Court of Appeals and Writ of Execution were entirely 5. Henares vs LTFRB gr 158290
entitled "Solar Textile Finishing within the lawful authority of petitioner G.R. No. 158290 October 23,
Corporation v. Pollution Adjudication Board. Ex parte cease and desist orders 2006
Board," which reversed an order of the are permitted by law and regulations in
Regional Trial Court. In addition, situations like here. The relevant FACTS
petitioner Board claims that under P.D. pollution control statute and
No. 984, Section 7(a), it has legal implementing regulations were enacted Citing statistics from National and
authority to issue ex parte orders to and promulgated in the exercise of that International agencies, petitioners
suspend the operations of an pervasive, sovereign power to protect the prayed for a writ of mandamus
establishment when there is prima facie safety, health, and general welfare and commanding respondents Land
evidence that such establishment is comfort of the public, as well as the Transportation Franchising and
discharging effluents or wastewater, the protection of plant and animal life, Regulatory Board (LTFRB) and the
pollution level of which exceeds the commonly designated as the police Department of Transportation and
maximum permissible standards set by power. It is a constitutional Communications (DOTC) to require
the NPCC (now, the Board). Petitioner commonplace that the ordinary public utility vehicles (PUVs) to use
Board contends that the reports before it requirements of procedural due process compressed natural gas (CNG) as
concerning the effluent discharges of yield to the necessities of protecting vital alternative fuel. Petitioners allege that
Solar into the River provided prima facie public interests like those here involved, the particulate matters (PM) complex
evidence of violation by Solar of Section through the exercise of police power. mixtures of dust, dirt, smoke, and liquid
5 of the 1982 Effluent Code. Solar, on Hence, the trial court did not err when it droplets, varying in sizes and
the other hand, contends that under the dismissed Solar's petition for certiorari. compositions emitted into the air from
Board's own rules and regulations, an ex It follows that the proper remedy was an various engine combustions have
parte order may issue only if the appeal from the trial court to the Court caused detrimental effects on health,
effluents discharged pose an "immediate of Appeals, as Solar did in fact appeal. productivity, infrastructure and the
overall quality of life. In addition, they that these are curbed falls under the LTFRB has been tasked by E.O. No.
allege that with the continuing high respondents functions and a writ of 290 in par. 4.5 (ii), Section 4 to grant
demand for motor vehicles, the energy mandamus should issue against them. preferential and exclusive Certificates of
and transport sectors are likely to Public Convenience (CPC) or franchises
remain the major sources of harmful On the other hand, the Solicitor General to operators of NGVs based on the
emissions. They cited studies showing said that the respondent government results of the DOTC surveys.
that vehicular emissions in Metro agencies, the DOTC and the LTFRB, are In addition, under the Clean Air Act, it
Manila have resulted to the prevalence not in a position to compel the PUVs to is the DENR that is tasked to set the
of chronic obstructive pulmonary use CNG as alternative fuel. He emission standards for fuel use and the
diseases (COPD); that pulmonary explained that the function of the DOTC task of developing an action plan. As far
tuberculosis is highest among jeepney is limited to implementing the emission as motor vehicles are concerned, it
drivers; and that the children in Metro standards set forth in Rep. Act No. 8749 devolves upon the DOTC and the line
Manila showed more compromised and the said law only goes as far as agency whose mandate is to oversee that
pulmonary function than their rural setting the maximum limit for the motor vehicles prepare an action plan
counterparts. Petitioners infer that emission of vehicles, but it does not and implement the emission standards
these are mostly due to the emissions of recognize CNG as alternative engine fuel. for motor vehicles, namely the LTFRB.
PUVs. He recommended that the petition
should be addressed to Congress for it to No. Petitioners are unable to pinpoint
Asserting their right to clean air, come up with a policy that would compel the law that imposes an indubitable
petitioners contend that the bases for the use of CNG as alternative fuel. legal duty on respondents that will
their petition for a writ of mandamus to justify a grant of the writ of mandamus
order the LTFRB to require PUVs to use ISSUES Whether the respondent is compelling the use of CNG for public
CNG as an alternative fuel, lie in the agency responsible to implement the utility vehicles. The legislature should
Section 16,12 Article II of the 1987 suggested alternative of requiring public provide first the specific statutory
Constitution, in Oposa v. Factoran, Jr. utility vehicles to use compressed remedy to the complex environmental
and Section 414 of Republic Act No. 8749 natural gas (cng) problems bared by herein petitioners
otherwise known as the Philippine Whether the respondent can be before any judicial recourse by
Clean Air Act of 1999. compelled to require public utility mandamus is taken. In addition, the
vehicles to use compressed natural gas petition had been mooted by the
Petitioners insist that since it is the through a writ of mandamus issuance of Executive Order No. 290,
LTFRB and the DOTC that are the which implemented a program on the
government agencies clothed with power RULING Mandamus is available only use of CNG by public vehicles. The court
to regulate and control motor vehicles, to compel the doing of an act specifically was assured that the implementation for
particularly PUVs, and with the same enjoined by law as a duty. Here, there is a cleaner environment is being
agencies awareness and knowledge that no law that mandates the respondents addressed.
the PUVs emit dangerous levels of air LTFRB and the DOTC to order owners
pollutants, then, the responsibility to see of motor vehicles to use CNG. At most
6. Republic of the PH vs Marcopper
Mining Corp gr 137174