CASE: Social Justice Society (SJS) Officers v. Mayor Alfredo S. Lim (G.R. Nos.

187836 and 187916)

DATE: 25 November 2014
PONENTE: J. Perez

FACTS

 On 12 October 2001, a Memorandum of Agreement was entered into by oil companies (Chevron,
Petron and Shell) and Department of Energy for the creation of a Master Plan to address and
minimize the potential risks and hazards posed by the proximity of communities, business and offices
to Pandacan oil terminals without affecting security and reliability of supply and distribution of
petroleum products.
 On 20 November 2001, the Sangguniang Panlungsod (SP) enacted Ordinance No. 8027 which
reclassifies the land use of Pandacan, Sta. Ana, and its adjoining areas from Industrial II to
Commercial I.
 Owners and operators of the businesses affected by the reclassification were given six (6) months
from the date of effectivity to stop the operation of their businesses. It was later extended until 30
April 2003.
 On 4 December 2002, a petition for mandamus was filed before the Supreme Court (SC) to enforce
Ordinance No. 8027.
 Unknown to the SC, the oil companies filed before the Regional Trial Court of Manila an action to
annul Ordinance No. 8027 with application for writs of preliminary prohibitory injunction and
preliminary mandatory injunction. The same was issued in favor of Chevron and Shell. Petron, on
the other hand, obtained a status quo on 4 August 2004.
 On 16 June 2006, Mayor Jose Atienza, Jr. approved Ordinance No. 8119 entitled “An Ordinance
Adopting the Manila Comprehensive Land Use Plan and Zoning Regulations of 2006 and Providing
for the Administration, Enforcement and Amendment thereto”. This designates Pandacan oil depot
area as a Planned Unit Development/Overlay Zone.
 On 7 March 2007, the SC granted the petition for mandamus and directed Mayor Atienza to
immediately enforce Ordinance No. 8027. It declared that the objective of the ordinance is to protect
the residents of manila from the catastrophic devastation that will surely occur in case of a terrorist
attack on the Pandacan Terminals.
 The oil companies filed a Motion for Reconsideration (MR) on the 7 March 2007 Decision. The SC
later resolved that Ordinance No. 8027 is constitutional and that it was not impliedly repealed by
Ordinance No. 8119 as there is no irreconcilable conflict between them.
 SC later on denied with finality the second MR of the oil companies.
 On 14 May 2009, during the incumbency of Mayor Alfredo Lim (Mayor Lim), the SP enacted
Ordinance No. 8187. The Industrial Zone under Ordinance No. 8119 was limited to Light Industrial
Zone, Ordinance No. 8187 appended to the list a Medium and a Heavy Industrial Zone where
petroleum refineries and oil depots are expressly allowed.
 Petitioners Social Justice Society Officers, Mayor Atienza, et.al. filed a petition for certiorari under
Rule 65 assailing the validity of Ordinance No. 8187. Their contentions are as follows:
- It is an invalid exercise of police power because it does not promote the general welfare of
the people
- It is violative of Section 15 and 16, Article II of the 1987 Constitution as well as health and
environment related municipal laws and international conventions and treaties, such as:
Clean Air Act; Environment Code; Toxic and Hazardous Wastes Law; Civil Code provisions
 on nuisance and human relations; Universal Declaration of Human Rights; and Convention
on the Rights of the Child
- The title of Ordinance No. 8187 purports to amend or repeal Ordinance No. 8119 when it
actually intends to repeal Ordinance No. 8027
 On the other hand, the respondents Mayor Lim, et.al. and the intervenors oil companies contend
that:
- The petitioners have no legal standing to sue whether as citizens, taxpayers or legislators.
They further failed to show that they have suffered any injury or threat of injury as a result of
the act complained of
- The petition should be dismissed outright for failure to properly apply the related provisions
of the Constitution, the Rules of Court, and/or the Rules of Procedure for Environmental
Cases relative to the appropriate remedy available
- The principle of the hierarchy of courts is violated because the SC only exercises appellate
jurisdiction over cases involving the constitutionality or validity of an ordinance under Section
5, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution
- It is the function of the SP to enact zoning ordinance without prior referral to the Manila
Zoning Board of Adjustment and Appeals; thus, it may repeal all or part of zoning ordinance
sought to be modified
- There is a valid exercise of police power
 On 28 August 2012, the SP enacted Ordinance No. 8283 which essentially amended the assailed
Ordinance to exclude the area where petroleum refineries and oil depots are located from the
Industrial Zone. The same was vetoed by Mayor Lim.

ISSUES

1. WON there are violations of environmental laws

2. WON the principle of hierarchy of courts is violated
3. WON the petitioners have legal standing to sue
4. WON Ordinance No. 8187 is unconstitutional in relation to the Pandacan Terminals

RULING

1. None. The scope of the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases is embodied in Section 2, Part
I, Rule I thereof. It states that the Rules shall govern the procedure in civil, criminal and special civil
actions before the MeTCs, MTCCs, MTCs and MCTCs, and the RTCs involving the enforcement or
violations of environmental and other related laws, rules and regulations such as but not limited to:
R.A. No. 6969, Toxic Substances and Hazardous Waste Act; R.A. No. 8749, Clean Air Act;
Provisions in C.A. No. 141; and other existing laws that relate to the conservation, development,
preservation, protection and utilization of the environment and natural resources.

Notably, the aforesaid Rules are limited in scope. While, indeed, there are allegations of
violations of environmental laws in the petitions, these only serve as collateral attacks that would
support the other position of the petitioners – the protection of the right to life, security and safety.
2. No. The SC held that it is true that the petitions should have been filed with the RTC, it having
concurrent jurisdiction with the SC over a special civil action for prohibition, and original jurisdiction
over petitions for declaratory relief.

However, the petitions at bar are of transcendental importance warranting a relaxation of the
doctrine of hierarchy of courts. This is in accordance with the well-entrenched principle that rules of
procedure are not inflexible tools designed to hinder or delay, but to facilitate and promote the
administration of justice. Their strict and rigid application, which would result in technicalities that
tend to frustrate, rather than promote substantial justice, must always be eschewed. (Jaworski v.
PAGCOR, 464 Phil. 375)

3. Yes. The SC referred to their Decision dated 7 March 2007 which ruled that the petitioners in that
case have a legal right to seek the enforcement of Ordinance No. 8027 because the subject of the
petition concerns a public right, and they, as residents of Manila, have a direct interest in the
implementation of the ordinances of the city.

No different are herein petitioners who seek to prohibit the enforcement of the assailed
ordinance, and who deal with the same subject matter that concerns a public right.

In like manner, the preservation of the life, security and safety of the people is indisputably
a right of utmost importance to the public. Certainly, the petitioners, as residents of Manila, have the
required personal interest to seek relief to protect such right.

4. Yes. In striking down the contrary provisions of the assailed Ordinance relative to the continued stay
of the oil depots, the SC followed the same line of reasoning used in its 7 March 2007 decision, to
wit:

“Ordinance No. 8027 was enacted for the purpose of promoting a sound urban
planning, ensuring health, public safety and general welfare of the residents of Manila. The
Sanggunian was impelled to take measures to protect the residents of Manila from
catastrophic devastation in case of a terrorist attack on the Pandacan Terminals. Towards
this objective, the Sanggunian reclassified the area defined in the ordinance from industrial
to commercial.

The following facts were found by the Committee on Housing, Resettlement and
Urban Development of the City of Manila which recommended the approval of the
ordinance:

(1) The depot facilities contained 313.5 million liters of highly flammable and highly
volatile products which include petroleum gas, liquefied petroleum gas, aviation
fuel, diesel, gasoline, kerosene and fuel oil among others;
(2) The depot is open to attack through land, water and air;
(3) It is situated in a densely populated place and near Malacañang Palace; and
(4) In case of an explosion or conflagration in the depot, the fire could spread to the
neighboring communities.
 The Ordinance was intended to safeguard the rights to life, security and safety of all
the inhabitants of Manila and not just of a particular class. The depot is perceived, rightly or
wrongly, as a representation of western interests which means that it is a terrorist target. As
long as there is such a target in their midst, the residents of Manila are not safe. It therefore
becomes necessary to remove these terminals to dissipate the threat.”

The same best interest of the public guides the present decision. The Pandacan oil depot
remains a terrorist target even if the contents have been lessened. In the absence of any convincing
reason to persuade the Court that the life, security and safety of the inhabitants of Manila are no
longer put at risk by the presence of the oil depots, the SC holds that the Ordinance No. 8187 in
relation to the Pandacan Terminals is invalid and unconstitutional.

For, given that the threat sought to be prevented may strike at one point or another, no
matter how remote it is as perceived by one or some, the SC cannot allow the right to life be
dependent on the unlikelihood of an event. Statistics and theories of probability have no place in
situations where the very life of not just an individual but of residents of big neighbourhoods is at
stake.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION

1. Ordinance No. 8187 is declared unconstitutional and invalid with respect to the continued stay of the
Pandacan Oil Terminals.
2. The incumbent mayor of the City of Manila is ordered to cease and desist from enforcing Ordinance
No. 8187 and to oversee the relocation and transfer of the oil terminals out of the Pandacan area
3. The oil companies shall, within a non-extendible period of forty-five (45) days, submit to the RTC
Manila, Branch 39 an updated comprehensive plan and relocation schedule, which relocation shall
be completed not later than six (6) months from the date the required document is submitted.

International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications, Inc. v. Greenpeace Southeast
Asia [G.R. No. 209271]

In this case, plaintiffs, a collective of environmental NGO, member of the civil society and scientist,
challenged the decision of granting a Biosafety permits and allowing field test of a new pest resistant
biotechnologically engineered aubergine.
The plaintiffs alleged that the field trials of the bioengineered aubergine were a violation of their
constitutional right to health and balanced ecology because the environmental compliance certificate
No.1151 was not secured prior to the project implementation and because there is no scientific peer
reviewed studies that shows that the Bt gene used in the genetically modified organism is safe for human
consumption and for the environment. Consequently, the plaintiffs called for the application of the
precautionary principle to this case. In addition to that, the plaintiffs claimed that the field test project did not
comply with the required public consultation under Section 26 & 27 of the Local Government code.

In front of the court of first instance and the court of appeal, the plaintiffs prevailed and the judges applied
the principle of precaution and issued a writ of kalikasan against the defendants, namely the authorities in
charge of delivering the different permits such as the Environmental Management Bureau, the Fertilizer and
Pesticide Authority, and the promoter of the bioengineered aubergines : the University of the Philippines
Los Baños, the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications.

The defendants appealed the decision arguing that they had respected all measures of environmental law
and that there was no evidence that the Bt gene of the aubergine could cause any environmental damage
or prejudice the life, health and property of the neighbouring inhabitants.

The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the previous court and held that the risk of releasing
biotechnological plants in a biodiversity rich country like the Philippines was too high because the natural
and unforeseen consequences of contamination and genetic pollution would be disastrous and irreversible.
At the same time, the Supreme Court considered that there was a preponderance of evidence that GMO
could be a threat to both ecosystems and health. As a result, the Supreme Court supported the application
of the precautionary principle and upheld the previous court decisions and dismissed the appeal.