EXECUTIVE ORDER NO.

192 June 10, 1987

PROVIDING FOR THE REORGANIZATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES;
RENAMING IT AS THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

WHEREAS, Executive Order No. 131, dated January 30, 1987, was suspended;

WHEREAS, a policy having been reached on energy, the reorganization of the Department of Natural Resources can now be effected;

WHEREAS, the environment will be effected by the use, development, management, renewal and conservation of the country's natural
resources;

WHEREAS, there is a need to protect and enhance the quality of the country's environment;

WHEREAS, to attain this objective, environmental concerns and natural resources concern should be given equal attention by the
Department;

WHEREAS, under Article XVIII, Section 6, of the 1987 Constitution, the President shall continue to exercise legislative powers until the
First Congress is convened;

NOW, THEREFORE, I, CORAZON C. AQUINO, President of the Philippines, by virtue of the powers vested in me by the Constitution,
do hereby order:

(Section 1 to 32)

Sec. 3. Effectivity. This Executive Order shall take effect immediately.

APPROVED in the City of Manila, Philippines, this 10th day of June, in the year of Our Lord, nineteen hundred and eighty-seven.
G.R. No. 93891 March 11, 1991

POLLUTION ADJUDICATION BOARD, petitioner

vs.
COURT OF APPEALS and SOLAR TEXTILE FINISHING CORPORATION, respondents.

Oscar A. Pascua and Charemon Clio L. Borre for petitioner.

Leonardo A. Aurelio for respondent Solar Textile Finishing Corp.

RESOLUTION

FELICIANO, J.:

Petitioner Pollution Adjudication Board ("Board") asks us to review the Decision and Resolution
promulgated on 7 February 1990 and 10 May 1990, respectively, by the Court of Appeals in C.A.-G
R. No. SP 18821 entitled "Solar Textile Finishing Corporation v. Pollution Adjudication Board." In that
Decision and Resolution, the Court of Appeals reversed an order of the Regional Trial Court, Quezon
City, Branch 77, in Civil Case No. Q-89-2287 dismissing private respondent Solar Textile Finishing
Corporation's ("Solar") petition for certiorari and remanded the case to the trial court for further
proceedings.

On 22 September 1988, petitioner Board issued an ex parte Order directing Solar immediately to
cease and desist from utilizing its wastewater pollution source installations which were discharging
untreated wastewater directly into a canal leading to the adjacent Tullahan-Tinejeros River. The
Order signed by Hon. Fulgencio Factoran, Jr., as Board Chairman, reads in full as follows:

Respondent, Solar Textile Finishing Corporation with plant and place of business at 999
General Pascual Avenue, Malabon, Metro Manila is involved in bleaching, rinsing and dyeing
textiles with wastewater of about 30 gpm. being directly discharged untreated into the sewer.
Based on findings in the Inspections conducted on 05 November 1986 and 15 November
1986, the volume of untreated wastewater discharged in the final out fall outside of the plant's
compound was even greater. The result of inspection conducted on 06 September 1988
showed that respondent's Wastewater Treatment Plant was noted unoperational and the
combined wastewater generated from its operation was about 30 gallons per minute and 80%
of the wastewater was being directly discharged into a drainage canal leading to the Tullahan-
Tinejeros River by means of a by-pass and the remaining 20% was channelled into the plant's
existing Wastewater Treatment Plant (WTP). Result of the analyses of the sample taken from
the by-pass showed that the wastewater is highly pollutive in terms of Color units, BOD and
Suspended Solids, among others. These acts of respondent in spite of directives to comply
with the requirements are clearly in violation of Section 8 of Presidential Decree No. 984 and
Section 103 of its Implementing Rules and Regulations and the 1982 Effluent Regulations.

WHEREFORE, pursuant to Section 7 of P.D. 984 and Section 38 of its Implementing Rules
and Regulations, respondent is hereby ordered to cease and desist from utilizing its
wastewater pollution source installation and discharging its untreated wastewater directly into
the canal leading to the Tullahan-Tinejeros River effective immediately upon receipt hereof and
until such time when it has fully complied with all the requirements and until further orders from
this Board.

SO ORDERED.1
We note that the above Order was based on findings of several inspections of Solar's plant:

a. inspections conducted on 5 November 1986 and 12 November 1986 by the National

Pollution Control Commission ("NPCC"), the predecessor of the Board ;2 and

b. the inspection conducted on 6 September 1988 by the Department of Environment and

Natural Resources ("DENR").

The findings of these two (2) inspections were that Solar's wastewater treatment plant was non-
operational and that its plant generated about 30 gallons per minute of wastewater, 80% of which was
being directly discharged into a drainage canal leading to the Tullahan-Tinejeros River. The
remaining 20% of the wastewater was being channeled through Solar's non-operational wastewater
treatment plant. Chemical analysis of samples of Solar's effluents showed the presence of pollutants
on a level in excess of what was permissible under P.D. No. 984 and its Implementing Regulations.

A copy of the above Order was received by Solar on 26 September 1988. A Writ of Execution issued
by the Board was received by Solar on 31 March 1989.

Meantime, Solar filed a motion for reconsideration/appeal with prayer for stay of execution of the
Order dated 22 September 1988. Acting on this motion, the Board issued an Order dated 24 April
1989 allowing Solar to operate temporarily, to enable the Board to conduct another inspection and
evaluation of Solar's wastewater treatment facilities. In the same Order, the Board directed the
Regional Executive Director of the DENR/ NCR to conduct the inspection and evaluation within thirty
(30) days.

On 21 April 1989, however, Solar went to the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 77, on
petition for certiorari with preliminary injunction against the Board, the petition being docketed as Civil
Case No. Q-89-2287.

On 21 July 1989, the Regional Trial Court dismissed Solar's petition upon two (2) grounds, i.e., that
appeal and not certiorari from the questioned Order of the Board as well as the Writ of Execution was
the proper remedy, and that the Board's subsequent Order allowing Solar to operate temporarily had
rendered Solar's petition moot and academic.

Dissatisfied, Solar went on appeal to the Court of Appeals which, in the Decision here assailed,
reversed the Order of dismissal of the trial court and remanded the case to that court for further
proceedings. In addition, the Court of Appeals declared the Writ of Execution null and void. At the
same time, the Court of Appeals said in the dispositive portion of its Decision that:

. . .. Still and all, this decision is without prejudice to whatever action the appellee [Board] may
take relative to the projected 'inspection and evaluation' of appellant's [Solar's] water treatment
facilities.3

The Court of Appeals, in so ruling, held that certiorari was a proper remedy since the Orders of
petitioner Board may result in great and irreparable injury to Solar; and that while the case might be
moot and academic, "larger issues" demanded that the question of due process be settled. Petitioner
Board moved for reconsideration, without success.

The Board is now before us on a Petition for Review basically arguing that:

1. its ex parte Order dated 22 September 1988 and the Writ of Execution were issued in
accordance with law and were not violative of the requirements of due process; and
 2. the ex parte Order and the Writ of Execution are not the proper subjects of a petition for
certiorari.

The only issue before us at this time is whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the trial
court on the ground that Solar had been denied due process by the Board.

Petitioner Board claims that under P.D. No. 984, Section 7(a), it has legal authority to issue ex
parte orders to suspend the operations of an establishment when there is prima facie evidence that
such establishment is discharging effluents or wastewater, the pollution level of which exceeds the
maximum permissible standards set by the NPCC (now, the Board). Petitioner Board contends that
the reports before it concerning the effluent discharges of Solar into the Tullahan-Tinejeros River
provided prima facie evidence of violation by Solar of Section 5 of the 1982 Effluent Code.

Solar, on the other hand, contends that under the Board's own rules and regulations, an ex
parte order may issue only if the effluents discharged pose an "immediate threat to life, public health,
safety or welfare, or to animal and plant life." In the instant case, according to Solar, the inspection
reports before the Board made no finding that Solar's wastewater discharged posed such a threat.

The Court is not persuaded by Solar's contention. Section 7(a) of P.D. No. 984 authorized petitioner
Board to issue ex parte cease and desist orders under the following circumstances:

P.D. 984, Section 7, paragraph (a), provides:

(a) Public Hearing. . . . Provided, That whenever the Commission finds prima facie evidence
that the discharged sewage or wastes are of immediate threat to life, public health, safety or
welfare, or to animal or plant life, or exceeds the allowable standards set by the Commission,
the Commissioner may issue an ex-parte order directing the discontinuance of the same or the
temporary suspension or cessation of operation of the establishment or person generating
such sewage or wastes without the necessity of a prior public hearing. The said ex-parte order
shall be immediately executory and shall remain in force until said establishment or person
prevents or abates the said pollution within the allowable standards or modified or nullified by a
competent court. (Emphasis supplied)

We note that under the above-quoted portion of Section 7(a) of P.D. No. 984, an ex parte cease and
desist order may be issued by the Board (a) whenever the wastes discharged by an establishment
pose an "immediate threat to life, public health, safety or welfare, or to animal or plant life," or (b)
whenever such discharges or wastes exceed "the allowable standards set by the [NPCC]." On the
one hand, it is not essential that the Board prove that an "immediate threat to life, public health, safety
or welfare, or to animal or plant life" exists before an ex parte cease and desist order may be issued.
It is enough if the Board finds that the wastes discharged do exceed "the allowable standards set by
the [NPCC]." In respect of discharges of wastes as to which allowable standards have been set by
the Commission, the Board may issue an ex parte cease and desist order when there is prima
facie evidence of an establishment exceeding such allowable standards. Where, however, the
effluents or discharges have not yet been the subject matter of allowable standards set by the
Commission, then the Board may act on an ex parte basis when it finds at least prima facie proof that
the wastewater or material involved presents an "immediate threat to life, public health, safety or
welfare or to animal or plant life." Since the applicable standards set by the Commission existing at
any given time may well not cover every possible or imaginable kind of effluent or waste discharge,
the general standard of an "immediate threat to life, public health, safety or welfare, or to animal and
plant life" remains necessary.
Upon the other hand, the Court must assume that the extant allowable standards have been set by
the Commission or Board precisely in order to avoid or neutralize an "immediate threat to life, public
health, safety or welfare, or to animal or plant life.''

Section 5 of the Effluent Regulations of 19824 sets out the maximum permissible levels of physical
and chemical substances which effluents from domestic wastewater treatment plants and industrial
plants" must not exceed "when discharged into bodies of water classified as Class A, B, C, D, SB and
SC in accordance with the 1978 NPCC Rules and Regulations." The waters of Tullahan-Tinejeros
River are classified as inland waters Class D under Section 68 of the 1978 NPCC Rules and
Regulations5 which in part provides that:

Sec. 68. Water Usage and Classification. — The quality of Philippine waters shall be
maintained in a safe and satisfactory condition according to their best usages. For this
purpose, all water shall be classified according to the following beneficial usages:

(a) Fresh Surface Water

Classification Best usage

xxx xxx xxx

Class D For agriculture, irrigation, livestock watering
and industrial cooling and processing.
xxx xxx xxx

(Emphases supplied)

The reports on the inspections carried on Solar's wastewater treatment facilities on 5 and 12
November 1986 and 6 September 1988 set forth the following Identical finding:

a. For legal action in [view of] implementing rules and regulations of P.D. No. 984 and Section
5 of the Effluent Regulations of 1982.6

Placing the maximum allowable standards set in Section 5 of the Effluent Regulations of 1982
alongside the findings of the November 1986 and September 1988 inspection reports, we get the
following results:

"Inland November September

Waters 1986 1988
(Class C & D7 Report8 Report9
Station 1 Station 1
a) Color in 100 a) Color units 250 125
platinum (Apparent
cobalt Color)
units
b) pH 6-8.5 b) pH 9.3 8.7
c) Tempera- 40 c) Temperature
ture in °C (°C)
d) Phenols in 0.1 d) Phenols in
mg.1 mg./1.
 e) Suspended 75 e) Suspended 340 80
solids in solids in
mg./1. mg./1.
f) BOD in 80 f) BOD (5-day) 1,100 152
mg./1. mg./1
g) oil/Grease 10 g) Oil/Grease
in mg./1. mg./1.
h) Detergents 5 h) Detergents 2.93
mg./1." mg./1. MBAS
i) Dissolved 0
oxygen, mg./1.
j) Settleable 0.4 1.5
Matter, mg./1.
k) Total Dis 800 610
solved Solids
mg./1.
l) Total Solids 1,400 690
m) Turbidity NTU / ppm, SiO3 70

The November 1986 inspections report concluded that:

Records of the Commission show that the plant under its previous owner, Fine Touch Finishing
Corporation, was issued a Notice of Violation on 20 December 1985 directing same to cease
and desist from conducting dyeing operation until such time the waste treatment plant is
already completed and operational. The new owner Solar Textile Corporation informed the
Commission of the plant acquisition thru its letter dated March 1986 (sic).

The new owner was summoned to a hearing held on 13 October 1986 based on the adverse
findings during the inspection/water sampling test conducted on 08 August 1986. As per
instruction of the Legal Division a re- inspection/sampling text should be conducted first before
an appropriate legal action is instituted; hence, this inspection.

Based on the above findings, it is clear that the new owner continuously violates the directive
of the Commission by undertaking dyeing operation without completing first and operating its
existing WTP. The analysis of results on water samples taken showed that the untreated
wastewater from the firm pollutes our water resources. In this connection, it is recommended
that appropriate legal action be instituted immediately against the firm. . . .10

The September 1988 inspection report's conclusions were:

1. The plant was undertaking dyeing, bleaching and rinsing operations during the inspection.
The combined wastewater generated from the said operations was estimated at about 30
gallons per minute. About 80% of the wastewater was traced directly discharged into a
drainage canal leading to the Tullahan-Tinejeros river by means of a bypass. The remaining
20% was channeled into the plant's existing wastewater treatment plant (WTP).

2. The WTP was noted not yet fully operational- some accessories were not yet
installed.1âwphi1 Only the sump pit and the holding/collecting tank are functional but appeared
seldom used. The wastewater mentioned channeled was noted held indefinitely into the
 collection tank for primary treatment. There was no effluent discharge [from such collection
tank].

3. A sample from the bypass wastewater was collected for laboratory analyses. Result of the
analyses show that the bypass wastewater is polluted in terms of color units, BOD and
suspended solids, among others. (Please see attached laboratory resul .)11

From the foregoing reports, it is clear to this Court that there was at least prima facie evidence before
the Board that the effluents emanating from Solar's plant exceeded the maximum allowable levels of
physical and chemical substances set by the NPCC and that accordingly there was adequate basis
supporting the ex parte cease and desist order issued by the Board. It is also well to note that the
previous owner of the plant facility Fine Touch Finishing Corporation had been issued a Notice of
Violation on 20 December 1985 directing it to cease and refrain from carrying out dyeing operations
until the water treatment plant was completed and operational. Solar, the new owner, informed the
NPCC of the acquisition of the plant on March 1986. Solar was summoned by the NPCC to a hearing
on 13 October 1986 based on the results of the sampling test conducted by the NPCC on 8 August
1986. Petitioner Board refrained from issuing an ex parte cease and desist order until after the
November 1986 and September 1988 re-inspections were conducted and the violation of applicable
standards was confirmed. In other words, petitioner Board appears to have been remarkably
forbearing in its efforts to enforce the applicable standards vis-a-vis Solar. Solar, on the other hand,
seemed very casual about its continued discharge of untreated, pollutive effluents into the Tullahan-
Tinerejos River, presumably loath to spend the money necessary to put its Wastewater Treatment
Plant ("WTP") in an operating condition.

In this connection, we note that in Technology Developers, Inc. v. Court of appeals, et al.,12 the Court
very recently upheld the summary closure ordered by the Acting Mayor of Sta. Maria, Bulacan, of a
pollution-causing establishment, after finding that the records showed that:

1. No mayor's permit had been secured. While it is true that the matter of determining whether
there is a pollution of the environment that requires control if not prohibition of the operation of
a business is essentially addressed to the then National Pollution Control Commission of the
Ministry of Human Settlements, now the Environmental Management Bureau of the
Department of Environment and Natural Resources, it must be recognized that the mayor of a
town has as much responsibility to protect its inhabitants from pollution, and by virtue of his
police power, he may deny the application for a permit to operate a business or otherwise
close the same unless appropriate measures are taken to control and/or avoid injury to the
health of the residents of the community from the emission in the operation of the business.

2. The Acting Mayor, in a letter of February l6, 1989, called the attention of petitioner to the
pollution emitted by the fumes of its plant whose offensive odor "not only pollute the air in the
locality but also affect the health of the residents in the area," so that petitioner was ordered to
stop its operation until further orders and it was required to bring the following:

xxx xxx xxx

(3) Region III-Department of Environment and Natural Resources Anti-Pollution permit.

(Annex A-2, petition)

3. This action of the Acting Mayor was in response to the complaint of the residents of
Barangay Guyong, Sta. Maria, Bulacan, directed to the Provincial Governor through channels
(Annex A-B, petition).. . .
 4. The closure order of the Acting Mayor was issued only after an investigation was made by
Marivic Guina who in her report of December 8, 1988 observed that the fumes emitted by the
plant of petitioner goes directly to the surrounding houses and that no proper air pollution
device has been installed. (Annex A-9, petition)

xxx xxx xxx

6. While petitioner was able to present a temporary permit to operate by the then National
Pollution Control Commission on December 15,1987, the permit was good only up to May
25,1988 (Annex A-12, petition). Petitioner had not exerted any effort to extend or validate its
permit much less to install any device to control the pollution and prevent any hazard to the
health of the residents of the community."

In the instant case, the ex parte cease and desist Order was issued not by a local government official
but by the Pollution Adjudication Board, the very agency of the Government charged with the task of
determining whether the effluents of a particular industrial establishment comply with or violate
applicable anti-pollution statutory and regulatory provisions.

Ex parte cease and desist orders are permitted by law and regulations in situations like that here
presented precisely because stopping the continuous discharge of pollutive and untreated effluents
into the rivers and other inland waters of the Philippines cannot be made to wait until protracted
litigation over the ultimate correctness or propriety of such orders has run its full course, including
multiple and sequential appeals such as those which Solar has taken, which of course may take
several years. The relevant pollution control statute and implementing regulations were enacted and
promulgated in the exercise of that pervasive, sovereign power to protect the safety, health, and
general welfare and comfort of the public, as well as the protection of plant and animal life, commonly
designated as the police power. It is a constitutional commonplace that the ordinary requirements of
procedural due process yield to the necessities of protecting vital public interests like those here
involved, through the exercise of police power. The Board's ex parte Order and Writ of Execution
would, of course, have compelled Solar temporarily to stop its plant operations, a state of affairs Solar
could in any case have avoided by simply absorbing the bother and burden of putting its WTP on an
operational basis. Industrial establishments are not constitutionally entitled to reduce their capitals
costs and operating expenses and to increase their profits by imposing upon the public threats and
risks to its safety, health, general welfare and comfort, by disregarding the requirements of anti-
pollution statutes and their implementing regulations.

It should perhaps be made clear the Court is not here saying that the correctness of the ex
parte Order and Writ of Execution may not be contested by Solar in a hearing before the Board itself.
Where the establishment affected by an ex parte cease and desist order contests the correctness of
the prima facie findings of the Board, the Board must hold a public hearing where such establishment
would have an opportunity to controvert the basis of such ex parte order. That such an opportunity is
subsequently available is really all that is required by the due process clause of the Constitution in
situations like that we have here. The Board's decision rendered after the public hearing may then be
tested judicially by an appeal to the Court of Appeals in accordance with Section 7(c) of P.D. No. 984
and Section 42 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations. A subsequent public hearing is precisely
what Solar should have sought instead of going to court to seek nullification of the Board's Order and
Writ of Execution and instead of appealing to the Court of Appeals. It will be recalled the at the Board
in fact gave Solar authority temporarily to continue operations until still another inspection of its
wastewater treatment facilities and then another analysis of effluent samples could be taken and
evaluated.
Solar claims finally that the petition for certiorari was the proper remedy as the questioned Order and
Writ of Execution issued by the Board were patent nullities. Since we have concluded that the Order
and Writ of Execution were entirely within the lawful authority of petitioner Board, the trial court did not
err when it dismissed Solar's petition for certiorari. It follows that the proper remedy was an appeal
from the trial court to the Court of Appeals, as Solar did in fact appeal.

ACCORDINGLY, the Petition for Review is given DUE COURSE and the Decision of the Court of
Appeals dated 7 February 1990 and its Resolution dated 10 May 1990 in A.C.-G.R. No. SP 18821 are
hereby SET ASIDE. The Order of petitioner Board dated 22 September 1988 and the Writ of
Execution, as well as the decision of the trial court dated 21 July 1989, are hereby REINSTATED,
without prejudice to the right of Solar to contest the correctness of the basis of the Board's Order and
Writ of Execution at a public hearing before the Board.

Fernan, C.J., Gutierrez, Jr., Bidin and Davide, Jr., JJ., concur.
G.R. No. 145973 January 23, 2002

ANTONIO G. PRINCIPE, petitioner,

vs.
FACT-FINDING & INTELLIGENCE, BUREAU (FFIB), OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, respondents.

PARDO, J.:

The Case

The case is a petition for review on certiorari seeking to reverse the decision of the Court of
Appeals1 affirming the Ombudsman’s dismissal of petitioner from the government service for gross
neglect of duty in connection with the collapse of the housing project at the Cherry Hills Subdivision,
Antipolo City, on August 3, 1999.

The Facts

The facts, as found by the Court of Appeals, are as follows:

"August 28, 1990- Philjas Corporation, whose primary purposes, among others are: to own,
develop, subdivide, market and provide low-cost housing for the poor, was registered with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

"February 19, 1991 - then City Mayor Daniel S. Garcia, endorsed to the Housing and Land Use
Regulatory Board (HLURB) the proposed CHS.

"Thereafter, or on 07 March 1991, based on the favorable recommendation of Mayor Garcia,

respondent TAN, issued the Preliminary Approval and Locational Clearance (PALC) for the
development of CHS.

"On July 5, 1991, then HLURB Commissioner respondent TUNGPALAN issued Development
Permit No. 91-0216 for "land development only" for the entire land area of 12.1034 hectares
covered by TCT No. 35083 (now TCT 208837) and with 1,003 saleable lots/units with project
classification B. P. 220 Model A-Socialized Housing (p. 96, Records), with several conditions
for its development.

"Three (3) days thereafter or on July 8, 1991, respondent JASARENO, allowed/granted the
leveling/earth-moving operations of the development project of the area subject to certain
conditions.

"On November 18, 1991, then HLURB Commissioner AMADO B. DELORIA issued Certificate
of Registration No. 91-11-0576 in favor of CHS, with License to Sell No. 91-11-0592 for the
1,007 lots/units in the subdivision.

"Eventually, on December 10, 1991, respondent POLLISCO issued Small Scale Mining Permit
(SSMP) No. IV-316 to Philjas to extract and remove 10,000 cu. meters of filling materials from
the area where the CHS is located.

"Thereafter, or on January 12, 1994, Philjas applied for a Small Scale Mining Permit (SSMP)
under P. D. 1899 with the Rizal Provincial Government to extract and remove 50,000 metric
tons of filling materials per annum on CHS’ 2.8 hectares.

"Thus, on January 17, 1994, respondent MAGNO, informed ELIEZER I. RODRIGUEZ of

Philjas that CHS is within the EIS System and as such must secure ECC from the DENR.
 Philjas was accordingly informed of the matter such that it applied for the issuance of ECC
from the DENR-Region IV, on February 3, 1994.

"On March 12, 1994, an Inspection Report allegedly prepared by respondent BALICAS,
attested by respondent RUTAQUIO and approved by respondent TOLENTINO re: field
evaluation to the issuance of ECC, was submitted.

"Consequently, on April 28, 1994, upon recommendation of respondent TOLENTINO, Philjas

application for ECC was approved by respondent PRINCIPE, then Regional Executive
Director, DENR under ECC-137-RI-212-94.

"A Mining Field Report for SSMP dated May 10, 1994 was submitted pursuant to the
inspection report prepared by respondents CAYETANO, FELICIANO, HILADO and BURGOS,
based on their inspection conducted on April 25 to 29, 1994. The report recommended, among
others, that the proposed extraction of materials would pose no adverse effect to the
environment.

"Records further disclosed that on August 10, 1994, respondent BALICAS monitored the
implementation of the CHS Project Development to check compliance with the terms and
conditions in the ECC. Again, on August 23, 1995, she conducted another monitoring on the
project for the same purpose. In both instances, she noted that the project was still in the
construction stage hence, compliance with the stipulated conditions could not be fully
assessed, and therefore, a follow-up monitoring inspection was the last one conducted by the
DENR.

"On September 24, 1994, GOV. CASIMIRO I. YNARES, JR., approved the SSMP applied for
by Philjas under SSMP No. RZL-012, allowing Philjas to extract and remove 50,000 metric
tons of filling materials from the area for a period of two (2) years from date of its issue until
September 6, 1996."2

On November 15, 1999, the Ombudsman rendered a decision finding petitioner Principe
administratively liable for gross neglect of duty and imposing upon him the penalty of dismissal from
office. The dispositive portion of the decision reads:

"WHEREFORE, premises considered x x x

xxx

x x x the following respondents are hereby found GUILTY as charged and meted the
respective penalties provided under Section 22, Rule XIV of the Omnibus Rules, Implementing
Book V of Executive Order No. 292, otherwise known as the Administrative Code of 1987, viz,:

1. x x x

5. Antonio G. Principe - Penalty of Dismissal from the Service for Gross Neglect of Duty.

xxx

SO ORDERED."3
On January 4, 2000, petitioner filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for review assailing the
decision of the Ombudsman.4

On August 25, 2000, the Court of Appeals promulgated a decision denying the petition and affirming
the decision of the Ombudsman.5

Hence, this appeal.6

The Issue

The issue raised is whether the Ombudsman may dismiss petitioner from the service on an
administrative charge for gross neglect of duty, initiated, investigated and decided by the
Ombudsman himself without substantial evidence to support his finding of gross neglect of duty
because the duty to monitor and inspect the project was not vested in petitioner.

The Court's Ruling

Republic Act No. 6770, Section 15, prescribed the powers of the Ombudsman, as follows:

"Section 15. Powers, Functions and Duties. - The Office of the Ombudsman shall have the
following powers, functions and duties:

"(1) Investigate and prosecute on its own or on complaint by any person, any act or omission
of any public officer or employee, office or agency, when such act or omission appears to be
illegal, unjust, improper or inefficient. It has primary jurisdiction over cases cognizable by the
Sandiganbayan and, in the exercise of this primary jurisdiction it may take over, at any stage,
from any investigatory agency of Government, the investigation of such cases;

"(2) Direct, upon complaint or at its own instance, any officer or employee of the Government,
or of any subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, as well as any government-owned or
controlled corporations with original charter, to perform and expedite any act or duty required
by law, or to stop, prevent, and correct any abuse or impropriety in the performance of duties;

"(3) Direct the officer concerned to take appropriate action against a public officer or employee
at fault or who neglects to perform an act or discharge a duty required by law,
and recommend his removal, suspension, demotion, fine, censure, or prosecution, and
ensure compliance therewith; or enforce its disciplinary authority as provided in Section 21 7 of
this Act: Provided, That the refusal by any officer without just cause to comply with an order of
the Ombudsman to remove, suspend, demote, fine, censure, or prosecute an officer or
employee who is at fault or who neglects to perform an act or discharge a duty required by law
shall be a ground for disciplinary action against said officer;

"(4) Direct the officer concerned, in any appropriate case, and subject to such limitations as it
may provide in its rules of procedure, to furnish it with copies of documents relating to
contracts or transactions entered into by his office involving the disbursement or use of public
funds or properties, and report any irregularity to the Commission on Audit for appropriate
action;

"(5) Request any government agency for assistance and information necessary in the
discharge of its responsibilities, and to examine, if necessary, pertinent records and
documents;
 "(6) Publicize matters covered by its investigation of the matters mentioned in paragraphs (1),
(2), (3) and (4) hereof, when circumstances so warrant and with due prudence: Provided,
further, that any publicity issued by the Ombudsman shall be balance, fair and true;

"(7) Determine the causes of inefficiency, red tape, mismanagement, fraud, and corruption in
the Government, and make recommendations for their elimination and the observance of high
standards of ethics and efficiency;

"(8) Administer oaths, issue subpoena and subpoena duces tecum, and take testimony in any
investigation or inquiry, including the power to examine and have access to bank accounts and
records;

"(9) Punish for contempt in accordance with the Rules of Court and under the same procedure
and with the same penalties provided therein;

"(10) Delegate to the Deputies, or its investigators or representatives such authority or duty as
shall ensure the effective exercise or performance of the powers, functions, and duties herein
or hereinafter provided;

"(11) Investigate and initiate the proper action for the recovery of ill-gotten and/or unexplained
wealth amassed after February 25, 1986 and the prosecution of the parties involved therein." 8

The Ombudsman without taking into consideration the lawfully mandated duties and functions
attached to petitioner’s position, immediately concluded that as the signing and approving authority of
the ECC issued to PHILJAS, it was incumbent upon petitioner to conduct actual monitoring and
enforce strict compliance with the terms and conditions of the ECC.

The applicable administrative orders provide that the function of monitoring environmental programs,
projects and activities in the region is lodged with the Regional Technical Director, not with the
Regional Executive Director, the position occupied by petitioner. Under DAO 38-1990, the following
were the functions attached to the office of petitioner, to wit:

"I. REGULATORY MATTERS

"D. REGIONAL EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

"1. Forest Management

"2. Land Management

"3. Mines and Geo-Sciences Development

"4. Environmental Management

"4.1 Issues authority to construct and permit to operate pollution control

equipment/devices including the collection of corresponding fees/charges.

"4.2 Issues accreditation of pollution control office of industrial firms and local
government entities.
 "4.3 Hears/gathers evidences or facts on pollution cases as delegated by the Pollution
Adjudication Board.

"4.4. Approves plans and issues permit for mine tailings disposal, including
environmental rehabilitation plans."9

Clearly, there is no mention of the responsibility of a regional executive director to monitor projects.
More apropos is the description of the functions of a regional technical director, to wit:

"E. REGIONAL TECHNICAL DIRECTOR

"1. Forest Management

"2. Land Management

"3. Mines and Geo-Sciences Development

"4. Environmental Management

"4.1 Issues clearance certificate to vehicles which have passed the smoke-belching test.

"4.2 Issues pollution clearance and temporary permit to operate pollution control
devices including the collection of corresponding fees/charges.

"4.3 Conducts monitoring and investigation of pollution sources and control facilities.

"4.4 Supervises, coordinates and monitors the implementation of environmental

programs, projects and activities in the region."10 [emphasis supplied]

Furthermore, monitoring is defined in DAO No. 21, Series of 1992, as the activity designed to gauge
the level of compliance with the conditions stipulated in the ECC,11 and in the EIS12 or
PD13 submitted.14 This is the function of the PENR and CENR offices as mandated in DAO No. 37,
Series of 1996.15 Particularly, it provided that:

"Section 10. Compliance Monitoring

"x x x

"b. Monitoring of compliance with the proponent’s ECC issued pursuant to an IEE,16 and
applicable laws, rules and regulations, shall be undertaken by the concerned PENRO and
CENRO with support from the Regional Office and/or EMB whenever necessary."

Hence, how could petitioner be guilty of neglecting a duty, which is not even his to begin with?
Administrative liability could not be based on the fact that petitioner was the person who signed and
approved the ECC, without proof of actual act or omission constituting neglect of duty.

In the absence of substantial evidence of gross neglect of petitioner, administrative liability could not
be based on the principle of command responsibility.17 The negligence of petitioner’s subordinates is
not tantamount to his own negligence.
It was not within the mandated responsibilities of petitioner to conduct actual monitoring of projects.
The principles governing public officers under the Revised Administrative Code of 1987 clearly
provide that a head of a department or a superior officer shall not be civilly liable for the wrongful acts,
omissions of duty, negligence, or misfeasance of his subordinates, unless he has actually authorized
by written order the specific act or misconduct complained of.18

The investigation conducted by the Ombudsman refers to the tragic incident in Cherry Hills
Subdivision, Antipolo Rizal, where several families lost lives and homes. Despite the fact that what
was involved was a housing and land development project, petitioner, as the Regional Executive
Director for Region IV, Department of Environment and Natural Resources, was found negligent
because he was the one who signed and approved the ECC.

As heretofore stated, the responsibility of monitoring housing and land development projects is not
lodged with the office of petitioner. The Administrative Code of 1987 spelled out the mandate of the
Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the agency that has authority over petitioner,
which reads:

"Section 1. Declaration of Policy.- (1) The State shall ensure for the benefit of the Filipino
people, the full exploration and development as well as the judicious disposition, utilization,
management, renewal and conservation of the country’s forest, mineral, land, waters, fisheries,
wildlife, off-shore areas and other natural resources, consistent with the necessity of
maintaining a sound ecological balance and protecting and enhancing the quality of the
environment and the objective of making the exploration, development and utilization of such
natural resources equitably accessible to the different segments of the present as well as
future generations.

"(2) The State shall likewise recognize and apply a true value system that takes into account
social and environmental cost implications relative to the utilization, development and
conservation of our natural resources.

"Section 2. Mandate.- (1) The Department of Environment and Natural Resources shall be
primarily responsible for the implementation of the foregoing policy.

"(2) It shall, subject to law and higher authority, be in charge of carrying out the State’s
constitutional mandate to control and supervise the exploration, development, utilization, and
conservation of the country’s natural resources."19

However, pursuant to Executive Order No. 90,20 the Human Settlements Regulatory Commission,
which became the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB), is the sole regulatory body for
housing and land development.21

The Fallo

WHEREFORE, the Court REVERSES the decision of the Court of Appeals.22 In lieu thereof, the Court
annuls the decision of the Ombudsman in OMB-ADM-09-661, dated December 1, 1999, dismissing
the petitioner from the government service, and orders his reinstatement with back pay and without
loss of seniority.

No costs.

SO ORDERED.
REPUBLIC ACT No. 4850 July 18, 1966

AN ACT CREATING THE LAGUNA LAKE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, PRESCRIBING ITS POWERS,
FUNCTIONS AND DUTIES, PROVIDING FUNDS THEREFOR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.

CHAPTER I

DECLARATION OF POLICY AND CREATION OF AUTHORITY

Section 1. Declaration of Policy. It is hereby declared to be the national policy to promote, and accelerate the
development and balanced growth of the Laguna Lake area and the surrounding provinces, cities and towns
hereinafter referred to as the region, within the context of the national and regional plans and policies for social
and economic development and to carry out the development of the Laguna Lake region with due regard and
adequate provisions for environmental management and control, preservation of the quality of human life and
ecological systems, and the prevention of undue ecological disturbances, deterioration and pollution.

Section 2. Laguna Lake Development Authority created. For the purpose of carrying out and effecting the
declared policy, as provided for in Section one hereof, there is hereby created a body corporate to be known
as the Laguna Lake Development Authority, hereinafter referred to as the Authority, which shall be organized
within one hundred twenty (120) days after the approval of this Act. The Authority shall execute the powers and
functions herein vested and conferred upon it in such a manner as will, in its judgment, aid to the fullest
possible extent in carrying out the aims and purposes set forth below. This Act may be known as the Laguna
Lake Development Authority Act of 1966.

Section 3. Location of principal office. The Authority shall maintain its principal office at a convenient place
within the region, but it may have branch offices in such other places as are necessary for the proper conduct
of its business.

Section 4. Special Powers and Functions. The Authority shall exercise perform the following powers and
functions:

(a) To make a comprehensive survey of the physical and natural resources and potentialities of the
Laguna Lake region particularly its social and economic conditions, hydrologic characteristics, power
potentials, scenic and tourist spots, regional problems, and on the basis thereof, to draft a
comprehensive and detailed plan designed to conserve and utilize optimally the resources within the
region particularly Laguna de Bay to promote the region's rapid social and economic development and
upon approval by the National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA) Board of such plan, to
implement the same including projects in line with said plan: Provided, That implementation of all
fisheries plans and programs of the authority shall require prior consensus of the Bureau of Fisheries
and Aquatic Resources to ensure that such plans and programs are consistent with the national
fisheries plans and programs. For the purpose of said survey, public agencies shall submit and private
entities shall provide necessary data except such data which under existing laws are deemed
inviolable.

(b) To provide the machinery for extending the necessary planning, management and technical
assistance to prospective and existing investors in the region;

(c) To make recommendation to the proper agencies on the peso or dollar financing, technical support,
physical assistance and, generally, the level of priority to be accorded agricultural, industrial and
commercial projects, soliciting or requiring direct help from or through the government or any of its
instrumentalities;

(d) To pass upon and approve or disapprove all plans, programs, and projects proposed by local
government offices/agencies within the region, public corporations, and private persons or enterprises
where such plans, programs and/or projects are related to those of the Authority for the development of
the region as envisioned in this Act. The Authority shall issue the necessary clearance for approved
proposed plans, programs, and projects within thirty days from submission thereof unless the proposals
are not in consonance with those of the Authority or that those will contribute to the unmanageable
pollution of the Laguna Lake waters or will bring about the ecological imbalance of the region: Provided,
further, That the Authority is hereby empowered to institute necessary legal proceeding against any
person who shall commence to implement or continue implementation of any project, plan or program
within the Laguna de Bay region without previous clearance from the Authority: Provided,
furthermore, That any local government office, agency, public corporation, private person, or enterprise
whose plans, programs and/or projects have been disapproved by the Authority may appeal the
decision of the Authority to the NEDA within fifteen (15) days from receipt of such disapproval whose
decision on the matter shall be final. Reasonable processing fees as may be fixed by the Authority's
Board of Directors shall be collected by the Authority for the processing of such plans, programs and/or
projects: Provided, finally, The expansion plans shall be considered as new plans subject to review of
the Authority and to payment of the processing fees.

The Authority and national and local government offices, agencies and public corporations shall
coordinate their plans, programs, projects and licensing procedures with respect to the Laguna Lake
region for the purpose of drawing up a Laguna Lake development plan which shall be binding upon all
parties concerned upon approval of the NEDA board.

(e) To engage in agriculture, industry, commerce, or other activities within the region which may be
necessary or directly contributory to the socio-economic development of the region, and, for this
purposes, whether by itself or in cooperation with private persons or entities, to organize, finance,
invest in, and operate subsidiary corporations: Provided, That the Authority shall engage only, unless
public interest requires otherwise, in those activities as are in the nature of new ventures or are clearly
beyond the scope, capacity, or interest or private enterprises due to consideration of geography,
technical or capital requirements, returns on investment, and risk;

(f) To plan, program finance/or undertake infrastructure projects such as river, flood and tidal control
works, waste water and sewerage works, water supply, roads, portworks, irrigation, housing and related
works, when so required within the context of its development plans and programs including the
readjustment, relocation or settlement of population within the region as may be necessary and
beneficial by the Authority: Provided, That should any project be financed wholly or in part by the
Authority, it is hereby authorized to collect reasonable fees and tolls as may be fixed by its Board of
Directors subject to the approval of the NEDA Board from users and/or beneficiaries thereof to recover
costs of construction, operation and maintenance of the projects: Provided, further, That if the Authority
should find it necessary to undertake such infrastructure projects which are classified, as social
overhead capital projects as determined by the NEDA, the Authority shall be authorized to receive
financial assistance from the government in such amount as may be necessary to carry out the said
projects subject to such terms and condition that may be imposed by the government, upon
recommendation of the NEDA Board: Provided, finally, That such amount as may be necessary for the
purpose is hereby authorized to be appropriated out of the funds of the National Treasury not otherwise
appropriated.

(g) To make an annual report to the stockholders regarding the operation of the Authority more
particularly a statement of its financial conditions, activities undertaken, progress of projects and
programs and plans of actions for the incoming years: Provided, however, That a majority of the
stockholders may require the Authority to submit report or reports other than the annual report herein
required, which report must be submitted within a period of thirty (30) days from notice thereof;

(h) To lend or facilitate the extension of financial assistance and/or act as surety or guarantor to
worthwhile agricultural, industrial and commercial enterprises;

(i) To reclaim or cause to the reclaimed portions of the Lake or undertake reclamation projects and/or
acquire such bodies of land from the lake which may be necessary to accomplish the aims and
purposes of the Authority subject to the approval of the NEDA Board: Provided, That the land so
reclaimed shall be the property of the Authority and title thereto shall be vested in the
Authority: Provided, further, That the resulting lake shore shall continue to be owned by the national
government.

(j) The provisions of existing laws to the contrary notwithstanding, to engage in fish production and
other aqua-culture projects in Laguna de Bay and other bodies of water within its jurisdiction and in
pursuance thereof to conduct studies and make experiments, whenever necessary, with the
collaboration and assistance of the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources, with the end in view of
improving present techniques and practice. Provided, That until modified, altered or amended by the
procedure provided in the following sub-paragraph, the present laws, rules and permits or
authorizations remain in force;

(k) For the purpose of effectively regulating and monitoring activities in Laguna de Bay, the Authority
shall have exclusive jurisdiction to issue new permit for the use of the lake waters for any projects or
activities in or affecting the said lake including navigation, construction, and operation of fishpens, fish
enclosures, fish corrals and the like, and to impose necessary safeguards for lake quality control and
management and to collect necessary fees for said activities and projects: Provided, That the fees
collected for fisheries may be shared between the Authority and other government agencies and
political sub-divisions in such proportion as may be determined by the President of the Philippine upon
recommendation of the Authority's Board: Provided, further, That the Authority's Board may determine
new areas of fisheries development or activities which it may place under the supervision of the Bureau
of Fisheries and Aquatic taking into account the overall development plans and programs for Laguna de
Bay and related bodies of water: Provided, finally, That the Authority shall subject to the approval of the
President of the Philippines promulgate such rules and regulations which shall govern fisheries
development activities in Laguna de Bay which shall take into consideration among others the
following: socioeconomic amelioration of bonafide resident fisherman whether individually or collectively
in the form of cooperatives, lakeshore town development, a master plan for fishpen construction and
operation, communal fishing ground for lakeshore town residents, and preference to lakeshore town
residents in hiring laborers for fishery projects.

(l) To require the cities and municipalities embraced within the region to pass appropriate zoning
ordinances and other regulatory measures necessary to carry out the objectives of the Authority and
enforce the same with the assistance of the Authority.

(m) The provisions of existing laws to the contrary notwithstanding, to exercise water rights over public
waters within the Laguna de Bay region whenever necessary to carry out the Authority's projects;

(n) To act in coordination with existing governmental agencies in establishing water quality standards
for industrial, agricultural and municipal waste discharges into the lake and to cooperate with said
existing agencies of the government of the Philippines in enforcing such standards, or to separately
pursue enforcement and penalty actions as provided for in Section 4(d) and Section 39-A of this
Act: Provided, That in case of conflict on the appropriate water quality standard to be enforced such
conflict shall be resolved thru the NEDA Board;

(o) To develop water supply from ground and/or lake water resources for municipal, agricultural and
industrial usages, in coordination with the National Water Resources Council created by Presidential
Decree No. 424 dated March 28, 1974 or its successors in interests, and to enter into agreements with
municipalities, governmental agencies and corporations and the private sector to supply, distribute and
market such water;

(p) Undertake studies on the improvement and maintenance of the desirable lake water quality of
Laguna de Bay, and in pursuance thereof, prepare a water quality management program on a
continuing basis, subject to the approval of the NEDA, which the Authority shall carry out with the
assistance and support of all national and local government units involved in water quality
management.
Section 4-A. Compensation for damages to the water and aquatic resources of Laguna de Bay and its
tributaries resulting from failure to meet established water and effluent quality standards or from such other
wrongful act or omission of a person, private or public, juridical or otherwise, punishable under the law shall be
awarded to the Authority to be earmarked for water quality control and management.

Section 4-B. The Authority is hereby empowered to collect annual fees as provided for in Sec. 4-J herein, for
the use of the lake waters and its tributaries for all beneficial purposes including recreation, municipal,
industrial, agricultural, fisheries, navigation and waste disposal purposes. All the fees so collected shall be
used for the management and development of the lake and its watershed areas: Provided, That the rates of
the fees to be collected shall be subject to the approval of the President of the Philippines.

CHAPTER III

CORPORATE POWERS

Section 5. The powers of the Authority. The Authority shall have the following powers and functions:

a) To succeed on its corporate name;

b) To sue and be sued in such corporate name;

c) To adopt, alter and use a corporate seal;

d) To adopt, amend, and repeals its by-laws;

e) To enter into contracts of any kind and description, to enable it to carry out its purposes and
functions under this Act;

f) To acquire, buy, purchase, hold or lease, such personal and real property as it deems necessary or
convenient in the transaction of its business and/or in relation with carrying out its purposes under this
Act; and to lease, mortgage, sell, alienate, or otherwise encumber, utilize, exploit or dispose any such
personal and real property held by it, subject to prior or existing individual or communal right of private
parties or of the government or any agency or enterprise thereof.

g) To exercise the right of eminent domain whenever the Authority deems it necessary for the
attainment of the objectives of the Authority under this Act;

h) To borrow funds from any local or foreign financial institutions independent of the bonds it may issue
or may continue to issue, to carry out the purposes of this Authority under this Act;

i) To purchase, hold, alienate, mortgage, pledge or otherwise dispose of the shares of the capital stock
of, or any bond, securities, or other evidence of indebtedness created by any other corporation, co-
partnership, or government agencies or instrumentalities; and while the owner of said stock to exercise
all the rights or ownership, including the right to vote thereon; Provided, That the Authority shall not
invest its funds in any highly risky debt instruments issued without recourse to commercial banks or
investment houses as well as in any highly speculative stocks.

j) For carrying on its business, or for the purpose of attaining or furthering any of its objectives, to
perform any and all acts which a corporation, co-partnership, or natural person is authorized to perform
under the laws now existing or which may be enacted hereafter.

k) To issue such rules and regulations as may be necessary to effectively carry out the powers and
purposes herein provided including the plans, programs and projects of the Authority, subject to the
approval of the NEDA, the same to take effect thirty (30) days after publication thereof, in a newspaper
of general circulation.
Section 6. Capitalization and Financing. The Authority shall have an authorized capital of One Hundred Million
Pesos (P100,000,000) of which the amount of Fifty-One Million Pesos (P51,000,000) shall be subscribed by
the national government and Forty-Nine Million Pesos (P49,000,000) shall be subscribed by cities, provinces,
municipalities, government corporations and private investors; Provided, That at least twenty-five percent of
the national government's subscription shall be fully paid: Provided, further, That the authorized capital stock
may be increased upon the recommendation of NEDA.

The authorized capital stock of One Hundred Million pesos (P100M) shall be divided into One Million
(1,000,000) Shares of stock with a par value of One hundred Pesos (P100) per share.

The shares of stock of the Authority shall be divided into (1) 700,000 common shares (voting) and (2) 300,000
preferred shares (non-voting) with such fixed rates of return as shall be determined by the Board. Of the
common shares of 700,000 a minimum of 400,000 shares shall be subscribed by the national government and
at least sixty per cent of the balance shall be subscribed by the Provinces of Laguna and Rizal in such
proportion as may be agreed upon by both provincial governments in accordance with their respective
capacities. The remaining balance of the common shares shall be open for subscription to cities, provinces,
municipalities and private investors.

Of the preferred shares of stock of 300,000 a minimum of 110,000 shares shall be subscribed by the national
government. The balance of the preferred shares shall be available for subscription to cities, provinces,
municipalities, government corporations, and private investors; Provided, however, That preferred shares shall
enjoy preference with respect to distribution of dividends and assets in case of dissolution.

Section 7. Powers of Municipal Corporations to Subscribe. For purposes of attaining the purposes of this
Authority, municipalities, cities and provinces are hereby authorized to subscribe, own, buy and hold shares of
stock of this Authority.

Section 8. Operating Expenses. For the operating expenses of the Authority, the sum of One Million Pesos
(P1,000,000) is hereby appropriated annually for five (5) years from the general fund of the National
Government not otherwise appropriated from the date of approval of this Decree.

The Board of Directors may appropriate out of the funds of the Authority such as may be needed or necessary
for its operating expenses.

Section 9. Power to Incur Debts and to Issue Bonds. Whenever the Board of Directors may deem it necessary
for the Authority to incur an indebtedness or to issue bonds to carry out the provisions of this Act, it shall by
resolution so declare and state the purpose for which the proposed debt is to be incurred. The resolution shall
be confirmed by the affirmative vote of the stockholders representing a majority of the subscribed capital stock
outstanding and entitled to vote.

The Authority shall submit to the NEDA Board and the Monetary Board of the Central Bank for approval its
proposal to incur indebtedness or to issue bonds, This shall be considered authorized upon approval of the
President of the Philippines.

Section 10. Bond Limit. The bonds shall be issued in such amounts as will be needed at any one time, taking
into account the rate at which said bonds may be absorbed by the buying public and the fund requirements of
projects ready for execution, and considering further a proper balanced productive and non-productive projects
so that inflation shall be held to the minimum.

Section 11. Form, rates of interest, etc. of bonds. The Board of Directors, shall prescribe the form, the rates of
interest, the denominations, maturities, negotiability, convertibility, call and redemption features, and all other
terms and conditions of issuance, placement, sale, servicing, redemption, and payment of all bonds issued by
the Authority under this Act.
The bonds issued by virtue of this Act may be made payable both as to principal and interest in Philippine
currency or any readily convertible foreign currency; Said bonds shall be receivable as security in any
transaction with the government in which such security is required.

Section 12. Exemption from tax. The Authority shall be exempt from all taxes, licenses, fees, and duties,
incidental to its operations. This exemption shall extend to its subsidiary corporation: Provided, That its
subsidiary corporations shall be subject to all said taxes, licenses, fees, and duties five (5) years after their
establishment under a graduated scale as follows: twenty (20) per centum of all said taxes during the sixth
year, forty (40) per centum of all said taxes during the seventh year, sixty (60) per centum of all said taxes
during the eighth year, eighty (80) per centum of all said taxes during the ninth year, and one hundred (100)
per centum of all taxes during the tenth year, after said establishment. Such examination shall include any tax
or fee imposed by the government on the sale, purchase or transfer of foreign exchange. All notes, bonds,
debentures and other obligations issued by the Authority shall be exempt from all taxes both as to principal and
interest, except inheritance and gift taxes.

Section 13. Sinking Fund. A sinking fund shall be established in such manner that the total annual contribution
thereto accrued at such rate of interest as may be determined by the Board of Directors as confirmed by the
stockholders representing a majority of the subscribed capital stock outstanding and entitled to vote, shall be
sufficient to redeem at maturity the bonds issued under this Act.

Such funds shall be under the custody of the treasurer of the Authority who shall invest the same in such
manner as the Board of Directors may direct; charge all expenses of investment to said sinking fund, and credit
the same with the interest on investment and other income belonging to it.

Section 14. Guarantee by the government. The Republic of the Philippines hereby guarantees the payment by
the Authority of both the principal and the interest of the bonds, debentures, collaterals, notes or such other
obligations issued by the Authority by virtue of this Act, and shall pay such principal and interest in the event
that the Authority fails to do so. In case the Authority shall be unable to pay the said principal and interest, the
Secretary of Finance shall pay the amount thereof which is hereby appropriated out of any funds in the
National Treasury not otherwise appropriated, and thereupon, to the extent of the amounts so paid, the
Government of the Republic of the Philippine shall succeed to all rights of the holders of such bonds,
debentures, collaterals, notes or other obligations, unless the sum so paid by the Republic of the Philippines
shall be refunded by the Authority within a reasonable time.

CHAPTER V

MANAGEMENT AND PERSONNEL

Section 15. Incorporation. The members of the first Board of Directors shall be elected by the stockholders
and the incorporation shall be held to have been effected from the date of the first meeting of such Board.

Section 16. Board of Directors: Composition. The corporate powers shall be vested in and exercised by a
Board of Directors, hereinafter referred to as the Board, which shall be composed of eight (8) members, to wit:
the Executive Secretary, the Secretary of Economic Planning, the Secretary of Natural Resources, the
Secretary of Industry, a representative of Laguna Province, who shall be designated by the Provincial Board of
Laguna; a representative of Rizal Province to be designated by its Provincial Board; the General Manager of
the Authority to be appointed by the President of the Philippines, and a representative of the private investors,
likewise to be appointed by the President of the Philippines from among a list of recommendees to be
submitted by the private investors: Provided, That the incumbent representative of the private investors: shall
continue as member until the President appoints his successor. The Board of Directors shall elect annually
from among their members a Chairman and a Vice Chairman. There shall be a Corporate Secretary who shall
be appointed the Board.

The officials next in rank to the above-mentioned member shall serve as permanent alternate members and
shall attend meetings of the Board in the absence of their principals and receive the corresponding per diems.
Section 17. Acting Chairman. In case of vacancy in the position of Chairman, or in the absence of or
temporary incapacity of the Chairman, the Vice-Chairman shall act as such until a new Chairman is duly
elected by the Board.

Section 18. (This provision were repealed by PD 813, Section 19, promulgated on October 17, 1975.)

Section 19. (This provision were repealed by PD 813, Section 19, promulgated on October 17, 1975.)

Section 20. Effect of vacancies; quorum. Vacancies in the Board as long as there shall be four members in
office, shall not impair the powers of the Board to execute the functions of the Authority. The affirmative vote of
four (4) members of the Board shall be necessary at all times to pass or approve any act or resolution.

Section 21. Qualifications of Directors. All members of the Board shall be citizens and residents of the
Philippines. They shall have demonstrated executive competence and experience in the field of public
administration, economic planning, resource management, or in the establishment and management of large
agricultural, industrial or commercial enterprises. No person shall be nominated as member of the Board
unless he be of unquestioned integrity and competence.

Section 22. Prohibition against "Conflict of Interest." No person member of the Board shall be financially
interested, directly or indirectly, in any contract entered into by the Authority or in any special privileges granted
by the Authority during his term of office. All contracts entered into in violation of this provision shall
automatically be null and void. Any member of the Board found violating the provisions of this section by two-
thirds (2/3) vote of the Board shall automatically be disqualified from serving his unexpired term, and he shall
furthermore be perpetually disqualified for membership in the said Board.

Section 23. Removal, courtesy resignation. A member of the Board may be removed from office by a vote of
the stockholders holding or representing three-fourths (3/4) of the subscribed capital stock outstanding and
entitled to vote. No member of the Board shall be required to submit a courtesy resignation at any time during
his term of office.

Section 24. Board Meetings. The Board shall meet at least once a month. The Board shall be convoked by the
Chairman or upon written request signed by a majority of the members.

Section 25. Per Diems and Allowances. The members of the Board shall receive for every meeting attended a
per diem to be determined by the Board: Provided, That in no case will the total amount received by each
exceed the sum of One Thousand Pesos (P1,000.00) for any one month. Members of the Board shall be
entitled to commutable transportation and representation allowances in the performance of official functions for
the Authority as authorized by the Board the aggregate amount of which shall not exceed One Thousand
Pesos (P1,000.00) for any one month.

Section 25-A. Powers and Functions of the Board of Directors.

a. To formulate, prescribe, amend and repeal rules and regulations to govern the conduct of business
of the Authority;

b. To appoint and fix the compensation of all officials from division heads and above, and others of
comparable rank including the Assistant General Manager upon the recommendation of the General
Manager;

c. By a majority vote of all members of the Board, to suspend, remove or otherwise discipline for just
cause all officials appointed by the Board;

d. To approve the annual and/or supplemental budgets of the Authority; and

 e. To do such other acts and perform such other functions as may be necessary to carry out the
provisions of this Charter.

Section 26. Powers and Functions of the General Manager. The General Manager shall be the chief executive
of the Authority.1awp++i1 As such, he shall have the following powers and duties:

a. Submit for consideration of the Board the policies and measures which he believes to be necessary
to carry out the purposes and provisions of this Act;

b. Execute and administer the policies, plans, programs and projects approved by the Board;

c. Direct and supervise the operation and internal administration of the Authority. The General Manager
may delegate certain of his administrative responsibilities to other officers of the Authority subject to the
rules and regulations of the Board.

d. Appoint officials and employees below the rank of division heads to positions in the approved budget
upon written recommendation of the division head concerned using as guide the standard set forth in
the Authority's merit system;

e. Submit quarterly reports to the Board on personnel selection, placement and training;

f. Submit to the NEDA an annual report and such other reports as may be required, including the details
of the annual and supplemental budgets of the Authority, and

g. Perform such other functions as may be provided by law.

Section 27. (This provision were repealed by PD 813, Section 18, promulgated on October 17, 1975.)

Section 28. (This provision were repealed by PD 813, Section 19, promulgated on October 17, 1975.)

Section 29. Compensation. The General Manager shall receive a compensation of at least Thirty-Six
Thousand Pesos (P36,000.00) per annum which shall be charged against the annual appropriation of the
Authority for operating expenses. The Board of Directors may provide per diems and allowances for the
General Manager.

Section 30. Residence. The General Manager shall establish his residence within the region. The General
Manager shall not, during his term of office, engage in any business or profession or calling other than those
connected in the performance of his official duties as General Manager of the Authority.

Section 31. Activities of the Authority: Key Officials. In carrying out the activities of the Authority, the General
Manager shall be assisted by an Assistant General Manager who shall have such powers, duties, and
functions that may be delegated to him by the General Manager, and shall act as General Manager in the
absence of or during the temporary incapacity of and/or until such time as a new General Manager is duly
appointed.

The Authority shall have the following divisions under the direct supervision and control of the General
Manager;

a. An Administrative Division which shall be responsible for providing services relating to personnel,
training, information, records, supplies general services, equipment and security;

b. A legal Division, to be headed by a Legal Counsel who shall represent the Authority in legal actions
and proceedings. This division shall be responsible for providing staff advice and assistance on legal
matters;
 c. A Finance Division which shall be responsible for providing staff advice and assistance on budgetary
and financial matters, and safekeeping of corporate assets;

d. A Project Management Division which shall be responsible for the operation of approved projects,
project evaluation and management improvement matters;

e. A Planning and Project development Division which shall be responsible for providing services
relating to planning, programming, statistics and project development; and

f. An Engineering and Construction Division which shall be responsible for providing services relating to
detailed engineering plans and the construction and maintenance of project facilities.

The business and activities of each of these divisions shall be directed by an officer to be known as its division
head.

The Board may create such other divisions and positions as may be deemed necessary for the efficient,
economical and effective conduct of the activities of the Authority.

Section 32. Merit and Compensation System. All officials, agents and employees of the Authority shall be
selected and appointed on the basis of merit and fitness in accordance with a comprehensive and progressive
merit system to be established by the Authority. The recruitment, transfer, promotion and dismissal of all
personnel of the authority, including temporary workers, shall be governed by such merit
system: Provided, That the regular professional and technical personnel of the Authority shall be exempt from
the coverage of the classification and compensation plans of the WAPCO and Civil Service rules and
regulations: Provided, however, That such personnel shall be permanent instates and shall be entitled to the
benefits and privileges normally accorded to government employees, such as retirement, GSIS insurance,
leave and similar matters: Provided, further, That the Director General of the NEDA shall review and
recommend the approval of the staffing pattern for professional and technical personnel of the Authority
including modifications thereof as may be necessary for five years from the date of approval of this Decree.

Section 33. (This provision were repealed by PD 813, Section 23, promulgated on October 17, 1975.)

Section 34. (This provision were repealed by PD 813, Section 24, promulgated on October 17, 1975.)

Section 34-A. Supervision by the NEDA. The Authority shall be directly under the NEDA for policy and
program integration.

Section 34-B. Submission of Financial Statement to NEDA. The Authority shall submit audited financial
statements to NEDA within 60 days after the close of the fiscal year, and it shall continue to operate on the
basis of not more than the preceding year's budget until the said financial statements shall have been
submitted.

Section 34-C. Management Audit by the NEDA. The NEDA, may, at its own instance, initiate a management
audit of the Authority when there is a reasonable ground to believe that the affairs of the Authority have been
mismanaged. Should such audit indicate mismanagement, the NEDA shall take such appropriate measures as
may be required by circumstances.

Section 35. Minimum Wage. All contracts entered into by the Authority which require the employment of
persons shall contain provision that not less than the minimum wage fixed by law shall be paid to such persons
so employed.

Section 36. Plans to be formulated within one year. Upon its organization, the Board of Directors shall
formulate and report to the stockholders with the utmost expeditious manner, but in no case longer than one
year, its plans and recommendations for the accelerated and balanced development of the region in
accordance with the aims and purposes of this Act.
Section 37. Supplies and services other than personnel. All purchases of supplies or contracts for services,
except for personnel services, entered into by the Authority shall be done only after the proper bidding is held.
Bidding shall not be required when: (1) the amount involved is five thousand pesos (P5,000.00) or less; (2) an
emergency, as certified to by the General Manager, requires immediate delivery of the supplies or performance
of the services: Provided, That in comparing bids and making awards, the Authority shall consider such factors
as the cost and relative quality and adaptability of supplies or services; the bidders' financial responsibility,
skill, experience, integrity, and ability to furnish repairs and maintenance services; the time of delivery or
performance offered; and the compliance with the specifications desired.

Section 38. Auditing. The Board of Directors shall provide and appoint an auditor who shall formulate an
auditing system for the Authority. The auditor shall make a semestral and/or annual report covering the
financial conditions and operation of the Authority to the Board. These auditing reports shall contain a
statement of the resources and liabilities, including earnings and expenses, the amount of paid-up capital
stock, surplus, reserves, and profits, as well as losses, bad debts and such other facts which, under auditing
rules and regulations, are considered necessary to accurately described the financial conditions and operation
of the Authority. The auditor shall report and directly responsible to the Board.

Section 39.

Section 39-A. Penal and Civil Liability Clause. Any person, natural or juridical, who shall violate any of
the provisions of this Act or any rules or regulation promulgated by the Authority pursuant thereto
shall be liable to imprisonment of not exceeding three years or to a fine not exceeding Five Thousand
Pesos or both at the discretion of the Court.

If the violator be a corporation, partnership or association, the officer or officers of the organization
concerned shall be liable therefor.

The authority is hereby authorized to pursue separate civil actions for damages resulting from
infractions of the provisions of this Act, rules or regulations issued pursuant thereto and/or conditions
embodied in the clearances or permits issued by the Authority.

Section 40. Separability Clause. The provisions of this Act are hereby declared to be separable, and in
the event any one or more such provisions are held unconstitutional, they shall not affect the validity
of other provisions.

Section 40-A. Transitory Provision. When the Regional Development Council for the region becomes
operational, the socio-economic planning functions as envisioned under this Charter shall be assumed
by the aforementioned Regional Development Council in accordance with the provisions of the
Integrated Reorganization Plan, as amended. All incumbent officials and employees shall continue in
office and those qualified shall have preference in filling up new positions that may be created as
consequence of this Decree.

Section 41. Definition of Terms.

1) Act Whenever used in this Act, shall refer to the enabling Act creating the Laguna Lake
Development Authority;

2) Authority Whenever cited in this Act shall mean the Laguna Lake Development Authority;

3) Board The word Board shall always refer to the Board of Directors of the Laguna Lake
Development Authority;

4) Region The word Region in this connection mean the Laguna Lake area proper comprising
the provinces of Rizal and Laguna and the cities of San Pablo, Manila, Pasay, Quezon and
Caloocan;
 5) Government instrumentalities or agencies or entities. Whenever used in this Act shall means
instruments of the national or local governments vested with powers to accomplish a definite
government aim or purpose;

6) Municipal Corporation. Whenever used in this Act shall mean one that is organized for
political purposes with political powers exercised for the good of the public, subject to
legislative control and with officers of the government as its members to administer or
discharge public duties;

7) Government Corporation. Whenever used shall refer to corporations engaged in performing

functions impressed with public interest;

8) Investor With regards to this Act, investors shall include public and private investors whether
foreign or local;

9) External Auditor. Shall mean a firm or a person hired outside the Authority or agency to audit
the books of accounts of another corporation or agency; examine financial records, prepare
audit reports on findings in the operation of the agency; review the statement on the
performance report of the Authority.

10) Subsidiary Corporation. A corporation that is organized or a corporation already in

existence wherein at least fifty-one per cent of its shares of stock are owned or controlled by
the organizing or subscribing Authority, in this case, the Laguna Lake Development Authority,
to carry out or accomplish its purposes.

11) Laguna Lake or Lake. Whenever Laguna Lake or lake is used in this Act, the same shall refer
to Laguna de Bay which is that area covered by the lake water when it is at the average annual
maximum lake level of elevation 12.50 meters, as referred to a datum 10.00 meters below mean
lower low water (M.L.L.W.). Lands located at and below such elevation are public lands which
form part of the bed of said lake.

Section 42. Laws repealed. All Acts, charters, executive orders, administrative orders, proclamations,
rules and regulations, or parts thereof in conflict with this Act are hereby repealed or modified
accordingly.

Section 43. Effectivity. This Act shall take effect upon its approval.

Approved: July 18, 1966.

EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 927 December 16, 1983

FURTHER DEFINING CERTAIN FUNCTIONS AND POWERS OF THE LAGUNA LAKE DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY

WHEREAS, the land and the waters of the Laguna Lake Region are limited natural resources requiring
judicious management for their optimal utilization to insure renewability and to preserve the ecological balance;

WHEREAS, the increasing pressure of urban growth and development dictate the need for a more rational
allocation of the limited land and lake resources of the region responsive to the demands of the various
beneficial users thereof;

WHEREAS, the competing options for the use of such resources and conflicting jurisdictions over such uses
are creating undue constraints on the institutional capabilities of LLDA in the light of the limited powers vested
in it by its charter;

WHEREAS, for LLDA to effectively perform its role, a thorough corporate reorganization aimed at: regrouping
its various units for better administrative control and direction; expansion of its field offices; strengthening of the
linkages with other government and private institutions; broadening of its financial base and revenue
generations; and, enlarging its prerogatives of monitoring, licensing and enforcement, would be necessary.

NOW, THEREFOR, I, FERDINAND E. MARCOS, President of the Philippines, by virtue of the powers vested
in me by the Constitution and the authority vested in me by the Presidential Decree No. 1416, do hereby order
and ordain;

Sec. 1. Reclasification. The Authority is hereby classified among the industrial/area development group (Class
A) of corporations under Letter of Implementation No. 97 and for this purpose the Authority is hereby granted
authority to modify its organization, providing for the creation of the position of deputy general manager,
upgrading the existing divisions into departments to be headed by directors and regrouping of these
departments into offices coordinated by assistant general managers, and creating other offices its Board may
deem necessary and appropriate to achieve its objectives and aims.

Sec. 2. Water Rights Over Laguna de Bay and Other Bodies of Water within the Lake Region. To effectively
regulate and monitor activities in the Laguna de Bay region, the Authority shall have exclusive jurisdiction to
issue permit for the use of all surface water for any projects or activities in or affecting the said region including
navigation, construction, and operation of fishpens, fish enclosures, fish corrals and the like.

For the purpose of this Executive Order, the term "Laguna de Bay Region" shall refer to the Provinces of Rizal
and Laguna; the Cities of San Pablo, Pasay, Caloocan, Quezon, Manila and Tagaytay; the towns of Tanauan,
Sto. Tomas and Malvar in Batangas Province; the towns of Silang and Carmona in Cavite Province; the town
of Lucban in Quezon Province; and the towns of Marikina, Pasig, Taguig, Muntinlupa, and Pateros in Metro
Manila.

Sec. 3. Collection of Fees. The Authority is hereby empowered to collect fees for the use of the lake waters
and its tributaries for all beneficial purposes including but not limited to fisheries, recreation, municipal,
industrial, agricultural, navigation, irrigation, and waste disposal purpose; Provided, that the rates of the fees to
be collected, and the sharing with other government agencies and political subdivisions, if necessary, shall be
subject to the approval of the President of the Philippines upon recommendation of the Authority's Board,
except fishpen fee, which will be shared in the following manner: 20 percent of the fee shall go the lakeshore
local governments, 5 percent shall go to the Project Development Fund which shall be administered by a
Council and the remaining 75 percent shall constitute the share of LLDA. However, after the implementation
within the three-years period of the Laguna Lake Fishery Zoning and Management Plan, the sharing will be
modified as follows: 35 percent of the fishpen fee goes to the lakeshore local governments, 5 percent goes to
the Project Development Fund and the remaining 60 percent shall be retained by LLDA; Provided, however,
that the share of LLDA shall form part of its corporate funds and shall not be remitted to the National Treasury
as an exception to the provisions of Presidential Decree No. 1234.

Sec. 4. Additional Powers and Functions. The Authority shall have the following powers and functions:

a) Issue standards, rules and regulations to govern the approval of plans and specifications for sewage
works and industrial waste disposal system and the issuance of permits in accordance with the
provisions of this Executive Order; inspect the construction and maintenance of sewage works and
industrial waste disposal systems for compliance to plans.

b) Adopt, prescribe, and promulgate rules and regulations governing the Procedures of the Authority
with respect to hearings, plans, specifications, designs, and other data for sewage works and industrial
waste disposal system, the filing of reports, the issuance of permits, and other rules and regulations for
the proper implementation and enforcement of this Executive Order.

c) Issue orders or decisions to compel compliance with the provisions of this Executive Order and its
implementing rules and regulations only after proper notice and hearing.

d) Make, alter or modify orders requiring the discontinuance of population specifying the conditions and
time within which such discontinuance must be accomplished.

e) Issue, renew, or deny permits, under such conditions as it may determine to be reasonable, for the
prevention and abatement of pollution, for the discharge of sewage, industrial waste, or for the
installation or operation of sewage works and industrial disposal system or parts thereof: Provided,
however, that the Authority, by rules and regulations, may require subdivisions, condominiums,
hospitals, public buildings and other similar human settlements to put up appropriate central sewerage
system and sewage treatment works, except that no permits shall be required of any new sewage
works or changes to or extensions of existing works that discharge only domestic or sanitary wastes
from a single residential building provided with septic tanks or their equivalent. The Authority may
impose reasonable fees and charges for the issuance or renewal of all permits herein required.

f) After due notice and hearing, the Authority may also revoke, suspend modify any permit issued under
this Order whenever the same is necessary to prevent or abate pollution.

g) Deputize in writing or request assistance of appropriate government agencies or instrumentalities for

the purpose of enforcing this Executive Order and its implementing rules and regulations and the orders
and decisions of the Authority. lawphi1.net

h) Authorize its representative to enter at all reasonable times any property of the public dominion and
private property devoted to industrial, manufacturing, processing or commercial use without doing
damage, for the purpose of inspecting and investigating conditions relating to pollution or possible or
imminent pollutions.

i) Exercise such powers and perform such other functions as may be necessary to carry out its duties
and responsibilities under this Executive Order.

Sec. 5. Board of Directors Composition. The corporate powers shall be vested in and exercised by the Board
of Directors, hereinafter referred to as the Board which shall be composed of ten (10) members, to wit:
Representative of the Office of the President; Minister of Economic Planning; Minister of Natural Resources;
Minister of Trade and Industry; Representative of Laguna Province who shall be designated by the Provincial
Board of Laguna; Representative of Rizal Province who shall be designated by the Provincial Board of Rizal;
Representative of the Office of the Governor of the Metro Manila Commission; President of Laguna Lake
Federation of Mayors, Inc.; General Manager of the Laguna Lake Development Authority to be appointed by
the President of the Philippines; Representative of Private Investors; Provided, that incumbent representative
of the private investors shall continue as members until the President appoints his successor. The Board of
Directors shall elect annually from among their members, a chairman and a Vice-Chairman. There shall be a
Corporate Secretary who shall be appointed by the Board with a rank equivalent to a Department Director.

The officials next-in-rank to the above-mentioned members shall serve as permanent alternate members and
shall attend meetings of the Board in the absence of their principal and receive the corresponding per diems.

Sec. 6. Capitalization and Financing. The Authority shall have an authorized capital of Seven Hundred Million
Pesos (P700,000,000) of which the amount of THREE HUNDRED FIFTY ONE MILLION PESOS
(P351,000,000) shall be subscribed by the national government and THREE HUNDRED FORTY NINE
MILLION PESOS (P349,000,000) shall be subscribed by the cities, provinces, municipalities, government
corporations, and private investors; Provided, that at least twenty-five percent (25%) of the national
government's subscription shall be fully paid; Provided, further, that the authorized capital stock may be
increased upon recommendation of the NEDA and shall come from the fishpen fees.

The authorized capital stock of Seven Hundred Million Pesos (P700,000,000) shall be divided into Seven
Million (P7,000,000) shares of stock with a par value of One Hundred Pesos (P100) per share.

The shares of stock of the Authority shall be divided into: 1) 4,900,000 common shares (voting and 2)
2,100,000 preferred shares (non-voting) with such fixed rates of return as shall be determined by the Board. Of
the common shares of 4,900, a minimum of 2,800,000 shares shall be subscribed by the national government
and at least sixty percent (60%) of the balance shall be subscribed by the Province of Laguna and Rizal in
such proportion as may be agreed upon by both provincial governments in accordance with their respective
financial capacities. The remaining balance of the common shares shall be open for subscription to cities,
provinces, municipalities and private investors.

Of the preferred shares of stock of 2,100,000, a minimum of 770,000 shares shall be subscribed by the
national government. The balance of the preferred shares shall be available for subscription to cities,
provinces, municipalities, government corporations and private investors. Provided, however, that preferred
shares shall enjoy preference with respect to distribution of dividends and assets in case of dissolution.

Sec. 7. Repealing Clause. All laws, decrees, orders, proclamations, rules, regulations and issuances on parts,
thereof, which are inconsistent with any of the provisions of this Executive Order are hereby repealed or
modified accordingly. lawphi1.net

Sec. 8. Separability Clause. Any portion or provision of this Executive Order that may be declared
unconstitutional shall not have the effect of nullifying the other provisions thereof; Provided, that such
remaining portions can still stand and be given effect on their entirely to accomplish the objectives this
Executive Order.

Sec. 9. Effectivity Clause. This Executive Order shall take effect immediately. lawphi1.net

DONE in the City of Manila, this 16th day of December in the Year of Our Lord, Nineteen Hundred and Eighty-
Three.
G.R. Nos. 120865-71 December 7, 1995

LAGUNA LAKE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, petitioner,

vs.
COURT OF APPEALS; HON. JUDGE HERCULANO TECH, PRESIDING JUDGE, BRANCH 70, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF BINANGONAN RIZAL; FLEET
DEVELOPMENT, INC. and CARLITO ARROYO; THE MUNICIPALITY OF BINANGONAN and/or MAYOR ISIDRO B. PACIS, respondents.

LAGUNA LAKE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, petitioner,

vs.
COURT OF APPEALS; HON. JUDGE AURELIO C. TRAMPE, PRESIDING JUDGE, BRANCH 163, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF PASIG; MANILA MARINE LIFE
BUSINESS RESOURCES, INC. represented by, MR. TOBIAS REYNALD M. TIANGCO; MUNICIPALITY OF TAGUIG, METRO MANILA and/or MAYOR RICARDO D.
PAPA, JR., respondents.

LAGUNA LAKE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, petitioner,

vs.
COURT OF APPEALS; HON. JUDGE ALEJANDRO A. MARQUEZ, PRESIDING JUDGE, BRANCH 79, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MORONG, RIZAL; GREENFIELD
VENTURES INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION and R. J. ORION DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION; MUNICIPALITY OF JALA-JALA and/or MAYOR
WALFREDO M. DE LA VEGA, respondents.

LAGUNA LAKE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, petitioner,

vs.
COURT OF APPEALS; HON. JUDGE MANUEL S. PADOLINA, PRESIDING JUDGE, BRANCH 162, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF PASIG, METRO MANILA; IRMA
FISHING & TRADING CORP.; ARTM FISHING CORP.; BDR CORPORATION, MIRT CORPORATION and TRIM CORPORATION; MUNICIPALITY OF BINANGONAN
and/or MAYOR ISIDRO B. PACIS, respondents.

LAGUNA LAKE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, petitioner,

vs.
COURT OF APPEALS; HON. JUDGE ARTURO A. MARAVE, PRESIDING JUDGE, BRANCH 78, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MORONG, RIZAL; BLUE LAGOON
FISHING CORP. and ALCRIS CHICKEN GROWERS, INC.; MUNICIPALITY OF JALA-JALA and/or MAYOR WALFREDO M. DE LA VEGA, respondents.

LAGUNA LAKE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, petitioner,

vs.
COURT OF APPEALS; HON. JUDGE ARTURO A. MARAVE, PRESIDING JUDGE, BRANCH 78, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MORONG, RIZAL; AGP FISH
VENTURES, INC., represented by its PRESIDENT ALFONSO PUYAT; MUNICIPALITY OF JALA-JALA and/or MAYOR WALFREDO M. DE LA VEGA, respondents.

LAGUNA LAKE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, petitioner,

vs.
COURT OF APPEALS; HON. JUDGE EUGENIO S. LABITORIA, PRESIDING JUDGE, BRANCH 161, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF PASIG, METRO MANILA; SEA MAR
TRADING CO. INC.; EASTERN LAGOON FISHING CORP.; MINAMAR FISHING CORP.; MUNICIPALITY OF BINANGONAN and/or MAYOR ISIDRO B.
PACIS, respondents.

HERMOSISIMA, JR., J.:

It is difficult for a man, scavenging on the garbage dump created by affluence and profligate
consumption and extravagance of the rich or fishing in the murky waters of the Pasig River and the
Laguna Lake or making a clearing in the forest so that he can produce food for his family, to
understand why protecting birds, fish, and trees is more important than protecting him and keeping
his family alive.

How do we strike a balance between environmental protection, on the one hand, and the individual
personal interests of people, on the other?

Towards environmental protection and ecology, navigational safety, and sustainable development,
Republic Act No. 4850 created the "Laguna Lake Development Authority." This Government Agency
is supposed to carry out and effectuate the aforesaid declared policy, so as to accelerate the
development and balanced growth of the Laguna Lake area and the surrounding provinces, cities and
towns, in the act clearly named, within the context of the national and regional plans and policies for
social and economic development.

Presidential Decree No. 813 of former President Ferdinand E. Marcos amended certain sections of
Republic Act No. 4850 because of the concern for the rapid expansion of Metropolitan Manila, the
suburbs and the lakeshore towns of Laguna de Bay, combined with current and prospective uses of
the lake for municipal-industrial water supply, irrigation, fisheries, and the like. Concern on the part of
the Government and the general public over: — the environment impact of development on the water
quality and ecology of the lake and its related river systems; the inflow of polluted water from the
Pasig River, industrial, domestic and agricultural wastes from developed areas around the lake; the
increasing urbanization which induced the deterioration of the lake, since water quality studies have
shown that the lake will deteriorate further if steps are not taken to check the same; and the floods in
Metropolitan Manila area and the lakeshore towns which will influence the hydraulic system of
Laguna de Bay, since any scheme of controlling the floods will necessarily involve the lake and its
river systems, — likewise gave impetus to the creation of the Authority.

Section 1 of Republic Act No. 4850 was amended to read as follows:

Sec. 1. Declaration of Policy. It is hereby declared to be the national policy to promote,

and accelerate the development and balanced growth of the Laguna Lake area and the
surrounding provinces, cities and towns hereinafter referred to as the region, within the
context of the national and regional plans and policies for social and economic
development and to carry out the development of the Laguna Lake region with due
regard and adequate provisions for environmental management and control,
preservation of the quality of human life and ecological systems, and the prevention of
undue ecological disturbances, deterioration and pollution.1

Special powers of the Authority, pertinent to the issues in this case, include:

Sec. 3. Section 4 of the same Act is hereby further amended by adding thereto seven
new paragraphs to be known as paragraphs (j), (k), (l), (m), (n), (o), and (p) which shall
read as follows:

xxx xxx xxx

(j) The provisions of existing laws to the contrary notwithstanding, to

engage in fish production and other aqua-culture projects in Laguna de
Bay and other bodies of water within its jurisdiction and in pursuance
thereof to conduct studies and make experiments, whenever necessary,
with the collaboration and assistance of the Bureau of Fisheries and
Aquatic Resources, with the end in view of improving present techniques
and practices. Provided, that until modified, altered or amended by the
procedure provided in the following sub-paragraph, the present laws, rules
and permits or authorizations remain in force;

(k) For the purpose of effectively regulating and monitoring activities in

Laguna de Bay, the Authority shall have exclusive jurisdiction to issue new
permit for the use of the lake waters for any projects or activities in or
affecting the said lake including navigation, construction, and operation of
fishpens, fish enclosures, fish corrals and the like, and to impose
necessary safeguards for lake quality control and management and to
collect necessary fees for said activities and projects: Provided, That the
fees collected for fisheries may be shared between the Authority and other
government agencies and political sub-divisions in such proportion as may
be determined by the President of the Philippines upon recommendation
of the Authority's Board: Provided, further, That the Authority's Board may
determine new areas of fishery development or activities which it may
place under the supervision of the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic
Resources taking into account the overall development plans and
programs for Laguna de Bay and related bodies of water: Provided, finally,
 That the Authority shall subject to the approval of the President of the
Philippines promulgate such rules and regulations which shall govern
fisheries development activities in Laguna de Bay which shall take into
consideration among others the following: socio-economic amelioration of
bonafide resident fishermen whether individually or collectively in the form
of cooperatives, lakeshore town development, a master plan for fishpen
construction and operation, communal fishing ground for lake shore town
residents, and preference to lake shore town residents in hiring laborer for
fishery projects;

(l) To require the cities and municipalities embraced within the region to
pass appropriate zoning ordinances and other regulatory measures
necessary to carry out the objectives of the Authority and enforce the
same with the assistance of the Authority;

(m) The provisions of existing laws to the contrary notwithstanding, to

exercise water rights over public waters within the Laguna de Bay region
whenever necessary to carry out the Authority's projects;

(n) To act in coordination with existing governmental agencies in

establishing water quality standards for industrial, agricultural and
municipal waste discharges into the lake and to cooperate with said
existing agencies of the government of the Philippines in enforcing such
standards, or to separately pursue enforcement and penalty actions as
provided for in Section 4 (d) and Section 39-A of this Act: Provided, That
in case of conflict on the appropriate water quality standard to be enforced
such conflict shall be resolved thru the NEDA Board.2

To more effectively perform the role of the Authority under Republic Act No. 4850, as though
Presidential Decree No. 813 were not thought to be completely effective, the Chief Executive, feeling
that the land and waters of the Laguna Lake Region are limited natural resources requiring judicious
management to their optimal utilization to insure renewability and to preserve the ecological balance,
the competing options for the use of such resources and conflicting jurisdictions over such uses
having created undue constraints on the institutional capabilities of the Authority in the light of the
limited powers vested in it by its charter, Executive Order No. 927 further defined and enlarged the
functions and powers of the Authority and named and enumerated the towns, cities and provinces
encompassed by the term "Laguna de Bay Region".

Also, pertinent to the issues in this case are the following provisions of Executive Order No. 927
which include in particular the sharing of fees:

Sec 2. Water Rights Over Laguna de Bay and Other Bodies of Water within the Lake
Region: To effectively regulate and monitor activities in the Laguna de Bay region, the
Authority shall have exclusive jurisdiction to issue permit for the use of all surface water
for any projects or activities in or affecting the said region including navigation,
construction, and operation of fishpens, fish enclosures, fish corrals and the like.

For the purpose of this Executive Order, the term "Laguna de Bay Region" shall refer to
the Provinces of Rizal and Laguna; the Cities of San Pablo, Pasay, Caloocan, Quezon,
Manila and Tagaytay; the towns of Tanauan, Sto. Tomas and Malvar in Batangas
Province; the towns of Silang and Carmona in Cavite Province; the town of Lucban in
 Quezon Province; and the towns of Marikina, Pasig, Taguig, Muntinlupa, and Pateros in
Metro Manila.

Sec 3. Collection of Fees. The Authority is hereby empowered to collect fees for the use
of the lake water and its tributaries for all beneficial purposes including but not limited to
fisheries, recreation, municipal, industrial, agricultural, navigation, irrigation, and waste
disposal purpose; Provided, that the rates of the fees to be collected, and the sharing
with other government agencies and political subdivisions, if necessary, shall be subject
to the approval of the President of the Philippines upon recommendation of the
Authority's Board, except fishpen fee, which will be shared in the following manner; 20
percent of the fee shall go to the lakeshore local governments, 5 percent shall go to the
Project Development Fund which shall be administered by a Council and the remaining
75 percent shall constitute the share of LLDA. However, after the implementation within
the three-year period of the Laguna Lake Fishery Zoning and Management Plan, the
sharing will be modified as follows: 35 percent of the fishpen fee goes to the lakeshore
local governments, 5 percent goes to the Project Development Fund and the remaining
60 percent shall be retained by LLDA; Provided, however, that the share of LLDA shall
form part of its corporate funds and shall not be remitted to the National Treasury as an
exception to the provisions of Presidential Decree No. 1234. (Emphasis supplied)

It is important to note that Section 29 of Presidential Decree No. 813 defined the term "Laguna Lake"
in this manner:

Sec 41. Definition of Terms.

(11) Laguna Lake or Lake. Whenever Laguna Lake or lake is used in this Act, the same
shall refer to Laguna de Bay which is that area covered by the lake water when it is at
the average annual maximum lake level of elevation 12.50 meters, as referred to a
datum 10.00 meters below mean lower low water (M.L.L.W). Lands located at and
below such elevation are public lands which form part of the bed of said lake.

Then came Republic Act No. 7160, the Local Government Code of 1991. The municipalities in the
Laguna Lake Region interpreted the provisions of this law to mean that the newly passed law gave
municipal governments the exclusive jurisdiction to issue fishing privileges within their municipal
waters because R.A. 7160 provides:

Sec. 149. Fishery Rentals, Fees and Charges.

(a) Municipalities shall have the exclusive authority to grant fishery privileges in the
municipal waters and impose rental fees or charges therefor in accordance with the
provisions of this Section.

(b) The Sangguniang Bayan may:

(1) Grant fishing privileges to erect fish corrals, oyster, mussel or other
aquatic beds or bangus fry areas, within a definite zone of the municipal
waters, as determined by it; . . . .

(2) Grant privilege to gather, take or catch bangus fry, prawn fry or kawag-
kawag or fry of other species and fish from the municipal waters by nets,
traps or other fishing gears to marginal fishermen free from any rental fee,
charges or any other imposition whatsoever.
 xxx xxx xxx

Sec. 447. Power, Duties, Functions and Compensation. . . . .

xxx xxx xxx

(XI) Subject to the provisions of Book II of this Code, grant exclusive

privileges of constructing fish corrals or fishpens, or the taking or catching
of bangus fry, prawn fry or kawag-kawag or fry of any species or fish
within the municipal waters.

xxx xxx xxx

Municipal governments thereupon assumed the authority to issue fishing privileges and fishpen
permits. Big fishpen operators took advantage of the occasion to establish fishpens and fishcages to
the consternation of the Authority. Unregulated fishpens and fishcages, as of July, 1995, occupied
almost one-third of the entire lake water surface area, increasing the occupation drastically from
7,000 hectares in 1990 to almost 21,000 hectares in 1995. The Mayor's permit to construct fishpens
and fishcages were all undertaken in violation of the policies adopted by the Authority on fishpen
zoning and the Laguna Lake carrying capacity.

To be sure, the implementation by the lakeshore municipalities of separate independent policies in

the operation of fishpens and fishcages within their claimed territorial municipal waters in the lake and
their indiscriminate grant of fishpen permits have already saturated the lake area with fishpens,
thereby aggravating the current environmental problems and ecological stress of Laguna Lake.

In view of the foregoing circumstances, the Authority served notice to the general public that:

In compliance with the instructions of His Excellency PRESIDENT FIDEL V. RAMOS

given on June 23, 1993 at Pila, Laguna pursuant to Republic Act 4850 as amended by
Presidential Decree 813 and Executive Order 927 series of 1983 and in line with the
policies and programs of the Presidential Task Force on Illegal Fishpens and Illegal
Fishing, the general public is hereby notified that:

1. All fishpens, fishcages and other aqua-culture structures in the Laguna de Bay
Region, which were not registered or to which no application for registration and/or
permit has been filed with Laguna Lake Development Authority as of March 31, 1993
are hereby declared outrightly as illegal.

2. All fishpens, fishcages and other aqua-culture structures so declared as illegal shall
be subject to demolition which shall be undertaken by the Presidential Task Force for
Illegal Fishpen and Illegal Fishing.

3. Owners of fishpens, fishcages and other aqua-culture structures declared as illegal

shall, without prejudice to demolition of their structures be criminally charged in
accordance with Section 39-A of Republic Act 4850 as amended by P.D. 813 for
violation of the same laws. Violations of these laws carries a penalty of imprisonment of
not exceeding 3 years or a fine not exceeding Five Thousand Pesos or both at the
discretion of the court.

All operators of fishpens, fishcages and other aqua-culture structures declared as illegal
in accordance with the foregoing Notice shall have one (1) month on or before 27
 October 1993 to show cause before the LLDA why their said fishpens, fishcages and
other aqua-culture structures should not be demolished/dismantled.

One month, thereafter, the Authority sent notices to the concerned owners of the illegally constructed
fishpens, fishcages and other aqua-culture structures advising them to dismantle their respective
structures within 10 days from receipt thereof, otherwise, demolition shall be effected.

Reacting thereto, the affected fishpen owners filed injunction cases against the Authority before
various regional trial courts, to wit: (a) Civil Case No. 759-B, for Prohibition, Injunction and Damages,
Regional Trial Court, Branch 70, Binangonan, Rizal, filed by Fleet Development, Inc. and Carlito
Arroyo; (b) Civil Case No. 64049, for Injunction, Regional Trial Court, Branch 162, Pasig, filed by
IRMA Fishing and Trading Corp., ARTM Fishing Corp., BDR Corp., MIRT Corp. and TRIM Corp.; (c)
Civil Case No. 566, for Declaratory Relief and Injunction, Regional Trial Court, Branch 163, Pasig,
filed by Manila Marine Life Business Resources, Inc. and Tobias Reynaldo M. Tianco; (d) Civil Case
No. 556-M, for Prohibition, Injunction and Damages, Regional Trial Court, Branch 78, Morong, Rizal,
filed by AGP Fishing Ventures, Inc.; (e) Civil Case No. 522-M, for Prohibition, Injunction and
Damages, Regional Trial Court, Branch 78, Morong, Rizal, filed by Blue Lagoon and Alcris Chicken
Growers, Inc.; (f) Civil Case No. 554-, for Certiorari and Prohibition, Regional Trial Court, Branch 79,
Morong, Rizal, filed by Greenfields Ventures Industrial Corp. and R.J. Orion Development Corp.; and
(g) Civil Case No. 64124, for Injunction, Regional Trial Court, Branch 15, Pasig, filed by SEA-MAR
Trading Co., Inc. and Eastern Lagoon Fishing Corp. and Minamar Fishing Corporation.

The Authority filed motions to dismiss the cases against it on jurisdictional grounds. The motions to
dismiss were invariably denied. Meanwhile, temporary restraining order/writs of preliminary
mandatory injunction were issued in Civil Cases Nos. 64124, 759 and 566 enjoining the Authority
from demolishing the fishpens and similar structures in question.

Hence, the herein petition for certiorari, prohibition and injunction, G.R. Nos. 120865-71, were filed by
the Authority with this court. Impleaded as parties-respondents are concerned regional trial courts
and respective private parties, and the municipalities and/or respective Mayors of Binangonan,
Taguig and Jala-jala, who issued permits for the construction and operation of fishpens in Laguna de
Bay. The Authority sought the following reliefs, viz.:

(A) Nullification of the temporary restraining order/writs of preliminary injunction issued

in Civil Cases Nos. 64125, 759 and 566;

(B) Permanent prohibition against the regional trial courts from exercising jurisdiction
over cases involving the Authority which is a co-equal body;

(C) Judicial pronouncement that R.A. 7610 (Local Government Code of 1991) did not
repeal, alter or modify the provisions of R.A. 4850, as amended, empowering the
Authority to issue permits for fishpens, fishcages and other aqua-culture structures in
Laguna de Bay and that, the Authority the government agency vested with exclusive
authority to issue said permits.

By this Court's resolution of May 2, 1994, the Authority's consolidated petitions were referred to the
Court of Appeals.

In a Decision, dated June 29, 1995, the Court of Appeals dismissed the Authority's consolidated
petitions, the Court of Appeals holding that: (A) LLDA is not among those quasi-judicial agencies of
government whose decision or order are appealable only to the Court of Appeals; (B) the LLDA
charter does vest LLDA with quasi-judicial functions insofar as fishpens are concerned; (C) the
provisions of the LLDA charter insofar as fishing privileges in Laguna de Bay are concerned had been
repealed by the Local Government Code of 1991; (D) in view of the aforesaid repeal, the power to
grant permits devolved to and is now vested with their respective local government units concerned.

Not satisfied with the Court of Appeals decision, the Authority has returned to this Court charging the
following errors:

1. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS PROBABLY COMMITTED AN ERROR

WHEN IT RULED THAT THE LAGUNA LAKE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IS NOT A
QUASI-JUDICIAL AGENCY.

2. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED SERIOUS ERROR WHEN

IT RULED THAT R.A. 4850 AS AMENDED BY P.D. 813 AND E.O. 927 SERIES OF
1983 HAS BEEN REPEALED BY REPUBLIC ACT 7160. THE SAID RULING IS
CONTRARY TO ESTABLISHED PRINCIPLES AND JURISPRUDENCE OF
STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION.

3. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED SERIOUS ERROR WHEN

IT RULED THAT THE POWER TO ISSUE FISHPEN PERMITS IN LAGUNA DE BAY
HAS BEEN DEVOLVED TO CONCERNED (LAKESHORE) LOCAL GOVERNMENT
UNITS.

We take a simplistic view of the controversy. Actually, the main and only issue posed is: Which
agency of the Government — the Laguna Lake Development Authority or the towns and
municipalities comprising the region — should exercise jurisdiction over the Laguna Lake and its
environs insofar as the issuance of permits for fishery privileges is concerned?

Section 4 (k) of the charter of the Laguna Lake Development Authority, Republic Act No. 4850, the
provisions of Presidential Decree No. 813, and Section 2 of Executive Order No. 927, cited above,
specifically provide that the Laguna Lake Development Authority shall have exclusive jurisdiction to
issue permits for the use of all surface water for any projects or activities in or affecting the said
region, including navigation, construction, and operation of fishpens, fish enclosures, fish corrals and
the like. On the other hand, Republic Act No. 7160, the Local Government Code of 1991, has granted
to the municipalities the exclusive authority to grant fishery privileges in municipal waters. The
Sangguniang Bayan may grant fishery privileges to erect fish corrals, oyster, mussels or other aquatic
beds or bangus fry area within a definite zone of the municipal waters.

We hold that the provisions of Republic Act No. 7160 do not necessarily repeal the aforementioned
laws creating the Laguna Lake Development Authority and granting the latter water rights authority
over Laguna de Bay and the lake region.

The Local Government Code of 1991 does not contain any express provision which categorically
expressly repeal the charter of the Authority. It has to be conceded that there was no intent on the
part of the legislature to repeal Republic Act No. 4850 and its amendments. The repeal of laws should
be made clear and expressed.

It has to be conceded that the charter of the Laguna Lake Development Authority constitutes a
special law. Republic Act No. 7160, the Local Government Code of 1991, is a general law. It is basic
in statutory construction that the enactment of a later legislation which is a general law cannot be
construed to have repealed a special law. It is a well-settled rule in this jurisdiction that "a special
statute, provided for a particular case or class of cases, is not repealed by a subsequent statute,
general in its terms, provisions and application, unless the intent to repeal or alter is manifest,
although the terms of the general law are broad enough to include the cases embraced in the special
law."3

Where there is a conflict between a general law and a special statute, the special statute should
prevail since it evinces the legislative intent more clearly than the general statute. The special law is
to be taken as an exception to the general law in the absence of special circumstances forcing a
contrary conclusion. This is because implied repeals are not favored and as much as possible, effect
must be given to all enactments of the legislature. A special law cannot be repealed, amended or
altered by a subsequent general law by mere implication.4

Thus, it has to be concluded that the charter of the Authority should prevail over the Local
Government Code of 1991.

Considering the reasons behind the establishment of the Authority, which are environmental
protection, navigational safety, and sustainable development, there is every indication that the
legislative intent is for the Authority to proceed with its mission.

We are on all fours with the manifestation of petitioner Laguna Lake Development Authority that
"Laguna de Bay, like any other single body of water has its own unique natural ecosystem. The 900
km² lake surface water, the eight (8) major river tributaries and several other smaller rivers that drain
into the lake, the 2,920 km² basin or watershed transcending the boundaries of Laguna and Rizal
provinces, greater portion of Metro Manila, parts of Cavite, Batangas, and Quezon provinces,
constitute one integrated delicate natural ecosystem that needs to be protected with uniform set of
policies; if we are to be serious in our aims of attaining sustainable development. This is an
exhaustible natural resource — a very limited one — which requires judicious management and
optimal utilization to ensure renewability and preserve its ecological integrity and balance."

"Managing the lake resources would mean the implementation of a national policy geared towards the
protection, conservation, balanced growth and sustainable development of the region with due regard
to the inter-generational use of its resources by the inhabitants in this part of the earth. The authors of
Republic Act 4850 have foreseen this need when they passed this LLDA law — the special law
designed to govern the management of our Laguna de Bay lake resources."

"Laguna de Bay therefore cannot be subjected to fragmented concepts of management policies

where lakeshore local government units exercise exclusive dominion over specific portions of the lake
water. The garbage thrown or sewage discharged into the lake, abstraction of water therefrom or
construction of fishpens by enclosing its certain area, affect not only that specific portion but the entire
900 km² of lake water. The implementation of a cohesive and integrated lake water resource
management policy, therefore, is necessary to conserve, protect and sustainably develop Laguna de
Bay."5

The power of the local government units to issue fishing privileges was clearly granted for revenue
purposes. This is evident from the fact that Section 149 of the New Local Government Code
empowering local governments to issue fishing permits is embodied in Chapter 2, Book II, of Republic
Act No. 7160 under the heading, "Specific Provisions On The Taxing And Other Revenue Raising
Power Of Local Government Units."

On the other hand, the power of the Authority to grant permits for fishpens, fishcages and other aqua-
culture structures is for the purpose of effectively regulating and monitoring activities in the Laguna de
Bay region (Section 2, Executive Order No. 927) and for lake quality control and management.6 It
does partake of the nature of police power which is the most pervasive, the least limitable and the
most demanding of all State powers including the power of taxation. Accordingly, the charter of the
Authority which embodies a valid exercise of police power should prevail over the Local Government
Code of 1991 on matters affecting Laguna de Bay.

There should be no quarrel over permit fees for fishpens, fishcages and other aqua-culture structures
in the Laguna de Bay area. Section 3 of Executive Order No. 927 provides for the proper sharing of
fees collected.

In respect to the question as to whether the Authority is a quasi-judicial agency or not, it is our holding
that, considering the provisions of Section 4 of Republic Act No. 4850 and Section 4 of Executive
Order No. 927, series of 1983, and the ruling of this Court in Laguna Lake Development Authority
vs. Court of Appeals, 231 SCRA 304, 306, which we quote:

xxx xxx xxx

As a general rule, the adjudication of pollution cases generally pertains to the Pollution
Adjudication Board (PAB), except in cases where the special law provides for another
forum. It must be recognized in this regard that the LLDA, as a specialized
administrative agency, is specifically mandated under Republic Act No. 4850 and its
amendatory laws to carry out and make effective the declared national policy of
promoting and accelerating the development and balanced growth of the Laguna Lake
area and the surrounding provinces of Rizal and Laguna and the cities of San Pablo,
Manila, Pasay, Quezon and Caloocan with due regard and adequate provisions for
environmental management and control, preservation of the quality of human life and
ecological systems, and the prevention of undue ecological disturbances, deterioration
and pollution. Under such a broad grant of power and authority, the LLDA, by virtue of
its special charter, obviously has the responsibility to protect the inhabitants of the
Laguna Lake region from the deleterious effects of pollutants emanating from the
discharge of wastes from the surrounding areas. In carrying out the aforementioned
declared policy, the LLDA is mandated, among others, to pass upon and approve or
disapprove all plans, programs, and projects proposed by local government
offices/agencies within the region, public corporations, and private persons or
enterprises where such plans, programs and/or projects are related to those of the
LLDA for the development of the region.

xxx xxx xxx

. . . . While it is a fundamental rule that an administrative agency has only such powers
as are expressly granted to it by law, it is likewise a settled rule that an administrative
agency has also such powers as are necessarily implied in the exercise of its express
powers. In the exercise, therefore, of its express powers under its charter, as a
regulatory and quasi-judicial body with respect to pollution cases in the Laguna Lake
region, the authority of the LLDA to issue a "cease and desist order" is, perforce,
implied. Otherwise, it may well be reduced to a "toothless" paper agency.

there is no question that the Authority has express powers as a regulatory and quasi-judicial
body in respect to pollution cases with authority to issue a "cease and desist order" and on
matters affecting the construction of illegal fishpens, fishcages and other aqua-culture
structures in Laguna de Bay. The Authority's pretense, however, that it is co-equal to the
Regional Trial Courts such that all actions against it may only be instituted before the Court of
Appeals cannot be sustained. On actions necessitating the resolution of legal questions
affecting the powers of the Authority as provided for in its charter, the Regional Trial Courts
have jurisdiction.
In view of the foregoing, this Court holds that Section 149 of Republic Act No. 7160, otherwise known
as the Local Government Code of 1991, has not repealed the provisions of the charter of the Laguna
Lake Development Authority, Republic Act No. 4850, as amended. Thus, the Authority has the
exclusive jurisdiction to issue permits for the enjoyment of fishery privileges in Laguna de Bay to the
exclusion of municipalities situated therein and the authority to exercise such powers as are by its
charter vested on it.

Removal from the Authority of the aforesaid licensing authority will render nugatory its avowed
purpose of protecting and developing the Laguna Lake Region. Otherwise stated, the abrogation of
this power would render useless its reason for being and will in effect denigrate, if not abolish, the
Laguna Lake Development Authority. This, the Local Government Code of 1991 had never intended
to do.

WHEREFORE, the petitions for prohibition, certiorari and injunction are hereby granted, insofar as
they relate to the authority of the Laguna Lake Development Authority to grant fishing privileges within
the Laguna Lake Region.

The restraining orders and/or writs of injunction issued by Judge Arturo Marave, RTC, Branch 78,
Morong, Rizal; Judge Herculano Tech, RTC, Branch 70, Binangonan, Rizal; and Judge Aurelio
Trampe, RTC, Branch 163, Pasig, Metro Manila, are hereby declared null and void and ordered set
aside for having been issued with grave abuse of discretion.

The Municipal Mayors of the Laguna Lake Region are hereby prohibited from issuing permits to
construct and operate fishpens, fishcages and other aqua-culture structures within the Laguna Lake
Region, their previous issuances being declared null and void. Thus, the fishing permits issued by
Mayors Isidro B. Pacis, Municipality of Binangonan; Ricardo D. Papa, Municipality of Taguig; and
Walfredo M. de la Vega, Municipality of Jala-jala, specifically, are likewise declared null and void and
ordered cancelled.

The fishpens, fishcages and other aqua-culture structures put up by operators by virtue of permits
issued by Municipal Mayors within the Laguna Lake Region, specifically, permits issued to Fleet
Development, Inc. and Carlito Arroyo; Manila Marine Life Business Resources, Inc., represented by,
Mr. Tobias Reynald M. Tiangco; Greenfield Ventures Industrial Development Corporation and R.J.
Orion Development Corporation; IRMA Fishing And Trading Corporation, ARTM Fishing Corporation,
BDR Corporation, Mirt Corporation and Trim Corporation; Blue Lagoon Fishing Corporation and
ALCRIS Chicken Growers, Inc.; AGP Fish Ventures, Inc., represented by its President Alfonso Puyat;
SEA MAR Trading Co., Inc., Eastern Lagoon Fishing Corporation, and MINAMAR Fishing
Corporation, are hereby declared illegal structures subject to demolition by the Laguna Lake
Development Authority.

SO ORDERED.

Davide, Jr., Bellosillo and Kapunan, JJ., concur.

 REPUBLIC ACT 7611

AN ACT ADOPTING THE STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENT PLAN FOR PALAWAN, CREATING THE
ADMINISTRATIVE MACHINERY TO ITS IMPLEMENTATION, CONVERTING THE PALAWAN
INTEGRATED AREA DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICE TO ITS SUPPORT STAFF, PROVIDING
FUNDS THEREFOR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress assembled:

CHAPTER I
GENERAL PROVISIONS

SEC. I Title - This Act shall be known as the "Strategic Environmental Plan (SEP) for Palawan Act."

SEC. 2 Declaration of Policy - It is hereby declared the policy of the State to protect, develop and conserve its
natural resources . Toward this end, it shall assist and support the implementation of plans, programs and projects
formulated to preserve and enhance the environment, and at the same time pursue the socio-economic development
goals of the country.

It shall support and promote the sustainable development goals for the provinces through proper conservation,
utilization and development of natural resources to provide optimum yields on a continuing basis. With specific
reference to forest resources, the State shall pursue and implement forest conservation and protection through the
imposition of a total commercial logging ban as hereinafter provided.

It shall also adopt the necessary measures leading to the creation of an institutional machinery including among
others, fiscal and financial programs to ensure the effective and efficient implementation of environmental plans,
programs and projects.

It shall also promote and encourage the involvement of all sectors of society and maximize people participation
(including tribal groups) in natural resource management, conservation and protection.

SEC. 3 Definition of Terms. - As used in this Act, the following terms are defined as follows:

(1) "Palawan" refers to the Philippine province composed of islands and islets located 7°47' and 12°'22' north latitude
and 117°'00' and 119°'51' east longitude, generally bounded by the South China Sea to the northwest and by the Sulu
Sea to the east.

(2) "Sustainable development" means the improvement in the quality of life of the present and future generations
through the complementation of development and environmental protection activities;

(3) "Natural resources" refers to life-support systems such as the sea, coral reefs, soil, lakes, rivers, and forest as well
as useful products found therein such as animals, wildlife, tress and other plants, including the aesthetic attributes of
scenic sites that are not manmade.

(4) "Tribal land areas" refers to the areas comprising both land and sea that are traditionally occupied by the cultural
minorities.

(5) "Environmentally critical areas" (ECAN) refers to terrestrial aquatic and marine areas that need special protection
and conservation measures as they are ecologically fragile;

(6) "Participatory processes" means the involvement of all the key sectors of development, from the grassroots to the
policy-making bodies of the National Government, in providing the values and ideas from which strategic
development and environmental protection action can come about;
(7) "Conservation" refers to the wise use of natural resources that assures regeneration and replenishment for
continuous benefit;

(8) "Ecology" refers to the life-sustaining interrelationships and interactions of organisms with each other and with
their physical surroundings;

(9) "Commercial logging" refers to the cutting, felling or destruction of tress from old growth and residual forest for
the purpose of selling or otherwise disposing of the cut or felled logs for profit;

(10) "SEP" refers to the Strategic Environmental Plan discussed in Section 4 of this Act;

(11) "ECAN" refers to the Environmentally Critical Areas Network as provided in Section 7 of this Act; and

(12) "EMES" refers to the Environmental Monitoring and Evaluation System provided in Section 13 of this Act.

CHAPTER II
STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENT PLAN: ADOPTION, PHILOSOPHY AND LEGAL EFFECTS

SEC. 4 Strategic Environmental Plan. - A comprehensive framework for the sustainable development of Palawan
compatible with protecting and enhancing the natural resources and endangered environment of the province is
hereby adopted. Such framework shall be known as the Strategic Environmental Plan for Palawan, hereinafter
referred to as SEP, and shall serve to guide the local government of Palawan and the government agencies concerned
in the formulation and implementation of plans, programs and projects affecting said province.

SEC. 5 Strategic Environmental Plan (SEP) Philosophy. - The SEP shall have as its general philosophy, the
sustainable development of Palawan, which is the improvement in the quality of life of its people in the present and
future generations through the use of complementary activities of development and conservation that protect life-
support ecosystem and rehabilitate exploited areas to allow upcoming generations to sustain development growth. It
shall have the following features:

(1) Ecological viability - The physical and biological cycles that maintain the productivity of natural ecosystems
must always be kept intact.

(2) Social acceptability - The people themselves, through participatory process, should be fully committed to support
sustainable development activities by fostering equity in access to resources and the benefits derived from them.

(3) Integrated approach - This allow for a holistic view of problems and issues obtaining in the environment as well
as opportunities for coordination and sharing that will eventually provide the resources and political will to actually
implement and sustain SEP activities.

SEC. 6 Legal effects. - The SEP shall serve as the framework to guide the government agencies concerned in the
formulation and implementation of plans, programs and projects affecting the environment and natural resources of
Palawan. It shall therefore be incorporated in the Regional Development Plan of Region IV as part of said plan.

SEC. 7 Environmentally Critical Areas Network (ECAN) - The SEP shall establish a graded system of protection
and development control over the whole of Palawan, including its tribal lands, forest, mines, agricultural areas,
settlement areas, small islands mangroves, coral reefs, seagrass beds and the surrounding sea. This shall be known as
the Environmentally Critical Areas Network, hereinafter referred to as ECAN, and shall serve as the main strategy of
the SEP.

The ECAN shall ensure the following,

(1) Forest conservation and protection through the imposition of a total commercial logging ban in all areas of
maximum protection and in such other restricted use zones as the Palawan Council for Sustainable Development as
hereinafter created may provide;

(2) Protection of Watersheds;

(3) Preservation of biological diversity;

(4) Protection of tribal people and the preservation of their culture;

(5) Maintenance of maximum sustainable yield;

(6) Protection of the rare and endangered species and their habitat;

(7) Provision of areas for environmental and ecological research, education and training; and

(8) Provision of areas for tourist and recreation.

SEC. 8 Main Components. - The areas covered by the ECAN hall be classified into three (3) main components;

(1) Terrestrial - the terrestrial component shall consist of the mountainous as well as ecologically important low hills
and lowland areas of the whole province. It may be further subdivided into smaller management components.

(2) Coastal/marine area - this area includes the whole coastline up to the open sea. This is characterized by active
fisheries and tourism activities.

(3) Tribal Ancestral lands - These are the areas traditionally occupied by the cultural communities.

SEC. 9 Terrestrial Component: Management Scheme and Zonation. - the terrestrial component may be further
subdivided into smaller management components for a more efficient supervision. These management components,
in turn, shall each be further subdivided into the following zones;

(1) Area of maximum protection or core zone -This zone shall be fully and strictly protected and maintained free of
human disruption. Included here are all types of natural forest which include first growth forest, residual forest and
edges of intact forest, areas above one thousand (1,000) meters elevation, peaks of mountains or other areas with
very steep gradients, and endangered habitats and habitats of endangered and rare species. Exceptions, however, may
be granted to traditional uses of tribal communities of these areas for minimal and soft impact gathering of forest
species for ceremonial and medicinal purposes.

(2) Buffer zone - This area permits regulated use and may be further subdivided into three (3) sub-zones;

(a) Restricted use area. Generally surrounds the core zone and provides a protective barrier. Limited and
nonconsumptive activities may be allowed in this area.

( b) Controlled use area. Encircles and provides the outer barrier to the core and restricted use area. Controlled forest
extraction, like the collecting of minor forest products, and strictly controlled logging and mining may be allowed.

(c) Traditional use area. Edges of intact forests where traditional land use is already stabilized is being stabilized.
Management and control shall be carried out with the other supporting programs of the SEP.

(3) Multiple/manipulative use area - This is the area where the landscape has been modified for different forms of
land use such as intensive timber extraction, grazing and pastures, agriculture and infrastructures development.
Control and management shall be strictly integrated with the other supporting programs of the SEP and other similar
programs of the Government.

SEC. 10 Coastal/Marine Zone. - A different and simplified scheme of management zonation shall be applied to this
component due to its geographical characteristics, critical nature, and patterns of resource use. Equitable access to
the resource and management responsibility by the local community shall be the underlying management philosophy
of this component.

(1) Core zone. - This area shall be designated free from any human activity. This includes sanctuaries for rare and
endangered species, selected coral reefs, seagrass and mangrove ecosystem reserves.

(2) Multiple use zone - Aside from being development area, this zone also serves as the buffer zone where fishery,
mariculture, recreation, rehabilitation of small islands and mangrove ecosystem education and research are allowed.

SEC. 11 Tribal Ancestral Lands. - These areas, traditionally occupied by cultural minorities, comprise both land
and sea areas. These shall be treated in the same graded system of control and prohibition as in the others
abovementioned except for strong emphasis in cultural considerations. The SEP, therefore, shall define a special
kind of zonation to fulfill the material and cultural needs of the tribes using consultative processes and cultural
mapping of the ancestral lands.

CHAPTER III
MANAGEMENT OF RESOURCES OUTSIDE OF THE ECOLOGICALLY CRITICAL AREAS

SEC. 12 Management of Resources Outside of the Ecologically Critical Areas. The SEP shall provide for the
management of resources outside of the ECAN and shall include coastal resources, resources of the catchment areas,
timber and mines, development in the lowlands, and settlement areas. It shall also provide for tourism planning.

CHAPTER IV
SUPPORT MECHANISM

SEC. 13 Environmental Monitoring and Evaluation System (EMES) - In order to monitor achievement of its
goals, SEP shall establish an Environmental Monitoring and Evaluation System (EMES) which shall ensure a
systematic and reliable means of data generation for the various concerns of the SEP. It shall measure changes in
environmental status, identify adverse environmental trends and crisis areas, recommend solutions, assess the
implementation of the SEP, and suggest measures to make the SEP more responsible to the changing needs.

SEC. 14 Environmental Research - The SEP shall provide for a system of research so that additional information
for accurate planning as well as data to solve new problems in the implementation of the SEP shall be supplied. As
such, the SEP's researches shall not be confined to the physical and biological features of the environment, achieved
through surveys, monitoring, resource assessments and research into processes, but shall also extend to policies and
socioeconomic questions.

SEC. 15 Environmental Education and Extension - The SEP shall design an environmental information and
education designed to gradually wean the people away from destructive practices and shall recommend practical
ways as an alternative.

Training programs for the non-governmental organizations (NGO's), business sector representatives and community
leaders shall be organized. This may establish linkages between the NGOs, community leaders, sector
representatives and the staff of line agencies development communication or public information section and at the
same time, be used to plan out a comprehensive public information drive.

Simultaneously, community organizing shall be enhanced to reinforce non-formal approaches, complementing

regular environment/science courses in the school.
 CHAPTER V
ADMINISTRATIVE MACHINERY FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SEP

SEC. 16 Palawan Council for Sustainable Development. - The governance, implementation and policy direction
of the Strategic Environmental Plan shall be exercised by the herein created Palawan Council for Sustainable
Development (PCSD), hereinafter referred to as the Council, which shall be under the Office of the President. It shall
be composed of the Members of the House of the Representatives representing the province of Palawan, the Deputy
Director General of the National Economic and Development Authority, the Undersecretary of Environment and
Natural Resources, the Undersecretary for Special Concerns of the Department of Agriculture, the Governor of
Palawan, the Mayor of Puerto Princesa City, the President of the Mayor's League of Palawan, the President of the
Provincial Chapter of the Liga ng mga Barangay, the Executive Director of the Palawan council for Sustainable
Development Staff as provided in Section 20 of this Act, and such other members from the public or private sectors
as the majority of the council may deem necessary.

The Council shall elect, from among its members, a Chairman and a Vice-Chairman.

SEC. 17 Quorum. - A majority of the members of the Council shall constitute a quorum for the conduct of business.

SEC. 18 Compensation. - The members of the council shall be entitled to per diems and allowances in accordance
with existing laws in the performance of their duties and in carrying out of the business of the Council. The per
diems shall be in the amount of Five hundred pesos (p500) for every meeting: Provided, that the per diems collected
do not exceed the equivalent of per diems for four (4) meetings in a month.

SEC. 19 Powers and Functions. - In order to successfully implement the provisions of this Act, the Council is
hereby vested with the following powers and functions.

(1) Formulate plans and policies as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act.

(2) Coordinate with the local governments to ensure that the latter's plans, programs and projects are aligned with the
plans, programs and policies of the SEP.

(3) Call on any department, bureau, office, agency or instrumentality of the Government, and on private entities and
organizations for cooperation and assistance in the performance of its functions.

(4) Arrange, negotiate for, accept donations, grants, gifts, loans, and other fundings from domestic and foreign
sources to carry out the activities and purposes of the SEP.

(5) Recommend to the Congress of the Philippines such matters that may require legislation in support of the
objectives of the SEP.

(6) Delegate any or all of its powers and functions to its support staff, as hereinafter provided, except those which by
provisions of law cannot be delegated;

(7) Establish policies and guidelines for employment on the basis, of merit, technical competence and moral
character and prescribe a compensation and staffing pattern;

(8) Adopt, amend and rescind such rules and regulations and impose penalties therefore for the effective
implementation of the SEP and the other provisions of this Act.

(9) Enforce the provisions of this Act and other existing laws. Rules and regulations similar to or complementary
with this Act;
(10) Perform related functions which shall promote the development, conservation, management, protection, and
utilization of the natural resources of Palawan; and

(11) Perform such other powers and functions as may be necessary in carrying out its functions, powers, and the
provisions of this Act.

SEC. 20 Conversion of Palawan Integrated Area Development Project Office (PIADPO) to the Palawan
council for Sustainable Development Staff. - The Palawan Integrated Area Development Project Office,
hereinafter referred to as PIADPO, is hereby converted to the Palawan Council for Sustainable Development Staff
which shall serve as the regular professional support staff of the Council and shall provide the machinery to
coordinate the policy and functions, implement programs, and organize such services as may be required by the
Council in the exercise of its functions. It shall be independent of any other department or agency of the Government
other than the herein provided Council. All the applicable powers, functions, personnel, complement staff,
appropriations, records, equipment, property, funds, and other assets of the PIADPO, as well as all its obligations
and liabilities, are hereby transferred to the Palawan Council for Sustainable Development Staff. The incumbent
Director of the PIADPO shall be the Executive Director of the Palawan Council for Sustainable Development Staff
and shall lead all its operations. Thereafter, the Executive Director shall be appointed by the members of the
Council. He shall also be ex officio member of the Council.

CHAPTER VI
APPROPRIATION AND FINAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 21 Appropriations. - The amount necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act shall be charged to the
current fiscal year appropriation of the PIADPO. Thereafter, such sums as may be necessary shall be included in the
annual General Appropriations Act.

SEC. 22 - Separability Clause. - If any of the provisions of this Act shall be declared unconstitutional, the other
provisions of this Act shall remain valid.

SEC. 23 Repealing Clause. - All laws; decrees, orders, rules and regulations or parts thereof contrary to or
inconsistent with the provisions of this Act are hereby repealed or modified accordingly.

SEC. 24 Effectivity Clause. - This Act shall take effect upon its approval.
 EN BANC

[G.R. No. 110249. August 21, 1997]

ALFREDO TANO, BALDOMERO TANO, DANILO TANO, ROMUALDO TANO, TEOCENES MIDELLO, ANGEL DE MESA, EULOGIO TREMOCHA,
FELIPE ONGONION, JR., ANDRES LINIJAN, ROBERT LIM, VIRGINIA LIM, FELIMON DE MESA, GENEROSO ARAGON, TEODORICO ANDRE,
ROMULO DEL ROSARIO, CHOLITO ANDRE, ERICK MONTANO, ANDRES OLIVA, VITTORIO SALVADOR, LEOPOLDO ARAGON, RAFAEL RIBA,
ALEJANDRO LEONILA, JOSE DAMACINTO, RAMIRO MANAEG, RUBEN MARGATE, ROBERTO REYES, DANILO PANGARUTAN, NOE
GOLPAN,ESTANISLAO ROMERO, NICANOR DOMINGO, ROLDAN TABANG, PANGANIBAN, ADRIANO TABANG, FREDDIE SACAMAY, MIGUEL
TRIMOCHA, PACENCIO LABABIT, PABLO H. OMPAD, CELESTINO A. ABANO, ALLAN ALMODAL, BILLY D. BARTOLAY, ALBINO D. LIQUE,
MELCHOR J. LAYSON, MELANI AMANTE, CLARO E. YATOC, MERGELDO B. BALDEO, EDGAR M. ALMASET A., JOSELITO MANAEG, LIBERATO
ANDRADA, JR., ROBERTO BERRY, RONALD VILLANUEVA, EDUARDO VALMORIA, WILDREDO MENDOZA, NAPOLEON BABANGA, ROBERTO
TADEPA, RUBEN ASINGUA, SILVERIO GABO, JERRY ROMERO, DAVID PANGAGARUTAN, DANIEL PANGGARUTAN, ROMEO AGAWIN,
FERNANDO EQUIZ, DITO LEQUIZ, RONILO ODERABLE, BENEDICTO TORRES, ROSITO A. VALDEZ, CRESENCIO A. SAYANG, NICOMEDES S.
ACOSTA, ERENEO A. SEGARINO, JR., WILDREDO A. RAUTO, DIOSDADO A. ACOSTA, BONIFACIO G. SISMO, TACIO ALUBA, DANIEL B.
BATERZAL, ELISEO YBAEZ, DIOSDADO E. HANCHIC, EDDIE ESCALICAS, ELEAZAR B. BATERZAL, DOMINADOR HALICHIC, ROOSEVELT
RISMO-AN, ROBERT C. MERCADER, TIRSO ARESGADO, DANIEL CHAVEZ, DANILO CHAVEZ, VICTOR VILLAROEL, ERNESTO C. YABANEZ,
ARMANDO T. SANTILLAN, RUDY S. SANTILLAN, JODJEN ILUSTRISIMO, NESTOR SALANGRON, ALBERTO SALANGRON, ROGER L. ROXAS,
FRANCISCO T. ANTICANO, PASTOR SALANGRON, BIENVENIDO SANTILLAN, GILBUENA LADDY, FIDEL BENJAMIN JOVELITO BELGANO,
HONEY PARIOL, ANTONIO SALANGRON, NICASIO SALANGRON, & AIRLINE SHIPPERS ASSOCIATION OF PALAWAN, Petitioners, vs. GOV.
SALVADOR P. SOCRATES, MEMBERS OF SANGGUNIAN PANLALAWIGAN OF PALAWAN, namely, VICE-GOVERNOR JOEL T. REYES, JOSE D.
ZABALA, ROSALINO R. ACOSTA, JOSELITO A. CADLAON, ANDRES R. BAACO, NELSON P. PENEYRA, CIPRIANO C. BARROMA, CLARO E.
ORDINARIO, ERNESTO A. LLACUN, RODOLFO C. FLORDELIZA, GILBERT S. BAACO, WINSTON G. ARZAGA, NAPOLEON F. ORDONEZ and GIL
P. ACOSTA, CITY MAYOR EDWARD HAGEDORN, MEMBERS OF SANGGUNIANG PANLUNGSOD NG PUERTO PRINCESA, ALL MEMBERS OF
BANTAY DAGAT, MEMBERS OF PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE OF PALAWAN, PROVINCIAL AND CITY PROSECUTORS OF PALAWAN and
PUERTO PRINCESA CITY, and ALL JUDGES OF PALAWAN, REGIONAL, MUNICIPAL AND METROPOLITAN, Respondents.

DECISION

DAVIDE, JR., J.:

Petitioners caption their petition as one for Certiorari, Injunction With Preliminary Mandatory
Injunction,with Prayer for Temporary Restraining Order and pray that this Court: (1) declare
as unconstitutional: (a) Ordinance No. 15-92, dated 15 December 1992, of the Sangguniang
Panlungsod of Puerto Princesa; (b) Office Order No. 23, Series of 1993, dated 22 January
1993, issued by Acting City Mayor Amado L. Lucero of Puerto Princesa City; and (c)
Resolution No. 33, Ordinance No. 2, Series of 1993, dated 19 February 1993, of
the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Palawan; (2) enjoin the enforcement thereof; and (3)
restrain respondents Provincial and City Prosecutors of Palawan and Puerto Princesa City and
Judges of Regional Trial Courts, Metropolitan Trial Courts1 and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts
in Palawan from assuming jurisdiction over and hearing cases concerning the violation of the
Ordinances and of the Office Order.

More appropriately, the petition is, and shall be treated as, a special civil action
for certiorari and prohibition.

The following is petitioners summary of the factual antecedents giving rise to the petition:

1. On December 15, 1992, the Sangguniang Panlungsod ng Puerto Princesa City enacted
Ordinance No. 15-92 which took effect on January 1, 1993 entitled: AN ORDINANCE
BANNING THE SHIPMENT OF ALL LIVE FISH AND LOBSTER OUTSIDE PUERTO PRINCESA
CITY FROM JANUARY 1, 1993 TO JANUARY 1, 1998 AND PROVIDING EXEMPTIONS,
PENALTIES AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES THEREOF, the full text of which reads as follows:

Section 1. Title of the Ordinance. - This Ordinance is entitled: AN ORDINANCE BANNING THE
SHIPMENT OF ALL LIVE FISH AND LOBSTER OUTSIDE PUERTO PRINCESA CITY FROM
JANUARY 1, 1993 TO JANUARY 1, 1998 AND PROVIDING EXEMPTIONS, PENALTIES AND FOR
OTHER PURPOSES THEREOF.
Section 2. Purpose, Scope and Coverage. - To effectively free our City Sea Waters from
Cyanide and other Obnoxious substance, and shall cover all persons and/or entities
operating within and outside the City of Puerto Princesa who is are [sic] directly or indirectly
in the business or shipment of live fish and lobster outside the City.

Section 3. Definition of terms. - For purpose of this Ordinance the following are hereby
defined:

A. SEA BASS - A kind of fish under the family of Centropomidae, better known as APAHAP;

B. CATFISH - A kind of fish under the family of Plotosidae, better known as HITO-HITO;

C. MUDFISH - A kind of fish under the family of Orphicaphalisae better known as DALAG

D. ALL LIVE FISH - All alive, breathing not necessarily moving of all specie[s] use for food
and for aquarium purposes.

E. LIVE LOBSTER - Several relatively, large marine crustaceans of the genus Homarus that
are alive and breathing not necessarily moving.

Section 4. It shall be unlawful [for] any person or any business enterprise or company to
ship out from Puerto Princesa City to any point of destination either via aircraft or seacraft of
any live fish and lobster except SEA BASS, CATFISH, MUDFISH, AND MILKFISH FRIES.

Section 5. Penalty Clause. - Any person/s and or business entity violating this Ordinance
shall be penalized with a fine of not more than P5,000.00 or imprisonment of not more than
twelve (12) months, cancellation of their permit to do business in the City of Puerto Princesa
or all of the herein stated penalties, upon the discretion of the court.

Section 6. If the owner and/or operator of the establishment found vilating the provisions of
this ordinance is a corporation or a partnership, the penalty prescribed in Section 5 hereof
shall be imposed upon its president and/or General Manager or Managing Partner and/or
Manager, as the case maybe [sic].

Section 7. Any existing ordinance or any provision of any ordinance inconsistent to [sic] this
ordinance is deemed repealed.

Section 8. This Ordinance shall take effect on January 1, 1993.

SO ORDAINED.

xxx

2. To implement said city ordinance, then Acting City Mayor Amado L. Lucero issued Office
Order No. 23, Series of 1993 dated January 22, 1993 which reads as follows:

In the interest of public service and for purposes of City Ordinance No. PD426-14-74,
otherwise known as AN ORDINANCE REQUIRING ANY PERSON ENGAGED OR INTENDING TO
ENGAGE IN ANY BUSINESS, TRADE, OCCUPATION, CALLING OR PROFESSION OR HAVING
IN HIS POSSESSION ANY OF THE ARTICLES FOR WHICH A PERMIT IS REQUIRED TO BE
HAD, TO OBTAIN FIRST A MAYORS PERMIT and City Ordinance No. 15-92, AN ORDINANCE
BANNING THE SHIPMENT OF ALL LIVE FISH AND LOBSTER OUTSIDE PUERTO PRINCESA
CITY FROM JANUARY 1, 1993 TO JANUARY 1, 1998, you are hereby authorized and directed
to check or conduct necessary inspections on cargoes containing live fish and lobster being
shipped out from the Puerto Princesa Airport, Puerto Princesa Wharf or at any port within
the jurisdiction of the City to any point of destinations [sic] either via aircraft or seacraft.

The purpose of the inspection is to ascertain whether the shipper possessed the required
Mayors Permit issued by this Office and the shipment is covered by invoice or clearance
issued by the local office of the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources and as to
compliance with all other existing rules and regulations on the matter.

Any cargo containing live fish and lobster without the required documents as stated herein
must be held for proper disposition.

In the pursuit of this Order, you are hereby authorized to coordinate with the PAL Manager,
the PPA Manager, the local PNP Station and other offices concerned for the needed support
and cooperation. Further, that the usual courtesy and diplomacy must be observed at all
times in the conduct of the inspection.

Please be guided accordingly.

xxx

3. On February 19, 1993, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan, Provincial Government of Palawan

enacted Resolution No. 33 entitled: A RESOLUTION PROHIBITING THE CATCHING,
GATHERING, POSSESSING, BUYING, SELLING AND SHIPMENT OF LIVE MARINE CORAL
DWELLING AQUATIC ORGANISMS, TO WIT: FAMILY: SCARIDAE (MAMENG), EPINE PHELUS
FASCIATUS (SUNO). CROMILEPTES ALTIVELIS (PANTHER OR SENORITA), LOBSTER BELOW
200 GRAMS AND SPAWNING, TRADACNA GIGAS (TAKLOBO), PINCTADA
MARGARITEFERA (MOTHER PEARL, OYSTERS, GIANT CLAMS AND OTHER
SPECIES), PENAEUS MONODON (TIGER PRAWN-BREEDER SIZE OR MOTHER), EPINEPHELUS
SUILLUS (LOBA OR GREEN GROUPER) AND FAMILY: BALISTIDAE (TROPICAL AQUARIUM
FISHES) FOR A PERIOD FIVE (5) YEARS IN AND COMING FROM PALAWAN WATERS, the full
text of which reads as follows:

WHEREAS, scientific and factual researches [sic] and studies disclose that only five (5)
percent of the corals of our province remain to be in excellent condition as [a] habitat of
marine coral dwelling aquatic organisms;

WHEREAS, it cannot be gainsaid that the destruction and devastation of the corals of our
province were principally due to illegal fishing activities like dynamite fishing, sodium
cyanide fishing, use of other obnoxious substances and other related activities;

WHEREAS, there is an imperative and urgent need to protect and preserve the existence of
the remaining excellent corals and allow the devastated ones to reinvigorate and regenerate
themselves into vitality within the span of five (5) years;

WHEREAS, Sec. 468, Par. 1, Sub-Par. VI of the [sic] R.A. 7160 otherwise known as the Local
Government Code of 1991 empowers the Sangguniang Panlalawigan to protect the
environment and impose appropriate penalties [upon] acts which endanger the environment
such as dynamite fishing and other forms of destructive fishing, among others.
NOW, THEREFORE, on motion by Kagawad Nelson P. Peneyra and upon unanimous decision
of all the members present;

Be it resolved as it is hereby resolved, to approve Resolution No. 33, Series of 1993 of the
Sangguniang Panlalawigan and to enact Ordinance No. 2 for the purpose, to wit:

ORDINANCE NO. 2
Series of 1993

BE IT ORDAINED BY THE SANGGUNIANG PANLALAWIGAN IN SESSION ASSEMBLED:

Section 1. TITLE - This Ordinance shall be known as an Ordinance Prohibiting the catching,
gathering, possessing, buying, selling and shipment of live marine coral dwelling aquatic
organisms, to wit: 1. Family: Scaridae (Mameng), 2. Epinephelus Fasciatus (Suno), 3.
Cromileptes altivelis (Panther or Senorita), lobster below 200 grams and spawning), 4.
Tridacna Gigas (Taklobo), 5. Pinctada Margaretefera (Mother Pearl, Oysters, Giant Clams
and other species), 6. Penaeus Monodon (Tiger Prawn-breeder size or mother), 7.
Epinephelus Suillus (Loba or Green Grouper) and 8. Family: Balistidae (Topical Aquarium
Fishes) for a period of five (5) years in and coming from Palawan Waters.

Section II. PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS

1. Sec. 2-A (Rep. Act 7160). It is hereby declared, the policy of the state that the territorial
and political subdivisions of the State shall enjoy genuine and meaningful local autonomy to
enable them to attain their fullest development as self reliant communities and make them
more effective partners in the attainment of national goals. Toward this end, the State shall
provide for [a] more responsive and accountable local government structure instituted
through a system of decentralization whereby local government units shall be given more
powers, authority, responsibilities and resources.

2. Sec. 5-A (R.A. 7160). Any provision on a power of [a] local Government Unit shall be
liberaly interpreted in its favor, and in case of doubt, any question thereon shall be resolved
in favor of devolution of powers and of the lower government units. Any fair and reasonable
doubts as to the existence of the power shall be interpreted in favor of the Local
Government Unit concerned.

3. Sec. 5-C (R.A. 7160). The general welfare provisions in this Code shall be liberally
interpreted to give more powers to local government units in accelerating economic
development and upgrading the quality of life for the people in the community.

4. Sec. 16 (R.A. 7160). General Welfare. - Every local government unit shall exercise the
powers expressly granted, those necessarily implied therefrom, as well as powers necessary,
appropriate, or incidental for its efficient and effective governance; and those which are
essential to the promotion of the general welfare.

Section III. DECLARATION OF POLICY. - It is hereby declared to be the policy of the

Province of Palawan to protect and conserve the marine resources of Palawan not only for
the greatest good of the majority of the present generation but with [the] proper
perspective and consideration of [sic] their prosperity, and to attain this end, the
Sangguniang Panlalawigan henceforth declares that is [sic] shall be unlawful for any person
or any business entity to engage in catching, gathering, possessing, buying, selling and
shipment of live marine coral dwelling aquatic organisms as enumerated in Section 1 hereof
in and coming out of Palawan Waters for a period of five (5) years;

Section IV. PENALTY CLAUSE. - Any person and/or business entity violating this Ordinance
shall be penalized with a fine of not more than Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00), Philippine
Currency, and/or imprisonment of six (6) months to twelve (12) months and confiscation
and forfeiture of paraphernalias [sic] and equipment in favor of the government at the
discretion of the Court;

Section V. SEPARABILITY CLAUSE. - If for any reason, a Section or provision of this

Ordinance shall be held as unconditional [sic] or invalid, it shall not affect the other
provisions hereof.

Section VI. REPEALING CLAUSE. - Any existing Ordinance or a provision of any ordinance
inconsistent herewith is deemed modified, amended or repealed.

Section VII. EFFECTIVITY. - This Ordinance shall take effect ten (10) days after its
publication.

SO ORDAINED.

xxx

4. The respondents implemented the said ordinances, Annexes A and C hereof thereby
depriving all the fishermen of the whole province of Palawan and the City of Puerto Princesa
of their only means of livelihood and the petitioners Airline Shippers Association of Palawan
and other marine merchants from performing their lawful occupation and trade;

5. Petitioners Alfredo Tano, Baldomero Tano, Teocenes Midello, Angel de Mesa, Eulogio
Tremocha, and Felipe Ongonion, Jr. were even charged criminally under criminal case no.
93-05-C in the 1st Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Cuyo-Agutaya-Magsaysay, an original
carbon copy of the criminal complaint dated April 12, 1993 is hereto attached as Annex D;
while xerox copies are attached as Annex D to the copies of the petition;

6. Petitioners Robert Lim and Virginia Lim, on the other hand, were charged by the
respondent PNP with the respondent City Prosecutor of Puerto Princesa City, a xerox copy of
the complaint is hereto attached as Annex E;

Without seeking redress from the concerned local government units, prosecutors office and
courts, petitioners directly invoked our original jurisdiction by filing this petition on 4 June
1993. In sum, petitioners contend that:

First, the Ordinances deprived them of due process of law, their livelihood, and unduly
restricted them from the practice of their trade, in violation of Section 2, Article XII and
Sections 2 and 7 of Article XIII of the 1987 Constitution.

Second, Office Order No. 23 contained no regulation nor condition under which the Mayors
permit could be granted or denied; in other words, the Mayor had the absolute authority to
determine whether or not to issue permit.
Third, as Ordinance No. 2 of the Province of Palawan altogether prohibited the catching,
gathering, possession, buying, selling and shipping of live marine coral dwelling organisms,
without any distinction whether it was caught or gathered through lawful fishing method, the
Ordinance took away the right of petitioners-fishermen to earn their livelihood in lawful
ways; and insofar as petitioners-members of Airline Shippers Association are concerned,
they were unduly prevented from pursuing their vocation and entering into contracts which
are proper, necessary, and essential to carry out their business endeavors to a successful
conclusion.

Finally, as Ordinance No. 2 of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan is null and void, the criminal
cases based thereon against petitioners Tano and the others have to be dismissed.

In the Resolution of 15 June 1993 we required respondents to comment on the petition, and
furnished the Office of the Solicitor General with a copy thereof.

In their comment filed on 13 August 1993, public respondents Governor Socrates and
Members of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Palawan defended the validity of Ordinance
No.2, Series of 1993, as a valid exercise of the Provincial Governments power under the
general welfare clause (Section 16 of the Local Government Code of 1991 [hereafter, LGC]),
and its specific power to protect the environment and impose appropriate penalties for acts
which endanger the environment, such as dynamite fishing and other forms of destructive
fishing under Section 447 (a) (1) (vi), Section 458 (a) (1) (vi), and Section 468 (a) (1) (vi),
of the LGC. They claimed that in the exercise of such powers, the Province of Palawan had
the right and responsibilty to insure that the remaining coral reefs, where fish dwells [sic],
within its territory remain healthy for the future generation. The Ordinance, they further
asserted, covered only live marine coral dwelling aquatic organisms which were enumerated
in the ordinance and excluded other kinds of live marine aquatic organisms not dwelling in
coral reefs; besides the prohibition was for only five (5) years to protect and preserve the
pristine coral and allow those damaged to regenerate.

Aforementioned respondents likewise maintained that there was no violation of due process
and equal protection clauses of the Constitution. As to the former, public hearings were
conducted before the enactment of the Ordinance which, undoubtedly, had a lawful purpose
and employed reasonable means; while as to the latter, a substantial distinction existed
between a fisherman who catches live fish with the intention of selling it live, and a
fisherman who catches live fish with no intention at all of selling it live, i.e., the former uses
sodium cyanide while the latter does not. Further, the Ordinance applied equally to all those
belonging to one class.

On 25 October 1993 petitioners filed an Urgent Plea for the Immediate Issuance of a
Temporary Restraining Order claiming that despite the pendency of this case, Branch 50 of
the Regional Trial Court of Palawan was bent on proceeding with Criminal Case No. 11223
against petitioners Danilo Tano, Alfredo Tano, Eulogio Tremocha, Romualdo Tano,
Baldomero Tano, Andres Lemihan and Angel de Mesa for violation of Ordinance No. 2 of the
Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Palawan. Acting on said plea, we issued on 11 November 1993
a temporary restraining order directing Judge Angel Miclat of said court to cease and desist
from proceeding with the arraignment and pre-trial of Criminal Case No. 11223.

On 12 July 1994, we excused the Office of the Solicitor General from filing a comment,
considering that as claimed by said office in its Manifestation of 28 June 1994, respondents
were already represented by counsel.
The rest of the respondents did not file any comment on the petition.

In the resolution of 15 September 1994, we resolved to consider the comment on the

petition as the Answer, gave due course to the petition and required the parties to submit
their respective memoranda.2chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

On 22 April 1997 we ordered impleaded as party respondents the Department of Agriculture

and the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources and required the Office of the Solicitor
General to comment on their behalf. But in light of the latters motion of 9 July 1997 for an
extension of time to file the comment which would only result in further delay, we dispensed
with said comment.

After due deliberation on the pleadings filed, we resolved to dismiss this petition for want of
merit, on 22 July 1997, and assigned it to the ponente for the writing of the opinion of the
Court.

There are actually two sets of petitioners in this case. The first is composed of Alfredo Tano,
Baldomero Tano, Danilo Tano, Romualdo Tano, Teocenes Midello, Angel de Mesa, Eulogio
Tremocha, Felipe Ongonion, Jr., Andres Linijan, and Felimon de Mesa, who were criminally
charged with violating Sangguniang Panlalawigan Resolution No. 33 and Ordinance No. 2,
Series of 1993, of the Province of Palawan, in Criminal Case No. 93-05-C of the 1st Municipal
Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Palawan;3 and Robert Lim and Virginia Lim who were charged
with violating City Ordinance No. 15-92 of Puerto Princesa City and Ordinance No. 2, Series
of 1993, of the Province of Palawan before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Puerto
Princesa.4 All of them, with the exception of Teocenes Midello, Felipe Ongonion, Jr., Felimon
de Mesa, Robert Lim and Virginia Lim, are likewise the accused in Criminal Case No. 11223
for the violation of Ordinance No. 2 of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Palawan, pending
before Branch 50 of the Regional Trial Court of Palawan.5chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

The second set of petitioners is composed of the rest of the petitioners numbering seventy-
seven (77), all of whom, except the Airline Shippers Association of Palawan -- an alleged
private association of several marine merchants -- are natural persons who claim to be
fishermen.

The primary interest of the first set of petitioners is, of course, to prevent the prosecution,
trial and determination of the criminal cases until the constitutionality or legality of the
Ordinances they allegedly violated shall have been resolved. The second set of petitioners
merely claim that they being fishermen or marine merchants, they would be adversely
affected by the ordinances.

As to the first set of petitioners, this special civil for certiorari must fail on the ground of
prematurity amounting to a lack of cause of action. There is no showing that the said
petitioners, as the accused in the criminal cases, have filed motions to quash the
informations therein and that the same were denied. The ground available for such motions
is that the facts charged therein do not constitute an offense because the ordinances in
question are unconstitutional.6 It cannot then be said that the lower courts acted without or
in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion to justify recourse to the
extraordinary remedy of certiorari or prohibition. It must further be stressed that even if the
petitioners did file motions to quash, the denial thereof would not forthwith give rise to a
cause of action under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. The general rule is that where a motion
to quash is denied, the remedy therefrom is not certiorari, but for the party aggrieved
thereby to go to trial without prejudice to reiterating special defenses involved in said
motion, and if, after trial on the merits of adverse decision is rendered, to appeal therefrom
in the manner authorized by law.7 And, even where in an exceptional circumstance such
denial may be the subject of a special civil action for certiorari, a motion for reconsideration
must have to be filed to allow the court concerned an opportunity to correct its errors,
unless such motion may be dispensed with because of existing exceptional
circumstances.8 Finally, even if a motion for reconsideration has been filed and denied, the
remedy under Rule 65 is still unavailable absent any showing of the grounds provided for in
Section 1 thereof.9 For obvious reasons, the petition at bar does not, and could not have,
alleged any of such grounds.

As to the second set of petitioners, the instant petition is obviously one for DECLARATORY
RELIEF, i.e., for a declaration that the Ordinances in question are a nullity... for being
unconstitutional.10 As such, their petition must likewise fail, as this Court is not possessed of
original jurisdiction over petitions for declaratory relief even if only questions of law are
involved,11 it being settled that the Court merely exercises appellate jurisdiction over such
petitions.12chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

II

Even granting arguendo that the first set of petitioners have a cause of action ripe for the
extraordinary writ of certiorari, there is here a clear disregard of the hierarchy of courts, and
no special and important reason or exceptional or compelling circumstance has been
adduced why direct recourse to us should be allowed. While we have concurrent jurisdiction
with Regional Trial courts and with the Court of Appeals to issue writs of certiorari,
prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus and injunction, such concurrence
gives petitioners no unrestricted freedom of choice of court forum, so we held in People v.
Cuaresma:13chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

This concurrence of jurisdiction is not to be taken as according to parties seeking any of the
writs an absolute unrestrained freedom of choice of the court to which application therefor
will be directed. There is after all hierarchy of courts. That hierarchy is determinative of the
venue of appeals, and should also serve as a general determinant of the appropriate forum
for petitions for the extraordinary writs. A becoming regard for that judicial hierarchy most
certainly indicates that petitions for the issuance of extraordinary writs against first level
(inferior) courts should be filed with the Regional Trial Court, and those against the latter,
with the Court of Appeals. A direct invocation of the Supreme Courts original jurisdiction to
issue these writs should be allowed only when there are special and important reasons
therefor, clearly and specifically set out in the petition. This is established policy. It is a
policy necessary to prevent inordinate demands upon the Courts time and attention which
are better devoted to those matters within its exclusive jurisdiction, and to prevent further
over-crowding of the Courts docket.

The Court feels the need to reaffirm that policy at this time, and to enjoin strict adherence
thereto in the light of what it perceives to be a growing tendency on the part of litigants and
lawyers to have their applications for the so-called extraordinary writs, and sometimes even
their appeals, passed upon and adjudicated directly and immediately by the highest tribunal
of the land.
In Santiago v. Vasquez,14 this Court forcefully expressed that the propensity of litigants and
lawyers to disregard the hierarchy of courts must be put to a halt, not only because of the
imposition upon the precious time of this Court, but also because of the inevitable and
resultant delay, intended or otherwise, in the adjudication of the case which often has to be
remanded or referred to the lower court, the proper forum under the rules of procedure, or
as better equipped to resolve the issues since this Court is not a trier of facts. We reiterated
the judicial policy that this Court will not entertain direct resort to it unless the redress
desired cannot be obtained in the appropriate courts or where exceptional and compelling
circumstances justify availment of a remedy within and calling for the exercise of [its]
primary jurisdiction.

III

Notwithstanding the foregoing procedural obstacles against the first set of petitioners, we
opt to resolve this case on its merits considering that the lifetime of the challenged
Ordinances is about to end. Ordinance No. 15-92 of the City of Puerto Princesa is effective
only up to 1 January 1998, while Ordinance No. 2 of the Province of Palawan, enacted on 19
February 1993, is effective for only five (5) years. Besides, these Ordinances were
undoubtedly enacted in the exercise of powers under the new LGC relative to the protection
and preservation of the environment and are thus novel and of paramount importance. No
further delay then may be allowed in the resolution of the issues raised.

It is of course settled that laws (including ordinances enacted by local government units)
enjoy the presumption of constitutionality.15 To overthrow this presumption, there must be a
clear and unequivocal breach of the Constitution, not merely a doubtful or argumentative
contradiction. In short, the conflict with the Constitution must be shown beyond reasonable
doubt.16 Where doubt exists, even if well founded, there can be no finding of
unconstitutionality. To doubt is to sustain.17chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

After a scrunity of the challenged Ordinances and the provisions of the Constitution
petitioners claim to have been violated, we find petitioners contentions baseless and so hold
that the former do not suffer from any infirmity, both under the Constitution and applicable
laws.

Petitioners specifically point to Section 2, Article XII and Sections 2 and 7, Article XIII of the
Constitution as having been transgressed by the Ordinances.

The pertinent portion of Section 2 of Article XII reads:

SEC. 2. x x x

The State shall protect the nation's marine wealth in its archipelagic waters, territorial sea,
and exclusive economic zone, and reserve its use and enjoyment exclusively to Filipino
citizens.

The Congress may, by law, allow small-scale utilization of natural resources by Filipino
citizens, as well as cooperative fish farming, with priority to subsistence fishermen and
fishworkers in rivers, lakes, bays, and lagoons.

Sections 2 and 7 of Article XIII provide:

Sec. 2. The promotion of social justice shall include the commitment to create economic
opportunities based on freedom of initiative and self-reliance.

xxx

SEC. 7. The State shall protect the rights of subsistence fishermen, especially of local
communities, to the preferential use of the communal marine and fishing resources, both
inland and offshore. It shall provide support to such fishermen through appropriate
technology and research, adequate financial, production, and marketing assistance, and
other services. The State shall also protect, develop, and conserve such resources. The
protection shall extend to offshore fishing grounds of subsistence fishermen against foreign
intrusion. Fishworkers shall receive a just share from their labor in the utilization of marine
and fishing resources.

There is absolutely no showing that any of the petitioners qualifies as a subsistence or

marginal fisherman. In their petition, petitioner Airline Shippers Association of Palawan is
described as a private association composed of Marine Merchants; petitioners Robert Lim
and Virginia Lim, as merchants; while the rest of the petitioners claim to be fishermen,
without any qualification, however, as to their status.

Since the Constitution does not specifically provide a definition of the terms subsistence or
marginal fishermen,18 they should be construed in their general and ordinary sense.
A marginal fisherman is an individual engaged in fishing whose margin of return or reward in
his harvest of fish as measured by existing price levels is barely sufficient to yield a profit or
cover the cost of gathering the fish,19 while a subsistence fisherman is one whose catch
yields but the irreducible minimum for his livelihood. 20 Section 131(p) of the LGC (R.A. No.
7160) defines a marginal farmer or fisherman as an individual engaged in subsistence
farming or fishing which shall be limited to the sale, barter or exchange of agricultural or
marine products produced by himself and his immediate family. It bears repeating that
nothing in the record supports a finding that any petitioner falls within these definitions.

Besides, Section 2 of Article XII aims primarily not to bestow any right to subsistence
fishermen, but to lay stress on the duty of the State to protect the nations marine wealth.
What the provision merely recognizes is that the State may allow, by law, cooperative fish
farming, with priority to subsistence fishermen and fishworkers in rivers, lakes, bays, and
lagoons. Our survey of the statute books reveals that the only provision of law which speaks
of the preferential right of marginal fishermen is Section 149 of the LGC of 1991 which
pertinently provides:

SEC. 149. Fishery Rentals, Fees and Charges. -- x x x

(b) The sangguniang bayan may:

(1) Grant fishery privileges to erect fish corrals, oyster, mussels or other aquatic beds or
bangus fry areas, within a definite zone of the municipal waters, as determined by
it: Provided, however, That duly registered organizations and cooperatives of marginal
fishermen shall have preferential right to such fishery privileges....

In a Joint Administrative Order No. 3, dated 25 April 1996, the Secretary of the Department
of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Department of Interior and Local Government
prescribed the guidelines on the preferential treatment of small fisherfolk relative to the
fishery right mentioned in Section 149. This case, however, does not involve such fishery
right.

Anent Section 7 of Article XIII, it speaks not only of the use of communal marine and fishing
resources, but of their protection, development, and conservation. As hereafter shown, the
ordinances in question are meant precisely to protect and conserve our marine resources to
the end that their enjoyment by the people may be guaranteed not only for the present
generation, but also for the generations to come.

The so-called preferential right of subsistence or marginal fishermen to the use of marine
resources is not at all absolute. In accordance with the Regalian Doctrine, marine resources
belong to the State, and, pursuant to the first paragraph of Section 2, Article XII of the
Constitution, their exploration, development and utilization... shall be under the full control
and supervision of the State. Moreover, their mandated protection, development, and
conservation as necessarily recognized by the framers of the Constitution, imply certain
restrictions on whatever right of enjoyment there may be in favor of anyone. Thus, as to the
curtailment of the preferential treatment of marginal fisherman, the following exchange
between Commissioner Francisco Rodrigo and Commissioner Jose F.S. Bengzon, Jr., took
place at the plenary session of the Constitutional Commission:

MR. RODRIGO:

Let us discuss the implementation of this because I would not raise the hopes of our people,
and afterwards fail in the implementation. How will this be implemented? Will there be a
licensing or giving of permits so that government officials will know that one is really a
marginal fisherman? Or if policeman say that a person is not a marginal fisherman, he can
show his permit, to prove that indeed he is one.

MR. BENGZON:

Certainly, there will be some mode of licensing insofar as this is concerned and this
particular question could be tackled when we discuss the Article on Local Governments --
whether we will leave to the local governments or to Congress on how these things will be
implemented. But certainly, I think our Congressmen and our local officials will not be bereft
of ideas on how to implement this mandate.

xxx

MR. RODRIGO:

So, once one is licensed as a marginal fisherman, he can go anywhere in the

Philippines and fish in any fishing grounds.

MR. BENGZON:

Subject to whatever rules and regulations and local laws that may be passed, may be
existing or will be passed.21 (underscoring supplied for emphasis).

What must likewise be borne in mind is the state policy enshrined in the Constitution
regarding the duty of the State to protect and advance the right of the people to a balanced
and healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature. 22 On this score, in
Oposa v. Factoran,23 this Court declared:

While the right to balanced and healthful ecology is to be found under the Declaration of
Principles the State Policies and not under the Bill of Rights, it does not follow that it is less
important than any of the civil and political rights enumerated in the latter. Such a right
belongs to a different category of rights altogether for it concerns nothing less than self-
preservation and self-perpetuation - aptly and fittingly stressed by the petitioners - the
advancement of which may even be said to predate all governments and constitutions. As a
matter of fact, these basic rights need not even be written in the Constitution for they are
assumed to exist from the inception of humankind. If they are now explicitly mentioned in
the fundamental charter, it is because of the well-founded fear of its framers that unless the
rights to a balanced and healthful ecology and to health are mandated as state policies by
the Constitution itself, thereby highlighting their continuing importance and imposing upon
the state a solemn obligation to preserve the first and protect and advance the second, the
day would not be too far when all else would be lost not only for the present generation, but
also for those to come - generations which stand to inherit nothing but parched earth
incapable of sustaining life.

The right to a balanced and healthful ecology carries with it a correlative duty to refrain from
impairing the environment...

The LGC provisions invoked by private respondents merely seek to give flesh and blood to
the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology. In fact, the General Welfare
Clause, expressly mentions this right:

SEC. 16. General Welfare.-- Every local government unit shall exercise the powers expressly
granted, those necessarily implied therefrom, as well as powers necessary, appropriate, or
incidental for its efficient and effective governance, and those which are essential to the
promotion of the general welfare. Within their respective territorial jurisdictions, local
government units shall ensure and support, among other things, the preservation and
enrichment of culture, promote health and safety, enhance the right of the people to a
balanced ecology, encourage and support the development of appropriate and self-reliant
scientific and technological capabilities, improve public morals, enhance economic prosperity
and social justice, promote full employment among their residents, maintain peace and
order, and preserve the comfort and convenience of their inhabitants. (underscoring
supplied).

Moreover, Section 5(c) of the LGC explicitly mandates that the general welfare provisions of
the LGC shall be liberally interpreted to give more powers to the local government units in
accelerating economic development and upgrading the quality of life for the people of the
community.

The LGC vests municipalities with the power to grant fishery privileges in municipal waters
and to impose rentals, fees or charges therefor; to penalize, by appropriate ordinances, the
use of explosives, noxious or poisonous substances, electricity, muro-ami, and other
deleterious methods of fishing; and to prosecute any violation of the provisions of applicable
fishery laws.24 Further, the sangguniang bayan, the sangguniang panlungsod and
the sangguniang panlalawigan are directed to enact ordinances for the general welfare of
the municipality and its inhabitants, which shall include, inter alia, ordinances that [p]rotect
the environment and impose appropriate penalties for acts which endanger the environment
such as dynamite fishing and other forms of destructive fishing... and such other activities
which result in pollution, acceleration of eutrophication of rivers and lakes or of ecological
imbalance.25chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Finally, the centerpiece of LGC is the system of decentralization26 as expressly mandated by

the Constitution.27 Indispensable thereto is devolution and the LGC expressly provides that
[a]ny provision on a power of a local government unit shall be liberally interpreted in its
favor, and in case of doubt, any question thereon shall be resolved in favor of devolution of
powers and of the lower local government unit. Any fair and reasonable doubt as to the
existence of the power shall be interpreted in favor of the local government unit
concerned,28 Devolution refers to the act by which the National Government confers power
and authority upon the various local government units to perform specific functions and
responsibilities.29chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

One of the devolved powers enumerated in the section of the LGC on devolution is the
enforcement of fishery laws in municipal waters including the conservation of
mangroves.30 This necessarily includes enactment of ordinances to effectively carry out such
fishery laws within the municipal waters.

The term municipal waters, in turn, include not only streams, lakes, and tidal waters within
the municipality, not being the subject of private ownership and not comprised within the
national parks, public forest, timber lands, forest reserves, or fishery reserves, but also
marine waters included between two lines drawn perpendicularly to the general coastline
from points where the boundary lines of the municipality or city touch the sea at low tide
and a third line parallel with the general coastline and fifteen kilometers from it. 31 Under
P.D. No. 704, the marine waters included in municipal waters is limited to three nautical
miles from the general coastline using the above perpendicular lines and a third parallel line.

These fishery laws which local government units may enforce under Section 17(b), (2), (i) in
municipal waters include: (1) P.D. No. 704; (2) P.D. No. 1015 which, inter alia, authorizes
the establishment of a closed season in any Philippine water if necessary for conservation or
ecological purposes; (3) P.D. No. 1219 which provides for the exploration, exploitation,
utilization, and conservation of coral resources; (4) R.A. No. 5474, as amended by B.P. Blg.
58, which makes it unlawful for any person, association, or corporation to catch or cause to
be caught, sell, offer to sell, purchase, or have in possession any of the fish specie
called gobiidae or ipon during closed season; and (5) R.A. No. 6451 which prohibits and
punishes electrofishing, as well as various issuances of the BFAR.

To those specifically devolved insofar as the control and regulation of fishing in municipal
waters and the protection of its marine environment are concerned, must be added the
following:

1. Issuance of permits to construct fish cages within municipal waters;

2. Issuance of permits to gather aquarium fishes within municipal waters;
3. Issuance of permits to gather kapis shells within municipal waters;
4. Issuance of permits to gather/culture shelled mollusks within municipal waters;
5. Issuance of licenses to establish seaweed farms within municipal waters;
6. Issuance of licenses to establish culture pearls within municipal waters;
7. Issuance of auxiliary invoice to transport fish and fishery products; and
8. Establishment of closed season in municipal waters.
These functions are covered in the Memorandum of Agreement of 5 April 1994 between the
Department of Agriculture and the Department of Interior and Local Government.

In light then of the principles of decentralization and devolution enshrined in the LGC and
the powers granted to local government units under Section 16 (the General Welfare
Clause), and under Sections 149, 447 (a) (1) (vi), 458 (a) (1) (vi) and 468 (a) (1) (vi),
which unquestionably involve the exercise of police power, the validity of the questioned
Ordinances cannot be doubted.

Parenthetically, we wish to add that these Ordinances find full support under R.A. No. 7611,
otherwise known as the Strategic Environmental Plan (SEP) for Palawan Act, approved on 19
July 1992. This statute adopts a comprehensive framework for the sustainable development
of Palawan compatible with protecting and enhancing the natural resources and endangered
environment of the province, which shall serve to guide the local government of Palawan
and the government agencies concerned in the formulation and implementation of plans,
programs and projects affecting said province.32chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

At this time then, it would be appropriate to determine the relation between the assailed
Ordinances and the aforesaid powers of the Sangguniang Panlungsod of the City of Puerto
Princesa and the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of the Province of Palawan to protect the
environment. To begin, we ascertain the purpose of the Ordinances as set forth in the
statement of purposes or declaration of policies quoted earlier.

It is clear to the Court that both Ordinances have two principal objectives or purposes: (1)
to establish a closed season for the species of fish or aquatic animals covered therein for a
period of five years, and (2) to protect the corals of the marine waters of the City of Puerto
Princesa and the Province of Palawan from further destruction due to illegal fishing activities.

The accomplishment of the first objective is well within the devolved power to enforce
fishery laws in municipal waters, such as P.D. No. 1015, which allows the establishment of
closed seasons. The devolution of such power has been expressly confirmed in the
Memorandum of Agreement of 5 April 1994 between the Department of Agriculture and the
Department of Interior and Local Government.

The realization of the second objective falls within both the general welfare clause of the
LGC and the express mandate thereunder to cities and provinces to protect the environment
and impose appropriate penalties for acts which endanger the
environment.33chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

The destruction of the coral reefs results in serious, if not irreparable, ecological imbalance,
for coral reefs are among the natures life-support systems.34 They collect, retain, and
recycle nutrients for adjacent nearshore areas such as mangroves, seagrass beds, and reef
flats; provide food for marine plants and animals; and serve as a protective shelter for
aquatic organisms.35 It is said that [e]cologically, the reefs are to the oceans what forests
are to continents: they are shelter and breeding grounds for fish and plant species that will
disappear without them.36chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

The prohibition against catching live fish stems, in part, from the modern phenomenon of
live-fish trade which entails the catching of so-called exotic tropical species of fish not only
for aquarium use in the West, but also for the market for live banquet fish [which] is
virtually insatiable in ever more affluent Asia.37 These exotic species are coral-dwellers, and
fishermen catch them by diving in shallow water with corraline habitats and squirting sodium
cyanide poison at passing fish directly or onto coral crevices; once affected the fish are
immobilized [merely stunned] and then scooped by hand. 38 The diver then surfaces and
dumps his catch into a submerged net attached to the skiff. Twenty minutes later, the fish
can swim normally. Back on shore, they are placed in holding pens, and within a few weeks,
they expel the cyanide from their system and are ready to be hauled. Then they are placed
in saltwater tanks or packaged in plastic bags filled with seawater for shipment by air freight
to major markets for live food fish.39 While the fish are meant to survive, the opposite holds
true for their former home as [a]fter the fisherman squirts the cyanide, the first thing to
perish is the reef algae, on which fish feed. Days later, the living coral starts to expire. Soon
the reef loses its function as habitat for the fish, which eat both the algae and invertebrates
that cling to the coral. The reef becomes an underwater graveyard, its skeletal remains
brittle, bleached of all color and vulnerable to erosion from the pounding of the waves. 40 It
has been found that cyanide fishing kills most hard and soft corals within three months of
repeated application.41chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

The nexus then between the activities barred by Ordinance No. 15-92 of the City of Puerto
Princesa and the prohibited acts provided in Ordinance No. 2, Series of 1993 of the Province
of Palawan, on one hand, and the use of sodium cyanide, on the other, is painfully obvious.
In sum, the public purpose and reasonableness of the Ordinances may not then be
controverted.

As to Office Order No. 23, Series of 1993, issued by Acting City Mayor Amado L. Lucero of
the City of Puerto Princesa, we find nothing therein violative of any constitutional or
statutory provision. The Order refers to the implementation of the challenged ordinance and
is not the Mayors Permit.

The dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Josue N. Bellosillo relies upon the lack of authority on
the part of the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Puerto Princesa to enact Ordinance No. 15,
Series of 1992, on the theory that the subject thereof is within the jurisdiction and
responsibility of the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR) under P.D. No. 704,
otherwise known as the Fisheries Decree of 1975; and that, in any event, the Ordinance is
unenforceable for lack of approval by the Secretary of the Department of Natural Resources
(DNR), likewise in accordance with P.D. No. 704.

The majority is unable to accommodate this view. The jurisdiction and responsibility of the
BFAR under P. D. no. 704, over the management, conservation, development, protection,
utilization and disposition of all fishery and aquatic resources of the country is not all-
encompassing. First, Section 4 thereof excludes from such jurisdiction and responsibility
municipal waters, which shall be under the municipal or city government concerned, except
insofar as fishpens and seaweed culture in municipal in municipal centers are concerned.
This section provides, however, that all municipal or city ordinances and resolutions
affecting fishing and fisheries and any disposition thereunder shall be submitted to the
Secretary of the Department of Natural Resources for appropriate action and shall have full
force and effect only upon his approval.42chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Second, it must at once be pointed out that the BFAR is no longer under the Department of
Natural Resources (now Department of Environment and Natural Resources). Executive
Order No. 967 of 30 June 1984 transferred the BFAR from the control and supervision of the
Minister (formerly Secretary) of Natural Resources to the Ministry of Agriculture and Food
(MAF) and converted it into a mere staff agency thereof, integrating its functions with the
regional offices of the MAF.

In Executive Order No. 116 of 30 January 1987, which reorganized the MAF, the BFAR was
retained as an attached agency of the MAF. And under the Administrative Code of
1987,43 the BFAR is placed under the Title concerning the Department of
Agriculture.44chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Therefore, it is incorrect to say that the challenged Ordinance of the City of Puerto Princesa
is invalid or unenforceable because it was not approved by the Secretary of the DENR. If at
all, the approval that should be sought would be that of the Secretary of the Department of
Agriculture (not DENR) of municipal ordinances affecting fishing and fisheries in municipal
waters has been dispensed with in view of the following reasons:

(1) Section 534 (Repealing Clause) of the LGC expressly repeals or amends Section 16 and
29 of P.D. No. 70445 insofar that they are inconsistent with the provisions of the LGC.

(2) As discussed earlier, under the general welfare clause of the LGC, local government units
have the power, inter alia, to enact ordinances to enhance the right of the people to a
balanced ecology. It likewise specifically vests municipalities with the power to grant fishery
privileges in municipal waters, and impose rentals, fees or charges therefor; to penalize, by
appropriate ordinances, the use of explosives, noxious or poisonous substances,
electricity, muro-ami, and other deleterious methods of fishing; and to prosecute other
methods of fishing; and to prosecute any violation of the provisions of applicable fishing
laws.46 Finally, it imposes upon the sangguniang bayan, the sangguniang panlungsod, and
the sangguniang panlalawigan the duty to enact ordinances to [p]rotect the environment
and impose appropriate penalties for acts which endanger the environment such as
dynamite fishing and other forms of destructive fishing and such other activities which result
in pollution, acceleration of eutrophication of rivers and lakes or of ecological
imbalance.47chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

In closing, we commend the Sangguniang Panlungsod of the City of Puerto Princesa

and Sangguniang Panlalawigan of the Province of Palawan for exercising the requisite
political will to enact urgently needed legislation to protect and enhance the marine
environment, thereby sharing in the herculean task of arresting the tide of ecological
destruction. We hope that other local government units shall now be roused from their
lethargy and adopt a more vigilant stand in the battle against the decimation of our legacy
to future generations. At this time, the repercussions of any further delay in their response
may prove disastrous, if not, irreversible.

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit and the temporary
restraining order issued on 11 November 1993 is LIFTED.

No pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.
 RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CASES

PART I

RULE 1
GENERAL PROVISIONS

Section 1. Title. — These Rules shall be known as "The Rules of Procedure for Environmental
Cases."

Section 2. Scope. — These Rules shall govern the procedure in civil, criminal and special civil
actions before the Regional Trial Courts, Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts in Cities,
Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts involving enforcement or violations of
environmental and other related laws, rules and regulations such as but not limited to the following:

(a) Act No. 3572, Prohibition Against Cutting of Tindalo, Akli, and Molave Trees;

(b) P.D. No. 705, Revised Forestry Code;

(c) P.D. No. 856, Sanitation Code;

(d) P.D. No. 979, Marine Pollution Decree;

(e) P.D. No. 1067, Water Code;

(f) P.D. No. 1151, Philippine Environmental Policy of 1977;

(g) P.D. No. 1433, Plant Quarantine Law of 1978;

(h) P.D. No. 1586, Establishing an Environmental Impact Statement System Including Other
Environmental Management Related Measures and for Other Purposes;

(i) R.A. No. 3571, Prohibition Against the Cutting, Destroying or Injuring of Planted or Growing
Trees, Flowering Plants and Shrubs or Plants of Scenic Value along Public Roads, in Plazas,
Parks, School Premises or in any Other Public Ground;

(j) R.A. No. 4850, Laguna Lake Development Authority Act;

(k) R.A. No. 6969, Toxic Substances and Hazardous Waste Act;

(l) R.A. No. 7076, People’s Small-Scale Mining Act;

(m) R.A. No. 7586, National Integrated Protected Areas System Act including all laws,
decrees, orders, proclamations and issuances establishing protected areas;

(n) R.A. No. 7611, Strategic Environmental Plan for Palawan Act;

(o) R.A. No. 7942, Philippine Mining Act;

(p) R.A. No. 8371, Indigenous Peoples Rights Act;

 (q) R.A. No. 8550, Philippine Fisheries Code;

(r) R.A. No. 8749, Clean Air Act;

(s) R.A. No. 9003, Ecological Solid Waste Management Act;

(t) R.A. No. 9072, National Caves and Cave Resource Management Act;

(u) R.A. No. 9147, Wildlife Conservation and Protection Act;

(v) R.A. No. 9175, Chainsaw Act;

(w) R.A. No. 9275, Clean Water Act;

(x) R.A. No. 9483, Oil Spill Compensation Act of 2007; and

(y) Provisions in C.A. No. 141, The Public Land Act; R.A. No. 6657, Comprehensive Agrarian
Reform Law of 1988; R.A. No. 7160, Local Government Code of 1991; R.A. No. 7161, Tax
Laws Incorporated in the Revised Forestry Code and Other Environmental Laws (Amending
the NIRC); R.A. No. 7308, Seed Industry Development Act of 1992; R.A. No. 7900, High-Value
Crops Development

Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases Act; R.A. No. 8048, Coconut Preservation Act; R.A.
No. 8435, Agriculture and Fisheries Modernization Act of 1997; R.A. No. 9522, The Philippine
Archipelagic Baselines Law; R.A. No. 9593, Renewable Energy Act of 2008; R.A. No. 9637,
Philippine Biofuels Act; and other existing laws that relate to the conservation, development,
preservation, protection and utilization of the environment and natural resources.

Section 3. Objectives. - The objectives of these Rules are:

(a) To protect and advance the constitutional right of the people to a balanced and healthful
ecology;

(b) To provide a simplified, speedy and inexpensive procedure for the enforcement of
environmental rights and duties recognized under the Constitution, existing laws, rules and
regulations, and international agreements;

(c) To introduce and adopt innovations and best practices ensuring the effective enforcement
of remedies and redress for violation of environmental laws; and

(d) To enable the courts to monitor and exact compliance with orders and judgments in
environmental cases.

Section 4. Definition of Terms. -

(a) By-product or derivatives means any part taken or substance extracted from wildlife, in raw
or in processed form including stuffed animals and herbarium specimens. 1avvphi1

(b) Consent decree refers to a judicially-approved settlement between concerned parties

based on public interest and public policy to protect and preserve the environment.
 (c) Continuing mandamus is a writ issued by a court in an environmental case directing any
agency or instrumentality of the government or officer thereof to perform an act or series of
acts decreed by final judgment which shall remain effective until judgment is fully satisfied.

(d) Environmental protection order (EPO) refers to an order issued by the court directing or
enjoining any person or government agency to perform or desist from performing an act in
order to protect, preserve or rehabilitate the environment.

(e) Mineral refers to all naturally occurring inorganic substance in solid, gas, liquid, or any
intermediate state excluding energy materials such as coal, petroleum, natural gas, radioactive
materials and geothermal energy.

(f) Precautionary principle states that when human activities may lead to threats of serious and
irreversible damage to the environment that is scientifically plausible but uncertain, actions
shall be taken to avoid or diminish that threat.

(g) Strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP) refers to an action whether civil,
criminal or administrative, brought against any person, institution or any government agency or
local government unit or its officials and employees, with the intent to harass, vex, exert undue
pressure or stifle any legal recourse that such person, institution or government agency has
taken or may take in the enforcement of environmental laws, protection of the environment or
assertion of environmental rights.

(h) Wildlife means wild forms and varieties of flora and fauna, in all developmental stages
including those which are in captivity or are being bred or propagated.

PART II
CIVIL PROCEDURE

RULE 2
PLEADINGS AND PARTIES

Section 1. Pleadings and motions allowed. — The pleadings and motions that may be filed are
complaint, answer which may include compulsory counterclaim and cross-claim, motion for
intervention, motion for discovery and motion for reconsideration of the judgment.

Motion for postponement, motion for new trial and petition for relief from judgment shall be allowed in
highly meritorious cases or to prevent a manifest miscarriage of justice.

Section 2. Prohibited pleadings or motions. — The following pleadings or motions shall not be
allowed:

(a) Motion to dismiss the complaint;

(b) Motion for a bill of particulars;

(c) Motion for extension of time to file pleadings, except to file answer, the extension not to
exceed fifteen (15) days;

(d) Motion to declare the defendant in default;

 (e) Reply and rejoinder; and

(f) Third party complaint.

Section 3. Verified complaint. — The verified complaint shall contain the names of the parties, their
addresses, the cause of action and the reliefs prayed for.

The plaintiff shall attach to the verified complaint all evidence proving or supporting the cause of
action consisting of the affidavits of witnesses, documentary evidence and if possible, object
evidence. The affidavits shall be in question and answer form and shall comply with the rules of
admissibility of evidence.

The complaint shall state that it is an environmental case and the law involved. The complaint shall
also include a certification against forum shopping. If the complaint is not an environmental complaint,
the presiding judge shall refer it to the executive judge for re-raffle.

Section 4. Who may file. — Any real party in interest, including the government and juridical entities
authorized by law, may file a civil action involving the enforcement or violation of any environmental
law.

Section 5. Citizen suit. — Any Filipino citizen in representation of others, including minors or
generations yet unborn, may file an action to enforce rights or obligations under environmental laws.
Upon the filing of a citizen suit, the court shall issue an order which shall contain a brief description of
the cause of action and the reliefs prayed for, requiring all interested parties to manifest their interest
to intervene in the case within fifteen (15) days from notice thereof. The plaintiff may publish the order
once in a newspaper of a general circulation in the Philippines or furnish all affected barangays
copies of said order.

Citizen suits filed under R.A. No. 8749 and R.A. No. 9003 shall be governed by their respective
provisions.

Section 6. Service of the complaint on the government or its agencies. - Upon the filing of the
complaint, the plaintiff is required to furnish the government or the appropriate agency, although not a
party, a copy of the complaint. Proof of service upon the government or the appropriate agency shall
be attached to the complaint.

Section 7. Assignment by raffle. - If there is only one (1) designated branch in a multiple-sala court,
the executive judge shall immediately refer the case to said branch. If there are two (2) or more
designated branches, the executive judge shall conduct a special raffle on the day the complaint is
filed.

Section 8. Issuance of Temporary Environmental Protection Order (TEPO). - If it appears from the
verified complaint with a prayer for the issuance of an Environmental Protection Order (EPO) that the
matter is of extreme urgency and the applicant will suffer grave injustice and irreparable injury, the
executive judge of the multiple-sala court before raffle or the presiding judge of a single-sala court as
the case may be, may issue ex parte a TEPO effective for only seventy-two (72) hours from date of
the receipt of the TEPO by the party or person enjoined. Within said period, the court where the case
is assigned, shall conduct a summary hearing to determine whether the TEPO may be extended until
the termination of the case.
The court where the case is assigned, shall periodically monitor the existence of acts that are the
subject matter of the TEPO even if issued by the executive judge, and may lift the same at any time
as circumstances may warrant.

The applicant shall be exempted from the posting of a bond for the issuance of a TEPO.

Section 9. Action on motion for dissolution of TEPO. - The grounds for motion to dissolve a TEPO
shall be supported by affidavits of the party or person enjoined which the applicant may oppose, also
by affidavits.

The TEPO may be dissolved if it appears after hearing that its issuance or continuance would cause
irreparable damage to the party or person enjoined while the applicant may be fully compensated for
such damages as he may suffer and subject to the posting of a sufficient bond by the party or person
enjoined.

Section 10. Prohibition against temporary restraining order (TRO) and preliminary injunction. -
Except the Supreme Court, no court can issue a TRO or writ of preliminary injunction against lawful
actions of government agencies that enforce environmental laws or prevent violations thereof.

Section 11. Report on TEPO, EPO, TRO or preliminary injunction. - The judge shall report any action
taken on a TEPO, EPO, TRO or a preliminary injunction, including its modification and dissolution, to
the Supreme Court, through the Office of the Court Administrator, within ten (10) days from the action
taken.

Section 12. Payment of filing and other legal fees. - The payment of filing and other legal fees by the
plaintiff shall be deferred until after judgment unless the plaintiff is allowed to litigate as an indigent. It
shall constitute a first lien on the judgment award.

For a citizen suit, the court shall defer the payment of filing and other legal fees that shall serve as
first lien on the judgment award.

Section 13. Service of summons, orders and other court processes. - The summons, orders and
other court processes may be served by the sheriff, his deputy or other proper court officer or for
justifiable reasons, by the counsel or representative of the plaintiff or any suitable person authorized
or deputized by the court issuing the summons.

Any private person who is authorized or deputized by the court to serve summons, orders and other
court processes shall for that purpose be considered an officer of the court.

The summons shall be served on the defendant, together with a copy of an order informing all parties
that they have fifteen (15) days from the filing of an answer, within which to avail of interrogatories to
parties under Rule 25 of the Rules of Court and request for admission by adverse party under Rule
26, or at their discretion, make use of depositions under Rule 23 or other measures under Rules 27
and 28.

Should personal and substituted service fail, summons by publication shall be allowed. In the case of
juridical entities, summons by publication shall be done by indicating the names of the officers or their
duly authorized representatives.

Section 14. Verified answer. - Within fifteen (15) days from receipt of summons, the defendant shall
file a verified answer to the complaint and serve a copy thereof on the plaintiff. The defendant shall
attach affidavits of witnesses, reports, studies of experts and all evidence in support of the defense.
Affirmative and special defenses not pleaded shall be deemed waived, except lack of jurisdiction.

Cross-claims and compulsory counterclaims not asserted shall be considered barred. The answer to
counterclaims or cross-claims shall be filed and served within ten (10) days from service of the
answer in which they are pleaded.

Section 15. Effect of failure to answer. - Should the defendant fail to answer the complaint within the
period provided, the court shall declare defendant in default and upon motion of the plaintiff, shall
receive evidence ex parte and render judgment based thereon and the reliefs prayed for.

RULE 3
PRE-TRIAL

Section 1. Notice of pre-trial. - Within two (2) days from the filing of the answer to the counterclaim or
cross-claim, if any, the branch clerk of court shall issue a notice of the pre-trial to be held not later
than one (1) month from the filing of the last pleading.

The court shall schedule the pre-trial and set as many pre-trial conferences as may be necessary
within a period of two (2) months counted from the date of the first pre-trial conference.

Section 2. Pre-trial brief. - At least three (3) days before the pretrial, the parties shall submit pre-trial
briefs containing the following:

(a) A statement of their willingness to enter into an amicable settlement indicating the desired
terms thereof or to submit the case to any of the alternative modes of dispute resolution;

(b) A summary of admitted facts and proposed stipulation of facts;

(c) The legal and factual issues to be tried or resolved. For each factual issue, the parties shall
state all evidence to support their positions thereon. For each legal issue, parties shall state
the applicable law and jurisprudence supporting their respective positions thereon;

(d) The documents or exhibits to be presented, including depositions, answers to

interrogatories and answers to written request for admission by adverse party, stating the
purpose thereof;

(e) A manifestation of their having availed of discovery procedures or their intention to avail
themselves of referral to a commissioner or panel of experts;

(f) The number and names of the witnesses and the substance of their affidavits;

(g) Clarificatory questions from the parties; and

(h) List of cases arising out of the same facts pending before other courts or administrative
agencies. Failure to comply with the required contents of a pre-trial brief may be a ground for
contempt.

Failure to file the pre-trial brief shall have the same effect as failure to appear at the pre-trial.

Section 3. Referral to mediation. - At the start of the pre-trial conference, the court shall inquire from
the parties if they have settled the dispute; otherwise, the court shall immediately refer the parties or
their counsel, if authorized by their clients, to the Philippine Mediation Center (PMC) unit for purposes
of mediation. If not available, the court shall refer the case to the clerk of court or legal researcher for
mediation.

Mediation must be conducted within a non-extendible period of thirty (30) days from receipt of notice
of referral to mediation.

The mediation report must be submitted within ten (10) days from the expiration of the 30-day period.

Section 4. Preliminary conference. - If mediation fails, the court will schedule the continuance of the
pre-trial. Before the scheduled date of continuance, the court may refer the case to the branch clerk
of court for a preliminary conference for the following purposes:

(a) To assist the parties in reaching a settlement;

(b) To mark the documents or exhibits to be presented by the parties and copies thereof to be
attached to the records after comparison with the originals;

(c) To ascertain from the parties the undisputed facts and admissions on the genuineness and
due execution of the documents marked as exhibits;

(d) To require the parties to submit the depositions taken under Rule 23 of the Rules of Court,
the answers to written interrogatories under Rule 25, and the answers to request for
admissions by the adverse party under Rule 26;

(e) To require the production of documents or things requested by a party under Rule 27 and
the results of the physical and mental examination of persons under Rule 28;

(f) To consider such other matters as may aid in its prompt disposition;

(g) To record the proceedings in the "Minutes of Preliminary Conference" to be signed by both
parties or their counsels;

(h) To mark the affidavits of witnesses which shall be in question and answer form and shall
constitute the direct examination of the witnesses; and

(i) To attach the minutes together with the marked exhibits before the pre-trial proper.

The parties or their counsel must submit to the branch clerk of court the names, addresses and
contact numbers of the affiants.

During the preliminary conference, the branch clerk of court shall also require the parties to submit
the depositions taken under Rule 23 of the Rules of Court, the answers to written interrogatories
under Rule 25 and the answers to request for admissions by the adverse party under Rule 26. The
branch clerk of court may also require the production of documents or things requested by a party
under Rule 27 and the results of the physical and mental examination of persons under Rule 28.

Section 5. Pre-trial conference; consent decree. - The judge shall put the parties and their counsels
under oath, and they shall remain under oath in all pre-trial conferences.
The judge shall exert best efforts to persuade the parties to arrive at a settlement of the dispute. The
judge may issue a consent decree approving the agreement between the parties in accordance with
law, morals, public order and public policy to protect the right of the people to a balanced and
healthful ecology.

Evidence not presented during the pre-trial, except newly-discovered evidence, shall be deemed
waived.

Section 6. Failure to settle. - If there is no full settlement, the judge shall:

(a) Adopt the minutes of the preliminary conference as part of the pre-trial proceedings and
confirm the markings of exhibits or substituted photocopies and admissions on the
genuineness and due execution of documents;

(b) Determine if there are cases arising out of the same facts pending before other courts and
order its consolidation if warranted;

(c) Determine if the pleadings are in order and if not, order the amendments if necessary;

(d) Determine if interlocutory issues are involved and resolve the same;

(e) Consider the adding or dropping of parties;

(f) Scrutinize every single allegation of the complaint, answer and other pleadings and
attachments thereto, and the contents of documents and all other evidence identified and pre-
marked during pre-trial in determining further admissions;

(g) Obtain admissions based on the affidavits of witnesses and evidence attached to the
pleadings or submitted during pre-trial;

(h) Define and simplify the factual and legal issues arising from the pleadings and evidence.
Uncontroverted issues and frivolous claims or defenses should be eliminated;

(i) Discuss the propriety of rendering a summary judgment or a judgment based on the
pleadings, evidence and admissions made during pre-trial;

(j) Observe the Most Important Witness Rule in limiting the number of witnesses, determining
the facts to be proved by each witness and fixing the approximate number of hours per
witness;

(k) Encourage referral of the case to a trial by commissioner under Rule 32 of the Rules of
Court or to a mediator or arbitrator under any of the alternative modes of dispute resolution
governed by the Special Rules of Court on Alternative Dispute Resolution;

(l) Determine the necessity of engaging the services of a qualified expert as a friend of the
court (amicus curiae); and

(m) Ask parties to agree on the specific trial dates for continuous trial, comply with the one-day
examination of witness rule, adhere to the case flow chart determined by the court which shall
contain the different stages of the proceedings up to the promulgation of the decision and use
the time frame for each stage in setting the trial dates.
Section 7. Effect of failure to appear at pre-trial. - The court shall not dismiss the complaint, except
upon repeated and unjustified failure of the plaintiff to appear. The dismissal shall be without
prejudice, and the court may proceed with the counterclaim.

If the defendant fails to appear at the pre-trial, the court shall receive evidence ex parte.

Section 8. Minutes of pre-trial. - The minutes of each pre-trial conference shall contain matters taken
up therein, more particularly admissions of facts and exhibits, and shall be signed by the parties and
their counsel.

Section 9. Pre-trial order. - Within ten (10) days after the termination of the pre-trial, the court shall
issue a pre-trial order setting forth the actions taken during the pre-trial conference, the facts
stipulated, the admissions made, the evidence marked, the number of witnesses to be presented and
the schedule of trial. Said order shall bind the parties, limit the trial to matters not disposed of and
control the course of action during the trial.

Section 10. Efforts to settle. - The court shall endeavor to make the parties agree to compromise or
settle in accordance with law at any stage of the proceedings before rendition of judgment.

RULE 4
TRIAL

Section 1. Continuous trial. - The judge shall conduct continuous trial which shall not exceed two (2)
months from the date of the issuance of the pre-trial order.

Before the expiration of the two-month period, the judge may ask the Supreme Court for the
extension of the trial period for justifiable cause.

Section 2. Affidavits in lieu of direct examination. - In lieu of direct examination, affidavits marked
during the pre-trial shall be presented as direct examination of affiants subject to cross-

examination by the adverse party.

Section 3. One-day examination of witness rule. - The court shall strictly adhere to the rule that a
witness has to be fully examined in one (1) day, subject to the court’s discretion of extending the
examination for justifiable reason. After the presentation of the last witness, only oral offer of evidence
shall be allowed, and the opposing party shall immediately interpose his objections. The judge shall
forthwith rule on the offer of evidence in open court.

Section 4. Submission of case for decision; filing of memoranda. - After the last party has rested its
case, the court shall issue an order submitting the case for decision.

The court may require the parties to submit their respective memoranda, if possible in electronic form,
within a non-extendible period of thirty (30) days from the date the case is submitted for decision.

The court shall have a period of sixty (60) days to decide the case from the date the case is submitted
for decision.

Section 5. Period to try and decide. - The court shall have a period of one (1) year from the filing of
the complaint to try and decide the case. Before the expiration of the one-year period, the court may
petition the Supreme Court for the extension of the period for justifiable cause.
The court shall prioritize the adjudication of environmental cases.

RULE 5
JUDGMENT AND EXECUTION

Section 1. Reliefs in a citizen suit. - If warranted, the court may grant to the plaintiff proper reliefs
which shall include the protection, preservation or rehabilitation of the environment and the payment
of attorney’s fees, costs of suit and other litigation expenses. It may also require the violator to submit
a program of rehabilitation or restoration of the environment, the costs of which shall be borne by the
violator, or to contribute to a special trust fund for that purpose subject to the control of the court.

Section 2. Judgment not stayed by appeal. - Any judgment directing the performance of acts for the
protection, preservation or rehabilitation of the environment shall be executory pending appeal unless
restrained by the appellate court.

Section 3. Permanent EPO; writ of continuing mandamus. - In the judgment, the court may convert
the TEPO to a permanent EPO or issue a writ of continuing mandamus directing the performance of
acts which shall be effective until the judgment is fully satisfied.

The court may, by itself or through the appropriate government agency, monitor the execution of the
judgment and require the party concerned to submit written reports on a quarterly basis or sooner as
may be necessary, detailing the progress of the execution and satisfaction of the judgment. The other
party may, at its option, submit its comments or observations on the execution of the judgment.

Section 4. Monitoring of compliance with judgment and orders of the court by a commissioner. - The
court may motu proprio, or upon motion of the prevailing party, order that the enforcement of the
judgment or order be referred to a commissioner to be appointed by the court. The commissioner
shall file with the court written progress reports on a quarterly basis or more frequently when
necessary.

Section 5. Return of writ of execution. - The process of execution shall terminate upon a sufficient
showing that the decision or order has been implemented to the satisfaction of the court in
accordance with Section 14, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court.

RULE 6
STRATEGIC LAWSUIT AGAINST PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

Section 1. Strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP). - A legal action filed to harass, vex,
exert undue pressure or stifle any legal recourse that any person, institution or the government has
taken or may take in the enforcement of environmental laws, protection of the environment or
assertion of environmental rights shall be treated as a SLAPP and shall be governed by these Rules.

Section 2. SLAPP as a defense; how alleged. - In a SLAPP filed against a person involved in the
enforcement of environmental laws, protection of the environment, or assertion of environmental
rights, the defendant may file an answer interposing as a defense that the case is a SLAPP and shall
be supported by documents, affidavits, papers and other evidence; and, by way of counterclaim, pray
for damages, attorney’s fees and costs of suit.

The court shall direct the plaintiff or adverse party to file an opposition showing the suit is not a
SLAPP, attaching evidence in support thereof, within a non-extendible period of five (5) days from
receipt of notice that an answer has been filed.
The defense of a SLAPP shall be set for hearing by the court after issuance of the order to file an
opposition within fifteen (15) days from filing of the comment or the lapse of the period.

Section 3. Summary hearing. - The hearing on the defense of a SLAPP shall be summary in nature.
The parties must submit all available evidence in support of their respective positions. The party
seeking the dismissal of the case must prove by substantial evidence that his act for the enforcement
of environmental law is a legitimate action for the protection, preservation and rehabilitation of the
environment. The party filing the action assailed as a SLAPP shall prove by preponderance of
evidence that the action is not a SLAPP and is a valid claim.

Section 4. Resolution of the defense of a SLAPP. - The affirmative defense of a SLAPP shall be
resolved within thirty (30) days after the summary hearing. If the court dismisses the action, the court
may award damages, attorney’s fees and costs of suit under a counterclaim if such has been filed.
The dismissal shall be with prejudice.

If the court rejects the defense of a SLAPP, the evidence adduced during the summary hearing shall
be treated as evidence of the parties on the merits of the case. The action shall proceed in
accordance with the Rules of Court.

PART III
SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS

RULE 7
WRIT OF KALIKASAN

Section 1. Nature of the writ. - The writ is a remedy available to a natural or juridical person, entity
authorized by law, people’s organization, non-governmental organization, or any public interest group
accredited by or registered with any government agency, on behalf of persons whose constitutional
right to a balanced and healthful ecology is violated, or threatened with violation by an unlawful act or
omission of a public official or employee, or private individual or entity, involving environmental
damage of such magnitude as to prejudice the life, health or property of inhabitants in two or more
cities or provinces.

Section 2. Contents of the petition. - The verified petition shall contain the following:

(a) The personal circumstances of the petitioner;

(b) The name and personal circumstances of the respondent or if the name and personal
circumstances are unknown and uncertain, the respondent may be described by an assumed
appellation;

(c) The environmental law, rule or regulation violated or threatened to be violated, the act or
omission complained of, and the environmental damage of such magnitude as to prejudice the
life, health or property of inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces.

(d) All relevant and material evidence consisting of the affidavits of witnesses, documentary
evidence, scientific or other expert studies, and if possible, object evidence;

(e) The certification of petitioner under oath that: (1) petitioner has not commenced any action
or filed any claim involving the same issues in any court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency, and
no such other action or claim is pending therein; (2) if there is such other pending action or
claim, a complete statement of its present status; (3) if petitioner should learn that the same or
 similar action or claim has been filed or is pending, petitioner shall report to the court that fact
within five (5) days therefrom; and

(f) The reliefs prayed for which may include a prayer for the issuance of a TEPO.

Section 3. Where to file. - The petition shall be filed with the Supreme Court or with any of the
stations of the Court of Appeals.

Section 4. No docket fees. - The petitioner shall be exempt from the payment of docket

fees.

Section 5. Issuance of the writ. - Within three (3) days from the date of filing of the petition, if the
petition is sufficient in form and substance, the court shall give an order: (a) issuing the writ; and (b)
requiring the respondent to file a verified return as provided in Section 8 of this Rule. The clerk of
court shall forthwith issue the writ under the seal of the court including the issuance of a cease and
desist order and other temporary reliefs effective until further order.

Section 6. How the writ is served. - The writ shall be served upon the respondent by a court officer or
any person deputized by the court, who shall retain a copy on which to make a return of service. In
case the writ cannot be served personally, the rule on substituted service shall apply.

Section 7. Penalty for refusing to issue or serve the writ. - A clerk of court who unduly delays or
refuses to issue the writ after its allowance or a court officer or deputized person who unduly delays
or refuses to serve the same shall be punished by the court for contempt without prejudice to other
civil, criminal or administrative actions.

Section 8. Return of respondent; contents. - Within a non-extendible period of ten (10) days after
service of the writ, the respondent shall file a verified return which shall contain all defenses to show
that respondent did not violate or threaten to violate, or allow the violation of any environmental law,
rule or regulation or commit any act resulting to environmental damage of such magnitude as to
prejudice the life, health or property of inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces.

All defenses not raised in the return shall be deemed waived.

The return shall include affidavits of witnesses, documentary evidence, scientific or other expert
studies, and if possible, object evidence, in support of the defense of the respondent.

A general denial of allegations in the petition shall be considered as an admission thereof.

Section 9. Prohibited pleadings and motions. - The following pleadings and motions are prohibited:

(a) Motion to dismiss;

(b) Motion for extension of time to file return;

(c) Motion for postponement;

(d) Motion for a bill of particulars;

(e) Counterclaim or cross-claim;

 (f) Third-party complaint;

(g) Reply; and

(h) Motion to declare respondent in default.

Section 10. Effect of failure to file return. - In case the respondent fails to file a return, the court shall
proceed to hear the petition ex parte.

Section 11. Hearing. - Upon receipt of the return of the respondent, the court may call a preliminary
conference to simplify the issues, determine the possibility of obtaining stipulations or admissions
from the parties, and set the petition for hearing.

The hearing including the preliminary conference shall not extend beyond sixty (60) days and shall be
given the same priority as petitions for the writs of habeas corpus, amparo and habeas data.

Section 12. Discovery Measures. - A party may file a verified motion for the following reliefs:

(a) Ocular Inspection; order — The motion must show that an ocular inspection order is
necessary to establish the magnitude of the violation or the threat as to prejudice the life,
health or property of inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces. It shall state in detail the
place or places to be inspected. It shall be supported by affidavits of witnesses having
personal knowledge of the violation or threatened violation of environmental law.

After hearing, the court may order any person in possession or control of a designated land or
other property to permit entry for the purpose of inspecting or

photographing the property or any relevant object or operation thereon.

The order shall specify the person or persons authorized to make the inspection and the date,
time, place and manner of making the inspection and may prescribe other conditions to protect
the constitutional rights of all parties.

(b) Production or inspection of documents or things; order – The motion must show that a
production order is necessary to establish the magnitude of the violation or the threat as to
prejudice the life, health or property of inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces.

After hearing, the court may order any person in possession, custody or control of any
designated documents, papers, books, accounts, letters, photographs, objects or tangible
things, or objects in digitized or electronic form, which constitute or contain evidence relevant
to the petition or the return, to produce and permit their inspection, copying or photographing
by or on behalf of the movant.

The production order shall specify the person or persons authorized to make the production and the
date, time, place and manner of making the inspection or production and may prescribe other
conditions to protect the constitutional rights of all parties.

Section 13. Contempt. - The court may after hearing punish the respondent who refuses or unduly
delays the filing of a return, or who makes a false return, or any person who disobeys or resists a
lawful process or order of the court for indirect contempt under Rule 71 of the Rules of Court.
Section 14. Submission of case for decision; filing of memoranda. - After hearing, the court shall
issue an order submitting the case for decision. The court may require the filing of memoranda and if
possible, in its electronic form, within a non-extendible period of thirty (30) days from the date the
petition is submitted for decision.

Section 15. Judgment. - Within sixty (60) days from the time the petition is submitted for decision, the
court shall render judgment granting or denying the privilege of the writ of kalikasan.

The reliefs that may be granted under the writ are the following:

(a) Directing respondent to permanently cease and desist from committing acts or neglecting
the performance of a duty in violation of environmental laws resulting in environmental
destruction or damage;

(b) Directing the respondent public official, government agency, private person or entity to
protect, preserve, rehabilitate or restore the environment;

(c) Directing the respondent public official, government agency, private person or entity to
monitor strict compliance with the decision and orders of the court;

(d) Directing the respondent public official, government agency, or private person or entity to
make periodic reports on the execution of the final judgment; and

(e) Such other reliefs which relate to the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology
or to the protection, preservation, rehabilitation or restoration of the

environment, except the award of damages to individual petitioners.

Section 16. Appeal. - Within fifteen (15) days from the date of notice of the adverse judgment or
denial of motion for reconsideration, any party may appeal to the Supreme Court under Rule 45 of the
Rules of Court. The appeal may raise questions of fact.

Section 17. Institution of separate actions. - The filing of a petition for the issuance of the writ of
kalikasan shall not preclude the filing of separate civil, criminal or administrative actions.

RULE 8
WRIT OF CONTINUING MANDAMUS

Section 1. Petition for continuing mandamus. - When any agency or instrumentality of the
government or officer thereof unlawfully neglects the performance of an act which the law specifically
enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust or station in connection with the enforcement or
violation of an environmental law rule or regulation or a right therein, or unlawfully excludes another
from the use or enjoyment of such right and there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in
the ordinary course of law, the person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper
court, alleging the facts with certainty, attaching thereto supporting evidence, specifying that the
petition concerns an environmental law, rule or regulation, and praying that judgment be rendered
commanding the respondent to do an act or series of acts until the judgment is fully satisfied, and to
pay damages sustained by the petitioner by reason of the malicious neglect to perform the duties of
the respondent, under the law, rules or regulations. The petition shall also contain a sworn
certification of non-forum shopping.
Section 2. Where to file the petition. - The petition shall be filed with the Regional Trial Court
exercising jurisdiction over the territory where the actionable neglect or omission occurred or with the
Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court.

Section 3. No docket fees. - The petitioner shall be exempt from the payment of docket fees.

Section 4. Order to comment. - If the petition is sufficient in form and substance, the court shall issue
the writ and require the respondent to comment on the petition within ten (10) days from receipt of a
copy thereof. Such order shall be served on the respondents in such manner as the court may direct,
together with a copy of the petition and any annexes thereto.

Section 5. Expediting proceedings; TEPO. - The court in which the petition is filed may issue such
orders to expedite the proceedings, and it may also grant a TEPO for the preservation of the rights of
the parties pending such proceedings.

Section 6. Proceedings after comment is filed. - After the comment is filed or the time for the filing
thereof has expired, the court may hear the case which shall be summary in nature or require the
parties to submit memoranda. The petition shall be resolved without delay within sixty (60) days from
the date of the submission of the petition for resolution.

Section 7. Judgment. - If warranted, the court shall grant the privilege of the writ of continuing
mandamus requiring respondent to perform an act or series of acts until the judgment is fully satisfied
and to grant such other reliefs as may be warranted resulting from the wrongful or illegal acts of the
respondent. The court shall require the respondent to submit periodic reports detailing the progress
and execution of the judgment, and the court may, by itself or through a commissioner or the
appropriate government agency, evaluate and monitor compliance. The petitioner may submit its
comments or observations on the execution of the judgment.

Section 8. Return of the writ. - The periodic reports submitted by the respondent detailing compliance
with the judgment shall be contained in partial returns of the writ.

Upon full satisfaction of the judgment, a final return of the writ shall be made to the court by the
respondent. If the court finds that the judgment has been fully implemented, the satisfaction of
judgment shall be entered in the court docket.

PART IV
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

RULE 9
PROSECUTION OF OFFENSES

Section 1. Who may file. - Any offended party, peace officer or any public officer charged with the
enforcement of an environmental law may file a complaint before the proper officer in accordance
with the Rules of Court.

Section 2. Filing of the information. - An information, charging a person with a violation of an

environmental law and subscribed by the prosecutor, shall be filed with the court.

Section 3. Special prosecutor. - In criminal cases, where there is no private offended party, a counsel
whose services are offered by any person or organization may be allowed by the court as special
prosecutor, with the consent of and subject to the control and supervision of the public prosecutor.
 RULE 10
PROSECUTION OF CIVIL ACTIONS

Section 1. Institution of criminal and civil actions. - When a criminal action is instituted, the civil action
for the recovery of civil liability arising from the offense charged, shall be deemed instituted with the
criminal action unless the complainant waives the civil action, reserves the right to institute it
separately or institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action.

Unless the civil action has been instituted prior to the criminal action, the reservation of the right to
institute separately the civil action shall be made during arraignment.

In case civil liability is imposed or damages are awarded, the filing and other legal fees shall be
imposed on said award in accordance with Rule 141 of the Rules of Court, and the fees shall
constitute a first lien on the judgment award. The damages awarded in cases where there is no
private offended party, less the filing fees, shall accrue to the funds of the agency charged with the
implementation of the environmental law violated. The award shall be used for the restoration and
rehabilitation of the environment adversely affected.

RULE 11
ARREST

Section 1. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. - A peace officer or an individual deputized by the
proper government agency may, without a warrant, arrest a person:

(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing or
is attempting to commit an offense; or

(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.
Individuals deputized by the proper government agency who are enforcing environmental laws
shall enjoy the presumption of regularity under Section 3(m), Rule 131 of the Rules of Court
when effecting arrests for violations of environmental laws.

Section 2. Warrant of arrest. - All warrants of arrest issued by the court shall be accompanied by a
certified true copy of the information filed with the issuing court.

RULE 12
CUSTODY AND DISPOSITION OF SEIZED ITEMS, EQUIPMENT,
PARAPHERNALIA, CONVEYANCES AND INSTRUMENTS

Section 1. Custody and disposition of seized items. - The custody and disposition of seized items
shall be in accordance with the applicable laws or rules promulgated by the concerned government
agency.

Section 2. Procedure. - In the absence of applicable laws or rules promulgated by the concerned
government agency, the following procedure shall be observed:

(a) The apprehending officer having initial custody and control of the seized items, equipment,
paraphernalia, conveyances and instruments shall physically inventory and whenever
practicable, photograph the same in the presence of the person from whom such items were
seized.
 (b) Thereafter, the apprehending officer shall submit to the issuing court the return of the
search warrant within five (5) days from date of seizure or in case of warrantless arrest, submit
within five (5) days from date of seizure, the inventory report, compliance report, photographs,
representative samples and other pertinent documents to the public prosecutor for appropriate
action.

(c) Upon motion by any interested party, the court may direct the auction sale of seized items,
equipment, paraphernalia, tools or instruments of the crime. The court shall, after hearing, fix
the minimum bid price based on the recommendation of the concerned government agency.
The sheriff shall conduct the auction.

(d) The auction sale shall be with notice to the accused, the person from whom the items were
seized, or the owner thereof and the concerned government agency.

(e) The notice of auction shall be posted in three conspicuous places in the city or municipality
where the items, equipment, paraphernalia, tools or instruments of the crime were seized.

(f) The proceeds shall be held in trust and deposited with the government depository bank for
disposition according to the judgment.

RULE 13
PROVISIONAL REMEDIES

Section 1. Attachment in environmental cases. - The provisional remedy of attachment under Rule
127 of the Rules of Court may be availed of in environmental cases.

Section 2. Environmental Protection Order (EPO); Temporary Environmental Protection Order

(TEPO) in criminal cases. - The procedure for and issuance of EPO and TEPO shall be governed by
Rule 2 of these Rules.

RULE 14
BAIL

Section 1. Bail, where filed. - Bail in the amount fixed may be filed with the court where the case is
pending, or in the absence or unavailability of the judge thereof, with any regional trial judge,
metropolitan trial judge, municipal trial judge or municipal circuit trial judge in the province, city or
municipality. If the accused is arrested in a province, city or municipality other than where the case is
pending, bail may also be filed with any Regional Trial Court of said place, or if no judge thereof is
available, with any metropolitan trial judge, municipal trial judge or municipal circuit trial judge therein.
If the court grants bail, the court may issue a hold-departure order in appropriate cases.

Section 2. Duties of the court. - Before granting the application for bail, the judge must read the
information in a language known to and understood by the accused and require the accused to sign a
written undertaking, as follows:

(a) To appear before the court that issued the warrant of arrest for arraignment purposes on
the date scheduled, and if the accused fails to appear without justification on the date of
arraignment, accused waives the reading of the information and authorizes the court to enter a
plea of not guilty on behalf of the accused and to set the case for trial;

(b) To appear whenever required by the court where the case is pending; and
 (c) To waive the right of the accused to be present at the trial, and upon failure of the accused
to appear without justification and despite due notice, the trial may proceed in absentia.

RULE 15
ARRAIGNMENT AND PLEA

Section 1. Arraignment. - The court shall set the arraignment of the accused within fifteen (15) days
from the time it acquires jurisdiction over the accused, with notice to the public prosecutor and
offended party or concerned government agency that it will entertain plea-bargaining on the date of
the arraignment.

Section 2. Plea-bargaining. - On the scheduled date of arraignment, the court shall consider plea-
bargaining arrangements. Where the prosecution and offended party or concerned government
agency agree to the plea offered by the accused, the court shall:

(a) Issue an order which contains the plea-bargaining arrived at;

(b) Proceed to receive evidence on the civil aspect of the case, if any; and

(c) Render and promulgate judgment of conviction, including the civil liability for damages.

RULE 16
PRE-TRIAL

Section 1. Setting of pre-trial conference. - After the arraignment, the court shall set the pre-trial
conference within thirty (30) days. It may refer the case to the branch clerk of court, if warranted, for a
preliminary conference to be set at least three (3) days prior to the pre-trial.

Section 2. Preliminary conference. - The preliminary conference shall be for the following purposes:

(a) To assist the parties in reaching a settlement of the civil aspect of the case;

(b) To mark the documents to be presented as exhibits;

(c) To attach copies thereof to the records after comparison with the originals;

(d) To ascertain from the parties the undisputed facts and admissions on the genuineness and
due execution of documents marked as exhibits;

(e) To consider such other matters as may aid in the prompt disposition of the case;

(f) To record the proceedings during the preliminary conference in the Minutes of Preliminary
Conference to be signed by the parties and counsel;

(g) To mark the affidavits of witnesses which shall be in question and answer form and shall
constitute the direct examination of the witnesses; and

(h) To attach the Minutes and marked exhibits to the case record before the pre-trial proper.
The parties or their counsel must submit to the branch clerk of court the names, addresses and
contact numbers of the affiants.
Section 3. Pre-trial duty of the judge. - During the pre-trial, the court shall:

(a) Place the parties and their counsels under oath;

(b) Adopt the minutes of the preliminary conference as part of the pre-trial proceedings,
confirm markings of exhibits or substituted photocopies and admissions on the genuineness
and due execution of documents, and list object and testimonial evidence;

(c) Scrutinize the information and the statements in the affidavits and other documents which
form part of the record of the preliminary investigation together with other documents identified
and marked as exhibits to determine further admissions of facts as to:

i. The court’s territorial jurisdiction relative to the offense(s) charged;

ii. Qualification of expert witnesses; and

iii. Amount of damages;

(d) Define factual and legal issues;

(e) Ask parties to agree on the specific trial dates and adhere to the flow chart determined by
the court which shall contain the time frames for the different stages of the proceeding up to
promulgation of decision;

(f) Require the parties to submit to the branch clerk of court the names, addresses and contact
numbers of witnesses that need to be summoned by subpoena; and

(g) Consider modification of order of trial if the accused admits the charge but interposes a
lawful defense.

Section 4. Manner of questioning. - All questions or statements must be directed to the court.

Section 5. Agreements or admissions. - All agreements or admissions made or entered during the
pre-trial conference shall be reduced in writing and signed by the accused and counsel; otherwise,
they cannot be used against the accused. The agreements covering the matters referred to in Section
1, Rule 118 of the Rules of Court shall be approved by the court.

Section 6. Record of proceedings. - All proceedings during the pre-trial shall be recorded, the
transcripts prepared and the minutes signed by the parties or their counsels.

Section 7. Pre-trial order. - The court shall issue a pre-trial order within ten (10) days after the
termination of the pre-trial, setting forth the actions taken during the pre-trial conference, the facts
stipulated, the admissions made, evidence marked, the number of witnesses to be presented and the
schedule of trial. The order shall bind the parties and control the course of action during the trial.

RULE 17
TRIAL

Section 1. Continuous trial. - The court shall endeavor to conduct continuous trial which shall not
exceed three (3) months from the date of the issuance of the pre-trial order.
Section 2. Affidavit in lieu of direct examination. - Affidavit in lieu of direct examination shall be used,
subject to cross-examination and the right to object to inadmissible portions of the affidavit.

Section 3. Submission of memoranda. - The court may require the parties to submit their respective
memoranda and if possible, in electronic form, within a non-extendible period of thirty (30) days from
the date the case is submitted for decision.

With or without any memoranda filed, the court shall have a period of sixty (60) days to decide the
case counted from the last day of the 30-day period to file the memoranda.

Section 4. Disposition period. - The court shall dispose the case within a period of ten (10) months
from the date of arraignment.

Section 5. Pro bono lawyers. - If the accused cannot afford the services of counsel or there is no
available public attorney, the court shall require the Integrated Bar of the Philippines to provide pro
bono lawyers for the accused.

RULE 18
SUBSIDIARY LIABILITY

Section 1. Subsidiary liability. - In case of conviction of the accused and subsidiary liability is allowed
by law, the court may, by motion of the person entitled to recover under judgment, enforce such
subsidiary liability against a person or corporation subsidiary liable under Article 102 and Article 103
of the Revised Penal Code.

RULE 19
STRATEGIC LAWSUIT AGAINST PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN CRIMINAL CASES

Section 1. Motion to dismiss. - Upon the filing of an information in court and before arraignment, the
accused may file a motion to dismiss on the ground that the criminal action is a SLAPP.

Section 2. Summary hearing. - The hearing on the defense of a SLAPP shall be summary in nature.
The parties must submit all the available evidence in support of their respective positions. The party
seeking the dismissal of the case must prove by substantial evidence that his acts for the
enforcement of environmental law is a legitimate action for the protection, preservation and
rehabilitation of the environment. The party filing the action assailed as a SLAPP shall prove by
preponderance of evidence that the action is not a SLAPP.

Section 3. Resolution. - The court shall grant the motion if the accused establishes in the summary
hearing that the criminal case has been filed with intent to harass, vex, exert undue pressure or stifle
any legal recourse that any person, institution or the government has taken or may take in the
enforcement of environmental laws, protection of the environment or assertion of environmental
rights.

If the court denies the motion, the court shall immediately proceed with the arraignment of the
accused.

PART V
EVIDENCE
 RULE 20
PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE

Section 1. Applicability. - When there is a lack of full scientific certainty in establishing a causal link
between human activity and environmental effect, the court shall apply the precautionary principle in
resolving the case before it.

The constitutional right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology shall be given the benefit of
the doubt.

Section 2. Standards for application. - In applying the precautionary principle, the following factors,
among others, may be considered: (1) threats to human life or health; (2) inequity to present or future
generations; or (3) prejudice to the environment without legal consideration of the environmental
rights of those affected.

RULE 21
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE

Section 1. Photographic, video and similar evidence. - Photographs, videos and similar evidence of
events, acts, transactions of wildlife, wildlife by-products or derivatives, forest products or mineral
resources subject of a case shall be admissible when authenticated by the person who took the
same, by some other person present when said evidence was taken, or by any other person
competent to testify on the accuracy thereof.

Section 2. Entries in official records. - Entries in official records made in the performance of his duty
by a public officer of the Philippines, or by a person in performance of a duty specially enjoined by
law, are prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated.

RULE 22
FINAL PROVISIONS

Section 1. Effectivity. - These Rules shall take effect within fifteen (15) days following publication
once in a newspaper of general circulation.

Section 2. Application of the Rules of Court. - The Rules of Court shall apply in a suppletory manner,
except as otherwise provided herein.
 EN BANC

[G.R. No. 194239. June 16, 2015.]

WEST TOWER CONDOMINIUM CORPORATION, on behalf of the Residents of West Tower Condominium and in representation of Barangay Bangkal, and
others, including minors and generations yet unborn, petitioners, vs. FIRST PHILIPPINE INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION, FIRST GEN CORPORATION and
their RESPECTIVE BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND OFFICERS, JOHN DOES, and RICHARD DOES, respondents.

DECISION

VELASCO, JR. , J p:

Nature of the Case

Before the Court is the Petition for the Issuance of a Writ of Kalikasan filed following the leak in the oil
pipeline owned by First Philippine Industrial Corporation (FPIC) in Makati City.
The Facts
Respondent FPIC operates two pipelines since 1969, viz.: (1) the White Oil Pipeline (WOPL) System,
which covers a 117-kilometer stretch from Batangas to the Pandacan Terminal in Manila and transports diesel,
gasoline, jet fuel and kerosene; and (b) the Black Oil Pipeline (BOPL) System, which extends 105 kilometers and
transports bunker fuel from Batangas to a depot in Sucat, Parañaque. These systems transport nearly 60% of the
petroleum requirements of Metro Manila and parts of the provinces of Bulacan, Laguna, and Rizal.
The two pipelines were supposedly designed to provide more than double the standard safety allowance
against leakage, considering that they are made out of heavy duty steel that can withstand more than twice the
current operating pressure and are buried at a minimum depth of 1.5 meters, which is deeper than the US
Department of Transportation standard of 0.9 meters.
In May 2010, however, a leakage from one of the pipelines was suspected after the residents of West Tower
Condominium (West Tower) started to smell gas within the condominium. A search made on July 10, 2010 within
the condominium premises led to the discovery of a fuel leak from the wall of its Basement 2. Owing to its inability
to control the flow, West Tower's management reported the matter to the Police Department of Makati City, which
in turn called the city's Bureau of Fire Protection.
What started as a two-drum leak at the initial stages became a 15-20 drum a day affair. Eventually, the
sump pit of the condominium was ordered shut down by the City of Makati to prevent the discharge of
contaminated water into the drainage system of Barangay Bangkal. Eventually, the fumes compelled the residents
of West Tower to abandon their respective units on July 23, 2010 and the condo's power was shut down.
Petitioner FPIC initially disowned any leak from its oil pipeline. Thus, the residents of West Tower
shouldered the expenses of hauling the waste water from its basement, which eventually required the setting up
of a treatment plant in the area to separate fuel from the waste water.
On October 28, 2010, the University of the Philippines-National Institute of Geological Sciences (UP-
NIGS), which the City of Makati invited to determine the source of the fuel, found a leak in FPIC's WOPL about
86 meters from West Tower.
A day after, or on October 29, 2010, FPIC admitted that indeed the source of the fuel leak is the WOPL,
which was already closed since October 24, 2010, but denied liability by placing blame on the construction
activities on the roads surrounding West Tower. CAIHTE
On November 15, 2010, West Tower Condominium Corporation (West Tower Corp.) interposed the
present Petition for the Issuance of a Writ of Kalikasan on behalf of the residents of West Tower and in
representation of the surrounding communities in Barangay Bangkal, Makati City. West Tower Corp. also alleged
that it is joined by the civil society and several people's organizations, non-governmental organizations and public
interest groups who have expressed their intent to join the suit because of the magnitude of the environmental
issues involved. 1
In their petition, petitioners prayed that respondents FPIC and its board of directors and officers, and First
Gen Corporation (FGC) and its board of directors and officers be directed to: (1) permanently cease and desist from
committing acts of negligence in the performance of their functions as a common carrier; (2) continue to check the
structural integrity of the whole 117-kilometer pipeline and to replace the same; (3) make periodic reports on their
findings with regard to the 117-kilometer pipeline and their replacement of the same; (4) rehabilitate and restore
the environment, especially Barangay Bangkal and West Tower, at least to what it was before the signs of the leak
became manifest; and (5) to open a special trust fund to answer for similar and future contingencies in the future.
Furthermore, petitioners pray that respondents be prohibited from opening the pipeline and allowing the use
thereof until the same has been thoroughly checked and replaced, and be temporarily restrained from operating
the pipeline until the final resolution of the case.
To bolster their petition, petitioners argued that FPIC's omission or failure to timely replace its pipelines
and to observe extraordinary diligence caused the petroleum spill in the City of Makati. Thus, for petitioners, the
continued use of the now 47-year old pipeline would not only be a hazard or a threat to the lives, health, and
property of those who live or sojourn in all the municipalities in which the pipeline is laid, but would also affect
the rights of the generations yet unborn to live in a balanced and "healthful ecology," guaranteed under Section 16,
Article II of the 1987 Constitution.
On November 19, 2010, the Court issued the Writ of Kalikasan 2 with a Temporary Environmental
Protection Order (TEPO) requiring respondents FPIC, FGC, and the members of their Boards of Directors to file
their respective verified returns. The TEPO enjoined FPIC and FGC to: (a) cease and desist from operating the
WOPL until further orders; (b) check the structural integrity of the whole span of the 117-kilometer WOPL while
implementing sufficient measures to prevent and avert any untoward incident that may result from any leak of the
pipeline; and (c) make a report thereon within 60 days from receipt thereof.
In compliance with the writ, FPIC directors Edgar Chua, Dennis Javier, Dennis Gamab and Willie
Sarmiento submitted a Joint Return 3 praying for the dismissal of the petition and the denial of the privilege of the
Writ of Kalikasan. They alleged that: petitioners had no legal capacity to institute the petition; there is no allegation
that the environmental damage affected the inhabitants of two (2) or more cities or provinces; and the continued
operation of the pipeline should be allowed in the interest of maintaining adequate petroleum supply to the public.
Respondents FPIC and its directors and officers, other than the aforementioned four (4) directors, also filed
a Verified Return 4 claiming that not all requirements for the issuance of the Writ of Kalikasan are present and
there is no showing that West Tower Corp. was authorized by all those it claimed to represent. They further
averred that the petition contains no allegation that respondents FPIC directors and officers acted in such a manner
as to allow the piercing of the corporate veil.
Meanwhile, on January 18, 2011, FGC and the members of its Board of Directors and Officers filed a Joint
Compliance 5 submitting the report required by the Writ of Kalikasan/TEPO. They contended that they neither
own nor operate the pipelines, adding that it is impossible for them to report on the structural integrity of the
pipelines, much less to cease and desist from operating them as they have no capability, power, control or
responsibility over the pipelines. They, thus, prayed that the directives of the Writ of Kalikasan/TEPO be
considered as sufficiently performed, as to them.
On January 21, 2011, FPIC, in compliance with the writ, submitted its 4-page "Report on Pipeline Integrity
Check and Preventive Maintenance Program." 6 In gist, FPIC reported the following:
(I) For the structural integrity of the 117-kilometer pipeline, (a) the DOE engaged the
services of UP-NIGS to do borehole testing on 81 pre-identified critical areas of the WOPL in eight
 cities and municipalities — all the boreholes showed negative presence of petroleum vapors;
(b) pressure tests were conducted after the repair of the leak and results showed negative leaks and
the DOE's pipeline expert, Societe General de Surveillance, New Zealand, has developed a pressure
test protocol requiring a 24-hour operation of running a scraper pig through the pipeline to
eliminate air gap; (c) In-Line Inspection Test, was conducted by NDT through MFL and ultrasonic.
The NDT later cleared the WOPL from any damage or corrosion.
(II) For preventive maintenance measures, (a) Cathodic Protection Systems are installed
involving the use of anode materials and the introduction of electric current in the pipeline to
enhance prevention of corrosion; (b) Regular Scraper Runs through the pipeline to maintain
cleanliness and integrity of the pipelines' internal surface; (c) Daily Patrols every two hours of the
pipeline route to deter unauthorized diggings in the vicinity of the pipeline segments; (d) Regular
coordination meetings with DPWH, MMDA and utility companies to monitor projects that might
involve digging or excavation in the vicinity of the pipeline segments; (e) Installation of Security
Warning Signs along the pipeline route with toll free number which can be called in the event of
an accident or emergency; (f) Emergency Response Procedure of the ERT is activated by a call-out
procedure; (g) Maintenance of Emergency Equipment and Repair Kit which are always on standby;
and, (h) Remotely controlled Isolation Valves are in place to shut the pipeline when necessary.
On February 9, 2011, petitioners filed, and the Court eventually granted, their Motion to Set the Case for
Preliminary Conference and Hearing 7 pursuant to Sec. 11, Rule 7 of the Rules of Procedure for Environmental
Cases.
On April 15, 2011, the Court conducted an ocular inspection of the WOPL in the vicinity of West Tower
to determine the veracity of the claim that there were two (2) additional leaks on FPIC's pipeline. Results of the
ocular inspection belied the claim.
In the meantime, petitioners also filed civil and criminal complaints against respondents arising from the
same incident or leakage from the WOPL. 8
Since after the Court's issuance of the Writ of Kalikasan and the TEPO on November 19, 2010, FPIC has
ceased operations on both the WOPL and the BOPL. On May 31, 2011, however, the Court, answering a query of
the DOE, clarified and confirmed that what is covered by the Writ of Kalikasan and TEPO is only the WOPL
System of FPIC; thus, FPIC can resume operation of its BOPL System. 9
On July 7, 2011, petitioners filed an Omnibus Motion 10 assailing the Court's May 31, 2011 Resolution,
praying for the conduct of oral argument on the issue of reopening the BOPL System. This was followed, on
September 9, 2011, by a Manifestation (Re: Current Developments) with Omnibus Motion 11 wherein petitioners
invoked the precautionary principle 12 and asserted that the possibility of a leak in the BOPL System leading to
catastrophic environmental damage is enough reason to order the closure of its operation. They likewise alleged
that the entities contracted by FPIC to clean and remediate the environment are illegally discharging waste water,
which had not undergone proper treatment, into the Parañaque River. Petitioners, thus, prayed that respondents
be directed to comply with environmental laws in rehabilitating the surroundings affected by the oil leak and to
submit a copy of their work plan and monthly reports on the progress thereof. To these omnibus motions,
respondents were directed to file their respective comments.
On September 28, 2011, respondent FPIC filed an Urgent Motion for Leave (To Undertake "Bangkal
Realignment" Project) 13 in order to reduce stress on the WOPL System. FPIC sought to construct a new realigned
segment to replace the old pipe segment under the Magallanes Interchange, which covers the portion that leaked.
Petitioners were directed to file their comment on FPIC's motion.
Report and Recommendation of the Court of Appeals
 To expedite the resolution of the controversy, the Court remanded the case to the Court of Appeals (CA).
By this Court's Resolution dated November 22, 2011, 14 the appellate court was required to conduct hearings and,
thereafter, submit a report and recommendation within 30 days after the receipt of the parties' memoranda.
On March 21, 2012, the preliminary conference was continued before the CA wherein the parties made
admissions and stipulations of facts and defined the issues for resolution. In view of the technical nature of the
case, the CA also appointed 15 several amici curiae, 16 but only four (4) filed their reports. 17
On December 26, 2012, the CA Former 11th Division submitted to the Court its well-crafted and exhaustive
156-page Report and Recommendation 18 dated December 21, 2012 (CA Report). Some highlights of the Report:
1. Anent petitioners' June 28, 2011 Omnibus Motion assailing the reopening of the BOPL System, the CA
directed respondent FPIC to submit the appropriate certification from the DOE as to the safe
commercial operation of the BOPL; otherwise, the operation of the BOPL must also be enjoined.
2. On petitioners' September 9, 2011 Manifestation (Re: Current Developments) with Omnibus Motion,
the CA directed the Inter-Agency Committee on Health to submit its evaluation of the remediation
plan prepared by CH2M Hill Philippines, Inc. for FPIC. Further, the appellate court directed FPIC
to strictly comply with the stipulations contained in the permits issued by the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) for its remediation activities in Barangay Bangkal,
Makati City. The DENR was in turn directed by the CA to:
(a) monitor compliance by respondent FPIC with applicable environmental laws and regulations
and conditions set forth in the permits issued;
(b) conduct independent analysis of end-products of the Multi-Phase Extraction System;
(c) conduct regular consultative meetings with the City of Makati, residents of Barangay Bangkal
and other stakeholders concerning the remediation activities; and,
(d) evaluate the viability of the recommendation of amicus Dr. Benjamin R. De Jesus, Jr. to include
the use of surfactants and oxygen-releasing compounds (ORCs) in the middle and terminal
portions of the remediation plan.
3. Respondent's September 27, 2011 Urgent Motion for Leave (To Undertake "Bangkal Realignment"
Project) was denied.
4. With regard to the March 29, 2012 Supplemental Manifestation (Re: List of Amici Curiae and Recent
Possible Leak in the Pipeline) filed by petitioners, the CA found that the existence of another
possible leak alleged by petitioners was not established. Nonetheless, to prevent such event, the CA
ordered FPIC to: (i) review, adopt and strictly observe appropriate safety and precautionary
measures; (ii) closely monitor the conduct of its maintenance and repair works; and (iii) submit to
the DOE regular monthly reports on the structural integrity and safe commercial operation of the
pipeline.
5. As to the merits of the case, the CA submitted the following recommendations:
(a) That the people's organizations, non-governmental organizations, and public interest groups
that indicated their intention to join the petition and submitted proof of juridical
personality (namely: the Catholic Bishop's Conference of the Philippines; Kilusang
Makabansang Ekonomiya, Inc.; Women's Business Council of the Philippines, Inc.; Junior
Chambers International Philippines, Inc. — San Juan Chapter; Zonta Club of Makati Ayala
Foundations; and the Consolidated Mansions Condominium Corporation) be allowed to be
formally impleaded as petitioners.
(b) That respondent FPIC be ordered to submit a certification from the DOE Secretary that the
WOPL is already safe for commercial operation. The certification should take into
 consideration the adoption by FPIC of the appropriate leak detection system to be used in
monitoring the entire pipeline's mass input versus mass output. The certification must also
consider the necessity of replacing the pipes with existing patches and sleeves. In case of
failure of respondent FPIC to submit the required certification from the DOE Secretary
within sixty (60) days from notice of the Honorable Supreme Court's approval of this
recommendation, the TEPO must be made permanent.
(c) That petitioners' prayer for the creation of a special trust fund to answer for similar
contingencies in the future be denied for lack of sufficient basis.
(d) That respondent FGC be not held solidarily liable under the TEPO.
(e) That without prejudice to the outcome of the civil and criminal cases filed against respondents,
the individual directors and officers of FPIC and FGC be not held liable in their individual
capacities.
On January 11, 2013, petitioners filed their Motion for Partial Reconsideration 19 of the CA's Report
praying that (a) instead of the DOE, the required certification should be issued by the DOST-Metal Industry
Research and Development Center; (b) a trust fund be created to answer for future contingencies; and (c) the
directors and officers of FPIC and FGC be held accountable.
On January 25, 2013, FPIC filed its Compliance (Re: Department of Energy Certification on the Black Oil
Pipeline) 20 and submitted the required DOE Certification 21 issued on January 22, 2013 by DOE Secretary Carlos
Jericho L. Petilla (Secretary Petilla). On March 14, 2013, petitioners countered with a Manifestation with
Motion 22 asserting that FPIC's certification is not compliant with the CA's requirement. Hence, petitioners
moved that the certification should be disregarded, the 30-day period be deemed to have lapsed, and FPIC be
permanently enjoined from operating the BOPL.
On July 30, 2013, the Court issued a Resolution adopting the recommendation of the CA in its Report and
Recommendation that FPIC be ordered to secure a certification from the DOE Secretary before the WOPL may
resume its operations. The pertinent portion of said Resolution reads:
[FPIC] is hereby ORDERED to submit a certification from the DOE Secretary that the
pipeline is already safe for commercial operation. The certification should take into consideration
the adoption by FPIC of the appropriate leak detection system to be used in monitoring the entire
pipeline's mass input versus mass output. The certification must also consider the necessity of
replacing the pipes with existing patches and sleeves . . . . 23
The DOE Secretary is DIRECTED to consult the [DOST] regarding the adoption of the
appropriate leak detection system and the necessity of replacing the pipes with existing patches and
sleeves.
On October 2, 2013, petitioners, in a Motion for Reconsideration with Motion for Clarification, emphasized
that the CA found FPIC's tests and maintenance program to be insufficient and inconclusive to establish the
WOPL's structural integrity for continued commercial operation. 24 Furthermore, petitioners point out that the
DOE is biased and incapable of determining the WOPL's structural integrity.
Respondents, for their part, maintain that the DOE has the technical competence and expertise to assess
the structural integrity of the WOPL and to certify the system's safety for commercial operation. 25 Respondents
further allege that the DOE is the agency empowered to regulate the transportation and distribution of petroleum
products, and to regulate and monitor downstream oil industry activities, including "product distribution" through
pipelines. 26
In compliance with the Court's July 30, 2013 Resolution, the DOE Secretary issued on October 25, 2013 a
Certification, 27 attesting that the WOPL is safe to resume commercial operations, subject to monitoring or
inspection requirements, and imposing several conditions that FPIC must comply with. The Certification, in its
entirety, reads:
This is to certify that based on the Pipeline Integrity Management Systems (PIMS) being
implemented by [FPIC] for its [WOPL] facility, the same is safe to resume commercial operations.
This certification is being issued after consultation with the [DOST] and on the basis of the
following considerations, to wit:
1. DOE noted the adoption by FPIC of the appropriate leak detection system to be used in monitoring
the pipeline's mass input versus mass output, as well as the other measures of leak detection
and prevention adopted by the latter;
2. DOE further noted that FPIC has already undertaken realignment and reinforcement works on
the current pipeline to remove majority of the patches. FPIC has likewise presented
substantial and adequate documentation showing that the remaining patches and sleeves are
safe, and that the use of such is recognized by the industry and complies with existing
standards;
3. DOE finally noted the results of various tests and inspections done on the pipeline as indicated in
the Manifestation submitted by the DOE on March 31, 2012, in the civil case docketed as CA
G.R. SP No. 00008 and entitled West Tower Condominium, et al. [v.] First Philippine
Industrial Corporation, et al.
This certification is being issued subject to the condition that FPIC will submit itself to
regular monitoring and validation by the Oil Industry Management Bureau (OIMB) of the
implementation of its PIMS, particularly on the following: (a) mass or volume input versus mass or
volume output loss/gain accounting; (b) results of borehole monitoring, (c) inspection of the
pipeline cathodic protection and (d) pressure test.
Further, FPIC shall submit itself to any test or inspection that the DOE and DOST may
deem appropriate for purposes of monitoring the operations of the WOPL facility.
The Court is fully cognizant of the WOPL's value in commerce and the adverse effects of a prolonged
closure thereof. Nevertheless, there is a need to balance the necessity of the immediate reopening of the WOPL
with the more important need to ensure that it is sound for continued operation, since the substances it carries
pose a significant hazard to the surrounding population and to the environment. 28 A cursory review of the most
recent oil pipeline tragedies around the world will readily show that extreme caution should be exercised in the
monitoring and operation of these common carriers:
(1) On August 1, 2014, a series of powerful explosions from underground pipeline systems ripped up the
streets of Kaohsiung, Taiwan, killing at least 28 people and injuring 299 more. Further, 23,600,
2,268 and 6,000 households were left without gas, power and water, respectively, in the 2-3 square
kilometer blast area. 29
(2) On November 22, 2013, an oil pipeline leaked, caught fire, and exploded in Qingdao, Shangdao Province
in China, killing 55 people and injuring more than a hundred more. 30
(3) On September 14, 2011, a fuel pipeline exploded in Kenya's capital city, Nairobi, reducing bodies to
dust and flattening homes. At least 75 people died in the explosion, while more than a hundred
people were injured. 31
(4) In September 2010, a natural gas pipeline ruptured and set off a fireball, killing eight (8) people and
leveling 38 homes in San Bruno, California in the United States. 32
(5) On July 30, 2004, a rupture of an underground natural gas pipeline buried six (6) meters in Ghislenghien,
Belgium resulted in 24 deaths and over 120 injuries. 33
 On April 29 and 30, 2014, the DOE organized a dialogue between said government agencies and the FPIC.
There it was stated that during the dialogue, "the division heads and a high profile team from FPIC, both from
operation and management made presentations and answered questions on pipeline pumping operation and
product delivery, and a detailed explanation of the FPIC PIMS' control measures, condition monitoring measures,
and emergency measures, as well as its various activities and projects implemented since 2010 such as pipeline
replacement and realignment in Pandacan and Bangkal, inspection and reinforcement of all patches in the WOPL,
inspection and reinforcement of a number of reported dents in the WOPL, conduct of successful leak tests, and
installation of boreholes that are gas-tested on a weekly basis, and the safety systems that go with the daily pipeline
operation and maintenance and project execution." 34
On August 5, 2014, Secretary Carlos Jericho L. Petilla of the DOE submitted a letter 35 recommending
activities and timetable for the resumption of the WOPL operations, to wit:
A. Preparatory to the Test Run
I. FPIC Tasks:
a. Continue submission of monitoring charts, data/reading, accomplishment reports,
and project status for all related activities/works. Respond to comments and
prepare for site inspection.
b. Continue gas testing along the right-of-way using the monitoring wells or
boreholes. Prepare for inspection of right-of-way and observation of gas
testing activities on monitoring wells and boreholes.
c. Expound on the selection of borehole location. For example, identify those located
in pipeline bends, bodies of water, residential areas, repaired portions of the
pipelines, dents and welded joints.
d. Continue submitting status report relating to "Project Mojica" (an ongoing pipeline
segment realignment activity undertaken by FPIC to give way to a flood
control project of MMDA in the vicinity of Mojica St. and Pres. Osmeña
Highway in Makati City). Prepare for site inspection.
II. Inter-agency undertaking:
a. Conduct onsite inspection of right-of-way
b. Review/check remaining 22 patches that were already inspected and reinforced
with Clockspring sleeves.
i. Determine location of sleeves.
ii. Review of procedures on repair of sleeves.
iii. Random visual inspection of areas easily accessible.
c. Cathodic protection's onsite inspection on rectifier to check readings
i. Old readings
ii. Current Readings
iii. Segment covered
iv. Criteria for prioritization for corrective action
d. Observe and witness the running/operation of the cleaning pig.
e. Check and validate all calibration certificate of instruments
i. Instrument verification and calibration.
 B. Actual Test Run (to be undertaken both by FPIC and inter-agency)
a. Perform Cleaning Pig Run
i. Witness launching and receiving of the cleaning pig.
ii. Handling of the residuals after cleaning.
b. Demonstrate Various Pressure Tests (already being conducted by FPIC)
i. Blocked-in pressure test (Leak Test, not in operation)
ii. In-operation (hourly reading)
c. Continue Current Gas Monitoring (boreholes)
i. Ocular inspection of selected areas
d. Demonstrate mass or volume balance computation during WOPL test run (already being
implemented in the BOPL)
i. 30 days baseline data generation
ii. 30 days computational analysis and monitoring
C. Commissioning or Return to Commercial Operation
I. FPIC Tasks:
a. Continue implementation of the PIMS. Review recommendations from DOE.
b. Continue monthly reporting of operations and maintenance activities with DOE.
c. Continue reporting and coordination with DOE and other government agencies
for implementation of projects. 36
Secretary Petilla also recounted to the Court in his August 5, 2014 letter that the DOE, together with the
DPWH and the Metropolitan Manila Development Authority (MMDA), observed the different milestones of the
realignment project being undertaken by FPIC in support of the MMDA Flood Control Project and stated that the
new line segment as laid was coated with corrosion protection prior to the backfilling of the excavated portion.
On February 3, 2015, the Court required the parties to submit their comment on Sec. Petilla's letter within
ten (10) days from receipt of the Resolution. On various dates, respondents First Gen Corporation, FPIC, and
petitioner West Tower filed their respective comments 37 in compliance with the Court's resolution. The
intervenors were unable to comply with the Court's directive; hence, they are deemed to have waived their right
to file their respective comments.
The Issues
Having received the October 25, 2013 Certification and the August 5, 2014 Letter from the DOE on the
state of the WOPL, as well as the parties' comments thereon, the following issues defined by the parties during the
March 21, 2012 preliminary conference are now ripe for adjudication:
1. Whether petitioner West Tower Corp. has the legal capacity to represent the other petitioners and
whether the other petitioners, apart from the residents of West Tower and Barangay Bangkal, are
real parties-in-interest;
2. Whether a Permanent Environmental Protection Order should be issued to direct the respondents to
perform or to desist from performing acts in order to protect, preserve, and rehabilitate the affected
environment;
3. Whether a special trust fund should be opened by respondents to answer for future similar contingencies;
and
 4. Whether FGC and the directors and officers of respondents FPIC and FGC may be held liable under the
environmental protection order. 38
The Court's Ruling
We adopt, with modifications, the recommendations of the CA and discuss the foregoing issues in seriatim.
I.
Petitioners as Real Parties-in-Interest
On the procedural aspect, We agree with the CA that petitioners who are affected residents of West Tower
and Barangay Bangkal have the requisite concern to be real parties-in-interest to pursue the instant petition.
Residents of West Tower and Barangay Bangkal
As defined, a real party-in-interest is the party who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in
the suit, or the party entitled to the avails of the suit. 39 Generally, every action must be prosecuted or defended
in the name of the real parties-in-interest. 40 In other words, the action must be brought by the person who, by
substantive law, possesses the right sought to be enforced. 41 Alternatively, one who has no right or interest to
protect cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the court as party-plaintiff-in-action for it is jurisprudentially ordained
that every action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party-in-interest. 42
In the case at bar, there can be no quibble that the oil leak from the WOPL affected all the condominium
unit owners and residents of West Tower as, in fact, all had to evacuate their units at the wee hours in the morning
of July 23, 2010, when the condominium's electrical power was shut down. Until now, the unit owners and
residents of West Tower could still not return to their condominium units. Thus, there is no gainsaying that the
residents of West Tower are real parties-in-interest.
There can also be no denying that West Tower Corp. represents the common interest of its unit owners
and residents, and has the legal standing to file and pursue the instant petition. While a condominium corporation
has limited powers under RA 4726, otherwise known as The Condominium Act, 43 it is empowered to pursue
actions in behalf of its members. In the instant case, the condominium corporation is the management body of
West Tower and deals with everything that may affect some or all of the condominium unit owners or users.
It is of no moment that only five residents of West Tower signed their acquiescence to the filing of the
petition for the issuance of the Writ of Kalikasan, as the merits of such petition is, as aptly put by the CA, not
measured by the number of persons who signified their assent thereto, but on the existence of a prima facie case of
a massive environmental disaster.
Moreover, the fact that no board resolution was submitted by West Tower Corp. authorizing Manuel Dy
Chuaunsu, Jr. to sign the Verification and Certification of Non-forum Shopping is irrelevant. The records show
that petitioners submitted a notarized Secretary's Certificate 44 attesting that the authority of Chuaunsu to
represent the condominium corporation in filing the petition is from the resolution of the total membership of
West Tower Corp. issued during their November 9, 2010 meeting with the requisite quorum. It is, thus, clear that
it was not the Board of West Tower Corp. which granted Chuaunsu the authority but the full membership of the
condominium corporation itself.
As to the residents of Barangay Bangkal, they are similarly situated with the unit owners and residents of
West Tower and are real parties-in-interest to the instant case, i.e., if they so wish to join the petitioners.
Organizations that indicated their intention to join the petition
and submitted proof of juridical personality
Anent the propriety of including the Catholic Bishops' Conference of the Philippines, Kilusang
Makabansang Ekonomiya, Inc., Women's Business Council of the Philippines, Inc., Junior Chambers International
Philippines, Inc. — San Juan Chapter, Zonta Club of Makati Ayala Foundations, and the Consolidated Mansions
Condominium Corporation, as petitioners in the case, the Court already granted their intervention in the present
controversy in the adverted July 30, 2013 Resolution.
This is so considering that the filing of a petition for the issuance of a writ of kalikasan under Sec. 1, Rule
7 45 of the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases does not require that a petitioner be directly affected by
an environmental disaster. The rule clearly allows juridical persons to file the petition on behalf of persons whose
constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology is violated, or threatened with violation.
Thus, as parties to the case, they are entitled to be furnished copies of all the submissions to the Court,
including the periodic reports of FPIC and the results of the evaluations and tests conducted on the WOPL.
Having disposed of the procedural issue, We proceed to the bone of contention in the pending motions.
Suffice it to state in the outset that as regards, the substantive issues presented, the Court, likewise, concurs with
the other recommendations of the CA, with a few modifications.
II.
Propriety of Converting the TEPO to PEPO or its Lifting in light of the DOE Certification of the WOPL's
Commercial Viability
To recall, petitioners' persistent plea is for the conversion of the November 19, 2010 TEPO into a
Permanent Environmental Protection Order (PEPO) pursuant to Sec. 3, 46 Rule 5 of the Rules of Procedure for
Environmental Cases. For its part, respondent FPIC asserts that regular testing, as well as the measures that are
already in place, will sufficiently address any concern of oil leaks from the WOPL.
With respect to leak detection, FPIC claims that it has in place the following systems: (a) regular cleaning
scraper runs, which are done quarterly; (b) pipeline integrity gauge (PIG) tests/Intelligent PIG, now known as in-
line inspections (ILI), which is done every five years; (c) pressure monitoring valves; and (d) 24-hour patrols.
Additionally, FPIC asserted that it also undertook the following: (a) monitoring of wells and borehole testing/vapor
tests; (b) leak tightness test, also known as segment pressure test; (c) pressure-controlled test; (d) inspection and
reinforcement of patches; (e) inspection and reinforcement of dents; and (f) Pandacan segment
replacement. 47 Furthermore, in August 2010, with the oil leak hogging the headlines, FPIC hired NDT Middle
East FZE (NDT) to conduct ILI inspections through magnetic flux leakage (MFL) and ultrasonic tests to,
respectively, detect wall thinning of the pipeline and check it for cracks.
The CA, however, observed that all of these tests and measures are inconclusive and insufficient for
purposes of leak detection and pipeline integrity maintenance. Hence, considering the necessary caution and level
of assurance required to ensure that the WOPL system is free from leaks and is safe for commercial operation, the
CA recommended that FPIC obtain from the DOE a certification that the WOPL is already safe for commercial
operation. This certification, according to the CA, was to be issued with due consideration of the adoption by FPIC
of the appropriate leak detection systems to monitor sufficiently the entire WOPL and the need to replace portions
of the pipes with existing patches and sleeves. Sans the required certification, use of the WOPL shall remain abated.
The Court found this recommendation of the appellate court proper. Hence, We required FPIC to obtain
the adverted DOE Certification in Our July 30, 2013 Resolution. We deemed it proper to require said certification
from the DOE considering that the core issue of this case requires the specialized knowledge and special expertise
of the DOE and various other administrative agencies. On October 25, 2013, the DOE submitted the certification
pursuant to the July 30, 2013 Resolution of the Court. Later, however, on August 5, 2014, DOE Secretary Carlos
Jericho I. Petilla submitted a letter recommending certain activities and the timetable for the resumption of the
WOPL operations after conducting a dialogue between the concerned government agencies and FPIC.
After a perusal of the recommendations of the DOE and the submissions of the parties, the Court adopts
the activities and measures prescribed in the DOE letter dated August 5, 2014 to be complied with by FPIC as
conditions for the resumption of the commercial operations of the WOPL. The DOE should, therefore, proceed
with the implementation of the tests proposed in the said August 5, 2014 letter. Thereafter, if it is satisfied that the
results warrant the immediate reopening of the WOPL, the DOE shall issue an order allowing FPIC to resume the
operation of the WOPL. On the other hand, should the probe result in a finding that the pipeline is no longer safe
for continued use and that its condition is irremediable, or that it already exceeded its serviceable life, among
others, the closure of the WOPL may be ordered.
The DOE is specially equipped to consider FPIC's proper implementation and compliance with its PIMS
and to evaluate the result of the various tests conducted on the pipeline. The DOE is empowered by Sec. 12 (b)
(1), RA 7638 to formulate and implement policies for the efficient and economical "distribution, transportation,
and storage of petroleum, coal, natural gas." 48 Thus, it cannot be gainsaid that the DOE possesses technical
knowledge and special expertise with respect to practices in the transportation of oil through pipelines.
Moreover, it is notable that the DOE did not only limit itself to the knowledge and proficiency available
within its offices, it has also rallied around the assistance of pertinent bureaus of the other administrative agencies:
the ITDI 49 of the DOST, which is mandated to undertake technical services including standards, analytical and
calibration services; the MIRDC, 50 also of the DOST, which is the sole government entity directly supporting the
metals and engineering industry; 51 the EMB 52 of the DENR, the agency mandated to implement, among
others, RA 6969 (Toxic Substances and Hazardous and Nuclear Waste Control Act of 1990) and RA
9275 (Philippine Clean Water Act of 2004); and the BOD of the DPWH, which is mandated to conduct, supervise,
and review the technical design aspects of projects of government agencies. 53
The specialized knowledge and expertise of the foregoing agencies must, therefore, be availed of to arrive
at a judicious decision on the propriety of allowing the immediate resumption of the WOPL's operation. In a host
of cases, this Court held that when the adjudication of a controversy requires the resolution of issues within the
expertise of an administrative body, such issues must be investigated and resolved by the administrative body
equipped with the specialized knowledge and the technical expertise. 54 Hence, the courts, although they may
have jurisdiction and power to decide cases, can utilize the findings and recommendations of the administrative
agency on questions that demand "the exercise of sound administrative discretion requiring the special knowledge,
experience, and services of the administrative tribunal to determine technical and intricate matters of fact." 55
Justice Leonen, in his dissent, is of the view that the petition should be denied and the TEPO immediately
lifted in light of the DOE's issuance of a certification attesting to the safety of the WOPL for continued commercial
operations, thereby rendering the instant petition moot and academic, seeking, as it does, the checking of the
pipeline's structural integrity. According to his dissent, the writ of kalikasan issued by the Court has already served
its functions and, therefore, is functus officio. Moreover, he argues that directing the DOE and FPIC to repeat their
previous procedures is tantamount to doubting the agency's performance of its statutorily-mandated tasks, over
which they have the necessary expertise, and implies that said DOE certification is improper, a breach, allegedly,
of the principle of separation of powers.
He also contends that the majority ordered the repetition of the procedures and tests already conducted on
the WOPL because of the fear and uncertainty on its safeness despite the finding of the DOE in favor of its
reopening, taking into consideration the occurrence of numerous pipeline incidents worldwide. The dissent argues
that the precautionary principle should not be so strictly applied as to unjustifiably deprive the public of the
benefits of the activity to be inhibited, and to unduly create other risks.
The dissent's contentions that the case is already moot and academic, that the writ of kalikasan has already
served its function, and that the delay in the lifting of the TEPO may do more harm than good are anchored on
the mistaken premise that the precautionary principle was applied in order to justify the order to the DOE and the
FPIC for the conduct of the various tests anew. The following reasons easily debunk these arguments:
1. The precautionary principle is not applicable to the instant case;
2. The DOE certification is not an absolute attestation as to the WOPL's structural integrity and in fact
imposes several conditions for FPIC's compliance;
 3. The DOE itself, in consultation with FPIC and the other concerned agencies, proposed the activities to
be conducted preparatory to the reopening of the pipeline; and
4. There are no conclusive findings yet on the WOPL's structural integrity.
Section 1, Rule 20 of A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC or the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases, on the
Precautionary Principle, provides that "[w]hen there is lack of full scientific certainty in establishing a causal link
between human activity and environmental effect, the court shall apply the precautionary principle in resolving
the case before it."
According to the dissent, the directive for the repetition of the tests is based on speculations, justified by
the application of said principle. This, however, is not the case. Nowhere did We apply the precautionary principle
in deciding the issue on the WOPL's structural integrity.
The precautionary principle only applies when the link between the cause, that is the human activity
sought to be inhibited, and the effect, that is the damage to the environment, cannot be established with full
scientific certainty. Here, however, such absence of a link is not an issue. Detecting the existence of a leak or the
presence of defects in the WOPL, which is the issue in the case at bar, is different from determining whether the
spillage of hazardous materials into the surroundings will cause environmental damage or will harm human health
or that of other organisms. As a matter of fact, the petroleum leak and the harm that it caused to the environment
and to the residents of the affected areas is not even questioned by FPIC.
It must be stressed that what is in issue in the instant petition is the WOPL's compliance with pipeline
structure standards so as to make it fit for its purpose, a question of fact that is to be determined on the basis of the
evidence presented by the parties on the WOPL's actual state. Hence, Our consideration of the numerous findings
and recommendations of the CA, the DOE, and the amici curiae on the WOPL's present structure, and not the
cited pipeline incidents as the dissent propounds.
Consider also the fact that it is the DOE itself that imposed several conditions upon FPIC for the resumption
of the operations of the WOPL. This, coupled with the submission by the DOE of its proposed activities and
timetable, is a clear and unequivocal message coming from the DOE that the WOPL's soundness for resumption of
and continued commercial operations is not yet fully determined. And it is only after an extensive determination
by the DOE of the pipeline's actual physical state through its proposed activities, and not merely through a short-
form integrity audit, 56 that the factual issue on the WOPL's viability can be settled. The issue, therefore, on the
pipeline's structural integrity has not yet been rendered moot and remains to be subject to this Court's resolution.
Consequently, We cannot say that the DOE's issuance of the certification adverted to equates to the writ
of kalikasan being functus officio at this point.
The dissent is correct in emphasizing that We defer to the findings of fact of administrative agencies
considering their specialized knowledge in their field. And We, as a matter of fact, acceded to the DOE's
conclusions on the necessity of the conduct of the various activities and tests enumerated in Sec. Petilla's letter to
this Court dated August 5, 2014. Hence, Our directive for the DOE to immediately commence the activities
enumerated in said Letter, to determine the pipeline's reliability, and to order its reopening should the DOE find
that such is proper.
The dissent also loses sight of the fact that the petition not only seeks the checking of the WOPL's structural
integrity, but also prays for the rehabilitation of the areas affected by the leak, the creation of a special trust fund,
the imposition of liability upon the directors of FPIC, among others. These issues, undoubtedly, are matters that
are not addressed by the DOE certification alone. Furthermore, these are issues that no longer relate to the WOPL's
structure but to its maintenance and operations, as well as to the residues of the incident. It will, thus, be improper
for Us to simply dismiss the petition on the basis solely of the alleged resolution of only one of several issues, which
purportedly renders the issue on the WOPL's soundness moot, without disposing of the other issues presented.
 Lastly, any delay in the reopening of the WOPL, if said delay is for the purpose of making sure that the
pipeline is commercially viable, is better than hastily allowing its reopening without an extensive check on its
structural integrity when experience shows that there were and may still be flaws in the pipeline. Even the DOE,
the agency tasked to oversee the supply and distribution of petroleum in the country, is well aware of this and even
recommended the checking of the patched portions of the pipeline, among others. In this regard, the Court deems
it best to take the necessary safeguards, which are not similar to applying the precautionary principle as previously
explained, in order to prevent a similar incident from happening in the future.
III.
Propriety of the Creation of a Special Trust Fund
Anent petitioners' prayer for the creation of a special trust fund, We note that under Sec. 1, Rule 5 of
the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases, a trust fund is limited solely for the purpose of rehabilitating or
restoring the environment. Said proviso pertinently provides:
SEC. 1. Reliefs in a citizen suit. — If warranted, the court may grant to the plaintiff proper
reliefs which shall include the protection, preservation or rehabilitation of the environment and
the payment of attorney's fees, costs of suit and other litigation expenses. It may also require the
violator to submit a program of rehabilitation or restoration of the environment, the costs of which
shall be borne by the violator, or to contribute to a special trust fund for that purpose subject to the
control of the court. (emphasis supplied)
Furthermore, Sec. 15 (e), Rule 7 of the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases expressly prohibits the
grant of damages to petitioners in a petition for the issuance of a writ of kalikasan, viz.:
Section 15. Judgment. — Within sixty (60) days from the time the petition is submitted for
decision, the court shall render judgment granting or denying the privilege of the writ of kalikasan.
The reliefs that may be granted under the writ are the following:
xxx xxx xxx
(e) Such other reliefs which relate to the right of the people to a balanced and healthful
ecology or to the protection, preservation, rehabilitation or restoration of the environment, except
the award of damages to individual petitioners.
A reading of the petition and the motion for partial reconsideration readily reveals that the prayer is for
the creation of a trust fund for similar future contingencies. This is clearly outside the limited purpose of a special
trust fund under the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases, which is to rehabilitate or restore the
environment that has presumably already suffered. Hence, the Court affirms with concurrence the observation of
the appellate court that the prayer is but a claim for damages, which is prohibited by the Rules of Procedure for
Environmental Cases. As such, the Court is of the considered view that the creation of a special trust fund is
misplaced.
The present ruling on petitioners' prayer for the creation of a special trust fund in the instant recourse,
however, is without prejudice to the judgment/s that may be rendered in the civil and/or criminal cases filed by
petitioners arising from the same incident if the payment of damages is found warranted. ATICcS
IV.
Liability of FPIC, FGC and their respective Directors and Officers
On the last issue of the liability of FPIC, FGC and their respective directors and officers, the CA found FGC
not liable under the TEPO and, without prejudice to the outcome of the civil case (Civil Case No. 11-256, RTC,
Branch 58 in Makati City) and criminal complaint (Complaint-Affidavit for Reckless Imprudence, Office of the
Provincial Prosecutor of Makati City) filed against them, the individual directors and officers of FPIC and FGC are
not liable in their individual capacities.
The Court will refrain from ruling on the finding of the CA that the individual directors and officers of
FPIC and FGC are not liable due to the explicit rule in the Rules of Procedure for Environmental cases that in a
petition for a writ of kalikasan, the Court cannot grant the award of damages to individual petitioners under Rule
7, Sec. 15 (e) of the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases. As duly noted by the CA, the civil case and
criminal complaint filed by petitioners against respondents are the proper proceedings to ventilate and determine
the individual liability of respondents, if any, on their exercise of corporate powers and the management of FPIC
relative to the dire environmental impact of the dumping of petroleum products stemming from the leak in the
WOPL in Barangay Bangkal, Makati City.
Hence, the Court will not rule on the alleged liability on the part of the FPIC and FGC officials which can,
however, be properly resolved in the civil and criminal cases now pending against them.
Other Matters
The CA's resolution on petitioners' September 9, 2011 Manifestation (Re: Current Developments) with
Omnibus Motion on the remediation plan in Barangay Bangkal by directing the Inter-Agency Committee on
Environmental Health to submit its evaluation of the said plan prepared by CH2M Philippines, Inc., for FPIC to
strictly comply with the stipulations embodied in the permits issued by the DENR, and to get a certification from
the DENR of its compliance thereto is well taken. DENR is the government agency tasked to implement the state
policy of "maintaining a sound ecological balance and protecting and enhancing the quality of the
environment" 57 and to "promulgate rules and regulations for the control of water, air, and land pollution." 58 It
is indubitable that the DENR has jurisdiction in overseeing and supervising the environmental remediation of
Barangay Bangkal, which is adversely affected by the leak in the WOPL in 2010.
With regard to petitioners' March 29, 2012 Supplemental Manifestation about a recent possible leak in the
pipeline, the CA appropriately found no additional leak. However, due to the devastating effect on the environs in
Barangay Bangkal due to the 2010 leak, the Court finds it fitting that the pipeline be closely and regularly
monitored to obviate another catastrophic event which will prejudice the health of the affected people, and to
preserve and protect the environment not only for the present but also for the future generations to come.
Petitioner's January 10, 2013 Motion for Partial Recommendation of the CA's Report need not be discussed
and given consideration. As the CA's Report contains but the appellate court's recommendation on how the issues
should be resolved, and not the adjudication by this Court, there is nothing for the appellate court to reconsider.
As to petitioner's October 2, 2013 Motion for Reconsideration with Motion for Clarification, the matters
contained therein have been considered in the foregoing discussion of the primary issues of this case. With all
these, We need not belabor the other arguments raised by the parties.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the Motion for Partial Reconsideration is hereby DENIED. The Motion
for Reconsideration with Motion for Clarification is PARTLY GRANTED. The Court of Appeals'
recommendations, embodied in its December 21, 2012 Report and Recommendation, are hereby ADOPTED with
the following MODIFICATIONS:
I. The Department of Energy (DOE) is hereby ORDERED to oversee the strict implementation of the
following activities:
A. Preparatory to the Test Run of the entire stretch of the WOPL:
1) FPIC shall perform the following:
a. Continue submission of monitoring charts, data/reading, accomplishment reports,
and project status for all related activities/works. Respond to comments and
prepare for site inspection.
 b. Continue gas testing along the right-of-way using the monitoring wells or
boreholes. Prepare for inspection of right-of-way and observation of gas
testing activities on monitoring wells and boreholes.
c. Explain the process of the selection of borehole location and identify those located
in pipeline bends, bodies of water, highways, residential areas, repaired
portions of the pipelines, dents and welded joints, as well other notable
factors, circumstances, or exposure to stresses.
d. Set up additional boreholes and monitoring wells sufficient to cover the entire
stretch of the WOPL, the number and location of which shall be determined
by the DOE.
e. Continue submitting status report to the concerned government agency/ies
relating to "Project Mojica," or the on-going pipeline segment realignment
activity being undertaken by FPIC to give way to a flood control project of
the MMDA in the vicinity of Mojica St. and Pres. Osmeña Highway, and
prepare for site inspection.
2) The DOE shall perform the following undertakings:
a. Conduct onsite inspection of the pipeline right-of-way, the area around the WOPL
and the equipment installed underground or aboveground.
b. Review and check the condition of the 22 patches reinforced with Clockspring
sleeves by performing the following:
i. Determine the location of the sleeves
ii. Review the procedure for the repair of the sleeves
iii. Inspect the areas where the affected portions of the WOPL are located and
which are easily accessible.
c. Inspect onsite the cathodic protection rectifier to check the following:
i. old and current readings
ii. the segment/s covered by the cathodic protection system
iii. review the criteria for prioritization of corrective action.
d. Observe and witness the running/operation of the intelligent and cleaning pigs.
e. Check and calibrate the instruments that will be used for the actual tests on the
pipeline, and validate the calibration certificates of these instruments.
B. During the Actual Test Run:
1) FPIC shall perform the following:
a. Perform Cleaning Pig run and witness the launching and receiving of the
intelligent and cleaning pigs.
b. Demonstrate and observe the various pressure and leakage tests, including the
following:
i. "Blocked-in pressure test" or the pressure test conducted while all the
WOPL's openings are blocked or closed off; and
ii. "In-operation test" or the hourly monitoring of pressure rating after the
pipeline is filled with dyed water and pressurized at a specified rate.
 c. Continue, inspect, and oversee the current gas monitoring system, or the
monitoring of gas flow from the boreholes and monitoring wells of the
WOPL.
d. Check the mass or volume balance computation during WOPL test run by
conducting:
i. 30 days baseline data generation
ii. Computational analysis and monitoring of the data generated.
II. After FPIC has undertaken the activities prescribed in the preceding paragraph 1, the DOE shall
determine if the activities and the results of the test run warrant the re-opening of the WOPL. In the event that
the DOE is satisfied that the WOPL is safe for continued commercial operations, it shall issue an order allowing
FPIC to resume the operations of the pipeline.
III. Once the WOPL is re-opened, the DOE shall see to it that FPIC strictly complies with the following
directives:
a. Continue implementation of its Pipeline Integrity Management System (PIMS), as reviewed by the
DOE, which shall include, but shall not be limited to:
1. the conduct of daily patrols on the entire stretch of the WOPL, every two hours;
2. continued close monitoring of all the boreholes and monitoring wells of the WOPL
pipeline;
3. regular periodic testing and maintenance based on its PIMS; and
4. the auditing of the pipeline's mass input versus mass output;
b. submit to the DOE, within ten (10) days of each succeeding month, monthly reports on its
compliance with the above directives and any other conditions that the DOE may impose,
the results of the monitoring, tests, and audit, as well as any and all activities undertaken on
the WOPL or in connection with its operation. The concerned government agencies, namely:
the Industrial Technology Development Institute (ITDI) and the Metals Industry Research
and Development Center (MIRDC), both under the Department of Science and Technology
(DOST), the Environmental Management Bureau (EMB) of the Department of Environment
and Natural Resources (DENR), the Bureau of Design (BOD) of the Department of Public
Works and Highways (DPWH), the University of the Philippines-National Institute of
Geological Science (UP-NIGS) and University of the Philippines-Institute of Civil
Engineering (UP-ICE), the petitioners, intervenors and this Court shall likewise be furnished
by FPIC with the monthly reports. This shall include, but shall not be limited to: realignment,
repairs, and maintenance works; and
c. continue coordination with the concerned government agencies for the implementation of its
projects.
IV. Respondent FPIC is also DIRECTED to undertake and continue the remediation, rehabilitation and
restoration of the affected Barangay Bangkal environment until full restoration of the affected area to its condition
prior to the leakage is achieved. For this purpose, respondent FPIC must strictly comply with the measures,
directives and permits issued by the DENR for its remediation activities in Barangay Bangkal, including but not
limited to, the Wastewater Discharge Permit and Permit to Operate. The DENR has the authority to oversee and
supervise the aforesaid activities on said affected barangay.
V. The Inter-Agency Committee on Environmental Health under the City Government of Makati
shall SUBMIT to the DENR its evaluation of the Remediation Plan prepared by CH2M Hill Philippines, Inc. within
thirty (30) days from receipt hereof.
 VI. Petitioners' prayer for the creation of a special trust fund to answer for similar contingencies in the
future is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
Sereno, C.J., Leonardo-de Castro, Brion, Bersamin, Del Castillo, Perez, Mendoza, Reyes, Perlas-
Bernabe and Jardeleza, JJ., concur.
Carpio, * J., took no part, prior inhibition.
Peralta, ** J., took no part and on official leave.
Villarama, Jr. * J., took no part.
Leonen, *** J., is on official leave. See separate dissenting opinion (left my vote).
||| (West Tower Condominium Corp. v. First Phil. Industrial Corp., G.R. No. 194239, [June 16, 2015], 760 PHIL 304-
367)

Cynthia Villar vs reclamation

Senator Cynthia Villar has filed Senate Resolution 294 directing the Senate Committee on Government Corporations and Public
Enterprises to conduct an inquiry, in aid of legislation, with the view to introduce reforms, revisions and amendments in the mandate,
powers and responsibilities of the Philippine Reclamation Authority (PRA).

Villar calls attention to the government’s National Reclamation Plan (NRP), made by PRA, which will involve 102 projects or
38,000 hectares all over the country. Thirty eight of these reclamation projects encompassing 26,234 hectares, will be implemented in
the Manila Bay area alone — or 70 per cent of the entire NRP. This creates another Metro Manila along Manila Bay, she said in her
privilege speech delivered before her peers last week.

Villar has an ongoing petition (backed by the signatures of 315,849 residents of Las Pinas) vs. a Manila Bay reclamation project. which
would result in the reclamation of 635.14-hectares of Manila Bay, around the 175-hectare Las Piñas-Parañaque Critical Habitat and
Ecotourism Area or LPPCHEA, which is a protected area by virtue of Proclamation Nos. 1412 and 1412-A and included in the Ramsar
list of wetlands of international importance, along with Tubbataha and the Palawan Underground River. The said reclamation could
affect 65 barangays in three cities (37 in Bacoor, 11 in Paranaque, and 17 in Las Pinas.

Villar elevated her petition to the Supreme Court to challenge the ruling of the Court of Appeals, which favored the planned reclamation
project in Manila Bay.

Besides the 38 reclamation projects in Manila, there are other big reclamation projects planned in Cebu, Antique, Iloilo, Bohol, Negros
Occidental, Aklan, Albay, Davao gulf, Leyte, and Cagayan.

Villar questions whether there was public consultation about the National Reclamation Plan, how the projects under NRP were
approved, and if environmental risks had been taken into consideration.
From the outset, this is a fight reminiscent of David and Goliath – of a legislator and communities vs. Big Business who wants to
reclaim big portions of Manila Bay and other coastal areas in the country and convert them to huge, profit-making enterprises.

The idea of new cities rising from the sea seems nice and compelling, but a serious study of Senator Villar’s resolution makes us
rethink our position.

Villar cited the damage rendered by reclamation projects on multiple ecosystems, such as mangroves, sea grass, coral reefs and
intertidal zones and depletion of fish stocks. Also, scientists have declared the subsiding of Manila Bay land due to reclamation.

She cited a Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) study which said that Metro Manila is overdue to experience a catastrophic
magnitude of 7.2 earthquake and the coastal areas to suffer the most due to liquefaction (the reclaimed land reverts to a liquid state).

The question is, who gives the final go-signal for reclamation? The Philippine Reclamation Authority, which she said, has a
questionable legal basis.

The PRA was established on February 4, 1977 under President Marcos, to provide a coordinated, economical and efficient
administration of lands, especially reclaimed lands, that belong to, are managed and/or operated by the government, with the object of
maximizing their utilization and hastening their development consistent with the public interest. Executive Order no 525 issued on Feb.
14, 1979, provides that all reclamation projects shall be approved by the President upon the recommendation of PRA.

But PRA was given tremendous powers when President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo issued Executive Order 380 on Oct. 26,
transforming PEA into the Philippine Reclamation Authority, and, on June 24, 2006, issued EO 543, delegating to PRA the power of
the President to approve reclamation projects.

Subsequently, on Feb. 25, 2001, the PRA Board of Directors approved the National Reclamation Plan under PRA Board Resolution No.
4161 covering a total of 102 reclamation projects over a total area of 38,272 hectares within Manila Bay, Visayas, Mindanao and other
locations.

PRA’s NRP and the multiple issues attached to reclamation have gained so much alarm from different sectors, Villar said. In a
People’s Summit held in October 2012 attended by experts from relevant fields, a call was made for a moratorium on reclamation
projects under the NRP.

PRA’s NRP would result in the loss of one-tenth of our coastal and marine habitats, a scientist reported to Villar. The reclamation
projects could potentially translate to a loss of value of nearly P30 billion per year in seagrass and ecosystems alone.

Villar cited the “grandmother of all scams” — the PEA-AMARI deal , as a basis for a change in PRA policies. The deal was
signed April 25, 1995, which allowed AMARI, a private corporation to develop the three reclaimed islands known as the “Freedom
Islands― along the Las Pinas-Parañaque portion of Manila Bay and includes the reclamation of additional hectares of submerged
areas surrounding the islands.

Upon investigation in aid of legislation, the Senate Blue Ribbon and the Senate Committee on Government Corporations and Public
Enterprises ruled that the joint venture was illegal because the reclaimed lands that PEA sought to transfer to AMARI are lands of the
public domain which the government cannot alienate.

Any land reclamation, regardless of who initiates it (i.e. PRA, private sector, LGU), is considered “unclassified public land― and
therefore part of the public domain, which is now under the DENR, Villar said.

Villar asks, why reclaim in the first place? Why not develop the blighted areas of the metropolis instead? The amount to be used to
reclaim instead of destroying ecosystems and driving reclaimed lands to sell for sky high prices, could be used for inclusive
development and urban renewal of Metro Manila.

* * *

The prestigious Makati Garden Club, in collaboration with the Philippine Business for Social Progress, will be auctioning, in addition to
fabulous Christmas trees, precious art pieces donated by prominent Filipino artists and painters. The art pieces are by National
Artist in sculpture Napoleon Abueva, and well-known painters Anita Magsaysay-Ho, Manuel Baldemor, Romulo Galicano, Ben
Cabrera, Elmer Borlongan, Edgar Doctor, and Jose Ignacio.

This year’s Festival of Trees continues MGC’s 17 year-old tradition of raising funds for countless marginalized Filipinos. Past
festivals raised a total of P65 million. This year, the target set at P6.5 million, will go to a fund that will be ready any time, for use
of victims of future disasters. MGC member Josephine Gallego said at a press con, “We want to have funds even before a calamity
happens.―
 Makati Garden Club is based at the corner of Ayala and EDSA, where lectures on horticulture and the environment are held. It
maintains plant nurseries, a flower shop, a boutique showcasing Ruby Diaz Roa’s finely crafted fashion jewelry, a library, and Maria
Luisa’s Garden room, a restaurant owned by Sandra Fernandez.

PBSP was established in 1970 as the largest business-led social development organization committed to poverty reduction.

This year’s FOT will be held on November 14, at 5:30 p.m. onwards, at the Jaguar/Land Rover Showroom, 32nd and 4th Crescent
Park West, Bonifacio Global City. At the showroom, patrons will be treated to a first green social design fashion tableau, a project of
sustainable lifestyle designer PJ Aranador. Also to be auctioned are plane tickets to Japan, overnight accommodations at Sonya’s
Garden, MGC’s signature “mystery boxes,― jewelry by Ruby Diaz Roa, ethnic footwear and accessories.

PRESIDENTIAL DECREE No. 1586

ESTABLISHING AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT SYSTEM, INCLUDING OTHER

ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT RELATED MEASURES AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

WHEREAS, the pursuit of a comprehensive and integrated environment protection program

necessitates the establishment and institutionalization of a system whereby the exigencies of socio-
economic undertakings can be reconciled with the requirements of environmental quality;

WHEREAS, the regulatory requirements of environmental Impact Statements and Assessments

instituted in pursuit of this national environmental protection program have to be worked into their full
regulatory and procedural details in a manner consistent with the goals of the program.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, FERDINAND E. MARCOS, President of the Philippines, by virtue of the

powers vested in me by the Constitution do hereby order and declare:

Section 1. Policy. It is hereby declared the policy of the State to attain and maintain a rational and
orderly balance between socio-economic growth and environmental protection.
Section 2. Environmental Impact Statement System. There is hereby established an Environmental
Impact Statement System founded and based on the environmental impact statement required, under
Section 4 of Presidential Decree No. 1151, of all agencies and instrumentalities of the national
government, including government-owned or controlled corporations, as well as private corporations,
firms and entities, for every proposed project and undertaking which significantly affect the quality of
the environment.

Section 3. Determination of Lead Agency. The Minister of Human Settlements or his designated
representative is hereby authorized to name the lead agencies referred to in Section 4 of Presidential
Decree No. 1151 which shall have jurisdiction to undertake the preparation of the necessary
environmental impact statements on declared environmentally critical projects and areas. All
Environmental Impact Statements shall be submitted to the National Environmental Protection
Council for review and evaluation.

Section 4. Presidential Proclamation of Environmentally Critical Areas and Projects. The President of
the Philippines may, on his own initiative or upon recommendation of the National Environmental
Protection Council, by proclamation declare certain projects, undertakings or areas in the country as
environmentally critical. No person, partnership or corporation shall undertake or operate any such
declared environmentally critical project or area without first securing an Environmental Compliance
Certificate issued by the President or his duly authorized representative. For the proper management
of said critical project or area, the President may by his proclamation reorganize such government
offices, agencies, institutions, corporations or instrumentalities including the re-alignment of
government personnel, and their specific functions and responsibilities.

For the same purpose as above, the Ministry of Human Settlements shall: (a) prepare the proper land
or water use pattern for said critical project(s) or area (s); (b) establish ambient environmental quality
standards; (c) develop a program of environmental enhancement or protective measures against
calamituous factors such as earthquake, floods, water erosion and others, and (d) perform such other
functions as may be directed by the President from time to time.

Section 5. Environmentally Non-Critical Projects. All other projects, undertakings and areas not
declared by the President as environmentally critical shall be considered as non-critical and shall not
be required to submit an environmental impact statement. The National Environmental Protection
Council, thru the Ministry of Human Settlements may however require non-critical projects and
undertakings to provide additional environmental safeguards as it may deem necessary.

Section 6. Secretariat. The National Environmental Protection Council is hereby authorized to

constitute the necessary secretariat which will administer the Environmental Impact Statement
System and undertake the processing and evaluation of environmental impact statements.

Section 7. Management and Financial Assistance. The Ministry of Human Settlements is hereby
authorized to provide management and financial support to government offices and instrumentalities
placed under its supervision pursuant to this Decree financed from its existing appropriation or from
budgetary augmentation as the Minister of Human Settlements may deem necessary.

Section 8. Rules and Regulations. The National Environmental Protection Council shall issue the
necessary rules and regulations to implement this Decree. For this purpose, the National Pollution
Control Commission may be availed of as one of its implementing arms, consistent with the powers
and responsibilities of the National Pollution Control Commission as provided in P.D. No. 984.

Section 9. Penalty for Violation. Any person, corporation or partnership found violating Section 4 of
this Decree, or the terms and conditions in the issuance of the Environmental Compliance Certificate,
or of the standards, rules and regulations issued by the National Environmental Protection Council
pursuant to this Decree shall be punished by the suspension or cancellation of his/its certificate or
and/or a fine in an amount not to exceed Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) for every violation
thereof, at the discretion of the National Environmental Protection Council.

Section 10. Environmental Revolving Fund. Proceeds from the penalties prescribed in the preceding
Section 9 and other penalties imposed by the National Pollution Control Commission as authorized in
P.D. 984, shall be automatically appropriated into an Environment Revolving Fund hereby created as
an exemption to P.D. 711 and P.D. 1234. The fund shall be used exclusively for the operation of the
National Environmental Protection Council and the National Pollution Control Commission in the
implementation of this Decree. The rules and regulations for the utilization of this fund shall be
formulated by the Ministry of Human Settlements and submitted to the President for approval.

Section 11. Repealing Clause. The Inter-Agency Advisory Council of the National Pollution Control
Commission created under Section 4 of P.D. 984 is hereby abolished and its powers and
responsibilities are forthwith delegated and transferred to the Control of the National Environmental
Protection Council.

All other laws, decrees, executive orders, rules and regulations inconsistent herewith are hereby
repealed, amended or modified accordingly.

Section 12. Effectivity Clause. This Decree shall take effect immediately.

DONE in the City of Manila, this 11th day of June, in the year of Our Lord, nineteen hundred and
seventy-eight.

PROCLAMATION NO. 2146

PROCLAIMING CERTAIN AREAS AND TYPES OF PROJECTS AS ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AND

WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT SYSTEM ESTABLISHED UNDER
PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 1586.

WHEREAS, it is the national policy to attain and maintain a rational and orderly balance between socio-economic
growth and environmental conservation and protection;

WHEREAS, there is an urgent need to bring about an intensive, integrated program of environmental protection
through a requirement of environmental impact assessments and statements;

WHEREAS, the environmental impact statement system established under Presidential Decree No, 1586 calls
for the proper management of environmentally critical areas;

WHEREAS, the pursuit of a comprehensive and integrated environmental protection program necessitates the
establishment and institutionalization of a system whereby the exigencies of socio-economic undertakings can
be reconciled with the requirements of environmental protection and conservation;
WHEREAS, the national leadership mandates the establishment of such a system to regulate and minimize the
environmental impacts of projects and undertakings which may significantly affect the quality of the environment
in Presidential Decree No. 1586; and

WHEREAS, in the effective implementation of such a system, there arises the need to identify and declare certain
projects determined to be environmentally critical;

NOW, THEREFORE, I, FERDINAND E. MARCOS, President of the Philippines, by virtue of the powers vested
in me by law, hereby proclaim the following areas and types of projects as environmentally critical and within the
scope of the Environmental Impact Statement System;

A. Environmentally Critical Projects

I. Heavy Industries

a) Non-ferrous metal industries

b) Iron and steel mills
c) Petroleum and petro-chemical industries including oil and gas
d) Smelting plants

II. Resource Extractive Industries

a) Major mining and quarrying projects

b) Forestry projects
1. Logging
2. Major wood processing projects
3. Introduction of fauna (exotic-animals) in public/private forests
4. Forest occupancy
5. Extraction of mangrove products
6. Grazing
c) Fishery Projects
1. Dikes for/and fishpond development projects

III. Infrastructure Projects

a) Major dams
b) Major power plants (fossil-fueled, nuclear fueled, hydroelectric or geothermal)
c) Major reclamation projects
d) Major roads and bridges

B. Environmentally Critical Areas

1. All areas declared by law as national parks, watershed reserves, wildlife preserves and sanctuaries;

2. Areas set aside as aesthetic potential tourist spots;

3. Areas which constitute the habitat for any endangered or threatened species of indigenous Philippine Wildlife
(flora and fauna);

4. Areas of unique historic, archaeological, or scientific interests;

5. Areas which are traditionally occupied by cultural communities or tribes;

6. Areas frequently visited and/or hard-hit by natural calamities (geologic hazards, floods, typhoons, volcanic
activity, etc.);
7. Areas with critical slopes;

8. Areas classified as prime agricultural lands;

9. Recharged areas of aquifers;

10. Water bodies characterized by one or any combination of the following conditions;

a. tapped for domestic purposes

b. within the controlled and/or protected areas declared by appropriate authorities
c. which support wildlife and fishery activities

11. Mangrove areas characterized by one or any combination of the following conditions:

a. with primary pristine and dense young growth;

b. adjoining mouth of major river systems;
c. near or adjacent to traditional productive fry or fishing grounds;
d. which act as natural buffers against shore erosion, strong winds and storm floods;
e. on which people are dependent for their livelihood.

12. Coral reefs characterized by one or any combinations of the following conditions:

a. With 50% and above live coralline cover;

b. Spawning and nursery grounds for fish;
c. which act as natural breakwater of coastlines.

This Proclamation shall take effect immediately.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the Republic of the Philippines
to be affixed.

Done in the City of Manila, this 14th day of December, in the year of Our Lord, nineteen hundred and eighty-
one.
 [G.R. No. 148622. September 12, 2002.]

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by HON. HEHERSON T. ALVAREZ, in his capacity as Secretary of the DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES (DENR), CLARENCE L. BAGUILAT, in his capacity as the Regional Executive Director of DENR-
Region XI and ENGR. BIENVENIDO L. LIPAYON, in his capacity as the Regional Director of the DENR-ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
BUREAU (DENR-EMB), Region XI, Petitioners, v. THE CITY OF DAVAO, represented by BENJAMIN C. DE GUZMAN, City Mayor, Respondent.

DECISION

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:

Before us is a petition for review 1 on certiorari assailing the decision 2 dated May 28,
2001 of the Regional Trial Court of Davao City, Branch 33, which granted the writ of
mandamus and injunction in favor of respondent, the City of Davao, and against
petitioner, the Republic, represented by the Department of Environment and Natural
Resources (DENR). The trial court also directed petitioner to issue a Certificate of Non-
Coverage in favor of Respondent.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

The antecedent facts of the case are as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

On August 11, 2000, respondent filed an application for a Certificate of Non-Coverage

(CNC) for its proposed project, the Davao City Artica Sports Dome, with the
Environmental Management Bureau (EMB), Region XI. Attached to the application were
the required documents for its issuance, namely, a) detailed location map of the project
site; b) brief project description; and c) a certification from the City Planning and
Development Office that the project is not located in an environmentally critical area
(ECA). The EMB Region XI denied the application after finding that the proposed project
was within an environmentally critical area and ruled that, pursuant to Section 2,
Presidential Decree No. 1586, otherwise known as the Environmental Impact Statement
System, in relation to Section 4 of Presidential Decree No. 1151, also known as the
Philippine Environment Policy, the City of Davao must undergo the environmental impact
assessment (EIA) process to secure an Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC),
before it can proceed with the construction of its project.

Believing that it was entitled to a Certificate of Non-Coverage, respondent filed a petition

for mandamus and injunction with the Regional Trial Court of Davao, docketed as Civil
Case No. 28, 133-2000. It alleged that its proposed project was neither an
environmentally critical project nor within an environmentally critical area; thus it was
outside the scope of the EIS system. Hence, it was the ministerial duty of the DENR,
through the EMB-Region XI, to issue a CNC in favor of respondent upon submission of
the required documents.

The Regional Trial Court rendered judgment in favor of respondent, the dispositive
portion of which reads as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

WHEREFORE, finding the petition to be meritorious, judgment granting the writ of

mandamus and injunction is hereby rendered in favor of the petitioner City of Davao and
against respondents Department of Environment and Natural Resources and the other
respondents by:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1) directing the respondents to issue in favor of the petitioner City of Davao a Certificate
of Non-Coverage, pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 1586 and related laws, in
connection with the construction by the City of Davao of the Artica Sports Dome;

2) making the preliminary injunction issued on December 12, 2000 permanent.

Costs de oficio.

SO ORDERED. 3

The trial court ratiocinated that there is nothing in PD 1586, in relation to PD 1151 and
Letter of Instruction No. 1179 (prescribing guidelines for compliance with the EIA
system), which requires local government units (LGUs) to comply with the EIS law. Only
agencies and instrumentalities of the national government, including government owned
or controlled corporations, as well as private corporations, firms and entities are
mandated to go through the EIA process for their proposed projects which have
significant effect on the quality of the environment. A local government unit, not being
an agency or instrumentality of the National Government, is deemed excluded under the
principle of expressio unius est exclusio alterius.

The trial court also declared, based on the certifications of the DENR-Community
Environment and Natural Resources Office (CENRO)-West, and the data gathered from
the Philippine Institute of Volcanology and Seismology (PHIVOLCS), that the site for the
Artica Sports Dome was not within an environmentally critical area. Neither was the
project an environmentally critical one. It therefore becomes mandatory for the DENR,
through the EMB Region XI, to approve respondent’s application for CNC after it has
satisfied all the requirements for its issuance. Accordingly, petitioner can be compelled
by a writ of mandamus to issue the CNC, if it refuses to do so.

Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, however, the same was denied. Hence, the
instant petition for review.

With the supervening change of administration, respondent, in lieu of a comment, filed a

manifestation expressing its agreement with petitioner that, indeed, it needs to secure
an ECC for its proposed project. It thus rendered the instant petition moot and
academic. However, for the guidance of the implementors of the EIS law and pursuant
to our symbolic function to educate the bench and bar, 4 we are inclined to address the
issue raised in this petition.

Section 15 of Republic Act 7160, 5 otherwise known as the Local Government Code,
defines a local government unit as a body politic and corporate endowed with powers to
be exercised by it in conformity with law. As such, it performs dual functions,
governmental and proprietary. Governmental functions are those that concern the
health, safety and the advancement of the public good or welfare as affecting the public
generally. 6 Proprietary functions are those that seek to obtain special corporate
benefits or earn pecuniary profit and intended for private advantage and benefit. 7 When
exercising governmental powers and performing governmental duties, an LGU is an
agency of the national government. 8 When engaged in corporate activities, it acts as an
agent of the community in the administration of local affairs. 9

Found in Section 16 of the Local Government Code is the duty of the LGUs to promote
the people’s right to a balanced ecology. 10 Pursuant to this, an LGU, like the City of
Davao, can not claim exemption from the coverage of PD 1586. As a body politic
endowed with governmental functions, an LGU has the duty to ensure the quality of the
environment, which is the very same objective of PD 1586.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw
1ibrary

Further, it is a rule of statutory construction that every part of a statute must be

interpreted with reference to the context, i.e., that every part must be considered with
other parts, and kept subservient to the general intent of the enactment. 11 The trial
court, in declaring local government units as exempt from the coverage of the EIS law,
failed to relate Section 2 of PD 1586 12 to the following provisions of the same
law:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

WHEREAS, the pursuit of a comprehensive and integrated environmental protection

program necessitates the establishment and institutionalization of a system whereby the
exigencies of socio-economic undertakings can be reconciled with the requirements of
environmental quality; . . .

Section 1. Policy. — It is hereby declared the policy of the State to attain and maintain a
rational and orderly balance between socio-economic growth and environmental
protection.

x x x

Section 4. Presidential Proclamation of Environmentally Critical Areas and Projects. —

The President of the Philippines may, on his own initiative or upon recommendation of
the National Environmental Protection Council, by proclamation declare certain projects,
undertakings or areas in the country as environmentally critical. No person, partnership
or corporation shall undertake or operate any such declared environmentally critical
project or area without first securing an Environmental Compliance Certificate issued by
the President or his duly authorized representative. For the proper management of said
critical project or area, the President may by his proclamation reorganize such
government offices, agencies, institutions, corporations or instrumentalities including the
realignment of government personnel, and their specific functions and responsibilities.

Section 4 of PD 1586 clearly states that "no person, partnership or corporation shall
undertake or operate any such declared environmentally critical project or area without
first securing an Environmental Compliance Certificate issued by the President or his
duly authorized representative." 13 The Civil Code defines a person as either natural or
juridical. The state and its political subdivisions, i.e., the local government units 14 are
juridical persons. 15 Undoubtedly therefore, local government units are not excluded
from the coverage of PD 1586.

Lastly, very clear in Section 1 of PD 1586 that said law intends to implement the policy
of the state to achieve a balance between socio-economic development and
environmental protection, which are the twin goals of sustainable development. The
above-quoted first paragraph of the Whereas clause stresses that this can only be
possible if we adopt a comprehensive and integrated environmental protection program
where all the sectors of the community are involved, i.e., the government and the
private sectors. The local government units, as part of the machinery of the
government, cannot therefore be deemed as outside the scope of the EIS system. 16

The foregoing arguments, however, presuppose that a project, for which an

Environmental Compliance Certificate is necessary, is environmentally critical or within
an environmentally critical area. In the case at bar, respondent has sufficiently shown
that the Artica Sports Dome will not have a significant negative environmental impact
because it is not an environmentally critical project and it is not located in an
environmentally critical area. In support of this contention, respondent submitted the
following:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1. Certification from the City Planning and Development Office that the project is not
located in an environmentally critical area;

2. Certification from the Community Environment and Natural Resources Office (CENRO-
West) that the project area is within the 18-30% slope, is outside the scope of the
NIPAS (R.A. 7586), and not within a declared watershed area; and

3. Certification from PHILVOCS that the project site is thirty-seven (37) kilometers
southeast of the southernmost extension of the Davao River Fault and forty-five (45)
kilometers west of the Eastern Mindanao Fault; and is outside the required minimum
buffer zone of five (5) meters from a fault zone.

The trial court, after a consideration of the evidence, found that the Artica Sports Dome
is not within an environmentally critical area. Neither is it an environmentally critical
project. It is axiomatic that factual findings of the trial court, when fully supported by
the evidence on record, are binding upon this Court and will not be disturbed on appeal.
17 This Court is not a trier of facts. 18

There are exceptional instances when this Court may disregard factual findings of the
trial court, namely: a) when the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on
speculations, surmises, or conjectures; b) when the inference made is manifestly
mistaken, absurd, or impossible; c) where there is a grave abuse of discretion; d) when
the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; e) when the findings of fact are
conflicting; f) when the Court of Appeals, in making its findings, went beyond the issues
of the case and the same are contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee;
g) when the findings of the Court of Appeals are contrary to those of the trial court; h)
when the findings of fact are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which
they are based; i) when the finding of fact of the Court of Appeals is premised on the
supposed absence of evidence but is contradicted by the evidence on record; and j)
when the Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by
the parties and which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion. 19
None of these exceptions, however, obtain in this case.

The Environmental Impact Statement System, which ensures environmental protection

and regulates certain government activities affecting the environment, was established
by Presidential Decree No. 1586. Section 2 thereof states:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
There is hereby established an Environmental Impact Statement System founded and
based on the environmental impact statement required under Section 4 of Presidential
Decree No. 1151, of all agencies and instrumentalities of the national government,
including government-owned or controlled corporations, as well as private corporations,
firms and entities, for every proposed project and undertaking which significantly affect
the quality of the environment.

Section 4 of PD 1151, on the other hand, provides:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Environmental Impact Statements. — Pursuant to the above enunciated policies and

goals, all agencies and instrumentalities of the national government, including
government-owned or controlled corporations, as well as private corporations, firms and
entities shall prepare, file and include in every action, project or undertaking which
significantly affects the quality of the environment a detailed statement on —

(a) the environmental impact of the proposed action, project or undertaking

(b) any adverse environmental effect which cannot be avoided should the proposal be
implemented

(c) alternative to the proposed action

(d) a determination that the short-term uses of the resources of the environment are
consistent with the maintenance and enhancement of the long-term productivity of the
same; and

(e) whenever a proposal involves the use of depletable or nonrenewable resources, a

finding must be made that such use and commitment are warranted.

Before an environmental impact statement is issued by a lead agency, all agencies

having jurisdiction over, or special expertise on, the subject matter involved shall
comment on the draft environmental impact statement made by the lead agency within
thirty (30) days from receipt of the same.

Under Article II, Section 1, of the Rules and Regulations Implementing PD 1586, the
declaration of certain projects or areas as environmentally critical, and which shall fall
within the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement System, shall be by
Presidential Proclamation, in accordance with Section 4 of PD 1586 quoted above.

Pursuant thereto, Proclamation No. 2146 was issued on December 14, 1981, proclaiming
the following areas and types of projects as environmentally critical and within the scope
of the Environmental Impact Statement System established under PD 1586:chanrob1es
virtual 1aw library

A. Environmentally Critical Projects

I. Heavy Industries

a. Non-ferrous metal industries

b. Iron and steel mills

c. Petroleum and petro-chemical industries including oil and gas

d. Smelting plants

II. Resource Extractive Industries

a. Major mining and quarrying projects

b. Forestry projects

1. Logging

2. Major wood processing projects

3. Introduction of fauna (exotic-animals) in public/private forests

4. Forest occupancy

5. Extraction of mangrove products

6. Grazing

c. Fishery Projects

1. Dikes for/and fishpond development projects

III. Infrastructure Projects

a. Major dams

b. Major power plants (fossil-fueled, nuclear fueled, hydroelectric or geothermal)

c. Major reclamation projects

d. Major roads and bridges

B. Environmentally Critical Areas

1. All areas declared by law as national parks, watershed reserves, wildlife preserves
and sanctuaries;

2. Areas set aside as aesthetic potential tourist spots;

3. Areas which constitute the habitat for any endangered or threatened species of
indigenous Philippine Wildlife (flora and fauna);
4. Areas of unique historic, archaeological, or scientific interests;

5. Areas which are traditionally occupied by cultural communities or tribes;

6. Areas frequently visited and/or hard-hit by natural calamities (geologic hazards,

floods, typhoons, volcanic activity, etc.);

7. Areas with critical slopes;

8. Areas classified as prime agricultural lands;

9. Recharged areas of aquifers;

10. Water bodies characterized by one or any combination of the following conditions;

a. tapped for domestic purposes

b. within the controlled and/or protected areas declared by appropriate authorities

c. which support wildlife and fishery activities

11. Mangrove areas characterized by one or any combination of the following

conditions:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

a. with primary pristine and dense young growth;

b. adjoining mouth of major river systems;

c. near or adjacent to traditional productive fry or fishing grounds;

d. which act as natural buffers against shore erosion, strong winds and storm floods;

e. on which people are dependent for their livelihood.

12. Coral reefs, characterized by one or any combinations of the following

conditions:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

a. with 50% and above live coralline cover;

b. spawning and nursery grounds for fish;

c. which act as natural breakwater of coastlines.

In this connection, Section 5 of PD 1586 expressly states:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Environmentally Non-Critical Projects. — All other projects, undertakings and areas not
declared by the President as environmentally critical shall be considered as non-critical
and shall not be required to submit an environmental impact statement. The National
Environmental Protection Council, thru the Ministry of Human Settlements may however
require non-critical projects and undertakings to provide additional environmental
safeguards as it may deem necessary.

The Artica Sports Dome in Langub does not come close to any of the projects or areas
enumerated above. Neither is it analogous to any of them. It is clear, therefore, that the
said project is not classified as environmentally critical, or within an environmentally
critical area. Consequently, the DENR has no choice but to issue the Certificate of Non-
Coverage. It becomes its ministerial duty, the performance of which can be compelled
by writ of mandamus, such as that issued by the trial court in the case at
bar.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the instant petition is DENIED. The decision of
the Regional Trial Court of Davao City, Branch 33, in Civil Case No. 28,133-2000,
granting the writ of mandamus and directing the Department of Environment and
Natural Resources to issue in favor of the City of Davao a Certificate of Non-Coverage,
pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 1586 and related laws, in connection with the
construction of the Artica Sports Dome, is AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

Davide, Jr., C.J., Vitug and Carpio, JJ., concur

G.R. No. 94759 January 21, 1991

TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPERS, INC., petitioner,

vs.
COURT OF APPEALS, HON. NARCISO T. ATIENZA as Presiding Judge, Bulacan, RTC, and HON. VICENTE CRUZ, Acting Mayor and the MUNICIPALITY OF STA.
MARIA, BULACAN, respondents.

Diosdado P. Peralta for petitioner.

GANCAYCO, J.:

The authority of the local executive to protect the community from pollution is the center of this
controversy.

The antecedent facts are related in the appealed decision of the Court of Appeals as follows:

Petitioner, a domestic private corporation engaged in the manufacture and export of charcoal
briquette, received a letter dated February 16, 1989 from private respondent acting mayor
Pablo N. Cruz, ordering the full cessation of the operation of the petitioner's plant located at
Guyong, Sta. Maria, Bulacan, until further order. The letter likewise requested Plant Manager
Mr. Armando Manese to bring with him to the office of the mayor on February 20, 1989 the
following: a) Building permit; b) Mayor's permit; c) Region III-Pollution of Environment and
Natural Resources Anti-Pollution Permit; and of other document.

At the requested conference on February 20, 1989, petitioner, through its representative,
undertook to comply with respondent's request for the production of the required documents. In
compliance with said undertaking, petitioner commenced to secure "Region III-Department of
Environmental and Natural Resources Anti-Pollution Permit," although among the permits
previously secured prior to the operation of petitioner's plant was a "Temporary Permit to
Operate Air Pollution Installation" issued by the then National Pollution Control Commission
(now Environmental Management Bureau) and is now at a stage where the Environmental
Management Bureau is trying to determine the correct kind of anti-pollution devise to be
installed as part of petitioner's request for the renewal of its permit.

Petitioner's attention having been called to its lack of mayor's permit, it sent its representatives
to the office of the mayor to secure the same but were not entertained.

On April 6, 1989, without previous and reasonable notice upon petitioner, respondent acting
mayor ordered the Municipality's station commander to padlock the premises of petitioner's
plant, thus effectively causing the stoppage of its operation.

Left with no recourse, petitioner instituted an action for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus with
preliminary injunction against private respondent with the court a quo which is presided by the
respondent judge. In its prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction, it
alleged therein that the closure order was issued in grave abuse of discretion.

During the hearing of the application for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction on April
14, 1989, herein parties adduced their respective evidences. The respondent judge, April 19,
1989, found that petitioner is entitled to the issuance of the writ of preliminary mandatory
injunction, hence, it ordered as follows:

In view of the foregoing, upon petitioner's posting of a bond in the amount of P50,000.00
to answer for such damages that respondents may sustain should petitioner eventually
be found not entitled to the injunctive relief hereby issued, let a PRELIMINARY
 MANDATORY INJUNCTION issue ordering the respondent Hon. Pablo N. Cruz, and
other person acting in his behalf and stead to immediately revoke his closure order
dated April 6, 1989, and allow petitioner to resume its normal business operations until
after the instant case shall have been adjudicated on the merits without prejudice to the
inherent power of the court to alter, modify or even revoke this order at any given time.

SO ORDERED.

The writ of preliminary mandatory injunction was issued on April 28, 1989, upon petitioner's
posting a bond in the amount of P50,000.00.

Private respondent filed his motion for reconsideration dated May 3, 1989. Said motion for
reconsideration was heard on May 30, 1989. Petitioner's counsel failed to appear and the
hearing proceeded with the Provincial Prosecutor presenting his evidence. The following
documents were submitted:

a) Exhibit "A", Investigation report on the Technology Developers Inc., prepared by one Marivic
Guina, and her conclusion and recommendation read:

Due to the manufacturing process and nature of raw materials used, the fumes coming
from the factory may contain particulate matters which are hazardous to the health of
the people. As such, the company should cease operating until such a time that the
proper air pollution device is installed and operational.

b) Exhibits "B", "B-1", "B-2", three (3) sheets of coupon bond containing signatures of residents
of Barangay Guyong, Sta. Maria, Bulacan;

c) Exhibit "B-3", a letter addressed to Hon. Roberto Pagdanganan Governor of the Province of
Bulacan, dated November 22, 1988, complaining about the smoke coming out of the chimney
of the company while in operation.

Reassessing all the evidence adduced, the lower court, on June 14, 1989, issued an order (a)
setting aside the order dated April 28, 1989, which granted a Writ of Preliminary Mandatory
Injunction, and (b) dissolving the writ consequently issued.

A motion for reconsideration dated July 6, 1989 was filed by petitioner. Said motion drew an
opposition dated July 19, 1989 from private respondent.

Resolving the petitioner's motion for reconsideration, the respondent judge issued an order
dated August 9, 1989, denying said motion for reconsideration.1

Hence a petition for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction was filed by petitioner in the
Court of Appeals seeking to annul and set aside (a) the order issued by the trial court on June 14,
1989, setting aside the order dated April 28, 1989, and (b) the order of August 9, 1989, denying
petitioner's motion for reconsideration of the order of June 14, 1989. In due course the petition was
denied for lack of merit by the appellate court in a decision dated January 26, 1990.2 A motion for
reconsideration thereof filed by petitioner was denied on August 10, 1990.

Thus, the herein petition for review on certiorari filed with this Court. Six errors are alleged to have
been committed by the appellate court which may be synthesized into the singular issue of whether or
not the appellate court committed a grave abuse of discretion in rendering its question decision and
resolution.
The petition is devoid of merit.

The well-known rule is that the matter of issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction is addressed to
the sound judicial discretion of the trial court and its action shall not be disturbed on appeal unless it
is demonstrated that it acted without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction or otherwise, in grave
abuse of its discretion. By the same token the court that issued such a preliminary relief may recall or
dissolve the writ as the circumstances may warrant.

To the mind of the Court the following circumstances militate against the maintenance of the writ of
preliminary injunction sought by petitioner:

1. No mayor's permit had been secured. While it is true that the matter of determining whether
there is a pollution of the environment that requires control if not prohibition of the operation of
a business is essentially addressed to the then National Pollution Control Commission of the
Ministry of Human Settlements, now the Environmental Management Bureau of the
Department of Environment and Natural Resources, it must be recognized that the mayor of a
town has as much responsibility to protect its inhabitants from pollution, and by virture of his
police power, he may deny the application for a permit to operate a business or otherwise
close the same unless appropriate measures are taken to control and/or avoid injury to the
health of the residents of the community from the emissions in the operation of the business.

2. The Acting Mayor, in a letter of February 16, 1989, called the attention of petitioner to the
pollution emitted by the fumes of its plant whose offensive odor "not only pollute the air in the
locality but also affect the health of the residents in the area," so that petitioner was ordered to
stop its operation until further orders and it was required to bring the following:

(1) Building permit;

(2) Mayor's permit; and

(3) Region III-Department of Environment and Natural Resources Anti-Pollution permit.3

3. This action of the Acting Mayor was in response to the complaint of the residents of
Barangay Guyong, Sta. Maria, Bulacan, directed to the Provincial Governor through
channels.4 The alleged NBI finding that some of the signatures in the four-page petition were
written by one person,5 appears to be true in some instances, (particularly as among members
of the same family), but on the whole the many signatures appear to be written by different
persons. The certification of the barrio captain of said barrio that he has not received any
complaint on the matter6 must be because the complaint was sent directly to the Governor
through the Acting Mayor.

4. The closure order of the Acting Mayor was issued only after an investigation was made by
Marivic Guina who in her report of December 8, 1988 observed that the fumes emitted by the
plant of petitioner goes directly to the surrounding houses and that no proper air pollution
device has been installed.7

5. Petitioner failed to produce a building permit from the municipality of Sta. Maria, but instead
presented a building permit issued by an official of Makati on March 6,1987.8

6. While petitioner was able to present a temporary permit to operate by the then National
Pollution Control Commission on December 15, 1987, the permit was good only up to May 25,
1988.9 Petitioner had not exerted any effort to extend or validate its permit much less to install
 any device to control the pollution and prevent any hazard to the health of the residents of the
community.

All these factors justify the dissolution of the writ of preliminary injunction by the trial court and the
appellate court correctly upheld the action of the lower court.

Petitioner takes note of the plea of petitioner focusing on its huge investment in this dollar-earning
industry.1âwphi1 It must be stressed however, that concomitant with the need to promote investment
and contribute to the growth of the economy is the equally essential imperative of protecting the
health, nay the very lives of the people, from the deleterious effect of the pollution of the environment.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED, with costs against petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, Cruz, Griño-Aquino and Medialdea, JJ., concur.

G.R. No. 131442 July 10, 2003

BANGUS FRY FISHERFOLK, DIWATA MAGBUHOS, ANGELITA BINAY, ELMA GARCIA, VIRGILIO PANGUIO, ARSENIO CASTILLO, ARIEL PANGUIO, ANTONIO
PANGUIO, ANTONIO BUNQUIN, GENEROSO BUNQUIN, CHARLIE DIMAYACYAC, RENATO PANGUIO, ATILANO BUNQUIN, CARLOS CHAVEZ, JUAN
DIMAYACYAC, FILEMON BUNQUIN, MARIO MAGBUHOS, MAURO MAGBUHOS, NORA MAGBUHOS, JEOVILYN, GENALYN and JORVAN QUIMUEL, minors,
represented by their parents FELICIANA and SABINO QUIMUEL, MARICAR MAGBUHOS, minor, represented by her parents CARMELITA and ANTONIO
MAGBUHOS, MARLO BINAY, minor, represented by his parents EFRENITA and CHARLITO BINAY, and the BANGUS, BANGUS FRY and other MARINE LIFE OF
MINOLO COVE, petitioners,
vs.
THE HONORABLE ENRICO LANZANAS as Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch VII, THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL
RESOURCES — Region IV, represented by its Regional Executive Director and its Regional Director for Environment, THE NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION,
ORIENTAL MINDORO ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT OF ORIENTAL MINDORO, herein represented by GOVERNOR RODOLFO
VALENCIA, PUERTO GALERA MAYOR GREGORIO DELGADO, VICE MAYOR ARISTEO ATIENZA, and MEMBERS OF THE SANGGUNIANG BAYAN OF PUERTO
GALERA, JUAN ASCAN, JR., RAFAEL ROMEY, CENON SALCEDO, JERRY DALISAY, SIMON BALITAAN, RENATO CATAQUIS, MARCELINO BANAAG, DANIEL
ENRIQUEZ, AMELYN MARCO, GABRIEL ILAGAN, MUNICIPAL ENGINEER RODEL RUBIO, and MUNICIPAL PLANNING and DEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR
WILHELMINA LINESES, respondents.

CARPIO, J.:

The Case

This is a petition for review1 of the Order2 dated 7 November 1997 of the Regional Trial Court of
Manila, Branch 7 ("Manila RTC"), dismissing petitioners' complaint for lack of cause of action and lack
of jurisdiction.

The Facts

On 30 June 1997, Regional Executive Director Antonio G. Principe ("RED Principe") of Region IV,
Department of Environment and Natural Resources ("DENR"), issued an Environmental Clearance
Certificate ("ECC") in favor of respondent National Power Corporation ("NAPOCOR"). The ECC
authorized NAPOCOR to construct a temporary mooring facility in Minolo Cove, Sitio Minolo,
Barangay San Isidro, Puerto Galera, Oriental Mindoro. The Sangguniang Bayan of Puerto Galera has
declared Minolo Cove, a mangrove area and breeding ground for bangus fry, an eco-tourist zone.3

The mooring facility would serve as the temporary docking site of NAPOCOR's power barge, which,
due to turbulent waters at its former mooring site in Calapan, Oriental Mindoro, required relocation to
a safer site like Minolo Cove. The 14.4 megawatts power barge would provide the main source of
power for the entire province of Oriental Mindoro pending the construction of a land-based power
plant in Calapan, Oriental Mindoro. The ECC for the mooring facility was valid for two years counted
from its date of issuance or until 30 June 1999.4

Petitioners, claiming to be fisherfolks from Minolo, San Isidro, Puerto Galera,5 sought reconsideration
of the ECC issuance. RED Principe, however, denied petitioners' plea on 15 July 1997. On 21 July
1997, petitioners filed a complaint with the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 7, for the
cancellation of the ECC and for the issuance of a writ of injunction to stop the construction of the
mooring facility. Impleaded as defendants were the following: (1) NAPOCOR, (2) RED Principe, (3)
DENR Region IV Technical Director for Environment Oscar Dominguez, (4) Oriental Mindoro Electric
Cooperative ("ORMECO"), which is engaged in the distribution of electricity in Oriental Mindoro, and
(5) certain officials of Puerto Galera.6 Petitioners subsequently amended their complaint to include as
additional defendants the elective officials of Oriental Mindoro represented by then Governor Rodolfo
G. Valencia. Petitioners further prayed for the demolition of mooring structures that respondents had
already built.

On 28 July 1997, prior to the filing of the amended complaint, the trial court issued a 20-day
temporary restraining order enjoining the construction of the mooring facility. However, the trial court
lifted the same on 6 August 1997 on NAPOCOR's manifestation that the provincial government of
Oriental Mindoro was the one undertaking the construction of the mooring facility.7

On 28 August 1997, before filing their answers, respondents ORMECO and the provincial officials of
Oriental Mindoro moved to dismiss the complaint. These respondents claimed that petitioners failed
to exhaust administrative remedies, rendering the complaint without cause of action. They also
asserted that the Manila RTC has no jurisdiction to enjoin the construction of the mooring facility in
Oriental Mindoro, which lies outside the Manila RTC's territorial jurisdiction.

Petitioners opposed the motion on the ground that there was no need to exhaust administrative
remedies. They argued that the issuance of the ECC was in patent violation of Presidential Decree
No. 1605, 8 Sections 26 and 27 of Republic Act No. 7160,9 and the provisions of DENR Department
Administrative Order No. 96-37 ("DAO 96-37") on the documentation of ECC applications. Petitioners
also claimed that the implementation of the ECC was in patent violation of its terms.

In its order of 7 November 1997, the trial court granted the motion and dismissed petitioners'
complaint.

Hence, this petition.

The Ruling of the Trial Court

The trial court's order dismissing the complaint reads in part:

After careful evaluation and analysis, this Court finds the Motion to Dismiss tenable and
meritorious.

Petitioners have clearly failed to exhaust all administrative remedies before taking this legal
action in Court x x x.

It is x x x worth mentioning that the decision of the Regional Director may still be x x x elevated
to the Office of the Secretary of the DENR to fully comply with the process of exhaustion of
administrative remedies. And well settled is the rule in our jurisdiction that before bringing an
action in or resorting to the Courts of Justice, all remedies of administrative character affecting
or determinative of the controversy at that level should first be exhausted by the aggrieved
party (Pestanas vs. Dyogi, L-25786, February 27, 1978). And petitioners' failure to exhaust
administrative remedies renders his [sic] petition dismissible (Chia vs. Acting Collector of
Customs, 177 SCRA 755). And a dismissal on the ground of failure to exhaust administrative
remedies is tantamount to a dismissal based on lack of cause of action (Baguiro vs. Basa, Jr.,
214 SCRA 437; Pineda vs. CFI of Davao, 111 Phil. 643; Sarabia vs. Secretary of Agriculture &
Natural Resources, L-16002, May 23, 1961; Gone, et al. vs. District Engineer, et. al., L-22782,
August 29, 1975; Abe-Abe, et al. vs. Manta, et. al., L-4827, May 31, 1979) although it does not
affect the jurisdiction of the court over the subject matter (Mun. of La Trinidad, et al. vs. CFI of
Baguio-Benguet, et al., L-33889, June 28, 1983).

Moreover, this Court finds the Opposition of the Petitioners highly untenable and bereft of
merits that the controverted act in question is patently illegal and there was an immediate need
for judicial intervention.

The ECC in question was issued by the Regional Office of the DENR which has jurisdiction
and authority over the same . . .. And corollary to this, the issue as to whether or not the Minolo
Cove is within the enclosed coves and waters embraced by Puerto Galera bay and protected
by Medio island is a clear question of fact which the DENR may appropriately resolve before
resorting to [the] Court[s].

This Court is likewise aware and cognizant of its territorial jurisdiction in the enforcement of
Writ of Injunction. That truly, [a] writ of injunction can only be enforced within [the] territorial
 jurisdiction of this Court but not for acts which are being or about to be committed outside its
territorial jurisdiction. Thus, in Philippine National Bank vs. Pineda, 197 SCRA 1, the
Honorable Supreme Court ruled: "Regional Trial Courts can only enforce their writs of
injunction within their respective designated territories. Furthermore, we find the issuance of
the preliminary injunction directed against the Provincial Sheriff of Negros Occidental a
jurisdictional paux [sic] pas (from Black Dictionary means jurisdictional falsity) as the Courts of
First Instance now Regional Trial Court[s], can only enforce their writs of injunction within their
respective designated territories.

And finally, this Court is not unmindful of the relevant and square application in the case at bar
of Presidential Decree No. 1818, Executive Order No. 380 dated November 27, 1989, and
Circular No. 2-91 of the Supreme Court that the National Power Corporation (NPC) is a public
utility, created under special legislation, engaged in the generation and distribution of electric
power and energy. The mooring site of NPC in Puerto Galera, Oriental Mindoro is one of its
infrastructure projects falling within the mantle of Executive Order No. 380, November 27, 1989
x x x.

And as held by the Supreme Court in the case of National Power Corporation vs. Honorable
Abraham P. Vera, et al., 170 SCRA 721, courts are without jurisdiction to issue injunctive writs
against [the] National Power Corporation. The latter enjoys the protective mantle of P.D. 1818,
(Circular No. 2-91).

xxx xxx xxx

Injunction in this case is not a mere ancillary [sic] writ but the main action itself together with
the Annulment of the Environmental Clearance Certificate (ECC). Even assuming arguendo
that the court [can] annul the ECC how can the latter enforce the same against the Provincial
Government of Oriental Mindoro which was impleaded by the petitioners as a necessary party
together with the Oriental Mindoro Electric Cooperative and the government officials of Puerto
Galera, Oriental Mindoro, whose acts and functions are being performed outside the territorial
jurisdiction of this court? x x x Indisputably, the injunction and annulment of ECC as prayed for
in the petition are inseparable x x x.

The conclusion, therefore, is inescapable that petitioners have failed to exhaust all the
available administrative remedies and this Court has no jurisdiction to issue the injunctive writ
prayed for in the Amended [Complaint].10

The Issue

The issue is whether the trial court erred in dismissing petitioners' complaint for lack of cause action
and lack of jurisdiction.

The Ruling of the Court

The petition has no merit.

Jurisdiction of the Manila RTC over the Case

Jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case is conferred by law. Such jurisdiction is determined by
the allegations in the complaint, irrespective of whether the plaintiff is entitled to all or some of the
reliefs sought.11
A perusal of the allegations in the complaint shows that petitioners' principal cause of action is the
alleged illegality of the issuance of the ECC. The violation of laws on environmental protection and on
local government participation in the implementation of environmentally critical projects is an issue
that involves the validity of NAPOCOR's ECC. If the ECC is void, then as a necessary consequence,
NAPOCOR or the provincial government of Oriental Mindoro could not construct the mooring facility.
The subsidiary issue of non-compliance with pertinent local ordinances in the construction of the
mooring facility becomes immaterial for purposes of granting petitioners' main prayer, which is the
annulment of the ECC. Thus, if the court has jurisdiction to determine the validity of the issuance of
the ECC, then it has jurisdiction to hear and decide petitioners' complaint.

Petitioners' complaint is one that is not capable of pecuniary estimation. It falls within the exclusive
and original jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Courts under Section 19(1) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129,
as amended by Republic Act No. 7691. The question of whether petitioners should file their complaint
in the Regional Trial Court of Manila or Oriental Mindoro then becomes a matter of venue, to be
determined by the residence of the parties.12

Petitioners' main prayer is the annulment of the ECC. The principal respondent, DENR Region IV,
has its main office at the L & S Building, Roxas Boulevard, Manila. Regional Executive Director
Principe of the DENR Region IV, who issued the ECC, holds office there. Plainly, the principal
respondent resides in Manila, which is within the territorial jurisdiction of the Manila RTC. Thus,
petitioners filed their complaint in the proper venue.

On the other hand, the jurisdiction of Regional Trial Courts to issue injunctive writs is limited to acts
committed or about to be committed within their judicial region.13 Moreover, Presidential Decree No.
1818 ("PD No. 1818") prohibited14 courts from issuing injunctive writs against government
infrastructure projects like the mooring facility in the present case. Republic Act No. 8975 ("RA No.
8975"), which took effect on 26 November 2000, superseded PD No. 1818 and delineates more
clearly the coverage of the prohibition, reserves the power to issue such writs exclusively with this
Court, and provides penalties for its violation.15 Obviously, neither the Manila RTC nor the Oriental
Mindoro RTC can issue an injunctive writ to stop the construction of the mooring facility. Only this
Court can do so under PD No. 1818 and later under RA No. 8975. Thus, the question of whether the
Manila RTC has jurisdiction over the complaint considering that its injunctive writ is not enforceable in
Oriental Mindoro is academic.

Clearly, the Manila RTC has jurisdiction to determine the validity of the issuance of the ECC, although
it could not issue an injunctive writ against the DENR or NAPOCOR. However, since the construction
of the mooring facility could not proceed without a valid ECC, the validity of the ECC remains the
determinative issue in resolving petitioners' complaint.

Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies

The settled rule is before a party may seek the intervention of the courts, he should first avail of all the
means afforded by administrative processes. Hence, if a remedy within the administrative machinery
is still available, with a procedure prescribed pursuant to law for an administrative officer to decide the
controversy, a party should first exhaust such remedy before resorting to the courts. The premature
invocation of a court's intervention renders the complaint without cause of action and dismissible on
such ground.16

RED Principe of the DENR Region IV Office issued the ECC based on (1) Presidential Decree No.
1586 ("PD No. 1586") and its implementing rules establishing the Environmental Impact Statement
System, (2) DAO 96-3717 and (3) the Procedural Manual of DAO 96-37. Section 418 of PD No. 1586
requires a proponent of an environmentally critical project, or a project located within an
environmentally critical area as declared by the President, to secure an ECC prior to the project's
operation.19 NAPOCOR thus secured the ECC because the mooring facility in Minolo Cove, while not
an environmentally critical project, is located within an environmentally critical area under Presidential
Proclamation No. 2146, issued on 14 December 1981.20

The rules on administrative appeals from rulings of the DENR Regional Directors on the
implementation of PD No. 1586 are found in Article VI of DAO 96-37, which provides:

SECTION 1.0. Appeal to the Office of the Secretary. — Any party aggrieved by the final
decision of the RED may, within 15 days from receipt of such decision, file an appeal with the
Office of the Secretary. The decision of the Secretary shall be immediately executory.

SECTION 2.0. Grounds for Appeal. — The grounds for appeal shall be limited to grave abuse
of discretion and serious errors in the findings of fact which would cause grave or irreparable
injury to the aggrieved party. Frivolous appeals shall not be countenanced.

SECTION 3.0. Who May Appeal. — The proponent or any stakeholder, including but not
limited to, the LGUs concerned and affected communities, may file an appeal.

The DENR Procedural Manual for DAO 96-37 explains these provisions thus:

Final decisions of the RED may be appealed. These decisions include those relating to the
issuance or non-issuance of an ECC, and the imposition of fines and penalties. By inference,
the decision of the Secretary on the issuance or non-issuance of the ECC may also be
appealed based on this provision. Resort to courts prior to availing of this remedy would make
the appellant's action dismissible on the ground of non-exhaustion of administrative remedies.

The right to appeal must be exercised within 15 days from receipt by the aggrieved party of
such decision. Failure to file such appeal within the requisite period will result in the finality of
the RED's or Secretary's decision(s), which can no longer be disturbed.

An appeal shall not stay the effectivity of the RED's decision, unless the Secretary directs
otherwise.

The right to appeal does not prevent the aggrieved party from first resorting to the filing of a
motion for reconsideration with the RED, to give the RED an opportunity to re-evaluate his
decision. (Emphasis added)

Instead of following the foregoing procedure, petitioners bypassed the DENR Secretary and
immediately filed their complaint with the Manila RTC, depriving the DENR Secretary the opportunity
to review the decision of his subordinate, RED Principe. Under the Procedural Manual for DAO 96-37
and applicable jurisprudence, petitioners' omission renders their complaint dismissible for lack of
cause of action.21 Consequently, the Manila RTC did not err in dismissing petitioners' complaint for
lack of cause of action.

On the Alleged Patent Illegality of the ECC

Petitioners nevertheless contend that they are exempt from filing an appeal with the DENR Secretary
because the issuance of the ECC was in patent violation of existing laws and regulations. These are
(1) Section 1 of Presidential Decree No. 1605, as amended, (2) Sections 26 and 27 of Republic Act
No. 7160 (Local Government Code of 1991), and (3) the provisions of DAO 96-37 on the
documentary requirements for the zoning permit and social acceptability of the mooring facility.
Petitioners' contention is without merit. While the patent illegality of an act exempts a party from
complying with the rule on exhaustion Of administrative remedies,22 this does not apply in the present
case.

Presidential Decree No. 1605

Presidential Decree No. 1605 ("PD No. 1605"),23 as amended by Presidential Decrees Nos. 1605-A
and 1805, declares as ecologically threatened zone "the coves and waters embraced by Puerto
Galera Bay as protected by Medio Island." This decree provides in part:

Section 1. Any provision of law to the contrary notwithstanding, the construction of marinas,
hotels, restaurants, other commercial structures; commercial or semi-commercial wharfs [sic];
commercial docking within the enclosed coves of Puerto Galera; the destruction of its
mangrove stands; the devastation of its corals and coastline by large barges, motorboats,
tugboat propellers, and any form of destruction by other human activities are hereby
prohibited.

Section 2. x x x

No permit for the construction of any wharf, marina, hotel, restaurants and other commercial
structures in Puerto Galera shall be issued without prior approval of the Office of the President
upon the recommendation of the Philippine Tourism Authority. (Emphasis supplied)

NAPOCOR claims that since Minolo Cove lies outside of "Puerto Galera Bay as protected by Medio
Island",24 PD No. 1605 does not apply to this case. However, petitioners assert that Minolo Cove is
one of the "enclosed coves of Puerto Galera"25 and thus protected under PD No. 1605. This is a
question of fact that the DENR Secretary should have first resolved. In any event, there is no dispute
that NAPOCOR will use the mooring facility for its power barge that will supply 14.4 megawatts of
electricity to the entire province of Oriental Mindoro, including Puerto Galera. The mooring facility is
obviously a government-owned public infrastructure intended to serve a basic need of the people of
Oriental Mindoro. The mooring facility is not a "commercial structure; commercial or semi-commercial
wharf or commercial docking" as contemplated in Section 1 of PD No. 1605. Therefore, the issuance
of the ECC does not violate PD No. 1605 which applies only to commercial structures like wharves,
marinas, hotels and restaurants.

Sections 26 and 27 of RA No. 7160

Congress introduced Sections 26 and 27 in the Local Government Code to emphasize the legislative
concern "for the maintenance of a sound ecology and clean environment."26 These provisions require
every national government agency or government-owned and controlled corporation to hold prior
consultations with the local government unit concerned and to secure the prior approval of
its sanggunian before implementing "any project or program that may cause pollution, climatic
change, depletion of non-renewable resources, loss of cropland, rangeland, or forest cover and
extinction of animal or plant species." Sections 26 and 27 respectively provide:

Section 26. Duty of National Government Agencies in the Maintenance of Ecological Balance.
— It shall be the duty of every national agency or government-owned or controlled corporation
authorized or involved in the planning and implementation of any project or program that may
cause pollution, climatic change, depletion of non-renewable resources, loss of crop land,
rangeland, or forest cover and extinction of animal or plant species, to consult with the local
government units, non-governmental organizations, and other sectors concerned and explain
the goals and objectives of the project or program, its impact upon the people and the
 community in terms of environmental or ecological balance, and the measures that will be
undertaken to prevent or minimize the adverse effects thereof.

Section 27. Prior Consultations Required. — No project or program shall be implemented by

government authorities unless the consultations mentioned in Section . . . 26 hereof are
complied with, and prior approval of the sanggunian concerned is obtained: Provided, That
occupants in areas where such projects are to be implemented shall not be evicted unless
appropriate relocation sites have been provided, in accordance with the provisions of the
Constitution.

In Lina, Jr. v. Paño,27 the Court interpreted these provisions in this manner:

Section 27 of the Code should be read in conjunction with Section 26 thereof x x x.

Thus, the projects and programs mentioned in Section 27 should be interpreted to mean
projects and programs whose effects are among those enumerated in Sections 26 and 27, to
wit, those that: (1) may cause pollution; (2) may bring about climatic change; (3) may cause
the depletion of non-renewable resources; (4) may result in loss of crop land, rangeland, or
forest cover; (5) may eradicate certain animal or plant species; and (6) other projects or
programs that may call for the eviction of a particular group of people residing in the locality
where these will be implemented.

Again, Sections 26 and 27 do not apply to this case because as petitioners admit,28 the mooring
facility itself is not environmentally critical and hence does not belong to any of the six types of
projects mentioned in the law. There is no statutory requirement for the concerned sanggunian to
approve the construction of the mooring facility. It is another matter if the operation of the power
barge is at issue. As an environmentally critical project that causes pollution, the operation of the
power barge needs the prior approval of the concerned sanggunian. However, what is before this
Court is only the construction of the mooring facility, not the operation of the power barge. Thus, the
issuance of the ECC does not violate Sections 26 and 27 of RA No. 7160.

Documentary Requirements for ECC Applications

Under DAO 96-37, an ECC applicant for a project located within an environmentally critical area is
required to submit an Initial Environment Examination, which must contain a brief description of the
environmental setting and a documentation of the consultative process undertaken, when
appropriate.29 As part of the description of the environmental setting, the ECC applicant must submit
a certificate of locational clearance or zoning certificate.

Petitioners further contend that NAPOCOR, in applying for the ECC, did not submit to the DENR
Region IV Office the documents proving the holding of consultations and the issuance of a locational
clearance or zoning certificate. Petitioners assert that this omission renders the issuance of the ECC
patently illegal.

The contention is also without merit. While such documents are part of the submissions required from
a project proponent, their mere absence does not render the issuance of the ECC patently illegal. To
justify non-exhaustion of administrative remedies due to the patent illegality of the ECC, the public
officer must have issued the ECC "[without any] semblance of compliance, or even an attempt to
comply, with the pertinent laws; when manifestly, the officer has acted without jurisdiction or has
exceeded his jurisdiction, or has committed a grave abuse of discretion; or when his act is clearly and
obviously devoid of any color of authority."30
RED Principe, as chief of DENR Region IV, is the officer duly authorized under DAO 96-3731 to issue
ECCs for projects located within environmentally critical areas. RED Principe issued the ECC on the
recommendation of Amelia Supetran, the Director of the Environmental Management Bureau. Thus,
RED Principe acted with full authority pursuant to DENR regulations. Moreover, the legal presumption
is that he acted with the requisite authority.32 This clothes RED Principe's acts with presumptive
validity and negates any claim that his actions are patently illegal or that he gravely abused his
discretion. While petitioners may present proof to the contrary, they must do so before the proper
administrative forum before resorting to judicial remedies.

On the Alleged Non-Compliance with the Terms of the ECC

Lastly, petitioners claim that they are justified in immediately seeking judicial recourse because
NAPOCOR is guilty of violating the conditions of the ECC, which requires it to secure a separate ECC
for the operation of the power barge. The ECC also mandates NAPOCOR to secure the usual local
government permits, like zoning and building permits, from the municipal government of Puerto
Galera.

The contention is similarly without merit. The fact that NAPOCOR's ECC is subject to cancellation for
non-compliance with its conditions does not justify petitioners' conduct in ignoring the procedure
prescribed in DAO 96-37 on appeals from the decision of the DENR Executive Director. Petitioners
vigorously insist that NAPOCOR should comply with the requirements of consultation and locational
clearance prescribed in DAO 96-37. Ironically, petitioners themselves refuse to abide with the
procedure for filing complaints and appealing decisions laid down in DAO 96-37.

DAO 96-37 provides for a separate administrative proceeding to address complaints for the
cancellation of an ECC. Under Article IX of DAO 96-37, complaints to nullify an ECC must undergo an
administrative investigation, after which the hearing officer will submit his report to the EMB Director
or the Regional Executive Director, who will then render his decision. The aggrieved party may file an
appeal to the DENR Secretary, who has authority to issue cease and desist orders. Article IX also
classifies the types of violations covered under DAO 96-37, including projects operating without an
ECC or violating the conditions of the ECC. This is the applicable procedure to address petitioners'
complaint on NAPOCOR's alleged violations and not the filing of the instant case in court.

A Final Word

The Court commends petitioners for their courageous efforts to safeguard and maintain the ecological
balance of Minolo Cove. This Court recognizes the utmost importance of protecting the
environment.33 Indeed, we have called for the vigorous prosecution of violators of environmental
laws.34 Legal actions to achieve this end, however, must be done in accordance with established
rules of procedure that were intended, in the first place, to achieve orderly and efficient administration
of justice.

WHEREFORE, we DENY the petition for lack of merit.