SOURCES AND FOUNDATIONS OF ENVIRONMENTAL LAW

Article two (2) of the Constitution 1. Cancel all existing timber

license agreements in the
SECTION 15. The State shall protect and country; and
promote the right to health of the people
and instill health consciousness among 2. Cease and desist from
them. receiving, accepting,
processing, renewing or
SECTION 16. The State shall protect and approving new timber license
advance the right of the people to a agreements.
balanced and healthful ecology in accord
with the rhythm and harmony of nature. PETITIONER’S ARGUMENTS: The adverse
effects, disastrous consequences, serious
Illustrative cases: injury and irreparable damage of this
Sources and foundations included and continued trend of deforestation to the
discussed in this case: plaintiff minor's generation and to
generations yet unborn are evident and
 Articles 19, 20 and 21 of the Civil incontrovertible. The continued allowance
Code (Human Relations) by defendant of TLA holders to cut and
deforest the remaining forest stands will
 Section 4 of Executive Order (E.O.) work great damage and irreparable injury
No. 192 creating the DENR to plaintiffs.

 Section 3 of Presidential Decree DEFENDANT’S ARGUMENT: he original

(P.D.) No. 1151 (Philippine defendant, Secretary Factoran, Jr., filed
Environmental Policy) a Motion to Dismiss the complaint based on
two (2) grounds, namely: (1) the
 Section 16, Article II of the 1987 plaintiffs have no cause of action against
Constitution recognizing the right him and (2) the issue raised by the
of the people to a balanced and plaintiffs is a political question which
healthful ecology. properly pertains to the legislative or
executive branches of Government.
 The concept of generational genocide
in Criminal Law and the concept of Respondent Judge issued an order granting
man's inalienable right to self- the aforementioned motion to dismiss. As
preservation and self-perpetuation stated therein, the complaint states
embodied in natural law. no cause of action against him and
that it raises a political question.
Furthermore, granting of the relief
Oposa v. Factoran, et al., 224 SCRA 792, prayed for would result in the
G.R. No. 101083 July 30, 1993 impairment of contracts which is
FACTS: prohibited by the fundamental law of
the land.
The complaint was instituted as a
taxpayers' class suit and alleges that the
plaintiffs "are all citizens of the
Republic of the Philippines, taxpayers, ISSUE:
and entitled to the full benefit, use and
Whether, under the law, petitioners failed
enjoyment of the natural resource treasure
to allege with sufficient definiteness a
that is the country's virgin tropical
specific legal right involved or a
forests."
specific legal wrong committed thus making
PRAYER SOUGHT: the complaint absence of any cause of
action and is a political question.

JGPL 2019 - 2020 1

 SOURCES AND FOUNDATIONS OF ENVIRONMENTAL LAW
RULING:
No.
Section 16, Article II of the 1987
Constitution explicitly provides:
Sec. 16. The State shall protect and
advance the right of the people to a
balanced and healthful ecology in
accord with the rhythm and harmony
of nature.
This right unites with the right to
health which is provided for in the
preceding section of the same
article:
Sec. 15. The State shall protect and
promote the right to health of the
people and instill health
consciousness among them.
In the case at bar, the right to a
balanced and healthful ecology carries
with it the correlative duty to refrain
from impairing the environment. The right
of the petitioners (and all those they
represent) to a balanced and healthful
ecology is as clear as the DENR's duty —
under its mandate and by virtue of its
powers and functions under E.O. No. 192
and the Administrative Code of 1987 — to
protect and advance the said right. In
view of the contract, the non-impairment
clause must yield to the police power of
the state.
Sources and foundations included and
discussed in this case:
(1) Respondents’ constitutional right to
life, health, and a balanced ecology;
(2) The Environment Code (PD 1152);
(3) The Pollution Control Law (PD 984);
(4) The Water Code (PD 1067);
(5) The Sanitation Code (PD 856);
JGPL 2019 - 2020
(6) The Illegal Disposal of Wastes Decree
(PD 825);
(7) The Marine Pollution Law (PD 979);
(8) Executive Order No. 192;
(9) The Toxic and Hazardous Wastes Law
(Republic Act No. 6969);
(10) Civil Code provisions on nuisance and
human relations;
(11) The Trust Doctrine and the Principle
of Guardianship; and
(12) International Law
MMDA, et al v. Residents of Manila
Bay, GR Nos 171947-48, 18 Dec 2008
FACTS:
Respondents Concerned Residents of
Manila Bay filed a complaint before the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Imus, Cavite
against several government agencies, among
them the petitioners, for the cleanup,
rehabilitation, and protection of the
Manila Bay. The complaint alleged that the
water quality of the Manila Bay had fallen
way below the allowable standards set by
law, specifically Presidential Decree No.
(PD) 1152 or the Philippine Environment
Code. Respondents, as plaintiffs a quo,
prayed that petitioners be ordered to
clean the Manila Bay and submit to the RTC
a concerted concrete plan of action for
the purpose.
RTC ordered petitioner to clean up
and rehabilitate Manila Bay.
PETITIONERS’ ARGUMENT: Petitioners, before
the CA, were one in arguing in the main
that the pertinent provisions of the
Environment Code (PD 1152) relate only to
the cleaning of specific pollution
incidents and do not cover cleaning in
general. And apart from raising concerns
about the lack of funds appropriated for
cleaning purposes, petitioners also
asserted that the cleaning of the Manila
Bay is not a ministerial act which can be
compelled by mandamus.
2
 SOURCES AND FOUNDATIONS OF ENVIRONMENTAL LAW
The CA sustained the decision of the RTC.
ISSUE:
Whether, under the law, the petitioners
are obligated to clean and rehabilitate
the Manila Bay that they can be compelled
by a mandamus.
RULING:
Yes, because the MMDA’s duty to put
up an adequate and appropriate sanitary
landfill and solid waste and liquid
disposal as well as other alternative
garbage disposal systems is ministerial,
its duty being a statutory imposition.
The MMDA’s duty in this regard is spelled
out in Sec. 3 (c) of Republic Act No. (RA)
7924 creating the MMDA.
Solid waste disposal and management
which include formulation and
implementation of policies,
standards, programs and projects for
proper and sanitary waste disposal.
It shall likewise include the
establishment and operation of
sanitary land fill and related
facilities and the implementation of
other alternative programs intended
to reduce, reuse and recycle solid
waste. (Emphasis added.)
The MMDA is duty-bound to comply
with Sec. 41 of the Ecological Solid Waste
Management Act (RA 9003) which prescribes
the minimum criteria for the establishment
of sanitary landfills and Sec. 42 which
provides the minimum operating
requirements that each site operator shall
maintain in the operation of a sanitary
landfill. The MMDA’s duty in the area of
solid waste disposal, as may be noted, is
set forth not only in the Environment Code
(PD 1152) and RA 9003, but in its charter
as well.
Secs. 17 and 20 of the Environment
Code Include Cleaning in General.
JGPL 2019 - 2020
Sec. 17 requires them to act even in
the absence of a specific pollution
incident, as long as water quality
"has deteriorated to a degree where
its state will adversely affect its
best usage.”
Petitioners, thus, cannot plausibly
invoke and hide behind Sec. 20 of PD 1152
or Sec. 16 of RA 9275 on the pretext that
their cleanup mandate depends on the
happening of a specific pollution
incident. In this situation, the water
pollution incidents are so numerous and
involve nameless and faceless polluters
that they can validly be categorized as
beyond the specific pollution incident
level.
Resident Dolphins and Mammals of Tanon
Strait v. Reyes, GR 180771, April 21, 2015
FACTS:
Petitioners in G.R. No. 180771,
collectively referred to as the "Resident
Marine Mammals" in the petition, are the
toothed whales, dolphins, porpoises, and
other cetacean species, which inhabit the
waters in and around the Tañon Strait.
(Including: President Gloria Macapagal-
Arroyo, Rose-Liza Eisma-Osorio (Eisma-
Osorio) as their legal guardians, Central
Visayas Fisherfolk Development Center
(FIDEC))
Respondents on the other hand:
(DOE), Japan Petroleum Exploration Co.,
Ltd. (JAPEX), Supply Oilfield Services,
Inc. (SOS), DENR.
The Government of the Philippines,
acting through the DOE, entered into a
Geophysical Survey and Exploration
Contract-I 02 (GSEC-102) with JAPEX. This
contract involved geological and
geophysical studies of the Tañon Strait.
DOE and JAPEX formally converted GSEC-102
into SC-46 for the exploration,
development, and production of petroleum
resources. With this, JAPEX conducted
3
 SOURCES AND FOUNDATIONS OF ENVIRONMENTAL LAW
seismic surveys in and around the Tañon
Strait and committed to drill one
exploration well during the second sub-
phase of the project.
PETITIONER’S ARGUMENT: It was in view of
the foregoing state of affairs that
petitioners applied to this Court for
redress, via two separate original
petitions both dated December 1 7, 2007,
wherein they commonly seek that
respondents be enjoined from implementing
SC-46 for, among others, violation of the
1987 Constitution.
RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENT: Public respondents,
through the Solicitor General, contend
that petitioners Resident Marine Mammals
and Stewards have no legal standing to
file the present petition; that SC-46 does
not violate the 1987 Constitution and the
various laws cited in the petitions; that
the ECC was issued in accordance with
existing laws and regulations.
ISSUE:
Whether, under the law, the service
contract No. 46 is legal and valid thus
warranting the continuation of the project
in the Tañon Strait.
RULING:
No, because respondents failed to
comply with the necessary requirements
such as ECC and EIA.
SECTION 12. Environmental Impact
Assessment. - Proposals for activities
which are outside the scope of the
management plan for protected areas shall
be subject to an environmental impact
assessment as required by law before they
are adopted, and the results thereof shall
be taken into consideration in the
decision-making process.
No actual implementation of such
activities shall be allowed without the
required Environmental Compliance
Certificate (ECC) under the Philippine
JGPL 2019 - 2020
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)
system. In instances where such activities
are allowed to be undertaken, the
proponent shall plan and carry them out in
such manner as will minimize any adverse
effects and the preventive and remedial
action when appropriate. The proponent
shall be liable for any damage due to lack
of caution or indiscretion.
In the case at bar, the Tañon
Strait, pursuant to Proclamation No. 1234,
was set aside and declared a protected
area under the category of Protected
Seascape. Subsequently, under Proclamation
No. 2146, the Tañon Strait is an
environmentally critical area, having been
declared as a protected area in 1998;
therefore, any activity outside the scope
of its management plan may only be
implemented pursuant to an ECC secured
after undergoing an EIA to determine the
effects of such activity on its ecological
system. The public respondents themselves
admitted that JAPEX only started to secure
an ECC prior to the second sub-phase of
SC-46, which required the drilling of an
oil exploration well. This means that when
the seismic surveys were done in the Tañon
Strait, no such environmental impact
evaluation was done. Unless seismic
surveys are part of the management plan of
the Tañon Strait, such surveys were done
in violation of Section 12 of the NIPAS
Act and Section 4 of Presidential Decree
No. 1586.
TN: On the issue of locus standi,
petitioners have the legal standing based
on Rules of Procedure for Environmental
Cases. As stated therein, "citizen suit,”
permits any Filipino citizen to file an
action before our courts for violations of
our environmental laws.
TN: On the legality of Service Contract
No. 46 vis-a-vis Section 2, Article XII of
the 1987 Constitution. The exception to
the abovementioned provision: The
President may enter into agreements with
foreign-owned corporations involving
either technical or financial assistance
for large-scale exploration, development,
and utilization of minerals, petroleum,
4
 SOURCES AND FOUNDATIONS OF ENVIRONMENTAL LAW
and other mineral oils according to the being contrived and effected by the
general terms and conditions provided by government.
law, based on real contributions to the
economic growth and general welfare of the
country. In such agreements, the State Respondents, on the other hand, do
shall promote the development and use of not deny forging a compromise agreement
local scientific and technical resources. with the Marcos heirs. They claim,
Article three (3) of the constitution though, that petitioner’s action is
premature, because there is no showing
SECTION 7. The right of the people to that he has asked the PCGG to disclose the
information on matters of public concern negotiations and the Agreements. And even
shall be recognized. Access to official if he has, PCGG may not yet be compelled
records, and to documents, and papers to make any disclosure, since the proposed
pertaining to official acts, transactions, terms and conditions of the Agreements
or decisions, as well as to government have not become effective and binding.
research data used as basis for policy
development, shall be afforded the
citizen, subject to such limitations as ISSUE:
may be provided by law. (Procedural Rights
- access to information) Whether petitioner has a right to
respondents’ disclosure of any agreement
Article 13 of the constitution that may be arrived at concerning the
SECTION 16. The right of the people and Marcoses’ purported ill-gotten wealth.
their organizations to effective and RULING:
reasonable participation at all levels of
social, political, and economic decision- Yes.
making shall not be abridged. The State
shall, by law, facilitate the EO No. 14 was issued giving
establishment of adequate consultation additional powers to the PCGG which,
mechanisms. (Public participation) taking into account the overriding
considerations of national interest and
Chavez v. PCGG, G.R. No. 130716, 9 national survival, required it to achieve
December 1998 expeditiously and effectively its vital
task of recovering ill-gotten wealth.
FACTS:
In the case at bar, it is clear that
Petitioner, invoking his the assets and properties referred to
constitutional right to information and supposedly originated from the overnment.
the correlative duty of the state to To all intents and purposes, therefore,
disclose publicly all its transactions they belong to the people.
involving the national interest, demands
that respondents make public any and all Considering the intent of the framers of
negotiations and agreements pertaining to the Constitution, we believe that it is
PCGG’s task of recovering the Marcoses’ incumbent upon the PCGG and its officers,
ill-gotten wealth. He claims that any as well as other government
compromise on the alleged billions of ill- representatives, to disclose sufficient
gotten wealth involves an issue of public information on any proposed
“paramount public interest,” since it has settlement they have decided to take up
a “debilitating effect on the country’s with the ostensible owners and holders of
economy” that would be greatly prejudicial ill-gotten wealth, subject to some of the
to the national interest of the Filipino following recognized restrictions: (1)
people. Hence, the people in general have national security matters and intelligence
a right to know the transactions or deals information, (2) trade secrets and banking

JGPL 2019 - 2020 5

 SOURCES AND FOUNDATIONS OF ENVIRONMENTAL LAW
transactions, (3) criminal matters, and
(4) other confidential information.
Chavez v. PEA, GR 133250, 9 July 2002
Facts:
On February 4, 1977, then President
Ferdinand E. Marcos issued Presidential
Decree No. 1084 creating PEA. PD No. 1084
tasked PEA "to reclaim land, including
foreshore and submerged areas," and "to
develop, improve, acquire, lease and sell
any and all kinds of lands." On the same
date, then President Marcos issued
Presidential Decree No. 1085 transferring
to PEA the "lands reclaimed in the
foreshore and offshore of the Manila Bay"
under the Manila-Cavite Coastal Road and
Reclamation Project (MCCRRP).
On January 19, 1988, then President
Corazon C. Aquino issued Special Patent
No. 3517, granting and transferring to PEA
"the parcels of land so reclaimed under
the Manila-Cavite Coastal Road and
Reclamation Project (MCCRRP) containing a
total area of one million nine hundred
fifteen thousand eight hundred ninety four
(1,915,894) square meters." Subsequently,
on April 9, 1988, the Register of Deeds of
the Municipality of Parañaque issued
Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. 7309,
7311, and 7312, in the name of PEA,
covering the three reclaimed islands known
as the "Freedom Islands" located at the
southern portion of the Manila-Cavite
Coastal Road, Parañaque City.
PEA and AMARI entered into the JVA
through negotiation without public
bidding. On April 28, 1995, the Board of
Directors of PEA, in its Resolution No.
1245, confirmed the JVA. On June 8, 1995,
then President Fidel V. Ramos, through
then Executive Secretary Ruben Torres,
approved the JVA.
The Senate Committees reported the
results of their investigation in Senate
Committee Report No. 560 dated September
16, 1997. Among the conclusions of their
report are: (1) the reclaimed lands PEA
JGPL 2019 - 2020
seeks to transfer to AMARI under the JVA
are lands of the public domain which the
government has not classified as alienable
lands and therefore PEA cannot alienate
these lands; (2) the certificates of title
covering the Freedom Islands are thus
void, and (3) the JVA itself is illegal.
On December 5, 1997, then President
Fidel V. Ramos issued Presidential
Administrative Order No. 365 creating a
Legal Task Force to conduct a study on the
legality of the JVA in view of Senate
Committee Report No. 560. The members of
the Legal Task Force were the Secretary of
Justice, the Chief Presidential Legal
Counsel, and the Government Corporate
Counsel. The Legal Task Force upheld the
legality of the JVA, contrary to the
conclusions reached by the Senate
Committees.
On April 27, 1998, petitioner Frank
I. Chavez ("Petitioner" for brevity) as a
taxpayer, filed the instant Petition for
Mandamus with Prayer for the Issuance of a
Writ of Preliminary Injunction and
Temporary Restraining Order. Petitioner
contends the government stands to lose
billions of pesos in the sale by PEA of
the reclaimed lands to AMARI. Petitioner
prays that PEA publicly disclose the terms
of any renegotiation of the JVA, invoking
Section 28, Article II, and Section 7,
Article III, of the 1987 Constitution on
the right of the people to information on
matters of public concern.
Due to the approval of the Amended
JVA by the Office of the President,
petitioner now prays that on
"constitutional and statutory grounds the
renegotiated contract be declared null and
void."
ISSUE:
Whether the constitutional right to
information includes information on on-
going negotiations BEFORE a final
agreement;
6
 SOURCES AND FOUNDATIONS OF ENVIRONMENTAL LAW
RULING:

The State policy of full transparency in

all transactions involving public interest
reinforces the people's right to
information on matters of public concern.
This State policy is expressed in Section
28, Article II of the Constitution, thus:
“Subject to reasonable conditions
prescribed by law, the State adopts and
implements a policy of full public
disclosure of all its transactions
involving public interest."

Contrary to AMARI's contention, the

commissioners of the 1986 Constitutional
Commission understood that the right to
information "contemplates inclusion of
negotiations leading to the consummation
of the transaction." Certainly, a
consummated contract is not a requirement
for the exercise of the right to
information. Otherwise, the people can
never exercise the right if no contract is
consummated, and if one is consummated, it
may be too late for the public to expose
its defects.

Requiring a consummated contract will

keep the public in the dark until the
contract, which may be grossly
disadvantageous to the government or even
illegal, becomes a fait accompli.

However, the right to information

does not compel PEA to prepare lists,
abstracts, summaries and the like relating
to the renegotiation of the JVA. 34 The
right only affords access to records,
documents and papers, which means the
opportunity to inspect and copy them. One
who exercises the right must copy the
records, documents and papers at his
expense. The exercise of the right is also
subject to reasonable regulations to
protect the integrity of the public
records and to minimize disruption to
government operations, like rules
specifying when and how to conduct the
inspection and copying.

JGPL 2019 - 2020 7