NIPAS Law

Constitutional provision

Sec 3

• protection and conservation of the environment; lands of public domain are classified into
four categories: agricultural, forest or timber, mineral lands, and national parks.

Sec 4

• Congress shall as soon as possible determine by law the specific limits of forests lands
and national parks, marking clearly their boundaries on the ground. Thereafter, such forest
lands and national parks shall be conserved and may not be increased nor diminished
except by law.

Sec 2

• protection and conservation of the environment; lands of public domain are classified into
four categories: agricultural, forest or timber, mineral lands, and national parks.
• Congress shall as soon as possible determine by law the specific limits of forests lands
and national parks, marking clearly their boundaries on the ground. Thereafter, such forest
lands and national parks shall be conserved and may not be increased nor diminished
except by law.

Sec 3 Categories

a. Strict nature reserve;

b. Natural park;

c. Natural monument;

d. Wildlife sanctuary;

e. Protected landscapes and seascapes;

f. Resource reserve;

g. Natural biotic areas; and,

h. Other categories established by law, conventions or international agreements which the

Philippine Government is a signatory.

Natural Park

Natural park is a relatively large area not materially altered by human activity where extractive
resource uses are not allowed and maintained to protect outstanding natural and scenic areas of
national or international significance for scientific, educational and recreational use.
Buffer Zones

For each protected area, there shall be established peripheral buffer zones when necessary, in
the same manner as Congress establishes the protected area, to protect the same from activities
that will directly and indirectly harm it. Such buffer zones shall be included in the individual
protected area management plan that shall be prepared for each protected area. The DENR shall
exercise its authority over protected areas as provided in this Act on such area designated as
buffer zones.

Sec 10 – Administration

• DENR
• adopt and enforce a land-use scheme and zoning plan in adjoining areas
• enter into contracts and/or agreements with private entities or public
• . Control occupancy; exception of the members of indigenous communities area

Sec 12

• activities which are outside the scope of the management plan

Sec 13 Ancestral Lands and Rights

• DENR shall have no power to evict indigenous communities from their present occupancy
nor resettle them to another area without their consent

Section 14 - Survey of Energy Resources

• protected areas, except strict nature reserves and natural parks, may be subjected to
exploration
• exploitation and utilization of energy resources found within NIPAS areas shall be allowed
only through a law passed by Congress
• Resident Marine Mammals case

EIA

• Proposals for activities outside the scope of the management plan are subject to an EIA
before they are adopted,
• EIA results taken into consideration in the decision-making process
• No actual implementation of such activities shall be allowed without the required
Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC)
• 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 take preventive and
remedial action when appropriate.
• Proponent shall be liable for any damage due to lack of caution or indiscretion.

Ancestral land and right

 • DENR no power to evict indigenous communities from occupancy nor resettle to another
area without their consent:
• all rules and regulations subjected to notice and hearing to be participated in by members
of concerned indigenous community.

SURVEY OF ENERGY RESOURCES

• protected areas may be subjected to exploration only for the purpose of gathering
information on energy resources and only if such activity is carried out with the least
damage to surrounding areas.
• EXCEPT strict nature reserves and NATURAL PARKS
•
• Section 18 - Field Officers

• authority to investigate and search premises and buildings and make arrests in
accordance with the rules on criminal procedure
•

Section 20 - Prohibited Acts

• Without a permit
• People vs. Nazario,165 SCRA 186 (1988)
• People v. Dela Piedra, 92 350 SCRA 163
•
• Section 21 – Penalties
• Fine OR imprisonment
• rehabilitation or restoration
• Eviction
• Forfeiture

Key elements of protected area legal framework

1. DENR

2. Secretary of the DENR

3. PAWB

4. PAMB)

5. protected area superintendent

SCOPE OF LEGAL FRAMEWORK

Geographic
 • covers all types of protected areas, whether terrestrial, coastal or marine

CONSERVATION

• “To secure for the Filipino people of present and future generations the perpetual
existence of all native plants and animals through the establishment of a comprehensive
system of integrated protected areas.”

CULTURAL

• IPRA

TYPES OF GOVERNANCE TO PROTECTED AREAS

1.Public and private

2. mixture of central oversight of the national integrated protected areas system and decentralized
site management

3. Ancestral domains

The NIPAS Law should be understood, and applied, in relation to other laws. In this discussion,
we try to harmonize seemingly conflicting legislations that touches on protected areas. These are
the contents of this discussion:

1. THE NIPAS LAW AND CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES

2. NIPAS Law and the Convention on Biological Diversit
3. COMPARATIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS OF THE NIPAS LAW :
 The NIPAS Law and the Convention on Biological Diversity
 The NIPAS Law and the Revised Forestry Code of the Philippines
 The NIPAS Law and the Wildlife Resources Conservation and Protection Act
 The NIPAS Law and the Philippine Fisheries Code
 The NIPAS Law and the Agriculture and Fisheries Modernization Act
 The NIPAS Law and the Mining Act
 The NIPAS Law and the Indigenous People's Rights Act
 The NIPAS Law and the Local Government Code

READ the material below:

NIPAS-Review-Final-20130228.pdf

The NIPAS Law and the Convention on Biological Diversity.

The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) is an international legally binding treaty. It is often
seen as the key document regarding sustainable development. The Convention was opened for
signature at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro on 5 June 1992 and entered into force on 29
December 1993.

NIPAS Act of 1992 or Republic Act (RA) No. 7586 is a landmark Philippine legislation which
allows government to pinpoint and/ or classify public land and water areas with outstanding
biological diversity as well as anthropological significance. One of the end goals of this law is to
conserve and preserve the country’s natural heritage through the establishment and management
of a comprehensive system of integrated protected areas that is consistent with the principles of
biological diversity and sustainable development.

ASSESSMENT: there is no provision in the NIPAS Act which is inconsistent or in conflict with any
provision of the CBD. The CBD contains broad and encompassing provisions regarding the
establishment of a national system protecting and managing areas possessing significant
ecological values. The NIPAS Act provisions put the CBD in effect.

CASES FOR YOUR READING:

1. PICOP RESOURCES, INC. vs. ,BASE METALS MINERAL RESOURCES

CORPORATION, and THE MINES ADJUDICATION BOARD, G.R. No.
163509      December 6, 2006:  prohibition on mineral locating within protected areas; RA
7586 expressly requires that there be a prior presidential decree, presidential
proclamation, or executive order issued by the President of the Philippines, expressly
proclaiming, designating, and setting aside the wilderness area before the same may be
considered part of the NIPAS as a protected area.
2. Resident Marine Mammals Case

SELF-ASSESSMENT TEST:

Read ahead on the Rules on Environmental Procedure and try to answer the following question in
relation to RA 7586.

QUESTION:

1. The MTC, acting as an Environmental Court, has original and exclusive jurisdiction over
the following, except:
2. criminal offenses punishable under the Chain Saw Act (R.A. 9175)
3. violation of the NIPAS Law (R.A. 7586)
4. violation of the Mining Laws
5. violation of Anti-Pollution Laws

The NIPAS Law is one of the country's milestones in terms of conserving biological diversity and promoting
sustainable development. Its enactment provided a shif in the management perspective particularly for
DENR. Where before all the burden of management and decision-making lies with the Department, the
NIPAS Act is innovative in that the administration and decision-making of a proclaimed protected area lies
within a Management Board which is composed of the Local Government Units, indigenous and local
communities and the non-government organizations chaired by the DENR.
What is NIPAS?

National Integrated Protected Areas System (NIPAS) is a system of classification and administration of
designated protected areas xxx to preserve genetic diversity. What are the protected areas? 1. Strict natural
reserve 2. Natural park 3. Natural monument 4. Wildlife Sanctuary 5. Protected landscape and seascape 6.
Resource reserve 7. Natural biotic areas 8. Other categories established by law

PICOP v. Base Minerals Corp.  There must be a classification that an area is considered as “protected area.” 
Without proclamation/classification pursuant to law, prohibition of mineral location will not be operational.

Prohibited acts under NIPAS

1. Hunting, destroying, disturbing, or mere possession of any plants or animals or products derived therefrom
without a permit from the Management Board;

2. Dumping of any waste products detriment to the protected area, or to the plants and animals or inhabitants
therein;

3. Use of any motorized equipment without a permit from the Management Board;

4. Mutilating, defacing or destroying objects of natural beauty, or objects of interest to cultural communities
(of scenic value);

5. Damaging and leaving roads and trails in a damaged condition;

6. Squatting, mineral locating, or otherwise occupying any land;

7. Constructing or maintaining any kind of structure, fence or enclosures, conducting any business enterprise
without a permit;

8. Leaving in exposed or unsanitary conditions refuse or debris, or depositing in ground or in bodies of water;
and

9. Altering, removing destroying or defacing boundary marks or

"Protected Area" refers to identified portions of land and water set aside by reason of their unique physical and
biological significance, managed to enhance biological diversity and protected against destructive human
exploitation;

"Buffer zones" are identified areas outside the boundaries of and immediately adjacent to designated
protected areas pursuant to Section 8 that need special development control in order to avoid or minimize
harm to the protected area; "

Indigenous cultural community" refers to a group of people sharing common bonds of language, customs,
traditions and other distinctive cultural traits, and who have, since time immemorial, occupied, possessed and
utilized a territory;

PICOP RESOURCES, INC. vs. BASE METALS MINERAL RESOURCES CORPORATION

G.R. No. 163509 December 6, 2006
TINGA, J.:
FACTS: In 1987, the Central Mindanao Mining and Development Corporation entered into a
Mines Operating Agreement with Banahaw Mining and Development Corporationwhereby the
latter agreed to act as Mine Operator for the exploration, development, and eventualcommercial
operation of CMMCI's 18 mining claims located in Agusan del Sur. Pursuant to theterms of the
Agreement, Banahaw Mining filed applications for Mining Lease Contracts over
themining
claims with the Bureau of Mines. On April 29, 1988, Banahaw Mining was issued
a
MinesTemporary Permit authorizing it to extract and dispose of precious minerals found within
its miningclaims. Since a portion of Banahaw Mining's mining claims was located in
petitioner PICOP'slogging concession in Agusan del Sur, Banahaw Mining and
petitione
PICOP RESOURCES, INC. vs. BASE METALS MINERAL RESOURCES CORPORATION
G.R. No. 163509 December 6, 2006
TINGA, J.:
FACTS: In 1987, the Central Mindanao Mining and Development Corporation entered into a
Mines Operating Agreement with Banahaw Mining and Development Corporationwhereby the
latter agreed to act as Mine Operator for the exploration, development, and eventualcommercial
operation of CMMCI's 18 mining claims located in Agusan del Sur. Pursuant to theterms of the
Agreement, Banahaw Mining filed applications for Mining Lease Contracts over
themining
claims with the Bureau of Mines. On April 29, 1988, Banahaw Mining was issued
a
MinesTemporary Permit authorizing it to extract and dispose of precious minerals found within
its miningclaims. Since a portion of Banahaw Mining's mining claims was located in
petitioner PICOP'slogging concession in Agusan del Sur, Banahaw Mining and
petitione
G.R. No. 163509
PICOP RESOURCES, INC.,petitioner v. BASE METALS MINERAL RESOURCES CORPORATION and
THE MINES ADJUDICATION BOARD, respondents.

FACTS:
Central Mindanao Mining and Development Corporation (CMMCI for brevity) entered into a Mines
Operating Agreement (Agreement for brevity) with Banahaw Mining and Development
Corporation (Banahaw Mining for brevity) whereby the latter agreed to act as Mine Operator for
the exploration, development, and eventual commercial operation of CMMCI’s eighteen (18)
mining claims located in Agusan del Sur.

Pursuant to the terms of the Agreement, Banahaw Mining filed applications for Mining Lease
Contracts over the mining claims with the Bureau of Mines. So that Banahaw Mining was issued a
Mines Temporary Permit authorizing it to extract and dispose of precious minerals found within its
mining claims. Upon its expiration, the temporary permit was subsequently renewed thrice by the
Bureau of Mines, the last being on June 28, 1991.

Since a portion of Banahaw Mining’s mining claims was located in petitioner PICOP’s logging
concession in Agusan del Sur, Banahaw Mining and petitioner PICOP entered into a
Memorandum of Agreement, whereby, in mutual recognition of each other’s right to the area
concerned, petitioner PICOP allowed Banahaw Mining an access/right of way to its mining claims.
Banahaw Mining converted its mining claims to applications for Mineral Production Sharing
Agreements (MPSA for brevity).

While the MPSA were pending, Banahaw Mining, on December 18, 1996, decided to sell/assign
its rights and interests over thirty-seven (37) mining claims in favor of private respondent Base
Metals Mineral Resources Corporation (Base Metals for brevity). The transfer included mining
claims held by Banahaw Mining in its own right as claim owner, as well as those covered by its
mining operating agreement with CMMCI.

Upon being informed of the development, CMMCI, as claim owner, immediately approved the
assignment made by Banahaw Mining in favor of private respondent Base Metals, thereby
recognizing private respondent Base Metals as the new operator of its claims.

On March 10, 1997, private respondent Base Metals amended Banahaw Mining’s pending MPSA
applications with the Bureau of Mines to substitute itself as applicant and to submit additional
documents in support of the application. Area clearances from the DENR Regional Director and
Superintendent of the Agusan Marsh and Wildlife Sanctuary were submitted, as required.

On October 7, 1997, private respondent Base Metals’ amended MPSA applications were
published in accordance with the requirements of the Mining Act of 1995.

On November 18, 1997, petitioner PICOP filed with the Mines Geo-Sciences Bureau (MGB),
Caraga Regional Office No. XIII an Adverse Claim and/or Opposition to private respondent Base
Metals’ application. After the submission of their respective position paper, the Panel Arbitrator
issued an Order disapproving private respondent Base Metals’ MPSA on the reasons that
adverse claim was filed on time, that the granting of the MPSA application on area subject of an
IFMA or PTLA which is covered by a Presidential Warranty, the panel believes it cannot, unless
the grantee consents thereto, without the grantee’s consent, the area is considered closed to
mining location (sec. 19) (b) (No. 2), DAO No. 96-40) and that the mining location in forest or
timberland is allowed only if such forest or timberland is not leased by the government to a
qualified person or entity and if it is leased the consent of the lessor is necessary, in addition to
the area clearance to be issued by the agency concerned before it is subjected to mining
operation.

Plantation is considered closed to mining locations because it is off tangent to mining. Both are
extremes. They can not exist at the same time. The other must necessarily stop before the other
operate.

Private respondent Base Metals filed a Notice of Appeal with public respondent MAB, the latter
rendered the assailed decision setting aside the Panel Arbitrator’s order. The Court of Appeals
upheld the decision of the MAB.

Hence this petition.

PICOP presents the following issues: (1) the 2,756 hectares subject of Base Metals’ MPSA are
closed to mining operations except upon PICOP’s written consent pursuant to existing laws, rules
and regulations and by virtue of the Presidential Warranty; (2) its Presidential Warranty is
protected by the non-impairment clause of the Constitution; and (3) it does not raise new issues in
its petition.
PICOP asserts that its concession areas are closed to mining operations as these are within the
Agusan-Surigao-Davao forest reserve established under Proclamation No. 369 of then Gov. Gen.
Dwight Davis. The area is allegedly also part of permanent forest established under Republic Act
No. 3092 (RA 3092), and overlaps the wilderness area where mining applications are expressly
prohibited under RA 7586. Hence, the area is closed to mining operations under Sec. 19(f) of RA
7942.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the area covered by Base Metals’ MPSA is, by law, closed to mining activities

Whether or not the Presidential Warranty is a contract protected by the non-impairment clause of
the 1987 Constitution.

HELD:

Anent the first issue, the Court ruled that the area covered by Base Metals’ MPSA is, by law, not
closed to mining activities.

There is no evidence in this case that the area covered by Base Metals’ MPSA has been
proclaimed as watershed forest reserves.

Even granting that the area covered by the MPSA is part of the Agusan-Davao-Surigao Forest
Reserve, such does not necessarily signify that the area is absolutely closed to mining activities.
Contrary to PICOP’s obvious misreading of our decision in Apex Mining Co., Inc. v. Garcia, supra,
to the effect that mineral agreements are not allowed in the forest reserve established under
Proclamation 369, the Court in that case actually ruled that pursuant to PD 463 as amended by
PD 1385, one can acquire mining rights within forest reserves, such as the Agusan-Davao-
Surigao Forest Reserve, by initially applying for a permit to prospect with the Bureau of Forest
and Development and subsequently for a permit to explore with the Bureau of Mines and
Geosciences.

Moreover, Sec. 18 RA 7942 allows mining even in timberland or forestty subject to existing rights
and reservations. Similarly, Sec. 47 of PD 705 permits mining operations in forest lands which
include the public forest, the permanent forest or forest reserves, and forest reservations

With regard to the second issue, the Court do not subscribe to PICOP’s argument that the
Presidential Warranty dated September 25, 1968 is a contract protected by the non-impairment
clause of the 1987 Constitution. An examination of the Presidential Warranty at once reveals that
it simply reassures PICOP of the government’s commitment to uphold the terms and conditions of
its timber license and guarantees PICOP’s peaceful and adequate possession and enjoyment of
the areas which are the basic sources of raw materials for its wood processing complex. The
warranty covers only the right to cut, collect, and remove timber in its concession area, and does
not extend to the utilization of other resources, such as mineral resources, occurring within the
concession.

The Presidential Warranty cannot be considered a contract distinct from PTLA No. 47 and
IFMA No. 35. It is merely a collateral undertaking which cannot amplify PICOP’s rights under its
timber license. Since timber licenses are not contracts, the non-impairment clause cannot be
invoked.
LA BUGAL-B’LAAN TRIBAL ASSOCIATION, Inc. vs RAMOS
G.R. No. 127882 January 27, 2004
FACTS:
On March 3, 1995, President Ramos signed into law R.A. No. 7942. Section 15 thereof
declares that the Act “shall govern the exploration, development, utilization, and processing of all
mineral resources.” Such declaration notwithstanding, R.A. No. 7942 does not actually cover all
the modes through which the State may undertake the exploration, development, and utilization of
natural resources.
The State, being the owner of the natural resources, is accorded the primary power and
responsibility in the exploration, development and utilization thereof. As such, it may undertake
these activities through four modes:
The State may directly undertake such activities.
(2)The State may enter into co-production, joint venture or production-sharing agreements
with Filipino citizens or qualified corporations.
(3)Congress may, by law, allow small-scale utilization of natural resources by Filipino citizens.
(4)For the large-scale exploration, development and utilization of minerals, petroleum and
other mineral oils, the President may enter into agreements with foreign-owned corporations
involving technical or financial assistance.
R.A. No. 7942 primarily concerns itself with the second and fourth modes.
Petitioners submit that, in accordance with the text of Section 2, Article XII of the Constitution,
FTAAs should be limited to “technical or financial assistance” only. They observe, however, that,
contrary to the language of the Constitution, the WMCP FTAA allows WMCP, a fully foreign-
owned mining corporation, to extend more than mere financial or technical assistance to the
State, for it permits WMCP to manage and operate every aspect of the mining activity
On January 10, 1997, counsels for petitioners sent a letter to the DENR Secretary demanding
that the DENR stop the implementation of R.A. No. 7942 and DAO No. 96-40, giving the DENR
fifteen days from receipt to act thereon. The DENR, however, has yet to respond or act on
petitioners’ letter.
Petitioners thus filed the present petition for prohibition and mandamus, with a prayer for a
temporary restraining order. They allege that at the time of the filing of the petition, 100 FTAA
applications had already been filed, covering an area of 8.4 million hectares, 64 of which
applications are by fully foreign-owned corporations covering a total of 5.8 million hectares, and at
least one by a fully foreign-owned mining company over offshore areas.
ISSUE:
WHETHER OR NOT Republic Act No. 7942 IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
HELD:
The Court hereby declares unconstitutional and void the following:
(1) provisions of Republic Act No. 7942:
(a)The proviso in Section 3 (aq),
 (b)Section 23,
(c)Section 33 to 41,
(d)Section 56,
(e)The second and third paragraphs of Section 81, and
(f) Section 90.
(2) All provisions of Department of Environment and Natural Resources Administrative Order
96-40, s. 1996 which are not in conformity with this Decision, and
(3) The Financial and Technical Assistance Agreement between the Government of the
Republic of the Philippines and WMC Philippines, Inc.
It is undisputed that R.A. No. 7942 and DAO No. 96-40 contain provisions that are more
favorable to WMCP, hence, these laws, to the extent that they are favorable to WMCP, govern the
FTAA.
In addition, R.A. No. 7942 explicitly makes certain provisions apply to pre-existing
agreements.
R.A. No. 7942 is invalid insofar as said Act authorizes service contracts. Although the statute
employs the phrase “financial and technical agreements” in accordance with the 1987
Constitution, it actually treats these agreements as service contracts that grant beneficial
ownership to foreign contractors contrary to the fundamental law.

An Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is a “process that involves predicting and evaluating the likely
impacts of a project (including cumulative impacts) on the environment during construction,
commissioning, operation and abandonment. It also includes designing appropriate preventive, mitigating
and enhancement measures addressing these consequences to protect the environment and the
community’s welfare”.

EIA is an admin tool use to ensure proj and minimal envi impact

Basis to improve the design and the implementation of project

Mitigate and compensate the possible impact to environment. Eia is part of conservation measure. Since
our natural resources is finite.

Resources are finite.

Mgt tool and customer tool

Natl instrument for sustainable devt shal be undertaken for propose that are likely to

To have significant adverse impact on the environment subject to decision of competent national
authority-

Essential component of any propsed project

Eia are req under certain national condition