CLASS NOTES

REGALLIAN DOCTRINE-

I. ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS IN THE PHILIPPINES: CONTEXT, INSTITUTIONAL

MECHANISMS AND PROCESSES

A. Context:

1. Executive Order No. 192, s. 1987 (CREATION OF DENR)

FUNCTION: to….

SECTION 3. Declaration of Policy.

It is hereby declared the policy of the State to ensure the sustainable use,

development, management, renewal, and conservation of the country’s forest,

mineral, land, off-shore areas and other natural resources, including the

protection and enhancement of the quality of the environment, and equitable

access of the different segments of the population to the development and use of

the country’s natural resources, not only for the present generation but for future

generations as well. It is also the policy of the state to recognize and apply a true

value system including social and environmental cost implications relative to their

utilization, development and conservation of our natural resources.

SECTION 4. Mandate. The Department shall be the primary government agency

responsible for the conservation, management, development and proper use of

the country’s environment and natural resources, specifically forest and grazing
CLASS NOTES
lands, mineral resources, including those in reservation and watershed areas,

and lands of the public domain, as well as the licensing and regulation of all

natural resources as may be provided for by law in order to ensure equitable

sharing of the benefits derived therefrom for the welfare of the present and future

generations of Filipinos.

CONTEXT—  

1. responsible for the formulation and implementation of policies, guidelines, and

rules related to environmental management, as well as the management and

conservation of the country’s natural resources. 

2. also implements rules and regulations governing the exploration, development,

extraction, disposition, and use of forests, minerals, wildlife, and other natural

resources.

INSTITUTIONAL MECHANISMS

PROCESSESS

JURISPRUDENCE

a.) SPOUSES MAURICIO M. TABINO and LEONILA DELA CRUZ-TABINO, 

vs.

LAZARO M. TABINO

FACTS:
CLASS NOTES
 Proc. 518 allowed a maximum area of 300 square meters for disposition

to any bona fide occupants/residents of said Barangays. Petitioner

Mauricio M. Tabino (Mauricio) – a technical sergeant in the military –

and his brother, respondent Lazaro M. Tabino – a colonel in the

military – occupied a 353-square meter lot in Pembo, Makati

City. Mauricio established residence within the lot, while respondent

continued to reside in Novaliches, Quezon City.9 The lot was later

subdivided into two portions, as Lots 2 and 3.

 Lot 2 – containing an area of 184 squaremeters – was applied for

coverage under Proc. 518 by Mauricio, while Lot 3 – containing an area

of 169 square meters – was applied for by respondent. Respondent was

later on issued by the Fort Bonifacio Post Commander a Revocable

Permit10 to occupy his lot, but the permit authorized him to occupy an

area of only 150 square meters.

 Lot 3 was awarded to respondent, and a Certificate 11 to such effect was

issued by the Bureau of Lands (now Land Management Bureau).

  respondent filed an ejectment case against Mauricio and the latter’s wife,

based on the theory that respondent is the true and sole owner of the

353-square meter lot; that he used Mauricio only for the purpose of

circumventing the 300-square meter limit set by Proc. 518 by asking the

latter to apply for the purchase of a portion of the lot after subdividing the

same into two smaller lots; that Mauricio’s stay in the premises is

merelyby tolerance of respondent; 

CLASS NOTES
 petitioners refused to vacate the premises upon respondent’s formal

demand.

 It appears that petitioners and respondent both filed Protests with the

DENR relative to Lots 2 and 3.

The DENR held in Case No. 2004-821 that respondent is not qualified to acquire Lot 2

under Proc. 518 since he was already awarded a home lot in Fort Bonifacio, specifically

Lot 19, Block 22, Fort Bonifacio (AFPOVAI), Taguig. Moreover, he failed to provethat

Mauricio was not a bona fideresident/occupant of Lot 2; on the contrary, it has been

shown that Mauricio, and not respondent, has been in actual possession and

occupation of the lot.

MTC- ruled in favor of petitioner

RTC- affirmed MTC’s decision

CA- reversed the decision of the lower courts

Hence, this petition.

It is undisputed that the revocable permit extended to the plaintiff was to occupy a

parcel of land withan area of 150 square meters.  When the land was declared open

pursuant to the provisions of Republic Act No. 274 and Republic Act No. 730 both

parties applied in their respective name pursuant to the size of the land which they are

permitted. Since then defendants have been in possession of the subject property up to

the present pursuant to the permit to occupy the subject land. Furthermore, defendants

had acquired the property in their own name, a valid claim to establish possession.
CLASS NOTES
ISSUE:

WON THE CA ERRED in ordering petitioners to vacate the premises. With the

pendency of the DENR Protests?

HELD:

MUST WAIT FOR THE RESULT OF THE DENR PROTEST

YES.  If the ejectment case is allowed to proceed without awaiting the result of

the DENR Protests, then a situation might arise where the existing structures thereon

would have to be demolished. If petitioners’ position, as affirmed by the DENR, is further

upheld with finality by the courts, then it would mean that respondent had no right to

occupy or take possession of the subject lots, which thus negates his right to institute

and maintain the ejectment case; and an injustice would have occurred as a

consequence of the demolition of petitioners’ residence and other permanent

improvements on the disputed lots.

The DENR Secretary, denied the appeal on the basis that upon

findings  Mauricio has all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications based on

the disposition of Public Lands. The DENR further ruled that upon ocular inspection

made, it was ascertained that 1) per records, Mauricio is a survey claimant of Lot

2, Block 255, Psd-a3-0054204 with an area of 184 sq.m. situated in Pembo, Makati

City; 2) that the land is residential in nature, a house stands erected in said area where

Mauricio and his family reside; 3) that a portion of the said area is being utilized as a

carinderiaand a sari-sari store as their family’s business; 4) thatMauricio is occupying

the area since 1985 up to the present; 5) that Lazaro Tabino (petitioner) is actually
CLASS NOTES
residing in Quezon City; and, 6) the Yvonne Josephine Tabino, petitioner Lazaro Tabino

and Rafael Tabino are bonafideresidents of Quezon City for noless than twenty years

DENR

** it is worth stressing that the courts generally accord great respect, if not finality, to

factual findings of administrative agencies because of their special knowledge and

expertise over matters falling under their jurisdiction. Echoing the explanation of the

private respondent DENR, the findings of facts of the Director of Land (now the

Regional Director) is conclusive in the absence of any showing that such decision was

rendered in consequence of fraud, imposition or mistake, other than error of judgment in

estimating the value or effect of evidence, regardless of whether or not it is consistent

with the preponderance of evidence, so long as there is some evidence upon which the

findings in question could be made.

In disposing of the case of Estrella, the Supreme Court held that, "Under the

Public Land Act, the Director of Lands primarily and the DENR Secretary ultimately

have the authority to dispose of and manage public lands. And while the DENR’s

jurisdiction over public lands does not negate the authority of courts of justice to resolve

questions of possession, the DENR’s decision would prevail with regard to the

respective rights of public land claimants. Regular courts would have no jurisdiction to

inquire into the validity of the award of the public land."

Under the circumstances, the Court finds no reason to disturb the ruling of public

respondent DENR in its disposition of the subject property.

Doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies

CLASS NOTES
 cornerstone of Our judicial system

  The thrust of the rule is that courts must allow administrative agencies to carry

out their functions and discharge their responsibilities within the specialized

areas of their respective competence.

  It entails lesser expenses and provides for the speedier resolution of

controversies. Comity and convenience also impel courts of justice to shy away

from a dispute until the system of administrative redress has been completed.

 Another important reason for the doctrine of exhaustion is the separation of

powers, which enjoins the Judiciary a becoming policy of non-interference with

matters coming primarily (albeit not exclusively) within the competence of the

other departments.

  administrative authorities are in a better position to resolve questions addressed

to their particular expertise and that errors committed by subordinates in their

resolution may be rectified by their superiors if given a chance to do so. Strict

enforcement of the rule could also relieve the courts of a considerable number of

avoidable cases which otherwise would burden their heavily loaded dockets.

 party with an administrative remedy must not only commence with the prescribed

administrative procedure to obtain relief but also pursue it to its appropriate

conclusion before seeking judicial intervention to give the administrative agency

an opportunity to decide the matter itself correctly and prevent unnecessary and

premature resort to the court. The non-observance of the doctrine of exhaustion

of administrative remedies results in lack of cause of action, which is one of the

grounds in the Rules of Court justifying the dismissal of the complaint.

CLASS NOTES

 Mines and Geosciences Bureau is the primary government agency under the

Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), responsible for the

conservation, management, development and proper use of the country's mineral

resources including those in reservations and lands of public domain.

 Environmental Management Bureau (EMB) formulates plans, programs, and

appropriate environmental quality standards for the prevention and control of pollution

and the protection of the environment, and ensures their implementation

Ecosystems Research and Development Bureau (ERDB) is the principal research

and development (R & D) unit of the Department of Environment and Natural

Resources (DENR).

(PAWB) PROTECTED AREAS and WILDLIFE BUREAU envisions a perpetual

existence of biological and physical diversities in a system of protected areas and such

other important biological components of the environment managed by a well-informed

and empowered citizenry for the sustainable use and enjoyment of present and future

generations.

b.) ROSITO BAGUNU, PETITIONER, VS. SPOUSES FRANCISCO AGGABAO

& ROSENDA ACERIT, RESPONDENTS.

CLASS NOTES
FACTS:

 On December 12, 1961, Atty. Binag applied for a free patent[3] over the subject

land with the Bureau of Lands (now Lands Management Bureau).

 November 24, 1987, Atty. Binag sold the subject land (third sale) to the

petitioner,[5] who substituted for Atty. Binag as the free patent applicant.

 The parties’ deed of sale states that the land sold to the petitioner is the

same lot subject of Atty. Binag’s pending free patent application.

 The deeds evidencing the successive sale of the subject land on the Bureau of

Lands survey,[7] and the free patent applications uniformly identified the subject

land as Lot 322. The deeds covering the second and third sale also uniformly

identified the boundaries of the subject land.

 Respondents filed a protest against the petitioners free patent application. The

respondents asserted ownership over Lot 322 based on the Deeds of

Extrajudicial Settlement with Sale, executed in their favor by the heirs of one

Rafael Bautista.

 The Office of the Regional Executive Director of the DENR conducted an ocular

inspection and formal investigation and found out that the petitioner actually

occupies and cultivates the area in dispute including the area purchased by the

respondents.

 DENR Regional Office ruled that the petitioner wrongfully included Lot 322 in his

free patent application since this lot belongs to the respondents.

 Petitioner- consideration –denied

CLASS NOTES
  DENR Regional Office denied the motion ruling that in determining the identity of

a lot, the boundaries and not the lot number assigned to it - are controlling. Since

the boundaries indicated in the deed of sale in the petitioners favor correspond to

the boundaries of Lot 258, what the petitioner acquired was Lot 258,

notwithstanding the erroneous description of the lot sold as Lot 322

 On appeal, DENR Secretary affirmed[13] the ruling of the DENR Regional Office.

 On appeal to CA- affirmed the DENR Secretary ruling

 CA ruled that since questions on the identity of a land require a technical

determination by the appropriate administrative body, the findings of fact of the

DENR Regional Office, as affirmed by the DENR Secretary, are entitled to great

respect, if not finality.[15] The petitioner assails this ruling before the Court.

CIVIL CASE NO. 751

On November 22, 1994 during the pendency of the respondents protest on DENR, Atty.

Binag filed a complaint for reformation of instruments, covering the second and third

sale, against Bautista and the petitioner and  alleged that while the deeds evidencing

the successive sale of the subject land correctly identified the boundaries of the land

sold, the deeds, nevertheless, erroneously identified the subject land as Lot 322,

instead of Lot 258.

Petitioner and Bautista filed a motion to dismiss citing the pendency of the land

protest before the Bureau of Lands. After obtaining a favorable ruling from the DENR

Regional Office, the respondents joined Atty. Binag in the civil case by filing a

complaint-in-intervention against the petitioner. Respondents also alleged that they

CLASS NOTES
were in peaceful, continuous, public and adverse possession of Lot 322 from the time

they fully acquired it in 1979 until sometime in August of 1992, when the petitioner,

through stealth and strategy, ejected them from Lot 322 after transferring his

possession from Lot 258.

 CA affirmed the DENR Secretary

ISSUE:

WON The determination of the identity of a public land is within the DENR’s

exclusive

jurisdiction to manage and dispose of lands of the public domain?

HELD:

YES.  In the present case, neither party has asserted private ownership over Lot

322. The respondents acknowledged the public character of Lot 322 by mainly relying

on the administrative findings of the DENR in their complaint-in-intervention, instead of

asserting their own private ownership of the property. The petitioners act of applying for

a free patent with the Bureau of Lands is an acknowledgment that the land covered by

his application is a public land whose management and disposition belong to the DENR

Secretary, with the assistance of the Bureau of Lands.

 Section 4, Chapter 1, Title XIV of Executive Order No. 292 reads:

Section 4. Powers and Functions. - The Department [of Environment and Natural

Resources] shall:

xxx
CLASS NOTES

(4) Exercise supervision and control over forest lands, alienable and disposable public

lands, mineral resources and, in the process of exercising such control, impose

appropriate taxes, fees, charges, rentals and any such form of levy and collect such

revenues for the exploration, development, utilization or gathering of such resources;

xxx

(15) Exercise exclusive jurisdiction on the management and disposition of all lands of

the public domain and serve as the sole agency responsible for classification, sub-

classification, surveying and titling of lands in consultation with appropriate agencies[.]

(Underscoring supplied.)

Under Section 14(f) of Executive Order No. 192,the Director of the Lands

Management Bureau has the duty, among others, to assist the DENR Secretary in

carrying out the provisions of Commonwealth Act No. 141 (C.A. No. 141)] by having

direct executive control of the survey, classification, lease, sale or any other forms of

concession or disposition and management of the lands of the public domain..

** The present case stemmed from the protest filed by the respondents against

the petitioner free patent application. In resolving this protest, the DENR, through the

Bureau of Lands, had to resolve the issue of identity of the lot claimed by both

parties. This issue of identity of the land requires a technical determination by the

Bureau of Lands, as the administrative agency with direct control over the disposition
CLASS NOTES
and management of lands of the public domain. The DENR, on the other hand, in the

exercise of its jurisdiction to manage and dispose of public lands, must likewise

determine the applicants entitlement (or lack of it) to a free patent.  Thus, it is the DENR

which determines the respective rights of rival claimants to alienable and disposable

public lands; courts have no jurisdiction to intrude on matters properly falling within the

powers of the DENR Secretary and the Director of Lands.

JURISDICTION—DENR has jurisdiction

Under the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, courts must refrain from

determining a controversy involving a question which is within the jurisdiction of the

administrative tribunal prior to its resolution by the latter, where the question demands

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.

Undoubtedly, the DENR Secretary’s exclusion of Lot 322 from the petitioners free

patent application and his consequent directive for the respondents to apply for the

same lot are within the DENR Secretary’s exercise of sound administrative discretion.

The rationale underlying the doctrine of primary jurisdiction applies to questions on

the identity of the disputed public land since this matter requires a technical

determination by the Bureau of Lands. Since this issue precludes prior judicial

determination, the courts must stand aside even when they apparently have statutory

power to proceed, in recognition of the primary jurisdiction of the administrative agency.

CLASS NOTES
2.) Local Government Units - RA 7160 (Local Government Code)

Decentralization or decentralisation is the process by which the activities of an

organization, particularly those regarding planning and decision making, are distributed

or delegated away from a central, authoritative location or group.

a. General Welfare Clause of the Local Government Code – Sections 5(c) &

16, Chapter 2, Title One, Book I of RA 7160

SECTION 5. Rules of Interpretation. – In the interpretation of the provisions of this

Code, the following rules shall apply:

(c) 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;

Liberal interpretation means interpretation agreeing to what the reader believes the

author reasonably intended.  

Liberally construed means interpreting a provision or rule without undue emphasis on

strict compliance with all procedural requirements and technicalities, with a view to

bringing about a resolution that is just and fair to all parties within a reasonable time

SECTION 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

CLASS NOTES
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.

1.)
CLASS NOTES

ISSUE:

WON the enacted Ordinances by the said LGUs and the provisions of the

Constitution violative of the rights of the fishermen?

HELD:

NO. Petitioners contentions were baseless and they do not suffer from any

infirmity, both under the Constitution and applicable laws.

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. 

CLASS NOTES
 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 must  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.

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.

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

CLASS NOTES
 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.

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,

CLASS NOTES
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 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
CLASS NOTES
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.

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.

CLASS NOTES
2.) CELESTINO TATEL v. MUNICIPALITY OF VIRAC

FACTS:

 On the basis of complaints received from the residents of barrio Sta. Elena

on March 18, 1966 against the disturbance caused by the operation of the

abaca bailing machine inside the warehouse of petitioner which affected

the peace and tranquility of the neighborhood due to the smoke,

obnoxious odor and dust emitted by the machine,

 A committee was appointed by the municipal council of Virac to

investigate the matter. The committee noted the crowded nature of the

neighborhood with narrow roads and the surrounding residential houses,

so much so that an accidental fire within the warehouse of the petitioner

occasioned by the continuance of the activity inside the warehouse and

the storing of inflammable materials created a danger to the lives and

properties of the people within the neighborhood.

 Resolution No. 29 was passed by the Municipal Council of Virac on April

22, 1966 declaring the warehouse owned and operated by petitioner a

public nuisance

 His motion for reconsideration having been denied by the Municipal

Council of Virac, petitioner instituted the present petition for prohibition

with preliminary injunction.

 Respondent municipal officials contend that petitioner's warehouse was

constructed in violation of Ordinance No. 13, series of 1952, prohibiting

CLASS NOTES
the construction of warehouses near a block of houses either in the

poblacion or barrios without maintaining the necessary distance of 200

meters from said block of houses to avoid loss of lives and properties by

accidental fire.

 On the other hand, petitioner contends that said ordinance is

unconstitutional, contrary to the due process and equal protection clause

of the Constitution and null and void for not having been passed in

accordance with law.

ISSUE:

WON Ordinance No. 13, S. 1952 of the Municipality of Virac is unconstitutional

and void?

HELD:

NO. Ordinance No. 13, series of 1952, was passed by the Municipal Council of

Virac in the exercise of its police power. It is a settled principle of law that municipal

corporations are agencies of the State for the promotion and maintenance of local self-

government and as such are endowed with the police powers in order to effectively

accomplish and carry out the declared objects of their creation. 3 Its authority emanates

from the general welfare clause under the Administrative Code, which reads:

The municipal council shall enact such ordinances and make such regulations,

not repugnant to law, as may be necessary to carry into effect and discharge the

powers and duties conferred upon it by law and such as shall seem necessary and
CLASS NOTES
proper to provide for the health and safety, promote the prosperity, improve the morals,

peace, good order, comfort and convenience of the municipality and the inhabitants

thereof, and for the protection of property therein. 4

For an ordinance to be valid, it must not only be within the corporate powers of

the municipality to enact but must also be passed according to the procedure prescribed

by law, and must be in consonance with certain well established and basic principles of

a substantive nature. These principles require that a municipal ordinance (1) must not

contravene the Constitution or any statute (2) must not be unfair or oppressive (3) must

not be partial or discriminatory (4) must not prohibit but may regulate trade (5) must be

general and consistent with public policy, and (6) must not be

unreasonable. 5 Ordinance No. 13, Series of 1952, meets these criteria.

3.) SANGALANG v. IAC (1988)

FACTS:

 Bel-Air Village was owned and developed into a residential subdivision in

the 1950s by Makati Development Corporation which in 1968 was merged

with appellant Ayala Corporation.

 The lots which were acquired by appellees Sangalang and spouse Gaston

and spouse and Briones and spouse in 1960, 1957 and 1958,

respectively, were all sold by MDC subject to certain conditions and

easements contained in Deed Restrictions which formed a part of each

deed of sale.
CLASS NOTES
 When MDC sold the above-mentioned lots to appellees' predecessors-in-

interest, the whole stretch of the commercial block between Buendia

Avenue and Jupiter Street, from Reposo Street in the west to Zodiac

Street in the east, was still undeveloped.

 On September 25, 1972, appellant notified BAVA that, after a careful

study, it was finally decided that the height limitation of buildings on the

commercial lots shall be increased from 12.5 meters to 15 meters.

Appellant further informed BAVA that Jupiter Street shall be widened by

3.5 mters to improve traffic flow in said street. BAVA (Bel-air Village

Association) did not reply to said letter.

 on April 4, 1975, the municipal council of Makati enacted its ordinance No.

81, providing for the zonification of Makati. Under this Ordinance, Bel-Air

Village was classified as a Class A Residential Zone, with its boundary in

the south extending to the center line of Jupiter Street 

 on January 17, 1977, the Office of the Mayor of Makati wrote BAVA

directing that, in the interest of public welfare and for the purpose of

easing traffic congestion, the following streets in Bel-Air Village should be

opened for public use

 BAVA wrote the Mayor of Makati, expressing the concern of the residents

about the opening of the streets to the general public, and requesting

specifically the indefinite postponement of the plan to open Jupiter Street

to public vehicles.
CLASS NOTES

 the Barangay Captain of Bel-Air Village was advised by the Office of the

Mayor that, in accordance with the agreement entered into during the

meeting on January 28, 1 977, the Municipal Engineer and the Station

Commander of the Makati Police were ordered to open for public use

Jupiter Street from Makati Avenue to Reposo Street. Accordingly, he was

requested to advise the village residents of the necessity of the opening of

the street in the interest of public welfare.

 Thus, with the opening of the entire length of Jupiter Street to public traffic,

the different residential lots located in the northern side of Jupiter Street

ceased to be used for purely residential purposes. They became, for all

purposes, commercial in character.

 the plaintiffs-appellees Jose D. Sangalang and Lutgarda D. Sangalang

brought the present action for damages against the defendant-appellant

Ayala Corporation predicated on both breach of contract and on tort or

quasi-delict.

 The trial court dismissed the complaint on a procedural ground, i.e.,

pendency of an Identical action

CLASS NOTES
 CA affirmed trial courts decision and held that Jupiter Street "is classified

as High density commercial (C-3) zone as per Comprehensive Zoning

Ordinance No. 81-01 for National Capital Region,"

ISSUE:

WON the Ordinance exercised the legitimate police power?

HELD:

 YES.

 The MMC Ordinance represents a legitimate exercise of police

power. The petitioners have not shown why we should hold otherwise

other than for the supposed "non-impairment" guaranty of the Constitution,

which, as we have declared, is secondary to the more compelling interests

of general welfare. 

 The Ordinance has not been shown to be capricious or arbitrary or

unreasonable to warrant the reversal of the judgments so appealed. In

that connection, we find no reversible error to have been committed by the

Court of Appeals.

 It is not that we are saying that restrictive easements, especially the

easements herein in question, are invalid or ineffective. As far as the Bel-

Air subdivision itself is concerned, certainly, they are valid and

enforceable.

 But they are, like all contracts, subject to the overriding demands, needs,

and interests of the greater number as the State may determine in the

legitimate exercise of police power. Our jurisdiction guarantees sanctity of

CLASS NOTES
contract and is said to be the "law between the contracting parties, 65 but

while it is so, it cannot contravene 'law, morals, good customs, public

order, or public policy. 66 Above all, it cannot be raised as a deterrent to

police power, designed precisely to promote health, safety, peace, and

enhance the common good, at the expense of contractual rights,

whenever necessary.

** That in 1975, the Municipal Government of Makati enacted a zoning ordinance and

classified the blocks between Buendia Avenue Extension and Jupiter Street as an

administrative office zone with the north-northeast boundary of the zone extending up to

the center line of Jupiter street. Under the said ordinance, Bel-Air Village has likewise

been called into a residential zone, with its boundary at the southwest being delimited

only up to the center line of the Jupiter Street. Similarly, under Ordinance No. 81-01 of

the Metro Manila Commission, Jupiter Street has been made a common boundary of

the commercial blocks along the north side of the Buendia Avenue Extension and the

Bel-Air Village Subdivision, so that the said street is subject to the common use of the

owners of both the commercial blocks as well as the residential areas.(footnotes)

4.) METROPOLITAN MANILA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs. BEL-AIR

VILLAGE ASSOCIATION, INC

FACTS:
CLASS NOTES
Metropolitan Manila Development Authority (MMDA), petitioner herein, is a

Government Agency tasked with the delivery of basic services in Metro Manila.

Bel-Air Village Association (BAVA), respondent herein, received a letter of

request from the petitioner to open Neptune Street of Bel-Air Village for the use

of the public. The said opening of Neptune Street will be for the safe and

convenient movement of persons and to regulate the flow of traffic in Makati City.

This was pursuant to MMDA law or Republic Act No. 7924. On the same day, the

respondent was appraised that the perimeter wall separating the subdivision and

Kalayaan Avenue would be demolished. The respondent, to stop the opening of

the said street and demolition of the wall, filed a preliminary injunction and a

temporary restraining order. Respondent claimed that the MMDA had no

authority to do so and the lower court decided in favor of the Respondent.

Petitioner appealed the decision of the lower courts and claimed that it has the

authority to open Neptune Street to public traffic because it is an agent of the

State that can practice police power in the delivery of basic services in Metro

Manila.

Issue: Whether or not the MMDA has the mandate to open Neptune Street to

public traffic pursuant to its regulatory and police powers?

**** Police power is an inherent attribute of sovereignty. It has been defined as the

power vested by the Constitution in the legislature to make, ordain, and establish all

manner of wholesome and reasonable laws, statutes and ordinances, either with
CLASS NOTES
penalties or without, not repugnant to the Constitution, as they shall judge to be for the

good and welfare of the commonwealth, and for the subjects of the same. 

A local government is a "political subdivision of a nation or state which is constituted

by law and has substantial control of local affairs." 16 The Local Government Code of

1991 defines a local government unit as a "body politic and corporate." 17 — one

endowed with powers as a political subdivision of the National Government and as a

corporate entity representing the inhabitants of its territory. 18 Local government units

are the provinces, cities, municipalities and barangays. 19 They are also the territorial

and political subdivisions of the state. 

Our Congress delegated police power to the local government units in the Local

Government Code of 1991. This delegation is found in Section 16 of the same Code,

known as the general welfare clause, viz:

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
CLASS NOTES
their residents, maintain peace and order, and preserve the comfort and

convenience of their inhabitants. 21

Local government units exercise police power through their respective legislative

bodies. The legislative body of the provincial government is the sangguniang

panlalawigan, that of the city government is the sangguniang panlungsod, that of the

municipal government is the sangguniang bayan, and that of the barangay is

the sangguniang barangay. The Local Government Code of 1991 empowers

the sangguniang panlalawigan, sangguniang panlungsod and sangguniang bayan to

"enact ordinances, approve resolutions and appropriate funds for the general welfare of

the [province, city or municipality, as the case may be], and its inhabitants pursuant to

Section 16 of the Code and in the proper exercise of the corporate powers of the

[province, city municipality] provided under the Code . . . " 22 The same Code gives

the sangguniang barangay the power to "enact ordinances as may be necessary to

discharge the responsibilities conferred upon it by law or ordinance and to promote the

general welfare of the inhabitants thereon."

HELD:

 NO.

 It bears stressing that police power is lodged primarily in the National

Legislature. 12 It cannot be exercised by any group or body of individuals not

possessing legislative power. 13 The National Legislature, however, may

delegate this power to the President and administrative boards as well as the

lawmaking bodies of municipal corporations or local government units. 14 Once

CLASS NOTES
delegated, the agents can exercise only such legislative powers as are conferred

on them by the national lawmaking body. 

 MMDA is not a local government unit or a public corporation endowed with

legislative power. It is not even a "special metropolitan political subdivision" as

contemplated in Section 11, Article X of the Constitution. The creation of a

"special metropolitan political subdivision" requires the approval by a majority of

the votes cast in a plebiscite in the political units directly affected." 

 The MMC under P.D. No. 824 is not the same entity as the MMDA under R.A.

No. 7924. Unlike the MMC, the MMDA has no power to enact ordinances for the

welfare of the community. It is the local government units, acting through their

respective legislative councils, that possess legislative power and police power.

In the case at bar, the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Makati City did not pass any

ordinance or resolution ordering the opening of Neptune Street, hence, its

proposed opening by petitioner MMDA is illegal and the respondent Court of

Appeals did not err in so ruling. We desist from ruling on the other issues as they

are unnecessary.

 The Court held that the MMDA does not have the capacity to exercise police

power. Police power is primarily lodged in the National Legislature. However,

police power may be delegated to government units. Petitioner herein is a

development authority and not a political government unit. Therefore, the MMDA

cannot exercise police power because it cannot be delegated to them. It is not a

legislative unit of the government.

CLASS NOTES
 Republic Act No. 7924 does not empower the MMDA to enact ordinances,

approve resolutions and appropriate funds for the general welfare of

the inhabitants of Manila. There is no syllable in the said act that grants MMDA

police power.

 It is an agency created for the purpose of laying down policies and coordinating

with various national government agencies, people’s organizations, non-

governmental organizations and the private sector for the efficient and

expeditious delivery of basic services in the vast metropolitan area.

3.) Accountability of Public Officials

b. Laws

1987 PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION

ARTICLE XI

ACCOUNTABILITY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS

Section 1. Public office is a public trust. Public officers and employees must, at

all times, be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility,

integrity, loyalty, and efficiency; act with patriotism and justice, and lead modest

lives. (public office is a public trust”. Ang ibig sabihin nito, may pananagutan tayo

sa taumbayan. Lahat ng ginagawa natin, ginagastos natin, isinasa-katuparan

natin ay pananagutan natin sa taumbayan.) (focus is delivering services for the

CLASS NOTES
benefit of our main clientele—the Filipino people. We are primarily here to serve,

and not to be served.)

Section 2. The President, the Vice-President, the Members of the Supreme

Court, the Members of the Constitutional Commissions, and the Ombudsman

may be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, culpable

violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other high

crimes, or betrayal of public trust. All other public officers and employees may be

removed from office as provided by law, but not by impeachment.

(Impeachment in the Philippines is an expressed power of the Congress of the

Philippines to formally charge a serving government official with an impeachable

offense. After being impeached by the House of Representatives, the official is then

tried in the Senate. If convicted, the official is either removed from office or censured.

Impeachment followed by conviction is often the only way to forcibly remove a sitting

official. While "impeachment" is often used to refer to the entire process of removing an

official from office, it only formally refers to the indictment stage in the House of

Representatives, not the trial stage in the Senate. Under the current Constitution, an

official can be impeached if one third of the House of Representatives votes in favor.

Since it takes only a simple majority to set the agenda or to adjourn the House, it can be

difficult for a minority of one third to bring a vote and impeach an official.)

Impeachable officials : Article XI, Section 2 of the Constitution:

President of the Philippines

Vice President of the Philippines

CLASS NOTES
Justices of the Supreme Court of the Philippines

Members of the Constitutional Commissions:

Commission on Elections

Civil Service Commission

Commission on Audit

Ombudsman

Impeachable offenses

The Constitution limits the offenses to the following: culpable violation of the

Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of

public trust. In the 1935 and 1973 constitution, betrayal of public trust was not an

impeachable offense.

Culpable violation of the constitution

defined as "the deliberate and wrongful breach of the Constitution." Further, "Violation of

the Constitution made unintentionally, in good faith, and mere mistakes in the proper

construction of the Constitution, do not constitute an impeachable offense."

Treason

According to the Revised Penal Code, treason is defined as "Any Filipino citizen who

levies war against the Philippines or adheres to his/her enemies, giving them aid or

comfort within the Philippines or elsewhere."

Bribery
CLASS NOTES
The Revised Penal Code defines bribery in two forms:

Direct bribery is "committed by any public officer who shall agree to perform an act

constituting a crime, in connection with the performance of this official duties, in

consideration of any offer, promise, gift or present received by such officer, personally

or through the mediation of another."

Indirect bribery is "committed by a public officer when he accept gifts offered to him by

reason of his office."

Graft and corruption

Any violation of the Republic Act No. 3019, or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act

is an impeachable offense, on which A public official found to have acquired, whether in

his name or in the name of other persons, an amount of property and/or money

manifestly out of proportion to his salary.[2]

Betrayal of Public Trust

Betrayal of public interest, inexcusable negligence of duty, tyrannical abuse of power,

breach of official duty by malfeasance or misfeasance, cronyism favoritism, etc. to the

prejudice of public interest and which tend to bring the office into disrepute.[3]

Other high crimes

Offenses which like treason and bribery, are so serious and enormous a nature as to

strike at the very life or the orderly workings of the government[4]

In Francisco Jr. vs. Nagmamalasakit na mga Manananggol ng mga Manggagawang

Pilipino, Inc., the Supreme Court purposely refused to define the meaning of "other high
CLASS NOTES
crimes or betrayal of public trust," saying that it is "a non-justiciable political question

which is beyond the scope of its judicial power." However, the Court refuses to name

which agency can define it; the Court impliedly gives the power to the House of

Representatives, which initiates all cases of impeachment.

Section 3.

1. The House of Representatives shall have the exclusive power to initiate all cases

of impeachment. ( lower house of the Congress; commonly referred to as

Congress and informally referred to as the Cámara or Kamara.) (304

representatives 243 from congressional districts 61 party-list representatives)

(elected to a three-year term. They can be re-elected, but cannot serve more

than three consecutive terms.) ( the House of Representatives has power to

impeach certain officials and all money bills must originate from the lower house.)

( headed by the Speaker, currently Alan Peter Cayetano of Taguig-

Pateros (Nacionalista Party). The Speaker of the House is the third in

the presidential line of succession, after the Vice President and Senate

President. )

2. A verified complaint for impeachment may be filed by any Member of the House

of Representatives or by any citizen upon a resolution or endorsement by any

Member thereof, which shall be included in the Order of Business within ten

session days, and referred to the proper Committee within three session days

thereafter. The Committee, after hearing, and by a majority vote of all its

Members, shall submit its report to the House within sixty session days from such
CLASS NOTES
referral, together with the corresponding resolution. The resolution shall be

calendared for consideration by the House within ten session days from receipt

thereof.

3. A vote of at least one-third of all the Members of the House shall be necessary

either to affirm a favorable resolution with the Articles of Impeachment of the

Committee, or override its contrary resolution. The vote of each Member shall be

recorded.

4. In case the verified complaint or resolution of impeachment is filed by at least

one-third of all the Members of the House, the same shall constitute the Articles

of Impeachment, and trial by the Senate shall forthwith proceed.

5. No impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against the same official more

than once within a period of one year.

6. The Senate shall have the sole power to try and decide all cases of

impeachment. When sitting for that purpose, the Senators shall be on oath or

affirmation. When the President of the Philippines is on trial, the Chief Justice of

the Supreme Court shall preside, but shall not vote. No person shall be convicted

without the concurrence of two-thirds of all the Members of the Senate.

7. Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than removal from

office and disqualification to hold any office under the Republic of the Philippines,

but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to prosecution,

trial, and punishment, according to law.

8. The Congress shall promulgate its rules on impeachment to effectively carry out

the purpose of this section.

CLASS NOTES
Section 4. The present anti-graft court known as the Sandiganbayan shall

continue to function and exercise its jurisdiction as now or hereafter may be

provided by law. ( special appellate collegial court, that  has jurisdiction over

criminal and civil cases involving graft and corrupt practices and other offenses

committed by public officers and employees, including those in government-

owned or government-controlled corporations) (  It is equal in rank to the Court of

Appeals, and consists of fourteen Associate Justices and one Presiding Justice.

[7] The Office of the Ombudsman owns exclusive authority to bring cases to the

Sandiganbayan.[)

Section 5. There is hereby created the independent Office of the Ombudsman,

composed of the Ombudsman to be known as Tanodbayan, one overall Deputy

and at least one Deputy each for Luzon, Visayas, and Mindanao. A separate

Deputy for the military establishment may likewise be appointed.

Section 6. The officials and employees of the Office of the Ombudsman, other

than the Deputies, shall be appointed by the Ombudsman, according to the Civil

Service Law.

Section 7. The existing Tanodbayan shall hereafter be known as the Office of

the Special Prosecutor. It shall continue to function and exercise its powers as

now or hereafter may be provided by law, except those conferred on the Office of

the Ombudsman created under this Constitution.

Section 8. The Ombudsman and his Deputies shall be natural-born citizens of

the Philippines, and at the time of their appointment, at least forty years old, of

recognized probity and independence, and members of the Philippine Bar, and
CLASS NOTES
must not have been candidates for any elective office in the immediately

preceding election. The Ombudsman must have, for ten years or more, been a

judge or engaged in the practice of law in the Philippines.

During their tenure, they shall be subject to the same disqualifications and

prohibitions as provided for in Section 2 of Article 1X-A of this Constitution.

Section 9. The Ombudsman and his Deputies shall be appointed by the

President from a list of at least six nominees prepared by the Judicial and Bar

Council, and from a list of three nominees for every vacancy thereafter. Such

appointments shall require no confirmation. All vacancies shall be filled within

three months after they occur.

Section 10. The Ombudsman and his Deputies shall have the rank of Chairman

and Members, respectively, of the Constitutional Commissions, and they shall

receive the same salary which shall not be decreased during their term of office.

Section 11. The Ombudsman and his Deputies shall serve for a term of seven

years without reappointment. They shall not be qualified to run for any office in

the election immediately succeeding their cessation from office.

Section 12. The Ombudsman and his Deputies, as protectors of the people,

shall act promptly on complaints filed in any form or manner against public

officials or employees of the Government, or any subdivision, agency or

instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or controlled corporations,

and shall, in appropriate cases, notify the complainants of the action taken and

the result thereof.

CLASS NOTES
Section 13. The Office of the Ombudsman shall have the following powers,

functions, and duties:

1. Investigate on its own, or on complaint by any person, any act or omission of any

public official, employee, office or agency, when such act or omission appears to

be illegal, unjust, improper, or inefficient.

2. Direct, upon complaint or at its own instance, any public official or employee of

the Government, or any subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, as well as

of any government-owned or controlled corporation 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 official or

employee at fault, and recommend his removal, suspension, demotion, fine,

censure, or prosecution, and ensure compliance therewith.

4. Direct the officer concerned, in any appropriate case, and subject to such

limitations as may be provided by law, 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 when circumstances so warrant

and with due prudence.

CLASS NOTES
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. Promulgate its rules of procedure and exercise such other powers or perform

such functions or duties as may be provided by law.

Section 14. The Office of the Ombudsman shall enjoy fiscal autonomy. Its

approved annual appropriations shall be automatically and regularly released.

Section 15. The right of the State to recover properties unlawfully acquired by

public officials or employees, from them or from their nominees or transferees,

shall not be barred by prescription, laches, or estoppel.

Section 16. No loan, guaranty, or other form of financial accommodation for any

business purpose may be granted, directly or indirectly, by any government-

owned or controlled bank or financial institution to the President, the Vice-

President, the Members of the Cabinet, the Congress, the Supreme Court, and

the Constitutional Commissions, the Ombudsman, or to any firm or entity in

which they have controlling interest, during their tenure.

Section 17. A public officer or employee shall, upon assumption of office and as

often thereafter as may be required by law, submit a declaration under oath of his

assets, liabilities, and net worth. In the case of the President, the Vice-President,

the Members of the Cabinet, the Congress, the Supreme Court, the

Constitutional Commissions and other constitutional offices, and officers of the

armed forces with general or flag rank, the declaration shall be disclosed to the

public in the manner provided by law. (Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net
CLASS NOTES
Worth,[1] commonly known as the SALN, is an annual document that all

government workers in the Philippines, whether regular or temporary, must

complete and submit attesting under oath to their total assets and liabilities,

including businesses and financial interests, that make up their net worth.)

Section 18. Public officers and employees owe the State and this Constitution

allegiance at all times and any public officer or employee who seeks to change

his citizenship or acquire the status of an immigrant of another country during his

tenure shall be dealt with by law.

Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials – RA 6713

Section 2. Declaration of Policies. - It is the policy of the State to promote a high

standard of ethics in public service. Public officials and employees shall at all times be

accountable to the people and shall discharge their duties with utmost responsibility,

integrity, competence, and loyalty, act with patriotism and justice, lead modest lives, and

uphold public interest over personal interest.

"Government" includes the National Government, the local governments, and all other

instrumentalities, agencies or branches of the Republic of the Philippines including

government-owned or controlled corporations, and their subsidiaries.lawphi1.net

(b) "Public Officials" includes elective and appointive officials and employees,

permanent or temporary, whether in the career or non-career service, including military

and police personnel, whether or not they receive compensation, regardless of amount.
CLASS NOTES
REPUBLIC ACT No. 3019

ANTI-GRAFT AND CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT

Section 1. Statement of policy. It is the policy of the Philippine Government, in line with

the principle that a public office is a public trust, to repress certain acts of public officers

and private persons alike which constitute graft or corrupt practices or which may lead

thereto.

Section 3. Corrupt practices of public officers. In addition to acts or omissions of

public officers already penalized by existing law, the following shall constitute corrupt

practices of any public officer and are hereby declared to be unlawful:

(a) Persuading, inducing or influencing another public officer to perform an act

constituting a violation of rules and regulations duly promulgated by competent authority

or an offense in connection with the official duties of the latter, or allowing himself to be

persuaded, induced, or influenced to commit such violation or offense.

(b) Directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any gift, present, share, percentage, or

benefit, for himself or for any other person, in connection with any contract or

transaction between the Government and any other part, wherein the public officer in

his official capacity has to intervene under the law.

(c) Directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any gift, present or other pecuniary or

material benefit, for himself or for another, from any person for whom the public officer,

in any manner or capacity, has secured or obtained, or will secure or obtain, any

Government permit or license, in consideration for the help given or to be given, without

prejudice to Section thirteen of this Act.

CLASS NOTES
(d) Accepting or having any member of his family accept employment in a private

enterprise which has pending official business with him during the pendency thereof or

within one year after its termination.

(e) Causing any undue injury to any party, including the Government, or giving any

private party any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his

official administrative or judicial functions through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or

gross inexcusable negligence. This provision shall apply to officers and employees of

offices or government corporations charged with the grant of licenses or permits or

other concessions.

(f) Neglecting or refusing, after due demand or request, without sufficient justification, to

act within a reasonable time on any matter pending before him for the purpose of

obtaining, directly or indirectly, from any person interested in the matter some pecuniary

or material benefit or advantage, or for the purpose of favoring his own interest or giving

undue advantage in favor of or discriminating against any other interested party.

(g) Entering, on behalf of the Government, into any contract or transaction manifestly

and grossly disadvantageous to the same, whether or not the public officer profited or

will profit thereby.

(h) Director or indirectly having financing or pecuniary interest in any business, contract

or transaction in connection with which he intervenes or takes part in his official

capacity, or in which he is prohibited by the Constitution or by any law from having any

interest.
CLASS NOTES
(i) Directly or indirectly becoming interested, for personal gain, or having a material

interest in any transaction or act requiring the approval of a board, panel or group of

which he is a member, and which exercises discretion in such approval, even if he votes

against the same or does not participate in the action of the board, committee, panel or

group.

Interest for personal gain shall be presumed against those public officers responsible for

the approval of manifestly unlawful, inequitable, or irregular transaction or acts by the

board, panel or group to which they belong.

(j) Knowingly approving or granting any license, permit, privilege or benefit in favor of

any person not qualified for or not legally entitled to such license, permit, privilege or

advantage, or of a mere representative or dummy of one who is not so qualified or

entitled.

(k) Divulging valuable information of a confidential character, acquired by his office or by

him on account of his official position to unauthorized persons, or releasing such

information in advance of its authorized release date.

The person giving the gift, present, share, percentage or benefit referred to in

subparagraphs (b) and (c); or offering or giving to the public officer the employment

mentioned in subparagraph (d); or urging the divulging or untimely release of the

confidential information referred to in subparagraph (k) of this section shall, together

with the offending public officer, be punished under Section nine of this Act and shall be

permanently or temporarily disqualified in the discretion of the Court, from transacting

business in any form with the Government.

CLASS NOTES

REPUBLIC ACT No. 6770 The Ombudsman Act of 1989".

Section 2. Declaration of Policy. - The State shall maintain honesty and integrity in the

public service and take positive and effective measures against graft and corruption.

Public office is a public must at all times be accountable to the people, serve them with

utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, efficiency, act with patriotism and justice and lead

modest lives.

Section 13. Mandate. - The Ombudsman and his Deputies, as protectors of the people,

shall act promptly on complaints filed in any form or manner against officers or

employees of the government, or of any subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof,

including government-owned or controlled corporations, and enforce their

administrative, civil and criminal liability in every case where the evidence warrants in

order to promote efficient service by the Government to the people.

Section 19. Administrative Complaints. - The Ombudsman shall act on all complaints

relating, but not limited to acts or omissions which:

(1) Are contrary to law or regulation;

(2) Are unreasonable, unfair, oppressive or discriminatory;

(3) Are inconsistent with the general course of an agency's functions, though in

accordance with law; Proceed from a mistake of law or an arbitrary ascertainment of

facts; Are in the exercise of discretionary powers but for an improper purpose; or Are

otherwise irregular, immoral or devoid of justification.

CLASS NOTES
Section 20. Exceptions. - The Office of the Ombudsman may not conduct the

necessary investigation of any administrative act or omission complained of if it believes

that:

(1) The complainant has a adequate remedy in another judicial or quasi-judicial body;

(2) The complaint pertains to a matter outside the jurisdiction of the Office of the

Ombudsman;

(3) The complaint id trivial, frivolous, vexatious or made in bad faith;

(4) The complaint has no sufficient personal interest in the subject matter of the

grievance; or

(5) The complaint was filed after one year from the occurrence of the act or omission

complained of.

Section 21. Officials Subject to Disciplinary Authority; Exceptions. - The Office of

the Ombudsman shall have disciplinary authority over all elective and appointive

officials of the Government and its subdivisions, instrumentalities and agencies,

including Members of the Cabinet, local government, government- owned or controlled

corporations and their subsidiaries, except over officials who may be removed only by

impeachment or over Members of Congress, and the Judiciary.

Section 22. Investigatory Power. - The Office of the Ombudsman shall have the

power to investigate any serious misconduct in office allegedly committed by officials

removable by impeachment, for the purpose of filing a verified complaint for

impeachment, if warranted.
CLASS NOTES
In all cases of conspiracy between an officer or employee of the government and

a private person, the Ombudsman and his Deputies shall have jurisdiction to include

such private person in the investigation and proceed against such private person as the

evidence may warrant. The officer or employee and the private person shall be tried

jointly and shall be subject to the same penalties and liabilities.

Section 26. Inquiries. -

(1) The Office of the Ombudsman shall inquire into acts or omissions of a public officer,

employee, office or agency which, from the reports or complaints it has received, the

Ombudsman or his Deputies consider to be:

(a) contrary to law or regulation;

(b) unreasonable, unfair, oppressive, irregular or inconsistent with the general course of

the operations and functions of a public officer, employee, office or agency;

(c) an error in the application or interpretation of law, rules or regulations, or a gross or

palpable error in the appreciation of facts;

(d) based on improper motives or corrupt considerations;

(e) unclear or inadequately explained when reasons should have been revealed; or

(f) inefficiently performed or otherwise objectionable.

(2) The Office of the Ombudsman shall receive complaints from any source in whatever

form concerning an official act or omission. It shall act on the complaint immediately and

if it finds the same entirely baseless, it shall dismiss the same and inform the

complainant of such dismissal citing the reasons therefor. If it finds a reasonable ground
CLASS NOTES
to investigate further, it shall first furnish the respondent public officer or employee with

a summary of the complaint and require him to submit a written answer within seventy-

two hours from receipt thereof. If the answer is found satisfactory, it shall dismiss the

case.

Presidential Decree No. 1151, s. 1977

PHILIPPINE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY

The individual and, at times, conflicting, demands of population growth, urbanization,

industrial expansion, rapid natural resources utilization and increasing technological

advances have resulted in a piecemeal-approach concept of environmental protection;

PURPOSE: To protect the right of the people to a healthy environment through a

requirement of environmental impact assessments and statements.

An urgent need to formulate an intensive, integrated program of environmental

protection that will bring about a concerted effort towards the protection of the entire

spectrum of the environment through a requirement of environmental impact

assessments and statements:

Section 1. Policy. It is hereby declared a continuing policy of the State (a) to create,

develop, maintain and improve conditions under which man and nature can thrive in

productive and enjoyable harmony with each other, (b) to fulfill the social, economic and

other requirements of present and future generations of Filipinos, and (c) to insure the
CLASS NOTES
attainment of an environmental quality that is conducive to a life of dignity and well-

being.

Section 2. Goal. In pursuing this policy, it shall be the responsibility of the Government,

in cooperation with concerned private organizations and entities, to use all practicable

means, consistent with other essential considerations of national policy, in promoting

the general welfare to the end that the Nation may (a) recognize, discharge and fulfill

the responsibilities of each generation as trustee and guardian of the environment for

succeeding generations, (b) assure the people of a safe, decent, healthful, productive

and aesthetic environment, (c) encourage the widest exploitation of the environment

without degrading it, or endangering human life, health and safety or creating conditions

adverse to agriculture, commerce and industry, (d) preserve important historic and

cultural aspects of the Philippine heritage, (e) attain a rational and orderly balance

between population and resource use, and (f) improve the utilization of renewable and

non-renewable resources.

Section 3. Right to a Healthy Environment. In furtherance of these goals and policies,

the Government recognizes the right of the people to a healthful environment. It shall be

the duty and responsibility of each individual to contribute to the preservation and

enhancement of the Philippine environment.

Section 4. 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 detail statement on

CLASS NOTES
(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 involve the use of depletable or non-renewable 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.

(ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTS-- The main objective of this law is to

maintain the balance between the environment and the socio-economic development of

the country. It aims to protect the environment despite the increasing demand of natural

resources and development to attain sustainability.)

(Every proposed environmentally critical project or project located in environmentally

critical area shall prepare an Environmental Impact Statement to justify why the project

should be implemented. The Environmental impact Statement also contains the

predicted impact which is most likely to occur and affect the environment and the
CLASS NOTES
surrounding communities as well. Along with it are the proper mitigation or

environmental measures to minimize if not prevented the said negative impacts to the

environment. It covers the monitoring program for different environmental media such

as air, water, soil and development program for the existing community. Through EIS,

the likely adverse ecological impact of the project that might occur will properly be

mitigated. It is also for the benefit of the people in the community that will be affected if

the project will cause negative impact on the environment)

EXAMPLE: the new manila reclamation project (white sand in manila bay)

(Several proposed reclamation projects between the Manila Bay projects identified the

San Nicolas Shoal as their source area. If this project will not be allowed to extract fill

materials from the San Nicolas Shoal, the sand deposits near the Pampanga Bay area

which was proposed as the potential source of fill materials for the Navotas Reclamation

Project and the sand deposits between Corregidor Island and Mariveles (identified as

source of good quality sand in the Regalado Reclamation Project in Cavite in the early

80s) can be considered as alternate sources of backfill materials.)

(The effects of the construction on the local communities should also be considered in

detail. Negative effects arise from noise and decreased air quality, while expected to be

minor, may affect the local informal and formal settlements. Noise effects bay be

mitigated by installing sound barriers or restricting disruptive construction activities to

daylight hours. Noise compliance checks may be carried out on machinery with noise

meters installed and operated under the EMP to check for compliance. Effective
CLASS NOTES
strategies for air pollution control include watering areas of exposed earth which may

potentially generate airborne dust, proper storage of dust producing materials,

machinery exhaust compliance and good practice driving habits (for example,

compliance with speed restrictions and shutting down machinery which is not in use).

Likely increased traffic to and from the construction areas should be countered by close

liaison with local traffic authorities and installation of improved signage to reduce the

risk of accidents and forewarn of possible congestion. Safe traffic control measures

should be employed. There is a risk that hazardous and non-hazardous waste could be

generated by the construction activities. The waste may be generated from land-based

or marine activities including accidental oil spill). The implementation of a robust waste

management plan involving proper storage, handling and disposal procedures for each

potential waste stream should be development. In addition, an emergency response

plan should be implemented to address any accidental spills of waste. The construction

contractors should implement a reduce recycle and reuse hierarchy.)

Presidential Decree No. 1152, s. 1977

PHILIPPINE ENVIRONMENT CODE

PURPOSE: To achieve and maintain such levels of air quality as to protect public health

and to prevent to the greatest extent practicable, injury and/or damage to plant and

animal life and property, and promote the social and economic development of the

country

OVERVIEW:
CLASS NOTES
 The broad spectrum of environment has become a matter of vital concern to the

government

 The national leadership has taken a step towards this direction by creating the

National Environmental Protection Council

 It is necessary that the creation of the Council be complemented with the

launching of comprehensive program of environmental protection and

management

 Such a program can assume tangible and meaningful significance only by

establishing specific environment management policies and prescribing

environment quality standards in a Philippine Environment Code

FEATURES:

 Provided a comprehensive program of environmental protection and

management.  The Code established specific environment management policies

and prescribes environmental quality standards.

 To achieve and maintain such levels of air quality as to protect public health and

to prevent to the greatest extent practicable, injury and/or damage to plant and

animal life and property, and promote the social and economic development of

the country

 Prescribe management guidelines to protect and improve water quality through:

classification of Philippine waters, establishment of water quality standards,

protection and improvement of the quality of the Philippine water resources, and

responsibilities for surveillance and mitigation of pollution incidents

CLASS NOTES
 Set guidelines for waste management with a view to ensuring its effectiveness,

encourage, promote and stimulate technological, educational, economic and

social efforts to prevent environmental damage and unnecessary loss of valuable

resources of the nation through recovery, recycling and re-use of wastes and

wastes products, and provide measures to guide and encourage appropriate

government agencies in establishing sound, efficient, comprehensive and

effective wastes management covering both solid and liquid wastes

Ambient air quality criteria, or standards, are concentrations of pollutants in the air,

and typically refer to outdoor air. The criteria are specified for a variety of reasons

including for the protection of human health, buildings, crops, vegetation, ecosystems,

as well as for planning and other purposes. There is no internationally accepted

definition but usually "standards" have some legal or enforcement aspect, whereas

"guidelines" may not be backed by laws. "Criteria/criterion" can be used as a generic

term to cover standards and guidelines.

 Air pollution is a major environmental risk to health. By reducing air

pollution levels, countries can reduce the burden of disease from stroke,

heart disease, lung cancer, and both chronic and acute respiratory

diseases, including asthma.

 The lower the levels of air pollution, the better the cardiovascular and

respiratory health of the population will be, both long- and short-term.

CHAPTER I
CLASS NOTES
Standards

SECTION 3. Ambient Air Quality Standards. — There shall be established ambient

air quality standards which shall prescribe the maximum concentration of air pollutants

permissible in the atmosphere consistent with public health, safety and general welfare.

In the establishment of ambient air quality standards, factors such as local atmospheric

conditions, location and land use, and available technology, shall be considered among

others.

SECTION 4. National Emission Standards. — There shall be established national

emission standards for new and existing stationary and mobile sources of pollution

which shall consider among others such factors as type of industry, practicable control

technology available, location and land use, and the nature of pollutants emitted.

SECTION 5. Community Noise Standards. — Appropriate standards for community

noise levels shall be established considering, among others, location, zoning and land

use classification.

SECTION 6. Standards for Noise-Producing Equipment. — There shall be established

a standard for noise producing equipment such as construction equipment,

transportation equipment, stationary engines, and electrical or electronic equipment and

such similar equipment or contrivances. The standards shall set a limit on the

acceptable level of noise emitted from a given equipment for the protection of public

health and welfare, considering among others, the magnitude and condition of use, the

degree of noise reduction achievable through the application of best available

technology and the cost of compliance.

CLASS NOTES
The Installation of any noise-producing equipment shall conform with the requirements

of Presidential Decree No. 1096 and other applicable laws as well as their implementing

rules and regulations.

SECTION 7. Aircraft Emission and Sonic Booms. — Appropriate government agencies

shall encourage research studies on the harmful effects of aircraft emissions in the

environment in order to establish permissible emission standards.

Research and studies shall also be undertaken to mitigate and/or minimize the effects

of sonic booms in the environment.

Presidential Decree No. 1586 or the Environmental Impact Statement System (EIS)

PURPOSE: To attain and maintain a rational and orderly balance between socio-

economic growth and environmental protection

OVERVIEW:

 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

 The regulatory requirements of Environmental Impact Statement and

Assessments instituted in pursuit of this national environmental protection

CLASS NOTES
program have to work into their full regulatory and procedural details in a manner

consistent with the goals of the program

FEATURES:

 Declared environmentally critical projects and areas are required to obtain an

Environmental Compliance Certificate before operation

 Environmentally Critical Projects includes heavy industries, resource extractive

industries, infrastructure projects, golf course projects

 Characteristics of Environmentally Critical Areas:

o Areas declared by law as natural parks, watershed reserves, wildlife

reserves, and sanctuaries

o Areas set aside as aesthetic, potential tourist spots

o Areas which constitute the habitat for any endangered or threatened

species of indigenous Philippine wildlife (flora and fauna)

o Areas of unique historical, archeological, geological or scientific interests

o Areas which are traditionally occupied by cultural communities or tribes

o Areas frequently visited and/or hard hit by natural calamities (geologic

hazards, floods, typhoons, volcanic activity, etc.)

o Areas of critical slope

o Areas classified as prime agricultural lands

CLASS NOTES
o Recharged areas of aquifers

o Waterbodies

o Mangrove areas

o Coral reefs

 Violators shall be punished by the suspension of cancellation of his/its certificate

and or fine for each violation

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;

the regulatory requirements of Environmental Impact Statement and Assessment

instituted in pursuit of this national environmental protection program have to work into

their full regulatory and procedural details in a manner consistent with the goals of the

program.

Section 2. Environmental Impact Statement System. - There is hereby established a

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 governmentowned

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.
CLASS NOTES
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 reorganized such government offices, agencies, institutions, corporations

or instrumentalities including the realignment of government personnel, and their

specific functions and responsibilities.

Section 5. Environmentally Non-Critical Projects. - All other projects, undertakings

and areas not declared by the Presidents 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

CLASS NOTES
GUIDELINES AND PROCEDURES

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 reorganized such government offices, agencies, institutions, corporations

or instrumentalities including the realignment 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 calamitous 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 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 statement

CLASS NOTES
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 it's 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.

ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATE (ECC)

The Environmental Compliance Certificate or ECC refers to the document issued by the

DENR-EMB that allows the project to proceed to the next stage of project planning,

which is the acquisition of approvals from other government agencies and LGUs, after

which the project can start implementation.

It certifies that the proponent has complied with the requirements of the EIA system and

that the proposed project will not cause a significant negative impact on the
CLASS NOTES
environment. It also certifies that the proponent is committed to implement its approved

Environment Management Plan. Requirements for ECC application depend on the type

of project being developed and the location of this.

DENR Administrative Order No. 2003- 30 (Implementing Rules and Regulations

(IRR) for the Philippine Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) System)

Section 1. Basic Policy and Operating Principles

Consistent with the principles of sustainable development, it is the policy of the DENR to

implement a systems-oriented and integrated approach to the LIS system to ensure a

rational balance between socio-economic development and environmental protection for

the benefit of present and future generations.

The following are the key operating principles in the implementation of the

Philippine EIS System:

a. The EIS System is concerned primarily with assessing the direct and indirect impacts

of a project on the biophysical and human environment and ensuring that these impacts

P re addressed by appropriate environmental protection and enhancement measures.

b. The EIS System aids proponents in incorporating environmental considerations in

planning their projects as well as in determining the environment's impact on their

project.
CLASS NOTES
c. Project proponents are responsible for determining and disclosing all relevant

information necessary for a methodical ' assessment of the environmental impacts of

their projects;

d. The review of the EIS by EMB shall be guided by three general criteria: (1) that

environmental considerations are integrated into the overall project planning, (2) that the

assessment is technically sound and proposed environmental mitigation, measures are

effective, and (3) that , social acceptability is based on informed public participation;

Environmental considerations—

Tecnically sound and proposed environment mitigation-

Social acceptability- tanggap ng public, walang problema o hinaing o tutol sa project

e. Effective regulatory review of the EIS depends largely on timely full; and accurate

disclosure of relevant: information by project proponents and, other stakeholders in the

EIA process

f. The social acceptability of a project is a result of meaningful public participation, which

shall be assessed as part of the Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC)

application, based on concerns related to the project's environmental impacts;

g. The timelines prescribed by this Order, within which an Environmental - Compliance

Certificate must be issued, or denied, apply only to processes and actions within the

Environmental Management Bureau's (EMB) control and do not include actions or

activities that are the responsibility of the proponent.

Section 2. Objective
CLASS NOTES
The objective of this Administrative Order is to rationalize and streamline the EIS

System to make it more effective as a project planning and management tool by:

a. Making the System more responsive to the demands and needs of the project

proponents and the various stakeholders;

b. Clarifying the, coverage of the System and updating it to take into consideration

industrial and technological innovations and trends

c. Standardizing requirements to ensure focus on critical environment parameters;

d. Simplifying procedures for processing ECC applications, and establishing measures

to ensure adherence to ECC conditions by project proponents, and

e. Assuring that critical environmental concerns are addressed during project

development and implementation

Certificate, of Non-Coverage - a certification issued by the EMB certifying that, based

on the submitted project description, the project is not covered by the EIS System and is

not required to secure an ECC

Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC)- document issued by the DENR/EMB

after a positive review of an ECC application, certifying that based on the

representations of the proponent, the proposed project or undertaking will not cause

significant negative: environmental impact. The ECC also certifies that the proponent

has complied with all the requirements of the EIS System and has committed to

implement its approved Environmental Management Plan. The ECC contains specific

measures and conditions that the project proponent has to undertake before and during
CLASS NOTES
the operation of a project, and in some cases, during the project's abandonment phase

to mitigate identified environmental impacts.

Environmentally Critical Area (ECA) - area delineated as environmentally sensitive

such that significant environmental impacts are expected if certain types of proposed

projects or programs are located, developed or, implemented in it.

ECC APPLICATION PROCESSING AND APPROVAL PROCEDURES

Section 4. Scope of the EIS System

4.1 In general, only projects that pose potential significant impact to the environment

shall be required to secure ECC's. In coordination with the Department of Trade and

Industry (DTI) and other concerned government agencies, the EMB is authorized to

update or make appropriate revisions to the technical guidelines for EIS System

implementation.

4.2 The issuance of ECC or CNC for a project under the EIS System does not exempt

the proponent from securing other government permits and clearances as required by

other laws. In determining the scope of the EIS System, two factors are considered: (i)

the nature of the project and its potential to cause significant negative environmental

impacts, and (ii) the sensitivity or vulnerability of environmental resources in the project

area.
CLASS NOTES
ECC processing requirements shall focus on information needed to assess critical

environmental impacts of projects. Processing requirements shall be customized based

on the project categories.

7.) Proclamation No. 2146 issued on December 14, 1981

RP v City of Davao (Environmental Law)

Republic of the Philippines v City of Davao  GR No. 148622 

September 12, 2002

FACTS:

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 the City of Davao must undergo the environmental impact
CLASS NOTES
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. 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.

RTC- in favor of respondent

Petition for consideration- denied, hence the instant petition.

ISSUES:

(1) Is an LGU like Davao exempt from the coverage of PD 1586? 

(2) Is the project entitled to a Certificate of Non-Coverage (CNC)?

APPLICABLE LAWS:

• 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.  

• 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

CLASS NOTES
 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.

RULING:

(1) NO, IT IS WITHIN THE COVERAGE OF PD 1586.   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. Pursuant to this, an LGU, like the City of Davao, cannot 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.  

(2) YES.   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
CLASS NOTES
can be compelled by writ of mandamus, such as that issued by the trial court in the case

at bar.      

The presumption of regularity of official acts may be rebutted by affirmative

evidence of irregularity or failure to perform a duty. The presumption, however,

prevails until it is overcome by no less than clear and convincing evidence to the

contrary. Thus, unless the presumption is rebutted, it becomes conclusive.

Province of Rizal v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 129546, December 13, 2005

(google)

lapwhil

BANGUS FRY FISHERFOLK DIWATA MAGBUHOS vs THE HONORABLE ENRICO

LANZANAS

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

CLASS NOTES
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 NAPOCORs 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.

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.

CLASS NOTES

RTC: Dismissed the complaint. Petitioners have clearly failed to exhaust all

administrative remedies before taking this legal action in Court. The decision of the

regional director may still be elevated to the secretary of the DENR

ISSUE:

ADDITIONAL CASES:

. Cruz vs. Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources (GR No. 135385, Dec.

6, 2000)

FACTS:

Petitioners Isagani Cruz and Cesar Europa filed a suit for prohibition and

mandamus as citizens and taxpayers, assailing the constitutionality of certain provisions

of Republic Act No. 8371, otherwise known as the Indigenous People’s Rights Act of

1997 (IPRA) and its implementing rules and regulations (IRR). The petitioners assail

certain provisions of the IPRA and its IRR on the ground that these amount to an

unlawful deprivation of the State’s ownership over lands of the public domain as well as

minerals and other natural resources therein, in violation of the regalian doctrine

embodied in section 2, Article XII of the Constitution.

ISSUE:
CLASS NOTES
Do the provisions of IPRA contravene the Constitution?

HELD:

No, the provisions of IPRA do not contravene the Constitution. Examining the

IPRA, there is nothing in the law that grants to the ICCs/IPs ownership over the natural

resources within their ancestral domain. Ownership over the natural resources in the

ancestral domains remains with the State and the rights granted by the IPRA to the

ICCs/IPs over the natural resources in their ancestral domains merely gives them, as

owners and occupants of the land on which the resources are found, the right to the

small scale utilization of these resources, and at the same time, a priority in their large

scale development and exploitation.

Additionally, ancestral lands and ancestral domains are not part of the lands of

the public domain. They are private lands and belong to the ICCs/IPs by native title,

which is a concept of private land title that existed irrespective of any royal grant from

the State. However, the right of ownership and possession by the ICCs/IPs of their

ancestral domains is a limited form of ownership and does not include the right to

alienate the same. 

LAWPHIL HELD:

As the votes were equally divided (7 to 7) and the necessary majority was not

obtained, the case was redeliberated upon. However, after redeliberation, the

voting remained the same. Accordingly, pursuant to Rule 56, Section 7 of the

Rules of Civil Procedure, the petition is DISMISSED.

ACCORDING TO THE SEPARATE OPINION;

CLASS NOTES
PANGANIBAN, J.:

I submit that Republic Act (RA) No. 8371, otherwise known as the Indigenous

Peoples’ Rights Act (IPRA) of 1997, violates and contravenes the Constitution of the

Philippines.

True, our fundamental law mandates the protection of the indigenous cultural

communities’ right to their ancestral lands, but such mandate is "subject to the

provisions of this Constitution."  indigenous cultural communities and indigenous

peoples (ICCs/IPs) may be accorded preferential rights to the beneficial use of public

domains, as well as priority in the exploration, development and utilization of natural

resources. Such privileges, however, must be subject to the fundamental law.

RA 8371, which defines the rights of indigenous cultural communities and indigenous

peoples, admittedly professes a laudable intent. It was primarily enacted pursuant to the

state policy enshrined in our Constitution to "recognize and promote the rights of

indigenous cultural communities within the framework of national unity and

development."8 Though laudable and well-meaning, this statute, however, has

provisions that run directly afoul of our fundamental law from which it claims origin and

authority. More specifically, Sections 3(a) and (b), 5, 6, 7(a) and (b), 8 and other related

provisions contravene the Regalian Doctrine - the basic foundation of the State's

property regime.
CLASS NOTES
MATEO CARIÑO vs. THE INSULAR GOVERNMENT

G.R. No. 2869. March 25, 1907

Facts: 

An Igorot applied for the registration of a certain land. He and his ancestors had held

the land as owners for more than 50 years, which he inherited under Igorot customs.

There was no document of title issued for the land when he applied for registration. The

government contends that the land in question belonged to the state. Under the Spanish

Law, all lands belonged to the Spanish Crown except those with permit private titles.

Moreover, there is no prescription against the Crown.

Issue: 

Whether or not the land in question belonged to the Spanish Crown under the Regalian

Doctrine.

 Ruling:

Law and justice require that the applicant should be granted title to his land. The United

States Supreme Court, through Justice Holmes declared:

“It might perhaps, be proper and sufficient to say that when, as far as testimony or

memory goes, the land has been held by individuals under a claim of private ownership,

it will be presumed to have been held in the same way from before the Spanish
CLASS NOTES
conquest, and never to have been public land.” There is an existence of native title to

land, or ownership of land by Filipinos by virtue of possession under a claim of

ownership since time immemorial and independent of any grant from the Spanish

Crown, as an exception to the theory of jura regalia

Carino vs. Insular Government (GR No. L-2869, March 25, 1907)

FACTS:

J. Arellano

Facts:

Mateo Cariño, on  February 23 , 1904, filed his petition in the Court of

Land Registration for a title to a parcel of land consisting of 40 hectares, 1 are, and 13

centares in the town of Baguio, Province of Benguet. This was heard with a petition for

a title for a portion of the land.

The Insular Government opposed the granting of these petitions, because they alleged

that the whole parcel of land is public property of the Government and that the same

was never acquired in any manner or through any title of egresion from the State.

According to Carino, in 1884, he erected and utilized as a domicile a house on the

property situated to the north of that property now in question. They said that during the

year 1893 Cariño sold said house to one Cristobal Ramos, who in turn sold the same

to Donaldson Sim. Carino abandoned the house and lived on the land in question.
CLASS NOTES
The court of land registration ruled against their favor. They also ruled that the land was

"used for pasture and sowing," and belongs to the class called public land.

Issue: Is Carino the rightful possessor of the land?

Held: No, petition denied.

Ratio:

Under the express provisions of law, a parcel of land being of common origin,

presumptively belonged to the State during its sovereignty, and, in order to perfect the

legitimate acquisition of such land by private persons, it was necessary that the

possession of the same pass from the State.

There was no proof of title of egresion of this land from the domain of the

Spanish Government.

The possessory information was not the one authorized in substitution for the one in

adjustment of the royal decree of February 13, 1894. This was due to:

1. the land has been in an uninterrupted state of cultivation during a period of six years

last past; or that the same has been possessed without interruption during a period of

twelve years and has been in a state of cultivation up to the date of the information and

during the three years immediately preceding such information; or that such land had

been possessed openly without interruption during a period of thirty or more years,

notwithstanding the land had not been cultivated

Or such land had been possessed openly without interruption during a period of thirty or

more years, notwithstanding the land had not been cultivated

CLASS NOTES
2. Under Spanish law, there was a period of one year allowable to verify the possessory

information. After the expiration of this period of the right of the cultivators and persons

in possession to obtain gratuitous title thereto lapses and the land together with full

possession reverts to the state, or, as the case may be, to the community, and the said

possessors and cultivators or their assigns would simply have rights under universal or

general title of average in the event that the land is sold within a period of five years

immediately following the cancellation. The possessors not included under this chapter

can only acquire by time the ownership and title to unappropriated or royal lands in

accordance with common law.

In accordance with the preceding provisions, the right that remained to Cariño, if it be

certain that he was the true possessor of the land in question, was the right of average

in case the Government or State could have sold the same within the period of five

years immediately following for example, if the denouncement of purchase had been

carried out by Felipe Zafra or any other person, from the record of the case

The right of possession in accordance with civil law remained at all times subordinate to

the Spanish administrative law, inasmuch as it could only be of force when pertaining to

royal transferable or alienable lands even until after February 13, 1894.

3. The advent of American sovereignty necessarily brought a new method of dealing

with lands and particularly as to the classification and manner of transfer and acquisition

of royal or common lands then appropriated, which were thenceforth merely called

public lands, the alienation of which was reserved to the Government, in accordance

with the Organic Act of 1902 and other laws like Act No. 648, herein mentioned by the

petitioner.
CLASS NOTES
Section 6 of Act No. 627 admits prescription, as a basis for obtaining the right of

ownership. "The petitioners claim the title under the period of prescription of ten years

established by that act, as well as by reason of his occupancy and use from time

immemorial. But said act admits such prescription for the purpose of obtaining title and

ownership to lands not exceeding more that 16 hectares in extent." Under Sec. 6 of said

act. The land claimed by Cariño is 40 hectares in extent, if we take into consideration

his petition, or an extension of 28 hectares, therefore it follows that the judgment

denying the petition herein and now appealed from was strictly in accordance with the

law invoked.

 And of the 28 hectares of land as set out in the possessory information, one part of

same, according to the testimony of Cariño, belongs to Vicente Valpiedad, the extent of

which is not determined. From all of which it follows that the precise extent has not been

determined in the trial of this case on which judgment might be based in the event that

the judgment and title be declared in favor of the petitioner, Mateo Cariño. And we

should not lose sight of the fact that, considering the intention of Congress in granting

ownership and title to 16 hectares, that Mateo Cariño and his children have already

exceeded such amount in various acquirements of lands, all of which is shown in

different cases decided by the said Court of Land Registration.

Acting Registrars of Land Titles and Deeds of Pasay City vs. RTC Branch 57,

Makati (Gr No. 81564, April 26, 1990)

SARMIENTO, J.:

FACTS:
CLASS NOTES
  petitioners ** charge His Honor, Judge Francisco Velez, of the Regional Trial

Court, Branch 57, Makati, Metro Manila, with grave abuse of discretion in issuing

an order authorizing the private respondent, through Domingo Palomares, to

perform acts of ownership over a 2,574-hectare parcel of land known

as Hacienda de Maricaban spread out in various parts of Makati, Pasig, Taguig,

Pasay City, and Parañaque. 

 On November 5, 1985, the private respondent, Domingo Palomares,

as administrator of the heirs of Delfin Casal, commenced suit with RTC for

declaratory relief, quieting of title, cancellation of Transfer Certificate of Title and

cancellation of entries upon Original Certificate of Title

 the respondent judge issued a temporary restraining order, directing the

petitioners to cease and desist from performing the acts complained of.

A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC -- 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;
CLASS NOTES
--Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representative of the Philippines in

Legislature assembled and by the authority of the same:

SECTION 1. The cutting in the public forests of tindalo, akle, or molave trees less than

sixty centimeters in diameters measured at a height of four feet from the ground (breast

high) is hereby prohibited.

SEC. 2. Any person, company or corporation violating the provisions of this Act shall be

punished by a fine of not more than fifty pesos or imprisonment for not more than fifteen

days, or both, and to pay, besides, two times the amount of the tax on the timber

cut: Provided, That in the case of a company or corporation, the president or manager

shall be directly responsible for the acts of his employees or laborers if it proven that the

latter acted with his knowledge; other wise the responsibility will extend only as far as

fine is concerned: Provided, Further, That all tindalo, akle, or molave timber cut in

violation of this Act shall be forfeited to the Government.

SEC. 3. All acts and provisions of law inconsistent herewith are hereby repealed.

SEC. 4. This Act shall take effect on its approval.

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

---PURPOSE: proper classification, management and utilization of the lands of the

public domain to maximize their productivity to meet the demands of our increasing

population is urgently needed;

CLASS NOTES
***to achieve the above purpose, it is necessary to reassess the multiple uses of forest

lands and resources before allowing any utilization thereof to optimize the benefits that

can be derived therefrom;

---the present laws and regulations governing forest lands are not responsive enough to

support re-oriented government programs, projects and efforts on the proper

classification and delimitation of the lands of the public domain, and the management,

utilization, protection, rehabilitation, and development of forest lands;

SECTION 2. Policies. – The State hereby adopts the following policies:

a) The multiple uses of forest lands shall be oriented to the development and progress

requirements of the country, the advancement of science and technology, and the

public welfare;

b) Land classification and survey shall be systematized and hastened;

c) The establishment of wood-processing plants shall be encouraged and rationalized;

and

d) The protection, development and rehabilitation of forest lands shall be emphasized

so as to ensure their continuity in productive condition.

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

---PURPOSE: To prescribe sanitation requirements for food establishments and refuse

collections and disposal system of cities and municipalities

CLASS NOTES
 FEATURES: Empower the  Department of Health with the following powers and

functions:

a. Undertake the promotion and preservation of the health of the people and

raise the health standards of individuals and communities throughout the

Philippines

b. Extend maximum health services to the people in rural areas and provide

medical care to those who cannot afford it by reason of poverty

c. Develop, administer and coordinate various health activities and services

which shall include public health, preventive, curative and rehabilitative

programs, medical care, health and medical education services

d. Upgrade the standards of medical practice, the quality of health services

and programs to assure the people of better health services

e. Assist local health agencies in developing health programs including

medical care, and promote medical and public health research

f. Issue permits to establish and operate government and private hospitals,

clinics, dispensaries, schools of nursing, midwifery, and other para-

medical course, puericulture centers, clinical laboratories and blood banks

g. Prescribe standard rates of fees for health, medical, laboratory, and other

public health services

 The Secretary of the Department of Health is empowered to promulgate rules

and regulations and standards for the proper implementation and enforcement of

the provisions of the Code which include National Drinking Water Standards.
CLASS NOTES
 In response to Chapter I Section 4 of the Code of Sanitation of the Philippines

and in consideration of the newly promulgated 1993 WHO Guidelines for

Drinking Water Quality, the revision of the water quality standard established in

1978 was undertaken.  The standard is a product of the collaborative efforts of

various government agencies and is designed to guide waterworks officials,

operators of water supply systems; both government and private entities, health

and sanitation authorities and the general public in establishing the requirements

for safe and potable water.

 The standard cover requirements of the acceptable values for the determined

parameters in measuring water quality

 The parameters include the microbiological, physical, chemical and radiological

compositions of the water

 The standard also delineate values established in conforming with the medical

and health implications of the parameters as opposed to values established

purely to satisfy aesthetic requirements

 Table 2.1 to Table 2.6 and the standard parameters and values for drinking-water

quality

(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;

CLASS NOTES
(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;
CLASS NOTES
(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

MOST REV. PEDRO D. ARIGO vs. SCOTT H. SWIFT, G.R. No. 206510, September

16, 2014 
CLASS NOTES
(ARIGO v. SWIFT)

TOPIC: Writ of kalikasan, UNCLOS, Immunity from suit

VILLARAMA,J;

FACTS:

On April 6, 2010, Congress passed Republic Act (R.A.) No. 10067, 3 otherwise

known as the "Tubbataha Reefs Natural Park (TRNP) Act of 2009" "to ensure the

protection and conservation of the globally significant economic, biological,

sociocultural, educational and scientific values of the Tubbataha Reefs into perpetuity

for the enjoyment of present and future generations." 

The USS Guardian is an Avenger-class mine countermeasures ship of the US

Navy. In December 2012, the US Embassy in the Philippines requested diplomatic

clearance for the said vessel “to enter and exit the territorial waters of the Philippines

and to arrive at the port of Subic Bay for the purpose of routine ship replenishment,

maintenance, and crew liberty.” On January 6, 2013, the ship left Sasebo, Japan for

Subic Bay, arriving on January 13, 2013 after a brief stop for fuel in Okinawa, Japan.

                On January 15, 2013, the USS Guardian departed Subic Bay for its next port

of call in Makassar, Indonesia. On January 17, 2013 at 2:20 a.m. while transiting the

Sulu Sea, the ship ran aground on the northwest side of South Shoal of the Tubbataha
CLASS NOTES
Reefs, about 80 miles east-southeast of Palawan. No one was injured in the incident,

and there have been no reports of leaking fuel or oil.

                Petitioners claim that the grounding, salvaging and post-salvaging operations

of the USS Guardian cause and continue to cause environmental damage of such

magnitude as to affect the provinces of Palawan, Antique, Aklan, Guimaras, Iloilo,

Negros Occidental, Negros Oriental, Zamboanga del Norte, Basilan, Sulu, and Tawi-

Tawi, which events violate their constitutional rights to a balanced and healthful ecology.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not petitioners have legal standing.(YES)

2. Whether or not US respondents may be held liable for damages caused by USS

Guardian. (YES)

3. Whether or not the waiver of immunity from suit under VFA applies in this case.

(NO)

HELD:

First issue: YES.

Petitioners have legal standing

CLASS NOTES
                Locus standi is “a right of appearance in a court of justice on a given

question.” Specifically, it is “a party’s personal and substantial interest in a case where

he has sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result” of the act being challenged, and

“calls for more than just a generalized grievance.” However, the rule on standing is a

procedural matter which this Court has relaxed for non-traditional plaintiffs like ordinary

citizens, taxpayers and legislators when the public interest so requires, such as when

the subject matter of the controversy is of transcendental importance, of overreaching

significance to society, or of paramount public interest.

                In the landmark case of Oposa v. Factoran, Jr., we recognized the “public

right” of citizens to “a balanced and healthful ecology which, for the first time in our

constitutional history, is solemnly incorporated in the fundamental law.” We declared

that the right to a balanced and healthful ecology need not be written in the Constitution

for it is assumed, like other civil and polittcal rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, to

exist from the inception of mankind and it is an issue of transcendental importance with

intergenerational implications. Such right carries with it the correlative duty to refrain

from impairing the environment.

                On the novel element in the class suit filed by the petitioners minors in Oposa,

this Court ruled that not only do ordinary citizens have legal standing to sue for the

enforcement of environmental rights, they can do so in representation of their own and

future generations.

Their personality to sue in behalf of the succeeding generations can only be

based on the concept of intergenerational responsibility insofar as the right to a

CLASS NOTES
balanced and healthful ecology is concerned. Such a right, as hereinafter expounded,

considers the "rhythm and harmony of nature."

INTERGENERATIONAL RESPONSIBILITY-

The liberalization of standing first enunciated in Oposa, insofar as it refers to

minors and generations yet unborn, is now enshrined in the Rules which allows the filing

of a citizen suit in environmental cases. The provision on citizen suits in the Rules

"collapses the traditional rule on personal and direct interest, on the principle that

humans are stewards of nature."

Second issue: YES.

  The US respondents were sued in their official capacity as commanding officers

of the US Navy who had control and supervision over the USS Guardian and its crew.

The alleged act or omission resulting in the unfortunate grounding of the USS Guardian

on the TRNP was committed while they were performing official military duties.

Considering that the satisfaction of a judgment against said officials will require remedial

actions and appropriation of funds by the US government, the suit is deemed to be one

against the US itself. The principle of State immunity therefore bars the exercise of

jurisdiction by this Court over the persons of respondents Swift, Rice and Robling.

                During the deliberations, Senior Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio took

the position that the conduct of the US in this case, when its warship entered a

restricted area in violation of R.A. No. 10067 and caused damage to the TRNP reef

system, brings the matter within the ambit of Article 31 of the United

CLASS NOTES
Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). He explained that while

historically, warships enjoy sovereign immunity from suit as extensions of their flag

State, Art. 31 of the UNCLOS creates an exception to this rule in cases where they fail

to comply with the rules and regulations of the coastal State regarding passage through

the latter’s internal waters and the territorial sea.

   In the case of warships, as pointed out by Justice Carpio, they continue to enjoy

sovereign immunity subject to the following  exceptions:

Article 30: Non-compliance by warships with the laws and regulations of the coastal

State

If any warship does not comply with the laws and regulations of the coastal State

concerning passage through the territorial sea and disregards any request for

compliance therewith which is made to it, the coastal State may require it to leave the

territorial sea immediately.

Article 31: Responsibility of the flag State for damage caused by a warship or other

government ship operated for non-commercial purposes

The flag State shall bear international responsibility for any loss or damage to the

coastal State resulting from the non-compliance by a warship or other government ship

operated for non-commercial purposes with the laws and regulations of the coastal

State concerning passage through the territorial sea or with the provisions of

this Convention or other rules of international law.

CLASS NOTES
Article 32: Immunities of warships and other government ships operated for non-

commercial purposes

                With such exceptions as are contained in subsection A and in articles 30 and

31, nothing in this Convention affects the immunities of warships and other government

ships operated for non-commercial purposes. A foreign warship’s unauthorized entry

into our internal waters with resulting damage to marine resources is one situation in

which the above provisions may apply.

But what if the offending warship is a non-party to the UNCLOS, as in this case, the

US?

According to Justice Carpio, although the US to date has not ratified the UNCLOS, as a

matter of long-standing policy the US considers itself bound by customary international

rules on the “traditional uses of the oceans” as codified in UNCLOS.

Moreover, Justice Carpio emphasizes that “the US refusal to join the UNCLOS was

centered on its disagreement with UNCLOS” regime of deep seabed mining (Part XI)

which considers the oceans and deep seabed commonly owned by mankind,” pointing

out that such “has nothing to do with its the US’ acceptance of customary international

rules on navigation.”

The Court also fully concurred with Justice Carpio’s view that non-membership in the

UNCLOS does not mean that the US will disregard the rights of the Philippines as a

Coastal State over its internal waters and territorial sea. We thus expect the US to bear

“international responsibility” under Art. 31 in connection with the USS Guardian

CLASS NOTES
grounding which adversely affected the Tubbataha reefs. Indeed, it is difficult to imagine

that our long-time ally and trading partner, which has been actively supporting the

country’s efforts to preserve our vital marine resources, would shirk from its obligation to

compensate the damage caused by its warship while transiting our internal waters.

Much less can we comprehend a Government exercising leadership in international

affairs, unwilling to comply with the UNCLOS directive for all nations to cooperate in the

global task to protect and preserve the marine environment as provided in Article 197 of

UNCLOS

Article 197: Cooperation on a global or regional basis

States shall cooperate on a global basis and, as appropriate, on a regional basis,

directly or through competent international organizations, in formulating and elaborating

international rules, standards and recommended practices and procedures consistent

with this Convention, for the protection and preservation of the marine environment,

taking into account characteristic regional features.

In fine, the relevance of UNCLOS provisions to the present controversy is beyond

dispute. Although the said treaty upholds the immunity of warships from the jurisdiction

of Coastal States while navigating the latter’s territorial sea, the flag States shall be

required to leave the territorial sea immediately if they flout the laws and regulations of

the Coastal State, and they will be liable for damages caused by their warships or any

other government vessel operated for non-commercial purposes under Article 31.

Third issue: NO.

CLASS NOTES
 

                The waiver of State immunity under the VF A pertains only to criminal

jurisdiction and not to special civil actions such as the present petition for issuance of a

writ of Kalikasan. In fact, it can be inferred from Section 17, Rule 7 of the Rules that a

criminal case against a person charged with a violation of an environmental law is to be

filed separately.

                The Court considered a view that a ruling on the application or non-

application of criminal jurisdiction provisions of the VFA to US personnel who may be

found responsible for the grounding of the USS Guardian, would be premature and

beyond the province of a petition for a writ of Kalikasan.

                The Court also found  unnecessary at this point to determine whether such

waiver of State immunity is indeed absolute. In the same vein, we cannot grant

damages which have resulted from the violation of environmental laws. The Rules

allows the recovery of damages, including the collection of administrative fines under

R.A. No. 10067, in a separate civil suit or that deemed instituted with the criminal action

charging the same violation of an environmental law.

WRIT OF KALIKASAN means a legal remedy available to any 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

CLASS NOTES
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. (Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC Rule 7,

Sec. 1)

-- may be sought by anyone a) whose constitutional right to a balanced and healthful

ecology is violated, or b) whose constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology

is threatened with violation, by an unlawful act of omission of a public official or

employee, or private individual or entity and such violation or threat involves

“environmental damage of such magnitude as to prejudice the life, health or property of

inhabitants of two or more cities, or provinces.” (Rule 7, Section 1)

Features of the Writ of Kalikasan

The underlying condition for the writ to be issued is that, the magnitude requirement

with regards to the destruction or imminent destruction of the environment which is

sought to be prevented, must be present.

WIDE—2 or more provinces or cities the extent of the problem of the writ og kalikasan

The entities to whom the writ can be directed against, the Rules provides that it could be

anybody. They could be public officials, employees or even private persons, for as so
CLASS NOTES
long as it could be proven that they violated or threatened with violation the

constitutional right to a healthy environment of other people.

The Rules likewise provides for various reliefs that could be granted by the courts under

the writ which includes, among others, the issuance of order against the respondent to

cease or refrain from committing acts violative of the rights of the petitioners asking for

the writ. It can also be an order commanding the respondent to perform positive acts to

preserve or protect the environment as well as to make reports of their compliance with

these responsibilities. (Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases A.M. No. 09-6-8-

SC Rule 7, Sec. 15)

Writ of Kalikasan, applied

Currently, there are at least two (2) instances wherein the writ of kalikasan was availed

of. The first one was directed against an electric power distribution company and

the second one was against an oil pipeline operator. The first case is still pending trial

while the latter was successfully granted by the Philippine Supreme Court.

LNL ARCHIPELAGO MINERALS, INC., Petitioner, vs. AGHAM PARTY LIST

(represented by its President Rep. Angelo B. Palmones),.G.R. No. 209165

CLASS NOTES
CARPIO, J.:

FACTS:

  LNL Archipelago Minerals, Inc. (LAMI) is the operator of a mining claim located

in Sta. Cruz, Zambales. LAMI’s mining area is covered by Mineral Production

Sharing Agreement

 LAMI embarked on a project to build a private, non-commercial port in Brgy.

Bolitoc, Sta. Cruz, Zambales. A port is a vital infrastructure to the operations of a

mining company to ship out ores and other minerals extracted from the mines

and make the venture economically feasible Brgy. Bolitoc, about 25 kilometers

away from the mine site, makes it an ideal location to build a port facility.

 LAMI secured the following permits and compliance certificates for the port

project: (1) Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR)

Environmental Compliance Certificate5 (ECC) R03-1104-182 dated 2 May 2011

covering the development of causeway, stockpile and related facilities on LAMI’s

property with an area of 18,142 sq.m.; (2) DENR provisional foreshore lease

agreement with LAMI;6 (3) Philippine Ports Authority (PPA) Clearance to

Develop a Port;7 (4) PPA Permit to Construct a Port;8 (5) PPA Special Permit to

Operate a Beaching Facility;9 and (6) Tree Cutting Permit/Certification10 from

the Community Environment and Natural Resources Office (CENRO) of the

DENR.

 The Bolitoc community – the barangay, its officials and residents – gave several

endorsements12 supporting the project. Even the Sangguniang Bayan of Sta.

Cruz gave its consent to the construction of the port.13

CLASS NOTES
 However, LAMI allegedly encountered problems from the local government of

Sta. Cruz, LAMI stated that Mayor  unduly favored some mining companies in the

municipality and allegedly refused to issue business and mayor’s permits and to

receive payment of occupation fees from other mining companies despite the

necessary national permits and licenses secured by the other mining companies.

 Mayor Marty issued an order14 directing LAMI to refrain from continuing with its

clearing works and sent a letter to the  DENR Environmental Management

Bureau in Region III inquiring if the ECC the DENR issued in favor of LAMI

allowed the latter to cut trees and level a mountain which under investigation

found that LAMI violated  found that LAMI violated some of its conditions under

the ECC.

 Agham Party List  filed a Petition21 for the issuance of a Writ22 of Kalikasan

against LAMI  DENR, PPA, and the Zambales Police Provincial Office and

alleged that LAMI violated: (1) Section 6823 of PD No. 705,24 as amended by

Executive Order No. 277,25 or the Revised Forestry Code; and (2) Sections

5726 and 6927 of Republic Act No. 7942,28 or the Philippine Mining Act of 1995

(Philippine Mining Act). Agham added that LAMI cut mountain trees and flattened

a mountain which serves as a natural protective barrier from typhoons and floods

not only of the residents of Zambales but also the residents of some nearby

towns located in Pangasinan.

 The case was remanded to CA for trial

  the Court of Appeals decided the case in favor of petitioner. 

Issues
CLASS NOTES
1. Whether LAMI violated the environmental laws: the Revised Forestry Code, and

Philippine Mining Act;

2. Whether LAMI flattened any mountain and cause environmental damage of such

magnitude as to prejudice the life, health, property of inhabitants in two or more

cities or provinces

Ruling

1. No. LAMI strictly followed the permit issued by CENRO and passed the

evaluation conducted after the issuance of the permit so it clearly had the

authority to cut trees and did not violate Sec. 68 of the Revised Forestry Code.

The Philippine Mining Act is not applicable to the case since LAMI is not

conducting anything on the port site and it secured all the necessary permits and

licenses for the construction of  a port and LAMI’s activity was limited to

preparatory works for the port’s construction. The Philippine Mining Act deals

with mining operations and other mining activities.

2. No. The Respondent, in accusing that LAMI allegedly flattened a mountain, did not

cite any law allegedly violated by LAMI in relation to this claim. It did not present any

proof to demonstrate that the local residents in Zambales and those of the towns of

Pangaisnan complained of any great danger or harm on the alleged leveling of the land

formation which may affect their lives, health, or properties. Neither was there any

evidence showing of a grave and real environmental damage to the barangay and the

surrounding vicinity.
CLASS NOTES
The records of expert testimonies and government entities and offiicials also show that

there is in fact no mountain in Brgy. Bolitoc, Sta. Cruz, Zambales.

The Supreme Court agreed with the CA in denying the petition for a Writ of Kalikasan.

The Writ of Kalikasan, categorized as a special civil action and conceptualized as an

extraordinary remedy,43 covers environmental damage of such magnitude that will

prejudice the life, health or property of inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces.

The writ is available against an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee,

or private individual or entity.

The following requisites must be present to avail of this remedy:

(1) there is an actual or threatened violation of the constitutional right to a

balanced and healthful ecology;

(2) the actual or threatened violation arises from an unlawful act or omission of a

public official or employee, or private individual or entity; and

(3) the actual or threatened violation involves or will lead to an environmental

damage of such magnitude as to prejudice the life, health or property of

inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces.

Section 2(c), Rule 7, Part III of the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases

provides:

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

The Rules are clear that in a Writ of Kalikasan petitioner has the burden to prove the (1)

environmental law, rule or regulation violated or threatened to be violated; (2) act or

omission complained of; and (3) the environmental damage of such magnitude as to

prejudice the life, health or property of inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces.

Even the Annotation to the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases states that the

magnitude of environmental damage is a condition sine qua non in a petition for the

issuance of a Writ of Kalikasan and must be contained in the verified petition.

Presumption of regularity

It is a legal presumption, born of wisdom and experience, that official duty has been

regularly performed. Therefore, the fact that the "remarks and recommendation" of the

composite team from EMB R3, MGB R3, and PENRO Zambales were made in the

exercise of their government function, the presumption of regularity in the performance

of such official duty stands. It is incumbent upon petitioner to prove otherwise, a task

which it failed to do here.

Expert findings are afforded great weight

The findings of facts of administrative bodies charged with their specific field of

expertise, are afforded great weight by the courts, and in the absence of substantial

showing that such findings are made from an erroneous estimation of the evidence
CLASS NOTES
presented, they are conclusive, and in the interest of stability of the governmental

structure, should not be disturbed. x x x.64

In sum, contrary to the findings of the appellate court in its Amended Decision dated 13

September 2013, we find that LAMI did not cause any environmental damage that

prejudiced the life, health or property of the inhabitants residing in the municipality of

Sta. Cruz, the province of Zambales or in the neighboring province of Pangasinan.

Agham, as the party that has the burden to prove the requirements for the issuance of

the privilege of the Writ ofKalikasan, failed to prove (1) the environmental laws allegedly

violated by LAMI; and (2) the magnitude of the environmental damage allegedly caused

by LAMI in the construction of LAMI' s port facility in Brgy. Bolitoc, Sta. Cruz, Zambales

and its surrounding area. Thus, the petition for the issuance of the privilege of the Writ

of Kalikasan must be denied.

INTERNATIONAL SERVICE FOR THE ACQUISITION OF AGRI-BIOTECH

APPLICATIONS, INC., Petitioner vs. GREENPEACE SOUTHEAST ASIA

(PHILIPPINES), G.R. No. 209271, July 26,

FACTS:

 The instant case arose from the conduct of field trials for "bioengineered

eggplants," known as Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) eggplant (Bt talong).

CLASS NOTES
 From 2007 to 2009, petitioner University of the Philippines Los Banos (UPLB),

the implementing institution of the field trials, conducted a contained experiment

on Bt talong under the supervision of the National Committee on Biosafety of the

Philippines (NCBP).7 The NCBP, created under Executive Order No. (EO)

430,8 is the regulatory body tasked to: (a) "identify and evaluate potential hazards

involved in initiating genetic engineering experiments or the introduction of new

species and genetically engineered organisms and recommend measures to

minimize risks"; and (b) ''formulate and review national policies and guidelines on

biosafety, such as the safe conduct of work on genetic engineering, pests and

their genetic materials for the protection of public health, environment[,] and

personnel[,] and supervise the implementation thereof." 9 Upon the completion of

the contained experiment, the NCBP issued a Certificate 10 therefor stating that all

biosafety measures were complied with, and no untoward incident had

occurred.11

  the Bureau of Plant Industries (BPI) issued two (2)-year Biosafety Permits 12 for

field testing of Bt talong13after UPLB's field test proposal satisfactorily completed

biosafety risk assessment for field testing pursuant to the Department of

Agriculture's (DA) Administrative Order No. 8, series of 2002 14 (DAO 08-

2002),15 which provides for the rules and regulations for the importation and

release into the environment of plants and plant products derived from the use of

modern biotechnology.

 respondents Greenpeace Southeast Asia filed before the Court a Petition for Writ

of Continuing Mandamus and Writ of Kalikasan alleging that the Bt talong field

CLASS NOTES
trials violated their constitutional right to health and a balanced ecology

considering among other things:

 (ECC), as required by Presidential Decree No. (PD) 1151,19 was not secured

prior to the field trials;20 

(b) the required public consultations under the Local Government Code (LGC)

were not complied with;21 and

(c) as a regulated article under DAO 08-2002, Bt talong is presumed harmful to

human health and the environment, and that there is no independent, peer-

reviewed study showing its safety for human consumption and the

environment.22 Further, they contended that since the scientific evidence as to

the safety of Bt talong remained insufficient or uncertain,

 The Court issued Writ of Kalikasan

  the CA ruled in favor of respondents and directed petitioners to pem1anently

cease and desist from conducting the Bt talong field trials.3

 petitioners separately moved for reconsideration. 41 However CA denied the same

and remarked that introducing genetically modified plant into the ecosystem is an

ecologically imbalancing act

ISSUE:

(a) WON the case should have been dismissed for mootness in view of the

completion and termination of the Bt talong field trials and the expiration of the

Biosafety Permits;55 

(b) WON the Court should not have ruled on the validity of DAO 08-2002 as it was

not raised as an issue;56 and

CLASS NOTES
(c) WON the Court erred in relying on the studies cited in the December 8, 2015

Decision which were not offered in evidence and involved Bt corn, not Bt talong.

(d)  whether a case involves paramount public interest in relation to the

mootness principle? = YES

HELD:

 it is important to understand that the completion and termination of the field tests do not

mean that herein petitioners may inevitably proceed to commercially propagate Bt

talong.83 There are three (3) stages before genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) may

become commercially available under DAO 08-2002 84 and each stage is distinct, such

that "[s]ubsequent stages can only proceed if the prior stage/s [is/]are completed and

clearance is given to engage in the next regulatory stage." 85 Specifically, before a

genetically modified organism is allowed to be propagated under DAO 08-2002: (a) a

permit for propagation must be secured from the BPI; (b) it can be shown that based on

the field testing conducted in the Philippines, the regulated article will not pose any

significant risks to the environment; (c) food and/or feed safety studies show that the

regulated article will not pose any significant risks to human and animal health;

and (d) if the regulated article is a pest-protected plant, its transformation event has

been duly registered with the FPA.

As the matter never went beyond the field testing phase, none of the foregoing tasks

related to propagation were pursued or the requirements therefor complied with. Thus,

there are no guaranteed after-effects to the already concluded Bt talong field trials that

demand an adjudication from which the public may perceivably benefit. Any future
CLASS NOTES
threat to the right ,of herein respondents or the public in general to a healthful and

balanced ecology is therefore more imagined than real.

More significantly, it is clear that no benefit would be derived by the public in assessing

the merits of field trials whose parameters are not only unique to the specific type of Bt

talong tested, but are now, in fact, rendered obsolete by the supervening change in the

regulatory framework applied to GMO field testing.

with respondents' petition for Writ of Kalikasan already mooted by the expiration of the

Biosafoty Permits and the completion of the field trials subject of these cases, and with

none of the exceptions to the mootness principle properly attending, the Court grants

the instant motions for reconsideration and hereby dismisses the aforesaid petition.

With this pronouncement, no discussion on the substantive merits of the same should

be made.

MARK ANTHONY V. ZABAL, THITING ESTOSO JACOSALEM, AND ODON S.

BANDIOLA, Petitioners vs. RODRIGO R. DUTERTE

Ponente: DEL CASTILLO, J.:

FACTS:

 Claiming that Boracay has become a cesspool, President Duterte first made

public his plan to shut it down during a business forum held in Davao sometime

February 2018. 5 This was followed by several speeches and news releases

stating that he would place Boracay under a state of calamity. True to his words,
CLASS NOTES
President Duterte ordered the shutting down of the island in a cabinet meeting

held on April 4, 2018. This was confirmed by then Presidential Spokesperson

Harry L. Roque, Jr. in a press briefing the following day wherein he formally

announced that the total closure of Boracay would be for a maximum period of

six months starting April 26, 2018. 6

 Following this pronouncement, petitioners contend that around 630 police and

military personnel were readily deployed to Boracay including personnel for

crowd dispersal management. 7 They also allege that the DILG had already

released guidelines for the closure. 8

 Petitioners claim that ever since the news of Boracay's closure came about,

fewer tourists had been engaging the services of Zabal and Jacosalem such that

their earnings were barely enough to feed their families. They fear that if the

closure pushes through, they would suffer grave and irreparable damage. Hence,

despite the fact that the government was then yet to release a formal issuance

on the matter,9 petitioners filed the petition on April 25, 2018

  petitioners argue that Proclamation No. 475 is an invalid exercise of legislative

powers. They posit that its issuance is in truth a law-making exercise since the

proclamation imposed a restriction on the right to travel and therefore

substantially altered the relationship between the State and its people by

increasing the former's power over the latter. 

Proclamation No. 475 12 formally declaring a state of calamity in Boracay and ordering

its closure for six months from April 26, 2018 to October 25, 2018.
CLASS NOTES
 petitioners argue that Proclamation No. 475 is unconstitutional for infringing on

the constitutional rights to travel and to due process.

 According to respondents, prohibition is a preventive remedy to restrain future

action. Here, President Duterte had already issued Proclamation No. 475 and in

fact, the rehabilitation of the island was then already ongoing. 

 respondents insist that Proclamation No. 475 does not unduly transgress upon

the local autonomy of the LGUs concerned. Under RA 10121, it is actually the

Local Disaster Risk Reduction Management Council concerned which, subject to

several criteria, is tasked to take the lead in preparing for, responding to, and

recovering from the effects of any disaster when a state of calamity is declared.

In any case, the devolution of powers upon LGUs pursuant to the constitutional

mandate of ensuring their autonomy does not mean that the State can no longer

interfere in their affairs. This is especially true in this case since Boracay's

environmental disaster cannot be treated as a localized problem that can be

resolved by the concerned LGUs only. The magnitude and gravity of the problem

require the intervention and assistance of different national government agencies

in coordination with the concerned LGUs.

ISSUE:

WON SLAPP as a defense is applicable on this case? (NO)

WON Proclamation No. 475 must be upheld for being in the nature of a valid police

power measure?

HELD:
CLASS NOTES
1. NO. Suffice it to state that while this case touches on the environmental

issues in Boracay, the ultimate issue for resolution is the constitutionality

of Proclamation No. 475. The procedure in the treatment of a defense of

SLAPP provided for under Rule 6 of the Rules of Procedure for

Environmental Cases should not, therefore, be made to apply.

2. YES. That the assailed governmental measure in this case is within the

scope of police power cannot be disputed. Verily, the statutes 50 from which

the said measure draws authority and the constitutional provisions 51 which

serve as its framework are primarily concerned with the environment and

health, safety, and well-being of the people, the promotion and securing of

which are clearly legitimate objectives of governmental efforts and

regulations. The motivating factor in the issuance of Proclamation No. 475

is without a doubt the interest of the public in general. The only question

now is whether the means employed are reasonably necessary for the

accomplishment of the purpose and not unduly oppressive upon

individuals

PART 3 SYLLABUS

Convention on Biological Diversity of 1992 (CBD) entry into force - December 29,

1993, ratified by the Philippines - October 10, 2008 (page 29)

The 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity was ratified by the Philippines on October

8, 199334 while the 1979 Bonn Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of

Wild Animals was ratified by the Philippines only on January 2, 1994.35 The Bonn
CLASS NOTES
Convention is a framework convention under which parties may enter into agreements

and memoranda of understanding for the conservation of certain species. It is significant

that the Philippines is a signatory to the Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) on the

conservation of marine turtles, dugongs and sharks. However, it is not a signatory to the

MOU on Pacific Island cetaceans.

Article 1. Objectives

The objectives of this Convention, to be pursued in accordance with its relevant

provisions, are the conservation of biological diversity, the sustainable use of its

components and the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of the

utilization of genetic resources, including by appropriate access to genetic resources

and by appropriate transfer of relevant technologies, taking into account all rights over

those resources and to technologies, and by appropriate funding.

Article 3. Principle

States have, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the principles of

international law, the sovereign right to exploit their own resources pursuant to their own

environmental policies, and the responsibility to ensure that activities within their

jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the environment of other States or of

areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction.

CLASS NOTES
Article 2. Use of Terms

For the purposes of this Convention:

"Biological diversity" means the variability among living organisms from all sources

including, inter alia, terrestrial, marine and other aquatic ecosystems and the ecological

complexes of which they are part; this includes diversity within species, between

species and of ecosystems.

"Biological resources" includes genetic resources, organisms or parts thereof,

populations, or any other biotic component of ecosystems with actual or potential use or

value for humanity.

"Biotechnology" means any technological application that uses biological systems,

living organisms, or derivatives thereof, to make or modify products or processes for

specific use.

"Country of origin of genetic resources" means the country which possesses those

genetic resources in in-situ conditions.

"Country providing genetic resources" means the country supplying genetic

CLASS NOTES
resources collected from in-situ sources, including populations of both wild and

domesticated species, or taken from ex-situ sources, which may or may not have

originated in that country.

"Domesticated or cultivated species" means species in which the evolutionary

process has been influenced by humans to meet their needs.

"Ecosystem" means a dynamic complex of plant, animal and micro-organism

communities and their non-living environment interacting as a functional unit.

"Ex-situ conservation" means the conservation of components of biological diversity

outside their natural habitats.

"Genetic material" means any material of plant, animal, microbial or other origin

containing functional units of heredity.

"Genetic resources" means genetic material of actual or potential value.

"Habitat" means the place or type of site where an organism or population naturally

occurs.
CLASS NOTES

"In-situ conditions" means conditions where genetic resources exist within

ecosystems and natural habitats, and, in the case of domesticated or cultivated species,

in the surroundings where they have developed their distinctive properties.

"In-situ conservation" means the conservation of ecosystems and natural habitats

and the maintenance and recovery of viable populations of species in their natural

surroundings and, in the case of domesticated or cultivated species, in the surroundings

where they have developed their distinctive properties.

"Protected area" means a geographically defined area which is designated or

regulated and managed to achieve specific conservation objectives.

"Regional economic integration organization" means an organization constituted by

sovereign States of a given region, to which its member States have transferred

competence in respect of matters governed by this Convention and which has been

duly authorized, in accordance with its internal procedures, to sign, ratify, accept,

approve or accede to it.

"Sustainable use" means the use of components of biological diversity in a way and at

a rate that does not lead to the long-term decline of biological diversity, thereby
CLASS NOTES
maintaining its potential to meet the needs and aspirations of present and future

generations.

"Technology" includes biotechnology.

Article 10. Sustainable Use of Components of Biological Diversity

Each Contracting Party shall, as far as possible and as appropriate:

(a) Integrate consideration of the conservation and sustainable use of biological

resources into national decision-making;

(b) Adopt measures relating to the use of biological resources to avoid or minimize

adverse impacts on biological diversity;

(c) Protect and encourage customary use of biological resources in accordance with

traditional cultural practices that are compatible with conservation or sustainable use

requirements;

(d) Support local populations to develop and implement remedial action in degraded

areas where biological diversity has been reduced; and

(e) Encourage cooperation between its governmental authorities and its private sector in

developing methods for sustainable use of biological resources.

CLASS NOTES
Article 8. In-situ Conservation

Each Contracting Party shall, as far as possible and as appropriate:

(a) Establish a system of protected areas or areas where special measures need to be

taken to conserve biological diversity;

(b) Develop, where necessary, guidelines for the selection, establishment and

management of protected areas or areas where special measures need to be taken to

conserve biological diversity;

(c) Regulate or manage biological resources important for the conservation of biological

diversity whether within or outside protected areas, with a view to ensuring their

conservation and sustainable use;

(d) Promote the protection of ecosystems, natural habitats and the maintenance of

viable populations of species in natural surroundings;

(e) Promote environmentally sound and sustainable development in areas adjacent to

protected areas with a view to furthering protection of these areas;

(f) Rehabilitate and restore degraded ecosystems and promote the recovery of

threatened species, inter alia, through the development and implementation of plans or

other management strategies;

(g) Establish or maintain means to regulate, manage or control the risks associated with

the use and release of living modified organisms resulting from biotechnology which are

likely to have adverse environmental impacts that could affect the conservation and
CLASS NOTES
sustainable use of biological diversity, taking also into account the risks to human

health;

(h) Prevent the introduction of, control or eradicate those alien species which threaten

ecosystems, habitats or species;

(i) Endeavour to provide the conditions needed for compatibility between present uses

and the conservation of biological diversity and the sustainable use of its components;

(j) Subject to its national legislation, respect, preserve and maintain knowledge,

innovations and practices of indigenous and local communities embodying traditional

lifestyles relevant for the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity and

promote their wider application with the approval and involvement of the holders of such

knowledge, innovations and practices and encourage the equitable sharing of the

benefits arising from the utilization of such knowledge, innovations and practices;

(k) Develop or maintain necessary legislation and/or other regulatory provisions for the

protection of threatened species and populations;

(l) Where a significant adverse effect on biological diversity has been determined

pursuant to Article 7, regulate or manage the relevant processes and categories of

activities; and

(m) Cooperate in providing financial and other support for in-situ conservation outlined

in subparagraphs (a) to (l) above, particularly to developing countries.

CLASS NOTES
Article 9. Ex-situ Conservation

Each Contracting Party shall, as far as possible and as appropriate, and predominantly

for the purpose of complementing in-situ measures:

(a) Adopt measures for the ex-situ conservation of components of biological diversity,

preferably in the country of origin of such components;

(b) Establish and maintain facilities for ex-situ conservation of and research on plants,

animals and micro- organisms, preferably in the country of origin of genetic resources;

(c) Adopt measures for the recovery and rehabilitation of threatened species and for

their reintroduction into their natural habitats under appropriate conditions;

(d) Regulate and manage collection of biological resources from natural habitats for ex-

situ conservation purposes so as not to threaten ecosystems and in-situ populations of

species, except where special temporary ex-situ measures are required under

subparagraph (c) above; and

(e) Cooperate in providing financial and other support for ex-situ conservation outlined

in subparagraphs (a) to (d) above and in the establishment and maintenance of ex- situ

conservation facilities in developing countries.

Article 11. Incentive Measures

Each Contracting Party shall, as far as possible and as appropriate, adopt economically
CLASS NOTES
and socially sound measures that act as incentives for the conservation and sustainable

use of components of biological diversity.

Article 14. Impact Assessment and Minimizing Adverse Impacts

1. Each Contracting Party, as far as possible and as appropriate, shall:

(a) Introduce appropriate procedures requiring environmental impact assessment of its

proposed projects that are likely to have significant adverse effects on biological

diversity with a view to avoiding or minimizing such effects and, where appropriate,

allow for public participation in such procedures;

(b) Introduce appropriate arrangements to ensure that the environmental consequences

of its programmes and policies that are likely to have significant adverse impacts on

biological diversity are duly taken into account;

(c) Promote, on the basis of reciprocity, notification, exchange of information and

consultation on activities under their jurisdiction or control which are likely to significantly

affect adversely the biological diversity of other States or areas beyond the limits of

national jurisdiction, by encouraging the conclusion of bilateral, regional or multilateral

arrangements, as appropriate;
CLASS NOTES

(d) In the case of imminent or grave danger or damage, originating under its jurisdiction

or control, to biological diversity within the area under jurisdiction of other States or in

areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction, notify immediately the potentially

affected States of such danger or damage, as well as initiate action to prevent or

minimize such danger or damage; and

(e) Promote national arrangements for emergency responses to activities or events,

whether caused naturally or otherwise, which present a grave and imminent danger to

biological diversity and encourage international cooperation to supplement such

national efforts and, where appropriate and agreed by the States or regional economic

integration organizations concerned, to establish joint contingency plans.

2. The Conference of the Parties shall examine, on the basis of studies to be carried

out, the issue of liability and redress, including restoration and compensation, for

damage to biological diversity, except where such liability is a purely internal matter.