Province of Rizal vs.
Executive Secretary Meanwhile, on 26 January 2001, President
FACTS:  Waste Management Act of 2000," into law.
At the height of the garbage crisis plaguing
Metro Manila and its environs, the Office of the
President, through Proclamation No. 635 set
aside parts of the Marikina Watershed
Reservation for use as a sanitary landfill and
similar waste disposal applications. The site is
being used for the solid wastes of Quezon City,
Marikina, San Juan, Mandaluyong, Pateros,
Pasig, and Taguig.
Petitioners Municipality of San Mateo and the
residents of Pintong Bocaue, represented by
former Senator Jovita Salonga, sent a letter to
President Fidel Ramos requesting him to
reconsider Proclamation No. 635. Receiving no
reply, they filed before the Court of Appeals a
civil action for certiorari, prohibition and
mandamus with application for a temporary
restraining order/writ of preliminary injunction.
President Joseph E. Estrada, taking cognizance
of the gravity of the problems in the affected
areas and the likelihood that violence would
erupt among the parties involved, issued a
Memorandum ordering the closure of the
dumpsite on 31 December 2000.  Absent
On 11 January 2001, President Estrada
directed Department of Interior and Local
Government (DILG) Secretary Alfredo Lim and
MMDA Chairman Binay to reopen the San
Mateo dumpsite "in view of the emergency
situation of uncollected garbage in Metro
Manila, resulting in a critical and imminent
health and sanitation epidemic."
Claiming the above events constituted a "clear
and present danger of violence erupting in the
affected areas," the petitioners filed an Urgent
Petition for Restraining Order.
resources and
Estrada signed Republic Act No. 9003,
otherwise known as "The Ecological Solid
The Court of Appeals ruled in favor of
Executive Secretary, et al. The CA denied, for
lack of cause of action, the petition for
certiorari, prohibition and mandamus with
application for a temporary restraining
order/writ of preliminary injunction assailing
the legality and constitutionality of
Proclamation No. 635.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the consultation and approval
of the Province of Rizal and municipality of San
Mateo is needed before the implementation of
the project?
RULING/DOCTRINE:
Yes. Under the Local Government Code, two
requisites must be met before a national
project that affects the environmental and
ecological balance of local communities can be
implemented: prior consultation with the
affected local communities, and prior approval
of the project by the appropriate sanggunian.
either of these mandatory
requirements, the projects implementation is
illegal.
Waste Disposal Is Regulated by the Ecological
Solid Waste Management Act of 2000.
Approved on 26 January 2001, "The
Ecological Solid Waste Management Act of
2000" was enacted pursuant to the
declared policy of the state "to adopt a
systematic, comprehensive and ecological
solid waste management system which
shall ensure the protection of public
health and environment, and utilize
environmentally sound methods that
maximize the utilization of valuable
encourage resource
conservation and recovery." It requires
the adherence to a Local Government
Solid Waste Management Plan with regard
to the collection and transfer, processing,
source reduction, recycling, composting
and final disposal of solid wastes, the
handling and disposal of special wastes,
education and public information, and the
funding of solid waste management
projects.
The said law mandates the formulation of a
National Solid Waste Management Framework,
which should include, among other things, the
method and procedure for the phaseout and
the eventual closure within eighteen months
from effectivity of the Act in case of existing
open dumps and/or sanitary landfills located
within an aquifer, groundwater reservoir or
watershed area. Any landfills subsequently
developed must comply with the minimum
requirements laid down in Section 40,
specifically that the site selected must be
consistent with the overall land use plan of the
local government unit, and that the site must
be located in an area where the landfill’s
operation will not detrimentally affect
environmentally sensitive resources such as
aquifers, groundwater reservoirs or watershed
areas.
Laws pertaining to the protection of the
environment were not drafted in a vacuum.
Congress passed these laws fully aware of the
perilous state of both our economic and natural
wealth. It was precisely to minimize the
adverse impact humanity’s actions on all
aspects of the natural world, at the same time
maintaining and ensuring an environment
under which man and nature can thrive in
productive and enjoyable harmony with each
other, that these legal safeguards were put in
place. They should thus not be so lightly cast
aside in the face of what is easy and
expedient.
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the
Province of Rizal, et al. and reversed and set
aside the decision of the Court of Appeals. The
San Mateo Landfill will remain permanently
closed.
UNIVERSAL ROBINA CORP. (CORN
DIVISION) vs. LAGUNA LAKE
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
G.R. No. 191427 May 30, 2011
FACTS:  evidence, and maintaining that the lack of any
Petitoner, Universal Robina Corp. is engaged
in, among other things, the manufacture of
animal feeds. Respondent, Laguna Lake
Development Authority (LLDA) through its
Pollution Control Division – Monitoring and
Enforcement Section, after conducting on
March 14, 2000 a laboratory analysis of
petitioner’s corn oil refinery plant’s
wastewater, found that it failed to comply with
government standards provided under
Department of Environment and Natural
Resources (DENR) Administrative Orders
(DAOs) Nos. 34 and 35, series of 1990. 
On May 30, 200, LLDA issued an Ex-Parte
Order requiring petitioner to explain why no
order should be issued for the cessation of its
operations due to its discharge of pollutive
effluents into the Pasig River and why it was
operating without a clearance/permit from the
LLDA. Despite subsequent compliance
monitoring and inspections conducted by the
LLDA, petitioner’s wastewater failed to conform
to the parameters set by the aforementioned
DAOs and only in 2007 that URC’s upgraded
wastewater treatment facility was completed,
which petitioners plant finally complied with
government standards.
Petitioner soon requested for a reduction of
penalties to cover only a period of 560 days.
However, after conducting hearings, LLDA
found that URC was found to be discharging
pollutive wastewater in two periods: from
March 14, 2000 – November 3, 2003 and from
March 15, 2006 – April 17, 2007. LLDA issued  The thrust of the doctrine of
its Order to Pay penalties for a total of 1,247 exhaustion of administrative remedies
days amounting to PHP 1,247,000.00.  is that courts must allow
administrative agencies to carry out
Petitioner moved for reconsideration but was their functions and discharge their
denied by the LLDA and reiterated its order to responsibilities within the specialized
pay the aforestated penalties. Hence, a petition areas of their respective competence.
for certiorari was filed before the Court of
Appeals, attributing to LLDA grave abuse of
discretion in disregarding its documentary  Administrative due process cannot be
fully equated with due process in its
plain, speedy or adequate remedy from the strict judicial sense for it is enough
enforcement of LLDA’s order justified such that the party is given the chance to
recourse as an exception to the rule requiring be heard before the case against him
exhaustion of administrative remedies prior to is decided.
judicial action. 
ISSUE: 
Whether or not LLDA erred in not crediting
petitioner for undertaking remedial measures
to rehabilitate its wastewater treatment
facility. 
HELD: 
No, the petition must fail. Without belaboring
petitioner’s assertions, it must be underscored
that the protection of the environment,
including bodies of water, is no less urgent or
vital than the pressing concerns of private
enterprises, big or small. Everyone must do
their share to conserve the national
patrimony’s meager resources for the benefit
of not only this generation, but of those to
follow. The length of time alone it took
petitioner to upgrade its WTF (from 2003 to
2007), a move arrived at only under threat of
continuing sanctions, militates against any
genuine concern for the well-being of the
country’s waterways.
DOCTRINES: 

Shell Philippines Exploration B.V v. Jalos
G.R. No. 179918, September 8, 2010
Resort must first be made to the Pollution
Adjudication Board which is the agency
possessed of expertise in determining
pollution-related matters before filing the
complaint before the regular courts. The
defined term of pollution connotes the need for
specialized knowledge and skills, technical and
scientific, in determining the presence, cause,
and the effects of pollution. These knowledge
and skills are not within the competence of
ordinary courts.
Facts:
Petitioner Shell Philippines Exploration B.V. and
the Republic of the Philippines entered into a
Service Contract 38 for the exploration and
extraction of petroleum in northwestern
Palawan. Two years later they discovered
natural gas in the Camago-Malampaya area
and for its development the Malampaya
Natural Gas Project was created. It entailed
the construction and installation of a pipeline
from Shell’s production platform to its gas
processing plant in Batangas. Respondents
Jalos and 77 other individuals filed a complaint
for damages against Shell before the RTC.
They claimed that they were all fishermen from
the coastal barangay whose livelihood was
adversely affected by the construction and
operation of Shell’s natural gas pipeline. After
the construction of the pipeline, their fish catch
became few and that the pipeline greatly
affected biogenically hard-structured
communities such as coral reefs which is commercial, industrial, agricultural,
greatly affecting marine life in the Mindoro recreational, or other legitimate purpose.
Sea.
Shell moved for the dismissal of the complaint In resolving the petitioners’ claim for damages,
and alleged that the trial court had no the proper tribunal must determine whether or
jurisdiction over the action. Since it is a not the operation of the pipeline adversely
“pollution case”, under RA 3931, as amended altered the coastal waters’ properties and
by P.D. 984 or the Pollution Control Law, it is negatively affected its life sustaining function.
the Pollution Adjudication Board (PAB) who has The power and expertise lies with the PAB
the primary jurisdiction over pollution cases provided in R.A. 3931, as amended by P.D
and actions for related damages.  984. Included in their functions is to serve as
RTC dismissed the complaint. It ruled that the arbitrator for the determination of reparation,
action is pollution-related and must be brought or restitution of the damages and losses
first before the PAB which is the government resulting from pollution. With this, PAB has the
agency vested with jurisdiction over pollution- power to conduct hearings, impose penalties
related cases. for violation of P.D. 984 and issue writs of
Petitioners assailed the RTC’s ruling through a execution to enforce its orders and decisions.
petition for certiorari before the CA. The CA Consequently, resort must first be made to the
reversed the RTC ruling and upheld the PAB in determining pollution-related matters.
jurisdiction of RTC over the action. The court
held that Shell is sued from constructing and The Court grants the petition and reverses the
operating a natural gas pipeline that caused decision of the Court of Appeals.  The
fish decline and considerable reduction in the complaint for damages against Shell
income of the petitioners who were fishermen. Philippines Exploration B.V is ordered
Petitioners invoked their right to fish the sea dismissed without prejudice to its refiling with
and earn a living which Shell had the the Pollution Adjudication Board.
correlative obligation to respect. Shell moved
for reconsideration of the CA’s decision but the
same was denied. Hence, it filed for a petition
to review.
ISSUE:
WON the complaint is a pollution case and that
it falls within the primary jurisdiction of the
PAB
Ruling:
NO. The complaint is a pollution case and is
within the primary jurisdiction of the PAB. It is
unmistakable that the allegation constitutes
“pollution” defined under Section 2(a) of P.D.
984 as any alteration of the physical, chemical
and biological properties of any water x x x as
will or is likely to create or render such water x
x x harmful, detrimental or injurious to public
health, safety or welfare which will adversely
affect their utilization for domestic,

Pacific Steam laundry v. Laguna Lake
Development Authority
before the LLDA. The petitioner requested
another sampling. The laboratory results of the
wastewater sampling finally showed
compliance with the effluent standard in all
parameters.  jurisdiction of pollution cases within its area of
On 9 August 2002, another public hearing was
held to discuss the dismissal of the water
pollution case and the payment of the
accumulated daily penalty. petitioner prayed
that the Notice of Violation dated 30 October
2001 be set aside and the penalty and fine
imposed be reckoned from the date of actual
hearing on 15 April 2002.
LLDA ruled against the petitioner. 
Although the Pollution Adjudication Board
assumed the powers and functions of the NPCC
with respect to adjudication of pollution cases,
this does not preclude LLDA from assuming
responsibility and to impose fines as penalty.
Anent the second issue, A perusal of Section 8
[which provides for the prohibition] and
Section 9 [which provides for the penalty] of
PD 984 shows that, there are adequate
statutory limitations on LLDA’s power to
impose fines which obviates unbridled
discretion in the exercise of such power. 

Petitioner elevated the case to the CA arguing

Facts: that it was NPCC who has power to impose
fines, but was also denied, hence this petition

Issues:
Petitioner Pacific Steam Laundry, Inc. The petitioner raises two issues:
(petitioner) is a company engaged in the
business of laundry services. 1. Does the respondent LLDA have the
implied power to impose fines as set
Laguna Lake Development Authority (LLDA) forth in PD 984?
the inspection report on the complaint of black 2. Does the grant of implied power to
smoke emission from petitioner’s plant located LLDA to impose penalties violate the
at 114 Roosevelt Avenue, Quezon City rule on non-delegation of legislative
powers?
LLDA conducted an investigation and found
that untreated wastewater generated from Held:
petitioner’s laundry washing activities was
discharged directly to the San Francisco Del The Supreme Court finds the petition without
Monte River. merit.

Environmental Quality Management Division of
LLDA conducted wastewater sampling of
petitioner’s effluent.5 The result of the
laboratory analysis showed non-compliance
with effluent standards particularly Total
Suspended Solids (TSS)
Numerous re-testing has occurred and
Petitioner was found in non-compliance.  control activities within LLDA’s development
on 15 April 2002, a Pollution Control and
Abatement case was filed against petitioner
Anent the first issue, In Laguna Lake
Development Authority v. Court of Appeals, the
Court held that the adjudication of pollution
cases generally pertains to the Pollution
Adjudication Board, except where a special
law, such as the LLDA Charter, provides for
another forum. Indeed, even PD 984
authorizes the LLDA to undertake pollution
area

Boracay Foundation, Inc., vs. Prov. Of
Aklan
FACTS: This is an original petition for the
issuance of an Environmental Protection Order
in the nature of a continuing mandamus.
Boracay was declared a tourist zone and
marine reserve in 1973 under Presidential
Proclamation No. 1801. Claiming that tourist
arrivals to Boracay would reach 1 million in the
future, respondent Province of Aklan planned
to expand the port facilities at Barangay
Caticlan, Municipality of Malay.  government agencies, as well as the recent
The Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Aklan
Province issued a resolution, authorizing
Governor Carlito Marquez to file an application
with respondent Philippine Reclamation
Authority (PRA) to reclaim the 2.64 hectares of
foreshore area in Caticlan. In the same year,
the Province deliberated on the possible
expansion from its original proposed
reclamation area of 2.64 hectares to forty (40)
hectares in order to maximize the utilization of
its resources.  undertaken, particularly: the issuance of the
After PRA’s approval, DENR-EMB Region VI
issued to the Province Environmental
Compliance Certificate-R6-1003-096-7100 for
Phase 1 of the Reclamation Project. The
Province finally entered into a MOA with PRA
which stated that the land use development of ISSUE: Whether or not there was proper,
the reclamation project shall be for timely, and sufficient public consultation for
commercial, recreational and institutional and the project?
other applicable uses. It was at this point that
the Province deemed it necessary to conduct a RULING: NO. The protection of the
series of public consultation meetings.  environment is the aim, among others, of
Presidential Decree No. 1586, "Establishing an
On the other hand, the Sangguniang Barangay Environmental Impact Statement System,
of Caticlan, the Sangguniang Bayan of the Including Other Environmental Management
Municipality of Malay and petitioner Boracay Related Measures and For Other Purposes,"
Foundation, Inc. (BFI), an organization which declared in its first Section that it
composed of some 160 businessmen and intends to implement the policy of the state to
residents in Boracay, expressed their strong achieve a balance between socio-economic
opposition to the reclamation project on development and environmental protection,
environmental, socio-economic and legal which are the twin goals of sustainable
grounds. Despite the opposition, the Province development. 
merely noted their objections and issued a
notice to the contractor to commence with the An Environmental Impact Assessment is a
construction of the project.  ‘process that involves predicting and
evaluating the likely impacts of a project
BFI filed with the Supreme Court the instant (including cumulative impacts) on the
Petition for Environmental Protection environment during construction,
Order/Issuance of the Writ of Continuing commissioning, operation and abandonment. It
Mandamus. Thereafter, the Court issued a also includes designing appropriate preventive,
TEPO. The Province responded by claiming that mitigating and enhancement measures
its compliance with the requirements of DENR- addressing these consequences to protect the
EMB RVI and PRA that led to the approval of environment and the community’s welfare.
the reclamation project by the said This can only be possible through the adoption
of a comprehensive and integrated
enactments of the Barangay Council of Caticlan environmental protection program where all
and the Sangguniang Bayan of the Municipality the sectors of the community are involved, i.e.,
of Malay favorably endorsing the said project, the government and the private sectors. The
had “categorically addressed all the issues” local government units, as part of the
raised by the BFI in its Petition. machinery of the government, cannot
therefore be deemed as outside the scope of
Petitioner claims that during the "public the EIS system.
consultation meeting" belatedly called by
respondent Province, respondent Province Under PD 1586, the duty of local government
presented the Reclamation Project and only units is to ensure the quality of the
then detailed the actions that it had already environment. Section 4 of PD 1586 clearly
states that "no person, partnership or
Caticlan Super Marina Bonds; the execution of corporation shall undertake or operate any
the MOA with respondent PRA; the alleged such declared environmentally critical project
conduct of an Environmental Impact or area without first securing an Environmental
Assessment (EIA) study for the reclamation Compliance Certificate issued by the President
project; and the expansion of the project. or his duly authorized representative." The
Civil Code defines a person as either natural or
juridical. The state and its political not corrected by the subsequent endorsement
subdivisions, i.e., the local government units of the reclamation project by the Sangguniang
are juridical persons. Undoubtedly therefore, Barangay of Caticlan and the Sangguniang
local government units are not excluded from Bayan in 2012, which were both undoubtedly
the coverage of PD 1586. achieved at the urging and insistence of the
Province.
The Local Government Code (LGC) establishes
the duties of national government agencies in The Court remanded the matters to respondent
the maintenance of ecological balance and DENR-EMB RVI for it to make a proper study,
requires them to secure prior public and if it should find necessary, to require
consultations and approval of local government respondent Province to address these
units. Under the LGC, two requisites must be environmental issues raised by petitioner and
met before a national project that affects the submit the correct EIA report as required by
environmental and ecological balance of local the project’s specifications. Respondent DENR-
communities can be implemented: (1) prior EMB RVI should establish to the Court in said
consultation with the affected local report why the ECC it issued for the subject
communities, and (2) prior approval of the project should not be cancelled.
project by the appropriate sanggunian. The
absence of either of such mandatory The petition was partially granted.
requirements will render the project’s
implementation as illegal. Here, the Court
classified the reclamation project as a national
project since it affects the environmental and
ecological balance of local communities. In one
ruling, the Court noted that such national
projects mentioned in Section 27 of the LGC
include those that may cause pollution and
bring about climate change, among others,
such as the reclamation project in this case. 

In essence, in cases requiring public

consultations, the same should be initiated
early so that concerns of stakeholders could be
taken into consideration in the EIA study.
Thus, the law requires the Province, being the
delegate of the PRA’s power to reclaim land in
this case, to conduct prior consultations and
prior approval. 

However, in this case, respondent Province had

already filed its ECC application before it met
with the local government units of Malay and
Caticlan. The information dissemination
conducted months after the ECC had already
been issued was insufficient to comply with the
requirements under the LGC. Furthermore, the
lack of prior public consultation and approval is