WEEK 1

Tragedy of commons
Refers to a situation in which individuals with access to a shared resource (also
called a common) act in their own interest and, in doing so, ultimately deplete the
resource.
People tend to exploit natural resources to the point that it depletes.
The government will create and regulates laws examples: revised forestry code PD
705
1. What is environment?
Composed of Biotic factors – human beings, plants and animals
abiotic factors – light, air, water and soil
2. What is environmental law?
A body of law which contains elements to control human impact in the earth; it deals
with the maintenance and protection of the environment, including preventive measures
such as the requirement of the environmental impact statements as well as measures to
assign liability and provide clean-up for incidents that harm the environment.
—Donna Craig in her article Capacity building for environmental law in the Asian and
Pacific region: approaches and resources, volume 2

3. How many Islands do Philippines have?

Ans. 7,107
Land Area - 300,000 sq/km
4. Phrase in the Preamble of the Philippine Constitution which is related to
environment

Ans.

We, the sovereign Filipino people, imploring the aid of Almighty God, in order to build a
just and humane society, and establish a Government that shall embody our ideals and
aspirations, promote the common good, conserve and develop our patrimony, and
secure to ourselves and our posterity, the blessings of independence and democracy
under the rule of law and a regime of truth, justice, freedom, love, equality, and peace,
do ordain and promulgate this Constitution.

5. Manila Prince Hotel vs GSIS

What is patrimony – it refers not only to the natural resources of the Philippines but also
its natural heritage.

6. Art. 2, Sec. 15 & 16 of the 1987 Constitution- are these provisions self-
executing?
Ans.
Yes. These provisions are sources of rights.

- Section 15. The State shall protect and promote the right to health of the people and
instill health consciousness among them.

Example: Wear masks (perfect kuno). Limit to travel/Quarantine Protocols/Lockdown,

etc.)

- Section 16. The State shall protect and advance the right of the people to a balanced
and healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature.

Example: Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, solid waste management
- A provision which lays down a general principle, such as those found in Art. II of the
1987 Constitution, is usually not self-executing. But a provision which is complete in
itself and becomes operative without the aid of supplementary or enabling legislation, or
that which supplies sufficient rule by means of which the right it grants may be enjoyed
or protected, is self-executing. Thus a constitutional provision is self-executing if the
nature and extent of the right conferred and the liability imposed are fixed by the
constitution itself, so that they can be determined by an examination and construction
of its terms, and there is no language indicating that the subject is referred to the
legislature for action.

But even though these provisions are sources of rights, it can still be regulated by the
government, like the bill of rights.

7. Classifications of Environment Laws: Green Laws, Brown Laws, Blue Laws

- Green Laws – Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act
- Blue Laws – Marine concerned laws
- Brown Laws – Terrestrial Laws (example forestry code)

8. Is the term Regalian Doctrine found in the 1987 Constitution?

Ans. (Discussed in case of Heirs of Malabanan vs Republic)
No. Its concept is only embodied in Sec. 2, Art. 12 of the 1987 Constitution.

9. WHAT IS REGALIAN DOCTRINE?

Ans. (*Midterm- Amo daw dapat ini it ig answer)
Section 2, Article 12 of the 1987 Constitution. Regalian Doctrine states that all lands
of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum, and other mineral oils, all forces
of potential energy, fisheries, forests or timber, wildlife, flora and fauna, and other
natural resources are owned by the State.
10. LIMITATIONS IMPOSED ON THE REGALIAN DOCTRINE IN THE 1987
CONSTITUTION:
Ans.
a. With the exception of agricultural lands, all other natural resources shall not be
alienated.
(Relate section 2 to Section 3- 4 classification of lands: agricultural lands, timber or
forest, mineral, national park)
Alienated- can be privately owned
(Mode of alienation – Sale, inheritance/donation)
b. The exploration, development, and utilization of natural resources shall be under the
full control and supervision of the State.
c. The State may directly undertake such activities, or it may enter into co-production,
joint venture, or production-sharing agreements with Filipino citizens, or corporations
or associations at least sixty per centum of whose capital is owned by such
citizens. Such agreements may be for a period not exceeding twenty-five years,
renewable for not more than twenty-five years, and under such terms and conditions
as may be provided by law. In cases of water rights for irrigation, water supply
fisheries, or industrial uses other than the development of water power, beneficial
use may be the measure and limit of the grant.
(You still need permission and approval from the state to explore natural
resources even though you owned that subject property)

d. The State shall protect the nation’s marine wealth in its archipelagic waters, territorial
sea, and exclusive economic zone, and reserve its use and enjoyment exclusively to
Filipino citizens. (*Midterm- may ada daw niya question related to this) “related han
marine... na dapat exclusive la ha filipino citizen. pwede ba an foreigner magenjoy?
dire! Exclusive la ha Filipino Citizens
 e. The Congress may, by law, allow small-scale utilization of natural resources by
Filipino citizens, as well as cooperative fish farming, with priority to subsistence
fishermen and fish workers in rivers, lakes, bays, and lagoons. (Is large scale
exploitation allowed?) small scale mining act

f. The President may enter into agreements with foreign-owned corporations involving
either technical or financial assistance for large-scale exploration, development, and
utilization of minerals, petroleum, and other mineral oils according to the general
terms and conditions provided by law, based on real contributions to the economic
growth and general welfare of the country. In such agreements, the State shall
promote the development and use of local scientific and technical resources. The
President shall notify the Congress of every contract entered into in accordance with
this provision, within thirty days from its execution. Resident mammals

What if there were diamonds found in your backyard by your laborers?

Generally, the state own it. The State may directly undertake such activities, or it
may enter into co-production, joint venture, or production-sharing agreements with
Filipino citizens, or corporations or associations at least sixty per centum of whose capital
is owned by such citizens. Give at least 60% to the government.

According to art 438 of the civil code. Hidden treasures belong to the owner of the
land.

11. Question about Exclusive Economic Zone (Lilipaton daw, tricky question)

Exceptions to the Regalian Doctrine

- Native Title (Carino vs. Insular Government) if you are a part of the indigenous tribe
or people then you are entitled for that land.
- Ancestral Land & Ancestral Domains owned by Indigenous People (Cruz vs.
Secretary of DENR)
- Lands granted by the State (must show evidence that it was granted by the State)
(Republic vs. Munoz)
- Ecclesiastical Properties (Bishop of Cebu vs. Mangaron)

Origin of the regalian doctrine:

Started from the Spanish colonization. Any territory invaded or colonized by
Spain is owned by the king of Spain.

WEEK 2

Regalian Doctrine (1987 Phil. Consti, Art XII, Sec. 2, sentence 1)

- All lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum, and other
mineral oils, all forces of potential energy, fisheries, forests or timber, wildlife,
flora and fauna, and other natural resources are owned by the State. (General
Rule)

Native Title (Carino vs. Insular Government) if you are a part of the indigenous tribe or people
then you are entitled for that land

Ancestral Land & Ancestral Domains owned by Indigenous People (Cruz vs. Secretary
of DENR)
Lands granted by the State (must show evidence that it was granted by the State)
(Republic vs. Munoz)
Ecclesiastical Properties (Bishop of Cebu vs. Mangaron)

XPNs to the Regalian Doctrine

Native Title - refers to pre-conquest rights to lands and domains which, as far back as
memory reaches, have been held under a claim of private ownership by ICCs/IPs, have never
been public lands and are thus indisputably presumed to have been held that way since before
the Spanish Conquest. (As defined by RA 8371)

Filipinos who are holder of a native title to a specific portion of land are owners of
that land hence it cannot be part of the public domain.

Native Title (Cariño vs. Insular Gov’t.) – Petitioner Carino is a member of the Igorot
in the province of Benguet. They have owned the land for more than 50 years before the
treaty of Paris and have been recognized as owners by the Igorots and had inherited and
received his land (146 hectares) from his father. However, no document of title had been
issued.
ISSUE: W/N petitioner is the rightful owner of the land by virtue of his possession of it
for some time.
RULING: US SC ruled that Filipinos who are holder of the native title to specific parcel
of land are owner of that specific parcel of land. Hence, that parcel of land is not a part
of the public domain.

Ancestral domains or Ancestral lands

Ancestral domains – areas belonging to the ICCs or the IPs held under a claim of
ownership occupied or possessed by these ICCs or IPs since time immemorial.

Ancestral lands – held under the same condition as ancestral domains except that
these are limited to lands and they are not occupied or possessed but are also utilized
including residential lots, rice terraces or private forests.

Cruz v DENR – Petitioners brought suit as citizens and taxpayer assailing the
constitutionality of certain provisions of the IPRA (Indigenous People’s Rights Acts of
1990). They complain that the provisions of the law is tantamount to unlawful deprivation
of the State’s ownership over the lands of the public domain as well as the minerals and
other natural resources therein and that they granted ownership over these natural
resources to IPs. Thus, they alleged that the recognition of the ancestral domain and
ancestral land as owned by the members of the IP constitute a violation of the regalian
doctrine under Sec.2, Art., 1987 PH Consti.

ISSUE: W/N the IPRA is unconstitutional in violation of the regalian doctrine found in
the Constitution.

RULING: SC ruled that IPs are given the right to claim ownership over these lands. The
IPRA makes distinction between the lands and natural resources specifically in Sec. 7
that speaks that the right of ownership is only over the land within the ancestral domain.

Sec. 2, Art XII in relation to IPRA, the state as the owner of these natural resources may
directly undertake the development and exploitation of the natural resources by itself or
it may recognized the priority rights of the ICCs or the IPs as owners of the land on which
the natural resources are found by entering into a co-production or joint venture.

With the advent of the IPRA, can the members of the IPs disposed or sell these
ancestral lands to other Filipinos or other persons?
Ans. The rights granted in IPRA over the natural resources and ancestral domain mainly
gives the IPs as owners and occupants of the land. The right to small scale utilization of
these resources and at the same time a priority in their large scale development and
exploitation. It does not mandate the state to automatically give such priority to the ICCs
or to the IPs.

IPRA gives the members of the IP the right to small scale exploration of the natural
resources within the ancestral domain and ancestral lands in partnership with the State.

Chavez v PEA and Amari – PEA (Public Estates Authority) entered into a joint venture
agreement with Amari, a Thai-Philippine corporation to develop the freedom islands
along with another 250 hectares. PEA and Amari entered into a JVA which would later
transfer said lands to Amari. Senator Maceda assailed the agreement claiming that such
lands are part of public domain. Petitioner Chavez filed a case as a taxpayer praying for
mandamus, a writ of preliminary injunction and a TRO against the sale of reclaimed lands
by PEA to Amari.

ISSUE: W/N Amari, a private corporation can acquire and own under the amended JVA
the reclaimed foreshore and submerged areas in Manila Bay in view of the regalian
doctrine.

RULING: SC ruled in the negative. Under Sec. 2, Art. XII of the 1987 Constitution, the
reclamation areas of Manila Bay are part of the lands of the public domain and
consequently owned by the State. The foreshore areas shall not be alienated unless they
are classified as agricultural lands of the public domain. The mere reclamation of these
areas by the PEA does not convert these inalienable natural resources of the State into
alienable or disposable lands of public domain. There must be a law or presidential
proclamation classifying these reclaimed lands as alienable or disposable and open to
disposition. These reclaimed lands cannot be classified as alienable or disposable if the
law has reserved them for some public use.

Republic v Muñoz - Those properties granted by the government through a

positive act impliedly or expressly releasing that property to be alienable and
disposable land.

ISSUE: W/N the private respondent have proven competent evidence that the property
is alienable and disposable property of the public domain.
RULING: The SC said that for applications for confirmation of imperfect title, it is
necessary that these two things must be proven:
1. That the land forms part of the alienable and disposable agricultural lands of the
public domain.
2. That the Muñozes should have been in an open and continuous exclusive and
notorious possession under bona fide claim of ownership either since time immemorial
or since June 12, 1945.

The SC added that in order for them to show the first requirement, they should be able
to provide something that shows that the property was actually disposed by the
government either by express or implied grant from the government.

Properties owned by the Church (Ecclesiastical properties) - Bishop of Cebu v

Mangaron – Mangaron had been in possession of the land for at least 20 years. The
following year, the land was declared to be included in the forest zone. Due to public
safety concern, they vacated the said land. The parish priest of Ermita church claimed
the land. Mangabon later on build a nipa house without the consent of the parish priest.
Petitioner averred that the land belonged to the property of the Catholic Church from
 time immemorial. The Mangarons claimed that they were the owner of the land by
inheritance.

ISSUE: Who has the right for the questioned property?

Ruling: In summary, the property is owned by the Bishop of Cebu. Having been in
possession of the land for about 20 years. Because of the principle of separation of the
church and the state.

WEEK 3 & 4

BT Talong – Bio-Engineered Eggplant Case

1. What is Mootness Principle?

Ans.
When the case no longer presents a justiciable issue
2. Four exceptions to the mootness principle
Ans.
a. Paramount Public Interest is involved
b. Case is capable of repetition yet evading review
c. Grave Violation of Constitution
d. Controlling Principles that will guide the bench & bar

3. What are the exceptions of mootness mentioned in BT talong case?

Ans.
- In the 2015 decision pasok sa dalawang exceptions of mootness principle:
a. Paramount public interest.
b. Capable of repetition yet evading review
- The 2015 decision was reversed in the 2016 decision (motion for reconsideration).
The Court said that the case was moot and academic. Reasons:
 With respect to paramount public interest- No field testing was conducted, so
there was no harm to the people and environment. The alleged harm was just
imaginary.
 With respect to the second exception (capable of repetition yet evading
review)- This exception was not accepted in the 2016 decision because of the
issuance of the second guidelines: JDC 01-2016 (more comprehensive; not
specific for BT Talong only). It supercedes the DAO (was specific only for BT
Talong) – with the issuance of JDC, there will be no issue anymore. Hence,
the case is no longer capable of repetition.

Also, DAO 02-2018 & DAO was collaterally attacked because of the filing of
Writ of Kalikasan.

4. What is the ruling of the SC with regards to Precautionary Principle in BT

talong case. Did the SC apply this principle in this case?
Ans. Yes, in the 2015 decision. Part 5 rule 20 of the rules of procedure for
environmental cases sec 1 and 2 for the standard of application. By applying the
precautionary principle, the court may construe a set of facts as warranting either
judicial action or inaction with the goal of preserving and protecting the environment.
There is a violation of the constitutional right to health and right to a healthful
and balance ecology.

5. Three Elements of Precautionary Principle.

Uncertainty
 Possibility of irreversible harm
Possibility of serious harm

6. Did the SC lay down these elements in the BT talong case?

Ans.
NO. (It was laid down in the case of Mosqueda vs. Davao) (wrae reason na gin state
why the elements are not laid down)

7. What is the Principle 21 of the Stockholm declaration?

Ans.
States have 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.

This includes two principles:

a. State Sovereignty over the Natural Resources principle
b. Duty not to cause environmental harm principle

What is Principle of state sovereignty over natural resources?

The states have sovereign right to exploit their own resources pursuant to their own
environmental policies.

What is Principle of duty not to cause environmental harm

The states have the responsibility to ensure that their activities in their jurisdiction or
control do not cause damage to the environment of other countries beyond the limits of
the national jurisdiction.

8. What is Transboundary Pollution principle?

Pollution from one state to another state.
9. Polluter pays principle

Ans.

Party responsible for the pollution shall carry the costs or expenses or damages or
costs related to it. In short, the cost associated by the pollution shall be paid by
the polluter.

10. Canada vs. USA (Smelter Case)- How did the Court apply the Polluter
pays principle? (air pollution)
There are two principles involved:
Polluters pay – the state of Canada shall bare the cost to the pollution it causes to
the state of Washington.
transboundary pollution principle - the pollution from Canada transferred to the
states of Washington USA

11. Argentina vs. Uruguay- How did the SC apply the Polluter pays
principle?
(Water pollution)
The Argentina government should indemnify the Uruguay for the pollution it caused.

12. What is the Kyoto Protocol?

The Kyoto Protocol is a protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change, an international environmental treaty with the goal of “stabilization of
 greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent
dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.
13. What are the gases prohibited in Kyoto Protocol?
carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and
hexafluoride sulfur.
14. Is the Philippines a signatory in the Kyoto Protocol? Ans. Yes.
15. Is there an expiration? Ans. Yes, until 2012. Doha amendments extended the
Kyoto Protocol until 2020. And added nitrogen trifluoride.

16. What is the Paris Summit agreement?

Ans.
Aimed at reducing global greenhouse gas emissions and thus avoiding the worst
impacts of climate change. The agreement sets out a global action plan to put
the world on track to avoid dangerous climate change by limiting global
warming to well below 2 degrees celcius. The agreement was ratified by the
Philippines in April 2016.

17. What is the archipelagic doctrine?

Ans. (word for word daw)
ARTICLE I National Territory
The national territory comprises the Philippine archipelago, with all the islands and
waters embraced therein, and all other territories over which the Philippines has
sovereignty or jurisdiction, consisting of its terrestrial, fluvial, and aerial domains,
including its territorial sea, the seabed, the subsoil, the insular shelves, and other
submarine areas. The waters around, between, and connecting the islands of the
archipelago, regardless of their breadth and dimensions, form part of the internal
waters of the Philippines.

18. Rationale behind the Archipelagic Doctrine

Ans.

To comply with the provision of the UNCLOS.

19. What is the exclusive economic zone?

The exclusive economic zone (EEZ) is an area where sovereign states have jurisdiction
over resources.
20. Why is it called a sui generis maritime zone? (*Midterm)
Ans. (refer to Magallona vs. Ermita)
 It combines the features of the high seas and the territorial sea which gives it a
unique character among other maritime territories regulated by the UNCLOS.
 Finding a balance between coastal state and third states. It reflects the very
legal nature of sui generis of its own kind as it is recognized by the international
law.

Atty’s answer: It is only applicable to archipelagic state countries.

Measures to 200nm from the baseline.
it is measured 200 nautical miles
- UNCLOS III favors States with a long coastline like the Philippines. UNCLOS III
creates a sui generis maritime space— the exclusive economic zone—in waters
previously part of the high seas. UNCLOS III grants new rights to coastal States to
exclusively exploit the resources found within this zone up to 200 nautical miles.
 UNCLOS III, however, preserves the traditional freedom of navigation of other
States that attached to this zone beyond the territorial sea before UNCLOS III.

21. Remedy provided by UNCLOS in case of Overlapping exclusive economic

zone.

Ans. Enter into a treaty

22. What is regime of islands? Give examples.

Ans. (Magallona vs. Ermita)
UNCLOS. Article 121 Regime of islands
1. An island is a naturally formed area of land, surrounded by water, which is above
water at high tide.
2. Except as provided for in paragraph 3, the territorial sea, the contiguous zone, the
exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf of an island are determined in
accordance with the provisions of this Convention applicable to other land territory.
3. Rocks which cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own shall
have no exclusive economic zone or continental shelf.
Examples: Kalayaan Island Group and Scarborough shoal.

23. As regime of islands, can they be considered as part of the Philippine

territory?
Ans.
No, Baseline law is a law passed by the congress to follow the guidelines of the
UNCLOS, unfortunately KIG and Scarborough shoal is outside our baseline, but it does
not diminish our sovereignty or claim over these islands. The baseline law or the
UNCLOS is not one of the modes of acquisition or ownership over this feature in the
west Philippine Sea. One of the modes of acquisition we should have special possession
of that island, buy that island or through negotiation/ diplomatic channels.

24. How did the SC classify Scarborough shoal in the case of Philippines vs.
China?
Ans.
The tribunal classified it as a rock.

25. What is the physical, geological, geomorphic characteristics of a rock?

Ans.
- cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own
- has no exclusive economic zone or continental shelf.

26. Legal Characteristics of a rock is provided under UNCLOS (read)

27. Scarborough shoal will still remain as a rock even if it was already
improved by China. Can it be classified as an island already?

Its natural feature/classification will prevail. The original classification will

prevail. It will still be a rock.

28. Zabal vs. Duterte - Is the temporary closure of Boracay a valid exercise
of Police Power in this case?
Ans.
 Yes. It is a valid exercise of police power.

29. How about the ruling of the SC with respect of the right to travel of the
tourists?
Ans.
No. It is only an incidental effect of the temporary closure. It does not violate the right
to travel.

30. Oposa vs. Factoran- What was the petition filed by the petitioners here?
Ans.
A civil case for cancellation of timber licensing agreement between logging companies
and the government.

31. What are the motions to dismiss filed in this case? (there are two)
Motion to Dismiss the complaint based on two (2) grounds, namely:
(1) the plaintiffs have no cause of action against him and
(2) the issue raised by the plaintiffs is a political question which properly pertains to
the legislative or executive branches of Government.

32. Principles laid down in this case:

Ans.
- Intergenerational responsibility
- Intergenerational justice or equity
- Principle of Environmental justice

33. What are issues brought in this case?

Ans.
- Whether the petitioners have Legal Standing- Yes, petitioners have legal standing
under the principle of intergenerational responsibility and Intergenerational justice
or equity. They are representing the future generations and the generations yet
unborn. If no one will file, our forest will be gone/ diminish.

- Whether they have a cause of action? - Yes, with respect to the Principle of
Environmental justice they have a cause of action on the ground that the right to a
balanced and healthful ecology carries with it the correlative duty to refrain from
impairing the environment. It is the duty of the responsible agency to advance the
said right.

WEEK 5

Exception to the regalian doctrine:

Declaration of the state by positive act realizing the property to alienable and
disposable land

Denr vs Yap – 1st case Yap claims that they are in possession of parcels of land in Boracay
since time immemorial. But they do not have certificate of title. They must file to the court a
petition for judicial confirmation of imperfect title. But hinders by the Marcos proclamation,
proclaiming Boracay island as a tourist zone. Under that proclamation Boracay island remains
a public domain hence it is owned by the state. They file for a petition of declaratory relief.
2nd case owners of hotels and billionaires questions the validity of Arroyo’s proclamation.

Marcos’s proclamation - is a proclamation proclaiming Boracay island as a tourist zone

including other tourist spot

Arroyo’s proclamation – divided Boracay island into to 2 portions: (1) alienable and
disposable and (2) reserve forest. Also created a buffer zone meaning a protected area
in Boracay (you cannot enter)

Under PD 705 if you are occupying a forest land you can be charge for a criminal
offense or a violation of PD 705 illegal occupancy of forest.

Issues:

 Won the Marcos proclamation is a hindrance for the eventual application for judicial
confirmation of imperfect title

Ruling: No, it was only a declaration that the property is a tourist zone it does not
impede their right to the imperfect title.

 Won the Arroyo proclamation stands to prejudice those that has already establish their
infrastructure in in Boracay and those who have already acquired an imperfect title.

Ruling: No, it just reclassified the Boracay into 2 areas.

What is the difference between the Marcos’s proclamation and Arroyo’s

proclamation?

The Marcos proclamation is not a positive act and was a general proclamation while
Arroyo’s proclamation is a positive act and is an exemption to the regalian doctrine.

Why is Arroyo’s proclamation a positive act?

In arroyo’s proclamation there are limitations that was specified.

Did the SC agree with the argument that Boracay is a forest even though there is no
forest there anymore?

SC states that It will not be automatically reclassified and it will retain its original
classification.

What are the remedies for the billionaires?

For congress to enact a law that will allow them to claim their land.

Are they builders in good faith?

Yes. They must have consent from the owner of the land. They do not know that
Boracay is a forest.

SECTION 26 and 27 of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE

Section 26. Duty of National Government Agencies in the Maintenance of Ecological

Balance. - It shall be the duty of every national agency or government-owned or controlled
corporation authorizing or involved in the planning and implementation of any project or
program that may cause pollution, climatic change, depletion of non-renewable
resources, loss of crop land, rangeland, or forest cover, and extinction of animal or
plant species, to consult with the local government units, nongovernmental organizations,
and other sectors concerned and explain the goals and objectives of the project or program,
its impact upon the people and the community in terms of environmental or ecological
balance, and the measures that will be undertaken to prevent or minimize the adverse effects
thereof.

Section 27. Prior Consultations Required. - No project or program shall be implemented

by government authorities unless the consultations mentioned in Sections 2 (c) and 26 hereof
are complied with, and prior approval of the sanggunian concerned is obtained: Provided, that
occupants in areas where such projects are to be implemented shall not be evicted unless
appropriate relocation sites have been provided, in accordance with the provisions of the
Constitution.

Case of Province of Rizal vs Executive Secretary

What was the project to be implemented?

A dumpsite/ sanitary landfill

The dumpsite is illegal because it does not comply with sec. 26 and 27 of the LGC.

In sec 26 of the Local Government Code, how did the Supreme Court describe this
dumpsite or sanitary landfill?

First, Determine If the project is environmentally critical, if it is then comply with the 2
requisites under sec 27 of the LGC: ☹midterms

Prior consultation with the local government/local communities

Prior approval of the sanggunian concerned.

Why will there be environmental imbalance with the community involved?

It will create pollution. It will affect the Marikina watershed.

CASE BANGUS FISHERFRY VS LANZANAS

What was the project to be implemented? - Mooring facility – temporary docking site of
the power barge of NAPOCOR.

How did the Supreme Court classify that program in accordance with Sec 26 of the
LG Code? - The SC ruled that the mooring facility is not a critically environmental project in
accordance with S26 of the LGC hence does not belong to any of the 6 types of projects
mentioned by the law.

How did the SC distinguish when the mooring facility is already operational?

CONSTRUCTION - SC held it is not environmentally critical because it does not generate

pollution

OPERATION - SC held it affects ecological balance of the (coves?) destroyed. Then it will be
considered environmentally critical and must comply the 2 requisites.

CASE OF LINA VS TANO

What was the project to be implemented?

 Lotto Outlets

How did the Supreme Court classify that program in accordance with Sec 26 of the
LG Code?

SC did not apply sec 26 and 27. A lotto outlet is not an environmentally critical project.
Not under the 6 enumerations.

CASE OF BORACAY FOUNDATION INC vs PROVINCE OF AKLAN (EMPHASIZED)

What was the project to be implemented?

Reclamation of Jettyport in Caticlan Port (Expansion of Caticlan port)

Whether or not the Province of Aklan satisfied the two requirements in Sec 26 and
27 of the LGC?

The expansion and reclamation fall within the description, enumeration, of the LGC
because it will destroy the environment. It will create an imbalance between the environment
and the local community because the white sands in Boracay will be destroyed. Therefore,
the expansion is an environmentally critical project or program. The two requisites
must be complied with: 1. There must be prior consultation with the local
government/local communities 2. there must be prior approval of the sanggunian
concerned.

In cases of local communities wherein members of the indigenous communities and

indigenous people, what is the other requirement to be complied with before a
project that will create an imbalance between the environment and the local
community must be complied with?

Secure an FPIC (free prior and inform consent) it is provided in the IPRA law, it allows
them to give or withhold consent to a project that may affect them or their territories. Once
they have given their consent, they may can withdraw it at any stage. They can negotiate the
conditions of the project. (To avoid potential conflict within the ancestral lands or
domains of the ICC’s)

What is the DOCTRINE in the FOUR CASES ABOVE? (*MIDTERM)

- First, identity the specific project of the national government if it is an environmentally

critical project in the purview of Section 26, in relation to section 27:

The projects and programs mentioned in section 27 should be interpreted to meet the
projects and programs whose effects are among those enumerated in sec 26 and 27 to
wit:

1. may cause pollution

2. May bring about climatic change

3. May cause the depletion of non-renewable resources

4. May result in loss of crop (?) land, range land or forest cover

5. May eradicate certain animals or plant species from the face of the planet

6. Other projects and programs that may call for the eviction of certain group of people
residing in the locality where that project will be implemented.
 - Then, apply the two requisites:

Two requisites must be met before a natural project that affects the environmental
and ecological balance of the community can be implemented:

1. Prior consultation of the affected local communities

2. Prior approval of the project by the appropriate sanggunian

NOTE: Absent these two requirements, the project’s implementation is illegal.

MENTIONED CASES DISCUSSED LAST MEETING

- OPOSA vs FACTORAN
- International Greenpiece - BT TALONG

How did the SC decide the concept of legal standing of petitioners in environmental
cases?

- The SC liberalized the requirement on legal standing in environmental cases.

The court allowed the filing of citizens suits for the enforcement of rights and obligations
under environmental laws. (answer ni orioque) yes very good!

Do you recall the concept of DIRECT INJURY TEST or legal standing doctrine?

- SC relaxed the rules on legal stranding

SEGOVIA vs CLIMATE CHANGE COMMISSION

Principles found in this case: principle of liberal approach as to legal standing in

environmental cases, Road-sharing principle, doctrine of hierarchy of court, The applicability of
Road Users tax in environmental law, Principle of Atmospheric Trust

- Road-sharing principle Those who have less in wheels must have more on roads.
(found in EO 774, thus provided in law)

- SC Ruled you cannot compel the government agencies to implement the road sharing
principle (based on how you want, 2nd par of the full text) because that is not a ministerial
act, that is a discretionary act. This means the government agencies has the leeway or
the right on how to implement the road sharing principle as embodied in the executive
principle with accordance with the current environmental situation.

Doctrine of hierarchy of courts

- The SC held that it may not be applied in environmental cases. You can directly file
directly to the supreme court.

The applicability of Road Users tax in environmental law.

Road users tax is a corresponding share in a toll.

What are its purpose?

 Road maintenance and improvement of road drainage

 Installation of traffic lights
 Air pollution control

Ruling on the release of the road user’s tax.

 The SC ruled that the Department of budget and management cannot release the road
users tax for the implementation of the road sharing principle because it is not included in the
purpose of the road users tax.

Principle of Atmospheric Trust- Found in Article 11, Section 1, 1987 Constitution

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.

Was this principle violated?

No, it was not proven that there is a violation of public trust since it is
discretionary, it is not ministerial.

HINARES vs LTFRB

Legal Standing.

Did the SC apply the principle of intergenerational responsibility &

Intergenerational justice as held in Opasa vs Factoran? - These two principles can be a
ground as basis for legal standing in environmental case. (Because speedy, uncharted
course...)

Ans. No, SC did not apply here. But SC recognized the fundamental right to clean air
under the principle of transcendental importance.

FUTURE GENERATIONS VS MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT OF COLOMBIA.

How was the principle of intergenerational responsibility applied in this

case?

WEEK 7

PUBLIC LAND ACT (CA 141)

What are the classifications of lands as provided in the 1987 constitution?

Art. 12 Sec 3. Of 1987 constitution

Forest or timber
Mineral lands
National parks
Agricultural lands

What are the classifications of lands as provided in the commonwealth act 141 or the
public land act?

Sec. 9 CA 141
Agricultural land – alienable
Forest or timber lands
Mineral lands

Is there a difference between the 2 classifications?

No, according to sec. 2 and 3 art 12 of the 1987 constitution.

Art 12 sec 2:

With the exception of agricultural lands, all other natural resources shall not be alienated. The
exploration, development, and utilization of natural resources shall be under the full control
and supervision of the State.

Art 12 sec 3:

Alienable lands of the public domain shall be limited to agricultural lands.

Because if there is a difference then CA 141 will be unconstitutional.

Is the power to classify lands of public domain into alienable or disposable land an
executive prerogative, legislative prerogative, or a judicial prerogative?

Both. It is primarily a legislative prerogative, however congress enacted CA 141 delegating

the power to the president of the Philippines making it an executive prerogative. But even
without the law, congress itself can classify lands of public domain because it is a legislative
power vested on them by the constitution.

Can the President delegate the power to classify lands of public domain to the DENR
secretary?

No, it is a violation of the principle of Delegata potestas non potest delegari which states
that what has once been delegated by the congress cannot be further delegated by the original
delegate to another.

Can the DENR secretary classify lands of public domain?

YES. the DENR secretary can classify lands of public domain, by virtue of PD 705 or the
revised forestry code. Congress directly delegate the DENR secretary to classify lands of public
domain. The DENR secretary cannot delegate such power to the regional director, to the
provincial environment and natural resources officer or CENRO for that matter. (Answer is
found in the case of Dumo v Republic)

Dumo vs Republic

What are the 2 documents that must be presented or submitted in order to prove that
the land subject in a land registration case is alienable and disposable?

first, a copy of the original classification approved by the Secretary of the DENR and certified
as a true copy by the legal custodian of the official records, and

second, a certificate of land classification status issued by the CENRO or the PENRO based on
the land classification approved by the DENR Secretary.

With comma included daw hahahaha….

What are the documents submitted by Dumo to prove that the land in la union is
alienable and disposable?

Dumo failed to submit any documents.

What is the reckoning point to determine that the land is alienable and disposable?

1. Any time before the application of the land for registration was made.

Guidelines set by the supreme court:

1. If the applicant or his predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive and
notorious possession and occupation of the land sought to be registered under a bona fide claim
of ownership since 12 June 1945 or earlier, the applicant must prove that the land has been
classified by the Executive department as alienable and disposable land of the public domain.
This is covered by Section 14(1) of PD No. 1529 in relation to Section 48(b) of CA No.
141.

While it is not necessary that the land has been alienable and disposable since 12 June 1945
or earlier, the applicant must prove that the President or DENR Secretary has classified the
land as alienable and disposable land of the public domain at any time before the application
was made.

2. If the occupation and possession of the land commenced at any time after 12 June 1945,
the applicant may still register the land if he or his predecessors-in-interest have complied with
the requirements of acquisitive prescription under the Civil Code after the land has been
expressly declared as patrimonial property or no longer needed for public use, public service
or the development of national wealth. This is governed by Section 14(2) of PD No. 1529
in relation to the Civil Code.

Under the Civil Code, acquisitive prescription, whether ordinary or extraordinary, applies only
to private property. Thus, the applicant must prove when the land sought to be registered was
expressly declared as patrimonial property because it is only from this time that the period for
acquisitive prescription would start to run.

Republic vs heirs of ocol

What are the requirements submitted by the heirs of ocol to prove that the land in
Taguig is alienable and disposable?

Tax declaration
Land surveys
Certificate that the land is alienable, and disposable issued by the DENR NCR.

Is the certification by the DENR NCR sufficient to prove that the land is alienable and
disposable?

No, an original certificate of classification that the land is alienable and disposable from the
DENR secretary must also be presented. (Very important)

The 2 certificates (1 from CENRO/PENRO and 1 from DENR secretary) must be submitted
to prove that the land is alienable and disposable.

What is the reason why there is a need to submit the original certificate coming from
the DENR secretary proving that the land is alienable and disposable? Why is CENRO
and PENRO certification not enough?

The power to issue certification does not extend to CENRO and PENRO only to the DENR
secretary. The power to issue such certification cannot be further delegated by the DENR to the
CENRO and PENRO.

Absent of those documents your application for land registration will fail.

Non- registrable property:

 Property of public domain

 Airports
 Forest lands
 Watersheds - As an area drained by a river and its tributaries and enclosed by a
boundary or divided which separates it from adjacent watersheds. (This definition dapat
it gamiton ha exam)
  Mangrove swamps
 Mineral lands
 National parks and protected areas.
 Military or naval reservation
 Foreshore lands and reclaimed lands - a strip of land that lies between the high
and low water marks and that is alternately wet and dry according to the flow of the tide
or that part of the land adjacent to the sea which is alternatively covered by the ordinary
flow of the tides.
 Submerged areas
 Lakes
 Navigable rivers
 creeks

How did the SC applied the doctrine of vested rights in the case of Saad agro vs
republic? Despite being the subject land being classified as forest.

The SC allowed the registration of the land because prior to classification of the land as forest
reserves pursuant to P.D. No. 705, the petitioner already obtained free patent and title to the
land as early as 1971. The LC Map No. 2961 was made only in 1980. Thus, the delineation of
the areas was made nine (9) years after Orcullo was awarded the free patent over the subject
lot.

What was the subject property in the case of Cortez which the SC said cannot be
registered?

50 parcels of land in Palui Island which was later proclaimed by Pres. Marcos as Military
reservation therefore no person can acquire such property.

How did the SC rule in the claim of Rev. Cortez that he has vested right in the subject
land?

Rev. Cortez is not entitled to the land because there was no proof that the subject land was
classified as Alienable and disposable.

Prohibited alienation (in the book page 77 – 83 kindly read nalang) you cannot sell,
alienate, or dispose that land within 5 years if you are given a certificate of title by
the DENR.

However, congress enact a law signed by Duterte entitled RA 11231 or the

agricultural free patent act which provided the removal of the restrictions on free
patents. You are now allowed to sell such lands.

WEEK 8

1. Dumo vs. Republic

- Under Section 13 of the Revised Forestry Code (PD 705), the DENR Secretary has the
power to classify lands of public domain.
- Alienable and disposable lands of public domain shall be limited to agricultural lands within
the purview of the 1987 Const, Section 2 and 3, Article 12.
- The power to classify lands of public domain is primarily a plenary power of the Congress
delegated to the President through CA 141 and through the DENR Secretary through PD
705 which cannot be delegated to their respected subordinates. However, the power of
the DENR Secretary to classify lands of public domain from agricultural to alienable and
disposable lands is not automatic. There is a difference between the power to declare a
 land as agricultural land and the power to declare an agricultural land to alienable and
disposable.

2. Q: Is the power to classify lands of public land into agricultural land the same
with the power to declare agricultural lands as alienable and disposable lands?
Can a DENR Secretary classify a land directly to be an alienable and disposable
land?

A: No, these two powers are vested in the DENR Secretary. It is not automatic. It requires
two acts. As compared in CA 141, where the Pres can automatically classify a land as
alienable and disposable.

3. Q: If the DENR classified the land as agricultural land, can it be reverted back
into a forest land?

[Section 13 of PD No. 705, the DENR Secretary has no discretionary power to classify
unclassified lands of the public domain, not needed for forest reserve purposes, into
agricultural lands.]

Yes, reversion proceeding is the manner through which the State seeks to revert land to
the mass of the public domain; it is proper when public land is fraudulently awarded and
disposed of in favor of private individuals or corporations; or when a person obtains a title
under the Public Land Act which includes, by oversight, lands which cannot be registered
under the Torrens system as they form part of the public domain. (Republic vs. Heirs of
Cabrera)
(NOTE: I researched nalang, just in case ipakiana. Waray kasi kabaton ha recit.)

DENR vs. Yap

- The SC upheld the constitutionality of the proclamation issued by Pres. Arroyo to
classify a portion of Boracay island as alienable and disposable and a portion of it as a
forestland/timber. Despite the commercial establishments on the land, it is considered
as forest.

- Context of forest as to its legal classification or status within the purview of

PD 705 and the 1987 Const:
 (Note: Until ‘public domain’ la, mga beshie)

4. People vs. Que

- There are two (2) distinct and separate offenses punished under Section 68 of
P.D. 705, to wit:

1) Cutting, gathering, collecting and removing timber or other forest products from
any forest land, or timber from alienable or disposable public land, or from private
land without any authority; and
2) Possession of timber or other forest products without the legal documents required
under existing forest laws and regulations.

In the first offense, one can raise as a defense the legality of the acts of cutting,
gathering, collecting or removing timber or other forest products by presenting the
authorization issued by the DENR.

In the second offense, however, it is immaterial whether the cutting, gathering, collecting
and removal of the forest products is legal or not. Mere possession of forest products
without the proper documents consummates the crime. Whether or not the
lumber comes from a legal source is immaterial because E.O 277 considers the
mere possession of timber or other forest products without the proper legal
documents as malum prohibitum.

- DENR Administrative Order No. 59 series of 1993 specifies the documents

required for the transport of timber and other forest products. Section 3 of the
Administrative Order provides:

Section 3. Documents Required.

Consistent with the policy stated above, the movement of logs, lumber, plywood,
veneer, non-timber forest products and wood-based or nonwood-based
products/commodities shall be covered with appropriate Certificates of Origin,
issued by authorized DENR officials, as specified in the succeeding sections.

3.3 Lumber. Unless otherwise herein provided, the transport of lumber shall be
accompanied by a CERTIFICATE OF LUMBER ORIGIN (CLO) issued by the CENRO
or his duly authorized representative which has jurisdiction over the processing plant
 producing the said lumber or the lumber firm authorized to deal in such commodities.
In order to be valid, the CLO must be supported by the company tally sheet or
delivery receipt, and in case of sale, a lumber sales invoice.

- Q: Can you be liable for the violation of Section, 68, PD 705 for cutting a tree
within your own backyard even if it is covered with a certificate of title in your
name?

A: Yes, cutting, gathering, collecting and removing of lumber (from the tree) requires a
permit from the DENR even if the lot is situated in your land. It requires authority.

- Q: Is lack of criminal intent a valid defense for violation of Section 68, PD 705?
A: No, criminal intent is immaterial because the mere possession of timber or other forest
products without the proper legal documents as malum prohibitum.

5. People vs. Villarin

Q: Do you need to prove intent to possess or animus possidendi?

A: NO, THE CRIME VIOLATED BY THE PETITIONERS IS MALUM PROHIBITUM. INTENT IS
NOT NECESSARY, MERE POSSESSION WITH INTENT TO POSSESS SUFFICE TO CONVICT
THE ACCUSED UNDER THE SAID CHARGE.

Violation of Sec. 68 of Presidential Decree No. 705, as amended, Is malum

prohibitum.

As a special law, the nature of the offense is malum prohibitum and as such,
criminal intent is not an essential element. "However, the prosecution must
prove that petitioners had the intent to possess (animus possidendi)" the
timber. "Possession, under the law, includes not only actual possession, but also
constructive possession.

TWO TYPES OF POSSESSION: ACTUAL AND CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION:

Actual possession exists when the [object of the crime] is in the immediate physical
control of the accused. On the other hand, constructive possession exists when the
[object of the crime] is under the dominion and control of the accused or when he has the
right to exercise dominion and control over the place where it is found."

Q: Do you need to present the lumber in Court that was subject in the criminal
case to prove the violation of Section 68 of PD 705?

A: No, corpus delicti refers to the fact of the commission of the crime charged or to the
body or substance of the crime. In its legal sense, it does not refer to the ransom money
in the crime of kidnapping for ransom or to the body of the person murdered" or, in this
case, to the seized timber. "Since the corpus delicti is the fact of the commission of the
crime, the Court has ruled that even a single witness’ uncorroborated testimony, if
credible, may suffice to prove it and warrant a conviction therefor. Corpus delicti
may even be established by circumstantial evidence."

6. Cresencio vs. People

- Mere possession of forest products without the proper documents consummates the
crime. Whether or not the lumber comes from a legal source is immaterial because the
Forestry Code is a special law which considers mere possession of timber or other forest
products without the proper documentation as malum prohibitum.

TWO distinct and separate offenses punished, Under Section 68 of the Forestry
Code)
 Under Section 68 of the Forestry Code, there are two distinct and separate
offenses punished, namely: (1) cutting, gathering, collecting and removing
timber or other forest products from any forest land, or timber from alienable or
disposable public land, or from private land without any authority; and (2)
possession of timber or other forest products without the legal documents
required under existing forest laws and regulations.

In the second offense, it is immaterial whether the cutting, gathering, collecting and
removal of the forest products are legal or not.

7. Paat vs. CA

- Q: Is Section 68, PD 705 a separate and distinct offense independent from the
crime of theft under the Revised Penal Code?

A: With the introduction of Executive Order No. 277 amending Section 68 of P.D. 705, the
act of cutting, gathering, collecting, removing, or possessing forest products without
authority constitutes a distinct offense independent now from the crime of theft
under Articles 309 and 310 of the Revised Penal Code, but the penalty to be
imposed is that provided for under Article 309 and 310 of the Revised Penal Code.

The provision of Section 68 of P.D. 705 before its amendment by E.O. 277 and the
provision of Section 1 of E.O. No. 277 amending the aforementioned Section 68 are
reproduced herein, thus:

Sec. 68. Cutting, gathering and/or collecting timber or other products without
license. — Any person who shall cut, gather, collect, or remove timber or other forest
products from any forest land, or timber from alienable and disposable public lands, or
from private lands, without any authority under a license agreement, lease, license or
permit, shall be guilty of qualified theft as defined and punished under Articles 309 and
310 of the Revised Penal Code.

Sec. 1. Section 68 of Presidential Decree No. 705, as amended, is hereby

amended to read as follows:

Sec. 68. Cutting, gathering and/or collecting timber or other forest products without
license. — Any person who shall cut, gather, collect, remove timber or other forest
products from any forest land, or timber from alienable or disposable public land, or from
private land, without any authority, or possess timber or other forest products without the
legal documents as required under existing forest laws and regulations, shall
be punished with the penalties imposed under Articles 309 and 310 of the
Revised Penal Code . . .

This is clear from the language of Executive Order No. 277 when it eliminated
the phrase "shall be guilty of qualified theft as defined and punished under
Articles 309 and 310 of the Revised Penal Code" and inserted the words "shall
be punished with the penalties imposed under Article 309 and 310 of the
Revised Penal Code". When the statute is clear and explicit, there is hardly room for
any extended court ratiocination or rationalization of the law.

- Q: Can the accused plead guilty to the lesser offense of simple theft?

A: Yes, for violations of Section 68 of PD 705, the accused may file a motion to plea
bargain to plead guilty to a lesser offense of simple theft. The Court may grant the
motion.
8. Mustang vs. CA
- Q: Is there a difference between lumber and timber for purposes of violation of
Section 68 of PD 705?

A: No, the word lumber does not appear in Section 68. The Revised Forestry Code also
contains no definition of either timber or lumber. While the former is included
in forest products as defined in paragraph (q) of Section 3, the latter is found in
paragraph (aa) of the same section in the definition of "Processing plant," which reads:

(aa) Processing plant is any mechanical set-up, machine or combination of machine used
for the processing of logs and other forest raw materials into lumber, veneer, plywood,
wallbond, blockboard, paper board, pulp, paper or other finished wood products.

This simply means that lumber is a processed log or processed forest raw material.
Clearly, the Code uses the term lumber in its ordinary or common usage. In the 1993
copyright edition of Webster's Third New International Dictionary, lumber is defined, inter
alia, as "timber or logs after being prepared for the market." Simply put, lumber is
a processed log or timber.

9. Calub vs. CA

- Q: Can the DENR Secretary order the confiscation of the vehicle or the conveyance
subject to the illegal transport of lumber?

A: Yes, DENR Administrative Order No. 59, series of 1990, implements Sections 78-A and
89 of the Forestry Code, as follows:

Sec. 2. Conveyances Subject to Confiscation and Forfeiture. -- All conveyances

used in the transport of any forest product obtained or gathered illegally whether or not
covered with transport documents, found spurious or irregular in accordance with Sec.
68-A [78-A] of P.D. No. 705, shall be confiscated in favor of the government or disposed
of in accordance with pertinent laws, regulations or policies on the matter.

Sec. 4. Who are Authorized to Seize Conveyance. - The Secretary or his duly
authorized representative such as the forest officers and/or natural resources
officers, or deputized officers of the DENR are authorized to seize said
conveyances subject to policies and guidelines pertinent thereto. Deputized
military personnel and officials of other agencies apprehending illegal logs and other
forest products and their conveyances shall notify the nearest DENR field offices, and
turnover said forest products and conveyances for proper action and disposition. In case
where the apprehension is made by DENR field officer, the conveyance shall be
deposited with the nearest CENRO/PENRO/RED Office as the case may be, for
safekeeping wherever it is most convenient and secured

10. DENR vs. Daraman

- Q: Can you file a criminal case for violation of Section 68 of PD 705 before the
RTC and at the same file an administrative case for violation of Section 68 of PD
705 before the DENR?

A: Yes, the confiscation of the courts is different to the confiscation of the DENR. If an
accused is acquitted in a criminal case for violation of Section 68 of PD 705, he may still
be held liable for an administrative case in violation of the same statute.

11. Chain Saw Act of 2002 — Republic Act No. 9175

- Q: What is a chainsaw? (Memorize word for word, will appear in the MTs)
 A:"Chain saw" shall refer to any portable power saw or similar cutting implement,
rendered operative by an electric or internal combustion engine or similar means, that
may be used for, but is not limited to, the felling of trees or the cutting of timber;

- Q: What are the punishable acts?

Section 7. Penal Provisions. -

1) Selling, Purchasing, Re-selling, Transferring, Distributing or Possessing a Chain Saw
Without a Proper Permit. - Any person who sells, purchases, transfer the ownership,
distributes or otherwise disposes or possesses a chain saw without first securing the
necessary permit from the Department shall be punished with imprisonment of four (4)
years, two (2) months and one (1) day to six (6) years or a fine of not less than Fifteen
thousand pesos (P15,000.00) but not more Thirty thousand pesos (30,000.00) or both
at the discretion of the court, and the chain saw/s confiscated in favor of the
government.

2) Unlawful Importation or Manufacturing of Chain Saw. - Any person who imports or

manufactures a chainsaw without obtaining prior authorization from the Department
shall be punished by imprisonment of not less than one (1) month nor more than six
(6) months and a fine of not less than One thousand pesos (P1,000.00) for more than
Four thousand pesos (P4,000.00).

3) Tampering of Engine Serial Number. - Any person who is found to have defaced or
tampered with the original registered engine serial number of any chain saw unit shall
be punished by imprisonment of not less than one (1) month nor more than six (6)
months and a fine of not less than One thousand pesos (P1,000.00) nor more than
Four thousand pesos (P4,000.00).

4) Actual Unlawful Use of Chain Saw. - Any person who is found to be in possession of a
chain saw and uses the same to cut trees and timber in forest land or elsewhere except
as authorized by the Department shall be penalized with imprisonment of six (6) years
and one (1) day to eight (8) years or a fine of not less than Thirty thousand pesos
(P30,000.00) but not more than Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) or both at the
discretion of the court without prejudice to being prosecuted for a separate offense that
may have been simultaneously committed. The chain saw unlawfully used shall be
likewise confiscated in favor of the government.

If the violation under this Section is committed by or through the command or order of
another person, partnership or corporation, the penalties herein provided shall likewise be
imposed on such other person, or the responsible officer(s) in such partnership or
corporation.

If the offender is a public official or employee, in addition to the above penalties, he shall
be removed from office and perpetually disqualified from holding any public office.

The chain saws confiscated under this Section shall be sold at public auction to qualified
buyers and the proceeds thereof shall go to the Department.

If one buys a chain saw, it should be registered with the DENR as it is the repository of all
the chain saws.

- Q: The DENR issued a clearance or permit to use a chain saw, and you use the
chain saw to cut a Narra tree. Can you still be liable for violation of section 68 of
PD 705 for cutting the tree although you already have a permit to use the chain
saw to cut the tree (or be liable with other statutes such as the Wildlife Resources
Conservation and Protection Act)?
 A: Yes. In the Chainsaw Act (RA 9175) what is prohibited is the act of using the chainsaw
without permit from the DENR or without the chainsaw being registered in the DENR. The
violation in Section 68, PD 705 was the cutting of the Narra tree without permit,

Chainsaw Act (RA 9175), Sec 7 (d): “without prejudice to being prosecuted for a
separate offense that may have been simultaneously committed.”

12. Wildlife Resources Conservation and Protection Act — RA 9147

- Illegal Acts under Wildlife Resources Conservation and Protection Act (RA 9147,
Section 27) - Unless otherwise allowed in accordance with this Act, it shall be unlawful
for any person to willfully and knowingly exploit wildlife resources and their habitats, or
undertake the following acts;

1) killing and destroying wildlife species, except in the following instances;

a) when it is done as part of the religious rituals of established tribal groups or
indigenous cultural communities;
b) when the wildlife is afflicted with an incurable communicable disease;
c) when it is deemed necessary to put an end to the misery suffered by the wildlife;
d) when it is done to prevent an imminent danger to the life or limb of a human being;
and
e) when the wildlife is killed or destroyed after it has been used in authorized research
or experiments.

2) inflicting injury which cripples and/or impairs the reproductive system of wildlife species;

3) effecting any of the following acts in critical habitat(s)

a) dumping of waste products detrimental to wildlife;
b) squatting or otherwise occupying any portion of the critical habitat;
c) mineral exploration and/or extraction;
d) burning;
e) logging; and
f) quarrying

4) introduction, reintroduction or restocking of wildlife resources;

5) trading of wildlife;

6) collecting, hunting or possessing wildlife, their by-products and derivatives;

7) gathering or destroying of active nests, nest trees, host plants and the like;

8) maltreating and/or inflicting other injuries not covered by the preceding paragraph; and

9) transporting of wildlife.

13. DAO No. 97-32 (Dispustable Presumptions and Requirements will appear in MTs)

- DISPUTABLE PRESUMPTIONS - In administrative proceedings conducted pursuant

hereto, the following shall be considered presumptions of fact and/or law and taken as
part of the evidence unless specifically controverted and successfully overcome by a
preponderance of evidence.

1) All those apprehended on-site for direct or indirect participation in the commission of
the offense(s) cited had full knowledge of and willingly participated therein (ex: owner
of the vehicle who was not around w/o knowledge);
 2) The registered owner and/or operator/driver of a conveyance used in the commission
of the offense had full knowledge and willingly participated therein by providing
the conveyance for the illegal purpose to which said conveyance was applied. In case
the registered owner of the conveyance is a partnership or corporation, the partners
and/or officers thereof had full knowledge of and granted authorization or issued
instructions for the use or application of the conveyance in the commission of the
offense.
3) Any forest products included within Section 2(a) hereof were obtained from an illegal
source.

- REQUIREMENTS TO BE PRESENTED TO THE DENR BEFORE YOUR VEHICLE WILL

BE TEMPORARY RELEASED — pending the admin case before the DENR, you can file for
temporary release; DNER has no capacity to maintain the vehicle

When a conveyance is apprehended by virtue hereof, and any time thereafter pending
final disposition of the administrative case, and should available evidence establish to the
satisfaction of the Hearing Officer that the conveyance may be used for lawful purposes,
such as, but not limited to: personal mode of transportation; commercial passenger
transport; cargo hauling; or other similar legal use, temporary release thereof to the
owner or claimant or other interested Party may be applied for, and release thereof to the
Applicant pendente lite may be granted by the Hearing Officer upon compliance with the
following requirements:

1) DENR CONFIRMATION (certifying that the vehicle is subject in an administrative

case; get it from CENRO)—Written confirmation in the records of the case is entered by
the Hearing Officer declaring under oath:
a) that the official registration papers and supporting documents thereof are secured
and made an integral part of the records of the case, possession of which shall not
be released unless ordered in the final decision of said case or by other competent
authority; and
b) that the Applicant was not among those who were apprehended by virtue hereof
and is not a respondent in the case by virtue of which the conveyance is being
detained pendente lite;
c) the Applicant has not previously been held administratively or criminally liable for
violation of forestry laws, rules and regulations; and that
d) available evidence does not in any way indicate the complicity of the Applicant in
the offense cited in the confiscation proceedings; and

2) SWORN STATEMENT AND UNDERTAKING — Submission by the Applicant of a

Sworn Statement:
a) declaring the precise nature of his claim thereon;
b) declaring that he has not previously been held administratively or criminally liable
for violation of forestry laws:
c) describing the precise lawful uses(s) to which the conveyance shall/may be applied
during the pendency of the case;
d) stating the replacement cost of the conveyance at the time the application is filed;
and
e) an unconditional undertaking to return possession of the conveyance to the
DENR as may be required for the final disposition of the case.

3) POSTING OF BOND — Upon approval of an Application for Temporary Release of

Conveyance, and as a precondition to the actual pendente lite release thereof, the
Applicant shall post a cash or surety bond to guarantee the prompt return of the
conveyance to the DENR as may be required pursuant hereto. In no case shall a
personal or private bond or guarantee or recognizance be admitted or this purpose.
 The bond shall be equivalent to one-hundred-twenty-five percent (125%) of
the replacement cost of the conveyance at the time the bond is submitted. A cash bond
in favor of the DENR must be filed 53. by the Applicant with the nearest DENR
Regional, Provincial or Community Office; surety bonds in favor of the DENR must be\
from the GSIS or other government surety. Original documents evidencing the posting
of the bond shall be submitted to the Hearing Officer and form part of the records of
the case.

(Atty mentioned only 3 but in the DAO 5 an gin-enumerate.)

4) RECALL OF CONVEYANCE — In case of misrepresentation in the Application for

Temporary Release of Conveyance and/or any documents submitted in connection with
or support thereof, or in case of failure to comply with any representations or
undertakings made in connection therewith, the conveyance shall be ordered recalled
by the Hearing Officer and the same shall forthwith be returned by the Applicant to the
DENR. In case of failure to return the conveyance in compliance with a directive issued
in the administrative case, the bond shall be called and forfeited in favor of the
Government.

5) RETURN/CANCELLATION OF BOND — When the Decision in a case becomes final

and executory as outlined above and administrative confiscation of the conveyance is
not ordered by the Government, immediate return thereof to the owner and
cancellation/return of the bond filed in connection therewith shall be ordered. Unless
expressly mandated in the body of the Decision of the case, the Hearing Officer shall
forthwith issue an Order citing said Decision, a copy of which shall thereto be attached,
mandating the immediate release of the conveyance to the Owner thereof, together
with an order for the cancellation of the surety bond or return of the cash bond
submitted as hereinabove required.