Republic of the Philippines

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES

ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT BUREAU III

 
Ref. No.: DENR-PAB Case No. 03-00087-22A/W

SUBJECT: NOTICE OF VIOLATION

(RA 8749 and RA 9275)

POSITION PAPER
Respondent representing itself and unto this Honorable Office most
respectfully submits this position paper, and states that:

I. PREPARATORY STATEMENT

TAPCO is a micro and start-up Cooperative which

envisions to aid and partner with our local Kalamansi
farmers in maximizing their profits by having a
Calamansi Manufacturing in the locality. It is founded
on the concept of community sharing which hopes to
give employment and dignity to its neighbourhood thru
its activities.

II. TIMELINESS

1. On 11 April 2022, respondent TROPICAL AGRICUTURE COOPERATIVE (TAPCO)

received a copy of the NOTICE OF VIOLATION dated 21 March 2022 issued by
this Honorable Office requiring the respondent to file its Position Paper within
a period of 15 days from receipt thereof or until 26 April 2022;

2. This Position Paper is filed and sent electronically this 19 April 2022, hence it is
timely and still within the reglementary period given to the respondent.
 III. STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND THE CASE

Before this Honorable Office is a case of the alleged violation of Sec 1, Rule
XIX of DAO 2000-81 in relation to RA 8749 and Sec 27 (c) of RA 9275.

On 25 January 2022, a Compliance Inspection was conducted in our

Calamansi Juice Manufacturing in Purok Uno, Nieto Street, Barangay San Roque,
San Isidro Nueva Ecija, and we were informed by the representatives of your good
office that they will send findings for recommendation. It was to our utter
surprise that a Notice of Violation instead of findings for recommendation was
received from your office thru mail on 11 April 2022. The same letter contains an
opportunity for us to be heard through a technical conference on 05 April 2022,
at 10:00 am. This opportunity slipped through, however, since notice to such
conference was received only on the 11th of April 2022.

IV. THE ISSUE

Respondent respectfully submits the following issue/s for the resolution of

the Honorable Office:

 
WHETHER OR NOT TAPCO SHOULD BE GIVEN ANOTHER
OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD SINCE LATE RECEIPT OF
NOTICE OF VIOLATION DEPRIVED IT TO EXPLAIN ITSELF

WHETHER OR NOT TAPCO SHOULD BE HELD LIABLE FOR

THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF Sec 1, Rule XIX of DAO
2000-81 in relation to RA 8749 and of Sec 1 of RA 8749

V. DISCUSSION

“Ignorance of the law excuses no

one from compliance therewith”
-Art 3 of the Civil Code

This presumption in the Philippine Law is based on convenience, public

policy, and necessity. It is derived from the Latin maxim “ignorantia legis non
excusat”1
https://philippinelawtoday.wordpress.com/2016/07/10/what-is-the-principle-that-ignorance-of-the-law-excuses-no-one/
 There is no excuse whatsoever if there are violations spelt out in law, but
relaxation of the rules in the interest of justice, however, can be applied on a case
to case basis.

TAPCO is a start-up cooperative which admits no expertise in dealing with

the legalities of the venture it embarked on. It is driven by the desire of its
members to build a small calamansi manufacturing enterprise which will promote
the welfare of calamansi farmers and give jobs to some of the members of the
local community. Members of the cooperative who are primarily adherents of a
local church merely learned of the legalities required of its operation as they
progress on their venture.

TAPCO relied heavily on the representative of your good office when it

notified them that a findings for recommendation will be given after they
inspected the site. They are clueless of what to do next, though, they attempted
to comply with all the requirements mandated by our laws.

When a notice of Violation was issued, they were at a loss, and can just
surmise what those violations were about.

As contained in the notice of violation, the following were pointed out:

violation of Sec 1 of RA 8749 and violation of Sec 27 (c) of RA 9275.

With regard to the alleged violation of Sec 1 of RA 8749, (all sources of air
pollution subject to this Implementing Rules and Regulations must have a valid
Permit to Operate issued by the Environmental Management Bureau (EMB)
Regional Director) they can only infer that this emanated from their failure to
secure permit to operate the generator set. This permit was not obtained,
however, for they are not using the said generator since it is there only for
positioning for future use. The same cannot be used as of this juncture since
technical know-how and proper installation are not yet completed.

In consonance with the alleged violation of Sec 27 (c) of RA 9275 or

Operating facilities that discharge regulated water pollutants without the valid
required permits or after the permit was revoked for any violation of any condition
therein, this is already substantially complied with since discharge permit is
already about to be issued.

It is worthy to note that their opportunity to be heard slipped out since the
letter was received only on 11 April 2022 while the scheduled conference was on
5 April 2022.

VI. PRAYER

           
 WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed of the
Honorable Office that TAPCO be given an opportunity to be heard, and/or the
notice of violation be vacated.

Other just and equitable reliefs are likewise prayed for.

            MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.

19 April 2022, San Antonio Nueva Ecija.

 
 
___________________
        Respondent