FAR EASTERN UNIVERSITY

Institute of Law
The Law on Natural Resources
(Environmental Law)
Midterms Pointers
7 Principles of Environmental Law
1. Sovereign Rights over Natural Resources and
Responsibility not to cause environmental damage.
2. Principle of Preventive Action
3. Principle of Co-operation
4. Principle of Sustainable Development
5. Precautionary Principle
6. Polluter-Pays Principle
7. Principle of Common but Differentiated Responsibility
Constitutional Mandate
1. Preamble
2. National Territory-Article I
3. Declaration of Principles and State Policies Article II
a. Section 15 Right to Health
b. Section 22 - Rights of Indigenous Cultural
Communities
c. Section 25 Autonomy of Local Governments
d. Sec 16, Article II 1987 Constitution
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.
NOTE: As a general rule, provisions under
Article II are non-self-executing. But a
provision that is complete in itself, and
provides sufficient rules for the exercise of
rights, is self-executing. Thus, certain
provision in Article II are self-executing, one
of which is provided in Section 16, Article II
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. (Oposa v. Factoran,
GR No. 101083, July 30, 1993)
4. Bill of Rights Article III
a. Sec 1 No person shall be deprived of life,
liberty, or property without due process of
law, nor shall any person be denied equal
protection of the laws.
b. Sec 2 Right to Privacy
c. Sec 7 Right to Access Information
5. National Economy and Patrimony Article XII
a. Section 1 Efficient Use of Resources
b. Section 2 State Ownership of Natural
Resources
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. With the exception of
the agricultural land, all other natural
resources shall not be alienated. The
exploration, development, and the utilization of
natural resources shall be under the full control
and supervision of the State. 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 percent 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 that twenty-five years,
and under such terms and conditions as may be
provided by law. In case 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.

The State shall protect the nations marine

wealth in its archipelagic waters, territorial sea,
and exclusive economic zone, and reserve its
use and enjoyment exclusively to Filipino
citizens.
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.

a. Section 4 Ecological Considerations and

Agrarian Reform
b. Section 7 Preferential Use of Marine Resources
for Subsistence Fishermen
c. Section 11 and 12 Health Care and Regulation
d. Section 14 Rights of the Women
e. Section 15 and 16 Role and Rights of the
Peoples Organization
Administrative and Legal Remedies
Administrative Due Process

The President may enter into agreements with

foreign owned corporations involving either
technical of 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, base 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 30 days from its execution.
NOTE: Regalian Doctrine is the doctrine
which reserves to the State the full
ownership of all natural resources or
natural wealth that may be found in the
bowel of the earth. (Albano, Political Law
Reviewer)
c. Section 3 Land of Public Domain and
Classification
d. Section 4 Limits of Forest Lands and National
Parks
e. Section 5- Indigenous Cultural Communities
f. Section 6 Social Function and Property
6. Social Justice and Human Rights Article XIII

In an administrative proceeding, the essence of due process

is simply the opportunity to explain ones side. Such process
requires notice and opportunity to be heard before
judgment is rendered. One may be heard, not solely by
verbal presentation in an oral argument, but also and
perhaps even many times more creditably and practicably
through pleadings. (Garcia v. Pajaro, GR 141149, July 05,
2002)
1. (Mathay v. Consolidated Bank,G.R. No. L-23136,
August 26, 1974)
The Supreme Court held that the following elements
would qualify the filing of a class suit:
1. Numerosity the class must be so numerous that
the joinder of all parties is impracticable;
2. Commonality the questions of fact or law are
common to the class;
3. Typicality the class representatives who file the
suit must be typical of those of the class members;
and
4. Adequacy the class representatives must be able
to represent the class adequately
2. Mead v. Argel (G.R. No. L-41958, July 20, 1982)
3. Pollution Adjudication Board v. Court of Appeals
(195 SCRA 112 / March 11, 1991)
The Supreme Court upheld that Pollution
Adjudication Boards authority to issue a cease and
desist order even without hearing. Citing Sec. 7 (a) of

P.D. No. 984 an ex parte cease and desist order may

be issued by the Board (a) whenever the wastes
discharged by an establishment pose an immediate
threat to life, public health, safety or welfare, or to
animal or plant life, or (b) whenever such discharges
or wastes exceed the allowable standards set by
NPCC.
4. Technology Developers, Inc. v. Court of Appeals
(193 SCRA 147 / G.R. No. 94759 / January 21,
1991) Gancayco, J.
The Supreme Court recognized by virtue of his
police power the mayor of a town has a much
responsibility to protect its inhabitants from pollution.
Thus, the mayor may deny the application for a permit
to operate a business or otherwise close the same
unless appropriate measures are taken to control
and/or avoid injury to the health of the residents of the
community from the emissions in the operation of the
business.
5. Ismael, Jr. and Co. v. Deputy Executive Secretary
(G.R. No. 9538 / October 18, 1990) Cortes, J.
The Supreme Court reiterated that timber
licenses, permits and license agreements are the
principal instruments by which the State regulates the
utilization and resources to the end that public welfare
is promoted. It further held that it can hardly be
gainsaid that such licenses or permits merely evidence
a privilege granted by the State to qualified entities,
and do not vest in the latter a permanent or
irrevocable right to the particular concession area and
the forest products therein. Viewed in this perspective,
they may be validly amended, modified, replaced or
rescinded by the Chief Executive when national
interests so require. Thus, they are not deemed
contracts within the purview of the due process of law
clause

6. HENARES v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 158290,

October 23, 2006)
Petitioners Side: Petitioners challenge this Court
to issue a writ of mandamus commanding respondents
Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board
(LTFRB) and the Department of Transportation and
Communications (DOTC) to require public utility
vehicles (PUVs) to use compressed natural gas (CNG)
as alternative fuel.
Ruling: The Court held: Regrettably, however,
the plain, speedy and adequate remedy herein sought
by petitioners, i.e. a writ of mandamus commanding
the respondents to require to PUVs to use CNG, is
unavailing. Mandamus is available only to compel the
doing of an act specifically enjoined by the law as a
duty. Here, there is no law that mandates the
respondents LTFRB and the DOTC to order owners of
motor vehicles to use CNG.
7. REPUBLIC v. CITY OF DAVAO (388 SCRA 691,
September 12, 2002)
In this case, the Supreme Court said that even a
government entity must strictly comply with ECC
requirements. Citing Section 4 of PD 1586 or
Environmental Impact Statement System, it held that
no person, partnership or corporation shall undertake
or operate any such declared environmentally critical
project or area without first securing an Environmental
Compliance Certificate issued by the President or his
duly authorized representative.
8. Mustang Lumber v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No.
104988 / June 18, 1996) Davide, Jr., J.
The Supreme Court upheld the finding of the
lower court that the petitioners truck was coming out
from its lumberyard loaded with lauan and almaciga
lumber of different sizes and dimensions which were
not accompanied with the required invoices and

transport documents. Thus it affirmed the seizure of

such truck and its cargo as a valid exercise of the
power vested upon a forest officer or employee.
9. PAAT v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 111107 /
January 10, 1997) Torres, Jr., J.
The Court ruled that Petitioner DENR has the
right to confiscate the truck with concealed forest
products. It said that the contention of the private
respondent is without merit because under Sec. 68-A
of E.O. 277, administrative authority of the DENR or
his duly authorized representative includes the power
to order confiscation. Therefore in all cases of
violation of the pertinent code or other forest laws,
rules and regulations, the department head may order
the confiscation of any forest products illegally cut,
gathered, removed or possessed or abandoned, and all
conveyance used either by land, water or air in the
commission of the offense and to dispose the same in
accordance with pertinent laws. The Court said that it
is clear that the secretary and his duly authorized
representatives are given authority to confiscate and
forfeit any conveyances utilized in conveying the
illegally cut timber.

10.
Spouses PALOMO v. Court of Appeals (G.R.
No. 95608 / January 21, 1997) Romero, J.
The Court was presented with the issue as to
whether or not petitioners are the owners of 15 parcels
of land in Tiwi, Albay which form part of the Tiwi Hot
Spring National Park. They claim that their
predecessors in interest have been in open, adverse
and continuous possession of the subject lands for 2050 years prior to their registration in 1916-1917 and
that the reservation of the lands for provincial
purposes in 1913 by then Governor-General Forbes
was tantamount to deprivation of private property
without due process of law. In rejecting their claim, the

Court that It is elementary in the law governing natural

resources that forest land cannot be owned by private
persons. It cannot be registered and possession
thereof, no matter how lengthy, cannot convert it into
private property, UNLESS such lands are reclassified
and considered disposable and alienable.
11.
Secretary of DENR v. YAP (G.R. No.
167707, October 8, 2008) Reyes, R.T. J.
These are two consolidated petitions involving
Boracay Island. G.R. No. 167707 originated from a
petition for declaratory relief filed by respondentsclaimants Mayor Jose S. Yap, Jr., Libertad Talapian, Mila
Y. Sumndad, and Aniceto Yap with the RTC in Kalibo,
Aklan. Repondents-claimants allege that Proclamation
No. 1801 dated November 10, 1978 issued by then
President Marcos declaring Boracay Island among
other islands, caves, and peninsulas in the Philippines
as tourist zones and marine reserves can pave the way
to judicial confirmation of titles. G.R. No. 173775 was
filed during the pendency of G.R. No. 167707 because
President Arroyo issued Proclamation No. 1064
classifying Boracay Island into 400 hectares of
reserved forest land (protection purposes) and 628.96
hectares of agricultural land (alienable and
disposable).The same party-litigants were involved in
the case.
In ruling against the claimants, the Supreme
Court held that Proclamation No. 1801 cannot be
deemed the positive act needed to classify Boracay
Island as alienable and disposable land. If President
Marcos intended to classify the island as alienable and
disposable or forest, or both, he would have identified
the specific limits of each, as President Arroyo did in
Proclamation No. 1064. As such, the Court cannot
allow judicial confirmation of titles and only the
President has the power to classify land of public
domain as alienable and available for disposition.

12.
Greater Metropolitan Manila v. JANCOM
Environmental Corporation (G.R. No. 161970,
June 30, 2006)
In 1994, Presidential Memorandum Order No.
202 was issued by then President Fidel V. Ramos
creating an Executive Committee to oversee and
develop waste-toenergy projects for the waste disposal
sites in San Mateo, Rizal and Carmona, Cavite under
the Built Operate-Transfer (BOT) scheme. Respondent
Jancom International was one of the bidders for the
San Mateo Waste Disposal Site subsequently enter into
a partnership with Asea Brown Bover i under the firm
name JANCOM Environmental Corporation (JANCOM),
its co-respondent.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court held that any and all such
bids or contracts entered into by respondent MMDA
with third parties covering the waste disposal and
management within the Metro Manila after August 14,
2000 are null and void consistent with the Supreme
Courts Decision of January 30, 2002. The MMDA
cannot bind the 17 local government units without
their consent since it has only coordinating powers
under the Constitution.
13.
JOYA v. PCGG (G.R. No. 96541, August 24,
1993) Bellosillo, J.
In this case, the Chairman of PCGG wrote to
President Aquino requesting authority to sign the
proposed consignment agreement concerning the
auction sale of master painting and silverwares alleged
to be part of the ill-gotten wealth of Former President
Marcos. President Aquino signed the said agreement.
In upholding the Presidents action, the Supreme
Court said that under the law, it is the Director of
Museum who is authorized to undertake the inventory,
registration, designation or classification, with the aid
of experts, of important cultural properties and

national cultural treasures. It further held that findings

of said agency are not only given respect but
sometimes finality if such findings are supported by
evidence. The Court held that it finds no compelling
reason to grant the petition since they have failed to
show that PCGG exercised their functions with grave
abuse of discretion or in excess of jurisdiction.
14.
ARMY & NAVY CLUB v. Court of Appeals
(G.R. No. 110223, April 8, 1997)
On November 29, 1989 the City of Manila filed
an action against the Army and Navy Club before the
MTC for ejectment. Petitioner invokes and capitalizes
on the fact that the Army & Navy Club has been
declared a national historical landmark by the National
Historical Commission on June 29, 1992. In ruling in
favor of the City of Manila, the Court said that the law
merely states that it shall be the policy of the state to
preserve and protect the important cultural properties
and national cultural treasures and to safeguard their
intrinsic value. It held that In line with this state policy,
any restoration, reconstruction or preservation of the
historical buildings shall only be made under the
supervision of the Director of the National Museum. It
further said that the authority of the National Historical
Commission is limited only to the supervision of any
reconstruction, restoration of architectural design and
nothing more.
15.
MANOSCA v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No.
106440, January 29, 1996) Vitug, J.
This case involves a piece of land inherited by
the petitioners. The property is located at P. Burgos
Street, Calzada, Taguig, Metro Manila, with an area of
about four hundred ninety two (492) square meters.
When the parcel of land was ascertained by the NHI to
have been the birth site of Felix Y. Manalo, the founder
of Iglesia ni Cristo, it passed Resolution No.1, Series of
1986, pursuant to Section 4 of Presidential Decree No.

260, declaring the land to be the national historical

landmark. The resolution was on January 6, 1986,
approved by the Minister of Education, Culture and
Sports.
In upholding the right of the government to
expropriate the parcel of land, it said that the practical
reality that greater benefit may be derived by
members of the Iglesia ni Cristo than by most others
could well be true but such a peculiar advantage still
remains to be merely incidental and secondary in
nature. It held that while only a few would actually
benefit from the expropriation of property, it does not
necessarily diminish the essence and character of
public use.

Rules of procedure in Environmental Cases Effective

April 29, 2010 (AM No. 09-6-8-SC)
A. Scope
B. Definition of terms
SEC. 4. Definition of Terms.
(a) By-product or derivatives means any part taken
or substance extracted from wildlife, in raw or in
processed form including stuffed animals and
herbarium specimens.
(b) Consent decree refers to a judicially approved
settlement between concerned parties based on public
interest and public policy to protect and preserve the
environment.
(c) Continuing mandamus is a writ issued by a court
in an environmental case directing any agency or
instrumentality of the government or officer thereof to
perform an act or series of acts decreed by final
judgment which shall remain effective until judgment
is fully satisfied.

(d) Environmental protection order (EPO) refers

to an order issued by the court directing or enjoining
any person or government agency to perform or desist
from performing an act in order to protect, preserve or
rehabilitate the environment.
(e) Mineral refers to all naturally occurring inorganic
substance in solid, gas, liquid, or any intermediate
state excluding energy materials such as coal,
petroleum, natural gas, radioactive materials and
geothermal energy.
(f) Precautionary principle states that when human
activities may lead to threats of serious and
irreversible damage to the environment that is
scientifically plausible but uncertain, actions shall be
taken to avoid or diminish that threat.
(g) Strategic lawsuit against public participation
(SLAPP) refers to an action whether civil, criminal or
administrative, brought against any person, institution
or any government agency or local government unit or
its officials and employees, with the intent to harass,
vex, exert undue pressure or stifle any legal recourse
that such person, institution or government agency
has taken or may take in the enforcement of
environmental laws, protection of the environment or
assertion of environmental rights.
(h) Wildlife means wild forms and varieties of flora
and fauna, in all developmental stages including those
which are in captivity or are being bred or propagated.
C. Civil Procedure
1. Allowed Pleadings and Motions
The pleadings and motions that may be filed are
complaint, answer which may include compulsory
counterclaim and cross-claim, motion for intervention,
motion for discovery and motion for reconsideration of
the judgment. Motion for postponement, motion for
new trial and petition for relief from judgment shall be

allowed in highly meritorious cases or to prevent a

manifest miscarriage of justice.
2. Prohibited Pleadings and Motions
SEC. 2. Prohibited pleadings or motions. The
following pleadings or motions shall not be allowed:
(a) Motion to dismiss the complaint;
(b) Motion for a bill of particulars;
(c) Motion for extension of time to file pleadings,
except to file answer, the extension not to exceed
fifteen (15) days;
(d) Motion to declare the defendant in default;
(e) Reply and rejoinder; and
(f) Third party complaint.

3.

Issuance of Temporary Environmental

Restraining Oder (TEPO)
If it appears from the verified complaint with a
prayer for the issuance of an Environmental Protection
Order (EPO) that the matter is of extreme urgency and
the applicant will suffer grave injustice and irreparable
injury, the executive judge of the multiple sala court
before raffle or the presiding judge of a single-sala

court as the case may be, may issue ex parte a TEPO

effective for only seventy-two (72) hours from date of
the receipt of the TEPO by the party or person
enjoined.

enjoined while the applicant may be fully compensated

for such damages as he may suffer and subject to the
posting of a sufficient bond by the party or person
enjoined.

Within said period, the court where the case is

assigned, shall conduct a summary hearing to
determine whether the TEPO may be extended until
the termination of the case. The court where the case
is assigned, shall periodically monitor the existence of
acts that are the subject matter of the TEPO even if
issued by the executive judge, and may l i f t the same
at any time as circumstances may warrant. The
applicant shall be exempted from the posting of a
bond for the issuance of a TEPO.

5. Pre-Trial
Notice of pre-trial.
Within two (2) days from the filing of the answer to
the counterclaim or cross-claim, if any, the branch
clerk of court shall issue a notice of the pre-trial to
be held not later than one (1) month from the filing
of the last pleading. The court shall schedule the
pre-trial and set as many pre-trial conferences as
may be necessary within a period of two (2) months
counted from the date of the first pre-trial
conference.
6. Trial
The judge shall conduct continuous trial which shall
not exceed two (2) months from the date of the
issuance of the pre-trial order. Before the expiration
of the two month period, the judge may ask the
Supreme Court for the extension of the trial period
for justifiable cause.
7. Judgment and Execution

4. Dissolution of TEPO
The grounds for motion to dissolve a TEPO shall
be supported by affidavits of the party or person
enjoined which the applicant may oppose, also by
affidavits. The TEPO may be dissolved if it appears
after hearing that its issuance or continuance would
cause irreparable damage to the party or person

In the judgment, the court may convert the TEPO to

a permanent EPO or issue a writ of continuing
mandamus directing the performance of acts which
shall be effective until the judgment is fully
satisfied
D. Special Civil Action
1. Writ of Kalikasan
SECTION 1. Nature of the writ.
Parties:

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Natural or juridical person,

Entity authorized by law
Peoples organization
non-governmental organization,
any public interest group accredited by or
registered with any government agency on behalf
of persons.
Grounds:
1. Violation of constitutional right to a balanced and
healthful ecology
2. Threatened with violation by an unlawful act or
omission of a public official or employee, or private
individual or entity, involving environmental
damage of such magnitude as to prejudice the life,
health or property of inhabitants in two or more
cities or provinces.
Where to file:
SC or CA
NOTE:
The petitioner shall be exempt from the payment of
docket fees.
2. Writ of Continuing Mandamus
Nature of Judgment
If warranted, the court shall grant the privilege of
the writ of continuing mandamus requiring
respondent to perform an act or series of acts until
the judgment is fully satisfied and to grant such
other reliefs as may be warranted resulting from
the wrongful or illegal acts of the respondent. The
court shall require the respondent to submit
periodic reports detailing the progress and
execution of the judgment, and the court may, by
itself or through a commissioner or the appropriate
government agency, evaluate and monitor
compliance. The petitioner may submit its
comments or observations on the execution of the
judgment.

(TEPO)
3. Trial
The court shall endeavor to conduct continuous
trial which shall not exceed three (3) months from
the date of the issuance of the pre-trial order.

E. Criminal Procedure
1. Parties
Any offended party, peace officer or any public
officer charged with the enforcement of an
environmental law may file a complaint before the
proper officer in accordance with the Rules of Court.
2. Provisional Remedies
a. Attachments under Rule 127 of Rules of
Court
The provisional remedy of attachment under
Rule 127 of the Rules of Court may be
availed of inenvironmental cases.
b. Environmental Protection Oder (EPO)
The procedure for and issuance of EPO and
TEPO shall be governed by Rule 2 of these
Rules.
c. Temporary Environmental Protection Order

4. Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation

(SLAPP) as ground for Motion to Dismiss

Upon the filing of an information in court and before
arraignment, the accused may file a motion to
dismiss on the ground that the criminal action is a
SLAPP.

and environmental effect, the court shall apply the

precautionary principle in resolving the case before
it. The constitutional right of the people to a
balanced and healthful ecology shall be given the
benefit of the doubt.
2. Documentary Evidence
Photographic, video and similar evidence.
Photographs, videos and similar evidence of
events, acts, transactions of wildlife, wildlife byproducts or derivatives, forest products or
mineral resources subject of a case shall be
admissible when authenticated by the person
who took the same, by some other person
present when said evidence was taken, or by
any other person competent to testify on the
accuracy thereof.

F. Evidence
1. Applicability of Precautionary Principles
When there is a lack of full scientific certainty in
establishing a causal link between human activity