Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Writ of Kalikasan Appeal Under Rule 45 (With TEPO)
Writ of Kalikasan Appeal Under Rule 45 (With TEPO)
Writ of Kalikasan Appeal Under Rule 45 (With TEPO)
SUPREME COURT
Manila
-2-
American Chamber of Commerce Journal (1928). More Franciscan Mission Churches in Luzon Parishes:
The Story of the Obando Images. Vol. 8, No. 1, 7; January 1928. Manila. (http://quod.lib.umich.edu/p/
philamer/AAJ0523.1928.001?rgn=main;view=fulltext last accessed on 02 February 2015)
-3-
An Act Providing for An Ecological Solid Waste Management Program, Creating the Necessary
Institutional Mechanisms and Incentives, Declaring Certain Acts Prohibited and Providing Penalties,
Appropriating Funds Therefor, and for Other Purposes (2001).
3
December 30 and 31, 2014 as well as January 1 and 2, 2015 were declared public holidays. January 3
and 4, 2015, on the other hand, fell on a weekend.
-4-
4.
Copies of this petition were served on the Respondents through
their respective counsels and the Court of Appeals by registered mail prior
to this filing. A duly accomplished affidavit of service is attached to this
Petition together with the verification and certification against forumshopping.
5.
In accordance with A.M. NO. 10-3-7-SC (Re: Proposed Ruled on
E-Filing) and A.M. No. 11-9-4-SC, electronic copies of this petition and
annexes together with a sworn declaration as to their completeness and
veracity have been submitted.
6.
In accordance with Sec. 4, Rule 7, Part III of the RPEC, no docket
fees were collected from Petitioners.
THE PARTIES
7.
Petitioners MARIA TERESA S. BONDOC, WILFREDO D.G. DE
OCAMPO, CONRADO C. LUMABAS, JR., MELISSA A. PADILLA, MACARIA D.
LUMABAS, LUCILA S. SAYAO, MERCY DOLORITO, ARNEL R. WICO, EDWIN T.
RAMOS, JOSEPH RYAN C. RAYMUNDO, RODOLFO JOSE C. LAPUS, VICTORIA
M. CORREA, ADELINA C. BALTAZAR, MILAGROS S. SUAN, VIRGILIO C.
DIMANLIG and ANTONIO P. ROXAS (hereinafter, Petitioners) are all of
legal age, Filipinos, and residents of Obando, Bulacan. They are collectively
referred to as the CONCERNED CITIZENS OF OBANDO (hereinafter, CCO),
an informal aggrupation of residents of Obando, Bulacan suing in
representation of others, including minors and generations yet unborn, to
uphold and protect the constitutional right to a balanced and healthful
ecology.
7.1 Petitioners may be served with court processes
through the undersigned counsel at Room 403 Cabrera II Bldg.,
64 Timog Avenue, Quezon City 1103.
8.
Public Respondent HON. RAMON J.P. PAJE, of legal age,
Filipino, is impleaded in his official capacity as the Secretary of the
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES (DENR), the
primary agency responsible for the enforcement and strict compliance with
the R.A. 9003 and the Philippine Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
System or Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1586. The implementation of the
-5-
The regulatory functions under the EIS system were transferred by virtue of Executive Order No. 192
(1987) to the EMB, an attached bureau of the DENR. It became a line agency by virtue of the Clean Air Act
(R.A. 8749).
-6-
Gabriel) whose term ended last June 2013 and who approved Resolution
No. 07-121 (2011) and Municipal Ordinance No. 07-08 (2011) and other
pertinent resolutions, contrary to law. The latter was also the duly
authorized signatory to the agreement for the establishment of the disputed
landfill. Relying on these issuances, Mayor Santos has now issued the
municipal permit for the Obando Sanitary Landfill, contrary to law.
13. Public Respondent SANGGUNIANG BAYAN OF OBANDO
(hereinafter SB-Obando) is the local legislative body of the Municipality of
Obando, Bulacan with powers and functions as provided under R.A. 7160. It
is impleaded for passing Kapasiyahan Blg. 07-102 (2011), Kapasiyahan Blg.
07-105 (2011), Municipal Ordinance 07-08 (2011) and Resolution No. 07-121
(2011), which approved the building and operation of a landfill and the
reclassification of the area where the assailed landfill will be established from
agricultural into industrial/commercial, contrary to law.
14. Public Respondent SANGGUNIANG BARANGAY OF SALAMBAO
(hereinafter SBgy-Salambao) is the local legislative body of Barangay
Salambao, Obando, Bulacan with powers and functions provided under the
Local Government Code. It is impleaded for issuing Kapasiyahan Blg. 03
(2010) which expressed the lack of any objection on the part of the barangay
to the ECC application for the sanitary landfill, contrary to law.
14.1 Public Respondents from the Municipality of
Obando and Barangay Salambao may be sent processes through
their counsel below, Gonzales Batiller Leabres & Reyes, at 7/F
Alpap 1 Building, 140 P. Leviste Street, Salcedo Village, Makati
City 1227.
15. Private Respondent ECOSHIELD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
(hereinafter, Ecoshield) is a corporation duly organized and existing under
Philippine laws. It is the proponent of the disputed landfill project located in
Obando, Bulacan. It may be served processes through its counsel below,
Pizarras & Associates Law Office at 20/F Security Bank Centre, 6776 Ayala
Avenue, Makati City 1226.
STATEMENT OF FACTS AND ANTECEDENT PROCEEDINGS
16. Sometime in 2010, a plan to construct a landfill on the waters of
Manila Bay was hatched by Respondent Ecoshield in Bgy. Salambao, Obando,
Bulacan. By December of the same year, it was able to obtain the necessary
-7-
-8-
-9-
- 10 -
ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS
I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
VI.
DISCUSSION
I.
- 11 -
25. Petitioners ask, where exactly was this discussion? A quick look
at the original Decision readily shows that after a perfunctory quotation of
this section and a brief paraphrasing thereof in the immediately succeeding
paragraph, the Court of Appeals simply arrived at the conclusion that
[b]ased on the evidence at hand, the petition does not involve an
environmental damage of such magnitude to warrant the issuance of a writ
of kalikasan.6 It then went on to explain why in their minds, the subject
landfill is one of the solutions for the clean-up and rehabilitation of Manila
Bay, weighing in on the technical merits of Respondent Ecoshields proposed
project.7 But this is not what the magnitude requirement of the writ of
kalikasan is about. Petitioners posit that they were more than able to
substantiate this jurisdictional requirement.
- 12 -
10
11
12
13
- 13 -
14
15
16
17
18
19
- 14 -
32. In this regard, the law once again provides the most effective
gauge of just how serious the environmental threat posed by landfills to
bodies of water, particularly with regard to leachate contaminationit
outright forbids it and does not wait for the threat to happen. R.A. 9003
prohibits the construction or operation of landfills or any waste disposal
facility on any aquifer, groundwater reservoir, or watershed area and or any
portions thereof23 and imposes the highest penalty similar to building waste
facilities without an ECC under R.A. 9003. 24
20
21
22
Pages 115-121, TSN dated 12 February 2013, Claudio. See also Q&A #30, Judicial Affidavit of Engr. Cecil
O. Corloncito dated 17 October 2017 (sic, 2013).
23
24
25
An Act Providing for a Comprehensive Water Quality Management and for Other Purposes (2004).
- 15 -
34. The same is true with regard to transport of wastes when done
on a body of water because of the high risk present:
26
27
28
An Act Providing for the Development, Management and Conservation of the Fisheries and Aquatic
Resources, Integrating All Laws Pertinent Thereto, and for Other Purposes (1998).
29
- 16 -
II.
39. In its Decision,33 the Court of Appeals upheld Respondent EMBRegion III and agreed that the proposed landfill is merely a project located in
30
31
32
- 17 -
40. In explaining this ruling, the Court of Appeals discussed the two
types of projects required to undergo EIA: ECAs and ECPs.34 These are laidout in various implementing rules of P.D. 1586, from Presidential
Proclamation No. 214635 up to the latest version found in DENR
Administrative Order (DAO) No. 30, series of 2003. 36 It also cited the
procedure spelled-out in Revised Procedural Manual for DAO 2003-3037 and
the testimony of Respondent Claudio of EMB-Region III, to wit:
35
Proclaiming Certain Areas and Types of Projects as Environmentally Critical and Within the Scope of the
Environmental Impact Statement System Established under Presidential Decree No. 1586 (1981).
36
Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) for the Philippine Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
System.
37
EMB-EIAMD (Aug 2007), Revised Procedural Manual for DENR Administrative Order No. 30 series of
2003 (DAO 03-30): Implementing Rules and Regulations of Presidential Decree No. 1586, Establishing the
Philippine Environmental Impact Statement System. DENR:Manila.
38
39
Guidelines on the Categorized Final Disposal Facilities (Sanitarv Landfill) (2006); citation provided.
- 18 -
Boracay Foundation, Inc. vs. Province of Aklan, et al., G.R. No. 196870, 26 June 2012.
41
The Manual derives its legal basis from Section 8.1 of DAO 2003-30, which prescribes a Manual of
Procedures for the processing of applications for Environmental Compliance Certificates (ECCs) and
Certificates of Non-Coverage (CNCs) within the timeframes specified in Malacanang Administrative Order
No. 42 (issued in November 2002). (Foreword, Revised Procedural Manual for DENR Administrative Order
No. 30, series of 2003 (DAO 03-30); underscoring supplied)
42
43
- 19 -
on the EIS system covering all types of projects, both ECPs and ECAs.
On the other hand, DAO 2006-10 is specific as to landfills and the
requirements in relation to P.D. 1586.
d) The authority to formulate the pertinent rules on landfills (and waste
management in general) is specifically lodged with the NSWMC,
chaired by the DENR Secretary,44 not the EMB National Director, nor
an even lower-ranked EMB regional director. In fact, nowhere in P.D.
1586, DAO 2003-30, or any law for that matter is the EMB National
Director granted the power to repeal any DAO issued by the DENR
Secretary.
43. It was also evident that the Court of Appeals got confused by
the title of Revised Procedural Manual for DAO 2003-30 and mistook it for a
DAO. This was apparent when it stated that DAO 2006-10 came about in
September, 2006 while DAO 2003-30 was published on August 21, 2007. 45
This is clearly incorrect. DAO 2003-30, as its numerical reference indicates,
was promulgated in 2003, more specifically, on 30 June 2003. This should
immediately put to rest the repeal-by-a-later-law reasoning. What did come
out in August 2007 was the Revised Procedural Manual for DAO 2003-30.
But as discussed, it cannot by any stretch of legal imagination, supersede a
superior legal instrument, no matter how recent the former is.
44
45
- 20 -
45. Petitioners are simply at a loss for words. From the very
moment when they learned of this proposed landfill, they were not remiss
in asserting their right to a balanced and healthful ecology by engaging the
various proceedings of different agencies and local governments to stop its
construction and protect the environment, notwithstanding the very limited
opportunities available to them. When nothing happened, they sought
recourse from the Judiciary by filing a writ of kalikasan petition before this
very court and prayed for a TEPO which the High Court delegated to the
Court of Appeals to resolve. It neither granted nor denied the same
throughout the duration of the hearing notwithstanding the repeated pleas
from Petitioners. So after two years of marathon hearings and a belated
ocular inspection, the Court of Appeals is telling Petitioners to just shrug off
Respondent EMB-Region IIIs glaring error, when it had the jurisdiction and
authority to strike down and rectify this legal anomaly?
(b) Such other reliefs which relate to the right of the people to a
balanced and healthful ecology or to the protection,
46
- 21 -
47. As records bear, Petitioners have hammered the point that the
proposed landfill should have undergone a more rigorous and EIA process.
When confronted with the pertinent provisions of law, Dir. Claudio insisted
on her views despite the lack of legal educational training.48 The Court of
Appeals, with its legal expertise, should have known better.
48. But what is even more telling, the Court of Appeals turned a
blind eye on the evidence that Respondent Claudio had actually been
arbitrary in deciding which landfills should undergo the more rigorous EIA
process and which ones should not.
CLAUDIO on cross:
ATTY. GUTIERREZ
Did you require any of this (sic) sanitary landfills to submit an
EIS, Environmental Impact Statement?
DIR. CLAUDIO
Yes, Sir. All this (sic) went thru the EIS system.
[Q]
Ill be very specific. Did you require any of this (sic) sanitary landfills
that are currently operational to submit an Environmental Impact
Statement, as opposed to an Initial Environmental Examination
Report?
[A]
Yes, sir.
[Q]
Which one?
47
48
Pages 53-58, 68-70, TSN dated 12 February 2013; pp. 16-25, TSN dated 14 March 2013.
- 22 -
[A]
The Metro Clark was the first one. It was submitted in, I recall, its in
2001 or 2002, was required a full blown Environmental Impact
Statement, the [Vicente G. Puyat] VGP sanitary landfill, as well.
x
[Q]
[A]
[Q]
And are any of this (sic) 3 landfills that you mentioned in Norzaray (sic),
San Jose, (sic) Del Monte and in Tarlac, the Metro Clark facility, are
they located in environmentally critical areas?
[A]
Yes, Sir.
[Q]
All of them?
[A]
All of them.
[Q]
[A]
And, Mr. Witness, x x x Since when have you been a member of the
Review Committee?
I cant remember exactly when the first time I reviewed projects for
Region 3 but I would say around 2007 and I only do review for landfills
for that specific region because Im from Pampanga.
49
- 23 -
Now, Mr. Witness, you earlier mentioned that youve been a member
of the Review Committee for landfill projects in Region 3 since, as far
as you can recall, since 2007. Now, in your experience, how many
more or less landfill projects have you reviewed?
And as far as projects that have been submitted both approved and
disapproved, can you recall?
50
Pages 80-81, 97-98, TSN dated 23 April 2012, Dr. David; underscoring supplied.
- 24 -
52. Landfills are not included in the current list of ECPs or ECAs
under Proc. 214652 or 803.53 Neither does Sec. 38, R.A. 9003 specify what
process document is to be followed. However, this deficiency has been
addressed by virtue of NSWMC Resolution No. 6, s. of 200554 and DAO 200610, wherein sanitary landfill projects with a daily capacity of 1,000 metric
tons and above are required to submit an Environmental Impact Study
(EIS).55 The proposed landfill falls under this category as stated on its ECC.56
53. But R.A. 9003 is not the only law that applies in determining
what EIA process this assailed landfill should follow. In addition, because it
affects a body of water used for fishingManila BayR.A. 8550 or the
Fisheries Code is equally pertinent.
51
Underscoring supplied.
52
Proclaiming Certain Areas and Types of Projects as Environmentally Critical and Within the Scope of the
Environmental Impact Statement System Established under Presidential Decree No. 1586 (1981).
53
Declaring the Construction, Development and Operation of a Golf Course as an Environmentally Critical
Project Pursuant to PD 1586 (1996).
54
55
56
57
Sec. 3. Application of its Provisions.The provisions of this Code shall be enforced in:
58
a.
all Philippine waters including other waters over which the Philippines has sovereignty and
jurisdiction, and the country's 200 nautical mile Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and continental
shelf;
b.
all aquatic and fishery resources whether inland, coastal or offshore fishing areas, including but
not limited to fishponds, fish pens/cages; and
c.
all lands devoted to aquaculture, or businesses and activities relating to fishery, whether private
or public lands.
- 25 -
54. Under Secs. 12 and 13 of R.A. 8550, not only is an ECC required,
it specifies that the document to be submitted must be an EIS, not an IEE,
and the approving authority is the DENR Secretary, not the EMB Director or
a Regional Director:
III.
59
- 26 -
58. It bears pointing out as well that P.D. 1586 and its implementing
rules are not the only legal bases to conduct mandatory public consultations
or hearings. Nor is the EMB the only forum. Much lies in the role of
Respondent LGUs. First, under R.A. 8550 or the Fisheries Code, Respondent
60
61
Defined as the stage in the EIS System where information and project impact assessment requirements
are established to provide the proponent and the stakeholders the scope of work and terms of reference
for the EIS. (Sec. 3(dd), DAO 2003-30)
- 27 -
62
63
- 28 -
64
Underscoring supplied.
65
Prescribing the Guidelines Governing Section 20 of RA 7160 Otherwise Known as the Local Government
Code of 1991 Authorizing Cities and Municipalities to Reclassify Agricultural Lands into Non-Agricultural
Uses (1993).
66
- 29 -
61. Strangely, the Court of Appeals deemed the public was duly
consulted, enumerating the various events and gatherings that Petitioners
participated in as proof of compliance, to wit:
62. Petitioners posit that the Court of Appeals was being overly
liberal in its attribution of the above instances as compliance with the public
consultation requirements of law. This is discussed below.
67
- 30 -
62.1.4 Lastly, it is significant to note that SBObando was officially notified of Ecoshields intentions
68
69
70
71
See Katitikan ng Ginawang Pampublikong Pagdinig Noong Ika-6 ng Disyembre 2010 sa Salambao
Primary School, Brgy. Salambao, Obando, Bulacan Patungkol sa Inihain na Proyekto ng Ecoshield
Development Corporation na Magtatayo ng Sanitary Landfill sa Dulong Bahagi ng Barangay Salambao,
Obando Bulacan (Exh. 31, Ecoshield) and Talaan ng Nagsidalo (Exh. 32, Ecoshield).
72
Exh. B, Petitioners.
- 31 -
73
74
Q&A #3, Judicial-Affidavit dated 17 May 2012 of Ma. Teresa S. Bondoc. (Exh. LL, Petitioners)
75
Exh. H, Petitioners.
76
77
Exh. J, Petitioners.
- 32 -
62.8 July 7, 2011 and July 29, 2011 Letters to SPBulacanDoes not count. Not a public hearing but letters to
formalize their objections to the landfill. Petitioners were
unaware at this time that SP-Bulacan had already passed a
resolution approving the reclassification.
63. All told, the Court of Appeals grievously erred in holding that the
conduct of public consultations was not required for the proposed landfill
based on a wrong appreciation of its classification under P.D. 1586 and its
implementing rules. However, P.D. 1586 is not the only applicable law. The
provisions of R.A. 7160, R.A. 8550 and R.A. 9003 require that public
consultations be held. To remedy this conundrum, the Court of Appeals
counted practically each and every instance that Petitioners engaged the
78
Exh. Y, Petitioners.
79
80
Exh. N, Petitioners.
81
See last sentence, fifth Q&A, p.3, Bondoc Judicial-Affidavit (Exh. LL).
- 33 -
IV.
65. From the outset, Petitioners maintain that the area where the
proposed landfill will be built, is not on land but on the waters of Manila Bay.
It is not a land-fill, in the real sense of the word. However, because of the
history of the area and LGU interests in treating the same as such, by legal
fiction, it is considered as land despite the fact that because of the action of
the sea, it has, by operation of law, ceased to be private property. Fact is,
only sea vessels serve as the only mode of transportation therein and that at
any given time, locals can be seen fishing in this vast water expanse.
82
83
Role and Rights of Peoples Organizations, Article XIII on Social Justice and Human Rights.
- 34 -
Based on Sec. 107(b) of R.A. 7160, the MDC should be composed of the mayor as head and the
following members: (1) all punong barangays in the municipality; (2) the chairman of the committee on
appropriations of the sanggunian; (3) the congressman or his representative; and (4) representatives of
NGOs operating in the municipality, who shall constitute not less than one-fourth () of the members of
the fully organized council.
Since Obando has 11 barangays, adding the named members, there should be at least five (5) NGO
representatives for a total of at least 19 MDC members.
On the other hand, based on Sec. 111(a)(2) of R.A. 7160, the Executive Committee of MDC-Obando should
be composed of the mayor as chair, the chairman of the committee on appropriations of the SP-Bulacan,
the president of the municipal league of barangays, and a representative from the NGOs represented in
the council, or a total membership of just four (4) persons.
- 35 -
SECTION
2.
Requirements
and
Procedures
for
Reclassification.(a) The city or municipal development council
(CDC/MDC) shall recommend to the sangguniang panlungsod or
sangguniang bayan, as the case may be, the reclassification of
agricultural lands within its jurisdiction based on the requirements of
local development.86
Date
Event/Document
85
86
Underscoring supplied.
87
Exh. F, Petitioners.
88
89
90
Based on Minutes of the MDC Executive Committee meeting. (Exh. 64, Obando)
- 36 -
Pages 12-17, TSN dated 05 October 2012, Orencio Gabriel. See Letter-Notice dated 14 February 2011
(Exh. 61, Obando) and Kapasiyahan Blg. 01, Taong 2011 of the MDC Executive Committee (Exh. 64,
Obando).
- 37 -
V.
74. Thus, as early as the petition filed with this Honorable Court,
Petitioners have cited the numerous violations of this landfill vis--vis the
siting requirements under Sec. 40 of R.A. 9003 and its implementing rules.
During the hearings, they also presented expert witnesses, namely, Dr.
David, Dr. Mark Chernaik from the Environmental Law Alliance Worldwide
(ELAW)97 and Dr. Renato Solidum, head of the Philippine Institute of
93
94
95
96
See for instance Sec. 14(d), 15(n)(1) and (p), 39(b), 40(e), 41 infra, 42(b), (e) and (i) and 48(16).
97
- 38 -
No access by land.
76. Under Sec. 40(b) of R.A. 9003, the site must be accessible from
major roadways and thoroughfare. The Court of Appeals took another
major leap of faith in favor of Respondent Ecoshield by citing its IEE report
that proposed an access road development. However, this was never
substantiated during trial. Besides, the Court of Appeals should have known
that based on the video and pictures taken during the ocular inspection,
there is no way that a road will be built towards this site as it is surrounded
by water. And even if so, it will require its own ECC.
77. The fact that the Decision cites access by barge or other sea
vessel by navigating Manila Bay and Binuangan River98 is a stretch of the
legal requirement on access. The clear intent of Sec. 40(b) is that access
should be by land to avoid the risk of water contamination by leachate. This
interpretation is bolstered further when one takes into account the
proscriptions under the Clean Water Act and the Fisheries Code on water
pollution and transport by water.99
98
99
- 39 -
101
102
- 40 -
82. But rather than uphold the law, the Court of Appeals weighed
in on the technical aspects of the project, finding merit in the engineering
plans and designs of Respondent Ecoshield. More will be said on this matter.
However, two points need immediate stressing. First, it is not a question of
whether or not the risks can be obviated by engineering solutions, it is a
question of whether or not it is allowed by law in the first place. The clear
answer is no. The law forbids it because the environmental and health stakes
are simply too high.
83. The other point, Petitioners are amazed at how easy it was for
the Court of Appeals to believe and hang onto the words of Respondent
Claudio when she declared that the project site is not within any declared
aquifer, groundwater reservoir or watershed103 as opposed to Dr. David, Dr.
Solidum and Dr. Chernaik who stated that the proposed landfill is in a
floodplain. To think, the latter were testifying as expert witnesses while the
former was not. In fact, nothing in Respondent Claudios credentials would
indicate why her declaration should be given more weight particularly over
Dr. David who has a doctorate in Environmental Science and Geology from
the Stanford University, a Hydrologist for the US Geological Survey (USGS),104
a professor at UP, and who the country currently depends on for hydrometeorological information, particularly, flooding.
Director Claudio
admitted that she does not even have a hydrologist in her staff.105
103
104
105
- 41 -
86. But if this was the criteria to be followed, how much weight
should be given to the Court of Appealss own disquisition on the technical
merits of the landfill and its engineering design when they themselves never
went to the site nor saw its construction? More importantly, up until this
case was filed, the Court of Appeals failed to appreciate that nobody else
with the proper background and training was able to review the technical
aspects of this project other than their paid personnel and consultants of
Respondent Ecoshield to give it an independent and competent technical
assessment.
87. Fact is, if Dr. Solidum is required to physically see each and every
earthquake in the country before his opinion is given credence, then the
country will be in a very sorry state. Not only do earthquakes originate
underground which nobody can see, the undeniable fact is, the threats
mentioned by Dr. Solidum in his judicial-affidavit108 were well within his
expertise and whose official data is used by every civil engineering worth his
salt. He did not testify because he is from Obando or because he is in any
way involved in the project. The height of the irony is that the engineering
interventions which the Court of Appeals has heaped praises on was based
on recommendations of the Engineering Geological and Geohazard
Assessment Report (EGGAR),109 a report that is based on data culled from
PHIVOLCS, which Dr. Solidum heads and which data was generated without
having to see the project site or its construction.
106
107
108
109
- 42 -
89.
91. But most of all, up to the very end, the Court of Appeals missed
the point. The EIS system has a built in mechanism for safeguarding the
environment especially from projects that have a significant impact and pose
an inherent riski.e., by allowing independent third parties to review the
110
- 43 -
same. As was explained in detail earlier, this process was subverted and
rendered for naught when EMB-Region III Director Claudio gave Respondent
Ecoshield a virtual free pass by requiring only an IEE and granting an ECC in
just nine (9) days, instead of undergoing the full-blown EIA process as
required in various laws.
VI.
93. The Court of Appeals believes that the proposed landfill will
significantly facilitate the clean-up of Manila Bay, in direct response to the
Supreme Courts continuing mandamus.111 Petitioners respectfully beg to
differ. While this Honorable Court ordered a clean-up and the establishment
of sanitary landfills, it did not order to put-up one on its very waters. Fact is,
the proposed landfill will not be used simply to collect and store the random
garbage found in the shores of Manila Bay or even the waters of Obando or
the Meycauayan-Marilao-Obando River System (MMORS). There is no
reason to put up a 44-hectare landfill and spend more than half a billion
pesos as of last count, just for this purpose.112 As admitted by Respondent
Claudio, Bulacans existing landfill capacity readily exceeds the wastes that
111
112
- 44 -
the Province can currently generate. The same is true for the entire Region
III.113
94. Where then will the waste for the proposed Obando landfill
come from? Based on its design, the answer is Metro Manila. Thus, if the
landfill is allowed to proceed, it will actually aggregate and introduce directly
into the bay all the garbage that heretofore would just randomly find its way
into its waters from the various tributaries. The landfill will thus result in
Manila Bay hosting more garbage than it ever had floating in its waters at
any point in history. On top of this, Petitioners worry where will all the water
that will be displaced when all of its 44 hectares is emptied, go? Obando and
the adjacent flood-prone towns of Valenzuela and Malabon already know
the answer. Suffice to state, if this was such a brilliant idea as the Court of
Appeals seems to think, Petitioners ask whether this Honorable Court and
the Manila Bay committee formed in response to the decision were ever
informed and consulted on the project?
113
Bulacan has a capacity of at least 7,000 tons per day versus waste generated of about 1,500 tons per
day. This does not yet include the other landfills in Region 3. (See pp. 87-100, TSN dated 14 March 2013,
Dir. Claudio)
- 45 -
98. In stark contrast, Respondents will not suffer from any damage
whatsoever in enjoining said project as there is neither any showing of
urgency nor necessity in putting-up a landfill in Bulacan.
CLOSING STATEMENT
99. More than three years since Petitioners went to this Honorable
Court to seek relief, they are back again imploring this High Tribunals
wisdom to see through the substantial compliances, the technical
embellishments and the bold assurances of Respondents to clean up the bay
and its immediate environs. Petitioners believe that nothing can be further
from the truth. This is one case where the cure is clearly worse than the
disease. Like the women and men who dance in Obando, Petitioners only
have faith and they beg with hopeful hearts that this Honorable Court be
guided by the truth. Many of the Petitioners are senior citizens who at one
point in their lives have been blessed to see the natural beauty of the bay,
and also be cursed to see its slow and seemingly irreversible decay. This
Honorable Courts MMDA decision gave hope but this landfill is taking it
away. Let this not be the case.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, Petitioners respectfully pray that
this Honorable Court:
- 46 -
1.
ISSUE a Temporary Environmental Protection Order (TEPO)
ordering Respondents to refrain from taking any action pursuant to the
project and commencing landfill operations;
2.
After judgment, MAKE the environmental protection order
permanent and DIRECT Respondent Ecoshield Development Corporation to
permanently cease and desist from constructing/operating a sanitary landfill
in Bgy. Salambao, Obando, Bulacan;
3.
DECLARE ECC No. R03-1012-0592 as null and void and the
proposed landfill in violation of R.A. 9003 siting requirements;
4.
DECLARE all ordinances and resolutions pertaining to the
reclassification of agricultural lands subject of this case into industrial/
commercial lands as null and void;
5.
DIRECT Respondents to restore the damaged mangroves in the
area of the sanitary landfill, and protect the same from further degradation;
6.
DIRECT Respondent Ecoshield Development Corporation to
remove the existing landfill structures, equipment and appurtenances, and
restore and rehabilitate the affected waters to its former condition; and
7.
DIRECT the DENR and the EMB to make periodic reports on the
execution of the final judgment.
Petitioners pray for such other reliefs which relate to the right of the
people to a balanced and healthful ecology or to the protection,
preservation, rehabilitation or restoration of the environment.
Petitioners also pray for such other reliefs as may be just and
equitable.
Respectfully submitted.
Quezon City for the City of Manila, 04 February 2015.
By:
RONALDO R. GUTIERREZ
Counsel for Petitioners
Upholding Life And Nature (ULAN)
Room 402 Cabrera Bldg. II
- 47 -
Explanation
Due to time, distance and logistical constraints, service of this petition
was done by registered mail.
RONALDO R. GUTIERREZ
Copy furnished:
COURT OF APPEALS
(Former 10th Division)
Maria Orosa St.
Manila
OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL
Counsel for Public Respondents DENR & EMB-Region III
134 Amorsolo St., Legaspi Village
Makati City 1229
ATTY. JEFFREY C. CRUZ
Counsel for Public Respondent Province of Bulacan
Provincial Legal Office
2nd Floor Capitol Building, Brgy. Mojon
Malolos City, Bulacan 3000
GONZALES BATILLER LEABRES & REYES
Counsel for Public Respondents Municipality
of Obando & Bgy. Salambao
7/F ALPAP 1 Bldg., 140 P. Leviste St.
Salcedo Village, Makati City 1227
PIZARRAS & ASSOCIATES LAW OFFICE
Counsel for Private Respondent Ecoshield
Development Corporation
20th Floor Security Bank Centre
6776 Ayala Avenue
Makati City 1226