Oposa vs. Factoran, G.R.

101083
Fact:
a cause of action to "prevent the misappropriation or impairment" of Philippine
rainforests and "arrest the unabated hemorrhage of the country's vital life support
systems and continued rape of Mother Earth."
The complaint2 was instituted as a taxpayers' class suit 3 and alleges that the plaintiffs
"are all citizens of the Republic of the Philippines, taxpayers, and entitled to the full
benefit, use and enjoyment of the natural resource treasure that is the country's virgin
tropical forests." The same was filed for themselves and others who are equally
concerned about the preservation of said resource but are "so numerous that it is
impracticable to bring them all before the Court." The minors further asseverate that
they "represent their generation as well as generations yet unborn." 4Consequently, it is
prayed for that judgment be rendered:
1] Cancel all existing timber license agreements in the country;
2] Cease and desist from receiving, accepting, processing, renewing or approving new
timber license agreements.
Plaintiffs further assert that the adverse and detrimental consequences of continued and
deforestation are so capable of unquestionable demonstration that the same may be
submitted as a matter of judicial notice.
Issue: Whether or not petitioners have a cause of action?
HELD: YES
petitioners have a cause of action. The case at bar is of common interest to all Filipinos.
The right to a balanced and healthy ecology carries with it the correlative duty to refrain
from impairing the environment. The said right implies the judicious management of the
countrys forests. This right is also the mandate of the government through DENR. A
denial or violation of that right by the other who has the correlative duty or obligation to
respect or protect the same gives rise to a cause of action. All licenses may thus be
revoked or rescinded by executive action.
The right to a balanced and healthful ecology carries with it the correlative duty to
refrain from impairing the environment

LA BUGAL-B'LAAN vs DENR

Jan. 21, 2004

Facts: R.A. No. 7942 defines the modes of mineral agreements for mining operations,
outlines the procedure for their filing and approval, assignment/transfer and withdrawal,
and fixes their terms. Similar provisions govern financial or technical assistance
agreements.
Petitioners filed the present petition for prohibition and mandamus, with a prayer for a
temporary restraining order alleging that at the time of the filing of the petition, 100
FTAA applications had already been filed, covering an area of 8.4 million hectares, 64 of
which applications are by fully foreign-owned corporations covering a total of 5.8 million
hectares, and at least one by a fully foreign-owned mining company over offshore areas.
Issue: Are foreign-owned corporations in the large-scale exploration, development, and
utilization of petroleum, minerals and mineral oils limited to technical or financial
assistance only?
Ruling: Only technical assistance or financial assistance agreements may be entered
into, and only for large-scale activities. These are contract forms which recognize and
assert our sovereignty and ownership over natural resources since the foreign entity is
just a pure contractor and not a beneficial owner of our economic resources. The
proposal recognizes the need for capital and technology to develop our natural resources
without sacrificing our sovereignty and control over such resources by the safeguard of a
special law which requires two-thirds vote of all the members of the Legislature.
It is true that the word technical encompasses a broad number of possible services.
However, the law follows the maxim casus omisus pro omisso habendus est which
means a person, object or thing omitted from an enumeration must be held to have been
omitted intentionally.
LA BUGAL-B'LAAN vs DENR
Dec. 1, 2004
Facts: On January 27, 2004, the Court en banc promulgated its Decision granting the
Petition and declaring the unconstitutionality of certain provisions of RA 7942, DAO 9640, as well as of the entire FTAA executed between the government and WMCP, mainly
on the finding that FTAAs are service contracts prohibited by the 1987 Constitution.
The Decision struck down the subject FTAA for being similar to service contracts, which,
though permitted under the 1973 Constitution, were subsequently denounced for being
antithetical to the principle of sovereignty over our natural resources, because they
allowed foreign control over the exploitation of our natural resources, to the prejudice of
the Filipino nation.
Issue: Are foreign-owned corporations in the large-scale exploration, development, and
utilization of petroleum, minerals and mineral oils limited to technical or financial
assistance only?
Ruling: Only technical assistance or financial assistance agreements may be entered
into, and only for large-scale activities. Full control is not anathematic to day-to-day
management by the contractor, provided that the State retains the power to direct
overall strategy; and to set aside, reverse or modify plans and actions of the contractor.

The idea of full control is similar to that which is exercised by the board of directors of a
private corporation: the performance of managerial, operational, financial, marketing
and other functions may be delegated to subordinate officers or given to contractual
entities, but the board retains full residual control of the business.
Tano v Socrates
GR No. 110249
August 21, 1997
FACTS:
The Sangguniang Panlungsod ng Puerto Princesa City enacted Ordinance N o. 15-92
which took effect on January 1, 1993 entitled: "AN ORDINANCE BANNING THE
SHIPMENT OF ALL LIVE FISH AND LOBSTER OUTSIDE PUERTO PRINCESA CITY
FROM JANUARY 1, 1993 TO JANUARY 1, 1998 AND PROVIDING EXEMPTIONS,
PENALTIES AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES THEREOF.
ISSUE:
Is the ordinance valid and constitutional?
APPLICABLE LAWS:
Section 2 of Article X I I reads: The State shall protect the nation' s marine wealth
in its archipelagic waters, territorial sea, and exclusive economic z one, 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 w ell as
cooperative fish farming, with priority to subsistence fishermen and fishworkers in
rivers, lakes, bays, and lagoons.
Sections 2 and 7 of Article XIII provide: Sec. 2. The promotion of social justice shall
include the commitment to create economic opportunities based on freedom of
initiative and self-reliance. x x x x x x x x x Sec. 7. The State shall protect the rights of
subsistence fishermen, especially of local communities, to the preferential use of the
communal marine and fishing resources, both inland and offshore. It shall provide
support to such fishermen through appropriate technology and research, adequate
financial, production, and marketing assistance, and other services. The State shall
also protect, develop, and conserve such resources. The protection shall ex tend to
offshore fishing grounds of subsistence fishermen against foreign intrusion.
Fishworkers shall receive a just share from their labor in the utilization of marine
and fishing resources.
General Welfare Clause, expressly mentions this right:
SEC. 16. General Welfare.-- Every local government unit shall exercise the powers
expressly granted, those necessarily implied therefrom, as well as powers necessary,
appropriate, or incidental for its efficient and effective governance, and those which are
essential to the promotion of the general welfare. Within their respective territorial
jurisdictions, local government units shall ensure and support, among other things, the
preservation and enrichment of culture, promote health and safety, enhance the right of
the people to a balanced ecology, encourage and support the development of

appropriate and self-reliant scientific and technological capabilities, improve public

morals, enhance economic prosperity and social justice, promote full employment among
their residents, maintain peace and order, and preserve the comfort and convenience of
their inhabitants. (underscoring supplied).
RULING:
YES. In light then of the principles of decentralization and devolution enshrined in the
LGC and the powers granted to local government units under Section 16 (the General
Welfare Clause), and under Sections 149, 447 (a) (1) (vi), 458 (a) (1) (vi) and 468 (a) (1)
(vi), which unquestionably involve the exercise of police power, the validity of the
questioned Ordinances cannot be doubted.
Both Ordinances have two principal objectives or purposes:
(1) to establish a closed season for the species of fish or aquatic animals covered
therein for a period of five years, and
(2) to protect the corals of the marine waters of the City of Puerto Princesa and the
Province of Palawan from further destruction due to illegal fishing activities. It is
incorrect to say that the challenged Ordinance of the City of Puerto Princesa is invalid or
unenforceable because it was not approved by the Secretary of the DENR. If at all, the
approval that should be sought would be that of the Secretary of the Department of
Agriculture (not DENR) of municipal ordinances affecting fishing and fisheries in
municipal waters. In closing, we commend the Sangguniang Panlungsod of the City of
Puerto Princesa and Sangguniang Panlalawigan of the Province of Palawan for exercising
the requisite political will to enact urgently needed legislation to protect and enhance the
marine environment, thereby sharing In the herculean task of arresting the tide of
ecological destruction. We hope that other local government units shall now be roused
from their lethargy and adopt a more vigilant stand in the battle against the decimation
of our legacy to future generations. At this time, the repercussions of any further delay in
their response may prove disastrous, if not, irreversible.
Laguna Lake Development Authority vs. Court of Appeals
Posted on November 18, 2012
G.R.No. 120865-71
December 7, 1995
Facts:
The Laguna Lake Development Authority (LLDA) was created through RA No. 4850 in
order to execute the policy towards environmental protection and sustainable
development so as to accelerate the development and balanced growth of the Laguna
Lake area and the surrounding provinces and towns.
PD No. 813 amended certain sections of RA 4850 since water quality studies have shown
that the lake will deteriorate further if steps are not taken to check the same.
EO 927 further defined and enlarged the functions and powers of the LLDA and
enumerated the towns, cities and provinces encompassed by the term Laguna de Bay
Region.
Upon implementation of RA 7160 (Local Government Code of 1991), the municipalities
assumed exclusive jurisdiction & authority to issue fishing privileges within their
municipal waters since Sec.149 thereof provides: Municipal corporations shall have the
authority to grant fishery privileges in the municipal waters and impose rental fees or
charges therefore

Big fishpen operators took advantage of the occasion to establish fishpens & fish cages
to the consternation of the LLDA.
The implementation of separate independent policies in fish cages & fish pen operation
and the indiscriminate grant of fishpen permits by the lakeshore municipalities have
saturated the lake with fishpens, thereby aggravating the current environmental
problems and ecological stress of Laguna Lake.
The LLDA then served notice to the general public that (1) fishpens, cages & other aquaculture structures unregistered with the LLDA as of March 31, 1993 are declared illegal;
(2) those declared illegal shall be subject to demolition by the Presidential Task Force for
Illegal Fishpen and Illegal Fishing; and (3) owners of those declared illegal shall be
criminally charged with violation of Sec.39-A of RA 4850 as amended by PD 813.
A month later, the LLDA sent notices advising the owners of the illegally constructed
fishpens, fishcages and other aqua-culture structures advising them to dismantle their
respective structures otherwise demolition shall be effected.
Issues:
1.Which agency of the government the LLDA or the towns and municipalities
comprising the region should exercise jurisdiction over the Laguna lake and its environs
insofar as the issuance of permits for fishery privileges is concerned?
2. Whether the LLDA is a quasi-judicial agency?
Held:
1. Sec.4(k) of the charter of the LLDA, RA 4850, the provisions of PD 813,and Sec.2 of EO
No.927, specifically provide that the LLDA shall have exclusive jurisdiction to issue
permits for the use of all surface water for any projects or activities in or affecting the
said region. On the other hand, RA 7160 has granted to the municipalities the exclusive
authority to grant fishery privileges on municipal waters. The provisions of RA 7160 do
not necessarily repeal the laws creating the LLDA and granting the latter water rights
authority over Laguna de Bay and the lake region.
Where there is a conflict between a general law and a special statute, latter should
prevail since it evinces the legislative intent more clearly than the general statute. The
special law is to be taken as an exception to the general law in the absence of special
circumstances forcing a contrary conclusion. Implied repeals are not favored and, as
much as possible, effect must be given to all enactments of the legislature. A special law
cannot be repealed, amended or altered by a subsequent general law by mere
implication.
The power of LGUs to issue fishing privileges was granted for revenue purposes. On the
other hand, the power of the LLDA to grant permits for fishpens, fish cages, and other
aqua-culture structures is for the purpose of effectively regulating & monitoring activities
in the Laguna de Bay region and for lake control and management. It partakes of the
nature of police power which is the most pervasive, least limitable and most demanding
of all state powers including the power of taxation. Accordingly, the charter of the LLDA
which embodies a valid exercise of police power should prevail over the LGC of 1991 on
matters affecting Laguna de Bay.
2. The LLDA has express powers as a regulatory and quasi-judicial body in respect to
pollution cases with authority to issue a cease and desist order and on matters
affecting the construction of illegal fishpens, fish cages and other aqua-culture structures
in Laguna de Bay.

Sec.149 of RA 7160 has not repealed the provisions of the charter of the LLDA, RA 4850,
as amended. Thus, the LLDA has the exclusive jurisdiction to issue permits for enjoyment
of fishery privileges in Laguna de Bay to the exclusion of municipalities situated therein
and the authority to exercise such powers as are by its charter vested on it.
MMDA v. Concerned Residents of Manila Bay
Chester Cabalza recommends his visitors to please read the original & full text of the
case cited. Xie xie!
G.R. Nos. 171947-48 December 18, 2008
METROPOLITAN MANILA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT
AND NATURAL RESOURCES, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, CULTURE AND SPORTS,
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
WORKS AND HIGHWAYS, DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT, PHILIPPINE
COAST GUARD, PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE MARITIME GROUP, and DEPARTMENT OF
THE INTERIOR AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT, petitioners,
vs.
CONCERNED RESIDENTS OF MANILA BAY, represented and joined by DIVINA V. ILAS,
SABINIANO ALBARRACIN, MANUEL SANTOS, JR., DINAH DELA PEA, PAUL DENNIS
QUINTERO, MA. VICTORIA LLENOS, DONNA CALOZA, FATIMA QUITAIN, VENICE SEGARRA,
FRITZIE TANGKIA, SARAH JOELLE LINTAG, HANNIBAL AUGUSTUS BOBIS, FELIMON
SANTIAGUEL, and JAIME AGUSTIN R. OPOSA, respondents.
EN BANC
The need to address environmental pollution, as a cause of climate change, has of late
gained the attention of the international community. Media have finally trained their
sights on the ill effects of pollution, the destruction of forests and other critical habitats,
oil spills, and the unabated improper disposal of garbage. And rightly so, for the
magnitude of environmental destruction is now on a scale few ever foresaw and the
wound no longer simply heals by itself. But amidst hard evidence and clear signs of a
climate crisis that need bold action, the voice of cynicism, naysayers, and procrastinators
can still be heard.
This case turns on government agencies and their officers who, by the nature of their
respective offices or by direct statutory command, are tasked to protect and preserve, at
the first instance, our internal waters, rivers, shores, and seas polluted by human
activities. To most of these agencies and their official complement, the pollution menace
does not seem to carry the high national priority it deserves, if their track records are to
be the norm. Their cavalier attitude towards solving, if not mitigating, the environmental
pollution problem, is a sad commentary on bureaucratic efficiency and commitment.
At the core of the case is the Manila Bay, a place with a proud historic past, once
brimming with marine life and, for so many decades in the past, a spot for different
contact recreation activities, but now a dirty and slowly dying expanse mainly because of
the abject official indifference of people and institutions that could have otherwise made
a difference.
Facts:

On January 29, 1999, respondents Concerned Residents of Manila Bay filed a complaint
before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Imus, Cavite against several government
agencies, for the cleanup, rehabilitation, and protection of the Manila Bay.
The complaint alleged that the water quality of the Manila Bay had fallen way below the
allowable standards set by law, specifically Presidential Decree No. (PD) 1152 or the
Philippine Environment Code.
In their individual causes of action, respondents alleged that the continued neglect of
petitioners in abating the pollution of the Manila Bay constitutes a violation of, among
others:
(1) Respondents constitutional right to life, health, and a balanced ecology;
(2) The Environment Code (PD 1152);
(3) The Pollution Control Law (PD 984);
(4) The Water Code (PD 1067);
(5) The Sanitation Code (PD 856);
(6) The Illegal Disposal of Wastes Decree (PD 825);
(7) The Marine Pollution Law (PD 979);
(8) Executive Order No. 192;
(9) The Toxic and Hazardous Wastes Law (Republic Act No. 6969);
(10) Civil Code provisions on nuisance and human relations;
(11) The Trust Doctrine and the Principle of Guardianship; and
(12) International Law
Inter alia, respondents, as plaintiffs a quo, prayed that petitioners be ordered to clean
the Manila Bay and submit to the RTC a concerted concrete plan of action for the
purpose.
Issues:
a) Whether or not pertinent provisions of the Environment Code (PD 1152) relate only to
the cleaning of specific pollution incidents and do not cover cleaning in general.
b) Whether or not the cleaning of the Manila Bay is not a ministerial act which can be
compelled by mandamus.
Held:

Regional Trial Courts Order to Clean Up and Rehabilitate Manila Bay

On September 13, 2002, the RTC rendered a Decision in favor of respondents. Finding
merit in the complaint, the Court ordered defendant-government agencies, jointly and
solidarily, to clean up and rehabilitate Manila Bay and restore its waters to SB
classification to make it fit for swimming, skin-diving and other forms of contact
recreation.
To attain this, defendant-agencies, with defendant DENR as the lead agency, are
directed, within six (6) months from receipt hereof, to act and perform their respective
duties by devising a consolidated, coordinated and concerted scheme of action for the
rehabilitation and restoration of the bay.
In particular:
Defendant MWSS is directed to install, operate and maintain adequate [sewerage]
treatment facilities in strategic places under its jurisdiction and increase their capacities.
Defendant LWUA, to see to it that the water districts under its wings, provide, construct
and operate sewage facilities for the proper disposal of waste.
Defendant DENR, which is the lead agency in cleaning up Manila Bay, to install, operate
and maintain waste facilities to rid the bay of toxic and hazardous substances.
Defendant PPA, to prevent and also to treat the discharge not only of ship-generated
wastes but also of other solid and liquid wastes from docking vessels that contribute to
the pollution of the bay.
Defendant MMDA, to establish, operate and maintain an adequate and appropriate
sanitary landfill and/or adequate solid waste and liquid disposal as well as other
alternative garbage disposal system such as re-use or recycling of wastes.
Defendant DA, through the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources, to revitalize the
marine life in Manila Bay and restock its waters with indigenous fish and other aquatic
animals.
Defendant DBM, to provide and set aside an adequate budget solely for the purpose of
cleaning up and rehabilitation of Manila Bay.
Defendant DPWH, to remove and demolish structures and other nuisances that obstruct
the free flow of waters to the bay. These nuisances discharge solid and liquid wastes
which eventually end up in Manila Bay. As the construction and engineering arm of the
government, DPWH is ordered to actively participate in removing debris, such as carcass
of sunken vessels, and other non-biodegradable garbage in the bay.
Defendant DOH, to closely supervise and monitor the operations of septic and sludge
companies and require them to have proper facilities for the treatment and disposal of
fecal sludge and sewage coming from septic tanks.
Defendant DECS, to inculcate in the minds and hearts of the people through education
the importance of preserving and protecting the environment.

Defendant Philippine Coast Guard and the PNP Maritime Group, to protect at all costs the
Manila Bay from all forms of illegal fishing.
The Court of Appeals Sustained the RTCs Decision
The MWSS, Local Water Utilities Administration (LWUA), and PPA filed before the Court of
Appeals (CA) individual Notices of Appeal. On the other hand, the DENR, Department of
Public Works and Highways (DPWH), Metropolitan Manila Development Authority
(MMDA), Philippine Coast Guard (PCG), Philippine National Police (PNP) Maritime Group,
and five other executive departments and agencies filed directly with this Court a
petition for review under Rule 45.
In the light of the ongoing environmental degradation, the Court wishes to emphasize
the extreme necessity for all concerned executive departments and agencies to
immediately act and discharge their respective official duties and obligations. Indeed,
time is of the essence; hence, there is a need to set timetables for the performance and
completion of the tasks, some of them as defined for them by law and the nature of their
respective offices and mandates.
The importance of the Manila Bay as a sea resource, playground, and as a historical
landmark cannot be over-emphasized. It is not yet too late in the day to restore the
Manila Bay to its former splendor and bring back the plants and sea life that once thrived
in its blue waters. But the tasks ahead, daunting as they may be, could only be
accomplished if those mandated, with the help and cooperation of all civic-minded
individuals, would put their minds to these tasks and take responsibility. This means that
the State, through petitioners, has to take the lead in the preservation and protection of
the Manila Bay.
So it was that in Oposa v. Factoran, Jr. the Court stated that the right to a balanced and
healthful ecology need not even be written in the Constitution for it is assumed, like
other civil and political rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, to exist from the inception
of mankind and it is an issue of transcendental importance with intergenerational
implications. Even assuming the absence of a categorical legal provision specifically
prodding petitioners to clean up the bay, they and the men and women representing
them cannot escape their obligation to future generations of Filipinos to keep the waters
of the Manila Bay clean and clear as humanly as possible. Anything less would be a
betrayal of the trust reposed in them.
By a Decision of September 28, 2005, the CA denied petitioners appeal and affirmed the
Decision of the RTC in toto, stressing that the trial courts decision did not require
petitioners to do tasks outside of their usual basic functions under existing laws.
Prov. Of Rizal VS Executive Secretary
Facts:
This is a petition filed by the Province of Rizal, the municipality of San Mateo, and
various concerned citizens for review on certiorari of the Decision of the Court of
Appeals, denying, for lack of cause of action, the petition for certiorari, prohibition and
mandamus with application for a temporary restraining order/writ of preliminary
injunction assailing the legality and constitutionality of Proclamation No. 635.

At the height of the garbage crisis plaguing Metro Manila and its environs, parts of the
Marikina Watershed Reservation were set aside by the Office of the President [President
Ramos], through Proclamation No. 635, for use as a sanitary landfill and similar waste
disposal applications.
The petioners opposed the implementation of said order since the creation of dump
site under the territorial jurisdiction would compromise the health of their constutents.
Moreso, the the dump site is to be constructed in Watershed reservation.
Through their concerted efforts of the officials and residents of Province of Rizal and
Municipality of San Mateo, the dump site was closed. However, during the term of
President Estrada in 2003, the dumpsite was re-opened.
A temporary restraining order was then filed. Although petitioners did not raised the
question that the project was not consulted and approved by their appropriate
Sanggunian, the court take it into consideration since a mere MOA does not guarantee
the dump sites permanent closure.
Issue:
Whether or not the consultation and approval of the Province of Rizal and municipality
of San Mateo is needed before the implementation of the project..
Ruling:
The court reiterated again that "the earth belongs in usufruct to the living."
Yes, as lucidly explained by the court: contrary to the averment of the respondents,
Proclamation No. 635, which was passed on 28 August 1995, is subject to the provisions
of the Local Government Code, which was approved four years earlier, on 10 October
1991.
Section 2(c) of the said law declares that it is the policy of the state- "to require all
national agencies and offices to conduct periodic consultation with appropriate local
government units, non-governmental and people's organization, and other concerned
sectors of the community before any project or program is implemented in their
respective jurisdiction." Likewise Section 27 requires prior consultations before a
program shall be implemented by government authorities ans the prior approval of the
Sanggunian is obtained." Corollarily as held in Lina , Jr. v. Pao, Section 2 (c), requiring
consultations with the appropriate local government units, should apply to national
government projects affecting the environmental or ecological balance of the particular
community implementing the project.
Relative to the case, during the oral arguments at the hearing for the temporary
restraining order, Director Uranza of the MMDA Solid Waste Management Task Force
declared before the Court of Appeals that they had conducted the required consultations.
However, the ambivalence of his reply was brought to the fore when at the height of the
protest rally and barricade made by the residents of petitioners to stop dump trucks from
reaching the site, all the municipal mayors of the province of Rizal openly declared their
full support for the rally and notified the MMDA that they would oppose any further
attempt to dump garbage in their province.

Moreover, Section 447, which enumerates the powers, duties and functions of the
municipality, grants the sangguniang bayan the power to, among other things, enact
ordinances, approve resolutions and appropriate funds for the general welfare of the
municipality and its inhabitants pursuant to Section 16 of th(e) Code. These include:
(1) Approving ordinances and passing resolutions to protect the environment and impose
appropriate penalties for acts which endanger the environment, such as dynamite fishing
and other forms of destructive fishing, illegal logging and smuggling of logs, smuggling
of natural resources products and of endangered species of flora and fauna, slash and
burn farming, and such other activities which result in pollution, acceleration of
eutrophication of rivers and lakes, or of ecological imbalance; [Section 447 (1)(vi)]
(2) Prescribing reasonable limits and restraints on the use of property within the
jurisdiction of the municipality, adopting a comprehensive land use plan for the
municipality, reclassifying land within the jurisdiction of the city, subject to the pertinent
provisions of this Code, enacting integrated zoning ordinances in consonance with the
approved comprehensive land use plan, subject to existing laws, rules and regulations;
establishing fire limits or zones, particularly in populous centers; and regulating the
construction, repair or modification of buildings within said fire limits or zones in
accordance with the provisions of this Code;[Section 447 (2)(vi-ix)]
(3) Approving ordinances which shall ensure the efficient and effective delivery of the
basic services and facilities as provided for under Section 17 of this Code, and in addition
to said services and facilities, providing for the establishment, maintenance,
protection, and conservation of communal forests and watersheds, tree parks,
greenbelts, mangroves, and other similar forest development projects .and, subject to
existing laws, establishing and providing for the maintenance, repair and operation of an
efficient waterworks system to supply water for the inhabitants and purifying the source
of the water supply; regulating the construction, maintenance, repair and use of
hydrants, pumps, cisterns and reservoirs; protecting the purity and quantity of the water
supply of the municipality and, for this purpose, extending the coverage of appropriate
ordinances over all territory within the drainage area of said water supply and within one
hundred (100) meters of the reservoir, conduit, canal, aqueduct, pumping station, or
watershed used in connection with the water service; and regulating the consumption,
use or wastage of water.[Section 447 (5)(i) & (vii)]
Briefly stated, under the Local Government Code, two requisites must be met before a
national project that affects the environmental and ecological balance of local
communities can be implemented:
(1) prior consultation with the affected local communities, and
(2)prior approval of the project by the appropriate sanggunian.
Absent either of these mandatory requirements, the projects implementation is
illegal.