1 West Tower v The FIRST WRIT OF KALIKASAN WITH A TEMPORARY ENVIRONMENTAL

Condominium PROTECTION ORDER (TEPO) was issued in this case.

Corp. vs. First
Philippine v The Court ordered FPIC to:
Industrial Corp. a. Cease and desist from operating the (leaking) pipeline until further orders from the
Court.
b. Check the structural integrity of the whole span of the pipelines to prevent and avert
any untoward incidents that may result from any leak of the pileline; and
c. Make a report thereon within 60 days from the receipt thereof.

v The TEPO was based upon the petition filed by the residents of West Tower Condominium and
Barangay Bangkal in Makati City who claimed to have suffered health and environmental
hazards from the leaking FPIC pipeline that runs from Batangas to Pandacan.

v Petitioners alleged that:

Continuous use of the pipeline would not only be a hazard or a threat to the lives, health
and property of the people that live in the area;
It would also affect the rights of generations yet unborn to live in a balanced and healthy
ecology.
Continuous operation of the pipeline would would be a violation of the Clean Water Act of
2004, the Clean Water Act, and PD 1152 or the Philippine Evironmental Code.

v The petitioners ask the court to prohibit FPIC from opening the pipeline and allowing the use
thereof until the same has been throughly checked and replaced.
v The Court subsequently converted the writ of kalikasan into a writ of continuing mandamus.

2 Boracay v Boracay Foundation, Inc. filed a petition for an issuance of a writ of mandamus suspending
Foundation, Inc. the implementation of a land reclamation project along the foreshores of Barangay Caticlan in
vs. Province of the Province of Aklan based on the ground that the classification of the project was incorrect
Aklan, et. al leading to the failure to perform a full EIA as required by law and that there was a failure for
proper, timely and sufficient public consultation.

v The Court determined that the valid questions raised by the petitioners put in question the
sufficiency of the evaluation of the project by the Department of Environment and Natural
Resources Environmental Management Bureau Regional Office VI (DENR-EMB RVI).

v The Court further found that there was a lack of prior consultations and prior approval
required by law. The Court therefore issued a writ of continuing mandamus suspending the
implementation of the project and requiring, inter alia, the DENR-EMB RVI to make a proper
study and the Province of Aklan to submit the appropriate report and to secure approvals
from local government units and hold proper consultations with NGOs, other stakeholders
and sectors concerned.
3 MMDA vs. v The cleaning and rehabilitation of Manila Bay and preserving its water quality to the ideal
Concerned level can be compelled by mandamus.
Residents of v The Supreme Court:
Manila Bay o Ordered the MMDA and other concerned agencies, in their different capacities to
clean up, rehabilitate and preserve Manila Bay.

FACTS:

The complaint by the residents 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 and that ALL defendants (public officials) must be jointly and/or
solidarily liable and collectively ordered to clean up Manila Bay and to restore its water quality to class
B, waters fit for swimming, diving, and other forms of contact recreation.

ISSUES:

(1) WON Sections 17 and 20 of PD 1152 under the headings,

Upgrading of Water Quality and Clean-up Operations, envisage a cleanup in
general or are they limited only to the cleanup of specific pollution incidents;

(2) WON petitioners be compel led by mandamus to clean up and rehabilitate the Manila Bay.

APPLICABLE LAWS:

PD 1152 Philippine Environmental Code

Section 17. Upgrading of Water Quality. Where the quality of water has deteriorated to a
degree where it s state will adversely affect its best u sage, the government agencies
concerned shallctake such measures as may be necessary to upgrade the quality of such
water to meet the prescribed water quality standards.

Section 20. Clean-up Operations.It shall be the responsibility of the polluter to contain ,
remove and clean - up water pollution incidents at his own expense. In
case of his failure to do so, the government agencies concerned shall undertake containment,
removal and clean-up operations and expenses incurred in said operation shall be charged
against the persons and/ or entities responsible for such pollution.

HELD:

(1) Sec. 17 does not in any way state that the government agencies
concerned ought to confine themselves to the containment, removal, and cleaning
operations when a specific pollution incident occurs. On the contrary,
Sec. 17 requires them to act even in the absence of a specific pollution incident, as long
as water quality has deteriorated to a degree where its state will adversely affect its best
usage. Section 17 & 20 are of general application and are not for specific pollution incidents only.
 The fact that the pollution of the Manila Bay is of such magnitude and scope that it is well -
nigh impossible to draw the line between a specific and a general pollution incident.

(2) The Cleaning or Rehabilitation of Manila Bay Can be Compelled by Mandamus. While the
implementation of the MMDA's mandated tasks may entail a decision-making process, the
enforcement of the law or the very act of doing what the law
exacts to be done is ministerial in nature and may
be compelled by mandamus. Under what other judicial discipline describes as continuing
mandamus , the Court may, under extraordinary circumstances, issue directives with the end in
view of ensuring that its decision would not be set to naught by administrative inaction or
indifference.

4 Magallona, et.
Al vs. Ermita, et.
al

5 International
Services for
Acquisitin of
Agri-Biotech
Applications,
Inc. vs.
Greenpeace
Southeast Asia
(Phil.)

6 Resident
Mammals of
Tanon Straits v.
DENR Sec.
Angelo Reyes

7 Most Rev.
Pedro Arigo v.
Scott H. Swift, et
al.

8 Henares, Jr. v. v The petitioners asked the Court to issue a writ of mandamus commanding respondents
LTFRB and LTFRB and DOTC to require PUVs to use compressed natural gas (CNG) as alternative fuel.
DOTC
v Petitioners alleged that the particular matters (complex mixtures of dust, dirt, smoke, and
liquid droplets, varying in sizes and compositions emitted into the air from various engine
combustions, have caused detrimental effects on health, productivity, infrastructure and the
overall quality of life.
 v Petitioners particularly cite the effects of certain fuel emissions from engine combustion when
these react to other polutants.

v The Court in DENYING the petition explained that the function of the DOTC is limited to
implementing the emission standards set forth in RA No. 8749 and the said law only goes as
far as setting the maximum limit fro the emission of vehicles, but it does not recognize CNG as
alternative engine fuel.

v The right to clean air is not only an issue of paramount importance but it is also impressed
with public interest.

v HOWEVER, a writ of mandamus commanding respondents to require PUVs to use CNG is

unavailing since there is no law that mandates such.

9 Minors Oposa, v Constitutional right of Filipinos to a balanced and healthful ecology which the petitioners
et al. v. dramatically associate with the TWIN CONCEPT of:
Factoran o Inter-generational responsibility
o Inter-generational justice

v The petition touches on the issue of whether petitioners have a cause of action to prevent the
misappropriation or impairment of Philippine rainforests and arrest the unabated hemorrhage
of the countrys vital life support systems and continued rape of Mother Earth.

v Plaintiffs prayed that judgment be rendered in ordering the respondents:

o To cancel all existing Timber License Agreements (TLAs) in the country.
o To cease and desist from receiving, accepting, processing, renewing, or approving
new TLAs.

v The defendant filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the complaint:
o Had no cause of action against him.
o Raises a political question.

v As to the issue of the violation of non-impairment clause, the TLAs are not contracts but a
mere instrument the the state uses to regulate the utilization and disposal of forest products
to the end that public wlefare is promoted. It does not fall within the purview of the due
process clause.
o The granting of license does not create irrevocable rights, neither is it property or
property rights.

10 Ysmael, Jr. v. v Petitioner sought the reinstatement of its timber license agreement which was cancelled in
DENR Secretary August 1983 pursuant to the instructions of the President and memorandum of the then
Minister of Natural Resources to stop all logging operations in Nueva Vizcaya and Quirino, in
order to conserve the conserve the countrys remaining forest resources.
 v The Supreme Court sustained the cancellation of the TLAs and states that such is legal and
within th governments discretion.

11 Hernandez et
al. v. NAPOCOR

12 Carino v. Insular
Government

13 La Bugal-
BLaan Tribal
Association, Inc.
v. Ramos

14 Province of
North Cotabato
v. Republic

15 Republic v. City
of Davao

16 Technology
Developers, Inc.
v. Court of
Appeals

17 MMDA v.
JANCOM
Environmental
Corporation

18 Greater
Metropolitan
Manila Mayors
v. JANCOM
Environmental
Corporation

19 Province of
Rizal v.
Executive
Secretary, et al

20 Mathay v.
Consolidated
 Bank

21 Mead v. Hon.
Argel

22 Pollution
Adjudication
Board v. Court
of Appeals

23 Imbong v.
Ochoa

24 Province to
North Cotabato
v. Republic

25 Chavez v. Public
Estates
Authority and
Amari Coastal
Bay
Development
Corp

26 Manila Prince
Hotel v. GSIS

27 Aranda v.
Republic

28 Republic v.
Naguiat

29 Mustang
Lumber v. Court
of Appeals

30 PAAT v. Court of
Appeals

31 Secretary of
DENR v. Yap

32 Spouses
Palomo v. Court
 of Appeals

33 Isagani Cruz
and Europa v.
Secretary of
DENR

34 Joya v. PCGG

35 Army and Navy

Club v. Court of
Appeals

36 Manosca v.
Court of
Appeals

37 Shell Philippines
v. Efren Jalos, et
al