MMDA V CONCERNED v CONCERNED RESIDENTS OF MANILA BAY

Facts:

Respondents Concerned Residents of Manila Bay filed a complaint 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 and that the continued neglect of
petitioners in abating the pollution of the Manila Bay constitutes a violation of their Constitutional rights
and other pertinent environmental laws. Respondents prayed that petitioners be ordered to clean the
Manila Bay and submit to the RTC a concerted concrete plan of action for the purpose. The RTC Ordered
Petitioners to Clean Up and Rehabilitate Manila Bay. Petitioners appealed before the CA. They argued
provisions of the Environment Code (PD 1152) relate only to the cleaning of specific pollution incidents
and do not cover cleaning in general and the cleaning or rehabilitation of the manila bay is not a
ministerial act of petitioners that can be compelled by mandamus

ISSUE:
Whether or not the cleaning or rehabilitation of the Manila Bay is not a ministerial act of petitioners that
can be compelled by mandamus.

HELD:
Yes. Petitioners duty to comply with and act according to the clear mandate of the law does not require
the exercise of discretion. According to respondents, petitioners, the MMDA in particular, are without
discretion, for example, to choose which bodies of water they are to clean up, or which discharge or spill
they are to contain. By the same token, respondents maintain that petitioners are bereft of discretion on
whether or not to alleviate the problem of solid and liquid waste disposal; in other words, it is the MMDAs
ministerial duty to attend to such services.

ROLDAN V ARCA

FACTS:

Respondent company filed with the Court of First Instance of Manila a civil case against petitioner
Fisheries Commissioner Arsenio N. Roldan, Jr., for the recovery of fishing vessel Tony Lex VI which had
been seized and impounded by petitioner Fisheries Commissioner through the Philippine Navy for illegal
fishing with dynamite. Respondent company prayed for a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction with
respondent court, but was denied. However, the Court of First Instance of Manila set aside its prior order
and respondent company took possession of the fishing vessel Tony Lex VI from the petitioners.

On the other hand, the Fisheries Commissioner requested the Palawan Provincial Fiscal to file criminal
charges against the crew members of the fishing vessels. he Court of First Instance of Palawan ordered
the Philippine Navy to take the boats in custody. Petitioners filed their memorandum praying for the denial
of the application for preliminary mandatory injunction. Hence the petition.

ISSUE:

WON the Fisheries Commissioner and the Navy can validly direct and/or effect the seizure of the vessels
for illegal fishing by the use of dynamite.

HELD:

Yes, they can validly seize the fishing vessel. The Fisheries act empowers the Fisheries Commissioner
to carry out the provisions of the act and all rules and regulations promulgated and also to make searches
and seizures personally or through his duly authorized representatives in accordance with the Rules of
Court, of "explosives such as ... dynamites and the like ...; including fishery products, fishing equipment,
tackle and other things that are subject to seizure under existing fishery laws"; and "to effectively
implement the enforcement of existing fishery laws on illegal fishing.
SENSON V PANGILINAN

FACTS:

Several persons were apprehended for violation of Section 86 of Republic Act No. 8550, also known as
"The Philippine Fisheries Code of 1998" by members of the Philippine National Police. Several items
were also seized from them. Respondent Judge Heriberto Pangilinan, despite the vigorous objection of
the Special Prosecutor Romeo Senson, granted the release of the seized item. Special Prosecutor
Senson filed an administrative complaint against respondent Judge for "Gross Misconduct with Prayer for
Preventive Suspension contending that the release of the evidence had exposed said evidence to
tampering.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the decision rendered by respondent Judge Pangilinan is valid.

HELD:

The decision rendered is invalid. All criminal actions commenced by a complaint or information are
prosecuted under the direction and control of the prosecutor. The seized items ordered released by
respondent Judge have not yet been offered in evidence; Hence, the prosecution, not the court, could still
be deemed to be in the legal custody and to have the responsibility over such items.

Cabatingan V Arcenio

FACTS:

• A complaint for Illegal Fishing was filed in respondents court for preliminary investigation. Finding
a prima facie case against all the accused, respondent issued a warrant of arrest fixing the bail
bond and one of the accused, posted a property bond. Respondent refused to accept the bail
bond upon the contention that he no longer had jurisdiction over the case in as much as the
records were already forwarded to the Office of the Assistant provincial Prosecutor for review.

ISSUE:

• Whether or not the respondent Judge CELSO A. ARCUENO is guilty of gross ignorance of the
law in denying the bail bond applied by one of the accused.

HELD:

• Yes. The respondent had the authority to grant bail and to order the release of the accused since
the latter was arrested wherein the respondent court still has jurisdiction. Respondent judge is
guilty of gross ignorance of the law for refusing to approve the bail bond of the accused in
violation of Section 17 of Rule 114 of the Rules of Court. This lapse unduly deprived the accused
of the constitutional right to bail.
PHILIPPINE RABBIT BUS LINES V CA

FACTS:

Accused was found guilty and convicted of the crime of reckless imprudence and was sentenced to suffer
imprisonment and payment of damages in favor to the victims. The court further ruled that petitioner, in
the event of the insolvency of accused, shall be liable for the civil liabilities of the accused. accused had
jumped bail and remained at-large. Petitioners filed a notice of appeal however it was denied by the trial
court on the ground that the employer’s subsidiary civil liability as set forth in Article 103 of the Revised
Penal Code becomes conclusive and enforceable.

ISSUE:

Whether or not an employer, who dutifully participated in the defense of its accused-employee, may
appeal the judgment of conviction independently of the accused.

HELD:

The accused cannot be accorded the right to appeal unless they voluntarily submit to the jurisdiction of
the court or otherwise arrested within 15 days from notice of judgment against him. While at-large, he
cannot seek relief from the court, as they are deemed to have waived the appeal. The accused-employee
has escaped and refused to surrender to the proper authority; thus, he is deemed to have abandoned his
appeal. Consequently, the judgment against him has become final and executory. Civil liability deemed
instituted in the criminal prosecution only, the civil liability of the accused arising from the crime charged is
deemed impliedly instituted in a criminal action.

INTERNATIONAL SERVICE FOR ACQUISITION OF AGRI-BIOTECH APPLICATIONS V GREENPEACE

FACTS:

Respondents filed before the Court a Petition for Writ of Continuing Mandamus and Writ of Kalikasan with
Prayer for the Issuance of a Temporary Environmental Protection Order (TEPO) against petitioners
alleging that the field trials of the Genetically Modified Organisms such BT Talong violated their
constitutional right to health and a balanced ecology. Petitioners contends that the precautionary
principle could not be applied as the field testing is only a part of a continuing study. petitioners moved for
reconsideration arguing, among others, that the case should have been dismissed for mootness.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the lower court is correct upholding a Writ of Kalikasan, Writ of continuing mandamus and
applying the doctrine of precautionary principle to this case.

HELD:

Yes, the court is correct. The Court applied Rule 20 or the Doctrine of Precautionary Principle based on
facts and evidences addressed and presented by both parties, the BT Talong significantly showed
“uncertainty, the possibility of irreversible harm, and the possibility of serious harm”, threats to human life
and environmental health, inequity to present or future generations and bias to environment without legal
consideration of environmental rights of those affected. The Constitutional Right of people to a balanced
and healthful ecology, shall be given the benefit of the doubt.
PHILIPPINES V CHINA

FACTS:

The Philippines filed a complaint against China after it took control of a reef about 140 miles from the
Philippine coast. It accused China of violating international law by interfering with the fishing, endangering
ships, failing to protect the marine environment at the reef known as Scarborough Shoal and dredging the
sand to build an artificial island. Philippines asked the international tribunal to reject China’s claim to
sovereignty. On the other hand, China contends that the said islands belonged to their 9-dash line and
also they have historic claims over the island. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the Philippines and concluded
that the involved islands form part of the exclusive economic zone and continental shelf of the Philippines.

ISSUE:

WON the disputed islands forms part of the Philippines’ Exclusive Economic Zone.

HELD.

Yes. involved islands form part of the exclusive economic zone and continental shelf of the Philippines as
they lie within 200 nautical miles of the Philippines’ coast.Based on the UN Convention on the Law of the
Sea (UNCLOS), a country has sovereignty over economic activities in waters on
its continental shelves and up to 200 nautical miles from its coast, including fishing, mining, oil exploration
and the construction of artificial islands. The tribunal rejected the historic claims
by the reason that it was extinguished by the treaty.

26 Principle of Stockholm Declaration

Principle 1 Human rights must be, apartheid and colonialism condemned.

Principle 2 Natural resources must be safeguarded.

Principle 3 The Earth’s capacity to produce renewable resources must be maintained.

Principle 4 Wildlife must be safeguarded.

Principle 5 Non-renewable recourses must be shared and not exhausted.

Principle 6 Pollution must not exceed the environment capacity to clean itself.

Principle 7 Damaging oceanic pollution must be prevented.

Principle 8 Development is needed to improve the environment.

Principle 9 Developing countries therefore need assistance.

Principle 10 Developing countries need reasonable prices for exports to carry out environmental
management.

Principle 11 Environment policy must not hamper development.

Principle 12 Developing countries need money to develop environmental safeguards.

Principle 13 Integrated development planning is needed.

Principle 14 Rational planning should resolve conflicts between environment and
development
Principle 15 Human settlements must be planned to eliminate environmental problems.
Principle 16 Governments should plan their own appropriate population policies.
Principle 17 National institutions must plan development of states natural resources.
Principle 18 Science and technology must be used to improve the environment.
Principle 19 Environmental education is essential.
Principle 20 Environmental research must be promoted, particularly in developing countries.
Principle 21 States may exploit their resources as they wish but must not danger others.
Principle 22 Compensation is due to states thus endangered.
Principle 23 Each nation must establish its own standards.
Principle 24 There must be cooperation on international issues.
Principle 25 International organizations should help to improve the environment.
Principle 26 Weapons of mass destruction must be eliminated.

RIO DECLARATION ON ENVIRONMENTAL DEVELOPMENT (1992)

 There are a number of principles to the Rio Declaration.

 People are entitled to a healthy and productive life in harmony with nature.

 Development today must not threaten the needs of present and future generations.

 Nations have the right to exploit their own resources, but without causing environment damage
beyond their borders.

 Environmental protection shall constitute an integral part of the development process.

 Eradicating poverty and reducing disparities in living standards in different parts of the world are
essential if we are to achieve sustainable development whilst meeting the needs of the majority of
the people.

 Environmental issues are best handled with the participation of all concerned citizens.

 The polluter should, in principle, bear the cost of pollution

 Sustainable development requires better scientific understanding of the problems. Nations should
share knowledge and technologies to achieve the goal of sustainability.