CONSTITUTION I

A.Y. 1819– DEAN CANDELARIA

TOPIC Right to a Balanced and Healthful Ecology • The original defendant who was The Honorable Fulgencio S.
CASE NO. G.R. No. 101083 Factoran, JR., then Secretary of the Department of Environment and
CASE NAME Oposa v. Factoran Natural Resources, was replaced by Honorable Angel C. Alcala.
PONENTE Davide, JR., J • The complaint was instituted as a taxpayers’ class suit and alleges
that the plaintiffs “are all citizens of the Republic of the Philippines,
PETITIONER Oposa Law Office
taxpayers, and entitled to the full benefit, use and enjoyment of the
RESPONDENT The Honorable Fulgencio S. Factoran, JR. natural resource treasure that is the country's virgin tropical
TYPE OF Petition for Certiorari on class action seeking the rainforests."
CASE cancellation and non-issuance of timber license • Petitioners, who were minors, asseverate that they “represent their
agreements which allegedly infringed the generation as well as generations yet unborn.”
constitutional right to a balanced and healthful • They prayed in their petition that:
ecology o Cancel all existing timber license agreements (TLA’s) in the
MEMBER Aliyah Rosh Cu country;
o Cease and desist from receiving, accepting, processing,
ISSUE renewing or approving new TLA’s.
• Plaintiffs listed down adverse and detrimental consequences of
1. W/N have petitioners have locus standi? YES. continued deforestation:
2. W/N the petitioners have a cause of action to "prevent the o (a) water shortages resulting from the drying up of the water
misappropriation or impairment" of Philippine rainforests and table, otherwise known as the "aquifer," as well as of rivers,
"arrest the unabated hemorrhage of the country's vital life-support brooks and streams,
systems and continued rape of Mother Earth”? YES. o (b) salinization of the water table as a result of the intrusion
3. W/N the complaint raises a political question? NO. therein of salt water, incontrovertible examples of which
4. W/N the original prayer of the plaintiffs result in the impairment of may be found in the island of Cebu and the Municipality of
contracts. NO. Bacoor, Cavite,
o (c) massive erosion and the consequential loss of soil
RELEVANT FACTS fertility and agricultural productivity, with the volume of
• The principal plaintiffs are all minors duly represented and joined by soil eroded estimated at one billion (1,000,000,000) cubic
their respective parents. meters per annum — approximately the size of the entire
o Additional plaintiff: Philippine Ecological Network, Inc. island of Catanduanes,
(PENI), a domestic, non-stock and non-profit corporation o (d) the endangering and extinction of the country's unique,
organized for the purpose of engaging in concerted action rare and varied flora and fauna,
geared for the protection of our environment and natural o (e) the disturbance and dislocation of cultural communities,
resources. including the disappearance of the Filipino's indigenous
cultures,

1
 CONSTITUTION I
A.Y. 1819– DEAN CANDELARIA
o (f) the siltation of rivers and seabeds and consequential
destruction of corals and other aquatic life leading to a
critical reduction in marine resource productivity, (g)
recurrent spells of drought as is presently experienced by the
entire country,
o (h) increasing velocity of typhoon winds which result from
the absence of windbreakers,
o (i) the flooding of lowlands and agricultural plains arising
from the absence of the absorbent mechanism of forests,
o (j) the siltation and shortening of the lifespan of multi-
billion peso dams constructed and operated for the purpose
of supplying water for domestic uses, irrigation and the
generation of electric power, and
o (k) the reduction of the earth's capacity to process carbon
dioxide gases which has led to perplexing and catastrophic
climatic changes such as the phenomenon of global
warming, otherwise known as the "greenhouse effect."
• As for their cause of action, they specifically allege that:
o Plaintiffs replead by reference the foregoing allegations.
1. Twenty-five (25) years ago, the Philippines had
some sixteen (16) million hectares of rainforests
constituting roughly 53% of the country's land mass.
2. Satellite images taken in 1987 reveal that there
remained no more than 1.2 million hectares of said
rainforests or four per cent (4.0%) of the country's
land area.
3. More recent surveys reveal that a mere 850,000
hectares of virgin old- growth rainforests are left,
barely 2.8% of the entire land mass of the Philippine
archipelago and about 3.0 million hectares of
immature and uneconomical secondary growth
forests.
4. Public records reveal that defendant's predecessors
have granted timber license agreements ('TLA's') to
various corporations to cut the aggregate area of
3.89 million hectares for commercial logging
purposes.
• Sec. Factoran filed a Motion to Dismiss the complaint based on two
grounds:
o (1) the plaintiffs have no cause of action against him and
o (2) the issue raised by the plaintiffs is a political question
which properly pertains to the legislative or executive
branches of Government.
• Petitioners contend that the complaint clearly and unmistakably
states a cause of action as it contains sufficient allegations
concerning their right to a sound environment based on Articles 19,
20 and 21 of the Civil Code (Human Relations), Section 4 of
Executive Order (E.O.) No. 192 creating the DENR, Section 3 of
Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1151 (Philippine Environmental
Policy), Section 16, Article II of the 1987 Constitution recognizing
the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology, the
concept of generational genocide in Criminal Law and the concept
of man's inalienable right to self- preservation and self-perpetuation
embodied in natural law.
• Petitioners likewise rely on the respondent's correlative obligation,
per Section 4 of E.O. No. 192, the safeguard the people's right to a
healthful environment.
RATIO DECIDENDI
1. W/N have petitioners have locus standi? YES.
• Civil case No. 90-777 is a class suit.
o Subject matter of the complaint is of common and
general interest not just to several, but to all the
citizens of the Philippines.
o All the requisites for the filing of a valid class suit
under Section 12, Rule 3 of the Revised Rules of
Court are present both in the said civil case and in
the instant petition, the latter being but an incident
to the former.
2
 CONSTITUTION I
A.Y. 1819– DEAN CANDELARIA
o We find no difficulty in ruling that they can, for
themselves, for others of their generation and for the
succeeding generations, file a class suit. Their
personality to sue in behalf of the succeeding
generations can only be based on the concept of
intergenerational responsibility insofar as the
right to a balanced and healthful ecology is
concerned.
§ Such a right, as hereinafter expounded,
considers the "rhythm and harmony of
nature."
§ Rhythm and harmony include the
judicious disposition, utilization,
management, renewal and conservation of
the country's forest, mineral, land, waters,
fisheries, wildlife, off-shore areas and other
natural resources to the end that their
exploration, development and utilization be
equitably accessible to the present as well as
future generations.
§ Nature means the created world in its
entirety.
• A denial or violation of that right by the other who has the
correlative duty or obligation to respect or protect or respect
the same gives rise to a cause of action. Petitioners maintain
that the granting of the TLA, which they claim was done
with grave abuse of discretion, violated their right to a
balance and healthful ecology. Hence, the full protection
thereof requires that no further TLAs should be renewed or
granted.
• After careful examination of the petitioners' complaint, the
Court finds it to be adequate enough to show, prima facie,
the claimed violation of their rights.
2. W/N the petitioners have 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”? YES.
• The complaint focuses on one specific fundamental legal
right — the right to a balanced and healthful ecology which,
for the first time in our nation's constitutional history, is
solemnly incorporated in the fundamental law. Section 16,
Article II of the 1987 Constitution explicitly provides:
• "SEC. 16. 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."
• This right unites with the right to health which is provided
for in the preceding section of the same article:
• "SEC. 15. The State shall protect and promote the
right to health of the people and instill health
consciousness among them."
• While the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is to be
found under the Declaration of Principles and State Policies
and not under the Bill of Rights, it does not follow that it is
less important than any of the civil and political rights
enumerated in the latter. Such a right belongs to a different
category of rights altogether for it concerns nothing less
than self- preservation and self-perpetuation — aptly and
fittingly stressed by the petitioners — the advancement of
which may even be said to predate all governments and
constitutions.
• The right to a balanced and healthful ecology carries with it
the correlative duty to refrain from impairing the
environment.
• The said right implies, among many other things, the
judicious management and conservation of the country's
forests. Without such forests, the ecological or
environmental balance would be irreversibly disrupted.
3. W/N the complaint raises a political question? NO.
3
 CONSTITUTION I
A.Y. 1819– DEAN CANDELARIA
• Policy formulation or determination by the executive or
legislative branches of Government is not squarely put in
issue. What is principally involved is the enforcement of a
right vis-a-vis policies already formulated and expressed in
legislation. It must, nonetheless, be emphasized that the
political question doctrine is no longer the insurmountable
obstacle to the exercise of judicial power or the
impenetrable shield that protects executive and legislative
actions from judicial inquiry or review.
• The second paragraph of section 1, Article VIII of the
Constitution states that:
• "Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of
justice to settle actual controversies involving
rights which are legally demandable and
enforceable, and to determine whether or not
there has been a grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the
part of any branch or instrumentality of the
Government."
• Commenting on this provision in his book, Philippine
Political Law, Mr. Justice Isagani A. Cruz, a distinguished
member of this Court, says:
• "The first part of the authority represents the
traditional concept of judicial power, involving
the settlement of conflicting rights as conferred by
law. The second part of the authority represents a
broadening of judicial power to enable the courts
of justice to review what was before forbidden
territory, to wit, the discretion of the political
departments of the government. As worded, the
new provision vests in the judiciary, and
particularly the Supreme Court, the power to rule
upon even the wisdom of the decisions of the
executive and the legislature and to declare their
acts invalid for lack or excess of jurisdiction
because tainted with grave abuse of discretion.
The catch, of course, is the meaning of 'grave
abuse of discretion,' which is a very elastic phrase
that can expand or contract according to the
disposition of the judiciary."
• In Daza vs. Singson, (180 SCRA 496, 501-502 [1989]. See
also Coseteng vs. Mitra, 187 SCRA 377 [1990]; Gonzales
vs. Macaraig, 191 SCRA 844 [1991]; Bengzon vs. Senate
Blue Ribbon Committee, 203 SCRA 767 [1991]) Mr. Justice
Cruz, now speaking for this Court, noted: "In the case now
before us, the jurisdictional objection becomes even less
tenable and decisive. The reason is that, even if we were to
assume that the issue presented before us was political in
nature, we would still not be precluded from resolving it
under the expanded jurisdiction conferred upon us that now
covers, in proper cases, even the political question. Article
VII, Section 1, of the Constitution clearly provides: . . ."
4. W/N the original prayer of the plaintiffs result in the impairment of
contracts. NO.
• The Court held that the Timber License Agreement is an
instrument by which the state regulates the utilization and
disposition of forest resources to the end that public welfare
is promoted. It is not a contract within the purview of the
due process clause thus, the non-impairment clause cannot
be invoked. It can be validly withdraw whenever dictated by
public interest or public welfare as in this case. (Tan v.
Director of Forestry)
o The granting of license does not create irrevocable
rights, neither is it property or property rights.
Moreover, the constitutional guaranty of non-
impairment of obligations of contract is limit by the
exercise by the police power of the State, in the
interest of public health, safety, moral and general
4
 CONSTITUTION I
A.Y. 1819– DEAN CANDELARIA
welfare. In short, the non-impairment clause must
yield to the police power of the State.
o All licenses may thus be revoked or rescinded by
executive action. It is not a contract, property or a
property right protected by the due process clause of
the Constitution.
DISPOSITIVE POSITION
WHEREFORE, the instant Petition is hereby GRANTED, and the challenged
Order of respondent Judge of 18 July 1991 dismissing Civil Case No. 90-777
is hereby set aside.
DOCTRINE/PRECEDENT
• A cause of action is defined as: ". . . an act or omission of one party
in violation of the legal right or rights of the other; and its essential
elements are legal right of the plaintiff, correlative obligation of the
defendant, and act or omission of the defendant in violation of said
legal right."
• In Tan vs. Director of Forestry, (125 SCRA 302, 325 [1983]) This
Court held: ". . . A timber license is an instrument by which the State
regulates the utilization and disposition of forest resources to the
end that public welfare is promoted. A timber license is not a
contract within the purview of the due process clause; it is only a
license or privilege, which can be validly withdrawn whenever
dictated by public interest or public welfare as in this case. 'A
license is merely a permit or privilege to do what otherwise would
be unlawful, and is not a contract between the authority, federal,
state, or municipal, granting it and the person to whom it is granted;
neither is it property or a property right, nor does it create a vested
right; nor is it taxation'
RELEVANT LAWS
• Civil Code. Art. 19. Every person must, in the exercise of his rights
and in the performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone
his due, and observe honesty and good faith.
• Civil Code. Art. 20. Every person who, contrary to law, willfully or
negligently causes damage to another, shall indemnify the latter for
the same.
• Civil Code. Art. 21. Any person who willfully causes loss or injury
to another in a manner that is contrary to morals, good customs or
public policy shall compensate the latter for the damage.
• 1987 Constitution. ART. 2, SEC. 15. “The State shall protect and
promote the right to health of the people and instill health
consciousness among them.”
• 1987 Constitution. ART. 2, SEC. 16. “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."
• 1987 Constitution. ART. 7, SEC. 1. The executive power shall be
vested in the President of the Philippines.
• E.O. No. 192. SEC. 4. The Department of Environment and Natural
Resources "shall be the primary government agency responsible for
the conservation, management, development and proper use of the
country's environment and natural resources, specifically forest and
grazing lands, mineral resources, including those in reservation and
watershed areas, and lands of the public domain, as well as the
licensing and regulation of all natural resources as may be provided
for by law in order to ensure equitable sharing of the benefits
derived therefrom for the welfare of the present and future
generations of Filipinos."
• P.D. No. 1151. SEC. 3. Right to a Healthy Environment. -- In
furtherance of these goals and policies, the Government recognizes
the right of the people to a healthful environment. It shall be the duty
and responsibility of each individual to contribute to the
preservation and enhancement of the Philippine environment.
SEPARATE OPINION
CONCURRING
• FELICIANO, J.
5
 CONSTITUTION I
A.Y. 1819– DEAN CANDELARIA
Main Point: Petitioners must, before a trial court, show a more specific
legal right.
Discussion:
• The list of particular claims which can be subsumed under this
rubric appears to be entirely open-ended: prevention and control of
emission of toxic fumes and smoke from factories and motor
vehicles; of discharge of oil, chemical effluents, garbage and raw
sewage into rivers, inland and coastal waters by vessels, oil rigs,
factories, mines and whole communities; of dumping of organic and
inorganic wastes on open land, streets and thoroughfares; failure to
rehabilitate land after strip-mining or open-pit mining; kaingin or
slash-and-burn farming; destruction of fisheries, coral reefs and
other living sea resources through the use of dynamite or cyanide
and other chemicals; contamination of ground water resources; loss
of certain species of fauna and flora; and so on.
• P.D. No. 1152, entitled "The Philippine Environment Code," is,
upon the other hand, a compendious collection of more "specific
environment management policies" and "environment quality
standards"
• Two (2) points are worth making in this connection.
o Firstly, neither petitioners nor the Court has identified the
particular provision or provisions (if any) of the Philippine
Environment Code which give rise to a specific legal right
which petitioners are seeking to enforce.
o Secondly, the Philippine Environment Code identifies with
notable care the particular government agency changed with
the formulation and implementation of guidelines and
programs dealing with each of the headings and sub-
headings mentioned above. The Philippine Environment
Code does not, in other words, appear to contemplate action
on the part of private persons who are beneficiaries of
implementation of that Code.
• To my mind, the Court should be understood as simply saying that
such a more specific legal right or rights may well exist in our
corpus of law, considering the general policy principles found in the
Constitution and the existence of the Philippine Environment Code,
and that the trial court should have given petitioners an effective
opportunity so to demonstrate, instead of aborting the proceedings
on a motion to dismiss.
• It seems to me important that the legal right which is an essential
component of a cause of action be a specific, operable legal right,
rather than a constitutional or statutory policy, for at least two (2)
reasons.
o One is that unless the legal right claimed to have been
violated or disregarded is given specification in operational
terms, defendants may well be unable to defend themselves
intelligently and effectively; in other words, there are due
process dimensions to this matter.
o The second is a broader-gauge consideration — where a
specific violation of law or applicable regulation is not
alleged or proved, petitioners can be expected to fall back
on the expanded conception of judicial power in the second
paragraph of Section 1 of Article VIII of the Constitution.
• When substantive standards as general as "the right to a balanced
and healthy ecology" and "the right to health" are combined with
remedial standards as broad ranging as "a grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction," the result will be, it is
respectfully submitted, to propel courts into the uncharted ocean of
social and economic policy making. At least in respect of the vast
area of environmental protection and management, our courts have
no claim to special technical competence and experience and
professional quali cations. Where no speci c, operable norms and
standards are shown to exist, then the policy making departments —
the legislative and executive departments — must be given a real
and effective opportunity to fashion and promulgate those norms
and standards, and to implement them before the courts should
intervene.
6
LAGUNA LAKE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs COURT OF APPEALS

231 SCRA 292

G.R. No. 110120 March 16, 1994

FACTS

• On March 8, 1991, the Task Force Camarin Dumpsite of Our Lady of Lourdes Parish,
Barangay Camarin, Caloocan City, filed a letter-complaint with the Laguna Lake
Development Authority seeking to stop the operation of the 8.6-hectare open garbage
dumpsite in Tala Estate, Barangay Camarin, Caloocan City due to its harmful effects on the
health of the residents and the possibility of pollution of the water content of the
surrounding area.
• The LLDA Legal and Technical personnel found that the City Government of Caloocan was
maintaining an open dumpsite at the Camarin area without first securing an Environmental
Compliance Certificate (ECC) from the Environmental Management Bureau (EMB) of the
Department of Environment and Natural Resources, as required under Presidential Decree
No. 1586, and clearance from LLDA as required under Republic Act No. 4850, as amended
by Presidential Decree No. 813 and Executive Order No. 927, series of 1983.
• The LLDA found that the water collected from the leachate and the receiving streams could
considerably affect the quality, in turn, of the receiving waters since it indicates the
presence of bacteria, other than coliform, which may have contaminated the sample during
collection or handling.
• On December 5, 1991, the LLDA issued a Cease and Desist Order ordering the City
Government of Caloocan, Metropolitan Manila Authority, their contractors, and other
entities, to completely halt, stop and desist from dumping any form or kind of garbage and
other waste matter at the Camarin dumpsite.
• On September 25, 1992, the LLDA, with the assistance of the Philippine National Police,
enforced its Alias Cease and Desist Order by prohibiting the entry of all garbage dump
trucks into the Tala Estate, Camarin area being utilized as a dumpsite.
• The City Government of Caloocan filed with the Regional Trial Court of Caloocan City an
action for the declaration of nullity of the cease and desist order
• In its complaint, the City Government of Caloocan sought to be declared as the sole
authority empowered to promote the health and safety and enhance the right of the people
in Caloocan City to a balanced ecology within its territorial jurisdiction.
• REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
• On October 16, 1992, Judge Manuel Jn. Serapio, after hearing the motion to dismiss, issued
in the consolidated cases an order denying LLDA's motion to dismiss and granting the
issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction enjoining the LLDA, its agent and all persons
acting for and on its behalf, from enforcing or implementing its cease and desist order
which prevents plaintiff City of Caloocan from dumping garbage at the Camarin dumpsite
during the pendency of this case and/or until further orders of the court.
• COURT OF APPEALS
• On April 30, 1993, the Court of Appeals promulgated its decision holding that: (1) the
Regional Trial Court has no jurisdiction on appeal to try, hear and decide the action for
annulment of LLDA's cease and desist order, including the issuance of a temporary
restraining order and preliminary injunction in relation thereto, since appeal therefrom is
within the exclusive and appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals under Section 9, par.
(3), of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129; and (2) the Laguna Lake Development Authority has no
power and authority to issue a cease and desist order under its enabling law, Republic Act
No. 4850, as amended by P.D. No. 813 and Executive Order
No. 927, series of 1983.

ISSUE

• Whether or not the LLDA has the authority to entertain the complaint against the dumping
of garbage in the open dumpsite in Barangay Camarin authorized by the City Government of
Caloocan which is allegedly endangering the health, safety, and welfare of the residents
therein and the sanitation and quality of the water in the area brought about by exposure to
pollution caused by such open garbage dumpsite

SUPREME COURT

• Yes.
• As a general rule, the adjudication of pollution cases generally pertains to the Pollution
Adjudication Board (PAB), except in cases where the special law provides for another
forum.
• It must be recognized in this regard that the LLDA, as a specialized administrative agency, is
specifically mandated under Republic Act No. 4850 and its amendatory laws to carry out
and make effective the declared national policy 20 of promoting and accelerating the
development and balanced growth of the Laguna Lake area and the surrounding provinces
of Rizal and Laguna and the cities of San Pablo, Manila, Pasay, Quezon and Caloocan 21 with
due regard and adequate provisions for environmental management and control, preservation
of the quality of human life and ecological systems, and the prevention of undue ecological
disturbances, deterioration and pollution.
• Under such a broad grant and power and authority, the LLDA, by virtue of its special
charter, obviously has the responsibility to protect the inhabitants of the Laguna Lake
region from the deleterious effects of pollutants emanating from the discharge of wastes
from the surrounding areas.
• In carrying out the aforementioned declared policy, the LLDA is mandated, among others, to
pass upon and approve or disapprove all plans, programs, and projects proposed by local
government offices/agencies within the region, public corporations, and private persons or
enterprises where such plans, programs and/or projects are related to those of the LLDA
for the development of the region.

ISSUE
• Whether or not the LLDA has the power and authority to issue a "cease and desist" order
under Republic Act No. 4850 and its amendatory laws

SUPREME COURT

• Yes.
• By its express terms, Republic Act No. 4850, as amended by P.D. No. 813 and Executive
Order No. 927, series of 1983, authorizes the LLDA to "make, alter or modify order requiring
the discontinuance or pollution." 24 (Emphasis supplied) Section 4, par. (d) explicitly
authorizes the LLDA to make whatever order may be necessary in the exercise of its
jurisdiction.
• To be sure, the LLDA was not expressly conferred the power "to issue an ex-parte cease and
desist order" in a language, as suggested by the City Government of Caloocan, similar to the
express grant to the defunct National Pollution Control Commission under Section 7 of P.D.
No. 984 which, admittedly was not reproduced in P.D. No. 813 and E.O. No. 927, series of
1983. However, it would be a mistake to draw therefrom the conclusion that there is a
denial of the power to issue the order in question when the power "to make, alter or modify
orders requiring the discontinuance of pollution" is expressly and clearly bestowed upon
the LLDA by Executive Order No. 927, series of 1983.
• The immediate response to the demands of "the necessities of protecting vital public
interests" gives vitality to the statement on ecology embodied in the Declaration of
Principles and State Policies or the 1987 Constitution. Article II, Section 16 which provides:
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.
• As a constitutionally guaranteed right of every person, it carries the correlative duty of non-
impairment. This is but in consonance with the declared policy of the state "to protect and
promote the right to health of the people and instill health consciousness among them." 28 It
is to be borne in mind that the Philippines is party to the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights and the Alma Conference Declaration of 1978 which recognize health as a
fundamental human right.
 Laguna Lake Development Authority v. CA
G.R. Nos. 120865-71, December 7, 1995
Hermosisima Jr., J.

Facts:
RA 4850 was enacted creating the "Laguna Lake Development Authority." This
agency was supposed to accelerate the development and balanced growth of the Laguna
Lake area and the surrounding provinces, cities and towns, in the act, within the context of
the national and regional plans and policies for social and economic development.

PD 813 amended certain sections RA 4850 because of the concern for the rapid
expansion of Metropolitan Manila, the suburbs and the lakeshore towns of Laguna de Bay,
combined with current and prospective uses of the lake for municipal-industrial water
supply, irrigation, fisheries, and the like.

To effectively perform the role of the Authority under RA 4850, the Chief Executive
issued EO 927 further defined and enlarged the functions and powers of the Authority and
named and enumerated the towns, cities and provinces encompassed by the term "Laguna
de Bay Region". Also, pertinent to the issues in this case are the following provisions of EO
927 which include in particular the sharing of fees:

Sec 2: xxx the Authority shall have exclusive jurisdiction to issue permit for
the use of all surface water for any projects or activities in or affecting the
said region including navigation, construction, and operation of fishpens,
fish enclosures, fish corrals and the like.

SEC. 3. Collection of Fees. The Authority is hereby empowered to collect

fees for the use of the lake water and its tributaries for all beneficial
purposes including but not limited to fisheries, recreation, municipal,
industrial, agricultural, navigation, irrigation, and waste disposal purpose;
Provided, that the rates of the fees to be collected, and the sharing with
other government agencies and political subdivisions, if necessary, shall be
subject to the approval of the President of the Philippines upon
recommendation of the Authority's Board, except fishpen fee, which will be
shared in the following manner: 20 percent of the fee shall go to the
lakeshore local governments, 5 percent shall go to the Project Development
Fund which shall be administered by a Council and the remaining 75
percent shall constitute the share of LLDA. However, after the
implementation within the three-year period of the Laguna Lake Fishery
Zoning and Management Plan the sharing will be modified as follows: 35
percent of the fishpen fee goes to the lakeshore local governments, 5
percent goes to the Project Development Fund and the remaining 60 percent
shall be retained by LLDA; Provided, however, that the share of LLDA shall
form part of its corporate funds and shall not be remitted to the National
Treasury as an exception to the provisions of Presidential Decree No. 1234.

Then came Republic Act No. 7160. The municipalities in the Laguna Lake Region
interpreted the provisions of this law to mean that the newly passed law gave municipal
governments the exclusive jurisdiction to issue fishing privileges within their municipal
waters because R.A. 7160 provides:

Sec. 149. Fishery Rentals; Fees and Charges (a) Municipalities shall have the
exclusive authority to grant fishery privileges in the municipal waters and
impose rental fees or charges therefor in accordance with the provisions of
this Section.
 Municipal governments thereupon assumed the authority to issue
fishing privileges and fishpen permits. Big fishpen operators took
advantage of the occasion to establish fishpens and fishcages to the
consternation of the Authority. Unregulated fishpens and fishcages
occupied almost one-third the entire lake water surface area, increasing the
occupation drastically from 7,000 ha in 1990 to almost 21,000 ha in 1995.
The Mayor's permit to construct fishpens and fishcages were all undertaken
in violation of the policies adopted by the Authority on fishpen zoning and
the Laguna Lake carrying capacity. In view of the foregoing circumstances,
the Authority served notice to the general public that:

1. All fishpens, fishcages and other aqua-culture structures in the Laguna

de Bay Region, which were not registered or to which no application
for registration and/or permit has been filed with Laguna Lake
Development Authority as of March 31, 1993 are hereby declared
outrightly as illegal.

2. All fishpens; fishcages and other aqua-culture structures so declared

as illegal shall be subject to demolition which shall be undertaken by
the Presidential Task Force for illegal Fishpen and Illegal Fishing.

3. Owners of fishpens, fishcages and other aqua-culture structures

declared as illegal shall, without prejudice to demolition of their
structures be criminally charged in accordance with Section 39-A of
Republic Act 4850 as amended by P.D. 813 for violation of the same
laws. Violations of these laws carries a penalty of imprisonment of not
exceeding 3 years or a fine not exceeding Five Thousand Pesos or both
at the discretion of the court.

All operators of fishpens, fishcages and other aqua-culture structures

declared as illegal in accordance with the foregoing Notice shall have one
(1) month on or before 27 October 1993 to show cause before the LLDA why
their said fishpens, fishcages and other aqua-culture structures should not
be demolished/dismantled.

One month, thereafter, the Authority sent notices to the concerned owners of the
illegally constructed fishpens, fishcages and other aqua-culture structures advising them to
dismantle their respective structures within 10 days from receipt thereof, otherwise,
demolition shall be effected.

The fishpen owners filed injunction cases against the LLDA. The LLDA filed motions
to dismiss the cases against it on jurisdictional grounds. The motions to dismiss were
denied. Meanwhile, TRO/writs of preliminary mandatory injunction were issued enjoining
the LLDA from demolishing the fishpens and similar structures in question. Hence, the
present petition for certiorari, prohibition and injunction. The CA dismissed the LLDA’s
consolidated petitions. It ruled that (A) LLDA is not among those quasi-judicial agencies of
government appealable only to the Court of Appeals; (B) the LLDA charter does vest LLDA
with quasi-judicial functions insofar as fishpens are concerned; (C) the provisions of the
LLDA charter insofar as fishing privileges in Laguna de Bay are concerned had been
repealed by the Local Government Code of 1991; (D) in view of the aforesaid repeal, the
power to grant permits devolved to respective local government units concerned.

Issue:
 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?

Held:
LLDA. Section 4 (k) of RA 4850, the provisions of PD 813, and Section 2 of EO 927,
specifically provide that the LLDA shall have exclusive jurisdiction to issue permits for the
use or all surface water for any projects or activities in or affecting the said region,
including navigation, construction, and operation of fishpens, fish enclosures, fish corrals
and the like. On the other hand, RA 7160 has granted to the municipalities the exclusive
authority to grant fishery privileges in municipal waters. The Sangguniang Bayan may grant
fishery privileges to erect fish corrals, oyster, mussels or other aquatic beds or bangus fry
area within a definite zone of the municipal waters.

The provisions of RA7160 do not necessarily repeal the laws creating the LLDA and
granting the latter water rights authority over Laguna de Bay and the lake region.

The Local Government Code of 1991 does not contain any express provision which
categorically expressly repeal the charter of the Authority. It has to be conceded that there
was no intent on the part of the legislature to repeal Republic Act No. 4850 and its
amendments. The repeal of laws should be made clear and expressed.

It has to be conceded that the charter of the LLDA constitutes a special law. RA 7160
is a general law. It is basic is basic in statutory construction that the enactment of a later
legislation which is a general law cannot be construed to have repealed a special law. It is a
well-settled rule in this jurisdiction that "a special statute, provided for a particular case or
class of cases, is not repealed by a subsequent statute, general in its terms, provisions and
application, unless the intent to repeal or alter is manifest, although the terms of the
general law are broad enough to include the cases embraced in the special law." Where
there is a conflict between a general law and a special statute, the special statute should
prevail since it evinces the legislative intent more clearly that 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. This is because implied repeals are not
favored and as much as possible, given to all enactments of the legislature. A special law
cannot be repealed, amended or altered by a subsequent general law by mere implication.

Considering the reasons behind the establishment of the Authority, which are
enviromental protection, navigational safety, and sustainable development, there is every
indication that the legislative intent is for the Authority to proceed with its mission.

We are on all fours with the manifestation of LLDA that "Laguna de Bay, like any
other single body of water has its own unique natural ecosystem. The 900 km lake surface
water, the 8 major river tributaries and several other smaller rivers that drain into the lake,
the 2,920 km2 basin or watershed transcending the boundaries of Laguna and Rizal
provinces, constitute one integrated delicate natural ecosystem that needs to be protected
with uniform set of policies; if we are to be serious in our aims of attaining sustainable
development. This is an exhaustible natural resource-a very limited one-which requires
judicious management and optimal utilization to ensure renewability and preserve its
ecological integrity and balance. Managing the lake resources would mean the
implementation of a national policy geared towards the protection, conservation, balanced
growth and sustainable development of the region with due regard to the inter-generational
use of its resources by the inhabitants in this part of the earth. The authors of Republic Act
4850 have foreseen this need when they passed this LLDA law-the special law designed to
govern the management of our Laguna de Bay lake resources. Laguna de Bay therefore
cannot be subjected to fragmented concepts of management policies where lakeshore local
government units exercise exclusive dominion over specific portions of the lake water. The
implementation of a cohesive and integrated lake water resource management policy,
therefore, is necessary to conserve, protect and sustainably develop Laguna de Bay."

The power of the LGUs to issue fishing privileges was clearly granted for revenue
purposes. This is evident from the fact that Section 149 of the New Local Government Code
empowering local governments to issue fishing permits is embodied in Chapter 2, Book II,
of Republic Act No. 7160 under the heading, "Specific Provisions On The Taxing And Other
Revenue Raising Power of LGUs.”

On the other hand, the power of the Authority to grant permits for fishpens,
fishcages and other aqua-culture structures is for the purpose of effectively regulating and
monitoring activities in the Laguna de Bay region and for lake quality control and
management. 6 It does partake of the nature of police power which is the most pervasive,
the least limitable and the most demanding of all State powers including the power of
taxation. Accordingly the charter of the Authority which embodies a valid exercise of police
power should prevail over the Local Government Code of 1991 on matters affecting Laguna
de Bay.

There should be no quarrel over permit fees for fishpens, fishcages and other aqua-
culture structures in the Laguna de Bay area. Section 3 of Executive Order No. 927 provides
for the proper sharing of fees collected.

In respect to the question as to whether the Authority is a quasi-judicial agency or

not, it is our holding that, considering the provisions of Section 4 of Republic Act No. 4850
and Section 4 of Executive Order No. 927, series of 1983, and the ruling of this Court in
Laguna Lake Development Authority vs. Court of Appeals, there is no question that the
Authority has express powers as a regulatory a quasi-judicial body in respect to pollution
cases with authority to issue a "cease a desist order" and on matters affecting the
construction of illegal fishpens, fishcages and other aqua-culture structures in Laguna de
Bay. The Authority's pretense, however, that it is co-equal to the Regional Trial Courts such
that all actions against it may only be instituted before the Court of Appeals cannot be
sustained. On actions necessitating the resolution of legal questions affecting the powers
of the Authority as provided for in its charter, the Regional Trial Courts have jurisdiction.

In view of the foregoing, this Court holds that Section 149 of RA 7160, otherwise
known as the Local Government Code of 1991, has not repealed the provisions of the
charter of the LLDA, Republic Act No. 4850, as amended. Thus, the Authority has the
exclusive jurisdiction to issue permits for the 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.
CASE: MMDA, DENR, DECS, DOH, DA, DPWH, DBM, PHILIPPINE COAST GUARD,
PNP MARITIME GROUP AND DILG v. Concerned Citizens of Manila Bay (GR Nos.
171947-48)
Date: 18 December 2008 (Decision) 15 February 2011 (Resolution)
Ponente: J. Velasco, Jr.

DECISION
FACTS

 On 29 January 1999, concerned citizens of Manila Bay (respondents) filed a complaint

before the RTC of Imus, Cavite against several government agencies, among them the
petitioners, for the cleanup, rehabilitation and protection of Manila Bay.
 Respondents alleged that the water quality of the Manila Bay had fallen way below the
allowable standards set by Presidential Decree No. 1152 (PD 1152) of the Philippine
Environment Code. The continued neglect of the petitioners in abating the pollution in
Manila Bay constitutes a violation of numerous environmental laws. Thus, respondents
pray that petitioners be ordered to clean the Manila Bay and to submit a concrete plan of
action for the purpose.
 The RTC ordered petitioners to clean up and rehabilitate Manila Bay. The dispositive
portion reads:

“WHEREFORE, finding merit in the complaint, judgment is hereby rendered ordering

the abovenamed 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 inManila 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.”

 Before the CA, petitioners contend that the provisions of the Environment Code relate
only to the cleaning of specific pollution incidents and do not cover cleaning in general.
Also, cleaning of the Manila Bay is not a ministerial act which can be compelled by
mandamus.
 CA affirmed the RTC decision in toto. Hence, the present petition.

ISSUE

1. WON the cleaning or rehabilitation of the Manila Bay is not a ministerial act of
petitioners that can be compelled by mandamus
2. WON Sections 17 and 20 of PD 1152 relate only to the cleaning of specific pollution
incidents and do not cover cleaning in general

RULING

1. No. Petitioners argue that MMDA’s duty to take measures and maintain adequate solid
waste and liquid disposal system necessarily involves policy evaluation and the exercise
of judgment on the part of the agency concerned.

On the other hand, respondents alleges that the statutory command for the
petitioners is clear and their duty to comply with and act according to the clear mandate
of the law does not require the exercise of discretion

The petitioners’ obligation to perform their duties as defined by law, on one hand,
and how they are to carry out such duties, on the other, are two different concepts. While
the implementation of the MMDAs 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.
 The MMDAs duty in the area of solid waste disposal,is set forth not only in the
Environment Code (PD 1152) and the Ecological Solid Waste Management Act (RA
9003), but in its charter as well. This duty of putting up a proper waste disposal system
cannot be characterized as discretionary, for discretion presupposes the power or right
given by law to public functionaries to act officially according to their judgment or
conscience. A discretionary duty is one that allows a person to exercise judgment and
choose to perform or not to perform. Any suggestion that the MMDA has the option
whether or not to perform its solid waste disposal-related duties ought to be dismissed for
want of legal basis.

The Petitioners’ enabling laws and issuances are in themselves clear, categorical,
and complete as to their obligations and mandate. The Court need not belabor the issue
that their tasks include the cleanup of the Manila Bay.

2. No. The disputed sections are quoted as follows:

Section 17. Upgrading of Water Quality.Where the quality of water has deteriorated to a
degree where its state will adversely affect its best usage, the government agencies
concerned shall take 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 operations shall be charged against the
persons and/or entities responsible for such pollution.

Section 16 of the Clean Water Act amended Section 20 of the Environment Code
in this wise:

SEC. 16. Cleanup Operations .Notwithstanding the provisions of Sections 15 and 26

hereof, any person who causes pollution in or pollutes water bodies in excess of the
applicable and prevailing standards shall be responsible to contain, remove and clean up
any pollution incident at his own expense to the extent that the same water bodies have
been rendered unfit for utilization and beneficial use: Provided, That in the event
emergency cleanup operations are necessary and the polluter fails to immediately
undertake the same, the [DENR] in coordination with other government agencies
concerned, shall undertake containment, removal and cleanup operations. Expenses
incurred in said operations shall be reimbursed by the persons found to have caused such
pollution under proper administrative determination x x x. Reimbursements of the cost
incurred shall be made to the Water Quality Management Fund or to such other funds
where said disbursements were sourced.

Petitioners contend at every turn that Secs. 17 and 20 of the Environment Code
concern themselves only with the matter of cleaning up in specific pollution incidents, as
opposed to cleanup in general. They aver that the twin provisions would have to be read
alongside the succeeding Sec. 62(g) and (h), which defines the terms cleanup operations
and accidental spills, as follows:
g. Clean-up Operations [refer] to activities conducted in removing the pollutants
discharged or spilled in water to restore it to pre-spill condition.
 h. Accidental Spills [refer] to spills of oil or other hazardous substances in water that
result from accidents such as collisions and groundings.

To respondents, petitioners parochial view on environmental issues, coupled with

their narrow reading of their respective mandated roles, has contributed to the worsening
water quality of the Manila Bay. Assuming, respondents assert, that petitioners are correct
in saying that the cleanup coverage of Sec. 20 of PD 1152 is constricted by the definition
of the phrase cleanup operations embodied in Sec. 62(g), Sec. 17 is not hobbled by such
limiting definition. As pointed out, the phrases cleanup operations and accidental spills do
not appear in said Sec. 17, not even in the chapter where said section is found.

The Court ruled that respondents are correct. For one thing, said 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. This section, to stress, commands concerned
government agencies, when appropriate, to take such measures as may be necessary to
meet the prescribed water quality standards. In fine, the underlying duty to upgrade the
quality of water is not conditional on the occurrence of any pollution incident.

For another, a perusal of Sec. 20 of the Environment Code, as couched, indicates

that it is properly applicable to a specific situation in which the pollution is caused by
polluters who fail to clean up the mess they left behind. In such instance, the concerned
government agencies shall undertake the cleanup work for the polluters account.

The cleanup and/or restoration of the Manila Bay is only an aspect and the initial
stage of the long-term solution. The preservation of the water quality of the bay after the
rehabilitation process is as important as the cleaning phase.

It thus behooves the Court to put the heads of the petitioner-department-agencies

and the bureaus and offices under them on continuing notice about, and to enjoin them to
perform, their mandates and duties towards cleaning up the Manila Bay and preserving
the quality of its water to the ideal level. 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.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION

The petition is denied. The RTC decision is affirmed with modifications. In particular:

(1) The DENR is directed to fully implement its Operational Plan for the Manila Bay
Coastal Strategy for the rehabilitation, restoration, and conservation of the Manila Bay at
the earliest possible time. It is ordered to call regular coordination meetings with
concerned government departments and agencies to ensure the successful implementation
of the aforesaid plan of action.
(2) The DILG shall direct all LGUs in Metro Manila, Rizal, Laguna, Cavite, Bulacan,
Pampanga, and Bataan to inspect all factories, commercial establishments, and private
homes along the banks of the major river systems in their respective areas of jurisdiction
to determine whether they have wastewater treatment facilities or hygienic septic tanks as
prescribed by existing laws, ordinances, and rules and regulations. If none be found, these
LGUs shall be ordered to require non-complying establishments and homes to set up said
facilities or septic tanks within a reasonable time to prevent industrial wastes, sewage
water, and human wastes from flowing into these rivers, waterways, esteros, and the
Manila Bay, under pain of closure or imposition of fines and other sanctions.

(3) The MWSS is directed to provide, install, operate, and maintain the necessary
adequate waste water treatment facilities in Metro Manila, Rizal, and Cavite where
needed at the earliest possible time.

(4) The LWUA, through the local water districts and in coordination with the DENR, is
ordered to provide, install, operate, and maintain sewerage and sanitation facilities and
the efficient and safe collection, treatment, and disposal of sewage in the provinces of
Laguna, Cavite, Bulacan, Pampanga, and Bataan where needed at the earliest possible
time.

(5) The DA, through the BFAR, is ordered to improve and restore the marine life of
the Manila Bay. It is also directed to assist the LGUs in Metro Manila, Rizal, Cavite,
Laguna, Bulacan, Pampanga, and Bataan in developing, using recognized methods, the
fisheries and aquatic resources in the Manila Bay.

(6) The PCG and the PNP Maritime Group, in coordination with each other, shall
apprehend violators of PD 979, RA 8550, and other existing laws and regulations
designed to prevent marine pollution in the Manila Bay.

(7) The PPA is ordered to immediately adopt such measures to prevent the discharge and
dumping of solid and liquid wastes and other ship-generated wastes into
the Manila Bay waters from vessels docked at ports and apprehend the violators.

(8) The MMDA in coordination with the DPWH, DILG, affected LGUs, PNP Maritime
Group, Housing and Urban Development Coordinating Council (HUDCC), and other
agencies, shall dismantle and remove all structures, constructions, and other
encroachments established or built in violation of RA 7279, and other applicable laws
along the Pasig-Marikina-San Juan Rivers, the NCR (Paraaque-Zapote, Las Pias) Rivers,
the Navotas-Malabon-Tullahan-Tenejeros Rivers, and connecting waterways
and esteros in Metro Manila. The DPWH in coordination with the DILG, affected LGUs,
PNP Maritime Group, HUDCC, and other concerned government agencies, shall remove
and demolish all structures, constructions, and other encroachments built in breach of RA
7279 and other applicable laws along the Meycauayan-Marilao-Obando (Bulacan)
Rivers, the Talisay (Bataan) River, the Imus (Cavite) River, the Laguna De Bay, and other
rivers, connecting waterways, and esteros that discharge wastewater into the Manila Bay.

In addition, the MMDA is ordered to establish, operate, and maintain a sanitary landfill
within a period of one (1) year from finality of this Decision. On matters within its
territorial jurisdiction and in connection with the discharge of its duties on the
maintenance of sanitary landfills and like undertakings, it is also ordered to cause the
apprehension and filing of the appropriate criminal cases against violators of the
respective penal provisions on existing laws on pollution.

(9) The DOH shall, within one (1) year from finality of this Decision, determine if all
licensed septic and sludge companies have the proper facilities for the treatment and
disposal of fecal sludge and sewage coming from septic tanks. The DOH shall give the
 companies, if found to be non-complying, a reasonable time within which to set up the
necessary facilities under pain of cancellation of its environmental sanitation clearance.

(10) The DepEd shall integrate lessons on pollution prevention, waste management,
environmental protection, and like subjects in the school curricula of all levels.

(11) The DBM shall consider incorporating an adequate budget in the General
Appropriations Act of 2010 and succeeding years to cover the expenses relating to the
cleanup, restoration, and preservation of the water quality of the Manila Bay.

(12) The heads of petitioners-agencies MMDA, DENR, DepEd, DOH, DA, DPWH,
DBM, PCG, PNP Maritime Group, DILG, and also of MWSS, LWUA, and PPA, in line
with the principle of continuing mandamus, shall, from finality of this Decision, each
submit to the Court a quarterly progressive report of the activities undertaken in
accordance with this Decision.

RESOLUTION

BACKGROUND

 The government agencies did not file any motion for reconsideration on the above
decision which became final in January 2009.
 The Manila Bay Advisory Committee was created to receive and evaluate the quarterly
progressive reports on the activities undertaken by the agencies in the execution phase.
 In the absence of specific completion periods, the Committee recommended that time
frames be set for the agencies to perform their assigned tasks.

ISSUE

1. WON the setting of time frames for the agencies to perform their assigned tasks may be
viewed as an encroachment over the powers and functions of the Executive Branch

RESOLUTION

1. No. The issuance of subsequent resolutions by the Court is simply an exercise of judicial
power under Art. VIII of the Constitution, because the execution of the Decision is but an
integral part of the adjudicative function of the Court. None of the agencies ever
questioned the power of the Court to implement the December 18, 2008 Decision nor has
any of them raised the alleged encroachment by the Court over executive functions.

While additional activities are required of the agencies like submission of plans of
action, data or status reports, these directives are but part and parcel of the execution
stage of a final decision under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court.

Moreover, the submission of periodic reports is sanctioned by Secs. 7 and 8, Rule

8 of the Rules of Procedure for Environmental cases:

Sec. 7. 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.

Sec. 8. Return of the writ. The periodic reports submitted by the respondent detailing
compliance with the judgment shall be contained in partial returns of the writ. Upon full
satisfaction of the judgment, a final return of the writ shall be made to the court by the
respondent. If the court finds that the judgment has been fully implemented, the
satisfaction of judgment shall be entered in the court docket. (Emphasis supplied.)

The writ of continuing mandamus issued means that until petition-government

agencies have shown full compliance with the Court orders, the Court exercises
continuing jurisdiction over them until full execution of the judgment.

In order to implement the decision, certain directives have been issued by the SC
to address the concerns of the Manila Bay Advisory Committee anent submission of
reports, deadlines, and difficulties encountered by the agencies in complying with the
court directives.
 CONSTITUTION I
A.Y. 1819– DEAN CANDELARIA
 It was recognized as one of the Philippines' oldest
TOPIC Right to a Balanced and Healthful Ecology ecosystems, containing excellent examples of
CASE NO. G.R. No. 206510, September 16, 2014 pristine reefs and a high diversity of marine life.
CASE NAME Arigo v. Swift  UNESCO cited Tubbataha's outstanding universal
PONENTE Villamara, Jr., J. value as an important and significant natural habitat
for in situ conservation of biological diversity; an
PETITIONER MOST REV. PEDRO D. ARIGO, Vicar
example representing significant on-going
Apostolic of Puerto Princesa D.D, et. al.
ecological and biological processes; and an area of
RESPONDENT SCOTT H. SWIFT in his capacity as
exceptional natural beauty and aesthetic importance.
Commander of the US. 7th Fleet, et al.
o In 2010, Congress passed R.A. No. 10067, otherwise known
TYPE OF CASE Petition for the issuance of a Writ of Kalikasan as the "Tubbataha Reefs Natural Park (TRNP) Act of 2009"
MEMBER Dane Nuesa "to ensure the protection and conservation of the
globally significant economic, biological, sociocultural,
ISSUE educational and scientific values of the Tubbataha Reefs
1. W/N petitioners have legal standing. YES. into perpetuity for the enjoyment of present and future
2. W/N Supreme Court has jurisdiction over the U.S. respondents. NO. generations."
3. W/N U.S. respondents may be held liable for damages caused by  Under the "no-take" policy, entry into the waters of
USS Guardian. YES TRNP is strictly regulated and many human
4. W/N the waiver of immunity from suit under VFA applies in this activities are prohibited and penalized or fined,
case. NO. including fishing, gathering, destroying and
disturbing the resources within the TRNP.
RELEVANT FACTS  The law likewise created the Tubbataha Protected
 "Tubbataha" came from the Samal language which means "long Area Management Board (TPAMB) which shall be
reef exposed at low tide." Tubbataha is composed of two huge the sole policy-making and permit-granting body of
coral atolls - the north atoll and the south atoll - and the Jessie the TRNP.
Beazley Reef, a smaller coral structure about 20 kilometers north of  The USS Guardian is an Avenger-class mine countermeasures ship
the atolls. The reefs of Tubbataha and Jessie Beazley are considered of the US Navy. In December 2012, the US Embassy in the
part of Cagayancillo, a remote island municipality of Palawan Philippines requested diplomatic clearance for the said vessel "to
o In 1988, Tubbataha was declared a National Marine Park by enter and exit the territorial waters of the Philippines and to arrive at
virtue of Proclamation No. 306 issued by President Corazon the port of Subic Bay for the purpose of routine ship replenishment,
C. Aquino maintenance, and crew liberty."
o In 1993, Tubbataha was inscribed by the United Nations o On January 6, 2013, the ship left Sasebo, Japan for Subic
Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization Bay, arriving on January 13, 2013
(UNESCO) as a World Heritage Site.

1
 CONSTITUTION I
A.Y. 1819– DEAN CANDELARIA
o On January 15, 2013, the USS Guardian departed Subic Bay
for its next port of call in Makassar, Indonesia.
o On January 17, 2013 at 2:20 a.m. while transiting the Sulu
Sea, the ship ran aground on the northwest side of South
Shoal of the Tubbataha Reefs, about 80 miles east-southeast
of Palawan. No cine was injured in the incident, and there
have been no reports of leaking fuel or oil.
 On January 20, 2013, U.S. 7th Fleet Commander, Vice Admiral
Scott Swift, expressed regret for the incident in a press
statement.
o Likewise, US Ambassador to the Philippines Harry K.
Thomas, Jr., in a meeting at DFA, "reiterated his regrets
over the grounding incident and assured Foreign Affairs
Secretazy Albert F. del Rosario that the U.S. will provide
appropriate compensation for damage to the reef caused
by the ship."
o By 2013, the US Navy-led salvage team had finished
removing the last piece of the grounded ship from the coral
reef.
 Petitioners on their behalf and in representation of their respective
sector/organization and others, including minors or generations yet
unborn, filed the present petition against respondents.
o Petitioners claim that the grounding, salvaging and post-
salvaging operations of the USS Guardian cause and
continue to cause environmental damage of such magnitude
as to affect the provinces of Palawan, Antique, Aklan,
Guimaras, Iloilo, Negros Occidental, Negros Oriental,
Zamboanga del Norte, Basilan, Sulu, and Tawi-Tawi, which
events violate their constitutional rights to a balanced and
healthful ecology.
o Petitioners respectfully pray that the Honorable Court
immediately issue a Temporary Environmental Protection
Order (TEPO) and/or a Writ of Kalikasan.
 Respondents assert that:
2
o (1) the grounds relied upon for the issuance of a TEPO or
writ of Kalikasan have become fait accompli as the salvage
operations on the USS Guardian were already completed;
o (2) the petition is defective in form and substance;
o (3) the petition improperly raises issues involving the VFA
between the Republic of the Philippines and the United
States of America; and
o (4) the determination of the extent of responsibility of the
US Government as regards the damage to the Tubbataha
Reefs rests exclusively with the executive branch.
RATIO DECIDENDI
1.W/N petitioners have legal standing. YES.
 There is no dispute on the legal standing of petitioners to file the
present petition.
 In the landmark case of Oposa v. Factoran, Jr., we recognized the
"public right" of citizens to "a balanced and healthful ecology
which, for the first time in our constitutional history, is solemnly
incorporated in the fundamental law."
o On the novel element in the class suit filed by the petitioners
minors in Oposa, this Court ruled that not only do ordinary
citizens have legal standing to sue for the enforcement of
environmental rights, they can do so in representation of
their own and future generations. Petitioners minors
assert that they represent their generation as well as
generations yet unborn. The Court find no difficulty in
ruling that they can, for themselves, for others of their
generation and for the succeeding generations, file a class
suit. Their personality to sue in behalf of the succeeding
generations can only be based on the concept of
intergenerational responsibility insofar as the right to a
balanced and healthful ecology is concerned.
 CONSTITUTION I
A.Y. 1819– DEAN CANDELARIA
2.W/N Supreme Court has jurisdiction over the U.S. respondents. NO.
 The immunity of the State from suit, known also as the doctrine
of sovereign immunity or non-suability of the State, is expressly
provided in Article XVI of the 1987 Constitution which states:
“Section 3. The State may not be sued without its consent.”
 The matter deals with a sovereign nation and in the maxim “par in
parem, non habet imperium” where all sovereign states are equals
and thus cannot assert jurisdiction over one another in which
assertion of jurisdiction may vex the peace among nations, the
matter is one that should be dealt with the executive department due
to its nature of dealing with another sovereign nation thus may not
be dealt with judicially and the judiciary may not have
jurisdiction concerning the US respondents who did not submit
any pleading or manifestation.
o Suing a representative of a state is believed to be, in effect,
suing the state itself.
 This traditional rule of State immunity which exempts a State from
being sued in the courts of another State without the former's
consent or waiver has evolved into a restrictive doctrine which
distinguishes sovereign and governmental acts (Jure imperil") from
private, commercial and proprietary acts (Jure gestionis).
o Under the restrictive rule of State immunity, State
immunity extends only to acts Jure imperii. The
restrictive application of State immunity is proper only
when the proceedings arise out of commercial transactions
of the foreign sovereign, its commercial activities or
economic affairs.
o They state that the doctrine of immunity from suit will not
apply and may not be invoked where the public official is
being sued in his private and personal capacity as an
ordinary citizen. The cloak of protection afforded the
officers and agents of the government is removed the
moment they are sued in their individual capacity.
3
 In this case, the US respondents were sued in their official
capacity as commanding officers of the US Navy who had control
and supervision over the USS Guardian and its crew. The alleged act
or omission resulting in the unfortunate grounding of the USS
Guardian on the TRNP was committed while they we’re performing
official military duties. Considering that the satisfaction of a
judgment against said officials will require remedial actions and
appropriation of funds by the US government, the suit is deemed to
be one against the US itself. The principle of State immunity
therefore bars the exercise of jurisdiction by this Court over the
persons of respondents Swift, Rice and Robling.

3.W/N U.S. respondents may be held liable for damages caused by USS
Guardian. YES.
 According to Justice Carpio, although the US to date has not ratified
the UNCLOS, as a matter of long-standing policy the US considers
itself bound by customary international rules on the "traditional uses
of the oceans" as codified in UNCLOS,
o The UNCLOS is a product of international negotiation that
seeks to balance State sovereignty (mare clausum) and the
principle of freedom of the high seas (mare liberum). The
freedom to use the world's marine waters is one of the oldest
customary principles of international law. The UNCLOS
gives to the coastal State sovereign rights in varying degrees
over the different zones of the sea which are: 1) internal
waters, 2) territorial sea, 3) contiguous zone, 4) exclusive
economic zone, and 5) the high seas. It also gives coastal
States more or less jurisdiction over foreign vessels
depending on where the vessel is located.
 In the case of warships, as pointed out by Justice Carpio, they
continue to enjoy sovereign immunity subject to the following
exceptions:
 CONSTITUTION I
A.Y. 1819– DEAN CANDELARIA
o If any warship does not comply with the laws and
regulations of the coastal State concerning passage through
the territorial sea and disregards any request for compliance
therewith which is made to it, the coastal State may require
it to leave the territorial sea immediately. (Art 30)
o The flag State shall bear international responsibility for
any loss or damage to the coastal State resulting from the
non-compliance by a warship or other government ship
operated for non-commercial purposes with the laws and
regulations of the coastal State concerning passage through
the territorial sea or with the provisions of this Convention
or other rules of international law. (Art 31)
 The Court concur with Justice Carpio's view that non-membership
in the UNCLOS does not mean that the US will disregard the
rights of the Philippines as a Coastal State over its internal
waters and territorial sea. The Court expect the US to bear
"international responsibility" in connection with the USS
Guardian grounding which adversely affected the Tubbataha reefs.
4.W/N the waiver of immunity from suit under VFA applies in this case.
NO.
 The VFA is an agreement which defines the treatment of United
States troops and personnel visiting the Philippines to promote
"common security interests" between the US and the Philippines in
the region. It provides for the guidelines to govern such visits of
military personnel, and further defines the rights of the United States
and the Philippine government in the matter of criminal jurisdiction,
movement of vessel and aircraft, importation and exportation of
equipment, materials and supplies
 The waiver of State immunity under the VFA pertains only to
criminal jurisdiction and not to special civil actions such as the
present petition for issuance of a writ of Kalikasan.
o In any case, it is considered that a ruling on the application
or non-application of criminal jurisdiction provisions of the
4
VFA to US personnel who may be found responsible for the
grounding of the USS Guardian, would be premature and
beyond the province of a petition for a writ of Kalikasan.
The Court finds it unnecessary at this point to determine
whether such waiver of State immunity is indeed absolute.
In the same vein, we cannot grant damages, which have
resulted from the violation of environmental laws.
DISPOSITIVE POSITION
Wherefore the petition for the issuance of the privilege of the Writ of
Kalikasan is hereby DENIED.
DOCTRINE/PRECEDENT
 Locus standi is "a right of appearance in a court of justice on a
given question." Specifically, it is "a party's personal and substantial
interest in a case where he has sustained or will sustain direct injury
as a result" of the act being challenged, and "calls for more than just
a generalized grievance."
o However, the rule on standing is a procedural matter which
this Court has relaxed for non-traditional plaintiffs like
ordinary citizens, taxpayers and legislators when the public
interest so requires, such as when the subject matter of the
controversy is of transcendental importance, of overreaching
significance to society, or of paramount public interest.
 Jure emperil: sovereign and governmental acts
 Jure gestionis: private, commercial and proprietary acts
RELEVANT LAWS
 Writ of Kalikasan: legal remedy under Philippine law for persons
whose constitutional right to “a balanced and healthful ecology” is
violated by an unlawful act or omission of a public official,
employee, or private individual or entity.
 CONSTITUTION I
A.Y. 1819– DEAN CANDELARIA
 International law of the sea: a body of treaty rules arid customary
norms governing the uses of the sea, the exploitation of its
resources, and the exercise of jurisdiction over maritime regimes. It
is a branch of public international law, regulating the relations of
states with respect to the uses of the oceans.
 Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases (Rules)
o Section 17, Rule 7 of the Rules that a criminal case against a
person charged with a violation of an environmental law is
to be filed separately:
SEC. 17. Institution of separate actions.-The filing
of a petition for the issuance of the writ of kalikasan
shall not preclude the filing of separate civil,
criminal or administrative actions.
o SEC. 15. Judgment.-Within sixty (60) days from the time
the petition is submitted for decision, the court shall render
judgment granting or denying the privilege of the writ of
kalikasan.
o The reliefs that may be granted under the writ are
the following:
 (a) Directing respondent to permanently
cease and desist from committing acts or
neglecting the performance of a duty in
violation of environmental laws resulting in
environmental destruction or damage;
 (b) Directing the respondent public official,
govemment agency, private person or entity
to protect, preserve, rehabilitate or restore
the environment;
 (c) Directing the respondent public official,
government agency, private person or entity
to monitor strict compliance with the
decision and orders of the court;
5
 (d) Directing the respondent public official,
government agency, or private person or
entity to make periodic reports on the
execution of the final judgment; and
 (e) 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, except the award of
damages to individual petitioners
SEPARATE OPINION
CONCURRING
 SERENO, CJ.:
Main Point:
Sovereign immunity serves as a bar for the foreign sovereign to be
subjected to the trial process.
Discussion:
 There are two conflicting concepts of sovereign immunity, each
widely held and firmly established. According to the classical or
absolute theory, a sovereign cannot, without its consent, be made a
respondent in the courts of another sovereign. According to the
newer or restrictive theory, the immunity of the sovereign is
recognized only with regard to public acts or acts jurc imperii of a
state, but not with regard to private acts or acts jure gestionis.
 The most important immunity to an international official, in the
discharge of his international functions, is immunity from local
jurisdiction. There is no argument in doctrine or practice with the
principle that an international official is independent of the
jurisdiction of the local authorities for his official acts. Those acts
are not his, but arc imputed to the organization, and without waiver
the local courts cannot hold him liable for them.
 CONSTITUTION I
A.Y. 1819– DEAN CANDELARIA
 The basic concept of state immunity is that no state may be
subjected to the jurisdiction of another state without its consent.
o According to Professor Ian Brownlie, it is "a procedural bar
(not a substantive defence) based on the status and functions
of the state or official in question."
 The rules of State immunity are procedural in character and are
confined to determining whether or not the courts of one State may
exercise jurisdiction in respect of another State. They do not bear
upon the question whether or not the conduct in respect of which the
proceedings are brought was lawful or unlawful.
o What the Court is left to work with is a process by which
jurisdiction and immunity can be determined by answering
several questions, summated thusly:
 1. Is the act of the foreign national or entity an act
Jure imperii, such that it can be considered an act
of state entitled to immunity, or an act jure
gestionis, in which case it is to be considered a
private act?
 2. In respect of the above question, has the executive
branch, in the exercise of its political power,
determined whether absolute diplomatic immunity is
applicable?
 3. If it is an act jure imperii and thus entitled to
sovereign immunity, does an exception apply to
withdraw the immunity privilege of such acts?
 In this case, it is apparent that the act of the US.S. Guardian and
its officers in entering Philippine waters is allowed by the VFA,
and as a treaty privilege should be considered an act Jure imperii. lts
deviation into the waters of Tubbataha, and whether this can be
considered a private act; is a factual issue that should be determined
by the proper body. Indeed, while Philippine authorities may not
have authorized the deviation, if the United States government
affirms that it gave the Guardian sufficient discretion to determine
6
its course, then the act is not necessarily robbed of its Jure imperii
character and is thus entitled to immunity. The course of action of
the Philippine government would be to engage in diplomatic
negotiations for potential treaty breach liability.
 No exception exists in Philippine or international law that would
remove the immunity of the United States in order to place it under
the jurisdiction of Philippine courts. The Writ of Kalikasan is a
compulsory writ, and its issuance initiates a legal process that
would circumvent the internationally established rules of
immunity. Should the Court issue the Writ, it could possibly entail
international responsibility for breaching the jurisdictional immunity
of a sovereign state.
 LEONEN, J.:
Main Point:
Petition should be dismissed primarily because it is moot and
academic.
Discussion:
 The parties who brought this petition have no legal standing.
o Citizen's suits are suits brought by parties suffering
direct and substantial injuries; although in the
environmental field, these injuries may be shared with
others. It is different from class suits brought as
representative suits under Oposa v. Factoran.
o The rule with respect to standing should require that
parties bringing the suit are sufficiently and
substantially possessed of individual interest and
capability so that they can properly shape the issues
brought before this court. The capability of the parties to
bring suit can readily be seen through the allegations
made in their petition.
 They also invoke the wrong remedy.
o The writ of kalikasan is not an all-embracing legal
remedy to be wielded like a political tool.1âwphi1 It is
 CONSTITUTION I
A.Y. 1819– DEAN CANDELARIA
both an extraordinary and equitable remedy which
assists to prevent environmental catastrophes. It does
not replace other legal remedies similarly motivated by
concern for the environment and the community's
ecological welfare.
 Certainly, when the petition itself alleges that
remedial and preventive remedies have
occurred, the functions of the writ cease to exist.
 Our doctrine regarding sovereign immunity also needs to be
refined in the proper case with respect to its nature, source, and
its limitations.
o The doctrine of sovereign immunity evolves out of the
theory and practice of sovereignty and the principle par
in parem non habet Jurisdictionem.
o Contemporarily, it is understood as a basic right
extended to states by other states on the basis of respect
for sovereignty and independence. There appears to be a
consensus among states that sovereign immunity as a
concept is legally binding.However, there remains to be
a lack of international agreement as to how it is to be
invoked and the extent of immunity in some cases.
 “Certainly, this petition being moot and not brought by the
proper parties, I agree that it is not the proper case where we can
lay down this doctrine. I, therefore, can· only concur in the
result.”

7
TOPIC Right to a Balanced and Healthful ecology
CASE NO. G.R. No. 180771
CASE NAME Resident Marine Mammals vs. Secretary Reyes
PONENTE Leonardo-De Castro, J.
PETITIONER Resident Marine Mammals of the Protected Seascape Tañon Strait
RESPONDENT Sec Angelo Reyes (DOE), Jose L. Atienza (DENR), Leonardo R. Sibbaluca,
as then DENR-Reg Dir for Reg VII and Chairman of the Tañon Strait
TYPE OF CASE An original Petition for Certiorari, Mandamus, and Injunction, which seeks
to enjoin respondents from implementing SC-46 and to have it nullified for
willful and gross violation of the 1987 Constitution and certain international
and municipal laws.
GROUP MEMBER Angenine M. Sto. Domingo

RELEVANT FACTS
- The Tañon Strait is a narrow passage of water bounded by the islands of Cebu in the East and
Negros in the West. It harbors a rich biodiversity of marine life, including endangered species of
dolphins and whales. For this reason, former President Fidel V. Ramos declared the Tañon Strait
as a protected seascape in 1998 by virtue of Proclamation No. 1234 - Declaring the Tañon Strait
situated in the Provinces of Cebu, Negros Occidental and Negros Oriental as a Protected Area
pursuant to the NIPAS Act and shall be known as Tañon Strait Protected Seascape. During
former President Joseph E. Estrada’s time, he also constituted the Tañon Strait Commission via
Executive Order No. 76 to ensure the optimum and sustained use of the resources in that area
without threatening its marine life. He followed this with Executive Order No. 177, wherein he
included the mayor of Negros Occidental Municipality/City as a member of the Tañon Strait
Commission, to represent the LGUs concerned. This Commission, however, was subsequently
abolished in 2002 by then President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, via Executive Order No. 72.
- Named as respondents in both petitions are the late Angelo T. Reyes, as then Secretary of the
Department of Energy (DOE); Jose L. Atienza, as then Secretary of the DENR; Leonardo R.
Sibbaluca, as then DENR- Regional Director for Region VII and Chairman of the Tañon Strait
Protected Seascape Management Board; Japan Petroleum Exploration Co., Ltd. (JAPEX), a
company organized and existing under the laws of Japan with a Philippine branch office; and
Supply Oilfield Services, Inc. (SOS), as the alleged Philippine agent of JAPEX.
- In G.R. No. 181527, the following were impleaded as additional public respondents: Alan C.
Arranguez (Arranguez) and Antonio Labios (Labios), in their capacities as then Director of the
EMB, Region VII and then Regional Director of the DOE, Region VII, respectively.
- On June 13, 2002, the Government of the Philippines, acting through the DOE, entered into a
Geophysical Survey and Exploration Contract-102 (GSEC-102) with JAPEX. This contract
involved geological and geophysical studies of the Tañon Strait. The studies included surface
geology, sample analysis, and reprocessing of seismic and magnetic data. JAPEX, assisted by
DOE, also conducted geophysical and satellite surveys, as well as oil and gas sampling in Tañon
Strait.
- On December 21, 2004, DOE and JAPEX formally converted GSEC- 102 into SC-46 for
the exploration, development, and production of petroleum resources in a block covering
approximately 2,850 square kilometers offshore the Tañon Strait. From May 9 to 18, 2005,
JAPEX conducted seismic surveys in and around the Tañon Strait. A multi-channel sub-bottom
profiling covering approximately 751 kilometers was also done to determine the area’s
underwater composition.
- JAPEX committed to drill one exploration well during the second sub-phase of the
project. Since the well was to be drilled in the marine waters of Aloguinsan and
Pinamungajan, where the Tañon Strait was declared a protected seascape in 1988,10
JAPEX agreed to comply with the Environmental Impact Assessment requirements
pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 1586, entitled “Establishing An Environmental Impact
Statement System, Including Other Environmental Management Related Measures And
For Other Purposes.”
- On January 31, 2007, the Protected Area Management Board of the Tañon Strait (PAMB-
Tañon Strait) issued Resolution No. 2007-001, wherein it adopted the Initial Environmental
Examination (IEE) commissioned by JAPEX, and favorably recommended the approval of
JAPEX’s application for an ECC.
- On March 6, 2007, the EMB of DENR Region VII granted an ECC to the DOE and JAPEX for
the offshore oil and gas exploration project in Tañon Strait. Months later, on November 16,
2007, JAPEX began to drill an exploratory well, with a depth of 3,150 meters, near
Pinamungajan town in the western Cebu Province. This drilling lasted until February 8, 2008. It
was in view of the foregoing state of affairs that petitioners applied to this Court for redress, via
two separate original petitions both dated December 17, 2007, wherein they commonly seek that
respondents be enjoined from implementing SC-46 for, among others, violation of the 1987
Constitution.
- On March 31, 2008, SOS filed a Motion to Strike its name as a respondent on the ground that it
is not the Philippine agent of JAPEX. In support of its motion, it submitted the branch office
application of JAPEX, wherein the latter’s resident agent was clearly identified. SOS claimed
that it had acted as a mere logistics contractor for JAPEX in its oil and gas exploration activities
in the Philippines.
- Petitioners Resident Marine Mammals and Stewards opposed SOS’s motion on the ground that
it was premature, it was pro-forma, and it was patently dilatory. They claimed that SOS admitted
that “it is in law a (sic) privy to JAPEX” since it did the drilling and other exploration activities
in Tañon Strait under the instructions of its principal, JAPEX. They argued that it would be
premature to drop SOS as a party as JAPEX had not yet been joined in the case; and that it was
“convenient” for SOS to ask the Court to simply drop its name from the parties when what it
should have done was to either notify or ask JAPEX to join it in its motion to enable proper
substitution. At this juncture, petitioners Resident Marine Mammals and Stewards also asked the
Court to implead JAPEX Philippines as a co- respondent or as a substitute for its parent
company, JAPEX.
- On April 8, 2008, the Court resolved to consolidate G.R. No. 180771 and G.R. No. 181527. On
May 26, 2008, the FIDEC manifested that they were adopting in toto the Opposition to Strike
with Motion to Implead filed by petitioners Resident Marine Mammals and Stewards in G.R. No.
180771.
- On June 19, 2008, public respondents filed their Manifestation that they were not objecting to
SOS’s Motion to Strike as it was not JAPEX’s resident agent. JAPEX during all this time, did
not file any comment at all. Thus, on February 7, 2012, this Court, in an effort to ensure that all
the parties were given ample chance and opportunity to answer the issues herein, issued a
Resolution directing the Court’s process servicing unit to again serve the parties with a copy of
the September 23, 2008 Resolution of the Court, which gave due course to the petitions in G.R.
Nos. 180771 and 181527, and which required the parties to submit their respective memoranda.
This Resolution was personally served to the above parties, at the above addresses on February
23, 2012. On March 20, 2012, JAPEX Philippines, Ltd. (JAPEX PH), by way of special
appearance, filed a Motion to Admit its Motion for Clarification, wherein JAPEX PH requested
to be clarified as to whether or not it should deem the February 7, 2012 Resolution as this
Court’s Order of its inclusion in the case, as it has not been impleaded. It also alleged that
JAPEX PH had already stopped exploration activities in the Tañon Strait way back in 2008,
rendering this case moot.
- On March 22, 2012, JAPEX PH, also by special appearance, filed a Motion for Extension of
Time to file its Memorandum. It stated that since it received the February 7, 2012 Resolution on
February 23, 2012, it had until March 22, 2012 to file its Memorandum. JAPEX PH then asked
for an additional thirty days, supposedly to give this Court some time to consider its Motion for
Clarification. And in the interest of justice, this Court resolved to grant JAPEX PH’s motion for
extension of time to file its memorandum, and was given until April 21, 2012, as prayed for,
within which to comply with the submission. Without filing its Memorandum, JAPEX PH, on
May 14, 2012, filed a motion, asking this Court for an additional thirty days to file its
Memorandum, to be counted from May 8, 2012. It justified its request by claiming that this
Court’s April 24, 2012 Resolution was issued past its requested deadline for filing, which was on
April 21, 2012.
- On June 19, 2012, this Court denied JAPEX PH’s second request for additional time to file its
Memorandum and dispensed with such filing. Since petitioners had already filed their respective
memoranda, and public respondents had earlier filed a Manifestation that they were adopting
their Comment dated March 31, 2008 as their memorandum, this Court submitted the case for
decision.

ISSUES AND RATIO

1. Whether or not petitioners have locus standi to file the instant petition;
 YES. The exceptional character of the situation and the paramount public
interest is involved.
Our own 1997 Rules of Court demand that parties to a suit be either natural or
juridical persons, or entities authorized by law. It further necessitates the action to be
brought in the name of the real party-in-interest, even if filed by
a representative. It had been suggested by animal rights advocates and
environmentalists that not only natural and juridical persons should be given legal
standing because of the difficulty for persons, who cannot show that they by
themselves are real parties-in-interests, to bring actions in representation of these
animals or inanimate objects. In our jurisdiction, locus standi in environmental cases
has been given a more liberalized approach.
Recently, the Court passed the landmark Rules of Procedure for
Environmental Cases, which allow for a “citizen suit,” and permit any Filipino citizen
to file an action before our courts for violations of our environmental laws (Sec. 5.
Citizen Suit) Explaining the rationale for this rule, the Court, in the Annotations to
the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases, commented:
Citizen suit. To further encourage the protection of the environment, the
Rules enable litigants enforcing environmental rights to file their cases as citizen
suits. This provision liberalizes standing for all cases filed enforcing
environmental laws and collapses the traditional rule on personal and direct
interest, on the principle that humans are stewards of nature.
The terminology of the text reflects the doctrine first enunciated in Oposa v.
Factoran, insofar as it refers to minors and generations yet unborn.53 (Emphasis supplied,
citation omitted.) Although this petition was filed in 2007, years before the effectivity of
the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases, it has been consistently held that rules
of procedure “may be retroactively applied to actions pending and undetermined at the
time of their passage and will not violate any right of a person who may feel that he is
adversely affected, inasmuch as there is no vested rights in rules of procedure.”
Elucidating on this doctrine, the Court, in Systems Factors Corporation v. National Labor
Relations Commission55 held that:
Remedial statutes or statutes relating to remedies or modes of procedure,
which do not create new or take away vested rights, but only operate in furtherance of
the remedy or confirmation of rights already existing, do not come within the legal
conception of a retroactive law, or the general rule against retroactive operation of
statutes. Statutes regulating the procedure of the courts will be construed as
applicable to actions pending and undetermined at the time of their passage.
Procedural laws are retroactive in that sense and to that extent. x x x.
Moreover, even before the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases became
effective, this Court had already taken a permissive position on the issue of locus standi
in environmental cases. In Oposa, we allowed the suit to be brought in the name of
 generations yet unborn “based on the concept of intergenerational responsibility insofar
as the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is concerned.” Furthermore, we said that
the right to a balanced and healthful ecology, a right that does not even need to be stated
in our Constitution as it is assumed to exist from the inception of humankind, carries with
it the correlative duty to refrain from impairing the environment. In light of the foregoing,
the need to give the Resident Marine Mammals legal standing has been eliminated by our
Rules, which allow any Filipino citizen, as a steward of nature, to bring a suit to enforce
our environmental laws. It is worth noting here that the Stewards are joined as real parties
in the Petition and not just in representation of the named cetacean species. The Stewards,
Ramos and Eisma-Osorio, having shown in their petition that there may be possible
violations of laws concerning the habitat of the Resident Marine Mammals, are therefore
declared to possess the legal standing to file this petition.
2. Whether or not service contract no. 46 violate the 1987 Constitution and
statutes;
YES. There is a grave violation of the Constitution. SC no. 46 is null and void for
being violative of the 1987 Constitution.
While the petitioners allege that SC-46 is in violation of several laws, including
international ones, their arguments focus primarily on the protected status of the Tañon
Strait, thus this Court will concentrate on those laws that pertain particularly to the Tañon
Strait as a protected seascape. True to the constitutional policy that 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,” Congress enacted the NIPAS Act to
secure the perpetual existence of all native plants and animals through the
establishment of a comprehensive system of integrated protected areas. These areas
possess common ecological values that were incorporated into a holistic plan
representative of our natural heritage. The system encompasses outstandingly remarkable
areas and biologically important public lands that are habitats of rare and endangered
species of plants and animals, biogeographic zones and related ecosystems, whether
terrestrial, wetland, or marine. It classifies and administers all the designated
protected areas to maintain essential ecological processes and life-support systems,
to preserve genetic diversity, to ensure sustainable use of resources found therein,
and to maintain their natural conditions to the greatest extent possible. The
following categories of protected areas were established under the NIPAS Act: 1) Strict
nature reserve, 2)Natural park, 3) Natural monument 4) Wildlife sanctuary, 5) Protected
landscapes and seascapes. 6) Resource reserve, 7) Natural biotic areas, and 8) Other
categories established by law, conventions or international agreements which the
Philippine Government is a signatory. Section 4 of the NIPAS Act, a protected area
refers to portions of land and water, set aside due to their unique physical and biological
significance, managed to enhance biological diversity and protected against human
exploitation. The Tañon Strait, pursuant to Proclamation No. 1234, was set aside and
 declared a protected area under the category of Protected Seascape. The NIPAS Act
defines a Protected Seascape to be an area of national significance characterized by the
harmonious interaction of man and land while providing opportunities for public
enjoyment through recreation and tourism within the normal lifestyle and economic
activity of this areas; thus a management plan for each area must be designed to protect
and enhance the permanent preservation of its natural conditions. Consistent with this
endeavor is the requirement that an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) be made
prior to undertaking any activity outside the scope of the management plan. Unless an
ECC under the EIA system is obtained, no activity inconsistent with the goals of the
NIPAS Act shall be implemented.
3. Whether or not the on-going exploration and proposed exploitation for oil and
natural gas at, around, and underneath the marine waters of the Tañon strait
protected seascape is inconsistent with the Philippine Commitments to
International Environmental Laws and instruments; and
YES.
Under Proclamation No. 2146, the Tañon Strait is an environmentally critical
area, having been declared as a protected area in 1998; therefore, any activity
outside the scope of its management plan may only be implemented pursuant to
an ECC secured after undergoing an EIA to determine the effects of such activity
on its ecological system. The public respondents argue that they had complied with
the procedures in obtaining an ECC and that SC-46 falls under the exceptions in
Section 14 of the NIPAS Act, due to the following reasons: 1) The Tañon Strait is not
a strict nature reserve or natural park; 2) Exploration is only for the purpose of
gathering information on possible energy resources; and 3) Measures are undertaken
to ensure that the exploration is being done with the least damage to surrounding
areas. We do not agree with the arguments raised by the public respondents.
Sections 12 and 14 of the NIPAS Act read:
SECTION 12. Environmental Impact Assessment. - Proposals for
activities which are outside the scope of the management plan for protected areas
shall be subject to an environmental impact assessment as required by law before
they are adopted, and the results thereof shall be taken into consideration in the
decision-making process.
No actual implementation of such activities shall be allowed without the
required Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC) under the Philippine
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) system. In instances where such
activities are allowed to be undertaken, the proponent shall plan and carry them
out in such manner as will minimize any adverse effects and take preventive and
remedial action when appropriate. The proponent shall be liable for any damage
due to lack of caution or indiscretion.
SECTION 14. Survey for Energy Resources. - Consistent with the
 policies declared in Section 2 hereof, protected areas, except strict nature reserves
and natural parks, may be subjected to exploration only for the purpose of
gathering information on energy resources and only if such activity is carried out
with the least damage to surrounding areas. Surveys shall be conducted only in
accordance with a program approved by the DENR, and the result of such surveys
shall be made available to the public and submitted to the President for
recommendation to Congress. Any exploitation and utilization of energy
resources found within NIPAS areas shall be allowed only through a law passed
by Congress.

It is true that the restrictions found under the NIPAS Act are not without
exceptions. However, while an exploration done for the purpose of surveying for
energy resources is allowed under Section 14 of the NIPAS Act, this does not mean
that it is exempt from the requirement to undergo an EIA under Section 12. In Sotto
v. Sotto, this Court explained why a statute should be construed as a whole:

1. A statute is passed as a whole and not in parts or sections and is animated by one
general purpose and intent. Consequently, each part or section should be
construed in connection with every other part or section and so as to produce a
harmonious whole. It is not proper to confine the attention to the one section to be
construed. It is always an unsafe way of construing a statute or contract to divide
it by a process of etymological dissection, into separate words, and then apply to
each, thus separated from its context, some particular definition given by
lexicographers, and then reconstruct the instrument upon the basis of these
definitions. An instrument must always be construed as a whole, and the
particular meaning to be attached to any word or phrase is usually to be
ascertained from the context, the nature of the subject treated of and the purpose
or intention of the parties who executed the contract, or of the body which enacted
or framed the statute or constitution. x x x.
2. Surveying for energy resources under Section 14 is not an exemption from
complying with the EIA requirement in Section 12; instead, Section 14 provides
for additional requisites before any exploration for energy resources may be done
in protected areas.

The rationale for such additional requirements are incorporated in Section 2 of

the NIPAS Act, to wit:

SECTION 2. Declaration of Policy – Cognizant of the profound impact of

man’s activities on all components of the natural environment particularly the
effect of increasing population, resource exploitation and industrial advancement
and recognizing the critical importance of protecting and maintaining the natural
 biological and physical diversities of the environment notably on areas with
biologically unique features to sustain human life and development, as well as
plant and animal life, it is hereby declared the policy of the State to secure for the
Filipino people of present and future generations the perpetual existence of all
native plants and animals through the establishment of a comprehensive system of
integrated protected areas within the classification of national park as provided for
in the Constitution.

It is hereby recognized that these areas, although distinct in features, possess

common ecological values that may be incorporated into a holistic plan representative
of our natural heritage; that effective administration of this area is possible only
through cooperation among national government, local government and concerned
private organizations; that the use and enjoyment of these protected areas must be
consistent with the principles of biological diversity and sustainable development. To
this end, there is hereby established a National Integrated Protected Areas System
(NIPAS), which shall encompass outstandingly remarkable areas and biologically
important public lands that are habitats. The public respondents themselves
admitted that JAPEX only started to secure an ECC prior to the second sub-
phase of SC-46, which required the drilling of an oil exploration well. This
means that when the seismic surveys were done in the Tañon Strait, no such
environmental impact evaluation was done. Unless seismic surveys are part of the
management plan of the Tañon Strait, such surveys were done in violation of Section
12 of the NIPAS Act and Section 4 of Presidential Decree No. 1586, which provides:

Section 4. Presidential Proclamation of Environmentally Critical Areas

and Projects. - The President of the Philippines may, on his own initiative or upon
recommendation of the National Environmental Protection Council, by
proclamation declare certain projects, undertakings or areas in the country as
environmentally critical. 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. For the proper management of said critical project
or area, the President may by his proclamation reorganize such government
offices, agencies, institutions, corporations or instrumentalities including the re-
alignment of government personnel, and their specific functions and
responsibilities.

For the same purpose as above, the Ministry of Human Settlements shall: (a)
prepare the proper land or water use pattern for said critical project(s) or area(s); (b)
establish ambient environmental quality standards; (c) develop a program of
environmental enhancement or protective measures against calamitous factors such as
 earthquakes, floods, water erosion and others, and (d) perform such other functions as
may be directed by the President from time to time. The respondents’ subsequent
compliance with the EISS for the second sub-phase of SC-46 cannot and will not cure
this violation. The following penalties are provided for under Presidential Decree No.
1586 and the NIPAS Act.

4. Whether or not the issuance of the environmental compliance certificate (ECC)

in environmentally critical areas and habitats of marine wildlife and endangered
species is legal and proper.
NO.
The Environmental Impact Statement System (EISS) was established in 1978
under Presidential Decree No. 1586. It prohibits any person, partnership or
corporation from undertaking or operating any declared environmentally critical
project or areas without first securing an ECC issued by the President or his duly
authorized representative.Pursuant to the EISS, which called for the proper
management of environmentally critical areas, Proclamation No. 2146 was enacted,
identifying the areas and types of projects to be considered as environmentally critical
and within the scope of the EISS, while DENR Administrative Order No. 2003-30
provided for its Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR). DENR Administrative
Order No. 2003-30 defines an environmentally critical area as “an area delineated as
environmentally sensitive such that significant environmental impacts are expected if
certain types of proposed projects or programs are located, developed, or
implemented in it”; thus, before a project, which is “any activity, regardless of scale
or magnitude, which may have significant impact on the environment,” is undertaken
in it, such project must undergo an EIA to evaluate and predict the likely impacts of
all its stages on the environment. An EIA is described in detail as follows:
h. Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) - process that involves evaluating
and predicting the likely impacts of a project (including cumulative impacts) on
the environment during construction, commissioning, operation and
abandonment. It also includes designing appropriate preventive, mitigating and
enhancement measures addressing these consequences to protect the environment
and the community’s welfare. The process is undertaken by, among others, the
project proponent and/or EIA Consultant, EMB, a Review Committee, affected
communities and other stakeholders.

Moreover, SC-46 was not executed for the mere purpose of gathering information
on the possible energy resources in the Tañon Strait as it also provides for the parties’
rights and obligations relating to extraction and petroleum production should oil in
commercial quantities be found to exist in the area. While Presidential Decree No. 87
may serve as the general law upon which a service contract for petroleum exploration and
extraction may be authorized, the exploitation and utilization of this energy resource in
 the present case may be allowed only through a law passed by Congress, since the Tañon
Strait is a NIPAS area. Since there is no such law specifically allowing oil exploration
and/or extraction in the Tañon Strait, no energy resource exploitation and
utilization may be done in said protected seascape. Section 9 of Presidential Decree
No. 1586 provides for the penalty involving violations of the ECC requirement:

Section 9. Penalty for Violation. - Any person, corporation or partnership

found violating Section 4 of this Decree, or the terms and conditions in the
issuance of the Environmental Compliance Certificate, or of the standards,
rules and regulations issued by the National Environmental Protection
Council pursuant to this Decree shall be punished by the suspension or
cancellation of his/its certificates and/or a fine in an amount not to exceed
Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) for every violation thereof, at the
discretion of the National Environmental Protection Council.

Violations of the NIPAS Act entails the following fines and/or imprisonment under
Section 21:

SECTION 21. Penalties. – Whoever violates this Act or any rules and regulations
issued by the Department pursuant to this Act or whoever is found guilty by a
competent court of justice of any of the offenses in the preceding section shall be
fined in the amount of not less than Five thousand pesos (P5,000) nor more than Five
hundred thousand pesos (P500,000), exclusive of the value of the thing damaged or
imprisonment for not less than one (1) year but not more than six (6) years, or both,
as determined by the court: Provided, that, if the area requires rehabilitation or
restoration as determined by the court, the offender shall be required to restore or
compensate for the restoration to the damages: Provided, further, that court shall
order the eviction of the offender from the land and the forfeiture in favor of the
Government of all minerals, timber or any species collected or removed including all
equipment, devices and firearms used in connection therewith, and any construction
or improvement made thereon by the offender. If the offender is an association or
corporation, the president or manager shall be directly responsible for the act of his
employees and laborers: Provided, finally, that the DENR may impose administrative
fines and penalties consistent with this Act.

RULING
WHEREFORE, the Petitions in G.R. Nos. 180771 and 181527 are GRANTED, Service
Contract No. 46 is hereby declared NULL AND VOID for violating the 1987 Constitution,
Republic Act No. 7586, and Presidential Decree No. 1586.

RELEVANT LAWS
P.D. 1586 “Establishing an Environmental Impact Statement System, Including Other
Environmental Management Related Measures And For Other Purposes.”
1997 Rules of Court
Rule 3 Parties to Civil Actions
Section 1. Who may be parties; plaintiff and defendant. – Only natural or juridical
persons, or entities authorized by law may be parties in a civil action. The term “plaintiff” may
refer to the claiming party, the counter-claimant, the cross-claimant, or the third (fourth, etc.)-
party plaintiff. The term “defendant” may refer to the original defending party, the defendant in a
counterclaim, the cross-defendant, or the third (fourth, etc.) party defendant.
Section 2. Parties in interest. – A real party in interest is the party who stands to be
benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit, or the party entitled to the avails of the suit.
Unless otherwise authorized by law or these Rules, every action must be prosecuted or defended
in the name of the real party in interest.
Section 3. Representatives as parties. – Where the action is allowed to be prosecuted or
defended by a representative or someone acting in a fiduciary capacity, the beneficiary shall be
included in the title of the case and shall be deemed to be the real party in interest. A
representative may be a trustee of an express trust, a guardian, an executor or administrator, or a
party authorized by law or these Rules. An agent acting in his own name and for the benefit of an
undisclosed principal may sue or be sued without joining the principal except when the contract
involves things belonging to the principal.
 CONSTITUTION I
A.Y. 1819– DEAN CANDELARIA
TOPIC Writ of Kalikasan Writ of Kalikasan
CASE NO. G.R. No. 207257 / 749 SCRA 39. February 3, 2015 - The Rules on the Writ of Kalikasan, which is Part III of the Rules of
CASE NAME Paje vs Casiño Procedure for Environmental Cases, was issued by the Court
PONENTE Del Castillo, J. pursuant to its power to promulgate rules for the protection and
PETITIONER Hon. Ramon Jesus P. Paje enforcement of constitutional rights, in particular, the individual’s
right to a balanced and healthful ecology. Section 1 of Rule 7
RESPONDEN Hon. Teodoro A. Casiño
provides:
T
TYPE OF Consolidated Petitions for Review on Certiorari - Section 1. Nature of the writ.- The writ is a remedy available to a
CASE natural or juridical person, entity authorized by law, people’s
MEMBER Larry Nepomuceno organization, nongovernmental organization, or any public interest
group accredited by or registered with any government agency, on
DOCTRINE/PRECEDENT behalf of persons whose constitutional right to a balanced and
Article II. Section 16. Right to a Balanced and Healthful Ecology healthful ecology is violated, or threatened with violation by an
unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or private
(Constitution)
individual or entity, involving environmental damage of such
- The State shall protect and advance the right of the people to a magnitude as to prejudice the life, health or property of inhabitants
balanced and healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and in two or more cities or provinces.
harmony of nature. - Under Section 1 of Rule 7, the following requisites must be present
- This constitutional provision can be upheld in many ways: Before an to avail of this extraordinary remedy: (1) there is an actual or
environmentally critical project can be implemented or prior to an threatened violation of the constitutional right to a balanced and
activity in an environmentally critical area, the law requires that the healthful ecology; (2) the actual or threatened violation arises from
proponents undergo environmental impact assessments and produce an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or
environmental impact statements. On this basis, the proponents must private individual or entity; and (3) the actual or threatened violation
involves or will lead to an environmental damage of such magnitude
secure an ECC which may outline the conditions under which the
as to prejudice the life, health or property ofinhabitants in two or
activity or project with ecological impact can be undertaken. Prior to more cities or provinces.
a national government project, local government units, representing
- If the petitioner successfully proves the foregoing requisites, the
communities affected, can weigh in and ensure that the proponents
court shall render judgment granting the privilege of the writ of
take into consideration all local concerns including mitigating and
kalikasan. Otherwise, the petition shall be denied. If the petition is
remedial measures for any future ecological damage. Should a
granted, the court may grant the reliefs provided for under Section
project be ongoing, our legal order is not lacking in causes of actions
15of Rule 7, to wit: Section 15. Judgment.- Within sixty (60)
that could result in preventive injunctions or damages arising from
daysfrom the time the petition is submitted for decision, the court
all sorts of environmental torts.

1
 CONSTITUTION I
A.Y. 1819– DEAN CANDELARIA
shall render judgment granting or denying the privilege of the writ
of kalikasan.
RELEVANT FACTS
- In February 2006, Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority· (SBMA), a
government agency organized and established under Republic Act
No. (RA) 7227, and Taiwan Cogeneration Corporation (TCC)
entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) expressing
their intention to build a power plant in Subic Bay which would
supply reliable and affordable power to Subic Bay Industrial Park
(SBIP).
- On July 28, 2006, SBMA and TCC entered into another MOU,
whereby TCC undertook to build and operatea coal-fired power
plant. In the said MOU, TCC identified 20 hectares of land at
SitioNaglatore, Mt. Redondo, Subic Bay Freeport Zone (SBFZ) as
the suitable area for the project and another site of approximately 10
hectares tobe used as an ash pond. TCC intends to lease the property
from SBMA for a term of 50 years with rent fixed at $3.50 per
square meter, payable in 10 equal 5-year installments.
- On April 4, 2007, the SBMA Ecology Center issued SBFZ
Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC) No. EC-SBFZ-ECC-
69-21-500 in favor of Taiwan Cogeneration International
Corporation (TCIC), a subsidiary of TCC, for the construction,
installation,and operation of 2x150-MW Circulating Fluidized Bed
(CFB) Coal-Fired Thermal Power Plant at Sitio, Naglatore.
- On June 6, 2008, TCC assigned all its rights and interests under the
MOU dated July 28, 2006 to Redondo Peninsula Energy, Inc. (RP
Energy), a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of
the Philippines with the primary purpose of building, owning, and
operating powerplants in the Philippines, among others.
Accordingly, an Addendum to the said MOU was executed by
SBMA and RP Energy.
- RP Energy then contracted GHD Pty, Ltd. (GHD) to prepare an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the proposed coal-fired
power plant and to assist RP Energy in applying for the issuance
ofan ECC from the Department of Environment and Natural
Resources (DENR). On August 27, 2008, the Sangguniang
Panglungsod of Olongapo City issued Resolution No. 131, Series of
2008, expressing the city government’s objection to the coal-fired
power plant as an energy source and urging the proponent to
consider safe alternative sources ofenergy for Subic Bay.
- On December 22, 2008, the DENR, through former Secretary Jose
L. Atienza, Jr., issued an ECC for the proposed 2x150-MW coal-
fired power plant.
- Sometime thereafter, RP Energy decided to include additional
components in its proposed coal-fired power plant. Due to the
changes in the project design, which involved the inclusion of a
barge wharf, seawater intake breakwater, subsea discharge pipeline,
raw water collection system, drainage channel improvement, and a
230kV double-circuit transmission line, RP Energy requested the
DENR Environmental Management Bureau (DENR-EMB) to amend
its ECC. In support of its request, RP Energy submitted to the
DENR-EMB an Environmental Performance Report and
Management Plan (EPRMP), which was prepared by GHD.
- On June 8, 2010, RP Energy and SBMA entered into a Lease and
Development Agreement (LDA) over a 380,004.456-square meter
parcel of land to be used for building and operating the coal-fired
power plant.
- On July 8, 2010, the DENR-EMB issued an amended ECC (first
amendment) allowing the inclusion of additional components,
among others.
- On September 11, 2012, the Petition for Writ of Kalikasan was
docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 00015 and raffled to the Fifteenth
 CONSTITUTION I
A.Y. 1819– DEAN CANDELARIA
Division of the CA. In the Petition, the Casiño Group alleged,
among others, that the power plant project would cause grave
environmental damage; that it would adversely affect the health of
the residents of the municipalities of Subic, Zambales, Morong,
Hermosa, and the City of Olongapo; that the ECC was issued and
the LDA entered into without the prior approval of the concerned
sanggunians as required under Sections 26 and 27 of the Local
Government Code (LGC); that the LDA was entered into without
securing a prior certification from the National Commission on
Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) as required under Section 59 of RA8371
or the Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act of 1997 (IPRA Law); that
Section 8.3 of DENR Administrative Order No. 2003-30 (DAO
2003-30) which allows amendments of ECCs is ultra vires (beyond
one's power or authority) because the DENR has no authority to
decide on requests for amendments of previously issued ECCs in the
absence of a new EIS; and that due to the nullity of Section 8.3 of
DAO 2003-30, all amendments to RP Energy’s ECC are null and
void.
ISSUES
1. W/N the construction and operation of the power plant is
violative of the Rules on the Writ of Kalikasan. NO
2. W/N the issuance of the ECC may be deemed invalid based on
procedural and substantive grounds (in violation of the EIA
process, Sections 26 and 27 of the Local Government Code
(LGC), and Section 59 of the RA8371). NO
RATIO DECIDENDI
The validity of an ECC can be challenged via writ of kalikasan
 The writ of kalikasanis principally predicated on an actual or
threatened violation of the constitutional right to a balanced and
healthful ecology, which involves environmental damage of a
3
magnitude that transcends political and territorial boundaries. A
party, therefore, who invokes the writ based on alleged defects or
irregularities in the issuance of an ECC must not only allege and
prove such defects or irregularities, but must also provide a causal
link or, at least, a reasonable connection between the defects or
irregularities in the issuance of an ECC and the actual or threatened
violation of the constitutional right to a balanced and healthful
ecology of the magnitude contemplated under the Rules. Otherwise,
the petition should be dismissed outright and the action re-filed
before the proper forum with due regard to the doctrine of
exhaustion of administrative remedies. This must be so ifwe are to
preserve the noble and laudable purposes of the writ against those
who seek to abuse it.
The ECC, as well as the construction and operation of the power plant, is not
violative of the Rules on the Writ of Kalikasan
 The Casiño Group presented three witnesses, namely: (1) Raymond
V. Palatino, a two-term representativeof the Kabataan Partylist in
the House of Representatives; (2) Alex C. Hermoso, the convenor of
the Zambales-Olongapo City Civil Society Network,a director of the
PREDA Foundation, and a member of the Zambales Chapter of the
Kaya Natin Movement and the Zambales Chapter of the People
Power Volunteers for Reform; and (3) Ramon Lacbain, the Vice
Governor of the Province of Zambales.
 RP Energy presented five witnesses,namely: (1) JunisseP. Mercado
(Ms. Mercado), an employee of GHD and the Project Directorof
ongoing projects for RP Energy regarding the proposed power plant
project; (2) Juha Sarkki (Engr. Sarkki), a Master of Science degree
holder in Chemical Engineering; (3) Henry K. Wong, a degree
holder of Bachelor of Science Major in Mechanical Engineering
from Worcester Polytechnic Institute; (4) Dr. Ely Anthony R. Ouano
(Dr. Ouano), a licensed Chemical Engineer, Sanitary Engineer, and
Environmental Planner in the Philippines; and (5) David C.
 CONSTITUTION I
A.Y. 1819– DEAN CANDELARIA
Evangelista (Mr. Evangelista), a Business Development Analyst
working for RP Energy.
 SBMA, for its part, presented its Legal Department Manager, Atty.
Von F. Rodriguez (Atty. Rodriguez).
 The DENR, however, presented no evidence.
 After due consideration of statements of all the witnesses, we find
that, based on the statements in the Final Report, there is no
sufficiently compelling reason to compel the testimonies of these
alleged expert witnesses for the following reasons.
 First, the statements are not sufficiently specific to point to us a flaw
(or flaws) in the study or design/implementation (or some other
aspect) of the project which provides a causal link or, at least, a
reasonable connection between the construction and operation ofthe
project vis-à-vis potential grave environmental damage.
 Second, some of the concerns raised in the alleged statements, like
acid rain, warming and acidification of the seawater, and discharge
of pollutants were, as previously discussed, addressed by the
evidence presented by RP Energy before the appellate court. Again,
these alleged statements do not explain why such concerns are not
adequately covered by the EMP of RP Energy.
 Third, the key observations of Dr. Cruz, while concededly assailing
certain aspects of the EIS, do not clearly and specifically establish
how these omissions have led to the issuance of an ECC that will
pose significant negative environmental impacts once the project is
constructed and becomes operational.
 Fourth, because the reason for the non-presentation of the alleged
expert witnesses does not appear on record, we cannot assume that
their testimonies are being unduly suppressed.
 In sum, we agree with the appellate court that the Casiño Group
failed to substantiate its claims that the construction and operation of
the power plant will cause environmental damage of the magnitude
contemplated under the writ of kalikasan. The evidence it presented
is inadequate to establish the factual bases of its claims.
The lack of signature of Mr. Aboitiz in the ECC's Statement of
Accountablity does not invalidate ECC
 The appellate court ruled that the ECC is invalid because Mr.
Aboitiz, as the former representative of RP Energy, failed to sign the
Statement of Accountability portion of the ECC therefore producing
a defect on the Decision Making part of the EIA (Environmental
Impact Assessment) process.
 The appellate court erred when it invalidated the ECC on the ground
of lack of signature of Mr. Aboitiz in the ECC’s Statement of
Accountability relative to the copy of the ECC submitted by RP
Energy to the appellate court. While the signature is necessary for
the validity of the ECC, the particular circumstances of this case
show that the DENR and RP Energy were not properly apprised of
the issue of lack of signature in order for them to present
controverting evidence and arguments on this point, as the issue
only arose during the course of the proceedings upon clarificatory
questions from the appellate court. Consequently, RP Energy cannot
be faulted for submitting the certified true copy of the ECC only
after it learned that the ECC had been invalidated on the ground of
lack of signature in the January 30, 2013 Decision of the appellate
court.
 Thus, we rule that the signature requirement was substantially
complied with pro hac vice.
Approval of the concerned sanggunians is not necessary prior to the
implementation of the power plant project
 The appellate court erred when it ruled that compliance with Section
27, in relation to Section 26, of the LGC (i.e., approval of the
concerned sanggunian requirement) is necessary prior to issuance of
the subject ECC. The issuance of an ECC does not, by itself, result
 CONSTITUTION I
A.Y. 1819– DEAN CANDELARIA
in the implementation of the project. Hence, there is no necessity to
secure prior compliance with the approval of the concerned
sanggunian requirement, and the issuance of the subject ECC
without first complying with the aforesaid requirement does not
render it invalid. The appellate court also erred when it ruled that
compliance with the aforesaid requirement is necessary prior to the
consummation of the LDA. By virtue of the clear provisions of RA
7227, the project is not subject to the aforesaid requirement and the
SBMA’s decision to approve the project prevails over the apparent
objections of the concerned sanggunians. Thus, the LDA entered
into between SBMA and RP Energy suffers from no infirmity
despite the lack of approval of the concerned sanggunians.
Violation of Section 59 of the RA 8371, otherwise known as the Indigenous
People's Rights Act of 1997 (IPRA law), does not invalidate the ECC.
 The appellate court erred when it invalidated the ECC for failure to
comply with Section 59 of the IPRA Law. The ECC is not the
license or permit contemplated under Section 59 of the IPRA Law
and its implementing rules. Hence, there is no necessity to secure the
CNO under Section 59 before an ECC may be issued, and the
issuance of the subject ECC without first securing the aforesaid
certification does not render it invalid;
 While we find that a CNO should have been secured prior to the
consummation of the LDA between SBMA and RP Energy,
considering that this is the first time we lay down the rule of action
appropriate to the application of Section 59, we refrain from
invalidating the LDA for reasons of equity.
DISPOSITIVE POSITION
Wherefore:
1. DENY the Petition in G.R. No. 207282; and
2. GRANT the Petitions in G.R.Nos. 207257, 207366 and
207276:
2.1. The January 30, 2013 Decision and May 22,
2013 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R.
SP No. 00015 are reversed and set aside;
2.2. The Petition for Writ of Kalikasan, docketed as
CA-G.R. SP No. 00015, is denied for insufficiency
of evidence;
2.3. The validity of the December 22, 2008
Environmental Compliance Certificate, as well as
the July 8, 2010 first amendment and the May 26,
2011 second amendment thereto, issued by the
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
in favor of Redondo Peninsula Energy, Inc., are
upheld; and
2.4. The validity of the June 8, 2010 Lease and
Development Agreement between Subic Bay
Metropolitan Authority and Redondo Peninsula
Energy, Inc. is upheld.
SO ORDERED.
MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO
Associate Justice

5
 CONSTITUTION I
A.Y. 1819– DEAN CANDELARIA
TOPIC 4. W/N FGC and the directors and officers of respondents FPIC and
Sec 16. Right to a Balanced and Healthful
FGC may be held liable under the environmental protection order.
Ecology
CASE NO. G.R. No. 194239 RELEVANT FACTS
- Respondent FPIC operates two pipelines since 1969, (1) the White
CASE NAME West Tower Condominium Corporation, etc. Oil Pipeline (WOPL) System, which covers a 117-kilometer stretch
vs. First Philippine Industrial Corporation, et from Batangas to the Pandacan Terminal in Manila and transports
al. diesel, gasoline, jet fuel and kerosene; and (2) the Black OilPipeline
(BOPL) System, which extends 105 kilometers and transports
PONENTE VELASCO, JR., J. bunker fuel from Batangas to a depot in Sucat, Parañaque. These
systems transport nearly 60% of the petroleum requirements of
PETITIONER West Tower Condominium Corporation, etc Metro Manila and parts of the provinces of Bulacan, Laguna, and
Rizal.
RESPONDENT First Philippine Industrial Corporation, et al. - In May 2010, however, a leakage from one of the pipelines was
TYPE OF suspected after the residents of West Tower Condominium
Petition for the Issuance of a Writ of
CASE (WestTower) started to smell gas within the condominium. A search
Kalikasan filed following the leak in the oil made on July 10, 2010 within the condominium premises led to the
pipeline owned by First discovery of a fuel leak from the wall of its Basement 2. Owing to
Philippine Industrial Corporation (FPIC) in its inability to control the flow, WestTower’s management reported
Makati City. the matter to the Police Department of Makati City, which in turn
called the city’s Bureau of Fire Protection.
MEMBER Rojo Manaligod - What started as a two-drum leak at the initial stages became a 15-20
drum a day affair. Eventually, the sump pit of the condominium was
ISSUE ordered shut down by the City of Makati to prevent the discharge of
contaminated water into the drainage system of Barangay Bangkal.
1. W/N petitioner West Tower Corp. has the legal capacity to represent - Eventually, the fumes compelled the residents of WestTower to
the other petitioners and whether the other petitioners, apart from the abandon their respective units on July 23, 2010 and the condo’s
residents of West Tower and Barangay Bangkal, are real parties-in- power was shut down.
interest. - On November 15, 2010, West Tower Condominium Corporation
2. W/N a Permanent Environmental Protection Order should be issued (West Tower Corp.) interposed the present Petition for the Issuance
to direct the respondents to perform or to desist from performing of a Writ of Kalikasan on behalf of the residents of West Tower and
acts in order to protect, preserve, and rehabilitate the affected in representation of the surrounding communities in Barangay
environment. Bangkal, Makati
3. W/N a special trust fund should be opened by respondents to answer - City. West Tower Corp. also alleged that it is joined by the civil
for future similar contingencies. society and several people’s organizations, non-governmental
organizations and public interest groups who have expressed their

1
 CONSTITUTION I
A.Y. 1819– DEAN CANDELARIA
intent to join the suit because of the magnitude of the environmental
issues involved.
- On November 19, 2010, the Court issued the Writ of Kalikasanwith
a Temporary Environmental Protection Order (TEPO) requiring
respondents FPIC, FGC, and the members of their Boards of
Directors to file their respective verified returns. The TEPO enjoined
FPIC and FGC to: (a) cease and desist from operating the WOPL
until further orders; (b) check the structural integrity of the whole
span of the 117-kilometer WOPL while implementing sufficient
measures to prevent and avert any untoward incident that may result
from any leak of the pipeline; and (c) make a report thereon within
60 days from receipt thereof.
- Meanwhile, on January 18, 2011, FGC and the members of its Board
of Directors and Officers filed a Joint Compliance submitting the
report required by the Writ of Kalikasan/TEPO. They contended that
they neither own nor operate the pipelines, adding that it is
impossible for them to report on the structural integrity of the
pipelines, much less to cease and desist from operating them as they
have no capability, power, control or responsibility over the
pipelines. They, thus, prayed that the directives of the Writ of
- Kalikasan/TEPO be considered as sufficiently performed, as to
them.
- On January 21, 2011, FPIC, in compliance with the writ, submitted
its 4-page “Report on Pipeline Integrity Check and Preventive
Maintenance Program.”
- Since after the Court’s issuance of the Writ of Kalikasan and the
TEPO on November 19, 2010, FPIC has ceased operations on both
the WOPL and the BOPL. On May 31, 2011, however, the Court,
answering a query of the DOE, clarified and confirmed that what is
covered by the Writ of Kalikasan and TEPO is only the WOPL
System of FPIC; thus, FPIC can resume operation of its BOPL
System.
- On July 7, 2011, petitioners filed an Omnibus Motion assailing the
Court's May 31, 2011 Resolution, praying for the conduct of oral
argument on the issue of reopening the BOPL System. This was
followed, on September 9, 2011, by a Manifestation (Re: Current
Developments) with Omnibus Motion wherein petitioners invoked
the precautionary principle and asserted that the possibility of a leak
in the BOPL System leading to catastrophic environmental damage
is enough reason to order the closure of its operation.
- To expedite the resolution of the controversy, the Court remanded
the case to the Court of Appeals (CA). By this Court’s Resolution
dated November 22, 2011, the appellate court was required to
conduct hearings and, thereafter, submit a report and
recommendation within 30 days after the receipt of the parties’
memoranda.
- On January 11, 2013, petitioners filed their Motion for Partial
Reconsideration of the CA’s Report praying that (a) instead of the
DOE, the required certification should be issued by the DOST-Metal
Industry Research and Development Center; (b) a trust fund be
created to answer for future contingencies; and (c) the directors and
officers of FPIC and FGC be held accountable.
- On July 30, 2013, the Court issued a Resolution adopting the
recommendation of the CA in its Report and Recommendation that
FPIC be ordered to secure a certification from the DOE Secretary
before the WOPL may resume its operations.
- Having received the October 25, 2013 Certification and the August
5, 2014 Letter from the DOE on the state of the WOPL, as well as
the parties’ comments thereon, the following issues defined by the
parties during the March 21, 2012 preliminary conference are now
ripe for adjudication
RATIO DECIDENDI
I. Petitioners as Real Parties-in-Interest
Residents of West Tower and Barangay Bangkal
- As defined, a real party-in-interest is the party who stands to
be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit, or the
party entitled to the avails of the suit. Generally, every action
must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real
parties-in-interest. In other words, the action must be
brought by the person who, by substantive law, possesses the
right sought to be enforced. Alternatively, one who has no
2
 CONSTITUTION I
A.Y. 1819– DEAN CANDELARIA
right or interest to protect cannot invoke the jurisdiction of
the court as party-plaintiff-in-action for it is jurisprudentially
ordained that every action must be prosecuted or defended in
the name of the real party-in-interest.
- In the case at bar, there can be no quibble that the oil leak
from the WOPL affected all the condominium unit owners
and residents of West Tower as, in fact, all had to evacuate
their units at the wee hours in the morning of July 23, 2010,
when the condominium’s electrical power was shut down.
Until now, the unit owners and residents of West Tower
could still not return to their condominium units. Thus, there
is no gainsaying that the residents of West Tower are real
parties-in-interest.
- There can also be no denying that West Tower Corp.
represents the common interest of its unit owners and
residents, and has the legal standing to file and pursue
the instant petition. While a condominium corporation has
limited powers under RA 4726, otherwise known as The
- Condominium Act, it is empowered to pursue actions in
behalf of its members. In the instant case, the condominium
corporation is the management body of West Tower and
deals with everything that may affect some or all of the
condominium unit owners or users.
Organizations that indicated their intention to join the petition and submitted
proof of juridical personality
- Anent the propriety of including the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of
the Philippines, Kilusang Makabansang Ekonomiya, Inc., Women’s
Business Council of the Philippines, Inc., Junior Chambers
International Philippines, Inc. – San Juan Chapter, Zonta Club of
Makati Ayala
- Foundations, and the Consolidated Mansions Condominium
Corporation, as petitioners in the case, the Court already granted
their intervention in the present controversy in the adverted July 30,
2013 Resolution.
- This is so considering that the filing of a petition for the issuance of
a writ of kalikasan under Sec. 1, Rule 7[45] of the Rules of
Procedure for Environmental Cases does not require that a petitioner
be directly affected by an environmental disaster. The rule clearly
allows juridical persons to file the petition on behalf of persons
whose constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology is
violated, or threatened with violation.
- Thus, as parties to the case, they are entitled to be furnished copies
of all the submissions to the Court, including the periodic reports of
FPIC and the results of the evaluations and tests conducted on the
WOPL.
- Having disposed of the procedural issue, We proceed to the bone of
contention in the pending motions. Suffice it to state in the outset
that as regards the substantive issues presented, the Court, likewise,
concurs with the other recommendations of the CA, with a few
modifications.
II. Propriety of Converting the TEPO to PEPO or its Lifting in
light of the DOE Certification of the WOPLs Commercial
Viability
- To recall, petitioners’ persistent plea is for the conversion of
the November 19, 2010 TEPO into a Permanent
Environmental Protection Order (PEPO) pursuant to Sec. 3,
[46] Rule 5 of the Rules of Procedure for Environmental
Cases. For its part, respondent FPIC asserts that regular
testing, as well as the measures that are already in place, will
sufficiently address any concern of oil leaks from the
WOPL.
- With respect to leak detection, FPIC claims that it has in
place the following systems: (a) regular cleaning scraper
runs, which are done quarterly; (b) pipeline integrity gauge
(PIG) tests/Intelligent PIG, now known as in-line inspections
(ILI), which is done every five years;(c) pressure monitoring
valves; and (d) 24-hour patrols. Additionally, FPIC asserted
that it also undertook the following: (a) monitoring of wells
and borehole testing/vapor tests; (b) leak tightness test, also
known as segment pressure test; (c) pressure-controlled test;
(d) inspection and reinforcement of patches; (e) inspection
3
 CONSTITUTION I
A.Y. 1819– DEAN CANDELARIA
and reinforcement of dents; and (f) Pandacan segment
replacement.[47] Furthermore, in August 2010, with the oil
leak hogging the headlines, FPIC hired NDT Middle East
FZE (NDT) to conduct ILI inspections through magnetic
flux leakage (MFL) and ultrasonic tests to, respectively,
detect wall thinning of the pipeline and check it for cracks.
- The CA, however, observed that all of these tests and
measures are inconclusive and insufficient for purposes of
leak detection and pipeline integrity maintenance. Hence,
considering the necessary caution and level of assurance
required to ensure that the WOPL system is free from leaks
and is safe for commercial operation, the CA recommended
that FPIC obtain from the DOE a certification that the
WOPL is already safe for commercial operation. This
certification, according to the CA, was to be issued with due
consideration of the adoption by FPIC of the appropriate
leak detection systems to monitor sufficiently the entire
WOPL and the need to replace portions of the pipes with
existing patches and sleeves. Sans the required certification,
use of the WOPL shall remain abated.
- The Court found this recommendation of the appellate court
proper. Hence, We required FPIC to obtain the adverted
DOE Certification in Our July 30, 2013 Resolution. We
deemed it proper to require said certification from the DOE
considering that the core issue of this case requires the
specialized knowledge and special expertise of the DOE and
various other administrative agencies. On October 25, 2013,
the DOE submitted the certification pursuant to the July 30,
2013 Resolution of the Court. Later, however, on August 5,
2014, DOE Secretary Carlos
- Jericho I. Petilla submitted a letter recommending certain
activities and the timetable for the resumption of the WOPL
operations after conducting a dialogue between the
concerned government agencies and FPIC.
After a perusal of the recommendations of the DOE and the
submissions of the parties, the Court adopts the activities and
measures prescribed in the DOE letter dated August 5, 2014 to be
complied with by FPIC as conditions for the resumption of the
commercial operations of the WOPL. The DOE should, therefore,
proceed with the implementation of the tests proposed in the said
August 5, 2014 letter. Thereafter, if it is satisfied that the results
warrant the immediate reopening of the WOPL, the DOE shall issue
an order allowing FPIC to resume the operation of the WOPL. On
the other hand, should the probe result in a finding that the pipeline
is no longer safe for continued use and that its condition is
irremediable, or that it already exceeded its serviceable life, among
others, the closure of the WOPL may be ordered.
- It must be stressed that what is in issue in the instant petition is the
WOPL’s compliance with pipeline structure standards so as to make
it fit for its purpose, a question of fact that is to be determined on the
basis of the evidence presented by the parties on the WOPL’s actual
state. Hence, Our consideration of the numerous findings and
recommendations of the CA, the DOE, and the amici curiae on the
WOPL’s present structure, and not the cited pipeline incidents as the
dissent propounds.
- Consider also the fact that it is the DOE itself that imposed several
conditions upon FPIC for the resumption of the operations of the
WOPL. This, coupled with the submission by the DOE of its
proposed activities and timetable, is a clear and unequivocal message
coming from theDOE that the WOPL’s soundness for resumption of
and continued commercial operations is not yet fully determined.
And it is only after an extensive determination by the DOE of the
pipeline’s actual physical state through its proposed activities, and
not merely through a short-form integrity audit, that the factual issue
on the WOPL’s viability can be settled. The issue, therefore, on the
pipeline’s structural integrity has not yet been rendered moot and
remains to be subject to this Court’s resolution.
- Consequently, We cannot say that the DOE’s issuance of the
certification adverted to equates to the writ of kalikasan being
functus officio at this point.
III. Propriety of the Creation of a Special Trust Fund
4
 CONSTITUTION I
A.Y. 1819– DEAN CANDELARIA
- Anent petitioners’ prayer for the creation of a special trust
fund, We note that under Sec. 1, Rule 5 of the Rules of
Procedure for Environmental Cases, a trust fund is limited
solely for the purpose of rehabilitating or restoring the
environment.
- A reading of the petition and the motion for partial
reconsideration readily reveals that the prayer is for the
creation of a trust fund for similar future contingencies.This
is clearly outside the limited purpose of a special trust fund
under the Rules of Procedure for
- Environmental Cases, which is to rehabilitate or restore the
environment that has presumably already suffered. Hence,
the Court affirms with concurrence the observation of the
appellate court that the prayer is but a claim for damages,
which is prohibited by the Rules of
- Procedure for Environmental Cases. As such, the Court is of
the considered view that the creation of a special trust fund
is misplaced.
- The present ruling on petitioners’ prayer for the creation of a
special trust fund in the instant recourse, however, is without
prejudice to the judgment/s that may be rendered in the civil
and/or criminal cases filed by petitioners arising from the
same incident if the payment of damages is found warranted.
IV. Liability of FPIC, FGC and their respective Directors and
Officers
- On the last issue of the liability of FPIC, FGC and their
respective directors and officers, the CA found FGC not
liable under the TEPO and, without prejudice to the outcome
of the civil case (Civil Case No. 11-256, RTC, Branch 58 in
Makati City) and criminal complaint (Complaint-Affidavit
for Reckless Imprudence, Office of the Provincial Prosecutor
of Makati City) filed against them, the individual directors
and officers of FPIC and FGC are not liable in their
individual capacities.
- The Court will refrain from ruling on the finding of the CA
that the individual directors and officers of FPIC and FGC
are not liable due to the explicit rule in the Rules of
Procedure for Environmental cases that in a petition for a
writ of kalikasan,the Court cannot grant the award of
damages to individual petitioners under Rule 7, Sec. 15(e) of
the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases. As duly
noted by the CA, the civil case and criminal complaint filed
by petitioners against respondents are the proper proceedings
to ventilate and determine the individual liability of
respondents, if any, on their exercise of corporate powers
and the management of FPIC relative to the dire
environmental impact of the dumping of petroleum products
stemming from the leak in the WOPL in Barangay Bangkal,
Makati City.
- Hence, the Court will not rule on the alleged liability on the
part of the FPIC and FGC officials which can, however, be
properly resolved in the civil and criminal cases now
pending against them.
DISPOSITIVE POSITION
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the Motion for Partial Reconsideration
is hereby DENIED. The Motion for Reconsideration with Motion for
Clarification is PARTLY GRANTED. The Court of Appeals
recommendations, embodied in its December 21, 2012 Report and
Recommendation, are hereby ADOPTED with the
following MODIFICATIONS:
I. The Department of Energy (DOE) is hereby ORDERED to oversee the
strict implementation of the following activities:
A. Preparatory to the Test Run of the entire stretch of the WOPL:
1) FPIC shall perform the following:
a. Continue submission of monitoring charts, data/reading,
accomplishment reports, and project status for all related activities/
5
 CONSTITUTION I
A.Y. 1819– DEAN CANDELARIA
works. Respond to comments and prepare for site inspection.
 


b. Continue gas testing along the right-of-way using the monitoring c. Inspect onsite the cathodic protection rectifier to check the
wells or boreholes. Prepare for inspection of right-of-way and following:
observation of gas testing activities on monitoring wells and i. old and current readings

boreholes.

ii. the segment/s covered by the cathodic protection system

c. Explain the process of the selection of borehole location and identify
those located in pipeline bends, bodies of water, highways, iii. review the criteria for prioritization of corrective action.

residential areas, repaired portions of the pipelines, dents and
welded joints, as well other notable factors, circumstances, or d. Observe and witness the running/operation of the intelligent and
exposure to stresses.
 cleaning pigs.


d. Set up additional boreholes and monitoring wells sufficient to cover e. Check and calibrate the instruments that will be used for the actual
the entire stretch of the WOPL, the number and location of which tests on the pipeline, and validate the calibration certificates of these
shall be determined by the DOE.
 instruments.


e. Continue submitting status report to the concerned government B. During the Actual Test Run:
agency/ies relating to Project Mojica, or the on-going pipeline
segment realignment activity being undertaken by FPIC to give way 1) FPIC shall perform the following:
to a flood control project of the MMDA in the vicinity of Mojica St. a. Perform Cleaning Pig run and witness the launching and receiving
and Pres. Osmea Highway, and prepare for site inspection.
 of the intelligent and cleaning pigs.


2) The DOE shall perform the following undertakings: b. Demonstrate and observe the various pressure and leakage tests,
a. Conduct onsite inspection of the pipeline right-of-way, the area including the following:
around the WOPL and the equipment installed underground or i. Blocked-in pressure test or the pressure test conducted while
aboveground.
 all the WOPLs openings are blocked or closed off; and


b. Review and check the condition of the 22 patches reinforced with ii. In-operation test or the hourly monitoring of pressure rating
Clockspringsleeves by performing the following: after the pipeline is filled with dyed water and pressurized at
i. Determine the location of the sleeves
 a specified rate.


ii. Review the procedure for the repair of the sleeves
 c. Continue, inspect, and oversee the current gas monitoring system, or
the monitoring of gas flow from the boreholes and monitoring wells
iii. Inspect the areas where the affected portions of the WOPL of the WOPL.

are located and which are easily accessible.

6
 CONSTITUTION I
A.Y. 1819– DEAN CANDELARIA

 Development Institute (ITDI) and the Metals Industry Research and
Development Center (MIRDC), both under the Department of
d. Check the mass or volume balance computation during WOPL test Science and Technology (DOST), the Environmental Management
run by conducting: Bureau (EMB) of the Department of Environment and Natural
i. 30 days baseline data generation Resources (DENR), the Bureau of Design (BOD) of the Department
ii. Computational analysis and monitoring of the data of Public Works and Highways (DPWH), the University of the
generated.
 Philippines National Institute of Geological Science (UP-NIGS) and
University of the Philippines - Institute of Civil Engineering (UP-
II. After FPIC has undertaken the activities prescribed in the preceding ICE), the petitioners, intervenors and this Court shall likewise be
paragraph 1, the DOE shall determine if the activities and the results of the furnished by FPIC with the monthly reports. This shall include, but
test run warrant the re-opening of the WOPL. In the event that the DOE is shall not be limited to: realignment, repairs, and maintenance works;
satisfied that the WOPL is safe for continued commercial operations, it shall and

issue an order allowing FPIC to resume the operations of the pipeline.
c. continue coordination with the concerned government agencies for
III. Once the WOPL is re-opened, the DOE shall see to it that FPIC strictly the implementation of its projects.

complies with the following directives:
a. Continue implementation of its Pipeline Integrity Management IV. Respondent FPIC is also DIRECTED to undertake and continue the
System (PIMS), as reviewed by the DOE, which shall include, but remediation, rehabilitation and restoration of the affected Barangay Bangkal
shall not be limited to: environment until full restoration of the affected area to its condition prior to
1. the conduct of daily patrols on the entire stretch of the the leakage is achieved. For this purpose, respondent FPIC must strictly
WOPL, every two hours;
 comply with the measures, directives and permits issued by the DENR for its
remediation activities in Barangay Bangkal, including but not limited to, the
2. continued close monitoring of all the boreholes and Wastewater Discharge Permit and Permit to Operate. The DENR has the
monitoring wells of the WOPL pipeline;
 authority to oversee and supervise the aforesaid activities on said affected
barangay.
3. regular periodic testing and maintenance based on its PIMS;
and
 V. The Inter-Agency Committee on Environmental Health under the City
Government of Makati shall SUBMIT to the DENR its evaluation of the
4. the auditing of the pipelines mass input versus mass output;
 Remediation Plan prepared by CH2M Hill Philippines, Inc. within thirty (30)
days from receipt hereof.
b. submit to the DOE, within ten (10) days of each succeeding month,
monthly reports on its compliance with the above directives and any VI. Petitioners prayer for the creation of a special trust fund to answer for
other conditions that the DOE may impose, the results of the similar contingencies in the future is DENIED.
monitoring, tests, and audit, as well as any and all activities
undertaken on the WOPL or in connection with its operation. The
concerned government agencies, namely: the Industrial Technology

7
 CONSTITUTION I
A.Y. 1819– DEAN CANDELARIA
DOCTRINE/PRECEDENT
- Writ of Kalikasan: A Writ of Kalikasan is a legal remedy under
Philippine law that provides protection of one's Constitutional right
to a healthy environment
- 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
- Precautionary Principle: “Environment management rule that if a
threat of serious or irreversible damage to the environment or human
health exists, a lack of full scientific knowledge about the situation
should not be allowed to delay containment or remedial steps if the
balance of potential costs and benefits justifies enacting them. In
other words, "prevention is better than cure." Also called
preventative principle.” (http://www.businessdictionary.com/
definition/precautionary-principle.html)
o The precautionary principle only applies when the link
between the cause, that is the human activity sought to be
inhibited, and the effect, that is the damage to the
environment, cannot be established with full scientific
certainty.

RELEVANT LAWS
- Section 16, Article II of the Philippine 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.”
- Section 1, Rule 20 of A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC or the Rules of
Procedure for Environmental Cases, on the Precautionary
Principle:"when there is lack of full scientific certainty in
establishing a causal link between human activity and
environmental effect, the court shall apply the precautionary
principle in resolving the case before it."

8
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
A.Y. 1819C – Dean Candelaria

the issue is likely to be raised again between the parties. There is

TOPIC Right to a Balanced and Healthful Ecology nothing for the court to resolve as the determination thereof has been
CASE NO. G.R. No. 209271 overtaken by subsequent events.
CASE NAME INTERNATIONAL SERVICE FOR THE
ACQUISITION OF AGRI-BIOTECH • Exceptions to the Mootness Principle:
APPLICATIONS, INC., Petitioner
vs. a. There is a grave violation of the Constitution;
GREENPEACE SOUTHEAST ASIA b. The exceptional character of the situation and the paramount
(PHILIPPINES public interest are involved;
PONENTE Perlas-Bernabe, E. c. When the constitutional issue raised requires formulation of
PETITIONER INTERNATIONAL SERVICE FOR THE controlling principles to guide the bench, the bar, and the public
ACQUISITION OF AGRI-BIOTECH d. The case is capable of repetition yet evading review.
APPLICATIONS, INC
• There should be some perceivable benefit to the public which
(University of the Philippines Los Baños demands the Court to proceed with the resolution of otherwise moot
Foundation, Inc. (UPLBFI) and International questions.
Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech o In Gonzales v. Commission on Elections,67an action for
Applications, Inc. (ISAAA), and the University of declaratory judgment assailing the validity of Republic Act No.
the Philippines Mindanao Foundation, Inc. (RA) 4880,68 which prohibits the early nomination of candidates
(UPMFI)) for elective offices and early election campaigns or partisan
political activities became moot by reason of the holding of the
RESPONDENT GREENPEACE SOUTHEAST ASIA
1967 elections before the case could be decided. Nonetheless, the
TYPE OF Motion for Reconsideration Court treated the petition as one for prohibition and rendered
CASE judgment in view of "the paramount public interest and the
undeniable necessity for a ruling, the national elections [of 1969]
DOCTRINE AND PRECEDENTS being barely six months away."69
o In De Castro v. Commission on Elections,70 the Court proceeded
to resolve the election protest subject of that case notwithstanding
the supervening death of one of the contestants. According to the
• An action is considered "moot" when it no longer presents a
Court, in an election contest, there is a paramount need to dispel
justiciable controversy because the issues involved have become the uncertainty that beclouds the real choice of the electorate.71
academic or dead or when the matter in dispute has already been o In David v. Macapagal-Arroyo,72the Court ruled on the
resolved and hence, one is not entitled to judicial intervention unless constitutionality of Presidential Proclamation No. 1017, s.
|1
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
A.Y. 1819C – Dean Candelaria
2006,73 which declared a state of National Emergency, even
though the same was lifted before a decision could be rendered.
The Court explained that the case was one of exceptional character
and involved paramount public interest, because the people's basic
rights to expression, assembly, and of the press were at issue.74
o In Constantino v. S'andiganbayan,75 both of the accused were
found guilty of graft and corrupt practices under Section 3 (e) of
RA 3019.76 One of the accused appealed the conviction, while the
other filed a petition for certiorari before the Court. While the
appellant died during the pendency of his appeal, the Court still
ruled on the merits thereof considering the exceptional character
of the appeals in relation to each other, i.e., the two petitions were
so intertwined that the absolution of the deceased was
determinative of the absolution of the other accused.77
o More recently, in Funa v. Manila Economic and Cultural Office
(MECO),78the petitioner prayed that the Commission on Audit
(COA) be ordered to audit the MECO which is based in Taiwan,
on the premise that it is a government-owned and controlled
corporation.79 The COA argued that the case is already moot and
should be dismissed, since it had already directed a team of
auditors to proceed to Taiwan to audit the accounts of
MECO.80 Ruling on the merits, the Court explained that the case
was of paramount public interest because it involved the COA's
performance of its constitutional duty and because the case
concerns the legal status of MECO, i.e., whether it may be
considered as a government agency or not, which has a direct
bearing on the country's commitment to the One China Policy of
the People's Republic of China.81
RELEVANT LAWS
1987 Constitution
Article 2, Section 16. 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.
Article 8, Section 1. The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme
Court and in such lower courts as may be established by law.
Judicial power includes the duty of the comis of justice to settle actual
controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and
enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any
branch or instrumentality of the Government.
Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases
PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE
Rule 20, Section 1. Applicability. - When there is a lack of full scientific
certainty in establishing a causal link between human activity 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.
[See Tabular Presentation of the Differences between DAO 08-2002 and
JDC 01-2016:
https://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2016/jul2016/gr_209271_2016.html]
ISSUE
1. WON the case is moot and academic in view of the completion and
termination of the Bt talong field trials and the expiration of the
Biosafety Permits, by determining if:
2
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
A.Y. 1819C – Dean Candelaria
a. There is a grave violation of the Constitution;
b. The exceptional character of the situation and the paramount
public interest are involved;
c. When the constitutional issue raised requires formulation of
controlling principles to guide the bench, the bar, and the public
d. The case is capable of repetition yet evading review.
RELEVANT FACTS
• The instant case arose from the conduct of field trials for
"bioengineered eggplants," known as Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt)
eggplant (Bt talong), administered pursuant to the Memorandum of
Undertaking5 (MOU) entered into by herein petitioners.
o Bt talong contains the crystal toxin genes from the soil
bacterium Bt, which produces the CrylAc protein that is
toxic to target insect pests. The Cry1Ac protein is said to be
highly specific to lepidopteran larvae such as the fruit and
shoot borer, the most destructive insect pest to eggplants.
• From 2007 to 2009, petitioner University of the Philippines Los
Banos (UPLB), conducted a contained experiment on Bt
talong under the supervision of the National Committee on
Biosafety of the Philippines (NCBP).7
o The NCBP, created under Executive Order No. (EO) 430, is
the regulatory body tasked to:
▪ (a) "identify and evaluate potential hazards involved
in initiating genetic engineering experiments or the
introduction of new species and genetically
engineered organisms and recommend measures to
minimize risks"; and
▪ (b) ''formulate and review national policies and
guidelines on biosafety, such as the safe conduct of
work on genetic engineering, pests and their genetic
materials for the protection of public health,
environment[,] and personnel[,] and supervise the
implementation thereof.
o Upon the completion of the contained experiment, the
NCBP issued a Certificate stating that all biosafety
measures were complied with.
• On March 16, 2010 and June 28, 2010, the Bureau of Plant
Industries (BPI) issued two (2)-year Biosafety Permits12for field
testing of Bt pursuant to the Department of Agriculture's (DA)
Administrative Order No. 8, series of 200214 (DAO 08-
2002),15 which provides for the rules and regulations for the
importation and release into the environment of plants and plant
products derived from the use of modern biotechnology.
• On April 26, 2012, respondents Greenpeace Southeast Asia 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)18 (petition for Writ
of Kalikasan) against herein petitioners, alleging that the Bt
talong field trials violated their constitutional right to health and a
balanced ecology considering, among others, that:
(a) the Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC), as
required by Presidential Decree No. (PD) 1151, was not
secured prior to the field trials;20
|3
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
A.Y. 1819C – Dean Candelaria
(b) the required public consultations under the Local
Government Code (LGC) were not complied with;21 and
(c) as a regulated article under DAO 08-2002, Bt talong is
presumed harmful to human health and the environment,
and that there is no independent, peer-reviewed study
showing its safety for human consumption and the
environment.22
• Further, they contended that since the scientific evidence as to the
safety of Bt talong remained insufficient or uncertain, and that
preliminary scientific evaluation shows reasonable grounds for
concern, the precautionary principle should be applied and, thereby,
the field trials be enjoined.23
• On May 2, 2012, the Court issued24 a Writ of Kalikasan against
petitioners (except UPLB25) and UPMFI, ordering them to make a
verified return within a non-extendible period of ten (10) days, as
provided for in Section 8, Rule 7 of the Rules of Procedure for
Environmental Cases.26 Thus, in compliance therewith, ISAAA,
EMB/BPI/FPA, UPLBFI, and UPMFI27 filed their respective
verified returns,28 and therein maintained that:
(a) all environmental laws were complied with, including
the required public consultations in the affected
communities;
(b) an ECC was not required for the field trials as it will not
significantly affect the environment nor pose a hazard to
human health;
(c) there is a plethora of scientific works and literature, peer-
reviewed, on the safety of Bt talong for human
consumption;
(d) at any rate, the safety of Bt talong for human
consumption is irrelevant because none of the eggplants will
be consumed by humans or animals and all materials not
used for analyses will be chopped, boiled, and buried
following the conditions of the Biosafety Permits; and
(e) the precautionary principle could not be applied as the
field testing was only a part of a continuing study to ensure
that such trials have no significant and negative impact on
the environment.29
• On July 10, 2012, the Court issued a Resolution referring the case to
the Court of Appeals for acceptance of the return of the writ and for
hearing, reception of evidence, and rendition of judgment.31
• In a hearing before the CA on August 14, 2012, UPLB was
impleaded as a party to the case and was furnished by respondents a
copy of their petition.
• Consequently the CA directed UPLB to file its comment to the
petition and, on August 24, 2012, UPLB filed its Answer adopting
the arguments and allegations in the verified return filed by
UPLBFI.
• On the other hand, in a Resolution dated February 13, 2013, the CA
discharged UPMFI as a party to the case pursuant to the
Manifestation and Motion filed by respondents in order to expedite
the proceedings and resolution of the latter's petition.
4
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
A.Y. 1819C – Dean Candelaria
• In a Decision dated May 17, 2013, the CA ruled in favor of
respondents and directed petitioners to pem1anently cease and desist
from conducting the Bt talong field trials.
o At the outset, it did not find merit in petitioners' contention
that the case should be dismissed on the ground of
mootness, noting that the issues raised by the latter were
"capable of repetition yet evading review" since the Bt
talong field trial was just one of the phases or stages of an
overall and bigger study that is being conducted in relation
to the said genetically-modified organism.37
o It then held that the precautionary principle set forth under
Section 1,38 Rule 20 of the Rules of Procedure for
Environmental Cases39 is relevant, considering the
Philippines' rich biodiversity and uncertainty surrounding
the safety of Bt talong.
o It noted the possible irreversible effects of the field trials
and the introduction of Bt talong to the market, and found
the existing regulations issued by the DA and the
Department of Science and Technology (DOST) insufficient
to guarantee the safety of the environment and the health of
the people.40
• Aggrieved, petitioners separately moved for reconsideration.
• However, in a Resolution, the CA denied the same and remarked
that introducing genetically modified plant into the ecosystem is an
ecologically imbalancing act.
• Anent UPLB 's argument that the Writ of Kalikasan violated its
right to academic freedom, the CA emphasized that the writ did not
stop the research on Bt talong but only the procedure employed in
conducting the field trials, and only at this time when there is yet no
law ensuring its safety when introduced to the environment.44
• Dissatisfied, petitioners filed their respective petitions for review
on certiorari before this Court.
• On December 8, 2015, the Court denied the petitions and
accordingly, affinned with modification the ruling of the CA. 46
o Agreeing with the CA, the Court held that the precautionar;
principle applies in this case since the risk of harm from the
field trials of Bt talong remains uncertain and there exists a
possibility of serious and irreversible harm.
o The Court observed that eggplants are a staple vegetable in
the country that is mostly grown by small-scale farmers who
are poor and marginalized; thus, given the country's rich
biodiversity, the consequences of contamination and genetic
pollution would be disastrous and irreversible.47
o The Court likewise agreed with the CA in not dismissing the
case for being moot and academic despite the completion
and termination of the Bt talong field trials, on account of
the following exceptions to the mootness principle:
▪ (a) the exceptional character of the situation and the
paramount public interest is involved;
▪ (b) the case is capable of repetition yet evading
review.48
• Further, the Court noted that while the provisions of DAO 08-2002
were observed, the National Biosafety Framework (NBF)
established under EO 514, which requires public participation in all
stages of biosafety decision-making, pursuant to the Cartagena
Protocol on Biosafety. Moreover, the field testing should have been
subjected to Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), considering
that it involved new technologies with uncertain results.52
• The court declared DAO 08-2002 null and void for failure to
consider the provisions of the NBF, also temporarily enjoined any
|5
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
A.Y. 1819C – Dean Candelaria
application for contained use, field testing, propagation,
commercialization, and importation of genetically modified
organisms until a new administrative order is promulgated in
accordance with law.
Petitioner’s Arguments:
(a) The case should have been dismissed for mootness in view of the
completion and termination of the Bt talong field trials and the expiration of
the Biosafety Permits
(b) the Court should not have ruled on the validity of DAO 08-2002 as it
was not raised as an issue
(c) the Court erred in relying on the studies cited in the December 8, 2015
Decision which were not offered in evidence and involved Bt corn, not Bt
talong.57
Respondent’s Arguments:
(a) the case is not mooted by the completion of the field trials since field
testing is part of the process of commercialization and will eventually lead to
propagation, commercialization, and consumption of Bt talong as a
consumer product
(b) the validity of DAO 08-2002 was raised by respondents when they
argued in their petition for Writ of Kalikasan that such administrative
issuance is not enough to adequately protect the Constitutional right of the
people to a balanced and healthful ecology
c) the Court correctly took judicial notice of the scientific studies showing
the negative effects of Bt technology and applied the precautionary principle.
RATIO DECIDENDI
W/N the case is moot and academic in view of the completion and
termination of the Bt talong field trials and the expiration of Biosafety
Permits. Yes.
The law provides that the Court will decide cases, otherwise moot, if:
1. there is a grave violation of the Constitution;
2. the exceptional character of the situation and the paramount public
interest are involved;
3. when the constitutional issue raised requires formulation of
controlling principles to guide the bench, the bar, and the public
4. the case is capable of repetition yet evading review.
Under careful scrutiny, the court decided that petitioner’s arguments valid,
as the exceptions to the said rule should not have been applied.
I. On the paramount public interest exception
• No perceivable benefit to the public - whether rational or practical -
may be gained by resolving respondents' petition for Writ
of Kalikasan on the merits.
o These cases were mooted by the undisputed expiration of
the Biosafety Permits issued by the BPI and the completion
and termination of the Bt talong field trials subject of the
same. These incidents effectively negated the necessity for
the reliefs sought by respondents in their petition for Writ
of Kalikasan as there was no longer any field test to enjoin.
6
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
A.Y. 1819C – Dean Candelaria
• Specifically, before a genetically modified organism is allowed to be
propagated under DAO 08-2002:
(a) a permit for propagation must be secured from
the BPI;
(b) it can be shown that based on the field testing
conducted in the Philippines, the regulated article
will not pose any significant risks to the
environment;
(c) food and/or feed safety studies show that the
regulated article will not pose any significant risks
to human and animal health; and (d) if the regulated
article is a pest-protected plant, its transformation
event has been duly registered with the FPA.86
o As the matter never went beyond the field testing phase, none of
the foregoing tasks related to propagation were pursued or the
requirements therefor complied with.
▪ Thus, there are no guaranteed after-effects to the already
concluded Bt talong field trials that demand an
adjudication from which the public may perceivably
II. The case is not one capable of repetition vet evading review.
benefit.
▪ Any future threat to the right of herein respondents or
the public in general to a healthful and balanced ecology
is therefore more imagined than real.
• In fact, it would appear to be more beneficial to the public to stay a
verdict on the safeness of Bt talong - or GMOs, for that matter -
until an actual and justiciable case properly presents itself before the
Court.
o In his Concurring Opinion87 on the main, Associate Justice
Leonen had aptly pointed out that "the findings [resulting
from the Bt talong field trials] should be the material to
provide more rigorous scientific analysis of the various
claims made in relation to Bt talong."
▪ True enough, the concluded field tests ·- like those
in these cases – would yield data that may prove
useful for future studies and analyses. If at all,
resolving the petition for Writ of Kalikasan would
unnecessarily arrest the results of further research
and testing on Et talong, and even GMOs in
general, and hence, tend to hinder scientific
advancement on the subject matter.
• Thus, to resolve respondents' petition for Writ of Kalikasan on its
merits, would be tantamount to an unnecessary scholarly exercise
for the Court to assess alleged violations of health and
environmental rights that arose from a past test case whose bearings
do not find any - if not minimal -- relevance to cases operating under
today's regulatory framework.
• The Court discerns that there are two (2) factors to be considered
before a case is deemed one capable of repetition yet evading
review:
|7
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
A.Y. 1819C – Dean Candelaria
(1) the challenged action was in its duration too short to be
fully litigated prior to its cessation or expiration
(2) there was a reasonable expectation that the same
complaining party would be subjected to the same action.
• Respondents cannot claim that the duration of the subject field tests
was too short to be fully litigated. It must be emphasized that the
Biosafety Permits for the subject field tests were issued on March
16, 2010 and June 28, 2010, and were valid for two (2) years.
o However, as aptly pointed out by Justice Leonen,
respondents filed their petition for Writ of Kalikasan only
on April 26, 2012 - just a few months before the Biosafety
Permits expired and when the field testing activities were
already over.
o Therefore, the cessation of the subject field tests before the
case could be resolved was due to respondents' own
inaction.
• The situation respondents complain of is not susceptible' to
repetition.
o DAO 08-2002 has already been superseded by JDC 01-
2016. Hence, future applications for field testing will be
governed by JDC 01-2016 which, as illustrated, adopts a
regulatory framework that is substantially different from
that of DAO 08-2002.
o Therefore, it was improper for the Court to resolve the
merits of the case which had become moot in view of the
absence of any valid exceptions to the rule on mootness, and
to thereupon rule on the objections against the validity and
consequently nullify DAO 08-2002 under the premises of
the precautionary principle.
• The Court should not have even delved into the constitutionality of
DAO 08-2002 as it was merely collaterally challenged by
respondents, based on the constitutional precepts of the people's
rights to information on matters of public concern, to public
participation, to a balanced and healthful ecology, and to health.
o The respondents averred that the provisions of DAO 08-
2002 were inadequate to protect:
(a) the constitutional right of the people to a balanced and
healthful ecology since "said regulation failed, among
others, to anticipate 'the public implications caused by the
importation of GMOs in the Philippines"';112and
(b) "the people from the potential harm these genetically
modified plants and genetically modified organisms may
cause human health and the environment, [and] thus, x x x
fall short of Constitutional compliance,"
o However, respondents merely prayed for its amendment, as
well as that of the NBF, to define or incorporate "an
independent, transparent, and comprehensive scientific and
socio-economic risk assessment, public information,
consultation, and participation, and providing for their
effective implementation, in accord with international safety
standards[.]"114
o This goes against the unsettled rule that the constitutionality
of a statute cannot be collaterally attacked as
constitutionality issues must be pleaded directly and not
collaterally.
o Verily, the policy of the courts is to avoid ruling on
constitutional questions and to presume that the acts of the
8
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
A.Y. 1819C – Dean Candelaria

political departments are valid, absent a clear and

unmistakable showing to the contrary, in deference to the
doctrine of separation of powers.
▪ This means that the measure had first been carefully
studied by the executive department and found to be
in accord with the Constitution before it was finally
enacted and approved.

RULING

With respondents' petition for Writ of Kalikasan already mooted by the

expiration of the Biosafoty Permits and the completion of the field trials
subject of these cases, and with none of the exceptions to the mootness
principle properly attending, the Court grants the instant motions for
reconsideration and hereby dismisses the aforesaid petition. With this
pronouncement, no discussion on the substantive merits of the same should
be made.

|9
 TOPIC Right to a Balanced and Healthful Ecology
CASE NO. G.R. No. 209165
CASE NAME LNL Archipelago Minerals Inc. v Agham Party List
PONENTE Carpio
PETITIONER LNL Archipelago Minerals Inc.
RESPONDENT Agham Party List
TYPE OF CASE Petition for review on Certiorari
MEMBER: Pierre Macalino

FACTS Petitioner LNL Archipelago Minerals, Inc. (LAMI) is the operator of a mining claim located in Sta.
Cruz, Zambales. LAMI embarked on a project to build a private, non-commercial port in Brgy. Bolitoc, Sta.
Cruz, Zambales. In this area, three other mining corporations have been operating since 2007 (Shangfil, A3Una,
and DMCI). For its operations, LAMI secured the following permits and compliance certificates for the port
project: (1) Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) Environmental Compliance
Certificate (ECC) (2) DENR provisional foreshore lease agreement with LAMI (3) Philippine Ports Authority
(PPA) Clearance to Develop a Port (4) PPA Permit to Construct a Port (5) PPA Special Permit to Operate a
Beaching Facility (6) Tree Cutting Permit/Certification from the Community Environment and Natural
Resources Office (CENRO) of the DENR.

Mayor Marty of Sta. Cruz issued an order which directed LAMI to refrain from continuing its clearing works.
When Sta. Cruz Municipal Chief Generico Binan went to the port site to implement the order, LAMI’s
supervisor showed him their permits. Chief Binan issued a memorandum saying that there was in fact no
leveling of a mountain on the port site.

Thereafter, Rep. Dan Fernandez, a member of the Committee on Ecology of the House of Representatives,
passed House Resolution No. 117 (HR 117) entitled "Resolution Directing the Committee on Ecology to
Conduct an Inquiry, in Aid of Legislation, on the Implementation of Republic Act No. 7942, Otherwise Known
as the Philippine Mining Act of 1995, Particularly on the Adverse Effects of Mining on the Environment."

The DENR Provincial Environment and Natural Resources Office (PENRO) team found that LAMI violated
some of its conditions under the ECC. Accordingly, a Notice of Violation (NOV) was issued against LAMI
with a cease and desist order from further constructing and developing until such time that the ECC conditions
were fully complied. The DENR Environmental Management Bureau in Region III (DENR-EMB R3)
ascertained that LAMI’s violations of the four conditions of its ECC constitute minor violations since they only
pertain to non-submission of documents. However, the leveling of the elevated portion of the area was a major
violation. A penalty was consequently imposed on LAMI, and the DENREMB R3 directed LAMI to (1)
immediately cause the installation of mitigating measures to prevent soil erosion and siltation of the waterbody,
and (2) submit a rehabilitation plan. LAMI responded and said that it has complied with the conditions of
DENREMB R3. After investigation, the DENR composite team found that LAMI’s activities in its property
would not result to any environmental damage to surrounding communities, hence the cease and desist order
was lifted.

Agham Party List, represented by its president Angelo B. Palmones, filed a petition for a Writ of Kalikasan [this
petition is available, among others, to people whose right to a balanced and healthful ecology is threatened or
damaged, please refer to Writer’s notes] against LAMI, DENR, PPA, and Zambales Police Provincial Office
(ZPPO). Agham cited two laws which LAMI allegedly violated: (1) Section 68 of the Revised Forestry Code,
as amended; and (2) Sections 57 and 69 of the Philippine Mining Act.

LAMI stated that it did not and was not violating any environmental law, rule or regulation. LAMI argued that:
(1) LAMI had the necessary permits and authorization to cut trees in the port site; (2) LAMI had the necessary
permits to construct its port; (3) LAMI consulted with and obtained the support of the Sangguniang Barangay
and residents of Barangay Bolitoc; (4) LAMI’s port site is located on private and alienable land; (5) there is no
mountain on the port site; (6) the Philippine Mining Act is irrelevant and inapplicable to the present case; and
(7) the other allegations of Agham that LAMI violated environmental laws, rules or regulations are likewise
baseless, irrelevant and false. LAMI stated further that there is no environmental damage of such magnitude as
to prejudice the life, health, or property of inhabitants in two or more cities and provinces.

FIRST CA DECISION. Petition is denied. The appellate court found that LAMI was authorized to cut trees.
They also stated that there can be no flattening of a mountain when there is no mountain to speak of.

SECOND CA DECISION. [Upon filing for motion for reconsideration by Agham] First CA decision is
reconsidered and the petition for the Writ of Kalikasan is granted. LAMI is to permanently cease and desist
from its activities. They are also directed, along with the Secretary of DENR, to protect, preserve, rehabilitate,
and restore the subject land formation including the plants and trees.

Hence, the current petition for review on certiorari against the Second CA Decision.

ISSUE 1 | W/N LAMI violated Section 68 of the Revised Forestry Code and/or Sections 57 and 69
of the Philippine Mining Act? NO

RULING On Section 68 of Revised Forestry Code. LAMI strictly followed the permit issued by the CENRO and
even passed the evaluation conducted after the issuance of the permit. They were allowed to cut 37 trees with
a volume of 7.64 cubic meteers – to which they followed – within the port site. Given, however, that they
should also replace the trees with a ratio of 1-30 fruit and non-bearing fruit trees. The Forest Management
Service and Forest Utilization unit issued a report which stated that LAMI properly followed these conditions.
Therefore, LAMI clearly had the authority to cut trees and did not violate Section 68 of the Revised Forestry
Code.

On Sections 57 and 69 of the Philippine Mining Act. These two provisions are inapplicable to this case. First, LAMI
is not conducting any mining activity on the port site. LAMI’s mine site is about 25 kilometers away from the
port site. Second, LAMI secured all the necessary permits and licenses for the construction of a port and
LAMI’s activity was limited to preparatory works for the port’s construction. The Philippine Mining Act deals
with mining operations and other mining activities. Sections 57 and 69 deal with the development of a mining
community and environmental protection covering a mineral agreement or permit. Agham did not give proper
justifications for citing Sections 57 and 69 of the Philippine Mining Act. Agham did not even present any
evidence that LAMI violated the mining law or any mining undertakings in relation to LAMI’s construction of
a port facility. Agham only alleged in very general terms that LAMI was destroying the environment and leveling
a mountain without conducting any scientific studies or submitting expert testimonies that would corroborate
such allegations.

ISSUE 2 | W/N LAMI flattened any mountain and caused environmental damage of such magnitude
as to prejudice the health and property of inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces? NO

RULING The rules are clear that in a Writ of Kalikasan, the petitioner has the burden to prove the (1)
environmental law, rule or regulation violated or threatened to be violated (2) act or omission complained of
and (3) the environmental damage of such magnitude as to prejudice the life, health or property of inhabitants
in two or more cities or province. Agham, in accusing that LAMI allegedly flattened a mountain, did not cite
any law allegedly violated by LAMI in relation to this claim. Agham did not present any proof to demonstrate
that the local residents in Zambales, and even the nearby towns of Pangasinan, complained of any great danger
or harm on the alleged leveling of the land formation which may affect their lives, health or properties. Neither
was there any evidence showing of a grave and real environmental damage to the barangay and the surrounding
vicinity. To belie Agham’s contentions, the records, from the testimonies of those experts (such as the Mines
and Geosciences Bureau) in their fields, show that there is in fact no mountain in Brgy. Bolitoc, Sta. Cruz,
Zambales.

It was determined as a result of our verification and based on the above findings supported with field GPS
reading that there had been no leveling of the mountain undertaken in the project site as there is no mountain
existing inside the area covered by the ECC issued by EMB-Region 3. The landform claimed by Mayor Marty
to be a mountain is actually an elongated low ridge with a peak of approximately 23 meters above sea level.
Expert findings are afforded great weight, and it is thus presumed that their findings are regular as they are
done in their official duties.

It was also found that even the Geoscience Foundation, Inc., which conducted a scientific study on the port
site regarding the possible damage to the environment from the construction of the port facility, found that the
landform was too small to protect against typhoons, monsoons and floods due to heavy rains and storm
surges. The construction of the access road on the low ridge does not pose adverse environmental impact to
the adjoining communities more so to the larger areas or the entire province of Zambales and Pangasinan

WHEREFORE, we GRANT the petition. We REVERSE and SET ASIDE the Amended Decision of
the Court of Appeals and REINSTATE AND AFFIRM the original of the Court of Appeals which
DENIED the petition for the issuance of the privilege of the Writ of Kalikasan.

Writers Notes

Nature of Writ of Kalikasan. The writ is a remedy available to a natural or juridical person, entity authorized by
law, people’s organization, non-governmental organization, or any public interest group accredited by or
registered with any government agency, on behalf of persons whose constitutional right to a balanced and
healthful ecology is violated, or 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.

The Writ of Kalikasan, categorized as a special civil action and conceptualized as an extraordinary
remedy, covers environmental damage of such magnitude that will prejudice the life, health or property
of inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces. The writ is available against an unlawful act or omission
of a public official or employee, or private individual or entity.

The following requisites must be present to avail of this remedy: (1) there is an actual or threatened violation
of the constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology; (2) the actual or threatened violation arises
from an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or private individual or entity; and (3) the
actual or threatened violation involves or will lead to an environmental damage of such magnitude as to
prejudice the life, health or property of inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces.

Section 2(c), Rule 7, Part III of the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases:

Section 2. Contents of the petition. - The verified petition shall contain the following:

(c) The environmental law, rule or regulation violated or threatened to be violated, the act or omission
complained of, and the environmental damage of such magnitude as to prejudice the life, health or
property of inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces.

Mountain – 300 meters to 2500 meters height over base. The highest elevation of the project area is 23 meters.

Art. 2, Section 16 of Consti. 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.