JD 217 - Updated NREL Reviewer For Midterms M5 PDF

JD
217 – Natural Resources and Environmental Law

1st Semester, SY 2017-‐2018
I. Definitions and Principles

A. Environment
a. Understanding the concept of environment
Definition of environment:
1: the circumstances, objects, or conditions by which one is
surrounded
2 a: the complex of physical, chemical, and biotic factors (such as
climate, soil, and living things) that act upon an organism or an
ecological community and ultimately determine its form and
survival
b: the aggregate of social and cultural conditions that influence
the life of an individual or community
b. The word environment is derived from the French word “Environ”

which means “surrounding”. Our surrounding includes biotic factors
like human beings, Plants, animals, microbes, etc and abiotic
factors such as light, air, water, soil, etc.
B. Key environmental issue: climate change

(Video: Before the Flood, National Geographic Documentary)
Excerpt from the Documentary Review by Adam Chitwood:
Before the Flood is very much an educational and advocacy

documentary. It’s a cliffs notes version of what’s happening to the
world we live in, what’s going to happen to the world we live in, and
what we can do to prevent the worst possible outcome. In that respect,
it’s kind of like a less boring version of An Inconventient Truth with
some high-profile interviews.
The first question you’re probably asking is what the hell is Leonardo
DiCaprio doing making a documentary about climate change? That
question is addressed at the very beginning of the film, as DiCaprio is
appointed U.N. Messenger of Peace and then, through voiceover,
wonders if he’s the right man for the job given his lack of science
background and pessimistic worldview. This smashes right into a
collection of clips from news reports (most from Fox News) lambasting
DiCaprio’s involvement in the U.N. and climate change advocacy.
Indeed, Before the Floodknows it’s more than a little ridiculous that an
award-winning actor is the one leading this climate change
documentary, but it also proves that DiCaprio’s heart is in the right
place.
Notes compiled by: Dann Marr P. Andrino, JD2 (M5)

JD 217 – Natural Resources and Environmental Law
Before the Flood covers most all of the bases. The influence of
corporate money into politics is touched on, and DiCaprio travels the
globe to see how other countries like China and India are handling
climate change, and getting a first-hand account of the effects of
climate change on communities that could very well be a preview of
much worse things to come. We see first-hand how Greenland’s
melting ice is causing a change in color of its terrain, which in turn no
longer reflects the sun but absorbs it, becoming a heat creator instead
of reflector. And we see how Miami Beach, Florida is having to literally
raise the elevation of its roads to combat rising ocean waters.
We also see how developing communities in places like India are

already battling pollution even as their population doesn’t entirely
have access to power. If and when they do make coal-produced
electricity widely available, the climate change problem only becomes
worse. Amongst these growing issues, everyone is turning to the U.S.
to be an example across the globe, as money continues to be a deciding
factor that’s dividing our politicians and making widespread change
impossible.
But Before the Flood isn’t simply interested in showing how terrible
everything is. It also does a fantastic job of highlighting solutions, both
short-term and long-term. When asked if a president who doesn’t
believe in climate change could undo the policies he’s already put in
place, President Obama says the truth has a way of catching up with
you. Indeed, the film points out that public opinion tends to sway
political opinion, using gay marriage as an example—Obama was
against it when it wasn’t popular, then for it when the majority of the
country approved. Thus, the future is in the hands of the people.
The film even highlights specific changes citizens can make that are as
simple as changing one’s diet. The methane produced from the cattle
industry is a massive polluter, but if citizens simply excised eating beef
from their diet, a significant portion of that pollution would be quelled.
DiCaprio serves as a suitable guide throughout this all, especially

doing quite well as an interviewer when speaking with subjects like
Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry. Moreover, since the
production of Before the Flood took place during the massive shoot
for The Revenant, there’s even a significant portion of behind-the-
scenes footage from that film as DiCaprio and director Alejandro
Gonzalez Iñarritu were forced to move the production from Canada
to near the South Pole just in order to find snow. The film zips along at

an entertaining pace, buoyed by a terrific original score from Trent

Reznor, Atticus Ross, Mogwai, and Gustavo Santaolalla.
And DiCaprio even addresses the large carbon footprint that he

himself has left on the planet, admitting that he sometimes questions
the morality of what he’s doing. So while folks will no doubt be coming
after this film with knives sharpened, DiCaprio has the good sense to
address these criticisms upfront. And yes, the production took efforts
to offset its carbon footprint during filming, including taking on a
voluntary carbon tax.
At heart, Before the Flood is a film made for mass consumption in an

effort to inform and spur the public into action. In that respect, it’s
incredibly effective. There’s a fantastic blend of cold hard facts from
expert scientists as well as discussions with world leaders and those
directly effected by the effects of climate change. Following a
worldwide release, the film will be shown on National Geographic,
which is a swell move. This thing should be seen by as many people as
possible.
Climate change is real, and it’s scary. Our first line of defense is an
informed public. And while a feature film couldn’t possibly encapsulate
everything there is to know on the subject, Before the Flood serves as a
not-insignificant piece of education that will hopefully spur people to
enact their own further research. And maybe, just maybe, it’ll incite
some action. 1
a. Introduction to Climate Change

“Climate Change” refers to a change in climate that can be
identified by changes in the mean and/or variability of its properties
and that persists for an extended period typically decades or longer,
whether due to natural variability or as a result of human activity.2
b. Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation: The

International Dimension
Climate mitigation is any action taken to permanently eliminate
or reduce the long-term risk and hazards of climate change to
human life, property. The International Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC) defines mitigation as: “An anthropogenic intervention to
reduce the sources or enhance the sinks of greenhouse gases."

1
https://goo.gl/VLWX9y
2
https://goo.gl/adQF8Z


Climate adaptation refers to the ability of a system to adjust to

climate change (including climate variability and extremes) to
moderate potential damage, to take advantage of opportunities, or
to cope with the consequences. The IPCC defines adaptation as the,
“adjustment in natural or human systems to a new or changing
environment. Adaptation to climate change refers to adjustment in
natural or human systems in response to actual or expected climatic
stimuli or their effects, which moderates harm or exploits beneficial
opportunities. Various types of adaptation can be distinguished,
including anticipatory and reactive adaptation, private and public
adaptation, and autonomous and planned adaptation."
The terms “adaptation" and “mitigation" are two important

terms that are fundamental in the climate change debate. The
IPCC defined adaptation as adjustment in natural or human
systems in response to actual or expected climatic stimuli or their
effects, which moderate harm or exploits beneficial opportunities.
Similarly, Mitchell and Tanner (2006) defined adaptation as an
understanding of how individuals, groups and natural systems can
prepare for and respond to changes in climate or their environment.
According to them, it is crucial to reducing vulnerability to climate
change. While mitigation tackles the causes of climate change,
adaptation tackles the effects of the phenomenon. The potential to
adjust in order to minimize negative impact and maximize any
benefits from changes in climate is known as adaptive capacity. A
successful adaptation can reduce vulnerability by building on and
strengthening existing coping strategies.
In general the more mitigation there is, the less will be the
impacts to which we will have to adjust, and the less the risks for
which we will have to try and prepare. Conversely, the greater the
degree of preparatory adaptation, the less may be the impacts
associated with any given degree of climate change. For people
today, already feeling the impacts of past inaction in reducing
greenhouse gas emissions, adaptation is not altogether passive,
rather it is an active adjustment in response to new stimuli.
However, our present age has proactive options (mitigation), and
must also plan to live with the consequences (adaptation) of global
warming.
c. Addressing Climate Change through existing

environmental statutes
i. Climate Change Act (RA9729)
Approved: October 23, 2009

It is the policy of the State to afford full protection and the

advancement of the right of the people to a healthful ecology in
accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature. As a party to
the Hyogo Framework for Action, the State likewise adopts the
strategic goals in order to build national and local resilience to
climate change- related disasters.
The LGUs shall be the frontline agencies in the formulation,

planning and implementation of climate change action plans in
their respective areas, consistent with the provisions of the
Local Government Code, the Framework, and the National
Climate Change Action Plan.
Inter-local government unit collaboration shall be maximized in

the conduct of climate- related activities. Barangays City/
Municipality Province Barangay shall be directly involved with
municipal and city governments in prioritizing climate change
issues and in identifying and implementing best practices and
other solutions. Municipal and city governments shall consider
climate change adaptation, as one of their regular functions.
Provincial governments shall provide technical assistance,
enforcement and information management in support of
municipal and city climate change action plans. ⎫ It shall be the
responsibility of the national government to extend technical
and financial assistance to LGUs for the accomplishment of
their Local Climate Change Action Plans.
Roles of National Government Agencies:

To ensure the effective implementation of the framework
strategy and program on climate change, concerned agencies
shall perform the following functions:
o Department of Education (DepEd) shall integrate climate

change into the primary and secondary education
curricula and/or subjects, such as, but not limited to,
science, biology, sibika, history, including textbooks,
primers and other educational materials, basic climate
change principles and concepts;
o Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG)

and Local Government Academy (LGA) shall facilitate the
development and provision of a training program for
LGUs in climate change. The training program shall
include socioeconomic, geophysical, policy, and other

content necessary to address the prevailing and

forecasted conditions and risks of particular LGUs. It
shall likewise focus on women and children, especially in
the rural areas, since they are the most vulnerable;
o The Department of Environment and Natural Resources

(DENR) shall oversee the establishment and maintenance
of a climate change information management system and
network, including on climate change risks, activities and
investments, in collaboration with other concerned
national government agencies, institutions and LGUs;
o Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) shall review

international agreements related to climate change and
make the necessary recommendation for ratification and
compliance by the government on matters pertaining
thereto; and
o The Philippine Information Agency (PIA) shall

disseminate information on climate change, local
vulnerabilities and risk, relevant laws and protocols and
adaptation and mitigation measures.
Funding Allocation for Climate Change:
All relevant government agencies and LGUs shall allocate

from their annual appropriations adequate funds for the
formulation, development and implementation, including
training, capacity building and direct intervention, of
their respective climate change programs and plans. It
shall also include public awareness campaigns on the
effects of climate change and energy-saving solutions to
mitigate these effects, and initiatives, through
educational and training programs and micro-credit
schemes, especially for women in rural areas. In
subsequent budget proposals, the concerned offices and
units shall appropriate funds for program/project
development and implementation including continuing
training and education in climate change.
ii. People’s Survival Fund Act (RA 10174)
The People’s Survival Fund (PSF) was created by Republic Act

10174 as an annual fund intended for local government units

and accredited local/community organizations to implement

climate change adaptation projects that will better equip
vulnerable communities to deal with the impacts of climate
change. It supplements the annual appropriations allocated by
relevant government agencies and local government units for
climate-change-related programs and projects.
The Philippine government programmed at least P1 billion into

the PSF which will be sourced from the national budget. The
allocation may be augmented by mobilizing funding sources
such as counterpart local government units, the private sector,
and individuals who support adaptation initiatives.
The PSF is managed and administered by the People’s Survival

Fund Board. The Board is headed by the Secretary of the
Department of Finance. Its members are the vice chairperson
of the Climate Change Commission, secretary of the
Department of Budget and Management, director general of
the National Economic and Development Authority, secretary
of the Department of the Interior and Local Government,
chairperson of the Philippine Commission on Women,
representative from the academe and scientific community,
business sector, and non-government organizations. The
Climate Change Office provides support as secretariat to the
Board.
PSF ensures that funds go to the right places and meet real
needs by devising a mechanism for these financial resources to
be transferred to and accessed by its target recipients: the local
government units and accredited local/community
organizations.
The PSF Board has set the criteria for selecting recipients who
submit proposals to fund their adaptation projects and
programs. Local government units with high poverty incidence,
are exposed to climate risks, and has a key biodiversity area
will be prioritized. On the other hand, local/community
organizations will be eligible to access the fund upon
accreditation based on organizational independence, track
record in the community and/or field of expertise, financial
management and participatory practices.
The PSF is intended for adaptation activities that include

water resources management, land management, agriculture

and fisheries, health, among others, and serve as guarantee for

risk insurance needs for farmers, agricultural workers and
other stakeholders.
It will also be used for establishing regional centers and

information networks and strengthening of existing ones to
support climate change adaptation initiatives and projects, for
setting up of forecasting and early warning systems against
climate-related hazards, support to institutional development
such as preventive measures, planning, preparedness and
management of impacts relating to climate change, including
contingency planning for droughts and floods.
iii. Disaster Risk Reduction and Management (DRRM)

Law (RA 10121)
Approved: May 27, 2010
The Act shifted the policy environment and the way the
country deals with disasters from mere response to
preparedness. RA 10121 provides a comprehensive, all-hazard,
multi-sectoral, inter-agency, and community-based approach to
disaster risk management through the formulation of the
National Disaster Risk Management Framework.
A National Disaster Risk Management Plan (NDRMP) is being

formulated, developed, and implemented as the master plan
that will provide the strategies, organisation, tasks of
concerned agencies and local government units, and other
guidelines in dealing with disasters or emergencies. Through
this plan, a coherent, integrated, efficient, and responsive
disaster risk management at all levels will hopefully be
achieved.
The law also promotes the development of capacities in

disaster management at the individual, organisational, and
institutional levels. A very important feature of this law is its
call for the mainstreaming of disaster risk reduction in
physical and land-use planning, budget, infrastructure,
education, health, environment, housing, and other sectors.
RA 10121 also recognises local risk patterns and trends and

decentralisation of resources and responsibilities and thus
encourages the participation of NGOs, private sectors,
community-based organisations, and community members in

disaster management. It inhibits the full participation of the

Local Government Units (LGUs) and communities in
governance. The approach tends to be “response-oriented” or
“reactive.” This is evidenced by the widespread emphasis on
post-disaster relief and short-term preparedness, such as
forecasting and evacuation, rather than on mitigation and
post- disaster support for economic recovery.
Moreover, the Act mandates the establishment of a Disaster

Risk Reduction and Management Office (DRRMO) in every
province, city and municipality, and a Barangay Disaster Risk
Reduction and Management Committee (BDRRMC) in every
barangay.
The Strategic National Action Plan on Disaster Risk Reduction

for 2009-2019 aims to enhance the capacities of Local Disaster
Risk Reduction and Management Councils.
Finally, RA10121 provides for the calamity fund to be used in

support of disaster risk reduction or mitigation, prevention,
and preparedness activities for the potential occurrence of
disasters and not just for response, relief, and rehabilitation
efforts which is set at “not less than five percent (5%) of the
estimated revenue from regular sources shall be set aside as
the LDRRMF to support disaster risk management activities
such as, but not limited to, pre-disaster preparedness programs
including training, purchasing life-saving rescue equipment,
supplies and medicines, for post-disaster activities, and for the
payment of premiums on calamity insurance. The LDRRMC
shall monitor and evaluate the use and disbursement of the
LDRRMF based on the LDRRMP as incorporated in the local
development plans and annual work and financial plan. Upon
the recommendation of the LDRRMO and approval of the
sanggunian concerned, the LDRRMC may transfer the said
fund to support disaster risk reduction work of other
LDRRMCs which are declared under state of calamity.”
Of the amount appropriated for LDRRMF, thirty percent (30%)

shall be allocated as Quick Response Fund (QRF) or stand-by
fund for relief and recovery programs in order that situation
and living conditions of people In communities or areas
stricken by disasters, calamities, epidemics, or complex
emergencies, may be normalized as quickly as possible.

Unexpended LDRRMF shall accrue to a special trust fund

solely for the purpose of supporting disaster risk
reduction and management activities of the LDRRMCs
within the next five (5) years. Any such amount still not
fully utilized after five (5) years shall revert back to the
general fund and will be available for other social services
to be identified by the local sanggunian.
d. What are the obligations, if any, of state parties to

address the current climate crisis?
i. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate

Change (UNFCCC)
The ultimate objective of this Convention and any related legal

instruments that the Conference of the Parties may adopt is to
achieve, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the
Convention, stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in
the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous
anthropogenic interference with the climate system. Such a
level should be achieved within a time frame sufficient to allow
ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change, to ensure that
food production is not threatened and to enable economic
development to proceed in a sustainable manner.
In their actions to achieve the objective of the Convention and

to implement its provisions, the Parties shall be guided, inter
alia, by the following:
ü The Parties should protect the climate system for the

benefit of present and future generations of humankind,
on the basis of equity and in accordance with their
common but differentiated responsibilities and
respective capabilities. Accordingly, the developed
country Parties should take the lead in combating
climate change and the adverse effects thereof.
ü The specific needs and special circumstances of

developing country Parties, especially those that are
particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate
change, and of those Parties, especially developing
country Parties, that would have to bear a
disproportionate or abnormal burden under the
Convention, should be given full consideration.

ü The Parties should take precautionary measures to

anticipate, prevent or minimize the causes of climate
change and mitigate its adverse effects. Where there are
threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full
scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for
postponing such measures, taking into account that
policies and measures to deal with climate change
should be cost-effective so as to ensure global benefits at
the lowest possible cost. To achieve this, such policies
and measures should take into account different socio-
economic contexts, be comprehensive, cover all relevant
sources, sinks and reservoirs of greenhouse gases and
adaptation, and comprise all economic sectors. Efforts to
address climate change may be carried out cooperatively
by interested Parties.
ü The Parties have a right to, and should, promote

sustainable development. Policies and measures to
protect the climate system against human-induced
change should be appropriate for the specific conditions
of each Party and should be integrated with national
development programmes, taking into account that
economic development is essential for adopting
measures to address climate change.
ü The Parties should cooperate to promote a supportive

and open international economic system that would lead
to sustainable economic growth and development in all
Parties, particularly developing country Parties, thus
enabling them better to address the problems of climate
change. Measures taken to combat climate change,
including unilateral ones, should not constitute a means
of arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination or a
disguised restriction on international trade.
ii. Paris Agreement and Philippines’ NDC
The country has officially committed an Intended

Nationally Determined Contributions (INDC) target of 70
percent greenhouse gas reduction below business-as-usual
levels by 2030. Emissions cut will be made primarily in

our energy, transport, forestry, waste, and industry

sectors.3
The Climate Change Commission has also signed the

Instrument of Accession to the Paris Agreement. The
Accession follows the concurrence from 33 government
agencies that are members of the Climate Change
Commission Advisory Board. According to Secretary and
Vice Chairperson Vernice Victorio, the Commission and
its Advisory Board strongly shares the President’s
prioritization of climate justice and sustainable
development and is confident that our accession to the
Paris Agreement will allow the country to push for
stronger compliance and transparency in the support
provided by developed countries for climate action. The
Agreement is hailed as raising global ambition on climate
change, seeking to cap global average temperature
increase to 1.5 ºC, a position that the Philippines strongly
advocated for during the negotiations believing that this
will encourage urgent action and mobilization of support
on the part of developed countries.
A Declaration will accompany the country’s Accession

that will ensure that our national laws and priorities will
be upheld. Included in this Declaration is an assertion of
the supremacy of our national laws and statement laying
the groundwork for comprehensive review of the
Philippine Intended Nationally Determined Contributions
submitted last October 2015.
The review will include a wider consultation on the

previously submitted conditional emission reduction
pledge of 70% towards the development of the Nationally
Determined Contributions (NDC) and will take into
consideration our capacity to implement such
contribution, support received from developed countries
for climate action, and our development pathway.
iii. IPCC Fifth Assessment Synthesis Report

3 https://goo.gl/mdoJwM


Common enabling factors and constraints for adaptation and

mitigation responses:
Response options for adaptation:
ü Adaptation and mitigation responses are underpinned by

common enabling factors. These include effective
institutions and governance, innovation and investments
in environmentally sound technologies and
infrastructure, sustainable livelihoods and behavioural
and lifestyle choices:
o Innovation and investments in environmentally
sound infrastructure and technologies can reduce
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and enhance
resilience to climate change;
o Adaptation and mitigation are constrained by the
inertia of global and regional trends in economic
development, GHG emissions, resource
consumption, infrastructure and settlement
patterns, institutional behaviour and technology;
o Vulnerability to climate change, GHG emissions,
and the capacity for adaptation and mitigation are
strongly influenced by livelihoods, lifestyles,
behaviour and culture;
o For many regions and sectors, enhanced capacities
to mitigate and adapt are part of the foundation
essential for managing climate change risks;
o Improving institutions as well as enhancing
coordination and cooperation in governance can
help overcome regional constraints associated with
mitigation, adaptation and disaster risk reduction.
ü Adaptation options exist in all sectors, but their context

for implementation and potential to reduce climate-
related risks differs across sectors and regions. Some
adaptation responses involve significant co-benefits,
synergies and trade-offs. Increasing climate change will
increase challenges for many adaptation options:
ü People, governments and the private sector are starting

to adapt to a changing climate. Since the IPCC Fourth
Assessment Report (AR4), understanding of response
options has increased, with improved knowledge of their
benefits, costs and links to sustainable development;

ü Opportunities to enable adaptation planning and

implementation exist in all sectors and regions, with
diverse potential and approaches depending on context.
The need for adaptation along with associated challenges
is expected to increase with climate change
ü Freshwater resources: Adaptive water management

techniques, including scenario planning, learning-based
approaches and flexible and low-regret solutions, can help
adjust to uncertain hydrological changes due to climate
change and their impacts
ü Terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems: Management

actions can reduce but not eliminate risks of impacts to
terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems due to climate
change. Actions include maintenance of genetic diversity,
assisted species migration and dispersal, manipulation of
disturbance regimes (e.g., fires, floods) and reduction of
other stressors.
ü Coastal systems and low-lying areas: Increasingly,

coastal adaptation options include those based on
integrated coastal zone management, local community
participation, ecosystems-based approaches and disaster
risk reduction, mainstreamed into relevant strategies and
management plans
ü Marine systems and oceans: Marine forecasting and early

warning systems as well as reducing non-climatic
stressors have the potential to reduce risks for some
fisheries and aquaculture industries, but options for
unique ecosystems such as coral reefs are limited
ü Food production system/Rural areas: Adaptation options

for agriculture include technological responses, enhancing
smallholder access to credit and other critical production
resources, strengthening institutions at local to regional
levels and improving market access through trade reform
ü Urban areas/Key economic sectors and services: Urban

adaptation benefits from effective multi-level governance,
alignment of policies and incentives, strengthened local
government and community adaptation capacity,

synergies with the private sector and appropriate

financing and institutional development
ü Human health, security and livelihoods: Adaptation

options that focus on strengthening existing delivery
systems and institutions, as well as insurance and social
protection strategies, can improve health, security and
livelihoods in the near term
ü Significant co-benefits, synergies and trade-offs exist

between adaptation and mitigation and among different
adaptation responses; interactions occur both within and
across regions and sectors
Response options for mitigation:
Mitigation options are available in every major sector.

Mitigation can be more cost-effective if using an integrated
approach that combines measures to reduce energy use and the
greenhouse gas intensity of end-use sectors, decarbonize energy
supply, reduce net emissions and enhance carbon sinks in land-
based sectors:
ü A broad range of sectoral mitigation options is available

that can reduce GHG emission intensity, improve
energy intensity through enhancements of technology,
behaviour, production and resource efficiency and
enable structural changes or changes in activity.
ü Well-designed systemic and cross-sectoral mitigation
strategies are more cost-effective in cutting emissions
than a focus on individual technologies and sectors with
efforts in one sector affecting the need for mitigation in
others;
ü Decarbonizing (i.e., reducing the carbon intensity of)
electricity generation is a key component of cost-
effective mitigation strategies in achieving low
stabilization levels (of about 450 to about 500 ppm CO2-
eq, at least about as likely as not to limit warming to
2ÅãC above pre-industrial levels);
ü Efficiency enhancements and behavioural changes, in
order to reduce energy demand compared to baseline
scenarios without compromising development, are a key
mitigation strategy in scenarios reaching atmospheric
CO2-eq concentrations of about 450 to about 500 ppm by

2100;
ü Decarbonization of the energy supply sector (i.e.,
reducing the carbon intensity) requires upscaling of low-
and zero-carbon electricity generation technologies;
ü Behaviour, lifestyle and culture have a considerable
influence on energy use and associated emissions, with
high mitigation potential in some sectors, in particular
when complementing technological and structural
change;
ü The most cost-effective mitigation options in forestry are
afforestation, sustainable forest management and
reducing deforestation, with large differences in their
relative importance across regions. In agriculture, the
most cost-effective mitigation options are cropland
management, grazing land management and restoration
of organic soils;
ü Bioenergy can play a critical role for mitigation, but
there are issues to consider, such as the sustainability of
practices and the efficiency of bioenergy systems;
ü Mitigation measures intersect with other societal goals,
creating the possibility of co-‐‑benefits or adverse side-‐‑
effects. These intersections, if well-‐‑managed, can
strengthen the basis for undertaking climate mitigation
actions.
Policy approaches for adaptation and mitigation,

technology and finance
Effective adaptation and mitigation responses will depend

on policies and measures across multiple scales:
international, regional, national and sub-national.
Policies across all scales supporting technology
development, diffusion and transfer, as well as finance for
responses to climate change, can complement and
enhance the effectiveness of policies that directly promote
adaptation and mitigation:
International and regional cooperation on adaptation and

mitigation:
ü The United Nations Framework Convention on

Climate Change (UNFCCC) is the main multilateral
forum focused on addressing climate change, with
nearly universal participation;

ü Existing and proposed international climate change

cooperation arrangements vary in their focus and
degree of centralization and coordination;
ü While a number of new institutions are focused on
adaptation funding and coordination, adaptation has
historically received less attention than mitigation
in international climate policy;
ü The Kyoto Protocol offers lessons towards achieving
the ultimate objective of the UNFCCC, particularly
with respect to participation, implementation,
flexibility mechanisms, and environmental
effectiveness.
iv. Case: Greenpeace, et. al. v Exxon, et. al. (CHR-NI-

2016-0001) – Petition requesting for investigation of
the responsibility of the Carbon Majors for human
rights violations or threats of violations resulting
from the impacts of climate change
Issue: Whether or not the Respondent Carbon Majors must be

held accountable—being the largest corporate contributors of
greenhouse gases emissions and having so far failed to curb
those emissions despite the companies’ knowledge of the harm
caused, capacity to do so, and potential involvement in
activities that may be undermining climate action—for the
human rights implications of climate change and ocean
acidification.
Discussion: Petitioners assert that the investor-owned Carbon

Majors must be held to account and cited the following as
grounds for this assertion:
a. The corporate responsibility to respect human rights is

articulated in the UN Guiding Principles on Business
and Human Rights, which reflect norms and standards
on the responsibility of corporate actors.
b. The investor-owned Carbon Majors have breached
their responsibilities to respect the rights of Filipino
people and communities by directly or indirectly
contributing to current or future adverse human rights
impacts through the extraction and sale of fossil fuels
and activities undermining climate action.
c. The investor-owned Carbon Majors have also breached
their responsibilities to respect the rights of Filipino

people and communities by failing to prevent human

rights impacts that are directly linked to their
operations, products, or services by its business
relationships.
d. The groundbreaking Carbon Majors data makes it
feasible to assign responsibility to the Carbon Majors
collectively and individually for human rights impacts
resulting from climate change and ocean acidification.
e. Even if the Commission finds scientific uncertainties in
establishing the Respondents’ responsibility for specific
or future human rights harms, the precautionary
principle applies.
Precaution espouses prudence where risk is

uncertain, but plausible. It is an addition to two
basic tenets of problem-solving: curing problems
and preventing them. Under a curative approach,
the harm has already been realized, and measures
are created to reverse the harm, or require
compensation for the costs associated with harm.
Under the preventive approach, measures are
taken to prevent known risks from materializing
into actual harm.
Precaution requires even greater diligence than

prevention, by calling for measures to safeguard
the environment even if the occurrence of harm is
uncertain. The precautionary principle affirms the
need for urgent measures given the unpredictable
patterns of the environment, and the harm
resulting from its abuse.
f. As for the States where the Carbon Majors are

incorporated, they have obligations to protect the
human rights of Filipinos, including the duty to
prevent harm by third parties, and the Philippines has
a duty to assess, monitor, and notify of current or
threatened harm.
The procedural duties include the following:
ü States must ensure the assessment of

environmental impacts and make
environmental information public;

ü States must facilitate public participation in

environmental decision-making, including by
protecting the rights of expression and
association; and
ü States must provide access to remedies for
harm.
The substantive duties on States include:
ü States must adopt and implement legal
frameworks to protect against environmental
harm that may infringe on enjoyment of
human rights; and,
ü States must regulate private actors to
protect against such environmental harm.
C. Natural Resources
a. Importance: Natural Resources are any material thing of economic
value, which man did not bring into existence. The natural
resources of the State are: (1) All lands of the public domain, [2]
waters, [3]minerals, [4]coal, [5]petroleum, [6]other mineral oils,
[7]all forces of potential energy, [8]fisheries, [9]forests or timber,
[10]wildlife, [11]flora and fauna, [12]other natural resources
b. Classification of Lands of the Public Domain

In general:
1. Lands of Public Domain (a.k.a Public Land)
A. Alienable
a. Agricultural Land
B. Non-Alienable
a. Forest or Timber Land
b. Mineral Lands
c. National Park
c. Regalian Doctrine provides that all lands of public domain,

including Forest lands, belong to the state and are not alienable and
disposable. Hence, any title issued on such non-disposable lands,
even if it is in the hands of a purchaser in good faith and for value
shall be CANCELLED.
d. Jurisprudence
i. Pineda v CA, 183 SCRA 602
Alienable public land held openly, continuously, and

exclusively for the prescribed period is converted to private

property by mere lapse or completion of said period ipso jure.

Under present jurisprudence, alienable public land held by a
possessor personally, or through his predecessors-in-interest,
openly, continuously and exclusively for the prescribed period,
is converted to private property by mere lapse or completion of
said period ipso jure.
Following the Susi doctrine, therefore, private respondents are

deemed to have acquired, by operation of law, not only a right
to grant of the Government over the controversial land. By
such grant, the property in litigation is segregated from the
public domain; and becomes private property, over which
necessarily, the Director of Lands no longer has jurisdiction.
Private ownership of land (as when there is a prima facie proof
of ownership like a duly registered possessory information) is
not affected by the issuance of a free patent over the same
land, because the Public Land Law applies only to lands of the
public domain. The Director of Lands has no authority to grant
to another a free patent for land that has ceased to be a public
land and has passed to private ownership. Consequently, a
certificate of title issued pursuant to a homestead patent
partakes of the nature of a certificate issued in a judicial
proceeding only if the land covered by it is really a part of the
disposable land of the public domain.
Petitioner’s contention: They asserted ownership of the 177,499

sq m “montanosa” property based on open, continuous,
exclusive, peaceful, adverse, and notorious possession.
Doctrine that upon open, exclusive and undisputable

possession of alienable public land for the period prescribed by
law creates a legal fiction whereby the land ceases to be public
land and becomes a private property.
ii. Republic v IAC, 186 SCRA 88
The land in question was proclaimed part of a forest reserve by

virtue of Proclamation Order No. 42 dated October 14, 1921.
This proclamation was superseded by Proclamation Order No.
716 dated May 26, 1941 establishing Mts. Banahaw – San
Cristobal National Park. It is already a settled rule that forest
lands or forest reserves are not capable of private
appropriation and possession thereof, however long, can not
convert them into private property, UNLESS, such lands are

reclassified and considered disposable and alienable by the

Director of Forestry.
Spanish titles can not be an evidence of ownership.

Furthermore, with the passage of PD 892, effective February
16, 1976, Spanish titles can no longer be used as evidence of
land ownership. Under the same decree, lands not under the
Torrens System shall be considered unregistered.
iii. Director of Forestry v Villareal, GR No. 32266, Feb. 27, 1989
Facts: The petitioner, Director of Forestry was one of the

several persons who opposed the application for registration of
a parcel land classified as mangrove swamps in the
municipality of Sapian, Capiz with an area of 178,113 square
meters of mangrove swamps, to the applicant Ruperto
Villareal. He alleged that he and his predecessors-in-interests
had been in possession of the said parcel of land for more than
forty years (40). Both parties agreed in one point that the
disputed land was a mangrove swamp. The respondent argued
that mangrove swamp are agricultural land but the petitioner
contended that it is a forestall land therefore not
disposable.The Court of the First Instance of Capiz however
grants the application of the respondent. The decision of the
lower court was later affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Hence
the Director of Forestry elevated the case to the Supreme
Court for review on certiorari.
Issue: Whether or not, mangrove swamps are agricultural

land or forest land.
Held: The Supreme Court held that mangrove swamps as

forest lands is descriptive of its legal nature or status and does
not have to be descriptive of what the land actually looks like.
Furthermore the legislative definition embodied in section
1820 of the Revised Administrative Code of 1917 which
declares that mangrove swamps or manglares form part of the
public forests of the Philippines hence they are not alienable.
The evidence presented by the respondent in its claim were not
sufficient to prove its possession and ownership of the land, he
only presented tax declaration. Wherefore the decision of the
Court of Appeals was set aside and the application for
registration of title by the respondent is dismissed by the
Supreme Court.

iv. Manalo v IAC, 172 SCRA 795
When the lots in dispute were certified as disposable on May

19, 1971, and free patents were issued covering the same in
favor of the private respondents, the said lots ceased to be part
of the public domain and, therefore, the Director of Lands lost
jurisdiction over them. Since the lots were no longer part of the
public domain, the private respondents, as holders of the titles
based on free patents acquired subsequent to the declaration of
alienability and disposability, have the personality to file the
case against persons whom they alleged were in possession of
void titles.
The appellants’ contention in their fifth assignment of error is

not taken. It is not correct to say that when the US Military
Reservation in Bataan, of which the land in question forms
part, was turned over to the Philippine government, but its
nature as a military reservation remained unchanged. Said
parcels of land became a disposable land of public domain only
on May 19, 1971, per certification of the Bureau of Forestry. Its
disposition of only by sale was duly authorized pursuant to the
provisions of RA 274. If the land in question became
immediately disposable upon its turnover to the Philippine
government in 1965, then why, it may be asked, was it certified
disposable only in 1971. The Court concluded that this land
referred to continued to be a military reservation land while in
the custody of the Philippine Government until it was certified
alienable in 1971.
It is not the function of the Court to evaluate each piece of

evidence presented before the lower court. Suffice it is to say
that we find the conclusions of the lower court and appellate
courts amply supported by evidence and so we apply the time-
honored doctrine that absent the recognized exceptions, the
findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are conclusive on the
parties and the Supreme Court; and that this Court decides
appeals which only involve questions of law.
Until public lands are released as alienable or disposable,

neither the Bureau of Lands nor the Bureau of Fisheries may
lease or otherwise dispose of said lands. The classification of
public lands is an exclusive prerogative of the Executive
Department of the Government and not of the courts.

I. Sources and Foundations of Environmental Law
A. 1987 Constitution
a. Substantive topics – Right to a Healthy Environment
[Articles II (Sections 15 and 16)]; Regalian Doctrine [Article
XII (Section 2)]; International Environmental Commitments
[Article II (Sections 2 and 7), Article VII (Section 21), Article
VIII (Section 5)]
Jurisprudence
1. Oposa v Factoran, et. al., 224 SCRA 792, GR No.

101083 July 30, 1993
FACTS
A taxpayer’s class suit was filed by minors Juan Antonio Oposa,

et al., representing their generation and generations yet
unborn, and represented by their parents against Fulgencio
Factoran Jr., Secretary of DENR. They prayed that judgment be
rendered ordering the defendant, his agents, representatives
and other persons acting in his behalf to:
ü Cancel all existing Timber Licensing Agreements (TLA)

in the country; and
ü Cease and desist from receiving, accepting, processing,
renewing, or appraising new TLAs;
ü and granting the plaintiffs “such other reliefs just and
equitable under the premises.”
They alleged that they have a clear and constitutional

right to a balanced and healthful ecology and are entitled to
protection by the State in its capacity as parens patriae.
Furthermore, they claim that the act of the defendant in
allowing TLA holders to cut and deforest the remaining forests
constitutes a misappropriation and/or impairment of the natural
resources property he holds in trust for the benefit of the
plaintiff minors and succeeding generations.
The defendant filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on

the following grounds:
ü Plaintiffs have no cause of action against him;

ü The issues raised by the plaintiffs is a political question

which properly pertains to the legislative or executive
branches of the government.
ISSUE: Do the petitioner-minors have a cause of action in filing

a class suit to “prevent the misappropriation or impairment of
Philippine rainforests?”
HELD: Yes. Petitioner-minors assert that they represent their

generation as well as generations to come. The Supreme Court
ruled that they can, for themselves, for others of their
generation, and for the succeeding generation, file a class suit.
Their personality to sue in behalf of succeeding generations is
based on the concept of intergenerational responsibility insofar
as the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is concerned.
Such a right considers the “rhythm and harmony of nature”
which indispensably include, inter alia, the judicious disposition,
utilization, management, renewal and conservation of the
country’s forest, mineral, land, waters, fisheries, wildlife,
offshore areas and other natural resources to the end that their
exploration, development, and utilization be equitably accessible
to the present as well as the future generations.
Needless to say, every generation has a responsibility to the

next to preserve that rhythm and harmony for the full
enjoyment of a balanced and healthful ecology. Put a little
differently, the minor’s assertion of their right to a sound
environment constitutes at the same time, the performance of
their obligation to ensure the protection of that right for the
generations to come.
2. MMDA, et. al. v Residents of Manila Bay, GR Nos.

171947-48, 18 Dec 2008
FACTS
On January 29, 1999, respondents Concerned Residents of

Manila Bay filed a complaint before the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) in Imus, Cavite against several government agencies,
among them the petitioners, for the cleanup, rehabilitation, and
protection of the Manila Bay, and to submit to the RTC a
concerted concrete plan of action for the purpose.

The complaint alleged that the water quality of

the Manila Bay had fallen way below the allowable standards
set by law, which was confirmed by DENR’s Water Quality
Management Chief, Renato T. Cruz that water samples
collected from different beaches around the Manila Bay showed
that the amount of fecal coliform content ranged from 50,000 to
80,000 most probable number (MPN)/ml which is beyond the
standard 200 MPN/100ml or the SB level under DENR
Administrative Order No. 34-90.
The reckless, wholesale, accumulated and ongoing acts of

omission or commission [of the defendants] resulting in the
clear and present danger to public health and in the depletion
and contamination of the marine life of Manila Bay, the RTC
held petitioners liable and ordered to clean up and rehabilitate
Manila Bay and to restore its water quality to class B waters fit
for swimming, skin-diving, and other forms of contact
recreation.
Herein petitioners appealed before the Court of Appeals

contending that the pertinent provisions of the Environment
Code (PD 1152) relate only to the cleaning of specific pollution
incidents and do not cover cleaning in general. They also
asserted that the cleaning of the Manila Bay is not a ministerial
act which can be compelled by mandamus.
The CA sustained RTC’s decision stressing that petitioners were

not required to do tasks outside of their basic functions under
existing laws, hence, this appeal.
ISSUE: Whether or not petitioners be compelled by mandamus

to clean up and rehabilitate the Manila Bay.
HELD: Supreme Court held that the cleaning up and

rehabilitating Manila Bay is a ministerial in nature and can be
compelled by mandamus.
Sec. 3(c) of R.A. No. 7924 (the law creating MMDA) states that
the MMDA is mandated to put up an adequate and appropriate
sanitary landfill and solid waste and liquid disposal as well as
other alternative garbage disposal systems. SC also noted that
MMDA’s duty in the area of solid waste disposal is set forth not
only in the Environment Code (PD 1152) and RA 9003, but also

in its charter, therefore, it is ministerial in nature and can be

compelled by mandamus.
A perusal of other petitioners’ respective charters or like

enabling statutes and pertinent laws would yield this
conclusion: these government agencies are enjoined, as a
matter of statutory obligation, to perform certain functions
relating directly or indirectly to the clean up, rehabilitation,
protection, and preservation of the Manila Bay. They are
precluded from choosing not to perform these duties. So, their
functions being ministerial in nature can be compelled by
mandamus.
3. Resident Dolphins and Mammals of Tanon Strait v

Reyes, GR 180771, April 21, 2015
In this case, the plaintiffs were the resident marine mammals

which inhabit the waters in and around the Tañon Strait and
were represented by their Stewards and an NGO established for
the welfare of the fisher folk. The plaintiffs were challenging the
decision authorizing the oil exploration activities in the Tañon
Strait.
The plaintiff challenged the decision on the basis that it had an

important impact on the environment as the seismic activities
had reduced the amount of fish which can be found in the strait.
They also alleged that not consultation or discussion with the
local stakeholders had taken place prior to the issuance of the
Environmental Compliance Certificate.
The Supreme Court held that in accordance to the

environmental law, every Filipino is entitle to act as a steward
of nature and that consequently, the plaintiff had the standing
to sue. The court also considered that according to Proclamation
No. 2146, the Tañon Strait is an environmentally critical area
and has been declared a protected area in 1998. Consequently,
no activity outside the scope of its management plan could take
place without the delivery of an Environmental Compliance
Certificate granted after a undergoing an Environmental
Impact Assessment to determine the effect of such activity on
the ecosystem. In that case, the oil company already started to
conduct oil exploration activities without an Environmental
Impact Assessment and before being granted and
Environmental Compliance Certificate, in violation of the

National Integrated Protected Areas System Act of 1992.

Furthermore, the court held that the Presidential Decree No. 87
which was used as a legal basis for the service contract between
the Government and the oil company in charge of the oil
exploration activities was ultra vires. Indeed, because the
Tañon Straits is a protected area, the contract would have
required to be allowed by a law passed by the Congress.
Therefore, the constitutional court cancelled the contract and all
the permits related to the oil exploration in the Tañon Straits.
b. Procedural Topics – access to information [Article

III (Section 7), public participation [Article VIII
(Section 16)
Jurisprudence
1. Chavez v PCGG, GR No. 130716, 9 December 1998
Facts: PCGG and Marcos siblings agreed to General and

Supplemental Agreements with regards to the ill-gotten wealth
cases against their family. The same was filed with
Sandiganbayan. Chavez then filed petition with SC to enforce a
constitutional right against the PCGG and to determine whether
the latter has been acting within the bounds of its authority. SC
decided the case on 09 December 1998.
However, the siblings did not file motion for reconsideration

until the deadline for such lapsed. They instead filed a “Motion
for Leave to Intervene with Motion for Leave to File the
Attached Partial Motion for Reconsideration...” and “Partial
Motion for Reconsideration,” contending that their exclusion
from the case violated their constitutional rights to due process
and equal protection. Movants pray that the proceedings before
the anti-graft court be allowed to take their due course,
consistent with the principle of the hierarchical administration
of justice.
Issue: Whether or not equal protection was observed in the

(principle of hierarchical) administration of justice?
Ruling: Motion denied. The movants are merely incidental

parties to the instant case. Being contractors to the General and
Supplemental Agreements involving their supposed properties,
they claim that their interests are affected by the petition.

However, the Agreements undeniably contain terms an

condition that are clearly contrary to the Constitution and the
laws and are not subject to compromise. Such terms and
conditions cannot be granted by the PCGG to anyone. The
principle of the hierarchy of the courts generally applies to cases
involving factual question. The oft-repeated justification for
invoking it is that such cases do not only impose upon the
precious time of the Court but, more important, inevitably result
in their delayed adjudication. Often, such cases have to be
remanded or referred to the lower court as the proper forum or
as better equipped to resolve to the issues, since the Supreme
Court is not a trier of facts. Inasmuch as the petition at bar
involves only constitutional and legal questions concerning
public interest, the Court resolved to exercise primary
jurisdiction on the matter.
2. Chavez v PEA, GR No. 133250, 9 July 2002
Facts: In July 2002, Amari Coastal Bay Development

Corporation lost a case (PEA-Amari Scandal) before the
Supreme Court involving certain reclaimed lands. Upon receipt
of the adverse decision, Amari filed a Motion for Inhibition
asking the ponente of said case, Justice Antonio Carpio, to
inhibit from the case on the ground that before Justice Carpio
was appointed to the Supreme Court, he wrote a column in the
Manila Times newspaper where he questioned the legality of the
agreement between the Public Estates Authority and Amari
regarding the said reclaimed property (PEA-Amari deal). Amari
insists that Justice Carpio already prejudged the issue as his
bias and prejudice were already apparent. Amari also prays for a
re-deliberation after Justice Carpio inhibits.
ISSUE: Whether or not Justice Carpio should inhibit from the

case by reason of the said Manila Times column.
HELD: No. In the first place, the decision was already

promulgated when Amari filed its motion requesting Justice
Carpio to inhibit. The rule is that a motion to inhibit must be
denied if filed after a member of the Court had already given an
opinion on the merits of the case. Reason: a litigant cannot be
permitted to speculate upon the action of the Court (only to)
raise an objection of this sort after a decision has been rendered.

Second, judges and justices are not disqualified from

participating in a case just because they have written legal
articles on the law involved in the case.
Third, looking at Justice Carpio’s Manila Times article, his

article questioned the legality of the PEA Amari deal on the
basis of the lack of public bidding. In this particular case before
the Supreme Court, the issue of the absence of public bidding
was not raised by any of the parties involved hence, Justice
Carpio’s write up had nothing to do with the very merits of the
case.
3. Senate of the Philippines v Ermita, GR Nos. 169777,

169659, 169660, 169667, 169834 and 171246, 20
April 2006
FACTS: Following a privilege speech of Senator Juan Ponce

Enrile urging the Senate to investigate the alleged
overpricing and other unlawful provisions of the contract
covering the railway project of the North Luzon Railways
Corporation with the China National Machinery and
Equipment Group (hereinafter North Rail Project), on
September 21 to 23, 2005, the Committee of the Senate as a
whole issued invitations to various officials of the Executive
Department for them to appear on September 29, 2005 as
resource speakers in a public hearing on the said project. The
Senate Committee on National Defense and Security also
issued invitations dated September 22, 2005 to the
Commanding General of the Philippine Army, Lt. Gen.
Hermogenes C. Esperon, and other AFP officials, for them to
attend as resource persons in a public hearing scheduled on
September 28, 2005 on the privilege speeches of Senators
Aquilino Q. Pimentel, Jr., Jinggoy E. Estrada and Rodolfo
Biazon; Senate Resolution No. 285 filed by Senator Jamby
Madrigal, directing an inquiry in aid of legislation on the role
of the military in the so-called “Gloriagate Scandal”; and
Senate Resolution No. 295 filed by Senator Biazon, directing
an inquiry in aid of legislation on the wiretapping of the
President. Also invited to the said public hearing was the
AFP Chief of Staff, General Generoso S. Senga.
On September 28, 2005, the President issued Executive

Order No. 464, “ENSURING OBSERVANCE OF THE
PRINCIPLE OF SEPARATION OF POWERS, ADHERENCE

TO THE RULE ON EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE AND

RESPECT FOR THE RIGHTS OF PUBLIC OFFICIALS
APPEARING IN LEGISLATIVE INQUIRIES IN AID OF
LEGISLATION UNDER THE CONSTITUTION, AND FOR
OTHER PURPOSES,” which took effect immediately. Section
1 of the said law requires all department heads to secure the
consent of the President prior to appearing before either
House of Congress. Sec. 2(a) enumerates some confidential or
classified information which are covered by the executive
privilege while Sec. 2(b) enumerates who are covered, which
include senior officials of executive departments “who in the
judgment of the department heads” are covered thereby. Sec.
3 requires all the public officials enumerated in Sec. 2(b) to
secure the consent of the President prior to appearing before
either House of Congress. On the same day, Senate President
Franklin M. Drilon received a letter from Executive Secretary
Eduardo R. Ermita informing him that the officials of the
Executive Department invited to appear at the meeting
regarding the North Rail Project have not secured the
required consent from the President, hence, could not attend
the said meeting. Gen. Senga also sent a letter to Senator
Biazon informing him that no approval has been granted by
the President to any AFP officer to appear before the hearing
on the alleged wiretapping. However, the investigation
scheduled by the Committee on National Defense and
Security pushed through, with Col. Alexander F. Balutan,
Assistant Commandant of the Corps of Cadets of the
Philippine Military Academy (PMA), and Brig. Gen.
Francisco V. Gudani, Assistant Superintendent of the PMA,
attending. The latter were relieved from their military posts
and were made to face court martial proceedings for defying
the President’s order barring military officials from
appearing before Congress without her approval. Several
Cabinet officials invited to attend the hearings scheduled on
October 5 and 26, November 24 and December 12, 2005
regarding the alleged mismanagement and use of the
fertilizer fund under the Ginintuang Masaganang Ani of the
Department of Agriculture, and the budget hearings set on
February 8 and 13, 2006, failed to attend, having invoked
E.O. 464.
The present petitions all pray for the issuance of a Temporary

Restraining Order enjoining the implementation,
enforcement and observance of E.O. 464. They submit that

E.O. 464 violates several provisions of the Constitution, to

wit: Art. VI, Secs. 21, 22 and 1; Art. XI, Sec. 1; Art. III, Secs.
4 and 7; Art. XIII, Sec. 16; and Art. II, Sec. 28.
ISSUES:
ü Whether or not E.O. 464 contravenes the Congress’ power
of inquiry;
ü Whether or not E.O. 464 violates the right of the people to
information on matters of public concern;
ü Whether or not respondents have committed grave abuse
of discretion when they implemented E.O. 464 prior to its
publication in a newspaper of general circulation
RULING
The petitions are PARTLY GRANTED. Secs. 2(b) and 3 of

E.O. 464 are declared VOID. Secs. 1 and 2(a) are, however,
VALID. E.O. 464 contravenes the Congress’ power of inquiry
insofar as Sec. 3 thereof authorizes an implied claim of executive
privilege without any specific allegation of the basis thereof.
The operation of government, being a legitimate subject

for legislation, is a proper subject for investigation. Congress has
authority to inquire into the operations of the executive branch.
Thus, the power of inquiry extends to executive officials who are
the most familiar with and informed on executive operations. If
the information possessed by executive officials on the operation
of their offices is necessary for wise legislation on that subject,
then Congress has the right to that information and can compel
its disclosure.
Even where the inquiry is in aid of legislation, however,

there are still recognized exemptions to the power of inquiry,
which exemptions fall under the rubric of “executive privilege.”
Executive privilege has been defined as “the power of the
Government to withhold information from the public, the courts,
and the Congress.” One variety of the privilege is the state
secrets privilege invoked on the ground that the information is
of such nature that its disclosure would subvert crucial military
or diplomatic objectives. Another variety is the informer’s
privilege, or the privilege of the Government not to disclose the
identity of persons who furnish information of violations of law
to officers charged with the enforcement of that law. Finally, a
generic privilege for internal deliberations has been said to

attach to intra-governmental documents reflecting advisory

opinions, recommendations and deliberations comprising part of
a process by which governmental decisions and policies are
formulated.
The doctrine of executive privilege was recognized by the

Supreme Court in Almonte v. Vasquez (314 Phil. 150 [1995]),
where the Court quoted the U.S. Supreme Court’s explanation of
the basis for the privilege in U.S. v. Nixon: “A President and
those who assist him must be free to explore alternatives in the
process of shaping policies and making decisions and to do so in
a way many would be unwilling to express except
privately…The privilege is fundamental to the operation of
government and inextricably rooted in the separation of powers
under the Constitution.”
While executive privilege is a constitutional concept, a

claim thereof may be valid or not depending on the ground
invoked to justify it and the context in which it is made.
Notably, there is not any recognition that executive officials are
exempt from the duty to disclose information by the mere fact of
being executive officials. The extraordinary character of the
exemptions indicates that the presumption inclines heavily
against executive secrecy and in favor of disclosure. Sec. 1 of
E.O. 464 applies only to the question hour under Art. VI, Sec. 22
of the Constitution. Sec. 22 is closely related with and
complementary to Sec. 21, which provides for the power of either
House of Congress to conduct inquiries in aid of legislation.
However, they should not be considered as pertaining to the
same power of Congress. The former aims to obtain information
in pursuit of Congress’ oversight function, while the latter’s
objective is to elicit information that may be used for legislation.
Attendance was meant to be compulsory in inquiries in aid of
legislation. On the other hand, the framers of the 1987
Constitution removed the mandatory nature of appearance
during the question hour so as to conform more fully to a system
of separation of powers. When Congress merely seeks to be
informed on how department heads are implementing the
statutes, which it has issued, its right to such information is not
as imperative as that of the President to whom, as Chief
Executive, such department heads must give a report of their
performance as a matter of duty. In such instances, Sec. 22
states that Congress may only request their appearance. The
oversight function of Congress may be facilitated by compulsory

process only to the extent that it is performed in pursuit of

legislation. Sec. 1 of E.O. 464, in view of its specific reference to
Sec. 22 of Art. VI of the Constitution and the absence of any
reference to inquiries in aid of legislation must be construed as
limited in its application to appearances of department heads in
the question hour. The requirement then to secure presidential
consent under Sec. 1 is valid on its face. Anent Sec. 2(a) of E.O.
464, it merely provides guidelines, binding only on the heads of
office mentioned in Sec. 2(b), on what is covered by executive
privilege. It does not purport to be conclusive on the other
branches of government. It may thus be construed as a mere
expression of opinion by the President regarding the nature and
scope of executive privilege.
The claim of privilege under Sec. 3 in relation to Sec. 2(b)

of E.O. 464 is, however, invalid per se. Sec. 3 requires all the
public officials enumerated in Sec. 2(b) to secure the consent of
the President prior to appearing before either house of Congress.
The enumeration is broad. Whenever an official invokes E.O.
464 to justify his failure to be present, such invocation must be
construed as a declaration to Congress that the President, or a
head of office authorized by the President, has determined that
the requested information is privileged, and that the President
has not reversed such determination. Such declaration, however,
even without mentioning the term “executive privilege,”
amounts to an implied claim that the information is being
withheld by the executive branch, by authority of the President,
on the basis of executive privilege. There is an implied claim of
executive privilege. Such presumptive authorization is contrary
to the exceptional nature of the privilege.
Executive privilege is recognized with respect to

information the confidential nature of which is crucial to the
fulfillment of the unique role and responsibilities of the
executive branch, or in those instances where exemption from
disclosure is necessary to the discharge of highly important
executive responsibilities. The privilege being an exemption
from the obligation to disclose information, in this case to
Congress, the necessity must be of such high degree as to
outweigh the public interest in enforcing that obligation in a
particular case.
In light of this highly exceptional nature of the privilege,

the Court finds it essential to limit to the President the power to

invoke the privilege. She may of course authorize the Executive

Secretary to invoke the privilege on her behalf, in which case the
Executive Secretary must state that the authority is “By order of
the President,” which means that he personally consulted with
her. The privilege being an extraordinary power, it must be
wielded only by the highest official in the executive hierarchy. In
other words, the President may not authorize her subordinates
to exercise such power. There is even less reason to uphold such
authorization in this case where the authorization is not explicit
but by mere silence.
By its very nature, the implied claim authorized by Sec. 3

is not accompanied by any specific allegation of the basis
thereof. Congress has the right to know why the executive
considers the requested information privileged. It does not
suffice to merely declare that the President, or an authorized
head of office, has determined that it is so, and that the
President has not overturned that determination. Such
declaration leaves Congress in the dark on how the requested
information could be classified as privileged. That the message
is couched in terms that, on first impression, do not seem like a
claim of privilege only makes it more pernicious. Absent then a
statement of the specific basis of a claim of executive privilege,
there is no way of determining whether it falls under one of the
traditional privileges, or whether, given the circumstances in
which it is made, it should be respected.
E.O. 464 unduly limits disclosures of information in

investigations in aid of legislation, hence, it directly impairs the
people’s right to information. There are clear distinctions
between the right of Congress to information which underlies
the power of inquiry and the right of the people to information
on matters of public concern. For one, the demand of a citizen for
the production of documents pursuant to his right to information
does not have the same obligatory force as a subpoena duces
tecum issued by Congress. Neither does the right to information
grant a citizen the power to exact testimony from government
officials. These powers belong only to Congress and not to an
individual citizen. While Congress is composed of
representatives elected by the people, it does not follow, except
in a highly qualified sense, that in every exercise of its power of
inquiry, the people are exercising their right to information.
However, to the extent that investigations in aid of legislation
are generally conducted in public, any executive issuance

tending to unduly limit disclosures of information in such

investigations necessarily deprives the people of information
which, being presumed to be in aid of legislation, is presumed to
be a matter of public concern.
Respondents committed grave abuse of discretion when

they implemented E.O. 464 before its publication. Although E.O.
464 applies only to officials of the executive branch, it is not
exempt from the need for publication. It has a direct effect on
the right of the people to information on matters of public
concern. It is, therefore, a matter of public interest which
members of the body politic may question before the Court. Due
process thus requires that the people should have been apprised
of this issuance before it was implemented.
4. US v Reynolds, 345 US 1, 73 S. Ct. 528, 97 L. Ed.

727, 32 A.L. R.2d 382 (1953)
Facts: A military aircraft on a flight to test secret electronic

equipment crashed, and certain civilian observers aboard
were killed. Their widows sued the United States under the
Tort Claims Act and moved under Rule 34 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure for production of the Air Force's
accident investigation report and statements made by
surviving crew members during the investigation. The
Secretary of the Air Force filed a formal claim of privilege,
stating that the matters were privileged against disclosure
under Air Force regulations issued under R.S. § 161, and that
the aircraft and its personnel were "engaged in a highly
secret mission." The Judge Advocate General filed an
affidavit stating that the material could not be furnished
"without seriously hampering national security," but he
offered to produce the surviving crew members for
examination by plaintiffs and to permit them to testify as to
all matters except those of a "classified nature."
Held: In this case, there was a valid claim of privilege under

Rule 34; and a judgment based under Rule 37 on refusal to
produce the documents subjected the United States to
liability to which Congress did not consent by the Tort Claims
Act.
a) As used in Rule 34, which compels production only of
matters "not privileged," the term "not privileged"

refers to "privileges" as that term is understood in the

law of evidence.
b) When the Secretary lodged his formal claim of

privilege, he invoked a privilege against revealing
military secrets which is well established in the law of
evidence.
c) When a claim of privilege against revealing military

secrets is invoked, the courts must decide whether the
occasion for invoking the privilege is appropriate, and
yet do so without jeopardizing the security which the
privilege was meant to protect.
d) When the formal claim of privilege was filed by the

Secretary, under circumstances indicating a
reasonable possibility that military secrets were
involved, there was a sufficient showing of privilege to
cut off further demand for the documents on the
showing of necessity for its compulsion that had been
made.
e) In this case, the showing of necessity was greatly

minimized by plaintiffs' rejection of the Judge
Advocate General's offer to make the surviving
crewmember available for examination.
f) The doctrine in the criminal field that the Government

can invoke its evidentiary privileges only at the price of
letting the defendant go free has no application in a
civil forum, where the Government is not the moving
party, but is a defendant only on terms to which it has
consented.
g) In a suit under the Tort Claims Act, the District Court

entered judgment against the Government. 10 F.R.D.
468. The Court of Appeals affirmed. 192 F. 2d 987.
This Court granted certiorari.
5. Neri v Senate Committee on Accountability of

Public Officers and Investigations, GR No. 180643,
4 September 2008

FACTS: In these proceedings, this Court has been called

upon to exercise its power of review and arbitrate a hotly,
even acrimoniously, debated dispute between the Court’s co-
equal branches of government. On September 26, 2007,
petitioner appeared before respondent Committees and
testified for about eleven (11) hours on matters concerning
the National Broadband Project (the “NBN Project”), a project
awarded by the Department of Transportation and
Communications (“DOTC”) to Zhong Xing
Telecommunications Equipment (“ZTE”). Petitioner disclosed
that then Commission on Elections (“COMELEC”) Chairman
Benjamin Abalos offered him P200 Million in exchange for
his approval of the NBN Project. He further narrated that he
informed President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo (“President
Arroyo”) of the bribery attempt and that she instructed him
not to accept the bribe.
However, when probed further on President Arroyo and

petitioner’s discussions relating to the NBN Project,
petitioner refused to answer, invoking “executive privilege.”
To be specific, petitioner refused to answer questions on:
(a) whether or not President Arroyo followed up the
NBN Project,4 (b) whether or not she directed him to
prioritize it,5 and (c) whether or not she directed him
to approve it.
(b) Respondent Committees persisted in knowing
petitioner’s answers to these three questions by
requiring him to appear and testify once more on
November 20, 2007. On November 15, 2007,
Executive Secretary Eduardo R. Ermita wrote to
respondent Committees and requested them to
dispense with petitioner’s testimony on the ground of
executive privilege.
The senate thereafter issued a show cause order, unsatisfied

with the reply, therefore, issued an Order citing Neri in
contempt and ordering his arrest and detention at the Office
of the Senate Sergeant-at-Arms until such time that he
would appear and give his testimony.
On the same date, petitioner moved for the reconsideration

of the above Order. Denied. Petition for certiorari and
Supplemental Petition for Certiorari (with Urgent

Application for TRO/Preliminary Injunction) granted by the

SC court.
ISSUE: Whether or not there is a recognized presumptive

presidential communications privilege in our legal system;
HELD: There Is a Recognized Presumptive Presidential

Communications Privilege. Respondent Committees argue
as if this were the first time the presumption in favor of the
presidential communications privilege is mentioned and
adopted in our legal system. That is far from the truth.
There, the Court enumerated the cases in which the claim of
executive privilege was recognized, among them Almonte v.
Chavez, Chavez v. Presidential Commission on Good
Government (PCGG),14 and Chavez v. PEA.15 The Court
articulated in these cases that, “”the right to information
does not extend to matters recognized as ‘privileged
information’ under the separation of powers, by which the
Court meant Presidential conversations, correspondences,
and discussions in closed-door Cabinet meetings.”
In this case, it was the President herself, through Executive

Secretary Ermita, who invoked executive privilege on a
specific matter involving an executive agreement between
the Philippines and China, which was the subject of the
three (3) questions propounded to petitioner Neri in the
course of the Senate Committees’ investigation. Thus, the
factual setting of this case markedly differs from that passed
upon in Senate v. Ermita. A President and those who assist
him must be free to explore alternatives in the process of
shaping policies and making decisions and to do so in a way
many would be unwilling to express except privately. These
are the considerations justifying a presumptive privilege for
Presidential communications. The privilege is fundamental
to the operation of government and inextricably rooted in the
separation of powers under the Constitution x x x
6. Akbayan Citizens Action Party v Aquino, GR No.

170516, 16 July 2008
Facts: The signing of the Japan-Philippines Economic

Partnership Agreement (JPEPA) at the sidelines of the Asia-
Europe Summit in Helsinki in September 2006 was hailed by
both Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi and

Philippine President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo as a

“milestone in the continuing cooperation and collaboration,
setting a new chapter of strategic partnership for mutual
opportunity and growth (for both countries).”
JPEPA which has been referred to as a ‘mega treaty’ is a
comprehensive plan for opening up of markets in goods and
services as well as removing barriers and restrictions on
investments. It is a deal that encompasses even our
commitments to the WTO.
The complexity of JPEPA became all the more evident at the

Senate hearing conducted by the Committee on Trade and
Commerce last November 2006. The committee, chaired by
Senator Mar Roxas, heard differing views and perspectives
on JPEPA. On one hand the committee heard Government’s
rosy projections on the economic benefits of JPEPA and on
the other hand the views of environmental and trade activists
who raised there very serious concerns about the country
being turned into Japan’s toxic waste basket. The discussion
in the Senate showed that JPEPA is not just an issue
concerning trade and economic relations with Japan but one
that touches on broader national development concerns.
Issues:
a. Do the therein petitioners have standing to bring this
action for mandamus in their capacity as citizens of the
Republic, as taxpayers, and as members of the
Congress
b. Can this Honorable Court exercise primary jurisdiction

of this case and take cognizance of the instant petition.
c. Are the documents and information being requested in

relation to the JPEPA exempted from the general rules
on transparency and full public disclosure such that
the Philippine government is justified in denying
access thereto.
Rulings: The Supreme Court en banc promulgated last July

16, 2008 its ruling on the case of “Akbayan Citizens Action
Party et al vs. Thomas G. Aquino et al” (G.R. No. 170516).
The Highest Tribunal dismissed the Petition for mandamus
and prohibition, which sought to compel respondents
Department of Trade Industry (DTI) Undersecretary Thomas

Aquino et al to furnish petitioners the full text of the Japan-

Philippines Economic Partnership Agreement (JPEPA) and
the lists of the Philippine and Japanese offers submitted
during the negotiation process and all pertinent attachments
and annexes thereto.
In its Decision, the Court noted that the full text of the
JPEPA has been made accessible to the public since 11
September 2006, and thus the demand to be furnished with
copy of the said document has become moot and academic.
Notwithstanding this, however, the Court lengthily
discussed the substatives issues, insofar as they impinge on
petitioners' demand for access to the Philippine and
Japanese offers in the course of the negotiations.
The Court held: “Applying the principles adopted in PMPF v.

Manglapus, it is clear that while the final text of the JPEPA
may not be kept perpetually confidential – since there should
be 'ample opportunity for discussion before [a treaty] is
approved' – the offers exchanged by the parties during the
negotiations continue to be privileged even after the JPEPA
is published. It is reasonable to conclude that the Japenese
representatives submitted their offers with the
understanding that 'historic confidentiality' would govern
the same. Disclosing these offers could impair the ability of
the Philippines to deal not only with Japan but with other
foreign governments in future negotiations.”
It also reasoned out that opening for public scrutiny the

Philippine offers in treaty negotiations would discourage
future Philippine representatives from frankly expressing
their views during negotiations. The Highest Tribunal
recognized that treaty negotiations normally involve a
process of quid pro quo, where negotiators would willingly
grant concessions in an area of lesser importance in order to
obtain more favorable terms in an area of greater national
interest.
In the same Decision, the Court took time to address the

dissent of Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno. It said: “We are
aware that behind the dissent of the Chief Justice lies a
genuine zeal to protect our people's right to information
against any abuse of executive privilege. It is a zeal that We
fully share. The Court, however, in its endeavour to guard

against the abuse of executive privilege, should be careful

not to veer towards the opposite extreme, to the point that it
would strike down as invalid even a legitimate exercise
thereof.”
7. Garcia v Board of Investments, GR No. 88637, 7

September 1989
FACTS: Congressman Garcia assails the approval by the

Board of Investments (BOI) and the Department of Trade
and Industry (DTI) of the amended application for
registration of the Bataan Petrochemical Corporation (BPC),
which seeks to transfer the site of its petrochemical complex
from Bataan, the original situs of choice, to the province of
Batangas. The BPC’s original application for registration was
published in Philippine Daily Inquirer but the amended
application, changing the site from Bataan to Batangas, was
not.
ISSUE: Is there still a need to publish the amended

application in a newspaper of general circulation?
HELD: YES. The law requires the “publication of applications

for registration,” hence, the payment of publication and other
necessary fees … prior to the processing and approval of such
applications (Art. 7, subpar. 3, Omnibus Investments
Code).Since the BPC’s amended application (particularly the
change of location from Bataan to Batangas) was in effect a
new application, it should have been published so that
whoever may have any objection to the transfer may be
heard. The BOI’s failure to publish such notice and to hold a
hearing on the amended application deprived the oppositors,
like the petitioner, of due process and amounted to a grave
abuse of discretion on the part of the BOI.
8. Valmonte v Belmonte, GR No.. 74930, 13 February

1989
FACTS: Petitioner Valmonte wrote a letter to the respondent

Feliciano Belmonte, then GSIS General Manager, requesting
to be furnished with the list of names of the defunct interim
and regular Batasang Pambansa including the ten (10)
opposition members who were able to secure a clean loan of P
2 million each on guaranty of Mrs. Imelda Marcos. And if

such is not possible, an access to those said documents. Apart

from Valmonte’s letter, he is stressing the premise of the
request on the present provision of the Freedom constitution
at that time which is Art. IV, Sec. 6, that emphasizes the
right of the people to information on matters of public
concern. Mr. Belmonte, aware that such request contains
serious legal implications seek the help of Mr. Meynardo A.
Tiro, a deputy General Counsel. In Mr. Tiro’s reply letter, a
confidential relationship exists between the GSIS and all
those who borrow from it, whoever they may be; that the
GSIS has a duty to its customers to preserve this
confidentiality; and that it would not be proper for the GSIS
to breach this confidentiality unless so ordered by the courts.
On June 26, 1986, apparently not having yet received the

reply of the GSIS Deputy General Counsel, Petitioner
Valmonte wrote another letter saying that for failure to
receive a reply, they are now considering themselves free to
do whatever action necessary within the premises to pursue
their desired objective in pursuance of public interest.
Separate comments were filed by respondent Belmonte and

the Solicitor General. After petitioners filed a consolidated
reply, the petition was given due course and the parties were
required to file their memoranda. The parties having
complied, the case was deemed submitted for decision. In his
comment, respondent raise procedural objection to the
issuance of a writ of mandamus, among which is that
petitioners have failed to exhaust administrative remedies.
Respondent claims that actions of the GSIS General Manager
are reviewable by the Board of Trustees of the GSIS
petitioners. However, did not seek relief from the GSIS Board
of Trustees, It is therefore asserted that since administrative
remedies were not exhausted, then petitioners have no cause
of action.
ISSUE: Whether or not that Mr. Valmonte, together with his

co-petitioners, are entitled to the documents sought, by virtue
of their constitutional right to information.
RULING: The cornerstone of this republican system of

government is delegation of power by the people to the state.
Governmental agencies and institutions operate within the
limits of the authority conferred by the people. Yet, like all

constitutional guarantees, the right to information is not

absolute. People’s right to information is limited to “matters
of public concern” and is further “subject to such limitations
as may be provided by law.”
The GSIS is a trustee of contributions from the government

and its employees and the administrator of various insurance
programs for the benefit of the latter. Undeniably, its funds
assume a public character. More particularly, Secs. 5(b) and
46 of P.D 1146, as amended (the Revised Government Service
Insurance act of 1977 provide for annual appropriations for to
pay for contributions, premiums , interest and other amounts
payable to GSIS by the government, as employer, as well as
the obligations which the Republic of the Philippines assumes
or guarantees to pay. Considering the nature of its funds, the
GSIS is expected to manage its resources with utmost
prudence and in strict compliance with the pertinent rules
and regulations. It is therefore the legitimate concern of the
public to ensure that these funds are managed properly with
end in view of maximizing the benefits that accrue to the
insured government employees. Moreover, the supposed
borrowers were members of the defunct Batasang Pambansa
who themselves appropriated funds for the GSIS and were
therefore expected to be the first to see to it that the GSIS
performed its tasks with the greatest degree of fidelity and
that its transactions were above board.
Respondent maintains that a confidential relationship exists

between the GSIS and its borrowers. It is argued that a policy
of confidentiality restricts the indiscriminate dissemination of
information. He further contends that in view of the right to
privacy, which is equally protected by the Constitution and
by existing laws, the documents, evidencing loan transactions
of the GSIS must be deemed outside the ambit of the right to
information. There can be no doubt that the right to privacy
is constitutionally protected. In the landmark case of Morfe
vs. Mutuc, speaking through then Mr. Justice Fernando
stated that ultimate and pervasive control of the individual,
in all aspects of his life, is the hallmark of the absolute state.
In contrast, a system of limited government safeguards a
private sector, which belongs to the individual, firmly
distinguishing it from the public sector, which the state can
control. Apparent from the above-quoted statement of the
court in Morfe is that the right to privacy belongs to the

individual in his private capacity, and not to public and the

government agencies like the GSIS. Moreover, the right
cannot be invoked by juridical entities like the GSIS. A
corporation has no right of privacy in its name since the
entire basis of the right to privacy is an injury to the feelings
and sensibilities of the party and a corporation would have no
such ground for relief.
Neither can the GSIS through its General manager, the

respondent, invoke the right to privacy of its borrowers. The
right is purely personal in nature, and hence, may be invoked
only by the person whose privacy is claimed to be violated.
Respondent next asserts that the documents evidencing the
loan transactions are private in nature and hence, are not
covered by the Constitutional right to information on matters
of public concern which guarantees “access to official records,
and to documents, and papers pertaining to official acts,
transactions or decisions” only. Further, they argued that
GSIS, is a governmental corporation performing proprietary
functions, are outside the coverage of the people’s right to
access to official records.
This Dichotomy characterizing government function has long

been repudiated in ACCFA v. Confederation of Unions and
Government Corporations and Offices, the Court said that
the government, WHETHER carrying out its sovereign
attributes or running some business, discharges the SAME
FUNCTION of service to the people. Consequently, that the
GSIS , in granting the loans, was exercising proprietary
function would NOT justify the exclusion of transactions from
the coverage and scope of right to information.
9. Legaspi v CSC, GR No, L-72119, 29 May 1987
Facts: Citizen Valentin Legaspi requested from the Civil Service

Commission information on the civil service eligibilities of
sanitarian employees in the Health Department of Cebu City.
The Commission rejected the request, asserting that Legaspi
was not entitled to the information. Legaspi instituted an action
for mandamus from the Court to require that the information be
provided.
Decision: The Court began by noting that both the 1973 (Art. IV,
Sec. 6) and 1987 (Art. III, Sec. 7) constitutions recognize the

right of the people to information on matters of public concern.

Further, they specify that information shall be provided, subject
only to limitations provided by law. While the Solicitor General
interposed a procedural objection challenging the requester’s
standing in this petition for mandamus, the Court ruled that, in
this case, the people are regarded as the “real party in interest”
and the requester, as a citizen interested in the execution of the
laws, did not need to show any legal or special interest in the
result. Further, government agencies have no discretion to
refuse disclosure of, or access to, information of public concern
because the Constitution guarantees access to information of
public concern, a recognition of the essentiality of the free flow of
ideas and information in a democracy. That is, the government
agency denying information access has the burden to show that
the information is not of public concern, or, if it is of public
concern, that the information has been exempted by law from
the operation of the guarantee.
Here, the information was of a public concern because it is the

legitimate concern of citizens to ensure that government
positions requiring civil service eligibility are occupied only by
eligible persons, and the Civil Service Commission failed to cite
any law limiting the requester’s right to know (pg. 5). Thus, the
Court ordered the Civil Service Commission to provide the
information (pg. 6).
10. Gonzales v Narvasa, GR No. 140835, 14 Aug2000
FACTS: Petitioner Ramon A. Gonzales, in his capacity as a

citizen and taxpayer, filed a petition for prohibition
and mandamus filed on December 9, 1999, assailing the
constitutionality of the creation of the Preparatory Commission
on Constitutional Reform (PCCR) and of the positions of
presidential consultants, advisers and assistants. The
Preparatory Commission on Constitutional Reform (PCCR) was
created by President Estrada on November 26, 1998 by virtue of
Executive Order No. 43 (E.O. No. 43) in order “to study and
recommend proposed amendments and/or revisions to the 1987
Constitution, and the manner of implementing the same.”
Petitioner disputes the constitutionality of the PCCR based on
the grounds that it is a public office which only
the legislature can create by way of a law.

ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioner has a legal standing to

assail the constitutionality of Executive Order No. 43
HELD: The Court dismissed the petition. A citizen acquires

standing only if he can establish that he has suffered some
actual or threatened injury as a result of the allegedly illegal
conduct of the government; the injury is fairly traceable to the
challenged action; and the injury is likely to be redressed by a
favorable action. Petitioner has not shown that he has sustained
or is in danger of sustaining any personal injury attributable to
the creation of the PCCR. If at all, it is only Congress, not
petitioner, which can claim any “injury” in this case since,
according to petitioner, the President has encroached upon the
legislature’s powers to create a public office and to propose
amendments to the Charter by forming the PCCR. Petitioner
has sustained no direct, or even any indirect, injury. Neither
does he claim that his rights or privileges have been or are in
danger of being violated, nor that he shall be subjected to
any penalties or burdens as a result of the PCCR’s
activities. Clearly, petitioner has failed to establish
his locusstandi so as to enable him to seek judicial redress as a
citizen.
Furthermore, a taxpayer is deemed to have the standing to raise

a constitutional issue when it is established that
public funds have been disbursed in alleged contravention of the
law or the Constitution. It is readily apparent that there is no
exercise by Congress of its taxing or spending power. The PCCR
was created by the President by virtue of E.O. No. 43, as
amended by E.O. No. 70. Under section 7 of E.O. No. 43, the
amount of P3 million is “appropriated” for
its operational expenses “to be sourced from the funds of the
Office of the President.” Being that case, petitioner must show
that he is a real party in interest - that he will stand to be
benefited or injured by the judgment or that he will be entitled
to the avails of the suit. Nowhere in his pleadings does petitioner
presume to make such a representation.
11. Baldoza v Dimaano, A.M. No. 1120-MJ, 5 May 1976
Facts: Municipal Secretary of Taal, Batangas, charges Municipal

Judge Dimaano with abuse of authority in refusing to allow
employees of the Municipal Mayor to examine the criminal docket
records of the Municipal Court to secure data in connection with

their contemplated report on peace and order conditions of the

municipality.
Respondent answered that there has never been an intention to

refuse access to official court records but that the same is always
subject to reasonable regulation as to who, when, where and how
they may be inspected. He further asserted that a court has the
power to prevent an improper use or inspection of its records and
furnishing copies may be refuse when the motivation is not
serious and legitimate interest, out of whim or fancy or mere
curiosity or to gratify private site or promote public scandal.
In his answer, respondent observed;

o Restrictions are imposed by the Court for fear of an abuse in
the exercise of the right.
o There has been recent tampering of padlocks of the door of
the Court and with this, to allow an indiscriminate and
unlimited exercise of the right to free access, might do more
harm than good.
o Request of such a magnitude cannot b immediately granted
without adequate deliberation and advisement
o Authority should first be secured from the Supreme Court
Case was referred to Judge Riodique for investigation and report.

At the preliminary hearing, Taal Mayor Corazon Caniza filed a
motion to dismiss the complaint to preserve harmony and
cooperation among officers. This motion was denied by
Investigating Judge but he recommended the exoneration of
respondent.
Investigating Judge’s report avers that complainant was aware of

the motion to dismiss and he was in conformity with it.
Communications between complainant and respondent reveal
that respondent allowed the complainant to open and view the
docket books of the respondent under certain conditions and
under his control and supervision.
Under the conditions, the Court found that the respondent has
not committed any abuse of authority
Issue: WON respondent acted arbitrarily in the premises (when

he allowed the complainant to open and view the docket books of
respondent)

Held: No. The respondent allowed the complainant to open and

view the docket books of respondent under certain conditions and
under his control and supervision. It has not been shown that the
rules and condition imposed by the respondent were
unreasonable. The access to public records is predicated on the
right of the people to acquire information on public concern.
12. Air Philippines Corporation v Penswell, GR No.

172835, 13 December 2007
Facts: Petitioner Air Philippines Corporation is a domestic

corporation engaged in the business of air transportation
services. On the other hand, respondent Pennswell, Inc. was
organized to engage in the business of manufacturing and selling
industrial chemicals, solvents, and special lubricants.
Respondent delivered and sold to petitioner sundry goods in trade.

Under the contracts, petitioner’s total outstanding obligation
amounted to P449,864.98 with interest at 14% per annum until
the amount would be fully paid. For failure of the petitioner to
comply with its obligation under said contracts, respondent filed a
Complaint for a Sum of Money on 28 April 2000 with the RTC.
In its Answer, petitioner alleged that it was defrauded in the

amount of P592,000.00 by respondent for its previous sale of four
items. Petitioner asserted that it was deceived by respondent
which merely altered the names and labels of such goods.
Petitioner asseverated that had respondent been forthright about
the identical character of the products, it would not have
purchased the items complained of.
Moreover, petitioner alleged that when the purported fraud was

discovered, a conference was held between petitioner and
respondent on 13 January 2000, whereby the parties agreed that
respondent would return to petitioner the amount it previously
paid. However, petitioner was surprised when it received a letter
from the respondent, demanding payment of the amount of
P449,864.94, which later became the subject of respondent’s
Complaint for Collection of a Sum of Money against petitioner.
During the pendency of the trial, petitioner filed a Motion to

Compel respondent to give a detailed list of the ingredients and
chemical components of the following products. The RTC rendered
an Order granting the petitioner’s motion.

Respondent sought reconsideration of the foregoing Order,

contending that it cannot be compelled to disclose the chemical
components sought because the matter is confidential. It argued
that what petitioner endeavored to inquire upon constituted a
trade secret which respondent cannot be forced to divulge.
The RTC gave credence to respondent’s reasoning, and reversed

itself. Alleging grave abuse of discretion on the part of the RTC,
petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules
of Court with the Court of Appeals, which denied the Petition and
affirmed the Order dated 30 June 2004 of the RTC. Petitioner’s
Motion for Reconsideration was denied. Unyielding, petitioner
brought the instant Petition before SC.
Issue: W/N CA erred in upholding RTC decision denying

petitioner’s motion to subject respondent’s products to compulsory
disclosure.
Held: No. The products are covered by the exception of trade

secrets being divulged in compulsory disclosure. The Court
affirms the ruling of the Court of Appeals which upheld the
finding of the RTC that there is substantial basis for respondent
to seek protection of the law for its proprietary rights over the
detailed chemical composition of its products.
The Supreme Court has declared that trade secrets and banking
transactions are among the recognized restrictions to the right of
the people to information as embodied in the
Constitution. SC said that the drafters of the Constitution also
unequivocally affirmed that, aside from national security matters
and intelligence information, trade or industrial secrets (pursuant
to the Intellectual Property Code and other related laws) as well
as banking transactions (pursuant to the Secrecy of Bank
Deposits Act), are also exempted from compulsory disclosure.
A trade secret is defined as a plan or process, tool, mechanism or

compound known only to its owner and those of his employees to
whom it is necessary to confide it. The definition also extends to a
secret formula or process not patented, but known only to certain
individuals using it in compounding some article of trade having a
commercial value. American jurisprudence has utilized the
following factors to determine if an information is a trade secret,
to wit:

1) the extent to which the information is known outside of the

employer’s business;
2) the extent to which the information is known by employees
and others involved in the business;
3) the extent of measures taken by the employer to guard the
secrecy of the information;
4) the value of the information to the employer and to
competitors.
5) the amount of effort or money expended by the company in
developing the information; and
6) the extent to which the information could be easily or
readily obtained through an independent source.
Rule 27 sets an unequivocal proviso that the documents, papers,

books, accounts, letters, photographs, objects or tangible things that
may be produced and inspected should not be privileged. The
documents must not be privileged against disclosure. On the ground
of public policy, the rules providing for production and inspection of
books and papers do not authorize the production or inspection of
privileged matter; that is, books and papers which, because of their
confidential and privileged character, could not be received in
evidence. Such a condition is in addition to the requisite that the
items be specifically described, and must constitute or contain
evidence material to any matter involved in the action and which
are in the party’s possession, custody or control.
In the case at bar, petitioner cannot rely on Section 77of Republic

Act 7394, or the Consumer Act of the Philippines, in order to compel
respondent to reveal the chemical components of its products. While
it is true that all consumer products domestically sold, whether
manufactured locally or imported, shall indicate their general make
or active ingredients in their respective labels of packaging, the law
does not apply to respondent. Respondent’s specialized lubricants —
namely, Contact Grease, Connector Grease, Thixohtropic Grease, Di-
Electric Strength Protective Coating, Dry Lubricant and Anti-Seize
Compound — are not consumer products.
What is clear from the factual findings of the RTC and the Court of
Appeals is that the chemical formulation of respondent’s products is
not known to the general public and is unique only to it. Both courts
uniformly ruled that these ingredients are not within the knowledge
of the public. Since such factual findings are generally not
reviewable by this Court, it is not duty-bound to analyze and weigh

all over again the evidence already considered in the proceedings

below.
The revelation of respondent’s trade secrets serves no better purpose

to the disposition of the main case pending with the RTC, which is
on the collection of a sum of money. As can be gleaned from the
facts, petitioner received respondent’s goods in trade in the normal
course of business. To be sure, there are defenses under the laws of
contracts and sales available to petitioner. On the other hand, the
greater interest of justice ought to favor respondent as the holder of
trade secrets. Weighing the conflicting interests between the parties,
SC rules in favor of the greater interest of respondent. Trade
secrets should receive greater protection from discovery, because
they derive economic value from being generally unknown and not
readily ascertainable by the public.
B. International Treaties
C. National Legislation
D. Administrative Rules and Regulations
III. International Environmental Law
Emergence of International Environmental Law (IEL)

• IEL as a significant component of international law
• Key concepts and principles of IEL
• Key international environmental institutions
• Important multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs)
• Process for, and level of, implementation of MEAs in national law
Influence of IEL in national environmental law

1) The concept of sustainable development (which provides a foundation for environmental law)
derives its mandate from its recognition in IEL;
2) Important principles of environmental law have emerged at first instance as part of IEL and
subsequently have been adopted and applied in national law (e.g. precautionary principle);
3) A considerable amount of national environmental law in many countries is designed to
implement obligations arising under multilateral or regional environmental agreements;
4) Where trans-boundary environmental impacts arise from an activity or event (e.g. forest fires
or an oil spill), national law will need to defer to IEL for possible legal solutions.
Emergence of IEL as a significant component of international law

1) The sources of international law are both traditional and non-traditional and IEL has given
rise to substantial developments in both contexts;
2) Article 38(1) of the Statute of International Court of Justice defines four traditional sources:
o International convention
o International custom
o General principles of law
o Judicial decisions and the teachings of publicists (academic writings)

3) IEL has emerged in the form of a very large number of international conventions
(multilateral, regional and bilateral) since mid-20th century.
4) Non-traditional sources (“soft law”) have also been a particularly common element of
evolving IEL, and can include:
a. Non-binding acts of international organizations (e.g. UN GA Resolution)
b. Non-binding declarations and o6ther texts (e.g. Stockholm Declarations, 1992 Rio
Declaration and Bali Accord)
5) Soft law measures often provide a pathway for the development of traditional measures, in
particular MEAs or Protocols thereto.
6) They may also provide inspiration for the incorporation of IEL concepts and principles in
national legislation prior to their adoption in traditional, binding international agreements
(see e.g. the recognition of the precautionary principle in national legislation or by domestic
courts ultimately as international custom.
Sustainable Developm ent

1) Concepts of sustainable foundation is now a foundation for all international and national
environmental law and policy.
2) Classic definition in the Brundtland Report, Our Common Future, 1987:
“Development that meets the need of the present without compromising the ability of future
generations to meet their own needs.”
3) Discussed in Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Case (1997) ICJ Reports 7
4) Some principles associated with sustainable development
c. Have become part of international customary law
d. Have been adopted in international environmental conventions
e. Have been incorporated in national environmental legislation
Gabcikovo vs. Nagymaros Project (Hungary/Slovakia)

1) The Court expressed that sustainable development concept entails reconciling economic
development (such as the Project at issue) with protection of the environment (i.e. the
principle of integration.
2) Principle applied – sustainable development
Permanent sovereignty over natural resources and a concomitant obligation to

prevent transboundary harm
1) Principle of State Responsibility: Obligation not to cause transboundary harm
2) Trail Smelter Arbitration (1938 and 1941) 3 RIAA 1911
3) 1972 Stockholm Declaration, Principle 21
4) See also 1992 Rio Declaration, Principle 2
5) Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Case (1997) ICJ Reports 7
Trail Smelter Arbitration (U.S. vs. Canada)

1) The duty to protect other states against harmful acts by individuals from within its
jurisdiction at all times is the responsibility of a state.
2) It is the responsibility of the State to protect other states against harmful act by individuals
from within its jurisdiction at all times. No state has the right to use or permit the use of the
territory in a manner as to cause injury by fumes in or to the territory of another or the
properties or persons therein as stipulated under the United States laws and the principles
of international law.

3) Principle applied – Transboundary Harm – Principle of State Responsibility
Principle 21, Stcokholm Declaration
States have, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the principles of international
law, the sovereign right to exploit their own resources pursuant to ensure that activities within their
jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the environment of other States or of areas beyond the
limits of national jurisdiction.
Principle 2, Rio Declaration
States have, in accordance with the Charter of United Nations and the principles of international
law, the sovereign right to exploit their own resources pursuant to their own environmental and
developmental policies, and the responsibility to ensure that activities within their jurisdiction or
control do not cause damage to the environment of other States or of areas beyond the limits of
national jurisdiction.
Principle of prevention of environmental harm

1) Obligation requiring the prevention of damage to the environment and to reduce, limit or
control activities which might cause or risk such damage.
2) Applies to any harm, not only transboundary.
3) But lacks recognition as customary law and has possibly been absorbed into the
precautionary principle (see A Trouborst (2009) 2 Erasmus LR 106)
4) Principle 19, Rio Declaration: States shall provide prior and timely notification and relevant
information to potentially affected States on activities that may have a significant adverse
transboundary environmental effect and shall consult with those States at an early stage
and in good faith.
Precautionary Principle
1) Principle 15, Rio Declaration:
“In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by
States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible
damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-
effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.”
a. Narrow interpretation (to ensure scientific uncertainty is not used to postpone
measure to protect environment)
b. Broad interpretation (to require those proposing a potentially environmentally
damaging activity to prove that there will be no serious environmental harm – i.e., a
preventive approach)
Southern Bluefin Tuna (New Zealand vs. Japan; Australia vs. Japan)
1) The ITLOS immediately applied the provisional measure and ordered Japan to refrain from
conducting the Experimental Fishing Programme (EFP).
2) In fact, the ITLOS applied the precautionary approach to fishing although it did not
expressly state so.
3) Principle applied – Precautionary Principle

MOX Plant Case (Ireland vs. United Kingdom)

1) Pending the final decision of the Arbitral Tribunal constituted under the UNCLOS, the
ITLOS prescribed a provisional measure in December 2001, ordering the parties to co-operate
and to engage in consultations, including the exchange of information, without further delay.
2) Principle applied – Precautionary Principle
Case Concerning Pulp Mills on the River of Uruguay (Argentina vs. Uruguay)
1) This case highlights the importance of the need to ensure environmental protection of shared
natural resources while allowing for sustainable economic development.
2) The dispute arose from the authorization by Uruguay of the CMB pulp mill and the actual
construction of the Botnia pulp mill and its associated facilities on the banks of the River
Uruguay, which constitutes an international boundary between the two sovereign States of
Argentina and Uruguay.
3) ICJ explicitly recognized Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) as a practice that has
attained customary international law status.
Principles 1 & 2, Stockholm Declaration

1) Principle 1 – Man has the fundamental right to freedom, equality and adequate conditions of
life, in an environment of a quality that permits a life of dignity and well-being, and he bears
a solemn responsibility to protect and improve the environment for present and future
generations. In this respect, policies promoting or perpetuating apartheid, racial segregation,
discrimination, colonial and other forms of oppression and foreign domination stand
condemned and must be eliminated.
2) Principle 2 – The natural resources of the earth, including the air, water, land, flora and
fauna and especially representative samples of natural ecosystems, must be safeguarded for
the benefit of present and future generations through careful planning or management, as
appropriate.
Principle 3, Rio Declaration
The right to development must be fulfilled so as to equitably meet development and environmental
needs of present and future generations.
Distinction between intra-generational and inter-generational equity
Intra-generational equity is concerned with equity between people of the same generation. This is
separate from inter-generational equity, which is about equity between present and future
generations.
Intra-generational equity includes considerations of distribution of resources and justice between

nations. It also includes considerations of what is fair for people within any one nation.
Polluter Pays Principle
States should ensure that those polluters or users of natural resources bears the full environmental
costs of their activities.

Widely recognized in soft law agreements, e.g. Rio Declaration, Principle 16: National authorities
should endeavor to promote the internalization of environmental costs and the use of economic
instruments, taking into account the approach that the polluter should, in principle, bear the cost of
pollution, with due regard to the public interest and without distorting international trade and
investment.
Common but Differentiated Responsibilities

1) Common obligation to protect environment, but differing responsibilities to carry out this
obligation.
2) Reflective of differing social, economic and ecological situations.
3) 1992 Rio Declaration, Principle 7: States shall cooperate in a spirit of global partnership to
conserve protect and restore the health and integrity of the Earth’s ecosystem. In view of the
different contributions to global environmental degradation, States have common but
differentiated responsibilities. The developed countries acknowledge the responsibility that
they bear in the international pursuit to sustainable development in view of the pressures their
societies place on the global environment and of the technologies and financial resources they
command.
Access and Benefit Sharing

1) Countries have the sovereign right to regulate or grant free access to Generic Resources (GR)
occurring inside their national territory (i.e., they determine who can collect biological material
that contains genetic resources and what users are allowed to do with it).
2) Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)
c. Conservation of biological diversity
d. Sustainable use of its components
e. Fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising out of the utilization of genetic
resources
3) Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits
Arising from their Utilization (NP)
Principle of Common Heritage of Mankind

1) Common heritage of mankind is a principle of international law that states that the elements
of the earth and cosmos are common to humankind (commonly owned by all).
2) Common heritage of mankind includes ocean floor and its subsoil and also outer space.
3) The principle states that areas of Antarctica, the sea bed, and outer space cannot be
monopolized for the benefit of one state or group of states alone, but should be treated as if
they are to be used for the benefit of all mankind.
Access to Information, Right to Participate, Access to Jus tice

1) Access to information empowers citizens and incentivizes them to participate in decision and
policy making processes in an informed manner.
2) Public participation is increasingly being seen as a vital part of addressing environmental
problems and achieving sustainable development by encouraging governments to adopt
policies and enact laws that take community needs into account.
3) Access to justice provides the foundation of the “access rights”, as it facilitates the public’s
ability to enforce their right to participate, to be informed, and to hold regulators and
polluters accountable for environmental harm (Benson Ochieng, Implementing Principle 10
and the Bali Guidelines in Africa, UNEP, February 2015).

Key IEL Principles
Relevance of core concepts and principles to national environmental law – some questions to
consider:
a) To what extent has the core concept of sustainable development been embedded in national
environmental law?
b) Is the concept of sustainable development, in its promotion of a balancing of economic, social
and environmental considerations, capable of ensuring that humanity lives within the
planet’s ecological limits?
c) Can some of the key principles of international environmental law provide guidance for
development of, or be reflected in, national environmental legislation?
Important Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs)

MEAs deal with topics such as:
a) Protection of biological diversity

b) Trade in wildlife
c) Whaling
d) Marine pollution (shipping, dumping of wastes)
e) Trade in wastes
f) Climate change
g) Ozone depletion
h) Antarctic
i) Wetlands and World Heritage sites
j) Land degradation
k) Major gaps include marine conservation, marine pollution from land-based sources
and forestry.
Process for, and level of, implementation of MEAs in national law
Whilst some countries regard international treaties, once ratifies, as “self-executing” (e.g., U.S.A.),
many require legislation to be adopted in order for the obligations arising from treaties to be
translated in to national law.
In both contexts, there can be significant delays between signing and ratification of MEAs.
IV. Environmental Impact Assessment
Presidential Decree No. 1151, Philippine Environmental Policy

State Policy
(a) to create, develop, maintain and improve conditions under which man and nature can thrive in
productive and enjoyable harmony with each other;
(b) to fulfill the social, economic and other requirements of present and future generations of
Filipinos; and,
(c) to insure the attainment of an environmental quality that is conducive to a life of dignity and
well-being.
EIA Requirement
Section 4. All agencies and instrumentalities of the national government, including government-
owned or controlled corporations, as well as private corporations firms and entities shall prepare, file

and include in every action, project or undertaking which significantly affects the quality of the
environment, environmental impact statements (EIS).
EIS should contain a detailed statement on:

(a) the environmental impact of the proposed action, project or undertaking;
(b) any adverse environmental effect which cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemented;
(c) alternative to the proposed action;
(d) a determination that the short-term uses of the resources of the environment are consistent with
the maintenance and enhancement of the long-term productivity of the same; and,
(e) whenever a proposal involve the use of depletable or non-renewable resources, a finding must be
made that such use and commitment are warranted.
Comments by other agencies

Further, before an environmental impact statement is issued by a lead agency, all agencies having
jurisdiction over, or special expertise on, the subject matter involved shall comment on the draft
environmental impact statement made by the lead agency within thirty (30) days from receipt of an
EIS. These mandatory requirements must continue to be enforced, in the absence of a law amending
or repealing PD 1151.
PD 1586 (Establishing an Environmental Impact Statement System)

Rationale:
7) Need to establish and institutionalize a system whereby the exigencies of socio-economic
undertakings can be reconciled with the requirements of environmental quality.
8) Regulatory requirements of Environmental Impact Statements and Assessments instituted
in pursuit of this national environmental protection program have to be worked into their
fully regulatory and procedural details.
Policy of the State:

To attain and maintain a rational and orderly balance between socio-economic growth and
environmental protection.
Section 2 – Establishment of an Environmental Impact Statement System
-‐ Founded and based on the environmental impact statement required, under Section 4 of
Presidential Decree No. 1151, of all agencies and instrumentalities of the national
government, including government-owned or controlled corporations, as well as private
corporations, firms and entities, for every proposed project and undertaking which
significantly affect the quality of the environment.
Section 3 - All Environmental Impact Statements shall be submitted to the National Environmental
Protection Council for review and evaluation.
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
Section 5 - Environmentally Non-Critical Projects.

-‐ All other projects, undertakings and areas not declared by the President as environmentally
critical shall be considered as non-critical and shall not be required to submit an
environmental impact statement.

Section 6 - The National Environmental Protection Council is hereby authorized to constitute the
necessary secretariat which will administer the Environmental Impact Statement System
and undertake the processing and evaluation of environmental impact statements.
Proclamation 2146
Proclaiming Certain Areas And Types Of Projects As Environmentally Critical And
W ithin The Scope Of The Environmental Impact Statement System Established
Under Presidential Decree No. 1586
A. Environmentally Critical Projects
I. Heavy Industries
1. Non-ferrous metal industries
2. Iron and steel mills
3. Petroleum and petro-chemical industries including oil and gas
4. Smelting plants
II. Resource Extractive Industries

1. Major mining and quarrying projects
2. Forestry projects
a. Logging
b. Major wood processing projects
c. Introduction of fauna (exotic-animals) in public/private forests
d. Forest occupancy
e. Extraction of mangrove products
f. Grazing
3. Fishery Projects
a. Dikes for/and fishpond development projects
III. Infrastructure Projects

1. Major dams
2. Major power plants (fossil-fueled, nuclear fueled, hydroelectric or geothermal)
3. Major reclamation projects
4. Major roads and bridges
B. Environmentally Critical Areas

1. All areas declared by law as national parks, watershed reserves, wildlife preserves and
sanctuaries;
2. Areas set aside as aesthetic potential tourist spots;
3. Areas which constitute the habitat for any endangered or threatened species of indigenous
Philippine Wildlife (flora and fauna);
4. Areas of unique historic, archaeological, or scientific interests;
5. Areas which are traditionally occupied by cultural communities or tribes;
6. Areas frequently visited and/or hard-hit by natural calamities (geologic hazards, floods,
typhoons, volcanic activity, etc.);
7. Areas with critical slopes;
8. Areas classified as prime agricultural lands;
9. Recharged areas of aquifers;
10. Water bodies characterized by one or any combination of the following conditions;
a. tapped for domestic purposes
b. within the controlled and/or protected areas declared by appropriate authorities
c. which support wildlife and fishery activities
11. Mangrove areas characterized by one or any combination of the following conditions:
a. with primary pristine and dense young growth;
b. adjoining mouth of major river systems;

c. near or adjacent to traditional productive fry or fishing grounds;

d. which act as natural buffers against shore erosion, strong winds and storm floods;
e. on which people are dependent for their livelihood.
12. Coral reefs characterized by one or any combinations of the following conditions:
a. With 50% and above live coralline cover;
b. Spawning and nursery grounds for fish;
c. which act as natural breakwater of coastlines.
Republic vs. City of Davao, G.R. No. 148622, 12 September 2002

Section 16 of the Local Government Code mandates the duty of the local government units to
promote the people’s right to a balanced ecology, and pursuant to this, an LGU cannot claim
exemption from the coverage of PD 1586. As a body politic endowed with governmental functions, an
LGU has the duty to ensure the quality of the environment, which is the same objective of PD 1586.
But these arguments presuppose that a project, for which an ECC is necessary, is ECP or within an
ECA. City of Davao have sufficiently shown that the project will not have a significant negative
environmental impact because it is not an ECP or located in an ECA.
DAO 2003-30 – Implementing Rules and Regulations

Basic Policy
9) It is the policy of the DENR to implement a systems-oriented and integrated approach to the
EIS system to ensure a rational balance between socio-economic development and
environmental protection for the benefit of present and future generations.

JD 217 - Updated NREL Reviewer For Midterms M5 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

JD 217 - Updated NREL Reviewer For Midterms M5 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

JD

217 – Natural Resources and Environmental Law

I. Definitions and Principles

b. The word environment is derived from the French word “Environ”

B. Key environmental issue: climate change

Excerpt from the Documentary Review by Adam Chitwood:

Before the Flood is very much an educational and advocacy

Notes compiled by: Dann Marr P. Andrino, JD2 (M5)

We also see how developing communities in places like India are

DiCaprio serves as a suitable guide throughout this all, especially

Notes compiled by: Dann Marr P. Andrino, JD2 (M5)

an entertaining pace, buoyed by a terrific original score from Trent

And DiCaprio even addresses the large carbon footprint that he

At heart, Before the Flood is a film made for mass consumption in an

a. Introduction to Climate Change

b. Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation: The

Climate adaptation refers to the ability of a system to adjust to

The terms “adaptation" and “mitigation" are two important

c. Addressing Climate Change through existing

Notes compiled by: Dann Marr P. Andrino, JD2 (M5)

It is the policy of the State to afford full protection and the

The LGUs shall be the frontline agencies in the formulation,

Inter-local government unit collaboration shall be maximized in

Roles of National Government Agencies:

o Department of Education (DepEd) shall integrate climate

o Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG)

Notes compiled by: Dann Marr P. Andrino, JD2 (M5)

content necessary to address the prevailing and

o The Department of Environment and Natural Resources

o Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) shall review

o The Philippine Information Agency (PIA) shall

Funding Allocation for Climate Change:

All relevant government agencies and LGUs shall allocate

ii. People’s Survival Fund Act (RA 10174)

The People’s Survival Fund (PSF) was created by Republic Act

Notes compiled by: Dann Marr P. Andrino, JD2 (M5)

and accredited local/community organizations to implement

The Philippine government programmed at least P1 billion into

The PSF is managed and administered by the People’s Survival

The PSF is intended for adaptation activities that include

Notes compiled by: Dann Marr P. Andrino, JD2 (M5)

and fisheries, health, among others, and serve as guarantee for

It will also be used for establishing regional centers and

iii. Disaster Risk Reduction and Management (DRRM)

A National Disaster Risk Management Plan (NDRMP) is being

The law also promotes the development of capacities in

RA 10121 also recognises local risk patterns and trends and

Notes compiled by: Dann Marr P. Andrino, JD2 (M5)

disaster management. It inhibits the full participation of the

Moreover, the Act mandates the establishment of a Disaster

The Strategic National Action Plan on Disaster Risk Reduction

Finally, RA10121 provides for the calamity fund to be used in

Of the amount appropriated for LDRRMF, thirty percent (30%)

Notes compiled by: Dann Marr P. Andrino, JD2 (M5)

Unexpended LDRRMF shall accrue to a special trust fund

d. What are the obligations, if any, of state parties to

i. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate

The ultimate objective of this Convention and any related legal

In their actions to achieve the objective of the Convention and

ü The Parties should protect the climate system for the

ü The specific needs and special circumstances of

Notes compiled by: Dann Marr P. Andrino, JD2 (M5)