________________________________

COLLEGE OF LAW

I. LAND, FORESTS, NATURAL RESOURCES, & BIODIVERSITY

A. Laws
1. Biodiversity
a. Convention on Biological Diversity of 1992 (CBD) entry into force - December 29, 1993,
ratified by the Philippines - October 10, 2008
http://www.cbd.int/convention/convention.shtml
b. Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, entry into force - September 11, 2003, ratified by the
Philippines - January 3, 2007

The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity is an international treaty

governing the movements of living modified organisms (LMOs) resulting from modern
biotechnology from one country to another. It was adopted on 29 January 2000 as a supplementary
agreement to the Convention on Biological Diversity and entered into force on 11 September 2003.

Sections

 Introduction

 History

 The ICCP Process

 Entry into force

 Cartagena Protocol Timeline

Introduction

On 29 January 2000, the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity adopted a
supplementary agreement to the Convention known as the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. The Protocol
seeks to protect biological diversity from the potential risks posed by living modified organisms resulting
from modern biotechnology. It establishes an advance informed agreement (AIA) procedure for ensuring
that countries are provided with the information necessary to make informed decisions before agreeing to
the import of such organisms into their territory. The Protocol contains reference to a precautionary
approach and reaffirms the precaution language in Principle 15 of the Rio Declaration on Environment and
Development. The Protocol also establishes a Biosafety Clearing-House to facilitate the exchange of
information on living modified organisms and to assist countries in the implementation of the Protocol.
Go to the top of the page

History

Pursuant to Article 19, paragraph 3, of the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Conference of the Parties,
by its decision II/5, established an Open-ended Ad Hoc Working Group on Biosafety to develop a draft
protocol on biosafety, specifically focusing on transboundary movement of any living modified organism
resulting from modern biotechnology that may have adverse effect on the conservation and sustainable use
of biological diversity.
The Open-ended Ad Hoc Working Group on Biosafety held six meetings between July 1996 and February
1999. At its conclusion, the Working Group submitted a draft text of the Protocol, as well as the outstanding
concerns of the Parties, for consideration by Conference of the Parties at its first extraordinary meeting,
convened for the purpose of adopting a protocol on biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity.
In accordance with decision IV/3, the first extraordinary meeting of the Conference of the Parties was
opened on 22 February 1999, in Cartagena, Colombia. The Conference of the Parties was not able to finalize
its work in the time available. As a result, by decision EM-I/1, the Conference of the Parties suspended its
first extraordinary meeting and agreed that it should be reconvened as soon as possible and in any event no
later than the fifth meeting of the Conference of the Parties.
The resumed session took place in Montreal from 24 to 29 January 2000 and was preceded by regional and
interregional informal consultations from 20 to 23 January 2000 at the same venue. On 29 January 2000,
the Conference of the Parties, by its decision EM-I/3, adopted the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the
Convention on Biological Diversity and approved interim arrangements pending its entry into force. It
established an open-ended ad hoc Intergovernmental Committee for the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety
(ICCP) with a mandate to undertake the preparations necessary for the first meeting of the Parties to the
Protocol.
Go to the top of the page

The ICCP Process

The Intergovernmental Committee for the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (ICCP) was established
in decision EM-I/3 adopting the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, to undertake the preparations necessary
for the first meeting of the Parties to the Protocol.
Following its establishment, the ICCP convened an organizational meeting on 29 January 2000, chaired by
Ambassador Yang of Cameroon, and elected a Bureau to oversee its activities. The members elected to the
Bureau were: Cameroon (Chair), Denmark, India, Islamic Republic of Iran, Peru, Poland, Saint Kitts and
Nevis, South Africa, Switzerland and Ukraine. At the first meeting of the ICCP, Denmark was replaced by
France. The first task of the Bureau was to develop a work plan for the ICCP which was submitted, to and
endorsed by, the fifth meeting of the Conference of the Parties in May 2000.
The ICCP held three meetings between 2000 and 2003. The first meeting (ICCP 1) was held 11-15
December 2000 in Montpellier, France; the second meeting (ICCP 2) was held 1-5 October 2001 in Nairobi,
Kenya; and the third meeting (ICCP 3) was held 22-26 April 2002 in The Hague, The Netherlands, back-to-
back with the sixth meeting of the Conference of the Parties.
The ICCP Bureau held more than 10 oversight meetings over a period of four years of its existence. The
ICCP submitted its final report to the first meeting of the Parties to the Protocol which was held 23-27
February 2004 in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Go to the top of the page

Entry into force

The Protocol entered into force on 11 September 2003, ninety days after the deposit of the fiftieth
instrument of ratification. In accordance with Article 29, paragraph 1, of the Protocol, the COP to the
Convention serves as the meeting of the Parties to the Protocol (COP-MOP), the governing body of the
Protocol. An overview of the COP-MOP activity is provided in the Meetings of the COP-MOP page.
Go to the top of the page
Timeline of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety
         
1993 The Convention on Biological Diversity enters into force on 29 December 1993
1995 COP2 Second meeting of the Conference of the Parties - Consideration of the need Decision II/5
for and modalities of a protocol for the safe transfer, handling and use of living  
modified organisms. Jakarta, Indonesia, 6 - 17 November 1995
1996 COP3 Third meeting of the Conference of the Parties - Issues related to Decision
 
biosafety. Buenos Aires, Argentina, 4 - 15 November 1996 III/20
1996 BSWG1 First meeting of the Open-Ended Ad Hoc working Group on Biosafety. Aarhus, Meeting
 
Denmark, 22 - 26 July 1996 Documents
1997 BSWG2 Second meeting of the Open-Ended Ad Hoc working Group on Meeting
 
Biosafety. Montreal, Canada, 12 - 16 May 1997 Documents
1997 BSWG3 Third meeting of the Open-Ended Ad Hoc working Group on Meeting
 
Biosafety. Montreal, Canada, 13 - 17 October 1997 Documents
1998 BSWG4 Fourth meeting of the Open-Ended Ad Hoc working Group on Meeting
 
Biosafety. Montreal, Canada, 5 - 13 February 1998 Documents
1998 COP4 Fourth meeting of the Conference of the Parties - Issues related to Decision IV/3
 
biosafety. Bratislava, Slovakia, 4 - 15 May 1998
1998 BSWG5 Fifth meeting of the Open-Ended Ad Hoc working Group on Meeting
 
Biosafety. Montreal, Canada, 17 - 28 August 1998 Documents
1999 BSWG6 Sixth meeting of the Open-Ended Ad Hoc working Group on Meeting
 
Biosafety. Cartagena, Colombia, 14 - 19 February 1999 Documents
1999 BSIC1 Informal Consultation on the process to resume the Extraordinary Meeting of Meeting
 
COP to adopt a protocol on Biosafety. Montreal, Canada, 1 July 1999 Documents
1999 BSIC2 Second Informal Consultation on the process to resume the Extraordinary Meeting
Meeting of COP to adopt a protocol on Biosafety. Vienna, Austria, 15 - 19   Documents
September 1999
1999 EXCOP1 First Extraordinary Meeting of the Conference of the Parties - Decisions on the Decisions
- continuation of the first extraordinary meeting of the Conference of the Parties EM-I/1-3
2000 to the Convention on Biological Diversity, adoption of the Cartagena  
Protocol and interim arrangements. Cartagena, Colombia 22 - 23 February
1999 and Montreal, Canada, 24 - 28 January 2000
2000 COP5 The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety is opened for signature.
Fifth meeting of the Conference of the Parties - Work plan of the Decision V/1
 
Intergovernmental Committee for the Cartagena Protocol on
Biosafety. Nairobi, Kenya, 15 - 26 May 2000
2000 ICCP1 First meeting of the Intergovernmental Committee for the Cartagena Protocol Meeting
 
on Biosafety. Montpellier, France, 11 - 15 December 2000 Documents
2001 ICCP2 Second meeting of the Intergovernmental Committee for the Cartagena Meeting
 
Protocol on Biosafety. Nairobi, Kenya, 1 - 5 October 2001 Documents
2002 COP6 Sixth meeting of the Conference of the Parties - Intergovernmental Committee Decision VI/1
for the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. The Hague, Netherlands, 7 - 19 April  
2002
2002 ICCP3 Third meeting of the Intergovernmental Committee for the Cartagena Protocol Meeting
 
on Biosafety. The Hague, The Netherlands, 22 - 26 April 2002 Documents
2003 The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety enters into force on 11 September 2003

c. Executive Order No. 430, “Constituting the National Committee on Biosafety of the
Philippines” (October 15, 1990)
d. DA Administrative Order No. 8, Series of 2002 “Rules and Regulations on the Importation
and Release to the Environment of Plants and Plant products Derived from the Use of
Modern Biotechnology” (April 3, 2002), as amended by Administrative Order No. 22,
Series of 2007 (July 2, 2007)
e. Executive Order No. 514, “Establishing the National Biosafety Framework,
Prescribing Guidelines for its Implementation, Strengthening the National
Committee on Biosafety of the Philippines, and for Other Purposes”
(March 17, 2006)
f. Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit-sharing, for signature by Parties to the
Convention from February 2, 2011 until February 1, 2012
g. Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora
 h. Republic Act No. 9147, “Wildlife Resources Conservation and Protection Act”

Republic Act No. 9147 or the Wildlife Resources Conservation and Protection Act 100 was
promulgated to conserve and protect wildlife species and their habitats to promote ecological
balance and enhance biological diversity. It also lays down the framework for the regulation of
the collection and trade of wildlife and the initiation or support of scientific studies involving the
conservation of biological resources. It therefore strengthens the Philippine’s commitment to
the protection of the country’s wildlife and their habitats.

i. The Animal Welfare Act of 1998 – Republic Act No. 8485

j. National Integrated Protected Areas System Act of 1992 – Republic Act No. 7586
2. Mining
a. Republic Act No. 7942, “Philippine Mining Act of 1995”
 b. Republic Act No. 7076, “People’s Small-Scale Mining Act of 1991”

Republic Act No. 7076 or the People’s Small-Scale Mining Act of 1991 94 was promulgated to
promote and develop viable small-scale mining activities in the country in order to generate more
employment opportunities. It recognizes the need to lay down guidelines for a systematic and orderly
implementation of small-scale mining activities and utilization of mineral resources such as: the
recognition of easement and ownership rights, the formation of regulatory boards, and the protection
of land areas.
 3. Indigenous People
 Republic Act No. 8371, “The indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997”

Republic Act No. 8371 or the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997 111 is also treated as an
Environmental Law by virtue of its provisions protecting the ancestral domains and imposing the
requirement upon project proponents to secure the Free Prior and Informed Consent of the affected
Indigenous Peoples before the utilization of natural resources over their ancestral domains can be
made.
 4. Forestry
a. Constitution, art. XII, secs. 2, 3 and 4

1. Constitutional Policy and Framework on Environmental Protection

The 1987 Philippine Constitution bears the framework of the Philippine Environmental Policy. In fact,
the Preamble of the Constitution itself already lays down the foundation for the environmental
provisions
in the 1987 Constitution. The Preamble reads as:
We, the sovereign Filipino people, imploring the aid of Almighty God, in order to build a just
and humane society, and establish a Government that shall embody our ideals and
aspirations, promote the common good, conserve and develop our patrimony, and secure
to ourselves and our posterity, the blessings of independence and democracy under the
rule of law and a regime of truth, justice, freedom, love, equality, and peace, do ordain and
promulgate this Constitution.79
Our fundamental right to a healthy environmental, however, is primarily embodied in Section 16,
Article II of the Constitution which states, “[t]he State shall protect and advance the right of the people
to a
balanced and healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature.” 80 This provision is
selfexecuting
in nature and deemed as the source of the citizen’s basic environmental rights. 81 The duty of the
state to protect and promote the health of its citizens is also an adjunct to the right of the Filipinos to a
healthy
environment. Other constitutional provisions also serve as basis for several environmental laws. Section
15, Article II of the Constitution states that, “[t]he State shall protect and promote the right to health of
the people and instill health consciousness among them.” 82 Most of the provisions of Article XII also
highlight the State’s primary objective of protecting the environmental resources of the country.
Sections 2,83
3,84 4,85 and 586 all seek to protect the country’s land from abuse and exploitation and ensure that the
development of the country’s natural resources will benefit the Filipino people.
Even prior to the 1987 Constitution, Presidential Decree No. 1151 87 or the Philippine
Environmental Policy declares as a continuing policy of the state:
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 Filipino; and
c. to ensure the attainment of an environmental quality that is conducive to a life of
dignity and well-being.88

b. Presidential Decree No. 705, “Revised Forestry Code.’ as amended (See PD No. 1775)

Presidential Decree No. 705 or the Revised Forestry Code of the Philippines 91 is the law most
often violated in environmental cases before the courts. This law regulates the management,
development, and utilization of forest lands. It establishes the boundaries of forest lands and lays down
the guidelines for licenses and permits for the occupation and utilization of forest lands and operation
of wood or forest processing plant. It also introduces the concept of reforestation in order to preserve
the country’s forest lands.

c. Executive Order No. 318, “Promoting Sustainable Forest Management in the Philippines”
d. Executive Order No. 263, “Adopting Community-Based Forest
Management as the National Strategy to Ensure the Sustainable
Development of the Country’s Forestlands Resources and Providing
Mechanisms for its Implementation”
 e. Executive Order No. 23, “Declaring a Moratorium on the Cutting and Harvesting of
Timber in the Natural and Residual Forests and Creating the Anti-illegal Logging Task
Force”, (February 1, 2011)
f. Republic Act No. 9175, Chain Saw Act of 2002”

Republic Act No. 9175 or the Chain Saw Act of 2002 101 specifically addresses the need to eliminate
illegal logging and other forms of forest destruction which are often facilitated by the use of chain saws.
It therefore regulates the ownership, possession, sale, transfer, importation and/or use of chain saws to
prevent them from being used in illegal logging or unauthorized clearing of forests.
 5. Cases
a. Aquino vs People (GR 165448, July 27, 2009)
b. Mustang Lumber vs CA (GR 104988, June 18, 1996)
c. Tan vs People (GR 115507, May 19, 1998)
d. Taopavs People (GR 184098, November 25, 2008)
e. Rodolfo Tigoyvs CA (GR 144640, June 26, 2006)
f. People vsQue (GR 120365, Dec 17, 1996)
g. La Buga-B’Laan Tribal Association, Inc. v. Ramos, 445 SCRA 1 (20O4) 1
h. Apex Mining Co., Inc. v. Southeast Mindanao Gold Mining Corporation,
492 SCRA 355 (2006)2
i. Loney v. People of the Philippines, 482 SCRA 194 (2006)
j. The Medusa Ruling: SEC-OGC OPINION NO. 31-10, December 9, 2010, (Co-C Small
Scale Miners Association, Inc.)
k. Cruz v. Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources, 347 SCRA 128 (2000)
l. SR Metals vs. DENR, GR No. 179669, 4 June 2014
m. Oposa v. Factoran, Jr., 224 SCRA 792 (1993)
n. Felipe Ysmael, Jr. & Co., Inc. v. Deputy Executive Secretary, 190 SCRA
673 (1990)

II. Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases, A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC, April 13, 2010
A. Scope and applicability of the rule
1.Civil procedure
a. Prohibition against temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction
b. Pretrial conference; consent decree
c. Prohibited pleadings and motions
d. Temporary Environmental Protection Order (TEPO)
 West Tower Condominium Corp. v. First Philippine Industrial Corp., G.R. No. 194239,
May 31, 2011
e. Judgment and execution; reliefs in a citizen’s suit
f. Permanent Environmental Protection Order; writ of continuing mandamus
g. Strategic lawsuit against public participation
2.Special proceedings
a. Writ of Kalikasan
b. Prohibited pleadings and motions
c. Discovery measures
d. Writ of continuing mandamus
 Metropolitan Manila Development Authority v. Concerned Residents of Manila Bay,
G.R. Nos. 171947-48, December 18, 2008 
 Hernandez v. Placer Dome, Inc.,  G.R. No. 195482, June 21, 2011
 Boracay Foundation, Inc. v. Province of Aklan, G.R. No.  196870, June 26, 2012
3.Criminal procedure
a. Who may file
b. Institution of criminal and civil action
c. Arrest without warrant, when valid
d. Strategic lawsuit against public participation
e. Procedure in the custody and disposition of seized items
f. Bail
g. Arraignment and plea
h. Pre-trial
i. Subsidiary liabilities
1
This decision resolves respondents’ motions for reconsideration by reversing an earlier decision in this case by the Supreme
Court promulgated on January 27, 2004 (421 SCRA 148) .A subsequent motion for reconsideration filed by petitioners was
denied with finality on February 1, 2005.
2
A subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied with finality on November 20. 2009 (605 SCRA
100).
4.Evidence
a. Precautionary principle
b. Documentary evidence