Magallona v. Ermita
resources in the exclusive economic zone
G.R No. 187167, August 16, 2011
Doctrine:
The enactment of UNCLOS III complaint
baseline law for the Philippine archipelago
and adjacent areas, as embodied in RA
9522 allows an internationally recognized
delimitation of the breadth of the
Philippine’s maritime zones and continental
shelf. RA 9522 is a vital step on the part of
the Philippines in safeguarding its maritime
zones, consistent with the constitution and
the national interest.
Facts:
Congress passed RA 9046 demarcating
the maritime baselines of the Philippines
as an archipelagic state following the
framing of the Convention on the territorial
sea and the contiguous zone codifying
among others, the sovereign right of State
parties over their territorial sea. In 2009,
RA 9522 amended RA 3046 in compliance
with the UNCLOS III. It shortened one
baseline optimized the location of some
base points around the Philippine
archipelago and classified adjacent
territories, namely the KIG and
Scarborough shoal as regimes of islands.
Petitioners argue that the law reduces
Philippine maritime territory and logically,
the reach of the Philippine state’s
sovereign power.
The petitioners argues that the law
dismembers a large portion of the national
territory because it discards the previous
demarcation of Philippine territory under
the Treaty of Paris and related treaties.
Petitioners assail the constitutionality of RA and continental shelf.
9522 on the ground that RA 9522 reduces
Philippine maritime territory, affecting the
reach of the Philippine’s state sovereign
power, and that RA 9522 open’s the
country’s waters landward of the baselines
to maritime passage by all vessels and
aircrafts, undermining Philippine
sovereignty and national security, and
damaging marine resources. 
Issue:
WON RA 9522 adjusting the country’s
archipelagic baseline and clarifying the
baseline regime of nearby territories is
constitutional
Ruling:
YES. RA 9522 is constitutional. UNCLOS
III has nothing to do with the acquisition of
territory. It is a treaty that regulates the
sea-use rights over maritime zones, while
baselines law such as RA 9522 are
enacted by the UNCLOS III to mark-out the
specific base points along their coasts from
which baselines are drawn. Baselines laws
are nothing but statutory mechanisms for
UNCLOS III States parties to delimit with
precision the extent of their maritime zones
and continental shelves. In turn, this gives
notice to the rest of the international
community of the scope of the maritime
space and submarine areas within which
States parties exercise treaty-based rights
which are the exercise of sovereignty over
territorial waters, the jurisdiction to enforce
customs, fiscal, immigration and sanitation
laws in the contiguous zone, and the right
to exploit the living and non-living
Laguna Lake Development Authority v
CA
[G.R. Nos. 120865-71]
Facts:
Through RA 7160 or Local government
code of 1991 the municipalities in laguna
lake region interpreted provisions which
gave municipal governments exclusive
jurisdiction to issue fishing privileges within
their municipal waters persuant to Sec 149
thereof
Municipal governments thereupon
assumed the authority to issue fishing
privileges and fishpen permits.
Unregulated fishpens and fishcages, as of
July, 1995, occupied almost one-third of
the entire lake water surface area.
In view of the foregoing circumstances, the
Authority served notice to the general
public that:
1. All fishpens, fishcages and other
aqua-culture structures in the
Laguna de Bay Region, which
were not registered or to which no
application for registration and/or
permit has been filed with Laguna
Lake Development Authority as of
March 31, 1993 are hereby
declared outrightly as illegal.
2. All fishpens, fishcages and other
aqua-culture structures so
declared as illegal shall be subject
to demolition which shall be
undertaken by the Presidential
Task Force for Illegal Fishpen and over the Local Government Code of
Illegal Fishing. 1991.
affected fishpen owners filed injunction
cases against the Authority before various
regional trial courts for prohibition, injuction
and damages.
Issues:
Which agency of the government should
exercise jurisdiction over the laguna lake
and its environs insofar as the issuance for
the fishery privileges is concerned?
Ruling/Doctrine:
It is basic in statutory construction that the
enactment of a later legislation which is a
general law cannot be construed to have
repealed a special law. It is a well-settled
rule in this jurisdiction that "a special
statute, provided for a particular case or
class of cases, is not repealed by a
subsequent statute, general in its terms,
provisions and application, unless the
intent to repeal or alter is manifest,
although the terms of the general law are
broad enough to include the cases
embraced in the special law.
Where there is a conflict between a
general law and a special statute, the
special statute should prevail since it
evinces the legislative intent more clearly
than the general statute.
Thus, it has to be concluded that the
charter of the Authority should prevail

Resident Marine Mammals vs. Reyes
FACTS:  Region VII granted an ECC to the DOE
Petitioners, collectively referred to as the
"Resident Marine Mammals" in the petition,
are the toothed whales, dolphins,
porpoises, and other cetacean species,
which inhabit the waters in and around the
Tañon Strait, a narrow passage of water
situated between the islands of Negros and
Cebu. They are joined by Gloria Estenzo
Ramos and Rose-Liza Eisma-Osorio as
their legal guardians and as friends (to be
collectively known as "the Stewards") who
allegedly empathize with, and seek the
protection of, the aforementioned marine
species.  On the legality of SC-46 vis-a-vis other
On June 13, 2002, the Government of the
Philippines, acting through the DOE,
entered into a Geophysical Survey and
Exploration Contract-102 (GSEC-102) with
JAPEX. This contract involved geological
and geophysical studies of the Tañon
Strait. The studies included surface
geology, sample analysis, and
reprocessing of seismic and magnetic
data. JAPEX, assisted by DOE, also
conducted geophysical and satellite
surveys, as well as oil and gas sampling in
Tañon Strait.  The Tañon Strait is a narrow passage of
On December 21, 2004, DOE and JAPEX
formally converted GSEC-102 into Service
Contract No. 46 (SC-46) for the
exploration, development, and exploitation
of petroleum resources in a within Tañon
Strait.
On March 6, 2007, the EMB of DENR
and JAPEX for the offshore oil and gas
exploration project in Tañon Strait. JAPEX
began to drill an exploratory well. The
petitioners insist that SC-46 is null and void
for having violated Section 2, Article XII of
the 1987 Constitution.  President shall report it to Congress to give
ISSUE:
Whether or not Service Contract No. 46 is
violative of the 1987 Philippine Constitution
and statutes?
RULING/DOCTRINE:
YES. In La Bugal, the Court held that the
deletion of the words "service contracts" in
the 1987 Constitution did not amount to a
ban on them per se. 
In summarizing the matters discussed in
the ConCom, the Court established that
paragraph 4, with the safeguards in place,
is the exception to paragraph 1, Section 2
of Article XII. The following are the
safeguards enumerated in La Bugal: Such
service contracts may be entered into only
with respect to minerals, petroleum and
other mineral oils. The grant thereof is
subject to several safeguards, among
which are these requirements: (1)The
service contract shall be crafted in
accordance with a general law that will set
standard or uniform terms, conditions and
requirements, presumably to attain a
certain uniformity in provisions and avoid
the possible insertion of terms
disadvantageous to the country. (2) The
President shall be the signatory for the
government because, supposedly before
an agreement is presented to the President
for signature, it will have been vetted
several times over at different levels to
ensure that it conforms to law and can
withstand public scrutiny. (3) Within thirty
days of the executed agreement, the
that branch of government an opportunity
to look over the agreement and interpose
timely objections, if any. Adhering to the
aforementioned guidelines, the Court finds
that SC-46 is indeed null and void for
noncompliance with the requirements of
the 1987 Constitution.  
pertinent laws to serve as a guide for the
Government when executing service
contracts involving not only the Tafion
Strait, but also other similar areas: 
While the petitioners allege that SC-46 is in
violation of several laws, including
international ones, their arguments focus
primarily on the protected status of the
Tañon Strait. There are laws that pertain
particularly to the Tañon Strait as a
protected seascape.
water bounded by the islands of Cebu in
the East and Negros in the West. It harbors
a rich biodiversity of marine life, including
endangered species of dolphins and conditions to the greatest extent characterized by the harmonious
whales. For this reason, former President possible. interaction of man and land while
Fidel V. Ramos declared the Tañon Strait providing opportunities for public
as a protected seascape in 1998 by virtue The following categories of protected areas enjoyment through recreation and
of Proclamation No. 1234 -Declaring the were established under the NIPAS Act: tourism within the normal lifestyle and
Tañon Strait situated in the Provinces of economic activity of this areas; thus a
Cebu, Negros Occidental and Negros a. Strict nature reserve; management plan for each area must be
Oriental as a Protected Area pursuant to designed to protect and enhance the
the NIP AS Act and shall be known as b. Natural park; permanent preservation of its natural
Tañon Strait Protected Seascape.  conditions.
c. Natural monument;
True to the constitutional policy that the Petition granted.
d. Wildlife sanctuary;
"State shall protect and advance the right
of the people to a balanced and healthful e. Protected landscapes
ecology in accord with the rhythm and and seascapes;
harmony of nature," Congress enacted
the NIP AS Act to secure the perpetual f. Resource reserve;
existence of all native plants and
animals through the establishment of a g. Natural biotic areas; and
comprehensive system of integrated
protected areas. These areas possess h. Other categories
common ecological values that were established by law,
incorporated into a holistic plan conventions or international
representative of our natural heritage.  agreements which the
Philippine Government is a
The system encompasses signatory.
outstandingly remarkable areas and
biologically important public lands that Under Section 4 of the NIP AS Act, a
are habitats of rare and endangered protected area refers to portions of land
species of plants and animals, and water, set aside due to their unique
biogeographic zones and related physical and biological significance,
ecosystems, whether terrestrial, managed to enhance biological
wetland, or marine. It classifies and diversity and protected against human
administers all the designated protected exploitation.
areas to maintain essential ecological
processes and life-support systems, to The Tañon Strait, pursuant to Proclamation
preserve genetic diversity, to ensure No. 1234, was set aside and declared a
sustainable use of resources found protected area under the category of
therein, and to maintain their natural Protected Seascape. The NIP AS Act
defines a Protected Seascape to be an
area of national significance

Henares vs. LTFRB, G.R. 158290,
October 23, 2006
Facts: Petitioners challenge the court to
issue a writ of mandamus to command
LTFRB and DOTC to require public utility
vehicles (PUVs) to use compressed natural
gas (CNG) as alternative fuel. They cite
various studies that allege the particular
matters have caused detrimental effect on
health and overall quality of life. Asserting
the right to clean air, they want the LTRFB
to require PUVs to use CNG. The OSG
notes that nothing in RA 8749 (Clean air
act) that prohibits the use of gasoline and
diesel by owners of motor vehicles and
does not even mention the existence of
CNG as alternate fuel. Petitioner in their
reply insist that the respondent agency can
use their administrative and regulatory
powers to implement measures in
accordance with RA 8749
Issue: Whether or not mandamus will
issue against respondents to compel PUVs
to use CNG as alternative fuel
Ruling: Unfortunately no. Although the
court reaffirms the premium we have
placed on the protection of the
environment in the landmark case of
Oposa. Yet, as serious as the statistics are
on air pollution, with the present fuels
deemed toxic as they are to the
environment, as fatal as these pollutants
are to the health of the citizens, and
urgently requiring resort to drastic
measures to reduce air pollutants emitted
by motor vehicles, we must admit in
particular that petitioner are unable to
pinpoint the law that imposes an
indubitable legal duty on respondents that
will justify a grant of the writ of mandamus
compelling the use of CNG for public utility
vehicles. It appears to use that more
properly, the legislature should provide first
the specific statutory remedy to the
complex environmental problems bared by
herein petitioners before any judicial
recourse by mandamus is taken. 

ORTIGAS & CO., LIMITED
PARTENRSHIP v. FEATI BANK AND
TRUST CO.  foundation and construction of a building
G.R. No. L-24670       December 14, 1979
Santos, J.
FACTS:
Ortigas  & Co., Limited Partnership
engaged in real estate business
developing and selling lots to the public
particularly Highway Hills subdivision along
EDSA. On March 4, 1952, Augusto Padilla
y Angeles and Natividad Angeles entered
into separate agreements of sale on
installments over Lots 5 and 6 Block 31,
Highway Hills. While on July 19, 1962,
Augusto and Natividad transferred their
rights and interests in favor of Emma
Chavez.
The transfer contained the following
restrictions and stipulations:
 For residential purposes only;
 All buildings and improvements
(except fences) should use strong
building material, have modern
sanitary installations connected to
the public sewer or own septic tank
and shall not be more than 2
meters from the boundary lines
OIn February 4, 1960, Resolution 27 was
issued and reclassified the western part of
EDSA (Shaw boulevard to Pasig River) as
a commercial and industrial zone. Such
restrictions were annotated on the TCTs.
On July 23, 1962  theFeati bank bought Lot
5 from Emma Chavez while lot 6 was
purchased by Republic Flour Mills. In May
5, 1963, Feati Bank began laying
for banking purposes on lots 5 and 6.
Ortigas & Co. demanded that they comply
with the annotated restrictions, however,
Feati Bank refused arguing that it was
following the zoning regulations. Therefore,
Ortigas & Co. filed a case in the lower
courts which held that Resolution No. 27
was a valid exercise of police power of the
municipality hence the zoning is binding
and takes precedence over the annotations
in the TCTs because “private interest
should bow down to general interest and
welfare.”
On March 2, 1965, a motion for
reconsideration by Ortigas & Co. which
was denied on March 26, 1965.
Unperturbed, Ortigas filed notice of appeal
which was given due course on April 14,
1965 hence this case.
ISSUES:
Whether or not Resolution No. 27 s-1960
can nullify or supersede the contractual
obligations assumed by the defendant.
HELD:
Yes.  While non-impairment of contracts is
constitutionally guaranteed, the rule is not
absolute, since it has to be reconciled with
the legitimate exercise of police power, i.e.
“ the power to prescribe regulations to
promote the health, morals, peace,
education, good order or safety of the
general welfare of the people.”  This
general welfare clause shall be liberally
interpreted in case of doubt, so as to give
more power to local governments in
promoting the economic conditions, social
welfare and material progress of the
people in the community.  The only
exceptions under Section 12 of the Local
Autonomy Act (R.A. 2264) are existing
vested rights arising out of a contract
between a province, city or municipality on
one hand and a third party on the other
hand.  Said case is not present in this
petition. 
Resolution No. 27 s-1960 declaring the
western part of EDSA as an industrial and
commercial zone was passed in the
exercise of police power to safeguard or
promote the health, safety, peace, good
order and general welfare of the people in
the locality.
NOTE:

Dissenting: Abad Santos, J.
 Resolution 27 is valid because it
has not yet been struck down but it
is not a legitimate exercise of
police power because its means
(zoning) do not fit with its purpose
of general welfare
 Zoning the area as industrial and
commercial will contribute to
chaos, frenzy, pollution, noise
which suffocate and cause the
deterioration of the ecology à
Lowers quality of life for residents
in Metro Manila
AC Enterprises Inc. v. Frabelle
Properties Corporation Inc.
G.R. No. 166744, November 2, 2006
Facts:
Petitioner AC Enterprises owns Feliza
building which is subdivided into
commercial/office units which were leased
to private persons and entities.
Respondent Frabelle Properties Corp, on
the other hand, is the developer of Frabella
I Condominium, owned some units in the
condominium and leased these units to its
tenants. The exhaust of the 36 blowers
from the air-conditioning units at Feliza
Building were directed towards the rear of
Frabella I. Respondent wrote petitioner
demanding the latter to abate the
continuous, intense and unbearable noise
and the hot air blast coming from the
blowers in the Feliza Building. After several
demands, respondent requested that the
36 blowers be tested by the NCR
Environmental management Bureau (EMB)
of the DENR which confirmed that the
noise generated by the blowers of Feliza
Building is beyond the legal allowable lever
under Section 78(b) of P.D. 984. Even after
several tests by the EMB, the results were
the same. Despite repeated demands,
petitioner refused to act on the matter.
Frabelle Corp. filed a complaint against AC
Enterprises with the Pollution Adjudication
Board (PAB) for the abatement of noise,
noise pollution and air pollution and
damages with plea for injunctive relief. A
report from the PAB stated that since
DENR Administrative Order No. 30
devolved the functions of the DENR on the
abatement of noise nuisance to the Local
Government Unit, the case should be
endorsed to the City Government of Makati
for appropriate action. EMB forwarded the
report to Engr. Morales who stated that
there were other prevailing factors in the
noise quality standard and advised that
further inquiry or anything involving a
sound environmental process which is not
sanctioned in their office be addressed
directly to EMB.
Respondent filed a complaint for the
abatement of nuisance with damages with
prayer for the issuance of a writ of
preliminary and permanent injunction
before the RTC. Petitioner moved for the
dismissal of the complaint claiming that it
was Makati City Government that had
jurisdiction over the complaint pursuant to
R.A. 7160. RTC denied the petitioner’s
motion to dismiss from the averments of
the complaint, there was an urgency of
abating the noise and air pollution
generated by the blowers of petitioner’s air
conditioning system such that respondent
prayed for injunctive relief. Petitioner
repeatedly asserts that the City of Makati
has primary jurisdiction of the complaint.
The court denied the motion for
reconsideration filed by the petitioner and
the latter sought relief from the CA which
was also denied. 
Issue:
WON the noise is a nuisance to be
resolved by the courts
Ruling:
YES. The noise is a nuisance to be
resolved by the courts in due course of
proceedings. Noise become actionable
only when it passes the limits of
reasonable adjustment to the conditions of
the locality and the needs of their maker to
the needs of the listener. The determining
factor is not the intensity or volume, it is the
noise that is of such character as to
produce actual physical discomfort and
annoyance to a person of ordinary
sensibilities rendering adjacent property
less comfortable and valuable.
The petition is one for the judicial
abatement of private nuisance. In the case
of Tatel v. Municipality of Virac, the Court
ruled that a simple suit for abatement of a
nuisance is within the exclusive jurisdiction
of the Court of First Instance, nor RTC.
LGUs may conduct inspections, without
doing damage, after due notice to the
owners of buildings to ascertain
compliance with the noise standards under
the law and order them to comply. If they
fail to do so, may suspend or cancel any
building permits or clearance certificates
issued by it after due hearing as required
by P.D. No. 984. However, the LGUs have
no power to declare a thing as a nuisance
nor can they effect the extrajudicial
abatement of that nuisance. Those cases
must be resolved by the courts in the
ordinary course of law.
MMDA v. Concerned Residents of
Manila Bay
[G.R. No. 171947]  18 December 2008
Facts:
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.
complaint alleged that the water quality of
the Manila Bay had fallen way below the
allowable standards set by law, specifically
Presidential Decree No. (PD) 1152
RTC Ordered Petitioners to Clean Up and
Rehabilitate Manila Bay.
Petitioners, before the CA, were one in
arguing in the main 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. Upon viewing Section
17 and Section 20 of PD 1152 read with
Section 62g and H defining cleanup
operations and accidental spills
The CA Sustained the RTC hence this
petition
Issues:
1. Whether PD 1152 contemplates
cleaning in general or specific
situations only
Ruling/Doctrine:
The SC rule in favor of the Residents of
Manila Bay
The pertinent provision reads:
Section 17. Upgrading of Water
Quality. Where the quality of water
has deteriorated to a degree where
its state will adversely affect its
best usage, the government
agencies concerned shall take
such measures as may be
necessary to upgrade the quality of
such water to meet the prescribed
water quality standards.
Section 20. Clean-up Operations.
It shall be the responsibility of the
polluter to contain, remove and
clean-up water pollution incidents
at his own expense. In case of his
failure to do so, the government
agencies concerned shall
undertake containment, removal
and clean-up operations and
expenses incurred in said
operations shall be charged
against the persons and/or entities
responsible for such pollution.
g. Clean-up Operations [refer] to
activities conducted in removing
the pollutants discharged or spilled
in water to restore it to pre-spill
condition.
The SC agreed with the Respondents that
Sec. 17 does not in any way state that the
government agencies concerned ought to
confine themselves to the containment,
removal, and cleaning operations when a
specific pollution incident occurs. On the
contrary, Sec. 17 requires them to act even
in the absence of a specific pollution
incident, as long as water quality "has
deteriorated to a degree where its state will
adversely affect its best usage."
a perusal of Sec. 20 of the Environment
Code, as couched, indicates that it is
properly applicable to a specific situation in
which the pollution is caused by polluters
who fail to clean up the mess they left
behind. In such instance, the concerned
government agencies shall undertake the
cleanup work for the polluters' account.
Petitioners' assertion, that they have to
perform cleanup operations in the Manila
Bay only when there is a water pollution
incident and the erring polluters do not
undertake the containment, removal, and
cleanup operations, is quite off mark.