POLLUTION ADJUDICATION BOARD (PAB)

The Pollution Adjudication Board (PAB) is a quasi-judicial body created under Section 19 of Executive
Order (E.O.) 192 for the adjudication of pollution cases. The Pollution Adjudication Board is created
under the Office of the Secretary. The Board shall be composed of the Secretary as the Chairman,
Two (2) Undersecretaries as may be designated by the Secretary, the Director of the Environmental
Management Bureau (EMB), the Three (3) others to be designated by the Secretary as members.

The Board shall assume the powers and functions of the Commission/ Commissioners of the National
Pollution Control Commission (NPCC) with respect to the adjudication of pollution cases under Republic
Act 3931 and Presidental Decree 984. The PAB is organizationally under the supervision of the Office of
the Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (the DENR) with Secretariat
support provided by the Environmental Management Bureau (EMB). Power and function maybe
delegated to the DENR Regional Officers in accordance with rules and regulations of the Board

(EO 192 (1987) -

THE REORGANIZATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, ENERGY AND NATURAL
RESOURCES, RENAMING IT AS THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES,
AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

WHEREAS:

• Executive Order No. 131, dated January 30, 1987, was suspended;

• a policy having been reached on energy, the reorganization of the Department of Natural
Resources can now be e ected;

• the environment will be a ected by the use, development, management, renewal and
conservation of the country’s natural resources;

• there is a need to protect and enhance the quality of the country’s environment

SECTION 2. Reorganization. The Department of Environment, Energy and Natural Resources is hereby
reorganized structurally and functionally and renamed as the Department of Environment and Natural
Resources, hereinafter referred to as Department, in accordance with the provisions of this Executive
Order.

SECTION 4. Mandate. The Department shall be the primary government agency responsible for the
conservation, management, development and proper use of the country’s environment and natural
resources, speci cally forest and grazing lands, mineral resources, including those in reservation and
watershed areas, and lands of the public domain, as well as the licensing and regulation of all natural
resources as may be provided for by law in order to ensure equitable sharing of the bene ts derived
therefrom for the welfare of the present and future generations of Filipinos.

SECTION 5. Powers and Functions. To accomplish its mandate, the Department shall have the following
powers and functions:

(a) Advise the President on the enactment of laws relative to the development, use, regulation, and
conservation of the country’s natural resources and the control of pollution;

(b) Formulate, implement, and supervise the government’s policies, plans and programs pertaining to the
management, conservation, development, use and replenishment of the country’s natural resources;

(c) Promulgate rules and regulations in accordance with law governing the exploration, development,
conservation, extraction, disposition, use and such other commercial activities tending to cause the
depletion and degradation of our natural resources;

(d) Exercise supervision and control over forest lands, alienable and disposable lands, and mineral
resources and in the process of exercising such control the Department shall impose appropriate
fi
ff
ff
fi
 payments, fees, charges, rentals and any such form of levy and collect such revenues for the
exploration, development, utilization or gathering of such resources;

(e) Undertake exploration, assessment, classi cation and inventory of the country’s natural resources
using ground surveys, remote sensing and complementary technologies;

(f) Promote proper and mutual consultation with the private sector involving natural resources
development, use and conservation;

(g) Undertake geological surveys of the whole country including its territorial waters

SECTION 19. Pollution Adjudication Board. There is hereby created a Pollution Adjudication Board
under the O ce of the Secretary. The Board shall be composed of the Secretary as Chairman, two (2)
Undersecretaries as may be designated by the Secretary, the Director of Environmental Management,
and three (3) others to be designated by the Secretary as members. The Board shall assume the powers
and functions of the Commission/Commissioners of the National Pollution Control Commission with
respect to the adjudication of pollution cases under Republic Act 3931 and Presidential Decree 984,
particularly with respect to Section 6 letters e, f, g, j, k, and p of P.D. 984. The Environmental
Management Bureau shall serve as the Secretariat of the Board. These powers and functions may be
delegated to the regional o cers of the Department in accordance with rules and regulations to be
promulgated by the Board.

SECTION 21. Functions of Environment and Natural Resources Regional O ce.

(a) Implement laws, policies, plans, programs, projects, rules and regulations of the Department to
promote the sustainability and productivity of natural resources, social equity in natural resource
utilization and environmental protection.

(b) Provide e cient and e ective delivery of services to the people;

(c) Coordinate with regional o ces of other departments, o ces, agencies in the region and local
government units in the enforcement of natural resource conservation laws and regulations, and in the
formulation/implementation of natural resources programs and projects;

(e) Recommend and, upon approval, implement programs and projects on forestry, minerals, and land
management and disposition;

(f) Conduct comprehensive inventory of natural resources in the region and formulate regional short and
long-term development plans for the conservation, utilization and replacement of natural resources;

(g) Evolve respective regional budget in conformity with the priorities established by the Regional
Development Councils;

(h) Supervise the processing of natural resources products, grade and inspect minerals, lumber and
other wood processed products, and monitor the movement of these products;

(i) Conduct eld researches for appropriate technologies recommended for various projects;

(j) Perform other functions as may be assigned by the Secretary and/or provided by law.

The natural resources provincial and community o ces shall absorb, respectively, the functions of the
district o ces of the bureaus, which are hereby abolished in accordance with Section 24 (b) hereof. The
provincial and community natural resource o ce shall be headed by a provincial natural resource o cer
and community natural resource o cer, respectively.

CASE: PAB vs CA & Solar Textile Manufacturing Corp.

FACTS: On September 22, 1988, the Pollution Adjudication Board (PAB) issued an ex parte Order
directing Solar Textile Finishing Corporation to immediately cease and desist from utilizing its wastewater
pollution source installations. It was alleged that they were discharging untreated wastewater directly
into a canal leading to the Tullahan-Tinejeros River. Two inspections from November 1986 and
September 1988 of Solar’s facilities showed that their Wastewater Treatment Plant was non-operational
and that their e uents showed the presence of pollutants on an excessive level of what was permissible
under PD 984 or the “Pollution Control Law”. It was concluded that they were in violation of Section 8 of
the said law which prohibits, among others, the drainage into any of the water, air and/or land resources
of the Philippines any matter that shall cause pollution.

ffi
fi
ffi
ffi
ffl
ff
ffi
ffi
ffi
ffi
fi
ffi
ffi
ffi
ffi
 Solar then led a petition for preliminary injunction. Upon elevation of the case to the Court of Appeals,
the Court declared the Writ of Execution against Solar null and void.

The Board claimed that under PD 984, Section 7(a), it has legal authority to issue ex parte orders to
suspend the operations of an establishment when there is prima facie evidence that such establishment
is discharging e uents or wastewater and the pollution level of which exceeds the maximum permissible
standards set by them. They further contended that the reports before it concerning the e uent
discharges of Solar into the river provided prima facie evidence of violation by Solar.

Solar, on the other hand, contended that under the Board’s own rules and regulations, an ex parte order
may issue only if the e uents discharged pose an “immediate threat to life, public health, safety or
welfare, or to animal and plant life.” According to them, the inspection reports before the Board made no
nding that Solar’s wastewater discharged posed such a threat.

ISSUE: Whether or not the Board may issue an immediate cease and desist ex parte order against Solar

RULING: Yes. Section 7(a) of PD 984 authorized petitioner Board to issue ex parte cease and desist
orders whenever:

(a) the wastes discharged by an establishment pose an “immediate threat to life, public health, safety or
welfare, or to animal or plant life,” or

(b) such discharges or wastes exceed “the allowable standards set by them.”

It is not always essential that the Board prove that an “immediate threat to life, public health, safety or
welfare, or to animal or plant life” exists before an ex parte cease and desist order may be issued. It is
enough if the Board nds that the wastes discharged do exceed “the allowable standards set by them.”
The determination of “immediate threat to life, public health, safety or welfare, or to animal or plant life”
is only necessary when the e uents or discharges have not yet been the subject matter of allowable
standards set by the Commission.

The two inspections conducted in 1986 and 1988 concluded that there was at least prima facie evidence
that the e uents from Solar’s plant exceeded the maximum allowable levels of physical and chemical
substances. Furthermore, the previous owner of the plant facility Fine Touch Finishing Corporation had
been issued a Notice of Violation on 1985 directing it to cease and refrain from carrying out dyeing
operations until the water treatment plant was completed and operational. Notably, the Board refrained
from issuing the ex parte order until re-inspections were conducted on 1988.

The law and its Implementing Rules and Regulations further provide that should the establishment
a ected by an ex parte cease and desist order contest the correctness of the prima facie ndings of the
Board, the Board must hold a public hearing where such establishment would have an opportunity to
controvert the basis of such ex parte order. Solar should have availed of this remedy instead of going to
court to seek nulli cation of the Board’s Order and Writ of Execution.

CASE: PRINCIPE VS. FACT FINDING AND INTELLIGENCE

BUREAU
Facts:

Philjas Corporation, whose primary purposes, among others are: to own, develop, subdivide, market and
provide low-cost housing for the poor, was registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(SEC).

City Mayor Garcia, endorsed to the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) the proposed
CHS.

fi
ff
ffl
fi
ffl
fi
fi
ffl
ffl
fi
ffl
On the favorable recommendation of Mayor Garcia, respondent TAN, issued the Preliminary Approval
and Locational Clearance (PALC) for the development of CHS.

Three (3) days thereafter... respondent JASARENO, allowed/granted the leveling/earth-moving

operations of the development project of the area... subject to certain conditions.

Eventually... respondent POLLISCO issued Small Scale Mining Permit (SSMP) to Philjas to extract and
remove 10,000 cu. meters of lling materials from the area where the CHS is located.

Respondent MAGNO, informed:

Philjas that CHS is within the EIS System and as such must secure ECC from the DENR.  Philjas was
accordingly informed of the matter such that it applied for the issuance of ECC from the DENR Philjas
application for ECC was approved by respondent PRINCIPE, then Regional Executive Director, DENR
"Records further disclosed that the respondent BALICAS monitored the implementation of the CHS
Project Development to check compliance with the terms and conditions in the ECC.  Again, she
conducted another monitoring on the project for the same purpose.  In both instances, she noted that
the project was still in the construction stage hence, compliance with the stipulated conditions could not
be fully assessed, and therefore, a follow-up monitoring inspection was the last one conducted by the
DENR. On 1999, the Ombudsman rendered a decision nding petitioner Principe administratively liable
for gross neglect of duty and imposing upon him the penalty of dismissal from o ce.

Issues:

whether the Ombudsman may dismiss petitioner from the service on an administrative charge for gross
neglect of duty, initiated, investigated, and decided by the Ombudsman himself without substantial
evidence to support his nding of gross neglect of duty... because the duty to monitor and inspect the
project was not vested in petitioner.

Ruling:

The Ombudsman without taking into consideration the lawfully mandated duties and functions attached
to petitioner's position, immediately concluded that as the signing and approving authority of the ECC
issued to PHILJAS, it was incumbent upon the petitioner to conduct actual... monitoring and enforce
strict compliance with the terms and conditions of the ECC.

The applicable administrative orders provide that the function of monitoring environmental programs,
projects and activities in the region is lodged with the Regional Technical Director, not with the Regional
Executive Director, the position occupied by petitioner.  Under DAO 38-1990, the following were the
functions attached to the o ce of petitioner, to wit:

Clearly, there is no mention of the responsibility of a regional executive director to monitor projects.

More apropos is the description of the functions of a regional technical director, to wit: Supervises,
coordinates and monitors the implementation of environmental programs, projects and activities in the
region."

Furthermore,... monitoring... is the function of the PENR and CENR o ces as mandated in DAO No. 37,
Series of 1996.

Hence, how could petitioner be guilty of neglecting a duty, which is not even his to begin with? 
Administrative liability could not be based on the fact that petitioner was the person who signed and
approved the ECC, without proof of actual act or omission constituting... neglect of duty.

In the absence of substantial evidence of gross neglect of petitioner, administrative liability could not be
based on the principle of command responsibility.

The negligence of petitioner's subordinates is not tantamount to his own negligence.

WHEREFORE, the Court REVERSES the decision of the Court of Appeals.

fi
ffi
fi
fi
ffi
ffi
 LAGUNA LAKE AUTHORITY RA 4580 -
Is one of the attached agencies of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), is
responsible for the preservation, development, and sustainability of Laguna de Bay (Laguna Lake) and its
21 major tributary rivers.

The Laguna Lake Development Authority was created by virtue of Republic Act No. 4850 (as amended
by Presidential Decree No. 813)

Since 1993, the LLDA has been attached to the DENR pursuant to Executive Order No. 149 for
administrative supervision and policy alignment.

Programs

• Environmental User's Fee

• Shoreland Management

• Implementation of the Zoning and Management Plan (ZOMAP)

• River Rehabilitation

Environmental Management Program

LLDA puts into action systems and programs such as Environmental User Fee System (EUFS), Public
Disclosure Program (PDP), the Appropriation and Utilization of Surface Waters (Surface Waters) for the
management of the lake waters and tributaries that ow into the Lake, to ensure their proper use and
maintenance for the sustainability of the ecosystem.

The Environmental User Fee System

The agency implemented policies to curb the possibility of stressing the lake’s assimilative capacity. The
most recent policy was the Environmental User Fee System (EUFS). The EUFS was implemented by
virtue of LLDA Board Resolution 22 in 1996. The objective of the policy was to “…(reduce) the pollution
loading in to the Laguna de Bay by enjoining all discharges of liquid wastes to internalize the cost of
environmental degradation…”. Formally, the said board resolution aptly de ned the EUFS as a “market–
based” policy instrument aimed at reducing the pollution loading in the lake. As such, companies found
to have unusually high concentration of pollutants in their emissions, need to pay nes or lake “user–
fees”.

EXECUTIVE ORDER No. 927, s. 1983 BY PRES FERDINAND

MARCOS -
FURTHER DEFINING CERTAIN FUNCTIONS AND POWERS OF THE LAGUNA LAKE

DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

WHEREAS:

• the land and the waters of the Laguna Lake Region are limited natural resources requiring judicious
management for their optimal utilization to insure renewability and to preserve the ecological balance;

• the increasing pressure of urban growth and development dictate the need for a more rational
allocation of the limited land and lake resources of the region responsive to the demands of the various
bene cial users thereof;

• the competing options for the use of such resources and con icting jurisdictions over such uses are
creating undue constraints on the institutional capabilities of LLDA in the light of the limited powers
vested in it by its charter;

• for LLDA to e ectively perform its role, a thorough corporate reorganization aimed at: regrouping its
various units for better administrative control and direction; expansion of its eld o ces; strengthening
of its linkages with other government and private institutions; broadening of its nancial base and
fi
ff
fl
fl
fi
fi
ffi
fi
fi
 revenue generations; and, enlarging its prerogatives of monitoring, licensing and enforcement, would
be necessary.

SECTION 1. Reclassi cation. The Authority is hereby classi ed among the industrial/area development
group (Class A) of corporations under Letter of Implementation No. 97 and for this purpose the Authority
is hereby granted authority to modify its organization, providing for the creation of the position of deputy
general manager, upgrading the existing divisions into departments to be headed by directors and
regrouping of these departments into o ces coordinated by assistant general managers and creating
other o ces its Board may deem necessary and appropriate to achieve its objectives and aims.

SECTION 2. Water Rights Over Laguna de Bay and Other Bodies of Water within the Lake Region. To
e ectively regulate and monitor activities in the Laguna de Bay region, the Authority shall have exclusive
jurisdiction to issue permit for the use of all surface water for any projects or activities in or a ecting the
said region including navigation, construction, and operation of shpens, sh enclosures, sh corrals
and the like.

SECTION 3. Collection of Fees. The Authority is hereby empowered to collect fees for the use of the lake
waters and its tributaries for all bene cial purposes including but not limited to sheries, recreation,
municipal, industrial, agricultural, navigation, irrigation, and waste disposal purpose; Provided, that the
rates of the fees to be collected, and the sharing with other government agencies and political
subdivisions, if necessary, shall be subject to the approval of the President of the Philippines upon
recommendation of the Authority’s Board, except shpen fee, which will be shared in the following
manner: 20 percent of the fee shall go the lakeshore local governments, 5 percent shall go to the Project
Development Fund which shall be administered by a Council and the remaining 75 percent shall
constitute the share of LLDA. However, after the implementation within the three-years period of the
Laguna Lake Fishery Zoning and Management Plan, the sharing will be modi ed as follows: 35 percent
of the shpen fee goes to the lakeshore local governments, 5 percent goes to the Project Development
Fund and the remaining 60 percent shall be retained by LLDA; Provided, however, that the share of LLDA
shall form part of its corporate funds and shall not be remitted to the National Treasury as an exception
to the provisions of Presidential Decree No. 1234.

SECTION 4. Additional Powers and Functions. The Authority shall have the following powers and
functions:

a) Issue standards, rules and regulations to govern the approval of plans and speci cations for sewage
works and industrial waste disposal system and the issuance of permits in accordance with the
provisions of this Executive Order; inspect the construction and maintenance of sewage works and
industrial waste disposal systems for compliance to plans.

b) Adopt, prescribe, and promulgate rules and regulations governing the Procedures of the Authority
with respect to hearings, plans, speci cations, designs, and other data for sewage works and industrial
waste disposal system, the ling of reports, the issuance of permits, and other rules and regulations for
the proper implementation and enforcement of this Executive Order.

c) Issue orders or decisions to compel compliance with the provisions of this Executive Order and its
implementing rules and regulations only after proper notice and hearing.

d) Make, alter or modify orders requiring the discontinuance of population specifying the conditions and
the time within which such discontinuance must be accomplished.

e) Issue, renew, or deny permits, under such conditions as it may determine to be reasonable, for the
prevention and abatement of pollution, for the discharge of sewage, industrial waste, or for the
installation or operation of sewage works and industrial disposal system or parts

f) After due notice and hearing, the Authority may also revoke, suspend or modify any permit issued
under this Order whenever the same is necessary to prevent or abate pollution.

g) Deputize in writing or request assistance of appropriate government agencies or instrumentalities for

the purpose of enforcing this Executive Order and its implementing rules and regulations and the orders
and decisions of the Authority.

ff
fi
ffi
fi
fi
fi
fi
ffi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
ff
 h) Authorize its representative to enter at all reasonable times any property of the public dominion and
private property devoted to industrial, manufacturing, processing or commercial use without doing
damage, for the purpose of inspecting and investigating conditions relating to pollution or possible or
imminent pollution.

i) Exercise such powers and perform such other functions as may be necessary to carry out its duties
and responsibilities under this Executive Order.

Laguna Lake Development Authority vs CA

GR No. 120865-71; Dec. 7 1995

FACTS:

The Laguna Lake Development Authority (LLDA) was created through Republic Act No. 4850. It was
granted, inter alia, exclusive jurisdiction to issue permits for the use of all surface water for any project or
activity in or a ecting the said region including navigation, construction, and operation of shpens, sh
enclosures, sh corrals and the like.

Then came RA 7160, the Local Government Code of 1991. The municipalities in the Laguna Lake region
interpreted its provisions to mean that the newly passed law gave municipal governments the exclusive
jurisdiction to issue shing privileges within their municipal waters.

ISSUE:

Who should exercise jurisdiction over the Laguna Lake and its environs insofar as the issuance of
permits for shing privileges is concerned, the LLDA or the towns and municipalities comprising the
region?

HELD:

LLDA has jurisdiction over such matters because the charter of the LLDA prevails over the Local
Government Code of 1991. The said charter constitutes a special law, while the latter is a general law. 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. The special law is to be taken as an exception to the
general law in the absence of special circumstances forcing a contrary conclusion.

In addition, the charter of the LLDA embodies a valid exercise of police power for the purpose of
protecting and developing the Laguna Lake region, as opposed to the Local Government Code, which
grants powers to municipalities to issue shing permits for revenue purposes.

Thus it has to be concluded that the charter of the LLDA should prevail over the Local Government Code
of 1991 on matters a ecting Laguna de Bay.

REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7611, 1992 - (An Act Adopting the Strategic Plan for Palawan)
AN ACT ADOPTING THE STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN FOR PALAWAN, CREATING THE
ADMINISTRATIVE MACHINERY FOR ITS IMPLEMENTATION, CONVERTING THE PALAWAN
INTEGRATED AREA DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICE TO ITS SUPPORT STAFF, PROVIDING FUNDS
THEREFOR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

CONSIST OF 6 CHAPTERS:
I - GENERAL PROVISIONS
II - STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN: ADOPTION, PHILOSOPHY AND LEGAL EFFECTS

III - MANAGEMENT OF RESOURCES OUTSIDE OF THE ECOLOGICALLY CRITICAL AREAS

IV - SUPPORT MECHANISMS

V - ADMINISTRATIVE MACHINERY FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SEP

VI - APPROPRIATIONS AND FINAL PROVISIONS

SEC. 2. Declaration of Policy. – It is hereby declared the policy of the State to protect, develop and
conserve its natural resources. Toward this end, it shall assist and support the implementation of plans,
fi
fi
ff
fi
ff
fi
fi
fi
programs, and projects formulated to preserve and enhance the environment, and at the same time
pursue the socio-economic development goals of the country.

It shall support and promote the sustainable development goals for the provinces through proper
conservation, utilization, and development of natural resources to provide optimum yields on a
continuing basis. With speci c reference to forest resources, the State shall pursue and implement forest
conservation and protection through the imposition of a total commercial logging ban as hereinafter
provided.

It shall also adopt the necessary measures leading to the creation of an institutional machinery including,
among others, scal and nancial programs to ensure the e ective and e cient implementation of
environmental plans, programs and projects.

It shall also promote and encourage the involvement of all sectors of society and maximize people
participation in natural resource management, conservation and protection.

ENVIRONMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT (EIA)

• is the assessment of the environmental consequences of a plan, policy, program, or actual projects
prior to the decision to move forward with the proposed action. In this context, the term
"environmental impact assessment" (EIA) is usually used when applied to actual projects by
individuals or companies and the term "strategic environmental assessment" (SEA) applies to policies,
plans and programmes most often proposed by organs of state.It is a tool of environmental
management forming a part of project approval and decision-making.[3] Environmental assessments
may be governed by rules of administrative procedure regarding public participation and
documentation of decision making, and may be subject to judicial review.

• The purpose of the assessment is to ensure that decision makers consider the environmental impacts
when deciding whether or not to proceed with a project. The International Association for Impact
Assessment (IAIA) de nes an environmental impact assessment as "the process of identifying,
predicting, evaluating and mitigating the biophysical, social, and other relevant e ects of development
proposals prior to major decisions being taken and commitments made".[4] EIAs are unique in that they
do not require adherence to a predetermined environmental outcome, but rather they require decision
makers to account for environmental values in their decisions and to justify those decisions in light of
detailed environmental studies and public comments on the potential environmental impacts.

PRESIDENTIAL DECREE 1568 -

ESTABLISHING AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT SYSTEM INCLUDING OTHER

ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT-RELATED MEASURES AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

WHEREAS:

• the pursuit of a comprehensive and integrated environmental protection program necessitates the
establishment and institutionalization of a system whereby the exigencies of socio-economic
undertakings can be reconciled with the requirements of environmental quality;

• the regulatory requirements of the Environmental Impact Statement and Assessment instituted in
pursuit of this national environmental protection program have to work into their full regulatory and
procedural details in a manner consistent with the goals of the program.

Section 1. Policy. - It is a declared the policy of the State to attain and maintain a rational and orderly
balance between socio-economic growth and environmental protection.

fi
fi
fi
fi
ff
ffi
ff
 Section 2. Environmental Impact Statement System. - There is an established 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, rms and
entities for every proposed project and undertaking which signi cantly a ect the quality of the
environment.

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.

Section 6. Secretariat. - 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 statement.

Section 8. Rules and Regulations. - The National Environmental Protection Council shall issue the
necessary rules and regulations to implement this Decree. For this purpose, the National Pollution
Control Commission may be availed of as one of its implementing arms, consistent with the powers and
responsibilities of the National Pollution Control Commission as provided in P.D. No. 984.

PROCLAMATION NO. 2146 [DECEMBER 14, 1981]

PROCLAIMS CERTAIN AREAS AND TYPES OF PROJECTS AS ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AND
WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

SYSTEM ESTABLISHED UNDER PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 1586.

WHEREAS:

• it is the national policy to attain and maintain a rational and orderly balance between socio-
economic growth and environmental conservation and protection;

there is an urgent need to bring about an intensive, integrated program of environmental
protection through a requirement of environmental impact assessments and statements;

• the environmental impact statement system established under Presidential Decree No. 1586
calls for the proper management of environmentally critical area,

the pursuit of a comprehensive and integrated environmental protection program necessitates
the establishment and institutionalization of a system whereby the exigencies of socio-
economic undertakings can be reconciled with the requirements of environmental protection
and conservation;

• the national leadership mandates the establishment of such a system to regulate and minimize
the environmental impacts of projects and undertakings which may signi cantly a ect the
quality of the environment in Presidential Decree No. 1586, and

• in the e ective implementation of such a system, there arises the need to identify and declare
certain projects determined to be environmentally critical.

Environmentally Critical Projects:

I. Heavy Industries

a.Non-ferrous metal industries

b. Iron and steel mills

c.Petroleum and petro-chemical industries including oil and gas d. Smelting plants

II. Resource Extractive Industries

a.Major mining and quarrying projects

b. Forestry projects

1. Logging

ff
fi
fi
ff
ff
fi
 2. Major wood processing projects

3. Introduction of fauna (exotic-animals) in public/private forests 4. Forest occupancy

5.Extraction of mangrove products

6. Grazing

c. Fishery Projects

1. Dikes for shpond development projects

III. Infrastructure Projects

a. Major dams

b. Major power plants (fossil-fueled, nuclear fueled, hydroelectric or geothermal)

c. Major reclamation projects

d. 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 ( ora and fauna);

4. Areas of unique historic, archaeological , or scienti c 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,
oods, typhoons, volcanic activity, etc.

7. Areas with critical slopes;

8. Areas classi ed 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 shery activities.

11. Mangrove areas characterized by one or any combination or the following:

a. with primary pristine and dense young growth;

b. adjoining mouth of major river systems;

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

d. which act as natural bu ers against shore erosion, strong winds and storm
oods;

e. on which people are dependent for their livelihood.

12. Coral reef characterized by one or any combination of the following:

a. with 50% and above live coralline cover;

b. Spawning and nursery grounds for sh;

c. Which act as natural breakwater of coastlines.

This Proclamation shall take e ect immediately.

Republic v. City of Davao

G.R. No. 148622. September 12, 2002.

FACTS:

• This is a petition for review on certiorari assailing the decision dated May 28, 2001 of the Regional Trial
Court of Davao City, Branch 33, which granted the writ of mandamus and injunction in favor of
respondent, the City of Davao, and against petitioner, the Republic, represented by the (DENR).

• The trial court also directed petitioner to issue a Certi cate of Non-Coverage in favor of respondent

fl
fl
fi
fi
ff
fl
ff
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
 Antecedent facts:

• On August 11, 2000, respondent led an application for a Certi cate of Non-Coverage (CNC) for its
proposed project, the Davao City Artica Sports Dome, with the Environmental Management Bureau an
environmentally critical area (ECA).

• The EMB Region XI denied the application after nding that the proposed project was within an
environmentally critical area.

2, Presidential Decree No. 1586, otherwise known as the Environmental Impact Statement System, in
relation to Section 4 of Presidential Decree No. 1151, also known as the Philippine Environment Policy,
the City of Davao must undergo the environmental impact assessment (EIA) process to secure an
Environmental Compliance Certi cate (ECC), before it can proceed with the construction of its project.

• Believing that it was entitled to a Certi cate of Non-Coverage, respondent led a petition for
mandamus and injunction with the Regional Trial Court of Davao,

• It alleged that its proposed project was neither an environmentally critical project nor within an
environmentally critical area; thus it was outside the scope of the EIS system and claimed that it was the
ministerial duty of the DENR, through the EMB-Region XI, to issue a CNC in favor of respondent upon
submission of the required documents.

• Then the Regional Trial Court rendered judgment in favor of respondent.

• The trial court ratiocinated that there is nothing in PD 1586, in relation to PD 1151 and Letter of
Instruction No. 1179 (prescribing guidelines for compliance with the EIA system), which requires local
government units (LGUs) to comply with the EIS law.

• Only agencies and instrumentalities of the national government, including government-owned or

controlled corporations, as well as private corporations, rms, and entities are mandated to go through
the EIA process for their proposed projects which have a signi cant e ect on the quality of the
environment.

• RTC stated that A local government unit, not being an agency of the National Government, is deemed
excluded under the principle of expressio unius est exclusio alterius which means the express mention
of one or more things of a particular class may be regarded as impliedly excluding others.

• The trial court also declared, that based on the certi cations of the DENR-Community Environment and
Natural Resources O ce (CENRO)-West, and the data gathered from the Philippine Institute of
Volcanology and Seismology (PHIVOLCS)

• that the site for the Artica Sports Dome was not within an environmentally critical area. Neither was the
project an environmentally critical one. It, therefore, becomes mandatory for the DENR, through the EMB
Region XI, to approve respondent's application for CNC after it has satis ed all the requirements for its
issuance.

• Accordingly, petitioner can be compelled by a writ of mandamus to issue the CNC, if it refuses to do
so.

• Petitioner led a motion for reconsideration, however, the same was denied. Hence, this instant petition
for review.

ISSUE:

whether or not an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process is required to secure an

Environmental Compliance Certi cate (ECC)

HELD: The Court held NO.

• The Court rst stated that under Section 15 of Republic Act 7160, otherwise known as the Local
Government Code, which de nes a local government unit as a body politic and corporate endowed with
powers to be exercised by it in conformity with law.

• As such, it performs dual functions, governmental and proprietary.

• Governmental functions are those that concern the health, safety and the

advancement of the public good or welfare as a ecting the public generally.

• Proprietary functions are those that seek to obtain special corporate bene ts or earn
pecuniary pro t and intended for private advantage and bene t.

fi
fi
fi
ffi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
ff
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
ff
fi
fi
 With the supervening change of administration, respondent, in lieu of a comment, led a manifestation
expressing its agreement with petitioner that, indeed, it needs to secure an ECC for its proposed project.

The instant petition was rendered moot and academic.

However, the Court said that for the guidance of the implementers of the EIS law and pursuant to the
symbolic function to educate the bench and bar the Court was inclined to address the issue raised in
this petition.

Whether or not the LGU are excluded from the coverage of PD 1586, one which

HOWEVER:

When exercising governmental powers and performing governmental duties, an LGU is an agency of the
national government. And when engaged in corporate activities, it acts as an agent of the community in
the administration of local a airs.

Furthermore, the Court said what is found in Section 16 of the Local Government Code is the duty of the
LGUs to promote the people's right to a balanced ecology.

And pursuant to this, an LGU, like the City of Davao, can not 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 very same objective of PD 1586.

A rule of statutory construction that every part of a statute must be interpreted with reference to the
context,

The trial court, in declaring local government units as exempt from the coverage of the EIS law, failed to
relate Section 2 of PD 1586

And under Section 4 of clearly states that "no person, partnership or corporation shall undertake or
operate any such declared environmentally critical project or area without rst securing an Environmental
Compliance Certi cate issued by the President or his duly authorized representative."

And in the Civil Code de nes a person as either natural or juridical. The state and its political
subdivisions, i.e., the local government units are juridical persons. Undoubtedly therefore, local
government units are not excluded from the coverage of

1586 PD 1586

• These foregoing arguments presuppose that a project, for which an Environmental Compliance
Certi cate is necessary, is environmentally critical or within an environmentally critical area.

Lastly, the Court said it is very clear in Section 1 of that said law intends to implement the policy of the
state to achieve a balance between socio-economic development and environmental protection, which
are the twin goals of sustainable development.


The local government units, as part of the machinery of the government, cannot therefore be deemed as
outside the scope of the EIS system.

PD 1586

• In the case at bar, respondent has su ciently shown that the Artica Sports Dome will not have a
signi cant negative environmental impact because it is not an environmentally critical project and it is
not located in an environmentally critical area.

• It is unquestionable that factual ndings of the trial court, when it is fully

supported by the evidence on record, are binding upon this Court and will not be

disturbed on appeal.

• The Artica Sports Dome in Langub does not come close to any of the projects or areas enumerated as
environmentally critical and within the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement System

fi
fi
fi
fi
ff
fi
ffi
fi
fi
Neither is it analogous to any of them.

• Therefore, that the said project is not classi ed as environmentally critical, or within an environmentally
critical area.

The instant petition was DENIED. The decision of the Regional Trial Court of Davao City granting the writ
of mandamus and directing the DENR to issue in favor of the City of Davao a Certi cate of Non-
Coverage, pursuant to PD No. 1586 and related laws, in connection with the construction of the Artica
Sports Dome, was AFFIRMED.

fi
fi


CASE:

G.R. No. 131442 July 10, 2003

Bangus Fry Fisherfolk VS Lanzanas

FACTS:

Regional Executive Director Antonio G. Principe ("RED Principe") of Region IV, Department of
Environment and Natural Resources ("DENR"), issued an Environmental Clearance Certi cate ("ECC") in
favor of respondent National Power Corporation ("NAPOCOR"). The ECC authorized NAPOCOR to
construct a temporary mooring facility in Minolo Cove, Sitio Minolo, Barangay San Isidro, Puerto Galera,
Oriental Mindoro. The Sangguniang Bayan of Puerto Galera has declared Minolo Cove, a mangrove area
and breeding ground for bangus fry, an eco-tourist zone.

The mooring facility would serve as the temporary docking site of NAPOCOR’s power barge, which, due
to turbulent waters at its former mooring site in Calapan, Oriental Mindoro, required relocation to a safer
site like Minolo Cove. The 14.4 megawatts power barge would provide the main source of power for the
entire province of Oriental Mindoro pending the construction of a land-based power plant in Calapan,
Oriental Mindoro. The ECC for the mooring facility was valid for two years counted from its date of
issuance or until 30 June 1999. Petitioners, claiming to be sherfolks from Minolo, San Isidro, Puerto
Galera, sought reconsideration of the ECC issuance. Petitioners led a complaint with the Regional Trial
Court of Manila, Branch 7, for the cancellation of the ECC and for the issuance of a writ of injunction to
stop the construction of the mooring facility.

Petitioners opposed the motion on the ground that there was no need to exhaust administrative
remedies. They argued that the issuance of the ECC was in patent violation of Presidential Decree No.
1605, 8 Sections 26 and 27 of Republic Act No. 7160, and the provisions of DENR Department
Administrative Order No. 96-37 ("DAO 96-37") on the documentation of ECC applications. Petitioners
also claimed that the implementation of the ECC was in patent violation of its terms. TC dismissed
complaint.

ISSUE:

Whether the trial court erred in dismissing petitioners' complaint for lack of cause action and lack of
jurisdiction.

HELD:

Jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case is conferred by law. Such jurisdiction is determined by the
allegations in the complaint, irrespective of whether the plainti is

entitled to all or some of the reliefs sought. A perusal of the allegations in the complaint shows that
petitioners' principal cause of action is the alleged illegality of the issuance of the ECC. The violation of
laws on environmental protection and on local government participation in the implementation of
environmentally critical projects is an issue that involves the validity of NAPOCOR's ECC. If the ECC is
void, then as a necessary consequence, NAPOCOR or the provincial government of Oriental Mindoro
could not construct the mooring facility. The subsidiary issue of non-compliance with pertinent local
ordinances in the construction of the mooring facility becomes immaterial for purposes of granting
petitioners' main prayer, which is the annulment of the ECC. Thus, if the court has jurisdiction to
determine the validity of the issuance of the ECC, then it has jurisdiction to hear and decide petitioners'
complaint.

Clearly, the Manila RTC has jurisdiction to determine the validity of the issuance of the ECC, although it
could not issue an injunctive writ against the DENR or NAPOCOR. However, since the construction of
the mooring facility could not proceed without a valid ECC, the validity of the ECC remains the
determinative issue in resolving petitioners' complaint

fi
ff
fi
fi