Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila

TO: Supreme Court of the Philippines

FROM: Environmental Justice Coalition
DATE: November 17, 2022
RE: The Cutting of Trees in Nayong Filipino for an Amusement Park, Cutting
Mangroves in LPPCHEA, Reclamation to Build Malls, and Building a White
Sand Beach in Manila Bay

X------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------X

MEMORANDUM

COMES NOW, the Petitioner, Environmental Justice Coalition, represented by a human

rights law firm, on behalf of the fisherfolk and the local communities affected by the projects,
unto this Honorable Court, most respectfully submit this Memorandum and avers THAT:

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) and Pasay City
government have issued cutting permits that will allow the Department of Public Works and
Highways (DPWH) and the San Gabriel Infrastructure company to cut 500 Ipil Ipil Trees in
Nayong Filipino to build an amusement park and 500 mangrove trees in the Las Piñas –
Parañaque Critical Habitat and Ecotourism Area (LPPCHEA) for the building of port. A
white sand beach made of dolomite sand from Cebu is already being built within the same
area. In addition to that, there is also an ongoing reclamation project in Manila Bay in order
to build malls, condominiums, and casinos.

The fisherfolk and affected communities in the area, through Environmental Justice
Coalition, are against the cutting of ipil-ipil and mangrove trees, building artificial beach, and
the reclamation of Manila Bay to build malls, condominiums, and casinos as this will affect
not only their livelihood but also the ecological balance of our environment.

QUESTION PRESENTED

The Philippine Supreme Court has been a staunch defender of the country’s fragile
ecosystem issuing the trailblazing “Writ of Kalikasan,” creating specialized Environmental
Courts and Tribunals (ECT) and providing Temporary Environmental Protection Orders. In
its landmark ruling in the Oposa case, the Court defines the phrase “in accord with the rhyme
and rhythm of nature” (of Section 16) as the judicious disposition, utilization, management,
renewal, and conservation of the country’s forests, minerals, land, waters, fisheries, wildlife,
offshore areas, and other natural resources to the end that their exploitation, development, and
utilization be equitably accessible to the present as well as future generations.”1 Because of
the complexity of the physical world, the sound management of the environment has always
required a balancing act, the involvement and cooperation of people, and a whole wide range
of stakeholders. The question this Memorandum seeks to address is whether the Supreme
Court should issue a Writ of Kailkasan and an Environmental Protection Order based on the
discussions hereinunder.

DISCUSSION

A. Writ of Kalikasan as a Proper Remedy

The nature of a Writ of Kalikasan, as stated in Rule 7 of the Rules of Procedure for
Environmental Cases2, is that it is a remedy available whenever there is a violation or threat
to a person’s constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology, caused by an unlawful
act or omission, which results in environmental damage, thereby prejudicing the life, health,
or property of inhabitants of a certain community. In Paje v. Casino, the Court highlights the
importance of proving the existence of an actual or threatened violation of the constitutional
right to a balanced and healthful ecology, along with the perceived damage to be caused by
such violation, which must be of a certain magnitude so as to transcend political and
territorial boundaries.3

The situation confronting us involves three acts which, if left unhindered, will
certainly cause damage to the environment, and will affect the lives of many. First, the act of
cutting 500 Ipil Ipil trees in Nayong Filipino, as well as the cutting of 500 Mangrove trees in
Las Piñas, both urban areas, will result in detrimental effects to the environment and to the
lives of people. Second, to allow the building of a ‘white sand’ beach in the middle of Metro
Manila, through artificial means, and by extracting sand from Cebu, likewise harms people’s
health, and it disturbs marine biodiversity. Third, to allow further reclamation in Manila will
increase the area’s vulnerability to natural disasters.

In filing the petition for a Writ of Kalikasan, the proper requisites must be complied
with:
(1) There is an actual or threatened violation of the constitutional right to a
balanced and healthful ecology;
(2) The actual or threatened violation arises from an unlawful act or
omission of a public official, or private individual or entity; and

1
Oposa v. Factoran, G.R. No. 101083, 224 SCRA 792 (1993).
2
Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases, A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC, [April 13, 2010]
3
Paje v. Casiño, G.R. Nos. 207257, 207276, 207282 & 207366, [February 3, 2015], 752 PHIL 498-715
 (3) The actual or threatened violation involves or will lead to an
environmental damage of such magnitude as to prejudice the life,
health or property of inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces.4

The first requisite requires the existence of an actual or threatened violation of the
constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology. Such right emanates from Section
16, Article II of the 1987 Constitution, which states that “the State shall protect and advance
the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and
harmony of nature.” The three controversial acts—the cutting down of trees, building of a
dolomite beach, and reclamation, all bring about threats to the environment and human life.

There is no doubt that the cutting of trees is a discouraged activity. Although it is

regulated by the government, there should be a limit to approval of such cutting permits.
Much attention should be paid to the fact that the proposed project is to be carried on in
urban areas, namely Pasay City and Las Piñas City. There is already a lack of trees in these
zones, so to kill off more trees would contribute to the reduction of air quality. Trees are
helpful in creating a balanced environment because they absorb carbon dioxide and use it as
an essential element in the process of photosynthesis. To remove these carbon dioxide
vacuums would deprive people of a balanced ecological system.5

Further, the dolomite beach and reclamation projects disrupt ecosystems in Manila
Bay. In fact, in the case of the dolomite beach, there are detrimental effects not only to the
proposed beach site in the area of Manila Bay6, but as well as to the place where the sand will
be extracted from, which is Cebu. According to a study conducted by the University of the
Philippines Institute of Biology, Manila Bay serves as a vital migration site of an endangered
species called waterbirds. If an artificial beach is built in Manila Bay, by dumping dolomite,
then a significant part of water will be covered, thereby reducing the habitat of such
waterbirds. The same effect can also be said of the reclamation project.

The second requisite requires that such threat or violation arises from an unlawful act
or omission of a public official, private individual, or entity. There are several laws being
violated by the three projects. The law mandates that an Environmental Impact Assessment
(EIA) must be conducted before approving a project that will potentially be of detriment to
the environment. The EIA determines how the proposed project will affect the direct
ecosystem involved, as well as neighboring ecosystems. In this case, San Gabriel
Infrastructure Corporation did not follow the proper EIA procedure. In fact, no evidence was
adduced to prove that an actual EIA was indeed conducted. To conduct a project that will
bring about harmful effects to several communities should not be allowed to move forward if
it fails to comply with the legal requirements. The cutting of the mangrove trees violates
4
Abogado v. Department of Environment and Natural Resources, G.R. No. 246209, [September 3, 2019]
5
World Economic Forum, The Roots of Sustainability: 5 Reasons Why Cities Need Trees available at
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/06/cities-urban-trees-climate-change/
6
UP Institute of Biology, IB Statement Regarding Dolomite in Manila Bay available at
https://biology.science.upd.edu.ph/index.php/ib-statement-regarding-dolomite-in-manila-bay/ (November 17,
2022)
Section 94 of the Fisheries Code. The Code provides that the act of converting mangroves
into fishponds or any other purpose shall be unlawful.7 In Section 12 of the same Code, an
Environmental Impact Statement is required in the proposal of any project that will
potentially harm the quality of the environment.

The third requisite is that the actual or threatened violation involves or will lead to an
environmental damage of such magnitude as to prejudice the life, health or property of
inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces. Trees produce oxygen and aid in the
absorption of greenhouse gases. If these were to be cut down, there would be an increased
risk of global warming. Trees likewise help in the regulation of temperature. The loss of trees
can result in fluctuating temperatures which can alter the types of organisms that can survive
in that particular ecosystem.8 In the case of the dolomite beach and the reclamation, the lives
of several fisherfolk as well as their families are dependent on marine biodiversity.

B. Representation of the Ipil-Ipil Trees,

Mangrove Trees in LPPCHEA, and
Sea Creatures in Manila Bay

Generally, only natural or juridical persons or entities authorized by law may be

parties in a civil action.9 However, due to the nature of environmental cases, our jurisdiction
gave a more liberal approach as to who can file environmental cases. It gives locus standi to
citizens in an environmental case. The Supreme Court recently passed the Rules of Procedure
for Environmental Cases which govern the procedure in civil, criminal and special civil
actions involving enforcement or violations of environmental and other related laws. Included
in this Resolution is a provision which allows a citizen suit and permits any Filipino citizens
in representation of others,10 viz:

SECTION 5. Citizen suit - Any Filipino citizen in representation of others,

including minors or generations yet unborn, may file an action to enforce
rights or obligations under environmental laws.

The case of Resident Marine Mammals v. Reyes11 involved a petition filed on behalf
of dolphins and other resident marine mammals. The Court ruled in favor of these animals
and recognized their ability to be represented by human beings, for the assertion and
protection of their rights.
To further encourage protection of the environment, the rules enable litigants
enforcing environmental rights to file their cases as citizen suits. This liberalizes standing for
all cases filed enforcing environmental laws and collapses the traditional rule on personal and

7
The Philippine Fisheries Code of 1998, Republic Act No. 8550, [February 25, 1998]
8
Sciencing, The Effects of Cutting Down Trees on the Ecosystem available at
https://sciencing.com/how-do-trees-move-13652489.html (November 17, 2022).
9
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, rule 3, §1.
10
2010 Rules on Environmental Procedure, rule 2, §5.
11
Resident Marine Mammals of the Protected Seascape Tañon Strait v. Reyes, G.R. Nos. 180771 & 181527,
[April 21, 2015]
direct interest, on the principle that humans are stewards of nature. Therefore, Filipinos have
locus standi on behalf of the Ipil-Ipil trees.

C. Consent of the Fisherfolk and

Communities in the LPPCHEA
and Manila Bay Area

Local autonomy enjoyed by the local government units (LGUs) is guaranteed by the
Constitution.12 Thus, the LGUs may exercise its powers through its own discretion in
addressing the needs of their constituents. One attribute of local autonomy is the prior
approval of the concerned sanggunian if the national government, government agencies, or
the government owned and controlled corporations want to implement a project on a specific
area. In this regard, the LGU has the duty to protect its constituents and their interests
especially when the project is prejudicial to their livelihood and their right to a balanced and
healthful ecology. Hence, the approval of the concerned sanggunian is required by law to
ensure that local communities can enjoy their rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

Public hearing with the fisherfolk and local communities in the LPPCHEA and
Manila Bay Area is indispensable since their right to a balanced and healthful ecology is
prejudiced. In addition to that, not only prior hearing (or consultation) is needed but also prior
approval of the sanggunian concerned must be obtained before the implementation of the
project by the DPWH as the project may adversely affect the ecological balance in the
LPPCHEA and Manila Bay area. Such requisites are provided by the Local Government
Code, to wit:

SECTION 26. Duty of National Government Agencies in the

Maintenance of Ecological Balance. — It shall be the duty of every national
agency or government-owned or -controlled corporation authorizing or
involved in the planning and implementation of any project or program that
may cause pollution, climatic change, depletion of non-renewable resources,
loss of cropland, rangeland, or forest cover, and extinction of animal or plant
species, to consult with the local government units, nongovernmental
organizations, and other sectors concerned and explain the goals and
objectives of the project or program, its impact upon the people and the
community in terms of environmental or ecological balance, and the
measures that will be undertaken to prevent or minimize the adverse
effects thereof [emphasis supplied].13

SECTION 27. Prior Consultations Required. — No project or

program shall be implemented by government authorities unless the
consultations mentioned in Sections 2 (c) and 26 hereof are complied with,
12
PHIL. CONST. art. X, § 2.
13
An Act Providing for a Local Government Code of 1991 [LOCAL GOV’T CODE], Republic Act No. 7160, §
26 (1991).
 and prior approval of the sanggunian concerned is obtained: Provided,
That occupants in areas where such projects are to be implemented shall not
be evicted unless appropriate relocation sites have been provided, in
accordance with the provisions of the Constitution [emphasis supplied].14

In Paje v. Casiño,15 the Court held that the issuance of an ECC, does not, by itself,
result in the implementation of the project. Hence, the ECC may be issued even without prior
consultation and consent of the constituents. However, this defeats the purpose of the ECC to
be issued since it contains the process that needs to be undertaken by the builders of the
project to mitigate its adverse effects before, during, or after its implementation.16

Therefore, bypassing the prior consultation with the affected residents and failure to
obtain their consent constitutes as a violation to their Constitutional right to a balanced and
healthful ecology. Hence, consent must first be obtained before the implementation of the
project in order to address its harmful effects on the welfare and livelihood of the people.

D. Existing laws Such as the Forestry Code,

the EIA law, and the NIPAS Act on
Allowing Cutting/Reclamation

In R.A No. 11038 or the law amending R.A No. 7586 or the "National Integrated
Protected Areas System (NIPAS) Act of 1992", Section 20 of the latter was amended to
include cutting timber “... within the protected area including private lands therein, without
the necessary permit, authorization, certification of planted trees or exemption such acts are
done in accordance with the duly recognized practices of the IPs/ICCs for subsistence
purposes”17 Furthermore, Las Piñas-Parañaque Critical Habitat and Ecotourism Area
(LPPCHEA) is a protected area under the same law.18 The facts herein stated is clear that San
Gabriel Infrastructure failed to apply for the necessary permit, namely the Environmental
Compliance Certificate which is to be issued after an Environment Impact Assessment. With
this, San Gabriel Infrastructure must be prohibited from cutting down the trees in a protected
area such as the LPPCHEA. Section 11 of the law was amended to state that “No actual
implementation of such activities shall be allowed without the required ECC under the
Philippine EIA System. Violations of environmental laws, rules and regulations, including
those under the EIA System, shall be penalized accordingly.”

E. Constitutionality of a Law Exempting

14
LOCAL GOV’T CODE, § 27.
15
Paje v. Casino, G.R. No. 207257 (2015).
16
What you should know about Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) and Environmental Compliance
Certificate (ECC), available at https://eia.emb.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/eia-ecc.pdf (last accessed
Nov. 15, 2022).
17
An Act Declaring Protected Areas and Providing for Their Management, Amending for This Purpose
Republic Act No. 7586, Otherwise Known as the "National Integrated Protected Areas System (NIPAS) Act of
1992" and for Other Purposes [Expanded National Integrated Protected Areas System Act of 2018], Republic
Act No. 11038 § 20, 2018.
18
Id. § 4.
a Project from the EIA Process

A law exempting a project from the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process
is unconstitutional. An EIA is a process that involves predicting and evaluating the likely
impacts of a project, including cumulative impacts; on the environment during construction,
commissioning, operation, and abandonment.19 It also includes designing appropriate
preventive mitigating and enhancing measures addressing these consequences to protect the
environment and the community’s welfare.20 It then follows that the EIA process must have
been able to predict the likely impact of the reclamation project on the environment and to
prevent any harm that may otherwise be caused. This was neglected by the Respondents. In
this case, the project involves mangrove trees as well as ipil ipil trees which therefore makes
them fall under the scope of Environmentally Critical Projects.21 Based upon the foregoing, it
is hereby necessary that the Respondents submit an EIA report to enable them to predict the
impact that the construction of the new amusement park and port on the reclaimed land
would have on the surrounding environment.

Furthermore, the primary purpose of an EIA is to ensure, in the case of certain public
and private projects, that in order to guarantee effective preventive environmental protection
based on uniform principles (1) the impacts on the environment are identified, described, and
assessed comprehensively and in good time (2) the results of the environmental impact
assessment are taken into account as early as possible in all cases in which authorities decide
upon the admissibility of projects.22 In other words, the environmental impact assessment
represents an integral part of procedures applied by authorities when deciding upon the
admissibility of projects. Therefore, it is imperative that the City of Pasay must undergo the
environmental impact assessment process to secure an Environmental Compliance Certificate
pursuant to the Environmental Impact Statement System in relation to the Philippine
Environment Policy before it can proceed with the construction of its project.

F. Constitutionality of the Executive to Claim

that the Environment Can Be Sacrificed for the
Sake of Public Health and Economic Development

The Constitution provides that the executive power shall be vested in the President of
the Philippines.23 The authority or discretion as to the law’s execution has to be exercised
upon pursuance of a law.24 The President is vested with the power of executive authority. His
task is to faithfully execute the laws to protect the State. He cannot encroach on the power of

19
Boracay Foundation v. Aklan, G.R. No. 196870, 674 SCRA 555 (2012).
20
Id.
21
Environmental Management Bureau, Revised Guidelines for Coverage Screening and Standardized
Requirements, Memorandum Circular No. 5, Series of 2014 [EMB Memo. Circ. No. 5, s. 2014] § 15 (July
2019).
22
Republic v. City of Davao, G.R. No. 148622, 193 SCRA 158, 176 (1991).
23
PHIL. CONST. art. XVII § 1.
24
Araneta v. Gatmaitan, G.R. Nos. L-8895 & L-9191, (1957)
the legislature to enact laws. However, included in his power to execute laws is to issue EO’s,
presidential decrees, for the furtherance of an existing statute. The Congress may delegate
such power so long as it satisfies the requisites of valid delegation (1) complete in itself that it
must set forth the policy to be executed (2) it must fix a standard test.25

The government may exercise the State’s power to appropriate public and private
property for public purposes. Although such power is traditionally lodged with the Executive
arm. Such power is dormant until the Legislature sets it in motion. The Congress should
provide the executive the authority to exercise the power to eminent domain and the process
of expropriation must be in accordance with the due process provided for by law,
Expropriation cannot take place unless the purpose thereof is for a particular public purpose
and the property owner will be reimbursed by just compensation. If it is so found that the
environment may be used for the general welfare and there is a law authorizing said
expropriation, only then may the Chief Executive expropriate.

CONCLUSION

There was no Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) procedure followed. Hence,

no EIA Report was submitted by the San Gabriel Infrastructure company. This EIA is
necessary as this process involves assessing and predicting the possible impacts of a project
on the environment and the local communities.26 Such is indispensable as it will guide the
builder in its decision making to reduce adverse impacts of the project proposed.27 In addition
to this, there was no public hearing with the fisherfolk and local communities in the
LPPCHEA and Manila Bay area. Hence, the project shall not push through as it violated the
attribute of local autonomy granted to and enjoyed by the LGUs under the Constitution.28

25
Abakada Guro Party List v. Purisima, G.R. No. 166715, (2008)
26
What you should know about Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) and Environmental Compliance
Certificate (ECC), available at https://eia.emb.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/eia-ecc.pdf (last accessed
Nov. 15, 2022).
27
Id.
28
PHIL. CONST. art. X, § 2.