San Beda University, College of Law

1st Sem SY 2022-23

Subject: Natural Resources and Environmental Law
Prof: Comm. Wilhelm D. Soriano
========================================

Mid-Term Examinations Review Materials

1987 Constitution, Article 1, The National Territory

a) Comprises the Philippine Archipelago, with all the islands and waters
embraced therein

b) All other territories over which the Philippines has sovereignty or

jurisdiction consisting of its terrestrial, fluvial, areal domains, territorial sea,
seabed, subsoil, insular shelves, submarine areas

c) The waters around, between, and connecting the islands of the archipelago,
regardless of their breadth and dimension, form part of the internal waters
of the Philippines

The definition of “Archipelago” is provided in Article 46 of the 1982 United

Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea;

“Archipelago means a group of islands, including parts of islands,

interconnecting waters, and other natural features which are closely interrelated
that such islands, waters, and other natural features form an intrinsic geographical,
economic and political entity, or which historically has been regarded as such”

The significant of an Internal or Inland waters, is that the Coastal State or the
Archipelagic State has sovereignty over the said waters equal to the same extent
their land territory

The territorial sea is considered as the sovereign territory of the Coastal State but
foreign vessels/ships of any kind are allowed “innocent passage”

Exclusive Economic Zone is a sea zone prescribed by the United Nations

Convention on the Law of Sea over which a State has special rights regarding the
exploration and utilization of marine resources, including energy production from
water and wind. It stretches from the baseline out to 200 nautical miles from its
coast

Continental Shelf refers to the area of a seabed around a large landmass where the
sea is relatively shallow compared with the open ocean

Article XII, Section 2, par- 2

“The State shall protect the nation’s marine wealth in its

archipelagic waters, territorial sea, and exclusive economic zone,
and reserve its use and enjoyment exclusively to Filipino citizens”
Page two:

Merlin Magallona vs Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 187167, July 16, 2011

Nature of the case: Original action for Writs of Certiorari and Prohibition assails the
constitutionality of R.A. No. 9522, which amended R.A. No. 3046, adjusting the
country’s archipelagic baselines and classifying baseline regime of nearby territories

Facts
In 1961, Congress enacted R.A. No. 3046, demarcating the maritime baselines
of the Philippines as an archipelagic State. The objective of the law is to harmonize
the maritime baselines of the Philippines with the provisions of the UN Convention
on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone, adopted in 1958 and took effect in
1964

The UN Convention on the territorial sea and contiguous zone codified,

among others, the sovereign right of the State parties over their “territorial sea” the
breadth of which was left undetermined

UNCLOS II in 1960 failed to define the breadth

Then in 1982, UNCLOS III was adopted by State parties, and this time, it
prescribes the water-land ratio, length, and contour of the baselines of archipelagic
States like the Philippines and set the deadline for the filing of the application for the
extended Continental Shelf

Complying with these requirements, Congress, on March 10, 2009, enacted

R.A. No. 9522, the purpose of the law is to amend R.A. No. 3046, and to define the
archipelagic baselines of the Philippines, as well as, the baselines of the “Kalayaan
Group of Islands,” constituted under P.D. No. 1596, and “Bajo de Masinloc” over
which the Philippines exercises sovereignty and jurisdiction shall be determined as
as “Regimes of Islands” under the Republic of the Philippines consistent with Article
121 of UNCLOS

Petitioner challenged the constitutionality of R.A. No.9522 on two principal

grounds;

1) R.A. No. 9522 reduces the Philippine maritime territory, and logically, the
reach of the Philippine’s sovereign power, in violations of Article 1 of the
1987 Constitution, embodying the terms of the Treaty of Paris and ancillary
treaties

2) R.A. No. 9522 opens the country’s waters landward of the baselines to
maritime passage by all vessels and aircrafts, undermining Philippine
sovereignty and national security, contravening the country’s nuclear-free
policy, and damaging marine resources, in violation of relevant constitutional
provisions

3) In addition, petitioners contend that R.A. No. 9522 treatment of the Kalayaan
Island Group as “regimes of islands” not only results in the loss of maritime
area but also prejudices the livelihood of subsistence fishermen

Resolution:

1) Petitioners possessed locus standi as taxpaying citizens

2) The writs of certiorari and prohibition is the proper remedy

3) R.A. No. 9522 is Constitutional

Page three:

Explanation:

As defined by R.A. No 3046, amended by R.A. No. 5446, the baselines suffer
some technical deficiencies, to wit;

1. The length of the baseline across Moro Gulf (from middle of 3 rocks awash to
tongquil point) is 140.06 nautical miles, this exceeds the maximum length
allowed under Article 47(2) of the UNCLOS III, which states that “the length
of such baselines shall not exceed 100 nautical miles, except that up to 3 per
cent of the total number of baselines enclosing any archipelago may exceed
that length, up to maximum length of 125 nautical miles

2. The selection of basepoints is not optimal. At least 9 basepoints can be

skipped or deleted from the baseline system. This will enclosed an additional
2,195 nautical miles of water

3. Finally, the basepoints were drawn from maps existing in 1968, and not
established by geodetic survey methods. Accordingly, some of the points,
particularly along the west coasts of Luzon down to Palawan were later
found to be located either inland or on water, not on low-water line and
drying reefs as prescribed by Article 47 of UNCLOS

UNCLOS III was the culmination of decades-long negotiations among United Nations
Member States to codify norms regulating the conduct of States in the world’s
oceans and submarine areas, recognizing coastal and archipelagic States graduated
authority over a limited span of waters and submarine lands along their coasts

R.A. No 9522 was enacted by Congress, precisely to mark-out specific basepoints

along its coasts from which baseline are drawn, either straight or contoured, to
serve as geographic starting points to measure the breadth of the maritime zones
and continental shelf, in accordance with UNCLOS Article 48

The amendment of the baselines law (R.A. N0. 3046, June 17, 1961, amended by R.A.
No. 5446, Sept. 18, 1968) was necessary to enable the Philippines draw the outer
limits of its maritime zones including the extended continental shelf in the manner
provided by Article 47 of UNCLOS III

Hence, far from surrendering the Philippines’ claim over the Kalayaan Island Group
and the Scarborough Shoal, Congress’ decision to classify the KIG and the
Scarborough shoal as “Regimes of Islands” under the Republic of the Philippines,
consistent with Article 121 of UNCLOS III manifests the Philippine State’s
responsible observance of its Pacta Sunt Servanda obligation under UNCLOS III.
Under Article 121 of UNCLOS, any naturally formed area of land surrounded by
water, which is above water at high tide, such as portions of the Kalayaan Island
Group, qualifies under the category of “regimes of islands” whose islands generate
their own applicable maritime zones

Under Article 121 of UNCLOS, any naturally formed area of land surrounded by
water, which is above water at high tide. Under the regimes of islands, each island
has its own territorial sea, contiguous zone, exclusive economic zone, and
continental shelf. Such as the Kalayaan Island Group
Page four:

Article II, Section 15 – The State shall protect and promote the right to health
of the people and instill health consciousness among them

Article II, Section 16, 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

Oposa vs Factoran, G.R. No. 102083, July 30, 1993

Facts:

Immediately after the 1987 Constitution took effect on February 2, 1987, 34 minors,
represented by their parents and guardians, filed a Petition for Prohibition and
Mandamus, before the Regional Trial Court of Makati, Branch 66, praying for the
issuance of a Mandamus Order directing the government to –

1) Cancel all existing Timber License Agreements, and

2) Cease and Desist from receiving, accepting, processing, renewing or approving

new Timber License Agreements

Petitioners assert the adverse effects and disastrous consequences, serious injury
and irreparable damage of the continued trend of deforestation to the present
generation and to generations yet unborn. The continued permission by the
government in favor of the logging concessionaires to cut and deforest the
remaining forest cover will work to great damage and irreparable injury to the
petitioners

On June 22, 1990, the Respondent DENR Secretary filed a “Motion to Dismiss” the
complaint on the ground that the Petitioners has – 1) No standing in court/Locus
Standi; 2) No Cause of Action; and 3) the Matter is a Political Question beyone the
jurisdiction of the Court

On July 18, 1991, the Presiding Judge of RTC Branch 66, Judge Eriberto U. Rosario,
granted the motion to dismiss and ordered the dismissal of the petition on the
ground that the Petitioners have no cause of action, that the matter is in the nature
of a political question, and added that the granting of the relief prayed for would
result in the impairment of contracts (Art. III, Sec 10 – No law impairing the
obligation of contracts shall be passed)

The Petitioners then elevated the matter to the Supreme Court and took cognizance
of the case on May 14, 1992

Ruling:

The Supreme Court sustained the locus standi of the petitioners minors as they
represent their present generation as well as the generations yet unborn. The
petitioners minors has the personality to sue in behalf of the succeeding generations
based on the concept of intergenerational responsibility insofar as the right to a
balanced and healthful ecology is concerned. Every generation has a responsibility
to the next generation to preserve the rhythm and harmony of nature for the full
enjoyment of a balanced and healthful ecology. The minors assertion of their right to
a sound environment constitute the performance of their obligation to ensure the
protection of that right for the future generations to come
Page five:

The Supreme Court did not agree with the trial courts the petitioners had no cause
of action by their failure to allege with sufficient definiteness a specific legal right
involved or a specific legal wrong committed. On the contrary, the reading of the
complaint focuses on one specific fundamental legal right – the right to a balanced
and healthful ecology, which, for the first time in our nation’s constitutional history,
is solemnly incorporated in the fundamental law, particularly, Article II, Section 2 of
the 1987 Constitution

The right to a balanced and healthful ecology unites with the right of the people to
health as provided under Section 15, Article II

The right to a balanced and healthful ecology carries with it the correlative duty to
refrain from impairing the environment. The right also implies the judicious
management and conservation of the country’s forest

A denial or violation of that right by the other who has the correlative duty or
obligations to respect and protect such right gives rise to a cause of action

As to the political question issue, the Supreme Court emphasized that the political
question doctrine is no longer insurmountable obstacle to the exercise of judicial
power or the impenetrable shield that protects executive and legislative actions
from judicial review

In the instant case, the jurisdictional objection becomes even less tenable and
decisive, the reason is that, even if we were to assume that the issue presented
before us was political in nature, we would still not be precluded from revolving it
under the expanded jurisdiction conferred upon us that now covers, in proper cases,
even political question which Article VIII, Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution clearly
provides

On the non-impairment issue, it has been ruled that licenses or permits are not
deemed contracts within the purview of the due process of law clause, and since
they are not contracts, the non-impairment of contract clause cannot be invoked.
Furthermore, the non-impairment of contract clause must yield to the exercise of
the police power of the State

Hilarion M. Henares, Jr. et al vs LTFRB & DOTC

G.R. No. 158290, October 23, 2006

The Petitioners, asserting their right to a balanced and healthful environment, as

guaranteed under Article II, Section 16 of the 1987 Constitution, and as also
mandated by Section 4 of R. A. No. 8749, aka The Philippine Clean Air Act of 1999,
filed a Writ of Mandamus before the Supreme Court praying for the issuance of an
Order commanding the LTFRB and DOTC to require public utility vehicles to use
Compressed Natural Gas

Regrettably, however, a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to require

PUV’s to use CNG is unavailing

Mandamus is available only to compel the doing of an act specifically enjoined by

law as a duty, or such function is ministerial, where the officer has the duty to do a
particular thing in a particular way
Page six:

Here, in the instant case, there is no law that mandates the respondents LTFRB and
DOTC to order owners of motor vehicles to use CNG

It is the firm belief of this Court that in this case, it is timely to reaffirm the premium
we have placed on the protection of the environment in the landmark case of Oposa
vs Factoran

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 measure to reduce air
pollutants emitted by motor vehicles, we must admit in particular that
petitioners are unable to pinpoint the law that imposes an indubitable legal
duty on respondents that will justify the grant of the writ of mandamus
compelling the use of CNG for public utility vehicles

It appears to us that more properly, the legislature should provide the specific
statutory remedy to the complex environmental problems bared by herein
petitioners before any judicial recourse by mandamus is taken

Article II, Section 22 – The State recognizes and promotes the rights of
Indigenous Cultural Communities within the framework of national unity and
development

Complimenting this State policy is Article XII, Section 5 – “The State, subject to
the provisions of this Constitution and National Development policies and
programs shall protect the rights of indigenous cultural communities to their
ancestral land to ensure their economic, social, and cultural well-being

The Congress may provide for the applicability of customary laws

governing property rights or relations in determining the ownership and
extent of ancestral domain”
`
Another provision is Section 17 of Article XIV, which provides – “the State shall
recognize, respect, and protect the rights of indigenous cultural communities to
preserve and develop their culture, traditions, and institutions. It shall consider
these rights in the formulation of national plans and policies,” what is the
significance of this provision?

There is another provision in the 1987 Constitution, particularly Section 12 of

Article XVI, which authorizes Congress to create a consultative body to advise the
President on policies affecting indigenous cultural communities, the majority of the
members of which shall come from such communities

Indigenous Cultural Communities or Indigenous People – refers to a group of people

or homogenous societies identified by self-ascription and ascription by others, who
have continuously lived as organized community on communally bounded and
defined territory, and who have, under the claim of ownership, since time
immemorial, occupied, possessed and utilized such territories, sharing common
bonds of language, customs, traditions and other distinctive cultural traits, or who
have, through resistance to political, social and cultural inroads of colonization, non-
indigenous religions and cultures, became historically differentiated from the
majority of Filipinos
Page seven:

There are two concepts mentioned in section 5, ancestral lands and ancestral
domain. These two concepts are distinct from each other and they are defined by
section 3 (a) and (b) in R.A. No. 8371 (Oct 1997), aka, Indigenous People’s Rights Act
of 1997

Ancestral Domain – refer to all areas generally belonging to Indigenous Cultural

Community/ Indigenous people comprising lands, inland waters, coastal areas, and
natural resources therein, held under the claim of ownership, occupied or possessed
by ICCs/IPs by themselves or through their ancestors, communally or individually
since time immemorial, continuously to the present except when interrupted by
war, force majeure or displacement by force, deceit, stealth or as a consequence of
government projects or any other voluntary dealings entered into by government
and private individuals or corporations, and which are necessary to ensure their
economic, social and cultural welfare

It shall include ancestral land, forests, pasture, residential, agricultural, and

other lands individually owned whether alienable and disposable or otherwise,
hunting grounds, burial grounds, worship areas, bodies of water, mineral and other
natural resources, and lands which may no longer be exclusively occupied by
ICCs/IPs but from which they traditionally had access to for their subsistence and
traditional activities, particularly the home ranges of ICCs/IPs who are still nomadic
and/or shifting cultivators (Section 3 (a), R.A. No. 8371)

Ancestral lands – refers to land occupied, possessed and utilized by individuals,

families, and clans who members of the ICCs/IPs since time immemorial by
themselves or through their predecessors-in-interest, under claims of individual or
traditional group ownership, continuously to the present except when interrupted
by war, force majeure or displacement by force, deceit, stealth, or as a consequence
of government projects and other voluntary dealings entered into by government
and private individuals/corporations, including, but not limited to, residential lots,
rice terraces or paddies, private forests, swidden farms and tree lots (Section 3(b),
R.A.No. 8371)

The phrase “ancestral domain” is broader concept than “ancestral lands”. Ancestral
domain is an all-embracing concept which refers to lands, inland waters, coastal
areas, and natural resources therein and includes ancestral lands, forests, pasture,
residential, agricultural, and other lands individually owned whether alienable or
inalienable, hunting grounds, burial grounds, worship areas, bodies of waters, and
all other natural resources that may be found therein. They also include lands which
may no longer be exclusively occupied by indigenous cultural communities but to
which they have traditionally had access for their subsistence and traditional
activities

Ancestral land is a narrower concept. It refers to those held under the same
conditions as ancestral domain but limited to lands that are not merely occupied
and possessed but are also utilized by cultural communities under the claim of
individual or traditional group ownership. These include but are not limited to
residential lots, rice terraces or paddies, private forests, farms and tree lots
Page eight:

Isagani Cruz vs DENR Secretary, G.R. No. 135285, (2000)

Petitioners Isagani Cruz and Cesar Europa filed a Petition for prohibition and
mandamus as a citizens and taxpayers suit, assailing the constitutionality of R.A. No.
8371, aka the Indigenous People’s Rights Act of 1997, on the ground that certain
provisions of the law amounts to an unlawful deprivation of the State’s ownership
over the lands of the public domain including all the minerals and other natural
resources found therein, in violation of the “Regallan Doctrine” embodied in Article
XII, Section 2, which provides, among others, that all the natural resources are
owned by the State

Resolution:

The provisions of R.A. No. 8371 do not contravene the constitution. Examining the
law, there is nothing in the law that grants to the Indigenous Cultural
Community/Indigenous People ownership over the natural resources within their
ancestral domain. Ownership over the natural resources in the ancestral domains
remains with the State and the rights granted to the ICCs/IPs under the law over the
natural resources is only the right to the small-scale utilization of these resources,
and a priority right over the large-scale utilization

Additionally, ancestral lands and ancestral domains are not part of the lands of the
public domain. They are private lands and belong to the ICCs/IPs by native title,
which is a concept of private land title that existed irrespective of any royal grant
from the State. However, the right of ownership and possession by ICCs/IPs over
their ancestral domain is a limited form of ownership and does not include the right
to alienate or dispose of the same

Carino vs Insular Government, G.R. No. L-2746 (1906),

Mateo Carino applied for land registration before the Court of Land Registration of a
parcel of land located in the Province of Benguet. The application was approved on
March 4, 1906. However, the Insular Government appealed the case before the
Court of First Instance which affirmed the approval of the registration of the land in
favor of Mateo Carino, also affirmed by the Philippine Supreme Court

The Supreme Court declared the cardinal rule under the Regalian Doctrine that “All
lands that were not acquired from the government, either by purchase or by grant,
belong to the public domain. An exception to the rule is “any land that should have
been in the possession of an occupant and of his predecessors-in-interest since time
immemorial, for such uninterrupted possession would justify the presumption that
the land had never been part of the public domain or that it had been a private
property even before the Spanish discovery and conquest”

It was then appealed to the US Supreme Court by “Writ of Error”

The acquisition by the United States of America of the Philippine Islands was not for
the purpose of acquiring the lands occupied by the inhabitants, and under the
Organic Act of July 1, 1902, also known as the Philippine Bill of 1902, providing that
property rights are to be administered for the benefit of the inhabitants, one who
actually owned land for many years cannot be deprived of it for failure to comply
with certain ceremonies prescribed either by the acts of the Philippine Commission
or by Spanish law
Page nine:

The land belonged to Carino under the Igorot law. He had inherited it from his
ancestors in accordance with the native customs and his title has never been
questioned. Possession of land under such circumstances confers a property right
(jure gentium) independently of any rule of prescription

Carino had a legal title over land and registration was a mere procedural formality
and did not create property. In any event, he had a right of property under Spanish
law, which was protected by the Treaty of Paris

Article II, Section 25 – The State shall ensure the autonomy of local
governments

This guarantee of local autonomy to local government units under Section 10,
Article II, is complimented by a whole Article X, consisting of five (5) Sections
with the title Local Government

The relevance of local government units with Natural Resources and Environmental
Law is that local government units under the 1987 Constitution are now vested with
General Welfare Power courtesy of R.A. No.7160, aka the Local Government Code,
which include, among others,

First, the authority to integrate environmental aspects in local development

planning, implement environmental protection programs and projects, as well as,
enforce laws and regulations, provide basic services such as agriculture, health,
public works, social welfare, and tourism,

Second, LGU’s are now entitled to an equitable share in the proceeds of the
utilization and development of the national wealth within their respective areas

Lastly, local government units are also given the authority to issue mining permit,
water permit, and enter into agreement with private sector on reclamation projects

Article X, Section 1 - enumerates the local government units, namely;

1. Provinces
2. Cities
3. Municipalities
4. Barangays
5. Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao
6. Cordilleras Autonomous Region

Tano vs Socrates, G.R. No.110249 (1997)

Petitioners seek to annul the City Ordinance No. 15-92, of the City of Puerto
Princesa, an Ordinance banning the shipment of all live fish and lobster outside the
city from January 1, 1993 to January 1, 1998, the purpose of which is to free the sea
waters around the city from cyanide and other obnoxious substance

Ruling – Under the general welfare clause of the Local Government Code, local
government units have the power, among others, to enact ordinances to enhance the
right of the people to a balanced ecology. It likewise specifically vests municipalities
with the power to grant fishery permits and license within their respective
municipal waters
Page ten:

We commend the City of Puerto Princesa, particularly, the Sangunian Panglunsod

for exercising the political will to enact urgently needed legislation to protect and
enhance the marine environment, thereby sharing in the herculean task of arresting
the tide of ecological destruction

Social Justice Society vs Atienza, G.R. No. 156052 (2007)

This is a Petition for Mandamus which seek to compel respondent Manila Mayor
Lito Atienza, to enforce City Ordinance No. 8027 (Nov 20,2001), which re-classified
the area of Punta, Sta Ana, Manila, the so called “Pandacan Terminals” from
Industrial to Commercial

The consequence of which would force the big three oil companies, namely – Petron,
Shell, and Caltex to relocate their respective oil depot to another place

Resolution:

City Ordinance No. 8027 was enacted right after the Philippines, along with the rest
of the world, witnessed the horror of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack on the
Twin Towers of the World Trade Center in New York City

The objective of the City Ordinance is to protect the residents of Manila from the
catastrophic devastation that will surely occur in case of terrorist attack on the
Pandacan Oil Terminals

The Local Government Code imposes upon the City Mayor to enforce all laws and
ordinances relative to the governance of the city. One of these is Ordinance No.
8027, as the Chief Executive of the City, he has the duty to enforce said ordinance.
He has no other choice, it is his ministerial duty to do so

Article II, Section 28 – Subject to reasonable conditions prescribed by law, the

State adopts and implements a policy of full public disclosure of all its
transactions involving public interest

The State policy of full public disclosure under Section 28 is complimented by the
right of the people to information and access to official records and documents on
matters of public concern under Article III, Section 7

Article III, Section 7 – the right of the people to information on matters of

public concern shall be recognized. Access to official records, and to
documents, and papers pertaining to official acts, transactions, or decisions, as
well as to government research data used as basis for policy development,
shall be afforded the citizen, subject to such limitations as may be provided by
law

The right to information guarantees the right of the people to demand information,
and recognizes the duty of government officials to give information even if nobody
demands. However, while access to information may not be prohibited, it certainly
may be regulated through a statutory law and from what the Supreme Court has
called it – “the inherent power of an officer to control his office and safe-keep all the
records under his custody
Page eleven:

Chavez vs PEA Amari, G.R. No. 133250, July 9, 2002

Former Solicitor General Francisco Chavez filed a Petition for Mandamus before the
Supreme Court praying for the issuance of an Order compelling the Public Estates
Authority to disclose all the facts on PEA’s on-going negotiations with Amari Coastal
Bay and Development Corporation to reclaim a portion of the Manila Bay, and to
enjoin the PEA from signing a new agreement with Amari involving such
reclamation

1) Whether the constitutional right to information under Article III, Section 7, and
Article II, Section 28, of the 1987 Constitution includes official information on on-
going negotiations before final agreement

Explanation

These twin provisions of the Constitution seeks to promote transparency in policy-

making and in the operations of the governments, as well as provide the people
sufficient information to exercise effectively other constitutional rights

These twin provisions are essential to the exercise of freedom of expression. If the
government does not disclose its official acts, transactions and decisions to citizens,
whatever citizens say, even if expressed without a restraint, will be speculative and
amount to nothing

These twin provisions are also essential to hold public officials at all times
accountable to the people, for unless citizens have the proper information, they
cannot hold public officials accountable. Armed with the right information, citizens
can participate in public discussions leading to the formulation of government
policies and their effective implementation

Ruling

Information on on-going evaluation or review of bids or proposals being undertaken

by the bidding or review committee is not immediately accessible under the right to
information. The reason for this, is that while the evaluation or review is still on-
going, there are no official acts, transactions, or decisions on the bids or proposals.
However, once the committee makes its official recommendation, there arises a
definite proposition on the part of the government. From this moment, the public’s
right to information attaches, and any citizen can access all the non-proprietary
information leading to such definite proposition

We rule, therefore, that the constitutional right to information includes the official
information on on-going negotiations before a final contract. The information,
however, must constitute definite propositions by the government and should not
covered recognized exceptions like privilege information, military and diplomatic
secrets and similar matters affecting national security and public order

Article XII, Section 2 – All lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coals,
petroleum, and other mineral oils, all forces of potential energy, fisheries,
forests or timber, wildlife, flora and fauna, and other natural resources are
owned by the State
Page twelve:

All Lands of the Public Domain

The term public domain is synonymous to public dominion or public ownership, as

distinguish from private ownership. Which means that the phrase “lands of the
public domain” categorically declares that land, as the single biggest major natural
resource of the nation, is owned by the State

The basis by which the framers of the 1987 Constitution changed the word “belong”
to the word “owned” is the Regalian Doctrine, also known as “Jura Regalia”. It is a
fiction of Spanish Colonial Law that has been applied to all the colonies of Spain,
which refers to feudal principle that all lands found within the territory of the
Monarch is owned by the King. Ownership of the entire Philippines Islands passes to
the Spanish Monarch by virtue of the Discovery and Conquest

Carino vs Insular Government, G.R. No. L-2746 (1906),

Mateo Carino applied for land registration before the Court of Land Registration of a
parcel of land located in the Province of Benguet. The application was approved on
March 4, 1906. However, the Insular Government appealed the case before the
Court of First Instance which affirmed the approval of the registration of the land in
favor of Mateo Carino, also affirmed by the Philippine Supreme Court

The Supreme Court declared the cardinal rule under the Regalian Doctrine that “All
lands that were not acquired from the government, either by purchase or by grant,
belong to the public domain. An exception to the rule is “any land that should have
been in the possession of an occupant and of his predecessors-in-interest since time
immemorial, for such uninterrupted possession would justify the presumption that
the land had never been part of the public domain or that it had been a private
property even before the Spanish discovery and conquest”

It was then appealed to the US Supreme Court by “Writ of Error”

The acquisition by the United States of America of the Philippine Islands was not for
the purpose of acquiring the lands occupied by the inhabitants, and under the
Organic Act of July 1, 1902, also known as the Philippine Bill of 1902, providing that
property rights are to be administered for the benefit of the inhabitants, one who
actually owned land for many years cannot be deprived of it for failure to comply
with certain ceremonies prescribed either by the acts of the Philippine Commission
or by Spanish law

The land belonged to Carino under the Igorot law. He had inherited it from his
ancestors in accordance with the native customs and his title has never been
questioned. Possession of land under such circumstances confers a property right
(jure gentium) independently of any rule of prescription

Carino had a legal title over land and registration was a mere procedural formality
and did not create property. In any event, he had a right of property under Spanish
law, which was protected by the Treaty of Paris
Page thirteen:

Article XII, Section 2, par 1 –

“With the exception of agricultural lands, all other natural resources

shall not be alienated”

Natural resources, particularly the mineral resources, which constituted a great

sources of wealth, while declared owned by the State, belonged not only to the
present generation but also for the succeeding generations and consequently should
be conserved for them

The framers expressed the fear that to allow alienation, some of the mineral lands
after they had become private property through the grant of a patent might
eventually get into the ownership or control of foreigners to the prejudice of Filipino
posterity

The framers, as well as, the Filipino people who ratified the constitution, decided to
state clearly in Section 2 that natural resources shall not be alienated in order that it
may have the stability and permanency that its importance requires. It is written in
our constitution so that it may neither be the subject of barter nor be impaired in
the give and take of politics

With our natural resources, our sources of power and energy, our public lands, and
our public utilities, the material basis of the nation’s existence, in the hands of aliens
or foreign countries, over whom the Philippine Government does not have full
control, the Filipinos may soon find themselves deprived of their patrimony and
living as it were, in a house that no longer belong to them

Under Section 3 of Article XII, lands of the public domain are classified into;

Agricultural lands are simply known as farmlands, Land devoted principally to the
planting of crops for food. Any land that is susceptible for cultivation for agricultural
purposes

Forests land refers to a large tract of land covered with natural growth of trees and
underbrush

Timberland refers to a large tract of land planted with trees that can be processed
for woods or lumbers

Mineral lands are those that contained deposits of minerals that are economically
valuable, useful, or precious, in such quantities as to justify expenses to extract them

National Parks are those areas of land by which, by reason of their scenic, historical
or cultural, and scientific value and importance are set aside and declared by law as
national parks

Article XII, Section 1, par.1

“The exploration, development, and utilization of natural resources shall be

under the full control and supervision of the State”

In the case of Miners Association of the Philippines vs DENR Sec Factoran, (240
SCRA 100,104-106, 1995) the Supreme Court declared that upon the effectivity of
the 1987 Constitution on February 02, 1987, the State had assumed a more dynamic
role in the exploration, development and utilization of natural resources of the
country. Article XII, Section 2 of the said constitution explicitly ordains that the
exploration, development and utilization of natural resources shall be under the full
control and supervision of the State
Page fourteen:

Full control in political aspect – meant that the State reserved the power to overrule,
reverse, or modify policies/decisions made by the entity undertaking the activities

Control in the corporate practice – meant the control of the Board of a private
corporation, whereby, the Board may appoint officers and managers and delegate
the management and operations of the company and implement the policy of the
Board

What Section 2 provides is that whenever natural resources are involved,

particularly, in the case of inalienable natural resources, the State must always have
some control of the exploration, development and utilization regardless if the
individual or corporation engaged in the undertaking is a Filipino or a foreign entity

Article XII, Section 2, Par. 1

“The State may directly undertake such activities, or it may enter into
co-production, joint venture, or production sharing agreements with Filipino
citizens, or corporations or associations at least sixty per centum of whose
capital is owned by such citizens”

“Such agreements may be for a period not exceeding twenty-five years,

renewable for not more than twenty-five years, and under such terms and
conditions as may be provided by law”

The exploration, development and utilization of natural resources may be

undertaken by means of direct act of the State, or it may opt to enter into co-
production, joint venture, or production sharing agreements, or it may enter into
agreements with foreign-owned corporations involving either technical or financial
assistance for large-scale exploration, development and utilization of minerals,
petroleum, and other mineral oils according to the general terms and conditions
provided by law, based on real contributions to the economic growth and general
welfare of the country

Joint Venture – is a business arrangement in which two or more parties agree to

pool their resources for the purpose of accomplishing a specific task. In a Joint
Venture, the Government and the contractor organize a third company with both
parties having equity shares, and share in the gross output

Co-Production – is a joint undertaking between two or more different parties for

the purpose of conducting an specific activities, where the parties pool their
respective resources and share the associated financial risks. In a Co-Production, the
Government provides inputs other than the mineral resources

Production sharing agreements – a production sharing agreements is a

contractual relationship between the host government (owner) and a private
individual, or corporation/association (investor), whereby the host government
contracts with the private individual, corporation or association to carry out oil and
gas exploration and production activities in a designated/defined area for a definite
period of time. The host government remains the owner of the minerals, although
title to a share of the produced oil and gas is transferred to the investor at a
contractually agreed delivery point to compensate the investor for the exploration
and production activities it has undertaken
Page fifteen:

Article XII, Section 2, Par. 4 -

“The President may enter into agreements with foreign-owned

corporations involving either technical or financial assistance for large-scale
exploration, development, and utilization of minerals, petroleum, and other
mineral oils according to the general terms and conditions provided by law,
based on real contributions to the economic growth and general welfare of the
country. In such agreements, the State shall promote the development and use
of local scientific and technical resources

The President shall notify the Congress of every contract entered into in
accordance with this provision, within thirty days from its execution”

The above provision authorizes the President of the Philippines to enter into an
agreement with foreign owned corporation involving either technical or financial
assistance on a large-scale exploration, development, and utilization of minerals,
petroleum, and other mineral oils

This agreement, known as the “Financial and Technical Assistance Agreement” is

subject to Constitutional conditions, which are;

1) The agreement must involve only technical and financial assistance

2) It must be for large-scale mining activities involving minerals, petroleum,

and other mineral oils

3) The exploration, development and utilization of the minerals must be

under the full control and supervision of the State

4) The President shall notify Congress of the agreement within thirty (30)
days from its execution

5) The provisions of the agreement must be in accordance with the general

terms and conditions provided by law

6) The agreement must promote the development and use of local scientific
and technical resources

Article XII, Section 3 –

“Citizens of the Philippines may lease not more than five hundred
hectares, or acquire not more than twelve hectares thereof by purchase,
homestead, or grant”

Only Filipino Citizens thru lease of not more than 500 hectares, or acquire not more
that 12 hectares by purchase, homestead, or grant

Article XII, Section 3 -

“Private corporations or associations may not hold such lands of the

public domain except by lease, for a period not exceeding twenty-five years,
renewable for not more than twenty-five years, and not to exceed one
thousand hectares in area”

Private corporation or association are not eligible to acquire alienable lands of the
public domain, but they can hold such land by lease not to exceed of one thousand
hectares and for a period of twenty-five years, renewable for another twenty-five
years
Page sixteen:

Article XII, Section7 –

“Save in cases of hereditary succession, no private lands shall be

transferred or conveyed except to individuals, corporations, or associations
qualified to acquire or hold lands of the public domain”

Please take note that once title to alienable public land passes to a private
individual, it is segregated from the lands of the public domain and become a private
land subject to the rights of private ownership. Nevertheless, for reasons of public
interest, the State may follow such lands into private hands and impose a limitation
on them, and one such limitation is the owner cannot transfer said land to non-
Filipino citizen or alien

The purpose of section 7 is intended to assure that the limitation in the disposition
of alienable lands of the public domain under section 2 and 3 is not defeated or
rendered nugatory when such lands are converted into private lands. It is an
expression of public policy to conserve lands for the Filipinos

Cheesman vs Intermediate Appellate Court, 193 SCRA 92 (1991), The Supreme

Court declared that even if conjugal funds were used to make the acquisition of a
private land, the husband alien would acquire no right over the property by virtue of
the purchased. Even if the property were to be considered a conjugal property by
operation of law, the alien husband is not given the right over the said conjugal
property, otherwise, it would indirectly contravene the prohibition under the
constitution

United Church Board of World Ministries vs Sebastian, 159 SCAR 446 (March 30,
1988) – an alien resident in the Philippines who owns real properties in the
Philippines devised to an American Corporation his shares of stocks in a Filipino
corporation that owned a plantation land in Davao del Norte, the court declared
such devised invalid, however, upon submission of proof that the American
Corporation has passed on to a Filipino corporation, the Court ruled that the defect
in the will was rectified by the subsequent transfer of the property to a Filipino
owned corporation

Section 8. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 7 of this Article, a

Natural-Born Citizen of the Philippines who has lost his Philippine Citizenship
may be a transferee of private lands, subject to limitations provided by law

Section 8 was culled from a 1981 amendment to the 1973 Constitution, which
allows a natural born citizen who lost his citizenship to be a transferee of private
land for residential purposes only. Under the new section 8, due to the clamor of
Filipinos who were living abroad to be given the opportunity not only to own a
residential land but also to participate in the development of the country,

The current law on the subject is R.A. No. 8179 (1996), An Act to further liberalize
foreign investments, which amended R.A. No. 7042, aka the Foreign Investments Act
of 1991, particularly section 5, which provides - “Any former natural born citizen
who has the legal capacity to enter into a contract under Philippine laws may be a
transferee of a private land up to a maximum area of five thousand square meters in
the case of urban land or three hectares in the case of rural land to be used by him
for business or other purposes

In the case of married couples, one of them may avail of the privilege herein
granted; provided that, if both of them shall avail of the same, the total area acquired
shall not exceed the maximum herein fixed”
Page seventeen:

Section 10 – The Congress shall, upon recommendation of the economic

planning agency, when the national interest dictates, reserve to citizens of the
Philippines or to corporations or associations at least sixty per centum of
whose capital is owned by such citizens, or such higher percentage as
Congress may prescribe, certain areas of investments

The Congress shall enact measures that will encourage the formation
and operation of enterprises whose capital is wholly owned by Filipinos

In the grant of rights, privileges, and concessions covering the national

economy and patrimony, the State shall give preference to qualified Filipinos

The State shall regulate and exercise authority over foreign

investments within its national jurisdiction and in accordance with its
national goals and priorities

Section 10 was a reiteration from the 1973 Constitution, particularly, Section 3,

Article XIV. The purpose of which is to provide for the Filipinization of certain areas
of investments, as well as, give preferential opportunity to qualified Filipinos with
regards to the granting of rights and concessions on the exploration and utilization
of natural resources

Manila Prince Hotel Corp vs Government Service Insurance System

G.R. No. 122156, February 03, 1997

The Supreme Court declared that Article XII, Section 10, par 2 is self-executing, as
defined – a constitutional provision is self-executing if the nature and extent of the
right conferred and the liability imposed are fixed by the constitution itself, so that
they can be determined by an examination and construction of its terms, and there
is no language indicating that the subject is referred to the legislature for action

The Supreme Court held that when the constitution speaks of national patrimony, it
refers not only to the natural resources of the Philippines but also the cultural
heritage of the Filipinos

The Supreme Court held that “it is undisputed that the sale of the Manila Hotel could
only be carried out with the prior approval of the State acting through the
Committee on Privatization. This fact alone makes the sale of the assets of GSIS a
“State Action.” When the constitution addresses the State, it refers not only to the
people but also to the government as elements of the State. After all, government is
composed of three (3) divisions of power – 1) Legislative; 2) Executive; and 3)
Judiciary

The Supreme Court ruled that since Manila Prince Hotel had already matched the
bid price tendered by Renong Berhad pursuant to the bidding rules, GSIS is left with
no alternative but to award the sale to Manila Prince Hotel in accordance not only
with the bidding guidelines and procedures but with the constitution as well. The
refusal of GSIS to execute the corresponding documents with the Manila Prince
Hotel as provided in the bidding rules after it has matched the bid clearly constitutes
grave abuse of discretion
Page eighteen:

Concept of Forest and Forest Products

Forest is defined as “a large tract of land covered with natural growth of trees and
underbrush”

Timberland is a forestland where naturally growth timber trees are found. Timber,
as a noun, is a kind of tree where it can be processed as wood or lumber

Forestland is a land that is forested by trees of any species or size that naturally
grow or artificially regenerated. Timberland is a forestland that is available to
harvest and capable of productivity of wood or lumber over a long period of time

Mangrove is a term applied for the type of forest occurring on tidal flat along the
coastal area, extending along streams where the water is brackish

Forest products include timber, pulpwood or plywood, bark, tree- top, resin, gum,
oil, honey, beeswax, nipa, rattan, or other forest growth such as wild grass, wild
botanical plants and flowers, and shrub

Presidential Decree No. 705, also known as, The Revised Forestry Code (May
19, 1975)

State Policies on Forests under P.D. No. 705

1) The multiple uses of forest lands shall be oriented to the development

and progress requirements of the country, the advancement of science
and technology, and the public welfare

2) Land classification and survey shall be systematized and hastened

3) The establishment of wood-processing plants shall be encourage and

rationalized

4) The protection, development and rehabilitation of forest lands shall be

emphasized so as to ensure their continuity in productive condition

Section 5. Jurisdiction of Bureau – The Bureau shall have jurisdiction and authority
over all forest land, grazing lands, and all forest reservations including watershed
reservation presently administered by other government agencies or
instrumentalities

It shall be responsible for the protection, development, management,

regeneration, and reforestation of forest lands; the regulation and supervision of the
operation of licensees, lessees and permittees for the taking or use of forest
products therefrom or the occupancy or use thereof; the implementation of multiple
use and sustained yield management in forest lands; the protection, development
and preservation of national parks, marine parks, game refuges and wildlife; the
implementation of measures and programs to prevent kaingin and managed
occupancy of forest and grazing lands; in collaboration with other bureaus, the
effective, efficient and economic classification of lands of the public domain; and the
enforcement of forestry, reforestation, parks, game and wildlife laws, rules, and
regulations

Section 9. Rules and Regulations – The Department Head, upon the recommendation
of the Director of Forest Development, shall promulgate the rules and regulations
necessary to implement effectively the provisions of this Code
Page nineteen:

Chapter IV, Criminal Offense and Penalties

Section 77. Cutting, gathering and/or collecting timber, or other forest products
without license – Any person who shall cut, gather, collect, removed timber or other
forest products from any forest land, or timber from alienable or disposable public
land, or from private land, without any authority, or possess timber or other forest
products without the legal documents as required under existing forest laws and
regulations, shall be punished with the penalties imposed under Article 309 and 310
of the Revised Penal Code: Provided, that in the case of partnerships, associations, or
corporations, the officers who ordered the cutting, gathering, collection or
possession shall be liable, and if such officers are aliens, they shall, in addition to the
penalty, be deported without further proceedings on the part of the Bureau of
Immigration

The Court shall further order the confiscation in favor of the government of
the timber or any forest products cut, gathered, collected, removed, or possessed as
well as the machinery, equipment, implements and tools illegally used in the area
where the timber or forest products are found

Lt. Gen. Alfonso Dagudag vs Judge Maximo Paderanga, A.M. No. RTJ-06-2017,
June 19, 2008

Sometime January 2005, a team composed of officers from PNP Regional Maritime
Group, Philippine Coast Guard, and the Department of Environment and Natural
Resources, inspected the container vans on board the NMC Container Lines at the
Port of Mandaue City. The Composite Team discovered “undocumented forest
products” and since know one came forward to claim those forest products, the
Officer in Charge of the Provincial Environment and Natural Resources Officer,
issued a seizure receipt

Thereafter, DENR Protection Officer Lucio Canete posted notices on the CENRO and
PENRO bulletin boards and at the NMC Container Lines building, informing the
unknown owner of the undocumented forest products of the Administrative
Adjudication scheduled on February 18, 2005. Nobody appeared during the
scheduled hearing. The Adjudication Officer then recommended that the
undocumented forest products be confiscated in favor of the government

Sometime March 16, 2005, a complaint was filed before the Regional Trial Court of
Cagayan de Oro, Branch 38, praying for the issuance of Writ of Replevin ordering the
custodian officers of the undocumented forest products to deliver the forest
products to a certain Roger Edma. And on March 29, 2005, the Presiding Judge of
RTC Branch 38, Judge Maximo Paderanga issued the Writ of Replevin commanding
the Court Sheriff to take possession of the undocumented forest products

Upon learning of the Writ of Replevin, General Dagudag filed with the Office of the
Court of Administrator and Affidavit-Complaint dated July 8, 2005 charging Judge
Paderanga with Gross Ignorance of the Law and Conduct Unbecoming of Judge

The Supreme Court found Judge Paderanga liable for ignorance of the law and for
conduct unbecoming of a judge

In the instant case, the forest products were possessed by NMC Container Lines
without the required legal documents and were abandoned by the unknown owner.
Consequently, the DENR seized the forest products, and thereafter, initiated an
Administrative Adjudication over the matter
Page twenty:

Judge Paderanga should have dismissed the replevin suit outright for the simple
reason that courts cannot take cognizance of cases pending before administrative
agencies. Further, under the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, courts cannot take
cognizance of cases pending before administrative agencies of special competence.
The DENR is the agency responsible for the enforcement of forestry laws. More
importantly, Judge Paderanga should have taken notice that forest products are
already in custodia legis and thus cannot be the subject of replevin

Water as a Natural Resource of the Philippines

P.D. No. 1067, The Water Code of the Philippines, December 31, 1976

Article 2. The objectives are;

a) To Establish the basic principles and framework relating to the

appropriation, control and conservation of water resources to achieve the
optimum development and rational utilization of these resources
b) To define the extent of the rights and obligations of water users and owners
including the protection and regulation of such rights
c) To adopt a basic law governing the ownership, appropriation, utilization,
exploitation, development, conservation and protection of water resources
and rights to land related thereto
d) To identify the administrative agencies which will enforce this Code

Article 3. The underlying principles are;

a) All waters belong to the State

b) All waters that belong to the State can not be the subject of acquisitive
prescription
c) The State may allow the use or development of waters by administrative
concession
d) The utilization, exploitation, development, conservation and protection of
water resources shall be subject to the control and regulation of the
government through the National Water Resources Council
e) Preference in the use and development of waters shall consider current
usages and be responsive to the changing needs of the country

Article 10. Water may be appropriated for the following purposes;

a. Domestic
b. Municipal
c. Irrigation
d. Power generation
e. Fisheries
f. Livestock raising
g. Industriasl
h. Recreational
i. Other purposes

Article 79. The administration and enforcement of the provisions of this Code,
including the granting of permits and imposition of penalties for administrative
violations hereof, are hereby vested in the Council, and except in regard to those
functions which under this Code are specifically conferred upon other agencies of
the government, the Council is hereby empowered to make all decisions and
determinations provided in this Code
Page twenty-one:

R.A. No. 9275, Philippine Clean Water Act of 2004, March 22, 2004

Section 27. Prohibited Acts

Section 28, Fines, Damages and Penalties. – Unless otherwise provided herein, any
person who commits any of the prohibited acts provided in the immediately
preceding section or violates any of the provision of this Act or its implementing
rules and regulations, shall be fined by Secretary, upon the recommendation of the
PAB in the amount of not less Ten thousand pesos (P10,000.00) nor more than Two
hundred thousand pesos (P200,000.00) for every day of violation. The fines herein
prescribed shall be increased by ten percent (10%) every two (2) years to
compensate for inflation and to maintain the deterrent function of such fines:
Provided, that the Secretary, upon recommendation of the PAB may order the
closure, suspension of development or construction, or cessation of operations or,
where appropriate disconnection of water supply, until such time that proper
environmental safeguards are put in place and/or compliance with this Act or its
rules and regulations are undertaken. This paragraph shall be without prejudice to
the issuance of an ex parte order for such closure, suspension of development or
construction, or cessation of operations during the pendency of the case

Provided, finally, That water pollution cases involving acts or omissions committed
within the Laguna Lake Region shall be dealt with in accordance with the procedure
under R.A. No. 4850

Universal Robina Corp vs Laguna Lake Development Authority, G.R. No.

191427 (May 30, 2011)

Issue: LLDA has no authority to reduce amount of the fines, nor reduce the number
of days of violations, but to impose the fines and penalties for everyday of violations
pursuant to Article VI, Section 32, Laguna Lake Development Authority Resolution
No. 33, Series of 1996, and R.A. No. 9275, Section 28

Laguna Lake Development Authority vs Court of Appeals, Hon. Manuel

Serapio, and Mayor Macario Asistio of Caloocan City, G.R.No. 110120 (March
16, 1994)

Issue: The LLDA has the power and authority to issue a “cease and desist” order
under R.A. No. 4850

The Charter of LLDA, R.A. No. 4850, as amended, instead of conferring upon the
LLDA the means of directly enforcing such orders, has provided under Section 4 (d)
the power to institute necessary legal proceeding against any person who shall
commence to implement or continue implementation of any project, plan or
program within the Laguna de Bay region without previous clearance from the
LLDA

Clearly, said provision was designed to invest the LLDA with sufficiently broad
powers in the regulation of all projects initiated in the Laguna Lake region, whether
by the government or the private sector, insofar as the implementation of these
projects is concerned. It was meant to deal with cases which might possibly arise
where decisions or orders issued pursuant to the exercise of such broad powers
may not be obeyed, resulting in the thwarting of its laudable objective

The issuance, therefore, of the cease and desist order by the LLDA, as a practical
procedure under the circumstances of the case, is a proper exercise of its power and
authority under its charter and its amendatory laws
Page twenty-two:

Laguna Lake Development Authority vs Court of Appeals and Judge Heculano

Tech, G.R. No. 120865-71, December 7, 1995

On July 18, 1966, R.A. No. 4850 was enacted by Congress creating the Laguna Lake
Development Authority and granted Special Powers and Functions, over the Laguna
Bay, among others, the LLDA has the exclusive jurisdiction to issue new permit for
the use of the lake waters for any projects or activities in or affecting the said lake
including navigation, construction, and operation of fishpens, fish enclosure, fish
corrals and the like, and to impose necessary safeguards for lake quality control and
management and to collect necessary fees for said activities and projects

On October 10, 1991, Congress enacted R.A. No. 7160, the Local Government Code.
Under Section 149 of R.A. No. 7160, Local Government Units shall have exclusive
authority to grant fishery privileges within their respective municipal waters

The Municipalities around the Laguna Lake interpreted the provisions of Section
149 to mean that they have the exclusive authority to issue permit for the use of the
waters of the Laguna Lake. Municipal government thereupon assumed the authority
to issue fishing privileges and fishing permits. Big fishpen operators took advantage
of the occasion to establish fishpens and fishcages to the consternation of the
Laguna Lake Development Authority

In view of the indiscriminate grant of fishpens permits, President Fidel Ramos

issued Presidential Instructions dated June 23, 1993, created the Presidential Task
Force on Illegal Fishpens and Illegal Fishing, and authorized to demolish illegal
fishpens within the Laguna Lake

The owners and operators of the fishpens within the waters of Laguna Lake, filed
Petition for Injunction, before the Regional Trial Court, which the Court granted
enjoining the LLDA and the Presidential Task Force from demolishing the fishpens
and similar structures

The LLDA appealed to the Supreme Court but the case was remanded to the Court of
Appeals. On June 29, 1995, the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal of the LLDA on
the ground that the authority of the LLDA to issue fishing permit had been repealed
by the Local Government Code of 1991, and in view of the aforesaid repeal, the
power to grants permits has now been devolved to and is now vested with their
respective local government units concerned

Not satisfied with the Court of Appeals decision, the LLDA now elevated the case
back to the Supreme Court

Issue: Which agency of the government, the LLDA or the Towns and Municipalities
around the Laguna Lake, should exercise jurisdiction over the waters of Laguna
Lake

Ruling:

We hold that the provisions of R.A. No. 7160 do not necessarily repeal the
aforementioned laws creating the Laguna Lake Development Authority and the
granting the LLDA water rights authority over the waters of Laguna de Bay and the
lake region. The Local Government Code of 1991 does not contain any express
provision which categorically and expressly repeal the charter of LLDA
Page twenty-three:

It has to be conceded that the charter of the LLDA constitute a special law, while the
Local Government Code is a general law. It is basic in statutory construction that the
enactment of a later legislation which is general law cannot be construed to have
repealed a special law

When there is a conflict between a general law and a special law, the special law
shall prevail since it evinces the legislative intent more clearly than the general law.
Thus, it has to be concluded that the charter of the LLDA should prevail over the
Local Government Code of 1991

However, the towns and municipalities around the Laguna Lake area are not
precluded from issuing permits on fishery operations for revenue purposes after the
LLDA has already granted permit

Tanjay Water District vs Hon. Pedro Gabaton, G.R. No. L-63742, April 17, 1989

Issue: Whether or not water districts created under P.D. No. 198, are private
corporations or government-owned or controlled corporations

Ruling: Actually the question of the corporate personality of local water districts is
not new. The Court ruled in the recent case of Hagonoy Water District vs NLRC
(1988), that they are quasi public corporations whose employees belong to the civil
service, hence, the dismissal of those employees shall be governed by the Civil
Service Law, Rules and Regulations

Article IX B, Section 2 (1) – The civil service embraces all branches, subdivisions,
instrumentalities, and agencies of the government, including government-owned
and controlled corporations with original charters

Respondent Judge had correctly dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction over
the subject matter, water, and over the contending parties, both being government
instrumentalities. Furthermore, the recourse to the court is premature because the
controversy should have been ventilated first before the National Water Resources
Council, and the dispute should be administratively settled in accordance with P.D.
No. 242

FOREST AND NATIONAL PARKS/PROTECTED AREAS

Article XII, Section 4 –

“The Congress shall, as soon as possible, determine by law the specific

limits of forest lands and national parks, marking clearly their boundaries on
the ground. Thereafter, such forest lands and national parks shall be
conserved and may not be increased or diminished, except by law. The
Congress shall provide, for such periods as it may determine, measures to
prohibit logging in endangered forests and in watershed areas”

Section 4 reflects about the forest and the preservation of national parks. Once
forest lands are converted into national parks, logging may no longer be permitted
in the area

Congress, however, is given the discretion to determine the limits of forest lands and
national parks, and also the authority to increase or decrease the area
Page twenty-four:

Philippine Protected Areas

Protected area refers to identified portions of land and/or water set aside for their
unique physical and biological biodiversity and protected from destructive human
exploitation

Protected areas play a crucial role in mitigating climate change and building
resilience to catastrophic event. Apart from ensuring biodiversity and conservation
of ecosystems which have traditionally been a source of livelihood for many,
safeguarding protected areas is also vital in preventing the future emergence of
zoonotic infectious diseases such as Ebola, CoronaVirus, and Monkeyfox, among
others

In 1992, the Philippine Congress enacted R.A. No. 7586, aka, The National Integrated
Protected Areas System Act. The law was passed by congress pursuant to the
constitutional mandate to protect and advance the right of the people to a balanced
and healthful ecology. The NIPAS Act provides for the establishment and
management of a comprehensive system of integrated protected areas to maintain
essential ecological processes and life-support systems that will preserve genetic
diversity, ensure sustainable use of resources therein, and maintain their natural
conditions to the greatest extent possible for present and future generations

In 2018, R.A. No. 7586 was amended by R.A. No. 11038, the Expanded National
Integrated Protected Area System, which adopts strong amendatory measures to the
24-year old National Protected Area System Act. The E-NIPAS now includes the
Tanon Strait Protected Seascape, one of the largest marine protected areas in the
Philippines, and also the Philippine Rise Marine Resource Reserve, formerly known
as the Benham Rise

The salient provisions of E-NIPAS include the provision for scientific and technical
support for biodiversity conservation; delineation and demarcation of boundaries;
deputation of support especially on enforcement to the Protected Area; and regular
reporting on the status of the Integrated Protected Area Fund

The E-NIPAS also expands the mandates of the Department of Justice to appoint
special prosecutors handling cases specifically related to protected areas, and assist
in the training of wardens and rangers in arrests and criminal procedures

Protected Area Categories

1. Natural Park
2. Natural Monument/Landmark
3. National Park
4. Wildlife Sanctuary
5. Protected Landscape and/or Seascape
6. Resource Reserve
7. Natural Biotic Area
8. Marine Reserve
9. Managed Resource Protected Area
10. Game Refuge and Bird/Fish Sanctuary
11. Watershed Forest Reserve
12. Watershed Reservation
13. Wilderness Area
14. Mangrove Swamp Forest Reserve
15. Other protected areas established by law, conventions or international
agreements which the Philippine Government is signatory
Page twenty-five:

As of 2020, there had been 107 legislated protected areas, 13 proclaimed protected
areas, and 124 initial components. Of the 244 protected areas in the Philippines, 176
are terrestrial and 68 are marine

R.A. No. 7586, Section 20. Prohibited Acts –

a) Hunting, destroying, disturbing, or mere possession of any plants or animals

or products derived therefrom without a permit from the Management Board
b) Dumping of any waste products detrimental to the protected area, or to the
plants and animals or inhabitants therein
c) Use of any motorized equipment without a permit
d) Mutilating, defacing or destroying objects of natural beauty, or objects of
interest to cultural communities
e) Damaging and leaving roads and trails in a damaged condition
f) Squatting, mineral locating, or otherwise occupying any land
g) Constructing or maintaining any kind of structure, fence or enclosures,
conducting any business enterprise without a permit
h) Leaving in exposed or unsanitary conditions refuse or debris, or depositing
in ground or in bodies of water
i) Altering, removing, destroying or defacing boundary marks or signs

Section 21. Penalties – whoever is found guilty by a competent court of justice shall
be fined in the amount of not leas than P5,000.00 nor more than P500,000.00, or
Imprisonment for not less than one (1) year but not more than six (6) years

PICOP Resources vs Base Metals, G.R. No. 136509, December 9, 2006

Paper Industries Corporation of the Philippines (PICOP), is a multi-billion-peso

wood based industry operating the only fully integrated pulp and paper mill in the
Philippines since 1963. It has the biggest share of forest concessions and operates
182,682 hectares in the eastern coast of Mindanao, with Head Office at Bislig City,
Surigao

In 1987, The Central Mindanao Mining and Development Corporation (CMMMCI)

entered into Mines Operating Agreement with Banahaw Mining and Development
Corporation (Banahaw) whereby Banahaw agreed to act as Mine Operator for the
exploration, development, and commercial operation of CMMCI eighteen (18)
mining claims located in Agusan del Sur

Since a portion of Banahaw mining claims was located in PICOP logging concession
in Agusan del Sur, Banahaw and PICOP entered into Memorandum of Agreement,
whereby in mutual recognition of each other’s right to the area concerned, PICOP
allowed Banahaw an access/right of way to its mining claim in Agusan del Sur

In 1991, Banahaw converted its mining claim to applications for Mineral Production
Sharing Agreement to comply with the provisions of Article XII, Section 2 of the
1987 Constitution

In 1996, while the application for conversion of Banahaw mining claim to Mineral
Production Sharing Agreement is still pending, Banahaw sold its rights and interests
over thirty seven (37) mining claims in favor of Base Metals Mineral Resources
Corporation (Base Metals). The transfer/assignment included the mining claims
held by Banahaw as claim owner, as well as those 18 mining claims of CMMCI
covered by the mining operating agreement between Banahaw and CMMCI
Page twenty-six:

On March 10, 1997, Base Metals officially informed the Bureau of Mines of its
acquisitions of the mining claims of Banahaw and substituted itself as the Applicant
for the Mineral Production Sharing Agreement pending before the said office. As
required by law, Base Metals amended Applications were published in a newspaper
of general circulation

Upon learning of the application of Base Metals, PICOP filed with the Mines Geo-
Sciences Bureau, Caraga Regional Office No. XII, an Adverse Claim and/or
Opposition to Base Metals application on the following grounds –

1. The approval of the application and issuance of the MPSA of Base Metals will
violate the constitutional mandate against the impairment of obligations of
contract
2. The approval of the application will defeat the rights of PICOP as adverse
claimant and/or oppositor

On December 21, 1998, the Panel of Arbitrators issued an Order Setting Aside the
application of Base Metals

On January 11, 1999, Base Metals filed an Appeal before the Mines Adjudication
Board (MAB), which set aside the Order of the Panel of Arbitrators and the Base
Metals application for MPSA were re-instated and given due course

PICOP appealed to the Court of Appeals which upheld the decision of the Mines
Adjudication Board reinstating the application of Base Metals

PICOP then appealed to the Supreme Court

Ruling

The Supreme Court do not subscribe to the argument of PICOP that the Presidential
Warranty dated September 25, 1968 is a contract protected by the impairment
clause of the 1987 Constitution. An examination of the Presidential Warranty
reveals that it simply reassures PICOP of the National government’s commitment to
uphold the terms and conditions of its timber license

As held in the Oposa case, a Timber License Agreement is not a contract within the
purview of the non-impairment clause, nor, a property or property right protected
by the due process clause of the constitution