1.

ENVIRONMENTAL GOVERNANCE: SUSTAINABLE

DEVELOPMENT THORUGH ENVIRONMENTAL LAW
(BEDAN LAW JOURNAL_ MARCH 2010 PAGE 17
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT (Tagalog: Likas-kayang
pag-unlad) -often equated with development without
destruction. It is optimal development with minimal
destruction. In short, wise use of the environment. By
wise use is meant sustainable utilization for the benefit
of mankind in a way compatible with the maintenance
of the natural elements of the ecosystem. It is, in other
words, a forward-looking development.
Things to take note of:
1. What is Environmental Law?
2. What is the role of man in the environment?
custodian.
3. What are MEAs or Multilateral Environment
Agreements?
4. Natural Resource Law : from use oriented to
resource oriented why?
5. Take note of the Conclusion of the readings

POLICY
It is hereby declared a continuing policy of the State
(a) to create, develop, maintain and improve conditions
under which man and nature can thrive in productive
and enjoyable harmony with each other, (b) to fulfill the
social, economic and other requirements of present and
future generations of Filipinos, and (c) to insure the
attainment of an environmental quality that is
conducive to a life of dignity and well-being.
GOAL: (pertains to sustainable development/wise use
concept during this time was not yet recognized or
known)
recognize, discharge, and fulfil the responsibilities of
each generation as trustee and guardian of the
environment for the succeeding generations,
(b) assure the people of a safe, decent, helpful,
productive, and aesthetic environment,
(c) encourage the widest exploitation of the
environment without degrading it, or endangering
human life, health, and safety or cr4eating conditions
adverse to agriculture, commerce, and industry,

2. ENVIRONMENTAL PROVISIONS OF 1987

(d) preserve important historic and cultural aspects of

the Philippine heritage,

CONSTITUTION Sec. 16, Art. II: 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.

(e) attain a rational and orderly balance between

population and resource use,

Sec. 2 (2), Art. XII: The State shall protect the

nations marine wealth in its archipelagic
waters, territorial sea, and exclusive economic
zone, and reserve its use and enjoyment
exclusively to Filipino citizens.
Sec.5, Art. XII: 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 lands 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. (Note: Indigenous
peoples traditional ecological knowledge is an
integral
part
of
understanding
the
environment).
3. PHILIPPINE ENVIRONMENT POLICY PD 1151
Purpose: To protect the right of the people to a healthy
environment through a requirement of environmental
impact assessments and statements

(f) improve the utilization of renewable and nonrenewable resources.

RIGHT TO A HEALTHY ENVIRONMENT
the government recognizes the right of the people to
a healthful environment. It shall be the duty and
responsibility of each individual to contribute to the
preservation and enhancement of the Philippine
environment.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTS
Pursuant to the above enunciated policies and goals,
all agencies and instrumentalities of the national
government, including all government owned and
controlled corporations as well as private corporations
and firms and entities shall prepare, file, and include in
every action, project, or undertaking which significantly
affects the quality of the environment a detailed
statement
CLASS NOTES:
Policy direction / guide

3.1 CASE: MMDA VS CONCERNED CITIZENS OF MANILA

BAY GR 171947 DECEMBER 8, 2008
FACTS:
At the core of this case is Manila Bay, a place with
proud historic past, once brimming with marine life, but
now a dirty and slowly dying expanse mainly due to
official indifference of people and institutions that could
have otherwise made adifference.
Respondents Concerned Residents filed a complaint
before the RTC in Imus, Caviteagainst several
government agencies, among them the petitioners, for
the cleanup, rehabilitation, and protection of Manila
Bay and to submit to RTC a concerted concrete plan of
action for the purpose.
The complaint alleged the following:
Water quality had fallen way below the allowable
standards set by law (as confirmed by the DENR). Given
the sample water collected, the amount of fecal
coliform content is beyond the standard.
The continued neglect of officials violates several laws
With the reckless, accumulated, and ongoing acts,
omission, commission of defendants resulting in clear
and present danger to public health and in the
depletion and contamination of the marine life of
Manila Bay, the RTC held petitioner liable and ordered
to clean up and rehabilitate Manila Bay and to restore
its water quality to class B waters fit for swimming, skindiving, and other forms of contact recreation.

requires them to act even in the absence of specific

pollution incident, as long as the water quality has
deteriorated to a degree where its state will adversely
affect its best usage. This is not conditional on
occurrence of any pollution incident.
(2) YES. SC held that cleaning up and rehabilitating
Manila Bay is ministerial in nature and can be
compelled by mandamus. Sec. 3 (c) of RA No. 7924 (law
creating MMDA) is mandated to put up an adequate
and appropriate sanitary landfill and solid waste and
liquid disposal as well as alternative garbage disposal
systems. This is set up by law (enjoined as a matter of
statutory obligations).
4. PHILIPPINE ENVIRONMENTAL CODE PD 1152
Purpose: To achieve and maintain such levels of air
quality as to protect public health and to prevent to the
greatest extent practicable, injury and/or damage to
plant and animal life and property, and promote the
social and economic development of the country
Features:
(1) Provided a comprehensive program of
environmental protection and management. The Code
established specific environment management policies
and prescribes environmental quality standards.
(2) To achieve and maintain such levels of air quality as
to protect public health and to prevent to the greatest
extent practicable, injury and/or damage to plant and
animal life and property, and promote the social and
economic development of the country

Petitioners appealed before the CA contending that the

provisions of Environmental Code (PD 1152) relate only
to the cleaning of specific pollution incidents and do not
cover cleaning in general. They also asserted that
cleaning of the Manila Bay is not a ministerial act which
can be compelled by mandamus.

(3) Prescribe management guidelines to protect and

improve water quality through: classification of
Philippine waters, establishment of water quality
standards, protection and improvement of the quality
of the Philippine water resources, and responsibilities
for surveillance and mitigation of pollution incidents

ISSUES:

(4) Set guidelines for waste management with a view to

ensuring its effectiveness, encourage, promote and
stimulate technological, educational, economic and
social efforts to prevent environmental damage and
unnecessary loss of valuable resources of the nation
through recovery, recycling and re-use of wastes and
wastes products, and provide measures to guide and
encourage appropriate government agencies in
establishing sound, efficient, comprehensive and
effective wastes management covering both solid and
liquid wastes

(1) Whether Sec. 17 and 20 f PD 1152 under the

headings, Upgrading of Water Quality and Clean-Up
Operations, envisage a clean-up in general or are they
limited only to the cleanup of specific pollution
incidents?
(2) Can petitioner be compelled by mandamus to clean
up and rehabilitate Manila Bay?
HELD:
(1) NO. Sec. 17 does not state that government agencies
concerned ought to confine themselves to containment,
removal, and cleaning operations when specific
pollution incident occurs. On the contrary, Sec. 17

NOTE: For PD 1152, usually, Ambatol gives the student

reciting much leeway on choosing a specific title he/she
wants to recite on. For example: Title II: Water Quality

Management. So, make sure to read one specific title

thoroughly.

Section 59. Preservation of Historic and Cultural

Resources and Heritage. It shall be

OTHER TOPICS:

the duty of every person to help preserve the historic

and cultural resources

1. Air Quality Management

of the country such as sites, structures, artifacts,

documents, objects,

2. Water Quality Management

3. Land Use Management (land use, industrial lands,)
4. Nature Resources Management and Conservation
(fisheries and aquatic resources, wildlife, forestry and
soil conservation, flood control and natural calamities,
energy development, conservation and utilization of
surface ground waters, mineral resources)
5. Waste Management

memorials and priceless trees.

CLASS NOTES:
This law sets the standards for quality
It also incite cooperation and coordination (not only
government offices but
everyone)

MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
Section 52. Population-Environment Balance

and NPEX is

Section 53. Environmental Education. The Department

of Education and

under the EMB)

4.1 CASE : OROPOSA VS FORMOSA 224 SCRA 792

Culture shall integrate subjects on environmental

education in its school

(WHAT IS SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT?)

curricula at all levels

FACTS:

Section 55. Monitoring and Dissemination of

Environmental Information of Foreign

The principal petitioners are all minors duly represented

and joined by their respective parents. Impleaded as an
additional plaintiff is the Philippine Ecological Network,
Inc. (PENI), a domestic non-stock and non-profit
corporation organized for the purpose of engaging in
concerted action geared for protection of the
environment and natural resources. The original
defendant was Hon. Fulgencio Factoran, Jr., Secretary of
DENR.

Origin. The Council shall keep itself informed of current

environmental
developments by obtaining information and literature
from foreign sources
Section 56. Incentives. To operate the installation and
the utilization of
pollution control facilities (according to Amb. Tolentino
some of the
provision of this section was stopped since it was
abused it became a
controversial issue)
Section 57. Financial Assistance/Grant.
Section 58. Participation of Local Government Units
and Private Individuals. It shall
be the responsibility of local government units as well
as private individuals
to actively participate in
management and protection
programs of the government.

the

environmental

The complaint was instituted as a taxpayers class suit

and alleges that plaintiffs are all citizens of the
Republic of the Philippines, taxpayers, and entitled to
the full benefit, use, and enjoyment of natural resource
treasure that is the countrys virgin tropical forests.
The instant petition was filed to seek for the
cancellation of all existing timber license agreements
(TLA) in the country and to cease and desist from
receiving, accepting, processing, renewing, or approving
new timber license agreements. Minor petitioners
contend that continued granting of timber license
constitutes a misappropriation or impairment of the
natural resource property and violates their
constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology
(Art. II, Sec. 16) and the protection by the State in its
capacity as PARENS PATRIAE. Petitioners likewise rely
on respondents correlative obligation per Sec. 4 of
Executive Order 192, to safeguard the peoples right to
a healthful environment.

ISSUES:
(1) Whether the petitioners have locus standi
(2) Whether the petitioners failed to allege in their
complaint a specific legal right violated by the
respondent Secretary for which any relief is provided by
law.
HELD:
(1) YES. They represent their generation as well as
generations yet unborn. Their personality to sue in
behalf of the succeeding generations can only be based
on
the
concept
of
INTERGENERATIONAL
RESPONSIBILITY insofar as the right to a balanced and
healthful ecology is concerned. Such a right as
hereinafter expounded considers the rhythm and
harmony of nature. Nature means the created world in
its entirety. Such rhythm and harmony indispensably
include, inter alia, the judicious disposition, utilization,
management, renewal, and conservation of the
countrys forest, mineral, land, waters, fisheries,
wildlife, off-shore areas, and other natural resources to
the end that their exploration, development, and
utilization be equitably accessible to the present as well
as future generations. Every generation has a
responsibility to the next to preserve that rhythm and
harmony for the FULL ENJOYMENT of a balanced and
healthful ecology. The minors assertion of their right to
a sound environment constitutes, at the same time, the
performance of their obligation to ensure the
protection of that right for the generations to come.
(2) NO. The Court does not agree with the trial courts
conclusions that the plaintiffs
failed to allege with sufficient definiteness a specific
legal right involved or a specific legal wrong committed,
and that the complaint is replete with vague
assumptions and conclusions based on unverified data.
The complaint focuses on one specific fundamental
legal rightthe RIGHT TO A BALANCED AND
HEALTHFUL ECOLOGY which is solemnly incorporated
in fundamental law. While said right is to be found
under the Declaration of Principles and State Policies, it
does not follow that it is less important than any civil
political rights. The right to a balanced and healthful
ecology carries with it the correlative right to refrain
from impairing the environment.

4.2 CASE: MARINE MAMMALS OF THE PROTECTED

SEASCAPE CANYON STRAIT VS SEC. ALMANZA, SEC YAP
(2008)

Two sets of petitioners filed separate cases challenging

the legality of Service Contract No. 46 (SC-46) awarded
to Japan Petroleum Exploration Co. (JAPEX).
The
service contract allowed JAPEX to conduct oil
exploration in the Taon Strait during which it
performed seismic surveys and drilled one exploration
well. The first petition was brought on behalf of
resident marine mammals in the Taon Strait by two
individuals acting as legal guardians and stewards of the
marine mammals. The second petition was filed by a
non-governmental organization representing the
interests of fisherfolk, along with individual
representatives from fishing communities impacted by
the oil exploration activities. The petitioners filed their
cases in 2007, shortly after JAPEX began drilling in the
strait. In 2008, JAPEX and the government of the
Philippines mutually terminated the service contract
and oil exploration activities ceased. The Supreme
Court consolidated the cases for the purpose of review.
In its decision, the Supreme Court first addressed the
important procedural point of whether the case was
moot because the service contract had been
terminated. The Court declared that mootness is not a
magical formula that can automatically dissuade the
courts in resolving a case. Id., p. 12. Due to the
alleged grave constitutional violations and paramount
public interest in the case, not to mention the fact that
the actions complained of could be repeated, the Court
found it necessary to reach the merits of the case even
though the particular service contract had been
terminated. Id.
Reviewing the numerous claims filed by the petitioners,
the Supreme Court narrowed them down to two: 1)
whether marine mammals, through their stewards,
have legal standing to pursue the case; and 2) whether
the service contract violated the Philippine Constitution
or other domestic laws. Id., p. 11.
As to standing, the Court declined to extend the
principle of standing beyond natural and juridical
persons, even though it recognized that the current
trend in Philippine jurisprudence moves towards
simplification of procedures and facilitating court access
in environmental cases. Id., p. 15. Instead, the Court
explained, the need to give the Resident Marine
Mammals legal standing has been eliminated by our
Rules, which allow any Filipino citizen, as a steward of
nature, to bring a suit to enforce our environmental
laws. Id., p. 16-17.
The Court then held that while SC-46 was authorized
Presidential Decree No. 87 on oil extraction, the
contract did not fulfill two additional constitutional
requirements. Section 2 Article XII of the 1987
Constitution requires a service contract for oil

exploration and extraction to be signed by the president

and reported to congress. Because the JAPEX contract
was executed solely by the Energy Secretary, and not
reported to the Philippine congress, the Court held that
it was unconstitutional. Id., pp. 24-25.
In addition, the Court also ruled that the contract
violated the National Integrated Protected Areas
System Act of 1992 (NIPAS Act), which generally
prohibits exploitation of natural resources in protected
areas. In order to explore for resources in a protected
area, the exploration must be performed in accordance
with an environmental impact assessment (EIA). The
Court noted that JAPEX started the seismic surveys
before any EIA was performed; therefore its activity was
unlawful. Id., pp. 33-34. Furthermore, the Tanon Strait
is a NIPAS area, and exploration and utilization of
energy resources can only be authorized through a law
passed by the Philippine Congress. Because Congress
had not specifically authorized the activity in Taon
Strait, the Court declared that no energy exploration
should be permitted in that area. Id., p. 34.
4.3 Manila Prince Hotel v. GSIS
Facts:
The Government Service Insurance System (GSIS),
pursuant to the privatization program of the Philippine
Government under Proclamation 50 dated 8 December
1986, decided to sell through public bidding 30% to 51%
of the issued and outstanding shares of the Manila
Hotel (MHC). In a close bidding held on 18 September
1995 only two bidders participated: Manila Prince Hotel
Corporation, a Filipino corporation, which offered to
buy 51% of the MHC or 15,300,000 shares at P41.58 per
share, and Renong Berhad, a Malaysian firm, with ITTSheraton as its hotel operator, which bid for the same
number of shares at P44.00 per share, or P2.42 more
than the bid of petitioner. Pending the declaration of
Renong Berhard as the winning bidder/strategic partner
and the execution of the necessary contracts, the
Manila Prince Hotel matched the bid price of P44.00 per
share tendered by Renong Berhad in a letter to GSIS
dated 28 September 1995. Manila Prince Hotel sent a
managers check to the GSIS in a subsequent letter, but
which GSIS refused to accept. On 17 October 1995,
perhaps apprehensive that GSIS has disregarded the
tender of the matching bid and that the sale of 51% of
the MHC may be hastened by GSIS and consummated
with Renong Berhad, Manila Prince Hotel came to the
Court on prohibition and mandamus
Issue(s):
Whether the provisions of the Constitution, particularly
Article XII Section 10, are self-executing.

Whether the 51% share is part of the national

patrimony.
Held: A provision which lays down a general principle,
such as those found in Article II of the 1987
Constitution, is usually not self-executing. But a
provision which is complete in itself and becomes
operative without the aid of supplementary or enabling
legislation, or that which supplies sufficient rule by
means of which the right it grants may be enjoyed or
protected, is self-executing. Thus 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. In selfexecuting constitutional provisions, the legislature may
still enact legislation to facilitate the exercise of powers
directly granted by the constitution, further the
operation of such a provision, prescribe a practice to be
used for its enforcement, provide a convenient remedy
for the protection of the rights secured or the
determination thereof, or place reasonable safeguards
around the exercise of the right. The mere fact that
legislation may supplement and add to or prescribe a
penalty for the violation of a self-executing
constitutional provision does not render such a
provision ineffective in the absence of such legislation.
The omission from a constitution of any express
provision for a remedy for enforcing a right or liability is
not necessarily an indication that it was not intended to
be self-executing. The rule is that a self-executing
provision of the constitution does not necessarily
exhaust legislative power on the subject, but any
legislation must be in harmony with the constitution,
further the exercise of constitutional right and make it
more available. Subsequent legislation however does
not necessarily mean that the subject constitutional
provision is not, by itself, fully enforceable. As against
constitutions of the past, modern constitutions have
been generally drafted upon a different principle and
have often become in effect extensive codes of laws
intended to operate directly upon the people in a
manner similar to that of statutory enactments, and the
function of constitutional conventions has evolved into
one more like that of a legislative body. Hence, unless it
is expressly provided that a legislative act is necessary
to enforce a constitutional mandate, the presumption
now is that all provisions of the constitution are selfexecuting. If the constitutional provisions are treated as
requiring legislation instead of self-executing, the
legislature would have the power to ignore and
practically nullify the mandate of the fundamental law.
In fine, Section 10, second paragraph, Art. XII of the
1987 Constitution is a mandatory, positive command

which is complete in itself and which needs no further

guidelines or implementing laws or rules for its
enforcement. From its very words the provision does
not require any legislation to put it in operation.

instrumentalities of national government, including

GOCCs, as well as private corporations and entities for
every proposed project/undertaking which significantly
affect the quality of the environment.

In its plain and ordinary meaning, the term patrimony

pertains to heritage. When the Constitution speaks of
national patrimony, it refers not only to the natural
resources of the Philippines, as the Constitution could
have very well used the term natural resources, but also
to the cultural heritage of the Filipinos. It also refers to
Filipinos intelligence in arts, sciences and letters. In the
present case, Manila Hotel has become a landmark, a
living testimonial of Philippine heritage. While it was
restrictively an American hotel when it first opened in
1912, a concourse for the elite, it has since then
become the venue of various significant events which
have shaped Philippine history. In the granting of
economic rights, privileges, and concessions, especially
on matters involving national patrimony, when a choice
has to be made between a qualified foreigner and a
qualified Filipino, the latter shall be chosen over the
former.

Section 4 of P.D. No. 1151 provides: Section 4.

Environmental Impact Statements. Pursuant to the
above enunciated policies and goals, all agencies and
instrumentalities of the national government, including
government-owned or controlled corporations, as well
as private corporations firms and entities shall prepare,
file and include in every action, project or undertaking
which significantly affects the quality of the
environment a detail statement on: (a) The
environmental impact of the proposed action, project
or undertaking (b) Any adverse environmental effect
which cannot be avoided should the proposal be
implemented; (c) Alternative to the proposed action; (d)
a determination that the short-term uses of the
resources of the environment are consistent with the
maintenance and enhancement of the long-term
productivity of the same; and (e) Whenever a proposal
involves the use of depletable or non-renewable
resources, a finding must be made that such use and
commitment are warranted.

The Supreme Court directed the GSIS, the Manila Hotel

Corporation, the Committee on Privatization and the
Office of the Government Corporate Counsel to cease
and desist from selling 51% of the Share of the MHC to
Renong Berhad, and to accept the matching bid of
Manila Prince Hotel at P44 per shere and thereafter
execute the necessary agreements and document to
effect the sale, to issue the necessary clearances and to
do such other acts and deeds as may be necessary for
the purpose.
5. ESTABLISHING AN
STATEMENT PD1586

ENVIRONMENTAL

IMPACT

OVERVIEW: it is the study of the environment WITH or

WITHOUT the chemical project
Law establishing an environmental impact statement
system, including other environmental managementrelated measures.
This is a PLANNING/MANAGEMENT tool

WHO DECLARES THE CRITICAL AREAS

Section
4.
Presidential
Proclamation of
Environmentally Critical Areas and Projects. - The
President of the Philippines may, on his own initiative or
upon recommendation of the National Environmental
Protection Council, by proclamation declare certain
projects, undertakings or areas in the country as
environmentally critical. No person, partnership or
corporation
shall undertake or operate any such declared
environmentally critical project or area without first
securing an Environmental Compliance Certificate
issued by the President or his duly authorized
representative.
FEATURES:

EIA procedure

Declared environmentally critical projects and areas

are required to obtain an Environmental Compliance
Certificate before operation

EIS document passed to the Department

Environmentally Critical Projects includes

Purpose: To attain and maintain a rational and orderly

balance between socioeconomic growth and
environmental protection

1. heavy industries,

This established an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

STATEMENT SYSTEM founded and based on
environmental impact statement, required under
Section 4 of P.D. No. 1151, of all agencies,

3. infrastructure projects,

2. resource extractive industries,

4. golf course projects

Characteristics of Environmentally Critical Areas:

ed

2. To aid agencies in considering EIA results in

their decision making for theirrespective
permitting system

reserves, wildlife reserves, and sanctuaries

potential tourist spots

ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL PROJECTS (ECP):

endangered or threatened species of indigenous
Philippine wildlife (flora and fauna)

scientific interests
itionally occupied by cultural
communities or tribes
by natural
calamities (geologic hazards, floods, typhoons, volcanic
activity, etc.)

The project include activities that have significant

environmental consequences
A project in this category is likely to have significant
adverse impact that may be sensitive, irreversible and
diverse. If the project is an ECP, an EIS document will
have to be submitted. It will be the Environmental
Management Bureau (EMB-Manila) that has jurisdiction
on the matter. In other words, a project that is
categorized as an ECP falls under the authority of the
EMB and must follow the steps identified with the
preparation of an EIS.
EIA Stages:

echarged areas of aquifers

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

Screening
Scoping
EIA Study and Report Preparation
EIA Report Review and Evaluation
Decision Making
Monitoring Validation and Evaluation

5.1 Bangus Fried Fisher Folks vs Lanzanas

Violators shall be punished by the suspension of
cancellation of his/its certificate and or fine for each
violation
PROCLAMATION 2146 (ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL
AND WITHINTHE SCOPE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT STATEMENT SYSTEM ESTABLISHED UNDER
PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 1586.)
What is an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
(EIA)?
It is the process of predicting the likely
environmental consequences of implementing a
project or undertaking, and designing
appropriate
preventive, mitigating
and
enhancement measures.
EIA provides options for the project to be
implemented with assurance that the quality of
the environment and well- being of people will
be safeguarded.
HENCE, EIA is a PLANNING TOOL.
REAL PURPOSE OF EIA:
1. To aid the proponent/applicant on
environmental considerations prior to starting
construction works on the project.

Facts:
On 30 June 1997, Regional Executive Director Antonio
G. Principe (RED Principe) of Region IV, Department
ofEnvironment and Natural Resources (DENR), issued an
Environmental Clearance Certificate (ECC) in favor of
respondent National Power Corporation (NAPOCOR).
The ECC authorized NAPOCOR to construct a temporary
mooring facility in Minolo Cove, Sitio Minolo, Barangay
San Isidro, Puerto Galera, Oriental Mindoro. The
Sangguniang Bayan of Puerto Galera has declared
Minolo Cove, a mangrove area and breeding ground for
bangus fry, an eco-tourist zone.
The mooring facility would serve as the temporary
docking site of NAPOCORs power barge, which, due to
turbulent waters at its former mooring site in Calapan,
Oriental Mindoro, required relocation to a safer site like
Minolo Cove. The 14.4 megawatts power barge would
provide the main source of power for the entire
province of Oriental Mindoro pending the construction
of a land-based power plant in Calapan, Oriental
Mindoro. The ECC for the mooring facility was valid for
two years counted from its date of issuance or until 30
June 1999.
Petitioners, claiming to be fisherfolks from Minolo, San
Isidro, Puerto Galera, sought reconsideration of the ECC
issuance.

RED Principe, however, denied petitioners plea on 15

July 1997. On 21 July 1997, petitioners filed a complaint
with the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 7, for
the cancellation of the ECC and for the issuance of a
writ of injunction to stop the construction of the
mooring facility. Impleaded as defendants were the
following: (1) NAPOCOR, (2) RED Principe, (3) DENR
Region IV Technical Director for Environment Oscar
Dominguez, (4) Oriental Mindoro Electric Cooperative
(ORMECO), which is engaged in the distribution of
electricity in Oriental Mindoro, and (5) certain officials
of Puerto Galera. Petitioners subsequently amended
their complaint to include as additional defendants the
elective officials of Oriental Mindoro represented by
then Governor Rodolfo G. Valencia. Petitioners further
prayed for the demolition of mooring structures that
respondents had already built. On 28 July 1997, prior to
the filing of the amended complaint, the trial court
issued a 20-day temporary restraining order enjoining
the construction of the mooring facility. However, the
trial court lifted the same on 6 August 1997 on
NAPOCORs manifestation that the provincial
government of Oriental Mindoro was the one
undertaking the construction of the mooring facility.
On 28 August 1997, before filing their answers,
respondents ORMECO and the provincial officials of
Oriental Mindoro moved to dismiss the complaint.
These respondents claimed that petitioners failed to
exhaust administrative remedies, rendering the
complaint without cause of action. They also asserted
that the Manila RTC has no jurisdiction to enjoin the
construction of the mooring facility in Oriental Mindoro,
which lies outside the Manila RTCs territorial
jurisdiction.
Petitioners opposed the motion on the ground that
there was no need to exhaust administrative remedies.
They argued that the issuance of the ECC was in patent
violation of Presidential Decree No. 1605, Sections 26
and 27 of Republic Act No. 7160, and the provisions of
DENR Department Administrative Order No. 96-37 (DAO
96-37) on the documentation of ECC applications.
Petitioners also claimed that the implementation of the
ECC was in patent violation of its terms.
In its order of 7 November 1997, the trial court granted
the motion and dismissed petitioners complaint.
Issue: W/N the trial court erred in dismissing petitioners
complaint for lack of cause of action and lack of
jurisdiction.
Held:
The petition has no merit.

The settled rule is before a party may seek the

intervention of the courts, he should first avail of all the
means afforded by administrative processes. Hence, if a
remedy within the administrative machinery is still
available, with a procedure prescribed pursuant to law
for an administrative officer to decide the controversy,
a party should first exhaust such remedy before
resorting to the courts. The premature invocation of a
courts intervention renders the complaint without
cause of action and dismissible on such ground. RED
Principe of the DENR Region IV Office issued the ECC
based on (1)
Presidential Decree No. 1586 (PD No. 1586) and its
implementing rules establishing the Environmental
Impact Statement
System, (2) DAO 96-37 and (3) the Procedural Manual of
DAO 96-37. Section 4 of PD No. 1586 requires a
proponent of an environmentally critical project, or a
project located within an environmentally critical area
as declared by the President, to secure an ECC prior to
the projects operation. NAPOCOR thus secured the ECC
because the mooring facility in Minolo Cove, while not
an environmentally critical project, is located within an
environmentally critical area under Presidential
Proclamation No. 2146, issued on 14 December 1981.
The rules on administrative appeals from rulings of the
DENR Regional Directors on the implementation of PD
No. 1586 are found in Article VI of DAO 96-37, which
provides:
SECTION 1.0. Appeal to the Office of the Secretary. Any
party aggrieved by the final decision of the RED may,
within 15 days from receipt of such decision, file an
appeal with the Office of the Secretary. The decision of
the Secretary shall be immediately executory.
SECTION 2.0. Grounds for Appeal. The grounds for
appeal shall be limited to grave abuse of discretion and
serious errors in the findings of fact which would cause
grave or irreparable injury to the aggrieved party.
Frivolous appeals shall not be countenanced.
SECTION 3.0. Who May Appeal. The proponent or any
stakeholder, including but not limited to, the LGUs
concerned and affected communities, may file an
appeal.
The DENR Procedural Manual for DAO 96-37 explains
these provisions thus:
Final decisions of the RED may be appealed. These
decisions include those relating to the issuance or nonissuance of an

ECC, and the imposition of fines and penalties. By

inference, the decision of the Secretary on the issuance
or nonissuance of the ECC may also be appealed based
on this provision. Resort to courts prior to availing of
this remedy would make the appellants action
dismissible on the ground of non-exhaustion of
administrative remedies.
The right to appeal must be exercised within 15 days
from receipt by the aggrieved party of such decision.
Failure to file such appeal within the requisite period
will result in the finality of the REDs or Secretarys
decision(s), which can no longer be disturbed.
An appeal shall not stay the effectivity of the REDs
decision, unless the Secretary directs otherwise.
The right to appeal does not prevent the aggrieved
party from first resorting to the filing of a motion for
reconsideration with the RED, to give the RED an
opportunity to re-evaluate his decision. (Emphasis
added)
Instead of following the foregoing procedure,
petitioners bypassed the DENR Secretary and
immediately filed their complaint with the Manila RTC,
depriving the DENR Secretary the opportunity to review
the decision of his subordinate,
RED Principe. Under the Procedural Manual for DAO 9637 and applicable jurisprudence, petitioners omission
renders their complaint dismissible for lack of cause of
action. Consequently, the Manila RTC did not err in
dismissing petitioners complaint for lack of cause of
action
5.2 CASE: RP VS CITY OF DAVAO 388 SRA 691
FACTS:
City of Davao filed an application for a Certificate of
Non-Coverage (CNC) for its proposed project, the
ARTICA Sports Dome. The application was filed with the
DENR-Environmental Management Bureau (EMB).
Attached is a certificate from Planning & Development
Office that the project is not located in a critical area.
EMB denied application. It found:
-critical area.
nvironmental Impact Assessment
process and submit EIS.
Davao filed a petition for mandamus and injunction
with the RTC. RTC granted. It held that nothing in P.D.
No. 1586 requires LGU to comply.
ISSUES:

1. Whether Davao City, as a local government unit, is

covered by PD No. 1586.
2. Whether CNC should be issued to it.
HELD:
1. YES. Sec. 16 of the Local Government Code states
that among the duties of an LGU is to promote peoples
right to a balanced ecology. Hence, it is not exempt
Also, as per the Civil Code, a person is either natural or
juridical. The State and its political subdivisions are
juridical persons. Hence, LGU is a person covered by PD
No. 1586.
2. YES. Davao has sufficiently shown that the project
area is not environmentally-critical. Proclamation 2146
laid
down
all
the
environmentally-critical
areas/projects. The Sports Dome does not fall under
any of the categories
5.3 Technology Developers vs CA
Facts: Technology Developers Inc. is engaged in
manufacturing and exporting charcoal briquette. On
February 16, 1989, they received a letter from
respondent Acting Mayor Pablo Cruz, ordering the full
cessation of the operation of the petitioner s plant in
Sta. Maria, Bulacan. The letter also requested the
company to show to the office of the mayor some
documents, including the Building permit, mayor s
permit, and Region III-Pollution of Environmental and
Natural Resources Anti-Pollution Permit. Since the
company failed to comply in bringing the required
documents, respondent Acting Mayor, without notice,
caused the padlock of company s plant premises,
effectively causing stoppage of its operation.
Technology Developers then instituted an action for
certiorari, prohiition, mandamus with preliminary
injuction against respondents, alleging that the closure
order was issued in grave abuse of discretion. The lower
court ruled against the company. The CA affirmed the
lower court s ruling.
Issue: Whether of not the mayor has authority to order
the closure of the plant. YES.
Whether or not the closure order was done with grave
abuse of discretion. NO.
Ruling:
1. No mayor's permit had been secured. While it is true
that the matter of determining whether there is a
pollution of the environment that requires control if not
prohibition of the operation of a business is essentially
addressed to the then National Pollution Control
Commission of the Ministry of Human Settlements, now

the Environmental Management Bureau of the

Department of Environment and Natural Resources, it
must be recognized that the mayor of a town has as
much responsibility to protect its inhabitants from
pollution, and by virture of his police power, he may
deny the application for a permit to operate a business
or otherwise close the same unless appropriate
measures are taken to control and/or avoid injury to the
health of the residents of the community from the
emissions in the operation of the business.
2. The Acting Mayor, in the letter, called the attention
of petitioner to the pollution emitted by the fumes of its
plant whose offensive odor "not only pollute the air in
the locality but also affect the health of the residents in
the area," so that petitioner was ordered to stop its
operation until further orders and it was required to
bring the following: a. Building permit; b. Mayor's
permit; and c. Region III-Department of Environment
and Natural Resources Anti-Pollution permit.
3. This action of the Acting Mayor was in response to
the complaint of the residents of Barangay Guyong, Sta.
Maria, Bulacan, directed to the Provincial Governor
through channels.
4. The closure order of the Acting Mayor was issued
only after an investigation was made. It found that the
fumes emitted by the plant of petitioner goes directly to
the surrounding houses and that no proper air pollution
device has been installed.
5. Petitioner failed to produce a building permit from
the municipality of Sta. Maria, but instead presented a
building permit issued by an official of Makati.
6. While petitioner was able to present a temporary
permit to operate by the then National Pollution
Control Commission on December 15, 1987, the permit
was good only up to May 25, 1988. Petitioner had not
exerted any effort to extend or validate its permit much
less to install any device to control the pollution and
prevent any hazard to the health of the residents of the
community.
Petitioner takes note of the plea of petitioner focusing
on its huge investment in this dollar earning industry. It
must be stressed however, that concomitant with the
need to promote investment and contribute to the
growth of the economy is the equally essential
imperative of protecting the health, nay the very lives of
the people, from the deleterious effect of the pollution
of the environment.
6. ROLE OF GOVERNMENTAL INSTITUTIONS IN
ENVIRONMENTAL ADMINISTRATION
Department of Health (DOH)

o Has environmental health programs. These

concerns PREVENTING ILLNESS through
managing the environment. These are primarily
concerned with effects of the environment to
health of people.
o Issues environmental sanitation clearance
Department of Agriculture (DA)
o Executive branch responsible
promotion of agriculture and
development and growth.

for the
fisheries

o Emphasizes on the productivity and

sustainability in the use of agricultural
resources.
o Reports on areas where marine life has to be
restored.
o Extends assistance to LGUS in developing
fisheries.
Department of Education (DepEd)
o Department responsible for ensuring access
to, promoting equity in, and improving the
quality of basic education.
o Integrates environmental education in
schools curricula (e.g. environmental laws
concepts and principles), thus promoting
environmental awareness.
o Integrates lessons in pollution prevention,
waste management, environmental protection
etc.
Department of Tourism
o Department responsible for the regulation of
Philippine tourism industry
and promotion of the Philippines as a tourist
destination.
o Assumes prominent role in developing
responsible tourism thereby
ensuring
protection,
promotion of resources.

preservation,

and

o Promotes tourism industry that is ecologically

sustainable.
Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH)
o Department responsible for the safety of
projects in the field of public

works. It is also responsible for the

maintenance of Philippine road network and
irrigation system.

DENR: Reorganized under EO 192

o Responsible for removal and demolition of

structures obstructing free flow of water.

Applicable: Doctrine of Exhaustion

o Integrates environmental and social concerns

into road and infrastructuredevelopment
projects.
o Utilizes Environmental Impact Assessment in
its projects.
Philippine National Police (PNP)
o Enforces laws involving agriculture,
environment, and natural resources.
o Apprehends violators of environmental laws.
Department of Interior and Local Government
(DILG)
o Improves performance of local governments
in governance, administrative, social, and
economic development and ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT (e.g. It may order LGUs to
determine if they have proper
wastewater treatment facilities).
Philippine Atmospheric Geophysical and Astronomical
Services Administration (PAGASA).
o Government agency for weather forecasting,
flood control, astronomical
observations, and time service.
o Maintains NATIONWIDE NETWORK pertaining
to observation and
forecasting of weather and other climatological
conditions affecting national
safety, welfare, and economy.
o Undertakes researches on the structure,
development, and motion of
typhoons and formulates measures for their
moderation.
o Maintains effective linkages with scientific
organization here and abroad, and promotes
exchange of scientific information and
cooperation among personnel engaged in
atmospheric, geological, and astronomical
studies.
DENR AND ITS BUREAUS

PAB is under the Office of the president

(1) Ecosystems Research and Development Bureauprincipal research and development (R & D) unit of
DENR. Its R & D and extension activities are focused on
the 5 major ecosystems of the Philippines which include
forests, upland farms, grassland and degraded areas,
coastal zone and freshwater, and urban areas.
(2) Environmental Management Bureau (EMB)- the
primary government agency under the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources to formulate,
integrate, coordinate, supervise and implement all
policies, programs, projects and activities relative to the
prevention and control of pollution as well as the
management and enhancement of environment (e.g. It
is mainly responsible for the implementation and
enforcement of RA 8749 (Phil Clean Air Act of 1999).
(3) Forest Management Bureau (FMB)- provides support
for the effective protection, development, occupancy
management, and conservation of FOREST LANDS and
WATERSHEDS.
(4) Land Management Bureau (LMB)- As per Executive
Order 192,
LMB shall ADVISE the Secretary on matters pertaining to
rational land classification, management, and
disposition.
It is an agency of the Philippine government under the
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
responsible for administering, surveying, managing, and
disposing Alienable and Disposable (A&D) lands and
other government lands not placed under the
jurisdiction of other government agencies.
(5) Mines and Geosciences Bureau (MGB)- government
agency responsible for the conservation, management,
development, and proper use of the countrys mineral
resources including those in reservations and lands of
public domains.
(6) Protective Areas and Wildlife Bureau (PAWB)- The
Bureau shall have the following functions:
policies, guidelines, rules
and regulations for the establishment and management
of an Integrated Protected Areas Systems such as
national parks, wildlife sanctuaries and refuge, marine
parks, and biospheric reserves;
-to-date listing of endangered
Philippine flora and fauna and recommend a program of
conservation and propagation of the same;

onitoring and assessment

of the management of the Integrated Protected Areas
System and provide technical assistance to the regional
offices in the implementation of programs for these
areas;

7 (a), it has legal authority to issue ex-parte orders to

suspend the operations of an establishment where
there is prima facie evidence that such establishment is
discharging wastewater, the pollution level exceeds the
maximum permissible standards set by the Board.

policies, guidelines, rules

and regulations for the preservation of biological
diversity, genetic resources, the endangered Philippine
flora and fauna;

Respondents contention: No threat to life, public

health safety or welfare.

be assigned by the
Secretary and/or provided by law.
7. POLLUTION ADJUDICATORY BOARD
The Pollution Adjudication Board (PAB) is a quasijudicial body created under Section 19 of Executive
Order (E.O.) 192 for the adjudication of pollution cases.
It is created under the Office of the Secretary.

7.1CASE: PAB vs CA

ISSUE: Whether the CA erred in reversing the Trial

Courts decision.
HELD:
Yes. The Board was acting within its powers in issuing
the cease and desist orders as per PD 9874, Sec. 7 (a). It
is not essential that an immediate threat to life, public
health, safety exists before an ex-parte cease and desist
order may be issued. It is enough if the Board finds that
the wastes discharged do exceed the allowable
standards set by the Board.
7.2 CASE: LLDA vs CA GR 120865-71 December 7, 1995
FACTS:

FACTS:
Solar Textile Finishing Corporation was involved in
bleaching, rinsing, and dyeingtextiles with wastewater
being directly discharged into a canal leading to
adjacent Tullahan-Tinejeros River.
Petitioner Board, an agency charged with the task of
determining whether effluents of a particular industrial
establishments comply with or violate applicable antipollution statutory and regulatory provisions have been
remarkably forbearing, enforced the applicable
standards vis--vis Solar.
Petitioner issued an ex parte order directing Solar to
immediately cease and desist from utilizing its
wastewater pollution source installations. Solar then
went to the RTC on petitioner for certiorari. Case was,
however, dismissed due to the following:
Appeal, not certiorari, is the proper remedy.
Boards subsequent order allowing Solar to
operate temporarily rendered Solars petition
moot and academic.
CA reversed the order of dismissal and declared the
Writ of Execution null and void. It held that certiorari is
the proper remedy since the order of petitioner would
result in great and irreparable damage to Solar.
Petitioner asked the Supreme Court to review CAs
decision. It claimed that ex-parte order with writ was
issued in accordance with law. It claimed that under PD
984, Sec.

Laguna Lake Development Authority (LLDA) was created

through RA No. 4850 in order to execute the policy of
towards environmental protection and sustainable
development so as to accelerate the development and
balanced growth of the Laguna Lake Area and the
surrounding provinces and towns.
EO 927 further defined and enlarged the powers and
functions of LLDA and enumerated towns, cities, and
provinces encompassed by the term Laguna de Bay
Region. Upon the implementation of RA No. 7160
(Local Government Code), the municipalities assumed
EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION and authority to issue fishing
privileges within their municipal waters since Sec. 149
thereof provides that Municipal corporations shall have
authority to grant in municipal waters and impose
rental fees or charges thereof.
Big fish pen operators took advantage of the occasion
to establish fish pens and fish cages to the dismay of
LLDA. Implementation of separate, independent policies
in fish cages/fish pen operation and the
INDISCRIMINATE grant of fish pen permits by the
lakeshore municipalities aggravated the current
environmental problems and ecological stress of Laguna
Lake.
LLDA then served notice to general public that:
Fish pens, cages, and other aquaculture structures
unregistered with LLDA are declared illegal;
Those declared illegal shall be subject to demolition;

 Owners of those declared illegal shall be criminally

charged with violations of provisions of RA No. 4850/PD
813. A month later, LLDA sent notices advising the
owner of the illegally constructed fish pens/cages and
aqua structures, advising them to dismantle their
respective structures otherwise demolition shall be
effected.

granted with privileges provided in Sec. 149 of the Local

Government Code, invoking the invalidity of the
enactments as violative of their preferential rights.

ISSUE: Which agency of the governmentLLDA or

towns/municipalities comprising the regionshould
exercise jurisdiction over the Laguna Lake and its
surrounding district insofar as issuance of permits for
fishing privileges is concerned.

No. Enactments are valid exercise of police power of

LGU to protect public interests and the public rights to a
balanced and healthful ecology.

HELD:
LLDA. Sec. 4 (k) of LLDA charter and Sec. 2 of EO 927,
specifically provide that the LLDA shall have exclusive
jurisdiction to issue permits for the use of all surface
water for any projects or activities affecting the region.
On the other hand, RA No. 7610 has granted
municipalities exclusive authority to grant fishery
privilege on municipal waters.
Provisions of RA No. 7610 do not necessarily repeal the
laws creating LLDA. Where theres conflict between
general and special laws, the latter should prevail as it
evinces legislative intent more clearly than general
statute. Special law cannot be repealed, amended, or
altered by a subsequent general law by mere
implications.
Moreover, the powers of LLDA , for the purpose of
effectively rehabilitating and monitoring Laguna de Bay,
partakes of the nature of police power, most pervasive,
least limitable, most demanding of all state powers
7.3 CASE: TANO VS. SOCRATES 278 SCRA 154
FACTS:
The Sangguniang Panglungsod of Puerto Princesa
enacted Ordinance No. 15-92 banning the shipment of
live fish and lobster outside Puerto Princesa City for a
period of 5 years. In the same light, the SP Palawan also
enacted a Resolution that prohibits the catching,
gathering, buying, selling, possessing, and shipment of
live marine coral-dwelling aquatic organisms for 5 years
within Palawan waters.
Petitioners Airline Shippers Association of Palawan,
together with marine merchants, were charged for
violating the above ordinance and resolution by the city
and provincial governments.
Petitioners now alleged that they have the preferential
rights as marginal fishermen

ISSUE: Whether the enactments are violative of

preferential rights.
HELD:

Rights and privileges invoked by petitioner are not

absolute. The General Welfare
Clause of the Local Government Code mandates for the
liberal interpretation in giving the LGUs more powers to
accelerate economic development and to upgrade the
life of people in the community. LGUs are then
empowered to enact fishery laws in its municipal waters
which necessarily include the enactment of ordinances
in order to effectively carry out enforcement of fishery
laws in the community..