4.

The utilization, exploitation, development, conservation and protection of water

resources shall be subject to the control and regulation of the government through the
1. PD 1067 WATERCODE Natural Water Resources Council;

EFFECTIVITY:
AGENCY/DEPT/BUREAU: Natural Water Resources Council
ARTICLE 79: The administration and enforcement of the provisions of this Code,
including the granting of permits and the imposition of penalties for administrative
violation thereof, are hereby vested in the Council, and except in regard to those
functions which under the Code are specifically conferred upon other agencies of the
government, the Council is hereby empowered to make all decisions and
determinations provided for in this Code.
SUMMARY OF THE WATER CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES (PD NO. 1067)
A decree instituting a Water Code, thereby revising and consolidating the laws
governing the ownership, appropriation, utilization, exploitation, development,
conservation and protection of water resources
OBJECTIVES OF THE WATER CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES
1. To establish the basic principles and framework relating to the appropriation,
control and conservation of water resources and to achieve the optimum
development and rational utilization of these resources;
2. To define the extent of the rights and obligations of water users and owners
including the protection and regulation of such rights;
3. To adopt a basic law regarding the ownership, appropriation, utilization,
exploitation, development, conservation and protection of water resources and
rights to land related thereto; and
4. To identify the administrative agencies which will enforce the Water Code.
5. Preference in the use and development of waters shall consider current usages and be
responsive to the changing needs of the country.
WATERS – as used in the Water Code, refers to water under the ground, water above the
ground, water in the atmosphere and the waters of the sea within the territorial
jurisdiction of the Philippines.
WATERS THAT BELONG TO THE STATE
1. Rivers and their natural beds;
2. Continuous or intermittent waters of springs and brooks running in their natural beds
and the beds themselves;
3. Natural lakes and lagoons;
4. All other categories of surface waters such as water flowing over lands, water from
rainfall whether natural or artificial, and water from agricultural run-off, seepage and
drainage;
5. Atmospheric water;
6. Subterranean or ground waters; and
7. Seawater.
WATERS FOUND ON PRIVATE LANDS THAT BELONG TO THE STATE
1. Continuous or intermittent waters rising on such lands;
2. Lakes and lagoons naturally occurring on such lands;
3. Rain water falling on such lands;
4. Subterranean or ground waters; and
5. Waters in swamps and marshes.
ARTICLE 6: The owner of the land where the water is found may use the same for
domestic purposes without securing a permit, provided that such use shall be registered,
when required by the National Water Resources Council.

UNDERLYING PRINCIPLES OF THE WATER CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES The Council, however, may regulate such use when there is
(1) wastage, or
1. All waters belong to the State; (2) in times of emergency.
2. All waters that belong to the State cannot be subject to acquisitive prescription;
3. The State may allow the use or development of waters by administrative concession;

1
ARTICLE 7: Subject to the provisions of the Water Code, any person who captures or - the sequence provided above (or the order of preference) shall be followed
collects water by means of cisterns, tanks or pools shall have exclusive control over such when priority in time of appropriation from a certain source of supply cannot
water and the right to dispose of the same. be determined

APPROPRIATION OF WATERS – as used in the Water Code, is the acquisition of rights WATER RIGHT – is the privilege granted by the government to appropriate and use
over the use of waters or the taking or diverting of waters from a natural source in the water.
manner and for any purpose allowed by law.
WATER PERMIT – is the document evidencing the water right.

PURPOSES IN WHICH WATER MAY BE APPROPRIATED (GENERAL RULE) No person, including government instrumentalities or government-
owned corporations, shall appropriate water without a water right, which shall be
1. Domestic – is the utilization of water for drinking, washing, bathing, cooking or evidenced by a document known as a water permit.
other household needs, home gardens, and watering of lawns or domestic
animals (EXCEPTION) Any person may appropriate or use natural bodies of water without securing
a water permit for any of the following:
2. Municipal – is the utilization of water for supplying the water requirements of
the community 1. Appropriation of water by means of hand carried receptacles; and
2. Bathing or washing, watering or dipping of domestic or farm animals, and navigation of
watercrafts or transportation of logs and other objects by floatation.
3. Irrigation – is the utilization of water for producing agricultural crops
REGALIAN DOCTRINE – is the doctrine recognized in our constitution whereby ownership
4. Power generation – is the utilization of water for producing electrical or
of minerals and all forces of potential energy and other natural resources are reserved for
mechanical power
the State (see Article XII, Section 2, 1987 Constitution).

5. Fisheries – is the utilization of water for the propagation and culture of fish as a OTHER PROVISIONS
commercial enterprise
ARTICLE 11: The State, for reasons of public policy, may declare waters not previously
6. Livestock raising – is the utilization of water for large herds or flocks of animals appropriated, in whole or in part, exempt from appropriation for any or all purposes
raised as a commercial enterprise and, thereupon, such waters may not be appropriated for those purposes.

7. Industrial – is the utilization of water in factories, industrial plants and mines,
including the use of water as an ingredient of a finished product
8. Recreational and – is the utilization of water for swimming pools, both houses,
boating, water skiing, golf courses and other similar facilities in resorts and other
places of recreation
ARTICLE 12: Waters appropriated for a particular purpose may be applied for another
purpose only upon approval of the Council and on condition that the new use does not
unduly prejudice the rights of other permittees, or require an increase in the volume of
water.
ARTICLE 15:

9. Other purposes a) Only citizens of the Philippines, of legal age, as well as

b) juridical persons (corporations organized under the laws of the Philippines, at
least 60% of the capital of which is owned by the Citizens of the Philippines

2
 c) Government entities and instrumentalities, including government owned and
controlled corporations
who are duly qualified by law to exploit and develop water resources, may
apply for water permits.
Some Easements Relating to Waters
Lower estate are obliged to receive the waters which naturally and without the
intervention of man descend from the higher estates, as well as the stones or earth
which they carry with them.
The owner of the lower estate cannot construct works which will impede this easement;
neither can the owner of the higher estate make works which will increase the burden.
The easement of aqueduct does not prevent owner of the servient estate from closing
or fencing it or from building over the aqueduct in such manner as not to cause the
latter any damage, or render necessary repairs and cleanings impossible.
Servient estate is a term used in property law to refer to real property which is
subject to a use that benefits another property, such as an easement, right of
way or use for access to an adjoining property or utility lines.
aqueduct an artificial channel for conveying water, typically in the form of a
bridge across a valley or other gap.
synonyms: conduit, race, channel, chute, watercourse, sluice, sluiceway, spillway
"our paper boats went through the aqueduct
For legal purpose, the easement of aqueduct shall be considered as continuous and
apparent, even though the flow of the water may not be continuous, or it use depend
upon the needs of the dominant estate, or upon a schedule of alternate days or hours.
ARTICLE 16: xxx.
In determining whether to grant or deny an application, the Council shall consider the
following:
1. Protests filed, if any;
2. Prior permits granted;
3. The availability of water;
4. The water supply needed for beneficial use;
5. Possible adverse effects;
6. Land-use economics; and
7. Other relevant factors.
Upon approval of an application, a water permit shall be issued and recorded.
ARTICLE 17: The right to the use of water is deemed acquired as of the date of filing of the
application for a water permit in case of approved permits, or as of the date of actual use
in a case where no permit is required.
ARTICLE 18: All water permits granted shall be subject to conditions of beneficial use,
adequate standards of design and construction, and such other terms and conditions as
may be imposed by the Council.
xxx.
ARTICLE 19: Water rights may be leased or transferred in whole or in part to another
person with prior approval of the Council, after due notice and hearing.
ARTICLE 20: The measure and limit of appropriation of water shall be beneficial use.
BENEFICIAL USE OF WATER is the utilization of water in the right amount during the
period that the water is needed for producing the benefits for which the water is
appropriated.
ARTICLE 22: Between two or more appropriators of water from the same sources of
supply, priority in time of appropriation shall be given the better right, except that in
times of emergency the use of water for domestic and municipal purposes shall have a
better right over all other uses; provided, that where water shortage is recurrent and the
appropriator for municipal use has a lower priority in time of appropriation, then it shall
be his duty to find an alternative source of supply in accordance with conditions
prescribed by the Council.
ARTICLE 23: Priorities may be altered on grounds of greater beneficial use, multi-
purpose use, and other similar grounds after due notice and hearing, subject to
payment of compensation in proper cases.
ARTICLE 24: A water right shall be exercised in such a manner that the rights of third
persons or of other appropriators are not prejudiced thereby.
ARTICLE 25: A holder of a water permit may demand the establishment of easements
necessary for the construction and maintenance of the works and facilities needed for
3
the beneficial use of the waters to be appropriated, subject to the requirements of just 4. Willful failure or refusal to comply with rules and regulations or any lawful order;
compensation and to the following conditions: 5. Pollution;
6. Public nuisance; or
1. That he is the owner, lessee, mortgagee or one having real right over the land 7. Acts detrimental to public health and safety;
upon which he proposes to use water; and 8. When the appropriator is found to be disqualified under the law to exploit and
develop natural resources of the Philippines;
2. That the proposed easement is the most convenient and the least onerous to 9. When, in the case of irrigation, the land is converted to non-agricultural
the servient estate. purposes; and
10. Other similar grounds.
Easements relating to the appropriation and use of waters may be modified by agreement
of the contracting parties provided the same is not contrary to law or prejudicial to third ARTICLE 31: Preference in the development of water resources shall consider
persons. 1. security of the State,
2. multiple use,
ARTICLE 27: Water users shall bear the diminution of any water supply due to natural 3. beneficial effects,
causes or force majeure. 4. adverse effects and
ARTICLE 28: Water permits shall continue to be valid as long as water is beneficially 5. costs of development
used; however, it may be suspended on the grounds of ARTICLE 32: xxx.

1. Non-compliance with approved plans and specifications or schedules of water CONTROL AREA is an area of land where subterranean or ground water and surface
distribution; water are so interrelated that withdrawal and use in one similarly affects the other.

2. Use of water for a purpose other than that for which it was granted; The boundary of a control area may be altered from time to time, as circumstances
warrant.
3. Non-payment of water charges;
ARTICLE 33: Water contained in open canals, aqueducts or reservoirs of private persons
4. Wastage; may be used by any person for domestic purpose or for watering plants as long as the
water is withdrawn by manual methods without checking the stream or damaging the
5. Failure to keep records of water diversion, when required; and canal, aqueduct or reservoir; provided, that this right may be restricted by the owner
should it result in loss or injury to him.
6. Violation of any term or condition of any permit or
ARTICLE 35: Works for the storage, diversion, distribution and utilization of water
7. Violation of rules and regulations promulgated by the Council. resources shall contain adequate provision for the prevention and control of diseases that
may be induced or spread by such works when required by the Council.
Temporary permits may be issued for the appropriation and use of water for short
periods under special circumstances. ARTICLE 36: When the reuse of waste water is feasible, it shall be limited as much as
possible, to such uses other than direct human consumption.
ARTICLE 29: Water permits may be revoked after due notice and hearing on GROUNDS
of: No person or agency shall distribute such water for public consumption until it is
1. Non-use; demonstrated that such consumption will not adversely affect the health and safety of
2. Gross violation of the conditions imposed in the permit; the public.
3. Unauthorized sale of water;
4
ARTICLE 39: Except in cases of emergency to save life or property, the construction or
repair of the following works shall be undertaken only after the plans and specifications
therefor, as may be required by the Council, are approved by the proper government
agency:
1. Dams for the diversion or storage of water;
2. Structures for the use of water power;
3. Installation for the utilization of subterranean or ground water and
4. Other structures for utilization of water resources.
ARTICLE 42: Unless otherwise ordered by the President of the Philippines and only in
times of national calamity or emergency, no person shall induce or restrain rainfall by
any method such as cloud seedling without a permit from the proper government
agency.
ARTICLE 44: Drainage systems shall be so constructed that their outlets are rivers, lakes,
the sea, natural bodies of water or such other water course as may be approved by the
proper government agency.
ARTICLE 47: When the use, conveyance or storage of waters results in damage to another,
the person responsible for the damage shall pay compensation.
ARTICLE 48: When a water resources project interferes with the access of a landowner
to a portion of his property or with the conveyance of irrigation or drainage water, the
person or agency constructing the project shall bear the cost of construction and
maintenance of the bridges, flumes and other structures necessary for maintaining access,
irrigation, or drainage, in addition to paying compensation for land and incidental
damages.
ARTICLE 50: Lower estates are obliged to receive the waters which naturally and without
the intervention of man flow from the higher estates, as well as the stone or earth
which they carry with them.
The owner of the lower estate cannot construct works which will impede this natural
flow, unless he provides an alternative method of drainage; neither can the owner of the
higher estate make works which will increase this natural flow.
ARTICLE 52: The establishment, extent, form, and conditions of easements of water not
expressly determined by the provisions of this Code shall be governed by the provisions of
the Civil Code.
ARTICLE 54: In declared flood control areas, rules and regulations may be promulgated to
prohibit or control activities that may damage or cause deterioration of lakes and dikes,
obstruct the flow of water, change the natural flow of the river, increase flood losses or
aggravate flood problems.
ARTICLE 57: Any person may erect levees or revetment to protect his property from
flood, encroachment by the river or change in the course of the river, provided that such
construction does not cause damage to the property of another.
ARTICLE 64: xxx.
No person shall drill a well without prior permission from the Council.
ARTICLE 67: Any watershed or any area of land adjacent to any surface water or overlying
any ground water may be declared by the Department of Natural Resources as protected
area.
Rules and regulations may be promulgated by such Department to prohibit or control
such activities by the owners or occupants thereof within the protected area which may
damage or cause the deterioration of the surface or ground water or interfere with the
investigation, use, control, protection, management or administration of such waters.
ARTICLE 68: It shall be the duty of any person in control of a well to prevent the water
from flowing on the surface of the land, or into any surface water, or any porous stratum
underneath the surface without being beneficially used.
ARTICLE 69: It shall be the duty of any person in control of a well containing water with
minerals or other substances injurious to man, animals, agriculture, and vegetation to
prevent such waters from flowing on the surface of the land or into any surface water or
into any other aquifer or porous stream.
ARTICLE 71: To promote better water conservation and usage for irrigation purposes, the
merger of irrigation associations and the appropriation of waters by associations instead
of by individuals shall be encouraged.
No water permit shall be granted to an individual when his water requirement can be
supplied through an irrigation association.
ARTICLE 75: No person shall, without prior permission from the National Pollution
Control Commission, build any works that may produce dangerous or noxious
substances or perform any act which may result in the introduction of sewage,
industrial waste, or any pollutant into any source of water supply.
5
Water pollution is the impairment of the quality of water beyond a certain standard. –
This standard may vary according to the use of the water and shall be set by the National
Pollution Control Commission.
ARTICLE 76: The establishment of cemeteries and waste disposal areas that may affect
the source of a water supply or a reservoir for domestic or municipal use shall be
subject to the rules and regulations promulgated by the Department of Health.
ARTICLE 79: The administration and enforcement of the provisions of this Code,
including the granting of permits and the imposition of penalties for administrative
violation thereof, are hereby vested in the Council, and except in regard to those
functions which under the Code are specifically conferred upon other agencies of the
government, the Council is hereby empowered to make all decisions and
determinations provided for in this Code.
ARTICLE 82: xxx.
Rules and regulations prescribed by any government agency that pertain to the utilization,
exploitation, development, control, conservation, or protection of water resources shall, if
the Council so requires, be subject to its approval.
ARTICLE 84: The Council and other agencies authorized to enforce this Code are
empowered to enter upon private lands, with previous notice to the owner, for the
purpose of conducting surveys and hydrologic investigations, and to perform such other
acts as are necessary in carrying out their functions including the power to exercise the
right of eminent domain.
ARTICLE 87: The Council or its duly authorized representative, in the exercise of its
power to investigate and decide cases brought to its cognizance, shall have the power to
administer oaths, compel the attendance of witnesses by subpoena and the production
of relevant documents by subpoena duces tecum.
Non-compliance or violation of such orders or subpoena and subpoena duces tecum shall
be punished in the same manner as indirect contempt of an inferior court upon
application by the aggrieved party with the proper Court of First Instance (now Regional
Trial Court) in accordance with the provisions of the Rules of Court.
ARTICLE 88: The Council shall have original jurisdiction over all disputes relating to
appropriation, utilization, exploitation, development, control, conservation and
protection of waters within the meaning and context of the provisions of this Code.
The decisions of the Council on water rights controversies shall be immediately
executory and the enforcement thereof may be suspended only when a bond, in an
amount fixed by the Council to answer for damages occasioned by the suspension or
stay of execution, shall have been filed by the appealing party, unless the suspension is by
virtue of an order of a competent court.
All disputes shall be decided within sixty (60) days after the parties submit the same for
decision or resolution.
The Council shall have the power to issue writs of execution and enforce its decisions
with the assistance of local or national police agencies.
ARTICLE 89: The decisions of the Council on water rights controversies may be appealed
to the Court of First Instance (now Regional Trial Court) of the province where the
subject matter of the controversy is situated within fifteen (15) days from the date the
party appealing receives a copy of the decision, on any of the following GROUNDS:
1. Grave abuse of discretion;
2. Question of law; and
3. Questions of fact and law.
ARTICLE 96: No vested or acquired right to the use of water can arise from acts or
omissions which are against the law or which infringe upon the rights of others.
ARTICLE 97: Acts and contracts under the regime of old laws, if they are valid in
accordance therewith, shall be respected, subject to the limitations established in this
Code.
Any modification or extension of these acts and contracts after the promulgation of this
Code, shall be subject to the provisions hereof.
ARTICLE 98: Interim rules and regulations promulgated by the Council shall continue to
have binding force and effect, when not in conflict with the provisions of this Code.
(This law superseded provisions of the civil code relating to water rights.)
WATER CODE CASES
Jurisdiction Matters
Metro Iloilo Water District v. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 122855, March 31, 2005, 454
6
 SCRA 249
was already granted.
The instant case certainly calls for the application and interpretation of pertinent laws
and jurisprudence in order to determine whether private respondents’ actions violate
petitioner’s rights as a water district and justify an injunction. This issue does not so
much provide occasion to invoke the special knowledge and expertise of the Water
Council as it necessitates judicial intervention. While initially it may appear that there
is a dimension to the petitions which pertains to the sphere of the Water Council, i.e.,
the appropriation of water which the Water Code defines as “the acquisition of rights
over any purpose allowed by law,” in reality the matter is at most merely collateral to
the main thrust of the petitions.
FACTS:
In 1993, Metro Iloilo Water District filed nine individual yet identical petitions for
injunction with prayer for preliminary injunction and/or temporary restraining order
against herein Emma Nava, et al. One of the grounds for the suit is that the extraction
or withdrawal of ground water without a Water Permit violates Article XIII of PD No.
1067 of the Water Code of the Philippines. Unless such act is restrained, it will
definitely cause great loss upon the petitioner as a Water District. The trial court
dismissed the petitions, ruling that the controversy was within the original jurisdiction
of the Water Council, involving, as it did, the appropriation, exploitation, and utilization
of water, and factual issues which were within the Water Council’s competence. The
Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision.
ISSUE: Whether the Regional Trial Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter.
RULING:
Yes. It is the Regional Trial Court and not the Water Council that has jurisdiction. The
petitions raised a judicial question. It therefore follows that the doctrine of exhaustion
of administrative remedies, on the basis of which the petitions were dismissed by the
trial court and the Court of Appeals, does not even come to play. Furthermore, the case
necessitated judicial intervention as it deals with the application and interpretation of
pertinent laws and jurisprudence in order to determine whether private respondents’
actions violate petitioner’s rights as a water district. While initially it may appear that
there is a dimension to the petitions which pertains to the sphere of the Water Council,
in reality the matter is at most merely collateral to the main thrust of the petitions. The
trial court’s jurisdiction must be upheld where the issue involved is not the settlement
of a water rights dispute, but the enjoyment of a right to water use for which a permit
BF Northwest Homeowner’s Association, Inc. v. Intermediate Appellate Court G.R.
No. 72370, May 29, 1987, 234 Phil. 537
Considering the specificity with which PD No. 1067, a special law, and treats appeals
from the NWRC, there is no room to apply Section 9[3] of BP Blg. 129, a general law,
which confers exclusive appellate jurisdiction to the Court of Appeals over decisions of
quasi-judicial agencies. The fact that one is special and the other is general creates a
presumption that the special law (PD No. 1067) is to be considered as remaining an
exception to the general one (BP Blg. 129, Section a[3]). x x x Neither would Section
9[2] of the same law, giving the Court of Appeals exclusive original jurisdiction over
actions for annulment of judgments of Regional Trial Courts, find applicability since
the NWRC is not on equal footing with the Regional Trial Court.
FACTS:
There are three consolidated cases.
The first case involves the filing of Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition, and
Mandamus of BF Northwest Homeowners Association, Inc. before the Regional Trial
Court in Makati to enjoin BF Homes, Inc. from collecting adjusted water rates from
Association members. The trial court Judge Zoilo Aguinaldo denied the Motion to
Dismiss filed by BF Homes, Inc. and upheld his jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
However, the Court of Appeals reversed and held that the trial court was without
jurisdiction to entertain the case.
The second case, meanwhile, was filed by one Antonio Pedro, President of the
Association, against BF Homes, Inc. asking the Court to declare the decision of the
National Water Resources Council (NWRC) null and void because it was rendered
without hearing and, therefore, without due process of law. The judge dismissed the
Complaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.
The third case involves a civil suit filed against BF Homeowners Association, Inc.,
involving the annulment of the decision or order of the NWRC which granted BF
Homes, Inc. the authority to charge increased water rates. The trial court dismissed
the suit.
7
ISSUE: Whether or not the Regional Trial Court has jurisdiction to annul orders of the
NWRC.
HELD:
Yes. The Regional Trial Court has jurisdiction over the orders of the NWRC. The
National Water Resources Council (NWRC) was created by PD No. 424 on March 28,
1974 and was vested with the general power to coordinate and integrate water
resources development, and among others, to formulate and promulgate rules and
regulations for the exploitation and optimum utilization of water resources, including
the imposition on water appropriators of such fees or charges as may be deemed
necessary by the Council for water resources development.
PD No. 1067, which enacted the Water Code of the Philippines, identified the NWRC
as the administrative agency for the enforcement of its provisions and was
“authorized to impose and collect reasonable fees or charges for water resources
development from water appropriators.” Jurisdiction over actions for annulment of
NWRC decisions lies with the Regional Trial Courts, particularly, when we take note
of the fact that the appellate jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court over NWRC
decisions covers such broad and all embracing grounds as grave abuse of discretion,
questions of law, and questions of fact and law.
Amistoso v. Ong
G.R. No. L-60219, June 29, 1984, 130 SCRA 228
The water rights grant partakes the nature of a document known as a water permit
recognized under Article 13 of PD No. 1067. The provision governing the validity of a
water rights grant is found in the Transitory and Final Provisions of PD No. 1067. In
the instant case, a grant indubitably exists in favor of the petitioner. It is the enjoyment
of the right emanating from that grant that is in litigation. Violation of the grantee’s
right, who in this case is the petitioner, by the closure of the irrigation canal, does not
bring the case anew within the jurisdiction of the National Water Resources Council.
FACTS:
On July 27, 1981, Bienvenida Amistoso filed a complaint for Recognition of Easement
with Preliminary Injunction and Damages before the Court of First Instance of
Camarines Sur. Senecio Ong and Epifania Neri are owners of adjoining parcels of
agricultural land situated in Cauayanan, Tinambac, Camarines Sur. An irrigation canal
traverses the land of defendant Neri through which irrigation water from the Silmod
River passes and flows to the land of Ong for the latter’s beneficial use. Despite
repeated demands, Neri and Ong refused to recognize the rights and title of the
petitioner to the beneficial use of the water passing through the aforesaid irrigation
canal and to have petitioner’s rights and/or claims annotated on the Certificate of Title
of respondent Neri.
Amistoso filed a suit against Neri, however, Neri filed a motion to dismiss on the
ground that since the instant case involves the development, exploitation,
conservation and utilization of water resources, the case falls within the exclusive
jurisdiction of the National Water Resources Council pursuant to PD No. 424. Hon.
Presiding Judge Esteban M. Lising granted the Motion and dismissed the petition of
Amistoso.
ISSUE: Whether the National Water Resource Council (NWRC) is the proper authority
to determine such a controversy.
HELD: No. The regular courts, not the NWRC, has jurisdiction over the controversy.
The NWRC is not the proper authority to determine the controversy because it is not
within its exclusive jurisdiction. Private respondents admit that petitioner Amistoso
has an approved Water Rights Grant issued by the authorized Department. Aside
from this admission, the record clearly discloses an approved Water Rights Grant in
favor of petitioner. The grant was made three years before the promulgation of PD
No. 1067 or the Water Code of the Philippines, thereby repealing among others, the
provisions of the Spanish Law of Water of August 3, 1866, the Civil Code of Spain of
1889, and the Civil Code of the Philippines on ownership of water, easement relating
to water and of public water and acquisitive prescription on the use of water which
are inconsistent with the provisions of said Code (Article 10, PD No. 1067). The grant
contradicts the erroneous findings of the respondent Judge, and incontrovertibly
entitles petitioner to the beneficial use of water from Silmod River. The interruption
of the free flow of water caused by the refusal to re-open the closed irrigation canal
constituted petitioner’s cause of action in the court below, which decidedly does not
fall within the domain of the authority of the National Water Resources Council. In the
case at bar, however, a grant indubitably exists in favor of the petitioner. It is the
enjoyment of the right emanating from that grant that is in litigation. Violation of the
grantee’s right, who in this case is the petitioner, by the closure of the irrigation
canal, does not bring the case anew within the jurisdiction of the National Water
Resources Council.
Prosecution for Multiple Violations
8
 Loney, et al. v. People of the Philippines
G.R. No. 152644, February 10, 2006, 482 SCRA 194
It is a well-settled rule that a single act or incident might offend against two or more
entirely distinct and unrelated provisions of law thus justifying the prosecution of the
accused for more than one offense. The only limit to this rule is the Constitutional
prohibition that no person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for “the
same offense.”
FACTS:
Petitioners John Eric Loney, Steven Paul Reid, and Pedro Hernandez are officers of
Marcopper Mining Corporation, a corporation engaged in mining in the province of
Marinduque. Marcopper had been storing tailings from its operations in a pit in Mt.
Tapian, Marinduque. At the base of the pit ran a drainage tunnel leading to the Boac
and Makalupnit rivers. It appears that Marcopper had placed a concrete plug at the
tunnel’s end. On March 24, 1994, tailings gushed out of or near the tunnel’s end. In a
few days, the Mt. Tapian pit had discharged millions of tons of tailings into the Boac
and Makalupnit rivers.
In August 1996, the Department of Justice separately charged petitioners in the
Municipal Trial Court of Boac, Marinduque with violation of Article 91(B),
subparagraphs 5 and 6 of PD No. 1067 or the Water Code of the Philippines, Section 8
of Presidential Decree No. 984 or the National Pollution Control Decree of 1976 (PD
No. 984), Section 108 of RA No. 7942 or the Philippine Mining Act of 1995, and Article
365 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) for Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Damage to
Property.
ISSUE: Whether or not there was violation of the Philippine Mining Act, Water Code,
and Pollution Control Law.
HELD: Yes. There was a violation of the three laws.
In PD No. 1067 (Philippine Water Code), the additional element to be established is
the dumping of mine tailings into the Makalupnit River and the entire Boac River
System without prior permit from the authorities concerned. The gravamen of the
offense here is the absence of the proper permit to dump said mine tailings. This
element is not indispensable in the prosecution for violation of PD No. 984 (Anti-
Pollution Law), RA No. 7942 (Philippine Mining Act), and Article 365 of the Revised
Penal Code. One can be validly prosecuted for violating the Water Code even in the
absence of actual pollution, or even if it has complied with the terms of its
Environmental Compliance Certificate, or further, even if it did take the necessary
precautions to prevent damage to property.
In PD No. 984 (Anti-Pollution Law), the additional fact that must be proved is the
existence of actual pollution. The gravamen is the pollution itself. In the absence of
any pollution, the accused must be exonerated under this law although there was
unauthorized dumping of mine tailings or lack of precaution on its part to prevent
damage to property.
In RA No. 7942 (Philippine Mining Act), the additional fact that must be established is
the willful violation and gross neglect on the part of the accused to abide by the terms
and conditions of the Environmental Compliance Certificate, particularly that the
Marcopper should ensure the containment of run-off and silt materials from reaching
the Mogpog and Boac Rivers. If there was no violation or neglect, and that the
accused satisfactorily proved that Marcopper had done everything to ensure
containment of the run-off and silt materials, they will not be liable. It does not follow,
however, that they cannot be prosecuted under the Water Code, Anti-Pollution Law
and the Revised Penal Code because violation of the Environmental Compliance
Certificate is not an essential element of these laws.
Writ of Continuing Mandamus
Metropolitan Manila Development Authority v. Concerned Residents of Manila Bay
G.R. Nos. 171947-48, December 18, 2008, 574 SCRA 661
The writ of mandamus lies to require the execution of a ministerial duty. A ministerial
duty is one that “requires neither the exercise of official discretion nor judgment.” It
connotes an act in which nothing is left to the discretion of the person executing it. It is
a “simple, definite duty arising under conditions admitted or proved to exist and
imposed by law.” Mandamus is available to compel action, when refused, on matters
involving discretion, but not to direct the exercise of judgment or discretion one way or
the other.
RA No. 9003 is a sweeping piece of legislation enacted to radically transform and
improve waste management. It implements Section 16, Article II of the 1987
Constitution, which explicitly provides that the State shall protect and advance the
right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and
harmony of nature. So it was in Oposa v. Factoran, Jr. that the Court stated that the
9
 right to a balanced and healthful ecology need not even be written in the Constitution
for it is assumed, like other civil and political rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, to
exist from the inception of mankind and it is an issue of transcendental importance
with intergenerational implications.
FACTS:
The government agencies namely, MWSS, LWUA, DENR, PPA, MMDA, DA, DBM, DPWH,
DOH, DECS, and PNP did not take notice of the present danger to public health and the
depletion and contamination of the marine life of Manila Bay. According to the
Concerned Citizens, the respondents in this case, the water quality of the Manila Bay
had fallen way below the standard of water quality in a manner that makes swimming
unallowable. Thus, the Regional Trial Court ordered the government agencies to
participate in cleaning the Bay.
The Regional Trial Court involved in this case conducted hearings and ocular inspections
of the Manila Bay. Authorities from DENR and MWSS testified in favor of the petitioners
that the bay is in safe-level bathing and that they are doing their function in reducing
pollution. However, the Regional Trial Court decided in favor of the respondents and
ordered the government agencies in violation of PD No. 1152 to rehabilitate the bay.
The petitioners went to the Court of Appeals and argued that PD No. 1152’s provisions
only pertain to the cleaning of specific pollution incidents and do not cover cleaning in
general. However, the Court of Appeals affirmed the Regional Trial Court decision.
ISSUES:
(1) Whether the cleaning of Manila Bay is a ministerial act that can be induced by
mandamus.
(2) Whether Sections 17 and 20 of PD No. 1152 only pertain to the cleaning of the
polluted areas
HELD:
(1) Yes. The cleaning of Manila Bay is a ministerial act which may be compelled by
mandamus.
The cleaning and rehabilitation of Manila Bay can be compelled by mandamus.
The MMDA is duty-bound to comply with Section 41 of the Ecological Solid
Waste Management Act (RA No. 9003) which prescribes the minimum criteria
for the establishment of sanitary landfills and Section 42 which provides the
minimum operating requirements that each site operator shall maintain in the
operation of a sanitary landfill. Based on their charters, it is clear that these
government agencies are also mandated to perform certain functions relating
directly or indirectly to the cleanup, rehabilitation, protection, and
preservation of the Manila Bay.
(2) No. Sections 17 and 20 also include general cleaning.
Section 17 provides that in case the water quality has deteriorated, the
government agencies concerned shall act on it to bring back the standard
quality of water. Section 20, on the other hand, mandates the government
agencies concerned to take action in cleaning up in case the polluters failed to
do their part. The succeeding Section 62(g) and (h) of the same Code which
provides that oil-spilling is the cause of pollution that should be corrected in
cleanup operations, actually expanded the coverage of Section 20 because it
included oil-spilling as one of the causes of pollution that need to be cleaned
up by the government agencies concerned. Moreover, Section 17 emphasizes
that government agencies should clean that water for the sake of meeting and
maintaining the right quality standard. This presupposes that the government
agencies concerned have the duty of cleaning the water in general and not only
at times when there is a specific pollution incident.
2. RA No. 8550 – Philippine Fisheries Code of 1998
Effectivity: February 25, 1998
GOVERNING BUREAU/DEPT: DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE / Bureau of Fisheries and
Aquatic Resources
Philippine water
1. All waters within the Philippine Territory
2. Waters around, between and connecting the islands of the archipelago,
regardless of its breadth and dimension
3. The territorial sea, the seabed, the subsoil, the insular shelves and all other
waters over which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction
4. 200n.m. EEZ and the continental shelf.
Section 2, Article XII of 1987 Constitution:
10
“The state shall protect the nation’s marine wealth and its archipelagic water, territorial
sea, and exclusive economic zone, and reserve its use and enjoyment exclusive for Straight baseline – drawn connecting selected points on coast without
Filipino Citizen.” appreciable departure from general shape of the coast.

In other words, Filipino subsistence or marginal fishermen shall have “preferential right”
High seas – beyond territorial seas and not subject to the sovereign of the
over use and exploitation of fishery and aquatic resources.
coastal state.
However, in Tano v. Socrates, the “preferential right” of the subsistence/marginal
fishermen is NOT ABSOLUTE, since in accordance with the Regalian Doctrine, EDU of Continental Shelf – seabed/subsoil of submarine areas adjacent to the coastal
natural resources shall be under full control and supervision of the state. state but outside territorial sea up to depth of 200meters or beyond.

Section 2, Article XII aims primarily NOT TO BESTOW any right to subsistence fishermen Municipal waters – bodies of water within the municipality which is not included within
but to lay stress on duty of the state to protect the nation’s wealth. the protected areas, 15km from coastline.

Application of RA 8550: The law shall be enforced in:  Jurisdiction of municipal/city government
 Under general welfare clause
a) all Philippine waters including other waters which the Philippine has sovereignty
or jurisdiction; Catch ceiling – limitations or quota on total quantity of fish captured for a specific period
of time and specified area based on available evidence.
b) all aquatic and fisheries resources
Differentiate marginal v. subsistence fishermen:

c) all lands devoted to aquaculture Marginal fishermen – an individual engaged in fishing whose margin or return is barely
sufficient to yield a profit.

Subsistence fishermen – catch yields but irreducible minimum for his livelihood.

Maritime Zones according to United Nations Convention on Law of the Seas (UNCLOS) National Mapping & Resource Information Authority (NAMRIA) – repository of all maps
in the Philippines.
1. Internal waters – all waters landward from baseline of the territory. According to
the constitution, “the waters around, between and connecting the archipelago. Obligations of the coastal state
(Archipelagic waters)” 1. Ensure measures that the living resources are not subject to over-exploitation
2. Territorial Sea – a belt of sea outwards from baseline up to 12n.m, in which the 2. Promote optimum utilization of living resources
coastal state exerciser sovereignty.
3. Contiguous Zone – Water not exceeding 24n.m. from baseline; exercises 2 kinds of fishing:
authority for customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitation authority.
1. Municipal fishing – 3 gross tons or less – fishing within municipal waters using
4. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) – Not more than 200n.m from baseline. The
fishing vessel of 3 gross tons or less or fishing not requiring the use of fishing
coastal state has rights & obligations relative to the exploitation, management
vessels
and preservation over the economic resources found within the zone.
MUNICIPAL WATER INCLUDES
Baseline - low-water line along the coast as officially recognized by the coastal
a. Streams, lakes, inland bodies of water and tidal waters within the
State.
municipality
11
 b. Marine waters included between 2 lines perpendicular to general
coastline from points where the boundary lines of the municipality or
city touch the sea at low tide and a third line parallel with the general
coastline and 15 km from it
c. Where 2 municipalities are so situated on the opposite shores that there
is less than 15 km of marine water between them, the 3rd line shall be
equally distant from opposite shores of the respective municipalities
Note the power of the municipalities to grant fishery privilege can be found in Section 149
of the RA 7160 or the Local Government Code of 1991
The Sanggunian shall, appropriate ordinance, penalize he use of explosives, noxious or
poisonous substances, electricity, muro-ami, and other deleterious methods of fishing and
prescribe a criminal penalty
The State regulates fishing activities through the following:
A. Requiring the registration of the fishing vessel
B. Requiring the fishing company to secure necessary permits to operate fishing
(fishing boat/gear license; fishing activities permit)
C. Setting limits in the amount of fishes to catch thrU “CATCH CEILING” imposition
(Catch-ceiling – annual catch limits allowed to be taken, gathered or harvested
from any fishing area in consideration of the need to prevent overfishing and
harmful depletion of breeding stocks of aquatic organisms)
D. Declaring certain areas as closed season (the period during which the taking of
specified fishery species by specified fishing gear is prohibited in a specified area
or areas in the Philippine waters)
E. Prohibiting the use of explosives, noxious or poisonous substances, electricity,
muro-ami, and other deleterious methods of fishing and prescribe a criminal
penalty
2. Commercial fishing – the taking of fishery species by passive or active gear for
trade, business or profit beyond subsistence or sports fishing, to be further
classified as:
a. Small scale (3.1 to 20 GT) – fishing with passive or active gear utilizing
fishing vessels of (3.1 to 20 GT)
b. Medium scale (20.1 to 150 GT) – fishing utilizing active gears and vessels
of (20.1 to 150 GT)
c. Large scale (more than 150 GT) - fishing utilizing active gears and vessels
of more than 150 GT
GENERAL PROVISIONS AS PER FISHERIES ADMIN. ORDER NO. 198 ON COMMERCIAL
FISHING VESSEL/GEAR AND THE PERSONS ELIGIBLE TO APPLY
SEC. 2. LICENSE TO OPERATE A COMMERCIAL FISHING VESSEL / GEAR
a. License duly granted by the Bureau
Except: fishing vessel engaged in scientific, research, or educational purposes
within the Philippine waters pursuant to an international agreement of which the
Philippine is a signatory
SECTION 3. PERSONS ELIGIBLE TO APPLY Commercial Fishing Vessel License
a. Citizens of the Philippines; and
b. Corporations, partnerships, or associations and cooperatives duly registered in
the Philippines at least 60% of the Capital Stock of which is owned by Filipino
Citizens.
NOTE:
 No person with license shall transfer or assign directly or indirectly his stock or
indirectly his stock or interest to others
 Fishing vessels owned by citizens of the Philippines, partnership, corporation
shall secure Certificates of Philippines Registry
 License is 3 years renewable
Philippines Commercial Vessel to operate in the International Waters Requirements
1. Secure international fishing permit and certificate of clearance from the
Department, BFAR
2. Comply with the requirement of Philippine Coast Guard, Marina and other
government instrumentalities concerned.
Application of Taxes for Fishing by Philippines Commercial Fishing Fleet in International
Waters
That the fish caught by such vessels shall be considered as caught in the Philippine waters
and therefore not subject to all imports duties and taxes only when the same is landed in
duly designated fish landings and fish ports in the Philippines.
12
The fishworkers on board Philippine registered vessels conducting fishing activities
beyond the Philippine Exclusive Economic Zone are not considered as overseas Filipino
workers.
Violations:
1. Unauthorized fishing / Unauthorized fishing activities (without license and
permit)
2. Poaching in the Philippine Water
3. Fishing using explosive, noxious, or poisonous substance and /or electricity
4. Use of fine mesh net
5. Muro-ami
Aquaculture – fishery operations involving all forms of raising and culturing fish and other
fishery species in frash, brackish and marine water areas
Use of areas release for fishpond development – secure a permit, contract or lease
Fishing gear - any instrument or device and its accessories utilized in taking fish and other
fishery species.
(a) Active fishing gear - is a fishing device characterized by gear movements,
and/or the pursuit of the target species by towing, lifting, and pushing the gears,
surrounding, covering, dredging, pumping and scaring the target species to
impoundments; such as, but not limited to, trawl, purse seines, Danish seines,
bag nets, paaling, drift gill net and tuna longline.
(b) Passive fishing gear - is characterized by the absence of gear movements
and/or the pursuit of the target species; such as, but not limited to, hook and
line, fishpots, traps and gill nets across the path of the fish.
PERMITS, CONTRACTS AND LEASES
Fishing Boat/Gear License - a permit to operate specific types of fishing boat/gear for
specific duration in areas beyond municipal waters for demersal or pelagic fishery
resources.
Fishpond Lease Agreement – for fishpond oeprations may be granted by the
Secretary upon the recommendation of the Director to qualified applicants over areas
released for fishpond development that have aleady been developed into fishponds.
FF. persons may apply for FLA over developed public fishponds areas:
1. Citizens of the Philippines who are at least 21 years of age
2. Corporations duly incorporated and registered under the laws of the Philippines
at least 60% of the capital stock or interest of which belongs to the citizens of the
Philippines.
Period of FLa – 25 yrs. Renewable for another 25 yrs but not exceed 50 yrs.
Transfers shall only be allowed within 50 yr period
Surface right – lessee shall have no right to utilize or remove any timber or other
forest products, stones, or eart therefrom without authority from proper officials
NOTE: Priority rights is given to the Fillipino Citizen
Reason: aside from the Constitutional Rights, It is equitable distribution of
opportunities, income and wealth; expanding productivity as the key to raising the
quality life for all, especially the under privilege and protect small fisherfolk from
unfair competition
Limit of fishponds:
1. 50 hectares – individual
2. 250 hectares – corporation
NO PERSON SHALL OPERATE A COMMERCIAL FISHING VESSEL, OR ENGAGE IN FISHERY
ACTIVITY WITHOUT FIRST SECURING A LICENSE FROM DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.
ANY PERSON FOUND IN AREA WITHOUT PERMIT OR REGISTRATION FOR A FISHING
VESSEL SHALL BE PRESSUMED ENGAGED IN UNAUTHORIZED FISHING.”
THERE IS AN AUTOMATIC CANCELLATION OF FISHPOND LEASE AGREEMENT IF THE
HOLDER ACQUIRES CITIZENSHIP IN OTHER COUNTRY.
THE ENTRY OF FOREIGN FISHING VESSEL IN THE PHILIPPINE WATERS SHALL CONSTITUTE
A PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF UNAUTHORIZED FISHING (Penalty: fine, confiscation of
catch, fishing equipment and fishing vessel)
SEARCH AND SEIZURE OF FISHING VESSEL WHICH VIOLATED THE FISHERIES LAW IS AN
EXCEPTION TO BILL OF RIGHTS – SEARCH WITHOUT WARRANT.
LLDA v. CA
13
RA 4850 (1966) provides that Laguna Lake Development Authority (LLDA) has exclusive
jurisdiction to issue permits for enjoyment of fishery and privilege in Laguna de Bay; On
the other hand, RA 7160 (1991) calls for the exclusive authority of municipality regarding
issuance of permits.
To harmonize, SC held that RA 7160 does not repeal the provision of RA 4850. The charter
of LLDA constitutes a special law, while RA 7160 is a general law which cannot be
construed to have repealed a special law. Power of LLDA embodied a valid exercise of
police power, while LGU’s power is clearly granted for revenue purpose.
Hizon v. Court of Appeals
There is a presumption of guilt on the discovery of substances and contaminated fish in
the possession of fishermen in the fishing boat.
However, since it is only a prima facie evidence, the accused is not precluded from
resenting his evidence to rebut the main fact presumed.
Jurisdiction of LGUs
Tano v. Socrates
G.R. No. 110249, August 21, 1997, 278 SCRA 154
It is of course settled that laws (including ordinances enacted by local government units)
enjoy the presumption of constitutionality. To overthrow this presumption, there must be
a clear and unequivocal breach of the Constitution, not merely a doubtful or
argumentative contradiction. In short, the conflict with the Constitution must be shown
beyond reasonable doubt. Where doubt exists, even if well-founded, there can be no
finding of unconstitutionality. To doubt is to sustain.
FACTS:
The petitioners filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition assailing the constitutionality
of Ordinance 15-92 “An Ordinance Banning the Shipment of All Live Fish and Lobster
outside Puerto Princesa City from January 1, 1993 to January 1, 1998 and Providing
Exemptions, Penalties, and for Other Purposes Thereof,” and Ordinance 2 “A Resolution
Prohibiting the Catching, Gathering, Possessing, Buying, Selling, and Shipment of Live
Marine Coral Dwelling Aquatic Organisms.” The petitioners argue that the said Ordinances
deprived them of due process of law, their livelihood, and unduly restricted them from
the practice of their trade, in violation of Section 2, Article XII and Sections 2 and 7 of
Article XIII of the 1987 Constitution.
Issue: Whether or not the Ordinances in question are unconstitutional
HELD:
No. The Ordinances are declared constitutional.
Pursuant to the principles of decentralization and devolution enshrined in the Local
Government Code and the powers granted therein to local government units in the
exercise of police power, the validity of the questioned Ordinances cannot be doubted. It
is apparent that both Ordinances have two principal objectives or purposes. The first is to
establish a closed season for the species of fish or aquatic animals covered therein for a
period of five years. The second is to protect the coral in the marine waters of the City of
Puerto Princesa and the Province of Palawan from further destruction due to illegal
fishing activities.
Prohibited Acts
People of the Philippines v. Vergara
G.R. No. 110286, April 2, 1997, 270 SCRA 624
Trial courts are tasked to initially rule on the credibility of witnesses for both the
prosecution and the defense. Appellate courts seldom would subordinate, with their own,
the findings of trial courts which concededly have good vantage points in assessing the
credibility of those who take the witness stand. Nevertheless, it is not all too uncommon
for appellate courts to peruse through the transcript of proceedings in order to satisfy
itself that the records of a case do support the conclusions of trial courts.
FACTS:
On July 4, 1992, a team composed of deputized fish warden, the president of the Leyte
Fish Warden, and some police officers were on board, Bantay-Dagat, a pumpboat, on
“preventive patrol” along the municipal waters fronting barangays Baras and Candahug of
Palo, Leyte, when they chanced upon a fishing boat. The boat had on board the accused.
The team saw appellant throw into the sea a bottle known in the locality as badil and an
explosion occurred. When the accused surfaced, they were caught red-handed with fish
catch. The four accused were apprehended and taken by the patrol team to the Bantay-
Dagat station at Baras, and later to the police station in Palo, Leyte. The fishing boat and
14
its paraphernalia, as well as the two fishnets of bolinao, were impounded. The trial court
found the accused guilty of violating PD No. 704.
ISSUE: Whether the evidence was sufficient to convict the accused.
HELD:
Yes. The evidence presented was enough to convict the accused.
The first set of evidence were the testimonies, the first of which came from Fish Warden
Jesus Bindoy, while the second testimony came from Nestor Aldas, an Agricultural
Technologist and Fish Examiner working with the Department of Agriculture, Palo, Leyte,
who examined the fish samples taken from the accused, and testified that he was with
the team patrolling. The second evidence considered was the possession of explosives.
Under Sections 33 and 38 of PD No. 704, as amended by PD No. 1058, mere possession of
explosives with intent to use the same for illegal fishing as defined by law is already
punishable.
Hizon v. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 119619, December 13, 1996, 265 SCRA 517
It is generally conceded that the legislature has the power to provide that proof of certain
facts can constitute prima facie evidence of the guilt of the accused and then shift the
burden of proof to the accused provided there is a rational connection between the facts
proved and the ultimate fact presumed. To avoid any constitutional infirmity, the inference
of one from proof of the other must not be arbitrary and unreasonable. In fine, the
presumption must be based on facts and these facts must be part of the crime when
committed.
Statutory presumption is merely prima facie evidence. It cannot, under the guise of
regulating the presentation of evidence, operate to preclude the accused from presenting
his defense to rebut the main fact presumed. At no instance can the accused be denied the
right to rebut the presumption.
and several small crafts were fishing by muro ami within the shoreline of Barangay San
Rafael of Puerto Princesa City. The police apprehended the petitioners. In light of these
findings, the PNP Maritime Command of Puerto Princesa City commenced the current
action/proceedings against the owner and operator of the F/B Robinson, the First
Fishermen Fishing Industries, Inc., represented by herein petitioner Richard Hizon, the
boat captain, Silverio Gargar, the boat engineer, Ernesto Andaya, two other crew
members, the two Hongkong nationals and 28 fishermen of the said boat.
ISSUE: Whether or not the plaintiffs were guilty of illegal fishing with the use of obnoxious
or poisonous substance.
HELD: No. Plaintiffs are not guilty.
The members of the PNP Maritime Command and the Task Force Bantay Dagat were the
ones engaged in an illegal fishing expedition. As sharply observed by the Solicitor General,
the report received by the Task Force Bantay Dagat was that a fishing boat was fishing
illegally through muro ami on the waters of San Rafael. This method of fishing needs
approximately 200 fishermen to execute. What the apprehending officers instead
discovered were 28 fishermen in their sampans fishing by hook and line. The authorities
found nothing on the boat that would have indicated any form of illegal fishing. All the
documents of the boat and the fishermen were in order. It was only after the fish
specimens were tested, albeit under suspicious circumstances, that petitioners were
charged with illegal fishing with the use of poisonous substances.
3. RA No. 4850 – Laguna Lake Development Authority Act
Department/Bureau: Laguna Lake Development Authority / National Economic
and Development Authority (NEDA) Board
July 18, 1966

FACTS:

In September 1992, the Philippine National Police (PNP) Maritime Command of Puerto
Princesa City, Palawan received reports of illegal fishing operations in the coastal waters
of the city. In response to these reports, the city mayor organized Task Force Bantay
Dagat to assist the police in the detection and apprehension of violators of the laws on
fishing. The Task Force Bantay Dagat reported to the PNP Maritime Command that a boat

15
The LLDA was established through RA No. 4850 in 1966 as a quasi-government agency control the pollution caused by the said company and ordering the latter to pay a penalty
that leads, promotes, and accelerates sustainable development in the Laguna de Bay of One Thousand Pesos (P1,000) per day of discharging pollutive wastewater to be
Region. Regulatory and law enforcement functions are carried out with provisions on computed from February 4, 2002, the date of inspection, until full cessation of discharging
environmental management, particularly on water quality monitoring, conservation of pollutive wastewater. The LLDA directed SM City Manila to perform corrective measures
natural resources, and community-based natural resource management.41 Special to abate or control the pollution caused by the said company and ordering the latter to
attention is given to the Laguna Lake due to its significance as the largest fresh water pay.
lake in the country and its impact on its nearby areas and provinces, especially Metro
Issues:
Manila. Thus, within the Laguna Lake area, the LLDA has jurisdiction and authority over
the enforcement of environmental laws, rules, and regulations. (1) Whether administrative remedies should have been first exhausted before
resorting to the courts.
Section 39-A of RA No. 4850 provides for the penal and civil liability clause of the act.
(2) Whether the Laguna Lake Development Authority is conferred by law the power
The LLDA Board has issued several Resolutions42 providing for the violations and the
to impose fines and collect the same.
corresponding penalties.
HELD:
The law specifically punishes the following acts most commonly violated:
(1) Yes. There must be exhaustion of administrative remedies first before going to
1. General prohibitions (Section 27, Resolution No 33): The prohibitions include:
courts.
undertaking development or a project without LLDA clearance; disposal or
Since the instant case raised matters that involve factual issues, the questioned
throwing of any organic or inorganic substance in water form that causes
Orders of the LLDA should have been brought first before the DENR which has
pollution; disposal of toxic and/or hazardous substances without authorization
administrative supervision of the LLDA pursuant to EO No. 149. In addition,
from the LLDA.
based on jurisprudence, the LLDA has the power to impose fines in the exercise
Public Hearing Committee of the Laguna Lake Development Authority v. SM Prime of its function as a regulatory and quasi-judicial body with respect to pollution
Holdings, Inc. G.R. No. 170599, September 22, 2010 cases in the Laguna Lake region. The Court also held that the adjudication of
pollution cases generally pertains to the Pollution Adjudication Board (PAB),
Under the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies, before a party is allowed to
except where a special law, such as the LLDA Charter, provides for another
seek the intervention of the court, he or she should have availed himself or herself of all
forum. The Court further ruled that although the PAB assumed the powers and
the means of administrative processes afforded him or her. Hence, if resort to a remedy
functions of the National Pollution Control Commission with respect to
within the administrative machinery can still be made by giving the administrative officer
adjudication of pollution cases, this does not preclude the LLDA from assuming
concerned every opportunity to decide on a matter that comes within his or her
jurisdiction of pollution cases.
jurisdiction, then such remedy should be exhausted first before the court’s judicial power
can be sought. The premature invocation of the intervention of the court is fatal to one’s
(2) Yes. The LLDA has the power to impose and collect fines.
cause of action. x x x The courts of justice, for reasons of comity and convenience, will shy
The intention of the law is to grant the LLDA not only with the express powers
away from a dispute until the system of administrative redress has been completed and
granted to it, but also those which are implied or incidental but necessary or
complied with, so as to give the administrative agency concerned every opportunity to
essential for the full and proper implementation of its purposes and functions.
correct its error and dispose of the case.

FACTS:

After an inspection conducted, the Pollution Control Division of the LLDA informed SM
City Manila of its violation, directing the same to perform corrective measures to abate or

16
 Pacific Steam Laundry v. Laguna Lake Development Authority G.R. No. 165299,
December 18, 2009, 608 SCRA 442
In previous jurisprudence, the Court has ruled that LLDA, in the exercise of its express
powers under its charter, as a regulatory and quasi-judicial body with respect to pollution
cases in the Laguna Lake region, has the implied authority to issue a “cease and desist
order.” In the same manner, we hold that the LLDA has the power to impose fines in the
exercise of its function as a regulatory and quasi-judicial body with respect to pollution
cases in the Laguna Lake region.
FACTS:
On June 6, 2001, the Environmental Management Bureau of the DENR endorsed to
Laguna Lake Development Authority (LLDA) the inspection report on the complaint of
black smoke emission from the Pacific Steam Laundry, Inc. plant. The LLDA conducted an
investigation and wastewater sampling and found that untreated wastewater generated
from petitioner’s laundry washing activities was discharged directly to the San Francisco
Del Monte River. Furthermore, it was illegally operating without LLDA clearance and
permits. As a result, LLDA issued to petitioner a Notice of Violation. A Pollution Control
and Abatement case was later on filed against petitioner before the LLDA. After another
wastewater sampling, the tests showed compliance with the effluent standard in all
parameters. Pacific Steam Laundry prayed that the Notice of Violation and its
corresponding daily penalty be set aside and that the imposable penalty be reckoned
from the date of actual hearing. It is respondent’s position that the Notice of Violation
and the imposition of the penalty had no legal and factual basis because it had already
installed the necessary wastewater treatment to abate the water pollution. The LLDA
denied the petition. When it was appealed, the Court of Appeals denied the petition and
its motion for reconsideration.
ISSUE: Whether the Laguna Lake Development Authority has the power to impose fines.
HELD: Yes. The Laguna Lake Development Authority has the power to impose fines as
provided for under the law.
Under EO No. 927, LLDA is granted additional powers and functions to effectively perform
its role and to enlarge its prerogatives of monitoring, licensing and enforcement. Although
the powers of the Pollution Adjudication Board and the LLDA reveal substantial
similarities, the difference is that while Section 19 of EO No. 192 vested the Pollution
Adjudication Board with the specific power to adjudicate pollution cases in general, the
scope of authority of LLDA to adjudicate pollution cases is limited to the Laguna Lake
region as defined by RA No. 4850, as amended. Based on jurisprudence, the adjudication
of pollution cases generally pertains to the Pollution Adjudication Board, except where a
special law, such as the LLDA Charter, provides for another forum. Furthermore, contrary
to petitioner’s contention, LLDA’s power to impose fines is not unrestricted. The P1,000
penalty per day is in accordance with the amount of penalty prescribed under PD No. 984.
The Alexandra Condominium Corporation v. Laguna Lake Development Authority G.R.
No. 169228, September 11, 2009, 599 SCRA 452
The Alexandra Condominium Corporation should have first resorted to an administrative
remedy before the DENR Secretary prior to filing a petition for certiorari before the Court
of Appeals. The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies requires that resort be
first made with the administrative authorities in the resolution of a controversy falling
under their jurisdiction before the controversy may be elevated to a court of justice for
review. A premature invocation of a court’s intervention renders the complaint without
cause of action and dismissible.
The LLDA has the power to impose fines because under Section 4-A of RA No. 4850, as
amended, LLDA is entitled to compensation for damages resulting from failure to meet
established water and effluent quality standards.
FACTS:
On June 24 1998, Laguna Lake Development Authority (LLDA) advised The Alexandra
Condominium Corporation (TACC) that its wastewater did not meet government effluent
standards. LLDA informed TACC that it must put up its own Sewage Treatment Plant (STP)
for its effluent discharge to meet government standards. Despite experimenting with a
proposed solution from Larutan Resources Development Corporation, the water discharge
of TACC still failed to meet the government standards. As a result, the LLDA issued a
Notice of Violation and imposed upon TACC a daily fine of One Thousand Pesos (P1,000)
from March 26, 1999 until full cessation of pollutive wastewater discharge. In order to
comply, TACC entered into an agreement with World Chem Marketing for the
construction of the sewage treatment plant. TACC requested LLDA to dismiss the water
pollution case against it because of the favorable analysis undertaken by the LLDA’s
Pollution Control Division. The LLDA denied the request. TACC filed a petition for certiorari
before the Court of Appeals, but the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition.
ISSUES:
(1) Whether the petition for certiorari was prematurely filed for failure to exhaust
administrative remedies.
17
(2) Whether the Laguna Lake Development Authority has the power to impose fines.
HELD:
(1) Yes. The petition was prematurely filed.
First, TACC should have first resorted to an administrative remedy before the
DENR Secretary prior to filing a petition for certiorari before the Court of
Appeals. EO No. 192, which reorganized the DENR, mandates the DENR to
promulgate rules and regulations for the control of pollution and to promulgate
ambient and effluent standards for water and air quality. The Pollution
Adjudication Board was created by EO No. 192 under the Office of the DENR
Secretary. It assumed the powers and functions of the NPCC with respect to the
adjudication of pollution cases, including NPCC’s function to “[s]erve as arbitrator
for the determination of reparation, or restitution of the damages and losses
resulting from pollution.” Hence, TACC has an administrative recourse before the
DENR Secretary which it should have first pursued before filing a petition for
certiorari before the Court of Appeals.
(2) Yes. LLDA has the power to impose fines.
Under Section 4-A of RA No. 4850, as amended, LLDA is entitled to compensation
for damages resulting from failure to meet established water and effluent
standards.
Laguna Lake Development Authority v. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No.
110120, March 16, 1994, 231 SCRA 292
The constitutionally guaranteed right of every person to a balanced and healthful ecology
carries the correlative duty of non-impairment. This is but in consonance with the declared
policy of the state “to protect and promote the right to health of the people and instill
health consciousness among them.” It is to be borne in mind that the Philippines is party to
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Alma Conference Declaration of 1978
which recognize health as a fundamental human right. The issuance, therefore, of the
cease and desist order by the LLDA, as a practical matter of procedure under the
circumstances of the case, is a proper exercise of its power and authority under its charter
and its amendatory laws.
FACTS:
On March 8, 1991, the Task Force Camarin Dumpsite of Our Lady of Lourdes Parish,
Barangay Camarin, Caloocan City, filed a letter-complaint with the Laguna Lake
Development Authority (LLDA) seeking to stop the operation of the garbage dumpsite in
Tala Estate, Barangay Camarin, Caloocan City. After an onsite investigation and a public
hearing, the LLDA issued a Cease and Desist Order ordering the City Government of
Caloocan, Metropolitan Manila Authority, their contractors, and other entities, to stop
dumping any form or kind of garbage and other waste matter at the Camarin dumpsite.
The dumping operation was stopped by the City Government of Caloocan but was
continued later on after a failed settlement. The LLDA issued another Alias Cease and
Desist Order enjoining the City Government of Caloocan from continuing its dumping
operations at the Camarin area. With the assistance of the Philippine National Police,
LLDA enforced its Alias Cease and Desist Order by prohibiting the entry of all garbage
dump trucks into the area. The Caloocan City Government filed with the Regional Trial
Court of Caloocan City an action for the declaration of nullity of the cease and desist
order, averring that it is the sole authority empowered to promote the health and safety
and enhance the right of the people in Caloocan City to a balanced ecology within its
territorial jurisdiction. The Regional Trial Court issued a temporary restraining order
enjoining the LLDA from enforcing its Cease and Desist Order. The LLDA contends that the
complaint is reviewable both upon the law and the facts of the case by the Court of
Appeals and not by the Regional Trial Court. The Court of Appeals ruled that the LLDA had
no power to issue a Cease and Desist Order.
ISSUE: Whether the Laguna Lake Development Authority has the power to issue a Cease
and Desist Order.
HELD: Yes. The LLDA has the power to issue a Cease and Desist Order.
It is specifically mandated under RA No. 4850 and its amendatory laws to carry out and
make effective the declared national policy of promoting and accelerating the
development and balanced growth of the Laguna Lake area and the surrounding
provinces of Rizal and Laguna and the cities of San Pablo, Manila, Pasay, Quezon and
Caloocan with due regard and adequate provisions for environmental management and
control, preservation of the quality of human life and ecological systems, and the
prevention of undue ecological disturbances, deterioration and pollution. Aside from the
powers conferred upon it by law, an administrative agency has also such powers as are
necessarily implied in the exercise of its express powers. In the exercise, therefore, of its
express powers under its charter as a regulatory and quasi-judicial body with respect to
pollution cases in the Laguna Lake region, the authority of the LLDA to issue a Cease and
Desist Order is implied.
18
 Laguna Lake Development Authority v. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. Nos. 120865-71,
December 7, 1995, 251 SCRA 42
The provisions of Republic Act No. 7160 or the Local Government Code of 1991 do not
necessarily repeal the aforementioned laws creating the Laguna Lake Development
Authority and granting the latter water rights authority over Laguna de Bay and the lake
region. The Local Government Code of 1991 does not contain any express provision which
categorically expressly repeal the charter of the Authority. It has to be conceded that
there was no intent on the part of the legislature to repeal Republic Act No. 4850 and its
amendments. The repeal of laws should be made clear and expressed. Thus, the Authority
has the exclusive jurisdiction to issue permits for the enjoyment of fishery privileges in
Laguna de Bay to the exclusion of municipalities situated therein and the authority to
exercise such powers as are by its charter vested on it.
FACTS:
Republic Act No. 4850 created the Laguna Lake Development Authority (LLDA) and
granted it the authority to manage the environmental resources in the area. However,
with the promulgation of the Local Government Code of 1991, the municipalities in the
Laguna Lake Region interpreted the provisions of this law to mean that the newly passed
law gave municipal governments the exclusive jurisdiction to issue fishing privileges and
fishpen permits within their municipal waters. Later on, LLDA issued a notice to the
general public that illegally constructed fishpens, fish cages, and other aqua-culture
structure will be demolished. The affected fishpen owners filed injunction cases against
LLDA before various regional trial courts. The LLDA filed motions to dismiss the cases
against it on jurisdictional grounds, however, these were denied. The temporary
restraining order/writs of preliminary mandatory injunction, meanwhile, were issued
enjoining LLDA from demolishing the fishpens and similar structures in question. As a
result, LLDA filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and injunction.
ISSUE: Whether Laguna Lake Development Authority has jurisdiction over the issuance of
fishery privileges.
HELD:
Yes. The Laguna Lake Development Authority has the exclusive jurisdiction to issue
permits for the enjoyment of fishery privileges in Laguna de Bay and the authority to
exercise such powers as are by its charter vested on it. The provisions of the Local
Government Code do not necessarily repeal the aforementioned laws creating the Laguna
Lake Development Authority as it does not contain any express provision which
categorically and/or expressly repeal the charter of LLDA. It has to be conceded that there
was no intent on the part of the legislature to repeal RA No. 4850 and its amendments.
The repeal of laws should be made clear and expressed. It is clear that the power of the
local government units to issue fishing privileges was granted for revenue purposes. On
the other hand, the power of the LLDA to grant permits for fishpens, fishcages and other
aqua-culture structures is for the purpose of effectively regulating and monitoring
activities in the Laguna de Bay region and for lake quality control and management. It is in
the nature of police power. Accordingly, the charter of LLDA which embodies a valid
exercise of police power should prevail over the Local Government Code of 1991 on
matters affecting Laguna de Bay.
4. RA No. 8749 – Philippine Clean Air Act of 1999
What is Philippine Clean Air Act?
Philippine Clean Air Act of 1999 outlines the government's measures to reduce air
pollution and incorporate environmental protection into its development plans.
Section 4. Recognition of Rights. - Pursuant to the above-declared principles, the
following rights of citizens are hereby sought to be recognized and the State shall seek to
guarantee their enjoyment:
(a) The right to breathe clean air;
(b) The right to utilize and enjoy all natural resources according to the principles
of sustainable development;
(c) The right to participate in the formulation, planning, implementation and
monitoring of environmental policies and programs and in the decision-making
process;
(d) The right to participate in the decision-making process concerning
development policies, plans and programs projects or activities that may have
adverse impact on the environment and public health;
(e) The right to be informed of the nature and extent of the potential hazard of
any activity, undertaking or project and to be served timely notice of any
significant rise in the level of pollution and the accidental or deliberate release
into the atmosphere of harmful or hazardous substances;
(f) The right of access to public records which a citizen may need to exercise his
or her rights effectively under this Act;
19
 (g) The right to bring action in court or quasi-judicial bodies to enjoin all activities
in violation of environmental laws and regulations, to compel the rehabilitation
and cleanup of affected area, and to seek the imposition of penal sanctions
against violators of environmental laws; and
(h) The right to bring action in court for compensation of personal damages
resulting from the adverse environmental and public health impact of a project
or activity.
Definition of terms
Air pollutant – any matter found in the atmosphere other than the inert gases in their
natural or normal concentrations that is detrimental to health or environment
Ambient air – the general amount of pollution present in a broad area; and refers to the
atmosphere’s average purity as distinguished from discharge measurements taken at the
source of pollution.
Incineration – process of burning of municipal bio-medical and hazardous wastes, which
emits poisonous and toxic fumes. However, prohibition on incineration does not apply to
sanitation “siga”, traditional, agricultural, health and food preparation and crematoria.
(Atty. USec: Jurisprudence held that incineration is not at all prohibited, provided that it
meets the standard)
Will mandamus prosper to compel PUVs to used natural gas as alternative fuel?
NO. Mandamus will not prosper to compel PUVs to use natural gas as alternative fuel in
the absence of specific law on the matter. The legislature should provide first the specific
statutory remedy to the complex environmental problems before any judicial recourse by
mandamus is taken.
Regulation of Vehicles and Engines
Any imported new or locally-assembled motor vehicle shall not be registered unless it
complies with the emission standards set, as evidenced by Certificate of Conformity
(COC).
No motor vehicle registration (MVR) shall be issued unless such motor vehicle passes the
emission testing requirement.
Prohibition on smoking
Section 10 of Clean Air Act: Smoking inside a public building or an enclosed public place,
including public vehicles and other means of transport, or in any other enclosed area
outside one’s private residence, private place of work or any duly designated smoking
area is prohibited. (To be implemented by LGUs)
Prohibition on Ozone Depleting Substances (Montreal Protocol)
Section 30 of Clean Air Act: The Department shall phase-out ozone-depleting
substances.
Abatement of Private Nuisance
Section 694 of NCC provides that nuisance is any act, omission, establishment, condition
of property or anything else which: (1) injures or endangers the health or safety of others;
or (2) annoys or offends the senses; or (3) shocks, defies or disregards decency or
morality; or (4) obstructs or interferes with the free passage of any public highway or
street or any body of water; or (5) hinders or impairs the use of property.
AC Enterprises, Inc. v. Frabelle Properties Corporation: PAB has no jurisdiction on the
resolution of the issue before RTC, WoN the noise complained about is an actionable
nuisance, since it does not require any technical expertise and experience of PAB or LGU
requiring determination of intricate matters of facts.
Citizen Suit
Any citizen may file an appropriate civil, criminal or administrative action in the proper
court against:
1. Any person who violates or fails to comply with the provision of the Clean Air
Act
2. The Department or other implementing agencies with respect to orders, rules
and regulations issued inconsistent with Clean Air Act.
3. Any public officer who willfully or grossly neglects the performance of an act.
Suits and Strategic Legal Actions against Public Participation (SLAPP)
Where a suit is brought against a person who filed an action as provided in Section 41
(Citizen suit) against any person, institution or government agency that implements a law
complained about, it shall be the duty of the investigating prosecutor or the court, as the
case may be, to immediately determine within 30 days, whether the said legal action has
20
been filed to harass, vex, exert undue pressure or stifle such legal recourses of the person
complaining.
Gross violation against clean air act shall mean:
a. three (3) or more specific offenses within a period of (1) year
b. three (3) or more specific offenses within three (3) consecutive years;
c. blatant disregard of the orders of the PAB, such as but not limited to the
breaking of seal, padlocks and other similar devices, or operating despite the
existence of an order for closure, discontinuance or cessation of operation; and
d. irreparable or grave damage to the environment as a consequence of any
violation or omission of the provisions of this Act.
According to USec Leones:
Application of Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies
 PD 1586: EAR shall apply
 Clean Water Act/Clean Air Act: EAR does not apply, since jurisdiction on the
matter is vested on a quasi-judicial body.
Hilarion M. Henares, et al. v. Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board and
Department of Transportation and Communications
G.R. No. 158290, October 23, 2006, 505 SCRA 104
Mandamus is available only to compel the doing of an act specifically enjoined by law as a
duty. Here, there is no law that mandates the respondents LTFRB and the DOTC to order
owners of motor vehicles to use CNG.
As serious as the statistics are on air pollution, with the present fuels deemed toxic as
they are to the environment, as fatal as these pollutants are to the health of the citizens,
and urgently requiring resort to drastic measures to reduce air pollutants emitted by
motor vehicles, there is no law that imposes an indubitable legal duty on respondents
that will justify a grant of the writ of mandamus compelling the use of CNG for public
utility vehicles.
FACTS:
Petitioners pray from the Supreme Court the issuance of a writ of mandamus
commanding respondents Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB)
and the Department of Transportation and Communications (DOTC) to require public
utility vehicles (PUVs) to use Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) as alternative fuel.
Asserting their right to clean air, petitioners allege that since the LTFRB and the DOTC are
the government agencies clothed with power to regulate and control motor vehicles,
particularly PUVs, and with the same agencies’ awareness and knowledge that the PUVs
emit dangerous levels of air pollutants, then, the responsibility to see that these are
curbed falls under respondents’ functions and a writ of mandamus should issue against
them.
The Solicitor General, representing the LTFRB and DOTC, cites Section 3, Rule 65 of the
Revised Rules of Court and explains that the writ of mandamus is not the correct remedy
since the writ may be issued only to command a tribunal, corporation, board or person to
do an act that is required to be done. The Solicitor General notes that nothing in RA No.
8749 prohibits the use of gasoline and diesel by owners of motor vehicles. According to
the Solicitor General, RA No. 8749 does not even mention the existence of CNG as
alternative fuel and avers that unless this law is amended to provide CNG as alternative
fuel for PUVs, the respondents cannot propose that PUVs use CNG as alternative fuel.
According to the Solicitor General, the DOTC and the LTFRB are not in a position to
compel the PUVs to use CNG as alternative fuel. The Solicitor General explains that the
function of the DOTC is limited to implementing the emission standards set forth in RA
No. 8749 and the said law only goes as far as setting the maximum limit for the emission
of vehicles, but it does not recognize CNG as an alternative engine fuel. The Solicitor
General avers that the petition should be addressed to Congress for it to come up with a
policy that would compel the use of CNG as alternative fuel.
ISSUE: Whether mandamus is the proper recourse to compel the LTFRB and the DOTC to
require PUVs to use CNG.
HELD: No. Mandamus is not the proper remedy.
There is no dispute that under the Clean Air Act it is the DENR that is tasked to set the
emission standards for fuel use and the task of developing an action plan. As far as motor
vehicles are concerned, it devolves upon the DOTC and the line agency whose mandate is
to oversee that motor vehicles prepare an action plan and implement the emission
standards for motor vehicles, is the LTFRB.
Although both are general mandates that do not specifically enjoin the use of any kind of
fuel, particularly the use of CNG, there is an executive order implementing a program on
the use of CNG by public vehicles. Executive Order No. 290, entitled Implementing the
21
Natural Gas Vehicle Program for Public Transport (NGVPPT), took effect on February 24,
2004. The program recognized, among others, natural gas as a clean burning alternative
fuel for vehicle which has the potential to produce substantially lower pollutants; and the
Malampaya Gas-to-Power Project as representing the beginning of the natural gas
industry of the Philippines.
The remedy lies with the legislature who should first provide the specific statutory
remedy to the complex environmental problems bared by herein petitioners before any
judicial recourse by mandamus is taken.
5. RA No. 9003 – Ecological Solid Waste Management Act of 2000
What is Ecological Solid Waste Management Act?
Ecological Solid Waste Management Act of 2000 refers to the systematic administration
of activities which provide for segregation at source, segregated transportation, storage,
transfer, processing, treatment, and disposal of solid waste and all other waste
management activities which do not harm the environment.
National Solid Waste Management Commission (NSWMC) shall implement the Ecological
Solid Waste Management Act which shall be composed of 14 government agencies and 3
members from private sector.
Definition of terms
Collection - shall refer to the act of removing solid waste from the source or from a
communal storage point;
Composting - shall refer to the controlled decomposition of organic matter by micro-
organisms, mainly bacteria and fungi, into a humus-like product;
Ecological solid waste management - shall refer to the systematic administration of
activities which provide for segregation at source, segregated transportation, storage,
transfer, processing, treatment, and disposal of solid waste and all other waste
management activities which do not harm the environment;
Leachate - shall refer to the liquid produced when waste undergo decomposition, and
when water percolate through solid waste undergoing decomposition. It is contaminated
liquid that contains dissolved and suspended materials;
Materials recovery facility (MRF) - includes a solid waste transfer station or sorting
station, drop-off center, a composting facility, and a recycling facility;
Solid waste management facility - shall refer to any resource recovery system or
component thereof; any system, program, or facility for resource conservation; any
facility for the collection, source separation, storage, transportation, transfer, processing,
treatment, or disposal of solid waste;
Municipal waste - shall refer to wastes produced from activities within local government
units which include a combination of domestic, commercial, institutional and industrial
wastes and street litters;
Solid waste - shall refer to all discarded household, commercial waste, non-hazardous
institutional and industrial waste, street sweepings, construction debris, agricultural
waste, and other non-hazardous/non-toxic solid waste.
Solid Waste Management Procedure
Segregation of wastes shall begin in the household, institutional, industrial, commercial
and agricultural sources, which shall be segregated into “compostable”, “non-recyclable”,
“recyclable” or “special type of waste”.
Collection of wastes shall be undertaken by the LGU. Solid wastes shall be brought to
Materials Recovery Facility (MRF), in which solid wastes shall be further sorted. Residual
wastes shall be sent to landfill, while hazardous wastes shall be sent to treatment facility.
Salient Features:
Prohibition on the Use of Non-Environmentally Acceptable Packaging - No person owning,
operating or conducting a commercial establishment in the country shall sell or convey at
retail or possess with the intent to sell or convey at retail any products that are placed,
wrapped or packaged in or on packaging which is not environmentally acceptable
packaging.
Prohibition Against the Use of Open Dumps for Solid Waste - No open dumps shall be
established and operated, nor any practice or disposal of solid waste by any person,
including LGUs, which constitutes the use of open dumps for solid wastes, be allowed
(Atty Usec: There should be no open dumpsite by 2016)
Prohibition on [1]Littering, throwing, dumping of waste matters in public places, such as
roads, sidewalks, canals, esteros or parks, and establishment, or causing or permitting the
same;[2]Open burning of solid wastes, et. al.
22
 Province of Rizal, et al. v. Executive Secretary, et al. G.R. No. 129546, December 13,
2005, 477 SCRA 436
The Administrative Code of 1987 and EO No. 192 entrust the DENR with the guardianship
and safekeeping of the Marikina Watershed Reservation and our other natural treasures.
Its power, however, is not absolute, but is defined by the declared policies of the state,
and is subject to the law and higher authority.
RA No. 9003 or “The Ecological Solid Waste Management Act of 2000” was enacted
pursuant to the declared policy of the state “to adopt a systematic, comprehensive and
ecological solid waste management system which shall ensure the protection of public
health and environment, and utilize environmentally sound methods that maximize the
utilization of valuable resources and encourage resource conservation and recovery.” It
therefore requires the adherence to a Local Government Solid Waste Management Plan
FACTS:
On November 17, 1988, the Secretaries of DPWH and DENR and the Governor of the
Metropolitan Manila Commission (MMC) entered into a Memorandum of Agreement
(MOA), whereby the land property of MMC in San Mateo, Rizal will be immediately
utilized by DPWH and the MMC will oversee the development of the landfill. The
Sangguniang Bayan of San Mateo wrote the Governor and the Secretaries that it had
recently passed a Resolution banning the creation of dumpsites for Metro Manila garbage
within its jurisdiction. It turns out that the land subject of the MOA and owned by the
DENR was part of the Marikina Watershed Reservation Area. As a result, the Community
Environment and Natural Resource Office (CENRO, DENR-IV) recommended that the
construction of the landfill and dumping site be stopped. Despite the CENRO Investigative
Report, DENR-EMB still granted an Environmental Compliance Certificate to MMC. Less
than six months later, DENR suspended it. After a series of investigations, the agency
realized that the MOA, entered into on November 17, 1988, was a costly error because
the area agreed to be a garbage dumpsite was part of the Marikina Watershed
Reservation. Despite the various objections and recommendations raised by the
government agencies aforementioned, the Office of the President, through Executive
Secretary Ruben Torres, signed and issued Proclamation No. 635 on August 28, 1995,
“Excluding from the Marikina Watershed Reservation Certain Parcels of Land Embraced
Therein for Use as Sanitary Landfill Sites and Similar Waste Disposal Under the
Administration of the Metropolitan Manila Development Authority.” The petitioners filed
a petition for certiorari with an application for a preliminary injunction. The Court of
Appeals denied the petition.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the permanent closure of the San Mateo Landfill is mandated by RA No.
9003 or the Ecological Solid Waste Management Act of 2000.
HELD:
Yes. RA No. 9003 mandates the closure of the landfill in order to protect the water
supply.
San Mateo Landfill will remain permanently closed. First, the San Mateo site has adversely
affected its environs, and second, sources of water should always be protected. Reports
have shown that sources of domestic water supply would be adversely affected by the
dumping operations and that the use of the areas as dumping site has already greatly
affected the ecological balance and environmental factors of the community. In fact, the
contaminated water was also found to flow to the Wawa Dam and Boso-boso River, which
in turn empties into Laguna de Bay. It is the duty of the DENR to judiciously manage and
conserve the country’s resources, pursuant to the constitutional right to a balanced and
healthful ecology which is a fundamental legal right that carries with it the correlative
duty to refrain from impairing the environment.
6. Republic Act No. 6969 or the Toxic Substances and Hazardous
and Nuclear Wastes Control Act
What is Toxic Substances and Hazardous and Nuclear Wastes Control Act?
Toxic Substances and Hazardous, and Nuclear Wastes Control Act of 1990: (1) regulate,
restrict or prohibit the importation, manufacture, processing, sale, distribution, use and
disposal of chemical substances and mixtures that present unreasonable risk and/or injury
to health or the environment; (2) prohibit the entry, even in transit, of hazardous and
nuclear wastes and their disposal into the Philippine territorial limits for whatever
purpose; and (3) provide advancement and facilitate research and studies on toxic
chemicals.
TSHNWCA shall cover the importation, manufacture, processing, handling, storage,
transportation, sale, distribution, use and disposal (from cradle to grave) of all
unregulated chemical substances and mixtures in the Philippines, including the entry even
in transit, as well as the keeping or storage and disposal of hazardous and nuclear wastes
into the country for whatever purposes.
23
There is an Inter-agency Technical Advisory Council attached to the Department of the chemical substances comprising the combination were combined. This shall
Environment and Natural Resources which shall be composed of one (1) chairman and ten include nonbiodegradable mixtures.
(10) members: Secretary of DENR as Chairman, and Secretary of DOH, Director of PNRI,
Hazardous substances are substances which present either:
Secretary of DTI, Secretary of DOST, Secretary of DND, Secretary of DFA, Secretary of
DOLE, Secretary of DOF, Secretary of DA, Representative from NGO from Health and 1. short-term acute hazards such as acute toxicity by ingestion, inhalation or skin
safety as members absorption, corrosivity or other skin or eye contact hazard or the risk of fire or
explosion; or
2. long-term environmental hazards, including chronic toxicity upon repeated
Section 13 of TSHNWCA enumerates the following as Prohibited Acts: exposure.

a. Knowingly use in chemical substance or mixture which is imported,
manufactured, processed or distributed in violation of this Act or implementing
rules and regulations or orders;
b. Failure or refusal to submit reports, notices or on the information, access to
records as required by this Act, or permit inspection of establishment where
chemicals are manufactured, processed, stored or otherwise held;
c. Failure or refusal to comply with the pre-manufacture and pre-importation
requirements (Meaning, there must be import clearance before entry of any
chemical substances to the Philippines); and
d. Cause, aid or facilitate, directly or indirectly, in the storage, importation or
bringing into Philippine territory, including its maritime economic zones, even in
transit, either by means of land, air or sea transportation or otherwise keeping in
storage any amount of hazardous and nuclear wastes in any part of the
Philippines
Definition of Terms:
Hazardous wastes are substances that are without any safe commercial, industrial,
agricultural or economic usage and are shipped, transported or brought from the country
of origin for dumping or disposal into or in transit through any part of the territory of the
Philippines.
Nuclear wastes are hazardous wastes made radioactive by exposure to the radiation
incidental to the production or utilization of nuclear fuels but does not include nuclear
fuel, or radioisotopes which have reached the final stage of fabrication so as to be usable
for any scientific, medical, agricultural, commercial, or industrial purpose.
Kinds of list of chemicals as provided by TSHNWCA:
a. Philippine Inventory of Chemicals & Chemical Substances (PICCS) – list of all
allowed chemical substances.
b. Philippine Priority Chemical List (PPCL) – list of prohibited chemical
substances

Chemical substance means any organic or inorganic substance of a particular molecular 7. RA No. 8371 – Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997
identity, including: RIGHT TO AD (SEC. 7) – Generally belonging RIGHT TO AL – lands subject to the
to the ICCs/IPs property rights in the Ancestral Land
CADT – Certificate of Ancestral Domain CALT – Certificate of Ancestral Land Title
1. Any combination of such substances occurring in whole or in part as a result of Title
chemical reaction or occurring in nature; and Ownership Transfer land or property
2. Any element or uncombined chemical. Develop Lands and Natural Resources Redemption – period not exceeding 15
years from the date of Transfer
Chemical mixture means any combination of two or more chemical substances if the Stay in their territories
combination does not occur in nature and is not, in whole or in part, the result of Displacement
a chemical reaction, if none of the chemical substances comprising the Regulate Entry of Migrants
combination is a new chemical substance and if the combination could have been Safe and Clean Air and Water
manufactured for commercial purposes without a chemical reaction at the time Claims parts of Reservation

24
Resolve Conflicts
a) Ancestral Domains - Subject to Sec. 56 hereof, refer to all areas generally
belonging to ICCs/IPs comprising lands,inland waters, coastal areas, and natural
resources therein, held under a claim of ownership, occupied or possessed by
ICCs/IPs, 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, 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 their 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;
b) Ancestral Lands - Subject to Sec. 56 hereof, refers to land occupied, possessed
and utilized by individuals, families and clans who are 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;
c) Communal Claims - refer to claims on land, resources and rights thereon,
belonging to the whole community within a defined territory
d) Free and Prior Informed Consent - as used in this Act shall mean the
consensus of all members of the ICCs/IPs to; be determined in accordance with
their respective customary laws and practices, free from any external
manipulation, interference and coercion, and obtained after fully disclosing the
intent and scope of the activity, in a language an process understandable to the
community;
e) National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) - refers to the office created
under this Act, which shall be under the Office of the President, and which shall be
the primary government agency responsible for the formulation and
implementation of policies, plans and programs to recognize, protect and promote
the rights of ICCs/IPs;
Sec. 38. National Commission on Indigenous Cultural Communities
/Indigenous Peoples (NCCP). - to carry out the policies herein set forth, there shall be
created the National Commission on ICCs/IPs (NCIP), which shall be the primary
government agency responsible for the formulation and implementation of
policies, plans and programs to promote and protect the rights and well-being
of the ICCs/IPs and the recognition of their ancestral domains as well as their
rights thereto.
Sec. 39. Mandate. - The NCIP shall protect and promote the interest and well-being
of the ICCs/IPs with due regard to their beliefs, customs, traditions and institutions.
f) Native Title - refers to pre-conquest rights to lands and domains which, as far back
as memory reaches, have been held under a claim of private ownership by
ICCs/IPs, have never been public lands and are thus indisputably presumed to
have been held that way since before the Spanish Conquest;
g) Time Immemorial - refers to a period of time when as far back as memory can go,
certain ICCs/IPs are known to have occupied, possessed in the concept of owner,
and utilized a defined territory devolved to them, by operation of customary law
or inherited from their ancestors, in accordance with their customs and traditions.
Section 9. Responsibilities of ICCs/IPs to their Ancestral Domains. - ICCs/IPs
occupying a duly certified ancestral domain shall have the following responsibilities:
25
a. Maintain Ecological Balance- To preserve, restore, and maintain a balanced
ecology in the ancestral domain by protecting the flora and fauna, watershed areas,
and other reserves;
b. Restore Denuded Areas- To actively initiate, undertake and participate in the
reforestation of denuded areas and other development programs and projects
subject to just and reasonable remuneration; and
c. Observe Laws- To observe and comply with the provisions of this Act and the
rules and regulations for its effective implementation.
Sec. 52. Delineation Process. - The identification and delineation of ancestral
domains shall be done in accordance with the following procedures:
a. Ancestral Domains Delineated Prior to this Act - The provisions hereunder
shall not apply to ancestral domains/lands already delineated according to
DENR Administrative Order No. 2, series of 1993, nor to ancestral lands and
domains delineated under any other community/ancestral domain program prior
to the enactment of his law. ICCs/IPs enactment of this law shall have the
right to apply for the issuance of a Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title
(CADT) over the area without going through the process outlined hereunder;
b. Petition for Delineation - The process of delineating a specific perimeter may
be initiated by the NCIP with the consent of the ICC/IP concerned, or through a
Petition for Delineation filed with the NCIP, by a majority of the members of the
ICCs/IPs;
Delineation Paper - The official delineation of ancestral domain boundaries including
census of all community members therein, shall be immediately undertaken by
the Ancestral Domains Office upon filing of the application by the ICCs/IPs
concerned. Delineation will be done in coordination with the community concerned
and shall at all times include genuine involvement and participation by the
members of the communities concerned;
Proof required - Proof of Ancestral Domain Claims shall include the testimony of
elders or community under oath, and other documents directly or indirectly attesting
to the possession or occupation of the area since time immemorial by such ICCs/IPs
in the concept of owners which shall be any one (1) of the following authentic
documents:
1. Written accounts of the ICCs/IPs customs and traditions;
2. Written accounts of the ICCs/IPs political structure and institution;
3. Pictures showing long term occupation such as those of old improvements,
burial grounds, sacred places and old villages;
4. Historical accounts, including pacts and agreements concerning
boundaries entered into by the ICCs/IPs concerned with other ICCs/IPs;
5. Survey plans and sketch maps;
6. Anthropological data;
7. Genealogical surveys;
8. Pictures and descriptive histories of traditional communal forests and
hunting grounds;
9. Pictures and descriptive histories of traditional landmarks such as
mountains, rivers, creeks, ridges, hills, terraces and the like; and
Write-ups of names and places derived from the native dialect of the community.
Sec. 57. Natural Resources within Ancestral Domains. - The ICCs/IPs shall have
the priority rights in the harvesting, extraction, development or exploitation of
any natural resources within the ancestral domains. A non-member of the
ICCs/IPs concerned may be allowed to take part in the development and utilization
of the natural resources for a period of not exceeding twenty-five (25) years
26
renewable for not more than twenty-five (25) years: Provided, That a formal and
written agreement is entered into with the ICCs/IPs concerned or that the
community, pursuant to its own decision making process, has agreed to allow
such operation: Provided, finally, That the all extractions shall be used to
facilitate the development and improvement of the ancestral domains.
Sec. 58. Environmental Consideration. - Ancestral domains or portion thereof,
which are found necessary for critical watersheds, mangroves wildlife sanctuaries,
wilderness, protected areas, forest cover, or reforestation as determined by the
appropriate agencies with the full participation of the ICCs/IPs concerned shall be
maintained, managed and developed for such purposes. The ICCs/IPs concerned
shall be given the responsibility to maintain, develop, protect and conserve such
areas with the full and effective assistance of the government agencies. Should the
ICCs/IPs decide to transfer the responsibility over the areas, said decision must be
made in writing. The consent of the ICCs/IPs should be arrived at in accordance with
its customary laws without prejudice to the basic requirement of the existing laws
on free and prior informed consent: Provided, That the transfer shall be temporary
and will ultimately revert to the ICCs/IPs in accordance with a program for
technology transfer: Provided, further, That no ICCs/IPs shall be displaced or
relocated for the purpose enumerated under this section without the written
consent of the specific persons authorized to give consent.
Sec. 71. Ancestral Domains Fund. - There is hereby created a special fund, to
be known as the Ancestral Domains Fund, an initial amount of the One Hundred
thirty million pesos(P130,000,000) to cover compensation for expropriated lands,
delineation and development of ancestral domains. An amount of Fifty million
pesos (P50,000,000) shall be sourced from the gross income of the Philippine Charity
Sweepstakes Office (PCSO) from its lotto operation, Ten millions pesos (P10,000,000)
from the gross receipts of the travel tax of the preceding year, the fund of the
Social Reform Council intended for survey and delineation of ancestral
lands/domains, and such other source as the government may be deem
appropriate. Thereafter such amount shall be included in the annual General
Appropriations Act. Foreign as well as local funds which are made available for the
ICCs/IPs through the government of the Philippines shall be coursed through the
NCIP. The NCIP may also solicit and receive donations, endowments shall be
exempted from income or gift taxes and all other taxes, charges or fees imposed
by the government or any political subdivision or instrumentality thereof.
Baguio City v. Masweng
G.R. No. 180206, February 4, 2009, 578 SCRA 88
The NCIP is the primary government agency responsible for the formulation and
implementation of policies, plans and programs to protect and promote the rights and
well-being of indigenous cultural communities/indigenous peoples (ICCs/IPs) and the
recognition of their ancestral domains as well as their rights thereto. In order to fully
effectuate its mandate, the NCIP is vested with jurisdiction over all claims and disputes
involving the rights of ICCs/IPs. The only condition precedent to the NCIP’s assumption of
jurisdiction over such disputes is that the parties thereto shall have exhausted all
remedies provided under their customary laws and have obtained a certification from the
Council of Elders/Leaders who participated in the attempt to settle the dispute that the
same has not been resolved.
FACTS:
The Mayor of Baguio issued three Demolition Orders against the illegal structures
constructed by Bawas, Ampaguey, Sr., and Basatan on the portion of the Busol Watershed
Reservation at Aurora Hill, Baguio City because it does not have the required building
permits in violation of Section 69 of PD No. 705, PD No. 1096, RA No. 7279.
When the demolition advices were issued against the occupants, Gumangan, Basatan, and
Bawas, private respondents, filed a petition for injunction with a prayer for the issuance
of a TRO or a writ of preliminary injunction against the Public Petitioners. The Private
Respondents claimed that the lands “where their residential houses stand are their
ancestral lands which they have been occupying and possessing openly and continuously
since time immemorial; that their ownership thereof have been expressly recognized in
Proclamation No. 15 dated April 27, 1922 and recommended by the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) for exclusion from the coverage of the Busol
Forest Reserve.”
27
The TROs were issued against the petitioners. The NCIP thereafter issued a Resolution
granting the Preliminary Injunction. The Court of Appeals upheld the said resolution and
held that “Baguio City is not exempt from the coverage of Republic Act No. 8371,
otherwise known as the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997 (IPRA).”
Petitioners are contending that by virtue of Proclamation No. 15, the Busol Forest
Reservation is part of their ancestral lands since the said proclamation mentions the
names of Molintas and Gumangan as having claims over portions of the Busol Forest
Reservation.
Issues:
(1) Whether private respondents’ ancestral land claim was indeed recognized byYes.
The NCIP has jurisdiction over the controversy Proclamation No. 15, in which
case, their right thereto may be protected by an injunctive writ.
(2) Whether the NCIP has jurisdiction over the controversy.
HELD:
(1) No. Proclamation No. 15 is not a definitive recognition of the private
respondents’ ancestral land claim. The Molintas and Gumangan families were
merely identified as claimants of a portion of the Busol Forest Reservation but
the proclamation does not acknowledge their vested rights over it.
(2) Yes. The NCIP has jurisdiction over the controversy.
“The NCIP is the primary government agency responsible for the formulation and
implementation of policies, plans and programs to protect and promote the
rights and well-being of indigenous cultural communities/indigenous peoples
(ICCs/IPs) and the recognition of their ancestral domains as well as their rights
thereto.” It has jurisdiction over all claims and disputes involving the rights of
the ICCs/IPs, with the condition precedent of exhausting all remedies provided by
customary laws, and to obtain a certification from the Council of Elders/Leaders.
Since petitioners alleged that by virtue of Proclamation No. 15 they have a claim
over the Busol Forest Reservation, the controversy in this case falls under the
jurisdiction of the NCIP. The NCIP is also granted the power to issue TROs by
virtue of Section 69 of the IPRA, as affirmed by the NCIP Administrative Circular
No. 1-03. The IPRA likewise provides for the prohibition against the issuance of a
restraining order or preliminary injunction against the NCIP in “any case, dispute
or controversy arising from or necessary to the interpretation of the IPRA and
other laws relating to ICCs/IPs and ancestral domains.”
Although Baguio City is governed by its own charter, the same charter recognizes
the prior land rights acquired through any means before its effectivity, including
the IPRA.
PD 1586:
Philippine Environmental Impact Statement System
Principle of Sustainable Development - rational and orderly balance between
economic growth and environmental protection
WHAT IS PEISS?
PD 1586 otherwise known as Philippine Environmental Impact Statement Systems (1978)
requires all instrumentalities of the government and private entities to prepare an
Environmental Impact System (EIS) for every proposed Environmentally Critical Projects
(ECP), or projects located in an Environmentally Critical Area (ECA), for every proposed
project and undertaking which significantly affect the quality of the environment and to
justify why the project should be implemented.
ECC v. CNC
Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC) - document issued by the DENR/EMB after a
positive review of an ECC application, certifying that based on the representations of the
proponent, the proposed project or undertaking will not cause significant negative
environmental impact.
Certificate of Non-Coverage (CNC) – a certification issued by the EMB certifying that,
based on the submitted project description, the project is not covered by the EIS System
and is not required to secure an ECC.
It should be noted however, that the issuance of an ECC does not preclude a project
proponent from securing related permits, such as sanitary, conversion, water, and
building permits, from concerned government agencies under other existing laws, rules
and regulations.
28
ECA v. ECP
Environmentally Critical Area (ECA) - area delineated as environmentally sensitive such
that significant environmental impacts are expected if certain types of proposed projects
or programs are located, developed or implemented in it.
Environmentally Critical Project (ECP) - project or program that has high potential for
significant negative environmental impact.
EIS v. EIA
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) - document, prepared and submitted by the
project proponent and/or EIA Consultant that serves as an application for an ECC.
Initial Environmental Examination (IEE) Report - document similar to an EIS, but with
reduced details and depth of assessment and discussion.
The outcome of the EIA Process within the system administered by the DENR is the
issuance of decision documents. Decision documents may either be an ECC, CNC or a
Denial Letter.
The decisions on applications shall be made within prescribed timelines within the
control of DENR, otherwise, the application shall be deemed automatically approved,
with the issuance of the approval document within five (5) working days from the time
the prescribed period lapsed.
Once a project is implemented, the ECC remains valid and active for the lifetime of the
project
The ECC automatically expires if a project has not been implemented within five (5)
years from ECC issuance, or if the ECC was not requested for extension within three (3)
months from the expiration of its validity.

ECPs in ECA or NECA: EIS -> ECC DECIDING AUTHORITY APPEALS

EMB Regional Office Director EMB Central Office Director
NECA in ECA: IEE -> ECC EMB Regional Office Director DENR Secretary
DENR Secretary OFFICE OF THE PRES
NECPs in NECA: CNC

A. Environmentally Critical Projects

I. Heavy Industries
II. Resource Extractive Industries Is ECC a permit or license?
III. Infrastructure Projects
No. ECC is not a permit. A “license” has been defined as “a governmental permission to
B. Environmentally Critical Areas perform a particular act (such as getting married), conduct a particular business or
I. NIPAS – occupation, operate machinery or vehicles after proving capacity and ability to do so
II. Aesthetic potential tourist spots; safely, or use property for a certain purpose.”
III. Habitat for any endangered or threatened species While a “permit” has been defined as “a license or other document given by an
IV. Historic, archaeological, or scientific interests; authorized public official or agency (building inspector, department of motor vehicles)
V. Occupied by cultural communities or tribes; to allow a person or business to perform certain acts.”
VI. Frequently visited and/or hard-hit by natural calamities
VII. Critical slopes areas; ECC is not a permit and should not be interpreted as such but rather a set of conditions
VIII. Prime agricultural lands; which will have to be complied with by the Project before implementing the said
IX. Recharged areas of aquifers; project, hence, not a PERMIT
X. Water bodies
Why do I need to know WoN ECC is a permit?
XI. Mangrove areas
XII. Coral reefs

29
In IPRA Law, it is necessary to secure a Certificate of Non-Overlap (CNO) from NCIP before
any license will be granted from any government agency. Since ECC is not a license,
therefore, there is no need to secure certification before the actual granting of ECC.
Aside from DENR, may LGU issue ECC or CNC?
No. PD 1586 provides that ECCs are issued only by the President of the Philippines or his
duly authorized representative, which is DENR (DENR Secretary as Alter Ego of the
President). A delegated authority cannot be re-delegated.
Thus, administrators of declared area management authorities and economic
zones/industrial parks as well as LGUs do not have the authority to issue ECC/CNC under
P.D. 1586 unless otherwise expressly delegated by the President of the Philippines
Identify if issuance of the following are ministerial duty:
A. CNC – Yes. Issuance of CNC is a ministerial duty upon application of the
proponent.
B. ECC – NO. Issuance of ECC is NOT a ministerial duty
It is important to know the nature of ECC/CNC whether it is a ministerial duty
because it is one of the element of the judicial writ of Mandamus, to wit:
1. Petitioner must show a clear legal right to the act demanded;
2. Respondent must have a duty to perform the act mandated by law;
3. Respondent unlawfully neglect the performance of the duty enjoined by law;
4. The act to be performed is ministerial and not discretionary; and
5. There is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course
of law.
To tell whether the act may be compelled by Mandamus, the duty must be first
ministerial. A duty is ministerial if it is the official duty of a public officer required by
direct and positive command of the law wherein the officer has no room for the
exercise of discretion.
Q. RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CASES
(1) Writ of Continuing Mandamus
(2) Writ of Kalikasan
These Rules shall govern the procedure in civil, criminal and special civil actions
before the Regional Trial Courts, Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial in
Cities, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts involving
enforcement or violations of environmental and other related laws, rules and
regulations.
Under the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines, It has the power to promulgate
rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights. Article
8 of the Civil Code of the Philippines provides that judicial decisions applying or
interpreting the laws or the Constitution shall from part of the legal system of
the Philippines.
PROCEDURAL INNOVATIONS INTRODUCED IN SAID RULES ARE:
1. Citizen Suits – giving the rights to ordinary citizens to initiate legal action to
enforce their right to the life sources (a.k.a. environmental right);
2. Consent Decrees;
3. Temporary Environmental Protect Orders (TEPO) in case of threat of serious
damage to the environment (or life sources);
4. Writ of Kalikasan
5. Writ of Continuing Mandamus;
6. Protection against harassment countersuits (i.e., SLAPP suits – Strategic
Lawsuits against Public Participation); and
7. Adoption of the Precautionary Principle
STRATEGIC LAWSUITS AGAINTS PUBLIC PARTICIPATION (SLAPP) AND (7) THE
PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE:
What is especially notable about the new Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases are
the two special civil actions that it adds to the existing rules of court in the Philippines,
namelu;
1. The writ of Kalikasan or the writ of Nature; and
2. The writ of Continuing Mandamus
R. WRIT OF CONTINUING MANDAMUS (RULES 8)
BRIEF SUMMARY:
When any agency or instrumentality of the government or officer thereof unlawfully
neglects the performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting
from an office, trust or station in connection with the enforcement or violation of an
environmental law rule or regulation or a right therein.
30

When any agency or instrumentality unlawfully excludes another from the us or
enjoyment of such right
Where the petition should be files?
The petition shall be filed with the Regional Trial Court exercising jurisdiction over the
territory where the actionable neglect or omission occurred or with the Court of Appeals
or the Supreme Court.
What are some characteristics of the procedure for the issuance of the writ of
continuing mandamus?
a) The petitioner shall be exempt from the payment of docket fees.
b) Proceedings shall be summary in nature
c) Orders expediting the proceedings or a Temporary Environmental Protection
Order for protection of the rights of the parties may be granted by the court.
d) The petition shall be resolved without delay within sixty (60) days from the date
of the submission of the petition for resolution.
S. WRIT OF THE KALIKASAN
BRIEF SUMMARY:
The Writ of Kalikasan, or the writ of nature, is available when the environmental
damage is of such magnitude that it prejudices the life, health, or property of
inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces. The writ is issued by either the
Supreme Court of the Court of Appeals within three days after the filling of
application. Hearing of the matter is set within sixty days. No docket or filing fee
is required upon the filling of the complaints or petition. The proceedings
terminate within sixty days from submission of the original application. Note the
emphasis on the enforcement of the right to life. Note also the availability of the
legal remedy where the damage is of such magnitude as to threaten the life and
health of inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces. In said cases, the
petitioner (or affected party) can immediately take recourse to the higher courts
– the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court – and seek relief in summary
proceedings.
What are the bases for issuing writ of Kalikasan?
a) 1987 Constitution
Article 2 Sec. 16, “he state shall advance the right of the people to a
balanced and healthful ecology in accordance with the rhythm and harmony
of nature”
Article 2 Sec. 15, “The state shall protect and promote the right to health of
the people and instill health consciousness among them.”
b) Environmental Justice
c) Inter-generational Responsibiliy (Oposa v. Factoran)
What are the objective of Writ of Kalikasan?
a) For protection and promotion of constitutional right to a balanced and healthful
ecology;
b) For simplified, speedy and inexpensive procedure in the enforcement of
environmental rights and duties;
c) To introduce and adopt innovations in ensuring the effective enforcement of
remedies and redress for violation of environmental law; and
d) To enable the courts to monitor and exact compliance with orders and
judgements in environmental cases.
What is the nature of a writ of kalikasan?
It is an extraordinary remedy with the underlying emphasis on the magnitude as it deals
with damage that transcends political and territorial boundaries.
How is magnitude measure?
Magnitude is measured according to the ualigication set forth in the Rule- when there in
environmental damage that prejudices the life, liberty or property of in habitants in two
or more cities or provinces.
Who can file petition for Writ of Kalikasan?
a) Natural or juridical person, entity by law, people’s organization, non-
governmental organization, or any public interest group accredited by or
registered with any government agency on behalf or persons.
b) Whose constitutional right to a balanced and health ecology is violated , or
threatened with violation;
c) By an unlawful act or commission of publica official or employee, or private
individual or entity;
d) Involving environmental damage of such magnitude as to prejudice the life,
helath or property of inhabitants in two or more cities or porvines.
31
Where is it files? The remedy is to appeal to the Supreme Court under Rul 45 of the Rules of Court fifteen
(15) days from the date of notice ofb the adverse judgemnt or denial of motion for
With the Supreme Court with any station of the Court of Appeals
reconsideration.
Why is the petition filed in the Supreme Court of the Court Appeals
The appeal may raise question of fact.
Why is the petition filed in the Supreme Court of the Court of Appeals?
Can a question of fact be raised on appeal?
The magnitude of the environmental damage is the reason for limiting where the writ
may be filed, to the Supreme Court or Court of Appeals whose jurisdiction is national in Given the extraordinary nature of circumstances surrounding the issuance of a writ of
scope. kalikasan, this section allow an appeal to questions of fact and thus constitutes an
exception to Rule45 of the Rules of Court
How much is the docket fee?
May a party institute separate actions?
The petitioner is EXEMPT from paying docket fees
After hearing, the court shall issue an order submitting the caser for decision the court
What is the rationale of the exemption from the payment of docket fees?
may require the filling of memoranda and if possible, its electronic form, within non
The exemption from payment of docket fees is consistent with the character of the reliefs extendible period of 30 days from the date of the petition is submitted for decision.
available under the writ, which excludes damages for personal injuries. This exemption
also encourages public participation in availing of the remedy.

What are the reliefs that may be granted under the writ of kalikasan?

a) Directing respondent to permanently cease and desist from committing acts or

neglecting the performance of a duty in violation of environmental laws resulting
in environmental destruction of damage;
b) Directing the respondent public official, government agency, private person or
entity to protect, preserve, rehabilitate or restore the environment;
c) Directing the respondent public official, government agency, private person or
entity to monitor strict compliance with the decision and orders of the court.
d) Directing the respondent public official, government agency, or private person or
entity to make periodic reports on the execution of the final judgement; and
e) Such other reliefs which relate to the right of the people to a balanced and
healthful ecology or to the protection, preservation, rehabilitation or restoration
of the environment, except the award of damages to individual petitioners.

Are the reliefs available exclusive?

The relief that may be granted under the writ are broad, comprehensive and non-
exclusive. The reliefs regarding monitoring and periodic reports ensure enforcement of
the judgment of the court.

What is the remedy in case an adverse judgement was rendered?

32