Finals for Envi Law - Atty. Nolasco

8/12/2019 Finals for Envi Law - Atty. Nolasco

1/30

Republic Act No. 8749 June 23, 1999

AN ACT PROVIDING FOR A COMPREHENSIVE AIR POLLUTION CONTROL POLICY AND FOROTHER PURPOSES

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress assembled: :

Chapter 1General Provisions

Article OneBasic Air Quality Policies

Section 1. Short Tit le.- This Act shall be known as the "Phi l ippine Clean Air Ac t of 1999."

Article Two

Definition of Terms

Section 5. Defini t ions. -As used in this Act:

a) "Air pollutant" means any matter found in the atmosphere other than oxygen, nitrogen,water vapor, carbon dioxide, and the inert gases in their natural or normal concentrations,that is detrimental to health or the environment, which includes but not limited to smoke,dust, soot, cinders, fly ash, solid particles of any kind, gases, fumes, chemical mists,steam and radio-active substances;

b) "Air pollution" means any alteration of the physical, chemical and biological propertiesof the atmospheric air, or any discharge thereto of any liquid, gaseous or solidsubstances that will or is likely to create or to render the air resources of the country

harmful, detrimental, or injurious to public health, safety or welfare or which will adverselyaffect their utilization for domestic, commercial, industrial, agricultural, recreational, orother legitimate purposes;

t) "Poisonous and toxic fumes" means any emissions and fumes which are beyondinternationally - accepted standards, including but not limited to the World HealthOrganization (WHO) guideline values;

Section 14. Air Qual i ty Management Fund.- An Air Quality Management Fund to be administered bythe Department as a special account in the National Treasury is hereby established to financecontainment, removal, and clean-up operations of the Government in air pollution cases, guaranteerestoration of ecosystems and rehabilitate areas affected by the acts of violators of this Act, to supportresearch, enforcement and monitoring activities and capabilities of the relevant agencies, as well as to

provide technical assistance to the relevant agencies. Such fund may likewise be allocated per airshedfor the undertakings herein stated.

The Fund shall be sourced from the fines imposed and damages awarded to the Republic of thePhilippines by the Pollution Adjudication Board (PAB), proceeds of licenses and permits issued by theDepartment under this Act, emission fees and from donations, endowments and grants in the forms ofcontributions. Contributions to the Fund shall be exempted from donor taxes and all other taxes, chargesor fees imposed by the Government.

Article TwoAir Pollution Clearances and Permits for Stationary Sources

Section 16. Permits.- Consistent with the provisions of this Act, the Department shall have the authorityto issue permits as it may determine necessary for the prevention and abatement of air pollution.

Said permits shall cover emission limitations for the regulated air pollutants to help attain and maintain theambient air quality standards. These permits shall serve as management tools for the LGUs in thedevelopment of their action plan.

Section 18. Financial Liabi l i ty for Environm ental Rehabi l i tat ion.- As part of the environmentalmanagement plan attached to the environmental compliance certificate pursuant to Presidential Decree


2/30

No. 1586 and rules and regulations set therefor, the Department shall require program and projectproponents to put up financial guarantee mechanisms to finance the needs for emergency response,clean-up rehabilitation of areas that may be damaged during the program or projects actualimplementation. Liability for damages shall continue even after the termination of a program or project,where such damages are clearly attributable to that program or project and for a definite period to bedetermined by the Department and incorporated into the environmental compliance certificate.

Financial liability instruments may be in the form a trust fund, environmental insurance, surety bonds,letters of credit, as well as self-insurance. The choice of the guarantee instruments shall furnish theDepartment with evidence of availment of such instruments.

Article Three

Section 20. Ban o n Incinerat ion.- Incineration, hereby defined as the burning of municipal, biomedicaland hazardous waste, which process emits poisonous and toxic fumes is hereby prohibited; Provided,however, That the prohibition shall not apply to traditional small-scale method ofcommunity/neighborhood sanitation "siga", traditional, agricultural, cultural, health, and food preparationand crematoria; Provided, Further, That existing incinerators dealing with a biomedical wastes shall beout within three (3) years after the effectivity of this Act; Provided, Finally, that in the interim, such units

shall be limited to the burning of pathological and infectious wastes, and subject to close monitoring bythe Department.

Local government units are hereby mandated to promote, encourage and implement in their respectivejurisdiction a comprehensive ecological waste management that includes waste segregation, recyclingand composting.

With due concern on the effects of climate change, the Department shall promote the use of state-of-the-art, environmentally-sound and safe non-burn technologies for the handling, treatment, thermaldestruction, utilization, and disposal of sorted, unrecycled, uncomposted, biomedical and hazardouswastes.

Article Four

Pollution from Motor Vehicles

Article FivePollution from Other Sources

Section 24. Pol lu t ion from smo king.- Smoking inside a public building or an enclosed public placeincluding public vehicles and other means of transport or in any enclosed area outside of one's privateresidence, private place of work or any duly designated smoking area is hereby prohibited under this Act.This provision shall be implemented by the LGUs.

Chapter 4Institutional Mechanism

Section 34. Lead Agency.- The Department, unless otherwise provided herein, shall be the primarygovernment agency responsible for the implementation and enforcement of this Act. To be more effectivein this regard, The Department's Environmental Management Bureau (EMB) shall be converted from astaff bureau to a line bureau for a period of no more than two (2) years, unless a separate,comprehensive environmental management agency is created.

Section 36. Role of Local Government Uni ts.- Local Government Units (LGUs) shall share theresponsibility in the management and maintenance of air quality within their territorial jurisdiction.Consistent with Sections 7, 8 and 9 of this Act, LGUs shall implement air quality standards set by theBoard in areas within their jurisdiction; Provided, however, That in case where the board has not beenduly constituted and has not promulgated its standards, the standards set forth in this Act shall apply.

The Department shall provide the LGUs with technical assistance, trainings and a continuing capability-building program to prepare them to undertake full administration of the air quality management andregulation within their territorial jurisdiction.

Chapter 5Actions


3/30

Section 40. Adm in is trat ive Act ion.- Without prejudice to the right of any affected person to file anadministrative action, the Department shall, on its own instance or upon verified complaint by any person,institute administrative proceedings against any person who violates:

(a) Standards or limitation provided under this Act; or

(b) Any order, rule or regulation issued by the Department with respect to such standardor limitation.

Section 41. Citizen Suits.- For purposes of enforcing the provisions of this Act or its implementing rulesand regulations, any citizen may file an appropriate civil, criminal or administrative action in the propercourts against:

(a) Any person who violates or fails to comply with the provisions of this Act or itsimplementing rules and regulations; or

(b) The Department or other implementing agencies with respect to orders, rules andregulations issued inconsistent with this Act; and/or

(c) Any public officer who willfully or grossly neglects the performance of an actspecifically enjoined as a duty by this Act or its implementing rules and regulations; orabuses his authority in the performance of his duty; or, in any manner, improperlyperforms his duties under this Act or its implementing rules and regulations: Provided,however, That no suit can be filed until thirty-day (30) notice has been taken thereon.

The court shall exempt such action from the payment of filing fees, except fees for actions not capable ofpecuniary estimations, and shall likewise, upon prima facie showing of the non-enforcement or violationcomplained of, exempt the plaintiff from the filing of an injunction bond for the issuance of a preliminaryinjunction.

Within thirty (30) days, the court shall make a determination if the compliant herein is malicious and/or

baseless and shall accordingly dismiss the action and award attorney's fees and damages.

Section 42. Independence of A ct ion.- The filing of an administrative suit against such person/entitydoes not preclude the right of any other person to file any criminal or civil action. Such civil action shallproceed independently.

Section 43. Sui ts and Strateg ic Legal Act ions Against Publ ic Part ic ipat ion and the Enforcement ofThis Act.- Where a suit is brought against a person who filed an action as provided in Sec. 41 of this Act,or against any person, institution or government agency that implements this Act, it shall be the duty ofthe investigating prosecutor or the court, as the case may be, to immediately make a determination notexceeding thirty (30) days whether said legal action has been filed to harass, vex, exert undue pressureor stifle such legal recourses of the person complaining of or enforcing the provisions of this Act. Upondetermination thereof, evidence warranting the same, the court shall dismiss the case and award

attorney's fees and double damages.

This provision shall also apply and benefit public officers who are sued for acts committed in their officialcapacity, their being no grave abuse of authority, and done in the course of enforcing this Act.

Section 44. Lien Upon Person al and Immovable Properties of Violators.- Fines and penaltiesimposed pursuant to this Act shall be liens upon personal or immovable properties of the violator. Suchlien shall, in case of insolvency of the respondent violator, enjoy preference to laborer's wages underArticles 2241 and 2242 of Republic Act No. 386, otherwise known as the New Civil Code of thePhilippines.

Chapter 6Fines and Penalties

Section 45. Violation of Standards for Stationary Sourc es.- For actual exceedance of any pollution orair quality standards under this Act or its rules and regulations, the Department, through the PollutionAdjudication Board (PAB), shall impose a fine of not more than One hundred thousand pesos(P100,000.00) for every day of violation against the owner or operator of a stationary source until suchtime that the standards have been complied with.


4/30

For purposes of the application of the fines, the PAB shall prepare a fine rating system to adjust themaximum fine based on the violator's ability to pay, degree of willfulness, degree of negligence, history ofnon-compliance and degree of recalcitrance: Provided,That in case of negligence, the first timeoffender's ability to pay may likewise be considered by the Pollution Adjudication Board: Provided,Further, That in the absence of any extenuating or aggravating circumstances, the amount of fine fornegligence shall be equivalent to one-half of the fine for willful violation.

The fines herein prescribed shall be increased by at least ten percent (10%), every three (3) years tocompensate for inflation and to maintain the deterrent function of such fines.

In addition to the fines, the PAB shall order closure, suspension of development, construction, oroperations of the stationary sources until such time that proper environmental safeguards are put inplace: Provided,That an establishment liable for a third offense shall suffer permanent closureimmediately. This paragraph shall be without prejudice to the immediate issuance of an ex parte order forsuch closure, suspension of development or construction, or cessation of operations during the pendencyof the case upon prima facie evidence that their is imminent threat to life, public health, safety or generalwelfare, or to plant or animal life, or whenever there is an exceedance of the emission standards set bythe Department and/or the Board and/or the appropriate LGU.

Section 46. Violation of Standards for Motor Vehicles.- No motor vehicle shall be registered with theDOTC unless it meets the emission standards set by the Department as provided in Sec. 21 hereof.

Any vehicle suspected of violation of emission standards through visual signs, such as, but not limited tosmoke-belching, shall be subjected to an emission test by a duly authorized emission testing center. Forthis purpose, the DOTC or its authorized testing center shall establish a roadside inspection system.Should it be shown that there was no violation of emission standards, the vehicle shall be immediatelyreleased. Otherwise, a testing result indicating an exceedance of the emission standards would warrantthe continuing custody of the impounded vehicle unless the appropriate penalties are fully paid, and thelicense plate is surrendered to the DOTC pending the fulfillment of the undertaking by the owner/operatorof the motor vehicle to make the necessary repairs so as to comply with the standards. A pass shallherein be issued by the DOTC to authorize the use of the motor vehicle within a specified period that shallnot exceed seven (7) days for the sole purpose of making the necessary repairs on the said vehicle. The

owner/operator of the vehicle shall be required to correct its defects and show proof of compliance to theappropriate pollution control office before the vehicle can be allowed to be driven on any public orsubdivision roads.

In addition, the driver and operator of the apprehended vehicle shall undergo a seminar on pollutioncontrol management conducted by the DOTC and shall also suffer the following penalties:

a) First Offense - a fine not to exceed Two Thousand Pesos (P2,000.00);

b) Second Offense - a fine not less than Two Thousand Pesos (P2,000.00) and not toexceed Four Thousand Pesos (P4,000.00); and

c) Third offense - one (1) year suspension of the Motor Vehicle Registration (MVR) and afine of not less than Four Thousand Pesos (P4,000.00) and not more than Six thousandpesos (P6,000.00).

Any violation of the provisions of Sec. 21 paragraph (d) with regard to national inspection andmaintenance program, including technicians and facility compliance shall penalized with a fine of not lessthan Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00) or cancellation of license of both the technician and the center,or both, as determined by the DTI.

All law enforcement officials and deputized agents accredited to conduct vehicle emissions testing andapprehensions shall undergo a mandatory training on emission standards and regulations. For thispurpose, the Department, together with the DOTC, DTI, DOST, Philippine National Police (PNP) andother concerned agencies and private entities shall design a training program.

Section 47. Fines and Penalt ies for Violations of Other Provision s in the Act.- For violations of allother provisions provided in this Act and of the rules and regulations thereof, a fine of not less than Tenthousand pesos (P10,000) but not more than One Hundred thousand Pesos (P100,000) or six (6) monthsto six (6) years imprisonment or both shall be imposed. If the offender is a juridical person, the president,manager, directors, trustees, the pollution control officer or the officials directly in charge of the operationsshall suffer the penalty herein provided.


5/30

Section 48. Gross Vio lat ions.- In case of gross violation of this Act or its implementing rules andregulations, the PAB shall recommend to the proper government agencies to file the appropriate criminalcharges against the violators. The PAB shall assist the public prosecutor in the litigation of the case.Gross violation shall mean:

(a) three (3) or more specific offenses within a period of one (1) year;

(b) three (3) or more specific offenses with three (3) consecutive years;

(c) blatant disregard of the orders of the PAB, such s but not limited to the breaking ofseal, padlocks and other similar devices, or operation despite the existence of an orderfor closure, discontinuance or cessation of operation; and

(d) irreparable or grave damage to the environment as a consequence of any violation ofthe provisions of this Act.

Offenders shall be punished with imprisonment of not less than six (6) years but not more than ten (10)years at the discretion of the court. If the offender is a juridical person, the president, manager, directors,trustees, the pollution control officer or the officials directly in charge of the operations shall suffer the

penalty herein provided.


6/30

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 158290 October 23, 2006

HILARION M. HENARES, JR., VICTOR C. AGUSTIN, ALFREDO L. HENARES, DANIEL L. HENARES,ENRIQUE BELO HENARES, and CRISTINA BELO HENARES, petitioners,vs.LAND TRANSPORTATION FRANCHISING AND REGULATORY BOARD and DEPARTMENT OFTRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATIONS, respondents.

R E S O L U T I O N

QUISUMBING,J .:

Petitioners challenge this Court to issue a writ of mandamus commanding respondents Land TransportationFranchising 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.

Citing statistics from the Metro Manila Transportation and Traffic Situation Study of 1996,1the EnvironmentalManagement Bureau (EMB) of the National Capital Region,2a study of the Asian Development Bank,3theManila Observatory4and the Department of Environment and Natural Resources5(DENR) on the high growthand low turnover in vehicle ownership in the Philippines, including diesel-powered vehicles, two-stroke enginepowered motorcycles and their concomitant emission of air pollutants, petitioners attempt to present acompelling case for judicial action against the bane of air pollution and related environmental hazards.

Petitioners allege that the particulate matters (PM)complex mixtures of dust, dirt, smoke, and liquid droplets,varying in sizes and compositions emitted into the air from various engine combustionshave causeddetrimental effects on health, productivity, infrastructure and the overall quality of life. Petitioners particularlycite the effects of certain fuel emissions from engine combustion when these react to other pollutants. Forinstance, petitioners aver, with hydrocarbons, oxide of nitrogen (NOx) creates smog; with sulfur dioxide, itcreates acid rain; and with ammonia, moisture and other compounds, it reacts to form nitric acid and harmfulnitrates. Fuel emissions also cause retardation and leaf bleaching in plants. According to petitioner, anotheremission, carbon monoxide (CO), when not completely burned but emitted into the atmosphere and theninhaled can disrupt the necessary oxygen in blood. With prolonged exposure, CO affects the nervous systemand can be lethal to people with weak hearts.6

Petitioners add that although much of the new power generated in the country will use natural gas while anumber of oil and coal-fired fuel stations are being phased-out, still with the projected doubling of power

generation over the next 10 years, and with the continuing high demand for motor vehicles, the energy andtransport sectors are likely to remain the major sources of harmful emissions. Petitioners refer us to the studyof the Philippine Environment Monitor 20027,stating that in four of the country's major cities, Metro Manila,Davao, Cebu and Baguio, the exposure to PM10,a finer PM which can penetrate deep into the lungs causingserious health problems, is estimated at over US$430 million.8The study also reports that the emissions ofPMs have caused the following:

Over 2,000 people die prematurely. This loss is valued at about US$140 million.

Over 9,000 people suffer from chronic bronchitis, which is valued at about US$120 million.

Nearly 51 million cases of respiratory symptom days in Metro Manila (averaging twice a yearin Davao and Cebu, and five to six times in Metro Manila and Baguio), costs about US$170

million. This is a 70 percent increase, over a decade, when compared with the findings of asimilar study done in 1992 for Metro Manila, which reported 33 million cases.9

Petitioners likewise cite the University of the Philippines' studies in 1990-91 and 1994 showing that vehicularemissions in Metro Manila have resulted to the prevalence of chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases (COPD);that pulmonary tuberculosis is highest among jeepney drivers; and there is a 4.8 to 27.5 percent prevalence ofrespiratory symptoms among school children and 15.8 to 40.6 percent among child vendors. The studies alsorevealed that the children in Metro Manila showed more compromised pulmonary function than their ruralcounterparts. Petitioners infer that these are mostly due to the emissions of PUVs.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_158290_2006.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_158290_2006.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_158290_2006.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_158290_2006.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_158290_2006.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_158290_2006.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_158290_2006.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_158290_2006.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_158290_2006.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_158290_2006.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_158290_2006.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_158290_2006.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_158290_2006.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_158290_2006.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_158290_2006.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_158290_2006.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_158290_2006.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_158290_2006.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_158290_2006.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_158290_2006.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_158290_2006.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_158290_2006.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_158290_2006.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_158290_2006.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_158290_2006.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_158290_2006.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_158290_2006.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_158290_2006.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_158290_2006.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_158290_2006.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_158290_2006.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_158290_2006.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_158290_2006.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_158290_2006.html#fnt1


7/30

To counter the aforementioned detrimental effects of emissions from PUVs, petitioners propose the use ofCNG. According to petitioners, CNG is a natural gas comprised mostly of methane which although containingsmall amounts of propane and butane,10is colorless and odorless and considered the cleanest fossil fuelbecause it produces much less pollutants than coal and petroleum; produces up to 90 percent less COcompared to gasoline and diesel fuel; reduces NOxemissions by 50 percent and cuts hydrocarbon emissionsby half; emits 60 percent less PMs; and releases virtually no sulfur dioxide. Although, according to petitioners,the only drawback of CNG is that it produces more methane, one of the gases blamed for global warming.11

Asserting their right to clean air, petitioners contend that the bases for their petition for a writ of mandamus toorder the LTFRB to require PUVs to use CNG as an alternative fuel, lie in Section 16,12Article II of the 1987Constitution, our ruling in Oposa v. Factoran, Jr.,13and Section 414of Republic Act No. 8749 otherwise knownas the "Philippine Clean Air Act of 1999."

Meantime, following a subsequent motion, the Court granted petitioners' motion to implead the Department ofTransportation and Communications (DOTC) as additional respondent.

In his Comment for respondents LTFRB and DOTC, the Solicitor General, cites Section 3, Rule 65 of theRevised Rules of Courtandexplains that the writ of mandamus is not the correct remedy since the writ may beissued only to command a tribunal, corporation, board or person to do an act that is required to be done, whenhe or it unlawfully neglects the performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from

an office, trust or station, or unlawfully excludes another from the use and enjoyment of a right or office towhich such other is entitled, there being no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course oflaw.15Further citing existing jurisprudence, the Solicitor General explains that in contrast to a discretionary act,a ministerial act, which a mandamus is, is one in which an officer or tribunal performs in a given state of facts,in a prescribed manner, in obedience to a mandate of legal authority, without regard to or the exercise of hisown judgment upon the propriety or impropriety of an act done.

The Solicitor General also notes that nothing in Rep. Act No. 8749 that petitioners invoke, prohibits the use ofgasoline and diesel by owners of motor vehicles. Sadly too, according to the Solicitor General, Rep. Act No.8749 does not even mention the existence of CNG as alternative fuel and avers that unless this law isamended to provide CNG as alternative fuel for PUVs, the respondents cannot propose that PUVs use CNG asalternative fuel.

The Solicitor General also adds that it is the DENR that is tasked to implement Rep. Act No. 8749 and not theLTFRB nor the DOTC. Moreover, he says, it is the Department of Energy (DOE), under Section 2616of Rep.Act No. 8749, that is required to set the specifications for all types of fuel and fuel-related products to improvefuel compositions for improved efficiency and reduced emissions. He adds that under Section 2117of the citedRepublic Act, the DOTC is limited to implementing the emission standards for motor vehicles, and the hereinrespondents cannot alter, change or modify the emission standards. The Solicitor General opines that theCourt should declare the instant petition for mandamus without merit.

Petitioners, in their Reply, insist that the respondents possess the administrative and regulatory powers toimplement measures in accordance with the policies and principles mandated by Rep. Act No. 8749,specifically Section 218and Section 21.19Petitioners state that under these laws and with all the availableinformation provided by the DOE on the benefits of CNG, respondents cannot ignore the existence of CNG,and their failure to recognize CNG and compel its use by PUVs as alternative fuel while air pollution broughtabout by the emissions of gasoline and diesel endanger the environment and the people, is tantamount to

neglect in the performance of a duty which the law enjoins.

Lastly, petitioners aver that other than the writ applied for, they have no other plain, speedy and adequateremedy in the ordinary course of law. Petitioners insist that the writ in fact should be issued pursuant to the verysame Section 3, Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court that the Solicitor General invokes.

In their Memorandum, petitioners phrase the issues before us as follows:

I. WHETHER OR NOT THE PETITIONERS HAVE THE PERSONALITY TO BRING THEPRESENT ACTION

II. WHETHER OR NOT THE PRESENT ACTION IS SUPPORTED BY LAW

III. WHETHER OR NOT THE RESPONDENT IS THE AGENCY RESPONSIBLE TOIMPLEMENT THE SUGGESTED ALTERNATIVE OF REQUIRING PUBLIC UTILITYVEHICLES TO USE COMPRESSED NATURAL GAS (CNG)

IV. WHETHER OR NOT THE RESPONDENT CAN BE COMPELLED TO REQUIRE PUBLICUTILITY VEHICLES TO USE COMPRESSED NATURAL GAS THROUGH A WRIT OFMANDAMUS20
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_158290_2006.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_158290_2006.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_158290_2006.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_158290_2006.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_158290_2006.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_158290_2006.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_158290_2006.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_158290_2006.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_158290_2006.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_158290_2006.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_158290_2006.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_158290_2006.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_158290_2006.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_158290_2006.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_158290_2006.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_158290_2006.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_158290_2006.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_158290_2006.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_158290_2006.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_158290_2006.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_158290_2006.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_158290_2006.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_158290_2006.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_158290_2006.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_158290_2006.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_158290_2006.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_158290_2006.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_158290_2006.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_158290_2006.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_158290_2006.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_158290_2006.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_158290_2006.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_158290_2006.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_158290_2006.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_158290_2006.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_158290_2006.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_158290_2006.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_158290_2006.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_158290_2006.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_158290_2006.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_158290_2006.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_158290_2006.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_158290_2006.html#fnt10


8/30

Briefly put, the issues are two-fold. First, Do petitioners have legal personality to bring this petition before us?Second, Should mandamus issue against respondents to compel PUVs to use CNG as alternative fuel?

According to petitioners, Section 16,21Article II of the 1987 Constitution is the policy statement that bestows onthe people the right to breathe clean air in a healthy environment. This policy is enunciated in Oposa.22Theimplementation of this policy is articulated in Rep. Act No. 8749. These, according to petitioners, are the basesfor their standing to file the instant petition. They aver that when there is an omission by the government tosafeguard a right, in this case their right to clean air, then, the citizens can resort to and exhaust all remedies tochallenge this omission by the government. This, they say, is embodied in Section 423of Rep. Act No. 8749.

Petitioners insist that since it is the LTFRB and the DOTC that are the government agencies clothed with powerto regulate and control motor vehicles, particularly PUVs, and with the same agencies' awareness andknowledge that the PUVs emit dangerous levels of air pollutants, then, the responsibility to see that these arecurbed falls under respondents' functions and a writ of mandamus should issue against them.

The Solicitor General, for his part, reiterates his position that the respondent government agencies, the DOTCand the LTFRB, are not in a position to compel the PUVs to use CNG as alternative fuel. The Solicitor Generalexplains that the function of the DOTC is limited to implementing the emission standards set forth in Rep. ActNo. 8749 and the said law only goes as far as setting the maximum limit for the emission of vehicles, but itdoes not recognize CNG as 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.

Patently, this Court is being asked to resolve issues that are not only procedural. Petitioners challenge thisCourt to decide if what petitioners propose could be done through a less circuitous, speedy and uncharteredcourse in an issue that Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr. in hisponencia in the Oposa case,24describes as"inter-generational responsibility" and "inter-generational justice."

Now, as to petitioners' standing. There is no dispute that petitioners have standing to bring their case beforethis Court. Even respondents do not question their standing. This petition focuses on one fundamental legalright of petitioners, their right to clean air. Moreover, as held previously, a party's standing before this Court is aprocedural technicality which may, in the exercise of the Court's discretion, be set aside in view of theimportance of the issue raised. We brush aside this issue of technicality under the principle of thetranscendental importance to the public, especially so if these cases demand that they be settled promptly.

Undeniably, the right to clean air not only is an issue of paramount importance to petitioners for it concerns theair they breathe, but it is also impressed with public interest. The consequences of the counter-productive andretrogressive effects of a neglected environment due to emissions of motor vehicles immeasurably affect thewell-being of petitioners. On these considerations, the legal standing of the petitioners deserves recognition.

Our next concern is whether the writ of mandamus is the proper remedy, and if the writ could issue againstrespondents.

Under Section 3, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, mandamus lies under any of the following cases: (1) againstany tribunal which unlawfully neglects the performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty;(2) in case any corporation, board or person unlawfully neglects the performance of an act which the lawenjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station; and (3) in case any tribunal, corporation, board orperson unlawfully excludes another from the use and enjoyment of a right or office to which such other islegally entitled; and there is no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.

In University of San Agustin, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,25we said,

It is settled that mandamus is employed to compel the performance, when refused,of a ministerial duty, this being its main objective. It does not lie to require anyone tofulfill contractual obligations or to compel a course of conduct, nor to control or reviewthe exercise of discretion. On the part of the petitioner, it is essential to the issuanceof a writ of mandamus that he should have a clear legal right to the thing demandedand it must be the imperative duty of the respondent to perform the act required. Itnever issues in doubtful cases. While it may not be necessary that the duty beabsolutely expressed, it must however, be clear. The writ will not issue to compel anofficial to do anything which is not his duty to do or which is his duty not to do, or give

to the applicant anything to which he is not entitled by law. The writ neither conferspowers nor imposes duties. It is simply a command to exercise a power alreadypossessed and to perform a duty already imposed. (Emphasis supplied.)

In this petition the legal right which is sought to be recognized and enforced hinges on a constitutional and astatutory policy already articulated in operational terms, e.g.in Rep. Act No. 8749, the Philippine Clean Air Actof 1999. Paragraph (a), Section 21 of the Act specifically provides that when PUVs are concerned, theresponsibility of implementing the policy falls on respondent DOTC. It provides as follows:
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_158290_2006.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_158290_2006.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_158290_2006.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_158290_2006.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_158290_2006.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_158290_2006.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_158290_2006.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_158290_2006.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_158290_2006.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_158290_2006.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_158290_2006.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_158290_2006.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_158290_2006.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_158290_2006.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_158290_2006.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_158290_2006.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_158290_2006.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_158290_2006.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_158290_2006.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_158290_2006.html#fnt21


9/30

SEC 21. Pollution from Motor Vehicles. - a) The DOTCshall implement the emissionstandards for motor vehicles set pursuant to and as provided in this Act. To further improvethe emission standards, the Department [DENR] shall review, revise and publish thestandards every two (2) years, or as the need arises. It shall consider the maximum limits forall major pollutants to ensure substantial improvement in air quality for the health, safety andwelfare of the general public.

Paragraph (b) states:

b) The Department [DENR] in collaboration with the DOTC,DTI and LGUs, shall develop anaction plan for the control and management of air pollution from motor vehiclesconsistent with the Integrated Air Quality Framework . . . . (Emphasis supplied.)

There is no dispute that under the Clean Air Act it is the DENR that is tasked to set the emission standards forfuel use and the task of developing an action plan. As far as motor vehicles are concerned, it devolves uponthe DOTC and the line agency whose mandate is to oversee that motor vehicles prepare an action plan andimplement the emission standards for motor vehicles, namely the LTFRB.

In Oposa26we said, the right to a balanced and healthful ecology carries with it the correlative duty to refrainfrom impairing the environment. We also said, it is clearly the duty of the responsible government agencies to

advance the said right.

Petitioners invoke the provisions of the Constitution and the Clean Air Act in their prayer for issuance of a writof mandamus commanding the respondents to require PUVs to use CNG as an alternative fuel. Although bothare 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 Natural Gas Vehicle Program for Public Transport (NGVPPT), took effect onFebruary 24, 2004. The program recognized, among others, natural gas as a clean burning alternative fuel forvehicle which has the potential to produce substantially lower pollutants; and the Malampaya Gas-to-PowerProject as representing the beginning of the natural gas industry of the Philippines. Paragraph 1.2, Section 1 ofE.O. No. 290 cites as one of its objectives, the use of CNG as a clean alternative fuel for transport.Furthermore, one of the components of the program is the development of CNG refueling stations and allrelated facilities in strategic locations in the country to serve the needs of CNG-powered PUVs. Section 3 of

E.O. No. 290, consistent with E.O. No. 66, series of 2002, designated the DOE as the lead agency (a) indeveloping the natural gas industry of the country with the DENR, through the EMB and (b) in formulatingemission standards for CNG. Most significantly, par. 4.5, Section 4 tasks the DOTC, working with the DOE, todevelop an implementation plan for "a gradual shift to CNG fuel utilization in PUVs and promote NGVs [naturalgas vehicles] in Metro Manila and Luzon through the issuance of directives/orders providing preferentialfranchises in present day major routes and exclusive franchises to NGVs in newly opened routes" Athorough reading of the executive order assures us that implementation for a cleaner environment is beingaddressed. To a certain extent, the instant petition had been mooted by the issuance of E.O. No. 290.

Regrettably, however, the plain, speedy and adequate remedy herein sought by petitioners, i.e., a writ ofmandamus commanding the respondents to require PUVs to use CNG, is unavailing. Mandamus is availableonly to compel the doing of an act specifically enjoined by law as a duty. Here, there is no law that mandatesthe respondents LTFRB and the DOTC to order owners of motor vehicles to use CNG. At most the LTFRB hasbeen tasked by E.O. No. 290 in par. 4.5 (ii), Section 4 "to grant preferential and exclusive Certificates of Public

Convenience (CPC) or franchises to operators of NGVs based on the results of the DOTC surveys."

Further, mandamus will not generally lie from one branch of government to a coordinate branch, for the obviousreason that neither is inferior to the other.27The need for future changes in both legislation and itsimplementation cannot be preempted by orders from this Court, especially when what is prayed for isprocedurally infirm. Besides, comity with and courtesy to a coequal branch dictate that we give sufficient timeand leeway for the coequal branches to address by themselves the environmental problems raised in thispetition.

In the same manner that we have associated the fundamental right to a balanced and healthful ecology withthe twin concepts of "inter-generational responsibility" and "inter-generational justice" in Oposa,28where weupheld the right of future Filipinos to prevent the destruction of the rainforests, so do we recognize, in thispetition, the right of petitioners and the future generation to clean air. In Oposawe said that if the right to abalanced and healthful ecology is now explicitly found in the Constitution even if the right is "assumed to existfrom the inception of humankind, it is because of the well-founded fear of its framers [of the Constitution] thatunless the rights to a balanced and healthful ecology and to health are mandated as state policies by theConstitution itself, thereby highlighting their continuing importance and imposing upon the state a solemnobligation to preserve the first and protect and advance the second, the day would not be too far when all elsewould be lost not only for the present generation, but also for those to come. . ."29

It is the firm belief of this Court that in this case, it is timely to reaffirm the premium we have placed on theprotection of the environment in the landmark case of Oposa.Yet, as serious as the statistics are on air
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_158290_2006.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_158290_2006.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_158290_2006.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_158290_2006.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_158290_2006.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_158290_2006.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_158290_2006.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_158290_2006.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_158290_2006.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_158290_2006.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_158290_2006.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_158290_2006.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_158290_2006.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_158290_2006.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_158290_2006.html#fnt26


10/30

pollution, with the present fuels deemed toxic as they are to the environment, as fatal as these pollutants are tothe health of the citizens, and urgently requiring resort to drastic measures to reduce air pollutants emitted bymotor vehicles, we must admit in particular that petitioners are unable to pinpoint the law that imposes anindubitable legal duty on respondents that will justify a grant of the writ of mandamus compelling the use ofCNG for public utility vehicles. It appears to us that more properly, the legislature should provide first thespecific statutory remedy to the complex environmental problems bared by herein petitioners before any judicialrecourse by mandamus is taken.

WHEREFORE, the petition for the issuance of a writ of mandamus is DISMISSED for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.

Carpio, Morales, Tinga, and Velasco, Jr., JJ.,concur.


11/30

REPUBLIC ACT 9003 January 26, 2001

AN ACT PROVIDING FOR AN ECOLOGICAL SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM, CREATING THENECESSARY INSTITUTIONAL MECHANISMS AND INCENTIVES, DECLARING CERTAIN ACTS

PROHIBITED AND PROVIDING PENALTIES, APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR, AND FOR OTHERPURPOSES

Article 1General Provisions

Section 1.Short Title- This Act shall be known as the "Ecological Solid Waste Management Act of 2000."

Section 3.Definition of Terms- For the purposes of this Act:

(h) Controlled dump shall refer to a disposal site at which solid waste is deposited inaccordance with the minimum prescribed standards of site operation;

(l) Ecological solid waste management shall refer to the systematic administration of activitieswhich provide for segregation at source, segregated transportation, storage, transfer,

processing, treatment, and disposal of solid waste and all other waste management activitieswhich do not harm the environment;

(m) Environmentally acceptable shall refer to the quality of being re-usable, biodegradable orcompostable, recyclable and not toxic or hazardous to the environment;

(t) Open dump shall refer to a disposal area wherein the solid wastes are indiscriminatelythrown or disposed of without due planning and consideration for environmental and Healthstandards;

(ff) Sanitary landfill shall refer to a waste disposal site designed, constructed, operated andmaintained in a manner that exerts engineering control over significant potential environmentimpacts arising from the development and operation of the facility;

(kk) Solid waste shall refer to all discarded household, commercial waste, non-hazardousinstitutional and industrial waste, street sweepings, construction debris, agricultural waste,and other non-hazardous/non-toxic solid waste.

Section 9.Visitorial Powers of the Department.- The Department or its duly authorized representative shallhave access to, and the right to copy therefrom, the records required to be maintained pursuant to theprovisions of this Act. The Secretary or the duly authorized representative shall likewise have the right to enterthe premises of any generator, recycler or manufacturer, or other facilities any time to question any employeeor investigate any fact, condition or matter which may be necessary to determine any violation, or which mayaid in the effective enforcement of this Act and its implementing rules and regulations. This Section shall notapply to private dwelling places unless the visitorial power is otherwise judicially authorized.

Section 10.Role of LGUs in Solid Waste Management- Pursuant to the relevant provisions of R.A. No. 7160,otherwise known as the Local government code, the LGUs shall be primarily responsible for the implementationand enforcement of the provisions of this Act within their respective jurisdictions.

Segregation and collection of solid waste shall be conducted at the barangay level specifically forbiodegradable, compostable and reusable wastes: Provided, That the collection of non-recyclable materialsand special wastes shall be the responsibility of the municipality or city.

Section 20.Establishing Mandatory Solid Waste Diversion- Each LGU plan shall include an implementationschedule which shows that within five (5) years after the effectivity of this Act, the LGU shall divert at least 25%of all solid waste from waste disposal facilities through re-use, recycling and composting activities and otherresource recovery activities; Provided, That the waste diversion goals shall be increased every three (3) yearsthereafter; Provided, further, That nothing in this Section prohibits a local government unit from implementingre-use, recycling, and composting activities designed to exceed the goal.

Section 24.Requirements for the Transport of Solid Waste- The use of separate collection schedules and/orseparate trucks or haulers shall be required for specific types of wastes. Otherwise, vehicles used for thecollection and transport of solid wastes shall have the appropriate compartments to facilitate efficient storing ofsorted wastes while in transit.

Vehicles shall be designed to consider road size, condition and capacity to ensure the sage and efficientcollection and transport of solid wastes.


12/30

The waste compartment shall have a cover to ensure the containment of solid wastes while in transit.

For the purpose of identification, vehicles shall bear the body number, the name, and the telephone number ofthe contractor/agency collecting solid waste.

Section 27.Requirement for Eco-Labeling- The DTI shall formulate and implement a coding system for

packaging materials and products to facilitate waste and recycling and re-use.

Section 29.Non-Environmentally Acceptable Products- Within one (1) year from the effectivity of this Act, theCommission shall, after public notice and hearing, prepare a list of nonenvironmentally acceptable products asdefined in this Act that shall be prohibited according to a schedule that shall be prepared by the Commission:Provided, however, That non-environmentally acceptable products shall not be prohibited unless theCommission first finds that there are alternatives available which are available to consumers at no more thanten percent (10%) greater cost than the disposable product.

Notwithstanding any other provisions to the contrary, this section shall not apply to:

(a) Packaging used at hospitals, nursing homes or other medical facilities; and

(b) Any packaging which is not environmentally acceptable, but for which there is nocommercially available alternatives as determined by the Commission.

The Commission shall annually review and update the list of prohibited non-environmentally acceptableproducts.

Section 30.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 withthe intent to sell or convey at retail any products that are placed, wrapped or packaged in or on packagingwhich is not environmentally acceptable packaging: Provided, That the Commission shall determine a phaseoutperiod after proper consultation and hearing with the stakeholders or with the sectors concerned. The presencein the commercial establishment of non-environmentally acceptable packaging shall constitute a rebuttablepresumption of intent to sell or convey the same at retail to customers.

Any person who is a manufacturer, broker or warehouse operator engaging in the distribution or transportationof commercial products within the country shall file a report with the concerned local government within one (1)year from the effectivity of this Act, and annually thereafter, a listing of any products in packaging which is notenvironmentally acceptable. The Commission shall prescribe the form of such report in its regulations.

A violation of this Section shall be sufficient grounds for the revocation, suspension, denial or non-renewal ofany license for the establishment in which the violation occurs.

Section 37.Prohibition Against the Use of Open Dumps for Solid Waste- No open dumps shall be establishedand operated, nor any practice or disposal of solid waste by any person, including LGUs, which constitutes theuse of open dumps for solid wastes, be allowed after the effectivity of this Acts: Provided, That within three (3)years after the effectivity of this Act, every LGU shall convert its open dumps into controlled dumps, inaccordance with the guidelines set in Sec. 41 of this Act: Provided, further, That no controlled dumps shall be

allowed five (5) years following the effectivity of this Act.

CHAPTER VIPENAL PROVISIONS

Section 48.Prohibited Acts- The following acts are prohibited:

(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) Undertaking activities or operating, collecting or transporting equipment in violation ofsanitation operation and other requirements or permits set forth in established pursuant;

(3) The open burning of solid waste;

(4) Causing or permitting the collection of non-segregated or unsorted wastes;

(5) Squatting in open dumps and landfills;

(6) Open dumping, burying of biodegradable or non-biodegradable materials in flood proneareas;


13/30

(7) Unauthorized removal of recyclable material intended for collection by authorized persons;

(8) The mixing of source-separated recyclable material with other solid waste in any vehicle,box, container or receptacle used in solid waste collection or disposal;

(9) Establishment or operation of open dumps as enjoined in this Act, or closure of said

dumps in violation of Sec. 37;

(10) The manufacture, distribution or use of non-environmentally acceptable packagingmaterials;

(11) Importation of consumer products packaged in non-environmentally acceptable materials;

(12) Importation of toxic wastes misrepresented as "recyclable" or "with recyclable content";

(13) Transport and dumplog in bulk of collected domestic, industrial, commercial, andinstitutional wastes in areas other than centers or facilities prescribe under this Act;

(14) Site preparation, construction, expansion or operation of waste management facilities

without an Environmental Compliance Certificate required pursuant to Presidential Decree No.1586 and this Act and not conforming with the land use plan of the LGU;

(15) The construction of any establishment within two hundred (200) meters from open dumpsor controlled dumps, or sanitary landfill; and

(16) The construction or operation of landfills or any waste disposal facility on any aquifer,groundwater reservoir, or watershed area and or any portions thereof.

Section 52.Citizens Suits- For the purposes of enforcing the provisions of this Act or its implementing rulesand regulations, any citizen may file an appropriate civil, criminal or administrative action in the propercourts/bodies against:

(a) Any person who violates or fails to comply with the provisions of this Act its implementingrules and regulations; or

(b) The Department or other implementing agencies with respect to orders, rules andregulations issued inconsistent with this Act; and/or

(c) Any public officer who willfully or grossly neglects the performance of an act specificallyenjoined as a duty by this Act or its implementing rules and regulations; or abuses hisauthority in the performance of his duty; or, in any many improperly performs his duties underthis Act or its implementing rules and regulations; Provided, however, That no suit can be fileduntil after thirty-day (30) notice has been given to the public officer and the alleged violatorconcerned and no appropriate action has been taken thereon.

The Court shall exempt such action from the payment of filing fees and statements likewise, uponprimafacieshowing of the non-enforcement or violation complained of, exempt the plaintiff from the filing of an injunctionbond for the issuance of preliminary injunction.

In the event that the citizen should prevail, the Court shall award reasonable attorney's fees, moral damagesand litigation costs as appropriate.

Section 53.Suits and Strategic Legal Action Against Public Participation (SLAPP) and the Enforcement of thisAct- Where a suit is brought against a person who filed an action as provided in Sec. 52 of this Act, or againstany person, institution or government agency that implements this Act, it shall be the duty of the investigatingprosecutor or the Court, as the case may be, to immediately make a determination not exceeding thirty (30)days whether said legal action has been filed to harass, vex, exert undue pressure or stifle such legalrecourses of the person complaining of or enforcing the provisions of this Act. Upon determination thereof,

evidence warranting the same, the Court shall dismiss the complaint and award the attorney's fees and doubledamages.

This provision shall also apply and benefit public officers who are sued for acts committed in their officialcapacity, there being no grave abuse of authority, and done in the course of enforcing this Act.


14/30

EN BANC

PROVINCE OF RIZAL, MUNICIPALITY OF SANMATEO, PINTONG BOCAUE MULTIPURPOSECOOPERATIVE, CONCERNED CITIZENS OFRIZAL, INC., ROLANDO E. VILLACORTE,BERNARDO HIDALGO, ANANIAS EBUENGA,VILMA T. MONTAJES, FEDERICO MUNAR, JR.,ROLANDO BEAS, SR., ET AL., andKILOSBAYAN, INC.,

P e t i t i o n e r s,

- versus -

EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, SECRETARY OF

ENVIRONMENT & NATURAL RESOURCES,LAGUNA LAKE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,SECRETARY OF PUBLIC WORKS & HIGHWAYS,SECRETARY OF BUDGET & MANAGEMENT,METRO MANILA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYand THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS,

R e s p o n d e n t s.

G.R. No. 129546

Present:

DAVIDE, JR., C. J.,PUNO,PANGANIBAN,QUISUMBING,YNARES-SANTIAGO,SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ,CARPIO,MARTINEZ,CORONA,CARPIO MORALES,

CALLEJO, SR.,AZCUNA,TINGA,CHICO-NAZARIO, andGARCIA, JJ.

Promulgated:

December 13, 2005x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

D E C I S I O N

CHICO-NAZARIO,J.:

The earth belongs in usufruct to the living.[1]

At the height of the garbage crisis plaguing Metro Manila and its environs, parts of the MarikinaWatershed Reservation were set aside by the Office of the President, through Proclamation No. 635dated 28 August 1995, for use as a sanitary landfill and similar waste disposal applications. In fact, thissite, extending to more or less 18 hectares, had already been in operation since 19 February 1990[2]forthe solid wastes of Quezon City, Marikina, San Juan, Mandaluyong, Pateros, Pasig, and Taguig.[3]

This is a petition filed by the Province of Rizal, the municipality of San Mateo, and variousconcerned citizens for review on certiorariof the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No.

41330, denying, for lack of cause of action, the petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamuswithapplication for a temporary restraining order/writ of preliminary injunction assailing the legality andconstitutionality of Proclamation No. 635.

The facts are documented in painstaking detail.

On 17 November 1988, the respondent Secretaries of the Department of Public Works and Highways(DPWH) and the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) and the Governor of theMetropolitan Manila Commission (MMC) entered into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA),[4]whichprovides in part:
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/129546.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/129546.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/129546.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/129546.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/129546.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/129546.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/129546.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/129546.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/129546.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/129546.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/129546.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/129546.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/129546.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/129546.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/129546.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/129546.htm#_ftn1


15/30

1. The DENR agrees to immediately allow the utilization by theMetropolitan Manila Commission of its land property located at Pintong Bocaue in San Mateo, Rizal as asanitary landfill site, subject to whatever restrictions that the government impact assessment mightrequire.

2. Upon signing of this Agreement, the DPWH shall commence theconstruction/development of said dumpsite.

3. The MMC shall: a) take charge of the relocation of the families withinand around the site; b) oversee the development of the areas as a sanitary landfill; c)coordinate/monitor the construction of infrastructure facilities by the DPWH in the said site; and d)ensure that the necessary civil works are properly undertaken to safeguard against any negativeenvironmental impact in the area.

On 7, 8 and 10 February 1989, the Sangguniang Bayan of San Mateo wrote Gov. Elfren Cruz of theMMC, Sec. Fiorello Estuar of the DPWH, the Presidential Task Force on Solid Waste Management,Executive Secretary Catalino Macaraig, and Sec. Fulgencio Factoran, Jr., pointing out that it had recently

passed a Resolution banning the creation of dumpsites for Metro Manila garbage within its jurisdiction,asking that their side be heard, and that the addressees suspend and temporarily hold in abeyance all

and any part of your operations with respect to the San Mateo Landfill Dumpsite. No action was takenon these letters.

It turns out that the land subject of the MOA of 17 November 1988 and owned by the DENR was part ofthe Marikina Watershed Reservation Area. Thus, on 31 May 1989, forest officers of the ForestEngineering and Infrastructure Unit of the Community Environment and Natural Resource Office,(CENRO) DENR-IV, Rizal Province, submitted a Memorandum[5]on the On-going Dumping Site Operationof the MMC inside (the) Upper Portion of Marikina Watershed Reservation, located at Barangay PintongBocaue, San Mateo, Rizal, and nearby localities. Said Memorandum reads in part:

Observations:

3.1 The subject area is arable and agricultural in nature;3.2 Soil type and its topography are favorable for agricultural and forestry productions;

. . .

3.5 Said Dumping Site is observed to be confined within the said Watershed Reservation, bearing inthe northeastern part of Lungsod Silangan Townsite Reservation. Such illegal Dumping Site operationinside (the) Watershed Reservation is in violation of P.D. 705, otherwise known as the Revised

Forestry Code, as amended. . .

Recommendations:

5.1 The MMC Dumping Site Inside Marikina Watershed Reservation, particularly at Brgy. PintongBocaue, San Mateo, Rizal and at Bo. Pinugay, Baras/Antipolo, Rizal which are the present garbage zones

must totally be stopped and discouraged without any political intervention and delay in order to save

our healthy ecosystems found therein, to avoid much destruction, useless efforts and lost (sic) of

millions of public funds over the land in question; (Emphasis ours)

On 19 June 1989, the CENRO submitted another Investigation Report[6]to the Regional Executive

Director which states in part that:1. About two (2) hectares had been excavated by bulldozers and garbage dumping operations aregoing on.

2. The dumping site is without the concurrence of the Provincial Governor, Rizal Province andwithout any permit from DENR who has functional jurisdiction over the Watershed Reservation; and
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/129546.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/129546.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/129546.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/129546.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/129546.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/129546.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/129546.htm#_ftn5


16/30

3. About 1,192 families residing and cultivating areas covered by four (4) Barangays surrounding thedumping site will adversely be affected by the dumping operations of MMC including their sources ofdomestic water supply. x x x x

On 22 January 1990, the CENRO submitted still another Investigation Report[7]to the Regional ExecutiveDirector which states that:Findings show that the areas used as Dumping Site of the MMC are found to be within the MarikinaWatershed which are part of the Integrated Social Forestry Project (ISF) as per recorded inventory ofForest Occupancy of this office.

It also appears that as per record, there was no permit issued to the MMC to utilize these portions ofland for dumping purposes.

It is further observed that the use of the areas as dumping site greatly affects the ecological balance andenvironmental factors in this community.

On 19 February 1990, the DENR Environmental Management Bureau, through Undersecretary for

Environment and Research Celso R. Roque, granted the Metro Manila Authority (MMA [formerly MMC])an Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC) for the operation of a two-and-a-half-hectare garbagedumpsite.

The ECC was sought and granted to comply with the requirement of Presidential Decree No. 1586Establishing an Environmental Impact Statement System, Section 4 of which states in part that, No

persons, partnership or corporation shall undertake or operate any such declared environmentallycritical project or area without first securing an Environmental Compliance Certificate. ProclamationNo. 2146, passed on 14 December 1981, designates all areas declared by law as national parks,

watershed reserves, wildlife preserves, and sanctuaries as Environmentally Critical Areas.

On 09 March 1990, respondent Laguna Lake Development Authority (LLDA), through its Acting GeneralManager, sent a letter[8]to the MMA, which reads in part:Through this letter we would like to convey our reservation on the choice of the sites for solid wastedisposal inside the watershed of Laguna Lake. As you may already know, the Metropolitan Waterworksand Sewerage System (MWSS) has scheduled the abstraction of water from the lake to serve the

needs of about 1.2 million residents of Muntinlupa, Paranaque, Las Pinas and Bacoor, Cavite by 1992.

Accordingly, the Laguna Lake Development Authority (LLDA) is accelerating its environmentalmanagement program to upgrade the water quality of the lake in order to make it suitable as a source

of domestic water supplythe whole year round. The said program regards dumpsites as incompatiblewithin the watershed because of the heavy pollution, including the risk of diseases, generated by such

activities which would negate the governments efforts to upgrade the water quality of the lake.

Consequently, please consider our objection to the proposed location of the dumpsites within the

watershed. (Emphasis supplied by petitioners)

On 31 July 1990, less than six months after the issuance of the ECC, Undersecretary Roque suspendedthe ECC in a letter[9]addressed to the respondent Secretary of DPWH, stating in part that:Upon site investigation conducted by Environmental Management Bureau staff on developmentactivities at the San Mateo Landfill Site, it was ascertained that ground slumping and erosion haveresulted from improper development of the site. We believe that this will adversely affect theenvironmental quality in the area if the proper remedial measures are not instituted in the design of the

landfill site. This is therefore contradictory to statements made in the Environmental Impact Statement(EIS) submitted that above occurrences will be properly mitigated.

In view of this, we are forced to suspend the Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC) issued untilappropriate modified plans are submitted and approved by this Office for implementation.(Emphasisours)

On 21 June 1993, the Acting Mayor of San Mateo, Enrique Rodriguez, Jr., Barangay Captain DominadorVergara, and petitioner Rolando E. Villacorte, Chairman of the Pintong Bocaue Multipurpose
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/129546.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/129546.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/129546.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/129546.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/129546.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/129546.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/129546.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/129546.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/129546.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/129546.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/129546.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/129546.htm#_ftn7


17/30

Cooperative (PBMC) wrote[10]then President Fidel V. Ramos expressing their objections to the continuedoperation of the MMA dumpsite for causing unabated pollution and degradation of the MarikinaWatershed Reservation.

On 14 July 1993, another Investigation Report[11]submitted by the Regional Technical Director to theDENR Undersecretary for Environment and Research contained the following findings andrecommendations:Remarks and Findings:

. . . .

5. Interview with Mr. Dayrit, whose lot is now being endangered because soil erosion have (sic)caused severe siltation and sedimentation of the Dayrit Creek which water is greatly polluted by thedumping of soil bulldozed to the creek;

6. Also interview with Mrs. Vilma Montajes, the multi-grade teacher of Pintong Bocaue PrimarySchool which is located only about 100 meters from the landfill site. She disclosed that bad odor have

(sic) greatly affected the pupils who are sometimes sick with respiratory illnesses. These odors showthat MMA have (sic) not instituted/sprayed any disinfectant chemicals to prevent air pollution in thearea. Besides large flies (Bangaw) are swarming all over the playground of the school. The teacher alsoinformed the undersigned that plastic debris are being blown whenever the wind blows in theirdirection.

7. As per investigation report there are now 15 hectares being used as landfill disposal sites by

the MMA. The MMA is intending to expand its operation within the 50 hectares.

8. Lots occupied within 50 hectares are fully planted with fruit bearing trees like Mangoes, Santol,Jackfruit, Kasoy, Guyabano, Kalamansi and Citrus which are now bearing fruits and being harvested and

marketed to nearby San Mateo Market and Masinag Market in Antipolo.

. . . .

Recommendations:

1. As previously recommended, the undersigned also strongly recommend(s) that the MMA bemade to relocate the landfill site because the area is within the Marikina Watershed Reservation andLungsod Silangan. The leachate treatment plant ha(s) been eroded twice already and contaminated thenearby creeks which is the source of potable water of the residents. The contaminated water also flowsto Wawa Dam and Boso-boso River which also flows to Laguna de Bay.

2. The proposed Integrated Social Forestry Project be pushed through or be approved. ISF projectwill not only uplift the socio-economic conditions of the participants but will enhance the rehabilitationof the Watershed considering that fruit bearing trees are vigorously growing in the area. Some timberproducing species are also planted like Mahogany and Gmelina Arboiea. There are also portions wheredipterocarp residuals abound in the area.

3. The sanitary landfill should be relocated to some other area, in order to avoid any conflict withthe local government of San Mateo and the nearby affected residents who have been in the area for

almost 10-20 years.

On 16 November 1993, DENR Secretary Angel C. Alcala sent MMA Chairman Ismael A. Mathay, Jr. aletter[12]stating that after a series of investigations by field officials of the DENR, the agency realizedthat the MOA entered into on 17 November 1988 is a very costly error because the area agreed to be a

garbage dumpsite is inside the Marikina Watershed Reservation. He then strongly recommended thatall facilities and infrastructure in the garbage dumpsite in Pintong Bocaue be dismantled, and thegarbage disposal operations be transferred to another area outside the Marikina Watershed Reservation
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/129546.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/129546.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/129546.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/129546.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/129546.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/129546.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/129546.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/129546.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/129546.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/129546.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/129546.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/129546.htm#_ftn10


18/30

to protect the health and general welfare of the residents of San Mateo in particular and the residents

of Metro Manila in general.

On 06 June 1995, petitioner Villacorte, Chairman of the PBMC, wrote[13]President Ramos, through theExecutive Secretary, informing the President of the issues involved, that the dumpsite is located nearthree public elementary schools, the closest of which is only fifty meters away, and that its locationviolates the municipal zoning ordinance of San Mateo and, in truth, the Housing and Land UseRegulatory Board had denied the then MMA chairmans application for a locational clearance on this

ground.

On 21 August 1995, the Sangguniang Bayan of San Mateo issued a Resolution[14]expressing a strong

objection to the planned expansion of the landfill operation in Pintong Bocaue and requesting PresidentRamos to disapprove the draft Presidential Proclamation segregating 71.6 Hectares from MarikinaWatershed Reservation for the landfill site in Pintong Bocaue, San Mateo, Rizal.

Despite the various objections and recommendations raised by the government agenciesaforementioned, the Office of the President, through Executive Secretary Ruben Torres, signed and

issued Proclamation No. 635 on 28 August 1995, Excluding from the Marikina Watershed ReservationCertain Parcels of Land Embraced Therein for Use as Sanitary Landfill Sites and Similar Waste DisposalUnder the Administration of the Metropolitan Manila Development Authority. The pertinent portionsthereof state:WHEREAS, to cope with the requirements of the growing population in Metro Manila and the adjoiningprovinces and municipalities, certain developed and open portions of the Marikina WatershedReservation, upon the recommendation of the Secretary of the Department of Environment and NaturalResources should now be excluded form the scope of the reservation;

WHEREAS, while the areas delineated as part of the Watershed Reservations are intended primarily foruse in projects and/or activities designed to contain and preserve the underground water supply, other

peripheral areas had been included within the scope of the reservation to provide for such space as maybe needed for the construction of the necessary structures, other related facilities, as well as otherpriority projects of government as may be eventually determined;

WHEREAS, there is now an urgent need to provide for, and develop, the necessary facilities for thedisposal of the waste generated by the population of Metro Manila and the adjoining provinces andmunicipalities, to ensure their sanitary and /or hygienic disposal;

WHEREAS, to cope with the requirements for the development of the waste disposal facilities that maybe used, portions of the peripheral areas of the Marikina Watershed Reservation, after dueconsideration and study, have now been identified as suitable sites that may be used for the purpose;

WHEREAS, the Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources has recommendedthe exclusion of these areas that have been so identified from the Marikina Watershed Reservation sothat they may then be developed for the purpose;

NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the aforecited premises, I, Fidel V. Ramos, President ofthe Philippines, by virtue of the powers vested in me by law, do hereby ordain:

Section 1. GeneralThat certain parcels of land, embraced by the Marikina Watershed Reservation,

were found needed for use in the solid waste disposal program of the government in MetropolitanManila, are hereby excluded from that which is held in reserve and are now made available for use assanitary landfill and such other related waste disposal applications.

Section 2. PurposeThe areas being excluded from the Marikina Watershed Reservation are herebyplaced under the administration of the Metropolitan Manila Development Authority, for developmentas Sanitary Landfill, and/or for use in the development of such other related waste disposal facilities thatmay be used by the cities and municipalities of Metro Manila and the adjoining province of Rizal and itsmunicipalities.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/129546.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/129546.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/129546.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/129546.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/129546.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/129546.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/129546.htm#_ftn13


19/30

Section 3. Technical DescriptionSpecifically, the areas being hereby excluded from the MarikinaWatershed Reservation consist of two (2) parcels, with an aggregate area of approximately ONEMILLION SIXTY THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED TWENTY NINE (1,060,529) square meters more or less, asfollows: x x x x

Section 4. ReservationsThe development, construction, use and/or operation of any facility that maybe established within the parcel of land herein excluded from the Marikina Watershed Reservation shallbe governed by existing laws, rules and regulations pertaining to environmental control andmanagement. When no longer needed for sanitary landfill purposes or the related waste disposalactivities, the parcels of land subject of this proclamation shall revert back as part of the MarikinaWatershed Reservation, unless otherwise authorized.

On 06 September 1995, Director Wilfrido S. Pollisco of the Protected Areas and Wildlife Bureau wrotethe DENR Secretary to express the bureaus stand against the dumpsite at Pintong Bocaue, and that it is

our view . . . that the mere presence of a garbage dumpsite inside a watershed reservation is definitelynot compatible with the very purpose and objectives for which the reservation was established.

On 24 November 1995, the petitioners Municipality of San Mateo and the residents of Pintong Bocaue,represented by former Senator Jovito Salonga, sent a letter to President Ramos requesting him toreconsider Proclamation No. 635. Receiving no reply, they sent another letter on 02 January 1996reiterating their previous request.

On 04 March 1996, then chairman of the Metro Manila Development Authority (MMDA [formerlyMMA]) Prospero I. Oreta addressed a letter to Senator Salonga, stating in part that:.

2. Considering the circumstances under which we are pursuing the project, we are certain you willagree that, unless we are prepared with a better alternative, the project simply has to be pursued in

the best interest of the greater majority of the population, particularly their health and welfare.

2.1 The San Mateo Sanitary Landfill services, at least, 38% of the waste disposal site requirements ofMetro Manila where an estimated 9 million population reside.

2.2 Metro Manila is presently estimated to be generating, at least, 15,700 cubic meters of householdor municipal waste, a 1.57 hectare of land area will be filled in a months time with a pile 31 meters high

of garbage, or in a year, the accumulated volume will require 18.2 hectares.

. . . .

4. The sanitary landfill projects are now on their fifth year of implementation. The amount of effort and

money already invested in the project by the government cannot easily be disregarded, much more setaside in favor of the few settlers/squatters who chose to ignore the earlier notice given to them that thearea would be used precisely for the development of waste disposal sites, and are now attempting toarouse opposition to the project.

4.2 There is no place within the jurisdiction of Metro Manila, with an area big enough to accommodateat least 3 to 5 years of waste disposal requirements. x x x x

4.21 The present site at San Mateo was selected because, at the time consideration was being made,and up to the present, it is found to have the attributes that positively respond to the criteriaestablished:

4.21.1 The site was a government property and would not require any outlay for it to be acquired.

4.21.2 It is far from any sizeable community/settlements that could be affected by the developmentthat would be introduced and yet, was within economic hauling distance from the areas they aredesigned to serve.


20/30

4.21.21 At the time it was originally decided to locate the landfills at the present site, there were notmore that fifteen (15) settlers in the area and they had hardly established themselves. The communitysettlements were located far from the site.

4.21.22 The area was hardly accessible, especially to any public transport. The area was being servedby a public utility jeep that usually made only two (2) trips daily. During the rainy season, it could onlybe reached by equipping the vehicle with tire chains to traverse the slippery muddy trail roads.

4.21.3 There was, at least, seventy-three (73) hectares available at the site.

4.3 While the site was within the Marikina Watershed Reservation under the administration of theDENR, the site was located at the lower periphery of the buffer zone; was evaluated to be least likely toaffect the underground water supply; and could, in fact, be excluded from the reservation.

4.31 It was determined to be far from the main water containment area for it to pose any immediatedanger of contaminating the underground water, in case of a failure in any of the mitigating measuresthat would be installed.

4.32 It was likewise too far from the nearest body of water, the Laguna Lake, and the distance, plus theincreasing accumulation of water from other tributaries toward the lake, would serve to dilute andmitigate any contamination it may emit, in case one happened.

4.33 To resolve the recurring issue regarding its being located within the Marikina WatershedReservation, the site had been recommended by the DENR, and approved by the President, to alreadybe excluded from the Marikina Watershed reservation and placed under the administration of MMDA,since the site was deemed to form part of the land resource reserve then commonly referred to asbuffer zone.

5. Contrary to the impression that you had been given, relocating the site at this point and timewould not be easy, if not impracticable, because aside from the investments that had been made inlocating the present site, further investments have been incurred in:

5.1 The conduct of the technical studies for the development being implemented. Through a grant-in-aid from the World Bank, US$600,000 was initially spent for the conduct of the necessary studies on thearea and the design of the landfill. This was augmented by, at least, another P1.5 million from thegovernment for the studies to be completed, or a total cost at the time (1990) of approximately P20million.

5.2. Additionally, the government has spent approximately P33 million in improving on the roadway tomake the site accessible from the main road/highway.

5.3 To achieve the necessary economies in the development of the site, the utilities had been plannedso that their use could be maximized. These

Finals for Envi Law - Atty. Nolasco

Documents

Transcript of Finals for Envi Law - Atty. Nolasco