EXAM COVERAGE CASES and SPECIAL LAWS
ENVIRONMENTAL LAW (Atty. Jeffrey Jefferson Coronel)EXAM COVERAGE
CASES and SPECIAL LAWS
1
NUCLEAR FREE PHILIPPINE COALITION v. NPCRepublic of the
PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManilaEN BANCG.R. No. L-68474 February 11,
1986NUCLEAR FREE PHILIPPINE COALITION, ET
AL.,petitioners,vs.NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION, ET
AL.,respondents.
G.R. No. 70632 February 11, 1986LORENZO M. TAADA, ET AL.,
petitioners,vs.PHILIPPINE ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION, ET AL.,
respondents.R E S O L U T I O NPLANA,J.:I. In G.R. No. 70632, (1)
petitioners question thecompetenceof respondent PAEC Commissioners
to pass judgment on the safety of the Philippine Nuclear Power
Plant-1 PNPP-1 in PAEC Licensing Proceedings No. 1-77 without
however seeking their ouster from office, although "proven
competence" is one of the qualifications prescribed by law for PAEC
Commissioners. (2) Petitioners alsoassail the validity of the
motion (application)filed by the National Power Corporation (NPC)
for the conversion of its construction permit into an operating
license for PNPP-1 on the principal ground that it contained no
information regarding the financial qualifications of NPC, its
source of nuclear fuel, and insurance coverage for nuclear damage.
(3) Petitioners finally charge respondent PAEC Commissioners
withbias and prejudgment.1. The first issue must be resolved
against the petitioners. Where the validity of an appointment is
not challenged in an appropriate proceeding, the question of
competence is not within the field of judicial inquiry. If not
considered a qualification the absence of which would vitiate the
appointment, competence is a matter of judgment that is addressed
solely to the appointing power.2. As regards the legal sufficiency
of the NPC motion for conversion, petitioners contend that the
deficiencies they have indicated are jurisdictional infirmities
which cannot be cured. The Court believes however that said
deficiencies may be remedied and supplied in the course of the
hearing before PAEC. For this purpose, respondent-applicant NPC may
submit pertinent testimonies and documents when the PAEC hearing is
re-opened, subject to controversion and counterproof of herein
petitioners.3. There is merit in the charge of bias and
prejudgment. The PAEC pamphlets- particularly Annexes "JJ", "KK"
and "LL" of the petition (G.R. 70632)-clearly indicate the
pre-judgment that PNPP-1 is safe.Exhibit "JJ" is an official PAEC
1985 pamphlet entitled "The Philippine Nuclear Power Plant-l." It
gives an overview specifically of PNPP-1, lauds the safety of
nuclear power, and concludes with a statement of the benefits to be
derived when the PNPP-1 start operation.. . .When thePNPP-1starts
operating,it will generate a power of 620 megawatts enough to
supply 15 percent of the electricity needs in Luzon. This is
estimated to result in savings of US $ 160 million a year,
representing the amount of oil displaced.Aside from being a
reliable source of electricity, nuclear power has anexcellect
safetyrecord and has been found to result in lower occupational and
public risks than fossil fired (coal or oil) stations. (p. 6.
Emphasis supplied.)The second pamphlet (Exh. "KK") is entitled
"NUCLEAR POWER-SAFE CLEAN ECONOMICAL AND AVAILABLE." On the
surface, it merely propagates the use of nuclear power in general.
But its numerous specific references to the PNPP-1 "which will be
operational in 1985." and its advantages give credence to the
charge that Exhibit "KK" was in reality designed to project PNPP-1
as safe, among otherWhen Exhibit "KK" was published, PNPP-1 was the
only nuclear plant under construction in the Philippines. It is the
Philippine nuclear plant specifically mentioned therein that was to
be operational in 1985. Therefore, when the pamphlet states that
nuclear power is working now in other countries and "it should work
for us too" because it is "safe" and economical", it is logical to
conclude that the reference is to no other than the nuclear power
to be generated at the PNPP-1Also worth quoting is the following
passage in Exhibit "KK" which sweepingly vouch safes all nuclear
power plants, including the PNPP-1:No member of the public has ever
been injured during the last 25 years that commercial nuclear
reactors have been generating electricity. As is to be expected in
any complex system as nuclear power plants, there have been failure
of equipment and human errors. However in every instance, the
safety equipment designed into the nuclear reactor self terminated
the accident without injury to the operators or the public. The
Three Mile Island Incident, serious as it was, did not result in
the loss of life nor did it result in the exposure of anyone beyond
permissible limits.The designers of nuclear plants assume failure
to occur, and provide multiple safeguards protection against every
conceivable malfunction (P. 7, Emphasis supplied.)The third
pamphlet (Exh. "LL") is entitled NUCLEAR POWER PLANT and
ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY. Speaking specifically of the PNPP-1 it
categorically states that the Bataan nuclear plant will not
adversely affect the public or the flora or fauna in the area. One
of the stated reasons in support of the conclusion isAnd
environmentally, a nuclear power plant emits only insignificant
amount of radioactivity to the environment. It does not cause
chemical pollution of air or water, it does not emit sulfur dioxide
or nitrogen oxides like plants fired by fossil fuels such as coal
and oil, Besides, even coal fired plants may emits radioactive
particles of uranium and thorium because these may be found
naturally associated with coal deposits.Comparatively therefore, a
nucelar power plant is the cleanest and the safest environmently no
other technology in modern times has been developed with so
dominant concern for public safety as nuclear power. (p.
8)Respondent PAEC Commissioners cannot escape responsibility for
these official pamphlets. Exhibit "JJ" was published in 1985, when
respondent Commissioners had already been appointed to their
present positions. Exhibits "KK" and "LL" were issued earlier, but
the majority of respondent Commissioners even then were already
occupying positions of responsibility in the PAEC. Commissioner
Manuel Eugenio was Acting Chief of the PAEC Department on Nuclear
Technology and Engineering from June, 1980 to July, 1984;
Commissioner Quirino Navarro was PAEC Chief Science Research
Specialist from May, 1980 to September, 1984-, and Commissioner
Alejandro Ver Albano was PAEC Deputy Commissioner from March, 1980
to September, 1984. Additionally, the stubborn fact remains
unrebutted that Exhibits "J.J." "KK" and "LL" continued to be
distributed by PAEC as late as March, 1985. In other words their
official distribution continued after the filing of NPC's motion
for conversion on June 27, 1984 and even after PAEC had issued its
order dated February 26, 1985 formally admitting the said motion
for conversion.At any rate, even if it be assumed that there are
some doubts regarding the conclusion that there has been a
prejudgment of the safety of PNPP-1 the doubts should be resolved
in favor of a course of action that will assure an unquestionably
objective inquiry, considering the circumstances thereof and the
number of people vitally interested therein.Having thus prejudged
the safety of the PNPP-1 respondent PAEC Commissioners would be
acting with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of
jurisdiction were they to sit in judgment upon the safety of the
plant, absent the requisite objectivity that must characterize such
an important inquiry.The Court therefore Resolved to RESTRAIN
respondent PAEC Commissioners from further acting in PAEC Licensing
Proceedings No. 1-77.II. In G.R. No. 68474, acting on the motion
filed therein dated June 8, 1985 to order PAEC to reconsider its
orders of May 31 and June 5, 1985, the urgent motion for mandatory
injunction and/or restraining order dated August 3, 1985, the
second urgent motion for mandatory injunction dated August 12,
1985, and the various pleadings and other documents submitted by
the parties relative thereto, and considering the paramount need of
a reasonable assurance that the operation of PNPP-1 will not pose
an undue risk to the health and safety of the people, which
dictates that the conduct of the inquiry into the safety aspects of
PNPP-1 be characterized by sufficient latitude, the better to
achieve the end in view, unfettered by technical rules of evidence
(Republic Act 5207, section 34), and in keeping with the
requirements of due process in administrative proceedings, the
Court Resolved to ORDER respondent PAEC (once reconstituted) to
re-open the hearing on PNPP-1 so as to give petitioners sufficient
time to complete their cross-examination of the expert witnesses on
quality assurance, to cross-examine the witnesses that petitioners
have failed to cross-examine on and after August 9, 1985, and to
complete the presentation of their evidence, for which purpose,
respondent PAEC shall issue the necessary subpoena and subpoena
duces tecum to compel the attendance of relevant witnesses and/or
the production of relevant documents. For the said purposes, the
PAEC may prescribe a time schedule which shall reasonably assure
the parties sufficient latitude to adequately present their case
consistently with the requirements of dispatch. lt is understood
that the PAEC may give NPC the opportunity to correct or supply
deficiencies in this application or evidence in support thereof.RA
9003REPUBLIC ACT 9003 January 26, 2001AN ACT PROVIDING FOR AN
ECOLOGICAL SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM, CREATING THE NECESSARY
INSTITUTIONAL MECHANISMS AND INCENTIVES, DECLARING CERTAIN ACTS
PROHIBITED AND PROVIDING PENALTIES, APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR,
AND FOR OTHER PURPOSESBe it enacted by the Senate and House of
Representative of the Philippines in Congress assembled:CHAPTER
IBASIC POLICIESArticle 1General ProvisionsSection 1.Short Title-
This Act shall be known as the "Ecological Solid Waste Management
Act of 2000."xxxxxxxxxArticle 2Definition of TermsSection
3.Definition of Terms- For the purposes of this Act:(a)
Agricultural waste shall refer to waste generated from planting or
harvesting of crops, trimming or pruning of plants and wastes or
run-off materials from farms or fields;(b) Bulky wastes shall refer
to waste materials which cannot be appropriately placed in separate
containers because of either its bulky size, shape or other
physical attributes. These include large worn-out or broken
household, commercial, and industrial items such as furniture,
lamps, bookcases, filing cabinets, and other similar items;(c)
Bureau shall refer to the Environmental Management Bureau;(d)
Buy-back center shall refer to a recycling center that purchases of
otherwise accepts recyclable materials from the public for the
purpose of recycling such materials;(e) Collection shall refer to
the act of removing solid waste from the source or from a communal
storage point;(f) Composting shall refer to the controlled
decomposition of organic matter by micro-organisms, mainly bacteria
and fungi, into a humus-like product;(g) Consumer electronics shall
refer to special waste that includes worn-out, broken, and other
discarded items such as radios, stereos, and TV sets;(h) Controlled
dump shall refer to a disposal site at which solid waste is
deposited in accordance with the minimum prescribed standards of
site operation;(i) Department shall refer to the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources;(j) Disposal shall refer to the
discharge, deposit, dumping, spilling, leaking or placing of any
solid waste into or in an land;(k) Disposal site shall refer to a
site where solid waste is finally discharged and deposited;(l)
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;(m)
Environmentally acceptable shall refer to the quality of being
re-usable, biodegradable or compostable, recyclable and not toxic
or hazardous to the environment;(n) Generation shall refer to the
act or process of producing solid waste;(o) Generator shall refer
to a person, natural or juridical, who last uses a material and
makes it available for disposal or recycling;(p) Hazardous waste
shall refer to solid waste management or combination of solid waste
which because of its quantity, concentration or physical, chemical
or infectious characteristics may:(1) cause, or significantly
contribute to an increase in mortality or an increase in serious
irreversible, or incapacitating reversible, illness; or(2) pose a
substantial present or potential hazard to human health or the
environment when improperly treated, stored, transported, or
disposed of, or otherwise managed;(q) 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;(r) Materials recovery facility - includes a solid waste
transfer station or sorting station, drop-off center, a composting
facility, and a recycling facility;(s) 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;(t) Open dump shall refer
to a disposal area wherein the solid wastes are indiscriminately
thrown or disposed of without due planning and consideration for
environmental and Health standards;(u) Opportunity to recycle shall
refer to the act of providing a place for collecting
source-separated recyclable material, located either at a disposal
site or at another location more convenient to the population being
served, and collection at least once a month of source-separated
recyclable material from collection service customers and to
providing a public education and promotion program that gives
notice to each person of the opportunity to recycle and encourage
source separation of recyclable material;(v) Person(s) shall refer
to any being, natural or judicial, susceptible of rights and
obligations, or of being the subject of legal relations;(w)
Post-consumer material shall refer only to those materials or
products generated by a business or consumer which have served
their intended end use, and which have been separated or diverted
from solid waste for the purpose of being collected, processed and
used as a raw material in the manufacturing of recycled product,
excluding materials and by-products generated from, and by-products
generated from, and commonly used within an original manufacturing
process, such as mill scrap;(x) Receptacles shall refer to
individual containers used for the source separation and the
collection of recyclable materials;(y) Recovered material shall
refer to material and by products that have been recovered or
diverted from solid waste for the purpose of being collected,
processed and used as a raw material in the manufacture of a
recycled product;(z) Recyclable material shall refer to any waste
material retrieved from the waste stream and free from
contamination that can still be converted into suitable beneficial
use or for other purposes, including, but not limited to,
newspaper, ferrous scrap metal, non-ferrous scrap metal, used oil,
corrugated cardboard, aluminum, glass, office paper, tin cans and
other materials as may be determined by the Commission;(aa)
Recycled material shall refer to post-consumer material that has
been recycled and returned to the economy;(bb) Recycling shall
refer to the treating of used or waste materials through a process
of making them suitable for beneficial use and for other purposes,
and includes any process by which solid waste materials are
transformed into new products in such a manner that the original
product may lose their identity, and which maybe used as raw
materials for the production of other goods or services:Provided,
That the collection, segregation and re-use of previously used
packaging material shall be deemed recycling under this Act;(cc)
Resource conversation shall refer to the reduction of the amount of
solid waste that are generated or the reduction of overall resource
consumption, and utilization of recovered resources;(dd) Resources
recovery shall refer to the collection, extraction or recovery of
recyclable materials from the waste stream for the purpose of
recycling, generating energy or producing a product suitable for
beneficial use:Provided, That such resource recovery facilities
exclude incineration;(ee) Re-use shall refer to the process of
recovering materials intended for the same or different purpose
without the alteration of physical and chemical
characteristics;(ff) Sanitary landfill shall refer to a waste
disposal site designed, constructed, operated and maintained in a
manner that exerts engineering control over significant potential
environment impacts arising from the development and operation of
the facility;(gg) Schedule of Compliance shall refer to an
enforceable sequence of actions or operations to be accomplished
within a stipulated time frame leading to compliance with a
limitation, prohibition or standard set forth in this Act or any
rule of regulation issued pursuant thereto;(hh) Secretary landfill
shall refer to the Secretary of the Department of Environment and
Natural Resources;(ii) Segregation shall refer to a solid waste
management practice of separating different materials found in
solid waste in order to promote recycling and re-use of resources
and to reduce the volume of waste for collection and disposal;(jj)
Segregation at source shall refer to a solid waste management
practice of separating, at the point of origin, different materials
found in solid waste in order to promote recycling and re-use of
resources and to reduce the volume of waste for collection and
disposal;(kk) 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.Unless specifically noted
otherwise, the term "solid waste" as used in this Act shall not
include:(1) Waste identified or listed as hazardous waste of a
solid, liquid, contained gaseous or semisolid form which may cause
or contribute to an increase in mortality or in serious or
incapacitating reversible illness, or acute/chronic effect on the
health of persons and other organisms;(2) Infectious waste from
hospitals such as equipment, instruments, utensils, and fomites of
a disposable nature from patients who are suspected to have or have
been diagnosed as having communicable diseases and must therefore
be isolated as required by public health agencies, laboratory
wastes such as pathological specimens (i.e. all tissues, specimens
of blood elements, excreta, and secretions obtained from patients
or laboratory animals) and disposable fomites that may harbor or
transmit pathogenic organisms, and surgical operating room
pathologic materials from outpatient areas and emergency rooms;
and(3) Waste resulting from mining activities, including
contaminated soil and debris.(ll) Solid waste management shall
refer to the discipline associated with the control of generation,
storage, collection, transfer and transport, processing, and
disposal of solid wastes in a manner that is in accord with the
best principles of public health, economics, engineering,
conservation, aesthetics, and other environmental considerations,
and that is also responsive to public attitudes;(mm) 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;(nn) Source reduction shall refer to the
reduction of solid waste before it enters the solid waste stream by
methods such as product design, materials substitution, materials
re-use and packaging restrictions;(oo) Source separation shall
refer to the sorting of solid waste into some or all of its
component parts at the point of generation;(pp) Special wastes
shall refer to household hazardous wastes such as paints, thinners,
household batteries, lead-acid batteries, spray canisters and the
like. These include wastes from residential and commercial sources
that comprise of bulky wastes, consumer electronics, white goods,
yard wastes that are collected separately, batteries, oil, and
tires. These wastes are usually handled separately from other
residential and commercial wastes;(qq) Storage shall refer to the
interim containment of solid wastes after generation and prior to
collection for ultimate recovery or disposal;(rr) Transfer stations
shall refer to those facilities utilized to receive solid wastes,
temporarily store, separate, convert, or otherwise process the
materials in the solid wastes, or to transfer the solid wastes
directly from smaller to larger vehicles for transport. This term
does not include any of the following:(1) a facility whose
principal function is to receive, store, separate, convert or
otherwise process in accordance with national minimum standards,
manure;(2) a facility, whose principal function is to receive,
store, convert, or otherwise process wastes which have already been
separated for re-use and are intended for disposals, and(3) the
operations premises of a duly licensed solid waste handling
operator who is receives, stores, transfers, or otherwise processes
wastes as an activity incidental to the conduct of a refuse
collection and disposal business.(ss) Waste diversion shall refer
to activities which reduce or eliminate the amount of solid waste
from waste disposal facilities;(tt) White goods shall refer to
large worn-out or broken household, commercial, and industrial
appliances such as stoves, refrigerators, dishwashers, and clothes
washers and dryers collected separately. White goods ate usually
dismantled for the recovery of specific materials (e.g., copper,
aluminum, etc.);(uu) Yard waste shall refer to wood, small or
chipped branches, leaves, grass clippings, garden debris, vegetable
residue that is recognized as part of a plant or vegetable and
other materials identified by the Commission.
PROVINCE OF RIZAL v. EXECUTIVE SEC.Republic of the
PhilippinesSUPREME COURTEN BANCG.R. No. 129546 December 13,
2005PROVINCE OF RIZAL, MUNICIPALITY OF SAN MATEO, PINTONG BOCAUE
MULTIPURPOSE COOPERATIVE, CONCERNED CITIZENS OF RIZAL, INC.,
ROLANDO E. VILLACORTE, BERNARDO HIDALGO, ANANIAS EBUENGA, VILMA T.
MONTAJES, FEDERICO MUNAR, JR., ROLANDO BEAS, SR., ET AL., and
KILOSBAYAN, INC.,Petitioners,vs.EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, SECRETARY OF
ENVIRONMENT & NATURAL RESOURCES, LAGUNA LAKE DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY, SECRETARY OF PUBLIC WORKS & HIGHWAYS, SECRETARY OF
BUDGET & MANAGEMENT, METRO MANILA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY and THE
HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS,Respondents.D E C I S I O
NCHICO-NAZARIO,J.:The earth belongs in usufruct to the living.1At
the height of the garbage crisis plaguing Metro Manila and its
environs, parts of the Marikina Watershed Reservation were set
aside by the Office of the President, through Proclamation No. 635
dated 28 August 1995, for use as a sanitary landfill and similar
waste disposal applications. In fact, this site, extending to more
or less 18 hectares, had already been in operation since 19
February 19902for the solid wastes of Quezon City, Marikina, San
Juan, Mandaluyong, Pateros, Pasig, and Taguig.3This is a petition
filed by the Province of Rizal, the municipality of San Mateo, and
various concerned citizens for review oncertiorariof the Decision
of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 41330, denying, for lack
of cause of action, the petition forcertiorari, prohibition
andmandamuswith application for a temporary restraining order/writ
of preliminary injunction assailing the legality and
constitutionality 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 the Metropolitan Manila Commission (MMC) entered
into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA),4which provides in part:1. The
DENR agrees to immediately allow the utilization by the
Metropolitan Manila Commission of its land property located at
Pintong Bocaue in San Mateo, Rizal as a sanitary landfill site,
subject to whatever restrictions that the government impact
assessment might require.2. Upon signing of this Agreement, the
DPWH shall commence the construction/development of said
dumpsite.3. The MMC shall: a) take charge of the relocation of the
families within and 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 negative environmental impact
in the area.On 7, 8 and 10 February 1989, theSangguniang Bayanof
San Mateo wrote Gov. Elfren Cruz of the MMC, 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 taken on these letters.It turns out that
the land subject of the MOA of 17 November 1988 and owned by the
DENR was part of the Marikina Watershed Reservation Area. Thus, on
31 May 1989, forest officers of the Forest Engineering and
Infrastructure Unit of the Community Environment and Natural
Resource Office, (CENRO) DENR-IV, Rizal Province, submitted a
Memorandum5on the "On-going Dumping Site Operation of the MMC
inside (the) Upper Portion of Marikina Watershed Reservation,
located at Barangay Pintong Bocaue, 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 Siteis observed to be confined
within the said Watershed Reservation, bearing in the northeastern
part of Lungsod Silangan Townsite Reservation.Such illegal Dumping
Site operation inside (the) Watershed Reservation is in violation
of P.D. 705, otherwise known as the Revised Forestry Code,as
amended. . .Recommendations:5.1 TheMMC Dumping SiteInside Marikina
Watershed Reservation, particularly at Brgy. Pintong Bocaue, San
Mateo, Rizal and at Bo. Pinugay, Baras/Antipolo, Rizal which are
the present garbage zonesmust 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 Report6to the Regional Executive
Director which states in part that:1. About two (2) hectares had
been excavated by bulldozers and garbage dumping operations are
going on.2. The dumping site is without the concurrence of the
Provincial Governor, Rizal Province and without any permit from
DENR who has functional jurisdiction over the Watershed
Reservation; and3. About 1,192 families residing and cultivating
areas covered by four (4) Barangays surrounding the dumping site
will adversely be affected by the dumping operations of MMC
including their sources of domestic water supply. x x x xOn 22
January 1990, the CENRO submitted still another Investigation
Report7to the Regional Executive Director which states
that:Findings show that the areas used as Dumping Site of the MMC
are found to be within the Marikina Watershed which are part of the
Integrated Social Forestry Project (ISF) as per recorded inventory
of Forest Occupancy of this office.It also appears that as per
record, there was no permit issued to the MMC to utilize these
portions of land for dumping purposes.It is further observed that
the use of the areas as dumping site greatly affects the ecological
balance and environmental 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 garbage dumpsite.The ECC was sought and
granted to comply with the requirement of Presidential Decree No.
1586 "Establishing 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
environmentally critical project or area without first securing an
Environmental Compliance Certificate." Proclamation No. 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 General Manager, sent a letter8to the MMA, which reads in
part:Through this letter we would like to convey our reservation on
the choice of the sites for solid waste disposal inside the
watershed of Laguna Lake. As you may already know,the Metropolitan
Waterworks and 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 itsenvironmental management 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 incompatible within 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
suspended the ECC in a letter9addressed to the respondent Secretary
of DPWH, stating in part that:Upon site investigation conducted by
Environmental Management Bureau staff on development activities at
the San Mateo Landfill Site,it was ascertained that ground slumping
and erosion have resulted from improper development of the site. We
believe that this will adversely affect the environmental 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 until appropriate modified plans are
submitted and approved by this Office for implementation.(Emphasis
ours)On 21 June 1993, the Acting Mayor of San Mateo, Enrique
Rodriguez, Jr., Barangay Captain Dominador Vergara, and petitioner
Rolando E. Villacorte, Chairman of the Pintong Bocaue Multipurpose
Cooperative (PBMC) wrote10then President Fidel V. Ramos expressing
their objections to the continued operation of the MMA dumpsite for
causing "unabated pollution and degradation of the Marikina
Watershed Reservation."On 14 July 1993, another Investigation
Report11submitted by the Regional Technical Director to the DENR
Undersecretary for Environment and Research contained the following
findings and recommendations: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 the dumping of soil bulldozed to the creek;6. Also interview
with Mrs. Vilma Montajes, the multi-grade teacher of Pintong Bocaue
Primary School 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 show that MMA have (sic) not
instituted/sprayed any disinfectant chemicals to prevent air
pollution in the area. Besides large flies (Bangaw) are swarming
all over the playground of the school. The teacher also informed
the undersigned that plastic debris are being blown whenever the
wind blows in their direction.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 be made to relocate the landfill site because the area is
within the Marikina Watershed Reservation and Lungsod Silangan. The
leachate treatment plant ha(s) been eroded twice already and
contaminated the nearby creeks which is the source of potable water
of the residents. The contaminated water also flows to 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 project will not only uplift the socio-economic
conditions of the participants but will enhance the rehabilitation
of the Watershed considering that fruit bearing trees are
vigorously growing in the area. Some timber producing species are
also planted like Mahogany and Gmelina Arboiea. There are also
portions where dipterocarp residuals abound in the area.3. The
sanitary landfill should be relocated to some other area, in order
to avoid any conflict with the 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. a letter12stating that
"after a series of investigations by field officials" of the DENR,
the agency realized that 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 that all facilities and infrastructure in the
garbage dumpsite in Pintong Bocaue be dismantled, and the garbage
disposal operations be transferred to another area outside the
Marikina Watershed Reservation 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, wrote13President Ramos, through
the Executive Secretary, informing the President of the issues
involved, that the dumpsite is located near three public elementary
schools, the closest of which is only fifty meters away, and that
its location "violates the municipal zoning ordinance of San Mateo
and, in truth, the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board had denied
the then MMA chairmans application for a locational clearance on
this ground."On 21 August 1995, theSangguniang Bayanof San Mateo
issued a Resolution14"expressing a strong objection to the planned
expansion of the landfill operation in Pintong Bocaue and
requesting President Ramos to disapprove the draft Presidential
Proclamation segregating 71.6 Hectares from Marikina Watershed
Reservation for the landfill site in Pintong Bocaue, San Mateo,
Rizal."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 28 August 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 pertinent portions thereof
state:WHEREAS, to cope with the requirements of the growing
population in Metro Manila and the adjoining provinces and
municipalities, certain developed and open portions of the Marikina
Watershed Reservation, upon the recommendation of the Secretary of
the Department of Environment and Natural Resources should now be
excluded form the scope of the reservation;WHEREAS, while the areas
delineated as part of the Watershed Reservations are intended
primarily for use 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 may be needed for the construction of the
necessary structures, other related facilities, as well as other
priority projects of government as may be eventually
determined;WHEREAS, there is now an urgent need to provide for, and
develop, the necessary facilities for the disposal of the waste
generated by the population of Metro Manila and the adjoining
provinces and municipalities, to ensure their sanitary and /or
hygienic disposal;WHEREAS, to cope with the requirements for the
development of the waste disposal facilities that may be used,
portions of the peripheral areas of the Marikina Watershed
Reservation, after due consideration 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 recommended the exclusion of these areas that
have been so identified from the Marikina Watershed Reservation so
that they may then be developed for the purpose;NOW, THEREFORE, for
and in consideration of the aforecited premises, I, Fidel V. Ramos,
President of the Philippines, by virtue of the powers vested in me
by law, do hereby ordain:Section 1. General That 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 Metropolitan Manila, are hereby excluded from that
which is held in reserve and are now made available for use as
sanitary landfill and such other related waste disposal
applications.Section 2. Purpose The areas being excluded from the
Marikina Watershed Reservation are hereby placed under the
administration of the Metropolitan Manila Development Authority,
for development as Sanitary Landfill, and/or for use in the
development of such other related waste disposal facilities that
may be used by the cities and municipalities of Metro Manila and
the adjoining province of Rizal and its municipalities.Section 3.
Technical Description Specifically, the areas being hereby excluded
from the Marikina Watershed Reservation consist of two (2) parcels,
with an aggregate area of approximately ONE MILLION SIXTY THOUSAND
FIVE HUNDRED TWENTY NINE (1,060,529) square meters more or less, as
follows: x x x xSection 4. Reservations The development,
construction, use and/or operation of any facility that may be
established within the parcel of land herein excluded from the
Marikina Watershed Reservation shall be governed by existing laws,
rules and regulations pertaining to environmental control and
management. When no longer needed for sanitary landfill purposes or
the related waste disposal activities, the parcels of land subject
of this proclamation shall revert back as part of the Marikina
Watershed Reservation, unless otherwise authorized.On 06 September
1995, Director Wilfrido S. Pollisco of the Protected Areas and
Wildlife Bureau wrote the 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 definitely not 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 to reconsider Proclamation No. 635. Receiving no
reply, they sent another letter on 02 January 1996 reiterating
their previous request.On 04 March 1996, then chairman of the Metro
Manila Development Authority (MMDA [formerly MMA]) 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 will agree 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 of Metro 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 household or
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 set aside in favor of the few settlers/squatters who chose to
ignore the earlier notice given to them that the area would be used
precisely for the development of waste disposal sites, and are now
attempting to arouse opposition to the project.4.2 There is no
place within the jurisdiction of Metro Manila, with an area big
enough to accommodate at least 3 to 5 years of waste disposal
requirements. x x x x4.21 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 criteria established: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 development that would be introduced
and yet, was within economic hauling distance from the areas they
are designed to serve.4.21.21 At the time it was originally decided
to locate the landfills at the present site, there were not more
that fifteen (15) settlers in the area and they had hardly
established themselves. The community settlements were located far
from the site.4.21.22 The area was hardly accessible, especially to
any public transport. The area was being served by a public utility
jeep that usually made only two (2) trips daily. During the rainy
season, it could only be 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 the DENR, the site was located at the lower
periphery of the buffer zone; was evaluated to be least likely to
affect 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 immediate danger
of contaminating the underground water, in case of a failure in any
of the mitigating measures that would be installed.4.32 It was
likewise too far from the nearest body of water, the Laguna Lake,
and the distance, plus the increasing accumulation of water from
other tributaries toward the lake, would serve to dilute and
mitigate any contamination it may emit, in case one happened.4.33
To resolve the recurring issue regarding its being located within
the Marikina Watershed Reservation, the site had been recommended
by the DENR, and approved by the President, to already be 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 as buffer
zone.5. Contrary to the impression that you had been given,
relocating the site at this point and time would not be easy, if
not impracticable, because aside from the investments that had been
made in locating 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 the area and the design of the landfill. This
was augmented by, at least, another P1.5 million from the
government for the studies to be completed, or a total cost at the
time (1990) of approximately P20 million.5.2. Additionally, the
government has spent approximately P33 million in improving on the
roadway to make 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 planned so that their use could be
maximized. These include the access roads, the drainage system, the
leacheate collection system, the gas collection system, and the
waste water treatment system. Their construction are designed so
that instead of having to construct independent units for each
area, the use of existing facilities can be maximized through a
system of interconnection. On the average, the government is
spending P14.8 million to develop a hectare of sanitary landfill
area.6. Despite the preparations and the investments that are now
being made on the project, it is estimated that the total available
area, at an accelerated rate of disposal, assuming that all open
dump sites were to be closed, will only last for 39 months.6.1 We
are still hard pressed to achieve advanced development on the sites
to assure against any possible crisis in garbage from again being
experienced in Metro Manila, aside from having to look for the
additional sites that may be used after the capacities shall have
been exhausted.6.2 Faced with the prospects of having the 15,700
cubic meters of garbage generated daily strewn all over Metro
Manila, we are certain you will agree that it would be futile to
even as much as consider a suspension of the waste disposal
operations at the sanitary landfills.On 22 July 1996, the
petitioners filed before the Court of Appeals a civil action
forcertiorari, prohibition andmandamuswith application for a
temporary restraining order/writ of preliminary injunction. The
hearing on the prayer for preliminary injunction was held on 14
August 1996.On 13 June 1997, the courta quorendered a
Decision,15the dispositive part of which reads:WHEREFORE, the
petition forcertiorari, prohibition and mandamus with application
for a temporary restraining order/writ of preliminary injunction
for lack of cause of action, is hereby DENIED.16Hence, this
petition for review oncertiorariof the above decision on the
following grounds:IThe Court of Appeals erred and abused its
discretion in deliberately ignoring the significant fact that
Presidential Proclamation No. 635 was based on a brazen forgery it
was supposedly issued, as stated in the proclamation itself and
repeatedly asserted by respondents in their comment, on the basis
of the alleged recommendation of the DENR Secretary dated June 26,
1995 but which assertion was denounced by the then Secretary Angel
C. Alcala himself in a sworn statement dated September 18, 1996 and
again during the special hearing of the case in the Court of
Appeals on November 13, 1996 as a forgery since his signature on
the alleged recommendation had been falsified, as now admitted by
respondents themselves in their comment filed with the Court of
Appeals, through the Office of the Solicitor General.IIThe Court of
Appeals erred and abused its discretion in completely ignoring the
significant fact that the respondents are operating the landfill
based on a spurious Environmental Compliance Certificate.IIIThe
Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the respondents did not
violate R.A. 7586 when they issued and implemented Proclamation No.
635 considering that the withdrawal or disestablishment of a
protected area or the modification of the Marikina Watershed can
only be done by an act of Congress.IVThe Court of Appeals erred and
abused its discretion when it deliberately and willfully brushed
aside the unanimous findings and adverse recommendations of
responsible government agencies and non-partisan officials
concerned with environmental protection in favor of the
self-serving, gratuitous assertions found in the unsolicited,
partisan letter of former Malabon Mayor, now Chairman Prospero
Oreta of the MMDA who is an interested party in this case.
VThe Court of Appeals erred when it readily swallowed
respondents assertion that the San Mateo Dumpsite "is located in
the Buffer Zone of the reservation" and is therefore outside of its
boundaries, and even declared in its decision that it took "serious
note" of this particular argument.VIThe Court of Appeals erred and
abused its discretion when it encroached on the function of
Congress by expressing its unjustified fear of mini-smokey
mountains proliferating in Metro Manila and justifying its decision
in favor of "an integrated system of solid waste management like
the San Mateo Landfill.On 05 January 1998, while the appeal was
pending, the petitioners filed a Motion for Temporary Restraining
Order,17pointing out that the effects of theEl Niophenomenon would
be aggravated by the relentless destruction of the Marikina
Watershed Reservation. They noted that respondent MMDA had, in the
meantime, continued to expand the area of the dumpsite inside the
Marikina Watershed Reservation, cutting down thousands of mature
fruit trees and forest trees, and leveling hills and mountains to
clear the dumping area. Garbage disposal operations were also being
conducted on a 24-hour basis, with hundreds of metric tons of
wastes being dumped daily, including toxic and infectious hospital
wastes, intensifying the air, ground and water pollution.18The
petitioners reiterated their prayer that respondent MMDA be
temporarily enjoined from further dumping waste into the site and
from encroaching into the area beyond its existing perimeter fence
so as not to render the case moot and academic.On 28 January 1999,
the petitioners filed a Motion for Early Resolution,19calling
attention to the continued expansion of the dumpsite by the MMDA
that caused the people of Antipolo to stage a rally and barricade
the Marcos Highway to stop the dump trucks from reaching the site
for five successive days from 16 January 1999. On the second day of
the barricade, all the municipal mayors of the province of Rizal
openly declared their full support for the rally, and notified the
MMDA that they would oppose any further attempt to dump garbage in
their province.20As a result, MMDA officials, headed by then
Chairman Jejomar Binay, agreed to abandon the dumpsite after six
months. Thus, the municipal mayors of Rizal, particularly the
mayors of Antipolo and San Mateo, agreed to the use of the dumpsite
until that period, which would end on 20 July 1999.21On 13 July
1999, the petitioners filed an Urgent Second Motion for Early
Resolution22in anticipation of violence between the conflicting
parties as the date of the scheduled closure of the dumpsite
neared.On 19 July 1999, then President Joseph E. Estrada, taking
cognizance of the gravity of the problems in the affected areas and
the likelihood that violence would erupt among the parties
involved, issued a Memorandum ordering the closure of the dumpsite
on 31 December 2000.23Accordingly, on 20 July 1999, the
Presidential Committee on Flagship Programs and Projects and the
MMDA entered into a MOA with the Provincial Government of Rizal,
the Municipality of San Mateo, and the City of Antipolo, wherein
the latter agreed to further extend the use of the dumpsite until
its permanent closure on 31 December 2000.24On 11 January 2001,
President Estrada directed Department of Interior and Local
Government Secretary Alfredo Lim and MMDA Chairman Binay to reopen
the San Mateo dumpsite "in view of the emergency situation of
uncollected garbage in Metro Manila, resulting in a critical and
imminent health and sanitation epidemic."25Claiming the above
events constituted a "clear and present danger of violence erupting
in the affected areas," the petitioners filed an Urgent Petition
for Restraining Order26on 19 January 2001.On 24 January 2001, this
Court issued the Temporary Restraining Order prayed for, "effective
immediately and until further orders."27Meanwhile, on 26 January
2001, Republic Act No. 9003, otherwise known as "The Ecological
Solid Waste Management Act of 2000," was signed into law by
President Estrada.Thus, the petitioners raised only two issues in
their Memorandum28of 08 February 2005: 1) whether or not respondent
MMDA agreed to the permanent closure of the San Mateo Landfill as
of December 2000, and 2) whether or not the permanent closure of
the San Mateo landfill is mandated by Rep. Act No. 9003.We hold
that the San Mateo Landfill will remain permanently closed.Although
the petitioners may be deemed to have waived or abandoned the
issues raised in their previous pleadings but not included in the
memorandum,29certain events we shall relate below have inclined us
to address some of the more pertinent issues raised in the petition
for the guidance of the herein respondents, and pursuant to our
symbolic function to educate the bench and bar.30The law and the
facts indicate that a mere MOA does not guarantee the dumpsites
permanent closure.The rally and barricade staged by the people of
Antipolo on 28 January 1999, with the full support of all the
mayors of Rizal Province caused the MMDA to agree that it would
abandon the dumpsite after six months. In return, the municipal
mayors allowed the use of the dumpsite until 20 July 1999.On 20
July 1999, with much fanfare and rhetoric, the Presidential
Committee on Flagship Programs and Projects and the MMDA entered
into a MOA with the Provincial Government of Rizal, the
Municipality of San Mateo, and the City of Antipolo, whereby the
latter agreed to an extension for the use of the dumpsite until 31
December 2000, at which time it would be permanently closed.Despite
this agreement, President Estrada directed Department of Interior
and Local Government Secretary Alfredo Lim and MMDA Chairman Binay
toreopenthe San Mateo dumpsite on 11 January 2001, "in view of the
emergency situation of uncollected garbage in Metro Manila,
resulting in a critical and imminent health and sanitation
epidemic;" our issuance of a TRO on 24 January 2001 prevented the
dumpsites reopening.Were it not for the TRO, then President
Estradas instructions would have been lawfully carried out, for as
we observed inOposa v. Factoran, the freedom of contract is not
absolute. Thus:.. In Abe vs. Foster Wheeler Corp., this Court
stated:"The freedom of contract, under our system of government, is
not meant to be absolute.The same is understood to be subject to
reasonable legislative regulation aimed at the promotion of public
health, moral, safety and welfare. In other words, the
constitutional guaranty of non-impairment of obligations of
contract is limited by the exercise of the police power of the
State, in the interest of public health, safety, moral and general
welfare."The reason for this is emphatically set forth inNebia vs.
New York,quoted in Philippine American Life Insurance Co. vs.
Auditor General, to wit: "'Under our form of government the use of
property and the making of contracts are normally matters of
private and not of public concern. The general rule is that both
shall be free of governmental interference. Butneither property
rights nor contract rights are absolute; for government cannot
exist if the citizen may at will use his property to the detriment
of his fellows, or exercise his freedom of contract to work them
harm. Equally fundamental with the private right is that of the
public to regulate it in the common interest.'" In short, the
non-impairment clause must yield to the police power of the state.
(Citations omitted, emphasis supplied)We thus feel there is also
the added need to reassure the residents of the Province of Rizal
that this is indeed a final resolution of this controversy, for a
brief review of the records of this case indicates two self-evident
facts.First,the San Mateo site has adversely affected its environs,
andsecond, sources of water should always be protected.As to the
first point, the adverse effects of the site were reported as early
as 19 June 1989, when the Investigation Report of the Community
Environment and Natural Resources Officer of DENR-IV-1 stated that
the sources of domestic water supply of over one thousand families
would be adversely affected by the dumping operations.31The
succeeding report included the observation that the use of the
areas as dumping site greatly affected the ecological balance and
environmental factors of the community.32Respondent LLDA in fact
informed the MMA that the heavy pollution and risk of disease
generated by dumpsites rendered the location of a dumpsite within
the Marikina Watershed Reservation incompatible with its program of
upgrading the water quality of the Laguna Lake.33The DENR suspended
the sites ECC after investigations revealed ground slumping and
erosion had resulted from improper development of the
site.34Another Investigation Report35submitted by the Regional
Technical Director to the DENR reported respiratory illnesses among
pupils of a primary school located approximately 100 meters from
the site, as well as the constant presence of large flies and
windblown debris all over the schools playground. It further
reiterated reports that the leachate treatment plant had been
eroded twice already, contaminating the nearby creeks that were
sources of potable water for the residents.The contaminated water
was also found to flow to the Wawa Dam and Boso-boso River, which
in turn empties into Laguna de Bay.This brings us to the second
self-evident point. Water is life, and must be saved at all costs.
InCollado v. Court of Appeals,36we had occasion to reaffirm our
previous discussion inSta. Rosa Realty Development Corporation v.
Court of Appeals,37on the primordial importance of watershed areas,
thus: "The most important product of a watershed is water, which is
one of the most important human necessities. The protection of
watersheds ensures an adequate supply of water for future
generations and the control of flashfloods that not only damage
property but also cause loss of lives. Protection of watersheds is
an "intergenerational" responsibility that needs to be answered
now.38Three short monthsbeforeProclamation No. 635 was passed to
avert the garbage crisis, Congress had enacted the National Water
Crisis Act39to "adopt urgent and effective measures to address the
nationwide water crisis which adversely affects the health and
well-being of the population, food production, and
industrialization process. One of the issues the law sought to
address was the "protection and conservation of watersheds."40In
other words, while respondents were blandly declaring that "the
reason for the creation of the Marikina Watershed Reservation,i.e.,
to protect Marikina River as the source of water supply of the City
of Manila, no longer exists," the rest of the country was gripped
by a shortage of potable water so serious, it necessitated its own
legislation.Respondents actions in the face of such grave
environmental consequences defy all logic. The petitioners rightly
noted that instead of providing solutions, they have, with
unmitigated callousness, worsened the problem. It is this readiness
to wreak irrevocable damage on our natural heritage in pursuit of
what is expedient that has compelled us to rule at length on this
issue. We ignore the unrelenting depletion of our natural heritage
at our peril.I.The Reorganization Act of the DENR Defines andLimits
Its Powers over the Countrys Natural ResourcesThe respondents next
point out that the Marikina Watershed Reservation, and thus the San
Mateo Site, is located in the public domain. They allege that as
such, neither the Province of Rizal nor the municipality of San
Mateo has the power to control or regulate its use since properties
of this nature belong to the national, and not to the local
governments.It is ironic that the respondents should pursue this
line of reasoning.InCruz v. Secretary of Environment and Natural
Resources,41we had occasion to observe that "(o)ne of the fixed and
dominating objectives of the 1935 Constitutional Convention was the
nationalization and conservation of the natural resources of the
country. There was an overwhelming sentiment in the convention in
favor of the principle of state ownership of natural resources and
the adoption of the Regalian doctrine. State ownership of natural
resources was seen as a necessary starting point to secure
recognition of the states power to control their disposition,
exploitation, development, or utilization."42The Regalian doctrine
was embodied in the 1935 Constitution,in Section 1 of Article XIII
on "Conservation and Utilization of Natural Resources." This was
reiterated in the 1973 Constitution under Article XIV on the
"National Economy and the Patrimony of the Nation," and reaffirmed
in the 1987 Constitution in Section 2 of Article XII on "National
Economy and Patrimony," to wit:Sec. 2. All lands of the public
domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum, and other mineral oils,
all forces of potential energy, fisheries, forests or timber,
wildlife, flora and fauna, and other natural resources are owned by
the State. With the exception of agricultural lands, all other
natural resources shall not be alienated. The exploration,
development and utilization of natural resources shall be under the
full control and supervision of the State. The State may directly
undertake such activities or it may enter into co-production, joint
venture, or production-sharing agreements with Filipino citizens,
or corporations or associations at least sixty per centum of whose
capital is owned by such citizens. Such agreements may be for a
period not exceeding twenty-five years, renewable for not more than
twenty-five years, and under such terms and conditions as may be
provided by law. In cases of water rights for irrigation, water
supply, fisheries, or industrial uses other than the development of
water power, beneficial use may be the measure and limit of the
grant.43Clearly, the state is, and always has been, zealous in
preserving as much of our natural and national heritage as it can,
enshrining as it did the obligation to preserve and protect the
same within the text of our fundamental law.It was with this
objective in mind that the respondent DENR was mandated by then
President Corazon C. Aquino, under Section 4 of Executive Order No.
192,44otherwise known as "The Reorganization Act of the Department
of Environment and Natural Resources," to be "the primary
government agency responsible for theconservation, management,
development and proper useof the countrys environment and natural
resources, specifically forest and grazing lands, mineral
resources,including those in reservation and watershed areas,and
lands of the public domain. It is also responsible for the
licensing and regulation of all natural resources as may be
provided for by law in orderto ensure equitable sharing of the
benefits derived therefromfor the welfare of the present and future
generations of Filipinos."We expounded on this matter in the
landmark case ofOposa v. Factoran,45where we held that the right to
a balanced and healthful ecology is a fundamental legal right that
carries with it the correlative duty to refrain from impairing the
environment. This right implies, among other things, the judicious
management and conservation of the countrys resources, which duty
is reposed in the DENR under the aforequoted Section 4 of Executive
Order No. 192. Moreover:Section 3 (of E. O. No. 192) makes the
following statement of policy:SEC. 3. Declaration of Policy. - It
is hereby declared the policy of the State to ensure thesustainable
use, development, management, renewal, and conservationof the
country's forest, mineral, land, off-shore areas and other natural
resources, including the protection and enhancement of the quality
of the environment, and equitable access of the different segments
of the population to the development and use of the country's
natural resources,not only for the present generation but for
future generations as well. It is also the policy of the state to
recognize and apply a true value system including social and
environmental cost implications relative to their utilization;
development and conservation of our natural resources. (Emphasis
ours)This policy declaration is substantially re-stated in Title
XIV, Book IV of the Administrative Code of 1987, specifically in
Section 1 thereof which reads:SEC. 1.Declaration of Policy. - (1)
The State shall ensure, for the benefit of the Filipino people, the
full exploration and development as well as thejudicious
disposition, utilization, management, renewal and conservationof
the country's forest, mineral, land, waters, fisheries, wildlife,
off-shore areas and other natural resources,consistent with the
necessity of maintaining a sound ecological balance and protecting
and enhancing the quality of the environmentand the objective of
making the exploration, development and utilization of such natural
resources equitably accessible to the different segments of the
present as well as future generations.(2) The State shall likewise
recognize and apply a true value system that takes into account
social and environmental cost implications relative to the
utilization, development and conservation of our natural
resources.The above provision stresses "the necessity of
maintaining a sound ecological balance and protecting and enhancing
the quality of the environment."46(Emphasis ours.)In sum, the
Administrative Code of 1987 and Executive Order No. 192 entrust the
DENR with theguardianshipandsafekeepingof the Marikina Watershed
Reservation and our other natural treasures. However, although the
DENR, an agency of the government, owns the Marikina Reserve and
has jurisdiction over the same,this power is not absolute, but is
defined by the declared policies of the state, and is subject to
the law and higher authority.Section 2, Title XIV, Book IV of the
Administrative Code of 1987, while specifically referring to the
mandate of the DENR, makes particular reference to the agencys
being subject to law and higher authority, thus:SEC. 2.Mandate. -
(1) The Department of Environment and Natural Resources shall be
primarily responsible for the implementation of the foregoing
policy.(2) It shall,subject to law and higher authority, be in
charge of carrying out the State's constitutional mandate to
control and supervise the exploration, development, utilization,
and conservation of the country's natural resources.With great
power comes great responsibility. It is the height of irony that
the public respondents have vigorously arrogated to themselves the
power to control the San Mateo site, but have deftly ignored their
corresponding responsibility as guardians and protectors of this
tormented piece of land.II.The Local Government Code Gives to Local
Government Units All the Necessary Powers to Promote the General
Welfare of Their InhabitantsThe circumstances under which
Proclamation No. 635 was passed also violates Rep. Act No. 7160, or
the Local Government Code.Contrary to the averment of the
respondents, Proclamation No. 635, which was passed on 28 August
1995, is subject to the provisions of the Local Government Code,
which was approved four years earlier, on 10 October 1991.Section
2(c) of the said law declares that it is the policy of the state "
to require all national agencies and offices to conduct periodic
consultations with appropriate local government units,
non-governmental and people's organizations, and other concerned
sectors of the community before any project or program is
implemented in their respective jurisdictions." Likewise, Section
27 requires prior consultations before a program shall be
implemented by government authorities and the prior approval of
thesanggunianis obtained.During the oral arguments at the hearing
for the temporary restraining order, Director Uranza of the MMDA
Solid Waste Management Task Force declared before the Court of
Appeals that they had conducted the required consultations.
However, he added that "(t)his is the problem, sir, the officials
we may have been talking with at the time this was established may
no longer be incumbent and this is our difficulty now. That is what
we are trying to do now, a continuing dialogue."47The ambivalent
reply of Director Uranza was brought to the fore when, at the
height of the protest rally and barricade along Marcos Highway to
stop dump trucks from reaching the site,allthe municipal mayors of
the province of Rizal openly declared their full support for the
rally and notified the MMDA that they would oppose any further
attempt to dump garbage in their province.48The municipal mayors
acted within the scope of their powers, and were in fact fulfilling
their mandate, when they did this. Section 16 allows every local
government unit to "exercise the powers expressly granted, those
necessarily implied therefrom, as well as powers necessary,
appropriate, or incidental for its efficient and effective
governance, and those which are essential to the promotion of the
general welfare," which involve, among other things, "promot(ing)
health and safety, enhance(ing) the right of the people to a
balanced ecology, and preserv(ing) the comfort and convenience of
their inhabitants. "InLina , Jr. v. Pao,49we held that Section 2
(c), requiring consultations with the appropriate local government
units, should apply to national government projects affecting the
environmental or ecological balance of the particular community
implementing the project. Rejecting the petitioners contention that
Sections 2(c) and 27 of the Local Government Code applied
mandatorily in the setting up of lotto outlets around the country,
we held that:From a careful reading of said provisions, we find
that these apply only to national programs and/or projects which
are to be implemented in a particular local community. Lotto is
neither a program nor a project of the national government, but of
a charitable institution, the PCSO. Though sanctioned by the
national government, it is far fetched to say that lotto falls
within the contemplation of Sections 2 (c) and 27 of the Local
Government Code.Section 27 of the Code should be read in
conjunction with Section 26 thereof. Section 26 reads:SECTION 26.
Duty of National Government Agencies in the Maintenance of
Ecological Balance. It shall be the duty of every national agency
or government-owned or controlled corporation authorizing or
involved in the planning and implementation of any project or
program that may cause pollution, climatic change, depletion of
non-renewable resources, loss of crop land, range-land, or forest
cover, and extinction of animal or plant species, to consult with
the local government units, nongovernmental organizations, and
other sectors concerned and explain the goals and objectives of the
project or program, its impact upon the people and the community in
terms of environmental or ecological balance, and the measures that
will be undertaken to prevent or minimize the adverse effects
thereof.Thus,the projects and programs mentioned in Section 27
should be interpreted to mean projects and programs whose effects
are among those enumerated in Section 26 and 27, to wit, those
that: (1) may cause pollution; (2) may bring about climatic change;
(3) may cause the depletion of non-renewable resources; (4) may
result in loss of crop land, range-land, or forest cover; (5) may
eradicate certain animal or plant species from the face of the
planet; and (6) other projects or programs that may call for the
eviction of a particular group of people residing in the locality
where these will be implemented. Obviously, none of these effects
will be produced by the introduction of lotto in the province of
Laguna. (emphasis supplied)We reiterated this doctrine in the
recent case ofBangus Fry Fisherfolk v. Lanzanas,50where we held
that there was no statutory requirement for thesangguniang bayanof
Puerto Galera to approve the construction of a mooring facility, as
Sections 26 and 27 are inapplicable to projects which are not
environmentally critical.Moreover, Section 447, which enumerates
the powers, duties and functions of the municipality, grants
thesangguniang bayanthe power to, among other things, "enact
ordinances, approve resolutions and appropriate funds for the
general welfare of the municipality and its inhabitants pursuant to
Section 16 of th(e) Code." These include:(1) Approving ordinances
and passing resolutions toprotect the environment and impose
appropriate penalties for acts which endanger the environment, such
as dynamite fishing and other forms of destructive fishing, illegal
logging and smuggling of logs, smuggling of natural resources
products and of endangered species of flora and fauna, slash and
burn farming,and such other activities which result in pollution,
acceleration of eutrophication of rivers and lakes, or of
ecological imbalance; [Section 447 (1)(vi)](2)Prescribing
reasonable limits and restraints on the use of property within the
jurisdiction of the municipality,adopting a comprehensive land use
plan for the municipality, reclassifying land within the
jurisdiction of the city, subject to the pertinent provisions of
this Code,enacting integrated zoning ordinancesin consonance with
the approved comprehensive land use plan, subject to existing laws,
rules and regulations; establishing fire limits or zones,
particularly in populous centers; and regulating the construction,
repair or modification of buildings within said fire limits or
zones in accordance with the provisions of this Code; [Section 447
(2)(vi-ix)](3) Approving ordinances which shall ensure the
efficient and effective delivery of the basic services and
facilities as provided for under Section 17 of this Code, and in
addition to said services and facilities, providing for the
establishment, maintenance, protection, and conservation of
communal forests and watersheds, tree parks, greenbelts, mangroves,
and other similar forest development projects.and, subject to
existing laws, establishing and providing for the maintenance,
repair and operation of an efficient waterworks system to supply
water for the inhabitants andpurifying the source of the water
supply; regulating the construction, maintenance, repair and use of
hydrants, pumps, cisterns and reservoirs;protecting the purity and
quantity of the water supply of the municipalityand, for this
purpose,extending the coverage of appropriate ordinances over all
territory within the drainage area of said water supply and within
one hundred (100) meters of the reservoir, conduit, canal,
aqueduct, pumping station, or watershed used in connection with the
water service;and regulating the consumption, use or wastage of
water." [Section 447 (5)(i) & (vii)]Under the Local Government
Code, therefore, two requisites must be met before a national
project that affects the environmental and ecological balance of
local communities can be implemented: priorconsultationwith the
affected local communities, and priorapprovalof the project by the
appropriatesanggunian. Absent either of these mandatory
requirements, the projects implementation is illegal.III.Waste
Disposal Is Regulated by the EcologicalSolid Waste Management Act
of 2000The respondents would have us overlook all the abovecited
laws because the San Mateo site is a very expensive - and necessary
-fait accompli.The respondents cite the millions of pesos and
hundreds of thousands of dollars the government has already
expended in its development and construction, and the lack of any
viable alternative sites.The Court of Appeals agreed, thus:During
the hearing on the injunction, questions were also asked. "What
will happen if the San Mateo Sanitary Landfill is closed? Where
will the daily collections of garbage be disposed of and dumped?"
Atty. Mendoza, one of the lawyers of the petitioners, answered that
each city/municipality must take care of its own. Reflecting on
that answer, we are troubled: will not the proliferation of
separate open dumpsites be a more serious health hazard (which
ha(s) to be addressed) to the residents of the community? What with
the galloping population growth and the constricting available land
area in Metro Manila? There could be a mini-Smokey Mountain in each
of the ten citiescomprising Metro Manila, placing in danger the
health and safety of more people. Damage to the environment could
be aggravated by the increase in number of open dumpsites. An
integrated system of solid waste management, like the San Mateo
Sanitary Landfill, appears advisable to a populous metropolis like
the Greater Metro Manila Area absent access to better
technology.51We acknowledge that these are valid concerns.
Nevertheless, the lower court should have been mindful of the legal
truism that it is the legislature, by its very nature, which is the
primary judge of the necessity, adequacy, wisdom, reasonableness
and expediency of any law.52Moreover, these concerns are addressed
by Rep. Act No. 9003. Approved on 26 January 2001, "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."53It requires the adherence to a Local Government Solid
Waste Management Plan with regard to the collection and transfer,
processing, source reduction, recycling, composting and final
disposal of solid wastes, the handling and disposal of special
wastes, education and public information, and the funding of solid
waste management projects.The said law mandates the formulation of
a National Solid Waste Management Framework, which should include,
among other things, the method and procedure for the phaseout and
the eventual closure within eighteen months from effectivity of the
Act in case of existing open dumps and/orsanitary landfills located
within an aquifer, groundwater reservoir or watershed area.54Any
landfills subsequently developed must comply with the minimum
requirements laid down in Section 40, specifically that the site
selectedmust be consistent with the overall land use plan of the
local government unit, and that the sitemust be located in an area
where the landfills operation will not detrimentally affect
environmentally sensitive resources such as aquifers, groundwater
reservoirs or watershed areas.55This writesfinisto any remaining
aspirations respondents may have of reopening the San Mateo Site.
Having declared Proclamation No. 635 illegal, we see no compelling
need to tackle the remaining issues raised in the petition and the
parties respective memoranda.A final word. Laws pertaining to the
protection of the environment were not drafted in a vacuum.
Congress passed these laws fully aware of the perilous state of
both our economic and natural wealth. It was precisely to minimize
the adverse impact humanitys actions on all aspects of the natural
world, at the same time maintaining and ensuring an environment
under which man and nature can thrive in productive and enjoyable
harmony with each other, that these legal safeguards were put in
place. They should thus not be so lightly cast aside in the face of
what is easy and expedient.WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The
Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 41330, dated 13
June 1997, is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The temporary restraining
order issued by the Court on 24 January 2001 is hereby made
permanent.SO ORDERED.RA 9275Republic of the PhilippinesCongress of
the PhilippinesMetro ManilaTwelfth CongressThird Regular
SessionBegun and held in Metro Manila, on Monday, the twenty-eight
day of July, two thousand three.Republic Act No. 9275 March 22,
2004AN ACT PROVIDING FOR A COMPREHENSIVE WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT
AND FOR OTHER PURPOSESBe it enacted by the Senate and House of
Representatives of the Philippines in Congress assembled:CHAPTER
1GENERAL PROVISIONSARTICLE 1DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES AND
POLICIESSECTION 1.Short Title. - This Act shall be known as the
"Philippine Clean Water Act of 2004."xxxxxxxxxARTICLE 2DEFINITION
OF TERMSSECTION 4.Definition of Terms. - As used in this Act:a)
Aquifer - means a layer of water-bearing rock located underground
that transmits water in sufficient quantity to supply pumping wells
or natural springs.b) Aquatic life - means all organisms living in
freshwater, brackish and marine environment.c) Beneficial use -
means the use of the environment or any element or segment thereof
conducive to public or private welfare, safety and health; and
shall include, but not be limited to, the use of water for
domestic, municipal, irrigation, power generation, fisheries,
livestock raising, industrial, recreational and other purposes.1.
Use of water for domestic purposes - means the utilization of water
for drinking, washing, bathing, cooking or other household needs,
home gardens and watering of lawns or domestic animals;2. Use of
water for municipal purposes - means the utilization of water for
supplying water requirements of the community;3. Use of water for
irrigation - means the utilization of water for producing
agricultural crops;4. Use of water for power generation - means the
utilization of water for producing electrical or mechanical
power;5. Use of water for fisheries - means the utilization of
water for the propagation of culture of fish as a commercial
enterprise;6. Use of water for livestock raising - means the
utilization of water for large herds or flocks of animals raised as
a commercial enterprise;7. Use of water for industrial purposes -
means the utilization of water in factories, industrial plants and
mines, including the use of water as an ingredient of a finished
product; and8. Use of water for recreational purposes - means the
utilization of water for swimming pools, bath houses, boating,
water skiing, golf courses and other similar facilities in resorts
and other places of recreation.d) Classification/Reclassification
of Philippine Waters - means the categorization of all water bodies
taking into account, among others, the following: (1) existing
quality of the body of water; (2) size, depth, surface area
covered, volume, direction, rate of flow and gradient of stream;
(3) most beneficial existing and future use of said bodies of water
and lands bordering them, such as for residential, agricultural,
aquacultural, commercial, industrial, navigational, recreational,
wildlife conservation and aesthetic purposes; and (4) vulnerability
of surface and groundwater to contamination from pollutive and
hazardous wastes, agricultural chemicals and underground storage
tanks of petroleum products.e) Civil Society - means non-government
organizations (NGOs) and people's organizations (POs).f) Cleaner
Production - means the application of an integrated, preventive
environmental strategy to processes, products, services to increase
efficiency and reduce risk to humans and the environment;g)
Clean-up operations - means activities involving the removal of
pollutants discharged or spilled into a water body and its
surrounding areas, and the restoration of the affected areas to
their former physical, chemical and biological state or
conditions.h) Contamination - means the production of substances
not found in the natural composition of water that make the water
less desirable or unfit desirable or unfit for intended use.i)
Department - means the Department of Environment and Natural
Resources.j) Discharge includes, but is not limited to, the act of
spilling, leaking, pumping, pouring, emitting, emptying, releasing
or dumping of any material into a water body or onto land from
which it might flow or drain into said water.k) Drinking water-
means water intended for human consumption or for use in food
preparation.l) Dumping - means any unauthorized or illegal disposal
into any body of water or land of wastes or toxic or hazardous
material: Provided, That it does not mean a release of effluent
coming from commercial, industrial, and domestic sources which are
within the effluent standards.m) Effluent - means discharge from
known sources which is passed into a body of water or land, or
wastewater flowing out of a manufacturing plant, industrial plant
including domestic, commercial and recreational facilities.n)
Effluent standard - means any legal restriction or limitation on
quantities, rates, and/or concentrations or any combination
thereof, of physical, chemical or biological parameters of effluent
which a person or point source is allowed to discharge into a body
of water or land.o) Environmental management - means the entire
system which includes, but is not limited to, conservation,
regulation and minimization of pollution, clean production, waste
management, environmental law and policy, environmental education
and information, study and mitigation of the environmental impacts
of human activity, and environmental research.p) Environmental
management system - means the part of the overall management system
that includes organizational structure, planning activities,
responsibilities, practices, procedures, processes and resources
for developing, implementing, achieving, reviewing and maintaining
the environment policy.q) Freshwater - means water containing less
than 500 ppm dissolved common salt, sodium chloride, such as that
in groundwater, rivers, ponds and lakes.r) Groundwater - means a
subsurface water that occurs beneath a water table in soils and
rocks, or in geological formations.s) Groundwater vulnerability -
means relative ease with which a contaminant located at or near the
land surface can migrate to the aquifer or deep well.t) Groundwater
vulnerability map - means the identified areas of the land surface
where groundwater quality is most at risk from human activities and
shall reflect the different degrees of groundwater vulnerability
based on a range of soil properties and hydro geological criteria
to serve as guide in the protection of the groundwater from
contamination.u) Hazardous waste - means any waste or combination
of wastes of solid liquid, contained gaseous, or semi-solid form
which cause, of contribute to, an increase in mortality or an
increase in serious irreversible, or incapacitating reversible
illness, taking into account toxicity of such waste, its
persistence and degradability in nature, its potential for
accumulation or concentration in tissue, and other factors that may
otherwise cause or contribute to adverse acute or chronic effects
on the health of persons or organism.v) Industrial waste - means
any solid, semi-solid or liquid waste material with no commercial
value released by a manufacturing or processing plant other than
excluded material.w) Integrated Water Quality Management Framework
- means the policy guideline integrating all the existing
frameworks prepared by all government agencies contain the
following; water quality goals and targets; (b) period of
compliance; (c) water pollution control strategies and techniques;
(d) water quality information and education program; (e) human
resources development program.x) Margin - means a landward and
outer limiting edge adjacent to the border of any water bodies or a
limit beyond where beyond where saturation zone ceases to exist.y)
National Water Quality Status Report - means a report to be
prepared by the Department indicating: a) the location of water
bodies, their quality, taking into account seasonal, tidal and
others variations, existing and potential uses and sources of
pollution per specific pollutant and pollution load assessment; b)
water quality management areas pursuant to Section 5 of this Act;
c) and water classification.z) Non-point source - means any source
of pollution not identifiable as point source to include, but not
be limited to, runoff from irrigation or rainwater, which picks up
pollutants from farms and urban areas.aa) Point source - means any
identifiable source of pollution with specific point of discharge
into a particular water body.bb) Pollutant- sha