consti provisions right to health and environment

7/25/2019 Consti Provisions Right to Health and Environment

1/68

G.R. No. 101083 July 30, 1993

JUAN ANTONIO, ANNA ROSARIO and JOSE ALFONSO, all surnamd O!OSA,m"nors, and r#rsn$d %y $&"r #arn$s ANTONIO and RI'ALINA O!OSA,RO(ERTA NI)OLE SA*IUA, m"nor, r#rsn$d %y &r #arn$s )AL+IN andRO(ERTA SA*IUA, )ARLO, AAN*A SALU* and !ATRIS-A, all surnamd

FLORES, m"nors and r#rsn$d %y $&"r #arn$s ENRI)O and NI*AFLORES, GIANINA *ITA R. FORTUN, m"nor, r#rsn$d %y &r #arn$sSIGRI* and *OLORES FORTUN, GEORGE II and A. )ON)E!)ION, allsurnamd ISA, m"nors and r#rsn$d %y $&"r #arn$s GEORGE andRA ISA, (ENJAIN ALAN +. !ESIGAN, m"nor, r#rsn$d %y &"s#arn$s ANTONIO and ALI)E !ESIGAN, JO+IE ARIE ALFARO, m"nor,r#rsn$d %y &r #arn$s JOSE and ARIA +IOLETA ALFARO, ARIA)ON)E!)ION T. )ASTRO, m"nor, r#rsn$d %y &r #arn$s FRE*ENIL and

JANE )ASTRO, JO-ANNA *ESA!ARA*O,m"nor, r#rsn$d %y &r #arn$s JOSE and ANGELA *ESA!RA*O, )ARLO

JOA/UIN T. NAR+ASA, m"nor, r#rsn$d %y &"s #arn$s GREGORIO II and)RISTINE )-ARIT NAR+ASA, A. ARGARITA, JESUS IGNA)IO, A.ANGELA and ARIE GA(RIELLE, all surnamd SAEN', m"nors, r#rsn$d%y $&"r #arn$s RO(ERTO and AURORA SAEN', RISTINE, AR ELLEN,A, GOL*A ART-E and *A+I* IAN, all surnamd ING, m"nors,r#rsn$d %y $&"r #arn$s ARIO and -A*EE ING, *A+I*, FRAN)IS)Oand T-ERESE +I)TORIA, all surnamd EN*RIGA, m"nors, r#rsn$d %y$&"r #arn$s (ALTA'AR and TERESITA EN*RIGA, JOSE A. and REGINAA., all surnamd A(AA, m"nors, r#rsn$d %y $&"r #arn$s ANTONIOand ARI)A A(AA, ARILIN, ARIO, JR. and ARIETTE, all surnamd)AR*AA, m"nors, r#rsn$d %y $&"r #arn$s ARIO and LINA)AR*AA, )LARISSA, ANN ARIE, NAGEL, and IEE LN, all surnamdO!OSA, m"nors and r#rsn$d %y $&"r #arn$s RI)AR*O and ARISSAO!OSA, !-ILI! JOSE!-, STE!-EN JO-N and ISAIA- JAES, all surnamd/UI!IT, m"nors, r#rsn$d %y $&"r #arn$s JOSE A and +ILI /UI!IT,(UG-A2 )IELO, )RISANTO, ANNA, *ANIEL and FRAN)IS)O, all surnamd(I(AL, m"nors, r#rsn$d %y $&"r #arn$s FRAN)IS)O, JR. andILAGROS (I(AL, and T-E !-ILI!!INE E)OLOGI)AL NET2OR,IN)., petitioners,vs.T-E -ONORA(LE FULGEN)IO S. FA)TORAN, JR., "n &"s a#a"$y as $&Sr$ary o4 $& *#ar$mn$ o4 En5"ronmn$ and Na$ural Rsours, andT-E -ONORA(LE ERI(ERTO U. ROSARIO, !rs"d"n6 Jud6 o4 $& RT),a7a$", (ran& , respondents.

Oposa Law Ofce or petitioners.

The Solicitor General or respondents.

*A+I*E, JR.,J.:


2/68

In a broader sense, this petition bears upon the right of Filipinos to a balanced andhealthful ecology which the petitioners dramatically associate with the twinconcepts of "inter-generational responsibility" and "inter-generational justice."Specically, it touches on the issue of whether the said petitioners have a cause ofaction to "prevent the misappropriation or impairment" of hilippine rainforests and"arrest the unabated hemorrhage of the country!s vital life support systems and

continued rape of other #arth."

$he controversy has its genesis in %ivil %ase &o. '(-)) which was led before*ranch ++ aati, etro anila of the /egional $rial %ourt /$%, &ational %apital

0udicial /egion. $he principal plainti1s therein, now the principal petitioners, are allminors duly represented and joined by their respective parents. Impleaded as anadditional plainti1 is the hilippine #cological &etwor, Inc. #&I, a domestic, non-stoc and non-prot corporation organi2ed for the purpose of, inter alia, engaging inconcerted action geared for the protection of our environment and naturalresources. $he original defendant was the 3onorable Fulgencio S. Factoran, 0r., thenSecretary of the 4epartment of #nvironment and &atural /esources 4#&/. 3issubstitution in this petition by the new Secretary, the 3onorable 5ngel %. 5lcala,was subse6uently ordered upon proper motion by the petitioners.1$hecomplaintwas instituted as a ta7payers! class suit3and alleges that the plainti1s"are all citi2ens of the /epublic of the hilippines, ta7payers, and entitled to the fullbenet, use and enjoyment of the natural resource treasure that is the country!svirgin tropical forests." $he same was led for themselves and others who aree6ually concerned about the preservation of said resource but are "so numerousthat it is impracticable to bring them all before the %ourt." $he minors furtherasseverate that they "represent their generation as well as generations yetunborn.":%onse6uently, it is prayed for that judgment be rendered8

. . . ordering defendant, his agents, representatives and other personsacting in his behalf to 9

: %ancel all e7isting timber license agreements in the country;

ora and fauna may be found; these rainforests contain a genetic,biological and chemical pool which is irreplaceable; they are also the habitat ofindigenous hilippine cultures which have e7isted, endured and >ourished sincetime immemorial; scientic evidence reveals that in order to maintain a balancedand healthful ecology, the country!s land area should be utili2ed on the basis of aratio of fty-four per cent ?@A for forest cover and forty-si7 per cent @+A foragricultural, residential, industrial, commercial and other uses; the distortion anddisturbance of this balance as a conse6uence of deforestation have resulted in a


3/68

host of environmental tragedies, such as a water shortages resulting from dryingup of the water table, otherwise nown as the "a6uifer," as well as of rivers, broosand streams, b salini2ation of the water table as a result of the intrusion therein ofsalt water, incontrovertible e7amples of which may be found in the island of %ebuand the unicipality of *acoor, %avite, c massive erosion and the conse6uentialloss of soil fertility and agricultural productivity, with the volume of soil eroded

estimated at one billion :,(((,(((,((( cubic meters per annum 9 appro7imatelythe si2e of the entire island of %atanduanes, d the endangering and e7tinction ofthe country!s uni6ue, rare and varied >ora and fauna, e the disturbance anddislocation of cultural communities, including the disappearance of the Filipino!sindigenous cultures, f the siltation of rivers and seabeds and conse6uentialdestruction of corals and other a6uatic life leading to a critical reduction in marineresource productivity, g recurrent spells of drought as is presently e7perienced bythe entire country, h increasing velocity of typhoon winds which result from theabsence of windbreaers, i the >oodings of lowlands and agricultural plains arisingfrom the absence of the absorbent mechanism of forests, j the siltation andshortening of the lifespan of multi-billion peso dams constructed and operated forthe purpose of supplying water for domestic uses, irrigation and the generation of

electric power, and the reduction of the earth!s capacity to process carbondio7ide gases which has led to perple7ing and catastrophic climatic changes such asthe phenomenon of global warming, otherwise nown as the "greenhouse e1ect."

lainti1s further assert that the adverse and detrimental conse6uences of continuedand deforestation are so capable of un6uestionable demonstration that the samemay be submitted as a matter of judicial notice. $his notwithstanding, theye7pressed their intention to present e7pert witnesses as well as documentary,photographic and lm evidence in the course of the trial.

5s their cause of action, they specically allege that8

CAUSE OF ACTION

). lainti1s replead by reference the foregoing allegations.

B. $wenty-ve


4/68

cut the aggregate area of =.B' million hectares for commercial loggingpurposes.

5 copy of the $C5 holders and the corresponding areas covered ishereto attached as 5nne7 "5".

:


5/68

:'. 4efendant!s refusal to cancel the aforementioned $C5!s ismanifestly contrary to the public policy enunciated in the hilippine#nvironmental olicy which, in pertinent part, states that it is the policyof the State 9

a to create, develop, maintain and improve conditions under which

man and nature can thrive in productive and enjoyable harmony witheach other;

b to fulll the social, economic and other re6uirements of present andfuture generations of Filipinos and;

c to ensure the attainment of an environmental 6uality that isconductive to a life of dignity and well-being. .4. ::?:, + 0une :'))


6/68

n :B 0uly :'':, respondent 0udge issued an order granting the aforementionedmotion to dismiss.


7/68

resources is not to le an action to court, but to lobby before %ongress for thepassage of a bill that would ban logging totally.

5s to the matter of the cancellation of the $C5s, respondents submit that the samecannot be done by the State without due process of law. nce issued, a $C5 remainse1ective for a certain period of time 9 usually for twenty-ve


8/68

challenged order for having been issued with grave abuse of discretion amountingto lac of jurisdiction. $he pertinent portions of the said order reads as follows8

777 777 777

5fter a careful and circumspect evaluation of the %omplaint, the %ourtcannot help but agree with the defendant. For although we believe thatplainti1s have but the noblest of all intentions, it sic fell short ofalleging, with suEcient deniteness, a specic legal right they areseeing to enforce and protect, or a specic legal wrong they areseeing to prevent and redress Sec. :, /ule


9/68

Jhile the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is to be found under the4eclaration of rinciples and State olicies and not under the *ill of /ights, it doesnot follow that it is less important than any of the civil and political rightsenumerated in the latter. Such a right belongs to a di1erent category of rightsaltogether for it concerns nothing less than self-preservation and self-perpetuation9 aptly and ttingly stressed by the petitioners 9 the advancement of which may

even be said to predate all governments and constitutions. 5s a matter of fact,these basic rights need not even be written in the %onstitution for they are assumedto e7ist from the inception of humanind. If they are now e7plicitly mentioned in thefundamental charter, it is because of the well-founded fear of its framers that unlessthe rights to a balanced and healthful ecology and to health are mandated as statepolicies by the %onstitution itself, thereby highlighting their continuing importanceand imposing upon the state a solemn obligation to preserve the rst and protectand advance the second, the day would not be too far when all else would be lostnot only for the present generation, but also for those to come 9 generations whichstand to inherit nothing but parched earth incapable of sustaining life.

$he right to a balanced and healthful ecology carries with it the correlative duty torefrain from impairing the environment. 4uring the debates on this right in one ofthe plenary sessions of the :'B+ %onstitutional %ommission, the following e7changetranspired between %ommissioner Jilfrido Hillacorta and %ommissioner 5dolfo52cuna who sponsored the section in 6uestion8

/. HICC5%/$58

4oes this section mandate the State to provide sanctionsagainst all forms of pollution 9 air, water and noisepollutionK

/. 5L%M&58

Nes, adam resident. $he right to healthful sicenvironment necessarily carries with it the correlativeduty of not impairing the same and, therefore, sanctionsmay be provided for impairment of environmentalbalance. 1

$he said right implies, among many other things, the judicious management andconservation of the country!s forests.

Jithout such forests, the ecological or environmental balance would be

irreversiby disrupted.

%onformably with the enunciated right to a balanced and healthful ecology and theright to health, as well as the other related provisions of the %onstitution concerningthe conservation, development and utili2ation of the country!s naturalresources, 13then resident %ora2on %. 56uino promulgated on :( 0une :'B) #..&o. :'


10/68

responsible for the conservation, management, development and proper use of thecountry!s environment and natural resources, specically forest and gra2ing lands,mineral, resources, including those in reservation and watershed areas, and lands ofthe public domain, as well as the licensing and regulation of all natural resources asmay be provided for by law in order to ensure e6uitable sharing of the benetsderived therefrom for the welfare of the present and future generations of Filipinos."

Section = thereof maes the following statement of policy8

Sec. =. !eclaration o "olic#. 9 It is hereby declared the policy of theState to ensure the sustainable use, development, management,renewal, and conservation of the country!s forest, mineral, land, o1-shore areas and other natural resources, including the protection andenhancement of the 6uality of the environment, and e6uitable accessof the di1erent segments of the population to the development and theuse of the country!s natural resources, not only for the presentgeneration but for future generations as well. It is also the policy of thestate to recogni2e and apply a true value system including social andenvironmental cost implications relative to their utili2ation,development and conservation of our natural resources.

$his policy declaration is substantially re-stated it $itle GIH, *oo IH of the5dministrative %ode of :'B),1;specically in Section : thereof which reads8

Sec. :. !eclaration o "olic#. 9 : $he State shall ensure, for thebenet of the Filipino people, the full e7ploration and development aswell as the judicious disposition, utili2ation, management, renewal andconservation of the country!s forest, mineral, land, waters, sheries,wildlife, o1-shore areas and other natural resources, consistent withthe necessity of maintaining a sound ecological balance and protecting

and enhancing the 6uality of the environment and the objective ofmaing the e7ploration, development and utili2ation of such naturalresources e6uitably accessible to the di1erent segments of the presentas well as future generations.


11/68


12/68

passing upon a motion to dismiss on the ground of the absence thereof Ocause ofactionP lest, by its failure to manifest a correct appreciation of the facts alleged anddeemed hypothetically admitted, what the law grants or recogni2es is e1ectivelynullied. If that happens, there is a blot on the legal order. $he law itself stands indisrepute."

5fter careful e7amination of the petitioners! complaint, Je nd the statementsunder the introductory aErmative allegations, as well as the specic avermentsunder the sub-heading %5MS# F 5%$I&, to be ade6uate enough to show,pri&aacie, the claimed violation of their rights. n the basis thereof, they may thus begranted, wholly or partly, the reliefs prayed for. It bears stressing, however, thatinsofar as the cancellation of the $C5s is concerned, there is the need to implead, asparty defendants, the grantees thereof for they are indispensable parties.

$he foregoing considered, %ivil %ase &o. '(-))) be said to raise a political 6uestion.olicy formulation or determination by the e7ecutive or legislative branches ofovernment is not s6uarely put in issue. Jhat is principally involved is theenforcement of a right %is'a'%ispolicies already formulated and e7pressed inlegislation. It must, nonetheless, be emphasi2ed that the political 6uestion doctrineis no longer, the insurmountable obstacle to the e7ercise of judicial power or theimpenetrable shield that protects e7ecutive and legislative actions from judicialin6uiry or review. $he second paragraph of section :, 5rticle HIII of the %onstitutionstates that8

0udicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actualcontroversies involving rights which are legally demandable andenforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a graveabuse of discretion amounting to lac or e7cess of jurisdiction on thepart of any branch or instrumentality of the overnment.

%ommenting on this provision in his boo, "hilippine "olitical Law, r. 0usticeIsagani 5. %ru2, a distinguished member of this %ourt, says8

$he rst part of the authority represents the traditional concept ofjudicial power, involving the settlement of con>icting rights asconferred as law. $he second part of the authority represents abroadening of judicial power to enable the courts of justice to reviewwhat was before forbidden territory, to wit, the discretion of thepolitical departments of the government.

5s worded, the new provision vests in the judiciary, and particularly the

Supreme %ourt, the power to rule upon even the wisdom of thedecisions of the e7ecutive and the legislature and to declare their actsinvalid for lac or e7cess of jurisdiction because tainted with graveabuse of discretion. $he catch, of course, is the meaning of "graveabuse of discretion," which is a very elastic phrase that can e7pand orcontract according to the disposition of the judiciary.

In !a(a %s. Sin)son, 3r. 0ustice %ru2, now speaing for this %ourt, noted8


13/68

In the case now before us, the jurisdictional objection becomes evenless tenable and decisive. $he reason is that, even if we were toassume that the issue presented before us was political in nature, wewould still not be precluded from revolving it under the e7panded

jurisdiction conferred upon us that now covers, in proper cases, eventhe political 6uestion. 5rticle HII, Section :, of the %onstitution clearly

provides8 . . .

$he last ground invoed by the trial court in dismissing the complaint is the non-impairment of contracts clause found in the %onstitution. $he court a *o declaredthat8

$he %ourt is liewise of the impression that it cannot, no matter howwe stretch our jurisdiction, grant the reliefs prayed for by theplainti1s, i.e., to cancel all e7isting timber license agreements in thecountry and to cease and desist from receiving, accepting, processing,renewing or approving new timber license agreements. For to dootherwise would amount to "impairment of contracts" abhored sic bythe fundamental law. :

Je are not persuaded at all; on the contrary, Je are ama2ed, if not shoced, bysuch a sweeping pronouncement. In the rst place, the respondent Secretary didnot, for obvious reasons, even invoe in his motion to dismiss the non-impairmentclause. If he had done so, he would have acted with utmost indelity to theovernment by providing undue and unwarranted benets and advantages to thetimber license holders because he would have forever bound the overnment tostrictly respect the said licenses according to their terms and conditions regardlessof changes in policy and the demands of public interest and welfare. 3e was awarethat as correctly pointed out by the petitioners, into every timber license must be

read Section


14/68

municipal, granting it and the person to whom it is granted; neither isit property or a property right, nor does it create a vested right; nor is itta7ation =) %.0. :+B. $hus, this %ourt held that the granting of licensedoes not create irrevocable rights, neither is it property or propertyrights eople vs. ng $in, ?@ .. )?)+.

Je reiterated this pronouncement in Felipe +s&ael, -r. Co., Inc. %s. !ept#E/ecti%e Secretar#8

. . . $imber licenses, permits and license agreements are the principalinstruments by which the State regulates the utili2ation and dispositionof forest resources to the end that public welfare is promoted. 5nd itcan hardly be gainsaid that they merely evidence a privilege grantedby the State to 6ualied entities, and do not vest in the latter apermanent or irrevocable right to the particular concession area andthe forest products therein. $hey may be validly amended, modied,replaced or rescinded by the %hief #7ecutive when national interests sore6uire. $hus, they are not deemed contracts within the purview of thedue process of law clause OSee Sections =ee and


15/68

$he reason for this is emphatically set forth in Nebia %s. New +or1, 96uotedin "hilippine A&erican Lie Insrance Co. %s. Aditor General,30to wit8

Mnder our form of government the use of property and the maing ofcontracts are normally matters of private and not of public concern.

$he general rule is that both shall be free of governmental

interference. *ut neither property rights nor contract rights areabsolute; for government cannot e7ist if the citi2en may at will use hisproperty to the detriment of his fellows, or e7ercise his freedom ofcontract to wor them harm. #6ually fundamental with the private rightis 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. 31

Finally, it is diEcult to imagine, as the trial court did, how the non-impairmentclause could apply with respect to the prayer to enjoin the respondent Secretaryfrom receiving, accepting, processing, renewing or approving new timber licenses

for, save in cases ofrenewal

, no contract would have as of yet e7isted in the otherinstances. oreover, with respect to renewal, the holder is not entitled to it as amatter of right.

J3#/#F/#, being impressed with merit, the instant etition is hereby /5&$#4,and the challenged rder of respondent 0udge of :B 0uly :'': dismissing %ivil %ase&o. '(-))) is hereby set aside. $he petitioners may therefore amend theircomplaint to implead as defendants the holders or grantees of the 6uestionedtimber license agreements.

&o pronouncement as to costs.

S /4#/#4.

Cr(, "adilla, 2idin, Gri3o'A*ino, 4e)alado, 4o&ero, Nocon, 2ellosillo, $elo and5iason, --., concr.

Nar%asa, C.-., "no and 6it), --., too1 no part.

S#ara$ O#"n"ons

FELI)IANO, J., concurring


16/68

I join in the result reached by my distinguished brother in the %ourt, 4avide, 0r.,-., inthis case which, to my mind, is one of the most important cases decided by this%ourt in the last few years. $he seminal principles laid down in this decision areliely to in>uence profoundly the direction and course of the protection andmanagement of the environment, which of course embraces the utili2ation of allthenatural resources in the territorial base of our polity. I have therefore sought to

clarify, basically to myself, what the %ourt appears to be saying.

$he %ourt e7plicitly states that petitioners have the locs standinecessary tosustain the bringing and, maintenance of this suit 4ecision, pp. ::-:ora; and so on. $he other statements pointedout by the %ourt8 Section =, #7ecutive rder &o. :'< dated :( 0une :'B); Section :,

$itle GIH, *oo IH of the :'B) 5dministrative %ode; and .4. &o. ::?:, dated + 0une:')) 9 all appear to be formulations ofpolic#, as general and abstract as theconstitutional statements of basic policy in 5rticle II, Section :+ "the right 9 to abalanced and healthful ecology" and :? "the right to health".


17/68

.4. &o. ::?


18/68

for. $o my mind, the %ourt should be understood as simply saying that such a morespecic legal right or rights &a# well e7ist in our corpsof law, considering thegeneral policy principles found in the %onstitution and the e7istence of thehilippine #nvironment %ode, and that the trial court should have given petitionersan e1ective opportunity so to demonstrate, instead of aborting the proceedings ona motion to dismiss.

It seems to me important that the legal right which is an essential component of acause of action be a specic, operable legal right, rather than a constitutional orstatutorypolic#, for at least two


19/68

the claimed wrongful acts or failures to act of public respondent administrativeagency. $hey may also controvert the appropriateness of the remedy or remediesdemanded by petitioners, under all the circumstances which e7ist.

I vote to grant the etition for Certioraribecause the protection of the environment,including the forest cover of our territory, is of e7treme importance for the country.

$he doctrines set out in the %ourt!s decision issued today should, however, besubjected to closer e7amination.

= S#ara$ O#"n"ons

FELI)IANO,J., concurring

I join in the result reached by my distinguished brother in the %ourt, 4avide, 0r.,-., inthis case which, to my mind, is one of the most important cases decided by this%ourt in the last few years. $he seminal principles laid down in this decision areliely to in>uence profoundly the direction and course of the protection andmanagement of the environment, which of course embraces the utili2ation of allthenatural resources in the territorial base of our polity. I have therefore sought toclarify, basically to myself, what the %ourt appears to be saying.

$he %ourt e7plicitly states that petitioners have the locs standinecessary tosustain the bringing and, maintenance of this suit 4ecision, pp. ::-:


20/68

it cannot be characteri2ed as "specic," without doing e7cessive violence tolanguage. It is in fact very diEcult to fashion language more comprehensive inscope and generali2ed in character than a right to "a balanced and healthfulecology." $he list of particular claims which can be subsumed under this rubicappears to be entirely open-ended8 prevention and control of emission of to7icfumes and smoe from factories and motor vehicles; of discharge of oil, chemical

eQuents, garbage and raw sewage into rivers, inland and coastal waters by vessels,oil rigs, factories, mines and whole communities; of dumping of organic andinorganic wastes on open land, streets and thoroughfares; failure to rehabilitateland after strip-mining or open-pit mining; 1ain)inor slash-and-burn farming;destruction of sheries, coral reefs and other living sea resources through the use ofdynamite or cyanide and other chemicals; contamination of ground water resources;loss of certain species of fauna and >ora; and so on. $he other statements pointedout by the %ourt8 Section =, #7ecutive rder &o. :'< dated :( 0une :'B); Section :,

$itle GIH, *oo IH of the :'B) 5dministrative %ode; and .4. &o. ::?:, dated + 0une:')) 9 all appear to be formulations ofpolic#, as general and abstract as theconstitutional statements of basic policy in 5rticle II, Section :+ "the right 9 to abalanced and healthful ecology" and :? "the right to health".

.4. &o. ::?


21/68

petitioners are seeing to enforce. Secondly, the hilippine #nvironment %odeidenties with notable care the particular government agency charged with theformulation and implementation of guidelines and programs dealing with each ofthe headings and sub-headings mentioned above. $he hilippine #nvironment %odedoes not, in other words, appear to contemplate action on the part ofpri%ate

personswho are beneciaries of implementation of that %ode.

5s a matter of logic, by nding petitioners! cause of action as anchored on a legalright comprised in the constitutional statements above noted, the %ourt is in e1ectsaying that Section :? and Section :+ of 5rticle II of the %onstitution are self-e7ecuting and judicially enforceable even in their present form. $he implications ofthis doctrine will have to be e7plored in future cases; those implications are toolarge and far-reaching in nature even to be hinted at here.

y suggestion is simply that petitioners must, before the trial court, show a morespecic legal right 9 a right cast in language of a signicantly lower order ofgenerality than 5rticle II :? of the %onstitution 9 that is or may be violated by theactions, or failures to act, imputed to the public respondent by petitioners so thatthe trial court can validly render judgment granting all or part of the relief prayedfor. $o my mind, the %ourt should be understood as simply saying that such a morespecic legal right or rights &a# well e7ist in our corpsof law, considering thegeneral policy principles found in the %onstitution and the e7istence of thehilippine #nvironment %ode, and that the trial court should have given petitionersan e1ective opportunity so to demonstrate, instead of aborting the proceedings ona motion to dismiss.

It seems to me important that the legal right which is an essential component of acause of action be a specic, operable legal right, rather than a constitutional orstatutorypolic#, for at least two


22/68

standards as broad ranging as "a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lacor e7cess of jurisdiction," the result will be, it is respectfully submitted, topropel courts into the uncharted ocean of social and economic policy maing.5t least in respect of the vast area of environmental protection andmanagement, our courts have no claim to special technical competence ande7perience and professional 6ualication. Jhere no specic, operable norms

and standards are shown to e7ist, then the policy maing departments 9 thelegislative and e7ecutive departments 9 must be given a real and e1ectiveopportunity to fashion and promulgate those norms and standards, and toimplement them before the courts should intervene.

y learned brother 4avide, 0r.,-., rightly insists that the timber companies, whoseconcession agreements or $C5!s petitioners demand public respondents shouldcancel, must be impleaded in the proceedings below. It might be ased that, ifpetitioners! entitlement to the relief demanded is not dependent upon proof ofbreach by the timber companies of one or more of the specic terms and conditionsof their concession agreements and this, petitioners implicitly assume, what willthose companies litigate aboutK $he answer I suggest is that they may see todispute the e7istence of the specic legal right petitioners should allege, as well asthe reality of the claimed factual ne7us between petitioners! specic legal rights andthe claimed wrongful acts or failures to act of public respondent administrativeagency. $hey may also controvert the appropriateness of the remedy or remediesdemanded by petitioners, under all the circumstances which e7ist.

I vote to grant the etition for Certioraribecause the protection of the environment,including the forest cover of our territory, is of e7treme importance for the country.

$he doctrines set out in the %ourt!s decision issued today should, however, besubjected to closer e7amination

/epublic of the hilippinesSU!REE )OURTanila

$3I/4 4IHISI&

G.R. No. )O., IN)., petitioner,vs.T-E *E!UT EE)UTI+E SE)RETAR, T-E SE)RETAR OF EN+IRONENTAN* NATURAL RESOUR)ES, T-E *IRE)TOR OF T-E (UREAU OF FOREST

*E+ELO!ENT and T2IN !EAS *E+ELO!ENT AN* REALT)OR!ORATION, respondents.

Ta3ada, 6i%o Tan or petitioner.

Antonio E. Escober and -rado Law Ofce or respondent Twin "ea1s !e%elop&entCorporation.


23/68

)OURTS,J.:

Soon after the change of government in February :'B+, petitioner sent a letterdated arch :), :'B+ to the Ece of the resident, and another letter dated 5pril


24/68

cancellation of its logging ?=:, but no operations 5nne7 "+" of the etition; /ollo,pp. ?( favorable action was taen on this letter;

e $hat barely one year thereafter, appro7imately one-half or


25/68

777 777 777

/egarding Opetitioner!sP re6uest that the award of a uous act on the part of theinistry.

777 777 777

O5nne7 "::" of the etition, pp. =-@; /ollo, pp. ))-)B.P

n &ovember


26/68

:. Firstly, the refusal of public respondents herein to reverse nal and e7ecutoryadministrative orders does not constitute grave abuse of discretion amounting tolac or e7cess of jurisdiction.

It is an established doctrine in this jurisdiction that the decisions and orders ofadministrative agencies have upon their nality, the force and binding e1ect of a

nal judgment within the purview of the doctrine of res 9dicata. $hese decisionsand orders are as conclusive upon the rights of the a1ected parties as though thesame had been rendered by a court of general jurisdiction. $he rule of res

9dicata thus forbids the reopening of a matter once determined by competentauthority acting within their e7clusive jurisdiction OSee *rillantes v. %astro, '' hil.@') :'?+; Ipedjian erchandising %o., Inc. v. %ourt of $a7 5ppeals, ./. &o. C-:?@=(, September =(, :'+=, ' S%/5 )


27/68

amounting to lac or e7cess of jurisdiction in refusing to overturn administrativeorders issued by their predecessors in the past regime. Net, what the petitionultimately sees is the nullication of the *ureau orders cancelling $C5 &o. B) andgranting $C5 &o. =?+ to private respondent, which were issued way bac in :'B=and :'B@, respectively.

nce again, the fact that petitioner failed to seasonably tae judicial recourse tohave the earlier administrative actions reviewed by the courts through a petition forcertiorari is prejudicial to its cause. For although no specic time frame is 7ed forthe institution of a special civil action for certiorari under /ule +? of the /evised/ules of %ourt, the same must nevertheless be done within a "reasonable time". $heyardstic to measure the timeliness of a petition for certiorari is the"reasonableness of the length of time that had e7pired from the commission of theacts complained of up to the institution of the proceeding to annul the same"O$oledo v. ardo, ./. &o. ?+)+:, &ovember :', :'B


28/68

ublic respondents herein, upon whose shoulders rests the tas of implementing thepolicy to develop and conserve the country!s natural resources, have indicated anongoing department evaluation of all timber license agreements entered into, andpermits or licenses issued, under the previous dispensation. In fact, both thee7ecutive and legislative departments of the incumbent administration arepresently taing stoc of its environmental policies with regard to the utili2ation of

timber lands and developing an agenda for future programs for their conservationand rehabilitation.

$he ongoing administrative reassessment is apparently in response to the renewedand growing global concern over the despoliation of forest lands and the utterdisregard of their crucial role in sustaining a balanced ecological system. $helegitimacy of such concern can hardly be disputed, most especially in this country.

$he %ourt taes judicial notice of the pro>igate waste of the country!s forestresources which has not only resulted in the irreversible loss of >ora and faunapeculiar to the region, but has produced even more disastrous and lasting economicand social e1ects. $he delicate balance of nature having been upset, a vicious cycleof >oods and droughts has been triggered and the supply of food and energyresources re6uired by the people seriously depleted.

Jhile there is a desire to harness natural resources to amass prot and to meet thecountry!s immediate nancial re6uirements, the more essential need to ensurefuture generations of Filipinos of their survival in a viable environment demandse1ective and circumspect action from the government to chec further denudationof whatever remains of the forest lands. &othing less is e7pected of thegovernment, in view of the clear constitutional command to maintain a balancedand healthful ecology. Section :+ of 5rticle II of the :'B) %onstitution provides8

S#%. :+. $he State shall protect and promote the right of the people to

a balanced and healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm andharmony of nature.

$hus, while the administration grapples with the comple7 and multifarious problemscaused by unbridled e7ploitation of these resources, the judiciary will stand clear. 5long line of cases establish the basic rule that the courts will not interfere in matterswhich are addressed to the sound discretion of government agencies entrusted withthe regulation of activities coming under the special technical nowledge andtraining of such agencies OSee #spinosa v. aalintal, )' hil. :=@ :'@); %oloso v.*oard of 5ccountancy, '< hil. '=B :'?=; ajo v. 5go, :(B hil. '(? :'+(; Suare2v. /eyes, ./. &o. C-:'B


29/68

resources O4irector of Forestry v. uno2, ./. &o. C-


30/68

Foo$no$s

5s a result of the creation of the province of Ruirino the municipalityof addela is now deemed part of the Ruirino province.


$3I/4 4IHISI&

G.R. No. 1;890 O$o%r 3, 00

-ILARION . -ENARES, JR., +I)TOR ). AGUSTIN, ALFRE*O L. -ENARES,*ANIEL L. -ENARES, ENRI/UE (ELO -ENARES, and )RISTINA (ELO-ENARES, petitioners,vs.

LAN* TRANS!ORTATION FRAN)-ISING AN* REGULATOR (OAR* and*E!ARTENT OF TRANS!ORTATION AN* )OUNI)ATIONS, respondents.

/ # S C M $ I &

/UISU(ING,J.:

etitioners challenge this %ourt to issue a writ of mandamus commandingrespondents Cand $ransportation Franchising and /egulatory *oard C$F/* and the4epartment of $ransportation and %ommunications 4$% to re6uire public utilityvehicles MHs to use compressed natural gas %& as alternative fuel.

%iting statistics from the etro anila $ransportation and $raEc Situation Study of:''+,:the #nvironmental anagement *ureau #* of the &ational %apital/egion,


31/68

other pollutants. For instance, petitioners aver, with hydrocarbons, o7ide of nitrogen&7 creates smog; with sulfur dio7ide, it creates acid rain; and with ammonia,moisture and other compounds, it reacts to form nitric acid and harmful nitrates.Fuel emissions also cause retardation and leaf bleaching in plants. 5ccording topetitioner, another emission, carbon mono7ide %, when not completely burnedbut emitted into the atmosphere and then inhaled can disrupt the necessary o7ygen

in blood. Jith prolonged e7posure, % a1ects the nervous system and can be lethalto people with wea hearts.+

etitioners add that although much of the new power generated in the country willuse natural gas while a number of oil and coal-red fuel stations are being phased-out, still with the projected doubling of power generation over the ne7t :( years,and with the continuing high demand for motor vehicles, the energy and transportsectors are liely to remain the major sources of harmful emissions. etitioners referus to the study of the hilippine #nvironment onitor


32/68

drawbac of %& is that it produces more methane, one of the gases blamed forglobal warming.::

5sserting their right to clean air, petitioners contend that the bases for their petitionfor a writ of mandamus to order the C$F/* to re6uire MHs to use %& as analternative fuel, lie in Section :+,:


33/68

provided by the 4# on the benets of %&, respondents cannot ignore thee7istence of %&, and their failure to recogni2e %& and compel its use by MHs asalternative fuel while air pollution brought about by the emissions of gasoline anddiesel endanger the environment and the people, is tantamount to neglect in theperformance of a duty which the law enjoins.

Castly, petitioners aver that other than the writ applied for, they have no otherplain, speedy and ade6uate remedy in the ordinary course of law. etitioners insistthat the writ in fact should be issued pursuant to the very same Section =, /ule +?of the /evised /ules of %ourt that the Solicitor eneral invoes.

In their emorandum, petitioners phrase the issues before us as follows8

I. J3#$3#/ / &$ $3# #$I$I/S 35H# $3# #/S&5CI$N $ */I&$3# /#S#&$ 5%$I&

II. J3#$3#/ / &$ $3# /#S#&$ 5%$I& IS SM/$#4 *N C5J

III. J3#$3#/ / &$ $3# /#S&4#&$ IS $3# 5#&%N /#S&SI*C# $IC##&$ $3# SM#S$#4 5C$#/&5$IH# F /#RMI/I& M*CI% M$ICI$NH#3I%C#S $ MS# %/#SS#4 &5$M/5C 5S %&

IH. J3#$3#/ / &$ $3# /#S&4#&$ %5& *# %#CC#4 $ /#RMI/#M*CI% M$ICI$N H#3I%C#S $ MS# %/#SS#4 &5$M/5C 5S $3/M3 5J/I$ F 5&45MSy put, the issues are two-fold. First, 4o petitioners have legal personality tobring this petition before usK Second, Should mandamus issue against respondentsto compel MHs to use %& as alternative fuelK

5ccording to petitioners, Section :+,


34/68

of the 4$% is limited to implementing the emission standards set forth in /ep. 5ct&o. B)@' and the said law only goes as far as setting the ma7imum limit for theemission of vehicles, but it does not recogni2e %& as alternative engine fuel. $heSolicitor eneral avers that the petition should be addressed to %ongress for it tocome up with a policy that would compel the use of %& as alternative fuel.

atently, this %ourt is being ased to resolve issues that are not only procedural.etitioners challenge this %ourt to decide if what petitioners propose could be donethrough a less circuitous, speedy and unchartered course in an issue that %hief

0ustice 3ilario . 4avide, 0r. in hisponencia in the Oposa case,


35/68

to perform the act re6uired. It never issues in doubtful cases. Jhile itmay not be necessary that the duty be absolutely e7pressed, it musthowever, be clear. $he writ will not issue to compel an oEcial to doanything which is not his duty to do or which is his duty not to do, orgive to the applicant anything to which he is not entitled by law. $hewrit neither confers powers nor imposes duties. It is simply a command

to e7ercise a power already possessed and to perform a duty alreadyimposed. #mphasis supplied.

In this petition the legal right which is sought to be recogni2ed and enforced hingeson a constitutional and a statutory policy already articulated in operationalterms, e.).in /ep. 5ct &o. B)@', the hilippine %lean 5ir 5ct of :'''. aragraph a,Section


36/68

which has the potential to produce substantially lower pollutants; and thealampaya as-to-ower roject as representing the beginning of the natural gasindustry of the hilippines. aragraph :.


37/68

It is the rm belief of this %ourt that in this case, it is timely to reaErm the premiumwe have placed on the protection of the environment in the landmar caseof Oposa.Net, as serious as the statistics are on air pollution, with the present fuelsdeemed to7ic as they are to the environment, as fatal as these pollutants are to thehealth of the citi2ens, and urgently re6uiring resort to drastic measures to reduceair pollutants emitted by motor vehicles, we must admit in particular that

petitioners are unable to pinpoint the law that imposes an indubitable legal duty onrespondents that will justify a grant of the writ of mandamus compelling the use of%& for public utility vehicles. It appears to us that more properly, the legislatureshould provide rst the specic statutory remedy to the comple7 environmentalproblems bared by herein petitioners before any judicial recourse by mandamus istaen.

2-EREFORE, the petition for the issuance of a writ of mandamusis *ISISSE* for lac of merit.

SO OR*ERE*.

Carpio, $orales, Tin)a, and 6elasco, -r., --.,concur


FI/S$ 4IHISI&

G.R. No. 1;0; ar&


38/68

rdinance &o. B(


39/68

%5&I#S in the andacan $erminals shall be limited to the common andintegrated areasDfacilities. 5 separate agreement covering the commercial andoperational terms and conditions of the joint operations, shall be entered into by theIC %5&I#S.

S$"on 3.- $he development and maintenance of the safety and green bu1er

2ones mentioned therein, which shall be taen from the properties of the IC%5&I#S and not from the surrounding communities, shall be the soleresponsibility of the IC %5&I#S.

$he %ity of anila and the 4#, on the other hand, committed to do the following8

S$"on 1. - $he %ity ayor shall endorse to the %ity %ouncil this M for itsappropriate action with the view of implementing the spirit and intent thereof.

S$"on .- $he %ity ayor and the 4# shall, consistent with the spirit and intentof this M, enable the IC %5&I#S to continuously operate in compliance with

legal re6uirements, within the limited area resulting from the joint operations andthe scale down program.

S$"on 3.- $he 4# and the %ity ayor shall monitor the IC %5&I#SXcompliance with the provisions of this M.

S$"on :.- $he %I$N F 5&IC5 and the national government shall protect thesafety bu1er and green 2ones and shall e7ert all e1orts at preventing futureoccupation or encroachment into these areas by illegal settlers and otherunauthori2ed parties.

$he San))nian) "anln)sodratied the M in /esolution &o. ').)In the same

resolution, the San))niandeclared that the M was e1ective only for a period ofsi7 months starting 0uly


40/68

etitioners contend that respondent has the mandatory legal duty, under Section@?? b


41/68

$hese oEcers cannot refuse to perform their duty on the ground of an alleged invalidity of the statute imposing the duty. $he reason for this is

obvious. It might seriously hinder the transaction of public business if these oEcers were to be permitted in all cases to 6uestion the

constitutionality of statutes and ordinances imposing duties upon them and which have not judicially been declared unconstitutional. Ecers of

the government from the highest to the lowest are creatures of the law and are bound to obey it.


42/68

C#&5/4-4# %5S$/, and- versus - */I&,--.)ON)ERNE* RESI*ENTS OFANILA (A, r#rsn$d and

Co"nd %y *I+INA +. ILAS,SA(INIANO AL(ARRA)IN,

ANUEL SANTOS, JR., *INA-*ELA !EA, !AUL *ENNIS/UINTERO, A. +I)TORIALLENOS, *ONNA )ALO'A,FATIA /UITAIN, +ENI)ESEGARRA, FRIT'IE TANGIA,SARA- JOELLE LINTAG,-ANNI(AL AUGUSTUS (O(IS,FELION SANTIAGUEL, andromulgated8

JAIE AGUSTIN R. O!OSA,/espondents. 4ecember :B,


43/68

5t the core of the case is the anila *ay, a place with a proud historic past,

once brimming with marine life and, for so many decades in the past, a spot for

di1erent contact recreation activities, but now a dirty and slowly dying e7panse

mainly because of the abject oEcial indi1erence of people and institutions that

could have otherwise made a di1erence.

$his case started when, on 0anuary


44/68

Inter alia, respondents, as plainti1s a *o, prayed that petitioners be ordered

to clean the anila *ay and submit to the /$% a concerted concrete plan of action

for the purpose.

$he trial of the case started o1 with a hearing at the anila Nacht %lub

followed by an ocular inspection of the anila *ay. /enato $. %ru2, the %hief of the

Jater Ruality anagement Section, #nvironmental anagement *ureau,

4epartment of #nvironment and &atural /esources 4#&/, testifying for

petitioners, stated that water samples collected from di1erent beaches around the

anila *ay showed that the amount of fecal coliform content ranged from ?(,((( to

B(,((( most probable number &Dml when what 4#&/ 5dministrative rder &o.

=@-'( prescribed as a safe level for bathing and other forms of contact recreationalactivities, or the S* level, is one not e7ceeding


45/68

4efendant JSS is directed to install, operate and maintain ade6uateOsewerageP treatment facilities in strategic places under its jurisdictionand increase their capacities.4efendant CJM5, to see to it that the water districts under its wings,provide, construct and operate sewage facilities for the proper disposal

of waste.4efendant 4#&/, which is the lead agency in cleaning up anila *ay,to install, operate and maintain waste facilities to rid the bay of to7icand ha2ardous substances.4efendant 5, to prevent and also to treat the discharge not only ofship-generated wastes but also of other solid and li6uid wastes fromdocing vessels that contribute to the pollution of the bay.4efendant 45, to establish, operate and maintain an ade6uate andappropriate sanitary landll andDor ade6uate solid waste and li6uid

disposal as well as other alternative garbage disposal system such asre-use or recycling of wastes.4efendant 45, through the *ureau of Fisheries and 56uatic /esources,to revitali2e the marine life in anila *ay and restoc its waters withindigenous sh and other a6uatic animals.4efendant 4*, to provide and set aside an ade6uate budget solelyfor the purpose of cleaning up and rehabilitation of anila *ay.4efendant 4J3, to remove and demolish structures and othernuisances that obstruct the free >ow of waters to the bay. $hese

nuisances discharge solid and li6uid wastes which eventually end upin anila *ay. 5s the construction and engineering arm of thegovernment, 4J3 is ordered to actively participate in removingdebris, such as carcass of sunen vessels, and other non-biodegradable garbage in the bay.4efendant 43, to closely supervise and monitor the operations ofseptic and sludge companies and re6uire them to have proper facilitiesfor the treatment and disposal of fecal sludge and sewage coming fromseptic tans.4efendant 4#%S, to inculcate in the minds and hearts of the peoplethrough education the importance of preserving and protecting theenvironment.4efendant hilippine %oast uard and the & aritime roup, toprotect at all costs the anila *ay from all forms of illegal shing.&o pronouncement as to damages and costs.


46/68

S /4#/#4.

$he JSS, Cocal Jater Mtilities 5dministration CJM5, and 5 led before the

%ourt of 5ppeals %5 individual &otices of 5ppeal which were eventually

consolidated and doceted as %5-./. %H &o. )+?


47/68

OS#%$I&SP :) 5&4


48/68

choosing where a landll should be located by undertaing feasibility studies and

cost estimates, all of which entail the e7ercise of discretion.

/espondents, on the other hand, counter that the statutory command is clear

and that petitioners duty to comply with and act according to the clear mandate of

the law does not re6uire the e7ercise of discretion. 5ccording to respondents,

petitioners, the 45 in particular, are without discretion, for e7ample, to choose

which bodies of water they are to clean up, or which discharge or spill they are to

contain. *y the same toen, respondents maintain that petitioners are bereft of

discretion on whether or not to alleviate the problem of solid and li6uid waste

disposal; in other words, it is the 45s ministerial duty to attend to such services.

Je agree with respondents.

First o1, we wish to state that petitioners obligation to perform their duties as

dened by law, on one hand, and how they are to carry out such duties, on the

other, are two di1erent concepts. Jhile the implementation of the 45s

mandated tass may entail a decision-maing process, the enforcement of the law

or the very act of doing what the law e7acts to be done is ministerial in nature and

may be compelled by mandamus. Je said so in Social -stice Societ# %. Atien(aO::Pin

which the %ourt directed the %ity ofanila to enforce, as a matter of ministerial

duty, its rdinance &o. B(


49/68

$he 45 is duty-bound to comply with Sec. @: of the #cological Solid Jaste

anagement 5ct /5 '((= which prescribes the minimum criteria for the

establishment of sanitary landlls and Sec. @< which provides the minimum

operating re6uirements that each site operator shall maintain in the operation of a

sanitary landll. %omplementing Sec. @: are Secs. =+ and =) of /5 '((=,

O:


50/68

and other pertinent information on pollution, and OtaesP measures, using available

methods and technologies, to prevent and abate such pollution.

$he 4#&/, under /5 '


51/68

$he completion of the said action plan and even the implementation of some of its

phases should more than ever prod the concerned agencies to fast trac what are

assigned them under e7isting laws.


52/68

? $he 4J3, as the engineering and construction arm of the national government,

is tased under # ood control, drainage and sewerage system.

n 0uly ', ood control services. $he mandate of the 45 and

4J3 on >ood control and drainage services shall include the removal of

structures, constructions, and encroachments built along rivers, waterways,

and esterosdrainages in violation of /5 )


53/68

and sewers and passing therefrom in a li6uid state into tributary of anynavigable water from which the same shall >oat or be washed intosuch navigable water; and

c. deposit 7 7 7 material of any ind in any place on the ban of anynavigable water or on the ban of any tributary of any navigable water,

where the same shall be liable to be washed into such navigable water,either by ordinary or high tides, or by storms or >oods, or otherwise,whereby navigation shall or may be impeded or obstructed or increasethe level of pollution of such water.

) Jhen /5 +')? or the 4epartment of the Interior and Cocal overnment

4IC 5ct of :''( was signed into law on 4ecember :=, :''(, the & aritime

roup was tased to perform all police functions over the hilippine territorial

waters and rivers. Mnder Sec. B+, /5 +')?, the police functions of the % shall be

taen over by the & when the latter ac6uires the capability to perform such

functions. Since the & aritime roup has not yet attained the capability to

assume and perform the police functions of % over marine pollution, the % and

& aritime roup shall coordinate with regard to the enforcement of laws, rules,

and regulations governing marine pollution within the territorial waters of

the hilippines. $his was made clear in Sec. :


54/68

Castly, as a member of the International arine rgani2ation and a signatory

to the International %onvention for the revention of ollution from Ships, as

amended by 5/C )=D)B,Oood-prone

areas, establishment or operation of open dumps as enjoined in /5 '((=, and

operation of waste management facilities without an environmental compliance

certicate.

Mnder Sec.


55/68

constructions, and other encroachments built in violation of /5 )


56/68

ne of the countrys development objectives is enshrined in /5 '


57/68

Section


58/68

would have to be read alongside the succeeding Sec. +


59/68

worsening water 6uality of the anila *ay. 5ssuming, respondents assert, that

petitioners are correct in saying that the cleanup coverage of Sec.


60/68

ranting ar)endothat petitioners position thus described vis--vis the

implementation of Sec.


61/68

directives with the end in view of ensuring that its decision would not be set to

naught by administrative inaction or indi1erence. In India, the doctrine of continuing

mandamus was used to enforce directives of the court to clean up the length of

the anges /iver from industrial and municipal pollution.O=)P

$he %ourt can tae judicial notice of the presence of shanties and other

unauthori2ed structures which do not have septic tans along the asig-ariina-

San 0uan /ivers, the &ational %apital /egion &%/ araa6ue-Lapote, Cas ias

/ivers, the &avotas-alabon-$ullahan-$enejeros /ivers, the eycuayan-arilao-

bando *ulacan /ivers, the $alisay *ataan /iver, the Imus %avite /iver, the

Caguna 4e *ay, and other minor rivers and connecting waterways, river bans,

and esteroswhich discharge their waters, with all the accompanying lth, dirt, and

garbage, into the major rivers and eventually the anila *ay. If there is one factor

responsible for the pollution of the major river systems and the anila *ay, theseunauthori2ed structures would be on top of the list. 5nd if the issue of illegal or

unauthori2ed structures is not seriously addressed with sustained resolve, then

practically all e1orts to cleanse these important bodies of water would be for

naught. $he 4#&/ Secretary said as much.O=BP

iving urgent dimension to the necessity of removing these illegal structures is 5rt.

?: of 4 :(+) or the Jater %ode,O='Pwhich prohibits the building of structures within

a given length along bans of rivers and other waterways. 5rt. ?: reads8

T& %an7s o4 r"5rs and s$rams and $& s&ors o4 $&

sas and laes $&rou6&ou$ $&"r n$"r ln6$& and "$&"n a ono4 $&r @3 m$rs "n ur%an aras, twenty


62/68

up, within a reasonable period, the necessary waste water treatment facilities and

infrastructure to prevent their industrial discharge, including their sewage waters,

from >owing into the asig /iver, other major rivers, and connecting waterways.

5fter such period, non-complying establishments shall be shut down or ased to

transfer their operations.

5t this juncture, and if only to dramati2e the urgency of the need for petitioners-

agencies to comply with their statutory tass, we cite the 5sian 4evelopment *an-

commissioned study on the garbage problem in etro anila, the results of which

are embodied in the The Garba)e 2oo1. 5s there reported, the garbage crisis in the

metropolitan area is as alarming as it is shocing. Some highlights of the report8:. 5s early as ow along the surface and seep into the earth and poisonthe surface and groundwater that are used for drining, a6uatic life,and the environment.


63/68

/5 '((= too e1ect on February :?,


64/68

$he era of delays, procrastination, and ad hocmeasures is over. etitioners

must transcend their limitations, real or imaginary, and bucle down to wor before

the problem at hand becomes unmanageable. $hus, we must reiterate that di1erent

government agencies and instrumentalities cannot shir from their mandates; they

must perform their basic functions in cleaning up and rehabilitating the anila *ay.

Je are disturbed by petitioners hiding behind two untenable claims8 : that there

ought to be a specic pollution incident before they are re6uired to act; and


65/68

: ursuant to Sec. @ of # :'


66/68

@ ursuant to /5 '


67/68

*ulacan /ivers, the $alisay *ataan /iver, the Imus %avite /iver, the Caguna 4e

*ay, and other rivers, connecting waterways, and esterosthat discharge

wastewater into the anila *ay.

In addition, the 45 is ordered to establish, operate, and maintain a sanitary

landll, as prescribed by /5 '((=, within a period of one : year from nality of this

4ecision.n matters within its territorial jurisdiction and in connection with the

discharge of its duties on the maintenance of sanitary landlls and lie

undertaings, it is also ordered to cause the apprehension and ling of the

appropriate criminal cases against violators of the respective penal provisions of /5

'((=,O@)PSec.


68/68

to the %ourt a 6uarterly progressive report of the activities undertaen in

accordance with this 4ecision.

&o costs.

SO OR*ERE*.

consti provisions right to health and environment

Documents