POINTERS FOR ENVIRONMENT LAW (Reviewer) PRELIM EXAMS

1. Technical terms in the Forestry Code, Fisheries Code, Wildlife

Act, Water Code, Clean Air Act and Solid Wastes Management
Act.

2. Provision in the reversion of mangroves

Mangroves - a community of intertidal plants including all species
of trees shrubs, vines and herbs found on coasts swamps or
border of swamps.

a. The Philippine Fisheries Code of 1998 RA 8550

Sec. 49. Reversion of all Abandoned, Undeveloped or Underutilized
Fishponds. - The DENR, in coordination with the Department,
LGUs, other concerned agencies and FARMCs shall determine
which abandoned, undeveloped or underutilized fishponds
covered by FLAs can be reverted to their original mangrove state
and after having made such determination shall take all steps
necessary to restore such areas in their original mangroves state.

3. Eastment of salvage Zone

P.D. No. 1067 The Water Code of the Philippines

Act. 51. The banks or rivers and streams and the shores of the
seas and lakes throughout their entire length and within a zone of
three (3) meters in urban areas, twenty (20) meters in agricultural
areas and forty (40) meters in forest areas, along their margins,
are subject to the easement of public use in the interest of
recreation, navigation, flotage, fishing and salvage. No person
shall be allowed to stay in this zone longer than what is necessary
for recreation, navigation, flotage, fishing or salvage or to build
structures of any kind.


4. Statutory of Beneficial Use.

P.D. No. 1067 The Water Code of the Philippines

Art. 18. All water permits granted shall be subject to conditions of
beneficial use, adequate standards of design and construction,
and such other terms and conditions as may be imposed by the
Council.
Such permits shall specify the maximum amount of water which
may be diverted or withdrawn, the maximum rate diversion or
withdrawal, the time or times during the year when water may be
diverted or withdrawn, the points or points of diversion or
location of wells, the place of use, the purpose for which water
may be used and such other requirements the Council deems
desirable.

5. Conversation principles

CONSERVATION AND PROTECTION OF WATERS AND
WATERSHEDS AND RELATED LAND RESOURCES

Art. 66. After due notice and hearing when warranted by
circumstances, minimum stream flows for rivers and streams
and minimum water levels for lakes may be established by the
Council under such conditions as may be necessary for the
protection of the environment, control of pollution, navigation,
prevention of salt damage, and general public use.

Art. 67. Any watershed or any area of land adjacent to any
surface water or overlying any ground water may be declared
by the Department of Natural Resources (DENR) as a protected
area. Rules and regulations may be promulgated by such
Department to prohibit or control such activities by the owners
or occupants thereof within the protected area which may
damage or cause the deterioration of the surface water or
ground water or interfere with the investigation, use, control,
protection, management or administration of such waters.

Art. 68. It shall be the duty of any person in control of a well to
prevent the water from flowing on the surface of the land, or
into any surface water, or any porous stratum underneath the
surface without being beneficially used.

Art. 69. It shall be the duty of any person in control of a well
containing water with minerals or other substances injurious
to man, animals, agriculture, and vegetation to prevent such
waters from flowing on the surface of the land or into any
surface water or into any other aquifer or porous stratum.
Art. 70. No person shall utilize an existing well or pond or
spread waters for recharging subterranean or ground water
supplies without prior permission of the Council.

Art. 71. To promote better water conservation and usage for
irrigation purposes, the merger of irrigation associations and
the appropriation of waters by associations instead of by
individuals shall be encouraged.
No water permit shall be granted to an individual when his
water requirement can be supplied through an irrigation
association.
Art. 72. In the consideration of a proposed water resource
project, due regard shall be given to ecological changes
resulting from the construction of the project in order to
balance the needs of development and the protection of the
environment.
Art. 73. The conservation of fish ad wild life shall receive
proper consideration ad shall be coordinated with other
features of water resources development programs to insure
that fish and wildlife values receive equal attention with other
project purposes.
Art. 74. Swamps and marshes which are owned by the State
and which have a primary value for waterfowl propagation or
other wildlife purposes may be reserved and protected from
drainage operations and development.
Art. 75. No person shall, without prior permission from the
National Pollution Control Commission, build any works that
may produce dangerous or noxious substance or perform any
act which may result in the introduction of sewage, industrial
waste, or any pollutant into any source of water supply.
Water pollution is the impairment of the quality of water
beyond a certain standard. This standard may vary according
to the use of the water and shall be set by the National
Pollution Control Commission.
Art. 76. The establishment of cemeteries and waste disposal
areas that may affect the source of a water supply or a
reservoir for domestic or municipal use shall be subject to the
rules and regulations promulgated by the Department or
Health.

Art. 77. Tailings from mining operations and sediments from
placer mining shall not be dumped into rivers and waterways
without prior permission from the Council upon
recommendation be the National Pollution Control
Commission. Art. 78. The application of agriculture fertilizers
and pesticides may be prohibited or regulated by the National
Pollution Control Commission in areas where such application
may cause pollution of a source of water supply.

6. Anthropocentric causes of Climate Change

Ecocentricism: A philosophy or perspective that places intrinsic
value on all living organisms and their natural environment,
regardless of their perceived usefulness or importance to human
beings.

Anthropocentricism: A philosophy or perspective that sees human
beings as the most important feature of the universe.

7. Citizens suit provision in the Clean Air and Solid Wastes
Management Acts

RA 8749 Philippine Clean Air Act

SEC. 41. Citizen Suits.- For purposes of enforcing the provisions of
this Act or its implementing rules and regulations, any citizen
may file an appropriate civil, criminal or administrative action in
the proper courts against:

(a) Any person who violates or fails to comply with the provisions
of this Act or its implementing rules and regulations; or (b) The
Department or other implementing agencies with respect to
orders, rules and regulations issued inconsistent with this Act;
and/or (c) Any public officer who willfully or grossly neglects the
performance of an act specifically enjoined as a duty by this Act
or its implementing rules and regulations; or abuses his authority
in the performance of his duty; or, in any manner, improperly
performs his duties under this Act or its implementing rules and
regulations: Provided, however, That no suit can be filed until
thirty-day (30) notice has been taken thereon.

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

Within thirty (30) days, the court shall make a determination if
the compliant herein is malicious and/or baseless and shall
accordingly dismiss the action and award attorneys fees and
damages.

ECOLOGICAL SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ACT OF 2000

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

(a) Any person who violates or fails to comply with the provisions
of this Act its implementing rules and regulations; or
(b) The Department or other implementing agencies with respect
to orders, rules and regulations issued inconsistent with this Act;
and/or
(c) Any public officer who willfully or grossly neglects the
performance of an act specifically enjoined as a duty by this Act
or its implementing rules and regulations; or abuses his authority
in the performance of his duty; or, in any many improperly
performs his duties under this Act or its implementing rules and
regulations; Provided, however, That no suit can be filed until
after thirty-day (30) notice has been given to the public officer
and the alleged violator concerned and no appropriate action has
been taken thereon.

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

In the event that the citizen should prevail, the Court shall award
reasonable attorneys fees, moral damages and litigation costs as
appropriate.

8. SLAPP concept in the Clean Air and SWM laws

RA 8749 PHILIPPINE CLEAN AIR ACT OF 1999

SEC. 43. Suits and Strategic Legal Actions Against Public
Participation and the Enforcement of This Act.- Where a suit is
brought against a person who filed an action as provided in Sec.
41 of this Act, or against any person, institution or government
agency that implements this Act, it shall be the duty of the
investigating prosecutor or the court, as the case may be, to
immediately make a determination not exceeding thirty
(30) days whether said legal action has been filed to harass, vex,
exert undue pressure or stifle such legal recourses of the person
complaining of or enforcing the provisions of this Act. Upon
determination thereof, evidence warranting the same, the court
shall dismiss the case and award attorneys fees and
double damages.

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

ECOLOGICAL SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ACT OF 2000

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

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


9. MMDA v Jancom
Date: Jan 30, 2002
Petitioner: MMDA
Respondent: Jancom
Ponente: Melo, J.
Nature: Petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the
Rules of Civil Procedure
Facts of the case: After bidding for a waste management project
with the MMDA, Jancom won a contract for the MMDAs San
Mateo waste management project. A BOT contract for the waste
to energy project was signed on Dec 19, 1997, between Jancom
and the Philippine Government, represented by the Presidential
Task Force on Solid Waste Management through DENR Secretary
Victor Ramos, CORD-NCR chair Dionisio dela Serna, and MMDA
chair Prospero Oreta.

The contract, however, was never signed by President Ramos as it
was too close to the end of his term. He endorsed it to President
Estrada, but Estrada refused to sign it, for two reasons: the
passage of RA 8749, or the Clean Air Act of 1999 and the clamor
of San Mateo residents for the closure of the dumpsite. When
the MMDA published another call for proposals for solid waste
management projects for Metro Manila, Jancom filed a petition
with the Pasig RTC asking the court to declare as void the
resolution of the Greater Metropolitan Manila Solid Waste
Management Committee disregarding the BOT contract with
Jancom, and the call for bids for a new waste management
contract. On May 29, 2000, the lower court decided in favor of
Jancom.

Instead of appealing, the MMDA filed with the Court of Appeals a
petition for certiorari and a TRO. When the CA dismissed the
petition, the MMDA went to the Supreme Court, arguing that the
contract with Jancom was not binding because it was not signed
by the President, the conditions precedent to the contract were
not complied with, and there was no valid notice of award.

The Supreme Court ruled that MMDA should have filed a motion
for appeal instead of for certiorari, because a certiorari would
only apply in cases where there was grave abuse of jurisdiction,
something which the petition did not allege. Correction may be
obtained only by an appeal from the final decision. Since the
decision was not appeal, the Court said it has become final and
gone beyond the reach of any court to modify in any substantive
aspect. Though saying it was unnecessary to discuss the
substantive issues, the court took it up just the same, if only to
put the petitioners mind to rest. The contract with Jancom is
valid: citing Article 1305, 1315 and 1319 of the Civil Code. In
asserting that there was no valid and binding contract, MMDA can
only allege that there was no valid notice of award; the contract
does not bear the signature of the President; the conditions
precedent specified in the contract were not complied with. But
the Court said that the lack of notice was the governments fault;
though the President did not sign, his alter-ego did; and anyway
his signature was only necessary for the effectivity of the contract,
not its perfection; and that the two-month period within which
Jancom should comply with the conditions had not yet started to
run because the contract had not yet taken effect, precisely
because of the absence of the Presidents signature.

HELD: The Court of Appeals did not err when it declared the
existence of a valid and perfected contract between the Republic
of the Philippines and Jancom. The MMDA cannot revoke or
renounce the same without the consent of the other. Although
the contract is a perfected one, it is still ineffective or
unimplementable until and unless it is approved by the
President. Voting: vitug, panganiban, Sandoval Gutierrez
concur. Carpio j: No part, I was former counsel to a foreign
partner of Jancom Environmental Corporation.

Section 11, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution says: The Supreme
Court en banc shall have the power to discipline judges of lower
courts, or order their dismissal by a vote of a majority of the
Members who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues
in the case and voted thereon. Does this mean that all
administrative decisions and penalties may be rendered only by
the Supreme Court en banc?
On February 7, 1989, the Court promulgated Circular No. 2-89
which says: A decision or resolution of a Division of the Court,
when concurred in by a majority of its members who actually took
part in the deliberations on the issues in a case and voted
thereon, and in no case without the concurrence of at least three
such Members, is a decision or resolution of the Supreme Court
(Sec 4 (3), Article VIII, 1987 Constitution.

10. Oposa vs Factoran cases

A taxpayers class suit was initiated by the Philippine Ecological
Network Incorporated (PENI) together with the minors Oposa and
their parents. All were duly represented. They claimed that as
taxpayers they have the right to the full benefit, use and
enjoyment of the natural resources of the countrys rainforests.
They prayed that a judgment be rendered ordering Honorable
Factoran Jr, his agents, representatives and other persons acting
in his behalf to cancel all existing timber license agreements in the
country and cease and desist from receiving, accepting,
processing, renewing or approving new timber license
agreements.

ISSUE: Whether or not petitioners have a cause of action?

HELD: Yes, petitioners have a cause of action. The case at bar is of
common interest to all Filipinos. The right to a balanced and
healthy ecology carries with it the correlative duty to refrain from
impairing the environment. The said right implies the judicious
management of the countrys forests. This right is also the
mandate of the government through DENR. A denial or violation
of that right by the other who has the correlative duty or
obligation to respect or protect the same gives rise to a cause of
action. All licenses may thus be revoked or rescinded by executive
action.