Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
COURT OF APPEALS
December 7, 1995
Facts:
The Laguna Lake Development Authority (LLDA) was created through RA
No. 4850 in order to execute the policy towards environmental protection and
sustainable development so as to accelerate the development and balanced
growth of the Laguna Lake area and the surrounding provinces and towns.
PD No. 813 amended certain sections of RA 4850 since water quality studies
have shown that the lake will deteriorate further if steps are not taken to
check
the
same.
EO 927 further defined and enlarged the functions and powers of the LLDA
and enumerated the towns, cities and provinces encompassed by the term
Laguna
de
Bay
Region.
Upon implementation of RA 7160 (Local Government Code of 1991), the
municipalities assumed exclusive jurisdiction & authority to issue fishing
privileges within their municipal waters since Sec.149 thereof provides:
Municipal corporations shall have the authority to grant fishery privileges in
the municipal waters and impose rental fees or charges therefore
Big fishpen operators took advantage of the occasion to establish fishpens &
fish
cages
to
the
consternation
of
the
LLDA.
The implementation of separate independent policies in fish cages & fish pen
operation and the indiscriminate grant of fishpen permits by the lakeshore
municipalities have saturated the lake with fishpens, thereby aggravating the
current environmental problems and ecological stress of Laguna Lake.
The LLDA then served notice to the general public that (1) fishpens, cages &
other aqua-culture structures unregistered with the LLDA as of March 31,
1993 are declared illegal; (2) those declared illegal shall be subject to
demolition by the Presidential Task Force for Illegal Fishpen and Illegal
Fishing; and (3) owners of those declared illegal shall be criminally charged
with violation of Sec.39-A of RA 4850 as amended by PD 813.
A month later, the LLDA sent notices advising the owners of the illegally
constructed fishpens, fishcages and other aqua-culture structures advising
them to dismantle their respective structures otherwise demolition shall be
effected.
Issues:
1.Which agency of the government the LLDA or the towns and
municipalities comprising the region should exercise jurisdiction over the
Laguna lake and its environs insofar as the issuance of permits for fishery
privileges
is
concerned?
2. Whether the LLDA is a quasi-judicial agency?
Held:
1. Sec.4(k) of the charter of the LLDA, RA 4850, the provisions of PD
813,and Sec.2 of EO No.927, specifically provide that the LLDA shall have
exclusive jurisdiction to issue permits for the use of all surface water for any
projects or activities in or affecting the said region. On the other hand, RA
7160 has granted to the municipalities the exclusive authority to grant fishery
privileges on municipal waters. The provisions of RA 7160 do not necessarily
repeal the laws creating the LLDA and granting the latter water rights
authority over Laguna de Bay and the lake region.
Where there is a conflict between a general law and a special statute, latter
should prevail since it evinces the legislative intent more clearly than the
general statute.The special law is to be taken as an exception to the general
law in the absence of special circumstances forcing a contrary conclusion.
Implied repeals are not favored and, as much as possible, effect must be
given to all enactments of the legislature. A special law cannot be repealed,
amended or altered by a subsequent general law by mere implication.
The power of LGUs to issue fishing privileges was granted for revenue
purposes. On the other hand, the power of the LLDA to grant permits for
fishpens, fish cages, and other aqua-culture structures is for the purpose of
effectively regulating & monitoring activities in the Laguna de Bay region and
for lake control and management. It partakes of the nature of police
power which is the most pervasive, least limitable and most demanding of all
state powers including the power of taxation. Accordingly, the charter of the
LLDA which embodies a valid exercise of police power should prevail over
the LGC of 1991 on matters affecting Laguna de Bay.
2. The LLDA has express powers as a regulatory and quasi-judicial body in
respect to pollution cases with authority to issue a cease and desist order
and on matters affecting the construction of illegal fishpens, fish cages and
other aqua-culture structures in Laguna de Bay.
Sec.149 of RA 7160 has not repealed the provisions of the charter of the
LLDA, RA 4850, as amended. Thus, the LLDA has the exclusive jurisdiction
to issue permits for enjoyment of fishery privileges in Laguna de Bay to the
exclusion of municipalities situated thereinand the authority to exercise such
powers as are by its charter vested on it.
OPOSA V. FACTORAN
Facts:
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
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.
Facts:
The petitioners, all minors duly represented and joined by their respective
parents, filed a petition to cancel all existing timber license agreements
(TLAs) in the country and to cease and desist from receiving, accepting,
processing, renewing or approving new timber license agreements. This
case is filed not only on the appellants right as taxpayers, but they are also
suing in behalf of succeeding generations based on the concept of
intergenerational responsibility in so far as the right to a balanced and
healthful
ecology
is
concerned.
Together with the Philippine Ecological Network, Inc. (PENI), the petitioners
presented scientific evidence that deforestation have resulted in a host of
environmental tragedies. One of these is the reduction of the earths capacity
to process carbon dioxide, otherwise known as the greenhouse effect.
Continued issuance by the defendant of TLAs to cut and deforest the
remaining forest stands will work great damage and irreparable injury to the
plaintiffs. Appellants have exhausted all administrative remedies with the
defendants office regarding the plea to cancel the said TLAs. The defendant,
however,
fails
and
refuses
to
cancel
existing
TLAs.
Issues:
Whether or not the petitioners have legal standing on the said case
Admitting that all facts presented are true, whether or not the court can
render a valid judgement in accordance to the prayer of the complaints
Whether or not the TLAs may be revoked despite the respondents standing
that these cancellation of these TLAs are against the non-impairment clause
of
the
Constitution
Held:
The petitioners have locus standi (legal standing) on the case as a taxpayers
(class) suit. The subject matter of complaint is of common and general
interest to all the citizens of the Philippines. The court found difficulty in ruling
that the appellants can, for themselves, and for others file a class suit.
The right of the petitioners to a balanced and healthful ecology has been
clearly stated. 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. The granting of the TLAs, as the petitioners claim to be done
with grave abuse of discretion, violated their right to a balanced and healthful
ecology hence, the full protection thereof requires that no TLAs should be
renewed or granted. The appellants have also submitted a document with the
sub-header CAUSE OF ACTION which is adequate enough to show, prima
facie, the violation of their rights. On this basis, these actions must therefore
be
granted,
wholly
or
partially.
Despite the Constitutions non-impairment clause, TLAs are not contracts,
rather licenses; thus, the said clause cannot be invoked. Even if these are
protected by the said clause, these can be revoked if the public interest so
required as stated in Section 20 of the Forestry Reform Code (P.D. No. 705).
Furthermore, Section 16 of Article II of the 1987 Constitution explicitly
provides that: The State shall protect the right of the people to a balanced
and healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature. The
right to a balanced and healthful ecology carries with it the correlative duty to
refrain from impairing the government. The said right is also clear as the
DENRs duty under its mandate and by virtue of its powers and functions
under Executive Order No. 192 and the Administrative Code of 1987 to
protect and advance the said right.Needless to say, all licenses may thus be
revoked or rescinded. It is not a contract, property or property right protected
by the due process clause of the Constitution.
Facts:
Principal petitioners, are all minors duly represented and joined by their
respective parents. Impleaded as an additional plaintiff is the Philippine
Ecological Network, Inc. (PENI), a domestic, non-stock and non-profit
corporation organized for the purpose of, inter alia, engaging in concerted
action geared for the protection of our environment and natural resources.
The original defendant was the Honorable Fulgencio S. Factoran, Jr., then
Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR).
His substitution in this petition by the new Secretary, the Honorable Angel C.
Alcala, was subsequently ordered upon proper motion by the petitioners. The
Anent the invocation by the respondent Judge of the Constitution's nonimpairment clause, petitioners maintain that the same does not apply in this
case because TLAs are not contracts. They likewise submit that even if TLAs
may be considered protected by the said clause, it is well settled that they
may still be revoked by the State when the public interest so requires.
Issues:
duty under its mandate and by virtue of its powers and functions under E.O.
No. 192 and the Administrative Code of 1987 to protect and advance the said
right.
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.
Petitioners maintain that the granting of the TLAs, which they claim was done
with grave abuse of discretion, violated their right to a balanced and healthful
ecology; hence, the full protection thereof requires that no further TLAs
should
be
renewed
or
granted.
It is settled in this jurisdiction that in a motion to dismiss based on the ground
that the complaint fails to state a cause of action; the question submitted to
the court for resolution involves the sufficiency of the facts alleged in the
complaint itself. No other matter should be considered; furthermore, the truth
of falsity of the said allegations is beside the point for the truth thereof is
deemed hypothetically admitted. Policy formulation or determination by the
executive or legislative branches of Government is not squarely put in issue.
What is principally involved is the enforcement of a right vis-a-vis policies
already formulated and expressed in legislation. It must, nonetheless, be
emphasized that the political question doctrine is no longer, the
insurmountable obstacle to the exercise of judicial power or the impenetrable
shield that protects executive and legislative actions from judicial inquiry or
review.
In the second place, even if it is to be assumed that the same are contracts,
the instant case does not involve a law or even an executive issuance
declaring the cancellation or modification of existing timber licenses. Hence,
the non-impairment clause cannot as yet be invoked. Nevertheless, granting
further that a law has actually been passed mandating cancellations or
modifications, the same cannot still be stigmatized as a violation of the nonimpairment clause. This is because by its very nature and purpose, such as
law could have only been passed in the exercise of the police power of the
state for the purpose of advancing the right of the people to a balanced and
healthful ecology, promoting their health and enhancing the general welfare.
Finally, it is difficult to imagine, as the trial court did, how the non-impairment
clause could apply with respect to the prayer to enjoin the respondent
Secretary from receiving, accepting, processing, renewing or approving new
timber licenses for, save in cases of renewal, no contract would have as of
yet existed in the other instances. Moreover, with respect to renewal, the
holder
is
not
entitled
to
it
as
a
matter
of
right.
Petition is hereby GRANTED, and the challenged Order of respondent Judge
of 18 July 1991 dismissing Civil Case No. 90-777 is hereby set aside. The
petitioners may therefore amend their complaint to implead as defendants
the holders or grantees of the questioned timber license agreements.
The RTC Judge sustained the motion to dismiss, further ruling that granting
of the relief prayed for would result in the impairment of contracts which is
prohibited by the Constitution.
Plaintiffs (petitioners) thus filed the instant special civil action for certiorari
and asked the court to rescind and set aside the dismissal order on the
ground that the respondent RTC Judge gravely abused his discretion in
dismissing the action.
Second paragraph, Section 1 of Article VIII of the constitution provides for the
expanded jurisdiction vested upon the Supreme Court. It allows the Court to
rule upon even on the wisdom of the decision of the Executive and
Legislature and to declare their acts as invalid for lack or excess of
jurisdiction because it is tainted with grave abuse of discretion.
Third Issue: Violation of the non-impairment clause.
Issues:
(1) Whether or not the plaintiffs have a cause of action.
(2) Whether or not the complaint raises a political issue.
(3) Whether or not the original prayer of the plaintiffs result in the impairment
of contracts.
Ruling:
First Issue: Cause of Action.
The Court held that the Timber License Agreement is an instrument by which
the state regulates the utilization and disposition of forest resources to the
end that public welfare is promoted. It is not a contract within the purview of
the due process clause thus, the non-impairment clause cannot be invoked.
It can be validly withdraw whenever dictated by public interest or public
welfare as in this case. The granting of license does not create irrevocable
rights, neither is it property or property rights.
The instant petition, being impressed with merit, is hereby GRANTED and
the RTC decision is SET ASIDE.
TANO V SOCRATES
GR No. 110249
August 21, 1997
Facts:
The Sangguniang Panlungsod ng Puerto Princesa City enacted
Ordinance N o. 15-92 which took effect on January 1, 1993 entitled:
"AN ORDINANCE BANNING THE SHIPMENT OF ALL LIVE FISH
AND LOBSTER OUTSIDE PUERTO PRINCESA CITY FROM JANUARY
1, 1993 TO JANUARY 1, 1998 AND PROVIDING EXEMPTIONS,
PENALTIES AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES THEREOF.
Issue:
Is the ordinance valid and constitutional?
APPLICABLE LAWS:
Section 2 of Article X I I reads: The State shall protect the nation' s
marine wealth in its archipelagic waters, territorial sea, and exclusive
economic z one, and reserve its use and enjoyment exclusively to Filipino
citizens. The Congress may, by law , allow small-scale utilization of
natural resources by Filipino citizens, as w ell as cooperative fish
farming, with priority to subsistence fishermen and fishworkers in
rivers, lakes, bays, and lagoons.
Sections 2 and 7 of Article XIII provide: Sec. 2. The promotion of social
justice shall include the commitment to create economic opportunities
based on freedom of initiative and self-reliance. x x x x x x x x x Sec. 7. The
State shall protect the rights of subsistence fishermen, especially of local
communities, to the preferential use of the communal marine and fishing
resources, both inland and offshore. It shall provide support to such
fishermen through appropriate technology and research, adequate
financial, production, and marketing assistance, and other services. The
State shall also protect, develop, and conserve such resources. The
protection shall ex tend to offshore fishing grounds of subsistence
fishermen against foreign intrusion. Fishworkers shall receive a just
share from their labor in the utilization of marine and fishing resources.
General Welfare Clause, expressly mentions this right:
SEC. 16. General Welfare.-- Every local government unit shall 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. Within their respective territorial jurisdictions, local government units
shall ensure and support, among other things, the preservation and
enrichment of culture, promote health and safety, enhance the right of the
people to a balanced ecology, encourage and support the development of
appropriate and self-reliant scientific and technological capabilities, improve
public morals, enhance economic prosperity and social justice, promote full
employment among their residents, maintain peace and order, and preserve
the comfort and convenience of their inhabitants. (underscoring supplied).
Ruling:
YES. In light then of the principles of decentralization and devolution
enshrined in the LGC and the powers granted to local government units
under Section 16 (the General Welfare Clause), and under Sections 149, 447
(a) (1) (vi), 458 (a) (1) (vi) and 468 (a) (1) (vi), which unquestionably involve
the exercise of police power, the validity of the questioned Ordinances
cannot be doubted.
Both Ordinances have two principal objectives or purposes:
(1) to establish a closed season for the species of fish or aquatic animals
covered therein for a period of five years, and
(2) to protect the corals of the marine waters of the City of Puerto Princesa
and the Province of Palawan from further destruction due to illegal fishing
activities. It is incorrect to say that the challenged Ordinance of the City of
Puerto Princesa is invalid or unenforceable because it was not approved by
the Secretary of the DENR. If at all, the approval that should be sought would
be that of the Secretary of the Department of Agriculture (not DENR) of
municipal ordinances affecting fishing and fisheries in municipal waters. In
closing, we commend the Sangguniang Panlungsod of the City of Puerto
Princesa and Sangguniang Panlalawigan of the Province of Palawan for
exercising the requisite political will to enact urgently needed legislation to
protect and enhance the marine environment, thereby sharing In the
herculean task of arresting the tide of ecological destruction. We hope that
other local government units shall now be roused from their lethargy and
adopt a more vigilant stand in the battle against the decimation of our legacy
to future generations. At this time, the repercussions of any further delay in
their response may prove disastrous, if not, irreversible.
or to animal and plant life." In the instant case, according to Solar, the
inspection reports before the Board made no finding that Solar's wastewater
discharged
posed
such
a
threat.
Issue:
Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the trial court on the
ground that Solar had been denied due process by the Board.
Held:
The Court found that the Order and Writ of Execution were entirely within the
lawful authority of petitioner Board. Ex parte cease and desist orders are
permitted by law and regulations in situations like here. The relevant pollution
control statute and implementing regulations were enacted and promulgated
in the exercise of that pervasive, sovereign power to protect the safety,
health, and general welfare and comfort of the public, as well as the
protection of plant and animal life, commonly designated as the police power.
It is a constitutional commonplace that the ordinary requirements of
procedural due process yield to the necessities of protecting vital public
interests like those here involved, through the exercise of police power.
Hence, the trial court did not err when it dismissed Solar's petition for
certiorari. It follows that the proper remedy was an appeal from the trial court
to the Court of Appeals, as Solar did in fact appeal. The Court gave due
course on the Petition for Review and the Decision of the Court of Appeals
and its Resolution were set aside. The Order of petitioner Board and the Writ
of Execution, as well as the decision of the trial court were reinstated, without
prejudice to the right of Solar to contest the correctness of the basis of the
Board's Order and Writ of Execution at a public hearing before the Board.
TECHNOLOGY VS CA
193 scra 147
Facts:
Technology Developers Inc. is engaged in manufacturing and exporting
charcoal briquette. On February 16, 1989, they received a letter from
respondent Acting Mayor Pablo Cruz, ordering the full cessation of the
operation of the petitioners plant in Sta. Maria, Bulacan. The letter also
requested the company to show to the office of the mayor some documents,
including the Building permit, mayors permit, and Region III-Pollution of
Environmental and Natural Resources Anti-Pollution Permit.
Since the company failed to comply in bringing the required documents,
respondent Acting Mayor, without notice, caused the padlock of companys
plant premises, effectively causing stoppage of its operation.
Technology Developers then instituted an action for certiorari, prohiition,
mandamus with preliminary injuction against respondents, alleging that the
closure order was issued in grave abuse of discretion. The lower court ruled
against the company. The CA affirmed the lower courts ruling.
Issue:
Whether of not the mayor has authority to order the closure of the plant.
Whether or not the closure order was done with grave abuse of discretion.
Ruling:
YES. No mayor's permit had been secured. While it is true that the matter of
determining whether there is a pollution of the environment that requires
control if not prohibition of the operation of a business is essentially
addressed to the then National Pollution Control Commission of the Ministry
of Human Settlements, now the Environmental Management Bureau of the
Department of Environment and Natural Resources, it must be recognized
that the mayor of a town has as much responsibility to protect its inhabitants
from pollution, and by virture of his police power, he may deny the application
for a permit to operate a business or otherwise close the same unless
appropriate measures are taken to control and/or avoid injury to the health of
the residents of the community from the emissions in the operation of the
business.
The Acting Mayor, in the letter, called the attention of petitioner to the
pollution emitted by the fumes of its plant whose offensive odor "not only
pollute the air in the locality but also affect the health of the residents in the
area," so that petitioner was ordered to stop its operation until further orders
and it was required to bring the following:
Building permit;
Mayor's permit; and
Held:
(1) Sec. 17 does not in any way state that the government agencies
concerned ought to confine themselves to the containment, removal,
and cleaning operations when a specific pollution incident occurs. On the
contrary, Sec. 17 requires them to act even in the absence of a
specific pollution incident, as long as water quality has deteriorated to a
degree where its state will adversely affect its best usage. Section 17 &
20 are of general application and are not for specific pollution incidents only.
The fact that the pollution of the Manila Bay is of such magnitude and
scope that it is well -nigh impossible to draw the line between a
specific and a general pollution incident.
(2) The Cleaning or Rehabilitation of Manila Bay Can be Compelled by
Mandamus. While the implementation of the MMDA's mandated tasks
may entail a decision-making process, the enforcement of the law or the
very act of doing what the law exacts to be done is ministerial in
nature and may be compelled by mandamus. Under what other judicial
discipline describes as continuing mandamus , the Court may, under
extraordinary circumstances, issue directives with the end in view of
ensuring that its decision would not be set to naught by administrative
inaction or indifference.
NOTE: This continuing mandamus is no longer applicable, since this is
institutionalized in the rules of procedure for environmental cases.
20 days Temporary restraining order