Constitutional Law I

Atty. David Yap

1JD-C - 2015
Group 2
GROUP 2

Members:
Kristell Ferrer
Zhyra Sidlacan
Alexander Lucinario
Miles Del Rosario
Rance Bella
Professor:
Atty. David Yap

Content

Laguna Lake Development Authority vs. Court of Appeals...................................................2

Springer vs. Government of the Philippine Islands................................................................5
Guide Questions........................................................................................................................ 6

Constitutional Law I
Atty. David Yap

1JD-C - 2015
Group 2

Laguna Lake Development Authority vs. Court of Appeals

G.R.No. 120865-71
December 7, 1995

FACTS:
Towards environmental protection and ecology, navigational safety, and sustainable
development, Republic Act 4850 of 1966 created the Laguna Lake Development Authority
(LLDA). This Governmental Agency was created to protect and help develop the Laguna Lake
and the areas surrounding it.
1975 Presidential Decree 813 of President Ferdinand Marcos amended the RA because of the
fast growing population and rapid expansion of Metropolitan Manila. It was a concern on the
part of the Government and the general public, over the environmental impact on the quality of
water and ecology of the lake.
1983 Executive order 927 defined the function and power of LLDA, and stating the specified
areas they cover.
1993 In pursuant of RA 4850, amended by PD 813 and EO 927, President Fidel V. Ramos
gave instruction for compliance of the general public.
It was stated that the fishpens which were not registered, nor carried a permit as of March 31 st
1993 were to be dismantled or would be demolished, and be considered illegally situated.
Owners were to be penalized by imprisonment for not more than 3 years, and a fine of not more
than 5,000.00 Pesos.
After 1 month, the LLDA sent notices (which were to be carried out in 10 days) to the concerned
fishpen owners.
The fishpen owners filed cases of injunction against LLDA in various RTCs.
LLDA then filed a motion to dismiss the cases due to jurisdictional grounds. The motion to
dismiss was denied, and the court referred consolidation of cases to the CA.
CA then dismissed the LLDAs appeal in grounds of:
(A) LLDA is not among those quasi-judicial agencies of government whose decision or order are
appealable only to the Court of Appeals;
(B) the LLDA charter does vest LLDA with quasi-judicial functions insofar as fishpens are
concerned;
(C) the provisions of the LLDA charter insofar as fishing privileges in Laguna de Bay are
concerned had been repealed by the Local Government Code of 1991;
(D) in view of the aforesaid repeal, the power to grant permits devolved to and is now vested
with their respective local government units concerned.
LLDA was not satisfied with the CAs decision, which led them to return and charge the errors
stating the provisions of 1996: RA 4850, 1975 PD813, and 1983 EO927.

Constitutional Law I
Atty. David Yap

1JD-C - 2015
Group 2

ISSUE(S):
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. LLDA has jurisdiction over such matters because the charter of the LLDA prevails over the
Local Government Code of 1991. The said charter constitutes a special law, while the latter is a
general law. It is basic in statutory construction that the enactment of a later legislation which is
a general law, cannot be construed to have repealed a special law. The special law is to be
taken as an exception to the general law in the absence of special circumstances forcing a
contrary conclusion.
In addition, the charter of the LLDA embodies a valid exercise of police power for the purpose of
protecting and developing the Laguna Lake region, as opposed to the Local Government Code,
which grants powers to municipalities to issue fishing permits for revenue purposes.
Thus it has to be concluded that the charter of the LLDA should prevail over the Local
Government Code 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 therein and the authority
to exercise such powers as are by its charter vested on it.

Constitutional Law I
Atty. David Yap

1JD-C - 2015
Group 2

ADDITIONAL NOTES:
Republic Act No. 7160

October 10, 1991

Section 149. Fishery Rentals, Fees and Charges. (a) Municipalities shall have the exclusive authority to grant fishery privileges in the
municipal waters and impose rentals, fees or charges therefor in accordance with the
provisions of this Section.
(b) The sangguniang bayan may:
(1) Grant fishery privileges to erect fish corrals, oysters, mussels or other aquatic
beds or bangus fry areas, within a definite zone of the municipal waters, as
determined by it: Provided, however, That duly registered organizations and
cooperatives of marginal fishermen shall have the preferential right to such
fishery privileges: Provided, further, That the sangguniang bayan may require a
public bidding in conformity with and pursuant to an ordinance for the grant of
such privileges: Provided, finally, That in the absence of such organizations and
cooperatives or their failure to exercise their preferential right, other parties may
participate in the public bidding in conformity with the above cited procedure.
(2) Grant the privilege to gather, take or catch bangus fry, prawn fry or kawagkawag or fry of other species and fish from the municipal waters by nets, traps or
other fishing gears to marginal fishermen free of any rental, fee, charge or any
other imposition whatsoever.
(3) Issue licenses for the operation of fishing vessels of three (3) tons or less for
which purpose the sangguniang bayan shall promulgate rules and regulations
regarding the issuances of such licenses to qualified applicants under existing
laws.
Provided, however, That the sanggunian concerned shall, by appropriate
ordinance, penalize the use of explosives, noxious or poisonous substances,
electricity, muro-ami, and other deleterious methods of fishing and prescribe a
criminal penalty therefor in accordance with the provisions of this Code:
Provided, finally, That the sanggunian concerned shall have the authority to
prosecute any violation of the provisions of applicable fishery laws. 1

1 http://www.lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra1991/ra_7160_1991.html

Constitutional Law I
Atty. David Yap

1JD-C - 2015
Group 2

Springer vs. Government of the Philippine Islands

G.R. No. L-26979
April 1, 1927
FACTS:
On Nov. 9, 1926, the Governor- General promulgated Executive Order No. 37 wherein it
declared that the provisions of the statutes passed by the Legislature which was about the
creating of a voting committee or board of control, and enumerating the duties and powers
thereof with respect to certain corporations in which the Philippine Government is the owner of
the stocks, are null and void. It was announced that on account of the invalidity of some portions
of the Acts which were about the voting committee, the Governor-General would exercise
exclusively the duties and powers of the voting committee or board. On Dec. 6, 1926, a special
meeting of the stockholders of the Philippine Mining Corporation was held. The Governor
General, through his representative, declared that he has the sole power to vote the stock of the
Government and he also objected the asserted powers of the Senate President and the
Speaker of the House. The House Speaker and the Senate President voted in favor of the
defendants Milton Springer, Dalmacio Costas and Anselmo Hilario who were not favored by the
Governor-General. After the stockholders meeting the chairman delacred the defendants as
directors of the National Coal Company. A quo warranto was brought in the name of the
Government of the Philippine Islands against the three defendants who were elected to their
positions by the House Speaker and Senate President. The plaintiff questions the validity of Act.
Nos. 2705 and 2882 which created the voting committee.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Senate President together with the House Speaker can elect directors of the
National Coal Company.
HELD:
No, only the Governor-General has the power to appoint members or directors of the National
Coal Company. The court held that that under the system of government of delegated powers,
under which delegation legislative power vests in the Philippine Legislature and executive power
vests in the Governor-General, and under which delegation a general power of appointment
resides in the Governor-General and a specified power of appointment resides in the Philippine
Legislature, the latter cannot directly or indirectly perform functions of an executive nature
through the designation of its presiding officers as majority members of a body which has
executive functions.

Constitutional Law I
Atty. David Yap

1JD-C - 2015
Group 2

GUIDE QUESTIONS
LLDA VS COURT OF APPEALS
1. Can a government agency implement ecological protection measure in the area of local
government units who are objecting to such?
LLDA has jurisdiction over such matters because the charter of the LLDA prevails over the Local
Government Code of 1991. The said charter constitutes a special law. The special law is to be
taken as an exemption to the general law in the absence of special circumstances forcing a
contrary conclusion.
In addition, the charter of the LLDA embodies a valid exercise of police power for the purpose of
protecting and developing the Laguna Lake region, as opposed to the Local Government Code,
which grants powers to municipalities to issue fishing permits for revenue purposes.
*Art II Sec. 16. The State shall protect and advance the right of the people to a balanced and
healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature.

GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS VS SPRINGER

1. What is the theory of separation of powers?
The legislature has no authority to execute or construe the law, the executive has no authority
to make or construe the law, and the judiciary has no power to make or execute the law. ( US
vs Ang Tang Hong)
2. What are the powers separated?
Executive, Legislative, and Judicial powers
3. What is the purpose of separation of powers?
The doctrine of separation of powers is intended to prevent a concentration of authority in one
person or group of persons that might lead to an irreversible error or abuse in its exercise.
(Pangasinan Transportation Co. vs. CA)
4. What is the principle of checks and balances?
Allows one department to resist encroachments upon its prerogatives or to rectify mistakes or
excesses committed by the other departments.( Cruz & Cruz p.135)