Province of Rizal Vs Executive Secretary

11/18/2016
ProvinceofRizalvsExecSec:129546:December13,2005:J.ChicoNazario:EnBanc:Decision
ENBANC
PROVINCE
OF
RIZAL,
MUNICIPALITY OF SAN MATEO,
PINTONG BOCAUE MULTIPURPOSE
COOPERATIVE,
CONCERNED
CITIZENS
OF
RIZAL,
INC.,
ROLANDO
E.
VILLACORTE,
BERNARDO HIDALGO, ANANIAS
EBUENGA, VILMA T. MONTAJES,
FEDERICO MUNAR, JR., ROLANDO
BEAS,SR.,ETAL.,andKILOSBAYAN,
INC.,
Petitioners,
versus
EXECUTIVE
SECRETARY,
SECRETARY OF ENVIRONMENT &
NATURAL RESOURCES, LAGUNA
LAKE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
SECRETARY OF PUBLIC WORKS &
HIGHWAYS,
SECRETARY
OF
BUDGET & MANAGEMENT, METRO
MANILA
DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY and THE HONORABLE
COURTOFAPPEALS,
Respondents.
G.R.No.129546
Present:
DAVIDE,JR.,C.J.,
PUNO,
PANGANIBAN,
QUISUMBING,
YNARESSANTIAGO,
SANDOVALGUTIERREZ,
CARPIO,
MARTINEZ,
CORONA,
CARPIOMORALES,
CALLEJO,SR.,
AZCUNA,
TINGA,
CHICONAZARIO,and
GARCIA,JJ.
Promulgated:
December13,2005
xx
DECISION
CHICONAZARIO,J.:
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/129546.htm
1/33
11/18/2016
[1]
Theearthbelongsinusufructtotheliving.
At the height of the garbage crisis plaguing Metro Manila and its environs, parts of the
Marikina Watershed Reservation were set aside by the Office of the President, through
Proclamation No. 635 dated 28 August 1995, for use as a sanitary landfill and similar waste
disposalapplications.Infact,thissite,extendingtomoreorless18hectares,hadalreadybeenin
[2]
operationsince19February1990 forthesolidwastesofQuezonCity,Marikina,SanJuan,
[3]
Mandaluyong,Pateros,Pasig,andTaguig.
This is a petition filed by the Province of Rizal, the municipality of San Mateo, and various
concernedcitizensforreviewoncertiorarioftheDecisionoftheCourtofAppealsinCAG.R.
SPNo.41330,denying,forlackofcauseofaction,thepetitionforcertiorari,prohibitionand
mandamus with application for a temporary restraining order/writ of preliminary injunction
assailingthelegalityandconstitutionalityofProclamationNo.635.
Thefactsaredocumentedinpainstakingdetail.
On17November1988,therespondentSecretariesoftheDepartmentofPublicWorksand
Highways(DPWH)andtheDepartmentofEnvironmentandNaturalResources(DENR)andthe
Governor of the Metropolitan Manila Commission (MMC) entered into a Memorandum of
[4]
Agreement(MOA), whichprovidesinpart:
1. TheDENRagreestoimmediatelyallowtheutilizationbythe
MetropolitanManilaCommissionofitslandpropertylocatedatPintongBocauein
SanMateo,Rizalasasanitarylandfillsite,subjecttowhateverrestrictionsthatthe
governmentimpactassessmentmightrequire.
2. UponsigningofthisAgreement,theDPWHshallcommencethe
construction/developmentofsaiddumpsite.
2/33
11/18/2016
3.TheMMCshall:a)takechargeoftherelocationofthefamilieswithin
andaroundthesiteb)overseethedevelopmentoftheareasasasanitarylandfill
c)coordinate/monitortheconstructionofinfrastructurefacilitiesbytheDPWHin
thesaidsiteandd)ensurethatthenecessarycivilworksareproperlyundertaken
tosafeguardagainstanynegativeenvironmentalimpactinthearea.
On7,8and10February1989,theSangguniangBayanofSanMateowroteGov.Elfren
Cruz of the MMC, Sec. Fiorello Estuar of the DPWH, the Presidential Task Force on Solid
Waste Management, Executive Secretary Catalino Macaraig, and Sec. Fulgencio Factoran, Jr.,
pointingoutthatithadrecentlypassedaResolutionbanningthecreationofdumpsitesforMetro
Manila garbage within its jurisdiction, asking that their side be heard, and that the addressees
suspendandtemporarilyholdinabeyanceallandanypartofyouroperationswithrespecttothe
SanMateoLandfillDumpsite.Noactionwastakenontheseletters.
It turns out that the land subject of the MOA of 17 November 1988 and owned by the
DENR was part of the Marikina Watershed Reservation Area. Thus, on 31 May 1989, forest
officersoftheForestEngineeringandInfrastructureUnitoftheCommunityEnvironmentand
[5]
NaturalResourceOffice,(CENRO)DENRIV,RizalProvince,submittedaMemorandum on
the Ongoing Dumping Site Operation of the MMC inside (the) Upper Portion of Marikina
Watershed Reservation, located at Barangay Pintong Bocaue, San Mateo, Rizal, and nearby
localities.SaidMemorandumreadsinpart:
Observations:
3.1Thesubjectareaisarableandagriculturalinnature
3.2 Soil type and its topography are favorable for agricultural and forestry
productions
...
3.5 Said Dumping Site is observed to be confined within the said Watershed
Reservation,bearinginthenortheasternpartofLungsodSilanganTownsite
Reservation.SuchillegalDumpingSiteoperationinside(the)Watershed
ReservationisinviolationofP.D.705,otherwiseknownastheRevised
ForestryCode,asamended...
3/33
11/18/2016
Recommendations:
5.1TheMMCDumpingSiteInsideMarikinaWatershedReservation,particularly
at Brgy. Pintong Bocaue, San Mateo, Rizal and at Bo. Pinugay,
Baras/Antipolo,Rizalwhicharethepresentgarbagezonesmusttotallybe
stoppedanddiscouragedwithoutanypoliticalinterventionanddelayin
order to save our healthy ecosystems found therein, to avoid much
destruction,uselesseffortsandlost(sic)ofmillionsofpublicfundsover
thelandinquestion(Emphasisours)
[6]
On19June1989,theCENROsubmittedanotherInvestigationReport totheRegional
ExecutiveDirectorwhichstatesinpartthat:
1. About two (2) hectares had been excavated by bulldozers and garbage dumping
operationsaregoingon.
2. The dumping site is without the concurrence of the Provincial Governor, Rizal
ProvinceandwithoutanypermitfromDENRwhohasfunctionaljurisdictionover
theWatershedReservationand
3. About 1,192 families residing and cultivating areas covered by four (4) Barangays
surroundingthedumpingsitewilladverselybeaffectedbythedumpingoperations
ofMMCincludingtheirsourcesofdomesticwatersupply.xxxx
[7]
On 22 January 1990, the CENRO submitted still another Investigation Report to the
RegionalExecutiveDirectorwhichstatesthat:
FindingsshowthattheareasusedasDumpingSiteoftheMMCarefoundtobe
within the Marikina Watershed which are part of the Integrated Social Forestry Project
(ISF)asperrecordedinventoryofForestOccupancyofthisoffice.
Italsoappearsthatasperrecord,therewasnopermitissuedtotheMMCtoutilize
theseportionsoflandfordumpingpurposes.
Itisfurtherobservedthattheuseoftheareasasdumpingsitegreatlyaffectsthe
ecologicalbalanceandenvironmentalfactorsinthiscommunity.
4/33
11/18/2016
On 19 February 1990, the DENR Environmental Management Bureau, through

Undersecretary for Environment and Research Celso R. Roque, granted the Metro Manila
Authority (MMA [formerly MMC]) an Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC) for the
operationofatwoandahalfhectaregarbagedumpsite.
TheECCwassoughtandgrantedtocomplywiththerequirementofPresidentialDecree
No.1586EstablishinganEnvironmentalImpactStatementSystem,Section4ofwhichstatesin
part that, No persons, partnership or corporation shall undertake or operate any such declared
environmentally critical project or area without first securing an Environmental Compliance
Certificate.ProclamationNo.2146,passedon14December1981,designatesallareasdeclared
by law as national parks, watershed reserves, wildlife preserves, and sanctuaries as
EnvironmentallyCriticalAreas.
On09March1990,respondentLagunaLakeDevelopmentAuthority(LLDA),throughits
[8]
ActingGeneralManager,sentaletter totheMMA,whichreadsinpart:
Through this letter we would like to convey our reservation on the choice of the
sitesforsolidwastedisposalinsidethewatershedofLagunaLake.Asyoumayalready
know, the Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System (MWSS) has scheduled
the abstraction of water from the lake to serve the needs of about 1.2 million
residents of Muntinlupa, Paranaque, Las Pinas and Bacoor, Cavite by 1992.
Accordingly, the Laguna Lake Development Authority (LLDA) is accelerating its
environmental management program to upgrade the water quality of the lake in
ordertomakeitsuitableasasourceofdomesticwatersupplythewholeyearround.
Thesaidprogramregardsdumpsitesasincompatiblewithinthewatershedbecause
of the heavy pollution, including the risk of diseases, generated by such activities
whichwouldnegatethegovernmentseffortstoupgradethewaterqualityofthelake.
Consequently, please consider our objection to the proposed location of the dumpsites
withinthewatershed.(Emphasissuppliedbypetitioners)
On 31 July 1990, less than six months after the issuance of the ECC, Undersecretary
[9]
RoquesuspendedtheECCinaletter addressedtotherespondentSecretaryofDPWH,stating
5/33
11/18/2016
inpartthat:
UponsiteinvestigationconductedbyEnvironmentalManagementBureaustaffon
development activities at the San Mateo Landfill Site, it was ascertained that ground
slumping and erosion have resulted from improper development of the site. We
believethatthiswilladverselyaffecttheenvironmentalqualityintheareaiftheproper
remedial measures are not instituted in the design of the landfill site. This is therefore
contradictorytostatementsmadeintheEnvironmentalImpactStatement(EIS)submitted
thataboveoccurrenceswillbeproperlymitigated.
In view of this, we are forced to suspend the Environmental Compliance

Certificate(ECC)issueduntilappropriatemodifiedplansaresubmittedandapprovedby
thisOfficeforimplementation.(Emphasisours)
On 21 June 1993, the Acting Mayor of San Mateo, Enrique Rodriguez, Jr., Barangay
Captain Dominador Vergara, and petitioner Rolando E. Villacorte, Chairman of the Pintong
[10]
BocaueMultipurposeCooperative(PBMC)wrote
thenPresidentFidelV.Ramosexpressing
theirobjectionstothecontinuedoperationoftheMMAdumpsiteforcausingunabatedpollution
anddegradationoftheMarikinaWatershedReservation.
[11]
On14July1993,anotherInvestigationReport
submittedbytheRegionalTechnical
Director to the DENR Undersecretary for Environment and Research contained the following
findingsandrecommendations:
RemarksandFindings:
....
5. Interview with Mr. Dayrit, whose lot is now being endangered because soil
erosion have (sic) caused severe siltation and sedimentation of the Dayrit Creek which
waterisgreatlypollutedbythedumpingofsoilbulldozedtothecreek
6. Also interview with Mrs. Vilma Montajes, the multigrade teacher of Pintong
BocauePrimarySchoolwhichislocatedonlyabout100metersfromthelandfillsite.She
disclosedthatbadodorhave(sic)greatlyaffectedthepupilswhoaresometimessickwith
respiratory illnesses. These odors show that MMA have (sic) not instituted/sprayed any
disinfectant chemicals to prevent air pollution in the area. Besides large flies (Bangaw)
are swarming all over the playground of the school. The teacher also informed the
undersigned that plastic debris are being blown whenever the wind blows in their
direction.
6/33
11/18/2016
7. As per investigation report there are now 15 hectares being used as landfill
disposalsitesbytheMMA.TheMMAisintendingtoexpanditsoperationwithinthe50
hectares.
8.Lotsoccupiedwithin50hectaresarefullyplantedwithfruitbearingtreeslike
Mangoes, Santol, Jackfruit, Kasoy, Guyabano, Kalamansi and Citrus which are now
bearing fruits and being harvested and marketed to nearby San Mateo Market and
MasinagMarketinAntipolo.
....
Recommendations:
1.Aspreviouslyrecommended,theundersignedalsostronglyrecommend(s)that
the MMA be made to relocate the landfill site because the area is within the Marikina
Watershed Reservation and Lungsod Silangan. The leachate treatment plant ha(s) been
erodedtwicealreadyandcontaminatedthenearbycreekswhichisthesourceofpotable
wateroftheresidents.ThecontaminatedwateralsoflowstoWawaDamandBosoboso
RiverwhichalsoflowstoLagunadeBay.
2. The proposed Integrated Social Forestry Project be pushed through or be

approved. ISF project will not only uplift the socioeconomic conditions of the
participants but will enhance the rehabilitation of the Watershed considering that fruit
bearingtreesarevigorouslygrowinginthearea.Sometimberproducingspeciesarealso
plantedlikeMahoganyandGmelinaArboiea.Therearealsoportionswheredipterocarp
residualsaboundinthearea.
3. The sanitary landfill should be relocated to some other area, in order to avoid
any conflict with the local government of San Mateo and the nearby affected residents
whohavebeenintheareaforalmost1020years.
On16November1993,DENRSecretaryAngelC.AlcalasentMMAChairmanIsmaelA.
[12]
Mathay,Jr.aletter
statingthatafteraseriesofinvestigationsbyfieldofficialsoftheDENR,
the agency realized that the MOA entered into on 17 November 1988 is a very costly error
becausetheareaagreedtobeagarbagedumpsiteisinsidetheMarikinaWatershedReservation.
Hethenstronglyrecommendedthatallfacilitiesandinfrastructureinthegarbagedumpsitein
Pintong Bocaue be dismantled, and the garbage disposal operations be transferred to another
7/33
11/18/2016
areaoutsidetheMarikinaWatershedReservationtoprotectthehealthandgeneralwelfareofthe
residentsofSanMateoinparticularandtheresidentsofMetroManilaingeneral.
[13]
On 06 June 1995, petitioner Villacorte, Chairman of the PBMC, wrote
President
Ramos,throughtheExecutiveSecretary,informingthePresidentoftheissuesinvolved,thatthe
dumpsite is located near three public elementary schools, the closest of which is only fifty
metersaway,andthatitslocationviolatesthemunicipalzoningordinanceofSanMateoand,in
truth, the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board had denied the then MMA chairmans
applicationforalocationalclearanceonthisground.
[14]
On 21 August 1995, the Sangguniang Bayan of San Mateo issued a Resolution
expressing a strong objection to the planned expansion of the landfill operation in Pintong
Bocaue and requesting President Ramos to disapprove the draft Presidential Proclamation
segregating71.6HectaresfromMarikinaWatershedReservationforthelandfillsiteinPintong
Bocaue,SanMateo,Rizal.
Despitethevariousobjectionsandrecommendationsraisedbythegovernmentagencies
aforementioned,theOfficeofthePresident,throughExecutiveSecretaryRubenTorres,signed
andissuedProclamationNo.635on28August1995,ExcludingfromtheMarikinaWatershed
Reservation Certain Parcels of Land Embraced Therein for Use as Sanitary Landfill Sites and
Similar Waste Disposal Under the Administration of the Metropolitan Manila Development
Authority.Thepertinentportionsthereofstate:
WHEREAS, to cope with the requirements of the growing population in Metro
Manila and the adjoining provinces and municipalities, certain developed and open
portions of the Marikina Watershed Reservation, upon the recommendation of the
Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources should now be
excludedformthescopeofthereservation
8/33
11/18/2016
WHEREAS,whiletheareasdelineatedaspartoftheWatershedReservationsare
intended primarily for use in projects and/or activities designed to contain and preserve
theundergroundwatersupply,otherperipheralareashadbeenincludedwithinthescope
ofthereservationtoprovideforsuchspaceasmaybeneededfortheconstructionofthe
necessary structures, other related facilities, as well as other priority projects of
governmentasmaybeeventuallydetermined
WHEREAS,thereisnowanurgentneedtoprovidefor,anddevelop,thenecessary
facilitiesforthedisposalofthewastegeneratedbythepopulationofMetroManilaand
the adjoining provinces and municipalities, to ensure their sanitary and /or hygienic
disposal
WHEREAS, to cope with the requirements for the development of the waste
disposal facilities that may be used, portions of the peripheral areas of the Marikina
Watershed Reservation, after due consideration and study, have now been identified as
suitablesitesthatmaybeusedforthepurpose
WHEREAS, the Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural

Resources has recommended the exclusion of these areas that have been so identified
from the Marikina Watershed Reservation so that they may then be developed for the
purpose
NOW,THEREFORE,forandinconsiderationoftheaforecitedpremises,I,Fidel
V.Ramos,PresidentofthePhilippines,byvirtueofthepowersvestedinmebylaw,do
herebyordain:
Section 1. General That certain parcels of land, embraced by the Marikina

WatershedReservation,werefoundneededforuseinthesolidwastedisposalprogramof
thegovernmentinMetropolitanManila,areherebyexcludedfromthatwhichisheldin
reserve and are now made available for use as sanitary landfill and such other related
wastedisposalapplications.
Section 2. Purpose The areas being excluded from the Marikina Watershed
Reservation are hereby placed under the administration of the Metropolitan Manila
Development Authority, for development as Sanitary Landfill, and/or for use in the
developmentofsuchotherrelatedwastedisposalfacilitiesthatmaybeusedbythecities
and municipalities of Metro Manila and the adjoining province of Rizal and its
municipalities.
Section 3. Technical Description Specifically, the areas being hereby excluded

from the Marikina Watershed Reservation consist of two (2) parcels, with an aggregate
area of approximately ONE MILLION SIXTY THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED
TWENTYNINE(1,060,529)squaremetersmoreorless,asfollows:xxxx
Section 4. Reservations The development, construction, use and/or operation of

any facility that may be established within the parcel of land herein excluded from the
MarikinaWatershedReservationshallbegovernedbyexistinglaws,rulesandregulations
pertainingtoenvironmentalcontrolandmanagement.Whennolongerneededforsanitary
9/33
11/18/2016
landfillpurposesortherelatedwastedisposalactivities,theparcelsoflandsubjectofthis
proclamation shall revert back as part of the Marikina Watershed Reservation, unless
otherwiseauthorized.
On06September1995,DirectorWilfridoS.PolliscooftheProtectedAreasandWildlife
BureauwrotetheDENRSecretarytoexpressthebureausstandagainstthedumpsiteatPintong
Bocaue, and that it is our view . . . that the mere presence of a garbage dumpsite inside a
watershed reservation is definitely not compatible with the very purpose and objectives for
whichthereservationwasestablished.
On 24 November 1995, the petitioners Municipality of San Mateo and the residents of
PintongBocaue,representedbyformerSenatorJovitoSalonga,sentalettertoPresidentRamos
requestinghimtoreconsiderProclamationNo.635.Receivingnoreply,theysentanotherletter
on02January1996reiteratingtheirpreviousrequest.
On04March1996,thenchairmanoftheMetroManilaDevelopmentAuthority(MMDA
[formerlyMMA])ProsperoI.OretaaddressedalettertoSenatorSalonga,statinginpartthat:
.
2. Considering the circumstances under which we are pursuing the project, we are
certain you will agree that, unless we are prepared with a better alternative, the
project simply has to be pursued in the best interest of the greater majority of the
population,particularlytheirhealthandwelfare.
2.1TheSanMateoSanitaryLandfillservices,atleast,38%ofthewastedisposalsite
requirementsofMetroManilawhereanestimated9millionpopulationreside.
2.2 Metro Manila is presently estimated to be generating, at least, 15,700 cubic

metersofhouseholdormunicipalwaste,a1.57hectareoflandareawillbefilled
in a months time with a pile 31 meters high of garbage, or in a year, the
accumulatedvolumewillrequire18.2hectares.
....
10/33
11/18/2016
4.Thesanitarylandfillprojectsarenowontheirfifthyearofimplementation.Theamount
ofeffortandmoneyalreadyinvestedintheprojectbythegovernmentcannoteasily
bedisregarded,muchmoresetasideinfavorofthefewsettlers/squatterswhochose
toignoretheearliernoticegiventothemthattheareawouldbeusedpreciselyfor
thedevelopmentofwastedisposalsites,andarenowattemptingtoarouseopposition
totheproject.
4.2 There is no place within the jurisdiction of Metro Manila, with an area big
enoughtoaccommodateatleast3to5yearsofwastedisposalrequirements.xx
xx
4.21ThepresentsiteatSanMateowasselectedbecause,atthetimeconsiderationwas
beingmade,anduptothepresent,itisfoundtohavetheattributesthatpositively
respondtothecriteriaestablished:
4.21.1Thesitewasagovernmentpropertyandwouldnotrequireanyoutlayforit
tobeacquired.
4.21.2Itisfarfromanysizeablecommunity/settlementsthatcouldbeaffectedby
the development that would be introduced and yet, was within economic
haulingdistancefromtheareastheyaredesignedtoserve.
4.21.21 Atthetimeitwasoriginallydecidedtolocatethelandfillsatthe
presentsite,therewerenotmorethatfifteen(15)settlersinthearea
and they had hardly established themselves. The community
settlementswerelocatedfarfromthesite.
4.21.22 Theareawashardlyaccessible,especiallytoanypublictransport.
Theareawasbeingservedbyapublicutilityjeepthatusuallymade
only two (2) trips daily. During the rainy season, it could only be
reached by equipping the vehicle with tire chains to traverse the
slipperymuddytrailroads.
4.21.3Therewas,atleast,seventythree(73)hectaresavailableatthesite.
4.3WhilethesitewaswithintheMarikinaWatershedReservationundertheadministration
of the DENR, the site was located at the lower periphery of the buffer zone was
evaluatedtobeleastlikelytoaffecttheundergroundwatersupplyandcould,infact,be
excludedfromthereservation.
4.31Itwasdeterminedtobefarfromthemainwatercontainmentareaforittoposeany
immediatedangerofcontaminatingtheundergroundwater,incaseofafailurein
anyofthemitigatingmeasuresthatwouldbeinstalled.
4.32Itwaslikewisetoofarfromthenearestbodyofwater,theLagunaLake,andthe
distance, plus the increasing accumulation of water from other tributaries toward
thelake,wouldservetodiluteandmitigateanycontaminationitmayemit,incase
onehappened.
11/33
11/18/2016
4.33 To resolve the recurring issue regarding its being located within the Marikina
Watershed Reservation, the site had been recommended by the DENR, and
approved by the President, to already be excluded from the Marikina Watershed
reservation and placed under the administration of MMDA, since the site was
deemed to form part of the land resource reserve then commonly referred to as
bufferzone.
5.Contrarytotheimpressionthatyouhadbeengiven,relocatingthesiteatthispointandtime
wouldnotbeeasy,ifnotimpracticable,becauseasidefromtheinvestmentsthathadbeen
madeinlocatingthepresentsite,furtherinvestmentshavebeenincurredin:
5.1Theconductofthetechnicalstudiesforthedevelopmentbeingimplemented.Through
agrantinaidfromtheWorldBank,US$600,000wasinitiallyspentfortheconductof
thenecessarystudiesontheareaandthedesignofthelandfill.Thiswasaugmentedby,
atleast,anotherP1.5millionfromthegovernmentforthestudiestobecompleted,ora
totalcostatthetime(1990)ofapproximatelyP20million.
5.2.Additionally,thegovernmenthasspentapproximatelyP33millioninimprovingon
theroadwaytomakethesiteaccessiblefromthemainroad/highway.
5.3Toachievethenecessaryeconomiesinthedevelopmentofthesite,theutilitieshad
beenplannedsothattheirusecouldbemaximized.Theseincludetheaccessroads,the
drainage system, the leacheate collection system, the gas collection system, and the
wastewatertreatmentsystem.Theirconstructionaredesignedsothatinsteadofhaving
to construct independent units for each area, the use of existing facilities can be
maximized through a system of interconnection. On the average, the government is
spendingP14.8milliontodevelopahectareofsanitarylandfillarea.
6. Despite the preparations and the investments that are now being made on the project, it is
estimatedthatthetotalavailablearea,atanacceleratedrateofdisposal,assumingthatall
opendumpsitesweretobeclosed,willonlylastfor39months.
6.1Wearestillhardpressedtoachieveadvanceddevelopmentonthesitestoassureagainst
anypossiblecrisisingarbagefromagainbeingexperiencedinMetroManila,asidefrom
having to look for the additional sites that may be used after the capacities shall have
beenexhausted.
6.2Facedwiththeprospectsofhavingthe15,700cubicmetersofgarbagegenerateddaily
strewn all over Metro Manila, we are certain you will agree that it would be futile to
evenasmuchasconsiderasuspensionofthewastedisposaloperationsatthesanitary
landfills.
On 22 July 1996, the petitioners filed before the Court of Appeals a civil action for
certiorari,prohibitionandmandamuswithapplicationforatemporaryrestrainingorder/writof
12/33
11/18/2016
preliminary injunction. The hearing on the prayer for preliminary injunction was held on 14
August1996.
[15]
On13June1997,thecourtaquorenderedaDecision,
thedispositivepartofwhich
reads:
WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus with
application for a temporary restraining order/writ of preliminary injunction for lack of
[16]
causeofaction,isherebyDENIED.
Hence, this petition for review on certiorari of the above decision on the following
grounds:
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN

DELIBERATELY IGNORING THE SIGNIFICANT FACT THAT PRESIDENTIAL
PROCLAMATION NO. 635 WAS BASED ON A BRAZEN FORGERY IT WAS
SUPPOSEDLY ISSUED, AS STATED IN THE PROCLAMATION ITSELF AND
REPEATEDLY ASSERTED BY RESPONDENTS IN THEIR COMMENT, ON THE
BASIS OF THE ALLEGED RECOMMENDATION OF THE DENR SECRETARY
DATED JUNE 26, 1995 BUT WHICH ASSERTION WAS DENOUNCED BY THE
THEN SECRETARY ANGEL C. ALCALA HIMSELF IN A SWORN STATEMENT
DATEDSEPTEMBER18,1996ANDAGAINDURINGTHESPECIALHEARINGOF
THE CASE IN THE COURT OF APPEALS ON NOVEMBER 13, 1996 AS A
FORGERY SINCE HIS SIGNATURE ON THE ALLEGED RECOMMENDATION
HADBEENFALSIFIED,ASNOWADMITTEDBYRESPONDENTSTHEMSELVES
INTHEIR COMMENT FILED WITH THE COURT OF APPEALS, THROUGH THE
OFFICEOFTHESOLICITORGENERAL.
II
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN

COMPLETELYIGNORINGTHESIGNIFICANTFACTTHATTHERESPONDENTS
ARE OPERATING THE LANDFILL BASED ON A SPURIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL
COMPLIANCECERTIFICATE.
III
13/33
11/18/2016
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN RULING THAT THE RESPONDENTS DID

NOT VIOLATE R.A. 7586 WHEN THEY ISSUED AND IMPLEMENTED
PROCLAMATION NO. 635 CONSIDERING THAT THE WITHDRAWAL OR
DISESTABLISHMENT OF A PROTECTED AREA OR THE MODIFICATION OF
THEMARIKINAWATERSHEDCANONLYBEDONEBYANACTOFCONGRESS.
IV
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT

DELIBERATELY AND WILLFULLY BRUSHED ASIDE THE UNANIMOUS
FINDINGS AND ADVERSE RECOMMENDATIONS OF RESPONSIBLE
GOVERNMENT AGENCIES AND NONPARTISAN OFFICIALS CONCERNED
WITH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION IN FAVOR OF THE SELFSERVING,
GRATUITOUSASSERTIONSFOUNDINTHEUNSOLICITED,PARTISANLETTER
OFFORMERMALABONMAYOR,NOWCHAIRMANPROSPEROORETAOFTHE
MMDAWHOISANINTERESTEDPARTYINTHISCASE.
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED WHEN IT READILY SWALLOWED

RESPONDENTS ASSERTION THAT THE SAN MATEO DUMPSITE IS LOCATED
IN THE BUFFER ZONE OF THE RESERVATION AND IS THEREFORE OUTSIDE
OFITSBOUNDARIES,ANDEVENDECLAREDINITSDECISIONTHATITTOOK
SERIOUSNOTEOFTHISPARTICULARARGUMENT.
VI
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT

ENCROACHED ON THE FUNCTION OF CONGRESS BY EXPRESSING ITS
UNJUSTIFIED FEAR OF MINISMOKEY MOUNTAINS PROLIFERATING IN
METRO MANILA AND JUSTIFYING ITS DECISION IN FAVOR OF AN
INTEGRATED SYSTEM OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT LIKE THE SAN
MATEOLANDFILL.
On 05 January 1998, while the appeal was pending, the petitioners filed a Motion for
[17]
TemporaryRestrainingOrder,
pointingoutthattheeffectsoftheElNiophenomenonwould
beaggravatedbytherelentlessdestructionoftheMarikinaWatershedReservation.Theynoted
that respondent MMDA had, in the meantime, continued to expand the area of the dumpsite
inside the Marikina Watershed Reservation, cutting down thousands of mature fruit trees and
forest trees, and leveling hills and mountains to clear the dumping area. Garbage disposal
14/33
11/18/2016
operationswerealsobeingconductedona24hourbasis,withhundredsofmetrictonsofwastes
beingdumpeddaily,includingtoxicandinfectioushospitalwastes,intensifyingtheair,ground
[18]
andwaterpollution.
The petitioners reiterated their prayer that respondent MMDA be temporarily enjoined
fromfurtherdumpingwasteintothesiteandfromencroachingintotheareabeyonditsexisting
perimeterfencesoasnottorenderthecasemootandacademic.
[19]
On 28 January 1999, the petitioners filed a Motion for Early Resolution,
calling
attentiontothecontinuedexpansionofthedumpsitebytheMMDAthatcausedthepeopleof
Antipolo to stage a rally and barricade the Marcos Highway to stop the dump trucks from
reaching the site for five successive days from 16 January 1999. On the second day of the
barricade,allthemunicipalmayorsoftheprovinceofRizalopenlydeclaredtheirfullsupport
for the rally, and notified the MMDA that they would oppose any further attempt to dump
[20]
garbageintheirprovince.
Asaresult,MMDAofficials,headedbythenChairmanJejomarBinay,agreedtoabandon
thedumpsiteaftersixmonths.Thus,themunicipalmayorsofRizal,particularlythemayorsof
AntipoloandSanMateo,agreedtotheuseofthedumpsiteuntilthatperiod,whichwouldend
[21]
on20July1999.
[22]
On13July1999,thepetitionersfiledanUrgentSecondMotionforEarlyResolution
inanticipationofviolencebetweentheconflictingpartiesasthedateofthescheduledclosureof
thedumpsiteneared.
15/33
11/18/2016
On19July1999,thenPresidentJosephE.Estrada,takingcognizanceofthegravityofthe
problems in the affected areas and the likelihood that violence would erupt among the parties
involved, issued a Memorandum ordering the closure of the dumpsite on 31 December 2000.
[23]
Accordingly, on 20 July 1999, the Presidential Committee on Flagship Programs and
Projects and the MMDA entered into a MOA with the Provincial Government of Rizal, the
MunicipalityofSanMateo,andtheCityofAntipolo,whereinthelatteragreedtofurtherextend
[24]
theuseofthedumpsiteuntilitspermanentclosureon31December2000.
On 11 January 2001, President Estrada directed Department of Interior and Local

Government Secretary Alfredo Lim and MMDA Chairman Binay to reopen the San Mateo
dumpsiteinviewoftheemergencysituationofuncollectedgarbageinMetroManila,resulting
[25]
inacriticalandimminenthealthandsanitationepidemic.
Claimingtheaboveeventsconstitutedaclearandpresentdangerofviolenceeruptingin
[26]
the affected areas, the petitioners filed an Urgent Petition for Restraining Order
on 19
January2001.
On 24 January 2001, this Court issued the Temporary Restraining Order prayed for,
[27]
effectiveimmediatelyanduntilfurtherorders.
Meanwhile, on 26 January 2001, Republic Act No. 9003, otherwise known as The
EcologicalSolidWasteManagementActof2000,wassignedintolawbyPresidentEstrada.
16/33
11/18/2016
[28]
Thus, the petitioners raised only two issues in their Memorandum
of 08 February
2005:1)whetherornotrespondentMMDAagreedtothepermanentclosureoftheSanMateo
LandfillasofDecember2000,and2)whetherornotthepermanentclosureoftheSanMateo
landfillismandatedbyRep.ActNo.9003.
WeholdthattheSanMateoLandfillwillremainpermanentlyclosed.
Althoughthepetitionersmaybedeemedtohavewaivedorabandonedtheissuesraisedin
[29]
theirpreviouspleadingsbutnotincludedinthememorandum,
certaineventsweshallrelate
belowhaveinclinedustoaddresssomeofthemorepertinentissuesraisedinthepetitionforthe
guidanceofthehereinrespondents,andpursuanttooursymbolicfunctiontoeducatethebench
[30]
andbar.
The law and the facts indicate that a mere MOA does not guarantee the dumpsites
permanentclosure.
TherallyandbarricadestagedbythepeopleofAntipoloon28January1999,withthefull
supportofallthemayorsofRizalProvincecausedtheMMDAtoagreethatitwouldabandon
thedumpsiteaftersixmonths.Inreturn,themunicipalmayorsallowedtheuseofthedumpsite
until20July1999.
On20July1999,withmuchfanfareandrhetoric,thePresidentialCommitteeonFlagship
ProgramsandProjectsandtheMMDAenteredintoaMOAwiththeProvincialGovernmentof
Rizal,theMunicipalityofSanMateo,andtheCityofAntipolo,wherebythelatteragreedtoan
17/33
11/18/2016
extension for the use of the dumpsite until 31 December 2000, at which time it would be
permanentlyclosed.
Despite this agreement, President Estrada directed Department of Interior and Local
Government Secretary Alfredo Lim and MMDA Chairman Binay to reopen the San Mateo
dumpsite on 11 January 2001, in view of the emergency situation of uncollected garbage in
MetroManila,resultinginacriticalandimminenthealthandsanitationepidemicourissuance
ofaTROon24January2001preventedthedumpsitesreopening.
WereitnotfortheTRO,thenPresidentEstradasinstructionswouldhavebeenlawfully
carriedout,forasweobservedinOposav.Factoran, the freedom of contract is not absolute.
Thus:
..InAbevs.FosterWheelerCorp.,thisCourtstated:"Thefreedomofcontract,under
oursystemofgovernment,isnotmeanttobeabsolute.Thesameisunderstoodtobe
subject to reasonable legislative regulation aimed at the promotion of public health,
moral,safetyandwelfare.Inotherwords,theconstitutionalguarantyofnonimpairment
ofobligationsofcontractislimitedbytheexerciseofthepolicepoweroftheState,inthe
interest of public health, safety, moral and general welfare." The reason for this is
emphatically set forth in Nebia vs. New York, quoted in Philippine American Life
Insurance Co. vs. Auditor General, to wit: "'Under our form of government the use of
property and the making of contracts are normally matters of private and not of public
concern. The general rule is that both shall be free of governmental interference. But
neitherpropertyrightsnorcontractrightsareabsoluteforgovernmentcannotexistifthe
citizenmayatwillusehispropertytothedetrimentofhisfellows,orexercisehisfreedom
ofcontracttoworkthemharm.Equallyfundamentalwiththeprivaterightisthatofthe
public to regulate it in the common interest.'" In short, the nonimpairment clause must
yieldtothepolicepowerofthestate.(Citationsomitted,emphasissupplied)
WethusfeelthereisalsotheaddedneedtoreassuretheresidentsoftheProvinceofRizal
thatthisisindeedafinalresolutionofthiscontroversy,forabriefreviewoftherecordsofthis
case indicates two selfevident facts. First, the San Mateo site has adversely affected its
environs,andsecond,sourcesofwatershouldalwaysbeprotected.
18/33
11/18/2016
Astothefirstpoint,theadverseeffectsofthesitewerereportedasearlyas19June1989,
whentheInvestigationReportoftheCommunityEnvironmentandNaturalResourcesOfficerof
DENRIV1 stated that the sources of domestic water supply of over one thousand families
[31]
wouldbeadverselyaffectedbythedumpingoperations.
Thesucceedingreportincludedthe
observationthattheuseoftheareasasdumpingsitegreatlyaffectedtheecologicalbalanceand
[32]
environmentalfactorsofthecommunity.
RespondentLLDAinfactinformedtheMMAthat
the heavy pollution and risk of disease generated by dumpsites rendered the location of a
dumpsite within the Marikina Watershed Reservation incompatible with its program of
[33]
upgradingthewaterqualityoftheLagunaLake.
The DENR suspended the sites ECC after investigations revealed ground slumping and
[34]
erosion had resulted from improper development of the site.
Another Investigation
[35]
Report
submitted by the Regional Technical Director to the DENR reported respiratory
illnessesamongpupilsofaprimaryschoollocatedapproximately100metersfromthesite,as
well as the constant presence of large flies and windblown debris all over the schools
playground.Itfurtherreiteratedreportsthattheleachatetreatmentplanthadbeenerodedtwice
already, contaminating the nearby creeks that were sources of potable water for the residents.
The contaminated water was also found to flow to the Wawa Dam and Bosoboso River,
whichinturnemptiesintoLagunadeBay.
This brings us to the second selfevident point. Water is life, and must be saved at all
[36]
costs.InColladov.CourtofAppeals,
wehadoccasiontoreaffirmourpreviousdiscussion
[37]
in Sta. Rosa Realty Development Corporation v. Court of Appeals,
on the primordial
importanceofwatershedareas,thus:Themostimportantproductofawatershediswater,which
19/33
11/18/2016
is one of the most important human necessities. The protection of watersheds ensures an
adequate supply of water for future generations and the control of flashfloods that not only
damage property but also cause loss of lives. Protection of watersheds is an intergenerational
[38]
responsibilitythatneedstobeanswerednow.
ThreeshortmonthsbeforeProclamationNo.635waspassedtoavertthegarbagecrisis,
[39]
CongresshadenactedtheNationalWaterCrisisAct
toadopturgentandeffectivemeasures
toaddressthenationwidewatercrisiswhichadverselyaffectsthehealthandwellbeingofthe
population,foodproduction,andindustrializationprocess.Oneoftheissuesthelawsoughtto
[40]
addresswastheprotectionandconservationofwatersheds.
Inotherwords,whilerespondentswereblandlydeclaringthatthereasonforthecreationofthe
MarikinaWatershedReservation,i.e.,toprotectMarikinaRiverasthesourceofwatersupplyof
theCityofManila,nolongerexists,therestofthecountrywasgrippedbyashortageofpotable
watersoserious,itnecessitateditsownlegislation.
Respondentsactionsinthefaceofsuchgraveenvironmentalconsequencesdefyalllogic.
The petitioners rightly noted that instead of providing solutions, they have, with unmitigated
callousness, worsened the problem. It is this readiness to wreak irrevocable damage on our
natural heritage in pursuit of what is expedient that has compelled us to rule at length on this
issue.Weignoretheunrelentingdepletionofournaturalheritageatourperil.
I.
THEREORGANIZATIONACTOFTHEDENRDEFINESAND
LIMITSITSPOWERSOVERTHECOUNTRYSNATURALRESOURCES
20/33
11/18/2016
TherespondentsnextpointoutthattheMarikinaWatershedReservation,andthustheSan
Mateo Site, is located in the public domain. They allege that as such, neither the Province of
Rizal nor the municipality of San Mateo has the power to control or regulate its use since
propertiesofthisnaturebelongtothenational,andnottothelocalgovernments.
Itisironicthattherespondentsshouldpursuethislineofreasoning.
[41]
In Cruz v. Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources,
we had occasion to
observethat(o)neofthefixedanddominatingobjectivesofthe1935ConstitutionalConvention
wasthenationalizationandconservationofthenaturalresourcesofthecountry.Therewasan
overwhelmingsentimentintheconventioninfavoroftheprincipleofstateownershipofnatural
resourcesandtheadoptionoftheRegaliandoctrine.Stateownershipofnaturalresourceswas
seen as a necessary starting point to secure recognition of the states power to control their
[42]
disposition,exploitation,development,orutilization.
The Regalian doctrine was embodied in the 1935 Constitution, in Section 1 of Article
XIII on Conservation and Utilization of Natural Resources. This was reiterated in the 1973
ConstitutionunderArticleXIVontheNationalEconomyandthePatrimonyoftheNation,and
reaffirmed in the 1987 Constitution in Section 2 of Article XII on National Economy and
Patrimony,towit:
Sec.2.Alllandsofthepublicdomain,waters,minerals,coal,petroleum,andother
mineraloils,allforcesofpotentialenergy,fisheries,forestsortimber,wildlife,floraand
fauna,andothernaturalresourcesareownedbytheState.Withtheexceptionof
agriculturallands,allothernaturalresourcesshallnotbealienated.Theexploration,
developmentandutilizationofnaturalresourcesshallbeunderthefullcontroland
supervisionoftheState.TheStatemaydirectlyundertakesuchactivitiesoritmayenter
intocoproduction,jointventure,orproductionsharingagreementswithFilipinocitizens,
orcorporationsorassociationsatleastsixtypercentumofwhosecapitalisownedby
suchcitizens.Suchagreementsmaybeforaperiodnotexceedingtwentyfiveyears,
21/33
11/18/2016
renewablefornotmorethantwentyfiveyears,andundersuchtermsandconditionsas
maybeprovidedbylaw.Incasesofwaterrightsforirrigation,watersupply,fisheries,or
industrialusesotherthanthedevelopmentofwaterpower,beneficialusemaybethe
[43]
measureandlimitofthegrant.
Clearly, the state is, and always has been, zealous in preserving as much of our natural
and national heritage as it can, enshrining as it did the obligation to preserve and protect the
samewithinthetextofourfundamentallaw.
It was with this objective in mind that the respondent DENR was mandated by then
[44]
President Corazon C. Aquino, under Section 4 of Executive Order No. 192,
otherwise
knownasTheReorganizationActoftheDepartmentofEnvironmentandNaturalResources,to
betheprimarygovernmentagencyresponsiblefortheconservation,management,development
and proper use of the countrys environment and natural resources, specifically forest and
grazing lands, mineral resources, including those in reservation and watershed areas, and
landsofthepublicdomain.Itisalsoresponsibleforthelicensingandregulationofallnatural
resourcesasmaybeprovidedforbylawinordertoensureequitablesharingofthebenefits
derivedtherefromforthewelfareofthepresentandfuturegenerationsofFilipinos.
[45]
WeexpoundedonthismatterinthelandmarkcaseofOposav.Factoran,
wherewe
heldthattherighttoabalancedandhealthfulecologyisafundamentallegalrightthatcarries
withitthecorrelativedutytorefrainfromimpairingtheenvironment.Thisrightimplies,among
otherthings,thejudiciousmanagementandconservationofthecountrysresources,whichduty
isreposedintheDENRundertheaforequotedSection4ofExecutiveOrderNo.192.Moreover:
Section3(ofE.O.No.192)makesthefollowingstatementofpolicy:
SEC.3.DeclarationofPolicy.Itisherebydeclaredthepolicyofthe
State to ensure the sustainable use, development, management, renewal,
22/33
11/18/2016
andconservationofthecountry'sforest,mineral,land,offshoreareasand
other natural resources, including the protection and enhancement of the
qualityoftheenvironment,andequitableaccessofthedifferentsegmentsof
the population to the development and use of the country's natural
resources,not only for the present generation but for future generations
aswell.Itisalsothepolicyofthestatetorecognizeandapplyatruevalue
systemincludingsocialandenvironmentalcostimplicationsrelativetotheir
utilization development and conservation of our natural resources.
(Emphasisours)
This policy declaration is substantially restated in Title XIV, Book IV of the

AdministrativeCodeof1987,specificallyinSection1thereofwhichreads:
SEC. 1. Declaration of Policy. (1) The State shall ensure, for the
benefitoftheFilipinopeople,thefullexplorationanddevelopmentaswell
as the judicious disposition, utilization, management, renewal and
conservation of the country's forest, mineral, land, waters, fisheries,
wildlife, offshore areas and other natural resources, consistent with the
necessity of maintaining a sound ecological balance and protecting and
enhancingthequalityoftheenvironmentandtheobjectiveofmakingthe
exploration,developmentandutilizationofsuchnaturalresourcesequitably
accessible to the different segments of the present as well as future
generations.
(2)TheStateshalllikewiserecognizeandapplyatruevaluesystem
thattakesintoaccountsocialandenvironmentalcostimplicationsrelativeto
theutilization,developmentandconservationofournaturalresources.
The above provision stresses the necessity of maintaining a sound ecological

[46]
balance and protecting and enhancing the quality of the environment.
(Emphasis
ours.)
Insum,theAdministrativeCodeof1987andExecutiveOrderNo.192entrusttheDENR
with the guardianship and safekeeping of the Marikina Watershed Reservation and our other
natural treasures. However, although the DENR, an agency of the government, owns the
MarikinaReserveandhasjurisdictionoverthesame,thispowerisnotabsolute,butisdefined
bythedeclaredpoliciesofthestate,andissubjecttothelawandhigherauthority. Section 2,
Title XIV, Book IV of the Administrative Code of 1987, while specifically referring to the
23/33
11/18/2016
mandate of the DENR, makes particular reference to the agencys being subject to law and
higherauthority,thus:
SEC.2.Mandate.(1)TheDepartmentofEnvironmentandNaturalResourcesshallbe
primarilyresponsiblefortheimplementationoftheforegoingpolicy.
(2)Itshall,subjecttolawandhigherauthority,beinchargeofcarryingoutthe
State's constitutional mandate to control and supervise the exploration, development,
utilization,andconservationofthecountry'snaturalresources.
With great power comes great responsibility. It is the height of irony that the public
respondentshavevigorouslyarrogatedtothemselvesthepowertocontroltheSanMateosite,
but have deftly ignored their corresponding responsibility as guardians and protectors of this
tormentedpieceofland.
II.
THELOCALGOVERNMENTCODEGIVESTOLOCALGOVERNMENTUNITSALLTHE
NECESSARYPOWERSTOPROMOTETHEGENERALWELFAREOFTHEIRINHABITANTS
ThecircumstancesunderwhichProclamationNo.635waspassedalsoviolatesRep.Act
No.7160,ortheLocalGovernmentCode.
Contrarytotheavermentoftherespondents,ProclamationNo.635,whichwaspassedon
28 August 1995, is subject to the provisions of the Local Government Code, which was
approvedfouryearsearlier,on10October1991.
Section2(c)ofthesaidlawdeclaresthatitisthepolicyofthestatetorequireallnational
agenciesandofficestoconductperiodicconsultationswithappropriatelocalgovernmentunits,
nongovernmental and people's organizations, and other concerned sectors of the community
24/33
11/18/2016
beforeanyprojectorprogramisimplementedintheirrespectivejurisdictions.Likewise,Section
27 requires prior consultations before a program shall be implemented by government
authoritiesandthepriorapprovalofthesanggunianisobtained.
During the oral arguments at the hearing for the temporary restraining order, Director
Uranza of the MMDA Solid Waste Management Task Force declared before the Court of
Appealsthattheyhadconductedtherequiredconsultations.However,headdedthat(t)hisisthe
problem,sir,theofficialswemayhavebeentalkingwithatthetimethiswasestablishedmayno
longer be incumbent and this is our difficulty now. That is what we are trying to do now, a
[47]
continuingdialogue.
TheambivalentreplyofDirectorUranzawasbroughttotheforewhen,attheheightof
the protest rally and barricade along Marcos Highway to stop dump trucks from reaching the
site,allthemunicipalmayorsoftheprovinceofRizalopenlydeclaredtheirfullsupportforthe
rallyandnotifiedtheMMDAthattheywouldopposeanyfurtherattempttodumpgarbagein
[48]
theirprovince.
Themunicipalmayorsactedwithinthescopeoftheirpowers,andwereinfactfulfilling
theirmandate,whentheydidthis.Section16allowseverylocalgovernmentunittoexercisethe
powers expressly granted, those necessarily implied therefrom, as well as powers necessary,
appropriate,orincidentalforitsefficientandeffectivegovernance,andthosewhichareessential
tothepromotionofthegeneralwelfare,whichinvolve,amongotherthings,promot(ing)health
andsafety,enhance(ing)therightofthepeopletoabalancedecology,andpreserv(ing)the
comfortandconvenienceoftheirinhabitants.
25/33
11/18/2016
[49]
In Lina , Jr. v. Pao,
we held that Section 2 (c), requiring consultations with the
appropriatelocalgovernmentunits,shouldapplytonationalgovernmentprojectsaffectingthe
environmental or ecological balance of the particular community implementing the project.
Rejecting the petitioners contention that Sections 2(c) and 27 of the Local Government Code
appliedmandatorilyinthesettingupoflottooutletsaroundthecountry,weheldthat:
Fromacarefulreadingofsaidprovisions,wefindthattheseapplyonlytonational
programs and/or projects which are to be implemented in a particular local community.
Lotto is neither a program nor a project of the national government, but of a charitable
institution,thePCSO.Thoughsanctionedbythenationalgovernment,itisfarfetchedto
say that lotto falls within the contemplation of Sections 2 (c) and 27 of the Local
GovernmentCode.
Section27oftheCodeshouldbereadinconjunctionwithSection26thereof.Section26
reads:
SECTION26.DutyofNationalGovernmentAgenciesintheMaintenanceofEcological
Balance.Itshallbethedutyofeverynationalagencyorgovernmentownedorcontrolled
corporationauthorizingorinvolvedintheplanningandimplementationofanyprojector
programthatmaycausepollution,climaticchange,depletionofnonrenewableresources,
lossofcropland,rangeland,orforestcover,andextinctionofanimalorplantspecies,to
consult with the local government units, nongovernmental organizations, and other
sectors concerned and explain the goals and objectives of the project or program, its
impact upon the people and the community in terms of environmental or ecological
balance, and the measures that will be undertaken to prevent or minimize the adverse
effectsthereof.
Thus, the projects and programs mentioned in Section 27 should be interpreted to

meanprojectsandprogramswhoseeffectsareamongthoseenumeratedinSection
26and27,towit,thosethat:(1)maycausepollution(2)maybringaboutclimatic
change (3) may cause the depletion of nonrenewable resources (4) may result in
loss of crop land, rangeland, or forest cover (5) may eradicate certain animal or
plant species from the face of the planet and (6) other projects or programs that
maycallfortheevictionofaparticulargroupofpeopleresidinginthelocalitywhere
these will be implemented. Obviously, none of these effects will be produced by the
introductionoflottointheprovinceofLaguna.(emphasissupplied)
[50]
WereiteratedthisdoctrineintherecentcaseofBangusFryFisherfolkv.Lanzanas,
where we held that there was no statutory requirement for the sangguniang bayan of Puerto
Galeratoapprovetheconstructionofamooringfacility,asSections26and27areinapplicable
toprojectswhicharenotenvironmentallycritical.
26/33
11/18/2016
Moreover, Section 447, which enumerates the powers, duties and functions of the
municipality,grantsthesangguniangbayanthepowerto,amongotherthings,enactordinances,
approve resolutions and appropriate funds for the general welfare of the municipality and its
inhabitantspursuanttoSection16ofth(e)Code.Theseinclude:
(1) Approving ordinances and passing resolutions to protect the environment and
impose appropriate penalties for acts which endanger the environment, such
as dynamite fishing and other forms of destructive fishing, illegal logging and
smuggling of logs, smuggling of natural resources products and of endangered
species of flora and fauna, slash and burn farming, and such other activities
whichresultinpollution,accelerationofeutrophicationofriversandlakes,or
ofecologicalimbalance[Section447(1)(vi)]
(2) Prescribing reasonable limits and restraints on the use of property within the
jurisdictionofthemunicipality,adoptingacomprehensivelanduseplanforthe
municipality, reclassifying land within the jurisdiction of the city, subject to the
pertinent provisions of this Code, enacting integrated zoning ordinances in
consonance with the approved comprehensive land use plan, subject to existing
laws, rules and regulations establishing fire limits or zones, particularly in
populous centers and regulating the construction, repair or modification of
buildingswithinsaidfirelimitsorzonesinaccordancewiththeprovisionsofthis
Code[Section447(2)(viix)]
(3) Approving ordinances which shall ensure the efficient and effective delivery of the
basicservicesandfacilitiesasprovidedforunderSection17ofthisCode,andin
addition to said services and facilities, providing for the establishment,
maintenance, protection, and conservation of communal forests and
watersheds, tree parks, greenbelts, mangroves, and other similar forest
development projects .and, subject to existing laws, establishing and providing
for the maintenance, repair and operation of an efficient waterworks system to
supply water for the inhabitants and purifying the source of the water supply
regulating the construction, maintenance, repair and use of hydrants, pumps,
cisternsandreservoirsprotectingthepurityandquantityofthewatersupply
ofthemunicipalityand,forthispurpose,extendingthecoverageofappropriate
ordinances over all territory within the drainage area of said water supply
and within one hundred (100) meters of the reservoir, conduit, canal,
aqueduct, pumping station, or watershed used in connection with the water
serviceandregulatingtheconsumption,useorwastageofwater.[Section447(5)
(i)&(vii)]
27/33
11/18/2016
Under the Local Government Code, therefore, two requisites must be met before a
nationalprojectthataffectstheenvironmentalandecologicalbalanceoflocalcommunitiescan
beimplemented:priorconsultationwiththeaffectedlocalcommunities,andpriorapproval of
theprojectbytheappropriatesanggunian.Absenteitherofthesemandatoryrequirements,the
projectsimplementationisillegal.
III.
WASTEDISPOSALISREGULATEDBYTHEECOLOGICAL
SOLIDWASTEMANAGEMENTACTOF2000
TherespondentswouldhaveusoverlookalltheabovecitedlawsbecausetheSanMateo
site is a very expensive and necessary fait accompli. The respondents cite the millions of
pesos and hundreds of thousands of dollars the government has already expended in its
developmentandconstruction,andthelackofanyviablealternativesites.
TheCourtofAppealsagreed,thus:
Duringthehearingontheinjunction,questionswerealsoasked.Whatwillhappen
iftheSanMateoSanitaryLandfillisclosed?Wherewillthedailycollectionsofgarbage
be disposed of and dumped? Atty. Mendoza, one of the lawyers of the petitioners,
answeredthateachcity/municipalitymusttakecareofitsown.Reflectingonthatanswer,
wearetroubled:willnottheproliferationofseparateopendumpsitesbeamoreserious
healthhazard(whichha(s)tobeaddressed)totheresidentsofthecommunity?Whatwith
thegallopingpopulationgrowthandtheconstrictingavailablelandareainMetroManila?
There could be a miniSmokey Mountain in each of the ten citiescomprising Metro
Manila, placing in danger the health and safety of more people. Damage to the
environment could be aggravated by the increase in number of open dumpsites. An
integrated system of solid waste management, like the San Mateo Sanitary Landfill,
appears advisable to a populous metropolis like the Greater Metro Manila Area absent
[51]
accesstobettertechnology.
Weacknowledgethatthesearevalidconcerns.Nevertheless,thelowercourtshouldhave
beenmindfulofthelegaltruismthatitisthelegislature,byitsverynature,whichistheprimary
28/33
11/18/2016
[52]
judgeofthenecessity,adequacy,wisdom,reasonablenessandexpediencyofanylaw.
Moreover,theseconcernsareaddressedbyRep.ActNo.9003.Approvedon26January
2001, The Ecological Solid Waste Management Act of 2000 was enacted pursuant to the
declared policy of the state to adopt a systematic, comprehensive and ecological solid waste
management system which shall ensure the protection of public health and environment, and
utilizeenvironmentallysoundmethodsthatmaximizetheutilizationofvaluableresourcesand
[53]
encourage resource conservation and recovery.
It requires the adherence to a Local
Government Solid Waste Management Plan with regard to the collection and transfer,
processing, source reduction, recycling, composting and final disposal of solid wastes, the
handlinganddisposalofspecialwastes,educationandpublicinformation,andthefundingof
solidwastemanagementprojects.
The said law mandates the formulation of a National Solid Waste Management
Framework, which should include, among other things, the method and procedure for the
phaseoutandtheeventualclosurewithineighteenmonthsfromeffectivityoftheActincaseof
existing open dumps and/or sanitary landfills located within an aquifer, groundwater
[54]
reservoirorwatershedarea.
Anylandfillssubsequentlydevelopedmustcomplywiththe
minimum requirements laid down in Section 40, specifically that the site selected must be
consistentwiththeoveralllanduseplanofthelocalgovernmentunit,andthatthesitemust
be located in an area where the landfills operation will not detrimentally affect
environmentally sensitive resources such as aquifers, groundwater reservoirs or watershed
[55]
areas.
29/33
11/18/2016
ThiswritesfinistoanyremainingaspirationsrespondentsmayhaveofreopeningtheSan
MateoSite.HavingdeclaredProclamationNo.635illegal,weseenocompellingneedtotackle
theremainingissuesraisedinthepetitionandthepartiesrespectivememoranda.
A final word. Laws pertaining to the protection of the environment were not drafted in a
vacuum.Congresspassedtheselawsfullyawareoftheperilousstateofbothoureconomicand
naturalwealth.Itwaspreciselytominimizetheadverseimpacthumanitysactionsonallaspects
of the natural world, at the same time maintaining and ensuring an environment under which
manandnaturecanthriveinproductiveandenjoyableharmonywitheachother,thattheselegal
safeguardswereputinplace.Theyshouldthusnotbesolightlycastasideinthefaceofwhatis
easyandexpedient.
WHEREFORE,thepetitionisGRANTED.TheDecisionoftheCourtofAppealsinCAG.R.
SP No. 41330, dated 13 June 1997, is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The temporary
restrainingorderissuedbytheCourton24January2001isherebymadepermanent.
SOORDERED.
MINITAV.CHICONAZARIO
AssociateJustice
WECONCUR:
HILARIOG.DAVIDE,JR.
ChiefJustice
REYNATOS.PUNO
AssociateJustice
ARTEMIOV.PANGANIBAN
AssociateJustice
30/33
11/18/2016
LEONARDOA.QUISUMBING
CONSUELOYNARESSANTIAGO
AssociateJustice
AssociateJustice
ANGELINASANDOVALGUTIERREZ
ANTONIOT.CARPIO
AssociateJustice
AssociateJustice
MA.ALICIAAUSTRIAMARTINEZ
RENATOC.CORONA
AssociateJustice
AssociateJustice
CONCHITACARPIOMORALES
ROMEOJ.CALLEJO,SR.
AssociateJustice
AssociateJustice
ADOLFOS.AZCUNA
DANTEO.TINGA
AssociateJustice
AssociateJustice
CANCIOC.GARCIA
AssociateJustice
CERTIFICATION
PursuanttoArticleVIII,Section13oftheConstitution,itisherebycertifiedthattheconclusions
intheaboveDecisionwerereachedinconsultationbeforethecasewasassignedtothewriterof
theopinionoftheCourt.
HILARIOG.DAVIDE,JR.
ChiefJustice
31/33
11/18/2016
[1]
ThomasJefferson.
[2]
ResolutionNo.9579oftheOfficeoftheSangguniangBayan,MunicipalityofSanMateo,ProvinceofRizal,CARollo,pp.70
71.
[3]
CARollo,p.53.
[4]
CARollo,pp.3536.
[5]
CARollo,pp.4247.
[6]
CARollo,pp.4849.
[7]
CARollo,p.50.
[8]
CARollo,p.51.
[9]
CARollo,p.52.
[10]
CARollo,p.55.
[11]
Subject:PertinentActivitiesRelatedtotheSanMateoLandfillandtheProposedIntegratedSocialForestryProjectatPintong
Bocaue,SanMateo,RizalCARollo,pp.5660.
[12]
CARollo,p.61.
[13]
CARollo,pp.6566.
[14]
CARollo,pp.7071.
[15]
Penned by Associate Justice Buenaventura J. Guerrero with Associate Justices Jaime M. Lantin and Oswaldo D. Agcaoili,
concurring.
[16]
CARollo,p.411.
[17]
Rollo,pp.265271.
[18]
Rollo,p.265.
[19]
Rollo,pp.343348.
[20]
Rollo,p.344.
[21]
Rollo,pp.345,364.
[22]
Rollo,pp.350352.
[23]
Rollo,p.355.
[24]
Rollo,pp.361363.
[25]
Rollo,p.358.
[26]
Rollo,pp.353359.
[27]
Rollo,p.368.
[28]
Rollo,pp.435453.
[29]
A.M.No.99204SC,whichtookeffecton15March1999.
[30]
RepublicofthePhilippinesv.TheCityofDavao,G.R.No.148622,12September2002,388SCRA691,citingGonzalesv.
Chavez,G.R.No.97351,04February1992,205SCRA816,830andConsolidatedBankandTrustCorporationv.Courtof
Appeals,G.R.No.78771,23January1991,193SCRA158,176.
[31]
CARollo,pp.4849.
[32]
CARollo,p.50.
[33]
CARollo,p.51.
[34]
CARollo,p.52.
32/33
11/18/2016
[35]
Subject:PertinentActivitiesRelatedtotheSanMateoLandfillandtheProposedIntegratedSocialForestryProjectatPintong
Bocaue,SanMateo,RizalCARollo,pp.5660.
[36]
G.R.No.107764,04October2002,390SCRA343,359360.
[37]
G.R.No.112526,12October2001,367SCRA175.
[38]
Colladov.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.107764,04October2002,390SCRA343,359360,citingSta.RosaRealtyDevelopment
Corporationv.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.112526,12October2001,367SCRA175.
[39]
Rep.ActNo.8041,approvedon07June1995.
[40]
Section2,Rep.ActNo.8041.
[41]
G.R.No.135385,06December2000,347SCRA128.
[42]
Cruzv.SecretaryofEnvironmentandNaturalResources,G.R.No.135385,06December2000,347SCRA128,171172,citing
2Aruego,TheFramingofthePhilippineConstitution,pp.600601.
[43]
Id.,pp.171173.
[44]
Promulgatedon10June1987.
[45]
G.R.No.101083,30July1993,224SCRA792.
[46]
Oposav.Factoran,G.R.No.101083,30July1993,224SCRA792,806807.
[47]
TSN,Rollo,pp.141142.
[48]
Rollo,p.344.
[49]
G.R.No.129093,30August2001,364SCRA76.
[50]
G.R.No.131442,10July2003,405SCRA530.
[51]
CARollo,p.407.
[52]
Agpalo,StatutoryConstruction,citingDelosSantosv.Mallare,87Phil.289(1950)Republicv.GoBonLee,111Phil.805
(1961)Taadav.Cuenco,103Phil.1051(1957).
[53]
Section2(a)and(b),Rep.ActNo.9003.
[54]
Section15(p),Rep.ActNo.9003.
[55]
Section40,paragraphs(a)and(e),Rep.ActNo.9003.
33/33

Province of Rizal Vs Executive Secretary

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Province of Rizal Vs Executive Secretary

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

11/18/2016

On 19 February 1990, the DENR Environmental Management Bureau, through

In view of this, we are forced to suspend the Environmental Compliance

2. The proposed Integrated Social Forestry Project be pushed through or be

WHEREAS, the Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural

Section 1. General That certain parcels of land, embraced by the Marikina

Section 3. Technical Description Specifically, the areas being hereby excluded

Section 4. Reservations The development, construction, use and/or operation of

2.2 Metro Manila is presently estimated to be generating, at least, 15,700 cubic

THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN

THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN

THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN RULING THAT THE RESPONDENTS DID

THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT

THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED WHEN IT READILY SWALLOWED

THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT

On 11 January 2001, President Estrada directed Department of Interior and Local

erosion had resulted from improper development of the site.

This policy declaration is substantially restated in Title XIV, Book IV of the

The above provision stresses the necessity of maintaining a sound ecological

Thus, the projects and programs mentioned in Section 27 should be interpreted to

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi