EPA CASE DIGEST: No. 6 are thus brought to the fore.

Section 12 thereof
provides:
MACAILING v. ANDRADA
12. Finality of decision promulgated by the Secretary —
FACTS:
The decision of the Secretary of Agriculture and
Petitioners claim possession while petitioners claimed a
Commerce (now Agriculture and Natural Resources) or
sales application over a bigger parcel of land including the
the Under Secretary on an appealed case shall become
4 parcels of land occupied by the former. The District
final, unless otherwise specifically stated therein, after the
Land Officer of Cotabato decided in plaintiff’s favor but
lapse of thirty (30) days from the date of its receipt by the
the Dir. of Lands reversed. The appeal to the Sec. Of Agri.
interested parties.
& natural resources reversed the DoL’s decision. An MR
was denied saying that it has become final and executory Section 13 following reads:
by the SANR and was appealed to the Office of the Pres.
13. No reconsideration of final decision or order —
The Office of the Pres. Reversed the decision granting it
again to the defendants. The petitioners instituted an After a decision or order of the Secretary of Agriculture
ordinary civil action to have the decision of the SANR and [Natural Resources], the Under Secretary or the
declared final & executory. Director of Lands has become final, no motion or petition
for reconsideration of such decision or reinvestigation of
ISSUES:
the case shall be entertained by the Secretary of
W/n the decision of the Office of the President was valid Agriculture and [Natural Resources] the Under Secretary
despite the finality of the decision of the SANR. or the Director of Lands, as the case may be, except as
provided in Section 14 hereof.
RULING:
And Section 14 is to this effect:
In the matter of judicial review of administrative
decisions, some statutes especially provide for such "Upon such terms as may be considered just, the Secretary
judicial review; others are silent. Mere silence, however, of Agriculture and [Natural Resources], the Under
does not necessarily imply that judicial review is Secretary or the Director of Lands may relieve a party or
unavailable. Modes of judicial review vary according to his legal representative from a decision, order, or other
the statutes; appeal, petition for review or a writ of proceeding taken against him through his mistake,
certiorari. inadvertence, surprise, default or excusable neglect:
No general rule applies to all the various administrative Provided, That application therefor be made within a
agencies. Where the law stands mute, the accepted view reasonable time but in no case exceeding one (1) year
is that the extraordinary remedies in the Rules of Court after such decision, order or proceeding was taken."
are still available.
Therefore, the plaintiffs' appropriate remedy is certiorari,
Defendants did not move to reconsider or appeal from the
not an ordinary civil action. Although in injunctive or
Secretary's decision of October 27, 1956 — within 30
prohibitory writs, courts must have jurisdiction over the
days from their receipt thereof. Indeed, they attempted to
Corporation, Board, Officer or person whose acts are in
appeal only on October 23, 1957. They merely contend
question and not the jurisdiction over the SM of the case,
that their appeal was but 9 days after October 14, 1957,
the doctrines invoked in support of the theory of non-
the date defendants received the September 12, 1957
jurisdiction are inapplicable. Here the sole point in issue
ruling of the Secretary denying their second motion for
is whether the decision of the respondent public officers
reconsideration. That ruling, it must be remembered, drew
was legally correct or not, and, without going into the
attention to the fact that the Secretary's decision "had long
merits of the case, we see no cogent reason why this
become final and executory."
power of judicial review should be confined to the courts
of first instance of the locality where the offices of By reason of which, declaration was made that "this
respondents are maintained, to the exclusion of the courts (Secretary's) Office had no more jurisdiction to entertain
of first instance in those localities where the plaintiffs the said motion."
reside, and where the questioned decisions are being
enforced." The provisions of Lands Administrative Order
PART 4:
HIJO PLANTATION v CENTRAL BANK
G.R. No. L-34526 August 9, 1988HIJO
PLANTATION INC., DAVAO FRUITS
CORPORATION, TWIN RIVERS PLANTATION,
INC. and MARSMAN & CO., INC., for themselves
and in behalf of other persons and entities similarly
situated, petitioners, vs. CENTRAL BANK OF THE
PHILIPPINES, respondent.
FACTS
Because of the difficulty in determining the peso-dollar
exchange rate, Congress passed RA 6125 which imposed
a stabilization tax on exports, which gradually decreases
over four years. The law enumerated covered products
such as logs, copra, centrifugal sugar and copper. Under
Section 1, as a last provision, ―
Any export product the aggregate annual F.O.B. value of
which shall exceed five million United States dollars in
any one calendar year during the effectivity of this Act
shall likewise be subject to the rates of tax in force during
the fiscal years following its reaching the said aggregate
value.
During the first 9 months of 1971, the total banana export
exceeded the USD5m limit in RA 6125. Thus, the Central
Bank issued a Monetary Board Resolution imposing a
stabilization tax on exports of bananas.
The resolution provided a rate of 6% for the first half of
1971 and 4% from July 1971 to last until June 1972.
The petitioner corporations were all engaged in
production and exportation of bananas who paid the
stabilization taxes in protest and now assail the said
resolution. Central Bank contends that the stabilization
tax should be imposed starting July 1971, the fiscal year
following the calendar year where the industry reached
USD 5m limit.
ISSUE
WON the Central Bank exceeded its powers in issuing
the said Resolution
HELD
YES. There is no question that the export of bananas
already reached the limit, bringing it under the coverage
of RA 6125, and thus making the petitioners liable.
However, the Central Bank, in issuing the resolution,
acted in overzealous desire to carry out the provisions of
RA 6125. It acted beyond its authority under the said law.
Thus, where there is a discrepancy between the basic law
and the regulation issued to implement the said law, the
basic law prevails and the regulation cannot go beyond
the terms and provisions of the basic law.
In Re: Judge Rodolfo Manzano (1988)
[166 SCRA 246, October 05, 1988] Political Law|
Courts| Judiciary| Administrative Functions
IN RE: DESIGNATION OF JUDGE RODOLFO U.
MANZANO AS MEMBER OF THE ILOCOS
NORTE PROVINCIAL COMMITTEE ON
JUSTICE.
FACTS:
Judge Rodolfo U. Manzano, an Executive Judge in RTC
in Bangui, Ilocos Norte was appointed as a member of
Provincial Committee on Justice created pursuant to
Presidential EO 856. Petitioner requested the Court to
allow him to accept the appointment and to consider his
membership in the committee as neither violative to his
judicial function. He also added that his membership in
the said Committee is still part of the primary functions of
an Executive Judge.
Upon examination of EO 856 reveals that Provincial/City
Committees on Justice are created to insure the speedy
disposition of cases of detainees, particularly those
involving the poor and indigent ones, thus alleviating jail
congestion and improving local jail conditions. Among
the functions of the Committee are—
3.3 Receive complaints against any apprehending officer,
jail warden, final or judge who may be found to have
committed abuses in the discharge of his duties and refer
the same to proper authority for appropriate action;
3.5 Recommend revision of any law or regulation which
is believed prejudicial to the proper administration of
criminal justice.
ISSUE:
Whether the membership of Judge Manzano in the Ilocos
Norte Provincial Committee discharges as administrative
functions and will be in violation of the Constitution.
HELD:
Yes. Administrative functions are those which involve the
regulation and control over the conduct and affairs of
individuals for; their own welfare and the promulgation
of rules and regulations to better carry out the policy of
the legislature or such as are devolved upon the
administrative agency by the organic law of its existence.

Considering that membership of Judge Manzano in the
Provincial Committee on Justice involves the exercise of
administrative functions, hence, it will be in violation of
the Constitution.
Petition is denied.
CHAVEZ V. NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY
G.R. NO. 164527 15
AUGUST 2007
PONENTE: VELASCO, JR., J.
FACTS:
On August 5, 2004, former Solicitor General Francisco
Chavez, filed an instant petition raising constitutional
issues on the JVA entered by National Housing Authority
and R-II Builders, Inc.
On March 1, 1988, then-President Cory Aquino issued
Memorandum order No. (MO) 161 approving and
directing implementation of the Comprehensive and
Integrated Metropolitan Manila Waste Management Plan.
During this time, Smokey Mountain, a wasteland in
Tondo, Manila, are being made residence of many
Filipinos living in a subhuman state.
As presented in MO 161, NHA prepared feasibility
studies to turn the dumpsite into low-cost housing project,
thus, Smokey Mountain Development and Reclamation
Project (SMDRP), came into place. RA 6957 (Build-
Operate-Transfer Law) was passed on July 1990
declaring the importance of private sectors as contractors
in government projects. Thereafter, Aquino proclaimed
MO 415 applying RA 6957 to SMDRP, among others.
The same MO also established EXECOM and
TECHCOM in the execution and evaluation of the plan,
respectively, to be assisted by the Public Estates
Authority (PEA).
Notices of public bidding to become NHA’s venture
partner for SMDRP were published in newspapers in
1992, from which R-II Builders, Inc. (RBI) won the
bidding process. Then-President Ramos authorized NHA
to enter into a Joint Venture Agreement with RBI.
Under the JVA, the project involves the clearing of
Smokey Mountain for eventual development into a low
cost housing complex and industrial/commercial site.
RBI is expected to fully finance the development of
Smokey Mountain and reclaim 40 hectares of the land at
the Manila Bay Area. The latter together with the
commercial area to be built on Smokey Mountain will be
owned by RBI as enabling components. If the project is
revoked or terminated by the Government through no
fault of RBI or by mutual agreement, the Government
shall compensate RBI for its actual expenses incurred in
the Project plus a reasonable rate of return not exceeding
that stated in the feasibility study and in the contract as of
the date of such revocation, cancellation, or termination
on a schedule to be agreed upon by both parties.
To summarize, the SMDRP shall consist of Phase I and
Phase II. Phase I of the project involves clearing,
levelling-off the dumpsite, and construction of temporary
housing units for the current residents on the cleared and
levelled site. Phase II involves the construction of a
fenced incineration area for the on-site disposal of the
garbage at the dumpsite.
Due to the recommendations done by the DENR after
evaluations done, the JVA was amended and restated
(now ARJVA) to accommodate the design changes and
additional work to be done to successfully implement the
project. The original 3,500 units of temporary housing
were decreased to 2,992. The reclaimed land as enabling
component was increased from 40 hectares to 79 hectares,
which was supported by the issuance of Proclamation No.
465 by President Ramos. The revision also provided for
the 119-hectare land as an enabling component for Phase
II of the project.
Subsequently, the Clean Air Act was passed by the
legislature which made the establishment of an
incinerator illegal, making the off-site dumpsite at
Smokey Mountain necessary. On August 1, 1998, the
project was suspended, to be later reconstituted by
President Estrada in MO No. 33.
On August 27, 2003, the NHA and RBI executed a
Memorandum of Agreement whereby both parties agreed
to terminate the JVA and subsequent agreements. During
this time, NHA reported that 34 temporary housing
structures and 21 permanent housing structures had been
turned over by RBI.
ISSUES:
1. Whether respondents NHA and RBI have been granted
the power and authority to reclaim lands of the public
domain as this power is vested exclusively in PEA as
claimed by petitioner
2. Whether respondents NHA and RBI were given the
power and authority by DENR to reclaim foreshore and
submerged lands
3. Whether respondent RBI can acquire reclaimed
foreshore and submerged lands considered as alienable
and outside the commerce of man
4. Whether respondent RBI can acquire reclaimed lands
when there was no declaration that said lands are no
longer needed for public use
5. Whether there is a law authorizing sale of reclaimed
lands
6. Whether the transfer of reclaimed lands to RBI was
done by public bidding
7. Whether RBI, being a private corporation, is barred by
the Constitution to acquire lands of public domain
8. Whether respondents can be compelled to disclose all
information related to the SMDRP
9. Whether the operative fact doctrine applies to the
instant position
HELD:
1. Executive Order 525 reads that the PEA shall be
primarily responsible for integrating, directing, and
coordinating all reclamation projects for and on behalf of
the National Government. This does not mean that it shall
be responsible for all. The requisites for a valid and legal
reclamation project are approval by the President (which
were provided for by MOs), favourable recommendation
of PEA (which were seen as a part of its recommendations
to the EXECOM), and undertaken either by PEA or entity
under contract of PEA or by the National Government
Agency (NHA is a government agency whose authority to
reclaim lands under consultation with PEA is derived
under PD 727 and RA 7279).
2. Notwithstanding the need for DENR permission, the
DENR is deemed to have granted the authority to reclaim
in the Smokey Mountain Project for the DENR is one of
the members of the EXECOM which provides reviews for
the project. ECCs and Special Patent Orders were given
by the DENR which are exercises of its power of
supervision over the project. Furthermore, it was the
President via the abovementioned MOs that originally
authorized the reclamation. It must be noted that the
reclamation of lands of public domain is reposed first in
the Philippine President.
3. The reclaimed lands were classified alienable and
disposable via MO 415 issued by President Aquino and
Proclamation Nos. 39 and 465 by President Ramos.
4. Despite not having an explicit declaration, the lands
have been deemed to be no longer needed for public use
as stated in Proclamation No. 39 that these are to be
“disposed to qualified beneficiaries.” Furthermore, these
lands have already been necessarily reclassified as
alienable and disposable lands under the BOT law.
5. Letter I of Sec. 6 of PD 757 clearly states that the NHA
can acquire property rights and interests and encumber or
otherwise dispose of them as it may deem appropriate.
6. There is no doubt that respondent NHA conducted a
public bidding of the right to become its joint venture
partner in the Smokey Mountain Project. It was noted that
notices were published in national newspapers. The
bidding proper was done by the Bids and Awards
Committee on May 18, 1992.
7. RA 6957 as amended by RA 7718 explicitly states that
a contractor can be paid “a portion as percentage of the
reclaimed land” subject to the constitutional requirement
that only Filipino citizens or corporation with at least 60%
Filipino equity can acquire the same. In addition, when
the lands were transferred to the NHA, these were
considered Patrimonial lands of the state, by which it has
the power to sell the same to any qualified person.
8. This relief must be granted. It is the right of the Filipino
people to information on matters of public concerned as
stated in Article II, Sec. 28, and Article III, Sec. 7 of the
1987 Constitution.
9. When the petitioner filed the case, the JVA had already
been terminated by virtue of MOA between RBI and
NHA. The properties and rights in question after the
passage of around 10 years from the start of the project’s
implementation cannot be disturbed or questioned. The
petitioner, being the Solicitor General at the time SMDRP
was formulated, had ample opportunity to question the
said project, but did not do so. The moment to challenge
has passed.
ADMIN RELATED
ISSUE: Whether or not the NHA has the authority to
reclaim lands
RULING: Yes. While the authority of NHA to reclaim
lands is challenged by petitioner, we find that the NHA
had more than enough authority to do so under existing
laws. While PD 757, the charter of NHA, does not
explicitly mention “reclamation” in any of the listed
powers of the agency, we rule that the NHA has an
implied power to reclaim land as this is vital or incidental
to effectively, logically, and successfully implement an
urban land reform and housing program enunciated in
Sec. 9 of Article XIII of the 1987 Constitution.
Basic in administrative law is the doctrine that a
government agency or office has express and implied
powers based on its charter and other pertinent statutes.
Express powers are those powers granted, allocated, and
delegated to a government agency or office by express
provisions of law.
On the other hand, implied powers are those that can be
inferred or are implicit in the wordings of the law or
conferred by necessary or fair implication in the enabling
act. When a general grant of power is conferred or duty
enjoined, every particular power necessary for the
exercise of the one or the performance of the other is also
conferred by necessary implication. when the statute does
not specify the particular method to be followed or used
by a government agency in the exercise of the power
vested in it by law, said agency has the authority to adopt
any reasonable method to carry out its functions.
The power to reclaim on the part of the NHA is implicit
from PD 757, RA 7279, MO 415, RA 6957, and PD 3A.
Land reclamation is an integral part of the development of
resources for some of the housing requirements of the
NHA. Private participation in housing projects may also
take the form of land reclamation.
RATIO: Express and implied powers. - The jurisdiction
and powers of administrative agencies are measured and
limited by the Constitution or law creating them or
granting their powers, to those conferred expressly or by
necessary or fair implication.