Protected Areas

Group 3
 Philippines has some of the world’s finest beaches, dive
sites, lakes and mountains, making the country one of the
world’s best nature destinations.
 Philippines is one of the world’s 17 megabiodiversity
countries that together contain ⅔ of the earth’s
biodiversity and around 70 to 80% of the world’s plant and
animal species.
It is also located within the Coral Triangle, at the center of
the highest marine diversity in the world, which accounts
for the rich and colorful marine life that scuba divers have
come to expect from Philippine water.
 As repositories of rich natural capital, much of the
country’s best nature destinations have become protected
under various environmental laws and are managed
under the National Integrated Protected Areas System
(NIPAS).

These ensure that the country’s unspoiled forests, lakes

and beaches are protected, so that future generations
may continue to enjoy the benefits from species and
wildlife found in these areas.
 As of 2013, there are 240 protected areas covering 5.45
million hectares under NIPAS.

It encompasses 14.2% of the total area of the country, and

include 4.07 million hectares of terrestrial and 1.38 million
hectares of marine areas.

About 26% of the country’s remaining forests are found in

protected areas.
Protected Areas and
Watersheds in the
Philippines
Mt. Kanlaon Natural Park
Regions: Region VI and Region VII

Provinces: NEgros Occidental and Negros Oriental

City/ Municipality: Municipalities of Murcia and La Castellana and cities of

Bago, La Carlota, and San Carlos in Negros Occidental and Canlaon City,
Negros Oriental

Area: 24,557.60 hectares

Date of Establishment: August 8, 2011

Legal Instrument: Proclamation No. 1005, May 8, 1997; RA 9154 Series of 2011
 The Park is a critical watershed that supports major river
systems such as the Bago Rover, Nahalin River, and
Binalbagan River, which in turn provide for the needs of
the municipalities and cities that encompass the protected
area.
Central Cebu Protected Landscape - Buhisan Watershed Reserve
Region: Region VII

Province: Cebu

City/Municipality: Portions of the Municipalities of Balamban, Compostela,

Consolacion and Manglanilla, and the cities of Cebu, Danao, Talisay and
Toledo

Area: 28,192.518 hectares

Date of Establishment: June 7, 2007

Legal Instrument: RA 9486

 The Central Cebu Protected Landscape is located in the center of Cebu
province, covering 4 cities, 4 municipalities and 51 barangays.

A major portion of the protected area is the Buhisan Watershed Reserve,

which has an area of 630.89hectares.

The natural forest of the Buhisan Watershed Reserve was lost about a century
ago, when most of the island became denuded, leaving an undistinguished
cover of brushland. However, reforestation activities were conducted in the
1900s using exotic species, forming a mixed speciation of several dominant
species within the area.
Mt. Malindang Natural Park
Region: Region X

Province: Misamis Occidental and portions of Zamboanga del NOrte and

Zamboanga del Sur

City/Municipality: Cities of Oroquieta, Ozamis and Tangub and Municipalities

of Sapang Dalaga, concepcion, Don Victoriano, Calamba, Aloran, Panaon,
Jimenez, Tudela, Sinacaban, Clarin and Bonifacio

Area: 53,262 hectares

Date of Establishment: 2004

Legal Instrument: RA 6266 June 19, 1971; RA 9304 July 30, 2004
First declared a NAtional Park and Watershed Reserve on June 19, 1971, Mt.
Malindang Natural Park was one of the first components of the National
Integrated Protected Areas System in 2004. In 2011, Mt. Malindang was
declared an ASEAN Heritage Park in recognition of the importance of it
biodiversity resources to the country and to the ASEAN region.

The Park is economically significant to the province and its neighboring

communities as it supports 15 major watershed.
Mt. Kitanglad Natural Park
Region: Region XI

Province: Bukidnon

City/Municipality: Baungon, Talakag, Lantapan, Impasugong, Sumilao, Libona,

and Manolo FOrtich and Malaybalay City

Area: 47,270 hectares

Date of Establishment: 2000

Legal Instrument: RA 8978

 The Park is the major watershed that provides water for
irrigation, power generation and domestic use for
Bukidnon, as well as the province of Misamis Oriental, and
the catchment are of the Cagayan, Tagoloan and Pulangi
river system.
Protected areas and watershed
management
Application of Laws
 Applicable Laws
● Republic Act No. 7586 - National
Integrated Protected Areas System (NIPAS)
Act of 1992
● Republic Act No. 7942 - Philippine Mining
Act of 1995
● DENR Memorandum Order No. 2011-04
R.A. No. 7586- National Integrated Protected Areas System (NIPAS) Act
of 1992

Introduction
The "National Integrated Protected Areas
System (NIPAS)" is the classification and
administration of all designated protected areas to
maintain essential ecological processes and
life-support systems, to preserve genetic diversity, to
ensure sustainable use of resources found therein,
and to maintain their natural conditions to the
greatest extent possible.
R.A. No. 7586- National Integrated Protected Areas System (NIPAS) Act of 1992

Declaration of Policy
(1) Cognizant of the profound impact of man’s activities on all
components of the natural environment particularly the effect of
increasing population, resource exploitation and industrial
advancement and recognizing the critical importance of protecting
and maintaining the natural biological and physical diversities of the
environment notably on areas with biologically unique features to
sustain human life and development, as well as plant and animal life,
it is hereby declared the policy of the State to secure for the
Filipino people of present and future generations the perpetual
existence of all native plants and animals through the
establishment of a comprehensive system of integrated
protected areas within the classification of national park as
provided for in the Constitution.
R.A. No. 7586- National Integrated Protected Areas System (NIPAS) Act of 1992

Declaration of Policy
(2) It is hereby recognized that these areas, although distinct in
features, posses common ecological values that may be incorporated
into a holistic plan representative of our natural heritage; that effective
administration of this area is possible only through cooperation among
national government, local government and concerned private
organizations; that the use and enjoyment of these protected areas
must be consistent with the principles of biological diversity and
sustainable development.
R.A. No. 7586- National Integrated Protected Areas System (NIPAS) Act of 1992

Declaration of Policy
(3) To this end, there is hereby established a
National Integrated Protected Areas System (NIPAS),
which shall encompass outstandingly remarkable
areas and biologically important public lands that are
habitats of rare and endangered species of plants and
animals, biogeographic zones and related ecosystems,
whether terrestrial, wetland or marine, all of which
shall be designated as "protected areas".
Establishment and Extent of the System

The establishment and operationalization of the System shall involve all areas or islands in the
Philippines proclaimed, designated or set aside, pursuant to a law, presidential decree,
presidential proclamation or executive order as:
1. national park,
2. game refuge,
3. bird and wildlife sanctuary,
4. wilderness area,
5. strict nature reserve,
6. watershed,
7. mangrove reserve,
8. fish sanctuary,
9. natural and historical landmark,
10. protected and managed landscape/seascape; as well as
11. identified virgin forests- before the effectivity of this Act are hereby designated as initial
components of the System. The initial components of the System shall be governed by existing laws,
rules and regulations, not inconsistent with this Act; xxx
Ancestral Lands and Rights Over Them.
Ancestral lands and customary rights and interest
arising shall be accorded due recognition. The DENR shall
prescribe rules and regulations to govern ancestral lands
within protected areas: Provided, That the DENR shall
have no power to evict indigenous communities from
their present occupancy nor resettle them to another
area without their consent: Provided, however, That all
rules and regulations, whether adversely affecting said
communities or not, shall be subjected to notice and
hearing to be participated in by members of concerned
indigenous community.
Prohibited Acts under the System
a. Hunting, destroying, disturbing, or mere possession of any plants or
animals or products derived therefrom without a permit from the
Management Board;
b. Dumping of any waste products detrimental to the protected area, or
to the plants and animals or inhabitants therein;
c. Use of any motorized equipment without a permit from the
Management Board;
d. Mutilating, defacing or destroying objects of natural beauty, or
objects of interest to cultural communities (of scenic value);
e. Damaging and leaving roads and trails in a damaged condition;
Prohibited Acts under the System
f. Squatting, mineral locating, or otherwise occupying any
land;
g. Constructing or maintaining any kind of structure, fence
or enclosures, conducting any business enterprise
without a permit;
h. Leaving in exposed or unsanitary conditions refuse or
debris, or depositing in ground or in bodies of water;
and
i. Altering, removing destroying or defacing boundary
marks or signs.
Republic Act No. 7942- Philippine Mining Act of 1995
Declaration of Policy
All mineral resources in public and private lands within
the territory and exclusive economic zone of the Republic
of the Philippines are owned by the State. It shall be the
responsibility of the State to promote their rational
exploration, development, utilization and conservation
through the combined efforts of government and the
private sector in order to enhance national growth in a way
that effectively safeguards the environment and protect
the rights of affected communities.
Areas Closed to Mining Applications
Mineral agreement or financial or technical assistance agreement
applications shall not be allowed:
a. In military and other government reservations, except upon prior
written clearance by the government agency concerned;
b. Near or under public or private buildings, cemeteries, archeological
and historic sites, bridges, highways, waterways, railroads, reservoirs,
dams or other infrastructure projects, public or private works
including plantations or valuable crops, except upon written consent
of the government agency or private entity concerned;
c. In areas covered by valid and existing mining rights;
Areas Closed to Mining Applications
Mineral agreement or financial or technical assistance agreement
applications shall not be allowed:
d. In areas expressedly prohibited by law;
e. In areas covered by small-scale miners as defined by law unless
with prior consent of the small-scale miners, in which case a
royalty payment upon the utilization of minerals shall be agreed
upon by the parties, said royalty forming a trust fund for the
socioeconomic development of the community concerned; and
f. Old growth or virgin forests, proclaimed watershed forest
reserves, wilderness areas, mangrove forests, mossy forests,
national parks provincial/municipal forests, parks, greenbelts,
game refuge and bird sanctuaries as defined by law and in areas
expressly prohibited under the National Integrated Protected
Areas System (NIPAS) under Republic Act No. 7586, Department
Administrative Order No. 25, series of 1992 and other laws.
DENR Memorandum Order No. 2011-04

This Memorandum is the Strict

Regulation of Activities, Projects and
Land Uses in all Areas Proposed for
Inclusion in the National Integrated
Protected Areas System (NIPAS)
DENR Memorandum Order No. 2011-04
Pursuant to Section 6 and 10(d) of Republic Act No. 7586 or the
National Integrated Protected Areas System (NIPAS) Act of 1992, and in
view of Rule 7.1 of DENR Administrative Order No. 2008-26, the following
guidelines are hereby issued for the compliance of all concerned:
1. The survey and processing of all public land applications (PLAs) for
titling purposes over lands covered by proposed Proclamations for
Protected Areas submitted by the DENR to the Office of the President
are hereby declared suspended effective upon the actual date of the
submission of the draft Proclamation by the Office of the RED to the
Central Office. Beginning on the said date, no PLAs over lands within
these areas shall be accepted;
DENR Memorandum Order No. 2011-04

2. Also on the same date, the processing of

applications for lease/license/ permit of any
project/activity therein shall be held in
abeyance and no new applications shall be
accepted, except for projects that are
compatible with the objectives of the
NIPAS; xxx
Cases:
PICOP Resources Inc. vs. Base Metals Mineral Resources Corporation, and the Mines Adjudication Board

Facts:

● A portion of Banahaw Mining's mining claims was located in petitioner PICOP's logging concession in Agusan
del Sur, Banahaw Mining and petitioner PICOP entered into a Memorandum of Agreement, whereby, in mutual
recognition of each other's right to the area concerned, petitioner PICOP allowed Banahaw Mining an
access/right of way to its mining claims.

● In 1991, Banahaw Mining converted its mining claims to applications for Mineral Production Sharing
Agreements (MPSA for brevity). PICOP filed with the Mines Geo-Sciences Bureau (MGB), Caraga Regional Office
No. XIII an Adverse Claim and/or Opposition to private respondent Base Metals' application.
Facts:

● PICOP then proceeded to claim that the area should remain forest land if the purpose of the presidential fiat
were to be followed. It stated: Technically, the areas applied for by Base Metals are classified as permanent
forest being land of the public domain determined to be needed for forest purposes (Paragraph 6, Section 3 of
Presidential Decree No. 705, as amended).

● On November 18, 1997 PICOP filed with the Mines Geo-Sciences Bureau (MGB), an Opposition to private
respondent Base Metals' application, alleging that it violated the non-impairment clause and will be prejudicial
to PICOP.

Contentions:

PICOP contends that its concession area is within the Agusan-SurigaoDavao Forest Reserve established
under Proclamation No. 369 and is closed to mining application citing several paragraphs of Sec. 19 of
RA 7942.

(f) Old growth or virgin forests, proclaimed watershed forest reserves, wilderness areas, mangrove forests, mossy
forests, national parks, provincial/municipal forests, parks, greenbelts, game refuge and bird sanctuaries as defined
by law in areas expressly prohibited under the National Ingrated Protected Areas System (NIPAS) under Republic Act
No. 7586, Department Administrative Order No. 25, series of 1992 and other laws.
ISSUE/S:

W/N Whether or not the concession area of petitioner is closed to mining activities and that the conversion of the
agreement into MPSA will run counter to the non-impairment clause of the Constitution.

RULING:

NO. A timber license agreement is not a contract, it is a mere privilege. We should state at this juncture that the policy of
multiple land use is enshrined in our laws towards the end that the country's natural resources may be rationally
explored, developed, utilized and conserved.

In like manner, RA 7942, recognizing the equiponderance between mining and timber rights, gives a mining contractor
the right to enter a timber concession and cut timber therein provided that the surface owner or concessionaire shall be
properly compensated for any damage done to the property as a consequence of mining operations. Firstly, assuming
that the area covered by Base Metals' MPSA is a government reservation, defined as proclaimed reserved lands for
specific purposes other than mineral reservations, such does not necessarily preclude mining activities in the area.

Sec. 15(b) of DAO 96- 40 provides that government reservations may be opened for mining applications upon prior
written clearance by the government agency having jurisdiction over such reservation.
Ruling:

Sec. 6 of RA 7942 also provides that mining operations in reserved lands other than mineral reservations may
be undertaken by the DENR, subject to certain limitations.

Secondly, RA 7942 does not disallow mining applications in all forest reserves but only those proclaimed as
watershed forest reserves. There is no evidence in this case that the area covered by Base Metals' MPSA has
been proclaimed as watershed forest reserves.

DENR Memorandum Order No. 03-98, which provides the guidelines in the issuance of area status and
clearance or consent for mining applications pursuant to RA 7942, provides that timber or forest lands,
military and other government reservations, forest reservations, forest reserves other than critical
watershed forest reserves, and existing DENR Project Areas within timber or forest lands, reservations
and reserves, among others, are open to mining applications subject to area status and clearance.

Lastly, PICOP failed to present any evidence that the area covered by the MPSA is a protected wilderness area
designated as an initial component of the NIPAS pursuant to a law, presidential decree, presidential
proclamation or executive order as required by RA 7586.
 Apex Mining vs. Southeast Mindanao Gold Mining (SEM)

FACTS:

● A motion for reconsideration was filed by SEM. The Assailed Decision held that the assignment of Exploration
Permit (EP) 133 in favor of SEM violated one of the conditions stipulated in the permit. It also ruled that the
transfer of EP 133 violated Presidential Decree No. 463, which requires that the assignment of a mining right be
made with the prior approval of the Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources
(DENR).

● Moreover, the Assailed Decision pointed out that EP 133 expired by non-renewal since it was not renewed
before or after its expiration. It likewise upheld the validity of Proclamation No. 297 absent any question
against its validity.

● Section 5 of Republic Act No. 7942, otherwise known as the “Mining Act of 1995,” mining operations in mineral
reservations may be undertaken directly by the State or through a contractor, the Court deemed the issue of
ownership of priority right over the contested Diwalwal Gold Rush Area as having been overtaken by the said
proclamation. Thus, it was held in the Assailed Decision that it is now within the prerogative of the Executive
Department to undertake directly the mining operations of the disputed area or to award the operations to
private entities including petitioners Apex and Balite, subject to applicable laws, rules and regulations, and
provided that these private entities are qualified.
Facts:
● Apex, for its part, filed a Motion for Clarification of the Assailed Decision, praying that the Court elucidate on the
Decision’s pronouncement that “mining operations, are now, therefore within the full control of the State
through the executive branch.” Moreover, Apex asks this Court to order the Mines and Geosciences Board
(MGB) to accept its application for an exploration permit.

● Balite echoes the same concern as that of Apex on the actual takeover by the State of the mining industry in the
disputed area to the exclusion of the private sector. In addition, Balite prays for this Court to direct MGB to
accept its application for an exploration permit.

● Camilo Banad, et al., likewise filed a motion for reconsideration and prayed that the disputed area be awarded
to them.
Issues:

1. Whether or not the transfer or assignment of Exploration Permit (EP) 133 by MMC to SEM was validly made
without violating any of the terms and conditions set forth in Presidential Decree No. 463 and EP 133 itself.

2. Whether or not Southeast Mindanao Mining Corp. acquired a vested right over the disputed area, which
constitutes a property right protected by the Constitution.
Issues:

3. Whether or not the issuance of Proclamation No. 297 declaring the disputed area as mineral reservation
outweighs the claims of SEM, Apex Mining Co. Inc. and Balite Communal Portal Mining Cooperative over the
Diwalwal Gold Rush Area.

4. Whether the issue of the legality/constitutionality of Proclamation No. 297 was belatedly raised.

Ruling:

1. NO.This is due to the fact that the assailed Decision did not overturn the 16 July 1991 Decision in Apex Mining
Co., Inc. v. Garcia. The former was decided on facts and issues that were not attendant in the latter, such as the
expiration of EP 133, the violation of the condition embodied in EP 133 prohibiting its assignment, and the
unauthorized and invalid assignment of EP 133 by MMC to SEM, since this assignment was effected without the
approval of the Secretary of DENR;

2. NO.SEM did not acquire vested right over the disputed area because it’s supposed right was extinguished by the
expiration of its exploration permit and by its violation of the condition prohibiting the assignment of EP 133 by
MMC to SEM.
Ruling:

In addition, even assuming that SEM has a valid exploration permit, such is a mere license that can be
withdrawn by the State. In fact, the same has been withdrawn by the issuance of Proclamation No. 297, which
places the disputed area under the full control of the State through the Executive Department;

3. The approval requirement under Section 97 of Presidential Decree No. 463 applies to the assignment of EP 133
by MMC to SEM, since the exploration permit is an interest in a mining lease contract;

4. The issue of the constitutionality and the legality of Proclamation No. 297 was raised belatedly,as SEM
questions the same for the first time in its Motion for Reconsideration. Even if the issue were to be entertained,
the said proclamation is found to be in harmony with the Constitution and other existing statutes;

5. The motion for reconsideration of Camilo Banad, et al. cannot be passed upon because they are not parties to
the instant cases;

The prayers of Apex and Balite asking the Court to direct the MGB to accept their applications for exploration
permits cannot be granted, since it is the Executive Department that has the prerogative to accept such
applications, if ever it decides to award the mining operations in the disputed area to a private entity;
 Province of Rizal, et al. v Executive Secretary, et al.

Facts:

● On November 17 1988, the respondent Secretaries of the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH)
and the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) and the Governor of the Metropolitan
Manila Commission (MMC) entered into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) which provides in part:

1. The DENR agrees to immediately allow the utilization by the Metropolitan Manila Commission of its land
property located at Pintong Bocaue in San Mateo, Rizal as a sanitary landfill site, subject to whatever
restrictions that the government impact assessment might require.

2. Upon signing of this Agreement, the DPWH shall commence the construction/development of said
dumpsite.

3. The MMC shall: a) take charge of the relocation of the families within and around the site; b) oversee the
development of the areas as a sanitary landfill; c) coordinate/monitor the construction of infrastructure
facilities by the DPWH in the said site; and d) ensure that the necessary civil works are properly
undertaken to safeguard against any negative environmental impact in the area.
Facts:

● On February 1989, the Sangguniang Bayan of San Mateo wrote Respondents pointing out that it had recently
passed a Resolution banning the creation of dumpsites for Metro Manila garbage within its jurisdiction, asking
that their side be heard, and that the addressees "suspend and temporarily hold in abeyance all and any part of
your operations with respect to the San Mateo Landfill Dumpsite." No action was taken on these letters.

● It turns out that the land subject of the MOA was part of the Marikina Watershed Reservation Area. Thus, the
Forest Engineering and Infrastructure Unit of the Community Environment and Natural Resource Office,
(CENRO) DENR-IV, Rizal Province, submitted on three separate occasions a Memorandum on the "On-going
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." Said Memorandum reads in part:

○ Said Dumping Site is observed to be confined within the said Watershed Reservation.... Such illegal
Dumping Site operation inside (the) Watershed Reservation is in violation of P.D. 705, otherwise
known as the Revised Forestry Code, as amended.

○ Without the concurrence of the Provincial Governor, Rizal Province and without any permit from DENR
who has functional jurisdiction over the Watershed Reservation; and

○ About 1,192 families residing and cultivating areas covered by four (4) Barangays surrounding the
dumping site will adversely be affected by the dumping operations of MMC including their sources of
domestic water supply. x x x x
Facts:

○ No permit issued to the MMC to utilize these portions of land for dumping purposes.

● On February 1990 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);

● Despite the various objections and recommendations raised by the government agencies aforementioned, the
Office of the President, through Executive Secretary Ruben Torres, signed and issued Proclamation No. 635 on
28 August 1995, "Excluding from the Marikina Watershed 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."

● On January 1999, the petitioners filed a Motion for Early Resolution, calling attention to the continued expansion
of the dumpsite by the MMDA that caused the people of 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, all the municipal mayors of the province of Rizal openly declared their full support
for the rally, and notified the MMDA that they would oppose any further attempt to dump garbage in their
province.
Facts:

● As a result, MMDA officials, headed by then Chairman Jejomar Binay, agreed to abandon the dumpsite after six
months.

● President Joseph E. Estrada, taking cognizance, issued a Memorandum ordering the closure of the dumpsite on
December 31, 2000. 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 Municipality of San Mateo, and
the City of Antipolo, wherein the latter agreed to further extend the use of the dumpsite until its permanent
closure on December 31, 2000. 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 dumpsite "in
view of the emergency situation of uncollected garbage in Metro Manila, resulting in a critical and imminent
health and sanitation epidemic."

● Meanwhile, on 26 January 2001, Republic Act No. 9003, otherwise known as "The Ecological Solid Waste
Management Act of 2000," was signed into law by President Estrada.
Issues:

1. Whether or not respondent MMDA agreed to the permanent closure of the San Mateo Landfill as of December
2000; and

2. Whether or not the permanent closure of the San Mateo landfill is mandated by Rep. Act No. 9003.