239135132 case1

Get Homework/Assignment Done
Homeworkping.com
Homework Help
https://www.homeworkping.com/
Research Paper help
Online Tutoring
click here for freelancing tutoring sites
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. 101083July 30, 1993
JUAN ANTONIO, ANNA ROSARIO and JOSE ALFONSO, all surnamed
OPOSA, minors,and represented by their parents ANTONIO and
RIZALINA OPOSA, ROBERTA NICOLE SADIUA, minor, represented by

her parents CALVIN and ROBERTA SADIUA, CARLO, AMANDA
SALUD and PATRISHA, all surnamedFLORES,minors and
representedby their parentsENRICO and NIDA FLORES, GIANINA
DITA R. FORTUN, minor,representedby her parents SIGRID and
DOLORES FORTUN, GEORGE II and MA. CONCEPCION,all surnamed
MISA, minors and represented by their parentsGEORGE and MYRA
MISA, BENJAMIN ALAN V. PESIGAN, minor,representedby his
parents ANTONIO and ALICE PESIGAN, JOVIE MARIE ALFARO,
minor,representedby her parents JOSE and MARIA VIOLETA
ALFARO, MARIA CONCEPCIONT.CASTRO,minor, represented by
her parents FREDENIL and JANE CASTRO,JOHANNA
DESAMPARADO,
minor,representedby her parents JOSE and ANGELA
DESAMPRADO,CARLO JOAQUIN T. NARVASA, minor,represented
by his parents GREGORIO II and CRISTINE CHARITY NARVASA, MA.
MARGARITA, JESUS IGNACIO, MA. ANGELA and MARIE GABRIELLE,
all surnamedSAENZ, minors,represented by their parents ROBERTO
and AURORA SAENZ, KRISTINE, MARY ELLEN, MAY,GOLDA
MARTHE and DAVID IAN, all surnamed KING, minors,represented by
their parentsMARIO and HAYDEE KING, DAVID, FRANCISCO and
THERESE VICTORIA, all surnamedENDRIGA, minors,represented by
their parentsBALTAZAR and TERESITAENDRIGA, JOSE MA. and
REGINA MA., all surnamed ABAYA, minors,representedby their
parents ANTONIO and MARICA ABAYA, MARILIN, MARIO, JR. and
MARIETTE,all surnamedCARDAMA, minors,represented by their
parents MARIO and LINA CARDAMA, CLARISSA, ANN MARIE,
NAGEL, and IMEE LYN, all surnamedOPOSA,minors and represented
by their parents RICARDO and MARISSA OPOSA, PHILIP JOSEPH,
STEPHENJOHN and ISAIAH JAMES,all surnamedQUIPIT,minors,
representedby their parentsJOSE MAX and VILMIQUIPIT, BUGHAW
CIELO,CRISANTO, ANNA, DANIEL and FRANCISCO, all surnamed
BIBAL, minors,representedby their parentsFRANCISCO, JR. and
MILAGROS BIBAL, and THE PHILIPPINE ECOLOGICAL NETWORK,
INC., petitioners,
vs.
THE HONORABLE FULGENCIO S. FACTORAN, JR., in his capacity as
the Secretary ofthe Departmentof Environmentand Natural
Resources,and THE HONORABLE ERIBERTO U. ROSARIO, Presiding
Judge of the RTC, Makati,Branch 66, respondents.

Oposa Law Office for petitioners.
The SolicitorGeneral forrespondents.
DAVIDE, JR., J.:
In a broader sense,this petition bears upon the right of Filipinos to a
balanced and healthful ecologywhich the petitioners dramatically associate
with the twin concepts of "inter-generational responsibility" and "inter-
generational justice." Specifically, it touches on the issue of whether the
said petitioners have a cause of action to "prevent the misappropriationor
impairment" of Philippine rainforests and "arrest the unabated hemorrhage
of the country's vital life supportsystems and continued rape of Mother
Earth."
The controversy has its genesis in Civil Case No. 90-77 which was filed
before Branch 66 (Makati, Metro Manila) of the Regional Trial Court (RTC),
National Capital Judicial Region.The principal plaintiffs therein, now the
principal petitioners,are all minors duly represented and joined by their
respective parents. Impleadedas an additional plaintiff is the Philippine
EcologicalNetwork, Inc. (PENI), a domestic,non-stock and non-profit
corporation organized for the purpose of, interalia,engaging in concerted
action geared for the protection of our environment and natural resources.
The original defendantwas the Honorable Fulgencio S. Factoran, Jr., then
Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources
(DENR). His substitution in this petition by the new Secretary, the
Honorable Angel C. Alcala, was subsequentlyordered upon proper motion
by the petitioners.1 The complaint2 was instituted as a taxpayers' class
suit3 and alleges that the plaintiffs "are all citizens of the Republic of the
Philippines, taxpayers, and entitled to the full benefit,use and enjoyment of
the natural resource treasure that is the country's virgin tropical forests."
The same was filed for themselves and others who are equally concerned
about the preservation of said resource but are "so numerous that it is
impracticable to bring them all before the Court." The minors further
asseverate that they "representtheir generation as well as generations yet
unborn." 4Consequently,it is prayed for that judgment be rendered:
. . . ordering defendant,his agents, representatives and other
persons acting in his behalf to —

(1) Cancel all existing timber license agreements in the country;
(2) Cease and desistfrom receiving, accepting,processing,
renewing or approving new timber license agreements.
and granting the plaintiffs ". . . such other reliefs just and equitable under
the premises."5
The complaint starts off with the general averments that the Philippine
archipelago of 7,100 islands has a land area of thirty million (30,000,000)
hectares and is endowed with rich, lush and verdant rainforests in which
varied, rare and unique species of flora and fauna may be found; these
rainforests contain a genetic, biologicaland chemical pool which is
irreplaceable;they are also the habitat of indigenous Philippine cultures
which have existed,endured and flourished since time immemorial;
scientific evidence reveals that in order to maintain a balanced and
healthful ecology,the country's land area should be utilized on the basis of
a ratio of fifty-four per cent (54%) for forestcover and forty-six per cent
(46%) for agricultural, residential, industrial, commercialand other uses;
the distortion and disturbance of this balance as a consequence of
deforestationhave resulted in a host of environmental tragedies,such as
(a) water shortages resulting from drying up of the water table, otherwise
known as the "aquifer," as well as of rivers, brooks and streams,(b)
salinization of the water table as a result of the intrusion therein of salt
water, incontrovertible examples of which may be found in the island of
Cebu and the Municipality of Bacoor,Cavite, (c) massive erosion and the
consequentialloss of soil fertility and agricultural productivity, with the
volume of soil eroded estimated at one billion (1,000,000,000)cubic meters
per annum — approximately the size of the entire island of Catanduanes,
(d) the endangering and extinction of the country's unique, rare and varied
flora and fauna, (e) the disturbance and dislocation of cultural communities,
including the disappearance of the Filipino's indigenous cultures, (f) the
siltation of rivers and seabeds and consequentialdestruction of corals and
other aquatic life leading to a critical reduction in marine resource
productivity, (g) recurrent spells of drought as is presently experiencedby
the entire country, (h) increasing velocity of typhoon winds which result
from the absence of windbreakers, (i) the floodings oflowlands and
agricultural plains arising from the absence of the absorbentmechanism of
forests,(j) the siltation and shortening of the lifespanof multi-billion peso
dams constructed and operated for the purpose of supplying water for

domestic uses,irrigation and the generation of electric power, and (k) the
reduction of the earth's capacity to process carbondioxide gases which
has led to perplexing and catastrophic climatic changes such as the
phenomenonof global warming, otherwise known as the "greenhouse
effect."
Plaintiffs further assert that the adverse and detrimental consequences of
continued and deforestationare so capable of unquestionable
demonstration that the same may be submitted as a matter of judicial
notice. This notwithstanding, they expressed theirintention to present
expert witnesses as well as documentary, photographic and film evidence
in the course of the trial.
As their cause of action, they specificallyallege that:
CAUSE OF ACTION
7. Plaintiffs replead by reference the foregoing allegations.
8. Twenty-five (25) years ago, the Philippines had some sixteen
(16) million hectares of rainforests constituting roughly 53% of
the country's land mass.
9. Satellite images taken in 1987 reveal that there remained no
more than 1.2 million hectares of said rainforests or four per
cent (4.0%) of the country's land area.
10. More recent surveys reveal that a mere 850,000 hectares of
virgin old-growth rainforests are left, barely 2.8% of the entire
land mass of the Philippine archipelago and about 3.0 million
hectares of immature and uneconomicalsecondary growth
forests.
11. Public records reveal that the defendant's,predecessors
have granted timber license agreements ('TLA's')to various
corporations to cut the aggregate area of 3.89 million hectares
for commerciallogging purposes.
A copyof the TLA holders and the corresponding areas
covered is hereto attached as Annex "A".

12. At the present rate of deforestation, i.e. about 200,000
hectares per annum or 25 hectares per hour — nighttime,
Saturdays, Sundays and holidays included — the Philippines
will be bereftof forestresources afterthe end of this ensuing
decade,if not earlier.
13. The adverse effects,disastrous consequences,serious
injury and irreparable damage of this continued trend of
deforestationto the plaintiff minor's generation and to
generations yet unborn are evident and incontrovertible. As a
matter of fact, the environmental damages enumerated in
paragraph 6 hereof are already being felt, experienced and
suffered bythe generation of plaintiff adults.
14. The continued allowance by defendantof TLA holders to
cut and deforestthe remaining foreststands will work great
damage and irreparable injury to plaintiffs — especially plaintiff
minors and their successors — who may never see, use,
benefitfrom and enjoy this rare and unique natural resource
treasure.
This act of defendant constitutes a misappropriationand/or
impairment of the natural resource propertyhe holds in trust for
the benefitof plaintiff minors and succeeding generations.
15. Plaintiffs have a clear and constitutional right to a balanced
and healthful ecologyand are entitled to protection by the State
in its capacity as the parens patriae.
16. Plaintiff have exhausted all administrative remedies with the
defendant's office.On March 2, 1990,plaintiffs served upon
defendanta final demand to cancel all logging permits in the
country.
A copyof the plaintiffs' letter dated March 1, 1990 is hereto
attached as Annex "B".
17. Defendant, however, fails and refuses to cancel the existing
TLA's to the continuing serious damage and extreme prejudice
of plaintiffs.

18. The continued failure and refusal by defendant to cancel the
TLA's is an act violative of the rights of plaintiffs, especially
plaintiff minors who may be left with a country that is desertified
(sic), bare, barren and devoid of the wonderful flora, fauna and
indigenous cultures which the Philippines had been abundantly
blessed with.
19. Defendant's refusal to cancel the aforementioned TLA'sis
manifestly contrary to the public policy enunciated in the
Philippine Environmental Policy which, in pertinent part, states
that it is the policy of the State —
(a) to create, develop,maintain and improve conditions under
which man and nature can thrive in productive and enjoyable
harmony with each other;
(b) to fulfill the social, economic and other requirements of
presentand future generations of Filipinos and;
(c) to ensure the attainment of an environmental quality that is
conductive to a life of dignity and well-being. (P.D. 1151,6 June
1977)
20. Furthermore, defendant's continued refusal to cancel the
aforementioned TLA'sis contradictory to the Constitutional
policy of the State to —
a. effect"a more equitable distribution of opportunities,income
and wealth" and "make full and efficientuse of natural
resources (sic)." (Section1, Article XII of the Constitution);
b. "protectthe nation's marine wealth." (Section 2, ibid);
c. "conserve and promote the nation's cultural heritage and
resources (sic)" (Section 14, Article XIV,id.);
d. "protectand advance the right of the people to a balanced
and healthful ecologyin accord with the rhythm and harmony of
nature." (Section 16, Article II, id.)

21. Finally, defendant's act is contrary to the highest law of
humankind — the natural law — and violative of plaintiffs' right
to self-preservationand perpetuation.
22. There is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in law other than the instant
action to arrest the unabated hemorrhage of the country's vital life support systems and
continued rape of Mother Earth. 6
On 22 June 1990,the original defendant, Secretary Factoran, Jr., filed a
Motion to Dismiss the complaint based on two (2) grounds, namely: (1) the
plaintiffs have no cause of action against him and (2) the issue raised by
the plaintiffs is a political questionwhich properly pertains to the legislative
or executive branches of Government. In their 12 July 1990 Oppositionto
the Motion, the petitioners maintain that (1) the complaint shows a clear
and unmistakable cause of action, (2) the motion is dilatory and (3) the
action presents a justiciable questionas it involves the defendant's abuse
of discretion.
On 18 July 1991,respondentJudge issued an order granting the
aforementioned motionto dismiss.7 In the said order, not only was the
defendant's claim — that the complaint states no cause of action against
him and that it raises a political question — sustained, the respondent
Judge further ruled that the granting of the relief prayed for would result in
the impairment of contracts which is prohibited by the fundamental law of
the land.
Plaintiffs thus filed the instant specialcivil action for certiorari underRule 65
of the Revised Rules of Court and ask this Court to rescind and set aside
the dismissalorder on the ground that the respondentJudge gravely
abused his discretionin dismissing the action. Again, the parents of the
plaintiffs-minors not only representtheir children, but have also joined the
latter in this case.8
On 14 May 1992,We resolved to give due course to the petition and
required the parties to submit their respective Memoranda after the Office
of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed a Commentin behalf of the
respondents and the petitioners filed a reply thereto.
Petitioners contend that the complaint clearly and unmistakably states a
cause of action as it contains sufficientallegations concerning their right to
a sound environment based on Articles 19, 20 and 21 of the Civil Code

(Human Relations), Section 4 of Executive Order (E.O.) No. 192 creating
the DENR, Section 3 of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1151 (Philippine
Environmental Policy), Section16, Article II of the 1987 Constitution
recognizing the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology,the
conceptof generational genocide in Criminal Law and the conceptof man's
inalienable right to self-preservationand self-perpetuation embodied in
natural law. Petitioners likewise rely on the respondent's correlative
obligation per Section 4 of E.O. No. 192,to safeguard the people's right to
a healthful environment.
It is further claimed that the issue of the respondentSecretary's alleged
grave abuse of discretionin granting Timber License Agreements (TLAs)to
cover more areas forlogging than what is available involves a judicial
question.
Anent the invocation by the respondentJudge of the Constitution's non-
impairment clause, petitioners maintain that the same does not apply in this
case because TLAs are not contracts. They likewise submit that even if
TLAs may be considered protected by the said clause, it is well settled that
they may still be revoked by the State when the public interest so requires.
On the other hand, the respondents aver that the petitioners failed to allege
in their complaint a specificlegal right violated by the respondentSecretary
for which any relief is provided by law. They see nothing in the complaint
but vague and nebulous allegations concerning an "environmental right"
which supposedlyentitles the petitioners to the "protectionby the state in
its capacity as parens patriae." Such allegations, according to them, do not
reveal a valid cause of action. They then reiterate the theory that the
question of whether logging should be permitted in the country is a political
question which should be properly addressed to the executive or legislative
branches of Government. They therefore assert that the petitioners'
resources is not to file an action to court, but to lobby before Congressfor
the passage of a bill that would ban logging totally.
As to the matter of the cancellation of the TLAs,respondents submitthat
the same cannot be done by the State without due processof law. Once
issued,a TLA remains effective for a certain period of time — usually for
twenty-five (25) years. During its effectivity, the same can neither be
revised nor cancelled unless the holder has been found, after due notice
and hearing, to have violated the terms of the agreementor other forestry

laws and regulations. Petitioners' propositionto have all the TLAs
indiscriminately cancelled without the requisite hearing would be violative of
the requirements of due process.
Before going any further, We must first focus on some proceduralmatters.
Petitioners instituted Civil Case No. 90-777 as a class suit. The original
defendantand the presentrespondents did not take issue with this matter.
Nevertheless,We hereby rule that the said civil case is indeed a class suit.
The subject matter of the complaint is of commonand general interest not
just to several, but to all citizens of the Philippines.Consequently, since the
parties are so numerous, it, becomesimpracticable,if not totally
impossible,to bring all of them before the court. We likewise declare that
the plaintiffs therein are numerous and representative enough to ensure the
full protectionof all concerned interests.Hence, all the requisites for the
filing of a valid class suit under Section 12, Rule 3 of the Revised Rules of
Court are present both in the said civil case and in the instant petition, the
latter being but an incident to the former.
This case, however, has a specialand novel element.Petitioners minors
assert that they representtheir generation as well as generations yet
unborn. We find no difficulty in ruling that they can, for themselves,for
others of their generation and for the succeeding generations,file a class
suit. Their personality to sue in behalf of the succeeding generations can
only be based on the conceptof intergenerational responsibilityinsofar as
the right to a balanced and healthful ecologyis concerned.Such a right, as
hereinafter expounded,considers
the "rhythm and harmony of nature." Nature means the created world in its
entirety.9 Such rhythm and harmony indispensably include, inter alia,the
judicious disposition,utilization, management, renewal and conservation of
the country's forest, mineral, land, waters, fisheries,wildlife, off-shoreareas
and other natural resources to the end that their exploration, development
and utilization be equitably accessible to the presentas well as future
generations. 10 Needless to say, every generation has a responsibilityto the
next to preserve that rhythm and harmony for the full enjoyment of a
balanced and healthful ecology.Put a little differently,the minors' assertion
of their right to a sound environment constitutes, at the same time, the
performance of their obligation to ensure the protectionof that right for the
generations to come.

The locus standi of the petitioners having thus been addressed,We shall
now proceed to the merits of the petition.
After a careful perusal of the complaint in questionand a meticulous
considerationand evaluation of the issues raised and arguments adduced
by the parties, We do not hesitate to find for the petitioners and rule against
the respondentJudge's challenged orderfor having been issued with grave
abuse of discretionamounting to lack of jurisdiction. The pertinent portions
of the said order reads as follows:
xxx xxx xxx
After a careful and circumspectevaluation of the Complaint, the
Court cannot help but agree with the defendant. For although
we believe that plaintiffs have but the noblest of all intentions, it
(sic)fell short of alleging, with sufficientdefiniteness,a specific
legal right they are seeking to enforce and protect,or a specific
legal wrong they are seeking to prevent and redress (Sec.1,
Rule 2, RRC). Furthermore, the Court notes that the Complaint
is replete with vague assumptions and vague conclusions
based on unverified data. In fine, plaintiffs fail to state a cause
of action in its Complaint against the herein defendant.
Furthermore, the Court firmly believes that the matter before it,
being impressedwith political color and involving a matter of
public policy, may not be taken cognizance of by this Court
without doing violence to the sacred principle of "Separation of
Powers" of the three (3) co-equal branches of the Government.
The Court is likewise of the impression that it cannot, no matter how we stretch our
jurisdiction, grant the reliefs prayed for by the plaintiffs, i.e., to cancel all existing timber
license agreements in the country and to cease and desist from receiving, accepting,
processing, renewing or approving new timber license agreements. For to do otherwise
would amount to "impairment of contracts" abhored (sic) by the fundamental law. 11
We do not agree with the trial court's conclusions that the plaintiffs failed to
allege with sufficientdefiniteness a specificlegal right involved or a specific
legal wrong committed,and that the complaint is replete with vague
assumptions and conclusions based on unverified data. A reading of the
complaint itself belies these conclusions.

The complaint focuses on one specific fundamental legal right — the right
to a balanced and healthful ecologywhich, for the first time in our nation's
constitutional history, is solemnly incorporated in the fundamental law.
Section16, Article II of the 1987 Constitution explicitly provides:
Sec. 16. The State shall protect and advance the right of the
people to a balanced and healthful ecologyin accord with the
rhythm and harmony of nature.
This right unites with the right to health which is provided forin
the preceding sectionof the same article:
Sec. 15. The State shall protect and promote the right to health
of the people and instill health consciousness among them.
While the right to a balanced and healthful ecologyis to be found under the
Declaration of Principles and State Policies and not under the Bill of Rights,
it does not follow that it is less important than any of the civil and political
rights enumerated in the latter. Such a right belongs to a differentcategory
of rights altogether for it concerns nothing less than self-preservationand
self-perpetuation— aptly and fittingly stressed by the petitioners — the
advancement of which may even be said to predate all governments and
constitutions. As a matter of fact, these basic rights need not even be
written in the Constitution for they are assumed to exist from the inception
of humankind. If they are now explicitly mentioned in the fundamental
charter, it is because of the well-founded fear of its framers that unless the
rights to a balanced and healthful ecologyand to health are mandated as
state policies by the Constitution itself, thereby highlighting their continuing
importance and imposing upon the state a solemnobligation to preserve
the first and protectand advance the second,the day would not be too far
when all else would be lost not only for the present generation, but also for
those to come — generations which stand to inherit nothing but parched
earth incapable of sustaining life.
The right to a balanced and healthful ecologycarries with it the correlative
duty to refrain from impairing the environment. During the debates on this
right in one of the plenary sessions of the 1986 Constitutional Commission,
the following exchange transpired between CommissionerWilfrido
Villacorta and CommissionerAdolfo Azcuna who sponsored the sectionin
question:

MR. VILLACORTA:
Does this sectionmandate the State to provide
sanctions against all forms of pollution — air, water
and noise pollution?
MR. AZCUNA:
Yes, Madam President. The right to healthful (sic) environment
necessarily carries with it the correlative duty of not impairing the same
and, therefore, sanctions may be provided for impairment of
environmental balance. 12
The said right implies, among many other things, the judicious
management and conservation of the country's forests.
Without such forests,the ecologicalor environmental balance would
be irreversiby disrupted.
Conformablywith the enunciated right to a balanced and healthful ecology
and the right to health, as well as the other related provisions of the
Constitution concerning the conservation, developmentand utilization of
the country's natural resources, 13 then PresidentCorazon C. Aquino
promulgated on 10 June 1987 E.O. No. 192, 14Section4 of which expressly
mandates that the Departmentof Environment and Natural Resources
"shall be the primary government agency responsible forthe conservation,
management, developmentand properuse of the country's environment
and natural resources,specifically forestand grazing lands, mineral,
resources,including those in reservation and watershed areas, and lands
of the public domain, as well as the licensing and regulation of all natural
resources as may be provided forby law in order to ensure equitable
sharing of the benefits derived therefrom forthe welfare of the presentand
future generations of Filipinos." Section3 thereof makes the following
statement of policy:
Sec. 3. Declaration of Policy.— It is hereby declared the policy
of the State to ensure the sustainable use, development,
management, renewal, and conservation of the country's forest,
mineral, land, off-shore areas and other natural resources,
including the protectionand enhancement of the quality of the
environment, and equitable access of the differentsegments of
the population to the developmentand the use of the country's

natural resources,not only for the present generation but for
future generations as well. It is also the policy of the state to
recognize and apply a true value system including social and
environmental cost implications relative to their utilization,
developmentand conservation of our natural resources.
This policy declaration is substantially re-stated it Title XIV, Book IV of the
Administrative Code of 1987,15specificallyin Section1 thereof which reads:
Sec. 1. Declaration of Policy.— (1) The State shall ensure, for
the benefitof the Filipino people,the full exploration and
developmentas well as the judicious disposition,utilization,
management, renewal and conservation of the country's forest,
mineral, land, waters, fisheries,wildlife, off-shore areas and
other natural resources,consistentwith the necessityof
maintaining a sound ecologicalbalance and protecting and
enhancing the quality of the environment and the objective of
making the exploration, developmentand utilization of such
natural resources equitably accessible to the differentsegments
of the presentas well as future generations.
(2) The State shall likewise recognize and apply a true value
system that takes into account social and environmental cost
implications relative to the utilization, developmentand
conservation of our natural resources.
The above provision stresses "the necessityof maintaining a sound
ecologicalbalance and protecting and enhancing the quality of the
environment." Section2 of the same Title, on the other hand, specifically
speaks of the mandate of the DENR; however, it makes particular
reference to the fact of the agency's being subject to law and higher
authority. Said sectionprovides:
Sec. 2. Mandate.— (1) The Departmentof Environment and
Natural Resources shall be primarily responsible forthe
implementation of the foregoing policy.
(2) It shall, subject to law and higher authority, be in charge of
carrying out the State's constitutional mandate to control and
supervise the exploration, development,utilization, and
conservation of the country's natural resources.

Both E.O. NO. 192 and the Administrative Code of 1987 have set the
objectives which will serve as the bases for policy formulation, and have
defined the powers and functions of the DENR.
It may, however, be recalled that even before the ratification of the 1987
Constitution, specificstatutes already paid specialattention to the
"environmental right" of the present and future generations. On 6 June
1977,P.D. No. 1151 (Philippine Environmental Policy) and P.D. No. 1152
(Philippine Environment Code)were issued. The former"declared a
continuing policy of the State (a) to create, develop,maintain and improve
conditions under which man and nature can thrive in productive and
enjoyable harmony with each other, (b) to fulfill the social, economic and
other requirements of presentand future generations of Filipinos, and (c) to
insure the attainment of an environmental quality that is conducive to a life
of dignity and well-being." 16 As its goal, it speaks of the "responsibilities of
each generation as trustee and guardian of the environment for succeeding
generations." 17The latter statute, on the other hand, gave flesh to the said
policy.
Thus, the right of the petitioners (and all those they represent)to a
balanced and healthful ecologyis as clear as the DENR's duty — under its
mandate and by virtue of its powers and functions under E.O. No. 192 and
the Administrative Code of 1987 — to protectand advance the said right.
A denial or violation of that right by the other who has the corelative duty or
obligation to respector protectthe same gives rise to a cause of action.
Petitioners maintain that the granting of the TLAs,which they claim was
done with grave abuse of discretion,violated their right to a balanced and
healthful ecology;hence, the full protectionthereof requires that no further
TLAs should be renewed or granted.
A cause of action is defined as:
. . . an act or omission of one party in violation of the legal right or rights of the other; and
its essential elements are legal right of the plaintiff, correlative obligation of the
defendant, and act or omission of the defendant in violation of said legal right. 18
It is settled in this jurisdiction that in a motion to dismiss based on the
ground that the complaint fails to state a cause of action, 19 the question
submitted to the court for resolution involves the sufficiencyof the facts
alleged in the complaint itself. No other matter should be considered;

furthermore, the truth of falsity of the said allegations is beside the point for
the truth thereof is deemedhypothetically admitted. The only issue to be
resolved in such a case is: admitting such alleged facts to be true, may the
court render a valid judgment in accordance with the prayer in the
complaint? 20 In Militante vs.Edrosolano,21 this Court laid down the rule that
the judiciary should "exercise the utmost care and circumspectionin
passing upon a motion to dismiss on the ground of the absence thereof
[cause of action] lest, by its failure to manifest a correctappreciation of the
facts alleged and deemed hypothetically admitted, what the law grants or
recognizes is effectivelynullified. If that happens, there is a blot on the legal
order. The law itself stands in disrepute."
After careful examination of the petitioners' complaint, We find the
statements under the introductory affirmative allegations, as well as the
specificaverments under the sub-heading CAUSE OF ACTION,to be
adequate enough to show, prima facie,the claimed violation of their rights.
On the basis thereof, they may thus be granted, wholly or partly, the reliefs
prayed for. It bears stressing,however, that insofar as the cancellation of
the TLAs is concerned,there is the need to implead, as party defendants,
the grantees thereof for they are indispensable parties.
The foregoing considered,Civil Case No. 90-777 be said to raise a political
question. Policy formulation or determination by the executive or legislative
branches of Government is not squarely put in issue. What is principally
involved is the enforcementof a right vis-a-vispolicies alreadyformulated
and expressed in legislation. It must, nonetheless,be emphasized that the
political question doctrine is no longer, the insurmountable obstacle to the
exercise of judicial power or the impenetrable shield that protects executive
and legislative actions from judicial inquiry or review. The second
paragraph of section1, Article VIII of the Constitution states that:
Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle
actual controversies involving rights which are legally
demandable and enforceable,and to determine whether or not
there has been a grave abuse of discretionamounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or
instrumentality of the Government.
Commenting on this provision in his book, Philippine Political Law,22 Mr.
Justice Isagani A. Cruz, a distinguished memberof this Court, says:

The first part of the authority represents the traditional concept
of judicial power, involving the settlement of conflicting rights as
conferred as law. The second part of the authority represents a
broadening of judicial power to enable the courts of justice to
review what was before forbiddenterritory, to wit, the discretion
of the political departments of the government.
As worded, the new provision vests in the judiciary, and
particularly the Supreme Court, the power to rule upon even the
wisdom of the decisions of the executive and the legislature
and to declare their acts invalid for lack or excess of jurisdiction
because tainted with grave abuse of discretion. The catch, of
course,is the meaning of "grave abuse of discretion," which is a
very elastic phrase that can expand or contract according to the
dispositionof the judiciary.
In Daza vs. Singson,23 Mr. Justice Cruz, now speaking for this Court,
noted:
In the case now before us, the jurisdictional objectionbecomes
even less tenable and decisive.The reason is that, even if we
were to assume that the issue presented before us was political
in nature, we would still not be precluded from revolving it under
the expanded jurisdiction conferred upon us that now covers, in
propercases,even the political question. Article VII,Section1,
of the Constitution clearly provides:. . .
The last ground invoked by the trial court in dismissing the complaint is the
non-impairment of contracts clause found in the Constitution. The court a
quo declared that:
The Court is likewise of the impression that it cannot, no matter how we stretch our
jurisdiction, grant the reliefs prayed for by the plaintiffs, i.e., to cancel all existing timber
license agreements in the country and to cease and desist from receiving, accepting,
processing, renewing or approving new timber license agreements. For to do otherwise
would amount to "impairment of contracts" abhored (sic) by the fundamental law. 24
We are not persuaded at all; on the contrary, We are amazed, if not
shocked,by such a sweeping pronouncement.In the first place, the
respondentSecretary did not, for obvious reasons, even invoke in his
motion to dismiss the non-impairment clause. If he had done so, he would
have acted with utmost infidelity to the Government by providing undue and

unwarranted benefits and advantages to the timber license holders
because he would have forever bound the Government to strictly respect
the said licenses according to their terms and conditions regardless of
changes in policyand the demands of public interest and welfare. He was
aware that as correctly pointed out by the petitioners,into every timber
license must be read Section20 of the Forestry Reform Code (P.D. No.
705) which provides:
. . . Provided,That when the national interest so requires, the
Presidentmay amend, modify,replace or rescind any contract,
concession,permit, licenses or any other form of privilege
granted herein . . .
Needless to say, all licenses may thus be revoked or rescinded by
executive action. It is not a contract, property or a property right
protested by the due process clause of the Constitution. In Tan vs.
Directorof Forestry,25 this Court held:
. . . A timber license is an instrument by which the State
regulates the utilization and dispositionof forestresources to
the end that public welfare is promoted.A timber license is not
a contract within the purview of the due process clause;it is
only a license or privilege, which can be validly withdrawn
whenever dictated by public interest or public welfare as in this
case.
A license is merely a permit or privilege to do what otherwise
would be unlawful, and is not a contract between the authority,
federal,state, or municipal, granting it and the personto whom
it is granted; neither is it property or a property right, nor does it
create a vested right; nor is it taxation (37 C.J. 168). Thus, this
Court held that the granting of license does not create
irrevocable rights, neither is it property or propertyrights
(People vs. Ong Tin, 54 O.G. 7576).
We reiterated this pronouncementin FelipeYsmael,Jr. & Co., Inc. vs.
Deputy Executive Secretary:26
. . . Timberlicenses,permits and license agreements are the
principal instruments by which the State regulates the utilization
and dispositionof forestresources to the end that public

welfare is promoted.And it can hardly be gainsaid that they
merely evidence a privilege granted by the State to qualified
entities, and do not vest in the latter a permanent or irrevocable
right to the particular concession area and the forestproducts
therein. They may be validly amended,modified,replaced or
rescinded by the Chief Executive when national interests so
require. Thus, they are not deemed contracts within the purview
of the due process of law clause [See Sections 3(ee)and 20 of
Pres. Decree No. 705, as amended. Also,Tan v. Directorof
Forestry, G.R. No. L-24548,October27,1983,125 SCRA 302].
Since timber licenses are not contracts, the non-impairment clause, which
reads:
Sec. 10. No law impairing, the obligation of contracts shall be passed. 27
cannot be invoked.
In the second place,even if it is to be assumed that the same are
contracts, the instant case does not involve a law or even an executive
issuance declaring the cancellation or modificationof existing timber
licenses.Hence, the non-impairment clause cannot as yet be invoked.
Nevertheless,granting further that a law has actually been passed
mandating cancellations or modifications,the same cannot still be
stigmatized as a violation of the non-impairment clause. This is because by
its very nature and purpose,such as law could have only been passed in
the exercise of the police power of the state for the purpose of advancing
the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology,promoting their
health and enhancing the general welfare. In Abe vs. FosterWheeler
Corp. 28 this Court stated:
The freedom of contract, under our system of government, is
not meant to be absolute. The same is understood to be subject
to reasonable legislative regulation aimed at the promotionof
public health, moral, safety and welfare. In other words, the
constitutional guaranty of non-impairment of obligations of
contract is limited by the exercise of the police power of the
State, in the interest of public health, safety, moral and general
welfare.

The reason for this is emphatically set forth in Nebia vs.New
York, 29 quoted in Philippine American Life InsuranceCo.vs. Auditor
General,30 to wit:
Under our form of governmentthe use of propertyand 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 neither property rights nor
contract rights are absolute; for governmentcannot exist if the
citizen may at will use his property to the detriment of his
fellows,or exercise his freedom of contract to work them harm.
Equally fundamental with the private right is that of the public to
regulate it in the commoninterest.
In short, the non-impairment clause must yield to the police power of the
state. 31
Finally, it is difficultto imagine, as the trial court did, how the non-
impairment clause could apply with respectto the prayer to enjoin the
respondentSecretary from receiving, accepting, processing,renewing or
approving new timber licenses for, save in cases of renewal,no contract
would have as of yet existed in the other instances. Moreover, with respect
to renewal, the holder is not entitled to it as a matter of right.
WHEREFORE,being impressed with merit, the instant Petition is hereby
GRANTED,and the challenged Order of respondentJudge of 18 July 1991
dismissing Civil Case No. 90-777 is hereby set aside. The petitioners may
therefore amend their complaint to implead as defendants the holders or
grantees of the questioned timberlicense agreements.
No pronouncementas to costs.
SO ORDERED.
Cruz, Padilla,Bidin,Griño-Aquino,Regalado,Romero,Nocon,Bellosillo,
Melo and Quiason,JJ.,concur.
Narvasa,C.J.,Puno and Vitug,JJ., took no part.

Separate Opinions
FELICIANO, J., concurring
I join in the result reached by my distinguished brother in the Court, Davide,
Jr., J., in this case which, to my mind, is one of the most important cases
decided bythis Court in the last few years. The seminal principles laid
down in this decisionare likely to influence profoundly the directionand
course of the protectionand management of the environment, which of
course embraces the utilization of all the natural resources in the territorial
base of our polity. I have therefore sought to clarify, basically to myself,
what the Court appears to be saying.
The Court explicitly states that petitioners have the locusstandi necessary
to sustain the bringing and, maintenance of this suit (Decision,pp. 11-
12). Locus standi is not a function of petitioners' claim that their suit is
properly regarded as a class suit.I understand locus standi to referto the
legal interest which a plaintiff must have in the subject matter of the suit.
Because of the very broadness of the conceptof "class" here involved —
membership in this "class" appears to embrace everyoneliving in the
country whether now or in the
future — it appears to me that everyone who may be expected to benefit
from the course of action petitioners seek to require public respondents to
take, is vested with the necessary locus standi.The Court may be seen
therefore to be recognizing a beneficiaries' rightof action in the field of
environmental protection, as against both the public administrative agency
directly concerned and the private persons or entities operating in the field
or sectorof activity involved. Whether such beneficiaries' right of action
may be found under any and all circumstances,or whether some failure to
act, in the first instance, on the part of the governmental agency concerned
must be shown ("prior exhaustion of administrative remedies"),is not
discussedin the decisionand presumably is left for future determination in
an appropriate case.

The Court has also declared that the complaint has alleged and focused
upon "one specific fundamental legal right — the right to a balanced and
healthful ecology" (Decision,p. 14). There is no question that "the right to a
balanced and healthful ecology" is "fundamental" and that, accordingly, it
has been "constitutionalized." But although it is fundamental in character, I
suggest,with very great respect,that it cannot be characterized as
"specific," without doing excessive violence to language. It is in fact very
difficultto fashion language more comprehensive in scope and generalized
in character than a right to "a balanced and healthful ecology." The list of
particular claims which can be subsumed under this rubic appears to be
entirely open-ended:prevention and control of emissionof toxic fumes and
smoke from factories and motor vehicles; of discharge of oil, chemical
effluents,garbage and raw sewage into rivers, inland and coastal waters by
vessels,oil rigs, factories,mines and whole communities;of dumping of
organic and inorganic wastes on open land, streets and thoroughfares;
failure to rehabilitate land after strip-mining or open-pit mining; kainginor
slash-and-burn farming; destruction of fisheries,coral reefs and other living
sea resources through the use of dynamite or cyanide and other chemicals;
contamination of ground water resources;loss of certain species of fauna
and flora; and so on. The other statements pointed out by the Court:
Section3, Executive Order No. 192 dated 10 June 1987;Section 1, Title
XIV,Book IV of the 1987 Administrative Code;and P.D. No. 1151,dated 6
June 1977 — all appear to be formulations of policy,as general and
abstract as the constitutional statements of basic policy in Article II,Section
16 ("the right — to a balanced and healthful ecology")and 15 ("the right to
health").
P.D. No. 1152,also dated 6 June 1977,entitled "The Philippine
Environment Code," is, upon the other hand, a compendious collectionof
more "specific environment management policies" and "environment quality
standards" (fourth "Whereas" clause, Preamble)relating to an extremely
wide range of topics:
(a) air quality management;
(b) water quality management;
(c) land use management;

(d) natural resources management and conservation
embracing:
(i) fisheries and aquatic resources;
(ii) wild life;
(iii) forestry and soil conservation;
(iv) flood control and natural calamities;
(v) energy development;
(vi) conservation and utilization of surface and ground water
(vii) mineral resources
Two (2) points are worth making in this connection. Firstly, neither
petitioners nor the Court has identified the particular provision or provisions
(if any) of the Philippine Environment Code which give rise to a specific
legal right which petitioners are seeking to enforce.Secondly,the
Philippine Environment Code identifies with notable care the particular
government agency charged with the formulation and implementation of
guidelines and programs dealing with each of the headings and sub-
headings mentioned above. The Philippine Environment Code does not, in
other words, appear to contemplate action on the part of private
persons who are beneficiaries of implementation of that Code.
As a matter of logic, by finding petitioners' cause of action as anchored on
a legal right comprisedin the constitutional statements above noted, the
Court is in effectsaying that Section15 (and Section16) of Article II of the
Constitution are self-executing and judicially enforceableeven in their
presentform. The implications of this doctrine will have to be explored in
future cases;those implications are too large and far-reaching in nature
even to be hinted at here.
My suggestionis simply that petitioners must, before the trial court, show a
more specificlegal right — a right cast in language of a significantly lower
order of generality than Article II (15) of the Constitution — that is or may
be violated by the actions, or failures to act, imputed to the public
respondentby petitioners so that the trial court can validly render judgment

granting all or part of the relief prayed for. To my mind, the Court should be
understood as simply saying that such a more specific legalright or
rights may well exist in our corpus of law, considering the general policy
principles found in the Constitution and the existence of the Philippine
Environment Code,and that the trial court should have given petitioners an
effective opportunity so to demonstrate,instead of aborting the proceedings
on a motion to dismiss.
It seems to me important that the legal right which is an essential
componentof a cause of action be a specific,operable legalright, rather
than a constitutional or statutory policy,forat least two (2) reasons. One is
that unless the legal right claimed to have been violated or disregarded is
given specificationin operational terms, defendants may well be unable to
defend themselves intelligently and effectively;in other words, there are
due process dimensions to this matter.
The second is a broader-gauge consideration— where a specific violation
of law or applicable regulation is not alleged or proved, petitioners can be
expected to fall back on the expanded conceptionof judicial power in the
second paragraph of Section1 of Article VIII of the Constitution which
reads:
Section1. . . .
there has been agrave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
instrumentality ofthe Government.(Emphasis supplied)
When substantive standards as general as "the right to a balanced
and healthy ecology" and "the right to health" are combined with
remedial standards as broad ranging as "a grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction," the result will be, it is
respectfully submitted,to propelcourts into the uncharted ocean of
social and economic policymaking. At least in respectof the vast
area of environmental protectionand management, our courts have
no claim to special technical competence and experience and
professionalqualification. Where no specific,operable norms and

standards are shown to exist, then the policy making departments —
the legislative and executive departments — must be given a real and
effective opportunity to fashion and promulgate those norms and
standards, and to implementthem before the courts should intervene.
My learned brother Davide, Jr., J., rightly insists that the timber companies,
whose concessionagreements or TLA's petitioners demand public
respondents should cancel, must be impleaded in the proceedingsbelow. It
might be asked that, if petitioners' entitlement to the relief demanded
is not dependentupon proof of breach by the timber companies of one or
more of the specific terms and conditions of their concessionagreements
(and this, petitioners implicitly assume), what will those companies litigate
about? The answer I suggestis that they may seek to dispute the existence
of the specificlegal right petitioners should allege, as well as the reality of
the claimed factual nexus between petitioners' specific legal rights and the
claimed wrongful acts or failures to act of public respondentadministrative
agency. They may also controvert the appropriateness of the remedyor
remedies demandedby petitioners, under all the circumstances which
exist.
I vote to grant the Petition for Certiorari because the protectionof the
environment, including the forestcover of our territory, is of extreme
importance for the country. The doctrines set out in the Court's decision
issued today should, however, be subjected to closerexamination.
# Separate Opinions
FELICIANO, J., concurring
I join in the result reached by my distinguished brother in the Court, Davide,
Jr., J., in this case which, to my mind, is one of the most important cases
decided bythis Court in the last few years. The seminal principles laid
down in this decisionare likely to influence profoundly the directionand
course of the protectionand management of the environment, which of
course embraces the utilization of all the natural resources in the territorial
base of our polity. I have therefore sought to clarify, basically to myself,
what the Court appears to be saying.

The Court explicitly states that petitioners have the locusstandi necessary
to sustain the bringing and, maintenance of this suit (Decision,pp. 11-
12). Locus standi is not a function of petitioners' claim that their suit is
properly regarded as a class suit.I understand locus standi to referto the
legal interest which a plaintiff must have in the subject matter of the suit.
Because of the very broadness of the conceptof "class" here involved —
membership in this "class" appears to embrace everyoneliving in the
country whether now or in the
future — it appears to me that everyone who may be expected to benefit
from the course of action petitioners seek to require public respondents to
take, is vested with the necessary locus standi.The Court may be seen
therefore to be recognizing a beneficiaries' rightof action in the field of
environmental protection, as against both the public administrative agency
directly concerned and the private persons or entities operating in the field
or sectorof activity involved. Whether such beneficiaries' right of action
may be found under any and all circumstances,or whether some failure to
act, in the first instance, on the part of the governmental agency concerned
must be shown ("prior exhaustion of administrative remedies"),is not
discussedin the decisionand presumably is left for future determination in
an appropriate case.
The Court has also declared that the complaint has alleged and focused
upon "one specific fundamental legal right — the right to a balanced and
healthful ecology" (Decision,p. 14). There is no question that "the right to a
balanced and healthful ecology" is "fundamental" and that, accordingly, it
has been "constitutionalized." But although it is fundamental in character, I
suggest,with very great respect,that it cannot be characterized as
"specific," without doing excessive violence to language. It is in fact very
difficultto fashion language more comprehensive in scope and generalized
in character than a right to "a balanced and healthful ecology." The list of
particular claims which can be subsumed under this rubic appears to be
entirely open-ended:prevention and control of emissionof toxic fumes and
smoke from factories and motor vehicles; of discharge of oil, chemical
effluents,garbage and raw sewage into rivers, inland and coastal waters by
vessels,oil rigs, factories,mines and whole communities;of dumping of
organic and inorganic wastes on open land, streets and thoroughfares;
failure to rehabilitate land after strip-mining or open-pit mining; kainginor
slash-and-burn farming; destruction of fisheries,coral reefs and other living
sea resources through the use of dynamite or cyanide and other chemicals;
contamination of ground water resources;loss of certain species of fauna

and flora; and so on. The other statements pointed out by the Court:
Section3, Executive Order No. 192 dated 10 June 1987;Section 1, Title
XIV,Book IV of the 1987 Administrative Code;and P.D. No. 1151,dated 6
June 1977 — all appear to be formulations of policy,as general and
abstract as the constitutional statements of basic policy in Article II,Section
16 ("the right — to a balanced and healthful ecology")and 15 ("the right to
health").
P.D. No. 1152,also dated 6 June 1977,entitled "The Philippine
Environment Code," is, upon the other hand, a compendious collectionof
more "specific environment management policies" and "environment quality
standards" (fourth "Whereas" clause, Preamble)relating to an extremely
wide range of topics:
(a) air quality management;
(b) water quality management;
(c) land use management;
(d) natural resources management and conservation
embracing:
(i) fisheries and aquatic resources;
(ii) wild life;
(iii) forestry and soil conservation;
(iv) flood control and natural calamities;
(v) energy development;
(vi) conservation and utilization of surface and ground water
(vii) mineral resources
Two (2) points are worth making in this connection. Firstly, neither
petitioners nor the Court has identified the particular provision or provisions
(if any) of the Philippine Environment Code which give rise to a specific
legal right which petitioners are seeking to enforce.Secondly,the

Philippine Environment Code identifies with notable care the particular
government agency charged with the formulation and implementation of
guidelines and programs dealing with each of the headings and sub-
headings mentioned above. The Philippine Environment Code does not, in
other words, appear to contemplate action on the part of private
persons who are beneficiaries of implementation of that Code.
As a matter of logic, by finding petitioners' cause of action as anchored on
a legal right comprisedin the constitutional statements above noted, the
Court is in effectsaying that Section15 (and Section16) of Article II of the
Constitution are self-executing and judicially enforceableeven in their
presentform. The implications of this doctrine will have to be explored in
future cases;those implications are too large and far-reaching in nature
even to be hinted at here.
My suggestionis simply that petitioners must, before the trial court, show a
more specificlegal right — a right cast in language of a significantly lower
order of generality than Article II (15) of the Constitution — that is or may
be violated by the actions, or failures to act, imputed to the public
respondentby petitioners so that the trial court can validly render judgment
granting all or part of the relief prayed for. To my mind, the Court should be
understood as simply saying that such a more specific legalright or
rights may well exist in our corpus of law, considering the general policy
principles found in the Constitution and the existence of the Philippine
Environment Code,and that the trial court should have given petitioners an
effective opportunity so to demonstrate,instead of aborting the proceedings
on a motion to dismiss.
It seems to me important that the legal right which is an essential
componentof a cause of action be a specific,operable legalright, rather
than a constitutional or statutory policy,forat least two (2) reasons. One is
that unless the legal right claimed to have been violated or disregarded is
given specificationin operational terms, defendants may well be unable to
defend themselves intelligently and effectively;in other words, there are
due process dimensions to this matter.
The second is a broader-gauge consideration— where a specific violation
of law or applicable regulation is not alleged or proved, petitioners can be
expected to fall back on the expanded conceptionof judicial power in the

second paragraph of Section1 of Article VIII of the Constitution which
reads:
Section1. . . .
there has been agrave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
instrumentality ofthe Government.(Emphasis supplied)
When substantive standards as general as "the right to a balanced
and healthy ecology" and "the right to health" are combined with
remedial standards as broad ranging as "a grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction," the result will be, it is
respectfully submitted,to propelcourts into the uncharted ocean of
social and economic policymaking. At least in respectof the vast
area of environmental protectionand management, our courts have
no claim to special technical competence and experience and
professionalqualification. Where no specific,operable norms and
standards are shown to exist, then the policy making departments —
the legislative and executive departments — must be given a real and
effective opportunity to fashion and promulgate those norms and
standards, and to implementthem before the courts should intervene.
My learned brother Davide, Jr., J., rightly insists that the timber companies,
whose concessionagreements or TLA's petitioners demand public
respondents should cancel, must be impleaded in the proceedingsbelow. It
might be asked that, if petitioners' entitlement to the relief demanded
is not dependentupon proof of breach by the timber companies of one or
more of the specific terms and conditions of their concessionagreements
(and this, petitioners implicitly assume), what will those companies litigate
about? The answer I suggestis that they may seek to dispute the existence
of the specificlegal right petitioners should allege, as well as the reality of
the claimed factual nexus between petitioners' specific legal rights and the
claimed wrongful acts or failures to act of public respondentadministrative
agency. They may also controvert the appropriateness of the remedyor
remedies demandedby petitioners, under all the circumstances which
exist.

I vote to grant the Petition for Certiorari because the protectionof the
environment, including the forestcover of our territory, is of extreme
importance for the country. The doctrines set out in the Court's decision
issued today should, however, be subjected to closerexamination.

Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
METROPOLITAN MANILA G.R. Nos. 171947-48
DEVELOPMENTAUTHORITY,
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT
AND NATURAL RESOURCES, Present:
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION,
CULTURE AND SPORTS,[1] PUNO, C.J.,
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, QUISUMBING,
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, YNARES-SANTIAGO,
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC CARPIO,
WORKS AND HIGHWAYS, AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND CORONA,
MANAGEMENT, PHILIPPINE CARPIO MORALES,
COAST GUARD, PHILIPPINE AZCUNA,
NATIONAL POLICE MARITIME TINGA,
GROUP, and DEPARTMENTOF CHICO-NAZARIO,
THE INTERIOR AND LOCAL VELASCO, JR.,
GOVERNMENT, NACHURA,
Petitioners, REYES,
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, and
- versus - BRION, JJ.
CONCERNEDRESIDENTSOF
MANILA BAY, representedand
joined by DIVINA V. ILAS,
SABINIANO ALBARRACIN,
MANUEL SANTOS, JR., DINAH
DELA PEÑA, PAUL DENNIS
QUINTERO, MA. VICTORIA
LLENOS, DONNACALOZA,
FATIMA QUITAIN, VENICE
SEGARRA, FRITZIE TANGKIA,

SARAH JOELLE LINTAG,
HANNIBAL AUGUSTUS BOBIS,
FELIMON SANTIAGUEL, and Promulgated:
JAIME AGUSTIN R. OPOSA,
Respondents. December 18, 2008
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
D E C I S I O N
VELASCO, JR., J.:
The need to address environmental pollution, as a cause of climate change,
has of late gained the attention of the international community. Media have finally
trained their sights on the ill effects of pollution, the destruction of forests and
other critical habitats, oil spills, and the unabated improper disposal of garbage.
And rightly so, for the magnitude of environmental destruction is now on a scale
few ever foresaw and the wound no longer simply heals by itself.[2] But amidst
hard evidence and clear signs of a climate crisis that need bold action, the voice of
cynicism, naysayers, and procrastinators can still be heard.
This case turns on government agencies and their officers who, by the nature
of their respective offices or by direct statutory command, are tasked to protect and
preserve, at the first instance, our internal waters, rivers, shores, and seas polluted
by human activities. To most of these agencies and their official complement, the
pollution menace does not seem to carry the high national priority it deserves, if
their track records are to be the norm. Their cavalier attitude towards solving, if not
mitigating, the environmental pollution problem, is a sad commentary on
bureaucratic efficiency and commitment.

At the core of the case is the Manila Bay, a place with a proud historic past,
once brimming with marine life and, for so many decades in the past, a spot for
different contact recreation activities, but now a dirty and slowly dying expanse
mainly because of the abject official indifference of people and institutions that
could have otherwise made a difference.
This case started when, on January 29, 1999, respondents Concerned
Residents of Manila Bay filed a complaint before the Regional Trial Court (RTC)
in Imus, Cavite against several government agencies, among them the petitioners,
for the cleanup, rehabilitation, and protection of the Manila Bay. Raffled to Branch
20 and docketed as Civil Case No. 1851-99 of the RTC, the complaint alleged that
the water quality of the Manila Bay had fallen way below the allowable standards
set by law, specifically Presidential Decree No. (PD) 1152 or the Philippine
Environment Code. This environmental aberration, the complaint stated, stemmed
from:
x x x [The] reckless, wholesale, accumulated and ongoing acts of
omission or commission [of the defendants] resulting in the clear and
present danger to public health and in the depletion and contamination of
the marine life of Manila Bay, [for which reason] ALL defendants must
be held jointly and/or solidarily liable and be collectively ordered to
clean up Manila Bay and to restore its water quality to class B waters fit
for swimming, skin-diving, and other forms of contact recreation.[3]
In their individual causes of action, respondents alleged that the continued
neglect of petitioners in abating the pollution of the Manila Bay constitutes a
violation of, among others:

(1) Respondents’ constitutional right to life, health, and a balanced
ecology;
(2) The Environment Code (PD 1152);
(3) The Pollution Control Law (PD 984);
(4) The Water Code (PD 1067);
(5) The Sanitation Code (PD 856);
(6) The Illegal Disposal of Wastes Decree (PD 825);
(7) The Marine Pollution Law (PD 979);
(8) Executive Order No. 192;
(9) The Toxic and Hazardous Wastes Law (Republic Act No. 6969);
(10) Civil Code provisions on nuisance and human relations;
(11) The Trust Doctrine and the Principle of Guardianship; and
(12) International Law
Inter alia, respondents, as plaintiffs a quo, prayed that petitioners be ordered
to clean the Manila Bay and submit to the RTC a concerted concrete plan of action
for the purpose.
The trial of the case started off with a hearing at the Manila Yacht Club
followed by an ocular inspection of the Manila Bay. Renato T. Cruz, the Chief of
the Water Quality Management Section, Environmental Management Bureau,
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), testifying for
petitioners, stated that water samples collected from different beaches around the
Manila Bay showed that the amount of fecal coliform content ranged from 50,000
to 80,000 most probable number (MPN)/ml when what DENR Administrative
Order No. 34-90 prescribed as a safe level for bathing and other forms of contact
recreational activities, or the “SB” level, is one not exceeding 200 MPN/100 ml.[4]
Rebecca de Vera, for Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System
(MWSS) and in behalf of other petitioners, testified about the MWSS’ efforts to
reduce pollution along the Manila Bay through the Manila Second Sewerage

Project. For its part, the Philippine Ports Authority (PPA) presented, as part of its
evidence, its memorandum circulars on the study being conducted on ship-
generated waste treatment and disposal, and its Linis Dagat (Clean the Ocean)
project for the cleaning of wastes accumulated or washed to shore.
The RTC Ordered Petitioners to Clean Up and Rehabilitate Manila Bay
On September 13, 2002, the RTC rendered a Decision[5] in favor of
respondents. The dispositive portion reads:
WHEREFORE, finding merit in the complaint, judgment is
hereby rendered ordering the abovenamed defendant-government
agencies, jointly and solidarily, to clean up and rehabilitate Manila Bay
and restore its waters to SB classification to make it fit for swimming,
skin-diving and other forms of contact recreation. To attain this,
defendant-agencies, with defendant DENR as the lead agency, are
directed, within six (6) months from receipt hereof, to act and perform
their respective duties by devising a consolidated, coordinated and
concerted scheme of action for the rehabilitation and restoration of the
bay.
In particular:
Defendant MWSS is directed to install, operate and maintain
adequate [sewerage] treatment facilities in strategic places under its
jurisdiction and increase their capacities.
Defendant LWUA, to see to it that the water districts under its
wings, provide, construct and operate sewage facilities for the proper
disposal of waste.
Defendant DENR, which is the lead agency in cleaning up
Manila Bay, to install, operate and maintain waste facilities to rid the bay
of toxic and hazardous substances.
Defendant PPA, to prevent and also to treat the discharge not
only of ship-generated wastes but also of other solid and liquid wastes
from docking vessels that contribute to the pollution of the bay.

Defendant MMDA, to establish, operate and maintain an
adequate and appropriate sanitary landfill and/or adequate solid waste
and liquid disposal as well as other alternative garbage disposal system
such as re-use or recycling of wastes.
Defendant DA, through the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic
Resources, to revitalize the marine life in Manila Bay and restock its
waters with indigenous fish and other aquatic animals.
Defendant DBM, to provide and set aside an adequate budget
solely for the purpose of cleaning up and rehabilitation of Manila Bay.
Defendant DPWH, to remove and demolish structures and other
nuisances that obstruct the free flow of waters to the bay. These
nuisances discharge solid and liquid wastes which eventually end up
in Manila Bay. As the construction and engineering arm of the
government, DPWH is ordered to actively participate in removing
debris, such as carcass of sunken vessels, and other non-biodegradable
garbage in the bay.
Defendant DOH, to closely supervise and monitor the operations
of septic and sludge companies and require them to have proper facilities
for the treatment and disposal of fecal sludge and sewage coming from
septic tanks.
Defendant DECS, to inculcate in the minds and hearts of the
people through education the importance of preserving and protecting
the environment.
Defendant Philippine Coast Guard and the PNP Maritime Group,
to protect at all costs the Manila Bay from all forms of illegal fishing.
No pronouncement as to damages and costs.
SO ORDERED.
The MWSS, Local Water Utilities Administration (LWUA), and PPA filed
before the Court of Appeals (CA) individual Notices of Appeal which were
eventually consolidated and docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 76528.

On the other hand, the DENR, Department of Public Works and Highways
(DPWH), Metropolitan Manila Development Authority (MMDA), Philippine
Coast Guard (PCG), Philippine National Police (PNP) Maritime Group, and five
other executive departments and agencies filed directly with this Court a petition
for review under Rule 45. The Court, in a Resolution of December 9, 2002, sent
the said petition to the CA for consolidation with the consolidated appeals of
MWSS, LWUA, and PPA, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 74944.
Petitioners, before the CA, were one in arguing in the main that the pertinent
provisions of the Environment Code (PD 1152) relate only to the cleaning of
specific pollution incidents and do not cover cleaning in general. And apart from
raising concerns about the lack of funds appropriated for cleaning purposes,
petitioners also asserted that the cleaning of the Manila Bay is not a ministerial act
which can be compelled by mandamus.
The CA Sustained the RTC
By a Decision[6] of September 28, 2005, the CA denied petitioners’ appeal
and affirmed the Decision of the RTC in toto, stressing that the trial court’s
decision did not require petitioners to do tasks outside of their usual basic functions
under existing laws.[7]
Petitioners are now before this Court praying for the allowance of their Rule
45 petition on the following ground and supporting arguments:
THE [CA] DECIDED A QUESTION OF SUBSTANCE NOT
HERETOFORE PASSED UPON BY THE HONORABLE COURT,

I.E., IT AFFIRMED THE TRIAL COURT’S DECISION DECLARING
THAT SECTION 20 OF [PD] 1152 REQUIRES CONCERNED
GOVERNMENT AGENCIES TO REMOVE ALL POLLUTANTS
SPILLED AND DISCHARGED IN THE WATER SUCH AS FECAL
COLIFORMS.
ARGUMENTS
I
[SECTIONS] 17 AND 20 OF [PD] 1152 RELATE ONLY TO
THE CLEANING OF SPECIFIC POLLUTION INCIDENTS AND
[DO] NOT COVER CLEANING IN GENERAL
II
THE CLEANING OR REHABILITATION OF
THE MANILA BAY IS NOT A MINISTERIAL ACT OF
PETITIONERS THAT CAN BE COMPELLED BY MANDAMUS.
The issues before us are two-fold. First, do Sections 17 and 20 of PD 1152
under the headings, Upgrading of Water Quality and Clean-up Operations,
envisage a cleanup in general or are they limited only to the cleanup of specific
pollution incidents? And second, can petitioners be compelled by mandamus to
clean up and rehabilitate the ManilaBay?
On August 12, 2008, the Court conducted and heard the parties on oral
arguments.
Our Ruling
We shall first dwell on the propriety of the issuance of mandamus under the
premises.

The Cleaning or Rehabilitation of Manila Bay
Can be Compelled by Mandamus
Generally, the writ of mandamus lies to require the execution of a ministerial
duty.[8] A ministerial duty is one that “requires neither the exercise of official
discretion nor judgment.”[9] It connotes an act in which nothing is left to the
discretion of the person executing it. It is a “simple, definite duty arising under
conditions admitted or proved to exist and imposed by law.”[10] Mandamus is
available to compel action, when refused, on matters involving discretion, but not
to direct the exercise of judgment or discretion one way or the other.
Petitioners maintain that the MMDA’s duty to take measures and maintain
adequate solid waste and liquid disposal systems necessarily involves policy
evaluation and the exercise of judgment on the part of the agency concerned. They
argue that the MMDA, in carrying out its mandate, has to make decisions,
including choosing where a landfill should be located by undertaking feasibility
studies and cost estimates, all of which entail the exercise of discretion.
Respondents, on the other hand, counter that the statutory command is clear
and that petitioners’ duty to comply with and act according to the clear mandate of
the law does not require the exercise of discretion. According to respondents,
petitioners, the MMDA in particular, are without discretion, for example, to choose
which bodies of water they are to clean up, or which discharge or spill they are to
contain. By the same token, respondents maintain that petitioners are bereft of
discretion on whether or not to alleviate the problem of solid and liquid waste
disposal; in other words, it is the MMDA’s ministerial duty to attend to such
services.

We agree with respondents.
First off, we wish to state that petitioners’ obligation to perform their duties
as defined by law, on one hand, and how they are to carry out such duties, on the
other, are two different concepts. While the implementation of the MMDA’s
mandated tasks may entail a decision-making process, the enforcement of the law
or the very act of doing what the law exacts to be done is ministerial in nature and
may be compelled by mandamus. We said so in Social Justice Society v.
Atienza[11] in which the Court directed the City ofManila to enforce, as a matter of
ministerial duty, its Ordinance No. 8027 directing the three big local oil players to
cease and desist from operating their business in the so-called “Pandacan
Terminals” within six months from the effectivity of the ordinance. But to illustrate
with respect to the instant case, the MMDA’s duty to put up an adequate and
appropriate sanitary landfill and solid waste and liquid disposal as well as other
alternative garbage disposal systems is ministerial, its duty being a statutory
imposition. The MMDA’s duty in this regard is spelled out in Sec. 3(c) of Republic
Act No. (RA) 7924 creating the MMDA. This section defines and delineates the
scope of the MMDA’s waste disposal services to include:
Solid waste disposal and management which include formulation
and implementation of policies, standards, programs and projects for
proper and sanitary waste disposal. It shall likewise include
theestablishment and operation of sanitary land fill and related
facilities and the implementation of other alternative programs intended
to reduce, reuse and recycle solid waste. (Emphasis added.)
The MMDA is duty-bound to comply with Sec. 41 of the Ecological Solid
Waste Management Act (RA 9003) which prescribes the minimum criteria for the

establishment of sanitary landfills and Sec. 42 which provides the minimum
operating requirements that each site operator shall maintain in the operation of a
sanitary landfill. Complementing Sec. 41 are Secs. 36 and 37 of RA
9003,[12] enjoining the MMDA and local government units, among others, after the
effectivity of the law on February 15, 2001, from using and operating open dumps
for solid waste and disallowing, five years after such effectivity, the use of
controlled dumps.
The MMDA’s duty in the area of solid waste disposal, as may be noted, is
set forth not only in the Environment Code (PD 1152) and RA 9003, but in its
charter as well. This duty of putting up a proper waste disposal system cannot be
characterized as discretionary, for, as earlier stated, discretion presupposes the
power or right given by law to public functionaries to act officially according to
their judgment or conscience.[13] A discretionary duty is one that “allows a person
to exercise judgment and choose to perform or not to perform.”[14] Any suggestion
that the MMDA has the option whether or not to perform its solid waste disposal-
related duties ought to be dismissed for want of legal basis.
A perusal of other petitioners’ respective charters or like enabling statutes
and pertinent laws would yield this conclusion: these government agencies are
enjoined, as a matter of statutory obligation, to perform certain functions relating
directly or indirectly to the cleanup, rehabilitation, protection, and preservation of
the Manila Bay. They are precluded from choosing not to perform these duties.
Consider:
(1) The DENR, under Executive Order No. (EO) 192,[15] is the primary
agency responsible for the conservation, management, development, and proper

use of the country’s environment and natural resources. Sec. 19 of the Philippine
Clean Water Act of 2004 (RA 9275), on the other hand, designates the DENR as
the primary government agency responsible for its enforcement and
implementation, more particularly over all aspects of water quality
management. On water pollution, the DENR, under the Act’s Sec. 19(k), exercises
jurisdiction “over all aspects of water pollution, determine[s] its location,
magnitude, extent, severity, causes and effects and other pertinent information on
pollution, and [takes] measures, using available methods and technologies, to
prevent and abate such pollution.”
The DENR, under RA 9275, is also tasked to prepare a National Water
Quality Status Report, an Integrated Water Quality Management Framework, and a
10-year Water Quality Management Area Action Plan which is nationwide in
scope covering the Manila Bay and adjoining areas. Sec. 19 of RA 9275 provides:
Sec. 19 Lead Agency.––The [DENR] shall be the primary
government agency responsible for the implementation and enforcement
of this Act x x x unless otherwise provided herein. As such, it shall have
the following functions, powers and responsibilities:
a) Prepare a National Water Quality Status report within twenty-four
(24) months from the effectivity of this Act: Provided, That the
Department shall thereafter review or revise and publish annually, or
as the need arises, said report;
b) Prepare an Integrated Water Quality Management Framework within
twelve (12) months following the completion of the status report;
c) Prepare a ten (10) year Water Quality Management Area Action Plan
within 12 months following the completion of the framework for
each designated water management area. Such action plan shall be
reviewed by the water quality management area governing board
every five (5) years or as need arises.

The DENR has prepared the status report for the period 2001 to 2005 and is
in the process of completing the preparation of the Integrated Water Quality
Management Framework.[16] Within twelve (12) months thereafter, it has to submit
a final Water Quality Management Area Action Plan.[17] Again, like the MMDA,
the DENR should be made to accomplish the tasks assigned to it under RA 9275.
Parenthetically, during the oral arguments, the DENR Secretary manifested
that the DENR, with the assistance of and in partnership with various government
agencies and non-government organizations, has completed, as of December 2005,
the final draft of a comprehensive action plan with estimated budget and time
frame, denominated asOperation Plan for the Manila BayCoastal Strategy, for the
rehabilitation, restoration, and rehabilitation of the Manila Bay.
The completion of the said action plan and even the implementation of
some of its phases should more than ever prod the concerned agencies to fast track
what are assigned them under existing laws.
(2) The MWSS, under Sec. 3 of RA 6234,[18] is vested with jurisdiction,
supervision, and control over all waterworks and sewerage systems in the territory
comprising what is now the cities of Metro Manila and several towns of the
provinces of Rizal and Cavite, and charged with the duty:
(g) To construct, maintain, and operate such sanitary sewerages
as may be necessary for the proper sanitation and other uses of the cities
and towns comprising the System; x x x
(3) The LWUA under PD 198 has the power of supervision and control over
local water districts. It can prescribe the minimum standards and regulations for
the operations of these districts and shall monitor and evaluate local water

standards. The LWUA can direct these districts to construct, operate, and furnish
facilities and services for the collection, treatment, and disposal of sewerage,
waste, and storm water. Additionally, under RA 9275, the LWUA, as attached
agency of the DPWH, is tasked with providing sewerage and sanitation facilities,
inclusive of the setting up of efficient and safe collection, treatment, and sewage
disposal system in the different parts of the country.[19] In relation to the instant
petition, the LWUA is mandated to provide sewerage and sanitation facilities in
Laguna, Cavite, Bulacan, Pampanga, and Bataan to prevent pollution in
theManila Bay.
(4) The Department of Agriculture (DA), pursuant to the Administrative
Code of 1987 (EO 292),[20] is designated as the agency tasked to promulgate and
enforce all laws and issuances respecting the conservation and proper utilization of
agricultural and fishery resources. Furthermore, the DA, under the Philippine
Fisheries Code of 1998 (RA 8550), is, in coordination with local government units
(LGUs) and other concerned sectors, in charge of establishing a monitoring,
control, and surveillance system to ensure that fisheries and aquatic resources in
Philippine waters are judiciously utilized and managed on a sustainable
basis.[21] Likewise under RA 9275, the DA is charged with coordinating with the
PCG and DENR for the enforcement of water quality standards in marine
waters.[22] More specifically, its Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic
Resources (BFAR) under Sec. 22(c) of RA 9275 shall primarily be responsible for
the prevention and control of water pollution for the development, management,
and conservation of the fisheries and aquatic resources.
(5) The DPWH, as the engineering and construction arm of the national
government, is tasked under EO 292[23] to provide integrated planning, design, and
construction services for, among others, flood control and water resource

development systems in accordance with national development objectives and
approved government plans and specifications.
In Metro Manila, however, the MMDA is authorized by Sec. 3(d), RA 7924
to perform metro-wide services relating to “flood control and sewerage
management which include the formulation and implementation of policies,
standards, programs and projects for an integrated flood control, drainage and
sewerage system.”
On July 9, 2002, a Memorandum of Agreement was entered into between the
DPWH and MMDA, whereby MMDA was made the agency primarily responsible
for flood control in Metro Manila. For the rest of the country, DPWH shall remain
as the implementing agency for flood control services. The mandate of the
MMDA and DPWH on flood control and drainage services shall include the
removal of structures, constructions, and encroachments built along rivers,
waterways, and esteros (drainages) in violation of RA 7279, PD 1067, and other
pertinent laws.
(6) The PCG, in accordance with Sec. 5(p) of PD 601, or the Revised Coast
Guard Law of 1974, and Sec. 6 of PD 979,[24] or the Marine Pollution Decree of
1976, shall have the primary responsibility of enforcing laws, rules, and
regulations governing marine pollution within the territorial waters of
the Philippines. It shall promulgate its own rules and regulations in accordance
with the national rules and policies set by the National Pollution Control
Commission upon consultation with the latter for the effective implementation and
enforcement of PD 979. It shall, under Sec. 4 of the law, apprehend violators who:

a. discharge, dump x x x harmful substances from or out of any ship,
vessel, barge, or any other floating craft, or other man-made structures at
sea, by any method, means or manner, into or upon the territorial and
inland navigable waters of the Philippines;
b. throw, discharge or deposit, dump, or cause, suffer or procure to be
thrown, discharged, or deposited either from or out of any ship, barge, or
other floating craft or vessel of any kind, or from the shore, wharf,
manufacturing establishment, or mill of any kind, any refuse matter of
any kind or description whatever other than that flowing from streets and
sewers and passing therefrom in a liquid state into tributary of any
navigable water from which the same shall float or be washed into such
navigable water; and
c. deposit x x x material of any kind in any place on the bank of any
navigable water or on the bank of any tributary of any navigable water,
where the same shall be liable to be washed into such navigable water,
either by ordinary or high tides, or by storms or floods, or otherwise,
whereby navigation shall or may be impeded or obstructed or increase
the level of pollution of such water.
(7) When RA 6975 or the Department of the Interior and Local Government
(DILG) Act of 1990 was signed into law on December 13, 1990, the PNP Maritime
Group was tasked to “perform all police functions over the Philippine territorial
waters and rivers.” Under Sec. 86, RA 6975, the police functions of the PCG shall
be taken over by the PNP when the latter acquires the capability to perform such
functions. Since the PNP Maritime Group has not yet attained the capability to
assume and perform the police functions of PCG over marine pollution, the PCG
and PNP Maritime Group shall coordinate with regard to the enforcement of laws,
rules, and regulations governing marine pollution within the territorial waters of
the Philippines. This was made clear in Sec. 124, RA 8550 or the Philippine
Fisheries Code of 1998, in which both the PCG and PNP Maritime Group were
authorized to enforce said law and other fishery laws, rules, and regulations.[25]

(8) In accordance with Sec. 2 of EO 513, the PPA is mandated “to establish,
develop, regulate, manage and operate a rationalized national port system in
support of trade and national development.”[26] Moreover, Sec. 6-c of EO 513
states that the PPA has police authority within the
ports administered by it as may be necessary to carry out its powers and
functions and attain its purposes and objectives, without prejudice to the
exercise of the functions of the Bureau of Customs and other law
enforcement bodies within the area. Such police authority shall include
the following:
x x x x
b) To regulate the entry to, exit from, and movement within the port, of
persons and vehicles, as well as movement within the port of
watercraft.[27]
Lastly, as a member of the International Marine Organization and a
signatory to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from
Ships, as amended by MARPOL 73/78,[28] the Philippines, through the PPA, must
ensure the provision of adequate reception facilities at ports and terminals for the
reception of sewage from the ships docking in Philippine ports. Thus, the PPA is
tasked to adopt such measures as are necessary to prevent the discharge and
dumping of solid and liquid wastes and other ship-generated wastes into
the Manila Bay waters from vessels docked at ports and apprehend the violators.
When the vessels are not docked at ports but within Philippine territorial waters, it
is the PCG and PNP Maritime Group that have jurisdiction over said vessels.
(9) The MMDA, as earlier indicated, is duty-bound to put up and maintain
adequate sanitary landfill and solid waste and liquid disposal system as well as

other alternative garbage disposal systems. It is primarily responsible for the
implementation and enforcement of the provisions of RA 9003, which would
necessary include its penal provisions, within its area of jurisdiction.[29]
Among the prohibited acts under Sec. 48, Chapter VI of RA 9003 that are
frequently violated are dumping of waste matters in public places, such as roads,
canals oresteros, open burning of solid waste, squatting in open dumps and
landfills, open dumping, burying of biodegradable or non- biodegradable materials
in flood-prone areas, establishment or operation of open dumps as enjoined in RA
9003, and operation of waste management facilities without an environmental
compliance certificate.
Under Sec. 28 of the Urban Development and Housing Act of 1992 (RA
7279), eviction or demolition may be allowed “when persons or entities occupy
danger areas such as esteros, railroad tracks, garbage dumps, riverbanks,
shorelines, waterways, and other public places such as sidewalks, roads, parks and
playgrounds.” The MMDA, as lead agency, in coordination with the DPWH,
LGUs, and concerned agencies, can dismantle and remove all structures,
constructions, and other encroachments built in breach of RA 7279 and other
pertinent laws along the rivers, waterways, and esteros in Metro Manila. With
respect to rivers, waterways, and esteros in Bulacan, Bataan, Pampanga, Cavite,
and Laguna that discharge wastewater directly or eventually into the Manila Bay,
the DILG shall direct the concerned LGUs to implement the demolition and
removal of such structures, constructions, and other encroachments built in
violation of RA 7279 and other applicable laws in coordination with the DPWH
and concerned agencies.

(10) The Department of Health (DOH), under Article 76 of PD 1067 (the
Water Code), is tasked to promulgate rules and regulations for the establishment of
waste disposal areas that affect the source of a water supply or a reservoir for
domestic or municipal use. And under Sec. 8 of RA 9275, the DOH, in
coordination with the DENR, DPWH, and other concerned agencies, shall
formulate guidelines and standards for the collection, treatment, and disposal of
sewage and the establishment and operation of a centralized sewage treatment
system. In areas not considered as highly urbanized cities, septage or a mix
sewerage-septage management system shall be employed.
In accordance with Sec. 72[30] of PD 856, the Code of Sanitation of
the Philippines, and Sec. 5.1.1[31] of Chapter XVII of its implementing rules, the
DOH is also ordered to ensure the regulation and monitoring of the proper disposal
of wastes by private sludge companies through the strict enforcement of the
requirement to obtain an environmental sanitation clearance of sludge collection
treatment and disposal before these companies are issued their environmental
sanitation permit.
(11) The Department of Education (DepEd), under the Philippine
Environment Code (PD 1152), is mandated to integrate subjects on environmental
education in its school curricula at all levels.[32] Under Sec. 118 of RA 8550, the
DepEd, in collaboration with the DA, Commission on Higher Education, and
Philippine Information Agency, shall launch and pursue a nationwide educational
campaign to promote the development, management, conservation, and proper use
of the environment. Under the Ecological Solid Waste Management Act (RA
9003), on the other hand, it is directed to strengthen the integration of

environmental concerns in school curricula at all levels, with an emphasis on waste
management principles.[33]
(12) The Department of Budget and Management (DBM) is tasked under
Sec. 2, Title XVII of the Administrative Code of 1987 to ensure the efficient and
sound utilization of government funds and revenues so as to effectively achieve the
country’s development objectives.[34]
One of the country’s development objectives is enshrined in RA 9275 or the
Philippine Clean Water Act of 2004. This law stresses that the State shall pursue a
policy of economic growth in a manner consistent with the protection,
preservation, and revival of the quality of our fresh, brackish, and marine waters. It
also provides that it is the policy of the government, among others, to streamline
processes and procedures in the prevention, control, and abatement of pollution
mechanisms for the protection of water resources; to promote environmental
strategies and use of appropriate economic instruments and of control mechanisms
for the protection of water resources; to formulate a holistic national program of
water quality management that recognizes that issues related to this management
cannot be separated from concerns about water sources and ecological protection,
water supply, public health, and quality of life; and to provide a comprehensive
management program for water pollution focusing on pollution prevention.
Thus, the DBM shall then endeavor to provide an adequate budget to attain
the noble objectives of RA 9275 in line with the country’s development
objectives.

All told, the aforementioned enabling laws and issuances are in themselves
clear, categorical, and complete as to what are the obligations and mandate of each
agency/petitioner under the law. We need not belabor the issue that their tasks
include the cleanup of the Manila Bay.
Now, as to the crux of the petition. Do Secs. 17 and 20 of the Environment
Code encompass the cleanup of water pollution in general, not just specific
pollution incidents?
Secs. 17 and 20 of the Environment Code
Include Cleaning in General
The disputed sections are quoted as follows:
Section 17. Upgrading of Water Quality.––Where the quality of water has deteriorated to a
degree where its state will adversely affect its best usage,the government agencies concerned shall
take such measures as may be necessary to upgrade the quality of such water to meet the
prescribed water quality standards.
Section 20. Clean-up Operations.––It shall be the responsibility of the polluter to contain, remove
and clean-up water pollution incidents at his own expense. In case of his failure to do so, the
government agencies concerned shall undertake containment, removal and clean-up operations
and expenses incurred in said operations shall be charged against the persons and/or entities
responsible for such pollution.
When the Clean Water Act (RA 9275) took effect, its Sec. 16 on the
subject, Cleanup Operations, amended the counterpart provision (Sec. 20) of the
Environment Code (PD 1152). Sec. 17 of PD 1152 continues, however, to be
operational.
The amendatory Sec. 16 of RA 9275 reads:

SEC. 16. Cleanup Operations.––Notwithstanding the provisions
of Sections 15 and 26 hereof, any person who causes pollution in or
pollutes water bodies in excess of the applicable and prevailing standards
shall be responsible to contain, remove and clean up any pollution
incident at his own expense to the extent that the same water bodies have
been rendered unfit for utilization and beneficial use: Provided, That in
the event emergency cleanup operations are necessary and the polluter
fails to immediately undertake the same, the [DENR] in coordination
with other government agencies concerned, shall undertake containment,
removal and cleanup operations. Expenses incurred in said operations
shall be reimbursed by the persons found to have caused such pollution
under proper administrative determination x x x. Reimbursements of the
cost incurred shall be made to the Water Quality Management Fund or to
such other funds where said disbursements were sourced.
As may be noted, the amendment to Sec. 20 of the Environment Code is
more apparent than real since the amendment, insofar as it is relevant to this case,
merely consists in the designation of the DENR as lead agency in the cleanup
operations.
Petitioners contend at every turn that Secs. 17 and 20 of the Environment
Code concern themselves only with the matter of cleaning up in specific pollution
incidents, as opposed to cleanup in general. They aver that the twin provisions
would have to be read alongside the succeeding Sec. 62(g) and (h), which defines
the terms “cleanup operations” and “accidental spills,” as follows:
g. Clean-up Operations [refer] to activities conducted in removing the pollutants
discharged or spilled in water to restore it to pre-spill condition.
h. Accidental Spills [refer] to spills of oil or other hazardous substances in water that result
from accidents such as collisions and groundings.
Petitioners proffer the argument that Secs. 17 and 20 of PD 1152 merely
direct the government agencies concerned to undertake containment, removal, and

cleaning operations of a specific polluted portion or portions of the body of water
concerned. They maintain that the application of said Sec. 20 is limited only to
“water pollution incidents,” which are situations that presuppose the occurrence of
specific, isolated pollution events requiring the corresponding containment,
removal, and cleaning operations. Pushing the point further, they argue that the
aforequoted Sec. 62(g) requires “cleanup operations” to restore the body of water
to pre-spill condition, which means that there must have been a specific incident of
either intentional or accidental spillage of oil or other hazardous substances, as
mentioned in Sec. 62(h).
As a counterpoint, respondents argue that petitioners erroneously read Sec.
62(g) as delimiting the application of Sec. 20 to the containment, removal, and
cleanup operations for accidental spills only. Contrary to petitioners’ posture,
respondents assert that Sec. 62(g), in fact, even expanded the coverage of Sec.
20. Respondents explain that without its Sec. 62(g), PD 1152 may have indeed
covered only pollution accumulating from the day-to-day operations of businesses
around the Manila Bay and other sources of pollution that slowly accumulated in
the bay. Respondents, however, emphasize that Sec. 62(g), far from being a
delimiting provision, in fact even enlarged the operational scope of Sec. 20, by
including accidental spills as among the water pollution incidents contemplated in
Sec. 17 in relation to Sec. 20 of PD 1152.
To respondents, petitioners’ parochial view on environmental issues,
coupled with their narrow reading of their respective mandated roles, has
contributed to the worsening water quality of the Manila Bay. Assuming,
respondents assert, that petitioners are correct in saying that the cleanup coverage
of Sec. 20 of PD 1152 is constricted by the definition of the phrase “cleanup

239135132 case1

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (13)

Similar to 239135132 case1

Similar to 239135132 case1 (20)

More from homeworkping4

More from homeworkping4 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

239135132 case1