NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAW

Submitted by: ESTENZO, Den Carlo

1ST Year Block D

Cases Digests:

1. International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications, Inc.

petitioners, vs. Greenpeace et al. respondents
GR Nos. 20971, 209276, 209301, 209430. December 8, 2015
 
FACTS:
Several agencies were created to supervise the country's biosafety regulatory system from
the time of President Marcos to Arroyo. On September 2010, a Memorandum of
Undertaking (MOU) was executed between the petitioners International Service for the
Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications, Inc. (ISAAA), UPLBFI, and UP Mindanao
Foundation, Inc. (UPMFI), in pursuance of a collaborative research and development project
on eggplants (BT Talong) that are resistant to the fruit and shoot borer.

A petition for writ of kalikasan was then filed by respondent, Greenpeace, NGO to Court to
stop testing of BT Talong, which they claimed to be harmful to health and the environment,
thus violates the right to health and balanced ecology. ISAAA presented its arguments that
the researches for several years concluded that genetically modified plants posed no risks
than conventional plant breeding method. Thus grating the Courts’ Decision in favor of the
respondent’s petition.

ISAAA then filed a petition in the Supreme Court seeking the reversal of the Court of
Appeals (CA) Decision and Resolution dated which permanently enjoined the conduct of
field trials for genetically modified eggplant.

ISSUES:
1. Whether or not Greenpeace, et al. have legal standing to file the petition for writ of
kalikasan?

2. Whether or not BT Talong is harmful violating the right to health of the citizen and
balanced ecology in the country?

RULING:
The petition for writ of kalikasan filed by Green Peace and alleged non-compliance with
environmental and local government laws present justiciable controversies for resolution by
the court.

The Supreme Court ruled that petitions are denied. Applying the precautionary principle, the
testing or introduction of BT Talong into the Philippines, by its nature and intent, is a grave
and present danger to (and an assault on) the Filipinos' constitutional right to a balanced
ecology.

Also, the Court of Appeals Decision is hereby modified, where the conduct of the assailed
field testing for Bt Talong is hereby permanently enjoined. Any application for contained use,
field testing, propagation and commercialization, and importation of genetically modified

Page 1 of 27
NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAW
Submitted by: ESTENZO, Den Carlo
1ST Year Block D

organisms is temporary enjoined until a new administrative order is promulgated in

accordance with law.

2. Environmental Management Bureau et al. petitioners, vs.

CA Greenpeace, respondents
G.R. No. 209276. July 26, 2016
 
FACTS:
The issue is related to the case ruling on International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-
Biotech Applications, Inc. vs. Greenpeace et al on the conduct of field trials for
"bioengineered eggplants," known as Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) eggplant (Bt talong),
administered pursuant to the Memorandum of Undertaking by petitioners.

Nine (9) Motions for Reconsideration are filed in the Supreme Court assailing the Decision of
the Court on December 8, 2015 Decision, which upheld with modification the Decision dated
May 17, 2013 and the Resolution dated September 20, 2013 of the Court of Appeals (CA).

ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the case should have been dismissed for mootness in view of the
completion and termination of the Bt talong field trials and the expiration of the Biosafety
Permits?

2. Whether or not the Court should not have ruled on the validity of DAO 08-2002 as it was
not raised as an issue?

RULING:
The motions for reconsideration are granted. The Court grants the motions for
reconsideration on the ground of mootness to settle actual controversies. The Court
reconsiders its ruling and now finds merit in petitioners' assertion that the case was being
moot and academic.

It was improper for the Court to resolve the merits of the case which had become moot in
view of the absence of any valid exceptions to the rule on mootness, and to thereupon rule
on the objections against the validity and consequently nullify DAO 08-2002 under the
premises of the precautionary principle.

With the respondents' petition for Writ of Kalikasan already mooted by the expiration of the
Biosafety Permits and the completion of the field trials subject of these cases, and with none
of the exceptions to the mootness principle properly attending, the Court grants the instant
motions for reconsideration and hereby dismisses the aforesaid petition.

The Decision of the Court, which affirmed with modification the Decision dated May 2013
and the Resolution dated September 2013 of the Court of
Appeals is hereby set aside.
 
A new one is entered dismissing the Petition for Writ of Continuing Mandamus and Writ of
Kalikasan with Prayer for the Issuance of a Temporary Environmental Protection Order

Page 2 of 27
NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAW
Submitted by: ESTENZO, Den Carlo
1ST Year Block D

(TEPO) filed by respondents Greenpeace Southeast Asia (Philippines), Magsasaka at

Siyentipiko sa Pagpapaunlad ng Agrikultura, and others on the ground of mootness.

Page 3 of 27
NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAW
Submitted by: ESTENZO, Den Carlo
1ST Year Block D

3. Rev. Pedro Arigo et al. petitioners, vs.

Scott Swift et al, respondents
G.R. No. 206510. September 16, 2014
FACTS:
The Tubbataha Reef was declared a National Marine Park in 1988 and declared as a World
Heritage Site in 1993. On April 6, 2010, Congress passed Republic Act (R.A.) No. 10067,
otherwise known as the "Tubbataha Reefs Natural Park (TRNP) Act of 2009" to ensure the
protection and conservation. This strictly regulated the entry into the waters of TRNP and
many human activities are prohibited and penalized or fined, fishing and destroying the
resources within.

US Navy USS Guardian requested diplomatic clearance to enter and exit the territorial
waters of the Philippines and arrived at Subic Bay for the purpose of routine ship
replenishment, maintenance, and crew liberty. Sometime in January 2013, the ship ran
aground on the northwest side of South Shoal of the Tubbataha Reefs. Scott H. Swift
(respondent), Commander of the fleet the led salvage team on March 30, 2013 to remove
the last piece of the grounded ship from the coral reef.

The petitioners claimed that said operations by USS Guardian cause and continue to cause
environmental damage. Petition was filed in the Court for Writ of Kalikasan for the issuance
of a Temporary Environmental Protection Order (TEPO) citing violations of environmental
laws and regulations to the grounding of the US USS Guardian over the Tubbataha Reefs. 

ISSUES:
1. Whether or not TEPO or writ of Kalikasan have merit noting that the operations of the
USS Guardian on TRKP have been concluded.

2. Whether or not this Court has jurisdiction over the US respondents who did not submit
any pleading or manifestation in this case.

RULING:
No. The petition has no dispute on the legal standing to file the present petition. The Writ of
Kalikasan is a remedy that covers environmental damages. It specifically provides that the
prejudice to life, health, or property caused by an unlawful act or omission of a public official,
public employee, or a private individual or entity. The TEPO is an order which either directs
or enjoins a person or government agency to perform or refrain from a certain act for the
purpose of protecting, preserving, or rehabilitating the environment. The important elements
for its issuance are the presence of 1) extreme urgency and 2) grave injustice and
irreparable injury. The petitioner’s basis on the operations should have been conducted
immediately after the incident. The remedy is no longer available considering that all
activities to remove the grounded USS Guardian have been concluded. Also noting that their
claim to sue in behalf of the succeeding generations can only be based on the concept of
the generation’s responsibility as for the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is
concerned.

Page 4 of 27
NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAW
Submitted by: ESTENZO, Den Carlo
1ST Year Block D

The waiver of State immunity pertains only to criminal jurisdiction and not to special civil
actions such as the present petition for issuance of a writ of Kalikasan. The alleged act of
USS Guardian on the TRNP were done while performing official military duties. The suit is
considered to be one against the US itself. The principle of State immunity therefore bars the
exercise of jurisdiction by this Court over the respondents Swift, et. al.. The immunity of the
State from suit is provided in the 1987 Constitution which states that the State may not be
sued without its consent. Accordingly, the Court defers the matter for compensation and
rehabilitation to the Executive Branch in exercising their diplomatic powers channels.

The petition for the issuance of the privilege of the Writ of Kalikasan is hereby denied.

4. West Tower Condominium Corporation petitioners, vs.

First Philippine Industrial Corporation respondents
GR No. 194239 June 16, 2015

FACTS:

Respondent FPIC operates two pipelines since 1969, which transport nearly 60% of the
petroleum requirements of Metro Manila to the provinces of Bulacan, Laguna, and Rizal. In
2010, a leakage from one of the pipelines was suspected after the residents of West Tower
Condominium (West Tower) started to smell gas within the condominium which compelled
residents abandon their respective units.

West Tower Condominium Corporation (West Tower Corp.) presented petition for the
Issuance of a Writ of Kalikasan on behalf of the residents of West Tower and the
surrounding communities in Makati City. Petitioners argued that FPIC's omission or failure to
timely replace its pipelines and to observe extraordinary diligence caused the petroleum spill
posing a threat to the lives, health and property of those who live in which the pipeline is laid,
and would also affect the rights of the generations yet unborn to live in a balanced and
healthful ecology, under the 1987 Constitution.

Before the Court is the Petition for the Issuance of a Writ of Kalikasan filed following the leak
in the oil pipeline owned by First Philippine Industrial Corporation (FPIC) in Makati City.
  
ISSUES:

1. Whether petitioner has the legal capacity to represent the other petitioners by filing Writ
of Kalikasan and whether the other petitioners are real parties-in-interest.

2. Whether a Permanent Environmental Protection Order should be issued to the

respondents making the FGC and the directors and officers of may be held liable under
the environmental protection order.

Page 5 of 27
NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAW
Submitted by: ESTENZO, Den Carlo
1ST Year Block D

 
RULING:

As a rule, a real party-in-interest is the party who is affected or injured by the judgment in the
suit. However it must be considered that West Tower Corp. represents the common interest
of its unit owners and residents The filing of a petition for the issuance of a writ of kalikasan
under Sec. 1, Rule 7 of the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases does not require
that a petitioner be directly affected by an environmental disaster. The rule clearly allows
juridical persons to file the petition on behalf of persons whose constitutional right to a
balanced and healthful ecology is violated, or threatened with violation.

The court finds it proper to require DOE’s certification considering that the issue requires the
specialized knowledge and expertise. Also, the Court cannot say that the DOE’s issuance of
the certification equates to the writ of kalikasan being “functus officio” at this point. Only after
an extensive determination by the DOE of the pipeline's actual physical state through its
proposed activities, and not merely through a short-form integrity audit that the factual issue
on the WOPL's viability can be settled.

The Court will refrain from ruling on the finding of the CA that the individual directors and
officers of FPIC and FGC are not liable due to the explicit rule in the Rules of Procedure for
Environmental cases that in a petition for a writ of kalikasan. Court will not rule on the
alleged liability on the part of the FPIC and FGC officials which can, however, be properly
resolved in the civil and criminal cases now pending against them.

The Motion for Partial Reconsideration is hereby denied and the Motion for Reconsideration
with Motion for Clarification is partly granted.

5. Wilfredo Mosqueda vs. Davao Fruits Corporation; City of Davao petitioners, vs.

Court of Appeals, respondents
GR No. 189185, 189305. August 16, 2016

FACTS:

After several committee hearings and consultations with various stakeholders, the
Sangguniang Panlungsod of Davao City enacted Ordinance No. 0309, Series of 2007, to
impose a ban against aerial spraying as an agricultural practice by all agricultural entities
within Davao City.

The Pilipino Banana Growers and Exporters Association, Inc. (PBGEA) and two of its
members, namely: Davao Fruits Corporation and Lapanday Agricultural and Development
Corporation (PBGEA, et al.), filed their petition in the RTC to challenge the constitutionality
of the ordinance to seek the issuance of provisional reliefs through a temporary restraining
order (TRO) and / or writ of preliminary injunction.

RTC ruled declaring Ordinance No. 0309-07 valid and constitutional. The RTC ruled that the
City of Davao had validly exercised police power under the General Welfare Clause of the
Local Government Code, that the ordinance was consistent with the Equal Protection

Page 6 of 27
NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAW
Submitted by: ESTENZO, Den Carlo
1ST Year Block D

Clause, that aerial spraying was distinct from other methods of pesticides application
because it exposed the residents to a higher degree of health risk caused by aerial drift; and
that the ordinance enjoyed the presumption of constitutionality, and could be invalidated only
upon a clear showing that it had violated the Constitution.

The Court of Appeals (CA) assailed decision reversing the judgment of the RTC. It declared
Section 5 of Ordinance No. 0309-07 as void and unconstitutional for being unreasonable and
oppressive. The CA did not see any established relation between the purpose of protecting
the public and the environment against the harmful effects of aerial spraying, on one hand,
and the imposition of the ban against aerial spraying of all forms of substances, on the other.

A consolidated petition was then filed by the petitioners in Supreme Court against the
decision of the CA.

  
ISSUE:
1. Whether or not the Sangguniang Panlungsod Ordinance No. 0309-07 is unconstitutional
on equal protection grounds for being unreasonable and oppressive in all agricultural
lands in Davao City.
 
RULING:
Yes it is unconstitutional. The principle of precaution appearing in the Rules of Procedure for
Environmental Cases involves matters of evidence in cases where there is lack of full
scientific certainty in establishing a causal link between human activity and environmental
effect. In such an event, the courts may construe a set of facts as warranting either judicial
action or inaction with the goal of preserving and protecting the environment.

The precautionary principle shall only be relevant if there is concurrence of three elements,
namely: uncertainty, threat of environmental damage and serious or irreversible harm. In
situations where the threat is relatively certain, or that the causal link between an action and
environmental damage can be established, or the probability of occurrence can be
calculated, only preventive, not precautionary measures, may be taken.

We should not apply the precautionary approach in sustaining the ban against aerial
spraying if little or nothing is known of the exact or potential dangers that aerial spraying may
bring to the health of the residents within and near the plantations and to the integrity and
balance of the environment. It is dangerous to quickly presume that the effects of aerial
spraying would be adverse even in the absence of evidence.

Petition was denied.

Page 7 of 27
NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAW
Submitted by: ESTENZO, Den Carlo
1ST Year Block D

6. LNL Archipelago Minerals Inc. petitioners, vs.

Agham Party List, respondents
GR No. 209165. April 12, 2016

FACTS:
LNL Archipelago Minerals, Inc. (LAMI) is the operator of a mining claim located in Sta. Cruz,
Zambales. It embarked on a project to build a private, non-commercial port in Brgy. Bolitoc,
Sta. Cruz, Zambales. It is about 25 kilometers away from the mine site.

Agham Party List (Agham) respondent, filed a Petition for a Writ of Kalikasan stating that
LAMI cut mountain trees and flattened a mountain which serves as a natural protective
barrier from typhoons and floods not only of the residents of Zambales but also the residents
of some nearby towns located in Pangasinan. The Court of Appeals decided the case in
favor of petitioner. The appellate court found that the government, through the CENRO,
authorized LAMI to cut trees and LAMI strictly followed the proper guidelines stated in the
permit. Due to failing to comply with the requisites necessary for the issuance of a Writ of
Kalikasan, Petition was denied on November 2012.
 
Agham filed a Motion for Reconsideration with the Court of Appeals on, where the CA
reversed and set aside its original decision granting petition for writ of kalikasan on
September 2013.

Petitioner then filed for review on certiorari assailing the amended decision of the CA on
September 2013.
 
ISSUE:
1. Whether LAMI violated the environmental laws and whether or not LAMI flattened any
mountain and cause environmental damage of such magnitude as to prejudice the life,
health, property of inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces?
 
RULING:
No. The Writ of Kalikasan, categorized as a special civil action and conceptualized as an
extraordinary remedy, covers environmental damage of such magnitude that will prejudice
the life, health or property of inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces. The writ is
available against an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or private
individual or entity. The following requisites must be present to avail of this remedy: (1) there
is an actual or threatened violation of the constitutional right to a balanced and healthful
ecology; (2) the actual or threatened violation arises from an unlawful act or omission of a
public official or employee, or private individual or entity; and (3) the actual or threatened
violation involves or will lead to an environmental damage of such magnitude as to prejudice
the life, health or property of inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces.

The rules are clear that in a Writ of Kalikasan petitioner has the burden to prove the (1)
environmental law, rule or regulation violated or threatened to be violated; (2) act or
omission complained of; and (3) the environmental damage of such magnitude as to

Page 8 of 27
NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAW
Submitted by: ESTENZO, Den Carlo
1ST Year Block D

prejudice the life, health or property of inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces. Even
the Annotation to the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases states that the magnitude
of environmental damage is a condition sine qua non in a petition for the issuance of a Writ
of Kalikasan and must be contained in the verified petition.

It is settled that a party claiming the privilege for the issuance of a Writ of Kalikasan has to
show that a law, rule or regulation was violated or would be violated. In the present case, the
allegation by Agham that two laws the Revised Forestry Code, as amended, and the
Philippine Mining Act were violated by LAMI was not adequately substantiated by Agham,
even the facts submitted by Agham to establish environmental damage were mere general
allegations.

Petition was granted and the CA amended decision on September 2013 was revered.

7. Resident Mammals of the Protected Seascape Tanon Strait et al.  petitioners, vs.
Secretary Angelo Reyes et al.  respondents
GR No. 180771, 181527. April 21, 2015

FACTS:
Petitioners, collectively referred to as the "Resident Marine Mammals" in the petition, are the
toothed whales, dolphins, porpoises, and other cetacean species, which inhabit the waters in
and around the Tañon Strait. They are joined by Gloria Estenzo Ramos and Rose-Liza
Eisma-Osorio as their legal guardians and as friends (to be collectively known as "the
Stewards") who allegedly empathize with, and seek the protection of, the aforementioned
marine species.

On June 13, 2002, DOE, entered into a Geophysical Survey and Exploration Contract-102
(GSEC-102) with JAPEX. This contract involved geological and geophysical studies of the
Tañon Strait. On December 21, 2004, DOE and JAPEX formally converted GSEC-102 into
SC-46 for the exploration, development, and production of petroleum resources in the
offshore the Tañon Strait. JAPEX began to drill an exploratory well, with a depth of 3,150
meters, near Pinamungajan town in the western Cebu Province which lasted until February
8, 2008. The petitioners insist that SC-46 is null and void for having violated Section 2,
Article XII of the 1987 Constitution.  

Two consolidated petitions were filed concerning Service Contract No. 46 (SC-46), which
allowed the exploration, development, and exploitation of petroleum resources within Tañon
Strait, a narrow passage of water situated between the islands of Negros and Cebu.
 
ISSUE:
1. Whether or not Service Contract No. 46 violates the 1987 Philippine Constitution?
 
RULING:
Yes. Service Contract No. 46 violates the Constitution. Even before the Rules of Procedure
for Environmental Cases became effective, this Court had already taken a permissive
position on the issue of locus standi in environmental cases. We allowed the suit to be

Page 9 of 27
NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAW
Submitted by: ESTENZO, Den Carlo
1ST Year Block D

brought in the name of generations yet unborn “based on the concept of intergenerational
responsibility insofar as the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is concerned.”

Furthermore, we said that the right to a balanced and healthful ecology, a right that does not
even need to be stated in our Constitution as it is assumed to exist from the inception of
humankind, carries with it the correlative duty to refrain from impairing the environment. In
light of the foregoing, the need to give the Resident Marine Mammals legal standing has
been eliminated by our Rules, which allow any Filipino citizen, as a steward of nature, to
bring a suit to enforce our environmental laws. It is worth noting here that the Stewards are
joined as real parties in the Petition and not just in representation of the named cetacean
species. The Stewards, Ramos and Eisma-Osorio, having shown in their petition that there
may be possible violations of laws concerning the habitat of the Resident Marine Mammals,
are therefore declared to possess the legal standing to file this petition.

The Environmental Impact Statement System (EISS) was established in 1978 under
Presidential Decree No. 1586. It prohibits any person, partnership or corporation from
undertaking or operating any declared environmentally critical project or areas without first
securing an ECC issued by the President or his duly authorized representative. Pursuant to
the EISS, which called for the proper management of environmentally critical areas,
Proclamation No. 2146 was enacted, identifying the areas and types of projects to be
considered as environmentally critical and within the scope of the EISS, while DENR
Administrative Order No. 2003-30 provided for its Implementing Rules and Regulations
(IRR).

DENR Administrative Order No. 2003-30 defines an environmentally critical area as “an area
delineated as environmentally sensitive such that significant environmental impacts are
expected if certain types of proposed projects or programs are located, developed, or
implemented in it”; thus, before a project, which is “any activity, regardless of scale or
magnitude, which may have significant impact on the environment,” is undertaken in it, such
project must undergo an EIA to evaluate and predict the likely impacts of all its stages on the
environment. Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) which is the process that involves
evaluating and predicting the likely impacts of a project (including cumulative impacts) on the
environment during construction, commissioning, operation and abandonment. It also
includes designing appropriate preventive, mitigating and enhancement measures
addressing these consequences to protect the environment and the community’s welfare.

Surveying for energy resources is not an exemption from complying with the EIA
requirement for additional requisites before any exploration for energy resources may be
done in protected areas. Furthermore, since there is no such law specifically allowing oil
exploration and/or extraction in the Tañon Strait, no energy resource exploitation and
utilization may be done in said protected seascape.

Petitions were granted. Service Contract No. 46 violates the 1987 Philippine Constitution.

Page 10 of 27
NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAW
Submitted by: ESTENZO, Den Carlo
1ST Year Block D

8. Boracay Foundation Inc. petitioners, vs.

Province of Aklan, respondents 
GR No. 196870 June 26, 2012

FACTS:
Petitioner Boracay Foundation, Inc. (petitioner) is a duly registered, non-stock domestic
corporation with purpose is "to foster a united, concerted and environment-conscious
development of Boracay Island. Respondent Province of Aklan represented by Honorable
Carlito S. Marquez, the Provincial Governor. Philippine Reclamation Authority (respondent
PRA).

Boracay Island (Boracay), a tropical paradise located in the Western Visayas region of the
Philippines and one of the country’s most popular tourist destinations, was declared a tourist
zone and marine reserve in 1973. The island comprises the barangays of Manoc-manoc,
Balabag, and Yapak, all within the municipality of Malay, in the province of Aklan.
Governor Marquez sent a letter to respondent PRA on March 12, 2009 expressing the
interest of respondent Province to reclaim about 2.64 hectares of land along the foreshores
of Barangay Caticlan, Municipality of Malay, Province of Aklan, pursuant to Resolution No.
13, s. 2008 issued by the Sangguniang Barangay of Caticlan. Sometime in April 2009,
respondent Province entered into an agreement with the Financial Advisor / Consultant to
conduct the necessary feasibility study of the proposed project for the Renovation /
Rehabilitation of the Caticlan Passenger Terminal Building and Jetty Port, Enhancement and
Recovery of Old Caticlan Coastline, and Reclamation of a Portion of Foreshore for
Commercial Purposes (the Marina Project), in Malay, Aklan.

Meanwhile, the Sangguniang Bayan of the Municipality of Malay expressed its strong
opposition to the intended foreshore lease application that respondent Provinces foreshore
lease application was for business enterprise purposes for its benefit.

Respondent PRA approved the reclamation project on April 20, 2010 in its Resolution No.
4094 and authorized its General Manager / Chief Executive Officer (CEO) to enter into a
MOA with respondent Province for the implementation of the reclamation project.
On May 17, 2010, respondent Province entered into a MOA with respondent PRA.

The Malay Municipality reiterated its strong opposition to respondent Provinces project and
denied its request for a favourable endorsement of the Marina Project and issued Resolution
to request respondent PRA not to grant reclamation permit and notice to proceed to the
Marina Project of the respondent Provincial Government of Aklan located at Caticlan, Malay,
Aklan. Petitioner alleges that despite the Malay Municipality’s denial of respondent Provinces
request for a favorable endorsement, as well as the strong opposition manifested both by
Barangay Caticlan and petitioner as an NGO, respondent Province still continued with the
implementation of the Reclamation Project.

On June 1, 2011, petitioner filed the instant Petition for Environmental Protection Order /
Issuance of the Writ of Continuing Mandamus. The Court issued a Temporary Environmental
Protection Order (TEPO).
 

Page 11 of 27
NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAW
Submitted by: ESTENZO, Den Carlo
1ST Year Block D

ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the petition should be dismissed for having been rendered moot and
academic?
2. Whether or not respondent Province failed to perform a full EIA as required by laws and
regulations based on the scope and classification of the project?

RULING:
The Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases, A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC, provides a relief for
petitioner under the writ of continuing mandamus, which is a special civil action that may be
availed of “to compel the performance of an act specifically enjoined by law” and which
provides for the issuance of a TEPO “as an auxiliary remedy prior to the issuance of the writ
itself.”

We recognize at this point that the DENR is the government agency vested with delegated
powers to review and evaluate all EIA reports, and to grant or deny ECCs to project
proponents. It is the DENR that has the duty to implement the EIS system. It appears,
however, that respondent DENR-EMB RVI’s evaluation of this reclamation project was
problematic, based on the valid questions raised by petitioner.

Prior consultations and prior approval are required by law to have been conducted and
secured by the respondent Province. Accordingly, the information dissemination conducted
months after the ECC had already been issued was insufficient to comply with this
requirement under the Local Government Code. Had they been conducted properly, the prior
public consultation should have considered the ecological or environmental concerns of the
stakeholders and studied measures alternative to the project, to avoid or minimize adverse
environmental impact or damage. In fact, respondent Province once tried to obtain the
favorable endorsement of the Sangguniang Bayan of Malay, but this was denied by the
latter.

The parties are evidently in accord in seeking to uphold the mandate found in Article II,
Declaration of Principles and State Policies, of the 1987 Constitution, which we quote below:
The State shall protect and advance the right of the people to a balanced and healthful
ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature. The State recognizes the
indispensable role of the private sector, encourages private enterprise, and provides
incentives to needed investments. The protection of the environment in accordance with the
aforesaid constitutional mandate is the aim, among others, of Presidential Decree No. 1586,
“Establishing an Environmental Impact Statement System, Including Other Environmental
Management Related Measures and For Other Purposes,” which declared in its first Section
that it is “the policy of the State to attain and maintain a rational and orderly balance between
socio-economic growth and environmental protection.”

The petition is hereby partially granted. The TEPO issued by this Court is hereby converted
into a writ of continuing mandamus.

Page 12 of 27
NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAW
Submitted by: ESTENZO, Den Carlo
1ST Year Block D

9. Ramon Jesus Paje petitioners, vs.

Teodoro Casino et al. petitioners
GR Nos. 207257, 207276, 207282, 207366. February 3, 2015

FACTS:
In February 2006, Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority (SBMA), a government agency
organized and established under Republic Act No. 7227, and Taiwan Cogeneration
Corporation (TCC) entered into a Memorandum of Understanding expressing their intention
to build a power plant in Subic Bay which would supply reliable and affordable power to
Subic Bay Industrial Park (SBIP). The Department of Environment and Natural Resources,
issued an Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC) for a proposed power plant at Subic,
Zambales to be implemented by Redondo Peninsula Energy, Inc. RP Energy.

Hon. Teodoro Casino and a number of legislators filed a Petition for Writ of Kalikasan
against RP energy, SBMA, and Hon. Ramon Paje as the DENR Secretary on the ground
that actual environmental damage will occur if the power plant project is implemented and
that the respondents failed to comply with certain laws and rules governing or relating to the
issuance of an ECC.

The Court of Appeals denied the petition for the Writ of Kalikasan and invalidated the ECC.
Both the DENR and Casino filed an appeal, the former imputing error in invalidating the ECC
and its amendments, arguing that the determination of the validity of the ECC as well as its
amendments is beyond the scope of a Petition for a Writ kalikasan; while the latter claim that
it is entitled to a Writ of Kalikasan.

Both filed before this Court a Petition for Writ of kalikasan against RP Energy, 1) allegations
deals with the actual environmental damage and 2) allegations deals with the failure to
comply with certain laws and rules governing or relating to the issuance of an ECC.
 
ISSUES:
1. Whether the parties may raise questions of fact on appeal on the issuance of a writ of
Kalikasan;
2. Whether the validity of an ECC can be challenged via a writ of Kalikasan?
 
RULING:
Yes. The writ is categorized as a special civil action and was, thus, conceptualized as an
extraordinary remedy, which aims to provide judicial relief from threatened or actual
violations of the constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology of a magnitude or
degree of damage that transcends political and territorial boundaries. It is intended “to
provide a stronger defense for environmental rights through judicial efforts where institutional
arrangements of enforcement, implementation and legislation have fallen short” and seeks
“to address the potentially exponential nature of large-scale ecological threats.” Under
Section 1 of Rule 7, the following requisites must be present to avail of this extraordinary
remedy: (1) there is an actual or threatened violation of the constitutional right to a balanced
and healthful ecology; (2) the actual or threatened violation arises from an unlawful act or
omission of a public official or employee, or private individual or entity; and (3) the actual or

Page 13 of 27
NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAW
Submitted by: ESTENZO, Den Carlo
1ST Year Block D

threatened violation involves or will lead to an environmental damage of such magnitude as

to prejudice the life, health or property of inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces.
Expectedly, the Rules do not define the exact nature or degree of environmental damage but
only that it must be sufficiently grave, in terms of the territorial scope of such damage, so as
to call for the grant of this extraordinary remedy. The gravity of environmental damage
sufficient to grant the writ is, thus, to be decided on a case-to-case basis.

Yes. As noted above, the writ of kalikasan is principally predicated on an actual or

threatened violation of the constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology, which
involves environmental damage of a magnitude that transcends political and territorial
boundaries. A party, therefore, who invokes the writ based on alleged defects or
irregularities in the issuance of an ECC must not only allege and prove such defects or
irregularities, but must also provide a causal link or, at least, a reasonable connection
between the defects or irregularities in the issuance of an ECC and the actual or threatened
violation of the constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology of the magnitude
contemplated under the Rules. Otherwise, the petition should be dismissed outright and the
action refiled before the proper forum with due regard to the doctrine of exhaustion of
administrative remedies. This must be so if we are to preserve the noble and laudable
purposes of the writ against those who seek to abuse it.

The court denied the petition in G.R. No. 207282 and granted the petitions in G.R. Nos.
207257, 207366 and 207276.

10. Oposa petitioners, vs.

Factoran, respondents
GR Nos. 101083, July 30, 1993, 224 SCRA 792

FACTS:
A case was filed before RTC of Makati City by the principal plaintiffs therein, now the
principal petitioners, Juan Antonio Oposa, et al., all minors duly represented and joined by
their respective parents against Fulgencio Factoran Jr., Secretary of DENR.

The complaint was instituted as a taxpayer’s class suit 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 rainforests."
The minors further asseverate that they "represent their generation as well as generations
yet unborn. They prayed that judgment be rendered ordering the defendant, his agents,
representatives and other persons acting in his behalf to: 1) cancel all existing timber
licensing agreements in the country, and 2) cease and desist from receiving, accepting,
processing, renewing, or appraising new timber licensing agreements.

They alleged that they have a clear and constitutional right to a balanced and healthful
ecology and are entitled to protection by the State in its capacity as parens patriae.
Furthermore, they claim that the act of the defendant in allowing timber licensing agreements
holders to cut and deforest the remaining forests constitutes a misappropriation and / or

Page 14 of 27
NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAW
Submitted by: ESTENZO, Den Carlo
1ST Year Block D

impairment of the natural resources property he holds in trust for the benefit of the plaintiff
minors and succeeding generations.

The defendant filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the following grounds: 1) Plaintiffs
have no cause of action against him, and 2) the issues raised by the plaintiffs is a political
question which properly pertains to the legislative or executive branches of the government.
 
ISSUE:
1. Whether or not the petitioner-minors have a cause of action in filing a class suit to
“prevent the misappropriation or impairment of Philippine rainforests?” 
 
RULING:
Yes. The Supreme Court finds no difficulty in ruling that petitioner-minors, 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 concept
of intergenerational responsibility insofar as the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is
concerned. Such a right, as hereinafter expounded, considers the “rhythm and harmony of
nature.”

Needless to say, every generation has a responsibility to 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 protection of that right for the
generations to come. The right to a balanced and healthful ecology carries with it the
correlative duty to refrain from impairing the environment.
Petition is hereby granted.

11. Pilar Caneda, Peter Tiu Lavina petitioners, vs.

Emilio Abaya, respondents
GR No. 223076 September 13, 2016

FACTS:

The Port of Davao is a seaport located in Mindanao. It is compose of several ports, all within
the gulf of Davao, but its base port is the Sasa Wharf located at Barangay Sasa, Davao City.

In 2012, the PPA commissioned a feasibility study (PPA study) on the current condition of
the Sasa Wharf and its potential new targets in volume increase expansion. The study,
which was completed in 2012, was conducted by Science & Vision For Technology, Inc.
 
On December 21, 2014, the Regional Development Council for Region XI (the Council)
endorsed the project through Resolution No. 118 subject to the conditions that must be met
before its implementation.

Page 15 of 27
NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAW
Submitted by: ESTENZO, Den Carlo
1ST Year Block D

Petitioners argue that the DOTC's implementation of the project - one that as a significant
impact on the environment - without preparing an Environmental Impact Statement, securing
an ECC, or consulting the affected stakeholders, violates their constitutional right to a
healthy and balanced ecology. The petitioners seek to restrain the implementation of the
Project - including its bidding and award - until the respondents secure an ECC and comply
with the LGC.

The respondents, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), invoke the prematurity
of the petition.  Until the bidding process is concluded, the EIA process cannot be
undertaken. Moreover, consultation with the stakeholders and the local government is
premature and speculative at this point because the proponent has not yet identified the
actual details of the project's implementation. They further argue that the allegations do not
warrant the issuance of a writ of kalikasan because the petitioners failed to prove the threat
of environmental damage of such magnitude as to prejudice the life, health, or property of
inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces.

On March 15, 2016, the petitioners, all stakeholders from Davao City and Samal, Davao del
Norte filed this Urgent Petition for a Writ of Continuing Mandamus and / or Writ of Kalikasan.

ISSUE:
1. Whether or not the petition warrant a Writ of Kalikasan?  
 
RULING:
No. The Court cannot issue writ of kalikasan. Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is the
process of evaluating and predicting the likely impacts including cumulative impacts of an
undertaking on the environment. Its goal is to prevent or mitigate potential harm to the
environment and to protect the welfare of the affected community. To this end, the process
requires proponents to truthfully and responsibly disclose all relevant information on the
project through the EIS. This facilitates meaningful and informed public participation that
ensures the project’s social acceptability to the community.

The EIS contains a detailed project description of the nature, configuration, the raw materials
/ natural resources to be used, production system, waste generation and control, timelines,
and all other related activities of the proposed project. It also includes an Environmental
Management Plan (EMP) detailing the proponent’s preventive, mitigating, compensatory,
and contingent measures to enhance the project’s positive impacts and minimize ecological
risks. Projects with potentially significant negative environmental impacts are further required
to conduct public consultations so that the environmental concerns of stakeholders are
addressed in formulating the EMP. The impact assessment concludes with EMB’s approval
(in the form of an ECC) or rejection (in the form of a denial letter). The ECC signifies that the
proposed project will not cause significant negative impact on the environment based on the
proponent’s representation. It also certifies that the proponent has complied with the EIS
System and has committed to implement its approved EMP. Accordingly, the ECC contains
the specific measures and conditions that the proponent must undertake to mitigate the
identified environmental impacts.

Page 16 of 27
NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAW
Submitted by: ESTENZO, Den Carlo
1ST Year Block D

The Court cannot issue a writ of kalikasan based on the petition. The writ is a remedy to
anyone whose constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology is violated or
threatened with violation by a lawful act or omission. However, the violation must involve
environmental damage of such magnitude as to prejudice the life, health, or property of
inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces in order to arrant the issuance of the writ.

The Court deny the petition for its prematurity and lack of merit.

12. Jose Ferrer Jr. petitioners, vs.

City Mayor Herbert Bautista, respondents 
GR No. 210551, June 30, 2015

FACTS:

On October 17, 2011, respondent Quezon City Council enacted Ordinance No. SP-2095, S-
2011, or the Socialized Housing Tax of Quezon City. On the other hand, Ordinance No. SP-
2235 and S-2013 was enacted collecting garbage fees on residential properties which shall
be deposited solely and exclusively in an earmarked special account under the general fund
to be utilized for garbage collections. 

Petitioner, a Quezon City property owner, questions the validity of the said ordinances.

Before this Court is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court with prayer
for the issuance of a temporary restraining order (TRO) seeking to declare unconstitutional
and illegal Ordinance Nos. SP-2095, S-2011 and SP-2235, S-2013 on the Socialized
Housing Tax and Garbage Fee, respectively, which are being imposed by the respondents.

ISSUE:

1. Whether or not Socialized Housing Tax and the ordinance on Garbage Fee are valid.

RULING:
Yes. Socialized Housing Tax is valid. In the United States of America, it has been held that
the authority of a municipality to regulate garbage falls within its police power to protect
public health, safety, and welfare. As opined, the purposes and policy underpinnings of the
police power to regulate the collection and disposal of solid waste are: (1) to preserve and
protect the public health and welfare as well as the environment by minimizing or eliminating
a source of disease and preventing and abating nuisances; and (2) to defray costs and
ensure financial stability of the system for the benefit of the entire community, with the sum
of all charges marshalled and designed to pay for the expense of a systemic refuse disposal
scheme.

A municipality has an affirmative duty to supervise and control the collection of garbage
within its corporate limits. The LGC specifically assigns the responsibility of regulation and
oversight of solid waste to local governing bodies because the Legislature determined that
such bodies were in the best position to develop efficient waste management programs. To

Page 17 of 27
NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAW
Submitted by: ESTENZO, Den Carlo
1ST Year Block D

impose on local governments the responsibility to regulate solid waste but not grant them the
authority necessary to fulfill the same would lead to an absurd result.

For the purpose of garbage collection, there is, in fact, no substantial distinction between an
occupant of a lot, on one hand, and an occupant of a unit in a condominium, socialized
housing project or apartment, on the other hand. Most likely, garbage output produced by
these types of occupants is uniform and does not vary to a large degree; thus, a similar
schedule of fee is both just and equitable. The rates being charged by the ordinance are
unjust and inequitable: a resident of a 200 sq. m. unit in a condominium or socialized
housing project has to pay twice the amount than a resident of a lot similar in size; unlike unit
occupants, all occupants of a lot with an area of 200 sq. m. and less have to pay a fixed rate
of Php100.00; and the same amount of garbage fee is imposed regardless of whether the
resident is from a condominium or from a socialized housing project.

Under R.A. No. 9003, it is the declared policy of the State to adopt a systematic,
comprehensive and ecological solid waste management program which shall, among others,
ensure the proper segregation, collection, transport, storage, treatment and disposal of solid
waste through the formulation and adoption of the best environmental practices in ecological
waste management. The law provides that segregation and collection of solid waste shall be
conducted at the barangay level, specifically for biodegradable, compostable and reusable
wastes, while the collection of non-recyclable materials and special wastes shall be the
responsibility of the municipality or city. Mandatory segregation of solid wastes shall primarily
be conducted at the source, to include household, institutional, industrial, commercial and
agricultural sources. Segregation at source refers to a solid waste management practice of
separating, at the point of origin, different materials found in solid waste in order to promote
recycling and reuse of resources and to reduce the volume of waste for collection and
disposal. Based on Rule XVII of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources
(DENR) Administrative Order No. 2001-34, Series of 2001, which is the Implementing Rules
and Regulations (IRR) of R.A. No. 9003, barangays shall be responsible for the collection,
segregation, and recycling of biodegradable, recyclable, compostable and reusable wastes.
For the purpose, a Materials Recovery Facility (MRF), which shall receive biodegradable
wastes for composting and mixed non-biodegradable wastes for final segregation, reuse and
recycling, is to be established in every barangay or cluster of barangays.

Petition is partially granted. Socialized Housing Tax is constitutional however the annual
garbage fee on all domestic households in Quezon City, is hereby declared as
unconstitutional and illegal.

Page 18 of 27
NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAW
Submitted by: ESTENZO, Den Carlo
1ST Year Block D

13. Air Philippines Corp petitioners, vs.

Pennswell, Inc 
GR No. 172835, Dec 13, 2007

FACTS:
Air Philippines Corporation, petitioner is a domestic corporation engaged in the business of
air transportation services. Respondent Pennswell, Inc. was organized to engage in the
business of manufacturing and selling industrial chemicals, solvents and special lubricants.

Respondent delivered and sold to petitioner goods in trade. Under the contracts, petitioner’s
total outstanding obligation amounted to 449k with interest at 14% per annum until the
amount would be fully paid. Petitioner failed to comply with its obligation under their
contracts, then respondent filed a complaint with the RTC.

Petitioner replied that it was defrauded by respondent for its previous sale on four items.
Petitioner asserted that it was deceived by respondent which merely altered the names and
labels of such goods. Petitioner declared that had respondent been forthright about the
character of the products, it would not have purchased the items. Petitioner alleged that
when the fraud was discovered, a conference was held between petitioner and respondent
on 13 January 2000, whereby the parties agreed that respondent would return to petitioner
the amount it previously paid. However, petitioner was surprised when it received a letter
from the respondent, demanding payment of the amount of 449K pesos which later became
the subject of respondent’s Complaint for Collection of a Sum of Money against petitioner.

Petitioner during the trial filed a Motion to Compel respondent to give a detailed list of the
ingredients and chemical components of the following products. The RTC rendered an Order
granting the petitioner’s motion. RTC gave credibility to respondent’s reasoning and
reversed itself. Alleging grave abuse of discretion on the part of the RTC, petitioner filed a
Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which denied the Petition and affirmed the
Order of the RTC. Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration was denied. Petitioner brought the
instant Petition before SC.

ISSUE:
1. Whether or not CA ruled was correct when it upheld the ruling of the trial court that the
chemical components or ingredients of respondent’s products are trade secrets or
industrial secret that are not subject to compulsory disclosure. 

RULING:
We do not find merit or applicability in petitioner’s invocation of Section 12 of the toxic
substances and hazardous and Nuclear Wastes Control Act of 1990, which grants the public
access to records, reports or information concerning chemical substances and mixtures,
including safety data submitted, and data on emission or discharge into the environment.

To reiterate, Section 12 of said Act deems as confidential matters, which may not be made
public, those that would divulge trade secrets, including production or sales figures or
methods; production or processes unique to such manufacturer, processor or distributor, or

Page 19 of 27
NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAW
Submitted by: ESTENZO, Den Carlo
1ST Year Block D

would otherwise tend to affect adversely the competitive position of such manufacturer,
processor or distributor.

It is true that under the same Act, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources
may release information; however, the clear import of the law is that said authority is limited
by the right to confidentiality of the manufacturer, processor or distributor, which information
may be released only to a medical research or scientific institution where the information is
needed for the purpose of medical diagnosis or treatment of a person exposed to the
chemical substance or mixture. The right to confidentiality is recognized by said Act as
primordial. Petitioner has not made the slightest attempt to show that these circumstances
are availing in the case at bar.

Petition is denied. The Decision and Resolution of CA are affirmed.

14. Knights of Rizal petitioners, vs.

DMCI Project Developers, Inc., City of Manila, respondents
GR No. 213948, April 25, 2017

FACTS:
DMCI Project Developers, Inc. (DMCI-PDI) acquired a lot in the City of Manila.  The said lot
was earmarked for the construction of Torre de Manila Condominium project.  After having
acquired all the necessary permits and documents, the DMCI-PDI was ready to commence
the intended project. 

However, the City of Manila Council issued a resolution to temporarily suspend the building
permit until such time that issues had been cleared. Finally, On January 2014, the City
Council of Manila, issued another resolution ratifying and confirming all previously issued
permits, licenses and approvals issued for Torre de Manila.

The petitioners, Knights of Rizal (KOR), a civic, patriotic, cultural, non-partisan, nonsectarian
and non-profit organization, filed a petition for injunction seeking Temporary Restraining
Order (TRO), and later a permanent injunction, against the construction of the project. The
KOR argued that the present suit is one of "transcendental importance, paramount public
interest, of overarching significance to society, or with far-reaching implication" involving the
desecration of the Rizal Monument.

ISSUES:
Whether or not petitioner has satisfied the requirements necessary for a writ of mandamus
to issue against the City Officials to stop the construction of Torre de Manila.

RULING:
No, The SC ruled that there was no law prohibiting the construction of the project.  It was not
even considered as contrary to morals, customs and public order.  The project was way well
from the Park where the monument was located. 

Page 20 of 27
NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAW
Submitted by: ESTENZO, Den Carlo
1ST Year Block D

There is nothing in Sections 47 and 48 of Ordinance No. 8119 that disallows the construction
of a building outside the boundaries of a historic site or facility, where such building may
affect the background of a historic site. Section 47 of Ordinance No. 8119 specifically
regulates the “development of historic sites and facilities.” Section 48 regulates “large
commercial signage and / or pylon.” There is nothing in Sections 47 and 48 of Ordinance No.
8119 that disallows the construction of a building outside the boundaries of a historic site or
facility, where such building may affect the background of a historic site. In this case, the
Torre de Manila stands 870 meters outside and to the rear of the Rizal Monument and
“cannot possibly obstruct the front view of the Rizal Monument.” Likewise, the Torre de
Manila is not in an area that has been declared as an “anthropological or archaeological
area” or in an area designated as a heritage zone, cultural property, historical landmark, or a
national treasure by the National Historical Commission of the Philippines NHCP.

It can easily be gleaned that the Torre de Manila is not a nuisance per se. The Torre de
Manila project cannot be considered as a “direct menace to public health or safety” It can
easily be gleaned that the Torre de Manila is not a nuisance per se. The Torre de Manila
project cannot be considered as a “direct menace to public health or safety.” Not only is a
condominium project commonplace in the City of Manila, DMCI-PDI has, according to the
proper government agencies, complied with health and safety standards set by law. DMCI-
PDI has been granted the following permits and clearances prior to starting the project: (1)
Height Clearance Permit from the Civil Aviation Authority of the Philippines; (2) Development
Permit from the HLURB; (3) Zoning Certification from the HLURB; (4) Certificate of
Environmental Compliance Commitment from the Environment Management Bureau of the
Department of Environment and Natural Resources; (5) Barangay Clearance; (6) Zoning
Permit; (7) Building Permit; and (8) Electrical and Mechanical Permit.

The Supreme Court ruled that a mandamus did not lie against the City of Manila. A
mandamus is issued when there is a clear legal duty imposed upon the office or the officer
sought to be compelled to perform an act, and the party seeking mandamus has a clear
legal right to the performance of such act.  In the case at bar, such factors were wanting.
Nowhere was it found in the ordinance, or in any Law or rule that the construction of such
building outside the Rizal Park was prohibited if the building was within the background
sightline or vision of the Rizal Monument. Thus, the petition was lacking of merit and was
dismissed.

15. Braga, Lavina et al. petitioners, vs.

Emilio Abaya, respondents  
GR No. 223076, September 13, 2016

FACTS:
The Port of Davao is a seaport located in Mindanao. It is compose of several ports, all within
the gulf of Davao, but its base port is the Sasa Wharf located at Barangay Sasa, Davao City.

Page 21 of 27
NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAW
Submitted by: ESTENZO, Den Carlo
1ST Year Block D

In 2012, the PPA commissioned a feasibility study (PPA study) on the current condition of
the Sasa Wharf and its potential new targets in volume increase expansion. The study,
which was completed in 2012, was conducted by Science & Vision For Technology, Inc.
 
On December 21, 2014, the Regional Development Council for Region XI (the Council)
endorsed the project through Resolution No. 118 subject to the conditions that must be met
before its implementation.

Petitioners argue that the DOTC's implementation of the project - one that as a significant
impact on the environment - without preparing an Environmental Impact Statement, securing
an ECC, or consulting the affected stakeholders, violates their constitutional right to a
healthy and balanced ecology. The petitioners seek to restrain the implementation of the
Project - including its bidding and award - until the respondents secure an ECC and comply
with the LGC.

The respondents, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), invoke the prematurity
of the petition.  Until the bidding process is concluded, the EIA process cannot be
undertaken. Moreover, consultation with the stakeholders and the local government is
premature and speculative at this point because the proponent has not yet identified the
actual details of the project's implementation. They further argue that the allegations do not
warrant the issuance of a writ of kalikasan because the petitioners failed to prove the threat
of environmental damage of such magnitude as to prejudice the life, health, or property of
inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces.

On March 15, 2016, the petitioners, all stakeholders from Davao City and Samal, Davao del
Norte filed this Urgent Petition for a Writ of Continuing Mandamus and / or Writ of Kalikasan.

ISSUE:
1. Whether or not the petition warrant a Writ of Kalikasan?  
 
RULING:
No. The Court cannot issue writ of kalikasan. Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is the
process of evaluating and predicting the likely impacts including cumulative impacts of an
undertaking on the environment. Its goal is to prevent or mitigate potential harm to the
environment and to protect the welfare of the affected community. To this end, the process
requires proponents to truthfully and responsibly disclose all relevant information on the
project through the EIS. This facilitates meaningful and informed public participation that
ensures the project’s social acceptability to the community.

The EIS contains a detailed project description of the nature, configuration, the raw materials
/ natural resources to be used, production system, waste generation and control, timelines,
and all other related activities of the proposed project. It also includes an Environmental
Management Plan (EMP) detailing the proponent’s preventive, mitigating, compensatory,
and contingent measures to enhance the project’s positive impacts and minimize ecological
risks. Projects with potentially significant negative environmental impacts are further required
to conduct public consultations so that the environmental concerns of stakeholders are

Page 22 of 27
NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAW
Submitted by: ESTENZO, Den Carlo
1ST Year Block D

addressed in formulating the EMP. The impact assessment concludes with EMB’s approval
(in the form of an ECC) or rejection (in the form of a denial letter). The ECC signifies that the
proposed project will not cause significant negative impact on the environment based on the
proponent’s representation. It also certifies that the proponent has complied with the EIS
System and has committed to implement its approved EMP. Accordingly, the ECC contains
the specific measures and conditions that the proponent must undertake to mitigate the
identified environmental impacts.

The Court cannot issue a writ of kalikasan based on the petition. The writ is a remedy to
anyone whose constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology is violated or
threatened with violation by a lawful act or omission. However, the violation must involve
environmental damage of such magnitude as to prejudice the life, health, or property of
inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces in order to arrant the issuance of the writ.

The Court deny the petition for its prematurity and lack of merit.

16. Victoria Segovia et al. (Carless People) petitioners, vs.

Climate Change Comm et al., respondents
G.R. No. 211010 March 7, 2017
 
FACTS:
To address the response for climate change, Former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo
issued AO 171 which created the Presidential Task Force on Climate Change (PTFCC). This
body was reorganized through EO 774, which designated the President as Chairperson, and
cabinet secretaries as members of the Task Force. EO 774 expressed what is now referred
to by the petitioners as the "Road Sharing Principle." The Section 9(a) Task Group on Fossil
Fuels: (a) to reduce the consumption of fossil fuels, the Department of Transportation and
Communications (DOTC) shall lead a Task Group to reform the transportation sector. The
new paradigm in the movement of men and things must follow a simple principle: "Those
who have less in wheels must have more in road." For this purpose, the system shall favor
non-motorized locomotion and collective transportation system.

Congress passed the Climate Change Act. It created the Climate Change Commission
which absorbed the functions of the PTFCC and became the lead policy-making body of the
government which shall be tasked to coordinate, monitor and evaluate the programs and
action plans of the government relating to climate change.

Petitioners wrote respondents regarding their pleas for implementation of the Road Sharing
Principle, demanding the reform of the road and transportation system in the whole country.
The Petitioners are Carless People of the Philippines, parents, representing their children,
who in tum represent "Children of the Future, and Car-owners who would rather not have
cars if good public transportation were safe, convenient, accessible, available, and reliable".
They claim that they are entitled to the issuance of the extraordinary writs due to the alleged
failure and refusal of respondents to perform an act mandated by environmental laws, and
violation of environmental laws resulting in environmental damage of such magnitude as to
prejudice the life, health and property of all Filipinos. Petitioners contend that respondents'

Page 23 of 27
NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAW
Submitted by: ESTENZO, Den Carlo
1ST Year Block D

failure to implement the foregoing laws and executive issuances resulted in the continued
degradation of air quality, particularly in Metro Manila, in violation of the petitioners'
constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology, and may even be tantamount to
deprivation of life, and of life sources or "land, water, and air" by the government without due
process of law.

Contrary to petitioners' claims, respondents assert that they consider the impact of the
transport sector on the environment, as shown in the Philippine National Implementation
Plan on Environment Improvement in the Transport Sector which targets air pollution
improvement actions, greenhouse gases emission mitigation, and updating of noise pollution
standards for the transport sector. In response, petitioner filed their reply substantially
reiterating the arguments they raised in their petition.
 
ISSUE:
1. Whether or not a writ of Kalikasan and / or Continuing Mandamus should be issued?

RULING:
No. The Court highlight that there is a difference between a petition for the issuance of a writ
of kalikasan, wherein it is sufficient that the person filing represents the inhabitants
prejudiced by the environmental damage subject of the writ; and a petition for the issuance
of a writ of continuing mandamus, which is only available to one who is personally aggrieved
by the unlawful act or omission.

Under the RPEC, the writ of kalikasan is an extraordinary remedy covering environmental
damage of such magnitude that will prejudice the life, health or property of inhabitants in two
or more cities or provinces. For a writ of kalikasan to issue, the following requisites must
concur: 1. there is an actual or threatened violation of the constitutional right to a balanced
and healthful ecology; 2. the actual or threatened violation arises from an unlawful act or
omission of a public official or employee, or private individual or entity; and 3. the actual or
threatened violation involves or will lead to an environmental damage of such magnitude as
to prejudice the life, health or property of inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces. The
petitioners failed to show that respondents are guilty of any unlawful act or omission that
constitutes a violation of the petitioners’ right to a balanced and healthful ecology.

Petition for continuing mandamus means that when any agency or instrumentality of the
government or officer thereof unlawfully neglects the performance of an act which the law
specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust or station in connection with the
enforcement or violation of an environmental law. The petitioners failed to prove direct or
personal injury arising from acts attributable to the respondents to be entitled to the writ.
While the requirements of standing had been liberalized in environmental cases, the general
rule of real party-in-interest applies to a petition for continuing mandamus. The Road Sharing
Principle cannot be considered an absolute imposition to encroach upon the province of
public respondents to determine the manner by which this principle is applied or considered
in their policy decisions. Mandamus lies to compel the performance of duties that are purely
ministerial in nature, not those that are discretionary, and the official can only be directed by
mandamus to act but not to act one way or the other. The duty being enjoined in mandamus

Page 24 of 27
NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAW
Submitted by: ESTENZO, Den Carlo
1ST Year Block D

must be one according to the terms provided in the law itself. Thus, the recognized rule is
that, in the performance of an official duty or act involving discretion, the corresponding
official can only be directed by mandamus to act, but not to act one way or the other. At its
core, what the petitioners are seeking to compel is not the performance of a ministerial act,
but a discretionary act, the manner of implementation of the Road Sharing Principle.

Hence, the continuing mandamus cannot issue. Petition is dismissed.

17. Mayor Tomas Osmena petitioners, vs.

Joel Capili, respondents
G.R. No. 231164 March 20, 2018

FACTS:
The Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) issued an Environmental
Compliance Certificate (ECC) declaring Inayawan landfill to serve as the garbage disposal
area of Cebu City. June 15, 2015, through former Mayor Rama's directive, Inayawan landfill
was formally closed.

Mayor Osmeña, the City Government sought to temporarily open the Inayawan landfill,
through a letter dated June 8, 2016. July 2016, the Inayawan landfill was officially re-opened
by Acting Mayor Margot.

The Department of Health (DOH) issued an Inspection Report wherein it recommended,

among others, the immediate closure of the landfill due to the lack of sanitary requirements,
environmental, health and community safety issues. On September 23, 2016, Joel Capili
Garganera for and on his behalf, and in representation of the People of the Cities of Cebu
and Talisay and the future generations, including the unborn (respondent) filed a petition for
writ of kalikasan with prayer for the issuance of a Temporary Environmental Protection Order
(TEPO) before the Court of Appeals (CA).

The CA, in a Resolution granted a writ of kalikasan, required petitioner to file a verified return
and a summary hearing was set for the application of TEPO.

However, Mayor Tomas R. Osmeña, petitioner, in his capacity as City Mayor of Cebu filed
petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, as provided under the
Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases (RPEC), which seeks to reverse or set aside
the Decision  and Resolution of (CA) that granted the privilege of the writ of kalikasan and
ordered Mayor Osmeña, to permanently cease and desist from dumping or disposing
garbage or solid waste at the Inayawan landfill and to continue to rehabilitate the same. 

ISSUES:
1. Whether the CA correctly ruled that the requirements for the grant of the privilege of the
writ of kalikasan were sufficiently established?
 
RULING:

Page 25 of 27
NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAW
Submitted by: ESTENZO, Den Carlo
1ST Year Block D

A writ of kalikasan is an extraordinary remedy covering environmental damage of such

magnitude that will prejudice the life, health or property of inhabitants in two (2) or more
cities or provinces. The present petition for writ of kalikasan under the RPEC is an
extraordinary remedy covering environmental damage of such magnitude that will prejudice
the life, health or property of inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces. It is designed for
a narrow but special purpose: to accord a stronger protection for environmental rights,
aiming, among others, to provide a speedy and effective resolution of a case involving the
violation of one’s constitutional right to a healthful and balanced ecology that transcends
political and territorial boundaries, and to address the potentially exponential nature of large-
scale ecological threats.

Supreme Court affirm the CA when it ruled that the requirements for the grant of the privilege
of the writ of kalikasan were sufficiently established. Under Section 1 of Rule 7 of the RPEC,
the following requisites must be present to avail of this extraordinary remedy: 1) there is an
actual or threatened violation of the constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology;
2) the actual or threatened violation arises from an unlawful act or omission of a public
official or employee, or private individual or entity; and 3) the actual or threatened violation
involves or will lead to an environmental damage of such magnitude as to prejudice the life,
health or property of inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces. Expectedly, the Rules do
not define the exact nature or degree of environmental damage but only that it must be
sufficiently grave, in terms of the territorial scope of such damage, so as to call for the grant
of this extraordinary remedy. The gravity of environmental damage sufficient to grant the writ
is, thus, to be decided on a case-to-case basis.

The Court is convinced from the evidence on record that the respondent has sufficiently
established the aforementioned requirements for the grant of the privilege of the writ of
kalikasan. The record discloses that the City Government’s resumption of the garbage
dumping operations at the Inayawan landfill has raised serious environmental concerns.

The petition is denied.

18. Mercado, petitioner vs.

Judge Lopena et al., respondents
G.R. No. 230170. June 6, 2018

FACTS:
The root of this controversy is a domestic dispute between estranged spouses’ petitioner
Mercado and private respondent Go. Such dispute eventually led to the filing of numerous
suits by both parties against each other, as summarized below 

RTC in the PPO case granted the petition and forthwith issued a PPO in favor of petitioner
Mercado. PPO was appealed respondent Go to the Court of Appeals (CA). CA denied
respondent Go's appeal. However, petitioner Mercado filed another case related to SLAPP
which was dismissed by CA.

Page 26 of 27
NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAW
Submitted by: ESTENZO, Den Carlo
1ST Year Block D

Petitioners claim that the cases filed by private respondents against them (the subject cases)
are forms of Strategic Lawsuit against Public Participation (SLAPP), Republic Act (RA) No.
9262 intended to harass, intimidate, and silence them. Petitioners claim that the subject
cases are false and baseless complaints that were filed to emotionally, psychologically, and
financially drain them and ultimately to pressure them to give up custody of petitioner
Mercado's minor children.
 
ISSUE:
Whether the cases filed against the petitioner constitutes SLAPP?
 
RULING:
No. The concept of SLAPP was first introduced to this jurisdiction under the Rules of
Procedure for Environmental Cases (A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC). As defined therein, a SLAPP
refers to an action whether civil, criminal or administrative, brought against any person,
institution or any government agency or local government unit or its officials and employees,
with the intent to harass, vex, exert undue pressure or stifle any legal recourse that such
person, institution or government agency has taken or may take in the enforcement of
environmental laws, protection of the environment or assertion of environmental rights. In
application, the allegation of SLAPP is set up as a defense in those cases claimed to have
been filed merely as a harassment suit against environmental actions.

Republic Act (RA) No. 9262, which involves cases of violence against women and their
children, is not among those laws included under the scope of A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC.—
Transposed to this case, the Court finds no occasion to apply the foregoing rules as the
Petition has no relation at all to “the enforcement of environmental laws, protection of the
environment or assertion of environmental rights.” R.A. No. 9262, which involves cases of
violence against women and their children, is not among those laws included under the
scope of A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC.

Petition is dismissed for lack of merit.

Page 27 of 27