Cases on Environmental Laws

Typhoons in the Philippines test to the greatest extent the implementation of the Disaster
Risk Management programs of the national and local governments. In the case of Concerned
Citizens of Iligan City V. City Government of Iligan City, petitioners questioned the disaster
preparedness of the city when typhoon Sendong hit the city. The typhoon resulted to several
flashfloods which destroyed many properties and hundreds of deaths, especially to those near the
river.
According to petitioners, respondents City Government and Sangguniang Panglungsod of
Iligan failed to perform their legal duty to formulate and fully implement a City Disaster Risk
Reduction Management Plan (CDRRMP) as required in R.A 10121 and Climate Change Action
Plan (CCAP) as required in R.A 9270. The issues raised by the petitioners were rooted on the
fact that no proper dissemination of information was made which could have prevented the
damages caused by Sendong.
According to Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) Secretary
Ramon J. P. Paje, the geo-hazard maps were supposed to provide the key information to know
the level of susceptibility of areas to flooding and landslide, including areas that could possibly
be used as relocation or evacuation sites, in case of calamities. None of these geo-hazard maps
were distributed, even after being mandated and reminded by DENR.
He also discussed that under R.A 10121, LGUs are tasked to evacuate residents in floodand landslide-prone areas and relocate them to safe areas in times of impending typhoon and
other weather disturbances that could bring heavy rains. The Act also requires the establishment
of Local Disaster Risk Reduction and Management (LDRRM) system for all provinces, cities,
and municipalities. It accounts a greater responsibility to the government in building the disaster
preparedness of communities and institute disaster risk reduction within their jurisdictions. 1
With the lack of information dissemination, very few were successfully evacuated. The
situation after the typhoon also showed that there were no relief operations coming from the City
Government of Iligan, despite the Calamity Fund already allocated. Petitioners observed that
only the support from NGOs and actual relief operations of the private sectors contributed to
these programs and activities.
The court found that the City Government has not formulated a CDRRMP since
respondents was not able to present such. Because of this, it was questioned how the calamity
1 DENR official website. PAJE IMPLORES MAYORS, GOVERNORS TO TAKE GEOHAZARD
MAPSSERIOUSLY <http://www.denr.gov.ph/index.php/news-and-features/latest-news/509-pajeimplores-mayors-governors-to-take-geohazard-maps-seriously.html>

fund was utilized for the supposed existence of the pre-disaster preparedness programs and postdisaster activities. The court therefore directed the City Government of Iligan to allow access to
the 2010 and 2011 Calamity Fund and issued a writ of continuing mandamus directing the
respondents to strictly comply with Sec. 12 of RA 10121 and Sec. 14 of RA 9729.
As provided in the doctrinal case of Oposa v. Factoran (G.R. No. 101083, July 30, 1993),
citizen suits liberalizes standing to enforce environmental laws and has proven to be very critical
in forcing government and its agencies to act on its duty to protect and preserve the environment.
Since the protection of the environment is an issue that is determinative of the wellbeing of
citizens, the Rules enable litigants to file their cases as citizen suits. The Rules on filing are also
more efficient as procedural device, since citizen suits permit deferred of payment of filing fees
until after the judgment (Tze, 2013). 2
In the landmark case of Concerned Residents of Manila Bay v. MMDA, G.R. No.
171947-48, December 8, 2008, it was proven that environmental problems should be actively
addressed by the government and the citizens have the power to initiate legal action as realparty-in-interest. Using the standard set by Presidential Decree No. (PD) 1152 or Philippine
Environment Code, residents filed a complaint regarding the alarmingly depleting water quality
of Manila Bay. Their complaint was directed to compel several government agencies to make
actions for the cleanup, rehabilitation, and protection of Manila Bay and make them jointly or
solidarily liable for such worsening pollution.
In contrast to Concerned Citizens of Iligan City V. City Government of Iligan City, the
latter case compelled the government to take action even without a precedent and actual calamity
that tested the prevailing laws. It sought for legal action on the basis of preventing possible
calamity such as flood and maintaining the condition of Manila bay for the welfare of the
citizens. The court held that although the scope of Sec. 17 and Sec. 20 of PD 1152 is limited to
meet prescribed water quality standards and thus may pertain only to specific pollution incidents,
the rehabilitation of Manila Bay can be compelled by continuing mandamus given the liability
of concerned government agencies established in the said laws. Thus, it can be compelled by
mandamus to ensure that the court decision is given administrative attention.
In the recent case Boracay Foundation, Inc. v. Province of Aklan, G.R. No. 196870, June
26, 2012, the petitioner claimed that DENR gave consent to the Province of Aklan to pursue a
P1-Billion project despite the lacking compliance of environmental and local government
requirements established by the laws. Here, the petitioners filed as concerned citizens, initiated
by Boracay Foundation Inc., composed of some 160 Boracay-based businessmen and resident.
2 Tze, A. (2013) SC Unveils Landmark Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases
http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2010/04/writ-of-kalikasan.html

The petitioners questioned the Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC) issued by

Department of Environment and Natural Resources-Environmental Management Bureau-Region
VI (DENR-EMB RVI) that purportedly did not pass the requirements. When the petitioners
learned of this, they filed for a writ of mandamus in order to restrain the project which continued
despite the fact that they expressed their strong opposition. It was also reported that the Aklan
government did not consult with local government units and other stakeholders before the start of
the project. 3
In this case, it was proven yet again that citizens have the vested power to criticize the
enactment or lack of implementation by the government, even by the DENR which is supposedly
the main defender of environmental laws. The higher form of government does not have the sole
and ultimate jurisdiction in matters of environmental importance, thus, the local government and
the citizens themselves must also be consulted. The court issued the writ to stop the project and
conduct an investigation on the alleged illegal construction of the said reclamation project.

3 Meruenas, M. (2012) SC Orders Aklan To Stop P1-B Boracay-Caticlan Reclamation Project

http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/265163/economy/business/sc-orders-aklan-to-stop-p1-bboracay-caticlan-reclamation-project