ENVI CASE DIGEST

The disputed sections are quoted as follows:

G.R. No.s 171947-48 Case Digest

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.

G.R. No.s 171947-48, December 18, 2008

Concerned Citizens
vs MMDA
Ponente: Velasco
Facts:
January 29, 1999, concerned residents of Manila Bay filed a complaint before the RTC
Imus, Cavite against several government agencies for the clean-up, rehabilitation and
protection of the Manila Bay/ The complaint alleged that the water quality of Manila Bay
is no longer within the allowable standards set by law (esp. PD 1152, Philippine
environment Code).
DENR testified for the petitioners and reported that the samples collected from the
beaches around Manila Bay is beyond the safe level for bathing standard of the DENR.
MWSS testified also about MWSS efforts to reduce pollution along the bay. Philippine
Ports Authority presented as evidence its Memorandum Circulars on the study on shipgenerated waste treatment and disposal as its Linis Dagat project.
RTC ordered petitioners to Clean up and rehabilitate Manila Bay.

MMDA, et al. vs. Concerned Residents of Manila Bay

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.
Sec. 17 does not in any way state that the government agencies concerned ought to confine
themselves to the containment, removal, and cleaning operations when a specific pollution
incident occurs. On the contrary, Sec. 17 requires them to act even in the absence of a
specific pollution incident, as long as water quality has deteriorated to a degree where its
state will adversely affect its best usage. This section, to stress, commands concerned
government agencies, when appropriate, to take such measures as may be necessary to
meet the prescribed water quality standards. In fine, the underlying duty to upgrade the
quality of water is not conditional on the occurrence of any pollution incident.
Note:
- The writ of mandamus lies to require the execution of a ministerial duty. Ministerial duty
is one that requires neither official discretion nor judgment.

The petitioners appealed arguing that the Environment Code relate only to the cleaning of
the specific pollution incidents and do not cover cleaning in general. Raising the concerns
of lack of funds appropriated for cleaning, and asserting that the cleaning of the bay is not
a ministerial act which can be compelled by mandamus.
CA sustained the RTC stressing that RTC did not require the agencies to do tasks outside
of their usual basic functions.
Issue:
(1) Whether PD 1152 relate only to the cleaning of specific pollution incidents.
(2) Whether the cleaning or rehabilitation of the Manila Bay is not ministerial act of
petitioners that can be compelled by mandamus.
Held:
(1) The cleaning of the Manila bay can be compelled by mandamus.
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 MMDAs 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.
The MMDAs 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.
(2) Secs. 17 and 20 of the Environment Code
Include Cleaning in General

consolidated with herein case. STATEMENT OF FACTS Your Petitioners adopt and
hereby replead, mutatis mutandis, their statement of facts contained in their initiatory
pleading as well as the admitted factual antecedents in the comment by the Honorable
Solicitor General and the statement of facts in the memorandum of the petitioners in

RESIDENT MARINE MAMMALS

TATEMENT OF THEIR CASE
This is a suit for certiorari, mandamus and injunction of extreme urgency to
enjoin Public Respondent DOE and Private Respondent Japan Petroleum Exploration,
Ltd. (JAPEX) as well as the latters agents, privies or assigns from implementing a
national government project undertaken though a Service Contract (Service Contract
No. 46) entered into by and between them and to annul the same for willful and gross
violation of the Philippine Constitution, Philippine Laws and Regulations and
Multilateral Environment Agreements. The illegal authorizations given by Public
Respondents, which are equivalent to grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess in their respective jurisdiction, enabled Private
Respondent JAPEX to proceed with the service contract over Your Petitioners
habitat, the Taon Strait Protected Seascape, resulting to their grave and irreparable
damage and prejudice. These illegal acts must be corrected through this instant special
civil action as Petitioners have no plain, adequate, speedy and adequate remedy in the
ordinary course law. This case also seeks judicial declaration to the effect that service
contracts which were entered into by public respondent Department of Energy (DOE)
pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 87 and involving the exploration, development and
exploitation of our countrys petroleum resources contravene Sec. 2, Article XII of the
1987 Philippine Constitution.
Your Petitioners adopt and hereby replead, mutatis mutandis, the statement of
the case in the memorandum of the petitioners in Central Visayas Fisherfolks
Development Center [FIDEC], et al v. Angelo Reyes, et al, G.R. No. 181527 which is

G.R. Nos. 171947-48, December 18, 2008

FACTS:
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, and to submit to the RTC a concerted concrete plan of action
for the purpose.

The complaint alleged that the water quality of the Manila Bay had fallen way
below the allowable standards set by law, which was confirmed by DENRs Water Quality
Management Chief, Renato T. Cruz 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 which is beyond the standard 200
MPN/100ml or the SB level under DENR Administrative Order No. 34-90.
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, the RTC held
petitioners liable and ordered to clean up and rehabilitate Manila Bay and to restore its
water quality to class B waters fit for swimming, skin-diving, and other forms of contact
recreation.[3]

Herein petitioners appealed before the Court of Appeals contending 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. They also asserted that
the cleaning of the Manila Bay is not a ministerial act which can be compelled by
mandamus.

The CA sustained RTCs decision stressing that petitioners were not required to
do tasks outside of their basic functions under existing laws, hence, this appeal.
ISSUE:
(1)

(2)

Whether or not 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;
Whether or not petitioners be compelled by mandamus to clean up and
rehabilitate the Manila Bay.

HELD:
Supreme Court held that the cleaning up and rehabilitating Manila Bay is a
ministerial in nature and can be compelled by mandamus.
Sec. 3(c) of R.A. No. 7924 (the law creating MMDA) states that the MMDA is
mandated to put up an adequate and appropriate sanitary landfill and solid waste and liquid
disposal as well as other alternative garbage disposal systems. SC also noted that
MMDAs duty in the area of solid waste disposal is set forth not only in the Environment
Code (PD 1152) and RA 9003, but also in its charter, therefore, it is ministerial in nature
and can be compelled by mandamus.
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 clean up, rehabilitation, protection, and preservation of the Manila Bay. They are
precluded from choosing not to perform these duties. So, their functions being ministerial
in nature can be compelled by mandamus.
As regard to Secs. 17 & 20 of P.D. 1152, the Court ruled that
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-spillcondition.
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).

Respondents are correct. For one thing, said Sec. 17 does not in any way state
that the government agencies concerned ought to confine themselves to the containment,
removal, and cleaning operations when a specific pollution incident occurs. On the
contrary, Sec. 17 requires them to act even in the absence of a specific pollution incident,
as long as water quality has deteriorated to a degree where its state will adversely affect
its best usage. This section, to stress, commands concerned government agencies, when
appropriate, to take such measures as may be necessary to meet the prescribed water
quality standards. In fine, the underlying duty to upgrade the quality of water is not
conditional on the occurrence of any pollution incident.

For another, a perusal of Sec. 20 of the Environment Code, as couched,

indicates that it is properly applicable to a specific situation in which the pollution is
caused by polluters who fail to clean up the mess they left behind. In such instance, the
concerned government agencies shall undertake the cleanup work for the polluters
account. Petitioners assertion, that they have to perform cleanup operations in
the Manila Bay only when there is a water pollution incident and the erring polluters do
not undertake the containment, removal, and cleanup operations, is quite off mark. As
earlier discussed, the complementary Sec. 17 of the Environment Code comes into play
and the specific duties of the agencies to clean up come in even if there are no pollution
incidents staring at them. Petitioners, thus, cannot plausibly invoke and hide behind Sec.
20 of PD 1152 or Sec. 16 of RA 9275 on the pretext that their cleanup mandate depends on
the happening of a specific pollution incident. In this regard, what the CA said with
respect to the impasse over Secs. 17 and 20 of PD 1152 is at once valid as it is practical.
The appellate court wrote: PD 1152 aims to introduce a comprehensive program of
environmental protection and management. This is better served by making Secs. 17 & 20
of general application rather than limiting them to specific pollution incidents.[35]

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.

Granting arguendo that petitioners position thus described vis--vis the

implementation of Sec. 20 is correct, they seem to have overlooked the fact that the
pollution of the Manila Bay is of such magnitude and scope that it is well-nigh impossible
to draw the line between a specific and a general pollution incident. And such
impossibility extends to pinpointing with reasonable certainty who the polluters are. We
note that Sec. 20 of PD 1152 mentions water pollution incidents which may be caused
by polluters in the waters of the Manila Bay itself or by polluters in adjoining lands and in
water bodies or waterways that empty into the bay. Sec. 16 of RA 9275, on the other hand,
specifically adverts to any person who causes pollution in or pollutes water bodies,
which may refer to an individual or an establishment that pollutes the land mass near
the Manila Bay or the waterways, such that the contaminants eventually end up in the bay.
In this situation, the water pollution incidents are so numerous and involve nameless and
faceless polluters that they can validly be categorized as beyond the specific pollution
incident level.

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 operations embodied in Sec. 62(g), Sec. 17 is not
hobbled by such limiting definition. As pointed out, the phrases cleanup operations and
accidental spills do not appear in said Sec. 17, not even in the chapter where said section
is found.

Not to be ignored of course is the reality that the government agencies

concerned are so undermanned that it would be almost impossible to apprehend the
numerous polluters of the Manila Bay. It may perhaps not be amiss to say that the
apprehension, if any, of the Manila Bay polluters has been few and far between. Hence,
practically nobody has been required to contain, remove, or clean up a given water
pollution incident. In this kind of setting, it behooves the Government to step in and
undertake cleanup operations. Thus, Sec. 16 of RA 9275, previously Sec. 20 of PD 1152,
covers for all intents and purposes a general cleanup situation.

The cleanup and/or restoration of the Manila Bay is only an aspect and the initial
stage of the long-term solution. The preservation of the water quality of the bay after the
rehabilitation process is as important as the cleaning phase. It is imperative then that the
wastes and contaminants found in the rivers, inland bays, and other bodies of water be
stopped from reaching the ManilaBay. Otherwise, any cleanup effort would just be a
futile, cosmetic exercise, for, in no time at all, the Manila Bay water quality would again
deteriorate below the ideal minimum standards set by PD 1152, RA 9275, and other
relevant laws. It thus behooves the Court to put the heads of the petitioner-departmentagencies and the bureaus and offices under them on continuing notice about, and to enjoin
them to perform, their mandates and duties towards cleaning up the Manila Bay and
preserving the quality of its water to the ideal level. Under what other judicial discipline
describes as continuing mandamus,[36] the Court may, under extraordinary
circumstances, issue directives with the end in view of ensuring that its decision would not
be set to naught by administrative inaction or indifference. In India, the doctrine of
continuing mandamus was used to enforce directives of the court to clean up the length of
the Ganges River from industrial and municipal pollution.[37]

The Court can take judicial notice of the presence of shanties and other unauthorized
structures which do not have septic tanks along the Pasig-Marikina-San Juan Rivers, the
National Capital Region (NCR) (Paraaque-Zapote, Las Pias) Rivers, the NavotasMalabon-Tullahan-Tenejeros Rivers, the Meycuayan-Marilao-Obando (Bulacan) Rivers,
the Talisay (Bataan) River, the Imus (Cavite) River, the Laguna De Bay, and other minor
rivers and connecting waterways, river banks, and esteros which discharge their waters,
with all the accompanying filth, dirt, and garbage, into the major rivers and eventually the
Manila Bay. If there is one factor responsible for the pollution of the major river systems
and the Manila Bay, these unauthorized structures would be on top of the list. And if the
issue of illegal or unauthorized structures is not seriously addressed with sustained resolve,
then practically all efforts to cleanse these important bodies of water would be for
naught. The DENR Secretary said as much.[38]

Giving urgent dimension to the necessity of removing these illegal structures is Art.
51 of PD 1067 or the Water Code,[39]which prohibits the building of structures within a
given length along banks of rivers and other waterways. Art. 51 reads:
The banks of rivers and streams and the shores of the
seas and lakes throughout their entire length and within a zone
of three (3) meters in urban areas, twenty (20) meters in
agricultural areas and forty (40) meters in forest areas, along their
margins, are subject to the easement of public use in the interest
of recreation, navigation, floatage, fishing and salvage. No
person shall be allowed to stay in this zone longer than what is
necessary for recreation, navigation, floatage, fishing or salvage
or to build structures of any kind. (Emphasis added.

Judicial notice may likewise be taken of factories and other industrial establishments
standing along or near the banks of thePasig River, other major rivers, and connecting
waterways. But while they may not be treated as unauthorized constructions, some of
these establishments undoubtedly contribute to the pollution of the Pasig River and
waterways. The DILG and the concerned LGUs, have, accordingly, the duty to see to it
that non-complying industrial establishments set up, within a reasonable period, the

necessary waste water treatment facilities and infrastructure to prevent their industrial
discharge, including their sewage waters, from flowing into the Pasig River, other major
rivers, and connecting waterways. After such period, non-complying establishments shall
be shut down or asked to transfer their operations.

Chavez v Public Estate Authority

GR No. 133250, July 9, 2002
Facts:
On November 20, 1973, the government through
the Commissioner of Public Highways signed a
contract with the Construction and Development
Corporation of the Philippines (CDCP) to reclaim
certain foreshore and offshore areas of Manila Bay.
The contract also included the construction of
Phases I and II of the Manila-Cavite Coastal Road.
CDCP obligated itself to carry out all the works in
consideration of fifty percent of the total reclaimed
land.
On April 25, 1995 the PEA entered into a Joint
Venture Agreement (JVA) with AMARI to develop the
Freedom Islands. This JVA was entered into through
negotiation without public bidding.
The Senate Committee on Government Corporations
and Public Enterprises, and the Committee on
Accountability of Public Officers and Investigations,
conducted a joint investigation. Among the
conclusion are: that the reclaimed lands PEA seeks
to transfer to AMARI under the JVA are lands of the
public domain which the government has not
classified as alienable lands and therefore PEA
cannot alienate these lands, the certificates of the
title covering the Freedom Islands are thus void, and
the JVA itself is illegal.
On December 5, 1997, President Ramos created a
Legal Task Force to conduct a study on the legality
of the JVA. The Task Force upheld the legality of the
JVA, contrary to the conclusions of the Senate
Committees.

On April 27, 1998, Petitioner as taxpayer filed the

instant petition for mandamus with prayer for the
issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction and TRO.
Petitioner contends the government stands to lose
billions of pesos in the sale by PEA of the reclaimed
lands to AMARI. Petitioner prays that PEA publicly
disclose the terms of any renegotiation of the JVA.
Furthermore, petitioner assails the sale to AMARI of
lands of the public domains as blatant violation of
Sec 3, Art XII of the Constitution prohibiting the sale
of alienable lands of the public domain to private
corporations. Petitioner assert that he seeks to
enjoin the loss of billion of pesos in properties of the
State that are of public dominion.
Issue:
Whether or not the petitioner has legal standing to
bring the suit.
Ratio Decidendi:
The petitioner has standing to bring the taxpayers
suit because the petition seeks to compel PEA to
comply with its constitutional duties. This duties are
particularly in answer of the right of citizens to
information on matters of public concern, and of a
constitutional provision intended to insure the
equitable distribution of alienable lands of the public
domain among Filipino citizens. Furthermore, the
court considered that the petition raised matters of
transcendental importance tot eh public. The mere
fact that the petitioner is a citizen satisfies the
requirement of personal interest when the
proceeding involves the assertion of a public right.
Also, ordinary taxpayers have a right to initiate and
prosecute actions questioning the validity of acts or
orders of government agencies or instrumentalities

if the issues raise are of paramount public interest

and if they immediately affect the social, economic
and moral well being of the people.
The amended JVA does not make the issue moot and
academic since this compels the court to insure the
government itself does not violate a provision of the
Constitution intended to safeguard the national
patrimony. The content of the amended JVA seeks to
transfer title and ownership of reclaimed lands to a
single corporation. The court does not hesitate to
resolve the legal or constitutional issues raised to
formulate controlling principles to guide the bench,
bar and the public.
The instant case raises constitutional issues of
transcendental importance to the public. Court can
resolve this case without determining any factual
issue related to the case. The instant case is a
petition for mandamus which falls under the original
jurisdiction of the Court. Furthermore, PEA was
under a positive legal duty to disclose to the public
the terms and conditions for the sale of its lands.
The principle of exhaustion of administrative
remedies does not apply when the issue involved is
purely legal or constitutional question.
The right to information includes official information
on on-going negotiations before a final agreement
as required by the constitution.
The Supreme Court granted the petition. PEA and
Amari Coastal Bay Development Corporation are
permanently enjoined from implementing the
amended JVA which is hereby declared null and void
ab initio.

G.R. No. 164527

15 August

2007

Ramos authorized NHA to enter into a Joint Venture Agreement

increased from 40 hectares to 79 hectares, which was

with RBI.

supported by the issuance of Proclamation No. 465 by President

Ponente: VELASCO, JR., J.

Ramos. The revision also provided for the 119-hectare land as

an enabling component for Phase II of the project.

Under the JVA, the project involves the clearing of Smokey

FACTS:

On August 5, 2004, former Solicitor General Francisco Chavez,

filed an instant petition raising constitutional issues on the JVA
entered by National Housing Authority and R-II Builders, Inc.

Mountain for eventual development into a low cost housing

complex and industrial/commercial site. RBI is expected to fully

Subsequently, the Clean Air Act was passed by the legislature

finance the development of Smokey Mountain and reclaim 40

which made the establishment of an incinerator illegal, making

hectares of the land at the Manila Bay Area. The latter together

the off-site dumpsite at Smokey Mountain necessary. On

with the commercial area to be built on Smokey Mountain will

August 1, 1998, the project was suspended, to be later

be owned by RBI as enabling components. If the project is

reconstituted by President Estrada in MO No. 33.

revoked or terminated by the Government through no fault of

On March 1, 1988, then-President Cory Aquino issued
Memorandum order No. (MO) 161 approving and directing
implementation of the Comprehensive and Integrated
Metropolitan Manila Waste Management Plan. During this time,
Smokey Mountain, a wasteland in Tondo, Manila, are being
made residence of many Filipinos living in a subhuman state.

As presented in MO 161, NHA prepared feasibility studies to

turn the dumpsite into low-cost housing project, thus, Smokey
Mountain Development and Reclamation Project (SMDRP), came
into place. RA 6957 (Build-Operate-Transfer Law) was passed
on July 1990 declaring the importance of private sectors as
contractors in government projects. Thereafter, Aquino

RBI or by mutual agreement, the Government shall compensate

SMDRP were published in newspapers in 1992, from which R-II

Builders, Inc. (RBI) won the bidding process. Then-President

that 34 temporary housing structures and 21 permanent

revocation, cancellation, or termination on a schedule to be

housing structures had been turned over by RBI.

agreed upon by both parties.

ISSUES:
To summarize, the SMDRP shall consist of Phase I and Phase II.
Phase I of the project involves clearing, levelling-off the
dumpsite, and construction of temporary housing units for the

1.

Whether respondents NHA and RBI have been granted

the power and authority to reclaim lands of the public domain

current residents on the cleared and levelled site. Phase II

as this power is vested exclusively in PEA as claimed by

involves the construction of a fenced incineration area for the

petitioner

on-site disposal of the garbage at the dumpsite.

2.

Whether respondents NHA and RBI were given the

power and authority by DENR to reclaim foreshore and

Due to the recommendations done by the DENR after

submerged lands

evaluations done, the JVA was amended and restated (now

ARJVA) to accommodate the design changes and additional

Notices of public bidding to become NHAs venture partner for

and subsequent agreements. During this time, NHA reported

feasibility study and in the contract as of the date of such

The same MO also established EXECOM and TECHCOM in the

assisted by the Public Estates Authority (PEA).

of Agreement whereby both parties agreed to terminate the JVA

reasonable rate of return not exceeding that stated in the

proclaimed MO 415 applying RA 6957 to SMDRP, among others.

execution and evaluation of the plan, respectively, to be

On August 27, 2003, the NHA and RBI executed a Memorandum

RBI for its actual expenses incurred in the Project plus a

3.

Whether respondent RBI can acquire reclaimed

work to be done to successfully implement the project. The

foreshore and submerged lands considered as alienable and

original 3,500 units of temporary housing were decreased to

outside the commerce of man

2,992. The reclaimed land as enabling component was

4.

Whether respondent RBI can acquire reclaimed lands

when there was no declaration that said lands are no longer
needed for public use

5.

2.

Whether there is a law authorizing sale of reclaimed

Whether the transfer of reclaimed lands to RBI was

done by public bidding

7.

Whether RBI, being a private corporation, is barred by

the Constitution to acquire lands of public domain

8.

Whether respondents can be compelled to disclose all

Whether the operative fact doctrine applies to the

3.

instant position
HELD:
4.
1.

Executive Order 525 reads that the PEA shall be

primarily responsible for integrating, directing, and
coordinating all reclamation projects for and on behalf of the
National Government. This does not mean that it shall be
responsible for all. The requisites for a valid and legal
reclamation project are approval by the President (which were

7279).

was done by the Bids and Awards Committee on May 18,

5.

members of the EXECOM which provides reviews for the

reclaimed land subject to the constitutional requirement that

project. ECCs and Special Patent Orders were given by the

only Filipino citizens or corporation with at least 60% Filipino

DENR which are exercises of its power of supervision over the

equity can acquire the same. In addition, when the lands

project. Furthermore, it was the President via the

were transferred to the NHA, these were considered

abovementioned MOs that originally authorized the

Patrimonial lands of the state, by which it has the power to

reclamation. It must be noted that the reclamation of lands of

sell the same to any qualified person.

This relief must be granted. It is the right of the Filipino
people to information on matters of public concerned as

disposable via MO 415 issued by President Aquino and

stated in Article II, Sec. 28, and Article III, Sec. 7 of the 1987

Proclamation Nos. 39 and 465 by President Ramos.

Constitution.

Despite not having an explicit declaration, the lands

9.

When the petitioner filed the case, the JVA had already

have been deemed to be no longer needed for public use as

been terminated by virtue of MOA between RBI and NHA. The

stated in Proclamation No. 39 that these are to be disposed

properties and rights in question after the passage of around

to qualified beneficiaries. Furthermore, these lands have

10 years from the start of the projects implementation cannot

already been necessarily reclassified as alienable and

be disturbed or questioned. The petitioner, being the Solicitor

disposable lands under the BOT law.

General at the time SMDRP was formulated, had ample

Letter I of Sec. 6 of PD 757 clearly states that the NHA

otherwise dispose of them as it may deem appropriate.

is a government agency whose authority to reclaim lands

8.

The reclaimed lands were classified alienable and

(which were seen as a part of its recommendations to the

6.

RA 6957 as amended by RA 7718 explicitly states that a

contractor can be paid a portion as percentage of the

can acquire property rights and interests and encumber or

contract of PEA or by the National Government Agency (NHA

7.

the Smokey Mountain Project for the DENR is one of the

provided for by MOs), favourable recommendation of PEA

EXECOM), and undertaken either by PEA or entity under

1992.

Notwithstanding the need for DENR permission, the

public domain is reposed first in the Philippine President.

information related to the SMDRP

9.

were published in national newspapers. The bidding proper

DENR is deemed to have granted the authority to reclaim in

lands
6.

under consultation with PEA is derived under PD 727 and RA

There is no doubt that respondent NHA conducted a

public bidding of the right to become its joint venture partner
in the Smokey Mountain Project. It was noted that notices

opportunity to question the said project, but did not do so.

The moment to challenge has passed.