Province of Rizal vs. Executive Secretary, 477 SCRA 436, G.R. No.

129546 December 13,

2005

“The earth belongs in usufruct to the living”.

At the height of the garbage crisis plaguing Metro Manila and its environs, parts of the Marikina
Watershed Reservation were set aside by the Office of the President, through Proclamation No.
635 dated 28 August 1995, for use as a sanitary landfill and similar waste disposal applications.
In fact, this site, extending to more or less 18 hectares, had already been in operation since 19
February 19902 for the solid wastes of Quezon City, Marikina, San Juan, Mandaluyong,
Pateros, Pasig, and Taguig.

This prompted the filing of a petition filed by the Province of Rizal, the municipality of San
Mateo, and various concerned citizens for review on certiorari of the Decision of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 41330, denying, for lack of cause of action, the petition for certiorari,
prohibition and mandamus with application for a temporary restraining order/writ of preliminary
injunction assailing the legality and constitutionality of Proclamation No. 635

summary of pertinent legal pronouncements:

• The protection of watersheds ensures an adequate supply of water for future

generations and the control of flashfloods that not only damage to property but also
cause loss of lives.—Water is life, and must be saved at all costs. In Collado v. Court of
Appeals, we had occasion to reaffirm our previous discussion in Sta. Rosa Realty
Development Corporation v. Court of Appeals, on the primordial importance of
watershed areas, thus: “The most important product of a watershed is water, which is
one of the most important human necessities. The protection of watersheds ensures an
adequate supply of water for future generations and the control of flashfloods that not
only damage property but also cause loss of lives. Protection of watersheds is an
“intergenerational” responsibility that needs to be answered now.”

• Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) was mandated to be the

primary government agency responsible for the conservation, management,
development and proper use of the country’s environment and natural resources
specifically forest and grazing lands, mineral resources including those in reservation
and watershed areas and lands of the public domain.—The state is, and always has
been, zealous in preserving as much of our natural and national heritage as it can,
enshrining as it did the obligation to preserve and protect the same within the text of our
fundamental law. It was with this objective in mind that the respondent DENR was
mandated by then President Corazon C. Aquino, under Section 4 of Executive Order No.
192, otherwise known as “The Reorganization Act of the Department of Environment
and Natural Resources,” to be “the primary government agency responsible for the
conservation, management, development and proper use of the country’s environment
and natural resources, specifically forest and grazing lands, mineral resources, including
those in reservation and watershed areas, and lands of the public domain.

• The right to a balance and healthful ecology is a fundamental legal right that carries with
it the correlative duty to refrain from impairing the environment.—We expounded on this
matter in the landmark case of Oposa v. Factoran, where we held that the right to a
balanced and healthful ecology is a fundamental legal right that carries with it the
correlative duty to refrain from impairing the environment.
p. 2
This right implies, among other things, the judicious management and conservation of
the country’s resources, which duty is reposed in the DENR under the aforequoted
Section 4 of Executive Order No. 192.

• Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) was entrusted with the
guardianship and safekeeping of the Marikina Watershed Reservation and our other
natural treasures.—The Administrative Code of 1987 and Executive Order No. 192 entrust
the DENR with the guardianship and safekeeping of the Marikina Watershed Reservation
and our other natural treasures. However, although the DENR, an agency of the
government, owns the Marikina Reserve and has jurisdiction over the same, this power is
not absolute, but is defined by the declared policies of the state, and is subject to the law
and higher authority. Section 2, Title XIV, Book IV of the Administrative Code of 1987,
while specifically referring to the mandate of the DENR, makes particular reference to the
agency’s being subject to law and higher authority, thus: SEC. 2. Mandate.—(1) The
Department of Environment and Natural Resources shall be primarily responsible for the
implementation of the foregoing policy. (2) It shall, subject to law and higher authority, be
in charge of carrying out the State’s constitutional mandate to control and supervise the
exploration, development, utilization, and conservation of the country’s natural resources.

• Under the Local Government Code, two requisites must be met before a national project
that affects the environmental and ecological balance of local communities can be
implemented: prior consultation with the affected local communities and prior approval of
the project by the appropriate sanggunian.—Under the Local Government Code, two
requisites must be met before a national project that affects the environmental and
ecological balance of local communities can be implemented: prior consultation with the
affected local communities, and prior approval of the project by the appropriate
sanggunian. Absent either of these mandatory requirements, the project’s implementation
is illegal.

Ruling on the issues:

I. THE REORGANIZATION ACT OF THE DENR DEFINES AND LIMITS ITS

POWERS OVER THE COUNTRY’S NATURAL RESOURCES

The respondents next point out that the Marikina Watershed Reservation, and thus the San
Mateo Site, is located in the public domain. They allege that as such, neither the Province of
Rizal nor the municipality of San Mateo has the power to control or regulate its use since
properties of this nature belong to the national, and not to the local governments.

It is ironic that the respondents should pursue this line of reasoning.

In Cruz v. Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources,41 we had occasion to observe that
“(o)ne of the fixed and dominating objectives of the 1935 Constitutional Convention was the
nationalization and conservation of the natural resources of the country. There was an
overwhelming sentiment in the convention in favor of the principle of state ownership of natural
resources and the adoption of the Regalian doctrine. State ownership of natural resources was
seen as a necessary starting point to secure recognition of the state’s power to control their
disposition, exploitation, development, or utilization.”
p. 3

The Regalian doctrine was embodied in the 1935 Constitution, in Section 1 of Article XIII on
“Conservation and Utilization of Natural Resources.” This was reiterated in the 1973
Constitution under Article XIV on the “National Economy and the Patrimony of the
Nation,” and reaffirmed in the 1987 Constitution in Section 2 of Article XII on “National
Economy and Patrimony,” to wit:
“Sec. 2. All lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum, and other mineral oils,
all forces of potential energy, fisheries, forests or timber, wildlife, flora and fauna, and other
natural resources are owned by the State. With the exception of agricultural lands, all other
natural resources shall not be alienated. The exploration, development and utilization of natural
resources shall be under the full control and supervision of the State. The State may directly
undertake such activities or it may enter into co-production, joint venture, or production-sharing
agreements with Filipino citizens, or corporations or associations at least sixty per centum of
whose capital is owned by such citizens. Such agreements may be for a period not exceeding
twenty-five years, renewable for not more than twenty-five years, and under such terms and
conditions as may be provided by law. In cases of water rights for irrigation, water supply,
fisheries, or industrial uses other than the development of water power, beneficial use may be
the measure and limit of the grant.”

Clearly, the state is, and always has been, zealous in preserving as much of our natural and
national heritage as it can, enshrining as it did the obligation to preserve and protect the same
within the text of our fundamental law.
It was with this objective in mind that the respondent DENR was mandated by then President
Corazon C. Aquino, under Section 4 of Executive Order No. 192,44 otherwise known as
“The Reorganization Act of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources,” to
be “the primary government agency responsible for the conservation, management,
development and proper use of the country’s environment and natural resources, specifically
forest and grazing lands, mineral resources, including those in reservation and watershed
areas, and lands of the public domain. It is also responsible for the licensing and regulation of all
natural resources as may be provided for by law in order to ensure equitable sharing of the
benefits derived therefrom for the welfare of the present and future generations of Filipinos.”

In the landmark case of Oposa v. Factoran, it was held that the right to a balanced and healthful
ecology is a fundamental legal right that carries with it the correlative duty to refrain from
impairing the environment. This right implies, among other things, the judicious management
and conservation of the country’s resources, which duty is reposed in the DENR under the
aforequoted Section 4 of Executive Order No. 192.
Section 3 (of E.O. No. 192) makes the following statement of policy:
“SEC. 3. Declaration of Policy.—It is hereby declared the policy of the State to ensure the
sustainable use, development, management, renewal, and conservation of the country’s forest,
mineral, land, offshore areas and other natural resources, including the protection and
enhancement of the quality of the environment, and equitable access of the different segments
of the population to the development and use of the country’s natural resources, not only for the
present generation but for future generations as well. It is also the policy of the state to
recognize and apply a true value system including social and environmental cost implications
relative to their utilization; development and conservation of our natural resources.”

This policy declaration is substantially re-stated in Title XIV, Book IV of the Administrative
Code of 1987, specifically in Section 1 thereof which reads:
p. 4

SEC. 1. Declaration of Policy.—(1) The State shall ensure, for the benefit of the Filipino people,
the full exploration and development as well as the judicious disposition, utilization,
management, renewal and conservation of the country’s forest, mineral, land, waters, fisheries,
wildlife, off-shore areas and other natural resources, consistent with the necessity of maintaining
a sound ecological balance and protecting and enhancing the quality of the environment and the
objective of making the exploration, development and utilization of such natural resources
equitably accessible to the different segments of the present as well as future generations. (2)
The State shall likewise recognize and apply a true value system that takes into account social
and environmental cost implications relative to the utilization, development and conservation of
our natural resources.

The above provision stresses “the necessity of maintaining a sound ecological balance and
protecting and enhancing the quality of the environment.”46 (Emphasis ours.)
In sum, the Administrative Code of 1987 and Executive Order No. 192 entrust the DENR with
the guardianship and safekeeping of the Marikina Watershed Reservation and our other natural
treasures. However, although the DENR, an agency of the government, owns the Marikina
Reserve and has jurisdiction over the same, this power is not absolute, but is defined by the
declared policies of the state, and is subject to the law and higher authority.

Section 2, Title XIV, Book IV of the Administrative Code of 1987, while specifically referring to
the mandate of the DENR, makes particular reference to the agency’s being subject to law and
higher authority, thus:
“SEC. 2. Mandate.—(1) The Department of Environment and Natural Resources shall be
primarily responsible for the implementation of the foregoing policy.
(2) It shall, subject to law and higher authority, be in charge of carrying out the State’s
constitutional mandate to control and supervise the exploration, development, utilization, and
conservation of the country’s natural resources.” With great power comes great responsibility. It
is the height of irony that the public respondents have vigorously arrogated to themselves the
power to control the San Mateo site, but have deftly ignored their corresponding responsibility
as guardians and protectors of this tormented piece of land.

II. THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE GIVES TO LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNITS

ALL THE NECESSARY POWERS TO PROMOTE THE GENERAL WELFARE OF
THEIR INHABITANTS

The circumstances under which Proclamation No. 635 was passed also violates Rep. Act No.
7160, or the Local Government Code.

Contrary to the averment of the respondents, Proclamation No. 635, which was passed on 28
August 1995, is subject to the provisions of the Local Government Code, which was approved
four years earlier, on 10 October 1991. Section 2(c) of the said law declares that it is the policy
of the state “to require all national agencies and offices to conduct periodic consultations with
appropriate local government units, non-governmental and people’s organizations, and other
concerned sectors of the community before any project or program is implemented in their
respective jurisdictions.” Likewise, Section 27 requires prior consultations before a program
shall be implemented by government authorities and the prior approval of the sanggunian is
obtained.
p. 5

The municipal mayors acted within the scope of their powers, and were in fact fulfilling their
mandate. Section 16 allows every local government unit to “exercise the powers expressly
granted, those necessarily implied therefrom, as well as powers necessary, appropriate, or
incidental for its efficient and effective governance, and those which are essential to the
promotion of the general welfare,” which involve, among other things, “promoting health and
safety, enhancing the right of the people to a balanced ecology, and preserving the comfort and
convenience of their inhabitants.”

In Lina, Jr. v. Paño,49 we held that Section 2 (c), requiring consultations with the appropriate
local government units, should apply to national government projects affecting the
environmental or ecological balance of the particular community implementing the project.
Rejecting the petitioners’ contention that Sections 2(c) and 27 of the Local Government Code
applied mandatorily in the setting up of lotto outlets around the country, we held that:

“From a careful reading of said provisions, we find that these apply only to national programs
and/or projects which are to be implemented in a particular local community. Lotto is neither a
program nor a project of the national government, but of a charitable institution, the PCSO.
Though sanctioned by the national government, it is far fetched to say that lotto falls within the
contemplation of Sections 2 (c) and 27 of the Local Government Code.

Section 27 of the Code should be read in conjunction with Section 26 thereof. Section 26 reads:

‘SECTION 26. Duty of National Government Agencies in the Maintenance of Ecological

Balance.—It shall be the duty of every national agency or government-owned or controlled
corporation authorizing or involved in the planning and implementation of any project or program
that may cause pollution, climatic change, depletion of non-renewable resources, loss of crop
land, range-land, or forest cover, and extinction of animal or plant species, to consult with the
local government units, nongovernmental organizations, and other sectors concerned and
explain the goals and objectives of the project or program, its impact upon the people and the
community in terms of environmental or ecological balance, and the measures that will be
undertaken to prevent or minimize the adverse effects thereof.’

Thus, the projects and programs mentioned in Section 27 should be interpreted to mean
projects and programs whose effects are among those enumerated in Sections 26 and 27, to
wit, those that: (1) may cause pollution; (2) may bring about climatic change; (3) may cause the
depletion of non-renewable resources; (4) may result in loss of crop land, range-land, or forest
cover; (5) may eradicate certain animal or plant species from the face of the planet; and (6)
other projects or programs that may call for the eviction of a particular group of people residing
in the locality where these will be implemented. Obviously, none of these effects will be
produced by the introduction of lotto in the province of Laguna.”

We reiterated this doctrine in the recent case of Bangus Fry Fisherfolk v. Lanzanas,50 where
we held that there was no statutory requirement for the sangguniang bayan of Puerto Galera to
approve the construction of a mooring facility, as Sections 26 and 27 are inapplicable to projects
which are not environmentally critical. Moreover, Section 447, which enumerates the powers,
duties and functions of the municipality, grants the sangguniang bayan the power to, among
other things, “enact ordinances, approve resolutions and appropriate funds for the general
welfare of the municipality and its inhabitants pursuant to Section 16 of the Code.” These
include:
p. 6

(1) Approving ordinances and passing resolutions to protect the environment and
impose appropriate penalties for acts which endanger the environment, such as
dynamite fishing and other forms of destructive fishing, illegal logging and smuggling
of logs, smuggling of natural resources products and of endangered species of flora
and fauna, slash and burn farming, and such other activities which result in pollution,
acceleration of eutrophication of rivers and lakes, or of ecological imbalance;

(2) Prescribing reasonable limits and restraints on the use of property within the
jurisdiction of the municipality, adopting a comprehensive land use plan for
the municipality, reclassifying land within the jurisdiction of the city, subject to
the pertinent provisions of this Code, enacting integrated zoning ordinances in
consonance with the approved comprehensive land use plan, subject to existing laws,
rules and regulations; establishing fire limits or zones, particularly in populous
centers; and regulating the construction, repair or modification of buildings within said
fire limits or zones in accordance with the provisions of this Code;

(3) Approving ordinances which shall ensure the efficient and effective delivery of
the basic services and facilities as provided for under Section 17 of this Code,
and in addition to said services and facilities, providing for the establishment,
maintenance, protection, and conservation of communal forests and watersheds,
tree parks, greenbelts, mangroves, and other similar forest development projects . . .
. and, subject to existing laws, establishing and providing for the maintenance, repair
and operation of an efficient waterworks system to supply water for the inhabitants
and purifying the source of the water supply; regulating the construction,
maintenance, repair and use of hydrants, pumps, cisterns and reservoirs; protecting
the purity and quantity of the water supply of the municipality and, for this purpose,
extending the coverage of appropriate ordinances over all territory within the
drainage area of said water supply and within one hundred (100) meters of the
reservoir, conduit, canal, aqueduct, pumping station, or watershed used in
connection with the water service; and regulating the consumption, use or wastage
of water.”

Under the Local Government Code, therefore, two requisites must be met before a national
project that affects the environmental and ecological balance of local communities can be
implemented: prior consultation with the affected local communities, and prior approval of the
project by the appropriate sanggunian. Absent either of these mandatory requirements, the
project’s implementation is illegal.

III. WASTE DISPOSAL IS REGULATED BY THE ECOLOGICAL SOLID WASTE

MANAGEMENT ACT OF 2000

The respondents would have us overlook all the above cited laws because the San Mateo site is
a very expensive—and necessary—fait accompli. The respondents cite the millions of pesos
and hundreds of thousands of dollars the government has already expended in its development
and construction, and the lack of any viable alternative sites.
The Court of Appeals agreed, thus:
“During the hearing on the injunction, questions were also asked. “What will happen if the San
Mateo Sanitary Landfill is closed? Where will the daily collections of garbage be disposed of and
p. 7

dumped?” Atty. Mendoza, one of the lawyers of the petitioners, answered that each
city/municipality ‘must take care of its own.’ Reflecting on that answer, we are troubled: will not
the proliferation of separate open dumpsites be a more serious health hazard (which ha(s) to be
addressed) to the residents of the community? What with the galloping population growth and
the constricting available land area in Metro Manila? There could be a ‘miniSmokey Mountain’ in
each of the ten cities . . . comprising Metro Manila, placing in danger the health and safety of
more people. Damage to the environment could be aggravated by the increase in number of
open dumpsites. An integrated system of solid waste management, like the San Mateo Sanitary
Landfill, appears advisable to a populous metropolis like the Greater Metro Manila Area absent
access to better technology.”

We acknowledge that these are valid concerns. Nevertheless, the lower court should have been
mindful of the legal truism that it is the legislature, by its very nature, which is the primary judge
of the necessity, adequacy, wisdom, reasonableness and expediency of any law. Moreover,
these concerns are addressed by Rep. Act No. 9003. Approved on 26 January 2001, “The
Ecological Solid Waste Management Act of 2000” was enacted pursuant to the declared policy
of the state “to adopt a systematic, comprehensive and ecological solid waste management
system which shall ensure the protection of public health and environment, and utilize
environmentally sound methods that maximize the utilization of valuable resources and
encourage resource conservation and recovery.”

It requires the adherence to a Local Government Solid Waste Management Plan with regard
to the collection and transfer, processing, source reduction, recycling, composting and final
disposal of solid wastes, the handling and disposal of special wastes, education and public
information, and the funding of solid waste management projects.

The said law mandates the formulation of a National Solid Waste Management Framework,
which should include, among other things, the method and procedure for the phaseout and
the eventual closure within eighteen months from effectivity of the Act in case of existing
open dumps and/or sanitary landfills located within an aquifer, groundwater reservoir or
watershed area. Any landfills subsequently developed must comply with the minimum
requirements laid down in Section 40, specifically that the site selected must be consistent with
the overall land use plan of the local government unit, and that the site must be located in an
area where the landfill’s operation will not detrimentally affect environmentally sensitive
resources such as aquifers, groundwater reservoirs or watershed areas.

THE PHILIPPINE FISHERIES CODE OF 1998 (R.A. 8550)

It is a declared policy of the State to limit access to the fishery and aquatic resources of the
Philippines for the exclusive use and enjoyment of Filipino citizens.

The law shall apply in:

a) All Philippine waters including waters over which the Philippines has sovereignty and
jurisdiction, and the country’s 200-nautical mile Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and
continental shelf;
b) All aquatic and fishery resources whether inland, coastal or offshore fishing areas,
including but not limited to fishponds, fishpens/cages, and;
c) All lands devoted to aquaculture, or businesses and activities relating to fishery, whether
private or public land.
p. 8

Sec. 2, Article XII of the Constitution provides:

“The State shall protect the nation’s marine wealth in its archipelagic water, territorial sea,
and exclusive economic zone, and reserve its use and enjoyment exclusively to Filipino citizens.

The Congress may, by law, allow small scale utilization of natural resources by Filipino
citizens, as well as cooperative fish farming, with priority to subsistence fishermen and fish
workers in rivers, lakes, bays and lagoons.”

Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR) – It is a line bureau under the Department
of Agriculture. It functions, among others, to:

a) Prepare and implement a Comprehensive National Fisheries Industry Development plan;

b) Issue licenses for the operation of commercial fishing vessels;
c) Advise and coordinate with LGUs on the maintenance of proper sanitation and hygienic
practices in fish markets and landing areas.

The municipal/city government shall have jurisdiction over municipal waters as defined
in the Code. Under the general welfare clause, the LGUs have the power, inter alia, to enact
ordinances to enhance the right of the people to balanced ecology. It also vests municipalities
with the power to grant fishery privileges in municipal waters, and impose rentals, fees or
charges therefor; to penalize, by appropriate ordinances, the use of explosives noxious or
poisonous substances, electricity, muro-ami and other deleterious methods of fishing; and to
prosecute any violation of the provisions of applicable fishery laws.

The enforcement of fishery laws and the conservation of mangroves are devolved
powers of the Local Government Units (LGUs)

Case: Efren R. Leynes vs. People of the Philippines, G .R. No. 224804, Sept. 21, 2016

Efren's acts of cutting mangrove trees, constructing a dike, installing an outlet (prinsa ), and
excavating in the mangrove forest constitute conversion because it altered the natural structure
and form of the mangrove forest. Even if we consider Efren's defense that when he inherited the
mangrove forest area from his grandfather it was already fishpond, such does not absolve him
from liability. His continued introduction of improvements and continued use of the
mangrove forest area as a fishpond, despite knowledge of the same being a mangrove
forest area, impose upon him criminal liability.

In any case, what the law prohibits is not only the conversion of the mangrove forest into
fishponds, but its conversion into any other purpose. Indeed, Efren may not have caused the
conversion of the mangrove forest into a fishpond, but his acts of cutting mangrove trees,
constructing a dike, installing an outlet (prinsa ), and excavating in the mangrove forest altered
the natural structure and form of the mangrove forest-an act punishable by Sec. 94 of R.A. No.
8550.

Poaching in Philippine waters

It shall be unlawful for any foreign person, corporation or entity to fish or operate any
fishing vessel in Philippine waters. The entry of any foreign fishing vessel in the Philippine
p.9

0owaters shall constitute prima facie evidence that the vessel is engaged in fishing in Philippine
waters. Aside from the fine, the violation shall include the “confiscation of its catch, fishing
equipment and fishing vessel.”

G.R. No. 194239. June 16, 2015.*

WEST TOWER CONDOMINIUM CORPORATION, on behalf of the Residents of

West Tower Condominium and in representation of Barangay Bangkal, and
others, including minors and generations yet unborn, petitioners, vs. FIRST
PHILIPPINE INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION, FIRST GEN CORPORATION and their
RESPECTIVE BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND OFFICERS, JOHN DOES, and
RICHARD DOES, respondents.

The Facts

Respondent FPIC operates two pipelines since 1969, viz.: (1) the White Oil Pipeline
(WOPL) System, which covers a 117-kilometer stretch from Batangas to the Pandacan
Terminal in Manila and transports diesel, gasoline, jet fuel and kerosene; and (b) the
Black Oil Pipeline (BOPL) System, which extends 105 kilometers and transports bunker
fuel from Batangas to a depot in Sucat, Parañaque. These systems transport nearly
60% of the petroleum requirements of Metro Manila and parts of the provinces of
Bulacan, Laguna, and Rizal.

The two pipelines were supposedly designed to provide more than double the standard
safety allowance against leakage, considering that they are made out of heavy duty
steel that can withstand more than twice the current operating pressure and are buried
at a minimum depth of 1.5 meters, which is deeper than the US Department of
Transportation standard of 0.9 meters.

In May 2010, however, 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. A search made on July 10, 2010 within the condominium premises led to
the discovery of a fuel leak from the wall of its Basement 2. Owing to its inability to
control the flow, West Tower’s management reported the matter to the Police
Department of Makati City, which in turn called the city’s Bureau of Fire Protection.
What started as a two-drum leak at the initial stages became a 15-20 drum a day affair.
Eventually, the sump pit of the condominium was ordered shut down by the City of
Makati to prevent the discharge of contaminated water into the drainage system of
Barangay Bangkal. Eventually, the fumes compelled the residents of West Tower to
abandon their respective units on July 23, 2010 and the condo’s power was shut down.
Petitioner FPIC initially disowned any leak from its oil pipeline. Thus, the residents of
West Tower shouldered the expenses of hauling the waste water from its basement,
p. 10

which eventually required the setting up of a treatment plant in the area to separate fuel
from the waste water.

On October 28, 2010, the University of the Philippines-National Institute of Geological

Sciences (UP-NIGS), which the City of Makati invited to determine the source of the
fuel, found a leak in FPIC’s WOPL about 86 meters from West Tower.

A day after, or on October 29, 2010, FPIC admitted that indeed the source of the fuel
leak is the WOPL, which was already closed since October 24, 2010, but denied liability
by placing blame on the construction activities on the roads surrounding West Tower.
On November 15, 2010, West Tower Condominium Corporation (West Tower Corp.)
interposed the present Petition for the Issuance of a Writ of Kalikasan on behalf of the
residents of West Tower and in representation of the surrounding communities in
Barangay Bangkal, Makati City.

In their petition, petitioners prayed that respondents FPIC and its board of
directors and officers, and First Gen Corporation (FGC) and its board of directors
and officers be directed to: (1) permanently cease and desist from committing acts of
negligence in the performance of their functions as a common carrier; (2) continue to
check the structural integrity of the whole 117-kilometer pipeline and to replace the
same; (3) make periodic reports on their findings with regard to the 117-kilometer
pipeline and their replacement of the same; (4) rehabilitate and restore the environment,
especially Barangay Bangkal and West Tower, at least to what it was before the signs
of the leak became manifest; and (5) to open a special trust fund to answer for similar
and future contingencies in the future. Furthermore, petitioners pray that respondents
be prohibited from opening the pipeline and allowing the use thereof until the same has
been thoroughly checked and replaced, and be temporarily restrained from operating
the pipeline until the final resolution of the case.

ISSUES:

1. Whether petitioner West Tower Corp. has the legal capacity to represent the other
petitioners and whether the other petitioners, apart from the residents of West Tower
and Barangay Bangkal, are real parties-in-interest;
2. Whether a Permanent Environmental Protection Order should be issued to direct
the respondents to perform or to desist from performing acts in order to protect,
preserve, and rehabilitate the affected environment;
3. Whether a special trust fund should be opened by respondents to answer for future
similar contingencies; and
4. Whether FGC and the directors and officers of respondents FPIC and FGC may be
held liable under the environmental protection order
11

HELD:

Real Party-in-Interest is the party who stands to be benefited or injured by the

judgment in the suit, or the party entitled to the avails of the suit. Generally, every
action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real parties-in-interest. In
other words, the action must be brought by the person who, by substantive law,
possesses the right sought to be enforced. Alternatively, one who has no right or
interest to protect cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the court as party-plaintiff-in-action
for it is jurisprudentially ordained that every action must be prosecuted or defended in
the name of the real party-in-interest. In the case at bar, there can be no quibble that
the oil leak from the WOPL affected all the condominium unit owners and residents of
West Tower as, in fact, all had to evacuate their units at the wee hours in the morning of
July 23, 2010, when the condominium’s electrical power was shut down. Until now, the
unit owners and residents of West Tower could still not return to their condominium
units. Thus, there is no gainsaying that the residents of West Tower are real parties-in-
interest. There can also be no denying that West Tower Corp. represents the common
interest of its unit owners and residents, and has the legal standing to file and pursue
the instant petition. While a condominium corporation has limited powers under RA
4726, otherwise known as The Condominium Act, it is empowered to pursue
actions in behalf of its members. In the instant case, the condominium
corporation is the management body of West Tower and deals with everything
that may affect some or all of the condominium unit owners or users.

Writ of Kalikasan - 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.

Department of Energy; Jurisdiction - The Department of Energy (DOE) is empowered

by Sec. 12(b)(1), Republic Act (RA) No. 7638 to formulate and implement policies for
the efficient and economical “distribution, transportation, and storage of petroleum, coal,
natural gas.”—The DOE is specially equipped to consider FPIC’s proper implementation
and compliance with its PIMS and to evaluate the result of the various tests conducted
on the pipeline.
Expertise of administrative body/ies should be availed of - When the adjudication of
a controversy requires the resolution of issues within the expertise of an administrative
body, such issues must be investigated and resolved by the administrative body
equipped with the specialized knowledge and the technical expertise. In this case, the
DOE did not only limit itself to the knowledge and proficiency available within its offices,
it has also rallied around the assistance of pertinent bureaus of the other administrative
agencies: the ITDI of the DOST, which is mandated to undertake technical services
p. 12

including standards, analytical and calibration services; the MIRDC, also of the DOST,
which is the sole government entity directly supporting the metals and engineering
industry; the EMB of the DENR, the agency mandated to implement, among others, RA
6969 (Toxic Substances and Hazardous and Nuclear Waste Control Act of 1990) and
RA 9275 (Philippine Clean Water Act of 2004); and the BOD of the DPWH, which is
mandated to conduct, supervise, and review the technical design aspects of projects of
government agencies. The specialized knowledge and expertise of the foregoing
agencies must, therefore, be availed of to arrive at a judicious decision on the
propriety of allowing the immediate resumption of the WOPL’s operation.

Hence, although the courts may have jurisdiction and power to decide cases,
they can utilize the findings and recommendations of the administrative agency
on questions that demand “the exercise of sound administrative discretion requiring the
special knowledge, experience, and services of the administrative tribunal to determine
technical and intricate matters of fact.”

Precautionary Principle - Section 1, Rule 20 of A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC or the Rules of

Procedure for Environmental Cases, on the Precautionary Principle, provides that
“[w]hen there is lack of full scientific certainty in establishing a causal link between
human activity and environmental effect, the court shall apply the precautionary princi-
ple in resolving the case before it.”

The precautionary principle only applies when the link between the cause, that is the
human activity sought to be inhibited, and the effect, that is the damage to the
environment, cannot be established with full scientific certainty. Here, however, such
absence of a link is not an issue. Detecting the existence of a leak or the presence of
defects in the WOPL, which is the issue in the case at bar, is different from determining
whether the spillage of hazardous materials into the surroundings will cause
environmental damage or will harm human health or that of other organisms. As a
matter of fact, the petroleum leak and the harm that it caused to the environment and to
the residents of the affected areas is not even questioned by FPIC.

Any delay in the reopening of the White Oil Pipeline (WOPL) System, if said delay is for
the purpose of making sure that the pipeline is commercially viable, is better than hastily
allowing its reopening without an extensive check on its structural integrity when
experience shows that there were and may still be flaws in the pipeline. Even the DOE,
the agency tasked to oversee the supply and distribution of petroleum in the country, is
well aware of this and even recommended the checking of the patched portions of the
pipeline, among others. In this regard, the Court deems it best to take the necessary
safeguards, which are not similar to applying the precautionary principle as previously
explained, in order to prevent a similar incident from happening in the future.
p. 13

Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases; Special Trust Fund - A reading of the
petition and the motion for partial reconsideration readily reveals that the prayer is for p.
13
1the creation of a trust fund for similar future contingencies. This is clearly outside the
limited purpose of a special trust fund under the Rules of Procedure for
Environmental Cases, which is to rehabilitate or restore the environment that has
presumably already suffered. Hence, the Court affirms with concurrence the
observation of the appellate court that the prayer is but a claim for damages,
which is prohibited by the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases. As such,
the Court is of the considered view that the creation of a special trust fund is
misplaced. The present ruling on petitioners’ prayer for the creation of a special trust
fund in the instant recourse, however, is without prejudice to the judgment/s that may be
rendered in the civil and/or criminal cases filed by petitioners arising from the same
incident if the payment of damages is found warranted.

Damages - The Supreme Court (SC) cannot grant the award of damages to individual
petitioners under Rule 7, Sec. 15(e) of the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases.
The civil and criminal complaint filed by petitioners against respondents are the proper
proceedings to ventilate and determine the individual liability of respondents, if any, on
their exercise of corporate powers and the management of FPIC relative to the dire
environmental impact of the dumping of petroleum products stemming from the leak in
the WOPL in Barangay Bangkal, Makati City.

Department of Environment and Natural Resources; Jurisdiction - Department of

Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) is the government agency tasked to
implement the state policy of “maintaining a sound ecological balance and protecting
and enhancing the quality of the environment” and to “promulgate rules and regulations
for the control of water, air, and land pollution. It is indubitable that the DENR has
jurisdiction in overseeing and supervising the environmental remediation of Barangay
Bangkal, which is adversely affected by the leak in the WOPL in 2010.

Quasi-judicial powers refer to the authority of administrative agencies to determine the

rights of parties under its jurisdiction through adjudication. Registration, issuance of
franchises, permits and licenses, and determination of administrative liabilities are
instances that require an agency’s exercise of quasi-judicial power. These acts require
administrative determination of facts, based on which the parties’ rights shall be
ascertained and official action shall be made.

Findings of fact by administrative agencies are not to be disturbed by the court when
supported by substantial evidence, “even if not overwhelming or preponderant” due to
their specialized knowledge in their fields. This Rule, however, admits a few
exceptions: First, when an administrative proceeding is attended by fraud, collusion,
arbitrary action, mistake of law, or a denial of due process; Second, when there are
p. 14

irregularities in the procedure that has led to factual findings; Third, when there are
palpable errors committed; and Lastly, when there is manifest grave abuse of
discretion, arbitrariness, or capriciousness.

Environmental Laws protect nature and the environment from degradation while taking
into account people’s needs and general welfare.—The purpose of our environmental
laws is to maintain or create conditions that are conducive to a harmonious relationship
between man and nature. Sections 1 and 2 of the Presidential Decree No. 1151,
otherwise known as the Philippine Environmental Policy, embody the purpose of our
environmental laws.

Temporary Environment Protection Orders; View that speculations may be sufficient

causes for the grant of either a temporary environmental protection order (TEPO) or a
permanent environmental protection order (PEPO), regardless of the extent of losses
and risks resulting from it.—Under the Rules, the precautionary principle shall be
applied in resolving environmental cases when the causal link between human activity
and an environmental effect cannot be established with certainty. Based on this
principle, an uncertain scientific plausibility of serious and irreversible damage to
the environment justifies actions to avoid the threat of damage. Avoidance of
threat or damage, as in this case, usually comes in the form of inhibition of action
or activity. Strict application of the precautionary principle means that the mere
presence of uncertainty renders the degree of scientific plausibility for
environmental damage irrelevant. Speculations may be sufficient causes for the grant
of either a temporary environmental protection order or a permanent environmental
protection order, regardless of the extent of losses and risks resulting from it.

It must be stressed that what is in issue in the instant petition is the WOPL’s compliance
with pipeline structure standards so as to make it fit for its purpose, a question of fact
that is to be determined on the basis of the evidence presented by the parties on the
WOPL’s actual state. The DOE’s proposed activities and timetable only proves that the
WOPL’s soundness for resumption of and continued commercial operations is not yet
fully determined. And it is 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 issue, therefore, on the pipeline’s structural integrity has not yet been
rendered moot and remains to be subject to this Court’s resolution.
Consequently, We cannot say that the DOE’s issuance of the certification
adverted to equates to the writ of kalikasan being functus officio at this point.