natres cases

7/17/2019 NatRes Cases

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/natres-cases-568e9a59abfa7 1/22

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

METROPOLITAN MANILA G.R. Nos. 171947-48

DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT

AND NATURAL RESOURCES, Present: DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, CULTURE AND SPORTS,[1 PUNO! C.J.! DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, "U#SUMB#N$! DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, %NARES&

SANT#A$O! DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC CARP#O! OR!S AND HIGHAYS, AUSTR#A&MART#NE'!

DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND CORONA! MANAGEMENT, PHILIPPINE CARP#O MORA(ES! COAST

GUARD, PHILIPPINE A'CUNA! NATIONAL POLICE MARITIME T#N$A! GROUP, "#$ DEPARTMENT

OF C)#CO&NA'AR#O! THE INTERIOR AND LOCAL *E(ASCO! +R,! GOVERNMENT, NAC)URA!

Petitioners! RE%ES!

(EONAR-O&-E CASTRO! an.

& /ersus & BR#ON! JJ.

CONCERNED RESIDENTS OF

MANILA BAY, %&'%&s&#(&$ "#$

)o*#&$ + DIVINA V. ILAS, SABINIANO ALBARRACIN, MANUEL SANTOS, R., DINAH

DELA PEA, PAUL DENNIS UINTERO, MA. VICTORIA LLENOS, DONNA CALO/A,

FATIMA UITAIN, VENICE SEGARRA, FRIT/IE TANG!IA, SARAH OELLE LINTAG,

HANNIBAL AUGUSTUS BOBIS, FELIMON SANTIAGUEL, "#$ Pro0ulate.:AIME AGUSTIN R. OPOSA,

Respon.ents, -ece0ber 12! 3442

5&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&5

D E C I S I O N

VELASCO, R., J.0 The need to address environmental pollution, as a cause of climate change, has of late gainedthe attention of the international community. Media have nally trained their sights on the illeects of pollution, the destruction of forests and other critical habitats, oil spills, and theunabated improper disposal of garbage. And rightly so, for the magnitude of environmental

destruction is now on a scale few ever foresaw and the wound no longer simply heals by itself.[2 !ut amidst hard evidence and clear signs of a climate crisis that need bold action, the voice ofcynicism, naysayers, and procrastinators can still be heard.

This case turns on government agencies and their o"cers who, by the nature of their respectiveo"ces or by direct statutory command, are tas#ed to protect and preserve, at the rst instance,our internal waters, rivers, shores, and seas polluted by human activities. To most of theseagencies and their o"cial complement, the pollution menace does not seem to carry the highnational priority it deserves, if their trac# records are to be the norm. Their cavalier attitudetowards solving, if not mitigating, the environmental pollution problem, is a sad commentary onbureaucratic e"ciency and commitment.At the core of the case is the Manila !ay, a place with a proud historic past, once brimming withmarine life and, for so many decades in the past, a spot for dierent contact recreation activities,but now a dirty and slowly dying e$panse mainly because of the ab%ect o"cial indierence ofpeople and institutions that could have otherwise made a dierence.

This case started when, on &anuary 2', (''', respondents )oncerned *esidents of Manila !ayled a complaint before the *egional Trial )ourt +*T) in -mus, )avite against several governmentagencies, among them the petitioners, for the cleanup, rehabilitation, and protection of theManila !ay. *aed to !ranch 2/ and doc#eted as )ivil )ase 0o. (1(3'' of the *T), thecomplaint alleged that the water 4uality of the Manila !ay had fallen way below the allowablestandards set by law, specically 5residential 6ecree 0o. +56 ((2 or the 5hilippine 7nvironment)ode. This environmental aberration, the complaint stated, stemmed from8

5 5 5 [The rec6less! 7holesale! accu0ulate. an. onoin acts of o0ission or co00ission [of the .efen.ants

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/december2008/171947-48.htm#_ftn1







resultin in the clear an. present .aner to public health an. in the .epletion an. conta0ination of the 0arine life of

Manila Ba8! [for 7hich reason A(( .efen.ants 0ust be hel. 9ointl8 an.or soli.aril8 liable an. be collecti/el8

or.ere. to clean up Manila Ba8 an. to restore its 7ater ;ualit8 to class B 7aters fit for s7i00in! s6in&.i/in! an.

other for0s of contact recreation,[<

#n their in.i/i.ual causes of action! respon.ents allee. that the continue. nelect of petitioners in abatin the

pollution of the Manila Ba8 constitutes a /iolation of! a0on others: =1> Respon.ents constitutional riht to life! health! an. a balance. ecolo8?

=3> The En/iron0ent Co.e =P- 11@3>?

=<> The Pollution Control (a7 =P- 2>?

=> The ater Co.e =P- 14D>?=@> The Sanitation Co.e =P- 2@D>?

=D> The #lleal -isposal of astes -ecree =P- 23@>?

=> The Marine Pollution (a7 =P- >?

=2> E5ecuti/e Or.er No, 13?=> The To5ic an. )aFar.ous astes (a7 =Republic Act No, DD>?

=14> Ci/il Co.e pro/isions on nuisance an. hu0an relations?

=11> The Trust -octrine an. the Principle of $uar.ianship? an.

=13> #nternational (a7

Inter alia, respondents, as plaintis a quo, prayed that petitioners be ordered to cleanthe Manila !ay and submit to the *T) a concerted concrete plan of action for the purpose.

The trial of the case started o with a hearing at the Manila 9acht )lub followed by an ocularinspection of the Manila !ay. *enato T. )ru:, the )hief of the ;ater <uality Management =ection,

7nvironmental Management !ureau, 6epartment of 7nvironment and 0atural *esources +670*,testifying for petitioners, stated that water samples collected from dierent beaches around theManila !ay showed that the amount of fecal coliform content ranged from /,/// to 1/,/// mostprobable number +M50>ml when what 670* Administrative ?rder 0o. @3'/ prescribed as a safelevel for bathing and other forms of contact recreational activities, or the =! level, is one note$ceeding 2// M50>(// ml.[

*ebecca de Bera, for Metropolitan ;aterwor#s and =ewerage =ystem +M;== and in behalf ofother petitioners, testied about the M;== eorts to reduce pollution alongthe Manila !ay through the Manila =econd =ewerage 5ro%ect. Cor its part, the 5hilippine 5ortsAuthority +55A presented, as part of its evidence, its memorandum circulars on the study beingconducted on ship3generated waste treatment and disposal, and its Linis Dagat +)lean the?cean pro%ect for the cleaning of wastes accumulated or washed to shore.

T& RTC O%$&%&$ P&(*(*o#&%s (o C2&"# U' "#$ R&"+*2*("(& M"#*2" B"

On Septe0ber 1<! 3443! the RTC ren.ere. a -ecision[@ in fa/or of respon.ents, The .ispositi/e portion rea.s:

)EREGORE! fin.in 0erit in the co0plaint! 9u.0ent is hereb8 ren.ere. or.erin the abo/ena0e. .efen.ant&

o/ern0ent aencies! 9ointl8 an. soli.aril8! to clean up an. rehabilitate Manila Ba8 an. restore its 7aters to SB

classification to 0a6e it fit for s7i00in! s6in&.i/in an. other for0s of contact recreation, To attain this!

.efen.ant&aencies! 7ith .efen.ant -ENR as the lea. aenc8! are .irecte.! 7ithin si5 =D> 0onths fro0 receipthereof! to act an. perfor0 their respecti/e .uties b8 .e/isin a consoli.ate.! coor.inate. an. concerte. sche0e of

action for the rehabilitation an. restoration of the ba8,

#n particular:

-efen.ant MSS is .irecte. to install! operate an. 0aintain a.e;uate [se7erae treat0ent facilities in strateic

places un.er its 9uris.iction an. increase their capacities,

-efen.ant (UA! to see to it that the 7ater .istricts un.er its 7ins! pro/i.e! construct an. operate se7aefacilities for the proper .isposal of 7aste,

-efen.ant -ENR! 7hich is the lea. aenc8 in cleanin up Manila Ba8! to install! operate an. 0aintain 7aste

facilities to ri. the ba8 of to5ic an. haFar.ous substances,

-efen.ant PPA! to pre/ent an. also to treat the .ischare not onl8 of ship&enerate. 7astes but also of other soli.

an. li;ui. 7astes fro0 .oc6in /essels that contribute to the pollution of the ba8,











-efen.ant MM-A! to establish! operate an. 0aintain an a.e;uate an. appropriate sanitar8 lan.fill an.or a.e;uate

soli. 7aste an. li;ui. .isposal as 7ell as other alternati/e arbae .isposal s8ste0 such as re&use or rec8clin of

7astes,

-efen.ant -A! throuh the Bureau of Gisheries an. A;uatic Resources! to re/italiFe the 0arine life

in Manila Ba8 an. restoc6 its 7aters 7ith in.ienous fish an. other a;uatic ani0als,

-efen.ant -BM! to pro/i.e an. set asi.e an a.e;uate bu.et solel8 for the purpose of cleanin up an. rehabilitationof Manila Ba8,

-efen.ant -P)! to re0o/e an. .e0olish structures an. other nuisances that obstruct the free flo7 of 7aters to the

ba8, These nuisances .ischare soli. an. li;ui. 7astes 7hich e/entuall8 en. up in Manila Ba8, As the constructionan. enineerin ar0 of the o/ern0ent! -P) is or.ere. to acti/el8 participate in re0o/in .ebris! such as carcass

of sun6en /essels! an. other non&bio.era.able arbae in the ba8,

-efen.ant -O)! to closel8 super/ise an. 0onitor the operations of septic an. slu.e co0panies an. re;uire the0 toha/e proper facilities for the treat0ent an. .isposal of fecal slu.e an. se7ae co0in fro0 septic tan6s,

-efen.ant -ECS! to inculcate in the 0in.s an. hearts of the people throuh e.ucation the i0portance of preser/in

an. protectin the en/iron0ent,

-efen.ant Philippine Coast $uar. an. the PNP Mariti0e $roup! to protect at all costs the Manila Ba8 fro0 all

for0s of illeal fishin,

0o pronouncement as to damages and costs. =? ?*67*76. The M;==, Docal ;ater Etilities Administration +D;EA, and 55A led before the )ourt of Appeals+)A individual 0otices of Appeal which were eventually consolidated and doc#eted as )A3F.*. )B0o. GH21.?n the other hand, the 670*, 6epartment of 5ublic ;or#s and Iighways +65;I, MetropolitanManila 6evelopment Authority +MM6A, 5hilippine )oast Fuard +5)F, 5hilippine 0ational 5olice+505 Maritime Froup, and ve other e$ecutive departments and agencies led directly with this)ourt a petition for review under *ule . The )ourt, in a *esolution of 6ecember ', 2//2, sentthe said petition to the )A for consolidation with the consolidated appeals of M;==, D;EA, and55A, doc#eted as )A3F.*. =5 0o. G'.5etitioners, before the )A, were one in arguing in the main that the pertinent provisions of the7nvironment )ode +56 ((2 relate only to the cleaning of specic pollution incidents and do not

cover cleaning in general. And apart from raising concerns about the lac# of funds appropriatedfor cleaning purposes, petitioners also asserted that the cleaning of the Manila !ay is not aministerial act which can be compelled by mandamus.

T& CA S3s("*#&$ (& RTC

!y a 6ecision[H of =eptember 21, 2//, the )A denied petitioners appeal and a"rmed the6ecision of the *T) in toto, stressing that the trial courts decision did not re4uire petitioners todo tas#s outside of their usual basic functions under e$isting laws. [G

5etitioners are now before this )ourt praying for the allowance of their *ule petition on thefollowing ground and supporting arguments8

T)E [CA -EC#-E- A "UEST#ON OG SUBSTANCE NOT )ERETOGORE PASSE- UPON B% T)E)ONORAB(E COURT! #,E,! #T AGG#RME- T)E TR#A( COURTS -EC#S#ON -EC(AR#N$ T)AT SECT#ON

34 OG [P- 11@3 RE"U#RES CONCERNE- $O*ERNMENT A$ENC#ES TO REMO*E A(( PO((UTANTS

SP#((E- AN- -#SC)AR$E- #N T)E ATER SUC) AS GECA( CO(#GORMS,

AR$UMENTS

#

[SECT#ONS 1 AN- 34 OG [P- 11@3 RE(ATE ON(% TO T)E C(EAN#N$ OG SPEC#G#CPO((UT#ON #NC#-ENTS AN- [-O NOT CO*ER C(EAN#N$ #N $ENERA(

##

T)E C(EAN#N$ OR RE)AB#(#TAT#ON OG T)E MAN#(A BA% #S NOT A M#N#STER#A( ACT OGPET#T#ONERS T)AT CAN BE COMPE((E- B% MAN-AMUS,







The issues before us are two3fold. First , do =ections (G and 2/ of 56 ((2 under theheadings, Upgrading of Water Quality and Clean-up Operations, envisage a cleanup in general orare they limited only to the cleanup of specic pollution incidentsJ And second, can petitionersbe compelled by mandamus to clean up and rehabilitate the Manila!ayJ?n August (2, 2//1, the )ourt conducted and heard the parties on oral arguments.

O3% R32*#

e shall first .7ell on the propriet8 of the issuance of 0an.a0us un.er the pre0ises,

T& C2&"#*# o% R&"+*2*("(*o# o5 M"#*2" B"

C"# +& Co6'&22&$ + M"#$"63sFenerally, the writ of mandamus lies to re4uire the e$ecution of a ministerial duty. [1 A ministerialduty is one that re4uires neither the e$ercise of o"cial discretion nor %udgment. [' -t connotes anact in which nothing is left to the discretion of the person e$ecuting it. -t is a simple, denite dutyarising under conditions admitted or proved to e$ist and imposed by law. [(/ Mandamus isavailable to compel action, when refused, on matters involving discretion, but not to direct thee$ercise of %udgment or discretion one way or the other.5etitioners maintain that the MM6As duty to ta#e measures and maintain ade4uate solid wasteand li4uid disposal systems necessarily involves policy evaluation and the e$ercise of %udgmenton the part of the agency concerned. They argue that the MM6A, in carrying out its mandate, hasto ma#e decisions, including choosing where a landll should be located by underta#ingfeasibility studies and cost estimates, all of which entail the e$ercise of discretion.

*espondents, on the other hand, counter that the statutory command is clear and thatpetitioners duty to comply with and act according to the clear mandate of the law does notre4uire the e$ercise of discretion. According to respondents, petitioners, the MM6A in particular,are without discretion, for e$ample, to choose which bodies of water they are to clean up, orwhich discharge or spill they are to contain. !y the same to#en, respondents maintain thatpetitioners are bereft of discretion on whether or not to alleviate the problem of solid and li4uidwaste disposalK in other words, it is the MM6As ministerial duty to attend to such services.;e agree with respondents.Cirst o, we wish to state that petitioners obligation to perform their duties as dened by law, onone hand, and how they are to carry out such duties, on the other, are two dierent concepts.;hile the implementation of the MM6As mandated tas#s may entail a decision3ma#ing process,the enforcement of the law or the very act of doing what the law e$acts to be done is ministerial

in nature and may be compelled by mandamus. ;e said so in Social Justice Society v !tien"a[(( in which the )ourt directed the )ity ofManila to enforce, as a matter of ministerialduty, its ?rdinance 0o. 1/2G directing the three big local oil players to cease and desist fromoperating their business in the so3called 5andacan Terminals within si$ months from theeectivity of the ordinance. !ut to illustrate with respect to the instant case, the MM6As duty toput up an ade4uate and appropriate sanitary landll and solid waste and li4uid disposal as wellas other alternative garbage disposal systems is ministerial, its duty being a statutory imposition

The MM6As duty in this regard is spelled out in =ec. @+c of *epublic Act 0o. +*A G'2 creatingthe MM6A. This section denes and delineates the scope of the MM6As waste disposal servicesto include8

Soli. 7aste .isposal an. 0anae0ent 7hich inclu.e for0ulation an. i0ple0entation of policies!

stan.ar.s! prora0s an. pro9ects for proper an. sanitar8 7aste .isposal, #t shall li6e7ise inclu.e the &s("+2*s6&#("#$ o'&%"(*o# o5 s"#*("% 2"#$ 5*22 "#$ %&2"(&$ 5"*2*(*&s an. the i0ple0entation of other alternati/e prora0sinten.e. to re.uce! reuse an. rec8cle soli. 7aste, =E0phasis a..e.,>

The MM6A is duty3bound to comply with =ec. ( of the 7cological =olid ;aste Management Act+*A '//@ which prescribes the minimum criteria for the establishment of sanitary landlls and=ec. 2 which provides the minimum operating re4uirements that each site operator shallmaintain in the operation of a sanitary landll. )omplementing =ec. ( are =ecs. @H and @G of *A'//@,[(2 en%oining the MM6A and local government units, among others, after the eectivity ofthe law on Cebruary (, 2//(, from using and operating open dumps for solid waste anddisallowing, ve years after such eectivity, the use of controlled dumps.

The MM6As duty in the area of solid waste disposal, as may be noted, is set forth not only in the7nvironment )ode +56 ((2 and *A '//@, but in its charter as well. This duty of putting up a













proper waste disposal system cannot be characteri:ed as discretionary, for, as earlier stated,discretion presupposes the power or right given by law to public functionaries to act o"ciallyaccording to their %udgment or conscience.[(@ A discretionary duty is one that allows a person toe$ercise %udgment and choose to perform or not to perform. [( Any suggestion that the MM6Ahas the option whether or not to perform its solid waste disposal3related duties ought to bedismissed for want of legal basis.A perusal of other petitioners respecti/e charters or li6e enablin statutes an. pertinent la7s 7oul. 8iel. this conclusion:

these o/ern0ent aencies are en9oine.! as a 0atter of statutor8 obliation! to perfor0 certain functions relatin .irectl8

or in.irectl8 to the cleanup! rehabilitation! protection! an. preser/ation of the Manila Ba8, The8 are preclu.e. fro0

choosin not to perfor0 these .uties, Consi.er:

+( The 670*, under 7$ecutive ?rder 0o. +7? ('2, [( is the primary agency responsible for theconservation, management, development, and proper use of the countrys environment andnatural resources. =ec. (' of the 5hilippine )lean ;ater Act of 2// +*A '2G, on the otherhand, designates the 670* as the primary government agency responsible for its enforcementand implementation, more particularly over all aspects of water 4uality management. ?n waterpollution, the 670*, under the Acts =ec. ('+#, e$ercises %urisdiction over all aspects of waterpollution, determine[s its location, magnitude, e$tent, severity, causes and eects and otherpertinent information on pollution, and [ta#es measures, using available methods andtechnologies, to prevent and abate such pollution.

The 670*, under *A '2G, is also tas#ed to prepare a 0ational ;ater <uality =tatus *eport, an-ntegrated ;ater <uality Management Cramewor#, and a (/3year ;ater <uality ManagementArea Action 5lan which is nationwide in scope covering the Manila !ay and ad%oining areas. =ec.(' of *A '2G provides8

Sec, 1 Lead Agency,The [-ENR shall be the pri0ar8 o/ern0ent aenc8 responsible for the i0ple0entation an.

enforce0ent of this Act 5 5 5 unless other7ise pro/i.e. herein, As such! it shall ha/e the follo7in functions! po7ers an. responsibilities:

a> Prepare a National ater "ualit8 Status report 7ithin t7ent8&four =3> 0onths fro0 the effecti/it8 of this Act:

Pro/i.e.! That the -epart0ent shall thereafter re/ie7 or re/ise an. publish annuall8! or as the nee. arises! sai.

report?

b> Prepare an #nterate. ater "ualit8 Manae0ent Gra0e7or6 7ithin t7el/e =13> 0onths follo7in the

co0pletion of the status report?

c> Prepare a ten =14> 8ear ater "ualit8 Manae0ent Area Action Plan 7ithin 13 0onths follo7in the co0pletion

of the fra0e7or6 for each .esinate. 7ater 0anae0ent area, Such action plan shall be re/ie7e. b8 the 7ater

;ualit8 0anae0ent area o/ernin boar. e/er8 fi/e =@> 8ears or as nee. arises,

The 670* has prepared the status report for the period 2//( to 2// and is in the process ofcompleting the preparation of the -ntegrated ;ater <uality Management Cramewor#. [(H ;ithintwelve +(2 months thereafter, it has to submit a nal ;ater <uality Management Area Action5lan.[(G Again, li#e the MM6A, the 670* should be made to accomplish the tas#s assigned to itunder *A '2G.5arenthetically, during the oral arguments, the 670* =ecretary manifested that the 670*, withthe assistance of and in partnership with various government agencies and non3government

organi:ations, has completed, as of 6ecember 2//, the nal draft of a comprehensive actionplan with estimated budget and time frame, denominated as Operation #lan for t$e %anila &ayCoastal Strategy , for the rehabilitation, restoration, and rehabilitation of the Manila !ay.

The completion of the said action plan and even the implementation of some of its phases shouldmore than ever prod the concerned agencies to fast trac# what are assigned them under e$istinglaws.

=3> The MSS! un.er Sec, < of RA D3<! [12 is /este. 7ith 9uris.iction! super/ision! an. control o/er al

7ater7or6s an. se7erae s8ste0s in the territor8 co0prisin 7hat is no7 the cities of Metro Manila an. se/eral to7ns of

the pro/inces of RiFal an. Ca/ite! an. chare. 7ith the .ut8:















=> To construct! 0aintain! an. operate such sanitar8 se7eraes as 0a8 be necessar8 for the proper sanitation an.

other uses of the cities an. to7ns co0prisin the S8ste0? 5 5 5

+@ The D;EA under 56 ('1 has the power of supervision and control over local water districts. -tcan prescribe the minimum standards and regulations for the operations of these districts andshall monitor and evaluate local water standards. The D;EA can direct these districts toconstruct, operate, and furnish facilities and services for the collection, treatment, and disposalof sewerage, waste, and storm water. Additionally, under *A '2G, the D;EA, as attachedagency of the 65;I, is tas#ed with providing sewerage and sanitation facilities, inclusive of thesetting up of e"cient and safe collection, treatment, and sewage disposal system in the dierent

parts of the country.

[('

-n relation to the instant petition, the D;EA is mandated to providesewerage and sanitation facilities in Daguna, )avite, !ulacan, 5ampanga, and !ataan to preventpollution in theManila !ay.+ The 6epartment of Agriculture +6A, pursuant to the Administrative )ode of ('1G +7? 2'2,[2/ is designated as the agency tas#ed to promulgate and enforce all laws and issuancesrespecting the conservation and proper utili:ation of agricultural and shery resources.Curthermore, the 6A, under the 5hilippine Cisheries )ode of (''1 +*A 1/, is, in coordinationwith local government units +DFEs and other concerned sectors, in charge of establishing amonitoring, control, and surveillance system to ensure that sheries and a4uatic resources in5hilippine waters are %udiciously utili:ed and managed on a sustainable basis. [2( Di#ewise under*A '2G, the 6A is charged with coordinating with the 5)F and 670* for the enforcement ofwater 4uality standards in marine waters. [22 More specically, its !ureau of Cisheries and A4uatic

*esources+!CA* under =ec. 22+c of *A '2G shall primarily be responsible for the preventionand control of water pollution for the development, management, and conservation of thesheries and a4uatic resources. + The 65;I, as the engineering and construction arm of the national government, is tas#edunder 7? 2'2[2@ to provide integrated planning, design, and construction services for, amongothers, Lood control and water resource development systems in accordance with nationaldevelopment ob%ectives and approved government plans and specications. -n Metro Manila, however, the MM6A is authori:ed by =ec. @+d, *A G'2 to perform metro3wideservices relating to Lood control and sewerage management which include the formulation andimplementation of policies, standards, programs and pro%ects for an integrated Lood control,

drainage and sewerage system.

?n &uly ', 2//2, a Memorandum of Agreement was entered into between the 65;I and MM6A,whereby MM6A was made the agency primarily responsible for Lood control in Metro Manila. Corthe rest of the country, 65;I shall remain as the implementing agency for Lood controlservices. The mandate of the MM6A and 65;I on Lood control and drainage services shallinclude the removal of structures, constructions, and encroachments built along rivers,waterways, and esteros +drainages in violation of *A G2G', 56 (/HG, and other pertinent laws. +H The 5)F, in accordance with =ec. +p of 56 H/(, or the *evised )oast Fuard Daw of ('G,and =ec. H of 56 'G',[2 or the Marine 5ollution 6ecree of ('GH, shall have the primaryresponsibility of enforcing laws, rules, and regulations governing marine pollution within the

territorial waters of the 5hilippines. -t shall promulgate its own rules and regulations inaccordance with the national rules and policies set by the 0ational 5ollution )ontrol )ommissionupon consultation with the latter for the eective implementation and enforcement of 56 'G'. -tshall, under =ec. of the law, apprehend violators who8

a, .ischare! .u0p 5 5 5 har0ful substances fro0 or out of an8 ship! /essel! bare! or an8 other floatin craft! or

other 0an&0a.e structures at sea! b8 an8 0etho.! 0eans or 0anner! into or upon the territorial an. inlan. na/iable

7aters of the Philippines?

b, thro7! .ischare or .eposit! .u0p! or cause! suffer or procure to be thro7n! .ischare.! or .eposite. either fro0

or out of an8 ship! bare! or other floatin craft or /essel of an8 6in.! or fro0 the shore! 7harf! 0anufacturin

establish0ent! or 0ill of an8 6in.! an8 refuse 0atter of an8 6in. or .escription 7hate/er other than that flo7in















fro0 streets an. se7ers an. passin therefro0 in a li;ui. state into tributar8 of an8 na/iable 7ater fro0 7hich the

sa0e shall float or be 7ashe. into such na/iable 7ater? an.

c, .eposit 5 5 5 0aterial of an8 6in. in an8 place on the ban6 of an8 na/iable 7ater or on the ban6 of an8 tributar8of an8 na/iable 7ater! 7here the sa0e shall be liable to be 7ashe. into such na/iable 7ater! either b8 or.inar8 or

hih ti.es! or b8 stor0s or floo.s! or other7ise! 7hereb8 na/iation shall or 0a8 be i0pe.e. or obstructe. or

increase the le/el of pollution of such 7ater,

+G ;hen *A H'G or the 6epartment of the -nterior and Docal Fovernment +6-DF Act of (''/was signed into law on 6ecember (@, (''/, the 505 Maritime Froup was tas#ed to perform allpolice functions over the 5hilippine territorial waters and rivers. Ender =ec. 1H, *A H'G, the

police functions of the 5)F shall be ta#en over by the 505 when the latter ac4uires the capabilityto perform such functions. =ince the 505 Maritime Froup has not yet attained the capability toassume and perform the police functions of 5)F over marine pollution, the 5)F and 505Maritime Froup shall coordinate with regard to the enforcement of laws, rules, and regulationsgoverning marine pollution within the territorial waters of the 5hilippines. This was made clear in=ec. (2, *A 1/ or the 5hilippine Cisheries )ode of (''1, in which both the 5)F and 505Maritime Froup were authori:ed to enforce said law and other shery laws, rules, andregulations.[2 +1 -n accordance with =ec. 2 of 7? (@, the 55A is mandated to establish, develop, regulate,manage and operate a rationali:ed national port system in support of trade and nationaldevelopment.[2H Moreover, =ec. H3c of 7? (@ states that the 55A has police authority within the

ports a.0inistere. b8 it as 0a8 be necessar8 to carr8 out its po7ers an. functions an. attain its purposes an.ob9ecti/es! 7ithout pre9u.ice to the e5ercise of the functions of the Bureau of Custo0s an. other la7 enforce0ent

bo.ies 7ithin the area, Such police authorit8 shall inclu.e the follo7in:

5 5 5 5

b> To reulate the entr8 to! e5it fro0! an. 0o/e0ent 7ithin the port! of persons an. /ehicles! as 7ell as 0o/e0ent7ithin the port of 7atercraft,[3

Dastly, as a member of the -nternational Marine ?rgani:ation and a signatory to the -nternational)onvention for the 5revention of 5ollution from =hips, as amended by MA*5?D G@>G1,[21 the 5hilippines, through the 55A, must ensure the provision of ade4uate reception facilities atports and terminals for the reception of sewage from the ships doc#ing in 5hilippine ports. Thus,the 55A is tas#ed to adopt such measures as are necessary to prevent the discharge anddumping of solid and li4uid wastes and other ship3generated wastes into the Manila !ay watersfrom vessels doc#ed at ports and apprehend the violators. ;hen the vessels are not doc#ed atports but within 5hilippine territorial waters, it is the 5)F and 505 Maritime Froup that have

%urisdiction over said vessels. +' The MM6A, as earlier indicated, is duty3bound to put up and maintain ade4uate sanitarylandll and solid waste and li4uid disposal system as well as other alternative garbage disposalsystems. -t is primarily responsible for the implementation and enforcement of the provisions of*A '//@, which would necessary include its penal provisions, within its area of %urisdiction. [2'

Among the prohibited acts under =ec. 1, )hapter B- of *A '//@ that are fre4uently violated aredumping of waste matters in public places, such as roads, canals or esteros, open burning ofsolid waste, s4uatting in open dumps and landlls, open dumping, burying of biodegradable ornon3 biodegradable materials in Lood3prone areas, establishment or operation of open dumps asen%oined in *A '//@, and operation of waste management facilities without an environmentalcompliance certicate.

Ender =ec. 21 of the Erban 6evelopment and Iousing Act of (''2 +*A G2G', eviction ordemolition may be allowed when persons or entities occupy danger areas such asesteros,railroad trac#s, garbage dumps, riverban#s, shorelines, waterways, and other public places suchas sidewal#s, roads, par#s and playgrounds. The MM6A, as lead agency, in coordination with the65;I, DFEs, and concerned agencies, can dismantle and remove all structures, constructions,and other encroachments built in breach of *A G2G' and other pertinent laws along the rivers,














waterways, and esteros in Metro Manila. ;ith respect to rivers, waterways, and esteros in!ulacan, !ataan, 5ampanga, )avite, and Daguna that discharge wastewater directly or eventuallyinto the Manila !ay, the 6-DF shall direct the concerned DFEs to implement the demolition andremoval of such structures, constructions, and other encroachments built in violation of *A G2G'and other applicable laws in coordination with the 65;I and concerned agencies.+(/ The 6epartment of Iealth +6?I, under Article GH of 56 (/HG +the ;ater )ode, is tas#ed topromulgate rules and regulations for the establishment of waste disposal areas that aect thesource of a water supply or a reservoir for domestic or municipal use. And under =ec. 1 of *A'2G, the 6?I, in coordination with the 670*, 65;I, and other concerned agencies, shallformulate guidelines and standards for the collection, treatment, and disposal of sewage and the

establishment and operation of a centrali:ed sewage treatment system. -n areas not consideredas highly urbani:ed cities, septage or a mi$ sewerage3septage management system shall beemployed.-n accordance with =ec. G2[@/ of 56 1H, the )ode of =anitation of the 5hilippines, and =ec..(.([@( of )hapter B-- of its implementing rules, the 6?I is also ordered to ensure theregulation and monitoring of the proper disposal of wastes by private sludge companies throughthe strict enforcement of the re4uirement to obtain an environmental sanitation clearance ofsludge collection treatment and disposal before these companies are issued their environmentalsanitation permit.+(( The 6epartment of 7ducation +6ep7d, under the 5hilippine 7nvironment )ode +56 ((2, ismandated to integrate sub%ects on environmental education in its school curricula at all levels.[@2 Ender =ec. ((1 of *A 1/, the 6ep7d, in collaboration with the 6A, )ommission on Iigher

7ducation, and 5hilippine -nformation Agency, shall launch and pursue a nationwide educationalcampaign to promote the development, management, conservation, and proper use of theenvironment. Ender the 7cological =olid ;aste Management Act +*A '//@, on the other hand, itis directed to strengthen the integration of environmental concerns in school curricula at alllevels, with an emphasis on waste management principles.[@@

+(2 The 6epartment of !udget and Management +6!M is tas#ed under =ec. 2, Title B-- of theAdministrative )ode of ('1G to ensure the e"cient and sound utili:ation of government fundsand revenues so as to eectively achieve the countrys development ob%ectives.[@

?ne of the countrys development ob%ectives is enshrined in *A '2G or the 5hilippine )lean;ater Act of 2//. This law stresses that the =tate shall pursue a policy of economic growth in amanner consistent with the protection, preservation, and revival of the 4uality of our fresh,brac#ish, and marine waters. -t also provides that it is the policy of the government, among

others, to streamline processes and procedures in the prevention, control, and abatement ofpollution mechanisms for the protection of water resourcesK to promote environmental strategiesand use of appropriate economic instruments and of control mechanisms for the protection ofwater resourcesK to formulate a holistic national program of water 4uality management thatrecogni:es that issues related to this management cannot be separated from concerns aboutwater sources and ecological protection, water supply, public health, and 4uality of lifeK and toprovide a comprehensive management program for water pollution focusing on pollutionprevention.

Thus, the 6!M shall then endeavor to provide an ade4uate budget to attain the noble ob%ectivesof *A '2G in line with the countrys development ob%ectives.All told, the aforementioned enabling laws and issuances are in themselves clear, categorical,and complete as to what are the obligations and mandate of each agency>petitioner under the

law. ;e need not belabor the issue that their tas#s include the cleanup of the Manila !ay.0ow, as to the cru$ of the petition. 6o =ecs. (G and 2/ of the 7nvironment )ode encompass thecleanup of water pollution in general, not %ust specic pollution incidentsJ

S&s. 17 "#$ o5 (& E#:*%o#6&#( Co$&

I#23$& C2&"#*# *# G&#&%"2

The .ispute. sections are ;uote. as follo7s:













Section 1, Upgrading of Water Quality,here the ;ualit8 of 7ater has .eteriorate. to a .eree 7here its state 7ill a./ersel8 affect its best usae!

the o/ern0ent aencies concerne. shall ta6e such 0easures as 0a8 be necessar8 to upra.e the ;ualit8 of such 7ater to 0eet the prescribe.

7ater ;ualit8 stan.ar.s,

Section 34, Clean-up Operations,#t shall be the responsibilit8 of the polluter to contain! re0o/e an. clean&up 7ater pollution inci.ents at his o7n

e5pense, #n case of his failure to .o so! the o/ern0ent aencies concerne. shall un.erta6e contain0ent! re0o/al an. clean&up operations an.

e5penses incurre. in sai. operations shall be chare. aainst the persons an.or entities responsible for such pollution,

hen the Clean ater Act =RA 3@> too6 effect! its Sec, 1D on the sub9ect! Cleanup Operations! a0en.e. the

counterpart pro/ision =Sec, 34> of the En/iron0ent Co.e =P- 11@3>, Sec, 1 of P- 11@3 continues! ho7e/er! to be

operational,The a0en.ator8 Sec, 1D of RA 3@ rea.s:

SEC, 1D, Cleanup Operations,Not7ithstan.in the pro/isions of Sections 1@ an. 3D hereof! an8 person

7ho causes pollution in or pollutes 7ater bo.ies in e5cess of the applicable an. pre/ailin stan.ar.s shall beresponsible to contain! re0o/e an. clean up an8 pollution inci.ent at his o7n e5pense to the e5tent that the sa0e

7ater bo.ies ha/e been ren.ere. unfit for utiliFation an. beneficial use: Pro/i.e.! That in the e/ent e0erenc8

cleanup operations are necessar8 an. the polluter fails to i00e.iatel8 un.erta6e the sa0e! the [-ENR in

coor.ination 7ith other o/ern0ent aencies concerne.! shall un.erta6e contain0ent! re0o/al an. cleanupoperations, E5penses incurre. in sai. operations shall be rei0burse. b8 the persons foun. to ha/e cause. such

pollution un.er proper a.0inistrati/e .eter0ination 5 5 5, Rei0burse0ents of the cost incurre. shall be 0a.e to the

ater "ualit8 Manae0ent Gun. or to such other fun.s 7here sai. .isburse0ents 7ere source.,

As may be noted, the amendment to =ec. 2/ of the 7nvironment )ode is more apparent than realsince the amendment, insofar as it is relevant to this case, merely consists in the designation ofthe 670* as lead agency in the cleanup operations.5etitioners contend at every turn that =ecs. (G and 2/ of the 7nvironment )ode concernthemselves only with the matter of cleaning up in specic pollution incidents, as opposed tocleanup in general. They aver that the twin provisions would have to be read alongside thesucceeding =ec. H2+g and +h, which denes the terms cleanup operations and accidental spills,as follows8

, Clean&up Operations [refer to acti/ities con.ucte. in re0o/in the pollutants .ischare. or spille. in 7ater to restore it to pre&spill con.ition,

h, Acci.ental Spills [refer to spills of oil or other haFar.ous substances in 7ater that result fro0 acci.ents such as collisions an.

roun.ins,

5etitioners proer the argument that =ecs. (G and 2/ of 56 ((2 merely direct the governmentagencies concerned to underta#e containment, removal, and cleaning operations of a specicpolluted portion or portions of the body of water concerned. They maintain that the application ofsaid =ec. 2/ is limited only to water pollution incidents, which are situations that presuppose theoccurrence of specic, isolated pollution events re4uiring the corresponding containment,removal, and cleaning operations. 5ushing the point further, they argue that the afore4uoted=ec. H2+g re4uires cleanup operations to restore the body of water to pre3spill condition, whichmeans that there must have been a specic incident of either intentional or accidental spillage ofoil or other ha:ardous substances, as mentioned in =ec. H2+h.As a counterpoint, respondents argue that petitioners erroneously read =ec. H2+g as delimiting

the application of =ec. 2/ to the containment, removal, and cleanup operations for accidentalspills only. )ontrary to petitioners posture, respondents assert that =ec. H2+g, in fact, evene$panded the coverage of =ec. 2/. *espondents e$plain that without its =ec. H2+g, 56 ((2 mayhave indeed covered only pollution accumulating from the day3to3day operations of businessesaround the Manila !ay and other sources of pollution that slowly accumulated in the bay.*espondents, however, emphasi:e that =ec. H2+g, far from being a delimiting provision, in facteven enlarged the operational scope of =ec. 2/, by including accidental spills as among thewater pollution incidents contemplated in =ec. (G in relation to =ec. 2/ of 56 ((2.

To respondents, petitioners parochial view on environmental issues, coupled with their narrowreading of their respective mandated roles, has contributed to the worsening water 4uality ofthe Manila !ay. Assuming, respondents assert, that petitioners are correct in saying that thecleanup coverage of =ec. 2/ of 56 ((2 is constricted by the denition of the phrase cleanup



operations embodied in =ec. H2+g, =ec. (G is not hobbled by such limiting denition. As pointedout, the phrases cleanup operations and accidental spills do not appear in said =ec. (G, not evenin the chapter where said section is found.*espondents are correct. Cor one thing, said =ec. (G does not in any way state that thegovernment agencies concerned ought to conne themselves to the containment, removal, andcleaning operations when a specic pollution incident occurs. ?n the contrary, =ec. (G re4uiresthem to act even in the absence of a specic pollution incident, as long as water 4uality hasdeteriorated to a degree where its state will adversely aect its best usage. This section, tostress, commands concerned government agencies, when appropriate, to ta#e such measures asmay be necessary to meet the prescribed water 4uality standards. -n ne, the underlying duty to

upgrade the 4uality of water is not conditional on the occurrence of any pollution incident.Cor another, a perusal of =ec. 2/ of the 7nvironment )ode, as couched, indicates that it isproperly applicable to a specic situation in which the pollution is caused by polluters who fail toclean up the mess they left behind. -n such instance, the concerned government agencies shallunderta#e the cleanup wor# for the polluters account. 5etitioners assertion, that they have toperform cleanup operations in the Manila !ay only when there is a water pollution incident andthe erring polluters do not underta#e the containment, removal, and cleanup operations, is 4uiteo mar#. As earlier discussed, the complementary =ec. (G of the 7nvironment )ode comes intoplay and the specic duties of the agencies to clean up come in even if there are no pollutionincidents staring at them. 5etitioners, thus, cannot plausibly invo#e and hide behind =ec. 2/ of56 ((2 or =ec. (H of *A '2G on the prete$t that their cleanup mandate depends on thehappening of a specic pollution incident. -n this regard, what the )A said with respect to the

impasse over =ecs. (G and 2/ of 56 ((2 is at once valid as it is practical. The appellate courtwrote8 56 ((2 aims to introduce a comprehensive program of environmental protection andmanagement. This is better served by ma#ing =ecs. (G N 2/ of general application rather thanlimiting them to specic pollution incidents.[@

Franting arguendo that petitioners position thus described vis33vis the implementation of =ec. 2/is correct, they seem to have overloo#ed the fact that the pollution of theManila !ay is of suchmagnitude and scope that it is well3nigh impossible to draw the line between a specic and ageneral pollution incident. And such impossibility e$tends to pinpointing with reasonablecertainty who the polluters are. ;e note that =ec. 2/ of 56 ((2 mentions water pollutionincidents which may be caused by polluters in the waters of the Manila !ay itself or by pollutersin ad%oining lands and in water bodies or waterways that empty into the bay. =ec. (H of *A '2G,on the other hand, specically adverts to any person who causes pollution in or pollutes waterbodies, which may refer to an individual or an establishment that pollutes the land mass nearthe Manila !ay or the waterways, such that the contaminants eventually end up in the bay. -nthis situation, the water pollution incidents are so numerous and involve nameless and facelesspolluters that they can validly be categori:ed as beyond the specic pollution incident level.0ot to be ignored of course is the reality that the government agencies concerned are soundermanned that it would be almost impossible to apprehend the numerous polluters ofthe Manila !ay. -t may perhaps not be amiss to say that the apprehension, if any, ofthe Manila !ay polluters has been few and far between. Ience, practically nobody has beenre4uired to contain, remove, or clean up a given water pollution incident. -n this #ind of setting, itbehooves the Fovernment to step in and underta#e cleanup operations. Thus, =ec. (H of *A

'2G, previously =ec. 2/ of 56 ((2, covers for all intents and purposes a general cleanupsituation.

The cleanup and>or restoration of the Manila !ay is only an aspect and the initial stage of thelong3term solution. The preservation of the water 4uality of the bay after the rehabilitationprocess is as important as the cleaning phase. -t is imperative then that the wastes andcontaminants found in the rivers, inland bays, and other bodies of water be stopped fromreaching the Manila !ay. ?therwise, any cleanup eort would %ust be a futile, cosmetic e$ercise,for, in no time at all, the Manila !ay water 4uality would again deteriorate below the idealminimum standards set by 56 ((2, *A '2G, and other relevant laws. -t thus behooves the)ourt to put the heads of the petitioner3department3agencies and the bureaus and o"ces underthem on continuing notice about, and to en%oin them to perform, their mandates and duties





towards cleaning up the Manila !ay and preserving the 4uality of its water to the ideal level.Ender what other %udicial discipline describes as continuing mandamus,[@H the )ourt may, undere$traordinary circumstances, issue directives with the end in view of ensuring that its decisionwould not be set to naught by administrative inaction or indierence. -n -ndia, the doctrine ofcontinuing mandamus was used to enforce directives of the court to clean up the length ofthe Fanges *iver from industrial and municipal pollution.[@G

The )ourt can ta#e %udicial notice of the presence of shanties and other unauthori:ed structureswhich do not have septic tan#s along the 5asig3Mari#ina3=an &uan *ivers, the 0ational )apital*egion +0)* +5araa4ue3Oapote, Das 5ias *ivers, the 0avotas3Malabon3Tullahan3Tene%eros *ivers,the Meycuayan3Marilao3?bando +!ulacan *ivers, the Talisay +!ataan *iver, the -mus +)avite

*iver, the Daguna 6e !ay, and other minor rivers and connecting waterways, river ban#s,and esteros which discharge their waters, with all the accompanying lth, dirt, and garbage, intothe ma%or rivers and eventually the Manila !ay. -f there is one factor responsible for the pollutionof the ma%or river systems and the Manila !ay, these unauthori:ed structures would be on top ofthe list. And if the issue of illegal or unauthori:ed structures is not seriously addressed withsustained resolve, then practically all eorts to cleanse these important bodies of water would befor naught. The 670* =ecretary said as much.[@1 Fiving urgent dimension to the necessity of removing these illegal structures is Art. ( of 56(/HG or the ;ater )ode,[@' which prohibits the building of structures within a given length alongban#s of rivers and other waterways. Art. ( reads8

T& +"#;s o5 %*:&%s "#$ s(%&"6s "#$ (& so%&s o5 (& s&"s an. la6es (%o3o3( (&*% &#(*%& 2&#(

"#$ <*(*# " =o#& o5 (%&& >?@ 6&(&%s *# 3%+"# "%&"s! t7ent8 =34> 0eters in aricultural areas an. fort8 =4>0eters in forest areas! alon their 0arins! are s3+)&( (o (& &"s&6&#( o5 '3+2* 3s& *# (& *#(&%&s( o5 %&%&"(*o#,

#":*"(*o#, 52o"("&, 5*s*# "#$ s"2:"&.No '&%so# s"22 +& "22o<&$ (o s(" *# (*s =o#& loner than 7hat is

necessar8 for recreation! na/iation! floatae! fishin or sal/ae or (o +3*2$ s(%3(3%&s o5 "# ;*#$. =E0phasisa..e.,>

&udicial notice may li#ewise be ta#en of factories and other industrial establishments standingalong or near the ban#s of the 5asig *iver, other ma%or rivers, and connecting waterways. !utwhile they may not be treated as unauthori:ed constructions, some of these establishmentsundoubtedly contribute to the pollution of the 5asig *iver and waterways. The 6-DF and theconcerned DFEs, have, accordingly, the duty to see to it that non3complying industrialestablishments set up, within a reasonable period, the necessary waste water treatment facilitiesand infrastructure to prevent their industrial discharge, including their sewage waters, from

Lowing into the 5asig *iver, other ma%or rivers, and connecting waterways. After such period,non3complying establishments shall be shut down or as#ed to transfer their operations. At this %uncture, and if only to dramati:e the urgency of the need for petitioners3agencies tocomply with their statutory tas#s, we cite the Asian 6evelopment !an#3commissioned study onthe garbage problem in Metro Manila, the results of which are embodied in the '$e (ar)age&oo* . As there reported, the garbage crisis in the metropolitan area is as alarming as it isshoc#ing. =ome highlights of the report8

1, As earl8 as 344<! three lan.&fille. .u0psites in Metro Manila & the Pa8atas! Cat0on an. Ro.ri;ueF.u0psites & enerate an alar0in ;uantit8 of lea. an. leachate or li;ui. run&off, (eachate are to5ic li;ui.s that flo7

alon the surface an. seep into the earth an. poison the surface an. roun.7ater that are use. for .rin6in! a;uatic

life! an. the en/iron0ent, 3, The hih le/el of fecal colifor0 confir0s the presence of a lare a0ount of hu0an 7aste in the .u0p

sites an. surroun.in areas! 7hich is presu0abl8 enerate. b8 househol.s that lac6 alternati/es to sanitation, To sa8

that Manila Ba8 nee.s rehabilitation is an un.erstate0ent,

<, Most of the .ea.l8 leachate! lea. an. other .anerous conta0inants an. possibl8 strains of pathoens

seeps untreate. into roun. 7ater an. runs into the Mari6ina an. Pasi Ri/ers8ste0s an. Manila Ba8,[4














$i/en the abo/e perspecti/e! sufficient sanitar8 lan.fills shoul. no7 0ore than e/er be establishe. as prescribe.

b8 the Ecoloical Soli. aste Manae0ent Act =RA 44<>, Particular note shoul. be ta6en of the blatant /iolations b8

so0e ($Us an. possibl8 the MM-A of Sec, <! repro.uce. belo7:Sec, <, Prohibition against the Use of Open Dups for !olid Waste,No open .u0ps shall be establishe.

an. operate.! nor an8 practice or .isposal of soli. 7aste b8 an8 person! inclu.in ($Us 7hich [constitute the use

of open .u0ps for soli. 7aste! be allo7e. after the effecti/it8 of this Act: Pro/i.e.! further that #o o#(%o22&$

$36's s"22 +& "22o<&$ >@ &"%s 5o22o<*# (& &55&(*:*( o5 (*s A(, =E0phasis a..e.,>

*A '//@ too# eect on Cebruary (, 2//( and the adverted grace period of ve + years whichended on Cebruary 2(, 2//H has come and gone, but no single sanitary landll which strictlycomplies with the prescribed standards under *A '//@ has yet been set up. -n addition, there are rampant and repeated violations of =ec. 1 of *A '//@, li#e littering,dumping of waste matters in roads, canals, esteros, and other public places, operation of opendumps, open burning of solid waste, and the li#e. =ome sludge companies which do not haveproper disposal facilities simply discharge sludge into the Metro Manila sewerage system thatends up in the Manila !ay. 74ually unabated are violations of =ec. 2G of *A '2G, which en%oinsthe pollution of water bodies, groundwater pollution, disposal of infectious wastes from vessels,and unauthori:ed transport or dumping into sea waters of sewage or solid waste and of =ecs. and (/2 of *A 1/ which proscribes the introduction by human or machine of substances to the

a4uatic environment including dumping>disposal of waste and other marine litters, discharge ofpetroleum or residual products of petroleum of carbonaceous materials>substances [and otherradioactive, no$ious or harmful li4uid, gaseous or solid substances, from any water, land or airtransport or other human3made structure. -n the light of the ongoing environmental degradation, the )ourt wishes to emphasi:e thee$treme necessity for all concerned e$ecutive departments and agencies to immediately act anddischarge their respective o"cial duties and obligations. -ndeed, time is of the essenceK hence,there is a need to set timetables for the performance and completion of the tas#s, some of themas dened for them by law and the nature of their respective o"ces and mandates.

The importance of the Manila !ay as a sea resource, playground, and as a historical landmar#

cannot be over3emphasi:ed. -t is not yet too late in the day to restore theManila !ay to its formersplendor and bring bac# the plants and sea life that once thrived in its blue waters. !ut the tas#sahead, daunting as they may be, could only be accomplished if those mandated, with the helpand cooperation of all civic3minded individuals, would put their minds to these tas#s and ta#eresponsibility. This means that the =tate, through petitioners, has to ta#e the lead in thepreservation and protection of the Manila !ay.

The era of delays, procrastination, and ad $oc measures is over. 5etitioners must transcend theirlimitations, real or imaginary, and buc#le down to wor# before the problem at hand becomesunmanageable. Thus, we must reiterate that dierent government agencies andinstrumentalities cannot shir# from their mandatesK they must perform their basic functions incleaning up and rehabilitating the Manila !ay. ;e are disturbed by petitioners hiding behind two

untenable claims8 +( that there ought to be a specic pollution incident before they are re4uiredto actK and +2 that the cleanup of the bay is a discretionary duty. *A '//@ is a sweeping piece of legislation enacted to radically transform and improve wastemanagement. -t implements =ec. (H, Art. -- of the ('1G )onstitution, which e$plicitly providesthat the =tate shall protect and advance the right of the people to a balanced and healthfulecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature. =o it was that in Oposa v Factoran+ Jr the )ourt stated that the right to a balanced and healthfulecology need not even be written in the )onstitution for it is assumed, li#e other civil andpolitical rights guaranteed in the !ill of *ights, to e$ist from the inception of man#ind and it is anissue of transcendental importance with intergenerational implications.[( 7ven assuming the





absence of a categorical legal provision specically prodding petitioners to clean up the bay,they and the men and women representing them cannot escape their obligation to futuregenerations of Cilipinos to #eep the waters of the Manila !ay clean and clear as humanly aspossible. Anything less would be a betrayal of the trust reposed in them.

HEREFORE! the petition is DENIED, The Septe0ber 32! 344@ -ecision of the CA in CA&$,R, C* No, D@32 an. SP

No, an. the Septe0ber 1<! 3443 -ecision of the RTC in Ci/il Case No, 12@1& are AFFIRMED bu

7ith MODIFICATIONS in /ie7 of subse;uent .e/elop0ents or super/enin e/ents in the case, The fallo of the RTC

-ecision shall no7 rea.:)EREGORE! 9u.0ent is hereb8 ren.ere. or.erin the abo/ena0e. .efen.ant&o/ern0ent aencies to clean up!rehabilitate! an. preser/e Manila Ba8! an. restore an. 0aintain its 7aters to SB le/el =Class B sea 7aters per ater

Classification Tables un.er -ENR A.0inistrati/e Or.er No, < [14> to 0a6e the0 fit for s7i00in! s6in&

.i/in! an. other for0s of contact recreation,

#n particular:

+( 5ursuant to =ec. of 7? ('2, assigning the 670* as the primary agency responsible for theconservation, management, development, and proper use of the countrys environment andnatural resources, and =ec. (' of *A '2G, designating the 670* as the primary governmentagency responsible for its enforcement and implementation, the 670* is directed to fullyimplement its Operational #lan for t$e %anila &ay Coastal Strategy for the rehabilitation,restoration, and conservation of the Manila !ay at the earliest possible time. -t is ordered to call

regular coordination meetings with concerned government departments and agencies to ensurethe successful implementation of the aforesaid plan of action in accordance with its indicatedcompletion schedules. +2 5ursuant to Title -- +Docal Fovernment of the Administrative )ode of ('1G and =ec. 2 ofthe Docal Fovernment )ode of (''(,[2 the 6-DF, in e$ercising the 5residents power of generalsupervision and its duty to promulgate guidelines in establishing waste management programsunder =ec. @ of the 5hilippine 7nvironment )ode +56 ((2, shall direct all DFEs in MetroManila, *i:al, Daguna, )avite, !ulacan, 5ampanga, and !ataan to inspect all factories,commercial establishments, and private homes along the ban#s of the ma%or river systems intheir respective areas of %urisdiction, such as but not limited to the 5asig3Mari#ina3=an &uan*ivers, the 0)* +5araa4ue3Oapote, Das 5ias *ivers, the 0avotas3Malabon3Tullahan3Tene%eros

*ivers, the Meycauayan3Marilao3?bando +!ulacan *ivers, the Talisay +!ataan *iver, the -mus+)avite *iver, the Daguna 6e !ay, and other minor rivers and waterways that eventuallydischarge water into the Manila !ayK and the lands abutting the bay, to determine whether theyhave wastewater treatment facilities or hygienic septic tan#s as prescribed by e$isting laws,ordinances, and rules and regulations. -f none be found, these DFEs shall be ordered to re4uirenon3complying establishments and homes to set up said facilities or septic tan#s within areasonable time to prevent industrial wastes, sewage water, and human wastes from Lowing intothese rivers, waterways, esteros, and the Manila !ay, under pain of closure or imposition of nesand other sanctions.+@ As mandated by =ec. 1 of *A '2G,[@ the M;== is directed to provide, install, operate, andmaintain the necessary ade4uate waste water treatment facilities in Metro Manila, *i:al, and)avite where needed at the earliest possible time.

+ 5ursuant to *A '2G,[

the D;EA, through the local water districts and in coordination withthe 670*, is ordered to provide, install, operate, and maintain sewerage and sanitation facilitiesand the e"cient and safe collection, treatment, and disposal of sewage in the provinces ofDaguna, )avite, !ulacan, 5ampanga, and !ataan where needed at the earliest possible time.+ 5ursuant to =ec. H of *A 1/,[ the 6A, through the !CA*, is ordered to improve andrestore the marine life of the Manila !ay. -t is also directed to assist the DFEs in Metro Manila,*i:al, )avite, Daguna, !ulacan, 5ampanga, and !ataan in developing, using recogni:ed methods,the sheries and a4uatic resources in the Manila !ay.+H The 5)F, pursuant to =ecs. and H of 56 'G', and the 505 Maritime Froup, in accordancewith =ec. (2 of *A 1/, in coordination with each other, shall apprehend violators of 56 'G',*A 1/, and other e$isting laws and regulations designed to prevent marine pollution inthe Manila !ay.











+G 5ursuant to =ecs. 2 and H3c of 7? (@[H and the -nternational )onvention for the 5reventionof 5ollution from =hips, the 55A is ordered to immediately adopt such measures to prevent thedischarge and dumping of solid and li4uid wastes and other ship3generated wastes intothe Manila !ay waters from vessels doc#ed at ports and apprehend the violators.+1 The MM6A, as the lead agency and implementor of programs and pro%ects for Lood controlpro%ects and drainage services in Metro Manila, in coordination with the 65;I, 6-DF, aectedDFEs, 505 Maritime Froup, Iousing and Erban 6evelopment )oordinating )ouncil +IE6)), andother agencies, shall dismantle and remove allstructures, constructions, and otherencroachments established or built in violation of *A G2G', and other applicable laws along the5asig3Mari#ina3=an &uan *ivers, the 0)* +5araa4ue3Oapote, Das 5ias *ivers, the 0avotas3

Malabon3Tullahan3Tene%eros *ivers, and connecting waterways and esteros in Metro Manila. The65;I, as the principal implementor of programs and pro%ects for Lood control services in therest of the country more particularly in !ulacan, !ataan, 5ampanga, )avite, and Daguna, incoordination with the 6-DF, aected DFEs, 505 Maritime Froup, IE6)), and other concernedgovernment agencies, shall remove and demolish all structures, constructions, and otherencroachments built in breach of *A G2G' and other applicable laws along the Meycauayan3Marilao3?bando +!ulacan *ivers, the Talisay +!ataan *iver, the -mus +)avite *iver, the Daguna6e !ay, and other rivers, connecting waterways, and esteros that discharge wastewater into theManila !ay.

-n addition, the MM6A is ordered to establish, operate, and maintain a sanitary landll, asprescribed by *A '//@, within a period of one +( year from nality of this 6ecision.?n matterswithin its territorial %urisdiction and in connection with the discharge of its duties on themaintenance of sanitary landlls and li#e underta#ings, it is also ordered to cause theapprehension and ling of the appropriate criminal cases against violators of the respectivepenal provisions of *A '//@,[G =ec. 2G of *A '2G +the )lean ;ater Act, and other e$isting lawson pollution.+' The 6?I shall, as directed by Art. GH of 56 (/HG and =ec. 1 of *A '2G, within one +( yearfrom nality of this 6ecision, determine if all licensed septic and sludge companies have theproper facilities for the treatment and disposal of fecal sludge and sewage coming from septictan#s. The 6?I shall give the companies, if found to be non3complying, a reasonable time withinwhich to set up the necessary facilities under pain of cancellation of its environmental sanitationclearance.+(/ 5ursuant to =ec. @ of 56 ((2, [1 =ec. ((1 of *A 1/, and =ec. H of *A '//@, [' the6ep7d shall integrate lessons on pollution prevention, waste management, environmentalprotection, and li#e sub%ects in the school curricula of all levels to inculcate in the minds andhearts of students and, through them, their parents and friends, the importance of their dutytoward achieving and maintaining a balanced and healthful ecosystem in the Manila !ay and theentire 5hilippine archipelago.+(( The 6!M shall consider incorporating an ade4uate budget in the Feneral Appropriations Actof 2/(/ and succeeding years to cover the e$penses relating to the cleanup, restoration, andpreservation of the water 4uality of the Manila !ay, in line with the countrys developmentob%ective to attain economic growth in a manner consistent with the protection, preservation,and revival of our marine waters.+(2 The heads of petitioners3agencies MM6A, 670*, 6ep7d, 6?I, 6A, 65;I, 6!M, 5)F, 505

Maritime Froup, 6-DF, and also of M;==, D;EA, and 55A, in line with the principle of continuingmandamus, shall, from nality of this 6ecision, each submit to the )ourt a 4uarterly progressivereport of the activities underta#en in accordance with this 6ecision. 0o costs. SO ORDERED.

C E R T I F I C A T I O N

Pursuant to Section 1<! Article *### of the Constitution! it is hereb8 certifie. that the conclusions in the abo/e -ecision

7ere reache. in consultation before the case 7as assine. to the 7riter of the opinion of the Court,

REYNATO S. PUNO

Chief +ustice











Carino v. Insular Government

212 U.S. 449 (1909)U.S. Supreme CourtCarino v. Insular Government, 212 U.S. 449 (199!Carino v. Insular Government o" t#e $#ilippine Islan%s&o. '2r)ue% *anuary 1+, 199Dei%e% -eruary 2+, 199212 U.S. 449

ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS

Syllabus

;rit of error is the general, and appeal the e$ceptional, method of bringing )ases to this )ourt. The latter method is in the main conned to e4uity cases, and the former is proper to bring up a %udgment of the =upreme )ourt of the 5hilippine -slands a"rming a %udgment of the )ourt ofDand *egistration dismissing an application for registration of land.Although a province may be e$cepted from the operation of Act 0o. '2H of ('/@ of the 5hilippine)ommission which provides for the registration and perfecting of new titles, one who actuallyowns property in such province is entitled to registration under Act 0o. 'H of ('/2, which

applies to the whole archipelago.;hile, in legal theory and as against foreign nations, sovereignty is absolute, practically it is a4uestion of strength and of varying degree, and it is for a new sovereign to decide how far it willinsist upon theoretical relations of the sub%ect to the former sovereign and how far it willrecogni:e actual facts.

Page 212 U. S. 450

The ac4uisition of the 5hilippines was not for the purpose of ac4uiring the lands occupied by theinhabitants, and under the ?rganic Act of &uly (, ('/2, c. (@H', @2 =tat. H'(, providing thatproperty rights are to be administered for the benet of the inhabitants, one who actually ownedland for many years cannot be deprived of it for failure to comply with certain ceremonies

prescribed either by the acts of the 5hilippine )ommission or by =panish law. The ?rganic Act of the 5hilippines made a bill of rights embodying safeguards of the )onstitution,and, li#e the )onstitution, e$tends those safeguards to all.7very presumption of ownership is in favor of one actually occupying land for many years, andagainst the government which see#s to deprive him of it, for failure to comply with provisions ofa subse4uently enacted registration act.

Title by prescription against the crown e$isted under =panish law in force in the 5hilippine -slandsprior to their ac4uisition by the Enited =tates, and one occupying land in the 5rovince of !enguetfor more than fty years before the Treaty of 5aris is entitled to the continued possession thereof.G 5hil. (@2 reversed.

The facts are stated in the opinion.

Page 212 U. S. 455

M*. &E=T-)7 I?DM7= delivered the opinion of the )ourt. This was an application to the 5hilippine )ourt of Dand *egistration for the registration of certainland. The application was granted by the court on March , ('/. An appeal was ta#en to the)ourt of Cirst -nstance of the 5rovince of !enguet on behalf of the government of the 5hilippines,and also on behalf of the Enited =tates, those governments having ta#en possession of theproperty for public and military purposes. The )ourt of Cirst -nstance found the facts anddismissed the application upon grounds of law. This %udgment was a"rmed by the supremecourt, G 5hil. (@2, and the case then was brought here by writ of error.



The material facts found are very few. The applicant and plainti in error is an -gorot of the5rovince of !enguet, where the land lies. Cor more than fty years before the Treaty of 5age 2(2 E. =. H5aris, April ((, (1'', as far bac# as the ndings go, the plainti and his ancestors had held theland as owners. Iis grandfather had lived upon it, and had maintained fences su"cient for theholding of cattle, according to the custom of the country, some of the fences, it seems, havingbeen of much earlier date. Iis father had cultivated parts and had used parts for pasturingcattle, and he had used it for pasture in his turn. They all had been recogni:ed as owners by the-gorots, and he had inherited or received the land from his father in accordance with -gorotcustom. 0o document of title, however, had issued from the =panish )rown, and although, in

(1'@3(1' and again in (1'H3(1'G, he made application for one under the royal decrees then inforce, nothing seems to have come of it, unless, perhaps, information that lands in !enguet couldnot be conceded until those to be occupied for a sanatorium, etc., had been designated 33 apurpose that has been carried out by the 5hilippine government and the Enited =tates. -n ('/(,the plainti led a petition, alleging ownership, under the mortgage law, and the lands wereregistered to him, that process, however, establishing only a possessory title, it is said.!efore we deal with the merits, we must dispose of a technical point. The government has spentsome energy in maintaining that this case should have been brought up by appeal, and not bywrit of error. ;e are of opinion, however, that the mode adopted was right. The proceeding forregistration is li#ened to bills in e4uity to 4uiet title, but it is dierent in principle. -t is aproceeding in re, under a statute of the type of the Torrens Act, such as was discussed in 'ylerv Court of egistration+ (G Mass. G(. -t is nearer to law than to e4uity, and is an assertion of

legal titleK but we thin# it unnecessary to put it into either pigeon hole. A writ of error is thegeneral method of bringing cases to this )ourt, an appeal the e$ception, conned to e4uity in themain. There is no reason for not applying the general rule to this case. Or,s)y v We))+ (@ E.=. G, (@ E. =. HK Ca,p)ell v #orter+ (H2 E. =. G1K %etropolitan Co v District ofColu,)ia+ (' E. =. @22.5age 2(2 E. =. GAnother preliminary matter may as well be disposed of here. -t is suggested that, even if theapplicant have title, he cannot have it registered, because the 5hilippine )ommissionPs Act 0o.'2H, of ('/@, e$cepts the 5rovince of !enguet among others from its operation. !ut that actdeals with the ac4uisition of new titles by homestead entries, purchase, etc., and the perfectingof titles begun under the =panish law. The applicantPs claim is that he now owns the land, and isentitled to registration under the 5hilippine )ommissionPs Act 0o. 'H, of ('/2, which established

a court for that purpose with %urisdiction Qthroughout the 5hilippine Archipelago,Q R 2, andauthori:ed in general terms applications to be made by persons claiming to own the legal estatein fee simple, as the applicant does. Ie is entitled to registration if his claim of ownership can bemaintained.;e come, then, to the 4uestion on which the case was decided below 33 namely, whether theplainti owns the land. The position of the government, shortly stated, is that =pain assumed,asserted, and had title to all the land in the 5hilippines e$cept so far as it saw t to permitprivate titles to be ac4uiredK that there was no prescription against the )rown, and that, if therewas, a decree of &une 2, (11/, re4uired registration within a limited time to ma#e the title goodKthat the plaintiPs land was not registered, and therefore became, if it was not always, publiclandK that the Enited =tates succeeded to the title of =pain, and so that the plainti has no rightsthat the 5hilippine government is bound to respect.

-f we suppose for the moment that the governmentPs contention is so far correct that the )rownof =pain in form asserted a title to this land at the date of the Treaty of 5aris, to which the Enited=tates succeeded, it is not to be assumed without argument that the plaintiPs case is at an end.-t is true that =pain, in its earlier decrees, embodied the universal feudal theory that all landswere held from the )rown, and perhaps the general attitude of con4uering nations toward peoplenot recogni:ed as entitled to the treatment accorded to those5age 2(2 E. =. 1in the same :one of civili:ation with themselves. -t is true also that, in legal theory, sovereignty isabsolute, and that, as against foreign nations, the Enited =tates may assert, as =pain asserted,absolute power. !ut it does not follow that, as against the inhabitants of the 5hilippines, theEnited =tates asserts that =pain had such power. ;hen theory is left on one side, sovereignty isa 4uestion of strength, and may vary in degree. Iow far a new sovereign shall insist upon the

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/134/47/case.html


https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/134/47/case.html#65





https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/134/47/case.html#65





theoretical relation of the sub%ects to the head in the past, and how far it shall recogni:e actualfacts, are matters for it to decide.

The 5rovince of !enguet was inhabited by a tribe that the =olicitor Feneral, in his argument,characteri:ed as a savage tribe that never was brought under the civil or military government ofthe =panish )rown. -t seems probable, if not certain, that the =panish o"cials would not havegranted to anyone in that province the registration to which formerly the plainti was entitled bythe =panish laws, and which would have made his title beyond 4uestion good. ;hatever mayhave been the technical position of =pain, it does not follow that, in the view of the Enited=tates, he had lost all rights and was a mere trespasser when the present government sei:ed hisland. The argument to that eect seems to amount to a denial of native titles throughout an

important part of the island of Du:on, at least, for the want of ceremonies which the =paniardswould not have permitted and had not the power to enforce.

The ac4uisition of the 5hilippines was not li#e the settlement of the white race in the Enited=tates. ;hatever consideration may have been shown to the 0orth American -ndians, thedominant purpose of the whites in America was to occupy the land. -t is obvious that, howeverstated, the reason for our ta#ing over the 5hilippines was dierent. 0o one, we suppose, woulddeny that, so far as consistent with paramount necessities, our rst ob%ect in the internaladministration of the islands is to do %ustice to the natives, not to e$ploit their country for privategain. !y the ?rganic Act of &uly (, ('/2, c. (@H', R (2, @2 =tat. H'(, all the property and rightsac4uired there by the5age 2(2 E. =. 'Enited =tates are to be administered Qfor the benet of the inhabitants thereof.Q -t is reasonable

to suppose that the attitude thus assumed by the Enited =tates with regard to what wasun4uestionably its own is also its attitude in deciding what it will claim for its own. The samestatute made a bill of rights, embodying the safeguards of the )onstitution, and, li#e the)onstitution, e$tends those safeguards to all. -t provides thatQno law shall be enacted in said islands which shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or propertywithout due process of law, or deny to any person therein the e4ual protection of the laws.QR . -n the light of the declaration that we have 4uoted from R (2, it is hard to believe that theEnited =tates was ready to declare in the ne$t breath that Qany personQ did not embrace theinhabitants of !enguet, or that it meant by QpropertyQ only that which had become such byceremonies of which presumably a large part of the inhabitants never had heard, and that itproposed to treat as public land what they, by native custom and by long association 33 one ofthe profoundest factors in human thought 33 regarded as their own.

-t is true that, by R (, the government of the 5hilippines is empowered to enact rules andprescribe terms for perfecting titles to public lands where some, but not all, =panish conditionshad been fullled, and to issue patents to natives for not more than si$teen hectares of publiclands actually occupied by the native or his ancestors before August (@, (1'1. !ut this sectionperhaps might be satised if conned to cases where the occupation was of land admitted to bepublic land, and had not continued for such a length of time and under such circumstances as togive rise to the understanding that the occupants were owners at that date. ;e hesitate tosuppose that it was intended to declare every native who had not a paper title a trespasser, andto set the claims of all the wilder tribes aLoat. -t is true again that there is e$cepted from theprovision that we have 4uoted as to the administration of the property and rights ac4uired by theEnited =tates such land and property as shall be designated by the 5resident for military or otherreservations,

5age 2(2 E. =. H/as this land since has been. !ut there still remains the 4uestion what property and rights theEnited =tates asserted itself to have ac4uired.;hatever the law upon these points may be, and we mean to go no further than the necessitiesof decision demand, every presumption is and ought to be against the government in a case li#ethe present. -t might, perhaps, be proper and su"cient to say that when, as far bac# astestimony or memory goes, the land has been held by individuals under a claim of privateownership, it will be presumed to have been held in the same way from before the =panishcon4uest, and never to have been public land. )ertainly, in a case li#e this, if there is doubt orambiguity in the =panish law, we ought to give the applicant the benet of the doubt. ;hether

%ustice to the natives and the import of the organic act ought not to carry us beyond a subtlee$amination of ancient te$ts, or perhaps even beyond the attitude of =panish law, humane



though it was, it is unnecessary to decide. -f, in a tacit way, it was assumed that the wild tribes ofthe 5hilippines were to be dealt with as the power and inclination of the con4ueror might dictate,)ongress has not yet sanctioned the same course as the proper one Qfor the benet of theinhabitants thereof.Q-f the applicantPs case is to be tried by the law of =pain, we do not discover such clear proof thatit was bad by that law as to satisfy us that he does not own the land. To begin with, the olderdecrees and laws cited by the counsel for the plainti in error seem to indicate pretty clearly thatthe natives were recogni:ed as owning some lands, irrespective of any royal grant. -n otherwords, =pain did not assume to convert all the native inhabitants of the 5hilippines intotrespassers, or even into tenants at will. Cor instance, !oo# , Title (2, Daw ( of the

*ecopilacion de Deyes de las -ndias, cited for a contrary conclusion in .alenton v %urciano+ @5hil. @G, while it commands viceroys and others, when it seems proper, to call for the e$hibitionof grants, directs them to conrm those who hold by good grants or /usta prescripcion -t is truethat it5age 2(2 E. =. H(begins by the characteristic assertion of feudal overlordship and the origin of all titles in the Singor his predecessors. That was theory and discourse. The fact was that titles were admitted toe$ist that owed nothing to the powers of =pain beyond this recognition in their boo#s.5rescription is mentioned again in the royal cedula of ?ctober (, (G, cited in @ 5hil. H8Q;here such possessors shall not be able to produce title deeds, it shall be su"cient if they shallshow that ancient possession, as a valid title by prescription.Q-t may be that this means possession from before (G//K but, at all events, the principle is

admitted. As prescription, even against )rown lands, was recogni:ed by the laws of =pain, wesee no su"cient reason for hesitating to admit that it was recogni:ed in the 5hilippines in regardto lands over which =pain had only a paper sovereignty.

The 4uestion comes, however, on the decree of &une 2, (11/, for the ad%ustment of royal landswrongfully occupied by private individuals in the 5hilippine -slands. This begins with the usualtheoretic assertion that, for private ownership, there must have been a grant by competentauthorityK but instantly descends to fact by providing that, for all legal eects, those who havebeen in possession for certain times shall be deemed owners. Cor cultivated land, twenty years,uninterrupted, is enough. Cor uncultivated, thirty. Art. . =o that, when this decree went intoeect, the applicantPs father was owner of the land by the very terms of the decree. !ut, it issaid, the ob%ect of this law was to re4uire the ad%ustment or registration proceedings that itdescribed, and in that way to re4uire everyone to get a document of title or lose his land. That

purpose may have been entertained, but it does not appear clearly to have been applicable toall. The regulations purport to have been made Qfor the ad%ustment of royal lands wrongfullyoccupied by private individuals.Q +;e follow the translation in the governmentPs brief. -t does notappear that this land ever was royal land or wrongfully occupied. -n Article H, it is provided thatQinterested parties not included within the two preceding5age 2(2 E. =. H2articles [the articles recogni:ing prescription of twenty and thirty years may legali:e theirpossession, and thereby ac4uire the full ownership of the said lands, by means of ad%ustmentproceedings, to be conducted in the following manner.Q

This seems, by its very terms, not to apply to those declared already to be owners by lapse oftime. Article 1 provides for the case of parties not as#ing an ad%ustment of the lands of whichthey are unlawfully en%oying the possession, within one year, and threatens that the treasury

Qwill reassert the ownership of the state over the lands,Q and will sell at auction such part as itdoes not reserve. The applicantPs possession was not unlawful, and no attempt at any suchproceedings against him or his father ever was made. Cinally, it should be noted that the naturalconstruction of the decree is conrmed by the report of the council of state. That report putsforward as a reason for the regulations that, in view of the condition of almost all property in the5hilippines, it is important to $ its status by general rules on the principle that the lapse of a$ed period legali:es completely all possession, recommends in two articles twenty and thirtyyears, as adopted in the decree, and then suggests that interested parties not included in thosearticles may legali:e their possession and ac4uire ownership by ad%ustment at a certain price.-t is true that the language of Articles and attributes title to those Qwho may proveQpossession for the necessary time, and we do not overloo# the argument that this means mayprove in registration proceedings. -t may be that an 7nglish conveyancer would have



recommended an application under the foregoing decree, but certainly it was not calculated toconvey to the mind of an -gorot chief the notion that ancient family possessions were in danger,if he had read every word of it. The words Qmay proveQ +acrediten, as well, or better, in view ofthe other provisions, might be ta#en to mean when called upon to do so in any litigation. Thereare indications that registration was e$pected from all, but none su"cient to show that, for wantof it, ownership actually gained would be lost.5age 2(2 E. =. H@

The eect of the proof, wherever made, was not to confer title, but simply to establish it, asalready conferred by the decree, if not by earlier law. The royal decree of Cebruary (@, (1',declaring forfeited titles that were capable of ad%ustment under the decree of (11/, for which

ad%ustment had not been sought, should not be construed as a conscation, but as thewithdrawal of a privilege. As a matter of fact, the applicant never was disturbed. This samedecree is 4uoted by the )ourt of Dand *egistration for another recognition of the common lawprescription of thirty years as still running against alienable )rown land.-t will be perceived that the rights of the applicant under the =panish law present a problem notwithout di"culties for courts of a dierent legal tradition. ;e have deemed it proper on thataccount to notice the possible eect of the change of sovereignty and the act of )ongressestablishing the fundamental principles now to be observed. Epon a consideration of the wholecase, we are of opinion that law and %ustice re4uire that the applicant should be granted what hesee#s, and should not be deprived of what, by the practice and belief of those among whom helived, was his property, through a rened interpretation of an almost forgotten law of =pain.

Judg,ent reversed Dislaimer/ ?"cial =upreme )ourt case law is only found in the print

version of the Enited =tates *eports. &ustia case law is provided for general informationalpurposes only, and may not reLect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. ;e ma#eno warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or ade4uacy of the informationcontained on this site or information lin#ed to from this site. 5lease chec# o"cial sources.

EN BANC

G.R. No. 135385 December 6, 2000

ISAGANI CRUZ and CESAR EUROA, petitioners, vs.SECRE!AR" O# EN$IRON%EN! AND NA!URA& RESOURCES, SECRE!AR" O# 'UDGE! AND

%ANAGE%EN! and C(AIR%AN and CO%%ISSIONERS O# !(E NA!IONA& CO%%ISSION ON INDIGENOUSEO&ES, respondents.(ON. )UAN % .#&A$IER, (ON. ONCIANO 'ENNAGEN, 'A"ANI ASCARRAGA, ED!A%I %ANSA"ANGAN,'ASI&IO *ANDAG, E$E&"N DUNUAN, "AO% !UGAS, A&#RE%O CARIANO, &I'ERA!O A. GA'IN,%A!ERNIDAD %. CO&AS, NARCISA %. DA&UINES, 'AI +IRA%CONNIE SA!URNO, 'AE %&O%O'EA!RIZ!. A'ASA&A, DA!U 'A&I!UNG!UNGAN!ONIO D. &U%ANDONG, DA!U %AN!U%U+A* !EO#IS!OSA'ASA&ES, DA!U EDUAARDO 'ANDA, DA!U )OE& UNAD, DA!U RA%ON 'A"AAN, !I%UA" )OSE ANO",!I%UA" %ACARIO D. SA&ACAO, !I%UA" ED*IN '. ENDING, DA!U SA(A%ONG %A&ANA* $I, DA!U 'ENENDAO CA'IGON, 'AI NANANA"&IZA SA*A", 'A" INA" DA"A%E&INDA S. RE"%UNDO, 'AI!INANG(AGA (E&INI!A !. ANGAN, DA!U %A+AU+A* ADO&INO &. SA*A", DA!U %AUDA"A*CRISENSA*A", $IC+" %A+A", &OURDES D. A%OS, GI&'ER! . (OGGANG, !ERESA GASAR, %ANUE& S.ONA&AN, %IA GRACE &. GIRON, ROSE%ARIE G. E, 'ENI!O CARINO, )OSE( )UDE CARAN!ES,&"NE!!E CARAN!ES$I$A&, &ANG&E" SEGUNDO, SA!UR S. 'UGNA", CAR&ING DO%U&O!, ANDRES%ENDIOGRIN, &EOO&DO A'UGAN, $IRGI&IO CA"E!ANO, CONC(I!A G. DESCAGA, &E$" ES!E$ES,ODE!!E G. ES!E$EZ, RODO&#O C. AGUI&AR, %AURO $A&ONES, EE (. A!ONG, O#E&IA !. DA$I,ER#EC!O '. GUINOSAO, *A&!ER N. !I%O&, %ANUE& !. SE&EN, OSCAR DA&UN(A", RICO O. SU&A!AN,RA##" %A&INDA, A&#REDO A'I&&ANOS, )ESSIE ANDI&A', %IR&ANDO (. %ANG+U&IN!AS, SA%IESA!URNO, RO%EO A. &INDA(A", ROE& S. %ANSANGCAGAN, A-UI!O S. &IESES, #I&IE G. SA*A",(ER%INIA S. SA*A", )U&IUS S. SA*A", &EONARDA SA*A", )I%%" UG"U', SA&$ADOR !IONGSON,$ENANCIO AANG, %ADION %A&ID, SU+I% %A&ID, NENENG %A&ID, %ANG+A!ADONG AUGUS!O DIANO,)OSE(INE %. A&'ESO, %ORENO %A&ID, %ARIO %ANGCA&, #E&A" DIA%I&ING, SA&O%E . SARZA,#E&IE . 'AGON, SA%%" SA&NUNGAN, AN!ONIO D. E%'A, NOR%A %AANSAGONOS, RO%EO SA&IGA,SR., )ERSON . GERADA, RENA!O !. 'AGON, )R., SARING %ASA&ONG, SO&EDAD %. GERARDA,E&IZA'E!( &. %ENDI, %ORAN!E S. !I*AN, DANI&O %. %A&UDAO, %INORS %ARICE& %A&ID, rere/enedb er aer CORNE&IO %A&ID, %ARCE&INO %. &ADRA, rere/ened b er aer %ONICO D. &ADRA,



)ENN"&"N %A&ID, rere/ened b er aer !ON" %A&ID, ARIE& %. E$ANGE&IS!A, rere/ened b ermoer &INA" 'A&'UENA, ED*ARD %. E%U", SR., SUSAN 'O&ANIO, OND, U&A 'A!O '4&AAN !RI'A&#AR%ER4S ASSOCIA!ION, IN!EREO&E4S EC(ANGE, INC. and GREEN #ORU%*ES!ERN$ISA"AS, intervenors.CO%%ISSION ON (U%AN RIG(!S, intervenor.

I+A&A(AN INDIGENOUS EO&E and (ARI'ON #OUNDA!ION #OR !(E CONSER$A!ION O# NA!URA&RESOURCES, INC., intervenor.

R E S O L U T I O N

PER CURIAM:

Petitioners Isagani Cruz and Cesar Europa brought this suit or prohibition and !anda!us as "itizens andta#pa$ers% assai&ing the "onstitutiona&it$ o "ertain provisions o Repub&i" A"t No. '()* +R.A. '()*,% other-ise no-nas the Indigenous Peop&es Rights A"t o *//) +IPRA,% and its I!p&e!enting Ru&es and Regu&ations +I!p&e!entingRu&es,.

In its reso&ution o Septe!ber 0/% *//'% the Court re1uired respondents to "o!!ent.* In "o!p&ian"e% respondentsChairperson and Co!!issioners o the Nationa& Co!!ission on Indigenous Peop&es +NCIP,% the govern!entagen"$ "reated under the IPRA to i!p&e!ent its provisions% i&ed on O"tober *(% *//' their Co!!ent to the Petition%in -hi"h the$ deend the "onstitutiona&it$ o the IPRA and pra$ that the petition be dis!issed or &a" o !erit.

On O"tober */% *//'% respondents Se"retar$ o the 2epart!ent o Environ!ent and Natura& Resour"es +2ENR,and Se"retar$ o the 2epart!ent o Budget and 3anage!ent +2B3, i&ed through the So&i"itor 4enera& a"onso&idated Co!!ent. The So&i"itor 4enera& is o the vie- that the IPRA is part&$ un"onstitutiona& on the groundthat it grants o-nership over natura& resour"es to indigenous peop&es and pra$s that the petition be granted in part.

On Nove!ber *5% *//'% a group o intervenors% "o!posed o Sen. 6uan 7&avier% one o the authors o the IPRA% 3r.Pon"iano Bennagen% a !e!ber o the */'8 Constitutiona& Co!!ission% and the &eaders and !e!bers o **0groups o indigenous peop&es +7&avier% et. a&,% i&ed their 3otion or Leave to Intervene. The$ 9oin the NCIP indeending the "onstitutiona&it$ o IPRA and pra$ing or the dis!issa& o the petition.

On 3ar"h 00% *///% the Co!!ission on :u!an Rights +C:R, &ie-ise i&ed a 3otion to Intervene and;or to Appearas A!i"us Curiae. The C:R asserts that IPRA is an e#pression o the prin"ip&e o parens patriae and that the Statehas the responsibi&it$ to prote"t and guarantee the rights o those -ho are at a serious disadvantage &ie indigenous

peop&es. 7or this reason it pra$s that the petition be dis!issed.

On 3ar"h 0(% *///% another group% "o!posed o the Ia&ahan Indigenous Peop&e and the :aribon 7oundation orthe Conservation o Natura& Resour"es% In". +:aribon% et a&.,% i&ed a !otion to Intervene -ith atta"hed Co!!ent<in<Intervention. The$ agree -ith the NCIP and 7&avier% et a&. that IPRA is "onsistent -ith the Constitution and pra$ thatthe petition or prohibition and !anda!us be dis!issed.

The !otions or intervention o the aoresaid groups and organizations -ere granted.

Ora& argu!ents -ere heard on Apri& *(% *///. Thereater% the parties and intervenors i&ed their respe"tive!e!oranda in -hi"h the$ reiterate the argu!ents addu"ed in their ear&ier p&eadings and during the hearing.

Petitioners assai& the "onstitutiona&it$ o the o&&o-ing provisions o the IPRA and its I!p&e!enting Ru&es on theground that the$ a!ount to an un&a-u& deprivation o the State=s o-nership over &ands o the pub&i" do!ain as -e&&as !inera&s and other natura& resour"es therein% in vio&ation o the rega&ian do"trine e!bodied in Se"tion 0% Arti"&e>II o the Constitution?

@+*, Se"tion (+a, -hi"h deines the e#tent and "overage o an"estra& do!ains% and Se"tion (+b, -hi"h% in turn%deines an"estra& &ands

@+0, Se"tion % in re&ation to se"tion (+a,% -hi"h provides that an"estra& do!ains in"&uding ina&ienab&e pub&i" &ands%bodies o -ater% !inera& and other resour"es ound -ithin an"estra& do!ains are private but "o!!unit$ propert$ othe indigenous peop&es

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/dec2000/gr_135385_2000.html#fnt1





@+(, Se"tion 8 in re&ation to se"tion (+a, and (+b, -hi"h deines the "o!position o an"estra& do!ains and an"estra&&ands

@+, Se"tion ) -hi"h re"ognizes and enu!erates the rights o the indigenous peop&es over the an"estra& do!ains

+, Se"tion ' -hi"h re"ognizes and enu!erates the rights o the indigenous peop&es over the an"estra& &ands

@+8, Se"tion ) -hi"h provides or priorit$ rights o the indigenous peop&es in the harvesting% e#tra"tion% deve&op!entor e#p&oration o !inera&s and other natura& resour"es -ithin the areas "&ai!ed to be their an"estra& do!ains% andthe right to enter into agree!ents -ith nonindigenous peop&es or the deve&op!ent and uti&ization o natura&

resour"es therein or a period not e#"eeding 0 $ears% rene-ab&e or not !ore than 0 $ears and

@+), Se"tion ' -hi"h gives the indigenous peop&es the responsibi&it$ to !aintain% deve&op% prote"t and "onserve thean"estra& do!ains and portions thereo -hi"h are ound to be ne"essar$ or "riti"a& -atersheds% !angroves% -i&d&iesan"tuaries% -i&derness% prote"ted areas% orest "over or reorestation.@0

Petitioners a&so "ontent that% b$ providing or an a&&<en"o!passing deinition o @an"estra& do!ains@ and @an"estra&&ands@ -hi"h !ight even in"&ude private &ands ound -ithin said areas% Se"tions (+a, and (+b, vio&ate the rights oprivate &ando-ners.(

In addition% petitioners 1uestion the provisions o the IPRA deining the po-ers and 9urisdi"tion o the NCIP and!aing "usto!ar$ &a- app&i"ab&e to the sett&e!ent o disputes invo&ving an"estra& do!ains and an"estra& &ands on

the ground that these provisions vio&ate the due pro"ess "&ause o the Constitution.

These provisions are?

@+*, se"tions * to ( and / -hi"h detai& the pro"ess o de&ineation and re"ognition o an"estra& do!ainsand -hi"h vest on the NCIP the so&e authorit$ to de&ineate an"estra& do!ains and an"estra& &ands

@+0, Se"tion 0Di -hi"h provides that upon "ertii"ation b$ the NCIP that a parti"u&ar area is an an"estra&do!ain and upon notii"ation to the o&&o-ing oi"ia&s% na!e&$% the Se"retar$ o Environ!ent and Natura&Resour"es% Se"retar$ o Interior and Lo"a& 4overn!ents% Se"retar$ o 6usti"e and Co!!issioner o theNationa& 2eve&op!ent Corporation% the 9urisdi"tion o said oi"ia&s over said area ter!inates

@+(, Se"tion 8( -hi"h provides the "usto!ar$ &a-% traditions and pra"ti"es o indigenous peop&es sha&& beapp&ied irst -ith respe"t to propert$ rights% "&ai!s o o-nership% hereditar$ su""ession and sett&e!ent o&and disputes% and that an$ doubt or a!biguit$ in the interpretation thereo sha&& be reso&ved in avor o theindigenous peop&es

@+, Se"tion 8 -hi"h states that "usto!ar$ &a-s and pra"ti"es sha&& be used to reso&ve disputes invo&vingindigenous peop&es and

@+, Se"tion 88 -hi"h vests on the NCIP the 9urisdi"tion over a&& "&ai!s and disputes invo&ving rights o theindigenous peop&es.@

7ina&&$% petitioners assai& the va&idit$ o Ru&e FII% Part II% Se"tion * o the NCIP Ad!inistrative Order No. *% series o

*//'% -hi"h provides that @the ad!inistrative re&ationship o the NCIP to the Oi"e o the President is "hara"terizedas a &atera& but autono!ous re&ationship or purposes o po&i"$ and progra! "oordination.@ The$ "ontend that saidRu&e inringes upon the President=s po-er o "ontro& over e#e"utive depart!ents under Se"tion *)% Arti"&e FII o theConstitution.8

Petitioners pra$ or the o&&o-ing?

@+*, A de"&aration that Se"tions (% % 8% )% '% 0DI% )% '% /% 8(% 8 and 88 and other re&ated provisions oR.A. '()* are un"onstitutiona& and inva&id

@+0, The issuan"e o a -rit o prohibition dire"ting the Chairperson and Co!!issioners o the NCIP to "easeand desist ro! i!p&e!enting the assai&ed provisions o R.A. '()* and its I!p&e!enting Ru&es













@+(, The issuan"e o a -rit o prohibition dire"ting the Se"retar$ o the 2epart!ent o Environ!ent andNatura& Resour"es to "ease and desist ro! i!p&e!enting 2epart!ent o Environ!ent and Natura&Resour"es Cir"u&ar No. 0% series o *//'

@+, The issuan"e o a -rit o prohibition dire"ting the Se"retar$ o Budget and 3anage!ent to "ease anddesist ro! disbursing pub&i" unds or the i!p&e!entation o the assai&ed provisions o R.A. '()* and

@+, The issuan"e o a -rit o !anda!us "o!!anding the Se"retar$ o Environ!ent and Natura& Resour"esto "o!p&$ -ith his dut$ o "arr$ing out the State=s "onstitutiona& !andate to "ontro& and supervise thee#p&oration% deve&op!ent% uti&ization and "onservation o Phi&ippine natura& resour"es.@)

Ater due de&iberation on the petition% the !e!bers o the Court voted as o&&o-s?

Seven +), voted to dis!iss the petition. 6usti"e Gapunan i&ed an opinion% -hi"h the Chie 6usti"e and 6usti"esBe&&osi&&o% Huisu!bing% and Santiago 9oin% sustaining the va&idit$ o the "ha&&enged provisions o R.A. '()*. 6usti"ePuno a&so i&ed a separate opinion sustaining a&& "ha&&enged provisions o the &a- -ith the e#"eption o Se"tion *%Part II% Ru&e III o NCIP Ad!inistrative Order No. *% series o *//'% the Ru&es and Regu&ations I!p&e!enting theIPRA% and Se"tion ) o the IPRA -hi"h he "ontends shou&d be interpreted as dea&ing -ith the &arge<s"a&ee#p&oitation o natura& resour"es and shou&d be read in "on9un"tion -ith Se"tion 0% Arti"&e >II o the */')Constitution. On the other hand% 6usti"e 3endoza voted to dis!iss the petition so&e&$ on the ground that it does notraise a 9usti"iab&e "ontrovers$ and petitioners do not have standing to 1uestion the "onstitutiona&it$ o R.A. '()*.

Seven +), other !e!bers o the Court voted to grant the petition. 6usti"e Panganiban i&ed a separate opinione#pressing the vie- that Se"tions ( +a,+b,% % 8% ) +a,+b,% '% and re&ated provisions o R.A. '()* are un"onstitutiona&.:e reserves 9udg!ent on the "onstitutiona&it$ o Se"tions '% /% 8% and 88 o the &a-% -hi"h he be&ieves !usta-ait the i&ing o spe"ii" "ases b$ those -hose rights !a$ have been vio&ated b$ the IPRA. 6usti"e Fitug a&so i&eda separate opinion e#pressing the vie- that Se"tions (+a,% )% and ) o R.A. '()* are un"onstitutiona&. 6usti"es3e&o% Pardo% Buena% 4onzaga<Re$es% and 2e Leon 9oin in the separate opinions o 6usti"es Panganiban and Fitug.

As the votes -ere e1ua&&$ divided +) to ), and the ne"essar$ !a9orit$ -as not obtained% the "ase -as rede&iberatedupon. :o-ever% ater rede&iberation% the voting re!ained the sa!e. A""ording&$% pursuant to Ru&e 8% Se"tion ) othe Ru&es o Civi& Pro"edure% the petition is 2IS3ISSE2.

Atta"hed hereto and !ade integra& parts thereo are the separate opinions o 6usti"es Puno% Fitug% Gapunan%3endoza% and Panganiban. SO OR2ERE2.



natres cases

Documents