Envi Law Cases and Special Laws Part 2

ENVIRONMENTAL LAW (Atty.
Jeffrey Jefferson Coronel) 1

EXAM COVERAGE CASES and SPECIAL LAWS
NUCLEAR FREE PHILIPPINE COALITION v. NPC
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-68474
February 11, 1986
NUCLEAR FREE PHILIPPINE COALITION, ET

AL., petitioners,
vs.
NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION, ET
AL., respondents.
G.R. No. 70632
February 11, 1986
would vitiate the appointment, competence is a matter

of judgment that is addressed solely to the appointing
power.
2. As regards the legal sufficiency of the NPC motion
for conversion, petitioners contend that the
deficiencies they have indicated are jurisdictional
infirmities which cannot be cured. The Court believes
however that said deficiencies may be remedied and
supplied in the course of the hearing before PAEC. For
this purpose, respondent-applicant NPC may submit
pertinent testimonies and documents when the PAEC
hearing is re-opened, subject to controversion and
counterproof of herein petitioners.
3. There is merit in the charge of bias and
prejudgment. The PAEC pamphlets- particularly
Annexes "JJ", "KK" and "LL" of the petition (G.R.
70632)-clearly indicate the pre-judgment that PNPP-1
is safe.
LORENZO M. TAADA, ET AL., petitioners,

vs.
PHILIPPINE ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION, ET
AL., respondents.
RESOLUTION
PLANA, J.:
I. In G.R. No. 70632, (1) petitioners question
the competence of respondent PAEC Commissioners
to pass judgment on the safety of the Philippine
Nuclear Power Plant-1 PNPP-1 in PAEC Licensing
Proceedings No. 1-77 without however seeking their
ouster from office, although "proven competence" is
one of the qualifications prescribed by law for PAEC
Commissioners. (2) Petitioners also assail the validity
of the motion (application) filed by the National Power
Corporation (NPC) for the conversion of its
construction permit into an operating license for PNPP1 on the principal ground that it contained no
information regarding the financial qualifications of
NPC, its source of nuclear fuel, and insurance
coverage for nuclear damage. (3) Petitioners finally
charge respondent PAEC Commissioners with bias
and prejudgment.
1. The first issue must be resolved against the
petitioners. Where the validity of an appointment is not
challenged in an appropriate proceeding, the question
of competence is not within the field of judicial inquiry.
If not considered a qualification the absence of which
Exhibit "JJ" is an official PAEC 1985 pamphlet entitled

"The Philippine Nuclear Power Plant-l." It gives an
overview specifically of PNPP-1, lauds the safety of
nuclear power, and concludes with a statement of the
benefits to be derived when the PNPP-1 start
operation.
. . .When the PNPP-1 starts operating, it will generate
a power of 620 megawatts enough to supply 15
percent of the electricity needs in Luzon. This is
estimated to result in savings of US $ 160 million a
year, representing the amount of oil displaced.
Aside from being a reliable source of electricity,
nuclear power has an excellect safety record and has
been found to result in lower occupational and public
risks than fossil fired (coal or oil) stations. (p. 6.
Emphasis supplied.)
The second pamphlet (Exh. "KK") is entitled
"NUCLEAR POWER-SAFE CLEAN ECONOMICAL
AND AVAILABLE." On the surface, it merely
propagates the use of nuclear power in general. But its
numerous specific references to the PNPP-1 "which
will be operational in 1985." and its advantages give
credence to the charge that Exhibit "KK" was in reality
designed to project PNPP-1 as safe, among other
When Exhibit "KK" was published, PNPP-1 was the
only nuclear plant under construction in the
Philippines. It is the Philippine nuclear plant specifically
mentioned therein that was to be operational in 1985.
Therefore, when the pamphlet states that nuclear
power is working now in other countries and "it should
ENVIRONMENTAL LAW (Atty. Jeffrey Jefferson Coronel) 2

work for us too" because it is "safe" and economical", it
is logical to conclude that the reference is to no other
than the nuclear power to be generated at the PNPP-1
Also worth quoting is the following passage in Exhibit
"KK" which sweepingly vouch safes all nuclear power
plants, including the PNPP-1:
No member of the public has ever been injured during
the last 25 years that commercial nuclear reactors
have been generating electricity. As is to be expected
in any complex system as nuclear power plants, there
have been failure of equipment and human errors.
However in every instance, the safety equipment
designed into the nuclear reactor self terminated the
accident without injury to the operators or the public.
The Three Mile Island Incident, serious as it was, did
not result in the loss of life nor did it result in the
exposure of anyone beyond permissible limits.
The designers of nuclear plants assume failure to
occur, and provide multiple safeguards protection
against every conceivable malfunction (P. 7, Emphasis
supplied.)
The third pamphlet (Exh. "LL") is entitled NUCLEAR
POWER PLANT and ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY.
Speaking specifically of the PNPP-1 it categorically
states that the Bataan nuclear plant will not adversely
affect the public or the flora or fauna in the area. One
of the stated reasons in support of the conclusion is
And environmentally, a nuclear power plant emits only
insignificant amount of radioactivity to the environment.
It does not cause chemical pollution of air or water, it
does not emit sulfur dioxide or nitrogen oxides like
plants fired by fossil fuels such as coal and oil,
Besides, even coal fired plants may emits radioactive
particles of uranium and thorium because these may
be found naturally associated with coal deposits.
Comparatively therefore, a nucelar power plant is the
cleanest and the safest environmently no other
technology in modern times has been developed with
so dominant concern for public safety as nuclear
power. (p. 8)
Respondent PAEC Commissioners cannot escape
responsibility for these official pamphlets. Exhibit "JJ"
was
published
in
1985,
when
respondent
Commissioners had already been appointed to their
present positions. Exhibits "KK" and "LL" were issued
earlier, but the majority of respondent Commissioners
even then were already occupying positions of
responsibility in the PAEC. Commissioner Manuel
Eugenio was Acting Chief of the PAEC Department on

Nuclear Technology and Engineering from June, 1980
to July, 1984; Commissioner Quirino Navarro was
PAEC Chief Science Research Specialist from May,
1980 to September, 1984-, and Commissioner
Alejandro
Ver
Albano
was
PAEC
Deputy
Commissioner from March, 1980 to September, 1984.
Additionally, the stubborn fact remains unrebutted that
Exhibits "J.J." "KK" and "LL" continued to be
distributed by PAEC as late as March, 1985. In other
words their official distribution continued after the filing
of NPC's motion for conversion on June 27, 1984 and
even after PAEC had issued its order dated February
26, 1985 formally admitting the said motion for
conversion.
At any rate, even if it be assumed that there are some
doubts regarding the conclusion that there has been a
prejudgment of the safety of PNPP-1 the doubts
should be resolved in favor of a course of action that
will assure an unquestionably objective inquiry,
considering the circumstances thereof and the number
of people vitally interested therein.
Having thus prejudged the safety of the PNPP-1
respondent PAEC Commissioners would be acting
with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of
jurisdiction were they to sit in judgment upon the safety
of the plant, absent the requisite objectivity that must
characterize such an important inquiry.
The Court therefore Resolved to RESTRAIN
respondent PAEC Commissioners from further acting
in PAEC Licensing Proceedings No. 1-77.
II. In G.R. No. 68474, acting on the motion filed therein
dated June 8, 1985 to order PAEC to reconsider its
orders of May 31 and June 5, 1985, the urgent motion
for mandatory injunction and/or restraining order dated
August 3, 1985, the second urgent motion for
mandatory injunction dated August 12, 1985, and the
various pleadings and other documents submitted by
the parties relative thereto, and considering the
paramount need of a reasonable assurance that the
operation of PNPP-1 will not pose an undue risk to the
health and safety of the people, which dictates that the
conduct of the inquiry into the safety aspects of PNPP1 be characterized by sufficient latitude, the better to
achieve the end in view, unfettered by technical rules
of evidence (Republic Act 5207, section 34), and in
keeping with the requirements of due process in
administrative proceedings, the Court Resolved to
ORDER respondent PAEC (once reconstituted) to reopen the hearing on PNPP-1 so as to give petitioners
sufficient time to complete their cross-examination of

the expert witnesses on quality assurance, to crossexamine the witnesses that petitioners have failed to
cross-examine on and after August 9, 1985, and to
complete the presentation of their evidence, for which
purpose, respondent PAEC shall issue the necessary
subpoena and subpoena duces tecum to compel the
attendance of relevant witnesses and/or the production
of relevant documents. For the said purposes, the
PAEC may prescribe a time schedule which shall
reasonably assure the parties sufficient latitude to
adequately present their case consistently with the
requirements of dispatch. lt is understood that the
PAEC may give NPC the opportunity to correct or
supply deficiencies in this application or evidence in
support thereof.
(b) Bulky wastes shall refer to waste materials which

cannot be appropriately placed in separate containers
because of either its bulky size, shape or other
physical attributes. These include large worn-out or
broken household, commercial, and industrial items
such as furniture, lamps, bookcases, filing cabinets,
and other similar items;
RA 9003
(e) Collection shall refer to the act of removing solid

waste from the source or from a communal storage
point;
REPUBLIC ACT 9003
January 26, 2001
(c) Bureau shall refer

Management Bureau;
to
the
Environmental
(d) Buy-back center shall refer to a recycling center

that purchases of otherwise accepts recyclable
materials from the public for the purpose of recycling
such materials;
AN ACT PROVIDING FOR AN ECOLOGICAL SOLID

WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM, CREATING
THE NECESSARY INSTITUTIONAL MECHANISMS
AND INCENTIVES, DECLARING CERTAIN ACTS
PROHIBITED
AND
PROVIDING
PENALTIES,
APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR, AND FOR
OTHER PURPOSES
(f) Composting shall refer to the controlled

decomposition of organic matter by micro-organisms,
mainly bacteria and fungi, into a humus-like product;
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of

Representative of the Philippines in Congress
assembled:
(h) Controlled dump shall refer to a disposal site at

which solid waste is deposited in accordance with the
minimum prescribed standards of site operation;
CHAPTER I
BASIC POLICIES
(i) Department shall refer to the Department of

Environment and Natural Resources;
Article 1
General Provisions
(j) Disposal shall refer to the discharge, deposit,

dumping, spilling, leaking or placing of any solid waste
into or in an land;
Section 1. Short Title - This Act shall be known as the

"Ecological Solid Waste Management Act of 2000."
xxx
xxx
(g) Consumer electronics shall refer to special waste

that includes worn-out, broken, and other discarded
items such as radios, stereos, and TV sets;
(k) Disposal site shall refer to a site where solid waste

is finally discharged and deposited;
xxx
Article 2
Definition of Terms
Section 3. Definition of Terms - For the purposes of
this Act:
(a) Agricultural waste shall refer to waste generated
from planting or harvesting of crops, trimming or
pruning of plants and wastes or run-off materials from
farms or fields;
(l) Ecological solid waste management shall refer to

the systematic administration of activities which
provide for segregation at source, segregated
transportation, storage, transfer, processing, treatment,
and disposal of solid waste and all other waste
management activities which do not harm the
environment;
(m) Environmentally acceptable shall refer to the
quality of being re-usable, biodegradable or
compostable, recyclable and not toxic or hazardous to
the environment;

(n) Generation shall refer to the act or process of
producing solid waste;
(o) Generator shall refer to a person, natural or
juridical, who last uses a material and makes it
available for disposal or recycling;
(p) Hazardous waste shall refer to solid waste
management or combination of solid waste which
because of its quantity, concentration or physical,
chemical or infectious characteristics may:
(1) cause, or significantly contribute to an increase in
mortality or an increase in serious irreversible, or
incapacitating reversible, illness; or
(2) pose a substantial present or potential hazard to
human health or the environment when improperly
treated, stored, transported, or disposed of, or
otherwise managed;
(q) Leachate shall refer to the liquid produced when
waste undergo decomposition, and when water
percolate
through
solid
waste
undergoing
decomposition. It is contaminated liquid that contains
dissolved and suspended materials;
(r) Materials recovery facility - includes a solid waste
transfer station or sorting station, drop-off center, a
composting facility, and a recycling facility;
(s) Municipal waste shall refer to wastes produced
from activities within local government units which
include a combination of domestic, commercial,
institutional and industrial wastes and street litters;
(t) Open dump shall refer to a disposal area wherein
the solid wastes are indiscriminately thrown or
disposed of without due planning and consideration for
environmental and Health standards;
(u) Opportunity to recycle shall refer to the act of
providing a place for collecting source-separated
recyclable material, located either at a disposal site or
at another location more convenient to the population
being served, and collection at least once a month of
source-separated recyclable material from collection
service customers and to providing a public education
and promotion program that gives notice to each
person of the opportunity to recycle and encourage
source separation of recyclable material;
(v) Person(s) shall refer to any being, natural or

judicial, susceptible of rights and obligations, or of
being the subject of legal relations;
(w) Post-consumer material shall refer only to those
materials or products generated by a business or
consumer which have served their intended end use,
and which have been separated or diverted from solid
waste for the purpose of being collected, processed
and used as a raw material in the manufacturing of
recycled product, excluding materials and by-products
generated from, and by-products generated from, and
commonly used within an original manufacturing
process, such as mill scrap;
(x) Receptacles shall refer to individual containers
used for the source separation and the collection of
recyclable materials;
(y) Recovered material shall refer to material and by
products that have been recovered or diverted from
solid waste for the purpose of being collected,
processed and used as a raw material in the
manufacture of a recycled product;
(z) Recyclable material shall refer to any waste
material retrieved from the waste stream and free from
contamination that can still be converted into suitable
beneficial use or for other purposes, including, but not
limited to, newspaper, ferrous scrap metal, non-ferrous
scrap metal, used oil, corrugated cardboard,
aluminum, glass, office paper, tin cans and other
materials as may be determined by the Commission;
(aa) Recycled material shall refer to post-consumer
material that has been recycled and returned to the
economy;
(bb) Recycling shall refer to the treating of used or
waste materials through a process of making them
suitable for beneficial use and for other purposes, and
includes any process by which solid waste materials
are transformed into new products in such a manner
that the original product may lose their identity, and
which maybe used as raw materials for the production
of other goods or services: Provided, That the
collection, segregation and re-use of previously used
packaging material shall be deemed recycling under
this Act;
(cc) Resource conversation shall refer to the reduction
of the amount of solid waste that are generated or the
reduction of overall resource consumption, and
utilization of recovered resources;

(dd) Resources recovery shall refer to the collection,
extraction or recovery of recyclable materials from the
waste stream for the purpose of recycling, generating
energy or producing a product suitable for beneficial
use: Provided, That such resource recovery facilities
exclude incineration;
(ee) Re-use shall refer to the process of recovering
materials intended for the same or different purpose
without the alteration of physical and chemical
characteristics;
(ff) Sanitary landfill shall refer to a waste disposal site
designed, constructed, operated and maintained in a
manner that exerts engineering control over significant
potential environment impacts arising from the
development and operation of the facility;
(gg) Schedule of Compliance shall refer to an
enforceable sequence of actions or operations to be
accomplished within a stipulated time frame leading to
compliance with a limitation, prohibition or standard set
forth in this Act or any rule of regulation issued
pursuant thereto;
(hh) Secretary landfill shall refer to the Secretary of the
Department of Environment and Natural Resources;
(ii) Segregation shall refer to a solid waste
management practice of separating different materials
found in solid waste in order to promote recycling and
re-use of resources and to reduce the volume of waste
for collection and disposal;
(jj) Segregation at source shall refer to a solid waste
management practice of separating, at the point of
origin, different materials found in solid waste in order
to promote recycling and re-use of resources and to
reduce the volume of waste for collection and disposal;
(kk) Solid waste shall refer to all discarded household,
commercial waste, non-hazardous institutional and
industrial waste, street sweepings, construction debris,
agricultural waste, and other non-hazardous/non-toxic
solid waste.
Unless specifically noted otherwise, the term "solid
waste" as used in this Act shall not include:
(1) Waste identified or listed as hazardous waste of a
solid, liquid, contained gaseous or semisolid form
which may cause or contribute to an increase in
mortality or in serious or incapacitating reversible
illness, or acute/chronic effect on the health of persons
and other organisms;
(2) Infectious waste from hospitals such as equipment,

instruments, utensils, and fomites of a disposable
nature from patients who are suspected to have or
have been diagnosed as having communicable
diseases and must therefore be isolated as required by
public health agencies, laboratory wastes such as
pathological specimens (i.e. all tissues, specimens of
blood elements, excreta, and secretions obtained from
patients or laboratory animals) and disposable fomites
that may harbor or transmit pathogenic organisms, and
surgical operating room pathologic materials from
outpatient areas and emergency rooms; and
(3) Waste resulting from mining activities, including
contaminated soil and debris.
(ll) Solid waste management shall refer to the
discipline associated with the control of generation,
storage, collection, transfer and transport, processing,
and disposal of solid wastes in a manner that is in
accord with the best principles of public health,
economics, engineering, conservation, aesthetics, and
other environmental considerations, and that is also
responsive to public attitudes;
(mm) Solid waste management facility shall refer to
any resource recovery system or component thereof;
any system, program, or facility for resource
conservation; any facility for the collection, source
separation,
storage,
transportation,
transfer,
processing, treatment, or disposal of solid waste;
(nn) Source reduction shall refer to the reduction of
solid waste before it enters the solid waste stream by
methods such as product design, materials
substitution, materials re-use and packaging
restrictions;
(oo) Source separation shall refer to the sorting of solid
waste into some or all of its component parts at the
point of generation;
(pp) Special wastes shall refer to household hazardous
wastes such as paints, thinners, household batteries,
lead-acid batteries, spray canisters and the like. These
include wastes from residential and commercial
sources that comprise of bulky wastes, consumer
electronics, white goods, yard wastes that are
collected separately, batteries, oil, and tires. These
wastes are usually handled separately from other
residential and commercial wastes;
(qq) Storage shall refer to the interim containment of
solid wastes after generation and prior to collection for
ultimate recovery or disposal;

(rr) Transfer stations shall refer to those facilities
utilized to receive solid wastes, temporarily store,
separate, convert, or otherwise process the materials
in the solid wastes, or to transfer the solid wastes
directly from smaller to larger vehicles for transport.
This term does not include any of the following:
(1) a facility whose principal function is to receive,
store, separate, convert or otherwise process in
accordance with national minimum standards, manure;
(2) a facility, whose principal function is to receive,
store, convert, or otherwise process wastes which
have already been separated for re-use and are
intended for disposals, and
(3) the operations premises of a duly licensed solid
waste handling operator who is receives, stores,
transfers, or otherwise processes wastes as an activity
incidental to the conduct of a refuse collection and
disposal business.
(ss) Waste diversion shall refer to activities which
reduce or eliminate the amount of solid waste from
waste disposal facilities;
(tt) White goods shall refer to large worn-out or broken
household, commercial, and industrial appliances such
as stoves, refrigerators, dishwashers, and clothes
washers and dryers collected separately. White goods
ate usually dismantled for the recovery of specific
materials (e.g., copper, aluminum, etc.);
(uu) Yard waste shall refer to wood, small or chipped
branches, leaves, grass clippings, garden debris,
vegetable residue that is recognized as part of a plant
or vegetable and other materials identified by the
Commission.
PROVINCE OF RIZAL, MUNICIPALITY OF SAN

MATEO, PINTONG BOCAUE MULTIPURPOSE
COOPERATIVE, CONCERNED CITIZENS OF RIZAL,
INC., ROLANDO E. VILLACORTE, BERNARDO
HIDALGO, ANANIAS EBUENGA, VILMA T.
MONTAJES, FEDERICO MUNAR, JR., ROLANDO
BEAS, SR., ET AL., and KILOSBAYAN,
INC., Petitioners,
vs.
EXECUTIVE
SECRETARY,
SECRETARY
OF
ENVIRONMENT
&
NATURAL
RESOURCES,
LAGUNA LAKE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
SECRETARY OF PUBLIC WORKS & HIGHWAYS,
SECRETARY OF BUDGET & MANAGEMENT,
METRO MANILA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY and
THE
HONORABLE
COURT
OF
APPEALS, Respondents.
DECISION
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
The earth belongs in usufruct to the living. 1
At the height of the garbage crisis plaguing Metro
Manila and its environs, parts of the Marikina
Watershed Reservation were set aside by the Office of
the President, through Proclamation No. 635 dated 28
August 1995, for use as a sanitary landfill and similar
waste disposal applications. In fact, this site, extending
to more or less 18 hectares, had already been in
operation since 19 February 19902 for the solid wastes
of Quezon City, Marikina, San Juan, Mandaluyong,
Pateros, Pasig, and Taguig.3
This is a petition filed by the Province of Rizal, the
municipality of San Mateo, and various concerned
citizens for review on certiorari of the Decision of the
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 41330, denying,
for lack of cause of action, the petition for certiorari,
prohibition and mandamus with application for a
temporary restraining order/writ of preliminary
injunction assailing the legality and constitutionality of
Proclamation No. 635.
The facts are documented in painstaking detail.
PROVINCE OF RIZAL v. EXECUTIVE SEC.

SUPREME COURT
EN BANC
G.R. No. 129546
December 13, 2005
On 17 November 1988, the respondent Secretaries of

the Department of Public Works and Highways
(DPWH) and the Department of Environment and
Natural Resources (DENR) and the Governor of the
Metropolitan Manila Commission (MMC) entered into a
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA),4 which provides in
part:

1. The DENR agrees to immediately allow the
utilization by the Metropolitan Manila Commission of its
land property located at Pintong Bocaue in San Mateo,
Rizal as a sanitary landfill site, subject to whatever
restrictions that the government impact assessment
might require.
2. Upon signing of this Agreement, the DPWH shall
commence the construction/development of said
dumpsite.
...
3.5 Said Dumping Site is observed to be confined
within the said Watershed Reservation, bearing in
the northeastern part of Lungsod Silangan Townsite
Reservation. Such illegal Dumping Site operation
inside (the) Watershed Reservation is in violation
of P.D. 705, otherwise known as the Revised
Forestry Code,as amended. . .
Recommendations:
3. The MMC shall: a) take charge of the relocation of

the families within and around the site; b) oversee the
development of the areas as a sanitary landfill; c)
coordinate/monitor the construction of infrastructure
facilities by the DPWH in the said site; and d) ensure
that the necessary civil works are properly undertaken
to safeguard against any negative environmental
impact in the area.
On 7, 8 and 10 February 1989, the Sangguniang
Bayan of San Mateo wrote Gov. Elfren Cruz of the
MMC, Sec. Fiorello Estuar of the DPWH, the
Presidential Task Force on Solid Waste Management,
Executive Secretary Catalino Macaraig, and Sec.
Fulgencio Factoran, Jr., pointing out that it had recently
passed a Resolution banning the creation of dumpsites
for Metro Manila garbage within its jurisdiction, asking
that their side be heard, and that the addressees
"suspend and temporarily hold in abeyance all and any
part of your operations with respect to the San Mateo
Landfill Dumpsite." No action was taken on these
letters.
It turns out that the land subject of the MOA of 17
November 1988 and owned by the DENR was part of
the Marikina Watershed Reservation Area. Thus, on 31
May 1989, forest officers of the Forest Engineering
and Infrastructure Unit of the Community Environment
and Natural Resource Office, (CENRO) DENR-IV,
Rizal Province, submitted a Memorandum5 on the "Ongoing Dumping Site Operation of the MMC inside (the)
Upper Portion of Marikina Watershed Reservation,
located at Barangay Pintong Bocaue, San Mateo,
Rizal, and nearby localities." Said Memorandum reads
in part:
Observations:
3.1 The subject area is arable and agricultural in
nature;
3.2 Soil type and its topography are favorable for
agricultural and forestry productions;
5.1 The MMC Dumping Site Inside Marikina

Watershed Reservation, particularly at Brgy. Pintong
Bocaue, San Mateo, Rizal and at Bo. Pinugay,
Baras/Antipolo, Rizal which are the present garbage
zones must totally be stopped and discouraged
without any political intervention and delay in
order to save our healthy ecosystems found
therein, to avoid much destruction, useless efforts
and lost (sic) of millions of public funds over the
land in question; (Emphasis ours)
On 19 June 1989, the CENRO submitted another
Investigation Report6 to the Regional Executive
Director which states in part that:
1. About two (2) hectares had been excavated by
bulldozers and garbage dumping operations are going
on.
2. The dumping site is without the concurrence of the
Provincial Governor, Rizal Province and without any
permit from DENR who has functional jurisdiction over
the Watershed Reservation; and
3. About 1,192 families residing and cultivating areas
covered by four (4) Barangays surrounding the
dumping site will adversely be affected by the dumping
operations of MMC including their sources of domestic
water supply. x x x x
On 22 January 1990, the CENRO submitted still
another Investigation Report7 to the Regional
Executive Director which states that:
Findings show that the areas used as Dumping Site of
the MMC are found to be within the Marikina
Watershed which are part of the Integrated Social
Forestry Project (ISF) as per recorded inventory of
Forest Occupancy of this office.

It also appears that as per record, there was no permit
issued to the MMC to utilize these portions of land for
dumping purposes.
It is further observed that the use of the areas as
dumping site greatly affects the ecological balance and
environmental factors in this community.
On 19 February 1990, the DENR Environmental
Management Bureau, through Undersecretary for
Environment and Research Celso R. Roque, granted
the Metro Manila Authority (MMA [formerly MMC]) an
Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC) for the
operation of a two-and-a-half-hectare garbage
dumpsite.
The ECC was sought and granted to comply with the
requirement of Presidential Decree No. 1586
"Establishing an Environmental Impact Statement
System," Section 4 of which states in part that, "No
persons, partnership or corporation shall undertake or
operate any such declared environmentally critical
project or area without first securing an Environmental
Compliance Certificate." Proclamation No. 2146,
passed on 14 December 1981, designates "all areas
declared by law as national parks, watershed
reserves, wildlife preserves, and sanctuaries" as
"Environmentally Critical Areas."
On 09 March 1990, respondent Laguna Lake
Development Authority (LLDA), through its Acting
General Manager, sent a letter8 to the MMA, which
reads in part:
Through this letter we would like to convey our
reservation on the choice of the sites for solid waste
disposal inside the watershed of Laguna Lake. As you
may already know, the Metropolitan Waterworks and
Sewerage System (MWSS) has scheduled the
abstraction of water from the lake to serve the
needs of about 1.2 million residents of Muntinlupa,
Paranaque, Las Pinas and Bacoor, Cavite by
1992. Accordingly, the Laguna Lake Development
Authority (LLDA) is accelerating its environmental
management program to upgrade the water quality
of the lake in order to make it suitable as a source
of domestic water supplythe whole year round. The
said program regards dumpsites as incompatible
within the watershed because of the heavy
pollution, including the risk of diseases, generated
by such activities which would negate the
governments efforts to upgrade the water quality
of the lake. Consequently, please consider our
objection to the proposed location of the dumpsites
within the
petitioners)
watershed.
(Emphasis
supplied
by
On 31 July 1990, less than six months after the

issuance of the ECC, Undersecretary Roque
suspended the ECC in a letter9 addressed to the
respondent Secretary of DPWH, stating in part that:
Upon site investigation conducted by Environmental
Management Bureau staff on development activities at
the San Mateo Landfill Site, it was ascertained that
ground slumping and erosion have resulted from
improper development of the site. We believe that
this will adversely affect the environmental quality in
the area if the proper remedial measures are not
instituted in the design of the landfill site. This is
therefore contradictory to statements made in the
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) submitted that
above occurrences will be properly mitigated.
In view of this, we are forced to suspend the
Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC) issued
until appropriate modified plans are submitted and
approved by this Office for implementation. (Emphasis
ours)
On 21 June 1993, the Acting Mayor of San Mateo,
Enrique Rodriguez, Jr., Barangay Captain Dominador
Vergara, and petitioner Rolando E. Villacorte,
Chairman of the Pintong Bocaue Multipurpose
Cooperative (PBMC) wrote10then President Fidel V.
Ramos expressing their objections to the continued
operation of the MMA dumpsite for causing "unabated
pollution and degradation of the Marikina Watershed
Reservation."
On
14
July
1993,
another
Investigation
11
Report submitted by the Regional Technical Director
to the DENR Undersecretary for Environment and
Research contained the following findings and
recommendations:
Remarks and Findings:
....
5. Interview with Mr. Dayrit, whose lot is now being
endangered because soil erosion have (sic) caused
severe siltation and sedimentation of the Dayrit Creek
which water is greatly polluted by the dumping of soil
bulldozed to the creek;
6. Also interview with Mrs. Vilma Montajes, the multigrade teacher of Pintong Bocaue Primary School
which is located only about 100 meters from the landfill

site. She disclosed that bad odor have (sic) greatly
affected the pupils who are sometimes sick with
respiratory illnesses. These odors show that MMA
have (sic) not instituted/sprayed any disinfectant
chemicals to prevent air pollution in the area. Besides
large flies (Bangaw) are swarming all over the
playground of the school. The teacher also informed
the undersigned that plastic debris are being blown
whenever the wind blows in their direction.
7. As per investigation report there are now 15
hectares being used as landfill disposal sites by the
MMA. The MMA is intending to expand its operation
within the 50 hectares.
8. Lots occupied within 50 hectares are fully planted
with fruit bearing trees like Mangoes, Santol, Jackfruit,
Kasoy, Guyabano, Kalamansi and Citrus which are
now bearing fruits and being harvested and marketed
to nearby San Mateo Market and Masinag Market in
Antipolo.
....
letter12stating that "after a series of investigations by

field officials" of the DENR, the agency realized that
the MOA entered into on 17 November 1988 "is a very
costly error because the area agreed to be a garbage
dumpsite is inside the Marikina Watershed
Reservation." He then strongly recommended that all
facilities and infrastructure in the garbage dumpsite in
Pintong Bocaue be dismantled, and the garbage
disposal operations be transferred to another area
outside the Marikina Watershed Reservation to protect
"the health and general welfare of the residents of San
Mateo in particular and the residents of Metro Manila
in general."
On 06 June 1995, petitioner Villacorte, Chairman of
the PBMC, wrote13 President Ramos, through the
Executive Secretary, informing the President of the
issues involved, that the dumpsite is located near three
public elementary schools, the closest of which is only
fifty meters away, and that its location "violates the
municipal zoning ordinance of San Mateo and, in truth,
the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board had
denied the then MMA chairmans application for a
locational clearance on this ground."
Recommendations:
1. As previously recommended, the undersigned also
strongly recommend(s) that the MMA be made to
relocate the landfill site because the area is within the
Marikina Watershed Reservation and Lungsod
Silangan. The leachate treatment plant ha(s) been
eroded twice already and contaminated the nearby
creeks which is the source of potable water of the
residents. The contaminated water also flows to Wawa
Dam and Boso-boso River which also flows to Laguna
de Bay.
2. The proposed Integrated Social Forestry Project be
pushed through or be approved. ISF project will not
only uplift the socio-economic conditions of the
participants but will enhance the rehabilitation of the
Watershed considering that fruit bearing trees are
vigorously growing in the area. Some timber producing
species are also planted like Mahogany and Gmelina
Arboiea. There are also portions where dipterocarp
residuals abound in the area.
3. The sanitary landfill should be relocated to some
other area, in order to avoid any conflict with the local
government of San Mateo and the nearby affected
residents who have been in the area for almost 10-20
years.
On 16 November 1993, DENR Secretary Angel C.
Alcala sent MMA Chairman Ismael A. Mathay, Jr. a
On 21 August 1995, the Sangguniang Bayan of San

Mateo issued a Resolution14 "expressing a strong
objection to the planned expansion of the landfill
operation in Pintong Bocaue and requesting President
Ramos to disapprove the draft Presidential
Proclamation segregating 71.6 Hectares from Marikina
Watershed Reservation for the landfill site in Pintong
Bocaue, San Mateo, Rizal."
Despite the various objections and recommendations
raised by the government agencies aforementioned,
the Office of the President, through Executive
Secretary Ruben Torres, signed and issued
Proclamation No. 635 on 28 August 1995, "Excluding
from the Marikina Watershed Reservation Certain
Parcels of Land Embraced Therein for Use as Sanitary
Landfill Sites and Similar Waste Disposal Under the
Administration of the Metropolitan Manila Development
Authority." The pertinent portions thereof state:
WHEREAS, to cope with the requirements of the
growing population in Metro Manila and the adjoining
provinces and municipalities, certain developed and
open portions of the Marikina Watershed Reservation,
upon the recommendation of the Secretary of the
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
should now be excluded form the scope of the
reservation;

WHEREAS, while the areas delineated as part of the
Watershed Reservations are intended primarily for use
in projects and/or activities designed to contain and
preserve the underground water supply, other
peripheral areas had been included within the scope of
the reservation to provide for such space as may be
needed for the construction of the necessary
structures, other related facilities, as well as other
priority projects of government as may be eventually
determined;
WHEREAS, there is now an urgent need to provide for,
and develop, the necessary facilities for the disposal of
the waste generated by the population of Metro Manila
and the adjoining provinces and municipalities, to
ensure their sanitary and /or hygienic disposal;
WHEREAS, to cope with the requirements for the
development of the waste disposal facilities that may
be used, portions of the peripheral areas of the
Marikina
Watershed
Reservation,
after
due
consideration and study, have now been identified as
suitable sites that may be used for the purpose;
WHEREAS, the Secretary of the Department of
Environment
and
Natural
Resources
has
recommended the exclusion of these areas that have
been so identified from the Marikina Watershed
Reservation so that they may then be developed for
the purpose;
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the
aforecited premises, I, Fidel V. Ramos, President of
the Philippines, by virtue of the powers vested in me
by law, do hereby ordain:
Section 1. General That certain parcels of land,
embraced by the Marikina Watershed Reservation,
were found needed for use in the solid waste disposal
program of the government in Metropolitan Manila, are
hereby excluded from that which is held in reserve and
are now made available for use as sanitary landfill and
such other related waste disposal applications.
Section 2. Purpose The areas being excluded from
the Marikina Watershed Reservation are hereby
placed under the administration of the Metropolitan
Manila Development Authority, for development as
Sanitary Landfill, and/or for use in the development of
such other related waste disposal facilities that may be
used by the cities and municipalities of Metro Manila
and the adjoining province of Rizal and its
municipalities.
Section 3. Technical Description Specifically, the

areas being hereby excluded from the Marikina
Watershed Reservation consist of two (2) parcels, with
an aggregate area of approximately ONE MILLION
SIXTY THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED TWENTY NINE
(1,060,529) square meters more or less, as follows: x x
xx
Section 4. Reservations The development,
construction, use and/or operation of any facility that
may be established within the parcel of land herein
excluded from the Marikina Watershed Reservation
shall be governed by existing laws, rules and
regulations pertaining to environmental control and
management. When no longer needed for sanitary
landfill purposes or the related waste disposal
activities, the parcels of land subject of this
proclamation shall revert back as part of the Marikina
Watershed Reservation, unless otherwise authorized.
On 06 September 1995, Director Wilfrido S. Pollisco of
the Protected Areas and Wildlife Bureau wrote the
DENR Secretary to express the bureaus stand against
the dumpsite at Pintong Bocaue, and that "it is our
view . . . that the mere presence of a garbage
dumpsite inside a watershed reservation is definitely
not compatible with the very purpose and objectives
for which the reservation was established."
On 24 November 1995, the petitioners Municipality of
San Mateo and the residents of Pintong Bocaue,
represented by former Senator Jovito Salonga, sent a
letter to President Ramos requesting him to reconsider
Proclamation No. 635. Receiving no reply, they sent
another letter on 02 January 1996 reiterating their
previous request.
On 04 March 1996, then chairman of the Metro Manila
Development Authority (MMDA [formerly MMA])
Prospero I. Oreta addressed a letter to Senator
Salonga, stating in part that:
.
2. Considering the circumstances under which we are
pursuing the project, we are certain you will agree that,
unless we are prepared with a better alternative, the
project simply has to be pursued in the best interest of
the greater majority of the population, particularly their
health and welfare."
2.1 The San Mateo Sanitary Landfill services, at least,
38% of the waste disposal site requirements of Metro
Manila where an estimated 9 million population reside.

2.2 Metro Manila is presently estimated to be
generating, at least, 15,700 cubic meters of household
or municipal waste, a 1.57 hectare of land area will be
filled in a months time with a pile 31 meters high of
garbage, or in a year, the accumulated volume will
require 18.2 hectares.
4.3 While the site was within the Marikina Watershed

Reservation under the administration of the DENR, the
site was located at the lower periphery of the buffer
zone; was evaluated to be least likely to affect the
underground water supply; and could, in fact, be
excluded from the reservation.
....
4.31 It was determined to be far from the main water

containment area for it to pose any immediate danger
of contaminating the underground water, in case of a
failure in any of the mitigating measures that would be
installed.
4. The sanitary landfill projects are now on their fifth

year of implementation. The amount of effort and
money already invested in the project by the
government cannot easily be disregarded, much more
set aside in favor of the few settlers/squatters who
chose to ignore the earlier notice given to them that
the area would be used precisely for the development
of waste disposal sites, and are now attempting to
arouse opposition to the project.
4.2 There is no place within the jurisdiction of Metro
Manila, with an area big enough to accommodate at
least 3 to 5 years of waste disposal requirements. x x x
x
4.21 The present site at San Mateo was selected
because, at the time consideration was being made,
and up to the present, it is found to have the attributes
that positively respond to the criteria established:
4.21.1 The site was a government property and would
not require any outlay for it to be acquired.
4.21.2
It
is
far
from
any
sizeable
community/settlements that could be affected by the
development that would be introduced and yet, was
within economic hauling distance from the areas they
are designed to serve.
4.21.21 At the time it was originally decided to locate
the landfills at the present site, there were not more
that fifteen (15) settlers in the area and they had hardly
established themselves. The community settlements
were located far from the site.
4.21.22 The area was hardly accessible, especially to
any public transport. The area was being served by a
public utility jeep that usually made only two (2) trips
daily. During the rainy season, it could only be reached
by equipping the vehicle with tire chains to traverse the
slippery muddy trail roads.
4.21.3 There was, at least, seventy-three (73) hectares
available at the site.
4.32 It was likewise too far from the nearest body of

water, the Laguna Lake, and the distance, plus the
increasing accumulation of water from other tributaries
toward the lake, would serve to dilute and mitigate any
contamination it may emit, in case one happened.
4.33 To resolve the recurring issue regarding its being
located within the Marikina Watershed Reservation,
the site had been recommended by the DENR, and
approved by the President, to already be excluded
from the Marikina Watershed reservation and placed
under the administration of MMDA, since the site was
deemed to form part of the land resource reserve then
commonly referred to as buffer zone.
5. Contrary to the impression that you had been given,
relocating the site at this point and time would not be
easy, if not impracticable, because aside from the
investments that had been made in locating the
present site, further investments have been incurred
in:
5.1 The conduct of the technical studies for the
development being implemented. Through a grant-inaid from the World Bank, US$600,000 was initially
spent for the conduct of the necessary studies on the
area and the design of the landfill. This was
augmented by, at least, another P1.5 million from the
government for the studies to be completed, or a total
cost at the time (1990) of approximately P20 million.
5.2. Additionally, the government has spent
approximately P33 million in improving on the roadway
to make the site accessible from the main
road/highway.
5.3 To achieve the necessary economies in the
development of the site, the utilities had been planned
so that their use could be maximized. These include
the access roads, the drainage system, the leacheate
collection system, the gas collection system, and the
waste water treatment system. Their construction are

designed so that instead of having to construct
independent units for each area, the use of existing
facilities can be maximized through a system of
interconnection. On the average, the government is
spending P14.8 million to develop a hectare of sanitary
landfill area.
6. Despite the preparations and the investments that
are now being made on the project, it is estimated that
the total available area, at an accelerated rate of
disposal, assuming that all open dump sites were to be
closed, will only last for 39 months.
6.1 We are still hard pressed to achieve advanced
development on the sites to assure against any
possible crisis in garbage from again being
experienced in Metro Manila, aside from having to look
for the additional sites that may be used after the
capacities shall have been exhausted.
6.2 Faced with the prospects of having the 15,700
cubic meters of garbage generated daily strewn all
over Metro Manila, we are certain you will agree that it
would be futile to even as much as consider a
suspension of the waste disposal operations at the
sanitary landfills.
On 22 July 1996, the petitioners filed before the Court
of Appeals a civil action for certiorari, prohibition
andmandamus with application for a temporary
restraining order/writ of preliminary injunction. The
hearing on the prayer for preliminary injunction was
held on 14 August 1996.
On 13 June 1997, the court a quo rendered a
Decision,15 the dispositive part of which reads:
WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari, prohibition
and mandamus with application for a temporary
restraining order/writ of preliminary injunction for lack
of cause of action, is hereby DENIED.16
Hence, this petition for review on certiorari of the
above decision on the following grounds:
I
The Court of Appeals erred and abused its discretion
in deliberately ignoring the significant fact that
Presidential Proclamation No. 635 was based on a
brazen forgery it was supposedly issued, as stated in
the proclamation itself and repeatedly asserted by
respondents in their comment, on the basis of the
alleged recommendation of the DENR Secretary dated
June 26, 1995 but which assertion was denounced by
the then Secretary Angel C. Alcala himself in a sworn

statement dated September 18, 1996 and again during
the special hearing of the case in the Court of Appeals
on November 13, 1996 as a forgery since his
signature on the alleged recommendation had been
falsified, as now admitted by respondents themselves
in their comment filed with the Court of Appeals,
through the Office of the Solicitor General.
II
in completely ignoring the significant fact that the
respondents are operating the landfill based on a
spurious Environmental Compliance Certificate.
III
The Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the
respondents did not violate R.A. 7586 when they
issued and implemented Proclamation No. 635
considering that the withdrawal or disestablishment of
a protected area or the modification of the Marikina
Watershed can only be done by an act of Congress.
IV
when it deliberately and willfully brushed aside the
unanimous findings and adverse recommendations of
responsible government agencies and non-partisan
officials concerned with environmental protection in
favor of the self-serving, gratuitous assertions found in
the unsolicited, partisan letter of former Malabon
Mayor, now Chairman Prospero Oreta of the MMDA
who is an interested party in this case.
V
The Court of Appeals erred when it readily swallowed
respondents assertion that the San Mateo Dumpsite
"is located in the Buffer Zone of the reservation" and
is therefore outside of its boundaries, and even
declared in its decision that it took "serious note" of
this particular argument.
VI
when it encroached on the function of Congress by
expressing its unjustified fear of mini-smokey
mountains proliferating in Metro Manila and justifying

its decision in favor of "an integrated system of solid
waste management like the San Mateo Landfill.
On 05 January 1998, while the appeal was pending,
the petitioners filed a Motion for Temporary Restraining
Order,17 pointing out that the effects of the El
Nio phenomenon would be aggravated by the
relentless destruction of the Marikina Watershed
Reservation. They noted that respondent MMDA had,
in the meantime, continued to expand the area of the
dumpsite inside the Marikina Watershed Reservation,
cutting down thousands of mature fruit trees and forest
trees, and leveling hills and mountains to clear the
dumping area. Garbage disposal operations were also
being conducted on a 24-hour basis, with hundreds of
metric tons of wastes being dumped daily, including
toxic and infectious hospital wastes, intensifying the
air, ground and water pollution.18
The petitioners reiterated their prayer that respondent
MMDA be temporarily enjoined from further dumping
waste into the site and from encroaching into the area
beyond its existing perimeter fence so as not to render
the case moot and academic.
On 28 January 1999, the petitioners filed a Motion for
Early Resolution,19 calling attention to the continued
expansion of the dumpsite by the MMDA that caused
the people of Antipolo to stage a rally and barricade
the Marcos Highway to stop the dump trucks from
reaching the site for five successive days from 16
January 1999. On the second day of the barricade, all
the municipal mayors of the province of Rizal openly
declared their full support for the rally, and notified the
MMDA that they would oppose any further attempt to
dump garbage in their province.20
As a result, MMDA officials, headed by then Chairman
Jejomar Binay, agreed to abandon the dumpsite after
six months. Thus, the municipal mayors of Rizal,
particularly the mayors of Antipolo and San Mateo,
agreed to the use of the dumpsite until that period,
which would end on 20 July 1999.21
On 13 July 1999, the petitioners filed an Urgent
Second Motion for Early Resolution 22 in anticipation of
violence between the conflicting parties as the date of
the scheduled closure of the dumpsite neared.
On 19 July 1999, then President Joseph E. Estrada,
taking cognizance of the gravity of the problems in the
affected areas and the likelihood that violence would
erupt among the parties involved, issued a
Memorandum ordering the closure of the dumpsite on
31 December 2000.23 Accordingly, on 20 July 1999, the
Presidential Committee on Flagship Programs and

Projects and the MMDA entered into a MOA with the
Provincial Government of Rizal, the Municipality of San
Mateo, and the City of Antipolo, wherein the latter
agreed to further extend the use of the dumpsite until
its permanent closure on 31 December 2000.24
On 11 January 2001, President Estrada directed
Department of Interior and Local Government
Secretary Alfredo Lim and MMDA Chairman Binay to
reopen the San Mateo dumpsite "in view of the
emergency situation of uncollected garbage in Metro
Manila, resulting in a critical and imminent health and
sanitation epidemic."25
Claiming the above events constituted a "clear and
present danger of violence erupting in the affected
areas," the petitioners filed an Urgent Petition for
Restraining Order26 on 19 January 2001.
On 24 January 2001, this Court issued the Temporary
Restraining Order prayed for, "effective immediately
and until further orders."27
Meanwhile, on 26 January 2001, Republic Act No.
9003, otherwise known as "The Ecological Solid Waste
Management Act of 2000," was signed into law by
President Estrada.
Thus, the petitioners raised only two issues in their
Memorandum28 of 08 February 2005: 1) whether or not
respondent MMDA agreed to the permanent closure of
the San Mateo Landfill as of December 2000, and 2)
whether or not the permanent closure of the San
Mateo landfill is mandated by Rep. Act No. 9003.
We hold that the San Mateo Landfill will remain
permanently closed.
Although the petitioners may be deemed to have
waived or abandoned the issues raised in their
previous pleadings but not included in the
memorandum,29 certain events we shall relate below
have inclined us to address some of the more pertinent
issues raised in the petition for the guidance of the
herein respondents, and pursuant to our symbolic
function to educate the bench and bar.30
The law and the facts indicate that a mere MOA does
not guarantee the dumpsites permanent closure.
The rally and barricade staged by the people of
Antipolo on 28 January 1999, with the full support of all
the mayors of Rizal Province caused the MMDA to
agree that it would abandon the dumpsite after six

months. In return, the municipal mayors allowed the
use of the dumpsite until 20 July 1999.
On 20 July 1999, with much fanfare and rhetoric, the
Presidential Committee on Flagship Programs and
Projects and the MMDA entered into a MOA with the
Provincial Government of Rizal, the Municipality of San
Mateo, and the City of Antipolo, whereby the latter
agreed to an extension for the use of the dumpsite
until 31 December 2000, at which time it would be
permanently closed.
Despite this agreement, President Estrada directed
Department of Interior and Local Government
Secretary Alfredo Lim and MMDA Chairman Binay
to reopen the San Mateo dumpsite on 11 January
2001, "in view of the emergency situation of
uncollected garbage in Metro Manila, resulting in a
critical and imminent health and sanitation epidemic;"
our issuance of a TRO on 24 January 2001 prevented
the dumpsites reopening.
Were it not for the TRO, then President Estradas
instructions would have been lawfully carried out, for
as we observed in Oposa v. Factoran, the freedom of
contract is not absolute. Thus:
.. In Abe vs. Foster Wheeler Corp., this Court
stated: "The freedom of contract, under our system
of government, is not meant to be absolute. The
same is understood to be subject to reasonable
legislative regulation aimed at the promotion of public
health, moral, safety and welfare. In other words, the
constitutional guaranty of non-impairment of
obligations of contract is limited by the exercise of the
police power of the State, in the interest of public
health, safety, moral and general welfare." The reason
for this is emphatically set forth inNebia vs. New
York, quoted in Philippine American Life Insurance Co.
vs. Auditor General, to wit: "'Under our form of
government the use of property and the making of
contracts are normally matters of private and not of
public concern. The general rule is that both shall be
free of governmental interference. But neither property
rights nor contract rights are absolute; for government
cannot exist if the citizen may at will use his property
to the detriment of his fellows, or exercise his freedom
of contract to work them harm. Equally fundamental
with the private right is that of the public to regulate it
in the common interest.'" In short, the non-impairment
clause must yield to the police power of the state.
(Citations omitted, emphasis supplied)
We thus feel there is also the added need to reassure
the residents of the Province of Rizal that this is indeed
a final resolution of this controversy, for a brief review

of the records of this case indicates two self-evident
facts.First, the San Mateo site has adversely
affected its environs, and second, sources of water
should always be protected.
As to the first point, the adverse effects of the site were
reported as early as 19 June 1989, when the
Investigation Report of the Community Environment
and Natural Resources Officer of DENR-IV-1 stated
that the sources of domestic water supply of over one
thousand families would be adversely affected by the
dumping operations.31The succeeding report included
the observation that the use of the areas as dumping
site greatly affected the ecological balance and
environmental factors of the community.32 Respondent
LLDA in fact informed the MMA that the heavy pollution
and risk of disease generated by dumpsites rendered
the location of a dumpsite within the Marikina
Watershed Reservation incompatible with its program
of upgrading the water quality of the Laguna Lake. 33
The DENR suspended the sites ECC after
investigations revealed ground slumping and erosion
had resulted from improper development of the
site.34 Another Investigation Report35 submitted by the
Regional Technical Director to the DENR reported
respiratory illnesses among pupils of a primary school
located approximately 100 meters from the site, as
well as the constant presence of large flies and
windblown debris all over the schools playground. It
further reiterated reports that the leachate treatment
plant had been eroded twice already, contaminating
the nearby creeks that were sources of potable water
for the residents. The contaminated water was also
found to flow to the Wawa Dam and Boso-boso
River, which in turn empties into Laguna de Bay.
This brings us to the second self-evident point. Water
is life, and must be saved at all costs. In Collado v.
Court of Appeals,36 we had occasion to reaffirm our
previous discussion in Sta. Rosa Realty Development
Corporation v. Court of Appeals,37 on the primordial
importance of watershed areas, thus: "The most
important product of a watershed is water, which is one
of the most important human necessities. The
protection of watersheds ensures an adequate supply
of water for future generations and the control of
flashfloods that not only damage property but also
cause loss of lives. Protection of watersheds is an
"intergenerational" responsibility that needs to be
answered now.38
Three short months before Proclamation No. 635 was
passed to avert the garbage crisis, Congress had

enacted the National Water Crisis Act 39 to "adopt
urgent and effective measures to address the
nationwide water crisis which adversely affects the
health and well-being of the population, food
production, and industrialization process. One of the
issues the law sought to address was the "protection
and conservation of watersheds."40
In other words, while respondents were blandly
declaring that "the reason for the creation of the
Marikina Watershed Reservation, i.e., to protect
Marikina River as the source of water supply of the
City of Manila, no longer exists," the rest of the country
was gripped by a shortage of potable water so serious,
it necessitated its own legislation.
Respondents actions in the face of such grave
environmental consequences defy all logic. The
petitioners rightly noted that instead of providing
solutions, they have, with unmitigated callousness,
worsened the problem. It is this readiness to wreak
irrevocable damage on our natural heritage in pursuit
of what is expedient that has compelled us to rule at
length on this issue. We ignore the unrelenting
depletion of our natural heritage at our peril.
I.
The Reorganization Act of the DENR Defines and
Limits Its
Resources
Powers
over
the
Countrys
Natural
The respondents next point out that the Marikina

Watershed Reservation, and thus the San Mateo Site,
is located in the public domain. They allege that as
such, neither the Province of Rizal nor the municipality
of San Mateo has the power to control or regulate its
use since properties of this nature belong to the
national, and not to the local governments.
It is ironic that the respondents should pursue this line
of reasoning.
In Cruz v. Secretary of Environment and Natural
Resources,41 we had occasion to observe that "(o)ne
of the fixed and dominating objectives of the 1935
Constitutional Convention was the nationalization and
conservation of the natural resources of the country.
There was an overwhelming sentiment in the
convention in favor of the principle of state ownership
of natural resources and the adoption of the Regalian
doctrine. State ownership of natural resources was
seen as a necessary starting point to secure
recognition of the states power to control their

disposition, exploitation, development, or utilization." 42
The Regalian doctrine was embodied in the 1935
Constitution, in Section 1 of Article XIII on
"Conservation and Utilization of Natural Resources."
This was reiterated in the 1973 Constitution under
Article XIV on the "National Economy and the
Patrimony of the Nation," and reaffirmed in the 1987
Constitution in Section 2 of Article XII on "National
Economy and Patrimony," to wit:
Sec. 2. All lands of the public domain, waters,
minerals, coal, petroleum, and other mineral oils, all
forces of potential energy, fisheries, forests or timber,
wildlife, flora and fauna, and other natural resources
are owned by the State. With the exception of
agricultural lands, all other natural resources shall not
be alienated. The exploration, development and
utilization of natural resources shall be under the full
control and supervision of the State. The State may
directly undertake such activities or it may enter into
co-production, joint venture, or production-sharing
agreements with Filipino citizens, or corporations or
associations at least sixty per centum of whose capital
is owned by such citizens. Such agreements may be
for a period not exceeding twenty-five years,
renewable for not more than twenty-five years, and
under such terms and conditions as may be provided
by law. In cases of water rights for irrigation, water
supply, fisheries, or industrial uses other than the
development of water power, beneficial use may be
the measure and limit of the grant.43
Clearly, the state is, and always has been, zealous in
preserving as much of our natural and national
heritage as it can, enshrining as it did the obligation to
preserve and protect the same within the text of our
fundamental law.
It was with this objective in mind that the respondent
DENR was mandated by then President Corazon C.
Aquino, under Section 4 of Executive Order No.
192, 44 otherwise known as "The Reorganization Act of
the Department of Environment and Natural
Resources," to be "the primary government agency
responsible for the conservation, management,
development and proper use of the countrys
environment and natural resources, specifically forest
and grazing lands, mineral resources, including
those in reservation and watershed areas, and
lands of the public domain. It is also responsible for the
licensing and regulation of all natural resources as
may be provided for by law in order to ensure
equitable sharing of the benefits derived

therefrom for the welfare of the present and future
generations of Filipinos."
utilization, development and conservation of our

natural resources.
We expounded on this matter in the landmark case

of Oposa v. Factoran,45 where we held that the right to
a balanced and healthful ecology is a fundamental
legal right that carries with it the correlative duty to
refrain from impairing the environment. This right
implies, among other things, the judicious
management and conservation of the countrys
resources, which duty is reposed in the DENR under
the aforequoted Section 4 of Executive Order No. 192.
Moreover:
The above provision stresses "the necessity of

maintaining a sound ecological balance and protecting
and
enhancing
the
quality
of
the
environment."46 (Emphasis ours.)
Section 3 (of E. O. No. 192) makes the following

statement of policy:
SEC. 3. Declaration of Policy. - It is hereby declared
the policy of the State to ensure the sustainable use,
development,
management,
renewal,
and
conservation of the country's forest, mineral, land, offshore areas and other natural resources, including the
protection and enhancement of the quality of the
environment, and equitable access of the different
segments of the population to the development and
use of the country's natural resources, not only for
the present generation but for future generations
as well. It is also the policy of the state to recognize
and apply a true value system including social and
environmental cost implications relative to their
utilization; development and conservation of our
natural resources. (Emphasis ours)
This policy declaration is substantially re-stated in Title
XIV, Book IV of the Administrative Code of 1987,
specifically in Section 1 thereof which reads:
SEC. 1. Declaration of Policy. - (1) The State shall
ensure, for the benefit of the Filipino people, the full
exploration and development as well as the judicious
disposition, utilization, management, renewal and
conservationof the country's forest, mineral, land,
waters, fisheries, wildlife, off-shore areas and other
natural resources,consistent with the necessity of
maintaining a sound ecological balance and
protecting and enhancing the quality of the
environment and the objective of making the
exploration, development and utilization of such
natural resources equitably accessible to the different
segments of the present as well as future generations.
(2) The State shall likewise recognize and apply a true
value system that takes into account social and
environmental cost implications relative to the
In sum, the Administrative Code of 1987 and Executive

Order
No.
192
entrust
the
DENR
with
the guardianshipand safekeeping of
the
Marikina
Watershed Reservation and our other natural
treasures. However, although the DENR, an agency of
the government, owns the Marikina Reserve and has
jurisdiction over the same, this power is not absolute,
but is defined by the declared policies of the state, and
is subject to the law and higher authority.Section 2,
Title XIV, Book IV of the Administrative Code of 1987,
while specifically referring to the mandate of the
DENR, makes particular reference to the agencys
being subject to law and higher authority, thus:
SEC. 2. Mandate. - (1) The Department of
Environment and Natural Resources shall be primarily
responsible for the implementation of the foregoing
policy.
(2) It shall, subject to law and higher authority, be in
charge of carrying out the State's constitutional
mandate to control and supervise the exploration,
development, utilization, and conservation of the
country's natural resources.
With great power comes great responsibility. It is the
height of irony that the public respondents have
vigorously arrogated to themselves the power to
control the San Mateo site, but have deftly ignored
their corresponding responsibility as guardians and
protectors of this tormented piece of land.
II.
The Local Government Code Gives to Local
Government Units All the Necessary Powers to
Promote the General Welfare of Their Inhabitants
The circumstances under which Proclamation No. 635
was passed also violates Rep. Act No. 7160, or the
Local Government Code.
Contrary to the averment of the respondents,
Proclamation No. 635, which was passed on 28
August 1995, is subject to the provisions of the Local
Government Code, which was approved four years
earlier, on 10 October 1991.

Section 2(c) of the said law declares that it is the policy
of the state " to require all national agencies and
offices to conduct periodic consultations with
appropriate local government units, non-governmental
and people's organizations, and other concerned
sectors of the community before any project or
program is implemented in their respective
jurisdictions." Likewise, Section 27 requires prior
consultations before a program shall be implemented
by government authorities and the prior approval of
the sanggunian is obtained.
During the oral arguments at the hearing for the
temporary restraining order, Director Uranza of the
MMDA Solid Waste Management Task Force declared
before the Court of Appeals that they had conducted
the required consultations. However, he added that
"(t)his is the problem, sir, the officials we may have
been talking with at the time this was established may
no longer be incumbent and this is our difficulty now.
That is what we are trying to do now, a continuing
dialogue." 47
The ambivalent reply of Director Uranza was brought
to the fore when, at the height of the protest rally and
barricade along Marcos Highway to stop dump trucks
from reaching the site, all the municipal mayors of the
province of Rizal openly declared their full support for
the rally and notified the MMDA that they would
oppose any further attempt to dump garbage in their
province. 48
The municipal mayors acted within the scope of their
powers, and were in fact fulfilling their mandate, when
they did this. Section 16 allows every local government
unit to "exercise the powers expressly granted, those
necessarily implied therefrom, as well as powers
necessary, appropriate, or incidental for its efficient
and effective governance, and those which are
essential to the promotion of the general welfare,"
which involve, among other things, "promot(ing)
health and safety, enhance(ing) the right of the
people to a balanced ecology, and preserv(ing) the
comfort and convenience of their inhabitants. "
In Lina , Jr. v. Pao,49 we held that Section 2 (c),
requiring consultations with the appropriate local
government units, should apply to national government
projects affecting the environmental or ecological
balance of the particular community implementing the
project. Rejecting the petitioners contention that
Sections 2(c) and 27 of the Local Government Code
applied mandatorily in the setting up of lotto outlets
around the country, we held that:
From a careful reading of said provisions, we find that

these apply only to national programs and/or projects
which are to be implemented in a particular local
community. Lotto is neither a program nor a project of
the national government, but of a charitable institution,
the PCSO. Though sanctioned by the national
government, it is far fetched to say that lotto falls within
the contemplation of Sections 2 (c) and 27 of the Local
Government Code.
Section 27 of the Code should be read in conjunction
with Section 26 thereof. Section 26 reads:
SECTION 26. Duty of National Government Agencies
in the Maintenance of Ecological Balance. It shall be
the duty of every national agency or governmentowned or controlled corporation authorizing or involved
in the planning and implementation of any project or
program that may cause pollution, climatic change,
depletion of non-renewable resources, loss of crop
land, range-land, or forest cover, and extinction of
animal or plant species, to consult with the local
government units, nongovernmental organizations,
and other sectors concerned and explain the goals and
objectives of the project or program, its impact upon
the people and the community in terms of
environmental or ecological balance, and the
measures that will be undertaken to prevent or
minimize the adverse effects thereof.
Thus, the projects and programs mentioned in
Section 27 should be interpreted to mean projects
and programs whose effects are among those
enumerated in Section 26 and 27, to wit, those
that: (1) may cause pollution; (2) may bring about
climatic change; (3) may cause the depletion of
non-renewable resources; (4) may result in loss of
crop land, range-land, or forest cover; (5) may
eradicate certain animal or plant species from the
face of the planet; and (6) other projects or
programs that may call for the eviction of a
particular group of people residing in the locality
where these will be implemented. Obviously, none of
these effects will be produced by the introduction of
lotto in the province of Laguna. (emphasis supplied)
We reiterated this doctrine in the recent case
of Bangus Fry Fisherfolk v. Lanzanas,50 where we held
that there was no statutory requirement for
the sangguniang bayan of Puerto Galera to approve
the construction of a mooring facility, as Sections 26
and 27 are inapplicable to projects which are not
environmentally critical.

Moreover, Section 447, which enumerates the powers,
duties and functions of the municipality, grants
thesangguniang bayan the power to, among other
things, "enact ordinances, approve resolutions and
appropriate funds for the general welfare of the
municipality and its inhabitants pursuant to Section 16
of th(e) Code." These include:
(1) Approving ordinances and passing resolutions
to protect the environment and impose appropriate
penalties
for
acts
which
endanger
the
environment, such as dynamite fishing and other
forms of destructive fishing, illegal logging and
smuggling of logs, smuggling of natural resources
products and of endangered species of flora and
fauna, slash and burn farming, and such other
activities which result in pollution, acceleration of
eutrophication of rivers and lakes, or of ecological
imbalance; [Section 447 (1)(vi)]
(2) Prescribing reasonable limits and restraints on
the use of property within the jurisdiction of the
municipality, adopting a comprehensive land use plan
for the municipality, reclassifying land within the
jurisdiction of the city, subject to the pertinent
provisions of this Code, enacting integrated zoning
ordinancesin consonance with the approved
comprehensive land use plan, subject to existing laws,
rules and regulations; establishing fire limits or zones,
particularly in populous centers; and regulating the
construction, repair or modification of buildings within
said fire limits or zones in accordance with the
provisions of this Code; [Section 447 (2)(vi-ix)]
(3) Approving ordinances which shall ensure the
efficient and effective delivery of the basic services and
facilities as provided for under Section 17 of this Code,
and in addition to said services and facilities,
providing for the establishment, maintenance,
protection, and conservation of communal forests
and
watersheds,
tree
parks,
greenbelts,
mangroves, and other similar forest development
projects .and, subject to existing laws, establishing
and providing for the maintenance, repair and
operation of an efficient waterworks system to supply
water for the inhabitants and purifying the source of
the water supply; regulating the construction,
maintenance, repair and use of hydrants, pumps,
cisterns and reservoirs; protecting the purity and
quantity
of
the
water
supply
of
the
municipality and, for this purpose, extending the
coverage of appropriate ordinances over all
territory within the drainage area of said water
supply and within one hundred (100) meters of the
reservoir, conduit, canal, aqueduct, pumping
station, or watershed used in connection with the

water service; and regulating the consumption, use or
wastage of water." [Section 447 (5)(i) & (vii)]
Under the Local Government Code, therefore, two
requisites must be met before a national project that
affects the environmental and ecological balance of
local
communities
can
be
implemented:
prior consultation with the affected local communities,
and
prior approval of
the
project
by
the
appropriate sanggunian. Absent either of these
mandatory requirements, the projects implementation
is illegal.
III.
Waste Disposal Is Regulated by the Ecological
Solid Waste Management Act of 2000
The respondents would have us overlook all the
abovecited laws because the San Mateo site is a very
expensive - and necessary - fait accompli. The
respondents cite the millions of pesos and hundreds of
thousands of dollars the government has already
expended in its development and construction, and the
lack of any viable alternative sites.
The Court of Appeals agreed, thus:
During the hearing on the injunction, questions were
also asked. "What will happen if the San Mateo
Sanitary Landfill is closed? Where will the daily
collections of garbage be disposed of and dumped?"
Atty. Mendoza, one of the lawyers of the petitioners,
answered that each city/municipality must take care of
its own. Reflecting on that answer, we are troubled:
will not the proliferation of separate open dumpsites be
a more serious health hazard (which ha(s) to be
addressed) to the residents of the community? What
with the galloping population growth and the
constricting available land area in Metro Manila? There
could be a mini-Smokey Mountain in each of the ten
citiescomprising Metro Manila, placing in danger the
health and safety of more people. Damage to the
environment could be aggravated by the increase in
number of open dumpsites. An integrated system of
solid waste management, like the San Mateo Sanitary
Landfill, appears advisable to a populous metropolis
like the Greater Metro Manila Area absent access to
better technology.51
We acknowledge that these are valid concerns.
Nevertheless, the lower court should have been
mindful of the legal truism that it is the legislature, by

its very nature, which is the primary judge of the
necessity, adequacy, wisdom, reasonableness and
expediency of any law.52
harmony with each other, that these legal safeguards

were put in place. They should thus not be so lightly
cast aside in the face of what is easy and expedient.
Moreover, these concerns are addressed by Rep. Act

No. 9003. Approved on 26 January 2001, "The
Ecological Solid Waste Management Act of 2000" was
enacted pursuant to the declared policy of the state "to
adopt a systematic, comprehensive and ecological
solid waste management system which shall ensure
the protection of public health and environment, and
utilize environmentally sound methods that maximize
the utilization of valuable resources and encourage
resource conservation and recovery."53 It requires the
adherence to a Local Government Solid Waste
Management Plan with regard to the collection and
transfer, processing, source reduction, recycling,
composting and final disposal of solid wastes, the
handling and disposal of special wastes, education
and public information, and the funding of solid waste
management projects.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The

Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No.
41330, dated 13 June 1997, is REVERSED and SET
ASIDE. The temporary restraining order issued by the
Court on 24 January 2001 is hereby made permanent.
The said law mandates the formulation of a National

Solid Waste Management Framework, which should
include, among other things, the method and
procedure for the phaseout and the eventual closure
within eighteen months from effectivity of the Act in
case of existing open dumps and/or sanitary landfills
located within an aquifer, groundwater reservoir or
watershed
area.54 Any
landfills
subsequently
developed must comply with the minimum
requirements laid down in Section 40, specifically that
the site selected must be consistent with the overall
land use plan of the local government unit, and that
the site must be located in an area where the
landfills operation will not detrimentally affect
environmentally sensitive resources such as
aquifers, groundwater reservoirs or watershed
areas.55
This writes finis to any remaining aspirations
respondents may have of reopening the San Mateo
Site. Having declared Proclamation No. 635 illegal, we
see no compelling need to tackle the remaining issues
raised in the petition and the parties respective
memoranda.
A final word. Laws pertaining to the protection of the
environment were not drafted in a vacuum. Congress
passed these laws fully aware of the perilous state of
both our economic and natural wealth. It was precisely
to minimize the adverse impact humanitys actions on
all aspects of the natural world, at the same time
maintaining and ensuring an environment under which
man and nature can thrive in productive and enjoyable
SO ORDERED.
RA 9275
Congress of the Philippines
Metro Manila
Twelfth Congress
Third Regular Session
Begun and held in Metro Manila, on Monday, the
twenty-eight day of July, two thousand three.
Republic Act No. 9275
March 22, 2004
AN ACT PROVIDING FOR A COMPREHENSIVE

WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT AND FOR OTHER
PURPOSES
Representatives of the Philippines in Congress
assembled:
CHAPTER 1
GENERAL PROVISIONS
ARTICLE 1
DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES AND POLICIES
SECTION 1. Short Title. - This Act shall be known as
the "Philippine Clean Water Act of 2004."
xxx
xxx
xxx
ARTICLE 2
DEFINITION OF TERMS
SECTION 4. Definition of Terms. - As used in this
Act:
a) Aquifer - means a layer of water-bearing rock
located underground that transmits water in sufficient
quantity to supply pumping wells or natural springs.

b) Aquatic life - means all organisms living in
freshwater, brackish and marine environment.
c) Beneficial use - means the use of the environment
or any element or segment thereof conducive to public
or private welfare, safety and health; and shall include,
but not be limited to, the use of water for domestic,
municipal, irrigation, power generation, fisheries,
livestock raising, industrial, recreational and other
purposes.
1. Use of water for domestic purposes - means the
utilization of water for drinking, washing, bathing,
cooking or other household needs, home gardens and
watering of lawns or domestic animals;
2. Use of water for municipal purposes - means the
utilization of water for supplying water requirements of
the community;
3. Use of water for irrigation - means the utilization of
water for producing agricultural crops;
4. Use of water for power generation - means the
utilization of water for producing electrical or
mechanical power;
5. Use of water for fisheries - means the utilization of
water for the propagation of culture of fish as a
commercial enterprise;
6. Use of water for livestock raising - means the
utilization of water for large herds or flocks of animals
raised as a commercial enterprise;
7. Use of water for industrial purposes - means the
utilization of water in factories, industrial plants and
mines, including the use of water as an ingredient of a
finished product; and
8. Use of water for recreational purposes - means the
utilization of water for swimming pools, bath houses,
boating, water skiing, golf courses and other similar
facilities in resorts and other places of recreation.
d) Classification/Reclassification of Philippine Waters means the categorization of all water bodies taking into
account, among others, the following: (1) existing
quality of the body of water; (2) size, depth, surface
area covered, volume, direction, rate of flow and
gradient of stream; (3) most beneficial existing and
future use of said bodies of water and lands bordering
them, such as for residential, agricultural, aquacultural,
commercial, industrial, navigational, recreational,
wildlife conservation and aesthetic purposes; and (4)

vulnerability of surface and groundwater to
contamination from pollutive and hazardous wastes,
agricultural chemicals and underground storage tanks
of petroleum products.
e) Civil Society - means non-government organizations
(NGOs) and people's organizations (POs).
f) Cleaner Production - means the application of an
integrated, preventive environmental strategy to
processes, products, services to increase efficiency
and reduce risk to humans and the environment;
g) Clean-up operations - means activities involving the
removal of pollutants discharged or spilled into a water
body and its surrounding areas, and the restoration of
the affected areas to their former physical, chemical
and biological state or conditions.
h) Contamination - means the production of
substances not found in the natural composition of
water that make the water less desirable or unfit
desirable or unfit for intended use.
i) Department - means the Department of Environment
and Natural Resources.
j) Discharge includes, but is not limited to, the act of
spilling, leaking, pumping, pouring, emitting, emptying,
releasing or dumping of any material into a water body
or onto land from which it might flow or drain into said
water.
k) Drinking water- means water intended for human
consumption or for use in food preparation.
l) Dumping - means any unauthorized or illegal
disposal into any body of water or land of wastes or
toxic or hazardous material: Provided, That it does not
mean a release of effluent coming from commercial,
industrial, and domestic sources which are within the
effluent standards.
m) Effluent - means discharge from known sources
which is passed into a body of water or land, or
wastewater flowing out of a manufacturing plant,
industrial plant including domestic, commercial and
recreational facilities.
n) Effluent standard - means any legal restriction
limitation on quantities, rates, and/or concentrations
any combination thereof, of physical, chemical
biological parameters of effluent which a person
or
or
or
or

point source is allowed to discharge into a body of
water or land.
o) Environmental management - means the entire
system which includes, but is not limited to,
conservation, regulation and minimization of pollution,
clean production, waste management, environmental
law and policy, environmental education and
information, study and mitigation of the environmental
impacts of human activity, and environmental
research.
p) Environmental management system - means the
part of the overall management system that includes
organizational
structure,
planning
activities,
responsibilities, practices, procedures, processes and
resources for developing, implementing, achieving,
reviewing and maintaining the environment policy.
q) Freshwater - means water containing less than 500
ppm dissolved common salt, sodium chloride, such as
that in groundwater, rivers, ponds and lakes.
r) Groundwater - means a subsurface water that
occurs beneath a water table in soils and rocks, or in
geological formations.
s) Groundwater vulnerability - means relative ease with
which a contaminant located at or near the land
surface can migrate to the aquifer or deep well.
t) Groundwater vulnerability map - means the identified
areas of the land surface where groundwater quality is
most at risk from human activities and shall reflect the
different degrees of groundwater vulnerability based
on a range of soil properties and hydro geological
criteria to serve as guide in the protection of the
groundwater from contamination.
u) Hazardous waste - means any waste or
combination of wastes of solid liquid, contained
gaseous, or semi-solid form which cause, of contribute
to, an increase in mortality or an increase in serious
irreversible, or incapacitating reversible illness, taking
into account toxicity of such waste, its persistence and
degradability in nature, its potential for accumulation or
concentration in tissue, and other factors that may
otherwise cause or contribute to adverse acute or
chronic effects on the health of persons or organism.
v) Industrial waste - means any solid, semi-solid or
liquid waste material with no commercial value
released by a manufacturing or processing plant other
than excluded material.
w) Integrated Water Quality Management Framework means the policy guideline integrating all the existing
frameworks prepared by all government agencies
contain the following; water quality goals and targets;
(b) period of compliance; (c) water pollution control
strategies and techniques; (d) water quality information
and education program; (e) human resources
development program.
x) Margin - means a landward and outer limiting edge
adjacent to the border of any water bodies or a limit
beyond where beyond where saturation zone ceases
to exist.
y) National Water Quality Status Report - means a
report to be prepared by the Department indicating: a)
the location of water bodies, their quality, taking into
account seasonal, tidal and others variations, existing
and potential uses and sources of pollution per specific
pollutant and pollution load assessment; b) water
quality management areas pursuant to Section 5 of
this Act; c) and water classification.
z) Non-point source - means any source of pollution
not identifiable as point source to include, but not be
limited to, runoff from irrigation or rainwater, which
picks up pollutants from farms and urban areas.
aa) Point source - means any identifiable source of
pollution with specific point of discharge into a
particular water body.
bb) Pollutant- shall refer to any substance, whether
solid, liquid, gaseous or radioactive, which directly or
indirectly:
(i) alters the quality of any segment of the receiving
water body to affect or tend to affect adversely any
beneficial use thereof;
(ii) is hazardous or potential hazardous to health;
(iii) imparts objectionable odor, temperature change, or
physical, chemical or biological change to any
segment of the water body; or
(iv) is in excess of the allowable limits, concentrations,
or quality standards specified, or in contravention of
the condition, limitation or restriction prescribed in this
Act.
cc) Pollution control technology- means pollution
control devices or apparatus, processes, or other
means that effectively prevent control or reduce

pollution of water caused by effluents and other
discharges, from any point source at levels within the
water pollution standards.
dd) Potentially infectious medical waste- include
isolation wastes, infectious agents, human blood and
blood products, pathological wastes, sharps, body
parts, contaminated bedding, surgical wastes, and
other disposable medical equipment and material that
may pose a risk to the public health, welfare or the
marine environment.
ee) Secretary - means the Secretary of the
Department of Environmental and Natural Resources
(DENR).
ff) Septage - means the sludge produced on individual
onsite wastewater disposal systems, principally septic
tanks and cesspools.
gg) Sewage - means water-borne human or animal
wastes, excluding oil or oil wastes, removed from
residences, building, institutions, industrial and
commercial establishments together with such
groundwater, surface water and storm water as maybe
present including such waste from vessels, offshore
structures, other receptacles intended to receive or
retain waste or other places or the combination
thereof.
hh) Sewerage - includes, but is not limited to, any
system or network of pipelines, ditches, channels, or
conduits including pumping stations, lift stations and
force mains, service connections including other
constructions, devices, and appliances appurtenant
thereto, which includes the collection, transport,
pumping and treatment of sewage to a point of
disposal.
ii) Sludge - means any solid, semi-solid or liquid waste
or residue generated from a wastewater treatment
plant, water supply treatment plant, or water control
pollution facility, or any other such waste having similar
characteristics and effects.
jj) Surface water - means all water, which is open to
the atmosphere and subject to surface runoff.
kk) Treatment - means any method, technique, or
process designed to alter the physical, chemical or
biological and radiological character or composition of
any waste or wastewater to reduce or prevent
pollution.
ll) Toxic amount - means the lowest amount of

concentration of toxic pollutants, which may cause
chronic or long-term acute or lethal conditions or
effects to the aquatic life, or health of persons or which
may adversely affect designated water uses.
mm) Waste - means any material either solid, liquid,
semisolid, contained gas or other forms resulting
industrial, commercial, mining or agricultural
operations, or from community and household
activities that is devoid of usage and discarded.
nn) Wastewater - means waste in liquid state
containing pollutants.
oo) Water body - means both natural and man-made
bodies of fresh, brackish, and saline waters, and
includes, but is not limited to, aquifers, groundwater,
springs, creeks, streams, rivers, ponds, lagoons, water
reservoirs, lakes, bays, estuarine, coastal and marine
waters. Water bodies do not refer to those constructed,
developed and used purposely as water treatment
facilities and / or water storage for recycling and re-use
which are integral to process industry or
manufacturing.
pp) Water Pollution - means any alteration of the
physical, chemical, biological, or radiological properties
of a water body resulting in the impairment of its purity
or quality.
qq) Water Quality - means the characteristics of water,
which define its use in characteristics by terms of
physical, chemical, biological, bacteriological or
radiological characteristics by which the acceptability
of water is evaluated.
rr) Water quality guidelines - means the level for a
water constituent or numerical values of physical,
chemical, biological and bacteriological or radiological
parameters which are used to classify water resources
and their use, which does not result in significant
health risk and which are not intended for direct
enforcement but only for water quality management
purposes, such as determining time trends, evaluating
stages of deterioration or enhancement of the water
quality, and as basis for taking positive action in
preventing, controlling or abating water pollution.
ss) Water Quality Management Area Action Plan includes, but not be limited to, the following: (a) goals
and targets including sewerage or septage program,
(b) schedule of compliance to meet the applicable
requirements of this Act; (c) water pollution control
strategies or techniques; (d) water quality information

and education program; e) resource requirement and
possible sources; f) enforcement procedures of the
plan and (g) rewards and incentives under Chapter 4
of this Act.
STA. ROSA REALTY v. CA
FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 112526. October 12, 2001]
STA.
ROSA
REALTY
DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. COURT OF
APPEALS, JUAN B. AMANTE, FRANCISCO
L. ANDAL, LUCIA ANDAL, ANDREA P.
AYENDE, LETICIA P. BALAT, FILOMENA B.
BATINO, ANICETO A. BURGOS, JAIME A.
BURGOS, FLORENCIA CANUBAS, LORETO
A. CANUBAS, MAXIMO A. CANUBAS,
REYNALDO CARINGAL, QUIRINO C.
CASALME, BENIGNO A. CRUZAT, ELINO A.
CRUZAT, GREGORIO F. CRUZAT, RUFINO
C. CRUZAT, SERGIO CRUZAT, SEVERINO F.
CRUZAT, VICTORIA DE SAGUN, SEVERINO
DE SAGUN, FELICISIMO A. GONZALES,
FRANCISCO A. GONZALES, GREGORIO
GONZALES, LEODEGARIO N. GONZALES,
PASCUAL P. GONZALES, ROLANDO A.
GONZALES, FRANCISCO A. JUANGCO,
GERVACIO A. JUANGCO, LOURDES U.
LUNA,
ANSELMO
M.
MANDANAS,
CRISANTO
MANDANAS,
EMILIO
M.
MANDANAS, GREGORIO A. MANDANAS,
MARIO
G.
MANDANAS,
TEODORO
MANDANAS, CONSTANCIO B. MARQUEZ,
EUGENIO B. MARQUEZ, ARMANDO P.
MATIENZO,
DANIEL
D.
MATIENZO,
MAXIMINO MATIENZO, PACENCIA P.
MATIENZO, DOROTEA L. PANGANIBAN,
JUANITO T. PEREZ, MARIANITO T. PEREZ,
SEVERO M. PEREZ, INOCENCIA S.
PASQUIZA, BIENVENIDO F. PETATE,
IGNACIO F. PETATE, JUANITO PETATE,
PABLO A. PLATON, PRECILLO V. PLATON,
AQUILINO B. SUBOL, CASIANO T. VILLA,
DOMINGO VILLA, JUAN T. VILLA, MARIO C.
VILLA, NATIVIDAD A. VILLA, JACINTA S.
ALVARADO,
RODOLFO
ANGELES,
DOMINGO A. CANUBAS, EDGARDO L.
CASALME, QUIRINO DE LEON, LEONILO
M. ENRIQUEZ, CLAUDIA P. GONZALES,
FELISA
R.
LANGUE,
QUINTILLANO
LANGUE, REYNALDO LANGUE, ROMEO S.
LANGUE, BONIFACIO VILLA, ROGELIO
AYENDE, ANTONIO B. FERNANDEZ,
ZACARIAS
HERRERA,
ZACARIAS
HERRERA, REYNARIO U. LAZO, AGAPITO
MATIENZO, DIONISIO F. PETATE, LITO G.
REYES, JOSE M. SUBOL, CELESTINO G.
TOPI NO, ROSA C. AMANTE, SOTERA
CASALME, REMIGIO M. SILVERIO, THE
SECRETARY OF AGRARIAN REFORM,
DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM
ADJUDICATION BOARD, LAND BANK OF
THE PHILIPPINES, REGISTER OF DEEDS
OF
LAGUNA,
DEPARTMENT
OF
ENVIRONMENT
AND
NATURAL
RESOURCES
REGIONAL
EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR
FOR
REGION
IV,
and
REGIONAL AGRARIAN REFORM OFFICER
FOR REGION IV,respondents.
DECISION
PARDO, J.:
The case before the Court is a petition for review
on certiorari of the decision of the Court of
Appeals[1] affirming the decision of the Department of
Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board[2] (hereafter
DARAB) ordering the compulsory acquisition of
petitioners property under the Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Program (CARP).
Petitioner Sta. Rosa Realty Development
Corporation (hereafter, SRRDC) was the registered
owner of two parcels of land, situated at Barangay
Casile, Cabuyao, Laguna covered by TCT Nos. 81949
and 84891, with a total area of 254.6
hectares. According to petitioner, the parcels of land
are watersheds, which provide clean potable water to
the Canlubang community, and that ninety (90) light
industries are now located in the area.[3]
Petitioner alleged that respondents usurped its
rights over the property, thereby destroying the
ecosystem. Sometime
in
December
1985,
respondents filed a civil case [4] with the Regional Trial
Court, Laguna, seeking an easement of a right of way
to and from Barangay Casile. By way of counterclaim,
however, petitioner sought the ejectment of private
respondents.
In October 1986 to August 1987, petitioner filed
with the Municipal Trial Court, Cabuyao, Laguna
separate complaints for forcible entry against
respondents.[5]
After the filing of the ejectment cases,
respondents petitioned the Department of Agrarian

Reform (DAR) for the compulsory acquisition of the
SRRDC property under the CARP.
On August 11, 1989, the Municipal Agrarian
Reform Officer (MARO) of Cabuyao, Laguna issued a
notice of coverage to petitioner and invited its officials
or representatives to a conference on August 18, 1989.
[6]
During the meeting, the following were present:
representatives of petitioner, the Land Bank of the
Philippines, PARCCOM, PARO of Laguna, MARO of
Laguna, the BARC Chairman of Barangay Casile and
some potential farmer beneficiaries, who are residents
of Barangay Casile, Cabuyao, Laguna. It was the
consensus and recommendation of the assembly that
the landholding of SRRDC be placed under
compulsory acquisition.
On August 17, 1989, petitioner filed with the
Municipal Agrarian Reform Office (MARO), Cabuyao,
Laguna a Protest and Objection to the compulsory
acquisition of the property on the ground that the area
was not appropriate for agricultural purposes. The
area was rugged in terrain with slopes of 18% and
above and that the occupants of the land were
squatters, who were not entitled to any land as
beneficiaries.[7]
On August 29, 1989, the farmer beneficiaries
together with the BARC chairman answered the
protest and objection stating that the slope of the land
is not 18% but only 5-10% and that the land is suitable
and economically viable for agricultural purposes, as
evidenced by the Certification of the Department of
Agriculture, municipality of Cabuyao, Laguna.[8]
On September 8, 1989, MARO Belen dela Torre
made a summary investigation report and forwarded
the Compulsory Acquisition Folder Indorsement (CAFI)
to the Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer (hereafter,
PARO).[9]
On September 21, 1989, PARO Durante Ubeda
forwarded his endorsement of the compulsory
acquisition to the Secretary of Agrarian Reform.
On November 23, 1989, Acting Director Eduardo
C. Visperas of the Bureau of Land Acquisition and
Development, DAR forwarded two (2) Compulsory
Acquisition Claim Folders covering the landholding of
SRRDC, covered by TCT Nos. T-81949 and T-84891
to the President, Land Bank of the Philippines for
further review and evaluation.[10]
On December 12, 1989, Secretary of Agrarian
Reform Miriam Defensor Santiago sent two (2) notices
of acquisition[11] to petitioner, stating that petitioners

landholdings covered by TCT Nos. 81949 and 84891,
containing an area of 188.2858 and 58.5800 hectares,
valued at P4,417,735.65 and P1,220,229.93,
respectively,
had
been
placed
under
the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program.
On February 6, 1990, petitioner SRRDC in two
letters[12] separately addressed to Secretary Florencio
B. Abad and the Director, Bureau of Land Acquisition
and Distribution, sent its formal protest, protesting not
only the amount of compensation offered by DAR for
the property but also the two (2) notices of acquisition.
On March 17, 1990, Secretary Abad referred the
case to the DARAB for summary proceedings to
determine just compensation under R. A. No. 6657,
Section 16.
On March 23, 1990, the LBP returned the two (2)
claim folders previously referred for review and
evaluation to the Director of BLAD mentioning its
inability to value the SRRDC landholding due to some
deficiencies.
On March 28, 1990, Executive Director
Emmanuel S. Galvez wrote Land Bank President
Deogracias Vistan to forward the two (2) claim folders
involving the property of SRRDC to the DARAB for it to
conduct summary proceedings to determine the just
compensation for the land.
On April 6, 1990, petitioner sent a letter to the
Land Bank of the Philippines stating that its property
under the aforesaid land titles were exempt from
CARP coverage because they had been classified as
watershed area and were the subject of a pending
petition for land conversion.
On May 10, 1990, Director Narciso Villapando of
BLAD turned over the two (2) claim folders (CACFs) to
the Executive Director of the DAR Adjudication Board
for proper administrative valuation. Acting on the
CACFs, on September 10, 1990, the Board
promulgated a resolution asking the office of the
Secretary of Agrarian Reform (DAR) to first resolve two
(2) issues before it proceeds with the summary land
valuation proceedings.[13]
The issues that need to be threshed out were as
follows: (1) whether the subject parcels of land fall
within the coverage of the Compulsory Acquisition
Program of the CARP; and (2) whether the petition for
land conversion of the parcels of land may be granted.

On December 7, 1990, the Office of the Secretary,
DAR, through the Undersecretary for Operations
(Assistant Secretary for Luzon Operations) and the
Regional Director of Region IV, submitted a report
answering the two issues raised. According to them,
firstly, by virtue of the issuance of the notice of
coverage on August 11, 1989, and notice of acquisition
on December 12, 1989, the property is covered under
compulsory
acquisition. Secondly,
Administrative
Order No. 1, Series of 1990, Section IV D also
supports the DAR position on the coverage of the said
property. During the consideration of the case by the
Board, there was no pending petition for land
conversion specifically concerning the parcels of land
in question.
On February 19, 1991, the Board sent a notice of
hearing to all the parties interested, setting the hearing
for the administrative valuation of the subject parcels
of land on March 6, 1991. However, on February 22,
1991, Atty. Ma. Elena P. Hernandez-Cueva, counsel for
SRRDC, wrote the Board requesting for its assistance
in the reconstruction of the records of the case
because the records could not be found as her cocounsel, Atty. Ricardo Blancaflor, who originally
handled the case for SRRDC and had possession of
all the records of the case was on indefinite leave and
could not be contacted. The Board granted counsels
request and moved the hearing to April 4, 1991.
On March 18, 1991, SRRDC submitted a petition
to the Board for the latter to resolve SRRDCs petition
for exemption from CARP coverage before any
administrative valuation of their landholding could be
had by the Board.
On April 4, 1991, the initial DARAB hearing of the
case was held and subsequently, different dates of
hearing were set without objection from counsel of
SRRDC. During the April 15, 1991 hearing, the
subdivision plan of subject property at Casile,
Cabuyao, Laguna was submitted and marked as
Exhibit 5 for SRRDC. At the hearing on April 23,
1991, the Land Bank asked for a period of one month
to value the land in dispute.
At the hearing on April 23, 1991, certification from
Deputy Zoning Administrator Generoso B. Opina was
presented. The certification issued on September 8,
1989, stated that the parcels of land subject of the
case were classified as industrial Park per
Sanguniang Bayan Resolution No. 45-89 dated March
29, 1989.[14]
To avert any opportunity that the DARAB might

distribute the lands to the farmer beneficiaries, on April
30, 1991, petitioner filed a petition[15] with DARAB to
disqualify
private
respondents
as
beneficiaries. However, DARAB refused to address
the issue of beneficiaries.
In the meantime, on January 20, 1992, the
Regional Trial Court, Laguna, Branch 24, rendered a
decision,[16] finding that private respondents illegally
entered the SRRDC property, and ordered them
evicted.
On July 11, 1991, DAR Secretary Benjamin T.
Leong issued a memorandum directing the Land Bank
of the Philippines to open a trust account in favor of
SRRDC, for P5,637,965.55, as valuation for the
SRRDC property.
On December 19, 1991, DARAB promulgated a
decision, the decretal portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, based on the foregoing premises, the
Board hereby orders:
1. The dismissal for lack of merit of the protest against
the compulsory coverage of the landholdings of Sta.
Rosa Realty Development Corporation (Transfer
Certificates of Title Nos. 81949 and 84891 with an area
of 254.766 hectares) in Barangay Casile, Municipality
of Cabuyao, Province of Laguna under the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program is hereby
affirmed;
2. The Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) to pay Sta.
Rosa Realty Development Corporation the amount of
Seven Million Eight Hundred Forty-One Thousand,
Nine Hundred Ninety Seven Pesos and Sixty-Four
centavos (P7,841,997.64) for its landholdings covered
by the two (2) Transfer Certificates of Title mentioned
above. Should there be a rejection of the payment
tendered, to open, if none has yet been made, a trust
account for said amount in the name of Sta. Rosa
Realty Development Corporation;
3. The Register of Deeds of the Province of Laguna to
cancel with dispatch Transfer certificate of Title Nos.
84891 and 81949 and new one be issued in the name
of the Republic of the Philippines, free from liens and
encumbrances;
4 The Department of Environment and Natural
Resources either through its Provincial Office in
Laguna or the Regional Office, Region IV, to conduct a
final segregation survey on the lands covered by

Transfer certificate of Title Nos. 84891 and 81949 so
the same can be transferred by the Register of Deeds
to the name of the Republic of the Philippines;
5. The Regional Office of the Department of Agrarian
Reform through its Municipal and Provincial Agrarian
Reform Office to take immediate possession on the
said landholding after Title shall have been transferred
to the name of the Republic of the Philippines, and
distribute the same to the immediate issuance of
Emancipation Patents to the farmer-beneficiaries as
determined by the Municipal Agrarian Reform Office of
Cabuyao, Laguna.[17]
On January 20, 1992, the Regional Trial Court,
Laguna, Branch 24, rendered a decision in Civil Case
No. B-2333[18] ruling that respondents were builders in
bad faith.
On February 6, 1992, petitioner filed with the
Court of Appeals a petition for review of the DARAB
decision.[19] On November 5, 1993, the Court of
Appeals promulgated a decision affirming the decision
of DARAB. The decretal portion of the Court of
Appeals decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the DARAB
decision dated September 19, 1991 is AFFIRMED,
without prejudice to petitioner Sta. Rosa Realty
Development Corporation ventilating its case with the
Special Agrarian Court on the issue of just
compensation.[20]
Hence, this petition.[21]
On December 15, 1993, the Court issued a
Resolution which reads:
G. R. Nos. 112526 (Sta. Rosa Realty Development
Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, et. al.) Considering
the compliance, dated December 13, 1993, filed by
counsel for petitioner, with the resolution of December
8, 1993 which required petitioner to post a cash bond
or surety bond in the amount of P1,500,000.00 Pesos
before issuing a temporary restraining order prayed
for, manifesting that it has posted a CASH BOND in
the same amount with the Cashier of the Court as
evidenced by the attached official receipt no. 315519,
the Court resolved to ISSUE the Temporary Retraining
Order prayed for.
The Court therefore, resolved to restrain: (a) the
Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board
from enforcing its decision dated December 19, 1991
in DARAB Case No. JC-R-IV-LAG-0001, which was
affirmed by the Court of Appeals in a Decision dated

November 5, 1993, and which ordered, among others,
the Regional Office of the Department of Agrarian
Reform through its Municipal and Provincial Reform
Office to take immediate possession of the landholding
in dispute after title shall have been transferred to the
name of the Republic of the Philippines and to
distribute the same through the immediate issuance of
Emancipation Patents to the farmer-beneficiaries as
determined by the Municipal Agrarian Officer of
Cabuyao, Laguna, (b) The Department of Agrarian
Reform and/or the Department of Agrarian Reform
Adjudication Board, and all persons acting for and in
their behalf and under their authority from entering the
properties involved in this case and from introducing
permanent infrastructures thereon; and (c) the private
respondents from further clearing the said properties of
their green cover by the cutting or burning of trees and
other vegetation, effective today until further orders
from this Court.[22]
The main issue raised is whether the property in
question is covered by CARP despite the fact that the
entire property formed part of a watershed area prior to
the enactment of R. A. No. 6657.
Under Republic Act No. 6657, there are two
modes of acquisition of private land: compulsory and
voluntary. In the case at bar, the Department of
Agrarian Reform sought the compulsory acquisition of
subject property under R. A. No. 6657, Section 16, to
wit:
Sec. 16. Procedure for Acquisition of Private Lands.
For purposes of acquisition of private lands, the
following procedures shall be followed:
a.) After having identified the land, the landowners and
the beneficiaries, the DAR shall send its notice to
acquire the land to the owners thereof, by personal
delivery or registered mail, and post the same in a
conspicuous place in the municipal building and
barangay hall of the place where the property is
located. Said notice shall contain the offer of the DAR
to pay corresponding value in accordance with the
valuation set forth in Sections 17, 18, and other
pertinent provisions hereof.
b.) Within thirty (30) days from the date of the receipt
of written notice by personal delivery or registered
mail, the landowner, his administrator or representative
shall inform the DAR of his acceptance or rejection of
the offer.

c.) If the landowner accepts the offer of the DAR, the
LBP shall pay the landowner the purchase price of the
land within thirty (30) days after he executes and
delivers a deed of transfer in favor of the government
and other muniments of title.
d.) In case of rejection or failure to reply, the DAR shall
conduct summary administrative proceedings to
determine the compensation for the land requiring the
landowner, the LBP and other interested parties to
submit fifteen (15) days from receipt of the
notice. After the expiration of the above period, the
matter is deemed submitted for decision. The DAR
shall decide the case within thirty (30) days after it is
submitted for decision.
e.) Upon receipt by the landowner of the
corresponding payment, or, in case of rejection or no
response from the landowner, upon the deposit with an
accessible bank designated by the DAR of the
compensation in cash or in LBP bonds in accordance
with this act, the DAR shall make immediate
possession of the land and shall request the proper
Register of Deeds to issue Transfer Certificate of Titles
(TCT) in the name of the Republic of the
Philippines. The DAR shall thereafter proceed with the
redistribution of the land to the qualified beneficiaries.
f.) Any party who disagrees with the decision may
bring the matter to the court [23] of proper jurisdiction for
final determination of just compensation.
In compulsory acquisition of private lands, the
landholding, the landowners and farmer beneficiaries
must first be identified. After identification, the DAR
shall send a notice of acquisition to the landowner, by
personal delivery or registered mail, and post it in a
conspicuous place in the municipal building and
barangay hall of the place where the property is
located.
Within thirty (30) days from receipt of the notice of
acquisition, the landowner, his administrator or
representative shall inform the DAR of his acceptance
or rejection of the offer.
If the landowner accepts, he executes and
delivers a deed of transfer in favor of the government
and surrenders the certificate of title. Within thirty (30)
days from the execution of the deed of transfer, the
Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) pays the owner the
purchase price. If the landowner accepts, he executes
and delivers a deed of transfer in favor of the
government and surrenders the certificate of
title. Within thirty days from the execution of the deed
of transfer, the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP)

pays the owner the purchase price. If the landowner
rejects the DARs offer or fails to make a reply, the
DAR conducts summary administrative proceedings to
determine just compensation for the land. The
landowner, the LBP representative and other
interested parties may submit evidence on just
compensation within fifteen days from notice. Within
thirty days from submission, the DAR shall decide the
case and inform the owner of its decision and the
amount of just compensation.
Upon receipt by the owner of the corresponding
payment, or, in case of rejection or lack of response
from the latter, the DAR shall deposit the
compensation in cash or in LBP bonds with an
accessible bank. The DAR shall immediately take
possession of the land and cause the issuance of a
transfer certificate of title in the name of the Republic
of the Philippines. The land shall then be redistributed
to the farmer beneficiaries. Any party may question
the decision of the DAR in the special agrarian courts
(provisionally the Supreme Court designated branches
of the regional trial court as special agrarian courts) for
final determination of just compensation.
The DAR has made compulsory acquisition the
priority mode of land acquisition to hasten the
implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian
Reform Program (CARP). Under Sec. 16 of the CARL,
the first step in compulsory acquisition is the
identification of the land, the landowners and the
farmer beneficiaries. However, the law is silent on how
the identification process shall be made. To fill this
gap, on July 26, 1989, the DAR issued Administrative
Order No. 12, series of 1989, which set the operating
procedure in the identification of such lands. The
procedure is as follows:
A. The Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO),
with the assistance of the pertinent Barangay Agrarian
Reform Committee (BARC), shall:
1. Update the masterlist of all agricultural lands
covered under the CARP in his area of
responsibility; the masterlist should include such
information as required under the attached CARP
masterlist form which shall include the name of the
landowner, landholding area, TCT/OCT number,
and tax declaration number.
2. Prepare the Compulsory Acquisition Case Folder
(CACF) for each title (OCT/TCT) or landholding
covered under Phase I and II of the CARP except
those for which the landowners have already filed

applications to avail of other modes of land
acquisition. A case folder shall contain the
following duly accomplished forms:
a)
CARP CA Form 1MARO investigation report
b)
CARP CA Form No 2 Summary investigation
report findings and evaluation
c)
CARP CA Form 3Applicants Information
sheet
d)
CARP CA Form 4 Beneficiaries undertaking
the
personnel
who
participated
accomplishment of these forms.
in
the
3. In all cases, the PARO may validate the report of

the MARO through ocular inspection and
verification of the property. This ocular inspection
and verification shall be mandatory when the
computed value exceeds P500,000 per estate.
4. Upon determination of the valuation, forward the
case folder, together with the duly accomplished
valuation forms and his recommendations, to the
Central Office.
e)
CARP CA Form 5 Transmittal report to the
PARO
The LBP representative and the MARO concerned

shall be furnished a copy each of his report.
The MARO/BARC shall certify that all information

contained in the above-mentioned forms have been
examined and verified by him and that the same are
true and correct.
C. DAR Central Office, specifically through the Bureau

of Land Acquisition and Distribution (BLAD), shall:
3. Send notice of coverage and a letter of invitation to

a conference/meeting to the landowner covered by
the
Compulsory
Case
Acquisition
Folder. Invitations to the said conference meeting
shall also be sent to the prospective farmerbeneficiaries, the BARC representatives, the Land
Bank of the Philippines (LBP) representative, and
the other interested parties to discuss the inputs to
the valuation of the property.
He shall discuss the MARO/BARC investigation report
and solicit the views, objection, agreements or
suggestions of the participants thereon. The
landowner shall also ask to indicate his retention
area. The minutes of the meeting shall be signed by
all participants in the conference and shall form an
integral part of the CACF.
4. Submit all completed case folders to the Provincial
Agrarian Reform Officer (PARO).
B. The PARO shall:
1. Ensure the individual case folders are forwarded to
him by his MAROs.
2. Immediately upon receipt of a case folder,
compute the valuation of the land in accordance
with A.O. No. 6, series of 1988. The valuation
worksheet and the related CACF valuation forms
shall be duly certified correct by the PARO and all
1. Within three days from receipt of the case folder

from the PARO, review, evaluate and determine
the final land valuation of the property covered by
the case folder. A summary review and evaluation
report shall be prepared and duly certified by the
BLAD Director and the personnel directly
participating in the review and final valuation.
2. Prepare, for the signature of the Secretary or her
duly authorized representative, a notice of
acquisition (CARP Form 8) for the subject
property. Serve the notice to the landowner
personally or through registered mail within three
days from its approval. The notice shall include
among others, the area subject of compulsory
acquisition, and the amount of just compensation
offered by DAR.
3. Should the landowner accept the DARs offered
value, the BLAD shall prepare and submit to the
Secretary
for
approval
the
order
of
acquisition. However, in case of rejection or nonreply, the DAR Adjudication Board (DARAB) shall
conduct a summary administrative hearing to
determine just compensation, in accordance with
the procedures provided under Administrative
Order No. 13, series of 1989. Immediately upon
receipt of the DARABs decision on just
compensation, the BLAD shall prepare and submit
to the Secretary for approval the required order of
acquisition.
4. Upon the landowners receipt of payment, in case
of acceptance, or upon deposit of payment in the
designated bank, in case of rejection or non-

response, the Secretary shall immediately direct
the pertinent Register of Deeds to issue the
corresponding Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) in
the name of the Republic of the Philippines. Once
the property is transferred, the DAR, through the
PARO, shall take possession of the land for
redistribution to qualified beneficiaries.
Administrative Order No. 12, Series of 1989
requires that the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer
(MARO) keep an updated master list of all agricultural
lands under the CARP in his area of responsibility
containing all the required information. The MARO
prepares a Compulsory Acquisition Case Folder
(CACF) for each title covered by CARP. The MARO
then sends the landowner a Notice of Coverage and
a letter of invitation to a conference/ meeting over
the land covered by the CACF. He also sends
invitations to the prospective farmer-beneficiaries, the
representatives of the Barangay Agrarian Reform
Committee (BARC), the Land Bank of the Philippines
(LBP) and other interested parties to discuss the inputs
to the valuation of the property and solicit views,
suggestions, objections or agreements of the
parties. At the meeting, the landowner is asked to
indicate his retention area.
The MARO shall make a report of the case to the
Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer (PARO) who shall
complete the valuation of the land. Ocular inspection
and verification of the property by the PARO shall be
mandatory when the computed value of the estate
exceeds P500,000.00. Upon determination of the
valuation, the PARO shall forward all papers together
with his recommendation to the Central Office of the
DAR. The DAR Central Office, specifically, the Bureau
of Land Acquisition and Distribution (BLAD) shall
prepare, on the signature of the Secretary or his duly
authorized representative, a notice of acquisition of the
subject property. From this point, the provisions of R.
A. No. 6657, Section 16 shall apply.
For a valid implementation of the CARP Program,
two notices are required: (1) the notice of coverage
and letter of invitation to a preliminary conference sent
to the landowner, the representative of the BARC, LBP,
farmer beneficiaries and other interested parties
pursuant to DAR A. O. No. 12, series of 1989; and (2)
the notice of acquisition sent to the landowner under
Section 16 of the CARL.
The importance of the first notice, that is, the
notice of coverage and the letter of invitation to a
conference, and its actual conduct cannot be
understated. They are steps designed to comply with
the requirements of administrative due process. The

implementation of the CARL is an exercise of the
States police power and the power of eminent
domain. To the extent that the CARL prescribes
retention limits to the landowners, there is an exercise
of police power for the regulation of private property in
accordance with the Constitution. But where, to carry
out such regulation, the owners are deprived of lands
they own in excess of the maximum area allowed,
there is also a taking under the power of eminent
domain. The taking contemplated is not mere
limitation of the use of the land. What is required is the
surrender of the title to and physical possession of the
excess and all beneficial rights accruing to the owner
in favor of the farmer beneficiary.
In the case at bar, DAR has executed the taking
of the property in question. However, payment of just
compensation was not in accordance with the
procedural requirement. The law required payment in
cash or LBP bonds, not by trust account as was done
by DAR.
In Association of Small Landowners in the
Philippines v. Secretary of Agrarian Reform, we held
that The CARP Law, for its part, conditions the
transfer of possession and ownership of the land to the
government on receipt of the landowner of the
corresponding payment or the deposit by the DAR of
the compensation in cash or LBP bonds with an
accessible bank. Until then, title also remains with the
landowner. No outright change of ownership is
contemplated either.[24]
Consequently, petitioner questioned before the
Court of Appeals DARABs decision ordering the
compulsory acquisition of petitioners property.[25] Here,
petitioner pressed the question of whether the property
was a watershed, not covered by CARP.
Article 67 of the Water Code of the Philippines (P.
D. No. 1067) provides:
Art. 67. Any watershed or any area of land adjacent
to any surface water or overlying any ground water
may be declared by the Department of Natural
resources as a protected area. Rules and Regulations
may be promulgated by such Department to prohibit or
control such activities by the owners or occupants
thereof within the protected area which may damage
or cause the deterioration of the surface water or
ground water or interfere with the investigation, use,
control, protection, management or administration of
such waters.

Watersheds may be defined as an area drained
by a river and its tributaries and enclosed by a
boundary or divide which separates it from adjacent
watersheds. Watersheds generally are outside the
commerce of man, so why was the Casile property
titled in the name of SRRDC? The answer is
simple. At the time of the titling, the Department of
Agriculture and Natural Resources had not declared
the property as watershed area. The parcels of land in
Barangay Casile were declared as PARK by a Zoning
Ordinance adopted by the municipality of Cabuyao in
1979, as certified by the Housing and Land Use
Regulatory Board. On January 5, 1994, the
Sangguniang Bayan of Cabuyao, Laguna issued a
Resolution[26] voiding the zoning classification of the
land at Barangay Casile as Park and declaring that the
land is now classified as agricultural land.
The authority of the municipality of Cabuyao,
Laguna to issue zoning classification is an exercise of
its police power, not the power of eminent domain. A
zoning ordinance is defined as a local city or municipal
legislation which logically arranges, prescribes, defines
and apportions a given political subdivision into
specific land uses as present and future projection of
needs.[27]
In Natalia Realty, Inc. v. Department of Agrarian
Reform[28] we held that lands classified as nonagricultural prior to the effectivity of the CARL may not
be compulsorily acquired for distribution to farmer
beneficiaries.
However, more than the classification of the
subject land as PARK is the fact that subsequent
studies and survey showed that the parcels of land in
question form a vital part of a watershed area. [29]
Now, petitioner has offered to prove that the land
in dispute is a watershed or part of the protected area
for watershed purposes. Ecological balances and
environmental disasters in our day and age seem to be
interconnected. Property developers and tillers of the
land must be aware of this deadly combination. In the
case at bar, DAR included the disputed parcels of land
for compulsory acquisition simply because the land
was allegedly devoted to agriculture and was titled to
SRRDC, hence, private and alienable land that may be
subject to CARP.
However, the scenario has changed, after an indepth study, survey and reassessment. We cannot
ignore the fact that the disputed parcels of land form a
vital part of an area that need to be protected for
watershed purposes. In a report of the Ecosystems
Research and Development Bureau (ERDB), a

research arm of the DENR, regarding the
environmental assessment of the Casile and Kabangaan river watersheds, they concluded that:
The Casile barangay covered by CLOA in question is
situated
in
the
heartland
of
both
watersheds. Considering the barangays proximity to
the Matangtubig waterworks, the activities of the
farmers which are in conflict with proper soil and water
conservation practices jeopardize and endanger the
vital waterworks. Degradation of the land would have
double edge detrimental effects. On the Casile side
this would mean direct siltation of the Mangumit river
which drains to the water impounding reservoir
below. On the Kabanga-an side, this would mean
destruction of forest covers which acts as recharged
areas of the Matang Tubig springs. Considering that
the people have little if no direct interest in the
protection of the Matang Tubig structures they couldnt
care less even if it would be destroyed.
The Casile and Kabanga-an watersheds can be
considered a most vital life support system to
thousands of inhabitants directly and indirectly affected
by it. From these watersheds come the natural Godgiven precious resource water. x x x x x
Clearing and tilling of the lands are totally inconsistent
with sound watershed management. More so, the
introduction of earth disturbing activities like road
building
and
erection
of
permanent
infrastructures. Unless the pernicious agricultural
activities of the Casile farmers are immediately
stopped, it would not be long before these watersheds
would cease to be of value. The impact of watershed
degredation threatens the livelihood of thousands of
people dependent upon it. Toward this, we hope that
an acceptable comprehensive watershed development
policy and program be immediately formulated and
implemented before the irreversible damage finally
happens.
Hence, the following are recommended:
7.2 The Casile farmers should be relocated and given
financial assistance.
7.3 Declaration of the two watersheds as critical and
in need of immediate rehabilitation.
7.4 A comprehensive and detailed watershed
management plan and program be formulated and
implemented by the Canlubang Estate in coordination
with pertinent government agencies.[30]

The ERDB report was prepared by a composite
team headed by Dr. Emilio Rosario, the ERDB
Director, who holds a doctorate degree in water
resources from U.P. Los Banos in 1987; Dr. Medel
Limsuan, who obtained his doctorate degree in
watershed management from Colorado University (US)
in 1989; and Dr. Antonio M. Dano, who obtained his
doctorate degree in Soil and Water management
Conservation from U.P. Los Banos in 1993.
Also, DENR Secretary Angel Alcala submitted a
Memorandum for the President dated September 7,
1993 (Subject: PFVR HWI Ref.: 933103 Presidential
Instructions on the Protection of Watersheds of the
Canlubang Estates at Barrio Casile, Cabuyao, Laguna)
which reads:
It is the opinion of this office that the area in question
must be maintained for watershed purposes for
ecological and environmental considerations, among
others. Although the 88 families who are the proposed
CARP beneficiaries will be affected, it is important that
a larger view of the situation be taken as one should
also consider the adverse effect on thousands of
residents downstream if the watershed will not be
protected and maintained for watershed purposes.
The foregoing considered, it is recommended that if
possible, an alternate area be allocated for the
affected farmers, and that the Canlubang Estates be
mandated to protect and maintain the area in question
as a permanent watershed reserved.[31]
The definition does not exactly depict the
complexities of a watershed. The most important
product of a watershed is water which is one of the
most important human necessity. The protection of
watersheds ensures an adequate supply of water for
future generations and the control of flashfloods that
not only damage property but cause loss of
lives. Protection of watersheds is an intergenerational
responsibility that needs to be answered now.
defense, school sites and campuses including

experimental farm stations operated by public or
private schools for educational purposes, seeds and
seedlings research and pilot production centers,
church sites and convents appurtenent thereto,
communal burial grounds and cemeteries, penal
colonies and penal farms actually worked by the
inmates, government and private research and
quarantine centers, and all lands with eighteen
percent (18%) slope and over, except those already
developed shall be exempt from coverage of this Act.
Hence, during the hearing at DARAB, there was
proof showing that the disputed parcels of land may be
excluded from the compulsory acquisition coverage of
CARP because of its very high slopes.
To resolve the issue as to the true nature of the
parcels of land involved in the case at bar, the Court
directs the DARAB to conduct a re-evaluation of the
issue.
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the Court SETS ASIDE the
decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G. R. SP No.
27234.
In lieu thereof, the Court REMANDS the case to
the DARAB for re-evaluation and determination of the
nature of the parcels of land involved to resolve the
issue of its coverage by the Comprehensive Land
Reform Program.
In the meantime, the effects of the CLOAs issued
by the DAR to supposed farmer beneficiaries shall
continue to be stayed by the temporary restraining
order issued on December 15, 1993, which shall
remain in effect until final decision on the case.
No costs.
SO ORDERED.
Another factor that needs to be mentioned is the

fact that during the DARAB hearing, petitioner
presented proof that the Casile property has slopes of
18% and over, which exempted the land from the
coverage of CARL. R. A. No. 6657, Section 10,
provides:
Section 10. Exemptions and Exclusions. Lands
actually, directly and exclusively used and found to be
necessary for parks, wildlife, forest reserves,
reforestration, fish sanctuaries and breeding
grounds,watersheds and
mangroves,
national
RA 8749

Congress of the Philippines
Metro Manila
Eleventh Congress
Republic Act No. 8749
June 23, 1999
AN ACT PROVIDING FOR A COMPREHENSIVE AIR

POLLUTION CONTROL POLICY AND FOR OTHER
PURPOSES
Representatives of the Philippines in Congress
assembled::
Chapter 1
General Provisions
Article One
Basic Air Quality Policies
Section 1. Short Title. - This Act shall be known as
the "Philippine Clean Air Act of 1999."
xxx
xxx
xxx
Article Two
Definition of Terms
Section 5. Definitions. - As used in this Act:
a) "Air pollutant" means any matter found in the
atmosphere other than oxygen, nitrogen, water vapor,
carbon dioxide, and the inert gases in their natural or
normal concentrations, that is detrimental to health or
the environment, which includes but not limited to
smoke, dust, soot, cinders, fly ash, solid particles of
any kind, gases, fumes, chemical mists, steam and
radio-active substances;
b) "Air pollution" means any alteration of the physical,
chemical and biological properties of the atmospheric
air, or any discharge thereto of any liquid, gaseous or
solid substances that will or is likely to create or to
render the air resources of the country harmful,
detrimental, or injurious to public health, safety or
welfare or which will adversely affect their utilization for
domestic,
commercial,
industrial,
agricultural,
recreational, or other legitimate purposes;
c) "Ambient air quality guideline values" mean the
concentration of air over specified periods classified as
short-term and long-term which are intended to serve
as goals or objectives for the protection of health

and/or public welfare. These values shall be used for
air quality management purposes such as determining
time trends, evaluating stages of deterioration or
enhancement of the air quality, and in general, used as
basis for taking positive action in preventing,
controlling, or abating air pollution;
d) "Ambient air quality" means the general amount of
pollution present in a broad area; and refers to the
atmosphere's average purity as distinguished from
discharge measurements taken at the source of
pollution;
e) "Certificate of Conformity" means a certificate
issued by the Department of Environment and Natural
Resources to a vehicle manufacturer/assembler or
importer certifying that a particular new vehicle or
vehicle type meets the requirements provided under
this Act and its rules and regulations;
f) "Department" means the Department of Environment
and Natural Resources;
g) "Eco-profile" means the geographic-based
instrument for planners and decision-makers which
present an evaluation of the environmental quality and
carrying capacity of an area. It is the result of the
integration of primary and secondary data and
information on natural resources and anthropogenic
activities on the land which are evaluated by various
environmental risk assessment and forecasting
methodologies that enable the Department to
anticipate the type of development control necessary
in the planning area;
h) "Emission" means any air contaminant, pollutant,
gas stream or unwanted sound from a known source
which is passed into the atmosphere;
i) "Greenhouse gases" mean those gases that can
potentially or can reasonably be expected to induce
global warming, which include carbon dioxide,
methane, oxides of nitrogen, chlorofluorocarbons, and
the like;
j) "Hazardous substances" mean those substances
which present either: (1) short-term acute hazards
such as acute toxicity by ingestion, inhalation, or skin
absorption, corrosivity or other skin or eye contact
hazard or the risk of fire explosion; or (2) longterm
toxicity upon repeated exposure, carcinogenicity
(which in some cases result in acute exposure but with
a long latent period), resistance to detoxification

process such as biodegradation, the potential to
pollute underground or surface waters;
k) "Infectious waste" means that portion of medical
waste that could transmit an infectious disease;
l) "Medical waste" means the materials generated as a
result of patient diagnosis, treatment, or immunization
of human beings or animals;
m) "Mobile source" means any vehicle propelled by or
through combustion of carbon-based or other fuel,
constructed and operated principally for the
conveyance of persons or the transportation of
property goods;
n) "Motor vehicle" means any vehicle propelled by a
gasoline or diesel engine or by any means other than
human or animal power, constructed and operated
principally for the conveyance of persons or the
transportation of property or goods in a public highway
or street open to public use;
o) "Municipal waste" means the waste materials
generated from communities within a specific locality;
p) "New vehicle" means a vehicle constructed entirely
from new parts that has never been sold or registered
with the DOTC or with the appropriate agency or
authority, and operated on the highways of the
Philippines, any foreign state or country;
q) "Octane Rating or the Anti-Knock Index(AKI)"
means the rating of the anti-knock characteristics of a
grade or type of automotive gasoline as determined by
dividing by two (2) the sum of the Research Octane
Number (RON), plus the Motor Octane Number
(MON); the octane requirement, with respect to
automotive gasoline for use in a motor vehicle or a
class thereof, whether imported, manufactured, or
assembled by a manufacturer, shall refer to the
minimum octane rating of such automotive gasoline
which such manufacturer recommends for the efficient
operation of such motor vehicle, or a substantial
portion of such class, without knocking;
r) "Ozone Depleting Substances (ODS)" means those
substances that significantly deplete or otherwise
modify the ozone layer in a manner that is likely to
result in adverse effects of human health and the
environment such as, but not limited to,
chloroflourocarbons, halons and the like;
s) "Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs)" means the
organic compounds that persist in the environment,
bioaccumulate through the food web, and pose a risk

of causing adverse effects to human health and the
environment. These compounds resist photolytic,
chemical and biological degradation, which shall
include but not be limited to dioxin, furan,
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs), organochlorine
pesticides,
such
as
aldrin,
dieldrin,
DDT,
hexachlorobenzene,
lindane,
toxaphere
and
chlordane;
t) "Poisonous and toxic fumes" means any emissions
and fumes which are beyond internationally - accepted
standards, including but not limited to the World Health
Organization (WHO) guideline values;
u) "Pollution control device" means any device or
apparatus used to prevent, control or abate the
pollution of air caused by emissions from identified
pollution sources at levels within the air pollution
control standards established by the Department;
v) "Pollution control technology" means the pollution
control devices, production process, fuel combustion
processes or other means that effectively prevent or
reduce emissions or effluent;
w) "Standard of performance" means a standard for
emissions of air pollutant which reflects the degree of
emission limitation achievable through the application
of the best system of emission reduction, taking into
account the cost of achieving such reduction and any
non-air quality health and environmental impact and
energy requirement which the Department determines,
and adequately demonstrates; and
x) "Stationary source" means any building or immobile
structure, facility or installation which emits or may
emit any air pollutant.
MMDA v. JANCOM
THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 147465. January 30, 2002]
METROPOLITAN
MANILA
DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY, petitioner,
vs. JANCOM
ENVIRONMENTAL CORPORATION and
JANCOM INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
PROJECTS
PTY.
LIMITED
OF
AUSTRALIA, respondents.
DECISION
MELO, J.:
Before the Court is a petition for review
on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Civil
Procedure filed by petitioner Metropolitan Manila
Development Authority (MMDA), seeking to reverse
and set aside the November 13, 2000 decision of the
Court of Appeals declaring valid and perfected the
waste management contract entered into by the
Republic of the Philippines, represented by the
Secretary of National Resources and the Executive
Committee to oversee the build-operate-transfer
implementation of solid waste management projects,
and JANCOM Environmental Corporation.
The pertinent facts are as follows:
In 1994, then President Fidel V. Ramos issued
Presidential Memorandum Order No. 202 creating the
Executive Committee (EXECOM) to oversee the BOT
implementation of solid waste management projects,
headed by the Chairman of the MMDA and the Cabinet
Officer for Regional Development-National Capital
Region (CORD-NCR). The EXECOM was to oversee
and develop waste-to-energy projects for the waste
disposal
sites
in San
Mateo,
Rizal
and
Carmona, Cavite under
the
build-operate-transfer
(BOT) scheme. The terms of reference for the wasteto-energy projects provided that its proponents should
have the capability to establish municipal solid waste
thermal plants using incineration technology. This type
of technology was selected because of its alleged
advantages of greatly reduced waste volume,
prolongation of the service life of the disposal site, and
generation of electricity.
While eleven (11) proponents submitted their prequalification documents, most failed to comply with the
requirements under Section 5.4 of the Implementing
Rules and Regulations (IRR) of Republic Act No. 6957,
otherwise known as the Build-Operate-Transfer
Law. On July 21, 1995, the Pre-qualification, Bids and
Awards Committee (PBAC) recommended the prequalification of three proponents, namely: i) JANCOM
International Pty. Ltd.; ii) First Philippine International

W-E Managers; and iii) PACTECH Development
Corporation. On July 26, 1995,the EXECOM approved
the recommendation of the PBAC. On July 27, 1995,
MMDA forwarded to the Investment Coordinating
Committee (ICC) Secretariat the pre-feasibility study
on the privatization of the Carmona and San
Mateo landfill sites. The project was later presented to
the ICC-Technical Board (ICC-TB) and then endorsed
to the ICC-Cabinet Committee (ICC-CC).
On May 2, 1996, the PBAC conducted a pre-bid
conference where it required the three pre-qualified
bidders to submit, within ninety (90) days, their bid
proposals. On August 2, 1996, JANCOM and First
Philippines requested for an extension of time to
submit their bids. PACTECH, on the other hand,
withdrew from the bidding.
Subsequently,
JANCOM
entered
into
a
partnership with Asea Brown Boveri (ABB) to form
JANCOM Environmental Corporation while First
Philippines formed a partnership withOGDEN. Due to
the change in the composition of the proponents,
particularly in their technology partners and
contractors, the PBAC conducted a post prequalification evaluation.
During the second bid conference, the bid
proposals of First Philippines for the Carmona site and
JANCOM for the San Mateo site were found to be
complete and responsive. Consequently, on February
12, 1997, JANCOM and First Philippines were
declared the winning bidders, respectively, for the San
Mateo and the Carmona projects.
In a letter dated February 27, 1997, then MMDA
Chairman Prospero I. Oreta informed JANCOMs Chief
Executive Officer Jay Alparslan that the EXECOM had
approved the PBAC recommendation to award to
JANCOM the San Mateo Waste-to-Energy Project on
the basis of the final Evaluation Report declaring
JANCOM International Ltd., Pty., together with Asea
Brown Boveri (ABB), as the sole complying (winning)
bidder for the San Mateo Waste Disposal site, subject
to negotiation and mutual approval of the terms and
conditions of the contract of award. The letter also
notified Alparslan that the EXECOM had created a
negotiating team composed of Secretary General
Antonio Hidalgo of the Housing and Urban
Development Coordinating Council, Director Ronald G.
Fontamillas, General Manager Roberto Nacianceno of
MMDA, and Atty. Eduardo Torres of the host local
government unit to work out and finalize the
contract award. Chairman Oreta requested JANCOM

to submit to the EXECOM the composition of its own
negotiating team.
Thereafter, after a series of meetings and
consultations between the negotiating teams of
EXECOM and JANCOM, a draft BOT contract was
prepared and presented to the Presidential Task Force
on Solid Waste Management.
On December 19, 1997, the BOT Contract for the
waste-to-energy project was signed between JANCOM
and the Philippine Government, represented by the
Presidential Task Force on Solid Waste Management
through DENR Secretary Victor Ramos, CORD-NCR
Chairman Dionisio dela Serna, and MMDA Chairman
Prospero Oreta.
On March 5, 1998, the BOT contract was
submitted to President Ramos for approval but this
was too close to the end of his term which expired
without him signing the contract. President Ramos,
however, endorsed the contract to incoming President
Joseph E. Estrada.
With the change of administration, the
composition of the EXECOM also changed.
Memorandum Order No. 19 appointed the Chairman of
the Presidential Committee on Flagship Programs and
Project to be the EXECOM chairman. Too, Republic
Act No. 8749, otherwise known as the Clean Air Act of
1999, was passed by Congress. And due to the
clamor of residents of Rizal province, President
Estrada had, in the interim, also ordered the closure of
the San Mateo landfill. Due to these circumstances,
the Greater Manila Solid Waste Management
Committee adopted a resolution not to pursue the BOT
contract with JANCOM. Subsequently, in a letter
dated November 4, 1999, Roberto Aventajado,
Chairman of the Presidential Committee on Flagship
Programs and Project informed Mr. Jay Alparslan,
Chairman of JANCOM, that due to changes in policy
and economic environment (Clean Air Act and nonavailability of the San Mateo landfill), the
implementation of the BOT contract executed and
signed between JANCOM and the Philippine
Government would no longer be pursued. The letter
stated
that
other
alternative
implementation
arrangements for solid waste management for Metro
Manila would be considered instead.
JANCOM appealed to President Joseph Estrada
the position taken by the EXECOM not to pursue the
BOT Contract executed and signed between JANCOM
and the Philippine Government, refuting the cited
reasons
for
non-implementation. Despite
the
pendency of the appeal, MMDA, on February 22,

2000, caused the publication in a newspaper of an
invitation to pre-qualify and to submit proposals for
solid waste management projects for Metro
Manila. JANCOM thus filed with the Regional Trial
Court of Pasig a petition for certiorari to declare i) the
resolution of the Greater Metropolitan Manila Solid
Waste Management Committee disregarding the BOT
Contract and ii) the acts of MMDA calling for bids and
authorizing a new contract for Metro Manila waste
management, as illegal, unconstitutional, and void; and
for prohibition to enjoin the Greater Metropolitan
Manila Solid Waste Management Committee and
MMDA from implementing the assailed resolution and
disregarding the Award to, and the BOT contract with,
JANCOM, and from making another award in its
place. On May 29, 2000, the trial court rendered a
decision, the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Court
hereby renders judgment in favor of petitioners
JANCOM ENVIRONMENTAL CORPORATION, and
JANCOM
INTERNATIONAL
DEVELOPMENT
PROJECTS PTY., LIMITED OF AUSTRALIA, and
against respondent GREATER METROPOLITAN
MANILA SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT COMM., and
HON. ROBERTO N. AVENTAJADO, in his Capacity as
Chairman of the said Committee, METRO MANILA
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY and HON. JEJOMAR
C. BINAY, in his capacity as Chairman of said
Authority, declaring the Resolution of respondent
Greater Metropolitan Manila Solid Waste Management
Committee disregarding petitioners BOT Award
Contract and calling for bids for and authorizing a new
contract for the Metro Manila waste management
ILLEGAL and VOID.
Moreover, respondents and their agents are hereby
PROHIBITED and ENJOINED from implementing the
aforesaid Resolution and disregarding petitioners BOT
Award Contract and from making another award in its
place.
Let it be emphasized that this Court is not preventing
or stopping the government from implementing
infrastructure projects as it is aware of the proscription
under PD 1818. On the contrary, the Court is paving
the way for the necessary and modern solution to the
perennial garbage problem that has been the major
headache of the government and in the process would
serve to attract more investors in the country.
(Rollo,p. 159.)

Instead of appealing the decision, MMDA filed a
special civil action for certiorari with prayer for a
temporary restraining order with the Court of Appeals
which was later docketed therein as CA-G.R. SP No.
59021. The appellate court not only required JANCOM
to comment on the petition, it also granted MMDAs
prayer for a temporary restraining order. During the
pendency of the petition for certiorari, JANCOM moved
for the execution of the RTC decision, which was
opposed by MMDA. However, the RTC granted the
motion for execution on the ground that its decision
had become final since MMDA had not appealed the
same to the Court of Appeals. MMDA moved to
declare respondents and the RTC judge in contempt of
court, alleging that the RTCs grant of execution was
abuse of and interference with judicial rules and
processes.
On November 13, 2001, the Court of Appeals
dismissed the petition in CA-G.R. SP No. 59021 and a
companion case, CA-G.R. SP No. 60303.
MMDAs motion for reconsideration of said
decision having been denied, MMDA filed the instant
petition, alleging that the Court of Appeals gravely
erred in finding that:
1) There is a valid and binding contract between the
Republic of the Philippines and JANCOM given
that: a) the contract does not bear the signature of
the President of the Philippines; b) the conditions
precedent specified in the contract were not
complied with; and c) there was no valid notice of
award.
2) The MMDA had not seasonably appealed the
Decision of the lower court via a petition for
certiorari.
Before taking up the substantive issue in
question, we shall first dispose of the question as to
whether it is fatal to petitioners cause, that rather than
appealing the trial courts decision to the Court of
Appeals, it instead filed a petition for certiorari. While
petitioner claims that the trial courts decision never
became final by virtue of its having appealed
by certiorari to the Court of Appeals, the trial court
ruled that petitioners failure to file an appeal has made
its decision final and executory. At bottom, the
question involves a determination of the propriety of
petitioners choice of the remedy of certiorari in
questioning the decision of the trial court.
Section 1, Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure provides:
Section 1. Petition for certiorari. When any tribunal,

board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial
functions has acted without or in excess of its or his
jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and there
is no appeal, or any plain, speedy, and adequate
remedy in the ordinary course of law, a person
aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the
proper court, alleging the facts with certainty and
praying that judgment be rendered annulling or
modifying the proceedings of such tribunal, board or
officer, and granting such incidental reliefs as law and
justice may require.
The petition shall be accompanied by a certified true
copy of the judgment, order, or resolution subject
thereof, copies of all pleadings and documents
relevant and pertinent thereto, and a sworn
certification of non-forum shopping as provided in the
third paragraph of section 3, Rule 46.
Plain it is from a reading of the above provision
that certiorari will lie only where a court has acted
without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse
of discretion. If the court has jurisdiction over the
subject matter and of the person, its rulings upon all
questions involved are within its jurisdiction, however
irregular or erroneous these may be, they cannot be
corrected by certiorari. Correction may be obtained
only by an appeal from the final decision.
Verily, Section 1, Rule 41 of the 1997 Rules of
Civil Procedure provides:
SEC. 1. Subject of appeal. An appeal may be taken
from a judgment or final order that completely disposes
of the case or of a particular matter therein when
declared by these Rules to be appealable.
xxx
xxx
xxx
In all the above instances where the judgment or final
order is not appealable, the aggrieved party may file
an appropriate special civil action under Rule 65.
There can be no dispute that the trial courts May
29, 2000 decision was a final order or judgment which
MMDA should have appealed, had it been so
minded. In its decision, the trial court disposed of the
main controversy by declaring the Resolution of
respondent Greater Metropolitan Manila Solid Waste
Management Committee disregarding petitioners BOT
Award Contract and calling for bids for and authorizing

a new contract for the Metro Manila waste
management ILLEGAL and VOID. This ruling
completely disposed of the controversy between
MMDA and JANCOM. In BA Finance Corporation vs.
CA (229 SCRA 5667 [1994]), we held that a final
order or judgment is one which disposes of the whole
subject matter or terminates a particular proceeding or
action, leaving nothing to be done but to enforce by
execution what has been determined. An order or
judgment is deemed final when it finally disposes of
the pending action so that nothing more can be done
with it in the trial court. In other words, a final order is
that which gives an end to the litigation. A final order
or judgment finally disposes of, adjudicates, or
determines the rights, or some right or rights of the
parties, either on the entire controversy or on some
definite and separate branch thereof, and concludes
them until it is reversed or set aside. Where no issue
is left for future consideration, except the fact of
compliance or non-compliance with the terms of the
judgment or doer, such judgment or order is final and
appealable (Investments,
Inc.
vs.
Court
of
Appeals, 147 SCRA 334 [1987]).
However, instead of appealing the decision,
MMDA resorted to the extraordinary remedy
of certiorari, as a mode of obtaining reversal of the
judgment. This cannot be done. The judgment was
not in any sense null and void ab initio, incapable of
producing any legal effects whatever, which could be
resisted at any time and in any court it was
attempted. It was a judgment which could or may
have suffered from some substantial error in procedure
or in findings of fact or of law, and on that account, it
could have been reversed or modified on appeal. But
since it was not appealed, it became final and has thus
gone beyond the reach of any court to modify in any
substantive aspect. The remedy to obtain reversal or
modification of the judgment on the merits is
appeal. This is true even if the error, or one of the
errors, ascribed to the court rendering the judgment is
its lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, or the
exercise of power in excess thereof, or grave abuse of
discretion in the findings of fact or of law set out in the
decision. The existence and availability of the right of
appeal proscribes a resort to certiorari, because one of
the requirements for availment of the latter remedy is
precisely that there should be no appeal (Mercado
vs. CA, 162 SCRA 75 [1988]). As incisively observed
by the Court of Appeals:
The special civil action for certiorari is available only
when there is no appeal nor any plain, speedy and
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law (Sec. 1,
rule 65, id.)
Admittedly, appeal could have been taken from the

assailed RTC decision. However, petitioners maintain
that appeal is not a speedy remedy because the RTC
decision prohibiting them from conducting a bidding for
a new waste disposal project has adverse and serious
effects on the citys garbage situation.
Nevertheless, the RTC decision is not immediately
executory. Only judgments in actions for injunction,
receivership, accounting and support and such other
judgments as are now or may hereafter be declared to
be immediately executory shall be enforced after their
rendition and shall not be stayed by an appeal
therefrom, unless otherwise ordered by the trial court
(Sec. 4, rule 39, id.).
Since the RTC decision is not immediately executory,
appeal
would
have
stayed
its
execution. Consequently, the adverse effects of said
decision will not visit upon petitioners during the
appeal. In other words, appeal is a plain, speedy and
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law.
But as no appeal was taken within the reglementary
period, the RTC decision had become final and
executory. Well-settled is the rule that the special civil
action for certiorari may not be invoked as a substitute
for the remedy of appeal (BF Corporation vs. Court of
Appeals, 288 SCRA 267). Therefore, the extraordinary
remedy of certiorari does not lie.
Moreover, petitioners instituted the instant action
without filing a motion for reconsideration of the RTC
decision. Doctrinal is the rule that certiorari will not lie
unless a motion for reconsideration is first filed before
the respondent tribunal to allow it an opportunity to
correct its errors (Zapanta vs. NLRC, 292 SCRA 580).
(Rollo, p. 47-48.)
Admittedly, there are instances where the
extraordinary remedy of certiorari may be resorted to
despite the availability of an appeal. In Ruiz, Jr. vs.
Court of Appeals (220 SCRA 490 [1993]), we held:
Considered extraordinary, [certiorari] is made available
only when there is no appeal, nor any plain, speedy or
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law
(Rule 65, Rules of Court, Section 1). The long line of
decisions denying the petition for certiorari, either
before appeal was availed or specially in instances
where the appeal period has lapsed, far outnumbers
the instances when certiorari was given due
course. The few significant exceptions were: when
public welfare and the advancement of public policy

dictate; or when the broader interests of justice so
require, or when the writs issued are null . . . or when
the questioned order amounts to an oppressive
exercise of judicial authority.
In the instant case, however, MMDA has not
sufficiently established the existence of any fact or
reason to justify its resort to the extraordinary remedy
of certiorari. Neither does the record show that the
instant case, indeed, falls under any of the exceptions
aforementioned.
The Court thus holds that the Court of Appeals did
not err in declaring that the trial courts decision has
become final due to the failure of MMDA to perfect an
appeal within the reglementary period.
With the foregoing disquisition, it would appear
unnecessarily to discuss and resolve the substantive
issue posed before the Court. However, the procedural
flaw notwithstanding, the Court deems it judicious to
take cognizance of the substantive question, if only to
put petitioners mind to rest.
In its second assignment of errors, petitioner
MMDA contends that there is no valid and binding
contract between the Republic of the Philippines and
respondents because: a) the BOT contract does not
bear the signature of the President of the Philippines;
b) the conditions precedent specified in the contract
were not complied with; and that c) there was no valid
notice of award.
These contentions hold no water.
Under Article 1305 of the Civil Code, [a] contract
is a meeting of minds between two persons whereby
one binds himself, with respect to the other, to give
something or to render some service. A contract
undergoes three distinct stages preparation or
negotiation,
its
perfection,
and
finally,
its
consummation. Negotiation begins from the time the
prospective contracting parties manifest their interest
in the contract and ends at the moment of agreement
of the parties. The perfection or birth of the contract
takes place when the parties agree upon the essential
elements of the contract. The last stage is
the consummation of the contract wherein the parties
fulfill or perform the terms agreed upon in the contract,
culminating in the extinguishment thereof (Bugatti vs.
CA, 343 SCRA 335 [2000]). Article 1315 of the Civil
Code, provides that a contract is perfected by mere
consent. Consent, on the other hand, is manifested by
the meeting of the offer and the acceptance upon the
thing and the cause which are to constitute the
contract (See Article 1319, Civil Code). In the case at

bar, the signing and execution of the contract by the
parties clearly show that, as between the parties, there
was a concurrence of offer and acceptance with
respect to the material details of the contract, thereby
giving rise to the perfection of the contract. The
execution and signing of the contract is not disputed by
the parties. As the Court of Appeals aptly held:
[C]ontrary to petitioners insistence that there was no
perfected contract, the meeting of the offer and
acceptance upon the thing and the cause, which are to
constitute the contract (Arts. 1315 and 1319, New Civil
Code), is borne out by the records.
Admittedly, when petitioners accepted private
respondents bid proposal (offer), there was, in effect,
a meeting of the minds upon the object (waste
management project) and the cause (BOT
scheme). Hence,
the
perfection
of
the
contract. In City of Cebu vs. Heirs of Candido
Rubi (306 SCRA 108), the Supreme Court held that
the effect of an unqualified acceptance of the offer or
proposal of the bidder is to perfect a contract, upon
notice of the award to the bidder.
(Rollo, p. 48-49.)
In fact, in asserting that there is no valid and
binding contract between the parties, MMDA can only
allege that there was no valid notice of award; that the
contract does not bear the signature of the President
of the Philippines; and that the conditions precedent
specified in the contract were not complied with.
In asserting that the notice of award to JANCOM
is not a proper notice of award, MMDA points to the
Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act
No. 6957, otherwise known as the BOT Law, which
require that i) prior to the notice of award, an
Investment Coordinating Committee clearance must
first be obtained; and ii) the notice of award indicate
the time within which the awardee shall submit the
prescribed performance security, proof of commitment
of equity contributions and indications of financing
resources.
Admittedly, the notice of award has not complied
with these requirements. However, the defect was
cured by the subsequent execution of the contract
entered into and signed by authorized representatives
of the parties; hence, it may not be gainsaid that there
is a perfected contract existing between the parties
giving to them certain rights and obligations (conditions
precedents) in accordance with the terms and

conditions thereof. We borrow the words of the Court
of Appeals:
Petitioners belabor the point that there was no valid
notice of award as to constitute acceptance of private
respondents offer. They maintain that former MMDA
Chairman
Oretas
letter
to
JANCOM
EC
dated February 27, 1997 cannot be considered as a
valid notice of award as it does not comply with the
rules implementing Rep. Act No. 6957, as
amended. The argument is untenable.
The fact that Chairman Oretas letter informed
JANCOM EC that it was the sole complying (winning)
bidder for the San Mateo project leads to no other
conclusion than that the project was being awarded to
it. But assuming that said notice of award did not
comply
with
the
legal
requirements, private
respondents cannot be faulted therefore as it was
the government representatives duty to issue the
proper notice.
In any event, petitioners, as successors of those who
previously acted for the government (Chairman Oreta,
et al), are estopped from assailing the validity of the
notice of award issued by the latter. As private
respondents correctly observed, in negotiating on the
terms and conditions of the BOT contract and
eventually signing said contract, the government had
led private respondents to believe that the notice of
award given to them satisfied all the requirement of the
law.
oversee the BOT implementation of solid waste

management projects only charged the officials thereof
with the duty of recommending to the President the
specific project to be implemented under the BOT
scheme
for
both San
Mateo and
Carmona
sites. Hence, it is concluded that the signatories,
CORD-NCR Chairman Dionisio dela Serna and MMDA
Chairman Prospero Oreta, had no authority to enter
into any waste management project for and in behalf of
the Government. Secondly, Section 59 of Executive
Order No. 292 is relied upon as authority for the
proposition that presidential approval is necessary for
the validity of the contract.
The first argument conveniently overlooks the fact
that then Secretary of Environment and Natural
Resources Victor Ramos was likewise a signatory to
the contract. While dela Serna and Oreta may not
have had any authority to sign, the Secretary of
Environment and Natural Resources has such an
authority. In fact, the authority of the signatories to the
contract was not denied by the Solicitor
General. Moreover, as observed by the Court of
Appeals, [i]t was not alleged, much less shown, that
those who signed in behalf of the Republic had acted
beyond the scope of their authority.
In truth, the argument raised by MMDA does not
focus on the lack of authority of the signatories, but on
the amount involved as placing the contract beyond
the authority of the signatories to approve. Section
59 of Executive Order No. 292 reads:
While the government cannot be estopped by the

erroneous acts of its agents, nevertheless, petitioners
may not now assail the validity of the subject notice of
award to the prejudice of private respondents. Until the
institution of the original action before the RTC,
invalidity of the notice of award was never invoked as
a ground for termination of the BOT contract. In fact,
the reasons cited for terminating theSan Mateo project,
per Chairman Aventajados letter to JANCOM EC
dated November 4, 1999, were its purported nonimplementability and non-viability on account of
supervening events, e.g., passage of the Clean Air Act,
etc.
Section 59. Contracts for Approval by the

President. Contracts for infrastructure projects,
including contracts for the supply of materials and
equipment to be used in said projects, which involve
amounts above the ceilings provided in the preceding
section
shall
be
approved
by
the
President: Provided, That the President may, when
conditions so warrant, and upon recommendation of
the National Economic and Development Authority,
revise the aforesaid ceilings of approving authority.
(Rollo, p. 49-50.)
As regards the Presidents approval of infrastructure

projects required under Section 59 of Executive Order
No. 292, said section does not apply to the BOT
contract in question. Sec. 59 should be correlated with
Sec. 58 of Exec. Order No. 292. Said sections read:
MMDA also points to the absence of the

Presidents signature as proof that the same has not
yet been perfected. Not only that, the authority of the
signatories to bind the Republic has even been put to
question. Firstly, it is pointed out that Memorandum
Order No. 202 creating the Executive Committee to
However, the Court of Appeals trenchantly

observed in this connection:
SECTION 58. Ceiling for Infrastructure Contracts.

The following shall be the ceilings for all civil works,

construction and other contracts for infrastructure
projects, including supply contracts for said projects,
awarded through public bidding or through
negotiation, which may be approved by the
Secretaries of Public Works and Highways,
Transportation
and
Communications,
Local
Government with respect to Rural Road improvement
Project and governing boards of government-owned or
controlled corporations:
xxx
xxx
xxx
Save as provided for above, the approval ceilings
assigned to the departments/agencies involved in
national infrastructure and construction projects shall
remain at the levels provided in existing laws, rules
and regulations.
Contrary to petitioners claim that all infrastructure
contracts require the Presidents approval (Petition, p.
16), Sec. 59 provides that such approval is required
only in infrastructure contracts involving amounts
exceeding the ceilings set in Sec. 58. Significantly, the
infrastructure contracts treated in Sec. 58 pertain only
to those which may be approved by the Secretaries of
Public Works and Highways, Transportation and
Communications, Local Government (with respect to
Rural Road Improvement Project) and the governing
boards of certain government-owned or controlled
corporations. Consequently, the BOT contract in
question, which was approved by the DENR Secretary
and the EXCOM Chairman and Co-Chairman, is not
covered by Exec. Order No. 292.
(Rollo, p. 51-52.)
The provision pertinent to the authority of the
Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources
would actually be Section 1 of Executive Order No.
380, Series of 1989 which provides that The
Secretaries of all Departments and Governing Boards
of government-owned or controlled corporations
[except the Secretaries of Public Works and Highways,
Transportation and Communication, and Local
Government with respect to Rural Road Improvement
projects] can enter into publicly bidded contracts
regardless
of
amount (See
also
Section
515,Government Accounting and Auditing Manual
Volume I). Consequently, MMDA may not claim that
the BOT contract is not valid and binding due to the
lack of presidential approval.
Significantly, the contract itself provides that the

signature of the President is necessary only for its
effectivity (not perfection), pursuant to Article 19 of the
contract, which reads:
This contract shall become effective upon approval
by the
President
of
the
Republic
of
the Philippines pursuant to existing laws subject to the
condition, precedent in Article 18. This contract shall
remain in full force and effect for twenty-five (25) years
subject to renewal for another twenty-five (25) years
from the date of Effectivity. Such renewal will be
subject to mutual agreement of the parties and
approval of the President of the Republic of
the Philippines.
(Rollo, p. 94.)
Stated differently, while the twenty-five year
effectivity period of the contract has not yet started to
run because of the absence of the Presidents
signature, the contract has, nonetheless, already been
perfected.
As to the contention that there is no perfected
contract due to JANCOMs failure to comply with
several conditions precedent, the same is, likewise,
unmeritorious. Article 18 of the BOT contract reads:
ARTICLE 18
CONDITIONS PRECEDENT
xxx
18.2.1.
The BOT COMPANY hereby undertakes to
provide the following within 2 months from
execution of this Contract as an effective
document:
a) sufficient proof of the actual equity contributions
from the proposed shareholders of the BOT
COMPANY in a total amount not less than
PHP500,000,000 in accordance with the BOT Law
and the implementing rules and regulations;
b) sufficient proof of financial commitment from a
lending institution sufficient to cover total project
cost in accordance with the BOT Law and the
implementing rules and regulations;
c) to support its obligation under this Contract, the
BOT COMPANY shall submit a security bond to

the CLIENT in accordance with the form and
amount required under the BOT Law.
xxx
18.2.3
Completion of Documentary Requirements
as per Schedule 4 by the BOT Company
As clearly stated in Article 18, JANCOM
undertook to comply with the stated conditions within 2
months from execution of the Contract as an effective
document. Since the President of the Philippines has
not yet affixed his signature on the contract, the same
has not yet become an effective document. Thus, the
two-month period within which JANCOM should
comply with the conditions has not yet started to
run. It cannot thus be said that JANCOM has already
failed to comply with the conditions precedent
mandated by the contract. By arguing that failure [of
JANCOM] to comply with the conditions results in the
failure of a contract or prevents the judicial relation
from coming into existence, MMDA reads into the
contract something which is not contemplated by the
parties. If the terms of a contract are clear and leave
no doubt upon the intention of the contracting parties,
the literal meaning of its stipulations shall control (Art.
1370, Civil Code).
We, therefore, hold that the Court of Appeals did
not err when it declared the existence of a valid and
perfected contract between the Republic of
the Philippines and
JANCOM. There
being
a
perfected contract, MMDA cannot revoke or renounce
the same without the consent of the other. From the
moment of perfection, the parties are bound not only to
the fulfillment of what has been expressly stipulated
but also to all the consequences which, according to
their nature, may be in keeping with good faith, usage,
and law (Article 1315, Civil Code). The contract has
the force of law between the parties and they are
expected to abide in good faith by their respective
contractual commitments, not weasel out of
them. Just as nobody can be forced to enter into a
contract, in the same manner, once a contract is
entered into, no party can renounce it unilaterally or
without the consent of the other. It is a general
principle of law that no one may be permitted to
change his mind or disavow and go back upon his own
acts, or to proceed contrary thereto, to the prejudice of
the other party. Nonetheless, it has to be repeated
that although the contract is a perfected one, it is still
ineffective or unimplementable until and unless it is
approved by the President.
Moreover, if after a perfected and binding contract

has been executed between the parties, it occurs to
one of them to allege some defect therein as reason
for annulling it, the alleged defect must be conclusively
proven, since the validity and the fulfillment of
contracts cannot be left to the will of one of the
contracting parties. In the case at bar, the reasons
cited by MMDA for not pushing through with the
subject contract were: 1) the passage of the Clean Air
Act, which allegedly bans incineration; 2) the closure of
the San Mateo landfill site; and 3) the costly tipping
fee. These reasons are bereft of merit
Once again, we make reference to the insightful
declarations of the Court of Appeals:
Sec. 20 of the Clean Air Act pertinently reads:
SECTION
20.
Ban
on
Incineration.
Incineration, hereby defined as the burning of
municipal, bio-chemical and hazardous wastes, which
process emits poisonous and toxic fumes, is hereby
prohibited: x x x.
Section 20 does not absolutely prohibit incineration as
a mode of waste disposal; rather only those burning
processes which emit poisonous and toxic fumes are
banned.
As regards the projected closure of the San
Mateo landfill vis--vis the implementability of the
contract, Art. 2.3 thereof expressly states that [i]n the
event the project Site is not delivered x x x, the
Presidential task Force on Solid Waste Management
(PTFSWM) and the Client, shall provide within a
reasonable period of time, a suitable alternative
acceptable to the BOT COMPANY.
With respect to the alleged financial non-viability of the
project because the MMDA and the local government
units cannot afford the tipping fees under the contract,
this circumstance cannot, by itself, abrogate the entire
agreement.
Doctrinal is the rule that neither the law nor the courts
will extricate a party from an unwise or undesirable
contract, or stipulation for that matter, he or she
entered into with full awareness of its consequences
(Opulencia vs. CA, 293 SCRA 385). Indeed, the terms
and conditions of the subject contract were arrived at
after due negotiations between the parties thereto.
(Rollo, p. 54.)

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition
is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit and the
decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No.
59021 dated November 13, 2001AFFIRMED. No
costs.
SO ORDERED.

Envi Law Cases and Special Laws Part 2

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Envi Law Cases and Special Laws Part 2

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

ENVIRONMENTAL LAW (Atty.

Jeffrey Jefferson Coronel) 1

February 11, 1986

NUCLEAR FREE PHILIPPINE COALITION, ET

G.R. No. 70632

February 11, 1986

would vitiate the appointment, competence is a matter

LORENZO M. TAADA, ET AL., petitioners,

Exhibit "JJ" is an official PAEC 1985 pamphlet entitled

ENVIRONMENTAL LAW (Atty. Jeffrey Jefferson Coronel) 2

Eugenio was Acting Chief of the PAEC Department on

ENVIRONMENTAL LAW (Atty. Jeffrey Jefferson Coronel) 3

(b) Bulky wastes shall refer to waste materials which

(e) Collection shall refer to the act of removing solid

REPUBLIC ACT 9003

January 26, 2001

(c) Bureau shall refer

(d) Buy-back center shall refer to a recycling center

AN ACT PROVIDING FOR AN ECOLOGICAL SOLID

(f) Composting shall refer to the controlled

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of

(h) Controlled dump shall refer to a disposal site at

(i) Department shall refer to the Department of

(j) Disposal shall refer to the discharge, deposit,

Section 1. Short Title - This Act shall be known as the

(g) Consumer electronics shall refer to special waste

(k) Disposal site shall refer to a site where solid waste

(l) Ecological solid waste management shall refer to

ENVIRONMENTAL LAW (Atty. Jeffrey Jefferson Coronel) 4

(v) Person(s) shall refer to any being, natural or

ENVIRONMENTAL LAW (Atty. Jeffrey Jefferson Coronel) 5

(2) Infectious waste from hospitals such as equipment,

ENVIRONMENTAL LAW (Atty. Jeffrey Jefferson Coronel) 6

PROVINCE OF RIZAL, MUNICIPALITY OF SAN

PROVINCE OF RIZAL v. EXECUTIVE SEC.

December 13, 2005

On 17 November 1988, the respondent Secretaries of

ENVIRONMENTAL LAW (Atty. Jeffrey Jefferson Coronel) 7

3. The MMC shall: a) take charge of the relocation of

5.1 The MMC Dumping Site Inside Marikina

ENVIRONMENTAL LAW (Atty. Jeffrey Jefferson Coronel) 8

On 31 July 1990, less than six months after the

ENVIRONMENTAL LAW (Atty. Jeffrey Jefferson Coronel) 9

letter12stating that "after a series of investigations by

On 21 August 1995, the Sangguniang Bayan of San

ENVIRONMENTAL LAW (Atty. Jeffrey Jefferson Coronel) 10

Section 3. Technical Description Specifically, the

ENVIRONMENTAL LAW (Atty. Jeffrey Jefferson Coronel) 11

4.3 While the site was within the Marikina Watershed

4.31 It was determined to be far from the main water

4. The sanitary landfill projects are now on their fifth

4.32 It was likewise too far from the nearest body of

ENVIRONMENTAL LAW (Atty. Jeffrey Jefferson Coronel) 12

the then Secretary Angel C. Alcala himself in a sworn

ENVIRONMENTAL LAW (Atty. Jeffrey Jefferson Coronel) 13

Presidential Committee on Flagship Programs and

ENVIRONMENTAL LAW (Atty. Jeffrey Jefferson Coronel) 14

a final resolution of this controversy, for a brief review

ENVIRONMENTAL LAW (Atty. Jeffrey Jefferson Coronel) 15

The respondents next point out that the Marikina

recognition of the states power to control their

ENVIRONMENTAL LAW (Atty. Jeffrey Jefferson Coronel) 16

utilization, development and conservation of our

We expounded on this matter in the landmark case