G.R. No.
L-68474 February 11, 1986 charge respondent PAEC Commissioners with bias This is estimated to result in savings of US $ 160
and prejudgment.
NUCLEAR FREE PHILIPPINE COALITION, ET
AL., petitioners, 1. The first issue must be resolved against the
vs. petitioners. Where the validity of an appointment is
NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION, ET not challenged in an appropriate proceeding, the
AL., respondents. question of competence is not within the field of
judicial inquiry. If not considered a qualification the
G.R. No. 70632 February 11, 1986 absence of which would vitiate the appointment,
competence is a matter of judgment that is
LORENZO M. TAADA, ET AL., petitioners, addressed solely to the appointing power.
vs. 2. As regards the legal sufficiency of the NPC
motion for conversion, petitioners contend that the
PHILIPPINE ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION, ET deficiencies they have indicated are jurisdictional
AL., respondents. infirmities which cannot be cured. The Court
believes however that said deficiencies may be
RESOLUTION 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-
PLANA, J.: opened, subject to controversion and counterproof
of herein petitioners.
I. In G.R. No. 70632, (1) petitioners question
the competence of respondent PAEC 3. There is merit in the charge of bias and
Commissioners to pass judgment on the safety of prejudgment. The PAEC pamphlets- particularly
the Philippine Nuclear Power Plant-1 PNPP-1 in Annexes "JJ", "KK" and "LL" of the petition (G.R.
PAEC Licensing Proceedings No. 1-77 without 70632)-clearly indicate the pre-judgment that
however seeking their ouster from office, although PNPP-1 is safe.
"proven competence" is one of the qualifications
prescribed by law for PAEC Commissioners. (2) Exhibit "JJ" is an official PAEC 1985 pamphlet
Petitioners also assail the validity of the motion entitled "The Philippine Nuclear Power Plant-l." It
(application) filed by the National Power gives an overview specifically of PNPP-1, lauds the
Corporation (NPC) for the conversion of its safety of nuclear power, and concludes with a
construction permit into an operating license for statement of the benefits to be derived when the
PNPP-1 on the principal ground that it contained no PNPP-1 start operation.
information regarding the financial qualifications of
NPC, its source of nuclear fuel, and insurance . . .When the PNPP-1 starts operating, it will
coverage for nuclear damage. (3) Petitioners finally generate a power of 620 megawatts enough to
supply 15 percent of the electricity needs in Luzon.
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 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, technology in modern times has been developed with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of
there have been failure of with so dominant concern for public safety as jurisdiction were they to sit in judgment upon the
equipment and human errors. nuclear power. (p. 8) safety of the plant, absent the requisite objectivity
However in every instance, the that must characterize such an important inquiry.
safety equipment designed into the Respondent PAEC Commissioners cannot escape
nuclear reactor self terminated the responsibility for these official pamphlets. Exhibit The Court therefore Resolved to RESTRAIN
accident without injury to the "JJ" was published in 1985, when respondent respondent PAEC Commissioners from further
operators or the public. The Three Commissioners had already been appointed to their acting in PAEC Licensing Proceedings No. 1-77.
Mile Island Incident, serious as it present positions. Exhibits "KK" and "LL" were
was, did not result in the loss of life issued earlier, but the majority of respondent II. In G.R. No. 68474, acting on the motion filed
nor did it result in the exposure of Commissioners even then were already occupying therein dated June 8, 1985 to order PAEC to
anyone beyond permissible limits. positions of responsibility in the PAEC. reconsider its orders of May 31 and June 5, 1985,
Commissioner Manuel Eugenio was Acting Chief of the urgent motion for mandatory injunction and/or
The designers of nuclear plants the PAEC Department on Nuclear Technology and restraining order dated August 3, 1985, the second
assume failure to occur, and provide Engineering from June, 1980 to July, 1984; urgent motion for mandatory injunction dated
multiple safeguards protection Commissioner Quirino Navarro was PAEC Chief August 12, 1985, and the various pleadings and
against every conceivable Science Research Specialist from May, 1980 to other documents submitted by the parties relative
malfunction (P. 7, Emphasis September, 1984-, and Commissioner Alejandro Ver thereto, and considering the paramount need of a
supplied.) Albano was PAEC Deputy Commissioner from reasonable assurance that the operation of PNPP-1
March, 1980 to September, 1984. Additionally, the will not pose an undue risk to the health and safety
The third pamphlet (Exh. "LL") is entitled NUCLEAR stubborn fact remains unrebutted that Exhibits "J.J." of the people, which dictates that the conduct of the
POWER PLANT and ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY. "KK" and "LL" continued to be distributed by PAEC inquiry into the safety aspects of PNPP-1 be
Speaking specifically of the PNPP-1 it categorically as late as March, 1985. In other words their official characterized by sufficient latitude, the better to
states that the Bataan nuclear plant will not distribution continued after the filing of NPC's achieve the end in view, unfettered by technical
adversely affect the public or the flora or fauna in motion for conversion on June 27, 1984 and even rules of evidence (Republic Act 5207, section 34),
the area. One of the stated reasons in support of after PAEC had issued its order dated February 26, and in keeping with the requirements of due
the conclusion is 1985 formally admitting the said motion for process in administrative proceedings, the Court
conversion. Resolved to ORDER respondent PAEC (once
And environmentally, a nuclear power plant emits reconstituted) to re-open the hearing on PNPP-1 so
only insignificant amount of radioactivity to the At any rate, even if it be assumed that there are as to give petitioners sufficient time to complete
environment. It does not cause chemical pollution of some doubts regarding the conclusion that there their cross-examination of the expert witnesses on
air or water, it does not emit sulfur dioxide or has been a prejudgment of the safety of PNPP-1 quality assurance, to cross-examine the witnesses
nitrogen oxides like plants fired by fossil fuels such the doubts should be resolved in favor of a course that petitioners have failed to cross-examine on and
as coal and oil, Besides, even coal fired plants may of action that will assure an unquestionably after August 9, 1985, and to complete the
emits radioactive particles of uranium and thorium objective inquiry, considering the circumstances presentation of their evidence, for which purpose,
because these may be found naturally associated thereof and the number of people vitally interested respondent PAEC shall issue the necessary
with coal deposits. therein. subpoena and subpoena duces tecum to compel
the attendance of relevant witnesses and/or the
Comparatively therefore, a nucelar power plant is Having thus prejudged the safety of the PNPP-1 production of relevant documents. For the said
the cleanest and the safest environmently no other respondent PAEC Commissioners would be acting purposes, the PAEC may prescribe a time schedule
which shall reasonably assure the parties sufficient DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY and
latitude to adequately present their case THE HONORABLE COURT OF
the solid wastes of Quezon City, Marikina,
consistently with the requirements of dispatch. lt is APPEALS, San Juan, Mandaluyong, Pateros, Pasig,
understood that the PAEC may give NPC the
R e s p o n d e n t s. [3]
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - and Taguig.
opportunity to correct or supply deficiencies in this
application or evidence in support thereof.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
This is a petition filed by the Province of
Rizal, the municipality of San Mateo, and
DECISION
EN BANC various concerned citizens for review
PROVINCE OF RIZAL, on certiorari of the Decision of the Court
MUNICIPALITY OF SAN MATEO, CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
PINTONG BOCAUE of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 41330,
MULTIPURPOSE COOPERATIVE,
CONCERNED CITIZENS OF denying, for lack of cause of action, the
RIZAL, INC., ROLANDO E. petition for certiorari, prohibition
VILLACORTE, BERNARDO
HIDALGO, ANANIAS EBUENGA, The earth belongs in usufruct to the and mandamus with application for a
VILMA T. MONTAJES, FEDERICO living.[1] temporary restraining order/writ of
MUNAR, JR., ROLANDO BEAS,
SR., ET AL., and KILOSBAYAN, At the height of the garbage crisis preliminary injunction assailing the
INC., plaguing Metro Manila and its environs, legality and constitutionality of
P e t i t i o n e r s,
parts of the Marikina Watershed Proclamation No. 635.

- versus -
Reservation were set aside by the Office of
the President, through Proclamation No. The facts are documented in
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, 635 dated 28 August 1995, for use as a painstaking detail.
SECRETARY OF ENVIRONMENT sanitary landfill and similar waste disposal
& NATURAL RESOURCES,
LAGUNA LAKE DEVELOPMENT applications. In fact, this site, extending to On 17 November 1988, the
AUTHORITY, SECRETARY OF more or less 18 hectares, had already been respondent Secretaries of the Department
PUBLIC WORKS & HIGHWAYS,
SECRETARY OF BUDGET & in operation since 19 February 1990[2] for of Public Works and Highways (DPWH)
MANAGEMENT, METRO MANILA
 of the areas as a sanitary
and the Department of Environment and landfill; c)
respect to the San Mateo Landfill
Natural Resources (DENR) and the coordinate/monitor the Dumpsite. No action was taken on these
construction of
Governor of the Metropolitan Manila infrastructure facilities by letters.
Commission (MMC) entered into a the DPWH in the said
site; and d) ensure that
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), the necessary civil works It turns out that the land subject of
[4]
which provides in part: are properly undertaken the MOA of 17 November 1988 and
to safeguard against any
1. The DENR
agrees to immediately negative environmental owned by the DENR was part of the
impact in the area.
allow the utilization by Marikina Watershed Reservation Area.
the Metropolitan Manila
Commission of its land Thus, on 31 May 1989, forest officers of
property located at the Forest Engineering and Infrastructure
Pintong Bocaue in San On 7, 8 and 10 February 1989,
Mateo, Rizal as a Unit of the Community Environment and
sanitary landfill site, the Sangguniang Bayan of San Mateo
Natural Resource Office, (CENRO)
subject to whatever wrote Gov. Elfren Cruz of the MMC, Sec.
restrictions that the DENR-IV, Rizal Province, submitted a
government impact Fiorello Estuar of the DPWH, the
assessment might
Memorandum[5] on the On-going Dumping
Presidential Task Force on Solid Waste
require. Site Operation of the MMC inside (the)
Management, Executive Secretary
2. Upon Upper Portion of Marikina Watershed
signing of this Catalino Macaraig, and Sec. Fulgencio
Reservation, located at Barangay Pintong
Agreement, the DPWH Factoran, Jr., pointing out that it had
shall commence the Bocaue, San Mateo, Rizal, and nearby
construction/developmen recently passed a Resolution banning the
localities. Said Memorandum reads in part:
t of said dumpsite. creation of dumpsites for Metro Manila Observations:
3. The MMC garbage within its jurisdiction, asking that
3.1 The subject area
shall: a) take charge of
their side be heard, and that the addressees is arable and
the relocation of the agricultural in
families within and suspend and temporarily hold in abeyance nature;
around the site; b)
oversee the development all and any part of your operations with
 3.2 Soil type and its Reservation, 1. About two (2) hectares had
topography are particularly at been excavated by
favorable for Brgy. Pintong bulldozers and garbage
agricultural and Bocaue, San dumping operations are
forestry Mateo, Rizal and going on.
productions; at Bo. Pinugay,
... Baras/Antipolo, 2. The dumping site is without
Rizal which are the concurrence of the
3.5 Said Dumping Site is the present Provincial Governor,
observed to be garbage Rizal Province and
confined within zones must without any permit from
the said totally be stopped DENR who has
Watershed and discouraged functional jurisdiction
Reservation, without any over the Watershed
bearing in the political Reservation; and
northeastern part intervention and
of Lungsod delay in order to 3. About 1,192 families residing
Silangan Townsite save our healthy and cultivating areas
Reservation. Such ecosystems found covered by four (4)
illegal Dumping therein, to avoid Barangays surrounding
Site operation much the dumping site will
inside (the) destruction, adversely be affected by
Watershed useless efforts the dumping operations
Reservation is in and lost (sic) of of MMC including their
violation of P.D. millions of public sources of domestic
705, otherwise funds over the water supply. x x x x
known as the land in question;
Revised Forestry (Emphasis ours)
Code, as
amended. . .
On 22 January 1990, the CENRO
Recommendations:
On 19 June 1989, the CENRO submitted still another Investigation
5.1 The MMC Dumping submitted another Investigation Report[7] to the Regional Executive
Site Inside
Marikina Report[6] to the Regional Executive Director which states that:
Watershed Director which states in part that:
 Findings show that the Through this letter we
areas used as Dumping Site of would like to convey our
the MMC are found to be within The ECC was sought and granted to reservation on the choice of the
the Marikina Watershed which sites for solid waste disposal
are part of the Integrated Social comply with the requirement of inside the watershed of Laguna
Forestry Project (ISF) as per Presidential Decree No. 1586 Establishing Lake. As you may already
recorded inventory of Forest know, the Metropolitan
Occupancy of this office. an Environmental Impact Statement Waterworks and Sewerage
System, Section 4 of which states in part System (MWSS) has
It also appears that as per scheduled the abstraction of
record, there was no permit that, No persons, partnership or water from the lake to serve
issued to the MMC to utilize the needs of about 1.2 million
these portions of land for
corporation shall undertake or operate any residents of Muntinlupa,
dumping purposes. such declared environmentally critical Paranaque, Las Pinas and
Bacoor, Cavite by
It is further observed that project or area without first securing an 1992. Accordingly, the Laguna
the use of the areas as dumping Environmental Compliance Certificate. Lake Development Authority
site greatly affects the (LLDA) is accelerating
ecological balance and Proclamation No. 2146, passed on 14 its environmental
environmental factors in this December 1981, designates all areas management program to
community. upgrade the water quality of
declared by law as national the lake in order to make it
suitable as a source of
parks, watershed reserves, wildlife domestic water supply the
whole year round. The said
On 19 February 1990, the DENR preserves, and sanctuaries as
program regards dumpsites as
Environmental Management Bureau, Environmentally Critical Areas. incompatible within the
watershed because of the
through Undersecretary for Environment heavy pollution, including the
and Research Celso R. Roque, granted the On 09 March 1990, respondent risk of diseases, generated by
such activities which would
Metro Manila Authority (MMA [formerly Laguna Lake Development Authority negate the governments
MMC]) an Environmental Compliance (LLDA), through its Acting General efforts to upgrade the water
[8] quality of the
Certificate (ECC) for the operation of a Manager, sent a letter to the MMA, lake. Consequently, please
consider our objection to the
two-and-a-half-hectare garbage dumpsite. which reads in part: proposed location of the
 dumpsites within the watershed.
(Emphasis supplied by
petitioners)
On 31 July 1990, less than six
months after the issuance of the ECC,
Undersecretary Roque suspended the ECC
in a letter[9]addressed to the respondent of San Mateo, Enrique Rodriguez, Jr.,
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
Barangay Captain Dominador Vergara, and
petitioner Rolando E. Villacorte, Chairman
of the Pintong Bocaue Multipurpose
Cooperative (PBMC) wrote[10] then
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 Report[11] submitted by the
Regional Technical Director to the DENR
Undersecretary for Environment
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 multi-
grade 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
and 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.
....
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,
letter[12] stating 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,
wrote[13] President Ramos, through the
Executive Secretary, informing the
President of the issues involved, that the
dumpsite is located near three public
Jr. a
elementary schools, the closest of which is
only fifty meters away, and that its
 included within the scope of the
location violates the municipal zoning Proclamation No. 635 on 28 August 1995, reservation to provide for such
ordinance of San Mateo and, in truth, the Excluding from the Marikina Watershed space as may be needed for the
construction of the necessary
Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board Reservation Certain Parcels of Land structures, other related
had denied the then MMA chairmans Embraced Therein for Use as Sanitary facilities, as well as other
priority projects of government
application for a locational clearance on Landfill Sites and Similar Waste Disposal as may be eventually
this ground. Under the Administration of the determined;

Metropolitan Manila Development WHEREAS, there is now

an urgent need to provide for,
On 21 August 1995, Authority. The pertinent portions thereof and develop, the necessary
the Sangguniang Bayan of San Mateo state: facilities for the disposal of the
WHEREAS, to cope with waste generated by the
issued a Resolution[14] expressing a strong the requirements of the growing population of Metro Manila and
objection to the planned expansion of the population in Metro Manila and the adjoining provinces and
the adjoining provinces and municipalities, to ensure their
landfill operation in Pintong Bocaue and municipalities, certain sanitary and /or hygienic
requesting President Ramos to disapprove developed and open portions of disposal;
the Marikina Watershed
the draft Presidential Proclamation Reservation, upon the WHEREAS, to cope with
recommendation of the the requirements for the
segregating 71.6 Hectares from Marikina development of the waste
Secretary of the Department of
Watershed Reservation for the landfill site Environment and Natural disposal facilities that may be
Resources should now be used, portions of the peripheral
in Pintong Bocaue, San Mateo, Rizal. excluded form the scope of the areas of the Marikina Watershed
reservation; Reservation, after due
consideration and study, have
Despite the various objections and WHEREAS, while the now been identified as suitable
recommendations raised by the areas delineated as part of the sites that may be used for the
Watershed Reservations are purpose;
government agencies aforementioned, the intended primarily for use in
projects and/or activities WHEREAS, the
Office of the President, through Executive Secretary of the Department of
designed to contain and preserve
Secretary Ruben Torres, signed and issued the underground water supply, Environment and Natural
other peripheral areas had been 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 x x
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
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:
. have the attributes 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 of Metro Manila, with
1996 presently estimated to an area big enough to
be generating, at least, accommodate at least 3
15,700 cubic meters of to 5 years of waste
household or municipal disposal requirements.
waste, a 1.57 hectare of xxxx
land area will be filled
in a months time with a 4.21 The present site at San
pile 31 meters high of Mateo was selected
garbage, or in a year, because, at the time
the accumulated consideration was being
volume will require made, and up to the
18.2 hectares. present, it is found to
.... positively respond to the
criteria established:
4. The sanitary landfill projects
are now on their fifth year 4.21.1 The site was a
of implementation. The government
amount of effort and property and
money already invested in would not require
the project by the any outlay for it to
government cannot easily be acquired.
be disregarded, much more
set aside in favor of the 4.21.2 It is far from any
few settlers/squatters who sizeable
chose to ignore the earlier community/settle
notice given to them that ments that could
the area would be used be affected by the
precisely for the development that
development of waste would be
disposal sites, and are now introduced and
attempting to arouse yet, was within
opposition to the project. economic hauling
distance from the
4.2 There is no place areas they are
within the jurisdiction designed to serve.
 , three (73) hectares
4.21.21 At the especially available at the
time it to any site.
was public
originally transport. 4.3 While the site was within the
decided The area Marikina Watershed
to locate was being Reservation under the
the served by administration of the DENR,
landfills a public the site was located at the
at the utility lower periphery of the buffer
present jeep that zone; was evaluated to be least
site, there usually likely to affect the
were not made underground water supply;
more that only two and could, in fact, be excluded
fifteen (2) trips from the reservation.
(15) daily.
settlers in During 4.31 It was determined to be
the area the rainy far from the main water
and they season, it containment area for it to
had could pose any immediate
hardly only be danger of contaminating
establishe reached the underground water, in
d by case of a failure in any of
themselve equipping the mitigating measures
s. The the that would be installed.
communit vehicle
y with tire 4.32 It was likewise too far
settlement chains to from the nearest body of
s were traverse water, the Laguna Lake,
located the and the distance, plus the
far from slippery increasing accumulation
the site. muddy of water from other
trail tributaries toward the
4.21.22 The area roads. lake, would serve to
was dilute and mitigate any
hardly 4.21.3 There was, at contamination it may
accessible least, seventy-
 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-in-aid 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.
 RESPONDENTS
On 22 July 1996, the petitioners THE COURT OF APPEALS THEMSELVES IN THEIR
filed before the Court of Appeals a civil ERRED AND ABUSED ITS COMMENT FILED WITH
DISCRETION IN THE COURT OF APPEALS,
action for certiorari, prohibition DELIBERATELY IGNORING THROUGH THE OFFICE OF
and mandamus with application for a THE SIGNIFICANT FACT THE SOLICITOR GENERAL.
THAT PRESIDENTIAL
temporary restraining order/writ of PROCLAMATION NO. 635 II
preliminary injunction. The hearing on the WAS BASED ON A BRAZEN
FORGERY IT WAS THE COURT OF APPEALS
prayer for preliminary injunction was held SUPPOSEDLY ISSUED, AS ERRED AND ABUSED ITS
STATED IN THE DISCRETION IN
on 14 August 1996. PROCLAMATION ITSELF COMPLETELY IGNORING
AND REPEATEDLY THE SIGNIFICANT FACT
ASSERTED BY THAT THE RESPONDENTS
On 13 June 1997, the court a RESPONDENTS IN THEIR ARE OPERATING THE
quo rendered a Decision,[15] the dispositive COMMENT, ON THE BASIS LANDFILL BASED ON A
OF THE ALLEGED SPURIOUS
part of which reads: RECOMMENDATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL
WHEREFORE, the THE DENR SECRETARY COMPLIANCE
petition for certiorari, DATED JUNE 26, 1995 BUT CERTIFICATE.
prohibition and mandamus with WHICH ASSERTION WAS
application for a temporary DENOUNCED BY THE THEN III
restraining order/writ of SECRETARY ANGEL C.
preliminary injunction for lack ALCALA HIMSELF IN A THE COURT OF APPEALS
of cause of action, is hereby SWORN STATEMENT ERRED IN RULING THAT
DENIED.[16] DATED SEPTEMBER 18, 1996 THE RESPONDENTS DID
AND AGAIN DURING THE NOT VIOLATE R.A. 7586
SPECIAL HEARING OF THE WHEN THEY ISSUED AND
CASE IN THE COURT OF IMPLEMENTED
Hence, this petition for review APPEALS ON NOVEMBER PROCLAMATION NO. 635
13, 1996 AS A FORGERY CONSIDERING THAT THE
on certiorari of the above decision on the SINCE HIS SIGNATURE ON WITHDRAWAL OR
THE ALLEGED DISESTABLISHMENT OF A
following grounds: RECOMMENDATION HAD PROTECTED AREA OR THE
BEEN FALSIFIED, AS NOW MODIFICATION OF THE
I ADMITTED BY MARIKINA WATERSHED
CAN ONLY BE DONE BY AN THAT THE SAN MATEO
ACT OF CONGRESS. DUMPSITE IS LOCATED IN
Nio phenomenon would be aggravated by
THE BUFFER ZONE OF THE the relentless destruction of the Marikina
IV RESERVATION AND IS
THEREFORE OUTSIDE OF Watershed Reservation. They noted that
THE COURT OF APPEALS ITS BOUNDARIES, AND respondent MMDA had, in the meantime,
ERRED AND ABUSED ITS EVEN DECLARED IN ITS
DISCRETION WHEN IT DECISION THAT IT TOOK continued to expand the area of the
DELIBERATELY AND SERIOUS NOTE OF THIS dumpsite inside the Marikina Watershed
WILLFULLY BRUSHED PARTICULAR ARGUMENT.
ASIDE THE UNANIMOUS Reservation, cutting down thousands of
FINDINGS AND ADVERSE VI
RECOMMENDATIONS OF
mature fruit trees and forest trees, and
RESPONSIBLE THE COURT OF APPEALS leveling hills and mountains to clear the
GOVERNMENT AGENCIES ERRED AND ABUSED ITS
AND NON-PARTISAN DISCRETION WHEN IT dumping area. Garbage disposal operations
OFFICIALS CONCERNED ENCROACHED ON THE were also being conducted on a 24-hour
WITH ENVIRONMENTAL FUNCTION OF CONGRESS
PROTECTION IN FAVOR OF BY EXPRESSING ITS basis, with hundreds of metric tons of
THE SELF-SERVING, UNJUSTIFIED FEAR OF wastes being dumped daily, including
GRATUITOUS ASSERTIONS MINI-SMOKEY MOUNTAINS
FOUND IN THE PROLIFERATING IN METRO toxic and infectious hospital wastes,
UNSOLICITED, PARTISAN MANILA AND JUSTIFYING
LETTER OF FORMER ITS DECISION IN FAVOR OF intensifying the air, ground and water
MALABON MAYOR, NOW AN INTEGRATED SYSTEM pollution.[18]
CHAIRMAN PROSPERO OF SOLID WASTE
ORETA OF THE MMDA WHO MANAGEMENT LIKE THE
IS AN INTERESTED PARTY SAN MATEO LANDFILL. The petitioners reiterated their
IN THIS CASE.
prayer that respondent MMDA be
temporarily enjoined from further
V
On 05 January 1998, while the dumping waste into the site and from
THE COURT OF APPEALS appeal was pending, the petitioners filed a encroaching into the area beyond its
ERRED WHEN IT READILY
SWALLOWED Motion for Temporary Restraining Order,
RESPONDENTS ASSERTION [17]
pointing out that the effects of the El
existing perimeter fence so as not to render Rizal, particularly the mayors of Antipolo Government of Rizal, the Municipality of
the case moot and academic. and San Mateo, agreed to the use of the San Mateo, and the City of Antipolo,
dumpsite until that period, which would wherein the latter agreed to further extend
On 28 January 1999, the petitioners end on 20 July 1999.[21] the use of the dumpsite until its permanent
filed a Motion for Early Resolution, closure on 31 December 2000.[24]
[19]
calling attention to the continued On 13 July 1999, the petitioners
expansion of the dumpsite by the MMDA filed an Urgent Second Motion for Early On 11 January 2001, President
that caused the people of Antipolo to stage Resolution[22] in anticipation of violence Estrada directed Department of Interior
a rally and barricade the Marcos Highway between the conflicting parties as the date and Local Government Secretary Alfredo
to stop the dump trucks from reaching the of the scheduled closure of the dumpsite Lim and MMDA Chairman Binay to
site for five successive days from 16 neared. reopen the San Mateo dumpsite in view of
January 1999. On the second day of the the emergency situation of uncollected
barricade, all the municipal mayors of the On 19 July 1999, then President garbage in Metro Manila, resulting in a
province of Rizal openly declared their full Joseph E. Estrada, taking cognizance of critical and imminent health and sanitation
support for the rally, and notified the the gravity of the problems in the affected epidemic.[25]
MMDA that they would oppose any areas and the likelihood that violence
further attempt to dump garbage in their would erupt among the parties involved, Claiming the above events
province.[20] issued a Memorandum ordering the constituted a clear and present danger of
closure of the dumpsite on 31 December violence erupting in the affected areas, the
As a result, MMDA officials, 2000.[23] Accordingly, on 20 July 1999, the petitioners filed an Urgent Petition for
headed by then Chairman Jejomar Binay, Presidential Committee on Flagship Restraining Order[26] on 19 January 2001.
agreed to abandon the dumpsite after six Programs and Projects and the MMDA
months. Thus, the municipal mayors of entered into a MOA with the Provincial
 On 24 January 2001, this Court Although the petitioners may be
issued the Temporary Restraining Order deemed to have waived or abandoned the On 20 July 1999, with much fanfare
prayed for, effective immediately and until issues raised in their previous pleadings and rhetoric, the Presidential Committee
further orders.[27] but not included in the memorandum, on Flagship Programs and Projects and the
[29]
Meanwhile, on 26 January 2001, certain events we shall relate below MMDA entered into a MOA with the
Republic Act No. 9003, otherwise known have inclined us to address some of the Provincial Government of Rizal, the
as The Ecological Solid Waste more pertinent issues raised in the petition Municipality of San Mateo, and the City of
Management Act of 2000, was signed into for the guidance of the herein respondents, Antipolo, whereby the latter agreed to an
law by President Estrada. and pursuant to our symbolic function to extension for the use of the dumpsite until
educate the bench and bar.[30] 31 December 2000, at which time it would
Thus, the petitioners raised only two be permanently closed.
issues in their Memorandum[28] of 08 The law and the facts indicate that a
February 2005: 1) whether or not mere MOA does not guarantee the Despite this agreement, President
respondent MMDA agreed to the dumpsites permanent closure. Estrada directed Department of Interior
permanent closure of the San Mateo and Local Government Secretary Alfredo
Landfill as of December 2000, and 2) The rally and barricade staged by Lim and MMDA Chairman Binay
whether or not the permanent closure of the people of Antipolo on 28 January to reopen the San Mateo dumpsite on 11
the San Mateo landfill is mandated by 1999, with the full support of all the January 2001, in view of the emergency
Rep. Act No. 9003. mayors of Rizal Province caused the situation of uncollected garbage in Metro
MMDA to agree that it would abandon the Manila, resulting in a critical and
We hold that the San Mateo Landfill dumpsite after six months. In return, the imminent health and sanitation epidemic;
will remain permanently closed. municipal mayors allowed the use of the our issuance of a TRO on 24 January 2001
dumpsite until 20 July 1999. 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,
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 in Nebia
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.
19 June 1989, when the Investigation
But neither property rights nor Report of the Community Environment
contract rights are absolute; for
government cannot exist if the and Natural Resources Officer of DENR-
the citizen may at will use his IV-1 stated that the sources of domestic
property to the detriment of his
fellows, or exercise his freedom water supply of over one thousand families
of contract to work them harm. would be adversely affected by the
Equally fundamental with the
private right is that of the public dumping operations.[31] The succeeding
to regulate it in the common
interest.'" In short, the non-
report included the observation that the use
impairment clause must yield to of the areas as dumping site greatly
the police power of the state.
(Citations omitted, emphasis affected the ecological balance and
supplied) environmental factors of the community.
[32]
Respondent LLDA in fact informed the
We thus feel there is also the added MMA that the heavy pollution and risk of
need to reassure the residents of the disease generated by dumpsites rendered
Province of Rizal that this is indeed a final the location of a dumpsite within the
resolution of this controversy, for a brief Marikina Watershed Reservation
review of the records of this case indicates incompatible with its program of
two self-evident facts. First, the
San upgrading the water quality of the Laguna
Mateo site has adversely affected its Lake. [33]
environs, and second, sources of water
should always be protected. The DENR suspended the sites ECC
after investigations revealed ground
As to the first point, the adverse slumping and erosion had resulted from
effects of the site were reported as early as
improper development of the site. Development Corporation v. Court of One of the issues the law sought to address
[34]
Another Investigation Appeals,[37] on the primordial importance was the protection and conservation of
Report[35] submitted by the Regional of watershed areas, thus: The most watersheds.[40]
Technical Director to the DENR reported important product of a watershed is water,
respiratory illnesses among pupils of a which is one of the most important human In other words, while respondents were
primary school located approximately 100 necessities. The protection of watersheds
blandly declaring that the reason for the
meters from the site, as well as the ensures an adequate supply of water for
creation of the Marikina Watershed
constant presence of large flies and future generations and the control of
Reservation, i.e., to protect Marikina River
windblown debris all over the schools flashfloods that not only damage property
playground. It further reiterated reports but also cause loss of lives. Protection of as the source of water supply of the City of
that the leachate treatment plant had been watersheds is an intergenerational Manila, no longer exists, the rest of the
eroded twice already, contaminating the responsibility that needs to be answered country was gripped by a shortage of
nearby creeks that were sources of potable now.[38]
potable water so serious, it necessitated its
water for the residents. The contaminated
own legislation.
water was also found to flow to the Wawa Three short
Dam and Boso-boso River, which in turn months before Proclamation No. 635 was
Respondents actions in the face of
empties into Laguna de Bay. passed to avert the garbage crisis,
Congress had enacted the National Water such grave environmental consequences
This brings us to the second self- Crisis Act[39] to adopt urgent and effective defy all logic. The petitioners rightly noted
evident point. Water is life, and must be measures to address the nationwide water that instead of providing solutions, they
saved at all costs. In Collado v. Court of crisis which adversely affects the health
have, with unmitigated callousness,
Appeals,[36]we had occasion to reaffirm our and well-being of the population, food
worsened the problem. It is this readiness
previous discussion in Sta. Rosa Realty production, and industrialization process.
to wreak irrevocable damage on our
natural heritage in pursuit of what is
expedient that has compelled us to rule at It is ironic that the respondents The Regalian doctrine was
length on this issue. We ignore the should pursue this line of reasoning. embodied in the 1935 Constitution, in
unrelenting depletion of our natural Section 1 of Article XIII on Conservation
heritage at our peril. In Cruz v. Secretary of Environment and Utilization of Natural Resources. This
and Natural Resources,[41] we had occasion was reiterated in the 1973 Constitution
I.
to observe that (o)ne of the fixed and under Article XIV on the National
THE REORGANIZATION ACT OF THE
dominating objectives of the 1935 Economy and the Patrimony of the Nation,
DENR DEFINES AND
LIMITS ITS POWERS OVER THE Constitutional Convention was the and reaffirmed in the 1987 Constitution in
COUNTRYS NATURAL RESOURCES
nationalization and conservation of the Section 2 of Article XII on National
natural resources of the country. There was Economy and Patrimony, to wit:
Sec. 2. All lands of
The respondents next point out that an overwhelming sentiment in the the public domain,
waters, minerals, coal,
the Marikina Watershed Reservation, and convention in favor of the principle of petroleum, and other
mineral oils, all forces of
thus the San Mateo Site, is located in the state ownership of natural resources and potential energy,
fisheries, forests or
public domain. They allege that as such, the adoption of the Regalian doctrine. timber, wildlife, flora and
neither the Province of Rizal nor the State ownership of natural resources was fauna, and other natural
resources are owned by
municipality of San Mateo has the power seen as a necessary starting point to secure the State. With the
exception of agricultural
to control or regulate its use since recognition of the states power to control lands, all other natural
resources shall not be
properties of this nature belong to the their disposition, exploitation,
alienated. The
[42] exploration, development
national, and not to the local governments. development, or utilization. and utilization of natural
 resources shall be under
the full control and natural and national heritage as it can, public domain. It is also responsible for
supervision of the State.
The State may directly enshrining as it did the obligation to the licensing and regulation of all natural
undertake such activities
preserve and protect the same within the resources as may be provided for by law in
or it may enter into co-
production, joint venture, text of our fundamental law. order to ensure equitable sharing of the
or production-sharing
agreements with Filipino benefits derived therefrom for the
citizens, or corporations
or associations at least It was with this objective in mind welfare of the present and future
sixty per centum of
whose capital is owned that the respondent DENR was mandated generations of Filipinos.
by such citizens. Such
by then President Corazon C. Aquino,
agreements may be for a
period not exceeding under Section 4 of Executive Order No. We expounded on this matter in the
twenty-five years,
renewable for not more 192, [44] otherwise known as The landmark case of Oposa v. Factoran,
than twenty-five years,
[45]
and under such terms Reorganization Act of the Department of where we held that the right to a
and conditions as may be
provided by law. In cases Environment and Natural Resources, to be balanced and healthful ecology is a
of water rights for
irrigation, water supply,
the primary government agency fundamental legal right that carries with it
fisheries, or industrial responsible for the conservation, the correlative duty to refrain from
uses other than the
development of water management, development and proper impairing the environment. This right
power, beneficial use
may be the measure and use of the countrys environment and implies, among other things, the judicious
limit of the grant.[43]
natural resources, specifically forest and management and conservation of the
grazing lands, mineral countrys resources, which duty is reposed

Clearly, the state is, and always has resources, including those in reservation in the DENR under the aforequoted
been, zealous in preserving as much of our and watershed areas, and lands of the
 only for the well as
Section 4 of Executive Order No. 192. present the judicious
generation but disposition,
Moreover: for future utilization,
Section 3 (of E. O. No. generations as management,
192) makes the following well. It is also the renewal and
statement of policy: policy of the state conservation of
to recognize and the country's
SEC. 3. apply a true value forest, mineral,
Declaration of system including land, waters,
Policy. - It is social and fisheries, wildlife,
hereby declared environmental off-shore areas
the policy of the cost implications and other natural
State to ensure relative to their resources, consist
the sustainable utilization; ent with the
use, development, development and necessity of
management, conservation of maintaining a
renewal, and our natural sound ecological
conservation of resources. balance and
the country's (Emphasis ours) protecting and
forest, mineral, enhancing the
land, off-shore This policy declaration is quality of the
areas and other substantially re-stated in Title environment and
natural resources, XIV, Book IV of the the objective of
including the Administrative Code of 1987, making the
protection and specifically in Section 1 thereof exploration,
enhancement of which reads: development and
the quality of the utilization of such
environment, and SEC. natural resources
equitable access of 1. Declaration of equitably
the different Policy. - (1) The accessible to the
segments of the State shall ensure, different segments
population to the for the benefit of of the present as
development and the Filipino well as future
use of the people, the full generations.
country's natural exploration and
resources, not development as
 (2) The
State shall the DENR, an agency of the government,
likewise recognize
and apply a true owns the Marikina Reserve and has With great power comes great
value system that
jurisdiction over the same, this power is responsibility. It is the height of irony that
takes into account
social and the public respondents have vigorously
not absolute, but is defined by the declared
environmental arrogated to themselves the power to
cost implications policies of the state, and is subject to the
relative to the control the San Mateo site, but have deftly
utilization, law and higher authority. Section 2, Title
development and ignored their corresponding responsibility
conservation of XIV, Book IV of the Administrative Code as guardians and protectors of this
our natural
resources. of 1987, while specifically referring to the tormented piece of land.
mandate of the DENR, makes particular
The above provision
stresses the necessity of reference to the agencys being subject to II.
maintaining a sound ecological
balance and protecting and law and higher authority, thus: THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE GIVES
enhancing the quality of the TO LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNITS ALL
environment.[46] (Emphasis SEC. 2. Mandate. - (1) The THE NECESSARY POWERS TO PROMOTE
ours.) Department of Environment and THE GENERAL WELFARE OF THEIR
Natural Resources shall be INHABITANTS
primarily responsible for the
implementation of the foregoing
policy.
In sum, the Administrative Code of The circumstances under which
(2) It shall, subject to Proclamation No. 635 was passed also
1987 and Executive Order No. 192 entrust
law and higher authority, be in
the DENR with charge of carrying out the violates Rep. Act No. 7160, or the Local
State's constitutional mandate to
the guardianship and safekeeping of the control and supervise the Government Code.
exploration, development,
Marikina Watershed Reservation and our utilization, and conservation of
the country's natural resources.
other natural treasures. However, although
 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
national agencies and offices to
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]
require all The ambivalent reply of Director Uranza was
conduct periodic brought to the fore when, at the height of the protest rally
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.

consultations with appropriate local government units, non- and barricade along Marcos Highway to stop dump trucks In Lina , Jr. v. Pao,[49] we held that
governmental and people's organizations, and other from reaching the site, all the municipal mayors of the Section 2 (c), requiring consultations with

concerned sectors of the community before any project or province of Rizal openly declared their full support for the
the appropriate local government units,
should apply to national government
program is implemented in their respective jurisdictions. rally and notified the MMDA that they would oppose any

[48]
projects affecting the environmental or
Likewise, Section 27 requires prior consultations before a further attempt to dump garbage in their province.
ecological balance of the particular
program shall be implemented by government authorities
community implementing the project.
The municipal mayors acted within
and the prior approval of the sanggunian is obtained. Rejecting the petitioners contention that
the scope of their powers, and were in fact
Sections 2(c) and 27 of the Local
fulfilling their mandate, when they did
During the oral arguments at the hearing for the
Government Code applied mandatorily in
this. Section 16 allows every local
temporary restraining order, Director Uranza of the MMDA
government unit to exercise the powers

the setting up of lotto outlets around the
country, we held that:
From a careful reading of
said provisions, we find that
these apply only to national
programs and/or projects which
are to be implemented in a
particular local community.
Lotto is neither a program nor a
project of the national
government, but of a charitable
institution, the PCSO. Though
sanctioned by the national
government, it is far fetched to
say that lotto falls within the
contemplation of Sections 2 (c)
and 27 of the Local Government
Code.
Section 27 of the Code should
be read in conjunction with
Section 26 thereof. Section 26
reads:
SECTION 26. Duty of
National Government
Agencies in the
Maintenance of
Ecological Balance. It
shall be the duty of
every national agency or
government-owned or
controlled corporation
authorizing or involved
in the planning and
implementation of any
project or program that
may cause pollution,
climatic change,
depletion of non-
renewable resources,
loss of crop land, range-
land, or forest cover, and
extinction of animal or
plant species, to consult
with the local
government units,
nongovernmental
organizations, and other
sectors concerned and
explain the goals and
objectives of the project
or program, its impact
upon the people and the
community in terms of
environmental or
ecological balance, and
the measures that will be
undertaken to prevent or
minimize the adverse
effects thereof.
Thus, the projects and
programs mentioned in
Section 27 should be
interpreted to mean projects
and programs whose effects
are among those enumerated
in 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.
 ecological imbalance; facilities as provided for
Moreover, Section 447, which [Section 447 (1)(vi)] under Section 17 of this
enumerates the powers, duties and (2) Prescribing reasonable Code, and in addition to
limits and restraints on said services and
functions of the municipality, grants facilities, providing for
the use of property
the sangguniang bayan the power to, within the jurisdiction the establishment,
of the maintenance,
among other things, enact ordinances, protection, and
municipality, adopting a
approve resolutions and appropriate funds comprehensive land use conservation of
plan for the municipality, communal forests and
for the general welfare of the municipality reclassifying land within watersheds, tree parks,
the jurisdiction of the greenbelts, mangroves,
and its inhabitants pursuant to Section 16 and other similar forest
city, subject to the
of th(e) Code. These include: pertinent provisions of development
this Code, enacting projects .and, subject to
(1) Approving ordinances and
integrated zoning existing laws,
passing resolutions
ordinances in establishing and
to protect the
consonance with the providing for the
environment and
approved comprehensive maintenance, repair and
impose appropriate
land use plan, subject to operation of an efficient
penalties for acts which
existing laws, rules and waterworks system to
endanger the
regulations; establishing supply water for the
environment, such as
fire limits or zones, inhabitants and purifying
dynamite fishing and
particularly in populous the source of the water
other forms of
centers; and regulating supply; regulating the
destructive fishing,
the construction, repair or construction,
illegal logging and
modification of buildings maintenance, repair and
smuggling of logs,
within said fire limits or use of hydrants, pumps,
smuggling of natural
zones in accordance with cisterns and
resources products and of
the provisions of this reservoirs; protecting
endangered species of
Code; [Section 447 (2) the purity and quantity
flora and fauna, slash and
(vi-ix)] of the water supply of
burn farming, and such
the municipality and, for
other activities which
(3) Approving ordinances which this purpose, extending
result in pollution,
shall ensure the efficient the coverage of
acceleration of
and effective delivery of appropriate ordinances
eutrophication of rivers
the basic services and over all territory within
and lakes, or of
 the drainage area of closed? Where will the daily
said water supply and requirements, the projects implementation collections of garbage be
within one hundred disposed of and dumped? Atty.
(100) meters of the is illegal. Mendoza, one of the lawyers of
reservoir, conduit, III. the petitioners, answered that
canal, aqueduct, each city/municipality must take
pumping station, or WASTE DISPOSAL IS REGULATED BY care of its own. Reflecting on
watershed used in THE ECOLOGICAL that answer, we are troubled:
connection with the SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ACT will not the proliferation of
water service; and OF 2000 separate open dumpsites be a
regulating the more serious health hazard
consumption, use or (which ha(s) to be addressed) to
wastage of the residents of the community?
water. [Section 447 (5)(i) What with the galloping
& (vii)] The respondents would have us population growth and the
constricting available land area
overlook all the abovecited laws because in Metro Manila? There could
be a mini-Smokey Mountain in
the San Mateo site is a very expensive - each of the ten citiescomprising
Under the Local Government Code, Metro Manila, placing in danger
and necessary - fait accompli. The the health and safety of more
therefore, two requisites must be met people. Damage to the
respondents cite the millions of pesos and
environment could be
before a national project that affects the aggravated by the increase in
hundreds of thousands of dollars the
number of open dumpsites. An
environmental and ecological balance of
government has already expended in its integrated system of solid waste
local communities can be implemented: management, like the San
development and construction, and the Mateo Sanitary Landfill,
prior consultation with the affected local appears advisable to a populous
lack of any viable alternative sites. metropolis like the Greater
communities, and prior approval of the Metro Manila Area absent
access to better technology.[51]
project by the appropriate sanggunian.
The Court of Appeals agreed, thus:
Absent either of these mandatory During the hearing on the
injunction, questions were also
asked. What will happen if the
San Mateo Sanitary Landfill is
 We acknowledge that these are valid maximize the utilization of valuable existing open dumps and/or sanitary
concerns. Nevertheless, the lower court resources and encourage resource landfills located within an aquifer,
should have been mindful of the legal conservation and recovery.[53] It requires groundwater reservoir or watershed
truism that it is the legislature, by its very the adherence to a Local Government area.[54] Any landfills subsequently
nature, which is the primary judge of the Solid Waste Management Plan with regard developed must comply with the minimum
necessity, adequacy, wisdom, to the collection and transfer, processing, requirements laid down in Section 40,
reasonableness and expediency of any law. source reduction, recycling, composting specifically that the site selected must be
[52]
and final disposal of solid wastes, the consistent with the overall land use plan
handling and disposal of special wastes, of the local government unit, and that the
Moreover, these concerns are education and public information, and the site must be located in an area where the
addressed by Rep. Act No. 9003. funding of solid waste management landfills operation will not detrimentally
Approved on 26 January 2001, The projects. affect environmentally sensitive
Ecological Solid Waste Management Act resources such as aquifers, groundwater
of 2000 was enacted pursuant to the The said law mandates the reservoirs or watershed areas.[55]
declared policy of the state to adopt a formulation of a National Solid Waste
systematic, comprehensive and ecological Management Framework, which should This writes finis to any remaining
solid waste management system which include, among other things, the method aspirations respondents may have of
shall ensure the protection of public health and procedure for the phaseout and the reopening the San Mateo Site. Having
and environment, and utilize eventual closure within eighteen months declared Proclamation No. 635 illegal, we
environmentally sound methods that from effectivity of the Act in case of see no compelling need to tackle the
 GONZALES, FRANCISCO A.
remaining issues raised in the petition and SET ASIDE. The temporary restraining
GONZALES, GREGORIO
order issued by the Court on 24 January GONZALES, LEODEGARIO N.
the parties respective memoranda.
2001 is hereby made permanent. GONZALES, PASCUAL P.
GONZALES, ROLANDO A.
A final word. Laws pertaining to the SO ORDERED. GONZALES, FRANCISCO A.
protection of the environment were not [G.R. No. 112526. October 12, 2001] JUANGCO, GERVACIO A.
JUANGCO, LOURDES U.
drafted in a vacuum. Congress passed
STA. ROSA REALTY LUNA, ANSELMO M.
these laws fully aware of the perilous state DEVELOPMENT MANDANAS, CRISANTO
of both our economic and natural wealth. CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. C MANDANAS, EMILIO M.
It was precisely to minimize the adverse OURT OF APPEALS, JUAN B. MANDANAS, GREGORIO A.
AMANTE, FRANCISCO L. MANDANAS, MARIO G.
impact humanitys actions on all aspects of
ANDAL, LUCIA ANDAL, MANDANAS, TEODORO
the natural world, at the same time ANDREA P. AYENDE, LETICIA MANDANAS, CONSTANCIO B.
maintaining and ensuring an environment P. BALAT, FILOMENA B. MARQUEZ, EUGENIO B.
under which man and nature can thrive in BATINO, ANICETO A. MARQUEZ, ARMANDO P.
BURGOS, JAIME A. BURGOS, MATIENZO, DANIEL D.
productive and enjoyable harmony with FLORENCIA CANUBAS, MATIENZO, MAXIMINO
each other, that these legal safeguards LORETO A. CANUBAS, MATIENZO, PACENCIA P.
were put in place. They should thus not be MAXIMO A. CANUBAS, MATIENZO, DOROTEA L.
REYNALDO CARINGAL, PANGANIBAN, JUANITO T.
so lightly cast aside in the face of what is
QUIRINO C. CASALME, PEREZ, MARIANITO T.
easy and expedient. BENIGNO A. CRUZAT, ELINO PEREZ, SEVERO M. PEREZ,
A. CRUZAT, GREGORIO F. INOCENCIA S. PASQUIZA,
CRUZAT, RUFINO C. CRUZAT, BIENVENIDO F. PETATE,
WHEREFORE, the petition is SERGIO CRUZAT, SEVERINO IGNACIO F. PETATE, JUANITO
GRANTED. The Decision of the Court F. CRUZAT, VICTORIA DE PETATE, PABLO A. PLATON,
of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 41330, SAGUN, SEVERINO DE PRECILLO V. PLATON,
SAGUN, FELICISIMO A. AQUILINO B. SUBOL,
dated 13 June 1997, is REVERSED and
CASIANO T. VILLA, DOMINGO PHILIPPINES, REGISTER OF Petitioner alleged that respondents usurped
VILLA, JUAN T. VILLA, DEEDS OF LAGUNA, its rights over the property, thereby destroying the
ecosystem. Sometime in December 1985,
MARIO C. VILLA, NATIVIDAD DEPARTMENT OF
respondents filed a civil case[4] with the Regional
A. VILLA, JACINTA S. ENVIRONMENT AND Trial Court, Laguna, seeking an easement of a
ALVARADO, RODOLFO NATURAL RESOURCES right of way to and from Barangay Casile. By
ANGELES, DOMINGO A. REGIONAL EXECUTIVE way of counterclaim, however, petitioner sought
CANUBAS, EDGARDO L. DIRECTOR FOR REGION IV, the ejectment of private respondents.
CASALME, QUIRINO DE and REGIONAL AGRARIAN
In October 1986 to August 1987, petitioner
LEON, LEONILO M. REFORM OFFICER FOR filed with the Municipal Trial Court, Cabuyao,
ENRIQUEZ, CLAUDIA P. REGION IV, respondents. Laguna separate complaints for forcible entry
GONZALES, FELISA R. against respondents.[5]
LANGUE, QUINTILLANO DECISION
LANGUE, REYNALDO After the filing of the ejectment cases,
PARDO, J.: respondents petitioned the Department of
LANGUE, ROMEO S. LANGUE,
Agrarian Reform (DAR) for the compulsory
BONIFACIO VILLA, ROGELIO The case before the Court is a petition for
acquisition of the SRRDC property under the
AYENDE, ANTONIO B. review on certiorari of the decision of the Court
CARP.
of Appeals[1] affirming the decision of the
FERNANDEZ, ZACARIAS
Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication On August 11, 1989, the Municipal Agrarian
HERRERA, ZACARIAS Board[2] (hereafter DARAB) ordering the Reform Officer (MARO) of Cabuyao, Laguna
HERRERA, REYNARIO U. compulsory acquisition of petitioners property issued a notice of coverage to petitioner and
LAZO, AGAPITO MATIENZO, under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform invited its officials or representatives to a
DIONISIO F. PETATE, LITO G. Program (CARP). conference on August 18, 1989.[6] During the
REYES, JOSE M. SUBOL, meeting, the following were present:
Petitioner Sta. Rosa Realty Development
CELESTINO G. TOPI NO, representatives of petitioner, the Land Bank of the
Corporation (hereafter, SRRDC) was the
ROSA C. AMANTE, SOTERA Philippines, PARCCOM, PARO of Laguna,
registered owner of two parcels of land, situated
MARO of Laguna, the BARC Chairman of
CASALME, REMIGIO M. at Barangay Casile, Cabuyao, Laguna covered by
Barangay Casile and some potential farmer
SILVERIO, THE SECRETARY TCT Nos. 81949 and 84891, with a total area of
beneficiaries, who are residents of Barangay
OF AGRARIAN REFORM, 254.6 hectares. According to petitioner, the
Casile, Cabuyao, Laguna. It was the consensus
parcels of land are watersheds, which provide
DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN and recommendation of the assembly that the
clean potable water to the Canlubang community,
REFORM ADJUDICATION landholding of SRRDC be placed under
and that ninety (90) light industries are now
BOARD, LAND BANK OF THE compulsory acquisition.
located in the area.[3]
 On August 17, 1989, petitioner filed with the Land Bank of the Philippines for further review DARAB for it to conduct summary proceedings
Municipal Agrarian Reform Office (MARO), and evaluation.[10] to determine the just compensation for the land.
Cabuyao, Laguna a Protest and Objection to the
compulsory acquisition of the property on the On December 12, 1989, Secretary of On April 6, 1990, petitioner sent a letter to
ground that the area was not appropriate for Agrarian Reform Miriam Defensor Santiago sent the Land Bank of the Philippines stating that its
agricultural purposes. The area was rugged in two (2) notices of acquisition[11] to petitioner, property under the aforesaid land titles were
terrain with slopes of 18% and above and that the stating that petitioners landholdings covered by exempt from CARP coverage because they had
occupants of the land were squatters, who were TCT Nos. 81949 and 84891, containing an area of been classified as watershed area and were the
not entitled to any land as beneficiaries.[7] 188.2858 and 58.5800 hectares, valued at subject of a pending petition for land conversion.
P4,417,735.65 and P1,220,229.93, respectively,
On August 29, 1989, the farmer beneficiaries had been placed under the Comprehensive On May 10, 1990, Director Narciso
together with the BARC chairman answered the Agrarian Reform Program. Villapando of BLAD turned over the two (2)
protest and objection stating that the slope of the claim folders (CACFs) to the Executive Director
land is not 18% but only 5-10% and that the land On February 6, 1990, petitioner SRRDC in of the DAR Adjudication Board for proper
is suitable and economically viable for two letters[12] separately addressed to Secretary administrative valuation. Acting on the CACFs,
agricultural purposes, as evidenced by the Florencio B. Abad and the Director, Bureau of on September 10, 1990, the Board promulgated a
Certification of the Department of Agriculture, Land Acquisition and Distribution, sent its formal resolution asking the office of the Secretary of
municipality of Cabuyao, Laguna.[8] protest, protesting not only the amount of Agrarian Reform (DAR) to first resolve two (2)
compensation offered by DAR for the property issues before it proceeds with the summary land
On September 8, 1989, MARO Belen dela but also the two (2) notices of acquisition. valuation proceedings.[13]
Torre made a summary investigation report and
forwarded the Compulsory Acquisition Folder On March 17, 1990, Secretary Abad referred The issues that need to be threshed out were
Indorsement (CAFI) to the Provincial Agrarian the case to the DARAB for summary proceedings as follows: (1) whether the subject parcels of land
Reform Officer (hereafter, PARO).[9] to determine just compensation under R. A. No. fall within the coverage of the Compulsory
6657, Section 16. Acquisition Program of the CARP; and (2)
On September 21, 1989, PARO Durante whether the petition for land conversion of the
Ubeda forwarded his endorsement of the On March 23, 1990, the LBP returned the parcels of land may be granted.
compulsory acquisition to the Secretary of two (2) claim folders previously referred for
Agrarian Reform. review and evaluation to the Director of BLAD On December 7, 1990, the Office of the
mentioning its inability to value the SRRDC Secretary, DAR, through the Undersecretary for
On November 23, 1989, Acting Director landholding due to some deficiencies. Operations (Assistant Secretary for Luzon
Eduardo C. Visperas of the Bureau of Land Operations) and the Regional Director of Region
Acquisition and Development, DAR forwarded On March 28, 1990, Executive Director IV, submitted a report answering the two issues
two (2) Compulsory Acquisition Claim Folders Emmanuel S. Galvez wrote Land Bank President raised. According to them, firstly, by virtue of the
covering the landholding of SRRDC, covered by Deogracias Vistan to forward the two (2) claim issuance of the notice of coverage on August 11,
TCT Nos. T-81949 and T-84891 to the President, folders involving the property of SRRDC to the 1989, and notice of acquisition on December 12,
1989, the property is covered under compulsory hearing, the subdivision plan of subject property WHEREFORE, based on the foregoing
acquisition. Secondly, Administrative Order No. at Casile, Cabuyao, Laguna was submitted and premises, the Board hereby orders:
1, Series of 1990, Section IV D also supports the marked as Exhibit 5 for SRRDC. At the hearing
DAR position on the coverage of the said on April 23, 1991, the Land Bank asked for a 1. The dismissal for lack of merit of the
property. During the consideration of the case by period of one month to value the land in dispute. protest against the compulsory coverage of
the Board, there was no pending petition for land
At the hearing on April 23, 1991, certification
the landholdings of Sta. Rosa Realty
conversion specifically concerning the parcels of
land in question. from Deputy Zoning Administrator Generoso B. Development Corporation (Transfer
Opina was presented. The certification issued on Certificates of Title Nos. 81949 and 84891
On February 19, 1991, the Board sent a September 8, 1989, stated that the parcels of land with an area of 254.766 hectares) in
notice of hearing to all the parties interested, subject of the case were classified as industrial Barangay Casile, Municipality of Cabuyao,
setting the hearing for the administrative Park per Sanguniang Bayan Resolution No. 45-89 Province of Laguna under the
valuation of the subject parcels of land on March dated March 29, 1989.[14] Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program is
6, 1991. However, on February 22, 1991, Atty.
hereby affirmed;
Ma. Elena P. Hernandez-Cueva, counsel for To avert any opportunity that the DARAB
SRRDC, wrote the Board requesting for its might distribute the lands to the farmer
2. The Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP)
assistance in the reconstruction of the records of beneficiaries, on April 30, 1991, petitioner filed a
petition[15] with DARAB to disqualify private to pay Sta. Rosa Realty Development
the case because the records could not be found as
her co-counsel, Atty. Ricardo Blancaflor, who respondents as beneficiaries. However, DARAB Corporation the amount of Seven Million
originally handled the case for SRRDC and had refused to address the issue of beneficiaries. Eight Hundred Forty-One Thousand, Nine
possession of all the records of the case was on Hundred Ninety Seven Pesos and Sixty-
indefinite leave and could not be contacted. The In the meantime, on January 20, 1992, the Four centavos (P7,841,997.64) for its
Board granted counsels request and moved the Regional Trial Court, Laguna, Branch 24,
landholdings covered by the two (2)
hearing to April 4, 1991. rendered a decision,[16] finding that private
Transfer Certificates of Title mentioned
respondents illegally entered the SRRDC
above. Should there be a rejection of the
On March 18, 1991, SRRDC submitted a property, and ordered them evicted.
petition to the Board for the latter to resolve payment tendered, to open, if none has yet
SRRDCs petition for exemption from CARP On July 11, 1991, DAR Secretary Benjamin been made, a trust account for said
coverage before any administrative valuation of T. Leong issued a memorandum directing the amount in the name of Sta. Rosa Realty
their landholding could be had by the Board. Land Bank of the Philippines to open a trust Development Corporation;
account in favor of SRRDC, for P5,637,965.55, as
On April 4, 1991, the initial DARAB hearing valuation for the SRRDC property. 3. The Register of Deeds of the Province of
of the case was held and subsequently, different Laguna to cancel with dispatch Transfer
dates of hearing were set without objection from On December 19, 1991, DARAB
certificate of Title Nos. 84891 and 81949
counsel of SRRDC. During the April 15, 1991 promulgated a decision, the decretal portion of
which reads: 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 The Court therefore, resolved to restrain: (a)
affirming the decision of DARAB. The decretal the Department of Agrarian Reform
portion of the Court of Appeals decision reads: Adjudication Board from enforcing its
decision dated December 19, 1991 in
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the
DARAB Case No. JC-R-IV-LAG-0001,
DARAB decision dated September 19, 1991
which was affirmed by the Court of Appeals
is AFFIRMED, without prejudice to
in a Decision dated November 5, 1993, and
petitioner Sta. Rosa Realty Development
which ordered, among others, the Regional
Corporation ventilating its case with the
Office of the Department of Agrarian
Special Agrarian Court on the issue of just
Reform through its Municipal and
compensation.[20]
Provincial Reform Office to take immediate
possession of the landholding in dispute
Hence, this petition.[21]
after title shall have been transferred to the
On December 15, 1993, the Court issued a name of the Republic of the Philippines and
Resolution which reads: to distribute the same through the immediate
issuance of Emancipation Patents to the
G. R. Nos. 112526 (Sta. Rosa Realty
farmer-beneficiaries as determined by the
Development Corporation vs. Court of
Municipal Agrarian Officer of Cabuyao,
Appeals, et. al.) Considering the
Laguna, (b) The Department of Agrarian
compliance, dated December 13, 1993, filed
Reform and/or the Department of Agrarian
by counsel for petitioner, with the resolution
Reform Adjudication Board, and all persons
of December 8, 1993 which required
acting for and in their behalf and under their
petitioner to post a cash bond or surety bond
authority from entering the properties
in the amount of P1,500,000.00 Pesos
involved in this case and from introducing
before issuing a temporary restraining order
permanent infrastructures thereon; and (c)
prayed for, manifesting that it has posted a
the private respondents from further clearing
CASH BOND in the same amount with the
the said properties of their green cover by
Cashier of the Court as evidenced by the
the cutting or burning of trees and other
attached official receipt no. 315519, the
vegetation, effective today until further
Court resolved to ISSUE the Temporary
orders from this Court.[22]
Retraining Order prayed for.
 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
e) CARP CA Form 5 Transmittal report to
the PARO
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.
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 farmer-
beneficiaries, 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 the personnel who participated in the
accomplishment of these forms.
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.
The LBP representative and the MARO
concerned shall be furnished a copy each of
his report.
C. DAR Central Office, specifically through
the Bureau of Land Acquisition and
Distribution (BLAD), shall:
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 non-reply, 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 domain. The taking contemplated is not mere Art. 67. Any watershed or any area of land
together with his recommendation to the Central limitation of the use of the land. What is required adjacent to any surface water or overlying
Office of the DAR. The DAR Central Office, is the surrender of the title to and physical any ground water may be declared by the
specifically, the Bureau of Land Acquisition and possession of the excess and all beneficial rights
Department of Natural resources as a
Distribution (BLAD) shall prepare, on the accruing to the owner in favor of the farmer
signature of the Secretary or his duly authorized beneficiary.
protected area. Rules and Regulations may
representative, a notice of acquisition of the be promulgated by such Department to
subject property. From this point, the provisions In the case at bar, DAR has executed the prohibit or control such activities by the
of R. A. No. 6657, Section 16 shall apply. taking of the property in question. However, owners or occupants thereof within the
payment of just compensation was not in protected area which may damage or cause
For a valid implementation of the CARP accordance with the procedural requirement. The the deterioration of the surface water or
Program, two notices are required: (1) the notice law required payment in cash or LBP bonds, not
ground water or interfere with the
of coverage and letter of invitation to a by trust account as was done by DAR.
investigation, use, control, protection,
preliminary conference sent to the landowner, the
representative of the BARC, LBP, farmer In Association of Small Landowners in the management or administration of such
beneficiaries and other interested parties pursuant Philippines v. Secretary of Agrarian Reform, we waters.
to DAR A. O. No. 12, series of 1989; and (2) the held that The CARP Law, for its part, conditions
notice of acquisition sent to the landowner under the transfer of possession and ownership of the Watersheds may be defined as an area
Section 16 of the CARL. land to the government on receipt of the drained by a river and its tributaries and enclosed
landowner of the corresponding payment or the by a boundary or divide which separates it from
The importance of the first notice, that is, the deposit by the DAR of the compensation in cash adjacent watersheds. Watersheds generally are
notice of coverage and the letter of invitation to a or LBP bonds with an accessible bank. Until then, outside the commerce of man, so why was the
conference, and its actual conduct cannot be title also remains with the landowner. No outright Casile property titled in the name of
understated. They are steps designed to comply change of ownership is contemplated either.[24] SRRDC? The answer is simple.At the time of the
with the requirements of administrative due titling, the Department of Agriculture and Natural
process. The implementation of the CARL is an Consequently, petitioner questioned before Resources had not declared the property as
exercise of the States police power and the power the Court of Appeals DARABs decision ordering watershed area. The parcels of land in Barangay
of eminent domain. To the extent that the CARL the compulsory acquisition of petitioners Casile were declared as PARK by a Zoning
prescribes retention limits to the landowners, property.[25]Here, petitioner pressed the question of Ordinance adopted by the municipality of
there is an exercise of police power for the whether the property was a watershed, not Cabuyao in 1979, as certified by the Housing and
regulation of private property in accordance with covered by CARP. Land Use Regulatory Board. On January 5, 1994,
the Constitution. But where, to carry out such the Sangguniang Bayan of Cabuyao, Laguna
regulation, the owners are deprived of lands they Article 67 of the Water Code of the issued a Resolution[26] voiding the zoning
own in excess of the maximum area allowed, Philippines (P. D. No. 1067) provides: classification of the land at Barangay Casile as
there is also a taking under the power of eminent
Park and declaring that the land is now classified However, the scenario has changed, after an The Casile and Kabanga-an watersheds can
as agricultural land. in-depth study, survey and reassessment. We be considered a most vital life support
cannot ignore the fact that the disputed parcels of system to thousands of inhabitants directly
The authority of the municipality of land form a vital part of an area that need to be
and indirectly affected by it.From these
Cabuyao, Laguna to issue zoning classification is protected for watershed purposes. In a report of
an exercise of its police power, not the power of the Ecosystems Research and Development watersheds come the natural God-given
eminent domain. A zoning ordinance is defined as Bureau (ERDB), a research arm of the DENR, precious resource water. x x x x x
a local city or municipal legislation which regarding the environmental assessment of the
logically arranges, prescribes, defines and Casile and Kabanga-an river watersheds, they Clearing and tilling of the lands are totally
apportions a given political subdivision into concluded that: inconsistent with sound watershed
specific land uses as present and future projection management. More so, the introduction of
of needs.[27] The Casile barangay covered by CLOA in earth disturbing activities like road building
question is situated in the heartland of both and erection of permanent
In Natalia Realty, Inc. v. Department of
watersheds. Considering the barangays infrastructures. Unless the pernicious
Agrarian Reform[28] we held that lands classified
proximity to the Matangtubig waterworks, agricultural activities of the Casile farmers
as non-agricultural prior to the effectivity of the
CARL may not be compulsorily acquired for the activities of the farmers which are in are immediately stopped, it would not be
distribution to farmer beneficiaries. conflict with proper soil and water long before these watersheds would cease to
conservation practices jeopardize and be of value. The impact of watershed
However, more than the classification of the endanger the vital waterworks. Degradation degredation threatens the livelihood of
subject land as PARK is the fact that subsequent of the land would have double edge thousands of people dependent upon
studies and survey showed that the parcels of land
detrimental effects. On the Casile side this it. Toward this, we hope that an acceptable
in question form a vital part of a watershed area.[29]
would mean direct siltation of the Mangumit comprehensive watershed development
Now, petitioner has offered to prove that the river which drains to the water impounding policy and program be immediately
land in dispute is a watershed or part of the reservoir below. On the Kabanga-an side, formulated and implemented before the
protected area for watershed purposes. Ecological this would mean destruction of forest covers irreversible damage finally happens.
balances and environmental disasters in our day which acts as recharged areas of the Matang
and age seem to be interconnected. Property Tubig springs. Considering that the people Hence, the following are recommended:
developers and tillers of the land must be aware of
have little if no direct interest in the
this deadly combination.In the case at bar, DAR 7.2 The Casile farmers should be relocated
protection of the Matang Tubig structures
included the disputed parcels of land for and given financial assistance.
compulsory acquisition simply because the land they couldnt care less even if it would be
was allegedly devoted to agriculture and was destroyed.
titled to SRRDC, hence, private and alienable
land that may be subject to CARP.
7.3 Declaration of the two watersheds as that a larger view of the situation be taken as wildlife, forest reserves, reforestration, fish
critical and in need of immediate one should also consider the adverse effect sanctuaries and breeding
rehabilitation. on thousands of residents downstream if the grounds, watersheds and mangroves,
watershed will not be protected and national defense, school sites and campuses
7.4 A comprehensive and detailed watershed maintained for watershed purposes. including experimental farm stations
management plan and program be operated by public or private schools for
formulated and implemented by the The foregoing considered, it is educational purposes, seeds and seedlings
Canlubang Estate in coordination with recommended that if possible, an alternate research and pilot production centers,
[30]
pertinent government agencies. area be allocated for the affected farmers, church sites and convents appurtenent
and that the Canlubang Estates be mandated thereto, communal burial grounds and
The ERDB report was prepared by a to protect and maintain the area in question
cemeteries, penal colonies and penal farms
composite team headed by Dr. Emilio Rosario, the
as a permanent watershed reserved.[31] actually worked by the inmates, government
ERDB Director, who holds a doctorate degree in
water resources from U.P. Los Banos in 1987; Dr. and private research and quarantine centers,
The definition does not exactly depict the
Medel Limsuan, who obtained his doctorate and all lands with eighteen percent (18%)
complexities of a watershed. The most important
degree in watershed management from Colorado product of a watershed is water which is one of slope and over, except those already
University (US) in 1989; and Dr. Antonio M. the most important human necessity. The developed shall be exempt from coverage of
Dano, who obtained his doctorate degree in Soil protection of watersheds ensures an adequate this Act.
and Water management Conservation from U.P. supply of water for future generations and the
Los Banos in 1993. control of flashfloods that not only damage Hence, during the hearing at DARAB, there
property but cause loss of lives. Protection of was proof showing that the disputed parcels of
Also, DENR Secretary Angel Alcala
watersheds is an intergenerational responsibility land may be excluded from the compulsory
submitted a Memorandum for the President dated acquisition coverage of CARP because of its very
that needs to be answered now.
September 7, 1993 (Subject: PFVR HWI Ref.: high slopes.
933103 Presidential Instructions on the Protection Another factor that needs to be mentioned is
of Watersheds of the Canlubang Estates at Barrio the fact that during the DARAB hearing, To resolve the issue as to the true nature of
Casile, Cabuyao, Laguna) which reads: petitioner presented proof that the Casile property the parcels of land involved in the case at bar, the
has slopes of 18% and over, which exempted the Court directs the DARAB to conduct a re-
It is the opinion of this office that the area in land from the coverage of CARL. R. A. No. 6657, evaluation of the issue.
question must be maintained for watershed Section 10, provides:
purposes for ecological and environmental IN VIEW WHEREOF, the Court SETS
considerations, among others. Although the Section 10. Exemptions and Exclusions. ASIDE the decision of the Court of Appeals in
88 families who are the proposed CARP Lands actually, directly and exclusively used CA-G. R. SP No. 27234.
beneficiaries will be affected, it is important and found to be necessary for parks,
 In lieu thereof, the Court REMANDS the Before the Court is a petition for Carmona, Cavite under the build-
case to the DARAB for re-evaluation and review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the operate-transfer (BOT) scheme. The
determination of the nature of the parcels of land Rules of Civil Procedure filed by terms of reference for the waste-to-
involved to resolve the issue of its coverage by
petitioner Metropolitan Manila energy projects provided that its
the Comprehensive Land Reform Program.
Development Authority (MMDA), proponents should have the capability to
In the meantime, the effects of the CLOAs seeking to reverse and set aside the establish municipal solid waste thermal
issued by the DAR to supposed farmer November 13, 2000 decision of the plants using incineration technology.
beneficiaries shall continue to be stayed by the Court of Appeals declaring valid and This type of technology was selected
temporary restraining order issued on December perfected the waste management because of its alleged advantages of
15, 1993, which shall remain in effect until final contract entered into by the Republic of greatly reduced waste volume,
decision on the case.
the Philippines, represented by the prolongation of the service life of the
No costs. Secretary of National Resources and disposal site, and generation of
the Executive Committee to oversee the electricity.
SO ORDERED. build-operate-transfer implementation of
solid waste management projects, and While eleven (11) proponents
[G.R. No. 147465. January 30, 2002] JANCOM Environmental Corporation. submitted their pre-qualification
documents, most failed to comply with
METROPOLITAN MANILA The pertinent facts are as follows: the requirements under Section 5.4 of
DEVELOPMENT the Implementing Rules and
AUTHORITY, petitioner, In 1994, then President Fidel V. Regulations (IRR) of Republic Act No.
vs. JANCOM Ramos issued Presidential 6957, otherwise known as the Build-
ENVIRONMENTAL Memorandum Order No. 202 creating Operate-Transfer Law. On July 21,
CORPORATION and JANCOM the Executive Committee (EXECOM) to 1995, the Pre-qualification, Bids and
INTERNATIONAL oversee the BOT implementation of Awards Committee (PBAC)
DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS solid waste management projects, recommended the pre-qualification of
PTY. LIMITED OF headed by the Chairman of the MMDA three proponents, namely: i) JANCOM
AUSTRALIA, respondents. and the Cabinet Officer for Regional International Pty. Ltd.; ii) First Philippine
Development-National Capital Region International W-E Managers; and iii)
DECISION (CORD-NCR). The EXECOM was to PACTECH Development
oversee and develop waste-to-energy Corporation. On July 26, 1995, the
MELO, J.:
projects for the waste disposal sites EXECOM approved the
in San Mateo, Rizal and
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 with OGDEN. Due
to the change in the composition of the
proponents, particularly in their
technology partners and contractors, the
PBAC conducted a post pre-qualification
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 executed and signed between JANCOM prohibition to enjoin the Greater
to incoming President Joseph E. and the Philippine Government would Metropolitan Manila Solid Waste
Estrada. no longer be pursued. The letter stated Management Committee and MMDA
that other alternative implementation from implementing the assailed
With the change of administration, arrangements for solid waste resolution and disregarding the Award
the composition of the EXECOM also management for Metro Manila would be to, and the BOT contract with,
changed. Memorandum Order No. 19 considered instead. JANCOM, and from making another
appointed the Chairman of the award in its place. On May 29, 2000, the
Presidential Committee on Flagship JANCOM appealed to President trial court rendered a decision, the
Programs and Project to be the Joseph Estrada the position taken by dispositive portion of which reads:
EXECOM chairman. Too, Republic Act the EXECOM not to pursue the BOT
No. 8749, otherwise known as the Clean Contract executed and signed between WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing,
Air Act of 1999, was passed by JANCOM and the Philippine the Court hereby renders judgment in favor
Congress. And due to the clamor of Government, refuting the cited reasons of petitioners JANCOM
residents of Rizal province, President for non-implementation. Despite the ENVIRONMENTAL CORPORATION, and
Estrada had, in the interim, also ordered pendency of the appeal, MMDA, JANCOM INTERNATIONAL
the closure of the San on February 22, 2000, caused the DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS PTY.,
Mateo landfill. Due to these publication in a newspaper of an LIMITED OF AUSTRALIA, and against
circumstances, the Greater Manila Solid invitation to pre-qualify and to submit respondent GREATER METROPOLITAN
Waste Management Committee adopted proposals for solid waste management MANILA SOLID WASTE
a resolution not to pursue the BOT projects for Metro Manila. JANCOM thus MANAGEMENT COMM., and HON.
contract with JANCOM. Subsequently, filed with the Regional Trial Court of ROBERTO N. AVENTAJADO, in his
in a letter dated November 4, 1999, Pasig a petition for certiorari to declare i) Capacity as Chairman of the said
Roberto Aventajado, Chairman of the the resolution of the Greater Committee, METRO MANILA
Presidential Committee on Flagship Metropolitan Manila Solid Waste DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY and HON.
Programs and Project informed Mr. Jay Management Committee disregarding JEJOMAR C. BINAY, in his capacity as
Alparslan, Chairman of JANCOM, that the BOT Contract and ii) the acts of Chairman of said Authority, declaring the
due to changes in policy and economic MMDA calling for bids and authorizing a Resolution of respondent Greater
environment (Clean Air Act and non- new contract for Metro Manila waste Metropolitan Manila Solid Waste
availability of the San Mateo landfill), the management, as illegal, Management Committee disregarding
implementation of the BOT contract unconstitutional, and void; and for petitioners BOT Award Contract and calling
for bids for and authorizing a new contract also granted MMDAs prayer for a Philippines; b) the conditions
precedent specified in the contract
for the Metro Manila waste management temporary restraining order. During the
were not complied with; and c) there
ILLEGAL and VOID. pendency of the petition was no valid notice of award.
for certiorari, JANCOM moved for the
Moreover, respondents and their agents are execution of the RTC decision, which 2) The MMDA had not seasonably
hereby PROHIBITED and ENJOINED from was opposed by MMDA. However, the appealed the Decision of the lower
implementing the aforesaid Resolution and court via a petition for certiorari.
RTC granted the motion for execution
disregarding petitioners BOT Award on the ground that its decision had Before taking up the substantive
Contract and from making another award in become final since MMDA had not issue in question, we shall first dispose
its place. appealed the same to the Court of of the question as to whether it is fatal to
Appeals. MMDA moved to declare petitioners cause, that rather than
Let it be emphasized that this Court is not
respondents and the RTC judge in appealing the trial courts decision to the
preventing or stopping the government from
contempt of court, alleging that the Court of Appeals, it instead filed a
implementing infrastructure projects as it is
RTCs grant of execution was abuse of petition for certiorari. While petitioner
aware of the proscription under PD 1818.
and interference with judicial rules and claims that the trial courts decision
On the contrary, the Court is paving the way
processes. never became final by virtue of its
for the necessary and modern solution to the
perennial garbage problem that has been the having appealed by certiorari to the
On November 13, 2001, the Court of
major headache of the government and in Court of Appeals, the trial court ruled
Appeals dismissed the petition in CA-
the process would serve to attract more that petitioners failure to file an appeal
G.R. SP No. 59021 and a companion
investors in the country. has made its decision final and
case, CA-G.R. SP No. 60303.
executory. At bottom, the question
(Rollo,p. 159.) MMDAs motion for reconsideration involves a determination of the propriety
of said decision having been denied, of petitioners choice of the remedy
Instead of appealing the decision, of certiorari in questioning the decision
MMDA filed the instant petition, alleging
MMDA filed a special civil action of the trial court.
that the Court of Appeals gravely erred
for certiorari with prayer for a temporary
in finding that:
restraining order with the Court of Section 1, Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules
Appeals which was later docketed 1) There is a valid and binding contract of Civil Procedure provides:
therein as CA-G.R. SP No. 59021. The between the Republic of the
appellate court not only required Philippines and JANCOM given that: Section 1. Petition for certiorari. When any
a) the contract does not bear the tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial
JANCOM to comment on the petition, it
signature of the President of the
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
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 Since the RTC decision is not immediately
should be no appeal (Mercado vs. executory, appeal would have stayed its
CA, 162 SCRA 75 [1988]). As incisively execution. Consequently, the adverse effects
observed by the Court of Appeals: of said decision will not visit upon
petitioners during the appeal. In other
The special civil action for certiorari is words, appeal is a plain, speedy and
available only when there is no appeal nor adequate remedy in the ordinary course of
any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the law.
the ordinary course of law (Sec. 1, rule 65,
id.) But as no appeal was taken within the
reglementary period, the RTC decision had
Admittedly, appeal could have been taken become final and executory. Well-settled is
from the assailed RTC decision. However, the rule that the special civil action for
petitioners maintain that appeal is not a certiorari may not be invoked as a substitute
speedy remedy because the RTC decision for the remedy of appeal (BF Corporation
prohibiting them from conducting a bidding vs. Court of Appeals, 288 SCRA
for a new waste disposal project has adverse 267). Therefore, the extraordinary remedy
and serious effects on the citys garbage of certiorari does not lie.
situation.
or
Moreover, petitioners instituted the instant
Nevertheless, the RTC decision is not action without filing a motion for
immediately executory. Only judgments in reconsideration of the RTC
actions for injunction, receivership, decision. Doctrinal is the rule that certiorari
accounting and support and such other will not lie unless a motion for
judgments as are now or may hereafter be reconsideration is first filed before the
declared to be immediately executory shall respondent tribunal to allow it an
be enforced after their rendition and shall opportunity to correct its errors (Zapanta vs.
not be stayed by an appeal therefrom, unless NLRC, 292 SCRA 580).
otherwise ordered by the trial court (Sec. 4,
rule 39, id.). (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 In fact, in asserting that there is no
between the parties, there was a valid and binding contract between the
concurrence of offer and acceptance parties, MMDA can only allege that
with respect to the material details of the there was no valid notice of award; that
contract, thereby giving rise to the the contract does not bear the signature
perfection of the contract. The execution of the President of the Philippines; and
and signing of the contract is not that the conditions precedent specified
disputed by the parties. As the Court of in the contract were not complied with.
Appeals aptly held:
In asserting that the notice of award
[C]ontrary to petitioners insistence that there to JANCOM is not a proper notice of
was no perfected contract, the meeting of award, MMDA points to the
the offer and acceptance upon the thing and Implementing Rules and Regulations of
the cause, which are to constitute the Republic Act No. 6957, otherwise known
contract (Arts. 1315 and 1319, New Civil as the BOT Law, which require that i)
Code), is borne out by the records. prior to the notice of award, an
Investment Coordinating Committee
Admittedly, when petitioners accepted clearance must first be obtained; and ii)
private respondents bid proposal (offer), the notice of award indicate the time
there was, in effect, a meeting of the minds within which the awardee shall submit
upon the object (waste management project) the prescribed performance security,
and the cause (BOT scheme). Hence, the proof of commitment of equity
perfection of the contract. In City of Cebu contributions and indications of
vs. Heirs of Candido Rubi (306 SCRA 108), financing resources.
the Supreme Court held that the effect of an
unqualified acceptance of the offer or Admittedly, the notice of award has
proposal of the bidder is to perfect a not complied with these
contract, upon notice of the award to the requirements. However, the defect was
bidder. cured by the subsequent execution of
the contract entered into and signed by
(Rollo, p. 48-49.) 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 MMDA also points to the absence of
those who previously acted for the the Presidents signature as proof that
government (Chairman Oreta, et al), are the same has not yet been
estopped from assailing the validity of the perfected. Not only that, the authority of
notice of award issued by the latter. As the signatories to bind the Republic has
private respondents correctly observed, in even been put to question. Firstly, it is
negotiating on the terms and conditions of pointed out that Memorandum Order
the BOT contract and eventually signing No. 202 creating the Executive
said contract, the government had led Committee to oversee the BOT
private respondents to believe that the notice implementation of solid waste
of award given to them satisfied all the management projects only charged the
requirement of the law. officials thereof with the duty of
recommending to the President the
While the government cannot be estopped specific project to be implemented under
by the erroneous acts of its agents, the BOT scheme for both San
nevertheless, petitioners may not now assail Mateo and Carmona sites. Hence, it is
the validity of the subject notice of award to concluded that the signatories, CORD-
the prejudice of private respondents. Until NCR Chairman Dionisio dela Serna and
the institution of the original action before MMDA Chairman Prospero Oreta, had
the RTC, invalidity of the notice of award no authority to enter into any waste
was never invoked as a ground for management project for and in behalf of
termination of the BOT contract. In fact, the the Government. Secondly, Section
reasons cited for terminating the San
59 of Executive Order No. 292 is relied
Mateo project, per Chairman Aventajados
upon as authority for the proposition that
letter to JANCOM EC dated November 4,
presidential approval is necessary for
1999, were its purported non-
the validity of the contract.
implementability and non-viability on
account of supervening events, e.g., passage The first argument conveniently
of the Clean Air Act, etc. overlooks the fact that then Secretary of
Environment and Natural Resources
(Rollo, p. 49-50.) 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:
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.
However, the Court of Appeals laws, rules and regulations.
trenchantly observed in this connection:
As regards the Presidents approval of
infrastructure projects required under
Section 59 of Executive Order No. 292, said provides that such approval is required only
section does not apply to the BOT contract in infrastructure contracts involving
in question. Sec. 59 should be correlated
with Sec. 58 of Exec. Order No. 292. Said
sections read:
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
Contrary to petitioners claim that all
infrastructure contracts require the
Presidents approval (Petition, p. 16), Sec. 59
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 within a reasonable period of time, a
incineration; 2) the closure of the San suitable alternative acceptable to the BOT
Mateo landfill site; and 3) the costly COMPANY.
tipping fee. These reasons are bereft of
merit With respect to the alleged financial non-
viability of the project because the MMDA
Once again, we make reference to and the local government units cannot afford
the insightful declarations of the Court of the tipping fees under the contract, this
Appeals: circumstance cannot, by itself, abrogate the
entire agreement.
Sec. 20 of the Clean Air Act pertinently
reads: Doctrinal is the rule that neither the law nor
the courts will extricate a party from an
SECTION 20. Ban on unwise or undesirable contract, or
Incineration. Incineration, hereby defined as stipulation for that matter, he or she entered
the burning of municipal, bio-chemical and into with full awareness of its consequences
hazardous wastes, which process emits (Opulencia vs. CA, 293 SCRA 385). Indeed,
poisonous and toxic fumes, is hereby the terms and conditions of the subject
prohibited: x x x. contract were arrived at after due
negotiations between the parties thereto.
Section 20 does not absolutely prohibit
incineration as a mode of waste disposal; (Rollo, p. 54.)
rather only those burning processes which
emit poisonous and toxic fumes are banned. WHEREFORE, premises
considered, the petition is hereby
As regards the projected closure of the San DISMISSED for lack of merit and the
Mateo landfill vis--vis the implementability decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-
of the contract, Art. 2.3 thereof expressly G.R. SP No. 59021 dated November 13,
states that [i]n the event the project Site is 2001 AFFIRMED. No costs.
not delivered x x x, the Presidential task
Force on Solid Waste Management SO ORDERED.
(PTFSWM) and the Client, shall provide