DaphneI. The Constitution and the Natural Resources

• The Constitutional and Legal Framework on Natural Resources

o Preface and Chapter 1 of Volume 1 (pp. 1-121), Philippine Law and Ecologyo Oposa v. Factoran (G.R. No. 101083 July 30, 1993) Subject: Cause of action, right to a balanced and healthful ecology, right to health, non-impairment clause Facts: The petition stems from a civil case instituted by minors duly represented and joined by their respective parents against

Fulgencio S. Factoran, the then Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). The petitioners also aver that they represent their generation and generations yet born. In the said civil case, the petitioners sought to have all existing timber license agreements (TLAs) cancelled and for the DENR Secretary to cease and desist from approving new TLAs. A motion to dismiss was granted finding that (1) the complaint states no cause of action; (2) the complaint raises a political question; and (3) granting the reliefs prayed for would result to an impairment of contracts. The petitioner filed a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 asking the Court to set aside the judgment.

Held: Right to a balanced and healthful ecology 1. The right to a balanced and healthful ecology is a specific fundamental legal right 2. Although found under the Declaration of Principles and State Policies and not under the Bill of Rights, it does not follow that it

is less important than any of the civil and political rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights. 3. The right to a balanced and healthful ecology is self-executory and does not need an implementing legislation. 4. Under its mandate and by virtue of its powers and functions under E.O. No. 192 and the Administrative Code of 1987, the

DENR has a duty to protect and advance the right to a balanced and healthful ecology. Cause of action 5. A denial or violation of a right by the other who has a correlative duty of obligation to respect or protect the same gives rise to

a cause of action 6. In a motion to dismiss based on the ground that a complaint fails to state a cause of action, what is in question is the

sufficiency of the facts alleged in the complaint itself. 7. The allegations and averments of the petitioners claiming that the grant of the TLAs violated their right to a balanced and

healthful ecology is adequate enough to show prim facie the claimed violation of rights. Non-impairment of contracts

8. TLAs are merely evidence of a privilege granted by the State, and do not vest a permanent or irrevocable right. They may be validly amended, modified, replaced or rescinded when the national interests so require.

9. Since TLAs are not contracts, the non-impairment clause cannot be invoked. (a) Assuming arguendo that TLAs are contracts, the case does not involve a law or executive issuance ordering a cancellation or modification of TLAs. Thus, the clause is not applicable. (b) Further, assuming that there is such a law, the law could have been passed in the exercise of police power. The non-impairment clause must yield to the police power of the state.

APPLICABLE LAWS:

Art II, Sec. 16. The State shall protect and advance the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature.

Art. II, Sec. 15. The State shall protect and promote the right to health of the people and instill health consciousness among them.

E.O. No. 192, Section 4. of which expressly mandates that the Department of Environment and Natural Resources "shall be the primary government agency responsible for the conservation, management, development and proper use of the country' s environment and natural resources, specifically forest and grazing lands, mineral, resources, including those in reservation and watershed areas, and lands of the public domain, as w ell as the licensing and regulation of all natural resources as may be provided for by law in order to ensure equitable sharing of the benefits derived therefrom for the welfare of the present and future generations of Filipinos.”

Art. III, Sec. 10. No law impairing the obligation of contracts shall be passed

The instant petition, being impressed with merit, is hereby GRANTED and the RTC decision is SET ASIDE.

• Constitutional Provisions: Right to health and environment, Sec. 15 and 16, Article II, Const.

Art II, Sec. 16. The State shall protect and advance the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature.

Art. II, Sec. 15. The State shall protect and promote the right to health of the people and instill health consciousness among them.

• Constitutional Provisions: Bill of Rights, Right to Property, Due Process, Sec. 1, Art. III, Const.

Section 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.

• Constitutional Provisions: Utilization of Natural Resources The President may enter into agreements with foreign-owned corporations involving either technical or financial assistance for large-scale exploration, development, and utilization of minerals, petroleum, and other mineral oils according to the general terms and conditions provided by law, based on real contributions to the economic growth and general welfare of the country. In such agreements, the State shall promote the development and use of local scientific and technical resources. [Section 2 (4), Article XII, 1987 Constitution]

• Regalian Doctrine, Sec. 2, Art. XII, Const. Regalian doctrine (jura regalia) all lands of whatever classification belong to the state; that all lands of the public domain belong to the State, and that the State is the source of any asserted right to ownership in land and charged with the conservation of such patrimony. Under the Regalian Doctrine, all lands not otherwise appearing to be clearly within private ownership are presumed to belong to the State.

• National Territory, Art. I, Const.

The national territory comprises the Philippine archipelago, with all the islands and waters embraced therein, and all other territories over which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction, consisting of its terrestrial, fluvial, and aerial domains, including its territorial sea, the seabed, the subsoil, the insular shelves, and other submarine areas. The waters around, between, and connecting the islands of the archipelago, regardless of their breadth and dimensions, form part of the internal waters of the Philippines.

• National Parks, Secs. 3 and 4, Art. XII, Const. SECTION 3. Lands of the public domain are classified into agricultural, forest or timber, mineral lands, and national parks. Agricultural lands of the public domain may be further classified by law according to the uses which they may be devoted. Alienable lands of the public domain shall be limited to agricultural lands. Private corporations or associations may not hold such alienable lands of the public domain except by lease, for a period not exceeding twenty-five years, renewable for not more than twenty-five years, and not to exceed one thousand hectares in area. Citizens of the Philippines may lease not more than five hundred hectares, or acquire not more than twelve hectares thereof by purchase, homestead, or grant.

Taking into account the requirements of conservation, ecology, and development, and subject to the requirements of agrarian reform, the Congress shall determine, by law, the size of lands of the public domain which may be acquired, developed, held, or leased and the conditions therefor.SECTION 4. The Congress shall, as soon as possible, determine by law the specific limits of forest lands and national parks, marking clearly their boundaries on the ground. Thereafter, such forest lands and national parks shall be conserved and may not be increased nor diminished, except by law. The Congress shall provide, for such period as it may determine, measures to prohibit logging in endangered forests and watershed areas.

• Preferential Use of Resources, Sec 7, Art XIII; par 2&3, Const.; Sec 2, Art XII; foreign part: par 4, Const.

Art. XIII, SECTION 7. The State shall protect the rights of subsistence fishermen, especially of local communities, to the preferential use of local marine and fishing resources, both inland and offshore. It shall provide support to such fishermen through appropriate technology and research, adequate financial, production, and marketing assistance, and other services. The State shall also protect, develop, and conserve such resources. The protection shall extend to offshore fishing grounds of subsistence fishermen against foreign intrusion. Fishworkers shall receive a just share from their labor in the utilization of marine and fishing resources.

Art. XII, SECTION 2, Par. 2,3,4. The State shall protect the nation’s marine wealth in its archipelagic waters, territorial sea, and exclusive economic zone, and reserve its use and enjoyment exclusively to Filipino citizens.The Congress may, by law, allow small-scale utilization of natural resources by Filipino citizens, as well as cooperative fish farming, with priority to subsistence fishermen and fishworkers in rivers, lakes, bays, and lagoons.The President may enter into agreements with foreign-owned corporations involving either technical or financial assistance for large-scale exploration, development, and utilization of minerals, petroleum, and other mineral oils according to the general terms and conditions provided by law, based on real contributions to the economic growth and general welfare of the country. In such agreements, the State shall promote the development and use of local scientific and technical resources.• Local Government Share, Sec. 7, Art. X; Local Government Code Local government units shall share with the national government the responsibility in the management and maintenance of ecological balance within their territorial jurisdiction, subject to the provisions of this Code and national policies.

*Local Government Code in relation to Secs. 4, 5 & 15, Art X, Const.

SECTION 4. The President of the Philippines shall exercise general supervision over local governments. Provinces with respect to component cities and municipalities, and cities and municipalities with respect to component barangays, shall ensure that the acts of their component units are within the scope of their prescribed powers and functions.

SECTION 5. Each local government unit shall have the power to create its own sources of revenues and to levy taxes, fees and charges subject to such guidelines and limitations as the Congress may provide, consistent with the basic policy of local autonomy. Such taxes, fees, and charges shall accrue exclusively to the local governments.

SECTION 7. Local governments shall be entitled to an equitable share in the proceeds of the utilization and development of the national wealth within their respective areas, in the manner provided by law, including sharing the same with the inhabitants by way of direct benefits.

SECTION 15. There shall be created autonomous regions in Muslim Mindanao and in the Cordilleras consisting of provinces, cities, municipalities, and geographical areas sharing common and distinctive historical and cultural heritage, economic and social structures, and other relevant characteristics within the framework of this Constitution and the national sovereignty as well as territorial integrity of the Republic of the Philippines.

• Access to Information, Sec 7, Art. III, Const.

SECTION 7. Local governments shall be entitled to an equitable share in the proceeds of the utilization and development of the national wealth within their respective areas, in the manner provided by law, including sharing the same with the inhabitants by way of direct benefits.

• People’s Participation, Sec 16, Art XIII, Const.

SECTION 16. The right of the people and their organizations to effective and reasonable participation at all levels of social, political, and economic decision-making shall not be abridged. The State shall, by law, facilitate the establishment of adequate consultation mechanisms.

• Constitutional provisions & Indigenous People’s Rights o Sec. 5, Art. XII, Const. The State, subject to the provisions of this Constitution and national development policies and programs, shall protect the rights of

indigenous cultural communities to their ancestral lands to ensure their economic, social, and cultural well-being.o RA 8371, The Indigenous People’s Rights Act of 1997 (Important Provisions)

A. Indigenous Cultural Communities / Indigenous Peoples

refer to a group of people or homogenous societies identified by self-ascription and ascription by other, who have continuously lived as organized community on communally bounded and defined territory, and who have, under claims of ownership since time immemorial, occupied, possessed customs, tradition and other distinctive cultural traits, or who have, through resistance to political, social and cultural inroads of colonization, non-indigenous religions and culture, became historically differentiated from the majority of Filipinos. ICCs/IPs shall likewise include peoples who are regarded as indigenous on account of their descent from the populations which inhabited the country, at the time of conquest or colonization, or at the time of inroads of non-indigenous religions and cultures, or the establishment of present state boundaries, who retain some or all of their own social, economic, cultural and political institutions, but who may have been displaced from their traditional domains or who may have resettled outside their ancestral domains. [Sec 3(h). R.A. No. 8371 or The Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997]

B. Sustainable Traditional Resource Rightsrefer to the rights of Indigenous Cultural Communities /Indigenous Peoples (ICC/IPs) to sustainably use,manage, protect and conserve a) land, air, water, and minerals; b) plants, animals and other organisms; c) collecting, fishing and hunting grounds; d) sacred sites; and e) other areas of economic, ceremonial and aesthetic value in accordance with their indigenous knowledge, beliefs, systems and practices. [Sec 3(o). R.A. No. 8371 or The Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997]

C. Native Titlerefers to pre-conquest rights to lands and domains which, as far back as memory reaches, have been held under a claim of private ownership by Indigenous Cultural Communities/ Indigenous Peoples (ICCs/IPs), have never been public lands and are thus indisputably presumed to have been held that way since before the Spanish Conquest; [Sec 3(l). R.A. No. 8371 or The Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997]

D. Ancestral Landsrefers to land occupied, possessed and utilized by individuals, families and clans who are members of the Indigenous Cultural Communities/ Indigenous Peoples (ICCs/IPs) since time immemorial, by themselves or through their predecessors-in-interest, under claims of individual or traditional group ownership, continuously, to the present except when interrupted by war, force majeure or displacement by force, deceit, stealth, or as a consequence of government projects and other voluntary dealings entered into by government and private individuals/corporations, including, but not limited to, residential lots, rice terraces or paddies, private forests, swidden farms and tree lots; [Sec 3(b). R.A. No. 8371 or The Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997]

E. Ancestral Domainrefer to all areas generally belonging to Indigenous Cultural Communities/ Indigenous Peoples (ICCs/IPs) comprising lands, inland waters, coastal areas, and natural resources therein, held under a claim of ownership, occupied or possessed by ICCs/IPs, themselves or through their ancestors, communally or individually since time immemorial, continuously to the present except when interrupted by war, force majeure or displacement by force, deceit, stealth or as a consequence of government projects or any other voluntary dealings entered into by government and private individuals, corporations, and which are necessary to ensure their economic, social and cultural welfare. It shall include ancestral land, forests, pasture, residential, agricultural, and other lands individually owned whether alienable and disposable or otherwise, hunting grounds, burial

grounds, worship areas, bodies of water, mineral and other natural resources, and lands which may no longer be exclusively occupied by ICCs/IPs but from which their traditionally had access to for their subsistence and traditional activities, particularly the home ranges of ICCs/IPs who are still nomadic and/or shifting cultivators; [Sec 3(a). R.A. No. 8371 or The Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997]

o Carino vs. Insular Government (212 U.S. 449,1909) Subject: Land Titles, Public Land, Prescription against the State; Jura Regalia Facts: In 1903, Mateo Carino filed a petition in the Court of Land Registration asking that he be inscribed as the owner of a 146 hectares

tract of agricultural land in Baguio, Benguet. The Land Registration Court awarded the land in favour of Carino, but on appeal, the CFI (now RTC) reversed and dismissed the petition. To prove his ownership, Carino presented no documentary evidence of title, except a possessory information obtained in 1901. Carino also posits the theory that a grant by the State should be conclusively presumed from immemorial use and occupation of the land.

Held: 1. Under the Mortgage Law, a possessory information produced only those effects which the laws give to mere possession. 2. Mere possession of [public agricultural] land would not give the possessor title thereto as against the Government. The statute of

limitations does not run against the State in reference to its public agricultural lands. 3. To hold that the statute of limitations does not run against the Government as to its public agricultural lands, and at the same time to

hold that if a person has been in possession of such lands for thirty years it is conclusively presumed that the Government has given him a deed therefor, would be to make two rulings directly inconsistent with each other.

4. The possession of the land has not been of such a character as to require the presumption of a grant. It was never inhabited nor used for anything but pasturage of animals and only on insignificant portions thereof. Since the insurrection against Spain it has apparently not been used by Carino for any purpose.

5. While the State has always recognized the right of the occupant to a deed if he proves a possession for a sufficient length of time, yet it has always insisted that he must make that proof before the proper administrative officers, and obtain from them his deed, and until he did the State remained the absolute owner. (citing Valenton vs. Marciano)

6. Carino is not entitled to the benefits of par. 6, Sec. 54 of Act No. 926, the Public Land Act, for the reason that act is not applicable to the Province of Benguet.

Why Carino doctrine is unique? Carino is the only case that specifically recognizes native title. Carino was cited by succeeding cases to support the concept of acquisitive prescription under the Public Land Act Other Separate Opinions: Justice Kapunan

Regalian theory doesn’t negate the native title to lands held in private ownership since time immemorial, adverting to the landmark case of CARINO V. LOCAL GOVERNMENT, where the US SC through Holmes held: “xxx the land has been held by individuals under a claim of private ownership, it will be presumed to have been held in the same way from before the Spanish conquest, and never to have been public land.” Existence of native titie to land, or ownership of land by Filipinos by virtue of possession under a claim of ownership since time immemorial and independent of any grant from the Spanish crown as an exception to the theory of jure regalia Justice Puno: Carino case firmly established a concept of private land title that existed irrespective of any royal grant from the State and was based on the strong mandate extended to the Islands via the Philippine Bill of 1902. The IPRA recognizes the existence of ICCs/IPs as a distinct sector in the society. It grants this people the ownership and possession of their ancestral domains and ancestral lands and defines the extent of these lands and domains

Ivan

Isagani Cruz and Cesar Europa vs Secretary of DENR, NCIP, et al.December 6, 2000

Facts:- Petitioners brought a suit for prohibition and mandamus as citizens and taxpayers to assail the constitutionality of certain

provisions of RA No. 8371 or the Indigenous People’s Rights Act of 1997 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations- Petitioners assail the constitutionality of the law on the grounds that they amount to unlawful deprivation of the State’s

ownership over lands of public domain as well as minerals and other natural resources, in violation of the regalian doctrine- They also contend that by providing for an all-encompassing definition of “ancestral domains” and “ancestral lands” which

might even include private lands violate the rights of private landowners- They also contend the provisions of IPRA defining the powers and jurisdiction of the National Commission on Indigenous

People (NCIP) and making customary law applicable to the settlement of disputes involving ancestral domains and ancestral lands on the ground that it violates due process

- Finally, they assail the validity of an Administrative Order of NCIP which provides that the administrative relationship of the NCIP to the Office of the President is characterized as a lateral but autonomous relationship for purposes of policy and program coordination. They contend that said Rule infringes upon the President’s power of power of control over executive departments

Issue:WON IPRA Law is unconstitutional

Decision:- After due deliberations, the members of the court voted 7-7- Since necessary majority was not obtained even after redeliberation and pursuant to the Rules of Civil Procedure, the

petition is dismissed- The court’s decision itself did not provide the reasoning behind the votes but Justice Puno’s separate opinion in denying the

petition supported the constitutionality of the IPRA Law

Justice Puno’s Separate Opinion:

- His opinion attempts to interpret IPRA by discovering its soul based from the history of the indigenous people. As one of the intents of the law is to correct a grave historical injustice to the IPs

- When Philippines was still under the Spanish colony, all lands became the exclusive patrimony and dominion of the Spanish government. They took charge of distributing the lands by issuing royal grants and concessions. Private lands could only be acquired from the government either by purchase or by the various modes of land grant.

- The Regalian Doctrine was then enshrined in the Philippine Constitutions, from 1935, 1973 and 1987. Such doctrine provides that all lands of the public domain as well as all natural resources, whether on public or private, belong to the State.

- IPRA Law recognizes the existence of indigenous people (IPs) as a distinct sector in the society. The Law grants the IPs ownership and possession of their ancestral domains and ancestral lands which traces its origin to native title.

- Land is the central element of the IP’s existence. Under the concept of “trusteehip”, which was practiced by the IPs, the right to possess the land does not only belong to the present generation but the future ones as well. Customary law of the IPs on land rests on the belief that lands are owned by the gods and spirits and that those who work the land are its mere stewards

The Legislative History of the IPRA

- Senator Flavier declared that “the IPs are the offsprings and heirs of the peoples who have first inhabited and cared for the land long before any central government was established. Their existence as IPs is manifested in their own lives through political, economic, socio-cultural and spiritual practices. Their survival depends on securing or acquiring land rights; asserting their rights to it and depending on it.

- Moreover, the Senator said that the IPRA Law is an exception to the Regalian Doctrine which was first laid in Carino vs Insular Government, ancestral domains and ancestral lands are the private property of indigenous peoples and do not constitute part of the land of the public domain. It is a distinct kind of ownership which refers to native title based from preconquest rights to lands and domains held under a claim of private ownership as far back as memory reaches. Domains and lands held under native title are indisputably presumed to have never been public lands and are private.

The Indigenous Concept of Ownership and Customary Law

- Following the constitutional mandate that “customary law governs property rights or relations in determining the ownership and extent of ancestral domains, the IPRA then introduces new concept of ownership.

- Such is considered as customary law which is recognized under the Civil Code. The said Code provides that custom should be applied in cases where no codal provision is applicable.

- Customary law is a primary source of rights under the IPRA. The indigenous concept of ownership under customary law is acknowledged and recognized and coexists with the civil law concept and the laws on land titling and registration.

IV. The Institutional Framework for Natural ResourcesA. Executive Branch- Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) created in 1987 by the Administrative Code (Executive Order No.

192)- Responsible for the conservation, management, development, and proper use of the country’s environment and natural

resources, specifically forest and grazing lands, mineral resources, and lands of the public domain, as well as the licensing and regulation of all natural resources

- DENR is headed by the Secretary who is appointed by the President- The bureaus: Forest Management Bureau (FMB), Lands Management Bureau, Protected Areas and Wildlife Bureau (PAWB),

Ecosystems Research and Development Bureau, Mines and Geosciences Bureau and Environmental Management Bureau (EMB)

- DENR attached agencies: National Mapping and Resource Information Authority, National Resources Development Corporation, Laguna Lake Development Authority (LLDA) and the National Water Resources Board

- Other major agencies with ENR management functions include Department of Agriculture (DA), Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR), Dept. of Energy, Dept. of Health, NCIP, National Power Corporation and Philippine National Oil Company

B. Local Government- Autonomous sub-units that exercise both corporate and governing functions; three levels: provincial, city and municipal- Functions: levying taxes, generating other revenues and sharing benefits from the use of natural resources

C. Congress and Local Legislature- Functions in ENR: enactment of ENR legislation and the enactment of appropriation laws- Specific function in establishing a protected area under the National Integrated Protected Area System (NIPAS) Act

D. Judiciary and Quasi-judicial Agencies- Power of judicial review- Trial courts have jurisdiction over criminal cases for offenses defined under ENR laws- In pollution and mining cases, the DENR’s Pollution Adjudication Board and Mines Adjudication Board have exclusive original

jurisdiction to adjudicate over resource management- Laguna Lake Development Authority – regulatory responsibilities in keeping Laguna de Bay clean and productive

E. Non-government Institutions- Citizens and citizens’ organizations may participate in decision-making and policy making or through participation in the

direct management of the resource

- Private sector may participate through their corporate social responsibility (CSR) programs and representation in multi-sectoral bodies created under different environmental laws

Tano et al. vs Socrates et al.August 21, 1997

Facts:- Sangguniang Panlungsod ng Puerto Pricesa City enacted Ordinance No. 15-92 entitled “An Ordinance Banning the Shipment

of All Live Fish and Lobster Outside Puerto Princesa City…”- Subsequently, an Office Order was issued by Acting City Mayor Amado Lucero which was entitled “An Ordinance requiring

any person engaged or intending to engage in any business, trade, occupation, calling or profession or having in his possession any of the articles for which a permit is required to be had, to obtain first a mayor’s permit”

- Further, the provincial government of Palawan enacted a resolution entitled “A Resolution prohibiting the catching, gathering, possessing, buying, selling and shipment of live marine coral dwelling aquatic organisms…”

- Petitioners assail the issuances on three grounds: first, deprivation of due process of law, their livelihood and unduly restricted them from the practice of their trade, second, Office Order contained no regulation nor condition under which the Mayor’s permit could be granted or denied, third, the Ordinance of the Province took away the right of petitioners-fishermen to earn their livelihood in lawful ways

Issue:WON the Orders of the LGU are valid

Decision:- The LGC provisions seek to give flesh and blood to the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology- Sec. 16 provides that “every LGU shall exercise the powers expressly granted, those necessarily implied therefrom, as well as

powers necessary, appropriate, or incidental for its efficient and effective governance and those which are essential to the promotion of the general welfare.”

- The LGC vests municipalities with the power to grant fishery privileges in municipal waters and impose rentals, fees or charges to penalize, by appropriate ordinances, the use of explosives, noxious or poisonous substances, electricity, muro-ami, and other deleterious methods of fishing; and to prosecute any violation of the provisions of applicable fishery laws.

- The centerpiece of LGC is the system of decentralization as expressly mandated by the Constitution. Any provision on a power of an LGU shall be liberally interpreted in its favor, and in case of doubt, any question thereon shall be resolved in favor of devolution of powers and of the lower local government unit.

- The objectives of the Ordinances devolve around the powers to enforce fishery laws in municipal waters. Objectives are (1) to establish a closed season and (2) to protect the coral in the marine waters of Puerto Princesa City and the Province of Palawan

KylieThe Emergence of the Judiciary

- Judiciary influences ENR management through its power of judicial review- Trial courts have jurisdiction over criminal cases for offenses under ENR laws.- Courts have appellate jurisdiction in pollution and mining cases (DENR’s Pollution Adjudication Board and Mines Adjudication Board

have exclusive jurisdiction)- SC designated – 84 branches of 1st level courts & 31 branches of 2nd level courts as special Environmental Courts – done based on an

inventory & assessment of pending environmental cases whose objective is:o to improve efficiency in the administration of justiceo to provide greater access to environmental justice by having these courts in places where environmental violations were shown

to the most frequent and by providing judges with specialized skills and knowledge relevant to the cases prevalent in their area.

MMDA v. Concerned Citizens of Manila Bay, G.R. Nos. 171947-48 December 18, 2008; Facts:January 29, 1999, concerned residents of Manila Bay filed a complaint before the RTC Imus, Cavite against several government agencies for the clean-up, rehabilitation and protection of the Manila Bay/ The complaint alleged that the water quality of Manila Bay is no longer within the allowable standards set by law (esp. PD 1152, Philippine environment Code).

DENR testified for the petitioners and reported that the samples collected from the beaches around Manila Bay is beyond the safe level for bathing standard of the DENR. MWSS testified also about MWSS efforts to reduce pollution along the bay. Philippine Ports Authority presented as evidence its Memorandum Circulars on the study on ship-generated waste treatment and disposal as its Linis Dagat project.

RTC ordered petitioners to Clean up and rehabilitate Manila Bay.

The petitioners appealed arguing that the Environment Code relate only to the cleaning of the specific pollution incidents and do not cover cleaning in general. Raising the concerns of lack of funds appropriated for cleaning, and asserting that the cleaning of the bay is not a ministerial act which can be compelled by mandamus.

CA sustained the RTC stressing that RTC did not require the agencies to do tasks outside of their usual basic functions.

Issues:(1) WON Sections 17 and 20 of PD 1152 under the headings, Upgrading of Water Quality and Clean-up Operations, envisage a cleanup in general or are they limited only to the cleanup of specific pollution incidents; (2) WON petitioners be compel led by mandamus to clean up and rehabilitate the Manila Bay.

Applicable Laws:PD 1152 Philippine Environmental Code Section 17. Upgrading of Water Quality.–– Where the quality of water has deteriorated to a degree where it s state will adversely affect its best u sage, the government agencies concerned shall take such measures as may be necessary to upgrade the quality of such water to meet the prescribed water quality standards. Section 20. Clean-up Operations. ––It shall be the responsibility of the polluter to contain , remove and clean - up water pollution incidents at his own expense. In case of his failure to do so, the government agencies concerned shall undertake containment, removal and clean-up operations and expenses incurred in said operation shall be charged against the persons and/ or entities responsible for such pollution.

Held:(1) Sections 17 and 20 of P.D. 1152 include cleaning in general. Section 17 provides that in case the water quality has deteriorated, the government agencies concerned shall act on it to bring back the standard quality of water. On the other hand, Section 20 also mandates the government agencies concerned to take action in cleaning-up in case the polluters failed to do their part. In the succeeding section 62(g) and (h) of the same Code, provide that oil spilling is the cause of pollution that should be done in clean-up operations. This provision actually, expanded the coverage of Sec. 20 because it included oil-spilling as one of the causes of pollutions that need to be cleaned-up by the government agencies concerned. Moreover, Sec. 17 emphasizes that government agencies should clean that water for the sake of meeting and maintaining the right quality standard. This presupposes that the government agencies concerned have the duties of cleaning the water not only in times when the water is polluted. Moreover, even without such provisions, it is the inescapable duty of everyone to protect the water and prevent pollution, because of the tenable need of present and future generations as provided

in Art. 2 Sec. 16 of the 1987 Constitution, that the ´State shall protect and advance the right to a balanced and healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature’.

(2) The Cleaning or Rehabilitation of Manila Bay can be compelled by Mandamus. Petitioners’ obligation to perform their duties as defined by law, on one hand, and how they are to carry out such duties, on the other, are two different concepts. While the implementation of the MMDA’s mandated tasks may entail a decision-making process, the enforcement of the law or the very act of doing what the law exacts to be done is ministerial in nature and may be compelled by mandamus.

The MMDA’s duty in the area of solid waste disposal, as may be noted, is set forth not only in the Environment Code (PD 1152) and RA 9003, but in its charter as well. This duty of putting up a proper waste disposal system cannot be characterized as discretionary, for, as earlier stated; discretion presupposes the power or right given by law to public functionaries to act officially according to their judgment or conscience.

See also Dissenting Opinions of J. Carpio and C.J. Sereno to the February 15, 2011 Resolution The Majority Resolution patently irreconcilable with basic constitutional doctrines and with the legislative mechanisms already in place, such as the Administrative Code and the Local Government Code, which explicitly grant control and supervision over these agencies to the President alone, and to no one else.

Quasi-Judicial Bodies/Administrative Tribunals:o DENR [DAO 97-32] - promulgates administrative apprehension, seizure, confiscation, and disposition of illegally possessed, cut, gathered, removed, or transported forest products, the machinery, equipment, tools and implements used in connection therewith, and of the conveyances used to move or otherwise transport the same

o Mines Adjudication Board [RA 7942] – “Phil. Mining Act”; The Mines Adjudication Board shall be composed of three (3) members. The Secretary shall be the chairman with the Director of the Mines and Geosciences Bureau and the Undersecretary for Operations of the Department as members thereof. The Board shall have the following powers and functions:

a. To promulgate rules and regulations governing the hearing and disposition of cases before it, as well as those pertaining to its internal functions, and such rules and regulations as may be necessary to carry out its functions;b. To administer oaths, summon the parties to a controversy, issue subpoenas requiring the attendance and testimony of witnesses or the production of such books, papers, contracts, records, statement of accounts, agreements, and other documents

as may be material to a just determination of the matter under investigation, and to testify in any investigation or hearing conducted in pursuance of this Act;c. To conduct hearings on all matters within its jurisdiction, proceed to hear and determine the disputes in the absence of any party thereto who has been summoned or served with notice to appear, conduct its proceedings or any part thereof in public or in private, adjourn its hearings at any time and place, refer technical matters or accounts to an expert and to accept his report as evidence after hearing of the parties upon due notice, direct parties to be joined in or excluded from the proceedings, correct, amend, or waive any error, defect or irregularity, whether in substance or in form, give all such directions as it may deem necessary or expedient in the determination of the dispute before it, and dismiss the mining dispute as part thereof, where it is trivial or where further proceedings by the Board are not necessary or desirable:1. To hold any person in contempt, directly or indirectly, and impose appropriate penalties therefor; and2. To enjoin any or all acts involving or arising from any case pending before it which, if not restrained forthwith, may cause grave or irreparable damage to any of the parties to the case or seriously affect social and economic stability.

In any proceeding before the Board, the rules of evidence prevailing in courts of law or equity shall not be controlling and it is the spirit and intention of this Act that shall govern. The Board shall use every and all reasonable means to ascertain the facts in each case speedily and objectively and without regard to technicalities of law or procedure, all in the interest of due process. In any proceeding before the Board, the parties may be represented by legal counsel. The findings of fact of the Board shall be conclusive and binding on the parties and its decision or order shall be final and executory.

A petition for review by certiorari and question of law may be filed by the aggrieved party with the Supreme Court within thirty (30) days from receipt of the order or decision of the Board.

o Pollution Adjudication Board [EO 192, PAB Resolution 1-C] - General Jurisdiction:

o exclusive jurisdiction over the adjudication of pollution cases, and all other matters related thereto, including the imposition of administrative sanctions.

o powers and functions maybe delegated to the Regional Officers of the Department in accordance with rules and regulation to be formulated by the Board.

- Specific Jurisdiction & Expanded Powers of the Board:Special Jurisdiction Expanded Powers of

the BoardClean Air Act (RA 8749) a. For actual exceedance

of air quality standards or limitations provided under

B.1 Under Section 45 of RA 8749 (CAA) the Board shall:

the Clean Air Act;b. Any order, rule or regulation issued by the DENR with respect to such standard or limitation

1. Impose fines against the owner or operator of a stationary source2. Prepare a fine rating system to adjust the maximum fine based on the violator’s ability to pay, degree of willfulness, degree of negligence, history of noncompliance and degree of recalcitrance3. Order the closure, suspension of development or construction, or cessation operations of the stationary sources until such time that proper environmental safeguards are put in place, and;4. Issue an ex parte order for such closure, suspension of development or construction, or

cessation of operations.

B.2 Under Section 48 of the Clean Air Act, the Board shall:

5. Recommend to the proper government agencies to file the appropriate criminal charges against the violators of the Act.6. Assist the public prosecutor in the litigation of cases.7. Adopt and promulgate the rules of practice and procedure in air pollution cases from stationary sources under this Act, pursuant to Section 2, Rule L of the IRR of Clean Air Act.

Clean Water Act (RA 9275) exclusive and original jurisdiction with respect to adjudication of pollution cases based on exceedance of the DENR

B.3 Under Section 28 of R.A. 9275, Clean Water Act of 2004, the Board shall:

Effluent Standards and other acts defined as prohibited under Section 27 of R.A. 9275

8. Recommend to the DENR Secretary the imposition of fines for acts of omission prohibited under Section 27 of the Act.

9. Recommend to the DENR Secretary the issuance of Cease and Desist Order for acts of omission prohibited under Section 27 of the Act.

10. Recommend closure, suspension of development or construction, or cessation of operations or, where appropriate, disconnection of water supply under Section 28 of the Act.

11.Recommend filing of criminal charges against violators of acts prohibited by Section 28.

12.Recommend to the DENR Secretary to order the Local Water District or privatewater supplier to disconnect the water service of the violator.

13.Revoke or suspend a discharge permit.

14.Determine liability for clean-up.

Establishing an Environmental Impact Statement System (P.D. 1586)

to hear cases of violation of P.D. 1586 and its IRR as defined in Section 27 (h) of R.A. 9275

Ecological Solid Waste Management Act (RA 9003)

to hear cases of unauthorized transport and dumping into sea water solid waste as defined in R.A. 9003

Toxic Substances and Hazardous Wastes Act RA 6969

a. Illegal transport or dumping or discharge of prohibited chemicals, substances or pollutants

listed under R.A. 6969; andb. Operating facilities that discharges hazardous substances into water bodies

-General Powers of the Board:

In the adjudication of pollution cases, the board has the power and authority to, among others:

1) Issue orders or decisions to compel compliance with the provisions of PD 984 and its implementing rules and regulations only after proper notice and hearing;

2) Make, alter or modify orders requiring the discontinuance of pollution specifying the conditions and the time within which such discontinuance must be accomplished;

3) Issue, renew, or deny permits, under such conditions as it may determine to be reasonable, for the prevention and abatement of pollution, for the discharge of sewage, industrial waste, or for the installation or operation of sewage works and industrial disposal systems or parts thereof: Provided, however, That the Commission [now PAB], by rules and regulations, may require subdivisions, condominium, hospitals, public buildings and other similar human settlements to put up appropriate central sewerage system and sewage treatment works, except that no permits shall be required of any new sewage works or changes to or extensions of existing works that discharge only domestic or sanitary

4) wastes from a single residential building provided with septic tanks or their equivalent. The Commission [now PAB] may impose reasonable fees and charges for the issuance or renewal of all permits herein required;

5) Serve as arbitrator for the determination of reparations, or restitution of the damages and losses resulting from pollution;6) Deputize in writing or request assistance of appropriate government agencies or instrumentalities for the purpose of enforcing this

Decree and its implementing rules and regulations and the orders and decisions of the Commission [now PAB] ;7) Exercise such powers and perform such other functions as may be necessary to carry out its duties and responsibilities under this

Decree.

o BFAR Adjudication Committee (RA 8550, as amended)Section 64. Reconstitution of the BFAR.

The Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR) is hereby reconstituted as a line bureau under the Department of Agriculture.

Section 65. Functions of the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources.As a line bureau, the BFAR shall have the following functions:

a) prepare and implement a Comprehensive National Fisheries Industry Development Plan;b) issue licenses for the operation of commercial fishing vessels;c) issue identification cards free of charge to fishworkers engaged in commercial fishing;d) monitor and review joint fishing agreements between Filipino citizens and foreigners who conduct fishing activities in international

waters, and ensure that such agreements are not contrary to Philippine commitment under international treaties and convention on fishing in high seas;

e) formulate and implement a Comprehensive Fishery Research and Development Program, such as, but not limited to, sea farming, sea ranching, tropical/ornamental fish and seaweed culture, aimed at increasing resource productivity, improving resource use efficiency, and ensuring the long-term sustainability of the country's fishery and aquatic resources;

f) establish and maintain a Comprehensive Fishery Information System;g) provide extensive development support services in all aspects of fisheries production, processing and marketing;h) provide advisory services and technical assistance on the improvement of quality if fish from the time it is caught (i.e. on board fishing

vessel, at landing areas, fish markets, to the processing plants and to the distribution and marketing chain);i) coordinate efforts relating to fishery production undertaken by the primary fishery producers, LGUs, FARMCs, and fishery

organizations/cooperatives;j) advise and coordinate with LGUs on the maintenance of proper sanitation and hygienic practices in fish markets and fish landing areas;k) establish a corps of specialists in collaboration with the Department of National Defense, Department of Interior and Local Government,

Department of Foreign Affairs for the efficient monitoring, control and surveillance of fishing activities within Philippine territorial waters and provide the necessary facilities, equipment and training therefore;

l) implement as inspection system for import and export of fishery/aquatic products and fish processing establishments consistent with international standards to ensure product quality and safety;

m) coordinate with LGUs and other concerned agencies for the establishment of productivity enhancing and market development programs in fishing communities to enable women to engage in other fisheries/economic activities and contribute significantly to development efforts;

n) enforce all laws, formulate and enforce all rules and regulations governing the conservation andmanagement of fishery resources, except in municipal waters, and to settle conflicts of resource use and allocation in consultation with the NFARMC, LGUs and local FARMCs;

o) develop value-added fishery-products for domestic consumption and export;p) recommend measures for the protection/enhancement of the fishery industries;q) assist the LGUs in developing their technical capability in the development, management, regulation, conservation and protection of the

fishery resources;r) formulate rules and regulations for the conservation and management of straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks; ands) perform such other related functions which shall promote the development, conservation,

management, protection and utilization of fisheries and aquatic resources.

Section 66. Composition of BFAR.As a line bureau, the BFAR shall be headed by a Director and assisted by two (2) Assistant Directors who shall supervise the administrative and technical services of the bureau respectively. It shall establish regional, provincial and municipal offices as may be appropriate and necessary to carry out effectively and efficiently the provisions of this Code.

[The Private Sector] Private sector participates in environment and natural resources management in 2 ways: through corporate social responsibility (CSR) programs that promote community and environmental health, and in investing in business or industry that depend on natural resources. The private sector is also represented in many multisectoral bodies created under different environmental laws.

o Civil Society: Non-Government Organizations & People’s Organizations o Industry: Corporate Social Responsibility, Investments, Public-Private Partnerships o Academe: Research, Education and Govt-Industry-Academe Linkages o Individuals

V. Environmental Impact Assessment & Development Planning [October 3]

The rationale of the EIA system - the individual and, at times, conflicting demands of population growth, urbanization, industrial expansion, rapid natural resources

utilization and increasing technological advances have resulted in a piece meal-approach concept of environmental protection- such tunnel-vision concept is not conducive to the attainment of an ideal environmental situation where man and nature can thrive in

harmony with one another- there is an urgent need to formulate an intensive, integrated program of environmental protection that will bring about a concerted

effort towards the protection of the entire spectrum of the environment through a requirement of environmental impact assessments and statements.

EIA – process that involves predicting and evaluating the likely impacts of a project on the environment during construction, commissioning, operation and abandonment.

The legal framework for EIA in the Philippines PD 1586 (Establishing an Environmental Impact Statement System) provides the legal basis for requiring an EIA that the project proponent then reports to the government to secure an Environmental Compliance Certificate.

EIA as a regulatory and planning tool The Environmental Impact Statement that is based on an EIA process is a generic tool to be used by projects proponents in evaluating

the potential environmental effects of their proposed projects. While this is a useful tool, it does not describe the specific targets of gov’t in pursuing economic developments while protecting the environment. For that we need to look at the development plans of government, specifically, the national development plan and local development plans of LGUs.

Social acceptability in the EIA system • Chapter 3 of Volume 1 (pp. 153-207), Philippine Law and Ecology • Environmental Impact Statement System (P.D. No. 1586; DENR DAO 96-27, DENR DAO 2003-30)

P.D. No. 1586SECTION 2. Environmental Impact Statement System. There is hereby established an Environmental Impact Statement System founded and based on the environmental impact statement required, under Section 4 of Presidential Decree No. 1151, of all agencies and instrumentalities of the national government, including government-owned or controlled corporations, as well as private corporations, firms and entities, for every proposed project and undertaking which significantly affect the quality of the environment.

SECTION 4. Presidential Proclamation of Environmentally Critical Areas and Projects. The President of the Philippines may, on his own initiative or upon recommendation of the National Environmental Protection Council, by proclamation declare certain projects, undertakings or areas in the country as environmentally critical. No person, partnership or corporation shall undertake or operate any such declared environmentally critical project or area without first securing an Environmental Compliance Certificate issued by the President or his duly authorized representative.

SECTION 5. Environmentally Non-Critical Projects. All other projects, undertakings and areas not declared by the President as environmentally critical shall be considered as non-critical and shall not be required to submit an environmental impact statement. The National Environmental

Protection Council, thru the Ministry of Human Settlements may however require non-critical projects and undertakings to provide additional environmental safeguards as it may deem necessary.

SECTION 9. Penalty for Violation. Any person, corporation or partnership found violating Section 4 of this Decree, or the terms and conditions in the issuance of the Environmental Compliance Certificate, or of the standards, rules and regulations issued by the National Environmental Protection Council pursuant to this Decree shall be punished by the suspension or cancellation of his/its certificate or and/or a fine in an amount not to exceed Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) for every violation thereof, at the discretion of the National Environmental Protection Council.

SECTION 10. Environmental Revolving Fund. Proceeds from the penalties prescribed in the preceding Section 9 and other penalties imposed by the National Pollution Control Commission as authorized in P.D. 984, shall be automatically appropriated into an Environment Revolving Fund hereby created as an exemption to P.D. 711 and P.D. 1234. The fund shall be used exclusively for the operation of the National Environmental Protection Council and the National Pollution Control Commission in the implementation of this Decree. The rules and regulations for the utilization of this fund shall be formulated by the Ministry of Human Settlements and submitted to the President for approval.

DENR DAO 2003-30Section 1. Basic Policy and Operating Principles Consistent with the principles of sustainable development, it is the policy of the DENR to implement a systems-oriented and integrated approach to the LIS system to ensure a rational balance between socio-economic development and environmental protection for the benefit of present and future generations.

The following are the key operating principles in the implementation of the Philippine EIS System:

a. The EIS System is concerned primarily with assessing the direct and indirect impacts of a project on the biophysical and human environment and ensuring that these impacts P re addressed by appropriate environmental protection and enhancement measures. b. The EIS System aids proponents in incorporating environmental considerations in planning their projects as well as in determining the environment's impact on their project. c. Project proponents are responsible for determining and disclosing all relevant information necessary for a methodical ' assessment of the environmental impacts of their projects; d. The review of the EIS by EMB shall be guided by three general criteria: (1) that environmental considerations are integrated into the overall project planning, (2) that the assessment is technically sound and proposed environmental mitigation, measures are effective, and (3) that , social acceptability is based on informed public participation; e. Effective regulatory review of the EIS depends largely on timely full; and accurate disclosure of relevant: information by project proponents and, other stakeholders in the EIA process

f. The social acceptability of a project is a result of meaningful public participation, which shall be assessed as part of the Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC) application, based on concerns related to the project's environmental impacts; g. The timelines prescribed by this Order, within which an Environmental - Compliance Certificate must be issued, or denied, apply only to processes and actions within the Environmental Management Bureau's (EMB) control and do not include actions or activities that are the responsibility of the proponent.

Section 2. Objective The objective of this Administrative Order is to rationalize and streamline the EIS System to make it more effective as a project planning and management tool by:a. Making the System more responsive to the demands and needs of the project proponents and the various stakeholders; b. Clarifying the, coverage of the System and updating it to take into consideration industrial and technological innovations and trends c. Standardizing requirements to ensure focus on critical environment parameters; d. Simplifying procedures for processing ECC applications, and establishing measures to ensure adherence to ECC conditions by project proponents, and e. Assuring that critical environmental concerns are addressed during project development and implementation

Section 4. Scope of the EIS System4.1 In general, only projects that pose potential significant impact to the environment shall be required to secure ECC's. In coordination with the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) and other concerned government agencies, the EMB is authorized to update or make appropriate revisions to the technical guidelines for EIS System implementation.

4.2 The issuance of ECC or CNC for a project under the EIS System does not exempt the proponent from securing other government permits and clearances as required by other laws. In determining the scope of the EIS System, two factors are considered: (i) the nature of the project and its potential to cause significant negative environmental impacts, and (ii) the sensitivity or vulnerability of environmental resources in the project area.

4.3 The specific criteria for, determining projects or undertakings to be covered bythe EIS System are as follows:

a. Characteristics of the project or undertaking Size of the project Cumulative nature of impacts vis-a-vis: other projects Use of natural resources

Generation of waste and environment-related nuisance Environment-related hazards and risk of accidents

b. Location of the Project Vulnerability of the project area to disturbances due to its ecological importance, endangered or protected status Conformity of the proposed project to existing land use, based on approved zoning or on national laws and regulations Relative abundance, quality and regenerative capacity of natural resources in the area, including the impact absorptive capacity

of the environmentc. Nature of the potential impact

Geographic extent of the impact and size of affected population Magnitude and complexity of the impact Likelihood, duration, frequency, and reversibility of the impact

The following are the categories of projects/undertakings under the EIS system:

Category A. Environmentally Critical Projects (ECPs) with significant potential to cause negative environmental impactsCategory B. Projects that are not categorized as ECPs, but which may cause negative environmental impacts because they are located in Environmentally Critical Areas (ECA's)Category C. Projects intended to directly enhance environmental quality or address existing environmental problems not falling under Category A or B.Category D. Projects unlikely to cause adverse environmental impacts.

4.4 Proponents of co-located or single projects that fall under Category A and B are required to secure ECC. For co-located projects, the proponent has the option to secure a Programmatic ECC. For ecozones, ECC application may be programmatic based on submission of a programmatic EIS, or locator-specific based on submission of project EIS by each locator.

4.5 Projects under Category C are required submit Project Description.

4.6 Projects classified under Category D may secure a CNC. The EMB-DENR, however, may require such, projects or undertakings to provide additional environmental safeguards as it may deem necessary. ,

4.7 Projects/undertakings introducing new technologies or construction technique but which may cause significant negative environmental impacts shall be required to submit a Project Description Which will be used as basis by EMB for screening the project and determining its category.

5.2.1. Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The EIS should contain at least the following:

a) EIS Executive Summary; b) Project Description; c) Matrix of the scoping agreement identifying critical issues and concerns, as validated by EMB; d) Baseline environmental conditions focusing on the sectors (and resources) most significantly affected by the proposed action; e) Impact assessment focused on significant environmental impacts (in relation to project construction/commissioning, operation and

decommissioning), taking into account cumulative impacts; f) Environmental Risk Assessment if determined by EMB as necessary during scoping; g) Environmental Management Program/Plan; h) Supporting documents; including technical/socio-economic data used/generated; certificate of zoning viability and municipal land use

plan; and proof of consultation with stakeholders; i) Proposals for Environmental Monitoring and Guarantee Funds including justification of amount, when required; j. Accountability

statement of EIA consultants and the project proponent; and k. Other clearances and documents that may be determined and agreed upon during scoping.

5.2.5. Environmental Performance Report and Management Plan (EPRMP).The EPRMP shall contain the following:a. Project Description;b. Baseline conditions for critical environmental parameters;c. Documentation of the environmental performance based on the current/past environmental management measures implemented;d. Detailed comparative, description of the proposed project expansion and/or process modification with corresponding material and energy balances in the case of process industries, ande. EMP based on an environmental management system framework and standard set by EMB.

5.2.6. Project Description (PD)The PD shall be guided by the definition of terms and shall contain the following: and update IEE Checklists to further streamline ECC processing, especially for small and medium enterprises.

5.3 Public Hearing 1 Consultation RequirementsFor projects under Category A-1, the conduct of public hearing as part of the EIS review is mandatory unless otherwise determined by EMB. For all other undertakings, a public hearing is not mandatory unless specifically required by EMB. .

Proponents should initiate - public consultations early in order to ensure that environmentally relevant concerns of stakeholders are taken into consideration in the EIA study and the formulation of the management plan, All public consultations and public hearings conducted during the EIA process are to be documented. The public hearing/ consultation Process report shall be validated by the EMB/EMB RD and shall constitute part of the records of the EIA process.

5.4 Documentation Requirements for DENR-EMB and EIA ReviewersThe EMB Central Office as well as the EMB Regional Offices shall document the proceedings of the ECC application process and shall set up and maintain relevant information management systems. The documentation shall, at a minimum, include the following:

5.4.1. Review Process ReportThis is to be prepared by the EMB Central or EMB RO. It is to be forwarded to theDENR Secretary or RD as reference for decision-making and maintained as part of therecords on the ECC application. The report should contain at least the following:

a) Summary of the environmental impacts of the undertaking, along with the proposed mitigation and enhancement measures;b) Key issues/concerns and the proponent's response to these;c) Documentation of compliance with procedural requirements;d) Acceptability of proposed EMP including the corresponding cost of mitigation, EGF and EMF if required;e) Key bases for the decision on the ECC application.

5.4.2. EIARC ReportThis report, to be prepared by the EIA Review Committee, forms part of the EIS review documentation. The EIARC Report shall be written by the designated member of the EIARC and signed by all the members within five days after the final review meeting. If an EIARC member dissents, he or she must submit a memorandum to the EMB Director through the EIARC Chairman his or her reasons for dissenting.At a minimum the EIARC report should contain;

a) Detailed assessment of the proposed mitigation and enhancement measures for the identified environmental impacts and risks;b) Description of residual or unavoidable environmental impacts despite proposed mitigation measures;c) Documentation of compliance with technical/substantive review criteria;

d) Key issues/concerns and the proponent's response to these, including social acceptability measures;e) Assessment of the proposed EMP (including risk reduction/management plan) and amounts proposed for the Environmental Guarantee

Fund and the Environmental Monitoring Fund, andf) Recommended decision regarding the ECC application as well as proposed ECC conditions.

5.4.3. Decision DocumentThis is an official letter regarding the decision on the application. It may be in the form ofan Environmental Compliance Certificate or a Denial Letter. The ECC shall contain the scope and limitations of the approved activities, as well as conditions to ensure compliance with the Environmental Management Plan. The ECC shall also specify the setting up of an EMF and EGF, if applicable. No ECC shall be released until the proponent has settled all liabilities, fines and other obligations with DENR.

A Denial Letter on the other hand shall specify the bases for the decision.

The ECC or Denial Letter shall be issued directly to the project proponent or its dulyauthorized representative, and receipt of the letter shall be properly documented.

The ECC of a project not implemented within five years from its date of issuance is deemed expired. The Proponent shall have to apply for a new ECC if it intends to pursue.

Section 9. Monitoring of Projects with ECCs Post ECC monitoring of projects shall follow these guidelines. Other details on requirements for monitoring of projects with ECCs shall be stipulated in a procedural manual to be formulated by EMB.

9.1 Multipartite Monitoring Team For projects under Category A, a multi-partite monitoring team (MMT) shall be formed immediately after the issuance of an ECC. Proponents required to establish an MMT shall put up an Environmental Monitoring Fund (EMF) not later than the initial construction phase of the project.

The MMT shall be composed of representatives of the proponent and of stakeholder groups, including representatives from concerned LGU's, locally accredited NGOs/POs, the community, concerned EMB Regional Office, relevant government agencies, and other sectors that may be identified during the negotiations. The team shall be tasked to undertake monitoring of compliance with ECC conditions as well as the EMP. The MMT shall submit a semi-annual monitoring report within January and July of each year.

The EMB shall formulate guidelines for operationalizing area-based or cluster-based MMT. The Bureau may also develop guidelines for delegating, monitoring responsibilities to other relevant government agencies as may be deemed necessary.

For projects whose significant environmental impacts do not persist after the construction phase or whose impacts could be addressed through other regulatory means or through the mandates of other government agencies, the operations of MMT may be terminated immediately after construction or after a reasonable period during implementation.

9.2 Self-monitoring and Third Party Audit The proponent shall also conduct regular self-monitoring of specific parameters indicated in the EMP through its environmental unit. The proponent's environmental unit shall submit a semi-annual monitoring report within January and July of each year.

For projects with ECCs issued based on a PEPRMP, EPRMP, or an EMS-based EMP, a third party audit may be undertaken by a qualified environmental or EMS auditor upon the initiative of the proponent and in lieu of forming an MMT. The said auditor upon the initiative of the proponent and in lieu of forming an MMT. The said proponent shall submit to EMB a copy of the audit findings and shall be held accountable for the veracity of the report. The EMB may opt to validate the said report.

9.3 Environmental Guarantee FundAn Environmental Guarantee Fund (EGF) shall be established for all co-located or single projects that have been determined by DENR to pose a significant public risk or wherethe project requires rehabilitation or restoration. An EGF Committee shall be formed tomanage the fund. It shall be composed of representatives from the EMB Central Office, EMB Regional Office, affected communities, concerned LGUs, and relevant government agencies identified by EMB.

An integrated MOA on the MMT-EMF-EGF shall be entered into among the EMB Central Office, EMB Regional Office, the proponent, and representatives of concerned stakeholders.

• Republic v. City of Davao, G.R. No. 148622, September 12, 2002Facts:Respondent filed an application for a Certificate of Non-Coverage (CNC) for its proposed project, the “Davao City Artica Sports Dome” with the EMB- Region XI. EMB Region XI denied the application after finding that the proposed project was within an environmentally critical area. It argued that under Section 2 of Presidential Decree No. 1586, otherwise known as the Environmental Impact Statement System, in relation to Section 4 of Presidential Decree No. 1151, also known as the Philippine Environment Policy, the City of Davao must

undergo the environmental impact assessment (EIA) process to secure an Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC), before it can proceed with the construction of its project.

Respondent filed a petition for mandamus and injunction with the RTC of Davao alleging that the project was neither an environmentally critical project nor within an environmentally critical area, and it was the ministerial duty of the DENR to issue a CNC in favor of respondent upon submission of the required documents.

RTC ruled in favour of the City of Davao and hence directed the DENR to issue the CNC for the project on the following grounds:I. There is nothing in PD 1586, in relation to PD 1151 and Letter of Instruction No. 1179(prescribing guidelines for compliance with

the EIA system), which requires LGUs to comply with the EIS law.II. Only agencies and instrumentalities of the national government, including GOCC’s, as well as private corporations, firms and

entities are mandated to go through the EIA process for their proposed projects which have significant effect on the quality of the environment.

III. A local government unit, not being an agency or instrumentality of the National Government, is deemed excluded under the principle of expressio unius est exclusion alterius (when one or more things of a class are expressly mentioned others of the same class are excluded)

IV. Based on the certifications of the DENR- CENRO, site for the Artica Sports Dome was not within an environmentally critical area. It therefore becomes mandatory for theDENR, through the EMB Region XI, to approve respondent's application for CNC after ithas satisfied all the requirements for its issuance

Issue: WON the LGU’s are excluded from the coverage of PD 1586, one that requires an environmental impact assessment (EIA) process to secure an Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC)

Held: No.

Section 4 of PD 1586 - "no person, partnership or corporation shall undertake or operate any such declared environmentally critical project or area without first securing an Environmental Compliance Certificate issued by the President or his duly authorized representative."

a. LGU’s are juridical persons

Section 1 of PD 1586 - law intends to implement the policy of the state to achieve a balance between socio-economic development and environmental protection, which are the twin goals of sustainable development

a. Whereas clause stresses that this can only be possible if we adopt a comprehensive and integrated environmental protection program where all the sectors of the community are involved, i.e., the government and the private sectors. The local government units, as part of the machinery of the government, cannot therefore be deemed as outside the scope of the EIS system.

HOWEVER, after consideration of the evidence finding Artica Sports Dome is not within an environmentally critical area neither being a critical project. Findings of the trial court becomes binding with the SC.

The Artica Sports Dome in Langub does not come close to any of the projects or areas enumerated inPresidential 2146 (proclaiming areas and types of projects as environmentally critical and w/in scope of the EIS). Neither is it analogous to any of them. It is clear, therefore, that the said project is not classified as environmentally critical, or within an environmentally critical area. Consequently, the DENR has nochoice but to issue the Certificate of Non-Coverage. It becomes its ministerial duty, the performance of which can be compelled by writ of mandamus, such as that issued by the trial court in the case at bar.

DENR – Department of Environment and Natural ResourcesPAB – Pollution Adjudication BoardFMB – Forest Management BureauPAWB – Protected Areas and Wildlife BureauEMB – Environmental Management BureauDA – Department of AgricultureBFAR – Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic ResourcesNCIP – National Commission on Indigenous Peoples

SEP – Strategic Environmental PlanNIPAS – National Integrated Protected Areas SystemEIA – Environmental Impact AssessmentECC – Environmental Compliance CertificateEIS – Environmental Impact StatementECP – Environmental Critical ConceptsEPRMP – Environmental Performance Report and Management Plan

PEPRMP – Programmatic Environmental Performance Report and Management PlanEIARC – Environmental Impact Assessment Review CommitteeEMF – Environmental Monitoring Fund

EGF – Environmental Guarantee Fund

Jess

Boracay Foundation vs. Province of AklanFacts:

BF is a non-stock corp. whose obligation is to foster a united, concerted, and environmentally conscious development of Boracay Island. Aklan is a political subd. of the government. Phil. Reclamation Authority which has for its purpose in reclaiming lands. DENR-EMB is

assigned in issuing ECC regarding projects that require environment’s protection. Boracay is a tourism destination declared as a tourism zone and marine reserve under P.D. 1801 with islands comprising of Barangay

Manoc Manoc, Balabag and Yapak. A Caticlan jetty port and passenger terminal was built to serve as a gateway to Boracay. A Terminal Report was produced saying that there was a need to expand the port facilities of Caticlan. Gov’t. Marquez sent a letter to

PRA expressing interest to reclaim 2.64 hectares of land along the foreshores of Caticlan. Sangguniang Barangay of Caticlan, Malay Municipality expressed its opposition on the project through a Resolution saying that the land

that will be reclaimed will cover most of the barangays and will deprive them of their right of preference on development of natural resources.

Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Aklan issued a resolution authorizing Governor Marquez to file an application to reclaim foreshore with PRA.

Sangguniang Bayan of Malay through a resolution expressed its opposition saying that the lease application was for business on the benefit of Aklan at the expense of depriving Malay Municipality.

Meanwhile, Governor submitted an Environmental Performance Report and Monitoring Program (EPRMP) as an initial step in obtaining an ECC. Sanguniang Panlalawigan of Aklan enacted a Resolution allowing Marquez to enter a MOA with PRA on the Marina Project which shall reclaim 40 hectares adjacent to the jetty port.

DENR-EMB issued the ECC for the 2.64 hectares project.

BF now claims that a belated public consultation was held called by respondent regarding the project, Environmental Impact Assessment Study and expansion of 40 hectares. Sangguniang Bayan of Malay again submitted a Resolution reiterating heir strong opposition on the project.

A study was conducted by several marine biologists from Marine Environmental Resources Foundation (MERF) to determine the impact of the project in the coastal erosion patterns. Dr. Villavonoy said that the 2.64 hectares project would only have insignificant effect and there was a distant possibility that the famous Boracay would be affected. Such study was funded by Dept of Tourism commissioned by Phil. Chamber of Commerce and Industry Boracay.

Petitioner filed for a writ of continuing mandamus and Court issued a Temporary Environmental Protection Order) which respondent ceased and desisted the continuance of the project after they received a copy. Several arguments were exchanged between parties. However, on Sept. 8, 2011, respondent prayed for the dismissal for petition as province is no longer pursuing the project because of inability to comply with one of the conditions in the MOA.

Issue:1. Whether or not the petition should be dismissed for having been rendered moot and academic2. Whether or not the petition is premature because petitioner failed to exhaust administrative remedies before filing this case3. Whether or not respondent Province failed to perform a full EIA as required by laws and regulations based on the scope and

classification of the project4. Whether or not respondent Province complied with all the requirements under the pertinent laws and regulations 5. Whether or not there was proper, timely, and sufficient public consultation for the project

Held:1. No. A close reading of the two LGUs respective resolutions would reveal that they are not sufficient to render the petition moot and

academic, as there are explicit conditions imposed that must be complied with by respondent Province. In Resolution No. 003, series of 2012, of the Sangguniang Barangay of Caticlan it is stated that any vertical structures to be constructed shall be subject for barangay endorsement.Clearly, what the barangay endorsed was the reclamation only, and not the entire project that includes the construction of a commercial building and wellness center, and other tourism-related facilities. Petitioners objections, as may be recalled, pertain not only to the reclamation per se, but also to the building to be constructed and the entire projects perceived ill effects to the surrounding environment. The Sangguniang Bayan of Malay obviously imposed explicit conditions for respondent Province to comply with on pain of revocation of its endorsement of the project, including the need to conduct a comprehensive study on the environmental impact of the reclamation project, which is the heart of the petition before us. Therefore, the contents of the two resolutions submitted by respondent Province do not support its conclusion that the subsequent favorable endorsement of the LGUs had already addressed all the issues raised and rendered the instant petition moot and academic.

2. Respondents anchor their argument on Section 6, Article II of DENR DAO 2003-30, which provides: Section 6. Appeal Any party aggrieved by the final decision on the ECC / CNCapplications may, within 15 days from receipt of such decision, file an appeal on the following grounds:

a. Grave abuse of discretion on the part of the deciding authority, orb. Serious errors in the review findings. The DENR may adopt alternative conflict/dispute resolution procedures as a means to settle grievances between proponents and aggrieved parties to avert unnecessary legal action. Frivolous appeals shall not be countenanced. The proponent or any stakeholder may file an appeal to the following:

Deciding Authority Where to file the appealEMB Regional Office Director Office of the EMB DirectorEMB Central Office Director Office of the DENR SecretaryDENR Secretary Office of the President

Respondents argue that since there is an administrative appeal provided for, then petitioner is duty bound to observe the same and may not be granted recourse to the regular courts for its failure to do so.

The appeal provided for under Section 6 of DENR DAO 2003-30 is only applicable, however, based on the first sentence thereof, if the person or entity charged with the duty to exhaust the administrative remedy of appeal to the appropriate government agency has been a party or has been made a party in the proceedings wherein the decision to be appealed was rendered. It has been established by the facts that petitioner was never made a party to the proceedings before respondent DENR-EMB RVI . Petitioner was only informed that the project had already been approved after the ECC was already granted. Not being a party to the said proceedings, it does not appear that petitioner was officially furnished a copy of the decision, from which the 15-day period to appeal should be reckoned, and which would warrant the application of Section 6, Article II of DENR DAO 2003-30.

3. It is the DENR that has the duty to implement the EIS system. It appears, however, that respondent DENR-EMB RVIs evaluation of this reclamation project was problematic, based on the valid questions raised by petitioner. Being the administrator of the EIS System, respondent DENR-EMB RVIs submissions bear great weight in this case. However, the following are the issues that put in question the wisdom of respondent DENR-EMB RVI in issuing the ECC: 1. Its approval of respondent Provinces classification of the project as a mere expansion of the existing jetty port in Caticlan, instead of classifying it as a new project;2. Its classification of the reclamation project as a single instead of a co-located project;3. The lack of prior public consultations and approval of local government agencies; and4. The lack of comprehensive studies regarding the impact of the reclamation project to the environment.The above issues as raised put in question the sufficiency of the evaluation of the project by respondent DENR-EMB RVI.The EIA process must be able to predict the likely impact of the reclamation project to the environment and to prevent any harm that may otherwise be caused. The project now before us involves reclamation of land that is more than five times the size of the original reclaimed land. Furthermore, the area prior to construction merely contained a jetty port, whereas the proposed expansion, as described in the EPRMP submitted by respondent Province to respondent DENR-EMB RVI involves so much more, and we quote: 1. Reclamation - 3,000 sq m (expansion of jetty port) 2. Reclamation - 13,500 sq m (buildable area)3. Terminal annex building - 250 sq m4. 2-storey commercial building 2,500 sq m (1,750 sq m of leasable space)5. Health and wellness center6. Access road - 12 m (wide)7. Parking, perimeter fences, lighting and water treatment sewerage system8. Rehabilitation of existing jetty port and terminalThe succeeding phases of the project will consist of [further] reclamation, completion of the commercial center building, bay walk commercial strip, staff building, ferry terminal, a cable car system and wharf marina. This will entail an additional estimated cost of P785 million bringing the total investment requirement to about P1.0 billion. As may be gleaned from the breakdown of the 2.64 hectares as described by respondent Province above, a significant portion of the reclaimed area would be devoted to the construction of a commercial building, and the area to be utilized for the expansion of the jetty port consists of a mere 3,000 square meters (sq. m). To be true to its definition, the EIA report submitted by respondent Province should at the very least predict the impact that the construction of the new buildings on the reclaimed land would have on the surrounding environment.

4. Section 15 of Republic Act 7160, otherwise known as the Local Government Code, performs dual functions, governmental and proprietary. Governmental functions are those that concern the health, safety and the advancement of the public good or welfare as affecting the public generally. Proprietary functions are those that seek to obtain special corporate benefits or earn pecuniary profit and intended for private advantage and benefit. When exercising governmental powers and performing governmental duties, an LGU is an agency of the national government. When engaged in corporate activities, it acts as an agent of the community in the administration of local affairs. Found in Section 16 of the Local Government Code is the duty of the LGUs to promote the peoples right to a balanced ecology. Pursuant to this, an LGU, like the City of Davao, can not claim exemption from the coverage of PD 1586. As a body politic endowed with governmental functions, an LGU has the duty to ensure the quality of the environment, which is the very same objective of PD 1586. Section 4 of PD 1586 clearly states that no person, partnership or corporation shall undertake or operate any such declared environmentally critical project or area without first securing an Environmental Compliance Certificate issued by the President or his duly authorized representative. The Civil Code defines a person as either natural or juridical.The state and its political subdivisions, i.e., the local government units are juridical persons. Undoubtedly therefore, local government units are not excluded from the coverage of PD 1586. Lastly, very clear in Section 1 of PD 1586 that said law intends to implement the policy of the state to achieve a balance between socio-economic development and environmental protection, which are the twin goals of sustainable development. The above-quoted first paragraph of the Whereas clause stresses that this can only be possible if we adopt a comprehensive and integrated environmental protection program where all the sectors of the community are involved, i.e., the government and the private sectors. The local government units, as part of the machinery of the government, cannot therefore be deemed as outside the scope of the EIS system.[149] (Emphases supplied.) The Court chooses to remand these matters to respondent DENR-EMB RVI for it to make a proper study, and if it should find necessary, to require respondent Province to address these environmental issues raised by petitioner and submit the correct EIA report as required by the projects specifications. The Court requires respondent DENR-EMB RVI to complete its study and submit a report within a non-extendible period of three months. Respondent DENR-EMB RVI should establish to the Court in said report why the ECC it issued for the subject project should not be canceled.

5. This project can be classified as a national project that affects the environmental and ecological balance of local communities,

and is covered by the requirements found in the Local Government Code provisions. During the oral arguments held on September 13, 2011, it was established that this project as described above falls under Section 26 because the commercial establishments to be built on phase 1, as described in the EPRMP quoted above, could cause pollution as it could generate garbage, sewage, and possible toxic fuel discharge.Based on the above, therefore, prior consultations and prior approval are required by law to have been conducted and secured by the respondent Province. Accordingly, the information dissemination conducted months after the ECC had already been issued was insufficient to comply with this requirement under the Local Government Code. Had they been conducted properly, the prior public consultation should have considered the ecological or environmental concerns of the stakeholders and studied measures alternative to the project, to avoid or minimize adverse environmental impact or damage. In fact, respondent Province once tried to obtain the favorable endorsement of the Sangguniang Bayan of Malay, but this was denied by the latter. The lack of prior public consultation and approval is not corrected by the subsequent endorsement of the reclamation project by the Sangguniang Barangay of Caticlan on February 13, 2012, and the Sangguniang Bayan of the Municipality of Malay on February 28, 2012, which were both undoubtedly achieved at the urging and insistence of respondent Province. As we have established above, the respective resolutions issued by the LGUs concerned did not render this petition moot and academic.

Paje vs. CasinoFacts:

Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority (SBMA, government agency) and Taiwan Cogeneration Corporation (TCC) entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to build a power plant which would supply a reliable power to Subic Bay Industrial Park. TCC intended to build a coal-fired power plant on a 20 hectare land at Sitio Naglatore and another 10 hectares for the ash pond.

SBMA Ecology Center issued an Environmental Compliance Cert. in favour of TCC for the construction of 2x150 MW Circulating Fluidized Bed Coal Fire Powered Power Plant.

TCC assigned all its rights under MOU to Redondo Peninsula (RP Energy) for the construction of the power plant. RP applied for an ECC from DENR. Sangguniang Panglungsod of Olangapo expressed their objection through a resolution. Still, an ECC

was issued by DENR. RP decided to apply for an amendment of ECC on the additional components like barge wharf, seawater intake breakwater etc for the

power plant. First amendment if ECC included the additional components. Later, RP soght to amend again the ECC as it now sought to construct a

1x300 MW power plant. A project description was ubmitted. This was granted as the second amendment.

A third amendment was passed to construct now a 2x300 MW power plant while a case was pending regarding the issuance of a writ of kalikasan.

Issue:1. Whether the Casiño Group was able to prove that the construction and operation of the power plant will cause grave environmental

damage.2. Whether the ECC is invalid for lack of signature of Mr. Luis Miguel Aboitiz, as representative of RP Energy, in the Statement of

Accountability of the ECC.3. Whether the first and second amendments to the ECC are invalid for failure to undergo a new environmental impact assessment (EIA)

because of the utilization of inappropriate EIA documents.4. Whether the Certificate of Non-Overlap, under Section 59 of the IPRA Law, is a precondition to the issuance of an ECC and the lack of its

prior issuance rendered the ECC invalid.5. Whether the Certificate of Non-Overlap, under Section 59 of the IPRA Law, is a precondition to the consummation of the Lease and

Development Agreement (LDA) between SBMA and RP Energy and the lack of its prior issuance rendered the LDA invalid.6. Whether compliance with Section 27, in relation to Section 26, of the LGC ( i.e., approval of the concerned sanggunian requirement) is

necessary prior to the implementation of the power plant project.7. Whether the validity of the third amendment to the ECC can be resolved in this case.

Held:1. No. RP Energy has provided an Environmental Management Plan that details the prevention of the negative impacts of the proposed

project. Court has given probative weight to the expert testimonies because these were in accord with judicial precedents unlike the petitioners who merely relied from internet articles, seminars attended by petitioners, and an unsigned written document of Dr. Rex Cruz which the courts considered as hear say.

2. No. Appellate court erred when it invalidated the ECC on the ground of lack of signature of Mr. Aboitiz in the ECC’s Statement of Accountability. While the signature is necessary for the validity of the ECC, the particular circumstances of this case show that the DENR and RP Energy were not properly apprised of the issue of lack of signature in order for them to present controverting evidence and arguments on this point, as the matter only developed during the course of the proceedings upon clarificatory questions from the appellate court. Consequently, RP Energy cannot be faulted for submitting the certified true copy of the ECC only after it learned that the ECC had been invalidated on the ground of lack of signature in the January 30, 2013 Decision of the appellate court. The certified true copy of the ECC, bearing the signature of Mr. Aboitiz remains uncontroverted. It showed that the Statement of Accountability was signed by Mr. Aboitiz on December 24, 2008. Although the signing was done two days after the official release of the ECC on December 22, 2008, absent sufficient proof, the Court did not see that the procedure adopted by the DENR was done with bad faith or inexcusable negligence. Thus, we rule that the signature requirement was substantially complied with pro hac vice.

3. No. In the first amendment, the first amendment to the ECC was requested by RP Energy due to its planned change of project design involving the inclusion of a barge wharf, seawater intake breakwater, subsea discharge pipeline, raw water collection system, drainage channel improvement and a 230-kV double transmission line. The DENR-EMB determined that the proposed modifications involved a major amendment because it will result in an increase in capacity or auxiliary component, as per Scenario 2, Item #2 of Figure 2-4:

Scenario 2: Request for MajorAmendments

2. Increase in production capacity or auxiliary cmponent of the original project 180

The Casiño Group does not controvert this finding by the DENR-EMB and the same reasonably supported by the evidence on record considering that the construction of a 230-kV double transmission line would result in major activities outside the project site which could have significant environmental impacts.

Consequently, the amendment was considered as falling under Item#4 of Annex 2-1c, and, thus, the appropriate EIA document type is an EPRMP,

4. Increase in capacity or auxiliary component of the original project which will either exceed PDR (non-covered project) thresholds, or EMP & ERA cannot address impacts and risks arising from modification

Exceedance of PDR (non-covered) thresholds is assumed that impacts may be potentially significant, particularly if modification will result to a next higher level of threshold range

Modification scenario and decision process are applicable to both non-implemented and operating projects with or without issued ECCs

ECC Amendment / Environmental Performance Report and Management Plan (EPRMP)182

In the second amendment, it is this time in consideration of its plan to change the configuration of the project from 2 x 150 MW to 1 x 300 MW. In practical terms, this meant that the subject project will still produce 300 MW of electricity but will now make use of only one boiler (instead of two) to achieve greater efficiency in the operations of the plant. The DENR-EMB determined 191 this amendment to be minor, under Scenario 1, Item#6 of Figure 2-4:

Scenario 1: Request for MinorAmendments

6. Other amendments deemed “minor” at the discretion of the EMB CO/RO Director

— because (1) there is no increase in capacity; (2) it does not constitute any significant impact; and (3) its EMP and ERA as specified in the submitted EPRMP remain the same. Relative to Annex 2-1c, the requested amendment was, in turn, determined to fall under Item#3: 3. Increase in capacity or auxiliary component of the

original project which will either not entail exceedance of PDR (non-covered project) thresholds or EMP & ERA can still address impacts & risks arising from modification

Non-exceedance of PDR (non covered project) thresholds is assumed that impacts are not significant;

Modification scenario and decision process are applicable to both non-implemented and operating projects issued ECCs

ECC Amendment / Letter Request with brief description of additional capacity or component

An examination of the Project Description Report (PDR) readily reveals that it contains the details of the proposed modifications and an express finding that no significant environmental impact will be generated by such modifications, as in fact it is expected that the operation of the power plant will become more efficient as a result of the change from 2 x 150 MW to 1 x 300 MW configuration. Consequently, the PDR merely reiterates the same mitigating measures that will presumably address the minor modifications to the project design. Again, no evidence was presented to show substantial errors or misrepresentations in these data or their inadequacy for providing the bases for the DENR-EMB to assess the environmental impact of the proposed modifications under the second amendment.4. No, ECC s not a license or permit contemplated in Sec .59.

Section 59, Chapter VIII of the IPRA Law provides: SEC. 59. Certification Precondition. All departments and other governmental agencies shall henceforth be strictly enjoined from issuing, renewing, or granting any concession, license or lease, or entering into any production-sharing agreement, without prior certification from the NCIP that the area affected does not overlap with any ancestral domain. Such certification shall only be issued after a field-based investigation is conducted by the Ancestral Domains Office of the area concerned: Provided, That no certification shall be issued by the NCIP without the free and prior informed and written consent of ICCs/IPs concerned: Provided, further, That no department, government agency or government-owned or -controlled corporation may issue new concession, license, lease, or production sharing agreement while there is a pending application

for a CADT: Provided, finally, That the ICCs/IPs shall have the right to stop or suspend, in accordance with this Act, any project that has not satisfied the requirement of this consultation process.While Section 9, Part II, Rule VIII of National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) Administrative Order No. 01-98 states:

SECTION 9. Certification Precondition Prior to Issuance of any Permits or Licenses. —

a. Need for Certification. No department of government or other agencies shall issue, renew or grant any concession, license, lease, permit, or enter into any production sharing agreement without a prior certification from the NCIP that the area affected does not overlap any ancestral domain.

b. Procedure for Issuance of Certification by NCIP.

1) The certification, above mentioned, shall be issued by the Ancestral Domain Office, only after a field based investigation that such areas are not within any certified or claimed ancestral domains.

2) The certification shall be issued only upon the free, prior, informed and written consent of the ICCs/IPs who will be affected by the operation of such concessions, licenses or leases or production-sharing agreements. A written consent for the issuance of such certification shall be signed by at least a majority of the representatives of all the households comprising the concerned ICCs/IPs. (Emphasis supplied)This certification issued by the NCIP proves that the area subject thereof does not lie within any ancestral domain.

It is important that we take the definition of “license” or “permit” to see if ECC falls in any of these categories. A “license” has been defined as “a governmental permission to perform a particular act (such as getting married), conduct a particular business or occupation, operate machinery or vehicles after proving capacity and ability to do so safely, or use property for a certain purpose” while a “permit” has been defined as “a license or other document given by an authorized public official or agency (building inspector, department of motor vehicles) to allow a person or business to perform certain acts.”

Section 4 of PD 1586 provides, in part:

SECTION 4. Presidential Proclamation of Environmentally Critical Areas and Projects. — The President of the Philippines may, on his own initiative or upon recommendation of the National Environmental Protection Council, by proclamation declare certain projects, undertakings or areas in

the country as environmentally critical. No person, partnership or corporation shall undertake or operate any such declared environmentally critical project or area without first securing an Environmental Compliance Certificate issued by the President or his duly authorized representative. For the proper management of said critical project or area, the President may by his proclamation reorganize such government offices, agencies, institutions, corporations or instrumentalities including the re-alignment of government personnel, and their specific functions and responsibilities. (Emphasis supplied)

Above provision reveals that the ECC is an indispensable requirement before (1) the conduct of an environmentally critical project or (2) the implementation of a project in an environmentally critical area, it does not follow that the ECC is the “license” or “permit” contemplated under Section 59 of the IPRA Law and its implementing rules.

Section 3(d), Article I of DAO 2003-03 defines an ECC:

SECTION 3. Definition of Terms. —

For the purpose of this Order, the following definitions shall be applied:

d. Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC) — document issued by the DENR/EMB after a positive review of an ECC application, certifying that based on the representations of the proponent, the proposed project or undertaking will not cause significant negative environmental impact. The ECC also certifies that the proponent has complied with all the requirements of the EIS System and has committed to implement its approved Environmental Management Plan. The ECC contains specific measures and conditions that the project proponent has to undertake before and during the operation of a project, and in some cases, during the project's abandonment phase to mitigate identified environmental impacts.

Par. 3 and 6 of the Revised Manual Code provides in part that ECC serves as a guide in decision making to other LGU’s which have the final authority to grant licenses or permits, such as building permits or licenses to operate, that will ultimately result in, or authorize the implementation of the project or the conduct of specific activities.

5. Yes, CNO should have been applied with before LDA but the court refrained from invalidating LDA for equitable considerations. Court held that the subsequent and belated compliance with the CNO requirement does not invalidate the LDA.

The proper rule of action is that all government offices should undertake proper and reasonable diligence in making a preliminary determination on whether to secure the CNO, bearing in mind the primordial State interest in protecting the rights of ICCs/IPs to their ancestral domains. They should consider the nature and location of the areas involved; the historical background of the aforesaid areas relative to the occupation, use or claim of ownership by ICCs/IPs; the present and actual condition of the aforesaid areas like the existence of ICCs/IPs within the area itself or within nearby territories; and such other considerations that would help determine whether a CNO should be first obtained prior to granting a concession, lease, license or permit, or entering into a production-sharing agreement.

If there are circumstances that indicate that a claim of ownership by ICCs/IPs may be present or a claim of ownership may be asserted in the future, no matter how remote, the proper and prudent course of action is to obtain the CNO. In case of doubt, the doubt should be resolved in favor of securing the CNO and, thus, the government agency is under obligation to secure the aforesaid certification in order to protect the interests and rights of ICCs/IPs to their ancestral domains. This must be so if we are to accord the proper respect due to, and adequately safeguard the interests and rights of, our brothers and sisters belonging to ICCs/IPs in consonance with the constitutional policy to promote and protect the rights of ICCS/IPs as fleshed out in the IPRA Law and its implementing rules.

Applying the procedure above, SBMA should have taken a CNO for the following reasons:First, the Subic area is historically known to be the home of our brothers and sisters belonging to the Aeta communities. Even if there were no Aeta communities when RP occupied the land, it is still necessary to secure a CNO for a possibility that it may ovelap an ancestral domain.

Second, SBMA and RP Energy claim that the SBMA Ecology Center verified with the NCIP that the project site does not overlap with an ancestral domain. However, the person, who allegedly did the verification, and the officer from the NCIP, were not presented in court. Assuming this verification was done, it does not follow why a CNO was not complied with.

Third, that the project site was formerly used as the firing range of the U.S. Armed Forces does not preclude the possibility that a present or future claim of ancestral domain may be made over the aforesaid site. The concept of an ancestral domain indicates that, even if the use of an area was interrupted by the occupation of foreign forces, it may still be validly claimed to be an ancestral domain.

Fourth, that the project site was subsequently classified by the SBMA as forming part of an industrial zone does not exempt it from the CNO requirement. The change in the classification of the land is not an exception to the CNO requirement under the IPRA Law.

Fifth, SBMA argues that the CNO issued to HHIC should, for all intents and purposes, be applicable to RP Energy. However, as correctly ruled by the appellate court, the CNO issued to HHIC’s shipyard cannot be extended to RP Energy’s project site because they involve two different

locations although found within the same land mass. The CNO issued in favor of HHIC clearly states that the findings in the CNO are applicable only to the shipyard location of HHIC.

Stating such reasons, RP should have complied with the CNO requirement. However, we rule that the harsh consequences of such a ruling should not be applied to the case at bar.

Upon the circumstances that occurred, there is no showing that SBMA and RP Energy had a deliberate or ill intent to escape, defeat or circumvent the mandate of Section 59 of the IPRA Law. On the contrary, they appear to have believed in good faith,albeit erroneously, that a CNO was no longer needed because of the afore-discussed defenses they raised herein. When the matter of lack of a CNO relative to the LDA was brought to their attention, through the subject Petition for Writ of kalikasan filed by the Casiño Group, RP Energy, with the endorsement of SBMA, promptly undertook to secure the CNO, which was issued on October 31, 2012 and stated that the project site does not overlap with any ancestral domain.

6. LGC contemplates two requirements: (1) prior consultations and (2) prior approval of the concerned sanggunian, viz: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 cropland, rangeland, 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.

SECTION 27. Prior Consultations Required. — No project or program shall be implemented by government authorities unless the consultations mentioned in Sections 2 (c) and 26 hereof are complied with, and prior approval of the sanggunian concerned is obtained : Provided, That occupants in areas where such projects are to be implemented shall not be evicted unless appropriate relocation sites have been provided, in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution.

Issuance of an ECC does not result to an implementation of the project so the requirement in such sections is not yet obtained yet. In the LDA, R.A. 7227 has answered that there is no need to secure the approval of Sanggunian. The power to approve or disapprove projects within the Subic Special Economic Zone (SSEZ) is one such power over which the SBMA’s authority prevails over the LGU’s autonomy. Hence, there is no need for the SBMA to secure the approval of the concerned sanggunians prior to the implementation of the subject project.

This interpretation is based on the broad grant of powers to the SBMA over all administrative matters relating to the SSEZ under Section 13 of RA 7227, as afore-discussed. Equally important, under Section 14, other than those involving defense and security, the SBMA’s decision prevails in case of conflict between the SBMA and the LGUs in all matters concerning the SSEZSec. 13. The Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority. –

(b) Powers and functions of the Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority - The Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority, otherwise known as the Subic Authority, shall have the following powers and function:

(4) To construct, acquire, own, lease, operate and maintain on its own or through contract, franchise, license permits bulk purchase from the private sector and build-operate transfer scheme or joint-venture the required utilities and infrastructure in coordination with local government units and appropriate government agencies concerned and in conformity with existing applicable laws therefor;

Sec. 14. Relationship with the Conversion Authority and the Local Government Units.

(a) The provisions of existing laws, rules and regulations to the contrary notwithstanding, the Subic Authority shall exercise administrative powers, rule-making and disbursement of funds over the Subic Special Economic Zone in conformity with the oversight function of the Conversion Authority.

(b) In case of conflict between the Subic Authority and the local government units concerned on matters affecting the Subic Special Economic Zone other than defense and security, the decision of the Subic Authority shall prevail.

Hence, the implementation of the project is not subject to the prior approval of the concerned sanggunians, under Section 27 of the LGC, and the SBMA’s decision to approve the project prevails over the apparent objections of the concerned sanggunians of the LGUs, by virtue of the clear provisions of RA 7227. Thus, there was no infirmity when the LDA was entered into between SBMA and RP Energy despite the lack of approval of the concerned sanggunians.

7. The appellate court correctly ruled that the issue as to the validity of the third amendment to the ECC cannot be resolved in this case because it was not one of the issues set during the preliminary conference, and would, thus, violate RP Energy’s right to due process.

Justce Leonen’s dissent( Atty. Nunez asked this in class so just in case..)

Justice Leonen reasons that the amendments to the subject ECC are void because the applications therefor were unsupported by an EIS, as required by PD 1151 and PD 1586. The claim is made that an EIS is required by law, even if the amendment to the ECC is minor, because an EIS is necessary to determine the environmental impact of the proposed modifications to the original project design. The DENR rules, therefore, which permit the modification of the original project design without the requisite EIS, are void for violating PD 1151 and PD 1586.

Court disagrees that every amendment shall have an EIS. The EIS was subsequently developed and strengthened through PD 1586 which established the Philippine Environmental Impact Statement System. Sections 4 and 5 of PD 1586 provide:

SECTION 4. Presidential Proclamation of Environmentally Critical Areas and Projects.The President of the Philippines may, on his own initiative or upon recommendation of the National Environmental Protection Council, by proclamation declare certain projects, undertakings or areas in the country as environmentally critical. No person, partnership or corporation shall undertake or operate any such declared environmentally critical project or area without first securing an Environmental Compliance Certificate issued by the President or his duly authorized representative. For the proper management of said critical project or area, the President may by his proclamation reorganize such government offices, agencies, institutions, corporations or instrumentalities including the re-alignment of government personnel, and their specific functions and responsibilities.

For the same purpose as above, the Ministry of Human Settlements shall: (a) prepare the proper land or water use pattern for said critical project(s) or area(s); (b) establish ambient environmental quality standards; (c) develop a program of environmental enhancement or protective measures against calamituous factors such as earthquake, floods, water erosion and others, and (d) perform such other functions as may be directed by the President from time to time.

SECTION 5. Environmentally Non-Critical Projects. — All other projects, undertakings and areas not declared by the President as environmentally critical shall be considered as non-critical and shall not be required to submit an environmental impact statement. The National Environmental Protection Council, thru the Ministry of Human Settlements may however require non-critical projects and undertakings to provide additional environmental safeguards as it may deem necessary. (Emphasis supplied)

These laws were, in turn, implemented by DAO 2003-30 and the Revised Manual. RP Energy thereafter complied with the EIS requirement and the DENR, after review, evaluation and compliance with the other steps provided in its rules, issued an ECC in favor of RP Energy. As can be seen, the EIS requirement was duly complied with.

Anent Justice Leonen’s argument that the subsequent amendments to the ECC were void for failure to prepare and submit a new EIS relative to these amendments, it is important to note that PD 1586 does not state the procedure to be followed when there is an application for an amendment to a previously issued ECC. There is nothing in PD 1586 which expressly requires an EIS for an amendment to an ECC.

Justice Leonen’s proposition would effectively impose a stringent requirement of an EIS for each and every proposed amendment to an ECC, no matter how minor the amendment may be. While this requirement would seem ideal, in order to ensure that the environmental impact of the proposed amendment is fully taken into consideration, the pertinent laws do not, however, expressly require that such a procedure be followed. As already discussed, the DENR appear to have reasonably issued DAO 2003-30 and the Revised Manual relative to the amendment process of an ECC, by balancing practicality vis-à-vis the need for sufficient information in determining the environmental impact of the proposed amendment to an ECC. In fine, the Court cannot invalidate the rules which appear to be reasonable, absent a showing of grave abuse of discretion or patent illegality.

We next tackle Justice Leonen’s argument that a petition for certiorari, and not a writ of kalikasan, is the proper remedy to question a defect in an ECC.

In general, the proper procedure to question a defect in an ECC is to follow the appeal process provided in DAO 2003-30 and the Revised Manual. After complying with the proper administrative appeal process, recourse may be made to the courts in accordance with the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies. However, as earlier discussed, in exceptional cases, a writ of kalikasan may be availed of to challenge defects in the ECC provided that (1) the defects are causally linked or reasonably connected to an environmental damage of the nature and magnitude contemplated under the Rules on Writ of kalikasan, and (2) the case does not violate, or falls under an exception to, the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies and/or primary jurisdiction.

In the case at bar, only the allegation with respect to the lack of an EIA relative to the first and second amendments to the subject ECC may be reasonably connected to such an environmental damage. Further, given the extreme urgency of resolving the issue due to the looming power crisis, this case may be considered as falling under an exception to the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies. Thus, the aforesaid issue may be conceivably resolved in a writ of kalikasan case.

More importantly, we have expressly ruled that this case is an exceptional case due to the looming power crisis, so that the rules of procedure may be suspended in order to address issues which, ordinarily, the Court would not consider proper in a writ of kalikasan case. Hence, all issues, including those not proper in a writ of kalikasan case, were resolved here in order to forestall another round of protracted litigation relative to the implementation of the subject project.

Denr vs. YapFacts:

Boracay is a premier tourist destination. In April 1976, DENR approved the National Reservation Survey of Boracay which identified several lots claimed by named persons. On Nov. 1978, Pres. Marcos issued Promulgation No. 1801 declaring Boracay as tourist zones and marine reserves under administration of Phil. Tourism Authority.

Claiming that Proclamation No. 1801 and PTA Circular No 3-82 precluded them from filing an application for judicial confirmation of imperfect title or survey of land for titling purposes, respondents-claimants. Mayor Jose S. Yap, Jr., Libertad Talapian, Mila Y. Sumndad, and Aniceto Yap filed a petition for declaratory relief with the RTC in Kalibo, Aklan.

They declared that they themselves, or through their predecessors-in-interest, had been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation in Boracay since June 12, 1945, or earlier since time immemorial. They declared their lands for tax purposes and paid realty taxes on them.

The Republic, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), opposed the petition for declaratory relief. The OSG countered that Boracay Island was an unclassified land of the public domain. It formed part of the mass of lands classified as public forest, which was not available for disposition pursuant to Section 3(a) of Presidential Decree (PD) No. 705 or the Revised Forestry Code, as amended.

The RTC upheld respondents-claimants right to have their occupied lands titled in their name which upon appeal with CA by petitioners, affirmed the RTC ruling.

During the pendency of G.R. No. 167707, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo issued Proclamation No. 1064 classifying Boracay Island into four hundred (400) hectares of reserved forest land (protection purposes) and six hundred twenty-eight and 96/100 (628.96) hectares of agricultural land (alienable and disposable).

On August 10, 2006, petitioners-claimants Dr. Orlando Sacay, Wilfredo Gelito, and other landowners in Boracay filed with SC an original petition for prohibition, mandamus, and nullification of Proclamation No. 1064. They alleged that the Proclamation infringed on their prior vested rights over portions of Boracay. . They have already invested billions of pesos in developing their lands and building internationally renowned first class resorts on their lots.

Issue: Whether private claimants (respondents-claimants in G.R. No. 167707 and petitioners-claimants in G.R. No. 173775) have a right to secure titles over their occupied portions in Boracay?

Held: The Regalian Doctrine dictates that all lands of the public domain belong to the State, that the State is the source of any asserted right to

ownership of land and charged with the conservation of such patrimony. The doctrine has been consistently adopted under the 1935, 1973, and 1987 Constitutions.

All lands not otherwise appearing to be clearly within private ownership are presumed to belong to the State. Thus, all lands that have not been acquired from the government, either by purchase or by grant, belong to the State as part of the inalienable public domain. Necessarily, it is up to the State to determine if lands of the public domain will be disposed of for private ownership. The government, as the agent of the state, is possessed of the plenary power as the persona in law to determine who shall be the favored recipients of public lands, as well as under what terms they may be granted such privilege, not excluding the placing of obstacles in the way of their exercise of what otherwise would be ordinary acts of ownership.

In the Philippine Bill of 1902, by this law, lands of the public domain in the Philippine Islands were classified into three (3) grand divisions, to wit: agricultural, mineral, and timber or forest lands. The act provided for, among others, the disposal of mineral lands by means of absolute grant (freehold system) and by lease (leasehold system). It also provided the definition by exclusion of agricultural public lands.

The Philippine Commission passed Act No. 926, which was the first Public Land Act. The Act introduced the homestead system and made provisions for judicial and administrative confirmation of imperfect titles and for the sale or lease of public lands. Under the Act, open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of agricultural lands for the next ten (10) years preceding July 26, 1904 was sufficient for judicial confirmation of imperfect title.

On November 29, 1919, Act No. 926 was superseded by Act No. 2874, otherwise known as the second Public Land Act. This new, more comprehensive law limited the exploitation of agricultural lands to Filipinos and Americans and citizens of other countries which gave Filipinos the same privileges. For judicial confirmation of title, possession and occupation en concepto dueo since time immemorial, or since July 26, 1894, was required.

After the passage of the 1935 Constitution, CA No. 141 amended Act No. 2874 on December 1, 1936. To this day, CA No. 141, as amended, remains as the existing general law governing the classification and disposition of lands of the public domain other than timber and mineral lands, and privately owned lands which reverted to the State.

Section 48(b) of CA No. 141 retained the requirement under Act No. 2874 of possession and occupation of lands of the public domain since time immemorial or since July 26, 1894. However, this provision was superseded by Republic Act (RA) No. 1942, which provided for a simple thirty-year prescriptive period for judicial confirmation of imperfect title. The provision was last amended by PD No. 1073, which now provides for possession and occupation of the land applied for since June 12, 1945, or earlier.

The burden of proof in overcoming the presumption of State ownership of the lands of the public domain is on the person applying for registration (or claiming ownership), who must prove that the land subject of the application is alienable or disposable. To overcome this presumption, incontrovertible evidence must be established that the land subject of the application (or claim) is alienable or disposable. To prove that the land subject of an application for registration is alienable, the applicant must establish the existence of a positive act of the government such as a presidential proclamation or an executive order; an administrative action; investigation reports of Bureau of Lands investigators; and a legislative act or a statute . The applicant may also secure a certification from the government that the land claimed to have been possessed for the required number of years is alienable and disposable.

In the case at bar, no such proclamation, executive order, administrative action, report, statute, or certification was presented to the Court. The records are bereft of evidence showing that, prior to 2006, the portions of Boracay occupied by private claimants were subject of a government proclamation that the land is alienable and disposable. Absent such well-nigh incontrovertible evidence, the Court cannot accept the submission that lands occupied by private claimants were already open to disposition before 2006.

Since 1919, courts were no longer free to determine the classification of lands from the facts of each case, except those that have already became private lands. Act No. 2874, promulgated in 1919 and reproduced in Section 6 of CA No. 141, gave the Executive Department, through the President, the exclusive prerogative to classify or reclassify public lands into alienable or disposable, mineral or forest. Since then, courts no longer had the authority, whether express or implied, to determine the classification of lands of the public domain. There was no opportunity for the courts then to resolve if the land the Boracay occupants are now claiming were agricultural lands. When Act No. 926 was supplanted by Act No. 2874 in 1919, without an application for judicial confirmation having been filed by private claimants or their predecessors-in-interest, the courts were no longer authorized to determine the propertys land classification. Hence, private claimants cannot bank on Act No. 926.

The Court notes that the classification of Boracay as a forest land under PD No. 705 may seem to be out of touch with the present realities in the island. Boracay, no doubt, has been partly stripped of its forest cover to pave the way for commercial developments. Boracay appears more of a commercial island resort, rather than a forest land.

According to jurisprudence, A forested area classified as forest land of the public domain does not lose such classification simply because loggers or settlers may have stripped it of its forest cover. Parcels of land classified as forest land may actually be covered with grass or planted to crops by kaingin cultivators or other farmers. Forest lands do not have to be on mountains or in out of the way places. Swampy areas covered by mangrove trees, nipa palms, and other trees growing in brackish or sea water may also be classified as forest land. The classification is descriptive of its legal nature or status and does not have to be descriptive of what the land actually looks like. Unless and until the land classified as forest is released in an official proclamation to that effect so that it may form part of the disposable agricultural lands of the public domain, the rules on confirmation of imperfect title do not apply.

There is a big difference between forest as defined in a dictionary and forest or timber land as a classification of lands of the public domain as appearing in our statutes. One is descriptive of what appears on the land while the other is a legal status, a classification for legal purposes. At any rate, the Court is tasked to determine the legal status of Boracay Island, and not look into its physical layout. Hence, even if its forest cover has been replaced by beach resorts, restaurants and other commercial establishments, it has not been automatically converted from public forest to alienable agricultural land.

Private claimants cannot rely on Proclamation No. 1801 as basis for judicial confirmation of imperfect title. The proclamation did not convert Boracay into an agricultural land. However, private claimants argue that Proclamation No. 1801 issued by then President Marcos in 1978 entitles them to judicial confirmation of imperfect title. The Proclamation classified Boracay, among other islands, as a tourist zone. Private claimants assert that, as a tourist spot, the island is susceptible of private ownership.

The continued possession and considerable investment of private claimants do not automatically give them a vested right in Boracay. Nor do these give them a right to apply for a title to the land they are presently occupying. This Court is constitutionally bound to decide cases based on the evidence presented and the laws applicable. As the law and jurisprudence stand, private claimants are ineligible to apply for a judicial confirmation of title over their occupied portions in Boracay even with their continued possession and considerable investment in the island.

All is not lost, however, for private claimants. While they may not be eligible to apply for judicial confirmation of imperfect title under Section 48(b) of CA No. 141, as amended, this does not denote their automatic ouster from the residential, commercial, and other areas they possess now classified as agricultural. Neither will this mean the loss of their substantial investments on their occupied alienable lands. Lack of title does not necessarily mean lack of right to possess.

For one thing, those with lawful possession may claim good faith as builders of improvements. They can take steps to preserve or protect their possession. For another, they may look into other modes of applying for original registration of title, such as by homestead or sales patent, subject to the conditions imposed by law.

Louisse

Cases:A. Ysmael vs. Deputy Executive Secretary

Petitioner entered into a timber license agreement with the Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources. However, due to Bureau of Forest’s order stopping all logging operations in Nueva Ecija, Petitioner’s TLA was cancelled. Barely one year thereafter, the TLAs on the same area re-awarded to Twin Peaks Development, Realty Corporation and Filipino Loggers, which were believed to be owned by the relatives and cronies of Marcos. Hence, the petitioner filed this case seeking to nullify the newly issued TLAs.

It is an established doctrine in this jurisdiction that the decisions and orders of administrative agencies have upon their finality, the force and binding effect of a final judgment within the purview of the doctrine of res judicata. These decisions and orders are as conclusive upon the rights of the affected parties as though the same had been rendered by a court of general jurisdiction. The rule of res judicata thus forbids the reopening of a matter once determined by competent authority acting within their exclusive jurisdiction.

In the case at bar, petitioner waited for at least three years before it finally filed a petition for certiorari with the Court attacking the validity of the assailed Bureau actions in 1983 and 1984. Considering that petitioner, throughout the period of its inaction, was not deprived of the opportunity to seek relief from the courts which were normally operating at the time, its delay constitutes unreasonable and inexcusable neglect, tantamount to laches. Accordingly, the writ of certiorari requiring the reversal of these orders will not lie.

In fine, the legal precepts in the ruling is more than suffice to justify the Court's refusal to interfere in the DENR evaluation of timber licenses and permits issued under the previous regime, or to pre-empt the adoption of appropriate corrective measures by the department.

Nevertheless, the Court cannot help but express its concern regarding alleged irregularities in the issuance of timber license agreements to a number of logging concessionaires.

The grant of licenses or permits to exploit the country's timber resources, if done in contravention of the procedure outlined in the law, or as a result of fraud and undue influence exerted on department officials, is indicative of an arbitrary and whimsical exercise of the State's power to regulate the use and exploitation of forest resources. The alleged practice of bestowing "special favors" to preferred individuals, regardless of merit, would be an abuse of this power. And this Court will not be a party to a flagrant mockery of the avowed public policy of conservation enshrined in the 1987 Constitution. Therefore, should the appropriate case be brought showing a clear grave abuse of discretion on the part of officials in the DENR and related bureaus with respect to the implementation of this public policy, the Court win not hesitate to step in and wield its authority, when invoked, in the exercise of judicial powers under the Constitution [Section 1, Article VIII].

B. Mustang Lumber vs Court of AppealsThe case stemmed after the Special Action Investigation Division (SAID) of the DENR spotted petitioner’s truck loaded with lauan and

almaciga lumber of assorted sizes and dimension. Due to the driver’s failure to produce the required invoices, the team seized the truck together with its cargo and brought them to the DENR Compound. Following this, the DENR, went back to the lumberyard and placed all remaining stockpiles under administrative seizure. Petitoner filed a complaint with the RTC arguing that the materials found in the yard are among those not prohibited under the Forestry Code.

Petitioner’s possession of lumber is penalized because lumber is included in ther term timber; the Revised Forestry Code contains no definition of either timber of lumber and only defined the term “processing plant”. As defined by the law, a processing plant is any mechanical set-up, machine, or combination of machine used for the processing of logs and other forest raw materials, lumber is a processed timber. Hence, since it is settled that in the absence of legislative intent to the contrary, words and phrases used in a statute should be given their plain, ordinary, and common usage meaning. And insofar as possession of timber without the required legal documents is concerned, Section 68 of P.D. No. 705, as amended, makes no distinction between raw or processed timber. Ubi lex non distanguit nec nos distinguere debemus.

The Court likewise emphasized that, the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the petitioner's appeal from the judgment of the trial court in the SECOND CIVIL CASE. The petitioner never disputed the fact that its lumber-dealer's license or permit had been suspended by Secretary Factoran on 23 April 1990. The suspension was never lifted, and since the license had only a lifetime of up to 25 September 1990, the petitioner has absolutely no right to possess, sell, or otherwise dispose of lumber. Accordingly, Secretary Factoran or his authorized representative had the authority to seize the lumber pursuant to Section 68-A of P.D. No. 705, as amended, which provides as follows:

Section 68-A. Administrative Authority of the Department Head or his Duly Authorized Representative to Order Confiscation. In all cases of violations of this Code or other forest laws, rules and regulations, the Department Head or his duly authorized representative may order the confiscation of any forest products illegally cut, gathered, removed, or possessed or abandoned. . . .

C. People of the Philippines vs. Alfonso Dator and Benito Genol, Pastor TelenDefendants including Pastor Telen are charged with a violation of Section 68 of the Revised Forestry Code for feloniously possessing 1,560.16

board feet of Antipolo and Dita lumber flitches without the necessary legal documents and certification. In his answer, Telen argued that the lumbers were from his mother’s private property to be used for the renovation of their house. He likewise argued that he had a verbal permission from the Officer-in-Charge of the DENR-Community Environmental and Natural Resources Office.

The fact of possession by the appellant of the subject fifty-one (51) pieces of assorted Antipolo and Dita lumber, as well as his subsequent failure to produce the legal documents as required under existing forest laws and regulations constitute criminal liability for violation of Presidential Decree No. 705, otherwise known as the Revised Forestry Code.[22] Section 68 of the code provides:

Section 68. Cutting, Gathering and/or Collecting Timber or Other Forest Products Without License.-Any person who shall cut, gather, collect, remove timber or other forest products from any forest land, or timber from alienable or disposable public land, or from private land, without any authority, or possess timber or other forest products without the legal documents as required under existing forest laws and regulations, shall be punished with the penalties imposed under Articles 309 and 310 of the Revised Penal Code: Provided, that in the case of partnerships, associations, or corporations, the officers who ordered the cutting, gathering, collection or possession shall be liable, and if such officers are aliens, they shall, in addition to the penalty, be deported without further proceedings on the part of the Commission on Immigration and Deportation.

The Court shall further order the confiscation in favor of the government of the timber or any forest products cut, gathered, collected, removed, or possessed, as well as the machinery, equipment, implements and tools illegally used in the area where the timber or forest products are found.

Appellant Telen contends that he secured verbal permission from Boy Leonor, Officer-in-Charge of the DENR-CENRO in Maasin, Southern Leyte before cutting the lumber, and that the latter purportedly assured him that written permit was not anymore necessary before cutting soft lumber, such as the Antipolo and Dita trees in this case, from a private track of land, to be used in renovating appellants house, provided that he would plant trees as replacements thereof, which he already did.

In any case, the mere allegation of the appellant regarding the verbal permission given by Boy Leonor, Officer in Charge of DENR-CENRO, Maasin, Southern Leyte, is not sufficient to overturn the established fact that he had no legal documents to support valid possession of the confiscated pieces of lumber. It does not appear from the record of this case that appellant exerted any effort during the trial to avail of the testimony of Boy Leonor to corroborate his allegation.

Michelle

Merida v PeoplePetitioner was charged in the Regional Trial Court of Romblon, Romblon, Branch 81 (trial court) with violation of Section 68 of PD 705, as amended, for "cutting, gathering, collecting and removing" a lone narra tree inside a private land in Mayod, Ipil, Magdiwang, Romblon (Mayod Property) over which private complainant Oscar M. Tansiongco (Tansiongco) claims ownership. RTC – sentenced to 14 years reclusion temporal (lesson: never cut a narra tree!)W/N SECTION 68 OF P.D. 705 AS AMENDED PROHIBITING THE CUTTING, GATHERING, COLLECTING AND REMOVING TIMBER OR OTHER FOREST PRODUCTS FROM ANY FOREST LAND APPLIES TO PETITIONER.Did he cut “timber" in the Mayod Property without a DENR permit?Yes! (kaloka!)On the question of whether petitioner cut a narra tree in the Mayod Property without a DENR permit, petitioner adopted conflicting positions. Before his trial, petitioner consistently represented to the authorities that he cut a narra tree in the Mayod Property and that he did so only with Calix's (next owner of property) permission. However, when he testified, petitioner denied cutting the tree in question. We sustain the lower courts' rulings that petitioner's extrajudicial admissions bind him.We further hold that the lone narre tree petitioner cut from the Mayod Property constitutes "timber" under Section 68 of PD 705, as amended. PD 705 does not define "timber," only "forest product" (which circuitously includes "timber.")31 Does the narra tree in question constitute "timber" under Section 68? The closest this Court came to defining the term "timber" in Section 68 was to provide that "timber," includes "lumber" or "processed log."32 In other jurisdictions, timber is determined by compliance with specified dimensions33 or certain "stand age" or "rotation age."34 In Mustang Lumber, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,35 this Court was faced with a similar task of having to define a term in Section 68 of PD 705 - "lumber" - to determine whether possession of lumber is punishable under that provision. In ruling in the affirmative, we held that "lumber" should be taken in its ordinary or common usage meaning to refer to "processed log or timber," thus:The Revised Forestry Code contains no definition of either timber or lumber. While the former is included in forest products as defined in paragraph (q) of Section 3, the latter is found in paragraph (aa) of the same section in the definition of "Processing plant," which reads:

(aa) Processing plant is any mechanical set-up, machine or combination of machine used for the processing of logs and other forest raw materials into lumber, veneer, plywood, wallboard, blackboard, paper board, pulp, paper or other finished wood products.

This simply means that lumber is a processed log or processed forest raw material. Clearly, the Code uses the term lumber in its ordinary or common usage. In the 1993 copyright edition of Webster's Third New International Dictionary, lumber is defined, inter alia, as "timber or logs after being prepared for the market." Simply put, lumber is a processed log or timber.Sentence reduced to 4 months because only estimates were provided as to the actual value of the felled narra. (whew!)

DYNAMICS OF DEVOLUTION PROCESS IN THE MANAGEMENT OF THE PHILIPPINE FORESTS Juan M. Pulhin and Makoto Inoue The Context of Devolution

1. Continuous Onslaught of the Forest Resources and the Resulting Environmental Degradation The history of Philippine forestry is characterized by a continuing onslaught of forest resources resulting to diminution and degraded state. The exploitative practice, which started during the colonial years accelerated in the post-independence era following the Second World War, with records showing an annual rate of deforestation as high as 172,000 hectares from 1950s through 1973 (Boado 1988). However, it was most blatant during the

Marcos regime, particularly from 1970 to 1980, putting the Philippines in the top list of countries with the worst deforestation rates in the Asia-Pacific region.

2. Glaring Inequity in the Access to and Benefits from the Utilization of the Forest Resources The highly centralized forest management has benefited more the privileged few instead of the millions of people living in the uplands who depend on forest resources for survival. During the period of Martial Law from 1972 to 1982, around 8-12 M hectares of the country’s forest lands or around 1/3 of the country’s total land area were placed by the central government under the control of about 450-470 holders of timber license agreement (Pulhin 1996). Conversely, millions of forest occupants including the IPs who resided in forest areas prior to Spanish colonization were regarded as squatters in their own ancestral lands. The State treated them as the culprits in forest destruction and in some instances, evicted from these areas to give way to reforestation and other development projects.

3. Erosion of the State’s Political Legitimacy to Manage the Nation’s Forest Resources The inability of the central government, particularly the DENR, to address the twin problems of forest destruction and upland poverty contributed to the erosion of public trust concerning its credibility and moral authority to govern the nation’s patrimony. Contributing to this lost of political legitimacy to manage the country’s forest resources is the “culture of corruption” and political patronage that have been deeply engrained into its bureaucratic structure which found its greatest expression during the logging years

4. Other Contributing Factors A convergence of other factors drives the policy and institutional reform towards the devolution of forest management in the country (Agoncillo 2000). First is the increasing evidence from many studies that common property regimes (CPR) have performed better than the state institutions. This is primarily attributed to the local users’ ultimate knowledge of the resource, relative advantage in monitoring resource due to proximity, and the high degree of dependence to forest resources.

The Devolution Process - Forms of Devolution in the PhilippinesFirst, it may involve mechanisms that transfer certain management rights and responsibilities from the DENR o local communities. This type of devolution is reflected in the different peopleoriented forest management programs and projects under the general umbrella of CBFM. Under this scheme, organized communities are issued a CBFMA or related instrument that grant them the opportunity to access and benefit from forest resources through a 25-year land tenure arrangement in exchange of their responsibility of forest rehabilitation, protection and conservationThe second type involves the devolution of forest management from central government to local government, but not necessarily to local communities. This is realized through Republic Act 7160, otherwise known as the Local Government Code. The Code “devolved” certain environmental functions of DENR to local government units or LGUs including the implementation of community-based forest management projects particularly the Integrated Social Forestry projects. The third type entails a form of devolution that provides space for local communities to participate in the management of protected areas which was made possible through the enactment of Republic Act No. 7586 otherwise known as the “NIPAS (National Integrated Protected Area System) Act of 1992”. The Act provides for the creation of a site-based Protected Area Management Board (PAMB), composed of representatives from DENR, local government units, NGOs, and organized communities to serve as local policymaking body to deliberate over land use plans, zoning measures, and resource management and protection activities in priority protected areas.

The fourth type of devolution is embodied in the 1997 Indigenous People’s Right Act (IPRA). This law provides for the recognition, protection, and promotion of the rights of indigenous cultural communities/indigenous peoples (ICCs/IPs) to their ancestral lands through the issuance of Certificate of Ancestral Land Title (CADT). IPs are in turn entrusted with the responsibility to maintain, develop, protect and conserve these areas with the support and assistance from government agencies.What is devolution? It “involves the transfer of rights and responsibilities to user groups at the local level”. In the context of the Philippine forestry, this would mean the transfer of responsibility and control over forest resources from the State, represented by the DENR, to the local communities. This notion of devolution supports the principle of “subsidiarity” that decisions should be made at the lowest possible level where competencies exists. It implies that “concerned local populations should be officially responsible for part of the costs and benefits of functions essential for local management of resources”.Outside these categories is yet another type otherwise known as “selfinitiated” or “organic devolution” (Contreras 2003). Under this mode, devolution process is initiated by the community itself by carrying out the task of self-managing their forest resources or by a third party like an NGO or a change agent.

Precolonial – Datu led. Post colonial - strongly centrally-determined, top down, and non participatory

Current Outcomes Outcomes vis-à-vis Intentions Gleaned from the different policies, the major objectives of forest devolution in the Philippines include the following: improving forest rehabilitation and protection, democratization of resource access, promotion of viable livelihood, and the empowerment of the local communities to influence political decisions on forest management and use.Overall Outcome On the overall, the current outcomes of forest devolution policies to local communities vary widely from site to site. Under favorable context, benefits from forest devolution may include improved productivity, tenure security, access to forest products, employment and livelihood opportunities, increased income, access to social support services, establishment of external linkages, potential to enhance internal and external social capital and political empowerment. Of these, the most visible benefit is the awarding of the tenure instruments to forest communities although this does not guarantee that use rights will follow. In general, however, benefits from devolution policies have yet to be fully realized in most sites.Forest Rehabilitation and Protection Most of the households and communities involved in CBFM are engaged in forest rehabilitation activities. Over the last ten years, DENR records indicate that CBFM projects have developed a total of more than 500,000 ha of agroforestry, tree plantations, and mangrove rehabilitation within the 5,503 CBFM sitesCBFM communities also served as the first line of defense in the protection and management of the forest resources. Accounts of local communities stopping illegal logging and other forest violations are common in many CBFM sites. It was established that the government is able to save at least 127 million pesos annually (around US$ 3.1 M at current exchange rate) by allowing the communities to manage and protect CBFMP sites, instead of hiring additional forest guards to protect and secure these areas. These accomplishments, however, should be treated critically. Physical accomplishments in forest rehabilitation and forest protection do not necessarily translate to the improvement of the welfare of the forest communities.Resource Access ProvisionUntil recently, forest occupants, including the Indigenous Peoples, were treated as “squatters” or “encroachers” in forestlands, even if they may have occupied these areas since time immemorial. This, to a large extent, has been corrected through the various forest devolution policies. Since 1983, six different types of

tenure instruments have been developed. Such instruments recognize the vested rights of forest occupants, both migrants and Indigenous Peoples, and in principle, allow them to have access and enjoy the benefits from forest resources.The following lessons may be gleaned from the Philippine experience regarding the devolution of forest management to local communities which may be of value to other countries of similar condition: 1. Sustainability of livelihood is a core issue in forest devolution. Not unless sustainable livelihood is achieved by participating forest-dependent communities, State-initiated devolution strategies will not work on the ground. 2. Externally-initiated devolution process takes time and requires sufficient support-system to succeed. Enabling policies, secured property rights, commitment and political will from the different key actors, sufficient knowledge base and appropriate resources to initiate and sustain the process, presence of devolution champions, strong social capital and local organizational capacity, and visible positive outcomes of devolution initiatives are some of the key ingredients for success. 3. Considering the multiple stakeholders and their varied interests and priorities, there is a need to develop strong collaboration among different sectors concerned (DENR, LGUs, NGO, POs, academe, donor agencies, private sector) at various levels (i.e., national and local levels) to promote collective action and advance forest devolution objectives.4. Some communities have already successful traditions of forest management and some degree of control over their forest resources. Devolution process should not destroy but enhance these systems. 5. Strong social capital and local organizational capacity are needed to enable local communities to mobilize resources and negotiate better benefits. Federations of forest users such as the POs’ Federations at the local, regional and national level should be strengthened to better represent the interests of local communities in policy-making process and other decisions that affect them. 6. Provision of tenure security is necessary but not a sufficient condition for success. A stable policy on forest utilization, especially timber resource, is also of paramount importance. 7. Past forest devolution initiatives have focused on tenure reform but neglect to integrate principles of good governance (i.e., transparency, accountability and participation) in forest management. Such principles are necessary to fully realize the devolution objectives. 8. Capability building should not be limited to local communities but should include efforts to enhance the capacity of organizations assisting the local communities including the government and non-government sectors.

PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 705REVISING PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 389, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE

FORESTRY REFORM CODE OF THE PHILIPPINESSECTION 3. Definitions. –a) Public forest is the mass of lands of the public domain which has not been the subject of the present system of classification for the determination of which lands are needed for forest purposes and which are not.b) Permanent forest or forest reserves refers to those lands of the public domain which have been the subject of the present system of classification and declared as not needed for forest purposes.c) Alienable and disposable lands refer to those lands of the public domain which have been the subject of the present system of classification and declared as not needed for forest purposes.d) Forest lands includes the public forest, the permanent forest or forest reserves, and forest reservations.e) Grazing land refers to that portion of the public domain which has been set aside, in view of the suitability of its topography and vegetation, for the raising of livestock.f) Mineral lands refer to those lands of the public domain which have been classified as such by the Secretary of Natural Resources in accordance with prescribed and approved criteria, guidelines and procedure.

g) Forest reservations refer to forest lands which have been reserved by the President of the Philippines for any specific purpose or purposes.h) National park refers to a forest land reservation essentially of primitive or wilderness character which has been withdrawn from settlement or occupancy and set aside as such exclusively to preserve the scenery, the natural and historic objects and the wild animals or plants therein, and to provide enjoyment of those features in such a manner as will leave them unimpaired for future generations.i) Game refuge or bird sanctuary refers to a forest land designated for the protection of game animals, birds and fish and closed to hunting and fishing in order that the excess population may flow and restock surrounding areas.j) Marine park refers to any public offshore area delimited as habitat of rare and unique species of marine flora and fauna.k) Seashore park refers to any public shore area delimited for outdoor recreation, sports fishing, water skiing and related healthful activities.l) Watershed reservation is a forest land reservation established to protect or improve the conditions of the water yield thereof or reduce sedimentation.m) Watershed is a land area drained by a stream or fixed body of water and its tributaries having a common outlet for surface run-off.n) Critical watershed is a drainage area of a river system supporting existing and proposed hydro-electric power, irrigation works or domestic water facilities needing immediate protection or rehabilitation.o) Mangrove is a term implied to the type of forest occurring on tidal flat along the sea coast, extending along stream where the water is brackish.p) Kaingin refers to a portion of the forest land which is subjected to shifting and/or permanent slash-and-burn cultivation.q) Forest products means timber, pulpwood, firewood, bark, tree top, resin, gum, wood, oil, honey, beeswax, nipa, rattan, or other forest growth such as grass, shrub, and flowering plant, the associated water, fish, game, scenic, historical, recreational and geologic resources in forest lands.r) Dipterocarp forest is a forest dominated by trees of the dipterocarp species, such as red lauan, tanguile, tiaong, white lauan, almon, bagtikan and mayapis of the Philippine mahogany group, apitong and the yakals.s) Pine forest as a forest type predominantly of pine trees.t) Industrial tree plantation refers to any forest land extensively planted to three crops primarily to supply raw material requirements of existing or proposed wood processing plants and related industries.u) Tree farm refers to any small forest land or tract of land purposely planted to tree crops.v) Agro-forestry is a sustainable management for land which increases overall production, combines agriculture crops, tree crops and forest plants and/or animals simultaneously or sequentially, and applies management practices which are compatible with the cultural patterns of the local population.w) Multiple-use is the harmonized utilization of the land, soil, water, wildlife, recreation value, grass and timber of forest lands.x) Selective logging is the systematic removal of the mature, over-mature and defective trees in such manner as to leave adequate number and volume of healthy residual trees of the desired species necessary to assure a future crop of timber, and forest cover for the protection and conservation of soil, water and wildlife.y) Seed tree system is a silvicultural system characterized by partial clearcutting leaving seed- trees to regenerate the area.z) Healthy residual refers to a sound or slightly injured tree of the commercial species left after logging.aa) Sustained-yield management implies continuous or periodic production of forest products in a working unit for the purpose of achieving at the earliest practicable time an approximate balance between growth and harvest or use. This is generally applied to the commercial timber resources and is also applicable to the water, grass, wildlife, and other renewable resources of the forest.bb) Processing plant is any mechanical setup, device, machine or combination of machines used for the conversion of logs and other forest raw materials into lumber, veneer, plywood, fiberboard, blockboard, paper board, pulp, paper or other finished wood products.cc) Lease is a privilege granted by the State to a person to occupy and possess, in consideration of specified rental, any forest land of the public domain in order to undertake any authorized activity therein.dd) License is a privilege granted by the State to a person to utilize forest resources within any forest land, without any right of occupation and possession over the same, to the exclusion of others, or establish and operate a wood-processing plant, or conduct any activity involving the utilization of any forest resources.ee) License agreement is a privilege granted by the State to a person to utilize forest resources within any forest land with the right of possession and occupation thereof to the exclusion of others, except the government, but with the corresponding obligation to develop, protect and rehabilitate the same in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth in said agreement.ff) Permit is short-term privilege or authority granted by the State to a person to utilize any limited forest resources or undertake a limited activity within any forest land without any right of occupation and possession therein.gg) Annual allowable cut is the volume of materials, whether of wood or other forest products, that is authorized to be cut yearly from a forest.hh) Cutting cycle is the number of years between two major harvests in the same working unit and/or region.ii) Forest ecosystem refers to the living and non-living components of a forest and their interaction.

jj) Silviculture is the establishment, development, reproduction and care of forest trees.kk) Rationalization is the organization of a business or industry using management principles, systems and procedures to attain stability, efficiency and profitability of operation.ll) Forest officer means any official or employee of the Bureau who has been appointed or delegated by law or by competent authority to execute, implement or enforce the provisions of this Code, other related laws, as well as their implementing regulations.mm) Private right means or refers to titled rights of ownership under existing laws, and in the case of national minority to rights of possession existing at the time a license is granted under this Code, which possession may include places of abode and worship, burial grounds, and old clearings, but exclude productive forest inclusive of logged-over areas, commercial forests and established plantations of the forest trees and trees of economic values.nn) Person includes natural as well as juridical person.SECTION 15. Topography. – No land of the public domain eighteen per cent (18%) in slope or over shall be classified as alienable and disposable, nor any forest land fifty per cent (50%) in slope or over, as grazing land.Lands eighteen per cent (18%) in slope or over which have already been declared as alienable and disposable shall be reverted to the classification of forest lands by the Department Head, to form part of the forest reserves, unless they are already covered by existing titles or approved public land application, or actually occupied openly, continuously, adversely and publicly for a period of not less than thirty (30) years as of the effectivity of this Code, where the occupant is qualified for a free patent under the Public Land Act: Provided, That said lands, which are not yet part of a well-established communities, shall be kept in a vegetative condition sufficient to prevent erosion and adverse effects on the lowlands and streams: Provided, Further, That when public interest so requires, steps shall be taken to expropriate, cancel defective titles, reject public land application, or eject occupants thereof.SECTION 16. Areas Needed for Forest Purposes. – The following lands, even if they are below eighteen per cent (18%) in slope, are needed for forest purposes, and may not, therefore, be classified as alienable and disposable land, to wit:1) Areas less than 250 hectares which are far from, or are not contiguous with, any certified alienable and disposable land;2) Isolated patches of forest of at least five (5) hectares with rocky terrain, or which protect a spring for communal use;3) Areas which have already been reforested;4) Areas within forest concessions which are timbered or have good residual stocking to support an existing, or approved to be established, wood processing plant;5) Ridge tops and plateaus regardless of size found within, or surrounded wholly or partly by, forest lands where headwaters emanate;6) Appropriately located road-rights-or-way;7) Twenty-meter strips of land along the edge of the normal high waterline of rivers and streams with channels of at least five (5) meters wide;8) Strips of mangrove or swamplands at least twenty (20) meters wide, along shorelines facing oceans, lakes, and other bodies of water, and strips of land at least twenty (20) meters wide facing lakes;9) Areas needed for other purposes, such as national parks, national historical sites, game refuges and wildlife sanctuaries, forest station sites, and others of public interest; and10) Areas previously proclaimed by the President as forest reserves, national parks, game refuge, bird sanctuaries, national shrines, national historic sites:Provided, That in case an area falling under any of the foregoing categories shall have been titled in favor of any person, steps shall be taken, if public interest so requires, to have said title cancelled or amended, or the titled area expropriated..

CHAPTER IIIUtilization and Management

SECTION 19. Multiple Use. – The numerous beneficial uses of the timber, land, soil, water, wildlife, grass and recreation or aesthetic value of forest lands and grazing lands shall be evaluated and weighted before allowing their utilization, exploitation, occupation or possession thereof, or the conduct of any activity therein.Only the utilization, exploitation, occupation or possession of any forest lands and grazing lands, or any activity therein, involving one or more of its resources, which will produce the optimum benefits to the development and progress of the country and the public welfare, without impairment or with the least injury to its resources, shall be allowed.All forest reservations may be open to development or uses not inconsistent with the principal objectives of the reservation. Provided, That critical watersheds, national parks and established experimental forests shall not be subject to commercial logging or grazing operations, and game refuges, bird sanctuaries, marine and seashore parks shall not be subject to hunting or fishing and other activities of commercial nature.SECTION 20. License Agreement, License, Lease or Permit. – No person may utilize, exploit, occupy, possess or conduct any activity within any forest and grazing land, or establish, install, add and operate any wood or forest products processing plant, unless he had been authorized to do under a license agreement, license, lease or permit: Provided, That when the national interest so requires, the President may amend, modify, replace, or rescind any contract, concession, permit, license, or any other form of privilege granted herein: Provided, further, That upon the recommendation of the appropriate government agency, the President may, pending the conduct of appropriate hearing, order the summary suspension of any such contract, concession, license, permit, lease or privilege granted under this decree for violation of any of the condition therein such as those pertaining but not limited to reforestation, pollution, environmental protection, export limitation or such condition as are prescribed by the Minister of Natural Resources  in daily issued regulations.

SECTION 52. Census of Kaingineros, Squatters, Cultural Minorities and other Occupants and Residents in Forest Lands. – Henceforth, no person shall enter into forest lands and cultivate the same without lease or permit.A complete census of kaingineros, squatters, cultural minorities  and other occupants and residents in forest lands with or without authority or permits from the government, showing the extent of their respective occupation and resulting damage, or impairment of forest resources, shall be conducted.The Bureau may call upon other agencies of the government and holders of license agreement, license, lease and permits over forest lands to participate in the census.SECTION 53. Criminal Prosecution. – Kaingineros, squatters, cultural minorities  and other occupants who entered into forest lands and grazing lands before May 19, 1975, without permit or authority, shall not be prosecuted: Provided, That they do not increase their clearings: Provided, further, That they undertake, within two (2) months from notice thereof, the activities to be imposed upon them by the Bureau in accordance with management plan calculated to conserve and protect forest resources in the area: Provided, finally, That kaingineros, squatters, cultural minorities and other occupants shall whenever the best land use of the area so demands as determined by the Director, be ejected and relocated to the nearest accessible government resettlement area.

CHAPTER IVCriminal Offenses and Penalties

SECTION 77. Cutting, Gathering and/or collecting Timber, or Other Forest Products Without License. – Any person who shall cut, gather, collect, removed timber or other forest products from any forest land, or timber from alienable or disposable public land, or from private land, without any authority, or possess timber or other forest products without the legal documents as required under existing forest laws and regulations, shall be punished with the penalties imposed under Articles 309 and 310 of the Revised Penal Code: Provided, That in the case of partnerships, associations, or corporations, the officers who ordered the cutting, gathering, collection or possession shall be liable, and if such officers are aliens, they shall, in addition to the penalty, be deported without further proceedings on the part of the Commission on Immigration and Deportation.The court shall further order the confiscation in favor of the government of the timber or any forest products cut, gathered, collected, removed, or possessed as well as the machinery, equipment, implements and tools illegally used in the area where the timber or forest products are found.SECTION 77-A. Administrative Authority of the Department Head or His Duly Authorized Representative to Order Confiscation. – In all cases of violations of this Code or other forest laws, rules and regulations, the Department Head or his duly authorized representative, may order the confiscation of any forest products illegally cut, gathered, removed, or possessed or abandoned, and all conveyances used either by land, water or air in the commission of the offense and to dispose of the same in accordance with pertinent laws, regulations or policies on the matter.SECTION 77-B. Rewards to Informants. – Any person who shall provide any information leading to the apprehension and conviction of any offender for any violation of this Code or other forest laws, rules and regulations, or confiscation of forest products shall be given a reward in the amount of twenty per centum (20%) of the proceeds of the confiscated forest products.SECTION 78. Unlawful Occupation or Destruction of Forest Lands and Grazing Lands. – Any person who enters and occupies or possesses, or makes kaingin for his own private use or for others, any forest land or grazing land without authority under a license agreement, lease, license or permit, or in any manner destroys such forest land or grazing land or part thereof, or causes any damage to the timber stand and other products and forest growth found therein, or who assists, aids or abets any other person to do so, or sets a fire, or negligently permits a fire to be set in any forest land or grazing land, or refuses to vacate the area when ordered to do so, pursuant to the provisions of Section 53 hereof shall, upon conviction, be fined in an amount of not less than five hundred pesos (P500.00), nor more than twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00) and imprisoned for not less than six (6) months nor more than two (2) years for each such offense, and be liable to the payment to ten (10) times the rental fees and other charges which would have accrued has the occupational and use of the land been authorized under a license agreement, lease, license or permit: Provided, That in the case of an offender found guilty of making kaingin, the penalty shall be imprisonment for not less than two (2) nor more than four (4) years and a fine equal to eight (8) times the regular forest charges due on the forest products destroyed, without prejudice to the payment of the full cost of production of the occupied area as determined by the Bureau: Provided, further, That the maximum of the penalty prescribed herein shall be imposed upon the offender who repeats the same offense and who commits the same offense and double the maximum of the penalty upon the offender who commits the same offense for the third time.In all cases the Court shall further order the eviction of the offender from the land and the forfeiture to the government of all improvements made and all vehicles, domestic animals and equipment of any kind used in the commission of the offense. If not suitable for use by the Bureau, said vehicles, domestic animals, equipment and improvements shall be sold at public auction, the proceeds of which shall accrue to the Development Fund of the Bureau.In case the offender is a government official or employee, he shall, in addition to the above penalties be deemed automatically dismissed from office and permanently disqualified form holding any elective or appointive position.SECTION 80. Illegal Occupation of National Parks System and Recreation Areas and Vandalism – Therein. Any person who, shall, without permit, occupy for any length of time any portion of the national parks system or shall, in any manner cut, destroy, damage or remove timber or any species of vegetation or forest cover and other natural resources found therein, or shall mutilate, deface or destroy objects of natural beauty or of scenic value within areas in the national parks system, shall be fined not less than five hundred (P500.00) pesos or more than twenty thousand (P20,000.00) pesos exclusive of the value of the thing damaged. Provided, That if the area requires rehabilitation or restoration as determined by

the Director, the offender shall also be required to restore or compensate or the restoration of the damage: Provided, further, That any person who, without proper permit shall hurt, capture or kill any kind of bird, fish or wild animal life within the area in the national parks system shall be subject to the same penalty. Provided, finally, That the Court shall order eviction of the offender from the land and the forfeiture in favor of the government of all timber or any species or vegetation and other natural resources collected or removed, and any construction or improvement made thereon by the offender. If the offender is an association or corporation, the president or manager shall be directly responsible and liable for the act of his employees or laborers.In the event that an official or employee of a city or municipal government is primarily responsible for detecting and convicting the violator of the provisions of this section, fifty per centum (50%) of the fine collected shall accrue to such municipality or city for the development of local parks.SECTION 82. Survey by Unauthorized Person. – Imprisonment for not less than two (2) nor more than four (4) years, in addition to the confiscation of the implements used in the violation of this section including the cancellation of the license, if any, shall be imposed upon any person who shall, without permit to survey from the Director, enter any forest lands, whether covered by a license agreement, lease, license, or permit, or not, and conduct or undertake a survey for whatever purpose.SECTION 84. Tax Declaration on Real Property. – Imprisonment for a period of not less than two (2) nor more than four (4) years and perpetual disqualification from holding an elective or appointive office, shall be imposed upon any public officer or employee who shall issue a tax declaration on real property without a certification from the Director of Forest Development and the Director of Lands or their duly designated representatives that the area declared for taxation is alienable and disposable lands, unless the property is titled or has been occupied and possessed by members of the national cultural minorities prior to July 4, 1955.SECTION 85. Coercion and Influence. – Any person who coerces, influences, abets or persuades the public officer or employee referred to in Sections 74 and 75 commit any of the acts mentioned therein shall suffer imprisonment of not less than one (1) year and pay a fine of five hundred (P500.00) pesos for every hectare or a fraction thereof so improperly surveyed, classified or released.In all other cases, any person who coerces, influences, abets or persuades the public officer or employee by using power and influence in deciding any pending case or matter in his favor shall be punished by a fine of not more than five thousand pesos (P5,000.00) and imprisonment of not less than one (1) year.SECTION 86. Unlawful Possession of Implements and Devices Used by Forest Officers. – Imprisonment for a period of not less than (2) nor more than four (4) years and a fine of not less than one thousand pesos (P1,000.00), nor more than ten thousand (P10,000.00) pesos in addition to the confiscation of such implements and devices, and the automatic cancellation of the license agreement, lease, license or permit, if the offender is a holder thereof, shall be imposed upon any person who shall, without authority from the Director or his authorized representative, make, manufacture, or has in his possession any government marking, hatchet or other marking implement, or any marker, poster, or other devices officially used by officers of the Bureau for the marking or identification of timber or other products, or any duplicate, counterfeit, or imitation thereof, or make or apply a government mark on timber or any other forest products by means of any authentic or counterfeit device, or alter, deface, or remove government marks or signs, from trees, logs, stumps, firewoods or other forest products, or destroy, deface, remove or disfigure any such mark, sign, poster or warning notices set by the Bureau to designate the boundaries of cutting areas, municipal or city forest or pasture, classified timber land, forest reserve, and areas under the national park system or to make any false mark or imitation of any mark or sign herein indicated; Provided, That if the offender is a corporation, partnership or association, the officers and directors thereof shall be liable.SECTION 87. Payment, Collection and Remittance of Forest Charges. – Any person who fails to pay the amount due and payable under the provisions of this Code, the National Internal Revenue Code, or the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder, shall be liable to the payment of a surcharge of twenty-five per centum (25%) of the amount due and payable.Any person who fails or refuses to remit to the proper authorities said forest charges collectible pursuant to the provisions of this Code or the National Internal Revenue Code, or who delays, obstructs or prevents the same, or who orders, causes or effects the transfer or diversion of the funds for purposes other than those specified in this Code, for each such offense shall, upon conviction, be punished by a fine of not exceeding one hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) and/or imprisonment for a period of not exceeding six (6) years in the discretion of the Court. If the offender is a government official or employee, he shall, in addition, be dismissed from the service with prejudice to reinstatement and with disqualification from holding any elective or appointive office.If the offender is a corporation, partnership or association, the officers and directors thereof shall be liable.

DENR Administrative Order No. 96-29 on the Community-Based Forest Management Program.Summary: This Administrative Order lays down rules and regulations for the implementation of Executive Order 263 known as the Community-Based Forest Management Strategy (CBFMS). The DENR shall launch the Community Based Forest Management Program (CBFMP) which shall integrate and unify all people-oriented forestry programs of the government, and shall grant rights to local communities and indigenous peoples to protect, rehabilitate, develop and manage forestlands and coastal resources. The Forest Management Bureau (FMB) shall be the National Coordinating Office of CBFMP. ---di ko mahanap full text, hehe!

WATER CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES – PD no 1067 (eto lang yung provisions na nasa syllabus, haba pa rin!)Article 5. The following belong to the State:

(a) Rivers and their natural beds;(b) Continuous or intermittent waters of springs and brooks running in their natural beds and the beds themselves;(c) Natural lakes and lagoons;(d) All other categories of surface waters such as water flowing over lands, water from rainfall whether natural, or artificial, and water from agriculture runoff, seepage and drainage;(e) Atmospheric water;(f) Subterranean or ground waters; and,(g) Seawater.

Article 6. The following waters found on private lands belong to the State:(a) Continuous or intermittent waters rising on such lands;(b) Lakes and lagoons naturally occuring on such lands;(c) Rain water falling on such lands;(d) Subterranean or ground waters; and,(e) Water in swamps and marshes.

The owner of the land where the water is found may use the same for domestic purposes without securing a permit, provided that such use shall be registered, when required by the Council. The Council, however, may regulate such when there is wastage, or in times of emergency.Article 7. Subject to the provisions of this Code, any person who captures or collects water by means of cisterns, tanks, or pools shall have exclusive control over such water and the right to dispose of the same.Article 8. Water legally appropriated shall be subject to the control of the appropriator from the moment it reaches the appropriator's canal or aqueduct leading to the place where the water will be used or stored and, thereafter, so long as it is being beneficially used for the purposes for which it was appropriated.

CHAPTER IIIAPPROPRIATION OF WATERS

Article 9. Waters may be appropriated and used in accordance with the provisions of this Code.Appropriation of water, as used in this Code, is the acquisition of rights over the use of waters or the taking or diverting of waters from a natural source in the manner and for any purpose allowed by law.Article 10. Water may be appropriated for the following purposes:

(a) Domestic(b) Municipal(c) Irrigation(d) Power generation(e) Fisheries(f) Livestock raising(g) Industrial(h) Recreational, and(i) Other purposes

Use of water for domestic purposes is the utilization of water for drinking, washing, bathing, cooking or other household needs, home gardens, and watering of lawns or domestic animals.Use of water for municipal purposes is the utilization of water for supplying the water requirements of the community.

Use of water for irrigation is the utilization of water for producing agricultural crops.Use of water for power generation is the utilization of water for producing electrical or mechanical power.Use of water for fisheries is the utilization of water for the propagation and culture of fish as a commercial enterprise.Use of water for livestock raising is the utilization of water for large herds or flocks of animals raised as a commercial enterprise.Use of water for industrial purposes is the utilization of water in factories, industrial plants and mines, including the use of water as an ingredient of a finished product.Use of water for recreational purposes is the utilization of water for swimming pools, bath houses, boating, water skiing, golf courses and other similar facilities in resorts and other places of recreation.Article 11. The State, for reasons of public policy, may declare waters not previously appropriated, in whole or in part, exempt from appropriation for any or all purposes and, thereupon, such waters may not be appropriated for those purposes.Article 12. Waters appropriated for a particular purpose may be applied for another purpose only upon prior approval of the Council and on condition that the new use does not unduly prejudice the rights of other permittees, or require an increase in the volume of water.Article 13. Except as otherwise herein provided, no person, including government instrumentalities or government-owned or controlled corporations, shall appropriate water without a water right, which shall be evidenced by a document known as a water permit.Water right is the privilege granted by the government to appropriate and use water.Article 14. Subject to the provisions of this Code concerning the control, protection, conservation, and regulation of the appropriation and use of waters, any person may appropriate or use natural bodies of water without securing a water permit for any of the following:

(a) Appropriation of water by means of handcarried receptacles; and(b) Bathing or washing, watering or dipping of domestic or farm animals, and navigation of watercrafts or transportation of logs and other objects by flotation.

Article 15. Only citizens of the Philippines, of legal age, as well as juridical persons, who are duly qualified by law to exploit and develop water resources, may apply for water permits.Article 16. Any person who desires to obtain a water permit shall file an application with the Council who shall make known said application to the public for any protests.In determining whether to grant or deny an application, the Council shall consider the following: protests filed, if any; prior permits granted; the availability of water; the water supply needed for beneficial use; possible adverse effects; land-use economics; and other relevant factors.Upon approval of an application, a water permit shall be issued and recorded.Article 17. The right to the use of water is deemed acquired as of the date of filing of the application for a water permit in case of approved permits, or as of the date of actual use in a case where no permit is required.Article 18. All water permits granted shall be subject to conditions of beneficial use, adequate standards of design and construction, and such other terms and conditions as may be imposed by the Council.Such permits shall specify the maximum amount of water which may be diverted or withdrawn, the maximum rate of diversion or withdrawal, the time or times during the year when water may be diverted or withdrawn, the points or points of diversion or location of wells, the place of use, the purposes of which water may be used and such other requirements the Council deems desirable.Article 19. Water rights may be leaded or transferred in whole or in part to another person with prior approval of the Council, after due notice and hearing.Article 20. The measure and limit of appropriation of water shall be beneficial use.Beneficial use of water is the utilization of water in the right amount during the period that the water is needed for producing the benefits for which the water is appropriated.Article 21. Standards of beneficial use shall be prescribed by the council for the appropriator of water for different purposes and conditions, and the use of waters which are appropriated shall be measured and controlled in accordance therewith.

Excepting for domestic use, every appropriator of water shall maintain water control and measuring devices, and keep records of water withdrawal. When required by the Council, all appropriators of water shall furnish information on water use.Article 22. Between two or more appropriators of water from the same sources of supply, priority in time of appropriation shall give the better right, except that in times of emergency the use of water for domestic and municipal purposes shall have a better right over all other uses; Provided, the where water shortage is recurrent and the appropriator for municipal use has a lower priority in time of appropriation, then it shall be his duty to find an alternative source of supply in accordance with conditions prescribed by the Council.Article 23. Priorities may be altered on grounds of greater beneficial use, multi-purpose use, and other similar grounds after due notice and hearing, subject to payment of compensation is proper cases.Article 24. A water right shall be exercised in such a manner that the rights of third persons or of other appropriators are not prejudiced thereby.Article 25. A holder of water permit may demand the establishment of easements necessary for the construction and maintenance of the works and facilities needed for the beneficial use of the waters to be appropriated subject to the requirements of just compensation and to the following conditions:

(a) That he is the owner, lessee, mortgagee or one having real right over the land upon which he proposes to use water; and(b) That the proposed easement is the most convenient and the least onerous to the servient estate.

Easements relating to the appropriation and use of waters may be modified by agreement of the contracting parties provided the same is not contrary to law or prejudicial to third persons.Article 26. Where water shortage is recurrent, the use of the water pursuant to a permit may, in the interest of equitable distribution of the benefits among legal appropriators, reduce after due notice and hearing.Article 27. Water users shall bear the diminution of any water supply due to natural causes or force majeure.Article 28. Water permits shall continue to be valid as long as water is beneficially used; however, it maybe suspended on the grounds of non-compliance with approved plans and specifications or schedules of water distribution; use of water for a purpose other than that for which it was granted; non-payment of water charges; wastage; failure to keep records of water diversion, when required; and violation of any term or condition of any permit or rules and regulations promulgated by the Council.Temporary permits may be issued for the appropriation and use of water for short periods under special circumstances.Article 29. Water permits may be revoked after due notice and hearing on grounds of non-use; gross violation of the conditions imposed in the permit; unauthorized sale of water; willful failure or refusal to comply with rules and regulations of any lawful order; pollution, public nuisance or acts detrimental to public health and safety; when the appropriator is found to be disqualified under the law to exploit and develop natural resources of the Philippines; when, in the case, of irrigation, the land is converted to non-agricultural purposes; and other similar grounds.Article 30. All water permits are subject to modification or cancellation by the council, after due notice and hearing, in favor of a project of greater beneficial use or for multi-purpose development, and a water permittee who suffers thereby shall be duly compensated by the entity or person in whose favor the cancellation was made.

CHAPTER IVUTILIZATION OF WATERS

Article 31. Preference in the development of water resources shall consider security of the State, multiple use, beneficial effects, adverse effects and costs of development.Article 32. The utilization of subterranean or ground water shall be coordinated with that of surface waters such as rivers, streams, springs and lakes, so that a superior right in one not adversely affected by an inferior right in the other.For this purpose the Council shall promulgate rules and regulations and declare the existence of control areas for the coordinated development, protection, and utilization of subterranean or ground water and surface waters.Control area is an area of land where subterranean or ground water and surface water are so interrelated that withdrawal and use in one similarly affects the other. The boundary of a control area may be altered from time to time, as circumstances warrant.

Article 33. Water contained in open canals, aqueducts or reservoirs of private persons may be used by any person for domestic purpose or for watering plants as long as the water is withdrawn by manual methods without checking the stream or damaging the canal, aqueduct or reservoir; Provided, That this right may be restricted by the owner should it result in loss or injury to him.Article 34. A water permittee or appropriator may use any watercourse to convey water to another point in the watercourse for the purpose stated in a permit and such water may be diverted or recaptured at that point by said permittee in the same amount less allowance for normal losses in transit.Article 35. Works for the storage, diversion, distribution and utilization of water resources shall contain adequate provision for the prevention and control of diseases that may be induced or spread by such works when required by the Council.Article 36. When the reuse of waste water is feasible, it shall be limited as much as possible, to such uses other than direct human consumption. No person or agency shall distribute such water for public consumption until it is demonstrated that such consumption will not adversely affect the health and safety of the public.Article 37. In the construction and operation of hydraulic works, due consideration shall be given to the preservation of scenic places and historical relics and, in addition to the provisions of existing laws, no works that would required the destruction or removal of such places or relics shall be undertaken without showing that the distribution or removal is necessary and unaviodable.Article 38. Authority for the construction of dams, bridges and other structures across of which may interfere with the flow of navigable or flotable waterways shall first be secured from the Department of Public Works, Transportation and Communications.Article 39. Except in cases of emergency to save life or property, the construction or repair of the following works shall be undertaken only after the plans and specifications therefor, as may be required by the Council, are approved by the proper government agency; dams for the diversion or storage of water; structures for the use of water power, installations for the utilization of subterranean or ground water and other structures for utilization of water resources.Article 40. No excavation for the purpose of emission of a hot spring or for the enlargement of the existing opening thereof shall be made without prior permit.Any person or agency who intends to develop a hot spring for human consumption must first obtain a permit from the Department of Health.Article 41. No person shall develop a stream, lake, or spring for recreational purposes without first securing a permit from the Council.Article 42. Unless-otherwise ordered by the President of the Philippines and only in time of national calamity or emergency, no person shall induce or restrain rainfall by any method such as cloud seeding without a permit from the proper government emergency.Article 43. No person shall raise or lower the water level of a river stream, lake, lagoon, or marsh nor drain the same without a permit.Article 44. Drainage systems shall be so constructed that their outlets are rivers, lakes, the sea, natural bodies of water, or such other water course as may be approved by the proper government agency.Article 45. When a drainage channel is constructed by a number of persons for their common benefit, the cost of construction and maintenance of the channel shall be borne by each in proportion to the benefits drived.Article 46. When artificial means are employed to drain water from higher to lower land, the owner of the higher land shall select the routes and methods of drainage that will cause the minimum damage to the lower lands, subject to the requirements of just compensation.Article 47. When the use, conveyance or storage of waters results in damage to another, the person responsible for the damage shall pay compensation.Article 48. When a water resources project interferes with the access of landowner to a portion of his property or with the conveyance of irrigation or drainage water, the person or agency constructing the project shall bear the cost of construction and maintenance of the bridges, flumes and other structures necessary for maintaining access, irrigation, or drainage, in addition to paying compensation for land and incidental damages.Article 49. Any person having an easement for an aqueduct may enter upon the servient land for the purpose of cleaning, repairing or replacing the aqueduct or the removal of obstructions therefrom.Article 50. Lower estates are obliged to receive the waters which naturally and without the intervention of man flow from the higher estate, as well as the stone or earth which they carry with them.The owner of the lower estate can not construct works which will impede this natural flow, unless he provides an alternative method of drainage; neither can the owner of the higher estate make works which will increase this natural flow.

(Easements)Article 51. The banks of rivers and streams and the shores of the seas and lakes throughout their entire length and within a zone of three (3) meters in urban areas, twenty (20) meters in agricultural areas and forty (40) meters in forest areas, along their margins are subject to the easement of public use in the interest of recreation, navigation, floatage, fishing and salvage. No person shall be allowed to stay in this zone longer than what is necessary for recreation, navigation, floatage, fishing or salvage or to build structures of any kind. Civil Code- Arts 504 – 647 (guys check your codals nalang, starting on WATERS)