IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR THE WRIT OF AMPARO AND THE WRIT OF HABEAS DATA IN

FAVOR OF MELISSA C. ROXAS, MELISSA C. ROXAS vs. GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO et al. G.R. No.
189155, September 7, 2010

FACTS: Petitioner, an American citizen of Filipino descent, filed a Petition for the Writs of Amparo and
Habeas Data before the Supreme Court. She alleged that while doing a volunteer work in La Paz, Tarlacm
she and her companions were abducted and tortured for five day. Petitioner impleaded public officials
occupying the uppermost echelons of the military and police hierarchy as respondents, on the belief that
it was government agents who were behind her abduction and torture. Compilation of Digested Cases for
a Resolution dated 9 June 2009, this Court issued the desired writs and referred the case to the Court of
Appeals for hearing, reception of evidence and appropriate action. CA granted the petition for issuance
of writ of habeas data. However, the Court of Appeals was not convinced that the military or any other
person acting under the acquiescence of the government, were responsible for the abduction and torture
of the petitioner. Petitioner contested the CA decision and filed a petitioner for review on certiorari.
Petitioner argues that (1) the manner by which her abduction and torture was carried out, as well as the
sounds of construction, gun-fire and airplanes that she heard while in detention, as these were detailed
in her two affidavits and affirmed by her in open court, are already sufficient evidence to prove
government involvement; and (2) petitioner invokes the doctrine of command responsibility to implicate
the high-ranking civilian and military authorities she impleaded as respondents in her amparo petition.

ISSUE: Whether or not a government officials may be impleaded as respondent in a writ of amparo on the
ground of command responsibility.

HELD: The answer is in the negative. The use by the petitioner of the doctrine of command responsibility
is legally inaccurate, if not incorrect. The doctrine of command responsibility is a rule of substantive law
that establishes liability and, by this account, cannot be a proper legal basis to implead a party-respondent
in an amparo petition

According to Fr. Bernas, "command responsibility," in its simplest terms, means the "responsibility of
commanders for crimes committed by subordinate members of the armed forces or other persons subject
to their control in international wars or domestic conflict." Since the application of command
responsibility presupposes an imputation of individual liability, it is more aptly invoked in a full-blown
criminal or administrative case rather than in a summary amparo proceeding. The obvious reason lies in
the nature of the writ itself. T

he writ of amparo is a protective remedy aimed at providing judicial relief consisting of the appropriate
remedial measures and directives that may be crafted by the court, in order to address specific violations
or threats of violation of the constitutional rights to life, liberty or security.

While the principal objective of its proceedings is the initial determination of whether an enforced
disappearance, extralegal killing or threats thereof had transpired—the writ does not, by so doing, fix
liability for such disappearance, killing or threats, whether that may be criminal, civil or administrative
under the applicable substantive law. The remedy provides rapid judicial relief as it partakes of a summary
proceeding that requires only substantial evidence to make the appropriate reliefs available to the
petitioner; it is not an action to determine criminal guilt requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt, or
liability for damages requiring preponderance of evidence, or administrative responsibility requiring
substantial evidence that will require full and exhaustive proceedings. It must be clarified, however, that
the inapplicability of the doctrine of command responsibility in an amparo proceeding does not, by any
measure, preclude impleading military or police commanders on the ground that the complained acts in
the petition were committed with their direct or indirect acquiescence. In which case, commanders may
be impleaded—not actually on the basis of command responsibility—but rather on the ground of their
responsibility, or at least accountability.

Responsibility refers to the extent the actors have been established by substantial evidence to have
participated in whatever way, by action or omission, in an enforced disappearance, as a measure of the
remedies this Court shall craft, among them, the directive to file the appropriate criminal and civil cases
against the responsible parties in the proper courts.

Accountability, on the other hand, refers to the measure of remedies that should be addressed to those
who exhibited involvement in the enforced disappearance without bringing the level of their complicity
to the level of responsibility defined above; or who are imputed with knowledge relating to the enforced
disappearance and who carry the burden of disclosure; or those who carry, but have failed to discharge,
the burden of extraordinary diligence in the investigation of the enforced disappearance.

Castillo v Cruz (2009) Gr No 182165

J. Morales

Facts:

Respondent Cruz spouses leased a parcel of land situated at Barrio Guinhawa, Malolos. They refused to
vacate the property, despite demands by the lessor Provincial Government of Bulacan which intended to
utilize it for local projects.

The local government filed charges in the MTC, which in turn decided against the spouses.

RTC affirmed the decision.

The spouses didn’t vacate and continued to file cases in the Malolos RTC. The court suspended the
demolition against the property, a determination of the property bounds, and a remanding of the case by
means of a writ of injunction.

The respondents filed a MFR in the MTC. The court ruled in their favor and issued another demolition
order.

In order to stop the demolition, the spouses parked container vans around the property.

Superintendent Castillo was told by the mayor to enter the property for maintaining its possession.

Respondents refused. The y filed for a Petition for a writ of amparo and habeas data in Malolos RTC

The same people claimed that the respondents entered the property forcefully with heavy
equipment and arrested them. RTC ruled in their favor.

Issue: Is the writ of amparo and habeas data the correct remedy for the spouses predicament?

Held: No. Petition dismissed

Ratio:

The Court is, under the Constitution, empowered to promulgate rules for the protection and enforcement
of constitutional rights.

As a response to extrajudicial killings, the court promulgated the Rule on the Writ of Amparo on Oct. 24,
2007 and the Rule on Habeas Data on 2008. This power was inherent in the Constitutional grant to the
courts to promulgate rules for human rights.

Definitions of the Writs:

a. Writ of Amparo- an available course of action “to any person whose right to life, liberty and security is
violated or threatened with violation by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or of
a private individual or entity”

b. Writ of Habeas Data- a course that can be taken when the “right to privacy in life, liberty or security is
violated or threatened by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee or of a private
individual or entity engaged in the gathering, collecting or storing of data or information regarding the
person”.

The limitation of the writs was in the protection of rights of life, liberty, and security.

Sec of National Defense v Manalo- limitation of the Amparo was to extralegal killings and enforced
disappearances.

There must be a violation of these rights by means of an unlawful act. There must be a connection
between the acts and effects of the aforementioned rights.

Tapuz v Del Rosario- “What it is not, is a writ to protect concerns that are purely property or
commercial. Neither is it a writ that we shall issue on amorphous and uncertain grounds.”

The same case states that the court will only issue the writ after determining the facts ‘ existence from
the supporting affidavits of thNotably, none of the supporting affidavits compellingly show that the threat
to the rights to life, liberty and security of the petitioners is imminent or continuing.”

There was no threat to the said rights by the petitioners use of force. They were only protecting property
rights. Their affidavit said: “Wala kaming nagawa ipagtanggol ang aming karapatan sa lupa na 45 years
naming “IN POSSESSION.”

Regarding habeas data, there was no allegation of the data collection requirement.

The writs cant be used to stall the execution of a property dispute decision.

The filing should have been barred after their arrest. This was due to the institution of criminal
proceedings running first. They may avail of the reliefs as a motion.

Obiter:

The filed the writs in the Sandiganbayan, but dismissed for form shopping and insufficiency.
In the Matter of Noriel Rodriguez
Facts:
Before this Court are two consolidated cases, namely, (1) Petition for Partial Review on
Certiorari dated 20 April 2010 (G.R. No. 191805), and (2) Petition for Review on Certiorari
dated 19 August 2010 (G.R. No. 193160).[1] Both
Petitions assail the 12 April 2010 Decision of the Court of Appeals, the dispositive portion of
which reads:
The above-named respondents are also DIRECTED to refrain from using the said reports in
any transaction or operation of the military. Necessarily, the afore-named respondents are
ORDERED to expunge from the records of the military all documents having any
reference... to petitioner.
Likewise, the afore-named respondents, as well as respondents Police Director General
Jesus Ame Versoza, Antonio Cruz, Aldwin Pasicolan and Vicente Callagan are DIRECTED
to ensure that no further violation of petitioner's rights to life, liberty and security is
committed... against the latter or any member of his family.
The petition is DISMISSED with respect to President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo on account
of her presidential immunity from suit. Similarly, the petition is DISMISSED with respect to
respondents Calog and George Palacpac or Harry for lack of merit.
Petitioner's prayer for issuance of a temporary protection order and inspection order is
DENIED.
Noriel Rodriguez (Rodriguez) is petitioner in G.R. No. 191805 and respondent in G.R. No.
193160. He is a member of Alyansa Dagiti Mannalon Iti Cagayan (Kagimungan), a peasant
organization affiliated with Kilusang Magbubukid ng Pilipinas (KMP).
On the other hand, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo (former President Arroyo), Police Director
General (PDG.) Jesus A. Verzosa, Police Senior Superintendent (P/SSupt.) Jude W.
Santos, Brigadier General (Brig. Gen.) Remegio M. De Vera, First Lieutenant (1st Lt.) Ryan
S. Matutina,... Lieutenant Colonel (Lt. Col.) Laurence E. Mina, Antonio C. Cruz (Cruz),
Aldwin C. Pasicolan (Pasicolan) and Vicente A. Callagan (Callagan) are respondents in
G.R. No. 191805 and petitioners in G.R. No. 193160. At the time the events relevant to the
present Petitions occurred,... former President Arroyo was the President of the Philippines.
PDG. Verzosa, P/SSupt. Santos, Brig. Gen. De Vera, 1st Lt. Matutina and Lt. Col. Mina
were officers of the Philippine National Police (PNP). Cruz, Pasicolan and Callagan were
Special Investigators of the Commission on
Human Rights (CHR) in Region II.
Antecedent Facts
Rodriguez claims that the military tagged KMP as an enemy of the State under the Oplan
Bantay Laya, making its members targets of extrajudicial killings and enforced
disappearances.
On 7 December 2009, Rodriguez filed before this Court a Petition for the Writ of Amparo
and Petition for the Writ of Habeas Data with Prayers for Protection Orders, Inspection of
Place, and Production of Documents and Personal Properties dated 2 December 2009.[26]
The petition was filed against former President Arroyo, Gen. Ibrado, PDG. Versoza, Lt. Gen.
Bangit, Major General (Maj. Gen.) Nestor Z. Ochoa, P/CSupt. Tolentino, P/SSupt. Santos,
Col. De Vera, 1st Lt. Matutina, Calog, George Palacpac (Palacpac), Cruz, Pasicolan... and
Callagan. The petition prayed for the following reliefs:... a. The issuance of the writ of
amparo ordering respondents to desist from violating Rodriguez's right to life, liberty and
security.
b. The issuance of an order to enjoin respondents from doing harm to or approaching
Rodriguez, his family and his witnesses.
c. Allowing the inspection of the detention areas of the Headquarters of Bravo Co., 5th
Infantry Division, Maguing, Gonzaga, Cagayan and another place near where Rodriguez
was brought.
d. Ordering respondents to produce documents submitted to them regarding any report on
Rodriguez, including operation reports and provost marshall reports of the 5th Infantry
Division, the Special Operations Group of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP), prior
to, on and... subsequent to 6 September 2009.
e. Ordering records pertinent or in any way connected to Rodriguez, which are in the
custody of respondents, to be expunged, disabused, and forever barred from being
used.[27
On 15 December 2009, we granted the respective writs after finding that the petition
sufficiently alleged that Rodriguez had been abducted, tortured and later released by
members of the 17th Infantry Battalion of the Philippine Army.[28] We likewise ordered...
respondents therein to file a verified return on the writs on or before 22 December 2009 and
to comment on the petition on or before 4 January 2010.[29] Finally, we directed the Court
of Appeals to hear the petition on 4 January 2010 and decide on the case... within 10 days
after its submission for decision.[30]
Issues:
Whether the interim reliefs prayed for by Rodriguez may be granted after the writs of
amparo and habeas data have already been issued in his favor.
Whether former President Arroyo should be dropped as a respondent on the basis of the
presidential immunity from suit.
Whether the doctrine of command responsibility can be used in amparo and habeas data
cases.
Whether the rights to life, liberty and property of Rodriguez were violated or threatened by
respondents in G.R. No. 191805.
b. Responsibility or accountability of former President Arroyo
The next question that must be tackled is whether Rodriguez has proven through
substantial evidence that former President Arroyo is responsible or accountable for his
abduction. We rule in the negative.
Ruling:
First issue: Grant of interim reliefs
In the petition in G.R. No. 191805, Rodriguez prays for the issuance of a temporary
protection order. It must be underscored that this interim relief is only available before final
judgment.
The Supreme Court shall accredit the persons and private institutions that shall extend
temporary protection to the petitioner or the aggrieved party and any member of the
immediate family, in accordance with guidelines which it shall issue.
The accredited persons and private institutions shall comply with the rules and conditions
that may be imposed by the court, justice or judge.
We held in Yano v. Sanchez[68] that "[t]hese provisional reliefs are intended to assist the
court before it arrives at a judicious determination of the amparo petition." Being interim
reliefs, they can only be granted before a final... adjudication of the case is made. In any
case, it must be underscored that the privilege of the writ of amparo, once granted,
necessarily entails the protection of the aggrieved party. Thus, since we grant petitioner the
privilege of the writ of amparo, there is no... need to issue a temporary protection order
independently of the former. The order restricting respondents from going near Rodriguez is
subsumed under the privilege of the writ.
Second issue: Presidential immunity from suit
In Estrada v. Desierto,[73] we clarified the doctrine that a non-sitting President does not
enjoy immunity from suit, even for acts committed during the latter's tenure. We emphasize
our ruling therein that courts should look with disfavor upon the... presidential privilege of
immunity, especially when it impedes the search for truth or impairs the vindication of a right
This is in accord with our ruling in In Re: Saturnino Bermudez that "incumbent Presidents
are immune from suit or from being brought to court during the period of their incumbency
and tenure" but not beyond.
It will be anomalous to hold that immunity is an inoculation from liability for unlawful acts
and omissions. The rule is that unlawful acts of public officials are not acts of the State and
the officer who acts illegally is not acting as such but stands in the... same footing as any
other trespasser.
Indeed, a critical reading of current literature on executive immunity will reveal a judicial
disinclination to expand the privilege especially when it impedes the search for truth or
impairs the vindication of a right.
Further, in our Resolution in Estrada v. Desierto,[75] we reiterated that the presidential
immunity from suit exists only in concurrence with the president's incumbency
Applying the foregoing rationale to the case at bar, it is clear that former President Arroyo
cannot use the presidential immunity from suit to shield herself from judicial scrutiny that
would assess whether, within the context of amparo proceedings, she was responsible or...
accountable for the abduction of Rodriguez.
Third issue: Command responsibility in amparo proceedings
To attribute responsibility or accountability to former President Arroyo, Rodriguez contends
that the doctrine of command responsibility may be applied. As we explained in Rubrico v.
Arroyo,[77] command responsibility pertains to the "responsibility... of commanders for
crimes committed by subordinate members of the armed forces or other persons subject to
their control in international wars or domestic conflict."[78] Although originally used for
ascertaining criminal complicity, the command... responsibility doctrine has also found
application in civil cases for human rights abuses
Thus, it is our... view that command responsibility may likewise find application in
proceedings seeking the privilege of the writ of amparo. As we held in Rubrico:
It may plausibly be contended that command responsibility, as legal basis to hold
military/police commanders liable for extra-legal killings, enforced disappearances, or
threats, may be made applicable to this jurisdiction on the theory that the command...
responsibility doctrine now constitutes a principle of international law or customary
international law in accordance with the incorporation clause of the Constitution.
If command responsibility were to be invoked and applied to these proceedings, it should, at
most, be only to determine the author who, at the first instance, is accountable for, and has
the duty to address, the disappearance and harassments complained of, so as to enable...
the Court to devise remedial measures that may be appropriate under the premises to
protect rights covered by the writ of amparo.
Precisely in the case at bar, the doctrine of command responsibility may be used to
determine whether respondents are accountable for and have the duty to address the
abduction of Rodriguez in order to enable the courts to devise remedial measures to protect
his rights.
As earlier pointed out, amparo proceedings determine (a) responsibility, or the extent the
actors have been established by substantial evidence to have participated in whatever way,
by action or omission, in an enforced disappearance, and (b) accountability, or the measure
of... remedies that should be addressed to those (i) who exhibited involvement in the
enforced disappearance without bringing the level of their complicity to the level of
responsibility defined above; or (ii) who are imputed with knowledge relating to the enforced
disappearance and... who carry the burden of disclosure; or (iii) those who carry, but have
failed to discharge, the burden of extraordinary diligence in the investigation of the enforced
disappearance. Thus, although there is no determination of criminal, civil or administrative
liabilities, the... doctrine of command responsibility may nevertheless be applied to ascertain
responsibility and accountability within these foregoing definitions.
a. Command responsibility of the President
Having established the applicability of the doctrine of command responsibility in amparo
proceedings, it must now be resolved whether the president, as commander-in-chief of the
military, can be held responsible or accountable for extrajudicial killings and enforced...
disappearances. We rule in the affirmative.
o hold someone liable under the doctrine of command responsibility, the following elements
must obtain:... the existence of a superior-subordinate relationship between the accused as
superior and the perpetrator of the crime as his subordinate;... the superior knew or had
reason to know that the crime was about to be or had been committed; and... the superior
failed to take the necessary and reasonable measures to prevent the criminal acts or punish
the perpetrators thereof.
The president, being the commander-in-chief of all armed forces,[85] necessarily possesses
control over the military that qualifies him as a superior within the purview of the command
responsibility doctrine. [86]
On the issue of knowledge, it must be pointed out that although international tribunals apply
a strict standard of knowledge, i.e., actual knowledge, such may nonetheless be established
through circumstantial evidence.[... eanwhile, as to the issue of failure to prevent or punish,
it is important to note that as the commander-in-chief of the armed forces, the president has
the power to effectively command, control and discipline the military.
Rodriguez anchors his argument on a general allegation that on the basis of the "Melo
Commission" and the "Alston Report," respondents in G.R. No. 191805 already had
knowledge of and information on, and should have known that a climate of enforced
disappearances had been... perpetrated on members of the NPA.[92] Without even
attaching, or at the very least, quoting these reports, Rodriguez contends that the Melo
Report points to rogue military men as the perpetrators. While the Alston Report states that
there is a policy... allowing enforced disappearances and pins the blame on the President,
we do not automatically impute responsibility to former President Arroyo for each and every
count of forcible disappearance.[93] Aside from Rodriguez's general averments, there is
no... piece of evidence that could establish her responsibility or accountability for his
abduction. Neither was there even a clear attempt to show that she should have known
about the violation of his right to life, liberty or security, or that she had failed to investigate,
punish... or prevent it.
Fourth issue: Responsibility or accountability of respondents in G.R. No. 191805
The fair and proper rule, to our mind, is to consider all the pieces of evidence adduced in
their totality, and to consider any evidence otherwise inadmissible under our usual rules to
be admissible if it is consistent with the admissible evidence... adduced. In other words, we
reduce our rules to the most basic test of reason i.e., to the relevance of the evidence to the
issue at hand and its consistency with all other pieces of adduced evidence.
In the case at bar, we find no reason to depart from the factual findings of the Court of
Appeals, the same being supported by substantial evidence. A careful examination of the
records of this case reveals that the totality of the evidence adduced by Rodriguez
indubitably prove... the responsibility and accountability of some respondents in G.R. No.
191805 for violating his right to life, liberty and security.
a. The totality of evidence proved by substantial evidence the responsibility or accountability
of respondents for the violation of or threat to Rodriguez's right to life, liberty and security.
After a careful examination of the records of these cases, we are convinced that the Court
of Appeals correctly found sufficient evidence proving that the soldiers of the 17th Infantry
Battalion, 5th Infantry Division of the military abducted Rodriguez on 6 September 2009,
and... detained and tortured him until 17 September 2009.
n assessing the weight of the Certifications, the Court of Appeals correctly relied on the
medical finding that the injuries suffered by Rodriguez matched his account of the
maltreatment inflicted on him by the soldiers of the 17th Infantry Battalion, 5th Infantry
Division of... the Philippine Army. Further, the kind of injuries he sustained showed that he
could not have sustained them from merely falling, thus making respondents' claim highly
implausible.
b. The failure to conduct a fair and effect investigation amounted to a violation of or threat
to Rodriguez's rights to life, liberty and securit... y.
The Rule on the Writ of Amparo explicitly states that the violation of or threat to the right to
life, liberty and security may be caused by either an act or an omission of a public official
In this regard, we emphasize our ruling in Secretary of National Defense v. Manalo[114] that
the right to security of a person includes the positive obligation of the government to ensure
the observance of the duty to investigate
Protection includes conducting effective investigations, organization of the government
apparatus to extend protection to victims of extralegal killings or enforced disappearances
(or threats thereof) and/or their... families, and bringing offenders to the bar of justice
Similarly, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has interpreted the "right to
security" not only as prohibiting the State from arbitrarily depriving liberty, but imposing a
positive duty on the State to afford protection of the right to liberty
In the instant case, this Court rules that respondents in G.R. No. 191805 are responsible or
accountable for the violation of Rodriguez's right to life, liberty and security on account of
their abject failure to conduct a fair and effective official investigation of his ordeal... in the
hands of the military. Respondents Gen. Ibrado, PDG. Verzosa, Lt. Gen. Bangit, Maj. Gen.
Ochoa, Col. De Vera and Lt. Col. Mina only conducted a perfunctory investigation, exerting
no efforts to take Ramirez's account of the events into consideration.
Clearly, the absence of a fair and effective official investigation into the claims of Rodriguez
violated his right to security, for which respondents in G.R. No. 191805 must be held
responsible or accountable.
Nevertheless, it must be clarified that Rodriguez was unable to establish any responsibility
or accountability on the part of respondents P/CSupt. Tolentino, P/SSupt. Santos, Calog
and Palacpac. Respondent P/CSupt. Tolentino had already retired when the abduction and
torture of
Rodriguez was perpetrated, while P/SSupt. Santos had already been reassigned and
transferred to the National Capital Regional Police Office six months before the subject
incident occurred. Meanwhile, no sufficient allegations were maintained against
respondents Calog and
Palacpac.
From all the foregoing, we rule that Rodriguez was successful in proving through substantial
evidence that respondents Gen. Ibrado, PDG. Verzosa, Lt. Gen. Bangit, Maj. Gen. Ochoa,
Brig. Gen. De Vera, 1st Lt. Matutina, and Lt. Col. Mina were responsible and accountable
for the... violation of Rodriguez's rights to life, liberty and security on the basis of (a) his
abduction, detention and torture from 6 September to 17 September 2009, and (b) the lack
of any fair and effective official investigation as to his allegations. Thus, the privilege of the
writs... of amparo and habeas data must be granted in his favor.
It is also clear from the above discussion that despite (a) maintaining former President
Arroyo in the list of respondents in G.R. No. 191805, and (b) allowing the application of the
command responsibility doctrine to amparo and habeas data proceedings, Rodriguez failed
to prove... through substantial evidence that former President Arroyo was responsible or
accountable for the violation of his rights to life, liberty and property.

ARIGO VS. SWIFT

FACTS:

While transiting the Sulu Sea, the USS Guardian, a US Navy ship, ran aground on the South Shoal of
Tubbataha Reefs, a restricted and marine protected area. The US Government provided compensation for
the damaged caused and undertook salvage operations to remove the grounded ship from the coral
reef.Petition: issuance of a Writ of Kalikasan with prayer for the issuance of a Temporary Environmental
Protection Order (TEPO) under Rule 7 of A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC, otherwise known as the Rules of Procedure
for Environmental Cases (Rules), involving violations of environmental laws and regulations in relation to
the grounding of the US military ship USS Guardian over the Tubbataha Reefs

ISSUE: Whether or not petitioners have legal standing.

Whether or not US respondents may be held liable for damages caused by USS Guardian.

Whether or not the waiver of immunity from suit under VFA applies in this case.

HELD:

First issue: YES.

Petitioners have legal standing

Locus standi is “a right of appearance in a court of justice on a given question.” Specifically, it is

“a party’s personal and substantial interest in a case where he has sustained or will sustain direct injury
as a result” of the act being challenged, and “calls for more than just a generalized grievance.” However,
the rule on standing is a procedural matter which this Court has relaxed for non-traditional plaintiffs like
ordinary citizens, taxpayers and legislators when the public interest so requires, such as when the subject
matter of the controversy is of transcendental importance, of overreaching significance to society, or of
paramount public interest.

In the landmark case of Oposa v. Factoran, Jr., we recognized the “public right” of citizens to “a
balanced and healthful ecology which, for the first time in our constitutional history, is solemnly
incorporated in the fundamental law.” We declared that the right to a balanced and healthful ecology
need not be written in the Constitution for it is assumed, like other civil and polittcal rights guaranteed in
the Bill of Rights, to exist from the inception of mankind and it is an issue of transcendental importance
with intergenerational implications. Such right carries with it the correlative duty to refrain from impairing
the environment.
 On the novel element in the class suit filed by the petitioners minors in Oposa, this Court ruled
that not only do ordinary citizens have legal standing to sue for the enforcement of environmental rights,
they can do so in representation of their own and future generations.

Second issue: YES.

The US respondents were sued in their official capacity as commanding officers of the US Navy
who had control and supervision over the USS Guardian and its crew. The alleged act or omission resulting
in the unfortunate grounding of the USS Guardian on the TRNP was committed while they were
performing official military duties. Considering that the satisfaction of a judgment against said officials will
require remedial actions and appropriation of funds by the US government, the suit is deemed to be one
against the US itself. The principle of State immunity therefore bars the exercise of jurisdiction by this
Court over the persons of respondents Swift, Rice and Robling.

During the deliberations, Senior Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio took the position that the
conduct of the US in this case, when its warship entered a restricted area in violation of R.A. No. 10067
and caused damage to the TRNP reef system, brings the matter within the ambit of Article 31 of the United
Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). He explained that while historically, warships enjoy
sovereign immunity from suit as extensions of their flag State, Art. 31 of the UNCLOS creates an exception
to this rule in cases where they fail to comply with the rules and regulations of the coastal State regarding
passage through the latter’s internal waters and the territorial sea.

In the case of warships, as pointed out by Justice Carpio, they continue to enjoy sovereign
immunity subject to the following exceptions:

Article 30: Non-compliance by warships with the laws and regulations of the coastal State

If any warship does not comply with the laws and regulations of the coastal State concerning passage
through the territorial sea and disregards any request for compliance therewith which is made to it, the
coastal State may require it to leave the territorial sea immediately.

Article 31: Responsibility of the flag State for damage caused by a warship or other government ship
operated for non-commercial purposes

The flag State shall bear international responsibility for any loss or damage to the coastal State resulting
from the non-compliance by a warship or other government ship operated for non-commercial purposes
with the laws and regulations of the coastal State concerning passage through the territorial sea or with
the provisions of this Convention or other rules of international law.

Article 32: Immunities of warships and other government ships operated for non-commercial purposes

With such exceptions as are contained in subsection A and in articles 30 and 31, nothing in this
Convention affects the immunities of warships and other government ships operated for non-commercial
purposes. A foreign warship’s unauthorized entry into our internal waters with resulting damage to
marine resources is one situation in which the above provisions may apply.

But what if the offending warship is a non-party to the UNCLOS, as in this case, the US?

According to Justice Carpio, although the US to date has not ratified the UNCLOS, as a matter of long-
standing policy the US considers itself bound by customary international rules on the “traditional uses of
the oceans” as codified in UNCLOS.

Moreover, Justice Carpio emphasizes that “the US refusal to join the UNCLOS was centered on its
disagreement with UNCLOS” regime of deep seabed mining (Part XI) which considers the oceans and deep
seabed commonly owned by mankind,” pointing out that such “has nothing to do with its the US’
acceptance of customary international rules on navigation.”

The Court also fully concurred with Justice Carpio’s view that non-membership in the UNCLOS does not
mean that the US will disregard the rights of the Philippines as a Coastal State over its internal waters and
territorial sea. We thus expect the US to bear “international responsibility” under Art. 31 in connection
with the USS Guardian grounding which adversely affected the Tubbataha reefs. Indeed, it is difficult to
imagine that our long-time ally and trading partner, which has been actively supporting the country’s
efforts to preserve our vital marine resources, would shirk from its obligation to compensate the damage
caused by its warship while transiting our internal waters. Much less can we comprehend a Government
exercising leadership in international affairs, unwilling to comply with the UNCLOS directive for all nations
to cooperate in the global task to protect and preserve the marine environment as provided in Article 197
of UNCLOS

Article 197: Cooperation on a global or regional basis

States shall cooperate on a global basis and, as appropriate, on a regional basis, directly or through
competent international organizations, in formulating and elaborating international rules, standards and
recommended practices and procedures consistent with this Convention, for the protection and
preservation of the marine environment, taking into account characteristic regional features.

In fine, the relevance of UNCLOS provisions to the present controversy is beyond dispute. Although the
said treaty upholds the immunity of warships from the jurisdiction of Coastal States while navigating the
latter’s territorial sea, the flag States shall be required to leave the territorial sea immediately if they flout
the laws and regulations of the Coastal State, and they will be liable for damages caused by their warships
or any other government vessel operated for non-commercial purposes under Article 31.
Third issue: NO.

The waiver of State immunity under the VF A pertains only to criminal jurisdiction and not to
special civil actions such as the present petition for issuance of a writ of Kalikasan. In fact, it can be inferred
from Section 17, Rule 7 of the Rules that a criminal case against a person charged with a violation of an
environmental law is to be filed separately.

The Court considered a view that a ruling on the application or non-application of criminal
jurisdiction provisions of the VFA to US personnel who may be found responsible for the grounding of the
USS Guardian, would be premature and beyond the province of a petition for a writ of Kalikasan.

The Court also found unnecessary at this point to determine whether such waiver of State
immunity is indeed absolute. In the same vein, we cannot grant damages which have resulted from the
violation of environmental laws. The Rules allows the recovery of damages, including the collection of
administrative fines under R.A. No. 10067, in a separate civil suit or that deemed instituted with the
criminal action charging the same violation of an environmental law.

MOST REV. PEDRO ARIGO VS SWIFT, et. al., Respondents.

G.R. No. 206510 September 16, 2014

PONENTE: Villarama

FACTS:

The USS Guardian is an Avenger-class mine countermeasures ship of the US Navy. In December
2012, the US Embassy in the Philippines requested diplomatic clearance for the said vessel “to enter and
exit the territorial waters of the Philippines and to arrive at the port of Subic Bay for the purpose of routine
ship replenishment, maintenance, and crew liberty.” On January 6, 2013, the ship left Sasebo, Japan for
Subic Bay, arriving on January 13, 2013 after a brief stop for fuel in Okinawa, Japan.

On January 15, 2013, the USS Guardian departed Subic Bay for its next port of call in Makassar,
Indonesia. On January 17, 2013 at 2:20 a.m. while transiting the Sulu Sea, the ship ran aground on the
northwest side of South Shoal of the Tubbataha Reefs, about 80 miles east-southeast of Palawan. No one
was injured in the incident, and there have been no reports of leaking fuel or oil.

Petitioners claim that the grounding, salvaging and post-salvaging operations of the USS
Guardian cause and continue to cause environmental damage of such magnitude as to affect the
provinces of Palawan, Antique, Aklan, Guimaras, Iloilo, Negros Occidental, Negros Oriental, Zamboanga
del Norte, Basilan, Sulu, and Tawi-Tawi, which events violate their constitutional rights to a balanced and
healthful ecology.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not petitioners have legal standing.

2. Whether or not US respondents may be held liable for damages caused by USS Guardian.

3. Whether or not the waiver of immunity from suit under VFA applies in this case.

HELD:

First issue: YES.

Petitioners have legal standing

Locus standi is “a right of appearance in a court of justice on a given question.” Specifically, it is

“a party’s personal and substantial interest in a case where he has sustained or will sustain direct injury
as a result” of the act being challenged, and “calls for more than just a generalized grievance.” However,
the rule on standing is a procedural matter which this Court has relaxed for non-traditional plaintiffs like
ordinary citizens, taxpayers and legislators when the public interest so requires, such as when the subject
matter of the controversy is of transcendental importance, of overreaching significance to society, or of
paramount public interest.

In the landmark case of Oposa v. Factoran, Jr., we recognized the “public right” of citizens to “a
balanced and healthful ecology which, for the first time in our constitutional history, is solemnly
incorporated in the fundamental law.” We declared that the right to a balanced and healthful ecology
need not be written in the Constitution for it is assumed, like other civil and polittcal rights guaranteed in
the Bill of Rights, to exist from the inception of mankind and it is an issue of transcendental importance
with intergenerational implications. Such right carries with it the correlative duty to refrain from impairing
the environment.

On the novel element in the class suit filed by the petitioners minors in Oposa, this Court ruled
that not only do ordinary citizens have legal standing to sue for the enforcement of environmental rights,
they can do so in representation of their own and future generations.

Second issue: YES.

The US respondents were sued in their official capacity as commanding officers of the US Navy
who had control and supervision over the USS Guardian and its crew. The alleged act or omission resulting
in the unfortunate grounding of the USS Guardian on the TRNP was committed while they were
performing official military duties. Considering that the satisfaction of a judgment against said officials will
require remedial actions and appropriation of funds by the US government, the suit is deemed to be one
against the US itself. The principle of State immunity therefore bars the exercise of jurisdiction by this
Court over the persons of respondents Swift, Rice and Robling.

During the deliberations, Senior Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio took the position that the
conduct of the US in this case, when its warship entered a restricted area in violation of R.A. No. 10067
and caused damage to the TRNP reef system, brings the matter within the ambit of Article 31 of the United
Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). He explained that while historically, warships enjoy
sovereign immunity from suit as extensions of their flag State, Art. 31 of the UNCLOS creates an exception
to this rule in cases where they fail to comply with the rules and regulations of the coastal State regarding
passage through the latter’s internal waters and the territorial sea.

In the case of warships, as pointed out by Justice Carpio, they continue to enjoy sovereign
immunity subject to the following exceptions:

Article 30: Non-compliance by warships with the laws and regulations of the coastal State

If any warship does not comply with the laws and regulations of the coastal State concerning passage
through the territorial sea and disregards any request for compliance therewith which is made to it, the
coastal State may require it to leave the territorial sea immediately.

Article 31: Responsibility of the flag State for damage caused by a warship or other government ship
operated for non-commercial purposes

The flag State shall bear international responsibility for any loss or damage to the coastal State resulting
from the non-compliance by a warship or other government ship operated for non-commercial purposes
with the laws and regulations of the coastal State concerning passage through the territorial sea or with
the provisions of this Convention or other rules of international law.

Article 32: Immunities of warships and other government ships operated for non-commercial purposes

With such exceptions as are contained in subsection A and in articles 30 and 31, nothing in this
Convention affects the immunities of warships and other government ships operated for non-commercial
purposes. A foreign warship’s unauthorized entry into our internal waters with resulting damage to
marine resources is one situation in which the above provisions may apply.

But what if the offending warship is a non-party to the UNCLOS, as in this case, the US?

According to Justice Carpio, although the US to date has not ratified the UNCLOS, as a matter of long-
standing policy the US considers itself bound by customary international rules on the “traditional uses of
the oceans” as codified in UNCLOS.

Moreover, Justice Carpio emphasizes that “the US refusal to join the UNCLOS was centered on its
disagreement with UNCLOS” regime of deep seabed mining (Part XI) which considers the oceans and deep
seabed commonly owned by mankind,” pointing out that such “has nothing to do with its the US’
acceptance of customary international rules on navigation.”

The Court also fully concurred with Justice Carpio’s view that non-membership in the UNCLOS does not
mean that the US will disregard the rights of the Philippines as a Coastal State over its internal waters and
territorial sea. We thus expect the US to bear “international responsibility” under Art. 31 in connection
with the USS Guardian grounding which adversely affected the Tubbataha reefs. Indeed, it is difficult to
imagine that our long-time ally and trading partner, which has been actively supporting the country’s
efforts to preserve our vital marine resources, would shirk from its obligation to compensate the damage
caused by its warship while transiting our internal waters. Much less can we comprehend a Government
exercising leadership in international affairs, unwilling to comply with the UNCLOS directive for all nations
to cooperate in the global task to protect and preserve the marine environment as provided in Article 197
of UNCLOS

Article 197: Cooperation on a global or regional basis

States shall cooperate on a global basis and, as appropriate, on a regional basis, directly or through
competent international organizations, in formulating and elaborating international rules, standards and
recommended practices and procedures consistent with this Convention, for the protection and
preservation of the marine environment, taking into account characteristic regional features.

In fine, the relevance of UNCLOS provisions to the present controversy is beyond dispute. Although the
said treaty upholds the immunity of warships from the jurisdiction of Coastal States while navigating the
latter’s territorial sea, the flag States shall be required to leave the territorial sea immediately if they flout
the laws and regulations of the Coastal State, and they will be liable for damages caused by their warships
or any other government vessel operated for non-commercial purposes under Article 31.

Third issue: NO.

The waiver of State immunity under the VF A pertains only to criminal jurisdiction and not to
special civil actions such as the present petition for issuance of a writ of Kalikasan. In fact, it can be inferred
from Section 17, Rule 7 of the Rules that a criminal case against a person charged with a violation of an
environmental law is to be filed separately.

The Court considered a view that a ruling on the application or non-application of criminal
jurisdiction provisions of the VFA to US personnel who may be found responsible for the grounding of the
USS Guardian, would be premature and beyond the province of a petition for a writ of Kalikasan.

The Court also found unnecessary at this point to determine whether such waiver of State
immunity is indeed absolute. In the same vein, we cannot grant damages which have resulted from the
violation of environmental laws. The Rules allows the recovery of damages, including the collection of
administrative fines under R.A. No. 10067, in a separate civil suit or that deemed instituted with the
criminal action charging the same violation of an environmental law.

RESIDENT MAMMALS VS REYES

ISSUE: Whether or not Service Contract No. 46 is violative of the 1987 Philippine Constitution and statutes
FACTS: Petitioners, collectively referred to as the "Resident Marine Mammals" in the petition, are the
toothed whales, dolphins, porpoises, and other cetacean species, which inhabit the waters in and around
the Tañon Strait. They are joined by Gloria Estenzo Ramos and Rose-Liza Eisma-Osorio as their legal
guardians and as friends (to be collectively known as "the Stewards") who allegedly empathize with, and
seek the protection of, the aforementioned marine species. Also impleaded as an unwilling co-petitioner
is former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, for her express declaration and undertaking in the ASEAN
Charter to protect the Tañon Strait, among others. On June 13, 2002, the Government of the Philippines,
acting through the DOE, entered into a Geophysical Survey and Exploration Contract-102 (GSEC-102) with
JAPEX. This contract involved geological and geophysical studies of the Tañon Strait. The studies included
surface geology, sample analysis, and reprocessing of seismic and magnetic data. JAPEX, assisted by DOE,
also conducted geophysical and satellite surveys, as well as oil and gas sampling in Tañon Strait. On
December 21, 2004, DOE and JAPEX formally converted GSEC-102 into SC-46 for the exploration,
development, and production of petroleum resources in a block covering approximately 2,850 square
kilometers offshore the Tañon Strait. JAPEX committed to drill one exploration well during the second
sub-phase of the project. On March 6, 2007, the EMB of DENR Region VII granted an ECC to the DOE and
JAPEX for the offshore oil and gas exploration project in Tañon Strait.14 Months later, on November 16,
2007, JAPEX began to drill an exploratory well, with a depth of 3,150 meters, near Pinamungajan town in
the western Cebu Province.15 This drilling lasted until February 8, 2008. The petitioners insist that SC-46
is null and void for having violated Section 2, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution.

DECISION: Granted

RATIO DECIDENDI: This Court has previously settled the issue of whether service contracts are still allowed
under the 1987 Constitution. In La Bugal, the Court held that the deletion of the words "service contracts"
in the 1987 Constitution did not amount to a ban on them per se. In fact, portions of the deliberations of
the members of the Constitutional Commission (ConCom) to show that in deliberating on paragraph 4,
Section 2, Article XII, they were actually referring to service contracts as understood in the 1973
Constitution, albeit with safety measures to eliminate or minimize the abuses prevalent during the martial
law regime. In summarizing the matters discussed in the ConCom, the Court established that paragraph
4, with the safeguards in place, is the exception to paragraph 1, Section 2 of Article XII. The following are
the safeguards this Court enumerated in La Bugal: Such service contracts may be entered into only with
respect to minerals, petroleum and other mineral oils. The grant thereof is subject to several safeguards,
among which are these requirements: (1) The service contract shall be crafted in accordance with a
general law that will set standard or uniform terms, conditions and requirements, presumably to attain a
certain uniformity in provisions and avoid the possible insertion of terms disadvantageous to the country.
(2) The President shall be the signatory for the government because, supposedly before an agreement is
presented to the President for signature, it will have been vetted several times over at different levels to
ensure that it conforms to law and can withstand public scrutiny. (3) Within thirty days of the executed
agreement, the President shall report it to Congress to give that branch of government an opportunity to
look over the agreement and interpose timely objections, if any.69cralawlawlibrary. Adhering to the
aforementioned guidelines, the Court finds that SC-46 is indeed null and void for noncompliance with the
requirements of the 1987 Constitution.
LNL Archipelago Minerals, Inc. v. Agham Party List G.R. No. 209165 April 12, 2016

Facts

LNL Archipelago Minerals, Inc. (LAMI) is the operator of a mining claim located in Sta. Cruz, Zambales. It
embarked on a project to build a private, non-commercial port in Brgy. Bolitoc, Sta. Cruz, Zambales. It is
about 25 kilometers away from the mine site.

Agham Party list filed a Petition for a Writ of Kalikasan with the Court of Appeals. The CA denied the
petition.

Issues

Whether LAMI violated the environmental laws: the Revised Forestry Code, and Philippine Mining Act;

Whether LAMI flattened any mountain and cause environmental damage of such magnitured as to
prejudice the life, health, property of inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces

Ruling

No. LAMI strictly followed the permit issued by CENRO and passed the evaluation conducted after the
issuance of the permit so it clearly had the authority to cut trees and did not violate Sec. 68 of the Revised
Forestry Code. The Philippine Mining Act is not applicable to the case since LAMI is not conducting
anything on the port site and it secured all the necessary permits and licenses for the construction of a
port and LAMI’s activity was limited to preparatory works for the port’s construction. The Philippine
Mining Act deals with mining operations and other mining activities.

2. No. The Respondent, in accusing that LAMI allegedly flattened a mountain, did not cite any law allegedly
violated by LAMI in relation to this claim. It did not present any proof to demonstrate that the local
residents in Zambales and those of the towns of Pangaisnan complained of any great danger or harm on
the alleged leveling of the land formation which may affect their lives, health, or properties. Neither was
there any evidence showing of a grave and real environmental damage to the barangay and the
surrounding vicinity.

The records of expert testimonies and government entities and offiicials also show that there is in fact no
mountain in Brgy. Bolitoc, Sta. Cruz, Zambales.

The Supreme Court agreed with the CA in denying the petition for a Writ of Kalikasan.

MMDA v. Concerned Residents of Manila Bay (CASE DIGEST)

GR No. 171947-48 18 December 2008

FACTS:

Respondents filed a complaint before the RTC against several government agencies, among them the
petitioners, for the cleanup, rehabilitation, and protection of the Manila Bay. The complaint alleged that
the water quality of the Manila Bay had fallen way below the allowable standards set by law, specifically
PD 1152. Respondents, as plaintiffs, prayed that petitioners be ordered to clean the Manila Bay and
submit to the RTC a concerted concrete plan of action for the purpose.

RTC rendered a Decision in favor of respondents, ordering the defendant-government agencies to clean
up and rehabilitate Manila Bay.

Petitioners, before the CA, argued that PD 1152 relates only to the cleaning of specific pollution incidents
and do not cover cleaning in general. Apart from raising concerns about the lack of funds, petitioners also
asserted that the cleaning of the Manila Bay is not a ministerial act, which can be compelled by mandamus.

The CA denied petitioners’ appeal and affirmed the Decision of the RTC in toto. Hence, this petition.

ISSUES:

1. Does PD 1152 include a cleanup in general or is it limited only to the cleanup of specific pollution
incidents?

2. Whether or not petitioners may be compelled by mandamus to clean up and rehabilitate the
Manila Bay?

RULING:

Issue 1:

PD 1152 does not in any way state that the government agencies concerned ought to confine themselves
to the containment, removal, and cleaning operations when a specific pollution incident occurs. The
underlying duty to upgrade the quality of water is not conditional on the occurrence of any pollution
incident.

Even assuming the absence of a categorical legal provision specifically prodding petitioners to clean up
the bay, they and the men and women representing them cannot escape their obligation to future
generations of Filipinos to keep the waters of the Manila Bay clean and clear as humanly as possible.

Issue 2:

Yes, petitioners may be compelled.

The MMDA’s duty in the area of solid waste disposal 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 characterised 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.

A perusal of other petitioners’ respective charters would yield to the conclusion that these government
agencies are enjoined, as a matter of statutory obligation, to perform certain functions relating directly
or indirectly to the cleanup, rehabilitation, protection, and preservation of the Manila Bay. They are
precluded from choosing not to perform these duties.

The petition is DENIED.

CASE DIGEST: BORACAY FOUNDATION, INC. v. THE PROVINCE OF AKLAN, et al.

FACTS: Boracay Island (Boracay), a tropical paradise located in the Western Visayas region of the
Philippines and one of the countrys most popular tourist destinations, was declared a tourist zone and
marine reserve in 1973 under Presidential Proclamation No. 1801. The island comprises the barangays of
Manoc-manoc, Balabag, and Yapak, all within the municipality of Malay, in the province of Aklan.

More than a decade ago, respondent Province built the Caticlan Jetty Port and Passenger Terminal at
Barangay Caticlan to be the main gateway to Boracay.It also built the corresponding Cagban Jetty Port
and Passenger Terminal to be the receiving end for tourists in Boracay. Respondent Province operates
both ports to provide structural facilities suited for locals, tourists and guests and to provide safety and
security measures.

Governor Marquez sent a letter to respondent PRA on March 12, 2009 expressing the interest of
respondent Province to reclaim about 2.64 hectares of land along the foreshores of Barangay Caticlan,
Municipality of Malay, Province of Aklan, pursuant to Resolution No. 13, s. 2008 issued by the Sangguniang
Barangay of Caticlan.

Sometime in April 2009, respondent Province entered into an agreement with the Financial
Advisor/Consultant that won in the bidding process held a month before, to conduct the necessary
feasibility study of the proposed project for the Renovation/Rehabilitation of the Caticlan Passenger
Terminal Building and Jetty Port, Enhancement and Recovery of Old Caticlan Coastline, and Reclamation
of a Portion of Foreshore for Commercial Purposes (the Marina Project), in Malay, Aklan.

Subsequently, on May 7, 2009, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of respondent Province issued Resolution
No. 2009110, which authorized Governor Marquez to file an application to reclaim the 2.64 hectares of
foreshore area in Caticlan, Malay, Aklan with respondent PRA.

Meanwhile, the Sangguniang Bayan of the Municipality of Malay expressed its strong opposition to the
intended foreshore lease application, through Resolution No. 044, approved on July 22, 2009, manifesting
therein that respondent Provinces foreshore lease application was for business enterprise purposes for
its benefit, at the expense of the local government of Malay, which by statutory provisions was the rightful
entity to develop, utilize and reap benefits from the natural resources found within its jurisdiction.

In August 2009, a Preliminary Geohazard Assessmentfor the enhancement/expansion of the existing

Caticlan Jetty Port and Passenger Terminal through beach zone restoration and Protective Marina
Developments in Caticlan, Malay, Aklan was completed.
Thereafter, Governor Marquez submitted an Environmental Performance Report and Monitoring Program
(EPRMP) to DENR-EMB RVI, which he had attached to his letter dated September 19, 2009, as an initial
step for securing an Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC). The letter reads in part:

With the project expected to start its construction implementation next month, the province hereby
assures your good office that it will give preferential attention to and shall comply with whatever
comments that you may have on this EPRMP.

Within the same month of October 2009, respondent Province deliberated on the possible expansion from
its original proposed reclamation area of 2.64 hectares to forty (40) hectares.

Respondent PRA approved the reclamation project on April 20, 2010 in its Resolution No. 4094and
authorized its General Manager/Chief Executive Officer (CEO) to enter into a MOA with respondent
Province for the implementation of the reclamation project.

On April 27, 2010, DENR-EMB RVI issued to respondent Province ECC-R6-1003-096-7100 (the questioned
ECC) for Phase 1 of the Reclamation Project to the extent of 2.64 hectares to be done along the Caticlan
side beside the existing jetty port.

On May 17, 2010, respondent Province entered into a MOA with respondent PRA.

In Resolution No. 046, Series of 2010, adopted on June 23, 2010, the Malay Municipality reiterated its
strong opposition to respondent Provinces project and denied its request for afavorableendorsement of
the Marina Project.

The Malay Municipality subsequently issued Resolution No. 016, Series of 2010, adopted on August 3,
2010, to request respondent PRA not to grant reclamation permit and notice to proceed to the Marina
Project of the respondent Provincial Government of Aklan located at Caticlan, Malay, Aklan.

In a letter dated October 12, 2010, petitioner informed respondent PRA of its opposition to the
reclamation project.
Petitioner likewise transmitted its Resolution No. 001, Series of 2010, registering its opposition to the
reclamation project to respondent Province, respondent PRA, respondent DENR-EMB, the National
Economic Development Authority Region VI, the Malay Municipality, and other concerned entities.

Petitioner alleges that despite the Malay Municipalitys denial of respondent Provinces request for
afavorableendorsement, as well as the strong opposition manifested both by Barangay Caticlan and
petitioner as an NGO, respondent Province still continued with the implementation of the Reclamation
Project.

On June 1, 2011, petitioner filed the instant Petition for Environmental Protection Order/Issuance of the
Writ of Continuing Mandamus. On June 7, 2011, this Court issued a Temporary Environmental Protection
Order (TEPO) and ordered the respondents to file their respective comments to the petition.

After receiving a copy of the TEPO on June 9, 2011, respondent Province immediately issued an order to
the Provincial Engineering Office and the concerned contractor to cease and desist from conducting any
construction activities until further orders from this Court.

ISSUES:

[1] Whether or not the petition should be dismissed for having been rendered moot and academic;

[2] Whether or not the petition is premature because petitioner failed to exhaust administrative remedies
before filing this case;

[3] 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 project;

[4] Whether or not respondent Province complied with all the requirements under the pertinent laws and
regulations; and

[5] Whether or not there was proper, timely, and sufficient public consultation for the project

HELD: 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.

We do not agree with respondents appreciation of the applicability of the rule on exhaustion of
administrative remedies in this case. We are reminded of our ruling in Pagara v. Court of Appeals, which
summarized our earlier decisions on the procedural requirement of exhaustion of administrative
remedies, to wit:

The rule regarding exhaustion of administrative remedies is not a hard and fast rule. It is not applicable:
(1) where the question in dispute is purely a legal one, or (2) where the controverted act is patently illegal
or was performed without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction; or (3) where the respondent is a
department secretary, whose acts as an alter ego of the President bear the implied or assumed approval
of the latter, unless actually disapproved by him, or (4) where there are circumstances indicating the
urgency of judicial intervention.

Said principle may also be disregarded when it does not provide a plain, speedy and adequate remedy,
when there is no due process observed, or where the protestant has no other recourse.

Although petitioner was not a party to the proceedings where the decision to issue an ECC was rendered,
it stands to be aggrieved by the decision, because it claims that the reclamation of land on the Caticlan
side would unavoidably adversely affect the Boracay side, where petitioners members own
establishments engaged in the tourism trade. As noted earlier, petitioner contends that the declared
objective of the reclamation project is to exploit Boracays tourism trade because the project is intended
to enhance support services thereto; however, this objective would not be achieved since the white-sand
beaches for which Boracay is famous might be negatively affected by the project. Petitioners conclusion
is that respondent Province, aided and abetted by respondents PRA and DENR-EMB RVI, ignored the spirit
and letter of our environmental laws, and should thus be compelled to perform their duties under said
laws.

***
The new Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases, A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC, provides a relief for petitioner
under the writ of continuing mandamus, which is a special civil action that may be availed of to compel
the performance of an act specifically enjoined by law and which provides for the issuance of a TEPO as
an auxiliary remedy prior to the issuance of the writ itself. The Rationale of the said Rules explains the
writ in this wise:

Environmental law highlights the shift in the focal-point from the initiation of regulation by Congress to
the implementation of regulatory programs by the appropriate government agencies.

Thus, a government agencys inaction, if any, has serious implications on the future of environmental law
enforcement. Private individuals, to the extent that they seek to change the scope of the regulatory
process, will have to rely on such agencies to take the initial incentives, which may require a judicial
component. Accordingly, questions regarding the propriety of an agencys action or inaction will need to
be analyzed.

This point is emphasized in the availability of the remedy of the writ of mandamus, which allows for the
enforcement of the conduct of the tasks to which the writ pertains: the performance of a legal duty.

The writ of continuing mandamus permits the court to retain jurisdiction after judgment in order to ensure
the successful implementation of the reliefs mandated under the courts decision and, in order to do this,
the court may compel the submission of compliance reports from the respondent government agencies
as well as avail of other means to monitor compliance with its decision.

Petitioner had three options where to file this case under the rule: the Regional Trial Court exercising
jurisdiction over the territory where the actionable neglect or omission occurred, the Court of Appeals, or
this Court.

Petitioner had no other plain, speedy, or adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law to determine the
questions of unique national and local importance raised here that pertain to laws and rules for
environmental protection, thus it was justified in coming to this Court.

3) 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; and

[4] The lack of comprehensive studies regarding the impact of the reclamation project to the environment.

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. These new constructions and their environmental effects were not covered by
the old studies that respondent Province previously submitted for the construction of the original jetty
port in 1999, and which it re-submitted in its application for ECC in this alleged expansion, instead of
conducting updated and more comprehensive studies.

Any impact on the Boracay side cannot be totally ignored, as Caticlan and Boracay are separated only by
a narrow strait. This becomes more imperative because of the significant contributions of Boracays white-
sand beach to the countrys tourism trade, which requires respondent Province to proceed with utmost
caution in implementing projects within its vicinity.

***

The Local Government Code establishes the duties of national government agencies in the maintenance
of ecological balance, and requires them to secure prior public consultation and approval of local
government units for the projects described therein.

In the case before us, the national agency involved is respondent PRA. Even if the project proponent is
the local government of Aklan, it is respondent PRA which authorized the reclamation, being the exclusive
agency of the government to undertake reclamation nationwide. Hence, it was necessary for respondent
Province to go through respondent PRA and to execute a MOA, wherein respondent PRAs authority to
reclaim was delegated to respondent Province. Respondent DENR-EMB RVI, regional office of the DENR,
is also a national government institution which is tasked with the issuance of the ECC that is a prerequisite
to projects covered by environmental laws such as the one at bar.
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.

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

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.

Moreover, DENR DAO 2003-30 provides:

5.3. ublic Hearing / Consultation Requirements

For 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 reportshall be validated by the EMB/EMB RD
and shall constitute part of the records of the EIA process.

In essence, the above-quoted rule shows that in cases requiring public consultations, the same should be
initiated early so that concerns of stakeholders could be taken into consideration in the EIA study. In this
case, respondent Province had already filed its ECC application before it met with the local government
units of Malay and Caticlan.
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 onFebruary 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.

It is clear that both petitioner and respondent Province are interested in the promotion of tourism in
Boracay and the protection of the environment, lest they kill the proverbial hen that lays the golden egg.
At the beginning of this decision, we mentioned that there are common goals of national significance that
are very apparent from both the petitioners and the respondents respective pleadings and memoranda.

As shown by the above provisions of our laws and rules, the speedy and smooth resolution of these issues
would benefit all the parties. Thus, respondent Provinces cooperation with respondent DENR-EMB RVI in
the Court-mandated review of the proper classification and environmental impact of the reclamation
project is of utmost importance.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is hereby PARTIALLY GRANTED. The TEPO issued by this
Court is hereby converted into a writ of continuing mandamus specifically as follows:

1. Respondent Department of Environment and Natural Resources-Environmental Management Bureau

Regional Office VI shall revisit and review the following matters:

a. its classification of the reclamation project as a single instead of a co-located project;

b. 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; and

c. the impact of the reclamation project to the environment based on new, updated, and comprehensive
studies, which should forthwith be ordered by respondent DENR-EMB RVI.

2. Respondent Province of Aklan shall perform the following:

a. fully cooperate with respondent DENR-EMB RVI in its review of the reclamation project proposal and
submit to the latter the appropriate report and study; and

b. secure approvals from local government units and hold proper consultations with non-governmental
organizations and other stakeholders and sectors concerned as required by Section 27 in relation to
Section 26 of the Local Government Code.
Respondent Philippine Reclamation Authority shall closely monitor the submission by respondent
Province of the requirements to be issued by respondent DENR-EMB RVI in connection to the
environmental concerns raised by petitioner, and shall coordinate with respondent Province in modifying
the MOA, if necessary, based on the findings of respondent DENR-EMB RVI.

The petitioner Boracay Foundation, Inc. and the respondents The Province of Aklan, represented by
Governor Carlito S. Marquez, The Philippine Reclamation Authority, and The DENR-EMB (Region VI) are
mandated to submit their respective reports to this Court regarding their compliance with the
requirements set forth in this Decision no later than three (3) months from the date of promulgation of
this Decision.

In the meantime, the respondents, their concerned contractor/s, and/or their agents, representatives or
persons acting in their place or stead, shall immediately cease and desist from continuing the
implementation of the project covered by ECC-R6-1003-096-7100 until further orders from this Court. For
this purpose, the respondents shall report within five (5) days to this Court the status of the project as of
their receipt of this Decision, copy furnished the petitioner.

MARICRIS D. DOLOT v. RAMON PAJE, GR No. 199199, 2013-08-27

Facts:

petitioner Maricris D. Dolot (Dolot), together with the parish priest of the Holy Infant Jesus Parish and the
officers of Alyansa Laban sa Mina sa Matnog (petitioners), filed a petition for continuing mandamus,
damages and attorney's fees with the

RTC of Sorsogon,... The petition contained the following pertinent allegations: (1) sometime in 2009, they
protested the iron ore mining operations being conducted by Antones Enterprises, Global Summit Mines
Development

Corporation and TR Ore in Barangays Balocawe and Bon-ot Daco, located in the Municipality of Matnog,
to no avail; (2) Matnog is located in the southern tip of Luzon and there is a need to protect, preserve and
maintain the geological foundation of the municipality; (3)

Matnog is susceptible to flooding and landslides, and confronted with the environmental dangers of flood
hazard, liquefaction, ground settlement, ground subsidence and landslide hazard; (4) after investigation,
they learned that the mining operators did not have the required... permit to operate; (5) Sorsogon
Governor Raul Lee and his predecessor Sally Lee issued to the operators a small-scale mining permit,
which they did not have authority to issue; (6) the representatives of the Presidential Management Staff
and the Department of Environment and
Natural Resources (DENR), despite knowledge, did not do anything to protect the interest of the people
of Matnog;[5] and (7) the respondents violated Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7076 or the People's Small-Scale
Mining Act of 1991, R.A. No. 7942 or the

Philippine Mining Act of 1995, and the Local Government Code.

Thus, they prayed for the following reliefs: (1) the issuance of a writ commanding the respondents to
immediately stop the mining operations in the Municipality of Matnog; (2) the issuance of... a temporary
environment protection order or TEPO; (3) the creation of an inter-agency group to undertake the
rehabilitation of the mining site; (4) award of damages; and (5) return of the iron ore, among others.[7]...
referred by the Executive Judge to the RTC of Sorsogon, Branch 53 being the designated environmental
court.

case was summarily dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration but it was denied in the Resolution

Aside from sustaining the dismissal of the case for lack of jurisdiction, the RTC[11] further ruled that: (1)
there was... no final court decree, order or decision yet that the public officials allegedly failed to act on,
which is a condition for the issuance of the writ of continuing mandamus; (2) the case was prematurely
filed as the petitioners therein failed to exhaust their... administrative remedies; and (3) they also failed
to attach judicial affidavits and furnish a copy of the complaint to the government or appropriate agency,
as required by the rules.[12]

Petitioner Dolot went straight to this Court on pure questions of law.

Issues:

m... main issue in this case is whether the RTC-Branch 53 has jurisdiction... whether the petition is
dismissible on the grounds that: (1) there is no final court decree, order or decision that the public officials
allegedly... failed to act on; (2) the case was prematurely filed for failure to exhaust administrative
remedies; and (3) the petitioners failed to attach judicial affidavits and furnish a copy of the complaint to
the government or appropriate agency.

Ruling:

The RTC cannot solely rely on SC A.O. No. 7 and Admin. Circular No. 23-2008 and confine itself within its
four corners in determining whether it had jurisdiction over the action filed by the petitioners.

At most, the error committed by the petitioners in filing the case with the RTC of Sorsogon was that of
improper venue.

special civil action for continuing mandamus... shall be filed with the "[RTC] exercising jurisdiction over
the territory where the actionable neglect or omission occurred x x x."

In this case, it appears that the alleged actionable neglect or omission occurred in the Municipality of
Matnog... and as such, the petition should have been filed in the RTC of Irosin.[24] But even then, it does
not warrant the outright dismissal of the petition by the RTC as venue may be waived.

Moreover, the action filed by the petitioners... is not criminal in nature where venue is an essential
element of jurisdiction.
A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC: Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases

In its Resolution dated October 18, 2011, which resolved the petitioners' motion for reconsideration of
the order of dismissal, the RTC further ruled that the petition was dismissible on the following grounds:
(1) there is no final court decree, order or decision yet that the... public officials allegedly failed to act on;
(2) the case was prematurely filed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies; and (3) there was failure
to attach judicial affidavits and furnish a copy of the complaint to the government or appropriate agency.

concept of continuing mandamus was first introduced in Metropolitan Manila Development Authority v.
Concerned Residents of Manila Bay.

he writ of continuing mandamus enjoys a... distinct procedure than that of ordinary civil actions for the
enforcement/violation of environmental laws, which are covered by Part II (Civil Procedure)

Similar to the procedure under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court for special civil actions for certiorari,
prohibition... and mandamus, Section 4, Rule 8 of the Rules requires that the petition filed should be
sufficient in form and substance before a court may take further action; otherwise, the court may dismiss
the petition outright. Courts must be cautioned, however, that the... determination to give due course to
the petition or dismiss it outright is an exercise of discretion that must be applied in a reasonable manner
in consonance with the spirit of the law and always with the view in mind of seeing to it that justice is
served.

Sufficiency in form and substance refers to the contents of the petition filed under Rule 8, Section 1:

When any agency or instrumentality of the government or officer thereof unlawfully neglects the
performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust or station
in connection with the enforcement or violation of an... environmental law rule or regulation or a right
therein, or unlawfully excludes another from the use or enjoyment of such right and there is no other
plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, the person aggrieved thereby may file
a verified petition in the... proper court, alleging the facts with certainty, attaching thereto supporting
evidence, specifying that the petition concerns an environmental law, rule or regulation, and praying that
judgment be rendered commanding the respondent to do an act or series of acts until the... judgment is
fully satisfied, and to pay damages sustained by the petitioner by reason of the malicious neglect to
perform the duties of the respondent, under the law, rules or regulations. The petition shall also contain
a sworn certification of non-forum... shopping.

On matters of form, the petition must be verified and must contain supporting evidence as well as a sworn
certification of non-forum shopping. It is also necessary that the petitioner must be one who is aggrieved
by an act or omission of the government agency, instrumentality or... its officer concerned

.S

Sufficiency of substance, on the other hand, necessitates that the petition must contain substantive
allegations specifically constituting an actionable neglect or omission and must establish, at the very least,
a prima facie basis for the issuance... of the writ, viz: (1) an agency or instrumentality of government or
its officer unlawfully neglects the performance of an act or unlawfully excludes another from the use or
enjoyment of a right; (2) the act to be performed by the government agency, instrumentality or its...
officer is specifically enjoined by law as a duty; (3) such duty results from an office, trust or station in
connection with the enforcement or violation of an environmental law, rule or regulation or a right
therein; and (4) there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy... in the course of law.

the Panel has jurisdiction over mining disputes

But the petition filed below does not involve a mining dispute. What was being protested are the alleged
negative environmental impact of the small-scale mining... operation being conducted by Antones
Enterprises, Global Summit Mines Development Corporation and TR Ore in the Municipality of Matnog;
the authority of the Governor of Sorsogon to issue mining permits in favor of these entities; and the
perceived indifference of the DENR and... local government officials over the issue.

Resolution of these matters does not entail the technical knowledge and expertise of the members of the
Panel but requires an exercise of judicial function.

Court also finds that the RTC erred in ruling that the petition is infirm for failure to attach judicial affidavits.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Order dated September 16, 2011 and Resolution dated
October 18, 2011 issued by the Regional Trial Court of Sorsogon, Branch 53, dismissing Civil Case No. 2011-
8338 are NULLIFIED AND SET ASIDE. The Executive Judge of... the Regional Trial Court of Sorsogon is
DIRECTED to transfer the case to the Regional Trial Court of Irosin, Branch 55, for further proceedings with
dispatch. Petitioner Maricris D. Dolot is also ORDERED to furnish the respondents with a copy of the
petition and... its annexes within ten (10) days from receipt of this Decision and to submit its Compliance
with the RTC of Irosin.

Principles:

writ of continuing mandamus is a special civil action that may be availed of "to compel the performance
of an act specifically enjoined by law."[33] The petition should mainly involve an environmental and other
related law, rule or regulation... or a right therein.

Continuing mandamus is a writ issued by a court in an environmental case directing any agency or
instrumentality of the government or officer thereof to perform an act or series of acts decreed by final
judgment which shall remain effective until... judgment is fully satisfied. (Emphasis ours)

WEST TOWER CONDOMINIUM CORPORATION v. FIRST PHILIPPINE INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION, GR No.

194239, 2015-06-16

Facts:

Respondent FPIC operates two pipelines since 1969, viz: (1) the White Oil Pipeline (WOPL) System, which
covers a 117-kilometer stretch from Batangas to the Pandacan Terminal in Manila and transports diesel,
gasoline, jet fuel and kerosene; and (b) the Black Oil

Pipeline (BOPL) System, which extends 105 kilometers and transports bunker fuel from Batangas to a
depot in Sucat, Parañaque. These systems transport nearly 60% of the petroleum requirements of Metro
Manila and parts of the provinces of Bulacan, Laguna, and Rizal.

In May 2010, however, a leakage from one of the pipelines was suspected after the residents of West
Tower Condominium (WestTower) started to smell gas within the condominium. A search made on July
10, 2010 within the condominium premises led to the discovery of a fuel leak from... the wall of its
Basement 2. Owing to its inability to control the flow, WestTower’s management reported the matter to
the Police Department of Makati City, which in turn called the city’s Bureau of Fire Protection.

What started as a two-drum leak at the initial stages became a 15-20 drum a day affair. Eventually, the
sump pit of the condominium was ordered shut down by the City of Makati to prevent the discharge of
contaminated water into the drainage system of Barangay Bangkal.

Eventually, the fumes compelled the residents of WestTower to abandon their respective units on July 23,
2010 and the condo’s power was shut down.

On November 15, 2010, West Tower Condominium Corporation (West Tower Corp.) interposed the
present Petition for the Issuance of a Writ of Kalikasan on behalf of the residents of West Tower and in
representation of the surrounding communities in Barangay Bangkal, Makati

City. West Tower Corp. also alleged that it is joined by the civil society and several people’s organizations,
non-governmental organizations and public interest groups who have expressed their intent to join the
suit because of the magnitude of the environmental issues... involved.[1]

On November 19, 2010, the Cou... rt issued the Writ of Kalikasan[2] with a Temporary Environmental
Protection Order (TEPO) requiring respondents FPIC, FGC, and the members o... f their Boards of Directors
to file their respective verified returns. The TEPO... enjoined FPIC and FGC to: (a) cease and desist from
operating the WOPL until further orders; (b) check the structural integrity of the whole span of the 117-
kilometer WOPL while implementing sufficient measures to prevent and avert any untoward incident that
may result from any... leak of the pipeline; and (c) make a report thereon within 60 days from receipt
thereof.

Meanwhile, on January 18, 2011, FGC and the members of its Board of Directors and Officers filed a Joint
Compliance[5] submitting the report required by the Writ of Kalikasan/TEPO. They contended that they
neither own nor operate the pipelines,... adding that it is impossible for them to report on the structural
integrity of the pipelines, much less to cease and desist from operating them as they have no capability,
power, control or responsibility over the pipelines. They, thus, prayed that the directives of the Writ of

Kalikasan/TEPO be considered as sufficiently performed, as to them.

On January 21, 2011, FPIC, in compliance with the writ, submitted its 4-page “Report on Pipeline Integrity
Check and Preventive Maintenance Program.”

Since after the Court’s issuance of the Writ of Kalikasan and the TEPO on November 19, 2010, FPIC has
ceased operations on both the WOPL and the BOPL. On May 31, 2011, however, the Court, answering a
query of the DOE, clarified and confirmed that what is covered by the

Writ of Kalikasan and TEPO is only the WOPL System of FPIC; thus, FPIC can resume operation of its BOPL
System.

To expedite the resolution of the controversy, the Court remanded the case to the Court of Appeals (CA).
By this Court’s Resolution dated November 22, 2011,[14] the appellate court was required to conduct
hearings and, thereafter, submit a report and... recommendation within 30 days after the receipt of the
parties’ memoranda.
On January 11, 2013, petitioners filed their Motion for Partial Reconsideration[19] of the CA’s Report
praying that (a) instead of the DOE, the required certification should be issued by the DOST-Metal Industry
Research and Development Center; (b) a trust... fund be created to answer for future contingencies; and
(c) the directors and officers of FPIC and FGC be held accountable.

On July 30, 2013, the Court issued a Resolution adopting the recommendation of the CA in its Report and
Recommendation that FPIC be ordered to secure a certification from the DOE Secretary before the WOPL
may resume its operations.

Having received the October 25, 2013 Certification and the August 5, 2014 Letter from the DOE on the
state of the WOPL, as well as the parties’ comments thereon, the following issues defined by the parties
during the March 21, 2012 preliminary conference are now ripe for... adjudication

Issues:

Whether petitioner West Tower Corp. has the legal capacity to represent the other petitioners and
whether the other petitioners, apart from the residents of West Tower and Barangay Bangkal, are real
parties-in-interest;

Whether a Permanent Environmental Protection Order should be issued to direct the respondents to
perform or to desist from performing acts in order to protect, preserve, and rehabilitate the affected
environment;

Whether a special trust fund should be opened by respondents to answer for future similar contingencies;
and

Whether FGC and the directors and officers of respondents FPIC and FGC may be held liable under the
environmental protection order.

Ruling:

Residents of West Tower and Barangay Bangkal

As defined, a real party-in-interest is the party who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in
the suit, or the party entitled to the avails of the suit.[39] Generally, every action must be prosecuted or
defended in the name of the real... parties-in-interest.[40] In other words, the action must be brought by
the person who, by substantive law, possesses the right sought to be enforced.[41] Alternatively, one who
has no right or interest to protect cannot invoke the... jurisdiction of the court as party-plaintiff-in-action
for it is jurisprudentially ordained that every action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the
real party-in-interest.

In the case at bar, there can be no quibble that the oil leak from the WOPL affected all the condominium
unit owners and residents of West Tower as, in fact, all had to evacuate their units at the wee hours in
the morning of July 23, 2010, when the condominium’s electrical power... was shut down. Until now, the
unit owners and residents of West Tower could still not return to their condominium units. Thus, there is
no gainsaying that the residents of West Tower are real parties-in-interest.

There can also be no denying that West Tower Corp. represents the common interest of its unit owners
and residents, and has the legal standing to file and pursue the instant petition. While a condominium
corporation has limited powers under RA 4726, otherwise known as The
Condominium Act,[43] it is empowered to pursue actions in behalf of its members. In the instant case, the
condominium corporation is the management body of West Tower and deals with everything that may
affect some or all of the condominium unit owners or... users.

Organizations that indicated their intention to join the petition and submitted proof of juridical
personality

Anent the propriety of including the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines, Kilusang
Makabansang Ekonomiya, Inc., Women’s Business Council of the Philippines, Inc., Junior Chambers
International Philippines, Inc. – San Juan Chapter, Zonta Club of Makati Ayala

Foundations, and the Consolidated Mansions Condominium Corporation, as petitioners in the case, the
Court already granted their intervention in the present controversy in the adverted July 30, 2013
Resolution.

This is so considering that the filing of a petition for the issuance of a writ of kalikasan under Sec. 1, Rule
7[45] of the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases does not require that a petitioner be directly
affected by an environmental... disaster. The rule clearly allows juridical persons to file the petition on
behalf of persons whose constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology is violated, or threatened
with violation.

Thus, as parties to the case, they are entitled to be furnished copies of all the submissions to the Court,
including the periodic reports of FPIC and the results of the evaluations and tests conducted on the WOPL.

Having disposed of the procedural issue, We proceed to the bone of contention in the pending motions.
Suffice it to state in the outset that as regards the substantive issues presented, the Court, likewise,
concurs with the other recommendations of the CA, with a few... modifications.

II.

Propriety of Converting the TEPO to PEPO or its Lifting in light of the DOE Certification of the WOPL’s
Commercial Viability

To recall, petitioners’ persistent plea is for the conversion of the November 19, 2010 TEPO into a
Permanent Environmental Protection Order (PEPO) pursuant to Sec. 3,[46] Rule 5 of the Rules of
Procedure for Environmental Cases. For its part, respondent

FPIC asserts that regular testing, as well as the measures that are already in place, will sufficiently address
any concern of oil leaks from the WOPL.

With respect to leak detection, FPIC claims that it has in place the following systems: (a) regular cleaning
scraper runs, which are done quarterly; (b) pipeline integrity gauge (PIG) tests/Intelligent PIG, now known
as in-line inspections (ILI), which is done every five years;

(c) pressure monitoring valves; and (d) 24-hour patrols. Additionally, FPIC asserted that it also undertook
the following: (a) monitoring of wells and borehole testing/vapor tests; (b) leak tightness test, also known
as segment pressure test; (c) pressure-controlled test; (d)... inspection and reinforcement of patches; (e)
inspection and reinforcement of dents; and (f) Pandacan segment replacement.[47] Furthermore, in
August 2010, with the oil leak hogging the headlines, FPIC hired NDT Middle East FZE (NDT) to conduct
ILI... inspections through magnetic flux leakage (MFL) and ultrasonic tests to, respectively, detect wall
thinning of the pipeline and check it for cracks.

The CA, however, observed that all of these tests and measures are inconclusive and insufficient for
purposes of leak detection and pipeline integrity maintenance. Hence, considering the necessary caution
and level of assurance required to ensure that the WOPL system is free... from leaks and is safe for
commercial operation, the CA recommended that FPIC obtain from the DOE a certification that the WOPL
is already safe for commercial operation. This certification, according to the CA, was to be issued with due
consideration of the adoption by FPIC of... the appropriate leak detection systems to monitor sufficiently
the entire WOPL and the need to replace portions of the pipes with existing patches and sleeves. Sans the
required certification, use of the WOPL shall remain abated.

The Court found this recommendation of the appellate court proper. Hence, We required FPIC to obtain
the adverted DOE Certification in Our July 30, 2013 Resolution. We deemed it proper to require said
certification from the DOE considering that the core issue of this case... requires the specialized knowledge
and special expertise of the DOE and various other administrative agencies. On October 25, 2013, the DOE
submitted the certification pursuant to the July 30, 2013 Resolution of the Court. Later, however, on
August 5, 2014, DOE Secretary Carlos

Jericho I. Petilla submitted a letter recommending certain activities and the timetable for the resumption
of the WOPL operations after conducting a dialogue between the concerned government agencies and
FPIC.

After a perusal of the recommendations of the DOE and the submissions of the parties, the Court adopts
the activities and measures prescribed in the DOE letter dated August 5, 2014 to be complied with by FPIC
as conditions for the resumption of the commercial operations of... the WOPL. The DOE should, therefore,
proceed with the implementation of the tests proposed in the said August 5, 2014 letter. Thereafter, if it
is satisfied that the results warrant the immediate reopening of the WOPL, the DOE shall issue an order
allowing FPIC to resume the... operation of the WOPL. On the other hand, should the probe result in a
finding that the pipeline is no longer safe for continued use and that its condition is irremediable, or that
it already exceeded its serviceable life, among others, the closure of the WOPL may be... ordered.

It must be stressed that what is in issue in the instant petition is the WOPL’s compliance with pipeline
structure standards so as to make it fit for its purpose, a question of fact that is to be determined on the
basis of the evidence presented by the parties on the WOPL’s... actual state. Hence, Our consideration of
the numerous findings and recommendations of the CA, the DOE, and the amici curiae on the WOPL’s
present structure, and not the cited pipeline incidents as the dissent propounds.

Consider also the fact that it is the DOE itself that imposed several conditions upon FPIC for the resumption
of the operations of the WOPL. This, coupled with the submission by the DOE of its proposed activities
and timetable, is a clear and unequivocal message coming from the

DOE that the WOPL’s soundness for resumption of and continued commercial operations is not yet fully
determined. And it is only after an extensive determination by the DOE of the pipeline’s actual physical
state through its proposed activities, and not merely through a... short-form integrity audit,[56] that the
factual issue on the WOPL’s viability can be settled. The issue, therefore, on the pipeline’s structural
integrity has not yet been rendered moot and remains to be subject to this Court’s resolution.
Consequently, We cannot say that the DOE’s issuance of the certification adverted to equates to the writ
of kalikasan being functus officio at this point.

Propriety of the Creation of a Special Trust Fund

Anent petitioners’ prayer for the creation of a special trust fund, We note that under Sec. 1, Rule 5 of the
Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases, a trust fund is limited solely for the purpose of rehabilitating
or restoring the environment.

A reading of the petition and the motion for partial reconsideration readily reveals that the prayer is for
the creation of a trust fund for similar future contingencies.This is clearly outside the limited purpose of a
special trust fund under the Rules of Procedure for

Environmental Cases, which is to rehabilitate or restore the environment that has presumably already
suffered. Hence,the Court affirms with concurrence the observation of the appellate court that the prayer
is but a claim for damages, which is prohibited by the Rules of

Procedure for Environmental Cases. As such, the Court is of the considered view that the creation of a
special trust fund is misplaced.

The present ruling on petitioners’ prayer for the creation of a special trust fund in the instant recourse,
however, is without prejudice to the judgment/s that may be rendered in the civil and/or criminal cases
filed by petitioners arising from the same incident if the payment... of damages is found warranted.

Liability of FPIC, FGC and their respective Directors and Officers

On the last issue of the liability of FPIC, FGC and the

IV.

Liability of FPIC, FGC and their respective Directors and Officers

On the last issue of the liability of FPIC, FGC and their respective directors and officers, the CA found FGC
not liable under the TEPO and, without prejudice to the outcome of the civil case (Civil Case No. 11-256,
RTC, Branch 58 in Makati City) and criminal complaint

(Complaint-Affidavit for Reckless Imprudence, Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Makati City) filed
against them, the individual directors and officers of FPIC and FGC are not liable in their individual
capacities.

The Court will refrain from ruling on the finding of the CA that the individual directors and officers of FPIC
and FGC are not liable due to the explicit rule in the Rules of Procedure for Environmental cases that in a
petition for a writ of kalikasan,the Court cannot... grant the award of damages to individual petitioners
under Rule 7, Sec. 15(e) of the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases. As duly noted by the CA, the
civil case and criminal complaint filed by petitioners against respondents are the proper proceedings to
ventilate and... determine the individual liability of respondents, if any, on their exercise of corporate
powers and the management of FPIC relative to the dire environmental impact of the dumping of
petroleum products stemming from the leak in the WOPL in Barangay Bangkal, Makati City.

Hence, the Court will not rule on the alleged liability on the part of the FPIC and FGC officials which can,
however, be properly resolved in the civil and criminal cases now pending against them.
Principles:

Said proviso... pertinently provides:

SEC. 1. Reliefs in a citizen suit. – If warranted, the court may grant to the plaintiff proper reliefs which shall
include the protection, preservation or rehabilitation of the environment and the payment of attorney’s
fees, costs of suit and other litigation... expenses. It may also require the violator to submit a program of
rehabilitation or restoration of the environment, the costs of which shall be borne by the violator, or to
contribute to a special trust fund for that purpose subject to the control of the... court. (emphasis
supplied)

Furthermore, Sec. 15(e), Rule 7 of the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases expressly prohibits the
grant of damages to petitioners in a petition for the issuance of a writ of kalikasan, viz:

Section 15. Judgment. - Within sixty (60) days from the time the petition is submitted for decision, the
court shall render judgment granting or denying the privilege of the writ of kalikasan.

The reliefs that may be granted under the writ are the following:

(e) Such other reliefs which relate to the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology or to the
protection, preservation, rehabilitation or restoration of the environment, except the award of damages
to individual petitioners.

The CA’s resolution on petitioners’ September 9, 2011 Manifestation (Re: Current Developments) with
Omnibus Motion on the remediation plan in Barangay Bangkal by directing the Inter-Agency Committee
on Environmental Health to submit its evaluation of the said plan prepared by

CH2M Philippines, Inc., for FPIC to strictly comply with the stipulations embodied in the permits issued by
the DENR, and to get a certification from the DENR of its compliance thereto is well taken. DENR is the
government agency tasked to implement the state policy of

“maintaining a sound ecological balance and protecting and enhancing the quality of the
environment”[57] and to “promulgate rules and regulations for the control of water, air, and land
pollution.”[58] It is indubitable that the DENR... has jurisdiction in overseeing and supervising the
environmental remediation of Barangay Bangkal, which is adversely affected by the leak in the WOPL in
2010.

With regard to petitioners’ March 29, 2012 Supplemental Manifestation about a recent possible leak in
the pipeline, the CA appropriately found no additional leak. However, due to the devastating effect on the
environs in Barangay Bangkal due to the 2010 leak, the Court finds it... fitting that the pipeline be closely
and regularly monitored to obviate another catastrophic event which will prejudice the health of the
affected people, and to preserve and protect the environment not only for the present but also for the
future generations to come.

Petitioner’s January 10, 2013 Motion for Partial Recommendation of the CA’s Report need not be
discussed and given consideration. As the CA’s Report contains but the appellate court’s recommendation
on how the issues should be resolved, and not the adjudication by this

Court, there is nothing for the appellate court to reconsider.

As to petitioner’s October 2, 2013 Motion for Reconsideration with Motion for Clarification, the matters
contained therein have been considered in the foregoing discussion of the primary issues of this case.
With all these, We need not belabor the other arguments raised by the... parties.