171178-2015-West Tower Condominium Corp. v. First Phil.20210423-12-12fjbat
171178-2015-West Tower Condominium Corp. v. First Phil.20210423-12-12fjbat
DECISION
VELASCO, JR., J : p
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
In their petition, petitioners prayed that respondents FPIC and its board of directors and officers, and First Gen
Corporation (FGC) and its board of directors and officers be directed to: (1) permanently cease and desist from
committing acts of negligence in the performance of their functions as a common carrier; (2) continue to check the
structural integrity of the whole 117-kilometer pipeline and to replace the same; (3) make periodic reports on their
findings with regard to the 117-kilometer pipeline and their replacement of the same; (4) rehabilitate and restore the
environment, especially Barangay Bangkal and West Tower, at least to what it was before the signs of the leak
became manifest; and (5) to open a special trust fund to answer for similar and future contingencies in the future.
Furthermore, petitioners pray that respondents be prohibited from opening the pipeline and allowing the use thereof
until the same has been thoroughly checked and replaced, and be temporarily restrained from operating the pipeline
until the final resolution of the case.
To bolster their petition, petitioners argued that FPIC's omission or failure to timely replace its pipelines and to
observe extraordinary diligence caused the petroleum spill in the City of Makati. Thus, for petitioners, the continued
use of the now 47-year old pipeline would not only be a hazard or a threat to the lives, health, and property of those
who live or sojourn in all the municipalities in which the pipeline is laid, but would also affect the rights of the
generations yet unborn to live in a balanced and "healthful ecology," guaranteed under Section 16, Article II of the
1987 Constitution.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
On November 19, 2010, the Court issued the Writ of Kalikasan 2 with a Temporary Environmental Protection
Order (TEPO) requiring respondents FPIC, FGC, and the members of 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.
In compliance with the writ, FPIC directors Edgar Chua, Dennis Javier, Dennis Gamab and Willie Sarmiento
submitted a Joint Return 3 praying for the dismissal of the petition and the denial of the privilege of the Writ of
Kalikasan. They alleged that: petitioners had no legal capacity to institute the petition; there is no allegation that the
environmental damage affected the inhabitants of two (2) or more cities or provinces; and the continued operation of
the pipeline should be allowed in the interest of maintaining adequate petroleum supply to the public.
Respondents FPIC and its directors and officers, other than the aforementioned four (4) directors, also filed a
Verified Return 4 claiming that not all requirements for the issuance of the Writ ofKalikasan are present and there is
no showing that West Tower Corp. was authorized by all those it claimed to represent. They further averred that the
petition contains no allegation that respondents FPIC directors and officers acted in such a manner as to allow the
piercing of the corporate veil.
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." 6 In gist, FPIC reported the following:
(I) For the structural integrity of the 117-kilometer pipeline, (a) the DOE engaged the services of UP-NIGS
to do borehole testing on 81 pre-identified critical areas of the WOPL in eight cities and municipalities — all the
boreholes showed negative presence of petroleum vapors; (b) pressure tests were conducted after the repair of
the leak and results showed negative leaks and the DOE's pipeline expert, Societe General de Surveillance, New
Zealand, has developed a pressure test protocol requiring a 24-hour operation of running a scraper pig through
the pipeline to eliminate air gap; (c) In-Line Inspection Test , was conducted by NDT through MFL and ultrasonic.
The NDT later cleared the WOPL from any damage or corrosion.
(II) For preventive maintenance measures, (a) Cathodic Protection Systems are installed involving the
use of anode materials and the introduction of electric current in the pipeline to enhance prevention of corrosion;
(b) Regular Scraper Runs through the pipeline to maintain cleanliness and integrity of the pipelines' internal
surface; (c) Daily Patrols every two hours of the pipeline route to deter unauthorized diggings in the vicinity of
the pipeline segments; (d) Regular coordination meetings with DPWH, MMDA and utility companies to monitor
projects that might involve digging or excavation in the vicinity of the pipeline segments; (e) Installation of
Security Warning Signs along the pipeline route with toll free number which can be called in the event of an
accident or emergency; (f) Emergency Response Procedure of the ERT is activated by a call-out procedure; (g)
Maintenance of Emergency Equipment and Repair Kit which are always on standby; and, (h) Remotely controlled
Isolation Valves are in place to shut the pipeline when necessary.
On February 9, 2011, petitioners filed, and the Court eventually granted, their Motion to Set the Case for
Preliminary Conference and Hearing 7 pursuant to Sec. 11, Rule 7 of the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases.
On April 15, 2011, the Court conducted an ocular inspection of the WOPL in the vicinity of West Tower to
determine the veracity of the claim that there were two (2) additional leaks on FPIC's pipeline. Results of the ocular
inspection belied the claim.
In the meantime, petitioners also filed civil and criminal complaints against respondents arising from the same
incident or leakage from the WOPL. 8
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. 9
On July 7, 2011, petitioners filed an Omnibus Motion 10 assailing the Court's May 31, 2011 Resolution, praying
for the conduct of oral argument on the issue of reopening the BOPL System. This was followed, on September 9,
2011, by a Manifestation (Re: Current Developments) with Omnibus Motion 11 wherein petitioners invoked the
precautionary principle 12 and asserted that the possibility of a leak in the BOPL System leading to catastrophic
environmental damage is enough reason to order the closure of its operation. They likewise alleged that the entities
contracted by FPIC to clean and remediate the environment are illegally discharging waste water, which had not
undergone proper treatment, into the Parañaque River. Petitioners, thus, prayed that respondents be directed to
comply with environmental laws in rehabilitating the surroundings affected by the oil leak and to submit a copy of
their work plan and monthly reports on the progress thereof. To these omnibus motions, respondents were directed
to file their respective comments.
On September 28, 2011, respondent FPIC filed an Urgent Motion for Leave (To Undertake "Bangkal
Realignment" Project) 13 in order to reduce stress on the WOPL System. FPIC sought to construct a new realigned
segment to replace the old pipe segment under the Magallanes Interchange, which covers the portion that leaked.
Petitioners were directed to file their comment on FPIC's motion.
Report and Recommendation of the Court of Appeals
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,
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
submit a report and recommendation within 30 days after the receipt of the parties' memoranda.
On March 21, 2012, the preliminary conference was continued before the CA wherein the parties made
admissions and stipulations of facts and defined the issues for resolution. In view of the technical nature of the case,
the CA also appointed 15 several amici curiae, 16 but only four (4) filed their reports. 17
On December 26, 2012, the CA Former 11th Division submitted to the Court its well-crafted and exhaustive 156-
page Report and Recommendation 18 dated December 21, 2012 (CA Report). Some highlights of the Report:
1. Anent petitioners' June 28, 2011 Omnibus Motion assailing the reopening of the BOPL System, the CA directed
respondent FPIC to submit the appropriate certification from the DOE as to the safe commercial operation
of the BOPL; otherwise, the operation of the BOPL must also be enjoined.
2. On petitioners' September 9, 2011 Manifestation (Re: Current Developments) with Omnibus Motion, the CA
directed the Inter-Agency Committee on Health to submit its evaluation of the remediation plan prepared
by CH2M Hill Philippines, Inc. for FPIC. Further, the appellate court directed FPIC to strictly comply with the
stipulations contained in the permits issued by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources
(DENR) for its remediation activities in Barangay Bangkal, Makati City. The DENR was in turn directed by
the CA to:
(a) monitor compliance by respondent FPIC with applicable environmental laws and regulations and
conditions set forth in the permits issued;
(b) conduct independent analysis of end-products of the Multi-Phase Extraction System;
(c) conduct regular consultative meetings with the City of Makati, residents of Barangay Bangkal and other
stakeholders concerning the remediation activities; and,
(d) evaluate the viability of the recommendation of amicus Dr. Benjamin R. De Jesus, Jr. to include the use
of surfactants and oxygen-releasing compounds (ORCs) in the middle and terminal portions of the
remediation plan.
3. Respondent's September 27, 2011 Urgent Motion for Leave (To Undertake "Bangkal Realignment" Project)
was denied.
4. With regard to the March 29, 2012 Supplemental Manifestation (Re: List of Amici Curiae and Recent Possible
Leak in the Pipeline) filed by petitioners, the CA found that the existence of another possible leak alleged
by petitioners was not established. Nonetheless, to prevent such event, the CA ordered FPIC to: (i) review,
adopt and strictly observe appropriate safety and precautionary measures; (ii) closely monitor the conduct
of its maintenance and repair works; and (iii) submit to the DOE regular monthly reports on the structural
integrity and safe commercial operation of the pipeline.
5. As to the merits of the case, the CA submitted the following recommendations:
(a) That the people's organizations, non-governmental organizations, and public interest groups that
indicated their intention to join the petition and submitted proof of juridical personality (namely: the
Catholic Bishop's 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) be allowed to be formally impleaded as petitioners.
(b) That respondent FPIC be ordered to submit a certification from the DOE Secretary that the WOPL is
already safe for commercial operation. The certification should take into consideration the adoption
by FPIC of the appropriate leak detection system to be used in monitoring the entire pipeline's mass
input versus mass output. The certification must also consider the necessity of replacing the pipes
with existing patches and sleeves. In case of failure of respondent FPIC to submit the required
certification from the DOE Secretary within sixty (60) days from notice of the Honorable Supreme
Court's approval of this recommendation, the TEPO must be made permanent.
(c) That petitioners' prayer for the creation of a special trust fund to answer for similar contingencies in
the future be denied for lack of sufficient basis.
(d) That respondent FGC be not held solidarily liable under the TEPO.
(e) That without prejudice to the outcome of the civil and criminal cases filed against respondents, the
individual directors and officers of FPIC and FGC be not held liable in their individual capacities.
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 January 25, 2013, FPIC filed its Compliance (Re: Department of Energy Certification on the Black Oil Pipeline)
20 and submitted the required DOE Certification 21 issued on January 22, 2013 by DOE Secretary Carlos Jericho L.
Petilla (Secretary Petilla). On March 14, 2013, petitioners countered with a Manifestation with Motion 22 asserting that
FPIC's certification is not compliant with the CA's requirement. Hence, petitioners moved that the certification should
be disregarded, the 30-day period be deemed to have lapsed, and FPIC be permanently enjoined from operating the
BOPL.
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. The pertinent portion of said Resolution reads:
[FPIC] is hereby ORDERED to submit a certification from the DOE Secretary that the pipeline is already
safe for commercial operation. The certification should take into consideration the adoption by FPIC of the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
appropriate leak detection system to be used in monitoring the entire pipeline's mass input versus mass output.
The certification must also consider the necessity of replacing the pipes with existing patches and sleeves . . . . 23
The DOE Secretary is DIRECTED to consult the [DOST] regarding the adoption of the appropriate leak
detection system and the necessity of replacing the pipes with existing patches and sleeves.
On October 2, 2013, petitioners, in a Motion for Reconsideration with Motion for Clarification, emphasized that
the CA found FPIC's tests and maintenance program to be insufficient and inconclusive to establish the WOPL's
structural integrity for continued commercial operation. 24 Furthermore, petitioners point out that the DOE is biased
and incapable of determining the WOPL's structural integrity.
Respondents, for their part, maintain that the DOE has the technical competence and expertise to assess the
structural integrity of the WOPL and to certify the system's safety for commercial operation. 25 Respondents further
allege that the DOE is the agency empowered to regulate the transportation and distribution of petroleum products,
and to regulate and monitor downstream oil industry activities, including "product distribution" through pipelines. 26
In compliance with the Court's July 30, 2013 Resolution, the DOE Secretary issued on October 25, 2013 a
Certification, 27 attesting that the WOPL is safe to resume commercial operations, subject to monitoring or inspection
requirements, and imposing several conditions that FPIC must comply with. The Certification, in its entirety, reads:
This is to certify that based on the Pipeline Integrity Management Systems (PIMS) being implemented by
[FPIC] for its [WOPL] facility, the same is safe to resume commercial operations. This certification is being issued
after consultation with the [DOST] and on the basis of the following considerations, to wit:
1. DOE noted the adoption by FPIC of the appropriate leak detection system to be used in monitoring the pipeline's
mass input versus mass output, as well as the other measures of leak detection and prevention adopted by
the latter;
2. DOE further noted that FPIC has already undertaken realignment and reinforcement works on the current
pipeline to remove majority of the patches. FPIC has likewise presented substantial and adequate
documentation showing that the remaining patches and sleeves are safe, and that the use of such is
recognized by the industry and complies with existing standards;
3. DOE finally noted the results of various tests and inspections done on the pipeline as indicated in the
Manifestation submitted by the DOE on March 31, 2012, in the civil case docketed as CA G.R. SP No. 00008
and entitled West Tower Condominium, et al. [v.] First Philippine Industrial Corporation, et al.
This certification is being issued subject to the condition that FPIC will submit itself to regular monitoring
and validation by the Oil Industry Management Bureau (OIMB) of the implementation of its PIMS, particularly on
the following: (a) mass or volume input versus mass or volume output loss/gain accounting; (b) results of
borehole monitoring, (c) inspection of the pipeline cathodic protection and (d) pressure test.
Further, FPIC shall submit itself to any test or inspection that the DOE and DOST may deem appropriate for
purposes of monitoring the operations of the WOPL facility.
The Court is fully cognizant of the WOPL's value in commerce and the adverse effects of a prolonged closure
thereof. Nevertheless, there is a need to balance the necessity of the immediate reopening of the WOPL with the
more important need to ensure that it is sound for continued operation, since the substances it carries pose a
significant hazard to the surrounding population and to the environment. 28 A cursory review of the most recent oil
pipeline tragedies around the world will readily show that extreme caution should be exercised in the monitoring and
operation of these common carriers:
(1) On August 1, 2014, a series of powerful explosions from underground pipeline systems ripped up the streets
of Kaohsiung, Taiwan, killing at least 28 people and injuring 299 more. Further, 23,600, 2,268 and 6,000
households were left without gas, power and water, respectively, in the 2-3 square kilometer blast area. 29
(2) On November 22, 2013, an oil pipeline leaked, caught fire, and exploded in Qingdao, Shangdao Province in
China, killing 55 people and injuring more than a hundred more. 30
(3) On September 14, 2011, a fuel pipeline exploded in Kenya's capital city, Nairobi, reducing bodies to dust and
flattening homes. At least 75 people died in the explosion, while more than a hundred people were
injured. 31
(4) In September 2010, a natural gas pipeline ruptured and set off a fireball, killing eight (8) people and leveling
38 homes in San Bruno, California in the United States. 32
(5) On July 30, 2004, a rupture of an underground natural gas pipeline buried six (6) meters in Ghislenghien,
Belgium resulted in 24 deaths and over 120 injuries. 33
On April 29 and 30, 2014, the DOE organized a dialogue between said government agencies and the FPIC. There
it was stated that during the dialogue, "the division heads and a high profile team from FPIC, both from operation and
management made presentations and answered questions on pipeline pumping operation and product delivery, and
a detailed explanation of the FPIC PIMS' control measures, condition monitoring measures, and emergency measures,
as well as its various activities and projects implemented since 2010 such as pipeline replacement and realignment
in Pandacan and Bangkal, inspection and reinforcement of all patches in the WOPL, inspection and reinforcement of a
number of reported dents in the WOPL, conduct of successful leak tests, and installation of boreholes that are gas-
tested on a weekly basis, and the safety systems that go with the daily pipeline operation and maintenance and
project execution." 34
On August 5, 2014, Secretary Carlos Jericho L. Petilla of the DOE submitted a letter35 recommending activities
and timetable for the resumption of the WOPL operations, to wit:
A. Preparatory to the Test Run
I. FPIC Tasks:
a. Continue submission of monitoring charts, data/reading, accomplishment reports, and project status
for all related activities/works. Respond to comments and prepare for site inspection.
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.
Other Matters
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.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the Motion for Partial Reconsideration is hereby DENIED. The Motion for
Reconsideration with Motion for Clarification is PARTLY GRANTED . The Court of Appeals' recommendations,
embodied in its December 21, 2012 Report and Recommendation, are hereby ADOPTED with the following
MODIFICATIONS:
I. The Department of Energy (DOE) is hereby ORDERED to oversee the strict implementation of the following
activities:
A. Preparatory to the Test Run of the entire stretch of the WOPL:
1) FPIC shall perform the following:
a. Continue submission of monitoring charts, data/reading, accomplishment reports, and project status
for all related activities/works. Respond to comments and prepare for site inspection.
b. Continue gas testing along the right-of-way using the monitoring wells or boreholes. Prepare for
inspection of right-of-way and observation of gas testing activities on monitoring wells and
boreholes.
c. Explain the process of the selection of borehole location and identify those located in pipeline
bends, bodies of water, highways, residential areas, repaired portions of the pipelines, dents and
welded joints, as well other notable factors, circumstances, or exposure to stresses.
d. Set up additional boreholes and monitoring wells sufficient to cover the entire stretch of the WOPL,
the number and location of which shall be determined by the DOE.
Separate Opinions
LEONEN, J., dissenting:
I dissent.
The Writ of Kalikasan has served its functions and, therefore, is functus officio. The leaks have been found and
remedied. The various administrative agencies have identified the next steps that should ensure a viable level of risk
that is sufficiently precautionary. In other words, they have shown that they know what to do to prevent future leaks.
The rest should be left for them to execute.
The ponencia, by asking the Department of Energy and respondent First Philippine Industrial Corporation to
repeat their previous procedures, 1 implies that our function is to doubt that the executive agencies will do what they
have committed to undertake and are legally required to do. It implies that the Certification 2 issued on October 25,
2013 is improper based on the irrational fear that disasters that have recently happened in other parts of the world
may also happen to us. We are asked to assume that executive agencies do not care as much as we do for the
community and their ecologies.
This is not what we should do in cases involving writs of kalikasan. Nowhere in the>Constitution or in the Rules
are we authorized to breach the separation of powers. We do not endow ourselves with sufficient expertise and
resources to check on administrative agencies' technical conclusions without basis.
Furthermore, civil and criminal cases have been filed and are pending.
I
The principle of separation of powers is implied in the division of powers in theConstitution among the three (3)
government branches: the executive, the legislative, and the judiciary. 3 "The principle presupposes mutual respect
by and between the executive, legislative[,] and judicial departments of the government and calls for them to be left
alone to discharge their duties as they see fit." 4
"The executive power [is] vested in the President of the Philippines." 5 The President has the duty to ensure the
faithful execution of the laws. 6 The President has the power of control over "all the executive departments, bureaus,
and offices" 7 including, among others, the Department of Energy, the Department of Environment and Natural
Resources, the Department of Science and Technology, and the Department of Public Works and Highways.
The Constitution vests legislative power in the Congress. 8 The Congress enacts laws.
Meanwhile, judicial power is vested in the Supreme Court and other courts. 9 Judicial power refers to the "duty
of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights [that] are legally demandable and enforceable,
and to determine whether . . . there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction
on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government." 10 Essentially, the judiciary's power is to interpret
the law with finality.
The powers specifically vested by the Constitution in each branch may not be legally taken nor exercised by the
other branches. Each government branch has exclusive authority to exercise the powers granted to it. Any
encroachment of powers is ultra vires; it is void.
Thus, the legislative branch is not authorized to execute laws or participate in the execution of these laws. It
also cannot make interpretations of the law with finality. 11
The executive department cannot make legislative enactments. Like the legislative department, it cannot make
final interpretations of the law. 12
The judiciary has no power to execute laws 13 or take an active part in the execution of laws. It has no
supervisory power over executive agencies. 14 The judiciary has no power to create laws 15 or revise legislative
actions. 16 Even this court cannot assume superiority on matters that require technical expertise. It may only act as a
court, settle actual cases and controversies, and, in proper cases and when challenged, declare acts as void for being
unconstitutional.
II
Administrative agencies determine facts as a necessary incident to their exercise of quasi-judicial powers or to
assist them in discharging their executive functions. Quasi-judicial powers refer to the authority of administrative
agencies to determine the rights of parties under its jurisdiction through adjudication.
Registration, issuance of franchises, permits and licenses, and determination of administrative liabilities are
instances that require an agency's exercise of quasi-judicial power. 17 These acts require administrative
determination of facts, based on which the parties' rights shall be ascertained and official action shall be made. 18
An administrative agency that exercises its quasi-judicial powers must adhere to the due process requirements
as enumerated in Ang Tibay v. Court of Industrial Relations . 19 One of these requirements is that issuances must be
(1) The first of these rights is the right to a hearing, which includes the right of the party interested or
affected to present his own case and submit evidence in support thereof. . . .
(2) . . . the tribunal must consider the evidence presented. . . .
(3) . . . something to support its decision. . . .
(4) . . . the evidence must be "substantial." "Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla. It means
such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." . . .
(5) The decision must be rendered on the evidence presented at the hearing, or at least contained in the
record and disclosed to the parties affected. . . .
(6) The [hearing officer] must act on its or his own independent consideration of the law and facts of the
controversy. . . .
(7) The [administrative agency] should . . . . render its decision in such a manner that the parties to the
proceeding can know the various issues involved, and the reasons for the decisions rendered. 21 (Emphasis
supplied, citations omitted)
The grant of adjudicative (and legislative) functions to administrative agencies results from "the growing
complexity of modern society[.]" 22 This court has recognized the competence, experience, and specialization of
administrative agencies in their fields. 23 It has also recognized that these agencies' expertise in their fields is
essential in resolving issues that are technical in nature. 24 In Philippine International Trading Corporation v. Presiding
Judge Angeles, 25 this court said of quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial powers:
Similarly, the grant of quasi-legislative powers in administrative bodies is not unconstitutional. Thus, as a
result of the growing complexity of modern society, it has become necessary to create more and more
administrative bodies to help in the regulation of its ramified activities. Specialized in the particular field
assigned to them, they can deal with the problems thereof with more expertise and dispatch than can be
expected from the legislature or the courts of justice. This is the reason for the increasing vesture of quasi-
legislative and quasi-judicial powers in what is now not unreasonably called the fourth department of the
government. . . . One thrust of the multiplication of administrative agencies is that the interpretation of contracts
and the determination of private rights thereunder is no longer uniquely judicial function, exercisable only by our
regular courts. 26 (Emphasis supplied, citations omitted)
Because of the administrative agencies' specialized knowledge in their fields, we often defer to their findings of
fact. Thus, in principle, findings of fact by administrative agencies are not disturbed by this court when supported by
substantial evidence, 27 "even if not overwhelming or preponderant." 28 This Rule, however, admits a few exceptions:
First, when an administrative proceeding is attended by fraud, collusion, arbitrary action, mistake of law, or a
denial of due process;
Second, when there are irregularities in the procedure that has led to factual findings;
Third, when there are palpable errors committed; and
Lastly, when there is manifest grave abuse of discretion, arbitrariness, or capriciousness. 29
If the actions of an administrative agency are made under these circumstances, judicial review is justified even
if the actions are supported by substantial evidence. 30
This court summarized the principles of judicial review of administrative decisions inAtlas Consolidated Mining
and Development Corporation v. Hon. Factoran, Jr.: 31
[F]indings of fact in such decision should not be disturbed if supported by substantial evidence, but review is
justified when there has been a denial of due process, or mistake of law or fraud, collusion or arbitrary action in
the administrative proceeding, where the procedure which led to factual findings is irregular; when palpable
errors are committed; or when a grave abuse of discretion, arbitrariness, or capriciousness is manifest.
. . . "[I]n reviewing administrative decisions, the reviewing Court cannot reexamine the sufficiency of the
evidence as if originally instituted therein, and receive additional evidence, that was not submitted to the
administrative agency concerned[.]" 32 (Citations omitted)
The above principles of judicial review have been applied in cases brought to the appropriate courts on appeal
or by certiorari. Cases brought to the courts on appeal or by certiorari presuppose that there were cases or issues: (1)
over which an administrative agency assumed jurisdiction; and for which (2) an administrative agency collected
evidence, determined facts, and made an action. In these cases, the court either reviews the administrative action for
errors in the application of law or determines whether there has been grave abuse of discretion in the exercise of
quasi-judicial functions.
III
The courts' relation with administrative agencies is not limited to reviewing their acts in the exercise of their
quasi-judicial functions. Whenever technical issues are brought to the court for determination, courts may ask for
their conclusions on the status of private sector activities within their jurisdiction and on matters within their
specialized knowledge. This is especially true for cases filed under A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC, otherwise known as the Rules
of Procedure for Environmental Cases (Rules).
The Rules provide for remedies to enforce rights to a "balanced and healthful ecology[.]"33 A party may file: (1)
a complaint alleging violation of environmental laws; 34 (2) a petition for the issuance of a writ of kalikasan alleging
violation of the right to healthful ecology; 35 or (3) a petition for the issuance of continuingmandamus alleging
neglect in the performance of duty to enforce environmental laws. 36
Filing a complaint or a petition may result in the issuance of a temporary environmental protection order upon
the finding that the complainant will suffer grave injustice or irreparable injury if no protection order is issued. 37 This
temporary environmental protection order may be converted to a permanent environmental protection order after
For these reasons, courts must often avail themselves of the assistance of experts.
However, courts cannot take all expert findings as truth. Even expert findings may be wrong or contradictory.
The courts have little competence on technical matters to determine which expert finding should be given weight. In
environmental cases, courts defer to administrative agencies' technical knowledge. Given their specialization on
matters within their jurisdiction, administrative agencies have the competence to sift through the findings, determine
which variables and scientific principles are relevant, make germane observations, and arrive at intelligent
assessments and conclusions. Their conclusions and opinions on these matters deserve respect. As in their actions on
administrative matters; the courts shall respect the findings of administrative agencies as long as these are
supported by substantial evidence.
Parties that wish to avail themselves of the remedies under the Rules, however, go directly to the court. Unlike
in quasi-judicial proceedings, determination of facts is not solely the province of the administrative agencies.
Administrative agencies may not yet have the relevant facts at the time environmental remedies are availed. Courts
get access to the facts only when the case is brought to them on appeal. Courts and administrative agencies may get
access to the facts at the same time.
For these reasons, the courts' leeway to examine the substantiality of evidence in environmental cases is
greater. The court may take a closer look at experts' manifestations and reports and determine whether the findings
of administrative agencies are consistent with the experts' conclusions.
Respondent First Philippine Industrial Corporation commissioned Robert A. Teale, a welding consultant
specializing in pipeline welding, to review the repairs done to the White Oil Pipeline. 41 Based on his information
review, visual inspection, examinations, and ultrasonic inspection, he concluded that the pipe repairs conducted were
sound and in accordance with the standards. 42 The pipeline, according to him, was "fit for service[.]" 43
Robert A. Teale's conclusions were consistent with the conclusions of Dr. Carlo A. Arcilla (Dr. Arcilla) of the
University of the Philippines National Institute of Geological Sciences (UP NIGS) 44 and of Societe Generale de
Surveillance, 45 the independent observer of the Department of Energy. Dr. Arcilla and Societe Generale de
Surveillance, together with the Department of Energy's representatives, participated in the conduct of the tests for
White Oil Pipeline's integrity. The UP NIGS conducted a parallel independent monitoring of the White Oil Pipeline.
Based on the conducted leak tests, Dr. Arcilla concluded in his March 12, 2012 Report that the White Oil
Pipeline is free from leaks. 46 According to Dr. Arcilla, UP NIGS data showed values consistent with "no leak" 47 along
the White Oil Pipeline. There were no significant changes in the pressure values along the pipeline. The monitoring
wells also did not indicate the presence of leaks. To ensure the accuracy of the results, the observation time for the
pressure test was extended. Even during the extended period, the pressure values remained constant. Thus, Dr.
Arcilla concluded that the White Oil Pipeline was free from leaks. 48 His results and conclusions are reproduced below:
IV. Results
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
Monitoring values independently collected by UP NIGS consistently show an absence of values both for
VOCs and LEL. This indicates that the concluded pressure test of the FDIC pipes last December 2012 expectedly
showed no leak along its length.
Monitoring values that were recorded in the DOE Command Center displayed no significant changes in the
[illegible in rollo] pressure along the pipeline. Pressure has been stable and ocular inspection of monitoring wells
did not indicate any leaks.
The FPIC has also provided a copy of their monitoring results to UP NIGS. Their results showed no leak
along the pipeline. However, monitoring data has also shown a 10% discrepancy in the Chevron line. As the
relationship of pressure and temperature are directly proportional, the absence of a Temperature Monitoring
Recorder, an instrument to provide more accurate data and reliable monitoring chart due to the effect of
temperature on pressure was duly noted.
After several days of data review and analysis and interviews with FPIC technical personnel, UPNIGS [sic]
pipeline consultant Pedro Carascon pointed out that some temperature gauges of FPIC were not actually
synchronized and connected to the pipeline, leading to the erratic temperature readings. However, further
review of the data showed that the pressure did not change significantly to suggest the presence [of] a leak in
the pipeline. Also, the time allotted for the pipeline pressure test, was exceeded by at least two days, and the
pressure in the pipeline remained constant, suggesting further that there were no more leaks in the pipeline.
V. Conclusion
In as much as there wasno [sic] significant changes of pressure drops observed throughout the holding
time of pressure testing, it can therefore be concluded that the pressure testing of FPIC White Oil Pipeline is
sensible and that it is free of leak at the time of pressure testing. 49
Meanwhile, Societe Generale de Surveillance noted in its March 30, 2012 Report that the tests were conducted
under the approved and standard procedures, methods, and tolerances. There was no evidence of leaks in the
pipelines: 50
The letter from FPIC to DOE, dated 2 January 2012 reflects accurately the test conditions and results as was
verified on site by SGS. . . . The test was carried out as per the approved procedure; the results are well within
the tolerances of the method and the applicable standards with no evidence of leakage of the pipelines. 51
Respondent First Philippine Industrial Corporation appears to have committed itself to ensure that the White Oil
Pipeline's integrity is maintained through the following procedures: (1) monitoring wells and borehole testing; (2) in-
line inspections; (3) anti-corrosion methods; (4) regular cleaning pig runs; (5) continuous consultations with experts;
(6) segment tests; (7) leak tests; (8) inspection of patches; (9) reinforcement of patches; and (10) coordination
meetings with LGUs and utility companies. 52
The Department of Energy Certification dated October 25, 2013 that the White Oil Pipeline is already "safe to
resume commercial operations" 53 is, therefore, consistent with the available reports.
Any deviation from the safety standards and procedures will be monitored by the Department of Energy and the
Department of Environment and Natural Resources in the exercise of their regulatory powers. 54 Problems related to
the compliance of respondent First Philippine Industrial Corporation will be addressed because the Department of
Energy Certification is conditioned upon respondent's submission to the Oil Industry Management Bureau's regular
monitoring and validation of the implementation of its Pipeline Integrity Management Systems and to tests or
inspection by the Department of Energy and Department of Science and Technology. 55
IV
The purpose of our environmental laws is to maintain or create conditions that are conducive to a harmonious
relationship between man and nature. Environmental laws protect nature and the environment from degradation
while taking into account people's needs and general welfare. Sections 1 and 2 of the Presidential Decree No. 1151,
otherwise known as the Philippine Environmental Policy, embody the purpose of our environmental laws:
SECTION 1. Policy . — It is hereby declared a continuing policy of the State (a) to create, develop, maintain
and improve conditions under which man and nature can thrive in productive, and enjoyable harmony with each
other, (b) to fulfill the social, economic and other requirements of present and future generations of Filipinos, and
(c) to insure the attainment of an environmental quality that is conducive to a life of dignity and well-being.
SEC. 2. Goal. — In pursuing this policy, it shall be the responsibility of the Government, in cooperation with
concerned private organizations and entities, to use all practicable means, consistent with other essential
considerations of national policy, in promoting the general welfare to the end that the Nation may (a) recognize,
discharge and fulfill the responsibilities of each generation as trustee and guardian of the environment for
succeeding generations, (b) assure the people of a safe, decent, healthful, productive and aesthetic
environment, (c) encourage the widest exploitation of the environment without degrading it, or endangering
human life, health and safety or creating conditions adverse to agriculture, commerce and industry, (d) preserve
important historic and cultural aspects of the Philippine heritage, (e) attain a rational and orderly balance
between population and resource use, and (f) improve the utilization of renewable and non-renewable resources.
(Emphasis supplied)
This policy espouses the need for a balance between resource exploitation and environmental protection to
promote the general welfare of the people. Environmental protection is a necessary means to increase the chances of
the human species to subsist. cSEDTC
The ponencia recognized the need to achieve a balance between human necessities and environmental
protection, thus:
The Court is fully cognizant of the WOPL's value in commerce and the adverse effects of a prolonged
closure thereof. Nevertheless, there is a need to balance the necessity of the immediate reopening of the WOPL
with the more important need to ensure that it is sound for continued operation, since the substances it carries
pose a significant hazard to the surrounding population and to the environment. 56 (Citation omitted)
This need for "balance" 57 and the incidence of oil pipeline tragedies 58 prompted the majority to further delay
the lifting of the temporary environmental protection order despite findings that support the pipeline's
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
integrity/safety. The majority also ruled that the procedures already conducted in the presence of the Department of
Energy should be repeated 59 in light of the uncertainty and fear caused by the cited oil pipeline disasters.60 In trying
to achieve "balance," therefore, and in adopting the Court of Appeals' findings, 61 the majority adopted a strict
application of the precautionary principle. This may result to situations inconsistent with environmental protection.
Under the Rules, the precautionary principle shall be applied in resolving environmental cases when the causal
link between human activity and an environmental effect cannot be established with certainty. 62 Based on this
principle, an uncertain scientific plausibility of serious and irreversible damage to the environment justifies actions to
avoid the threat of damage. 63 Avoidance of threat or damage, as in this case, usually comes in the form of inhibition
of action or activity.
Strict application of the precautionary principle means that the mere presence of uncertainty renders the
degree of scientific plausibility for environmental damage irrelevant. Speculations may be sufficient causes for the
grant of either a temporary environmental protection order or a permanent environmental protection order,
regardless of the extent of losses and risks resulting from it.
This interpretation may be inconsistent with the purpose of avoiding threat or damage to the environment and
to the people's general welfare. 64 It was argued that:
If [the precautionary principle] is taken for all that it is worth, it leads in no direction at all. The reason is that
risks of one kind or another are on all sides of regulatory choices, and it is therefore impossible, in most real-
world cases, to avoid running afoul of the principle. Frequently, risk regulation creates a (speculative) risk from
substitute risks or from foregone risk-reduction opportunities. And because of the (speculative) mortality and
morbidity effects of costly regulation, any regulation — if it is costly — threatens to run afoul of the Precautionary
Principle. 65
Inhibiting an activity, especially one recognized for its role in commerce, has drawbacks. Although it may
ensure that no risk of harm to the environment will directly result from the activity, it can also unjustifiably deprive
the public of its benefits. 66 Inhibiting pipeline activities, for example, may deprive the public of the benefits of an oil
transport system that can deliver more products at a given time and to a wider area, compared to other modes of
distributing oil such as through roads or rails. This will slow down oil distribution along the production and distribution
chains. Therefore, it will have a significant negative impact on commerce.
Inhibiting an activity may also unduly create other risks that are not immediately apparent.67 Inhibition of oil
pipeline activities may prevent pipeline leaks from happening again. However, it will also force suppliers to resort to
other modes of oil distribution to maintain a supply to address national demands. These other modes may include the
use of trucks and trains, which has negative environmental impact as well.
Trucks have relatively limited capacity to distribute oil compared to pipelines. Thus, to keep up with national
demands, trucks must be dispatched in greater number and with more frequency. As a result, our highways may
have to be constantly lined with trucks. This will cause road congestion and — more certainly than the existence of
leaks on the White Oil Pipeline — worsened air pollution. According to the World Health Organization, about seven
million deaths in 2012 were linked to air pollution. 68 Air pollution is related to "cardiovascular diseases, such as
strokes and ischaemic heart disease, . . . [and] respiratory diseases . . . [such as] acute respiratory infections and
chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases." 69 It is also reported to increase the risk of cancer among humans.70
Lastly, the delay in lifting the temporary environmental protection order despite evidence that prove that the
pipeline is free from leaks, as well as the order to repeat respondent First Philippine Industrial Corporation's
procedures, will unnecessarily force not only respondent but also the concerned agencies to spend much needed
resources that may be used for other public purposes. In effect, other equally important tasks or projects are
deprived of the agencies' resources and attention. This may likewise cause unintended drawbacks that we may not
yet realize.
In the end, the inhibition of pipeline activities may in itself be a plausible and equally harmful threat to the
general welfare compared to the threat posed by the pipeline. Permitting the increase of air pollution and
unnecessary use of public resources may be inconsistent with the precautionary principle that the majority tried to
apply in resolving the case.
Thus, dealing with environmental issues is not as simple as applying the precautionary principle in its strict
sense when faced with uncertainty. We must recognize the interconnectedness of variables and issues so that we can
address them more effectively and truly in accordance with our policy of taking care of the people's general welfare
through environmental protection.
The Department of Energy has already issued its Certification stating its conclusion that the White Oil Pipeline is
already safe for commercial operations. Its conclusion is consistent with expert findings. When conclusions support
the project's operation, and when there is no showing that an error was committed in arriving at such conclusions,
the fear of disaster without basis is not a sufficient reason to deny the lifting of an issued temporary environmental
protection order. Respondent First Philippine Industrial Corporation, the Department of Energy, and other
administrative agencies need not spend more resources only to repeat a procedure that has already been and is still
being done.
Accordingly, I vote to DISMISS the Petition because it is moot and academic.
Footnotes
* No part.
1. Namely: (1) The Catholic Bishop's Conference of the Philippines, represented by Most Rev. Bishop Tobias, D.D. and Most
Rev. Bishop Antonio Tobias, D.D.; (2) Kilusang Makabansang Ekonomiya, represented by Mr. Jaime Regalario; (3)
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
Alliance Against the presence of Oil Depot in Manila, represented by Councilor Maria Lourdes "Bonjay" Isip-Garcia; (4)
The Women's Business Council of the Philippines, represented by its President, Ms. Pacita Juan; (5) Zonta
International Makati Ayala, represented by Vicky Santos Abraham; (6) Junior Chamber International — San Juan
Chapter, represented by Atty. Irene Joy Besido-Garcia; (7) Various Individuals, most of whom are residents of West
Tower and Barangay Bangkal, Makati City; (8) Consolidated Mansions Condominium Corporation, represented by its
President, Mr. Enrique R. Estacion. (Petition, p. 4).
3. Id. at 238-280.
4. Id. at 288-319.
5. Id. at 472-477.
6. Id. at 504-507.
7. Id. at 542-548.
8. Civil Case No. 11-256 before the RTC-Br. 58 in Makati City for Violation of Republic Act No. 6969 (Toxic Substances and
Hazardous and Nuclear Wastes Control Act of 1990), Republic Act No. 8749 (Philippine Clean Air Act of 1999) and its
Implementing Rules and Regulations, Republic Act No. 9275 (Philippine Clean Water Act of 2004) and Damages
against respondents; and Complaint-Affidavit against FPIC, FGC and their respective directors and officers before the
Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Makati City for Violation of Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code (Reckless
Imprudence).
12. Under Sec. 4 (f), Rule 1 of the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases, the precautionary principle states that when
human activities may lead to threats of serious and irreversible damage to the environment that is scientifically
plausible but uncertain, actions shall be taken to avoid or diminish the threat.
14. Id. at 1398-1403. On February 7, 2012, the records of the instant case were ordered to be forwarded to the CA.
2) Philippine Council for Health Research and Development of the Department of Science and Technology (PCHRD-DOST);
UP-CE did not submit its report. MIT-ME and PCHRD-DOST both declined for lack of experts on the field.
18. Penned by Justice Fernanda Lampas Peralta and concurred in by Associate Justices Mario V. Lopez and Socorro B. Inting.
99961-104442 33 2
94853-99961 21 13
91900-94853 32 2
86105-91900 13 -
76422-86105 70 1
73198-76422 21 -
69009-73198 33 -
63268-69009 23 -
56600-63268 39 -
46200-56600 19 6
40500-46200 10 -
36746-40500 16 -
30586-36746 6 -
18342-30586 16 -
8250-18342 19 2
0000-8250 24 1
0000-5951 (Chevron Leg) 4 -
0000-7125 (Shell Leg) 77 -
26. In so arguing, respondents cited the Department of Energy Act of 1992 (RA 7638) and Downstream Oil Industry
Deregulation Act of 1998 (RA 7638).
28. See Hopkins, Phil, The Structural Integrity of Oil and Gas Transmission Pipelines, Comprehensive Structural Integrity Vol.
1, Elsevier Publishers (2002)
<http://www.penspen.com/downloads/papers/documents/thestructuralintegrityofoilandgastransmissionpipelines.pdf>
(visited July 23, 2013).
37. Dated March 10, 2015, March 13, 2015, and March 23, 2015, respectively.
39. Heirs of Jose G. Santiago v. Santiago , G.R. No. 161238, July 13, 2009, 592 SCRA 409, 415; citing Section 2, Rule 3 of the
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
41. Consumido v. Ros , G.R. No. 166875, July 31, 2007, 528 SCRA 696, 702; citing Vidal v. Escueta , G.R. No. 156228,
December 10, 2003, 417 SCRA 617, 634.
42. Id.; citing Borlongan v. Madrideo , G.R. No. 120267, January 25, 2000, 323 SCRA 248, 256 (citing 39 Am Jur 858 and the
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 3, Section 2).
45. Section 1. Nature of the Writ. — The writ is a remedy available to a natural or juridical person, entity authorized by law,
people's organization, non-governmental organization, or any public interest group accredited by or registered with
any government agency, on behalf of persons whose constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology is
violated, or threatened with violation by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or private
individual or entity, involving environmental damage of such magnitude as to prejudice the life, health or property of
inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
46. SEC. 3. Permanent EPO; writ of continuing mandamus. — In the judgment, the court may convert the TEPO to a
permanent EPO or issue a writ of continuing mandamus directing the performance of acts which shall be effective
until the judgment is fully satisfied.
The court may, by itself or through the appropriate government agency, monitor the execution of the judgment and require
the party concerned to submit written reports on a quarterly basis or sooner as may be necessary, detailing the
progress of the execution and satisfaction of the judgment. The other party may, at its option, submit its comments
or observations on the execution of the judgment.
47. See Integrated Report on the Department of Energy-Prescribed Segment Pressure Test, Borehole Tests and Pressure-
Controlled Leak Test on the White Oil Pipeline, November 2010 — December 2011 ( rollo, pp. 1789-1798, 2014-2023)
and Compliance Plan for Pipeline Integrity, West Tower Rehabilitation and Bangkal Remediation (id. at 1862-1870).
48. Section 12 (b) (1), RA 7638. The Department Energy Act of 1992. Section 5 of RA 7638 also states:
Section 5. Powers and Functions. — The Department shall have the following powers and functions:
(a) Formulate policies for the planning and implementation of a comprehensive program for the efficient supply and
economical use of energy consistent with the approved national economic plan and with the policies on
environmental protection and conservation and maintenance of ecological balance, and provide a mechanism for the
integration, rationalization, and coordination of the various energy programs of the Government;
(b) Develop and update the existing Philippine energy program which shall provide for an integrated and comprehensive
exploration, development, utilization, distribution and conservation of energy resources, with preferential bias for
environment-friendly, indigenous, and low-cost sources of energy. The program shall include a policy direction
towards the privatization of government agencies related to energy, deregulation of the power and energy industry
and reduction of dependency on oil-fired plants. Said program shall be updated within nine (9) months from its
completion and not later than the fifteenth day of September every year thereafter;
(c) Establish and administer programs for the exploration, transportation, marketing, distribution, utilization, conservation,
stockpiling and storage of enemy resources of all forms, whether conventional or nonconventional. (emphasis
supplied)
49. The ITDI was organized under EO 128 dated January 30, 1987, which states:
SEC. 20. Industrial Technology Development Institute . — There is hereby created the Industrial Technology Development
Institute, which shall have the following functions:
Undertake applied research and development to develop technologies and technological innovations in the field of industrial
manufacturing, mineral processing and energy;
Undertake the transfer of research results directly to end-users or preferably via linkage units of other government
agencies;
Undertake technical services, such as but not limited to, standards, analytical and calibration services mandated by law or
as needed by industry;
Conduct training and provide technical advisory and consultancy services to industry clientele and end-users.
The Institute shall be headed by a Director, who shall be appointed by the President upon the recommendation of the
Director-General and shall be assisted by one or more Deputy Directors, as may be necessary. The Institute shall
have the following divisions:
50. MIRDC was established under RA No. 4724 dated June 18, 1966, as amended by RA 6428 dated May 31, 1972. RA 4724,
as amended states, viz.:
Sec. 4. Establishment of Metals Industry Development Center. — There is hereby established a Metals Industry Development
Center, organized jointly by and with the support of the government and private sectors as a non-profit institution, to
undertake the following activities:
(1) To operate an information exchange center to gather and disseminate information on recent economic and
technological developments, both local and foreign, that are of interest to the industry;
(2) To assemble and maintain an up-to-date library on metals economics and technology;
(3) To collect information and statistics for preparation of comprehensive and up-to-date industry studies;
(4) To maintain, in consultation with the Department of Education and with appropriate existing government agencies and
training institutions an effective training program for engineers, technicians and craftsmen to cope with the
manpower requirements of metal plants and metal fabrication industries;
(5) To correlate studies on the various sectors of the metals and allied industries as a basis for formulating a development
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
program and a framework for investment to induce the rapid and systematic growth of the industry;
(6) To design, develop, and implement a system of accreditation for skilled laborers, technicians and engineers who have
attained a degree of experience or proficiency in the various fields of specialization in the metals and allied
industries.
(1) To determine and recommend appropriate standards for the metals and allied industries to protect consumers and end-
users and to enable local producers to attain quality that will meet international standards;
(2) To study, recommend and provide upon request suitable production methods that private industry may adopt to
improve quality and to standardize products to comply with the close tolerance requirements of mass production and
modern engineering products;
(3) To provide umpire services in arbitration cases between suppliers and customers dealing with metals or intermediate
and finished products of the metals and allied industries;
(1) To establish a metals research and development laboratory to provide answers to problems encountered by the metals
and allied industries;
(2) To provide working experience and opportunities for professional development to creative Filipino engineers at both the
professional and student levels in the fields of metals technology. . . .
52. Further, under Executive Order No. 192, EMB is mandated to provide research and laboratory services, viz.:
SECTION 16. Environmental Management Bureau. — There is hereby created an Environmental Management Bureau. . .
. The Environmental Management Bureau shall have the following functions:
a. Recommend possible legislations, policies and programs for environmental management and pollution control;
b. Advise the Regional Offices in the efficient and effective implementation of policies, programs, and projects for the
effective and efficient environmental management and pollution control;
c. Formulate environmental quality standards such as the quality standards for water, air, land, noise and radiations;
d. Recommend rules and regulations for environmental impact assessments and provide technical assistance for their
implementation and monitoring;
e. Formulate rules and regulations for the proper disposition of solid wastes, toxic and hazardous substances;
f. Advice the Secretary on the legal aspects of environmental management and pollution control and assist in the conduct
of public hearings in pollution cases;
g. Provide secretariat assistance to the Pollution Adjudication Board, created under Section 19 hereof;
h. Coordinate the inter-agency committees that may be created for the preparation of the State of the Philippine
Environment Report and the National Conservation Strategy;
i. Provide assistance to the Regional Offices in the formulation and dissemination of information on environmental and
pollution matters to the general public;
j. Assist the Secretary and the Regional Officers by providing technical assistance in the implementation of environmental
and pollution laws;
k. Provide scientific assistance to the Regional Offices in the conduct of environmental research programs.
54. Smart Communications, Inc. v. National Telecommunications Communication , G.R. No. 151908, August 12, 2003, 408
SCRA 678; Pambujan Sur United Mine Workers v. Samar Mining Company, Inc. , No. L-5694, May 12, 1954, 94 SCRA
932, 941, citing 42 Am. Jur. 698.
55. Saavedra v. Securities and Exchange Commission , G.R. No. 80879, March 21, 1988, 159 SCRA 57, 62.
56. Rollo , p. 1765.
57. Sec. 1 (1), Chapter 1, Title XIV of the Administrative Code of 1987.
2. Rollo , p. 3135.
3. Angara v. Electoral Commission, 63 Phil. 139, 156 (1936) [Per J. Laurel, En Banc].
4. Anak Mindanao Party-List Group v. Executive Secretary Ermita , 558 Phil. 338, 353 (2007) [Per J. Carpio Morales, En Banc],
citing Atitiw v. Zamora, 508 Phil. 321, 342 (2005) [Per J. Tinga, En Banc].
5. CONST., art. VII, sec. 1.
11. See Belgica v. Executive Secretary Ochoa Jr. , G.R. No. 208566, November 19, 2013, 710 SCRA 1, 107 [Per J. Perlas-
Bernabe, En Banc], citing Government of the Philippine Islands v. Springer, 277 US 189, 203 (1928).
12. Id.
13. Id.
15. See Belgica v. Executive Secretary Ochoa Jr. , G.R. No. 208566, November 19, 2013, 710 SCRA 1, 107 [Per J. Perlas-
Bernabe, En Banc], citing Government of the Philippine Islands v. Springer, 277 US 189, 203 (1928).
16. See Vera v. Avelino , 77 Phil. 192, 201 (1946) [Per J. Bengzon, En Banc], citing Alejandrino v. Quezon , 46 Phil. 83, 93
(1924) [Per J. Malcolm, En Banc].
17. See Sañado v. Court of Appeals, 408 Phil. 669, 681 (2001) [Per J. Melo, Third Division].
18. Id. See Abella, Jr. v. Civil Service Commission , 485 Phil. 182, 207 (2004) [Per J. Panganiban, En Banc].
22. Philippine International Trading Corporation v. Presiding Judge Angeles , 331 Phil. 723, 748 (1996) [Per J. Torres, Jr.,
Second Division].
23. See Philippine International Trading Corporation v. Presiding Judge Angeles , 331 Phil. 723, 748 (1996) [Per J. Torres, Jr.,
Second Division]. See also Antipolo Realty Corporation v. National Housing Authority , 237 Phil. 389, 395-396 (1987)
[Per J. Feliciano, En Banc].
24. See Philippine International Trading Corporation v. Presiding Judge Angeles , 331 Phil. 723, 748 (1996) [Per J. Torres, Jr.,
Second Division]. See also Antipolo Realty Corporation v. National Housing Authority , 237 Phil. 389, 395-396 (1987)
[Per J. Feliciano, En Banc].
25. Philippine International Trading Corporation v. Presiding Judge Angeles , 331 Phil. 723 (1996) [Per J. Torres, Jr., Second
Division].
27. Atlas Consolidated Mining and Development Corporation v. Hon. Factoran, Jr. , 238 Phil. 48, 54 (1987) [Per J. Paras, First
Division].
29. Id.
30. Id.
33. CONST., art. II, sec. 16; ENVTL. PROC. RULE, Rule 1, sec. 3 (a).
SEC. 1. Nature of the writ. — The writ is a remedy available to a natural or juridical person, entity authorized by law,
people's organization, non-governmental organization, or any public interest group accredited by or registered with
any government agency, on behalf of persons whose constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology is
violated, or threatened with violation by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or private
individual or entity, involving environmental damage of such magnitude as to prejudice the life, health or property of
inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces.
SEC. 1. Petition for continuing mandamus . — 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.
51. Id.
52. Id. at 3143-3148. These are from respondent First Philippine Industrial Corporation's Interim Report on On-going
Compliance with the Writ of Kalikasan (as of October 2013).
54. Id.
55. Id.
57. Id.
67. Id.
68. 7 million premature deaths annually linked to air pollution , World Health Organization
<http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2014/air-pollution/en> (visited June 18, 2015).
69. Id.
70. IARC: Outdoor air pollution a leading environmental cause of cancer deaths, International Agency for Research on
Cancer, World Health Organization <http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/iarcnews/pdf/pr221_E.pdf> (visited June 18,
2015).