Province of Rizal v Exec . Secretary

8/12/2019 Province of Rizal v Exec . Secretary

1/32

Province of Rizal v. Executive Secretary

CHICO-NAZARIO,J.:

The earth belongs in usufruct to the living.[1]

At the height of the garbage crisis plaguing Metro Manila and its

environs, parts of the Marikina Watershed Reservation were set aside b the!ffice of the "resident, through "rocla#ation $o. %&' dated () August

1**', for use as a sanitar landfill and si#ilar waste disposal applications.+n fact, this site, etending to #ore or less 1) hectares, had alread been inoperation since 1* -ebruar 1**[(]for the solid wastes of /ue0on it,Marikina, 2an 3uan, Mandaluong, "ateros, "asig, and Taguig.[&]

This is a petition filed b the "rovince of Ri0al, the #unicipalit of2an Mateo, and various concerned citi0ens for review on certiorariof the4ecision of the ourt of Appeals in A56.R. 2" $o. 71&&, dening, forlack of cause of action, the petition for certiorari, prohibition andmandamus with application for a te#porar restraining order8writ of

preli#inar in9unction assailing the legalit and constitutionalit of"rocla#ation $o. %&'.

The facts are docu#ented in painstaking detail.

!n 1: $ove#ber 1*)), the respondent 2ecretaries of the 4epart#entof "ublic Works and ;ighwas


2/32

(. Bpon signing of this

Agree#ent, the 4"W; shall co##ence theconstruction8develop#ent of said du#psite.

&. The MM shall? a= take

charge of the relocation of the fa#ilies within and aroundthe siteC b= oversee the develop#ent of the areas as asanitar landfillC c= coordinate8#onitor the constructionof infrastructure facilities b the 4"W; in the said siteCand d= ensure that the necessar civil works are properlundertaken to safeguard against an negativeenviron#ental i#pact in the area.

!n :, ) and 1 -ebruar 1*)*, the Sangguniang Bayan of 2an Mateowrote 6ov. >lfren ru0 of the MM, 2ec. -iorello >stuar of the 4"W;, the"residential Task -orce on 2olid Waste Manage#ent, >ecutive 2ecretaratalino Macaraig, and 2ec. -ulgencio -actoran, 3r., pointing out that it hadrecentl passed a Resolution banning the creation of du#psites for MetroManila garbage within its 9urisdiction, asking that their side be heard, andthat the addressees Dsuspend and te#poraril hold in abeance all and an

part of our operations with respect to the 2an Mateo Eandfill 4u#psite.F$o action was taken on these letters.

+t turns out that the land sub9ect of the M!A of 1: $ove#ber 1*))and owned b the 4>$R was part of the Marikina Watershed ReservationArea. Thus, on &1 Ma 1*)*, forest officers of the -orest >ngineering and+nfrastructure Bnit of the o##unit >nviron#ent and $atural Resource!ffice, $R!= 4>$R5+G, Ri0al "rovince, sub#itted a Me#orandu# [']

on the D!n5going 4u#ping 2ite !peration of the MM inside


3/32

&.( 2oil tpe and its topograph are favorable foragricultural and forestr productionsC

. . .&.' 2aid 4u#ping 2ite i o!erve" to !e confine"

#it$in t$e ai" %ater$e" Reervation, bearingin the northeastern part of Eungsod 2ilanganTownsite Reservation. Suc$ ille&al 'u()in& Siteo)eration ini"e *t$e+ %ater$e" Reervation i

in violation of P.'. , ot$er#ie /no#n a t$e

Revie" 0oretry Co"e, as a#ended. . .

Reco##endations?

'.1 The 11C 'u()in& Site +nside Marikina

Watershed Reservation, particularl at @rg."intong @ocaue, 2an Mateo, Ri0al and at @o."inuga, @aras8Antipolo, Ri0al which are the

present garbage 0ones (ut totally !e to))e"an" "icoura&e" #it$out any )olitical

intervention an" "elay in or"er to ave our

$ealt$y ecoyte( foun" t$erein, to avoi"

(uc$ "etruction, uele effort an" lot *ic+of (illion of )u!lic fun" over t$e lan" in

2uetionC #phasis ours=

!n 1* 3une 1*)*, the >$R! sub#itted another +nvestigationReport[%]to the Regional >ecutive 4irector which states in part that?

1. About two $R who has functional 9urisdiction overthe Watershed ReservationC and
http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/#_ftn6http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/#_ftn6


4/32

&. About 1,1*( fa#ilies residing and cultivating areascovered b four $R! sub#itted still another +nvestigationReport[:]to the Regional >ecutive 4irector which states that?

-indings show that the areas used as 4u#ping 2ite of theMM are found to be within the Marikina Watershed which are

part of the +ntegrated 2ocial -orestr "ro9ect $R >nviron#ental Manage#ent@ureau, through Bndersecretar for >nviron#ent and Research elso R.Roue, granted the Metro Manila Authorit nviron#ental o#pliance ertificate = for the operation of a two5and5a5half5hectare garbage du#psite.

The > was sought and granted to co#pl with the reuire#ent of"residential 4ecree $o. 1')% D>stablishing an >nviron#ental +#pact

2tate#ent 2ste#,F 2ection 7 of which states in part that, D$o persons,partnership or corporation shall undertake or operate an such declaredenviron#entall critical pro9ect or area without first securing an>nviron#ental o#pliance ertificate.F "rocla#ation $o. (17%, passed on17 4ece#ber 1*)1, designates Dall areas declared b law as national parks,watershed reserves, wildlife preserves, and sanctuariesF asD>nviron#entall ritical Areas.F


5/32

!n * March 1**, respondent Eaguna Eake 4evelop#ent Authorit

,Bndersecretar Roue suspended the > in a letter[*] addressed to therespondent 2ecretar of 4"W;, stating in part that?

Bpon site investigation conducted b >nviron#entalManage#ent @ureau staff on develop#ent activities at the 2anMateo Eandfill 2ite, it #a acertaine" t$at &roun" lu()in&an" eroion $ave reulte" fro( i()ro)er "evelo)(ent of

t$e ite. We believe that this will adversel affect the

environ#ental ualit in the area if the proper re#edial#easures are not instituted in the design of the landfill site.This is therefore contradictor to state#ents #ade in the>nviron#ental +#pact 2tate#ent +2= sub#itted that aboveoccurrences will be properl #itigated.
http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/#_ftn8http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/#_ftn9http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/#_ftn8http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/#_ftn9


6/32

+n view of this, we are forced to suspend the>nviron#ental o#pliance ertificate = issued untilappropriate #odified plans are sub#itted and approved b this!ffice for i#ple#entation.#phasis ours=

!n (1 3une 1**&, the Acting Maor of 2an Mateo, >nriueRodrigue0, 3r., @aranga aptain 4o#inador Gergara, and petitionerRolando >. Gillacorte, hair#an of the "intong @ocaue Multipurposeooperative $R Bndersecretar for >nviron#entand Research contained the following findings and reco##endations?

Re#arks and -indings?. . . .

'. +nterview with Mr. 4arit, whose lot is now beingendangered because soil erosion have


7/32

MMA is intending to epand its operation within the 'hectares.

). Eots occupied within ' hectares are full planted

with fruit bearing trees like Mangoes, 2antol, 3ackfruit, Iaso,6uabano, Iala#ansi and itrus which are now bearing fruitsand being harvested and #arketed to nearb 2an Mateo Marketand Masinag Market in Antipolo.

. . . .

Reco##endations?1. As previousl reco##ended, the undersigned

also strongl reco##end


8/32

!n 1% $ove#ber 1**&, 4>$R 2ecretar Angel . Alcala sent MMAhair#an +s#ael A. Matha, 3r. a letter[1(] stating that Dafter a series ofinvestigations b field officialsF of the 4>$R, the agenc reali0ed that theM!A entered into on 1: $ove#ber 1*)) Dis a ver costl error because thearea agreed to be a garbage du#psite is inside the Marikina WatershedReservation.F ;e then strongl reco##ended that all facilities andinfrastructure in the garbage du#psite in "intong @ocaue be dis#antled, andthe garbage disposal operations be transferred to another area outside theMarikina Watershed Reservation to protect Dthe health and general welfareof the residents of 2an Mateo in particular and the residents of Metro Manilain general.F

!n % 3une 1**', petitioner Gillacorte, hair#an of the "@M,wrote[1&]"resident Ra#os, through the >ecutive 2ecretar, infor#ing the

"resident of the issues involved, that the du#psite is located near threepublic ele#entar schools, the closest of which is onl fift #eters awa,and that its location Dviolates the #unicipal 0oning ordinance of 2an Mateoand, in truth, the ;ousing and Eand Bse Regulator @oard had denied thethen MMA chair#anJs application for a locational clearance on thisground.F

!n (1 August 1**', the Sangguniang Bayan of 2an Mateo issued aResolution[17]Depressing a strong ob9ection to the planned epansion of thelandfill operation in "intong @ocaue and reuesting "resident Ra#os todisapprove the draft "residential "rocla#ation segregating :1.% ;ectaresfro# Marikina Watershed Reservation for the landfill site in "intong@ocaue, 2an Mateo, Ri0al.F

4espite the various ob9ections and reco##endations raised b the

govern#ent agencies afore#entioned, the !ffice of the "resident, through>ecutive 2ecretar Ruben Torres, signed and issued "rocla#ation $o. %&'on () August 1**', D>cluding fro# the Marikina Watershed Reservationertain "arcels of Eand >#braced Therein for Bse as 2anitar Eandfill 2ites

and 2i#ilar Waste 4isposal Bnder the Ad#inistration of the MetropolitanManila 4evelop#ent Authorit.F The pertinent portions thereof state?

W;>R>A2, to cope with the reuire#ents of thegrowing population in Metro Manila and the ad9oining

provinces and #unicipalities, certain developed and openportions of the Marikina Watershed Reservation, upon thereco##endation of the 2ecretar of the 4epart#ent of
http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/#_ftn12http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/#_ftn13http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/#_ftn14http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/#_ftn12http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/#_ftn13http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/#_ftn14


9/32

>nviron#ent and $atural Resources should now be ecludedfor# the scope of the reservationC

W;>R>A2, while the areas delineated as part of the

Watershed Reservations are intended pri#aril for use inpro9ects and8or activities designed to contain and preserve theunderground water suppl, other peripheral areas had beenincluded within the scope of the reservation to provide for suchspace as #a be needed for the construction of the necessarstructures, other related facilities, as well as other priorit

pro9ects of govern#ent as #a be eventuall deter#inedCW;>R>A2, there is now an urgent need to provide for,

and develop, the necessar facilities for the disposal of the

waste generated b the population of Metro Manila and thead9oining provinces and #unicipalities, to ensure their sanitarand 8or hgienic disposalC

W;>R>A2, to cope with the reuire#ents for the

develop#ent of the waste disposal facilities that #a be used,portions of the peripheral areas of the Marikina WatershedReservation, after due consideration and stud, have now beenidentified as suitable sites that #a be used for the purposeC

W;>R>A2, the 2ecretar of the 4epart#ent of

>nviron#ent and $atural Resources has reco##ended theeclusion of these areas that have been so identified fro# theMarikina Watershed Reservation so that the #a then bedeveloped for the purposeC

$!W, T;>R>-!R>, for and in consideration of the

aforecited pre#ises, +, -idel G. Ra#os, "resident of the"hilippines, b virtue of the powers vested in #e b law, do

hereb ordain?2ection 1. 6eneral K That certain parcels of land,

e#braced b the Marikina Watershed Reservation, were foundneeded for use in the solid waste disposal progra# of thegovern#ent in Metropolitan Manila, are hereb ecluded fro#that which is held in reserve and are now #ade available for use


10/32

as sanitar landfill and such other related waste disposalapplications.

2ection (. "urpose K The areas being ecluded fro# the

Marikina Watershed Reservation are hereb placed under thead#inistration of the Metropolitan Manila 4evelop#entAuthorit, for develop#ent as 2anitar Eandfill, and8or for usein the develop#ent of such other related waste disposalfacilities that #a be used b the cities and #unicipalities ofMetro Manila and the ad9oining province of Ri0al and its#unicipalities.

2ection &. Technical 4escription K 2pecificall, the

areas being hereb ecluded fro# the Marikina Watershed

Reservation consist of two M+EE+!$ 2+LT T;!B2A$4 -+G>;B$4R>4 TW>$T $+$> $R 2ecretar to epress the

bureauJs stand against the du#psite at "intong @ocaue, and that Dit is ourview . . . that the #ere presence of a garbage du#psite inside a watershedreservation is definitel not co#patible with the ver purpose and ob9ectivesfor which the reservation was established.F

!n (7 $ove#ber 1**', the petitioners Municipalit of 2an Mateo and

the residents of "intong @ocaue, represented b for#er 2enator 3ovito


11/32

2alonga, sent a letter to "resident Ra#os reuesting hi# to reconsider"rocla#ation $o. %&'. Receiving no repl, the sent another letter on (3anuar 1**% reiterating their previous reuest.

!n 7 March 1**%, then chair#an of the Metro Manila 4evelop#ent

Authorit


12/32

least & to ' ears of waste disposal reuire#ents.

7.(1 The present site at 2an Mateo was selected because, at

the ti#e consideration was being #ade, and up to thepresent, it is found to have the attributes that positivelrespond to the criteria established?

7.(1.1 The site was a govern#ent propert and would

not reuire an outla for it to be acuired.7.(1.( +t is far fro# an si0eable co##unit8settle#ents

that could be affected b the develop#ent thatwould be introduced and et, was within econo#ic

hauling distance fro# the areas the are designedto serve.7.(1.(1 At the ti#e it was originall decided to

locate the landfills at the present site, therewere not #ore that fifteen


13/32

evaluated to be least likel to affect the underground watersupplC and could, in fact, be ecluded fro# the reservation.

7.&1 +t was deter#ined to be far fro# the #ain water

contain#ent area for it to pose an i##ediate danger ofconta#inating the underground water, in case of a failurein an of the #itigating #easures that would be installed.

7.&( +t was likewise too far fro# the nearest bod of water,

the Eaguna Eake, and the distance, plus the increasingaccu#ulation of water fro# other tributaries toward thelake, would serve to dilute and #itigate anconta#ination it #a e#it, in case one happened.

7.&& To resolve the recurring issue regarding its beinglocated within the Marikina Watershed Reservation, thesite had been reco##ended b the 4>$R, and approved

b the "resident, to alread be ecluded fro# theMarikina Watershed reservation and placed under thead#inistration of MM4A, since the site was dee#ed tofor# part of the land resource reserve then co##onlreferred to as buffer 0one.

'. ontrar to the i#pression that ou had been given, relocating

the site at this point and ti#e would not be eas, if noti#practicable, because aside fro# the invest#ents that had been#ade in locating the present site, further invest#ents have beenincurred in?

'.1 The conduct of the technical studies for the develop#entbeing i#ple#ented. Through a grant5in5aid fro# the World@ank, B2O%, was initiall spent for the conduct of thenecessar studies on the area and the design of the landfill.

This was aug#ented b, at least, another "1.' #illion fro#the govern#ent for the studies to be co#pleted, or a total costat the ti#e


14/32

'.& To achieve the necessar econo#ies in the develop#ent of

the site, the utilities had been planned so that their use couldbe #ai#i0ed. These include the access roads, the drainagesste#, the leacheate collection sste#, the gas collectionsste#, and the waste water treat#ent sste#. Theirconstruction are designed so that instead of having toconstruct independent units for each area, the use of eistingfacilities can be #ai#i0ed through a sste# ofinterconnection. !n the average, the govern#ent is spending"17.) #illion to develop a hectare of sanitar landfill area.

%. 4espite the preparations and the invest#ents that are now

being #ade on the pro9ect, it is esti#ated that the total available

area, at an accelerated rate of disposal, assu#ing that all opendu#p sites were to be closed, will onl last for &* #onths.

%.1 We are still hard pressed to achieve advanced develop#ent

on the sites to assure against an possible crisis in garbagefro# again being eperienced in Metro Manila, aside fro#having to look for the additional sites that #a be used afterthe capacities shall have been ehausted.

%.( -aced with the prospects of having the 1',: cubic #eters

of garbage generated dail strewn all over Metro Manila, weare certain ou will agree that it would be futile to even as#uch as consider a suspension of the waste disposaloperations at the sanitar landfills.

!n (( 3ul 1**%, the petitioners filed before the ourt of Appeals acivil action for certiorari, prohibition and mandamuswith application for a

te#porar restraining order8writ of preli#inar in9unction. The hearing onthe praer for preli#inar in9unction was held on 17 August 1**%.

!n 1& 3une 1**:, the court a quo rendered a 4ecision,[1'] thedispositive part of which reads?

W;>R>-!R>, the petition for certiorari, prohibitionand #anda#us with application for a te#porar restraining


15/32

order8writ of preli#inar in9unction for lack of cause of action,is hereb 4>$+>4.[1%]

;ence, this petition for review on certiorariof the above decision onthe following grounds?

+

T;> !BRT !- A"">AE2 >RR>4 A$4 A@B2>4 +T24+2R>T+!$ +$ 4>E+@>RAT>E +6$!R+$6 T;>2+6$+-+A$T -AT T;AT "R>2+4>$T+AE"R!EAMAT+!$ $!. %&' WA2 @A2>4 !$ A @RAP>$

-!R6>R K +T WA2 2B""!2>4E +22B>4, A2 2TAT>4+$ T;> "R!EAMAT+!$ +T2>E- A$4 R>">AT>4EA22>RT>4 @ R>2"!$4>$T2 +$ T;>+R !MM>$T,!$ T;> @A2+2 !- T;> AEE>6>4 R>!MM>$4AT+!$!- T;> 4>$R 2>R>TAR 4AT>4 3B$> (%, 1**' @BTW;+; A22>RT+!$ WA2 4>$!B$>4 @ T;> T;>$2>R>TAR A$6>E . AEAEA ;+M2>E- K +$ A2W!R$ 2TAT>M>$T 4AT>4 2>"T>M@>R 1), 1**% A$4A6A+$ 4BR+$6 T;> 2">+AE ;>AR+$6 !- T;> A2>+$ T;> !BRT !- A"">AE2 !$ $!G>M@>R 1&, 1**% KA2 A -!R6>R 2+$> ;+2 2+6$ATBR> !$ T;>AEE>6>4 R>!MM>$4AT+!$ ;A4 @>>$ -AE2+-+>4,A2 $!W A4M+TT>4 @ R>2"!$4>$T2 T;>M2>EG>2+$ T;>+R !MM>$T -+E>4 W+T; T;> !BRT !-A"">AE2, T;R!B6; T;> !--+> !- T;> 2!E++T!R6>$>RAE.

++

T;> !BRT !- A"">AE2 >RR>4 A$4 A@B2>4 +T24+2R>T+!$ +$ !M"E>T>E +6$!R+$6 T;>2+6$+-+A$T -AT T;AT T;> R>2"!$4>$T2 AR>!">RAT+$6 T;> EA$4-+EE @A2>4 !$ A 2"BR+!B2>$G+R!$M>$TAE !M"E+A$> >RT+-+AT>.

+++


16/32

T;> !BRT !- A"">AE2 >RR>4 +$ RBE+$6 T;AT T;>R>2"!$4>$T2 4+4 $!T G+!EAT> R.A. :')% W;>$T;> +22B>4 A$4 +M"E>M>$T>4 "R!EAMAT+!$

$!. %&' !$2+4>R+$6 T;AT T;> W+T;4RAWAE !R4+2>2TA@E+2;M>$T !- A "R!T>T>4 AR>A !R T;>M!4+-+AT+!$ !- T;> MAR+I+$A WAT>R2;>4 A$!$E @> 4!$> @ A$ AT !- !$6R>22.

+G

T;> !BRT !- A"">AE2 >RR>4 A$4 A@B2>4 +T24+2R>T+!$ W;>$ +T 4>E+@>RAT>E A$4W+EE-BEE @RB2;>4 A2+4> T;> B$A$+M!B2

-+$4+$62 A$4 A4G>R2> R>!MM>$4AT+!$2 !-R>2"!$2+@E> 6!G>R$M>$T A6>$+>2 A$4 $!$5"ART+2A$ !--++AE2 !$>R$>4 W+T;>$G+R!$M>$TAE "R!T>T+!$ +$ -AG!R !- T;>2>E-52>RG+$6, 6RATB+T!B2 A22>RT+!$2 -!B$4 +$T;> B$2!E++T>4, "ART+2A$ E>TT>R !- -!RM>RMAEA@!$ MA!R, $!W ;A+RMA$ "R!2">R!!R>TA !- T;> MM4A W;! +2 A$ +$T>R>2T>4"ART +$ T;+2 A2>.

G

T;> !BRT !- A"">AE2 >RR>4 W;>$ +T R>A4+E2WAEE!W>4 R>2"!$4>$T2J A22>RT+!$ T;AT T;>2A$ MAT>! 4BM"2+T> D+2 E!AT>4 +$ T;> Q@B-->RP!$>J !- T;> R>2>RGAT+!$F A$4 +2 T;>R>-!R>!BT2+4> !- +T2 @!B$4AR+>2, A$4 >G>$ 4>EAR>4+$ +T2 4>+2+!$ T;AT +T T!!I D2>R+!B2 $!T>F !-

T;+2 "ART+BEAR AR6BM>$T.

G+

T;> !BRT !- A"">AE2 >RR>4 A$4 A@B2>4 +T24+2R>T+!$ W;>$ +T >$R!A;>4 !$ T;>-B$T+!$ !- !$6R>22 @ >L"R>22+$6 +T2


17/32

B$3B2T+-+>4 ->AR !- M+$+52M!I> M!B$TA+$2"R!E+->RAT+$6 +$ M>TR! MA$+EA A$4 3B2T+-+$6+T2 4>+2+!$ +$ -AG!R !- DA$ +$T>6RAT>422T>M !- 2!E+4 WA2T> MA$A6>M>$T E+I> T;>2A$ MAT>! EA$4-+EE.

!n ' 3anuar 1**), while the appeal was pending, the petitionersfiled a Motion for Te#porar Restraining !rder,[1:] pointing out that theeffects of theEl Nio pheno#enon would be aggravated b the relentlessdestruction of the Marikina Watershed Reservation. The noted thatrespondent MM4A had, in the #eanti#e, continued to epand the area ofthe du#psite inside the Marikina Watershed Reservation, cutting down

thousands of #ature fruit trees and forest trees, and leveling hills and#ountains to clear the du#ping area. 6arbage disposal operations were also

being conducted on a (75hour basis, with hundreds of #etric tons of wastesbeing du#ped dail, including toic and infectious hospital wastes,intensifing the air, ground and water pollution.[1)]

The petitioners reiterated their praer that respondent MM4A be

te#poraril en9oined fro# further du#ping waste into the site and fro#encroaching into the area beond its eisting peri#eter fence so as not torender the case #oot and acade#ic.

!n () 3anuar 1***, the petitioners filed a Motion for >arl

Resolution,[1*]calling attention to the continued epansion of the du#psiteb the MM4A that caused the people of Antipolo to stage a rall andbarricade the Marcos ;ighwa to stop the du#p trucks fro# reaching thesite for five successive das fro# 1% 3anuar 1***. !n the second da ofthe barricade, all the #unicipal #aors of the province of Ri0al openldeclared their full support for the rall, and notified the MM4A that thewould oppose an further atte#pt to du#p garbage in their province.[(]

As a result, MM4A officials, headed b then hair#an 3e9o#ar

@ina, agreed to abandon the du#psite after si #onths. Thus, the#unicipal #aors of Ri0al, particularl the #aors of Antipolo and 2anMateo, agreed to the use of the du#psite until that period, which would endon ( 3ul 1***.[(1]
http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/#_ftn17http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/#_ftn18http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/#_ftn19http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/#_ftn20http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/#_ftn21http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/#_ftn17http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/#_ftn18http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/#_ftn19http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/#_ftn20http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/#_ftn21


18/32

!n 1& 3ul 1***, the petitioners filed an Brgent 2econd Motion for>arl Resolution[((] in anticipation of violence between the conflicting

parties as the date of the scheduled closure of the du#psite neared.!n 1* 3ul 1***, then "resident 3oseph >. >strada, taking cogni0ance

of the gravit of the proble#s in the affected areas and the likelihood thatviolence would erupt a#ong the parties involved, issued a Me#orandu#ordering the closure of the du#psite on &1 4ece#ber (. [(&] Accordingl,on ( 3ul 1***, the "residential o##ittee on -lagship "rogra#s and"ro9ects and the MM4A entered into a M!A with the "rovincial6overn#ent of Ri0al, the Municipalit of 2an Mateo, and the it ofAntipolo, wherein the latter agreed to further etend the use of the du#psiteuntil its per#anent closure on &1 4ece#ber (.[(7]

!n 11 3anuar (1, "resident >strada directed 4epart#ent of+nterior and Eocal 6overn#ent 2ecretar Alfredo Ei# and MM4Ahair#an @ina to reopen the 2an Mateo du#psite Din view of thee#ergenc situation of uncollected garbage in Metro Manila, resulting in acritical and i##inent health and sanitation epide#ic.F[(']

lai#ing the above events constituted a Dclear and present danger ofviolence erupting in the affected areas,F the petitioners filed an Brgent"etition for Restraining !rder[(%]on 1* 3anuar (1.

!n (7 3anuar (1, this ourt issued the Te#porar Restraining!rder praed for, Deffective i##ediatel and until further orders.F[(:]

Meanwhile, on (% 3anuar (1, Republic Act $o. *&, otherwiseknown as DThe >cological 2olid Waste Manage#ent Act of (,F wassigned into law b "resident >strada.

Thus, the petitioners raised onl two issues in their Me#orandu# [()]

of ) -ebruar ('? 1= whether or not respondent MM4A agreed to theper#anent closure of the 2an Mateo Eandfill as of 4ece#ber (, and (=

whether or not the per#anent closure of the 2an Mateo landfill is #andatedb Rep. Act $o. *&.

We hold that the 2an Mateo Eandfill will re#ain per#anentl closed.Although the petitioners #a be dee#ed to have waived or abandoned

the issues raised in their previous pleadings but not included in the
http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/#_ftn22http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/#_ftn23http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/#_ftn24http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/#_ftn25http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/#_ftn26http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/#_ftn27http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/#_ftn28http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/#_ftn22http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/#_ftn23http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/#_ftn24http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/#_ftn25http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/#_ftn26http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/#_ftn27http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/#_ftn28


19/32

#e#orandu#, [(*]certain events we shall relate below have inclined us toaddress so#e of the #ore pertinent issues raised in the petition for theguidance of the herein respondents, and pursuant to our s#bolic function toeducate the bench and bar.[&]

The law and the facts indicate that a #ere M!A does not guaranteethe du#psiteJs per#anent closure.

The rall and barricade staged b the people of Antipolo on ()3anuar 1***, with the full support of all the #aors of Ri0al "rovincecaused the MM4A to agree that it would abandon the du#psite after si#onths. +n return, the #unicipal #aors allowed the use of the du#psiteuntil ( 3ul 1***.

!n ( 3ul 1***, with #uch fanfare and rhetoric, the "residentialo##ittee on -lagship "rogra#s and "ro9ects and the MM4A entered intoa M!A with the "rovincial 6overn#ent of Ri0al, the Municipalit of 2anMateo, and the it of Antipolo, whereb the latter agreed to an etensionfor the use of the du#psite until &1 4ece#ber (, at which ti#e it would

be per#anentl closed.4espite this agree#ent, "resident >strada directed 4epart#ent of

+nterior and Eocal 6overn#ent 2ecretar Alfredo Ei# and MM4Ahair#an @ina to reopen the 2an Mateo du#psite on 11 3anuar (1, Dinview of the e#ergenc situation of uncollected garbage in Metro Manila,resulting in a critical and i##inent health and sanitation epide#icCF ourissuance of a TR! on (7 3anuar (1 prevented the du#psiteJs reopening.

Were it not for the TR!, then "resident >stradaJs instructions would

have been lawfull carried out, for as we observed in Oposa v. Factoran, thefreedo# of contract is not absolute. Thus?

H.. +n Abe vs. -oster Wheeler orp., this ourt stated? 8$e

free"o( of contract, un"er our yte( of &overn(ent, i not(eant to !e a!olute. The same is understood to be subject to

reasonable legislative regulation aimed at the promotion o

public health! moral! saety and "elare. #n other "ords! the

constitutional guaranty o non$impairment o obligations o

contract is limited by the e%ercise o the police po"er o the

State! in the interest o public health! saety! moral and general


20/32

"elare.& The reason for this is e#phaticall set forth inNebiavs. Ne" 'or(! uoted in "hilippine A#erican Eife +nsuranceo. vs. Auditor 6eneral, to wit? SBnder our for# ofgovern#ent the use of propert and the #aking of contracts arenor#all #atters of private and not of public concern. Thegeneral rule is that both shall be free of govern#entalinterference. @ut neither property rights nor contract rights areabsolute) or government cannot e%ist i the citi*en may at "ill

use his property to the detriment o his ello"s! or e%ercise his

reedom o contract to "or( them harm. Equally undamental

"ith the private right is that o the public to regulate it in the

common interest.S +n short, the non5i#pair#ent clause #ustield to the police power of the state.


21/32

plant had been eroded twice alread, conta#inating the nearb creeks thatwere sources of potable water for the residents. The contaminated waterwas also found to flow to the Wawa Dam and Boso-boso River, which in

turn empties into Laguna de Ba!

This brings us to the second self5evident point. Water is life, and#ust be saved at all costs. +n +ollado v. +ourt o ,ppeals!"#$% we hadoccasion to reaffir# our previous discussion in Sta. -osa -ealty

evelopment +orporation v. +ourt o ,ppeals,[&:] on the pri#ordiali#portance of watershed areas, thus? DThe #ost i#portant product of awatershed is water, which is one of the #ost i#portant hu#an necessities.The protection of watersheds ensures an adeuate suppl of water for futuregenerations and the control of flashfloods that not onl da#age propert butalso cause loss of lives. "rotection of watersheds is an DintergenerationalF

responsibilit that needs to be answered now.[&)]Three short #onths beore"rocla#ation $o. %&' was passed to avert

the garbage crisis, ongress had enacted the $ational Water risis Act [&*]toDadopt urgent and effective #easures to address the nationwide water crisiswhich adversel affects the health and well5being of the population, food

production, and industriali0ation process. !ne of the issues the law soughtto address was the Dprotection and conservation of watersheds!F[7]

+n other words, while respondents were blandl declaring that Dthe

reason for the creation of the Marikina Watershed Reservation, i.e., toprotect Marikina River as the source of water suppl of the it of Manila,no longer eists,F the rest of the countr was gripped b a shortage of

potable water so serious, it necessitated its own legislation.RespondentsJ actions in the face of such grave environ#ental

conseuences def all logic. The petitioners rightl noted that instead ofproviding solutions, the have, with un#itigated callousness, worsened theproble#. +t is this readiness to wreak irrevocable da#age on our natural

heritage in pursuit of what is epedient that has co#pelled us to rule atlength on this issue. We ignore the unrelenting depletion of our naturalheritage at our peril.

I.
http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/#_ftn36http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/#_ftn37http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/#_ftn38http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/#_ftn39http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/#_ftn40http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/#_ftn36http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/#_ftn37http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/#_ftn38http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/#_ftn39http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/#_ftn40


22/32

T;> R>!R6A$+PAT+!$ AT !- T;> 4>$R 4>-+$>2 A$4E+M+T2 +T2 "!W>R2 !G>R T;> !B$TRJ2 $ATBRAE

R>2!BR>2

The respondents net point out that the Marikina WatershedReservation, and thus the 2an Mateo 2ite, is located in the public do#ain.The allege that as such, neither the "rovince of Ri0al nor the #unicipalitof 2an Mateo has the power to control or regulate its use since properties ofthis nature belong to the national, and not to the local govern#ents.

+t is ironic that the respondents should pursue this line of reasoning.

+n +ru* v. Secretary o Environment and Natural -esources ,[71] wehad occasion to observe that Dcono# and the "atri#on of the $ation,F and reaffir#edin the 1*): onstitution in 2ection ( of Article L++ on D$ational >cono#and "atri#on,F to wit?

Sec. /. All lands of the public do#ain, waters, #inerals,coal, petroleu#, and other #ineral oils, all forces of potentialenerg, fisheries, forests or ti#ber, wildlife, flora and fauna,

and other natural resources are owned b the 2tate. With theeception of agricultural lands, all other natural resources shallnot be alienated. The eploration, develop#ent and utili0ationof natural resources shall be under the full control andsupervision of the 2tate. The 2tate #a directl undertake suchactivities or it #a enter into co5production, 9oint venture, or

production5sharing agree#ents with -ilipino citi0ens, or


23/32

corporations or associations at least sit per centu# of whosecapital is owned b such citi0ens. 2uch agree#ents #a be fora period not eceeding twent5five ears, renewable for not#ore than twent5five ears, and under such ter#s andconditions as #a be provided b law. +n cases of water rightsfor irrigation, water suppl, fisheries, or industrial uses otherthan the develop#ent of water power, beneficial use #a be the#easure and li#it of the grant.[7&]

learl, the state is, and alwas has been, 0ealous in preserving as#uch of our natural and national heritage as it can, enshrining as it did theobligation to preserve and protect the sa#e within the tet of our

funda#ental law.

+t was with this ob9ective in #ind that the respondent 4>$R was#andated b then "resident ora0on . Auino, under 2ection 7 of>ecutive !rder $o. 1*(, [77]otherwise known as DThe Reorgani0ation Actof the 4epart#ent of >nviron#ent and $atural Resources,F to be Dthe

pri#ar govern#ent agenc responsible for the conservation, management,development and proper use of the countrJs environ#ent and naturalresources, specificall forest and gra0ing lands, #ineral resources, includingthose in reservation and watershed areas! and lands of the public do#ain.+t is also responsible for the licensing and regulation of all natural resourcesas #a be provided for b law in order to enure e2uita!le $arin& of t$e!enefit "erive" t$erefro( for the welfare of the present and future

generations of Filipinos.FWe epounded on this #atter in the land#ark case of Oposa v.

Factoran![7'] where we held that the right to a balanced and healthfulecolog is a funda#ental legal right that carries with it the correlative dutto refrain fro# i#pairing the environ#ent. This right i#plies, a#ong other

things, the 9udicious #anage#ent and conservation of the countrJsresources, which dut is reposed in the 4>$R under the aforeuoted 2ection7 of >ecutive !rder $o. 1*(. Moreover?

2ection & . !. $o. 1*(= #akes the followingstate#ent of polic?


24/32

2>. &. 4eclaration of "olic. 5 +t is herebdeclared the polic of the 2tate to ensure thesustainable use, development, management,

renewal, and conservationof the countrSs forest,#ineral, land, off5shore areas and other naturalresources, including the protection andenhance#ent of the ualit of the environ#ent,and euitable access of the different seg#ents ofthe population to the develop#ent and use of thecountrSs natural resources, not onl for the

present generation but for future generations as

well. +t is also the polic of the state to recogni0eand appl a true value sste# including social andenviron#ental cost i#plications relative to their

utili0ationC develop#ent and conservation of ournatural resources. #phasis ours=

This polic declaration is substantiall re5stated in Title

L+G, @ook +G of the Ad#inistrative ode of 1*):, specificallin 2ection 1 thereof which reads?

2>. 1. eclaration o 0olicy. 5


25/32

to the utili0ation, develop#ent and conservation ofour natural resources.

The above provision stresses Dthe necessit of

#aintaining a sound ecological balance and protecting andenhancing the ualit of the environ#ent.F[7%]#phasis ours.=

+n su#, the Ad#inistrative ode of 1*): and >ecutive !rder $o.1*( entrust the 4>$R with the guardianship and sae(eeping of theMarikina Watershed Reservation and our other natural treasures. ;owever,although the 4>$R, an agenc of the govern#ent, owns the MarikinaReserve and has 9urisdiction over the sa#e, this po"er is not absolute! but is

deined by the declared policies o the state! and is subject to the la" andhigher authority. 2ection (, Title L+G, @ook +G of the Ad#inistrative odeof 1*):, while specificall referring to the #andate of the 4>$R, #akes

particular reference to the agencJs being sub9ect to law and higherauthorit, thus?

2>. (. 1andate. 5 nviron#ent and $atural Resources shall be pri#arilresponsible for the i#ple#entation of the foregoing polic.


26/32

T;> E!AE 6!G>R$M>$T !4> 6+G>2 T! E!AE6!G>R$M>$T B$+T2 AEE T;> $>>22AR "!W>R2 T!

"R!M!T> T;> 6>$>RAE W>E-AR> !- T;>+R +$;A@+TA$T2

The circu#stances under which "rocla#ation $o. %&' was passedalso violates Rep. Act $o. :1%, or the Eocal 6overn#ent ode.

ontrar to the aver#ent of the respondents, "rocla#ation $o. %&',which was passed on () August 1**', is sub9ect to the provisions of theEocal 6overn#ent ode, which was approved four ears earlier, on 1!ctober 1**1.

2ection (


27/32

necessaril i#plied therefro#, as well as powers necessary, appropriate, orincidental for its efficient and effective governance, and those which

are essential to the promotion of the general welfare, which involve,

among other things, promot(ing) health and safety, enhance(ing) the

right of the people to a balanced ecology, and preserv(ing) the comfort

and convenience of their inhabitants.F+n Lina , Jr! v! )a*o,[7*] we held that 2ection (


28/32

Thus, t$e )ro;ect an" )ro&ra( (entione" in

Section 4 $oul" !e inter)rete" to (ean )ro;ect an"

)ro&ra( #$oe effect are a(on& t$oe enu(erate" in

Section 4< an" 4, to #it, t$oe t$at: *3+ (ay caue

)ollution= *4+ (ay !rin& a!out cli(atic c$an&e= *>+ (ay

caue t$e "e)letion of non-rene#a!le reource= *?+ (ay

reult in lo of cro) lan", ran&e-lan", or foret cover= *+

(ay era"icate certain ani(al or )lant )ecie fro( t$e face

of t$e )lanet= an" *


29/32

ordinances in consonance with the approved

comprehensive land use plan, subect to e-isting

laws, rules and regulations( establishing fire limits

or zones, particularly in populous centers( and

regulating the construction, repair or modification

of buildings within said fire limits or zones in

accordance with the provisions of this %ode()ection**+ #$#vi/i-$]

6BEAT>4 @ T;> >!E!6+AE

2!E+4 WA2T> MA$A6>M>$T AT !- (


30/32

The respondents would have us overlook all the abovecited lawsbecause the 2an Mateo site is a ver epensive 5 and necessar 5 aitaccompli. The respondents cite the #illions of pesos and hundreds ofthousands of dollars the govern#ent has alread epended in itsdevelop#ent and construction, and the lack of an viable alternative sites.

The ourt of Appeals agreed, thus?4uring the hearing on the in9unction, uestions were also

asked. DWhat will happen if the 2an Mateo 2anitar Eandfill isclosed Where will the dail collections of garbage bedisposed of and du#pedF Att. Mendo0a, one of the lawersof the petitioners, answered that each cit8#unicipalit Q#ust

take care of its own.J Reflecting on that answer, we aretroubled? will not the proliferation of separate open du#psites

be a #ore serious health ha0ard cological 2olid Waste Manage#entAct of (F was enacted pursuant to the declared polic of the state Dtoadopt a sste#atic, co#prehensive and ecological solid waste #anage#entsste# which shall ensure the protection of public health and environ#ent,and utili0e environ#entall sound #ethods that #ai#i0e the utili0ation of


31/32

valuable resources and encourage resource conservation and recover.F['&] +treuires the adherence to a Eocal 6overn#ent 2olid Waste Manage#ent"lan with regard to the collection and transfer, processing, source reduction,reccling, co#posting and final disposal of solid wastes, the handling anddisposal of special wastes, education and public infor#ation, and thefunding of solid waste #anage#ent pro9ects.

The said law #andates the for#ulation of a $ational 2olid Waste

Manage#ent -ra#ework, which should include, a#ong other things, the#ethod and procedure for the phaseout and the eventual closure withineighteen #onths fro# effectivit of the Act in case of eisting open du#psand8or anitary lan"fill locate" #it$in an a2uifer, &roun"#aterreervoir or #ater$e" area.['7] An landfills subseuentl developed #ustco#pl with the #ini#u# reuire#ents laid down in 2ection 7,

specificall that the site selected (ut !e conitent #it$ t$e overall lan"ue )lan of t$e local &overn(ent unit, and that the site must be located inan area where the landfill+s operation will not detrimentall affect

environmentall sensitive resources such as a(uifers, groundwater

reservoirs or watershed areas!"%

This writesinis to an re#aining aspirations respondents #a have of

reopening the 2an Mateo 2ite. ;aving declared "rocla#ation $o. %&'illegal, we see no co#pelling need to tackle the re#aining issues raised inthe petition and the partiesJ respective #e#oranda.

A final word. Eaws pertaining to the protection of the environ#entwere not drafted in a vacuu#. ongress passed these laws full aware of the

perilous state of both our econo#ic and natural wealth. +t was precisel to#ini#i0e the adverse i#pact hu#anitJs actions on all aspects of the naturalworld, at the sa#e ti#e #aintaining and ensuring an environ#ent underwhich #an and nature can thrive in productive and en9oable har#on witheach other, that these legal safeguards were put in place. The should thusnot be so lightl cast aside in the face of what is eas and epedient.

W;>R>-!R>, the petition is 6RA$T>4. The 4ecision of theourt of Appeals in A56.R. 2" $o. 71&&, dated 1& 3une 1**:, isR>G>R2>4 and 2>T A2+4>. The te#porar restraining order issued bthe ourt on (7 3anuar (1 is hereb #ade per#anent.


32/32

2! !R4>R>4.

Documents

Province of Rizal v Exec . Secretary