Pelaez vs Auditor General

15 SCRA 569 Political Law Sufficient Standard Test and Completeness Test

In1964, President Ferdinand Marcosissued executive orders creating 33 municipalities this was purportedly pursuant to Section 68 of the Revised Administrative Code which provides in part: The President may by executive order define the boundary of anymunicipalityand may change the seat of government within any subdivision to such place therein as the public welfare may requireThe then Vice President, Emmanuel Pelaez, asa taxpayer, filed a special civil action to prohibit the auditor general from disbursing funds to be appropriated for the said municipalities. Pelaez claims that the EOs were unconstitutional. He said that Section 68 of the RAC had been impliedly repealed by Section 3 of RA 2370 which provides that barrios may not be created or their boundaries altered nor their names changed except by Act of Congress. Pelaez argues: If the President, under this new law, cannot even create a barrio, how can he create a municipality which is composed of several barrios, since barrios are units of municipalities? The Auditor General countered that there was no repeal and that only barrios were barred from being created by the President. Municipalities are exempt from the bar and that a municipality can be created without creating barrios.He further maintains that through Sec. 68 of the RAC, Congress has delegated such power to create municipalities to the President.

ISSUE:Whether or not Congress has delegated the power to create barrios to the President by virtue of Sec. 68 of the RAC.

HELD:No. There was no delegation here.Although Congress may delegate to another branch of the government the power to fill in the details in the execution, enforcement or administration of a law, it is essential, to forestall a violation of the principle of separation of powers, that said law: (a) be complete in itself it must set forth therein the policy to be executed, carried out or implemented by the delegate and (b) fix a standard the limits of which are sufficiently determinate or determinable to which the delegate must conform in the performance of his functions. In this case, Sec. 68 lacked any such standard. Indeed, without a statutory declaration of policy, the delegate would, in effect, make or formulate such policy, which is the essence of every law; and, without the aforementioned standard, there would be no means to determine, with reasonable certainty, whether the delegate has acted within or beyond the scope of his authority.

Further, although Sec. 68 provides the qualifying clause as the public welfare may require which would mean that the President may exercise such poweras the public welfare may require is present, still, such will not replace the standard needed for a proper delegation of power. In the first place, what the phrase as the public welfare may require qualifies is the text which immediately precedes hence, the proper interpretation is the Presidentmay change the seat of government within any subdivision to such place therein as the public welfare may require. Only the seat of government may be changed by the President when public welfare so requires and NOT the creation of municipality.

The Supreme Court declared thatthe power to create municipalities is essentially and eminently legislative in character not administrative (not executive).

Tobias vs Abalos

FACTS:

Prior to Republic Act No., 7675 also known as An Act Converting the Municipality of Mandaluyong into a Highly Urbanized City to be known as the City of Mandaluyong, Mandaluyong and San Juan belonged to only one legislative district. A plebiscite was held for the people of Mandaluyong whether or not they approved of the said conversion. The plebiscite was only 14.41% of the said conversion. Nevertheless, 18,621 voted yes whereas 7, 911 voted no.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the ratification of RA7675 was unconstitutional citing Article VI, Sections 5(1), 4 and 26(1)

HELD/RULING:

For the purposes of discussion, lets breakdown all of the claimed violations to the 1987 Constitution.

Section 26(1). Every bill passed by the Congress shall embrace only one subject which shall be expressed in the title thereof.

The creation of a separate congressional district for Mandaluyong is not a subject separate and distinct from the subject of its conversion. Moreover, a liberal construction of the one-title-one-subject rule has been liberally adopted by the court as to not impede legislation (Lidasan v. Comelec).

Sec. 5(1). The House of Representatives shall be composed of not more than two hundred and fifty members, unless otherwise fixed by law, who shall be elected from legislative districts apportioned among the provinces, cities, and the Metropolitan Manila area in accordance with the number of their respective inhabitants, and on the basis of a uniform and progressive ratio, and those who, as provided by law, shall be elected through a party list system of registered national, regional and sectoral parties or organizations.

The Constitution clearly provides that the House of Representatives shall be composed of not more than 250 members,unless otherwise provided by law. The emphasis on the latter clause indicates that the number of the House of Representatives may be increased, if mandated via a legislative enactment. Therefore, the increase in congressional representation is not unconstitutional.

Sec. 5(4). Within three years following the return of every census, the Congress shall make a reapportionment of legislative districts based on the standard provided in this section.

The argument on the violation of the above provision is absurd since it was the Congress itself which drafted, deliberated upon and enacted the assailed law.

The petition is thereby DISMISSED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED.

RP (Hon. Heherson Alvarez as Sec. Of the DENR, Clarence Baguilat as the Reg. Executive Dir. Of DENR- Region XI and Engr. Bienvenido Lipa as Reg. Dir. Of the DENR-ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT BUREAU (DENR-EMB), Region XI v. THE CITY OF DAVAO

G.R. No. 148622. September 12, 2002

SYNOPSIS

Respondent filed an application for a Certificate of Non-Coverage (CNC) for its proposed project, the Davao City Artica Sports Dome, with the Environmental Management Bureau (EMB), Region XI. The same, however, was denied on the ground that the proposed project was within an environmentally critical area; that the City of Davao must first undergo the environmental impact assessment (EIA) process to secure an Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC). Respondent then filed a petition for mandamus with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), and the latter ruled in favor of respondent.

As the project in issue is not classified as environmentally critical or within an environmentally critical area, the DENR has no choice but to issue the CNC. It becomes its ministerial duty, the performance of which can be compelled by writ of mandamus, such as that issued herein by the trial court. The petition filed by the Republic was denied.

SYLLABUS

1.POLITICAL LAW; ADMINISTRATIVE LAW; LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE; LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNIT; FUNCTIONS. Section 15 of Republic Act 7160, otherwise known as the Local Government Code, defines a local government unit as a body politic and corporate endowed with powers to be exercised by it in conformity with law. As such, it performs dual functions, governmental and proprietary. Governmental functions are those that concern the health, safety and the advancement of the public good or welfare as affecting the public generally. Proprietary functions are those that seek to obtain special corporate benefits or earn pecuniary profit and intended for private advantage and benefit. When exercising governmental powers and performing governmental duties, an LGU is an agency of the national government. When engaged in corporate activities, it acts as an agent of the community in the administration of local affairs. ASDTEa

2.ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; NOT EXCLUDED FROM THE COVERAGE OF PD 1586 (ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT SYSTEM). Found in Section 16 of the Local Government Code is the duty of the LGUs to promote the peoples right to a balanced ecology. Pursuant to this, an LGU, like the City of Davao, can not claim exemption from the coverage of PD 1586. As a body politic endowed with governmental functions, an LGU has the duty to ensure the quality of the environment, which is the very same objective of PD 1586. Further, it is a rule of statutory construction that every part of a statute must be interpreted with reference to the context, i.e., that every part must be considered with other parts, and kept subservient to the general intent of the enactment. Section 4 of PD 1586 clearly states that no person, partnership or corporation shall undertake or operate any such declared environmentally critical project or area without first securing an Environmental Compliance Certificate issued by the President or his duly authorized representative. The Civil Code defines a person as either natural or juridical. The state and its political subdivisions, i.e., the local government units are juridical persons. Undoubtedly therefore, local government units are not excluded from the coverage of PD 1586. Lastly, very clear in Section 1 of PD 1586 that said law intends to implement the policy of the state to achieve a balance between socio-economic development and environmental protection, which are the twin goals of sustainable development. The first paragraph of the Whereas clause of the law stresses that this can only be possible if we adopt a comprehensive and integrated environmental protection program where all the sectors of the community are involved, i.e., the government and the private sectors. The local government units, as part of the machinery of the government, cannot therefore be deemed as outside the scope of the EIS system.

3.REMEDIAL LAW; EVIDENCE; FACTUAL FINDINGS OF THE TRIAL COURT, GENERALLY RESPECTED; EXCEPTIONS. The trial court, after a consideration of the evidence, found that the Artica Sports Dome is not within an environmentally critical area. Neither is it an environmentally critical project. It is axiomatic that factual findings of the trial court, when fully supported by the evidence on record, are binding upon this Court and will not be disturbed on appeal. This Court is not a trier of facts. There are exceptional instances when this Court may disregard factual findings of the trial court, namely: a) when the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculations, surmises, or conjectures; b) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd, or impossible; c) where there is a grave abuse of discretion; d) when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; e) when the findings of fact are conflicting; f) when the Court of Appeals, in making its findings, went beyond the issues of the case and the same are contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee; g) when the findings of the Court of Appeals are contrary to those of the trial court; h) when the findings of fact are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; i) when the finding of fact of the Court of Appeals is premised on the supposed absence of evidence but is contradicted by the evidence on record; and j) when the Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties and which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion. None of these exceptions, however, obtain in this case.

4.ID.; SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS; MANDAMUS; PROPER FOR THE PERFORMANCE OF A MINISTERIAL DUTY. The Artica Sports Dome in Langub is not classified as environmentally critical, or within an environmentally critical area. Consequently, the DENR has no choice but to issue the Certificate of Non-Coverage. It becomes its ministerial duty, the performance of which can be compelled by writ of mandamus, such as that issued by the trial court in the case at bar.

FACTS:

1. August 11, 2000- respondent filed an application for a Certificate of Non-Coverage (CNC) for its proposed project, the Davao City Artica Sports Dome, with the EMB- Region XI ; attached to the application

2. EMB Region XI denied the application after finding that the proposed project was within an environmentally critical area

a. Basis: Section 2, Presidential Decree No. 1586, otherwise known as the Environmental Impact Statement System, in relation to Section 4 of Presidential Decree No. 1151, also known as the Philippine Environment Policy the City of Davao must undergo the environmental impact assessment (EIA) process to secure an Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC), before it can proceed with the construction of its project

3. Respondent filed a petition for mandamus and injunction with the RTC of Davao with the ff. Allegations:

a. project was neither an environmentally critical project nor within an environmentally critical area

b. it was the ministerial duty of the DENR to issue a CNC in favor of respondent upon submission of the required documents

4. RTC ruled in favour of the City of Davao and hence directed the DENR ro issue the CNC for the project (PD 1586 as basis)

a. Ratio:

i. there is nothing in PD 1586, in relation to PD 1151 and Letter of Instruction No. 1179 (prescribing guidelines for compliance with the EIA system), which requires LGUs to comply with the EIS law.

ii. Only agencies and instrumentalities of the national government, including GOCCs, as well as private corporations, firms and entities are mandated to go through the EIA process for their proposed projects which have significant effect on the quality of the environment.

iii. A local government unit, not being an agency or instrumentality of the National Government, is deemed excluded under the principle of expressio unius est exclusio alterius

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

5. Petitioner filed a MR but it was denied.

6. Hence, this petition.

*Notes:

Sec. 15, RA 7160 (LGC)

local government unit as a body politic and corporate endowed with powers to be exercised by it in conformity with law.

performs dual functions, governmental (those that concern the health, safety and the advancement of the public good or welfare as affecting the public generally ) and proprietary (those that seek to obtain special corporate benefits or earn pecuniary profit and intended for private advantage and benefit)

RULES:

When exercising governmental powers and performing governmental duties, an LGU is an agency of the national government

When engaged in corporate activities, it acts as an agent of the community in the administration of local affairs.

Sec. 16, RA 7160 (LGC) duty of the LGUs to promote the people's right to a balanced ecology

an LGU, like the City of Davao, can not claim exemption from the coverage of PD 1586

As a body politic endowed with governmental functions, an LGU has the duty to ensure the quality of the environment, which is the very same objective of PD 158

ISSUE:

WON the LGUs are excluded from the coverage of PD 1586, one which requires an environmental impact assessment (EIA) process to secure an Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC)

HELD:

No.

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

a. LGUs are juridical persons

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

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

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

4.) The Artica Sports Dome in Langub does not come close to any of the projects or areas enumerated in Presidential 2146 (proclaiming areas and types of projects as environmentally critical and w/in scope of the EIS). Neither is it analogous to any of them. It is clear, therefore, that the said project is not classified as environmentally critical, or within an environmentally critical area. Consequently, the DENR has no choice but to issue the Certificate of Non-Coverage. It becomes its ministerial duty, the performance of which can be compelled by writ of mandamus, such as that issued by the trial court in the case at bar. ^ TC affirmed ^