Writ of Kalikasan Appeal Under Rule 45 (With TEPO)

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
SUPREME COURT
Manila
MARIA TERESA S. BONDOC, WILFREDO

D.G. DE OCAMPO, CONRADO C. LUMABAS, JR., MELISSA A. PADILLA, MACARIA
D. LUMABAS, LUCILA S. SAYAO, MERCY
DOLORITO, ARNEL R. WICO, EDWIN T.
RAMOS, JOSEPH RYAN C. RAYMUNDO,
RODOLFO JOSE C. LAPUS, VICTORIA M.
CORREA, ADELINA C. BALTAZAR, MILAGROS S. SUAN, VIRGILIO C. DIMANLIG and
ANTONIO P. ROXAS, collectively referred
to as the CONCERNED CITIZENS OF
OBANDO,
Petitioners,
- versus HON. RAMON J.P. PAJE, in his capacity as
Secretary of the DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES,
LORMELYN E. CLAUDIO, in her capacity as
the Regional Director of ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT BUREAU-REGION III, HON.
WILHELMINO M. SY-ALVARADO, in his
capacity as Governor of the PROVINCE OF
BULACAN, the SANGGUNIANG PANLALAWIGAN OF BULACAN, HON. EDWIN C.
SANTOS, in his capacity as Mayor of the
MUNICIPALITY OF OBANDO, BULACAN,
the SANGGUNIANG BAYAN OF OBANDO,
BULACAN, the SANGGUNIANG BARANGAY OF SALAMBAO, OBANDO, BULACAN,
and ECOSHIELD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,
Respondents.
x---------------------------------x
G.R. No. 215676

Writ of Kalikasan Appeal
under Rule 45
(CA G.R. SP No. 00009)
WRIT OF KALIKASAN APPEAL UNDER RULE 45

(With a Prayer for the Issuance of a
Temporary Environmental Protection Order)
-2-
Petitioners, by counsel, respectfully state:

Commencing May 17 and lasting three days, one of the most
celebrated fiestas is held at this church among all to be seen in the islands,
and as it is but a short railway or motor trip from Manila there is no reason
for any Manilan to fail of seeing it. The first day is begun with high mass
and earnest preaching, but the second is joyfully devoted to the "miraculous
image of the Conception of Our Lady, under the title of the Virgen of the
Sarambao, which comes of its having been found by some fishermen in the
bay of Manila, according to a document authorized by the registrar, Diego
Pascual, in 1764. In this document it is stated that on Tuesday, June 19,
1763, two brothers, Juan and Julian de la Cruz, fishermen, threw their net
in the place called Hilingdon, and upon drawing it in, discovered, to their
great admiration, the said image, which they joyfully carried into the town
and later to this church, where it is venerated." Women who would bare
their husbands children worship through this image at the time of the
annual fiesta, when there are dancing, music and general rejoicing. The
third day is given to the Virgin Santa Clara de Asis, "whose very ancient
image, placed in a small ermita pertaining to the pueblo of Mecauayan until
1623, became thereafter the property of Polo, and ultimately that of
Obando, remaining however in the ermita until the Obando church, where
it now rests, was built. In difficult parturitions the image is taken down and
laid upon the patient, proof that there have been experienced and are
experienced salubrious effects.1
NATURE OF THE PETITION

1.
This is an appeal on a writ of kalikasan petition under Section
16, Rule 7, Part III of the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases (RPEC)
in accordance with Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. It seeks to set aside the
Resolution of the Court of Appeals dated 05 December 2014 (hereinafter,
Resolution) in the case entitled Bondoc, et al. vs. Paje, et al. (docketed
as CA G.R. SP No. 00009) on remand from the Supreme Court where it was
originally filed, denying their Motion for Partial Reconsideration of the earlier
Decision dated 29 August 2014 (hereinafter, Decision) which denied their
petition. Petitioners also seek to set aside and reverse the said Decision.
1.1 The duplicate-original of the Decision dated 29
August 2014 is attached herewith and made an integral part
hereof as Annex A.
American Chamber of Commerce Journal (1928). More Franciscan Mission Churches in Luzon Parishes:
The Story of the Obando Images. Vol. 8, No. 1, 7; January 1928. Manila. (http://quod.lib.umich.edu/p/
philamer/AAJ0523.1928.001?rgn=main;view=fulltext last accessed on 02 February 2015)
-3-
1.2 The duplicate-original of the Resolution dated 05

December 2014 is attached herewith and made an integral part
hereof as Annex B.
1.3 A copy of the Motion for Partial Reconsideration
dated 25 September 2014 is attached herewith and made an
integral part hereof as Annex C.
1.4 Based on the records of the case, copies of the
above documents are already in the possession of the
Respondents. Hence, in accordance with Sec. 6 of A.M. No. 119-4-SC (Efficient Use of Paper Rule), these annexes are no longer
attached to the copies of this petition intended for the
Respondents.
2.
It is the sense of Petitioners that the Court of Appeals
committed reversible error in denying the writ of kalikasan to the Petitioners,
ruling, among others, that the evidence presented did not suffice to meet
the magnitude requirement under Sec. 1, Rule 7 of the RPEC and that the
Obando landfill project complies with the requirements of the Ecological
Solid Waste Management Act of 2001 or Republic Act (R.A.) No. 90032 and
its appurtenant rules and regulations.
TIMELINESS OF THE PETITION
AND COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER REQUIREMENTS
3.
Petitioners received a copy of the Court of Appeals Resolution
on 15 December 2014. Pursuant to Sec. 2, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court,
Petitioners had fifteen (15) days or until 30 December 2014 within which to
file a petition for review on certiorari. However, because it fell on a nonworking day during the long holiday period of 2014,3 Petitioners had until 05
January 2015 to file the appropriate pleading. On said date, Petitioners filed
a motion seeking a 30-day extension, or until 04 February 2015, to file their
petition on the basis of Sec. 2, Rule 45 based on justifiable grounds as stated
in the motion. The petition is therefore timely filed.
An Act Providing for An Ecological Solid Waste Management Program, Creating the Necessary
Institutional Mechanisms and Incentives, Declaring Certain Acts Prohibited and Providing Penalties,
Appropriating Funds Therefor, and for Other Purposes (2001).
3
December 30 and 31, 2014 as well as January 1 and 2, 2015 were declared public holidays. January 3
and 4, 2015, on the other hand, fell on a weekend.
-4-
4.
Copies of this petition were served on the Respondents through
their respective counsels and the Court of Appeals by registered mail prior
to this filing. A duly accomplished affidavit of service is attached to this
Petition together with the verification and certification against forumshopping.
5.
In accordance with A.M. NO. 10-3-7-SC (Re: Proposed Ruled on
E-Filing) and A.M. No. 11-9-4-SC, electronic copies of this petition and
annexes together with a sworn declaration as to their completeness and
veracity have been submitted.
6.
In accordance with Sec. 4, Rule 7, Part III of the RPEC, no docket
fees were collected from Petitioners.
THE PARTIES
7.
Petitioners MARIA TERESA S. BONDOC, WILFREDO D.G. DE
OCAMPO, CONRADO C. LUMABAS, JR., MELISSA A. PADILLA, MACARIA D.
LUMABAS, LUCILA S. SAYAO, MERCY DOLORITO, ARNEL R. WICO, EDWIN T.
RAMOS, JOSEPH RYAN C. RAYMUNDO, RODOLFO JOSE C. LAPUS, VICTORIA
M. CORREA, ADELINA C. BALTAZAR, MILAGROS S. SUAN, VIRGILIO C.
DIMANLIG and ANTONIO P. ROXAS (hereinafter, Petitioners) are all of
legal age, Filipinos, and residents of Obando, Bulacan. They are collectively
referred to as the CONCERNED CITIZENS OF OBANDO (hereinafter, CCO),
an informal aggrupation of residents of Obando, Bulacan suing in
representation of others, including minors and generations yet unborn, to
uphold and protect the constitutional right to a balanced and healthful
ecology.
7.1 Petitioners may be served with court processes
through the undersigned counsel at Room 403 Cabrera II Bldg.,
64 Timog Avenue, Quezon City 1103.
8.
Public Respondent HON. RAMON J.P. PAJE, of legal age,
Filipino, is impleaded in his official capacity as the Secretary of the
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES (DENR), the
primary agency responsible for the enforcement and strict compliance with
the R.A. 9003 and the Philippine Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
System or Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1586. The implementation of the
-5-
latter is through the ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT BUREAU (EMB), an

attached bureau of the DENR. 4
9.
Public Respondent LORMELYN E. CLAUDIO (hereinafter,
Claudio), of legal age, Filipino, is impleaded in her official capacity as the
Regional Director of EMB-Region III for having approved the Environmental
Compliance Certificate (ECC) for the construction of the assailed landfill in
Obando, Bulacan, contrary to law.
9.1 Public Respondents Sec. Paje and Dir. Claudio may
be sent court processes through their counsel below, the Office
of the Solicitor-General (OSG), at 134 Amorsolo St., Legaspi
Village, Makati City 1229.
10. Public Respondent HON. WILHELMINO M. SY-ALVARADO
(hereinafter, Gov. Sy-Alvarado), of legal age, Filipino, is impleaded in his
official capacity as the Governor of the Province of Bulacan for having signed
and approved Kapasiyahan Blg. 176 (2011) of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan
of Bulacan, contrary to law.
11. Public Respondent SANGGUNIANG PANLALAWIGAN OF
BULACAN (hereinafter, SP-Bulacan) is the local legislative body of the
Province of Bulacan with powers and functions provided under the Local
Government Code of 1991 or R.A. 7160. It is impleaded for issuing
Kapasiyahan Blg. 176-T11 (2011), which approved on review Municipal
Ordinance 07-08 (2011) of the Sangguniang Bayan of Obando, contrary to
law.
11.1 Public Respondents Gov. Sy-Alvarado and SPBulacan may be sent court processes through their counsel
below, Atty. Jeffrey C. Cruz of the Provincial Legal Office, at 2/F
Bulacan Provincial Capitol, Malolos City, Bulacan 3000.
12. Public Respondent HON. EDWIN C. SANTOS (hereinafter,
Mayor Santos) of legal age, Filipino, is being sued in his official capacity as
the incumbent Mayor of the Municipality of Obando, Bulacan beginning
2013. He is impleaded as the successor of ORENCIO E. GABRIEL (hereinafter,
4
The regulatory functions under the EIS system were transferred by virtue of Executive Order No. 192
(1987) to the EMB, an attached bureau of the DENR. It became a line agency by virtue of the Clean Air Act
(R.A. 8749).
-6-
Gabriel) whose term ended last June 2013 and who approved Resolution
No. 07-121 (2011) and Municipal Ordinance No. 07-08 (2011) and other
pertinent resolutions, contrary to law. The latter was also the duly
authorized signatory to the agreement for the establishment of the disputed
landfill. Relying on these issuances, Mayor Santos has now issued the
municipal permit for the Obando Sanitary Landfill, contrary to law.
13. Public Respondent SANGGUNIANG BAYAN OF OBANDO
(hereinafter SB-Obando) is the local legislative body of the Municipality of
Obando, Bulacan with powers and functions as provided under R.A. 7160. It
is impleaded for passing Kapasiyahan Blg. 07-102 (2011), Kapasiyahan Blg.
07-105 (2011), Municipal Ordinance 07-08 (2011) and Resolution No. 07-121
(2011), which approved the building and operation of a landfill and the
reclassification of the area where the assailed landfill will be established from
agricultural into industrial/commercial, contrary to law.
14. Public Respondent SANGGUNIANG BARANGAY OF SALAMBAO
(hereinafter SBgy-Salambao) is the local legislative body of Barangay
Salambao, Obando, Bulacan with powers and functions provided under the
Local Government Code. It is impleaded for issuing Kapasiyahan Blg. 03
(2010) which expressed the lack of any objection on the part of the barangay
to the ECC application for the sanitary landfill, contrary to law.
14.1 Public Respondents from the Municipality of
Obando and Barangay Salambao may be sent processes through
their counsel below, Gonzales Batiller Leabres & Reyes, at 7/F
Alpap 1 Building, 140 P. Leviste Street, Salcedo Village, Makati
City 1227.
15. Private Respondent ECOSHIELD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
(hereinafter, Ecoshield) is a corporation duly organized and existing under
Philippine laws. It is the proponent of the disputed landfill project located in
Obando, Bulacan. It may be served processes through its counsel below,
Pizarras & Associates Law Office at 20/F Security Bank Centre, 6776 Ayala
Avenue, Makati City 1226.
STATEMENT OF FACTS AND ANTECEDENT PROCEEDINGS
16. Sometime in 2010, a plan to construct a landfill on the waters of
Manila Bay was hatched by Respondent Ecoshield in Bgy. Salambao, Obando,
Bulacan. By December of the same year, it was able to obtain the necessary
-7-
environmental clearance (ECC No. R03-1012-0592) and steadily acquired

other permits to establish its planned facility. Petitioners soon became
aware of the proposed landfill and immediately took steps to assert their
right to a balanced and healthful ecology before these agencies, including
Respondent LGUs. These fell on deaf ears and so by October 2011, alarmed
by the presence of barges carrying large construction cranes and armed
personnel manning the vicinity where the landfill was being constructed,
Petitioners sought recourse before this Honorable Court by filing a writ of
kalikasan petition.
16.1 The petition has the same title as herein
appeal/petition and was originally docketed as G.R. 198890.
Specific details of the sequence of events and supporting
documents, as well as subsequent orders issued and pleadings
filed, can be found in the records of this Honorable Court.
Hence, these are no longer attached herewith.
17. On 21 February 2012, this Honorable Court passed a Resolution
issuing a Writ of Kalikasan and referring the case to the Court of Appeals for
acceptance of the return of the writ from the respondents, to conduct
hearings, receive evidence and render judgment. Among the issues that
were left for the Court of Appeals to resolve were the prayer for the issuance
of a TEPO and a pending motion for ocular inspection by Petitioners.
17.1 Said resolution is part of the records of G.R. 198890
of this Honorable Court.
18. After over a year, on 28 May 2013, the Court of Appeals finally
ordered the conduct an ocular inspection at the project site along the waters
of Manila Bay in Obando, Bulacan. The outcome of this ocular inspection
was contained in a report prepared by the Division Clerk of Court.
18.1 A copy of the Ocular Inspection Report dated 10
June 2013 is attached herewith and made an integral part
hereof as Annex D.
18.2 Based on the records of the case, a copy of the
above document is already in the possession of the
Respondents. Hence, in accordance with Sec. 6 of A.M. No. 119-4-SC (Efficient Use of Paper Rule), Respondents are no longer
copy-furnished the same.
-8-
19. The parties then presented their respective witnesses before

the Court of Appeals. After they have rested and their formal offers ruled
upon, the Court of Appeals issued a resolution directing the parties to submit
their respective summation of arguments.
19.1 A copy of the Memorandum dated 18 June 2014
filed by Petitioners is attached herewith and made an integral
part hereof as Annex E.
filed by Public Respondents DENR and EMB-Region III is
attached herewith and made an integral part hereof as Annex
F.
filed by Public Respondents Municipality of Obando and Bgy.
Salambao is attached herewith and made an integral part
hereof as Annex G.
filed by Private Respondent Ecoshield is attached herewith and
made an integral part hereof as Annex H.
19.5 No memorandum was filed by Public Respondent
Province of Bulacan.
19.6 Based on the records of the case, copies of these
documents are already in the possession of the Respondents.
Hence, in accordance with Sec. 6 of A.M. No. 11-9-4-SC (Efficient
Use of Paper Rule), Respondents are no longer copy-furnished
the same.
20. As stated, the assailed Decision (Annex A) was finally rendered
on 29 August 2014, a copy of which reached the Petitioners on 10 September
2014. While it upheld Petitioners on the procedural issues, it denied the writ
on substantive grounds stating, among others, that the Petitioners failed to
meet the magnitude requirement stated in Sec. 1, Rule 7 of RPEC.
-9-
21. As a consequence, Petitioners filed a timely motion for partial

reconsideration (Annex C) arguing that the magnitude requirement was
sufficiently complied with; that the landfill should have undergone a fullblown environmental impact assessment (EIA); that public
consultation/hearing was mandatory; that the reclassification was invalid;
that the landfill violated the siting requirements under R.A. 9003 and its
implementing rules; and that unnecessary credence was given to
Respondents witnesses.
22. Upon resolution by the Court of Appeals, Respondents were
required to file their respective comments to Petitioners motion. Only
Respondent Province of Bulacan did not.
22.1 A copy of the Comment dated 24 October 2014
filed by Public Respondents DENR and EMB-Region III is
attached herewith and made an integral part hereof as Annex
I.
filed by Public Respondents Municipality of Obando and Bgy.
Salambao is attached herewith and made an integral part
hereof as Annex J.
filed by Private Respondent Ecoshield is attached herewith and
made an integral part hereof as Annex K.
22.4 Based on the records of the case, copies of the
above documents are already in the possession of the
Respondents. Hence, in accordance with Sec. 6 of A.M. No. 119-4-SC (Efficient Use of Paper Rule), Respondents are no longer
copy-furnished the same.
23. As stated, in its Resolution (Annex B), the Court of Appeals
denied Petitioners motion for partial reconsideration; hence, this appeal
under Sec. 16, Rule 7 of the RPEC in accordance with Rule 45 of the Rules of
Court.
- 10 -
ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS
I.
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN DENYING THE WRIT OF

KALIKASAN ON THE GROUND THAT PETITIONERS FAILED TO
MEET THE MAGNITUDE REQUIREMENT UNDER SEC. 1, RULE 7
OF RPEC.
II.
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN RULING THAT THE PROPOSED

LANDFILL PROJECT IS NOT REQUIRED TO UNDERGO A FULLBLOWN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT (EIA)
PROCESS.
III.
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN RULING THAT PUBLIC

CONSULTATIONS WERE NOT REQUIRED AND EVEN IF SO, WERE
ACTUALLY HELD.
IV.
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN RULING THAT THE

RECLASSIFICATION OF THE AREA WHERE THE ASSAILED
LANDFILL IS LOCATED IS VALID.
V.
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE

PROPOSED LANDFILL COMPLIES WITH SITING REQUIREMENTS
UNDER R.A. 9003 AND FOR GIVING GREATER CREDENCE TO
RESPONDENT ECOSHIELDS WITNESSES.
VI.

LANDFILL IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONTINUING
MANDAMUS ORDER OF THIS HONORABLE COURT.
DISCUSSION
I.
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN DENYING THE PRIVILEGE OF THE

WRIT OF KALIKASAN ON THE GROUND THAT PETITIONERS FAILED TO
MEET THE MAGNITUDE REQUIREMENT UNDER SEC. 1, RULE 7 OF
RPEC.
The Court of Appeals did not explain

how Petitioners failed to meet the
magnitude requirement.
- 11 -
24. In its Resolution denying with finality the writ of kalikasan,

Petitioners were found wanting by the Court of Appeals in terms of
compliance with the magnitude requirement under Sec. 1, Rule 7 of the
RPEC. It held:
It is worth emphasizing that the magnitude requirement
under the RPEC does not only relate to the geographic scope or the
number of cities or provinces to be affected but, more importantly,
to the widespread dimension of the environmental damage brought
about by the establishment of the project as to prejudice the life,
health and property of inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces.
The former cannot be separated from the latter. Petitioners must be
able to prove convincingly before this Court such degree of
environmental damage. In this instance, as WE have discussed in
OUR Decision, petitioners failed to substantiate their allegation of
environmental damage of such magnitude for a writ of kalikasan to
issue.5
25. Petitioners ask, where exactly was this discussion? A quick look
at the original Decision readily shows that after a perfunctory quotation of
this section and a brief paraphrasing thereof in the immediately succeeding
paragraph, the Court of Appeals simply arrived at the conclusion that
[b]ased on the evidence at hand, the petition does not involve an
environmental damage of such magnitude to warrant the issuance of a writ
of kalikasan.6 It then went on to explain why in their minds, the subject
landfill is one of the solutions for the clean-up and rehabilitation of Manila
Bay, weighing in on the technical merits of Respondent Ecoshields proposed
project.7 But this is not what the magnitude requirement of the writ of
kalikasan is about. Petitioners posit that they were more than able to
substantiate this jurisdictional requirement.
Petitioners argument was

oversimplified by the Court a quo.
Magnitude requirement anchored
on environmental and health risks
inherent in landfills.
Page 9, Resolution (Annex B), underscoring supplied.
Page 81, Decision (Annex A).
Pages 82-86, Decision (Annex A).
- 12 -
26. But before discussing this at length, a short clarification is in

order. In its Resolution, the Court of Appeals faulted Petitioners on their
emphasis on the geographic aspect of the magnitude requirement, to wit:
WE cannot subscribe to petitioners argument that the

manner of transport of wastes from Manila to Obando by barge
which would traverse the jurisdictions of the cities of Manila,
Malabon and Navotas and the province of Bulacan meets the
magnitude requirement. The alleged consequential damage to the
environment on how the wastes will be handled during their
transport is dubious and speculative. This is specially so when EDC
undertook the construction of special customized barges to securely
hold the wastes during transport to prevent spillage. 8
27. This is not an accurate appreciation of Petitioners arguments.

Contrary to the Court of Appeals summation,9 Petitioners anchored their
arguments on more than just the transport of wastes by barges. A quick look
at their Motion for Partial Reconsideration (Annex C) shows that
Petitioners first and foremost reason for asking the Court of Appeals to
reconsider its decision is the fact that the element of environmental threat
to the right to a balanced and healthful ecology they found was wanting, is
inherent in the very activity being proposeda landfill. As pointed out in the
motion,10 no less than R.A. 9003 recognizes this:
Sanitary landfill shall refer to a waste disposal site designed,

constructed, operated and maintained in a manner that exerts
engineering control over significant potential environment impacts
arising from the development and operation of the facility.11
28. Petitioners likewise highlighted the fact that unlike ordinary

business undertakings, a landfill cannot just be set-up anywhere by anyone.
R.A. 9003 is specific in its criteria for siting,12 establishment13 and operational
Page 9, Resolution (Annex B).
See last paragraph, p.1, Resolution (Annex B).
10
Paragraph 2 citing Sec. 3(ff), R.A. 9003.
11
Sec. 3(ff), R.A. 9003; underscoring supplied.
12
Sec. 40, R.A. 9003.
13
Sec. 41, R.A. 9003.
- 13 -
requirements,14 all of which must be complied with strictly. Moreover,

despite the fact that a landfill does not fall under the current categories of
an environmentally-critical project (ECP) or a project located in an
environmentally-critical area (ECA) under the Philippine EIS system,15 the law
requires that an ECC must still be secured16 and prohibits the site
preparation, construction, expansion or operation of waste management
facilities, including landfill, without an ECC,17 subjecting the same to its
highest penalty.18
29. Respondent Ecoshield is not building a swimming resort or a

mall but a landfill. All these legal restrictions manage to withstand
constitutional scrutiny because of the significant health and environmental
risks present thereto on top of all the imaginable aggravations that come
with living next to a garbage facility. Thus, when Petitioners discussed the
transport of wastes from Manila to Obando in its motion, it was only to
highlight the fact that the proposed project is not just limited to Obando,
where its facility is situated, but extends to other cities and provinces. The
landfills location is in the middle of Manila Bay and there is currently no
means of land transportation. It will require that the wastes be transported
by barge. Even the Court of Appeals acknowledges this.
30. Bewilderingly, the Court of Appeals was quick to brand

Petitioners apprehensions over the transport of wastes as dubious and
speculative19 while giving full credence to Respondent Ecoshields
assurance to construct special customized barges to securely hold the
wastes during transport to prevent spillage. Petitioners ask, just exactly
when and where was evidence of this undertaking made, under which
condition of its ECC is this required and thus, makes it legally demandable,
and if the Court of Appeals has actually seen any of these special customized
barges?
14
Sec. 42, R.A. 9003.
15
See Proclamation No. 2146 and 803 in relation to P.D. 1586.
16
Sec. 38, R.A. 9003
17
Sec. 48(14), R.A. 9003.
18
Sec. 49(f), R.A. 9003.
19
Fifth paragraph, p. 9, Resolution (Annex B).
- 14 -
Evidentiary requirement imposed on

Petitioners is beyond what the RPEC
requires.
31. Petitioners are likewise disturbed by the Court of Appeals

statement that they must be able to prove convincingly before this Court
such degree of environmental damage.20 Whatever happened to the
second paragraph of Sec. 1, Rule 20 on the benefit of the doubt given to the
constitutional right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology and
the whole concept of precautionary principle?21 Moreover, Sec. 1, Rule 7 is
clear that the environmental damage need not be actual but can be
threatened. To think, Respondents Claudio and Ecoshields own witness
agree that garbage leachate contamination poses the most serious threat to
Manila Bay.22
Various laws prohibit the threat of

leachate contamination.
32. In this regard, the law once again provides the most effective
gauge of just how serious the environmental threat posed by landfills to
bodies of water, particularly with regard to leachate contaminationit
outright forbids it and does not wait for the threat to happen. R.A. 9003
prohibits the construction or operation of landfills or any waste disposal
facility on any aquifer, groundwater reservoir, or watershed area and or any
portions thereof23 and imposes the highest penalty similar to building waste
facilities without an ECC under R.A. 9003. 24
33. This is reiterated in the Philippine Clean Water Act or R.A.

9275, which emphasizes the malum prohibitum aspect of the offense and
penalizes such discharges, whether directly or indirectly, intentional or not,
even if it happens as a result of an act of God, to wit:
25
20
Fourth paragraph, p.9 Resolution (Annex B).
21
In relation to Sec. 4(f), RPEC.
22
Pages 115-121, TSN dated 12 February 2013, Claudio. See also Q&A #30, Judicial Affidavit of Engr. Cecil
O. Corloncito dated 17 October 2017 (sic, 2013).
23
Sec. 48(16), R.A. 9003.
24
Sec. 49(f) et seq., R.A. 9003.
25
An Act Providing for a Comprehensive Water Quality Management and for Other Purposes (2004).
- 15 -
Discharging, depositing or causing to be deposited material of

any kind directly or indirectly into the water bodies or along the
margins of any surface water, where, the same shall be liable to be
washed into such surface water, either by tide action or by storm,
floods or otherwise, which could cause water pollution or impede
natural flow in the water body;26
34. The same is true with regard to transport of wastes when done
on a body of water because of the high risk present:
Unauthorized transport or dumping into sea waters of sewage

sludge or solid waste as defined under Republic Act No.9003;
Transport, dumping or discharge of prohibited chemicals,
substances or pollutants listed under Republic Act No.6969; 27
35. Just as encompassing is the Philippine Fisheries Code of 1998 or

R.A. 855028 which penalizes aquatic pollution,29 defined as:
[T]he introduction by human or machine, directly or

indirectly, of substances or energy to the aquatic environment which
result or is likely to result in such deleterious effects as to harm living
and non-living aquatic resources, pose potential and/or real hazard
to human health, hindrance to aquatic activities such as fishing and
navigation, including dumping/disposal of waste and other marine
litters, discharge of petroleum or residual products of petroleum or
carbonaceous materials/substances and other radioactive, noxious
or harmful liquid, gaseous or solid substances, from any water, land
or air transport or other human-made structure. Deforestation,
unsound agricultural practices such as the use of banned chemicals
and excessive use of chemicals, intensive use of artificial fish feed,
26
Sec. 27(a), R.A. 9275; underscoring supplied.
27
Sec. 27(e) and (f), Ibid.
28
An Act Providing for the Development, Management and Conservation of the Fisheries and Aquatic
Resources, Integrating All Laws Pertinent Thereto, and for Other Purposes (1998).
29
Sec. 102, R.A. 8550.
- 16 -
and wetland conversion, which cause similar hazards and deleterious

effects shall also constitute aquatic pollution.30
36. In sum, Petitioners contend that they met the jurisdictional

requirements of Sec. 1, Rule 7 particularly on the magnitude requirement
and that the Court of Appeals erred in ruling otherwise. Respondent is
building a landfill, not an ecopark. The environmental risk to the rights to a
balanced and healthful ecology from the said landfill exists and such risk is
recognized by no less than the various laws cited. It is bad enough as it is on
land, it is even worse when on a body of water as this landfill in question.
37. In terms of the geographic coverage, the transport of wastes

from Manila to Obando traversing several cities show that more than two
provinces or cities are affected. This is on top of the fact that the
environmental amenity under threat is Manila Bay, which straddles several
municipalities and cities, provinces and regions in Luzon.
II.

LANDFILL PROJECT IS NOT REQUIRED TO UNDERGO A FULL-BLOWN
EIA PROCESS.
38. One of the issues raised by Petitioners in their original petition

before this Court31 was the utter collapse of the environmental safeguard
process prescribed in the Philippine EIS system or P.D. 158632 and its
pertinent rules when Respondent EMB-Region III merely required
Respondent Ecoshield to simply submit an Initial Environmental Examination
(IEE) report and breeze through the environmental vetting process for its 44hectare landfill project to be built on the waters of Manila Bay. As a result,
Respondent Ecoshield was awarded its ECC in just nine (9) days.
39. In its Decision,33 the Court of Appeals upheld Respondent EMBRegion III and agreed that the proposed landfill is merely a project located in
30
Sec. 4(4), R.A. 8550.
31
Arguments A and B, pp. 13-18, Petition dated 24 October 2011.
32
Establishing an Environmental Impact Statement System Including Other Environmental Management

Related Measures and for Other Purposes (1978).
33
See p.74, Decision (Annex A).
- 17 -
an environmentally-critical area (ECA). As such, it was required to submit the

much simpler IEE report and undergo an equally simplified process of
environmental assessment that did NOT include public consultations, public
hearing or an independent review by experts, among others.
40. In explaining this ruling, the Court of Appeals discussed the two
types of projects required to undergo EIA: ECAs and ECPs.34 These are laidout in various implementing rules of P.D. 1586, from Presidential
Proclamation No. 214635 up to the latest version found in DENR
Administrative Order (DAO) No. 30, series of 2003. 36 It also cited the
procedure spelled-out in Revised Procedural Manual for DAO 2003-3037 and
the testimony of Respondent Claudio of EMB-Region III, to wit:
It is likewise clear from the aforequoted provisions that the

requirement for the submission of a full-blown EIA involves the
exercise of judgment and discretion by the EMB after an examination
of the necessary documents, taking into consideration the guidelines
the law provides for so requiring x x x [Dir. Claudio] testified that an
IEER is enough for the establishment of the sanitary landfill and an
EIS is not necessary because it is not in the category of an ECP
although the same is within an ECA.38
41. The Court of Appeals dismissed Petitioners assertion that a

more specific regulation should govern, one that is based on the capacity of
the proposed landfill. It reasoned:
WE cannot find support to petitioners invocation of the

application of Section 6.3 of DAO 2006-10[39] in requiring the
proponent to undergo an EIS for sanitary landfill projects with a daily
capacity of 1,000 metric tons and above. It should be noted that DAO
34
Projects in environmental critical areas and environmentally-critical projects, respectively.
35
Proclaiming Certain Areas and Types of Projects as Environmentally Critical and Within the Scope of the
Environmental Impact Statement System Established under Presidential Decree No. 1586 (1981).
36
Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) for the Philippine Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
System.
37
EMB-EIAMD (Aug 2007), Revised Procedural Manual for DENR Administrative Order No. 30 series of
2003 (DAO 03-30): Implementing Rules and Regulations of Presidential Decree No. 1586, Establishing the
Philippine Environmental Impact Statement System. DENR:Manila.
38
Page 76, Decision (Annex A); underscoring supplied.
39
Guidelines on the Categorized Final Disposal Facilities (Sanitarv Landfill) (2006); citation provided.
- 18 -
2006-10 came about in September, 2006 while DAO 2003-30 (sic)

was published on August 21, 2007. At the time of the application for
ECC in November, 2010, it is the Revised Procedural Manual of DAO
2003-30 that is in effect. The EMB is, therefore, correct in applying
the latter law instead of DAO 2006-10. Accordingly, the EMB cannot
be faulted for not requiring EDC to submit an EIS.
x
In consonance therewith, Section 6.3 of DAO 2006-10 is

deemed amended by the enactment of the Revised Procedural
Manual of DAO 2003-30, particularly Annex 2-1b thereof which
explicitly categorizes the proper EIA report type for a specific project.
Court of Appeals failed to observe

hierarchy of laws.
42. Aghast by this patently erroneous interpretation of law,

Petitioners respectfully reminded the Court of Appeals of the age-old
principle on the hierarchy of laws,40 i.e., an inferior legal instrument cannot
supersede a superior onein this case, a procedural manual over an
administrative order. Petitioners argued that:
a) The Revised Procedural Manual itself recognizes its legal inferiority by

stating that its legal basis emanated from a DAO.41
b) Revised Procedural Manual for DAO 2003-30 was issued by a mere
EMB National Director, an officer-in-charge at that,42 whereas DAO
2006-10 was issued by no less than the late Angelo T. Reyes, in his dual
capacity as the DENR Secretary and Chair of the National Solid Waste
Management Commission (NSWMC), the body specifically tasked by
R.A. 9003 to formulate policies on solid waste management.43
c) DAO 2006-10 is a specific law whereas Revised Procedural Manual of
DAO 2003-30 is general. The latter deals with procedural guidelines
40
Boracay Foundation, Inc. vs. Province of Aklan, et al., G.R. No. 196870, 26 June 2012.
41
The Manual derives its legal basis from Section 8.1 of DAO 2003-30, which prescribes a Manual of
Procedures for the processing of applications for Environmental Compliance Certificates (ECCs) and
Certificates of Non-Coverage (CNCs) within the timeframes specified in Malacanang Administrative Order
No. 42 (issued in November 2002). (Foreword, Revised Procedural Manual for DENR Administrative Order
No. 30, series of 2003 (DAO 03-30); underscoring supplied)
42
EMB OIC-Director Ely Anthony R. Ouano. (Ibid.)
43
Sec. 5(k) and (t), among others, R.A. 9003.
- 19 -
on the EIS system covering all types of projects, both ECPs and ECAs.
On the other hand, DAO 2006-10 is specific as to landfills and the
requirements in relation to P.D. 1586.
d) The authority to formulate the pertinent rules on landfills (and waste
management in general) is specifically lodged with the NSWMC,
chaired by the DENR Secretary,44 not the EMB National Director, nor
an even lower-ranked EMB regional director. In fact, nowhere in P.D.
1586, DAO 2003-30, or any law for that matter is the EMB National
Director granted the power to repeal any DAO issued by the DENR
Secretary.
Court of Appeals mixed-up the rule

titles and dates.
43. It was also evident that the Court of Appeals got confused by
the title of Revised Procedural Manual for DAO 2003-30 and mistook it for a
DAO. This was apparent when it stated that DAO 2006-10 came about in
September, 2006 while DAO 2003-30 was published on August 21, 2007. 45
This is clearly incorrect. DAO 2003-30, as its numerical reference indicates,
was promulgated in 2003, more specifically, on 30 June 2003. This should
immediately put to rest the repeal-by-a-later-law reasoning. What did come
out in August 2007 was the Revised Procedural Manual for DAO 2003-30.
But as discussed, it cannot by any stretch of legal imagination, supersede a
superior legal instrument, no matter how recent the former is.
44. To these arguments, the Court of Appeals maintained a stiff

upper lip and tried to rationalize Respondent Claudios exercise of discretion
where it had none. It held:
As to the application of the Revised Procedural Manual for

DAO 2003-30, it should be noted that it is the administrative order
that was prevailing at the time the application for ECC was filed.
Granting without conceding that Section 6.3 of DAO 2006-10 was not
amended by the issuance of Revised Procedural Manual for DAO
2003-30, as what petitioners herein insist, the EMB should not be
44
Sec. 5(k) in relation to Sec. 8(a), R.A. 9003.
45
- 20 -
condemned for relying on the same since it remains valid and

constitutional until declared otherwise by any law or judicial fiat.46
Misapplication of the law cannot be

excused as an operative fact
especially when the Court of Appeals
could have prevented it.
45. Petitioners are simply at a loss for words. From the very
moment when they learned of this proposed landfill, they were not remiss
in asserting their right to a balanced and healthful ecology by engaging the
various proceedings of different agencies and local governments to stop its
construction and protect the environment, notwithstanding the very limited
opportunities available to them. When nothing happened, they sought
recourse from the Judiciary by filing a writ of kalikasan petition before this
very court and prayed for a TEPO which the High Court delegated to the
Court of Appeals to resolve. It neither granted nor denied the same
throughout the duration of the hearing notwithstanding the repeated pleas
from Petitioners. So after two years of marathon hearings and a belated
ocular inspection, the Court of Appeals is telling Petitioners to just shrug off
Respondent EMB-Region IIIs glaring error, when it had the jurisdiction and
authority to strike down and rectify this legal anomaly?
46. For Petitioners, the Court of Appeals committed serious error

when it copped-out of its sworn duty, forgetting that among the reliefs that
it could have granted under the writ of kalikasan are:
(a) Directing respondent to permanently cease and desist from

committing acts or neglecting the performance of a duty in
violation of environmental laws resulting in environmental
destruction or damage;
x
(b) Such other reliefs which relate to the right of the people to a
balanced and healthful ecology or to the protection,
46
Page 9, Resolution (Annex B); underscoring supplied.
- 21 -
preservation, rehabilitation or restoration of the environment,

except the award of damages to individual petitioners. 47
47. As records bear, Petitioners have hammered the point that the
proposed landfill should have undergone a more rigorous and EIA process.
When confronted with the pertinent provisions of law, Dir. Claudio insisted
on her views despite the lack of legal educational training.48 The Court of
Appeals, with its legal expertise, should have known better.
Misapplication of the law was

deliberate.
48. But what is even more telling, the Court of Appeals turned a
blind eye on the evidence that Respondent Claudio had actually been
arbitrary in deciding which landfills should undergo the more rigorous EIA
process and which ones should not.
CLAUDIO on cross:
ATTY. GUTIERREZ
Did you require any of this (sic) sanitary landfills to submit an
EIS, Environmental Impact Statement?
DIR. CLAUDIO
Yes, Sir. All this (sic) went thru the EIS system.
[Q]
Ill be very specific. Did you require any of this (sic) sanitary landfills
that are currently operational to submit an Environmental Impact
Statement, as opposed to an Initial Environmental Examination
Report?
[A]
Yes, sir.
[Q]
Which one?
47
Sec. 15, Rule 7, RPEC; underscoring supplied.
48
Pages 53-58, 68-70, TSN dated 12 February 2013; pp. 16-25, TSN dated 14 March 2013.
- 22 -
[A]
The Metro Clark was the first one. It was submitted in, I recall, its in
2001 or 2002, was required a full blown Environmental Impact
Statement, the [Vicente G. Puyat] VGP sanitary landfill, as well.
x
[Q]
Was required to submit an EIS?
[A]
Was required to submit an EIS, and the Wakoman as well.
[Q]
And are any of this (sic) 3 landfills that you mentioned in Norzaray (sic),
San Jose, (sic) Del Monte and in Tarlac, the Metro Clark facility, are
they located in environmentally critical areas?
[A]
Yes, Sir.
[Q]
All of them?
[A]
All of them.
[Q]
And yet you required them to submit an EIS?
[A]
That is right, sir.49
49. Petitioners expert witness, Dr. Carlos Primo C. David

(hereinafter, Dr. David), also testified that he sat in the EIS Review
Committee for a landfill project in Region III:
DR. DAVID on direct:
And as far as your relevant experience when it comes to landfill, Mr.

Witness, can you please inform this Court of any?
In terms of landfill projects, I used to be part of the Review Committee

for Region 3, EMB-Region 3 in the EIS applications of landfill projects.
And, Mr. Witness, x x x Since when have you been a member of the
Review Committee?
I cant remember exactly when the first time I reviewed projects for
Region 3 but I would say around 2007 and I only do review for landfills
for that specific region because Im from Pampanga.
49
Pages 100-103, TSN dated 14 March 2013.
- 23 -
Now, Mr. Witness, you earlier mentioned that youve been a member
of the Review Committee for landfill projects in Region 3 since, as far
as you can recall, since 2007. Now, in your experience, how many
more or less landfill projects have you reviewed?
I can remember two projects wherein we approved the ECC of the

proposed landfill project, one in Bulacan and the other one in Bataan
Export Zone, as far as I can remember.
And as far as projects that have been submitted both approved and
disapproved, can you recall?
I remember one landfill project wherein the proponent withdrew their

application and another one that only started but it was delayed. So I
would say four (4).50
50. As can be gleaned from above, Respondent Ecoshield, with a

capacity of 1,000 metric tons per day, got more than a fair deal than
everybody else courtesy of Respondent Claudio.
Respondent Ecoshields landfill is

required to undergo a full-blown EIA
process under DAO 2006-10 and
other laws applicable to this case.
51. Petitioners reiterate, the current legal requirements demand

that a landfill with a capacity of 1,000 metric tons per day or more MUST
undergo a full-blown EIA process. R.A. 9003 serves as primary legal basis. It
states:
Sec. 38. Permit for Solid Waste Management Facility

Construction and ExpansionNo person shall commence operation,
including site preparation and construction of a new solid waste
management facility or the expansion of an existing facility until said
person obtains an Environment Compliance Certificate (ECC) from
50
Pages 80-81, 97-98, TSN dated 23 April 2012, Dr. David; underscoring supplied.
- 24 -
the Department pursuant to P.D. 1586 and other permits and

clearances form concerned agencies.51
52. Landfills are not included in the current list of ECPs or ECAs
under Proc. 214652 or 803.53 Neither does Sec. 38, R.A. 9003 specify what
process document is to be followed. However, this deficiency has been
addressed by virtue of NSWMC Resolution No. 6, s. of 200554 and DAO 200610, wherein sanitary landfill projects with a daily capacity of 1,000 metric
tons and above are required to submit an Environmental Impact Study
(EIS).55 The proposed landfill falls under this category as stated on its ECC.56
53. But R.A. 9003 is not the only law that applies in determining
what EIA process this assailed landfill should follow. In addition, because it
affects a body of water used for fishingManila BayR.A. 8550 or the
Fisheries Code is equally pertinent.
53.1 At this point, there is no value in debating whether

or not the area where the landfill is situated is on a body of
water. Aside from its clear inclusion within the scope of R.A.
8550,57 no less than the Ocular Inspection Report (Annex D)
states that the only way to reach the site of the landfill was by
boat ride for around thirty minutes one-way.58 The video and
pictures generated by such ocular inspection can also attest to
51
Underscoring supplied.
52
Proclaiming Certain Areas and Types of Projects as Environmentally Critical and Within the Scope of the
Environmental Impact Statement System Established under Presidential Decree No. 1586 (1981).
53
Declaring the Construction, Development and Operation of a Golf Course as an Environmentally Critical
Project Pursuant to PD 1586 (1996).
54
Adoption of the Guidelines on Categorized Disposal Facilities (2005).
55
Sec. 6.3, DAO 2006-10; underscoring supplied.
56
ECC No. R03-1012-0592 (Exh. D, Petitioners).
57
Sec. 3. Application of its Provisions.The provisions of this Code shall be enforced in:
58
a.
all Philippine waters including other waters over which the Philippines has sovereignty and
jurisdiction, and the country's 200 nautical mile Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and continental
shelf;
b.
all aquatic and fishery resources whether inland, coastal or offshore fishing areas, including but
not limited to fishponds, fish pens/cages; and
c.
all lands devoted to aquaculture, or businesses and activities relating to fishery, whether private
or public lands.
Page 1 (Annex D).
- 25 -
such. Respondents have also admitted in various instances that

the area used to be a fishpond.59
54. Under Secs. 12 and 13 of R.A. 8550, not only is an ECC required,
it specifies that the document to be submitted must be an EIS, not an IEE,
and the approving authority is the DENR Secretary, not the EMB Director or
a Regional Director:
Sec. 12. Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).All

government agencies as well as private corporations, firms and
entities who intend to undertake activities or projects which will
affect the quality of the environment shall be required to prepare a
detailed Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) prior to undertaking
such development activity. The preparation of the EIS shall form an
integral part of the entire planning process pursuant to the
provisions of Presidential Decree No. 1586 as well as its
implementing rules and regulations.
Sec. 13. Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC).All

Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) shall be submitted to the
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) for
review and evaluation. No persons, natural or juridical, shall
undertake any development project without first securing an
Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC) from the Secretary of
the DENR.
55. In sum, the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that Revised

Procedural Manual for DAO 2003-30 is the governing law as far as
Respondent Ecoshields proposed landfill is concerned. Respondent Claudio
also gravely abused her discretion by allowing this 44-hectare waste facility
to skip through the proper environmental screening procedure. ECC No.
RO3-1012-0592 should thus be declared null and void.
III.
59
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN RULING THAT PUBLIC

CONSULTATIONS WERE NOT REQUIRED AND EVEN IF SO, WERE
ACTUALLY HELD.
See for instance, Kapasiyahan Blg. 107-05 (Exh. F, Petitioners).
- 26 -
56. In its Decision, the Court of Appeals held that public

consultations were not required. It reasoned:
Considering that the proposed project does not require to

undergo a full-blown EIA, consultation is not mandatory. This is in
consonance with the Revised Implementing Rules and Regulation for
the Philippine Environmental Impact Statement System which only
requires a public hearing for projects under Category A-1.60
Public consultation is mandatory

because an EIS is required.
57. As previously discussed, this is an erroneous interpretation of

law. The EIS system is document-driven and because an EIS is required for
this particular landfill, it follows that public consultations should have been
conducted (along with the constitution of an independent review
committee, etc.). Under DAO 2003-30, the prevailing implementing rule of
P.D. 1586, this takes the form of public information and consultations,
scoping61 and public hearing. Given the haste by which this ECC application
was approved in just nine (9) days, none such transpired. Petitioners also
seriously doubt whether that period would have even sufficed as adequate
notice for a hearing.
P.D. 1586 not the only law requiring

public consultations for a project
with significant environmental
impacts.
58. It bears pointing out as well that P.D. 1586 and its implementing
rules are not the only legal bases to conduct mandatory public consultations
or hearings. Nor is the EMB the only forum. Much lies in the role of
Respondent LGUs. First, under R.A. 8550 or the Fisheries Code, Respondent
60
61
Defined as the stage in the EIS System where information and project impact assessment requirements
are established to provide the proponent and the stakeholders the scope of work and terms of reference
for the EIS. (Sec. 3(dd), DAO 2003-30)
- 27 -
Municipality of Obando was required to consult the local Fisheries and

Aquatic Resources Management Council (FARMC) of Obando because this
landfill will have a direct impact on their fishing ground, to wit:
SEC. 16. Jurisdiction of Municipal/City Governments.The

municipal/city government shall have jurisdiction over municipal
waters as defined in this Code. The municipal/city government, in
consultation with the FARMC shall be responsible for the
management, conservation, development, protection, utilization,
and disposition of all fish and fishery/aquatic resources within their
respective municipal waters.
The municipal/city government may, in consultation with the
FARMC, enact appropriate ordinances for this purpose and in
accordance with the National Fisheries Policy. The ordinances
enacted by the municipality and component city shall be reviewed
pursuant to Republic Act No. 7160 by the sanggunian of the province
which has jurisdiction over the same.
The LGUs shall also enforce all fishery laws, rules and
regulations as well as valid fishery ordinances enacted by the
municipality/city council. x x x x62
59. There is no evidence that such consultations transpired. In

addition to R.A. 8550, the Local Government Code of 1991 or R.A. 716063 also
provides:
Sec. 2. Declaration of Policy.

x
(c) It is likewise the policy of the State to require all national

agencies and offices to conduct periodic consultations with
appropriate local government units, nongovernmental and people's
organizations, and other concerned sectors of the community before
any project or program is implemented in their respective
jurisdictions.
62
R.A. 8550; underscoring supplied.
63
An Act Providing for a Local Government Code of 1991 (1991).
- 28 -
Sec. 26. Duty of National Government Agencies in the

Maintenance of Ecological Balance.It shall be the duty of every
national agency or government-owned or controlled corporation
authorizing or involved in the planning and implementation of any
project or program that may cause pollution, climatic change,
depletion of non-renewable resources, loss of crop land, rangeland,
or forest cover, and extinction of animal or plant species, to consult
with the local government units, nongovernmental organizations,
and other sectors concerned and explain the goals and objectives of
the project or program, its impact upon the people and the
community in terms of environmental or ecological balance, and the
measures that will be undertaken to prevent or minimize the adverse
effects thereof.
Sec. 27. Prior Consultations Required.No project or program

shall be implemented by government authorities unless the
consultations mentioned in Sections 2(c) and 26 hereof are complied
with, and prior approval of the sanggunian concerned is obtained:
Provided, That occupants in areas where such projects are to be
implemented shall not be evicted unless appropriate relocation sites
have been provided, in accordance with the provisions of the
Constitution.64
60. Lastly, under Memorandum Circular (MC) No. 54,65 the

prevailing rule on reclassification, when it involves agricultural lands, there
must be prior conduct of public hearings.66 Although there were public
hearings done, as will be discussed later, this fell short of legal requirements.
Instances cited by Court of Appeals

as public consultations cannot be
considered as such.
64
65
Prescribing the Guidelines Governing Section 20 of RA 7160 Otherwise Known as the Local Government
Code of 1991 Authorizing Cities and Municipalities to Reclassify Agricultural Lands into Non-Agricultural
Uses (1993).
66
Reclassification of agricultural lands may be authorized through an ordinance enacted by the

sangguniang panlungsod or sangguniang bayan, as the case may be, after conducting public hearings for
the purpose. Such ordinance shall be enacted and approved in accordance with Articles 107 and 108 of
the IRR of the LGC. (Sec. 2(d), MC 54)
- 29 -
61. Strangely, the Court of Appeals deemed the public was duly
consulted, enumerating the various events and gatherings that Petitioners
participated in as proof of compliance, to wit:
This is evidenced by the Minutes of the public hearing

conducted on December 6, 2010. Consequently, Kapasiyahan Blg.
03 dated December 22, 2010 and Kapasiyahan Blg. 07-102 dated
January 24, 2011 were passed with no objection on the issuance of
the ECC and the development of the subject sanitary landfill in
Bagrangay Salambao.
This Court further notes that petitioners were given ample
opportunity to ventilate their concerns on the matter. In fact,
petitioner Bondoc presented her position against the project before
Mayor Gabriel and Councilor Manalaysay during the Barangay
Assembly on April 30, 2011. This was followed by another forum on
May 3, 2011 where she represented different barangays in Obando.
A petition was also submitted on May 4, 2011 to the Office of the
Secretary of the SP of Bulacan bearing 1,800 signatures of Obando
residents objecting to the project, to which the Office of the
Governor and the offices of the SP members were copy furnished.
On its part, the province invited her to several meetings of the SP,
one of which was held on June 21, 2011. A correspondence from
Mayor Gabriel was also sent in response to her letter dated June 21,
2011. In a meeting held on July 6, 2011, she raised the issues
regarding the displacement of water in the project area and the siting
requirements. She likewise sent letters dated July 7, 2011 and July
29, 2011 to the SP.
Petitioner Bondoc was again invited in a meeting conducted
by the EMB on August 23, 2011 where she reiterated her opposition
to the project. Questioning the issuance of the ECC, she again sent
letters to the EMB. In response, petitioners were invited to attend a
meeting on October 5, 2011.
Based on the circumstances obtaining herein, petitioners
were duly notified of the establishment of the project and they were
able to air their side, only that their opposition thereto was not given
a favorable decision by the government agencies concerned. 67
62. Petitioners posit that the Court of Appeals was being overly
liberal in its attribution of the above instances as compliance with the public
consultation requirements of law. This is discussed below.
67
Pages 80-21, Decision (Annex A).
- 30 -
62.1 December 6, 2010 public hearing68 for

Kapasiyahan Blg. 0369 by SBgy. Salambao and Kapasiyahan
Blg. 07-10270 by SB-ObandoPetitioners dispute the
authenticity of this public hearing.
62.1.1 They presented their witness, Florinda D.
Aonuevo, who testified under subpoena ad
testificandum that regular classes went on that day.
Considering that the attendance to this alleged public
hearing boasted a crowd of more or less 160 people and
occurred between the hours of 10 a.m. to 2 p.m.,71 such
an event could not have gone undetected especially if this
was a real public hearing with sufficient notice. This was
never rebutted by the Respondents and the person who
certified the alleged minutes, Respondent Bgy. Capt. of
Salambao, never took the witness stand.
62.1.2 Even assuming arguendo that such a

gathering took place, it should only be treated as a public
information effort since at this time, the IEE Report had
yet to be filed on 13 December 2010,72 or 7 days too early,
and thus, no other meaningful source of information was
available.
62.1.3 The gathering was also under the auspices

of Bgy. Salambao and cannot be counted in favor of
Kapasiyahan Blg. 07-102 of SB-Obando as these are two
different LGU legislative bodies.
62.1.4 Lastly, it is significant to note that SBObando was officially notified of Ecoshields intentions
68
Allegedly held in Bgy. Salambao based on Exh. 31 to 33, Ecoshield.
69
Dated 22 December 2010. (Exh. C, Petitioners)
70
Dated 24 January 2011. (Exh. E, Petitioners)
71
See Katitikan ng Ginawang Pampublikong Pagdinig Noong Ika-6 ng Disyembre 2010 sa Salambao
Primary School, Brgy. Salambao, Obando, Bulacan Patungkol sa Inihain na Proyekto ng Ecoshield
Development Corporation na Magtatayo ng Sanitary Landfill sa Dulong Bahagi ng Barangay Salambao,
Obando Bulacan (Exh. 31, Ecoshield) and Talaan ng Nagsidalo (Exh. 32, Ecoshield).
72
Exh. B, Petitioners.
- 31 -
only on 23 December 2010,73 or weeks after the

December 6 event had already taken place so SB-Obando
cannot sponsor a hearing on a subject matter that it has
yet to be officially informed about.
62.2 April 30, 2011 General AssemblyDoes not count.

As indicated in Petitioner Bondocs judicial-affidavit,74 this was
a general assembly for Bgy. Catanghalan, not Bgy. Salambao
where the landfill was to be located.
62.3 May 3, 2011 ForumDoes not count as a public

hearing. It was a private forum.
62.4 May 4, 2011 Petition to SP-Bulacan75Does not

count as a public hearing. It was a letter-petition in exercise of
the constitutional right to petition the government for redress
of grievances.
62.5 June 21, 2011 MeetingDoes not count as public

consultation. It was a private meeting at the Governors House
in Malolos, Bulacan upon the invitation of Gov. Sy-Alvarado to
Petitioner Bondoc.76 In addition, Petitioners were unaware at
that time that SP-Bulacan had already passed Kapasiyahan Blg.
176-T1177 affirming the land reclassification ordinance of SBObando.
62.6 June 21, 2011 (sic) Letter from Mayor Gabriel

Does not count. It is a letter, not a public hearing, stating that
only the MDC Executive Committee issued the recommendation
73
See Exh. 86, Ecoshield.
74
Q&A #3, Judicial-Affidavit dated 17 May 2012 of Ma. Teresa S. Bondoc. (Exh. LL, Petitioners)
75
Exh. H, Petitioners.
76
See second to fifth Q&A, p.2, Bondoc Judicial-Affidavit (Exh. LL).
77
Exh. J, Petitioners.
- 32 -
for the disputed land reclassification. In addition, the correct

date of the letter is 27 June 2011.78
62.7 July 6, 2011 MeetingPetitioners are not aware of

this meeting.
62.8 July 7, 2011 and July 29, 2011 Letters to SPBulacanDoes not count. Not a public hearing but letters to
formalize their objections to the landfill. Petitioners were
unaware at this time that SP-Bulacan had already passed a
resolution approving the reclassification.
62.9 August 23, 2011 MeetingDoes not count. It was

a private meeting upon the invitation of the NSWMC, not EMB.
However, NSWMCs office is located also at the EMB National
Office within the DENR Compound.79
62.10 September 5, 2011 Letter to EMB80--Does not

count. It was a letter done upon advice of NSWMC.81
62.11 October 5, 2011 Meeting with DENR and EMB

Does not count as public hearing. It was a meeting upon
invitation of DENR. Petitioners were not informed of any action
taken by DENR after this meeting.
63. All told, the Court of Appeals grievously erred in holding that the
conduct of public consultations was not required for the proposed landfill
based on a wrong appreciation of its classification under P.D. 1586 and its
implementing rules. However, P.D. 1586 is not the only applicable law. The
provisions of R.A. 7160, R.A. 8550 and R.A. 9003 require that public
consultations be held. To remedy this conundrum, the Court of Appeals
counted practically each and every instance that Petitioners engaged the
78
Exh. Y, Petitioners.
79
See second to fifth Q&A, p.3, Bondoc Judicial-Affidavit (Exh. LL).
80
Exh. N, Petitioners.
81
See last sentence, fifth Q&A, p.3, Bondoc Judicial-Affidavit (Exh. LL).
- 33 -
Respondents. Even mere letters of correspondence were treated as a form

of public consultation.
64. But this is very wrong as public consultation has a specific

meaning in law given the concept of procedural due process guaranteed in
the Bill of Rights.82 For a project that will significantly alter the lives of
ordinary citizens of Obando and the livelihood of thousands of fisherfolk who
depend on Manila Bay for a living, more is required. The Court of Appeals
should have paid heed to this obscure yet profound provision of the 1987
Constitution:
SEC. 16. The right of the people and their organizations to

effective and reasonable participation at all levels of social, political,
and economic decision-making shall not be abridged. The State shall,
by law, facilitate the establishment of adequate consultation
mechanisms.83
IV.
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN RULING THAT THE

RECLASSIFICATION OF THE AREA WHERE THE ASSAILED LANDFILL IS
LOCATED IS VALID.
65. From the outset, Petitioners maintain that the area where the
proposed landfill will be built, is not on land but on the waters of Manila Bay.
It is not a land-fill, in the real sense of the word. However, because of the
history of the area and LGU interests in treating the same as such, by legal
fiction, it is considered as land despite the fact that because of the action of
the sea, it has, by operation of law, ceased to be private property. Fact is,
only sea vessels serve as the only mode of transportation therein and that at
any given time, locals can be seen fishing in this vast water expanse.
66. Assuming arguendo that this is land, because of it was classified

as agricultural and considered as agrarian at that, the area needed to
undergo conversion before the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) first
and then be reclassified by the respondent municipality. Petitioners
82
Sec. 1, Art. III, 1987 Philippine Constitution.
83
Role and Rights of Peoples Organizations, Article XIII on Social Justice and Human Rights.
- 34 -
question the process of reclassification for its serious irregularities. The

Court of Appeals, however, did not think so, ruling this wise:
In this regard, WE cannot nullify the entire process of

reclassification and declare the reclassification invalid based on the
mere fact that the recommendation came from the Executive
Committee of the MDC instead of the MDC itself. It should be noted
that all of the required documents were submitted and the
procedure was substantially complied with. In fact, the Chairperson
of the MDC himself, Mayor Gabriel, testified in court confirming such
recommendation. Considering that there is substantial compliance
showing that there is positive recommendation for the
reclassification and the absence of effective opposition from the
MDC itself, WE find the reclassification of the disputed parcels of
land to be valid.
67. In its motion for partial reconsideration, Petitioners pointed to

the fact that the Executive Committee of the MDC cannot usurp a power that
properly belonged to the body as a whole, and to the irregularities that
attended the reclassification process which militates against any idea of
substantial compliance. The Court of Appeals did not pass upon this issue
anymore; hence, the error.
MDC had the authority, not its

Executive Committee.
68. For Petitioners, a mere committee cannot exercise a power that

belongs to the group as a whole. Petitioners have always pointed out the
substantial difference in the composition between the two bodies84 and the
fact that nothing in Sec. 111(b) of R.A. 7160 authorizes the MDC Executive
Committee of Obando to exercise a power that specifically pertained to the
84
Based on Sec. 107(b) of R.A. 7160, the MDC should be composed of the mayor as head and the
following members: (1) all punong barangays in the municipality; (2) the chairman of the committee on
appropriations of the sanggunian; (3) the congressman or his representative; and (4) representatives of
NGOs operating in the municipality, who shall constitute not less than one-fourth () of the members of
the fully organized council.
Since Obando has 11 barangays, adding the named members, there should be at least five (5) NGO
representatives for a total of at least 19 MDC members.
On the other hand, based on Sec. 111(a)(2) of R.A. 7160, the Executive Committee of MDC-Obando should
be composed of the mayor as chair, the chairman of the committee on appropriations of the SP-Bulacan,
the president of the municipal league of barangays, and a representative from the NGOs represented in
the council, or a total membership of just four (4) persons.
- 35 -
MDC. Section 2(a) of MC 5485 is specific that the recommendation should

come from the MDC, to wit:
SECTION
2.
Requirements
and
Procedures
for
Reclassification.(a) The city or municipal development council
(CDC/MDC) shall recommend to the sangguniang panlungsod or
sangguniang bayan, as the case may be, the reclassification of
agricultural lands within its jurisdiction based on the requirements of
local development.86
Public hearing requirement was not

followed.
69. Contrary to the Court of Appeals findings, there was also no

substantial compliance with the prior public hearing requirement under Sec.
2(d) of MC 54. To better see this, a brief timeline of the events and
supporting documents is in order.
Date
Event/Document
07 February 2011 Kapasiyahan Blg. 07-105, Taong 201187 was passed by

Respondent SB-Obando authorizing Respondent
Ecoshield to proceed with the reclassification of its
property from agricultural to industrial
14 February 2011 Public Hearing by SB-Obando88
Letter-Notice of meeting by MDC Executive
Committee89
17 February 2011 MDC Executive Committee Kapasiyahan Blg. 01, taong
201190
85
See footnote no. 65.
86
87
Exh. F, Petitioners.
88
Page 46-47, TSN dated 05 October 2012, Rodolfo Alejo.
89
Exh. 61, Obando.
90
Based on Minutes of the MDC Executive Committee meeting. (Exh. 64, Obando)
- 36 -
28 February 2011 Municipal Ordinance No. 07-0891 was passed

approving the reclassification of Respondent
Ecoshields property.
69.1 As can be seen, Respondent SB-Obando had

already allowed Respondent Ecoshield to proceed with the
processing of its reclassification by way of Kapasiyahan Blg. 07105 even before a public hearing was supposedly conducted on
14 February 2014, or seven (7) days later.
69.2 Nothing in Kapasiyahan Blg. 07-105 would indicate

if a public hearing was actually held prior to this resolution.
69.3 Even assuming for the sake of argument that the

MDC Executive Committee can validly exercise the power to
recommend land reclassification, based on the testimony of
then Mayor Gabriel and the documents he presented in court,
it is very clear that the recommendation was made only on 17
February 2011,92 or ten (10) days after the SB-Obando had
already allowed Respondent Ecoshield to proceed with its
reclassification, a clear case of a foregone conclusion.
70. Petitioners are astonished at how the Court of Appeals

managed to ignore such irregularities.
Other irregularities were present.
71. And they do not end there. As pointed out in Petitioners

motion, although only five (5) hectares was allowed by the DAR to be
converted, Respondent SB-Obando allowed all 44-hectares to be reclassified,
in clear violation of MC 54. Second, Municipal Ordinance No. 07-08
authorizing the reclassification, was passed on 28 February 2011 even before
91
92
Embodied in Resolution No. 07-105, Taong 2011. (Exh. G, Petitioners)
Pages 12-17, TSN dated 05 October 2012, Orencio Gabriel. See Letter-Notice dated 14 February 2011
(Exh. 61, Obando) and Kapasiyahan Blg. 01, Taong 2011 of the MDC Executive Committee (Exh. 64,
Obando).
- 37 -
the other required clearances were obtained such as the HLURB

Certification93 on 15 April 2011 and the DAR Order94 allowing conversion on
23 May 2011.
72. In sum, the Court of Appeals committed serious reversible error

when it passed off as substantial compliance the reclassification process
notwithstanding the anomalous circumstances that characterize it. No
amount of finessing can hide the reality that like the ECC, the reclassification
was rammed through the LGU proceedings with nary a concern for public
consultation or the environment.
V.
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE PROPOSED

LANDFILL COMPLIES WITH SITING REQUIREMENTS UNDER R.A. 9003
AND FOR GIVING GREATER CREDENCE TO RESPONDENT ECOSHIELDS
WITNESSES.
73. As stated, Petitioners maintain that one of the biggest problems

with this landfill is that it will be built on water and expose Manila Bay to the
grave problem of leachate contamination. Leachate is defined as the liquid
produced when waste undergo decomposition, and when water percolate
through solid waste undergoing decomposition. It is contaminated liquid
that contains dissolved and suspended materials.95 Just how bad is it? R.A.
9003 is replete with provisions on water monitoring and measures against
leachate contamination96 simply because it is nearly impossible to remove
leachate once mixed in bodies of water and its impact on public health and
welfare is both immediate and staggering.
74. Thus, as early as the petition filed with this Honorable Court,
Petitioners have cited the numerous violations of this landfill vis--vis the
siting requirements under Sec. 40 of R.A. 9003 and its implementing rules.
During the hearings, they also presented expert witnesses, namely, Dr.
David, Dr. Mark Chernaik from the Environmental Law Alliance Worldwide
(ELAW)97 and Dr. Renato Solidum, head of the Philippine Institute of
93
Exh. 70, Ecoshield.
94
Exh. 28, Ecoshield.
95
Sec. 3(q), R.A. 9003.
96
See for instance Sec. 14(d), 15(n)(1) and (p), 39(b), 40(e), 41 infra, 42(b), (e) and (i) and 48(16).
97
An international network of public interest lawyers and scientists.
- 38 -
Volcanology and Seismology (PHIVOLCS). For the Court of Appeals, their

testimonies were insufficient and still considered the siting criteria as
complied with.
Landfill is inconsistent with the landuse plan because its reclassification

was grossly defective.
75. For the Court of Appeals, the passage of Municipal Ordinance

07-08 by SB-Obando and its approval on review by SP-Bulacan for the
reclassification of the landfill area into commercial/industrial, meant that the
project site is now consistent with its land-use plan. As already discussed in
the preceding section, Petitioners take issue with this and hold otherwise.
No access by land.
76. Under Sec. 40(b) of R.A. 9003, the site must be accessible from
major roadways and thoroughfare. The Court of Appeals took another
major leap of faith in favor of Respondent Ecoshield by citing its IEE report
that proposed an access road development. However, this was never
substantiated during trial. Besides, the Court of Appeals should have known
that based on the video and pictures taken during the ocular inspection,
there is no way that a road will be built towards this site as it is surrounded
by water. And even if so, it will require its own ECC.
77. The fact that the Decision cites access by barge or other sea
vessel by navigating Manila Bay and Binuangan River98 is a stretch of the
legal requirement on access. The clear intent of Sec. 40(b) is that access
should be by land to avoid the risk of water contamination by leachate. This
interpretation is bolstered further when one takes into account the
proscriptions under the Clean Water Act and the Fisheries Code on water
pollution and transport by water.99
98
99
See pars. 33-35 herein.
- 39 -
Community sentiments were

ignored.
78. The Court of Appeals concluded that community sentiments

were taken into account.100 Petitioners do not think so. It is clear from the
Decision that all that the Court of Appeals cited were the testimony of third
parties such as Respondent Claudio, herself citing the study of Blacksmith
Institute and the UP Epidemiological Institute and EMBs own environmental
data. Petitioners ask, how exactly did these reflect community sentiments?
79. The Court of Appeals recognized that Petitioners submitted a

petition to SP-Bulacan last 04 May 2011 bearing 1,800 signatures of Obando
residents who objected to the landfill.101 Petitioners also presented
documentary proof of the historical, cultural and religious significance of the
area to the Obando festival to which the town is singularly known for. None
of these seems to have mattered to the court below.
80. As previously discussed, given how meager the opportunities

were for public consultation and how single-minded the LGU Respondents
were in pushing for the approval of this project, Petitioners seriously cast
doubt if their sentiments were ever really taken in earnest. For the Court of
Appeals not to see this is downright disheartening.
The landfill will detrimentally affect

environmentally-sensitive resources
such as aquifer, groundwater
reservoir or watershed area.
81. Petitioners have always taken issue out of this particular

criterion. In particular, Petitioners cite the unequivocal pronouncement in
Sec. 1(m)(2) of Rule XIV of DAO 2001-34102 that a landfill cannot be situated
in a floodplain. Petitioners witnesses, Dr. David, Dr. Chernaik and Dr.
Solidum were categorical in his testimony that the area where the proposed
landfill will be located is in a floodplain, where no landfill is allowed, and
100
101
102
Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act 9003 (2001).
- 40 -
where engineering solutions are immaterial. It is akin to putting up

residences within the permanent danger zone of an active volcano. It simply
cannot be, no matter how disaster-prepared the residents are or insulated
the houses will be.
82. But rather than uphold the law, the Court of Appeals weighed
in on the technical aspects of the project, finding merit in the engineering
plans and designs of Respondent Ecoshield. More will be said on this matter.
However, two points need immediate stressing. First, it is not a question of
whether or not the risks can be obviated by engineering solutions, it is a
question of whether or not it is allowed by law in the first place. The clear
answer is no. The law forbids it because the environmental and health stakes
are simply too high.
83. The other point, Petitioners are amazed at how easy it was for
the Court of Appeals to believe and hang onto the words of Respondent
Claudio when she declared that the project site is not within any declared
aquifer, groundwater reservoir or watershed103 as opposed to Dr. David, Dr.
Solidum and Dr. Chernaik who stated that the proposed landfill is in a
floodplain. To think, the latter were testifying as expert witnesses while the
former was not. In fact, nothing in Respondent Claudios credentials would
indicate why her declaration should be given more weight particularly over
Dr. David who has a doctorate in Environmental Science and Geology from
the Stanford University, a Hydrologist for the US Geological Survey (USGS),104
a professor at UP, and who the country currently depends on for hydrometeorological information, particularly, flooding.
Director Claudio
admitted that she does not even have a hydrologist in her staff.105
84. Equally painful, Dr. Solidums testimony was casually

disregarded even if the rest of the country relies on his advice on every
seismic event happening in the Philippines. These witnesses were forthright,
independent and consistent in their testimonies, unlike Respondent Claudio
who on numerous occasions, could not recall details, was evasive and would
be caught in a state of blissful ignorance.
103
104
Pages 79-80, TSN dated 23 April 2012, C.P. David.
105
Page 108, TSN dated 14 March 2013, Claudio.
- 41 -
85. Instead of taking advantage of the objective knowledge offered

by Petitioners witnesses, the Court of Appeals trained a magnifying lens to
find fault and nitpick on their testimonies, while magnanimous to a fault in
believing Respondents and their witnesses. Repeatedly, the Court of Appeals
downplayed the significance of the testimonies of Dr. David, Dr. Chernaik and
Dr. Solidum vis--vis that of Respondents Claudio and Mayor Gabriel on
matters that were well within the formers expertise, when the latter had
none. In the case of Dr. Solidum, the fact that he admitted not having been
to the project site nor seen the construction itself were taken against him.106
As for Dr. Chernaik, who has a doctorate degree on Biochemistry from John
Hopkins University, his admission that he did not see the engineering plans
of the project immediately spelled his doom.107
86. But if this was the criteria to be followed, how much weight
should be given to the Court of Appealss own disquisition on the technical
merits of the landfill and its engineering design when they themselves never
went to the site nor saw its construction? More importantly, up until this
case was filed, the Court of Appeals failed to appreciate that nobody else
with the proper background and training was able to review the technical
aspects of this project other than their paid personnel and consultants of
Respondent Ecoshield to give it an independent and competent technical
assessment.
87. Fact is, if Dr. Solidum is required to physically see each and every
earthquake in the country before his opinion is given credence, then the
country will be in a very sorry state. Not only do earthquakes originate
underground which nobody can see, the undeniable fact is, the threats
mentioned by Dr. Solidum in his judicial-affidavit108 were well within his
expertise and whose official data is used by every civil engineering worth his
salt. He did not testify because he is from Obando or because he is in any
way involved in the project. The height of the irony is that the engineering
interventions which the Court of Appeals has heaped praises on was based
on recommendations of the Engineering Geological and Geohazard
Assessment Report (EGGAR),109 a report that is based on data culled from
PHIVOLCS, which Dr. Solidum heads and which data was generated without
having to see the project site or its construction.
106
Fourth paragraph, p.84, Decision (Annex A).
107
Last paragraph, p.82, Decision (Annex A).
108
Exh. YY, Petitioners.
109
Exh. FF, Petitioners.
- 42 -
88. For these very reasons, Petitioners sought reconsideration of

what they perceived was a glaring misappreciation of evidence. They
protested the Court of Appeals decision to give greater weight to
Respondent Ecoshields expert witnesses notwithstanding the fact that not
only could they not match the caliber of Petitioners expert witnesses, more
importantly, they lacked the most important element of impartiality given
their admitted previous or ongoing involvement to the landfill project.
89.
The Court of Appeals could not be persuaded:
The contending parties presented their respective expert

testimonies. In the exercise of its discretion, coupled with the
opportunity to evaluate the witnesses character and to observe
their respective demeanor, this Court opted to rely on the
testimonies of [Ecoshields] expert witnesses who made a
comprehensive study of the project and who actually went to the
project site. That these experts were under the employ of
[Ecoshield] does not necessarily warrant the presumption of bias on
their part as witnesses considering that their statements were duly
supported by evidence.110
90. Now, Petitioners are simply saddened. First, we cannot fathom

what exactly in the demeanor of Petitioners witnesses was not worth
believing notwithstanding their lack of any previous affiliation with the
landfill project or even with any of the Petitioners. Dr. David has served in
different capacities with the government and was even tapped on several
occasions as an EIA Review Committee member. Dr. Chernaik who is based
in Eugene, Oregon flew in. As testified, he has previously been presented as
an expert witness before the European Court of Human Rights and the
Supreme Courts of Belize, Pakistan and India. Most embarrassingly, Dr.
Solidum, who is a full-time public official and head of an agency, should enjoy
at the very least a presumption of regularity in his performance of duties.
91. But most of all, up to the very end, the Court of Appeals missed
the point. The EIS system has a built in mechanism for safeguarding the
environment especially from projects that have a significant impact and pose
an inherent riski.e., by allowing independent third parties to review the
110
Page 11, Resolution (Annex B).
- 43 -
same. As was explained in detail earlier, this process was subverted and
rendered for naught when EMB-Region III Director Claudio gave Respondent
Ecoshield a virtual free pass by requiring only an IEE and granting an ECC in
just nine (9) days, instead of undergoing the full-blown EIA process as
required in various laws.
92. And these independent and extremely qualified experts had a

singular messagei.e., the site is not suitable for the proposed landfill. The
risk posed on health and the environment more than outweighs whatever
gain it holds given the sheer number of geohazards present. These experts
have nothing to gain from stating the truth other than protect the right of
the people to health and a balanced ecology. They know that none of
Respondents witnesses engineering designs and studies will matter when
disaster finally strikes because it was a risk that should never have been there
in the first place.
VI.

LANDFILL IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONTINUING MANDAMUS
ORDER OF THIS HONORABLE COURT.
The proposed landfill will directly

introduce garbage to Manila Bay.
93. The Court of Appeals believes that the proposed landfill will
significantly facilitate the clean-up of Manila Bay, in direct response to the
Supreme Courts continuing mandamus.111 Petitioners respectfully beg to
differ. While this Honorable Court ordered a clean-up and the establishment
of sanitary landfills, it did not order to put-up one on its very waters. Fact is,
the proposed landfill will not be used simply to collect and store the random
garbage found in the shores of Manila Bay or even the waters of Obando or
the Meycauayan-Marilao-Obando River System (MMORS). There is no
reason to put up a 44-hectare landfill and spend more than half a billion
pesos as of last count, just for this purpose.112 As admitted by Respondent
Claudio, Bulacans existing landfill capacity readily exceeds the wastes that
111
112
TSN dated 20 September 2013, Benjamin Ramos.
- 44 -
the Province can currently generate. The same is true for the entire Region
III.113
94. Where then will the waste for the proposed Obando landfill
come from? Based on its design, the answer is Metro Manila. Thus, if the
landfill is allowed to proceed, it will actually aggregate and introduce directly
into the bay all the garbage that heretofore would just randomly find its way
into its waters from the various tributaries. The landfill will thus result in
Manila Bay hosting more garbage than it ever had floating in its waters at
any point in history. On top of this, Petitioners worry where will all the water
that will be displaced when all of its 44 hectares is emptied, go? Obando and
the adjacent flood-prone towns of Valenzuela and Malabon already know
the answer. Suffice to state, if this was such a brilliant idea as the Court of
Appeals seems to think, Petitioners ask whether this Honorable Court and
the Manila Bay committee formed in response to the decision were ever
informed and consulted on the project?
ALLEGATIONS IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION

FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A TEMPORARY ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION ORDER (TEPO)
95. Petitioners replead and incorporate, by way of reference, all the

averments in the foregoing insofar as they are pertinent, relevant and
material hereto. And in support of the instant application for the issuance
of a TEPO, Petitioners further allege that:
96. It is a matter of extreme urgency that Respondent Ecoshield be

enjoined from proceeding further and operating the assailed landfill. Since
the petition was originally filed more than three years ago on 25 October
2011, sans the TEPO, Respondent Ecoshield was able to proceed with the
construction of the landfill, mowing down a large portion of an old mangrove
stand to allow its heavy equipment to come in, drain at least five (5) hectares
of sea, erect perimeter walls and create a virtual island comprised of large
waste compartments in the middle of Manila Bay. With the Court of Appeals
decision, it is more than ready to commence operation.
113
Bulacan has a capacity of at least 7,000 tons per day versus waste generated of about 1,500 tons per
day. This does not yet include the other landfills in Region 3. (See pp. 87-100, TSN dated 14 March 2013,
Dir. Claudio)
- 45 -
97. And while environmental damage has already been inflicted on

the mangrove stand in the construction of the landfill compartments, this
pales in comparison to the harm that will come when thousands of tons of
garbage are transported from the docks of Manila into the landfill in Obando,
where it will be exposed to the natural elements and where its heavy
concentrate of leachate will likely be released into the waters of Manila Bay.
Petitioners wish to emphasize that its capacity is 1,000 metric tons per day.
If and when this happens, beyond the foul odor, the despoliation of view and
the desecration of Obandos cultural and religious heritage, Petitioners fear
that the impact on health and the environment will be catastrophic once
leachate starts to secretly seep into the bay.
98. In stark contrast, Respondents will not suffer from any damage
whatsoever in enjoining said project as there is neither any showing of
urgency nor necessity in putting-up a landfill in Bulacan.
CLOSING STATEMENT
99. More than three years since Petitioners went to this Honorable
Court to seek relief, they are back again imploring this High Tribunals
wisdom to see through the substantial compliances, the technical
embellishments and the bold assurances of Respondents to clean up the bay
and its immediate environs. Petitioners believe that nothing can be further
from the truth. This is one case where the cure is clearly worse than the
disease. Like the women and men who dance in Obando, Petitioners only
have faith and they beg with hopeful hearts that this Honorable Court be
guided by the truth. Many of the Petitioners are senior citizens who at one
point in their lives have been blessed to see the natural beauty of the bay,
and also be cursed to see its slow and seemingly irreversible decay. This
Honorable Courts MMDA decision gave hope but this landfill is taking it
away. Let this not be the case.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, Petitioners respectfully pray that
this Honorable Court:
- 46 -
1.
ISSUE a Temporary Environmental Protection Order (TEPO)
ordering Respondents to refrain from taking any action pursuant to the
project and commencing landfill operations;
2.
After judgment, MAKE the environmental protection order
permanent and DIRECT Respondent Ecoshield Development Corporation to
permanently cease and desist from constructing/operating a sanitary landfill
in Bgy. Salambao, Obando, Bulacan;
3.
DECLARE ECC No. R03-1012-0592 as null and void and the
proposed landfill in violation of R.A. 9003 siting requirements;
4.
DECLARE all ordinances and resolutions pertaining to the
reclassification of agricultural lands subject of this case into industrial/
commercial lands as null and void;
5.
DIRECT Respondents to restore the damaged mangroves in the
area of the sanitary landfill, and protect the same from further degradation;
6.
DIRECT Respondent Ecoshield Development Corporation to
remove the existing landfill structures, equipment and appurtenances, and
restore and rehabilitate the affected waters to its former condition; and
7.
DIRECT the DENR and the EMB to make periodic reports on the
execution of the final judgment.
Petitioners pray for such other reliefs which relate to the right of the
people to a balanced and healthful ecology or to the protection,
preservation, rehabilitation or restoration of the environment.
Petitioners also pray for such other reliefs as may be just and
equitable.
Respectfully submitted.
Quezon City for the City of Manila, 04 February 2015.
By:
RONALDO R. GUTIERREZ
Counsel for Petitioners
Upholding Life And Nature (ULAN)
Room 402 Cabrera Bldg. II
- 47 -
64 Timog Avenue, Bgy. Sacred Heart

Quezon City, M.M. 1103
ron.ulan@gmail.com
PTR No. 613365/1-7-15/Q.C
IBP Lifetime No. 07908/Q.C.
MCLE Exm. No. IV-001172/6-26-13
Roll No. 41383
Explanation
Due to time, distance and logistical constraints, service of this petition
was done by registered mail.
RONALDO R. GUTIERREZ
Copy furnished:
COURT OF APPEALS
(Former 10th Division)
Maria Orosa St.
Manila
OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL
Counsel for Public Respondents DENR & EMB-Region III
134 Amorsolo St., Legaspi Village
Makati City 1229
ATTY. JEFFREY C. CRUZ
Counsel for Public Respondent Province of Bulacan
Provincial Legal Office
2nd Floor Capitol Building, Brgy. Mojon
Malolos City, Bulacan 3000
GONZALES BATILLER LEABRES & REYES
Counsel for Public Respondents Municipality
of Obando & Bgy. Salambao
7/F ALPAP 1 Bldg., 140 P. Leviste St.
Salcedo Village, Makati City 1227
PIZARRAS & ASSOCIATES LAW OFFICE
Counsel for Private Respondent Ecoshield
Development Corporation
20th Floor Security Bank Centre
6776 Ayala Avenue
Makati City 1226

Writ of Kalikasan Appeal Under Rule 45 (With TEPO)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Writ of Kalikasan Appeal Under Rule 45 (With TEPO)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

MARIA TERESA S. BONDOC, WILFREDO

G.R. No. 215676

WRIT OF KALIKASAN APPEAL UNDER RULE 45

Petitioners, by counsel, respectfully state:

NATURE OF THE PETITION

1.2 The duplicate-original of the Resolution dated 05

latter is through the ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT BUREAU (EMB), an

environmental clearance (ECC No. R03-1012-0592) and steadily acquired

19. The parties then presented their respective witnesses before

21. As a consequence, Petitioners filed a timely motion for partial

THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN DENYING THE WRIT OF

THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN RULING THAT THE PROPOSED

THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN RULING THAT PUBLIC

THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN RULING THAT THE

THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE

THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN RULING THAT THE PROPOSED

THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN DENYING THE PRIVILEGE OF THE

The Court of Appeals did not explain

24. In its Resolution denying with finality the writ of kalikasan,

Petitioners argument was

Page 9, Resolution (Annex B), underscoring supplied.

Page 81, Decision (Annex A).

Pages 82-86, Decision (Annex A).

26. But before discussing this at length, a short clarification is in

WE cannot subscribe to petitioners argument that the

27. This is not an accurate appreciation of Petitioners arguments.

Sanitary landfill shall refer to a waste disposal site designed,

28. Petitioners likewise highlighted the fact that unlike ordinary

Page 9, Resolution (Annex B).

See last paragraph, p.1, Resolution (Annex B).

Paragraph 2 citing Sec. 3(ff), R.A. 9003.

Sec. 3(ff), R.A. 9003; underscoring supplied.

Sec. 40, R.A. 9003.

Sec. 41, R.A. 9003.

requirements,14 all of which must be complied with strictly. Moreover,

29. Respondent Ecoshield is not building a swimming resort or a

30. Bewilderingly, the Court of Appeals was quick to brand

Sec. 42, R.A. 9003.

See Proclamation No. 2146 and 803 in relation to P.D. 1586.

Sec. 38, R.A. 9003

Sec. 48(14), R.A. 9003.

Sec. 49(f), R.A. 9003.

Fifth paragraph, p. 9, Resolution (Annex B).

Evidentiary requirement imposed on

31. Petitioners are likewise disturbed by the Court of Appeals

Various laws prohibit the threat of

33. This is reiterated in the Philippine Clean Water Act or R.A.

Fourth paragraph, p.9 Resolution (Annex B).

In relation to Sec. 4(f), RPEC.

Sec. 48(16), R.A. 9003.

Sec. 49(f) et seq., R.A. 9003.

Discharging, depositing or causing to be deposited material of

Unauthorized transport or dumping into sea waters of sewage

35. Just as encompassing is the Philippine Fisheries Code of 1998 or

[T]he introduction by human or machine, directly or

Sec. 27(a), R.A. 9275; underscoring supplied.

Sec. 27(e) and (f), Ibid.

Sec. 102, R.A. 8550.

and wetland conversion, which cause similar hazards and deleterious

36. In sum, Petitioners contend that they met the jurisdictional

37. In terms of the geographic coverage, the transport of wastes

THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN RULING THAT THE PROPOSED

38. One of the issues raised by Petitioners in their original petition