G.R. No.

110120 March 16, 1994

LAGUNA LAKE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, petitioner,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS, HON. MANUEL JN. SERAPIO, Presiding Judge RTC, Branch
127, Caloocan City, HON. MACARIO A. ASISTIO, JR., City Mayor of Caloocan and/or
THE CITY GOVERNMENT OF CALOOCAN, respondents.
THE FACTS:

On March 8, 1991, the Task Force Camarin Dumpsite of Our Lady of Lourdes Parish,
Barangay Camarin, Caloocan City, filed a letter-complaint with the Laguna Lake
Development Authority seeking to stop the operation of the 8.6-hectare open garbage
dumpsite in Tala Estate, Barangay Camarin, Caloocan City due to its harmful effects on the
health of the residents and the possibility of pollution of the water content of the surrounding
area.

LLDA Legal and Technical personnel found that the City Government of Caloocan was
maintaining an open dumpsite at the Camarin area without first securing an Environmental
Compliance Certificate (ECC) from the Environmental Management Bureau (EMB) of the
Department of Environment and Natural Resources and clearance from LLDA as required

On December 5, 1991, the LLDA issued a Cease and Desist Order ordering the City
Government of Caloocan, Metropolitan Manila Authority, their contractors, and other entities,
to completely halt, stop and desist from dumping any form or kind of garbage and other
waste matter at the Camarin dumpsite.

The dumping operation was forthwith stopped by the City Government of Caloocan.
Sometime in August 1992 the dumping operation was resumed after a meeting held in July
1992 among the City Government of Caloocan, the representatives of Task Force Camarin
Dumpsite and LLDA at the Office of Environmental Management Bureau Director Rodrigo U.
Fuentes failed to settle the problem.

the LLDA issued another order reiterating the December 5, 1991, order and issued an Alias
Cease and Desist Order enjoining the City Government of Caloocan from continuing its
dumping operations at the Camarin area.

On September 25, 1992, the LLDA, with the assistance of the Philippine National Police,
enforced its Alias Cease and Desist Order by prohibiting the entry of all garbage dump
trucks into the Tala Estate, Camarin area being utilized as a dumpsite.

Pending resolution of its motion for reconsideration earlier filed on September 17, 1992 with
the LLDA, the City Government of Caloocan filed with the Regional Trial Court of Caloocan
City an action for the declaration of nullity of the cease and desist order with prayer for the
issuance of writ of injunction.

On September 25, 1992, the Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Caloocan City
issued a temporary restraining order enjoining the LLDA from enforcing its cease and desist
order.

On October 16, 1992, RTC denied its motion to dismiss and granting the issuance of a writ
of preliminary injunction enjoining the LLDA, its agent and all persons acting for and on its
behalf, from enforcing or implementing its cease and desist order which prevents plaintiff
City of Caloocan from dumping garbage at the Camarin dumpsite during the pendency of
this case and/or until further orders of the court.

On November 5, 1992, the LLDA filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition and injunction with
prayer for restraining order with the Supreme Court.

On April 30, 1993, the Court of Appeals sustained the position of the City of Caloocan on the
theory that the Pollution Control law, authorizing the defunct National Pollution Control Commission to
issue an exparte cease and desist order was not incorporated in Presidential Decree No. 813 nor in
Executive Order No. 927, series of 1983.

The Court of Appeals ruled that the LLDA is instead required "to institute the necessary legal
proceeding against any person who shall commence to implement or continue
implementation of any project, plan or program within the Laguna de Bay region without
previous clearance from the Authority."

The LLDA now assails, in this partition for review, the abovementioned ruling of the Court of
Appeals, contending that, as an administrative agency which was granted regulatory and
adjudicatory powers and functions, it is invested with the power and authority to issue a cease and desist
order

ISSUE:
Whether or not the LLDA have the power and authority to issue a "cease and desist" order.
HELD:
YES. According to SC, the immediate response to the demands of "the necessities of
protecting vital public interests" gives vitality to the statement on ecology embodied in the
Declaration of Principles and State Policies or the 1987 Constitution. Article II, Section 16
which provides:
The State shall protect and advance the right of the people to a balanced and
healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature.

As a constitutionally guaranteed right of every person, it carries the duty of non-impairment.

This is in relation to the declared policy of the state "to protect and promote the right to
health of the people and instill health consciousness among them."

Had the cease and desist order issued by the LLDA been complied with by the City
Government of Caloocan as it did in the first instance, no further legal steps would have
been necessary.
G.R. No. 101083 July 30, 1993
MINORS vs. DENR
The petitioners, since minors, were duly represented and joined by their parents.
Petitioners filed a taxpayer's class suit at the RTC Branch 66, Makati, Metro Manila, National
capital Judicial Region against defendant Secretary of the Department of Environment and
Natural Reasources (DENR), Honorable Fulgencio S. Factoran, Jr.

Petitioners alleged that they are entitled to the full benefit, use and enjoyment of the natural
resource treasure that is the country's virgin tropical forests invoking their right to a healthful
environment (Secs. 16, 15 Article II, 1987 Constitution).

They asserted that they represent their generation as well as generations yet unborn and
asserted that continued deforestation have caused a distortion and disturbance of the
ecological balance and have resulted in a host of environmental tragedies.

Petitioners further claimed that the Secretary committed grave abuse of discretion in
granting Timber License Agreements to cover more areas for logging than what is available
They prayed that judgement be rendered ordering the respondent, his agents, representatives
and other persons acting in his behalf to cancel all existing Timber License Agreement (TLA)
in the country and to cease and desist from receiving, accepting, processing, renewing or
approving new TLAs.

The defendant filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the following grounds:
1. Plaintiffs have no cause of action against him;
2. The issues raised by the plaintiffs is a political question which properly pertains to
the legislative or executive branches of the government.

The RTC Judge sustained the motion to dismiss, further ruling that granting of the relief prayed
for would result in the impairment of contracts which is prohibited by the Constitution and that
plaintiffs failed to allege with sufficient definiteness a specific legal right involved or a specific
legal wrong committed, and that the complaint is replete with vague assumptions and
conclusions based on unverified data

ISSUE:
Whether or not the petitioners failed to allege a specific right.
HELD:
No. According to SC, Section 16, Article II of the 1987 Constitution explicitly provides:
Sec. 16. The State shall protect and advance the right of the people to a
balanced and healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of
nature.

This right unites with the right to health which is provided for in the preceding
section of the same article:
Sec. 15. The State shall protect and promote the right to health of the people
The said right implies, among many other things, the judicious management and
conservation of the country's forests.

Without such forests, the ecological or environmental balance would be irreversiby

disrupted.
Maggallona vs Ermita
GR. 187167

FACTS
In 1961, Congress passed Republic Act No. 3046 (RA 3046)2 demarcating the maritime
baselines of the Philippines as an archipelagic State.

In March 2009, Congress amended RA 3046 by enacting RA 9522, the statute now under
scrutiny.

Petitioners, professors of law, law students and a legislator, in their respective capacities as
citizens, taxpayers or legislators,9 as the case may be, assail the constitutionality of RA
9522 on two principal grounds, namely:
(1) RA 9522 reduces Philippine maritime territory, and logically, the reach of the
Philippine states sovereign power, in violation of Article 1 of the 1987 Constitution,10
embodying the terms of the Treaty of Paris11 and ancillary treaties,12; and

(2) RA 9522 opens the countrys waters landward of the baselines to maritime passage
by all vessels and aircrafts, undermining Philippine sovereignty and national security,
contravening the countrys nuclear-free policy, and damaging marine resources, in
violation of relevant constitutional provisions.

In addition, petitioners contend that RA 9522s treatment of the KIG as regime of islands not
only results in the loss of a large maritime area but also prejudices the livelihood of
subsistence fishermen.

Commenting on the petition, respondent officials raised threshold issues questioning

(1) the petitions compliance with the case or controversy requirement for judicial review
grounded on petitioners alleged lack of locus standi and
(2) the propriety of the writs of certiorari and prohibition to assail the constitutionality of
RA 9522.

ISSUE:
Whether or not RA 9522 is unconstitutional.

HELD:
RA 9522 is Not Unconstitutional
1st reason:
RA 9522 did not outline the territory the Philippines but is merely a statutory tool to define
the countrys maritime zone and continental shelf under UNCLOS III.

SC emphasized that UNCLOS III is not a mode of acquiring or losing a territory as provided
under the laws of nations.

RA 9522, by optimizing the location of base points, increased the Philippines total maritime
space of 145,216 square nautical miles.

2nd reason:
the classification of KGI and Scarborough Shoal as Regime of Islands is consistent with the
Philippines sovereignty.
Had RA 9522 enclosed the islands as part of the archipelago, the country will be violating UNCLOS III
since it categorically stated that the length of the baseline shall not exceed 125 nautical miles.

The classification is in accordance with the Philippines sovereignty and States responsible observance of
its pacta sunt servanda obligation under UNCLOS III.

3rd reason:
The new base line introduced by RA 9522 is without prejudice with delineation of the
baselines of the territorial sea around the territory of Sabah, situated in North Borneo, over
which the Republic of the Philippines has acquired dominion and sovereignty.

And lastly, the UNCLOS III and RA 9522 are not incompatible with the Constitutions
delineation of internal waters.

The Court emphasized that the Philippines exercises sovereignty over the body of water lying landward of
the baselines, including the air space over it and the submarine areas underneath, regardless whether
internal or archipelagic waters.

However, sovereignty will not bar the Philippines to comply with its obligation in maintaining freedom of
navigation and the generally accepted principles of international law.

This does not mean that the states are placed in a lesser footing; it just signifies concession
of archipelagic states in exchange for their right to claim all waters inside the baseline.
In fact, the demarcation of the baselines enables the Philippines to delimit its exclusive
economic zone, reserving solely to the Philippines the exploitation of all living and non-living
resources within such zone.

Such a maritime delineation binds the international community since the delineation is in strict
observance of UNCLOS III. If the maritime delineation is contrary to UNCLOS III, the international
community will of course reject it and will refuse to be bound by it.

Such enactment was necessary in order to comply with the UNCLOS III; otherwise, it shall backfire on the
Philippines for its territory shall be open to seafaring powers to freely enter and exploit the resources in
the waters and submarine areas around our archipelago and it will weaken the countrys case in any
international dispute over Philippine maritime space.

The enactment of UNCLOS III compliant baselines law for the Philippine archipelago and
adjacent areas, as embodied in RA 9522, allows an internationally-recognized delimitation
of the breadth of the Philippines maritime zones and continental shelf. RA 9522 is therefore
a most vital step on the part of the Philippines in safeguarding