Republic of the Philippines

Congress of the Philippines

Metro Manila

Eleventh Congress

Republic Act No. 8749 June 23, 1999

AN ACT PROVIDING FOR A COMPREHENSIVE AIR POLLUTION CONTROL POLICY AND FOR OTHER
PURPOSES

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress assembled::

Chapter 1
General Provisions

Article One
Basic Air Quality Policies

Section 1. Short Title. - This Act shall be known as the "Philippine Clean Air Act of 1999."

Section 2. Declaration of Principles. - 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.

The State shall promote and protect the global environment to attain sustainable development while
recognizing the primary responsibility of local government units to deal with environmental problems.

The State recognizes that the responsibility of cleaning the habitat and environment is primarily area-based.

The State also recognizes the principle that "polluters must pay".

Finally, the State recognizes that a clean and healthy environment is for the good of all and should, therefore,
be the concern of all.

Section 3. Declaration of Policies. - The State shall pursue a policy of balancing development and
environmental protection. To achieve this end, the frame work for sustainable development shall be pursued. It
shall be the policy of the State to:

(a) Formulate a holistic national program of air pollution management that shall be implemented by the
government through proper delegation and effective coordination of functions and activities;

(b) Encourage cooperation and self-regulation among citizens and industries through the application of
market-based instruments;

(c) Focus primarily on pollution prevention rather than on control and provide for a comprehensive
management program for air pollution;

(d) Promote public information and education and to encourage the participation of an informed and
active public in air quality planning and monitoring; and
 (e) Formulate and enforce a system of accountability for short and long-term adverse environmental
impact of a project, program or activity. This shall include the setting up of a funding or guarantee
mechanism for clean-up and environmental rehabilitation and compensation for personal damages.

Section 4. Recognition of Rights. - Pursuant to the above-declared principles, the following rights of citizens
are hereby sought to be recognized and the State shall seek to guarantee their enjoyment:

(a) The right to breathe clean air;

(b) The right to utilize and enjoy all natural resources according to the principles of sustainable
development;

(c) The right to participate in the formulation, planning, implementation and monitoring of
environmental policies and programs and in the decision-making process;

(d) The right to participate in the decision-making process concerning development policies, plans and
programs projects or activities that may have adverse impact on the environment and public health;

(e) The right to be informed of the nature and extent of the potential hazard of any activity, undertaking
or project and to be served timely notice of any significant rise in the level of pollution and the
accidental or deliberate release into the atmosphere of harmful or hazardous substances;

(f) The right of access to public records which a citizen may need to exercise his or her rights
effectively under this Act;

(g) The right to bring action in court or quasi-judicial bodies to enjoin all activities in violation of
environmental laws and regulations, to compel the rehabilitation and cleanup of affected area, and to
seek the imposition of penal sanctions against violators of environmental laws; and

(h) The right to bring action in court for compensation of personal damages resulting from the adverse
environmental and public health impact of a project or activity.

Article Two
Definition of Terms

Section 5. Definitions. - As used in this Act:

a) "Air pollutant" means any matter found in the atmosphere other than oxygen, nitrogen, water vapor,
carbon dioxide, and the inert gases in their natural or normal concentrations, that is detrimental to
health or the environment, which includes but not limited to smoke, dust, soot, cinders, fly ash, solid
particles of any kind, gases, fumes, chemical mists, steam and radio-active substances;

b) "Air pollution" means any alteration of the physical, chemical and biological properties of the
atmospheric air, or any discharge thereto of any liquid, gaseous or solid substances that will or is likely
to create or to render the air resources of the country harmful, detrimental, or injurious to public health,
safety or welfare or which will adversely affect their utilization for domestic, commercial, industrial,
agricultural, recreational, or other legitimate purposes;

c) "Ambient air quality guideline values" mean the concentration of air over specified periods classified
as short-term and long-term which are intended to serve as goals or objectives for the protection of
health and/or public welfare. These values shall be used for air quality management purposes such as
determining time trends, evaluating stages of deterioration or enhancement of the air quality, and in
general, used as basis for taking positive action in preventing, controlling, or abating air pollution;
d) "Ambient air quality" means the general amount of pollution present in a broad area; and refers to
the atmosphere's average purity as distinguished from discharge measurements taken at the source of
pollution;

e) "Certificate of Conformity" means a certificate issued by the Department of Environment and Natural
Resources to a vehicle manufacturer/assembler or importer certifying that a particular new vehicle or
vehicle type meets the requirements provided under this Act and its rules and regulations;

f) "Department" means the Department of Environment and Natural Resources;

g) "Eco-profile" means the geographic-based instrument for planners and decision-makers which
present an evaluation of the environmental quality and carrying capacity of an area. It is the result of
the integration of primary and secondary data and information on natural resources and anthropogenic
activities on the land which are evaluated by various environmental risk assessment and forecasting
methodologies that enable the Department to anticipate the type of development control necessary in
the planning area;

h) "Emission" means any air contaminant, pollutant, gas stream or unwanted sound from a known
source which is passed into the atmosphere;

i) "Greenhouse gases" mean those gases that can potentially or can reasonably be expected to induce
global warming, which include carbon dioxide, methane, oxides of nitrogen, chlorofluorocarbons, and
the like;

j) "Hazardous substances" mean those substances which present either: (1) short-term acute hazards
such as acute toxicity by ingestion, inhalation, or skin absorption, corrosivity or other skin or eye
contact hazard or the risk of fire explosion; or (2) longterm toxicity upon repeated exposure,
carcinogenicity (which in some cases result in acute exposure but with a long latent period), resistance
to detoxification process such as biodegradation, the potential to pollute underground or surface
waters;

k) "Infectious waste" means that portion of medical waste that could transmit an infectious disease;

l) "Medical waste" means the materials generated as a result of patient diagnosis, treatment, or
immunization of human beings or animals;

m) "Mobile source" means any vehicle propelled by or through combustion of carbon-based or other
fuel, constructed and operated principally for the conveyance of persons or the transportation of
property goods;

n) "Motor vehicle" means any vehicle propelled by a gasoline or diesel engine or by any means other
than human or animal power, constructed and operated principally for the conveyance of persons or
the transportation of property or goods in a public highway or street open to public use;

o) "Municipal waste" means the waste materials generated from communities within a specific locality;

p) "New vehicle" means a vehicle constructed entirely from new parts that has never been sold or
registered with the DOTC or with the appropriate agency or authority, and operated on the highways of
the Philippines, any foreign state or country;

q) "Octane Rating or the Anti-Knock Index(AKI)" means the rating of the anti-knock characteristics of a
grade or type of automotive gasoline as determined by dividing by two (2) the sum of the Research
Octane Number (RON), plus the Motor Octane Number (MON); the octane requirement, with respect
to automotive gasoline for use in a motor vehicle or a class thereof, whether imported, manufactured,
or assembled by a manufacturer, shall refer to the minimum octane rating of such automotive gasoline
 which such manufacturer recommends for the efficient operation of such motor vehicle, or a
substantial portion of such class, without knocking;

r) "Ozone Depleting Substances (ODS)" means those substances that significantly deplete or
otherwise modify the ozone layer in a manner that is likely to result in adverse effects of human health
and the environment such as, but not limited to, chloroflourocarbons, halons and the like;

s) "Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs)" means the organic compounds that persist in the
environment, bioaccumulate through the food web, and pose a risk of causing adverse effects to
human health and the environment. These compounds resist photolytic, chemical and biological
degradation, which shall include but not be limited to dioxin, furan, Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs),
organochlorine pesticides, such as aldrin, dieldrin, DDT, hexachlorobenzene, lindane, toxaphere and
chlordane;

t) "Poisonous and toxic fumes" means any emissions and fumes which are beyond internationally -
accepted standards, including but not limited to the World Health Organization (WHO) guideline
values;

u) "Pollution control device" means any device or apparatus used to prevent, control or abate the
pollution of air caused by emissions from identified pollution sources at levels within the air pollution
control standards established by the Department;

v) "Pollution control technology" means the pollution control devices, production process, fuel
combustion processes or other means that effectively prevent or reduce emissions or effluent;

w) "Standard of performance" means a standard for emissions of air pollutant which reflects the
degree of emission limitation achievable through the application of the best system of emission
reduction, taking into account the cost of achieving such reduction and any non-air quality health and
environmental impact and energy requirement which the Department determines, and adequately
demonstrates; and

x) "Stationary source" means any building or immobile structure, facility or installation which emits or
may emit any air pollutant.

Chapter 2
Air Quality Management System

Article One
General Provisions

Section 6. Air Quality Monitoring and Information Network. - The Department shall prepare an annual
National Air Quality Status Report which shall be used as the basis in formulating the Integrated Air Quality
Improvement Framework, as provided for in Sec. 7. The said report shall include, but shall not be limited to the
following:

a) Extent of pollution in the country, per type of pollutant and per type of source, based on reports of
the Department’s monitoring stations;

b) Analysis and evaluation of the current state, trends and projections of air pollution at the various
levels provided herein;

c) Identification of critical areas, activities, or projects which will need closer monitoring or regulation;

d) Recommendations for necessary executive and legislative action; and

 e) Other pertinent qualitative and quantitative information concerning the extent of air pollution and the
air quality performance rating of industries in the country.

The Department, in cooperation with the National Statistical Coordination Board (NSCB), shall design and
develop an information network for data storage, retrieval and exchange.

The Department shall serve as the central depository of all data and information related to air quality.

Section 7. Integrated Air Quality Improvement Framework. - The Department shall within six (6) months
after the effectivity of this Act, establish, with the participation of LGUs, NGOs, POs, the academe and other
concerned entities from the private sector, formulate and implement the Integrated Air Quality Improvement
Framework for a comprehensive air pollution management and control program. The framework shall, among
others, prescribe the emission reduction goals using permissible standards, control strategies and control
measures to undertaken within a specified time period, including cost-effective use of economic incentives,
management strategies, collective actions, and environmental education and information.

The Integrated Air Quality Improvement Framework shall be adopted as the official blueprint with which all
government agencies must comply with to attain and maintain ambient air quality standards.

Section 8. Air Quality Control Action Plan. - Within six (6) months after the formulation of the framework, the
Department shall, with public participation, formulate and implement an air quality control action plan consistent
with Sec. 7 of this Act. The action plan shall:

a) Include enforceable emission limitations and other control measures, means or techniques, as well
as schedules and time tables for compliance, as may be necessary or appropriate to meet the
applicable requirements of this Act;

b) Provide for the establishment and operation of appropriate devices, methods, systems and
procedures necessary to monitor, compile and analyze data on ambient air quality;

c) Include a program to provide for the following: (1) enforcement of the measures described in
subparagraph [a]; (2) regulation of the modification and construction of any stationary source within the
areas covered by the plan, in accordance with land use policy to ensure that ambient air quality
standards are achieved;

d) Contain adequate provisions, consistent with the provisions of this Act, prohibiting any source or
other types of emissions activity within the country from emitting any air pollutant in amounts which will
significantly contribute to the non-attainment or will interfere with the maintenance by the Department
of any such ambient air quality standard required to be included in the implementation plan to prevent
significant deterioration of air quality or to protect visibility;

e) Include control strategies and control measures to be undertaken within a specified time period,
including cost effective use of economic incentives, management strategies, collection action and
environmental education and information;

f) Designate airsheds; and

g) All other measures necessary for the effective control and abatement of air pollution.

The adoption of the plan shall clarify the legal effects on the financial, manpower and budgetary resources of
the affected government agencies, and on the alignment of their programs with the plans.

In addition to direct regulations, the plan shall be characterized by a participatory approach to the pollution
problem. The involvement of private entities in the monitoring and testing of emissions from mobile and/or
stationary sources shall be considered.
Likewise, the LGU’s, with the assistance from the Department, shall prepare and develop an action plan
consistent with the Integrated Air Quality Improvement Framework to attain and maintain the ambient air quality
standards within their respective airsheds as provided in Sec. 9 hereof.

The local government units shall develop and submit to the Department a procedure for carrying out the action
plan for their jurisdiction. The Department, however, shall maintain its authority to independently inspect the
enforcement procedure adopted. The Department shall have the power to closely supervise all or parts of the
air quality action plan until such time the local government unit concerned can assume the function to enforce
the standards set by the Department.

A multi-sectoral monitoring team with broad public representation shall be convened by the Department for
each LGU to conduct periodic inspections of air pollution sources to assess compliance with emission
limitations contained in their permits.

Section 9. Airsheds. - Pursuant to Sec. 8 of this Act, the designation of airsheds shall be on the basis of, but
not limited to, areas with similar climate, meteorology and topology which affect the interchange and diffusion of
pollutants in the atmosphere, or areas which share common interest or face similar development programs,
prospects or problems.

For a more effective air quality management, a system of planning and coordination shall be established and a
common action plan shall be formulated for each airshed.

To effectively carry out the formulated action plans, a Governing Board is hereby created, hereinafter referred
to as the Board.

The Board shall be headed by the Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources as
chairman. The members shall be as follows:

a) Provincial Governors from areas belonging to the airshed;

b) City/Municipal Mayors from areas belonging to the airshed;

c) A representative from each concerned government agency;

d) Representatives from people’s organizations;

e) Representatives from non-government organizations; and

f) Representatives from the private sector.

The Board shall perform the following functions:

a) Formulation of policies;

b) Preparation of a common action plan;

c) Coordination of functions among its members; and

d) Submission and publication of an annual Air Quality Status Report for each airshed.

Upon consultation with appropriate local government authorities, the Department shall, from time to time, revise
the designation of airsheds utilizing eco-profiling techniques and undertaking scientific studies.
Emissions trading may be allowed among pollution sources within an airshed.

Section 10. Management of Non-attainment Areas. - The Department shall designate areas where specific
pollutants have already exceeded ambient standards as non-attainment areas. The Department shall prepare
and implement a program that will prohibit new sources of exceeded air pollutant without a corresponding
reduction in existing resources.

In coordination with other appropriate government agencies, the LGUs shall prepare and implement a program
and other measures including relocation, whenever necessary, to protect the health and welfare of residents in
the area.

For those designated as nonattainment areas, the Department, after consultation with local government
authorities, nongovernment organizations (NGOs), people’s organizations (POs) and concerned sectors may
revise the designation of such areas and expand its coverage to cover larger areas depending on the condition
of the areas.

Section 11. Air Quality Control Techniques. - Simultaneous with the issuance of the guideline values and
standards, the Department, through the research and development program contained in this Act and upon
consultation with appropriate advisory committees, government agencies and LGUs, shall issue, and from time
to time, revise information on air pollution control techniques. Such information shall include:

(a) Best available technology and alternative methods of prevention, management and control of air
pollution;

(b) Best available technology economically achievable which shall refer to the technological
basis/standards for emission limits applicable to existing, direct industrial emitters of nonconventional
and toxic pollutants; and

(c) Alternative fuels, processes and operating methods which will result in the eliminator or significant
reduction of emissions.

Such information may also include data relating to the cost of installation and operation, energy requirements,
emission reduction benefits, and environmental impact or the emission control technology.

The issuance of air quality guideline values, standards and information on air quality control techniques shall be
made available to the general public: Provided, That the issuance of information on air quality control
techniques shall not be construed as requiring the purchase of certain pollution control devices by the public.

Section 12. Ambient Air Quality Guideline Values and Standards. - The Department, in coordination with
other concerned agencies, shall review and or revise and publish annually a list of hazardous air pollutants with
corresponding ambient guideline values and/or standard necessary to protect health and safety, and general
welfare. The initial list and values of the hazardous air pollutants shall be as follows:

(a) For National Ambient Air Quality Guideline for Criteria Pollutants:

Short Term a Long Term b

Pollutants µg/Ncm ppm Averaging µg/Ncm ppm Averaging

Time Time
Suspended Particulate
Matterc -TSP 230d 24 hours 90 ---- 1 yeare
-PM-10 150f 24 hours 60 ---- 1 yeare
Sulfur Dioxidec 180 0.07 24 hours 80 0.03 1 year
 Nitrogen Dioxide 150 0.08 24 hours ---- ---- ----
Photochemical 140 0.07 1 hour ---- ---- ----
Oxidants
As Ozone 60 0.03 8 hours ---- ---- ----
Carbon Monoxide 35 mg/Ncm 30 1 hour ---- ---- ----
10 mg/Ncm 9 8 hours ---- ---- ----
Lead g
1.5 ---- 3 months g
1.0 ---- 1 year

a
Maximum limits represented by ninety-eight percentile (98%) values not to be
exceed more than once a year.

b
Arithmetic mean

c
SO2 and Suspended Particulate matter are sampled once every six days when
using the manual methods. A minimum of twelve sampling days per quarter of forty-
eight sampling days each year is required for these methods. Daily sampling may be
done in the future once continuous analyzers are procured and become available.

d
Limits for Total Suspended Particulate Matter with mass median diameter less than
25-50 um.

e
Annual Geometric Mean

f
Provisional limits for Suspended Particulate Matter with mass median diameter less
than 10 microns and below until sufficient monitoring data are gathered to base a
proper guideline.

g
Evaluation of this guideline is carried out for 24-hour averaging time and averaged
over three moving calendar months. The monitored average value for any three
months shall not exceed the guideline value.

(b) For National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Source Specific Air Pollutants from Industrial
Sources/Operations:

Pollutants1 Concentration2 Averaging Method of Analysis/

time (min.) Measurement3

µ/Ncm ppm

1. Ammonia 200 0.28 30 Nesselerization/ Indo

Phenol

2. Carbon 30 0.01 30 Tischer Method

Disulfide

3. Chlorine and 100 0.03 5 Methyl Orange

Chlorine
Compounds
expressed as
Cl2

4. 50 0.04 30 Chromotropic acid

Formaldehyde Method or MBTH
 Colorimetric Method

5. Hydrogen 200100 0.13 30 Volhard Titration with

Chloride Iodine Solution

6. Hydrogen 0.07 30 Methylene Blue

Sulfide

7. Lead 20 30 AASc

8. Nitrogen 375,260 0.20,0.14 30,60 Greiss- Saltzman

Dioxide

9. Phenol 100 0.03 30 4-Aminoantiphyrine

10. Sulfur 470, 0.18, 30,60 Colorimetric-

Dioxide 340 0.13 Pararosaniline

11. Suspended 300 ---- 60 Gravimetric

Particulate
Matter-TSP

1
Pertinent ambient standards for Antimony, Arsenic, Cadmium, Asbestos, Nitric Acid
and Sulfuric Acid Mists in the 1978 NPCC Rules and Regulations may be considered
as guides in determining compliance.

2
Ninety-eight percentile (98%) values of 30-minute sampling measured at 250C and
one atmosphere pressure.

3
Other equivalent methods approved by the Department may be used.

The basis in setting up the ambient air quality guideline values and standards shall reflect, among others, the
latest scientific knowledge including information on:

a) Variable, including atmospheric conditions, which of themselves or in combination with other factors
may alter the effects on public health or welfare of such air pollutant;

b) The other types of air pollutants which may interact with such pollutant to produce an adverse effect
on public health or welfare; and

c) The kind and extent of all identifiable effects on public health or welfare which may be expected
from presence of such pollutant in the ambient air, in varying quantities.

The Department shall base such ambient air quality standards on World Health Organization (WHO) standards,
but shall not be limited to nor be less stringent than such standards.

Section 13. Emission Charge System. - The Department, in case of industrial dischargers, and the
Department of Transportation and Communication (DOTC), in case of motor vehicle dischargers, shall, based
on environmental techniques, design, impose on and collect regular emission fees from said dischargers as
part of the emission permitting system or vehicle registration renewal system, as the case may be. The system
shall encourage the industries and motor vehicles to abate, reduce, or prevent pollution. The basis of the fees
include, but is not limited to, the volume and toxicity of any emitted pollutant. Industries, which shall install
pollution control devices or retrofit their existing facilities with mechanisms that reduce pollution shall be entitled
to tax incentives such as but not limited total credits and/or accelerated depreciation deductions.
Section 14. Air Quality Management Fund. - An Air Quality Management Fund to be administered by the
Department as a special account in the National Treasury is hereby established to finance containment,
removal, and clean-up operations of the Government in air pollution cases, guarantee restoration of
ecosystems and rehabilitate areas affected by the acts of violators of this Act, to support research, enforcement
and monitoring activities and capabilities of the relevant agencies, as well as to provide technical assistance to
the relevant agencies. Such fund may likewise be allocated per airshed for the undertakings herein stated.

The Fund shall be sourced from the fines imposed and damages awarded to the Republic of the Philippines by
the Pollution Adjudication Board (PAB), proceeds of licenses and permits issued by the Department under this
Act, emission fees and from donations, endowments and grants in the forms of contributions. Contributions to
the Fund shall be exempted from donor taxes and all other taxes, charges or fees imposed by the Government.

Section 15. Air Pollution Research and Development Program. - The Department, in coordination with the
Department of Science and Technology (DOST), other agencies, the private sector, the academe, NGO’s and
PO’s, shall establish a National Research and Development Program for the prevention and control of air
pollution. The Department shall give special emphasis to research on and the development of improved
methods having industry-wide application for the prevention and control of air pollution.

Such a research and development program shall develop air quality guideline values and standards in addition
to internationally-accepted standards. It shall also consider the socio-cultural, political and economic
implications of air quality management and pollution control.

Article Two
Air Pollution Clearances and Permits for Stationary Sources

Section 16. Permits. - Consistent with the provisions of this Act, the Department shall have the authority to
issue permits as it may determine necessary for the prevention and abatement of air pollution.

Said permits shall cover emission limitations for the regulated air pollutants to help attain and maintain the
ambient air quality standards. These permits shall serve as management tools for the LGUs in the development
of their action plan.

Section 17. Emission Quotas. - The Department may allow each regional industrial center that is designated
as special airshed to allocate emission quotas to pollution sources within its jurisdiction that qualify under an
environmental impact assessment system programmatic compliance program pursuant to the implementing
rules and regulations of Presidential Decree No. 1586.

Section 18. Financial Liability for Environmental Rehabilitation. - As part of the environmental
management plan attached to the environmental compliance certificate pursuant to Presidential Decree No.
1586 and rules and regulations set therefor, the Department shall require program and project proponents to
put up financial guarantee mechanisms to finance the needs for emergency response, clean-up rehabilitation of
areas that may be damaged during the program or project’s actual implementation. Liability for damages shall
continue even after the termination of a program or project, where such damages are clearly attributable to that
program or project and for a definite period to be determined by the Department and incorporated into the
environmental compliance certificate.

Financial liability instruments may be in the form a trust fund, environmental insurance, surety bonds, letters of
credit, as well as self-insurance. The choice of the guarantee instruments shall furnish the Department with
evidence of availment of such instruments.

Article Three
Pollution from Stationary Sources

Section 19. Pollution From Stationary Sources. - The Department shall, within two (2) years from the
effectivity of this Act, and every two (2) years thereafter, review, or as the need therefore arises, revise and
publish emission standards, to further improve the emission standards for stationary sources of air pollution.
Such emission standards shall be based on mass rate of emission for all stationary source of air pollution
based on internationally accepted standards, but not be limited to, nor be less stringent than such standards
and with the standards set forth in this section. The standards, whichever is applicable, shall be the limit on the
acceptable level of pollutants emitted from a stationary source for the protection of the public’s health and
welfare.

With respect to any trade, industry, process and fuel-burning equipment or industrial plant emitting air
pollutants, the concentration at the point of emission shall not exceed the following limits:

Pollutants Standard Applicable to Maximum Method of Analysisa

Source Permissible
Limits
(mg/Ncm)

1. Antimony and Its Any source 10 as Sb AASb

compounds

2. Arsenic and its Any source 10 as As AASb

compounds

3. Cadmium and its Any source 10 as Cd AASb

compounds

4. Carbon Any industrial Source 500 as CO Orsat analysis

Monoxide

5. Copper and its Any industrial source 100 ax Cu AASb

Compounds

6. Hydrofluoric Any source other than the 50 as HF Titration with

Acids and Fluoride manufacture of Aluminum Ammonium
compounds from Alumina Thiocyanate

7. Hydrogen i) Geothermal Power c.d Cadmium Sulfide

Sulfide Plants e Method
ii) Geothermal Exploration
and well-testing 7 as H2S Cadmium Sulfide
iii) Any source other than Method
(i) and (ii)

8. Lead Any trade, industry or 10 as Pb AASb

process

9. Mercury Any Source 5 as AASb/Cold-Vapor

elemental Hg Technique or Hg
Analyzer

10. Nickel and its Any source 20 as Ni AASb

compounds, except
Nickel Carbonylf

11. NOx i) Manufacture of Nitric 2,000 as acid Phenol-disulfonic

Acid and NOx and acid Method
calculated as
NO2

ii) Fuel burning steam 1,500 as Phenol-disulfonic

generators NO2 acid Method
Existing Source New
Source
 • Coal-Fired 1,000 as
• Oil-Fired NO2 Phenol-disulfonic
iii) Any source other than 500 as NO2 acid Method
(i) adn (ii)
Existing Source
New Source 1000 as NO2
500 as NO2

12. Phosphorus Any source 200 as P2O5 Spectrophotometry

Pentoxideg

13. Zinc and its Any source 100 as Zn AASb

Compounds

a
Other equivalent methods approved by the Department may be used.

b
Atomic Absorption Spectrophometry

c
All new geothermal power plants starting construction by 01 January 1995 shall control HsS
emissions to not more than 150g/GMW-Hr

d
All existing geothermal power plants shall control HsS emissions to not more than
200g/GMW-Hr. within 5 years from the date of efectivity of these revised regulations.

e
Best practicable control technology for air emissions and liquid discharges. Compliance with
air and water quality standards is required.

f
Emission limit of Nickel Carbonyl shall not exceed 0.5 mg/Ncm.

g
Provisional Guideline

Provided, That the maximum limits in mg/ncm particulates in said sources shall be:

1. Fuel Burning Equipment

a) Urban or Industrial Area 150 mg/Ncm

b) Other Area 200 mg/Ncm

2. Cement Plants (Kilns, etc.) 150 mg/Ncm

3. Smelting Furnaces 150 mg/Ncm

4. Other Stationary Sourcesa 200 mg/Ncm

a
Other Stationary Sources means a trade, process, industrial plant, or fuel burning equipment
other than thermal power plants, industrial boilers, cement plants, incinerators and smelting
furnaces.

Provided, Further, That the maximum limits for sulfur oxides in said sources shall be:

(1) Existing Sources

(i) Manufacture of Sulfuric Acid and 2.0gm.Ncm as

 Sulf(on)ation Process SO3

(ii) Fuel burning Equipment 1.5gm.Ncm as

SO2

(iii) Other Stationary Sourcesa 1.0gm.Ncm as

SO3

(2) New Sources

(i) Manufacture of Sulfuric Acid and 1.5 gm.Ncm as

Sulf(on)ation Process SO3

(ii) Fuel Burning Equipment 0.7 gm.Ncm as

SO2

(iii) Other Stationary Sourcesa 0.2 gm.Ncm as

SO3

a
Other Stationary Sources refer to existing and new stationary sources other than those
caused by the manufacture of sulfuric acid and sulfonation process, fuel burning equipment
and incineration.

For stationary sources of pollution not specifically included in the immediately preceding paragraph, the
following emission standards shall not be exceeded in the exhaust gas:

I. Daily And Half Hourly Average Values

Daily Half Hourly

Average Average
Values Values
Total dust 10 mg/m3 30 mg/m3
Gaseous and vaporous organic substances,
expressed as total organic carbon 10 mg/m3 20 mg/m3
Hydrogen chloride (HCl) 10 mg/m3 60 mg/m3
Hydrogen fluoride (HF) 1 mg/m3 4 mg/m3
Sulfur dioxide (SO2) 50 mg/m3 200 mg/m3
Nitrogen monoxide (NO) and Nitrogen
dioxide (NO2), expressed as nitrogen
dioxide for incineration plants with a
capacity exceeding 3 tonnes per hour 200 mg/m3 400 mg/m3
Nitrogen monoxide (NO) and nitrogen
dioxide (NO2), expressed as nitrogen
dioxide for incineration plants with a
capacity of 3 tonnes per hour or less 300 mg/m3
Ammonia 10 mg/m3 20 mg/m3

II. All the Average Values Over the Sample Period of a Minimum of 4 and Maximum of 8 Hours.

Cadmium and its compounds, expressed as cadmium

(Cd) total 0.05
mg/m3
Thallium and its compounds, expressed as thallium (Tl)
Mercury and its Compounds, expressed as mercury (Hg) 0.05 mg/m3
 Antimony and its compounds, expressed as antimony
(Sb)
Arsenic and its compounds, expressed as arsenic (As)
Lead and its compounds, expressed as lead ( Pb)
Chromium and its compounds, expressed as chromium
(Cr)
Cobalt and its compounds, expressed as cobalt (Co)
Copper and its compounds, expressed as copper (Cu) total 0.5
Manganese and its compounds, expressed as mg/m3
manganese (Mn)
Nickel and its compounds, expressed as nickel (Ni)
Vanadium and its compounds, expressed as vanadium
(V)
Tin and its compounds, expressed as tin (Sn)

These average values cover also gaseous and the vapor forms of the relevant heavy metal emission as well as
their compounds: Provided, That the emission of dioxins and furans into the air shall be reduced by the most
progressive techniques: Provided, Further, That all average of dioxin and furans measured over the sample
period of a minimum of 5 hours and maximum of 8 hours must not exceed the limit value of 0.1 nanogram/m3.

Pursuant to Sec. 8 of this Act, the Department shall prepare a detailed action plan setting the emission
standards or standards of performance for any stationary source the procedure for testing emissions for each
type of pollutant, and the procedure for enforcement of said standards.

Existing industries, which are proven to exceed emission rates established by the Department in consultation
with stakeholders, after a thorough, credible and transparent measurement process shall be allowed a grace
period of eighteen (18) months for the establishment of an environmental management system and the
installation of an appropriate air pollution control device : Provided, That an extension of not more than twelve
(12) months may be allowed by the Department on meritorious grounds.

Section 20. Ban on Incineration. - Incineration, hereby defined as the burning of municipal, biomedical and
hazardous waste, which process emits poisonous and toxic fumes is hereby prohibited; Provided, however,
That the prohibition shall not apply to traditional small-scale method of community/neighborhood sanitation
"siga", traditional, agricultural, cultural, health, and food preparation and crematoria; Provided, Further, That
existing incinerators dealing with a biomedical wastes shall be out within three (3) years after the effectivity of
this Act; Provided, Finally, that in the interim, such units shall be limited to the burning of pathological and
infectious wastes, and subject to close monitoring by the Department.

Local government units are hereby mandated to promote, encourage and implement in their respective
jurisdiction a comprehensive ecological waste management that includes waste segregation, recycling and
composting.

With due concern on the effects of climate change, the Department shall promote the use of state-of-the-art,
environmentally-sound and safe non-burn technologies for the handling, treatment, thermal destruction,
utilization, and disposal of sorted, unrecycled, uncomposted, biomedical and hazardous wastes.

Article Four
Pollution from Motor Vehicles

Section 21. Pollution from Motor Vehicles. - a) The DOTC shall implement the emission standards for motor
vehicles set pursuant to and as provided in this Act. To further improve the emission standards, the Department
shall review, revise and publish the standards every two (2) years, or as the need arises. It shall consider the
maximum limits for all major pollutants to ensure substantial improvement in air quality for the health, safety
and welfare of the general public.

The following emission standards for type approval of motor vehicles shall be effective by the year 2003:

a) For light duty vehicles, the exhaust emission limits for gaseous pollutants shall be:

Emission Limits for Light Duty Vehicles

Type Approval
(Directive 91/441/EEC)

CO HC + NOx PMa
(g/km) (g/km) (g/km)

2.72 0.970.14

a
for compression-ignition engines only

b) For light commercial vehicles, the exhaust emission limit of gaseous pollutants as a function of the
given reference mass shall be:

Emission Limits for Light Commercial Vehicles

Type Approval
(Directive 93/59/EEC)

Reference Weight CO HC + PMa (g/km)

(RW) (kg) (g/km) NOx(g/km)
Category 1 1250< RW 2.72 0.97 0.14
Category 2 1250< RW<1700 5.17 1.4 0.19
Category 3 RW>1700 6.9 1.7 0.25

a
for compression-ignition engines only

c) For heavy duty vehicles, the exhaust emission limits of gaseous pollutants shall be:

Emission Limits for Heavy Duty Vehicles

Type Approval

(Directive 91/542/EEC)

CO HC NOx PM

(g/k/Wh) (g/k/Wh) (g/k/Wh) (g/k/Wh)

4.5 1.1 8.0 0.36a

a
In the case of engines of 85 kW or less, the limit value for particular emissions in
increased by multiplying the quoted limit by a coefficient of 1.7
 Fuel evaporative emission for spark-ignition engines shall not exceed 2.0 grams hydrocarbons per
test. Likewise, it shall not allow any emission of gases from crankcase ventilation system into the
atmosphere.

b) The Department, in collaboration with the DOTC, DTI and LGUs, shall develop an action plan for the control
and management of air pollution from motor vehicles consistent with the Integrated Air Quality Framework. The
DOTC shall enforce compliance with the emission standards for motor vehicles set by the Department. The
DOTC may deputize other law enforcement agencies and LGUs for this purpose. To this end, the DOTC shall
have the power to:

(1) Inspect and monitor the emissions of motor vehicles;

(2) Prohibit or enjoin the use of motor vehicles or a class of motor vehicles in any area or street at
specified times; and

(3) Authorize private testing emission testing centers duly accredited by the DTI.

c) The DOTC, together with the DTI and the Department, shall establish the procedures for the inspection of
motor vehicles and the testing of their emissions for the purpose of determining the concentration and/or rate of
pollutants discharged by said sources.

d) In order to ensure the substantial reduction of emissions from motor vehicles, the Department of Trade and
Industry (DTI), together with the DOTC and the Department shall formulate and implement a national motor
vehicle inspection and maintenance program that will promote efficient and safe operation of all motor vehicles.
In this regard, the DTI shall develop and implement standards and procedures for the certification of training
institutions, instructors and facilities and the licensing of qualified private service centers and their technicians
as prerequisite for performing the testing, servicing, repair and the required adjustment to the vehicle emission
system. The DTI shall likewise prescribe regulations requiring the disclosure of odometer readings and the use
of tamper-resistant odometers for all motor vehicles including tamper-resistant fuel management systems for
the effective implementation of the inspection and maintenance program.

Section 22. Regulation of All Motor Vehicles and Engines. - Any imported new or locally-assembled new
motor vehicle shall not be registered unless it complies with the emission standards set pursuant to this Act, as
evidenced by a Certificate of Conformity (COC) issued by the Department.

Any imported new motor vehicle engine shall not be introduced into commerce, sold or used unless it complies
with emission standards set pursuant to this Act.

Any imported used motor vehicle or rebuilt motor vehicle using new or used engines, major parts or
components shall not be registered unless it complies with the emission standards.

In case of non-compliance, the importer or consignee may be allowed to modify or rebuild the vehicular engine
so it will be in compliance with applicable emission standards.

No motor vehicle registration (MVR) shall be issued unless such motor vehicle passes the emission testing
requirement promulgated in accordance with this Act. Such testing shall be conducted by the DOTC or its
authorized inspection centers within sixty (60) days prior to date of registration.

The DTI shall promulgate the necessary regulations prescribing the useful life of vehicles and engines including
devices in order to ensure that such vehicles will conform to the emissions which they were certified to meet.
These regulations shall include provisions for ensuring the durability of emission devices.

Section 23. Second-Hand Motor Vehicle Engines. - Any imported second-hand motor vehicle engine shall
not be introduced into commerce, sold or used unless it complies with emission standards set pursuant to this
Act.
 Article Five
Pollution from Other Sources

Section 24. Pollution from smoking. - Smoking inside a public building or an enclosed public place including
public vehicles and other means of transport or in any enclosed area outside of one's private residence, private
place of work or any duly designated smoking area is hereby prohibited under this Act. This provision shall be
implemented by the LGUs.

Section 25. Pollution from other mobile sources. - The Department, in coordination with appropriate
agencies, shall formulate and establish the necessary standards for all mobile sources other than those
referred to in Sec. 21 of this Act. The imposition of the appropriate fines and penalties from these sources for
any violation of emission standards shall be under the jurisdiction of the DOTC.

Chapter 3
Fuels, Additives, Substances and Pollutants

Article One
Fuels, Additives and Substances

Section 26. Fuels and Additives. - Pursuant to the Air Quality Framework to be established under Section 7
of this Act, the Department of Energy (DOE), co-chaired by the Department of Environment and Natural
Resources (DENR), in consultation with the Bureau of Product Standards (BPS) of the DTI, the DOST, the
representatives of the fuel and automotive industries, academe and the consumers shall set the specifications
for all types of fuel and fuel-related products, to improve fuel composition for increased efficiency and reduced
emissions: Provided, however, that the specifications for all types of fuel and fuel-related products set-forth
pursuant to this section shall be adopted by the BPS as Philippine National Standards (PNS).

The DOE shall also specify the allowable content of additives in all types of fuels and fuel-related products.
Such standards shall be based primarily on threshold levels of health and research studies. On the basis of
such specifications, the DOE shall likewise limit the content or begin that phase-out of additives in all types of
fuels and fuel-related products as it may deem necessary. Other agencies involved in the performance of this
function shall be required to coordinate with the DOE and transfer all documents and information necessary for
the implementation of this provision.

Consistent with the provisions of the preceding paragraphs under this section, it is declared that:

a) not later than eighteen (18) months after the effectivity of this Act, no person shall manufacture,
import, sell, supply, offer for sale, dispense, transport or introduce into commerce unleaded premium
gasoline fuel which has an anti-knock index (AKI) of not less that 87.5 and Reid vapor pressure of not
more than 9 psi. Within six (6) months after the effectivity of this Act, unleaded gasoline fuel shall
contain aromatics not to exceed forty-five percent (45%) by volume and benzene not to exceed four
percent (4%) by volume; Provided, that by year 2003, unleaded gasoline fuel should contain aromatics
not to exceed thirty-five percent (35%) by volume and benzene not to exceed two percent (2%) by
volume;

b) not later than eighteen (18) months after the effectivity of this Act, no person shall manufacture,
import, sell, supply, offer for sale, dispense, transport or introduce into commerce automotive diesel
fuel which contains a concentration of sulfur in excess of 0.20% by weight with a cetane number of
index of not less than forty-eight (48): Provided, That by year 2004, content of said sulfur shall be
0.05% by weight; and

c) not later than eighteen (18) months after the effectivity of this Act, no Person shall manufacture,
import, sell, supply, offer for sale, dispense, transport or introduce into commerce industrial diesel fuel
which contains a concentration of sulfur in excess of 0.30% (by weight).
Every two (2) years thereafter or as the need arises, the specifications of unleaded gasoline and of automotive
and industrial diesel fuels shall be reviewed and revised for further improvement in formulation and in
accordance with the provisions of this Act.

The fuels characterized above shall be commercially available. Likewise, the same shall be the reference fuels
for emission and testing procedures to be established in accordance with the provisions of this Act.

Any proposed additive shall not in any way increase emissions of any of the regulated gases which shall
include, but not limited to carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, and oxides of nitrogen and particulate matter, in
order to be approved and certified by the Department.

Section 27. Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives. - The DOE, in coordination with the Department and the
BPS, shall regulate the use of any fuel or fuel additive. No manufacturer, processor or trader of any fuel or
additive may import, sell, offer for sale, or introduce into commerce such fuel for additive unless the same has
been registered with the DOE. Prior to registration, the manufacturer, processor or trader shall provide the DOE
with the following relevant information:

a) Product identity and composition to determine the potential health effects of such fuel additives;

b) Description of the analytical technique that can be used to detect and measure the additive in any
fuel;

c) Recommended range of concentration; and

d) Purpose in the use of the fuel and additive.

Section 28. Misfueling. - In order to prevent the disabling of any emission control device by lead
contamination, no person shall introduce or cause or allow the introduction of leaded gasoline into any motor
vehicle equipped with a gasoline tank filler inlet and labeled "unleaded gasoline only". This prohibition shall also
apply to any person who knows or should know that such vehicle is designed solely for the use of unleaded
gasoline.

Section 29. Prohibition on Manufacture, Import and Sale of leaded Gasoline and of Engines and/or
Components Requiring Leaded Gasoline. - Effective not later than eighteen (18) months after the enactment
of this Act, no person shall manufacture, import, sell, offer for sale, introduce into commerce, convey or
otherwise dispose of, in any manner, leaded gasoline and engines and components requiring the use of leaded
gasoline.

For existing vehicles, the DTI shall formulate standards and procedures that will allow non-conforming engines
to comply with the use of unleaded fuel within five(5) years after the effectivity of this Act.

Article Two
Other Pollutants

Section 30. Ozone-Depleting Substances. - Consistent with the terms and conditions of the Montreal
Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer and other international agreements and protocols to
which the Philippines is a signatory, the Department shall phase out ozone-depleting substances.

Within sixty (60) days after the enactment of this Act, the Department shall publish a list of substances which
are known to cause harmful effects on the stratospheric ozone layer.

Section 31. Greenhouse Gases. - The Philippine Atmospheric, Geophysical and Astronomical Service
Administration (PAGASA) shall regularly monitor meteorological factors affecting environmental conditions
including ozone depletion and greenhouse gases and coordinate with the Department in order to effectively
guide air pollution monitoring and standard-setting activities.

The Department, together with concerned agencies and local government units, shall prepare and fully
implement a national plan consistent with the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and
other international agreements, conventions and protocols on the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in the
country.

Section 32. Persistent Organic Pollutants. - The Department shall, within a period of two (2) years after the
enactment of this Act, establish an inventory list of all sources of Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) in the
country. The Department shall develop short-term and long-term national government programs on the
reduction and elimination of POPs such as dioxins and furans. Such programs shall be formulated within a year
after the establishment of the inventory list.

Section 33. Radioactive Emissions. - All projects which will involve the use of atomic and/or nuclear energy,
and will entail release and emission of radioactive substances into the environment, incident to the
establishment or possession of nuclear energy facilities and radioactive materials, handling, transport,
production, storage, and use of radioactive materials, shall be regulated in the interest of public health and
welfare by the Philippine

Nuclear Research Institute (PNRI), in coordination with Department and other appropriate government
agencies.

Chapter 4
Institutional Mechanism

Section 34. Lead Agency. - The Department, unless otherwise provided herein, shall be the primary
government agency responsible for the implementation and enforcement of this Act. To be more effective in
this regard, The Department's Environmental Management Bureau (EMB) shall be converted from a staff
bureau to a line bureau for a period of no more than two (2) years, unless a separate, comprehensive
environmental management agency is created.

Section 35. Linkage Mechanism. - The Department shall consult, participate, cooperate and enter into
agreement with other government agencies, or with affected non-governmental (NGOs) or people's
organizations (POs),or private enterprises in the furtherance of the objectives of this Act.

Section 36. Role of Local Government Units. - Local Government Units (LGUs) shall share the responsibility
in the management and maintenance of air quality within their territorial jurisdiction. Consistent with Sections 7,
8 and 9 of this Act, LGUs shall implement air quality standards set by the Board in areas within their
jurisdiction; Provided, however, That in case where the board has not been duly constituted and has not
promulgated its standards, the standards set forth in this Act shall apply.

The Department shall provide the LGUs with technical assistance, trainings and a continuing capability-building
program to prepare them to undertake full administration of the air quality management and regulation within
their territorial jurisdiction.

Section 37. Environmental and Natural Resources Office. - There may be established an Environment and
Natural Resources Office in every province, city, or municipality which shall be headed by the environment and
natural resources officer and shall be appointed by the Chief Executive of every province, city or municipality in
accordance with the provisions of Section 484 of Republic Act No. 7160. Its powers and duties, among others,
are:

a) To prepare comprehensive air quality management programs, plans and strategies within the limits
set forth in Republic act. No. 7160 and this Act which shall be implemented within its territorial
jurisdiction upon the approval of the sanggunian;
 b) To provide technical assistance and support to the governor or mayor, as the case may be, in
carrying out measures to ensure the delivery of basic services and the provision of adequate facilities
relative to air quality;

c) To take the lead in all efforts concerning air quality protection and rehabilitation;

d) To recommend to the Board air quality standards which shall not exceed the maximum permissible
standards set by rational laws;

e) To coordinate with other government agencies and non-governmental organizations in the

implementation of measures to prevent and control air pollution; and

f) Exercise such other powers and perform such duties and functions as may be prescribed by law or
ordinance: Provided, however, That in provinces/cities/municipalities where there are no environment
and natural resources officers, the local executive concerned may designate any of his official and/or
chief of office preferably the provincial, city or municipal agriculturist, or any of his employee: Provided,
Finally, That in case an employee is designated as such, he must have sufficient experience in
environmental and natural resources management, conservation and utilization.

Section 38. Record-keeping, Inspection, Monitoring and Entry by the Department. - The Department or its
duly accredited entity shall, after proper consultation and notice, require any person who owns or operates any
emissions source or who is subject to any requirement of this Act to:

(a) establish and maintain relevant records;

(b) make relevant reports;

(c) install, use and maintain monitoring equipment or methods;

(d) sample emission, in accordance with the methods, locations, intervals and manner prescribed by
the Department;

(e) keep records on control equipment parameters, production variables or other indirect data when
direct monitoring of emissions is impractical; and

(f) provide such other information as the Department may reasonably require.

Pursuant to this Act, the Department, through its authorized representatives, shall have the right of:

(a) entry or access to any premises including documents and relevant materials as referred to in the
herein preceding paragraph;

(b) inspect any pollution or waste source, control device, monitoring equipment or method required;
and

(c) test any emission.

Any record, report or information obtained under this section shall be made available to the public, except upon
a satisfactory showing to the Department by the entity concerned that the record, report or information, or parts
thereof, if made public, would divulge secret methods or processes entitled to protection as intellectual
property. Such record, report or information shall likewise be incorporated in the Department's industrial rating
system.
Section 39. Public Education and Information Campaign. - A continuing air quality information and
education campaign shall promoted by the Department, the Department of Education, Culture and Sports
(DECS), the Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG), the Department of Agriculture (DA) and
the Philippine Information Agency (PIA). Consistent with Sec. 7 of this Act, such campaign shall encourage the
participation of other government agencies and the private sector including NGOs, POs, the academe,
environmental groups and other private entities in a multi-sectoral information campaign.

Chapter 5
Actions

Section 40. Administrative Action. - Without prejudice to the right of any affected person to file an
administrative action, the Department shall, on its own instance or upon verified complaint by any person,
institute administrative proceedings against any person who violates:

(a) Standards or limitation provided under this Act; or

(b) Any order, rule or regulation issued by the Department with respect to such standard or limitation.

Section 41. Citizen Suits. - For purposes of enforcing the provisions of this Act or its implementing rules and
regulations, any citizen may file an appropriate civil, criminal or administrative action in the proper courts
against:

(a) Any person who violates or fails to comply with the provisions of this Act or its implementing rules
and regulations; or

(b) The Department or other implementing agencies with respect to orders, rules and regulations
issued inconsistent with this Act; and/or

(c) Any public officer who willfully or grossly neglects the performance of an act specifically enjoined as
a duty by this Act or its implementing rules and regulations; or abuses his authority in the performance
of his duty; or, in any manner, improperly performs his duties under this Act or its implementing rules
and regulations: Provided, however, That no suit can be filed until thirty-day (30) notice has been taken
thereon.

The court shall exempt such action from the payment of filing fees, except fees for actions not capable of
pecuniary estimations, and shall likewise, upon prima facie showing of the non-enforcement or violation
complained of, exempt the plaintiff from the filing of an injunction bond for the issuance of a preliminary
injunction.

Within thirty (30) days, the court shall make a determination if the compliant herein is malicious and/or baseless
and shall accordingly dismiss the action and award attorney's fees and damages.

Section 42. Independence of Action. - The filing of an administrative suit against such person/entity does not
preclude the right of any other person to file any criminal or civil action. Such civil action shall proceed
independently.

Section 43. Suits and Strategic Legal Actions Against Public Participation and the Enforcement of This
Act.- Where a suit is brought against a person who filed an action as provided in Sec. 41 of this Act, or against
any person, institution or government agency that implements this Act, it shall be the duty of the investigating
prosecutor or the court, as the case may be, to immediately make a determination not exceeding thirty (30)
days whether said legal action has been filed to harass, vex, exert undue pressure or stifle such legal
recourses of the person complaining of or enforcing the provisions of this Act. Upon determination thereof,
evidence warranting the same, the court shall dismiss the case and award attorney's fees and double
damages.
This provision shall also apply and benefit public officers who are sued for acts committed in their official
capacity, their being no grave abuse of authority, and done in the course of enforcing this Act.

Section 44. Lien Upon Personal and Immovable Properties of Violators. - Fines and penalties imposed
pursuant to this Act shall be liens upon personal or immovable properties of the violator. Such lien shall, in case
of insolvency of the respondent violator, enjoy preference to laborer's wages under Articles 2241 and 2242 of
Republic Act No. 386, otherwise known as the New Civil Code of the Philippines.

Chapter 6
Fines and Penalties

Section 45. Violation of Standards for Stationary Sources. - For actual exceedance of any pollution or air
quality standards under this Act or its rules and regulations, the Department, through the Pollution Adjudication
Board (PAB), shall impose a fine of not more than One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) for every day of
violation against the owner or operator of a stationary source until such time that the standards have been
complied with.

For purposes of the application of the fines, the PAB shall prepare a fine rating system to adjust the maximum
fine based on the violator's ability to pay, degree of willfulness, degree of negligence, history of non-compliance
and degree of recalcitrance: Provided, That in case of negligence, the first time offender's ability to pay may
likewise be considered by the Pollution Adjudication Board: Provided, Further, That in the absence of any
extenuating or aggravating circumstances, the amount of fine for negligence shall be equivalent to one-half of
the fine for willful violation.

The fines herein prescribed shall be increased by at least ten percent (10%), every three (3) years to
compensate for inflation and to maintain the deterrent function of such fines.

In addition to the fines, the PAB shall order closure, suspension of development, construction, or operations of
the stationary sources until such time that proper environmental safeguards are put in place: Provided, That an
establishment liable for a third offense shall suffer permanent closure immediately. This paragraph shall be
without prejudice to the immediate issuance of an ex parte order for such closure, suspension of development
or construction, or cessation of operations during the pendency of the case upon prima facie evidence that their
is imminent threat to life, public health, safety or general welfare, or to plant or animal life, or whenever there is
an exceedance of the emission standards set by the Department and/or the Board and/or the appropriate LGU.

Section 46. Violation of Standards for Motor Vehicles. - No motor vehicle shall be registered with the DOTC
unless it meets the emission standards set by the Department as provided in Sec. 21 hereof.

Any vehicle suspected of violation of emission standards through visual signs, such as, but not limited to
smoke-belching, shall be subjected to an emission test by a duly authorized emission testing center. For this
purpose, the DOTC or its authorized testing center shall establish a roadside inspection system. Should it be
shown that there was no violation of emission standards, the vehicle shall be immediately released. Otherwise,
a testing result indicating an exceedance of the emission standards would warrant the continuing custody of the
impounded vehicle unless the appropriate penalties are fully paid, and the license plate is surrendered to the
DOTC pending the fulfillment of the undertaking by the owner/operator of the motor vehicle to make the
necessary repairs so as to comply with the standards. A pass shall herein be issued by the DOTC to authorize
the use of the motor vehicle within a specified period that shall not exceed seven (7) days for the sole purpose
of making the necessary repairs on the said vehicle. The owner/operator of the vehicle shall be required to
correct its defects and show proof of compliance to the appropriate pollution control office before the vehicle
can be allowed to be driven on any public or subdivision roads.

In addition, the driver and operator of the apprehended vehicle shall undergo a seminar on pollution control
management conducted by the DOTC and shall also suffer the following penalties:

a) First Offense - a fine not to exceed Two Thousand Pesos (P2,000.00);

 b) Second Offense - a fine not less than Two Thousand Pesos (P2,000.00) and not to exceed Four
Thousand Pesos (P4,000.00); and

c) Third offense - one (1) year suspension of the Motor Vehicle Registration (MVR) and a fine of not
less than Four Thousand Pesos (P4,000.00) and not more than Six thousand pesos (P6,000.00).

Any violation of the provisions of Sec. 21 paragraph (d) with regard to national inspection and maintenance
program, including technicians and facility compliance shall penalized with a fine of not less than Thirty
Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00) or cancellation of license of both the technician and the center, or both, as
determined by the DTI.

All law enforcement officials and deputized agents accredited to conduct vehicle emissions testing and
apprehensions shall undergo a mandatory training on emission standards and regulations. For this purpose,
the Department, together with the DOTC, DTI, DOST, Philippine National Police (PNP) and other concerned
agencies and private entities shall design a training program.

Section 47. Fines and Penalties for Violations of Other Provisions in the Act. - For violations of all other
provisions provided in this Act and of the rules and regulations thereof, a fine of not less than Ten thousand
pesos (P10,000) but not more than One Hundred thousand Pesos (P100,000) or six (6) months to six (6) years
imprisonment or both shall be imposed. If the offender is a juridical person, the president, manager, directors,
trustees, the pollution control officer or the officials directly in charge of the operations shall suffer the penalty
herein provided.

Section 48. Gross Violations. - In case of gross violation of this Act or its implementing rules and regulations,
the PAB shall recommend to the proper government agencies to file the appropriate criminal charges against
the violators. The PAB shall assist the public prosecutor in the litigation of the case. Gross violation shall mean:

(a) three (3) or more specific offenses within a period of one (1) year;

(b) three (3) or more specific offenses with three (3) consecutive years;

(c) blatant disregard of the orders of the PAB, such s but not limited to the breaking of seal, padlocks
and other similar devices, or operation despite the existence of an order for closure, discontinuance or
cessation of operation; and

(d) irreparable or grave damage to the environment as a consequence of any violation of the
provisions of this Act.

Offenders shall be punished with imprisonment of not less than six (6) years but not more than ten (10) years at
the discretion of the court. If the offender is a juridical person, the president, manager, directors, trustees, the
pollution control officer or the officials directly in charge of the operations shall suffer the penalty herein
provided.

Chapter 7
Final Provisions

Section 49. Potential Loss or Shifts of Employment. - The Secretary of Labor is hereby authorized to
establish a compensation, retraining and relocation program to assist workers laid off due to a company's
compliance with the provisions of this Act.

Section 50. Appropriations. - An amount of Seven Hundred Fifty Million Pesos (P750,000,000.00) shall be
appropriated for the initial implementation of this Act, of which, the amount of Three Hundred Million Pesos
(P300,000,000.00) shall be appropriated to the Department; Two Hundred Million Pesos (P200,000,000.00) to
the DTI; One Hundred Fifty Million Pesos (P150,000,000.00) to the DOTC; and One Hundred Million Pesos
(P100,000,000.00) to the DOE.
Thereafter, the amount necessary to effectively carry out the provisions of this Act shall be included in the
General Appropriations Act.

Section 51. Implementing Rules and Regulations. - The Department, in coordination with the Committees
on Environment and Ecology of the Senate and House of Representatives, respectively and other agencies,
shall promulgate the implementing rules and regulations for this Act, within one (1) year after the enactment of
this Act: Provided, That rules and regulations issued by other government agencies and instrumentalities for
the prevention and/or abatement of pollution not inconsistent with this Act shall supplement the rules and
regulations issued by the Department pursuant to the provisions of this Act.

Section 52. Report to Congress. - The Department shall report to Congress, not later than March 30 of every
year following the approval of this Act, the progress of the pollution control efforts and make the necessary
recommendations in areas where there is need for legislative action.

Section 53. Joint Congressional Oversight Committee. - There is hereby created a joint congressional
oversight committee to monitor the implementation of this Act. The committee shall be composed of five (5)
senators and five (5) representatives to be appointed by the Senate President and the Speaker of the House of
Representatives, respectively, the oversight committee shall be co-chaired by a senator and a representative
designated by the Senate President and the Speaker of the House of Representatives, respectively.

The mandate given to the joint congressional oversight committee under this Act shall be without prejudice to
the performance of the duties and functions by the respective existing oversight committees of the Senate and
the House of Representatives.

Section 54. Separability of Provisions. - If any provision of this Act or the application of such provision to any
person or circumstances is declared unconstitutional, the remainder of the Act or the application of such
provision to other person or circumstances shall not be affected by such declaration.

Section 55. Repealing Clause. - Presidential Decree No. 1181 is hereby repealed. Presidential Decrees Nos.
1152, 1586 and Presidential Decree No. 984 are partly modified. All other laws, orders, issuance, rules and
regulations inconsistent herewith are hereby repealed or modified accordingly.

Section 56. Effectivity. - This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days from the date of its publication in
the Official Gazette or in at least two (2) newspapers of general circulation.

Approved, June 23, 1999.

==========================

[REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9237]

AN ACT ESTABLISHING MOUNT APO LOCATED IN THE MUNICIPALITIES OF MAGPET AND

MAKILALA AND CITY OF KIDAPAWAN, PROVINCE OF COTABATO, IN THE MUNICIPALITIES
OF BANSALAN AND STA. CRUZ AND CITY OF DIGOS, PROVINCE OF DAVAO DEL SUR, AND
IN THE CITY OF DAVAO, AS A PROTECTED AREA UNDER THE CATEGORY OF NATURAL
PARK AND ITS PERIPHERAL AREAS AS BUFFER ZONES, PROVIDING FOR ITS
MANAGEMENT, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress
assembled:

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTORY PROVISIONS

SECTION 1. Title. — This Act shall be known as the Mount Apo Protected Area Act of 2003.

SEC 2. Declaration of Policy. — Considering Mt. Apo’s aesthetic, economic, cultural, and ecological
importance and its unique biological resources, it is hereby declared the policy of the State to secure
its protection and conservation and those of the indigenous peoples and communities residing
therein as well as their culture and way of life. In so doing, the State shall: (a) ensure the protection
and conservation of biodiversity in Mt. Apo through sustainable and participatory development; (b)
advance, respect, and protect the customs and interests of its legitimate inhabitants, migrants, and
indigenous peoples alike; and (c) foster partnership among government, non-government
organizations, and people’s organizations.

SEC 3. Definition of Terms. —

(a) “Ancestral domain/ancestral lands” refers to all areas generally belonging to Indigenous Cultural
Communities/Indigenous Peoples (ICCs/IPs), subject to property or prior rights within the ancestral
domains already existing and vested upon the effectivity of Republic Act No. 8371 or the Indigenous
People’s Rights Act (IPRA) of 1997, comprising lands, inland waters, and natural resources therein
held under a claim of ownership, occupied or possessed by ICCs/IPs, by themselves or through their
ancestors, communally or individually since time immemorial, continuously to the present except
when interrupted by war, force majeure or displacement by force, deceit, stealth, or as a
consequence of government projects or any other voluntary dealings entered into by government
and private individuals/corporations, and which are necessary to ensure their economic, social and
cultural welfare. It shall include ancestral lands, forests, pasture, residential, agricultural, and other
lands individually owned whether alienable and disposable or otherwise, hunting grounds, burial
grounds, worship areas, bodies of water, mineral and other natural resources, and lands which may
no longer be exclusively occupied by ICCs/IPs but from which they traditionally had access to for
their subsistence and traditional activities, particularly the home ranges of ICCs/IPs who are still
nomadic and/or shifting cultivators.

(b) “Biodiversity” refers to the variety and variability among all living organisms and the ecological
complex in which they occur.

(c) “Buffer zones” refers to areas outside the boundaries of and immediately adjacent to designated
protected areas pursuant to Section 8 of Republic Act No. 7586 or the National Integrated Protected
Areas System (NIPAS) Act of 1992, that need special development and control in order to provide
an extra layer around the protected area where restrictions may apply and managed according to
the management plan and applicable rules and regulations issued as provided for in this Act and
related statutes.

(d) “By-products” refers to any part taken from wild species such as hides, antlers, feathers, fur,
teeth, claws, internal organs, eggs, roots, trunk, branches, leaves, stems, flowers, bark, including
their derivatives such as blood, oils, resin, gum, seed, spores, pollen, honey, beeswax, and the like.

(e) “Collection or collecting” refers to the act of gathering or harvesting wild flora and fauna species
and its by-products or derivatives.
(f) “Commercial facilities” refers to the conduct of business by natural or artificial persons with the
purpose of securing an economic or resource surplus not needed for immediate subsistence.

(g) “Conservation” refers to the optimum utilization and management of natural resources in order to
meet the needs and aspirations of the present and the future.

(h) “Ecosystem” refers to the community of plants and animals, their physical environment, and the
interactions between them.

(i) “Environmental Impact Assessment” refers to the Environment Impact Assessment System
established under Presidential Decree No. 1586 or supervening legislation.

(j) “Exotic species” refers to species or subspecies which do not naturally occur within the country or
within the biogeographic region of the Philippines in which the protected area is situated.

(k) “Fish/aquatic animals/products” refers to fishes and other aquatic animals such as crustaceans,
echinoderms, marine animals, and all other species of aquatic flora and fauna and all other products
of aquatic living resources in any form.

(l) “Fishing” refers to the taking of the fish, aquatic products or any aquatic flora and fauna from their
wild habitat, with or without the use of fishing vessels.

(m) “Forest products” refers to timber, pulpwood, firewood, bark, tree top, resin, gum, wood, lumber,
oil, honey, beeswax, nipa, rattan, or other forest growth such as grass, shrub, and flowering plant,
the associated water, fish, game, scenic, historical, recreational, and geologic resources in forest
lands.

(n) “Indigenous Cultural, Communities” refers to the ICCs/IPs as defined in the IPRA. Specifically in
the Mt. Apo Natural Park, the ICCs/IPs are known to be composed of the Bagobo and its sub-tribes
namely the Ubo, Jangan, and Tagabawa or Bawa who reside within or are substantially dependent
upon the protected area.

(o) “Legitimate private rights” refers to vested prior rights acquired in accordance with existing laws
without taint of deceit, stealth, fraud or bad faith.

(p) “Management Plan” refers to the fundamental plan, strategy and/or scheme which shall guide all
activities relating to the Mt. Apo Natural Park in order to attain the objectives of this Act as stated in
Section 2 hereof.

(q) “Non-government organizations” refers to nonstock, nonprofit organizations with qualifications

and expertise and engaged in activities concerning community organizing and development or
resource and environmental conservation, management and protection related to the protected area.

(r) “People’s organization” refers to a group of people, which may be an association, cooperative,
federation, or aggrupation of individuals or groups, with an identifiable structure of decision making
and accountability, established to undertake collective action to address community concerns and
needs in relation to the protected area.

(s) “Protected area” refers to identified portions of land and water set aside by reason of their unique
physical and biological significance, managed to enhance biological diversity and protected against
destructive human exploitation.
(t) “Secretary” refers to the Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources
(DENR).

(u) “Stakeholders” refers to individuals, communities, organizations or aggrupation of specific

interests or sectors which have particular interest in the achievement of the objective of this Act or
dependence, access, or utilization of resources within the protected area such as but not limited to
the local government units, people’s organizations, non-government organizations, indigenous
cultural communities, the DENR, and other concerned government agencies.

(v) “Sustainability or sustainable” refers to the use of components of biological diversity in a way and
at a rate that does not lead to the decline in the species used, thereby maintaining its potential to
meet the needs and aspirations of the present and future Filipino generations.

(w) “Tenured migrants” refers to individuals and households who have actually and continuously
occupied public lands which are not alienable and disposable within the protected area before June
1, 1987 and are substantially dependent on the protected area for their livelihood.

(x) “Timber” refers to wood having an average diameter of at least fifteen (15) centimeters and a
length of at least one and a half (1.5) meter in its unaltered state, or wood regardless of size, sawn
or hewn on two or more sides usually referred to as flitch and all mangrove.

SEC 4. Scope. — The Mt. Apo Natural Park shall cover certain parcels of lands situated in the
municipalities of Magpet and Makilala and City of Kidapawan in the Province of Cotabato;
municipalities of Bansalan and Sta. Cruz and City of Digos in the Province of Davao del Sur, and in
the City of Davao. The boundaries of the Mt. Apo Natural Park, containing an area of
549,744,724.32 square meters, more or less, subject to ground demarcation are as follows:

Beginning at a point marked “1” on the map and on the ground; being N 45°36′ W about 4,044.877
meters from BCGS monument APO B.L. 29E 1953;

CORNER LINE BEARING DISTANCE CORNER MONUMENT REFERENCE OR LOCATION

1 1 N 54°12′ E 543.89 meters 20 CM X 20 CM. On ridge of Mt.
2 Conc. Mon. Talomo range.
2 2 S 56°38′ E 5,595.16 meters 20 CM X 20 CM. Bank of Talomo
3 Conc. Mon. River.
3 3 S 4°33′ E 1,852.29 meters 20 CM X 20 CM. Junction of Talomo
4 Conc. Mon. River & Taguy Cr.
4 4 S 41°18′ W 229.50 meters 20 CM X 20 CM. Bank of Taguy Cr.
5 Conc. Mon.
5 5 S 36°28′ E 122.09 meters 20 CM X 20 CM. On slope of ridge
6 Conc. Mon
6 6 S 40°40′ E 515.88 meters 20 CM X 20 CM. On slope of ridge
7 Conc. Mon.
7 7 S 48°30′ E 338.66 meters 20 CM X 20 CM. On slope of ridge
8 Conc. Mon.
8 8 N 56°17′ E 2,742.27 meters 20 CM X 20 CM. Bank of Saro River
9 Conc. Mon.
9 9 N 85°53′ E 1,745.00 meters 20 CM X 20 CM. Bank of Saro River
10 Conc. Mon.
10 10 S 31°47′ W 3,166.44 meters 20 CM X 20 CM. Junct. of Lipadas
11 Conc. Mon. River & Saro River
11 11 S 22°00′ E 475.14 meters 20 CM X 20 CM. Bank of Lipadas
12 Conc. Mon. River
12 12 N 77°00′ E 350.00 meters 20 CM X 20 CM. On slope of ridge
13 Conc. Mon.
13 13 S 30°00′ E 235.12 meters 20 CM X 20 CM. Bank of Longon 1
14 Conc. Mon. Creek
14 14 N 63°19′ E 1,266.50 meters 20 CM X 20 CM. Bank of Longon 2
15 Conc. Mon. Creek
15 15 S 66°42′ E 504.80 meters 20 CM X 20 CM. Junct. of Longon 2
16 Conc. Mon. Cr. & Alano Cr.
16 16 S 53°40′ W 968.03 meters 20 CM X 20 CM. Bank of Tagurano
17 Conc. Mon. Creek
17 17 S 41°47′ W 695.66 meters 20 CM X 20 CM. On ridge near
18 Conc. Mon. trail
18 18 S 51°28′ W 469.85 meters 20 CM X 20 CM. Bank of Lapuy Creek
19 Conc. Mon.
19 19 S 62°41′ W 505.11 meters 20 CM X 20 CM. Bank of Lapuy Creek
20 Conc. Mon.
20 20 S 50°00′ E 213.77 meters 20 CM X 20 CM. Bank of Lapuy Creek
21 Conc. Mon.
21 21 S 14°00′ E 395.50 meters 20 CM X 20 CM. On slope of ridge
22 Conc. Mon.
22 22 N 72°16′ E 280.00 meters 20 CM X 20 CM. Bank of Gumate
23 Conc. Mon. Creek
23 23 S 68°59′ E 465.05 meters 20 CM X 20 CM. Bank of Gumate
24 Conc. Mon. Creek
24 24 N 47°06′ E 420.00 meters 20 CM X 20 CM. Bank of Gumate
25 Conc. Mon. Creek
25 25 S 77°13′ E 440.00 meters 20 CM X 20 CM. Bank of Gumate
26 Conc. Mon. Creek
26 26 S 05°15′ W 340.00 meters 20 CM X 20 CM. Bank of Gumate
27 Conc. Mon. Creek
27 27 S 05°15′ W 339.64 meters 20 CM X 20 CM. On slope of ridge
28 Conc. Mon. near Bulakan
28 28 N 73°59′ E 455.24 meters 20 CM X 20 CM. Bank of Walaway
29 Conc. Mon. Creek
29 29 S 84°56′ E 817.53 meters 20 CM X 20 CM. Bank of Walaway
30 Conc. Mon. Creek
30 30 S 70°48′ W 1,888.69 meters 20 CM X 20 CM. Junct. of Bato River
31 Conc. Mon. & Walaway Creek
31 31 S 04°00′ W 220.55 meters 20 CM X 20 CM. Bank of Bato River
32 Conc. Mon.
32 32 S 22°00′ W 470.00 meters 20 CM X 20 CM. On slope of ridge
33 Conc. Mon.
33 33 S 22°00′ W 530.00 meters 20 CM X 20 CM. On slope of ridge
 34 Conc. Mon.
34 34 S 22°00′ W 300.00 meters 20 CM X 20 CM. On slope/side of
35 Conc. Mon. trail
35 35 S 85°00′ W 400.00 meters 20 CM X 20 CM. On slope of ridge
36 Conc. Mon.
36 36 Due South 601.96 meters 20 CM X 20 CM. On slope of ridge
37 Conc. Mon.
37 37 S 53°28′ E 353.22 meters 20 CM X 20 CM. North bank of
38 Conc. Mon. Baracatan River
38 38 S 22°40′ W 258.01 meters 20 CM X 20 CM. North bank of
39 Conc. Mon. Baracatan River
39 39 S 22°40′ W 298.88 meters 20 CM X 20 CM. On slope south of
40 Conc. Mon. Cucob Creek
40 40 S 22°41′ W 101.57 meters 20 CM X 20 CM. On slope near
41 Conc. Mon. DENR office bldg.
41 41 S 34°00′ E 125.00 meters 20 CM X 20 CM. On bank of gully
42 Conc. Mon.
42 42 S 10°00′ W 350.00 meters 20 CM X 20 CM. On slope of ridge
43 Conc. Mon.
43 43 S 21°00′ W 600.00 meters 20 CM X 20 CM. On slope of ridge
44 Conc. Mon.
44 44 S 36°00′ W 600.00 meters 20 CM X 20 CM. North bank of
45 Conc. Mon. Madalambaog Cr.
45 45 N 78°10′ W 860.59 meters 20 CM X 20 CM. North bank of Dolis
46 Conc. Mon. Creek
46 46 S 03°31′ W 189.10 meters A point At source of Bidaran
47 Creek
47 47 S 08°32′ W 510.52 meters STAKE On slope of ridge
48
48 48 S 37°46′ E 2,405.34 meters STAKE On slope of ridge
49
49 49 S 07°57′ E 448.82 meters STAKE On slope of ridge
50
50 50 S 52°25′ E 479.94 meters A point At bank of Cabarisan
51 Creek
51 51 S 17°25′ W 891.71 meters A point At bank of Cabarisan
52 Creek
52 52 S 02°03′ E 1,297.30 meters STAKE On slope of ridge
53 W. of Balusong Cr.
53 53 S 75°03′ E 954.26 meters STAKE On slope of ridge
54 E. of Balusong Cr.
54 54 N 56°54′ E 1,346.63 meters STAKE On slope of ridge
55
55 55 S 67°28′ E 1,856.12 meters STAKE On slope of ridge E.
56 of Ligi Creek
56 56 S 15°31′ E 1,963.46 meters STAKE On bank of Bunawan
57 Cr.
57 57 S 57°14′ E 1,251.26 meters STAKE On slope of ridge
58
58 58 S 31°51′ E 2,370.84 meters STAKE On slope of ridge
59
59 59 S 19°04′ W 1,626.45 meters STAKE On slope of ridge
60
60 60 S 10°34′ E 739.39 meters STAKE On slope of
61 Kabayawa Ridge
61 61 S 43°16′ W 2,752.97 meters STAKE On slope of Patulangon
62 Ridge
62 62 N 36°44′ W 2,090.86 meters STAKE On slope of Lubo
63 Ridge
63 63 N 64°18′ W 457.09 meters STAKE Bank of Latong
64 Creek
64 64 S 83°11′ W 892.99 meters STAKE On slope of Luay
65 Ridge
65 65 S 53°45′ W 1,566.66 meters STAKE On slope of ridge
66
66 66 S 04°21′ W 1,713.10 meters STAKE N. bank of Pilan
67 Creek
67 67 S 89°58′ W 1,829.53 meters STAKE On slope of ridge
68
68 68 S 79°40′ W 355.08 meters STAKE On slope of ridge
69
69 69 N 34°57′ W 1,040.41 meters STAKE On slope of ridge
70
70 70 S 59°05′ W 1,180.96 meters STAKE On slope of ridge
71
71 71 N 71°35′ W 511.08 meters STAKE On slope of ridge
72
72 72 S 42°59′ W 399.11 meters STAKE On bank of Calagan
73 Creek
73 73 S 39°02′ W 398.93 meters 20 CM X 20 CM. On bank of Calagan
74 Conc. Mon. Creek
74 74 S 22°37′ E 1,480.46 meters 20 CM X 20 CM. Junct. of Calagan
75 Conc. Mon. Cr. & Ruparan River
75 75 S 12°52′ E 1,103.10 meters 20 CM X 20 CM. Bank of Ruparan
76 Conc. Mon. River
76 76 S 444°46′ E 1,166.20 meters 20 CM X 20 CM. Bank of Ruparan
77 Conc. Mon. River
77 77 S 02°18′ W 2,075.31 meters 20 CMX 20 CM. Bank of Ruparan
78 Conc. Mon. River
78 78 S 62°17′ W 1,386.05 meters 20 CM X 20 CM. Bank of Ruparan
79 Conc. Mon. River
79 79 N 49°54′ W 1,109.34 meters 20 CM X 20 CM. Bank of Ruparan
80 Conc. Mon. River
80 80 N 36°01′ W 1,216.78 meters STAKE On slope of ridge
 81
81 81 N 24°39′ W 672.95 meters STAKE On bank of Bidarag
82 Creek
82 82 N 63°53′ W 1,223.94 meters STAKE On slope of ridge
83
83 83 N 42°21′ W 890.68 meters STAKE On east bank of
84 Calamagan Creek
84 84 N 43°58′ W 528.01 meters STAKE On east bank of
85 Napan Creek
85 85 N 86°49′ W 903.14 meters STAKE On slope of ridge
86
86 86 S 61°39′ W 428.68 meters STAKE On slope of ridge
87
87 87 N 89°34′ W 798.06 meters STAKE On slope of ridge
88
88 88 S 52°09′ W 502.97 meters STAKE On bank of
89 intermittent creek
89 89 S 26°19′ W 867.72 meters STAKE On slope of ridge
90
90 90 N 84°54′ W 1,918.83 meters STAKE Slope of ridge west
91 of Balabag Creek
91 91 S 82°42′ W 1,921.99 meters STAKE On slope of ridge
92
92 92 N 78°21′ W 767.59 meters STAKE Slope of ridge west
93 of Sinawilan Creek
93 93 S 88°37′ W 352.11 meters STAKE On bank of Miral
94 River
94 94 N 27°59′ W 1,076.23 meters STAKE Slope of ridge west
95 of Miral River
95 95 N 57°56′ W 564.60 meters STAKE On slope of ridge
96
96 96 N 00°09′ W 487.82 meters STAKE On slope of ridge
97
97 97 N 53°47′ W 3,390.96 meters STAKE On slope of ridge
98
98 98 N 46°16′ E 2,359.60 meters STAKE On slope of ‘ridge
99
99 99 N 20°46′ W 3,193.79 meters STAKE Slope of ridge east
100 of Marber River
100 100 N 01°19′ W 1,032.99 meters STAKE On slope of ridge
101
101 101 N 46°52′ W 542.18 meters STAKE Slope of ridge east
102 of Darapuay River
102 102 N 76°48′ W 320.53 meters STAKE East bank of
103 Balugan River
103 103 N 82°47′ W 672.03 meters STAKE East bank of
104 Balugan River
104 104 N 50°00′ W 1,791.19 meters STAKE Slope of ridge west
105 of Balugan River
105 105 N 05°06′ W 2,161.48 meters STAKE Slope of ridge west
106 of Bulatukan River
106 106 N 12°56′ W 2,053.92 meters STAKE On slope of ridge
107
107 107 N 06°24′ E 1,348.10 meters STAKE On slope of ridge
108
108 108 N 16°02′ E 1,893.96 meters STAKE On slope of ridge
109
109 109 N 37°47′ W 506.92 meters STAKE On slope of ridge
110
110 110 N 01°27′ W 417.96 meters STAKE On slope of ridge
111
111 111 S 86°13′ E 971.65 meters STAKE Bank of Saguing
112 River
112 112 N 69°21′ E 487.24 meters STAKE Slope of ridge north
113 of Saguing River
113 113 N 38°07′ E 293.20 meters STAKE On slope of ridge
114
114 114 N 64°57′ E 510.64 meters STAKE On slope of ridge
115
115 115 N 78°35′ E 281.30 meters STAKE On slope of ridge
116
116 116 N 41°59′ E 598.15 meters STAKE On slope of ridge
117
117 117 N 05°58′ E 788.39 meters STAKE On slope of ridge
118
118 118 N 59°45′ E 558.02 meters STAKE Slope of ridge south
119 of Kinatilan :river
119 119 N 89°00′ E 1,633.62 meters STAKE Slope of ridge north
120 of Kinatilan River
120 120 S 37°48′ W 820.01 meters STAKE Ident. to cor. 4 Geothermal
121 reservation
121 121 S 52°12′ E 4,274.96 meters 20 CM X 20 CM. Ident. to cor. 4 Geothermal
122 Conc. Mon. reservation
122 122 N 37°48′ E 1,640.01 meters 20 CM X 20 CM. Ident. to cor. 3 Geothermal
123 Conc. Mon. reservation
123 123 N 52°12′ W 3,654.96 meters 20 CM X 20 CM. Ident. to cor. 2 Geothermal
124 Conc. Mon. reservation
124 124 N 29°51′ E 92.42 meters STAKE On slope of ridge
125
125 125 N 46°58′ W 615.63 meters 20 CM X 20 CM. Bank of Marver
126 Conc. Mon. River
126 126 N 14°02′ E 371.07 meters STAKE On slope of ridge
127
127 127 N 61°23′ W 751.84 meters STAKE Bank of Marver
 128 River
128 128 N 9°47′ E 588.56 meters STAKE Bank of Marver
129 River
129 129 N 51°09′ W 1,734.11 meters STAKE Bank of Marver
130 River
130 130 N 71°09′ E 3,615.81 meters STAKE Bank of Marver
131 River
131 131 N 67°46′ E 2,259.01 meters STAKE On slope of ridge
132
132 132 N 83°22′ E 1,398.22 meters STAKE On slope of ridge
133
133 133 N 23°16′ E 1,803.49 meters STAKE On slope of ridge
134
134 134 N 88°20′ E 450.06 meters 20 CM X 20 CM. On slope of ridge
135 Conc. Mon.
135 135 N 88°56′ E 437.43 meters 20 CM X 20 CM. On slope of ridge
136 Conc. Mon.
136 136 N 89°20′ E’ 314.90 meters 20 CM X 20 CM. On slope of ridge
137 Conc. Mon.
137 137 N 58°07′ E 460.37 meters 20 CM X 20 CM. On slope of ridge
1 Conc. Mon.

A parcel of land containing seven million ten thousand (7,010,000.00) sq. m., which was declared as
a geothermal reservation, under the jurisdiction, control, and administration of the Philippine National
Oil Company (PNOC) by virtue of its prior vested rights under Proclamation No. 853 of January 30,
1992 in conjunction with Executive Order No. 223, is hereby excluded from the Park: Provided, That
in line with PNOC’s environmental and watershed management program, PNOC shall assist in the
protection and management of the Mt. Apo Natural Park in the form of direct assistance in
reforestation and other preservation activities in the Park that may be identified: Provided, further,
That the PNOC geothermal reservation shall automatically revert to and form part of the Park upon
cessation of PNOC operations in the excluded area.

In view of the crucial role of power generation to the national economy, plans and activities of the
PNOC geothermal project related to support facilities, back-up or new transmission lines, stabilizing
and power-enhancing substations, and other auxiliary support facilities which are vital to the
environmental sustainability and energy security of Mindanao shall be implemented within
designated buffer zones subject to approval of the Protected Area Management Board (PAMB) and
by appropriate government agencies in line with the national mandate on the development of
indigenous sources of energy.

SEC 5. Establishment of Buffer Zones. — Buffer zones of the Mt. Apo Natural Park are hereby
established through this Act pursuant to Section 8 of the NIPAS Act to serve as additional peripheral
layer of protection to the protected area by providing regulated benefits and livelihood opportunities
to local communities to build a strong social fence to the protected area. The boundary of the buffer
zones, subject to ground demarcation is hereby described as follows:

BUFFER ZONE, PARCEL 1

A parcel of land containing an area of 25,357,266.07 square meters, more or less, declared as
Buffer Zone Parcel (1), beginning at a point marked “1” on the map and on the ground being
identical to point 45 of Mt. Apo Natural Park;

CORNER LINE BEARING DISTANCE CORNER MONUMENT REFERENCE OR

LOCATION
1 1 S 41°36′ E 661.87 meters 20 CM X 20 CM Identical to Cor.
2 Conc. Monument 45, MANP
2 2 S 77°47′ E 833.66 meters 20 CM X 20 CM Bank of Dolis Cr.
3 Conc. Monument
3 3 S 42°24′ E 836.15 meters 20 CM X 20 CM Bank of Dolis Cr.
4 Conc. Monument
4 4 S 03°34′ E 321.07 meters 20 CM X 20 CM Bank of Dolis Cr.
5 Conc. Monument
5 5 S 18°10′ E 730.66 meters 20 CM X 20 CM Bank of Dolis Cr.
6 Conc. Monument
6 6 S 18°26′ E 339.89 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On slope of ridge
7 Conc. Monument
7 7 S 82°39′ W 417.92 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On slope of ridge
8 Conc. Monument
8 8 S 09°10′ E 310.47 meters 20 CM X 20 CM Slope of ridge
9 Conc. Monument east of Bidaran Cr.
9 9 S 24°53′ E 380.30 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On slope of ridge
10 Conc. Monument east of Bidaran Cr.
10 10 S 62°48′ W 224.29 meters 20 CM X 20 CM South bank of
11 Conc. Monument Sibulan River
11 11 N 85°19′ W 336.62 meters 20 CM X 20 CM Slope of ridge
12 Conc. Monument south of Sibulan R
12 12 S 01°11′ W 375.08 meters 20 CM X 20 CM Slope of ridge
13 Conc. Monument south of Sibulan R
13 13 S 08°07′ W 404.04 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On slope of ridge
14 Conc. Monument
14 14 S 11°19′ W 458.91 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On slope of ridge
15 Conc. Monument
15 15 S 46°18′ E 372.74 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On slope of ridge
16 Conc. Monument
16 16 N 39°11′ E 561.26 meters 20 CM X 20 CM Bank of creek
17 Conc. Monument
17 17 S 59°29′ E 430.30 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On slope of ridge
18 Conc. Monument
18 18 N 19°26′ E 493.07 meters 20 CM X 20 CM Bank of creek
19 Conc. Monument
19 19 N 34°38′ E 365.18 meters 20 CM X 20 CM Bank of creek
20 Conc. Monument
20 20 N 73°58′ E 355.76 meters 20 CM X 20 CM Bank of creek
21 Conc. Monument
21 21 S 51°06′ E 365.68 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On slope of ridge
22 Conc. Monument
22 22 S 27°12′ E 393.63 meters 20 CM X 20 SM. On slope of ridge
23 Conc. Monument
23 23 S 31°19′ E 403.97 meters 20 CM X 20 CM Bank of creek
24 Conc. Monument
24 24 N 80°11′ E 411.17 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On slope of ridge
25 Conc. Monument
25 25 S 87°57′ E 281.29 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On slope of ridge
26 Conc. Monument
26 26 N 86°51′ E 459.34 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On slope of ridge
27 Conc. Monument
27 27 S 11°54′ E 260.64 meters 20 CM X 20 CM Bank of creek
28 Conc. Monument
28 28 N 77°49′ E 173.99 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On slope of ridge
29 Conc. Monument
29 29 S 28°55′ E 323.34 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On slope of ridge
30 Conc. Monument
30 30 S 06°25′ W 668.48 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On slope of ridge
31 Conc. Monument
31 31 S 19°55′ E 550.00 meters 20 CM X 20 CM Bank of Gully
32 Conc. Monument
32 32 S 19°55′ E 501.50 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On slope of ridge
33 Conc. Monument
33 33 S 75°34′ E 450.00 meters 20 CM X 20 CM Bank of creek
34 Conc. Monument
34 34 S 75°34′ E 437.65 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On slope of ridge
35 Conc. Monument
35 35 S 45°41′ E 689.53 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On slope of ridge
36 Conc. Monument
36 36 S 04°35 E 503.90 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On slope of ridge
37 Conc. Monument
37 37 S 35°56′ E 690.28 meters 20 CM X 20 CM Bank of creek
38 Conc. Monument
38 38 S 35°08′ E 571.52 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On slope of ridge
39 Conc. Monument
39 39 S 39°35′ E 661.89 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On slope of ridge
40 Conc. Monument
40 40 S 15°24′ W 430.07 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On slope of ridge
41 Conc. Monument
41 41 S 26°55′ W 360.00 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On slope of ridge
42 Conc. Monument
42 42 S 26°55′ W 363.76 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On slope of ridge
43 Conc. Monument
43 43 S 29°32′ W 350.00 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On slope of ridge
44 Conc. Monument
44 44 S 29°32′ W 354.77 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On slope of ridge
45 Conc. Monument
45 45 S 16°11′ E 499.72 meters 20 CM X 20 CM Slope of ridge
 46 Conc. Monument south of Corono R
46 46 S 32°56′ E 709.62 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On slope of
47 Conc. Monument Kabayawa Hill
47 47 S 48°14′ W 660.00 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On slope of
48 Conc. Monument Kabayawa Hill
48 48 S 48°14′ W 659.27 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On slope of
49 Conc. Monument Patulangon Ridge
49 49 S 24°30′ W 194.89 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On slope of
50 Conc. Monument Patulangon Ridge
50 50 S 18°29′ W 433.68 meters 20 CM X 20 CM Bank of dry creek
51 Conc. Monument
51 51 S 39°49′ W 70.76 meters 28 CM X 20 CM On slope of Batuto
52 Conc. Monument Ridge
52 52 S 70°59′ W 647.65 meters 20 CM X 20 CM Bank of Batuto
53 Conc. Monument Creek
53 53 S 43°29′ W 619.66 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On slope of Tacub
54 Conc. Monument Ridge
54 54 S 00°14′ W 689.66 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On slope of west
55 Conc. Monument of Tacub Creek
55 55 S 80°29′ W 660.00 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On slope of ridge
56 Conc. Monument
56 56 S 80°29′ W 659.92 meters 20 CM X 20 CM Bank of Lubo
57 Conc. Monument Creek
57 57 N 05°26′ W 869.59 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On slope east of
58 Conc. Monument Latong Creek
58 58 S 73°19′ W 660.00 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On slope west of
59 Conc. Monument Latong Creek
59 59 S 73°19′ W 659.27 meters 20 CM X 20 CM Bank of Pinanlilok
60 Conc. Monument Creek
60 60 N 14°45′ W 410.00 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On slope of ridge
61 Conc. Monument
61 61 N 14°45′ W 409.62 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On slope of ridge
62 Conc. Monument
62 62 N 14°45′ W 574.74 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On slope of ridge
63 Conc. Monument
63 63 N 87°16′ W 529.73 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On slope of ridge
64 Conc. Monument
64 64 S 26°34′ W 699.64 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On slope of ridge
65 Conc. Monument
65 65 S 06°26′ E 279.85 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On slope of ridge
66 Conc. Monument
66 66 S 19°46′ E 579.69 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On slope of ridge
67 Conc. Monument
67 67 S 02°59′ W 510.00 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On slope of ridge
68 Conc. Monument
68 68 S 02°59′ W 509.46 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On slope of ridge
69 Conc. Monument
69 69 N 71°57′ W 520.00 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On slope of ridge
70 Conc. Monument
70 70 N 71°57′ W 521.71 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On slope of ridge
71 Conc. Monument
71 71 S 79°46′ W 400.00 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On slope of ridge
72 Conc. Monument
72 72 S 79°46′ W 401.59 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On slope of ridge
73 Conc. Monument
73 73 S 83°36′ W 510.67 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On slope of ridge
74 Conc. Monument
74 74 N 74°40′ W 400.00 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On slope of ridge
75 Conc. Monument
75 75 N 74°40′ W 402.30 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On slope of ridge
76 Conc. Monument
76 76 N 35°49′ W 390.00 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On slope of ridge
77 Conc. Monument
77 77 N 35°49′ W 395.22 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On slope of ridge
78 Conc. Monument
78 78 S 65°42′ W 500.00 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On slope of ridge
79 Conc. Monument
79 79 S 65°42′ W 500.00 meters 20 CM X 20 CM South side of
80 Conc. Monument Provincial River
80 80 S 65°42′ W 498.05 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On slope of ridge
81 Conc. Monument
81 81 N 27°45′ W 239.90 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On slope of ridge
82 Conc. Monument
82 82 N 42°45′ W 309.87 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On slope of ridge
83 Conc. Monument
83 83 N 42°59′ E 399.11 meters 20 CM X 20 CM Identical to cor.
84 Conc. Monument 73, MANP
84 84 S 71°35′ E 511.08 meters STAKE Identical to cor.
85 72, MANP
85 85 N 59°05′ E 1,180.97 meters STAKE Identical to cor.
86 71, MANP
86 86 S 34°57′ E 1,040.41 meters STAKE Identical to cor.
87 70, MANP
87 87 N 79°40′ E 355.08 meters STAKE Identical to cor.
88 69, MANP
88 88 N 89°58′ E 1,829.53 meters STAKE Identical to cor.
89 68, MANP
89 89 N 04°21′ E 1,713.10 meters STAKE Identical to cor.
90 67, MANP
90 90 N 53°45′ E 1,566.66 meters STAKE Identical to cor.
91 66, MANP
91 91 N 83°11′ E 892.99 meters STAKE Identical to cor.
92 65, MANP
92 92 S 64°18′ E 457.09 meters STAKE Identical to cor.
 93 64, MANP
93 93 S 35°44′ E 2,090.86 meters STAKE Identical to cor.
94 63, MANP
94 94 N 43°16′ E 2,752.96 meters STAKE Identical to cor.
95 62, MANP
95 95 N 10°34′ W 739.39 meters STAKE Identical to cor.
96 61, MANP
96 96 N 19°04′ E 1,626.45 meters STAKE Identical to cor.
97 60, MANP
97 97 N 31°51′ W 2,370.84 meters STAKE Identical to cor.
98 59, MANP
98 98 N 57°14′ W 1,251.26 meters STAKE Identical to cor.
99 58, MANP
99 99 N 15°31′ W 1,963.46 meters STAKE Identical to cor.
100 57, MANP
100 100 N 67°28′ W 1,856.12 meters STAKE Identical to cor.
101 56, MANP
101 101 S 56°54′ W 1,346.63 meters STAKE Identical to cor.
102 55, MANP
102 102 N 75°03′ W 954.26 meters STAKE Identical to cor.
103 54, MANP
103 103 N 02°03′ E 1,297.30 meters STAKE Identical to cor.
104 53, MANP
104 104 N 17°25′ E 891.71 meters STAKE Identical to cor.
105 52, MANP
105 105 N 52°25′ W 479.94 meters STAKE Identical to cor.
106 51, MANP
106 106 N 07°57′ W 448.82 meters STAKE Identical to cor.
107 50, MANP
107 107 N 37°46′ W 2,405.84 meters STAKE Identical to cor.
108 49, MANP
108 108 N 08°32′ E 510.52 meters STAKE Identical to cor.
109 48, MANP
109 109 N 03°31′ E 189.10 meters STAKE Identical to cor.
110 47, MANP
110 1 S 78°10′ E 860.59 meters STAKE Identical to cor.
46, MANP

BUFFER ZONE, PARCEL 2

A parcel of land containing an area of 65,423,921.15 square meters, more or less, declared as
Buffer Zone Parcel (2), beginning at a point marked “1” on the map and on the ground being
identical to point 79 of the Mt. Apo Natural Park;

CORNER LINE BEARING DISTANCE CORNER MONUMENT REFERENCE LOCATION

1 1 S 08°17′ W 1,070.03 meters 20 CM X 20 CM Identical to cor.
2 Conc. Monument 79, MANP
2 2 N 43°20′ W 400.00 meters 20 CM X 20 CM West bank of
3 Conc. Monument Ruparan River
3 3 N 43°20′ W 400.00 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On land planted
4 Conc. Monument w/ sugarcane
4 4 N 43°20′ W 400.00 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On land planted
5 Conc. Monument w/ sugarcane
5 5 N 43°20′ W 400.00 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
6 Conc. Monument
6 6 N 43°20′ W 481.82 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
7 Conc. Monument
7 7 N 64°55′ W 481.88 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
8 Conc. Monument
8 8 N 37°49′ W 450.00 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
9 Conc. Monument
9 9 N 37°49′ W 450.00 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
10 Conc. Monument
10 10 N 37°49′ W 450.00 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
11 Conc. Monument
11 11 N 37°49′ W 450.00 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
12 Conc. Monument
12 12 N 37°49′ W 513.33 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
13 Conc. Monument unknown cr.
13 13 N 52°51′ W 491.88 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
14 Conc. Monument west of Guna River
14 14 S 82°03′ W 370.00 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
15 Conc. Monument west of Guna River
15 15 S 82°03′ W 369.74 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
16 Conc. Monument
16 16 N 56°46′ W 385.52 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
17 Conc. Monument
17 17 S 13°22′ W 369.51 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
18 Conc. Monument
18 18 S 55°35′ W 472.00 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
19 Conc. Monument
19 19 S 55°35′ W 472.80 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
20 Conc. Monument
20 20 N 86°04′ W 481.00 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
21 Conc. Monument
21 21 N 86°04′ W 480.59 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
22 Conc. Monument
22 22 N 67°37′ W 319.45 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
23 Conc. Monument
23 23 S 28°18′ W 474.00 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
24 Conc. Monument
24 24 S 28°18′ W 474.00 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
25 Conc. Monument
25 25 S 28°18′ W 473.60 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
 26 Conc. Monument
26 26 S 44°36′ W 552.24 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
27 Conc. Monument
27 27 S 44°36′ W 552.24 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
28 Conc. Monument
28 28 S 89°33′ W 556.05 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
29 Conc. Monument
29 29 S 89°33′ W 556.06 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
30 Conc. Monument
30 30 N 27°27′ W 457.18 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
31 Conc. Monument
31 31 N 70°38′ W 666.55 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
32 Conc. Monument
32 32 S 70°38′ W 405.88 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
33 Conc. Monument
33 33 S 70°38′ W 405.88 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
34 Conc. Monument
34 34 N 56°22′ W 576.53 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
35 Conc. Monument
35 35 N 23°06′ W 432.74 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
36 Conc. Monument
36 36 N 23°06′ W 432.74 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
37 Conc. Monument
37 37 N 57°13′ W 255.53 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
38 Conc. Monument
38 38 N 21°36′ W 597.70 meters 20 CM X 20 CM Bank of Moral
39 Conc. Monument River
39 39 N 50°06′ W 544.26 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
40 Conc. Monument
40 40 N 50°06′ W 544.26 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
41 Conc. Monument
41 41 N 50°06′ W 544.26 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
42 Conc. Monument
42 42 N 54°41′ W 687.07 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
43 Conc. Monument
43 43 N 40°08′ W 679.01 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
44 Conc. Monument
44 44 S 88°21′ W 416.82 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
45 Conc. Monument
45 45 S 88°21′ W 416.82 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
46 Conc. Monument
46 46 N 50°51′ W 513.23 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
47 Conc. Monument
47 47 N 50°51′ W 513.24 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
48 Conc. Monument
48 48 N 07°01′ W 513.93 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
49 Conc. Monument
49 49 N 74°47′ W 387.00 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
50 Conc. Monument
50 50 N 45°52′ E 421.69 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
51 Conc. Monument
51 51 N 45°52′ E 421.69 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
52 Conc. Monument
52 52 N 45°52′ E 421.69 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
53 Conc. Monument
53 53 N 45°52′ E 421.69 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
54 Conc. Monument
54 54 N 45°52′ E 421.69 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
55 Conc. Monument
55 55 N 45°52′ E 421.69 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
56 Conc. Monument
56 56 N 45°52′ E 421.69 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
57 Conc. Monument
57 57 N 45°52′ E 421.69 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
58 Conc. Monument
58 58 N 45°52′ E 421.75 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
59 Conc. Monument
59 59 N 52°38′ W 219.42 meters 20 CM X 20 CM Bank of Matanao
60 Conc. Monument River
60 60 N 42°16′ W 325.45 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
61 Conc. Monument
61 61 N 37°50′ W 190.47 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
62 Conc. Monument
62 62 N 45°15′ W 335.05 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
63 Conc. Monument
63 63 N 16°52′ W 300.70 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
64 Conc. Monument
64 64 N 68°18′ W 239.00 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
65 Conc. Monument
65 65 N 64°30′ W 363.10 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
66 Conc. Monument
66 66 N 19°38′ W 372.02 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
67 Conc. Monument
67 67 N 56°38′ W 352.12 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
68 Conc. Monument
68 68 N 25°48′ E 544.59 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
69 Conc. Monument
69 69 N 41°01′ E 579.42 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
70 Conc. Monument
70 70 N 26°30′ W 374.40 meters 20 CM X 20 CM Bank of Darapuay
71 Conc. Monument River
71 71 N 29°00′ E 322.11 meters 20 CM X 20 CM Bank of Darapuay
72 Conc. Monument River
72 72 N 70°53′ W 145.26 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
 73 Conc. Monument
73 73 N 74°20′ W 246.28 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
74 Conc. Monument
74 74 N 59°14′ W 226.30 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
75 Conc. Monument
75 75 S 60°53′ W 137.63 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
76 Conc. Monument
76 76 S 19°37′ W 241.07 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
77 Conc. Monument
77 77 N 52°34′ W 181.94 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
78 Conc. Monument
78 78 N 75°07′ W 227.31 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
79 Conc. Monument
79 79 N 76°43′ W 243.70 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
80 Conc. Monument
80 80 N 12°20′ E 322.03 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
81 Conc. Monument
81 81 N 06°19′ W 218.85 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
82 Conc. Monument
82 82 N 21°48′ W 339.70 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
83 Conc. Monument
83 83 N 66°29′ W 214.94 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
84 Conc. Monument
84 84 N 24°22′ W 228.13 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
85 Conc. Monument
85 85 N 59°57′ W 256.35 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
86 Conc. Monument
86 86 N 18°47′ W 306.65 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
87 Conc. Monument
87 87 S 29°29′ W 286.43 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
88 Conc. Monument
88 88 N 72°20′ W 358.85 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
89 Conc. Monument
89 89 N 81°33′ W 244.92 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
90 Conc. Monument
90 90 S 84°28′ W 223.56 meters 20 CM X 20 CM Bank of Bulatukan
91 Conc. Monument River
91 91 S 78°36′ W 247.51 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
92 Conc. Monument
92 92 N 53°38′ W 228.94 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
93 Conc. Monument
93 93 N 44°45′ W 275.67 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
94 Conc. Monument
94 94 N 58°46′ E 574.34 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
95 Conc. Monument
95 95 N 13°32′ E 326.12 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
96 Conc. Monument
96 96 N 06°10′ W 223.82 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
97 Conc. Monument
97 97 N 61°40′ E 606.13 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
98 Conc. Monument
98 98 N 02°49′ E 334.72 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
99 Conc. Monument
99 99 N 38°06′ W 261.89 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
100 Conc. Monument
100 100 N 37°53′ W 295.47 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
101 Conc. Monument
101 101 N 22°23′ W 92.47 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
102 Conc. Monument
102 102 N 10°34′ W 226.44 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
103 Conc. Monument
103 103 N 10°56′ W 206.41 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
104 Conc. Monument
104 104 N 39°56′ W 147.19 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
105 Conc. Monument
105 105 N 13°11′ W 172.15 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
106 Conc. Monument
106 106 N 34°10′ W 163.59 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
107 Conc. Monument
107 107 N 31°31′ W 264.89 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
108 Conc. Monument
108 108 N 15°34′ E 189.16 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
109 Conc. Monument
109 109 N 23°09′ E 385.25 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
110 Conc. Monument
110 110 N 58°23′ W 120.01 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
111 Conc. Monument
111 111 N 34°14′ W 251.63 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
112 Conc. Monument
112 112 N 58°56′ W 180.44 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
113 Conc. Monument
113 113 N 34°28′ E 151.11 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
114 Conc. Monument
114 114 N 07°21′ W 264.73 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
115 Conc. Monument
115 115 N 03°15′ E 237.75 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
116 Conc. Monument
116 116 N 49°07′ E 209.00 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
117 Conc. Monument
117 117 N 25°45′ E 222.42 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
118 Conc. Monument
118 118 N 28°28′ E 116.28 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
119 Conc. Monument
119 119 N 14°59′ E 104.64 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
 120 Conc. Monument
120 120 N 06°57′ E 235.53 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
121 Conc. Monument
121 121 N 29°12′ W 177.93 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
122 Conc. Monument
122 122 N 66°00′ W 204.78 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
123 Conc. Monument
123 123 N 18°27′ W 171.50 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
124 Conc. Monument
124 124 N 46°55′ W 187.45 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
125 Conc. Monument
125 125 N 63°11′ W 106.18 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
126 Conc. Monument
126 126 N 00°15′ E 84.97 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
127 Conc. Monument
127 127 N 34°58′ E 465.16 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
128 Conc. Monument
128 128 N 32°48′ E 246.11 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
129 Conc. Monument
129 129 N 32° 29′ E 327.96 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
130 Conc. Monument
130 130 N 23°13′ E 409.96 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
131 Conc. Monument
131 131 N 35°11′ E 222.55 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
132 Conc. Monument
132 132 N 21°54′ E 352.23 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
133 Conc. Monument
133 133 N 25°01′ W 246.03 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
134 Conc. Monument
134 134 N 70°28′ W 158.87 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
135 Conc. Monument
135 135 N 36°21′ W 205.43 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
136 Conc. Monument
136 136 N 33°49′ E 320.92 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
137 Conc. Monument
137 137 N 36°48′ W 165.94 meters 20C X 20 CM On cultivated land
138 Conc. Monument
138 138 N 02°55′ E 107.58 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
139 Conc. Monument
139 139 N 08°51′ W 63.27 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
140 Conc. Monument
140 140 N 27°50′ W 84.97 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
141 Conc. Monument
141 141 N 54°42′ E 85.99 meters 20 CM X 20 CM Bank of Saging
142 Conc. Monument River
142 142 N 51°47′ W 995.32 meters 20 CM X 20 CM Bank of Saging
143 Conc. Monument River
143 143 S 52°57′ W 1,357.05 meters 20 CM X 20 CM Bank of Saging
144 Conc. Monument River
144 144 N 39°41′ W 159.67 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
145 Conc. Monument
145 145 N 27°03′ E 537.59 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
146 Conc. Monument
146 146 N 44°55′ E 312.79 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
147 Conc. Monument
147 147 N 65°50′ E 356.78 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
148 Conc. Monument
148 148 N 26°31′ E 212.59 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
149 Conc. Monument
149 149 N 30°55′ E 342.88 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
150 Conc. Monument
150 150 N 48°37′ E 240.75 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
151 Conc. Monument
151 151 N 26°48′ W 269.36 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
152 Conc. Monument
152 152 N 35°43′ E 245.49 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
153 Conc. Monument
153 153 N 11°04′ W 254.86 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
154 Conc. Monument
154 154 N 15°08′ W 207.35 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
155 Conc. Monument
155 155 N 78°41′ W 598.44 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
156 Conc. Monument
156 156 N 01°02′ W 334.97 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
157 Conc. Monument
157 157 N 50°10′ E 267.83 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
158 Conc. Monument
158 158 N 42°16′ E 272.51 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
159 Conc. Monument
159 159 N 83°25′ E 294.48 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
160 Conc. Monument
160 160 N 46°43′ E 134.02 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
161 Conc. Monument
161 161 S 19°11′ E 202.00 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
162 Conc. Monument
162 162 S 01°34′ W 44.03 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
163 Conc. Monument
163 163 S 80° 57′ W 60.92 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
164 Conc. Monument
164 164 N 10°53′ W 39.72 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
165 Conc. Monument
165 165 N 84°14′ W 98.93 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
166 Conc. Monument
166 166 S 45°46′ E 30.96 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
 167 Conc. Monument
167 167 S 12°33′ W 46.68 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
168 Conc. Monument
168 168 N 65°03′ E 38.04 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
169 Conc. Monument
169 169 N 87°09′ E 41.10 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
170 Conc. Monument
170 170 S 43°08′ E 30.14 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
171 Conc. Monument
171 171 S 67°04′ E 64.94 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
172 Conc. Monument
172 172 S 70°40′ E 33.39 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
173 Conc. Monument
173 173 N 77°58′ E 23.84 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
174 Conc. Monument
174 174 S 71°30′ E 161.36 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
175 Conc. Monument
175 175 S 58°39′ E 157.27 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
176 Conc. Monument
176 176 S 78°44′ E 66.91 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
177 Conc. Monument
177 177 S 72°23′ E 64.58 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
178 Conc. Monument
178 178 S 79°12′ E 58.92 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
179 Conc. Monument
179 179 S 77°43′ E 67.98 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
180 Conc. Monument
180 180 S 68°51′ E 19.51 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
181 Conc. Monument
181 181 S 69°49′ E 50.09 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
182 Conc. Monument
182 182 N 50°04′ E 32.34 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
183 Conc. Monument
183 183 N 69°10′ E 20.28 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
184 Conc. Monument
184 184 S 58°54′ E 75.80 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
185 Conc. Monument
185 185 N 64°23′ E 57.60 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
186 Conc. Monument
186 186 S 43°04′ E 22.41 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
187 Conc. Monument
187 187 N 57°34′ E 24.58 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
188 Conc. Monument
188 188 S 53°42′ E 58.57 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
189 Conc. Monument
189 189 S 79°31′ E 13.17 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
190 Conc. Monument
190 190 N 62°55′ E 36.16 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
191 Conc. Monument
191 191 S 88°44′ E 117.56 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
192 Conc. Monument
192 192 N 67°40′ E 23.06 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
193 Conc. Monument
193 193 S 34°44′ E 27.89 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
194 Conc. Monument
194 194 S 48°29′ E 34.71 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
195 Conc. Monument
195 195 N 05°35′ E 37.85 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
196 Conc. Monument
196 196 N 03°17′ E 203.55 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
197 Conc. Monument
197 197 N 02°38′ E 196.27 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
198 Conc. Monument
198 198 S 88°10′ E 247.93 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
199 Conc. Monument
199 199 N 03°09′ E 203.35 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
200 Conc. Monument
200 200 S 89°45′ E 116.19 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
201 Conc. Monument
201 201 N 56°33′ E 342.40 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
202 Conc. Monument
202 202 N 17°37′ W 472.61 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
203 Conc. Monument
203 203 N 46°29′ E 325.93 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
204 Conc. Monument
204 204 N 37°54′ E 359.20 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
205 Conc. Monument
205 205 N 59°08′ E 507.88 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
206 Conc. Monument
206 206 N 56°13′ E 594.01 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On cultivated land
207 Conc. Monument
207 207 N 71°34′ E 920.68 meters 20 CM X 20 CM Bank of Marber
208 Conc. Monument River
208 208 N 74°38′ E 1,095.08 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On slope of ridge
209 Conc. Monument
209 209 N 86°40′ E 480.75 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On slope of ridge
210 Conc. Monument
210 210 N 34°45′ E 485.23 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On slope of ridge
211 Conc. Monument
211 211 N 12°39′ E 511.75 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On slope of ridge
212 Conc. Monument
212 212 N 81°02′ E 749.38 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On slope of ridge
213 Conc. Monument
213 213 S 77°43′ E 695.02 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On slope of ridge
 214 Conc. Monument
214 214 N 55°19′ E 515.09 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On slope of ridge
215 Conc. Monument
215 215 S 53°51′ E 502.87 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On slope of ridge
216 Conc. Monument
216 216 S 52°03′ E 694.79 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On slope of ridge
217 Conc. Monument
217 217 S 89°45′ E 507.80 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On slope of ridge
218 Conc. Monument
218 218 S 44°09′ E 538.63 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On slope of ridge
219 Conc. Monument
219 219 S 75°49′ E 746.71 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On slope of ridge
220 Conc. Monument
220 220 N 61°12′ E 514.57 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On slope of ridge
221 Conc. Monument
221 221 N 68°17′ E 511.94 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On slope of ridge
222 Conc. Monument
222 222 N 14°33′ E 475.54 meters 20 CM X 20 CM Slope of ridge north
223 Conc. Monument of Kabacan River
223 223 N 34°18′ E 548.94 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On slope of ridge
224 Conc. Monument
224 224 N 64°52′ E 484.01 meters 20 CM X 20 CM On slope of ridge
225 Conc. Monument
225 225 S 23°16′ W 1,803.49 meters 20 CM X 20 CM Identical to cor.
226 Conc. Monument 129, MANP
226 226 S 83°22′ W 1,398.22 meters 20 CM X 20 CM Identical to cor.
227 Conc. Monument 128, MANP
227 227 N 67°46′ W 2,259.01 meters 20 CM X 20 CM Identical to cor.
228 Conc. Monument 127, MANP
228 228 S 71°09′ W 3,615.81 meters 20 CM X 20 CM Identical to cor.
229 Conc. Monument 126, MANP
229 229 S 51°09′ E 1,734.11 meters 20 CM X 20 CM Identical to cor.
230 Conc. Monument 125, MANP
230 230 S 09°47′ W 588.56 meters 20 CM X 20 CM Identical to cor.
231 Conc. Monument 224, MANP
231 231 S 61°23′ E 751.84 meters A point Identical to cor.
232 01 Geothermal Res.
232 232 N 14°02′ W 371.07 meters A point Identical to cor.
233 04 Geothermal Res.
233 233 S 46°58′ E 615.63 meters STAKE Identical to cor.
234 119, MANP
234 234 S 29°51′ W 92.42 meters STAKE Identical to cor.
235 118, MANP
235 235 S 52°12′ W 620.00 meters STAKE Identical to cor.
236 117, MANP
236 236 S 37°48′ W 820.00 meters STAKE Identical to cor.
237 116, MANP
237 237 S 89°00′ W 1,633.62 meters STAKE Identical to cor.
238 115, MANP
238 238 S 59°42′ W 558.32 meters STAKE Identical to cor.
239 114, MANP
239 239 S 05°58′ W 788.39 meters STAKE Identical to cor.
240 113, MANP
240 240 S 41°59′ W 598.15 meters STAKE Identical to cor.
241 112, MANP
241 241 S 78°35′ W 281.30 meters STAKE Identical to cor.
242 111, MANP
242 242 S 64°57′ W 510.64 meters STAKE Identical to cor.
243 110, MANP
243 243 S 38°07′ W 293.20 meters STAKE Identical to cor.
244 109, MANP
244 244 S 69°21′ W 487.24 meters STAKE Identical to cor.
245 108, MANP
245 245 N 86°13′ W 971.65 meters STAKE Identical to cor.
246 107, MANP
246 246 S 01°27′ E 417.96 meters STAKE Identical to cor.
247 106, MANP
247 247 S 37°47′ E 506.92 meters STAKE Identical to cor.
248 105, MANP
248 248 S 16°02′ W 1,893.96 meters STAKE Identical to cor.
249 104, MANP
249 249 S 06°24′ W 1,348.10 meters STAKE Identical to cor.
250 103, MANP
250 250 S 12°56′ E 2,053.92 meters STAKE Identical to cor.
251 102, MANP
251 251 S 05°06′ E 2,161.48 meters STAKE Identical to cor.
252 101, MANP
252 252 S 50°00′ E 1,791.19 meters STAKE Identical to cor.
253 100, MANP
253 253 S 82°47′ E 672.03 meters STAKE Identical to cor.
254 99, MANP
254 254 S 76°48′ E 320.53 meters STAKE Identical to cor.
255 98, MANP
255 255 S 46°52′ E 542.18 meters STAKE Identical to cor.
256 97, MANP
256 256 S 01°19′ E 1,032.99 meters STAKE Identical to cor.
257 96, MANP
257 257 S 20°46′ E 3,193.79 meters STAKE Identical to cor.
258 95, MANP
258 258 S 46°16′ W 2,359.62 meters STAKE Identical to cor.
259 94, MANP
259 259 S 53°47′ E 3,390.96 meters STAKE Identical to cor:
260 93, MANP
260 260 S 00°09′ E 487.82 meters STAKE Identical to cor.
 261 92, MANP
261 261 S 57°56′ E 564.60 meters STAKE Identical to cor.
262 91, MANP
262 262 S 27°59′ E 1,076.23 meters STAKE Identical to cor.
263 90, MANP
263 263 N 88°37′ E 352.11 meters STAKE Identical to cor.
264 89, MANP
264 264 S 78°21′ E 767.59 meters STAKE Identical to cor.
265 88, MANP
265 265 N 82°42′ E 1,921.99 meters STAKE Identical to cor.
266 87, MANP
266 266 S 84°54′ E 1,918.83 meters STAKE Identical to cor.
267 86, MANP
267 267 N 26°19′ E 867.72 meters STAKE Identical to cor.
268 85, MANP
268 268 N 52°09′ E 502.97 meters STAKE Identical to cor.
269 84, MANP
269 269 S 89°34′ E 798.06 meters STAKE Identical to cor.
270 83, MANP
270 270 N 61°39′ E 428.68 meters STAKE Identical to cor.
271 82, MANP
271 271 S 86°49′ E 903.14 meters STAKE Identical to cor.
272 81, MANP
272 272 S 43°58′ E 528.01 meters SAKE Identical to cor.
273 80, MANP
273 273 S 42°21′ E 890.68 meters STAKE Identical to cor.
274 79, MANP
274 274 S 63°53′ E 1,223.94 meters STAKE Identical to cor.
275 78, MANP
275 275 S 24°39′ E 672.95 meters STAKE Identical to cor.
276 77, MANP
276 276 S 36°01′ E 1,216.78 meters STAKE Identical to cor.
277 76. MANP
277 277 S 49°54′ E 1,109.34 meters STAKE Identical to cor.
1 75, MANP

A portion of land immediately adjacent to the PNOC Reservation Area outside the protected area
and within the boundary of buffer zone parcel (2) as described in this section shall be allocated as an
energy support zone for the sustenance of the existing geothermal installation to ensure the power
security in the region. The boundary limits of the energy support zone shall be subject to ground
delineation by the PAMB and said energy support zone shall be made part of the land use zoning of
the park and its buffer zones: Provided, That other land uses compatible with geothermal energy
shall be allowed within the energy support zone: Provided, further, That permits for geothermal
activities within the energy support zone shall be secured pursuant to relevant forestry and
environmental regulations: Provided, however, That geothermal exploration within the energy
support zone for the purpose of increasing the power capacity of the existing project shall only be
allowed through a law passed by Congress: Provided, finally, That areas through a law passed by
Congress: Provided, finally, That areas within the energy support zone which shall not be used
directly for the development and utilization of geothermal energy shall remain under the control and
jurisdiction of the PAMB.

CHAPTER II

PROTECTED AREA MANAGEMENT

SEC 6. Management Plan. — Within one (1) year from the effectivity of this Act and in accordance
with the General Management Planning Strategy as provided in the NIPAS Act, there shall be a
Management Plan to be prepared by the Office of the Protected Area Superintendent (PASu) in
coordination with the local communities, indigenous cultural communities/indigenous peoples, local
government units (LGUs), appropriate offices of the DENR, non-government and people’s
organizations, existing operators in the park and experts with socioeconomic, anthropological and
ecological experience in the area. It shall contain, among others, the following:

(a) Period of applicability of the plan, preferably at least fifteen (15) years;

(b) Key management issues;

(c) Goals and objectives of management in support of Section 2 hereof;

(d) Site management strategy;

(e) Major management activities such as, but not limited to, enforcement of laws, biodiversity
conservation habitat and wildlife management, sustainable use management, infrastructure
development and maintenance, and fire and pest control;

(f) Establishment and delineation of zones and the regulated and/or prohibited activities therein,
such as, but not limited to, multipurpose use zones, buffer zones, recreational zones, strict
protection zones and other special zones which can provide effective management of the protected
area and promote sustainable development of all legitimate stakeholders. To avoid relocation,
primary consideration shall be accorded to the traditional zones used which have been proven
sustainable and in consonance with the biodiversity and protection of the natural characteristics of
the protected area; and

(g) Visitor management programs.

The Management Plan shall be consistent with the nature of Mt. Apo as a protected area under the
category of a natural park. It shall be reviewed and approved by the PAMB and certified to by the
Secretary that it conforms to all laws and regulations issued by the DENR. The Management Plan
shall not be revised nor modified except by prior consultation with the PAMB and in accordance with
the procedure herein set forth. If any part or section of the Management Plan is inconsistent with
existing laws, the Secretary shall certify to the other provisions of the plan that are consistent with
the laws. Unless the Secretary accepts or adopts such inconsistent provisions, he/she shall notify
the PAMB of the provisions that need modification or revision.

Two (2) years before the expiration of the initial Management Plan, there shall be a subsequent plan
to be prepared and submitted by the Office of the Protected Area Superintendent in the same
manner as the procedure and principles herein set forth and in accordance with the General
Management Planning Strategy as provided in the NIPAS Act. In the same period, the Office of the
Protected Area Superintendent shall cause the publication of notices for comments and suggestions
on the proposed plan in a newspaper of local circulation and the actual posting of such notices in
conspicuous places within the LGUs in the Mt. Apo Natural Park. The proposed new Management
Plan shall be made available for public perusal in all agencies, offices, and organizations duly
represented in the PAMB.

In the event that no subsequent plan is adopted upon the expiration of the initial management plan,
the latter shall remain in force subject to interim modifications that may be adopted by the PAMB.

SEC 7. The Protected Area Management Board. — There shall be a Protected Area Management
Board (PAMB) which shall serve as the highest policy-making body of the Mt. Apo Natural Park. It
shall be composed of the following:

(a) The Regional Executive Director (RED) of DENR Region XI who shall sit as PAMB Chairman as
provided for under Section 11(d) of the NIPAS Act;

(b) The RED of DENR Region XII or his/her duly designated permanent representative;

(c) The provincial governors of North Cotabato and Davao del Sur or their authorized permanent
representatives;

(d) The Planning and Development Officers of Davao City and the provinces of Cotabato and Davao
del Sur or their respective authorized permanent representative;

(e) The municipal/city mayors of Magpet, Makilala, Kidapawan, Bansalan, Sta. Cruz, Digos and
Davao City or their respective authorized permanent representative;

(f) All barangay captains within the Mt. Apo Natural Park;

(g) Three (3) representatives from the indigenous cultural communities, composed of one (1)
representative from each of the three (3) sub-tribes (Jangan, Ubo and Tagabawa) in Mt. Apo subject
to increases upon determination of the existence of other sub-tribes based on an ethnographic study
to be conducted by an independent institution or academe and validated by the National
Commission for Indigenous Peoples (NCIP);

(h) A maximum of eight (8) representatives from people’s organizations (POs) and non-government
organizations (NGOs);

(i) Representatives from national government agencies operating within the protected area which
can potentially contribute to protected area management; and

(j) Other stakeholders who can potentially assist and contribute in the protection, preservation, and
conservation of the Mt. Apo Natural Park.

In the selection of representatives from people’s and non-government organizations, the following
criteria shall be primarily considered:

(a) active involvement in the ecological conservation, preservation, rehabilitation and protection of
the protected area;

(b) great potential in community organizing and other development works;

(c) favorable track record in community work; and

(d) duly accredited by the LGU concerned and the DENR.

SEC 8. Term of Office of the PAMB Members. — Every member of the PAMB shall serve for a term
of five (5) years: Provided, That he/she remains a member or employee of the sector or office he/she
is representing. If a vacancy occurs, a new member shall be chosen in accordance with the original
selection process; however, only the remaining term shall be served.

SEC 9. Powers and Functions of the PAMB. — The PAMB of Mt. Apo Natural Park, being the
highest policy-making body, shall have the following powers and functions:

(a) Decide and approve matters relating to proposals, work and action plans, guidelines and policies
and other activities for the management of the protected area;

(b) Review, approve and adopt the management plans and development programs and their
respective implementing rules and regulations;

(c) Recommend and approve the establishment and delineation of zones;

(d) Establish supplemental criteria and guidelines for park fees for activities regulated by this Act or
the Management Plan subject to DENR’s approval pursuant to Section 10(f) of the NIPAS Act;

(e) Ensure the effective implementation of development activities within the protected area;

(f) Adopt rules and procedures in the conduct of business, roles and responsibilities, and discipline
of its board members, including the creation of standing committees;

(g) Evaluate the performance and activities of the Office of the Protected Area Superintendent;

(h) Accept donations, approve proposals for funding and budget allocation and exercise
accountability over all funds that may accrue;

(i) Evaluate and recommend compliance to all existing requirements set by the DENR particularly in
the issuance of the Environmental Compliance Certificate;

(j) Recognize the rights and privileges of indigenous communities under the provisions of this Act
and other applicable laws;

(k) Request assistance from any government agency, office, board, private or public person to
achieve the objectives of this Act;

(l) Monitor and evaluate the performance of protected area personnel, NGOs, and the communities
in biodiversity conservation and sociocultural and economic development and report its assessment
to the DENR; and

(m) Participate in the selection and designation process of the DENR in the appointment of the
Protected Area Superintendent.
The DENR, through the REDs, shall ensure that the PAMB acts within the scope of its powers and
functions. In case of conflict between administrative orders issued by the DENR pursuant to the
NIPAS Act and other laws and resolutions issued by the PAMB, the DENR Secretary shall decide
whether to apply the rule or withdraw its application.

SEC 10. The Executive Committee of the PAMB. — There shall be an Executive Committee within
the PAMB to which the latter may delegate some of its powers and functions. It shall be composed
of the following:

(a) The Regional Executive Director (RED) of DENR Region XI who shall sit as Chairman;

(b) The RED of DENR Region XII or his/her duly designated permanent representative;

(c) The Planning and Development Officers of Cotabato, Davao Del Sur and Davao City or their
authorized permanent representative as designated by the provincial governor/city mayor;

(d) The municipal/city mayors of Magpet, Makilala, Kidapawan, Bansalan, Sta. Cruz, Digos and
Davao City or their authorized permanent representative;

(e) One (1) barangay captain from each of the municipalities of Magpet, Makilala, Bansalan, Sta.
Cruz, and cities of Kidapawan, Digos, and Davao, selected from among themselves;

(f) Three (3) representatives of the indigenous cultural communities representing Davao City, North
Cotabato and Davao del Sur;

(g) Three (3) representatives of people’s organizations (POs) representing Davao City, North
Cotabato and Davao del Sur;

(h) Three (3) representatives of NGOs representing Davao City, North Cotabato and Davao del Sur;
and

(i) One (1) representative each from the national government agencies and relevant stakeholders
described in Section 7(i) hereof.

SEC 11. The Protected Area Superintendent Office. — There shall be a Protected Area
Superintendent Office for Mt. Apo Natural Park within the DENR headed by the Protected Area
Superintendent who shall serve as the chief operating officer of the protected area. The Protected
Area Superintendent Office shall have the following powers and functions:

A. Administrative

(1) Serve as chief administrative officer of the protected area for the purpose of implementing the
Management Plan as detailed in the annual work program;

(2) Establish a productive partnership with the local community, including groups, in the planning,
protection and management of the protected area;

(3) Ensure the performance and good morale of his staff;

(4) Ensure the proper utilization of annual budget allocations and the proper disposition of fees and
other funds generated within the protected area;
(5) Develop and implement a park information, education and visitor program;

(6) Develop and implement a natural history documentation program and to oversee research that
may be conducted within the area;

(7) Integrate the roles of NGO and DENR staff in the operation of the area; and

(8) Document the processes involved in the establishment and management of the protected area,
with particular reference to the development of relationships with cultural communities, tenured
migrants, buffer zone residents and others in establishing effective protection of the area.

B. Regulative

(1) To act as peace officer for the purpose of maintaining peace and order within the protected area.
As peace officer, he shall exercise police supervision therein and may arrest any person found in
any place within protected areas who is committing, has committed, or is about to commit an offense
which is prohibited in this Act;

(2) Enforce rules and regulations established to protect the area and preserve the area from
trespass, damage, injury and illegal occupancy;

(3) Require, when necessary, any person entering or passing through or any part of the protected
area under his jurisdiction, to give the following information: name, address, the proposed duration of
stay inside the protected area and the portion which he intends to visit or has visited and such other
information of similar nature as may be referred to him;

(4) Summarily remove or eject from the area persons who have rendered themselves obnoxious by
disorderly conduct or bad behavior or who have violated any of the regulations on the protected
area;

(5) Require persons cutting and/or gathering forest products or hunting or fishing within the protected
area to produce, upon demand, authority or permit to do so;

(6) Seize and confiscate timber or other forest products, game birds, animals, and fish, including
instruments, tools and conveyances used inside the protected area by unlicensed persons, or if
licensed, in violation of protected area laws, rules and regulations, and to report them in accordance
with the present rules, regulations and guidelines issued by the Secretary concerning confiscation,
seizure and disposition of illegally cut, gathered, transported forest products, and other natural
resources and confiscated wildlife; and

(7) Perform such other powers and duties as may from time to time be prescribed by higher
authorities.

The Protected Area Superintendent Office shall be supported by a sufficient number of personnel
who shall be performing day-to-day management, protection and administration of the protected
area.

All DENR employees detailed with the protected area at the time of the effectivity of this Act shall be
accorded preference to form part of the Protected Area Superintendent Office.

CHAPTER III
 ANCESTRAL DOMAIN AND TENURED MIGRANTS

SEC 12. Ancestral Lands and Domain. — The rights of indigenous cultural communities to their
ancestral domains shall be fully recognized subject to Section 56 of the IPRA. Traditional property
regimes exercised by indigenous cultural communities in accordance with their customary laws shall
govern the relationships of all individuals within their communities with respect to all lands and
resources found within ancestral lands.

Indigenous cultural communities may apply for Certificates of Ancestral Domain Title (CADT) as
provided in the IPRA. The provisions of this Act shall be construed liberally in favor of the indigenous
cultural communities in accordance with the conservation and preservation objectives of the Mt. Apo
Natural Park and its resources.

Nothing herein shall be construed to impair or diminish prior or existing rights currently enjoyed by
the indigenous cultural communities as provided by existing laws. Permits, licenses or authorities
required by this Act or any other statutes concerning the continued use, extraction or exploitation of
forest products and/or possession or occupation of land within the protected area shall not be
unnecessarily withheld from the indigenous cultural communities by the granting authority.

SEC 13. Tenured Migrants. — Tenured migrants shall be eligible to become stewards of portions of
lands within the designated buffer and multiple-use zones. The PAMB shall identify, verify and,
subject to Section 56 of the IPRA, review all tenure instrument, land claims, and issuance of permits
for resource use within the protected area and recommend the issuance of the appropriate tenure
instrument consistent with the land classification, proper and allowed use of resources found therein,
and zoning provided in the management or successor plans. Farmers who have been cultivating
land within the protected area are considered to be occupying such lands and shall be entitled to a
tenure instrument limited to cultivation and residence: Provided, That the rights under such can only
be transferred to direct descendants.

Nothing herein shall be construed to mean any diminution of accrued rights earned by tenured
migrants. If areas occupied by tenured migrants are designated as zones in which no occupation or
other activities are allowed, they shall be transferred to multiple-use zones or buffer zones to be
accomplished through just and humane means.

In the event of termination of a tenure instrument for cause or by voluntary surrender of rights, the
Protected Area Superintendent shall take immediate steps to rehabilitate the area in order to return it
to its natural state prior to the cultivation or other act by the tenured migrant.

SEC 14. Existing Rights. — All prior and property and private rights within the protected area and its
buffer zones and the ancestral domains already existing and/or vested upon the effectivity of this Act
shall be protected and respected in accordance with existing laws.

CHAPTER IV

PROHIBITED ACTS AND PENALTIES

SEC 15. Special Prosecutor. — Within thirty (30) days from the effectivity of this Act, the Department
of Justice (DOJ) shall appoint a special prosecutor to whom all cases of violation of laws, rules and
regulations in the protected area shall be assigned. Such special prosecutor shall coordinate with
the PAMB and the Protected Area Superintendent in the performance of his/her duties and assist in
the training of wardens and rangers in arrest and criminal procedure. The PAMB shall periodically
submit an evaluation of the performance of the designated special prosecutor to the DOJ.
SEC 16. Prohibited Acts and Penalties. —

A. The penalties and qualifications prescribed in Articles 309, on Theft, and 310, on Qualified Theft,
of the Revised Penal Code depending on the value of the resources involved in connection with the
prohibited act shall be imposed upon any person who:

(1) Hunts, takes, destroys, disturbs or possesses any timber, forest product, natural growing or wild
terrestrial or aquatic plants, animals, flora or fauna or products derived therefrom, or any form of
extraction or use of resources within particularly identified regulated or prohibited areas or zones in
the protected area including private lands, without the necessary protected area permit,
authorization or exemption, as issued or promulgated by the PAMB;

(2) Cuts, gathers, removes or collects timber or any forest products within particularly identified
prohibited areas or zones in the protected area including private lands, without the necessary
protected area permit, authorization or exemption, as issued or promulgated by the PAMB;

(3) Cuts, destroys any tree or shrubs or other erosion-preventing plants, or builds or introduces any
structure that would cause erosion in riparian areas mentioned in Section 16 of Presidential Decree
No. 705, as amended, or the Revised Forestry Code of the Philippines;

(4) Possesses outside the protected area any timber, forest products, wild terrestrial or aquatic
plants, animals, flora or fauna so prohibited by the PAMB or products derived therefrom which is
ascertained to have been taken from the protected area. It shall be presumed to have been taken
from the protected area if the subject plant, animals, flora or fauna is found in possession or control
of persons who traveled to the protected area within seventy-two (72) hours before the time of their
arrest; and

(5) Hunts, collects, removes, or destroys endangered or protected species, except when collection
or removal is for scientific research and is so exempted from this prohibition by the PAMB.

B. A fine ranging from One hundred thousand pesos (₱100,000.00) to Five hundred thousand pesos
(₱500,000.00), or imprisonment ranging from five (5) years to ten (10) years, or both, at the
discretion of the court, and the restoration and rehabilitation of the damage or, when appropriate, the
ejectment therefrom, shall be imposed upon any person who:

(1) Occupies, settles, or possesses any portion of the protected area, introduces improvements,
agricultural or otherwise, or performs kaingin therein not sanctioned by law or without the proper
permit and authority as required by the PAMB;

(2) Sells, buys, or offers to sell or buy any real property or rights within particularly identified
regulated areas or zones in the protected area;

(3) Occupies or possesses any portion of lands within the protected area by using force, intimidation,
threat, deceit or by taking advantage of the absence or tolerance of the rightful possessor, occupant,
or claimant;

(4) Uses explosives, noxious substances, or electricity for fishing within the protected area. The
possession of explosives, noxious or poisonous substances, electro-fishing devices and
paraphernalia, or fish caught through explosives, noxious or poisonous substances or electricity
within and nearby fishing areas or fishing boats shall constitute prima facie evidence that the
possessor thereof committed the act herein prohibited;
(5) Destroys, damages, mutilates, defaces, or commits any act of vandalism on any object of natural
beauty, object of anthropological or cultural importance, or non-renewable resource within the
protected area;

(6) Throws, discharges, or dumps within the protected zone any substance that is deleterious or
potentially deleterious to the ecosystem or of the plants, animals or inhabitants in the protected and
buffer areas, or committing same activities within the buffer zone without appropriate permit or
authority;

(7) Alters, removes, destroys or defaces any boundary markers, monuments, or interpretative signs
relating to the protected area;

(8) Causes damage to road, trails and pathways;

(9) Engages in any degree or form location/exploration, quarrying or extraction of mineral; and

(10) Obstructs or hinders the enforcement of this Act, its related laws, rules and regulations.

C. A fine ranging from Five thousand pesos (₱5,000.00) to One hundred thousand pesos
(P100,000.00), or imprisonment ranging from one (1) year to six (6) years, or both, at the discretion
of the court, shall be imposed upon any person who:

(1) Violates any rules and regulations promulgated by the PAMB or its duly authorized delegate or
any agreement or commitment reached before the PAMB;

(2) Deals any product illegally derived from the protected area, such as, but not limited to, selling,
buying, offering to sell or buy any timber, forest product, natural growing or wild terrestrial or aquatic
plants, animals, flora or fauna or products derived therefrom or any resource from within particularly
identified regulated or prohibited, areas or zones in the protected area without the necessary permit,
authorization or exemption for the utilization, and/or extraction thereof as provided by this Act and
other existing laws, rules and regulations;

(3) Uses any equipment which facilitates extraction of resources, regardless of such intention or
purpose within the protected area without the necessary protected area permit or authorization;

(4) Leaves debris, refuse, or garbage in exposed or unsanitary condition anywhere within the
protected area; and

(5) Enters any portion of the protected area for purposes of mountain climbing, camping, spelunking,
study, research or recreational visit without the necessary permit or authorization.

Administrative procedures for the investigation and validation of the violation shall be prepared by
the PAMB in coordination with the appropriate bureaus of the DENR.

If the act is committed by a corporation, organization, partnership or association, the penalty shall be
imposed on the chief executive officer and/or board of trustees of the corporation, organization or
managing partner of the partnership or association. Valuation of the damage shall take into account
biodiversity and conservation considerations as well as aesthetic and scenic value. Valuation by the
DENR or the concerned government agency shall be presumed correct unless proven otherwise.
Any person who shall induce or conspire with another person or other persons to commit any of the
acts prohibited in this Act or suffer their workers to commit any of the same shall be liable in the
same manner as the one actually performing the act.

SEC 17. Administrative Confiscation and Fine. — Administrative proceedings for violation of the
foregoing prohibited acts shall proceed independently and without prejudice to judicial action. The
PAMB through the Protected Area Superintendent is hereby empowered to impose an administrative
fine ranging from Five thousand pesos (₱5,000.00) to One hundred fifty thousand pesos
(₱150,000.00) and/or the cancellation of permit or license issued. Decisions of the Protected Area
Superintendent may be appealed within thirty (30) days from receipt of the decision to the PAMB
Executive Committee. The decision of the PAMB Executive Committee is appealable to the DENR
Secretary within a period of sixty (60) days from the receipt of the decision.

All conveyances, vessels, equipment, paraphernalia, implements, gear, tools and similar devices
shall be subject to immediate administrative confiscation by the Protected Area Superintendent
Office upon apprehension without prejudice to criminal action. Once the proper criminal action is
filed in the regular courts, the said conveyances, vessels, equipment, paraphernalia, implements,
gear, tools and similar devices shall be in custodia legis but shall continue to be subject to
administrative confiscation and may only be released by the trial court to the owner pending trial
upon consultation with the Protected Area Superintendent and with proper consideration of the
pending administrative proceedings and the potential forfeiture of the said objects.

Administrative fines collected and the proceeds of the sale of all objects administratively or judicially
confiscated or forfeited pursuant hereto shall accrue to the Integrated Protected Area Fund. The
procedure for the sale thereof shall be promulgated by the PAMB.

SEC 18. Special Counsel. — The-PAMB may retain the services of a competent lawyer to prosecute
or assist in the prosecution of cases or defend the members of the PAMB, the Protected Area
Superintendent and staff or any person assisting in the protection, conservation, and sustainable
development of the protected area against any legal action related to their powers, functions and
responsibilities as provided in this Act or as delegated or tasked by the PAMB.

CHAPTER V

MOUNT APO PROTECTED AREA FUNDS

SEC 19. Mount Apo Protected Area Fund. — There is hereby established a trust fund to be known
as the Mt. Apo Protected Area Fund for purposes of financing projects of the system. All income
generated from the operation of the system or management of wild flora and fauna in the protected
area shall accrue to the Fund. These income shall be derived from visitors/tourist fee, fees from
permitted sale and export of flora and fauna and other resources from the protected area, proceeds
from registration and lease of multiple-use areas including tourism concessions, contributions from
industries and facilities directly benefiting from the protected area; and such other fees, fines and
other income derived from the operation of the protected area.

The Fund may be augmented by grants, donations, endowment from various sources, domestic or
foreign for purposes related to their functions: Provided, That the Fund shall be deposited as a
special account in the national treasury and disbursement therefrom shall be made solely for the
protection, maintenance, administration, and management of the system, and duly approved
projects endorsed by the PAMB in accordance with existing accounting and budgeting rules and
regulations.
 CHAPTER VI

EXISTING FACILITIES, UTILIZATION OF NON-RENEWABLE

RESOURCES, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT, AND
PARTNERSHIP AMONG GOVERNMENT, NON-GOVERNMENT AND
PEOPLE’S ORGANIZATIONS

SEC 20. Existing Facilities within the Protected Area. — Existing facilities within the protected area
shall be inventoried and assessed by the PAMB in accordance with the objectives of this Act. Within
thirty (30) days from the effectivity of this Act, unless extended by the PAMB, all commercial facilities
existing within the boundaries of the protected area with a total capitalization exceeding One
hundred thousand pesos (₱100,000.00) shall submit to the PAMB through the Protected Area
Superintendent the following information:

(a) Environmental Impact Assessment and/or Environmental Management Plan;

(b) Environmental Compliance Certificate, if any; and

(c) Developmental Plan, if any.

Failure to submit the required information shall constitute a violation of this Act. Based on its
submission, the PAMB, with the assistance of the DENR shall assess such facility and its future plan
and operation vis-a-vis the objectives of this Act. The PAMB may prescribe conditions for the
operation of the facility to ensure that it does not contradict protected area management objectives.
If any of such conditions are violated, a fine of Five thousand pesos (₱5,000.00) for every day of
violation shall be imposed. If the fine reaches the total amount of Five hundred thousand pesos
(₱500,000.00), regardless of duration; the PAMB, through the Protected Area Superintendent and
deputizing other government entities, shall cause the cessation and demolition of the facility at the
cost of its owners.

The removal of existing facilities which provide basic services and amenities to the public shall
require the concurrence of the LGU consistent with the responsibility of the local government to its
constituents.

Existing facilities allowed to remain within the protected area may be charged a reasonable fee,
subject to DENR approval pursuant to Section 10(f) of the NIPAS Act by the PAMB based on the
extent of its impact on the environment and biodiversity.

SEC 21. Utilization of Non-renewable Resources. — Any exploration, exploitation or utilization of

non-renewable resources within the protected area shall not be allowed.

SEC 22. Environmental Impact Assessment System. — Existing laws, rules and regulations relating
to Environmental Impact Assessment shall be applicable to projects and activities intended in the
protected area. The issuance of the Environmental Compliance Certificate or its exemption shall be
coordinated with the PAMB.

SEC 23. Partnership among Government, Non-government Organizations and People’s

Organizations. — For the purpose of attaining the objectives of this Act, all government agencies,
non-government organizations, people’s organizations and their personnel shall continuously foster
and develop a strong and true partnership.
All non-government organizations, people’s organizations and private entities implementing any park
conservation, protection and development program must be accredited by the LGUs and the DENR.

SEC 24. Roles of Local Government Units and National Agencies in the Protected Area. — LGUs
and relevant national agencies shall be represented in the PAMB and shall have the following roles:

(a) Apprise their respective constituents, office, and sector on activities and programs for the
protected area;

(b) Ensure consistency in the implementation of all activities in the protected area;

(c) Retain their ordinance-making powers over the protected area and shall consider the
Management Plan and the rules and regulations adopted by the PAMB in their legislative agenda
relating to biodiversity, conservation, protection and sustainable development;

(d) In the formulation of their development plan, LGUs shall consider the protected area
management plan for Mt. Apo Protected Area to be prepared by the PAMB;

(e) Assist the PAMB in the implementation of the overall park programs, including but not limited to
the imposition, collection and utilization of park fees, enforcement of policies, rules and regulations
and other similar park activities;

(f) Accredit people’s organizations, non-government organizations and other entities and groups
involved in activities within the protected area; and

(g) Provide the PAMB with relevant information and data for the effective management of the
protected area.

SEC 25. Public Service Utilities, Projects. — All existing and future development projects of public
service utilities involving water services, communication facilities, power and energy generation,
public security, health and education services and other facilities which will promote public welfare,
shall be implemented within areas designated/approved by the PAMB and other appropriate
government agencies.

CHAPTER VII

APPROPRIATION AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

SEC 26. Appropriation. — The Secretary shall immediately include in the Department’s program the
implementation of this Act, the funding of which shall be included in the annual General
Appropriations Act.

SEC 27. Construction. — The provisions of this Act shall be construed liberally in favor of tenured
migrants and indigenous cultural communities and with due consideration of the prior property rights
of the stakeholders, to sustainable development, and the conservation and protection of biodiversity.
Republic Acts Numbers 7160, 7586, 8371 and 8550 or the Local Government Code, NIPAS Act,
IPRA, and Philippine Fisheries Code of 1998, respectively, and other existing forestry laws and their
corresponding rules and regulations not inconsistent hereto shall have suppletory effect in the
implementation of this Act.
SEC 28. Implementing Rules and Regulations. — Ninety (90) days after the effectivity of this Act, the
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), in consultation with the Senate
Committee on Environment and Natural Resources, the House of Representatives Committee on
Natural Resources, and the PAMB, shall promulgate the necessary rules and regulations to
effectively implement the provisions of this Act.

SEC 29. Repealing Clause. — All other existing laws, rules and regulations inconsistent with this Act
are hereby repealed or modified accordingly.

SEC 30. Separability Clause. — If any part or section of this Act is declared unconstitutional, such
declaration shall not affect the other parts or sections hereof.

SEC 31. Effectivity Clause. — This Act shall be translated in the Visayan language. It shall be
published once in a newspaper of general circulation readily available in the protected area. It shall
likewise be posted for three (3) consecutive weeks starting on the day of publication in newspapers
in both the English and Visayan languages in a conspicuous place in the provincial, municipal and
barangay halls within the area as well as in three (3) other places frequented by the public. This Act
shall take effect thirty (30) days from such publication and posting.

Approved,

==================================

PRESIDENTIAL DECREE No. 984 August 18, 1976

PROVIDING FOR THE REVISION OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 3931, COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE
POLLUTION CONTROL LAW, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

WHEREAS, there is a need to modify the organizational structure of the NATIONAL POLLUTION CONTROL
COMMISSION to make it more effective and efficient in the discharge of its functions and responsive to the
demands of the times occasioned by the accelerative phase of the country's industrialization program;

WHEREAS, there is an imperative need to strengthen this Commission to best protect the people from the
growing menace of environmental pollution; and

WHEREAS, it is urgently necessary to maintain the role of the Commission as the primary agency responsible
for the prevention and control of environmental pollution;

NOW, THEREFORE, I, FERDINAND E. MARCOS, President of the Philippines, by virtue of the powers vested
in me by the Constitution, do hereby order and decree the revision of Republic Act No. 3931, to be known as
the "National Pollution Control Decree of 1976," to read as follows:

Section 1. Statement of Policy. It is hereby declared a national policy to prevent, abate and control pollution of
water, air and land for the more effective utilization of the resources of this country.

Section 2. Definitions. As used in this Decree:

 (a) "Pollution" means any alteration of the physical, chemical and biological properties of any water, air
and/or land resources of the Philippines, or any discharge thereto of any liquid, gaseous or solid
wastes as will or is likely to create or to render such water, air and land resources harmful, detrimental
or injurious to public health, safety or welfare or which will adversely affect their utililization for
domestic, commercial, industrial, agricultural, recreational or other legitimate purposes.

(b) "Sewage" means the water-carried human or animal wastes from residences, buildings, industrial
establishments, or other places, together with such water infiltration and surface water as may be
present. The admixture or sewage and industrial wastes or other wastes as hereafter defined shall
also be considered "sewage."

(c) "Industrial Waste" means any liquid, gaseous or solid matter, or other waste substance or a
combination thereof resulting from any process of industry, manufacturing trade or business or from
the development, processing or recovery or any natural resources which may cause or tend to cause
pollution, or contribute to the pollution of the water, air and land resources of the Philippines.

(d) "Other Waste" means garbage, refuse, wood residues, sand, lime cinders, ashes, offal, night-oil,
tar, dye stuffs, acids, chemicals, and other substances not sewage or industrial waste which may
cause or tend to cause pollution; or contribute to the pollution of the water, air and land resources of
the Philippines.

(e) "Sewage System or Sewerage System" means pipe lines or conduits, pumping stations, force
mains, constructed drainage ditches, and all other constructions, devices, and appurtenances used for
collecting or conducting sewage, and industrial wastes or other wastes to a point of treatment,
discharge or ultimate disposal.

(f) "Treatment Works" means any method, construction device or appliance appurtenant thereto,
installed for the purpose of treating, neutralizing, stabilizing, disinfecting, or disposing of sewage,
industrial waste or other wastes, or for the recovery of by-product from such sewage, industrial waste
or other wastes.

(g) "Sewage Works" means individually or collectively those constructions or devices use for collecting,
pumping, treating, and disposing of sewage, industrial wastes or other waste, or for the recovery of by-
products from such sewage, industrial waste or other waste.

(h) "Outlet" means the terminus of a sewage works or point of emergence in the water, air and land
resources of the Philippines of any sewage, industrial wastes or other wastes.

(i) "Commission" means the National Pollution Control Commission.

(j) "Person" or "Persons" includes any being, natural or juridical, susceptible of rights and obligations or
of being the subject of legal relations.

Section 3. Creation of the National Pollution Control Commission; Members. There is hereby created and
established a National Pollution Control Commission under the Office of the President. The Commission shall
be headed by one full-time commissioner and assisted by two full-time deputy commissioners, one of whom
shall be responsible for standard-setting and monitoring and the other for enforcement.

The Commissioner shall be a man of proven executive ability. The Deputy Commissioner for Standard-Setting
and Monitoring shall preferably be a sanitary engineer, while the Deputy Commissioner for Enforcement shall
preferably be a lawyer. The Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioners must have technical expertise in the
field of pollution control.

The Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioners shall be appointed by the President of the Philippines.
Section 4. Inter-Agency Advisory Council. There is created an Inter-Agency Advisory Council, attached to the
Commission, which shall be composed of representatives designated by the Secretaries of the Department of
Agriculture, Health, Industry, Justice, Labor, Local Government and Community Development, National
Defense, Natural Resources, and Public Works, Transportation and Communications; the heads of the Laguna
Lake Development Authority, National Economic and Development Authority, the National Science
Development Board and the Human Settlements Commission. The Commissioner shall head the Inter-Agency
Advisory Council. Representatives from the private sector as may be affected, may be invited to the
deliberations of the Council.

Section 5. Organization of the Commission. The Commission shall have a Water Pollution Control Division, an
Air Pollution Control Division, a Research and Development Division, a Legal Division, an Administrative
Division and such other divisions or units as may be approved in the General Appropriation Act. Nothing herein
contained shall be construed as to automatically terminate or abolish any existing position in the Commission
nor shall it be construed as a prohibition against termination of any position.

The Commission shall also establish such regional offices as may be necessary.

The Commission shall provide such technical, scientific and other services, including the necessary laboratory
and other facilities as may be required to carry out the provisions of this Decree: Provided, That the
Commission may secure such services as it may deem necessary from other agencies of the National
Government, and may make arrangements for the compensation of such services. The Commission may also
employ and compensate, within appropriations available therefor, such consultants, experts, advisors, or
assistants on a full or part-time basis as may be necessary, coming from government or private business
entities, associations, or from local or foreign organizations, to carry out the provisions of this decree any may
prescribe their powers, duties and responsibilities.

The Commission may conduct scientific experiments, investigations and research to discover economical and
practical methods of preventing water, air and land pollution. To this end, the Commission may cooperate with
any public or private agency in the conduct of such experiments, investigations and research, and may accept
sums of money, for and in behalf of the National Government, given by any international, national or other
public or private agency for water, air and land pollution control activities, surveys or programs.

Section 6. Powers and Functions. The Commission shall have the following powers and functions:

(a) Determine the location, magnitude, extent, severity, causes, effects and other pertinent information
regarding pollution of the water, air and land resources of the country; take such measures, using
available methods and technologies, as it shall deem best to prevent or abate such pollution; and
conduct continuing researches and studies on the effective means for the control and abatement of
pollution.

(b) Develop comprehensive multi-year and annual plans for the abatement of existing pollution and the
prevention of new or imminent pollution, the implementation of which shall be consistent with the
national development plan of the country. Such plans shall indicate priorities and programs during the
year.

(c) Issue standards, rules and regulations to govern the approval of plans and specifications for
sewage works and industrial waste disposal systems and the issuance of permits in accordance with
the provisions of this Decree; inspect the construction and maintenance of sewage works and
industrial waste disposal system for compliance to plans.

(d) Adopt, prescribe, and promulgate rules and regulations governing the procedures of the
Commission with respect to hearings, plans, specifications, designs, and other data for sewage works
and industrial waste disposal system, the filing of reports, the issuance of permits, and other rules and
regulations for the proper implementation and enforcement of this Decree.
 (e) Issue orders or decisions to compel compliance with the provisions of this Decree and its
implementing rules and regulations only after proper notice and hearing.

(f) Make, alter or modify orders requiring the discontinuance of pollution specifying the conditions and
the time within which such discontinuance must be accomplished.

(g) Issue, renew, or deny permits, under such conditions as it may determine to be reasonable, for the
prevention and abatement of pollution, for the discharge of sewage, industrial waste, or for the
installation or operation of sewage works and industrial disposal system or parts thereof: Provided,
however, That the Commission, by rules and regulations, may require subdivisions, condominium,
hospitals, public buildings and other similar human settlements to put up appropriate central sewerage
system and sewage treatment works, except that no permits shall be required of any new sewage
works or changes to or extensions of existing works that discharge only domestic or sanitary wastes
from a single residential building provided with septic tanks or their equivalent. The Commission may
impose reasonable fees and charges for the issuance or renewal of all permits herein required.

(h) After due notice and hearing, the Commission may also revoke, suspend or modify any permit
issued under this decree whenever the same is necessary to prevent or abate pollution.

(i) Set up effluent, stream, ambient and emission standards and promulgate rules and regulations
therefor: Provided, That local governments, development authorities, and other similar government
instrumentalities or agencies may set up higher standards subject to the written approval of the
Commission.

(j) Serve as arbitrator for the determination of reparations, or restitution of the damages and losses
resulting from pollution.

(k) Deputize in writing or request assistance of appropriate government agencies or instrumentalities

for the purpose of enforcing this Decree and its implementing rules and regulations and the orders and
decisions of the Commission.

(l) Consult, participate, cooperate and enter into agreement with other agencies of the government,
and with affected political groups, political subdivisions, and enterprises in the furtherance of the
purpose of this Decree.

(m) Collect and disseminate information relating to water, air, and land pollution and the prevention,
abatement and control thereof.

(n) Authorize its representative to enter at all reasonable times any property of the public dominion and
private property devoted to industrial, manufacturing, processing or commercial use without doing
damage, for the purpose of inspecting and investigating conditions relating to pollution or possible or
imminent pollution.

(o) Prepare and submit sixty days after the close of each calendar year an annual report to the
President and such periodic reports of activities as may be required from time to time. The annual
report shall include the extent to which the objectives in the plans referred to under Sec. 6 (b) have
been achieved.

(p) Exercise such powers and perform such other functions as may be necessary to carry out its duties
and responsibilities under this Decree.

Section 7. (a) Public Hearing. Public hearings shall be conducted by the Commissioner, Deputy
Commissioners or any senior official duly designated by the Commissioner prior to issuance or promulgation of
any order or decision by the Commissioner requiring the discontinuance of discharge of sewage, industrial
wastes or other wastes into the water, air or land resources of the Philippines as provided in this Decree:
Provided, That whenever the Commission find a prima facie evidence that the discharged sewage or wastes
are of immediate threat to life, public health, safety or welfare, or to animal or plant life, or exceeds the
allowable standards set by the Commission, the Commissioner may issue an ex-parte order directing the
discontinuance of the same or the temporary suspension or cessation of operation of the establishment or
person generating such sewage or wastes without the necessity of a prior public hearing. The said ex-parte
order shall be immediately executory and shall remain in force until said establishment or person prevents or
abates the said pollution within the allowable standards, or modified or nullified by a competent court.

All records of the proceedings of said hearings shall be filed with the Commission. All inquiries,
hearings, investigations and proceedings conducted by the Commission shall be governed by rules
adopted by the Commission, and in the conduct thereof the Commission shall not be bound by
technical rules of evidence: Provided, That the Commissioners or any of the duly designated Hearing
Officers may summarily punish for contempt, by a fine not exceeding two hundred pesos, any person
committing such misconduct in the presence of any of the Commissioners or any of the duly
designated Hearing Officers, or so near to them as to seriously interrupt any hearing or session or any
proceeding, or any person willfully fails or refuses, without just cause, to comply with a summon,
subpoena, or subpoena duces tecum issued by the Commissioners or by the duly designated Hearing
Officer or, being present at a hearing, session or investigation, refuses to be sworn as a witness or to
answer questions when lawfully required to do so. The Sheriff or other police agencies of the place
where the hearing or investigation is conducted, shall, upon request of the Hearing Officer, assist in
the enforcement of the provisions of this paragraph.

(b) Appeal to Courts. Any decision of the Commission, in the absence of an appeal therefrom as
herein provided, shall become final fifteen days after the date of notification, and judicial review thereof
shall be permitted only after any party claiming to be aggrieved thereby has exhausted the remedies
before the Commission. The Commission shall be deemed to be a party to any judicial action involving
any decision.

(c) Court Review. The decision of the Commission upon any disputed matter may be reviewed both
upon the law and the facts of the case by the Court of Appeals. For purposes of such review, the
procedure concerning appeals from the Court of First Instance shall be followed. Appeal from a
decision of the Commission must be perfected within fifteen days from notification of such decision:
Provided, however, That any decision of the Commission involving only questions of law, shall be
appealed to the Supreme Court. No appeal shall stay the execution of any order or decision of the
Commission unless the Commissioner himself or the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court so
orders.

(d) Execution of Decision. Any decision or order of the Commission, after the same has become final
and executory, shall be enforced and executed in the same manner as decisions of Courts of First
Instance, and the Commission shall have the power to issue to the City or Provincial Sheriff or duly
constituted authorities whom it may appoint, such writs of execution as may be necessary for the
enforcement of such decision or order and any person who shall fail or refuse to comply with such
decision, order, or writ, after being required to do so shall, upon application by the Commission, be
punished by the proper court for contempt.

Section 8. Prohibitions. No person shall throw, run, drain, or otherwise dispose into any of the water, air and/or
land resources of the Philippines, or cause, permit, suffer to be thrown, run, drain, allow to seep or otherwise
dispose thereto any organic or inorganic matter or any substance in gaseous or liquid form that shall cause
pollution thereof.

No person shall perform any of the following activities without first securing a permit from the Commission for
the discharge of all industrial wastes and other wastes which could cause pollution:

1. the construction, installation, modification or operation of any sewage works or any extension or
addition thereto;
 2. the increase in volume or strength of any wastes in excess of the permissive discharge specified
under any existing permit;

3. the construction, installation or operation of any industrial or commercial establishments or any

extension or modification thereof or addition thereto, the operation of which would cause an increase in
the discharge of waste directly into the water, air and/or land resources of the Philippines or would
otherwise alter their physical, chemical or biological properties in any manner not already lawfully
authorized.

Section 9. Penalties. (a) Any person found violating or failing to comply with any order, decision or regulation
of the Commission for the control or abatement of pollution shall pay a fine not exceeding five thousand pesos
per day for every day during which such violation or default continues; and the Commission is hereby
authorized and empowered to impose the fine after due notice and hearing.

The fines so imposed shall be paid to the Government of the Philippines through the
Commission, and failure to pay the fine in any case within the time specified in the above-
mentioned Order or Decision shall be sufficient ground for the Commission to order the
closure or the stoppage in the operation of the establishment being operated and/or managed
by said person or persons until payment of the fines shall have been made. The Commission
shall have the power and authority to issue corresponding writs of execution directing the City
or Provincial Sheriff or other peace officers whom it may appoint to enforce the fine or the
order of closure or stoppage of operations.

Payment of fines may also be enforced by appropriate action in a court of competent

jurisdiction. The remedies provided in this sub-section shall not be a bar to nor shall affect any
other remedies provided for in this Decree but shall be cumulative and additional to such
remedies.

(b) Any person who shall violate any of the provisions of Section Eight of this Decree or its
implementing rules and regulations, or any Order or Decision of the Commission, shall be liable to a
penalty of not to exceed one thousand pesos for each day during which the violation continues, or by
imprisonment of from two years to six years, or by both fine and imprisonment, and in addition such
person may be required or enjoined from continuing such violation as hereinafter provided.

(c) Any person who shall refuse, obstruct, or hamper the entry of the duly authorized representatives of
the Commission into any property of the pubic domain or private property devoted to industrial
manufacturing, processing or commercial use during reasonable hours for the purpose of inspecting or
investigating the conditions therein relating to pollution or possible or imminent pollution, shall be liable
to a fine not exceeding two hundred pesos or imprisonment of not exceeding one month, or both.

(d) Any person who violates any of the provisions of, or fails to perform any duty imposed by this
Decree or its implementing rules and regulations or by Order or Decision of the Commission
promulgated pursuant to this Decree hereby causing the death of fish or other aquatic life, shall in
addition to the penalty above prescribed, be liable to pay the government for damages for fish or
aquatic life destroyed.

(e) In case the violator is a juridical person, the penalty shall be imposed on the managing head
responsible for the violation.

Section 10. Jurisdiction. The Commission shall have no jurisdiction over waterworks or sewage system
operated by the Metropolitan Waterworks Sewerage System, but the rules and regulations issued by the
Commission for the protection and prevention of pollution under the authority herein granted shall supersede
and prevail over any rules or regulations as may heretofore have been issued by other government agencies or
instrumentalities on the same subject.
In case of development projects involving specific human settlement sites or integrated regional or sub-
regional projects, such as the Tondo Foreshore Development Authority and the Laguna Lake Development
Authority, the Commission shall consult with the authorities charged with the planning and execution of such
projects to ensure that their pollution control standards comply with those of the Commission. Once minimum
pollution standards are established and agreed upon, the development authorities concerned may, by mutual
agreement and prior consultation with the Commission, undertake the pollution control activities themselves.

Section 11. Appropriations. Such amount as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this Decree,
which in no case shall be less than five million pesos, is hereby appropriated yearly for the operating expenses
of the Commission out of any funds in the National Treasury.

Section 12. Repealing Clause. Any provision of laws, presidential decree, executive order, rules and
regulations and/or parts thereof inconsistent with the provisions of this Decree, are hereby repealed and/or
modified accordingly.

Section 13. Effectivity. This Decree shall take effect immediately.

Done in the City of Manila, this 18th day of August, in the year of Our Lord, nineteen hundred and seventy-six.

===============================================

epublic Act No. 9275 March 22, 2004

AN ACT PROVIDING FOR A COMPREHENSIVE WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress assembled:

CHAPTER 1
GENERAL PROVISIONS

ARTICLE 1
DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES AND POLICIES

SECTION 1. Short Title. - This Act shall be known as the "Philippine Clean Water Act of 2004."

SECTION 2. Declaration of Policy. - The State shall pursue a policy of economic growth in a manner consistent with the
protection, preservation and revival of the quality of our fresh, brackish and marine waters. To achieve this end, the
framework for sustainable development shall be pursued. As such, it shall be the policy of the State:

a) To streamline processes and procedures in the prevention, control and abatement of pollution of the country's
water resources;

b) To promote environmental strategies, use of appropriate economic instruments and of control mechanisms for
the protection of water resources;

c) To formulate a holistic national program of water quality management that recognizes that water quality
management issues cannot be separated from concerns about water sources and ecological protection, water
supply, public health and quality of life;

d) To formulate an integrated water quality management framework through proper delegation and effective
coordination of functions and activities;
 e) promote commercial and industrial processes and products that are environment friendly and energy efficient;

f) To encourage cooperation and self-regulation among citizens and industries through the application of incentives
and market-based instruments and to promote the role of private industrial enterprises in shaping its regulatory
profile within the acceptable boundaries of public health and environment;

g) To provide for a comprehensive management program for water pollution focusing on pollution prevention;

h) To promote public information and education and to encourage the participation of an informed and active public
in water quality management and monitoring;

i) To formulate and enforce a system of accountability for short and long-term adverse environmental impact of a
project, program or activity; and

j) To encourage civil society and other sectors, particularly labor, the academe and business undertaking
environment-related activities in their efforts to organize, educate and motivate the people in addressing pertinent
environmental issues and problems at the local and national levels.

SECTION 3. Coverage of the Act. - This Act shall apply to water quality management in all water bodies: Provided, That it
shall primarily apply to the abatement and control of pollution from land based sources: Provided, further, That the water
quality standards and regulations and the civil liability and penal provisions under this Act shall be enforced irrespective of
sources of pollution.

ARTICLE 2
DEFINITION OF TERMS

SECTION 4. Definition of Terms. - As used in this Act:

a) Aquifer - means a layer of water-bearing rock located underground that transmits water in sufficient quantity to
supply pumping wells or natural springs.

b) Aquatic life - means all organisms living in freshwater, brackish and marine environment.

c) Beneficial use - means the use of the environment or any element or segment thereof conducive to public or
private welfare, safety and health; and shall include, but not be limited to, the use of water for domestic, municipal,
irrigation, power generation, fisheries, livestock raising, industrial, recreational and other purposes.

1. Use of water for domestic purposes - means the utilization of water for drinking, washing, bathing,
cooking or other household needs, home gardens and watering of lawns or domestic animals;

2. Use of water for municipal purposes - means the utilization of water for supplying water requirements
of the community;

3. Use of water for irrigation - means the utilization of water for producing agricultural crops;

4. Use of water for power generation - means the utilization of water for producing electrical or
mechanical power;

5. Use of water for fisheries - means the utilization of water for the propagation of culture of fish as a
commercial enterprise;

6. Use of water for livestock raising - means the utilization of water for large herds or flocks of animals
raised as a commercial enterprise;

7. Use of water for industrial purposes - means the utilization of water in factories, industrial plants and
mines, including the use of water as an ingredient of a finished product; and
 8. Use of water for recreational purposes - means the utilization of water for swimming pools, bath
houses, boating, water skiing, golf courses and other similar facilities in resorts and other places of
recreation.

d) Classification/Reclassification of Philippine Waters - means the categorization of all water bodies taking into
account, among others, the following: (1) existing quality of the body of water; (2) size, depth, surface area
covered, volume, direction, rate of flow and gradient of stream; (3) most beneficial existing and future use of said
bodies of water and lands bordering them, such as for residential, agricultural, aquacultural, commercial, industrial,
navigational, recreational, wildlife conservation and aesthetic purposes; and (4) vulnerability of surface and
groundwater to contamination from pollutive and hazardous wastes, agricultural chemicals and underground
storage tanks of petroleum products.

e) Civil Society - means non-government organizations (NGOs) and people's organizations (POs).

f) Cleaner Production - means the application of an integrated, preventive environmental strategy to processes,
products, services to increase efficiency and reduce risk to humans and the environment;

g) Clean-up operations - means activities involving the removal of pollutants discharged or spilled into a water
body and its surrounding areas, and the restoration of the affected areas to their former physical, chemical and
biological state or conditions.

h) Contamination - means the production of substances not found in the natural composition of water that make
the water less desirable or unfit desirable or unfit for intended use.

i) Department - means the Department of Environment and Natural Resources.

j) Discharge includes, but is not limited to, the act of spilling, leaking, pumping, pouring, emitting, emptying,
releasing or dumping of any material into a water body or onto land from which it might flow or drain into said
water.

k) Drinking water- means water intended for human consumption or for use in food preparation.

l) Dumping - means any unauthorized or illegal disposal into any body of water or land of wastes or toxic or
hazardous material: Provided, That it does not mean a release of effluent coming from commercial, industrial, and
domestic sources which are within the effluent standards.

m) Effluent - means discharge from known sources which is passed into a body of water or land, or wastewater
flowing out of a manufacturing plant, industrial plant including domestic, commercial and recreational facilities.

n) Effluent standard - means any legal restriction or limitation on quantities, rates, and/or concentrations or any
combination thereof, of physical, chemical or biological parameters of effluent which a person or point source is
allowed to discharge into a body of water or land.

o) Environmental management - means the entire system which includes, but is not limited to, conservation,
regulation and minimization of pollution, clean production, waste management, environmental law and policy,
environmental education and information, study and mitigation of the environmental impacts of human activity, and
environmental research.

p) Environmental management system - means the part of the overall management system that includes
organizational structure, planning activities, responsibilities, practices, procedures, processes and resources for
developing, implementing, achieving, reviewing and maintaining the environment policy.

q) Freshwater - means water containing less than 500 ppm dissolved common salt, sodium chloride, such as that
in groundwater, rivers, ponds and lakes.

r) Groundwater - means a subsurface water that occurs beneath a water table in soils and rocks, or in geological
formations.
s) Groundwater vulnerability - means relative ease with which a contaminant located at or near the land surface
can migrate to the aquifer or deep well.

t) Groundwater vulnerability map - means the identified areas of the land surface where groundwater quality is
most at risk from human activities and shall reflect the different degrees of groundwater vulnerability based on a
range of soil properties and hydro geological criteria to serve as guide in the protection of the groundwater from
contamination.

u) Hazardous waste - means any waste or combination of wastes of solid liquid, contained gaseous, or semi-solid
form which cause, of contribute to, an increase in mortality or an increase in serious irreversible, or incapacitating
reversible illness, taking into account toxicity of such waste, its persistence and degradability in nature, its potential
for accumulation or concentration in tissue, and other factors that may otherwise cause or contribute to adverse
acute or chronic effects on the health of persons or organism.

v) Industrial waste - means any solid, semi-solid or liquid waste material with no commercial value released by a
manufacturing or processing plant other than excluded material.

w) Integrated Water Quality Management Framework - means the policy guideline integrating all the existing
frameworks prepared by all government agencies contain the following; water quality goals and targets; (b) period
of compliance; (c) water pollution control strategies and techniques; (d) water quality information and education
program; (e) human resources development program.

x) Margin - means a landward and outer limiting edge adjacent to the border of any water bodies or a limit beyond
where beyond where saturation zone ceases to exist.

y) National Water Quality Status Report - means a report to be prepared by the Department indicating: a) the
location of water bodies, their quality, taking into account seasonal, tidal and others variations, existing and
potential uses and sources of pollution per specific pollutant and pollution load assessment; b) water quality
management areas pursuant to Section 5 of this Act; c) and water classification.

z) Non-point source - means any source of pollution not identifiable as point source to include, but not be limited to,
runoff from irrigation or rainwater, which picks up pollutants from farms and urban areas.

aa) Point source - means any identifiable source of pollution with specific point of discharge into a particular water
body.

bb) Pollutant- shall refer to any substance, whether solid, liquid, gaseous or radioactive, which directly or indirectly:

(i) alters the quality of any segment of the receiving water body to affect or tend to affect adversely any
beneficial use thereof;

(ii) is hazardous or potential hazardous to health;

(iii) imparts objectionable odor, temperature change, or physical, chemical or biological change to any
segment of the water body; or

(iv) is in excess of the allowable limits, concentrations, or quality standards specified, or in contravention
of the condition, limitation or restriction prescribed in this Act.

cc) Pollution control technology- means pollution control devices or apparatus, processes, or other means that
effectively prevent control or reduce pollution of water caused by effluents and other discharges, from any point
source at levels within the water pollution standards.

dd) Potentially infectious medical waste- include isolation wastes, infectious agents, human blood and blood
products, pathological wastes, sharps, body parts, contaminated bedding, surgical wastes, and other disposable
medical equipment and material that may pose a risk to the public health, welfare or the marine environment.

ee) Secretary - means the Secretary of the Department of Environmental and Natural Resources (DENR).
ff) Septage - means the sludge produced on individual onsite wastewater disposal systems, principally septic tanks
and cesspools.

gg) Sewage - means water-borne human or animal wastes, excluding oil or oil wastes, removed from residences,
building, institutions, industrial and commercial establishments together with such groundwater, surface water and
storm water as maybe present including such waste from vessels, offshore structures, other receptacles intended
to receive or retain waste or other places or the combination thereof.

hh) Sewerage - includes, but is not limited to, any system or network of pipelines, ditches, channels, or conduits
including pumping stations, lift stations and force mains, service connections including other constructions,
devices, and appliances appurtenant thereto, which includes the collection, transport, pumping and treatment of
sewage to a point of disposal.

ii) Sludge - means any solid, semi-solid or liquid waste or residue generated from a wastewater treatment plant,
water supply treatment plant, or water control pollution facility, or any other such waste having similar
characteristics and effects.

jj) Surface water - means all water, which is open to the atmosphere and subject to surface runoff.

kk) Treatment - means any method, technique, or process designed to alter the physical, chemical or biological
and radiological character or composition of any waste or wastewater to reduce or prevent pollution.

ll) Toxic amount - means the lowest amount of concentration of toxic pollutants, which may cause chronic or long-
term acute or lethal conditions or effects to the aquatic life, or health of persons or which may adversely affect
designated water uses.

mm) Waste - means any material either solid, liquid, semisolid, contained gas or other forms resulting industrial,
commercial, mining or agricultural operations, or from community and household activities that is devoid of usage
and discarded.

nn) Wastewater - means waste in liquid state containing pollutants.

oo) Water body - means both natural and man-made bodies of fresh, brackish, and saline waters, and includes,
but is not limited to, aquifers, groundwater, springs, creeks, streams, rivers, ponds, lagoons, water reservoirs,
lakes, bays, estuarine, coastal and marine waters. Water bodies do not refer to those constructed, developed and
used purposely as water treatment facilities and / or water storage for recycling and re-use which are integral to
process industry or manufacturing.

pp) Water Pollution - means any alteration of the physical, chemical, biological, or radiological properties of a water
body resulting in the impairment of its purity or quality.

qq) Water Quality - means the characteristics of water, which define its use in characteristics by terms of physical,
chemical, biological, bacteriological or radiological characteristics by which the acceptability of water is evaluated.

rr) Water quality guidelines - means the level for a water constituent or numerical values of physical, chemical,
biological and bacteriological or radiological parameters which are used to classify water resources and their use,
which does not result in significant health risk and which are not intended for direct enforcement but only for water
quality management purposes, such as determining time trends, evaluating stages of deterioration or
enhancement of the water quality, and as basis for taking positive action in preventing, controlling or abating water
pollution.

ss) Water Quality Management Area Action Plan - includes, but not be limited to, the following: (a) goals and
targets including sewerage or septage program, (b) schedule of compliance to meet the applicable requirements of
this Act; (c) water pollution control strategies or techniques; (d) water quality information and education program; e)
resource requirement and possible sources; f) enforcement procedures of the plan and (g) rewards and incentives
under Chapter 4 of this Act.

CHAPTER 2
WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
 ARTICLE 1
GENERAL PROVISIONS

SECTION 5. Water Quality Management Area. - The Department, in coordination with National Water Resources Board
(NWRB), shall designate certain areas as water quality management areas using appropriate physiographic units such as
watershed, river basins or water resources regions. Said management areas shall have similar hydrological,
hydrogeological, meteorological or geographic conditions which affect the physicochemical, biological and bacteriological
reactions and diffusions of pollutants in the water bodies, or otherwise share common interest or face similar development
programs, prospects or problems.

Said management area shall be governed by a governing board composed of representatives of mayors and governors of
member local government units (LGUs), and representatives of relevant national government agencies, duly registered non-
governmental organization, water utility sector, and business sector. The Department representative shall chair the
governing board. In the case of the LGUs with memberships on more than one (1) management board, the LGU shall
designate only one (1) single representative for all the management areas wherein is a member.

The governing board shall formulate strategies to coordinate policies necessary for the effective implementation of this Act in
accordance with those established in the framework and monitor the compliance with the action plan.

Each management area shall create a multi-sectoral group to establish and affect water quality surveillance and monitoring
network including sampling schedules and other similar activities. The group shall submit its report and recommendation to
the chairman of the governing board.

A technical secretariat for each management area is hereby created which shall be part of the department and shall provide
technical support to the governing board. They shall be composed of at least four (4) members who shall have the following
minimum qualifications:

a) One (1) member shall be a member of the Philippines Bar;

b) One (1) member shall be a Chemical Engineer, Chemist, Sanitary Engineer, Environmental Engineer or
Ecologist or significant training and experience in chemistry;

c) One (1) member shall be a Civil Engineer or Hydrologist or Significant training and experience in closely related
fields and experience on ground water, respectively; and

d) One (1) member shall be a Geologist, Biologist, or significant training and experience in closely related fields.

The areas within the jurisdiction of the Laguna Lake Development Authority (LLDA) shall be designated as one management
area under the administration of LLDA in accordance with R.A. No. 4850, as amended: Provided, However, That the
standards promulgated pursuant to this Act and wastewater charge system established pursuant hereof shall be enforced in
said area.

SECTION 6. Management of Non-attainment Areas. - The Department shall designate water bodies, or portions thereof,
where specific pollutants from either natural or man-made source have already exceeded water quality guidelines as non-
attainment areas for the exceeded pollutants. It shall prepare and implement a program that will not allow new sources of
exceeded water pollutant in non-attainment areas without a corresponding reduction in discharges from existing sources;
Provided, That if the pollutant is naturally occurring, e.g. naturally high boron and other elements in geothermal areas,
discharge of such pollutant may be allowed: Provided, further, That the effluent concentration of discharge shall not exceed
the naturally occurring level of such pollutant in the area: Provided, Finally, That the effluent concentration and volume of
discharge shall not adversely affect water supply, public health and ecological protection.

The Department shall, in coordination with NWRB, Department of Health (DOH), Department of Agriculture (DA), governing
board and other concerned government agencies and private sectors shall take such measures as may be necessary to
upgrade the quality of such water in non-attainment areas to meet the standards under which it has been classified.

Upgrading of water quality shall likewise include undertakings, which shall improve the water quality of a water body to a
classification that will meet its projected or potential use.

The LGUs shall prepare and implement contingency plans and other measures including relocation, whenever necessary,
for the protection of health and welfare of the residents within potentially affected areas.
SECTION 7. National Sewerage and Septage Management Program. - The Department of Public Works and Highways
(DPWH), through its relevant attached agencies, in coordination with the Department, local government units (LGUs) and
other concerned agencies, shall, as soon as possible, but in no case exceeding a period of twelve (12) months from the
affectivity of this Act, prepare a national program on sewerage and septage management in connection with Section 8
hereof.

Such program shall include a priority listing of sewerage, septage and combined sewerage-septage projects for LGUs based
on population density and growth, degradation of water resources, topography, geology, vegetation, program/projects for the
rehabilitation of existing facilities and such other factors that the Secretary may deem relevant to the protection of water
quality. On the basis of such national listing, the national government may allot, on an annual basis, funds for the
construction and rehabilitation of required facilities.

Each LGU shall appropriate the necessary land, including the required rights-of-way/road access to the land for the
construction of the sewage and/or septage treatment facilities.

Each LGU may raise funds to subsidize necessary expenses for the operation and maintenance of sewerage treatment or
septage facility servicing their area of jurisdiction through local property taxes and enforcement of a service fee system.

SECTION 8. Domestic Sewage Collection, Treatment and Disposal. - Within five (5) years following the effectivity of this
Act, the Agency vested to provide water supply and sewerage facilities and/or concessionaires in Metro Manila and other
highly urbanized cities (HUCs) as defined in Republic Act No. 7160, in coordination with LGUs, shall be required to connect
the existing sewage line found in all subdivisions, condominiums, commercial centers, hotels, sports and recreational
facilities, hospitals, market places, public buildings, industrial complex and other similar establishments including households
to available sewerage system. Provided, That the said connection shall be subject to sewerage services charge/fees in
accordance with existing laws, rules or regulations unless the sources had already utilized their own sewerage system:
Provided, further, That all sources of sewage and septage shall comply with the requirements herein.

In areas not considered as HUCs, the DPWH in coordination with the Department, DOH and other concerned agencies,
shall employ septage or combined sewerage-septage management system.

For the purpose of this section, the DOH, coordination with other government agencies, shall formulate guidelines and
standards for the collection, treatment and disposal of sewage including guidelines for the establishment and operation of
centralized sewage treatment system.

SECTION 9. National Water Quality Management Fund. - A water quality management fund, to be administered by the
Department, in coordination with other concerned agencies, as a special account in the National Treasury is hereby
established. The fund shall be used to finance the following:

a) Finance containment and clean-up operations of the government in water pollution cases;

b) Guarantee restoration of ecosystems and rehabilitation of affected areas;

c) Support research, enforcement and monitoring activities;

d) Provide technical assistance to the implementing agencies;

e) Grant rewards and incentives;

f) Support information and educational campaign; and

g) Such other disbursements made solely for the prevention, control or abatement of water pollution and
management and administration of the management areas in the amounts authorized by the Department.

The fines imposed and damages awarded to the government by the Pollution Adjudication Board (PAB), proceeds of permits
issued by the Department under this Act, donations, endowments and grants in the form of contributions to the national
government under this Act shall form part of the fund. Such donations, endowments and grants shall be exempt from donor's
taxes and all other taxes, charges or fees imposed by the government and shall be deductible from the gross income of the
donor for income tax purposes.
Disbursements from the fund shall be subject to the usual accounting and budgeting rules and regulations.

SECTION 10. The Area Water Quality Management Fund. - The area water quality management fund is hereby
established for the maintenance and upkeep of the water bodies in a water quality management area. The fund shall be
utilized for the grant of rewards and incentives for entities whose effluent discharges are better than the water quality criteria
of the target classification of the receiving body of water, loans for acquisitions and repairs of facilities to reduce quantity and
improve quality of wastewater discharges, and regular maintenance of the water bodies within the management area.

An amount of not more than ten percent (10%) of the total amount accruing to the funds annually shall be allocated for the
operational expenses of the governing board, its secretariat and multi-sectoral water quality surveillance and monitoring
network.

This fund shall initially be sourced from the fines incurred by the establishments located in rural areas before the effectivity
of this Act. Thereafter, the fees collected under the wastewater charge system established under Section 13 of this Act,
donations, endowments and grants for water quality management of the area shall accrue to the fund.

Disbursements from the fund shall be subject to the usual accounting and budgeting rules and regulations. This fund shall
be managed by the Board of the corresponding management area.

SECTION 11. Water Quality Variance for Geothermal and Oil and Gas Exploration. - The Department may provide
variance in water quality criteria and standards for geothermal exploration that encounters re-injection constraints: Provided,
That there shall be provision for adequate protection of beneficial use of water bodies, downstream of the geothermal
project: Provided, further, That this provision may be applied to oil and gas exploration as determined by the Department.

SECTION 12. Categories of Industry Sector. - Within twenty-four (24) months from the effectivity of this Act, and every two
(2) years thereafter, the Department shall, through due public consultation, revise and publish a list of categories of industry
sector for which effluent standards will be provided for each significant wastewater parameter per industry sector.

The Department shall provide additional classification based on other parameters specifically associated to discharge of a
particular industry which shall be included in the listing of categories prescribed in the preceding paragraph.

ARTICLE 2
WATER POLLUTION PERMITS AND CHARGES

SECTION 13. Wastewater Charge System. - The Department shall implement a wastewater charge system in all
management areas including the Laguna Lake Region and Regional Industrial Centers through the collection of wastewater
charges/fees. The system shall be established on the basis of payment to the government for discharging wastewater into
the water bodies. Wastewater charges shall be established taking into consideration the following:

a) To provide strong economic inducement for polluters to modify their production or management processes or to
invest in pollution control technology in order to reduce the amount of water pollutants generated;

b) To cover the cost of administering water quality management or improvement programs;

c) Reflect damages caused by water pollution on the surrounding environment, including the cost of rehabilitation;

d) Type of pollutant;

e) Classification of the receiving water body; and

f) Other special attributes of the water body.

The fee shall be based on the net waste load depending on the wastewater, charge formula which shall be established with
due public consultation within six (6) months from the effectivity of this Act: Provided, That net waste load shall refer to the
difference of the initial waste load of the abstracted water and the waste load of the final effluent discharge of an industry:
Provided, further, That no net waste load shall be lower than the initial waste load: Provided, finally, That wastewater charge
system shall not apply to wastewater from geothermal exploration.
Industries whose water effluent are within standards promulgated pursuant to this Act, shall only be charged with minimal
reasonable amount which shall be determined by the Department after due public consultation, giving account to volumetric
rate of discharge and effluent concentration.

SECTION 14. Discharge Pemits. - The Department shall require owners or operators of facilities that discharge regulated
effluents pursuant to this Act to secure a permit to discharge. The discharge permit shall be the legal authorization granted
by the Department to discharge wastewater: Provided, That the discharge permit shall specify among others, the quantity
and quality of effluent that said facilities are allowed to discharge into a particular water body, compliance schedule and
monitoring requirement.

As part of the permitting procedure, the Department shall encourage the adoption of waste minimization and waste
treatment technologies when such technologies are deemed cost effective. The Department shall also develop procedures
to relate the current water quality guideline or the projected water quality guideline of the receiving water body/ies with total
pollution loadings from various sources, so that effluent quotas can be properly allocated in the discharge permits. For
industries without any discharge permit, they may be given a period of twelve {12) months after the effectivity of the
implementing rules and regulations promulgated pursuant to this Act, to secure a discharge permit.

Effluent trading may be allowed per management area.

ARTICLE 3
FINANCIAL LIABILITY MECHANISM

SECTION 15. Financial Liability for Environmental Rehabilitation. - The Department shall require program and project
proponents to put up environmental guarantee fund {EGF) as part of the environmental management plan attached to the
environmental compliance certificate pursuant to Presidential Decree No.1586 and its implementing rules and regulations.
The EGF shall finance the maintenance of the health of the ecosystems and specially the conservation of watersheds and
aquifers affected by the development, and the needs of emergency response, clean-up or rehabilitation of areas that may be
damaged during the program's or project's actual implementation. Liability for damages shall continue even after the
termination of a program or project and, until the lapse of a given period indicated in the environmental compliance
certificate, as determined by the Department. The EGF may be in the form of a trust fund, environmental insurance, surety
bonds, letters of credit, self-insurance and any other instruments which may be identified by the Department. The choice of
the guarantee instrument or combinations thereof shall depend, among others, on the assessment of the risks involved and
financial test mechanisms devised by the Department. Proponents required to put up guarantee instruments shall furnish the
Department with evidence of availment of such instruments from accredited financial instrument providers.

SECTION 16. Clean-Up Operations. - Notwithstanding the provisions of Sections 15 and 26 hereof, any person who
causes pollution in or pollutes water bodies in excess of the applicable and prevailing standards shall be responsible to
contain, remove and clean-up any pollution incident at his own expense to the extent that the same water bodies have been
rendered unfit for utilization and beneficial use: Provided, That in the event emergency clean-up operations are necessary
and the polluter fails to immediately undertake the same, the Department, in coordination with other government agencies
concerned, shall conduct containment, removal and clean-up operations. Expenses incurred in said operations shall be
reimbursed by the persons found to have caused such pollution upon proper administrative determination in accordance
with this Act. Reimbursements of the cost incurred shall be made to the Water Quality Management Fund or to such other
funds where said disbursements were sourced.

SECTION 17. Programmatic Environmental Impact Assessment. - The Department shall implement programmatic
compliance with the environmental impact assessment system, as in the following types of development:

a) development consisting of a series of similar projects, or a project subdivided into several phases and/or stages
whether situated in a contiguous area or geographically dispersed; and

b) development consisting of several components or a cluster of projects co-located in an area such as an

industrial estate, an export processing zone, or a development zone identified in a local land use plan.

Programmatic compliance with the environmental impact assessment system shall be guided by carrying capacity
assessments determined from ecological profiles. Ecological profiles shall Identify environmental constraints and
opportunities in programmatic areas. Programmatic assessment shall also take into account cumulative impacts and risks.

Consistent with the provisions of the Local Government Code, the Department may enter into agreement with LGUs to
incorporate programmatic environmental impact assessment into the preparation, updating or revision of local land use
plans and area development plans.
SECTION 18. Environmental Impact Assessment System Programmatic Compliance with Water Quality Standards. -
The. Department may allow each regional industrial center established pursuant to Republic Act No.7916 (PEZA law) to
allocate effluent quotas to pollution sources within its jurisdiction that qualify under an environmental impact assessment
system programmatic compliance program in accordance with Presidential Decree No. 15867 and its implementing rules
and regulations.

CHAPTER 3
INSTITUTIONAL MECHANISM

SECTION 19. Lead Agency. - The Department shall be the primary government agency responsible for the implementation
and enforcement of this Act unless otherwise provided herein. As such, it shall have the following functions, powers and
responsibilities:

a) Prepare a National Water Quality Status Report within twenty-four (24) months from the effectivity of this
Act: Provided, That the Department shall thereafter review or revise and publish annually, or as the need arises,
said report;

b) Prepare an Integrated Water Quality Management Framework within twelve (12) months following the
completion of the status report;

c) Prepare a ten (10) year Water Quality Management Area Action Plan within twelve (12) months following the
completion of the framework for each designated water management area. Such action plan shall be reviewed by
the water quality management area governing board every five (5) years or as need arises;

d) Prepare and publish a national a national groundwater vulnerability map incorporating the prevailing standards
and methodologies, within twenty four (24) months after the effectivity of this Act;

e) Enforce, review and revise within twelve (12) months from the effectivity of this Act water quality guidelines after
due consultation with the concerned stakeholder sectors: Provided, That the Department, in coordination with
appropriate agencies shall review said guidelines every five (5) years or as need arises;

f) Review and set effluent standards every five (5) years from the effectivity of this Act or sooner as determined by
the Department: Provided, That in the interim, the provisions of DENR Administrative Order No. 35 of the
Department shall apply: Provided, further, That when new and more stringent standards are set in accordance with
this section, the Department may establish a grace period with a maximum of five (5) years: Provided, finally, That
such grace period shall be limited to the moratorium on the issuance of cease and desist and/or closure order
against the industry's operations except in the event such operation poses serious and grave threat to the
environment, or the industry fails to institute retooling, upgrading or establishing an environmental management
system (EMS).

g) Establish within twelve (12) months from the effectivity of this Act, internationally-accepted procedures for
sampling and analysis of pollutants and in coordination with other concerned agencies, formulate testing
procedures and establish an accreditation system for laboratories;

h) Within eighteen (18) months from the effectivity of this Act and every two (2) years thereafter, categorize point
and non-point sources of water pollution;

i) Classify groundwater sources within twelve (12) months from the effectivity of this Act;

j) Classify or reclassify all water bodies according to their beneficial usages: Provided, that in the interim, the
provisions of DENR Administrative Order No.34 shall apply: Provided, further, that such classification or
reclassification shall take into consideration the operation of businesses or facilities that are existing prior to the
effectivity of the Act: Provided, furthermore, that the Department may authorize the use of the water for other
purposes that are more restrictive in classification: Provided, finally, That discharges resulting from such use shall
meet the effluent standards set by the Department;

k) Exercise jurisdiction over all aspects of water pollution, determine its location, magnitude, extent, severity,
causes, effects and other pertinent information on pollution, and to take measures, using available methods and
technologies to prevent and abate such pollution;
 l) Exercise supervision and control over all aspects of water quality management;

m) Establish a cooperative effort in partnership with the government, LGUs, academic institutions, civil society and
the private sector to attain the objectives of this Act;

n) Disseminate information and conduct educational awareness and value formation programs and campaigns on
the effects of water pollution on health and environment, water quality management, and resource conservation
and recovery to encourage an environmentally action-oriented society in coordination with government agencies
identified in Section 22 (f);

o) Promote. and encourage private and business sectors especially manufacturing and processing plants the use
of water quality management systems equipment, including but not limited to, industrial wastewater treatment
collection and treatment facilities;

p) Report, on an annual basis, to Congress the, quality status of water bodies and other pertinent information and
recommend possible legislation, policies and programs for environmental management and water pollution control;

q) Issue rules and regulations for the effective implementation of the provisions of this Act;

r) Issue orders against any person or entity and impose fines, penalties and other administrative sanctions to
compel compliance with water quality the provisions of this Act;

s) Undertake appropriate protocol with other concerned agencies for immediate coordinated responses to water
related emergency incidents;

t) Issue permits, clearances and similar instruments pursuant to this Act; and

u) Exercise such powers and perform such other functions as may be necessary to carry out the objectives of this
Act

The Department shall gradually devolve to the LGUs, and to the governing boards the authority to administer some aspects
of water quality management and regulation, including, but not to be limited to, permit issuance, monitoring and imposition of
administrative penalties, when, upon the Department's determination, the LGU or the governing board has demonstrated
readiness and technical capability to undertake such functions.

SECTION 20. Role of Local Government Units. - Local government units shall share the responsibility in the management
and improvement of water quality within their territorial jurisdictions.

Each local government unit shall within six (6) months after the establishment of the water quality management area action
plan prepare a compliance scheme in, accordance thereof, subject to review and approval of the governing board.

Each local government unit shall, through its Environment and Natural Resources Office (ENRO) established in Republic Act
No.7160, have the following powers and functions:

a) Monitoring of water quality;

b) Emergency response;

c) Compliance with the framework of the Water Quality Management Action Plan;

d) To take active participation in all efforts concerning water quality protection and rehabilitation; and

e) To coordinate with other government agencies and civil society and the concerned sectors in the
implementation of measures to prevent and control water pollution: Provided, however, That in
provinces/cities/municipalities where there are no environment and natural resources officers, the local executive
concerned may, with the approval of the Secretary of the DENR designate any of his official and/or chief of office
preferably the provincial, city or municipal agriculturist, or any of his employee: Provided, finally, That in case an
 employee is designated as such, he must have sufficient experience in environmental and natural resources
management, conservation and utilization.

SECTION 21. Business and Industry Role in Environmental Management. - The Department and the LGUs, in
coordination with the appropriate government agencies. and in consultation with the business and industrial sectors
including commerce, shall formulate appropriate incentives for the adoption procedures that will preserve and protect our
water bodies through the introduction of innovative equipment and processes that reduce if totally eliminate discharge of
pollutants into our water bodies.

SECTION 22. Linkage Mechanism. - The Department and its concerned attached agencies including LLDA shall
coordinate and enter into agreement with other government agencies, industrial sector and other concerned sectors in the
furtherance of the objectives of this Act- The following agencies shall perform tile functions specified hereunder:

a) Philippine Coast Guard in coordination with DA and the Department shall enforce for the enforcement of water
quality standards in marine waters, set pursuant to this Act, specifically from offshore sources;

b) DPWH through its attached agencies, such as the MWSS, LWUA, and including other urban water utilities for
the provision or sewerage and sanitation facilities and the efficient and safe collection, treatment and disposal of
sewage within their area of jurisdiction;

c) DA, shall coordinate with the Department, in the formulation of guidelines for the re-use of wastewater for
irrigation and other agricultural uses and for the prevention, control and abatement of pollution from agricultural
and aquaculture activities: Provided, That discharges coming from non-point sources be categorized and further
defined pursuant to this Act: Provided, further, That the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR) of the
DA shall be primarily responsible for the prevention and control of water pollution for the development,
management and conservation of the fisheries and aquatic resources;

d) DOH shall be primarily responsible for the promulgation, revision and enforcement of drinking water quality
standards;

e) DOST, in coordination with the Department and other concerned agencies, shall prepare a program for the
evaluation, verification, development and public dissemination of pollution prevention and cleaner production
technologies; and

f) Department of Education (DepEd), Commission Higher Education (CHED), Department of the Interior and Local
Government (DILG) and Philippine Information Agency (PIA) shall assist and coordinate with the Department in,
the preparation and implementation of a comprehensive program pursuant to the objectives of this Act.

SECTION 23. Requirement of Record-keeping, Authority for Entry to Premises and Access to Documents. - The
Department or its duly authorized representative shall, after proper consultation and notice, require any person who owns or
operates any pollution source or who is subject to. any requirement of this Act to submit reports and other written information
as may be required by the department.

Any record, report or information obtained under this section shall be made available to the public, except upon a
satisfactory showing to the Department by the, entity concerned that the record, report, or information or parts thereof, if
made public, would divulge secret methods or processes entitled to protection as intellectual property. Such record, report or
information shall likewise be incorporated in the Department's industrial rating system. Pursuant to this Act, the Department,
through it's authorized representatives, shall have the right to: (a) enter any premises or to have access to documents and
relevant materials as referred to in the herein preceding paragraph; (b) inspect any pollution or waste source, control device,
monitoring equipment or method required; and (c) test any discharge.

In cases of fish kill incidence, the Bureau of Fisheries of the DA, in the course of its investigation, may enter the premises of
an establishment reported to have caused said incident.

SECTION 24. Pollution Research and Development Programs. - The Department, in coordination with the Department of
Science and Technology (DOST), other concerned agencies and academic research institutions, shall establish a national
research and development program for the prevention and control of water pollution. As part of said program, the DOST
shall conduct and promote the coordination and acceleration of research, investigation, experiments, training, survey and
studies relating to the causes, extent, prevention and control of pollution among concerned government agencies and
research institutions.
 CHAPTER 4
INCENTIVES AND REWARDS

SECTION 25. Rewards. - Rewards, monetary or otherwise, shall be provided to individuals, private organization and
entities, including civil society, that have undertaken outstanding and innovative projects, technologies, processes and
techniques or activities in water quality management. Said rewards shall be sourced from the Water Quality Management
Fund herein created.

SECTION 26. Incentives Scheme. - An incentive scheme is hereby provided for the purpose of encouraging LGUs, water
districts (WDs), enterprises, or private entities, and individuals, to develop or undertake an effective water quality
management, or actively participate in any program geared towards the promotion thereof as provided in this Act.

A. Non-fiscal incentive

1. Inclusion in the Investments Priority Plan (IPP). - Subject to the rules and regulations of the Board of
Investments (BOI), industrial wastewater treatment and/or adoption of water pollution control technology, cleaner
production and waste minimization technology shall be classified as preferred areas of investment under its annual
priority plan and shall enjoy the applicable fiscal and non-fiscal incentives as may be provided for under the
Omnibus Investment Code, as amended.

Fiscal Incentives

1. Tax and Duty Exemption on Imported Capital Equipment. - Within ten 10) years upon the effectivity of this Act,
LGUs, WDs, enterprises or private entities shall enjoy tax-and-duty-free importation of machinery, equipment and
spare parts used for industrial wastewater treatment/collection and treatment facilities: Provided, That the
importation of such machinery, equipment and spare parts shall comply with the following conditions:

a) They are not manufactured domestically in sufficient quantity, of comparable quality and at reasonable
prices;

b) They are reasonably needed and will be used actually, directly and exclusively for the above
mentioned activities; and

c) Written endorsement by the Department that the importation of such machinery, equipment and spare
parts would be beneficial to environmental protection and management: Provided, further, That the sale,
transfer or disposition of such machinery, equipment and spare parts without prior approval of the BOI
within five (5) years from the date of acquisition shall be prohibited, otherwise the LGU concerned, WD,
enterprise or private entity and the concerned vendee, transferee or assignee shall be solidarity liable to
pay twice the amount of tax and duty exemption given it.

2. Tax Credit on Domestic Capital Equipment. - Within ten (10) years from the effectivity of this Act, a tax credit
equivalent to one hundred percent (100%) of the value of the national internal revenue taxes and customs duties
that would have been waived on the machinery, equipment, and spare parts, had these items been imported shall
be given to enterprises or private entities and individuals, subject to the same conditions and prohibition cited in
the preceding paragraph.

3. Tax and Duty Exemption of Donations, Legacies and Gifts. - All legacies, gifts and donations to LGUs, WDs,
enterprises, or private entities and individuals, for the support and maintenance of the program for effective water
quality management shall be exempt from donor's tax and shall be deductible from the gross income of the donor
for income tax purposes.

Imported articles donated to, or for the account of any LGUs, WDs, local water utilities, enterprises, or private
entities and individuals to be exclusively used for water quality management programs shall be exempted from the
payment of customs duties and applicable internal revenue taxes.

Industrial wastewater treatment and/or installation of water pollution control devices shall be classified as pioneer
and preferred areas of investment under the BOI's annual priority plan and shall enjoy- the applicable fiscal and
non-fiscal incentives as may be provided for under the Omnibus Investment Code, as amended.

B. Financial Assistance Program

 Government financial institutions such as the Development Bank of the Philippines, Land Bank of the Philippines,
Government Service Insurance System, and such other government institutions providing financial services shall,
in accordance with and to the extent allowed by the enabling provisions of their respective charters or applicable
laws, accord high priority to extend financial services to LGUs, WDs, enterprises, or private entities engaged in
sewage collection and treatment facilities.

C. Extension or Grants to LGUs

Cities and municipalities which shall establish or operate sewerage facilities may be entitled to receive grants for the
purpose of developing technical capabilities.

CHAPTER 5
CIVIL LIABILITY/PENAL PROVISIONS

SECTION 27. Prohibited Acts. - The following acts are hereby prohibited:

a) 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;

b) Discharging, injecting or allowing to seep into the soil or sub-soil any substance in any form that would pollute
groundwater. In the case of geothermal projects, and subject to the approval of the Department, regulated
discharge for short- term activities (e.g. well testing, flushing, commissioning, venting) and deep re-injection of
geothermal liquids may be allowed: Provided, That safety measures are adopted to prevent the contamination of
the groundwater;

c) Operating facilities that discharge regulated water pollutants without the valid required permits or after the permit
was revoked for any violation of any condition therein;

d) Disposal of potentially infectious medical waste into sea water by vessels unless the health or safety of
individuals on board the vessel is threatened by a great and imminent peril;

e) Unauthorized transport or dumping into sea waters of sewage sludge or solid waste as defined under Republic
Act No.9003;

f) Transport, dumping or discharge of prohibited chemicals, substances or pollutants listed under Republic Act
No.6969;

g) Operate facilities that discharge or allow to seep, willfully or through gross negligence, prohibited chemicals,
substances or pollutants listed under R. A. No. 6969 into water bodies or wherein the same shall be liable to be
washed into such surface, ground, coastal, and marine water;

h) Undertaking activities or development and expansion of projects, or operating wastewater/sewerage facilities in

violation of Presidential Decree. No.1586 and its implementing rules, and regulations;

i) Discharging regulated water pollutants without the valid required discharge permit pursuant to this Act or after
the permit was revoked for any violation of condition therein;

j) Non-compliance of the LGU with the Water Quality Framework and Management Area Action Plan. In such a
case, sanctions shall be imposed on the local government officials concerned;

k) Refusal to allow entry, inspection and monitoring by the Department in accordance with this Act;

l) Refusal to allow access by the Department to relevant reports and records in accordance with this Act;

m) Refusal or failure to submit reports whenever required by the Department in accordance with this Act;
 n) Refusal or failure to designate pollution control officers whenever required by, the Department in accordance
with this Act; and

o) Directly using booster pumps in the distribution system or tampering with the water supply in such a way as to
alter or impair the water quality.

SECTION 28. Fines, Damages and Penalties. - Unless otherwise provided herein, any person who commits any of the
prohibited acts provided in the immediately preceding section or violates any of the provision of this Act or its implementing
rules and regulations, shall be fined by the Secretary, upon the recommendation of the PAB in the amount of not less than
Ten thousand pesos (P10,000.00) nor more than Two hundred thousand pesos (P200,000.00) for every day of violation.
The fines herein prescribed shall be increased by ten percent (10%) every two (2) years to compensate for inflation and to
maintain the deterrent function of such fines: Provided, That the Secretary, upon recommendation of the PAB may order the
closure, suspension of development or construction, or cessation of operations or, where appropriate disconnection of water
supply, until such time that proper environmental safeguards are put in place and/or compliance with this Act or its rules and
regulations are undertaken. This paragraph shall be without prejudice to the issuance of an ex parte order for such closure,
suspension of development or construction, or cessation of operations during the pendency of the case.

Failure to undertake clean-up operations, willfully, or through gross negligence, shall be punished by imprisonment of not
less than two (2) years and not more than four (4) years and a fine not less than Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) and not
more than One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) per day for each day of violation. Such failure or refusal which
results in serious injury or loss of life and/or irreversible water contamination of surface, ground, coastal and marine water
shall be punished with imprisonment of not less than six (6) years and one day and not more than twelve (12) years, and a
fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00) per day for each day during which the omission and/or contamination
continues.

In case of gross violation of this Act, the PAB shall issue a resolution recommending that the proper government agencies
file criminal charges against the violators. Gross violation shall mean any of the following:

a) deliberate discharge of toxic pollutants identified pursuant to Republic Act No.6969 in toxic amounts;

b) five {5) or more violations within a period of two (2) years; or

c) blatant disregard of the orders of the PAB, such as the non-payment of fines, breaking of seals or operating
despite the existence of an order for closure, discontinuance or cessation of operation.

In which case, offenders shall be punished with a fine of not less than Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) but not
more than Three million pesos (P3,000,000.00} per day for each day of violation or imprisonment of not less than six {6)
years but not more than ten {10) years, or both, at the discretion of the court. If the offender is a juridical person, the
president, manager and the pollution control officer or the official in charge of the operation shall suffer the penalty herein
provided.

For violations falling under Section 4 of Presidential Decree No.979 or any regulations prescribed in pursuance thereof, such
person shall be liable for a fine of no1 less than Fifty thousand pesos {P50,000.00) nor more than One million pesos
(P1,000,000.00) or by imprisonment of not less than one {1) year nor more than six (6) years or both, for each offense,
without prejudice to the civil liability of the offender in accordance with existing laws. If the offender is a juridical entity, then
its officers, directors, agents or any person primarily responsible shall be held liable: Provided, That any vessel from which
oil or other harmful substances are discharged in violation of Section 4 of Presidential Decree No.979 shall be liable for
penalty of fine specified in the immediately preceding paragraph and clearance of such vessel from the port of the
Philippines may be withheld until the fine is paid and such penalty shall constitute a lien on such vessel which may be
recovered in proceedings by libel in rem in the proper court which the vessel may be. The owner or operator of a vessel or
facility which discharged the oil or other harmful substances will be liable to pay for any clean-up costs.

Provided, finally, That water pollution cases involving acts or omissions --- committed within the Laguna Lake Region shall
be dealt with in accordance with the procedure under R. A. No.4850 as amended.

SECTION 29. Administrative Sanctions Against Non-compliance with the Water Quality Management Area Action
Plan. - Local government officials concerned shall be subject to Administrative sanctions incase of failure to comply with
their action plan accordance with the relevant provisions of R.A. No. 7160.

CHAPTER 6
ACTIONS
SECTION 30. Administrative Action. - Without prejudice to the right of any affected person to file an administrative action,
the Department shall, on its own instance or upon verified complaint by any person, institute administrative proceedings in
the proper forum against any person who violates:

a) Standards or limitations provided by this Act; or

b) By any such order, rule or regulation issued by the Department with respect to such standard or limitation.

CHAPTER 7
FINAL PROVISIONS

SECTION 31. Appropriations.- An amount of One hundred million pesos (P100,000,000.00) shall be appropriated from the
savings of the National Government to the Department for the initial implementation of this Act. Thereafter, the amount
necessary to effectively carry out the provision of this Act shall be included in the General Appropriations Act of the year
following its enactment into law and thereafter.

SECTION 32. Implementing Rules and Regulations. - The Department, in coordination with the Committees on
Environment and Ecology of the Senate and the House of Representatives, respectively and other concerned agencies shall
promulgate the implementing rules and regulations for this Act, within one (1) year after the enactment of this Act: Provided.
That rules and regulations issued by other government agencies and instrumentalities for the prevention and/or abatement
of water pollution not inconsistent with this Act shall supplement the rules and regulations issued by the Department,
pursuant to the provisions of this Act.

The draft of the implementing rules and regulations shall be published and be the subject of public consultations with
affected sectors.

There shall be a mandatory review of the implementing rules and regulations and standards set pursuant to the provisions of
this Act.

SECTION 33. Joint Congressional Oversight Committee. - There is hereby created a Joint Congressional Oversight
Committee to monitor the implementation of this Act and to review the implementing rules and regulations promulgated by
the Department. The Committee shall be composed of five (5) Senators and five; (5) Representatives to be appointed by the
Senate President and the Speaker of the House of Representatives, respectively. The Oversight Committee shall be co-
chaired by the Chairpersons of the Committee on Environment of the Senate and the Committee on Ecology of the House of
Representatives.

SECTION 34. Repealing Clause. - Presidential Decree No.984 is hereby repealed. Republic Act Nos. 6969 and 4850 as
amended, Presidential Decree Nos. 1586, 1152, 979 and 856 are hereby amended and modified accordingly. All other laws,
orders, issuance, rules and regulations inconsistent herewith are hereby repealed or modified accordingly.

SECTION 35. Separability Clause. - If any provision of this Act or the application such provision to any person or
circumstances is declared unconstitutional, the remainder of the Act or the application of such provision to other person or
circumstances shall not be affected by such declaration.

SECTION 36. Effectivity. - This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days from the date of its publication in the Official Gazette
or in at least two (2) newspapers of general circulation.

========================================

Juris
G.R. No. 187836 November 25, 2014

SOCIAL JUSTICE SOCIETY (SJS) OFFICERS, NAMELY, SAMSON S. ALCANTARA, and VLADIMIR
ALARIQUE T. CABIGAO, Petitioners,
vs.
ALFREDO S. LIM, in his capacity as mayor of the City of Manila, Respondent.

x-----------------------x

G.R. No. 187916

JOSE L. ATIENZA, JR., BIENVINIDO M. ABANTE, MA. LOURDES M. ISIP-GARCIA, RAFAEL P.

BORROMEO JOCELYN DAWIS-ASUNCION, minors MARIAN REGINA B. TARAN, MACAILA RICCI B.
TARAN, RICHARD KENNETH B. TARAN, represented and joined by their parents RICHARD AND
MARITES TARAN, minors CZARINA ALYSANDRA C. RAMOS, CEZARAH ADRIANNA C. RAMOS, and
CRISTEN AIDAN C. RAMOS represented and joined by their mother DONNA C. RAMOS, minors JAZMIN
SYLLITA T. VILA AND ANTONIO T. CRUZ IV, represented and joined by their mother MAUREEN C.
TOLENTINO, Petitioners,
vs.
MAYOR ALFREDO S. LIM, VICE MAYOR FRANCISCO DOMAGOSO, COUNCILORS ARLENE W. KOA,
MOISES T. LIM, JESUS FAJARDO LOUISITO N. CHUA, VICTORIANO A. MELENDEZ, JOHN MARVIN C.
NIETO, ROLANDO M. VALERIANO, RAYMUNDO R. YUPANGCO, EDWARD VP MACEDA, RODERICK D.
V ALBUENA, JOSEFINA M. SISCAR, SALVADOR PHILLIP H. LACUNA, LUCIANO M. VELOSO, CARLO V.
LOPEZ, ERNESTO F. RIVERA,1 DANILO VICTOR H. LACUNA, JR., ERNESTO G. ISIP, HONEY H.
LACUNA-PANGAN, ERNESTO M. DIONISO, JR. and ERICK IAN O. NIEVA, Respondents.

x-----------------------x

CHEVRON PHILIPPINES INC., PETRON CORPORATION AND PILIPINAS SHELL PETROLEUM

CORPORATION, Intervenors.

DECISION

PEREZ, J.:

Challenged in these consolidated petitions2 is the validity of Ordinance No. 81873 entitled "AN ORDINANCE
AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 8119, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS ‘THE MANILA COMPREHENSIVE LAND
USE PLAN AND ZONING ORDINANCE OF 2006,’ BY CREATING A MEDIUM INDUSTRIAL ZONE (1-2) AND
HEAVY INDUSTRIAL ZONE (1-3), AND PROVIDING FOR ITS ENFORCEMENT" enacted by the Sangguniang
Panlungsod of Manila (Sangguniang Panlungsod) on 14 May 2009.

The creation of a medium industrial zone (1-2) and heavy industrial zone (1-3) effectively lifted the prohibition
against owners and operators of businesses, including herein intervenors Chevron Philippines, Inc. (Chevron),
Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation (Shell), and Petron Corporation (Petron), collectively referred to as the oil
companies, from operating in the designated commercial zone – an industrial zone prior to the enactment of
Ordinance No. 80274 entitled "AN ORDINANCE RECLASSIFYING THE LAND USE OF THAT PORTION OF
LAND BOUNDED BY THE PASIGRIVER IN THE NORTH, PNR RAILROAD TRACK IN THE EAST, BEATA
ST. IN THE SOUTH, PALUMPONG ST. IN THE SOUTHWEST AND ESTERO DE PANDACAN IN THE WEST,
PNR RAILROAD IN THE NORTHWEST AREA, ESTERO DE PANDACAN IN THE NORTHEAST, PASIG
RIVER IN THE SOUTHEAST AND DR. M. L. CARREON IN THE SOUTHWEST, THE AREA OF PUNTA,
STA.ANA BOUNDED BY THE PASIG RIVER, MARCELINO OBRERO ST., MAYO 28 ST. AND THE F.
MANALO STREET FROM INDUSTRIAL II TO COMMERCIAL I," and Ordinance No. 81195 entitled "AN
ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE MANILA COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN AND ZONING REGULATIONS
OF 2006 AND PROVIDING FOR THE ADMINISTRATION, ENFORCEMENT AND AMENDMENT THERETO."

The Parties

Petitioners allege the parties’ respective capacity to sue and be sued, viz:

Petitioners Residence Suing capacity aside from being

in Manila residents of Manila other
personal circumstances

G.R. No. 187836

SJS Officer Samson S. Not mentioned Manila taxpayer;

Alcantara in the petition; One of the petitioners in SJS v.
(Alcantara) holding office Atienza (G.R. No. 156052);*
in Ermita, Pesident of ABAKADA GURO
Manila PARTY LIST with members who
are residents of the City of
Manila
SJS Officer Vladimir Alarique T. Pandacan One of the petitioners in SJS v.
Cabigao (Cabigao) Atienza (G.R. No. 156052)

* The allegation is inaccurate. SJS Officer Alcantara is actually one of the counsels for petitioner SJS in G.R.
No. 156052. The petitioners in that case are the SJS itself, Cabigao and Bonifacio S. Tumbokon (Tumbokon).

G.R. No. 187916

Former Mayor Jose L. Atienza, San Andres Former Mayor of Manila;

Jr. (Mayor Atienza) Secretary of Department of
Environment and Natural
Resources (DENR)
Bienvinido M. Abante Sta. Ana Citizen and taxpayer;
member of the House of
Representatives
Ma. Lourdes M. Isip-Garcia San Miguel Incumbent City Councilor of the
City of Manila
Rafael P. Borromeo Paco Incumbent City Councilor of the
City of Manila
Jocelyn Dawis-Asuncion Sta. Mesa Incumbent City Councilor of the
City of Manila
Minors Marian Regina B. Taran, Paco Citizens, real estate owners and
Macalia Ricci B. Taran, Richard taxpayers
Kenneth B. Taran, represented
and joined by their parents
Richard and Marites Taran
Minors Czarina Alysandra C. Tondo Citizens, real estate owners and
Ramos, Cezarah Adrianna C. taxpayers
 Ramos, and Cristen Aidan C.
Ramos represented and joined
by
their mother Donna c. Ramos
Minors Jasmin Syllita T. Vila and Sta. Ana Citizens, real estate owners and
Antonio T. Cruz IV, represented taxpayers
and joined by their mother
Maureen C. Tolentino

Respondents Sued in their capacity as

G.R. Nos. 187836 and 187916

Former Mayor Alfredo S. Lim (Mayor Lim) Incumbent Mayor of Manila at

the time of the filing of the
present petitions

Respondents Sued in their capacity as

G.R. No. 187916

Vice-Mayor Francisco Domagoso (Vice-Mayor Vice-Mayor and Presiding

Domagoso) Officer
of the City Council of Manila
Arlene Woo Koa Principal author of City
Ordinance No. 8187
Moises T. Lim, Jesus Fajardo, Louisito N. Chua, Personal and official capacities
Victoriano A. Melendez, John Marvin Nieto, as councilors who voted and
Rolando M. Valeriano, Raymondo R. Yupangco, approved City Ordinance No.
Edward VP Maceda, Roderick D. Valbuena, 8187
Josefina M. Siscar, Phillip H. Lacuna, Luciano M.
Veloso, Carlo V. Lopez, Ernesto F.
Rivera,6 Danilo Victor H. Lacuna, Jr., Ernesto G.
Isip, Honey H. Lacuna-Pangan, Ernesto M.
Dionisio, Jr., Erick Ian O. Nieva

The following intervenors, all of which are corporations organized under Philippine laws, intervened: 7

Intervenors Nature of Business

Chevron Philippines, importing, distributing and marketing of petroleum

Inc. (CHEVRON)
Pilipinas Shell Petroleum
Corporation (SHELL)
Petron Corporation (PETRON)
products in the Philippines since 1922
manufacturing, refining, importing, distributing
and marketing of petroleum products in the
Philippines
manufacturing, refining, importing, distributing
and marketing of petroleum products in the
 Philippines

They claim that their rights with respect to the oil depots in Pandacan would be directly affected by the outcome
of these cases.

The Antecedents

These petitions are a sequel to the case of Social Justice Society v. Mayor Atienza, Jr. 8 (hereinafter referred to
asG.R. No. 156052), where the Court found: (1) that the ordinance subject thereof – Ordinance No. 8027 – was
enacted "to safeguard the rights to life, security and safety of the inhabitants of Manila;"9 (2) that it had passed
the tests of a valid ordinance; and (3) that it is not superseded by Ordinance No. 8119.10 Declaring that it is
constitutional and valid,11 the Court accordingly ordered its immediate enforcement with a specific directive on
the relocation and transfer of the Pandacan oil terminals.12

Highlighting that the Court has soruled that the Pandacan oil depots should leave, herein petitioners now seek
the nullification of Ordinance No. 8187, which contains provisions contrary to those embodied in Ordinance No.
8027. Allegations of violation of the right to health and the right to a healthful and balanced environment are
also included.

For a better perspective of the facts of these cases, we again trace the history of the Pandacan oil terminals,
aswell as the intervening events prior to the reclassification of the land use from Industrial II to Commercial I
under Ordinance No. 8027 until the creation of Medium Industrial Zone and Heavy Industrial Zone pursuant to
Ordinance No. 8187.

History of the Pandacan

Oil Terminals

We quote the following from the Resolution of the Court in G.R. No. 156052:

Pandacan (one of the districts of the City of Manila) is situated along the banks of the Pasig [R]iver. Atthe turn
of the twentieth century, Pandacan was unofficially designated as the industrial center of Manila. The area,
then largely uninhabited, was ideal for various emerging industries as the nearby river facilitated the
transportation of goods and products. In the 1920s, it was classifiedas an industrial zone. Among its early
industrial settlers werethe oil companies. x x x On December 8, 1941, the Second World War reached the
shores of the Philippine Islands. x x x [I]n their zealous attempt to fend off the Japanese Imperial Army, the
United States Army took control of the Pandacan Terminals and hastily made plans to destroy the storage
facilities to deprive the advancing Japanese Army of a valuable logistics weapon. The U.S. Army burned
unused petroleum, causing a frightening conflagration. Historian Nick Joaquin recounted the events as follows:

After the USAFFE evacuated the City late in December 1941, all army fuel storage dumps were set on fire. The
flames spread, enveloping the City in smoke, setting even the rivers ablaze, endangering bridges and all
riverside buildings. … For one week longer, the "open city" blazed—a cloud of smoke by day, a pillar of fire by
night.

The fire consequently destroyed the Pandacan Terminals and rendered its network of depots and service
stations inoperative.

After the war, the oil depots were reconstructed. Pandacan changed as Manila rebuilt itself. The three major oil
companies resumed the operation of their depots. But the district was no longer a sparsely populated industrial
zone; it had evolved into a bustling, hodgepodge community. Today, Pandacan has become a densely
populated area inhabited by about 84,000 people, majority of whom are urban poor who call it home. Aside
from numerous industrial installations, there are also small businesses, churches, restaurants, schools,
daycare centers and residences situated there. Malacañang Palace, the official residence of the President of
the Philippines and the seat of governmental power, is just two kilometers away. There is a private school near
the Petron depot. Along the walls of the Shell facility are shanties of informal settlers. More than 15,000
students are enrolled in elementary and high schools situated near these facilities. A university with a student
population of about 25,000 is located directly across the depot on the banks of the Pasig [R]iver.

The 36-hectare Pandacan Terminals house the oil companies’ distribution terminals and depot facilities. The
1âwphi 1

refineries of Chevron and Shell in Tabangao and Bauan, both in Batangas, respectively, are connected to the
Pandacan Terminals through a 114-kilometer underground pipeline system. Petron’s refinery in Limay, Bataan,
on the other hand, also services the depot. The terminals store fuel and other petroleum products and supply
95% of the fuel requirements of Metro Manila, 50% of Luzon’s consumption and 35% nationwide. Fuel can also
be transported through barges along the Pasig [R]iver ortank trucks via the South Luzon
Expressway.13 (Citations omitted)

Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)

dated 12 October 2001 between the oil companies
and the Department of Energy (DOE)

On 12 October 2001, the oil companies and the DOE entered into a MOA14 "in light of recent international
developments involving acts of terrorism on civilian and government landmarks,"15 "potential new security risks
relating to the Pandacan oil terminals and the impact on the surrounding community which may be
affected,"16 and "to address the perceived risks posed by the proximity of communities, businesses and offices
to the Pandacan oil terminals, consistent with the principle of sustainable development."17 The stakeholders
acknowledged that "there is a need for a comprehensive study to address the economic, social, environmental
and security concerns with the end in view of formulating a Master Plan to address and minimize the potential
risks and hazards posed by the proximity of communities, businesses and offices to the Pandacan oil terminals
without adversely affecting the security and reliability of supply and distribution of petroleum products to Metro
Manila and the rest of Luzon, and the interests of consumers and users of such petroleum products in those
areas."18

The enactment of Ordinance No. 8027

against the continued stay of the oil depots

The MOA, however, was short-lived.

On 20 November 2001, during the incumbency of former Mayor Jose L. Atienza, Jr. (Mayor Atienza) – nowone
of the petitioners in G.R. No. 187916 – the Sangguniang Panlungsod enacted Ordinance No.
802719 reclassifying the use of the land in Pandacan, Sta. Ana, and its adjoining areas from Industrial II to
Commercial I.

The owners and operators of the businesses thus affected by the reclassification were given six months from
the date of effectivity of the Ordinance within which to stop the operation of their businesses.

Nevertheless, the oil companies weregranted an extension of until 30 April 2003 within which to comply with
the Ordinance pursuant to the following:

(1) Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)20 dated 26 June 2002 between the City of Manila and the
Department of Energy (DOE), on the one hand, and the oil companies, on the other, where the parties
agreed that "the scaling down of the Pandacan Terminals [was] the most viable and practicable
option"21 and committed to adopt specific measures22 consistent with the said objective;

(2) Resolution No. 97 dated 25 July 200223 of the Sangguniang Panlungsod, which ratified the 26 June
2002 MOU but limited the extension of the period within which to comply to six months from 25 July
2002; and

(3) Resolution No. 13 dated 30 January 200324 of the Sanguniang Panlungsod, which extended the
validity of Resolution No. 97 to 30 April 2003, authorized then Mayor Atienza to issue special business
permits to the oil companies, and called for a reassessment of the ordinance.
Social Justice Society v. Atienza (G.R. No. 156052):
The filing of an action for mandamus
before the Supreme Court
to enforce Ordinance No. 8027

In the interim, an original action for mandamus entitled Social Justice Society v. Atienza, Jr. docketed as G.R.
No. 15605225 was filed on 4 December 2002 by Tumbokon and herein petitioners SJS and Cabigao against
then Mayor Atienza. The petitioners sought to compel former Mayor Atienza to enforce Ordinance No. 8027
and cause the immediate removal of the terminals of the oil companies.26

Issuance by the Regional Trial Court (RTC)

of writs of preliminary prohibitory injunction
and preliminary mandatory injunction,
and status quo order in favor of the oil companies

Unknown to the Court, during the pendency of G.R. No. 156052, and before the expiration of the validity
ofResolution No. 13, the oil companies filed the following actions before the Regional Trial Court of Manila: (1)
an action for the annulment of Ordinance No. 8027 with application for writs of preliminary prohibitory injunction
and preliminary mandatory injunction – by Chevron; (2) a petition for prohibition and mandamus also for the
annulment of the Ordinance with application for writs of preliminary prohibitory injunction and preliminary
mandatory injunction – by Shell; and (3) a petition assailing the validity of the Ordinance with prayer for the
issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction and/or temporary restraining order (TRO) – by Petron.27

Writs of preliminary prohibitory injunction and preliminary mandatory injunction were issued in favor of Chevron
and Shell on 19 May 2003. Petron, on the other hand, obtained a status quo order on 4 August 2004. 28

The Enactment of Ordinance No. 8119 defining the Manila land use plan and zoning regulations

On 16 June 2006, then Mayor Atienza approved Ordinance No. 8119 entitled "An Ordinance Adopting the
Manila Comprehensive Land Use Plan and Zoning Regulations of 2006 and Providing for the Administration,
Enforcement and Amendment thereto."29

Pertinent provisions relative to these cases are the following:

(a) Article IV, Sec. 730 enumerating the existing zones or districts in the City of Manila;

(b) Article V, Sec. 2331 designating the Pandacan oil depot area as a "Planned Unit
Development/Overlay Zone" (O-PUD); and

(c) the repealing clause, which reads:

SEC. 84. Repealing Clause. – All ordinances, rules, regulations in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance
are hereby repealed; PROVIDED, That the rights that are vested upon the effectivity of this Ordinance shall not
be impaired.32

7 March 2007 Decision in G.R. No. 156052;

The mayor has the mandatory legal duty to enforce
Ordinance No. 8027 and order the removal of the Pandacan terminals

On 7 March 2007, the Court granted the petition for mandamus, and directed then respondent Mayor Atienza to
immediately enforce Ordinance No. 8027.33

Confined to the resolution of the following issues raised by the petitioners, to wit:
 1. whether respondent [Mayor Atienza]has the mandatory legal duty to enforce Ordinance No. 8027
and order the removal of the Pandacan Terminals, and

2. whether the June 26, 2002 MOU and the resolutions ratifying it can amend or repeal Ordinance No.
8027.34

the Court declared:

x x x [T]he Local Government Code imposes upon respondent the duty, as city mayor, to "enforce all laws and
ordinances relative to the governance of the city." One of these is Ordinance No. 8027. As the chief executive
of the city, he has the duty to enforce Ordinance No. 8027 as long as it has not been repealed by the
Sanggunian or annulled by the courts. He has no other choice. It is his ministerial duty to do so. x x x

xxxx

The question now is whether the MOU entered into by respondent with the oil companies and the subsequent
resolutions passed by the Sanggunianhave made the respondent’s duty to enforce Ordinance No. 8027
doubtful, unclear or uncertain. x x x

We need not resolve this issue. Assuming that the terms of the MOU were inconsistent with Ordinance No.
8027, the resolutions which ratified it and made it binding on the Cityof Manila expressly gave it full force and
effect only until April 30, 2003. Thus, at present, there is nothing that legally hinders respondent from enforcing
Ordinance No. 8027.

Ordinance No. 8027 was enacted right after the Philippines, along with the rest of the world, witnessed the
horror of the September 11, 2001 attack on the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center in New York City. The
objective of the ordinance is toprotect the residents of Manila from the catastrophic devastation that will surely
occur in case of a terrorist attack on the Pandacan Terminals. No reason exists why such a protective measure
should be delayed.35 (Emphasis supplied; citations omitted)

13 February 2008 Resolution in G.R. No. 156052;

Ordinance No. 8027 is constitutional

The oil companies and the Republic of the Philippines, represented by the DOE, filed their motions for leave to
intervene and for reconsideration of the 7 March 2007 Decision. During the oral arguments, the parties
submitted to the power of the Court torule on the constitutionality and validity of the assailed Ordinance despite
the pendency of the cases in the RTC.36

On 13 February 2008, the Court granted the motions for leave to intervene of the oil companies and the
Republic of the Philippines but denied their respective motions for reconsideration. The dispositive portion of
the Resolution reads:

WHEREFORE, x x x

We reiterate our order to respondent Mayor of the City of Manila to enforce Ordinance No. 8027. In
coordination with the appropriate agencies and other parties involved, respondent Mayor is hereby ordered to
oversee the relocation and transfer of the Pandacan Terminals out of its present site.37

13 February 2008 Resolution in G.R. No. 156052;

Ordinance No. 8027 was not impliedly repealed
by Ordinance No. 8119

The Court also ruled that Ordinance No. 8027 was not impliedly repealed by Ordinance No. 8119. On this
score, the Court ratiocinated:
For the first kind of implied repeal, there must be an irreconcilable conflict between the two ordinances. There
is no conflict between the two ordinances. Ordinance No. 8027 reclassified the Pandacan area from Industrial II
to Commercial I. Ordinance No. 8119, Section 23, designated it as a "Planned Unit Development/Overlay Zone
(O-PUD)." In its Annex "C" which defined the zone boundaries, the Pandacan area was shown to be within the
"High Density Residential/Mixed Use Zone (R-3/MXD)." x x x [B]oth ordinances actually have a common
objective, i.e., to shift the zoning classification from industrial to commercial (Ordinance No. 8027) or mixed
residential commercial (Ordinance No. 8119)

xxxx

Ordinance No. 8027 is a special law since it deals specifically with a certain area described therein (the
Pandacan oil depot area) whereas Ordinance No. 8119 can be considered a general law as it covers the entire
city of Manila.

xxxx

x x x The repealing clause of Ordinance No. 8119 cannot be taken to indicate the legislative intent to repeal all
prior inconsistent laws on the subject matter, including Ordinance No. 8027, a special enactment, since the
aforequoted minutes (an official record of the discussions in the Sanggunian) actually indicated the clear intent
to preserve the provisions of Ordinance No. 8027.38

Filing of a draft Resolution amending Ordinance No. 8027 effectively allowing

the oil depots to stay in the Pandacan area; Manifestation and
Motion to forestall the passing of the new Ordinance filed in G.R. No. 156052

On 5 March 2009, respondent then Councilor Arlene W. Koa, filed with the Sangguniang Panlungsod a draft
resolution entitled "An Ordinance Amending Ordinance No. 8119 Otherwise Known as ‘The Manila
Comprehensive Land Use Plan and Zoning Ordinance of 2006’ by Creating a Medium Industrial Zone (1-2) and
Heavy Industrial Zone (1-3) and Providing for its Enforcement." 39 Initially numbered as Draft Ordinance No.
7177, this was later renumbered as Ordinance No. 8187, the assailed Ordinance in these instant petitions.

Considering that the provisions thereof run contrary to Ordinance No. 8027, the petitioners in G.R. No. 156052
filed a "Manifestation and Motion to: a) Stop the City Council of Manila from further hearing the amending
ordinance to Ordinance No. 8027; [and] b) Transfer the monitoring of the enforcement of the Resolution of the
Honorable Court on this case dated 13 February 2008 from Branch 39, Manila Regional Trial Court to the
Supreme Court."40

28 April 2009 Resolution in G.R. No. 156052;

Second Motion for Reconsideration denied with finality;
succeeding motions likewise denied or otherwise noted without action

On 28 April 2009, pending the resolution of the Manifestation and Motion, the Court denied with finalitythe
second motion for reconsideration dated 27 February 2008 of the oil companies.41

It further ruled that no further pleadings shall be entertained in the case.42

Succeeding motions were thus deniedand/or noted without action. And, after the "Very Urgent Motion to Stop
the Mayor of the City of Manila from Signing Draft Ordinance No. 7177 and to Cite Him for Contempt if He
Would Do So" filed on 19 May 2009 was denied on 2 June 2009 for being moot,43 all pleadings pertaining to the
earlier motion against the drafting of an ordinance to amend Ordinance No. 8027 were noted without action.44

The Enactment of Ordinance No. 8187

allowing the continued stay of the oil depots
On 14 May 2009, during the incumbency of former Mayor Alfredo S. Lim (Mayor Lim), who succeeded Mayor
Atienza, the Sangguniang Panlungsod enacted Ordinance No. 8187.45

The new Ordinance repealed, amended, rescinded or otherwise modified Ordinance No. 8027, Section 23 of
Ordinance No. 8119, and all other Ordinances or provisions inconsistent therewith 46 thereby allowing, once
again, the operation of "Pollutive/Non-Hazardous and Pollutive/Hazardous manufacturing and processing
establishments" and "Highly Pollutive/Non-Hazardous[,] Pollutive/Hazardous[,] Highly Pollutive/Extremely
Hazardous[,] Non-Pollutive/Extremely Hazardous; and Pollutive/Extremely Hazardous; and Pollutive/Extremely
Hazardous manufacturing and processing establishments" within the newly created Medium Industrial Zone (1-
2) and Heavy Industrial Zone (1-3) in the Pandacan area.

Thus, where the Industrial Zoneunder Ordinance No. 8119 was limited to Light Industrial Zone (I-1), Ordinance
No. 8187 appended to the list a Medium Industrial Zone (I-2) and a Heavy Industrial Zone (I-3), where
petroleum refineries and oil depots are now among those expressly allowed.

Hence these petitions.

The Petitions

G.R. No. 187836

To support their petition for prohibition against the enforcement of Ordinance No. 8187, the petitioner Social
Justice Society (SJS) officers allege that:

1. The enactment of the assailed Ordinance is not a valid exercise of police power because the
measures provided therein do not promote the general welfare of the people within the contemplation
of the following provisions of law:

a) Article III, Section 18 (kk)47 of Republic Act No. 409 otherwise known as the "Revised
Charter of the City of Manila," which provides that the Municipal Board shall have the
legislative power to enact all ordinances it may deem necessary and proper;

b) Section 1648 of Republic Act No. 7160 known as the Local Government Code, which defines
the scope of the general welfare clause;

2. The conditions at the time the Court declared Ordinance No. 8027 constitutional in G.R. No. 156052
exist to this date;

3. Despite the finality of the Decision in G.R. No. 156052, and notwithstanding that the conditions and
circumstances warranting the validity of the Ordinance remain the same, the Manila City Council
passed a contrary Ordinance, thereby refusing to recognize that "judicial decisions applying or
interpreting the laws or the Constitution form part of the legal system of the Philippines;"49 and

4. Ordinance No. 8187 is violative of Sections 15 and 16, Article II of the Constitution of the Philippines
on the duty of the State "to protect and promote the right to health of the people"50 and "protect and
advance the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology."51 Petitioners pray that Ordinance
No. 8187 of the City of Manila be declared null and void, and that respondent, and all persons acting
under him, be prohibited from enforcing the same.

G.R. No. 187916

The petition for Prohibition, Mandamus and Certiorari with Prayer for Temporary Restraining Order and/or
Injunction against the enforcement of Ordinance No. 8187 of former Secretary of Department of Environment
and Natural Resources and then Mayor Atienza, together with other residents and taxpayers of the City of
Manila, also alleges violation of the right to health of the people and the right to a healthful and balanced
environment under Sections 15 and 16 of the Constitution.

Petitioners likewise claim that the Ordinance is in violation of the following health and environment-related
municipal laws, and international conventions and treaties to which the Philippines is a state party:

1. Municipal Laws –

(a) Sections 4,52 12,53 1954 and 3055 of Republic Act No. 8749 otherwise known as the Philippine
Clean Air Act;

(b) Environment Code (Presidential Decree No. 1152);

(c) Toxic and Hazardous Wastes Law (Republic Act No. 6969); and

(d) Civil Code provisions on nuisance and human relations;

2. International Conventions and Treaties to which the Philippines is a state party –

a. Section 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states that "[e]veryone has
the right to life, liberty and security of person;"

b. Articles 6,56 2457 and 2758 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, summarized by the
petitioners in the following manner:

1. the human right to safe and healthy environment[;]

2. human right to the highest attainable standard of health[;]

3. the human right to ecologically sustainable development[;]

4. the human right to an adequate standard of living, including access to safe food and water[;]

5. the human right of the child to live in an environment appropriate for physical and mental
development[; and]

6. the human right to full and equal participation for all persons in environmental decision-making and
development planning, and in shaping decisions and policies affecting one’s community, at the local,
national and international levels.59

Petitioners likewise posit that the title of Ordinance No. 8187 purports to amend or repeal Ordinance No. 8119
when it actually intends to repeal Ordinance No. 8027. According to them, Ordinance No. 8027 was never
mentioned in the title and the body of the new ordinance in violation of Section 26, Article VI of the 1987
Constitution, which provides that every bill passed by Congress shall embrace only one subject which shall be
expressed in the title thereof.

Also pointed out by the petitioners is a specific procedure outlined in Ordinance No. 8119 that should be
observed when amending the zoning ordinance. This is provided for under Section 81 thereof, which reads:

SEC. 81. Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance. The proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance
asreviewed and evaluated by the City Planning and Development Office (CPDO)shall be submitted to the City
Council for approval of the majority of the Sangguniang Panlungsod members. The amendments shall be
acceptable and eventually approved: PROVIDED, That there is sufficient evidence and justification for such
proposal; PROVIDED FURTHER,That such proposal is consistent with the development goals, planning
objectives, and strategies of the Manila Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Said amendments shall take effect
immediately upon approval or after thirty (30) days from application.

Petitioners thus pray that:

1. upon filing of [the] petition, [the] case be referred to the Court [E]n Banc, and setting (sic) the case
for oral argument;

2. upon the filing of [the] petition, a temporary restraining order be issued enjoining the respondents
from publishing and posting Manila City Ordinance No. 8187 and/or posting of Manila City Ordinance
No. 8187; and/or taking any steps to implementing (sic) and/or enforce the same and after due
hearing, the temporary restraining order be converted to a permanent injunction;

3. x x x Manila City Ordinance 8187 [be declared] as null and void for being repugnant to the
Constitution and existing municipal laws and international covenants;

4. x x x the respondents [be ordered] to refrain from enforcing and/or implementing Manila City
Ordinance No. 8187;

5. x x x respondent City Mayor Alfredo S. Lim [be enjoined] from issuing any permits (business or
otherwise) to all industries whose allowable uses are anchored under the provisions of Manila
Ordinance No. 8187; and

6. x x x respondent Mayor of Manila Alfredo S. Lim [be ordered] to comply with the Order of the
Honorable Court in G.R. 156052 dated February 13, 2008.60

The Respondents’ Position on the Consolidated Petitions

Respondent former Mayor Lim

In his Memorandum,61 former Mayor Lim, through the City Legal Officer, attacks the petitioners’ lack of legal
standing to sue. He likewise points out that the petitioners failed to observe the principle of hierarchy of courts.

Maintaining that Ordinance No. 8187 is valid and constitutional, he expounds on the following arguments:

On the procedural issues, he contends that: (1) it is the function of the Sangguniang Panlungsod to enact
zoning ordinances, for which reason, it may proceed to amend or repeal Ordinance No. 8119 without prior
referral to the Manila Zoning Board of Adjustment and Appeals (MZBAA) as prescribed under Section 80
(Procedure for Re-Zoning) and the City Planning and Development Office (CPDO) pursuant to Section 81
(Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance) of Ordinance No. 8119, especially when the action actually originated
from the Sangguniang Panlungsod itself; (2) the Sangguniang Panlungsod may, in the later ordinance,
expressly repeal all or part of the zoning ordinance sought to be modified; and (3) the provision repealing
Section 23 of Ordinance No. 8119 is not violative of Section 26, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution, which
requires that every bill must embrace only one subject and that such shall be expressed in the title.

On the substantive issues, he posits that the petitions are based on unfounded fears; that the assailed
ordinance is a valid exercise of police power; that it is consistent with the general welfare clause and public
policy, and is not unreasonable; that it does not run contrary to the Constitution, municipal laws, and
international conventions; and that the petitioners failed to overcome the presumption of validity of the assailed
ordinance.

Respondents Vice-Mayor Domagoso and the City Councilors who voted in favor of the assailed ordinance
On 14 September 2012, after the Court gave the respondents several chances to submit their
Memorandum,62 they, through the Secretary of the Sangguniang Panlungsod, prayed that the Court dispense
with the filing thereof.

In their Comment,63 however, respondents offered a position essentially similar to those proffered by former
Mayor Lim.

The Intervenors’ Position on the Consolidated Petitions

On the other hand, the oil companies sought the outright dismissal of the petitions based on alleged procedural
infirmities, among others, incomplete requisites of judicial review, violation of the principle of hierarchy of
courts, improper remedy, submission of a defective verification and certification against forum shopping, and
forum shopping.

As to the substantive issues, they maintain, among others, that the assailed ordinance is constitutional and
valid; that the Sangguniang Panlalawigan is in the best position to determine the needs of its constituents; that
it is a valid exercise of legislative power; that it does not violate health and environment-related provisions of
the Constitution, laws, and international conventions and treaties to which the Philippines is a party; that the oil
depots are not likely targets of terrorists; that the scaling down of the operations in Pandacan pursuant to the
MOU has been followed; and that the people are safe in view of the safety measures installed in the Pandacan
terminals.

Incidentally, in its Manifestation dated 30 November 2010,64 Petron informed the Court that it will "cease [the]
operation of its petroleum product storage facilities"65 in the Pandacan oil terminal not later than January 2016
on account of the following:

2.01 Environmental issues, many of which are unfounded, continually crop up and tarnish the Company’s
image.

2.02. The location of its Pandacanterminal is continually threatened, and made uncertain preventing long-term
planning, by the changing local government composition. Indeed, the relevant zoning ordinances have been
amended three (3) times, and their validity subjected to litigation.66

Intervening Events

On 28 August 2012, while the Court was awaiting the submission of the Memorandum of respondents Vice-
Mayor Domagoso and the councilors who voted in favor of the assailed Ordinance, the Sangguniang
Panlungsod, which composition had already substantially changed, enacted Ordinance No. 828367 entitled "AN
ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 2 OF ORDINANCE NO. 8187 BY RECLASSIFYING THE AREA WHERE
PETROLEUM REFINERIES AND OIL DEPOTS ARE LOCATED FROM HEAVY INDUSTRIAL (1-3) TO HIGH
INTENSITY COMMERCIAL/MIXED USE ZONE (C3/MXD).

The new ordinance essentially amended the assailed ordinance to exclude the area where petroleum refineries
and oil depots are located from the Industrial Zone.

Ordinance No. 8283 thus permits the operation of the industries operating within the Industrial Zone. However,
the oil companies, whose oil depots are located in the High Intensity Commercial/Mixed Use Zone (C3/MXD),
are given until the end of January 2016 within which to relocate their terminals.

Former Mayor Lim, who was then the incumbent mayor, did not support the amendment. Maintaining that the
removal of the oil depots was prejudicial to public welfare, and, on account of the pending cases in the
Supreme Court, he vetoed Ordinance No. 8283 on 11 September 2012.68

On 28 November 2012, former Mayor Lim filed a Manifestation informing this Court that the Sangguniang
Panlungsod voted to override the veto, and that he, in turn, returned it again with his veto. He likewise directed
the Sangguniang Panlungsod to append his written reasons for his veto of the Ordinance, so that the same will
be forwarded to the President for his consideration in the event that his veto is overridden again. 69

On 11 December 2012, Shell also filed a similar Manifestation.70

Meanwhile, three days after former Mayor Lim vetoed the new ordinance, Atty. Luch R. Gempis, Jr. (Atty.
Gempis), Secretary of the Sangguniang Panlungsod, writing on behalf of respondents Vice-Mayor Domagoso
and the City Councilors of Manila who voted in favor of the assailed Ordinance, finally complied with this
Court’s Resolution dated 17 July 2012 reiterating its earlier directives 71 to submit the said respondents’
Memorandum.

In his Compliance/Explanation with Urgent Manifestation72 dated 13 September 2012, Atty. Gempis explained
that it was not his intention to show disrespect to this Court or to delay or prejudice the disposition of the cases.

According to him, he signed the Comment prepared by respondents Vice-Mayor and the City Councilors only to
attest that the pleading was personally signed by the respondents. He clarified that he was not designated as
the legal counsel of the respondents as, in fact, he was of the impression that, pursuant to Section 481(b)(3) of
the Local Government Code,73 it is the City Legal Officer who isauthorized to represent the local government
unit or any official thereof in a litigation. It was for the same reason that he thought that the filing of a
Memorandum may already be dispensed with when the City Legal Officer filed its own on 8 February 2010. He
further explained that the Ordinance subject of these cases was passed during the 7th Council (2007-2010);
that the composition of the 8th Council (2010-2013) had already changed after the 2010 elections; and that
steps were already taken to amend the ordinance again. Hence, he was in a dilemma as to the position of the
Sangguniang Panlungsod at the time he received the Court’s Resolution of 31 May 2011.

Atty. Gempis, thus, prayed that the Court dispense with the filing of the required memorandum in view of the
passing of Ordinance No. 8283.

Issue

The petitioners’ arguments are primarily anchored on the ruling of the Court in G. R. No. 156052 declaring
Ordinance No. 8027 constitutional and valid after finding that the presence of the oil terminals in Pandacan is a
threat to the life and security of the people of Manila. From thence, the petitioners enumerated constitutional
provisions, municipal laws and international treaties and conventions on health and environment protection
allegedly violated by the enactment of the assailed Ordinance to support their position.

The resolution of the present controversy is, thus, confined to the determination of whether or not the
enactment of the assailed Ordinance allowing the continued stay of the oil companies in the depots is, indeed,
invalid and unconstitutional.

Our Ruling

We see no reason why Ordinance No. 8187 should not be stricken down insofar as the presence of the oil
depots in Pandacan is concerned.

We first rule on the procedural issues raised by the respondents and the oil companies.

At the outset, let it be emphasized that the Court, in G.R. No. 156052, has already pronounced that the matter
of whether or not the oil depots should remain in the Pandacan area is of transcendental importance to the
residents of Manila.74
We may, thus, brush aside procedural infirmities, if any, as we had in the past, and take cognizance of the
cases75 if only to determine if the acts complained of are no longer within the bounds of the Constitution and the
laws in place.76

Put otherwise, there can be no valid objection to this Court’s discretion to waive one or some procedural
requirements if only to remove any impediment to address and resolve the serious constitutional
question77 raised in these petitions of transcendental importance, the same having farreaching implications
insofar as the safety and general welfare of the residents of Manila, and even its neighboring communities, are
concerned.

Proper Remedy

Respondents and intervenors argue that the petitions should be outrightly dismissed for failure on the part of
the petitioners to properly apply related provisions of the Constitution, the Rules of Court, and/or the Rules of
Procedure for Environmental Cases relative to the appropriate remedy available to them.

To begin with, questioned is the applicability of Rule 6578 of the Rules of Court to assail the validity and
constitutionality of the Ordinance.

… there is no appeal, or any plain,

speedy, and adequate remedy

in the ordinary course of law…

Rule 65 specifically requires that the remedy may be availed of only when "there is no appeal, or any plain,
speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law."79

Shell argues that the petitioners should have sought recourse before the first and second level courts under the
Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases,80 which govern "the enforcement or violations of environmental
and other related laws, rules and regulations."81 Petron additionally submits that the most adequate remedy
available to petitioners is to have the assailed ordinance repealed by the Sangguniang Panlungsod. In the
alternative, a local referendum may be had. And, assuming that there were laws violated, the petitioners may
file an action for each alleged violation of law against the particular individuals that transgressed the law.

It would appear, however, that the remedies identified by the intervenors prove to be inadequate toresolve the
present controversies in their entirety owing to the intricacies of the circumstances herein prevailing.

The scope of the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases is embodied in Sec. 2, Part I, Rule I thereof. It
states that the Rules shall govern the procedure in civil, criminal and special civil actions before the
Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial
Courts, and the Regional Trial Courts involving enforcement or violations of environmental and other related
laws, rules and regulations such as but not limited to the following:

(k) R.A. No. 6969, Toxic Substances and Hazardous Waste Act;

xxxx

(r) R.A. No. 8749, Clean Air Act;

xxxx
 (y) Provisions in C.A. No. 141, x x x; and other existing laws that relate to the conservation,
development, preservation, protection and utilization of the environment and natural
resources.82 (Emphasis supplied)

Notably, the aforesaid Rules are limited in scope. While, indeed, there are allegations of violations of
environmental laws in the petitions, these only serve as collateral attacks that would support the other position
of the petitioners – the protection of the rightto life, security and safety. Moreover, it bears emphasis that the
promulgation of the said Rules was specifically intended to meet the following objectives:

SEC. 3. Objectives.—The objectives of these Rules are:

(a) To protect and advance the constitutional right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology;

(b) To provide a simplified, speedy and inexpensive procedure for the enforcement of environmental
rights and duties recognized under the Constitution, existing laws, rules and regulations, and
international agreements;

(c) To introduce and adopt innovations and best practices ensuring the effective enforcement of
remedies and redress for violation of environmental laws; and

(d) To enable the courts to monitor and exact compliance with orders and judgments in environmental
cases.83

Surely, the instant petitions are not within the contemplation of these Rules.

Relative to the position of Petron, it failed to consider that these petitions are already a sequel to G.R. No.
156052, and that there are some issues herein raised that the remedies available at the level of the
Sangguniang Panlungsod could not address. Neither could the filing of an individual action for each law
violated be harmonized with the essence of a "plain, speedy, and adequate" remedy.

From another perspective, Shell finds fault with the petitioners’ direct recourse to this Court when, pursuant to
Section 5, Article VIII of the Constitution, the Supreme Court exercises only appellate jurisdiction over cases
involving the constitutionality or validity of an ordinance.84 Thus:

Section 5.The Supreme Court shall have the following powers:

xxxx

2. Review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal or certiorari, as the law or the Rules of Court may
provide, final judgments and orders of lower courtsin:

a. All cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty, international or executive agreement, law,
presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation is in question. (Emphasis
supplied)

To further support its position, it cites the case of Liga ng mga Barangay National v. City Mayor of
Manila,85 where the petitioners sought the nullification of the mayor’s executive order and the council’s
ordinance concerning certain functions of the petitioners that are vested in them by law. There, the Court held:

Second, although the instant petition is styled as a petition for certiorari, in essence, it seeks the declaration by
this Court of the unconstitutionality or illegality of the questioned ordinance and executive order. It, thus,
partakes of the nature of a petition for declaratory relief over which this Court has only appellate, not original,
jurisdiction.86 Section 5, Article VIII of the Constitution provides: x x x
As such, this petition must necessary fail, as this Court does not have original jurisdiction over a petition for
declaratory relief even if only questions of law are involved.87

Assuming that a petition for declaratory relief is the proper remedy, and that the petitions should have been
filed with the Regional Trial Court, we have, time and again, resolved to treat such a petition as one for
prohibition, provided that the case has far-reaching implications and transcendental issues that need to be
resolved,88 as in these present petitions.

On a related issue, we initially found convincing the argument that the petitions should have been filed with the
Regional Trial Court, it having concurrent jurisdiction with this Court over a special civil action for prohibition,
and original jurisdiction over petitions for declaratory relief. However, as we have repeatedly said, the petitions
at bar are of transcendental importance warranting a relaxation of the doctrine of hierarchy of courts.89 In the
case of Jaworski v. PAGCOR,90 the Court ratiocinated:

Granting arguendothat the present action cannot be properly treated as a petition for prohibition, the
transcendental importance of the issues involved in this case warrants that weset aside the technical defects
and take primary jurisdiction over the petition at bar. x x x This is in accordance with the well-entrenched
principle that rules of procedure are not inflexible tools designed to hinder or delay, but to facilitate and promote
the administration of justice.Their strict and rigid application, which would result in technicalities that tend to
frustrate, rather than promote substantial justice, must always be eschewed. (Emphasis supplied)

…persons aggrieved thereby…

As to who may file a petition for certiorari, prohibition or mandamus, Petron posits that petitioners are not
among the "persons aggrieved" contemplated under Sections 1 to 3 of Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.

Chevron argues that petitioners, whether as "citizens," taxpayers," or legislators," lack the legal standing
toassail the validity and constitutionality of Ordinance No. 8187. It further claims that petitioners failed to show
that they have suffered any injury and/or threatened injury as a result of the act complained of.91

Shell also points out that the petitions cannot be considered taxpayers’ suit, for then, there should be a claim
that public funds were illegally disbursed and that petitioners have sufficient interest concerning the prevention
of illegal expenditure of public money.92 In G.R. No. 187916, Shell maintains that the petitioners failed to show
their personal interest in the case and/or to establish that they may represent the general sentiments of the
constituents of the City of Manila so as to be treated as a class suit. Even the minors, it argues, are not
numerous and representative enough for the petition to be treated as a class suit. Asto the city councilors who
joined the petitioners in assailing the validity of Ordinance No. 8187, Shell posits that they cannot invoke the
ruling in Prof. David v. Pres. Macapagal-Arroyo,93 where the Court held that legislators may question the
constitutionality of a statute, if and when it infringes upon their prerogatives as legislators, because of the
absence of the allegation that the assailed ordinance indeed infringes upon their prerogatives.

Former Mayor Lim submitted a similar position supported by a number of cases on the concept of locus
standi,94 the direct injury test,95 an outline of the stringent requirements of legal standing when suing as a
citizen,96 as a taxpayer,97 as a legislator and in cases where class suits are filed in behalf of all citizens.98

Their arguments are misplaced.

In G.R. No. 156052, we ruled that the petitioners in that case have a legal right to seek the enforcement of
Ordinance No. 8027 because the subject of the petition concerns a public right, and they, as residents of
Manila, have a direct interest in the implementation of the ordinances of the city. Thus:

To support the assertion that petitioners have a clear legal right to the enforcement of the ordinance, petitioner
SJS states that it is a political party registered with the Commission on Elections and has its offices in Manila. It
claims to have many members who are residents of Manila. The other petitioners, Cabigao and Tumbokon, are
allegedly residents of Manila.
We need not belabor this point. We have ruled in previous cases that when a mandamus proceeding concerns
a public right and its object is to compel a public duty, the people who are interested in the execution of the
laws are regarded as the real parties in interest and they need not show any specific interest. Besides, as
residents of Manila, petitioners have a direct interest in the enforcement of the city’s ordinances. 99 x x x
(Citations omitted)

No different are herein petitioners who seek to prohibit the enforcement of the assailed ordinance, and who
deal with the same subject matter that concerns a public right. Necessarily, the people who are interested in
the nullification of such an ordinance are themselves the real parties in interest, for which reason, they are no
longer required to show any specific interest therein. Moreover, it is worth mentioning that SJS, now
represented by SJS Officer Alcantara, has been recognized by the Court in G.R. No. 156052 to have legal
standing to sue in connection with the same subject matter herein considered. The rest of the petitioners are
residents of Manila. Hence, all of them have a direct interest in the prohibition proceedings against the
enforcement of the assailed ordinance.

In the case of Initiatives for Dialogue and Empowerment through Alternative Legal Services, Inc. (IDEALS,
INC.) v. Power Sector Assets and Liabilities Management Corporation (PSALM),100 involving a petition for
certiorari and prohibition to permanently enjoin PSALM from selling the Angat Hydro-Electric Power Plant
(AHEPP) to Korea Water Resources Corporation (K-Water), the Court ruled:

"Legal standing" or locus standihas been defined as a personal and substantial interest in the case such that
the party has sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result of the governmental act that is being challenged,
alleging more than a generalized grievance. x x x This Court, however, has adopted a liberal attitude on the
locus standi of a petitioner where the petitioner is able to craft anissue of transcendental significance to the
people, as when the issues raised are of paramount importance to the public. Thus, when the proceeding
involves the assertion of a public right, the mere fact that the petitioner is a citizen satisfies the requirement of
personal interest.

There can be no doubt that the matter of ensuring adequate water supply for domestic use is one of paramount
importance to the public. That the continued availability of potable water in Metro Manila might be compromised
if PSALM proceeds with the privatization of the hydroelectric power plant in the Angat Dam Complex confers
upon petitioners such personal stake in the resolution of legal issues in a petition to stop its
implementation.101 (Emphasis supplied; citations omitted)

In like manner, the preservation of the life, security and safety of the people is indisputably a right of utmost
importance to the public. Certainly, the petitioners, as residents of Manila, have the required personal interest
to seek relief from this Court to protect such right.

… in excess of its or his jurisdiction,

or with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction…

Petron takes issue with the alleged failure of the petitioners to establish the facts with certainty that would show
that the acts of the respondents fall within the parameters of the grave abuse of discretion clause settled by
jurisprudence, to wit:

x x x "[G]rave abuse of discretion" means such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent
to lack of jurisdiction. The abuse of discretion must be grave as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary or
despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility and must be so patent and gross asto amount to an
evasion of positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined by or to act all in contemplation of
law.102

It is pointless to discuss the matter at length in these instant cases of transcendental importance in view of the
Court’s pronouncement, in Magallona v. Ermita.103 There it held that the writs of certiorariand prohibition are
proper remedies to test the constitutionality of statutes, notwithstanding the following defects:
In praying for the dismissal of the petition on preliminary grounds, respondents seek a strict observance of the
offices of the writs of certiorari and prohibition, noting that the writs cannot issue absent any showing of
grave abuse of discretion in the exercise of judicial, quasi-judicial or ministerial powers on the part of
respondents and resulting prejudice on the part of petitioners.

Respondents’ submission holds true in ordinary civil proceedings. When this Court exercises its constitutional
power of judicial review, however, we have, by tradition, viewed the writs of certiorariand prohibition as proper
remedial vehicles to test the constitutionality of statutes, and indeed, of acts of other branches of
government. Issues of constitutional importx x x carry such relevance in the life of this nation that the
Court inevitably finds itself constrained to take cognizance of the case and pass upon the issues
raised, noncompliance with the letter of procedural rules notwithstanding. The statute sought to be
reviewed here is one such law.104 (Emphasis supplied; citations omitted)

Requisites of judicial review

For a valid exercise of the power of judicial review, the following requisites shall concur: (1) the existence of a
legal controversy; (2) legal standing to sue of the party raising the constitutional question; (3) a plea that judicial
review be exercised at the earliest opportunity; and (4) the constitutional question is the lis mota of the case. 105

Only the first two requisites are put in issue in these cases.

On the matter of the existence of a legal controversy, we reject the contention that the petitions consist of bare
allegations based on speculations, surmises, conjectures and hypothetical grounds.

The Court declared Ordinance No. 8027 valid and constitutional and ordered its implementation. Withthe
passing of the new ordinance containing the contrary provisions, it cannot be any clearer that here lies an
actual case or controversy for judicial review. The allegation on this, alone, is sufficient for the purpose.

The second requisite has already been exhaustively discussed.

Proof of identification required in the notarization

of the verification and certification against forum
shopping in G.R. No. 187916

At the bottom of the Verification and Certification against Forum Shopping of the petition in G.R. No. 187916 is
the statement of the notary public to the effect that the affiant, in his presence and after presenting "an
integrally competent proof of identification with signature and photograph,"106 signed the document under oath.

Citing Sec. 163 of the Local Government Code,107 which provides that an individual acknowledging any
document before a notary public shall present his Community Tax Certificate (CTC), Chevron posits that the
petitioner’s failure to present his CTC rendered the petition fatally defective warranting the outright dismissal of
the petition.

We disagree.

The verification and certification against forum shopping are governed specifically by Sections 4 and 5,Rule 7
of the Rules of Court.

Section 4 provides that a pleading, when required to be verified, shall be treated as an unsigned pleading if it
lacks a proper verification while Section 5 requires that the certification to be executed by the plaintiff or
principal party be under oath.

These sections, in turn, should be read together with Sections 6 and 12, Rule 2 of the 2004 Rules on Notarial
Practice.
Section 6108 of the latter Rules, specifically, likewise provides that any competent evidence of identity specified
under Section 12 thereof may now be presented before the notary public, to wit:

SEC. 12. Competent Evidence of Identity. - The phrase "competent evidence of identity" refers to the
identification of an individual based on:

(a) at least one current identification document issued by an official agency bearing the
photograph and signature of the individual, such as but not limited to passport, driver’s
license, Professional Regulations Commission ID, National Bureau of Investigation clearance,
police clearance, postal ID, voter’s ID, Barangay certification, Government Service and
Insurance System (GSIS) e-card, Social Security System (SSS) card, Philhealth card, senior
citizen card, Overseas Workers Welfare Administration (OWWA) ID, OFW ID, seaman’s book,
alien certificate of registration/immigrant certificate of registration, government office ID,
certification from the National Council for the Welfare of Disable Persons (NCWDP),
Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) certification; or

(b) x x x.109

Forum shopping

Shell contends that the petitioners in G.R. No. 187836 violated the rule against forum shopping allegedly
because all the elements thereof are present in relation to G.R. No. 156052, to wit:

1. "identity of parties, or at least such parties who represent the same interests in both actions" –
According to Shell, the interest of petitioner SJS in G.R. No. 156052 and the officers of SJS in G.R.
No. 187836 are clearly the same. Moreover, both actions implead the incumbent mayor of the City of
Manila as respondent. Both then respondent Mayor Atienza in G.R. No. 156052 and respondent
former Mayor Lim in G.R. No. 187836 are sued in their capacity as Manila mayor.

2. "identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being founded on the same fact(s)" – Shell
contends that, in both actions, petitioners assert the same rights to health and to a balanced and
healthful ecology relative to the fate of the Pandacan terminal, and seek essentially the same reliefs,
that is, the removal of the oil depots from the present site.

3. "the identity of the two preceding particulars is such that any judgment rendered in the pending
case, regardless of which party is successful, would amount to res judicata in the other" – Relative to
the filing of the Manifestation and Motion to: a) Stop the City Council of Manila from further hearing the
amending ordinance to Ordinance No. 8027 x x x (Manifestation and Motion) and Very Urgent Motion
to Stop the Mayor of the City of Manila from Signing Draft Ordinance No. 7177 [now Ordinance No.
8187] and to Cite Him for Contempt if He Would Do So (Urgent Motion) both in G.R. No. 156052, Shell
points out the possibility that the Court would have rendered conflicting rulings "on cases involving the
same facts, parties, issues and reliefs prayed for."110

We are not persuaded.

In Spouses Cruz v. Spouses Caraos,111 the Court expounded on the nature of forum shopping. Thus:

Forum shopping is an act of a party, against whom an adverse judgment or order has been rendered in one
forum, of seeking and possibly getting a favorable opinion in another forum, other than by appeal or special civil
action for certiorari. It may also be the institution of two or more actions or proceedings grounded on the same
cause on the supposition that one or the other court would make a favorable disposition. The established rule is
that for forum shopping to exist, both actions must involve the same transactions, same essential facts and
circumstances and must raise identical causes of actions, subject matter, and issues. x x x112 (Citations omitted)
It bears to stress that the present petitions were initially filed, not to secure a judgment adverse to the first
decision, but, precisely, to enforce the earlier ruling to relocate the oil depots from the Pandacan area.
As to the matter of the denial of the petitioners’ Manifestation and Urgent Motion in G.R. No. 156052, which
wereboth incidental to the enforcement of the decision favorable to them brought about by the intervening
events after the judgment had become final and executory, and which involve the same Ordinance assailed in
these petitions, we so hold that the filing of the instant petitions is not barred by res judicata.

In the same case of Spouses Cruz v. Spouses Caraos involving the refiling of a complaint, which had been
earlier dismissed without qualification that the dismissal was with prejudice, and which had not been decided
on the merits, the Court declared that such re-filing did not amount to forum shopping. It ratiocinated:

It is not controverted that the allegations of the respective complaints in both Civil Case No. 95-1387 and Civil
Case No. 96-0225 are similarly worded, and are identical in all relevant details, including typographical errors,
except for the additional allegations in support of respondents’ prayer for the issuance of preliminary injunction
in Civil Case No. 95-1387. It is similarly not disputed that both actions involve the same transactions; same
essential facts and circumstances; and raise identical causes of actions, subject matter, and issues.

xxxx

x x x The dismissal of Civil Case No. 95-1387 was without prejudice. Indeed, the Order dated 20 November
1995, dismissing Civil Case No. 95-1387 was an unqualified dismissal. More significantly, its dismissal was not
based on grounds under paragraphs (f), (h), and (i) of Section 1 of Rule 16 of the Rules of Court, which
dismissal shall bar the refiling of the same action or claim as crystallized in Section 5 of Rule 16 thereof, thus:

SEC. 5. Effect of dismissal. – Subject to the right of appeal, an order granting a motion to dismiss based on
paragraphs (f), (h), and (i) of section 1 hereof shall bar the refiling of the same action or claim.

From the foregoing, it is clear that dismissals under paragraphs (f), (h), and (i) of Section 1 of Rule 16 of the
Rules of Court constitute res judicata, to wit:

(f) That the cause of action isbarred by a prior judgment or by the statute of limitations;

xxxx

(h) That the claim or demand set forth in the plaintiff’s pleading has been paid, waived, abandoned, or
otherwise extinguished;

(i) That the claim on which the action is founded is unenforceable under the provisions of the statute of frauds.

Res judicata or bar by prior judgmentis a doctrine which holds that a matter that has been adjudicated by a
court of competent jurisdiction must be deemed to have been finally and conclusively settled if it arises in any
subsequent litigation between the same parties and for the same cause. Res judicata exists when the following
elements are present: (a) the former judgment must be final; (b) the court which rendered judgment had
jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter; (3)it must be a judgment on the merits; and (d) and there
must be, between the first and second actions, identity ofparties, subject matter, and cause of
action.113 (Emphasis supplied; citations omitted)

Here, it should be noted that this Court denied the said Manifestation and Urgent Motion, and refused to act on
the succeeding pleadings, for being moot.114 Clearly, the merits of the motion were not considered by the Court.
The following disquisition of the Court in Spouses Cruz v. Spouses Caraosis further enlightening:

The judgment of dismissal in Civil Case No. 95-1387 does not constitute res judicata to sufficiently bar the
refiling thereof in Civil Case No. 96-0225. As earlier underscored, the dismissal was one without prejudice.
Verily, it was not a judgment on the merits. It bears reiterating that a judgment on the merits is one rendered
after a determination of which party is right, as distinguished from a judgment rendered upon some preliminary
or formal or merely technical point. The dismissal of the case without prejudice indicates the absence of a
decision on the merits and leaves the parties free to litigate the matter in a subsequent action asthough the
dismissed action had not been commenced.115(Emphasis supplied; citations omitted)

Considering that there is definitely no forum shopping in the instant cases, we need not discuss in detail the
elements of forum shopping.

II

The Local Government Code of 1991 expressly provides that the Sangguniang Panlungsod is vested with the
power to "reclassify land within the jurisdiction of the city"116 subject to the pertinent provisions of the Code. It is
also settled that an ordinance may be modified or repealed by another ordinance.117 These have been properly
applied in G.R. No. 156052, where the Court upheld the position of the Sangguniang Panlungsod to reclassify
the land subject of the Ordinance,118 and declared that the mayor has the duty to enforce Ordinance No. 8027,
provided that it has not been repealed by the Sangguniang Panlungsod or otherwise annulled by the
courts.119 In the same case, the Court also used the principle that the Sanguniang Panlungsod is in the best
position to determine the needs of its Constituents120 – that the removal of the oil depots from the Pandacan
area is necessary "to protect the residents of Manila from catastrophic devastation in case of a terrorist attack
on the Pandacan Terminals."121

Do all these principles equally apply to the cases at bar involving the same subject matter to justify the contrary
provisions of the assailed Ordinance?

We answer in the negative.

We summarize the position of the Sangguniang Panlungsodon the matter subject of these petitions. In 2001,
the Sanggunian found the relocation of the Pandacan oil depots necessary. Hence, the enactment of
Ordinance No. 8027.

In 2009, when the composition of the Sanggunian had already changed, Ordinance No. 8187 was passed in
favor of the retention of the oil depots. In 2012, again when some of the previous members were no longer re-
elected, but with the Vice-Mayor still holding the same seat, and pending the resolution of these petitions,
Ordinance No. 8283 was enacted to give the oil depots until the end of January 2016 within which to transfer to
another site. Former Mayor Lim stood his groundand vetoed the last ordinance.

In its Comment, the 7th Council (2007-2010) alleged that the assailed Ordinance was enacted to alleviate the
economic condition of its constituents.122

Expressing the same position, former Mayor Lim even went to the extent of detailing the steps 123 he took prior to
the signing of the Ordinance, if only to show his honest intention to make the right decision.

The fact remains, however, that notwithstanding that the conditions with respect to the operations of the oil
depots existing prior to the enactment of Ordinance No. 8027 do not substantially differ to this day, as would
later be discussed, the position of the Sangguniang Panlungsod on the matter has thrice changed, largely
depending on the new composition of the council and/or political affiliations. The foregoing, thus, shows that its
determination of the "general welfare" of the city does not after all gear towards the protection of the people in
its true sense and meaning, but is, one way or another, dependent on the personal preference of the members
who sit in the council as to which particular sector among its constituents it wishes to favor.

Now that the City of Manila, through the mayor and the city councilors, has changed its view on the matter,
favoring the city’s economic related benefits, through the continued stay of the oil terminals, over the protection
of the very lives and safety of its constituents, it is imperative for this Court to make a final determination on the
basis of the facts on the table as to which specific right of the inhabitants of Manila should prevail. For, in this
present controversy, history reveals that there is truly no such thing as "the will of Manila" insofar as the
general welfare of the people is concerned.
If in sacrilege, in free translation of Angara124 by Justice Laurel, we say when the judiciary mediates we do notin
reality nullify or invalidate an act of the Manila Sangguniang Panlungsod, but only asserts the solemn and
sacred obligation assigned to the Court by the Constitution to determine conflicting claims of authority under
the Constitution and to establish for the parties in an actual controversy the rights which that instrument
secures and guarantees to them.

III

The measures taken by the intervenors to lend support to their position that Manila is now safe despite the
presence of the oil terminals remain ineffective. These have not completely removed the threat to the lives of
the in habitants of Manila.

In G.R. No. 156052, the validity and constitutionality of Ordinance No. 8027 was declared as a guarantee for
the protection of the constitutional right to life of the residents of Manila. There, the Court said that the
enactment of the said ordinance was a valid exercise of police power with the concurrence of the two
requisites: a lawful subject – "to safeguard the rights to life, security and safety of all the inhabitants of
Manila;"125 and a lawful method – the enactment of Ordinance No. 8027 reclassifying the land use from
industrial to commercial, which effectively ends the continued stay of the oil depots in Pandacan. 126

In the present petitions, the respondents and the oil companies plead that the Pandacan Terminal has never
been one of the targets of terrorist attacks;127 that the petitions were based on unfounded fears and mere
conjectures;128and that the possibility that it would be picked by the terrorists is nil given the security measures
installed thereat.129

The intervenors went on to identify the measures taken to ensure the safety of the people even with the
presence of the Pandacan Terminals. Thus:

1. Chevron claims that it, together with Shell and Petron, continues to enhance the safety and security
features of the terminals. They likewise adopt fire and product spill prevention measures in accordance
with the local standards set by the Bureau of Fire Protection, among others, and with the international
standards of the American Petroleum Industry ("API") and the National Fire Prevention and Safety
Association ("NFPSA"); that since 1914, the oil depots had not experienced "any incident beyond the
ordinary risks and expectations"130 of the residents of Manila; and that it received a passing grade on
the safety measures they installed in the facilities from the representatives of the City of Manila who
conducted an ocular inspection on 22 May 2009; and

2. Referring to the old MOU entered into between the City of Manila and the DOE, on the one hand,
and the oil companies, on the other, where the parties thereto conceded and acknowledged that the
scale-down option for the Pandacan Terminal operations is the best alternative to the relocation of the
terminals, Shell enumeratesthe steps taken to scale down its operations.

As to the number of main fuel tanks, the entire Pandacan Terminal has already decommissioned twenty-eight
out of sixty-four tanks. Speaking for Shell alone, its LPG Spheres, which it claims is the only product that may
cause explosion, was part of those decommissioned, thereby allegedly removing the danger of explosion.
Safety buffer zones and linear/green parks were likewise created to separate the terminal from the nearest
residential area. Shell’s portion of the oil depot is likewise allegedly equipped with the latest technology to
ensure air-quality control and waterquality control, and to prevent and cope with possible oil spills with a crisis
management plan in place in the event that an oil spill occurs. Finally, Shell claims that the recommendations
of EQE International in its Quantitative Risk Assessment (QRA) study, which it says is one of the leading
independent risk assessment providers in the world and largest risk management consultancy, were sufficiently
complied with; and that, on its own initiative, it adopted additional measures for the purpose, for which reason,
"the individual risk level resulting from any incident occurring from the Pandacan Terminal, per the QRA study,
is twenty (20) times lower compared to the individual risk level of an average working or domestic
environment."131

We are not persuaded.

The issue of whether or not the Pandacan Terminal is not a likely target of terrorist attacks has already been
passed upon in G. R. No. 156052. Based on the assessment of the Committee on Housing, Resettlement and
Urban Development of the City of Manila and the then position of the Sangguniang Panlungsod,132 the Court
was convinced that the threat of terrorism is imminent. It remains so convinced.

Even assuming that the respondents and intervenors were correct, the very nature of the depots where millions
of liters of highly flammable and highly volatile products, regardless of whether ornot the composition may
cause explosions, has no place in a densely populated area. Surely, any untoward incident in the oil depots,
beit related to terrorism of whatever origin or otherwise, would definitely cause not only destruction to
properties within and among the neighboring communities but certainly mass deaths and injuries.

With regard to the scaling down of the operations in the Pandacan Terminals, which the oil companies continue
to insist to have been validated and recognized by the MOU, the Court,in G.R. No. 156052, has already put this
issue to rest. It specifically declared that even assuming that the terms of the MOU and Ordinance No. 8027
were inconsistent, the resolutions ratifying the MOU gave it full force and effect only until 30 April 2003. 133

The steps taken by the oil companies, therefore, remain insufficient to convince the Court that the dangers
posed by the presence of the terminals in a thickly populated area have already been completely removed.

For, given that the threat sought to be prevented may strike at one point or another, no matter how remote it is
as perceived by one or some, we cannot allow the right to life to bedependent on the unlikelihood of an event.
Statistics and theories of probability have no place in situations where the very life of not just an individual but
of residents of big neighborhoods is at stake.

IV

It is the removal of the danger to life not the mere subdual of risk of catastrophe, that we saw in and made us
favor Ordinance No. 8027. That reason, unaffected by Ordinance No. 8187, compels the affirmance of our
Decision in G.R. No. 156052.

In striking down the contrary provisions of the assailed Ordinance relative to the continued stay of the oil
depots, we follow the same line of reasoning used in G.R. No. 156052, to wit: Ordinance No. 8027 was enacted
"for the purpose of promoting sound urban planning, ensuring health, public safety and general welfare" of the
residents of Manila. The Sanggunian was impelled to take measures to protect the residents of Manila from
catastrophic devastation in case of a terrorist attack on the Pandacan Terminals. Towards this objective, the
Sanggunian reclassified the area defined in the ordinance from industrial to commercial.

The following facts were found by the Committee on Housing, Resettlement and Urban Development of the
City of Manila which recommended the approval of the ordinance:

(1) the depot facilities contained 313.5 million liters of highly flammable and highly volatile products
which include petroleum gas, liquefied petroleum gas, aviation fuel, diesel, gasoline, kerosene and fuel
oil among others;

(2) the depot is open to attack through land, water or air;

(3) it is situated in a densely populated place and near Malacañang Palace; and

(4) in case of an explosion or conflagration in the depot, the fire could spread to the neighboring
communities.

The ordinance was intended to safeguard the rights to life, security and safety of all the inhabitants of Manila
and not just of a particular class. The depot is perceived, rightly or wrongly, as a representation of western
interests which means that it is a terrorist target. As long as it (sic) there is such a target in their midst, the
residents of Manila are not safe. It therefore became necessary to remove these terminals to dissipate the
threat. According to respondent:

Such a public need became apparent after the 9/11 incident which showed that what was perceived to be
impossible to happen, to the most powerful country in the world at that, is actually possible. The destruction of
property and the loss of thousands of lives on that fateful day became the impetus for a public need. Inthe
aftermath of the 9/11 tragedy, the threats of terrorism continued [such] that it became imperative for
governments to take measures to combat their effects.

xxxx

Both law and jurisprudence support the constitutionality and validity of Ordinance No. 8027. Without a doubt,
there are no impediments to its enforcement and implementation. Any delay is unfair to the inhabitants of the
City of Manila and its leaders who have categorically expressed their desire for the relocation of the terminals.
Their power to chart and control their own destiny and preserve their lives and safety should not be curtailed by
the intervenors’ warnings of doomsday scenarios and threats of economic disorder if the ordinance is
enforced.134

The same best interest of the public guides the present decision. The Pandacan oil depot remains a terrorist
target even if the contents have been lessened. In the absence of any convincing reason to persuade this
Court that the life, security and safety of the inhabitants of Manila are no longer put at risk by the presence of
the oil depots, we hold that Ordinance No. 8187 in relation to the Pandacan Terminals is invalid and
unconstitutional.

There is, therefore, no need to resolve the rest of the issues.

Neither is it necessary to discuss at length the test of police power against the assailed ordinance. Suffice it to
state that the objective adopted by the Sangguniang Panlungsod to promote the constituents’ general welfare
in terms of economic benefits cannot override the very basic rights to life, security and safety of the people.

In. G.R. No. 156052, the Court explained:

Essentially, the oil companies are fighting for their right to property. They allege that they stand tolose billions of
pesos if forced to relocate. However, based on the hierarchy of constitutionally protected rights, the right to life
enjoys precedence over the right to property. The reason is obvious: life is irreplaceable, property is not. When
the state or LGU’s exercise of police power clashes with a few individuals’ right to property, the former should
prevail.135

We thus conclude with the very final words in G.R. No. 156052:

On Wednesday, January 23, 2008, a defective tanker containing 2,000 liters of gasoline and 14,000 liters of
diesel exploded in the middle of the street a short distance from the exit gate of the Pandacan Terminals,
causing death, extensive damage and a frightening conflagration in the vicinity of the incident. Need we say
anthing about what will happen if it is the estimated 162 to 211 million liters [or whatever is left of the 26 tanks]
of petroleum products in the terminal complex will blow up?136

As in the prequel case, we note that as early as October 2001, the oil companies signed a MOA with the DOE
obliging themselves to:

... undertake a comprehensive and comparative study ... [which] shall include the preparation ofa Master Plan,
whose aim is to determine the scope and timing of the feasible location of the Pandacan oil terminals and all
associated facilities and infrastructure including government support essential for the relocation such as the
necessary transportation infrastructure, land and right of way acquisition, resettlement of displaced residents
and environmental and social acceptability which shall be based on mutual benefit of the Parties and the public.

such that:

Now that they are being compelled to discontinue their operations in the Pandacan Terminals, they cannot
feign unreadiness considering that they had years to prepare for this eventuality. 137

On the matter of the details of the relocation, the Court gave the oil companies the following time frames for
compliance:

To ensure the orderly transfer, movement and relocation of assets and personnel, the intervenors Chevron
Philippines Inc., Petron Corporation and Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation shall, within a nonextendible
period of ninety (90) days, submit to the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 39, the comprehensive plan
and relocation schedule which have allegedly been prepared. The presiding judge of Manila RTC, Branch 39
will monitor the strict enforcement of this resolution.138

The periods were given in the Decision in G.R. No. 156052 which became final on 23 April 2009. Five years
have passed, since then. The years of non-compliance may be excused by the swing of local legislative leads.
We now stay the sway and begin a final count.

A comprehensive and well-coordinated plan within a specific timeframe shall, therefore, be observed in the
relocation of the Pandacan Terminals. The oil companies shall begiven a fresh non-extendible period of forty-
five (45) days from notice within which to submit to the Regional Trial Court, Branch 39, Manila an updated
comprehensive plan and relocation schedule. The relocation, inturn, shall be completed not later than six
months from the date of their submission. Finally, let it be underscored that after the last Manifestation filed by
Shell informing this Court that respondent former Mayor Lim vetoed Ordinance No. 8283 for the second time,
and was anticipating its referral to the President for the latter’s consideration, nothing was heard from any of
the parties until the present petitions as to the status of the approval or disapproval of the said ordinance. As it
is, the fate of the Pandacan Terminals remains dependent on this final disposition of these cases.

VI

On the matter of the failure of Atty. Gempis to immediately comply with the directives of this Court to file the
Memorandum for the Vice-Mayor and the city councilors who voted in favor of the assailed Ordinance, the
records do not bear proof that he received a copy of any of the resolutions pertaining to the filing of the
Memorandum.

A narration of the events from his end would show, however, that he was aware of the directive issued in 2009
when he stated that "when the City Legal Officer filed its Memorandum dated 8 February 2010, [he] thought the
filing of a Memorandum for the other respondent city officials could be dispensed with."139 There was also a
categorical admission that he received the later Resolution of 31 May 2011 but that he could not prepare a
Memorandum defending the position of respondents vice-mayor and the city councilors who voted in favor of
Ordinance No. 8187 in view of the ongoing drafting of Ordinance No. 8283, which would change the position of
the Sanggunian, if subsequently approved.

The reasons he submitted are notimpressed with merit.

That he was not officially designated as the counsel for the vicemayor and the city councilors is beside the
point. As an officer of the court, he cannot feign ignorance of the fact that"a resolution of this Court is not a
mere request but an order which should be complied with promptly and completely." 140 As early as 2009, he
should have immediately responded and filed a Manifestation and therein set forth his reasons why he cannot
represent the vice-mayor and the city councilors. And, even assuming that the 31 May 2011 Resolution was the
first directive he personally received, he had no valid excuse for disregarding the same. Worse, the Court had
to issue a show cause order before he finally heeded.
Atty. Gempis should "strive harderto live up to his duties of observing and maintaining the respect dueto the
courts, respect for law and for legal processes and of upholding the integrity and dignity of the legal profession
in order to perform his responsibilities asa lawyer effectively."141

In Sibulo v. Ilagan,142 which involves a lawyer’s repeated failure to comply with the directives of the Court, the
penalty recommended by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines was reduced from suspension to reprimand and
a warning. The Court ratiocinated:

Considering, however, that respondent was absolved of the administrative charge against him and is being
taken to task for his intransigence and lack of respect, the Court finds that the penalty of suspension would not
be warranted under the circumstances.

xxxx

To the Court’s mind, a reprimand and a warning are sufficient sanctions for respondent’s disrespectful
actuations directed against the Court and the IBP. The imposition of these sanctions in the present case would
be more consistent with the avowed purpose of disciplinary case, which is "not so much to punish the individual
attorney as to protect the dispensation of justice by sheltering the judiciary and the public from the misconduct
or inefficiency of officers of the court."143

We consider the participation of Atty. Gempis in this case and opt to be lenient even as we reiterate the
objective of protecting the dispensation of justice. We deem it sufficient to remind Atty. Gempis to be more
mindful of his duty as a lawyer towards the Court.

WHEREFORE, in light of all the foregoing, Ordinance No. 8187 is hereby declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL and
INVALID with respect to the continued stay of the Pandacan Oil Terminals.

The incumbent mayor of the City of Manila is hereby ordered to CEASE and DESIST from enforcing Ordinance
No. 8187. In coordination with the appropriate government agencies and the parties herein involved, he is
1âwphi1

further ordered to oversee the relocation and transfer of the oil terminals out of the Pandacan area.

As likewise required in G.R. No. 156052, the intervenors Chevron Philippines, Inc., Pilipinas Shell Petroleum
Corporation, and Petron Corporation shall, within a non-extendible period of forty-five (45) days, submit to the
Regional Trial Court, Branch 39, Manila an updated comprehensive plan and relocation schedule, which
relocation shall be completed not later than six (6) months from the date the required documents are submitted.
The presiding judge of Branch 39 shall monitor the strict enforcement of this Decision.

For failure to observe the respect due to the Court, Atty. Luch R. Gempis, Jr., Secretary of the Sangguniang
Panlungsod, is REMINDED of his duties towards the Court and WARNED that a repetition of an act similar to
that here committed shall be dealt with more severely.

SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. 207175 November 26, 2014

EDUARDO MAGSUMBOL, Petitioner,

vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

DECISION
MENDOZA, J.:

This is a petition for review on certiorari seeking to reverse and set aside the December 14, 2012 Decision 1 and
the May 6, 2013 Resolution2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 34431 filed by Eduardo
Magsumbol (Magsumbol), questioning his conviction for Theft.

The Facts

Petitioner Magsumbol, together with Erasmo Magsino (Mogsino). Apolonio Inanoria (Jnanoria), and Bonifacio
Ramirez (Ramirez). vvas charged with the crime of Theft in the Information, dated August 30, 2002, filed before
the Regional Trial Court of Lucena City, Branch 55 (RTC) and docketed as Criminal Case No. 2002-1017. The
Information indicting Magsumbol and his co-accused reads:

That on or about the 1st day of February 2002, at Barangay Kinatihan I, in the Munipality of Candelaria,
Province of Quezon, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused,
conspiring and confederating together with seven (7) John Does whose true names and real identities are still
unknown and whose physical descriptions were not made known by available witnesses, and who are all still at
large, and mutually helping one another, with intent togain and without the consent of the owner, Menandro
Avanzado, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously cut, take, steal and carry away with them thirty
three (33) coconut trees from the coconut plantation of the said owner, valued at FORTY FOUR THOUSAND
FOUR HUNDRED PESOS (₱44,400.00), Philippine currency, belonging to said Menandro Avanzado, to his
damage and prejudice in the aforesaid amount.3

Culled from the testimonies of prosecution witnesses Ernesto Caringal (Caringal), private complainant Engr.
Menandro Avanzado (Menandro), and SPO1 Florentino Manalo (SPO1 Manalo), it appears that at around
11:00 o’clock in the morning of February 1, 2002, Caringal, the overseer of a one-hectare unregistered parcel
of land located in Candelaria, Quezon, and co-owned by Menandro, saw the four accused, along with seven
others, cutting down the coconut trees on the said property. Later, the men turned the felled trees into coco
lumber. Caringal did not attempt to stop the men from cutting down the coconut trees because he was
outnumbered. Instead, Caringal left the site and proceeded toSan Pablo City to inform Menandro about the
incident.

On February 3, 2002, Menandro and Caringal reported the incident to the police. Thereafter, the two,
accompanied by SPO1 Manalo, went to the coconut plantation only to discover that about thirty three (33)
coconut trees (subject trees) had been cut down. The coco lumber were no longer in the area. They took
photographs of the stumps left by the men.

The defense, on the other hand, presented Atanacio Avanzado (Atanacio),accused Ramirez, petitioner
Magsumbol, Barangay Captain Pedro Arguelles (Brgy. Captain Arguelles)and accused Inanoria, to substantiate
its claim of innocence for all the accused.

Atanacio testified that he authorized his brothers-in-law, Magsino and Magsumbol, to cut down the coconut
trees within the boundary of his property, which was adjacent to the land co-owned by Menandro. Atanacio
admitted that he had never set foot on his property for about 20 years already and that he was not present
whenthe cutting incident happened.

Defense witness Brgy. Captain Arguelles testified that on January 28, 2002, Magsumbol, Magsino, Ramirez,
and Inanoria came to his office seeking permission to cut down the coconut trees planted on the land of
Atanacio.

All the accused vehemently denied the charges against them. Ramirez and Magsumbol claimed that only the
coconut trees which stood within the land owned by Atanacio, a relative of the private complainant, were cut
down on that morning of February 1, 2002. Ramirez added that he was a coco lumber trader and that Atanacio
offered to sell the coconut trees planted on his lot. Magsumbol claimed that he took no part in the felling of the
coconut trees but merely supervised the same. He claimed that he did not receive any remuneration for the
service he rendered or a share from the proceeds of the coco lumbers sale. Inanoria likewise denied
participation in the cutting down of the coconut treesbut confirmed the presence of Magsumbol and Magsino at
the site to supervise the accomplishment of the work being done thereat. Inanoria corroborated the narration of
Magsumbol and Ramirez that all the felled trees were planted inside the lot owned by Atanacio. Inanoria
intimated that Menandro included him in the complaint for theft due to his refusal to accede to latter’s request
for him to testify against his co-accused in relation to the present criminal charge.4

Ruling of the RTC

On March 15, 2011, the RTC rendered its decision5 stating that the prosecution was able to establish with
certitude the guilt of all the accused for the crime of simple theft. The RTC rejected the defense of denial
invoked by the accused in the face of positive identification by Caringal pointing to them as the perpetrators of
the crime. It did not believe the testimony of Atanacio and even branded him as biased witness on account of
his relationship with accused Magsino and Magsumbol. The trial court adjudged:

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered finding all the accused Erasmo Magsino, Apolonio Inanoria,
Eduardo Magsumbol and Bonifacio Ramirez guilty as charged and applying the Indeterminate sentence law,
the court hereby sentences them to suffer an imprisonment of 2 years, 4 months and 1 day of Prision
Correccional as minimum to 6 years and 1 day of Prision Mayor as maximum.

The accused are likewise directed to pay jointly and severally Engr. Menandro Avanzado and the other heirs of
Norberto Avanzado the sum of ₱13,200.00 representing the value of the 33 coconut trees they have cut and
sold to accused Ramirez.

SO ORDERED.

Aggrieved, the accused appealed from the March 15, 2011 judgment of the RTC before the CA insisting that
the prosecution evidence did not meet the quantum of proof necessary towarrant their conviction of the crime
charged. They posited that the RTC erred in failing to appreciate the lack of criminal intent on their part to
commit the crime of simple theft. They claimed that not a scintilla of evidence was presented to prove the
element of intent to gain.6

Ruling of the CA

In its assailed Decision, dated December 14, 2012, the CA sustained the findings of facts and conclusions of
law by the RTC and upheld the judgment of conviction rendered against the accused. The CA was of the view,
however, that the crime committed in this case would not fall under the general definition of theft under Article
308 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), but rather under paragraph (2) of the same provision which penalizes
theft of damaged property. The CA ruled that the RTC was correct in giving full faith and credence to the
testimony of Caringal who was not shown to have been motivated by any ill will to testify falsely against the
accused. It agreed with the RTC that Atanacio’s testimony should not be given any evidentiary weight in view of
his relationship with Magsino and Magsumbol, which provided sufficient reason for him to suppress or pervert
the truth. Anent the element of intent to gain, the CA stated that the mere fact that the accused cut the coconut
trees on Menandro’s land and made them into coco lumber, gave rise to the presumption that it was done with
intent to gain. The falloreads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is hereby DENIED. The Decision dated March 15, 2011, of
the Regional Trial Court, Branch 55, Lucena City is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that the accused-
appellants Erasmo Magsino, Apolonio Inanoria, Eduardo Magsumbol and Bonifacio Ramirez are sentenced to
suffer imprisonment of tw0 (2) years, four (4) months and one (1) day as minimum, to seven (7) years, four (4)
months and one (1) day, as maximum; and to pay jointly and severally private complainant Menandro
Avanzado the amount of Thirteen Thousand Two Hundred Pesos (₱13,200.00).

SO ORDERED.7

The accused moved for reconsideration of the December 14, 2012 Decision but their motion was denied by the
CA on May 6, 2013.
Issues:

Bewailing his conviction, Magsumbolfiled the present petition before this Court and imputes to the CA the
following

ERRORS:

THE HONORABLE COURT OFAPPEALS COMMITTED SERIOUS ERRORS OF LAW WHEN IT FOUND THE
ACCUSED GUILTY OF THE CRIME OF THEFT UNDER ARTICLE 308 OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE, IN
THAT:

NO COMPETENT EVIDENCEWAS ADDUCED BY THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE THAT THE COCONUT

TREES THAT WERE CUT WERE BEYOND THE PROPERTY OWNED BY ATANACIO AVANZADO; and

II

MALICE AND INTENT TO GAIN, AS ELEMENTS OF THE CRIME OF THEFT, ARE NOT PRESENT IN THE
CASE AT HAND.8

The Court’s Ruling

The petition is impressed with merit.

It is a time-honored rule that the assessment of the trial court with regard to the credibility of witnesses
deserves the utmost respect, if not finality, for the reason that the trial judge has the prerogative, denied to
appellate judges, of observing the demeanor of the declarants in the course of their testimonies. Though it is
true that the trial court’s evaluation of the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies is entitled to great
respect and will not be disturbed on appeal, this rule, however, is not a hard and fast one. The exception is
observed if there is a showing that the trial judge overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied some factor
circumstance of weight and substance that would have cast doubt on the guilt of the accused. 9 The said
exception apparently exists in the case at bench.

It is the statutory definition that generally furnishes the elements of each crime under the RPC, while the
elements in turn unravel the particular requisite acts of execution and accompanying criminal intent. In the case
at bench, petitioner Magsumbol and his co-accused were convicted by the CA of the crime of theft of damaged
property under paragraph (2) of Article 308 of the RPC which provides:

Art. 308. Who are liable for theft.–: xxxx

Theft is likewise committed by:

1. xxxxx;

2. Any person who, after having maliciously damaged the property of another, shall remove or make
use of the fruits or object of the damage caused by him; and xxx.

[Emphasis Supplied]

To warrant a conviction under the aforecited provision for theft of damaged property, the prosecution must
prove beyond reasonable that the accused maliciously damaged the property belonging to another and,
thereafter, removed or used the fruits or object thereof, with intent to gain. Evidently, theft of damaged property
is an intentional felony for which criminal liability attaches only when it is shown that the malefactor acted with
criminal intent or malice. Criminal intent must be clearly established with the other elements of the crime;
otherwise, no crime is committed.10 Was criminal intent substantiated tojustify the conviction of Magsumbol and
his co-accused?

It does not so appear in this case.

There is no dispute that the land co-owned by Menandro is adjacent to the land owned by Atanacio. The
prosecution claimed that the thirty three (33) cut coconut trees were planted within the land co-owned by
Menandro. The defense, on the other hand, averred that only the coconut trees found within the land of
Atanacio were felled by Magsumbol and his co-accused. Menandro testified that there were muniments that
delimit the boundaries between the adjacent lots11 while Atanacio claimed that there were none and that "x"
marks were just etched on the trunk of the trees to delineate the boundary of his land. 12 Apart from the bare
allegations of these witnesses, no concrete and competent evidence was adduced to substantiate their
respective submissions. In view of such conflicting claims and considering the meager evidence on hand, the
Court cannot determine with certainty the owner of the 33 felled coconut trees. The uncertainty of the exact
location of the coconut trees negates the presenceof the criminal intent to gain.

At any rate, granting arguendo that the said coconut trees were within Menandro’s land, no malice or criminal
intent could be rightfully attributed to Magsumbol and his co-accused. The RTC and the CA overlooked one
important point in the present case, to wit: Magsumbol and his co-accused went to Barangay KinatihanI,
Candelaria, Quezon, to cut down the coconut trees belonging to Atanacio upon the latter’s instruction.

Such fact was confirmed by Atanacio who narrated that due to financial reversals, he sold all the coconut trees
in his land to Ramirez, a coco lumber trader; that since he could not go to the site due to health reasons, he
authorized Magsumbol and Magsino to cut down his trees and to oversee the gathering of the felled trees; that
he informed Menandro about this and even offered to pay for the damages that he might have sustained as
some of his (Menandro’s) trees could have been mistakenly cut down in the process; that Menandro refused
his offer of compensation and replied that a case had already been filed against the four accused; and that he
tried to seek an audience again from Menandro, but the latter refused to talk to him anymore. 13

Both the RTC and the CA chose to brush aside the foregoing unrebutted testimony of Atanacio for being
unreliable and considered him a biased witness simply because he is related by affinity to Magsumbol and
Magsino. Family relationship, however, does not by itself render a witness’ testimony inadmissible or devoid of
evidentiary weight.14To warrant rejection of the testimony of a relative or friend, it must be clearly shown that,
independently of the relationship, the testimony was inherently improbable or defective, or that improper or evil
motives had moved the witness to incriminate the accused falsely.15

The relationship of Atanacio to the accused, per se, does not impair his credibilty. It bears stressing that while
1âwphi1

Magsumbol and Magsino are Atanacio’s brothers-in-law, Menandro ishis cousin. Considering that both the
accused and the accuser are Atanacio’s relatives, and purportedly both have bearing with regard to his
decision, why would then Atanacio support one over the other? The logical explanation could only be that
Atanacio had indeed ordered Magsumbol and Magsino to cut the trees on his land. The Court is convinced that
Atanacio was telling the truth.

If, indeed, in the course of executing Atanacio’s instructions, Magsumbol and his co-accused encroached on
the land co-owned by Menandro, because they missed the undetectable boundary between the two lots, and
cut down some of Menandro’s trees, such act merely constituted mistake or judgmental error. The following
pronouncement in the case of Lecaroz vs. Sandiganbayan16 may serve as a guidepost, to wit:

If what is proven is mere judgmental error on the part of the person committing the act, no malice or criminal
intent can be rightfully imputed to him. x x x. Ordinarily, evil intent must unite with an unlawful act for a crime to
exist. Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea. There can be no crime when the criminal mind is wanting. As a
general rule, ignorance or mistake as to particular facts, honest and real, will exempt the doer from felonious
responsibility. The exception of course is neglect in the discharge of duty or indifference to consequences,
which is equivalent to criminal intent, for in this instance, the element of malicious intent is supplied by the
element ofnegligence and imprudence.17
[Emphasis supplied]

The criminal mind is indeed wanting in the situation where Magsumbol and his co-accused even sought prior
permission from Brgy. Captain Arguelles to cut down the coconut trees which was done openly and during
broad daylight effectively negated malice and criminal intent on their part. It defies reason that the accused
would still approach the barangay captain if their real intention was tosteal the coconut trees of Menandro.
Besides, criminals would usually execute their criminal activities clandestinely or through stealth or strategy to
avoid detection of the commission of a crime or a wrongdoing.

The findings of this Court in this case should not create the mistaken impression that the testimonies of the
prosecution witnesses should always be looked at with askance. The point is that courts should carefully
scrutinize the prosecution evidence to make sure that no innocent person is condemned. An allegation, or even
a testimony, that an act was done should never be hastily accepted as proof that it was really done. Evidence
adduced must be closely examined under the lens of a judicial microscope to ensure that conviction only flows
from moral certainty that guilt has been established by proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Here, that quantum of proof has not been satisfied. The prosecution miserably failed to establish proof beyond
1âwphi1

reasonable doubt that Magsumbol, together with his co-accused, damaged the property or Menandro with
malice and deliberate intent and then removed the felled coconut trees from the premises.

Hence, we must reckon with a dictum of the law, in dubilis reus est absolvendus. All doubts must be resolved in
favor of the accused.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The assailed December 14, 2012 Decision and the May 6, 2013
Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 34431 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Petitioner
Eduardo Magsumbol is ACQUITTED on reasonable doubt.

SO ORDERED.

=====================

G.R. No. 206510 September 16, 2014

MOST REV. PEDRO D. ARIGO, Vicar Apostolic of Puerto Princesa D.D.; MOST REV. DEOGRACIAS S.
INIGUEZ, JR., Bishop-Emeritus of Caloocan, FRANCES Q. QUIMPO, CLEMENTE G. BAUTISTA, JR.,
Kalikasan-PNE, MARIA CAROLINA P. ARAULLO, RENATO M. REYES, JR., Bagong Alyansang
Makabayan, HON. NERI JAVIER COLMENARES, Bayan Muna Partylist, ROLAND G. SIMBULAN, PH.D.,
Junk VF A Movement, TERESITA R. PEREZ, PH.D., HON. RAYMOND V. PALATINO, Kabataan Party-list,
PETER SJ. GONZALES, Pamalakaya, GIOVANNI A. TAPANG, PH. D., Agham, ELMER C. LABOG,
Kilusang Mayo Uno, JOAN MAY E. SALVADOR, Gabriela, JOSE ENRIQUE A. AFRICA, THERESA A.
CONCEPCION, MARY JOAN A. GUAN, NESTOR T. BAGUINON, PH.D., A. EDSEL F. TUPAZ, Petitioners,
vs.
SCOTT H. SWIFT in his capacity as Commander of the US. 7th Fleet, MARK A. RICE in his capacity as
Commanding Officer of the USS Guardian, PRESIDENT BENIGNO S. AQUINO III in his capacity as
Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, HON. ALBERT F. DEL ROSARIO,
Secretary, pepartment of Foreign Affair.s, HON. PAQUITO OCHOA, JR., Executiv~.:Secretary, Office of
the President, . HON. VOLTAIRE T. GAZMIN, Secretary, Department of National Defense, HON. RAMON
JESUS P. P AJE, Secretary, Department of Environment and Natural Resoz!rces, VICE ADMIRAL JOSE
LUIS M. ALANO, Philippine Navy Flag Officer in Command, Armed Forces of the Philippines, ADMIRAL
RODOLFO D. ISO RENA, Commandant, Philippine Coast Guard, COMMODORE ENRICO EFREN
EVANGELISTA, Philippine Coast Guard Palawan, MAJOR GEN. VIRGILIO 0. DOMINGO, Commandant of
Armed Forces of the Philippines Command and LT. GEN. TERRY G. ROBLING, US Marine Corps
Forces. Pacific and Balikatan 2013 Exercise Co-Director, Respondents.
 DECISION

VILLARAMA, JR, J.:

Before us is a petition for the issuance of a Writ of Kalikasan with prayer for the issuance of a Temporary
Environmental Protection Order (TEPO) under Rule 7 of A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC, otherwise known as the Rules of
Procedure for Environmental Cases (Rules), involving violations of environmental laws and regulations in
relation to the grounding of the US military ship USS Guardian over the Tubbataha Reefs.

Factual Background

The name "Tubbataha" came from the Samal (seafaring people of southern Philippines) language which
means "long reef exposed at low tide." Tubbataha is composed of two huge coral atolls - the north atoll and the
south atoll - and the Jessie Beazley Reef, a smaller coral structure about 20 kilometers north of the atolls. The
reefs of Tubbataha and Jessie Beazley are considered part of Cagayancillo, a remote island municipality of
Palawan.1

In 1988, Tubbataha was declared a National Marine Park by virtue of Proclamation No. 306 issued by
President Corazon C. Aquino on August 11, 1988. Located in the middle of Central Sulu Sea, 150 kilometers
southeast of Puerto Princesa City, Tubbataha lies at the heart of the Coral Triangle, the global center of marine
biodiversity.

In 1993, Tubbataha was inscribed by the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization
(UNESCO) as a World Heritage Site. It was recognized as one of the Philippines' oldest ecosystems,
containing excellent examples of pristine reefs and a high diversity of marine life. The 97,030-hectare protected
marine park is also an important habitat for internationally threatened and endangered marine species.
UNESCO cited Tubbataha's outstanding universal value as an important and significant natural habitat for in
situ conservation of biological diversity; an example representing significant on-going ecological and biological
processes; and an area of exceptional natural beauty and aesthetic importance.2

On April 6, 2010, Congress passed Republic Act (R.A.) No. 10067,3 otherwise known as the "Tubbataha Reefs
Natural Park (TRNP) Act of 2009" "to ensure the protection and conservation of the globally significant
economic, biological, sociocultural, educational and scientific values of the Tubbataha Reefs into perpetuity for
the enjoyment of present and future generations." Under the "no-take" policy, entry into the waters of TRNP is
strictly regulated and many human activities are prohibited and penalized or fined, including fishing, gathering,
destroying and disturbing the resources within the TRNP. The law likewise created the Tubbataha Protected
Area Management Board (TPAMB) which shall be the sole policy-making and permit-granting body of the
TRNP.

The USS Guardian is an Avenger-class mine countermeasures ship of the US Navy. In December 2012, the
US Embassy in the Philippines requested diplomatic clearance for the said vessel "to enter and exit the
territorial waters of the Philippines and to arrive at the port of Subic Bay for the purpose of routine ship
replenishment, maintenance, and crew liberty."4 On January 6, 2013, the ship left Sasebo, Japan for Subic Bay,
arriving on January 13, 2013 after a brief stop for fuel in Okinawa, Japan.
1âw phi 1

On January 15, 2013, the USS Guardian departed Subic Bay for its next port of call in Makassar, Indonesia. On
January 17, 2013 at 2:20 a.m. while transiting the Sulu Sea, the ship ran aground on the northwest side of
South Shoal of the Tubbataha Reefs, about 80 miles east-southeast of Palawan. No cine was injured in the
incident, and there have been no reports of leaking fuel or oil.

On January 20, 2013, U.S. 7th Fleet Commander, Vice Admiral Scott Swift, expressed regret for the incident in
a press statement.5 Likewise, US Ambassador to the Philippines Harry K. Thomas, Jr., in a meeting at the
Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) on February 4, "reiterated his regrets over the grounding incident and
assured Foreign Affairs Secretazy Albert F. del Rosario that the United States will provide appropriate
compensation for damage to the reef caused by the ship."6 By March 30, 2013, the US Navy-led salvage team
had finished removing the last piece of the grounded ship from the coral reef.
On April 1 7, 2013, the above-named petitioners on their behalf and in representation of their respective
sector/organization and others, including minors or generations yet unborn, filed the present petition agairtst
Scott H. Swift in his capacity as Commander of the US 7th Fleet, Mark A. Rice in his capacity as Commanding
Officer of the USS Guardian and Lt. Gen. Terry G. Robling, US Marine Corps Forces, Pacific and Balikatan
2013 Exercises Co-Director ("US respondents"); President Benigno S. Aquino III in his capacity as
Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP), DF A Secretary Albert F. Del Rosario,
Executive Secretary Paquito Ochoa, Jr., Secretary Voltaire T. Gazmin (Department of National Defense),
Secretary Jesus P. Paje (Department of Environment and Natural Resources), Vice-Admiral Jose Luis M.
Alano (Philippine Navy Flag Officer in Command, AFP), Admiral Rodolfo D. Isorena (Philippine Coast Guard
Commandant), Commodore Enrico Efren Evangelista (Philippine Coast Guard-Palawan), and Major General
Virgilio 0. Domingo (AFP Commandant), collectively the "Philippine respondents."

The Petition

Petitioners claim that the grounding, salvaging and post-salvaging operations of the USS Guardian cause and
continue to cause environmental damage of such magnitude as to affect the provinces of Palawan, Antique,
Aklan, Guimaras, Iloilo, Negros Occidental, Negros Oriental, Zamboanga del Norte, Basilan, Sulu, and Tawi-
Tawi, which events violate their constitutional rights to a balanced and healthful ecology. They also seek a
directive from this Court for the institution of civil, administrative and criminal suits for acts committed in
violation of environmental laws and regulations in connection with the grounding incident.

Specifically, petitioners cite the following violations committed by US respondents under R.A. No. 10067:
unauthorized entry (Section 19); non-payment of conservation fees (Section 21 ); obstruction of law
enforcement officer (Section 30); damages to the reef (Section 20); and destroying and disturbing resources
(Section 26[g]). Furthermore, petitioners assail certain provisions of the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) which
they want this Court to nullify for being unconstitutional.

The numerous reliefs sought in this case are set forth in the final prayer of the petition, to wit: WHEREFORE, in
view of the foregoing, Petitioners respectfully pray that the Honorable Court: 1. Immediately issue upon the
filing of this petition a Temporary Environmental Protection Order (TEPO) and/or a Writ of Kalikasan, which
shall, in particular,

a. Order Respondents and any person acting on their behalf, to cease and desist all operations over
the Guardian grounding incident;

b. Initially demarcating the metes and bounds of the damaged area as well as an additional buffer
zone;

c. Order Respondents to stop all port calls and war games under 'Balikatan' because of the absence of
clear guidelines, duties, and liability schemes for breaches of those duties, and require Respondents to
assume responsibility for prior and future environmental damage in general, and environmental
damage under the Visiting Forces Agreement in particular.

d. Temporarily define and describe allowable activities of ecotourism, diving, recreation, and limited
commercial activities by fisherfolk and indigenous communities near or around the TRNP but away
from the damaged site and an additional buffer zone;

2. After summary hearing, issue a Resolution extending the TEPO until further orders of the Court;

3. After due proceedings, render a Decision which shall include, without limitation:

a. Order Respondents Secretary of Foreign Affairs, following the dispositive portion of Nicolas v.
Romulo, "to forthwith negotiate with the United States representatives for the appropriate agreement
on [environmental guidelines and environmental accountability] under Philippine authorities as
provided in Art. V[] of the VFA ... "
b. Direct Respondents and appropriate agencies to commence administrative, civil, and criminal
proceedings against erring officers and individuals to the full extent of the law, and to make such
proceedings public;

c. Declare that Philippine authorities may exercise primary and exclusive criminal jurisdiction over
erring U.S. personnel under the circumstances of this case;

d. Require Respondents to pay just and reasonable compensation in the settlement of all meritorious
claims for damages caused to the Tubbataha Reef on terms and conditions no less severe than those
applicable to other States, and damages for personal injury or death, if such had been the case;

e. Direct Respondents to cooperate in providing for the attendance of witnesses and in the collection
and production of evidence, including seizure and delivery of objects connected with the offenses
related to the grounding of the Guardian;

f. Require the authorities of the Philippines and the United States to notify each other of the disposition
of all cases, wherever heard, related to the grounding of the Guardian;

g. Restrain Respondents from proceeding with any purported restoration, repair, salvage or post
salvage plan or plans, including cleanup plans covering the damaged area of the Tubbataha Reef
absent a just settlement approved by the Honorable Court;

h. Require Respondents to engage in stakeholder and LOU consultations in accordance with the Local
Government Code and R.A. 10067;

i. Require Respondent US officials and their representatives to place a deposit to the TRNP Trust
Fund defined under Section 17 of RA 10067 as a bona .fide gesture towards full reparations;

j. Direct Respondents to undertake measures to rehabilitate the areas affected by the grounding of the
Guardian in light of Respondents' experience in the Port Royale grounding in 2009, among other
similar grounding incidents;

k. Require Respondents to regularly publish on a quarterly basis and in the name of transparency and
accountability such environmental damage assessment, valuation, and valuation methods, in all
stages of negotiation;

l. Convene a multisectoral technical working group to provide scientific and technical support to the
TPAMB;

m. Order the Department of Foreign Affairs, Department of National Defense, and the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources to review the Visiting Forces Agreement and the Mutual Defense
Treaty to consider whether their provisions allow for the exercise of erga omnes rights to a balanced
and healthful ecology and for damages which follow from any violation of those rights;

n. Narrowly tailor the provisions of the Visiting Forces Agreement for purposes of protecting the
damaged areas of TRNP;

o. Declare the grant of immunity found in Article V ("Criminal Jurisdiction") and Article VI of the Visiting
Forces Agreement unconstitutional for violating equal protection and/or for violating the preemptory
norm of nondiscrimination incorporated as part of the law of the land under Section 2, Article II, of the
Philippine Constitution;

p. Allow for continuing discovery measures;

q. Supervise marine wildlife rehabilitation in the Tubbataha Reefs in all other respects; and
 4. Provide just and equitable environmental rehabilitation measures and such other reliefs as are just
and equitable under the premises.7 (Underscoring supplied.)

Since only the Philippine respondents filed their comment 8 to the petition, petitioners also filed a motion for
early resolution and motion to proceed ex parte against the US respondents.9

Respondents' Consolidated Comment

In their consolidated comment with opposition to the application for a TEPO and ocular inspection and
production orders, respondents assert that: ( 1) the grounds relied upon for the issuance of a TEPO or writ of
Kalikasan have become fait accompli as the salvage operations on the USS Guardian were already completed;
(2) the petition is defective in form and substance; (3) the petition improperly raises issues involving the VFA
between the Republic of the Philippines and the United States of America; and ( 4) the determination of the
extent of responsibility of the US Government as regards the damage to the Tubbataha Reefs rests exdusively
with the executive branch.

The Court's Ruling

As a preliminary matter, there is no dispute on the legal standing of petitioners to file the present petition.

Locus standi is "a right of appearance in a court of justice on a given question."10 Specifically, it is "a party's
personal and substantial interest in a case where he has sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result" of the
act being challenged, and "calls for more than just a generalized grievance."11 However, the rule on standing is
a procedural matter which this Court has relaxed for non-traditional plaintiffs like ordinary citizens, taxpayers
and legislators when the public interest so requires, such as when the subject matter of the controversy is of
transcendental importance, of overreaching significance to society, or of paramount public interest.12

In the landmark case of Oposa v. Factoran, Jr.,13 we recognized the "public right" of citizens to "a balanced and
healthful ecology which, for the first time in our constitutional history, is solemnly incorporated in the
fundamental law." We declared that the right to a balanced and healthful ecology need not be written in the
Constitution for it is assumed, like other civil and polittcal rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, to exist from
the inception of mankind and it is an issue of transcendental importance with intergenerational
implications. Such right carries with it the correlative duty to refrain from impairing the environment. 14
1âwphi 1

On the novel element in the class suit filed by the petitioners minors in Oposa, this Court ruled that not only do
ordinary citizens have legal standing to sue for the enforcement of environmental rights, they can do so in
representation of their own and future generations. Thus:

Petitioners minors assert that they represent their generation as well as generations yet unborn. We find no
difficulty in ruling that they can, for themselves, for others of their generation and for the succeeding
generations, file a class suit. Their personality to sue in behalf of the succeeding generations can only be
based on the concept of intergenerational responsibility insofar as the right to a balanced and healthful ecology
is concerned. Such a right, as hereinafter expounded, considers the "rhythm and harmony of nature." Nature
means the created world in its entirety. Such rhythm and harmony indispensably include, inter alia, the
judicious disposition, utilization, management, renewal and conservation of the country's forest, mineral, land,
waters, fisheries, wildlife, off-shore areas and other natural resources to the end that their exploration,
development and utilization be equitably accessible to the present a:: well as future generations. Needless to
say, every generation has a responsibility to the next to preserve that rhythm and harmony for the full
1:njoyment of a balanced and healthful ecology. Put a little differently, the minors' assertion of their right to a
sound environment constitutes, at the same time, the performance of their obligation to ensure the protection of
that right for the generations to come.15 (Emphasis supplied.)

The liberalization of standing first enunciated in Oposa, insofar as it refers to minors and generations yet
unborn, is now enshrined in the Rules which allows the filing of a citizen suit in environmental cases. The
provision on citizen suits in the Rules "collapses the traditional rule on personal and direct interest, on the
principle that humans are stewards of nature."16
Having settled the issue of locus standi, we shall address the more fundamental question of whether this Court
has jurisdiction over the US respondents who did not submit any pleading or manifestation in this case.

The immunity of the State from suit, known also as the doctrine of sovereign immunity or non-suability of the
State,17is expressly provided in Article XVI of the 1987 Constitution which states:

Section 3. The State may not be sued without its consent.

In United States of America v. Judge Guinto,18 we discussed the principle of state immunity from suit, as
follows:

The rule that a state may not be sued without its consent, now · expressed in Article XVI, Section 3, of the 1987
Constitution, is one of the generally accepted principles of international law that we have adopted as part of the
law of our land under Article II, Section 2. x x x.

Even without such affirmation, we would still be bound by the generally accepted principles of international law
under the doctrine of incorporation. Under this doctrine, as accepted by the majority of states, such principles
are deemed incorporated in the law of every civilized state as a condition and consequence of its membership
in the society of nations. Upon its admission to such society, the state is automatically obligated to comply with
these principles in its relations with other states.

As applied to the local state, the doctrine of state immunity is based on the justification given by Justice Holmes
that ''there can be no legal right against the authority which makes the law on which the right depends."
[Kawanakoa v. Polybank, 205 U.S. 349] There are other practical reasons for the enforcement of the doctrine.
In the case of the foreign state sought to be impleaded in the local jurisdiction, the added inhibition is
expressed in the maxim par in parem, non habet imperium. All states are sovereign equals and cannot assert
jurisdiction over one another. A contrary disposition would, in the language of a celebrated case, "unduly vex
the peace of nations." [De Haber v. Queen of Portugal, 17 Q. B. 171]

While the doctrine appears to prohibit only suits against the state without its consent, it is also applicable to
complaints filed against officials of the state for acts allegedly performed by them in the discharge of their
duties. The rule is that if the judgment against such officials will require the state itself to perform an affirmative
act to satisfy the same,. such as the appropriation of the amount needed to pay the damages awarded against
them, the suit must be regarded as against the state itself although it has not been formally impleaded. [Garcia
v. Chief of Staff, 16 SCRA 120] In such a situation, the state may move to dismiss the comp.taint on the ground
that it has been filed without its consent.19 (Emphasis supplied.)

Under the American Constitution, the doctrine is expressed in the Eleventh Amendment which reads:

The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity,
commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or
Subjects of any Foreign State.

In the case of Minucher v. Court of Appeals,20 we further expounded on the immunity of foreign states from the
jurisdiction of local courts, as follows:

The precept that a State cannot be sued in the courts of a foreign state is a long-standing rule of customary
international law then closely identified with the personal immunity of a foreign sovereign from suit and, with the
emergence of democratic states, made to attach not just to the person of the head of state, or his
representative, but also distinctly to the state itself in its sovereign capacity. If the acts giving rise to a suit arc
those of a foreign government done by its foreign agent, although not necessarily a diplomatic personage, but
acting in his official capacity, the complaint could be barred by the immunity of the foreign sovereign from suit
without its consent. Suing a representative of a state is believed to be, in effect, suing the state itself. The
proscription is not accorded for the benefit of an individual but for the State, in whose service he is, under the
maxim -par in parem, non habet imperium -that all states are soverr~ign equals and cannot assert jurisdiction
over one another. The implication, in broad terms, is that if the judgment against an official would rec 1uire the
state itself to perform an affirmative act to satisfy the award, such as the appropriation of the amount needed to
pay the damages decreed against him, the suit must be regarded as being against the state itself, although it
has not been formally impleaded.21 (Emphasis supplied.)

In the same case we also mentioned that in the case of diplomatic immunity, the privilege is not an immunity
from the observance of the law of the territorial sovereign or from ensuing legal liability; it is, rather, an
immunity from the exercise of territorial jurisdiction.22

In United States of America v. Judge Guinto,23 one of the consolidated cases therein involved a Filipino
employed at Clark Air Base who was arrested following a buy-bust operation conducted by two officers of the
US Air Force, and was eventually dismissed from his employment when he was charged in court for violation of
R.A. No. 6425. In a complaint for damages filed by the said employee against the military officers, the latter
moved to dismiss the case on the ground that the suit was against the US Government which had not given its
consent. The RTC denied the motion but on a petition for certiorari and prohibition filed before this Court, we
reversed the RTC and dismissed the complaint. We held that petitioners US military officers were acting in the
exercise of their official functions when they conducted the buy-bust operation against the complainant and
thereafter testified against him at his trial. It follows that for discharging their duties as agents of the United
States, they cannot be directly impleaded for acts imputable to their principal, which has not given its consent
to be sued.

This traditional rule of State immunity which exempts a State from being sued in the courts of another State
without the former's consent or waiver has evolved into a restrictive doctrine which distinguishes sovereign and
governmental acts (Jure imperil") from private, commercial and proprietary acts (Jure gestionis). Under the
restrictive rule of State immunity, State immunity extends only to acts Jure imperii. The restrictive application of
State immunity is proper only when the proceedings arise out of commercial transactions of the foreign
sovereign, its commercial activities or economic affairs.24

In Shauf v. Court of Appeals,25 we discussed the limitations of the State immunity principle, thus:

It is a different matter where the public official is made to account in his capacity as such for acts contrary to
law and injurious to the rights of plaintiff. As was clearly set forth by JustiGe Zaldivar in Director of the Bureau
of Telecommunications, et al. vs. Aligaen, etc., et al. : "Inasmuch as the State authorizes only legal acts by its
officers, unauthorized acts of government officials or officers are not acts of the State, and an action against the
officials or officers by one whose rights have been invaded or violated by such acts, for the protection of his
rights, is not a suit against the State within the rule of immunity of the State from suit. In the same tenor, it has
been said that an action at law or suit in equity against a State officer or the director of a State department on
the ground that, while claiming to act for the State, he violates or invades the personal and property rights of
the plaintiff, under an unconstitutional act or under an assumption of authority which he does not have, is not a
suit against the State within the constitutional provision that the State may not be sued without its consent."
The rationale for this ruling is that the doctrine of state immunity cannot be used as an instrument for
perpetrating an injustice.

xxxx

The aforecited authorities are clear on the matter. They state that the doctrine of immunity from suit will not
apply and may not be invoked where the public official is being sued in his private and personal capacity as an
ordinary citizen. The cloak of protection afforded the officers and agents of the government is removed the
moment they are sued in their individual capacity. This situation usually arises where the public official acts
without authority or in excess of the powers vested in him. It is a well-settled principle of law that a public official
may be liable in his personal private capacity for whatever damage he may have caused by his act done with
malice and in bad faith, or beyond the scope of his authority or jurisdiction. 26 (Emphasis supplied.) In this case,
the US respondents were sued in their official capacity as commanding officers of the US Navy who had control
and supervision over the USS Guardian and its crew. The alleged act or omission resulting in the unfortunate
grounding of the USS Guardian on the TRNP was committed while they we:re performing official military duties.
Considering that the satisfaction of a judgment against said officials will require remedial actions and
appropriation of funds by the US government, the suit is deemed to be one against the US itself. The principle
of State immunity therefore bars the exercise of jurisdiction by this Court over the persons of respondents Swift,
Rice and Robling.

During the deliberations, Senior Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio took the position that the conduct of the
US in this case, when its warship entered a restricted area in violation of R.A. No. 10067 and caused damage
to the TRNP reef system, brings the matter within the ambit of Article 31 of the United Nations Convention on
the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). He explained that while historically, warships enjoy sovereign immunity from
suit as extensions of their flag State, Art. 31 of the UNCLOS creates an exception to this rule in cases where
they fail to comply with the rules and regulations of the coastal State regarding passage through the latter's
internal waters and the territorial sea.

According to Justice Carpio, although the US to date has not ratified the UNCLOS, as a matter of long-standing
policy the US considers itself bound by customary international rules on the "traditional uses of the oceans" as
codified in UNCLOS, as can be gleaned from previous declarations by former Presidents Reagan and Clinton,
and the US judiciary in the case of United States v. Royal Caribbean Cruise Lines, Ltd.27

The international law of the sea is generally defined as "a body of treaty rules arid customary norms governing
the uses of the sea, the exploitation of its resources, and the exercise of jurisdiction over maritime regimes. It is
a branch of public international law, regulating the relations of states with respect to the uses of the
oceans."28 The UNCLOS is a multilateral treaty which was opened for signature on December 10, 1982 at
Montego Bay, Jamaica. It was ratified by the Philippines in 1984 but came into force on November 16, 1994
upon the submission of the 60th ratification.

The UNCLOS is a product of international negotiation that seeks to balance State sovereignty (mare clausum)
and the principle of freedom of the high seas (mare liberum). 29 The freedom to use the world's marine waters is
one of the oldest customary principles of international law.30 The UNCLOS gives to the coastal State sovereign
rights in varying degrees over the different zones of the sea which are: 1) internal waters, 2) territorial sea, 3)
contiguous zone, 4) exclusive economic zone, and 5) the high seas. It also gives coastal States more or less
jurisdiction over foreign vessels depending on where the vessel is located.31

Insofar as the internal waters and territorial sea is concerned, the Coastal State exercises sovereignty, subject
to the UNCLOS and other rules of international law. Such sovereignty extends to the air space over the
territorial sea as well as to its bed and subsoil.32

In the case of warships,33 as pointed out by Justice Carpio, they continue to enjoy sovereign immunity subject to
the following exceptions:

Article 30
Non-compliance by warships with the laws and regulations of the coastal State

If any warship does not comply with the laws and regulations of the coastal State concerning passage through
the territorial sea and disregards any request for compliance therewith which is made to it, the coastal State
may require it to leave the territorial sea immediately.

Article 31
Responsibility of the flag State for damage caused by a warship

or other government ship operated for non-commercial purposes

The flag State shall bear international responsibility for any loss or damage to the coastal State resulting from
the non-compliance by a warship or other government ship operated for non-commercial purposes with the
laws and regulations of the coastal State concerning passage through the territorial sea or with the provisions
of this Convention or other rules of international law.
 Article 32
Immunities of warships and other government ships operated for non-commercial purposes

With such exceptions as are contained in subsection A and in articles 30 and 31, nothing in this Convention
affects the immunities of warships and other government ships operated for non-commercial purposes.
(Emphasis supplied.) A foreign warship's unauthorized entry into our internal waters with resulting damage to
marine resources is one situation in which the above provisions may apply. But what if the offending warship is
a non-party to the UNCLOS, as in this case, the US?

An overwhelming majority - over 80% -- of nation states are now members of UNCLOS, but despite this the
US, the world's leading maritime power, has not ratified it.

While the Reagan administration was instrumental in UNCLOS' negotiation and drafting, the U.S. delegation
ultimately voted against and refrained from signing it due to concerns over deep seabed mining technology
transfer provisions contained in Part XI. In a remarkable, multilateral effort to induce U.S. membership, the bulk
of UNCLOS member states cooperated over the succeeding decade to revise the objection.able provisions.
The revisions satisfied the Clinton administration, which signed the revised Part XI implementing agreement in
1994. In the fall of 1994, President Clinton transmitted UNCLOS and the Part XI implementing agreement to
the Senate requesting its advice and consent. Despite consistent support from President Clinton, each of his
successors, and an ideologically diverse array of stakeholders, the Senate has since withheld the consent
required for the President to internationally bind the United States to UNCLOS.

While UNCLOS cleared the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (SFRC) during the 108th and 110th
Congresses, its progress continues to be hamstrung by significant pockets of political ambivalence over U.S.
participation in international institutions. Most recently, 111 th Congress SFRC Chairman Senator John Kerry
included "voting out" UNCLOS for full Senate consideration among his highest priorities. This did not occur,
and no Senate action has been taken on UNCLOS by the 112th Congress.34

Justice Carpio invited our attention to the policy statement given by President Reagan on March 10, 1983 that
the US will "recognize the rights of the other , states in the waters off their coasts, as reflected in the convention
[UNCLOS], so long as the rights and freedom of the United States and others under international law are
recognized by such coastal states", and President Clinton's reiteration of the US policy "to act in a manner
consistent with its [UNCLOS] provisions relating to traditional uses of the oceans and to encourage other
countries to do likewise." Since Article 31 relates to the "traditional uses of the oceans," and "if under its policy,
the US 'recognize[s] the rights of the other states in the waters off their coasts,"' Justice Carpio postulates that
"there is more reason to expect it to recognize the rights of other states in their internal waters, such as the
Sulu Sea in this case."

As to the non-ratification by the US, Justice Carpio emphasizes that "the US' refusal to join the UN CLOS was
centered on its disagreement with UN CLOS' regime of deep seabed mining (Part XI) which considers the
oceans and deep seabed commonly owned by mankind," pointing out that such "has nothing to do with its [the
US'] acceptance of customary international rules on navigation."

It may be mentioned that even the US Navy Judge Advocate General's Corps publicly endorses the ratification
of the UNCLOS, as shown by the following statement posted on its official website:

The Convention is in the national interest of the United States because it establishes stable maritime zones,
including a maximum outer limit for territorial seas; codifies innocent passage, transit passage, and archipelagic
sea lanes passage rights; works against "jurisdictiomtl creep" by preventing coastal nations from expanding
their own maritime zones; and reaffirms sovereign immunity of warships, auxiliaries anJ government aircraft.

xxxx

Economically, accession to the Convention would support our national interests by enhancing the ability of the
US to assert its sovereign rights over the resources of one of the largest continental shelves in the world.
Further, it is the Law of the Sea Convention that first established the concept of a maritime Exclusive Economic
Zone out to 200 nautical miles, and recognized the rights of coastal states to conserve and manage the natural
resources in this Zone.35

We fully concur with Justice Carpio's view that non-membership in the UNCLOS does not mean that the US will
disregard the rights of the Philippines as a Coastal State over its internal waters and territorial sea. We thus
expect the US to bear "international responsibility" under Art. 31 in connection with the USS Guardian
grounding which adversely affected the Tubbataha reefs. Indeed, it is difficult to imagine that our long-time ally
and trading partner, which has been actively supporting the country's efforts to preserve our vital marine
resources, would shirk from its obligation to compensate the damage caused by its warship while transiting our
internal waters. Much less can we comprehend a Government exercising leadership in international affairs,
unwilling to comply with the UNCLOS directive for all nations to cooperate in the global task to protect and
preserve the marine environment as provided in Article 197, viz:

Article 197
Cooperation on a global or regional basis

States shall cooperate on a global basis and, as appropriate, on a regional basis, directly or through competent
international organizations, in formulating and elaborating international rules, standards and recommended
practices and procedures consistent with this Convention, for the protection and preservation of the marine
environment, taking into account characteristic regional features.

In fine, the relevance of UNCLOS provisions to the present controversy is beyond dispute. Although the said
treaty upholds the immunity of warships from the jurisdiction of Coastal States while navigating the.latter's
territorial sea, the flag States shall be required to leave the territorial '::;ea immediately if they flout the laws and
regulations of the Coastal State, and they will be liable for damages caused by their warships or any other
government vessel operated for non-commercial purposes under Article 31.

Petitioners argue that there is a waiver of immunity from suit found in the VFA. Likewise, they invoke federal
statutes in the US under which agencies of the US have statutorily waived their immunity to any action. Even
under the common law tort claims, petitioners asseverate that the US respondents are liable for negligence,
trespass and nuisance.

We are not persuaded.

The VFA is an agreement which defines the treatment of United States troops and personnel visiting the
Philippines to promote "common security interests" between the US and the Philippines in the region. It
provides for the guidelines to govern such visits of military personnel, and further defines the rights of the
United States and the Philippine government in the matter of criminal jurisdiction, movement of vessel and
aircraft, importation and exportation of equipment, materials and supplies.36 The invocation of US federal tort
laws and even common law is thus improper considering that it is the VF A which governs disputes involving
US military ships and crew navigating Philippine waters in pursuance of the objectives of the agreement.

As it is, the waiver of State immunity under the VF A pertains only to criminal jurisdiction and not to special civil
actions such as the present petition for issuance of a writ of Kalikasan. In fact, it can be inferred from Section
17, Rule 7 of the Rules that a criminal case against a person charged with a violation of an environmental law
is to be filed separately:

SEC. 17. Institution of separate actions.-The filing of a petition for the issuance of the writ of kalikasan shall not
preclude the filing of separate civil, criminal or administrative actions.

In any case, it is our considered view that a ruling on the application or non-application of criminal jurisdiction
provisions of the VF A to US personnel who may be found responsible for the grounding of the USS Guardian,
would be premature and beyond the province of a petition for a writ of Kalikasan. We also find it unnecessary at
this point to determine whether such waiver of State immunity is indeed absolute. In the same vein, we cannot
grant damages which have resulted from the violation of environmental laws. The Rules allows the recovery of
damages, including the collection of administrative fines under R.A. No. 10067, in a separate civil suit or that
deemed instituted with the criminal action charging the same violation of an environmental law. 37

Section 15, Rule 7 enumerates the reliefs which may be granted in a petition for issuance of a writ of Kalikasan,
to wit:

SEC. 15. Judgment.-Within sixty (60) days from the time the petition is submitted for decision, the court shall
render judgment granting or denying the privilege of the writ of kalikasan.

The reliefs that may be granted under the writ are the following:

(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;

(b) Directing the respondent public official, govemment agency, private person or entity to protect,
preserve, rehabilitate or restore the environment;

(c) Directing the respondent public official, government agency, private person or entity to monitor
strict compliance with the decision and orders of the court;

(d) Directing the respondent public official, government agency, or private person or entity to make
periodic reports on the execution of the final judgment; and

(e) 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, except the award of
damages to individual petitioners. (Emphasis supplied.)

We agree with respondents (Philippine officials) in asserting that this petition has become moot in the sense
that the salvage operation sought to be enjoined or restrained had already been accomplished when petitioners
sought recourse from this Court. But insofar as the directives to Philippine respondents to protect and
rehabilitate the coral reef stn icture and marine habitat adversely affected by the grounding incident are
concerned, petitioners are entitled to these reliefs notwithstanding the completion of the removal of the USS
Guardian from the coral reef. However, we are mindful of the fact that the US and Philippine governments both
expressed readiness to negotiate and discuss the matter of compensation for the damage caused by the USS
Guardian. The US Embassy has also declared it is closely coordinating with local scientists and experts in
assessing the extent of the damage and appropriate methods of rehabilitation.

Exploring avenues for settlement of environmental cases is not proscribed by the Rules. As can be gleaned
from the following provisions, mediation and settlement are available for the consideration of the parties, and
which dispute resolution methods are encouraged by the court, to wit:

RULE3

xxxx

SEC. 3. Referral to mediation.-At the start of the pre-trial conference, the court shall inquire from the parties if
they have settled the dispute; otherwise, the court shall immediately refer the parties or their counsel, if
authorized by their clients, to the Philippine Mediation Center (PMC) unit for purposes of mediation. If not
available, the court shall refer the case to the clerk of court or legal researcher for mediation.

Mediation must be conducted within a non-extendible period of thirty (30) days from receipt of notice of referral
to mediation.

The mediation report must be submitted within ten (10) days from the expiration of the 30-day period.
SEC. 4. Preliminary conference.-If mediation fails, the court will schedule the continuance of the pre-trial.
Before the scheduled date of continuance, the court may refer the case to the branch clerk of court for a
preliminary conference for the following purposes:

(a) To assist the parties in reaching a settlement;

xxxx

SEC. 5. Pre-trial conference; consent decree.-The judge shall put the parties and their counsels under oath,
and they shall remain under oath in all pre-trial conferences.

The judge shall exert best efforts to persuade the parties to arrive at a settlement of the dispute. The judge may
issue a consent decree approving the agreement between the parties in accordance with law, morals, public
order and public policy to protect the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology.

xxxx

SEC. 10. Efforts to settle.- The court shall endeavor to make the parties to agree to compromise or settle in
accordance with law at any stage of the proceedings before rendition of judgment. (Underscoring supplied.)

The Court takes judicial notice of a similar incident in 2009 when a guided-missile cruiser, the USS Port Royal,
ran aground about half a mile off the Honolulu Airport Reef Runway and remained stuck for four days. After
spending $6.5 million restoring the coral reef, the US government was reported to have paid the State of
Hawaii $8.5 million in settlement over coral reef damage caused by the grounding.38

To underscore that the US government is prepared to pay appropriate compensation for the damage caused by
the USS Guardian grounding, the US Embassy in the Philippines has announced the formation of a US
interdisciplinary scientific team which will "initiate discussions with the Government of the Philippines to review
coral reef rehabilitation options in Tubbataha, based on assessments by Philippine-based marine scientists."
The US team intends to "help assess damage and remediation options, in coordination with the Tubbataha
Management Office, appropriate Philippine government entities, non-governmental organizations, and scientific
experts from Philippine universities."39

A rehabilitation or restoration program to be implemented at the cost of the violator is also a major relief that
may be obtained under a judgment rendered in a citizens' suit under the Rules, viz:

RULES

SECTION 1. Reliefs in a citizen suit.-If warranted, the court may grant to the plaintiff proper reliefs which shall
include the protection, preservation or rehabilitation of the environment and the payment of attorney's fees,
costs of suit and other litigation expenses. It may also require the violator to submit a program of rehabilitation
or restoration of the environment, the costs of which shall be borne by the violator, or to contribute to a special
trust fund for that purpose subject to the control of the court.
1âwphi1

In the light of the foregoing, the Court defers to the Executive Branch on the matter of compensation and
rehabilitation measures through diplomatic channels. Resolution of these issues impinges on our relations with
another State in the context of common security interests under the VFA. It is settled that "[t]he conduct of the
foreign relations of our government is committed by the Constitution to the executive and legislative-"the
political" --departments of the government, and the propriety of what may be done in the exercise of this
political power is not subject to judicial inquiry or decision."40

On the other hand, we cannot grant the additional reliefs prayed for in the petition to order a review of the VFA
and to nullify certain immunity provisions thereof.
As held in BAYAN (Bagong Alyansang Makabayan) v. Exec. Sec. Zamora,41 the VFA was duly concurred in by
the Philippine Senate and has been recognized as a treaty by the United States as attested and certified by the
duly authorized representative of the United States government. The VF A being a valid and binding
agreement, the parties are required as a matter of international law to abide by its terms and provisions.42 The
present petition under the Rules is not the proper remedy to assail the constitutionality of its provisions.
WHEREFORE, the petition for the issuance of the privilege of the Writ of Kalikasan is hereby DENIED.

No pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.