You are on page 1of 2

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Represented by the POLLUTION

ADJUDICATION BOARD (DENR),petitioner, vs. MARCOPPER MINING


CORPORATION, respondent.

G.R. No. 137174 July 10, 2000

Facts:
Marcopper was issued a temporary permit to operate a tailings sea
disposal system from October 31, 1985 to October 21, 1986, before its
expiration, Marcopper filed an application for the renewal thereof with the NPCC.
On September 20, 1986 NPCC directed Marcopper to cease and desist from
discharging mine tailings into Calancan Bay. The directive was brought through
the efforts of certain religious groups which had been protesting Marcopper’s
tailings sea disposal system. Marcopper requested NPCC to refrain from
implementing the said directive until its adoption of an alternative tailings
disposal system. Thereafter, a new temporary permit dated November 11, 1986
to expire on February 10, 1987 was given toMarcopper , with the condition that
within 2 months. Pursuant to EO 192, NPCC was abolished and its powers and
functions were integrated to the Environment and Management Bureau and into
the Pollution Adjudication Board. On April 11, 1988 the Secretary of
Environment and Natural Resources, in his capacity as chairman of PAB, issued
an Order directingMarcopper to cease and desist from discharging mine tailings
into Calancan bay. Marcopper appealed the Order to the Office of the President
and issued a restraining order enjoining the cease and desist order but
Marcopper shall pay a cost (ETF) of not less than P 30,000.00 a day for the
rehabilitation of the Calancan Bay. Marcopper complied with the payment until
they and filed a motion manifesting that it would discontinue its
contribution/deposits to the ETF since it has stopped dumping tailings in the
bay.

Issue/s:
(1) Whether or not the cease and desist order issued by the PAB was in
violation of Sec 7 (a) of PD 984 for
being ex parte and without a public hearing.
(2) Whether or not Marcopper is still obliged to remit the amount of P
30,000.00 as ETF after it
discontinued in discharging sewage or industrial waste to the bay.
(3) Whether or not PAB has the power to issue the cease and desist order
to Marcopper, a mining company.

HELD:
No, the PAB can issue the cease and desist order for the said authority
was based on its findings of a prima facie evidence of an imminent threat to life,
public health, saefety or welfare, to animal or plant life or it exceeds the
allowable standards set by the PAB. The PAB may issue the order ex parte and
without conducting a public hearing.
The fact that Marcopper was no longer dumping its tail mining into the
sea is irrelevant, for the
payment of ETF arises from the Order from the Office of the President and not
from the dumping of mining tail. The court ruled that the ETF is more than
sufficient to cover the cost of rehabilitation of the Bay so the SC ruled that the
Marcopper be permitted to stop paying the P 30,000.00 for the rehabilitation of
the bay.
Yes, as a general rule the adjudication of pollution cases pertains to the
PAB, except in cases where special law, expressly or impliedly, provides for
another forum, under the Mines Regional Director is given power with respect to
mining operations. The SC ruled that there is no conflict between the laws, the
panel of Arbitrators and the Mines Adjudication Board are only vested with the
power to resolve disputes involving rights to mining areas, mineral agreement or
permits and those involving surface owners, occupants and
claimholders/concessionaires. The scope of authority of the Panel of Arbitrators
and the MAB clearly exclude adjudicative responsibility over pollution cases.

You might also like