Relevant Provisions of the HELD​:
1987 Constitution LLDA has jurisdiction over such matters
Sec. 16, Art. 2
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.
SECTION 15, Art. 2. ​The State shall
protect and promote the right to health of
the people and instill health consciousness
among them.
Laguna Lake Development Authority vs CA
GR No. 120865-71; Dec. 7 1995
FACTS​:
The Laguna Lake Development Authority
(LLDA) was created through Republic Act
No. 4850. It was granted, inter alia,
exclusive jurisdiction to issue permits for
the use of all surface water for any project or
activity in or affecting the said region
including navigation, construction, and
operation of fishpens, fish enclosures, fish
corrals and the like.
Then came RA 7160, the Local Government
Code of 1991. The municipalities in the
Laguna Lake region interpreted its
provisions to mean that the newly passed
law gave municipal governments the
exclusive jurisdiction to issue fishing
privileges within their municipal waters.
ISSUE​:
Who should exercise jurisdiction over the
Laguna Lake and its environs insofar as the
issuance of permits for fishing privileges is
concerned, the LLDA or the towns and
municipalities comprising the region?
because the charter of the LLDA prevails
over the Local Government Code of 1991.
The said charter constitutes a special law,
while the latter is a general law. It is basic
in statutory construction that ​the
enactment of a later legislation which is a
general law, cannot be construed to have
repealed a special law. The special law is to
be taken as an exception to the general law
in the absence of special circumstances
forcing a contrary conclusion.
In addition, the charter of the LLDA
embodies a valid exercise of police power for
the purpose of protecting and developing
the Laguna Lake region, as opposed to the
Local Government Code, which grants
powers to municipalities to issue fishing
permits for revenue purposes.
Thus it has to be concluded that the charter
of the LLDA should prevail over the Local
Government Code of 1991 on matters
affecting Laguna de Bay.
Oposa vs Factoran
GR No. 101083; July 30 1993
FACTS:
A taxpayer’s class suit was filed by minors
Juan Antonio Oposa, et al., representing
their generation and generations yet
unborn, and represented by their parents
against Fulgencio Factoran Jr., Secretary of
DENR. They prayed that judgment be
rendered ordering the defendant, his agents,
representatives and other persons acting in
his behalf to:
 1. Cancel all existing Timber
Licensing Agreements (TLA) in the country;
2. Cease and desist from receiving,
accepting, processing, renewing, or
appraising new TLAs;
and granting the plaintiffs “such other
reliefs just and equitable under the
premises.” They alleged that they have a
clear and constitutional right to a balanced
and healthful ecology and are entitled to
protection by the State in its capacity as
parens patriae​. ​Furthermore, they claim
that the act of the defendant in allowing
TLA holders to cut and deforest the
remaining forests constitutes a Needless to say, ​every generation has a
misappropriation and/or impairment of the
natural resources property he holds in trust
for the benefit of the plaintiff minors and
succeeding generations.
The defendant filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint on the following grounds:
1. Plaintiffs have no cause of action
against him;
2. The issues raised by the
plaintiffs is a political question which
properly pertains to the legislative or
executive branches of the government.
ISSUE:
Do the petitioner-minors have a cause of
action in filing a class suit to “prevent the
misappropriation or impairment of
Philippine rainforests?”
HELD:
Yes. Petitioner-minors assert that they
represent their generation as well as
generations to come. The Supreme Court
ruled that they can, for themselves, for
others of their generation, and for the
succeeding generation, file a class suit. Their
personality to sue in behalf of succeeding
generations is based on the concept of
intergenerational responsibility insofar as
the right to a balanced and healthful
ecology is concerned​. Such a right considers
the “rhythm and harmony of nature” which
indispensably include, inter alia, the
judicious disposition, utilization,
management, renewal and conservation of
the country’s forest, mineral, land, waters,
fisheries, wildlife, offshore areas and other
natural resources to the end that their
exploration, development, and utilization be
equitably accessible to the present as well as
the future generations.
responsibility to the next to preserve that
rhythm and harmony for the full enjoyment
of a balanced and healthful ecology.​ Put a
little differently, the minor’s 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.
-----------
RICARDO VALMONTE v. FELICIANO
BELMONTE
Among the settled principles in
administrative law is that ​before a party can
be allowed to resort to the courts, he is
expected to have exhausted all means of
administrative redress available under the
law. The courts for reasons of law, comity
and convenience will not entertain a case
unless the available administrative remedies
have been resorted to and the appropriate
authorities have been given opportunity to
act and correct the errors committed in the
administrative forum.
Exceptions to the Doctrine of Exhaustion of
Administrative Remedies: (QL, VDP, LEJ,
UNJI, UD/OF, NPSA, Estoppel, GID, NC,
BC
● when the issue involved is a
pure question of law
● when the due process is clearly
violated
● when the administrative action is
patently illegal amounting to lack
or excess of jurisdiction
● when there is urgent need for
judicial intervention
● when there is unreasonable
delay or official inaction
● when there is no other plain,
speedy or adequate remedy
provided by law
● when there is estoppel on the
part of the agency concerned
● when there is great and
irreparable damage which can
only be prevented by court
action
● when the resort to administrative
remedy will amount to the
nullification of a claim
● when the law specifically
provides that the issue shall be
brought up to the court
○ when the subject
matter is private
land in land case
proceedings
-------------
Article 3, SECTION 7- Philippines
Constitution
The right of the people to information on
matters of public concern shall be
recognized. Access to official records, and to
documents and papers pertaining to official
acts, transactions, or decisions, as well as to
government research data used as basis for
policy development, shall be afforded the
citizen, subject to such limitations as may be
provided by law.
Legaspi vs. CSC
G.R. No. L-72119, May 29, 1987
Facts: ​The respondent CSC had denied
petitioner Valentin Legaspi’s request for
information on the civil service eligibilities
of Julian Sibonghanoy and Mariano Agas
who were employed as sanitarians in the
Health Department of Cebu City.
Sibonghanoy and Agas had allegedly
represented themselves as civil service
eligibles who passed the civil service
examinations for sanitarians.
Claiming that his right to be informed of the
eligibilities of Sibonghanoy and Agas is
guaranteed by the Constitution, and that he
has no other plain, speedy and adequate
remedy to acquire the information,
petitioner prays for the issuance of the
extraordinary writ of mandamus to compel
the respondent CSC to disclose said
information.
The respondent CSC takes issue on the
personality of the petitioner to bring the
suit. It is asserted that the petition is bereft
of any allegation of Legaspi’s actual interest Tano vs Socrates
in the civil service eligibilities of GR No. 110249; August 21, 1997
Sibonghanoy and Agas.
FACTS​:
Issue: Whether or not the petitioner has
legal standing to bring the suit On Dec 15, 1992, the Sangguniang
Held: ​The petitioner has firmly anchored Panglungsod ng Puerto Princesa enacted an
his case upon the right of the people to ordinance banning the shipment of all live
information on matters of public concern, fish and lobster outside Puerto Princesa City
which, by its very nature, is a public right. It
from January 1, 1993 to January 1, 1998.
has been held in the case of Tanada vs.
Tuvera, 136 SCRA 27, that ​when the Subsequently the Sangguniang
question is one of public right and the object Panlalawigan, Provincial Government of
of the mandamus is to procure the Palawan enacted a resolution prohibiting
enforcement of a public duty, the people are
the catching , gathering, possessing, buying,
regarded as the real party in interest​, and
the person at whose instigation the selling, and shipment of a several species of
proceedings are instituted need not show live marine coral dwelling aquatic
that he has any legal or special interest in organisms for 5 years, in and coming from
the result, it being sufficient to show that he
Palawan waters.
is a citizen and as such interested in the
execution of the laws. Petitioners filed a special civil action for
It becomes apparent that ​when a mandamus certiorari and prohibition, praying that the
proceeding involves the assertion of a public court declare the said ordinances and
right, the requirement of personal interest is
resolutions as unconstitutional on the
satisfied by the mere fact that the petitioner
is a citizen, and therefore, part of the ground that the said ordinances deprived
general public which possesses the right. them of the due process of law, their

The petitioner, being a citizen who as such,
is clothed with personality to seek redress
for the alleged obstruction of the exercise of
the public right.
----------
livelihood, and unduly restricted them from
the practice of their trade, in violation of
Section 2, Article XII and Sections 2 and 7
of Article XIII of the 1987 Constitution.

Sec. 2, Art. 12 of the 1987 Constitution

ISSUE​:
All lands of the public domain and other
natural resources belong to the State. Are the challenged ordinances
unconstitutional?
HELD​: unquestionably involve the exercise of
police power, the validity of the questioned
No. The Supreme Court found the
ordinances cannot be doubted.
petitioners contentions baseless and held
that the challenged ordinances did not --------
suffer from any infirmity, both under the Presidential Proclamation No. 2146
Constitution and applicable laws. There is
Proclaiming Certain Areas and Types of
absolutely no showing that any of the Projects as Environmentally Critical and
petitioners qualifies as a subsistence or within the Scope of Environmental Impact
marginal fisherman. Besides, Section 2 of Statement System
Article XII aims primarily not to bestow any
right to subsistence fishermen, but to lay
A. Environmentally Critical Projects
stress on the duty of the State to protect the
I. Heavy Industries (NIPS)
nation’s marine wealth. The so-called
a. Non-ferrous metal industries
“preferential right” of subsistence or b. Iron and steel mills
marginal fishermen to the use of marine c. Petroleum and petro-chemical industries
including oil and gas
resources is not at all absolute. d. Smelting plants

In accordance with the Regalian Doctrine, II. Resource Extractive Industries (Maj, FP
marine resources belong to the state and (LIMFEG)
pursuant to the first paragraph of Section 2, a. Major mining and quarrying projects
Article XII of the Constitution, their
“exploration, development and b. Forestry projects
utilization...shall be under the full control 1. Logging
2. Major wood processing projects
and supervision of the State. 3. Introduction of fauna (exotic-animals) in
public/private forests
4. Forest occupancy
In addition, one of the devolved powers of 5. Extraction of mangrove products
6. Grazing
the LCG on devolution is the enforcement of
fishery laws in municipal waters including c. Fishery Projects
1. Dikes fishpond development projects
the conservation of mangroves. This
necessarily includes the enactment of III. Infrastructure Projects (DPRR)

ordinances to effectively carry out such a. Major dams

b.Major power plants (fossil-fueled, nuclear
fishery laws within the municipal waters. In fueled, hydroelectric or geothermal)
light of the principles of decentralization c. Major reclamation projects
d. Major roads and bridges
and devolution enshrined in the LGC and
the powers granted therein to LGUs which IV. Golf-course projects

B. Environmentally Critical Areas
1. All areas declared by law as national parks,
watershed reserves, wildlife preserves and
sanctuaries;
2. Areas set aside as aesthetic potential tourist
spots;
3. Areas which constitute the habitat for any
endangered or threatened species of indigenous
Philippine Wildlife (flora and fauna);
4. Areas of unique historic, archaeological, or
scientific interests;
5. Areas which are traditionally occupied by
cultural communities or tribes;
6. Areas frequently visited and/or hard-hit by
natural calamities (geologic hazards, floods,
typhoons, volcanic activity, etc.);
7. Areas with critical slopes;
8. Areas classified as prime agricultural lands;
9. Recharged areas of aquifers;
10. Water bodies characterized by one or any
combination of the following conditions;
a. tapped for domestic purposes
b. within the controlled and/or protected areas
declared by appropriate authorities
c. which support wildlife and fishery activities
11. Mangrove areas characterized by one or any
combination of the following conditions:
a. with primary pristine and dense young growth;
b. adjoining mouth of major river systems;
c. near or adjacent to traditional productive fry or
fishing grounds;
d. which act as natural buffers against shore
erosion, strong winds and storm floods;
e. on which people are dependent for their
livelihood.
12. Coral reefs characterized by one or any
combinations of the following conditions:
a. With 50% and above live coralline cover;
b. Spawning and nursery grounds for fish;
c. which act as natural breakwater of coastlines.
DENR DAO 2003-30
-​Certificate of non-coverage- ​certificate
issued by EMB certifying that, based on
submitted project description, the project is
not covered by the EIS System and is not
required to secure an ECC.
-​Environmental Compliance
Certificate- document issued by EMB
after the positive review of the ECC
application, certifying that based on the
representations of the proponent, the
proposed project or undertaking will not
cause significant negative environmental
impact.
-​Environmental Impact Assessment-
process of evaluating the likely impacts of a
project on the environment.
- ​Environmental Impact Statement- ​A
comprehensive study of the significant
impact of a project on the environment,
prepared and submitted by the project
proponent.
-ECC Application:
- Scope: Only projects that pose
potential significant impact to the
environment.
- Public consultations initiated by
proponents to ensure that environmentally
relevant concerns of stakeholders are taken
into consideration in the EIA study and the
formulation of the management plan.
 - Project proponents are responsible
for determining and disclosing all
HELD:
relevant information necessary for a
No.Section 4 of PD 1586 provides that "no
methodical assessment of the
person​, partnership or corporation shall
environmental impacts of their
undertake or operate any such declared
projects.
environmentally critical project or area
- Grounds for appeal of any party
without first securing an Environmental
aggrieved by the final decision on
Compliance Certificate issued by the
CNC/ECC
President or his duly authorized
- Grave abuse of discretion on
representative." ​We note that LGU’s are
the deciding authority; and
juridical persons.
- Serious errors in the review
HOWEVER, after consideration of the
findings.
evidence finding Artica Sports Dome is not
Cases: within an environmentally critical area
neither being a critical project. ​The said
Republic of the Philippines v.
project is not classified as environmentally
The City of Davao
critical, or within an environmentally
critical area. ​Consequently, the DENR has
FACTS:
no choice but to issue the Certificate of
Respondent filed an application for a Non-Coverage. It becomes its ministerial
Certificate of Non-Coverage (CNC) for its duty, the performance of which can be
proposed project, the Davao City Artica compelled by writ of ​mandamus​, such as
Sports Dome, with the Environmental that issued by the trial court in the case at
Management Bureau however, was denied bar.
on the ground that the proposed project was
within an environmentally critical area; that
------
the City of Davao must first undergo the
PD 705 Revised Forestry Code
environmental impact assessment (EIA)
process to secure an Environmental
-​License- ​privilege granted by the State to
Compliance Certificate (ECC). Respondent
a person to utilize forest resources without
then filed a petition for ​mandamus with the
any right of possession and occupation over
Regional Trial Court (RTC), and the latter
the same.
ruled in favor of respondent.
-​License Agreement- ​A privilege granted
by the State to a person to utilize forest
ISSUE: resources with the right of possession and
WON the LGU’s are excluded from the occupation.
coverage of PD 1586, one which requires an
environmental impact assessment (EIA) -​Doctrine of res judicata​- Decisions and
process to secure an Environmental orders of administrative agencies have,
Compliance Certificate (ECC) upon their finality, the force and binding
effect of a final judgment.
-​Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction- conveyance may be seized again either by
Courts cannot take cognizance of cases filing a motion for reinvestigation and
pending before administrative agencies of motion to include the truck owner/driver as
special competence. co accused. The confiscation proceedings
under Administrative Order No. 59 is
different from the confiscation under the
Cases: RPC.
-Reservation of land, covered by a timber
concession. The right of petitioner as a
timber licensee must not be affected,
impaired or diminished but must be
respected until it expires. The forest charges
or royalties must be paid to new owner.

-Criminal Offenses:
Section 68, PD 705:
Cutting, gathering and/or collecting timber,
or other forest products without license. -
Punishable under Arts. 309 and 310 of RPC.

Possession of timber or other forest

products without the legal documents
required under existing forest laws and
regulations.

Section 68-A, PD 705:

The Department Head or his duly
authorized representative may order the
confiscation of any forest products illegally
cut, gathered, removed or possessed or
abandoned, and all conveyances used in the
commission of the offense, and dispose of
the same in accordance with pertinent laws.

NOTE:
-While lumber is not specifically mentioned
in Sec. 68, the Court held that it is
nevertheless included in the term timber.

-Order of release of the conveyance by the

Judge does not render nugatory the
administrative authority of the DENR
Secretary. Despite the order of release, the