Social Justice Society Officers v. Lim, G.R. Nos.

187836 & 187916 , [November 25, 2014]

FACTS:
On 20 November 2001, the Sangguniang Panlungsod (SP) enacted Ordinance No. 8027 which
reclassifies the land use of Pandacan, Sta. Ana, and its adjoining areas from Industrial II to Commercial
I. Owners and operators of the businesses affected by the reclassification were given six (6) months
from the date of effectivity to stop the operation of their businesses. It was later extended until 30
April 2003.
On 16 June 2006, Mayor Jose Atienza, Jr. 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”. This designates Pandacan oil depot area
as a Planned Unit Development/Overlay Zone.
On 7 March 2007, the SC granted the petition for mandamus and directed Mayor Atienza to
immediately enforce Ordinance No. 8027. It declared that the objective of the ordinance is to protect
the residents of manila from the catastrophic devastation that will surely occur in case of a terrorist
attack on the Pandacan Terminals.
On 14 May 2009, during the incumbency of Mayor Alfredo Lim (Mayor Lim), the SP enacted
Ordinance No. 8187. The Industrial Zone under Ordinance No. 8119 was limited to Light Industrial
Zone, Ordinance No. 8187 appended to the list a Medium and a Heavy Industrial Zone where
petroleum refineries and oil depots are expressly allowed.

Petitioners Social Justice Society Officers, Mayor Atienza, et.al. filed a petition for certiorari under
Rule 65 assailing the validity of Ordinance No. 8187. Their contentions are as follows:

It is an invalid exercise of police power because it does not promote the general welfare of the people
- It is violative of Section 15 and 16, Article II of the 1987 Constitution as well as health and
environment related municipal laws and international conventions and treaties, such as: Clean Air
Act; Environment Code; Toxic and Hazardous Wastes Law; Civil Code provisions on nuisance and
human relations; Universal Declaration of Human Rights; and Convention on the Rights of the Child
- The title of Ordinance No. 8187 purports to amend or repeal Ordinance No. 8119 when it actually
intends to repeal Ordinance No. 8027.

ISSUE: WON the Rules of Procedure on Environmental cases should be availed first before availing
rule 65.

HELD: No, The scope of the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases is embodied in Section 2, Part
I, Rule I thereof. It states that the Rules shall govern the procedure in civil, criminal and special civil
actions before the MeTCs, MTCCs, MTCs and MCTCs, and the RTCs involving the enforcement or
violations of environmental and other related laws, rules and regulations such as but not limited to:
R.A. No. 6969, Toxic Substances and Hazardous Waste Act; R.A. No. 8749, Clean Air Act; Provisions in
C.A. No. 141; and other existing laws that relate to the conservation, development, preservation,
protection and utilization of the environment and natural resources.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.