Laguna Lake Development Authority vs.
Court of Appeals the Authority sent notices to the concerned owners stating that demolition shall
(December 7, 1995)
Ponentia: Hermosisima, Jr., J.
Facts:
1. Republic Act No. 4850 created the “Laguna Lake Development Authority”
(Authority) – a Government Agency that works toward environmental
protection and ecology, navigational safety, and sustainable development. This
agency is responsible for the development of the Laguna Lake area and the
surrounding provinces, cities and towns in view of the national and regional
plans.
2. President Ferdinand E. Marcos then passed Presidential Decree No. 813
amending certain sections of R.A. No. 4850 as response to the deteriorating
environmental condition of the Metropolitan Manila area and the surrounding
areas of the Laguna de Bay. Problems include the environmental impact of
development of water quality, inflow of polluted water, increasing urbanization
and floods in Metropolitan Manila.
3. Sec. 1 of P.D. 813 established a policy of development with environmental
management and control, among others for the Laguna Lake Development
Authority. Special powers, pertinent to this case, were also granted under Sec.
3. which include the exclusive jurisdiction of the Authority to issue new
permit for the use of the lake waters for any projects or activities in or affecting
the said lake including navigation, construction, and
4. operation of fishpens, fish enclosures, fish corrals and the like. The Authority
also has the power to collect fees for these activities and projects which may be
shared with other governmental agencies and political sub-divisions.
5. The Authority was further empowered by Executive Order No. 927 which
enlarged its functions and powers. Said Order also named and enumerated
towns, cities and provinces encompassed by the term “Laguna de Bay Region.”
The Chief Executive based this Order on an assessment that the land and
waters of the Laguna Lake Region are limited natural resources requiring
judicious management.
6. Under Sec. 2 of E.O. 927, the Authority shall have exclusive jurisdiction to
issue permit for the use of all surface water for any projects or activities in or
affecting the said region. Coverage for “Laguna de Bay Region” included several
provinces, cities and towns around the Laguna Lake. Under Sec. 3, the
collection of fees for the use of the lake water and its tributaries were enforced
by the Authority.
7. Then, Republic Act No. 7160, the Local Government Code of 1991 was
enforced. Municipalities around the Laguna Lake Region interpreted this law as
delegating the exclusive jurisdiction to issue fishing privileges within their
municipal waters.
8. Municipal governments started issuing fishing privileges and fishing permits to
big fishpen operators. These unregulated issuances of Mayor’s permits to
construct fishpens were clear violations of the policies implemented by the
Authority.
9. To solve the problem, the Authority issues a notice to the general public
declaring as illegal all fishpens, fishcages and other aqua-culture structures in
the Bay Region that were not registered with the Authority. The notice includes
a threat of penalty of demolition and imprisonment and/or fine. After a month,
be effected within 10 days.
10. Affected fishpen owners filed seven injunction cases against the Authority in
various trial courts. Authority filed a motion to dismiss the cases on
jurisdictional grounds which was denied by the lower court. Temporary
restraining order/writs of preliminary injunction was issued enjoining the
Authority from demolishing the structures in question. Authority appealed the
case to the Court of Appeals but the Court dismissed the consolidated petitions
of the Authority. CA established that LLDA is not a quasi-judicial agency of the
government and it cannot exercise quasi-judicial functions as far as fishpens
are concerned. CA the Local Government Code of 1991 repealed the provisions
of the LLDA Charter thereby devolving the power to grant permits to the local
government units concerned. Authority appealed to the Supreme Court with
petitions for prohibition, certiorari and injunction against the respondents.
Issue: WON the Laguna Lake Development Authority should exercise jurisdiction
over the Laguna Lake insofar as the issuance of permits for fisheries privileges is
concerned.
Held: Yes. The LLDA should exercise jurisdiction over the Laguna Lake insofar as
the issuance of permits for fisheries is concerned.
Petitions for prohibition, certiorari and injunction are hereby granted,
insofar as they related to the authority of the LLDA to grant fishing privileges within
the Laguna Lake Region.
Restraining orders and/or writs of injunction issued against the LLDA are
declared null and void and ordered set aside for having been issued with grave
abuse of discretion.
Municipal Mayors of the Laguna Lake Region are hereby prohibited from
issuing permits to construct and operate fishpens, fishcages and other aqua-culture
structures within the Laguna Lake Region. Previous issuances are null and void.
The fishpens, fishcages and other aqua-culture structures put by operators
by virtue of permits issued by Municipal Mayors within the Laguna Lake Region are
hereby declared illegal structures subject to demolition by the LLDA.
Ratio:
(1) Provisions of the Local Government Code of 1991 (RA No. 7160) do not repeal
the laws creating the LLDA. Therefore, LLDA maintains its exclusive authority
over issuances of permits.
- The charter of the LLDA is a SPECIAL LAW while the Local Government Code of
1991 is a GENERAL LAW. A basic rule of statutory construction is that the
enactment of a later legislation which is a general law cannot be construed to
have repealed a special law.
- When there is conflict between a general law and a special law, the special law
will prevail since it evinces the legislative intent more clearly than the general
statute.
- A special law cannot be repealed, amended or altered by a subsequent law by
mere implications.
- In Manila Railroad Company v. Rafferty, this basic rule is upheld with an
exception when the subsequent general law has a manifest intent to repeal or
alter the special law. In this case, such intent is not proven in this case.
(2) Legislative intent is for the Authority to proceed with its mission of
environmental protection, navigational safety, and sustainable development for
the Laguna Lake Region.
- The power of the local government units, exercised through fragmented
management policies, is interested in fishing privileges for REVENUE
PURPOSES. In contrast, the power of the Authority is aimed at effectively
regulating and monitoring activities in the Laguna de Bay Region for QUALITY
CONTROL and MANAGEMENT. Thus, the Authority is in a better position to
manage the issuance of permits.
(3) Charter of the Authority prevails because it is a valid exercise of POLICE POWER
of the State.
(4) Although the LLDA is not co-equal to the RTCs, LLDA is still a quasi-judicial
body with respect to pollution cases that can issue ‘cease and desist order’
(Laguna Lake Development Authority v. CA).

Padilla, J. (Concurring Opinion):

I fully concur. But I just want to say guys that the LGUs can still impose on those
who apply for permit with an additional local permit or license for revenue purposes.
This would harmonize RA No. 4850 with RA No. 7160 (LGC 1991).