OPOSA vs FACTOAN

Issue: whether the petitioner minors have cause of action in filling a class suit to prevent the
misappropriation or impairment of PH rainforest.
Held :
Yes the petitioner minors do have a cause of action in filing a class suit to prevent the misappropriation
or impairment of the Philippine rainforest.
Under Article II, Section 16 of the 1987 Constitution, which guarantees the right of the people to a
balanced and healthful ecology. This constitutional right is self-executory, meaning it can be invoked
even without enabling legislation. The Supreme Court also recognized the doctrine of intergenerational
responsibility, affirming that minors can represent both their own interests and those of future
generations. Additionally, under the Rules of Court, minors may sue through their parents or guardians,
and the Civil Code provisions on human relations (Articles 19–21) support legal standing when a right
is violated or threatened.

The minors, through their parents, filed a class suit to enjoin the DENR from issuing timber license
agreements that would further deplete the rainforest. The Supreme Court upheld their standing,
emphasizing that the constitutional right to a balanced ecology is enforceable and that the petitioners, as
representatives of future generations, are proper parties to assert this right. The Court rejected the
defense that the right was merely aspirational, affirming its actionable nature.

Yes, the petitioner minors have a valid cause of action. The Supreme Court affirmed their standing,
grounded in constitutional and civil law, and established a landmark precedent for environmental
protection through the doctrine of intergenerational responsibility.

What is Regalian Doctrine:

All lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum, and other natural resources are owned
by the State. With the exception of agricultural lands, all other natural resources shall not be alienated.”

Doctrine of Intergenerational Responsibility

The doctrine recognizes that the constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology (Article II,
Section 16 of the 1987 Constitution) is not only for the present generation but also for those yet
unborn.

What is Article 1 ?

ARTICLE I – NATIONAL TERRITORY

The national territory comprises the Philippine archipelago, with all the islands and waters embraced
therein, and all other territories over which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction, consisting of its
terrestrial, fluvial, and aerial domains including its territorial sea, the seabed, the subsoil, the insular
shelves, and other submarine areas. The waters around, between, and connecting the islands of the
archipelago, regardless of their breadth and dimensions, form part of the internal waters of the Philippines

What is article 2 declaration of principles and state policies section 15 ?

“The State shall protect and promote the right to health of the people and instill health
consciousness among them.”
Meaning :

This provision affirms the government's duty to safeguard public health and foster awareness and
responsibility for health among its citizens. It serves as a foundation for legislation, programs, and policies
related to healthcare, sanitation, disease prevention, and health education.

What is article 2 declaration of principles and state policies section 16?

“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.”

Meaning

This provision is self-executory, meaning it can be invoked directly in court without the need for enabling
legislation. It was the cornerstone of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Oposa v. Factoran, where the Court
upheld the right of minors to sue for environmental protection on behalf of future generations

Article XII National Economy and patrimony 3.1 Section 2, 3, 4, 5 ?

Section 2

All lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum, and other mineral oils, all forces of
potential energy, fisheries, forests or timber, wildlife, flora and fauna, and other natural resources are
owned by the State. With the exception of agricultural lands, all other natural resources shall not be
alienated. The exploration, development, and utilization of natural resources shall be under the full control
and supervision of the State. The State may directly undertake such activities, or it may enter into co-
production, joint venture, or production-sharing agreements with Filipino citizens, or corporations
or associations at least sixty per centum of whose capital is owned by such citizens. Such agreements
may be for a period not exceeding twenty-five years, renewable for not more than twenty-five
years, and under such terms and conditions as may be provided by law. In cases of water rights for
irrigation, water supply, fisheries, or industrial uses other than the development of water power, beneficial
use may be the measure and limit of the grant.

The State shall protect the nation's marine wealth in its archipelagic waters, territorial sea, and exclusive
economic zone, and reserve its use and enjoyment exclusively to Filipino citizens.

The Congress may, by law, allow small-scale utilization of natural resources by Filipino citizens,
as well as cooperative fish farming, with priority to subsistence fishermen and fishworkers in
rivers, lakes, bays, and lagoons

The President may enter into agreements with foreign-owned corporations involving either technical or
financial assistance for large-scale exploration, development, and utilization of minerals, petroleum, and
other mineral oils according to the general terms and conditions provided by law, based on real
contributions to the economic growth and general welfare of the country. In such agreements, the
State shall promote the development and use of local scientific and technical resources.

The President shall notify the Congress of every contract entered into in accordance with this
provision, within thirty days from its execution.
Section 3

Lands of the public domain are classified into agricultural, forest or timber, mineral lands, and
national parks. Agricultural lands of the public domain may be further classified by law according to the
uses which they may be devoted.

Alienable lands of the public domain shall be limited to agricultural lands.

Private corporations or associations may not hold such alienable lands of the public domain except by
lease, for a period not exceeding twenty-five years, renewable for not more than twenty-five years, and
not to exceed one thousand hectares in area.

Citizens of the Philippines may lease not more than five hundred hectares, or acquire not more than
twelve hectares thereof, by purchase, homestead, or grant.

Section 4

The Congress shall, as soon as possible, determine by law the specific limits of forest lands and national
parks, marking clearly their boundaries on the ground.

Thereafter, forest lands and national parks shall be conserved and may not be increased nor diminished,
except by law.

The Congress shall provide for such period as it may determine, measures to prohibit logging in
endangered forests and watershed areas.

Section 5

The State, subject to the provisions of this Constitution and national development policies and programs,
shall protect the rights of indigenous cultural communities to their ancestral lands to ensure their
economic, social, and cultural well-being.

The Congress may provide for the applicability of customary laws governing property rights or relations in
determining the ownership and extent of ancestral domain.

Doctrine of Cruz vs. Secretary of DENR

Ancestral‐domain recognition under the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (IPRA) operates alongside the
Regalian Doctrine, creating a dual tenure system in which the State retains sovereign ownership of all
public lands and natural resources, while indigenous cultural communities/indigenous peoples (ICCs/IPs)
hold private, communal native title over their ancestral domains with limited rights to small‐scale utilization
and a preferential role in large‐scale development under state supervision.

The State keeps ownership of all public lands and resources, but indigenous communities gain communal
rights to live in, use, and protect their ancestral domains under state supervision.

Universal Robina Corp. vs. Laguna Lake Devt. Authority

The doctrine of exhaustion of Remedy

General Rule
The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies is a cornerstone of our judicial system. The thrust
of the rule is that courts must allow administrative agencies to carry out their functions and
discharge their responsibilities within the specialized areas of their respective competence. The
rationale for this doctrine is obvious. It entails lesser expenses and provides for the speedier
resolution of controversies. Comity and convenience also impel courts of justice to shy away from a
dispute until the system of administrative redress has been completed.

Exception: PPUFVEN

a. Purely legal questions – When the issue raised is purely legal and does not require the exercise of
the agency’s technical expertise, judicial intervention may be sought directly.
b. Patently Illegal Actions – When the administrative action is patently illegal or a clear violation of law,
the court may intervene directly to prevent injustice.
c. Urgency – When there is an urgent need for judicial intervention to prevent irreparable damage or
injury, judicial recourse may be sought without exhausting administrative remedies.
d. Futility of Administrative Remedies – When it is clear that the administrative remedies available
would be futile or useless (e.g., where the administrative agency is biased, or where it has already
predetermined the outcome), the doctrine does not apply.
e. Violation of Due Process – Where administrative actions violate the constitutional right to due
process, the party may directly seek judicial relief.
f. Grave Abuse of Discretion – If the administrative agency acts with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, the party may directly go to the courts.
g. Estoppel – If the administrative agency fails to object to the lack of exhaustion of administrative
remedies, it may be estopped from raising the doctrine as a defense.
h. Non-Applicability to Private Entities – The Doctrine of Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies
generally applies only to actions involving public administrative agencies. It is not necessarily applicable
in cases involving private entities.

International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications, Inc. v. Greenpeace

Southeast Asia et al.
Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases (A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC)

PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE

General Rule

SEC. 1. Applicability. - When there is a lack of full scientific certainty in establishing a causal link
between human activity and environmental effect, the court shall apply the precautionary principle in
resolving the case before it.

The constitutional right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology shall be given the benefit of
the douBt.
 SEC. 2. Standards for application. - In applying the precautionary principle, the following factors,
among others, may be considered: (1) threats to human life or health; (2) inequity to present or
future generations; or (3) prejudice to the environment without legal consideration of the
environmental rights of those affected.

HELD:

In December 2015, the Supreme Court ruled in the affirmative. The SC held that the precautionary
principle applies in this case since the risk of harm from the field trials of BT Talong remains uncertain
and there exists a possibility of serious and irreversible harm. The SC observed that eggplants are a
staple vegetable in the country that is mostly grown by small-scale farmers who are poor and
marginalized; thus, given the country’s rich biodiversity, the consequences of contamination and genetic
pollution would be disastrous and irreversible.

On the issue of mootness, the SC held that it can still pass upon the case on the grounds that (a) the
exceptional character of the situation and the paramount public interest is involved; and (b) the case is
capable of repetition yet evading review.

Resident Marine Mammals of the Protected Seascape Tañon Strait v. Reyes

Liberalized Approach :

 Some experts say animals and nature should have their own legal standing because it’s hard for
people to prove they’re directly affected.
 In the Philippines, many environmental suits were dismissed when petitioners couldn’t show personal
harm.
 Courts now use a more relaxed standing test in environmental cases, so you don’t need strict proof of
direct injury.
 We haven’t gone as far as letting nature sue on its own, but the trend is toward simpler rules and
easier access to court for environmental claims.

The Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases

“Section 5. Citizen suit. – Any Filipino citizen in representation of others,

including minors or generations yet unborn, may file an action to enforce
rights or obligations under environmental laws. Upon the filing of a citizen
suit, the court shall issue an order which shall contain a brief description of the
cause of action and the reliefs prayed for, requiring all interested parties to
manifest their interest to intervene in the case within fifteen (15) days from notice
thereof. The plaintiff may publish the order once in a newspaper of general
circulation in the Philippines or furnish all affected barangays copies of said
order.

Citizen suits filed under R.A. No. 8749 and R.A. No. 9003 shall be governed by
their respective provisions. (Emphasis supplied)”
SJS vs Mayor Atienza
LIMITED SCOPE
The Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases

Section 2. Scope

These Rules shall govern the procedure in civil, criminal and special civil actions before the Regional Trial
Courts, Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal
Circuit Trial Courts involving enforcement or violations of environmental and other related laws, rules and
regulations such as, but not limited to, the following:

Act No. 3572, Prohibition Against Cutting of Tindalo, Akli, and Molave Trees
P.D. No. 705, Revised Forestry Code
P.D. No. 856, Sanitation Code
P.D. No. 979, Marine Pollution Decree
P.D. No. 1067, Water Code
P.D. No. 1151, Philippine Environmental Policy of 1977
P.D. No. 1433, Plant Quarantine Law of 1978
 P.D. No. 1586, Establishing an Environmental Impact Statement System Including Other
Environmental Management Related Measures and for Other Purposes
 R.A. No. 3571, Prohibition Against the Cutting, Destroying or Injuring of Planted or Growing Trees,
Flowering Plants and Shrubs or Plants of Scenic Value along Public Roads, in Plazas, Parks, School
Premises or in any Other Public Ground
 R.A. No. 4850, Laguna Lake Development Authority Act
 R.A. No. 6969, Toxic Substances and Hazardous Waste Act
 R.A. No. 7076, People’s Small‐Scale Mining Act
 R.A. No. 7586, National Integrated Protected Areas System Act
 R.A. No. 7611, Strategic Environmental Plan for Palawan Act
 R.A. No. 7942, Philippine Mining Act
 R.A. No. 8371, Indigenous Peoples Rights Act
 R.A. No. 8550, Philippine Fisheries Code
 R.A. No. 8749, Clean Air Act
 R.A. No. 9003, Ecological Solid Waste Management Act
 R.A. No. 9072, National Caves and Cave Resource Management Act
 R.A. No. 9147, Wildlife Conservation and Protection Act

 R.A. No. 9175, Chainsaw Act
 R.A. No. 9275, Clean Water Act
 R.A. No. 9483, Oil Spill Compensation Act of 2007
 Provisions in C.A. No. 141, The Public Land Act; R.A. No. 6657, Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law
of 1988; R.A. No. 7160, Local Government Code of 1991; R.A. No. 7161, Tax Laws Incorporated in the
Revised Forestry Code and Other Environmental Laws (Amending the NIRC); R.A. No. 7308, Seed
Industry Development Act of 1992; R.A. No. 7900, High‐Value Crops Development Act; R.A. No. 8048,
Coconut Preservation Act; R.A. No. 8435, Agriculture and Fisheries Modernization Act of 1997; R.A. No.
9522, The Philippine Archipelagic Baselines Law; R.A. No. 9593, Renewable Energy Act of 2008; R.A.
No. 9637, Philippine Biofuels Act; and other existing laws that relate to the conservation, development,
preservation, protection and utilization of the environment and natural resources.

In the case environmental law is collateral attack the real issue is the Reclassification of zoning ordinance
from industrial 2 to commercial 1
Revised Forestry Code

Felipe Ysmael, Jr. & Co., Inc. v. Deputy Executive Secretary

The Supreme Court held that under Presidential Decree No. 705 (the Revised Forestry Code), timber
license agreements are revocable privileges subject to the State’s police power to conserve forest
resources, and that the President and the Minister of Natural Resources possess broad, discretionary
authority to suspend or cancel such licenses—without prior public bidding or formal hearing—when forest
preservation exigencies so require. The Court further ruled that an unjustified delay in contesting an
administrative cancellation invokes the doctrine of laches and cements the finality of the order, thereby
barring judicial relief for the licensee

Legal Basis
Section 3 (ee) Permit is a short-term privilege or authority granted by the State to a person to utilize any
limited forest resources or undertake a limited activity with any forest land without any right of occupation
and possession therein.

Section 20. License agreement, license, lease or permit. No person may utilize, exploit, occupy, possess
or conduct any activity within any forest land, or establish and operate any wood-processing plant, unless
he has been authorized to do so under a license agreement, lease, license, or permit.

Heirs of Amunategui v. Director of Forestry

Section 3(a) of the Revised Forestry Code (PD 705), which declares that all lands of the public
domain not officially classified as alienable and disposable agricultural land remain forest lands
regardless of their physical condition. The Court also reaffirmed its precedents in Director of
Forestry v. Muñoz and Republic v. Animas, holding that only a positive act of government namely, an
official proclamation can declassify forest land and convert it into alienable and disposable lands.
Furthermore, applicants for confirmation of imperfect title bear the burden of proving compliance with
Section 48 of the Public Land Act (Commonwealth Act No. 141), as amended.

Here, Court noted that no executive proclamation had ever released or reclassified the mangrove swamp
into the alienable and disposable category. Although the heirs demonstrated continuous cultivation and
settlement, they failed to show any formal government action rendering the land susceptible to
private title. Consequently, their claim under the Public Land Act could not prevail.

Director of Forestry v. Hon. Emmanuel M. Muñoz, et al

Doctrine

1. Forest lands remain part of the inalienable public domain unless there is a clear, positive act
of the State reclassifying and releasing them as alienable and disposable.
2. Spanish titles or other private claims do not automatically convert forest land into private
property if the land remains classified as forest/timber land in official records.
3. A Certificate of Private Woodland Registration is not proof of absolute ownership; it is
merely a regulatory instrument allowing limited exploitation of timber resources, subject to the
State’s continuing control.
4. The Director of Forestry has the authority to cancel such certificates for violations of forestry
laws, rules, and regulations, including cutting in excluded or protected areas (e.g., watershed
reservations).
5. Courts will not enjoin lawful enforcement of forestry regulations absent clear proof of grave abuse
of discretion by forestry officials.
6. The Regalian Doctrine applies: all natural resources belong to the State, and exploitation is a
privilege, not a vested right.

Republic vs Naguiat

Under the Revised Forestry Code (Presidential Decree No. 705), all lands classified as forest lands
remain inalienable public domain of the State unless formally reclassified by the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources through survey, classification, and issuance of a free patent,
homestead patent, or other authorized disposition. Section 2, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution
(Regalian doctrine) vests all public domain lands in the State, and no private conveyance can ripen into
valid title without DENR action. Spanish grants not registered under the Land Registration Act likewise
cannot serve as a basis for judicial confirmation of title to forest land.
Public forest lands or forest reserves, unless declassified and released by positive act of the
Government so that they may form part of the disposable agricultural lands of the public domain,
are not capable of private appropriation.5 As to these assets, the rules on confirmation of
imperfect title do not apply.6 Given this postulate, the principal issue to be addressed turns on the
question of whether or not the areas in question have ceased to have the status of forest or other
inalienable lands of the public domain.

Alvarez v. PICOP Resources, Inc

The issuance of an IFMA is not a ministerial duty but a discretionary act subject to compliance with
statutory and administrative requirements under the Revised Forestry Code and related regulations.

Revised Forestry Code (PD No. 705), forest tenure instruments such as IFMAs are privileges
granted by the State, not contractual rights. The Supreme Court emphasized that mandamus only lies
to compel the performance of a ministerial duty, not a discretionary one. The 1969 Document cited by
PICOP, allegedly signed by President Marcos, was not a binding contract protected by the Non-
Impairment Clause of the Constitution

 Clarifies that Presidential Warranties related to timber licenses are not contracts protected by the
non-impairment clause of the Constitution.
 Reiterates the principle that timber licenses are mere privileges granted by the State, subject to
amendment, modification, or rescission when national interests require.
 Reinforces the requirement for compliance with the Indigenous Peoples' Rights Act (IPRA) and the
Local Government Code in projects involving natural resources, specifically the need for NCIP
certification and Sanggunian approval.
 Emphasizes the State's full control and supervision over the exploration, development, and utilization
of natural resources, limiting agreements to the constitutional maximum of 25 years, renewable for
another 25 years.

Tan v. Director of Forestry,

Under PD No. 705, Section 58 expressly requires the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources’
endorsement before an ordinary timber license may be validly issued. The Code’s policy declaration
(Section 3) treats forest lands and their products as a public trust, and Sections 55–62 characterize timber
licenses as mere privileges, revocable at the State’s pleasure to safeguard public welfare and national
development.

Under PD No. 705 timber licenses are mere revocable privileges subject to the State’s discretion and any
attempt to override that power would amount to a de facto suit against the State, barred by sovereign
immunity. Section 3 of PD No. 705 proclaims forest resources a public trust, while Sections 55–62 classify
timber licenses as privileges revocable at will, and Section 58 expressly requires the Secretary of
Agriculture and Natural Resources’ approval for any valid issuance.
 MUSTANG LUMBER v. CA

Sec. 68. Cutting, Gathering and/or Collecting Timber or Other Forest Products Without License. --
Any person who shall cut, gather, collect, remove timber or other forest products from any forest land, or
timber from alienable or disposable public land, or from private land, without any authority, or possess
timber or other forest products without the legal documents as required under existing forest laws and
regulations, shall be punished with the penalties imposed under Articles 309 and 310 of the Revised
Penal Code: Provided, That in the case of partnerships, associations, or corporations, the officers who
ordered the cutting, gathering, collection or possession shall be liable, and if such officers are aliens, they
shall, in addition to the penalty, be deported without further proceedings on the part of the Commission on
Immigration and Deportation.

The Court shall further order the confiscation in favor of the government of the timber or any forest
products cut, gathered, collected, removed, or possessed, as well as the machinery, equipment,
implements and tools illegally used in the area where the timber or forest products are found.

The Revised Forestry Code does not provide its own definition of either “timber” or “lumber.”

Timber is classified as a forest product under paragraph (q) of Section 3,

while lumber is mentioned in paragraph (aa) under the definition of “processing plant” and refers to a
processed log or processed forest raw material.

The term “lumber” is used in its ordinary sense, meaning timber or logs that have been prepared for the
market, as reflected in the 1993 copyright edition of Webster’s Third New International Dictionary.

Simply put, lumber is processed timber. In the absence of any legislative intent to the contrary, words in a
statute are to be understood in their plain, ordinary, and common meaning. Furthermore, under Section
68 of Presidential Decree No. 705, as amended, the law makes no distinction between raw and
processed timber when it comes to possession without the required legal documents, and neither should
such a distinction be made.

 Yes, the warrantless search and seizure of the truck and the subsequent seizure of lumber were
valid.
 The seizure of the truck and its cargo was a valid exercise of power under Section 80 of P.D. No.
705, as amended by P.D. No. 1775, which vests such power upon a forest officer or employee.
 The search was conducted on a moving vehicle, which is a doctrinally accepted exception to the
constitutional mandate that no search or seizure shall be made except by virtue of a warrant.
Citing *People vs. Lo Ho Wing, 193 SCRA 122 [1991]*.
 The search on April 4, 1990, was a continuation of the search on April 3, 1990, done under and
by virtue of the search warrant issued on April 3, 1990, by Executive Judge Osorio. A search
warrant has a lifetime of ten days.

section 80. Arrest; Institution of criminal actions. A forest officer or employee of the Bureau shall arrest
even without warrant any person who has committed or is committing in his presence any of the offenses
defined in this Chapter. He shall also seize and confiscate, in favor of the Government, the tools and
equipment used in committing the offense, and the forest products cut, gathered or taken by the offender
in the process of committing the offense. The arresting forest officer or employee shall thereafter deliver
within six (6) hours from the time of arrest and seizure, the offender and the confiscated forest products,
tools and equipment to, and file the proper complaint with, the appropriate official designated by law to
conduct preliminary investigations and file informations in court.
Aquino v. People, G.R. No. 165448, July 27, 2009

Doctrine

Under Section 68 of PD 705, as amended now section 77, illegal cutting of timber occurs only when the
accused actually fells, gathers, or possesses forest products without valid authority. To sustain a
conviction, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt (1) that timber was cut beyond the
scope of any existing permit and (2) that the accused personally participated in or knowingly authorized
the unauthorized cutting. Mere presence at the cutting site or a supervisory role absent clear evidence of
direction, command, or active involvement in felling the excess trees engenders reasonable doubt and
cannot support criminal liability.

Sec. 68. Cutting, Gathering and/or collecting Timber, or Other Forest Products Without License. Any
person who shall cut, gather, collect, removed timber or other forest products from any forest land, or
timber from alienable or disposable public land, or from private land, without any authority, or possess
timber or other forest products without the legal documents as required under existing forest laws and
regulations, shall be punished with the penalties imposed under Articles 309 and 310 of the Revised
Penal Code: Provided, That in the case of partnerships, associations, or corporations, the officers who
ordered the cutting, gathering, collection or possession shall be liable, and if such officers are aliens, they
shall, in addition to the penalty, be deported without further proceedings on the part of the Commission on
Immigration and Deportation.

"The court shall further order the confiscation in favor of the government of the timber or any forest
products cut, gathered, collected, removed, or possessed as well as the machinery, equipment,
implements and tools illegally used in the area where the timber or forest products are found."

Petitioner administratively liable for his acts. It is not enough to convict him under Section 68 of PD 705.
He was not the actual cutter of the trees. Section 68 penalizes unauthorized cutting, gathering, or
possession of forest products. Mere presence or passive supervision, without overt acts, does not suffice
for criminal conviction. Aquino’s acts may give rise to administrative liability for neglect of
duty or gross incompetence in the performance of his functions as a forest ranger.”

Sesinando Merida v. People of the Philippines

Under Section 68 of Presidential Decree No. 705, as amended, it is unlawful for any person to
cut, gather, extract, transport, convert, sell, dispose of, or process timber products without a valid permit
or license issued by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources. This provision establishes
strict liability, meaning that once the State proves the prohibited act occurred, no further showing of
criminal intent is required. Section 68 penalizes three categories of acts: (1) the cutting, gathering,
collecting, or removing of timber or other forest products from any forest land without any authority; (2)
the cutting, gathering, collecting, or removing of timber from alienable or disposable public land, or
from private land without any authority;26 and (3) the possession of timber or other forest products
without the legal documents as required under existing forest laws and regulations

In this case, .The evidence conclusively shows that the petitioner felled and converted a lone narra
tree standing on private land without presenting any permit from the proper authorities

Department of Environment and Natural Resources (Region VIII, Tacloban City), represented by
Regional Executive Director Israel C. Gaddi, v. Gregorio Daraman, Narciso Lucenecio, and Hon.
Clemente C. Rosales, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 32, Calbayog City G.R. No.
125797, February 15, 2002
Applying this to the case, the vehicle was used in transporting forest products without legal
documents, which is a clear violation of Section 68-A. Therefore, the DENR was correct in
impounding the vehicle, even if the owner was not proven to have participated in the illegal
act. Releasing the vehicle would undermine the enforcement of forestry laws and contradict
the public policy of forest conservation, as emphasized in EO 277. The ruling reinforces
that confiscation is a preventive and regulatory measure, not a punitive one, and
must be upheld to protect the country’s remaining forest resources

Sec. 68-A. Administrative Authority of the Department Head or His Duly Authorized Representative to
Order Confiscation. In all cases of violations of this Code or other forest laws, rules and regulations, 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 either by land,
water or air in the commission of the offense and to dispose of the same in accordance with pertinent
laws, regulations or policies on the matter.

"Sec. 68-B. Rewards to Informants. Any person who shall provide any information leading to the
apprehension and conviction of any offender for any violation of this Code or other forest laws, rules and
regulations, or confiscation of forest products shall be given a reward in the amount of twenty per centum
(20%) of the proceeds of the confiscated forest products."

Bar Q and A

The municipality of Danao, Cebu was a quiet and peaceful town until a group of miners from Denmark
visited the area and discovered that it was rich in nickel. In partnership with the municipal mayor, the
Danish miners had to flatten 10 hectares of forest land by cutting all the trees before starting their mining
operations. The local DENR, together with the Samahan Laban sa Sumisira sa Kalikasan, filed a petition
for writ of kalikasan against the municipal mayor and the Danish miners in the RTC of Cebu.

(a) Is the petition within the jurisdiction of the RTC of Cebu? (2.5%)
 No, the RTC of Cebu has no jurisdiction over a petition for a Writ of Kalikasan.

Under the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases, such writ is available only when
environmental damage affects two or more cities or provinces, in which case exclusive
jurisdiction lies with the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals.

Since the petition involves large-scale forest destruction with regional impact, filing it before
the RTC is procedurally improper

(b) What is the Precautionary Principle? (2.5%)

Under the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases, when there is a lack of full scientific certainty
in establishing a causal link between human activity and environmental harm, the court shall apply
the precautionary principle. In such cases, the constitutional right to a balanced and healthful
ecology shall be given the benefit of the doubt.

Hannibal, Donna, Florence and Joel, concerned residents of Laguna de Bay, filed a complaint for
mandamus against the Laguna Lake Development Authority, the Department of Environment and Natural
Resources, the Department of Public Work and Highways, Department of Interior and Local Government,
Department of Agriculture, Department of Budget, and Philippine National Police before the R TC of
Laguna alleging that the continued neglect of defendants in performing their duties has resulted in serious
deterioration of the water quality of the lake and the degradation of the marine life in the lake. The
plaintiffs prayed that said government agencies be ordered to clean up Laguna de Bay and restore its
water quality to Class C waters as prescribed by Presidential Decree No. 1152, otherwise known as the
Philippine Environment Code. Defendants raise the defense that the cleanup of the lake is not a
ministerial function and they cannot be compelled by mandamus to perform the same. The RTC of
Laguna rendered a decision declaring that it is the duty of the agencies to clean up Laguna de Bay and
issued a permanent writ of mandamus ordering said agencies to perform their duties prescribed by law
relating to the cleanup of Laguna de Bay.

[a] Is the RTC correct in issuing the writ of mandamus? Explain. (2.5%)

[b] What is the writ of continuing mandamus? (2.5%)

The officers of "Ang Kapaligiran ay Alagaan, Inc." engaged your services to file an action against ABC
Mining Corporation which is engaged in mining operations in Sta. Cruz, Marinduque. ABC used highly
toxic chemicals in extracting gold. ABC's toxic mine tailings were accidentally released from its storage
dams and were discharged into the rivers of said town. The mine tailings found their way to Calancan Bay
and allegedly to the waters of nearby Romblon and Quezon. The damage to the crops and loss of
earnings were estimated at Pl Billion. Damage to the environment is estimated at Pl Billion. As lawyer for
the organization, you are requested to explain the advantages derived from a petition for writ of kalikasan
before the Supreme Court over a complaint for damages before the RTC of Marinduque or vice-versa.
What action will you recommend? Explain. (5%)
 I. A law was passed declaring Mt. Karbungko as a protected area since it as a major watershed.
The protected area covered a portion located in Municipality A of the Province I and a portion
located in the City of Z of Province II. Maingat is the leader of Samahan ng Tagapag-ingat ng
Karbungko (STK), a people's organization. He learned that a portion of the mountain located in
the City of Z of Province II was extremely damaged when it was bulldozed and leveled to the
ground, and several trees and plants were cut down and burned by workers of World Pleasure
Resorts, Inc. (WPRI) for the construction of a hotel and golf course. Upon inquiry with the project
site engineer if they had a permit for the project, Maingat was shown a copy of the Environmental
Compliance Certificate (ECC) issued by the DENR-EMB, Regional Director (RD-DENR-EMB).
Immediately, Maingat and STK filed a petition for the issuance of a writ of continuing mandamus
against RD-DENR-EMB and WPRI with the RTC of Province I, a designated environmental court,
as the RD-DENR-EMB negligently issued the ECC to WPRI.

On scrutiny of the petition, the court determined that the area where the alleged actionable
neglect or omission subject of the petition took place in the City of Z of Province II, and therefore
cognizable by the RTC of Province II. Thus, the court dismissed outright the petition for lack of
jurisdiction.

a.) Was the court correct in motu proprio dismissing the petition? (3%)

Assuming that the court did not dismiss the petition, the RD-DENR-EMB in his Comment
moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that petitioners failed to appeal the issuance
of the ECC and to exhaust administrative remedies provided in the DENR Rules and
Regulations.

b.) Should the court dismiss the petition? (3%)

Yes, the court should dismiss the petition.

Under the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies, courts must first allow administrative
agencies to resolve matters within their specialized competence. This promotes efficiency, reduces costs,
and ensures orderly procedure.

Here, the petitioner should have first appealed the issuance of the ECC before the DENR. Only after
denial or inaction at the administrative level may judicial relief be sought. Thus, the petition is premature
and must be dismissed.

MIDTERMS NOTES
Environmental Law
& Natural Resources
ATTY : PACURIBOT