Kenneth E.

Robles

Atty. Oswald Lorenzo

2013-

1. A Financial or Technical Assistance Agreement may be entered into between a contractor

and the Government for the large-scale exploration, development and utilization of gold, copper,
nickel, chromite, lead, zinc and other minerals except for other cement materials, marble,
granite, sand and gravel construction aggregates.
On 1995, a group of residents of Didipio, a community affected by the agreement,
questioned the constitutionality of FTAA and RA 7942 for allowing mining companies to take
public property for private gain and going against Section 9, Article III of the Constitution, which
holds that no private property will be taken except for public use with just compensation.
The SC said the determination of the Panel of Arbitrators or the Mines Adjudication
Board of just compensation was final and conclusive. The Court, based on a previous case, said
the State did not cede its power over the land occupied by a foreign company, in this case,
CAMC. The government has the ultimate word in the operation of the enterprise in question and
that it can impose sanctions on the company if it violates the law. In other words, CAMC was not
free to do whatever it wants, and that Didipio could not allege that the government was a
passive regulator.
Citing La Bugal-Ba Laan Tribal Assoc. Inc. v. Ramos, the SC said FTAAs with foreign
corporations are not limited to mere financial or technical assistance. The Court also said
service contracts, as provided by the 1987 Constitution, with foreigners as contractors investing
in mining are subject to the full control of the state as long as abuses of the past regime (i.e.
Marcos administration) were absent. With these points, the SC dismissed Didipios petition and
declared that the Mining Act of 1995 and the FTAA were constitutional.
2. MMDA vs Concerned Citizens of Manila Bay
Facts:
January 29, 1999, concerned residents of Manila Bay filed a complaint before the RTC
Imus, Cavite against several government agencies for the clean-up, rehabilitation and protection
of the Manila Bay/ The complaint alleged that the water quality of Manila Bay is no longer within
the allowable standards set by law (esp. PD 1152, Philippine environment Code).
DENR testified for the petitioners and reported that the samples collected from the
beaches around Manila Bay is beyond the safe level for bathing standard of the DENR. MWSS
testified also about MWSS efforts to reduce pollution along the bay. Philippine Ports Authority
presented as evidence its Memorandum Circulars on the study on ship-generated waste
treatment and disposal as its Linis Dagat project. RTC ordered petitioners to Clean up and
rehabilitate Manila Bay.
The petitioners appealed arguing that the Environment Code relate only to the cleaning
of the specific pollution incidents and do not cover cleaning in general. Raising the concerns of
lack of funds appropriated for cleaning, and asserting that the cleaning of the bay is not a

ministerial act which can be compelled by mandamus. CA sustained the RTC stressing that
RTC did not require the agencies to do tasks outside of their usual basic functions.
Issue:
Whether the cleaning or rehabilitation of the Manila Bay is not ministerial act of
petitioners that can be compelled by mandamus.
Held:
YES. The Cleaning or Rehabilitation of Manila Bay Can be Compelled by Mandamus.
While the implementation of the MMDA's mandated tasks may entail a decision-making
process, the enforcement of the law or the very act of doing what the law exacts to be
done is ministerial in nature and may be compelled by mandamus. Under what other
judicial
discipline describes
as
continuing mandamus , the Court may, under
extraordinary circumstances, issue directives with the end in view of ensuring that its
decision would not be set to naught by administrative inaction or indifference.
Section 7 of the Rules on Environmental Procedure provides:
Sec. 7. Judgment.If warranted, the court shall grant the privilege of the writ of
continuing mandamus requiring respondent to perform an act or series of acts until the
judgment is fully satisfied and to grant such other reliefs as may be warranted resulting
from the wrongful or illegal acts of the respondent. The court shall require the
respondent to submit periodic reports detailing the progress and execution of the
judgment, and the court may, by itself or through a commissioner or the appropriate
government agency, evaluate and monitor compliance. The petitioner may submit its
comments or observations on the execution of the judgment.
3. Oposa vs Factoran
Facts:
The petitioners, all minors, sought the help of the Supreme Court to order the
respondent, then Secretary of DENR, to cancel all existing Timber License Agreement (TLA) in
the country and to cease and desist from receiving, accepting, processing, renewing or
approving new TLAs. They alleged that the massive commercial logging in the country is
causing vast abuses on rain-forest.They further asserted that the rights of their generation and
the rights of the generations yet unborn to a balanced and healthful ecology. Plaintiffs further
assert that the adverse and detrimental consequences of continued and deforestation are so
capable of unquestionable demonstration that the same may be submitted as a matter of judicial
notice. This notwithstanding, they expressed their intention to present expert witnesses as well
as documentary, photographic and film evidence in the course of the trial.
Issue:
Whether or not the petitioners have a locus standi.
Held:
YES. Locus standi means the right of the litigant to act or to be heard.Under Section 16,
Article II of the 1987 constitution, it states that: 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. Petitioners, minors assert that they represent their generation as well as generation yet
unborn. We find no difficulty in ruling that they can, for themselves, for others of their generation
and for the succeeding generations, file a class suit. Their personality to sue in behalf of the

succeeding generations can only be based on the concept of intergenerational responsibility

insofar as the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is concerned. Such a right, as
hereinafter expounded considers the rhythm and harmony of nature. Nature means the
created world in its entirety. Such rhythm and harmony indispensably include, inter alia, the
judicious disposition, utilization, management, renewal and conservation of the countrys forest,
mineral, land, waters fisheries, wildlife, off- shore areas and other natural resources to the end
that their exploration, development and utilization be equitably accessible to the present as well
as future generations.
Needless to say, every generation has a 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 minors 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 and based on their intergenerational responsibility.
A denial or violation of this right by the other who has the correlative duty or obligation to
respect or protect or respect the same gives rise to a cause of action. Petitioners maintain that
the granting of the TLA, which they claim was done with grave abuse of discretion, violated their
right to a balance and healthful ecology. Hence, the full protection thereof requires that no
further TLAs should be renewed or granted. After careful examination of the petitioners'
complaint, the Court finds it to be adequate enough to show, prima facie, the claimed violation of
their rights.
4. Writ of Kalikasan (West Tower Condominium Corp. vs FPIC)
Facts:
Respondent FPIC operates two pipelines since 1969. These two pipelines were
supposedly designed to provide more than double the standard safety allowance against
leakage, considering that they are made out of heavy duty steel that can withstand more than
twice the current operating pressure and are buried at a minimum depth of 1.5 meters, which is
deeper than the US Department of Transportation standard of 0.9 meters. However in 2010, a
leakage occurred in one of the pipelines which later on resulted to the order of shutting down
the sum pit of the condominium. Eventually the residents of the Condominium abandoned their
respective units and the condos power was shut down.
West Tower Corp., on behalf of their residents, and as joined by the civil society and
several people's organizations, non-governmental organizations and public interest groups who
have expressed their intent to join the suit because of the magnitude of the environmental
issues involved, filed a petition for the issuance of writ of kalikasan. The Court issued Writ of
Kalikasan with TEPO.
Issue:
Whether or not the issuance of Writ of Kalikasan is proper and did attain functus officio
Held:
YES, considering the fact that it is the DOE itself that imposed several conditions upon
FPIC for the resumption of the operations of the WOPL. This, coupled with the submission by
the DOE of its proposed activities and timetable, is a clear and unequivocal message coming
from the DOE that the WOPL's soundness for resumption of and continued commercial

operations is not yet fully determined. And it is only after an extensive determination by the DOE
of the pipeline's actual physical state through its proposed activities, and not merely through a
short-form integrity audit,56 that the factual issue on the WOPL's viability can be settled. The
issue, therefore, on the pipeline's structural integrity has not yet been rendered moot and
remains to be subject to this Court's resolution. Consequently, We cannot say that the DOE's
issuance of the certification adverted to equates to the writ of kalikasan beingfunctus officio at
this point.
5. Do whales and dolphins have a standing to sue in court?
YES. As recently decided by the Supreme Court in the case of Resident Marine
Mammals of the Protected Seascape Taon Strait et al. v. Secretary Angelo Reyes,
animals have the right to sue in accordance with Section 5 Citizen Suit of the Rules of
Procedure for Environmental Cases that:
To further encourage the protection of the environment, the Rules enable litigants
enforcing environmental rights to file their cases as citizen suits. This provision liberalizes
standing for all cases filed enforcing environmental laws and collapses the traditional rule on
personal and direct interest, on the principle that humans are stewards of nature. The
terminology of the text reflects the doctrine first enunciated in Oposa v. Factoran, insofar as it
refers to minors and generations yet unborn.
In light of the foregoing, the need to give the Resident Marine Mammals legal standing
has been eliminated by our Rules, which allow any Filipino citizen, as a steward of nature, to
bring a suit to enforce our environmental laws. It is worth noting here that the Stewards are
joined as real parties in the Petition and not just in representation of the named cetacean
species. The Stewards, Ramos and Eisma-Osorio, having shown in their petition that there may
be possible violations of laws concerning the habitat of the Resident Marine Mammals, are
therefore declared to possess the legal standing to file in the said case.