Rules of Procedure Environmental

Cases
Part II: Criminal Procedure, SLAPP, Precautionary Principle, &
Survey of Environmental Jurisprudence

Mr. Benjamin A. Cabrido Jr.

Professor, Environmental Law
USJ-R School of Law

Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill: Worst in US History

"How is it that we can entrust the solutions for the problems that
confront our country today to those who are complicit in their
creation?"
Cynthia McKinney, Green Party

Unique & Special

Features

Recognition of Special
Prosecutor
Reservation to file civil
action should be made
during arraignment
Arbitral Award Accruing to
Government Agency if no
private offended party
Presumption of regularity
enjoyed also by deputized
individuals
Attached information in
warrant of arrests serves as
notice to accused

Special procedure on
custody and disposal of
seized items
Availability of TEPO even in
criminal cases
Unique provision in the
grant of bail
Arraignment in absentia
Requiring parties to take
their oath during pre-trial
Continuous trial for 3
months
Affidavit in lieu of direct
examination
Subsidiary liability
SLAPP in criminal cases

Who may file criminal

environmental complaint? [Rule 9]

Complaint for the

prosecution of an
environmental case may be
filed by:
(a) any offended party;
(b) peace officer; or
(c) any public officer
charged with the
enforcement of an
environmental law.

Special Prosecutor

Aims to encourage public

participation in criminal
litigation by permitting the
appearance of a special
prosecutor.
Recognizes the possibility of
intervention from a special
prosecutor even in the
absence of a private
offended party.
The special prosecutor
complements the public
prosecutor in advancing
public interest in
environmental cases.

Applies to those instances

of victimless offenses,
where there is no private
offended party who has a
direct or material interest to
prosecute a criminal action.
Most environmental cases
involve violations of
environmental law or
damage to the environment
without an injured private
person (i.e. dynamite fishing
in marine sanctuaries, illegal
logging in forests, etc).
These situations are likened
to public interest
environmental litigation
prevalent in foreign
jurisdictions where it is
usually a concerned
peoples organization, nongovernmental organization
or citizens group that
pursues the criminal case.

Institution of
Criminal & Civil
Actions [Rule 10]

Civil action deemed filed

together with the Criminal
case.
Except by waiver,
reservation, or prior filing of
the civil case. Reservation
should be done during
arraignment.
Court fees shall be first lien
on the judgment award.

Where no private offended

party, damages awarded
minus the court fees shall
accrue to the Government
agency charged with
implementing the
environmental law violated.
Notes:
Departure from the
traditional rule on
application of damages
where there is no private
offended party.
Codifies essence of
restorative justice by
requiring the award to be
given to the appropriate
government agency.

Arrest [Rule 11]

All warrants of arrest shall

be accompanied by a
certified true copy of the
information filed with the
issuing court.
Purpose of the attachment:
To serve as notice to the
accused of the charges
against him.

Citizens Arrest

Any citizen may arrest even

without warrant any person
who in his presence has
committed, is actually
committing, or is attempting
to commit any violation of
environmental law.
Individuals deputized by the
proper government agency
who are enforcing
environmental laws shall
enjoy the presumption of
regularity under Section
3(m), Rule 131 of the Rules
of Court when effecting
arrests for violations of
environmental laws.

Notes:
To validly qualify as
warrantless arrest, the arrest
must be done immediately
after the commission of the
offense.
Deputized individuals
effecting citizens arrest
enjoy the presumption of
regularity traditionally given
to public officers.
The process of deputization
shall continue to be
governed by the respective
laws and regulations of
appropriate government
agency governing such
deputization.

Custody procedure
observed by proper agency
prevails. In its absence, this
rules provide for the
following:
Physical inventory and
photograph seized items in
the presence of the owner.
Within 5 days from seizure
submit return
Upon motion by ANY
INTERESTED PARTY,
auction sale of seized items
may be made. Court to fix
the minimum bid price based
on the recommendation of
concerned government
agency.

Custody Procedure
of Seized Items
[Rule 12]

Notice of auction to be
furnished the accused or the
owner of seized items and
the concerned government
agency.
Posting of notice in 3
conspicuous places where
the items were seized
Proceeds of the auction sale
to be deposited in trust and
to be disposed of in
accordance with the
judgment of the case

Provisional Remedies [Rule 13]

Attachment
1. Accused is about to
abscond.
2. Accused is public officer
and the case is based on a
claim of misuse,
embezzlement of public
funds.
3. Accused has disposed of,
concealed or removed his
property or is about to do
so.
4. Accused resides outside
of the Philippines.

Environmental Protection
Order 1. Ex-parte TEPO valid for
72 hours; issued in extreme
urgency.
2, TEPO issued after
summary hearing; valid
during the pendency of the
criminal case.
3. Permanent EPO issued
after judgment converting
TEPO into permanent one.

Bail & Hold-Departure Order

[Rule 14]

Where to apply:
1.With the court where the
case is pending;
2. If judge not available, with
any RTC, MTC of the
province, city or municipality
where the case is pending.
If accused arrested outside
of the province, city, or
municipality where the crime
was committed: with any
RTC, MTC of said place.

Hold-Departure Order: In
appropriate cases, upon
grant of bail Court issuing
the bail may also issue hold
departure order against the
accused.
Cases contemplated:
1. Accused is a foreigner;
2. Probability of flight

Reading of Information & Undertaking

during Bail Application

Duties of Judge during Bail

Application:
Before granting bail, read
the information in language
known and understood by
the Accused.
Require Accused to sign an
undertaking that:
a) He/she will appear during
the date of his arraignment;
b) If he/she fails to appear
during his arraignment
without justification:

He/she waives his right to be

read of the information;
He/she authorizes the court
to enter a plea of not guilty
on his behalf;
He/she authorizes the court
to set the date of trial of his
case.
c) He/she will appear whenever
required by the Court.
d) He/she waives his right to be
present during trial.
d) If absent without justification
despite due notice, he/she
allows trial in absentia.

Arraignment & Plea

[Rule 15]

Arraignment should be set

within 15 days from the time
court acquires jurisdiction.
Notice should be sent to
accused, the offended party,
the prosecutor and the
concerned government
agency.
With statement that it will
entertain plea-bargaining on
the date of arraignment.

Plea-Bargaining to be
consented to by the
prosecutor, the offended
party or the concerned
government agency.
Court to immediately issue
an order containing terms of
plea-bargain.
Court to receive evidence on
the civil aspect of the case.
Court to render and
promulgate judgment of
conviction, including the
civil liability for damages.

Pre trial
Conference &
Pre-trial [Rule 16]

Pre-trial conference set

within 30 days.
If warranted, refer pre-con to
clerk of court.
Purposes of preliminary
conference:
1. Assist parties in reaching
settlement in respect to civil
aspect of the case.
2. Markings, comparison of
documents with originals,
admissions, etc.

During pre-trial, Judge to

require the parties under
oath.
Adoption of minutes of precon.
Define factual issues.
Further admission of facts in
respect to territorial
jurisdiction, qualifications of
expert witness, and amount
of damages.
Agree on flowchart of trial.
Names and addresses of
witnesses to be
subpoenaed.
Questions and statements
during pre-trial must be
addressed to the court.
Agreements and admissions
must be signed by Accused
and Counsel

Trial must not exceed (3)

months from date of
issuance of pre-trial order.
No provision requiring the
Judge to secure from SC
extension of trial period.
Affidavits in lieu of direct
examination but subject to
cross.
Memoranda IN ELECTRONIC
FORM (if possible) to be
submitted within a nonextendible period of (30)
days from date case is
submitted for decision.

Continuous
Trial [Rule 17]

With or without memoranda,

Judge should decide on the
case within sixty (60) days
counted from the last day of
the 30-day period given to
the parties to file them.
No provision on one-day
examination of witness rule.
Court to dispose of the case
within (10) months from date
of arraignment.
Accused is entitled to probono lawyers appointed by
IBP if he is indigent and
there is no PAO lawyer.

Subsidiary Liability
[Rule 18]

In the event of conviction and

where subsidiary liability is
allowed by law,
Person entitled may file a
motion to recover under the
judgment against a person or
corporation subsidiarily liable
under Arts. 102-103 of the
RPC
Notes:
Art. 102, RPC: Subsidiary
liability of innkeepers, tavernkeepers and proprietors of
establishment for crimes
committed in their
establishments.

Art. 103, RPC: Subsidiary liability

of employers, teachers, persons
and corporations for felonies
committed by their employees,
pupils, etc.
Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines v.
Court of Appeals [G.R. 147703,
Apr. 14, 2004]
Held: Before the employers
subsidiary liability is exacted,
however, there must be adequate
evidence establishing that (1) they
are indeed the employers of the
convicted employees; (2) that the
former are engaged in some kind
of industry; (3) that the crime was
committed by the employees in the
discharge of their duties; and (4)
that the execution against the latter
has not been satisfied due to
insolvency.

Strategic Lawsuit Against

Public Participation [Rule
6 & 19]
Refers to an action whether civil,
criminal or administrative, brought
against any person, institution or
any government agency or local
government unit or its officials and
employees,
with the intent to harass, vex,
exert undue pressure or stifle any
legal recourse that such person,
institution or government agency
has taken or may take in the
enforcement of environmental laws,
protection of the environment or
assertion of environmental rights.

Concept of
SLAPP

Borrowed concept from

Clean Air Act & Solid Waste
Management Act.
Protects persons filing a
citizen suit from harassment
suits.
Mandates Court where the
SLAPP is filed to motu
proprio dismiss the case if it
is manifest from the
pleadings that it is intended
to harass, vex, exert undue
pressure, or stifle such legal
recourse.

SLAPPs are civil actions

with little merit advanced
with the intent of stifling
participation in public policy
and decision-making.
Most SLAPPs succeed in
silencing opposition
because public interest
groups and ordinary citizens
do not have the money to
fight the claim in court.
Primarily aimed at silencing
lawful forms of public
participation, such as
starting a petition, or posting
information on the Internet.
Note: A lawsuit against
someone practicing civil
disobedience is however not
considered a SLAPP

Origin of SLAPP

Coined in the 1980s by

University of Denver
professors Penelope Canan
and George W. Pring.
The term was originally
defined as "a lawsuit
involving communications
made to influence a
governmental action or
outcome, which resulted in a
civil complaint or
counterclaim filed against
non-government individuals
or organizations on a
substantive issue of some
public interest or social
significance

SLAPP has since been

defined more broadly to
include suits about speech
on any public issue.
The original concept is
closely related to freedom of
speech and the right to
petition, entrenched in the
First Amendment to the
United States Constitution.
Described by New York
Supreme Court Judge J.
Nicholas Colabella, "Short of
a gun to the head, a greater
threat to First Amendment
expression can scarcely be
imagined.

SLAPP has since been defined

more broadly to include suits
about speech on any public
issue.
The original concept is closely
related to freedom of speech
and the right to petition,
entrenched in the First
Amendment to the United
States Constitution.
Described by New York
Supreme Court Judge J.
Nicholas Colabella, "Short of a
gun to the head, a greater
threat to First Amendment
expression can scarcely be
imagined.

SLAPP is intended to
intimidate and silence critics by
burdening them with the cost
of a legal defense until they
abandon their criticism or
opposition.
Winning the lawsuit is not
necessarily the intent of the
person filing the SLAPP.
The plaintiff's goals are
accomplished if the defendant
succumbs to fear, intimidation,
mounting legal costs or simple
exhaustion and abandons the
criticism.
A SLAPP may also intimidate
others from participating in the
debate.

How to Determine if Suit filed

is a SLAPP

Typically a SLAPP filer will

attempt to bring a range of
torts against members of a
public interest group, or
even the group itself.
Common tort cases filed
constituting SLAPP:
- Interference with economic
interests
- Defamation or Libel
- Interference with
contractual relations
- Conspiracy
- Trespass
- Nuisance.

Three scenarios :
X sues A for violating
environmental laws. A
retaliates by filing damages
cases.
X is a witness in an
environmental case against
A. A retaliates by filing
damages or libel case
against X.
X is an environmental
advocate pushing for the
protection of the
environment and
compliance of law. A sues X
for damages.

SLAPP Cases Governed by these Rules

Although SLAPPs are filed not

before Green Courts, cases of
these nature are governed by
the Envi Rules.
SLAPP impairs ones
constitutional rights to freedom
of speech, expression and
assembly (and in certain
cases, the right to petition the
government for redress of
grievances) in relation to the
right to a balanced and
healthful ecology are affected
by a SLAPP.

Provision on SLAPP recognize

the formidable legal challenges
that may be mounted against
those who seek to enforce
environmental law, or to assert
environmental rights.
These legal challenges may be
preemptive in character and
may be done in order to chill
the latter.
Hence, the availability of this
formidable defense.

How to allege SLAPP

In Civil Action [Rule 6, Part II]

In Criminal Action [Rule 19, Part IV]

Allege SLAPP in the Answer as an

Affirmative Defense.

Motion to Dismiss not a Motion to

Quash since latter is directed on the
information not the action itself.

A motion to dismiss is a prohibited

pleading under Part II of these rules.

No provision on prohibited pleadings

under the criminal procedure of these
rules.

Summary hearing of affirmative defense

of SLAPP. Party raising SLAPP required
to prove by substantial evidence only;
while party filing the SLAPP is require
to prove by preponderance of evidence.
Resolution to be made within 30 days
after summary hearing.

Summary hearing of motion to dismiss

on the ground of SLAPP. Party raising
SLAPP required to prove by substantial
evidence only; while party filing the
SLAPP is require to prove by
preponderance of evidence. No
provision on the period when to
resolve. If court denies the SLAPP
motion, accused to be immediately
arraigned

Precautionary Principle [Rule 20]

Applicability: When there

is lack of full scientific
certainty in establishing
causal link between
human activity and
environmental effect or
harm.
Right to a balanced and
healthful ecology to be
given the benefit of the
doubt.

a.
b.
c.

Standards in applying
PP:
threats to human life or
health;
inequity to present or
future generations; or
prejudice to the
environment without
legal consideration of the
environmental rights of
those affected

The Precautionary
Principle

Rio Conference on
Environment and Development
which was held in Rio de
Janeiro, Brazil in June 1992.
Principle 15:
In order to protect the
environment, the precautionary
approach shall be widely
applied by States according to
their capabilities. Where there
are threats of serious or
irreversible damage, lack of full
scientific certainty shall not be
used as a reason for
postponing cost effective
measures to prevent
environmental degradation.

The Wingspread Statement:

"When an activity raises threats
of harm to the environment or
human health, precautionary
measures should be taken even
if some cause and effect
relationships are not fully
established scientifically."

Simply put, precautionary

principle means that in
undertaking any activity one
must be careful so as not to
harm the environment.
A project proponent must not
wait for scientific certainty on
the effects of his activity
because doing so may be too
late and harm may have
already been committed before
such scientific proof is
released.

7 Trigger Criteria
1. Is the evidence of harm plausible?
2. Is the evidence supported by a number of peerreviewed published studies?
3. If the harm is real is it serious?
4. Are the effects reversible?
5. How good is the evidence that the benefit being sought
is real and significant?
6. How significant are the consequences if the practice is
halted?
7. Are there cost effective alternatives to the practice?

International Jurisprudence on
Precautionary Principle

Shehla Zia v WAPDA,

P L D 1994 Supreme
Court 693 (Pakistan)

Facts:
Citizens having apprehension
against construction of a grid
station in a residential area
sent a letter to the Supreme
Court for consideration as a
human rights case.
Considering the gravity of the
matter which might involve and
affect the life and health of the
citizens at large, notice was
issued to the Authority
(WAPDA).

Held:
The Court noted that there was a
trend in support of the fact that
there might be a likelihood of
adverse effects of electromagnetic fields on human health.
It held that as there was a state of
uncertainty the authorities
should observe the rules of
prudence and precaution.
The rule of prudence was to
adopt measures which might
avert the danger if it were to
occur. The rule of precaution was
first to consider the welfare and
safety of the human beings and
the environment and then to pick
up a policy and execute the plan
which was more suited to obviate
the possible danger or take such
alternate precautionary measures
which might ensure safety.

Facts:
Shoalhaven City Council
applied to the Director General
of the National Parks and
Wildlife Service for a license to
take or kill endangered fauna.
The need for the license arose
from the granting of
development consent by the
Council to itself for the
construction of a link road.
The license application was
supported by a fauna impact
statement pursuant to s.92B of
the National Parks and Wildlife
Act.
The Director General granted
the license.
An objector, May Leatch,
appealed submitting that there
had been a failure to include to
the fullest extent reasonably
practicable a description of the
fauna affected by the actions.
She argued further that the
precautionary principle should
be applied.

Leatch v National Parks &

Wildlife Service,
1993 81 LGERA 270 (Aus)
Held:
The application of the
precautionary principle was the
most apt in a situation of a
scarcity of scientific knowledge
of species population, habitat
and impacts, which was the
case in this instance.

It makes good sense not to

grant a license in relation to all
endangered fauna when some
species may be later located
which were not the subject of a
fauna impact statement or
added to the schedule by the
scientific committee at a date
after the issue of a general
license.

Admissible Documentary Evidence in

Environmental Cases [Rule 21]

Photos
Videos; and
Similar evidence of
Events, acts, transactions
of wildlife, wildlife byproducts or derivatives,
forest products or mineral
resources subject matters
of the case.

Must be authenticated by
the person who took the
photos, videos or similar
evidence.
Or authenticated by ANY
OTHER PERSON
COMPETENT TO
TESTIFY ON THE
ACCURACY THEREOF.
Entries in official records
are prima facie evidence
of the facts stated therein

Other Useful Doctrines

Derived from the word epistle.

The Supreme Court of India
blazed the trail.
It took the view that when any
member of a public or social
organization espoused the
cause of the poor and the
downtrodden such member
should be permitted to move
the Court even by merely
writing a letter without incurring
expenditure of his own.

Epistolary
Jurisdiction

In such a case the letter was

regarded as an appropriate
proceeding falling within the
purview of Article 32 of the
India Constitution.

Doctrine of Hard Look

Culled from National

Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) provision mandating
all Federal agencies "to the
fullest extent possible" must
provide a detailed
environmental impact
statement (EIS)

Under this doctrine, courts

carefully check every EIS for
completeness of information
and detail, soundness of
analysis, thorough discussion
of alternatives, and disclosure
of sources. Some court
decisions even order agencies
to prepare new statements if
these criteria are not met.

Survey of Philippine Environmental

Law Jurisprudence

Facts:
LLDA, with the assistance of
the PNP issued and enforced its
Alias Cease and Desist Order
prohibiting entry of all garbage
dump trucks into the Tala
Estate, Camarin area which was
utilized as a dumpsite.
City Government of Caloocan
objected. It filed with the RTC
an action for the declaration of
nullity of the cease and desist
order with prayer for the
issuance of writ of injunction.
In its complaint, the City
Government of Caloocan asked
that it be declared as the sole
authority empowered to
promote the health and safety
and enhance the right of the
people in Caloocan City to a
balanced ecology within its
territorial jurisdiction.

LLDA v. CA, GR No.

110120, Dec. 7, 1995
Held:
In the exercise of its express
powers under its charter as a
regulatory and quasi-judicial
body with respect to pollution
cases in the Laguna Lake
region, the authority of the
LLDA to issue a "cease and
desist order" is, perforce,
implied. Otherwise, it may well
be reduced to a "toothless"
paper agency.

Henares v. LTFRB,
G.R. No. 158290, October 23, 2006
Facts:
Petitioners invoke the
provisions of the Constitution
and the Clean Air Act in their
prayer for issuance of a writ of
mandamus commanding the
respondents to require PUVs to
use CNG as an alternative fuel.
Although both are general
mandates that do not
specifically enjoin the use of
any kind of fuel, particularly the
use of CNG, Executive Order
No. 290, entitled Implementing
the Natural Gas Vehicle
Program for Public Transport
(NGVPPT) prescribes the use of
CNG by public vehicles.

Held:
A writ of mandamus
commanding the LTFRB, etc. to
require PUVs to use CNG, is
unavailing. Mandamus is
available only to compel the
doing of an act specifically
enjoined by law as a duty.
Here, there is no law that
mandates the respondents
LTFRB and the DOTC to order
owners of motor vehicles to use
CNG.
At most the LTFRB has been
tasked by E.O. No. 290 in par.
4.5 (ii), Section 4 is to grant
preferential and exclusive
Certificates of Public
Convenience (CPC) or
franchises to operators of
NGVs.

Batangas CATV v. CA,

G.R. 138810, Sept. 29,
2004

Issue: May a local government

unit (LGU) regulate the
subscriber rates charged by
CATV operators within its
territorial jurisdiction?

Held:
That the regulatory power
stays with the NTC is also
clear from President Ramos
E.O. No. 436 mandating that
the regulation and supervision
of the CATV industry shall
remain vested "solely" in the
NTC.
The logical conclusion,
therefore, is that in light of the
above laws and E.O. No. 436,
the NTC exercises regulatory
power over CATV operators to
the exclusion of other bodies.
The general welfare clause is
the delegation in statutory form
of the police power of the State
to LGUs.

Facts:
Petitioners questioned the
constitutionality of Sections
11.5, 11.6, 15, 17, and 19 of
Municipal Ordinance No. 97-08
of Paraaque.
They alleged that the
reclassification of certain
portions of BF Homes
Paraaque from residential to
commercial zone is
unconstitutional because it
amounts to impairment of the
contracts between the
developer of BF Homes
Paraaque and the lot buyers.
Petitioners cited the annotation
on the lot buyers titles which
provides that "the property
shall be used for residential
purposes only and for no other
purpose."

United BF Homeowners v.
City of Paranaque, G.R.
141010, Feb. 7, 2007

Held:
Contractual restrictions on the
use of property could not
prevail over the reasonable
exercise of police power
through zoning regulations.
While non-impairment of
contracts is constitutionally
guaranteed, the rule is not
absolute, since it has to be
reconciled with the legitimate
exercise of police power.
Police power "is elastic and
must be responsive to various
social conditions; it is not
confined within narrow
circumscriptions of precedents
resting on past conditions; it
must follow the legal progress
of a democratic way of life.

Metro Manila Development Authority, et al. v.

Concerned Residents of Cavite,
G.R. No. 171947, Dec. 18, 2008

Facts:
Concerned Residents of Manila
Bay filed a complaint before the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) in
Imus, Cavite against several
government agencies for the
cleanup, rehabilitation, and
protection of the Manila Bay.
The complaint alleged that the
water quality of the Manila Bay
had fallen way below the
allowable standards set by law,
specifically Presidential Decree
No. (PD) 1152 or the Philippine
Environment Code.

They want that Petitioners be

jointly and/or solidarily be held
liable and be collectively
ordered to clean up Manila Bay
and to restore its water quality
to class B waters fit for
swimming, skin-diving, and
other forms of contact
recreation.
Petitioners contend at every
turn that Secs. 17 and 20 of the
Environment Code concern
themselves only with the matter
of cleaning up in specific
pollution incidents, as opposed
to cleanup in general.

They aver that the twin

provisions would have to be
read alongside the succeeding
Sec. 62(g) and (h), which
defines the terms "cleanup
operations" and "accidental
spills," as follows:
g. Clean-up Operations [refer]
to activities conducted in
removing the pollutants
discharged or spilled in water to
restore it to pre-spill condition.
h. Accidental Spills [refer] to
spills of oil or other hazardous
substances in water that result
from accidents such as
collisions and groundings.

Held:
The cleanup and/or restoration
of the Manila Bay is only an
aspect and the initial stage of
the long-term solution.
The preservation of the water
quality of the bay after the
rehabilitation process is as
important as the cleaning
phase.
It is imperative then that the
wastes and contaminants found
in the rivers, inland bays, and
other bodies of water be
stopped from reaching the
Manila Bay.
Otherwise, any cleanup effort
would just be a futile, cosmetic
exercise, for, in no time at all,
the Manila Bay water quality
would again deteriorate below
the ideal minimum standards
set by PD 1152, RA 9275, and
other relevant laws.

It thus behooves the Court to

put the heads of the petitionerdepartment-agencies and the
bureaus and offices under them
on continuing notice about, and
to enjoin them to perform, their
mandates and duties towards
cleaning up the Manila Bay and
preserving the quality of its
water to the ideal level.
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.
In India, the doctrine of
continuing mandamus was
used to enforce directives of
the court to clean up the length
of the Ganges River from
industrial and municipal
pollution.

In the light of the ongoing

environmental degradation, the
Court wishes to emphasize the
extreme necessity for all
concerned executive
departments and agencies to
immediately act and discharge
their respective official duties
and obligations.
Indeed, time is of the essence;
hence, there is a need to set
timetables for the performance
and completion of the tasks,
some of them as defined for
them by law and the nature of
their respective offices and
mandates.
The era of delays,
procrastination, and ad hoc
measures is over.

Petitioners must transcend their

limitations, real or imaginary,
and buckle down to work before
the problem at hand becomes
unmanageable.
Thus, we must reiterate that
different government agencies
and instrumentalities cannot
shirk from their mandates; they
must perform their basic
functions in cleaning up and
rehabilitating the Manila Bay.
We are disturbed by petitioners
hiding behind two untenable
claims: (1) that there ought to
be a specific pollution incident
before they are required to act;
and (2) that the cleanup of the
bay is a discretionary duty.

Note:
Under Sec. 28 of the Urban
Development and Housing Act
of 1992 (RA 7279), eviction or
demolition may be allowed
"when persons or entities
occupy danger areas such as
esteros, railroad tracks,
garbage dumps, riverbanks,
shorelines, waterways, and
other public places such as
sidewalks, roads, parks and
playgrounds."

"In the end, we will conserve only

what we love, we will love only
what we understand, and we will
understand only what we are
taught."
Baba Dioum, Senegalese conservationist

Thank you &

May Mother Earth
produces more EcoWarriors to defend her