G.R. No.

L-68474 February 11, 1986

NUCLEAR FREE PHILIPPINE COALITION, ET AL., petitioners, vs. NATIONAL
POWER CORPORATION, ET AL., respondents.
PLANA, J.:
I. In G.R. No. 70632, (1) petitioners question the competence of respondent PAEC
Commissioners to pass judgment on the safety of the Philippine Nuclear Power
Plant-1 PNPP-1 in PAEC Licensing Proceedings No. 1-77 without however seeking
their ouster from office, although "proven competence" is one of the qualifications
prescribed by law for PAEC Commissioners. (2) Petitioners also assail the validity of
the motion (application) filed by the National Power Corporation (NPC) for the
conversion of its construction permit into an operating license for PNPP-1 on the
principal ground that it contained no information regarding the financial qualifications
of NPC, its source of nuclear fuel, and insurance coverage for nuclear damage. (3)
Petitioners finally charge respondent PAEC Commissioners with bias and
prejudgment.
1. The first issue must be resolved against the petitioners. Where the validity of an
appointment is not challenged in an appropriate proceeding, the question of
competence is not within the field of judicial inquiry. If not considered a qualification
the absence of which would vitiate the appointment, competence is a matter of
judgment that is addressed solely to the appointing power.
2. As regards the legal sufficiency of the NPC motion for conversion, petitioners
contend that the deficiencies they have indicated are jurisdictional infirmities which
cannot be cured. The Court believes however that said deficiencies may be
remedied and supplied in the course of the hearing before PAEC. For this purpose,
respondent-applicant NPC may submit pertinent testimonies and documents when
the PAEC hearing is re-opened, subject to controversion and counterproof of herein
petitioners.
3. There is merit in the charge of bias and prejudgment. The PAEC pamphletsparticularly Annexes "JJ", "KK" and "LL" of the petition (G.R. 70632)-clearly indicate
the pre-judgment that PNPP-1 is safe.
Exhibit "JJ" is an official PAEC 1985 pamphlet entitled "The Philippine Nuclear
Power Plant-l." It gives an overview specifically of PNPP-1, lauds the safety of
nuclear power, and concludes with a statement of the benefits to be derived when
the PNPP-1 start operation.
. . .When the PNPP-1 starts operating, it will generate a power of 620 megawatts
enough to supply 15 percent of the electricity needs in Luzon. This is estimated to
result in savings of US $ 160 million a year, representing the amount of oil
displaced.
Aside from being a reliable source of electricity, nuclear power has an excellect
safety record and has been found to result in lower occupational and public risks
than fossil fired (coal or oil) stations. (p. 6. Emphasis supplied.)
The second pamphlet (Exh. "KK") is entitled "NUCLEAR POWER-SAFE CLEAN
ECONOMICAL AND AVAILABLE." On the surface, it merely propagates the use of
nuclear power in general. But its numerous specific references to the PNPP-1
"which will be operational in 1985." and its advantages give credence to the charge
that Exhibit "KK" was in reality designed to project PNPP-1 as safe, among other
When Exhibit "KK" was published, PNPP-1 was the only nuclear plant under
construction in the Philippines. It is the Philippine nuclear plant specifically
mentioned therein that was to be operational in 1985. Therefore, when the pamphlet
states that nuclear power is working now in other countries and "it should work for
us too" because it is "safe" and economical", it is logical to conclude that the
reference is to no other than the nuclear power to be generated at the PNPP-1
Also worth quoting is the following passage in Exhibit "KK" which sweepingly vouch
safes all nuclear power plants, including the PNPP-1:

The third pamphlet (Exh. "LL") is entitled NUCLEAR POWER PLANT and
ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY. Speaking specifically of the PNPP-1 it categorically
states that the Bataan nuclear plant will not adversely affect the public or the flora or
fauna in the area. One of the stated reasons in support of the conclusion is
And environmentally, a nuclear power plant emits only insignificant amount of
radioactivity to the environment. It does not cause chemical pollution of air or water,
it does not emit sulfur dioxide or nitrogen oxides like plants fired by fossil fuels such
as coal and oil, Besides, even coal fired plants may emits radioactive particles of
uranium and thorium because these may be found naturally associated with coal
deposits.
Comparatively therefore, a nucelar power plant is the cleanest and the safest
environmently no other technology in modern times has been developed with so
dominant concern for public safety as nuclear power. (p. 8)
Respondent PAEC Commissioners cannot escape responsibility for these official
pamphlets. Exhibit "JJ" was published in 1985, when respondent Commissioners
had already been appointed to their present positions. Exhibits "KK" and "LL" were
issued earlier, but the majority of respondent Commissioners even then were
already occupying positions of responsibility in the PAEC. Commissioner Manuel
Eugenio was Acting Chief of the PAEC Department on Nuclear Technology and
Engineering from June, 1980 to July, 1984; Commissioner Quirino Navarro was
PAEC Chief Science Research Specialist from May, 1980 to September, 1984-, and
Commissioner Alejandro Ver Albano was PAEC Deputy Commissioner from March,
1980 to September, 1984. Additionally, the stubborn fact remains unrebutted that
Exhibits "J.J." "KK" and "LL" continued to be distributed by PAEC as late as March,
1985. In other words their official distribution continued after the filing of NPC's
motion for conversion on June 27, 1984 and even after PAEC had issued its order
dated February 26, 1985 formally admitting the said motion for conversion.
At any rate, even if it be assumed that there are some doubts regarding the
conclusion that there has been a prejudgment of the safety of PNPP-1 the doubts
should be resolved in favor of a course of action that will assure an unquestionably
objective inquiry, considering the circumstances thereof and the number of people
vitally interested therein.
Having thus prejudged the safety of the PNPP-1 respondent PAEC Commissioners
would be acting with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction were
they to sit in judgment upon the safety of the plant, absent the requisite objectivity
that must characterize such an important inquiry.
The Court therefore Resolved to RESTRAIN respondent PAEC Commissioners from
further acting in PAEC Licensing Proceedings No. 1-77.
II. In G.R. No. 68474, acting on the motion filed therein dated June 8, 1985 to order
PAEC to reconsider its orders of May 31 and June 5, 1985, the urgent motion for
mandatory injunction and/or restraining order dated August 3, 1985, the second
urgent motion for mandatory injunction dated August 12, 1985, and the various
pleadings and other documents submitted by the parties relative thereto, and
considering the paramount need of a reasonable assurance that the operation of
PNPP-1 will not pose an undue risk to the health and safety of the people, which
dictates that the conduct of the inquiry into the safety aspects of PNPP-1 be
characterized by sufficient latitude, the better to achieve the end in view, unfettered
by technical rules of evidence (Republic Act 5207, section 34), and in keeping with
the requirements of due process in administrative proceedings, the Court Resolved
to ORDER respondent PAEC (once reconstituted) to re-open the hearing on PNPP1 so as to give petitioners sufficient time to complete their cross-examination of the
expert witnesses on quality assurance, to cross-examine the witnesses that
petitioners have failed to cross-examine on and after August 9, 1985, and to
complete the presentation of their evidence, for which purpose, respondent PAEC
shall issue the necessary subpoena and subpoena duces tecum to compel the
attendance of relevant witnesses and/or the production of relevant documents. For
the said purposes, the PAEC may prescribe a time schedule which shall reasonably
assure the parties sufficient latitude to adequately present their case consistently
with the requirements of dispatch. lt is understood that the PAEC may give NPC the
opportunity to correct or supply deficiencies in this application or evidence in
support thereof.
G.R. No. 129546 December 13, 2005

No member of the public has ever been injured during the last 25 years that
commercial nuclear reactors have been generating electricity. As is to be
expected in any complex system as nuclear power plants, there have been
failure of equipment and human errors. However in every instance, the safety
equipment designed into the nuclear reactor self terminated the accident
without injury to the operators or the public. The Three Mile Island Incident,
serious as it was, did not result in the loss of life nor did it result in the
exposure of anyone beyond permissible limits.
The designers of nuclear plants assume failure to occur, and provide multiple
safeguards protection against every conceivable malfunction (P. 7, Emphasis
supplied.)

PROVINCE OF RIZAL, MUNICIPALITY OF SAN MATEO, PINTONG BOCAUE

MULTIPURPOSE COOPERATIVE, CONCERNED CITIZENS OF RIZAL, INC.,
ROLANDO E. VILLACORTE, BERNARDO HIDALGO, ANANIAS EBUENGA,
VILMA T. MONTAJES, FEDERICO MUNAR, JR., ROLANDO BEAS, SR., ET AL.,
and KILOSBAYAN, INC., Petitioners,
vs.
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, SECRETARY OF ENVIRONMENT & NATURAL
RESOURCES, LAGUNA LAKE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, SECRETARY OF
PUBLIC WORKS & HIGHWAYS, SECRETARY OF BUDGET & MANAGEMENT,
METRO MANILA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY and THE HONORABLE COURT
OF APPEALS, Respondents.

DECISION
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
The earth belongs in usufruct to the living. 1
At the height of the garbage crisis plaguing Metro Manila and its environs, parts of
the Marikina Watershed Reservation were set aside by the Office of the President,
through Proclamation No. 635 dated 28 August 1995, for use as a sanitary landfill
and similar waste disposal applications. In fact, this site, extending to more or less
18 hectares, had already been in operation since 19 February 1990 2 for the solid
wastes of Quezon City, Marikina, San Juan, Mandaluyong, Pateros, Pasig, and
Taguig.3
This is a petition filed by the Province of Rizal, the municipality of San Mateo, and
various concerned citizens for review on certiorari of the Decision of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 41330, denying, for lack of cause of action, the petition
for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus with application for a temporary restraining
order/writ of preliminary injunction assailing the legality and constitutionality of
Proclamation No. 635.
The facts are documented in painstaking detail.
On 17 November 1988, the respondent Secretaries of the Department of Public
Works and Highways (DPWH) and the Department of Environment and Natural
Resources (DENR) and the Governor of the Metropolitan Manila Commission
(MMC) entered into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), 4 which provides in part:
1. The DENR agrees to immediately allow the utilization by the Metropolitan Manila
Commission of its land property located at Pintong Bocaue in San Mateo, Rizal as a
sanitary landfill site, subject to whatever restrictions that the government impact
assessment might require.
2. Upon signing of this Agreement, the DPWH shall commence the
construction/development of said dumpsite.
3. The MMC shall: a) take charge of the relocation of the families within and around
the site; b) oversee the development of the areas as a sanitary landfill; c)
coordinate/monitor the construction of infrastructure facilities by the DPWH in the
said site; and d) ensure that the necessary civil works are properly undertaken to
safeguard against any negative environmental impact in the area.
On 7, 8 and 10 February 1989, the Sangguniang Bayan of San Mateo wrote Gov.
Elfren Cruz of the MMC, Sec. Fiorello Estuar of the DPWH, the Presidential Task
Force on Solid Waste Management, Executive Secretary Catalino Macaraig, and
Sec. Fulgencio Factoran, Jr., pointing out that it had recently passed a Resolution
banning the creation of dumpsites for Metro Manila garbage within its jurisdiction,
asking that their side be heard, and that the addressees "suspend and temporarily
hold in abeyance all and any part of your operations with respect to the San Mateo
Landfill Dumpsite." No action was taken on these letters.
It turns out that the land subject of the MOA of 17 November 1988 and owned by
the DENR was part of the Marikina Watershed Reservation Area. Thus, on 31 May
1989, forest officers of the Forest Engineering and Infrastructure Unit of the
Community Environment and Natural Resource Office, (CENRO) DENR-IV, Rizal
Province, submitted a Memorandum 5 on the "On-going Dumping Site Operation of
the MMC inside (the) Upper Portion of Marikina Watershed Reservation, located at
Barangay Pintong Bocaue, San Mateo, Rizal, and nearby localities." Said
Memorandum reads in part:
Observations:
3.1 The subject area is arable and agricultural in nature;
3.2 Soil type and its topography are favorable for agricultural and forestry
productions;
...
3.5 Said Dumping Site is observed to be confined within the said Watershed
Reservation, bearing in the northeastern part of Lungsod Silangan Townsite
Reservation. Such illegal Dumping Site operation inside (the) Watershed
Reservation is in violation of P.D. 705, otherwise known as the Revised
Forestry Code, as amended. . .
Recommendations:

5.1 The MMC Dumping Site Inside Marikina Watershed Reservation, particularly at
Brgy. Pintong Bocaue, San Mateo, Rizal and at Bo. Pinugay, Baras/Antipolo, Rizal
which are the present garbage zones must totally be stopped and discouraged
without any political intervention and delay in order to save our healthy
ecosystems found therein, to avoid much destruction, useless efforts and lost
(sic) of millions of public funds over the land in question; (Emphasis ours)
On 19 June 1989, the CENRO submitted another Investigation Report 6 to the
Regional Executive Director which states in part that:
1. About two (2) hectares had been excavated by bulldozers and garbage dumping
operations are going on.
2. The dumping site is without the concurrence of the Provincial Governor, Rizal
Province and without any permit from DENR who has functional jurisdiction over the
Watershed Reservation; and
3. About 1,192 families residing and cultivating areas covered by four (4) Barangays
surrounding the dumping site will adversely be affected by the dumping operations
of MMC including their sources of domestic water supply. x x x x
On 22 January 1990, the CENRO submitted still another Investigation Report 7 to the
Regional Executive Director which states that:
Findings show that the areas used as Dumping Site of the MMC are found to be
within the Marikina Watershed which are part of the Integrated Social Forestry
Project (ISF) as per recorded inventory of Forest Occupancy of this office.
It also appears that as per record, there was no permit issued to the MMC to utilize
these portions of land for dumping purposes.
It is further observed that the use of the areas as dumping site greatly affects the
ecological balance and environmental factors in this community.
On 19 February 1990, the DENR Environmental Management Bureau, through
Undersecretary for Environment and Research Celso R. Roque, granted the Metro
Manila Authority (MMA [formerly MMC]) an Environmental Compliance Certificate
(ECC) for the operation of a two-and-a-half-hectare garbage dumpsite.
The ECC was sought and granted to comply with the requirement of Presidential
Decree No. 1586 "Establishing an Environmental Impact Statement System,"
Section 4 of which states in part that, "No persons, partnership or corporation shall
undertake or operate any such declared environmentally critical project or area
without first securing an Environmental Compliance Certificate." Proclamation No.
2146, passed on 14 December 1981, designates "all areas declared by law as
national parks, watershed reserves, wildlife preserves, and sanctuaries" as
"Environmentally Critical Areas."
On 09 March 1990, respondent Laguna Lake Development Authority (LLDA),
through its Acting General Manager, sent a letter 8 to the MMA, which reads in part:
Through this letter we would like to convey our reservation on the choice of the sites
for solid waste disposal inside the watershed of Laguna Lake. As you may already
know, the Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System (MWSS) has
scheduled the abstraction of water from the lake to serve the needs of about
1.2 million residents of Muntinlupa, Paranaque, Las Pinas and Bacoor, Cavite
by 1992. Accordingly, the Laguna Lake Development Authority (LLDA) is
accelerating its environmental management program to upgrade the water
quality of the lake in order to make it suitable as a source of domestic water
supply the whole year round.The said program regards dumpsites as
incompatible within the watershed because of the heavy pollution, including
the risk of diseases, generated by such activities which would negate the
governments efforts to upgrade the water quality of the lake. Consequently,
please consider our objection to the proposed location of the dumpsites within the
watershed. (Emphasis supplied by petitioners)
On 31 July 1990, less than six months after the issuance of the ECC,
Undersecretary Roque suspended the ECC in a letter9 addressed to the respondent
Secretary of DPWH, stating in part that:
Upon site investigation conducted by Environmental Management Bureau staff on
development activities at the San Mateo Landfill Site, it was ascertained that
ground slumping and erosion have resulted from improper development of
the site. We believe that this will adversely affect the environmental quality in the
area if the proper remedial measures are not instituted in the design of the landfill
site. This is therefore contradictory to statements made in the Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) submitted that above occurrences will be properly mitigated.

In view of this, we are forced to suspend the Environmental Compliance Certificate

(ECC) issued until appropriate modified plans are submitted and approved by this
Office for implementation. (Emphasis ours)

zoning ordinance of San Mateo and, in truth, the Housing and Land Use Regulatory
Board had denied the then MMA chairmans application for a locational clearance on
this ground."

On 21 June 1993, the Acting Mayor of San Mateo, Enrique Rodriguez, Jr., Barangay
Captain Dominador Vergara, and petitioner Rolando E. Villacorte, Chairman of the
Pintong Bocaue Multipurpose Cooperative (PBMC) wrote 10then President Fidel V.
Ramos expressing their objections to the continued operation of the MMA dumpsite
for causing "unabated pollution and degradation of the Marikina Watershed
Reservation."

On 21 August 1995, the Sangguniang Bayan of San Mateo issued a

Resolution14 "expressing a strong objection to the planned expansion of the landfill
operation in Pintong Bocaue and requesting President Ramos to disapprove the
draft Presidential Proclamation segregating 71.6 Hectares from Marikina Watershed
Reservation for the landfill site in Pintong Bocaue, San Mateo, Rizal."

On 14 July 1993, another Investigation Report 11 submitted by the Regional Technical

Director to the DENR Undersecretary for Environment and Research contained the
following findings and recommendations:
Remarks and Findings:
....
5. Interview with Mr. Dayrit, whose lot is now being endangered because soil
erosion have (sic) caused severe siltation and sedimentation of the Dayrit Creek
which water is greatly polluted by the dumping of soil bulldozed to the creek;
6. Also interview with Mrs. Vilma Montajes, the multi-grade teacher of Pintong
Bocaue Primary School which is located only about 100 meters from the landfill site.
She disclosed that bad odor have (sic) greatly affected the pupils who are
sometimes sick with respiratory illnesses. These odors show that MMA have (sic)
not instituted/sprayed any disinfectant chemicals to prevent air pollution in the area.
Besides large flies (Bangaw) are swarming all over the playground of the school.
The teacher also informed the undersigned that plastic debris are being blown
whenever the wind blows in their direction.
7. As per investigation report there are now 15 hectares being used as landfill
disposal sites by the MMA. The MMA is intending to expand its operation within the
50 hectares.
8. Lots occupied within 50 hectares are fully planted with fruit bearing trees like
Mangoes, Santol, Jackfruit, Kasoy, Guyabano, Kalamansi and Citrus which are now
bearing fruits and being harvested and marketed to nearby San Mateo Market and
Masinag Market in Antipolo.
....

Despite the various objections and recommendations raised by the government

agencies aforementioned, the Office of the President, through Executive Secretary
Ruben Torres, signed and issued Proclamation No. 635 on 28 August 1995,
"Excluding from the Marikina Watershed Reservation Certain Parcels of Land
Embraced Therein for Use as Sanitary Landfill Sites and Similar Waste Disposal
Under the Administration of the Metropolitan Manila Development Authority." The
pertinent portions thereof state:
WHEREAS, to cope with the requirements of the growing population in Metro
Manila and the adjoining provinces and municipalities, certain developed and open
portions of the Marikina Watershed Reservation, upon the recommendation of the
Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources should now be
excluded form the scope of the reservation;
WHEREAS, while the areas delineated as part of the Watershed Reservations are
intended primarily for use in projects and/or activities designed to contain and
preserve the underground water supply, other peripheral areas had been included
within the scope of the reservation to provide for such space as may be needed for
the construction of the necessary structures, other related facilities, as well as other
priority projects of government as may be eventually determined;
WHEREAS, there is now an urgent need to provide for, and develop, the necessary
facilities for the disposal of the waste generated by the population of Metro Manila
and the adjoining provinces and municipalities, to ensure their sanitary and /or
hygienic disposal;
WHEREAS, to cope with the requirements for the development of the waste
disposal facilities that may be used, portions of the peripheral areas of the Marikina
Watershed Reservation, after due consideration and study, have now been
identified as suitable sites that may be used for the purpose;
WHEREAS, the Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural
Resources has recommended the exclusion of these areas that have been so
identified from the Marikina Watershed Reservation so that they may then be
developed for the purpose;

Recommendations:
1. As previously recommended, the undersigned also strongly recommend(s) that
the MMA be made to relocate the landfill site because the area is within the Marikina
Watershed Reservation and Lungsod Silangan. The leachate treatment plant ha(s)
been eroded twice already and contaminated the nearby creeks which is the source
of potable water of the residents. The contaminated water also flows to Wawa Dam
and Boso-boso River which also flows to Laguna de Bay.
2. The proposed Integrated Social Forestry Project be pushed through or be
approved. ISF project will not only uplift the socio-economic conditions of the
participants but will enhance the rehabilitation of the Watershed considering that
fruit bearing trees are vigorously growing in the area. Some timber producing
species are also planted like Mahogany and Gmelina Arboiea. There are also
portions where dipterocarp residuals abound in the area.
3. The sanitary landfill should be relocated to some other area, in order to avoid any
conflict with the local government of San Mateo and the nearby affected residents
who have been in the area for almost 10-20 years.
On 16 November 1993, DENR Secretary Angel C. Alcala sent MMA Chairman
Ismael A. Mathay, Jr. a letter12stating that "after a series of investigations by field
officials" of the DENR, the agency realized that the MOA entered into on 17
November 1988 "is a very costly error because the area agreed to be a garbage
dumpsite is inside the Marikina Watershed Reservation." He then strongly
recommended that all facilities and infrastructure in the garbage dumpsite in Pintong
Bocaue be dismantled, and the garbage disposal operations be transferred to
another area outside the Marikina Watershed Reservation to protect "the health and
general welfare of the residents of San Mateo in particular and the residents of
Metro Manila in general."
On 06 June 1995, petitioner Villacorte, Chairman of the PBMC, wrote 13 President
Ramos, through the Executive Secretary, informing the President of the issues
involved, that the dumpsite is located near three public elementary schools, the
closest of which is only fifty meters away, and that its location "violates the municipal

NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the aforecited premises, I, Fidel V.

Ramos, President of the Philippines, by virtue of the powers vested in me by law, do
hereby ordain:
Section 1. General That certain parcels of land, embraced by the Marikina
Watershed Reservation, were found needed for use in the solid waste disposal
program of the government in Metropolitan Manila, are hereby excluded from that
which is held in reserve and are now made available for use as sanitary landfill and
such other related waste disposal applications.
Section 2. Purpose The areas being excluded from the Marikina Watershed
Reservation are hereby placed under the administration of the Metropolitan Manila
Development Authority, for development as Sanitary Landfill, and/or for use in the
development of such other related waste disposal facilities that may be used by the
cities and municipalities of Metro Manila and the adjoining province of Rizal and its
municipalities.
Section 3. Technical Description Specifically, the areas being hereby excluded
from the Marikina Watershed Reservation consist of two (2) parcels, with an
aggregate area of approximately ONE MILLION SIXTY THOUSAND FIVE
HUNDRED TWENTY NINE (1,060,529) square meters more or less, as follows: x x
xx
Section 4. Reservations The development, construction, use and/or operation of
any facility that may be established within the parcel of land herein excluded from
the Marikina Watershed Reservation shall be governed by existing laws, rules and
regulations pertaining to environmental control and management. When no longer
needed for sanitary landfill purposes or the related waste disposal activities, the
parcels of land subject of this proclamation shall revert back as part of the Marikina
Watershed Reservation, unless otherwise authorized.
On 06 September 1995, Director Wilfrido S. Pollisco of the Protected Areas and
Wildlife Bureau wrote the DENR Secretary to express the bureaus stand against

the dumpsite at Pintong Bocaue, and that "it is our view . . . that the mere presence
of a garbage dumpsite inside a watershed reservation is definitely not compatible
with the very purpose and objectives for which the reservation was established."
On 24 November 1995, the petitioners Municipality of San Mateo and the residents
of Pintong Bocaue, represented by former Senator Jovito Salonga, sent a letter to
President Ramos requesting him to reconsider Proclamation No. 635. Receiving no
reply, they sent another letter on 02 January 1996 reiterating their previous request.
On 04 March 1996, then chairman of the Metro Manila Development Authority
(MMDA [formerly MMA]) Prospero I. Oreta addressed a letter to Senator Salonga,
stating in part that:
.
2. Considering the circumstances under which we are pursuing the project, we are
certain you will agree that, unless we are prepared with a better alternative, the
project simply has to be pursued in the best interest of the greater majority of the
population, particularly their health and welfare."
2.1 The San Mateo Sanitary Landfill services, at least, 38% of the waste disposal
site requirements of Metro Manila where an estimated 9 million population reside.
2.2 Metro Manila is presently estimated to be generating, at least, 15,700 cubic
meters of household or municipal waste, a 1.57 hectare of land area will be filled in
a months time with a pile 31 meters high of garbage, or in a year, the accumulated
volume will require 18.2 hectares.
....
4. The sanitary landfill projects are now on their fifth year of implementation. The
amount of effort and money already invested in the project by the government
cannot easily be disregarded, much more set aside in favor of the few
settlers/squatters who chose to ignore the earlier notice given to them that the area
would be used precisely for the development of waste disposal sites, and are now
attempting to arouse opposition to the project.
4.2 There is no place within the jurisdiction of Metro Manila, with an area big enough
to accommodate at least 3 to 5 years of waste disposal requirements. x x x x
4.21 The present site at San Mateo was selected because, at the time consideration
was being made, and up to the present, it is found to have the attributes that
positively respond to the criteria established:

4.33 To resolve the recurring issue regarding its being located within the Marikina
Watershed Reservation, the site had been recommended by the DENR, and
approved by the President, to already be excluded from the Marikina Watershed
reservation and placed under the administration of MMDA, since the site was
deemed to form part of the land resource reserve then commonly referred to as
buffer zone.
5. Contrary to the impression that you had been given, relocating the site at this
point and time would not be easy, if not impracticable, because aside from the
investments that had been made in locating the present site, further investments
have been incurred in:
5.1 The conduct of the technical studies for the development being implemented.
Through a grant-in-aid from the World Bank, US$600,000 was initially spent for the
conduct of the necessary studies on the area and the design of the landfill. This was
augmented by, at least, another P1.5 million from the government for the studies to
be completed, or a total cost at the time (1990) of approximately P20 million.
5.2. Additionally, the government has spent approximately P33 million in improving
on the roadway to make the site accessible from the main road/highway.
5.3 To achieve the necessary economies in the development of the site, the utilities
had been planned so that their use could be maximized. These include the access
roads, the drainage system, the leacheate collection system, the gas collection
system, and the waste water treatment system. Their construction are designed so
that instead of having to construct independent units for each area, the use of
existing facilities can be maximized through a system of interconnection. On the
average, the government is spending P14.8 million to develop a hectare of sanitary
landfill area.
6. Despite the preparations and the investments that are now being made on the
project, it is estimated that the total available area, at an accelerated rate of
disposal, assuming that all open dump sites were to be closed, will only last for 39
months.
6.1 We are still hard pressed to achieve advanced development on the sites to
assure against any possible crisis in garbage from again being experienced in Metro
Manila, aside from having to look for the additional sites that may be used after the
capacities shall have been exhausted.
6.2 Faced with the prospects of having the 15,700 cubic meters of garbage
generated daily strewn all over Metro Manila, we are certain you will agree that it
would be futile to even as much as consider a suspension of the waste disposal
operations at the sanitary landfills.

4.21.1 The site was a government property and would not require any outlay for it to
be acquired.

On 22 July 1996, the petitioners filed before the Court of Appeals a civil action
for certiorari, prohibition andmandamus with application for a temporary restraining
order/writ of preliminary injunction. The hearing on the prayer for preliminary
injunction was held on 14 August 1996.

4.21.2 It is far from any sizeable community/settlements that could be affected by

the development that would be introduced and yet, was within economic hauling
distance from the areas they are designed to serve.

On 13 June 1997, the court a quo rendered a Decision,15 the dispositive part of
which reads:

4.21.21 At the time it was originally decided to locate the landfills at the present site,
there were not more that fifteen (15) settlers in the area and they had hardly
established themselves. The community settlements were located far from the site.

WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus with application
for a temporary restraining order/writ of preliminary injunction for lack of cause of
action, is hereby DENIED.16

4.21.22 The area was hardly accessible, especially to any public transport. The area
was being served by a public utility jeep that usually made only two (2) trips daily.
During the rainy season, it could only be reached by equipping the vehicle with tire
chains to traverse the slippery muddy trail roads.

Hence, this petition for review on certiorari of the above decision on the following
grounds:

4.21.3 There was, at least, seventy-three (73) hectares available at the site.
4.3 While the site was within the Marikina Watershed Reservation under the
administration of the DENR, the site was located at the lower periphery of the buffer
zone; was evaluated to be least likely to affect the underground water supply; and
could, in fact, be excluded from the reservation.
4.31 It was determined to be far from the main water containment area for it to pose
any immediate danger of contaminating the underground water, in case of a failure
in any of the mitigating measures that would be installed.
4.32 It was likewise too far from the nearest body of water, the Laguna Lake, and
the distance, plus the increasing accumulation of water from other tributaries toward
the lake, would serve to dilute and mitigate any contamination it may emit, in case
one happened.

I
The Court of Appeals erred and abused its discretion in deliberately ignoring the
significant fact that Presidential Proclamation No. 635 was based on a brazen
forgery it was supposedly issued, as stated in the proclamation itself and
repeatedly asserted by respondents in their comment, on the basis of the alleged
recommendation of the DENR Secretary dated June 26, 1995 but which assertion
was denounced by the then Secretary Angel C. Alcala himself in a sworn
statement dated September 18, 1996 and again during the special hearing of the
case in the Court of Appeals on November 13, 1996 as a forgery since his
signature on the alleged recommendation had been falsified, as now admitted by
respondents themselves in their comment filed with the Court of Appeals, through
the Office of the Solicitor General.
II

The Court of Appeals erred and abused its discretion in completely ignoring the
significant fact that the respondents are operating the landfill based on a spurious
Environmental Compliance Certificate.

Mateo dumpsite "in view of the emergency situation of uncollected garbage in Metro
Manila, resulting in a critical and imminent health and sanitation epidemic." 25
Claiming the above events constituted a "clear and present danger of violence
erupting in the affected areas," the petitioners filed an Urgent Petition for
Restraining Order26 on 19 January 2001.

III
The Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the respondents did not violate R.A. 7586
when they issued and implemented Proclamation No. 635 considering that the
withdrawal or disestablishment of a protected area or the modification of the
Marikina Watershed can only be done by an act of Congress.

On 24 January 2001, this Court issued the Temporary Restraining Order prayed for,
"effective immediately and until further orders." 27
Meanwhile, on 26 January 2001, Republic Act No. 9003, otherwise known as "The
Ecological Solid Waste Management Act of 2000," was signed into law by President
Estrada.

IV
The Court of Appeals erred and abused its discretion when it deliberately and
willfully brushed aside the unanimous findings and adverse recommendations of
responsible government agencies and non-partisan officials concerned with
environmental protection in favor of the self-serving, gratuitous assertions found in
the unsolicited, partisan letter of former Malabon Mayor, now Chairman Prospero
Oreta of the MMDA who is an interested party in this case.

Thus, the petitioners raised only two issues in their Memorandum 28 of 08 February
2005: 1) whether or not respondent MMDA agreed to the permanent closure of the
San Mateo Landfill as of December 2000, and 2) whether or not the permanent
closure of the San Mateo landfill is mandated by Rep. Act No. 9003.
We hold that the San Mateo Landfill will remain permanently closed.

V
The Court of Appeals erred when it readily swallowed respondents assertion that
the San Mateo Dumpsite "is located in the Buffer Zone of the reservation" and is
therefore outside of its boundaries, and even declared in its decision that it took
"serious note" of this particular argument.
VI

Although the petitioners may be deemed to have waived or abandoned the issues
raised in their previous pleadings but not included in the memorandum, 29 certain
events we shall relate below have inclined us to address some of the more pertinent
issues raised in the petition for the guidance of the herein respondents, and
pursuant to our symbolic function to educate the bench and bar.30
The law and the facts indicate that a mere MOA does not guarantee the dumpsites
permanent closure.

The Court of Appeals erred and abused its discretion when it encroached on the
function of Congress by expressing its unjustified fear of mini-smokey mountains
proliferating in Metro Manila and justifying its decision in favor of "an integrated
system of solid waste management like the San Mateo Landfill.
On 05 January 1998, while the appeal was pending, the petitioners filed a Motion for
Temporary Restraining Order,17 pointing out that the effects of the El
Nio phenomenon would be aggravated by the relentless destruction of the
Marikina Watershed Reservation. They noted that respondent MMDA had, in the
meantime, continued to expand the area of the dumpsite inside the Marikina
Watershed Reservation, cutting down thousands of mature fruit trees and forest
trees, and leveling hills and mountains to clear the dumping area. Garbage disposal
operations were also being conducted on a 24-hour basis, with hundreds of metric
tons of wastes being dumped daily, including toxic and infectious hospital wastes,
intensifying the air, ground and water pollution. 18
The petitioners reiterated their prayer that respondent MMDA be temporarily
enjoined from further dumping waste into the site and from encroaching into the
area beyond its existing perimeter fence so as not to render the case moot and
academic.
On 28 January 1999, the petitioners filed a Motion for Early Resolution, calling
attention to the continued expansion of the dumpsite by the MMDA that caused the
people of Antipolo to stage a rally and barricade the Marcos Highway to stop the
dump trucks from reaching the site for five successive days from 16 January 1999.
On the second day of the barricade, all the municipal mayors of the province of
Rizal openly declared their full support for the rally, and notified the MMDA that they
would oppose any further attempt to dump garbage in their province. 20
19

As a result, MMDA officials, headed by then Chairman Jejomar Binay, agreed to

abandon the dumpsite after six months. Thus, the municipal mayors of Rizal,
particularly the mayors of Antipolo and San Mateo, agreed to the use of the
dumpsite until that period, which would end on 20 July 1999. 21
On 13 July 1999, the petitioners filed an Urgent Second Motion for Early
Resolution22 in anticipation of violence between the conflicting parties as the date of
the scheduled closure of the dumpsite neared.
On 19 July 1999, then President Joseph E. Estrada, taking cognizance of the gravity
of the problems in the affected areas and the likelihood that violence would erupt
among the parties involved, issued a Memorandum ordering the closure of the
dumpsite on 31 December 2000.23 Accordingly, on 20 July 1999, the Presidential
Committee on Flagship Programs and Projects and the MMDA entered into a MOA
with the Provincial Government of Rizal, the Municipality of San Mateo, and the City
of Antipolo, wherein the latter agreed to further extend the use of the dumpsite until
its permanent closure on 31 December 2000. 24
On 11 January 2001, President Estrada directed Department of Interior and Local
Government Secretary Alfredo Lim and MMDA Chairman Binay to reopen the San

The rally and barricade staged by the people of Antipolo on 28 January 1999, with
the full support of all the mayors of Rizal Province caused the MMDA to agree that it
would abandon the dumpsite after six months. In return, the municipal mayors
allowed the use of the dumpsite until 20 July 1999.
On 20 July 1999, with much fanfare and rhetoric, the Presidential Committee on
Flagship Programs and Projects and the MMDA entered into a MOA with the
Provincial Government of Rizal, the Municipality of San Mateo, and the City of
Antipolo, whereby the latter agreed to an extension for the use of the dumpsite until
31 December 2000, at which time it would be permanently closed.
Despite this agreement, President Estrada directed Department of Interior and Local
Government Secretary Alfredo Lim and MMDA Chairman Binay to reopen the San
Mateo dumpsite on 11 January 2001, "in view of the emergency situation of
uncollected garbage in Metro Manila, resulting in a critical and imminent health and
sanitation epidemic;" our issuance of a TRO on 24 January 2001 prevented the
dumpsites reopening.
Were it not for the TRO, then President Estradas instructions would have been
lawfully carried out, for as we observed in Oposa v. Factoran, the freedom of
contract is not absolute. Thus:
.. In Abe vs. Foster Wheeler Corp., this Court stated: "The freedom of contract,
under our system of government, is not meant to be absolute. The same is
understood to be subject to reasonable legislative regulation aimed at the promotion
of public health, moral, safety and welfare. In other words, the constitutional
guaranty of non-impairment of obligations of contract is limited by the exercise of
the police power of the State, in the interest of public health, safety, moral and
general welfare." The reason for this is emphatically set forth in Nebia vs. New
York, quoted in Philippine American Life Insurance Co. vs. Auditor General, to wit:
"'Under our form of government the use of property and the making of contracts are
normally matters of private and not of public concern. The general rule is that both
shall be free of governmental interference. But neither property rights nor contract
rights are absolute; for government cannot exist if the citizen may at will use his
property to the detriment of his fellows, or exercise his freedom of contract to work
them harm. Equally fundamental with the private right is that of the public to
regulate it in the common interest.'" In short, the non-impairment clause must yield
to the police power of the state. (Citations omitted, emphasis supplied)
We thus feel there is also the added need to reassure the residents of the Province
of Rizal that this is indeed a final resolution of this controversy, for a brief review of
the records of this case indicates two self-evident facts. First, the San Mateo site
has adversely affected its environs, and second, sources of water should
always be protected.
As to the first point, the adverse effects of the site were reported as early as 19 June
1989, when the Investigation Report of the Community Environment and Natural
Resources Officer of DENR-IV-1 stated that the sources of domestic water supply of
over one thousand families would be adversely affected by the dumping

operations.31 The succeeding report included the observation that the use of the
areas as dumping site greatly affected the ecological balance and environmental
factors of the community.32 Respondent LLDA in fact informed the MMA that the
heavy pollution and risk of disease generated by dumpsites rendered the location of
a dumpsite within the Marikina Watershed Reservation incompatible with its
program of upgrading the water quality of the Laguna Lake. 33
The DENR suspended the sites ECC after investigations revealed ground slumping
and erosion had resulted from improper development of the site. 34 Another
Investigation Report35 submitted by the Regional Technical Director to the DENR
reported respiratory illnesses among pupils of a primary school located
approximately 100 meters from the site, as well as the constant presence of large
flies and windblown debris all over the schools playground. It further reiterated
reports that the leachate treatment plant had been eroded twice already,
contaminating the nearby creeks that were sources of potable water for the
residents. The contaminated water was also found to flow to the Wawa Dam
and Boso-boso River, which in turn empties into Laguna de Bay.
This brings us to the second self-evident point. Water is life, and must be saved at
all costs. In Collado v. Court of Appeals,36 we had occasion to reaffirm our previous
discussion in Sta. Rosa Realty Development Corporation v. Court of Appeals,37 on
the primordial importance of watershed areas, thus: "The most important product of
a watershed is water, which is one of the most important human necessities. The
protection of watersheds ensures an adequate supply of water for future
generations and the control of flashfloods that not only damage property but also
cause loss of lives. Protection of watersheds is an "intergenerational" responsibility
that needs to be answered now.38
Three short months before Proclamation No. 635 was passed to avert the garbage
crisis, Congress had enacted the National Water Crisis Act39 to "adopt urgent and
effective measures to address the nationwide water crisis which adversely affects
the health and well-being of the population, food production, and industrialization
process. One of the issues the law sought to address was the "protection and
conservation of watersheds."40
In other words, while respondents were blandly declaring that "the reason for the
creation of the Marikina Watershed Reservation, i.e., to protect Marikina River as
the source of water supply of the City of Manila, no longer exists," the rest of the
country was gripped by a shortage of potable water so serious, it necessitated its
own legislation.
Respondents actions in the face of such grave environmental consequences defy
all logic. The petitioners rightly noted that instead of providing solutions, they have,
with unmitigated callousness, worsened the problem. It is this readiness to wreak
irrevocable damage on our natural heritage in pursuit of what is expedient that has
compelled us to rule at length on this issue. We ignore the unrelenting depletion of
our natural heritage at our peril.

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.43
Clearly, the state is, and always has been, zealous in preserving as much of our
natural and national heritage as it can, enshrining as it did the obligation to preserve
and protect the same within the text of our fundamental law.
It was with this objective in mind that the respondent DENR was mandated by then
President Corazon C. Aquino, under Section 4 of Executive Order No.
192, 44 otherwise known as "The Reorganization Act of the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources," to be "the primary government agency
responsible for the conservation, management, development and proper use of
the countrys environment and natural resources, specifically forest and grazing
lands, mineral resources, including those in reservation and watershed
areas, and lands of the public domain. It is also responsible for the licensing and
regulation of all natural resources as may be provided for by law in order to ensure
equitable sharing of the benefits derived therefrom for the welfare of the
present and future generations of Filipinos."
We expounded on this matter in the landmark case of Oposa v. Factoran,45 where
we held that the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is a fundamental legal
right that carries with it the correlative duty to refrain from impairing the
environment. This right implies, among other things, the judicious management and
conservation of the countrys resources, which duty is reposed in the DENR under
the aforequoted Section 4 of Executive Order No. 192. Moreover:
Section 3 (of E. O. No. 192) makes the following statement of policy:
SEC. 3. Declaration of Policy. - It is hereby declared the policy of the State to ensure
the sustainable use, development, management, renewal, and conservation of
the country's forest, mineral, land, off-shore areas and other natural resources,
including the protection and enhancement of the quality of the environment, and
equitable access of the different segments of the population to the development and
use of the country's natural resources,not only for the present generation but for
future generations as well. It is also the policy of the state to recognize and apply
a true value system including social and environmental cost implications relative to
their utilization; development and conservation of our natural resources. (Emphasis
ours)

I.
The Reorganization Act of the DENR Defines and
Limits Its Powers over the Countrys Natural Resources
The respondents next point out that the Marikina Watershed Reservation, and thus
the San Mateo Site, is located in the public domain. They allege that as such,
neither the Province of Rizal nor the municipality of San Mateo has the power to
control or regulate its use since properties of this nature belong to the national, and
not to the local governments.
It is ironic that the respondents should pursue this line of reasoning.
In Cruz v. Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources,41 we had occasion to
observe that "(o)ne of the fixed and dominating objectives of the 1935 Constitutional
Convention was the nationalization and conservation of the natural resources of the
country. There was an overwhelming sentiment in the convention in favor of the
principle of state ownership of natural resources and the adoption of the Regalian
doctrine. State ownership of natural resources was seen as a necessary starting
point to secure recognition of the states power to control their disposition,
exploitation, development, or utilization." 42
The Regalian doctrine was embodied in the 1935 Constitution, in Section 1 of Article
XIII on "Conservation and Utilization of Natural Resources." This was reiterated in
the 1973 Constitution under Article XIV on the "National Economy and the
Patrimony of the Nation," and reaffirmed in the 1987 Constitution in Section 2 of
Article XII on "National Economy and Patrimony," to wit:
Sec. 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

This policy declaration is substantially re-stated in Title XIV, Book IV of the

Administrative Code of 1987, specifically in Section 1 thereof which reads:
SEC. 1. Declaration of Policy. - (1) The State shall ensure, for the benefit of the
Filipino people, the full exploration and development as well as the judicious
disposition, utilization, management, renewal and conservation of the country's
forest, mineral, land, waters, fisheries, wildlife, off-shore areas and other natural
resources, consistent with the necessity of maintaining a sound ecological
balance and protecting and enhancing the quality of the environment and the
objective of making the exploration, development and utilization of such natural
resources equitably accessible to the different segments of the present as well as
future generations.
(2) The State shall likewise recognize and apply a true value system that takes into
account social and environmental cost implications relative to the utilization,
development and conservation of our natural resources.
The above provision stresses "the necessity of maintaining a sound ecological
balance and protecting and enhancing the quality of the environment." 46 (Emphasis
ours.)
In sum, the Administrative Code of 1987 and Executive Order No. 192 entrust the
DENR with the guardianship andsafekeeping of the Marikina Watershed
Reservation and our other natural treasures. However, although the DENR, an
agency of the government, owns the Marikina Reserve and has jurisdiction over the
same, this power is not absolute, but is defined by the declared policies of the state,
and is subject to the law and higher authority. Section 2, Title XIV, Book IV of the
Administrative Code of 1987, while specifically referring to the mandate of the
DENR, makes particular reference to the agencys being subject to law and higher
authority, thus:

SEC. 2. Mandate. - (1) The Department of Environment and Natural Resources

shall be primarily responsible for the implementation of the foregoing policy.

community in terms of environmental or ecological balance, and the measures that

will be undertaken to prevent or minimize the adverse effects thereof.

(2) It shall, subject to law and higher authority, be in charge of carrying out the
State's constitutional mandate to control and supervise the exploration,
development, utilization, and conservation of the country's natural resources.

Thus, the projects and programs mentioned in Section 27 should be

interpreted to mean projects and programs whose effects are among those
enumerated in Section 26 and 27, to wit, those that: (1) may cause pollution;
(2) may bring about climatic change; (3) may cause the depletion of nonrenewable resources; (4) may result in loss of crop land, range-land, or forest
cover; (5) may eradicate certain animal or plant species from the face of the
planet; and (6) other projects or programs that may call for the eviction of a
particular group of people residing in the locality where these will be
implemented. Obviously, none of these effects will be produced by the introduction
of lotto in the province of Laguna. (emphasis supplied)

With great power comes great responsibility. It is the height of irony that the public
respondents have vigorously arrogated to themselves the power to control the San
Mateo site, but have deftly ignored their corresponding responsibility as guardians
and protectors of this tormented piece of land.
II.
The Local Government Code Gives to Local Government Units All the Necessary
Powers to Promote the General Welfare of Their Inhabitants
The circumstances under which Proclamation No. 635 was passed also violates
Rep. Act No. 7160, or the Local Government Code.

We reiterated this doctrine in the recent case of Bangus Fry Fisherfolk v.

Lanzanas,50 where we held that there was no statutory requirement for
the sangguniang bayan of Puerto Galera to approve the construction of a mooring
facility, as Sections 26 and 27 are inapplicable to projects which are not
environmentally critical.

Contrary to the averment of the respondents, Proclamation No. 635, which was
passed on 28 August 1995, is subject to the provisions of the Local Government
Code, which was approved four years earlier, on 10 October 1991.

Moreover, Section 447, which enumerates the powers, duties and functions of the
municipality, grants thesangguniang bayan the power to, among other things, "enact
ordinances, approve resolutions and appropriate funds for the general welfare of the
municipality and its inhabitants pursuant to Section 16 of th(e) Code." These
include:

Section 2(c) of the said law declares that it is the policy of the state " to require all
national agencies and offices to conduct periodic consultations with appropriate
local government units, non-governmental and people's organizations, and other
concerned sectors of the community before any project or program is implemented
in their respective jurisdictions." Likewise, Section 27 requires prior consultations
before a program shall be implemented by government authorities and the prior
approval of the sanggunian is obtained.

(1) Approving ordinances and passing resolutions to protect the environment and
impose appropriate penalties for acts which endanger the environment, such
as dynamite fishing and other forms of destructive fishing, illegal logging and
smuggling of logs, smuggling of natural resources products and of endangered
species of flora and fauna, slash and burn farming, and such other activities
which result in pollution, acceleration of eutrophication of rivers and lakes, or
of ecological imbalance; [Section 447 (1)(vi)]

During the oral arguments at the hearing for the temporary restraining order,
Director Uranza of the MMDA Solid Waste Management Task Force declared before
the Court of Appeals that they had conducted the required consultations. However,
he added that "(t)his is the problem, sir, the officials we may have been talking with
at the time this was established may no longer be incumbent and this is our difficulty
now. That is what we are trying to do now, a continuing dialogue." 47

(2) Prescribing reasonable limits and restraints on the use of property within
the jurisdiction of the municipality, adopting a comprehensive land use plan for
the municipality, reclassifying land within the jurisdiction of the city, subject to the
pertinent provisions of this Code, enacting integrated zoning ordinances in
consonance with the approved comprehensive land use plan, subject to existing
laws, rules and regulations; establishing fire limits or zones, particularly in populous
centers; and regulating the construction, repair or modification of buildings within
said fire limits or zones in accordance with the provisions of this Code; [Section 447
(2)(vi-ix)]

The ambivalent reply of Director Uranza was brought to the fore when, at the height
of the protest rally and barricade along Marcos Highway to stop dump trucks from
reaching the site, all the municipal mayors of the province of Rizal openly declared
their full support for the rally and notified the MMDA that they would oppose any
further attempt to dump garbage in their province. 48
The municipal mayors acted within the scope of their powers, and were in fact
fulfilling their mandate, when they did this. Section 16 allows every local government
unit to "exercise the powers expressly granted, those necessarily implied therefrom,
as well as powers necessary, appropriate, or incidental for its efficient and effective
governance, and those which are essential to the promotion of the general welfare,"
which involve, among other things, "promot(ing) health and safety, enhance(ing)
the right of the people to a balanced ecology, and preserv(ing) the comfort
and convenience of their inhabitants. "
In Lina , Jr. v. Pao,49 we held that Section 2 (c), requiring consultations with the
appropriate local government units, should apply to national government projects
affecting the environmental or ecological balance of the particular community
implementing the project. Rejecting the petitioners contention that Sections 2(c) and
27 of the Local Government Code applied mandatorily in the setting up of lotto
outlets around the country, we held that:
From a careful reading of said provisions, we find that these apply only to national
programs and/or projects which are to be implemented in a particular local
community. Lotto is neither a program nor a project of the national government, but
of a charitable institution, the PCSO. Though sanctioned by the national
government, it is far fetched to say that lotto falls within the contemplation of
Sections 2 (c) and 27 of the Local Government Code.
Section 27 of the Code should be read in conjunction with Section 26 thereof.
Section 26 reads:
SECTION 26. Duty of National Government Agencies in the Maintenance of
Ecological Balance. It shall be the duty of every national agency or governmentowned or controlled corporation authorizing or involved in the planning and
implementation of any project or program that may cause pollution, climatic change,
depletion of non-renewable resources, loss of crop land, range-land, or forest cover,
and extinction of animal or plant species, to consult with the local government units,
nongovernmental organizations, and other sectors concerned and explain the goals
and objectives of the project or program, its impact upon the people and the

(3) Approving ordinances which shall ensure the efficient and effective delivery of
the basic services and facilities as provided for under Section 17 of this Code, and
in addition to said services and facilities, providing for the establishment,
maintenance, protection, and conservation of communal forests and
watersheds, tree parks, greenbelts, mangroves, and other similar forest
development projects .and, subject to existing laws, establishing and providing
for the maintenance, repair and operation of an efficient waterworks system to
supply water for the inhabitants and purifying the source of the water supply;
regulating the construction, maintenance, repair and use of hydrants, pumps,
cisterns and reservoirs; protecting the purity and quantity of the water supply of
the municipality and, for this purpose, extending the coverage of appropriate
ordinances over all territory within the drainage area of said water supply and
within one hundred (100) meters of the reservoir, conduit, canal, aqueduct,
pumping station, or watershed used in connection with the water service; and
regulating the consumption, use or wastage of water." [Section 447 (5)(i) & (vii)]
Under the Local Government Code, therefore, two requisites must be met before a
national project that affects the environmental and ecological balance of local
communities can be implemented: prior consultation with the affected local
communities, and prior approval of the project by the appropriate sanggunian.
Absent either of these mandatory requirements, the projects implementation is
illegal.
III.
Waste Disposal Is Regulated by the Ecological Solid Waste Management Act of
2000
The respondents would have us overlook all the abovecited laws because the San
Mateo site is a very expensive - and necessary - fait accompli. The respondents cite
the millions of pesos and hundreds of thousands of dollars the government has
already expended in its development and construction, and the lack of any viable
alternative sites.
The Court of Appeals agreed, thus:

During the hearing on the injunction, questions were also asked. "What will happen
if the San Mateo Sanitary Landfill is closed? Where will the daily collections of
garbage be disposed of and dumped?" Atty. Mendoza, one of the lawyers of the
petitioners, answered that each city/municipality must take care of its own.
Reflecting on that answer, we are troubled: will not the proliferation of separate open
dumpsites be a more serious health hazard (which ha(s) to be addressed) to the
residents of the community? What with the galloping population growth and the
constricting available land area in Metro Manila? There could be a mini-Smokey
Mountain in each of the ten citiescomprising Metro Manila, placing in danger the
health and safety of more people. Damage to the environment could be aggravated
by the increase in number of open dumpsites. An integrated system of solid waste
management, like the San Mateo Sanitary Landfill, appears advisable to a populous
metropolis like the Greater Metro Manila Area absent access to better technology. 51
We acknowledge that these are valid concerns. Nevertheless, the lower court
should have been mindful of the legal truism that it is the legislature, by its very
nature, which is the primary judge of the necessity, adequacy, wisdom,
reasonableness and expediency of any law.52
Moreover, these concerns are addressed by Rep. Act No. 9003. Approved on 26
January 2001, "The Ecological Solid Waste Management Act of 2000" was enacted
pursuant to the declared policy of the state "to adopt a systematic, comprehensive
and ecological solid waste management system which shall ensure the protection of
public health and environment, and utilize environmentally sound methods that
maximize the utilization of valuable resources and encourage resource conservation
and recovery."53 It requires the adherence to a Local Government Solid Waste
Management Plan with regard to the collection and transfer, processing, source
reduction, recycling, composting and final disposal of solid wastes, the handling and
disposal of special wastes, education and public information, and the funding of
solid waste management projects.
The said law mandates the formulation of a National Solid Waste Management
Framework, which should include, among other things, the method and procedure
for the phaseout and the eventual closure within eighteen months from effectivity of
the Act in case of existing open dumps and/or sanitary landfills located within an
aquifer, groundwater reservoir or watershed area.54 Any landfills subsequently
developed must comply with the minimum requirements laid down in Section 40,
specifically that the site selected must be consistent with the overall land use
plan of the local government unit, and that the site must be located in an area
where the landfills operation will not detrimentally affect environmentally
sensitive resources such as aquifers, groundwater reservoirs or watershed
areas.55
This writes finis to any remaining aspirations respondents may have of reopening
the San Mateo Site. Having declared Proclamation No. 635 illegal, we see no
compelling need to tackle the remaining issues raised in the petition and the parties
respective memoranda.
A final word. Laws pertaining to the protection of the environment were not drafted
in a vacuum. Congress passed these laws fully aware of the perilous state of both
our economic and natural wealth. It was precisely to minimize the adverse impact
humanitys actions on all aspects of the natural world, at the same time maintaining
and ensuring an environment under which man and nature can thrive in productive
and enjoyable harmony with each other, that these legal safeguards were put in
place. They should thus not be so lightly cast aside in the face of what is easy and
expedient.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals in
CA-G.R. SP No. 41330, dated 13 June 1997, is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The
temporary restraining order issued by the Court on 24 January 2001 is hereby made
permanent.
SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 112526

October 12, 2001

According to petitioner, the parcels of land are watersheds, which provide clean
potable water to the Canlubang community, and that ninety (90) light industries are
now located in the area.3
Petitioner alleged that respondents usurped its rights over the property, thereby
destroying the ecosystem. Sometime in December 1985, respondents filed a civil
case4 with the Regional Trial Court, Laguna, seeking an easement of a right of way
to and from Barangay Casile. By way of counterclaim, however, petitioner sought
the ejectment of private respondents.
In October 1986 to August 1987, petitioner filed with the Municipal Trial Court,
Cabuyao, Laguna separate complaints for forcible entry against respondents. 5
After the filing of the ejectment cases, respondents petitioned the Department of
Agrarian Reform (DAR) for the compulsory acquisition of the SRRDC property
under the CARP.
On August 11, 1989, the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO) of Cabuyao,
Laguna issued a notice of coverage to petitioner and invited its officials or
representatives to a conference on August 18, 1989.6 During the meeting, the
following were present: representatives of petitioner, the Land Bank of the
Philippines, PARCCOM, PARO of Laguna, MARO of Laguna, the BARC Chairman
of Barangay Casile and some potential farmer beneficiaries, who are residents of
Barangay Casile, Cabuyao, Laguna. It was the consensus and recommendation of
the assembly that the landholding of SRRDC be placed under compulsory
acquisition.
On August 17, 1989, petitioner filed with the Municipal Agrarian Reform Office
(MARO), Cabuyao, Laguna a "Protest and Objection" to the compulsory acquisition
of the property on the ground that the area was not appropriate for agricultural
purposes. The area was rugged in terrain with slopes of 18% and above and that
the occupants of the land were squatters, who were not entitled to any land as
beneficiaries.7
On August 29, 1989, the farmer beneficiaries together with the BARC chairman
answered the protest and objection stating that the slope of the land is not 18% but
only 5-10% and that the land is suitable and economically viable for agricultural
purposes, as evidenced by the Certification of the Department of Agriculture,
municipality of Cabuyao, Laguna.8
On September 8, 1989, MARO Belen dela Torre made a summary investigation
report and forwarded the Compulsory Acquisition Folder Indorsement (CAFI) to the
Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer (hereafter, PARO). 9
On September 21, 1989, PARO Durante Ubeda forwarded his endorsement of the
compulsory acquisition to the Secretary of Agrarian Reform.
On November 23, 1989, Acting Director Eduardo C. Visperas of the Bureau of Land
Acquisition and Development, DAR forwarded two (2) Compulsory Acquisition Claim
Folders covering the landholding of SRRDC, covered by TCT Nos. T-81949 and T84891 to the President, Land Bank of the Philippines for further review and
evaluation.10
On December 12, 1989, Secretary of Agrarian Reform Miriam Defensor Santiago
sent two (2) notices of acquisition11 to petitioner, stating that petitioner's landholdings
covered by TCT Nos. 81949 and 84891, containing an area of 188.2858 and
58.5800 hectares, valued at P4,417,735.65 and P1,220,229.93, respectively, had
been placed under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program.
On February 6, 1990, petitioner SRRDC in two letters 12 separately addressed to
Secretary Florencio B. Abad and the Director, Bureau of Land Acquisition and
Distribution, sent its formal protest, protesting not only the amount of compensation
offered by DAR for the property but also the two (2) notices of acquisition.

STA. ROSA REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, petitioner,

vs.
COURT OF APPEALS

On March 17, 1990, Secretary Abad referred the case to the DARAB for summary
proceedings to determine just compensation under R. A. No. 6657, Section 16.

PARDO, J.:

On March 23, 1990, the LBP returned the two (2) claim folders previously referred
for review and evaluation to the Director of BLAD mentioning its inability to value the
SRRDC landholding due to some deficiencies.

The case before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision of the
Court of Appeals1 affirming the decision of the Department of Agrarian Reform
Adjudication Board2 (hereafter DARAB) ordering the compulsory acquisition of
petitioner's property under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP).
Petitioner Sta. Rosa Realty Development Corporation (hereafter, SRRDC) was the
registered owner of two parcels of land, situated at Barangay Casile, Cabuyao,
Laguna covered by TCT Nos. 81949 and 84891, with a total area of 254.6 hectares.

On March 28, 1990, Executive Director Emmanuel S. Galvez wrote Land Bank
President Deogracias Vistan to forward the two (2) claim folders involving the
property of SRRDC to the DARAB for it to conduct summary proceedings to
determine the just compensation for the land.
On April 6, 1990, petitioner sent a letter to the Land Bank of the Philippines stating
that its property under the aforesaid land titles were exempt from CARP coverage

because they had been classified as watershed area and were the subject of a
pending petition for land conversion.
On May 10, 1990, Director Narciso Villapando of BLAD turned over the two (2) claim
folders (CACF's) to the Executive Director of the DAR Adjudication Board for proper
administrative valuation. Acting on the CACF's, on September 10, 1990, the Board
promulgated a resolution asking the office of the Secretary of Agrarian Reform
(DAR) to first resolve two (2) issues before it proceeds with the summary land
valuation proceedings.13
The issues that need to be threshed out were as follows: (1) whether the subject
parcels of land fall within the coverage of the Compulsory Acquisition Program of
the CARP; and (2) whether the petition for land conversion of the parcels of land
may be granted.
On December 7, 1990, the Office of the Secretary, DAR, through the
Undersecretary for Operations (Assistant Secretary for Luzon Operations) and the
Regional Director of Region IV, submitted a report answering the two issues raised.
According to them, firstly, by virtue of the issuance of the notice of coverage on
August 11, 1989, and notice of acquisition on December 12, 1989, the property is
covered under compulsory acquisition. Secondly, Administrative Order No. 1, Series
of 1990, Section IV D also supports the DAR position on the coverage of the said
property. During the consideration of the case by the Board, there was no pending
petition for land conversion specifically concerning the parcels of land in question.
On February 19, 1991, the Board sent a notice of hearing to all the parties
interested, setting the hearing for the administrative valuation of the subject parcels
of land on March 6, 1991. However, on February 22, 1991, Atty. Ma. Elena P.
Hernandez-Cueva, counsel for SRRDC, wrote the Board requesting for its
assistance in the reconstruction of the records of the case because the records
could not be found as her co-counsel, Atty. Ricardo Blancaflor, who originally
handled the case for SRRDC and had possession of all the records of the case was
on indefinite leave and could not be contacted. The Board granted counsel's request
and moved the hearing to April 4, 1991.
On March 18, 1991, SRRDC submitted a petition to the Board for the latter to
resolve SRRDC's petition for exemption from CARP coverage before any
administrative valuation of their landholding could be had by the Board.
On April 4, 1991, the initial DARAB hearing of the case was held and subsequently,
different dates of hearing were set without objection from counsel of SRRDC. During
the April 15, 1991 hearing, the subdivision plan of subject property at Casile,
Cabuyao, Laguna was submitted and marked as Exhibit "5" for SRRDC. At the
hearing on April 23, 1991, the Land Bank asked for a period of one month to value
the land in dispute.
At the hearing on April 23, 1991, certification from Deputy Zoning Administrator
Generoso B. Opina was presented. The certification issued on September 8, 1989,
stated that the parcels of land subject of the case were classified as "industrial Park"
per Sanguniang Bayan Resolution No. 45-89 dated March 29, 1989. 14
To avert any opportunity that the DARAB might distribute the lands to the farmer
beneficiaries, on April 30, 1991, petitioner filed a petition 15 with DARAB to disqualify
private respondents as beneficiaries. However, DARAB refused to address the
issue of beneficiaries.
In the meantime, on January 20, 1992, the Regional Trial Court, Laguna, Branch 24,
rendered a decision,16 finding that private respondents illegally entered the SRRDC
property, and ordered them evicted.
On July 11, 1991, DAR Secretary Benjamin T. Leong issued a memorandum
directing the Land Bank of the Philippines to open a trust account in favor of
SRRDC, for P5,637,965.55, as valuation for the SRRDC property.
On December 19, 1991, DARAB promulgated a decision, the decretal portion of
which reads:
"WHEREFORE, based on the foregoing premises, the Board hereby
orders:
"1. The dismissal for lack of merit of the protest against the compulsory
coverage of the landholdings of Sta. Rosa Realty Development
Corporation (Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. 81949 and 84891 with an
area of 254.766 hectares) in Barangay Casile, Municipality of Cabuyao,
Province of Laguna under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program
is hereby affirmed;
"2. The Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) to pay Sta. Rosa Realty
Development Corporation the amount of Seven Million Eight Hundred

Forty-One Thousand, Nine Hundred Ninety Seven Pesos and Sixty-Four

centavos (P7,841,997.64) for its landholdings covered by the two (2)
Transfer Certificates of Title mentioned above. Should there be a
rejection of the payment tendered, to open, if none has yet been
made, a trust account for said amount in the name of Sta. Rosa Realty
Development Corporation;
"3. The Register of Deeds of the Province of Laguna to cancel with
dispatch Transfer certificate of Title Nos. 84891 and 81949 and new one
be issued in the name of the Republic of the Philippines, free from liens
and encumbrances;
"4 The Department of Environment and Natural Resources either
through its Provincial Office in Laguna or the Regional Office, Region IV,
to conduct a final segregation survey on the lands covered by Transfer
certificate of Title Nos. 84891 and 81949 so the same can be transferred
by the Register of Deeds to the name of the Republic of the Philippines;
"5. The Regional Office of the Department of Agrarian Reform through
its Municipal and Provincial Agrarian Reform Office to take immediate
possession on the said landholding after Title shall have been
transferred to the name of the Republic of the Philippines, and distribute
the same to the immediate issuance of Emancipation Patents to the
farmer-beneficiaries as determined by the Municipal Agrarian Reform
Office of Cabuyao, Laguna." 17
On January 20, 1992, the Regional Trial Court, Laguna, Branch 24, rendered a
decision in Civil Case No. B-233318ruling that respondents were builders in bad
faith.
On February 6, 1992, petitioner filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for review
of the DARAB decision.19 On November 5, 1993, the Court of Appeals promulgated
a decision affirming the decision of DARAB. The decretal portion of the Court of
Appeals decision reads:
"WHEREFORE, premises considered, the DARAB decision dated
September 19, 1991 is AFFIRMED, without prejudice to petitioner Sta.
Rosa Realty Development Corporation ventilating its case with the
Special Agrarian Court on the issue of just compensation." 20Hence, this
petition.21
On December 15, 1993, the Court issued a Resolution which reads:
"G. R. Nos. 112526 (Sta. Rosa Realty Development Corporation vs.
Court of Appeals, et. al.) Considering the compliance, dated December
13, 1993, filed by counsel for petitioner, with the resolution of December
8, 1993 which required petitioner to post a cash bond or surety bond in
the amount of P1,500,000.00 Pesos before issuing a temporary
restraining order prayed for, manifesting that it has posted a CASH
BOND in the same amount with the Cashier of the Court as evidenced
by the attached official receipt no. 315519, the Court resolved to ISSUE
the Temporary Retraining Order prayed for.
"The Court therefore, resolved to restrain: (a) the Department of
Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board from enforcing its decision dated
December 19, 1991 in DARAB Case No. JC-R-IV-LAG-0001, which was
affirmed by the Court of Appeals in a Decision dated November 5, 1993,
and which ordered, among others, the Regional Office of the
Department of Agrarian Reform through its Municipal and Provincial
Reform Office to take immediate possession of the landholding in
dispute after title shall have been transferred to the name of the
Republic of the Philippines and to distribute the same through the
immediate issuance of Emancipation Patents to the farmer-beneficiaries
as determined by the Municipal Agrarian Officer of Cabuyao, Laguna, (b)
The Department of Agrarian Reform and/or the Department of Agrarian
Reform Adjudication Board, and all persons acting for and in their behalf
and under their authority from entering the properties involved in this
case and from introducing permanent infrastructures thereon; and (c)
the private respondents from further clearing the said properties of their
green cover by the cutting or burning of trees and other vegetation,
effective today until further orders from this Court." 22
The main issue raised is whether the property in question is covered by CARP
despite the fact that the entire property formed part of a watershed area prior to the
enactment of R. A. No. 6657.
Under Republic Act No. 6657, there are two modes of acquisition of private land:
compulsory and voluntary. In the case at bar, the Department of Agrarian Reform
sought the compulsory acquisition of subject property under R. A. No. 6657, Section
16, to wit:

"Sec. 16. Procedure for Acquisition of Private Lands. For purposes of

acquisition of private lands, the following procedures shall be followed:
a.) After having identified the land, the landowners and the
beneficiaries, the DAR shall send its notice to acquire the
land to the owners thereof, by personal delivery or registered
mail, and post the same in a conspicuous place in the
municipal building and barangay hall of the place where the
property is located. Said notice shall contain the offer of the
DAR to pay corresponding value in accordance with the
valuation set forth in Sections 17, 18, and other pertinent
provisions hereof.
b.) Within thirty (30) days from the date of the receipt of
written notice by personal delivery or registered mail, the
landowner, his administrator or representative shall inform
the DAR of his acceptance or rejection of the offer.
c.) If the landowner accepts the offer of the DAR, the LBP
shall pay the landowner the purchase price of the land within
thirty (30) days after he executes and delivers a deed of
transfer in favor of the government and other muniments of
title.

The DAR has made compulsory acquisition the priority mode of land acquisition to
hasten the implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program
(CARP). Under Sec. 16 of the CARL, the first step in compulsory acquisition is the
identification of the land, the landowners and the farmer beneficiaries. However, the
law is silent on how the identification process shall be made. To fill this gap, on July
26, 1989, the DAR issued Administrative Order No. 12, series of 1989, which set the
operating procedure in the identification of such lands. The procedure is as follows:
A. The Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO), with the assistance
of the pertinent Barangay Agrarian Reform Committee (BARC), shall:
1. Update the masterlist of all agricultural lands covered under the
CARP in his area of responsibility; the masterlist should include such
information as required under the attached CARP masterlist form which
shall include the name of the landowner, landholding area, TCT/OCT
number, and tax declaration number.
2. Prepare the Compulsory Acquisition Case Folder (CACF) for each title
(OCT/TCT) or landholding covered under Phase I and II of the CARP
except those for which the landowners have already filed applications to
avail of other modes of land acquisition. A case folder shall contain the
following duly accomplished forms:
a) CARP CA Form 1MARO investigation report

d.) In case of rejection or failure to reply, the DAR shall

conduct summary administrative proceedings to determine
the compensation for the land requiring the landowner, the
LBP and other interested parties to submit fifteen (15) days
from receipt of the notice. After the expiration of the above
period, the matter is deemed submitted for decision. The
DAR shall decide the case within thirty (30) days after it is
submitted for decision.

b) CARP CA Form No 2 Summary investigation report

findings and evaluation
c) CARP CA Form 3Applicant's Information sheet
d) CARP CA Form 4 Beneficiaries undertaking

e.) Upon receipt by the landowner of the corresponding

payment, or, in case of rejection or no response from the
landowner, upon the deposit with an accessible bank
designated by the DAR of the compensation in cash or in
LBP bonds in accordance with this act, the DAR shall make
immediate possession of the land and shall request the
proper Register of Deeds to issue Transfer Certificate of
Titles (TCT) in the name of the Republic of the Philippines.
The DAR shall thereafter proceed with the redistribution of
the land to the qualified beneficiaries.
f.) Any party who disagrees with the decision may bring the
matter to the court23 of proper jurisdiction for final
determination of just compensation.
In compulsory acquisition of private lands, the landholding, the landowners and
farmer beneficiaries must first be identified. After identification, the DAR shall send a
notice of acquisition to the landowner, by personal delivery or registered mail, and
post it in a conspicuous place in the municipal building and barangay hall of the
place where the property is located.
Within thirty (30) days from receipt of the notice of acquisition, the landowner, his
administrator or representative shall inform the DAR of his acceptance or rejection
of the offer.
If the landowner accepts, he executes and delivers a deed of transfer in favor of the
government and surrenders the certificate of title. Within thirty (30) days from the
execution of the deed of transfer, the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) pays the
owner the purchase price. If the landowner accepts, he executes and delivers a
deed of transfer in favor of the government and surrenders the certificate of title.
Within thirty days from the execution of the deed of transfer, the Land Bank of the
Philippines (LBP) pays the owner the purchase price. If the landowner rejects the
DAR's offer or fails to make a reply, the DAR conducts summary administrative
proceedings to determine just compensation for the land. The landowner, the LBP
representative and other interested parties may submit evidence on just
compensation within fifteen days from notice. Within thirty days from submission,
the DAR shall decide the case and inform the owner of its decision and the amount
of just compensation.
Upon receipt by the owner of the corresponding payment, or, in case of rejection or
lack of response from the latter, the DAR shall deposit the compensation in cash or
in LBP bonds with an accessible bank. The DAR shall immediately take possession
of the land and cause the issuance of a transfer certificate of title in the name of the
Republic of the Philippines. The land shall then be redistributed to the farmer
beneficiaries. Any party may question the decision of the DAR in the special
agrarian courts (provisionally the Supreme Court designated branches of the
regional trial court as special agrarian courts) for final determination of just
compensation.

e) CARP CA Form 5 Transmittal report to the PARO

The MARO/BARC shall certify that all information contained in the
above-mentioned forms have been examined and verified by him and
that the same are true and correct.
3. Send notice of coverage and a letter of invitation to a
conference/meeting to the landowner covered by the Compulsory Case
Acquisition Folder. Invitations to the said conference meeting shall also
be sent to the prospective farmer-beneficiaries, the BARC
representatives, the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) representative,
and the other interested parties to discuss the inputs to the valuation of
the property.
He shall discuss the MARO/BARC investigation report and solicit the
views, objection, agreements or suggestions of the participants thereon.
The landowner shall also ask to indicate his retention area. The minutes
of the meeting shall be signed by all participants in the conference and
shall form an integral part of the CACF.
4. Submit all completed case folders to the Provincial Agrarian Reform
Officer (PARO).
B. The PARO shall:
1. Ensure the individual case folders are forwarded to him by his
MAROs.
2. Immediately upon receipt of a case folder, compute the valuation of
the land in accordance with A.O. No. 6, series of 1988. The valuation
worksheet and the related CACF valuation forms shall be duly certified
correct by the PARO and all the personnel who participated in the
accomplishment of these forms.
3. In all cases, the PARO may validate the report of the MARO through
ocular inspection and verification of the property. This ocular inspection
and verification shall be mandatory when the computed value exceeds
P500,000 per estate.
4. Upon determination of the valuation, forward the case folder, together
with the duly accomplished valuation forms and his recommendations, to
the Central Office.

The LBP representative and the MARO concerned shall be furnished a

copy each of his report.

requirement. The law required payment in cash or LBP bonds, not by trust account
as was done by DAR.

C. DAR Central Office, specifically through the Bureau of Land

Acquisition and Distribution (BLAD), shall:

In Association of Small Landowners in the Philippines v. Secretary of Agrarian

Reform, we held that "The CARP Law, for its part, conditions the transfer of
possession and ownership of the land to the government on receipt of the
landowner of the corresponding payment or the deposit by the DAR of the
compensation in cash or LBP bonds with an accessible bank. Until then, title also
remains with the landowner. No outright change of ownership is contemplated
either."24

1. Within three days from receipt of the case folder from the PARO,
review, evaluate and determine the final land valuation of the property
covered by the case folder. A summary review and evaluation report
shall be prepared and duly certified by the BLAD Director and the
personnel directly participating in the review and final valuation.
2. Prepare, for the signature of the Secretary or her duly authorized
representative, a notice of acquisition (CARP Form 8) for the subject
property. Serve the notice to the landowner personally or through
registered mail within three days from its approval. The notice shall
include among others, the area subject of compulsory acquisition, and
the amount of just compensation offered by DAR.
3. Should the landowner accept the DAR's offered value, the BLAD shall
prepare and submit to the Secretary for approval the order of
acquisition. However, in case of rejection or non-reply, the DAR
Adjudication Board (DARAB) shall conduct a summary administrative
hearing to determine just compensation, in accordance with the
procedures provided under Administrative Order No. 13, series of 1989.
Immediately upon receipt of the DARAB's decision on just
compensation, the BLAD shall prepare and submit to the Secretary for
approval the required order of acquisition.
4. Upon the landowner's receipt of payment, in case of acceptance, or
upon deposit of payment in the designated bank, in case of rejection or
non-response, the Secretary shall immediately direct the pertinent
Register of Deeds to issue the corresponding Transfer Certificate of Title
(TCT) in the name of the Republic of the Philippines. Once the property
is transferred, the DAR, through the PARO, shall take possession of the
land for redistribution to qualified beneficiaries."
Administrative Order No. 12, Series of 1989 requires that the Municipal Agrarian
Reform Officer (MARO) keep an updated master list of all agricultural lands under
the CARP in his area of responsibility containing all the required information. The
MARO prepares a Compulsory Acquisition Case Folder (CACF) for each title
covered by CARP. The MARO then sends the landowner a "Notice of Coverage"
and a "letter of invitation" to a "conference/ meeting" over the land covered by the
CACF. He also sends invitations to the prospective farmer-beneficiaries, the
representatives of the Barangay Agrarian Reform Committee (BARC), the Land
Bank of the Philippines (LBP) and other interested parties to discuss the inputs to
the valuation of the property and solicit views, suggestions, objections or
agreements of the parties. At the meeting, the landowner is asked to indicate his
retention area.
The MARO shall make a report of the case to the Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer
(PARO) who shall complete the valuation of the land. Ocular inspection and
verification of the property by the PARO shall be mandatory when the computed
value of the estate exceeds P500,000.00. Upon determination of the valuation, the
PARO shall forward all papers together with his recommendation to the Central
Office of the DAR. The DAR Central Office, specifically, the Bureau of Land
Acquisition and Distribution (BLAD) shall prepare, on the signature of the Secretary
or his duly authorized representative, a notice of acquisition of the subject property.
From this point, the provisions of R. A. No. 6657, Section 16 shall apply.
For a valid implementation of the CARP Program, two notices are required: (1) the
notice of coverage and letter of invitation to a preliminary conference sent to the
landowner, the representative of the BARC, LBP, farmer beneficiaries and other
interested parties pursuant to DAR A. O. No. 12, series of 1989; and (2) the notice
of acquisition sent to the landowner under Section 16 of the CARL.
The importance of the first notice, that is, the notice of coverage and the letter of
invitation to a conference, and its actual conduct cannot be understated. They are
steps designed to comply with the requirements of administrative due process. The
implementation of the CARL is an exercise of the State's police power and the
power of eminent domain. To the extent that the CARL prescribes retention limits to
the landowners, there is an exercise of police power for the regulation of private
property in accordance with the Constitution. But where, to carry out such
regulation, the owners are deprived of lands they own in excess of the maximum
area allowed, there is also a taking under the power of eminent domain. The taking
contemplated is not mere limitation of the use of the land. What is required is the
surrender of the title to and physical possession of the excess and all beneficial
rights accruing to the owner in favor of the farmer beneficiary.
In the case at bar, DAR has executed the taking of the property in question.
However, payment of just compensation was not in accordance with the procedural

Consequently, petitioner questioned before the Court of Appeals DARAB's decision

ordering the compulsory acquisition of petitioner's property.25 Here, petitioner
pressed the question of whether the property was a watershed, not covered by
CARP.
Article 67 of the Water Code of the Philippines (P. D. No. 1067) provides:
"Art. 67. Any watershed or any area of land adjacent to any surface
water or overlying any ground water may be declared by the Department
of Natural resources as a protected area. Rules and Regulations may be
promulgated by such Department to prohibit or control such activities by
the owners or occupants thereof within the protected area which may
damage or cause the deterioration of the surface water or ground water
or interfere with the investigation, use, control, protection, management
or administration of such waters."
Watersheds may be defined as "an area drained by a river and its tributaries and
enclosed by a boundary or divide which separates it from adjacent watersheds."
Watersheds generally are outside the commerce of man, so why was the Casile
property titled in the name of SRRDC? The answer is simple. At the time of the
titling, the Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources had not declared the
property as watershed area. The parcels of land in Barangay Casile were declared
as "PARK" by a Zoning Ordinance adopted by the municipality of Cabuyao in 1979,
as certified by the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board. On January 5, 1994,
the Sangguniang Bayan of Cabuyao, Laguna issued a Resolution 26 voiding the
zoning classification of the land at Barangay Casile as Park and declaring that the
land is now classified as agricultural land.
The authority of the municipality of Cabuyao, Laguna to issue zoning classification
is an exercise of its police power, not the power of eminent domain. "A zoning
ordinance is defined as a local city or municipal legislation which logically arranges,
prescribes, defines and apportions a given political subdivision into specific land
uses as present and future projection of needs." 27
In Natalia Realty, Inc. v. Department of Agrarian Reform28 we held that lands
classified as non-agricultural prior to the effectivity of the CARL may not be
compulsorily acquired for distribution to farmer beneficiaries.
However, more than the classification of the subject land as PARK is the fact that
subsequent studies and survey showed that the parcels of land in question form a
vital part of a watershed area.29
Now, petitioner has offered to prove that the land in dispute is a "watershed or part
of the protected area for watershed purposes." Ecological balances and
environmental disasters in our day and age seem to be interconnected. Property
developers and tillers of the land must be aware of this deadly combination. In the
case at bar, DAR included the disputed parcels of land for compulsory acquisition
simply because the land was allegedly devoted to agriculture and was titled to
SRRDC, hence, private and alienable land that may be subject to CARP.
However, the scenario has changed, after an in-depth study, survey and
reassessment. We cannot ignore the fact that the disputed parcels of land form a
vital part of an area that need to be protected for watershed purposes. In a report of
the Ecosystems Research and Development Bureau (ERDB), a research arm of the
DENR, regarding the environmental assessment of the Casile and Kabanga-an river
watersheds, they concluded that:
"The Casile barangay covered by CLOA in question is situated in the
heartland of both watersheds. Considering the barangays proximity to
the Matangtubig waterworks, the activities of the farmers which are in
conflict with proper soil and water conservation practices jeopardize and
endanger the vital waterworks. Degradation of the land would have
double edge detrimental effects. On the Casile side this would mean
direct siltation of the Mangumit river which drains to the water
impounding reservoir below. On the Kabanga-an side, this would mean
destruction of forest covers which acts as recharged areas of the
Matang Tubig springs. Considering that the people have little if no direct
interest in the protection of the Matang Tubig structures they couldn't
care less even if it would be destroyed.

The Casile and Kabanga-an watersheds can be considered a most vital

life support system to thousands of inhabitants directly and indirectly
affected by it. From these watersheds come the natural God-given
precious resource water. x x x x x
Clearing and tilling of the lands are totally inconsistent with sound
watershed management. More so, the introduction of earth disturbing
activities like road building and erection of permanent infrastructures.
Unless the pernicious agricultural activities of the Casile farmers are
immediately stopped, it would not be long before these watersheds
would cease to be of value. The impact of watershed degredation
threatens the livelihood of thousands of people dependent upon it.
Toward this, we hope that an acceptable comprehensive watershed
development policy and program be immediately formulated and
implemented before the irreversible damage finally happens.
Hence, the following are recommended:
7.2 The Casile farmers should be relocated and given
financial assistance.
7.3 Declaration of the two watersheds as critical and in need
of immediate rehabilitation.
7.4 A comprehensive and detailed watershed management
plan and program be formulated and implemented by the
Canlubang Estate in coordination with pertinent government
agencies."30
The ERDB report was prepared by a composite team headed by Dr. Emilio Rosario,
the ERDB Director, who holds a doctorate degree in water resources from U.P. Los
Banos in 1987; Dr. Medel Limsuan, who obtained his doctorate degree in watershed
management from Colorado University (US) in 1989; and Dr. Antonio M. Dano, who
obtained his doctorate degree in Soil and Water management Conservation from
U.P. Los Banos in 1993.
Also, DENR Secretary Angel Alcala submitted a Memorandum for the President
dated September 7, 1993 (Subject: PFVR HWI Ref.: 933103 Presidential
Instructions on the Protection of Watersheds of the Canlubang Estates at Barrio
Casile, Cabuyao, Laguna) which reads:
"It is the opinion of this office that the area in question must be
maintained for watershed purposes for ecological and environmental
considerations, among others. Although the 88 families who are the
proposed CARP beneficiaries will be affected, it is important that a larger
view of the situation be taken as one should also consider the adverse
effect on thousands of residents downstream if the watershed will not be
protected and maintained for watershed purposes.
"The foregoing considered, it is recommended that if possible, an
alternate area be allocated for the affected farmers, and that the
Canlubang Estates be mandated to protect and maintain the area in
question as a permanent watershed reserved." 31
The definition does not exactly depict the complexities of a watershed. The most
important product of a watershed is water which is one of the most important human
necessity. The protection of watersheds ensures an adequate supply of water for
future generations and the control of flashfloods that not only damage property but
cause loss of lives. Protection of watersheds is an "intergenerational responsibility"
that needs to be answered now.
Another factor that needs to be mentioned is the fact that during the DARAB
hearing, petitioner presented proof that the Casile property has slopes of 18% and
over, which exempted the land from the coverage of CARL. R. A. No. 6657, Section
10, provides:
"Section 10. Exemptions and Exclusions. Lands actually, directly and
exclusively used and found to be necessary for parks, wildlife, forest
reserves, reforestration, fish sanctuaries and breeding grounds,
watersheds and mangroves, national defense, school sites and
campuses including experimental farm stations operated by public or
private schools for educational purposes, seeds and seedlings research
and pilot production centers, church sites and convents appurtenent
thereto, communal burial grounds and cemeteries, penal colonies and
penal farms actually worked by the inmates, government and private
research and quarantine centers, and all lands with eighteen percent
(18%) slope and over, except those already developed shall be exempt
from coverage of this Act."

Hence, during the hearing at DARAB, there was proof showing that the disputed
parcels of land may be excluded from the compulsory acquisition coverage of CARP
because of its very high slopes.
To resolve the issue as to the true nature of the parcels of land involved in the case
at bar, the Court directs the DARAB to conduct a re-evaluation of the issue.
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the Court SETS ASIDE the decision of the Court of Appeals in
CA-G. R. SP No. 27234.
In lieu thereof, the Court REMANDS the case to the DARAB for re-evaluation and
determination of the nature of the parcels of land involved to resolve the issue of its
coverage by the Comprehensive Land Reform Program.
In the meantime, the effects of the CLOAs issued by the DAR to supposed farmer
beneficiaries shall continue to be stayed by the temporary restraining order issued
on December 15, 1993, which shall remain in effect until final decision on the case.
No costs.
SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. 163663

June 30, 2006

GREATER METROPOLITAN MANILA SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT

COMMITTEE and the METROPOLITAN MANILA DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY, Petitioners,
vs.
JANCOM ENVIRONMENTAL CORPORATION and JANCOM INTERNATIONAL
DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS PTY. LIMITED OF AUSTRALIA, Respondents.
DECISION
CARPIO MORALES, J.:
The present petition for review on certiorari challenges the Decision 1 dated
December 19, 2003 and Resolution2dated May 11, 2004 of the Court of Appeals
(CA)3 in CA-G.R. SP No. 78752 which denied the petition for certiorari filed by
herein petitioners Greater Metropolitan Manila Solid Waste Management Committee
(GMMSWMC) and the Metropolitan Manila Development Authority (MMDA) and
their Motion for Reconsideration, respectively.
In 1994, Presidential Memorandum Order No. 202 was issued by then President
Fidel V. Ramos creating an Executive Committee to oversee and develop waste-toenergy projects for the waste disposal sites in San Mateo, Rizal and Carmona,
Cavite under the Build-Operate-Transfer (BOT) scheme.
Respondent Jancom International Development Projects Pty. Limited of Australia
(Jancom International) was one of the bidders for the San Mateo Waste Disposal
Site. It subsequently entered into a partnership with Asea Brown Boveri under the
firm name JANCOM Environmental Corporation (JANCOM), its co-respondent.
On February 12, 1997, the above-said Executive Committee approved the
recommendation of the Pre-qualification, Bids and Awards Committee to declare
JANCOM as the sole complying bidder for the San Mateo Waste Disposal Site.
On December 19, 1997, a Contract for the BOT Implementation of the Solid Waste
Management Project for the San Mateo, Rizal Waste Disposal Site 4 (the contract)
was entered into by the Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Presidential
Task Force on Solid Waste Management through then Department of Environment
and Natural Resources Secretary Victor Ramos, then Cabinet Office for Regional
Development-National Capital Region Chairman Dionisio dela Serna, and then
MMDA Chairman Prospero Oreta on one hand, and JANCOM represented by its
Chief Executive Officer Jorge Mora Aisa and its Chairman Jay Alparslan, on the
other.
On March 5, 1998, the contract was submitted for approval to President Ramos who
subsequently endorsed it to then incoming President Joseph E. Estrada.
Owing to the clamor of the residents of Rizal, the Estrada administration ordered the
closure of the San Mateo landfill. Petitioner GMMSWMC thereupon adopted a
Resolution not to pursue the contract with JANCOM, citing as reasons therefor the
passage of Republic Act 8749, otherwise known as the Clean Air Act of 1999, the
non-availability of the San Mateo site, and costly tipping fees. 5

The Board of Directors of Jancom International thereafter adopted on January 4,

2000 a Resolution6 authorizing Atty. Manuel Molina to act as legal counsel for
respondents and "determine and file such legal action as deemed necessary before
the Philippine courts in any manner he may deem appropriate" against petitioners.
The Board of Directors of JANCOM also adopted a Resolution 7 on February 7, 2000
granting Atty. Molina similar authorization to file legal action as may be necessary to
protect its interest with respect to the contract.
On March 14, 2000, respondents filed a petition for certiorari 8 with the Regional Trial
Court (RTC) of Pasig City where it was docketed as Special Civil Action No. 1955, to
declare the GMMSWMC Resolution and the acts of the MMDA calling for bids for
and authorizing the forging of a new contract for the Metro Manila waste
management as illegal, unconstitutional and void and to enjoin petitioners from
implementing the Resolution and making another award in lieu thereof.
By Decision9 of May 29, 2000, Branch 68 of the Pasig City RTC found in favor of
respondents.10
Petitioners thereupon assailed the RTC Decision via petition for certiorari 11 with
prayer for a temporary restraining order with the CA, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No.
59021.
12

By Decision of November 13, 2000, the CA denied the petition for lack of merit and
affirmed in toto the May 29, 2000 RTC Decision. Petitioners Motion for
Reconsideration was denied, prompting them to file a petition for review before this
Court, docketed as G.R. No. 147465.
By Decision13 of January 30, 2002 and Resolution14 of April 10, 2002, this Court
affirmed the November 13, 2001 CA Decision and declared the contract valid and
perfected, albeit ineffective and unimplementable pending approval by the
President.
JANCOM and the MMDA later purportedly entered into negotiations to modify
certain provisions of the contract which were embodied in a draft Amended
Agreement15 dated June 2002. The draft Amended Agreement bore no signature of
the parties.
Respondents, through Atty. Molina, subsequently filed before Branch 68 of the Pasig
City RTC an Omnibus Motion16 dated July 29, 2002 praying that: (1) an alias writ of
execution be issued prohibiting and enjoining petitioners and their representatives
from calling for, accepting, evaluating, approving, awarding, negotiating or
implementing all bids, awards and contracts involving other Metro Manila waste
management projects intended to be pursued or which are already being pursued;
(2) the MMDA, through its Chairman Bayani F. Fernando, be directed to immediately
forward and recommend the approval of the Amended Agreement to President
Gloria Macapagal Arroyo; (3) Chairman Fernando be ordered to personally appear
before the court and explain his acts and public pronouncements which are in direct
violation and gross defiance of the final and executory May 29, 2000 RTC Decision;
(4) the Executive Secretary and the Cabinet Secretaries of the departmentsmembers of the National Solid Waste Management Commission be directed "to
submit the contract within 30 days from notice to the President for signature and
approval and if the latter chooses not to sign or approve the contract, the Executive
Secretary be made to show cause therefor;" and (5) petitioners be directed to
comply with and submit their written compliance with their obligations specifically
directed under the provisions of Article 18, paragraphs 18.1, 18.1.1 (a), (b), (c) and
(d) of the contract within 30 days from notice. 17
To the Omnibus Motion petitioners filed their Opposition 18 which merited JANCOMs
Reply19 filed on August 19, 2002.
On August 21, 2002, Atty. Simeon M. Magdamit, on behalf of Jancom International,
filed before the RTC an Entry of Special Appearance and Manifestation with Motion
to Reject the Pending Omnibus Motion20 alleging that: (1) the Omnibus Motion was
never approved by Jancom International; (2) the Omnibus Motion was initiated by
lawyers whose services had already been terminated, hence, were unauthorized to
represent it; and (3) the agreed judicial venue for dispute resolution relative to the
implementation of the contract is the International Court of Arbitration in the United
Kingdom pursuant to Article 16.1 21 of said contract.
In the meantime, on November 3, 2002, the MMDA forwarded the contract to the
Office of the President for appropriate action,22 together with MMDA Resolution No.
02-1823 dated June 26, 2002, "Recommending to her Excellency the President of
the Republic of the Philippines to Disapprove the Contract Entered Into by the
Executive Committee of the Presidential Task Force on Waste Management with
Jancom Environmental Corporation and for Other Purposes."
By Order of November 18, 2002, the RTC noted the above-stated Entry of Special
Appearance of Atty. Magdamit for Jancom International and denied the Motion to
Reject Pending Omnibus Motion for lack of merit. Jancom International filed on
24

December 9, 2002 a Motion for Reconsideration 25 which was denied for lack of merit
by Order26 of January 8, 2003.
Petitioners and respondents then filed their Memoranda 27 on May 23, 2003 and May
26, 2003, respectively.
By Order28 of June 11, 2003, the RTC granted respondents Omnibus Motion in part.
The dispositive portion of the Order reads, quoted verbatim:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, let an Alias Writ of Execution immediately
issue and the Clerk of Court and Ex-Oficio Sheriff or any o[f] her Deputies is
directed to implement the same within sixty (60) days from receipt thereof.
Thus, any and all such bids or contracts entered into by respondent MMDA with
third parties covering the waste disposal and management within the Metro Manila
after August 14, 2000 are hereby declared NULL and VOID. Respondents are
henceforth enjoined and prohibited, with a stern warning, from entering into any
such contract with any third party whether directly or indirectly, in violation of the
contractual rights of petitioner JANCOM under the BOT Contract Award, consistent
with the Supreme Courts Decision of January 30, 2002.
Respondent MMDA is hereby directed to SUBMIT the Amended Agreement
concluded by petitioners with the previous MMDA officials, or in its discretion if it
finds [it] more advantageous to the government, to require petitioners to make
adjustments in the Contract in accordance with existing environmental laws and
other relevant concerns, and thereafter forward the Amended Agreement for
signature and approval by the President of the Philippines. The concerned
respondents are hereby further directed to comply fully and in good faith with its
institutional obligations or undertakings as provided in Article 18 of the BOT
Contract.
Let a copy of this Order be furnished the Office of the Clerk of Court and the
Commission on Audit for its information and guidance.
SO ORDERED.29 (Emphasis in the original)
On June 23, 2003 the RTC issued an Alias Writ of Execution 30 reading:
WHEREAS, on May 29, 2000, a Decision was rendered by this Court in the aboveentitled case, the pertinent portions of which is [sic] hereunder quoted as follows:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Court hereby renders judgment in favor
of petitioners JANCOM ENVIRONMENTAL CORP and JANCOM INTERNATIONAL
DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS PTY., LIMITED OF AUSTRALIAS [sic], and against
respondents GREATER METROPOLITAN MANILA SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
COMM., and HON. ROBERTO N. AVENTAJADO, in his capacity as Chairman of the
said Committee, METRO MANILA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY and HON.
JEJOMAR C. BINAY, in his capacity as Chairman of said Authority, declaring the
Resolution of respondent Greater Metropolitan Manila Solid Waste Management
Committee disregarding petitioners BOT Award Contract and calling for bids for and
authorizing a new contract for the Metro Manila waste management ILLEGAL an[d]
VOID.
Moreover, respondents and their agents are hereby PROHIBITED and ENJOINED
from implementing the aforesaid Resolution and disregarding petitioners BOT
Award Contract and from making another award in its place.
Let it be emphasized that this Court is not preventing or stopping the government
from implementing infrastructure projects as it is aware of the proscription under PD
1818. On the contrary, the Court is paving the way for the necessary and modern
solution to the perennial garbage problem that has been the major headache of the
government and in the process would serve to attract more investors in the country.
SO ORDERED.
WHEREAS, on August 7, 2000, petitioners through counsel filed a "Motion for
Execution" which the Court GRANTED in its Order dated August 14, 2000;
WHEREAS, as a consequence thereof, a Writ of Execution was issued on August
14, 2000 and was duly served upon respondents as per Sheriffs Return dated
August 27, 2000;
WHEREAS, ON July 29, 2002, petitioners through counsel filed an "Omnibus
Motion," praying, among others, for the issuance of an Alias Writ of Execution which
the Court GRANTED in its Order dated June 11, 2003, the dispositive portion of
which reads as follows:

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, let an Alias Writ of Execution immediately

issue and the Clerk of Court and Ex-Oficio Sheriff or any of her Deputies is directed
to implement the same within sixty (60) days from receipt thereof.
Thus, any and all such bids or contracts entered into by respondent MMDA [with]
third parties covering the waste disposal and management within the Metro Manila
after August 14, 2000 are hereby declared NULL and VOID. Respondents are
henceforth enjoined and prohibited, with a stern warning, from entering into any
such contract with any third party whether directly or indirectly, in violation of the
contractual rights of petitioner Jancom under the BOT Contract Award, consistent
with the Supreme Courts Decision of January 30, 2002.
Respondent MMDA is hereby directed to SUBMIT the Amended Agreement
concluded by petitioners with the previous MMDA officials, or in its discretion if it
finds [it] more advantageous to the government, to require petitioners to make
adjustments in the Contract in accordance with existing environmental laws and
other relevant concerns, and thereafter forward the Amended Agreement for
signature and approval by the President of the Philippines. The concerned
respondents are hereby further directed to comply fully and in good faith with its
institutional obligations or undertakings as provided in Article 18 of the BOT
Contract.
Let a copy of this Order be furnished the Office of the Clerk of Court and the
Commission on Audit for its information and guidance.

It cannot x x x be said that respondent judge had been unfair or one-sided in

directing only petitioners to fulfill their own obligations under Article 18 of the
Jancom contract. Compliance with private respondents obligations under the
contract had not yet become due.
xxxx
There is no debate that the trial courts Decision has attained finality. Once a
judgment becomes final and executory, the prevailing party can have it executed as
a matter of right and the granting of execution becomes a mandatory or ministerial
duty of the court. After a judgment has become final and executory, vested rights are
acquired by the winning party. Just as the losing party has the right to file an appeal
within the prescribed period, so also the winning party has the correlative right to
enjoy the finality of the resolution of the case.
It is true that the ministerial duty of the court to order the execution of a final and
executory judgment admits of exceptions as (a) where it becomes imperative in the
higher interest of justice to direct the suspension of its execution; or (b) whenever it
is necessary to accomplish the aims of justice; or (c) when certain facts and
circumstances transpired after the judgment became final which could render the
execution of the judgment unjust. Petitioners have not shown that any of these
exceptions exists to prevent the mandatory execution of the trial
courtsDecision.37 (Italics in the original)
Petitioners Motion for Reconsideration38 having been denied by the CA by
Resolution of May 11, 2004, the present petition for review 39 was filed on July 12,
2004 positing that:

SO ORDERED.
x x x x (Emphasis in the original)
By letter31 of August 15, 2003, Chairman Fernando advised Sheriff Alejandro Q.
Loquinario of the Office of the Clerk of Court and Ex-Oficio Sheriff, Pasig City RTC
that:

THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE LOWER

COURT AND IN DISREGARDING THE FOLLOWING PROPOSITIONS:
I

1. MMDA has not entered into a new contract for solid waste
management in lieu of JANCOMs Contract.

THE SUBJECT CONTRACT IS INEFFECTIVE AND UNIMPLEMENTABLE UNTIL

AND UNLESS IT IS APPROVED BY THE PRESIDENT.

2. JANCOMs Contract has been referred to the Office of the President

for appropriate action.

II

3. Without the Presidents approval, JANCOMs Contract cannot be

implemented.32

THE SUBJECT CONTRACT ONLY COVERS THE DISPOSITION OF 3,000 TONS

OF SOLID WASTE A DAY.
III

Petitioners later challenged the RTC June 11, 2003 Order via petition for
certiorari33 with prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and/or writ
of preliminary injunction before the CA. They subsequently filed an Amended
Petition34 on September 26, 2003.
To the Amended Petition JANCOM filed on October 8, 2003 its Comment 35 after
which petitioners filed their Reply36on November 24, 2003.
By the challenged Decision of December 19, 2003, the CA denied the petition and
affirmed the June 11, 2003 RTC Order in this wise:
The Supreme Court ruled that the Jancom contract has the force of law and the
parties must abide in good faith by their respective contractual commitments. It is
precisely this pronouncement that the alias writ of execution issued by respondent
judge seeks to enforce. x x x

THE ALLEGED AMENDED AGREEMENT IS ONLY A DRAFT OR PROPOSAL

SUBMITTED BY RESPONDENTS.
IV
RESPONDENTS MUST ALSO BE MADE TO COMPLY WITH THEIR
CONTRACTUAL COMMITMENTS.40 (Underscoring supplied)
JANCOM filed on September 20, 2004 its Comment41 on the petition to which
petitioners filed their Reply42 on January 28, 2005.
On May 4, 2005, Jancom International filed its Comment, 43 reiterating its position
that it did not authorize the filing before the RTC by Atty. Molina of the July 29, 2002
Omnibus Motion that impleaded it as party-movant.

xxxx
On July 7, 2005, petitioners filed their Reply44 to Jancom Internationals Comment.
The fact that the Jancom contract has been declared unimplementable without the
Presidents signature, would not excuse petitioners failure to comply with their
undertakings under Article 18 of the contract. x x x
xxxx
Petitioners complain that respondent judge focused only on requiring them to
perform their supposed obligations under Article 18 of the contract when private
respondents are also required thereunder to post a Performance Security
acceptable to the Republic in the amount allowed in the BOT Law. Petitioners
complaint is not justified. x x x
xxxx

Petitioners argue that since the contract remains unsigned by the President, it
cannot yet be executed. Ergo, they conclude, the proceedings which resulted in the
issuance of an alias writ of execution "ran afoul of the [January 30, 2002] decision of
[the Supreme] Court in G.R. No. 147465." 45
Petitioners go on to argue that since the contract covers only 3,000 tons of garbage
per day while Metro Manila generates at least 6,000 tons of solid waste a day,
MMDA may properly bid out the other 3,000 tons of solid waste to other interested
groups or entities.
Petitioners moreover argue that the alleged Amended Agreement concluded
supposedly between JANCOM and former MMDA Chairman Benjamin Abalos is a
mere scrap of paper, a mere draft or proposal submitted by JANCOM to the MMDA,
no agreement on which was reached by the parties; and at all events, express
authority ought to have first been accorded the MMDA to conclude such an

amended agreement with JANCOM, the original contract having been concluded
between the Republic of the Philippines and JANCOM.
Finally, petitioners argue that respondents should also be required to perform their
commitments pursuant to Article 1846 of the contract.
The petition is impressed with merit in light of the following considerations.
Section 1, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court provides:
SECTION 1. Execution upon judgments or final orders. Execution shall issue as a
matter of right, on motion, upon a judgment or order that disposes of the action or
proceeding upon the expiration of the period to appeal therefrom if no appeal has
been duly perfected.
If the appeal has been duly perfected and finally resolved, the execution may
forthwith be applied for in the court of origin, on motion of the judgment obligee,
submitting therewith certified true copies of the judgment or judgments or final order
or orders sought to be enforced and of the entry thereof, with notice to the adverse
party.
The appellate court may, on motion in the same case, when the interest of justice so
requires, direct the court of origin to issue the writ of execution.
Once a judgment becomes final, it is basic that the prevailing party is entitled as a
matter of right to a writ of execution the issuance of which is the trial courts
ministerial duty, compellable by mandamus.47
There are instances, however, when an error may be committed in the course of
execution proceedings prejudicial to the rights of a party. These instances call for
correction by a superior court, as where:
1) the writ of execution varies the judgment;
2) there has been a change in the situation of the parties making
execution inequitable or unjust;
3) execution is sought to be enforced against property exempt from
execution;
4) it appears that the controversy has never been submitted to the
judgment of the court;
5) the terms of the judgment are not clear enough and there remains
room for interpretation thereof; or
6) it appears that the writ of execution has been improvidently issued, or
that it is defective in substance, or is issued against the wrong party,
or that the judgment debt has been paid or otherwise satisfied, or the
writ was issued without authority.48 (Emphasis and Underscoring
supplied)
That a writ of execution must conform to the judgment which is to be executed,
substantially to every essential particular thereof, 49 it is settled. It may not thus vary
the terms of the judgment it seeks to enforce, 50 nor go beyond its terms. Where the
execution is not in harmony with the judgment which gives it life and exceeds it, it
has no validity.51
This Courts January 30, 2002 Decision in G.R. No. 147465 held:
We, therefore, hold that the Court of Appeals did not err when it declared the
existence of a valid and perfected contract between the Republic of the Philippines
and JANCOM. There being a perfected contract, MMDA cannot revoke or renounce
the same without the consent of the other. From the moment of perfection, the
parties are bound not only to the fulfillment of what has been expressly stipulated
but also to all the consequences which, according to their nature, may be in keeping
with good faith, usage, and law (Article 1315, Civil Code). The contract has the force
of law between the parties and they are expected to abide in good faith by their
respective contractual commitments, not weasel out of them. Just as nobody can be
forced to enter into a contract, in the same manner, once a contract is entered into,
no party can renounce it unilaterally or without the consent of the other. It is a
general principle of law that no one may be permitted to change his mind or disavow
and go back upon his own acts, or to proceed contrary thereto, to the prejudice of
the other party. Nonetheless, it has to be repeated thatalthough the contract is a
perfected one, it is still ineffective or unimplementable until and unless it is
approved by the President.52 (Emphasis and Underscoring supplied)

This Courts April 10, 2002 Resolution also in G.R. No. 147465 moreover held:
x x x The only question before the Court is whether or not there is a valid and
perfected contract between the parties. As to the necessity, expediency, and wisdom
of the contract, these are outside the realm of judicial adjudication. These
considerations are primarily and exclusively a matter for the President to decide.
While the Court recognizes that the garbage problem is a matter of grave public
concern, it can only declare that the contract in question is a valid and perfected one
between the parties, but the same is still ineffective or unimplementable until
and unless it is approved by the President, the contract itself providing that
such approval by the President is necessary for its effectivity.53 (Emphasis and
Underscoring supplied)
Article 19 of the contract provides:
Article 19. Effectivity. This Contract shall become effective upon approval by the
President of the Republic of [the] Philippines pursuant to existing Laws subject to
condition precedent in Article 18. This Contract shall remain in full force and effect
for twenty five (25) years subject to renewal for another twenty five (25) years from
the date of Effectivity. Such renewal will be subject to mutual agreement of the
parties and approval by the [P]resident of the Republic of [the] Philippines.
(Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
In issuing the alias writ of execution, the trial court in effect ordered the enforcement
of the contract despite this Courts unequivocal pronouncement that albeit valid and
perfected, the contract shall become effective only upon approval by the President.
Indubitably, the alias writ of execution varied the tenor of this Courts judgment, went
against essential portions and exceeded the terms thereof.
x x x a lower court is without supervisory jurisdiction to interpret or to reverse the
judgment of the higher court x x x. A judge of a lower court cannot enforce different
decrees than those rendered by the superior court. x x x
The inferior court is bound by the decree as the law of the case, and must carry it
into execution according to the mandate. They cannot vary it, or examine it for any
other purpose than execution, or give any other or further relief, or review it upon
any matter decided on appeal for error apparent, or intermeddle with it, further than
to settle so much as has been remanded. x x x54
The execution directed by the trial court being out of harmony with the judgment,
legal implications cannot save it from being found to be fatally defective. 55
Notably, while the trial court ratiocinated that it issued on June 23, 2003 the alias
writ "to set into motion the legal mechanism for Presidential approval and
signature,"56 it failed to take due consideration of the fact that during the pendency
of the Omnibus Motion, the contract had earlier been forwarded for appropriate
action on November 3, 2002 by Chairman Fernando to the Office of the President,
with recommendation for its disapproval, which fact the trial court had been duly
informed of through pleadings and open court manifestations. 57
Additionally, it bears noting that the June 11, 2003 Order of the trial court is likewise
indisputably defective in substance for having directed the submission of the draft
Amended Agreement to the President.
The appellate court, in affirming the June 11, 2003 Order of the trial court,
overlooked the fact that the Amended Agreement was unsigned by the parties and it
instead speculated and rationalized that the submission thereof to the President
would at all events solve the mounting garbage problem in Metro Manila:
We find that the submission of the Amended Agreement to the President will break
the impasse now existing between the parties which has effectively halted the
governments efforts to address Metro Manilas mounting garbage problem. x x x
As long as petitioners refuse to deal with private respondents, the Metro Manila
garbage problem will only continue to worsen. x x x
That the Amended Agreement could have well been negotiated, if not concluded
between private respondents and the former MMDA administration, is not farfetched. Petitioners do not dispute that the President had referred the Jancom
contract to then MMDA Chairman Benjamin Abalos for recommendation. Petitioners
also do not dispute that private respondents negotiated with the MMDA for the
amendment of the contract.
Besides, the Amended Agreement does not veer away from the original Jancom
contract. x x x58 lawphil.net

The Amended Agreement was, as petitioners correctly allege, merely a draft

document containing the proposals of JANCOM, subject to the approval of the
MMDA. As earlier stated, it was not signed by the parties.59

does not amount to a novation, by what authority may Jancom set aside temporarily
a major component of the BOT Contract?
x x x x69

The original contract itself provides in Article 17.6 that it "may not be amended
except by a written [c]ontract signed by the parties."60
It is elementary that, being consensual, a contract is perfected by mere
consent.61 The essence of consent is the conformity of the parties to the terms of the
contract, the acceptance by one of the offer made by the other; 62 it is the
concurrence of the minds of the parties on the object and the cause which shall
constitute the contract.63 Where there is merely an offer by one party without
acceptance by the other, there is no consent and the contract does not come into
existence.64
As distinguished from the original contract in which this Court held in G.R. No.
147465:

Only an absolute or unqualified acceptance of a definite offer manifests the consent

necessary to perfect a contract.70 If at all, the MMDA letter only shows that the
parties had not gone beyond the preparation stage, which is the period from the
start of the negotiations until the moment just before the agreement of the
parties.71 Obviously, other material considerations still remained before the
Amended Agreement could be perfected. At any time prior to the perfection of a
contract, unaccepted offers and proposals remain as such and cannot be
considered as binding commitments.72
Respecting petitioners argument that respondents should be directed to comply
with their commitments under Article 18 of the contract, this Court is not convinced.
Article 18.2.1 of the contract provides:

x x x the signing and execution of the contract by the parties clearly show that, as
between the parties, there was concurrence of offer and acceptance with respect to
the material details of the contract, thereby giving rise to the perfection of the
contract. The execution and signing of the contract is not disputed by the parties x x
x,65
the parties did not, with respect to the Amended Agreement, get past the negotiation
stage. No meeting of minds was established. While there was an initial offer made,
there was no acceptance.
Even JANCOM President Alfonso G. Tuzon conceded, by letter 66 of June 17, 2002
to Chairman Fernando, that the Amended Agreement was a mere proposal:
Apropos to all these, we are seeking an urgent EXECUTIVE SESSION on your best
time and venue. We can thresh up major points to establish a common perspective
based on data and merit.
We are optimistic you shall then consider with confidence the proposed Amended
Contract which incorporates the adjustments we committed to as stated and earlier
submitted to your Office during the incumbency of your predecessor, for evaluation
and appropriate action by NEDA in compliance with the BOT Law and Article 18.1.1
of our contract.67
While respondents aver that an acceptance was made, they have not proffered any
proof. While indeed the MMDA, by a letter68 issued by then MMDA General Manager
Jaime Paz, requested then Secretary of Justice Hernando B. Perez for his legal
opinion on the draft Amended Agreement, nowhere in the letter is there any
statement indicating that the MMDA, or the Republic of the Philippines for that
matter, had approved respondents proposals embodied in the said draft agreement.
The pertinent portions of the letter read:
Attention: HON. HERNANDO B. PEREZ
Secretary
Subject: Request for Opinion Regarding the Compromise Offer of Jancom
Environmental Corporation for the Municipal Solid Waste Management of Metro
Manila
Dear Secretary Perez:
This is to respectfully request for an opinion from your Honorable Office regarding
the Compromise Proposal offered by JANCOM Environmental Corporation
("JANCOM") in relation to its Contract for the BOT Implementation of the Waste
Management Project for the San Mateo, Rizal Waste Disposal Site dated 19
December 1997 (hereinafter referred to as the BOT Contract for brevity) with the
Republic of the Philippines.

18.2.1 The BOT COMPANY hereby undertakes to provide the following within 2
months from execution of this Contract as an effective document:
a) sufficient proof of the actual equity contributions from the proposed
shareholders of the BOT COMPANY in a total amount not less than PHP
500,000,000 in accordance with the BOT Law and the implementing
rules and regulations;1avvphil.net
b) sufficient proof of financial commitment from a lending institution
sufficient to cover total project cost in accordance with the BOT Law and
the implementing rules and regulations;
c) to support its obligation under this Contract, the BOT COMPANY shall
submit a security bond to the CLIENT in accordance with the form and
amount required under the BOT Law. (Underscoring supplied)
As this Court held in G.R. No. 147465:
As clearly stated in Article 18, JANCOM undertook to comply with the stated
conditions within 2 months from execution of the Contract as an effective document.
Since the President of the Philippines has not yet affixed his signature on the
contract, the same has not yet become an effective document. Thus, the two-month
period within which JANCOM should comply with the conditions has not yet started
to run. x x x73 (Underscoring supplied)
A final point. The argument raised against the authority of Atty. Molina to file
respondents Omnibus Motion before the RTC does not lie.
Representation continues until the court dispenses with the services of counsel in
accordance with Section 26, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. 74 No substitution of
counsel of record is allowed unless the following essential requisites concur: (1)
there must be a written request for substitution; (2) it must be filed with the written
consent of the client; (3) it must be with the written consent of the attorney to be
substituted; and (4) in case the consent of the attorney to be substituted cannot be
obtained, there must be at least a proof of notice that the motion for substitution was
served on him in the manner prescribed by the Rules of Court. 75
In the case at bar, there is no showing that there was a valid substitution of counsel
at the time Atty. Molina filed the Omnibus Motion on July 29, 2002 before the RTC,
nor that he had priorly filed a Withdrawal of Appearance. He thus continued to enjoy
the presumption of authority granted to him by respondents.
While clients undoubtedly have the right to terminate their relations with their
counsel and effect a substitution or change at any stage of the proceedings, the
exercise of such right is subject to compliance with the prescribed requirements.
Otherwise, no substitution can be effective and the counsel who last appeared in the
case before the substitution became effective shall still be responsible for the
conduct of the case.76 The rule is intended to ensure the orderly disposition of
cases.77

xxxx
x x x this representation is requesting your Honorable Office to render a legal
opinion on the following:
Does the offer of JANCOM to temporarily set aside the waste-to-energy plant and
implement only the other two major components of the BOT Contract amount to a
novation of the BOT Contract, and therefore necessitating a re-bidding? If the same

In the absence then of compliance with the essential requirements for valid
substitution of the counsel of record, Atty. Molina enjoys the presumption of authority
granted to him by respondents.
In light of the foregoing disquisition, a discussion of the other matters raised by
petitioners has been rendered unnecessary.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated December 19, 2003
and Resolution dated May 11, 2004 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No.
78752 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The June 11, 2003 Order of the Regional
Trial Court of Pasig, Branch 68 in SCA No. 1955 is declared NULL and VOID.

SO ORDERED.