1.

MMDA February 15, 2001, from using and operating open dumps for solid waste and
1. Cleaning a ministerial duty
disallowing, five years after such effectivity, the use of controlled dumps.
Generally, the writ of mandamus lies to require the execution of a ministerial
duty.1[8] A ministerial duty is one that requires neither the exercise of official discretion
as a member of the International Marine Organization and a signatory to the
nor judgment.2[9] It connotes an act in which nothing is left to the discretion of the
person executing it. It is a simple, definite duty arising under conditions admitted or International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, as amended by
proved to exist and imposed by law.3[10] Mandamus is available to compel action, MARPOL 73/78,5[28] the Philippines, through the PPA, must ensure the provision of
when refused, on matters involving discretion, but not to direct the exercise of
judgment or discretion one way or the other. adequate reception facilities at ports and terminals for the reception of sewage from
the ships docking in Philippine ports. Thus, the PPA is tasked to adopt such measures
2. PEDE ICOMPEL MANDAMUS
as are necessary to prevent the discharge and dumping of solid and liquid wastes and

First off, we wish to state that petitioners obligation to perform their duties as defined other ship-generated wastes into the Manila Bay waters from vessels docked at ports

by law, on one hand, and how they are to carry out such duties, on the other, are two and apprehend the violators. When the vessels are not docked at ports but within

different concepts. While the implementation of the MMDAs mandated tasks may Philippine territorial waters, it is the PCG and PNP Maritime Group that have

entail a decision-making process, the enforcement of the law or the very act of doing jurisdiction over said vessels.

what the law exacts to be done is ministerial in nature and may be compelled by
mandamus. 4. CONTINUING MANDAMUS HERE

3. ITO ICOCOMPLY The cleanup and/or restoration of the Manila Bay is only an aspect and the initial
stage of the long-term solution. The preservation of the water quality of the bay after

The MMDA is duty-bound to comply with Sec. 41 of the Ecological Solid Waste the rehabilitation process is as important as the cleaning phase. It is imperative then

Management Act (RA 9003) which prescribes the minimum criteria for the that the wastes and contaminants found in the rivers, inland bays, and other bodies of

establishment of sanitary landfills and Sec. 42 which provides the minimum operating water be stopped from reaching the Manila Bay. Otherwise, any cleanup effort would

requirements that each site operator shall maintain in the operation of a sanitary just be a futile, cosmetic exercise, for, in no time at all, the Manila Bay water quality
4
landfill. Complementing Sec. 41 are Secs. 36 and 37 of RA 9003, [12] enjoining the would again deteriorate below the ideal minimum standards set by PD 1152, RA 9275,

MMDA and local government units, among others, after the effectivity of the law on and other relevant laws. It thus behooves the Court to put the heads of the petitioner-
department-agencies and the bureaus and offices under them on continuing notice
about, and to enjoin them to perform, their mandates and duties towards cleaning up
1 the Manila Bay and preserving the quality of its water to the ideal level. Under what
other judicial discipline describes as continuing mandamus, 6[36] the Court may, under

2 extraordinary circumstances, issue directives with the end in view of ensuring that its
decision would not be set to naught by administrative inaction or indifference. In India,

3 5

4 6
the doctrine of continuing mandamus was used to enforce directives of the court to
7 submitted by the respondent detailing compliance with the
clean up the length of the Ganges River from industrial and municipal pollution.
5. ANONG GAGAWIN PANG CONTINUING
with the principle of continuing mandamus, shall, from finality of this Decision, each
submit to the Court a quarterly progressive report of the activities undertaken in
2.
accordance with this Decision.
Sec. 8. Return of the writ.The periodic reports
judgment shall be contained in partial returns of the writ. Upon full
satisfaction of the judgment, a final return of the writ shall be
made to the court by the respondent. If the court finds that the
judgment has been fully implemented, the satisfaction of
judgment shall be entered in the court docket. (Emphasis
supplied.)
BORACAY
1. NOT YET MOOT AND ACADEMIC

2. MMDA THE 2ND
1. ENROACHMENT DAW NG POWER UNG PAGSUSUBMIT NG REPORT
nO. It is clear that the final judgment includes not only what appears upon its face to
have been so adjudged but also those matters actually and necessarily included
therein or necessary thereto. Certainly, any activity that is needed to fully implement a
final judgment is necessarily encompassed by said judgment.
The Sangguniang Bayan of Malay obviously imposed explicit conditions for
respondent Province to comply with on pain of revocation of its endorsement of the
project, including the need to conduct a comprehensive study on the environmental
impact of the reclamation project, which is the heart of the petition before us.
Therefore, the contents of the two resolutions submitted by respondent Province do
not support its conclusion that the subsequent favorable endorsement of the LGUs
had already addressed all the issues raised and rendered the instant petition moot
and academic.

2. EXHAUSTION OF ADMIN REMEDIES

Moreover, the submission of periodic reports is sanctioned by Secs. 7 and
8, Rule 8 of the Rules of Procedure for Environmental cases:
Sec. 7. Judgment.If warranted, the court shall grant the
privilege of the writ of continuing mandamus requiring respondent
to perform an act or series of acts until the judgment is fully
satisfied and to grant such other reliefs as may be warranted
resulting from the wrongful or illegal acts of the respondent. The
court shall require the respondent to submit periodic reports
detailing the progress and execution of the judgment, and
the court may, by itself or through a commissioner or the
appropriate government agency, evaluate and monitor
compliance. The petitioner may submit its comments or
observations on the execution of the judgment.
As petitioner correctly pointed out, the appeal provided for under Section 6 of DENR
DAO 2003-30 is only applicable, based on the first sentence thereof, if the person or
entity charged with the duty to exhaust the administrative remedy of appeal to the
appropriate government agency has been a party or has been made a party in the
proceedings wherein the decision to be appealed was rendered. It has been
established by the facts that petitioner was never made a party to the
proceedings before respondent DENR-EMB RVI. Petitioner was only informed that
the project had already been approved after the ECC was already granted. 8[138] Not
being a party to the said proceedings, it does not appear that petitioner was officially
furnished a copy of the decision, from which the 15-day period to appeal should be
reckoned, and which would warrant the application of Section 6, Article II of DENR
DAO 2003-30.

7 8
 3. PATI NEW REMEDY ITO The writ of continuing mandamus permits the court to retain jurisdiction after
judgment in order to ensure the successful implementation of the reliefs mandated
under the courts decision and, in order to do this, the court may compel the
submission of compliance reports from the respondent government agencies as well
The new Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases, A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC, as avail of other means to monitor compliance with its decision. 12
provides a relief for petitioner under the writ of continuing mandamus, which is a
special civil action that may be availed of to compel the performance of an act 4. ANOTHER PROCEDURAL ISSUE
9
specifically enjoined by law [140] and which provides for the issuance of a TEPO as
an auxiliary remedy prior to the issuance of the writ itself. 10[141] The Rationale of the
said Rules explains the writ in this wise:

Environmental law highlights the shift in the focal-point
from the initiation of regulation by Congress to the implementation
of regulatory programs by the appropriate government agencies.
Petitioner had three options where to file this case under the rule: the
Regional Trial Court exercising jurisdiction over the territory where the actionable
neglect or omission occurred, the Court of Appeals, or this Court.

Thus, a government agencys inaction, if any, has

serious implications on the future of environmental law
enforcement. Private individuals, to the extent that they seek
to change the scope of the regulatory process, will have to Petitioner had no other plain, speedy, or adequate remedy in the ordinary
rely on such agencies to take the initial incentives, which
course of law to determine the questions of unique national and local importance
may require a judicial component. Accordingly, questions
regarding the propriety of an agencys action or inaction will raised here that pertain to laws and rules for environmental protection, thus it was
need to be analyzed.
justified in coming to this Court.
This point is emphasized in the availability of the
remedy of the writ of mandamus, which allows for the
5. Substantive if makaapekto nga
enforcement of the conduct of the tasks to which the writ pertains:
the performance of a legal duty.11[142] (Emphases added.)
The Court chooses to remand these matters to respondent DENR-EMB RVI for it to
make a proper study, and if it should find necessary, to require respondent Province to
address these environmental issues raised by petitioner and submit the correct EIA
report as required by the projects specifications. The Court requires respondent
9
DENR-EMB RVI to complete its study and submit a report within a non-extendible
period of three months. Respondent DENR-EMB RVI should establish to the Court in
10 said report why the ECC it issued for the subject project should not be canceled.

11 12
 6. Walang notice
herefore, prior consultations and prior approval are required by law to have
been conducted and secured by the respondent Province. Accordingly, the
2.
information dissemination conducted months after the ECC had already been issued
was insufficient to comply with this requirement under the Local Government Code.
Had they been conducted properly, the prior public consultation should have
considered the ecological or environmental concerns of the stakeholders and studied
measures alternative to the project, to avoid or minimize adverse environmental
impact or damage. In fact, respondent Province once tried to obtain the favorable
endorsement of the Sangguniang Bayan of Malay, but this was denied by the latter.
7. Ito ung order s TEPO HUHU
3. Respondent Philippine Reclamation Authority shall closely monitor
onverted into a writ of continuing mandamus specifically as follows:
4.
1. Respondent Department of Environment and Natural Resources-
Environmental Management Bureau Regional Office VI shall
revisit and review the following matters:
c. the impact of the reclamation project to the environment
based on new, updated, and comprehensive studies, which
should forthwith be ordered by respondent DENR-EMB RVI.
Respondent Province of Aklan shall perform the following:
a. fully cooperate with respondent DENR-EMB RVI in its review
of the reclamation project proposal and submit to the latter
the appropriate report and study; and
b. secure approvals from local government units and hold
proper consultations with non-governmental organizations
and other stakeholders and sectors concerned as required
by Section 27 in relation to Section 26 of the Local
Government Code.
the submission by respondent Province of the requirements to be
issued by respondent DENR-EMB RVI in connection to the
environmental concerns raised by petitioner, and shall coordinate
with respondent Province in modifying the MOA, if necessary,
based on the findings of respondent DENR-EMB RVI.
The petitioner Boracay Foundation, Inc. and the respondents The
Province of Aklan, represented by Governor Carlito S. Marquez,
The Philippine Reclamation Authority, and The DENR-EMB
(Region VI) are mandated to submit their respective reports to
this Court regarding their compliance with the requirements set
forth in this Decision no later than three (3) months from the date
of promulgation of this Decision.

a. its classification of the reclamation project as a single

instead of a co-located project;
b. its approval of respondent Provinces classification of the
project as a mere expansion of the existing jetty port in
Caticlan, instead of classifying it as a new project; and
5. In the meantime, the respondents, their concerned contractor/s,
and/or their agents, representatives or persons acting in their
place or stead, shall immediately cease and desist from
continuing the implementation of the project covered by ECC-R6-
1003-096-7100 until further orders from this Court. For this
 purpose, the respondents shall report within five (5) days to this
Court the status of the project as of their receipt of this Decision,
copy furnished the petitioner.
5. Dolot
MALI VENUE NG CONTINUING MANDAMUS
Pero hindi cause for dismissal
The RTC need not be reminded that venue relates only to the place of trial or the
geographical location in which an action or proceeding should be brought and does
not equate to the jurisdiction of the court. It is intended to accord convenience to the
parties, as it relates to the place of trial, and does not restrict their access to the
courts.22 Consequently, the RTCs motu proprio dismissal of Civil Case No. 2011-8338
on the ground of lack of jurisdiction is patently incorrect.
the error committed by the petitioners in filing the case with the RTC of Sorsogon was
that of improper venue. A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC or the Rules of Procedure for
Environmental Cases (Rules) specifically states that a special civil action for
continuing mandamus shall be filed with the "[RTC] exercising jurisdiction over the
territory where the actionable neglect or omission occurred x x x." 23 In this case, it
appears that the alleged actionable neglect or omission occurred in the Municipality of
Matnog and as such, the petition should have been filed in the RTC of Irosin. 24 But
even then, it does not warrant the outright dismissal of the petition by the RTC as
venue may be waived.25 Moreover, the action filed by the petitioners is not criminal in
nature where venue is an essential element of jurisdiction. 26 In Gomez-Castillo v.
Commission on Elections,27 the Court even expressed that what the RTC should have
done under the circumstances was to transfer the case (an election protest) to the
proper branch. Similarly, it would serve the higher interest of justice 28 if the Court
orders the transfer of Civil Case No. 2011 8338 to the RTC of Irosin for proper and
speedy resolution, with the RTC applying the Rules in its disposition of the case.
FORM AND SUBSTANCE NG MANDAMUS
When any agency or instrumentality of the government or officer thereof unlawfully
neglects the performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty
resulting from an office, trust or station in connection with the enforcement or violation
of an environmental law rule or regulation or a right therein, or unlawfully excludes
another from the use or enjoyment of such right and there is no other plain, speedy
and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, the person aggrieved thereby may
file a verified petition in the proper court, alleging the facts with certainty, attaching
thereto supporting evidence, specifying that the petition concerns an environmental
law, rule or regulation, and praying that judgment be rendered commanding the
respondent to do an act or series of acts until the judgment is fully satisfied, and to
pay damages sustained by the petitioner by reason of the malicious neglect to perform
the duties of the respondent, under the law, rules or regulations. The petition shall also
contain a sworn certification of non-forum shopping.1wphi1
On matters of form, the petition must be verified and must contain supporting
evidence as well as a sworn certification of non-forum shopping. It is also necessary
that the petitioner must be one who is aggrieved by an act or omission of the
government agency, instrumentality or its officer concerned. Sufficiency of substance,
on the other hand, necessitates that the petition must contain substantive allegations
specifically constituting an actionable neglect or omission and must establish, at the
very least, a prima facie basis for the issuance of the writ, viz: (1) an agency or
instrumentality of government or its officer unlawfully neglects the performance of an
act or unlawfully excludes another from the use or enjoyment of a right; (2) the act to
be performed by the government agency, instrumentality or its officer is specifically
enjoined by law as a duty; (3) such duty results from an office, trust or station in
connection with the enforcement or violation of an environmental law, rule or
regulation or a right therein; and (4) there is no other plain, speedy and adequate
remedy in the course of law.
KAHIT MAY JUDGMENT NA AY CONTINUING PA DIN JURISDICTION
Under the Rules, after the court has rendered a judgment in conformity with Rule 8,
Section 7 and such judgment has become final, the issuing court still retains
jurisdiction over the case to ensure that the government agency concerned is
performing its tasks as mandated by law and to monitor the effective performance of
said tasks. It is only upon full satisfaction of the final judgment, order or decision that a
final return of the writ shall be made to the court and if the court finds that the
judgment has been fully implemented, the satisfaction of judgment shall be entered in
the court docket.34 A writ of continuing mandamus is, in essence, a command of
continuing compliance with a final judgment as it "permits the court to retain
jurisdiction after judgment in order to ensure the successful implementation of the
reliefs mandated under the courts decision."
HINDI S PANEL
The Court, likewise, cannot sustain the argument that the petitioners should have first
filed a case with the Panel of Arbitrators (Panel), which has jurisdiction over mining
disputes under R.A. No. 7942.
owners and residents of West Tower and are real parties-in-interest to the instant
case, i.e., if they so wish to join the petitioners.
UNG MGA NGO
This is so considering that the filing of a petition for the issuance of a writ of kalikasan
under Sec. 1, Rule 745 of the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases does not
require that a petitioner be directly affected by an environmental disaster. The rule
clearly allows juridical persons to file the petition on behalf of persons whose
constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology is violated, or threatened with
violation.

Indeed, as pointed out by the respondents, the Panel has jurisdiction over mining
disputes.36 But the petition filed below does not involve a mining dispute. What was
being protested are the alleged negative environmental impact of the small-scale
mining operation being conducted by Antones Enterprises, Global Summit Mines
Development Corporation and TR Ore in the Municipality of Matnog; the authority of
the Governor of Sorsogon to issue mining permits in favor of these entities; and the
perceived indifference of the DENR and local government officials over the issue.
Resolution of these matters does not entail the technical knowledge and expertise of
the members of the Panel but requires an exercise of judicial function. Thus, in
Olympic Mines and Development Corp. v. Platinum Group Metals Corporation,
Thus, as parties to the case, they are entitled to be furnished copies of all the
submissions to the Court, including the periodic reports of FPIC and the results of the
evaluations and tests conducted on the WOPL.
PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE
The following reasons easily debunk these arguments:
1. The precautionary principle is not applicable to the instant case;
2. The DOE certification is not an absolute attestation as to the WOPLs
structural integrity and in fact imposes several conditions for FPICs
compliance;

6. West Tower
3. The DOE itself, in consultation with FPIC and the other concerned agencies,
proposed the activities to be conducted preparatory to the reopening of the
LEGAL STANDING
pipeline; and
It is of no moment that only five residents of West Tower signed their acquiescence to
the filing of the petition for the issuance of the Writ of Kalikasan, as the merits of such 4. There are no conclusive findings yet on the WOPLs structural integrity.
petition is, as aptly put by the CA, not measured by the number of persons who
signified their assent thereto, but on the existence of a prima facie case of a massive
Section 1, Rule 20 of A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC or the Rules of Procedure for Environmental
environmental disaster.
Cases, on the Precautionary Principle, provides that [w]hen there is lack of full
scientific certainty in establishing a causal link between human activity and
Moreover, the fact that no board resolution was submitted by West Tower Corp.
environmental effect, the court shall apply the precautionary principle in resolving the
authorizing Manuel DyChuaunsu, Jr. to sign the Verification and Certification of Non-
case before it.
forum Shopping is irrelevant. The records show that petitioners submitted a notarized
Secretarys Certificate44 attesting that the authority of Chuaunsu to represent the
According to the dissent, the directive for the repetition of the tests is based on
condominium corporation in filing the petition is from the resolution of the total
speculations, justified by the application of said principle. This, however, is not the
membership of West Tower Corp. issued during their November 9, 2010 meeting with
case. Nowhere did We apply the precautionary principle in deciding the issue on the
the requisite quorum. It is, thus, clear that it was not the Board of West Tower Corp.
WOPLs structural integrity.
which granted Chuaunsu the authority but the full membership of the condominium
corporation itself.
The precautionary principle only applies when the link between the cause, that is the
human activity sought to be inhibited, and the effect, that is the damage to the
As to the residents of Barangay Bangkal, they are similarly situated with the unit
environment, cannot be established with full scientific certainty. Here, however, such
absence of a link is not an issue. Detecting the existence of a leak or the presence of
defects in the WOPL, which is the issue in the case at bar, is different from
determining whether the spillage of hazardous materials into the surroundings will
cause environmental damage or will harm human health or that of other organisms. As
a matter of fact, the petroleum leak and the harm that it caused to the environment
and to the residents of the affected areas is not even questioned by FPIC.
It must be stressed that what is in issue in the instant petition is the WOPLs
compliance with pipeline structure standards so as to make it fit for its purpose,
a question of fact that is to be determined on the basis of the evidence
presented by the parties on the WOPLs actual state. Hence, Our consideration of
the numerous findings and recommendations of the CA, the DOE, and the amici
curiae on the WOPLs present structure, and not the cited pipeline incidents as the
dissent propounds.
Consider also the fact that it is the DOE itself that imposed several conditions upon
FPIC for the resumption of the operations of the WOPL. This, coupled with the
submission by the DOE of its proposed activities and timetable, is a clear and
unequivocal message coming from the DOE that the WOPLs soundness for
resumption of and continued commercial operations is not yet fully determined. And it
is only after an extensive determination by the DOE of the pipelines actual
physical state through its proposed activities, and not merely through a short-
form integrity audit,56 that the factual issue on the WOPLs viability can be
settled. The issue, therefore, on the pipelines structural integrity has not yet been
rendered moot and remains to be subject to this Courts resolution. Consequently, We
cannot say that the DOEs issuance of the certification adverted to equates to the writ
of kalikasan being functus officio at this point.
DI PEDE ANG SPECIAL TRUST FUND UNDER NG WRIT
Anent petitioners prayer for the creation of a special trust fund, We note that under
Sec. 1, Rule 5 of the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases, a trust fund is
limited solely for the purpose of rehabilitating or restoring the environment. Said
proviso pertinently provides:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
SEC. 1. Reliefs in a citizen suit. If warranted, the court may grant to the plaintiff
proper reliefs which shall include the protection, preservation or rehabilitation of the
environment and the payment of attorneys fees, costs of suit and other litigation
expenses. It may also require the violator to submit a program of rehabilitation or
restoration of the environment, the costs of which shall be borne by the violator, or
to contribute to a special trust fund for that purpose subject to the control of the
court. (emphasis supplied)
Furthermore, Sec. 15(e), Rule 7 of the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases
expressly prohibits the grant of damages to petitioners in a petition for the issuance of
a writ of kalikasan, viz:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Section 15. Judgment. - Within sixty (60) days from the time the petition is submitted
for decision, the court shall render judgment granting or denying the privilege of the
writ of kalikasan.
The reliefs that may be granted under the writ are the
following:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
xxxx
(e) Such other reliefs which relate to the right of the people to a balanced and
healthful ecology or to the protection, preservation, rehabilitation or restoration of the
environment, except the award of damages to individual
petitioners.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
A reading of the petition and the motion for partial reconsideration readily reveals that
the prayer is for the creation of a trust fund for similar future contingencies.This is
clearly outside the limited purpose of a special trust fund under the Rules of
Procedure for Environmental Cases, which is to rehabilitate or restore the environment
that has presumably already suffered. Hence,the Court affirms with concurrence the
observation of the appellate court that the prayer is but a claim for damages, which is
prohibited by the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases. As such, the Court is
of the considered view that the creation of a special trust fund is misplaced.
BAWAL MG RULE GN CIVIL OR CRIMINAL LIABILITY S KALIKASAN
The Court will refrain from ruling on the finding of the CA that the individual directors
and officers of FPIC and FGC are not liable due to the explicit rule in the Rules of
Procedure for Environmental cases that in a petition for a writ of kalikasan,the Court
cannot grant the award of damages to individual petitioners under Rule 7, Sec. 15(e)
of the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases. As duly noted by the CA, the civil
case and criminal complaint filed by petitioners against respondents are the proper
proceedings to ventilate and determine the individual liability of respondents, if any, on
their exercise of corporate powers and the management of FPIC relative to the dire
environmental impact of the dumping of petroleum products stemming from the leak in
the WOPL in Barangay Bangkal, Makati City.
Ito ung issue s mandamus, paconnect n lungs s precautionary principle
petitioners persistent plea is for the conversion of the November 19, 2010 TEPO into
a Permanent Environmental Protection Order (PEPO) pursuant to Sec. 3,46 Rule 5 of
the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases. For its part, respondent FPIC
asserts that regular testing, as well as the measures that are already in place, will
sufficiently address any concern of oil leaks from the WOPL.
The Department of Energy (DOE) is hereby ORDERED to oversee the strict
implementation of the following activities:
A. Preparatory to the Test Run of the entire stretch of the WOPL:
1) FPIC shall perform the following:
 a. Continue submission of monitoring charts,
data/reading, accomplishment reports, and
project status for all related activities/works.
Respond to comments and prepare for site
inspection.
b. Continue gas testing along the right-of-way
using the monitoring wells or boreholes.
Prepare for inspection of right-of-way and
observation of gas testing activities on
monitoring wells and boreholes.
c. Explain the process of the selection of
borehole location and identify those located
in pipeline bends, bodies of water, highways,
residential areas, repaired portions of the
pipelines, dents and welded joints, as well
other notable factors, circumstances, or
exposure to stresses. d. Set up additional
boreholes and monitoring wells sufficient to
cover the entire stretch of the WOPL, the
number and location of which shall be
determined by the DOE.
e. Continue submitting status report to the
concerned government agency/ies relating to
"Project Mojica," or the on-going pipeline
segment realignment activity being
undertaken by FPIC to give way to a flood
control project of the MMDA in the vicinity of
Mojica St. and Pres. Osmea Highway, and
prepare for site inspection.
2) The DOE shall perform the following undertakings:
a. Conduct onsite inspection of the pipeline
right-of-way, the area around the WOPL and
the equipment installed underground or
aboveground.
b. Review and check the condition of the 22
patches reinforced with Clockspring sleeves
by performing the following:
i. Determine the location of the
sleeves
ii. Review the procedure for the
repair of the sleeves
iii. Inspect the areas where the
affected portions of the WOPL are
located and which are easily
accessible.
c. Inspect onsite the cathodic protection
rectifier to check the following:
i. old and current readings
ii. the segment/s covered by the
cathodic protection system
iii. review the criteria for
prioritization of corrective action.
d. Observe and witness the running/operation
of the intelligent and cleaning pigs.
e. Check and calibrate the instruments that
will be used for the actual tests on the
pipeline, and validate the calibration
certificates of these instruments.
B. During the Actual Test Run:
1) FPIC shall perform the following:
a. Perform Cleaning Pig run and witness the
launching and receiving of the intelligent and
cleaning pigs.
b. Demonstrate and observe the various
pressure and leakage tests, including the
following:
i. "Blocked-in pressure test" or the
pressure test conducted while all
the WOPL's openings are blocked
or closed off; and
 ii. "In-operation test" or the hourly
monitoring of pressure rating after
the pipeline is filled with dyed water
and pressurized at a specified rate.
c. Continue, inspect, and oversee the current
gas monitoring system, or the monitoring of
gas flow from the boreholes and monitoring
wells of the WOPL.
d. Check the mass or volume balance
computation during WOPL test run by
conducting:
i. 30 days baseline data generation
ii. Computational analysis and
monitoring of the data generated.
II. After FPIC has undertaken the activities prescribed in the preceding paragraph 1,
the DOE shall determine if the activities and the results of the test run warrant the re-
opening of the WOPL. In the event that the DOE is satisfied that the WOPL is safe for
continued commercial operations, it shall issue an order allowing FPIC to resume the
operations of the pipeline.
III. Once the WOPL is re-opened, the DOE shall see to it that FPIC strictly complies
with the following directives:
a. Continue implementation of its Pipeline Integrity Management
System (PIMS), as reviewed by the DOE, which shall include, but
shall not be limited to:
1. the conduct of daily patrols on the entire stretch of
the WOPL, every two hours;
2. continued close monitoring of all the boreholes and
monitoring wells of the WOPL pipeline;
3. regular periodic testing and maintenance based on
its PIMS; and
4. the auditing of the pipeline's mass input versus mass
output;
b. submit to the DOE, within ten (10) days of each succeeding
month, monthly reports on its compliance with the above
directives and any other conditions that the DOE may impose, the
results of the monitoring, tests, and audit, as well as any and all
activities undertaken on the WOPL or in connection with its
operation. The concerned government agencies, namely: the
Industrial Technology Development Institute (ITDI) and the Metals
Industry Research and Development Center (MIRDC), both under
the Department of Science and Technology (DOST), the
Environmental Management Bureau (EMB) of the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), the Bureau of
Design (BOD) of the Department of Public Works and Highways
(DPWH), the University of the Philippines - National Institute of
Geological Science (UP-NI GS) and University of the Philippines -
Institute of Civil Engineering (UP-ICE), the petitioners, intervenors
and this Court shall likewise be furnished by FPIC with the
monthly reports. This shall include, but shall not be limited to:
realignment, repairs, and maintenance works; and
c. continue coordination with the concerned government agencies
for the implementation of its projects.1wphi1
IV. Respondent FPIC is also DIRECTED to undertake and continue the remediation,
rehabilitation and restoration of the affected Barangay Bangkal environment until full
restoration of the affected area to its condition prior to the leakage is achieved. For
this purpose, respondent FPIC must strictly comply with the measures, directives and
permits issued by the DENR for its remediation activities in Barangay Bangkal,
including but not limited to, the Wastewater Discharge Permit and Permit to Operate.
The DENR has the authority to oversee and supervise the aforesaid activities on said
affected barangay.
V. The Inter-Agency Committee on Environmental Health under the City Government
of Makati shall SUBMIT to the DENR its evaluation of the Remediation Plan prepared
by CH2M Hill Philippines, Inc. within thirty (30) days from receipt hereof.
VI. Petitioners' prayer for the creation of a special trust fund to answer for similar
contingencies in the future is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.