THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 110120 March 16, 1994

LAGUNA LAKE DEVELOPMENT

AUTHORITY, petitioner,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS, HON. MANUEL JN.
SERAPIO, Presiding Judge RTC, Branch 127,
Caloocan City, HON. MACARIO A. ASISTIO, JR.,
City Mayor of Caloocan and/or THE CITY
GOVERNMENT OF CALOOCAN, respondents.

Alberto N. Hidalgo and Ma. Teresa T. Oledan for

petitioner.

The City Legal Officer & Chief, Law Department for

Mayor Macario A. Asistio, Jr. and the City Government of
Caloocan.

ROMERO, J.:

The clash between the responsibility of the City

Government of Caloocan to dispose off the 350 tons of
garbage it collects daily and the growing concern and
sensitivity to a pollution-free environment of the residents
of Barangay Camarin, Tala Estate, Caloocan City where
these tons of garbage are dumped everyday is the hub of
this controversy elevated by the protagonists to the Laguna
Lake Development Authority (LLDA) for adjudication.

The instant case stemmed from an earlier petition filed

with this Court by Laguna Lake Development Authority
(LLDA for short) docketed as G.R.
No. 107542 against the City Government of Caloocan, et
al. In the Resolution of November 10, 1992, this Court
referred G.R. No. 107542 to the Court of Appeals for
appropriate disposition. Docketed therein as CA-G.R. SP
No. 29449, the Court of Appeals, in a
decision1 promulgated on January 29, 1993 ruled that the
LLDA has no power and authority to issue a cease and
desist order enjoining the dumping of garbage in Barangay
Camarin, Tala Estate, Caloocan City. The LLDA now
seeks, in this petition, a review of the decision of the Court
of Appeals.

The facts, as disclosed in the records, are undisputed.

On March 8, 1991, the Task Force Camarin Dumpsite of

Our Lady of Lourdes Parish, Barangay Camarin, Caloocan
City, filed a letter-complaint2 with the Laguna Lake
Development Authority seeking to stop the operation of
the 8.6-hectare open garbage dumpsite in Tala Estate,
Barangay Camarin, Caloocan City due to its harmful
effects on the health of the residents and the possibility of
pollution of the water content of the surrounding area.

On November 15, 1991, the LLDA conducted an on-site

investigation, monitoring and test sampling of the
leachate3 that seeps from said dumpsite to the nearby creek
which is a tributary of the Marilao River. The LLDA Legal
and Technical personnel found that the City Government
of Caloocan was maintaining an open dumpsite at the
Camarin area without first securing an Environmental
Compliance Certificate (ECC) from the Environmental
Management Bureau (EMB) of the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources, as required under
Presidential Decree No. 1586,4 and clearance from LLDA
as required under Republic Act No. 4850,5 as amended by
Presidential Decree No. 813 and Executive Order No. 927,
series of 1983.6

After a public hearing conducted on December 4, 1991,

the LLDA, acting on the complaint of Task Force Camarin
Dumpsite, found that the water collected from the leachate
and the receiving streams could considerably affect the
quality, in turn, of the receiving waters since it indicates
the presence of bacteria, other than coliform, which may
have contaminated the sample during collection or
handling.7 On December 5, 1991, the LLDA issued a
Cease and Desist Order8 ordering the City Government of
Caloocan, Metropolitan Manila Authority, their
contractors, and other entities, to completely halt, stop and
desist from dumping any form or kind of garbage and
other waste matter at the Camarin dumpsite.

The dumping operation was forthwith stopped by the City

Government of Caloocan. However, sometime in August
1992 the dumping operation was resumed after a meeting
held in July 1992 among the City Government of
Caloocan, the representatives of Task Force Camarin
Dumpsite and LLDA at the Office of Environmental
Management Bureau Director Rodrigo U. Fuentes failed to
settle the problem.

After an investigation by its team of legal and technical

personnel on August 14, 1992, the LLDA issued another
order reiterating the December 5, 1991, order and issued
an Alias Cease and Desist Order enjoining the City
Government of Caloocan from continuing its dumping
operations at the Camarin area.

On September 25, 1992, the LLDA, with the assistance of

the Philippine National Police, enforced its Alias Cease
and Desist Order by prohibiting the entry of all garbage
dump trucks into the Tala Estate, Camarin area being
utilized as a dumpsite.

Pending resolution of its motion for reconsideration earlier

filed on September 17, 1992 with the LLDA, the City
Government of Caloocan filed with the Regional Trial
Court of Caloocan City an action for the declaration of
nullity of the cease and desist order with prayer for the
issuance of writ of injunction, docketed as Civil Case No.
C-15598. In its complaint, the City Government of
Caloocan sought to be declared as the sole authority
empowered to promote the health and safety and enhance
the right of the people in Caloocan City to a balanced
ecology within its territorial jurisdiction.9

On September 25, 1992, the Executive Judge of the

Regional Trial Court of Caloocan City issued a temporary
restraining order enjoining the LLDA from enforcing its
cease and desist order. Subsequently, the case was raffled
to the Regional Trial Court, Branch 126 of Caloocan
which, at the time, was presided over by Judge Manuel Jn.
Serapio of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 127, the
pairing judge of the recently-retired presiding judge.
The LLDA, for its part, filed on October 2, 1992 a motion
to dismiss on the ground, among others, that under
Republic Act No. 3931, as amended by Presidential
Decree No. 984, otherwise known as the Pollution Control
Law, the cease and desist order issued by it which is the
subject matter of the complaint is reviewable both upon
the law and the facts of the case by the Court of Appeals
and not by the Regional Trial Court. 10

On October 12, 1992 Judge Manuel Jn. Serapio issued an

order consolidating Civil Case No. C-15598 with Civil
Case No. C-15580, an earlier case filed by the Task Force
Camarin Dumpsite entitled "Fr. John Moran, et al. vs.
Hon. Macario Asistio." The LLDA, however, maintained
during the trial that the foregoing cases, being independent
of each other, should have been treated separately.

On October 16, 1992, Judge Manuel Jn. Serapio, after

hearing the motion to dismiss, issued in the consolidated
cases an order11 denying LLDA's motion to dismiss and
granting the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction
enjoining the LLDA, its agent and all persons acting for
and on its behalf, from enforcing or implementing its cease
and desist order which prevents plaintiff City of Caloocan
from dumping garbage at the Camarin dumpsite during the
pendency of this case and/or until further orders of the
court.

On November 5, 1992, the LLDA filed a petition

for certiorari, prohibition and injunction with prayer for
restraining order with the Supreme Court, docketed as
G.R. No. 107542, seeking to nullify the aforesaid order
dated October 16, 1992 issued by the Regional Trial Court,
Branch 127 of Caloocan City denying its motion to
dismiss.

The Court, acting on the petition, issued a Resolution 12 on

November 10, 1992 referring the case to the Court of
Appeals for proper disposition and at the same time,
without giving due course to the petition, required the
respondents to comment on the petition and file the same
with the Court of Appeals within ten (10) days from
notice. In the meantime, the Court issued a temporary
restraining order, effective immediately and continuing
until further orders from it, ordering the respondents: (1)
Judge Manuel Jn. Serapio, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial
Court, Branch 127, Caloocan City to cease and desist from
exercising jurisdiction over the case for declaration of
nullity of the cease and desist order issued by the Laguna
Lake Development Authority (LLDA); and (2) City Mayor
of Caloocan and/or the City Government of Caloocan to
cease and desist from dumping its garbage at the Tala
Estate, Barangay Camarin, Caloocan City.

Respondents City Government of Caloocan and Mayor

Macario A. Asistio, Jr. filed on November 12, 1992 a
motion for reconsideration and/or to quash/recall the
temporary restraining order and an urgent motion for
reconsideration alleging that ". . . in view of the calamitous
situation that would arise if the respondent city
government fails to collect 350 tons of garbage daily for
lack of dumpsite (i)t is therefore, imperative that the issue
be resolved with dispatch or with sufficient leeway to
allow the respondents to find alternative solutions to this
garbage problem."
On November 17, 1992, the Court issued a
Resolution13 directing the Court of Appeals to immediately
set the case for hearing for the purpose of determining
whether or not the temporary restraining order issued by
the Court should be lifted and what conditions, if any, may
be required if it is to be so lifted or whether the restraining
order should be maintained or converted into a preliminary
injunction.

The Court of Appeals set the case for hearing on

November 27, 1992, at 10:00 in the morning at the
Hearing Room, 3rd Floor, New Building, Court of
Appeals.14 After the oral argument, a conference was set
on December 8, 1992 at 10:00 o'clock in the morning
where the Mayor of Caloocan City, the General Manager
of LLDA, the Secretary of DENR or his duly authorized
representative and the Secretary of DILG or his duly
authorized representative were required to appear.

It was agreed at the conference that the LLDA had until

December 15, 1992 to finish its study and review of
respondent's technical plan with respect to the dumping of
its garbage and in the event of a rejection of respondent's
technical plan or a failure of settlement, the parties will
submit within 10 days from notice their respective
memoranda on the merits of the case, after which the
petition shall be deemed submitted for
resolution.15 Notwithstanding such efforts, the parties
failed to settle the dispute.

On April 30, 1993, the Court of Appeals promulgated its

decision holding that: (1) the Regional Trial Court has no
jurisdiction on appeal to try, hear and decide the action for
annulment of LLDA's cease and desist order, including the
issuance of a temporary restraining order and preliminary
injunction in relation thereto, since appeal therefrom is
within the exclusive and appellate jurisdiction of the Court
of Appeals under Section 9, par. (3), of Batas Pambansa
Blg. 129; and (2) the Laguna Lake Development Authority
has no power and authority to issue a cease and desist
order under its enabling law, Republic Act No. 4850, as
amended by P.D. No. 813 and Executive Order
No. 927, series of 1983.

The Court of Appeals thus dismissed Civil Case No.

15598 and the preliminary injunction issued in the said
case was set aside; the cease and desist order of LLDA
was likewise set aside and the temporary restraining order
enjoining the City Mayor of Caloocan and/or the City
Government of Caloocan to cease and desist from
dumping its garbage at the Tala Estate, Barangay Camarin,
Caloocan City was lifted, subject, however, to the
condition that any future dumping of garbage in said area,
shall be in conformity with the procedure and protective
works contained in the proposal attached to the records of
this case and found on pages 152-160 of the Rollo, which
was thereby adopted by reference and made an integral
part of the decision, until the corresponding restraining
and/or injunctive relief is granted by the proper Court upon
LLDA's institution of the necessary legal proceedings.

Hence, the Laguna Lake Development Authority filed the

instant petition for review on certiorari, now docketed as
G.R. No. 110120, with prayer that the temporary
restraining order lifted by the Court of Appeals be re-
issued until after final determination by this Court of the
issue on the proper interpretation of the powers and
authority of the LLDA under its enabling law.

On July, 19, 1993, the Court issued a temporary

restraining order16 enjoining the City Mayor of Caloocan
and/or the City Government of Caloocan to cease and
desist from dumping its garbage at the Tala Estate,
Barangay Camarin, Caloocan City, effective as of this date
and containing until otherwise ordered by the Court.

It is significant to note that while both parties in this case

agree on the need to protect the environment and to
maintain the ecological balance of the surrounding areas of
the Camarin open dumpsite, the question as to which
agency can lawfully exercise jurisdiction over the matter
remains highly open to question.

The City Government of Caloocan claims that it is within

its power, as a local government unit, pursuant to the
general welfare provision of the Local Government
Code, 17 to determine the effects of the operation of the
dumpsite on the ecological balance and to see that such
balance is maintained. On the basis of said contention, it
questioned, from the inception of the dispute before the
Regional Trial Court of Caloocan City, the power and
authority of the LLDA to issue a cease and desist order
enjoining the dumping of garbage in the Barangay
Camarin over which the City Government of Caloocan has
territorial jurisdiction.

The Court of Appeals sustained the position of the City of

Caloocan on the theory that Section 7 of Presidential
Decree No. 984, otherwise known as the Pollution Control
law, authorizing the defunct National Pollution Control
Commission to issue an ex-parte cease and desist order
was not incorporated in Presidential Decree No. 813 nor in
Executive Order No. 927, series of
1983. The Court of Appeals ruled that under Section 4,
par. (d), of Republic Act No. 4850, as amended, the LLDA
is instead required "to institute the necessary legal
proceeding against any person who shall commence to
implement or continue implementation of any project, plan
or program within the Laguna de Bay region without
previous clearance from the Authority."

The LLDA now assails, in this partition for review, the

abovementioned ruling of the Court of Appeals,
contending that, as an administrative agency which was
granted regulatory and adjudicatory powers and functions
by Republic Act No. 4850 and its amendatory laws,
Presidential Decree No. 813 and Executive Order No. 927,
series of 1983, it is invested with the power and authority
to issue a cease and desist order pursuant to Section 4 par.
(c), (d), (e), (f) and (g) of Executive Order No. 927 series
of 1983 which provides, thus:

Sec. 4. Additional Powers and Functions.

The authority shall have the following
powers and functions:

xxx xxx xxx

(c) Issue orders or decisions to compel

compliance with the provisions of this
Executive Order and its implementing rules
 and regulations only after proper notice and
hearing.

(d) Make, alter or modify orders requiring

the discontinuance of pollution specifying
the conditions and the time within which
such discontinuance must be accomplished.

(e) Issue, renew, or deny permits, under

such conditions as it may determine to be
reasonable, for the prevention and
abatement of pollution, for the discharge of
sewage, industrial waste, or for the
installation or operation of sewage works
and industrial disposal system or parts
thereof.

(f) After due notice and hearing, the

Authority may also revoke, suspend or
modify any permit issued under this Order
whenever the same is necessary to prevent
or abate pollution.

(g) Deputize in writing or request assistance

of appropriate government agencies or
instrumentalities for the purpose of
enforcing this Executive Order and its
implementing rules and regulations and the
orders and decisions of the Authority.

The LLDA claims that the appellate court deliberately

suppressed and totally disregarded the above provisions of
Executive Order No. 927, series of 1983, which granted
administrative quasi-judicial functions to LLDA on
pollution abatement cases.

In light of the relevant environmental protection laws cited

which are applicable in this case, and the corresponding
overlapping jurisdiction of government agencies
implementing these laws, the resolution of the issue of
whether or not the LLDA has the authority and power to
issue an order which, in its nature and effect was
injunctive, necessarily requires a determination of the
threshold question: Does the Laguna Lake Development
Authority, under its Charter and its amendatory laws, have
the authority to entertain the complaint against the
dumping of garbage in the open dumpsite in Barangay
Camarin authorized by the City Government of Caloocan
which is allegedly endangering the health, safety, and
welfare of the residents therein and the sanitation and
quality of the water in the area brought about by exposure
to pollution caused by such open garbage dumpsite?

The matter of determining whether there is such pollution

of the environment that requires control, if not prohibition,
of the operation of a business establishment is essentially
addressed to the Environmental Management Bureau
(EMB) of the DENR which, by virtue of Section 16 of
Executive Order No. 192, series of 1987,18 has assumed
the powers and functions of the defunct National Pollution
Control Commission created under Republic Act No.
3931. Under said Executive Order, a Pollution
Adjudication Board (PAB) under the Office of the DENR
Secretary now assumes the powers and functions of the
National Pollution Control Commission with respect to
adjudication of pollution cases. 19
As a general rule, the adjudication of pollution cases
generally pertains to the Pollution Adjudication Board
(PAB), except in cases where the special law provides for
another forum. It must be recognized in this regard that the
LLDA, as a specialized administrative agency, is
specifically mandated under Republic Act No. 4850 and its
amendatory laws to carry out and make effective the
declared national policy20 of promoting and accelerating
the development and balanced growth of the Laguna Lake
area and the surrounding provinces of Rizal and Laguna
and the cities of San Pablo, Manila, Pasay, Quezon and
Caloocan21 with due regard and adequate provisions for
environmental management and control, preservation of
the quality of human life and ecological systems, and the
prevention of undue ecological disturbances, deterioration
and pollution. Under such a broad grant and power and
authority, the LLDA, by virtue of its special charter,
obviously has the responsibility to protect the inhabitants
of the Laguna Lake region from the deleterious effects of
pollutants emanating from the discharge of wastes from
the surrounding areas. In carrying out the aforementioned
declared policy, the LLDA is mandated, among others, to
pass upon and approve or disapprove all plans, programs,
and projects proposed by local government
offices/agencies within the region, public corporations,
and private persons or enterprises where such plans,
programs and/or projects are related to those of the LLDA
for the development of the region. 22

In the instant case, when the complainant Task Force

Camarin Dumpsite of Our Lady of Lourdes Parish,
Barangay Camarin, Caloocan City, filed its letter-
complaint before the LLDA, the latter's jurisdiction under
its charter was validly invoked by complainant on the basis
of its allegation that the open dumpsite project of the City
Government of Caloocan in Barangay Camarin was
undertaken without a clearance from the LLDA, as
required under Section 4, par. (d), of Republic Act. No.
4850, as amended by P.D. No. 813 and Executive Order
No. 927. While there is also an allegation that the said
project was without an Environmental Compliance
Certificate from the Environmental Management Bureau
(EMB) of the DENR, the primary jurisdiction of the
LLDA over this case was recognized by the
Environmental Management Bureau of the DENR when
the latter acted as intermediary at the meeting among the
representatives of the City Government of Caloocan, Task
Force Camarin Dumpsite and LLDA sometime in July
1992 to discuss the possibility of
re-opening the open dumpsite.

Having thus resolved the threshold question, the inquiry

then narrows down to the following issue: Does the LLDA
have the power and authority to issue a "cease and desist"
order under Republic Act No. 4850 and its amendatory
laws, on the basis of the facts presented in this case,
enjoining the dumping of garbage in Tala Estate, Barangay
Camarin, Caloocan City.

The irresistible answer is in the affirmative.

The cease and desist order issued by the LLDA requiring

the City Government of Caloocan to stop dumping its
garbage in the Camarin open dumpsite found by the LLDA
to have been done in violation of Republic Act No. 4850,
as amended, and other relevant environment laws,23 cannot
be stamped as an unauthorized exercise by the LLDA of
injunctive powers. By its express terms, Republic Act No.
4850, as amended by P.D. No. 813 and Executive Order
No. 927, series of 1983, authorizes the LLDA to "make,
alter or modify order requiring the discontinuance or
pollution."24 (Emphasis supplied) Section 4, par. (d)
explicitly authorizes the LLDA to make whatever order
may be necessary in the exercise of its jurisdiction.

To be sure, the LLDA was not expressly conferred the

power "to issue and ex-parte cease and desist order" in a
language, as suggested by the City Government of
Caloocan, similar to the express grant to the defunct
National Pollution Control Commission under Section 7 of
P.D. No. 984 which, admittedly was not reproduced in
P.D. No. 813 and E.O. No. 927, series of 1983. However,
it would be a mistake to draw therefrom the conclusion
that there is a denial of the power to issue the order in
question when the power "to make, alter or modify orders
requiring the discontinuance of pollution" is expressly and
clearly bestowed upon the LLDA by Executive Order No.
927, series of 1983.

Assuming arguendo that the authority to issue a "cease

and desist order" were not expressly conferred by law,
there is jurisprudence enough to the effect that the rule
granting such authority need not necessarily be
express.25 While it is a fundamental rule that an
administrative agency has only such powers as are
expressly granted to it by law, it is likewise a settled rule
that an administrative agency has also such powers as are
necessarily implied in the exercise of its express
powers.26 In the exercise, therefore, of its express powers
under its charter as a regulatory and quasi-judicial body
with respect to pollution cases in the Laguna Lake region,
the authority of the LLDA to issue a "cease and desist
order" is, perforce, implied. Otherwise, it may well be
reduced to a "toothless" paper agency.

In this connection, it must be noted that in Pollution

Adjudication Board v. Court of Appeals, et al.,27 the Court
ruled that the Pollution Adjudication Board (PAB) has the
power to issue an ex-parte cease and desist order when
there is  prima facie evidence of an establishment
exceeding the allowable standards set by the anti-pollution
laws of the country. The ponente, Associate Justice
Florentino P. Feliciano, declared:

Ex parte cease and desist orders are

permitted by law and regulations in
situations like that here presented precisely
because stopping the continuous discharge
of pollutive and untreated effluents into the
rivers and other inland waters of the
Philippines cannot be made to wait until
protracted litigation over the ultimate
correctness or propriety of such orders has
run its full course, including multiple and
sequential appeals such as those which
Solar has taken, which of course may take
several years. The relevant pollution control
statute and implementing regulations were
enacted and promulgated in the exercise of
that pervasive, sovereign power to protect
the safety, health, and general welfare and
comfort of the public, as well as the
 protection of plant and animal life,
commonly designated as the police power.
It is a constitutional commonplace that the
ordinary requirements of procedural due
process yield to the necessities of protecting
vital public interests like those here
involved, through the exercise of police
power. . . .

The immediate response to the demands of "the necessities

of protecting vital public interests" gives vitality to the
statement on ecology embodied in the Declaration of
Principles and State Policies or the 1987 Constitution.
Article II, Section 16 which provides:

The State shall protect and advance the

right of the people to a balanced and
healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm
and harmony of nature.

As a constitutionally guaranteed right of every person, it

carries the correlative duty of non-impairment. This is but
in consonance with the declared policy of the state "to
protect and promote the right to health of the people and
instill health consciousness among them." 28 It is to be
borne in mind that the Philippines is party to the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights and the Alma Conference
Declaration of 1978 which recognize health as a
fundamental human right. 29

The issuance, therefore, of the cease and desist order by

the LLDA, as a practical matter of procedure under the
circumstances of the case, is a proper exercise of its power
and authority under its charter and its amendatory laws.
Had the cease and desist order issued by the LLDA been
complied with by the City Government of Caloocan as it
did in the first instance, no further legal steps would have
been necessary.

The charter of LLDA, Republic Act No. 4850, as

amended, instead of conferring upon the LLDA the means
of directly enforcing such orders, has provided under its
Section 4 (d) the power to institute "necessary legal
proceeding against any person who shall commence to
implement or continue implementation of any project, plan
or program within the Laguna de Bay region without
previous clearance from the LLDA."

Clearly, said provision was designed to invest the LLDA

with sufficiently broad powers in the regulation of all
projects initiated in the Laguna Lake region, whether by
the government or the private sector, insofar as the
implementation of these projects is concerned. It was
meant to deal with cases which might possibly arise where
decisions or orders issued pursuant to the exercise of such
broad powers may not be obeyed, resulting in the
thwarting of its laudabe objective. To meet such
contingencies, then the writs of mandamus and injunction
which are beyond the power of the LLDA to issue, may be
sought from the proper courts.

Insofar as the implementation of relevant anti-pollution

laws in the Laguna Lake region and its surrounding
provinces, cities and towns are concerned, the Court will
not dwell further on the related issues raised which are
more appropriately addressed to an administrative agency
with the special knowledge and expertise of the LLDA.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The temporary

restraining order issued by the Court on July 19, 1993
enjoining the City Mayor of Caloocan and/or the City
Government of Caloocan from dumping their garbage at
the Tala Estate, Barangay Camarin, Caloocan City is
hereby made permanent.

SO ORDERED.

Feliciano, Bidin, Melo and Vitug, JJ., concur.

#Footnotes

1 Jorge S. Imperial, J.,  ponente, Vicente V.

Mendoza and Quirino D. Abad Santos,
Jr., JJ., concurring.

2 Annex "C", Petition, G.R. No.

107542, Rollo, pp. 47-51.

3 Webster's Third International Dictionary

(1986) defines "leachate" as the liquid that
has percolated through soil or other
medium.

4 Establishing An Environmental Impact

Statement System, Including Other
Environmental Management Related
Measures And For Other Purposes
(June 11, 1978).

5 An Act Creating The Laguna Lake

Development Authority, Prescribing Its
Powers, Functions and Duties, Providing
Funds Therefor, And For Other Purposes
(July 18, 1966).

6 Annex "D", Petition, G.R. No.

107542, Rollo, pp. 52-54.

7 Ibid.

8 Annex "G", Petition, G.R. No.

107542, Rollo, pp. 58-63.

9 Annex "M", Petition, G.R. No.

107542, Rollo, pp. 77-81.

10 Annex "O", Petition, G.R. No.

107542, Rollo, pp. 83-90.

11 Annex "A", Petition, G.R. No.

107542, Rollo, pp. 29-37.

12 G.R. No. 107542, Rollo, pp. 93-95.

13 G.R. No. 107542, Rollo, pp. 98-99.

14 Ibid, p. 97.
15 G.R. No. 107542, Rollo, pp. 129-130.

16 G.R. No. 110120, Rollo, p. 70.

17 Section 16, Republic Act No. 7160,

otherwise known as "The Local
Government Code of 1991."

18 Providing For The Reorganization Of

The Department Of Environment, Energy
And Natural Resources, Renaming It As
The Department of Environment and
Natural Resources, And For Other Purposes
(June 10, 1987).

19 Section 19, Executive Order No. 192,

series of 1987.

20 Section 1, Republic Act No. 4850, as

amended by P.D. No. 813 and Executive
Order No. 927, series of 1983.

21 Section 41, par. (4), Republic Act No.

4850, as amended by P.D. No. 813 and
Executive Order No. 927, series of 1983.

22 Section 4, par. (d), Republic Act No.

4850, as amended by P.D. No. 813 and
Executive Order No. 927, series of 1983.
(Emphasis supplied)

23 Sections 45 and 48, Presidential Decree

No. 1152, otherwise known as Philippine
Environment Code which requires that solid
waste disposal shall be by sanitary landfill,
incineration, composting and other methods
as may be approved by competent
government authority and, that the sites
shall conform with existing zoning, land
use standards, and pollution control
regulations, respectively; Section 4,
Presidential Decree No. 1586.

24 Section 4, par. (d), Executive Order No.

927, series of 1983.

25 Motor Transit Co. v. Railroad Com., 189

CAL 573, 209 P 586.

26 Republic v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.

90482, August 5, 1991, 200 SCRA 266;
Guerzon v. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R.
No. 77707, August 8, 1988, 164 SCRA
182.

27 G.R. No. 93891, March 11, 1991, 195

SCRA 112.

28 Art. II, Section 15, 1987 Constitution.

29 Record of the Constitutional

Commission, Proceedings and Debates,
Vol. III,
p. 119.