Liceo de Cagayan University

College of Law
School Year 2025-2026
1st Semester

Course: Natural Resources and Environmental Law (2 units)

Date: July 2025
Instructor: Atty. Ban Mikhael C. Pacuribot

I. COURSE DESCRIPTION
- Natural Resources and Environmental Law is the study of all relevant laws, rules, and
regulation that protect the environment and provide penalties for environmental crimes.

Course Objectives

At the end of the semester, students will know the following:

a. Constitutional provisions defining the natural resources of the Philippines including the
Constitutional limitations on the exploration, development, and utilization of natural
resources;
b. Environmental Laws, Rules, and Regulations
c. relevant jurisprudence on environmental law

Methodology

1. Class discussion
2. Oral recitation
3. Research and case analysis
-The South China Sea Arbitration (The Republic of Philippines v. The People's Republic
of China)
-local environmental concerns/issues

References

Books:
1. Law on Natural Resources and Environmental Law Developments
(by Justice Oswaldo D. Agcaoili)
2. Philippine Environmental Laws
(by Atty. Manuel Rodriguez, II)

Online:
1. https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/
2. https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/search

II. COURSE OUTLINE

Introduction to Law on Natural Resources and Environmental Law

1. Article I – National Territory

2. Article II – Declaration of Principles and State Policies, Sections 15 and 16
3. Article XII – National Economy and Patrimony
3.1 Sections 2, 3, 4 and 5

Cases:
Oposa vs. Factoran, 224 SCRA 792
Chavez vs. PEA, 403 SCRA 1
Cruz vs. Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources, 347 SCRA 329

4. Applicable principles

Cases:

1
 (Limited Scope Rule) Social Justice Society Officers vs. Mayor Alfredo S. Lim, GR Nos.
187836 and 187916, November 25, 2014
(Principle of Exhaustion of Administrative Remedy) Universal Robina Corp. (Corn
Division) vs. Laguna Lake Development Authority, GR No. 191427, May 30, 2011
(Liberalized Rule on Standing) Resident Marine Mammals of the Protected Seascape
Tanon Strait vs. Secretary Angelo Reyes, GR Nos. 180771 and 181527, April 21, 2015
(Precautionary principle) International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech
Applications, Inc. et al vs. Greenpeace Souteast Asia (Philippines), et al, GR Nos.
209271, 209276, 209301, July 26, 20116

Statutory Laws / Rules of Procedure

1. Revised Forestry Code (PD 705 as amended by PD 1559, EO 277, and RA 7161)
2. Ecological Solid Waste Management Act (RA 9003)
3. The ENIPAS Law, or Expanded National Integrated Protected Areas System Act of
2018 (Republic Act No. 11038)
4. Water Code of the Philippines (PD 1067)
5. Establishing an Environmental Impact Statement System (PD 1586)
6. Philippine Fisheries Code (RA 8550)
7. People’s Small-Scale Mining Act of 1991 (RA 7076)
8. Philippine Mining Act (RA 7942)
9. National Integrated Protected Areas System Act (RA 7586)
10. Philippine Clean Water Act (RA 9275)
11. Philippine Clean Air Act (RA 8749)
12. Philippine Environment Code (PD 1152)
13. Mining Act (CA 137)
14. Pollution Adjudication Board (RA 3931, PD 984, EO 192)
15. Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases

Government Agencies/Instrumentalities

1. Department of Environment and Natural Resources

a. Environment Management Bureau (EMB)

Pollution Adjudication Board (PAB)
b. Forest Management Bureau (FMB)
c. Mines and Geosciences Bureau (MGB)
d. Mines Adjudication Board (MAB)

2. Department of Agriculture

a. Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR)

3. Local Government

a. Provincial/City Mining Regulatory Board

Cases:
LLDA vs. CA, 231 SCRA 292
Mead vs. Argel, 115 SCRA 256
Tatel vs. Municipality of Virac, 207 SCRA 157

Regulation of Exploitation, Utilization and Development of Natural Resources

Revised Forestry Code (PD 705 as amended by PD 1559, EO 277, and RA 7161)

Cases:
Ysmael vs. Deputy Executive Secretary, 190 SCRA 673
Heirs of Amunategui vs. Director of Forestry, 126 SCRA 69
Director of Forestry vs. Muñoz, 23 SCRA 1183
Republic vs. Naguiat, 479 SCRA 585
Alvarez vs. PICOP Resources, 606 SCRA 444

2
 Tan vs. Director of Forestry, 125 SCRA 302
Mustang Lumber, Inc. vs. CA, 257 SCRA 430

People’s Small-Scale Mining Act of 1991 (RA 7076)

Philippine Mining Act (RA 7942)
Mining Act (CA 137)

Cases:
Comilang vs. Buendia, 21 SCRA 486
La Bugal-B’laan Tribal Association vs. Ramos, 421 SCRA 148 and 445 SCRA 1
Southeast Mindanao Gold Mining Corporation vs. Balite Portal Mining Cooperative, 380
SCRA 145
Miners Association of the Philippines, Inc. vs. Factoran, Jr., 240 SCRA 100
Standard Mineral Products, Inc. vs. CA, 184 SCRA 571
People vs. Abad, 165 SCRA 57

Philippine Fisheries Code (RA 8550)

Cases:
Tano vs. Socrates, 278 SCRA 154
Hizon vs. CA, 265 SCRA 517

Water Code of the Philippines (PD 1067)

Case:
Remman Enterprises vs. CA, 330 SCRA 145

ENIPAS Law, or Expanded National Integrated Protected Areas System Act of 2018
(Republic Act No. 11038)

Case:
PICOP Resources, Inc. vs. Base Metals Mineral Resources Corporation, 510 SCRA 400

Wildlife Conservation and Protection Act (RA 9147)

Pollution and Environment Management

Establishing an Environmental Impact Statement System (PD 1586)

Philippine Clean Water Act (RA 9275)

Cases:
Shell Philippines Exploration B.V. vs. Jalos, 630 SCRA 399
MMDA vs. Concerned Residents of Manila Bay, 574 SCRA 661 and 643 SCRA 90
Pacific Steam Laundry, Inc. vs. LLDA, 608 SCRA 442
The Alexandra Condominium Corporation vs. LLDA, 599 SCRA 452
Universal Robina Corp. (Corn Division) vs. LLDA, 649 SCRA 506

Philippine Clean Air Act (RA 8749)

Cases:
Henares, Jr. vs. LTFRB, 505 SCRA 104
Ortigas & Co. Limited Partnership vs. Feati Bank & Trust Co., 94 SCRA 533
Technology Developers, Inc. vs. CA 193 SCRA 147
AC Enterprises, Inc. vs. Frabelle Properties Corp., 506 SCRA 625

Ecological Solid Waste Management Act (RA 9003)

Case:
Province of Rizal vs. Executive Secretary, 477 SCRA 436

Pollution Adjudication Board (RA 3931, PD 984, EO 192)

3
 Cases:
PAB vs. CA, 195 SCRA 112
Republic vs. Marcopper Mining Corp., 335 SCRA 386

Latest Jurisprudence

1. Dolot vs Paje, GR No. 199199, August 27, 2013

2. SR Metals vs. Reyes, GR No. 179669, June 4, 2014
3. Arigo et al vs. Swift et al, GR No. 20510, Sept 16, 2014
4. Paje vs. Casino GR Nos. 207257, 207276, 207282, 207366, Feb 3, 2015
5. Resident Marine Mammals vs. Reyes, GR No. 181527, April 21, 2015
6. Narra Nickel Mining vs. Redmont GR No. 195580, April 21, 2014
7. Tower Condo Corp vs. FPIC, GR No. 194239, June 16, 2015
8. International Service vs. Greenpeace GR No. 209271 (and other consolidated
cases) ,Dec 8, 2015
9. Braga et al vs. Abaya, GR No. 223076, Sept 13, 2016
10. Mosqueda et al vs. Pilipino Banana GR Nos. 189185 and 189305, August 16,
2016
11. Talabis vs. People, G.R. No. 214647, March 4, 2020

Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases

a. Writ of Continuing Mandamus

b. Writ of Kalikasan
c. Precautionary principle
d. SLAPP
cases:
Ma. Sugar Mercado et al vs. Hon. Socrates Lopena, et al, GR No. 230170, June 6,
2018;
Zabal, et al vs. Duterte et al, GR No. 238467, February 12, 2019

Other cases:
MMDA vs. Concerned Residents of Manila Bay, 574 SCRA 661 and 643 SCRA 90
Boracay Foundation, Inc. vs. The Province of Aklan, et al., G.R. No. 196870, June
26, 2012

Note: the above provided references and list of cases are not exclusive. You can do your own
research and study other relevant books and jurisprudence.

Goodluck and God bless!

4
Challenged in these consolidated petitions is the validity of Ordinance No. 8187 entitled "AN
2 3

ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 8119, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS ‘THE MANILA

COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN AND ZONING ORDINANCE OF 2006,’ BY CREATING A
MEDIUM INDUSTRIAL ZONE (1-2) AND HEAVY INDUSTRIAL ZONE (1-3), AND PROVIDING FOR
ITS ENFORCEMENT" enacted by the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Manila (Sangguniang
Panlungsod) on 14 May 2009.

The creation of a medium industrial zone (1-2) and heavy industrial zone (1-3) effectively lifted the
prohibition against owners and operators of businesses, including herein intervenors Chevron
Philippines, Inc. (Chevron), Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation (Shell), and Petron Corporation
(Petron), collectively referred to as the oil companies, from operating in the designated commercial
zone – an industrial zone prior to the enactment of Ordinance No. 8027 entitled "AN ORDINANCE
4

RECLASSIFYING THE LAND USE OF THAT PORTION OF LAND BOUNDED BY THE

PASIGRIVER IN THE NORTH, PNR RAILROAD TRACK IN THE EAST, BEATA ST. IN THE
SOUTH, PALUMPONG ST. IN THE SOUTHWEST AND ESTERO DE PANDACAN IN THE WEST,
PNR RAILROAD IN THE NORTHWEST AREA, ESTERO DE PANDACAN IN THE NORTHEAST,
PASIG RIVER IN THE SOUTHEAST AND DR. M. L. CARREON IN THE SOUTHWEST, THE AREA
OF PUNTA, STA.ANA BOUNDED BY THE PASIG RIVER, MARCELINO OBRERO ST., MAYO 28
ST. AND THE F. MANALO STREET FROM INDUSTRIAL II TO COMMERCIAL I," and Ordinance
No. 8119 entitled "AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE MANILA COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE
5

PLAN AND ZONING REGULATIONS OF 2006 AND PROVIDING FOR THE ADMINISTRATION,
ENFORCEMENT AND AMENDMENT THERETO."

The Parties

Petitioners allege the parties’ respective capacity to sue and be sued, viz:

Petitioners Residence Suing capacity aside from being

in Manila residents of Manila other personal
circumstances

G.R. No. 187836

SJS Officer Samson S. Alcantara Not mentioned in Manila taxpayer;

(Alcantara) the petition; One of the petitioners in SJS v.
holding office in Atienza (G.R. No. 156052);*
Ermita, Manila Pesident of ABAKADA GURO
PARTY LIST with members who
are residents of the City of Manila

SJS Officer Vladimir Alarique T. Pandacan One of the petitioners in SJS v.

Cabigao (Cabigao) Atienza (G.R. No. 156052)

* The allegation is inaccurate. SJS Officer Alcantara is actually one of the counsels for petitioner SJS
in G.R. No. 156052. The petitioners in that case are the SJS itself, Cabigao and Bonifacio S.
Tumbokon (Tumbokon).

G.R. No. 187916

Former Mayor Jose L. Atienza, Jr. San Andres Former Mayor of Manila;
(Mayor Atienza) Secretary of Department of
Environment and Natural
Resources (DENR)

Bienvinido M. Abante Sta. Ana Citizen and taxpayer;

member of the House of
Representatives

Ma. Lourdes M. Isip-Garcia San Miguel Incumbent City Councilor of the

City of Manila

Rafael P. Borromeo Paco Incumbent City Councilor of the

City of Manila

5
 Jocelyn Dawis-Asuncion Sta. Mesa Incumbent City Councilor of the
City of Manila

Minors Marian Regina B. Taran, Paco Citizens, real estate owners and
Macalia Ricci B. Taran, Richard taxpayers
Kenneth B. Taran, represented and
joined by their parents Richard and
Marites Taran

Minors Czarina Alysandra C. Tondo Citizens, real estate owners and

Ramos, Cezarah Adrianna C. taxpayers
Ramos, and Cristen Aidan C.
Ramos represented and joined by
their mother Donna c. Ramos

Minors Jasmin Syllita T. Vila and Sta. Ana Citizens, real estate owners and
Antonio T. Cruz IV, represented and taxpayers
joined by their mother Maureen C.
Tolentino

Respondents Sued in their capacity as

G.R. Nos. 187836 and 187916

Former Mayor Alfredo S. Lim (Mayor Lim) Incumbent Mayor of Manila at

the time of the filing of the
present petitions

Respondents Sued in their capacity as

G.R. No. 187916

Vice-Mayor Francisco Domagoso (Vice-Mayor Vice-Mayor and Presiding Officer

Domagoso) of the City Council of Manila

Arlene Woo Koa Principal author of City

Ordinance No. 8187

Moises T. Lim, Jesus Fajardo, Louisito N. Chua, Personal and official capacities as
Victoriano A. Melendez, John Marvin Nieto, Rolando M. councilors who voted and approved
Valeriano, Raymondo R. Yupangco, Edward VP City Ordinance No. 8187
Maceda, Roderick D. Valbuena, Josefina M. Siscar,
Phillip H. Lacuna, Luciano M. Veloso, Carlo V. Lopez,
Ernesto F. Rivera, Danilo Victor H. Lacuna, Jr., Ernesto
6

G. Isip, Honey H. Lacuna-Pangan, Ernesto M. Dionisio,

Jr., Erick Ian O. Nieva

The following intervenors, all of which are corporations organized under Philippine laws, intervened: 7

Intervenors Nature of Business

Chevron Philippines, importing, distributing and marketing of petroleum

Inc. (CHEVRON) products in the Philippines since 1922

Pilipinas Shell Petroleum manufacturing, refining, importing, distributing and

Corporation (SHELL) marketing of petroleum products in the Philippines

Petron Corporation (PETRON) manufacturing, refining, importing, distributing and

marketing of petroleum products in the Philippines

They claim that their rights with respect to the oil depots in Pandacan would be directly affected by
the outcome of these cases.

6
 The Antecedents

These petitions are a sequel to the case of Social Justice Society v. Mayor Atienza, Jr. (hereinafter
8

referred to asG.R. No. 156052), where the Court found: (1) that the ordinance subject thereof –
Ordinance No. 8027 – was enacted "to safeguard the rights to life, security and safety of the
inhabitants of Manila;" (2) that it had passed the tests of a valid ordinance; and (3) that it is not
9

superseded by Ordinance No. 8119. Declaring that it is constitutional and valid, the Court
10 11

accordingly ordered its immediate enforcement with a specific directive on the relocation and
transfer of the Pandacan oil terminals. 12

Highlighting that the Court has soruled that the Pandacan oil depots should leave, herein petitioners
now seek the nullification of Ordinance No. 8187, which contains provisions contrary to those
embodied in Ordinance No. 8027. Allegations of violation of the right to health and the right to a
healthful and balanced environment are also included.

For a better perspective of the facts of these cases, we again trace the history of the Pandacan oil
terminals, aswell as the intervening events prior to the reclassification of the land use from Industrial
II to Commercial I under Ordinance No. 8027 until the creation of Medium Industrial Zone and Heavy
Industrial Zone pursuant to Ordinance No. 8187.

History of the Pandacan

Oil Terminals

We quote the following from the Resolution of the Court in G.R. No. 156052:

Pandacan (one of the districts of the City of Manila) is situated along the banks of the Pasig [R]iver.
Atthe turn of the twentieth century, Pandacan was unofficially designated as the industrial center of
Manila. The area, then largely uninhabited, was ideal for various emerging industries as the nearby
river facilitated the transportation of goods and products. In the 1920s, it was classifiedas an
industrial zone. Among its early industrial settlers werethe oil companies. x x x On December 8,
1941, the Second World War reached the shores of the Philippine Islands. x x x [I]n their zealous
attempt to fend off the Japanese Imperial Army, the United States Army took control of the
Pandacan Terminals and hastily made plans to destroy the storage facilities to deprive the
advancing Japanese Army of a valuable logistics weapon. The U.S. Army burned unused petroleum,
causing a frightening conflagration. Historian Nick Joaquin recounted the events as follows:

After the USAFFE evacuated the City late in December 1941, all army fuel storage dumps were set
on fire. The flames spread, enveloping the City in smoke, setting even the rivers ablaze,
endangering bridges and all riverside buildings. … For one week longer, the "open city" blazed—a
cloud of smoke by day, a pillar of fire by night.

The fire consequently destroyed the Pandacan Terminals and rendered its network of depots and
service stations inoperative.

After the war, the oil depots were reconstructed. Pandacan changed as Manila rebuilt itself. The
three major oil companies resumed the operation of their depots. But the district was no longer a
sparsely populated industrial zone; it had evolved into a bustling, hodgepodge community. Today,
Pandacan has become a densely populated area inhabited by about 84,000 people, majority of
whom are urban poor who call it home. Aside from numerous industrial installations, there are also
small businesses, churches, restaurants, schools, daycare centers and residences situated there.
Malacañang Palace, the official residence of the President of the Philippines and the seat of
governmental power, is just two kilometers away. There is a private school near the Petron depot.
Along the walls of the Shell facility are shanties of informal settlers. More than 15,000 students are
enrolled in elementary and high schools situated near these facilities. A university with a student
population of about 25,000 is located directly across the depot on the banks of the Pasig [R]iver.

The 36-hectare Pandacan Terminals house the oil companies’ distribution terminals and depot
facilities. The refineries of Chevron and Shell in Tabangao and Bauan, both in Batangas,
1âwphi1

respectively, are connected to the Pandacan Terminals through a 114-kilometer underground

pipeline system. Petron’s refinery in Limay, Bataan, on the other hand, also services the depot. The
terminals store fuel and other petroleum products and supply 95% of the fuel requirements of Metro
Manila, 50% of Luzon’s consumption and 35% nationwide. Fuel can also be transported through
barges along the Pasig [R]iver ortank trucks via the South Luzon Expressway. (Citations omitted)
13

Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)

dated 12 October 2001 between the oil companies
and the Department of Energy (DOE)

7
On 12 October 2001, the oil companies and the DOE entered into a MOA "in light of recent
14

international developments involving acts of terrorism on civilian and government

landmarks," "potential new security risks relating to the Pandacan oil terminals and the impact on
15

the surrounding community which may be affected," and "to address the perceived risks posed by
16

the proximity of communities, businesses and offices to the Pandacan oil terminals, consistent with
the principle of sustainable development." The stakeholders acknowledged that "there is a need for
17

a comprehensive study to address the economic, social, environmental and security concerns with
the end in view of formulating a Master Plan to address and minimize the potential risks and hazards
posed by the proximity of communities, businesses and offices to the Pandacan oil terminals without
adversely affecting the security and reliability of supply and distribution of petroleum products to
Metro Manila and the rest of Luzon, and the interests of consumers and users of such petroleum
products in those areas." 18

The enactment of Ordinance No. 8027

against the continued stay of the oil depots

The MOA, however, was short-lived.

On 20 November 2001, during the incumbency of former Mayor Jose L. Atienza, Jr. (Mayor Atienza)
– nowone of the petitioners in G.R. No. 187916 – the Sangguniang Panlungsod enacted Ordinance
No. 8027 reclassifying the use of the land in Pandacan, Sta. Ana, and its adjoining areas from
19

Industrial II to Commercial I.

The owners and operators of the businesses thus affected by the reclassification were given six
months from the date of effectivity of the Ordinance within which to stop the operation of their
businesses.

Nevertheless, the oil companies weregranted an extension of until 30 April 2003 within which to
comply with the Ordinance pursuant to the following:

(1) Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated 26 June 2002 between the City of Manila
20

and the Department of Energy (DOE), on the one hand, and the oil companies, on the other,
where the parties agreed that "the scaling down of the Pandacan Terminals [was] the most
viable and practicable option" and committed to adopt specific measures consistent with
21 22

the said objective;

(2) Resolution No. 97 dated 25 July 2002 of the Sangguniang Panlungsod, which ratified
23

the 26 June 2002 MOU but limited the extension of the period within which to comply to six
months from 25 July 2002; and

(3) Resolution No. 13 dated 30 January 2003 of the Sanguniang Panlungsod, which
24

extended the validity of Resolution No. 97 to 30 April 2003, authorized then Mayor Atienza to
issue special business permits to the oil companies, and called for a reassessment of the
ordinance.

Social Justice Society v. Atienza (G.R. No. 156052):

The filing of an action for mandamus
before the Supreme Court
to enforce Ordinance No. 8027

In the interim, an original action for mandamus entitled Social Justice Society v. Atienza, Jr.
docketed as G.R. No. 156052 was filed on 4 December 2002 by Tumbokon and herein petitioners
25

SJS and Cabigao against then Mayor Atienza. The petitioners sought to compel former Mayor
Atienza to enforce Ordinance No. 8027 and cause the immediate removal of the terminals of the oil
companies. 26

Issuance by the Regional Trial Court (RTC)

of writs of preliminary prohibitory injunction
and preliminary mandatory injunction,
and status quo order in favor of the oil companies

Unknown to the Court, during the pendency of G.R. No. 156052, and before the expiration of the
validity ofResolution No. 13, the oil companies filed the following actions before the Regional Trial
Court of Manila: (1) an action for the annulment of Ordinance No. 8027 with application for writs of
preliminary prohibitory injunction and preliminary mandatory injunction – by Chevron; (2) a petition
for prohibition and mandamus also for the annulment of the Ordinance with application for writs of
preliminary prohibitory injunction and preliminary mandatory injunction – by Shell; and (3) a petition
assailing the validity of the Ordinance with prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction
and/or temporary restraining order (TRO) – by Petron. 27

8
Writs of preliminary prohibitory injunction and preliminary mandatory injunction were issued in favor
of Chevron and Shell on 19 May 2003. Petron, on the other hand, obtained a status quo order on 4
August 2004. 28

The Enactment of Ordinance No. 8119 defining the Manila land use plan and zoning regulations

On 16 June 2006, then Mayor Atienza approved Ordinance No. 8119 entitled "An Ordinance
Adopting the Manila Comprehensive Land Use Plan and Zoning Regulations of 2006 and Providing
for the Administration, Enforcement and Amendment thereto." 29

Pertinent provisions relative to these cases are the following:

(a) Article IV, Sec. 7 enumerating the existing zones or districts in the City of Manila;
30

(b) Article V, Sec. 23 designating the Pandacan oil depot area as a "Planned Unit
31

Development/Overlay Zone" (O-PUD); and

(c) the repealing clause, which reads:

SEC. 84. Repealing Clause. – All ordinances, rules, regulations in conflict with the provisions of this
Ordinance are hereby repealed; PROVIDED, That the rights that are vested upon the effectivity of
this Ordinance shall not be impaired. 32

7 March 2007 Decision in G.R. No. 156052;

The mayor has the mandatory legal duty to enforce
Ordinance No. 8027 and order the removal of the Pandacan terminals

On 7 March 2007, the Court granted the petition for mandamus, and directed then respondent Mayor
Atienza to immediately enforce Ordinance No. 8027. 33

Confined to the resolution of the following issues raised by the petitioners, to wit:

1. whether respondent [Mayor Atienza]has the mandatory legal duty to enforce Ordinance
No. 8027 and order the removal of the Pandacan Terminals, and

2. whether the June 26, 2002 MOU and the resolutions ratifying it can amend or repeal
Ordinance No. 8027. 34

the Court declared:

x x x [T]he Local Government Code imposes upon respondent the duty, as city mayor, to "enforce all
laws and ordinances relative to the governance of the city." One of these is Ordinance No. 8027. As
the chief executive of the city, he has the duty to enforce Ordinance No. 8027 as long as it has not
been repealed by the Sanggunian or annulled by the courts. He has no other choice. It is his
ministerial duty to do so. x x x

xxxx

The question now is whether the MOU entered into by respondent with the oil companies and the
subsequent resolutions passed by the Sanggunianhave made the respondent’s duty to enforce
Ordinance No. 8027 doubtful, unclear or uncertain. x x x

We need not resolve this issue. Assuming that the terms of the MOU were inconsistent with
Ordinance No. 8027, the resolutions which ratified it and made it binding on the Cityof Manila
expressly gave it full force and effect only until April 30, 2003. Thus, at present, there is nothing that
legally hinders respondent from enforcing Ordinance No. 8027.

Ordinance No. 8027 was enacted right after the Philippines, along with the rest of the world,
witnessed the horror of the September 11, 2001 attack on the Twin Towers of the World Trade
Center in New York City. The objective of the ordinance is toprotect the residents of Manila from the
catastrophic devastation that will surely occur in case of a terrorist attack on the Pandacan
Terminals. No reason exists why such a protective measure should be delayed. (Emphasis
35

supplied; citations omitted)

13 February 2008 Resolution in G.R. No. 156052;

Ordinance No. 8027 is constitutional

9
The oil companies and the Republic of the Philippines, represented by the DOE, filed their motions
for leave to intervene and for reconsideration of the 7 March 2007 Decision. During the oral
arguments, the parties submitted to the power of the Court torule on the constitutionality and validity
of the assailed Ordinance despite the pendency of the cases in the RTC. 36

On 13 February 2008, the Court granted the motions for leave to intervene of the oil companies and
the Republic of the Philippines but denied their respective motions for reconsideration. The
dispositive portion of the Resolution reads:

WHEREFORE, x x x

We reiterate our order to respondent Mayor of the City of Manila to enforce Ordinance No. 8027. In
coordination with the appropriate agencies and other parties involved, respondent Mayor is hereby
ordered to oversee the relocation and transfer of the Pandacan Terminals out of its present site. 37

13 February 2008 Resolution in G.R. No. 156052;

Ordinance No. 8027 was not impliedly repealed
by Ordinance No. 8119

The Court also ruled that Ordinance No. 8027 was not impliedly repealed by Ordinance No. 8119.
On this score, the Court ratiocinated:

For the first kind of implied repeal, there must be an irreconcilable conflict between the two
ordinances. There is no conflict between the two ordinances. Ordinance No. 8027 reclassified the
Pandacan area from Industrial II to Commercial I. Ordinance No. 8119, Section 23, designated it as
a "Planned Unit Development/Overlay Zone (O-PUD)." In its Annex "C" which defined the zone
boundaries, the Pandacan area was shown to be within the "High Density Residential/Mixed Use
Zone (R-3/MXD)." x x x [B]oth ordinances actually have a common objective, i.e., to shift the zoning
classification from industrial to commercial (Ordinance No. 8027) or mixed residential commercial
(Ordinance No. 8119)

xxxx

Ordinance No. 8027 is a special law since it deals specifically with a certain area described therein
(the Pandacan oil depot area) whereas Ordinance No. 8119 can be considered a general law as it
covers the entire city of Manila.

xxxx

x x x The repealing clause of Ordinance No. 8119 cannot be taken to indicate the legislative intent to
repeal all prior inconsistent laws on the subject matter, including Ordinance No. 8027, a special
enactment, since the aforequoted minutes (an official record of the discussions in the Sanggunian)
actually indicated the clear intent to preserve the provisions of Ordinance No. 8027. 38

Filing of a draft Resolution amending Ordinance No. 8027 effectively allowing

the oil depots to stay in the Pandacan area; Manifestation and
Motion to forestall the passing of the new Ordinance filed in G.R. No. 156052

On 5 March 2009, respondent then Councilor Arlene W. Koa, filed with the Sangguniang
Panlungsod a draft resolution entitled "An Ordinance Amending Ordinance No. 8119 Otherwise
Known as ‘The Manila Comprehensive Land Use Plan and Zoning Ordinance of 2006’ by Creating a
Medium Industrial Zone (1-2) and Heavy Industrial Zone (1-3) and Providing for its
Enforcement." Initially numbered as Draft Ordinance No. 7177, this was later renumbered as
39

Ordinance No. 8187, the assailed Ordinance in these instant petitions.

Considering that the provisions thereof run contrary to Ordinance No. 8027, the petitioners in G.R.
No. 156052 filed a "Manifestation and Motion to: a) Stop the City Council of Manila from further
hearing the amending ordinance to Ordinance No. 8027; [and] b) Transfer the monitoring of the
enforcement of the Resolution of the Honorable Court on this case dated 13 February 2008 from
Branch 39, Manila Regional Trial Court to the Supreme Court." 40

28 April 2009 Resolution in G.R. No. 156052;

Second Motion for Reconsideration denied with finality;
succeeding motions likewise denied or otherwise noted without action

On 28 April 2009, pending the resolution of the Manifestation and Motion, the Court denied with
finalitythe second motion for reconsideration dated 27 February 2008 of the oil companies. 41

10
It further ruled that no further pleadings shall be entertained in the case. 42

Succeeding motions were thus deniedand/or noted without action. And, after the "Very Urgent
Motion to Stop the Mayor of the City of Manila from Signing Draft Ordinance No. 7177 and to Cite
Him for Contempt if He Would Do So" filed on 19 May 2009 was denied on 2 June 2009 for being
moot, all pleadings pertaining to the earlier motion against the drafting of an ordinance to amend
43

Ordinance No. 8027 were noted without action. 44

The Enactment of Ordinance No. 8187

allowing the continued stay of the oil depots

On 14 May 2009, during the incumbency of former Mayor Alfredo S. Lim (Mayor Lim), who
succeeded Mayor Atienza, the Sangguniang Panlungsod enacted Ordinance No. 8187. 45

The new Ordinance repealed, amended, rescinded or otherwise modified Ordinance No. 8027,
Section 23 of Ordinance No. 8119, and all other Ordinances or provisions inconsistent
therewith thereby allowing, once again, the operation of "Pollutive/Non-Hazardous and
46

Pollutive/Hazardous manufacturing and processing establishments" and "Highly Pollutive/Non-

Hazardous[,] Pollutive/Hazardous[,] Highly Pollutive/Extremely Hazardous[,] Non-Pollutive/Extremely
Hazardous; and Pollutive/Extremely Hazardous; and Pollutive/Extremely Hazardous manufacturing
and processing establishments" within the newly created Medium Industrial Zone (1-2) and Heavy
Industrial Zone (1-3) in the Pandacan area.

Thus, where the Industrial Zoneunder Ordinance No. 8119 was limited to Light Industrial Zone (I-1),
Ordinance No. 8187 appended to the list a Medium Industrial Zone (I-2) and a Heavy Industrial Zone
(I-3), where petroleum refineries and oil depots are now among those expressly allowed.

Hence these petitions.

The Petitions

G.R. No. 187836

To support their petition for prohibition against the enforcement of Ordinance No. 8187, the petitioner
Social Justice Society (SJS) officers allege that:

1. The enactment of the assailed Ordinance is not a valid exercise of police power because
the measures provided therein do not promote the general welfare of the people within the
contemplation of the following provisions of law:

a) Article III, Section 18 (kk) of Republic Act No. 409 otherwise known as the
47

"Revised Charter of the City of Manila," which provides that the Municipal Board shall
have the legislative power to enact all ordinances it may deem necessary and
proper;

b) Section 16 of Republic Act No. 7160 known as the Local Government Code,
48

which defines the scope of the general welfare clause;

2. The conditions at the time the Court declared Ordinance No. 8027 constitutional in G.R.
No. 156052 exist to this date;

3. Despite the finality of the Decision in G.R. No. 156052, and notwithstanding that the
conditions and circumstances warranting the validity of the Ordinance remain the same, the
Manila City Council passed a contrary Ordinance, thereby refusing to recognize that "judicial
decisions applying or interpreting the laws or the Constitution form part of the legal system of
the Philippines;" and
49

4. Ordinance No. 8187 is violative of Sections 15 and 16, Article II of the Constitution of the
Philippines on the duty of the State "to protect and promote the right to health of the
people" and "protect and advance the right of the people to a balanced and healthful
50

ecology." Petitioners pray that Ordinance No. 8187 of the City of Manila be declared null
51

and void, and that respondent, and all persons acting under him, be prohibited from
enforcing the same.

G.R. No. 187916

The petition for Prohibition, Mandamus and Certiorari with Prayer for Temporary Restraining Order
and/or Injunction against the enforcement of Ordinance No. 8187 of former Secretary of Department

11
of Environment and Natural Resources and then Mayor Atienza, together with other residents and
taxpayers of the City of Manila, also alleges violation of the right to health of the people and the right
to a healthful and balanced environment under Sections 15 and 16 of the Constitution.

Petitioners likewise claim that the Ordinance is in violation of the following health and environment-
related municipal laws, and international conventions and treaties to which the Philippines is a state
party:

1. Municipal Laws –

(a) Sections 4, 12, 19 and 30 of Republic Act No. 8749 otherwise known as the
52 53 54 55

Philippine Clean Air Act;

(b) Environment Code (Presidential Decree No. 1152);

(c) Toxic and Hazardous Wastes Law (Republic Act No. 6969); and

(d) Civil Code provisions on nuisance and human relations;

2. International Conventions and Treaties to which the Philippines is a state party –

a. Section 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states that

"[e]veryone has the right to life, liberty and security of person;"

b. Articles 6, 24 and 27 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, summarized

56 57 58

by the petitioners in the following manner:

1. the human right to safe and healthy environment[;]

2. human right to the highest attainable standard of health[;]

3. the human right to ecologically sustainable development[;]

4. the human right to an adequate standard of living, including access to safe food and
water[;]

5. the human right of the child to live in an environment appropriate for physical and mental
development[; and]

6. the human right to full and equal participation for all persons in environmental decision-
making and development planning, and in shaping decisions and policies affecting one’s
community, at the local, national and international levels. 59

Petitioners likewise posit that the title of Ordinance No. 8187 purports to amend or repeal Ordinance
No. 8119 when it actually intends to repeal Ordinance No. 8027. According to them, Ordinance No.
8027 was never mentioned in the title and the body of the new ordinance in violation of Section 26,
Article VI of the 1987 Constitution, which provides that every bill passed by Congress shall embrace
only one subject which shall be expressed in the title thereof.

Also pointed out by the petitioners is a specific procedure outlined in Ordinance No. 8119 that should
be observed when amending the zoning ordinance. This is provided for under Section 81 thereof,
which reads:

SEC. 81. Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance. The proposed amendments to the Zoning
Ordinance asreviewed and evaluated by the City Planning and Development Office (CPDO)shall be
submitted to the City Council for approval of the majority of the Sangguniang Panlungsod members.
The amendments shall be acceptable and eventually approved: PROVIDED, That there is sufficient
evidence and justification for such proposal; PROVIDED FURTHER,That such proposal is consistent
with the development goals, planning objectives, and strategies of the Manila Comprehensive Land
Use Plan. Said amendments shall take effect immediately upon approval or after thirty (30) days
from application.

Petitioners thus pray that:

1. upon filing of [the] petition, [the] case be referred to the Court [E]n Banc, and setting (sic)
the case for oral argument;

12
 2. upon the filing of [the] petition, a temporary restraining order be issued enjoining the
respondents from publishing and posting Manila City Ordinance No. 8187 and/or posting of
Manila City Ordinance No. 8187; and/or taking any steps to implementing (sic) and/or
enforce the same and after due hearing, the temporary restraining order be converted to a
permanent injunction;

3. x x x Manila City Ordinance 8187 [be declared] as null and void for being repugnant to the
Constitution and existing municipal laws and international covenants;

4. x x x the respondents [be ordered] to refrain from enforcing and/or implementing Manila
City Ordinance No. 8187;

5. x x x respondent City Mayor Alfredo S. Lim [be enjoined] from issuing any permits
(business or otherwise) to all industries whose allowable uses are anchored under the
provisions of Manila Ordinance No. 8187; and

6. x x x respondent Mayor of Manila Alfredo S. Lim [be ordered] to comply with the Order of
the Honorable Court in G.R. 156052 dated February 13, 2008. 60

The Respondents’ Position on the Consolidated Petitions

Respondent former Mayor Lim

In his Memorandum, former Mayor Lim, through the City Legal Officer, attacks the petitioners’ lack
61

of legal standing to sue. He likewise points out that the petitioners failed to observe the principle of
hierarchy of courts.

Maintaining that Ordinance No. 8187 is valid and constitutional, he expounds on the following
arguments:

On the procedural issues, he contends that: (1) it is the function of the Sangguniang Panlungsod to
enact zoning ordinances, for which reason, it may proceed to amend or repeal Ordinance No. 8119
without prior referral to the Manila Zoning Board of Adjustment and Appeals (MZBAA) as prescribed
under Section 80 (Procedure for Re-Zoning) and the City Planning and Development Office (CPDO)
pursuant to Section 81 (Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance) of Ordinance No. 8119, especially
when the action actually originated from the Sangguniang Panlungsod itself; (2) the Sangguniang
Panlungsod may, in the later ordinance, expressly repeal all or part of the zoning ordinance sought
to be modified; and (3) the provision repealing Section 23 of Ordinance No. 8119 is not violative of
Section 26, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution, which requires that every bill must embrace only one
subject and that such shall be expressed in the title.

On the substantive issues, he posits that the petitions are based on unfounded fears; that the
assailed ordinance is a valid exercise of police power; that it is consistent with the general welfare
clause and public policy, and is not unreasonable; that it does not run contrary to the Constitution,
municipal laws, and international conventions; and that the petitioners failed to overcome the
presumption of validity of the assailed ordinance.

Respondents Vice-Mayor Domagoso and the City Councilors who voted in favor of the assailed
ordinance

On 14 September 2012, after the Court gave the respondents several chances to submit their
Memorandum, they, through the Secretary of the Sangguniang Panlungsod, prayed that the Court
62

dispense with the filing thereof.

In their Comment, however, respondents offered a position essentially similar to those proffered by
63

former Mayor Lim.

The Intervenors’ Position on the Consolidated Petitions

On the other hand, the oil companies sought the outright dismissal of the petitions based on alleged
procedural infirmities, among others, incomplete requisites of judicial review, violation of the principle
of hierarchy of courts, improper remedy, submission of a defective verification and certification
against forum shopping, and forum shopping.

As to the substantive issues, they maintain, among others, that the assailed ordinance is
constitutional and valid; that the Sangguniang Panlalawigan is in the best position to determine the
needs of its constituents; that it is a valid exercise of legislative power; that it does not violate health
and environment-related provisions of the Constitution, laws, and international conventions and

13
treaties to which the Philippines is a party; that the oil depots are not likely targets of terrorists; that
the scaling down of the operations in Pandacan pursuant to the MOU has been followed; and that
the people are safe in view of the safety measures installed in the Pandacan terminals.

Incidentally, in its Manifestation dated 30 November 2010, Petron informed the Court that it will
64

"cease [the] operation of its petroleum product storage facilities" in the Pandacan oil terminal not
65

later than January 2016 on account of the following:

2.01 Environmental issues, many of which are unfounded, continually crop up and tarnish the
Company’s image.

2.02. The location of its Pandacanterminal is continually threatened, and made uncertain preventing
long-term planning, by the changing local government composition. Indeed, the relevant zoning
ordinances have been amended three (3) times, and their validity subjected to litigation. 66

Intervening Events

On 28 August 2012, while the Court was awaiting the submission of the Memorandum of
respondents Vice-Mayor Domagoso and the councilors who voted in favor of the assailed
Ordinance, the Sangguniang Panlungsod, which composition had already substantially changed,
enacted Ordinance No. 8283 entitled "AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 2 OF ORDINANCE
67

NO. 8187 BY RECLASSIFYING THE AREA WHERE PETROLEUM REFINERIES AND OIL
DEPOTS ARE LOCATED FROM HEAVY INDUSTRIAL (1-3) TO HIGH INTENSITY
COMMERCIAL/MIXED USE ZONE (C3/MXD).

The new ordinance essentially amended the assailed ordinance to exclude the area where
petroleum refineries and oil depots are located from the Industrial Zone.

Ordinance No. 8283 thus permits the operation of the industries operating within the Industrial Zone.
However, the oil companies, whose oil depots are located in the High Intensity Commercial/Mixed
Use Zone (C3/MXD), are given until the end of January 2016 within which to relocate their terminals.

Former Mayor Lim, who was then the incumbent mayor, did not support the amendment. Maintaining
that the removal of the oil depots was prejudicial to public welfare, and, on account of the pending
cases in the Supreme Court, he vetoed Ordinance No. 8283 on 11 September 2012. 68

On 28 November 2012, former Mayor Lim filed a Manifestation informing this Court that the
Sangguniang Panlungsod voted to override the veto, and that he, in turn, returned it again with his
veto. He likewise directed the Sangguniang Panlungsod to append his written reasons for his veto of
the Ordinance, so that the same will be forwarded to the President for his consideration in the event
that his veto is overridden again. 69

On 11 December 2012, Shell also filed a similar Manifestation. 70

Meanwhile, three days after former Mayor Lim vetoed the new ordinance, Atty. Luch R. Gempis, Jr.
(Atty. Gempis), Secretary of the Sangguniang Panlungsod, writing on behalf of respondents Vice-
Mayor Domagoso and the City Councilors of Manila who voted in favor of the assailed Ordinance,
finally complied with this Court’s Resolution dated 17 July 2012 reiterating its earlier directives to 71

submit the said respondents’ Memorandum.

In his Compliance/Explanation with Urgent Manifestation dated 13 September 2012, Atty. Gempis
72

explained that it was not his intention to show disrespect to this Court or to delay or prejudice the
disposition of the cases.

According to him, he signed the Comment prepared by respondents Vice-Mayor and the City
Councilors only to attest that the pleading was personally signed by the respondents. He clarified
that he was not designated as the legal counsel of the respondents as, in fact, he was of the
impression that, pursuant to Section 481(b)(3) of the Local Government Code, it is the City Legal
73

Officer who isauthorized to represent the local government unit or any official thereof in a litigation. It
was for the same reason that he thought that the filing of a Memorandum may already be dispensed
with when the City Legal Officer filed its own on 8 February 2010. He further explained that the
Ordinance subject of these cases was passed during the 7th Council (2007-2010); that the
composition of the 8th Council (2010-2013) had already changed after the 2010 elections; and that
steps were already taken to amend the ordinance again. Hence, he was in a dilemma as to the
position of the Sangguniang Panlungsod at the time he received the Court’s Resolution of 31 May
2011.

Atty. Gempis, thus, prayed that the Court dispense with the filing of the required memorandum in
view of the passing of Ordinance No. 8283.

14
The consolidated petitions in Social Justice Society v. Lim challenge the
validity of Manila City Ordinance No. 8187, enacted on 14 May 2009,
which amended Ordinance No. 8119 by creating Medium and Heavy
Industrial Zones in the Pandacan area, thereby allowing the
continued operation of oil depots owned by Chevron, Shell, and
Petron. This ordinance effectively reversed Ordinance No. 8027,
which had reclassified the area from Industrial II to Commercial I and
mandated the removal of the oil depots for public safety reasons.
Despite the Supreme Court’s final ruling in G.R. No. 156052 upholding
the constitutionality of Ordinance No. 8027 and ordering its
enforcement, the City Council passed Ordinance No. 8187 without
observing the procedural requirements under Ordinance No. 8119
and allegedly in violation of Section 26, Article VI of the Constitution.
Petitioners, including former Mayor Atienza and various Manila
residents, argued that the new ordinance endangered public health
and the environment, contravened municipal laws and international
treaties, and disregarded the finality of judicial decisions.
Respondents, including Mayor Lim and the oil companies, defended
the ordinance as a valid exercise of police power and legislative
discretion, while subsequent political developments led to the
enactment of Ordinance No. 8283, reclassifying the depot area once
again and setting a relocation deadline of January 2016.

15