Laws and Agencies Involved in The Manila Bay Clean Up-Recording
Laws and Agencies Involved in The Manila Bay Clean Up-Recording
Laws and Agencies Involved in The Manila Bay Clean Up-Recording
(3) The Pollution Control Law (PD 984); 5.) PPA (Philippine Ports Authority) under
Sec. 2 of EO 513 - to prevent and also to
(4) The Water Code (PD 1067); treat the discharge not only of ship-
generated wastes but also of other solid and
(5) The Sanitation Code (PD 856); liquid wastes from docking vessels that
contribute to the pollution of the bay.
1. Based line - from which the territorial sea is In unanimous award dated July 12, 2016, on the
measured, it is the low water line along the coast. compulsory arbitration instituted by the Philippines,
It is important because it is from the based line against the People's Republic of China, the
where we reckon the measurement of the other permanent court of arbitration declared that certain
zones, including the territorial sea and the other sea areas like the Spratly islands, and Scarborough
zones. Take note of R.A 9522, March 10 2009, it is shoal are within the exclusive economic zone of the
an act to define the archipelagic based line of the Philippines because those areas are not overlapped
Philippines and for other purposes. R.A 9522 by any impossible entitlement of China.
contains geographic coordinates, the location,
latitude, and longitude. China averred to have a map which contains a 9-
dash-line, and this 9-dash-line, as claimed by China,
to have historic rights to the resources within the
2. Internal water - include waters on the side of the sea areas falling within the 9-dash-line.
baseline of a nation's territorial waters that is
facing toward the land, except in archipelagic But, the tribunal found that China has violated the
states. Some of these are such as lakes, rivers, tide Philippine sovereign rights in EEZ by:
waters. There is no right of innocent passage (1) first interfering with Philippine Fishing and
through internal waters. Petroleum exploration, (2) constructing artificial
lands, and (3) failing to prevent Chinese fishermen
3. Territorial Sea - everything from the based to a from fishing in the zone, The tribunal also held that
limit not exceeding 12 nautical miles, it is considered fishermen from the Philippines had traditional fishing
to be the State's territorial sea. The rights pertaining
3 | ENVIRONMENTAL LAW LECTURES – SABA Notes
rights as Scarborough shoal and that China has prejudice the life, health or property of inhabitants in
interfered with this rights in restricting access. two or more cities or provinces.
The issue here is who will implement the award? Paje v. Casiño discusses the scope of the writ and
What are the modes for its enforcement? Some the reliefs that may be granted under it:
experts would suggest to bring it up in the
conferences. This is what we cannot answer yet, it is The writ is categorized as a special civil action and
still a continuing problem. was, thus, conceptualized as an extraordinary
remedy, which aims to provide judicial relief from
In relation to the Scarborough shoal, let me point out threatened or actual violation/s of the constitutional
the case of Monica A. Abogado et al v. DENR, G.R right to a balanced and healthful ecology of a
No. 246209 | September 3, 2019. magnitude or degree of damage that transcends
political and territorial boundaries. It is intended "to
The SC issued a writ of kalikasan on Scarborough provide a stronger defense for environmental rights
shoal on May 3, 2019 to protect, preserve and through judicial efforts where institutional
rehabilitate, and to restore marine environment arrangements of enforcement, implementation and
in Scarborough shoal also known as the Panatag legislation have fallen short" and seeks "to address
Shoal including the Panganiban Reef (Mischief Reef), the potentially exponential nature of large-scale
and Ayungin Shoal. The court granted for the ecological threats."
issuance of a writ of kalikasan by petitioners Monica
A. Abogado et al, in order to prevent violations of Under Section 1 of Rule 7, the following requisites
Philippine Environmental Laws in the Philippine must be present to avail of this extraordinary
waters and the Philippines' exclusive economic zone. remedy: (1) there is an actual or threatened violation
The petitioners are members of the "KALAYAAN of the constitutional right to a balanced and healthful
PALAWAN FARMERS AND FISHERFOLK ecology; (2) the actual or threatened violation arises
ASSOCIATION" who are members of the fisherfolk from an unlawful act or omission of a public official or
community in the municipality of Kalayaan, Palawan. employee, or private individual or entity; and (3) the
actual or threatened violation involves or will lead to
"Cases involving the public interest which seek to an environmental damage of such magnitude as to
protect the marginalized and oppressed deserve prejudice the life, health or property of inhabitants in
more attention from their lawyers as compared with two or more cities or provinces.
any other case. Those who have the least deserve to
have more in law" -Justice Leonen Expectedly, the Rules do not define the exact nature
or degree of environmental damage but only that it
Although the Court granted a writ of kalikasan, must be sufficiently grave, in terms of the territorial
subsequently, there were supposed to be several oral scope of such damage, so as to call for the grant of
arguments, but the counsel for the petitioners filed a this extraordinary remedy. The gravity of
motion to withdraw because on the grounds of environmental damage sufficient to grant the writ is,
procedural issues such as "na ang petitioners hindi thus, to be decided on a case-to-case basis.
sila nag issue ng affidavit". In this case, the Court
sternly warned the counsel for petitioners na kaya If the petitioner successfully proves the foregoing
nga may intro na they should be more attentive, or requisites, the court shall render judgment granting
nakipag-coordinate sila sa petitioners nila since this the privilege of the writ of kalikasan. Otherwise, the
involves a public interest. For purposes of EnviLaw, petition shall be denied. If the petition is granted, the
ang concern natin is "Writ of Kalikasan" because we court may grant the reliefs provided for under
are already in EEZ, which mentions the Scarborough Section 15 of Rule 7, to wit:
Shoal. So, this case involves rehabilitation protection
and restoration of Scarborough shoal and the other Section 15. Judgment. — Within sixty (60) days from
shores and reef. When you read the case, focus on the time the petition is submitted for decision, the
the discussion on the writ of kalikasan. court shall render judgment granting or denying the
privilege of the writ of kalikasan.
Monica A. Abogado et al v. DENR
G.R No. 246209 | September 3, 2019 The reliefs that may be granted under the writ are
the following:
The nature of a writ of kalikasan is stated in Rule 7,
Section 1 of the Rules of Procedure for Environmental (a) Directing respondent to permanently cease and
Cases: desist from committing acts or neglecting the
performance of a duty in violation of environmental
SECTION 1. Nature of the writ. — The writ is a laws resulting in environmental destruction or
remedy available to a natural or juridical person, damage;
entity authorized by law, people's organization, non-
governmental organization, or any public interest (b) Directing the respondent public official,
group accredited by or registered with any government agency, private person or entity to
government agency, on behalf of persons whose protect, preserve, rehabilitate or restore the
constitutional right to a balanced and healthful environment;
ecology is violated, or threatened with violation by an
unlawful act or omission of a public official or (c) Directing the respondent public official,
employee, or private individual or entity, involving government agency, private person or entity to
environmental damage of such magnitude as to monitor strict compliance with the decision and
4 | ENVIRONMENTAL LAW LECTURES – SABA Notes
orders of the court;