PROVINCE OF RIZAL VS.

EXECUTIVE SECRETARY involve, among other things, "promoting the health and safety, enhancing the
G.R. No. 129546 | 13 December 2005 | Chico-Nazario | Santos right of the people to a balanced ecology, and preserving the comfort and
convenience of their inhabitants.”
PETITIONER: Province of Rizal, Municaplity of San Mateo, Concerned Citizens o
Rizal, et al.
RESPONDENTS: Executive Secretary, Secretary of Environment and Natural
Resources, LLDA, DPWH, etc.
FACTS:
RECIT-READY: This concerns the act of the national government in conducting
a dumpsite in the Marikina Watershed Reservation Area, located in San Mateo, 1. In 1988, DPWH and DENR entered into a MOA with the Governor of the
which was owned and operated by the DENR. The Sangguniang Bayan of San Metropolitan Manila Commission (MMC), which provides that the DENR
Mateo wrote to the Gov. of MMC, pointing out that it passed a Resolution banning agrees to immediately allow the utilization by the Metropolitan Manila
the creation of dumpsites for Metro Manila garbage within its jurisdiction. Commission of its land property located at Pintong Bocaue in San Mateo,
Proclamation No. 2146 was passed, designating all areas declared by law as Rizal as a sanitary landfill site and that upon signing of this agreement, the
national parks, watershed reserves, et al. as environmentally critical areas. The DPWH shall commence the contrusction of the dumpsite.
LLDA sent a letter to MMA, noting that the program regards dumpsites is 2. The Sangguniang Bayan of San Mateo wrote to the Gov. of MMC, pointing
incompatible within the watershed because of the heavy pollution, including the out that it passed a Resolution banning the creation of dumpsites for Metro
risk of diseased, generated by such acitivities which would negate the Manila garbage within its jurisdiction, asking for their side be heard, and that
government’s efforts to upgrade the water quality of the lake. Despite the various the addressees suspend and temporarily hold in abeyance all operations
objections of the government agencies, the Office of the President, issued Proc. with respect to the San Mateo Landfill Dumpsite.
No. 635, which excludes certain parcels of land from the Marikina Watershed 3. It was discovered that the land subject of the MOA was part of the Marikina
Reservation to use as sanitary landfill sites under the administration of MMDA. In Watershed Reservation Area.
1999, the continued expansion of the MMDA caused the people of Antipolo to - The CENRO-DENR submitted a Memorandum, where it concluded that
stage a rally and barricaded the trucks. On the second day, ALL the municipal since the said dumping site is confined within the Watershed
mayors of Rizal openly declared their support the rally, notifying that MMDA they Reservation, is the illegal dumping site operation is in violation of P.D.
would oppose any further attempt to dump garbage in their province. Presidential 705/Revised Forestry Code.
Committee on Flagship Programs and Projects and the MMDA entered into a - It further recommended that the MMC Dumping Sire must totally be
MOA with Provincial Governmetn of Rizal, San Mateo, City of Antipolo, wherein stopped without any political intervention and delay in order to save our
the altter agreed to further extend the use of the dumpsite until its permanent healthy ecosystems found therein.
closure on 31 Dec 2001.However, on 11 Jan 2001, President Estrada directed - They likewise reported that there was no permit issued to the MMC
the DILG to reopen the San Mateo dumpsite. The SC held that Prov. No. 635 is utilize these portions of land for dumping purposes.
illegal. An execution of a MOA does not indicate temporary closure of the 4. IMPT FACT! The DENR Environmental Bureau, through Undersecretary
dumpsite and it must be permanently closed. The role of the LGUs in maintaining Roque, granted the Metro Manila Authority (formerly MMC) an ECC
the ecological balance fo their respective districts are imprinted all over laws, (Enviromental Compliance Certificate) for the operation of the 2 ½ hectare
codes, jurisprudence(see ruling #2). The LGC gives to local government units all garbage hectares.
the necessary powers to promote the general welfare of their inhabitants. When 5. Meanwhile, Proclamation No. 2146 was passed, designating all areas
all the municipal mayors openly declared their full support for the support, declared by law as national parks, watershed reserves, et al. as
the municipal mayors acted within the scope of their powers and were in environmentally critical areas. The LLDA sent a letter to MMA, noting that
fact fulfilling their mandate when they did this. the program regards dumpsites is incompatible within the watershed
because of the heavy pollution, including the risk of diseased, generated by
such acitivities which would negate the government’s efforts to upgrade the
DOCTRINE: water quality of the lake.
6. Less than 6 months after the issuance of the ECC, Undersec Roque
Section 16 of the LGC allows every local government unit to "exercise the powers suspended the ECC on thre ground that it was ascertained that ground
expressly granted, those necessarily implied therefrom, as well as powers slumping and erosion have resulted from improper development of the site.
necessary, appropriate, or incidental for its efficient and effective governance, 7. The Sangguniang Bayan of San Mateo issued a Resolution expressing a
and those which are essential to the promotion of the general welfare," which strong objection to the planned expansion of the landfill operation and
 requesting PRes. Ramos to disapprove the segregation of 71.6 hectares dumpsite in the Makati Watershed Reservation, the rest of the country was fgripped
from the Marikina Watershed Reservation for the landfill site in Pintong by a shortage of portable water so serious, it necessitated the passing of a law.
Bocaue, San Mateo Rizal.
8. CONFLICT! Despite the various objections of the government agencies, the The Administrative Code of 1987 and EO 192 entrust the DENR with the
Office of the President, through Exec Sec. Torres, issued Proc. No. 635, guardianship and safekeeping of the Marikina Watershed Reservation and our other
which excludes certain parcels of land from the Marikina Watershed natural resources. However, although the DENR, an agency of the governmetn, owns
Reservation to use as sanitary landfill sites under the administration of the Marikina Reserve and has jurisdiction over the same, this policy is not absolute,
MMDA. The reason behind such is because of the growing population in but is defined by the declared policies of the state, and is subject to the law and
Manila, certain portions of the watershed should be excluded from the higher authority.
reservation.
9. Petitioners after receiving no reply from the President to disapprove Proc. 2. The LGC gives to local government units all the necessary powers to promote the
No. 635, filed before the CA a petition for certiorari. This was denied by the
general welfare of their inhabitants. When all the municipal mayors openly
CA, justifying its decision in favor of an integrated system of solid waste
management like the San Mateo Landfill. declared their full support for the support, the municipal mayors acted within
- In 1998, While the appeal was pending, petitioners filed a TRO. They the scope of their powers and were in fact fulfilling their mandate when they did
noted that respondent MMDA continued to expand the area of the this. Section 16 of the LGC allows every local government unit to "exercise the
dumpsite inside the Marikina Watershed Reversation, cutting down powers expressly granted, those necessarily implied therefrom, as well as powers
thousands of mature fruit trees and forest trees, and levelling hills and necessary, appropriate, or incidental for its efficient and effective governance, and
mountains to clear the dumping area. Not only that, but garbage those which are essential to the promotion of the general welfare," which involve,
disposal operations were also being conducted on a 24-hour basis, with
among other things, "promoting the health and safety, enhancing the right of the
hundreds of metric tons of infectious waste being dumped daily.
- In 1999, petitioners filed a Motion for Early Resolution. The continued people to a balanced ecology, and preserving the comfort and convenience of
expansion of the MMDA caused the people of Antipolo to stage a rally their inhabitants.”
and barricaded the trucks. On the second day, ALL the municipal
mayors of Rizal openly declared their support the rally, notifying that Section 26 and Section 27 govern the role of the LGUs in the maintenance of the
MMDA they would oppose any further attempt to dump garbage in their
environment:
province.
10. Presidential Committee on Flagship Programs and Projects and the MMDA
entered into a MOA with Provincial Governmetn of Rizal, San Mateo, City of SECTION 26. Duty of National Government Agencies in the Maintenance of Ecological
Antipolo, wherein the altter agreed to further extend the use of the dumpsite Balance. It shall be the duty of every national agency or government-owned or controlled
until its permanent closure on 31 Dec 2001. corporation authorizing or involved in the planning and implementation of any project or program
- However, on 11 Jan 2001, President Estrada directed the DILG to that may cause pollution, climatic change, depletion of non-renewable resources, loss of crop
reopen the San Mateo dumpsite. land, range-land, or forest cover, and extinction of animal or plant species, to consult with the
- The petitioners filed an urgent petition for restraining order. The Court local government units, nongovernmental organizations, and other sectors concerned and
granted the TRO. explain the goals and objectives of the project or program, its impact upon the people and the
community in terms of environmental or ecological balance, and the measures that will be
undertaken to prevent or minimize the adverse effects thereof.
ISSUES: 1. W/N the San Mateo should be permanently closed? – YES
2. W/N the circumstances under which Proc. No. 634 was passed Section 27. Prior Consultations Required. - No project or program shall be implemented by
violates the Local Government Code? – YES
government authorities unless the consultations mentioned in Sections 2 (c) and 26 hereof are
complied with, and prior approval of the sanggunian concerned is obtained: Provided, that
RULING:
occupants in areas where such projects are to be implemented shall not be evicted unless
appropriate relocation sites have been provided, in accordance with the provisions of the
1. Water is life, and must be saved at all costs. Before Proc. No. 635 was passed,
Constitution.
Congressed enacted the National Water Crisis Act. The issues the law sought to
address includes the protection and conversation of the watersheds and ultimately
the nationwide water crises. In other words, while respondents wanted to create a The projects and programs mentioned in Section 27 should be interpreted to mean projects and
programs whose effects are among those enumerated in Section 26 and 27: (1) may cause
pollution; (2) may bring about climatic change; (3) may cause the depletion of non-renewable
resources; (4) may result in loss of crop land, range-land, or forest cover; (5) may eradicate
certain animal or plant species from the face of the planet; and (6) other projects or programs
that may call for the eviction of a particular group of people residing in the locality where these
will be implemented.

Under the Local Government Code, therefore, two requisites must be met before a national
project that affects the environmental and ecological balance of local communities can be
implemented:

a) Prior consultation with the affected local communities

Absent either of these mandatory requirements, the project’s implementation is illegal. In this
case, the Court held that Proc. No. 635, the main basis of the national government in conducting
the dumpsite in the Makati Watershed Reservation is illegal.

3. There were concerns addressed by respondents, primarily arguing that if the dumpsite was
closed, Manila will become a mini Smokey Mountain. They assert that an integrated system of
solid waste management is advisable to a populous metropolis like the Greater Metro Manila
Area absent access to better technology.

The Court acknowledges these valid concerts. However, these concerns are arressed by the
passage of The Ecological Solid Waste Management Act of 2000, which was anacted to adopt a
systematic, comprehensive, and ecological solid waste management which shall ensure the
protection of public health and environment. It requires the adherence of a Local Governmnt
Solid Waste Management Plan with regard to the collection and transfer, processing, source
reduction, recycling, composting and final disposal of solid wastes, the handling and disposal of
special wastes, education and public information, and the funding of solid waste management
projects.

The Court emphasized that the solid waste management plan includes the methods and
procedures for the phase out and closure of sanitary landfills located in a groundwater reservoir
or watershed area. In fact, Sec. 40 of such law specifically states that the site selected must be
consistent with the overall land use plan of the LGU, and the site must be located in an area
where the landfill’s operation will not detrimentally affect environmentally senstitive resources
such as groundwater servoirs or watershed areas.