Case Digest (G.R. No. 129546)
Facts:
Province of Rizal, Municipality of San Mateo, Pintong Bocaue Multipurpose Cooperative, Concerned Citizens of Rizal, Inc., Rolando E. Villacorte, et al., and Kilosbayan, Inc., petitioners v. Executive Secretary, Secretary of Environment & Natural Resources, Laguna Lake Development Authority, Secretary of Public Works & Highways, Secretary of Budget & Management, Metro Manila Development Authority and the Honorable Court of Appeals, G.R. NO. 129546, December 13, 2005, the Supreme Court En Banc, Chico‑Nazario, J., writing for the Court.Petitioners — a province, a municipality, a multipurpose cooperative and local residents — challenged the legality and constitutionality of Proclamation No. 635 (28 August 1995), by which parcels were excluded from the Marikina Watershed Reservation “for use as sanitary landfill sites” and placed under the administration of the MMDA. Respondents included national executive agencies (DENR, DPWH, Executive Secretary, LLDA, MMDA) and the Court of Appeals (as respondent because the CA had ruled on the matter).
The controversy began with a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) of 17 November 1988 among DPWH, DENR and the Metropolitan Manila Commission to allow use of DENR land at Pintong Bocaue in San Mateo as a sanitary landfill. The MCC/MMDA operated a dumpsite there from 19 February 1990; DENR field offices repeatedly reported environmental harm and lack of permits. DENR’s CENRO issued investigation reports (May 1989, June 1989, January 1990, and later reports) documenting excavation, erosion, proximity to dwellings and schools, contamination of creeks, and lack of concurrence or permits. DENR’s Environmental Management Bureau initially granted an ECC on 19 February 1990 but suspended it on 31 July 1990 after site investigations revealed slumping and erosion.
Local officials and LLDA registered objections. Despite internal DENR recommendations to dismantle the facilities, the Office of the President issued Proclamation No. 635 on 28 August 1995 excluding approximately 71.6 hectares from the watershed for sanitary landfill use. Local protests continued; municipal and provincial resolutions opposed expansion. A 20 July 1999 MOA extended MMDA’s use of the site until 31 December 2000 with a promised permanent closure; subsequent national executive directives and an alleged agreement to reopen in January 2001 prompted petitioners to seek judicial relief.
On 22 July 1996 petitioners filed before the Court of Appeals a petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus with application for a TRO/PI, which the CA denied for lack of cause of action in a decision dated 13 June 1997. The petitioners thereafter filed a Rule 45 petition for review on certiorari to the Supreme Court. While the petition was pending the Court issued a temporary restraining order on 24 January 2001 enjoining reopening; petitioners later framed two principal issues in their memorandum: (1) wheth...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the petitioners waive issues not pressed in their memorandum filed with this Court?
- Was Proclamation No. 635 valid such that the San Mateo site could lawfully remain excluded from the Marikina Watershed Reservation and operated as a sanitary landfill?
- Does Republic Act No. 9003 require the permanent closure of the San Mateo landfi...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)