You are on page 1of 19

1.

PHILIPPINE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY Goals (Sec 2) : (a) recognize, discharge and fulfill the responsibilities of each generation as trustee and guardian of the environment for succeeding generations, (b) assure the people of a safe, decent, healthful, productive and aesthetic environment, (c) encourage the widest exploitation of the environment without degrading it, or endangering human life, health and safety or creating conditions adverse to agriculture, commerce and industry, (d) preserve important historic and cultural aspects of the Philippine heritage, (e) attain a rational and orderly balance between population and resource use, and (f) improve the utilization of renewable and nonrenewable resources. Environmental Impact Statements(Sec 3) Pursuant to the above enunciated policies and goals, all agencies and instrumentalities of the national government, including government-owned or controlled corporations, as well as private corporations firms and entities shall prepare, file and include in every action, project or undertaking which significantly affects the quality of the environment a detail statement on (a) the environmental impact of the proposed action, project or undertaking (b) any adverse environmental effect which cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemented; (c) alternative to the proposed action; (d) a determination that the short-term uses of the resources of the environment are consistent with the maintenance and enhancement of the long-term productivity of the same; and (e) whenever a proposal involve the use of depletable or non-renewable resources, a finding must be made that such use and commitment are warranted. Before an environmental impact statement is issued by a lead agency, all agencies having jurisdiction over, or special expertise on, the subject matter involved shall comment on the draft environmental impact statement made by the lead agency within thirty (30) days from receipt of the same. 2. PHILIPPINE ENVIRONMENTAL CODE TITLE I Purposes.( Sec 2) (a) to achieve and maintain such levels of air quality as to protect public health; and (b) to prevent to the greatest extent practicable, injury and/or damage to plant and animal life and property, and

promote the social and economic development of the country. Sec 8-11 Regulation and Enforcement Standards Air Quality & noise standards Authority concerned National Pollution Control Commission Functions >the monitoring and surveillance of air pollutants >permitting of air pollution control facilities >promulgation of appropriate rules and regulations Implementation of community noise standards shall implement emission standards for motor vehicles and may deputize other appropriate law enforcement agencies for the purpose handling, transport, production, storage, use and disposal of radioactive materials

Aircraft Noise Vehicular Emissions

Civil Aeronautics Administration Land Transportation Commission

Radioactive Emissions

Phil. Atomic Energy Commission

Sec 12-13 Monitoring Agency concerned National Pollution Control Commission PAGASA Functions establish to the greatest extent practicable an air quality monitoring network monitor regularly meteorological factors affecting environmental conditions in order to effectively guide air pollution monitoring activities

Air Quality Monitoring

Weather Modification

Sec 14 Purpose (a) classification of Philippine waters; (b) establishment of water quality standards; (c) protection and improvement of the quality of the Philippine water resources, and

(d) responsibilities for surveillance and mitigation of pollution incidents TITLE II Sec 15-18 Water Quality Management Agency concerned National Pollution Control Comm National Pollution Control Comm Functions classify Philippine waters, according to their best usage reclassify a body of water based on the intended beneficial use and take such steps as may be necessary to upgrade the quality of said water take such measures as may be necessary to upgrade the quality of such water to meet the prescribed water quality standards prescribe quality and effluent standards consistent with the guidelines set by the National Environmental Protection Council and the classification of waters prescribed in the preceding sections,

Classification of Phil Waters Reclassification of Waters Based on Intended Beneficial Use

Upgrading of Water Quality

government agencies concerned

Quality Standards

The National Pollution Control Commission

Water Quality Monitoring and Surveillance

National Environmental Protection Council

and other substances that may pollute any body of water of the Philippines resulting from normal operations of industries, water-borne sources >and other human activities as well as those resulting from accidental spills and discharge shall be regulated by appropriate government agencies pursuant to their respective charters and enabling legislations establish to the greatest extent practicable a water quality surveillance and monitoring network with sufficient stations and sampling schedules to meet the needs of the country

TITLE III Land Use Management Purpose (sec 22) (a) to provide a rational, orderly and efficient acquisition, utilization and disposition of land and its resources in order to derive therefrom maximum benefits; and (b) to encourage the prudent use and conservation of land resources in order to prevent and imbalance between the nation's needs and such resources. (The Human Settlements Commission, in coordination with the appropriate agencies of the government, shall formulate and recommend to the National Environmental Protection Council a land use scheme) TITLE IV NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION

Sec 19 & Sec 21 Protection & improvement of water quality Agency concerned National Environmental Protection Council Functions > production, utilization, storage and distribution of hazardous, toxic and other substances such as radioactive materials, heavy metals, pesticides, fertilizers, and oils, and the disposal, discharge and dumping of untreated wastewater, mine tailings

Enforcement & coordination

Purposes (Section 25). (a) to provide the basic policy on the management and conservation of the country's natural resources to obtain the optimum benefits therefrom and to preserve the same for the future generations; and (b) to provide general measures through which the aforesaid policy may be carried out effectively. Chapter 1 Chapter 3 Government agency concerned DENR Functions shall establish a system of rational exploitation of fisheries and aquatic resources within the Philippine territory and shall encourage citizen participation therein to maintain and/or enhance the optimum and continuous productivity of the same. (Section 26) establish a system of rational exploitation and conservation of wildlife resources and shall encourage citizen participation in the maintenance and/or enhancement of their continuous productivity. (Section 28) undertake a system of rational exploitation of forest resources and shall encourage citizen participation therein to keep the country's forest resources at maximum productivity at all time. (Section 30) promote intensified and concerted

Astronomical Services Administration

Fisheries and Aquatic Resources

Energy Development

Energy Development Board

Conservation and Utilization of Surface and Ground Waters

Wildlife

DENR

national government through the National Water Resources Council in coordination with other appropriate government agencies

research efforts on weather modification, typhoon, earthquake, tsunami, storm surge, and other tropical natural phenomena in order to bring about any significant effect to mitigate or prevent their destructive effects. (Section 35) undertake an energy development program encouraging the utilization of invariant sources such as solar, wind and tidal energy. (Section 36) prescribe measures for the conservation and improvement of the quality of Philippine water resources and provide for the prevention, control and abatement of water pollution. (Section 39) undertake a system of gainful exploitation and rational and efficient utilization of mineral resources and shall encourage citizen participation in this endeavor. (Section 40)

Mineral Resources

DENR

Forestry and Soil Conservation

DENR

TITLE V WASTE MANAGEMENT Section 42. Purpose. The purposes of this Title are: (a) to set guidelines for waste management with a view to ensuring its effectiveness; (b) to encourage, promote and stimulate technological, educational economic and social efforts to prevent

Flood Control and Natural Calamities

Philippine Atmospheric, Geophysical and

environmental damage and unnecessary loss of valuable resources of the nation through recovery, recycling and reuse of wastes and waste products; and (c) to provide measures to guide and encourage appropriate government agencies in establishing sound, efficient, comprehensive and effective waste management. Chapter I Enforcement and Guidelines Preparation and implementation of waste management program shall be required of all provinces, cities and municipalities. The Department of Local Government and Community Development shall promulgate guidelines for the formulation and establishment of waste management programs. (Section 43) The installation and establishment of incineration or composting plants, or the alteration/modification of any part thereof shall be regulated by the local governments concerned in coordination with the National Pollution Control Commission. (Section 47) The dumping or disposal of solid wastes into the sea and any body of water in the Philippines, including shorelines and river banks, where these wastes are likely to be washed into the water is prohibited. However, dumping of solid wastes or other materials into the sea or any navigable waters shall be permitted in case of immediate or imminent danger to life and property, subject to the rules and regulations of the Philippine Coast Guard and the National Pollution Control Commission (Section 49) The Council shall keep itself informed of current environmental developments by obtaining information and literature from foreign sources through the Department of Foreign Affairs, government agencies and other entities, both domestic and foreign. Such information and literature shall be given the widest dissemination possible. (Section 55) 3. ESTABLISHING AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT SYSTEM, INCLUDING OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT RELATED MEASURES AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES Environmental Impact Statement System. There is hereby established an Environmental Impact Statement System founded and based on the environmental impact statement required, under Section 4 of Presidential Decree No. 1151, of all agencies and instrumentalities of the national government, including government-owned or controlled corporations, as well as private corporations, firms and entities, for every proposed project and undertaking which significantly affect the quality of the environment. (Section 2) [All Environmental Impact Statements shall be submitted to the National Environmental Protection Council for review and evaluation. (Section 3)]

4. REVISED FORESTRY CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES Policies. The State hereby adopts the following policies (Sec 2) (a) The multiple uses of forest lands shall be oriented to the development and progress requirements of the country, the advancement of science and technology, and the public welfare; (b) Land classification and survey shall be systematized and hastened; (c) The establishment of wood-processing plants shall be encouraged and rationalized; and (d) The protection, development and rehabilitation of forest lands shall be emphasized so as to ensure their continuity in productive condition. Chapter I Organization and Jurisdiction Bureau The Bureau of Forest Development shall have jurisdiction and authority over all forest land, grazing lands, and all forest reservations including watershed reservations presently administered by other government agencies or instrumentalities. (Sec 5) Chapter II Classification and Survey Reservations in forest lands and off-shore areas. The President of the Philippines may establish within any lands of the public domain, forest reserve and forest reservation for the national park system, for preservation as critical watersheds, or for any other purpose, and modify boundaries of existing ones. The Department Head may reserve and establish any portion of the public forest or forest reserve as site or experimental forest for use of the Forest Research Institute. (Section 18) Chapter III Utilization and Management General rule: No person may utilize, exploit, occupy, possess or conduct any activity within any forest land, or establish and operate any wood-processing plant Exception: unless he has been authorized to do so under a license agreement, lease, license, or permit. (Sec 20) A.Timber General Rule: No harvest of timber in any forest land shall be allowed Exception: unless it has been the subject of at least a five per cent (5%) timber inventory, or any statistically sound timber estimate, made not earlier than five (5) years prior to the issuance of a license agreement or license allowing such utilization. (Section 24) Duration of license agreement or license to harvest timber in forest lands. The duration of the privilege to harvest timber in any particular forest land under a license agreement or license shall be fixed and determined in

accordance with the annual allowable cut therein, the established cutting cycle thereof, the yield capacity of harvestable timber, and the capacity of healthy residuals for a second growth. (Section 27) The maximum period of any privilege to harvest timber is twenty-five (25) years, renewable for a period, not exceeding twenty-five (25) years, necessary to utilize all the remaining commercial quantity or harvestable timber either from the unlogged or logged-over area. B. Wood-Processing The President of the Philippines, upon the recommendations of the National Economic Development Authority and the Department Head, may establish wood industry import-export centers in selected locations: Provided, That logs imported for such centers shall be subject to such precaution as may be imposed by the Bureau, in collaboration with proper government agencies, to prevent the introduction of pests, insects and/or diseases detrimental to the forests. (Sec 29) General Rule: No new processing plant shall be established Exception: unless adequate raw material is available on a sustained-yield basis in the area where the raw materials will come from. (Section 30) C. Reforestation Industrial Tree Plantations and Tree Farms. A lease for a period of twenty-five (25) years, renewable for another period not exceeding twenty-five (25) years, for the establishment of an industrial tree plantation or a tree farm may be granted by the Department Head upon recommendation of the Director to any person qualified to develop and exploit natural resources, over timber or forest lands of the public domain categorized in Section 33 hereof, with a minimum area of One Thousand (1,000) hectares for industrial tree plantation and One Hundred (100) hectares for tree farm; Provided, That the size of the area that may be granted under each category shall in each case depend upon the capacity of the lessee to develop or convert the area into productive condition within the term of the lease; Provided, further, That no lease shall be granted within critical watersheds. Scattered areas of less than One Hundred (100) hectares each may be leased for the establishment of tree farms to different qualified persons upon a showing that if developed as an integrated unit these areas can be economically exploited: Provided, That it shall be a condition of the lease that such persons organize themselves into a cooperative to ensure the orderly management thereof. (Section 34) D. Forest Protection The utilization of timber in alienable and disposable lands, private lands, civil reservations, and all lands containing standing or felled timber, including those under the jurisdiction of other government agencies, and the

establishment and operation of saw-mills and other woodprocessing plants, shall be regulated in order to prevent them from being used as shelters for excessive and unauthorized harvests in forest lands, and shall not therefore be allowed except through a license agreement, license, lease or permit. (Section 39) Timber inventory in other lands containing standing or felled timber. The Bureau shall conduct a one hundred per cent (100%) timber inventory in alienable and disposable lands and civil reservations immediately upon classification or reservation thereof. General rule: No harvest of standing or felled timber in alienable and disposable lands, private lands, civil reservation, and all other lands, including those under the jurisdiction of other government agencies, shall be allowed Exception: unless a one hundred per cent (100%) timber inventory has been conducted thereon. (Section 40) Minerals Mineral reservations which are not the subject of mining operations or where operations have been suspended for more than five (5) years shall be placed under forest management by the Bureau. (Section 48) Mineral reservations where mining operations have been terminated due to the exhaustion of its minerals shall revert to the category of forest land, unless otherwise reserved for other purposes. In order to coincide and conform to government plans, programs, standards, and specifications, holders of license agreements, licenses, leases and permits shall not undertake road or infrastructure construction or installation in forest lands without the prior approval of the Director, or in alienable and disposable lands, civil reservations and other government lands, without the approval of the government agencies having administrative jurisdiction over the same. All roads and infrastructure constructed by holders of license agreements, licenses, leases and permits belong to the State and the use and administration thereof shall be transferred to the government immediately upon the expiration or termination thereof. Prior thereto the Bureau may authorize the public use thereof, if it will not be detrimental to forest conservation measures. Where roads are utilized by more than one commercial forest user, the Bureau shall prescribe the terms and conditions of joint use including the equitable sharing of construction and/or maintenance costs, and of the use of these roads by other parties and the collection of such fees as may be deemed necessary. (Sec 48) Census of kaingineros, squatters, cultural minorities and other occupants and residents in forest lands. General rule: Henceforth, no person shall enter into forest lands and cultivate the same without lease or permit. (Section 52) Wildlife

General rule: Wildlife may be destroyed, killed, consumed, eaten or otherwise disposed of, without the necessity of permit, for the protection of life, health, safety and property, and the convenience of the people. Exception: However, the Director may regulate the killing and destruction of wildlife in forest lands in order to maintain an ecological balance of flora and fauna. (Section 55) Qualifications General rule: no licensee, lessee, or permittee may transfer, exchange, sell or convey his license agreement, license, lease or permit, or any of his rights or interests therein, or any of his assets used in connection therewith. Exception: Unless authorized by the Department Head no licensee, lessee, or permittee may transfer, exchange, sell or convey his license agreement, license, lease or permit, or any of his rights or interests therein, or any of his assets used in connection therewith. Condition(s) imposed: The licensee, lessee, or permittee shall be allowed to transfer or convey his license agreement, license, lease or permit only if he has not violated any forestry law, rule or regulation; has been faithfully complying with the terms and conditions of the license agreement, license, lease or permit; the transferee has all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications to hold a license agreement, license, lease or permit; there is no evidence that such transfer or conveyance is being made for purposes of speculation; and the transferee shall assume all the obligations of the transferor. The transferor shall forever be barred from acquiring another license agreement, license, lease or permit. 5. AN ACT REGULATING THE OWNERSHIP, POSSESSION, SALE, IMPORTATION AND USE OF CHAIN SAWS, PENALIZING VIOLATIONS THEREOF AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES Registration of Chain Saws. - Within a period of three (3) months from the effectivity hereof, all persons who own or are otherwise in possession of chain saws must register the same with the Department, through any of its Community Environment and Natural Resources Office, which shall issue the corresponding registration certificate or permit if it finds such persons to be qualified hereunder. Every permit to possess and/or use a chain saw for legitimate purpose shall be valid for two (2) years upon issuance: Provided, That permits to possess and use chainsaw issued to non-commercial orchard and fruit tree farmers shall be valid for a period of five (5) years upon issuance. For this purpose, the Department shall be allowed to collect reasonable registration fees for the effective implementation of this Act. (Section 6) 6. AN ACT PROVIDING FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT AND MANAGEMENT OF NATIONAL INTEGRATED PROTECTED AREAS SYSTEM, DEFINING ITS SCOPE AND COVERAGE, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES Environmental Impact Assessment

Proposals for activities which are outside the scope of the management plan for protected areas shall be subject to an environmental impact assessment as required by law before they are adopted, and the results thereof shall be taken into consideration in the decision-making process. No actual implementation of such activities shall be allowed without the required Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC) under the Philippine Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) system. In instances where such activities are allowed to be undertaken, the proponent shall plan and carry them out in such manner as will minimize any adverse effects and take preventive and remedial action when appropriate. The proponent shall be liable for any damage due to lack of caution or indiscretion. (Section 12) The following categories of protected areas are hereby established (Section 3) a. Strict nature reserve; b. Natural park; c. Natural monument; d. Wildlife sanctuary; e. Protected landscapes and seascapes; f. Resource reserve; g. Natural biotic areas; and, h. Other categories established by law, conventions or international agreements which the Philippine Government is a signatory. Disestablishment as Protected Area When in the opinion of the DENR a certain protected area should be withdrawn or disestablished, or its boundaries modified as warranted by a study and sanctioned by the majority of the members of the respective boards for the protected area as herein established in Section 11, it shall, in turn, advise Congress. Disestablishment of a protected area under the System or modification of its boundary shall take effect pursuant to an act of Congress. Thereafter, said area shall revert to the category of public forest unless otherwise classified by Congress: Provided, however, That after disestablishment by Congress, the Secretary may recommend the transfer of such disestablished area to other government agencies to serve other priority programs of national interest. (Section 7) Administration and Management of the System The National Integrated Protected Area System is hereby placed under the control and administration of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources. For this purpose, there is hereby created a division in the regional offices of the Department to be called the Protected Areas and Wildlife Division in regions where protected areas have been established, which shall be under the supervision of a Regional Technical Director, and shall include subordinate officers, clerks, and employees as may be proposed by the Secretary, duly approved by the Department of Budget and Management, and appropriated for by Congress. The Service thus established shall manage protected areas and promote the permanent preservation, to the greatest extent possible of their natural conditions. (Section 10 ) 7. AN ACT TO MANAGE AND PROTECT CAVES AND CAVE RESOURCES AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

Implementing Agency The DENR shall be the lead agency tasked to implement the provisions of this Act in coordination with the Department of Tourism (DOT), the National Museum, the National Historical Institute and concerned local government units (LGUs) for specific caves, except that in the Province of Palawan, the Palawan Council for Sustainable Development shall be the lead implementing agency pursuant to Republic Act No. 7611 or the Strategic Environmental Plan for Palawan Act. (Section 4) 8. AN ACT ADOPTING THE STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENT PLAN FOR PALAWAN, CREATING THE ADMINISTRATIVE MACHINERY TO ITS IMPLEMENTATION, CONVERTING THE PALAWAN INTEGRATED AREA DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICE TO ITS SUPPORT STAFF, PROVIDING FUNDS THEREFOR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES Strategic Environmental Plan. - A comprehensive framework for the sustainable development of Palawan compatible with protecting and enhancing the natural resources and endangered environment of the province is hereby adopted. Such framework shall be known as the Strategic Environmental Plan for Palawan, hereinafter referred to as SEP, and shall serve to guide the local government of Palawan and the government agencies concerned in the formulation and implementation of plans, programs and projects affecting said province.( SEC. 4) Main Components. (SEC. 8 ) - The areas covered by the ECAN hall be classified into three (3) main components; (1) Terrestrial - the terrestrial component shall consist of the mountainous as well as ecologically important low hills and lowland areas of the whole province. It may be further subdivided into smaller management components. (2) Coastal/marine area - this area includes the whole coastline up to the open sea. This is characterized by active fisheries and tourism activities. (3) Tribal Ancestral lands - These areas, traditionally occupied by cultural minorities, comprise both land and sea areas. These shall be treated in the same graded system of control and prohibition as in the others abovementioned except for strong emphasis in cultural considerations. The SEP, therefore, shall define a special kind of zonation to fulfill the material and cultural needs of the tribes using consultative processes and cultural mapping of the ancestral lands. SUPPORT MECHANISM Environmental Monitoring and Evaluation System (EMES) - In order to monitor achievement of its goals, SEP shall establish an Environmental Monitoring and Evaluation System (EMES) which shall ensure a systematic and reliable means of data generation for the various concerns of the SEP. It shall measure changes in environmental status, identify adverse environmental trends and crisis areas, recommend solutions, assess the implementation of the SEP, and suggest measures to make the SEP more responsible to the changing needs. (SEC. 13)

ADMINISTRATIVE MACHINERY FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SEP The governance, implementation and policy direction of the Strategic Environmental Plan shall be exercised by the herein created Palawan Council for Sustainable Development (PCSD), hereinafter referred to as the Council, which shall be under the Office of the President. It shall be composed of the Members of the House of the Representatives representing the province of Palawan, the Deputy Director General of the National Economic and Development Authority, the Undersecretary of Environment and Natural Resources, the Undersecretary for Special Concerns of the Department of Agriculture, the Governor of Palawan, the Mayor of Puerto Princesa City, the President of the Mayor's League of Palawan, the President of the Provincial Chapter of the Liga ng mga Barangay, the Executive Director of the Palawan council for Sustainable Development Staff as provided in Section 20 of this Act, and such other members from the public or private sectors as the majority of the council may deem necessary. (SEC. 16) 355 9.DENR Administrative Order No. 97-27 July 31, 1997 SUBJECT : Amendment of Section 15. Transitory Provisions, of Department Administrative Order No. 96-20 Also Known as the Implementing Rules and Regulations on the Prospecting of Biological and Genetic Resources This Order is promulgated in the interest of setting a definite timeframe for the negotiation and entry into force of Research Agreements for all bio prospecting research projects, contracts or agreements, pursuant to Section 11 of Executive Order No. 247, dated 18 May 1995. Section 15. Transitory Provisions of DAO 96-20, also known as the Implementing Rules and Regulations on the prospecting of Biological and Genetic Resources, is amended to read as follows: SECTION. 15. TRANSITORY PROVISIONS 15.1 All existing contracts or agreements involving bio prospecting entered into by and between the DENR, DA, DOH, DOST, or any other government agency and any person/institution, local or foreign, shall remain valid and effective until 31 August 1997 only. Provided that bio prospecting activities conducted within the month of August 1997 shall require the clearances/endorsements from local community concerned and the necessary permits issued by appropriate agencies incorporating the appropriate provisions of E.O. 247. Provided, further, that 356 no bioprospecting activity shall be allowed without the required Academic or Commercial Research Agreement after 31 August 1997. Provided finally, that existing agreements which took effect after the approval of E.O. 247 and already incorporating applicable and appropriate provisions of the E.O shall remain valid throughout the duration of the agreements, subject to annual review by the IACBGR and revision, if necessary; 15.2 "The DENR, DA or other government agencies authorized by law to grant permits to collect biological and generic materials shall immediately conduct a review of all existing collection permits issued prior to approval of DAO 96-20. Provided, that all permits involving bio prospecting researches/activities shall expire on 31 August 1997.

Thereafter, the proponent shall apply for an Academic or commercial Research Agreement, as the case may be. Provided further, that permits issued by the DENR, DA or any authorized government agency as part of existing agreements mentioned in Sentence 4 Section 15.1 of this Order shall remain valid and effective for the period stated therein but not beyond 31 August 1998 and may be renewed upon recommendation by the IACBGR". 10. AN ACT PROVIDING FOR THE CONSERVATION AND PROTECTION OF WILDLIFE RESOURCES AND THEIR HABITATS, APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES Scope of Application. The provisions of this Act shall be enforceable for all wildlife species found in all areas of the country, including protected areas under Republic Act No. 7586, otherwise known as the National Integrated Protected Areas System (NIPAS) Act, and critical habitats. This Act shall also apply to exotic species which are subject to trade, are cultured, maintained and/or bred in captivity or propagated in the country. (Section 3) Jurisdiction of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources and the Department of Agriculture. - The Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) shall have jurisdiction over all terrestrial plant and animal species, all turtles and tortoises and wetland species, including but not limited to crocodiles, waterbirds and all amphibians and dugong. The Department of Agriculture (DA) shall have jurisdiction over all declared aquatic critical habitats, all aquatic resources including but not limited to all fishes, aquatic plants, invertebrates and all marine mammals, except dugong. The secretaries of the DENR and the DA shall review, and by joint administrative order, revise and regularly update the list of species under their respective jurisdiction. In the Province of Palawan, jurisdiction herein conferred is vested to the Palawan Council for Sustainable Development pursuant to Republic Act No. 7611. (Section 4) CONSERVATION AND PROTECTION OF WILDLIFE RESOURCES General rule: No person or entity shall be allowed possession of wildlife Exception: unless such person or entity can prove financial and technical capability and facility to maintain said wildlife (Section 8) Exportation and/or Importation of Wildlife. Wildlife species may be exported to or imported from another country as may be authorized by the Secretary or the designated representative, subject to strict compliance with the provisions of this Act and rules and regulations promulgated pursuant thereto: Provided, That the recipient of the wildlife is technically and financially capable to maintain it. (Section 11) 11. AN ACT TO RECOGNIZE, PROTECT AND PROMOTE THE RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS CULTURAL COMMUNITIES/INDIGENOUS PEOPLE, CREATING A NATIONAL COMMISSION OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLE, ESTABLISHING IMPLEMENTING MECHANISMS,

APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES Composition of Ancestral Lands/Domains. - Ancestral lands and domains shall consist of all areas generally belonging to ICCs/IPs as referred under Sec. 3, items (a) and (b) of this Act. (Section 6) a) Ancestral Domains - Subject to Section 56 hereof, refer to all areas generally belonging to ICCs/IPs comprising lands,inland waters, coastal areas, and natural resources therein, held under a claim of ownership, occupied or possessed by ICCs/IPs, themselves or through their ancestors, communally or individually since time immemorial, continuously to the present except when interrupted by war, force majeure or displacement by force, deceit, stealth or as a consequence of government projects or any other voluntary dealings entered into by government and private individuals, corporations, and which are necessary to ensure their economic, social and cultural welfare. It shall include ancestral land, forests, pasture, residential, agricultural, and other lands individually owned whether alienable and disposable or otherwise, hunting grounds, burial grounds, worship areas, bodies of water, mineral and other natural resources, and lands which may no longer be exclusively occupied by ICCs/IPs but from which their traditionally had access to for their subsistence and traditional activities, particularly the home ranges of ICCs/IPs who are still nomadic and/or shifting cultivators; b) Ancestral Lands - Subject to Section 56 hereof, refers to land occupied, possessed and utilized by individuals, families and clans who are members of the ICCs/IPs since time immemorial, by themselves or through their predecessors-in-interest, under claims of individual or traditional group ownership,continuously, to the present except when interrupted by war, force majeure or displacement by force, deceit, stealth, or as a consequence of government projects and other voluntary dealings entered into by government and private individuals/corporations, including, but not limited to, residential lots, rice terraces or paddies, private forests, swidden farms and tree lots; * Section 56. Existing Property Rights Regimes. - Property rights within the ancestral domains already existing and/or vested upon effectivity of this Act, shall be recognized and respected. Rights to Ancestral Domains (Section 7): 1. Rights of Ownership 2. Right to Develop Lands and Natural Resources 3. Right to Stay in the Territories 4. Right in Case of Displacement 5. Right to Regulate Entry of Migrants 6. Right to Safe and Clean Air and Water 7. Right to Claim Parts of Reservations 8. Right to Resolve Conflict

Rights to Ancestral Lands (Section 8) 1. Right to transfer land/property 2. Right to Redemption- In cases where it is shown that the transfer of land/property rights by virtue of any agreement or devise, to a non-member of the concerned ICCs/IPs is tainted by the vitiated consent of the ICCs/IPs,or is transferred for an unconscionable consideration or price, the transferor ICC/IP shall have the right to redeem the same within a period not exceeding fifteen (15) years from the date of transfer. Commission concerned National Commission on Indigenous Cultural Communities /Indigenous Peoples (NCCP). - to carry out the policies herein set forth, there shall be created the National Commission on ICCs/IPs (NCIP), which shall be the primary government agency responsible for the formulation and implementation of policies, plans and programs to promote and protect the rights and well-being of the ICCs/IPs and the recognition of their ancestral domains as well as their rights thereto. (Section 38) Function(s): Jurisdiction of the NCIP. - The NCIP, through its regional offices, shall have jurisdiction over all claims and disputes involving rights of ICCs/IPs; Provided, however, That no such dispute shall be brought to the NCIP unless the parties have exhausted all remedies provided under their customary laws. For this purpose, a certification shall be issued by the Council of Elders/Leaders who participated in the attempt to settle the dispute that the same has not been resolved, which certification shall be a condition precedent to the filing of a petition with the NCIP. (Section 66) Delineation and Recognition of Ancestral Domains. Self-delineation shall be guiding principle in the identification and delineation of ancestral domains. As such, the ICCs/IPs concerned shall have a decisive role in all the activities pertinent thereto. The Sworn Statement of the Elders as to the Scope of the territories and agreements/pacts made with neighboring ICCs/IPs, if any, will be essential to the determination of these traditional territories. The Government shall take the necessary steps to identify lands which the ICCs/IPs concerned traditionally occupy and guarantee effective protection of their rights of ownership and possession thereto. Measures shall be taken in appropriate cases to safeguard the rights of the ICCs/IPs concerned to land which may no longer be exclusively occupied by them, but to which they have traditionally had access for their subsistence and traditional activities, particularly of ICCs/IPs who are still nomadic and/or shifting cultivators. (Section 51) Delineation Process. (Section 52) - The identification and delineation of ancestral domains shall be done in accordance with the following procedures: a. Ancestral Domains Delineated Prior to this Act - The provisions hereunder shall not apply to ancestral domains/lands already delineated according to DENR

Administrative Order No. 2, series of 1993, nor to ancestral lands and domains delineated under any other community/ancestral domain program prior to the enactment of his law. ICCs/IPs enactment of this law shall have the right to apply for the issuance of a Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title (CADT) over the area without going through the process outlined hereunder; b. Petition for Delineation - The process of delineating a specific perimeter may be initiated by the NCIP with the consent of the ICC/IP concerned, or through a Petition for Delineation filed with the NCIP, by a majority of the members of the ICCs/IPs; c. Delineation Paper - The official delineation of ancestral domain boundaries including census of all community members therein, shall be immediately undertaken by the Ancestral Domains Office upon filing of the application by the ICCs/IPs concerned. Delineation will be done in coordination with the community concerned and shall at all times include genuine involvement and participation by the members of the communities concerned; d. Proof required - Proof of Ancestral Domain Claims shall include the testimony of elders or community under oath, and other documents directly or indirectly attesting to the possession or occupation of the area since time immemorial by such ICCs/IPs in the concept of owners which shall be any one (1) of the following authentic documents: 1. Written accounts of the ICCs/IPs customs and traditions; 2. Written accounts of the ICCs/IPs political structure and institution; 3. Pictures showing long term occupation such as those of old improvements, burial grounds, sacred places and old villages; 4. Historical accounts, including pacts and agreements concerning boundaries entered into by the ICCs/IPs concerned with other ICCs/IPs; 5. Survey plans and sketch maps; 6. Anthropological data; 7. Genealogical surveys; 8. Pictures and descriptive histories of traditional communal forests and hunting grounds; 9. Pictures and descriptive histories of traditional landmarks such as mountains, rivers, creeks, ridges, hills, terraces and the like; and 10. Write-ups of names and places derived from the native dialect of the community. e. Preparation of Maps - On the basis of such investigation and the findings of fact based thereon, the Ancestral Domains Office of the NCIP shall prepare a perimeter map, complete with technical descriptions, and a description of the natural features and landmarks embraced therein; f. Report of Investigation and Other Documents - A complete copy of the preliminary census and a report of

investigation, shall be prepared by the Ancestral Domains Office of the NCIP; g. Notice and Publication - A copy of each document, including a translation in the native language of the ICCs/IPs concerned shall be posted in a prominent place therein for at least fifteen (15) days. A copy of the document shall also be posted at the local, provincial and regional offices of the NCIP, and shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation once a week for two (2) consecutive weeks to allow other claimants to file opposition thereto within fifteen (15) days from the date of such publication: Provided, That in areas where no such newspaper exists, broadcasting in a radio station will be a valid substitute: Provided, further, That mere posting shall be deemed sufficient if both newspaper and radio station are not available; h. Endorsement to NCIP - Within fifteen (15) days from publication, and of the inspection process, the Ancestral Domains Office shall prepare a report to the NCIP endorsing a favorable action upon a claim that is deemed to have sufficient proof. However, if the proof is deemed insufficient, the Ancestral Domains Office shall require the submission of additional evidence: Provided, That the Ancestral Domains Office shall reject any claim that is deemed patently false or fraudulent after inspection and verification: Provided, further, That in case of rejection, the Ancestral Domains Office shall give the applicant due notice, copy furnished all concerned, containing the grounds for denial. The denial shall be appealable to the NCIP: Provided, furthermore, That in cases where there are conflicting claims, the Ancestral Domains Office shall cause the contending parties to meet and assist them in coming up with a preliminary resolution of the conflict, without prejudice to its full adjudication according to the selection below. i. Turnover of Areas Within Ancestral Domains Managed by Other Government Agencies - The Chairperson of the NCIP shall certify that the area covered is an ancestral domain. The secretaries of the Department of Agrarian Reform, Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Department of the Interior and Local Government, and Department of Justice, the Commissioner of the National Development Corporation, and any other government agency claiming jurisdiction over the area shall be notified thereof. Such notification shall terminate any legal basis for the jurisdiction previously claimed; j. Issuance of CADT - ICCs/IPs whose ancestral domains have been officially delineated and determined by the NCIP shall be issued a CADT in the name of the community concerned, containing a list of all those identified in the census; and k. Registration of CADTs - The NCIP shall register issued certificates of ancestral domain titles and certificates of ancestral lands titles before the Register of Deeds in the place where the property is situated. 12. AN ACT CREATING A PEOPLE'S SMALLSCALE MINING PROGRAM AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. What is small-scale mining?

"Small-scale mining" refers to mining activities which rely heavily on manual labor using simple implement and methods and do not use explosives or heavy mining equipment (Sec. 3) Department concerned For the purpose of carrying out the declared policy provided in Section 2 hereof, there is hereby established a People's Small-scale Mining Program to be implemented by the Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, hereinafter called the Department, in coordination with other concerned government agencies, designed to achieve an orderly, systematic and rational scheme for the small-scale development and utilization of mineral resources in certain mineral areas in order to address the social, economic, technical, and environmental connected with small-scale mining activities. (Sec. 4) Future People's Small-scale Mining Areas. (Sec. 6) The following lands, when suitable for small-scale mining, may be declared by the Board as people's small scale mining areas: (a) Public lands not subject to any existing right; (b) Public lands covered by existing mining rights which are not active mining areas; and (c) Private lands, subject to certain rights and conditions, except those with substantial improvements or in bona fide and regular use as a yard, stockyard, garden, plant nursery, plantation, cemetery or burial site, or land situated within one hundred meters (100 m.) from such cemetery or burial site, water reservoir or a separate parcel of land with an area of ten thousand square meters (10,000 sq. m.) or less. 13. AN ACT INSTITUTING A NEW SYSTEM OF MINERAL RESOURCES EXPLORATION, DEVELOPMENT, UTILIZATION, AND CONSERVATION Mineral Reservations When the national interest so requires, such as when there is a need to preserve strategic raw materials for industries critical to national development, or certain minerals for scientific, cultural or ecological value, the President may establish mineral reservations upon the recommendation of the Director through the Secretary. Mining operations in existing mineral reservations and such other reservations as may thereafter be established, shall be undertaken by the Department or through a contractor: Provided, That a small scale-mining cooperative covered by Republic Act No. 7076 shall be given preferential right to apply for a small-scale mining agreement for a maximum aggregate area of twenty-five percent (25%) of such mineral reservation, subject to valid existing mining/quarrying rights as provided under Section 112 Chapter XX hereof. All submerged lands within the contiguous zone and in the exclusive economic zone of the Philippines are hereby declared to be mineral reservations. A ten per centum (10%) share of all royalties and revenues to be derived by the government from the development and utilization of the mineral resources within mineral reservations as provided under this Act shall accrue to the Mines and Geosciences Bureau to be allotted for special projects and other administrative expenses related to the

exploration and development of other mineral reservations mentioned in Section 6 hereof. (Section 5) Authority of the Bureau The Bureau (Mines and Geosciences Bureau under the Department of Environment and Natural Resources) shall have direct charge in the administration and disposition of mineral lands and mineral resources and shall undertake geological, mining, metallurgical, chemical, and other researches as well as geological and mineral exploration surveys. The Director shall recommend to the Secretary the granting of mineral agreements to duly qualified persons and shall monitor the compliance by the contractor of the terms and conditions of the mineral agreements. The Bureau may confiscate surety, performance and guaranty bonds posted through an order to be promulgated by the Director. The Director may deputize, when necessary, any member or unit of the Philippine National Police, barangay, duly registered non-governmental organization (NGO) or any qualified person to police all mining activities. (Section 9) Areas Open to Mining Operations (Section 18) Subject to any existing rights or reservations and prior agreements of all parties, all mineral resources in public or private lands, including timber or forestlands as defined in existing laws, shall be open to mineral agreements or financial or technical assistance agreement applications. Any conflict that may arise under this provision shall be heard and resolved by the panel of arbitrators. Areas Closed to Mining Applications (Section 19) Mineral agreement or financial or technical assistance agreement applications shall not be allowed: a. In military and other government reservations, except upon prior written clearance by the government agency concerned; b. Near or under public or private buildings, cemeteries, archeological and historic sites, bridges, highways, waterways, railroads, reservoirs, dams or other infrastructure projects, public or private works including plantations or valuable crops, except upon written consent of the government agency or private entity concerned; c. In areas covered by valid and existing mining rights; d. In areas expressedly prohibited by law; e. In areas covered by small-scale miners as defined by law unless with prior consent of the small-scale miners, in which case a royalty payment upon the utilization of minerals shall be agreed upon by the parties, said royalty forming a trust fund for the socioeconomic development of the community concerned; and f. Old growth or virgin forests, proclaimed watershed forest reserves, wilderness areas, mangrove forests, mossy forests, national parks provincial/municipal forests, parks, greenbelts, game refuge and bird sanctuaries as defined by law and in areas expressly prohibited under the National Integrated Protected Areas System (NIPAS) under Republic

Act No. 7586, Department Administrative Order No. 25, series of 1992 and other laws. Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Except during the exploration period of a mineral agreement or financial or technical assistance agreement or an exploration permit, an environmental clearance certificate shall be required based on an environmental impact assessment and procedures under the Philippine Environmental Impact Assessment System including Sections 26 and 27 of the Local Government Code of 1991 which require national government agencies to maintain ecological balance, and prior consultation with the local government units, non-governmental and peoples organizations and other concerned sectors of the community: Provided, That a completed ecological profile of the proposed mining area shall also constitute part of the environmental impact assessment. Peoples organizations and non-governmental organizations shall be allowed and encouraged to participate in ensuring that contractors/permittees shall observe all the requirements of environmental protection. (Section 70) CASES: Republic v. City of Davao Facts: Davao filed an application for a Certificate of NonCoverage (CNC) for its proposed project, the Davao City Artica Sports Dome, with the Environmental Management Bureau (EMB), Region XI. The EMB denied the application after finding that the proposed project was within an environmentally critical area and ruled that, pursuant to Sec 2, PD 1586 (Environmental Impact Statement System), in relation to Sec 4, PD 1151, (Philippine Environment Policy), Davao must undergo the environmental impact assessment (EIA) process to secure an Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC), before it can proceed with the construction of its project. Davao filed a petition for mandamus and injunction with the RTC of Dava alleging that its proposed project was neither an environmentally critical project nor within an environmentally critical area; thus outside the scope of the EIS system. Hence, it was the ministerial duty of the DENR, through the EMB, to issue a CNC in favor of respondent upon submission of the required documents. RTC: for Davao. LGUs not required by PDs 1586 & 1511 to comply with the EIS law. Only agencies and instrumentalities of the NG, including GOCCs, as well as private corporations, firms and entities are mandated to go through the EIA process for their proposed projects which have significant effect on the quality of the environment. An LGU, not being an agency or instrumentality of the NG, is deemed excluded under the principle of expressio unius est exclusio alterius. MR: denied Issue: WON Davao is required to comply with the EIS law. Ruling: YES. Davao already expressed agreement that it must secure an ECC for proposed project, hence moot and academic, but the SC decided to still discuss issues to educate the bench and bar. Davao cannot claim exemption from coverage of PD 1586. LGU a body politic and corporate endowed with powers to be exercised by it in conformity with law. It performs dual functions: (1) Governmental functions are those that concern the health, safety and the advancement of the public good or welfare as affecting the public

generally. LGU is an agency of the NG (2) Proprietary functions are those that seek to obtain special corporate benefits or earn pecuniary profit and intended for private advantage and benefit. LGU agent of the community in the administration of local affairs. Sec 16 LGC: duty of the LGUs to promote the peoples right to a balanced ecology. As a body politic endowed with governmental functions, an LGU has the duty to ensure the quality of the environment, which is the very same objective of PD 1586. Sec 4 of PD 1586 clearly states that no person, partnership or corporation shall undertake or operate any such declared environmentally critical project or area without first securing an ECC issued by the President or his duly authorized representative. The CC defines a person as either natural or juridical. The state and its political subdivisions, LGUs are juridical persons. Undoubtedly therefore, LGUs are not excluded from the coverage of PD 1586. State policy: achieve a balance between socio-economic development and environmental protection, which are the twin goals of sustainable development. This can only be possible if we adopt a comprehensive and integrated environmental protection program where all the sectors of the community are involved, i.e., the government and the private sectors. The LGUs, as part of the machinery of the government, cannot therefore be deemed as outside the scope of the EIS system. *other issue: Davao must be granted ECC, it has duly proven thatthe dome will not be constructed in an environmentally critical area, hence, it becomes the ministerial duty of the DENR to issue the CNC. Bangus Fry Fisherfolk vs Lanzanas july 10, 2003 DOCTRINE The jurisdiction of Regional Trial Courts to issue injunctive writs is limited to acts committed or about to be committed within their judicial region. Moreover, Presidential Decree No. 1818 (PD No.1818) prohibited courts from issuing injunctive writs against government infrastructure projects FACTS On 30 June 1997, Department of Environment and NaturalResources (DENR), issued an Environmental Clearance in favor of Respondent National Power Corporation (NAPOCOR). The Sangguniang Bayan of Puerto Galera has declared MinoloCove, a mangrove area and breeding ground for bangus fry,an eco-tourist zone. Petitioners, claiming to be fisher folks from Minolo, San Isidro, Puerto Galera, sought reconsideration of the ECC issuance.Director Principe, however, denied petitioners plea on 15 July1997. On 21 July 1997, petitioners filed a complaint with the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 7, for the cancellation of the ECC and for the issuance of a writ of injunction to stop the construction of the mooring facility. On 28 August 1997, before filing their answers, respondents moved to dismiss the complaint. These respondents claimed that petitioners failed to exhaust administrative remedies, rendering the complaint without cause of action. They also asserted that the Manila RTC has no jurisdiction to enjoin theconstruction of the mooring facility in Oriental Mindoro, which lies outside the Manila RTCs territorial jurisdiction. ISSUE Whether or not the writ of preliminary injunction is proper Held: The jurisdiction of Regional Trial Courts to issue injunctive writs is limited to acts committed or about to be committed

within their judicial region. Moreover, Presidential Decree No. 1818 (PD No.1818) prohibited courts from issuing injunctive writs against government infrastructure projects like the mooring facility in the present case. Republic Act No. 8975 (RA No. 8975), which took effect on 26 November 2000, superseded PD No. 1818 and delineates more clearly the coverage of the prohibition, reserves the power to issue such writs exclusively with this Court, and provides penalties for its violation. Section 1. No court in the Philippines shall have jurisdiction to issue any restraining order, preliminary injunction, or preliminary mandatory injunction in any case, dispute, or controversy involving gan infrastructure project, or a mining, fishery, forest or other natural resource development project of the government, or any public utilityoperated by the government, including among others public utilities for the transport of the goods or commodities, stevedoring and arrastre contracts, to prohibit any person or persons, entity or governmental official from proceeding with, or continuing theexecution or implementation of any such project, or the operation of such public utility, or pursuing any lawful activity necessary for such execution, implementation or operation. Obviously, neither the Manila RTC nor the Oriental Mindoro RTC canissue an injunctive writ to stop the construction of the mooring facility. Only this Court can do so under PD No. 1818 and later under RA No. 8975. Thus, the question of whether the Manila RTC has jurisdiction over the complaint considering that its injunctive writ is not enforceable in Oriental Mindoro is academic. PICOP vs Base metals dec 6, 2006 DOCTRINE The Presidential Warranty cannot, in any manner, be construed as a contractual undertaking assuring PICOP of exclusive possession and enjoyment of its concession areas. Such an interpretation would result in the complete abdication by the State in favor of PICOP of the sovereign power to control and supervise the exploration, development and utilization of the natural resources in the area. FACTS Central Mindanao Mining and Development Corporation entered into a Mines Operating Agreement with Banahaw Mining andDevelopment Corporation. Pursuant to the terms of the Agreement, Banahaw Mining filed applications for Mining Lease Contracts over the mining claims with the Bureau of Mines. On April 29, 1988, Banahaw Mining was issued a Mines Temporary Permit authorizing it to extract and dispose of precious minerals found within its mining claims since a portion of Banahaw Mining's mining claims was located in petitioner PICOP's logging concession in Agusan Del Sur, Banahaw Mining and petitioner PICOP entered into a Memorandum of Agreement, whereby, in mutual recognition of each other's right to the area concerned, petitioner PICOP allowed Banahaw Mining an access/right of way to its mining claims Banahaw Mining thereafter converted its mining claims to applications for Mineral Production Sharing Agreements. While the MPSA were pending, Banahaw Mining, on December 18, 1996, decided to sell/assign its rights and interests over thirty-seven mining claims in favor of private respondent Base Metals Mineral Resources Corporation (Base Metals for brevity). The transfer included mining claims held by Banahaw Mining in its own right as claim

owner, as well as those covered by its mining operating agreement with CMMCI. Upon being informed of the development, CMMCI, as claim owner, immediately approved the assignment made by Banahaw Mining in favor of private respondent Base Metals, thereby recognizing private respondent Base Metals as the new operator of its claims. On November 18, 1997, petitioner PICOP filed with the Mines Geo-Sciences Bureau (MGB), Caraga Regional Office No. XIII an Adverse Claim and/or Opposition to private respondent Base Metals' application on the following grounds: I. THE APPROVAL OF THE APPLICATION AND ISSUANCE OF THE MPSA OF BASE METALS WILL VIOLATE THE CONSTITUTIONAL MANDATE AGAINST IMPAIRMENT OF OBLIGATION IN A CONTRACT The Court of Appeals upheld the decision of the MAB, ruling that the Presidential Warranty of September 25, 1968 issued by then President Ferdinand E. Marcos merely confirmed the timber license granted to PICOP and warranted the latter's peaceful and adequate possession and enjoyment of its concession areas. It was only given upon the request of the Board of Investments to establish the boundaries of PICOP's timber license agreement. The Presidential Warranty did not convert PICOP's timber license into a contract because it did not create any obligation on the part of the government in favor of PICOP. Thus, the non-impairment clause finds no application. Neither did the Presidential Warranty grant PICOP the exclusive possession, occupation and exploration of the concession areas covered. If that were so, the government would have effectively surrendered its police power to control and supervise the exploration, development and utilization of the country's natural resources. ISSUE: W/n the impairment of contracts apply? HELD No. The guaranty is merely a collateral inducement. An examination of the Presidential Warranty at once reveals that it simply reassures PICOP of the government's commitment to uphold the terms and conditions of its timber license and guarantees PICOP's peaceful and adequate possession and enjoyment of the areas which are the basic sources of raw materials for its wood processing complex. The warranty covers only the right to cut, collect, and remove timber in its concession area, and does not extend to the utilization of other resources, such as mineral resources, occurring within the concession. The Presidential Warranty cannot, in any manner, be construed as a contractual undertaking assuring PICOP of exclusive possession and enjoyment of its concession areas. Such an interpretation would result in the complete abdication by the State in favor of PICOP of the sovereign power to control and supervise the exploration, development and utilization of the natural resources in the area. Merida vs People June 12 2008 DOCTRINE In People v. Merida (G.R. No. 158182, June 12, 2008), the Supreme Court ruled that cutting a tree in private land for timber without a permit from the DENR was punishable under this provision. FACTS The government hailed Petitioner before the Regional Trial Court of Romblon, Romblon, Branch 81 (trial court) with

violation of Section 68 of PD 705, as amended, for "cut [ting], gather[ing], collect[ing] and remov[ing]" a lone narra tree inside a private land in Mayod, Ipil, Magdiwang, Romblon (Mayod Property) over which private complainant Oscar M. Tansiongco (Tansiongco) claims ownership The RTC handed judgment rapidly. In its Decision dated 24 November 2000, the trial court found petitioner guilty as charged, sentenced him to fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day to twenty (20) years of reclusion temporal and ordered the seized lumber forfeited in Tansiongco's favor. The trial court dismissed petitioner's defense of denial in view of his repeated extrajudicial admissions that he cut the narra tree in the Mayod Property with Calix's permission. With this finding and petitioner's lack of DENR permit to cut the tree, the trial court held petitioner liable for violation of Section 68 of PD 705, as amended. ISSUE W/n sec 28 of PD 705 prohibiting the cutting gathering and collecting of timber and other forest products apply to Petitioner. HELD Petitioner is Liable for Cutting Timber in Private Property without Permit Section 68, as amended, one of the 12 acts penalized under PD 705, provides: SECTION 68. Cutting, Gathering and/or Collecting Timber, or Other Forest Products without License. Any person who shall cut, gather, collect, remove timber or other forest products from any forest land, or Timber from alienable or disposable public land, or from private land, without any authority, or possess timber or other forest products without the legal documents as required under existing forest laws and regulations, shall be punished with the penalties imposed under Articles 309 and 310 of the Revised Penal Code: Provided, That in the case of partnerships, associations, or corporations, the officers who ordered the cutting, gathering, collection or possession shall be liable, and if such officers are aliens, they shall, in addition to the penalty, be deported without further proceedings on the part of the Commission on Immigration and Deportation. The court shall further order the confiscation in favor of the government of the timber or any forest products cut, gathered, collected, removed, or possessed as well as the machinery, equipment, implements and tools illegally used in the area where the timber or forest products are found. Section 68 penalizes three categories of acts: (1) the cutting, gathering, collecting, or removing of timber or other forest products from any forest land without any authority; (2) the cutting, gathering, collecting, or removing of timberfrom alienable or disposable public land, or from private land without any authority and (3) the possession of timber or other forest products without the legal documents. AUGUSTUS L. MOMONGAN, Petitioner versus JUDGE RAFAEL B. OMIPON, Respondent "Complainant is correct in pointing out that based on Pres. Decree No. 705, Sec. 68-A and Adm. Order No. 59, the DENR Secretary or his duly authorized representative has the power to confiscate any illegally obtained or gathered forest products and all conveyances used in the commission of the offense and to dispose of the same in accordance with pertinent laws. However, as complainant himself likewise pointed out, this power is in relation to the administrative jurisdiction of the DENR.

"We do not find that when respondent Judge released the truck after he conducted the preliminary investigation and satisfied himself that there was no reason to continue keeping the truck, he violated Pres. Decree No. 705 and Adm. Order No. 59. The release of the truck did not render nugatory the administrative authority of the DENR Secretary. The confiscation proceedings under Adm. Order No. 596 is different from the confiscation under the Revised Penal Code, which is an additional penalty imposed in the event of conviction. Despite the order of release, the truck can be seized again either by filing a motion for reinvestigation and motion to include the truck owner/driver as co-accused, which complainant has done as manifested before the lower-court or by enforcing Adm. Order No, 59. Section 12 thereof categorically states that '[t]he confiscation of the conveyance under these regulations shall be without prejudice to any criminal action which shall be filed, against the owner thereof or any person who used the conveyance in the commission of the offense.'"Petitioner is of the opinion that under the circumstances, respondent Judge should have turned over the truck to the Community Environment and Natural Resources Office (CENRO) of San Juan, Southern Leyte for appropriate disposition. No doubt, this would have simplified matters and prevented the present situation from occurring wherein one government official files a complaint against another. Under Sec. 4 of Adm. Order No. 59, if the apprehension is not made by DENR field offices, deputized military personnel and officials of other agencies apprehending illegal logs and other forest products and their conveyances shall notify the nearest DENR field offices and turn over said forest products and conveyances for proper action and disposition. A period of about two weeks lapsed, from the time the seizure was made before a complaint was filed. During this period, the apprehending policemen had enough time to turn over the logs and the truck to the nearest DENR field office for proper action and disposition since the duty to turn over the truck to the nearest DENR field office rests on the officials apprehending the illegal logs. There being no mandatory duty on the part of respondent Judge to turn over the truck, he should not be visited with disciplinary sanction when he did not refer the same to the DENR field office in San Juan, Southern Leyte. March 23, 1995. Provident tree farms vs Batario mar 28 1994 DOCTRINE: Cases before the BOC must be fully fleshed out before it prior to elevating the issues to a regular court in keeping with the exhaustion of administrative remedies. FACTS In the extrant case, PTFI seeks to set aside the 8 February 1990 order of respondent court and prays for the continuation of the hearing in Civil Case No. 89-48836. PTFI claims that what was brought before the trial court was a civil case for injunction, i.e., "restraining the entry of safety matches into the country . . . for the purpose of securing compliance with Sec. 36 (l) of the Forestry Code and for damages, "to seek redress of its right which has been clearly violated by the importation of safety matches . . . . (Which) is a denial to the petitioner of the protection and incentive granted it by Section 36 (l) of the Forestry Code . . . ."

Naturally, PTFI asserts the inapplicability of the procedures outlined in R.A. No. 1125 relative to incidents before the Court of Tax Appeals because the instant action is not a protest case where the aggrieved party is not an importer. It then argues that since it could not avail of the remedies afforded by the Tariff and Customs Code, resort to the courts is warranted, citing Commissioner of Customs v. Alikpala Petitioner asserts his complaint on a statutory privilege or incentive granted under Sec. 36, par. (l), of the Revised Forestry Code. The only subject of this incentive is a ban against importation of wood, wood products or woodderivated products which is to be enforced by the Bureau of Customs since it has, under the Tariff and Customs Code, the exclusive original jurisdiction over seizure and forfeiture cases and, in fact, it is the duty of the Collector of Customs to exercise jurisdiction over prohibited importations. The enforcement of the importation ban under Sec. 36, par. (l), of the Revised Forestry Code is within the exclusive realm of the Bureau of Customs, and direct recourse of petitioner to the Regional Trial Court to compel the Commissioner of Customs to enforce the ban is devoid of any legal basis. Now it follows that to allow the regular court to direct the Commissioner to impound the imported matches, as petitioner insisted, is clearly an interference with the exclusive jurisdiction of the Bureau of Customs over seizure and forfeiture cases. An order of a judge to impound, seize or forfeit must inevitably be based on his determination and declaration of the invalidity of the importation, hence, an usurpation of the prerogative and an encroachment on the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Customs. In other words, the reliefs directed against the Bureau of Customs as well as the prayer for injunction against importation of matches by private respondent AJIC may not be granted without the court arrogating upon itself the exclusive jurisdiction of the Bureau of Customs. ISSUE W/n the BOC holds jurisdiction in the matter of wood product importation HELD Petitioners position is inconceivable! The claim of petitioner that no procedure is outlined for the enforcement of the import ban under the Tariff and Customs Code, if true, does not at all diminish the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Customs over the subject matter. The enforcement of statutory rights is not foreclosed by the absence of a statutory procedure. The Commissioner of Customs has the power to "promulgate all rules and regulations necessary to enforce the provisions of this (Tariff and Customs) Code . . . subject to the approval of the Secretary of Finance." Moreover, it has been held that ". . . . (w) here the statute does not require any particular method of procedure to be followed by an administrative agency, the agency may adopt any reasonable method to carry out its functions." But over and above the foregoing, PTFI's correspondence with the Bureau of Customs contesting the legality of match importations may already take the nature of an administrative proceeding the pendency of which would preclude the court from interfering with it under the doctrine of primary jurisdiction. People vs CFI Feb 13 1992 DOCTRINE: Mere possession of lumber is punishable; ownership is not an element of the crime.

FACTS Charges were levied against private respondents for the crime of qualified theft of logs, defined and punished under Section 68 of Presidential Decree No. 705, otherwise known as the Revised Forestry Code of the Philippines, in information which read: That on or about the 28th, 29th and 30th days of July 1976, at Barangay Mahabang Lalim, Municipality of General Nakar, Province of Quezon, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, Godofredo Arrozal and Luis Flores, together with twenty (20) other John Does whose identities are still unknown, the first-named accused being the administrator of the Infanta Logging Corporation, with intent to gain, conspiring and confederating together and mutually helping one another, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously enter the privately-owned land of one Felicitacion Pujalte, titled in the name of her deceased father, Macario Prudente, under Original Certificate of Title No. 6026, and once inside, illegally cut, gather, take, steal and carry away therefrom, without the consent of the said owner and without any authority under a license agreement, lease license or permit, sixty (60) logs of different species, consisting of about 541.48 cubic meters, with total value of FIFTY THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED FIVE PESOS and FIFTY TWO CENTAVOS (P50,205.52) including government charges, to the damage and prejudice of the said owner in the aforesaid amount. On the first issue, the People alleged that, contrary to the allegation of the private respondents and the opinion of the trial court, the information substantially alleged all the elements of the crime of qualified theft of logs as described in Section 68 of P.D. 705. While it was admitted that the information did not precisely allege that the taking of the logs in question was "without the consent of the state," Nevertheless, said information expressly stated that the accused "illegally cut, gather, take, steal and carry away there from, without the consent of said owner and without any authority under a license agreement, lease, lease, license or permit, sixty (60) logs of different species. . . ." Since only the state can grant the lease, license, license agreement or permit for utilization of forest resources, including timber, then the allegation in the information that the asportation of the logs was "without any authority" under a license agreement, lease, license or permit, is tantamount to alleging that the taking of the logs was without the consent of the state. ISSUE W/N the theft of logs was committed in contravention of PD 705 HELD The SCs agrees with the petitioner. Sec. 68. Cutting, gathering and/or collecting timber or other products without license. Any person who shall cut, gather, collect or remove timber or other forest products from any forest land, or timber from alienable or disposable public lands, or from private lands, without any authority under a license agreement, lease, license or permit, shall be guilty of qualified theft as defined and punished under Articles 309 and 310 of the Revised Penal Code. . . . When an accused invokes in a motion to quash the ground that the facts charged do not constitute an offense (Rule 117, Sec. 2 [a] Rules of Court), the sufficiency of the Information hinges on the question of whether the facts alleged, if hypothetically admitted, meet the essential elements of the offense defined in the law (People v.

Segovia, 103 Phil. 1162 [1958]; People v. Abad, L-55132, August 30, 1988, 165 SCRA 57). The elements of the crime of qualified theft of logs are: 1) that the accused cut, gathered, collected or removed timber or other forest products; 2) that the timber or other forest products cut, gathered, collected or removed belongs to the government or to any private individual; and 3) that the cutting, gathering, collecting or removing was without authority under a license agreement, lease, license, or permit granted by the state. Ownership is not an essential element of the offense as defined in Section 60 of P.D. No. 705. Thus, the failure of the information to allege the true owner of the forest products is not material; it was sufficient that it alleged that the taking was without any authority or license from the government. The trial court erred in dismissing the case on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter because the information was filed not pursuant to the complaint of any forest officer as prescribed in Section 80 of P.D. 705 The SC thereby granted the position and reversed the trial courts order of dismissing the information. Aquino vs People of the Philippines July 27, 2009 Facts On behalf of Teachers Camp, Sergio Guzman filed with the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) an application to cut down 14 dead Benguet pine trees within the Teachers Camp in Baguio City. The trees, which had a total volume of 13.37 cubic meters, were to be used for the repairs of Teachers Camp. On 19 May 1993, before the issuance of the permit, a team composed of members from the Community Environment and Natural Resources Office (CENRO) and Michael Cuteng (Cuteng), a forest ranger of the Forest Section of the Office of the City Architect and Parks Superintendent of Baguio City, conducted an inspection of the trees to be cut. Thereafter, Sabado T. Batcagan, Executive Director of the DENR, issued a permit allowing the cutting of 14 trees under the following terms and conditions: 2. That the cut timber shall be utilized as lumber and fuel-wood by the permittee; 3. As replacement, the permittee shall plant one hundred forty (140) pine seedlings in an appropriate place within the area. In the absence of plantable area in the property, the same is required to plant within forest area duly designated by CENRO concerned which shall be properly maintained and protected to ensure/enhance growth and development of the planted seedlings; 4. Violation of any of the conditions set hereof is punishable under Section 68 of PD 705 as amended by E.O. No. 277, Series of 1987; and 5. That non-compliance with any of the above conditions or violations of forestry laws and regulations shall render this permit null and void without prejudice to the imposition of penalties in accordance with existing laws and regulations. This PERMIT is non-transferable and shall expire ten (10) days from issuance hereof or as soon as the herein authorized volume is exhausted whichever comes first.[4]

On 23 July 1993, Forest Rangers Ramil Windo, Moises Sobrepea, Daniel Salamo, Pablo Guinawan, Antonio Abellera, and Forester Paul Apilis received information that pine trees were being cut at Teachers Camp without proper authority. They proceeded to the site where they found Ernesto Aquino (petitioner), a forest ranger from CENRO, and Cuteng supervising the cutting of the trees. They also found sawyers Benedicto Santiago (Santiago) and Mike Masing (Masing) on the site, together with Clemente Salinas (Salinas) and Andrew Nacatab (Nacatab), who were also supervising the cutting of the trees. The forest rangers found 23 tree stumps, out of which only 12 were covered by the permit. The volume of the trees cut with permit was 13.58 cubic meters while the volume of the trees cut without permit was 16.55 cubic meters. The market value of the trees cut without permit was P182,447.20, and the forest charges were P11,833.25. An Information for violation of Section 68 of Presidential Decree No. 705[5] (PD 705) was filed against petitioner, Cuteng, Nacatab, Masing, and Santiago. Issue The only issue in this case is whether petitioner is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 68 of PD 705. The Ruling of this Court The petition has merit. The Solicitor General alleges that the petition should be denied because petitioner only raises questions of facts and not questions of law. We do not agree. A question of law arises when there is doubt as to what the law is on a certain state of facts, while there is a question of fact when the doubt arises as to the truth or falsity of the alleged facts.[10] For questions to be one of law, the same must not involve an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the litigants.[11] The resolution of the issue must rest solely on what the law provides on the given set of circumstances.[12] In this case, petitioner challenges his conviction under Section 68 of PD 705. Section 68 of PD 705 provides: Section 68. Cutting, Gathering and/or Collecting Timber or Other Forest Products Without License.-Any person who shall cut, gather, collect, remove timber or other forest products from any forest land, or timber from alienable or disposable public land, or from private land, without any authority, or possess timber or other forest products without the legal documents as required under existing forest laws and regulations, shall be punished with the penalties imposed under Articles 309 and 310 of the Revised Penal Code: Provided, that in the case of partnerships, associations, or corporations, the officers who ordered the cutting, gathering, collection or possession shall be liable, and if such officers are aliens, they shall, in addition to the penalty, be deported without further proceedings on the part of the Commission on Immigration and Deportation.

There are two distinct and separate offenses punished under Section 68 of PD 705, to wit:(1) Cutting, gathering, collecting and removing timber or other forest products from any forest land, or timber from alienable or disposable public land, or from private land without any authority; and (2) Possession of timber or other forest products without the legal documents required under existing forest laws and regulations.[13] The provision clearly punishes anyone who shall cut, gather, collect or remove timber or other forest products from any forest land, or timber from alienable or disposable public land, or from private land, without any authority. In this case, petitioner was charged by CENRO to supervise the implementation of the permit. He was not the one who cut, gathered, collected or removed the pine trees within the contemplation of Section 68 of PD 705. He was not in possession of the cut trees because the lumber was used by Teachers Camp for repairs. Petitioner could not likewise be convicted of conspiracy to commit the offense because all his co-accused were acquitted of the charges against them. Petitioner may have been remiss in his duties when he failed to restrain the sawyers from cutting trees more than what was covered by the permit. As the Court of Appeals ruled, petitioner could have informed his superiors if he was really intimidated by Santiago. If at all, this could only make petitioner administratively liable for his acts. It is not enough to convict him under Section 68 of PD 705. Neither could petitioner be liable under the last paragraph of Section 68 of PD 705 as he is not an officer of a partnership, association, or corporation who ordered the cutting, gathering, or collection, or is in possession of the pine trees. WHEREFORE, we GRANT the petition. We SET ASIDE the 5 June 1997 Decision and 24 September 2004 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 17534. Petitioner Ernesto Aquino is ACQUITTED of the charge of violation of Section 68 of Presidential Decree No. 705. Mustang Lumber vs CA June 18, 1996 DOCTRINE: Possession of lumber is not a crime under PD 705. Timber is the punishable act FACTS The authorities got wind of a suspicious stockpile of narra flitches, shorts, and slabs that were seen inside the lumberyard of the petitioner in Valenzuela, Metro Manila. Readily, the SAID organized a team of foresters and policemen and sent it to conduct surveillance at the said lumberyard. During the sting operation, the team members saw coming out from the lumberyard the petitioner's truck, with Plate No. CCK-322, loaded with lauan and almaciga lumber of assorted sizes and dimensions. Since the driver could not produce the required invoices and transport documents, the team seized the truck together with its cargo and impounded them at the DENR compound at Visayas Avenue, Quezon City. The team was not able to gain entry into the premises because of the refusal of the owner.

On 23 April 1990, Secretary Factoran issued an order suspending immediately the petitioner's lumber-dealer's permit No. NRD-4-092590-0469 and directing the petitioner to explain in writing within fifteen days why its lumber-dealer's permit should not be cancelled. On the same date, counsel for the petitioner sent another letter to Robles informing the latter that the petitioner had already secured the required documents and was ready to submit them. None, however, was submitted. In resolving the said case, the trial court held that the warrantless search and seizure on 1 April 1990 of the petitioner's truck, which was moving out from the petitioner's lumberyard in Valenzuela, Metro Manila, loaded with large volumes of lumber without covering document showing the legitimacy of its source or origin did not offend the constitutional mandate that search and seizure must be supported by a valid warrant. The situation fell under one of the settled and accepted exceptions where warrantless search and seizure is justified, viz ., a search of a moving vehicle The trial court, however, set aside Secretary Factoran's order of 3 May 1990 ordering the confiscation of the seized articles in favor of the Government for the reason that since the articles were seized pursuant to the search warrant issued by Executive Judge Osorio they should have been returned to him in compliance with the directive in the warrant. On 7 July 1991, accused Ri Chuy Po filed in the CRIMINAL CASE a Motion to Quash and/or to Suspend Proceedings based on the following grounds: (a) the information does not charge an offense, for possession of lumber, as opposed to timber , is not penalized in Section 68 of P.D. No. 705, as amended, and even granting arguendo that lumber falls within the purview of the said section, the same may not be used in evidence against him for they were taken by virtue of an illegal seizure; and (b) Civil Case No. 90-53648 of Branch 35 of the RTC of Manila, the FIRST CIVIL CASE, then pending before the Court of Appeals, which involves the legality of the seizure, raises a prejudicial question ISSUE: Whether the complaint charges an offense HELD No. The petitioner proposed to quash the information in Criminal Case No. 324-V-91 on the ground that it does not charge an offense. Respondent Judge granted the motion reasoning that the subject matter of the information in the CRIMINAL CASE is LUMBER, which is neither "timber" nor "other forest product" under Section 68 of P.D. No. 705, as amended, and hence, possession thereof without the required legal documents is not prohibited and penalized under the said section. Under paragraph (a), Section 3, Rule 117 of the Rules of Court, information may be quashed on the ground that the facts alleged therein do not constitute an offense. It has been said that "the test for the correctness of this ground is the sufficiency of the averments in the information, that is, whether the facts alleged, if hypothetically admitted, constitute the elements of the offense, and matters aliunde will not be considered." Anent the sufficiency of the information, Section 6, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court requires, inter alia, that the information state the acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense. Tan vs people of the Philippines The Facts

On October 26, 1989, about 6:30 p.m., in the town proper of Cajidiocan, Sibuyan Island, Romblon, Forest Guards Joseph Panadero and Eduardo Rabino intercepted a dump truck loaded with narra and white lauan lumber. The truck was driven by Petitioner Fred Moreno, an employee of A & E Construction. Again, about 8:00 p.m. on October 30, 1989, this time in Barangay Cambajao, Forest Guards Panadero and Rabino apprehended another dump truck with Plate No. DEK-646 loaded with tanguile lumber. Said truck was driven by Crispin Cabudol, also an employee of A & E Construction. Both motor vehicles, as well as the construction firm, were owned by Petitioner Alejandro Tan. In both instances, no documents showing legal possession of the lumber were, upon demand, presented to the forest guards; thus, the pieces of lumber were confiscated. On March 16, 1990, Tan and Moreno, together with Ismael Ramilo, caretaker and timekeeper of A & E Construction, were charged by First Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Felix R. Rocero with violation of Section 68,[6] PD No. 705, as amended by EO No. 277, in an Information[7] which reads: That on or about the 26th day of October, 1989, at around 6:30 oclock in the evening, in the Poblacion, municipality of Cajidiocan, province of Romblon, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one another, with intent of gain and without the legal documents as required under existing forest laws and regulations, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in their possession and under their custody and control 13 pieces narra lumber about 171 board feet and 41 pieces tanguile lumber about 834 board feet valued at P8,724.00, Philippine currency, to the damage and prejudice of the government in the aforestated amount. In another Information,[8] Tan and Ramilo, together with Crispin Cabudol, were also charged for the same violation in connection with the October 30, 1989 incident. On April 26, 1990, all the accused, assisted by counsel, were arraigned on the basis of the aforementioned Informations; each pleaded not guilty.[9] The cases were thence jointly tried, pursuant to Section 14, Rule 119 of the Rules of Court.[10] During the trial, the defense did not contest the above factual circumstances except to deny that the forest guards demanded, on either of the two occasions, papers or documents showing legal possession of the lumber. Additionally, Prisco Marin, who claimed to have been the officer-in-charge (OIC) of the Bureau of Forest Development of Sibuyan, testified that the seized pieces of lumber were bought by Tans Cajidiocan Trading, one of the licensed lumber dealers in the island, from Matzhou Development Corporation (Matzhou) which thus delivered to the former Auxiliary Invoice No. 763850[11] dated March 19, 1987 issued by the Bureau of Internal Revenue office in Romblon. According to Marin, the director of forestry had granted Matzhou a Tree Recovery Permit covering the entire island of Sibuyan. He added that he had inspected the lumber in question in the compound of A & E Construction or Cajidiocan Trading, where he was shown the auxiliary invoice covering the subject. The Issues

Petitioners now ask this Court to likewise pass upon their foregoing submissions. Many of the errors raised, however, involve factual questions, the review of which is not within the ambit of this Courts functions, particularly in this case where the findings of the trial court were affirmed by the appellate court and where petitioners failed to show any misappreciation of the evidence presented.[20] We shall therefore limit our review only to questions of law. Accordingly, we shall rule on the following legal issues: (1) the constitutionality of Section 68 of EO 277, (2) the treatment by the lower courts of lumber as timber and/or forest product within the contemplation of PD 705, as amended, and (3) the alleged retroactive application of EO 277. The Courts Ruling The petition is not meritorious. Preliminary Issue: Constitutionality of Sec. 68, E.O. 277 The impugned legal provision reads: Sec. 68. Cutting, Gathering and/or Collecting Timber, or other Forest Products Without License. - Any person who shall cut, gather, collect, remove timber or other forest products from any forest land, or timber from alienable or disposable public land, or from private land without any authority, or possess timber or other forest products without the legal documents as required under existing forest laws and regulations, shall be punished with the penalties imposed under Articles 309 and 310 of the Revised Penal Code: Provided, That in the case of partnerships, associations or corporations, the officers who ordered the cutting, gathering, collection or possession shall be liable and if such officers are aliens, they shall, in addition to the penalty, be deported without further proceedings on the part of the Commission on Immigration and Deportation. The Court shall further order the confiscation in favor of the government of the timber or any forest products cut, gathered, collected, removed, or possessed, as well as the machinery, equipment, implements and tools illegally used in the area where the timber or forest products are found. Petitioners aver that the above provision is violative of substantive due process, because it requires the possession of certain legal documents to justify mere possession of forest products which, under Section 3(q) of PD 705, includes, among others, firewood, bark, honey, beeswax, and even grass, shrub, flowering plant, the associated water or fish and penalizes failure to present such required documents. One of the essential requisites for a successful judicial inquiry into the constitutionality of a law is the existence of an actual case or controversy involving a conflict of legal rights susceptible of judicial determination.[21] As Respondent Court of Appeals correctly pointed out, petitioners were not charged with the [unlawful] possession of firewood, bark, honey, beeswax, and even grass, shrub, the associated water or fish; thus, the

inclusion of any of these enumerated items in EO 277 is absolutely of no concern to petitioners. They are not asserting a legal right for which they are entitled to a judicial determination at this time. Besides, they did not present any convincing evidence of a clear and unequivocal breach of the Constitution that would justify the nullification of said provision.[22] A statute is always presumed to be constitutional, and one who attacks it on the ground of unconstitutionality must convincingly prove its invalidity.[23] Main Issue: Under PD 705 and EO 277, Is Lumber Considered Timber or Forest Product? Petitioners contend that possession of manufactured lumber is not punishable under the Forestry Reform Code, as amended. As explicitly provided in Section 68 of both PD 705 and EO 277 (the law that amended the former), only the cutting, gathering, collecting and/or possession, without license, of timber and other forest products are prohibited. As expressly defined under Section 3(q) of PD 705, lumber is not timber or a forest product. It is only in Section 79 of the same law where the sale of lumber, without compliance with established grading rules and standards, is prohibited. Petitioners submit that the forest laws and regulations sufficiently differentiate between timber and lumber; therefore, courts should not construe lumber as timber. The question of whether lumber is excluded from the coverage of Section 68 of PD 705, as amended, has been settled in Mustang Lumber, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals,[24] in which this Court expressly ruled that lumber is included in the term timber.[25] We quote at length the Courts discussion: The Revised Forestry Code contains no definition of either timber or lumber. While the former is included in forest products as defined in paragraph (q) of Section 3, the latter is found in paragraph (aa) of the same section in the definition of Processing plant, which reads: (aa) Processing plant is any mechanical set-up, machine or combination of machine used for the processing of logs and other forest raw materials into lumber, veneer, plywood, wallboard, blackboard, paper board, pulp, paper or other finished wood products. This simply means that lumber is a processed log or processed forest raw material. Clearly, the Code uses the term lumber in its ordinary or common usage. In the 1993 copyright edition of Websters Third New International Dictionary, lumber is defined, inter alia, as timber or logs after being prepared for the market. Simply put, lumber is a processed log or timber. It is settled that in the absence of legislative intent to the contrary, words and phrases used in a statute should be given their plain, ordinary, and common usage meaning. And insofar as possession of timber without the required legal documents is concerned, Section 68 of P.D. No. 705, as amended, makes no distinction between raw or processed timber. Neither do we. Ubi lex non distinguit nec nos distinguire debemus.[26]

Mustang was recently reiterated in Lalican vs. Vergara,[27] where we also said that [t]o exclude possession of lumber from the acts penalized in Sec. 68 would certainly emasculate the law itself. x x x After all, the phrase forest products is broad enough to encompass lumber which, to reiterate, is manufactured timber. Indeed, to mention lumber in the aforesaid section would simply result in tautology. In addition, under American jurisprudence, lumber has been legally accepted as a term referring to the manufactured product of logs[28] or to timber sawed or split into marketable form, especially for use in buildings.[29] Consistent with Mustang, we find no error in the holding of both lower courts. Clearly, petitioners are liable for violation of Section 68 of the Forestry Reform Code, as amended. Corollary Issue: No Retroactive Application of EO 277 Petitioners insist that EO 277 is not applicable to them, because the seized lumber had been lawfully possessed by Cajidiocan Trading since March 1987, while the amendatory law was issued only on July 25, 1987, and took effect fifteen days after publication. This strained reasoning deserves scant consideration. First, at no time during the apprehensions did petitioners claim that the lumber belonged to Cajidiocan Trading. In fact, Petitioner Ramilo and the drivers openly claimed that the lumber and the trucks belonged to A & E Construction which was, in turn, owned by Petitioner Tan. It was only during the course of the trial, through the testimony of Prisco Marin (characterized by the appellate court as anything but credible), that the alleged ownership thereof by Cajidiocan Trading was brought out. Second, the supposed sale of the subject lumber by Matzhou to Cajidiocan Trading, as evidenced by the auxiliary invoice, occurred in March 1987, or more than two and a half years prior to the apprehension and seizure that gave rise to this case. It is highly doubtful if the lumber bought at the earlier date was the very same lumber confiscated in October 1989. No evidence was presented to overcome this veritable doubt. Third and most important, assuming that indeed they were the very same lumber, forest laws and regulations also require the following documents: (1) certificate of lumber origin, (2) sales invoice, (3) delivery receipt, (4) tally sheet, and (5) certificate of transport agreement.[30] None of these documents were proffered in court or elsewhere. Petitioners unlawful possession of the subject lumber occurred in October 1989. EO 277, which specifically included possession of timber and other forest products within the contemplation of PD 705, had already been issued and in effect more than two years previous thereto. Nothing will prevent the indictment of petitioners for violation of EO 277 at the time they were caught by the forest guards in flagrante delicto. The prohibited act is a malum prohibitum, and absence of malice or criminal intent will not save the day for them.[31] WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED for utter lack of merit. The questioned Decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioners.

You might also like