Name : Gasper, Era R.
, LLB-02
Subject : Environmental and Natural Resources Law
Professor: Atty. Benjamin Cabrido
Title: Case brief of Mayor Tomas R. Osmeña vs. Joel Capili Garganera, G.R. No. 231164, March 20, 2018
STATEMENT OF FACTS
On April 6, 1993, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) issued an Environmental
Compliance Certificate (ECC) to the Solid Waste Sanitary Landfill Project at Inayawan landfill proposed by
the Metro Cebu Development Project Office (MCDPO). Thereafter, the Inayawan landfill served as the
garbage disposal area of Cebu City. Sometime in 2011, the Cebu City Local Government resolved to close
the Inayawan landfill per Cebu City Sangguniang Panlunsod (SP) Resolution and Executive Order of
former Cebu City Mayor Michael Rama. SP Resolution No. 12-0582-2011 dated August 24, 2011 was
issued to charge the amount of P1,204,500 in the next supplemental budget to cover the cost in the
preparation of closure and rehabilitation plan of Inayawan landfill. Another SP Resolution with No. 12-2617-
2012 dated March 21, 2012 was issued to proceed with the bidding process for the said preparation of
closure and rehabilitation plan. Inayawan landfill was partially closed and all wastes from Cebu City were
disposed in a privately-operated landfill in Consolacion. On June 15, 2015, Inayawan landfill was formally
closed.
In 2016, however, under the administration of Mayor Osmefia, the City Government sought to temporarily
open the Inayawan landfill, through a letter dated June 8, 2016, by then Acting Cebu City Mayor Margot
Osmefia (Acting Mayor Margot) addressed to Regional Director Engr. William Cufiado (Engr. Cunado) of
the Environmental Management Bureau (EMB) of the DENR.
Thus, in July 2016, the Inayawan landfill was officially re-opened by Acting Mayor Margot. On September 2,
2016, a Notice of Violation and Technical Conference16 was issued by the EMB to Mayor Osmeña
regarding City Government1s operation of the Inayawan Landfill and its violations of the ECC. On
September 6, 2016, the Department of Health (DOH) issued an Inspection Report, wherein it
recommended, among others, the immediate closure of the landfill due to the lack of sanitary requirements,
environmental, health and community safety issues, as conducted by the DOH Regional Sanitary Engineer,
Henry D. Saludar.
The CA, in a Resolution dated October 6, 2016, granted a writ of kalikasan, required petitioner to file a
verified return and a summary hearing was set for the application of TEPO.
In petitioner's verified return, he alleged that respondent failed to comply with the condition precedent which
requires 30-day notice to the public officer concerned prior to the filing of a citizens suit under R.A. 9003
and R.A. 8749. Respondent further alleged that Inayawan landfill operated as early as 1998 and it
conformed to the standards and requirements then applicable.
ISSUES OF THE CASE
1. Whether or not the 30-day prior notice requirement for citizen suits under RA 9003 and RA 8749 is
needed prior to the filing of the instant petition
2. Whether or not the CA correctly ruled that the requirements for the grant of the privilege of the Writ
of Kalikasan were sufficiently established.
DISCUSSION
1. PETITIONER’S ARGUMENT DOES NOT PERSUADE.
Section 5, Rule 2 of the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases (RPEC) is instructive on the
matter.
SECTION 5. CITIZEN SUIT. Any Filipino citizen in representation of others, including minors or
generation yet unborn, may file an action to enforce rights or obligations under environmental laws.
Upon the filing of a citizen suit, the court shall issue an order which shall contain a brief description
of the cause of action and the reliefs prayed for, requiring all interested parties to manifest their
interest to intervene in the case within fifteen (15) days from notice thereof. The plaintiff may
publish the order once in a newspaper of a general circulation in the Philippines or furnish all
affected barangays copies of said order.
Citizen suits filed under RA 8749 and RA 9003 shall be governed by their respective provisions.
Section 1, Rule 7 of RPEC also provides:
SECTION 1. NATURE OF THE WRIT. The Writ is a remedy available to a natural or juridical
person, entity authorized by law, people’s organization, non-governmental organization, or any
public interest group accredited by or registered with any government agency, on behalf of persons
whose constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology is violated, or threatened with
violation by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or private individual or
entity, involving environment damage of such magnitude as to prejudice the life, health, or property
of inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces.
The present petition for Writ of Kalikasan under the RPEC is a separate and distinct action from RA
9003 and RA 8749. A Writ of Kalikasan is an extraordinary remedy covering environmental
damage of such magnitude that will prejudice the life, health, or property of inhabitants in two or
more cities or provinces. It is designed for a narrow but special purpose: to accord a stronger
protection for environmental rights, aiming among others, to provide a speedy and effective
resolution of a case involving the violation of one’s constitutional right to a healthful and balanced
ecology that transcends political and territorial boundaries, and to address the potentially
exponential nature of large-scale ecological threats.
Section 3, Rule 7 of RPEC allows as direct resort to this Court or with any of the stations of the CA:
SECTION 3. WHERE TO FILE. The petition shall be filed with the Supreme Court or with any of
the stations of the Court of Appeals.
The Court is of the view that the prior 30-day notice requirement for citizen suits under RA 9003
and RA 8749 is inapplicable. It is ultimately within the Court’s discretion whether or not to accept
petitions brought directly before it.
2. WE AFFIRM THE CA WHEN IT RULED THAT THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE GRANT OF THE
PRIVILEGE OF THE WRIT OF KALIKASAN WERE SUFFICIENTLY ESTABLISHED.
Under Section 1 of Rule 7 or the RPEC, the following requisites must be present to avail of this
extraordinary remedy:
i. There is an actual or threatened violation of the constitutional right to a balanced and
healthful ecology
ii. The actual or threatened violation arises from an unlawful act or omission of a public
official or employee, or private individual or entity; and
iii. The actual or threatened violation involves or will lead to an environmental damage of such
magnitude as to prejudice the life, health, or property of inhabitants in two or more cities or
provinces
The Rules do not define the exact nature or degree of environmental damage but only that it must
be sufficiently grave, in terms of the territorial scope of such damage, so as to call for the grant of
this extraordinary remedy. The gravity of environmental damage sufficient to grant the writ is, thus,
to be decided on a case-to-case basis. The Court is convinced from the evidence on record that
the respondent has sufficiently established the aforementioned requirements for the grant of the
privilege of the Writ of Kalikasan. The record discloses that the City Government’s resumption of
the garbage dumping operations at the Inayawan Landfill has raised serious environmental
concerns.
As aptly and extensively discussed by the appellate court in its Decision based from the EMB
Compliance Evaluation Report (CER) dated August 18, 2016 and the Notice of Violation and
Technical Conference dated September 2, 2016, issued by the EMB to Mayor Osmeña, to wit:
The dumping operation at the Inayawan landfill has violated the criteria specified under DENR
Administrative Order No. 34-01 specifically as to the proper leachate collection and treatment at
the landfill and the regular water quality monitoring of surface and ground waters and effluent, as
well as gas emissions thereat. At the same time, as admitted by Mr. Marco Silberon from the
DENR-7, The Inayawan Landfill has already been converted to a dumpsite operation despite its
original design as sanitary landfill, which is violative of Section 17(h) of RA 9003 expressly
prohibiting open dumps as final disposal sites. The magnitude of the environmental damage can
be gleaned from the fact that the air pollution has affected residents from Cebu City and
neighboring city of Talisay. Since leachate is contaminated liquid from decomposed waste, it is not
difficult to consider the magnitude of the potential environment harm it can unleash if this is
released to a receiving water body without being sufficiently treated first, as in this case.
The air and water quality impact assessment of the EMB Compliance Evaluation Report (CER)
dated August, made remarks that the Air quality poses a threat to nearby surroundings/habitat
while the water quality (leachate) poses threat of water pollution. The report also stated that the
foul odor from the landfill already reached neighboring communities as far as SM Seaside ad UC
Mambaling which have disrupted activities causing economic loss and other activities for
improvement particularly for SM Seaside.
