Osmeña v. Garganera
Osmeña v. Garganera, G.R. No. 231164, March 20, 2018
- Procedural (Remedial Law)
- writ of kalikasan
- R.A. 9003
- citizens suit notice requirement
- Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases
- RPEC
- R.A. 8749
- ECC
- solid waste sanitary landfill
- environmental health and safety
- DENR-EMB
- local government environmental compliance
I. Facts of the Case
Petitioner Mayor Tomas R. Osmeña sought review of the Court of Appeals decisions that granted the privilege of the writ of kalikasan and ordered the permanent cessation of garbage dumping in the Inayawan landfill and continued rehabilitation. Respondent Joel Capili Garganera alleged that the continued operation and reopening of the landfill violated the Environmental Compliance Certificate and posed serious and pressing danger to the environment, health, and community safety, and the City failed to comply with requirements under environmental laws and the RPEC.
1993-04-06
DENR issued an Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC) for the Solid Waste Sanitary Landfill Project at Inayawan landfill proposed by the Metro Cebu Development Project Office (MCDPO).
Inayawan landfill served as Cebu City’s garbage disposal area.
2011-08-24
Cebu City Sangguniang Panlungsod (SP) Resolution No. 12-0582-2011 was issued to appropriate ₱1,204,500 for the preparation of the closure and rehabilitation plan for Inayawan landfill.
2011-2012
Cebu City resolved to close Inayawan landfill through SP Resolution and an Executive Order of then Mayor Michael Rama; as a result, the landfill was partially closed and Cebu City wastes were disposed in a privately operated landfill in Consolacion.
2012-03-21
SP Resolution No. 12-2617-2012 was issued to proceed with the bidding process for the preparation of the closure and rehabilitation plan.
2015-06-15
Through then Mayor Michael Rama’s directive, Inayawan landfill was formally closed.
2016-06-08
Under Mayor Osmeña’s administration, Cebu City sought to temporarily open Inayawan landfill by letter from Acting Mayor Margot to DENR-EMB Regional Director Engr. William Cuñado.
2016-06-27
Acting Mayor Margot sent a second letter to Engr. Cuñado submitting commitments for establishing a new solid waste management system under R.A. 9003 and requested a Notice to Proceed for temporary reopening of the landfill; Engr. Cuñado replied that EMB had no authority to issue the requested notice but stated there was no objection to the temporary opening subject to faithful compliance and regular monitoring.
2016-07
Inayawan landfill was officially re-opened by Acting Mayor Margot.
2016-09-02
DENR-EMB issued a Notice of Violation and scheduled a technical conference regarding the City Government’s operation of the Inayawan landfill and its alleged ECC violations.
2016-09-06
The Department of Health issued an Inspection Report recommending, among others, the immediate closure of the landfill due to lack of sanitary requirements and environmental, health, and community safety concerns.
2016-09-23
Respondent filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for the writ of kalikasan with prayer for a Temporary Environmental Protection Order (TEPO).
2016-10-06
The Court of Appeals granted the writ of kalikasan in its resolution, required the petitioner to file a verified return, and set a summary hearing for the TEPO application.
In the verified return, respondent alleged that petitioner failed to comply with a 30-day prior notice requirement before filing a citizens suit under R.A. 9003 and R.A. 8749, and argued that the landfill operated as early as 1998 and conformed to standards then applicable.
2016-12-15
The Court of Appeals issued a Decision granting the privilege of the writ of kalikasan, ordering Mayor Osmeña and/or representatives to permanently cease and desist from dumping or disposing garbage or solid waste at the Inayawan landfill and to continue rehabilitating the same; it also directed compliance with DENR-EMB’s request to submit the local government’s Safe Closure and Rehabilitation Plan (SCRP) within thirty (30) days from notice.
2017-03-14
The Court of Appeals denied Mayor Osmeña’s motion for reconsideration and reiterated the directive to comply with submission of the Safe Closure and Rehabilitation Plan.
2018-03-20
The Supreme Court denied the petition for review on certiorari and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decisions, holding that the prior 30-day notice requirement for citizens suits under R.A. 9003 and R.A. 8749 is inapplicable to a petition for writ of kalikasan under the RPEC.
II. Issues
Whether the 30-day prior notice requirement for citizen suits under R.A. 9003 and R.A. 8749 is needed prior to the filing of the instant petition for writ of kalikasan under the RPEC.
Whether or not the Court of Appeals correctly ruled that the requirements for the grant of the privilege of the writ of kalikasan were sufficiently established.
III. Ruling
Whether the 30-day prior notice requirement for citizen suits under R.A. 9003 and R.A. 8749 is needed prior to the filing of the instant petition for writ of kalikasan under the RPEC.
The prior 30-day notice requirement for citizens suits under R.A. 9003 and R.A. 8749 does not apply to a petition for the writ of kalikasan under the RPEC.
How the Court reasoned
- The Supreme Court characterized the writ of kalikasan as an extraordinary remedy under the RPEC, which is meant to address serious environmental harm and public welfare concerns.
- The RPEC allows direct action to the Supreme Court and to the Court of Appeals where it is dictated by public welfare, reducing the procedural overlap with citizens suit notice requirements.
- Because the petition for writ of kalikasan is governed by the RPEC framework for environmental remedies, the statutory 30-day prior notice requirement invoked from citizens suit provisions under R.A. 9003 and R.A. 8749 is inapplicable.
- Accordingly, the City’s argument that the petition should fail for lack of prior 30-day notice was rejected as not controlling in the context of a writ of kalikasan.
“Given that the writ of kalikasan is an extraordinary remedy and the RPEC allows direct action to this Court and the CA where it is dictated by public welfare,33 this Court is of the view that the prior 30 day notice requirement for citizen suits under R.A. 9003 and R.A. 8749 is inapplicable.”
Rule applied
Section 15, Rule 7 of the RPEC (A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC), as interpreted together with the RPEC provisions on the writ of kalikasan
Whether or not the Court of Appeals correctly ruled that the requirements for the grant of the privilege of the writ of kalikasan were sufficiently established.
The Court of Appeals correctly found that the requisites for granting the writ of kalikasan were sufficiently established because the continued operation/reopening of the Inayawan landfill posed a serious and pressing danger to the environment with potential harm to health and nearby residents.
How the Court reasoned
- The Court agreed that, on the facts presented, the continued operation of the Inayawan landfill raised environmental and public safety issues of such gravity as to call for the writ of kalikasan.
- It treated the danger as serious and pressing because the landfill’s operation and its alleged ECC violations could result in injurious consequences to the health and lives of nearby residents.
- The Court upheld the appellate court’s approach of using administrative agency findings and recommendations where technical and intricate matters of fact require specialized knowledge and experience.
- It accepted that the regulatory and investigative records (including DENR-EMB violation issuance and the DOH inspection recommendation for closure) supported the finding that the environmental harm threshold for the writ had been met.
- Thus, the Supreme Court found no reversible error in the Court of Appeals’ determination that the requisites for the privilege of the writ of kalikasan were established.
“We agree with the appellate court that the continued operation of the Inayawan landfill poses a serious and pressing danger to the environment that could result in injurious consequences to the health and lives of the nearby residents, thereby warranting the issuance of a writ of _kalikasan_.”
Rule applied
Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases (A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC), including Section 5, Rule 2; Section 1, Rule 7; and Section 3, Rule 7, and the doctrine on judicial reliance on administrative fact-finding in technical matters
Doctrines
The 30-day prior notice requirement for citizens suits under R.A. 9003 and R.A. 8749 is inapplicable to a petition for the writ of kalikasan under the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases (RPEC), because the writ of kalikasan is an extraordinary remedy and the RPEC allows direct action where dictated by public welfare.
Courts may rely on the findings and recommendations of administrative agencies on questions requiring the exercise of sound administrative discretion and the specialized knowledge and experience of the administrative tribunal to determine technical and intricate matters of fact.
Final Disposition
WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED. The Decision dated December 15, 2016 and the Resolution dated March 14, 2017 of the Court of Appeals in CA G.R. SP No. 004WK are AFFIRMED.
Notes
The Supreme Court’s review focused on (1) whether citizens-suit notice requirements defeat a writ of kalikasan petition, and (2) whether the CA correctly determined that the requisites for the writ were met in light of the continued landfill operation and related regulatory findings.