Province of Rizal vs. Executive Secretary

A presidential proclamation excluding watershed land for landfill use is illegal if it fails to comply with the Local Government Code's requirement of prior consultation with and approval by the affected local government unit, and if it violates statutory prohibitions against landfills in watershed areas.

Metro Manila's garbage crisis prompted national agencies to utilize a site within the Marikina Watershed Reservation in San Mateo, Rizal, pursuant to a 1988 Memorandum of Agreement. Despite repeated findings by DENR field officers and the Laguna Lake Development Authority that the dumpsite degraded the environment, contaminated water sources, and was incompatible with watershed preservation, an Environmental Compliance Certificate was issued and subsequently suspended. Ignoring these adverse recommendations and local opposition, the Office of the President issued Proclamation No. 635 in 1995, formally excluding approximately 18 hectares from the reservation for landfill use under the Metropolitan Manila Development Authority.

• The 1988 MOA and Initial Operations: On 17 November 1988, the DPWH, DENR, and Metro Manila Commission (MMC) entered into an MOA to utilize DENR-owned land in Pintong Bocaue, San Mateo, Rizal, as a sanitary landfill. Operations commenced despite the Sangguniang Bayan of San Mateo's resolution banning such dumpsites and requests to suspend operations.
• Adverse Government Findings: Multiple DENR investigation reports (1989-1993) found the site to be within the Marikina Watershed Reservation, lacking necessary permits, and causing severe environmental degradation—soil erosion, siltation, water contamination, and health hazards to nearby residents. The LLDA also objected, citing incompatibility with its water quality program for Laguna Lake.
• The ECC and Its Suspension: An Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC) was issued on 19 February 1990. It was suspended less than six months later due to ground slumping and erosion resulting from improper development. DENR Secretary Alcala later recommended dismantling the site, calling the MOA a "very costly error."
• Issuance of Proclamation No. 635: Despite unanimous objections from environmental bureaus and local officials, Proclamation No. 635 was issued on 28 August 1995, excluding certain parcels of land from the Marikina Watershed Reservation for use as a sanitary landfill under the MMDA.
• Escalation and Subsequent Agreements: Protests and barricades by Rizal residents and officials led to a 1999 MOA where the MMDA agreed to close the dumpsite by 31 December 2000. However, in January 2001, President Estrada ordered the site reopened due to a garbage crisis. Petitioners sought a TRO from the Supreme Court, which was granted on 24 January 2001.
• Enactment of RA 9003: On 26 January 2001, the Ecological Solid Waste Management Act of 2000 took effect, mandating the closure of landfills within watershed areas.

• Forgery of DENR Recommendation: Petitioner argued that Proclamation No. 635 was based on a forged recommendation from the DENR Secretary, a fact admitted by respondents.
• Spurious ECC: Petitioner maintained that the landfill operated on a spurious ECC, which had been suspended.
• Violation of RA 7586 (NIPAS): Petitioner contended that withdrawing or modifying a protected area like the Marikina Watershed requires an act of Congress, not merely a presidential proclamation.
• Disregard of Agency Findings: Petitioner asserted that the CA ignored unanimous adverse findings from environmental agencies in favor of the self-serving statements of the MMDA Chairman.
• Mischaracterization of Location: Petitioner argued that the CA erroneously accepted the claim that the site was merely in a "buffer zone" and thus outside the reservation's boundaries.

• National vs. Local Jurisdiction: Respondent argued that the site is in the public domain; thus, local governments lack the power to control or regulate its use, which belongs to the national government.
• Buffer Zone Location: Respondent claimed the site was located at the lower periphery of the buffer zone, least likely to affect the underground water supply, and could be excluded from the reservation.
• Fait Accompli and Necessity: Respondent emphasized the immense financial investment already poured into the site and the lack of viable alternative sites, warning that closure would lead to a proliferation of "mini-Smokey Mountains" across Metro Manila.

• Validity of Proclamation No. 635: Whether Proclamation No. 635 is valid notwithstanding the lack of prior consultation with and approval by the affected local government unit.
• Applicability of RA 9003: Whether the permanent closure of the San Mateo landfill is mandated by Republic Act No. 9003.
• Permanence of Closure: Whether the prior MOA agreeing to the dumpsite's closure guarantees its permanent closure against subsequent executive directives to reopen.

• Validity of Proclamation No. 635: Proclamation No. 635 was declared illegal for violating the Local Government Code. Sections 26 and 27 mandate prior consultation with affected local communities and prior approval by the appropriate sanggunian for national projects that may cause pollution, climatic change, or ecological imbalance. The MMDA's failure to secure the incumbent local officials' approval rendered the project's implementation illegal.
• Applicability of RA 9003: Permanent closure of the landfill is mandated by RA 9003. Section 40 expressly requires that landfill sites must not detrimentally affect environmentally sensitive resources such as aquifers, groundwater reservoirs, or watershed areas. Furthermore, Section 15 mandates the phaseout and closure of existing sanitary landfills located within watershed areas.
• Permanence of Closure: A mere MOA does not guarantee the dumpsite’s permanent closure, as the freedom of contract must yield to the police power of the State. However, the statutory mandate of RA 9003 provides the definitive legal basis for the site's permanent closure, superseding any executive order to reopen the site.

• Prior Consultation and Approval under the Local Government Code — Before a national project that affects the environmental or ecological balance of local communities can be implemented, two requisites must be met: (1) prior consultation with the affected local communities, and (2) prior approval of the project by the appropriate sanggunian. Absent either, the project's implementation is illegal. This applies to projects that may cause pollution, climatic change, depletion of non-renewable resources, loss of crop land or forest cover, extinction of animal or plant species, or eviction of people.
• Police Power vs. Non-Impairment of Contracts — The constitutional guaranty of non-impairment of obligations of contract is limited by the exercise of the police power of the State in the interest of public health, safety, morals, and general welfare. Property and contract rights are not absolute and must yield to the state's police power.
• DENR's Mandate as Guardian of Natural Resources — While the DENR has jurisdiction over public lands and watershed areas, its power is not absolute but is defined by declared state policies and subject to law and higher authority. Its mandate is the conservation, management, development, and proper use of the country's environment and natural resources for present and future generations.

• "Under the Local Government Code, therefore, two requisites must be met before a national project that affects the environmental and ecological balance of local communities can be implemented: prior consultation with the affected local communities, and prior approval of the project by the appropriate sanggunian. Absent either of these mandatory requirements, the project’s implementation is illegal."
• "Neither property rights nor contract rights are absolute; for government cannot exist if the citizen may at will use his property to the detriment of his fellows, or exercise his freedom of contract to work them harm. Equally fundamental with the private right is that of the public to regulate it in the common interest."
• "Water is life, and must be saved at all costs. ... The protection of watersheds ensures an adequate supply of water for future generations and the control of flashfloods that not only damage property but also cause loss of lives. Protection of watersheds is an 'intergenerational' responsibility that needs to be answered now."

• Oposa v. Factoran, G.R. No. 101083 (1993) — Cited as controlling precedent establishing the right to a balanced and healthful ecology as a fundamental legal right and defining the DENR's duty as guardian of the country's natural resources.
• Lina, Jr. v. Paño, G.R. No. 129093 (2001) — Followed to delineate the scope of Sections 26 and 27 of the Local Government Code, holding that prior consultation and approval apply specifically to national projects affecting environmental or ecological balance.
• Bangus Fry Fisherfolk v. Lanzanas, G.R. No. 131442 (2003) — Followed to reinforce that LGC Sections 26 and 27 are inapplicable to projects that are not environmentally critical.
• Cruz v. Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources, G.R. No. 135385 (2000) — Cited for the principle of the Regalian doctrine and state ownership of natural resources as enshrined in the Constitution.
• Collado v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 107764 (2002) — Cited for the primordial importance of watershed areas and the intergenerational responsibility to protect them.

• Section 2, Article XII, 1987 Constitution — Affirms the Regalian doctrine, declaring that all lands of the public domain and natural resources are owned by the State, which shall oversee their exploration, development, and utilization.
• Sections 2(c), 16, 26, 27, and 447, Republic Act No. 7160 (Local Government Code) — Sections 26 and 27 were applied to invalidate Proclamation No. 635 for lack of prior consultation and sanggunian approval. Section 16 and 447 were cited to affirm the power of LGUs to protect the environment and prescribe limits on property use within their jurisdiction.
• Sections 2, 15, and 40, Republic Act No. 9003 (Ecological Solid Waste Management Act of 2000) — Applied to mandate the permanent closure of the landfill. Section 40 prohibits landfills in watershed areas, while Section 15 mandates the phaseout of existing landfills in such areas.
• Sections 3 and 4, Executive Order No. 192 (DENR Reorganization Act) — Construed to define the DENR's mandate as the primary agency responsible for the conservation and proper use of natural resources, subject to law and higher authority.
• Sections 1 and 2, Title XIV, Book IV, Administrative Code of 1987 — Reinforced the DENR's duty to maintain sound ecological balance and its subjection to law and higher authority.
• Republic Act No. 8041 (National Water Crisis Act) — Cited to underscore the national policy of protecting and conserving watersheds amid a water crisis.

Hilario G. Davide, Jr. (C.J.), Reynato S. Puno, Artemio V. Panganiban, Leonardo A. Quisumbing, Consuelo Ynares-Santiago, Angelina Sandoval-Gutierrez, Antonio T. Carpio, Ma. Alicia Austria-Martinez, Renato C. Corona, Conchita Carpio Morales, Romeo J. Callejo, Sr., Adolfo S. Azcuna, Dante O. Tinga, Cancio C. Garcia.