nature lovers

nature lovers

Members 2895
Region universe

"Love the things that around you and make the most of it.. No other being will benefit from it but us. It is a must that we shall pay attention the our mother nature."

 
The Brainstorm
 
Ceasar Morandarte

Supreme Court orders cleanup of Manila Bay
By REY G. PANALIGAN
December 19, 2008

A Christmas gift for the Mother Nature and the next generations to come....

The cha...(more)

Patty Pt

Hello friends,

This is Patty from Largefriends.com. I wonder if you are interested in running your own BBW=big beautiful woman dating site or work-at-home business. We would...(more)

Nguyen Trang

beauty is hard to define but easy to recognise.
beauty can be found in all the creations of god.
beauty make people feel happy.
beauty is not only in the nature but also in the human life (attitude,morals...)

Tiffany Oh

Nature

Why do we abuse it??

Nature

It gives us so many things

Nature

It is soo beautiful

Nature

Let's stop the madness and give nature the respect it needs

Nature

Why don't we all love it?

SsHaDaAaBb NsiNa

I love it.what about you?

 
Photos
 
564305358_medium 906782264_medium The majestic Mayon Volcano at Legazpi City, Albay Philippines
 
Bulletin Board
 
Ceasar Morandarte

Supreme Court orders cleanup of Manila Bay
By REY G. PANALIGAN
December 19, 2008

A Christmas gift for the Mother Nature and the next generations to come....

The challenge now is how to make this become a reality! Thank you for believing this can happen ... maybe in our lifetimes. (Atty. A. Oposa)

Supreme Court orders cleanup of Manila Bay
By REY G. PANALIGAN
December 19, 2008

In another landmark decision on environmental protection, the Supreme Court (SC) directed yesterday practically all government agencies, including those in law enforcement, to speed up the cleanup, restoration, and preservation of the Manila Bay.

In a unanimous full court decision written by Justice Presbitero J. Velasco Jr., the SC said "in the light of the ongoing environmental degradation, the court wishes to emphasize the extreme necessity for all concerned executive departments and agencies to immediately act and discharge their respective official duties and obligations."

It pointed out that "time is of the essence."

"Hence, there is a need to set timetables for the performance and completion of the tasks, some of them as defined for them by law and the nature of their respective offices and mandates," the SC said.

Directed to undertake immediate action on the Manila Bay problem are the Metropolitan Manila Development Authority (MMDA), Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), Department of Education (DepEd), Department of Health (DoH), Department of Agriculture (DA), Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH), Department of Budget and Management (DBM), the Philippine Coast Guard (PCG), the Philippine National Police Maritime Group, Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG), and the Philippine Ports Authority (PPA).

Led by the MMDA, the agencies filed a petition with the SC challenging the 2005 decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) that sustained the 2002 trial court ruling granting the case filed by the Concerned Residents of Manila Bay in Imus, Cavite.

The residents told the trial court that the government agencies have been negligent in their respective obligations as mandated by Sections 17 and 20 of Presidential Decree No. 1152 of the Philippine Environment Code.

Section 17 of PD 1152 states that "where the quality of water has deteriorated to a degree where its state will adversely affect its best usage, the government agencies concerned shall take such measures as may be necessary to upgrade the quality of such water to meet the prescribed water quality standards."

On the other hand, Section 20 of the decree, states that "… it shall be the responsibility of the polluter to contain, remove and clean up water pollution incidents at his own expense. In case of his failure to do so, the government agencies concerned shall undertake containment, removal and clean up operations and expenses incurred in said operations shall be charged against the persons and/or entities responsible for the pollution."

The CA, in affirming the trial court’s ruling, said: "The decision rendered by the trial court does not require defendants-appellants to do task outside their usual functions. They are merely directed to come up with consolidated and coordinated efforts, each performing its basic functions, in rehabilitating and cleaning-up the waters of Manila Bay."

In 1993, the SC, in a decision written by retired Chief Justice Hilario Davide Jr., granted the class suit filed by 44 children, through their parents, to stop the deforestation in the country for their generation as well as those generations yet unborn.

The children wanted the DENR to cancel all timber licenses agreement and to desist from issuing new ones as they invoked their right to a balanced and healthful ecology.

In granting the right of the children to sue, the SC ruled that "children had the legal standing to file the case based on the concept of ‘intergenerational responsibility,’ as their right to a healthy environment carried with it an obligation to preserve that environment for the succeeding generations."

The SC’s ruling on the case of the children became a global landmark decision that has been invoked in several countries.

In the Manila Bay case, the SC ordered full coordination among several government agencies to restore the bay as "a place with a proud historic past, once brimming with marine life and, for so many decades in the past, a spot for different contact recreation activities."

"The importance of the Manila Bay as a sea resource, playground, and as a historical landmark cannot be over-emphasized. It is not yet too late in the day to restore the Manila Bay to its former splendor and bring back the plants and sea life that once thrived in its blue waters," the SC said.

But it said "the tasks ahead, daunting as they may be, could only be accomplished if those mandated, with the help and cooperation of all civicminded individuals, would put their minds to these tasks and take responsibility. This means that the State, through petitioners, has to take the lead in the preservation and protection of the Manila Bay."

The decision spelled out the participation and coordination of these various government agencies, namely:

1. The DENR to fully implement its "Operational Plan for the Manila Bay Coastal Strategy" for the rehabilitation, restoration, and conservation of the Manila Bay at the earliest possible time and to call regular coordination meetings with concerned government departments and agencies to ensure the successful implementation of the aforesaid plan of action in accordance with its indicated completion schedules.

2. The DILG to direct all local government units (LGUs) in Metro Manila, Rizal, Laguna, Cavite, Bulacan, Pampanga, and Bataan to inspect all factories, commercial establishments, and private homes along the banks of the major river systems in their respective areas of jurisdiction, such as but not limited to the Pasig-Marikina-San Juan Rivers, Tullahan-Tenejeros Rivers, the Meycauayan-Marilao-Obando (Bulacan) Rivers, the Talisay (Bataan) River, the Imus (Cavite) River, the Laguna De Bay, and other minor rivers and waterways that eventually discharge water into the Manila Bay; and the lands abutting the bay, to determine whether they have wastewater treatment facilities or hygienic septic tanks as prescribed by existing laws, ordinances, and rules and regulations. If none be found, these LGUs shall be ordered to require non-complying establishments and homes to set up said facilities or septic tanks within a reasonable time to prevent industrial wastes, sewage water, and human wastes from flowing into these rivers, waterways, esteros, and the Manila Bay, under pain of closure or imposition of fines and other sanctions.

3. The MWSS to provide, install, operate, and maintain the necessary adequate wastewater treatment facilities in Metro Manila, Rizal, and Cavite where needed at the earliest possible time.

4. The Local Water Utilities Administration (LWUA), through the local water districts and in coordination with the DENR, is ordered to provide, install, operate, and maintain sewerage and sanitation facilities and the efficient and safe collection, treatment, and disposal of sewage in the provinces of Laguna, Cavite, Bulacan, Pampanga, and Bataan at the earliest possible time.

5. The DA, through the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resource (BFAR), to improve and restore the marine life of the Manila Bay and to assist the LGUs in Metro Manila, Rizal, Cavite, Laguna, Bulacan, Pampanga, and Bataan in developing, using recognized methods, the fisheries and aquatic resources in the Manila Bay.

6. The PCG and the PNP Maritime Group to coordinate in apprehending violators of PD 979, RA 8550, and other existing laws and regulations designed to prevent marine pollution in the Manila Bay.

7. The PPA to immediately adopt such measures to prevent the discharge and dumping of solid and liquid wastes and other ship-generated wastes into the Manila Bay waters from vessels docked at ports and apprehend the violators.

8. The MMDA, as the lead agency and implementor of programs and projects for flood control projects and drainage services in Metro Manila, to dismantle and remove all structures, constructions, and other encroachments established or built in violation of RA 7279, and other applicable laws along the Pasig-Marikina-San Juan Rivers, the NCR (Parañaque-Zapote, Las Piñas) Rivers, the Navotas-Malabon-Tullahan-Tenejeros Rivers, and connecting waterways and esteros in Metro Manila. Also to establish, operate, and maintain a sanitary landfill within a period of one year from finality of this Decision. It is also ordered to cause the apprehension and filing of the appropriate criminal cases against violators of the respective penal provisions of Ecological Solid Waste Management Act (RA 9003), sec. 27 of RA 9275 (the Clean Water Act), and other existing laws on pollution.

9. The DPWH, as the principal implementor of programs and projects for flood control services in the rest of the country more particularly in Bulacan, Bataan, Pampanga, Cavite, and Laguna, to remove and demolish all structures, constructions, and other encroachments built in breach of RA 7279 and other applicable laws along the Meycauayan-Marilao-Obando (Bulacan) Rivers, the Talisay (Bataan) River, the Imus (Cavite) River, the Laguna De Bay, and other rivers, connecting waterways, and esteros that discharge wastewater into the Manila Bay;

10. The DoH, within one year from finality of this Decision, to determine if all licensed septic and sludge companies have the proper facilities for the treatment and disposal of fecal sludge and sewage coming from septic tanks. The DoH was further directed to give the companies, if found to be non-complying, a reasonable time within which to set up the necessary facilities under pain of cancellation ofits environmental sanitation clearance.

11. The DepED to integrate lessons on pollution prevention, waste management, environmental protection, and like subjects in the school curricula of all levels to inculcate in the minds and hearts of students and, through them, their parents and friends, the importance of their duty toward achieving and maintaining a balanced and healthful ecosystem in the Manila Bay and the entire Philippine archipelago.

12. The DBM to consider incorporating an adequate budget in the General Appropriations Act of 2010 and succeeding years to cover the expenses relating to the cleanup, restoration, and preservation of the water quality of the Manila Bay, in line with the country’s development objective to attain economic growth in a manner consistent with the protection, preservation, and revival of our marine waters.

13. And the heads of petitioners-agencies MMDA, DENR, DepEd, DoH, DA, DPWH, DBM, PCG, PNP Maritime Group, DILG, and also of MWSS, LWUA, and PPA, in line with the principle of "continuing mandamus", from finality of this Decision, to each submit to the Court a quarterly progressive report of the activities undertaken in accordance with this Decision.

The SC said: "It thus behooves the Court to put the heads of the petitioner-department-agencies and the bureaus and offices under them on continuing notice about, and to enjoin them to perform, their mandates and duties towards cleaning up the Manila Bay and preserving the quality of its water to the ideal level. Under what other judicial discipline describes as ‘continuing mandamus: the Court, may, under extraordinary circumstances, issue directives with the end in view of ensuring that its decision would not be set to naught by administrative inaction or indifference. In India, the doctrine of continuing mandamus was used to enforce directives of the court to clean up the length of the Ganges River from industrial and municipal pollution."

January 06, 2009, 06:58 PM PST
Ceasar Morandarte

Impact of environmental law
By Antonio V. Osmeña
Estatements

A RECENT legal environmental controversy has raised the question of who speaks for nature in the courts. Do dolphins at Tañon Strait or trees have legal standing?

A similar case was observed in America, where in 1969, the Sierra Club filed a suit against the government when the US Forest Service approved a bid by Walt Disney Enterprises Inc. to develop a $35-million ski resort in the Mineral Valley recreation area, located in the Sierras of California.

The plaintiff claimed that the proposed development violated federal law governing the preservation of national parks and forests. The Supreme Court refused to hear the case because it concluded that the Sierra Club did not have standing.

In his dissenting opinion, Justice William O. Douglas argued that trees and other natural objects should have standing. He referred to the book, “Should Trees Have Standing? Toward legal Rights for Natural Objects,” (1974) by law professor Christopher D. Stone, who argued that just as minors and incompetent persons can be represented in court by legal guardians, so should natural objects.

Although the case was never tried, the precedent suggested by the Sierra Club was an important factor leading to the abandonment of the proposed project.

Environmental law is a vital and growing field for lawyers and scientists interested in public service. The pay is low and the hours are long, but the satisfaction is high.

In ecopolitics, environmental law plays an important role, particularly as a tool for delaying or preventing abuse of the ecosphere. In recent years, a number of national laws have been enacted, but a law is no better than its enforcement.

Major Philippine environmental legislation involves energy, water quality, air quality, noise control, resources and solid waste management, wildlife, land use and the general act which is the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR).

But proponents of environmental law have handicaps such as: a plaintiff may not have standing to file suit against a defendant; standing for damage suits is granted only if it is clear that the harm to an individual plaintiff is distinguishable from that to the general public; and bringing any suit is expensive.

Often, the defendant in an environmental action is a large corporation or government agency with ample funds for legal and scientific advice; the court may take years to reach a decision; and finally, it is often difficult for the plaintiff to prove that the accused is liable.

It is, therefore, important to form organizations of public interest lawyers and experts who can raise money and pool talents.

It is about time that public interest law firms and groups—which specialize on environmental and consumer law—and scientific experts participate in environmental and consumer law cases, as needed.

Environmental and public interest law is threatened by lack of money. For example, in 1976 environmental lawyers received a serious setback when the US Supreme Court ruled that public interest law groups cannot recover attorney’s fees unless Congress has specifically authorized such recovery in the law they have sued to enforce. This had disastrous effect on financially struggling public interest lawyers. The costs of research and expert witnesses are high, and these public service organizations exist only because of individual and foundation grants.

Environmentalists have suggested that DENR should be amended to correct some of these major weaknesses by requiring a national agency to pick and follow the terms of the least harmful option and by allowing public interest groups to recover at-torney’s fees when they sue to enforce DENR or any other environmental law— thus, putting public interest law groups on a more equitable footing with national agencies and large corporations.

October 23, 2008, 10:47 PM PDT
HANNAH DONAHEY

save the treessssssssss!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

September 28, 2008, 11:29 AM PDT
Stephanie Time

Here in the Philippines, we experience more strong typhoons and floods.. I wish we could open our eyes and stop degrading our natural environment to lessen its revenge to us.

visit my multiply at
hhtp://geodetika.multiply.com

August 29, 2008, 12:20 AM PDT
Stephanie Time

visit my multiply at
hhtp://geodetika.multiply.com

August 29, 2008, 12:19 AM PDT