ADMELEC Case

1. Raiya
2. Nikae
3. Roi
4. Carol
5. Jonas
P.S Jonas start kasi sa kanya last sa tax
5. Villegas
1. Laguna
2. Carino v Capulong
3. Ocampo
4. CIR v CTA
5. Vinzons
1. Carino v CHR
2. DOH v Camposano
Ople tapos na
3. Smart v NTC
4. Edu

Laguna Lake Development Authority vs. CA, 1994

Facts:
On March 8, 1991, the Task Force Camarin Dumpsite of Caloocan City, filed a letter-complaint with the
Laguna Lake Development Authority (LLDA) seeking to stop the operation of the 8.6-hectare open
garbage dumpsite in Tala Estate, Barangay Camarin, Caloocan City due to its harmful effects on the
health of the residents and the possibility of pollution of the water content of the surrounding area.

The LLDA Legal and Technical personnel found that the Caloocan City was maintaining an open dumpsite
at the Camarin area without first securing an Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC) from the
Environmental Management Bureau (EMB) of DENR, as required under PD. 1586, and clearance from
LLDA as required under RA 4850, as amended by PD. 813 and EO 927.
The LLDA found that the water collected from the leachate and the receiving streams could considerably
affect the quality, in turn, of the receiving waters since it indicates the presence of bacteria, other than
coliform, which may have contaminated the sample during collection or handling.
On December 5, 1991, the LLDA issued a Cease and Desist Order ordering the Caloocan City,
Metropolitan Manila Authority, their contractors, and other entities, to completely halt, stop and desist from
dumping any form or kind of garbage and other waste matter at the Camarin dumpsite.
On September 25, 1992, the LLDA, with the assistance of the PNP, enforced its Alias Cease and Desist
Order by prohibiting the entry of all garbage dump trucks into the Camarin dumpsite.

Caloocan City filed with the RTC an action for the declaration of nullity of the cease and desist order. In
the complaint, it sought to be declared as the sole authority empowered to promote the health and safety
and enhance the right of the people in Caloocan City to a balanced ecology within its territorial
jurisdiction.
RTC order denying LLDA's motion to dismiss and granting the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction
enjoining the LLDA, its agent and all persons acting for and on its behalf, from enforcing or implementing
its cease and desist order which prevents plaintiff from dumping garbage at the Camarin dumpsite during
the pendency of this case and/or until further orders of the court.

On appeal to CA, it promulgated its decision holding that: (1) the RTC has no jurisdiction on appeal to try,
hear and decide the action for annulment of LLDA's cease and desist order, including the issuance of a
temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction in relation thereto, since appeal therefrom is within
the exclusive and appellate jurisdiction of the CA under BP 129; and (2) the LLDA has no power and
authority to issue a cease and desist order under its enabling law.

Issue:
 1. Whether the LLDA has the authority to entertain the complaint against the dumping of garbage in
the open dumpsite in Barangay Camarin
2. Whether the LLDA has the power and authority to issue a "cease and desist" order under RA
4850

Ruling:

1. Yes.
As a general rule, the adjudication of pollution cases generally pertains to the Pollution Adjudication Board
(PAB), except in cases where the special law provides for another forum.
It must be recognized in this regard that the LLDA, as a specialized administrative agency, is specifically
mandated under RA 4850 and its amendatory laws to carry out and make effective the declared national
policy of promoting and accelerating the development and balanced growth of the Laguna Lake area and
the surrounding provinces of Rizal and Laguna and the cities of San Pablo, Manila, Pasay, Quezon and
Caloocan 21 with due regard and adequate provisions for environmental management and control,
preservation of the quality of human life and ecological systems, and the prevention of undue ecological
disturbances, deterioration and pollution.

Under such a broad grant and power and authority, the LLDA, by virtue of its special charter, obviously
has the responsibility to protect the inhabitants of the Laguna Lake region from the deleterious effects of
pollutants emanating from the discharge of wastes from the surrounding areas.

In carrying out the aforementioned declared policy, the LLDA is mandated, among others, to pass upon
and approve or disapprove all plans, programs, and projects proposed by local government
offices/agencies within the region, public corporations, and private persons or enterprises where such
plans, programs and/or projects are related to those of the LLDA for the development of the region.

2. Yes.
By its express terms, RA. 4850, as its amendatory law, authorizes the LLDA to "make, alter or modify
order requiring the discontinuance or pollution." Sec 4, par. (d) explicitly authorizes the LLDA
to make whatever order may be necessary in the exercise of its jurisdiction.

To be sure, the LLDA was not expressly conferred the power "to issue an ex-parte cease and desist
order" in a language, as suggested Caloocan City, similar to the express grant to the defunct National
Pollution Control Commission. However, it would be a mistake to draw the conclusion that there is a
denial of the power to issue the order in question when the power "to make, alter or modify orders
requiring the discontinuance of pollution" is expressly and clearly bestowed upon the LLDA by EO 927,

The immediate response to the demands of "the necessities of protecting vital public interests" gives
vitality to the statement on ecology embodied in the Declaration of Principles and State Policies or the
1987 Constitution. Article II, Section 16 which provides:

The State shall protect and advance the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology in accord
with the rhythm and harmony of nature.

As a constitutionally guaranteed right of every person, it carries the correlative duty of non-impairment.
This is but in consonance with the declared policy of the state "to protect and promote the right to health
of the people and instill health consciousness among them." 28 It is to be borne in mind that the Philippines
is party to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Alma Conference Declaration of 1978
which recognize health as a fundamental human right.

CARIO vs. COMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS

Facts:

Some 800 public school teachers undertook mass concerted actions to protest the alleged failure of
public authorities to act upon their grievances. The mass actions consisted in staying away from their
classes, converging at the Liwasang Bonifacio, gathering in peaceable assemblies, etc. The Secretary of
Education served them with an order to return to work within 24 hours or face dismissal. For failure to
heed the return-to-work order, eight teachers at the Ramon Magsaysay High School were administratively
charged, preventively suspended for 90 days pursuant to sec. 41, P.D. 807 and temporarily replaced. An
investigation committee was consequently formed to hear the charges.

When their motion for suspension was denied by the Investigating Committee, said teachers staged a
walkout signifying their intent to boycott the entire proceedings. Eventually, Secretary Carino decreed
dismissal from service and suspension for 9 months of some of the teacher. In the meantime, a case was
filed with RTC, raising the issue of violation of the right of the striking teachers to due process of law. The
case was eventually elevated to SC. Also in the meantime, the respondent teachers submitted sworn
statements to Commission on Human Rights to complain that while they were participating in peaceful
mass actions, they suddenly learned of their replacement as teachers, allegedly without notice and
consequently for reasons completely unknown to them.

While the case was pending with CHR, SC promulgated its resolution over the cases filed with it earlier,
upholding the Sec. Carinos act of issuing the return-to-work orders and advised the petitioner to take the
case to CSC. Despite this, CHR continued hearing its case and held that the striking teachers were
denied due process of law; they should not have been replaced without a chance to reply to the
administrative charges; there had been violation of their civil and political rights which the Commission is
empowered to investigate.

CHR has made clear its position that it does not feel bound by this Court's joint Resolution in G.R. Nos.
95445 and 95590, supra. It has also made plain its intention "to hear and resolve the case (i.e., Striking
Teachers HRC Case No. 90-775) on the merits." It intends, in other words, to try and decide or hear and
determine, i.e., exercise jurisdiction over the following general issues:

Issue:

Whether CHR has the power to adjudicate alleged human rights violations

Ruling:

No.

The Commission evidently intends to itself adjudicate, that is to say, determine with the character of
finality and definiteness, the same issues which have been passed upon and decided by the Secretary of
Education and subject to appeal to CSC, this Court having in fact, as aforementioned, declared that the
teachers affected may take appeals to the CSC on said matter, if still timely.

The threshold question is whether or not the CHR has the power under the constitution to do so; whether
or not, like a court of justice or even a quasi-judicial agency, it has jurisdiction or adjudicatory powers
over, or the power to try and decide, or dear and determine, certain specific type of cases, like alleged
human rights violations involving civil or political rights.

The Court declares that the CHR to have no such power, and it was not meant by the fundamental law to
be another court or quasi-judicial agency in this country, or duplicate much less take over the functions of
the latter.

The Constitution clearly and categorically grants to the Commission the power to investigate all forms of
human rights violations involving civil and political rights. It can exercise that power on its own initiative or
on complaint of any person. It may exercise that power pursuant to such rules of procedure as it may
adopt and, in cases of violations of said rules, cite for contempt in accordance with the Rules of Court. In
the course of any investigation conducted by it or under its authority, it may grant immunity from
prosecution to any person whose testimony or whose possession of documents or other evidence is
necessary or convenient to determine the truth. It may also request the assistance of any department,
bureau, office, or agency in the performance of its functions, in the conduct of its investigation or in
extending such remedy as may be required by its findings.

But it cannot try and decide cases (or hear and determine causes) as courts of justice, or even quasi-
judicial bodies do. To investigate is not to adjudicate or adjudge. Whether in the popular or the technical
sense, these terms have well understood and quite distinct meanings.

The most that may be conceded to the Commission in the way of adjudicative power is that it may
investigate, i.e. receive evidence and make findings of fact as regards claimed human rights violations
involving civil and political rights. But fact-finding is not adjudication, and cannot be likened to judicial
function of a court of justice, or even a quasi judicial agency or official. The function of receiving evidence
and ascertaining the facts of a controversy is not a judicial function, properly speaking. To be considered
such, the faculty of receiving evidence and making factual conclusions in a controversy must be
accompanied by the authority of applying the law to those factual conclusions to the end that the
controversy be decided or determined authoritatively, finally and definitely, subject to such appeals or
modes of review as may be provided by law. This function, to repeat, the Commission does not have.

Hence it is that the CHR having merely the power to investigate, cannot and not try and resolve on the
merits (adjudicate) the matters involved in Striking Teachers HRC Case No. 90-775, as it has announced
it means to do; and cannot do so even if there be a claim that in the administrative disciplinary
proceedings against the teachers in question, initiated and conducted by the DECS, their human rights, or
civil or political rights had been transgressed.

Note:

Investigate is to follow up step by step by patient inquiry or observation. To trace or track; to search into;
to examine and inquire into with care and accuracy; to find out by careful inquisition; examination; the
taking of evidence; a legal inquiry;" "to inquire; to make an investigation," "investigation" being in turn
describe as "(a)n administrative function, the exercise of which ordinarily does not require a hearing. an
inquiry, judicial or otherwise, for the discovery and collection of facts concerning a certain matter or
matters."

Adjudicate is to settle in the exercise of judicial authority. To determine finally, synonymous with adjudge
in its strictest sense;" and "adjudge" means: "To pass on judicially, to decide, settle or decree, or to
sentence or condemn. . . . Implies a judicial determination of a fact, and the entry of a judgment."