This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2006-08-31 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| To boost the cited policy, Congress enacted Rep. Act No. 8975,[15] which effectively superseded[16] P.D. No. 1818. The twin objectives of Rep. Act No. 8975 are: (1) to avoid unnecessary increase in construction costs; and (2) to allow the public to enjoy soonest the benefits of the project. Thus:SECTION 1. Declaration of Policy. Article XII, Section 6 of the Constitution states that the use of property bears a social function, and all economic agents shall contribute to the common good. Towards this end, the State shall ensure the expeditious and efficient implementation and completion of government infrastructure projects to avoid unnecessary increase in construction, maintenance and/or repair costs and to immediately enjoy the social and economic benefits therefrom. | |||||
|
2005-12-13 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| SECTION 26. Duty of National Government Agencies in the Maintenance of Ecological Balance. It shall be the duty of every national agency or government-owned or controlled corporation authorizing or involved in the planning and implementation of any project or program that may cause pollution, climatic change, depletion of non-renewable resources, loss of crop land, range-land, or forest cover, and extinction of animal or plant species, to consult with the local government units, nongovernmental organizations, and other sectors concerned and explain the goals and objectives of the project or program, its impact upon the people and the community in terms of environmental or ecological balance, and the measures that will be undertaken to prevent or minimize the adverse effects thereof. Thus, the projects and programs mentioned in Section 27 should be interpreted to mean projects and programs whose effects are among those enumerated in Section 26 and 27, to wit, those that: (1) may cause pollution; (2) may bring about climatic change; (3) may cause the depletion of non-renewable resources; (4) may result in loss of crop land, range-land, or forest cover; (5) may eradicate certain animal or plant species from the face of the planet; and (6) other projects or programs that may call for the eviction of a particular group of people residing in the locality where these will be implemented. Obviously, none of these effects will be produced by the introduction of lotto in the province of Laguna. (emphasis supplied) We reiterated this doctrine in the recent case of Bangus Fry Fisherfolk v. Lanzanas,[50] where we held that there was no statutory requirement for the sangguniang bayan of Puerto Galera to approve the construction of a mooring facility, as Sections 26 and 27 are inapplicable to projects which are not environmentally critical. | |||||
|
2004-11-11 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies requires that resort be first made with the administrative authorities in the resolution of a controversy falling under their jurisdiction before the same may be elevated to a court of justice for review.[20] If a remedy within the administrative machinery is still available, with a procedure pursuant to law for an administrative officer to decide the controversy, a party should first exhaust such remedy before going to court. A premature invocation of a court's intervention renders the complaint without cause of action and dismissible on such ground.[21] | |||||