PROVINCE OF RIZAL, et al. v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, et al. GR 12954, 1! "e#e$%e& 2''5, Se#()* "+v++() -C+#(/Na0a&+(, . FACTS3
The Province Province of Rizal, the municipality municipality of San Mateo, and various concerned citizens led a petition for review on certiorari of the Decision of the Court of Appeals, denyin, for lac! of cause of action, the petition for certiorari, prohi"ition and mandamus with application for a temporary restrainin order#writ order#writ of preliminary in$unction assailin the leality and constitutionality of Proclamation %o& '()& Proclamation Proclamation %o& '() sets aside parts of the Mari!ina *atershed Reservation Reservation for use as a sanitary landll and similar waste disposal applications for the solid wastes of +uezon City, Mari!ina, San uan, Mandaluyon, Pateros, Pasi, and Taui& Petitioners Petitioners o"$ect to the location of the dumpsites within the watershed "ecause such reatly a-ected the ecoloical "alance and environmental environmental factors, includin health ris!s in the community& President President oseph .& .strada issued a Memorandum orderin the closure of the dumpsite on (/ Decem"er 0111& Accordinly, Accordinly, on 01 uly /222, the Presidential Presidential Committee on 3laship Prorams and Pro$ects Pro$ects and the MMDA entered into a M4A with the Provincial 5overnment 5overnment of Rizal, the Municipality of San Mateo, and the City of Antipolo, wherein the latter areed to further e6tend the use of the dumpsite until its permanent closure on (/ Decem"er 0111& 4n // anuary 011/, President President .strada directed the reopenin of the San Mateo dumpsite 7in view of the emerency situation of uncollected ar"ae in Metro Manila, resultin in a critical and imminent health and sanitation epidemic&8 The Supreme Court Court issued a TR4 on 09 anuary 011/ 011/ preventin preventin the dumpsites reopenin& Proclamation Proclamation %o& '() was declared to "e illeal& The Supreme Court held that the San Mateo :andll :and ll to remain permanently closed& The petition was ranted and the Decision Decision of the Court of was R.;.RS.D and S.T AS
ISSUES3
/& *hether or not Proclamation %o& '() is illeal& RULING3
=es, Proclamation %o& '() was declared illeal& The circumstances under which Proclamation %o& '() was passed also violates Rep& Act %o& >/'1, or the :ocal 5overnment Code& Section /' allows every local overnment unit to e6ercise the powers e6pressly ranted, those necessarily implied therefrom, as well as powers necessary, appropriate, or incidental for its e?cient and e-ective overnance, and those which are essential to the promotion of the eneral welfare, which involve, amon other thins, promot@in health and safety, enhance@in the riht of the people to a "alanced ecoloy, and preserv@in the comfort and convenience of their inha"itants& All the municipal mayors of the province of Rizal openly declared their full support for the rally and notied the MMDA that they would oppose any further attempt to dump ar"ae in their province& Bnder the :ocal 5overnment Code, therefore, two reuisites must "e met "efore a national pro$ect that a-ects the environmental and ecoloical "alance of local communities can "e implemented prior consultation with the a-ected local communities, and prior approval of the pro$ect "y the appropriate sanunian& A"sent either of these mandatory reuirements, the pro$ects implementation is illeal&
0& *hether or not a M4A would uarantee the permanent closure of the San Mateo :andll& RULING3
%o, the law and the facts indicate that a mere M4A does not uarantee the dumpsites permanent closure& Despite the areement, President .strada directed the reopenin of the San Mateo dumpsite on // anuary 011/& *ere it not for the TR4, then President .stradas instructions would have "een lawfully carried out, for as o"served in Oposa v. Factoran, the freedom of contract is not a"solute&
The SC thus feel there is also the added need to reassure the residents of the Province of Rizal that this is indeed a nal resolution of this controversy, for a "rief review of the records of this case indicates two selfE evident facts& 3irst, the San Mateo site has adversely a-ected its environs, and second, sources of water should always "e protected&
