The Supreme Court dismissed the petition filed by Ecowaste Coalition and other groups challenging the validity and constitutionality of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) guidelines governing waste-to-energy facilities, ruling that the petition violated the doctrine of hierarchy of courts because it raised factual questions rather than purely legal ones.
The Case
The petition was filed by Ecowaste Coalition, Interfacing Development Interventions for Sustainability, Jayvie Abajes, Anecita Abadijas, Kisha Erah Muaña, Ma. Erlinda Coleen Salamat, and Francisco Dangla III (Ecowaste Coalition et al.). They impugned the validity and constitutionality of Department Administrative Order (DAO) No. 2019-21, otherwise known as the "Guidelines Governing Waste-to-Energy (WtE) Facilities for the Integrated Management of Municipal Solid Wastes," issued by former Secretary Roy Cimatu of the DENR.
On August 12, 2014, the National Solid Waste Management Commission (NSWMC) adopted Resolution No. 90, Series of 2014, creating a multi-agency sub-group to develop guidelines on the establishment and operation of waste-to-energy technologies in the country. Ecowaste Coalition, along with constituent non-governmental organizations and environmental groups, conveyed their objections to the sub-group's efforts. Despite their objections, the NSWMC issued Resolution No. 669, Series of 2016, which laid down guidelines governing the establishment and operation of waste-to-energy technologies for municipal solid wastes.
The DENR-EMB conducted a series of public consultations in Mandaluyong City, Cebu City, and Davao City. Secretary Cimatu approved and signed DAO 2019-21 on November 26, 2019, adopting the NSWMC's guidelines under Resolution No. 669, Series of 2016.
Ecowaste Coalition and No Burn Philippines sent a "Notice to Sue" to the DENR, calling on Secretary Cimatu to rescind DAO 2019-21 or face legal action. Notwithstanding the notice, the DENR-EMB issued Memorandum Circular No. 2020-23, which clarified the requirements of waste-to-energy projects relative to applications for environmental compliance certificates. These actions prompted Ecowaste Coalition et al. to file the petition directly before the Court on June 8, 2021.
The Issue
The petitioners ascribed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of Secretary Cimatu in issuing DAO 2019-21, claiming it contravened environmental statutes such as Republic Act No. 8749, Republic Act No. 9003, and Republic Act No. 9513, and violated the public trust doctrine and the people's rights to health and a balanced and healthful ecology. The central question the Court addressed was whether the petition, filed directly before it, raised purely legal questions that would justify direct recourse, or whether it raised factual questions that violate the doctrine of hierarchy of courts.
The Ruling
The Court ruled that the petition did not raise purely legal questions. It found that the petitioners asked the Court to consider whether incineration processes, supposedly allowed by DAO 2019-21, generate harmful by-products such as dioxins and furans, and whether these by-products bio-accumulate in living organisms, eventually ending up in human bodies and causing severe harm to their health. The Court held these questions are factual in nature because they require the presentation of evidence.
The Court disposed: "ACCORDINGLY, the Petition for Certiorari is DISMISSED without PREJUDICE to its refiling before the proper forum."
By the Numbers
- G.R. No. 256978
- August 12, 2014 — NSWMC adopted Resolution No. 90, Series of 2014
- Resolution No. 669, Series of 2016 — guidelines for waste-to-energy technologies
- November 26, 2019 — Secretary Cimatu approved and signed DAO 2019-21
- June 8, 2021 — petition filed directly before the Court
- August 3, 2021 — Court En Banc resolution requiring comment
- 11 agencies and sectors composed the multi-agency sub-group
The Court's Reasoning
The Court explained that the controlling factor for exceptions to the doctrine of hierarchy of courts is not the presence of special and important reasons, but rather the nature of the question raised. It stressed that only controversies involving purely legal questions may be entertained by the Court at the first instance. When a question entails the determination of a factual issue indispensable to the resolution of a legal issue, the Court will refuse to resolve the case regardless of any invocation of transcendental or paramount importance.
Citing Velayo-Fong v. Spouses Velayo, the Court reiterated that a question of law arises when there is doubt as to what the law is on a certain state of facts, while there is a question of fact when the doubt arises as to the truth or falsity of the alleged facts. The test is whether the appellate court can determine the issue raised without reviewing or evaluating the evidence.
The Court found that for it to settle the issues raised, the presentation and assessment of scientific evidence is necessary to show that the use of incineration technologies, supposedly permitted by DAO 2019-21, generate harmful by-products such as dioxins and furans causing adverse health effects. It held that petitioners should have first brought their factual questions before the proper tribunal or regulatory agency specially equipped to resolve them, and that their immediate resort to the Court was unjustified.
Emphasizing that the Court is not a trier of facts, it noted that transcendental importance is no excuse for not meeting the demands of justiciability. In light of the violation of the doctrine of hierarchy of courts, the Court found no cogent reason to delve into the merits of the substantive disputations.
Source: Supreme Court decision in Ecowaste Coalition et al. v. Secretary Cimatu, G.R. No. 256978.
This report summarizes a public Supreme Court decision and is not legal advice.