Special Problems in Environmental Law
LAW 313M
Orientation
DONNA Z GASGONIA
WELCOME to Special Problems on Environmental Law
Objectives
• To identify environmental legal disputes and analyze how the courts
resolved those disputes
• To learn the rules of procedure for environmental cases
Outcomes
• At the end of the course, the student will be able to grasp the steps to
identify the fundamental legal disputes of actual or hypothetical
situations.
• The student will be able to assess the applicability of rules and laws to a
given situation leading to a legal conclusion.
Donna Z Gasgonia
2
Course description
• Special Problems on Environmental Law (SPEL) is a 1-unit subject that
focuses on environmental legal disputes and resolutions applying
procedural law.
• The Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases, A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC,
will be referred to as much as possible to show the unique policies and
steps of environmental litigation.
• However, the standard requirements of the Rules of Court will also be
highlighted to clarify that environmental cases are not exempt from
complying with them.
• Cases will be analyzed to see how the special civil actions like the Writ
of Kalikasan, the Writ of Continuing Mandamus and Environmental
Protection Orders, were applied or not.
Donna Z Gasgonia
3
Rules of Procedure for Environmental Laws
A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC
Objectives of the Rules – Section 3
a)
To protect and advance the constitutional right of the people to a
balanced and healthful ecology
b)
To provide a simplified, speedy and inexpensive procedure for the
enforcement of environmental rights and duties recognized under
the Constitution, existing laws, rules and regulations, and
international agreements
c)
To introduce and adopt innovations and best practices ensuring the
effective enforcement of remedies and redress for violations of
environmental laws
d)
To enable the courts to monitor and exact compliance with orders
and judgments in environmental cases
Donna Z Gasgonia
4
Methodology
Student Class Presentations
Online Lectures
Exams
Quizzes
Donna Z Gasgonia
5
GRADE Computation
Midterm
Exam
25%
Final Exam
25%
Class
Participation
50%
Final GRADE
Case
Presentation
Case Digest
Individual or Group
25 %
25 %
Quiz or Seatwork
Class
Participation
50%
Case
assignment
question may
or may not
correspond to
IRAC
Case Analysis
1 case = 1 student
Case Assignment questions –
available before lesson; due on
the DAY of the Lesson
Case Presentation #n [title]
ASSIGNMENTS
Lesson Topic - CASE
Not available until [date] [time]
Due [date] at [time] = 20 pts
Donna Z Gasgonia
9
Case Analysis – TEMPLATE: I-R-A-C
I – ISSUE or legal dispute relevant to the assigned topic
R – RULES or Laws invoked or opposed by the parties
A – ANALYSIS of material facts and relevant arguments of the
parties
C – CONCLUSION application of the RULES or LAWS to the FACTS
to resolve the Issue
•Use Power
Point
Presentation
•Limit slides
to not more
than 7
•Illustrate
with maps,
photos,
graphs and
flow charts if
possible
I
• Issue
R
• Rules,
statutes
A
C
• Analysis of
Facts and
Arguments
• Conclusion,
decision
Atty Donna Z Gasgonia
11
I–R–A–C
vs
Traditional Decision Format
I
R
• Issue
• Rules
Facts
• Material
Facts
A
• Analysis
C
• Conclusion
Issues
Application
Decision
• Whether or
not/s
• Rules
• Arguments
• Conclusion
Atty Donna Z Gasgonia
12
SLIDE PRESENTATION sample
The box on the right side of the slide should not appear in your slide presentation. The
box is in this sample presentation for easy reference only.
Remember: slide limit is 10 slides; time limit is 15 minutes
Question and Answer to follow slide presentation
Atty Donna Z Gasgonia
13
Title Slide [slide # 1]
• Case Title, Case number, Date
• Student Name:
• Date of Presentation in Class
• Insert illustration
Atty Donna Z Gasgonia
14
Astorga v People
G.R. No. 154130, Oct. 01, 2003
Presented by: Juana dela Cruz; On: February 30, 2020
Atty Donna Z Gasgonia
15
ISSUE
[slide #2]
o What is the Legal Dispute? Why did the complainant file the action
against the respondent?
o State the issue in the format – “Whether or not…”
o What are the elements of the law in
question?
o What is the proximate or specific act
that triggered the complainant to file
the action?
o Are there sub-issues that are
relevant to the topic being discussed
in class? If not relevant to the topic,
do not include as a sub-issue.
Atty Donna Z Gasgonia
I
• Issue
• Legal Dispute
• Statement by
complainant of Right/s
violated or ignored by
respondent
16
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Mayor Astorga is guilty of arbitrary detention for
refusing to allow the Team of foresters and policemen to leave the site
of illegal logging that they investigated and documented
Sub-issue:
Whether or not the testimonies of the policemen are sufficient to
convict Mayor Astorga considering that the foresters executed a joint
affidavit of desistance
Daram Mayor “detained” Team of DENR & PNP
Atty Donna Z Gasgonia
17
RULES [slide #3]
o Specify the section, Article. If
necessary, copy paste the section
entirely, or the phrase in
question.
o Do not copy paste irrelevant
phrases, paragraphs.
o Statute – specify the section,
Article.
o Cases
Atty Donna Z Gasgonia
R
•
•
•
•
Rules
Laws
Cases
Doctrine
18
RULES [slide #3]
o Art. 124 , Revised Penal Code – elements: (1) the offender is a
public officer or employee; (2) he detains a person; (3) detention is
without legal grounds
o People v Cortez – it is not necessary that the offended party be
kept within an enclosure to restrict her freedom of locomotion.
o People v Ballabare – the affidavit of desistance is merely an
additional ground to support the defenses of the accused;
contents may not repudiate material points in the complaint but
merely manifest lack of interest to pursue the case.
Atty Donna Z Gasgonia
19
ANALYSIS of Facts [slide #4 - #5]
FACTS: Who? What? When? Where? How?
o Who are the parties? What is their
relationship – family, strangers, business
partners?
o What happened?
o When did the incident/transaction,
happen?
o Where did it happen?
o How did it happen? Describe how the
rights were violated or ignored.
Atty Donna Z Gasgonia
A
• Analysis of Material
Facts
• Analysis of Arguments
and Counter-arguments
20
ANALYSIS of Facts
[slide #4]
Mayor Astorga
slapped the
shoulder of
the DENR
Chief Law
Enforcement
and told them
he can make
them swim
back to
Tacloban
Mayor
Astorga
met the
Team on
site with
his men
and asked
for their
purpose
DENR Team,
and 2 police
escorts
investigated
illegal logging
in Daram, W.
Samar
Team found 2
yacht-like boats
in Brgy. Bagacay,
Daram.
2 more boats in
Brgy. Lucoblucod, Daran.
Time 5pm
onwards
6:00 pm, boatload
of 10 armed men
surrounded the
Team. Simon
tried to radio the
DENR in
Catbalgoan but
Mayor Astorga
forcibly grabbed
the radio from
him
Atty Donna Z Gasgonia
Dinner was
served at
8pm. Team
was not
allowed to
leave until
2 am
Mayor Astorga
denied Simon’s
request to be
allowed to
leave. They
were brought to
Daram instead.
Criminal
complaint
filed; Mayor
Astorga was
arraigned and
convicted
21
ANALYSIS of Facts [slide #4]
• Benito Astorga is the mayor of Daram, Western Samar who prevented a Team of DENR
foresters and policemen from leaving the site despite their expressed desire to leave.
• Mayor Astorga was quoted to have said the following during the period of “detention:”
• “It’s better if you have no radio so that your office would not know your whereabouts and
so that you cannot ask for help.” [after grabbing Simon’s radio]
• “If you are tough guys in Leyte, do not bring it to Samar because I will not tolerate it
here.” [after slapping Simon on the shoulder for a second time]
• “You cannot go home now because I will bring you to Daram.” [after Simon asked to be
allowed to leave for the third time]
• During trial, Simon failed to complete his testimony. Together with the DENR officers, he
signed a Joint Affidavit of Desistance.
• Despite the affidavit of desistance, the Sandiganbayan convicted Mayor Astorga of
Arbitrary Detention.
• Petition by Mayor Astorga to the Supreme Court on ground that Sandiganbayan erred.
Atty Donna Z Gasgonia
22
ANALYSIS of Arguments [slide #6]
ANALYSIS of
ARGUMENTS & Counter ARGUMENTS
Petitioner/
complainant
1st argument
2nd argument
Respondent
Counter-argument
to 1st argument
Counter-argument
to 2nd argument
Atty Donna Z Gasgonia
A
• Analysis of Material
Facts
• Analysis of Arguments
and Counter-arguments
23
ANALYSIS of Arguments [slide #6]
ANALYSIS of
ARGUMENTS & Counter ARGUMENTS
Astorga
Insufficient evidence due to
retraction by 5 witnesses (DENR
officers) who were the
complainants. The policemen were
not complainants but were only
witnesses.
Mere presence of armed men does
not prove fear in the minds of the
team members. Dinner was served
to “while away the time.”
People
Elements were proven by the
testimonies of the 2 policemen who
did not retract their statements,
and testified in court.
Astorga’s men had M-16 and M-14
rifles thus it was “not safe” to
disobey Mayor Astorga. However,
given a chance, they would have
gone home.
Atty Donna Z Gasgonia
24
CONCLUSION [slide #7]
Principal legal dispute
Resolution of principal legal dispute
Sub-issue/s, etc.
Resolution of sub-issue/s
Atty Donna Z Gasgonia
C
• Conclusion
• Judgment
• Resolution of the Issue or
Legal Dispute (may not be
the principal issue, so find
the applicable resolution)
25
CONCLUSION [slide #7]
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Mayor Astorga is guilty of arbitrary detention for
refusing to allow the Team of foresters and policemen to leave the site of
illegal logging that they investigated and documented
RESOLUTION:
Mayor Astorga is guilty of arbitrary detention. All elements of the crime
were proved:
(1) Mayor Astorga is a public official.
(2) He detained the complainants and witnesses who investigated illegal
logging in Daram against their will.
(3) The team stayed because they feared the armed men.
Atty Donna Z Gasgonia
26
CONCLUSION [slide #8]
Sub-issue:
Whether or not the testimonies of the policemen are sufficient to convict
Mayor Astorga considering that the foresters executed a joint affidavit of
desistance
RESOLUTION:
The policemen clearly described the acts of Mayor Astorga, and proved
the intent of Mayor Astorga to detain the complainants and witnesses
against their will by instilling fear in their minds. The joint affidavit of
desistance did not repudiate the facts stated in the complaint but merely
said that the DENR Team were “no longer interested in pursuing the
complaint.”
Atty Donna Z Gasgonia
27
Additional information [slide #9]
• In a statement, the NPA Arnulfo Ortiz Command accused
Mayor Benito Astorga of Daram, Samar of having committed
injustices, including the killings of civilians in Barangay Birawan
where he was shot dead.
Astorga, 47, was attending a benefit dance as part of Birawan’s
fiesta celebration when five men attacked him. He sustained
five gunshot wounds in the head, chest and other parts of the
body. – Philstar, 29 Jan. 2007
Atty Donna Z Gasgonia
28
I-R-A-C Format for Slides online presentation and
submitted narrative Case Digest
Oral Presentation – Power Point
Written Case Digest
1)
TITLE of the case, Student Name; photo of
site if relevant [1 slide]
1.
Title of the Case, Student Name, Date of
Presentation
2)
ISSUE/Legal Dispute [1 slide]
2.
3)
RULES: laws, regulations, cases [1 – 2
slides]
Issue describing the Legal Dispute,
identifying the parties, relationships,
violation of rights
3.
Rules/laws/regulations/cases: title, date
and pertinent provision or ruling
4)
ANALYSIS: Facts in a summary, graph or
timeline[1 slide]
4.
5)
ANALYSIS: Arguments &
Counterarguments using Table [1 - 2
slides]
Analysis of relevant Facts – parties
identified and referred to by name,
summary, graph, timeline
5.
Analysis of Arguments using a Table to
match arguments and counterarguments
6)
CONCLUSION: Resolution of Legal Dispute
[1 – 2 slides]
6.
Conclusion: statement of how the legal
dispute was resolved; parties named
Case Analysis OUTPUTs
1) For case presentations in
class, use 7 to 10 power point
slides
Issue = 1 slide
2) For written case digests, do
not copy paste paragraphs or
full provisions; use your own
words.
Rules = 1 to 2 slides
Analysis of Facts = 2 slides
Analysis of Arguments &
Counter-arguments = 1 to 2
slides using a Table
Conclusion = 1 slide
Atty Donna Z Gasgonia
30
Atty Donna Z Gasgonia
31
Atty Donna Z Gasgonia
32
SYLLABUS