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