G.R. No. 202897 , August 6, 2019
MAYNILAD WATER SERVICES, INC., PETITIONER, VS. THE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES (“DENR”), THE POLLUTION ADJUDICATION BOARD (“PAB”), THE REGIONAL EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT BUREAU-NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION (“EMB-NCR”), THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT BUREAU-REGION III (“EMB-REGION III”), THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT BUREAU-REGION IV (“EMB­-REGION IV”), RESPONDENTS. [G.R. No. 206823] MANILA WATER COMPANY, INC., PETITIONER, VS. THE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES (DENR), THE REGIONAL EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT BUREAU-NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION (EMB-NCR), THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT BUREAU-REGION III (EMB­-REGION III), THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT BUREAU-REGION IV (“EMB-REGION IV-A”), AND THE POLLUTION ADJUDICATION BOARD (PAB), RESPONDENTS. [G.R. No. 207969] METROPOLITAN WATERWORKS AND SEWERAGE SYSTEM, PETITIONER, VS. THE POLLUTION ADJUDICATION BOARD AND ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT BUREAU, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

This is a Separate Concurring Opinion by Justice Leonen in consolidated cases where the petitioners (Maynilad Water Services, Inc., Manila Water Company, Inc., and Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System) were found liable for violating Section 8 of Republic Act No. 9275 , the Philippine Clean Water Act. The petitioners claimed they were denied due process because the Secretary of the DENR imposed a penalty without the recommendation of the Pollution Adjudication Board as required under Section 28 of the law.

ISSUE

The primary legal issues addressed in the Separate Concurring Opinion are: (1) the proper definition and scope of substantive due process, and (2) the nature and application of the public trust doctrine vis-à-vis the parens patriae doctrine, police power, and the regalian doctrine.

RULING

Justice Leonen concurs in the result that the petitioners should be held liable but qualifies his concurrence with the following views:
1. On Substantive Due Process: He disagrees with the ponencia’s definition of substantive due process as “the intrinsic validity of a law that interferes with the rights of a person to his property.” He maintains that substantive due process refers more to the law’s freedom from arbitrariness and unfairness. It inquires whether the government has sufficient justification for depriving a person of life, liberty, or property, and whether such deprivation is fair, reasonable, and just. The standard tests to determine this are the rational basis test, the heightened or immediate scrutiny test, and the strict scrutiny test, depending on the right affected.
2. On the Public Trust Doctrine: He agrees with the Court’s adoption of the public trust doctrine but provides additional observations. He views the doctrine as a fiduciary principle where the government, as a trustee, holds natural resources for the benefit of the public. He cautions against conflating it with the regalian doctrine, which is a feudal concept of State ownership. The public trust doctrine is more aligned with the police power of the State and the parens patriae doctrine, where the State protects communal long-term interests. He emphasizes that in a democracy, all people are both trustees and beneficiaries of natural resources, especially water.
Accordingly, with these qualifications, he voted to DENY the Petition.