This Supreme Court decision reinforces that occupying foreshore areas and constructing structures without proper permits constitutes a violation of the Water Code of the Philippines, irrespective of a pending foreshore lease application or claimed prior possession. The ruling underscores the importance of securing necessary government authorizations before undertaking any construction or business activities in foreshore zones. Even if occupants believe their actions are lawful pending approval of their applications, the unauthorized occupation remains a punishable offense.

Sandcastle Dreams vs. Solid Ground: Can Good Intentions Excuse Unpermitted Foreshore Structures?

The case of People of the Philippines vs. Orlando Constantino, et al. (G.R. No. 251636) delves into the legal consequences of occupying and building structures on foreshore land without the required permits. This case highlights the strict application of the Water Code, particularly concerning the use and occupation of coastal areas. The central question revolves around whether the accused-appellants’ pending foreshore lease application and claim of good faith can excuse their violation of the law.

The accused-appellants, members of the White Sand Bentol Fishermen Cooperative (WSBFC), were found to have occupied the foreshore area of Barangay San Pedro, Panabo City, constructing sheds, cottages, and sari-sari stores without the necessary permits. They argued that their actions were justified by a pending foreshore lease application filed by WSBFC and a municipal resolution declaring the area a beach resort. They claimed ignorance of the permit requirements and asserted that their economic activities were lawful while awaiting the lease approval.

However, the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), the Regional Trial Court (RTC), and the Court of Appeals (CA) all found the accused-appellants guilty of violating Article 91(B)(3) of Presidential Decree No. (PD) 1067, the Water Code of the Philippines. This provision penalizes the unauthorized occupancy of a river bank or seashore without permission.

The Supreme Court (SC) affirmed the lower courts’ decisions, emphasizing the importance of adhering to legal procedures for utilizing foreshore areas. The SC pointed out that the accused-appellants had chosen the wrong mode of appeal by filing a notice of appeal instead of a petition for review on certiorari, which is the proper remedy for appealing decisions from the Court of Appeals. However, the Court still addressed the substantive issues.

The Court addressed the issue of the mode of appeal taken by the accused and said:

Section 1. Filing of petition with Supreme Court. — A party desiring to appeal by certiorari from a judgment, final order or resolution of the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, the Court of Tax Appeals, the Regional Trial Court or other courts, whenever authorized by law, may file with the Supreme Court a verified petition for review on certiorari. The petition may include an application for a writ of preliminary injunction or other provisional remedies and shall raise only questions of law, which must be distinctly set forth. The petitioner may seek the same provisional remedies by verified motion filed in the same action or proceeding at any time during its pendency.

Even if the appeal had been filed correctly, the Court said that the conviction still stands. Citing Article 91(B)(3) of PD 1067, the Supreme Court reiterated that unauthorized occupancy of a seashore without permission is a punishable offense. The Court clarified that the term “seashore” encompasses “foreshore” areas, which are defined as the strip of land between the high and low water marks. This means that any unauthorized construction or activity within this zone is a violation of the Water Code.

The Supreme Court emphasized that intent is immaterial in cases involving mala prohibita, which are acts prohibited by special laws. The Court explained the difference between the two:

The test to determine when the act is mala in se and not malum prohibitum is whether it is inherently immoral or the vileness of the penalized act.

The unauthorized occupation of the foreshore area falls under this category, meaning that the accused-appellants’ lack of malicious intent or their belief in the lawfulness of their actions does not excuse them from liability. The Court further stated that the pending foreshore lease application did not grant them the right to occupy and build structures on the land without the necessary permits.

The Court also rejected the argument that the accused-appellants’ right to due process was violated due to the lack of exhaustion of administrative remedies. Article 93 of PD 1067 explicitly states that all offenses punishable under the Code shall be brought before the proper court. This means that there is no requirement to exhaust administrative remedies before filing a criminal case for violation of the Water Code.

Moreover, the Supreme Court affirmed that the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) has the authority to file a criminal complaint for violation of the Water Code, even though the National Water Resources Board (NWRB) is the primary agency responsible for regulating water resources. The DENR’s mandate to protect the environment and natural resources, including foreshore lands, justifies its involvement in enforcing the Water Code.

The Court further emphasized that the accused-appellants’ prior possession of the land, as established in a separate forcible entry case, did not grant them the right to occupy the area without proper authorization. The restoration of their possession was based on their prior physical possession, not on any legal right to occupy the land without a permit.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision in this case underscores the importance of securing the necessary permits and authorizations before occupying or constructing structures on foreshore lands. The ruling clarifies that a pending foreshore lease application does not excuse unauthorized occupation, and that good faith or lack of intent is not a defense in cases involving violations of the Water Code.

FAQs

What was the central legal issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the accused-appellants violated the Water Code by occupying and building structures on foreshore land without the required permits, despite having a pending foreshore lease application.
What is a foreshore area?	A foreshore area is the strip of land that lies between the high and low water marks of a body of water, such as the sea or a lake, and is alternately wet and dry according to the tide or water level.
What does the Water Code say about occupying foreshore areas?	The Water Code prohibits the unauthorized occupation of a river bank or seashore without permission, as stated in Article 91(B)(3) of PD 1067.
Does a pending foreshore lease application allow someone to occupy the land?	No, a pending foreshore lease application does not automatically authorize a person or group to occupy and build structures on the land without the necessary permits.
Is intent relevant in determining a violation of the Water Code?	In cases involving unauthorized occupation of foreshore areas, intent is not a primary factor because the violation falls under the category of malum prohibitum, where the act itself is prohibited by law.
What government agency is responsible for enforcing the Water Code?	While the National Water Resources Board (NWRB) is the primary agency for regulating water resources, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) also has the authority to enforce the Water Code, particularly in protecting foreshore lands.
What is the penalty for unauthorized occupation of a foreshore area?	The penalty for unauthorized occupation of a seashore without permission, as stated in Article 91(B)(3) of PD 1067, is a fine exceeding Three Thousand Pesos (P3,000.00) but not more than Six Thousand Pesos (P6,000.00) or imprisonment exceeding three (3) years but not more than six (6) years, or both such fine and imprisonment in the discretion of the Court
Can prior possession of the land be a defense against violating the Water Code?	No, prior possession of the land, even if legally established in a separate case, does not grant the right to occupy the area without the necessary permits from the government.
Does the principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies apply in Water Code violation cases?	No, the principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies does not apply because Article 93 of PD 1067 states that all offenses punishable under the Code shall be brought before the proper court.

The Supreme Court’s decision serves as a crucial reminder of the legal requirements governing the use and occupation of foreshore areas in the Philippines. It highlights the need for individuals and organizations to comply with all applicable laws and regulations, including obtaining the necessary permits, before undertaking any activities in coastal zones. Failure to do so can result in significant penalties and legal consequences.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: People of the Philippines vs. Orlando Constantino, et al., G.R. No. 251636, February 14, 2022