SC: SM Prime liable for discharging pollutants
0 views
Skip to first unread message
GLT
Oct 3, 2010, 1:27:30 PM10/3/10
to Philippine environment conservation
SC: SM Prime liable for discharging pollutants
abs-cbnNEWS.com
Posted at 10/03/2010 5:30 PM | Updated as of 10/03/2010 5:30 PM
…says LLDA right in imposing fine against mall owner
MANILA, Philippines - The Supreme Court has upheld a Laguna Lake
Development Authority (LLDA) ruling that found SM Prime Holdings
liable for discharging pollutive wastewater in February 2002.
In a 12-page decision penned by Associate Justice Diosdado Peralta,
the second division of the high court said LLDA has the power to
impose fines against establishments that have violated effluent
standards for inland water.
These are rules and regulations that control the discharging of
industrial wastewater.
In an order issued on October 2, 2002, LLDA directed the firm to pay
P50,000 after its SM Manila City branch was found to have violated the
standards.
The amount represents the accumulated daily penalty computed from
February 4, 2002 until March 5, 2002.
SM Prime asked for a waiver of the fine, saying it immediately
corrected the problem.
It added it is a responsible operator of malls and department stores.
In fact, it was the first time that SM Manila failed to observe
effluent standards, it said.
LLDA denied the plea. The case was elevated before the Court of
Appeals.
The appellate court, however, said LLDA's charter, or Republic Act
4850, has not expressly provided such provision.
In reversing the ruling, SC said LLDA has the power to impose fines in
the exercise of its function as a regulatory and quasi-judicial body
with regard to pollution cases in the Laguna Lake region.
Citing section 4 (d) of Executive Order No. 927, SC said the agency
has the power to “make, later, modify orders, requiring the
discontinuance of pollution specifying the conditions and the time
within which such discontinuance must be accomplished.”
“The intendment of the law…is to clothe the LLDA not only with the
express powers granted to it, but also those which are implied or
incident but, nonetheless, are necessary or essential for the full
proper implementation of its purposes and functions,” the high court
said.
Printer-friendly versionPrinter-friendly version | Send to friendSend
to friend | Share your views Share your views
Bookmark and Share
abs-cbnNEWS.com
Posted at 10/03/2010 5:30 PM | Updated as of 10/03/2010 5:30 PM
…says LLDA right in imposing fine against mall owner
MANILA, Philippines - The Supreme Court has upheld a Laguna Lake
Development Authority (LLDA) ruling that found SM Prime Holdings
liable for discharging pollutive wastewater in February 2002.
In a 12-page decision penned by Associate Justice Diosdado Peralta,
the second division of the high court said LLDA has the power to
impose fines against establishments that have violated effluent
standards for inland water.
These are rules and regulations that control the discharging of
industrial wastewater.
In an order issued on October 2, 2002, LLDA directed the firm to pay
P50,000 after its SM Manila City branch was found to have violated the
standards.
The amount represents the accumulated daily penalty computed from
February 4, 2002 until March 5, 2002.
SM Prime asked for a waiver of the fine, saying it immediately
corrected the problem.
It added it is a responsible operator of malls and department stores.
In fact, it was the first time that SM Manila failed to observe
effluent standards, it said.
LLDA denied the plea. The case was elevated before the Court of
Appeals.
The appellate court, however, said LLDA's charter, or Republic Act
4850, has not expressly provided such provision.
In reversing the ruling, SC said LLDA has the power to impose fines in
the exercise of its function as a regulatory and quasi-judicial body
with regard to pollution cases in the Laguna Lake region.
Citing section 4 (d) of Executive Order No. 927, SC said the agency
has the power to “make, later, modify orders, requiring the
discontinuance of pollution specifying the conditions and the time
within which such discontinuance must be accomplished.”
“The intendment of the law…is to clothe the LLDA not only with the
express powers granted to it, but also those which are implied or
incident but, nonetheless, are necessary or essential for the full
proper implementation of its purposes and functions,” the high court
said.
Printer-friendly versionPrinter-friendly version | Send to friendSend
to friend | Share your views Share your views
Bookmark and Share
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages