LEOVEGILDO R. RUZOL vs. THE HON. SANDIGANBAYAN and the PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. Nos. 186739-960 April 17, 2013

Case Digest

LEOVEGILDO R. RUZOL vs. THE HON. SANDIGANBAYAN and the PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. Nos. 186739-960 April 17, 2013

facts:Ruzol was the mayor of General Nakar, Quezon from 2001 to 2004. Earlier in his term, he organized a Multi-Sectoral Consultative Assembly composed of civil society groups, public officials and concerned stakeholders with the end in view of regulating and monitoring the transportation of salvaged forest products within the vicinity of General Nakar. Among those present in the organizational meeting were Provincial Environment and Natural Resources Officer (PENRO) Rogelio Delgado Sr. and Bishop Julio Xavier Labayen, the OCD-DD of the Prelature of Infanta Emeritus of the Catholic Church and Chairperson of TIPAN, an environmental non-government organization that operates in the municipalities of General Nakar, Infanta and Real in Quezon province. During the said assembly, the participants agreed that to regulate the salvaged forests products, the Office of the Mayor, through Ruzol, shall issue a permit to transport after payment of the corresponding fees to the municipal treasurer.2

Consequently, from 2001 to 2004, two hundred twenty-one (221) permits to transport salvaged forest products were issued to various recipients, of which forty-three (43) bore the signature of Ruzol while the remaining one hundred seventy-eight (178) were signed by his co-accused Guillermo T. Sabiduria (Sabiduria), then municipal administrator of General Nakar.3

On June 2006, on the basis of the issued Permits to Transport, 221 Informations for violation of Art. 177 of the RPC or for Usurpation of Authority or Official Functions were filed against Ruzol and Sabiduria, docketed as Criminal Case Nos. SB-08-CRIM-0039 to 0259.

That, on (date of commission) or sometime prior or subsequent thereto, in General Nakar, Quezon, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused Leovegildo R. Ruzol and Guillermo M. Sabiduria, both public officers, being then the Municipal Mayor and Municipal Administrator, respectively, of General Nakar, Quezon, taking advantage of their official position and committing the offense in relation to their office, conspiring and confederating with each other did then and there willfully, unlawfully and criminally, issue permit to transport (description of forest product) to (person given the permit) under O.R. No. (official receipt number) under the pretense of official position and without being lawfully entitled to do so, such authority properly belonging to the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, to the damage and prejudice of the of the government.

Ruling of the Sandiganbayan

After due consideration, the Sandiganbayan rendered on December 19, 2008 a Decision, acquitting Sabiduria but finding Ruzol guilty as charged, to wit:The Sandiganbayan predicated its ruling on the postulate that the authority to issue transport permits with respect to salvaged forest products lies with the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) and that such authority had not been devolved to the local government of General Nakar.9 To the graft court, Ruzol’s issuance of the subject permits constitutes usurpation of the official functions of the DENR.

The Issue

The critical issue having a determinative bearing on the guilt or innocence of Ruzol for usurpation revolves around the validity of the subject permits to transport, which in turn resolves itself into the question of whether the authority to monitor and regulate the transportation of salvaged forest product is solely with the DENR, and no one else.

The Ruling of this Court

The Sandiganbayan ruled that since the authority relative to salvaged forest products was not included in the above enumeration of devolved functions, the correlative authority to issue transport permits remains with the DENR15and, thus, cannot be exercised by the LGUs.

We disagree and refuse to subscribe to this postulate suggesting exclusivity. As shall be discussed shortly, the LGU also has, under the LGC of 1991, ample authority to promulgate rules, regulations and ordinances to monitor and regulate salvaged forest products, provided that the parameters set forth by law for their enactment have been faithfully complied with.

While the DENR is, indeed, the primary government instrumentality charged with the mandate of promulgating rules and regulations for the protection of the environment and conservation of natural resources, it is not the only government instrumentality clothed with such authority. While the law has designated DENR as the primary agency tasked to protect the environment, it was not the intention of the law to arrogate unto the DENR the exclusive prerogative of exercising this function. Whether in ordinary or in legal parlance, the word "primary" can never be taken to be synonymous with "sole" or "exclusive." In fact, neither the pertinent provisions of PD 705 nor EO 192 suggest that the DENR, or any of its bureaus, shall exercise such authority to the exclusion of all other government instrumentalities, i.e., LGUs.

On the contrary, the claim of DENR’s supposedly exclusive mandate is easily negated by the principle of local autonomy enshrined in the 1987 Constitution16 in relation to the general welfare clause under Sec. 16 of the LGC of 1991, which provides:

Section 16. General Welfare. - Every local government unit shall exercise the powers expressly granted, those necessarily implied therefrom, as well as powers necessary, appropriate, or incidental for its efficient and effective governance, and those which are essential to the promotion of the general welfare. Within their respective territorial jurisdictions, local government units shall ensure and support, among other things, the preservation and enrichment of culture, promote health and safety, enhance the right of the people to a balanced ecology, encourage and support the development of appropriate and self-reliant scientific and technological capabilities, improve public morals, enhance economic prosperity and social justice, promote full employment among their residents, maintain peace and order, and preserve the comfort and convenience of their inhabitants. (Emphasis Ours.)

Pursuant to the aforequoted provision, municipal governments are clothed with authority to enact such ordinances and issue such regulations as may be necessary to carry out and discharge the responsibilities conferred upon them by law, and such as shall be necessary and proper to provide for the health, safety, comfort and convenience, maintain peace and order, improve public morals, promote the prosperity and general welfare of the municipality and its inhabitants, and ensure the protection of property in the municipality.17

As held in Oposa v. Factoran, Jr.,18 the right of the people "to a balanced and healthful ecology carries with it the correlative duty to refrain from impairing the environment." In ensuring that this duty is upheld and maintained, a local government unit may, if it deems necessary, promulgate ordinances aimed at enhancing the right of the people to a balanced ecology and, accordingly, provide adequate measures in the proper utility and conservation of natural resources within its territorial jurisdiction. As can be deduced from Ruzol’s memoranda, as affirmed by the parties in their Joint Stipulation of Facts, it was in the pursuit of this objective that the subject permits to transport were issued by Ruzol––to regulate the salvaged forest products found within the municipality of General Nakar and, hence, prevent abuse and occurrence of any untoward illegal logging in the area.19

In the same vein, there is a clear merit to the view that the monitoring and regulation of salvaged forest products through the issuance of appropriate permits is a shared responsibility which may be done either by DENR or by the LGUs or by both. DAO 1992-30, in fact, says as much, thus: the "LGUs shall share with the national government, particularly the DENR, the responsibility in the sustainable management and development of the environment and natural resources within their territorial jurisdiction."20 The significant role of the LGUs in environment protection is further echoed in Joint Memorandum Circular No. 98-01(JMC 1998-01) or the Manual of Procedures for DENR-DILG-LGU Partnership on Devolved and other Forest Management Functions, which was promulgated jointly by the DILG and the DENR in 1998, and provides as follows:

Section 1. Basic Policies

Subject to the general policies on devolution as contained in RA 7160 and DENR Administrative Order No. 30, Series of 1992, the following basic policies shall govern the implementation of DENR-DILG-LGU partnership on devolved and other forest management functions:

1.1. The Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) shall be the primary government agency responsible for the conservation, management, protection, proper use and sustainable development of the country’s environment and natural resources.

1.2. The LGUs shall share with DENR the responsibility in the sustainable management and development of the forest resources within their territorial jurisdiction. Toward this end, the DENR and the LGUs shall endeavor to strengthen their collaboration and partnership in forest management.

1.3. Comprehensive land use and forest land use plans are important tools in the holistic and efficient management of forest resources. Toward this end, the DENR and the LGUs together with other government agencies shall undertake forest land use planning as an integral activity of comprehensive land use planning to determine the optimum and balanced use of natural resources to support local, regional and national growth and development.

1.4. To fully prepare the LGUs to undertake their shared responsibilities in the sustainable management of forest land resources, the DENR, in coordination with DILG, shall enhance the capacities of the LGUs in the various aspects of forest management. Initially, the DENR shall coordinate, guide and train the LGUs in the management of the devolved functions. As the LGUs’ capacity in forest management is enhanced, the primary tasks in the management of devolved functions shall be performed by the LGUs and the role of the DENR becomes assistive and coordinative.

1.5. To further the ends of local autonomy, the DENR in consultation with the LGUs shall devolved [sic] additional functions and responsibilities to the local government units, or enter into agreements with them for enlarged forest management and other ENR-related functions.

1.6. To seek advocacy, popular support and ultimately help achieve community empowerment, DENR and DILG shall forge the partnership and cooperation of the LGUs and other concerned sectors in seeking and strengthening the participation of local communities for forest management including enforcement of forestry laws, rules and regulations. (Emphasis Ours.)

To our mind, the requirement of permits to transport salvaged forest products is not a manifestation of usurpation of DENR’s authority but rather an additional measure which was meant to complement DENR’s duty to regulate and monitor forest resources within the LGU’s territorial jurisdiction.

This is consistent with the "canon of legal hermeneutics that instead of pitting one statute against another in an inevitably destructive confrontation, courts must exert every effort to reconcile them, remembering that both laws deserve respect as the handiwork of coordinate branches of the government."21 Hence, if there appears to be an apparent conflict between promulgated statutes, rules or regulations issued by different government instrumentalities, the proper action is not to immediately uphold one and annul the other, but rather give effect to both by harmonizing them if possible.22 Accordingly, although the DENR requires a Wood Recovery Permit, an LGU is not necessarily precluded from promulgating, pursuant to its power under the general welfare clause, complementary orders, rules or ordinances to monitor and regulate the transportation of salvaged forest products.

Notwithstanding, We still find that the Permits to Transport issued by Ruzol are invalid for his failure to comply with the procedural requirements set forth by law for its enforcement

Ruzol is correct to a point. Nevertheless, We find that an enabling ordinance is necessary to confer the subject permits with validity. As correctly held by the Sandiganbayan, the power to levy fees or charges under the LGC is exercised by the Sangguniang Bayan through the enactment of an appropriate ordinance wherein the terms, conditions and rates of the fees are prescribed.24 Needless to say, one of the fundamental principles of local fiscal administration is that "local revenue is generated only from sources expressly authorized by law or ordinance."25

It is likewise expressly stated in Sec. 444(b)(3)(iv) of the LGC that the authority of the municipal mayor to issue licenses and permits should be "pursuant to a law or ordinance." It is the Sangguniang Bayan, as the legislative body of the municipality, which is mandated by law to enact ordinances against acts which endanger the environment, i.e., illegal logging, and smuggling of logs and other natural resources.26

In this case, an examination of the pertinent provisions of General Nakar’s Revised Municipal Revenue Code27 and Municipal Environment Code28 reveals that there is no provision unto which the issuance of the permits to transport may be grounded. Thus, in the absence of an ordinance for the regulation and transportation of salvaged products, the permits to transport issued by Ruzol are infirm.

Ruzol’s insistence that his actions are pursuant to the LGU’s devolved function to "manage and control communal forests" under Sec. 17 of the LGC and DAO 1992-3029 is specious. Although We recognize the LGU’s authority in the management and control of communal forests within its territorial jurisdiction, We reiterate that this authority should be exercised and enforced in accordance with the procedural parameters established by law for its effective and efficient execution. As can be gleaned from the same Sec. 17 of the LGC, the LGU’s authority to manage and control communal forests should be "pursuant to national policies and is subject to supervision, control and review of DENR."

The communal forests of each municipality shall in no case exceed a total of 5,000 hectares. (Emphasis Ours.)

It is clear, therefore, that before an area may be considered a communal forest, the following requirements must be accomplished: (1) an identification of potential communal forest areas within the geographic jurisdiction of the concerned city/municipality; (2) a forest land use plan which shall indicate, among other things, the site and location of the communal forests; (3) a request to the DENR Secretary through a resolution passed by the Sangguniang Bayan concerned; and (4) an administrative order issued by DENR Secretary declaring the identified area as a communal forest.

In the present case, the records are bereft of any showing that these requirements were complied with. Thus, in the absence of an established communal forest within the Municipality of General Nakar, there was no way that the subject permits to transport were issued as an incident to the management and control of a communal forest.

This is not to say, however, that compliance with abovementioned statutory requirements for the issuance of permits to transport foregoes the necessity of obtaining the Wood Recovery Permit from the DENR. As earlier discussed, the permits to transport may be issued to complement, and not substitute, the Wood Recovery Permit, and may be used only as an additional measure in the regulation of salvaged forest products. To elucidate, a person seeking to transport salvaged forest products still has to acquire a Wood Recovery Permit from the DENR as a prerequisite before obtaining the corresponding permit to transport issued by the LGU.

Main Issue:

Whether Ruzol Is Guilty of Usurpation of Official Functions

The foregoing notwithstanding, Ruzol cannot be held guilty of Usurpation of Official Functions

We note that this case of usurpation against Ruzol rests principally on the prosecution’s theory that the DENR is the only government instrumentality that can issue the permits to transport salvaged forest products. The prosecution asserted that Ruzol usurped the official functions that properly belong to the DENR. 

But erstwhile discussed at length, the DENR is not the sole government agency vested with the authority to issue permits relevant to the transportation of salvaged forest products, considering that, pursuant to the general welfare clause, LGUs may also exercise such authority. Also, as can be gleaned from the records, the permits to transport were meant to complement and not to replace the Wood Recovery Permit issued by the DENR. In effect, Ruzol required the issuance of the subject permits under his authority as municipal mayor and independently of the official functions granted to the DENR. The records are likewise bereft of any showing that Ruzol made representations or false pretenses that said permits could be used in lieu of, or at the least as an excuse not to obtain, the Wood Recovery Permit from the DENR. 

Second, contrary to the findings of the Sandiganbayan, Ruzol acted in good faith.

Contrary to the conclusions made by the Sandiganbayan, We find that the conduct of the public consultation was not a badge of bad faith, but a sign supporting Ruzol’s good intentions to regulate and monitor the movement of salvaged forest products to prevent abuse and occurrence of untoward illegal logging. In fact, the records will bear that the requirement of permits to transport was not Ruzol’s decision alone; it was, as earlier narrated, a result of the collective decision of the participants during the Multi-Sectoral Consultative Assembly. As attested to by Bishop Julio Xavier Labayen, it was the participants who agreed that the subject permits be issued by the Office of the Mayor of General Nakar, through Ruzol, in the exercise of the latter’s authority as local chief executive.47

The Sandiganbayan also posits the view that Ruzol’s good faith is negated by the fact that if he truly believed he was authorized to issue the subject permits, Ruzol did not have to request the presence and obtain the permission of PENRO Rogelio Delgado Sr. during the Multi-Sectoral Assembly.48

The graft court’s above posture, however, does not commend itself for concurrence. If, indeed, Ruzol willfully and deliberately intended to usurp the official functions of the DENR as averred by the prosecution, he would not have asked the presence of a DENR official who has the authority and credibility to publicly object against Ruzol’s allegedly intended usurpation. Thus, the presence of PENRO Delgado during the Multi-Sectoral Assembly does not negate, but strengthens Ruzol’s claim of good faith.

As a final note, We emphasize that the burden of protecting the environment is placed not on the shoulders of DENR alone––each and every one of us, whether in an official or private capacity, has his or her significant role to play. Indeed, protecting the environment is not only a responsibility but also a right for which a citizen could and should freely exercise. Considering the rampant forest denudation, environmental degradation and plaguing scarcity of natural resources, each of us is now obligated to contribute and share in the responsibility of protecting and conserving our treasured natural resources.

Ruzol chose to exercise this right and to share in this responsibility by exercising his authority as municipal mayor––an act which was executed with the concurrence and cooperation of non-governmental organizations, industry stakeholders, and the concerned citizens of General Nakar. Admittedly, We consider his acts as invalid but it does necessarily mean that such mistakes automatically demand Us to rule a conviction. This is in consonance with the settled principle that "all reasonable doubt intended to demonstrate error and not crime should be indulged in for the benefit of the accused."49

In the present case, the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Ruzol possessed that "criminal mind" when he issued the subject permits. What is clear from the records is that Ruzol, as municipal mayor, intended to regulate and monitor salvaged forest products within General Nakar in order to avert the occurrence of illegal logging in the area. We find that to hold him criminally liable for these seemingly noble intentions would be a step backward and would run contrary to the standing advocacy of encouraging people to take a pro-active stance in the protection of the environment and conservation of our natural resources.

Incidentally, considering the peculiar circumstances of the present case and considering further that this case demands only the determination of Ruzol's guilt or innocence for usurpation of official functions under the RPC, for which the issue on the validity of the subject Permits to Transport is only subsidiary, We hereby resolve this case only for this purpose and only in this instance, pro hac vice, and, in the interest of justice, rule in favor of Ruzol' s acquittal.

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the December 19, 2008 Decision of the Sandiganbayan First Division in Criminal Case Nos. SB-08-CRIM-0039 to 0259, finding Leovegildo R. Ruzol guilty of violating Art. 177 of the Revised Penal Code, is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE.Accused Leovegildo R. Ruzol is, thus, ACQUITTED on the basis of reasonable doubt of the crimes as charged.