Comparative Legal Analysis of the NIPAS Law
The NIPAS Law and the Local Government Code
The NIPAS Law and the Local Government Code (Republic Act No. 7160)
Assessment The political desire in enacting the NIPAS Act is to create a system that would ensure the protection of areas identified to have biologically unique features to sustain human life and development, including plant and animal life, commonly referred to as protected areas. The same law recognizes the positive role of the local governments, as a lead supporting body of the national government, in the effective governance of these areas, including the use and enjoyment of the resources therein. On the other hand, the LGC is the actualization of the most coveted principle of local autonomy, now enjoyed by the local governments. The same Code epitomizes a certain degree of independence from interference of national authorities and dominance of local governments in their respective territorial jurisdictions. Thus, it is crucial to determine whether or not the NIPAS Act, in its noble concern to protect the environment, has indeed respected the local autonomy of local governments, and has effectively encouraged active support and participation of the local governments in the national undertakings that directly affect them. It is a basic principle of law to reconcile two or more seemingly conflicting legal provisions with the end view of giving effect, as much as possible, to all these provisions. This is the first recourse. Thus, the following
are the aforementioned notable provisions which may be reconciled, to wit: Section 389(b)(9) of LGC vis-a-vis Section 11 of the NIPAS Act Section 389(b) (9) of LGC mandates the Punong Barangay to enforce laws and regulations relating to pollution control and protection of the environment, within his jurisdiction. On the other hand, Section 11 of the NIPAS Act mandates the creation of PAMB for each PA. It empowers the Board decide, by majority vote, the allocations for budget, approve proposals for funding, and decide matters relating to planning, peripheral protection and general administration of the area in accordance with the general management strategy. It mandates who should be members of the PAMB. On its face, there appears no conflict between these provisions. However, when powers conferred are already given life in real situations, significant problems arise. It is explicit that the protection of individual protected areas (PAs) is now primarily lodged under the jurisdiction of the PAMB. Yet, the territorial integrity reposed by law and the Constitution on respective LGUs is not at all insignificant. In fact, this is their basic power as a consequence of the constitutionally created concept of local autonomy. The inherent problem of these provisions lies on the territorial integrity of LGUs which happen to be included within a protected area. For instance, if an activity within the PA which also happens to be
An In-Depth Review of the Nipas Law and Related Statutes on the Establishment and Management of Protected Areas in the Philippines
43
