NATIONAL PARKS AND PROTECTED AREAS

A Brief History Philippine Protected Areas Legislation

The Philippine archipelago is one of the most biologically diverse areas in the world. It has been identified by
Conservation International as one of the 17 megadiverse countries in terms of biodiversity on account that the country
has a high density of endemic species. Of the 52,177 identified species of plant and animal life found in the country,
almost half are found only in the Philippines and nowhere else. On a per unit area basis, the Philippines probably harbors
more diversity of life than any other country on the planet. However, it is also the “hottest of the hotspots” in terms of
biological diversity because of the rapid rate of habitat destruction, and ineffective implementation and weak
enforcement of existing laws.

It is notable that the Philippines is the first Asian nation to establish a “national park system.” Section 1 of Act
No. 3915 provides that “Upon recommendation of the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, the Governor-
General shall, by proclamation, reserve and withdraw from settlement, occupancy or disposal under the laws of the
Philippine Islands any portion of the public domain which, because of its panoramic, historical, scientific or aesthetic
value, should be dedicated and set apart as a national park for the benefit and enjoyment of the people of the Philippine
Islands.”

For the next 40 years, a series of laws, decrees, and proclamations were passed creating and governing
individual national parks. What these statutes and issuances have in common however is that their policy is limited to
removing or relocating settlers in the declared park areas and to enhance the same for the purposes of tourism. As
provided in the above-quoted provision, the purpose of national parks was to reserve the same for their “panoramic,
historical, scientific, or aesthetic value.” The creation of national parks and reserves therefore were, at the time, not
envisioned as a critical tool of environmental protection. Timber and mining had always been important drivers of
economic growth and the Marcos administration in particular saw the rise of resource extraction monopolies which were
hardly regulated, much less punished, for widespread destruction and deterioration of our country’s forest cover.
Rampant overfishing to feed a growing population was also an emerging concern from the late 60’s to the early 80’s.

Thus, by the time of the EDSA Revolution, there was a sweeping movement towards environmental protection
and conservation. This shows in the clear shift in our constitutional policies on the economy from resource exploitation
to resource conservation. “National Parks” have been constitutionalized as a separate classification of “public land.”
(Article XII § 3) The now infamous Supreme Court decision in Oposa v. Factoran declared that Section 16 of Article II
which guarantees the “right to a balanced and healthful ecology” is a self-executing provision. The notorious
“concession system” which had been in place since the Commonwealth period was by all intents abolished by the new
Constitution. There was clearly greater drive towards ensuring equitable access to resources and social justice.

As soon as President Corazon Aquino took office, and after the DENR was reorganized pursuant to Executive
Order 292, the DENR was directed to formulate a framework for a national strategy for sustainable development and to
rationalize the scattered environmental management systems in place at the time. One of the proposals that resulted from
the studies conducted by the DENR, with funding and cooperation of international organizations, was the establishment
of an “integrated protected areas system” which would emphasize the conservation of entire ecosystems rather than any
particular geographical feature (a mountain, a lake, a bay, etc.).

Days before the historic “Earth Summit” (United Nations Conference for Environment and Development) held
in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, Republic Act No. 7586 or the “National Integrated Protected Areas System Act of 1992”
(NIPAS Act) came in to force. The law is intended to provide a rational way of organizing and managing the country’s
many different types of conservation areas into a system of uniformly created and managed protected areas. Two years
later, in 1994, the Philippines became a party to the Convention for Biological Diversity (CBD), the Convention on the
Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS), and the Convention on Wetlands of International
Importance especially as Waterfowl Habitat or the Ramsar Convention, which are very important international

Prepared by: Dentzen Villegas Page | 1

Natural Resources Law, San Beda College of Law, 2017
conventions for environmental conservation. In 2008, the DENR issued a whole sale revision of the Implementing Rules
and Regulations of the NIPAS Act. In 2012, Congress enacted Republic Act No. 10629 which amended Section 16 of
the NIPAS Act regarding the Integrated Protected Areas Fund but did not amend the law in more substantive matters.

There is currently a bill in the Senate (SB No. 1444) which was approved last 22 May 2017, sponsored by
Senators Legarda, Villar, Escudero, and Binay, seeking to expand the NIPAS by integrating by statutory declaration
hundreds of PAs currently covered by the NIPAS by presidential proclamation issued since the passage of the NIPAS
Act. It also seeks to integrate into the NIPAS the provisions and measures covered by the Wildlife Conservation Act, and
therefore expand the protective coverage of the NIPAS as well as the authority of the implementing agencies. It is now
awaiting approval from the House of Representatives.

Since its enactment, 240 areas have been declared as protected areas by a series of statutes and presidential
proclamations, which covers an area of about 5.4 million hectares, in addition to about 0.25 million hectares of buffer
zones. A majority of the protected areas are terrestrial but there has been an marked increase in the establishment of
marine reservations in recent years. Nevertheless, several studies both local and abroad have pointed out that the NIPAS
still covers less than half of “priority or key diversity areas” identified through scientific studies. On the other hand,
those which are covered by the NIPAS are undermanned and underfunded, resulting in inadequate enforcement.

Moreover, the NIPAS is also under constant challenge from the economic, industrial, and demographic shifts.
The ever-present challenge of population growth has increased the need for settlement areas, creating the danger of
human encroachment to these ecologically sensitive areas. The demands of the mining and timber industries also create
the very real dilemma between economic growth and conservation. In one case for example, a mining permit was issued
over an area which lay between a protected area and the sea. The result was that not only were destructive mining
operations dangerously close to a protected ecosystem, it was also polluting the nearby bay. This demonstrates the
challenge of balancing the interests of national economic development and environmental conservation.

In the recent years, the DENR and environmental organizations have pushed to enforce the provisions of the
NIPAS Act on empowering local communities, local governments, and indigenous peoples, who benefit from the
protected areas to be proactive in the management of the protected area. A successful example is the community of
Cagayancillo islands. The island municipality is heavily reliant on fishing and is the closest community to the Tubbataha
Reefs Natural Park. At first, the fisherfolk viewed the establishment of the Tubbataha as a protected area as limiting their
fishing grounds. But as fish populations recovered, the fisherfolk of Cagayancillo began to benefit from increased supply
of fish caught in adjacent areas and have since become more actively involved in policing the Tubbataha Reefs to arrest
illegal fishing and destruction of corals. It is hoped that community-based programs like that of Cagayancillo, which are
actually envisioned by the NIPAS Act, would become a standard across the country.

Policy of the State on Environmental Conservation of Ecologically Significant Areas

Section 2 lays out the state policy underpinning the NIPAS Act. First, it recognizes the competing demands of
population growth, resource exploitation, and industrial advancement. However also recognized is the critical importance
of protecting and maintaining biodiversity and conserving our natural wildlife resources.

The policy of the State is to secure for the Filipino people of present and future generations the perpetual
existence of all native plants and animals through the establishment of a comprehensive system of integrated protected
areas within the classification of national park as provided for in the Constitution. It follows that the State adopts a
conservatory stance and adheres to the principles of sustainable use. The Act focuses on habitat- and ecosystem-related
conservation, identifying forests, watersheds, coastal zones, coral reefs and other such areas that represent a wide variety
of ecosystems.

Prepared by: Dentzen Villegas Page | 2

Natural Resources Law, San Beda College of Law, 2017
 The State also commits itself an integrated and strategic approach since it recognizes that although the areas
sought to be protected are diverse and distinct, they “possess common ecological values that may be incorporated into a
holistic plan representative of our natural heritage.”

The Act also provides that effective administration of these area is possible only through cooperation among
national government, local government, and concerned private organizations.

It must also be added that because Section 2 of Article II of the Constitution declares that the Philippines adopts
general principles of international law, the Philippines is bound to perform in good faith those treaty obligations which
are in force and binding upon it. (Article 26, Vienna Convention on the Law on Treaties) It follows that although the
NIPAS Act does not make any specific reference to any international law commitments, its language clearly integrates
several internationally accepted principles of environmental management, to wit:
1. Sustainable development,
2. Public participation and community-based action
3. The recognition of indigenous people’s rights,
4. Environmental impact assessment (EIA)
5. Collection of reasonable fees from persons deriving benefits from protected areas

In many areas in particular where the NIPAS overlaps with international obligations, the implementation of the
NIPAS has been harmonized with the Convention for Biological Diversity (CBD) and the Ramsar Convention, among
others.

Under the Convention for Biological Diversity, Parties are required to develop national biodiversity strategies
and action plans which are consistent with conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity. As a party to the CBD, the
Philippines has manifested that it aims to:
1. Protect and conserve existing natural habitats and pursue restoration of the functionality
of degraded habitats
2. Effectively regulate use of resources within sustainable limits
3. Implement habitat rehabilitation programs
4. Arrest the proliferation of invasive alien species
5. Enhance regulation of access of national and local implementing bodies
6. Improve status of agro-biodiversity and promote biodiversity-friendly agriculture
7. Enhance governance and capacities of national and local implementing bodies in
addressing urban biodiversity.
8. Implement the Nagoya Protocol consistent with national legislation
Under the Ramsar Convention, parties commit to work towards the wise use of all wetlands under their
jurisdiction; designate suitable wetlands for the list of Wetlands of International Importance, called the "Ramsar List",
and ensure their effective management; and cooperate with other countries related to transboundary wetlands, shared
wetland systems and shared species.

As a member to the Ramsar Convention, the Philippines triennially submits National Reports on its compliance
with the Convention. The Biodiversity Management Bureau (BMB) of the DENR has published a National Wetland
Action Plan for 2011-2016 which provides updates for all Ramsar Sites.

Currently, the Philippines has seven (7) parks/sanctuaries included in the Ramsar List, with a total area of
154,409 hectares of wetland. These sites include:
1. Olango Island Wildlife Sanctuary in Cebu
2. Naujan Lake National Park in Oriental Mindoro
3. Agusan Marsh Wildlife Sanctuary in Agusan Del Sur
4. Tubbataha Reefs Natural Park in the Sulu Sea

Prepared by: Dentzen Villegas Page | 3

Natural Resources Law, San Beda College of Law, 2017
 5. Puerto Princesa Subterranean River National Park in Palawan;
6. Las Piñas – Parañaque Critical Habitat and Ecotourism Area in Southern Manila
7. Negros Occidental Coastal Wetlands Conservation Area in Negros Occidental

Scope of the NIPAS Act

"National park" is a broad category of public land under the Constitution. In so far as the NIPAS covers
“national parks,” it governs all public land which are not classified as agricultural, forest, or mineral land, within the
meaning of the Constitution and special laws. (Unclassified lands for example are deemed to be forest lands under PD
705)

However, according to Section 3 of the NIPAS Act, a “national park” more specifically refers to “a forest
reservation essentially of natural wilderness character which has been withdrawn from settlement, occupancy or any
form of exploitation except in conformity with approved management plan and set aside as such exclusively to conserve
the area or preserve the scenery, the natural and historic objects, wild animals and plants therein and to provide
enjoyment of these features in such areas.” A "protected area" on the other hand refers to identified portions of land and
water set aside by reason of their unique physical and biological significance, managed to enhance biological diversity
and protected against destructive human exploitation.

“Protected area” as a term is broader in scope. The definition of “national park” is limited to “forest
reservations” while “protected areas” include “portions of land and water.” This is understandable since “national forest”
is a category of public land which therefore excludes Philippine waters. It seems therefore the NIPAS does not only
cover “national parks” within the meaning of the Constitution but also those territorial waters which had been reserved
for conservation.

It follows that the NIPAS covers all types of geographical areas whether terrestrial, subterranean, coastal, or
marine. Indeed, all areas or islands in the Philippines proclaimed, designated or set aside, pursuant to a law, presidential
decree, presidential proclamation or executive order as national park, game refuge, bird and wildlife sanctuary,
wilderness area, strict nature reserve, watershed, mangrove reserve, fish sanctuary, natural and historical landmark,
protected and managed landscape/seascape as well as identified virgin forests before the effectivity of the Act were
designated as initial components of the System. (Sec 5[a], NIPAS)

The NIPAS therefore overlaps with other special environmental laws, particularly the Wildlife Conservation
Act (RA 9147, 2001), the Mining Act (RA 7942, 1995), the Forestry Code (PD 705, 1975) and the Fisheries Code (RA
8550, 2008). In some cases, the overlap has no adverse effect and results to mutual reinforcement such as the case
between the NIPAS and the Mining and Forestry laws.

The overlap between the Fisheries Code and the NIPAS Act however is a particularly contentious issue due to
the irreconcilable jurisdictional conflicts and administrative difference. In particular, the Fisheries Code devolves the
management of “Marine Protected Areas” to the Local Government units. An example of this conflict is the case of the
Apo Island Protected Landscape/Seascape in Dauin, Negros Oriental. The local government had invested heavily on
community-based coastal resource management. The DENR pushed to include it in the NIPAS. It was later beset with
funding problems and it was recognized that local management had in fact been more efficient as funds are more readily
available. Since then, management of the Apo Island has been de facto devolved back to the municipality. To avoid
confusion in other similar areas, the DENR does not include in the NIPAS “marine protected areas” established under
the Fisheries Code and Local Government Code. Waters and water resources covered by the NIPAS are instead
established under the “protected seascape” category. Where there is overlap, the DENR has generally resorted to
coordination with the local government rather than assert direct management of coastal and marine resource areas.

To a large extent, the NIPAS also overlaps with the Indigenous People’s Rights Act (RA 8371, 1997). Although
both laws are aimed at conservation, there are critical differences in approach in terms of establishment, titling, and

Prepared by: Dentzen Villegas Page | 4

Natural Resources Law, San Beda College of Law, 2017
management jurisdiction. Theoretically, the laws can be harmonized since Section 13 of the NIPAS is general in its
terms. It provides that “Ancestral lands and customary rights and interest arising shall be accorded due recognition.” It
also expressly provides that “the DENR shall have no power to evict indigenous communities from their present
occupancy nor resettle them to another area without their consent.” Additionally, Section 9 provides that the
“management planning strategy shall also provide guidelines for the protection of indigenous cultural communities.” The
IPRA therefore is not inconsistent with the NIPAS. Most conflicts are in operational and administrative issues. Thus,
initially, harmonization has been inconsistent and applied unevenly across different areas where the NIPAS and the
IPRA overlap. An example is Mount Apo Natural Park where almost three quarters of the protected area is covered by
ancestral domain titles already recognized by the NCIP. In 2007, after almost a decade of negotiations, the DENR and
the NCIP reached an agreement where management shall primarily be the responsibility of the indigenous peoples with
the DENR providing assistance when needed on a temporary basis.

Public Participation and Freedom of Information

In keeping with the generally accepted principle of public participation and community-based action for
environment conservation, the NIPAS therefore provides specific guideline for public participation.

1. Community Representation in the Protected Areas Management Board (PAMB) [Section 11, NIPAS]
2. The right to be notified and participate in public consultations/hearing whenever the DENR plans to
establish, modify, or disestablish an area under the NIPAS. [Sec 5, NIPAS]
3. Cultural communities, indigenous peoples, tenured migrants, local government units and other existing
users of protected areas also have the right to participate in the decision-making process, particularly in
management planning, whether through direct consultation, representation in the PAMB, or by public
hearings. [Sections 5, 9, 11, and 13 NIPAS]

It has been commented in several research papers this is the most successful part of the NIPAS Act. It was
observed that in protected areas where decision-making was greatly influence and “owned” by local stakeholders,
management initiatives and programs achieved greater participation, efficiency, success, and sustainability.

Particularly mentioned as vital stakeholders are tenured migrant communities and indigenous cultural
communities. Tenured migrant communities are communities within protected areas who have actually and continuously
occupied an area for five years prior to its designation as a protected area in accordance with the NIPAS Act, and who
are solely dependent on the area for their subsistence. The definition of “indigenous cultural community” under the
NIPAS has been substantially retained but greatly expanded by IPRA.

Furthermore, the NIPAS Act mandates public access to information. Sections 5 and 14 mandate that all data and
information regarding a protected area is to be made available to the public through the respective DENR Regional
Offices, Provincial Environment and Natural Resources Offices (PENROs) and Community Environment and Natural
Resources Offices (CENROs) where NIPAS areas are located.

Finally, Section 17 mandates that at the opening of each session of Congress, the DENR shall report to the
President, for transmission to Congress, on the status of the System, regulation in force and other pertinent informat ion,
together with recommendations.

Establishment, Modification, or Disestablishment of NIPAS protected area

To be effectively considered protected under the NIPAS, there must be a statute or presidential issuance that
reserves, designates, or proclaims an area as any of the types of protected areas (PA) covered by the Act. In PICOP v.
Base Metals (G.R. No. 163509, 6 Dec 2006), the petitioner sought to prevent the respondent from mining in an area that
was allegedly a “reserved forest.” The Supreme Court ruled against the petitioner on two grounds. First, it noted that the

Prepared by: Dentzen Villegas Page | 5

Natural Resources Law, San Beda College of Law, 2017
Mining Act only prohibited mining in a “watershed forest reserve” duly identified and proclaimed by the President.
Second, there is no evidence that the area under dispute was proclaimed as a “watershed forest reserve.”

Upon effectivity of the NIPAS Act, all protected areas then existing by virtue of scattered laws and presidential
issuances were placed under the system (Section 5[a]) and were designated as the initial component of the NIPAS. From
time to time, the Secretary of the DENR shall propose to the President the inclusion in the NIPAS of additional areas
with outstanding physical features, anthropological significance, and biological diversity. (Sec 6) He may also propose
changes to the boundaries of an existing protected area, or its disestablishment altogether as a protected area. (Sec 7)

Before adding a new area, modifying the boundaries an existing area, or disestablishing an area, the DENR is
mandated to ensure public participation by performing the following duties:
1. Notify the public of the proposed action through publication in a newspaper of general circulation, and such
other means as the System deems necessary in the area or areas in the vicinity of the affected land thirty
(30) days prior to the public hearing.
2. Conduct public hearing at the locations nearest the area affected
3. Advise all local government units in the affected areas, national agencies concerned, people’s
organizations, and non-government organizations and invite such officials to submit their views on the
proposed action at the hearing not later than thirty (30) days following the date of the hearing.
4. Give due consideration to the recommendations at the public hearing; and provide sufficient explanation if
the recommendation of the Secretary is contrary to the general sentiments expressed in the public hearing.

In cases where a new protected area is to be established, or its boundaries are to be expanded, the President,
acting upon the recommendation of the Secretary shall issue a presidential proclamation designating the recommended
area as a protected area and providing for measures for their protection until such time when Congress shall have enacted
a law finally declaring such recommended areas as part of the System.

After issuing the above proclamation, the President shall send to the Senate and the House of Representatives
recommendations with respect to designation or reclassification of an area as a protected area. The President may himself
also propose to alter existing boundaries of any and all proclaimed protected areas, adding any contiguous area of public
land of predominant physical and biological value.

In addition to establishing the protected areas themselves, "buffer zones" must be established when necessary
to improve protection. (Section 8) Buffer zones are identified areas outside the boundaries of and immediately adjacent
to designated protected areas that need special development control in order to avoid or minimize harm to the protected
area. They are established and managed in the same manner as that of protected areas.

According to the Revised IRR of the NIPAS Act, a buffer zone is necessary when the protected areas is
“threatened by circumstances such as, but not limited to, the presence of actual and potential sources of pollution;
invasive species; or encroachment of adjacent communities. Other considerations may include, among others, the
presence of natural and semi-natural corridors for faunal movements and/or interchange of species.” Buffer zones
therefore may be established if:
1. It is capable of serving as an additional layer of protection by providing the extension of habitats or
corridors for wildlife and other ecological services. (Ecological criteria)
2. It is capable of provide gainful employment and sustainable alternative sources of livelihood for local
communities so as to direct pressure away from the protected area itself (Economic criteria)
3. It is capable of providing a social fence against the threat of encroachment by communities residing
near or adjacent to the protected area. (Social criteria)

On the other hand, Section 7 provides that disestablishment or diminishment of the boundaries of a protected
area may only be done by Act of Congress. Therefore, the Secretary of the DENR, by himself or through the Office of
the President, may submit and advice Congress of the proposed disestablishment (or reduction of boundaries) after due

Prepared by: Dentzen Villegas Page | 6

Natural Resources Law, San Beda College of Law, 2017
consultation of all stakeholders and the approval of the majority of the pertinent PAMB. Once Congress approves the
disestablishment, the erstwhile protected area shall revert to the category of public forest unless otherwise classified.

An unsettled issue is on when exactly a protected area is established. It is not clear if it is deemed protected
upon the issuance of the Presidential Proclamation declaring it as such or upon enactment of a site-specific law. This is
important because the NIPAS Act has penal provisions for violations committed in protected areas. If the protected area
is not established until Congress enacts a law declaring it as such then the penalties cannot be imposed.

On the one hand, Section 5 states that “the President shall issue a presidential proclamation designating the
recommended areas as protected areas and providing for measures for their protection” supporting the argument that the
area is considered “protected” by mere Presidential proclamation.

However, in the same breath, the above statement is qualified by “until such time when Congress shall have
enacted a law finally declaring such recommended areas as part of the integrated protected area systems” which seems to
imply a provisional character to the proclamation of the President. This could be interpreted to mean that areas declared
as protected by Presidential Proclamation are merely “under process” until final determination.

It may be supposed however that the intention of Congress, pursuant to the policy of urgent conservation, is that
the Presidential proclamation is sufficient to give an area the status of a fully protected area. Otherwise, environmental
conservation will be frustrated if destructive activities could not be prosecuted simply because there has not yet been a
legislative imprimatur. This is probably what was in the mind of the legislators when they placed the measure in Section
5 to immediately place a critical area under state protection by Presidential Act pending a statute. Moreover, this is not
inconsistent with the delegated power of the President to classify lands under CA 141 as the Constitution is deemed
written into the law. Section 6 of CA 141 therefore must include “national parks” as one of the categories the President
may classify land, and by doing so, place the same immediately under the coverage of the NIPAS.

Types of Protected Areas Recognized by the NIPAS

1. National Parks:
a. Forest reservations essentially of natural wilderness character which have been withdrawn from settlement,
occupancy or any form of exploitation except in conformity with approved management plan and set aside as
such exclusively to conserve the area or preserve the scenery, the natural and historic objects, wild animals and
plants therein and to provide enjoyment of these features in such areas. (Sec 4[e])
b. As of present, the Philippines has 35 National Parks.
c. Examples: Luneta National Park, Hundred Islands National Park, Quezon Memorial National Park.

2. Strict Nature Reserve

a. Strict Nature Reserves are areas possessing some outstanding ecosystem, features and/or species of flora and
fauna of national scientific importance maintained to protect nature and maintain processes in an undisturbed
state in order to have ecologically representative examples of the natural environment available for scientific
study, environmental monitoring, education, and for the maintenance of genetic resources in a dynamic and
evolutionary state. (Sec 4[k])
b. This is the most restrictive category which would only allow scientific use of the area.
c. As of today, the Philippines has not designated any area expressly as a strict nature reserve although it is
believed that the “wilderness area” category used today can come under the meaning of strict nature reserves.

3. Natural park
a. Natural parks are relatively large areas not materially altered by human activity where extractive resource uses
are not allowed and maintained to protect outstanding natural and scenic areas of national or international
significance for scientific, educational and recreational use. (Sec 4[h])
b. Example: Mount Mayon Natural Park, Tubbataha Reef Natural Park, Northern Sierra Madre.

Prepared by: Dentzen Villegas Page | 7

Natural Resources Law, San Beda College of Law, 2017
4. Natural monument
a. A natural monument is a relatively small area focused on protection of small features to protect or preserve
nationally significant natural features on account of their special interest or unique characteristics. (Sec 4[f])
b. Example: Chocolate Hills in Bohol

5. Wildlife sanctuary
a. A wildlife sanctuary comprises an area which assures the natural conditions necessary to protect nationally
significant species, groups of species, biotic communities or physical features of the environment where these
may require specific human manipulation for the perpetuation. (Sec 4[m])
b. El Nido “Managed Resource Protected Area”
i. It was established by virtue of Administrative Order No. 518, s. 1984 but was later elevated to the status of
a protected area in 1998 by Pres. Estrada under Proclamation No. 32.
ii. It is the largest marine sanctuary in the country, initially established as a turtle sanctuary, but now protects
several endangered marine species endemic to Palawan.
c. The Mount Hamiguitan Range in Davao Oriental, is both a national park and a wildlife sanctuary. It is home to
some species of endangered Philippine Eagle and centuries old pygmy forests. It is also considered a United
Nations World Heritage Site.
d. The Turtle Islands Wildlife Sanctuary also has the distinction of being a part of the Turtle Islands Heritage
Protected Area, the world’s first trans-boundary protected area for marine turtles
i. It was established in 1996 through a memorandum of agreement between the governments of the
Philippines and Malaysia.
ii. It is composed of six islands administered by the Philippines and three islands administered by Sabah,
Malaysia
iii. Management is shared by both countries through a joint management committee which functions as the
policy-making body of the Turtle Islands Heritage Protected Area.

6. Protected landscapes and seascapes

a. Protected landscapes/seascapes are areas of national significance which are characterized by the harmonious
interaction of man and land while providing opportunities for public enjoyment through recreation and tourism
within the normal lifestyle and economic activity of these areas. (Sec 4[i])
b. There are currently 32 protected landscape; 21 protected landscapes and seascapes, and 3 protected seascapes
c. Example: Taal Volcano Protected Landscape in Batangaas; Rizal Memorial Protected Landscape in Zamboanga
del Norte; Apo Island Protected Landscape and Seascape; Tañon Straight Protected Seascape

7. Resource reserve
a. Resource reserve are extensive and relatively isolated and uninhabited areas normally with difficult access
designated as such to protect natural resources of the area for future use and prevent or contain development
activities that could affect the resource pending the establishment of objectives which are based upon
appropriate knowledge and planning. (Sec 4[j])
b. Example: Upper Agno River Basin in the Cordilleras

8. Natural biotic areas

a. Natural biotic areas are areas set aside to allow the way of life of societies living in harmony with the
environment to adapt to modem technology at their pace. (Sec 4[g])
b. Example: Basilan Natural Biotic Area

9. Other categories established by law, conventions or international agreements which the Philippine Government is a
signatory.
a. Watershed Forest Reserves:
i. Watershed forests are protected both under the Forestry Code and the NIPAS Act.

Prepared by: Dentzen Villegas Page | 8

Natural Resources Law, San Beda College of Law, 2017
 ii. These are areas of land that drains to a particular waterbody, such as a lake, estuary, or point along a river
or stream. They therefore help collect water which can be used for human consumption or for the
preservation of vital wetland ecosystems.
iii. Ex. Angat River Watershed Reserve
b. UNESCO Biosphere Reserves
i. Biosphere reserves are areas comprising terrestrial, marine and coastal ecosystems. Each reserve promotes
solutions reconciling the conservation of biodiversity with its sustainable use. Biosphere reserves are
nominated by national governments and remain under the sovereign jurisdiction of the states where they are
located. Their status is internationally recognized.
ii. Biosphere reserves are ‘Science for Sustainability support sites’ – special places for testing interdisciplinary
approaches to understanding and managing changes and interactions between social and ecological
systems, including conflict prevention and management of biodiversity.
iii. The Philippines has 3 UNESCO Biosphere Reserves: The Albay Biopshere Reserve, Palawan Biosphere
Reserve, and the Puerto Galera Biosphere Reserve
iv. The Palawan Biosphere Reserve encompasses the Puerto-Princesa Subterranean River National Park and
the Tubattaha Reefs Natural Park, both of which are also UNESCO World Heritage Sites. The reserve is
also home to the El Nido-Taytay Managed Reserve, Mount Mantalangajan National Park, Coron Natural
Biotic Area
c. Ramsar Sites
i. As mentioned earlier, the Philippines has designated seven (7) Wetlands of International Importance under
the Ramsar Convention such as the Agusan Marsh which is also a designated as a Wildlife Sanctuary

Management and Administration of the System

Except as to those protected coastal and marine areas that fall under the jurisdiction of local government units
under the Fisheries Code, Section 10 of the NIPAS Act provides that the Secretary of the DENR has the overall authority
and duty to oversee the management and implementation of the NIPAS. Under the NIPAS Act, the Secretary shall be
assisted by the Protected Areas and Wildlife Bureau or the PAWB. Today the PAWB is called the Biodiversity
Management Bureau (BMB).

Among others, Section 10 provides that the duties and functions of the BMB include:
1. Conducting studies on existing protected areas to inform and improve management of the same
2. Conducting studies on other areas to determine eligibility for coverage under the System.
3. Promulgate rules and regulations which may include prescribe permissible or prohibited human activities
for each category in the System. This includes prescribing related to construction, operation, and
maintenance of roads, buildings, and utilities in protected areas.
4. To adopt and enforce a land use scheme and zoning plan in adjoining areas for the preservation and control
of activities that may threaten the ecological balance in the protected areas;
5. Prepare, cause to prepare, review, and approve all plans and proposals for the management of protected
areas
6. Deputize field officers to enhance implementation and enforcement.
a. Section 18 defines “field officers” as all officials, technical personnel and forest guards employed in
the integrated protected area service.
b. Field officers have the authority to investigate and search premises and buildings and make arrests in
accordance with the rules on criminal procedure for the violation of laws and regulations relating to the
protected areas. Persons arrested shall be brought to the nearest police precinct for investigation.
c. Field officers have concurrent jurisdiction with other law enforcement agencies.
7. To fix and collect reasonable fees from government agencies or any person, firm, or corporation deriving
benefits from the protected areas.

Prepared by: Dentzen Villegas Page | 9

Natural Resources Law, San Beda College of Law, 2017
 8. To exact administrative fees and fines for violation of guidelines, rules and regulations of this Act as would
endanger the viability of protected areas;
9. To enter into contracts and/or agreements with private entities or public agencies as may be necessary to
carry out the purposes of the NIPAS act
10. To accept in the name of the Philippine Government and in behalf of NIPAS funds, gifts or bequests of
money for immediate disbursements or other property in the interest of the NIPAS, its activities or its
services;
11. To call on any agency or instrumentality of the Government as well as academic institutions, non-
government organizations and the private sector as may be necessary to accomplish the objectives and
activities of the System;
12. To submit an annual report to the President of the Philippines and to Congress on the status of protected
areas in the country pursuant to Section 17

In addition, Under Section 9, the DENR-BMB is tasked to formulate what is called the general management
planning strategy (GMPS). It is a general strategy for the protected areas system itself and should provide guidelines for
formulating individual plans for each protected area

The management planning strategy shall promote the adoption and implementation of innovative
management techniques including if necessary, the concept of zoning, buffer zone management for
multiple use and protection, habitat conservation and rehabilitation, diversity management,
community organizing, socioeconomic and scientific researches, site-specific policy development,
pest management, and fire control. The management planning strategy shall also provide
guidelines for the protection of indigenous cultural communities, other tenured migrant
communities and sites for close coordination between and among local agencies of the
Government as well as the private sector.

Although the Rule 10.1 of the Revised Implementing Rules and Regulations for RA 7596, issued in 2008,
provides for the creation of the GMPS, there is no indication that the DENR-BMB has developed and put in place a
GMPS to date.

Be that as it may, site-specific management plans have been developed and put in place. The NIPAS Act
requires that the site-specific management plans and manuals are prepared, formulated, and developed with the help of
three (3) experts but are approved the PAMB and the Secretary. According to Rule 10.6 of the IRR of the NIPAS Act,
the site-specific management plan must contain the following:
1. description of the protected area and field inventory of the resources within the area,
2. situational analysis including key management issues and concerns like assets and limitation and regional
interrelationships
3. a statement of goals and objectives,
4. specific management strategies and interventions,
5. description of management zones and major activities allowed or prohibited within the area,
6. five-year work and financial plan for the implementation of the management plan, and
7. mechanisms for monitoring and evaluation.

Also, pursuant to Rule 10.3 of the IRR of the NIPAS Act, each protected area is divided into:
1. Strict Protection Zone which shall comprise natural areas with high biodiversity value, closed to all
human activities except for scientific studies and/or ceremonial or religious use by the ICCs/IPs.
a. It may include habitats of threatened species, or degraded areas that have been designated for
restoration and subsequent protection, even if these areas are still in various stages of regeneration.
2. Multiple Use Zone shall comprise areas where the following may be allowed consistent with the protected
area management plan: settlement, traditional and/or sustainable land-use, including agriculture, agro-
forestry, and other income-generating or livelihood activities.

Prepared by: Dentzen Villegas Page | 10

Natural Resources Law, San Beda College of Law, 2017
 a. It shall also include, among others, areas of high recreational tourism, educational or environmental
awareness values and areas consisting of existing installations of national significance/interest such as
development of renewable energy sources, telecommunication facilities and electric power lines.

These site-specific plans must be reviewed and updated regularly, at least every five (5) years. Naturally, the
DENR is given the authority to review, revise, or revoke the management plan.

Management on the Site Level

At the site level, a protected area is managed by the multi-sectoral Protected Areas Management Board. It is
composed of:
1. the DENR regional executive director under whose jurisdiction the protected area is located;
2. one representative of the autonomous regional government, if applicable;
3. the provincial development officer;
4. one representative of the municipal government;
5. one representative from each barangay covering the protected area;
6. one representative from each tribal community, if applicable;
7. at least three representatives from NGOs or local community organizations; and,
8. if necessary, one representative from other departments or national government agencies involved in
protected areas.

The board members serve a term of five (5) years without compensation, except for actual and necessary
traveling and subsistence expenses incurred in the performance of their duties and are appointed by the Secretary of the
DENR.

The chairmanship of the DENR regional executive director in the PAMB is a contentious issue in some sites
where elected officials resent being under the direction of a “mid-level” DENR official. This is not entirely unjustified as
the DENR Regional Executive director may not have sufficient decision-making powers to manage the site
appropriately. As a general policy honed by experience, the DENR has lately allowed local officials to take the lead as it
was found that where elected local officials are active in the PAMB, their local governments contributed more funds and
support for the management of the protected area.

The Board, by a majority vote, (1) decides the allocations for budget, (2) approves proposals for funding, and
(3) decides matters relating to planning, peripheral protection and general administration of the area.

Rule 11 of the Revised IRR clarifies the meaning of “general administration of the area” by providing that
although the NIPAS area is under the ultimate control of the DENR, site-specific management has been delegated to the
PAMB. The Protected Area Superintendent, appointed by the DENR, shall be the operations officer for site-specific
plans and programs of the protected area as approved by the PAMB. Then, site-specific management plans developed
and approved by the PAMB are deemed approve unless revoked by the Secretary on the ground of being contrary to law.
In other words, the PAMB is given actual decision-making powers provided it does not deviate from the site-specific
management plan it prepared and the general strategy or guidelines of the DENR. Also, as will be discussed in greater
detail in the next section, another power of the PAMB is to manage a sub-fund of the Integrated Protected Areas Fund to
finance local projects and initiatives.

It is clear therefore that both the NIPAS Act and its Revised IRR support a drive for a less centralized
management system which integrates the protected areas in the country only in terms of a consistent and coherent
national strategy. Site-specific policies however are in practice within the discretion of the PAMB which by experience
has been proven to be more efficient and effective. Nevertheless, the DENR retains critical control over the whole
system. Therefore, the PAMB still has no authority to grant permits or prescribing fees which are under the exclusive
authority of the DENR.

Prepared by: Dentzen Villegas Page | 11

Natural Resources Law, San Beda College of Law, 2017
The Integrated Protected Areas Fund

To support the effective enforcement of the NIPAS, the Act created a trust fund known as the Integrated
Protected Areas Fund or the (IPAF). The primary purpose of the IPAF is to finance projects under the NIPAS.

It may be recalled that one of the powers of the Secretary of the DENR under Section 10 is “to accept in the
name of the Philippine Government and in behalf of NIPAS funds, gifts or bequests of money for immediate
disbursements or other property in the interest of the NIPAS, its activities or its services.” This is complemented by
Section 16 which allows the IPAF to solicit and receive donations, endowments, and grants in the form of contributions.
Such endowments shall be exempted from income or gift taxes and all other taxes, charges or fees imposed by the
Government or any political subdivision or instrumentality thereof.

As amended by RA 10629, Section 16 now provides that all incomes generated from the operation of the
System or management of wild flora and fauna shall accrue to the Fund subject to the retention by the PAMB of each
protected area of seventy-five percent (75%) of all the revenue raised therefrom. The original provision required the
remittance of all incomes to the DENR which therefore caused delays due to slow fund disbursement and a wieldy
bureaucracy. This amendment therefore empowered the PAMB to retain 75% of those incomes it was able to raise for its
own protected area in a “sub-fund” under its management and trust. At least for those protected areas that are capable of
generating income, this amendment allowed the local PAMB to have ready access to funds to pursue conservation
projects for the protected area. The 25% which gets remitted to the national fund managed by the DENR is in turn used
to finance projects covering those protected areas that do not sufficiently generate their own income.

The incomes of the IPAF shall be derived from:

(a) Taxes from the permitted sale and export of flora and fauna and other resources from protected areas;
(b) Proceeds from lease of multiple-use areas;
(c) Contributions from industries and facilities directly benefiting from the protected area; and
(d) Such other fees and incomes derived from the operation of the protected area.

Section 16 as amended now also mandates that the IPAF, including all donations, grants, endowments from
various sources and other contributions shall be deposited in any government bank within the locality where each
protected area is located. If there is no government bank available in the locality, an account shall be opened in a
government bank nearest to the locality.

Disbursements from the Fund shall be made solely for the protection, maintenance, administration, and
management of the System, and duly approved projects endorsed by the PAMBs, in the amounts authorized by the
DENR in accordance with existing accounting, budgeting and auditing rules and regulations. The Fund however shall not
be used to cover personal services expenditures of the PAMB.

Penal Provisions

Based on the definitions of each management category of protected areas found in Section 3, we can deduce
permissible human activities in each area designated as such:

Strict nature Reserved only for scientific study, environmental monitoring, and education. Thus, its
reserve ecological character must be left untouched.
Natural park Extractive resource use is not allowed. It follows that non-destructive and non-extractive use
is allowed provided there is minimal alteration caused by human activity. Activities must
protect outstanding natural and scenic areas of national or international significance for
scientific, educational and recreational use.
Natural monument Non-destructive activities may generally be allowed, except for those acts which are contrary
to preservation under the NIPAS

Prepared by: Dentzen Villegas Page | 12

Natural Resources Law, San Beda College of Law, 2017
 Wildlife sanctuary These areas emphasize habitat and species protection, which “may require specific human
manipulation for the perpetuation” of protected wildlife; activities consistent with these
objectives are allowed
Protected These areas emphasize “harmonious interaction of man and land.” Therefore, public use and
landscape/seascape enjoyment through recreation and tourism is recognized so long as they are “within the
normal lifestyle and economic activity of these areas.”
Natural biotic area Preservation and non-disturbance of the life of communities living in harmony with the
environment so that they may be allowed to evolve towards modernization at their own pace.
Also, in areas which overlap ancestral domains, indigenous peoples must be allowed to conduct such activities
regulated and permitted by the DENR with due consultation with the local indigenous peoples and the NCIP.

On the other hand, Section 20 defines the following acts as punishable by law, except as may be allowed by the
nature of their categories and pursuant to rules and regulations governing the same (viz. above), the following acts are
prohibited within protected areas:
(a) Hunting, destroying, disturbing, or mere possession of any plants or animals or products derived therefrom
without a permit from the Management Board;
(b) Dumping of any waste products detrimental to the protected area, or to the plants and animals or
inhabitants therein;
(c) Use of any motorized equipment without a permit from the Management Board;
(d) Mutilating, defacing or destroying objects of natural beauty, or objects of interest to cultural communities
(of scenic value);
(e) Damaging and leaving roads and trails in a damaged condition;
(f) Squatting, mineral locating, or otherwise occupying any land;
(g) Constructing or maintaining any kind of structure fence or enclosures, conducting any business enterprise
without a permit;
(h) Leaving in exposed or unsanitary conditions refuse or debris, or depositing in ground or in bodies of water;
and
(i) Altering, removing destroying or defacing boundary marks or signs.

It may be noted that each of these acts may also be prosecuted under other relevant laws like the Wildlife
Conservation Act, the Solid Waste Management Act, the Forestry Code, the National Cultural Heritage Act, the Clean
Water Acts. This is not surprising considering that the NIPAS Act necessarily overlaps with these laws and is
theoretically in harmony with them.

Section 21 provides that if the offender is prosecuted under the NIPAS Act, these acts are punishable by:
1. Imprisonment of not less than one (1) year but not more than six (6) years
2. Fine of not less than P5,000 but not exceeding P500,000, exclusive of the value of the thing damaged
3. Or Both
Moreover,
1. If the area requires rehabilitation or restoration as determined by the court, the offender shall be
required to restore or compensate for the restoration to the damages
2. If the offense involved the accused entry and occupation of the protected area, the court shall order the
eviction of the offender from the land and the forfeiture in favor of the Government of all minerals,
timber or any species collected or removed including all equipment, devices and firearms used in
connection therewith, and any construction or improvement made thereon by the offender.
3. If the offender is an association or corporation, the president or manager shall be directly responsible
for the act of his employees and laborers
4. All the above do not prejudice the power of the DENR to impose additional administrative fines and
penalties consistent with this Section 10 of the NIPAS Act

Prepared by: Dentzen Villegas Page | 13

Natural Resources Law, San Beda College of Law, 2017
 The enforcement of the NIPAS is under the jurisdiction of the DENR. For this purpose, he may deputize field
officers under Section 18. According to the Revised IRR of the NIPAS Act, this duty is primarily delegated to the
Protected Area Superintendent of each protected area.

Under the Revised IRR, the duties of the superintendent include enforcing “rules and regulations to protect the
area from trespassing, damage, vandalism and illegal occupancy. In cases of seizure, he/she shall assume custody of the
apprehended items” (rule 11.7.1).

The Protect Area Superintendent shall have the same qualifications and ranks as that of provincial environment
and natural resources officer (PENRO) and who in turn shall be supported by a team of wardens and park rangers. These
field officers, together with national law enforcement authorities, shall have the power to arrest violators of the NIPAS
Act and other crimes committed in protected areas. Thereafter, they shall be prosecuted by special prosecutors
designated by the Secretary of Justice pursuant to Section 19 of the NIPAS Act.

Other Provisions of the NIPAS Act

Section 12 provides that if a particular proposal for an activity fall outside the scope of the site-specific
management plan, then the same shall be subject to an environmental impact assessment as required by PD 1151 and PD
1586 before they are adopted, and the results thereof shall be taken into consideration in the decision-making process of
the DENR. Without the required Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC) under the Philippine Environmental
Impact Assessment (EIA) system, no actual implementation of such activities shall be allowed. It was on this basis that
in the case Resident Marine Mammals v Reyes (GR. No. 180771, 21 Apr 2015), the “oil exploration” activity that was
the subject controversy was declared invalid for having been conducted without the ECC required by Section 12.

Section 14 provides that except in strict nature reserves and natural parks, protected areas may be subjected to
energy resource exploration only when (1) the purpose is to gather information on energy resources and (2) if such
activity is carried out with the least damage to surrounding areas. Under this section, the DENR is required to formulate
and enforce a program to govern and guide the conduct of the energy resource survey. Pursuant to the public’s right to
information affirmed in Section 5, the result of such surveys shall be made available to the public and submitted to the
President for recommendation to Congress. Any exploitation and utilization of energy resources found within NIPAS
areas shall be allowed only through a law passed by Congress. (Resident Marine Mammals v Reyes)

Section 15 on the other hand provides that should there be protected areas, or portions thereof, under the
jurisdiction of government instrumentalities other than the DENR, such jurisdiction shall remain in the said department
or government instrumentality only that the department or government instrumentality exercising such administrative
jurisdiction over said protected area, or a portion thereof, shall prepare its own management plans in accordance with the
NIPAS Act and its implementing rules.

Supplementary Sources:

La Viña, Antonio, et. al. Legal Framework for Protected Areas: Philippines. International Union for Conservation of
Nature, Environmental Policy and Law Papers, published 2010. Accessed online.:
http://www.iucn.org/downloads/philippines.pdf

Websites:
1. http://www.bmb.gov.ph
2. http://www.ramsar.org/wetland/philippines
3. https://www.insidefilipinoeden.com/ra7586

Prepared by: Dentzen Villegas Page | 14

Natural Resources Law, San Beda College of Law, 2017