Decision 31 G.R. No. 215988 While Executive Order No. 72 may have devolved the agency's power to issue locational clearances to cities and municipalities, it did not remove its appellate jurisdiction over actions of local and regional planning and zoning bodies. Iloilo City Zoning Board of Adjustment and Appeals v. GegatoAbecia Funeral Homes, Inc. 130 explained: Clearly therefore, what were devolved to local government units were only the powers and responsibilities specifically stated in Section 1 of E.O. No. 71, as well the authority of the HLURB to issue locational clearance for locally significant projects as provided in Section 3 of E.O. No. 72. The power to act as appellate body over decisions and actions of local and regional planning and zoning bodies and deputized official of the board was retained by the HLURB and remained unaffected by the devolution under the Local Government Code. Moreover, the fact that the Rules of Procedure of the HLURB does not categorically provide for a procedure on the remedy of appeal from decisions of local government units will not operate to divest the HLURB of the appellate jurisdiction specifically granted to it by law. It must be stressed that no rule or regulation may alter, amend, or contravene a provision of law. Implementing rules should conform, not clash, with the law that they implement. 131 (Citations omitted) As the agency mandated with establishing standards and guidelines for land use plans and zoning ordinances, the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board has the necessary knowledge and expertise to pass judgment upon questions within its sphere of expertise. 132 Questions on which zone the SM Pines Resort Project and Expansion Project correctly belonged in, and whether their locational clearances were validly issued, should have been raised before the agency. v Private respondents do not deny that they did not apply for a new environmental compliance certificate prior to cutting or earth-balling the affected trees. Nonetheless, they argue that a separate environmental compliance certificate was not needed because their amended Environmental Compliance Certificate already covered the planned tree-cutting and earthballing. What was required, they claim, was a tree-cutting and/or earthballing permit, which they secured prior to the operations. 133 Private respondents are mistaken. 130 131 132 133 462 Phil 803 (2003) [Per J. Ynares-Santiago, First Division]. Id. at 817-818. Jloi/o City Zoning Board of Adjustment and Appeals v. Gegato-Abecia Funeral Homes Inc., 462 Phil. 803, 8 I 8 (2003) [Per J. Ynares-Santiago, First Division]. Rollo, p. 3079. f