RepublicofthePhilippines

SupremeCourt
Manila
BORACAY
INC.,
Petitioner,

FOUNDATION,

versus

ENBANC

G.R.No.196870

Present:

CARPIO,
VELASCO,JR.,
LEONARDODECASTRO,
BRION,
PERALTA,
BERSAMIN,
DELCASTILLO,
ABAD,
VILLARAMA,JR.,
PEREZ,
MENDOZA,*

THE PROVINCE OF AKLAN,

SERENO,
REPRESENTED
BY
REYES,and
GOVERNOR CARLITO S.
PERLASBERNABE,JJ.
MARQUEZ, THE PHILIPPINE

RECLAMATION
Promulgated:
AUTHORITY,
AND
THE

DENREMB(REGIONVI),
June26,2012
Respondents.
xx

DECISION

LEONARDODECASTRO,J.:

Inresolvingthiscontroversy,theCourttookintoconsiderationthatallthepartiesinvolved
share common goals in pursuit of certain primordial State policies and principles that are
enshrinedintheConstitutionandpertinentlaws,suchastheprotectionoftheenvironment,

the empowerment of the local government units, the promotion of tourism, and the
encouragement of the participation of the private sector. The Court seeks to reconcile the
respective roles, duties and responsibilities of the petitioner and respondents in achieving
thesesharedgoalswithinthecontextofourConstitution,lawsandregulations.

NatureoftheCase

This is an original petition for the issuance of an Environmental Protection Order in the
natureofacontinuingmandamusunderA.M.No.0968SC,otherwiseknownastheRules
ofProcedureforEnvironmentalCases,promulgatedonApril29,2010.

TheParties

Petitioner Boracay Foundation, Inc. (petitioner) is a duly registered, nonstock domestic

corporation.Itsprimarypurposeistofosteraunited,concertedandenvironmentconscious
development of Boracay Island, thereby preserving and maintaining its culture, natural
beautyandecologicalbalance,markingtheislandasthecrownjewelofPhilippinetourism,
[1]
aprimetouristdestinationinAsiaandthewholeworld. Itcountsamongitsmembersat
least sixty (60) owners and representatives of resorts, hotels, restaurants, and similar
institutions at least five community organizations and several environmentallyconscious
[2]
residentsandadvocates.

Respondent Province of Aklan (respondent Province) is a political subdivision of the

governmentcreatedpursuanttoRepublicActNo.1414,representedbyHonorableCarlito
S.Marquez,theProvincialGovernor(GovernorMarquez).

RespondentPhilippineReclamationAuthority(respondentPRA),formerlycalledthePublic
[3]
EstatesAuthority(PEA),isagovernmententitycreatedbyPresidentialDecreeNo.1084,
whichstatesthatoneofthepurposesforwhichrespondentPRAwascreatedwastoreclaim
land, including foreshore and submerged areas. PEA eventually became the lead agency
primarilyresponsibleforallreclamationprojectsinthecountryunderExecutiveOrderNo.

525,seriesof1979.InJune2006,thePresidentofthePhilippinesissuedExecutiveOrder
No. 543, delegating the power to approve reclamation projects to PRA through its
governingBoard,subjecttocompliancewithexistinglawsandrulesandfurthersubjectto
theconditionthatreclamationcontractstobeexecutedwithanypersonorentity(must)go
[4]
throughpublicbidding.

Respondent Department of Environment and Natural Resources Environmental

ManagementBureau(DENREMB),RegionalOfficeVI(respondentDENREMBRVI),is
the government agency in the Western Visayas Region authorized to issue environmental
compliance certificates regarding projects that require the environments protection and
[5]
managementintheregion.

SummaryofAntecedentFacts

Boracay Island (Boracay), a tropical paradise located in the Western Visayas region of the
Philippines and one of the countrys most popular tourist destinations, was declared a tourist zone and

[6]

marinereservein1973underPresidentialProclamationNo.1801.

Theislandcomprisesthebarangays

[7]

ofManocmanoc,Balabag,andYapak,allwithinthemunicipalityofMalay,intheprovinceofAklan.

PetitionerdescribesBoracayasfollows:

Boracayiswellknownforitsdistinctivepowderywhitesandbeacheswhicharethe
productoftheuniqueecosystemdynamicsofthearea.Theislanditselfisknowntocome
from the uplifted remnants of an ancient reef platform. Its beaches, the sandy land strip
between the water and the area currently occupied by numerous establishments, is the
primarydrawfordomesticandinternationaltouristsforitscolor,textureandotherunique
characteristics. Needless to state, it is the premier domestic and international tourist
[8]
destinationinthePhilippines.

Morethanadecadeago,respondentProvincebuilttheCaticlanJettyPortandPassengerTerminal
atBarangayCaticlantobethemaingatewaytoBoracay.ItalsobuiltthecorrespondingCagbanJettyPort
andPassengerTerminaltobethereceivingendfortouristsinBoracay.RespondentProvinceoperatesboth
portstoprovidestructuralfacilitiessuitedforlocals,touristsandguestsandtoprovidesafetyandsecurity

[9]

measures.


In 2005, Boracay 2010 Summit was held and participated in by representatives from national
government agencies, local government units (LGUs), and the private sector. Petitioner was one of the
organizersandparticipantsthereto.TheSummitaimedtoreestablishacommonvisionofallstakeholders
toensuretheconservation,restoration,andpreservationofBoracayIslandandtodevelopanactionplan
that[wouldallow]allsectorstoworkinconcertamongandwitheachotherforthelongtermbenefitand

[10]

sustainability of the island and the community.

The Summit yielded a Terminal Report

[11]

stating

thattheparticipantshadsharedtheirdreamofhavingworldclassland,waterandairinfrastructure,aswell
as given their observations that government support was lacking, infrastructure was poor, and, more
importantly,theinfluxoftouriststoBoracaywasincreasing.TheReportshowedthattherewasaneedto
expandtheportfacilitiesatCaticlanduetocongestionintheholdingareaoftheexistingport,causedby
inadequatefacilities,thustouristssufferedlongqueueswhilewaitingfortheboatridegoingtotheisland.

[12]

Respondent Province claimed that tourist arrivals to Boracay reached approximately 649,559 in
2009and779,666in2010,andthiswasexpectedtoreacharecordof1milliontouristarrivalsintheyears
to come. Thus, respondent Province conceptualized the expansion of the port facilities at Barangay
Caticlan.

[13]

TheSangguniangBarangayofCaticlan,MalayMunicipality,issuedResolutionNo.
[14]
13,s.2008
onApril25,2008statingthatithadlearnedthatrespondentProvincehad
filed an application with the DENR for a foreshore lease of areas along the shorelines of
Barangay Caticlan, and manifesting its strong opposition to said application, as the
proposed foreshore lease practically covered almost all the coastlines of said barangay,
thereby technically diminishing its territorial jurisdiction, once granted, and depriving its
constituentsoftheirstatutoryrightofpreferenceinthedevelopmentandutilizationofthe
natural resources within its jurisdiction. The resolution further stated that respondent
Province did not conduct any consultations with the Sangguniang Barangay of Caticlan
regardingtheproposedforeshorelease,whichfailuretheSanggunianconsideredasanact
[15]
ofbadfaithonthepartofrespondentProvince.

On November 20, 2008, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of respondent Province

[16]
approved Resolution No. 2008369,
formally authorizing Governor Marquez to enter

intonegotiationstowardsthepossibilityofeffectingselfliquidatingandincomeproducing
development and livelihood projects to be financed through bonds, debentures, securities,
collaterals, notes or other obligations as provided under Section 299 of the Local
GovernmentCode,withthefollowingpriorityprojects:(a)renovation/rehabilitationofthe
Caticlan/Cagban Passenger Terminal Buildings and Jetty Ports and (b) reclamation of a
[17]
portion of Caticlan foreshore for commercial purposes.
This step was taken as
respondent Provinces existing jetty port and passenger terminal was funded through bond
flotation, which was successfully redeemed and paid ahead of the target date. This was
allegedlycitedasoneoftheLGUsBestPracticeswhereinrespondentProvincewasgiven
[18]
theappropriatecommendation.

Respondent Province included the proposed expansion of the port facilities at

[19]
BarangayCaticlaninits2009AnnualInvestmentPlan,
envisionedasitsprojectsitethe
areaadjacenttotheexistingjettyport,andidentifiedadditionalareasalongthecoastlineof
[20]
BarangayCaticlanasthesiteforfutureprojectexpansion.

[21]
GovernorMarquezsentalettertorespondentPRAonMarch12,2009
expressingthe
interestofrespondentProvincetoreclaimabout2.64hectaresoflandalongtheforeshores
ofBarangayCaticlan,MunicipalityofMalay,ProvinceofAklan.

SometimeinApril2009,respondentProvinceenteredintoanagreementwiththeFinancial
Advisor/Consultant that won in the bidding process held a month before, to conduct the
necessaryfeasibilitystudyoftheproposedprojectfortheRenovation/Rehabilitationofthe
Caticlan Passenger Terminal Building and Jetty Port, Enhancement and Recovery of Old
Caticlan Coastline, and Reclamation of a Portion of Foreshore for Commercial Purposes
[22]
(theMarinaProject),inMalay,Aklan.

Subsequently, on May 7, 2009, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of respondent Province

[23]
issued Resolution No. 2009110,
which authorized Governor Marquez to file an
application to reclaim the 2.64 hectares of foreshore area in Caticlan, Malay, Aklan

withrespondentPRA.

SometimeinJuly2009,theFinancialAdvisor/Consultantcameupwithafeasibilitystudy
whichfocusedonthelandreclamationof2.64hectaresbywayofbeachenhancementand
recovery of the old Caticlan coastline for the rehabilitation and expansion of the existing
jetty port, and for its future plans the construction of commercial building and wellness
center. The financial component of the said study was Two Hundred Sixty Million Pesos
[24]
(P260,000,000.00).Itssuggestedfinancingschemewasbondflotation.
Meanwhile, the Sangguniang Bayan of the Municipality of Malay expressed its
strongoppositiontotheintendedforeshoreleaseapplication,throughResolutionNo.044,
[25]
approved on July 22, 2009, manifesting therein that respondent Provinces foreshore
leaseapplicationwasforbusinessenterprisepurposesforitsbenefit,attheexpenseofthe
localgovernmentofMalay,whichbystatutoryprovisionswastherightfulentitytodevelop,
[26]
utilizeandreapbenefitsfromthenaturalresourcesfoundwithinitsjurisdiction.

In

August

2009,

Preliminary

Geohazard

[27]
Assessment

for

the

enhancement/expansionoftheexistingCaticlanJettyPortandPassengerTerminalthrough
beachzonerestorationandProtectiveMarinaDevelopmentsinCaticlan,Malay,Aklanwas
completed.

Thereafter, Governor Marquez submitted an Environmental Performance Report

[28]
andMonitoringProgram(EPRMP)
to DENREMB RVI, which he had attached to
[29]
his letter
dated September 19, 2009, as an initial step for securing an Environmental
ComplianceCertificate(ECC).Theletterreadsinpart:

Withtheprojectexpectedtostartitsconstructionimplementationnextmonth,
the province hereby assures your good office that it will give preferential attention to and
[30]
shall comply with whatever comments that you may have on this EPRMP.
(Emphasis
added.)

RespondentProvincewasthenauthorizedtoissueCaticlanSuperMarinaBondsforthepurposeof
fundingtherenovationoftheCaticlanJettyPortandPassengerTerminalBuilding,andthereclamationofa
portion of the foreshore lease area for commercial purposes in Malay, Aklan through Provincial
Ordinance No. 2009013, approved on September 10, 2009. The said ordinance authorized Governor
Marqueztonegotiate,signandexecuteagreementsinrelationtotheissuanceoftheCaticlanSuperMarina

[31]

BondsintheamountnotexceedingP260,000,000.00.

Subsequently, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of the Province of Aklan issued Provincial

[32]

Ordinance No. 2009015

on October 1, 2009, amending Provincial Ordinance No. 2009013,
authorizing the bond flotation of the Province of Aklan through Governor Marquez to fund the Marina
Projectandappropriatetheentireproceedsofsaidbondsfortheproject,andfurtherauthorizingGovernor

[33]

Marqueztonegotiate,signandexecutecontractsoragreementspertinenttothetransaction.

Within the same month of October 2009, respondent Province deliberated on the
possibleexpansionfromitsoriginalproposedreclamationareaof2.64hectarestoforty(40)
hectares in order to maximize the utilization of its resources and as a response to the
findingsofthePreliminaryGeohazardAssessmentstudywhichshowedthattherecession
andretreatoftheshorelinecausedbycoastalerosionandscouringshouldbethefirstmajor
concern in the project site and nearby coastal area. The study likewise indicated the
vulnerabilityofthecoastalzonewithintheproposedprojectsiteandthenearbycoastalarea
duetotheeffectsofsealevelriseandclimatechangewhichwillgreatlyaffectthesocial,
economic,andenvironmentalsituationofCaticlanandnearbyMalaycoastalcommunities.
[34]

InhisletterdatedOctober22,2009addressedtorespondentPRA,GovernorMarquez
wrote:

WithoursubstantialcompliancewiththerequirementsunderAdministrativeOrder
No.20072relativetoourrequesttoPRAforapprovalofthereclamationofthe[proposed
Beach Zone Restoration and Protection Marine Development in Barangays Caticlan and
ManocManoc] and as a result of our discussion during the [meeting with the respondent
PRA on October 12, 2009], may we respectfully submit a revised Reclamation Project
Descriptionembodyingcertainrevisions/changesinthesizeandlocationoftheareasto
bereclaimed.xxx.

On another note, we are pleased to inform your Office that the bond flotation we
have secured with the Local Government Unit Guarantee Corporation (LGUGC) has been

finally approved last October 14, 2009. This will pave the way for the implementation of
saidproject.Briefly,theProvincehasbeenrecognizedbytheBureauofLocalGovernment
Finance(BLGF)foritscapabilitytomeetitsloanobligations.xxx.

With the continued increase of tourists coming to Boracay through Caticlan, the
Province is venturing into such development project with the end in view of protection
and/orrestoringcertainsegmentsoftheshorelineinBarangaysCaticlan(Caticlanside)and
Manocmanoc (Boracay side) which, as reported by experts, has been experiencing
tremendouscoastalerosion.

Fortheprojecttobeselfliquidating,however,wewillbedevelopingthereclaimed
[35]
land for commercial and tourismrelated facilities and for other complementary uses.
(Emphasisours.)

Then, on November 19, 2009, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan enacted Resolution No. 2009

[36]

299
authorizing Governor Marquez to enter into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with
respondentPRAintheimplementationoftheBeachZoneRestorationandProtectionMarinaDevelopment
Project, which shall reclaim a total of 40 hectares in the areas adjacent to the jetty ports at Barangay
CaticlanandBarangayManocmanoc.TheSangguniangPanlalawiganapprovedthetermsandconditions
ofthenecessaryagreementsfortheimplementationofthebondflotationofrespondentProvincetofund
the renovation/rehabilitation of the existing jetty port by way of enhancement and recovery of the Old
Caticlanshorelinethroughreclamationofanareaof2.64hectares in theamountofP260,000,000.00 on

[37]

December1,2009.

Respondent Province gave an initial presentation of the project with consultation to the

[38]

SangguniangBayanofMalay

onDecember9,2009.

Respondent PRA approved the reclamation project on April 20, 2010 in its Resolution No.
4094 and authorized its General Manager/Chief Executive Officer (CEO) to enter into a MOA with

[39]

respondentProvincefortheimplementationofthereclamationproject.

OnApril27,2010,DENREMBRVIissuedtorespondentProvinceECCR610030967100(the
questionedECC)forPhase1oftheReclamationProjecttotheextentof2.64hectarestobedonealongthe

[40]

Caticlansidebesidetheexistingjettyport.

[41]

On May 17, 2010, respondent Province entered into a MOA

ArticleIII,theProjectwasdescribedthereinasfollows:

with respondent PRA. Under

The proposed Aklan Beach Zone Restoration and Protection Marina

Development Project involves the reclamation and development of approximately forty
(40)hectaresofforeshoreandoffshoreareasoftheMunicipalityofMalayxxx.

The land use development of the reclamation project shall be for commercial,
[42]
recreationalandinstitutionalandotherapplicableuses.
(Emphasessupplied.)
ItwasatthispointthatrespondentProvincedeemeditnecessarytoconductaseriesofwhatit
callsinformationeducationcampaigns,whichprovidedthevenueforinteractionanddialoguewiththe
public, particularly the Barangay and Municipal officials of the Municipality of Malay, the residents of
Barangay Caticlan and Boracay, the stakeholders, and the nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). The

[43]

detailsofthecampaignaresummarizedasfollows

[44]
a.June17,2010atCasaPilarBeachResort,BoracayIsland,Malay,Aklan

[45]
b.July28,2010atCaticlanJettyPortandPassengerTerminal

[46]
c.July31,2010atBarangayCaticlanPlaza

d. September15,2010attheOfficeoftheProvincialGovernorwithMunicipalMayorof
[47]
MalayMayorJohnP.Yap

e. October 12, 2010 at the Office of the Provincial Governor with the Provincial
[48]
DevelopmentCouncilExecutiveCommittee
and

f.October29,2010attheOfficeoftheProvincialGovernorwithOfficialsofLGUMalay
[49]
andPetitioner.

Petitioner claims that during the public consultation meeting belatedly called by respondent
ProvinceonJune17,2010,respondentProvincepresentedtheReclamationProjectandonlythendetailed
theactionsthatithadalreadyundertaken,particularly:theissuanceoftheCaticlanSuperMarinaBonds
the execution of the MOA with respondent PRA the alleged conduct of an Environmental Impact
Assessment (EIA) study for the reclamation project and the expansion of the project to forty (40)

[50]

hectaresfrom2.64hectares.

InResolutionNo.046,Seriesof2010,adoptedonJune23,2010,theMalayMunicipalityreiterated
itsstrongoppositiontorespondentProvincesprojectanddenieditsrequestforafavorableendorsementof

[51]

theMarinaProject.


The Malay Municipality subsequently issued Resolution No. 016, Series of 2010, adopted on
August 3, 2010, to request respondent PRA not to grant reclamation permit and notice to proceed to the

[52]

MarinaProjectofthe[respondent]ProvincialGovernmentofAklanlocatedatCaticlan,Malay,Aklan.

[53]

Inaletter
datedOctober12,2010,petitionerinformedrespondentPRAofitsoppositiontothe
reclamationproject,primarilyforthereasonthat,basedontheopinionofDr.PorfirioM.Alio,anexpert
fromtheUniversityofthePhilippinesMarineScienceInstitute(UPMSI),whichherenderedbasedonthe
documentssubmittedbyrespondentProvincetoobtaintheECC,afullEIAstudyisrequiredtoassessthe
reclamationprojectslikelihoodofrenderingcriticalandlastingeffectonBoracayconsideringtheproximity
in distance, geographical location, current and wind direction, and many other environmental
considerations in the area. Petitioner noted that said documents had failed to deal with coastal erosion
concerns in Boracay. It also noted that respondent Province failed to comply with certain mandatory
provisions of the Local Government Code, particularly, those requiring the project proponent to conduct
consultationswithstakeholders.

PetitionerlikewisetransmitteditsResolutionNo.001,Seriesof2010,registeringitsoppositionto
the reclamation project to respondent Province, respondent PRA, respondent DENREMB, the National

[54]

EconomicDevelopmentAuthorityRegionVI,theMalayMunicipality,andotherconcernedentities.

PetitionerallegesthatdespitetheMalayMunicipalitysdenialofrespondentProvincesrequestfora
favorable endorsement, as well as the strong opposition manifested both by Barangay Caticlan and
petitioner as an NGO, respondent Province still continued with the implementation of the Reclamation

[55]

Project.

OnJuly26,2010,theSangguniangPanlalawiganofrespondentProvincesetasideResolutionNo.
046, s. 2010, of the Municipality of Malay and manifested its support for the implementation of the

[56]

aforesaidprojectthroughitsResolutionNo.2010022.

On July 27, 2010, the MOA was confirmed by respondent PRA Board of Directors under its
ResolutionNo.4130.RespondentPRAwrotetorespondentProvinceonOctober19,2010,informingthe
lattertoproceedwith the reclamationanddevelopment ofphase1of site1ofitsproposed project.

[57]

RespondentPRAattachedtosaidletteritsEvaluationReportdatedOctober18,2010.

Petitioner likewise received a copy of respondent PRAs letter dated October 19, 2010, which
authorizedrespondentProvincetoproceedwithphase1ofthereclamationproject,subjecttocompliance
withtherequirementsofitsEvaluationReport.Thereclamationprojectwasdescribedas:

[A]seafrontdevelopmentinvolvingreclamationofanaggregateareaofmoreorless,
forty(40)hectares in two (2) separate sites both in Malay Municipality, Aklan Province.
Site1isinBrgy.Caticlanwithatotalareaof36.82hectaresandSite2inBrgy.Manoc
Manoc, Boracay Island with a total area of 3.18 hectares. Sites 1 and 2 are on the
[58]
oppositesidesofTabonStrait,about1,200metersapart.xxx.
(Emphasesadded.)

[59]

The Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Aklan, through Resolution No. 2010034,

addressed the

apprehensionsofpetitionerembodiedinitsResolutionNo.001,s.2010,andsupportedtheimplementation
oftheproject.Saidresolutionstatedthattheapprehensionsofpetitionerwithregardtotheeconomic,social
andpoliticalnegativeimpactsoftheprojectsweremereperceptionsandgeneralitiesandwerenotanchored
ondefinitescientific,socialandpoliticalstudies.

Inthemeantime,astudywascommissionedbythePhilippineChamberofCommerceandIndustry
Boracay (PCCIBoracay), funded by the Department of Tourism (DOT) with the assistance of, among
others,petitioner.ThestudywasconductedinNovember2010byseveralmarinebiologists/expertsfrom
the Marine Environmental Resources Foundation (MERF) of the UPMSI. The study was intended to
determinethepotentialimpactofareclamationprojectinthehydrodynamicsofthestraitandonthecoastal

[60]

erosionpatternsinthesoutherncoastofBoracayIslandandalongthecoastofCaticlan.

After noting the objections of the respective LGUs of Caticlan and Malay, as well as the
apprehensionsofpetitioner,respondentProvinceissuedanoticetothecontractoronDecember1,2010to

[61]

commencewiththeconstructionoftheproject.

On April 4, 2011, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Aklan, through its Committee on

Cooperatives, Food, Agriculture, and Environmental Protection and the Committee on Tourism, Trade,
IndustryandCommerce,conductedajointcommitteehearingwhereinthestudyundertakenbytheMERF

[62]

UPMSI was discussed.

In attendance were Mr. Ariel Abriam, President of PCCIBoracay,
representativesfromtheProvincialGovernment,andDr.CesarVillanoy,aprofessorfromtheUPMSI.Dr.
Villanoysaidthatthesubjectproject,consistingof2.64hectares,wouldonlyhaveinsignificanteffecton

thehydrodynamicsofthestraittraversingthecoastlineofBarangayCaticlanandBoracay,hence,therewas
adistantpossibilitythatitwouldaffecttheBoracaycoastline,whichincludesthefamouswhitesandbeach

[63]

oftheisland.

Thus, on April 6, 2011, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Aklan enacted Resolution No. 2011

[64]

065
noting the report on the survey of the channel between Caticlan and Boracay conducted by the
UPMSI in relation to the effects of the ongoing reclamation to Boracay beaches, and stating that Dr.
Villanoyhadadmittedthatnowhereintheirstudywasitpointedoutthattherewouldbeanadverseeffect
onthewhitesandbeachofBoracay.
DuringtheFirstQuarterRegularMeetingoftheRegionalDevelopmentCouncil,RegionVI(RDC
VI) on April 16, 2011, it approved and supported the subject project (covering 2.64 hectares) through

[65]

RDCVIResolutionNo.VI26,seriesof2011.

Subsequently,Mr.AbriamsentalettertoGovernorMarquezdatedApril25,2011statingthatthe
study conducted by the UPMSI confirms that the water flow across the CaticlanBoracay channel is
primarily tidedriven, therefore, the marine scientists believe that the 2.64hectare project of respondent
Province would not significantly affect the flow in the channel and would unlikely impact the Boracay
beaches.Basedonthis,PCCIBoracaystatedthatitwasnotopposingthe2.64hectareCaticlanreclamation

[66]

projectonenvironmentalgrounds.

OnJune1,2011,petitionerfiledtheinstantPetitionforEnvironmentalProtectionOrder/Issuanceof
the Writ of Continuing Mandamus. On June 7, 2011, this Court issued a Temporary Environmental
ProtectionOrder(TEPO)andorderedtherespondentstofiletheirrespectivecommentstothepetition.

[67]

AfterreceivingacopyoftheTEPOonJune9,2011,respondentProvinceimmediatelyissuedan
order to the Provincial Engineering Office and the concerned contractor to cease and desist from
conductinganyconstructionactivitiesuntilfurtherordersfromthisCourt.

Thepetitionispremisedonthefollowinggrounds:

I.

THE RESPONDENT PROVINCE, PROPONENT OF THE RECLAMATION PROJECT,

FAILED TO COMPLY WITH RELEVANT RULES AND REGULATIONS IN THE
ACQUISITIONOFANECC.


A.

THE RECLAMATION PROJECT IS COLOCATED WITHIN

ENVIRONMENTALLYCRITICALAREASREQUIRINGTHEPERFORMANCE
OF A FULL, OR PROGRAMMATIC, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
ASSESSMENT.

B.

RESPONDENT PROVINCE FAILED TO OBTAIN THE FAVORABLE

ENDORSEMENTOFTHELGUCONCERNED.

C.

RESPONDENT PROVINCE FAILED TO CONDUCT THE REQUIRED

CONSULTATION PROCEDURES AS REQUIRED BY THE LOCAL
GOVERNMENTCODE.

D.

RESPONDENT PROVINCE FAILED TO PERFORM A FULL

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT AS REQUIRED BY LAW AND
RELEVANTREGULATIONS.

II.

THERECLAMATIONOFLANDBORDERINGTHESTRAITBETWEENCATICLAN
AND BORACAY SHALL ADVERSELY AFFECT THE FRAIL ECOLOGICAL
[68]
BALANCEOFTHEAREA.

PetitionerobjectstorespondentProvincesclassificationofthereclamationprojectassingleinstead
of colocated, as nonenvironmentally critical, and as a mere rehabilitation of the existing jetty port.
Petitionerpointsoutthatthereclamationprojectisontwosites(whicharesituatedontheoppositesidesof
TabonStrait,about1,200metersapart):

36.82hectaresSite1,inBgy.Caticlan
[69]
3.18hectaresSite2,inManocmanoc,BoracayIsland

[70]

Phase1,whichwasstartedinDecember2010withoutthenecessarypermits,
islocatedonthe
Caticlan side of a narrow strait separating mainland Aklan from Boracay. In the implementation of the
project,respondentProvinceobtainedonlyanECCtoconductPhase1,insteadofanECContheentire40
hectares.Thus, petitioner argues that respondent Province abused and exploited the Revised Procedural

[71]

ManualforDENRAdministrativeOrderNo.30,Seriesof2003(DENRDAO200330)
theacquisitionofanECCby:

relatingto

1.

Declaring the reclamation project under Group II ProjectsNonECP

(environmentallycriticalproject)inECA(environmentallycriticalarea)basedon
thetypeandsizeofthearea,and

2. Failing to declare the reclamation project as a colocated project application which

would have required the Province to submit a ProgrammaticEnvironmentalImpact
[72]
Statement (PEIS)
or Programmatic Environmental [Performance] Report
[73]
ManagementPlan(PE[P]RMP).
(Emphasesours.)

PetitionerfurtherallegesthattheRevisedProceduralManual(onwhichtheclassificationaboveis
based,whichmerelyrequiresanEnvironmentalImpactStatement[EIS]forGroupIIprojects)ispatently
ultravires,andrespondentDENREMBRVIcommittedgraveabuseofdiscretionbecausethelawsonEIS,
namely, Presidential Decree Nos. 1151 and 1586, as well as Presidential Proclamation No. 2146, clearly
indicate that projects in environmentally critical areas are to be immediately considered environmentally
critical.PetitionercomplainsthatrespondentProvinceappliedforanECConlyforPhase 1 hence,
unlawfully
evadingtherequirementthatcolocatedprojects

[74]

withinEnvironmentallyCriticalAreas(ECAs)

mustsubmitaPEISand/oraPEPRMP.

PetitionerarguesthatrespondentProvincefraudulentlyclassifiedandmisrepresentedtheprojectas
aNonECPinanECA,andasasingleprojectinsteadofacolocatedone.Theimpactassessmentallegedly
performedgivesapatentlyerroneousandwronglypremisedappraisalofthepossibleenvironmentalimpact
of the reclamation project. Petitioner contends that respondent Provinces choice of classification was
designedtoavoidacomprehensiveimpactassessmentofthereclamationproject.

PetitionerfurthercontendsthatrespondentDENREMBRVIwillfullyanddeliberatelydisregarded
its duty to ensure that the environment is protected from harmful developmental projects because it
allegedlyperformedonlyacursoryandsuperficialreviewofthedocumentssubmittedbytherespondent
ProvinceforanECC,failingtonotethatalltheinformationanddatausedbyrespondentProvinceinits
applicationfortheECCwerealldatedandnotcurrent,asdatawasgatheredinthelate1990sfortheECC
issuedin1999forthefirstjettyport.Thus,petitionerallegesthatrespondentDENREMBRVIignoredthe
environmental impact to Boracay, which involves changes in the structure of the coastline that could
contributetothechangesinthecharacteristicsofthesandinthebeachesofbothCaticlanandBoracay.

PetitionerinsiststhatreclamationoflandattheCaticlansidewillunavoidablyadverselyaffectthe
Boracay side and notes that the declared objective of the reclamation project is for the exploitation of
Boracays tourist trade, since the project is intended to enhance support services thereto. But, petitioner
argues, the primary reason for Boracays popularity is its whitesand beaches which will be negatively
affectedbytheproject.


Petitioner alleges that respondent PRA had required respondent Province to obtain the favorable
endorsement of the LGUs of Barangay Caticlan and Malay Municipality pursuant to the consultation

[75]

proceduresasrequiredbytheLocalGovernmentCode.
Petitionerassertsthatthereclamationproject
is in violation not only of laws on EIS but also of the Local Government Code as respondent Province
failed to enter into proper consultations with the concerned LGUs. In fact, the Liga ng mga Barangay

[76]

MalayChapteralsoexpressedstrongoppositionagainsttheproject.

PetitionercitesSections26and27oftheLocalGovernmentCode,whichrequireconsultationsif
theprojectorprogrammaycausepollution,climacticchange,depletionofnonrenewableresources,etc.
Accordingtopetitioner,respondentProvinceignoredtheLGUsoppositionexpressedasearlyas2008.Not
only that, respondent Province belatedly calledfor public consultation meetings onJune17 andJuly28,
2010, after an ECC had already been issued and the MOA between respondents PRA and Province had
alreadybeenexecuted.Asthepetitionersawit,thesewerenotconsultationsbutmereprojectpresentations.

Petitioner claims that respondent Province, aided and abetted by respondents PRA and DENR
EMB, ignored the spirit and letter of the Revised Procedural Manual, intended to implement the various
regulationsgoverningtheEnvironmentalImpactAssessments(EIAs)toensurethatdevelopmentalprojects
are in line with sustainable development of natural resources. The project was conceptualized without
consideringalternatives.

Further,astoitsallegationthatrespondentProvincefailedtoperformafullEIA,petitionerargues
that while it is true that as of now, only the Caticlan side has been issued an ECC, the entire project
involvestheBoracayside,whichshouldhavebeenconsideredacolocatedproject.Petitionerclaimsthat
anyprojectinvolvingBoracayrequiresafullEIAsinceitisanECA.Phase1oftheprojectwillaffect
BoracayandCaticlanastheyareseparatedonlybyanarrowstraitthus,itshouldbeconsideredanECP.
Therefore,theECCandpermitissuedmustbeinvalidatedandcancelled.

Petitionercontendsthatastudyshowsthattheflowofthewaterthroughanarrowerchanneldueto
the reclamation project will likely divert sand transport off the southwest part of Boracay, whereas the

[77]

characteristiccoastoftheCaticlansideofthestraitindicatestrongersedimenttransport.
The white
sand beaches of Boracay and its surrounding marine environment depend upon the natural flow of the
adjacentwaters.

RegardingitsclaimthatthereclamationoflandborderingthestraitbetweenCaticlanandBoracay
shall adversely affect the frail ecological balance of the area, petitioner submits that while the study
conducted by the MERFUPMSI only considers the impact of the reclamation project on the land, it is

undeniablethatitwillalsoadverselyaffectthealreadyfrailecologicalbalanceofthearea.Theeffectofthe
project would have been properly assessed if the proper EIA had been performed prior to any
implementationoftheproject.

According to petitioner, respondent Provinces intended purposes do not prevail over its duty and
obligationtoprotecttheenvironment.PetitionerbelievesthatrehabilitationoftheJettyPortmaybedone
throughothermeans.

[78]

In its Comment
dated June 21, 2011, respondent Province claimed that application for
reclamation of 40 hectares is advantageous to the Provincial Government considering that its filing fee
wouldonlycostPhp20,000.00plusValueAddedTax(VAT)whichisalsotheminimumfeeasprescribed

[79]

underSection4.2ofAdministrativeOrderNo.20072.

RespondentProvinceconsiderstheinstantpetitiontobeprematurethus,itmustnecessarilyfailfor
lackofcauseofactionduetothefailureofpetitionertofullyexhausttheavailableadministrativeremedies
even before seeking judicial relief.According to respondent Province, the petition primarily assailed the
decision of respondent DENREMB RVI in granting the ECC for the subject project consisting of 2.64
hectares and sought the cancellation of the ECC for alleged failure of respondent Province to submit
proper documentation as required for its issuance. Hence, the grounds relied upon by petitioner can be
addressedwithintheconfinesofadministrativeprocessesprovidedbylaw.

RespondentProvincebelievesthatunderSection5.4.3ofDENRAdministrativeOrderNo.200330

[80]

(DAO 200330),

[81]

the issuance of an ECC

applicationofaprojectproponent.

is an official decision of DENREMB RVI on the

[82]

ItcitesSection6ofDENRDAO200330,whichprovides for a

remedyavailabletothepartyaggrievedbythefinaldecisionontheproponentsECCapplications.
RespondentProvincearguesthattheinstantpetitionisanchoredonawrongpremisethatresultsto
petitionersunfoundedfearsandbaselessapprehensions.ItisrespondentProvincescontentionthatits2.64
hectare reclamation project is considered as a stand alone project, separate and independent from the
approved area of 40 hectares. Thus, petitioner should have observed the difference between the future

[83]

developmentplanofrespondentProvincefromitsactualprojectbeingundertaken.

Respondent Province clearly does not dispute the fact that it revised its original application to
respondent PRA from 2.64 hectares to 40 hectares. However, it claims that such revision is part of its
future plan, and implementation thereof is still subject to availability of funds, independent scientific
environmentalstudy,separateapplicationofECCandnoticetoproceedtobeissuedbyrespondentPRA.

[84]


RespondentProvincegoesontoclaimthat[p]etitionersversionoftheCaticlanjettyportexpansion
projectisabiggerprojectwhichisstillattheconceptualizationstage.Althoughthisprojectwasdescribed
intheNoticetoProceed issued by respondent PRA to have two phases, 36.82 hectares in Caticlan and
3.18 hectares in Boracay [Island,] it is totally different from the [ongoing] Caticlan jetty port expansion

[85]

project.

[86]

Respondent Province says that the Accomplishment Report

of its Engineering Office would
attestthattheactualprojectconsistsof2.64hectaresonly,asoriginallyplannedandconceptualized,which
wasevenreducedto2.2hectaresduetosomeconstructionanddesignmodifications.

Thus, respondent Province alleges that from its standpoint, its capability to reclaim is limited to

[87]

2.64hectaresonly,basedonrespondentPRAsEvaluationReport
datedOctober18,2010,whichwas
in turn the basis of the issuance of the Notice to Proceed dated October 19, 2010, because the projects
financialcomponentisP260,000,000.00only.SaidEvaluationReportindicatesthattheimplementationof
theotherphasesoftheprojectincludingsite2,whichconsistsoftheotherportionsofthe40hectarearea
that includes a portion in Boracay, is still within the 10year period and will depend largely on the

[88]

availabilityoffundsofrespondentProvince.

So,evenifrespondentPRAapprovedanareathatwouldtotalupto40hectares,itwasdividedinto
phasesinorderto determine the period of its implementation.Each phase was separate and independent
becausethesourceoffundswasalsoseparate.Therequireddocumentsandrequirementswerealsospecific
foreachphase.Theentireapprovedareaof40hectarescouldbeimplementedwithinaperiodof10years

[89]

butthiswoulddependsolelyontheavailabilityoffunds.

As far as respondent Province understands it, additional reclamations not covered by the ECC,
which only approved 2.64 hectares, should undergo another EIA. If respondent Province intends to
commencetheconstructionontheothercomponentofthe40hectares,thenitagreesthatitismandatedto

[90]

secureanewECC.

RespondentProvinceadmitsthatitdreamtofa40hectareproject,evenifithadoriginallyplanned
and was at present only financially equipped and legally compliant to undertake 2.64 hectares of the

[91]

project,andonlyasanexpansionofitsoldjettyport.

RespondentProvinceclaimsthatithascompliedwithallthenecessaryrequirementsforsecuringan

ECC.On the issue that the reclamation project is within an ECA requiring the performance of a full or
programmaticEIA,respondentProvincereiteratesthattheideaofexpandingtheareato40hectaresisonly
afutureplan.It only secured an ECC for 2.64 hectares, based on the limits of its funding and authority.
From the beginning, its intention was to rehabilitate and expand the existing jetty port terminal to
accommodate an increasing projected traffic. The subject project is specifically classified under DENR
DAO200330onitsProjectGroupingMatrixforDeterminationofEIAReportTypeconsideredasMinor
ReclamationProjectsfallingunderGroupIINonECPinanECA.Whether2.64or40hectaresinarea,the
subjectprojectfallswithinthisclassification.

Consequently, respondent Province claims that petitioner erred in considering the ongoing
reclamationprojectatCaticlan,Malay,Aklan,ascolocatedwithinanECA.

Respondent Province, likewise argues that the 2.64hectare project is not a component of the
approved40hectareareaasitisoriginallyplannedfortheexpansionsiteoftheexistingCaticlanjettyport.
At present, it has no definite conceptual construction plan of the said portion in Boracay and it has no
financialallocationtoinitiateanyprojectonthesaidBoracayportion.

Furthermore,respondentProvincecontendsthatthepresentprojectislocatedinCaticlanwhilethe
allegedcomponentthatfallswithinanECAisinBoracay.Consideringitsgeographicallocation,thetwo
sitescannotbeconsideredasacontiguousareaforthereasonthatitisseparatedbyabodyofwaterastrait
thattraversesbetweenthemainlandPanaywhereinCaticlanislocatedandBoracay.Hence,itiserroneous
to consider the two sites as a colocated project within an ECA. Being a stand alone project and an
expansion of the existing jetty port, respondent DENREMB RVI had required respondent Province to
performanEPRMPtosecureanECCassanctionedbyItemNo.8(b),page7ofDENRDAO200330.

Respondent Province contends that even if, granting for the sake of argument, it had erroneously
categorizeditsprojectasNonECPinanECA,thiswasnotafinaldetermination.RespondentDENREMB
RVI,whichwastheadministratoroftheEISsystem,hadthefinaldecisiononthismatter.UnderDENR
DAO 200330, an application for ECC, even for a Category B2 project where an EPRMP is conducted,
shall be subjected to a review process. Respondent DENREMB RVI had the authority to deny said
application.ItsRegionalDirectorcouldeitherissueanECCfortheprojectordenytheapplication.Hemay
alsorequireamorecomprehensiveEIAstudy.TheRegionalDirectorissuedtheECCbasedontheEPRMP
submittedbyrespondentProvinceandafterthesamewentthroughtheEIAreviewprocess.

Thus,respondentProvinceconcludesthatpetitionersallegationofthisbeingacolocatedprojectis
premature if not baseless as the bigger reclamation project is still on the conceptualization stage. Both
respondents PRA and Province are yet to complete studies and feasibility studies to embark on another
project.


Respondent Province claims that an ocular survey of the reclamation project revealed that it had

[92]

workedwithinthelimitsoftheECC.

With regard to petitioners allegation that respondent Province failed to get the favorable
endorsement of the concerned LGUs in violation of the Local Government Code, respondent Province
contends that consultation visvisthefavorable endorsement from the concerned LGUs as contemplated
undertheLocalGovernmentCodearemerelytoolstoseekadviceandnotapowerclothedupontheLGUs
to unilaterally approve or disapprove any government projects. Furthermore, such endorsement is not
necessaryforprojectsfallingunderCategoryB2unlessrequiredbytheDENREMBRVI,underSection
5.3ofDENRDAO200330.

Moreover,DENRMemorandumCircularNo.082007nolongerrequirestheissuanceofpermits
and certifications as a prerequisite for the issuance of an ECC. Respondent Province claims to have
conducted consultative activities with LGUs in connection with Sections 26 and 27 of the Local
GovernmentCode.The vehement and staunch objections of both the SangguniangBarangay of Caticlan
andtheSangguniangBayanofMalay,accordingtorespondentProvince,werenotrootedonitsperceived
impactuponthepeopleandthecommunityintermsofenvironmentalorecologicalbalance,butduetoan
allegedconflictwiththeirprincipalpositiontodevelop,utilizeandreapbenefitsfromthenaturalresources

[93]

found within its jurisdiction.

Respondent Province argues that these concerns are not within the
purviewoftheLocalGovernmentCode.Furthermore,thePreliminaryGeohazardAssessmentReportand
EPRMP as well as Sangguniang Panlalawigan Resolution Nos. 2010022 and 2010034 should address
anyenvironmentalissuetheymayraise.

RespondentProvincepositsthatthespiritandintentofSections26and27oftheLocalGovernment
Codeistocreateanavenueforparties,theproponentandtheLGUconcerned,tocomeupwithatoolin
harmonizingitsviewsandconcernsabouttheproject.Thedutytoconsultdoesnotautomaticallyrequire
adherencetotheopinionsduringtheconsultationprocess.Itisallegedlynotwithintheprovisionstogive
the full authority to the LGU concerned to unilaterally approve or disapprove the project in the guise of
requiringtheproponentofsecuringitsfavorableendorsement.Inthiscase,petitioneriscallingahalttothe
project without providing an alternative resolution to harmonize its position and that of respondent
Province.

[94]

RespondentProvinceclaimsthattheEPRMP
wouldrevealthat:

[T]heareafrontingtheprojectsiteispracticallycomposedofsand.Deadcoralcommunities
maybefoundalongthevicinity.Thus,fishlifeattheprojectsiteisquitescarceduetothe
absenceofmarinesupportsystemsliketheseagrassbedsandcoralreefs.


xxx[T]hereisnocoralcoverattheexistingCaticlanjettyport.[From]thedeepestpointof
jettytotheshallowestpoint,therewasnomorecoralpatchandthesubstrateissandy.Itisof
publicknowledgethatthesaidforeshoreareaisbeingutilizedbytheresidentseversinceas
berthingoranchoragesiteoftheirmotorizedbanca.Therewillbenopossibilityofanycoral
developmentthereinbecauseofitscontinuousutilization.Likewise,theactivityofthestrait
thattraversesbetweenthemainlandCaticlanandBoracayIslandwouldalsobeafactorof
the coral development. Corals [may] only be formed within the area if there is scientific
humanintervention,whichisabsentuptothepresent.

In light of the foregoing premise, it casts serious doubt on petitioners allegations

pertaining to the environmental effects of RespondentLGUs 2.64 hectares reclamation
project.TheallegedenvironmentalimpactofthesubjectprojecttothebeachesofBoracay
Island remains unconfirmed. Petitioner had unsuccessfully proven that the project would
[95]
causeimminent,graveandirreparableinjurytothecommunity.

RespondentProvinceprayedforthedissolutionoftheTEPO,claimingthattherulesprovidethat
the TEPO may be dissolved if it appears after hearing that its issuance or continuance would cause
irreparabledamagetothepartyorpersonenjoined,whiletheapplicantmaybefullycompensatedforsuch
damagesashemaysufferandsubjecttothepostingofasufficientbondbythepartyorpersonenjoined.
RespondentProvincecontendsthattheTEPOwouldcauseirreparabledamageintwoaspects:

a.Financialdislocationandprobablebankruptcyand
b. Grave and imminent danger to safety and health of inhabitants of immediate area, including
tourists and passengers serviced by the jetty port, brought about by the abrupt cessation of
developmentworks.

As regards financial dislocation, the arguments of respondent Province are

summarizedbelow:

1. This project is financed by bonds which the respondent Province had issued to its
creditors as the financing scheme in funding the present project is by way of credit
financingthroughbondflotation.

2.ThefundsarefinancedbyaGuaranteeBankgettingpaymentfrombonds,beingsoldto
investors,whichinturnwouldbepaidbytheincomethattheprojectwouldrealizeor
incuruponitscompletion.

3. Whiletheprojectisunderconstruction,respondentProvinceisappropriatingaportion
of its Internal Revenue Allotment (IRA) budget from the 20% development fund to
defraytheinterestandprincipalamortizationduetotheGuaranteeBank.

4.TherespondentProvincesIRA,regularincome,and/orsuchotherrevenuesorfunds,as
may be permitted by law, are being used as security for the payment of the said loan
usedfortheprojectsconstruction.


5.The inability of the subject project to earn revenues as projected upon completion will
compel the Province to shoulder the full amount of the obligation, starting from year
2012.

6. Respondent province is mandated to assign its IRA, regular income and/or such other
revenues or funds as permitted by law if project is stopped, detriment of the public
[96]
welfareanditsconstituents.

AstothesecondgroundforthedissolutionoftheTEPO,respondentProvinceargues:

1. NoncompliancewiththeguidelinesoftheECCmayresulttoenvironmentalhazards
mostespeciallythatreclaimedlandifnotproperlysecuredmaybeerodedintothesea.

2. Theconstructionhasaccomplished65.26percentoftheproject.Theembankmentthat
was deposited on the project has no proper concrete wave protection that might be
washedoutintheeventthatastrongtyphoonorbigwavesmayoccuraffectingthestrait
andthepropertiesalongtheprojectsite.Itisalreadytherainyseasonandthereisabig
possibilityoftyphoonoccurrence.

3. If said incident occurs, the aggregates of the embankment that had been washed out
might be transferred to the adjoining properties which could affect its natural
environmentalstate.

4. Itmightresulttothetotalalterationofthephysicallandscapeoftheareaattributingto
environmentaldisturbance.

5.Thelackofproperconcretewaveprotectionorrevetmentwouldcausethetotalerosionof
[97]
theembankmentthathasbeendumpedontheaccomplishedarea.

RespondentProvinceclaimsthatpetitionerwillnotstandtosufferimmediate,graveandirreparable
injury or damage from the ongoing project. The petitioners perceived fear of environmental destruction
brought about by its erroneous appreciation of available data is unfounded and does not translate into a
matterofextremeurgency.Thus,undertheRulesofProcedureonEnvironmentalCases,theTEPOmaybe
dissolved.

[98]

Respondent PRA filed its Comment

on June 22, 2011. It alleges that on June 24, 2006,
ExecutiveOrderNo.543delegatedthepowertoapprovereclamationprojectstorespondentPRAthrough
itsgoverningBoard,subjecttocompliancewithexistinglawsandrulesandfurthersubjecttothecondition
thatreclamationcontractstobeexecutedwithanypersonorentity(must)gothroughpublicbidding.

Section4ofrespondentPRAsAdministrativeOrderNo.20072providesfortheapprovalprocess

andproceduresforvariousreclamationprojectstobeundertaken.RespondentPRApreparedanEvaluation

[99]

ReportonNovember5,2009
regardingAklansproposaltoincreaseitsprojectto40hectares.

Respondent PRA contends that it was only after respondent Province had complied with the
requirements under the law that respondent PRA, through its Board of Directors, approved the proposed

[100]

project under its Board Resolution No. 4094.

In the same Resolution, respondent PRA Board

authorized the General Manager/CEO to execute a MOA with the Aklan provincial government to
implementthereclamationprojectundercertainconditions.

The issue for respondent PRA was whether or not it approved the respondent Provinces 2.64
hectarereclamationprojectproposalinwillfuldisregardofallegednumerousirregularitiesasclaimedby

[101]

petitioner.

RespondentPRAclaimsthatitsapprovaloftheAklanReclamationProjectwasinaccordancewith
law and its rules. Indeed, it issued the notice to proceed only after Aklan had complied with all the
requirementsimposedbyexistinglawsandregulations.Itfurthercontendsthatthe40hectaresinvolvedin
this project remains a plan insofar as respondent PRA is concerned. What has been approved for
reclamation by respondent PRA thus far is only the 2.64hectare reclamation project. Respondent
PRA reiterates that it approved this reclamation project after extensively reviewing the legal, technical,

[102]

financial,environmental,andoperationalaspectsoftheproposedreclamation.

OneoftheconditionsthatrespondentPRABoardimposedbeforeapprovingtheAklanprojectwas
that no reclamation work could be started until respondent PRA has approved the detailed engineering
plans/methodology, design and specifications of the reclamation. Part of the required submissions to
respondentPRAincludesthedrainagedesignasapprovedbythePublicWorksDepartmentandtheECCas
issuedbytheDENR,allofwhichtheAklangovernmentmustsubmittorespondentPRAbeforestarting

[103]

anyreclamationworks.
UnderArticleIV(B)(3)oftheMOAbetweenrespondentPRAandAklan,the
latterisrequiredtosubmit,apartfromtheECC,thefollowingrequirementsforrespondentPRAsreview
andapproval,asbasisfortheissuanceofaNoticetoProceed(NTP)forReclamationWorks:

(a) Landformplanwithtechnicaldescriptionofthemetesandboundsofthesame
landform

(b)Finalmasterdevelopmentandlanduseplanfortheproject

(c) Detailedengineeringstudies,detailedengineeringdesign,plansandspecification
forreclamationworks,reclamationplansandmethodology,plansforthesourcesof
fillmaterials


(d) Drainageplanvisavis the landform approved by DPWH Regional Office to
include a cost effective and efficient drainage system as may be required based on
theresultsofthestudies

(e) Detailed project cost estimates and quantity takeoff per items of work of the
rawland reclamation components, e.g. reclamation containment structures and soil
consolidation

(f)Organizationalchartoftheconstructionarm,manningtable,equipmentschedulefor
theprojectand,

[104]
(g)Projecttimetable(PERT/CPM)fortheentireprojectconstructionperiod.

Infact,respondentPRAfurtherrequiredrespondentProvinceunderArticleIV(B)(24)of
the MOA to strictly comply with all conditions of the DENREMBissued ECC and/or
comply with pertinent local and international commitments of the Republic of the
[105]
Philippinestoensureenvironmentalprotection.

[106]
In its August 11, 2010 letter,
respondent PRA referred for respondent Provinces
appropriate action petitioners Resolution 001, series of 2010 and Resolution 46, series of
[107]
2010,oftheSangguniangBayanofMalay.GovernorMarquezwroterespondentPRA
on September 16, 2010 informing it that respondent Province had already met with the
different officials of Malay, furnishing respondent PRA with the copies of the minutes of
such meetings/presentations. Governor Marquez also assured respondent PRA that it had
compliedwiththeconsultationrequirementsasfarasMalaywasconcerned.

RespondentPRAclaimsthatinevaluatingrespondentProvincesprojectandinissuingthe
necessaryNTPforPhase1ofSite1(2.64hectares)oftheCaticlanJettyPortexpansionand
modernization, respondent PRA gave considerable weight to all pertinent issuances,
[108]
especially the ECC issued by DENREMB RVI.
Respondent PRA stresses that its
earlierapprovalofthe40hectarereclamationprojectunderitsResolutionNo.4094,series
of 2010, still requires a second level of compliance requirements from the proponent.
RespondentProvincecouldnotpossiblybeginitsreclamationworkssincerespondentPRA
hadyettoissueanNTPinitsfavor.


RespondentPRAallegesthatpriortotheissuanceoftheNTPtorespondentProvincefor
Phase1ofSite1,itrequiredthesubmissionofthefollowingpreconstructiondocuments:

(a)LandFormPlan(withtechnicaldescription)

(b)SiteDevelopmentPlan/LandUsePlanincluding,

(i)seweranddrainagesystemsand

(ii)wastewatertreatment

(c)EngineeringStudiesandEngineeringDesign

(d)ReclamationMethodology

(e)SourcesofFillMaterials,and,

[109]
(f)TheECC.

RespondentPRAclaimsthatitwasonlyaftertheevaluationoftheabovesubmissionsthatit
issued to respondent Province the NTP, limited to the 2.64hectare reclamation project.
RespondentPRAevenemphasizedinitsevaluationreportthatshouldrespondentProvince
pursue the other phases of its project, it would still require the submission of an ECC for
[110]
eachsucceedingphasesbeforethestartofanyreclamationworks.

Respondent PRA, being the national governments arm in regulating and coordinating all
reclamation projects in the Philippines a mandate conferred by law manifests that it is
incumbentuponit,intheexerciseofitsregulatoryfunctions,todiligentlyevaluate,based
onitstechnicalcompetencies,allreclamationprojectssubmittedtoitforapproval.Oncethe
reclamation projects requirements set forth by law and related rules have been complied
with,respondentPRAismandatedtoapprovethesame.RespondentPRAclaims,[w]ithall
the foregoing rigorous and detailed requirements submitted and complied with by Aklan,
andtheattendantcarefulandmeticuloustechnicalandlegalevaluationbyrespondentPRA,
itcannotbearguedthatthereclamationpermititissuedtoAklanisfoundeduponnumerous
[111]
irregularitiesasrecklesslyandbaselesslyimputedbyBFI.

[112]
InitsComment
datedJuly1,2011,respondentDENREMBRVIassertsthatitsactof
issuing the ECC certifies that the project had undergone the proper EIA process by
assessing,amongothers,thedirectandindirectimpactoftheprojectonthebiophysicaland
human environment and ensuring that these impacts are addressed by appropriate
environmental protection and enhancement measures, pursuant to Presidential Decree No.
1586,theRevisedProceduralManualforDENRDAO200330,andtheexistingrulesand
[113]
regulations.

RespondentDENREMBRVIstressesthatthedeclarationin1978ofseveralislands,which
includesBoracayastouristzoneandmarinereserveunderProclamationNo.1801,hasno
relevance to the expansion project of Caticlan Jetty Port and Passenger Terminal for the
very reason that the project is not located in the Island of Boracay, being located in
BarangayCaticlan,Malay,whichisnotapartofmainlandPanay.Itadmitsthatthesiteof
the subject jetty port falls within the ECA under Proclamation No. 2146 (1981), being
within the category of a water body. This was why respondent Province had faithfully
secured an ECC pursuant to the Revised Procedural Manual for DENR DAO 200330 by
submittingthenecessarydocumentsascontainedintheEPRMPonMarch19,2010,which
were the bases in granting ECC No. R610030967100 (amended) on April 27, 2010 for
[114]
theexpansionofCaticlanJettyPortandPassengerTerminal,covering2.64hectares.

Respondent DENREMB RVI claims that the issues raised by the LGUs of Caticlan and
Malay had been considered by the DENRProvincial Environment and Natural Resources
[115]
Office (PENRO), Aklan in the issuance of the Order
dated January 26, 2010,
disregarding the claim of the Municipality of Malay, Aklan of a portion of the foreshore
landinCaticlancoveredbytheapplicationoftheProvinceofAklanandanotherOrderof
Rejection dated February 5, 2010 of the two foreshore applications, namely FLA No.
[116]
06041243AandFLANo.06041243B,oftheProvinceofAklan.

Respondent DENREMB RVI contends that the supporting documents attached to the
EPRMPfortheissuanceofanECCweremerelyfortheexpansionandmodernizationofthe
old jetty port in Barangay Caticlan covering 2.64 hectares, and not the 40hectare

reclamation project in Barangay Caticlan and Boracay. The previous letter of respondent
Province dated October 14, 2009 addressed to DENREMB RVI Regional Executive
Director, would show that the reclamation project will cover approximately 2.6 hectares.
[117]
ThisapplicationforECCwasnotofficiallyacceptedduetolackofrequirementsor
documents.

Although petitioner insists that the project involves 40 hectares in two sites,
respondent DENREMB RVI looked at the documents submitted by respondent Province
andsawthatthesubjectareacoveredbytheECCapplicationandsubsequentlygrantedwith
ECCR610030967100 consists only of 2.64 hectares hence, respondent DENREMB
[118]
RVIcouldnotcommentontheexcessarea.

Respondent DENREMB RVI admits that as regards the classification of the 2.64hectare
reclamationprojectunderNonECPinECA,thisdoesnotfallwithinthedefinitionofacolocated
projectbecausethesubjectprojectismerelyanexpansionoftheoldCaticlanJettyPort,whichhada
previously issued ECC (ECC No. 06991012171 on October 12, 1999).Thus, only an EPRMP, not a

[119]

PEISorPEPRMP,isrequired.

RespondentProvincesubmittedtorespondentDENREMBRVIthefollowingdocumentscontained
intheEPRMP:

a. TheObservationsontheFloorBottomanditsMarineResourcesattheProposedJetty
PortsatCaticlanandManokmanok,Boracay,Aklan,conductedin1999bytheBureau
ofFisheriesAquaticResources(BFAR)CentralOffice,particularlyinCaticlansite,and

b.TheStudyconductedbyDr.RicarteS.Javelosa,Ph.D,MinesandGeosciencesBureau
(MGB), Central Office and Engr. Roger Esto, Provincial Planning and Development
Office (PPDO), Aklan in 2009 entitled Preliminary Geohazard Assessment for the
Enhancement of the Existing Caticlan Jetty Port Terminal through Beach Zone
RestorationandProtectiveMarinaDevelopmentinMalay,Aklan.

Respondent DENREMB RVI claims that the above two scientific studies were enough for it to
arriveatabestprofessionaljudgmenttoissueanamendedECCfortheAklanMarinaProjectcovering2.64

[120]

hectares.
Furthermore, to confirm that the 2.64hectare reclamation has no significant negative
impactwiththesurroundingenvironmentparticularlyinBoracay,amorerecentstudywasconducted,and
respondent DENREMB RVI alleges that [i]t is very important to highlight that the input data in the

[MERFUPMSI]studyutilizedthe[40hectare]reclamationand[200meter]widthseawardusingthetidal

[121]

and wave modelling.

The study showed that the reclamation of 2.64 hectares had no effect to the

hydrodynamicsofthestraitbetweenBarangayCaticlanandBoracay.

RespondentDENREMBRVIaffirmsthatnopermitsand/orclearancesfromNationalGovernment
Agencies (NGAs) and LGUs are required pursuant to the DENR Memorandum Circular No. 200708,
entitledSimplifyingtheRequirementsofECCorCNCApplicationsthattheEPRMPwasevaluatedand
processedbasedontheRevisedProceduralManualforDENRDAO200330whichresultedtotheissuance
of ECCR610030967100 and that the ECC is not a permit per se but a planning tool for LGUs to

[122]

considerinitsdecisionwhetherornottoissuealocalpermit.

Respondent DENREMB RVI concludes that in filing this case, petitioner had bypassed and
deprivedtheDENRSecretaryoftheopportunitytoreviewand/orreversethedecisionofhissubordinate
office, EMB RVI pursuant to the Revised Procedural Manual for DENR DAO 200330. There is no
extreme urgency that necessitates the granting of Mandamus or issuance of TEPO that put to balance

[123]

betweenthelifeanddeathofthepetitionerorpresentgraveorirreparabledamagetoenvironment.

After receiving the above Comments from all the respondents, the Court set the case for oral
argumentsonSeptember13,2011.

[124]

Meanwhile,onSeptember8,2011,respondentProvincefiledaManifestationandMotion
prayingforthedismissalofthepetition,astheprovincewasnolongerpursuingtheimplementationofthe
succeedingphasesoftheprojectduetoitsinabilitytocomplywithArticleIVB.2(3)oftheMOAhence,
the issues and fears expressed by petitioner had become moot. Respondent Province alleges that the
petitionispremisedonaseriousmisappreciationoftherealextentofthecontestedreclamationprojectas
certainlytheECCcoveredonlyatotalof2,691squaremeterslocatedinBarangayCaticlan,Malay,Aklan
andalthoughtheMOAspokeof40hectares,respondentProvincessubmissionofdocumentstorespondent
PRApertainingtosaidareawasbutthefirstofatwostepprocessofapproval.RespondentProvinceclaims
that its failure to comply with the documentary requirements of respondent PRA within the period
provided, or 120 working days from the effectivity of the MOA, indicated its waiver to pursue the

[125]

remainderoftheproject.

RespondentProvincefurthermanifested:

[126]
Confirmingthisinaletterdated12August2011,
GovernorMarquezinformed
respondentPRAthattheProvinceofAklanisnolongerpursuingtheimplementationofthe
succeedingphasesoftheprojectwithatotalareaof37.4hectaresforourinabilitytocomply
withArticleIVB.2(3)oftheMOAhence,theexistingMOAwillcoveronlytheproject

areaof2.64hectares.

[127]
In his replyletter dated August 22, 2011,
[respondent] PRA General
ManagerinformedGovernorMarquezthatthe[respondent]PRABoardofDirectors
has given [respondent] PRA the authority to confirm the position of the Province of
Aklan that the Aklan Beach Zone Restoration and Protection Marine Development
Projectwillnowbeconfinedtothereclamationanddevelopmentofthe2.64hectares,
moreorless.

It is undisputed from the start that the coverage of the Project is in fact limited to
2.64hectares,asevidencedbytheNTPissuedbyrespondentPRA.Therecentexchangeof
correspondence between respondents Province of Aklan and [respondent] PRA further
confirmstheintentofthepartiesallalong.Hence,theProjectsubjectofthepetition,without
doubt,coversonly2.64andnot40hectaresasfeared.Thiscompletelychangestheextentof
[128]
theProjectand,consequently,mootstheissuesandfearsexpressedbythepetitioner.
(Emphasissupplied.)

Based on the above contentions, respondent Province prays that the petition be
dismissed as no further justiciable controversy exists since the feared adverse effect to
[129]
BoracayIslandsecologyhadbecomeacademicalltogether.

TheCourtheardthepartiesoralargumentsonSeptember13,2011andgavethelatter
twenty(20)daysthereaftertofiletheirrespectivememoranda.

[130]
RespondentProvincefiledanotherManifestationandMotion,
whichtheCourt
receivedonApril2,2012statingthat:

1. ithadsubmittedtherequireddocumentsandstudiestorespondentDENR
EMBRVIbeforeanECCwasissuedinitsfavor
2. ithadsubstantiallycompliedwiththerequirementsprovidedunderPRA
Administrative Order 20072, which compliance caused respondent PRAs
Boardtoapprovethereclamationprojectand
3. it had conducted a series of consultative [presentations] relative to the
reclamation project before the LGU of Malay Municipality, the Barangay
OfficialsofCaticlan,andstakeholdersofBoracayIsland.

Respondent Province further manifested that the Barangay Council of Caticlan,

Malay, Aklan enacted on February 13, 2012 Resolution No. 003, series of 2012, entitled
Resolution Favorably Endorsing the 2.6 Hectares Reclamation/MARINA Project of the
[131]
AklanProvincialGovernmentatCaticlanCoastline
andthattheSangguniang Bayan
oftheMunicipalityofMalay,AklanenactedResolutionNo.020,seriesof2012,entitled
Resolution Endorsing the 2.6 Hectares Reclamation Project of the Provincial Government
[132]
ofAklanLocatedatBarangayCaticlan,Malay,Aklan.

RespondentProvinceclaimsthatitscompliancewiththerequirementsofrespondents
DENREMBRVIandPRAthatledtotheapprovalofthereclamationprojectbythesaid
governmentagencies,aswellastherecentenactmentsoftheBarangayCouncilofCaticlan
and the Sangguniang Bayan of the Municipality of Malay favorably endorsing the said
project, had categorically addressed all the issues raised by the Petitioner in its Petition
datedJune1,2011.RespondentProvincepraysasfollows:

WHEREFORE,premisesconsidered,itismostrespectfullyprayedofthisHonorable
Courtthatafterdueproceedings,thefollowingberendered:
1. The Temporary Environmental Protection Order (TEPO) it issued on June 7,
2011belifted/dissolved.
2.Theinstantpetitionbedismissedforbeingmootandacademic.
3. Respondent Province of Aklan prays for such other reliefs that are just and
equitableunderthepremises.(Emphasesintheoriginal.)

ISSUES

TheCourtwillnowresolvethefollowingissues:

I. Whether or not the petition should be dismissed for having been rendered moot and
academic

II.Whetherornotthepetitionisprematurebecausepetitionerfailedtoexhaustadministrative
remediesbeforefilingthiscase

III. WhetherornotrespondentProvincefailedtoperformafullEIAasrequiredbylawsand
regulationsbasedonthescopeandclassificationoftheproject

IV.WhetherornotrespondentProvincecompliedwithalltherequirementsunderthepertinent
lawsandregulations

V.Whetherornottherewasproper,timely,andsufficientpublicconsultationfortheproject

DISCUSSION

OntheissueofwhetherornotthePetitionshould
be dismissed for having been rendered moot and
academic

RespondentProvinceclaimsinitsManifestationandMotionfiledonApril2,2012
thatwiththeallegedfavorableendorsementofthereclamationprojectbytheSangguniang
Barangay of Caticlan and the Sangguniang Bayan of the Municipality of Malay, all the
issuesraisedbypetitionerhadalreadybeenaddressed,andthispetitionshouldbedismissed
forbeingmootandacademic.

Onthecontrary,aclosereadingofthetwoLGUsrespectiveresolutionswouldreveal
that they are not sufficient to render the petition moot and academic, as there are explicit
conditionsimposedthatmustbecompliedwithbyrespondentProvince.InResolution No.
003,seriesof2012,oftheSangguniangBarangayofCaticlanitisstatedthat any vertical
[133]
structurestobeconstructedshallbesubjectforbarangayendorsement.
Clearly,what
thebarangayendorsedwasthereclamationonly,andnottheentireprojectthatincludesthe
construction of a commercial building and wellness center, and other tourismrelated
facilities.Petitionersobjections,asmayberecalled,pertainnotonlytothereclamationper
se,butalsotothebuildingtobeconstructedandtheentireprojectsperceivedilleffectsto
thesurroundingenvironment.

[134]
ResolutionNo.020,seriesof2012,oftheSangguniangBayanofMalay
iseven
morespecific.Itreadsinpart:

WHEREAS,nobleitseemsthereclamationprojecttotheeffectthatitwillgenerate
scoresofbenefitsfortheLocalGovernmentofMalayintermsofincomeandemployment
foritsconstituents,butthefactcannotbedeniedthattheprojectwilltakeitstollonthe
environment especially on the nearby fragile island of Boracay and the fact also
remains that the project will eventually displace the local transportation
operators/cooperatives

WHEREAS,consideringthesensitivityoftheproject,thisHonorableBodythrough
the Committee where this matter was referred conducted several consultations/committee
hearings with concerned departments and the private sector specifically Boracay
Foundation,Inc.andtheyareoneinitsbeliefthatthisLocalGovernmentUnithasnever

beenagainstdevelopmentsolongascompliancewiththelawandproperprocedures
have been observed and that paramount consideration have been given to the
environment lest we disturb the balance of nature to the end that progress will be
broughttonaught

WHEREAS, time and again, to ensure a healthy intergovernmental relations, this

August Body requires no less than transparency and faithful commitment from the
ProvincialGovernmentofAklanintheprocessofgoingthroughtheseimprovementsinthe
Municipalitybecauseitoncefellpreytoinfidelitiesinmattersofgovernance

WHEREAS,asaconditionforthegrantofthisendorsementandtoaddressall
issues and concerns, this Honorable Council necessitates a sincere commitment from
theProvincialGovernmentofAklantotheendthat:

1.ToallocateanofficespacetoLGUMalaywithinthebuildinginthereclaimedarea

2. To convene the Cagban and Caticlan Jetty Port Management Board before the
resumptionofthereclamationproject

3. That the reclamation project shall be limited only to 2.6 hectares in Barangay
Caticlanandnotbeyond

4.Thatthelocaltransportationoperators/cooperativeswillnotbedisplacedand

5. TheProvincialGovernmentofAklanconductasimultaneouscomprehensive
studyontheenvironmentalimpactofthereclamationprojectespeciallyduring
Habagat and Amihan seasons and put in place as early as possible mitigating
measuresontheeffectoftheprojecttotheenvironment.

WHEREAS, having presented these stipulations, failure to comply herewith will

leave this August Body no choice but to revoke this endorsement, hence faithful
complianceofthecommitmentoftheProvincialGovernmentishighlyappealedfor[.]
[135]
(Emphasesadded.)

The Sangguniang Bayan of Malay obviously imposed explicit conditions for

respondentProvincetocomplywithonpainofrevocationofitsendorsementoftheproject,
including the need to conduct a comprehensive study on the environmental impact of the
reclamationproject,whichistheheartofthepetitionbeforeus.Therefore,thecontentsof
thetworesolutionssubmittedbyrespondentProvincedonotsupportitsconclusionthatthe
subsequentfavorableendorsementoftheLGUshadalreadyaddressedalltheissuesraised
andrenderedtheinstantpetitionmootandacademic.

Ontheissueoffailuretoexhaustadministrative
remedies

Respondents, in essence, argue that the present petition should be dismissed for
petitionersfailuretoexhaustadministrativeremediesandeventoobservethehierarchyof
courts. Furthermore, as the petition questions the issuance of the ECC and the NTP, this
involvesfactualandtechnicalverification,whicharemoreproperlywithintheexpertiseof
theconcernedgovernmentagencies.

RespondentsanchortheirargumentonSection6,ArticleIIofDENRDAO200330,which
provides:

Section6.Appeal

AnypartyaggrievedbythefinaldecisionontheECC/CNCapplicationsmay,within
15daysfromreceiptofsuchdecision,fileanappealonthefollowinggrounds:

a.Graveabuseofdiscretiononthepartofthedecidingauthority,or
b.Seriouserrorsinthereviewfindings.

TheDENRmayadoptalternativeconflict/disputeresolutionproceduresasameanstosettle
grievances between proponents and aggrieved parties to avert unnecessary legal action.
Frivolousappealsshallnotbecountenanced.

Theproponentoranystakeholdermayfileanappealtothefollowing:

DecidingAuthority
Wheretofiletheappeal
EMBRegionalOfficeDirector
OfficeoftheEMBDirector
EMBCentralOfficeDirector
OfficeoftheDENRSecretary
DENRSecretary
OfficeofthePresident
(Emphasessupplied.)

Respondents argue that since there is an administrative appeal provided for, then
petitionerisdutyboundtoobservethesameandmaynotbegrantedrecoursetotheregular
courtsforitsfailuretodoso.

We do not agree with respondents appreciation of the applicability of the rule on

exhaustionofadministrativeremediesinthiscase.WeareremindedofourrulinginPagara
[136]
v. Court of Appeals,
which summarized our earlier decisions on the procedural
requirementofexhaustionofadministrativeremedies,towit:

Theruleregardingexhaustionofadministrativeremediesisnotahardandfastrule.It

isnotapplicable(1)wherethequestionindisputeispurelyalegalone,or(2)wherethe
controverted act is patently illegal or was performed without jurisdiction or in excess of
jurisdiction or (3) where the respondent is a department secretary, whose acts as an alter
ego of the President bear the implied or assumed approval of the latter, unless actually
disapproved by him, or (4) where there are circumstances indicating the urgency of
judicialintervention,Gonzalesvs.Hechanova,L21897,October22,1963,9SCRA230
Abaya vs. Villegas, L25641, December 17, 1966, 18 SCRA Mitra vs. Subido, L21691,
September15,1967,21SCRA127.

Said principle may also be disregarded when it does not provide a plain, speedy and
adequateremedy,(Ciprianovs.Marcelino, 43 SCRA 291), when there is no due process
observed (Villanos vs. Subido, 45 SCRA 299), or where the protestant has no other
[137]
recourse(Sta.Mariavs.Lopez,31SCRA637).
(Emphasessupplied.)

Aspetitionercorrectlypointedout,theappealprovidedforunderSection6ofDENR
DAO200330isonlyapplicable,basedonthefirstsentencethereof,ifthepersonorentity
charged with the duty to exhaust the administrative remedy of appeal to the appropriate
governmentagencyhasbeenapartyorhasbeenmadeapartyintheproceedingswherein
the decision to be appealed was rendered. It has been established by the facts that
petitionerwasnevermadeapartytotheproceedingsbeforerespondentDENREMB
RVI.PetitionerwasonlyinformedthattheprojecthadalreadybeenapprovedaftertheECC
[138]
wasalreadygranted.
Notbeingapartytothesaidproceedings,itdoesnotappearthat
petitionerwasofficiallyfurnishedacopyofthedecision,fromwhichthe15dayperiodto
appealshouldbereckoned,andwhichwouldwarranttheapplicationofSection6,ArticleII
ofDENRDAO200330.

Althoughpetitionerwasnotapartytotheproceedingswherethedecisiontoissuean
[139]
ECCwasrendered,itstandstobeaggrievedbythedecision,
becauseitclaimsthatthe
reclamation of land on the Caticlan side would unavoidably adversely affect the Boracay
side,wherepetitionersmembersownestablishmentsengagedinthetourismtrade.Asnoted
earlier,petitionercontendsthatthedeclaredobjectiveofthereclamationprojectistoexploit
Boracaystourismtradebecausetheprojectisintendedtoenhancesupportservicesthereto
however, this objective would not be achieved since the whitesand beaches for which
Boracayisfamousmightbenegativelyaffectedbytheproject.Petitionersconclusionisthat
respondentProvince,aidedandabettedbyrespondentsPRAandDENREMBRVI,ignored
the spirit and letter of our environmental laws, and should thus be compelled to perform

theirdutiesundersaidlaws.

ThenewRulesofProcedureforEnvironmentalCases,A.M.No.0968SC,provides
areliefforpetitionerunderthewritofcontinuingmandamus,whichisaspecialcivilaction
that may be availed of to compel the performance of an act specifically enjoined by
[140]
law
andwhichprovidesfortheissuanceofaTEPOasanauxiliaryremedypriortothe
[141]
issuance of the writ itself.
The Rationale of the said Rules explains the writ in this
wise:

Environmental law highlights the shift in the focalpoint from the initiation of
regulation by Congress to the implementation of regulatory programs by the appropriate
governmentagencies.

Thus, a government agencys inaction, if any, has serious implications on the

future of environmental law enforcement. Private individuals, to the extent that they
seektochangethescopeoftheregulatoryprocess,willhavetorelyonsuchagenciesto
take the initial incentives, which may require a judicial component. Accordingly,
questions regarding the propriety of an agencys action or inaction will need to be
analyzed.

Thispointisemphasizedintheavailabilityoftheremedyofthewritofmandamus,
whichallowsfortheenforcementoftheconductofthetaskstowhichthewritpertains:the
[142]
performanceofalegalduty.
(Emphasesadded.)

The writ of continuing mandamus permits the court to retain jurisdiction after
judgmentinordertoensurethesuccessfulimplementationofthereliefsmandatedunderthe
courtsdecisionand,inordertodothis,thecourtmaycompelthesubmissionofcompliance
reportsfromtherespondentgovernmentagenciesaswellasavailofothermeanstomonitor
[143]
compliancewithitsdecision.

According to petitioner, respondent Province acted pursuant to a MOA with

respondent PRA that was conditioned upon, among others, a properlysecured ECC from
respondent DENREMB RVI. For this reason, petitioner seeks to compel respondent
Province to comply with certain environmental laws, rules, and procedures that it claims
were either circumvented or ignored. Hence, we find that the petition was appropriately
filedwiththisCourtunderRule8,Section1,A.M.No.0968SC,whichreads:

SECTION1.Petitionforcontinuingmandamus.Whenanyagencyorinstrumentality
ofthegovernmentorofficerthereofunlawfullyneglectstheperformanceofanactwhichthe
lawspecificallyenjoinsasadutyresultingfromanoffice,trustorstationinconnectionwith
theenforcementorviolationofanenvironmentallawruleorregulationorarighttherein,or
unlawfullyexcludesanotherfromtheuseorenjoymentofsuchrightandthereisnoother
plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, the person aggrieved
thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court, alleging the facts with certainty,
attaching thereto supporting evidence, specifying that the petition concerns an
environmentallaw,ruleorregulation,andprayingthatjudgmentberenderedcommanding
therespondenttodoanactorseriesofactsuntilthejudgmentisfullysatisfied,andtopay
damagessustainedbythepetitionerbyreasonofthemaliciousneglecttoperformtheduties
oftherespondent,underthelaw,rulesorregulations.Thepetitionshallalsocontainasworn
certificationofnonforumshopping.

SECTION2.Wheretofilethepetition.ThepetitionshallbefiledwiththeRegional
Trial Court exercising jurisdiction over the territory where the actionable neglect or
omissionoccurredorwiththeCourtofAppealsortheSupremeCourt.

Petitionerhadthreeoptionswheretofilethiscaseundertherule:theRegionalTrial
Court exercising jurisdiction over the territory where the actionable neglect or omission
occurred,theCourtofAppeals,orthisCourt.

Petitionerhadnootherplain,speedy,oradequateremedyintheordinarycourseof
law to determine the questions of unique national and local importance raised here that
pertaintolawsandrulesforenvironmentalprotection,thusitwasjustifiedincomingtothis
Court.

Havingresolvedtheproceduralissue,wenowmovetothesubstantiveissues.

Ontheissuesofwhether,basedonthescopeand
classificationoftheproject,afullEIAisrequired
bylawsandregulations,andwhetherrespondent
Province complied with all the requirements
underthepertinentlawsandregulations
Petitionersargumentsonthisissuehingesuponitsclaimthatthereclamationproject
ismisclassifiedasasingleprojectwheninfactitiscolocated.Petitioneralsoquestionsthe
classification made by respondent Province that the reclamation project is merely an
expansionoftheexistingjettyport,whentheprojectdescriptionsembodiedinthedifferent
documents filed by respondent Province describe commercial establishments to be built,
amongothers,toraiserevenuesfortheLGUthus,itshouldhavebeenclassifiedasanew

project.PetitionerlikewisecriesfoultothemannerbywhichrespondentProvinceallegedly
circumvented the documentary requirements of the DENREMB RVI by the act of
connectingthereclamationprojectwithitspreviousprojectin1999andclaimingthatthe
newprojectisamereexpansionofthepreviousone.

As previously discussed, respondent Province filed a Manifestation and Motion

stating that the ECC issued by respondent DENREMB RVI covered an area of 2,691
squaremetersinCaticlan,anditsapplicationforreclamationof40hectareswithrespondent
PRAwasconditionedonitssubmissionofspecificdocumentswithin120days.Respondent
Provinceclaimsthatitsfailuretocomplywithsaidconditionindicateditswaivertopursue
thesucceedingphasesofthereclamationprojectandthatthesubjectmatterofthiscasehad
thus been limited to 2.64 hectares. Respondent PRA, for its part, declared through its
General Manager that the Aklan Beach Zone Restoration and Protection Marine
DevelopmentProjectwillnowbeconfinedtothereclamationanddevelopmentofthe2.64
[144]
hectares,moreorless.

TheCourtnotessuchmanifestationofrespondentProvince.Assuming,however,that
theareainvolvedinthesubjectreclamationprojecthasbeenlimitedto2.64hectares,this
casehasnotbecomemootandacademic,asallegedbyrespondents,becausetheCourtstill
has to check whether respondents had complied with all applicable environmental laws,
rules,andregulationspertainingtotheactualreclamationproject.

We recognize at this point that the DENR is the government agency vested with
delegated powers to review and evaluate all EIA reports, and to grant or deny ECCs to
[145]
projectproponents.
ItistheDENRthathasthedutytoimplementtheEISsystem. It
appears,however,thatrespondentDENREMBRVIsevaluationofthisreclamationproject
wasproblematic,basedonthevalidquestionsraisedbypetitioner.

Being the administrator of the EIS System, respondent DENREMB RVIs

submissionsbeargreatweightinthiscase.However,thefollowingaretheissuesthatputin
questionthewisdomofrespondentDENREMBRVIinissuingtheECC:

1. Its approval of respondent Provinces classification of the project as a mere

expansion of the existing jetty port in Caticlan, instead of classifying it as a
newproject
2. Itsclassificationofthereclamationprojectasasingleinsteadofacolocated
project
3. The lack of prior public consultations and approval of local government
agenciesand
4. The lack of comprehensive studies regarding the impact of the reclamation
projecttotheenvironment.
The above issues as raised put in question the sufficiency of the evaluation of the
projectbyrespondentDENREMBRVI.

Natureoftheproject

ThefirstquestionmustbeansweredbyrespondentDENREMBRVIastheagency
withtheexpertiseandauthoritytostatewhetherthisisanewproject,subjecttothemore
rigorousenvironmentalimpactstudyrequestedbypetitioner,oritisamereexpansionofthe
existingjettyportfacility.

The second issue refers to the classification of the project by respondent Province,
approved by respondent DENREMB RVI, as single instead of colocated. Under the
Revised Procedural Manual, the Summary List of Additional NonEnvironmentally
Critical Project (NECP) Types in ECAs Classified under Group II (Table I2) lists
buildings,storagefacilitiesandotherstructuresasaseparateitemfromtransportterminal
facilities. This creates the question of whether this project should be considered as
consistingofmorethanonetypeofactivity,andshouldmoreproperlybeclassifiedasco
located,underthefollowingdefinitionfromthesameManual,whichreads:

f)Group IV (Colocated Projects in either ECA or NECA):A colocated project is a

group of single projects, under one or more proponents/locators, which are
locatedinacontiguousareaandmanagedbyoneadministrator,whoisalsothe
ECCapplicant.Thecolocatedprojectmaybeaneconomiczoneorindustrialpark,
or a mix of projects within a catchment, watershed or river basin, or any other

geographical, political or economic unit of area.Since the location or threshold of

specificprojectswithinthecontiguousareawillyetbederivedfromtheEIAprocess
basedonthecarryingcapacityoftheprojectenvironment,thenatureoftheprojectis
calledprogrammatic.(Emphasisadded.)

RespondentDENREMBRVIshouldconductathoroughanddetailedevaluationof
the project to address the question of whether this could be deemed as a group of single
projects (transport terminal facility, building, etc.) in a contiguous area managed by
respondentProvince,orasasingleproject.

Thethirditemintheaboveenumerationwillbediscussedasaseparateissue.

The answer to the fourth question depends on the final classification of the project
under items 1 and 3 above because the type of EIA study required under the Revised
ProceduralManualdependsonsuchclassification.

TheverydefinitionofanEIApointstowhatwasmostlikelyneglectedbyrespondent
Provinceasprojectproponent,andwhatwasinturnoverlookedbyrespondentDENREMB
RVI,foritisdefinedasfollows:

An[EIA]isaprocessthatinvolvespredictingandevaluatingthelikelyimpactsofaproject
(includingcumulativeimpacts)ontheenvironmentduringconstruction,commissioning,operation
andabandonment.Italsoincludesdesigningappropriatepreventive, mitigating and enhancement
measures addressing these consequences to protect the environment and the communitys welfare.
[146]
(Emphasessupplied.)

Thus, the EIA process must have been able to predict the likely impact of the
reclamation project to the environment and to prevent any harm that may otherwise be
caused.

Theprojectnowbeforeusinvolvesreclamationoflandthatismorethanfivetimes
thesizeoftheoriginalreclaimedland.Furthermore,theareapriortoconstructionmerely
contained a jetty port, whereas the proposed expansion, as described in the EPRMP

submittedbyrespondentProvincetorespondentDENREMBRVIinvolvessomuchmore,
andwequote:

Theexpansionprojectwillbeconstructedatthenorthsideoftheexistingjettyport
andterminalthatwillhaveatotalareaof2.64hectares,moreorless,afterreclamation.The
Phase1oftheprojectconstructioncostingaroundP260millionincludesthefollowing:

1.Reclamation3,000sqm(expansionofjettyport)

2.Reclamation13,500sqm(buildablearea)

3.Terminalannexbuilding250sqm

4.2storeycommercialbuilding2,500sqm(1,750sqmofleasablespace)

5.Healthandwellnesscenter

6.Accessroad12m(wide)

7.Parking,perimeterfences,lightingandwatertreatmentseweragesystem

8.Rehabilitationofexistingjettyportandterminal

xxxx

Thesucceedingphasesoftheprojectwillconsistof[further]reclamation,completionofthe
commercial center building, bay walk commercial strip, staff building, ferry terminal, a
cable car system and wharf marina. This will entail an additional estimated cost of P785
[147]
million bringing the total investment requirement to about P1.0 billion.
(Emphases
added.)

As may be gleaned from the breakdown of the 2.64 hectares as described by respondent
Province above, a significant portion of the reclaimed area would be devoted to the
constructionofacommercialbuilding,andtheareatobeutilizedfortheexpansionofthe
jetty port consists of a mere 3,000 square meters (sq. m). To be true to its definition, the
EIAreportsubmittedbyrespondentProvinceshouldattheveryleastpredicttheimpactthat
theconstructionofthenewbuildingsonthereclaimedlandwouldhaveonthesurrounding
environment.Thesenewconstructionsandtheirenvironmentaleffectswerenotcoveredby
the old studies that respondent Province previously submitted for the construction of the
original jetty port in 1999, and which it resubmitted in its application for ECC in this
allegedexpansion,insteadofconductingupdatedandmorecomprehensivestudies.

AnyimpactontheBoracaysidecannotbetotallyignored,asCaticlanandBoracay
are separated only by a narrow strait. This becomes more imperative because of the
significantcontributionsofBoracayswhitesandbeachtothecountrystourismtrade,which
requires respondent Province to proceed with utmost caution in implementing projects
withinitsvicinity.

We had occasion to emphasize the duty of local government units to ensure the
quality of the environment under Presidential Decree No. 1586 in Republic of the
[148]
Philippinesv.TheCityofDavao,
whereinweheld:

Section15ofRepublicAct7160,otherwiseknownastheLocalGovernmentCode,
definesalocalgovernmentunitasabodypoliticandcorporateendowedwithpowerstobe
exercised by it in conformity with law.As such, it performs dual functions, governmental
and proprietary. Governmental functions are those that concern the health, safety and the
advancement of the public good or welfare as affecting the public generally. Proprietary
functionsarethosethatseektoobtainspecialcorporatebenefitsorearnpecuniaryprofitand
intended for private advantage and benefit. When exercising governmental powers and
performing governmental duties, an LGU is an agency of the national government. When
engagedincorporateactivities,itactsasanagentofthecommunityintheadministrationof
localaffairs.

FoundinSection16oftheLocalGovernmentCodeisthedutyoftheLGUsto
promotethepeoplesrighttoabalancedecology.Pursuanttothis,anLGU,liketheCity
of Davao, can not claim exemption from the coverage of PD 1586. As a body politic
endowed with governmental functions, an LGU has the duty to ensure the quality of the
environment,whichistheverysameobjectiveofPD1586.

xxxx

Section4ofPD1586clearlystatesthatnoperson,partnershiporcorporationshall
undertakeoroperateanysuchdeclaredenvironmentallycriticalprojectorareawithoutfirst
securing an Environmental Compliance Certificate issued by the President or his duly
authorizedrepresentative.TheCivilCodedefinesapersonaseithernaturalorjuridical.The
stateanditspoliticalsubdivisions,i.e.,thelocalgovernmentunitsarejuridicalpersons.
Undoubtedlytherefore,localgovernmentunitsarenotexcludedfromthecoverageof
PD1586.

Lastly, very clear in Section 1 of PD 1586 that said law intends to implement the
policy of the state to achieve a balance between socioeconomic development and
environmentalprotection,whicharethetwingoalsofsustainabledevelopment.Theabove
quotedfirstparagraphoftheWhereasclausestressesthatthis can only be possible if we
adoptacomprehensiveandintegratedenvironmentalprotectionprogramwhereallthe
sectorsofthecommunityareinvolved,i.e.,thegovernmentandtheprivatesectors.The
localgovernmentunits,aspartofthemachineryofthegovernment,cannottherefore

[149]

bedeemedasoutsidethescopeoftheEISsystem.

(Emphasessupplied.)

TheCourtchoosestoremandthesematterstorespondentDENREMBRVIforitto
make a proper study, and if it should find necessary, to require respondent Province to
addresstheseenvironmentalissuesraisedbypetitionerandsubmitthecorrectEIAreportas
requiredbytheprojectsspecifications.TheCourtrequiresrespondentDENREMBRVIto
complete its study and submit a report within a nonextendible period of three months.
RespondentDENREMBRVIshouldestablishtotheCourtinsaidreportwhytheECCit
issuedforthesubjectprojectshouldnotbecanceled.

Lackofpriorpublicconsultation

TheLocalGovernmentCodeestablishesthedutiesofnationalgovernmentagencies
in the maintenance of ecological balance, and requires them to secure prior public
consultationandapprovaloflocalgovernmentunitsfortheprojectsdescribedtherein.

In the case before us, the national agency involved is respondent PRA. Even if the
projectproponentisthelocalgovernmentofAklan,itisrespondentPRAwhichauthorized
the reclamation, being the exclusive agency of the government to undertake reclamation
nationwide.Hence,itwasnecessaryforrespondentProvincetogothroughrespondentPRA
and to execute a MOA, wherein respondent PRAs authority to reclaim was delegated to
respondentProvince.RespondentDENREMBRVI,regionalofficeoftheDENR,isalsoa
national government institution which is tasked with the issuance of the ECC that is a
prerequisitetoprojectscoveredbyenvironmentallawssuchastheoneatbar.

Thisprojectcanbeclassifiedasanationalprojectthataffectstheenvironmentaland
ecological balance of local communities, and is covered by the requirements found in the
LocalGovernmentCodeprovisionsthatarequotedbelow:

Section 26. Duty of National Government Agencies in the Maintenance of

EcologicalBalance.Itshallbethedutyofeverynationalagencyorgovernmentownedor
controlled corporation authorizing or involved in the planning and implementation of any
project or program that may cause pollution, climatic change, depletion of nonrenewable
resources, loss of crop land, rangeland, or forest cover, and extinction of animal or plant

species, to consult with the local government units, nongovernmental organizations, and
othersectorsconcernedandexplainthegoalsandobjectivesoftheprojectorprogram,its
impactuponthepeopleandthecommunityintermsofenvironmentalorecologicalbalance,
andthemeasuresthatwillbeundertakentopreventorminimizetheadverseeffectsthereof.

Section 27. Prior Consultations Required. No project or program shall be

implementedbygovernmentauthoritiesunlesstheconsultationsmentionedinSections2(c)
and 26 hereof are complied with, and prior approval of the sanggunian concerned is
obtained:Provided,Thatoccupantsinareaswheresuchprojectsaretobeimplementedshall
notbeevictedunlessappropriaterelocationsiteshavebeenprovided,inaccordancewiththe
provisionsoftheConstitution.

[150]
In Lina, Jr. v. Pao,
we held that Section 27 of the Local Government Code applies
onlytonationalprogramsand/orprojectswhicharetobeimplementedinaparticularlocal
[151]
community
andthatitshouldbereadinconjunctionwithSection26.Weheldfurther
inthismanner:

Thus, the projects and programs mentioned in Section 27 should be interpreted to

meanprojectsandprogramswhoseeffectsareamongthoseenumeratedinSection26and
27, to wit, those that: (1) may cause pollution (2) may bring about climatic change (3)
may cause the depletion of nonrenewable resources (4) may result in loss of crop land,
rangeland,orforestcover(5)mayeradicatecertainanimalorplantspeciesfromtheface
oftheplanetand(6)otherprojectsorprogramsthatmaycallfortheevictionofaparticular
groupofpeopleresidinginthelocalitywherethesewillbeimplemented.Obviously,none
of these effects will be produced by the introduction of lotto in the province of Laguna.
[152]
(Emphasisadded.)

During the oral arguments held on September 13, 2011, it was established that this
projectasdescribedabovefallsunderSection26becausethecommercialestablishmentsto
bebuiltonphase1,asdescribedintheEPRMPquotedabove,couldcausepollutionasit
[153]
couldgenerategarbage,sewage,andpossibletoxicfueldischarge.

[154]
OurrulinginProvinceofRizalv.ExecutiveSecretary
isinstructive:

WereiteratedthisdoctrineintherecentcaseofBangusFryFisherfolkv.Lanzanas,
whereweheldthattherewasnostatutoryrequirementforthesangguniangbayanofPuerto
Galera to approve the construction of a mooring facility, as Sections 26 and 27 are
inapplicabletoprojectswhicharenotenvironmentallycritical.


Moreover, Section 447, which enumerates the powers, duties and functions of the
municipality, grants the sangguniang bayan the power to, among other things, enact
ordinances, approve resolutions and appropriate funds for the general welfare of the
municipalityanditsinhabitantspursuanttoSection16ofth(e)Code.Theseinclude:

(1)Approvingordinancesandpassingresolutionstoprotecttheenvironmentand
imposeappropriatepenaltiesforactswhichendangertheenvironment, such
asdynamitefishingandotherformsofdestructivefishing,illegalloggingand
smuggling of logs, smuggling of natural resources products and of
endangeredspeciesoffloraandfauna,slashandburnfarming,andsuchother
activities which result in pollution, acceleration of eutrophication of rivers
andlakes,orofecologicalimbalance[Section447(1)(vi)]

(2)Prescribingreasonablelimitsandrestraintsontheuseofpropertywithinthe
jurisdictionofthemunicipality,adoptingacomprehensivelanduseplanfor
themunicipality,reclassifyinglandwithinthejurisdictionofthecity,subject
to the pertinent provisions of this Code, enacting integrated zoning
ordinances in consonance with the approved comprehensive land use plan,
subject to existing laws, rules and regulations establishing fire limits or
zones,particularlyinpopulouscentersandregulatingtheconstruction,repair
or modification of buildings within said fire limits or zones in accordance
withtheprovisionsofthisCode[Section447(2)(viix)]

(3)Approvingordinanceswhichshallensuretheefficientandeffectivedelivery
of the basic services and facilities as provided for under Section 17 of this
Code, and in addition to said services and facilities, providing for the
establishment, maintenance, protection, and conservation of communal
forests and watersheds, tree parks, greenbelts, mangroves, and other similar
forest development projects and, subject to existing laws, establishing and
providing for the maintenance, repair and operation of an efficient
waterworks system to supply water for the inhabitants and purifying the
source of the water supply regulating the construction, maintenance, repair
anduseofhydrants,pumps,cisternsandreservoirsprotectingthepurityand
quantity of the water supply of the municipality and, for this purpose,
extendingthecoverageofappropriateordinancesoverallterritorywithinthe
drainage area of said water supply and within one hundred (100) meters of
thereservoir,conduit,canal,aqueduct,pumpingstation,orwatershedusedin
connection with the water service and regulating the consumption, use or
wastageofwater.[Section447(5)(i)&(vii)]

Under the Local Government Code, therefore, two requisites must be met
beforeanationalprojectthataffectstheenvironmentalandecologicalbalanceoflocal
communities can be implemented: prior consultation with the affected local
communities,andpriorapprovaloftheprojectbytheappropriatesanggunian.Absent
[155]
either of these mandatory requirements, the projects implementation is illegal.
(Emphasisadded.)

Based on the above, therefore, prior consultations and prior approval are

required by law to have been conducted and secured by the respondent Province.
Accordingly, the information dissemination conducted months after the ECC had already
beenissuedwasinsufficienttocomplywiththisrequirementundertheLocalGovernment
Code. Had they been conducted properly, the prior public consultation should have
considered the ecological or environmental concerns of the stakeholders and studied
measuresalternativetotheproject,toavoidorminimizeadverseenvironmentalimpactor
damage.Infact,respondentProvinceoncetriedtoobtainthefavorableendorsementofthe
SangguniangBayanofMalay,butthiswasdeniedbythelatter.

Moreover,DENRDAO200330provides:

5.3PublicHearing/ConsultationRequirements

ForprojectsunderCategoryA1,theconductofpublichearingaspartoftheEISreviewis
mandatoryunlessotherwisedeterminedbyEMB.Forallotherundertakings,apublic
hearingisnotmandatoryunlessspecificallyrequiredbyEMB.

Proponents should initiate public consultations early in order to ensure that

environmentallyrelevantconcernsofstakeholdersaretakenintoconsideration
in the EIA study and the formulation of the management plan. All public
consultations and public hearings conducted during the EIA process are to be
documented.Thepublichearing/consultationProcessreportshallbevalidatedbythe
EMB/EMB RD and shall constitute part of the records of the EIA process.
(Emphasissupplied.)

In essence, the abovequoted rule shows that in cases requiring public consultations, the
same should be initiated early so that concerns of stakeholders could be taken into
considerationintheEIAstudy.Inthiscase,respondentProvincehadalreadyfileditsECC
applicationbeforeitmetwiththelocalgovernmentunitsofMalayandCaticlan.

The claim of respondent DENREMB RVI is that no permits and/or clearances from
National Government Agencies (NGAs) and LGUs are required pursuant to the DENR
MemorandumCircularNo.200708.However,westillfindthattheLGCrequirementsof
consultation and approval apply in this case. This is because a Memorandum Circular
cannotprevailovertheLocalGovernmentCode,whichisastatuteandwhichenjoysgreater
weightunderourhierarchyoflaws.

SubsequenttotheinformationcampaignofrespondentProvince,theMunicipalityof
MalayandtheLigangmgaBarangayMalayChapterstillopposedtheproject.Thus,when
respondent Province commenced the implementation project, it violated Section 27 of the
LGC, which clearly enunciates that [no] project or program shall be implemented by
government authorities unless the consultations mentioned in Sections 2(c) and 26 hereof
arecompliedwith,andpriorapprovalofthesanggunianconcernedisobtained.

Thelackofpriorpublicconsultationandapprovalisnotcorrectedbythesubsequent
endorsement of the reclamation project by the Sangguniang Barangay of Caticlan on
February13,2012,andtheSangguniangBayanoftheMunicipalityofMalayonFebruary
28,2012,whichwerebothundoubtedlyachievedattheurgingandinsistenceofrespondent
Province. As we have established above, the respective resolutions issued by the LGUs
concerneddidnotrenderthispetitionmootandacademic.

ItisclearthatbothpetitionerandrespondentProvinceareinterestedinthepromotion
of tourism in Boracay and the protection of the environment, lest they kill the proverbial
henthatlaysthegoldenegg.Atthebeginningofthisdecision,wementionedthatthereare
commongoalsofnationalsignificancethatareveryapparentfromboththepetitionersand
therespondentsrespectivepleadingsandmemoranda.

ThepartiesareevidentlyinaccordinseekingtoupholdthemandatefoundinArticle
II, Declaration of Principles and State Policies, of the 1987 Constitution, which we quote
below:

SECTION 16. The State shall protect and advance the right of the people to a
balancedandhealthfulecologyinaccordwiththerhythmandharmonyofnature.

xxxx

SECTION 20. The State recognizes the indispensable role of the private sector,
encouragesprivateenterprise,andprovidesincentivestoneededinvestments.

Theprotectionoftheenvironmentinaccordancewiththeaforesaidconstitutionalmandate
istheaim,amongothers,ofPresidentialDecreeNo.1586,EstablishinganEnvironmental
Impact Statement System, Including Other Environmental Management Related Measures

andForOtherPurposes,whichdeclaredinitsfirstSectionthatitisthepolicyoftheState
toattainandmaintainarationalandorderlybalancebetweensocioeconomicgrowth
andenvironmentalprotection.

The parties undoubtedly too agree as to the importance of promoting tourism,

pursuanttoSection2ofRepublicActNo.9593,orTheTourismActof2009,whichreads:
SECTION 2. Declaration of Policy. The State declares tourism as an
indispensableelementofthenationaleconomyandanindustryofnationalinterestand
importance,whichmustbeharnessedasanengineofsocioeconomicgrowthandcultural
affirmation to generate investment, foreign exchange and employment, and to continue to
moldanenhancedsenseofnationalprideforallFilipinos.(Emphasisours.)

The primordial role of local government units under the Constitution and the Local
Government Code of 1991 in the subject matter of this case is also unquestionable. The
LocalGovernmentCodeof1991(RepublicActNo.7160)pertinentlyprovides:

Section2.DeclarationofPolicy.(a)ItisherebydeclaredthepolicyoftheState
that the territorial and political subdivisions of the State shall enjoy genuine and
meaningfullocalautonomytoenablethemtoattaintheirfullestdevelopmentasself
reliant communities and make them more effective partners in the attainment of
national goals. Toward this end, the State shall provide for a more responsive and
accountable local government structure instituted through a system of decentralization
wherebylocalgovernmentunitsshallbegivenmorepowers,authority,responsibilities,
andresources.Theprocessofdecentralizationshallproceedfromthenationalgovernment
[156]
tothelocalgovernmentunits.
(Emphasesours.)

As shown by the above provisions of our laws and rules, the speedy and smooth
resolution of these issues would benefit all the parties. Thus, respondent Provinces
cooperationwithrespondentDENREMBRVIintheCourtmandatedreviewoftheproper
classificationandenvironmentalimpactofthereclamationprojectisofutmostimportance.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is hereby PARTIALLY

GRANTED. The TEPO issued by this Court is hereby converted into a writ of
continuingmandamusspecificallyasfollows:

1.

Respondent Department of Environment and Natural Resources

Environmental Management Bureau Regional Office VI shall revisit and

reviewthefollowingmatters:

a. its classification of the reclamation project as a single instead of a co

locatedproject
b.itsapprovalofrespondentProvincesclassificationoftheprojectasamere
expansionoftheexistingjettyportinCaticlan,insteadofclassifyingitasa
newprojectand
c. theimpactofthereclamationprojecttotheenvironmentbasedonnew,
updated, and comprehensive studies, which should forthwith be ordered
byrespondentDENREMBRVI.

2.RespondentProvinceofAklanshallperformthefollowing:

a. fully cooperate with respondent DENREMB RVI in its review of the

reclamation project proposal and submit to the latter the appropriate
reportandstudyand
b.

secure approvals from local government units and hold proper

consultations

with

nongovernmental

organizations

and

other

stakeholdersandsectorsconcernedasrequiredbySection27inrelationto
Section26oftheLocalGovernmentCode.

3. Respondent Philippine Reclamation Authority shall closely monitor the

submission by respondent Province of the requirements to be issued by
respondent DENREMB RVI in connection to the environmental concerns
raised by petitioner, and shall coordinate with respondent Province in
modifyingtheMOA,ifnecessary,basedonthefindingsofrespondentDENR
EMBRVI.

4. ThepetitionerBoracayFoundation,Inc.andtherespondentsTheProvince
of Aklan, represented by Governor Carlito S. Marquez, The Philippine
Reclamation Authority, and The DENREMB (Region VI) are mandated to

submittheirrespectivereportstothisCourtregardingtheircompliancewith
the requirements set forth in this Decision no later than three (3) months
fromthedateofpromulgationofthisDecision.

5. Inthemeantime,therespondents,theirconcernedcontractor/s,and/ortheir
agents, representatives or persons acting in their place or stead, shall
immediately cease and desist from continuing the implementation of the
project covered by ECCR610030967100 until further orders from this
Court.Forthispurpose,therespondentsshallreportwithinfive(5)daysto
this Court the status of the project as of their receipt of this Decision, copy
furnishedthepetitioner.

ThisDecisionisimmediatelyexecutory.

SOORDERED.

TERESITAJ.LEONARDODECASTRO
AssociateJustice

WECONCUR:

ANTONIOT.CARPIO
SeniorAssociateJustice

PRESBITEROJ.VELASCO,JR.
ARTUROD.BRION
AssociateJustice
AssociateJustice

DIOSDADOM.PERALTA
AssociateJustice

MARIANOC.DELCASTILLO
AssociateJustice

MARTINS.VILLARAMA,JR.
AssociateJustice

Onleave
JOSECATRALMENDOZA
AssociateJustice

BIENVENIDOL.REYES
AssociateJustice

LUCASP.BERSAMIN
AssociateJustice

ROBERTOA.ABAD
AssociateJustice

JOSEPORTUGALPEREZ
AssociateJustice

MARIALOURDESP.A.SERENO
AssociateJustice

ESTELAM.PERLASBERNABE
AssociateJustice

CERTIFICATION

IcertifythattheconclusionsintheaboveDecisionhadbeenreachedinconsultationbefore
thecasewasassignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourt.

ANTONIOT.CARPIO
SeniorAssociateJustice
(PerSection12,R.A.296,
TheJudiciaryActof1948,asamended)

*Onleave.
[1]
Rollo,p.1032.
[2]
Id.at10321033.
[3]
Id.at1114.
[4]
Id.at238239.
[5]
Id.
[6]
Id.at4.
[7]
Excerptfromhttp://www.boracayisland.org/aboutboracay.php,lastaccessedonJanuary12,2012.
[8]
Rollo,p.5.
[9]
Id.at400.
[10]
Id.at400401.
[11]
Id.at444467.
[12]
Id.at401.
[13]
Id.
[14]
Id.at45.
[15]
Id.
[16]
Id.at4344.
[17]
Id.at44.
[18]
Id.at402.
[19]
Id.at468525.
[20]
Id.at402.
[21]
Id.at528.
[22]
Id.at403.

[23]
Id.at529530.
[24]
Id.at403.
[25]
Id.at4647.
[26]
Id.
[27]
Id.at531561.
[28]
Id.at49140.
[29]
Id.at48.
[30]
Id.
[31]
Id.at8.
[32]
Id.at562567.
[33]
Id.at404405.
[34]
Id.at405.
[35]
Id.at568569.
[36]
Id.at576577.
[37]
Id.at406407.
[38]
Id.at578587.
[39]
Id.at156.
[40]
Id.at169174.
[41]
Id.at594604.
[42]
Id.at596.
[43]
Id.at407408.
[44]
Id.at605609.
[45]
Id.at610614.
[46]
Id.at615621.
[47]
Id.at622623.
[48]
Id.at624626.
[49]
Id.at627629.
[50]
Id.at910.
[51]
Id.at175.
[52]
Id.at176.
[53]
Id.at178182.
[54]
Id.at183185.
[55]
Id.at11.
[56]
Id.at630631.
[57]
Id.at155156.

[58]
Id.at156.
[59]
Id.at632634.
[60]
Id.at186202.
[61]
Id.at409.
[62]
Id.at635652.
[63]
Id.at409410.
[64]
Id.at656658.
[65]
Id.at660661.
[66]
Id.at653654.
[67]
Id.at222223.
[68]
Id.at13.
[69]
Id.at12.
[70]
Id.
[71]
TheImplementingRulesandRegulationsofPresidentialDecreeNo.1586,whichestablishedThePhilippineEnvironment
ImpactStatementSystem(PEISS).
[72]
Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) documentation of comprehensive studies on environmental
baselineconditionsofacontiguousarea.Italsoincludesanassessmentofthecarryingcapacityoftheareatoabsorb
impactsfromcolocatedprojectssuchasthoseinindustrialestatesoreconomiczones(ecozones).(DENRDAO2003
30,Section3[v].)
[73]
Rollo,p.15ProgrammaticEnvironmentalPerformanceReportandManagementPlan(PEPRMP)documentationofactual
cumulative environmental impacts of colocated projects with proposals for expansion. The PEPRMP should also
describe the effectiveness of current environmental mitigation measures and plans for performance improvement.
(DENRDAO200330,Section3[w].)
[74]
Projectsorseriesofsimilarprojectsoraprojectsubdividedtoseveralphasesand/orstagesbythesameproponentlocatedin
contiguousareas.(DENRDAO200330,Section3[b].)
[75]
Rollo,pp.167168.
[76]
Id.at25.
[77]
Id.at30.
[78]
Id.at396443.
[79]
IRRofE.O.No.532datedJune24,2006,entitledDelegatingtothe[respondentPRA]thePowertoApproveReclamation
Projects.
[80]
ImplementingRulesandRegulationsforthePhilippineEnvironmentalImpactStatementSystem.
[81]
AnECCshallcontainthescopeandlimitationsoftheapprovedactivities,aswellasconditionstoensurecompliancewith
theEnvironmentalManagementPlan.
[82]
Rollo,pp.414415.
[83]
Id.at418.
[84]
Id.
[85]
Id.
[86]
Id.at662682.

[87]
Id.at156165.
[88]
Id.at419.
[89]
Id.
[90]
Id.at420.
[91]
Id.
[92]
Id.at683688.
[93]
Id.at430.
[94]
TheEPRMPwasbasedonthestudyconductedbytheBureauofFisheriesandAquaticResources(BFAR)datedAugust
27,1999(TheObservationsontheFloorBottomanditsMarineResourcesattheProposedJettyPortsatCaticlanand
Manokmanok,Boracay,Aklan).(Rollo,pp.433434.)
[95]
Rollo,pp.433434.
[96]
Id.at436437.
[97]
Id.at438.
[98]
Id.at237252.
[99]
Id.at285294.
[100]
Id.at295296.
[101]
Id.at243.
[102]
Id.at243244.
[103]
Id.at244.
[104]
Id.at245.
[105]
Id.Emphasisintheoriginal.
[106]
Id.at328329.
[107]
Id.at330331.
[108]
Id.at247.
[109]
Id.
[110]
Id.
[111]
Id.at248.
[112]
Id.at731746.
[113]
Id.at732.
[114]
Id.
[115]
Id.at845.
[116]
Id.at846.
[117]
Id.at847.
[118]
Id.at737.
[119]
Id.
[120]
Id.at739.

[121]
Id.at739740.
[122]
Id.at742.
[123]
Id.at744745.
[124]
Id.at9991004.
[125]
Id.at9991001.
[126]
Id.at1008.AttachedasAnnex1isthefollowingletterdatedAugust12,2011fromGovernorMarqueztoPeterAnthony
A.Abaya,GeneralManagerandCEOofrespondentPRA:
Thisreferstoour[MOA]datedMay17,2010which,amongothers,requiredtheProvinceofAklanto
submit requirements within [120] days from effectivity of the said MOA for review and approval by the
[respondent]PRAasbasisfortheissuanceof[NTP]forreclamationworkspertainingtotheremainingphases
oftheprojectconsistingofabout37.4hectares,moreorless.
In this connection, please be informed that we are no longer pursuing the implementation of the
succeedingphasesoftheprojectwithatotalareaof37.4hectaresforourinabilitytocomplywithArticleIV
B.2(3)oftheMOAhence,ourexistingMOAwillcoveronlytheprojectareaof2.64hectares.
[127]
Id.at1009.Annex2:letterfromAbayadatedAugust22,2011,quotedbelow:
Based on our regular monitoring of the Project, the [respondent] PRA has likewise noted that the
ProvincehasnotcompliedwiththerequirementsfortheotherphasesoftheProjectwithintheperiodprovided
undertheMOA.ConsideringthattheperiodwithinwhichtocomplywiththesaidprovisionoftheMOAhad
alreadylapsedandthatyouacknowledgedyourinabilitytocomplywiththesame,kindlybeinformedthatthe
Aklan Beach Zone Restoration and Protection Marina Development Project will now be confined to the
reclamation and development of the 2.64 hectares, more or less. Our Board of Directors, in its meeting of
August18,2011,hasgivenusauthoritytoconfirmyourposition.
[128]
Id.at10021004.
[129]
Id.at1004.
[130]
Rollo,pp.12951304.
[131]
Id.at1299.
[132]
Id.at13011302.
[133]
Id.at1299.
[134]
Id.at13011302.
[135]
Id.
[136]
325Phil.66(1996).
[137]
Id.at81.
[138]
Rollo,pp.10581059.
[139]
Id.at10561057.
[140]
AnnotationtotheRulesofProcedureforEnvironmentalCases,p.45.
[141]
Id.
[142]
RationaletotheRulesofProcedureforEnvironmentalCases,p.76.
[143]
AnnotationtotheRulesofProcedureforEnvironmentalCases,p.45.
[144]
Rollo,p.1009.
[145]
REVISEDPROCEDURALMANUALforDAO200330,Sec.1.9,p.8.
[146]
Id.,Sec.1.2,p.1.

[147]
Rollo,pp.5758.
[148]
437Phil.525(2002).
[149]
Id.at531533.
[150]
416Phil.438(2001).
[151]
Id.at449.
[152]
Id.at450.
[153]
TSN,September13,2011,p.109.Seepp.109133.
[154]
513Phil.557(2005).
[155]
Id.at590592.
[156]
BookI,TitleOne.