Hon. Ramon Jesus P.

Paje, in his capacity as secretary of Department of

Environment and Natural Resources vs. Hon. Teodora A. Casino, et. al
749 SCRA 39 (2015)
February 3, 2015

Ponente: DEL CASTILLO, J.

Facts:
On February 2006, Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority (SBMA) established R.A. 7227,
entering a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to Taiwan Cogeneration Corporation
(TCC) expressing their interest to build a power plant in Subic Bay. The SBMA and TCC
entered another MOU to build and operate a coal-fired power plant. Subsequently on
April 24, 2007, the SBMA Ecology Center issued Subic Bay Freeport Zone (SBFZ)
Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC) for the construction, installation, and
operation of 2x150 MW Circulating Fluidized Bed, then later on, due to an amendment
of ECC, changed to a 1x300 MV coal-fired power plant. However, on June 6,2008, TCC
assigned its rights and interest under MOU to Redondo Peninsula Energy.

On July 20, 2012, Hon. Teodoro A. Casiño, et. al, filed to the court for a petition for Writ
of Kalikasan against RP Energy, SBMA, and Hon. Ramon Jesus P. Paje, in his capacity
as secretary of the DENR. The arguments raised by the petitioner for filing a Writ of
Kalikasan based on the future cases that might affect when the power plant be
implemented were as follows; (1) thermal pollution of coastal waters;(2) air pollution due
to dust and combustion gases that can trigger health problems such as asthma; (3)
water pollution from toxic coal and combustion waste; and (4) acid disposition in aquatic
and terrestrial ecosystems which will affect the Province of Bataan and Zambales,
particularly the Municipalities of Subic, Morong, and Hermosa.

Issue:

Whether or not the proposed 1x300 MV coal-fired power plant of the RP Energy violates
the constitutional right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology under Article
16 of the Philippine Constitution.

Held:

The proposed 1x300 MV coal-fired power plant of the RP Energy did not violate the
constitutional right of the people for two reasons; first, the failure to prove that the
constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology was violated or threatened
considering that it fails to comply the requisites of a Writ of Kalikasan; second, that RP
Energy was able to submit an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in compliance of
Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC) that secures the safety and environmental
measures of the proposed power plant.