Republic v City of Davao Held:
Facts: 1 Sec. 15 of the LGC defines a local government unit as a body
City of Davao filed an application with the Environmental
Management Bureau (EMB), for a Certificate of Non-Coverage
(CNC) for its proposed project, the Davao City Artica Sports Dome.
EMB Region XI denied the application, finding the proposed project
was within an environmentally critical area. Davao City must undergo
the environmental impact assessment process to secure an
Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC), pursuant to Sec. 2 PD
1586 (Environmental Impact Statement System) in relation to Sec. 4
of PD 1151 (Philippine Environment Policy), before it can proceed
with the construction of its project. Davao filed a petition for
mandamus and injunction with the RTC, alleging that:
1. Its proposed project was neither environmentally critical project
nor within an environmentally critical area; thus outside the scope of
the EIS system
2. It was a ministerial duty of the DENR, through the EMB-Region XI,
to issue a CNC in favour of respondent upon submission of required
documents.
RTC rendered judgement in favour of respondent.
1. There is nothing in PD 1586, in relation to PD 1151 and Letter of
Instruction No. 1179 (prescribing guidelines from compliance with the
EIA system), which requires LGUs to comply with the EIS law. Only
agencies and instrumentalities of the national government, including
goccs, as well as private corporations, firms and entities are
mandated to go through the EIA process for their proposed projects
which have significant effect on the quality of the environment. An
LGU, not being an agency or instrumentality of the National
Government, is deemed excluded.
2. The site for the Artica Sports was not within an environmentally
critical area. Neither was the project an environmentally critical one.
It therefore becomes mandatory for the DENR, through EMB Region
XI, to approve respondent’s application for CNC after it has satisfied
all the requirements for its issuance.
Issue:
1. Whether or not the contention is correct that LGUs are not
required to comply with the EIS law – NO
2. Whether or not the site was within an environmentally critical area
– NO
politic and corporate endowed with powers to be exercised in
conformity with law. 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. When exercising governmental powers and
performing governmental duties, and LGU is an agency of the
national government. Sec. 16 of the LGC provides for the duty of the
LGUs to promote the people’s right to a balanced ecology. An LGU,
like the Davao City, cannot 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, which is
the very same objective of PD 1586.
Section 4 of PD 1586 states that “no person, partnership or
corporation shall undertake or operate any such environmentally
critical project or area without first securing an ECC.”
The Civil Code defines a person as either natural or juridical. The
state and its political subdivisions, ie the local government units are
juridical persons. Undoubtedly therefore, LGU’s are not excluded
from the coverage of PD 1586.
2. Respondent has sufficiently shown that the Artica Sports Dome
will not have a significant negative environmental impact because it
is not an environmentally critical area. Neither is it an
environmentally critical project. The EISS was established by PD
1586. Thereafter, Proclamation No. 2146 was issued proclaiming the
areas and types of projects which are regarded as environmentally
critical and within the scope of the EISS.
The Artica Sports Dome is not among the projects or areas
enumerated in Proclamation 2146. Neither is it analogous to any of
them. It is therefore the ministerial duty of the DENR to issue the
CNC.