CasesforNATRESandENVIclass

1. Oposav.Factoran
FACTS:
AtaxpayersclasssuitwasfiledbyminorsJuanAntonioOposa,etal.,representingtheir
generationandgenerationsyetunborn,andrepresentedbytheirparentsagainstFulgencio
FactoranJr.,SecretaryofDENR.Theyprayedthatjudgmentberenderedorderingthedefendant,
hisagents,representativesandotherpersonsactinginhisbehalfto:
1.CancelallexistingTimberLicensingAgreements(TLA)inthecountry;
2.Ceaseanddesistfromreceiving,accepting,processing,renewing,orappraisingnew
TLAs;
andgrantingtheplaintiffssuchotherreliefsjustandequitableunderthepremises.They
allegedthattheyhaveaclearandconstitutionalrighttoabalancedandhealthfulecologyandare
entitledtoprotectionbytheStateinitscapacityasparenspatriae.Furthermore,theyclaimthat
theactofthedefendantinallowingTLAholderstocutanddeforesttheremainingforests
constitutesamisappropriationand/orimpairmentofthenaturalresourcespropertyheholdsin
trustforthebenefitoftheplaintiffminorsandsucceedinggenerations.
Thedefendantfiledamotiontodismissthecomplaintonthefollowinggrounds:
1.Plaintiffshavenocauseofactionagainsthim;
2.Theissuesraisedbytheplaintiffsisapoliticalquestionwhichproperlypertainstothe
legislativeorexecutivebranchesofthegovernment.

ISSUE:
Dothepetitionerminorshaveacauseofactioninfilingaclasssuittopreventthe
misappropriationorimpairmentofPhilippinerainforests?

HELD:
Yes.Petitionerminorsassertthattheyrepresenttheirgenerationaswellasgenerationstocome.
TheSupremeCourtruledthattheycan,forthemselves,forothersoftheirgeneration,andforthe
succeedinggeneration,fileaclasssuit.Theirpersonalitytosueinbehalfofsucceeding
generationsisbasedontheconceptofintergenerationalresponsibilityinsofarastherighttoa
balancedandhealthfulecologyisconcerned.Sucharightconsiderstherhythmandharmonyof
naturewhichindispensablyinclude,interalia,thejudiciousdisposition,utilization,
management,renewalandconservationofthecountrysforest,mineral,land,waters,fisheries,

wildlife,offshoreareasandothernaturalresourcestotheendthattheirexploration,
development,andutilizationbeequitablyaccessibletothepresentaswellasthefuture
generations.
Needlesstosay,everygenerationhasaresponsibilitytothenexttopreservethatrhythmand
harmonyforthefullenjoymentofabalancedandhealthfulecology.Putalittledifferently,the
minorsassertionoftheirrighttoasoundenvironmentconstitutesatthesametime,the
performanceoftheirobligationtoensuretheprotectionofthatrightforthegenerationstocome.

ConstitutionalLaw;Thecomplaintfocusesononespecificfundamentallegalright;Therightto
abalancedandhealthfulecology.Thecomplaintfocusesononespecificfundamentallegal
righttherighttoabalancedandhealthfulecologywhich,forthefirsttimeinournations
constitutionalhistory,issolemnlyincorporatedinthefundamentallaw.

Same;Same;Therighttoabalancedandhealthfulecologycarrieswithitthecorrelativedutyto
refrainfromimpairingtheenvironment. Therighttoabalancedandhealthfulecologycarries
withitthecorrelativedutytorefrainfromimpairingtheenvironment.

Same;Same;Therightofthepetitionerstoabalancedandhealthfulecologyisasclearasthe
DENRsdutytoprotectandadvancethesaidright.Thus,therightofthepetitioners(andall
thosetheyrepresent)toabalancedandhealthfulecologyisasclearastheDENRsdutyunder
itsmandateandbyvirtueofitspowersandfunctionsunderE.O.No.192andtheAdministrative
Codeof1987toprotectandadvancethesaidright.
2. BoracayFoundationInc.v.TheProvinceofAklanGRNo.196870(June26,2012)
Environmental Law; Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases (A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC);
Temporary Environmental Protection Order (TEPO); Writs of Continuing Mandamus; The
new Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases, A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC, provides a relief for
petitioner under the writ of continuing mandamus, which is a special civil action that may
be availed of to compel the performance of an act specifically enjoined by law and which
provides for the issuance of a Temporary Environmental Protection Order (TEPO) as an
auxiliary remedy prior to the issuance of the writ itself.The new Rules of Procedure for
Environmental Cases, A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC, provides a relief for petitioner under the writ of
continuing mandamus, which is a special civil action that may be availed of to compel the

performance of an act specifically enjoined by law and which provides for the issuance of a
TEPO as an auxiliary remedy prior to the issuance of the writ itself.
Same; Same; Same; Same; The writ of continuing mandamus permits the court to retain
jurisdiction after judgment in order to ensure the successful implementation of the reliefs
mandated under the courts decision and, in order to do this, the court may compel the
submission of compliance reports from the respondent government agencies as well as avail
of other means to monitor compliance with its decision.The writ of continuing mandamus
permits the court to retain jurisdiction after judgment in order to ensure the successful
implementation of the reliefs mandated under the courts decision and, in order to do this,
the court may compel the submission of compliance reports from the respondent
government agencies as well as avail of other means to monitor compliance with its
decision.

Same; Same; Same; Petitioner had three options where to file this case under the rule: the Regional
Trial Court exercising jurisdiction over the territory where the actionable neglect or omission
occurred, the Court of Appeals, or the Supreme Court.Petitioner had three options where to file this
case under the rule: the Regional Trial Court exercising jurisdiction over the territory where the
actionable neglect or omission occurred, the Court of Appeals, or this Court. Petitioner had no other
plain, speedy, or adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law to determine the questions of unique

national and local importance raised here that pertain to laws and rules for environmental
protection, thus it was justified in coming to this Court.

Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR); Jurisdiction; The

Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) is the government agency vested
with delegated powers to review and evaluate all Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)
reports, and to grant or deny Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECCs) to project
proponentsit is the DENR that has the duty to implement the EIS system.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 project proponents. It is
the DENR that has the duty to implement the EIS system. It appears, however, that
respondent DENR-EMB RVIs evaluation of this reclamation project was problematic, based
on the valid questions raised by petitioner.
Environmental Law; Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases (A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC);
Temporary Environmental Protection Order (TEPO); Prior consultations and prior approval
are required by law to have been conducted and secured by the respondent Province.
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 been issued was insufficient to

comply with this requirement under the Local Government Code. Had they been conducted
properly, the prior public consultation should have considered the ecological or
environmental concerns of the stakeholders and studied measures alternative to the project,
to avoid or minimize adverse environmental impact or damage. In fact, respondent Province
once tried to obtain the favorable endorsement of the Sangguniang Bayan of Malay, but this
was denied by the latter.
Same; Presidential Decree No. 1586; It is the policy of the State to attain and maintain a
rational and orderly balance between socio-economic growth and environmental protection.
The parties are evidently in accord in seeking to uphold the mandate found in Article II,
Declaration of Principles and State Policies, of the 1987 Constitution, which we quote below:
SECTION 16. The State shall pro tect and advance the right of the people to a balanced and
healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature. x x x x SECTION 20.
The State recognizes the indispensable role of the private sector, encourages private
enterprise, and provides incentives to needed investments. The protection of the
environment in accordance with the aforesaid constitutional mandate is the aim, among
others, of Presidential Decree No. 1586, Establishing an Environmental Impact Statement
System, Including Other Environmental Management Related Measures and For Other
Purposes, which declared in its first Section that it is the policy of the State to attain
and maintain a rational and orderly balance between socio-economic growth and
environmental protection.

FACTS:
Claiming that tourist arrivals to Boracay would reach 1 million in the future,
respondent Province of Aklan planned to expand the port facilities at Barangay
Caticlan, Municipality of Malay. Thus, on May 7, 2009, the Sangguniang
Panlalawigan of Aklan Province issued a resolution, authorizing Governor Carlito
Marquez to file an application with respondent Philippine Reclamation Authority
(PRA) to reclaim the 2.64 hectares of foreshore area in Caticlan. In the same year,
the Province deliberated on the possible expansion from its original proposed
reclamation area of 2.64 hectares to forty (40) hectares in order to maximize the
utilization of its resources.
After PRAs approval, on April 27, 2010, respondent Department of
Environment and Natural Resources-Environmental Management Bureau-Region VI
(DENR-EMB RVI) issued to the Province Environmental Compliance Certificate-R61003-096-7100 (the questioned ECC) for Phase 1 of the Reclamation Project to the

extent of 2.64 hectares to be done along the Caticlan side beside the existing jetty
port.
On May 17, 2010, the Province finally entered into a MOA with PRA which
stated that the land use development of the reclamation project shall be for
commercial, recreational and institutional and other applicable uses. It was at this
point that the Province deemed it necessary to conduct a series of public
consultation meetings.
On the other hand, the Sangguniang Barangay of Caticlan, the Sangguniang
Bayan of the Municipality of Malay and petitioner Boracay Foundation, Inc. (BFI), an
organization composed of some 160 businessmen and residents in Boracay,
expressed their strong opposition to the reclamation project on environmental,
socio-economic and legal grounds.
Despite the opposition, the Province merely noted their objections and issued
a notice to the contractor on December 1, 2010 to commence with the construction
of the project. Thus, on June 1, 2011, BFI filed with the Supreme Court the instant
Petition for Environmental Protection Order/Issuance of the Writ of
Continuing Mandamus. Thereafter, the Court issued a Temporary Environmental
Protection Order (TEPO) and ordered the respondents to file their respective
comments to the petition.
The Petition was premised on the following grounds, among others:
a) the Province failed to obtain the favorable endorsement of the LGU
concerned;
b) the Province failed to conduct the required consultation procedures as
required by the Local Government Code (LGC).
The Province responded by claiming that its compliance with the
requirements of DENR-EMB RVI and PRA that led to the approval of the reclamation
project by the said government agencies, as well as the recent enactments of the
Barangay Council of Caticlan and the Sangguniang Bayan of the Municipality of
Malay favorably endorsing the said project, had categorically addressed all the
issues raised by the BFI in its Petition. It also considered the Petition to be
premature for lack of cause of action due to the failure of BFI to fully exhaust the
available administrative remedies even before seeking judicial relief.

ISSUES:
WON the petition is premature because petitioner failed to exhaust
administrative remedies before filing this case?

WON there was proper, timely, and sufficient public consultation for the
project?

RULING:
On the issue of prematurity due to failure to exhaust administrative
remedies
The Court held that the petition is not premature for failing to exhaust
administrative remedies and to observe the hierarchy of courts as claimed by the
respondents.
The Court reiterated their ruling in Pagara v. Court of Appeals where they
clarified that the rule regarding exhaustion of administrative remedies is not a hard
and fast rule. It is not applicable where, among others, there are circumstances
indicating the urgency of judicial intervention such as in the instant case. The rule
may also be disregarded when it does not provide a plain, speedy and adequate
remedy or where the protestant has no other recourse.
Meanwhile, the new Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases, A.M. No. 096-8-SC, provides a relief for petitioner under the writ of continuing mandamus,
which is a special civil action that may be availed of to compel the performance of
an act specifically enjoined by law and which provides for the issuance of a TEPO
as an auxiliary remedy prior to the issuance of the writ itself.
The writ of continuing mandamus allows an aggrieved party to file a verified
petition in the proper court when any government agency or instrumentality or
officer thereof unlawfully neglects the performance of an act which the law
specifically enjoins as a duty xxx in connection with the enforcement or violation of
an environmental law rule or regulation or a right therein, xxx and there is no other
plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Such proper
court may be the Regional Trial Court exercising jurisdiction over the territory where
the actionable neglect or omission occurred, the Court of Appeals, or the Supreme
Court.
Here, the Court found that BFI had no other plain, speedy, or adequate
remedy in the ordinary course of law to determine the questions of unique national
and local importance raised that pertain to laws and rules for environmental
protection.

3. RepublicofthePhilippinesv.TheCityofDavao437Phil525(2002)
FACTS:

Respondent filed an application for a Certificate of Non-Coverage (CNC) for its proposed
project, the Davao City Artica Sports Dome, with the Environmental Management Bureau
however, was denied on the ground that the proposed project was within an environmentally
critical area; that the City of Davao must first undergo the environmental impact assessment
(EIA) process to secure an Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC). Respondent then
filed a petition for mandamus with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), and the latter ruled in favor
of respondent.
ISSUE:
WON the LGUs are excluded from the coverage of PD 1586, one which requires an
environmental impact assessment (EIA) process to secure an Environmental Compliance
Certificate (ECC)
HELD:
No.Section 4 of PD 1586 provides that "no person, partnership or corporation shall
undertake or operate any such declared environmentally critical project or area without first
securing an Environmental Compliance Certificate issued by the President or his duly
authorized representative." We note that LGUs are juridical persons.
HOWEVER, after consideration of the evidence finding Artica Sports Dome is not within an
environmentally critical area neither being a critical project. The said project is not classified
as environmentally critical, or within an environmentally critical area. Consequently, the
DENR has no choice but to issue the Certificate of Non-Coverage. It becomes its ministerial
duty, the performance of which can be compelled by writ of mandamus, such as that issued
by the trial court in the case at bar.

4. ProvinceofRizalv.ExecutiveSecretary513Phil557(2005)
5. ManilaBayv.MMDAGRNos.17194748(Dec8,2008)
6. MostRev.PedroArigoetalv.ScottH.SwiftetalGRNo.206510(Sept.16,2014)
(ReadtheRulesofProcedureonEnvironmentalCases)