Conclusion

We now summarize our findings:

1. The appellate court correctly ruled that the Casiño Group failed to substantiate its claims that the construction and operation of the power plant will cause
environmental damage of the magnitude contemplated under the writ of kalikasan. On the other hand, RP Energy presented evidence to establish that the subject
project will not cause grave environmental damage, through its Environmental Management Plan, which will ensure that the project will operate within the limits of
existing environmental laws and standards;

2. The appellate court erred when it invalidated the ECC on the ground of lack of signature of Mr. Aboitiz in the ECC’s Statement of Accountability relative to the copy
of the ECC submitted by RP Energy to the appellate court. While the signature is necessary for the validity of the ECC, the particular circumstances of this case show
that the DENR and RP Energy were not properly apprised of the issue of lack of signature in order for them to present controverting evidence and arguments on this
point, as the issue only arose during the course of the proceedings upon clarificatory questions from the appellate court. Consequently, RP Energy cannot be faulted
for submitting the certified true copy of the ECC only after it learned that the ECC had been invalidated on the ground of lack of signature in the January 30, 2013
Decision of the appellate court. The certified true copy of the ECC, bearing the signature of Mr. Aboitiz in the Statement of Accountability portion, was issued by the
DENR-EMB, and remains uncontroverted. It showed that the Statement of Accountability was signed by Mr. Aboitiz on December 24, 2008. Because the signing was
done after the official release of the ECC on December 22, 2008, we note that the DENR did not strictly follow its rules, which require that the signing of the
Statement of Accountability should be done before the official release of the ECC. However, considering that the issue was not adequately argued nor was evidence
presented before the appellate court on the circumstances at the time of signing, there is insufficient basis to conclude that the procedure adopted by the DENR was
tainted with bad faith or inexcusable negligence. We remind the DENR, however, to be more circumspect in following its rules. Thus, we rule that the signature
requirement was substantially complied with pro hac vice.

3. The appellate court erred when it ruled that the first and second amendments to the ECC were invalid for failure to comply with a new EIA and for violating DAO
2003-30 and the Revised Manual. It failed to properly consider the applicable provisions in DAO 2003-30 and the Revised Manual for amendment to ECCs. Our own
examination of the provisions on amendments to ECCs in DAO 2003-30 and the Revised Manual, as well as the EPRMP and PDR themselves, shows that the DENR
reasonably exercised its discretion in requiring an EPRMP and a PDR for the first and second amendments, respectively. Through these documents, which the DENR
reviewed, a new EIA was conducted relative to the proposed project modifications. Hence, absent sufficient showing of grave abuse of discretion or patent illegality,
relative to both the procedure and substance of the amendment process, we uphold the validity of these amendments;

4. The appellate court erred when it invalidated the ECC for failure to comply with Section 59 of the IPRA Law.1âwphi1 The ECC is not the license or permit
contemplated under Section 59 of the IPRA Law and its implementing rules. Hence, there is no necessity to secure the CNO under Section 59 before an ECC may be
issued, and the issuance of the subject ECC without first securing the aforesaid certification does not render it invalid;

5. The appellate court erred when it invalidated the LDA between SBMA and RP Energy for failure to comply with Section 59 of the IPRA Law. While we find that a
CNO should have been secured prior to the consummation of the LDA between SBMA and RP Energy, considering that this is the first time we lay down the rule of
action appropriate to the application of Section 59, we refrain from invalidating the LDA for reasons of equity;

6. The appellate court erred when it ruled that compliance with Section 27, in relation to Section 26, of the LGC (i.e., approval of the concerned sanggunian
requirement) is necessary prior to issuance of the subject ECC. The issuance of an ECC does not, by itself, result in the implementation of the project. Hence, there is
no necessity to secure prior compliance with the approval of the concerned sanggunian requirement, and the issuance of the subject ECC without first complying with
the aforesaid requirement does not render it invalid. The appellate court also erred when it ruled that compliance with the aforesaid requirement is necessary prior
to the consummation of the LDA. By virtue of the clear provisions of RA 7227, the project is not subject to the aforesaid requirement and the SBMA’s decision to
approve the project prevails over the apparent objections of the concerned sanggunians. Thus, the LDA entered into between SBMA and RP Energy suffers from no
infirmity despite the lack of approval of the concerned sanggunians; and

7. The appellate court correctly ruled that the issue as to the validity of the third amendment to the ECC cannot be resolved in this case because it was not one of the
issues set during the preliminary conference, and would, thus, violate RP Energy’s right to due process. WHEREFORE, the Court resolves to:

1. DENY the Petition in G.R. No. 207282; and

2. GRANT the Petitions in G.R.Nos. 207257, 207366 and 207276:

2.1. The January 30, 2013 Decision and May 22, 2013 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 00015 are reversed and set aside;

2.2. The Petition for Writ of Kalikasan, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 00015, is denied for insufficiency of evidence;

2.3. The validity of the December 22, 2008 Environmental Compliance Certificate, as well as the July 8, 2010 first amendment and the May 26, 2011 second
amendment thereto, issued by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources in favor of Redondo Peninsula Energy, Inc., are upheld; and

2.4. The validity of the June 8, 2010 Lease and Development Agreement between Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority and Redondo Peninsula Energy, Inc. is upheld.

SO ORDERED.