Bangus Fry Fisherfolk, et. al. v Hon. Lanzanas et. al.

GR No. 131442
July 10, 2003

FACTS

The Regional Executive Director of Region IV, Department of Environment and

Natural Resources (DENR), issued an Environmental Clearance Certificate (ECC) in
favor of respondent National Power Corporation (NAPOCOR). The ECC authorized
NAPOCOR to construct a temporary mooring facility in Minolo Cove, Sitio Minolo,
Barangay San Isidro, Puerto Galera, Oriental Mindoro. The Sangguniang Bayan of
Puerto Galera has declared Minolo Cove, a mangrove area and breeding ground for
bangus fry, an eco-tourist zone. The mooring facility included the operation of a power
barge. Fisherfolks from Minolo filed a complaint with the RTC for the cancellation of
the ECC and for the issuance of a writ of injunction to stop the construction of the
mooring facility. The fisherfolks claim that they are justified in immediately seeking
judicial recourse because NAPOCOR is guilty of violating the conditions of the ECC,
which requires it to secure a separate ECC for the operation of the power barge. The
ECC also mandates NAPOCOR to secure the usual local government permits, like
zoning and building permits, from the municipal government of Puerto Galera.

ISSUE

Was there non-compliance with the terms of the ECC? THE COURT
DID NOT
RESOLVE THIS ISSUE BECAUSE SUCH REASON DOES NOT JUSTIFY THE DISREGARD OF
PROCEDURES PRESCRIBED UNDER THE LAW.

RATIO

The fact that NAPOCOR's ECC is subject to cancellation for non-compliance with
its conditions does not justify the petitioners' conduct in ignoring the procedure
prescribed in DAO 96-37 on appeals from the decision of the DENR Executive Director.
Petitioners vigorously insist that NAPOCOR should comply with the requirements of
consultation and locational clearance prescribed in DAO 96-37. Ironically, petitioners
themselves refuse to abide with the procedure for filing complaints and appealing
decisions laid down in DAO 96-37. DAO 96-37 provides for a separate administrative
proceeding to address complaints for the cancellation of an ECC. Under such DAO,
complaints to nullify an ECC must undergo an administrative investigation, after which
the hearing officer will submit his report to the EMB Director or the Regional Executive
Director, who will then render his decision. The aggrieved party may file an appeal to
the DENR Secretary, who has authority to issue cease and desist orders. This is the
applicable procedure to address petitioners' complaint on NAPOCOR's alleged
violations and not the filing of the instant case in court.
 Republic of the Philippines v. The City of Davao
G.R. No. 148622
12 September 2002

FACTS

The City of Davao filed an application for a Certificate of Non-Coverage for its
proposed project, the Davao City Artica Sports Dome, with the Environmental
Management Bureau (EMB). The EMB denied the application after finding that the
proposed project was within an environmentally critical area, and pursuant to the
Environmental Impact Statement System (EIS System), in relation to the Philippine
Environment Policy, the City of Davao must undergo the environmental impact
assessment process to secure an Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC), before it
can proceed with the construction of its project. The City of Davao alleges that the
project is neither an environmentally critical project nor within an environmental
critical area; thus was outside the scope of the EIS system. Hence, it was the ministerial
duty of the DENR to issue a Certificate of Non-Coverage in their favor.

ISSUE

Should DENR issue the Certificate of Non-Coverage? YES.

RATIO

The City of Davao has sufficiently shown that the Artica Sports Dome will not
have a significant negative environmental impact because it is not an environmentally
critical project and it is not located in an environmentally critical area. Pursuant to the
EIS System, Proclamation No. 2146 was issued, proclaiming certain areas and types of
projects as environmentally critical and within the scope of the EIS System.

In connection with this, Sec. 5 of the EIS System states that all other projects,
undertakings and areas not declared by the President as environmentally critical shall
be considered as non-critical and shall not be required to submit an EIS. The Artica
Sports Dome does not come close to any of the projects or areas enumerated in
Proclamation No. 2146. Neither is it analogous to any of them. It is clear, therefore, that
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.
 Special People, Inc. Foundation v. Canda, et al.
GR No.160932
14 January 2013

FACTS

Special People, Inc. Foundation (Special People) was a proponent of a water-

resource development and utilization project in Barangay Jimilia-an in the Municipality
of Loboc, Bohol that would involve the tapping and purifying of water from the Loboc
River, and the distribution of the purified water to the residents of Loboc and six other
municipalities. It applied for a Certificate of Non-Coverage (CNC) with the
Environmental Management Bureau (EMB) of the Department of Environment and
Natural Resources (DENR), seeking to be exempt from the requirement of the
Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC). EMB refused to deliver a CNC and
alleged that because the project was located within an environmentally critical area, an
Initial Environmental Examination is required.

ISSUE

Should Special People’s project be granted with a CNC? NO.

RATIO

The CNC is a certification issued by the EMB certifying that a project is not
covered by the Environmental Impact Statement System (EIS System) and that the
project proponent is not required to secure an ECC. The EIS System was established by
P.D. No. 1586 pursuant to Section 4 of P.D. No. 1151 (Philippine Environmental Policy)
that required all entities to submit an EIS for projects that would have a significant
effect on the environment. P.D. No. 1586 exempted from the requirement of an EIS the
projects and areas not declared by the President of the Philippines as environmentally
critical. In addition P.D. No. 2146 provides that “areas frequently visited and/or hard-
hit by natural calamities (geologic hazards, floods, typhoons, volcanic activity, etc.); and
[a]reas with critical slopes; is declared as environmentally critical and within the scope
of the EIS System.”

According to the Supreme Court, there is no sufficient showing that Special

People satisfactorily complied with the requirement to submit the needed certifications.
For one, it submitted no certification to the effect that the project site was not within a
critical slope. Also, the PHIVOLCSs certification showed that the project site had
experienced an Intensity VII earthquake in 1990, a fact that sufficed to place the site in
the category of "areas frequently visited and/or hard-hit by natural calamities." Clearly,
the petitioner failed to establish that it had the legal right to be issued the CNC applied
for, warranting the denial of its application.
 Boracay Foundation Inc. v. Province of Aklan
G.R. No. 196870
26 June 2012

FACTS

The Province of Aklan (Aklan) built the Caticlan Jetty Port and Passenger
Terminal at Barangay Caticlan. In 2005, stakeholders agreed that there was a need to
expand the port facilities due to congestion in the holding area of such existing port.
Aklan deliberated the possible expansion  from its original proposed reclamation area
of 2.64 hectares to 40 hectares in order to maximize the utilization of its resources.
Aklan then entered into a Memorandum of Agreement with the Philippine Reclamation
Authority (PRA) to accomplish such expansion. The Department of Environment and
Natural Resources-Environmental Management Bureau Regional Office VI issued an
Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC) for the project, which only covered 2.64
hectares of land. Boracay Foundation Inc. subsequently filed a petition for
Environmental Protection Order/Issuance of the Writ of Continuing Mandamus.
Boracay Foundation argues that Aklan failed to comply with the relevant rules and
regulations in the acquisition of the ECC, given that the reclamation project is co-located
within the Environmentally Critical Areas requiring the performance of a full
Environmental Impact Assessment. It opined that any project involving Boracay
requires a full EIA since it is an ECA given that Boracay and Caticlan are separated only
by a narrow strait

ISSUE

Did Aklan comply with all the requirements under the pertinent laws and
regulations based on the scope and classification of the project? DENR HAS THE DUTY TO
RESOLVE THIS; COURT REMANDED TO THE DENR FOR RESOLUTION.

RATIO

The DENR is the agency that has the duty to implement the EIS. The Court
recognized 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.
These are the issues needed to be resolved by the DENR: 
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 new
project;
2. Its classification of the reclamation project as a single instead of a co-located
project;
3. The lack of prior public consultations and approval of local government
agencies; and
4. The lack of comprehensive studies regarding the impact of the reclamation
project to the environment.