Boracay to Wildlife 113-1-12

7/25/2019 Boracay to Wildlife 113-1-12

1/39

Boracay Foundation, Inc. v. The Province ofAklan, the Philippine Reclamation Authority andthe DENRE!B "Re#ion $I%A&'tract( Boracay Foundation, Inc. )led apetition for an i''uance of a *rit of mandamu''u'pendin# the implementation of a landreclamation pro+ect alon# the fore'hore' ofBaran#ay aticlan in the Province of Aklan&a'ed on the #round that the cla''i)cation ofthe pro+ect *a' incorrect leadin# to the failure

to perform a full EIA a' re-uired &y la* and thatthere *a' a failure for proper, timely and'ucient pu&lic con'ultation.

The ourt determined that the valid -ue'tion'rai'ed &y the petitioner' put in -ue'tion the'uciency of the evaluation of the pro+ect &ythe Department of Environment and NaturalRe'ource' / Environmental !ana#ementBureau Re#ional 0ce $I "DENRE!B R$I%. Theourt further found that there *a' a lack ofprior con'ultation' and prior approval re-uired&y la*. The ourt therefore i''ued a *rit ofcontinuin# mandamu' 'u'pendin# the

implementation of the pro+ect and re-uirin#,inter alia, the DENRE!B R$I to make a proper'tudy and the Province of Aklan to 'u&mit theappropriate report and to 'ecure approval'from local #overnment unit' and hold propercon'ultation' *ith N10', other 'takeholder'and 'ector' concerned.

a'e Di#e't( Boracay Foundation v.

Province of Aklan

1.R. No. 234567 ( 8une 94, 9729

B0RAA: F0;NDATI0N, IN., Petitioner, v.TAN, REPRE?ENTED

B: 10$. AR>IT0 ?. !AR@;E, TA!ATI0N A;T


2/39

provi'ion' *a' the ri#htful entity to

develop, utilie and reap &ene)t' from the

natural re'ource' found *ithin it'

+uri'diction.

In Au#u't 9773, a Preliminary 1eohaard

A''e''mentfor the

enhancementHepan'ion of the ei'tin#

aticlan 8etty Port and Pa''en#er Terminal

throu#h &each one re'toration andProtective !arina Development' in

aticlan, !alay, Aklan *a' completed.

Thereafter, 1overnor !ar-ue 'u&mitted

an Environmental Performance Report and

!onitorin# Pro#ram "EPR!P% to DENRE!B

R$I, *hich he had attached to hi' letter

dated ?eptem&er 23, 9773, a' an initial

'tep for 'ecurin# an Environmental

ompliance erti)cate "E%. The letter

read' in part(

Cith the pro+ect epected to 'tart it'

con'truction implementation net month,

the province here&y a''ure' your #ood

oce that it *ill #ive preferential attention

to and 'hall comply *ith *hatever

comment' that you may have on thi'

EPR!P.

Cithin the 'ame month of 0cto&er 9773,

re'pondent Province deli&erated on the

po''i&le epan'ion from it' ori#inal

propo'ed reclamation area of 9.4G hectare'

to forty "G7% hectare'.

Re'pondent PRA approved the reclamation

pro+ect on April 97, 9727 in it' Re'olution

No. G73Gand authoried it' 1eneral

!ana#erHhief Eecutive 0cer "E0% to

enter into a !0A *ith re'pondent Province

for the implementation of the reclamation

pro+ect.

0n April 96, 9727, DENRE!B R$I i''ued to

re'pondent Province ER4277734

6277 "the -ue'tioned E% for Pha'e 2 of

the Reclamation Pro+ect to the etent of

9.4G hectare' to &e done alon# the

aticlan 'ide &e'ide the ei'tin# +etty port.

0n !ay 26, 9727, re'pondent Province

entered into a !0A *ith re'pondent PRA

In Re'olution No. 7G4, ?erie' of 9727,

adopted on 8une 9, 9727, the !alay

!unicipality reiterated it' 'tron# oppo'it

to re'pondent Province' pro+ect and den

it' re-ue't for afavora&leendor'ement of

the !arina Pro+ect.

The !alay !unicipality 'u&'e-uently

i''ued Re'olution No. 724, ?erie' of 9727

adopted on Au#u't , 9727, to re-ue't

re'pondent PRA not to #rant reclamation

permit and notice to proceed to the !arin

Pro+ect of the re'pondent Provincial

1overnment of Aklan located at aticlan,

!alay, Aklan.

In a letter dated 0cto&er 29, 9727,

petitioner informed re'pondent PRA of it'oppo'ition to the reclamation pro+ect.

Petitioner like*i'e tran'mitted it'

Re'olution No. 772, ?erie' of 9727,

re#i'terin# it' oppo'ition to the

reclamation pro+ect to re'pondent Provin

re'pondent PRA, re'pondent DENRE!B,

the National Economic Development

Authority Re#ion $I, the !alay !unicipali

and other concerned entitie'.

Petitioner alle#e' that de'pite the !alay

!unicipality' denial of re'pondent

Province' re-ue't for

afavora&leendor'ement, a' *ell a' the

'tron# oppo'ition manife'ted &oth &y

Baran#ay aticlan and petitioner a' an

N10, re'pondent Province 'till continued

*ith the implementation of the

Reclamation Pro+ect.

0n 8une 2, 9722, petitioner )led the in'ta

Petition for Environmental Protection0rderHI''uance of the Crit of ontinuin#

!andamu'. 0n 8une 6, 9722, thi' ourt

i''ued a Temporary Environmental

Protection 0rder "TEP0% and ordered the

re'pondent' to )le their re'pective

comment' to the petition.


3/39

After receivin# a copy of the TEP0 on 8une

3, 9722, re'pondent Province immediately

i''ued an order to the Provincial

En#ineerin# 0ce and the concerned

contractor to cea'e and de'i't from

conductin# any con'truction activitie' until

further order' from thi' ourt.

ISSUES:

[1] Whether or not the petition should be

dismissed for having been rendered moot

and academic;

[2] Whether or not the petition is

premature because petitioner failed to

ehaust administrative remedies before

!ling this case;

["] Whether or not respondent #rovince

failed to perform a full EI$ as re%uired b&

la's and regulations based on the scope

and classi!cation of the pro(ect;[)] Whether or not respondent #rovince

complied 'ith all the re%uirements under

the pertinent la's and regulations; and

[*] Whether or not there 'as proper+

timel&+ and su,cient public consultation

for the pro(ect

D(

A clo'e readin# of the t*o >1;' re'pective

re'olution' *ould reveal that they are not

'ucient to render the petition moot and

academic, a' there are eplicit condition'

impo'ed that mu't &e complied *ith &y

re'pondent Province. In Re'olution No. 77,

'erie' of 9729, of the ?an##unian#

Baran#ay of aticlan it i' 'tated that any

vertical 'tructure' to &e con'tructed 'hall

&e 'u&+ect for &aran#ay endor'ement.

learly, *hat the &aran#ay endor'ed *a'

the reclamation only, and not the entire

pro+ect that include' the con'truction of a

commercial &uildin# and *ellne'' center,and other touri'mrelated

facilitie'.Petitioner' o&+ection', a' may &e

recalled, pertain not only to the

reclamation per 'e, &ut al'o to the &uildin#

to &e con'tructed and the entire pro+ect'

perceived ill eect' to the 'urroundin#

environment.

The ?an##unian# Bayan of !alay o&viou

impo'ed eplicit condition' for re'ponde

Province to comply *ith on pain of

revocation of it' endor'ement of the

pro+ect, includin# the need to conduct a

comprehen'ive 'tudy on the environmen

impact of the reclamation pro+ect, *hich

the heart of the petition &efore u'.

Therefore, the content' of the t*ore'olution' 'u&mitted &y re'pondent

Province do not 'upport it' conclu'ion th

the 'u&'e-uent favora&le endor'ement o

the >1;' had already addre''ed all the

i''ue' rai'ed and rendered the in'tant

petition moot and academic.

Ce do not a#ree *ith re'pondent'

appreciation of the applica&ility of the ru

on ehau'tion of admini'trative remedie

in thi' ca'e. Ce are reminded of our rulinin Pa#ara v. ourt of Appeal', *hich

'ummaried our earlier deci'ion' on the

procedural re-uirement of ehau'tion of

admini'trative remedie', to *it(

RE!EDIA> >AC( ehau'tion of

admini'trative remedie'

The rule re#ardin# ehau'tion of

admini'trative remedie' i' not a hard and

fa't rule. It i' not applica&le( "2% *here th

-ue'tion in di'pute i' purely a le#al one,

"9% *here the controverted act i' patentl

ille#al or *a' performed *ithout

+uri'diction or in ece'' of +uri'dictionJ or

"% *here the re'pondent i' a departmen

'ecretary, *ho'e act' a' an alter e#o of

the Pre'ident &ear the implied or a''ume

approval of the latter, unle'' actually

di'approved &y him, or "G% *here there a

circum'tance' indicatin# the ur#ency of

+udicial intervention.

?aid principle may al'o &e di're#arded

*hen it doe' not provide a plain, 'peedy

and ade-uate remedy, *hen there i' no

due proce'' o&'erved, or *here the

prote'tant ha' no other recour'e.

Althou#h petitioner *a' not a party to th


4/39

proceedin#' *here the deci'ion to i''ue an

E *a' rendered, it 'tand' to &e

a##rieved &y the deci'ion, &ecau'e it

claim' that the reclamation of land on the

aticlan 'ide *ould unavoida&ly adver'ely

aect the Boracay 'ide, *here petitioner'

mem&er' o*n e'ta&li'hment' en#a#ed in

the touri'm trade. A' noted earlier,

petitioner contend' that the declared

o&+ective of the reclamation pro+ect i' toeploit Boracay' touri'm trade &ecau'e the

pro+ect i' intended to enhance 'upport

'ervice' theretoJ ho*ever, thi' o&+ective

*ould not &e achieved 'ince the *hite

'and &eache' for *hich Boracay i' famou'

mi#ht &e ne#atively aected &y the

pro+ect. Petitioner' conclu'ion i' that

re'pondent Province, aided and a&etted &y

re'pondent' PRA and DENRE!B R$I,

i#nored the 'pirit and letter of our

environmental la*', and 'hould thu' &ecompelled to perform their dutie' under

'aid la*'.

RE!EDIA> >AC( ne* rule' of procedure for

environmental ca'e'J *rit of continuin#

mandamu'

The ne* Rule' of Procedure for

Environmental a'e', A.!. No. 7345?,

provide' a relief for petitioner under the

*rit of continuin# mandamu', *hich i' a

'pecial civil action that may &e availed of

to compel the performance of an act

'peci)cally en+oined &y la* and *hich

provide' for the i''uance of a TEP0 a' an

auiliary remedy prior to the i''uance of

the *rit it'elf. The Rationale of the 'aid

Rule' eplain' the *rit in thi' *i'e(

Environmental la* hi#hli#ht' the 'hift in

the focalpoint from the initiation of

re#ulation &y on#re'' to the

implementation of re#ulatory pro#ram' &ythe appropriate #overnment a#encie'.

Thu', a #overnment a#ency' inaction, if

any, ha' 'eriou' implication' on the future

of environmental la* enforcement. Private

individual', to the etent that they 'eek to

chan#e the 'cope of the re#ulatory

proce'', *ill have to rely on 'uch a#encie

to take the initial incentive', *hich may

re-uire a +udicial component. Accordin#ly

-ue'tion' re#ardin# the propriety of an

a#ency' action or inaction *ill need to &e

analyed.

Thi' point i' empha'ied in the availa&ilit

of the remedy of the *rit of mandamu',

*hich allo*' for the enforcement of theconduct of the ta'k' to *hich the *rit

pertain'( the performance of a le#al duty

The *rit of continuin# mandamu' permit

the court to retain +uri'diction after

+ud#ment in order to en'ure the 'ucce''f

implementation of the relief' mandated

under the court' deci'ion and, in order to

do thi', the court may compel the

'u&mi''ion of compliance report' from th

re'pondent #overnment a#encie' a' *ela' avail of other mean' to monitor

compliance *ith it' deci'ion.

Petitioner had three option' *here to )le

thi' ca'e under the rule( the Re#ional Tria

ourt eerci'in# +uri'diction over the

territory *here the actiona&le ne#lect or

omi''ion occurred, the ourt of Appeal',

thi' ourt.

Petitioner had no other plain, 'peedy, or

ade-uate remedy in the ordinary cour'e

la* to determine the -ue'tion' of uni-ue

national and local importance rai'ed here

that pertain to la*' and rule' for

environmental protection, thu' it *a'

+u'ti)ed in comin# to thi' ourt.

% Bein# the admini'trator of the EI?

?y'tem, re'pondent DENRE!B R$I'

'u&mi''ion' &ear #reat *ei#ht in thi'

ca'e.


5/39

K9L It' cla''i)cation of the reclamation

pro+ect a' a 'in#le in'tead of a colocated

pro+ectJ

KL The lack of prior pu&lic con'ultation'

and approval of local #overnment

a#encie'J and

KGL The lack of comprehen'ive 'tudie'

re#ardin# the impact of the reclamation

pro+ect to the environment.

A' may &e #leaned from the &reakdo*n ofthe 9.4G hectare' a' de'cri&ed &y

re'pondent Province a&ove, a 'i#ni)cant

portion of the reclaimed area *ould &e

devoted to the con'truction of a

commercial &uildin#, and the area to &e

utilied for the epan'ion of the +etty port

con'i't' of a mere ,777 '-uare meter'

"'-. m%. To &e true to it' de)nition, the EIA

report 'u&mitted &y re'pondent Province

'hould at the very lea't predict the impact

that the con'truction of the ne* &uildin#'on the reclaimed land *ould have on the

'urroundin# environment. The'e ne*

con'truction' and their environmental

eect' *ere not covered &y the old 'tudie'

that re'pondent Province previou'ly

'u&mitted for the con'truction of the

ori#inal +etty port in 2333, and *hich it re

'u&mitted in it' application for E in thi'

alle#ed epan'ion, in'tead of conductin#

updated and more comprehen'ive 'tudie'.

Any impact on the Boracay 'ide cannot &e

totally i#nored, a' aticlan and Boracay are

'eparated only &y a narro* 'trait. Thi'

&ecome' more imperative &ecau'e of the

'i#ni)cant contri&ution' of Boracay' *hite

'and &each to the country' touri'm trade,

*hich re-uire' re'pondent Province to

proceed *ith utmo't caution in

implementin# pro+ect' *ithin it' vicinity.

P0>ITIA> >AC( pu&lic con'ultation

The >ocal 1overnment ode e'ta&li'he'

the dutie' of national #overnment a#encie'

in the maintenance of ecolo#ical &alance,

and re-uire' them to 'ecure prior pu&lic

con'ultation and approval of local

#overnment unit' for the pro+ect'

de'cri&ed therein.

In the ca'e &efore u', the national a#enc

involved i' re'pondent PRA. Even if the

pro+ect proponent i' the local #overnmen

of Aklan, it i' re'pondent PRA *hich

authoried the reclamation, &ein# the

eclu'ive a#ency of the #overnment to

undertake reclamation nation*ide. ocal 1overnment ode provi'ion'

;nder the >ocal 1overnment ode,

therefore, t*o re-ui'ite' mu't &e met

&efore a national pro+ect that aect' the

environmental and ecolo#ical &alance of

local communitie' can &e implemented(

prior con'ultation*ith the aected local

communitie', and prior approval of the

pro+ect &y the appropriate 'an##unian.

A&'ent either of the'e mandatory

re-uirement', the pro+ect' implementatio

i' ille#al.

Ba'ed on the a&ove, therefore, prior

con'ultation' and prior approval are

re-uired &y la* to have &een conducted

and 'ecured &y the re'pondent Province.

Accordin#ly, the information di''eminatio

conducted month' after the E had

already &een i''ued *a' in'ucient tocomply *ith thi' re-uirement under the

>ocal 1overnment ode.


6/39

minimie adver'e environmental impact or

dama#e. In fact, re'pondent Province once

tried to o&tain the favora&le endor'ement

of the ?an##unian# Bayan of !alay, &ut

thi' *a' denied &y the latter.

!oreover, DENR DA0 9777 provide'(

M..Pu&lic 1;' concerned did not render thi' petit

moot and academic.

It i' clear that &oth petitioner and

re'pondent Province are intere'ted in the

promotion of touri'm in Boracay and the

protection of the environment, le't they

the prover&ial hen that lay' the #oldene##. At the &e#innin# of thi' deci'ion, *e

mentioned that there are common #oal'

national 'i#ni)cance that are very appare

from &oth the petitioner' and the

re'pondent' re'pective pleadin#' and

memoranda.

A' 'ho*n &y the a&ove provi'ion' of our

la*' and rule', the 'peedy and 'mooth

re'olution of the'e i''ue' *ould &ene)t a

the partie'. Thu', re'pondent Province'cooperation *ith re'pondent DENRE!B

R$I in the ourtmandated revie* of the

proper cla''i)cation and environmental

impact of the reclamation pro+ect i' of

utmo't importance.

C>: 1RANTED. T

TEP0 i''ued &y thi' ourt i' here&y

converted into a *rit of continuin#

mandamu' 'peci)cally a' follo*'(

2. Re'pondent Department of Environme

and Natural Re'ource'Environmental

!ana#ement Bureau Re#ional 0ce $I

'hall revi'it and revie* the follo*in#

matter'(

a. it' cla''i)cation of the reclamation

pro+ect a' a 'in#le in'tead of a colocated

pro+ectJ

&. it' approval of re'pondent Province'

cla''i)cation of the pro+ect a' a mere

epan'ion of the ei'tin# +etty port inaticlan, in'tead of cla''ifyin# it a' a ne*

pro+ectJ and

c. the impact of the reclamation pro+ect t

the environment &a'ed on ne*, updated

and comprehen'ive 'tudie', *hich 'hould

forth*ith &e ordered &y re'pondent DENR

E!B R$I.


7/39

9. Re'pondent Province of Aklan 'hall

perform the follo*in#(

a. fully cooperate *ith re'pondent DENR

E!B R$I in it' revie* of the reclamation

pro+ect propo'al and 'u&mit to the latter

the appropriate report and 'tudyJ and

&. 'ecure approval' from local #overnment

unit' and hold proper con'ultation' *ith

non#overnmental or#aniation' and other

'takeholder' and 'ector' concerned a're-uired &y ?ection 96 in relation to

?ection 94 of the >ocal 1overnment ode.

Re'pondent Philippine Reclamation

Authority 'hall clo'ely monitor the

'u&mi''ion &y re'pondent Province of the

re-uirement' to &e i''ued &y re'pondent

DENRE!B R$I in connection to the

environmental concern' rai'ed &y

petitioner, and 'hall coordinate *ith

re'pondent Province in modifyin# the !0A,if nece''ary, &a'ed on the )ndin#' of

re'pondent DENRE!B R$I.

The petitioner Boracay Foundation, Inc. and

the re'pondent' The Province of Aklan,

repre'ented &y 1overnor arlito ?.

!ar-ue, The Philippine Reclamation

Authority, and The DENRE!B "Re#ion $I%

are mandated to 'u&mit their re'pective

report' to thi' ourt re#ardin# their

compliance *ith the re-uirement' 'et forth

in thi' Deci'ion no later than three "%

month' from the date of promul#ation of

thi' Deci'ion.

In the meantime, the re'pondent', their

concerned contractorH', andHor their

a#ent', repre'entative' or per'on' actin#

in their place or 'tead, 'hall immediately

cea'e and de'i't from continuin# the

implementation of the pro+ect covered &y

ER42777346277 until further order'

from thi' ourt. For thi' purpo'e, there'pondent' 'hall report *ithin )ve "M%

day' to thi' ourt the 'tatu' of the pro+ect

a' of their receipt of thi' Deci'ion, copy

furni'hed the petitioner.

Full Tet(In re'olvin# thi' controver'y, the ourt tointo con'ideration that all the partie' involv'hare common #oal' in pur'uit of certprimordial ?tate policie' and principle' that aen'hrined in the on'titution and pertinela*', 'uch a' the protection of tenvironment, the empo*erment of the lo#overnment unit', the promotion of touri'and the encoura#ement of the participationthe private 'ector. The ourt 'eek' to reconcthe re'pective role', dutie' and re'pon'i&ilitof the petitioner and re'pondent' in achievthe'e 'hared #oal' *ithin the contet of oon'titution, la*' and re#ulation'.


8/39

-ature of the .ase( Thi' i' an ori#inal petitionfor the i''uance of an Environmental Protection0rder in the nature of acontinuin# mandamus under A.!. No. 7345?, other*i'e kno*n a' the Rule' of Procedurefor Environmental a'e', promul#ated on April93, 9727.

/he #arties( Petitioner Boracay Foundation, Inc."petitioner% i' a duly re#i'tered, non'tock

dome'tic corporation. It' primary purpo'e i' tofo'ter a united, concerted and environmentcon'ciou' development of Boracay I'land,there&y pre'ervin# and maintainin# it' culture,natural &eauty and ecolo#ical &alance, markin#the i'land a' the cro*n +e*el of Philippinetouri'm, a prime touri't de'tination in A'ia andthe *hole *orld.K2LIt count' amon# it'mem&er' at lea't 'ity "47% o*ner' andrepre'entative' of re'ort', hotel', re'taurant',and 'imilar in'titution'J at lea't )ve communityor#aniation'J and 'everal environmentallycon'ciou' re'ident' and advocate'.K9L

Re'pondent Province of Aklan "re'pondentProvince% i' a political 'u&divi'ion of the#overnment created pur'uant to Repu&lic ActNo. 2G2G, repre'ented &y


9/39

the holdin# area of the ei'tin# port, cau'ed &yinade-uate facilitie', thu' touri't' 'uered lon#-ueue' *hile *aitin# for the &oat ride #oin# tothe i'land.K29L

Re'pondent Province claimed that

touri't arrival' to Boracay reachedapproimately 4G3,MM3 in 9773 and 663,444 in9727, and thi' *a' epected to reach a recordof 2 million touri't arrival' in the year' to

come. Thu', re'pondent Provinceconceptualied the epan'ion of the portfacilitie' at Baran#ay aticlan.K2L

The Sangguniang0aranga&of aticlan,

!alay !unicipality, i''ued Re'olution No. 2, '.9775K2GLon April 9M, 9775 'tatin# that it hadlearned that re'pondent Province had )led anapplication *ith the DENR for a fore'hore lea'eof area' alon# the 'horeline' of Baran#ayaticlan, and manife'tin# it' 'tron# oppo'itionto 'aid application, a' the propo'ed fore'horelea'e practically covered almo't all the

coa'tline' of 'aid baranga&, there&y technicallydimini'hin# it' territorial +uri'diction, once#ranted, and deprivin# it' con'tituent' of their'tatutory ri#ht of preference in thedevelopment and utiliation of the naturalre'ource' *ithin it' +uri'diction. The re'olutionfurther 'tated that re'pondent Province did notconduct any con'ultation' *iththe Sangguniang0aranga&of aticlanre#ardin# the propo'ed fore'hore lea'e, *hichfailure the Sangguniancon'idered a' an act of&ad faith on the part of re'pondent Province.K2ML

0n Novem&er 97, 9775,the Sangguniang #anlala'iganof re'pondentProvince approved Re'olution No. 977543,K24Lformally authoriin# 1overnor !ar-ue toenter into ne#otiation' to*ard' the po''i&ilityof eectin# 'elfli-uidatin# and incomeproducin# development and livelihood pro+ect'to &e )nanced throu#h &ond', de&enture','ecuritie', collateral', note' or othero&li#ation' a' provided under ?ection 933 ofthe >ocal 1overnment ode, *ith the follo*in#priority pro+ect'( "a% renovationHreha&ilitation ofthe aticlanHa#&an Pa''en#er TerminalBuildin#' and 8etty Port'J and "&% reclamation ofa portion of aticlan fore'hore for commercialpurpo'e'.K26LThi' 'tep *a' taken a' re'pondentProvince' ei'tin# +etty port and pa''en#erterminal *a' funded throu#h &ond otation,*hich *a' 'ucce''fully redeemed and paidahead of the tar#et date. Thi' *a' alle#edlycited a' one of the >1;' Be't Practice' *hereinre'pondent Province *a' #iven the appropriatecommendation.K25L

Re'pondent Province included t

propo'ed epan'ion of the port facilitie' Baran#ayaticlanin it' 9773 AnnInve'tment Plan,K23Lenvi'ioned a' it' pro+'ite the area ad+acent to the ei'tin# +etty poand identi)ed additional area' alon# tcoa'tline of Baran#ay aticlan a' the 'ite future pro+ect epan'ion.K97L

1overnor !ar-ue 'ent a letter to re'pondePRA on !arch 29, 9773K92Lepre''in# tintere't of re'pondent Province to reclaa&out 9.4G hectare' of land alon# tfore'hore' of Baran#ay aticlan, !unicipality!alay, Province of Aklan.?ometime in April 9773, re'pondent Provinentered into an a#reement *ith the FinancAdvi'orHon'ultant that *on in the &iddproce'' held a month &efore, to conduct tnece''ary fea'i&ility 'tudy of the propo'pro+ect for the RenovationHReha&ilitation of t

aticlan Pa''en#er Terminal Buildin# and 8ePort, Enhancement and Recovery of 0aticlan oa'tline, and Reclamation of a Portof Fore'hore for ommercial Purpo'e' "!arina Pro+ect%, in !alay, Aklan.K99L

?u&'e-uently, on !ay 6, 97the Sangguniang #anlala'iganof re'pondProvince i''ued Re'olution No. 97732K9L*hich authoried 1overnor !ar-ue to an application to reclaim the 9.4G hectare'fore'hore area in aticlan, !alay, Aklan *re'pondent PRA.

?ometime in 8uly 9773, the FinancAdvi'orHon'ultant came up *ith a fea'i&i'tudy *hich focu'ed on the land reclamation9.4G hectare' &y *ay of &each enhancemeand recovery of the old aticlan coa'tline the reha&ilitation and epan'ion of the ei't

+etty port, and for it' future plan' tcon'truction of commercial &uildin# a*ellne'' center. The )nancial component of t'aid 'tudy *a' T*o


10/39

provi'ion' *a' the ri#htful entity to develop,utilie and reap &ene)t' from the naturalre'ource' found *ithin it' +uri'diction.K94L

In Au#u't 9773, a Preliminary

1eohaard A''e''mentK96Lfor theenhancementHepan'ion of the ei'tin#aticlan 8etty Port and Pa''en#er Terminalthrou#h &each one re'toration and Protective!arina Development' in aticlan, !alay, Aklan

*a' completed.

Thereafter, 1overnor !ar-ue 'u&mittedan Environmental Performance Report and!onitorin# Pro#ram "EPR!P%K95Lto DENRE!BR$I, *hich he had attached to hi'letterK93Ldated ?eptem&er 23, 9773, a' aninitial 'tep for 'ecurin# an Environmentalompliance erti)cate "E%. The letter read'in part(

Cith the pro+ect epected to

'tart it' con'truction implementation

net month, the province here&ya''ure' your #ood oce that it *ill #ivepreferential attention to and 'hallcomply *ith *hatever comment' thatyou may have on thi' EPR!P.K7L"Empha'i' added.%

Re'pondent Province *a' thenauthoried to i''ue aticlan ?uper !arinaBond' for the purpo'e of fundin# therenovation of the aticlan 8etty Port andPa''en#er Terminal Buildin#, and the

reclamation of a portion of the fore'hore lea'earea for commercial purpo'e' in !alay, Aklanthrou#h Provincial 0rdinance No. 977372,approved on ?eptem&er 27, 9773. The 'aidordinance authoried 1overnor !ar-ue tone#otiate, 'i#n and eecute a#reement' inrelation to the i''uance of the aticlan ?uper!arina Bond' in the amount noteceedin# P947,777,777.77.K2L

?u&'e-uently, the Sangguniang

#anlala'iganof the Province of Aklani''ued Provincial 0rdinance No. 977372MK9Lon0cto&er 2, 9773, amendin# Provincial0rdinance No. 977372, authoriin# the &ondotation of the Province of Aklan throu#h1overnor !ar-ue to fund the !arina Pro+ectand appropriate the entire proceed' of 'aid&ond' for the pro+ect, and further authoriin#1overnor !ar-ue to ne#otiate, 'i#n andeecute contract' or a#reement' pertinent tothe tran'action.KL

Cithin the 'ame month of 0cto&9773, re'pondent Province deli&erated on tpo''i&le epan'ion from it' ori#inal propo'reclamation area of 9.4G hectare' to forty "Ghectare' in order to maimie the utiliationit' re'ource' and a' a re'pon'e to the )ndinof the Preliminary 1eohaard A''e''ment 'tu*hich 'ho*ed that the rece''ion and retreatthe 'horeline cau'ed &y coa'tal ero'ion a'courin# 'hould &e the )r't ma+or concern

the pro+ect 'ite and near&y coa'tal area. T'tudy like*i'e indicated the vulnera&ility of tcoa'tal one *ithin the propo'ed pro+ect 'and the near&y coa'tal area due to the eeof 'ea level ri'e and climate chan#e *hich *#reatly aect the 'ocial, economic, aenvironmental 'ituation of aticlan and near!alay coa'tal communitie'.KGL

In hi' letter dated 0cto&er 99, 97

addre''ed to re'pondent PRA, 1over!ar-ue *rote(

Cith our 'u&'tantial compliance*ith the re-uirement' underAdmini'trative 0rder No. 97769 relativeto our re-ue't to PRA for approval of thereclamation of the Kpropo'ed Beachone Re'toration and Protection !arineDevelopment in Baran#ay' aticlan and!anoc!anocL and a' a re'ult of ourdi'cu''ion durin# the Kmeetin# *ith there'pondent PRA on 0cto&er 29, 9773L,may *e re'pectfully 'u&mit a revi'edReclamation Pro+ect De'criptionem&odyin# certain revi'ion'Hchan#e' in

the 'ie and location of the area' to &ereclaimed. .0n another note, *e are plea'ed

to inform your 0ce that the &ondotation *e have 'ecured *ith the >ocal1overnment ;nit 1uarantee orporation">1;1% ha' &een )nally approved la't0cto&er 2G, 9773. Thi' *ill pave the *ayfor the implementation of 'aid pro+ect.Briey, the Province ha' &eenreco#nied &y the Bureau of >ocal1overnment Finance "B>1F% for it'capa&ility to meet it' loan o&li#ation'. .

Cith the continued increa'e of

touri't' comin# to Boracay throu#haticlan, the Province i' venturin# into'uch development pro+ect *ith the endin vie* of protection andHor re'torin#certain 'e#ment' of the 'horeline inBaran#ay' aticlan "aticlan 'ide% and
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/196870.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/196870.htm#_ftn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/196870.htm#_ftn29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/196870.htm#_ftn30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/196870.htm#_ftn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/196870.htm#_ftn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/196870.htm#_ftn33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/196870.htm#_ftn34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/196870.htm#_ftn35http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/196870.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/196870.htm#_ftn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/196870.htm#_ftn29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/196870.htm#_ftn30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/196870.htm#_ftn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/196870.htm#_ftn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/196870.htm#_ftn33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/196870.htm#_ftn34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/196870.htm#_ftn35


11/39

!anocmanoc "Boracay 'ide% *hich, a'reported &y epert', ha' &eeneperiencin# tremendou' coa'talero'ion.

For the pro+ect to &e 'elf

li-uidatin#, ho*ever, *e *ill &edevelopin# the reclaimed land forcommercial and touri'mrelatedfacilitie' and for other complementary

u'e'.KML

"Empha'i' our'.%

Then, on Novem&er 23, 9773,the Sangguniang#anlala'iganenacted Re'olution No. 9773933K4Lauthoriin# 1overnor !ar-ue to enterinto a !emorandum of A#reement "!0A% *ithre'pondent PRA in the implementation of theBeach one Re'toration and Protection !arinaDevelopment Pro+ect, *hich 'hall reclaim atotal of G7 hectare' in the area' ad+acent to the

+etty port' at Baran#ay aticlan and Baran#ay

!anocmanoc. The Sangguniang#anlala'iganapproved the term' andcondition' of the nece''ary a#reement' for theimplementation of the &ond otation ofre'pondent Province to fund therenovationHreha&ilitation of the ei'tin# +ettyport &y *ay of enhancement and recovery ofthe 0ld aticlan 'horeline throu#h reclamationof an area of 9.4G hectare' in the amountofP947,777,777.77 on Decem&er 2, 9773.K6L

Re'pondent Province #ave an initial

pre'entation of the pro+ect *ith con'ultation to

the Sangguniang 0a&anof !alay

K5L

onDecem&er 3, 9773.Re'pondent PRA approved the

reclamation pro+ect on April 97, 9727 in it'Re'olution No. G73G and authoried it' 1eneral!ana#erHhief Eecutive 0cer "E0% to enterinto a !0A *ith re'pondent Province for theimplementation of the reclamation pro+ect.K3L

0n April 96, 9727, DENRE!B R$I i''ued

to re'pondent Province ER42777346277 "the -ue'tioned E% for Pha'e 2 of theReclamation Pro+ect to the etent of 9.4Ghectare' to &e done alon# the aticlan 'ide&e'ide the ei'tin# +etty port.KG7L

0n !ay 26, 9727, re'pondent Province

entered into a !0AKG2L*ith re'pondent PRA.;nder Article III, the Pro+ect *a' de'cri&edtherein a' follo*'(

The propo'ed Aklan Beach oneRe'toration and Protection !arinaDevelopment Pro+ect involve' thereclamation and development ofapproimately forty "G7% hectare' offore'hore and o'hore area' of the!unicipality of !alay .

The land u'e development of the

reclamation pro+ect 'hall &e for

commercial, recreational andin'titutional and other applica&le u'e'.KG9L"Empha'e' 'upplied.%

It *a' at thi' point that re'pondeProvince deemed it nece''ary to conduct'erie' of *hat it call' informationeducatcampai#n', *hich provided the venue interaction and dialo#ue *ith the pu&particularly the 0aranga&and !uniciocial' of the !unicipality of !alay, tre'ident' of Baran#ay aticlan and Boracthe 'takeholder', and the non#overnmenor#aniation' "N10'%. The detail' of t

campai#n are 'ummaried a' follo*'KGL

(a. 8une 26, 9727 at a'a Pilar Beach

Re'ort, Boracay I'land, !alay, AklanJKGGL

&. 8uly 95, 9727 at aticlan 8etty Port and

Pa''en#er TerminalJKGML

c. 8uly 2, 9727 at Baran#ay aticlan

PlaaJKG4L

d. ?eptem&er 2M, 9727 at the 0ce of

the Provincial 1overnor *ith !unicipal

!ayor of !alay !ayor 8ohn P. :apJ

KG6L

e. 0cto&er 29, 9727 at the 0ce of the

Provincial 1overnor *ith the ProvincialDevelopment ouncil EecutiveommitteeJKG5Land

f. 0cto&er 93, 9727 at the 0ce of theProvincial 1overnor *ith 0cial' of>1;!alay and Petitioner.KG3L

Petitioner claim' that durin# the pu&con'ultation meetin# &elatedly called re'pondent Province on 8une 26, 97re'pondent Province pre'ented the ReclamatPro+ect and only then detailed the action' thit had already undertaken, particularly( ti''uance of the aticlan ?uper !arina Bonthe eecution of the !0A *ith re'pondent PRthe alle#ed conduct of an EnvironmenImpact A''e''ment "EIA% 'tudy for treclamation pro+ectJ and the epan'ion of t
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/196870.htm#_ftn36http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/196870.htm#_ftn37http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/196870.htm#_ftn38http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/196870.htm#_ftn39http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/196870.htm#_ftn39http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/196870.htm#_ftn40http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/196870.htm#_ftn41http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/196870.htm#_ftn42http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/196870.htm#_ftn43http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/196870.htm#_ftn43http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/196870.htm#_ftn44http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/196870.htm#_ftn44http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/196870.htm#_ftn45http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/196870.htm#_ftn46http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/196870.htm#_ftn47http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/196870.htm#_ftn48http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/196870.htm#_ftn49http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/196870.htm#_ftn50http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/196870.htm#_ftn36http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/196870.htm#_ftn37http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/196870.htm#_ftn38http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/196870.htm#_ftn39http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/196870.htm#_ftn40http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/196870.htm#_ftn41http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/196870.htm#_ftn42http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/196870.htm#_ftn43http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/196870.htm#_ftn44http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/196870.htm#_ftn45http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/196870.htm#_ftn46http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/196870.htm#_ftn47http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/196870.htm#_ftn48http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/196870.htm#_ftn49http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/196870.htm#_ftn50


12/39

pro+ect to forty "G7% hectare' from 9.4Ghectare'.KM7L

In Re'olution No. 7G4, ?erie' of 9727,

adopted on 8une 9, 9727, the !alay!unicipality reiterated it' 'tron# oppo'ition tore'pondent Province' pro+ect and denied it're-ue't for a favora&leendor'ement of the!arina Pro+ect.KM2L

The !alay !unicipality 'u&'e-uentlyi''ued Re'olution No. 724, ?erie' of 9727,adopted on Au#u't , 9727, to re-ue'tre'pondent PRA not to #rant reclamation permitand notice to proceed to the !arina Pro+ect ofthe Kre'pondentL Provincial 1overnment ofAklan located at aticlan, !alay, Aklan.KM9L

In a letterKMLdated 0cto&er 29, 9727,

petitioner informed re'pondent PRA of it'oppo'ition to the reclamation pro+ect, primarilyfor the rea'on that, &a'ed on the opinion of Dr.Por)rio !. Alio, an epert from the ;niver'ity of

the Philippine' !arine ?cience In'titute";P!?I%, *hich he rendered &a'ed on thedocument' 'u&mitted &y re'pondent Provinceto o&tain the E, a full EIA 'tudy i' re-uired toa''e'' the reclamation pro+ect' likelihood ofrenderin# critical and la'tin# eect on Boracaycon'iderin# the proimity in di'tance,#eo#raphical location, current and *inddirection, and many other environmentalcon'ideration' in the area. Petitioner noted that'aid document' had failed to deal *ith coa'talero'ion concern' in Boracay. It al'o noted thatre'pondent Province failed to comply *ith

certain mandatory provi'ion' of the >ocal1overnment ode, particularly, tho'e re-uirin#the pro+ect proponent to conduct con'ultation'*ith 'takeholder'.

Petitioner like*i'e tran'mitted

it' Re'olution No. 772, ?erie' of 9727,re#i'terin# it' oppo'ition to the reclamationpro+ect to re'pondent Province, re'pondentPRA, re'pondent DENRE!B, the NationalEconomic Development Authority Re#ion $I,the !alay !unicipality, and other concernedentitie'.KMGL

Petitioner alle#e' that de'pite the !alay

!unicipality' denial of re'pondent Province're-ue't for a favora&le endor'ement, a' *ell a'the 'tron# oppo'ition manife'ted &oth &yBaran#ay aticlan and petitioner a' an N10,re'pondent Province 'till continued *ith theimplementation of the Reclamation Pro+ect.KMML

0n 8uly 94, 9727, the Sanggunia#anlala'iganof re'pondent Province 'et a'Re'olution No. 7G4, '. 9727, of the !unicipaof !alay and manife'ted it' 'upport for timplementation of the afore'aid pro+throu#h it' Re'olution No. 9727799.KM4L

0n 8uly 96, 9727, the !0A *

con)rmed &y re'pondent PRA Board Director' under it' Re'olution No. G2

Re'pondent PRA *rote to re'pondent Provinon 0cto&er 23, 9727, informin# the latto proceed *ith the reclamation adevelopment of pha'e 2 of 'ite 2 of propo'ed pro+ect. Re'pondent PRA attached'aid letter it' Evaluation Report dated 0cto&25, 9727.KM6L

Petitioner like*i'e received a copy

re'pondent PRA' letter dated 0cto&er 23, 97*hich authoried re'pondent Province proceed *ith pha'e 2 of the reclamatpro+ect, 'u&+ect to compliance *ith t

re-uirement' of it' Evaluation Report. Treclamation pro+ect *a' de'cri&ed a'(KAL 'eafront development

involvin# reclamation of an a##re#atearea of more or le'', forty "G7%hectare' in t*o "9% 'eparate 'ite' &othin !alay !unicipality, AklanProvince. ?ite 2 i' in Br#y. aticlan *itha total area of 4.59 hectare' and ?ite 9in Br#y. !anoc!anoc, Boracay I'land*ith a total area of .25 hectare'. ?ite'2 and 9 are on the oppo'ite 'ide' of

Ta&on ?trait, a&out 2,977 meter' apart. .KM5L"Empha'e' added.%

The Sangguniang #anlala'igan of Aklthrou#h Re'olution No. 97277G,KM3Laddre''the apprehen'ion' of petitioner em&odied inRe'olution No. 772, '. 9727, and 'upported timplementation of the pro+ect. ?aid re'olut'tated that the apprehen'ion' of petitioner *re#ard to the economic, 'ocial and politne#ative impact' of the pro+ect' *ere mperception' and #eneralitie' and *ere anchored on de)nite 'cienti)c, 'ocial apolitical 'tudie'.

In the meantime, a 'tudy *

commi''ioned &y the Philippine ham&er ommerce and Indu'tryBoracay "PBoracay%, funded &y the Department of Touri"D0T% *ith the a''i'tance of, amon# othepetitioner. The 'tudy *a' conducted Novem&er 9727 &y 'everal mar
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/196870.htm#_ftn51http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/196870.htm#_ftn52http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/196870.htm#_ftn53http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/196870.htm#_ftn54http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/196870.htm#_ftn55http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/196870.htm#_ftn56http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/196870.htm#_ftn57http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/196870.htm#_ftn58http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/196870.htm#_ftn59http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/196870.htm#_ftn59http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/196870.htm#_ftn59http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/196870.htm#_ftn60http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/196870.htm#_ftn51http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/196870.htm#_ftn52http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/196870.htm#_ftn53http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/196870.htm#_ftn54http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/196870.htm#_ftn55http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/196870.htm#_ftn56http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/196870.htm#_ftn57http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/196870.htm#_ftn58http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/196870.htm#_ftn59http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/196870.htm#_ftn60


13/39

&iolo#i't'Hepert' from the !arineEnvironmental Re'ource' Foundation "!ERF% ofthe ;P!?I. The 'tudy *a' intended todetermine the potential impact of areclamation pro+ect in the hydrodynamic' ofthe 'trait and on the coa'tal ero'ion pattern' inthe 'outhern coa't of Boracay I'land and alon#the coa't of aticlan.K47L

After notin# the o&+ection' of the

re'pective >1;' of aticlan and !alay, a' *ella' the apprehen'ion' of petitioner, re'pondentProvince i''ued a notice to the contractor onDecem&er 2, 9727 to commence *ith thecon'truction of the pro+ect.K42L

0n April G, 9722, the Sangguniang

#anlala'iganof Aklan, throu#h it' ommitteeon ooperative', Food, A#riculture, andEnvironmental Protection and the ommitteeon Touri'm, Trade, Indu'try and ommerce,conducted a +oint committee hearin# *hereinthe 'tudy undertaken &y the !ERF;P!?I *a'

di'cu''ed.K49L

In attendance *ere !r. ArielA&riam, Pre'ident of PIBoracay,repre'entative' from the Provincial1overnment, and Dr. e'ar $illanoy, aprofe''or from the ;P!?I. Dr. $illanoy 'aid thatthe 'u&+ect pro+ect, con'i'tin# of 9.4Ghectare', *ould only have insigni!canteect onthe hydrodynamic' of the 'trait traver'in# thecoa'tline of Baran#ay aticlan and Boracay,hence, there *a' a distant possibilit&that it*ould aect the Boracay coa'tline, *hichinclude' the famou' *hite'and &each of thei'land.K4L

Thu', on April 4, 9722, the Sangguniang#anlala'iganof Aklan enacted Re'olution No.972274MK4GLnotin# the report on the 'urvey ofthe channel &et*een aticlan and Boracayconducted &y the ;P!?I in relation to theeect' of the on#oin# reclamation to Boracay&eache', and 'tatin# that Dr. $illanoy hadadmitted that no*here in their 'tudy *a' itpointed out that there *ould &e an adver'eeect on the *hite'and &each of Boracay.

Durin# the Fir't @uarter Re#ular !eetin#of the Re#ional Development ouncil, Re#ion $I"RD$I% on April 24, 9722, it approved and'upported the 'u&+ect pro+ect "coverin# 9.4Ghectare'% throu#h RD$I Re'olution No. $I94,'erie' of 9722.K4ML

?u&'e-uently, !r. A&riam 'ent a letter

to 1overnor !ar-ue dated April 9M, 9722'tatin# that the 'tudy conducted &y the ;P!?Icon)rm' that the *ater o* acro'' theaticlanBoracay channel i' primarily tide

driven, therefore, the marine 'cienti't' &eliethat the 9.4Ghectare pro+ect of re'pondProvince *ould not 'i#ni)cantly aect the in the channel and *ould unlikely impact tBoracay &eache'. Ba'ed on thi', PIBorac'tated that it *a' not oppo'in# the 9.hectare aticlan reclamation pro+ect environmental #round'.K44L

0n 8une 2, 9722, petitioner )led t

in'tant Petition for Environmental Protect0rderHI''uance of the Crit ontinuin# andamus. 0n 8une 6, 9722, tourt i''ued a Temporary EnvironmenProtection 0rder "TEP0% and ordered tre'pondent' to )le their re'pective commeto the petition.K46L

After receivin# a copy of the TEP0

8une 3, 9722, re'pondent Province immediati''ued an order to the Provincial En#ineer0ce and the concerned contractor to ceaand de'i't from conductin# any con'truct

activitie' until further order' from thi' ourt.The petition i' premi'ed on the follo*in# #round

I. TED T0 0!P>: CITE$ANT R;>E? AND RE1;>ATI0N? IN

T0ATED CIT>:RITIA> AREA? RE@;IRIN1 T>, 0RPR01RA!!ATI, EN$IR0N!ENTA>I!PAT A??E??!ENT.

B. RE?P0NDENT PR0$INE FAI>ED T00BTAIN TE END0R?E!ENT0F T1; 0NERNED.

. RE?P0NDENT PR0$INE FAI>ED T00ND;T TTATI0N PR0ED;RE? A?RE@;IRED B: T0A> 10$ERN!ENT0DE.

D. RE?P0NDENT PR0$INE FAI>ED T0PERF0R! A F;>> EN$IR0N!ENTA>I!PAT A??E??!ENT A? RE@;IRED B:>AC AND RE>E$ANT RE1;>ATI0N?.II.TA!ATI0N 0F >ANDB0RDERIN1 T


14/39

ATI>AN AND B0RAA: ?>AD$ER?E>: AFFET TE0>01IA> BA>ANE 0F T1;' Baran#ay aticlan and !alay !unicipa
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/196870.htm#_ftn69http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/196870.htm#_ftn70http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/196870.htm#_ftn71http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/196870.htm#_ftn72http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/196870.htm#_ftn72http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/196870.htm#_ftn73http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/196870.htm#_ftn74http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/196870.htm#_ftn75http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/196870.htm#_ftn69http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/196870.htm#_ftn70http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/196870.htm#_ftn71http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/196870.htm#_ftn72http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/196870.htm#_ftn73http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/196870.htm#_ftn74http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/196870.htm#_ftn75


15/39

pur'uant to the con'ultation procedure' a're-uired &y the >ocal 1overnment ode.K6MLPetitioner a''ert' that the reclamationpro+ect i' in violation not only of la*' on EI? &utal'o of the >ocal 1overnment ode a're'pondent Province failed to enter into propercon'ultation' *ith the concerned >1;'. In fact,the iga ng mga 0aranga&!alay hapter al'oepre''ed 'tron# oppo'ition a#ain't thepro+ect.K64L

Petitioner cite' ?ection' 94 and 96 of

the >ocal 1overnment ode, *hich re-uirecon'ultation' if the pro+ect or pro#ram maycau'e pollution, climactic chan#e, depletion ofnonrene*a&le re'ource',etc. Accordin# topetitioner, re'pondent Province i#nored the>1;' oppo'ition epre''ed a' early a'9775. Not only that, re'pondent Province&elatedly called for pu&lic con'ultationmeetin#' on 8une 26 and 8uly 95, 9727, after anE had already &een i''ued and the !0A&et*een re'pondent' PRA and Province had

already &een eecuted. A' the petitioner 'a* it,the'e *ere not con'ultation' &ut mere pro+ectpre'entation'.

Petitioner claim' that re'pondent

Province, aided and a&etted &y re'pondent'PRA and DENRE!B, i#nored the 'pirit andletter of the Revi'ed Procedural !anual,intended to implement the variou' re#ulation'#overnin# the Environmental ImpactA''e''ment' "EIA'% to en'ure thatdevelopmental pro+ect' are in line *ith'u'taina&le development of natural

re'ource'. The pro+ect *a' conceptualied*ithout con'iderin# alternative'.Further, a' to it' alle#ation that

re'pondent Province failed to perform a full EIA,petitioner ar#ue' that *hile it i' true that a' ofno*, only the aticlan 'ide ha' &een i''ued anE, the entire pro+ect involve' the Boracay'ide, *hich 'hould have &een con'idered a colocated pro+ect. Petitioner claim' that anypro+ect involvin# Boracay re-uire' a full EIA'ince it i' an EA. Pha'e 2 of the pro+ect *illaect Boracay and aticlan a' they are'eparated only &y a narro* 'traitJ thu', it'hould &e con'idered an EP. Therefore, theE and permit i''ued mu't &e invalidated andcancelled.

Petitioner contend' that a 'tudy 'ho*'

that the o* of the *ater throu#h a narro*erchannel due to the reclamation pro+ect *illlikely divert 'and tran'port o the 'outh*e'tpart of Boracay, *herea' the characteri'tic

coa't of the aticlan 'ide of the 'trait indica'tron#er 'ediment tran'port.K66LThe *hite'a&eache' of Boracay and it' 'urroundin# marenvironment depend upon the natural o*the ad+acent *ater'.

Re#ardin# it' claim that the reclamat

of land &orderin# the 'trait &et*een aticand Boracay 'hall adver'ely aect the fecolo#ical &alance of the area, petitio

'u&mit' that *hile the 'tudy conducted &y t!ERF;P!?I only con'ider' the impact of treclamation pro+ect on the land, it i' undeniathat it *ill al'o adver'ely aect the already fecolo#ical &alance of the area. The eect of tpro+ect *ould have &een properly a''e''edthe proper EIA had &een performed prior to aimplementation of the pro+ect.

Accordin# to petitioner, re'pond

Province' intended purpo'e' do not prevover it' duty and o&li#ation to protect tenvironment. Petitioner &elieve' t

reha&ilitation of the 8etty Port may &e dothrou#h other mean'.In it' ommentK65Ldated 8une 92, 972

re'pondent Province claimed that applicatfor reclamation of G7 hectare' i' advanta#eoto the Provincial 1overnment con'iderin# thit' )lin# fee *ould only co't Php97,777.77 p$alue Added Ta "$AT% *hich i' al'o tminimum fee a' pre'cri&ed under ?ection Gof Admini'trative 0rder No. 97769.K63L

Re'pondent Province con'ider' t

in'tant petition to &e prematureJ thu', it mnece''arily fail for lack of cau'e of action dto the failure of petitioner to fully ehau't tavaila&le admini'trative remedie' even &efo'eekin# +udicial relief. Accordin# to re'pondeProvince, the petition primarily a''ailed tdeci'ion of re'pondent DENRE!B R$I #rantin# the E for the 'u&+ect pro+con'i'tin# of 9.4G hectare' and 'ou#ht tcancellation of the E for alle#ed failurere'pondent Province to 'u&mit prodocumentation a' re-uired for i''uance.


16/39

to the party a##rieved &y the )nal deci'ion onthe proponent' E application'.

Re'pondent Province ar#ue' that thein'tant petition i' anchored on a *ron# premi'ethat re'ult' to petitioner' unfounded fear' and&a'ele'' apprehen'ion'.It i' re'pondentProvince' contention that it' 9.4Ghectarereclamation pro+ect i' con'idered a' a 'tandalone pro+ect, 'eparate and independent fromthe approved area of G7 hectare'. Thu',

petitioner 'hould have o&'erved the dierence&et*een the future development plan ofre'pondent Province from it' actual pro+ect&ein# undertaken.K5L

Re'pondent Province clearly doe' not

di'pute the fact that it revi'ed it' ori#inalapplication to re'pondent PRA from 9.4Ghectare' to G7 hectare'.


17/39

component of the approved G7hectare area a'it i' ori#inally planned for the epan'ion 'ite ofthe ei'tin# aticlan +etty port.At pre'ent, it ha'no de)nite conceptual con'truction plan of the'aid portion in Boracay and it ha' no )nancialallocation to initiate any pro+ect on the 'aidBoracay portion.

Furthermore, re'pondent Province

contend' that the pre'ent pro+ect i' located in

aticlan *hile the alle#ed component that fall'*ithin an EA i' in Boracay. on'iderin# it'#eo#raphical location, the t*o 'ite' cannot &econ'idered a' a conti#uou' area for the rea'onthat it i' 'eparated &y a &ody of *ater a 'traitthat traver'e' &et*een the mainland Panay*herein aticlan i' located and Boracay.


18/39

harmonie it' po'ition and that of re'pondentProvince.

Re'pondent Province claim' that the

EPR!PK3GL*ould reveal that(

KTLhe area frontin# the pro+ect 'ite i'practically compo'ed of 'and. Deadcoral communitie' may &e found alon#the vicinity. Thu', )'h life at the pro+ect

'ite i' -uite 'carce due to the a&'enceof marine 'upport 'y'tem' like the 'ea#ra'' &ed' and coral reef'.

KTLhere i' no coral cover at theei'tin# aticlan +etty port.KFromL thedeepe't point of +etty to the 'hallo*e'tpoint, there *a' no more coral patchand the 'u&'trate i' 'andy. It i' of pu&lickno*led#e that the 'aid fore'hore areai' &ein# utilied &y the re'ident' ever'ince a' &erthin# or anchora#e 'ite oftheir motoried &anca. There *ill &e no

po''i&ility of any coral developmenttherein &ecau'e of it' continuou'utiliation.>ike*i'e, the activity of the'trait that traver'e' &et*een the mainland aticlan and Boracay I'land *ouldal'o &e a factor of the coraldevelopment. oral' KmayL only &eformed *ithin the area if there i''cienti)c human intervention, *hich i'a&'ent up to the pre'ent.

In li#ht of the fore#oin# premi'e,

it ca't' 'eriou' dou&t on petitioner'

alle#ation' pertainin# to theenvironmental eect' of Re'pondent>1;' 9.4G hectare' reclamationpro+ect. The alle#ed environmentalimpact of the 'u&+ect pro+ect to the&eache' of Boracay I'land remain'uncon)rmed. Petitioner hadun'ucce''fully proven that the pro+ect*ould cau'e imminent, #rave andirrepara&le in+ury to the community.K3ML

Re'pondent Province prayed for thedi''olution of the TEP0, claimin# that the rule'provide that the TEP0 may &e di''olved if itappear' after hearin# that it' i''uance orcontinuance *ould cau'e irrepara&le dama#eto the party or per'on en+oined, *hile theapplicant may &e fully compen'ated for 'uchdama#e' a' he may 'uer and 'u&+ect to thepo'tin# of a 'ucient &ond &y the party orper'on en+oined. Re'pondent Province

contend' that the TEP0 *ould cauirrepara&le dama#e in t*o a'pect'(

a. Financial di'location and pro&a&le &ankrupt

and&. 1rave and imminent dan#er to 'afety a

health of inha&itant' of immediate arincludin# touri't' and pa''en#er' 'erviced the +etty port, &rou#ht a&out &y the a&ruce''ation of development *ork'.

A' re#ard' )nancial di'location, t

ar#ument' of re'pondent Province 'ummaried &elo*(

2. Thi' pro+ect i' )nanced &y &ond'

*hich the re'pondent Province hadi''ued to it' creditor' a' the )nancin#'cheme in fundin# the pre'ent pro+ect i'&y *ay of credit )nancin# throu#h &ondotation.

9. The fund' are )nanced &y a

1uarantee Bank #ettin# payment from&ond', &ein# 'old to inve'tor', *hich inturn *ould &e paid &y the income thatthe pro+ect *ould realie or incur uponit' completion.

. Chile the pro+ect i' undercon'truction, re'pondent Province i'appropriatin# a portion of it' InternalRevenue Allotment "IRA% &ud#et fromthe 97O development fund to defray theintere't and principal amortiation dueto the 1uarantee Bank.

G. The re'pondent Province' IRA, re#ularincome, andHor 'uch other revenue' orfund', a' may &e permitted &y la*, are&ein# u'ed a' 'ecurity for the paymentof the 'aid loan u'ed for the pro+ect'con'truction.

M. The ina&ility of the 'u&+ect pro+ect to earn

revenue' a' pro+ected upon completion*ill compel the Province to 'houlder thefull amount of the o&li#ation, 'tartin#from year 9729.

4. Re'pondent province i' mandated to

a''i#n it' IRA, re#ular income andHor'uch other revenue' or fund' a'permitted &y la*J if pro+ect i' 'topped,detriment of the pu&lic *elfare and it'con'tituent'.K34L
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/196870.htm#_ftn95http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/196870.htm#_ftn96http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/196870.htm#_ftn97http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/196870.htm#_ftn95http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/196870.htm#_ftn96http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/196870.htm#_ftn97


19/39

A' to the 'econd #round for thedi''olution of the TEP0, re'pondent Provincear#ue'(

2. Noncompliance *ith the #uideline' ofthe E may re'ult to environmentalhaard' mo't e'pecially that reclaimedland if not properly 'ecured may &eeroded into the 'ea.

9. The con'truction ha' accompli'hed4M.94 percent of the pro+ect. Theem&ankment that *a' depo'ited on thepro+ect ha' no proper concrete *aveprotection that mi#ht &e *a'hed out inthe event that a 'tron# typhoon or &i#*ave' may occur aectin# the 'traitand the propertie' alon# the pro+ect'ite. It i' already the rainy 'ea'on andthere i' a &i# po''i&ility of typhoonoccurrence.

. If 'aid incident occur', the a##re#ate'

of the em&ankment that had &een*a'hed out mi#ht &e tran'ferred to thead+oinin# propertie' *hich could aectit' natural environmental 'tate.

G. It mi#ht re'ult to the total alteration ofthe phy'ical land'cape of the areaattri&utin# to environmentaldi'tur&ance.

M. The lack of proper concrete *aveprotection or revetment *ould cau'e thetotal ero'ion of the em&ankment that

ha' &een dumped on the accompli'hedarea.K36L

Re'pondent Province claim' thatpetitioner *ill not 'tand to 'uer immediate,#rave and irrepara&le in+ury or dama#e fromthe on#oin# pro+ect. The petitioner' perceivedfear of environmental de'truction &rou#hta&out &y it' erroneou' appreciation of availa&ledata i' unfounded and doe' not tran'late into amatter of etreme ur#ency. Thu', under theRule' of Procedure on Environmental a'e', the

TEP0 may &e di''olved.Re'pondent PRA )led it' ommentK35Lon

8une 99, 9722. It alle#e' that on 8une 9G, 9774,Eecutive 0rder No. MG dele#ated the po*erto approve reclamation pro+ect' to re'pondentPRA throu#h it' #overnin# Board, 'u&+ect tocompliance *ith ei'tin# la*' and rule' andfurther 'u&+ect to the condition thatreclamation contract' to &e eecuted *ith any

per'on or entity "mu't% #o throu#h pu&&iddin#.

?ection G of re'pondent PR

Admini'trative 0rder No. 97769 provide' the approval proce'' and procedure' variou' reclamation pro+ect' to undertaken. Re'pondent PRA prepared Evaluation Report on Novem&er 9773K33Lre#ardin# Aklan' propo'al to increa

it' pro+ect to G7 hectare'.Re'pondent PRA contend' that it *

only after re'pondent Province had compl*ith the re-uirement' under the la* tre'pondent PRA, throu#h it' Board of Directoapproved the propo'ed pro+ect under it' BoaRe'olution No. G73G.K277LIn the 'ame Re'olutire'pondent PRA Board authoried the 1ene!ana#erHE0 to eecute a !0A *ith the Akprovincial #overnment to implement treclamation pro+ect under certain condition'.

The i''ue for re'pondent PRA **hether or not it approved the re'pondeProvince' 9.4Ghectare reclamation pro+propo'al in *illful di're#ard of alle#numerou' irre#ularitie' a' claimed petitioner.K272L

Re'pondent PRA claim' that it' appro

of the Aklan Reclamation Pro+ect *a' accordance *ith la* and it' rule'. Indeedi''ued the notice to proceed only after Akhad complied *ith all the re-uiremeimpo'ed &y ei'tin# la*' and re#ulation'

further contend' that the G7 hectare' involvin thi' pro+ect remain' a plan in'ofar re'pondent PRA i' concerned. Chat ha' &eapproved for reclamation &y re'pondent Pthu' far i' only the 9.4Ghectare reclamatpro+ect. Re'pondent PRA reiterate' that approved thi' reclamation pro+ect afeten'ively revie*in# the le#al, technic)nancial, environmental, and operatioa'pect' of the propo'ed reclamation.K279L

0ne of the condition' that re'pond

PRA Board impo'ed &efore approvin# the Akpro+ect *a' that no reclamation *ork could 'tarted until re'pondent PRA ha' approved tdetailed en#ineerin# plan'Hmethodolode'i#n and 'peci)cation' of treclamation. Part of the re-uired 'u&mi''ion're'pondent PRA include' the draina#e de'a' approved &y the Pu&lic Cork' Departmeand the E a' i''ued &y the DENR, all *hich the Aklan #overnment mu't 'u&mitre'pondent PRA &efore 'tartin# any reclamat
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/196870.htm#_ftn98http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/196870.htm#_ftn99http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/196870.htm#_ftn100http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/196870.htm#_ftn101http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/196870.htm#_ftn102http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/196870.htm#_ftn103http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/196870.htm#_ftn98http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/196870.htm#_ftn99http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/196870.htm#_ftn100http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/196870.htm#_ftn101http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/196870.htm#_ftn102http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/196870.htm#_ftn103


20/39

*ork'.K27L;nder Article I$"B%"% of the !0A&et*een re'pondent PRA and Aklan, the latteri' re-uired to 'u&mit, apart from the E, thefollo*in# re-uirement' for re'pondent PRA'revie* and approval, a' &a'i' for the i''uanceof a Notice to Proceed "NTP% for ReclamationCork'(

a% >andform plan *ith technical

de'cription of the mete' and &ound' of

the 'ame landformJ

&% Final ma'ter development and landu'e plan for the pro+ectJ

c% Detailed en#ineerin# 'tudie',detailed en#ineerin# de'i#n, plan' and'peci)cation for reclamation *ork',reclamation plan' and methodolo#y,plan' for the 'ource' of )ll material'J

d% Draina#e plan vis3a3visthe landform approved &y DPC< Re#ional 0ce

to include a co't eective and ecientdraina#e 'y'tem a' may &e re-uired&a'ed on the re'ult' of the 'tudie'J

e% Detailed pro+ect co't e'timate'and -uantity takeo per item' of *orkof the ra*land reclamation component',e.#. reclamation containment 'tructure'and 'oil con'olidationJ

% 0r#aniational chart of thecon'truction arm, mannin# ta&le,e-uipment 'chedule for the pro+ectJ and,

#% Pro+ect timeta&le "PERTHP!% forthe entire pro+ect con'truction period.K27GL

In fact, re'pondent PRA further re-uiredre'pondent Province under Article I$ "B%"9G% ofthe !0A to 'trictly comply *ith all condition' ofthe DENRE!Bi''ued E and4or compl& 'ith

pertinent local and international commitmentsof the 5epublic of the #hilippines to ensureenvironmental protection.K27ML

In it' Au#u't 22, 9727 letter,K274Lre'pondentPRA referred for re'pondent Province'appropriate action petitioner' Re'olution 772,'erie' of 9727 and Re'olution G4, 'erie' of9727, of the Sangguniang 0a&anof!alay. 1overnor !ar-ue *rote re'pondentPRAK276Lon ?eptem&er 24, 9727 informin# itthat re'pondent Province had already met *iththe dierent ocial' of !alay, furni'hin#

re'pondent PRA *ith the copie' of the minuof 'uch meetin#'Hpre'entation'. 1over!ar-ue al'o a''ured re'pondent PRA thahad complied *ith the con'ultatre-uirement' a' far a' !alay *a' concerned.Re'pondent PRA claim' that in evaluatre'pondent Province' pro+ect and in i''uin# tnece''ary NTP for Pha'e 2 of ?ite 2 "9hectare'% of the aticlan 8etty Port epan'

and moderniation, re'pondent PRA #acon'idera&le *ei#ht to all pertinent i''uance'pecially the E i''ued &y DENRE!B RK275LRe'pondent PRA 'tre''e' that it' earapproval of the G7hectare reclamation pro+under it' Re'olution No. G73G, 'erie' of 972'till re-uire' a 'econd level of complianre-uirement' from the proponent. Re'pondProvince could not po''i&ly &e#in reclamation *ork' 'ince re'pondent PRA hyet to i''ue an NTP in it' favor.Re'pondent PRA alle#e' that prior to t

i''uance of the NTP to re'pondent Province Pha'e 2 of ?ite 2, it re-uired the 'u&mi''ionthe follo*in# precon'truction document'("a% >andForm Plan "*ith technical de'cription"&% ?ite Development PlanH>and ;'e Pincludin#,"i% 'e*er and draina#e 'y'tem' and"ii% *a'te *ater treatmentJ

"c% En#ineerin# ?tudie' and En#ineerDe'i#nJ"d% Reclamation !ethodolo#yJ"e% ?ource' of Fill !aterial', and,"f% The E.K273L

Re'pondent PRA claim' that it *a' only afthe evaluation of the a&ove 'u&mi''ion' thai''ued to re'pondent Province the NTP, limitto the 9.4Ghectare reclamatpro+ect. Re'pondent PRA even empha'iedit' evaluation report that 'hould re'pondeProvince pur'ue the other pha'e' of it' pro+eit *ould 'till re-uire the 'u&mi''ion of an Efor each 'ucceedin# pha'e' &efore the 'tartany reclamation *ork'.K227L

Re'pondent PRA, &ein# the natio#overnment' arm in re#ulatin# a
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/196870.htm#_ftn104http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/196870.htm#_ftn105http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/196870.htm#_ftn106http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/196870.htm#_ftn107http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/196870.htm#_ftn108http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/196870.htm#_ftn109http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/196870.htm#_ftn110http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/196870.htm#_ftn111http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/196870.htm#_ftn104http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/196870.htm#_ftn105http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/196870.htm#_ftn106http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/196870.htm#_ftn107http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/196870.htm#_ftn108http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/196870.htm#_ftn109http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/196870.htm#_ftn110http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/196870.htm#_ftn111


21/39

coordinatin# all reclamation pro+ect' in thePhilippine' a mandate conferred &y la*manife't' that it i' incum&ent upon it, in theeerci'e of it' re#ulatory function', to dili#entlyevaluate, &a'ed on it' technical competencie',all reclamation pro+ect' 'u&mitted to it forapproval.0nce the reclamation pro+ect're-uirement' 'et forth &y la* and related rule'have &een complied *ith, re'pondent PRA i'mandated to approve the 'ame. Re'pondent

PRA claim', K*Lith all the fore#oin# ri#orou'and detailed re-uirement' 'u&mitted andcomplied *ith &y Aklan, and the attendantcareful and meticulou' technical and le#alevaluation &y re'pondent PRA, it cannot &ear#ued that the reclamation permit it i''ued toAklan i' founded upon numerou' irre#ularitie'Ja' reckle''ly and &a'ele''ly imputed &y BFI.K222L

In it' ommentK229Ldated 8uly 2, 9722,re'pondent DENRE!B R$I a''ert' that it' actof i''uin# the E certi)e' that the pro+ect hadunder#one the proper EIA proce'' &y a''e''in#,

amon# other', the direct and indirect impact ofthe pro+ect on the &iophy'ical and humanenvironment and en'urin# that the'e impact'are addre''ed &y appropriate environmentalprotection and enhancement mea'ure',pur'uant to Pre'idential Decree No. 2M54, theRevi'ed Procedural !anual for DENR DA0 9777, and the ei'tin# rule' and re#ulation'.K22L

Re'pondent DENRE!B R$I 'tre''e' that thedeclaration in 2365 of 'everal i'land', *hichinclude' Boracay a' touri't one and marinere'erve under Proclamation No. 2572, ha' no

relevance to the epan'ion pro+ect of aticlan8etty Port and Pa''en#er Terminal for the veryrea'on that the pro+ect i' not located in theI'land of Boracay, &ein# located in Baran#ayaticlan, !alay, *hich i' not a part of mainlandPanay. It admit' that the 'ite of the 'u&+ect

+etty port fall' *ithin the EA underProclamation No. 92G4 "2352%, &ein# *ithin thecate#ory of a *ater &ody. Thi' *a' *hyre'pondent Province had faithfully 'ecured anE pur'uant to the Revi'ed Procedural !anualfor DENR DA0 9777 &y 'u&mittin# thenece''ary document' a' contained in theEPR!P on !arch 23, 9727, *hich *ere the&a'e' in #rantin# E No. R42777346277"amended% on April 96, 9727 for the epan'ionof aticlan 8etty Port and Pa''en#er Terminal,coverin# 9.4G hectare'.K22GL

Re'pondent DENRE!B R$I claim' that thei''ue' rai'ed &y the >1;' of aticlan and !alayhad &een con'idered &y the DENRProvincialEnvironment and Natural Re'ource' 0ce

"PENR0%, Aklan in the i''uance the 0rderK22MLdated 8anuary 94, 97di're#ardin# the claim of the !unicipality!alay, Aklan of a portion of the fore'hore lain aticlan covered &y the application of tProvince of AklanJ and another 0rder Re+ection dated Fe&ruary M, 9727 of the tfore'hore application', namely F>A No. 747GGA and F>A No. 747G29GB, of the Provinof Aklan.K224L

Re'pondent DENRE!B R$I contend' that t'upportin# document' attached to the EPRfor the i''uance of an E *ere merely for tepan'ion and moderniation of the old +eport in Baran#ay aticlan coverin# 9hectare', and not the G7hectare reclamatpro+ect in Baran#ay aticlan and Boracay. Tpreviou' letter of re'pondent Province da0cto&er 2G, 9773 addre''ed to DENRE!B RRe#ional Eecutive Director, *ould 'ho* tthe reclamation pro+ect *ill covapproimately 9.4 hectare'.K226LThi' applicat

for E *a' not ocially accepted due to laof re-uirement' or document'.

Althou#h petitioner in'i't' that tpro+ect involve' G7 hectare' in t*o 'itre'pondent DENRE!B R$I looked at tdocument' 'u&mitted &y re'pondent Provinand 'a* that the 'u&+ect area covered &y tE application and 'u&'e-uently #ranted *ER42777346277 con'i't' only of 9hectare'J hence, re'pondent DENRE!B could not comment on the ece'' area.K225L

Re'pondent DENRE!B R$I admit' tha' re#ard' the cla''i)cation of the 9.4Ghectareclamation pro+ect under Non EP in EA, tdoe' not fall *ithin the de)nition of a located pro+ect &ecau'e the 'u&+ect pro+ectmerely an epan'ion of the old aticlan 8ePort, *hich had a previou'ly i''ued E "ENo. 74332729262 on 0cto&er 29, 2333%. Thonly an EPR!P, not a PEI? or PEPR!P,re-uired.K223L

Re'pondent Province 'u&mitted

re'pondent DENRE!B R$I the follo*document' contained in the EPR!P(

a. The 0&'ervation' on the Floor Bottom

and it' !arine Re'ource' at thePropo'ed 8etty Port' at aticlan and!anokmanok, Boracay, Aklan,conducted in 2333 &y the Bureau ofFi'herie' A-uatic Re'ource' "BFAR%entral 0ce, particularly in aticlan'ite, and
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/196870.htm#_ftn112http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/196870.htm#_ftn113http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/196870.htm#_ftn114http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/196870.htm#_ftn115http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/196870.htm#_ftn116http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/196870.htm#_ftn117http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/196870.htm#_ftn118http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/196870.htm#_ftn119http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/196870.htm#_ftn120http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/196870.htm#_ftn112http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/196870.htm#_ftn113http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/196870.htm#_ftn114http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/196870.htm#_ftn115http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/196870.htm#_ftn116http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/196870.htm#_ftn117http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/196870.htm#_ftn118http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/196870.htm#_ftn119http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/196870.htm#_ftn120


22/39

&. The ?tudy conducted &y Dr. Ricarte ?.

8avelo'a, Ph. D, !ine' and 1eo'cience'Bureau "!1B%, entral 0ce and En#r.Ro#er E'to, Provincial Plannin# andDevelopment 0ce "PPD0%, Aklan in9773 entitled Preliminary 1eohaardA''e''ment for the Enhancement of theEi'tin# aticlan 8etty Port Terminalthrou#h Beach one Re'toration and

Protective !arina Development in!alay, Aklan.

Re'pondent DENRE!B R$I claim' thatthe a&ove t*o 'cienti)c 'tudie' *ere enou#hfor it to arrive at a &e't profe''ional +ud#mentto i''ue an amended E for the Aklan !arinaPro+ect coverin# 9.4G hectare'.K297LFurthermore,to con)rm that the 9.4Ghectare reclamationha' no 'i#ni)cant ne#ative impact *ith the'urroundin# environment particularly inBoracay, a more recent 'tudy *a' conducted,

and re'pondent DENRE!B R$I alle#e' that KiLti' very important to hi#hli#ht that the inputdata in the K!ERF ;P!?IL 'tudy utilied theKG7hectareL reclamation and K977meterL*idth 'ea*ard u'in# the tidal and *avemodellin#.K292LThe 'tudy 'ho*ed that thereclamation of 9.4G hectare' had no eect tothe hydrodynamic' of the 'trait &et*eenBaran#ay aticlan and Boracay.

Re'pondent DENRE!B R$I arm' that

no permit' andHor clearance' from National1overnment A#encie' "N1A'% and >1;' are

re-uired pur'uant to the DENR !emorandumircular No. 977675, entitled ?implifyin# theRe-uirement' of E or N Application'J thatthe EPR!P *a' evaluated and proce''ed &a'edon the Revi'ed Procedural !anual for DENRDA0 9777 *hich re'ulted to the i''uance ofER42777346277J and that the E i' nota permitper se&ut a plannin# tool for >1;' tocon'ider in it' deci'ion *hether or not to i''uea local permit.K299L

Re'pondent DENRE!B R$I conclude'

that in )lin# thi' ca'e, petitioner had &ypa''edand deprived the DENR ?ecretary of theopportunity to revie* andHor rever'e thedeci'ion of hi' 'u&ordinate oce, E!B R$Ipur'uant to the Revi'ed Procedural !anual forDENR DA0 9777. There i' no etremeur#ency that nece''itate' the #rantin# of!andamu' or i''uance of TEP0 that put to&alance &et*een the life and death of thepetitioner or pre'ent #rave or irrepara&ledama#e to environment.K29L

After receivin# the a&ove omme

from all the re'pondent', the ourt 'et the cafor oral ar#ument' on ?eptem&er 2, 9722.

!ean*hile, on ?eptem&er 5, 97

re'pondent Province )led a !anife'tation a!otionK29GLprayin# for the di'mi''al of tpetition, a' the province *a' no lon#pur'uin# the implementation of the 'ucceed

pha'e' of the pro+ect due to it' ina&ility comply *ith Article I$ B.9"% of the !0hence, the i''ue' and fear' epre''ed petitioner had &ecome moot. Re'pondProvince alle#e' that the petition i' premi'on a 'eriou' mi'appreciation of the real eteof the conte'ted reclamation pro+ect certainly the E covered only a total of 9,4'-uare meter' located in Baran#ay aticl!alay, AklanJ and althou#h the !0A 'pokeG7 hectare', re'pondent Province' 'u&mi''of document' to re'pondent PRA pertainin#'aid area *a' &ut the )r't of a t*o't

proce'' of approval.Re'pondent Provinclaim' that it' failure to comply *ith tdocumentary re-uirement' of re'pondent P*ithin the period provided, or 297 *orkin# dafrom the eectivity of the !0A, indicated *aiver to pur'ue the remainder of the pro+eK29MLRe'pondent Province further manife'ted(

on)rmin# thi' in a letter dated

29 Au#u't 9722,K294L1overnor !ar-ueinformed re'pondent PRA that theProvince of Aklan i' no lon#er pur'uin#the implementation of the 'ucceedin#

pha'e' of the pro+ect *ith a total area of6.G hectare' for our ina&ility to comply*ith Article I$ B.9 "% of the !0AJhence, the ei'tin# !0A *ill cover onlythe pro+ect area of 9.4G hectare'.

In hi' replyletter dated Au#u't99, 9722,K296LKre'pondentL PRA 1eneral!ana#er informed 1overnor !ar-uethat the Kre'pondentL PRA Board ofDirector' ha' #iven Kre'pondentL PRAthe authority to con)rm the po'ition ofthe Province of Aklan that the AklanBeach one Re'toration and Protection!arine Development Pro+ect *ill no* &econ)ned to the reclamation anddevelopment of the 9.4G hectare', moreor le''.

It i' undi'puted from the 'tart

that the covera#e of the Pro+ect i' in factlimited to 9.4G hectare', a' evidenced&y the NTP i''ued &y re'pondent PRA.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/196870.htm#_ftn121http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/196870.htm#_ftn122http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/196870.htm#_ftn123http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/196870.htm#_ftn124http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/196870.htm#_ftn125http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/196870.htm#_ftn126http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/196870.htm#_ftn127http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/196870.htm#_ftn128http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/196870.htm#_ftn121http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/196870.htm#_ftn122http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/196870.htm#_ftn123http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/196870.htm#_ftn124http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/196870.htm#_ftn125http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/196870.htm#_ftn126http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/196870.htm#_ftn127http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/196870.htm#_ftn128


23/39

The recent echan#e of corre'pondence&et*een re'pondent' Province of Aklanand Kre'pondentL PRA further con)rm'the intent of the partie' all alon#.1; of !alay !unicipality,the Baran#ay 0cial' of aticlan, and'takeholder' of Boracay I'land.

Re'pondent Province further manife'tedthat the Baran#ay ouncil of aticlan, !alay,Aklan enacted on Fe&ruary 2, 9729 Re'olutionNo. 77, 'erie' of 9729, entitled Re'olutionFavora&ly Endor'in# the 9.4 ocated at Baran#ayaticlan, !alay, Aklan.K29L

Re'pondent Province claim' that compliance *ith the re-uirement' re'pondent' DENRE!B R$I and PRA that ledthe approval of the reclamation pro+ect &y t'aid #overnment a#encie', a' *ell a' trecent enactment' of the Baran#ay ouncilaticlan and the Sangguniang 0a&anof t!unicipality of !alay favora&ly endor'in# t'aid pro+ect, had cate#orically addre''ed all ti''ue' rai'ed &y the Petitioner in it' Petit

dated 8une 2, 9722. Re'pondent Province praa' follo*'(

C


24/39

0aranga&of aticlan and the Sangguniang0a&anof the !unicipality of !alay, all thei''ue' rai'ed &y petitioner had already &eenaddre''ed, and thi' petition 'hould &edi'mi''ed for &ein# moot and academic.

0n the contrary, a clo'e readin# of the

t*o >1;' re'pective re'olution' *ould revealthat they are not 'ucient to render thepetition moot and academic, a' there are

eplicit condition' impo'ed that mu't &ecomplied *ith &y re'pondentProvince. In Re'olution No. 77, 'erie' of 9729,of the Sangguniang 0aranga&of aticlan it i''tated thatany vertical 'tructure' to &econ'tructed 'hall &e 'u&+ectfor baranga&endor'ement.K2Llearly, *hatthe baranga&endor'ed *a' the reclamationonly, and not the entire pro+ect that include'the con'truction of a commercial &uildin# and*ellne'' center, and other touri'mrelatedfacilitie'. Petitioner' o&+ection', a' may &erecalled, pertain not only to the

reclamationper se, &ut al'o to the &uildin# to&e con'tructed and the entire pro+ect'perceived ill eect' to the 'urroundin#environment.

Re'olution No. 797, 'erie' of 9729, of

the Sangguniang 0a&an of !alayK2GLi' evenmore 'peci)c. It read' in part(

W6E5E$S, no&le it 'eem' the

reclamation pro+ect to the eect that it*ill #enerate 'core' of &ene)t' for the>ocal 1overnment of !alay in term' of

income and employment for it'con'tituent', &ut the fact cannot &edenied that the pro+ect *ill take it' tollon the environment e'pecially on thenear&y fra#ile i'land of Boracay and thefact al'o remain' that the pro+ect *illeventually di'place the localtran'portation operator'Hcooperative'J

W6E5E$S, con'iderin# the

'en'itivity of the pro+ect, thi' 1;

!alay *ithin the &uildin# in the

reclaimed areaJ9. To convene the a#&an and aticlan

8etty Port !ana#ement Board &efore there'umption of the reclamation pro+ectJ

. That the reclamation pro+ect 'hall &elimited only to 9.4 hectare' in Baran#ayaticlan and not &eyondJ

G. That the local tran'portationoperator'Hcooperative' *ill not &edi'placedJ and

M. The Provincial 1overnment of Aklanconduct a 'imultaneou' comprehen'ive'tudy on the environmental impact ofthe reclamation pro+ect e'peciallydurin#


25/39

includin# the need to conduct a comprehen'ive'tudy on the environmental impact of thereclamation pro+ect, *hich i' the heart of thepetition &efore u'. Therefore, the content' ofthe t*o re'olution' 'u&mitted &y re'pondentProvince do not 'upport it' conclu'ion that the'u&'e-uent favora&le endor'ement of the >1;'had already addre''ed all the i''ue' rai'ed andrendered the in'tant petition moot andacademic.

Re'pondent', in e''ence, ar#ue that the

pre'ent petition 'hould &e di'mi''ed forpetitioner' failure to ehau't admini'trativeremedie' and even to o&'erve the hierarchy ofcourt'. Furthermore, a' the petition -ue'tion'the i''uance of the E and the NTP, thi'involve' factual and technical veri)cation,*hich are more properly *ithin the eperti'e ofthe concerned #overnment a#encie'.

Re'pondent' anchor their ar#ument on ?ection4, Article II of DENR DA0 9777, *hich

provide'(?ection 4. AppealAny party a##rieved &y the )naldeci'ion on the E H Napplication' may, *ithin 2M day' fromreceipt of 'uch deci'ion, )le an appealon the follo*in# #round'(

a. 1rave a&u'e of di'cretion on the partof the decidin# authority, or

&. ?eriou' error' in the revie* )ndin#'.

The DENR may adopt alternativeconictHdi'pute re'olution procedure' a'a mean' to 'ettle #rievance' &et*eenproponent' and a##rieved partie' toavert unnece''ary le#al action. Frivolou'appeal' 'hall not &e countenanced.

Re'pondent' ar#ue that 'ince there i'an admini'trative appeal provided for, thenpetitioner i' duty &ound to o&'erve the 'ameand may not &e #ranted recour'e to the re#ularcourt' for it' failure to do 'o.

Ce do not a#ree *ith re'pondent'

appreciation of the applica&ility of the rule onehau'tion of admini'trative remedie' in thi'ca'e. Ce are reminded of our rulin# in#agara v7.ourt of $ppeals,K24L*hich 'ummaried ourearlier deci'ion' on the procedural re-uirementof ehau'tion of admini'trative remedie', to*it(

The rule re#ardin# ehau'tion ofadmini'trative remedie' i' not a hardand fa't rule. It i' not applica&le "2%*here the -ue'tion in di'pute i' purely ale#al one, or "9% *here the controvertedact i' patently ille#al or *a' performed*ithout +uri'diction or in ece'' of

+uri'dictionJ or "% *here the re'pondenti' a department 'ecretary, *ho'e act'a' an alter e#o of the Pre'ident &ear the

implied or a''umed approval of thelatter, unle'' actually di'approved &yhim, or "G% *here there arecircum'tance' indicatin# the ur#ency of

+udicial intervention, 1onale' vs7 92536,0cto&er 99, 234, 3 ?RA 97JA&aya vs7 $ille#a', >9M4G2, Decem&er26, 2344, 25 ?RAJ !itra vs7 ?u&ido, >92432, ?eptem&er 2M,2346, 92 ?RA296.?aid principle may al'o &e di're#arded

*hen it doe' not provide a plain, 'peedyand ade-uate remedy,"ipriano vs7 !arcelino, G ?RA 932%,*hen there i' no due proce'' o&'erved"$illano' vs7 ?u&ido, GM?RA 933%, or*here the prote'tant ha' no otherrecour'e "?ta. !aria vs7 >ope, 2 ?RA46%.K26L"Empha'e' 'upplied.%

A' petitioner correctly pointed out, tappeal provided for under ?ection 4 of DEDA0 9777 i' only applica&le, &a'ed on t

)r't 'entence thereof, if the per'on or entchar#ed *ith the duty to ehau't tadmini'trative remedy of appeal to tappropriate #overnment a#ency ha' &eenparty or ha' &een made a party in tproceedin#' *herein the deci'ion to appealed *a' rendered. It ha' &een e'ta&li'h&y the fact' that petitioner *a' never madeparty to the proceedin#' &efore re'pondeDENRE!B R$I. Petitioner *a' only informthat the pro+ect had already &een approvafter the E *a' already #ranted.K25LN&ein# a party to the 'aid proceedin#', it donot appear that petitioner *a' ociafurni'hed a copy of the deci'ion, from *hthe 2Mday period to appeal 'hould reckoned, and *hich *ould *arrant tapplication of ?ection 4, Article II of DENR D9777.

Althou#h petitioner *a' not a partythe proceedin#' *here the deci'ion to i''ue E *a' rendered, it 'tand' to &e a##rieved
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/196870.htm#_ftn137http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/196870.htm#_ftn138http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/196870.htm#_ftn139http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/196870.htm#_ftn137http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/196870.htm#_ftn138http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/196870.htm#_ftn139


26/39

the deci'ion,K23L&

Documents

Boracay to Wildlife 113-1-12