Boracay Foundation, Inc. vs. Province of Aklan

7/9/2015
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME674
G.R. No. 196870.June 26, 2012.*
BORACAY FOUNDATION, INC., petitioner, vs. THE

PROVINCE
OF
AKLAN,
REPRESENTED
BY
GOVERNOR CARLITO S. MARQUEZ, THE PHILIPPINE
RECLAMATION AUTHORITY, AND THE DENREMB
(REGION VI), respondents.
Civil Procedure Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies The
rule regarding exhaustion of administrative remedies is not a hard
and fast ruleit is not applicable (1) where the question in dispute
is purely a legal one, or (2) where the controverted act is patently
illegal or was performed without jurisdiction or in excess of
jurisdiction or (3) where the respondent is a department secretary,
whose acts as an alter ego of the President bear the implied or
assumed approval of the latter, unless actually disapproved by
him, or (4) where there are circumstances indicating the urgency of
judicial intervention.We do not agree with respondents
appreciation of the applicability of the rule on exhaustion of
administrative remedies in this case. We are reminded of our
ruling in Pagara v. Court of Appeals, 254 SCRA 606 (1996), which
summarized our earlier decisions on the procedural requirement
of exhaustion of administrative remedies, to wit: The rule
regarding exhaustion of administrative remedies is not a
hard and fast rule. It is not applicable (1) where the question
in dispute is purely a legal one, or (2) where the controverted act
is patently illegal or was performed without jurisdiction or in
excess of jurisdiction or (3) where the respondent is a department
secretary, whose acts as an alter ego of the President bear the
implied or assumed approval of the latter, unless actually
disapproved by him, or (4) where there are circumstances
indicating the urgency of judicial intervention, Gonzales vs.
Hechanova, L21897, October 22, 1963, 9 SCRA 230 Abaya vs.
Villegas, L25641, December 17, 1966, 18 SCRA 1034 Mitra vs.
Subido, L21691, September 15, 1967, 21 SCRA 127. Said
principle may also be disregarded when it does not
provide a plain, speedy and adequate remedy, (Cipriano vs.
Marcelino, 43 SCRA 291 [1972]), when there is no due process
observed (Villanos vs. Subido, 45 SCRA 299 [1972]), or
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014e71d4d17a77d9724f000a0094004f00ee/p/AMJ341/?username=Guest
1/70
7/9/2015
_______________
*EN BANC.
556
556
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Boracay Foundation, Inc. vs. Province of Aklan
where the protestant has no other recourse (Sta. Maria vs.

Lopez, 31 SCRA 637 [1970]). (Emphases supplied.)
Environmental Law Rules of Procedure for Environmental
Cases (A.M. No. 0968SC) Temporary Environmental Protection
Order (TEPO) Writs of Continuing Mandamus The new Rules of
Procedure for Environmental Cases, A.M. No. 0968SC, provides
a relief for petitioner under the writ of continuing mandamus,
which is a special civil action that may be availed of to compel the
performance of an act specifically enjoined by law and which
provides for the issuance of a Temporary Environmental
Protection Order (TEPO) as an auxiliary remedy prior to the
issuance of the writ itself.The new Rules of Procedure for
Environmental Cases, A.M. No. 0968SC, provides a relief for
petitioner under the writ of continuing mandamus, which is a
special civil action that may be availed of to compel the
performance of an act specifically enjoined by law and which
provides for the issuance of a TEPO as an auxiliary remedy prior
to the issuance of the writ itself.
Same Same Same Same The writ of continuing mandamus
permits the court to retain jurisdiction after judgment in order to
ensure the successful implementation of the reliefs mandated
under the courts decision and, in order to do this, the court may
compel the submission of compliance reports from the respondent
government agencies as well as avail of other means to monitor
compliance with its decision.The writ of continuing mandamus
permits the court to retain jurisdiction after judgment in order to
ensure the successful implementation of the reliefs mandated
under the courts decision and, in order to do this, the court may
compel the submission of compliance reports from the respondent
government agencies as well as avail of other means to monitor
compliance with its decision.
Same Same Same Petitioner had three options where to file
this case under the rule: the Regional Trial Court exercising
jurisdiction over the territory where the actionable neglect or
2/70
7/9/2015
omission occurred, the Court of Appeals, or the Supreme Court.

Petitioner had three options where to file this case under the rule:
the Regional Trial Court exercising jurisdiction over the territory
where the actionable neglect or omission occurred, the Court of
Appeals, or this Court. Petitioner had no other plain, speedy, or
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law to determine the
questions of unique
557
VOL. 674, JUNE 26, 2012
557
national and local importance raised here that pertain to laws

and rules for environmental protection, thus it was justified in
coming to this Court.
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR)
Jurisdiction The Department of Environment and Natural
Resources (DENR) is the government agency vested with delegated
powers to review and evaluate all Environmental Impact
Assessment (EIA) reports, and to grant or deny Environmental
Compliance Certificate (ECCs) to project proponentsit is the
DENR that has the duty to implement the EIS system.We
recognize at this point that the DENR is the government agency
vested with delegated powers to review and evaluate all EIA
reports, and to grant or deny ECCs to project proponents. It is the
DENR that has the duty to implement the EIS system. It appears,
however, that respondent DENREMB RVIs evaluation of this
reclamation project was problematic, based on the valid questions
raised by petitioner.
Environmental Law Rules of Procedure for Environmental
Cases (A.M. No. 0968SC) Temporary Environmental Protection
Order (TEPO) Prior consultations and prior approval are
required by law to have been conducted and secured by the
respondent Province.Prior
consultations
and
prior
approval are required by law to have been conducted and
secured by the respondent Province. Accordingly, the
information dissemination conducted months after the ECC had
already been issued was insufficient to comply with this
requirement under the Local Government Code. Had they been
conducted properly, the prior public consultation should have
considered the ecological or environmental concerns of the
stakeholders and studied measures alternative to the project, to
3/70
7/9/2015
avoid or minimize adverse environmental impact or damage. In

fact, respondent Province once tried to obtain the favorable
endorsement of the Sangguniang Bayan of Malay, but this was
denied by the latter.
Same Presidential Decree No. 1586 It is the policy of the
State to attain and maintain a rational and orderly balance
between socioeconomic growth and environmental protection.
The parties are evidently in accord in seeking to uphold the
mandate found in Article II, Declaration of Principles and State
Policies, of the 1987 Constitution, which we quote below:
SECTION 16. The State shall pro
558
558

tect and advance the right of the people to a balanced and

healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of
nature. x x x x SECTION 20. The State recognizes the
indispensable role of the private sector, encourages private
enterprise, and provides incentives to needed investments. The
protection of the environment in accordance with the aforesaid
constitutional mandate is the aim, among others, of Presidential
Decree No. 1586, Establishing an Environmental Impact
Statement System, Including Other Environmental Management
Related Measures and For Other Purposes, which declared in its
first Section that it is the policy of the State to attain and
maintain a rational and orderly balance between socio
economic growth and environmental protection.
PETITION for Issuance of an Environmental Protection

Order.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Roque and Butuyan Law Office for petitioner.
Jonathan P. Bulos for respondent Environmental
Management Bureau.
The Government Corporate Counsel for respondent
Philippine Reclamation Authority.
Lee T. Manares and Maya Bien MayorTolentino for
respondent Province of Aklan.
LEONARDODE CASTRO,J.:
In resolving this controversy, the Court took into
4/70
7/9/2015
consideration that all the parties involved share common

goals in pursuit of certain primordial State policies and
principles that are enshrined in the Constitution and
pertinent laws, such as the protection of the environment,
the empowerment of the local government units, the
promotion of tourism, and the encouragement of the
participation of the private sector. The Court seeks to
reconcile the respective roles, duties and responsibilities of
the petitioner and respondents in achieving
559
VOL. 674, JUNE 26, 2012
559
these shared goals within the context of our Constitution,

laws and regulations.
Nature of the Case
This is an original petition for the issuance of an
Environmental Protection Order in the nature of a
continuing mandamus under A.M. No. 0968SC,
otherwise known as the Rules of Procedure for
Environmental Cases, promulgated on April 29, 2010.
The Parties
Petitioner Boracay Foundation, Inc. (petitioner) is a duly
registered, nonstock domestic corporation. Its primary
purpose is to foster a united, concerted and environment
conscious development of Boracay Island, thereby
preserving and maintaining its culture, natural beauty and
ecological balance, marking the island as the crown jewel of
Philippine tourism, a prime tourist destination in Asia and
the whole world.1 It counts among its members at least
sixty (60) owners and representatives of resorts, hotels,
restaurants, and similar institutions at least five
community organizations and several environmentally
conscious residents and advocates.2
Respondent Province of Aklan (respondent Province) is a
political subdivision of the government created pursuant to
Republic Act No. 1414, represented by Honorable Carlito S.
Marquez, the Provincial Governor (Governor Marquez).
Respondent
Philippine
Reclamation
Authority
(respondent PRA), formerly called the Public Estates
Authority (PEA), is a government entity created by
Presidential Decree No. 1084,3
5/70
7/9/2015
_______________
1Rollo, p. 1032.
2Id., at pp. 10321033.
3Id., at p. 1114.
560
560

which states that one of the purposes for which respondent

PRA was created was to reclaim land, including foreshore
and submerged areas. PEA eventually became the lead
agency primarily responsible for all reclamation projects in
the country under Executive Order No. 525, series of 1979.
In June 2006, the President of the Philippines issued
Executive Order No. 543, delegating the power to approve
reclamation projects to PRA through its governing Board,
subject to compliance with existing laws and rules and
further subject to the condition that reclamation contracts
to be executed with any person or entity (must) go through
public bidding.4
Respondent Department of Environment and Natural
ResourcesEnvironmental Management Bureau (DENR
EMB), Regional Office VI (respondent DENREMB RVI), is
the government agency in the Western Visayas Region
authorized to issue environmental compliance certificates
regarding projects that require the environments
protection and management in the region.5
Summary of Antecedent Facts
Boracay Island (Boracay), a tropical paradise located in
the Western Visayas region of the Philippines and one of
the countrys most popular tourist destinations, was
declared a tourist zone and marine reserve in 1973 under
Presidential Proclamation No. 1801.6 The island comprises
the barangays of Manocmanoc, Balabag, and Yapak, all
within the municipality of Malay, in the province of Aklan.7
Petitioner describes Boracay as follows:
_______________
4Id., at pp. 238239.
5Id.
6Id., at p. 4.
7 Excerpt from http://www.boracayisland.org/aboutboracay.php, last
6/70
7/9/2015
accessed on January 12, 2012.

561
VOL. 674, JUNE 26, 2012
561

Boracay is wellknown for its distinctive powdery whitesand
beaches which are the product of the unique ecosystem dynamics
of the area. The island itself is known to come from the uplifted
remnants of an ancient reef platform. Its beaches, the sandy land
strip between the water and the area currently occupied by
numerous establishments, is the primary draw for domestic and
international tourists for its color, texture and other unique
characteristics. Needless to state, it is the premier domestic and
international tourist destination in the Philippines.8
More than a decade ago, respondent Province built the

Caticlan Jetty Port and Passenger Terminal at Barangay
Caticlan to be the main gateway to Boracay. It also built
the corresponding Cagban Jetty Port and Passenger
Terminal to be the receiving end for tourists in Boracay.
Respondent Province operates both ports to provide
structural facilities suited for locals, tourists and guests
and to provide safety and security measures.9
In 2005, Boracay 2010 Summit was held and
participated in by representatives from national
government agencies, local government units (LGUs), and
the private sector. Petitioner was one of the organizers and
participants thereto. The Summit aimed to reestablish a
common vision of all stakeholders to ensure the
conservation, restoration, and preservation of Boracay
Island and to develop an action plan that [would allow]
all sectors to work in concert among and with each other
for the long term benefit and sustainability of the island
and the community.10 The Summit yielded a Terminal
Report11 stating that the participants had shared their
dream of having worldclass land, water and air
infrastructure, as well as given their observations that
government support was lacking, infrastructure was poor,
and, more importantly, the influx of tourists to Boracay
was increasing. The Report
_______________
8 Rollo, p. 5.
7/70
7/9/2015
9 Id., at p. 400.
10Id., at pp. 400401.
11Id., at pp. 444467.
562
562

showed that there was a need to expand the port facilities

at Caticlan due to congestion in the holding area of the
existing port, caused by inadequate facilities, thus tourists
suffered long queues while waiting for the boat ride going
to the island.12
Respondent Province claimed that tourist arrivals to
Boracay reached approximately 649,559 in 2009 and
779,666 in 2010, and this was expected to reach a record of
1 million tourist arrivals in the years to come. Thus,
respondent Province conceptualized the expansion of the
port facilities at Barangay Caticlan.13
The Sangguniang Barangay of Caticlan, Malay
Municipality, issued Resolution No. 13, s. 200814 on April
25, 2008 stating that it had learned that respondent
Province had filed an application with the DENR for a
foreshore lease of areas along the shorelines of Barangay
Caticlan, and manifesting its strong opposition to said
application, as the proposed foreshore lease practically
covered almost all the coastlines of said barangay, thereby
technically diminishing its territorial jurisdiction, once
granted, and depriving its constituents of their statutory
right of preference in the development and utilization of
the natural resources within its jurisdiction. The resolution
further stated that respondent Province did not conduct
any consultations with the Sangguniang Barangay of
Caticlan regarding the proposed foreshore lease, which
failure the Sanggunian considered as an act of bad faith on
the part of respondent Province.15
On November 20, 2008, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan
of respondent Province approved Resolution No. 2008
369,16 formally authorizing Governor Marquez to enter into
negotia
_______________
12Id., at p. 401.
8/70
7/9/2015
13Id.
14Id., at p. 45.
15Id.
16Id., at pp. 4344.
536
536

tions towards the possibility of effecting selfliquidating

and incomeproducing development and livelihood projects
to be financed through bonds, debentures, securities,
collaterals, notes or other obligations as provided under
Section 299 of the Local Government Code, with the
following priority projects: (a) renovation/rehabilitation of
the Caticlan/Cagban Passenger Terminal Buildings and
Jetty Ports and (b) reclamation of a portion of Caticlan
foreshore for commercial purposes.17 This step was taken
as respondent Provinces existing jetty port and passenger
terminal was funded through bond flotation, which was
successfully redeemed and paid ahead of the target date.
This was allegedly cited as one of the LGUs Best Practices
wherein respondent Province was given the appropriate
commendation.18
Respondent Province included the proposed expansion of
the port facilities at Barangay Caticlan in its 2009 Annual
Investment Plan,19 envisioned as its project site the area
adjacent to the existing jetty port, and identified additional
areas along the coastline of Barangay Caticlan as the site
for future project expansion.20
Governor Marquez sent a letter to respondent PRA on
March 12, 200921 expressing the interest of respondent
Province to reclaim about 2.64 hectares of land along the
foreshores of Barangay Caticlan, Municipality of Malay,
Province of Aklan.
Sometime in April 2009, respondent Province entered
into an agreement with the Financial Advisor/Consultant
that won in the bidding process held a month before, to
conduct the necessary feasibility study of the proposed
project for the Renovation/Rehabilitation of the Caticlan
Passenger Termi
_______________
9/70
7/9/2015
17Id., at p. 44.
18Id., at p. 402.
19Id., at pp. 468525.
20Id., at p. 402.
21Id., at p. 528.
564
564

nal Building and Jetty Port, Enhancement and Recovery of

Old Caticlan Coastline, and Reclamation of a Portion of
Foreshore for Commercial Purposes (the Marina Project),
in Malay, Aklan.22
Subsequently, on May 7, 2009, the Sangguniang
Panlalawigan of respondent Province issued Resolution
No. 2009110,23 which authorized Governor Marquez
to file an application to reclaim the 2.64 hectares of
foreshore area in Caticlan, Malay, Aklan with
respondent PRA.
Sometime
in
July
2009,
the
Financial
Advisor/Consultant came up with a feasibility study which
focused on the land reclamation of 2.64 hectares by way of
beach enhancement and recovery of the old Caticlan
coastline for the rehabilitation and expansion of the
existing jetty port, and for its future plansthe
construction of commercial building and wellness center.
The financial component of the said study was Two
Hundred Sixty Million Pesos (P260,000,000.00). Its
suggested financing scheme was bond flotation.24
Meanwhile, the Sangguniang Bayan of the Municipality
of Malay expressed its strong opposition to the intended
foreshore lease application, through Resolution No. 044,25
approved on July 22, 2009, manifesting therein that
respondent Provinces foreshore lease application was for
business enterprise purposes for its benefit, at the expense
of the local government of Malay, which by statutory
provisions was the rightful entity to develop, utilize and
reap benefits from the natural resources found within its
jurisdiction.26
In August 2009, a Preliminary Geohazard Assessment27
for the enhancement/expansion of the existing Caticlan
Jetty
10/70
7/9/2015
_______________
22Id., at p. 403.
23Id., at pp. 529530.
24Id., at p. 403.
25Id., at pp. 4647.
26Id.
27Id., at pp. 531561.
565
VOL. 674, JUNE 26, 2012
565
Port and Passenger Terminal through beach zone

restoration and Protective Marina Developments in
Caticlan, Malay, Aklan was completed.
Thereafter,
Governor
Marquez
submitted
an
Environmental Performance Report and Monitoring
Program (EPRMP)28 to DENREMB RVI, which he had
attached to his letter29 dated September 19, 2009, as an
initial step for securing an Environmental Compliance
Certificate (ECC). The letter reads in part:
With the project expected to start its construction
implementation next month, the province hereby assures your
good office that it will give preferential attention to and shall
comply with whatever comments that you may have on this
EPRMP.30 (Emphasis added.)
Respondent Province was then authorized to issue

Caticlan Super Marina Bonds for the purpose of funding
the renovation of the Caticlan Jetty Port and Passenger
Terminal Building, and the reclamation of a portion of the
foreshore lease area for commercial purposes in Malay,
Aklan through Provincial Ordinance No. 2009013,
approved on September 10, 2009. The said ordinance
authorized Governor Marquez to negotiate, sign and
execute agreements in relation to the issuance of the
Caticlan Super Marina Bonds in the amount not exceeding
P260,000,000.00.31
Subsequently, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of the
Province of Aklan issued Provincial Ordinance No.
200901532 on October 1, 2009, amending Provincial
Ordinance No. 2009013, authorizing the bond flotation of
the Province of Aklan through Governor Marquez to fund
11/70
7/9/2015
the Marina Project and

_______________
28Id., at pp. 49140.
29Id., at p. 48.
30Id.
31Id., at p. 8.
32Id., at pp. 562567.
566
566

appropriate the entire proceeds of said bonds for the

project, and further authorizing Governor Marquez to
negotiate, sign and execute contracts or agreements
pertinent to the transaction.33
Within the same month of October 2009, respondent
Province deliberated on the possible expansion from its
original proposed reclamation area of 2.64 hectares to forty
(40) hectares in order to maximize the utilization of its
resources and as a response to the findings of the
Preliminary Geohazard Assessment study which showed
that the recession and retreat of the shoreline caused by
coastal erosion and scouring should be the first major
concern in the project site and nearby coastal area. The
study likewise indicated the vulnerability of the coastal
zone within the proposed project site and the nearby
coastal area due to the effects of sea level rise and climate
change which will greatly affect the social, economic, and
environmental situation of Caticlan and nearby Malay
coastal communities.34
In his letter dated October 22, 2009 addressed to
respondent PRA, Governor Marquez wrote:
With our substantial compliance with the requirements under
Administrative Order No. 20072 relative to our request to PRA
for approval of the reclamation of the [proposed Beach Zone
Restoration and Protection Marine Development in Barangays
Caticlan and ManocManoc] and as a result of our discussion
during the [meeting with the respondent PRA on October 12,
2009], may we respectfully submit a revised Reclamation
Project Description embodying certain revisions/changes
12/70
7/9/2015
in the size and location of the areas to be reclaimed. x x x.

On another note, we are pleased to inform your Office that the
bond flotation we have secured with the Local Government Unit
Guarantee Corporation (LGUGC) has been finally approved last
October 14, 2009. This will pave the way for the implementation
of
_______________
33Id., at pp. 404405.
34Id., at p. 405.
567
VOL. 674, JUNE 26, 2012
567
said project. Briefly, the Province has been recognized by the

Bureau of Local Government Finance (BLGF) for its capability to
meet its loan obligations. x x x.
With the continued increase of tourists coming to Boracay
through Caticlan, the Province is venturing into such
development project with the end in view of protection and/or
restoring certain segments of the shoreline in Barangays Caticlan
(Caticlan side) and Manocmanoc (Boracay side) which, as
reported by experts, has been experiencing tremendous coastal
erosion.
For the project to be selfliquidating, however, we will be
developing the reclaimed land for commercial and tourismrelated
facilities and for other complementary uses.35 (Emphasis ours.)
Then, on November 19, 2009, the Sangguniang

Panlalawigan enacted Resolution No. 200929936
authorizing Governor Marquez to enter into a
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with respondent PRA
in the implementation of the Beach Zone Restoration and
Protection Marina Development Project, which shall
reclaim a total of 40 hectares in the areas adjacent to
the jetty ports at Barangay Caticlan and Barangay Manoc
manoc. The Sangguniang Panlalawigan approved the
terms and conditions of the necessary agreements for the
implementation of the bond flotation of respondent
Province to fund the renovation/rehabilitation of the
existing jetty port by way of enhancement and recovery of
the Old Caticlan shoreline through reclamation of an area
of 2.64 hectares in the amount of P260,000,000.00 on
13/70
7/9/2015
December 1, 2009.37
Respondent Province gave an initial presentation of the
project with consultation to the Sangguniang Bayan of
Malay38 on December 9, 2009.
_______________
35Id., at pp. 568569.
36Id., at pp. 576577.
37Id., at pp. 406407.
38Id., at pp. 578587.
568
568

Respondent PRA approved the reclamation

project on April 20, 2010 in its Resolution No. 4094
and authorized its General Manager/Chief Executive
Officer (CEO) to enter into a MOA with respondent
Province for the implementation of the reclamation
project.39
On April 27, 2010, DENREMB RVI issued to
respondent
Province
ECCR610030967100
(the
questioned ECC) for Phase 1 of the Reclamation Project to
the extent of 2.64 hectares to be done along the Caticlan
side beside the existing jetty port.40
On May 17, 2010, respondent Province entered into a
MOA41 with respondent PRA. Under Article III, the Project
was described therein as follows:
The proposed Aklan Beach Zone Restoration and
Protection Marina Development Project involves the
reclamation and development of approximately forty (40)
hectares of foreshore and offshore areas of the Municipality of
Malay x x x.
The land use development of the reclamation project shall be
for commercial, recreational and institutional and other
applicable uses.42 (Emphases supplied.)
It was at this point that respondent Province

deemed it necessary to conduct a series of what it
calls informationeducation campaigns, which
provided the venue for interaction and dialogue with the
public, particularly the Barangay and Municipal officials of
14/70
7/9/2015
the Municipality of Malay, the residents of Barangay

Caticlan and Boracay, the stakeholders, and the non
governmental organizations (NGOs). The details of the
campaign are summarized as follows:43
_______________
39Id., at p. 156.
40Id., at pp. 169174.
41Id., at pp. 594604.
42Id., at p. 596.
43Id., at pp. 407408.
569
VOL. 674, JUNE 26, 2012
569

a.June 17, 2010 at Casa Pilar Beach Resort, Boracay Island, Malay,
Aklan44
b.July 28, 2010 at Caticlan Jetty Port and Passenger Terminal45
c.July 31, 2010 at Barangay Caticlan Plaza46
d.September 15, 2010 at the Office of the Provincial Governor with
Municipal Mayor of MalayMayor John P. Yap47
e.October 12, 2010 at the Office of the Provincial Governor with the
Provincial Development Council Executive Committee48 and
f.October 29, 2010 at the Office of the Provincial Governor with
Officials of LGUMalay and Petitioner.49
Petitioner claims that during the public consultation

meeting belatedly called by respondent Province on June
17, 2010, respondent Province presented the Reclamation
Project and only then detailed the actions that it had
already undertaken, particularly: the issuance of the
Caticlan Super Marina Bonds the execution of the MOA
with respondent PRA the alleged conduct of an
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) study for the
reclamation project and the expansion of the project to
forty (40) hectares from 2.64 hectares.50
In Resolution No. 046, Series of 2010, adopted on June
23, 2010, the Malay Municipality reiterated its strong
opposition to respondent Provinces project and denied its
request for a favorable endorsement of the Marina
Project.51
15/70
7/9/2015
_______________
44Id., at pp. 605609.
45Id., at pp. 610614.
46Id., at pp. 615621.
47Id., at pp. 622623.
48Id., at pp. 624626.
49Id., at pp. 627629.
50Id., at pp. 910.
51Id., at p. 175.
570
570

The
Malay
Municipality
subsequently
issued
Resolution No. 016, Series of 2010, adopted on August 3,
2010, to request respondent PRA not to grant reclamation
permit and notice to proceed to the Marina Project of the
[respondent] Provincial Government of Aklan located at
Caticlan, Malay, Aklan.52
In a letter53 dated October 12, 2010, petitioner informed
respondent PRA of its opposition to the reclamation project,
primarily for the reason that, based on the opinion of Dr.
Porfirio M. Alio, an expert from the University of the
Philippines Marine Science Institute (UPMSI), which he
rendered based on the documents submitted by respondent
Province to obtain the ECC, a full EIA study is required to
assess the reclamation projects likelihood of rendering
critical and lasting effect on Boracay considering the
proximity in distance, geographical location, current and
wind direction, and many other environmental
considerations in the area. Petitioner noted that said
documents had failed to deal with coastal erosion concerns
in Boracay. It also noted that respondent Province failed to
comply with certain mandatory provisions of the Local
Government Code, particularly, those requiring the project
proponent to conduct consultations with stakeholders.
Petitioner likewise transmitted its Resolution No. 001,
Series of 2010, registering its opposition to the
reclamation project to respondent Province, respondent
PRA, respondent DENREMB, the National Economic
Development Authority Region VI, the Malay Municipality,
and other concerned entities.54
16/70
7/9/2015
Petitioner alleges that despite the Malay Municipalitys

denial of respondent Provinces request for a favorable
endorsement, as well as the strong opposition manifested
both
_______________
52Id., at p. 176.
53Id., at pp. 178182.
54Id., at pp. 183185.
571
VOL. 674, JUNE 26, 2012
571
by Barangay Caticlan and petitioner as an NGO,

respondent
Province
still
continued
with
the
55
implementation of the Reclamation Project.
On July 26, 2010, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of
respondent Province set aside Resolution No. 046, s.
2010, of the Municipality of Malay and manifested its
support for the implementation of the aforesaid project
through its Resolution No. 2010022.56
On July 27, 2010, the MOA was confirmed by
respondent PRA Board of Directors under its Resolution
No. 4130. Respondent PRA wrote to respondent Province
on October 19, 2010, informing the latter to proceed with
the reclamation and development of phase 1 of site 1
of its proposed project. Respondent PRA attached to
said letter its Evaluation Report dated October 18, 2010.57
Petitioner likewise received a copy of respondent PRAs
letter dated October 19, 2010, which authorized respondent
Province to proceed with phase 1 of the reclamation project,
subject to compliance with the requirements of its
Evaluation Report. The reclamation project was described
as:
[A] seafront development involving reclamation of an
aggregate area of more or less, forty (40) hectares in two (2)
separate sites both in Malay Municipality, Aklan Province. Site 1
is in Brgy. Caticlan with a total area of 36.82 hectares and
Site 2 in Brgy. ManocManoc, Boracay Island with a total
area of 3.18 hectares. Sites 1 and 2 are on the opposite sides of
Tabon Strait, about 1,200 meters apart. x x x.58 (Emphases
17/70
7/9/2015
added.)
The Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Aklan, through

Resolution No. 2010034,59 addressed the apprehensions
of peti
_______________
55Id., at p. 11.
56Id., at pp. 630631.
57Id., at pp. 155156.
58Id., at p. 156.
59Id., at pp. 632634.
572
572

tioner embodied in its Resolution No. 001, s. 2010, and

supported the implementation of the project. Said
resolution stated that the apprehensions of petitioner with
regard to the economic, social and political negative
impacts of the projects were mere perceptions and
generalities and were not anchored on definite scientific,
social and political studies.
In the meantime, a study was commissioned by the
Philippine Chamber of Commerce and IndustryBoracay
(PCCIBoracay), funded by the Department of Tourism
(DOT) with the assistance of, among others, petitioner.
The study was conducted in November 2010 by several
marine biologists/experts from the Marine Environmental
Resources Foundation (MERF) of the UPMSI. The study
was intended to determine the potential impact of a
reclamation project in the hydrodynamics of the strait and
on the coastal erosion patterns in the southern coast of
Boracay Island and along the coast of Caticlan.60
After noting the objections of the respective LGUs of
Caticlan and Malay, as well as the apprehensions of
petitioner, respondent Province issued a notice to the
contractor on December 1, 2010 to commence with the
construction of the project.61
On April 4, 2011, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of
Aklan, through its Committee on Cooperatives, Food,
Agriculture, and Environmental Protection and the
18/70
7/9/2015
Committee on Tourism, Trade, Industry and Commerce,

conducted a joint committee hearing wherein the study
undertaken by the MERFUPMSI was discussed.62 In
attendance were Mr. Ariel Abriam, President of PCCI
Boracay, representatives from the Provincial Government,
and Dr. Cesar Villanoy, a professor from the UPMSI. Dr.
Villanoy said that the subject project, consisting of 2.64
hectares, would only have insignificant
_______________
60Id., at pp. 186202.
61Id., at p. 409.
62Id., at pp. 635652.
573
VOL. 674, JUNE 26, 2012
573
effect on the hydrodynamics of the strait traversing the

coastline of Barangay Caticlan and Boracay, hence, there
was a distant possibility that it would affect the Boracay
coastline, which includes the famous whitesand beach of
the island.63
Thus, on April 6, 2011, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan
of Aklan enacted Resolution No. 201106564 noting the
report on the survey of the channel between Caticlan and
Boracay conducted by the UPMSI in relation to the effects
of the ongoing reclamation to Boracay beaches, and stating
that Dr. Villanoy had admitted that nowhere in their study
was it pointed out that there would be an adverse effect on
the whitesand beach of Boracay.
During the First Quarter Regular Meeting of the
Regional Development Council, Region VI (RDCVI) on
April 16, 2011, it approved and supported the subject
project (covering 2.64 hectares) through RDCVI
Resolution No. VI26, series of 2011.65
Subsequently, Mr. Abriam sent a letter to Governor
Marquez dated April 25, 2011 stating that the study
conducted by the UPMSI confirms that the water flow
across the CaticlanBoracay channel is primarily tide
driven, therefore, the marine scientists believe that the
2.64hectare project of respondent Province would not
significantly affect the flow in the channel and would
19/70
7/9/2015
unlikely impact the Boracay beaches. Based on this, PCCI

Boracay stated that it was not opposing the 2.64hectare
Caticlan reclamation project on environmental grounds.66
On June 1, 2011, petitioner filed the instant Petition for
Environmental Protection Order/Issuance of the Writ of
Continuing Mandamus. On June 7, 2011, this Court issued
a Temporary Environmental Protection Order
(TEPO)
_______________
63Id., at pp. 409410.
64Id., at pp. 656658.
65Id., at pp. 660661.
66Id., at pp. 653654.
574
574

and ordered the respondents to file their respective

comments to the petition.67
After receiving a copy of the TEPO on June 9, 2011,
respondent Province immediately issued an order to the
Provincial Engineering Office and the concerned contractor
to cease and desist from conducting any construction
activities until further orders from this Court.
The petition is premised on the following grounds:
I.
THE
RESPONDENT
PROVINCE,
PROPONENT
OF
THE
RECLAMATION PROJECT, FAILED TO COMPLY WITH RELEVANT

RULES AND REGULATIONS IN THE ACQUISITION OF AN ECC.
A.THE RECLAMATION PROJECT IS COLOCATED WITHIN
ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREAS REQUIRING THE
PERFORMANCE
OF
FULL,
OR
PROGRAMMATIC,
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT.

B.RESPONDENT
PROVINCE
FAILED
TO
OBTAIN
THE
FAVORABLE ENDORSEMENT OF THE LGU CONCERNED.

C.RESPONDENT PROVINCE FAILED TO CONDUCT THE
REQUIRED CONSULTATION PROCEDURES AS REQUIRED
BY THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE.
D.RESPONDENT PROVINCE FAILED TO PERFORM A FULL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT AS REQUIRED BY
20/70
7/9/2015
LAW AND RELEVANT REGULATIONS.

II.
THE
RECLAMATION
OF
LAND
BORDERING
THE
STRAIT
BETWEEN CATICLAN AND BORACAY SHALL ADVERSELY AFFECT

THE FRAIL ECOLOGICAL BALANCE OF THE AREA.68
_______________
67Id., at pp. 222223.
68Id., at p. 13.
575
VOL. 674, JUNE 26, 2012
575
Petitioner objects to respondent Provinces classification

of the reclamation project as single instead of colocated, as
nonenvironmentally
critical,
and
as
a
mere
rehabilitation of the existing jetty port. Petitioner points
out that the reclamation project is on two sites (which are
situated on the opposite sides of Tabon Strait, about 1,200
meters apart):
36.82 hectares Site 1, in Bgy. Caticlan
3.18 hectares Site 2, in Manocmanoc, Boracay Island69
Phase 1, which was started in December 2010 without

the necessary permits,70 is located on the Caticlan side of a
narrow strait separating mainland Aklan from Boracay. In
the implementation of the project, respondent Province
obtained only an ECC to conduct Phase 1, instead of an
ECC on the entire 40 hectares. Thus, petitioner argues that
respondent Province abused and exploited the Revised
Procedural Manual for DENR Administrative Order
No. 30, Series of 2003 (DENR DAO 200330)71 relating
to the acquisition of an ECC by:
1.Declaring the reclamation project under Group II ProjectsNon
ECP
(environmentally
critical
project)
in
ECA
(environmentally critical area) based on the type and size of

the area, and
2.Failing to declare the reclamation project as a colocated project
application which would have required the Province to submit a
Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS)72 or
Programmatic Envi
21/70
7/9/2015
_______________
69Id., at p. 12.
70Id.
71 The Implementing Rules and Regulations of Presidential Decree No. 1586, which
established The Philippine Environment Impact Statement System (PEISS).
72Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS)documentation of comprehensive
studies on environmental baseline conditions of a contiguous area. It also includes an
assessment of the
576
576

ronmental
[Performance]
(PE[P]RMP).
73
Report
Management
Plan
(Emphases ours.)
Petitioner further alleges that the Revised Procedural

Manual (on which the classification above is based, which
merely requires an Environmental Impact Statement [EIS]
for Group II projects) is patently ultra vires, and
respondent DENREMB RVI committed grave abuse of
discretion because the laws on EIS, namely, Presidential
Decree Nos. 1151 and 1586, as well as Presidential
Proclamation No. 2146, clearly indicate that projects in
environmentally critical areas are to be immediately
considered
environmentally
critical.
Petitioner
complains that respondent Province applied for an
ECC only for Phase 1 hence, unlawfully evading the
requirement that colocated projects74 within
Environmentally Critical Areas (ECAs) must submit
a PEIS and/or a PEPRMP.
Petitioner argues that respondent Province fraudulently
classified and misrepresented the project as a NonECP in
an ECA, and as a single project instead of a colocated one.
The impact assessment allegedly performed gives a
patently erroneous and wronglypremised appraisal of the
possible environmental impact of the reclamation project.
Petitioner contends that respondent Provinces choice of
classification was
_______________
carrying capacity of the area to absorb impacts from colocated projects
such as those in industrial estates or economic zones (ecozones). (DENR
DAO 200330, Section 3[v].)
73Rollo, p. 15 Programmatic Environmental Performance Report and
22/70
7/9/2015
Management Plan (PEPRMP)documentation of actual cumulative

environmental impacts of colocated projects with proposals for expansion.
The PEPRMP should also describe the effectiveness of current
environmental
mitigation
measures
and
plans
for
performance
improvement. (DENR DAO 200330, Section 3[w].)

74 Projects or series of similar projects or a project subdivided to
several phases and/or stages by the same proponent located in contiguous
areas. (DENR DAO 200330, Section 3[b].)
577
VOL. 674, JUNE 26, 2012
577
designed to avoid a comprehensive impact assessment of

the reclamation project.
Petitioner further contends that respondent DENREMB
RVI willfully and deliberately disregarded its duty to
ensure that the environment is protected from harmful
developmental projects because it allegedly performed only
a cursory and superficial review of the documents
submitted by the respondent Province for an ECC, failing
to note that all the information and data used by
respondent Province in its application for the ECC were all
dated and not current, as data was gathered in the late
1990s for the ECC issued in 1999 for the first jetty port.
Thus, petitioner alleges that respondent DENREMB RVI
ignored the environmental impact to Boracay, which
involves changes in the structure of the coastline that could
contribute to the changes in the characteristics of the sand
in the beaches of both Caticlan and Boracay.
Petitioner insists that reclamation of land at the
Caticlan side will unavoidably adversely affect the Boracay
side and notes that the declared objective of the
reclamation project is for the exploitation of Boracays
tourist trade, since the project is intended to enhance
support services thereto. But, petitioner argues, the
primary reason for Boracays popularity is its whitesand
beaches which will be negatively affected by the project.
Petitioner alleges that respondent PRA had required
respondent Province to obtain the favorable endorsement of
the LGUs of Barangay Caticlan and Malay Municipality
pursuant to the consultation procedures as required by the
23/70
7/9/2015
Local Government Code.75 Petitioner asserts that the

reclamation project is in violation not only of laws on EIS
but also of the Local Government Code as respondent
Province failed to enter into proper consultations with the
concerned LGUs. In fact, the
_______________
75Rollo, pp. 167168.
578
578

Liga ng mga BarangayMalay Chapter also expressed

strong opposition against the project.76
Petitioner cites Sections 26 and 27 of the Local
Government Code, which require consultations if the
project or program may cause pollution, climactic change,
depletion of nonrenewable resources, etc. According to
petitioner, respondent Province ignored the LGUs
opposition expressed as early as 2008. Not only that,
respondent Province belatedly called for public
consultation meetings on June 17 and July 28, 2010, after
an ECC had already been issued and the MOA between
respondents PRA and Province had already been executed.
As the petitioner saw it, these were not consultations but
mere project presentations.
Petitioner claims that respondent Province, aided and
abetted by respondents PRA and DENREMB, ignored the
spirit and letter of the Revised Procedural Manual,
intended to implement the various regulations governing
the Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) to ensure
that developmental projects are in line with sustainable
development of natural resources. The project was
conceptualized without considering alternatives.
Further, as to its allegation that respondent Province
failed to perform a full EIA, petitioner argues that while it
is true that as of now, only the Caticlan side has been
issued an ECC, the entire project involves the Boracay side,
which should have been considered a colocated project.
Petitioner claims that any project involving Boracay
requires a full EIA since it is an ECA. Phase 1 of the
project will affect Boracay and Caticlan as they are
24/70
7/9/2015
separated only by a narrow strait thus, it should be

considered an ECP. Therefore, the ECC and permit issued
must be invalidated and cancelled.
Petitioner contends that a study shows that the flow of
the water through a narrower channel due to the
reclamation
_______________
76Id., at p. 25.
579
VOL. 674, JUNE 26, 2012
579
project will likely divert sand transport off the southwest

part of Boracay, whereas the characteristic coast of the
Caticlan side of the strait indicate stronger sediment
transport.77 The whitesand beaches of Boracay and its
surrounding marine environment depend upon the natural
flow of the adjacent waters.
Regarding its claim that the reclamation of land
bordering the strait between Caticlan and Boracay shall
adversely affect the frail ecological balance of the area,
petitioner submits that while the study conducted by the
MERFUPMSI only considers the impact of the reclamation
project on the land, it is undeniable that it will also
adversely affect the already frail ecological balance of the
area. The effect of the project would have been properly
assessed if the proper EIA had been performed prior to any
implementation of the project.
According to petitioner, respondent Provinces intended
purposes do not prevail over its duty and obligation to
protect the environment. Petitioner believes that
rehabilitation of the Jetty Port may be done through other
means.
In its Comment78 dated June 21, 2011, respondent
Province claimed that application for reclamation of 40
hectares is advantageous to the Provincial Government
considering that its filing fee would only cost Php20,000.00
plus Value Added Tax (VAT) which is also the minimum
fee as prescribed under Section 4.2 of Administrative Order
No. 20072.79
Respondent Province considers the instant petition to be
25/70
7/9/2015
premature thus, it must necessarily fail for lack of cause of

action due to the failure of petitioner to fully exhaust the
available administrative remedies even before seeking judi
_______________
77Id., at p. 30.
78Id., at pp. 396443.
79IRR of E.O. No. 532 dated June 24, 2006, entitled Delegating to the
[respondent PRA] the Power to Approve Reclamation Projects.
580
580

cial relief. According to respondent Province, the petition

primarily assailed the decision of respondent DENREMB
RVI in granting the ECC for the subject project consisting
of 2.64 hectares and sought the cancellation of the ECC
for alleged failure of respondent Province to submit proper
documentation as required for its issuance. Hence, the
grounds relied upon by petitioner can be addressed within
the confines of administrative processes provided by law.
Respondent Province believes that under Section 5.4.3 of
DENR Administrative Order No. 200330 (DAO 200330),80
the issuance of an ECC81 is an official decision of DENR
EMB RVI on the application of a project proponent.82 It
cites Section 6 of DENR DAO 200330, which provides
for a remedy available to the party aggrieved by the final
decision on the proponents ECC applications.
Respondent Province argues that the instant petition is
anchored on a wrong premise that results to petitioners
unfounded fears and baseless apprehensions. It is
respondent Provinces contention that its 2.64hectare
reclamation project is considered as a stand alone project,
separate and independent from the approved area of 40
hectares. Thus, petitioner should have observed the
difference between the future development plan of
respondent Province from its actual project being
undertaken.83
Respondent Province clearly does not dispute the fact
that it revised its original application to respondent PRA
from 2.64 hectares to 40 hectares. However, it claims that
such revision is part of its future plan, and
26/70
7/9/2015
implementation thereof is still

_______________
80 Implementing
Rules
and
Regulations
for
the
Philippine
Environmental Impact Statement System.

81 An ECC shall contain the scope and limitations of the approved
activities, as well as conditions to ensure compliance with the
Environmental Management Plan.
82Rollo, pp. 414415.
83Id., at p. 418.
581
VOL. 674, JUNE 26, 2012
581
subject to availability of funds, independent scientific

environmental study, separate application of ECC and
notice to proceed to be issued by respondent PRA.84
Respondent Province goes on to claim that [p]etitioners
version of the Caticlan jetty port expansion project is a
bigger project which is still at the conceptualization stage.
Although this project was described in the Notice to
Proceed issued by respondent PRA to have two phases,
36.82 hectares in Caticlan and 3.18 hectares in Boracay
[Island,] it is totally different from the [ongoing] Caticlan
jetty port expansion project.85
Respondent Province says that the Accomplishment
Report86 of its Engineering Office would attest that the
actual project consists of 2.64 hectares only, as originally
planned and conceptualized, which was even reduced to 2.2
hectares due to some construction and design
modifications.
Thus, respondent Province alleges that from its
standpoint, its capability to reclaim is limited to 2.64
hectares only, based on respondent PRAs Evaluation
Report87 dated October 18, 2010, which was in turn the
basis of the issuance of the Notice to Proceed dated October
19, 2010, because the projects financial component is
P260,000,000.00 only. Said Evaluation Report indicates
that the implementation of the other phases of the project
including site 2, which consists of the other portions of the
40hectare area that includes a portion in Boracay, is still
within the 10year period and will depend largely on the
27/70
7/9/2015
availability of funds of respondent Province.88

So, even if respondent PRA approved an area that would
total up to 40 hectares, it was divided into phases in order
to determine the period of its implementation. Each phase
was
_______________
84Id.
85Id.
86Id., at pp. 662682.
87Id., at pp. 156165.
88Id., at p. 419.
582
582

separate and independent because the source of funds was

also separate. The required documents and requirements
were also specific for each phase. The entire approved area
of 40 hectares could be implemented within a period of 10
years but this would depend solely on the availability of
funds.89
As far as respondent Province understands it, additional
reclamations not covered by the ECC, which only approved
2.64 hectares, should undergo another EIA. If respondent
Province intends to commence the construction on the
other component of the 40 hectares, then it agrees that it is
mandated to secure a new ECC.90
Respondent Province admits that it dreamt of a 40
hectare project, even if it had originally planned and was at
present only financially equipped and legally compliant to
undertake 2.64 hectares of the project, and only as an
expansion of its old jetty port.91
Respondent Province claims that it has complied with
all the necessary requirements for securing an ECC. On
the issue that the reclamation project is within an ECA
requiring the performance of a full or programmatic EIA,
respondent Province reiterates that the idea of expanding
the area to 40 hectares is only a future plan. It only secured
an ECC for 2.64 hectares, based on the limits of its funding
and authority. From the beginning, its intention was to
rehabilitate and expand the existing jetty port terminal to
28/70
7/9/2015
accommodate an increasing projected traffic. The subject

project is specifically classified under DENR DAO 200330
on its Project Grouping Matrix for Determination of EIA
Report Type considered as Minor Reclamation Projects
falling under Group IINon ECP in an ECA. Whether 2.64
or 40 hectares in area, the subject project falls within this
classification.
_______________
89Id.
90Id., at p. 420.
91Id.
583
VOL. 674, JUNE 26, 2012
583
Consequently, respondent Province claims that

petitioner erred in considering the ongoing reclamation
project at Caticlan, Malay, Aklan, as colocated within an
ECA.
Respondent Province, likewise argues that the 2.64
hectare project is not a component of the approved 40
hectare area as it is originally planned for the expansion
site of the existing Caticlan jetty port. At present, it has no
definite conceptual construction plan of the said portion in
Boracay and it has no financial allocation to initiate any
project on the said Boracay portion.
Furthermore, respondent Province contends that the
present project is located in Caticlan while the alleged
component that falls within an ECA is in Boracay.
Considering its geographical location, the two sites cannot
be considered as a contiguous area for the reason that it is
separated by a body of watera strait that traverses
between the mainland Panay wherein Caticlan is located
and Boracay. Hence, it is erroneous to consider the two
sites as a colocated project within an ECA. Being a stand
alone project and an expansion of the existing jetty port,
respondent DENREMB RVI had required respondent
Province to perform an EPRMP to secure an ECC as
sanctioned by Item No. 8(b), page 7 of DENR DAO 200330.
Respondent Province contends that even if, granting for
the sake of argument, it had erroneously categorized its
29/70
7/9/2015
project as NonECP in an ECA, this was not a final

determination. Respondent DENREMB RVI, which was
the administrator of the EIS system, had the final decision
on this matter. Under DENR DAO 200330, an application
for ECC, even for a Category B2 project where an EPRMP
is conducted, shall be subjected to a review process.
Respondent DENREMB RVI had the authority to deny
said application. Its Regional Director could either issue an
ECC for the project or deny the application. He may also
require a more comprehensive EIA study. The Regional
Director issued the ECC based on the EPRMP submitted
by respondent Province and after the same went through
the EIA review process.
584
584

Thus, respondent Province concludes that petitioners

allegation of this being a colocated project is premature if
not baseless as the bigger reclamation project is still on the
conceptualization stage. Both respondents PRA and
Province are yet to complete studies and feasibility studies
to embark on another project.
Respondent Province claims that an ocular survey of the
reclamation project revealed that it had worked within the
limits of the ECC.92
With regard to petitioners allegation that respondent
Province failed to get the favorable endorsement of the
concerned LGUs in violation of the Local Government
Code, respondent Province contends that consultation vis
vis the favorable endorsement from the concerned LGUs
as contemplated under the Local Government Code are
merely tools to seek advice and not a power clothed upon
the LGUs to unilaterally approve or disapprove any
government projects. Furthermore, such endorsement is
not necessary for projects falling under Category B2 unless
required by the DENREMB RVI, under Section 5.3 of
DENR DAO 200330.
Moreover, DENR Memorandum Circular No. 08
2007 no longer requires the issuance of permits and
certifications as a prerequisite for the issuance of an ECC.
Respondent Province claims to have conducted consultative
activities with LGUs in connection with Sections 26 and 27
30/70
7/9/2015
of the Local Government Code. The vehement and staunch

objections of both the Sangguniang Barangay of Caticlan
and the Sangguniang Bayan of Malay, according to
respondent Province, were not rooted on its perceived
impact upon the people and the community in terms of
environmental or ecological balance, but due to an alleged
conflict with their principal position to develop, utilize and
reap benefits from the natural resources found within its
jurisdiction.93 Respondent Province argues
_______________
92Id., at pp. 683688.
93Id., at p. 430.
585
VOL. 674, JUNE 26, 2012
585
that these concerns are not within the purview of the Local
Government Code. Furthermore, the Preliminary
Geohazard Assessment Report and EPRMP as well as
Sangguniang Panlalawigan Resolution Nos. 2010022 and
2010034 should address any environmental issue they
may raise.
Respondent Province posits that the spirit and intent of
Sections 26 and 27 of the Local Government Code is to
create an avenue for parties, the proponent and the LGU
concerned, to come up with a tool in harmonizing its views
and concerns about the project. The duty to consult does
not automatically require adherence to the opinions during
the consultation process. It is allegedly not within the
provisions to give the full authority to the LGU concerned
to unilaterally approve or disapprove the project in the
guise of requiring the proponent of securing its favorable
endorsement. In this case, petitioner is calling a halt to the
project without providing an alternative resolution to
harmonize its position and that of respondent Province.
Respondent Province claims that the EPRMP94 would
reveal that:
[T]he area fronting the project site is practically composed of
sand. Dead coral communities may be found along the vicinity.
Thus, fish life at the project site is quite scarce due to the absence
of marine support systems like the sea grass beds and coral reefs.
31/70
7/9/2015
x x x [T]here is no coral cover at the existing Caticlan jetty port.

[From] the deepest point of jetty to the shallowest point, there
was no more coral patch and the substrate is sandy. It is of public
knowledge that the said foreshore area is being utilized by the
residents ever since as berthing or anchorage site of their
motorized banca. There will be no possibility of any coral
development therein because
_______________
94 The EPRMP was based on the study conducted by the Bureau of Fisheries
and Aquatic Resources (BFAR) dated August 27, 1999 (The Observations on the
Floor Bottom and its Marine Resources at the Proposed Jetty Ports at Caticlan
and Manokmanok, Boracay, Aklan). (Rollo, pp. 433434.)
586
586

of its continuous utilization. Likewise, the activity of the strait

that traverses between the main land Caticlan and Boracay
Island would also be a factor of the coral development. Corals
[may] only be formed within the area if there is scientific human
intervention, which is absent up to the present.
In light of the foregoing premise, it casts serious doubt on
petitioners allegations pertaining to the environmental effects of
RespondentLGUs 2.64 hectares reclamation project. The alleged
environmental impact of the subject project to the beaches of
Boracay
Island
remains
unconfirmed.
Petitioner
had
unsuccessfully proven that the project would cause imminent,
grave and irreparable injury to the community.95
Respondent Province prayed for the dissolution of the

TEPO, claiming that the rules provide that the TEPO may
be dissolved if it appears after hearing that its issuance or
continuance would cause irreparable damage to the party
or person enjoined, while the applicant may be fully
compensated for such damages as he may suffer and
subject to the posting of a sufficient bond by the party or
person enjoined. Respondent Province contends that the
TEPO would cause irreparable damage in two aspects:
a.Financial dislocation and probable bankruptcy and
b.Grave and imminent danger to safety and health of inhabitants of
immediate area, including tourists and passengers serviced by the
jetty port, brought about by the abrupt cessation of development
32/70
7/9/2015
works.
As regards financial dislocation, the arguments of

respondent Province are summarized below:
1.This project is financed by bonds which the respondent Province
had issued to its creditors as the financing scheme in funding the
present project is by way of credit financing through bond flotation.
_______________
95Rollo, pp. 433434.
587
VOL. 674, JUNE 26, 2012
587
2.The funds are financed by a Guarantee Bankgetting payment

from bonds, being sold to investors, which in turn would be paid by
the income that the project would realize or incur upon its
completion.
3.While the project is under construction, respondent Province is
appropriating a portion of its Internal Revenue Allotment (IRA)
budget from the 20% development fund to defray the interest and
principal amortization due to the Guarantee Bank.
4.The respondent Provinces IRA, regular income, and/or such other
revenues or funds, as may be permitted by law, are being used as
security for the payment of the said loan used for the projects
construction.
5.The inability of the subject project to earn revenues as projected
upon completion will compel the Province to shoulder the full
amount of the obligation, starting from year 2012.
6.Respondent province is mandated to assign its IRA, regular income
and/or such other revenues or funds as permitted by law if project
is stopped, detriment of the public welfare and its constituents.96
As to the second ground for the dissolution of the TEPO,

respondent Province argues:
1.Noncompliance with the guidelines of the ECC may result to
environmental hazards most especially that reclaimed land if not
properly secured may be eroded into the sea.
2.The construction has accomplished 65.26 percent of the project. The
embankment that was deposited on the project has no proper
concrete wave protection that might be washed out in the event
that a strong typhoon or big waves may occur affecting the strait
and the properties along the project site. It is already the rainy
season and there is a big possibility of typhoon occurrence.
33/70
7/9/2015
_______________
96Id., at pp. 436437.
588
588

3.If said incident occurs, the aggregates of the embankment that had
been washed out might be transferred to the adjoining properties
which could affect its natural environmental state.
4.It might result to the total alteration of the physical landscape of
the area attributing to environmental disturbance.
5.The lack of proper concrete wave protection or revetment would
cause the total erosion of the embankment that has been dumped
on the accomplished area.97
Respondent Province claims that petitioner will not

stand to suffer immediate, grave and irreparable injury or
damage from the ongoing project. The petitioners
perceived fear of environmental destruction brought about
by its erroneous appreciation of available data is
unfounded and does not translate into a matter of extreme
urgency. Thus, under the Rules of Procedure on
Environmental Cases, the TEPO may be dissolved.
Respondent PRA filed its Comment98 on June 22, 2011.
It alleges that on June 24, 2006, Executive Order No. 543
delegated the power to approve reclamation projects to
respondent PRA through its governing Board, subject to
compliance with existing laws and rules and further
subject to the condition that reclamation contracts to be
executed with any person or entity (must) go through
public bidding.
Section 4 of respondent PRAs Administrative Order No.
20072 provides for the approval process and procedures for
various reclamation projects to be undertaken. Respondent
PRA prepared an Evaluation Report on November 5, 200999
regarding Aklans proposal to increase its project to 40
hectares.
_______________
97Id., at p. 438.
98Id., at pp. 237252.
99Id., at pp. 285294.
589
34/70
7/9/2015
VOL. 674, JUNE 26, 2012
589
Respondent PRA contends that it was only after

respondent Province had complied with the requirements
under the law that respondent PRA, through its Board of
Directors, approved the proposed project under its Board
Resolution No. 4094.100 In the same Resolution,
respondent PRA Board authorized the General
Manager/CEO to execute a MOA with the Aklan provincial
government to implement the reclamation project under
certain conditions.
The issue for respondent PRA was whether or not it
approved
the
respondent
Provinces
2.64hectare
reclamation project proposal in willful disregard of alleged
numerous irregularities as claimed by petitioner.101
Respondent PRA claims that its approval of the Aklan
Reclamation Project was in accordance with law and its
rules. Indeed, it issued the notice to proceed only after
Aklan had complied with all the requirements imposed by
existing laws and regulations. It further contends that the
40 hectares involved in this project remains a plan insofar
as respondent PRA is concerned. What has been
approved for reclamation by respondent PRA thus
far is only the 2.64hectare reclamation project.
Respondent PRA reiterates that it approved this
reclamation project after extensively reviewing the legal,
technical, financial, environmental, and operational
aspects of the proposed reclamation.102
One of the conditions that respondent PRA Board
imposed before approving the Aklan project was that no
reclamation work could be started until respondent PRA
has approved the detailed engineering plans/methodology,
design and specifications of the reclamation. Part of the
required submissions to respondent PRA includes the
drainage design as approved by the Public Works
Department and the ECC as issued by the DENR, all of
which the Aklan government must submit to
_______________
100Id., at pp. 295296.
101Id., at p. 243.
102Id., at pp. 243244.
590
35/70
7/9/2015
590

respondent PRA before starting any reclamation works.103

Under Article IV(B)(3) of the MOA between respondent
PRA and Aklan, the latter is required to submit, apart from
the ECC, the following requirements for respondent PRAs
review and approval, as basis for the issuance of a Notice to
Proceed (NTP) for Reclamation Works:
(a)Landform plan with technical description of the metes and bounds
of the same landform
(b)Final master development and land use plan for the project
(c)Detailed engineering studies, detailed engineering design, plans
and specification for reclamation works, reclamation plans and
methodology, plans for the sources of fill materials
(d)Drainage plan visavis the landform approved by DPWH Regional
Office to include a cost effective and efficient drainage system as
may be required based on the results of the studies
(e)Detailed project cost estimates and quantity takeoff per items of
work of the rawland reclamation components, e.g. reclamation
containment structures and soil consolidation
(f)Organizational chart of the construction arm, manning table,
equipment schedule for the project and,
(g)Project timetable (PERT/CPM) for the entire project construction
period.104
In fact, respondent PRA further required respondent

Province under Article IV (B)(24) of the MOA to strictly
comply with all conditions of the DENREMBissued ECC
and/or comply with pertinent local and international
commitments of
_______________
103Id., at p. 244.
104Id., at p. 245.
591
VOL. 674, JUNE 26, 2012
591
the Republic of the Philippines to ensure environmental

36/70
7/9/2015
protection.105
In its August 11, 2010 letter,106 respondent PRA
referred for respondent Provinces appropriate action
petitioners Resolution 001, series of 2010 and Resolution
46, series of 2010, of the Sangguniang Bayan of Malay.
Governor Marquez wrote respondent PRA107 on September
16, 2010 informing it that respondent Province had already
met with the different officials of Malay, furnishing
respondent PRA with the copies of the minutes of such
meetings/presentations. Governor Marquez also assured
respondent PRA that it had complied with the consultation
requirements as far as Malay was concerned.
Respondent PRA claims that in evaluating respondent
Provinces project and in issuing the necessary NTP for
Phase 1 of Site 1 (2.64 hectares) of the Caticlan Jetty Port
expansion and modernization, respondent PRA gave
considerable weight to all pertinent issuances, especially
the ECC issued by DENREMB RVI.108 Respondent PRA
stresses that its earlier approval of the 40hectare
reclamation project under its Resolution No. 4094, series of
2010, still requires a second level of compliance
requirements from the proponent. Respondent Province
could not possibly begin its reclamation works since
respondent PRA had yet to issue an NTP in its favor.
Respondent PRA alleges that prior to the issuance of the
NTP to respondent Province for Phase 1 of Site 1, it
required the submission of the following preconstruction
documents:
(a)LandForm Plan (with technical description)
(b)Site Development Plan/Land Use Plan including,
(i)sewer and drainage systems and
_______________
105Id. Emphasis in the original.
106Id., at pp. 328329.
107Id., at pp. 330331.
108Id., at p. 247.
592
592

(ii)waste water treatment

(c)Engineering Studies and Engineering Design
37/70
7/9/2015
(d)Reclamation Methodology
(e)Sources of Fill Materials, and,
(f)The ECC.109
Respondent PRA claims that it was only after the

evaluation of the above submissions that it issued to
respondent Province the NTP, limited to the 2.64hectare
reclamation project. Respondent PRA even emphasized in
its evaluation report that should respondent Province
pursue the other phases of its project, it would still require
the submission of an ECC for each succeeding phases
before the start of any reclamation works.110
Respondent PRA, being the national governments arm
in regulating and coordinating all reclamation projects in
the Philippinesa mandate conferred by lawmanifests
that it is incumbent upon it, in the exercise of its
regulatory functions, to diligently evaluate, based on its
technical competencies, all reclamation projects submitted
to it for approval. Once the reclamation projects
requirements set forth by law and related rules have been
complied with, respondent PRA is mandated to approve the
same. Respondent PRA claims, [w]ith all the foregoing
rigorous and detailed requirements submitted and
complied with by Aklan, and the attendant careful and
meticulous technical and legal evaluation by respondent
PRA, it cannot be argued that the reclamation permit it
issued to Aklan is founded upon numerous irregularities
as recklessly and baselessly imputed by BFI.111
In its Comment112 dated July 1, 2011, respondent
DENREMB RVI asserts that its act of issuing the ECC
certifies that
_______________
109Id.
110Id.
111Id., at p. 248.
112Id., at pp. 731746.
593
VOL. 674, JUNE 26, 2012
593
the project had undergone the proper EIA process by

assessing, among others, the direct and indirect impact of
38/70
7/9/2015
the project on the biophysical and human environment and

ensuring that these impacts are addressed by appropriate
environmental protection and enhancement measures,
pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 1586, the Revised
Procedural Manual for DENR DAO 200330, and the
existing rules and regulations.113
Respondent DENREMB RVI stresses that the
declaration in 1978 of several islands, which includes
Boracay as tourist zone and marine reserve under
Proclamation No. 1801, has no relevance to the expansion
project of Caticlan Jetty Port and Passenger Terminal for
the very reason that the project is not located in the Island
of Boracay, being located in Barangay Caticlan, Malay,
which is not a part of mainland Panay. It admits that the
site of the subject jetty port falls within the ECA under
Proclamation No. 2146 (1981), being within the category of
a water body. This was why respondent Province had
faithfully secured an ECC pursuant to the Revised
Procedural Manual for DENR DAO 200330 by submitting
the necessary documents as contained in the EPRMP on
March 19, 2010, which were the bases in granting ECC No.
R610030967100 (amended) on April 27, 2010 for the
expansion of Caticlan Jetty Port and Passenger Terminal,
covering 2.64 hectares.114
Respondent DENREMB RVI claims that the issues
raised by the LGUs of Caticlan and Malay had been
considered by the DENRProvincial Environment and
Natural Resources Office (PENRO), Aklan in the issuance
of the Order115 dated January 26, 2010, disregarding the
claim of the Municipality of Malay, Aklan of a portion of
the foreshore land in Caticlan covered by the application of
the Province of Aklan and an
_______________
113Id., at p. 732.
114Id.
115Id., at p. 845.
594
594

other Order of Rejection dated February 5, 2010 of the two

39/70
7/9/2015
foreshore applications, namely FLA No. 06041243A and

FLA No. 06041243B, of the Province of Aklan.116
Respondent DENREMB RVI contends that the
supporting documents attached to the EPRMP for the
issuance of an ECC were merely for the expansion and
modernization of the old jetty port in Barangay Caticlan
covering 2.64 hectares, and not the 40hectare reclamation
project in Barangay Caticlan and Boracay. The previous
letter of respondent Province dated October 14, 2009
addressed to DENREMB RVI Regional Executive Director,
would show that the reclamation project will cover
approximately 2.6 hectares.117 This application for ECC
was not officially accepted due to lack of requirements or
documents.
Although petitioner insists that the project involves 40
hectares in two sites, respondent DENREMB RVI looked
at the documents submitted by respondent Province and
saw that the subject area covered by the ECC application
and subsequently granted with ECCR610030967100
consists only of 2.64 hectares hence, respondent DENR
EMB RVI could not comment on the excess area.118
Respondent DENREMB RVI admits that as
regards the classification of the 2.64hectare
reclamation project under Non ECP in ECA, this
does not fall within the definition of a colocated
project because the subject project is merely an
expansion of the old Caticlan Jetty Port, which had
a previously issued ECC (ECC No. 06991012171 on
October 12, 1999). Thus, only an EPRMP, not a PEIS or
PEPRMP, is required.119
Respondent Province submitted to respondent DENR
EMB RVI the following documents contained in the
EPRMP:
_______________
116Id., at p. 846.
117Id., at p. 847.
118Id., at p. 737.
119Id.
595
VOL. 674, JUNE 26, 2012
595

40/70
7/9/2015
a.The Observations on the Floor Bottom and its Marine Resources at

the Proposed Jetty Ports at Caticlan and Manokmanok, Boracay,
Aklan, conducted in 1999 by the Bureau of Fisheries Aquatic
Resources (BFAR) Central Office, particularly in Caticlan site, and
b.The Study conducted by Dr. Ricarte S. Javelosa, Ph. D, Mines and
Geosciences Bureau (MGB), Central Office and Engr. Roger Esto,
Provincial Planning and Development Office (PPDO), Aklan in 2009
entitled Preliminary Geohazard Assessment for the Enhancement
of the Existing Caticlan Jetty Port Terminal through Beach Zone
Restoration and Protective Marina Development in Malay, Aklan.
Respondent DENREMB RVI claims that the above two

scientific studies were enough for it to arrive at a best
professional judgment to issue an amended ECC for the
Aklan Marina Project covering 2.64 hectares.120
Furthermore, to confirm that the 2.64hectare reclamation
has no significant negative impact with the surrounding
environment particularly in Boracay, a more recent study
was conducted, and respondent DENREMB RVI alleges
that [i]t is very important to highlight that the input data
in the [MERF UPMSI] study utilized the [40hectare]
reclamation and [200meter] width seaward using the tidal
and wave modelling.121 The study showed that the
reclamation of 2.64 hectares had no effect to the
hydrodynamics of the strait between Barangay Caticlan
and Boracay.
Respondent DENREMB RVI affirms that no permits
and/or clearances from National Government Agencies
(NGAs) and LGUs are required pursuant to the DENR
Memorandum Circular No. 200708, entitled Simplifying
the Requirements of ECC or CNC Applications that the
EPRMP was evaluated and processed based on the Revised
Procedural Manual for DENR DAO 200330 which resulted
to the issu
_______________
120Id., at p. 739.
121Id., at pp. 739740.
596
596

41/70
7/9/2015
ance of ECCR610030967100 and that the ECC is not a

permit per se but a planning tool for LGUs to consider in
its decision whether or not to issue a local permit.122
Respondent DENREMB RVI concludes that in filing
this case, petitioner had bypassed and deprived the DENR
Secretary of the opportunity to review and/or reverse the
decision of his subordinate office, EMB RVI pursuant to the
Revised Procedural Manual for DENR DAO 200330. There
is no extreme urgency that necessitates the granting of
Mandamus or issuance of TEPO that put to balance
between the life and death of the petitioner or present
grave or irreparable damage to environment.123
After receiving the above Comments from all the
respondents, the Court set the case for oral arguments on
September 13, 2011.
Meanwhile, on September 8, 2011, respondent Province
filed a Manifestation and Motion124 praying for the
dismissal of the petition, as the province was no longer
pursuing the implementation of the succeeding phases of
the project due to its inability to comply with Article IV
B.2(3) of the MOA hence, the issues and fears expressed by
petitioner had become moot. Respondent Province alleges
that the petition is premised on a serious misappreciation
of the real extent of the contested reclamation project as
certainly the ECC covered only a total of 2,691 square
meters located in Barangay Caticlan, Malay, Aklan and
although the MOA spoke of 40 hectares, respondent
Provinces submission of documents to respondent PRA
pertaining to said area was but the first of a twostep
process of approval. Respondent Province claims that its
failure to comply with the documentary requirements of
respondent PRA within the period provided, or 120 working
days from the effectivity of the MOA, indicated its waiver
to
_______________
122Id., at p. 742.
123Id., at pp. 744745.
124Id., at pp. 9991004.
597
VOL. 674, JUNE 26, 2012
597

42/70
7/9/2015
pursue the remainder of the project.125 Respondent

Province further manifested:
Confirming this in a letter dated 12 August 2011,126 Governor
Marquez informed respondent PRA that the Province of Aklan is
no longer pursuing the implementation of the succeeding phases
of the project with a total area of 37.4 hectares for our inability to
comply with Article IV B.2 (3) of the MOA hence, the existing
MOA will cover only the project area of 2.64 hectares.
In his replyletter dated August 22, 2011,127 [respondent]
PRA General Manager informed Governor Marquez that
the
_______________
125Id., at pp. 9991001.
126Id., at p. 1008. Attached as Annex 1 is the following letter dated August
12, 2011 from Governor Marquez to Peter Anthony A. Abaya, General Manager
and CEO of respondent PRA:
This refers to our [MOA] dated May 17, 2010 which, among others, required the
Province of Aklan to submit requirements within [120] days from effectivity of the
said MOA for review and approval by the [respondent] PRA as basis for the
issuance of [NTP] for reclamation works pertaining to the remaining phases of the
project consisting of about 37.4 hectares, more or less.
In this connection, please be informed that we are no longer pursuing the
implementation of the succeeding phases of the project with a total area of 37.4
hectares for our inability to comply with Article IV B.2 (3) of the MOA hence, our
existing MOA will cover only the project area of 2.64 hectares.
127Id., at p. 1009. Annex 2: letter from Abaya dated August 22, 2011, quoted
below:
Based on our regular monitoring of the Project, the [respondent] PRA has
likewise noted that the Province has not complied with the requirements for the
other phases of the Project within the period provided under the MOA.
Considering that the period within which to comply with the said provision of the
MOA had already lapsed and that you acknowledged your inability to comply with
the same, kindly be informed that the Aklan Beach Zone Restoration and
Protection Marina Development Project will now be confined to the reclamation
and development of the 2.64 hectares, more or less. Our Board of Directors, in its
meeting of August 18, 2011, has given us authority to confirm your position.
598
598

43/70
7/9/2015
[respondent] PRA Board of Directors has given

[respondent] PRA the authority to confirm the position of
the Province of Aklan that the Aklan Beach Zone
Restoration and Protection Marine Development Project
will now be confined to the reclamation and development
of the 2.64 hectares, more or less.
It is undisputed from the start that the coverage of the Project
is in fact limited to 2.64 hectares, as evidenced by the NTP issued
by respondent PRA. The recent exchange of correspondence
between respondents Province of Aklan and [respondent] PRA
further confirms the intent of the parties all along. Hence, the
Project subject of the petition, without doubt, covers only 2.64 and
not 40 hectares as feared. This completely changes the extent of
the Project and, consequently, moots the issues and fears
expressed by the petitioner.128 (Emphasis supplied.)
Based on the above contentions, respondent Province

prays that the petition be dismissed as no further
justiciable controversy exists since the feared adverse effect
to Boracay Islands ecology had become academic all
together.129
The Court heard the parties oral arguments on
September 13, 2011 and gave the latter twenty (20) days
thereafter to file their respective memoranda.
Respondent Province filed another Manifestation and
Motion,130 which the Court received on April 2, 2012
stating that:
1.it had submitted the required documents and studies
to respondent DENREMB RVI before an ECC was
issued in its favor
2.it had substantially complied with the requirements
provided under PRA Administrative Order 20072,
which compliance caused respondent PRAs Board to
approve the reclamation project and
_______________
128Id., at pp. 10021004.
129Id., at p. 1004.
130Rollo, pp. 12951304.
599
VOL. 674, JUNE 26, 2012
599

44/70
7/9/2015
3.it had conducted a series of consultative

[presentations] relative to the reclamation project
before the LGU of Malay Municipality, the Barangay
Officials of Caticlan, and stakeholders of Boracay
Island.
Respondent Province further manifested that the
Barangay Council of Caticlan, Malay, Aklan enacted on
February 13, 2012 Resolution No. 003, series of 2012,
entitled Resolution Favorably Endorsing the 2.6 Hectares
Reclamation/MARINA Project of the Aklan Provincial
Government at Caticlan Coastline131 and that the
Sangguniang Bayan of the Municipality of Malay,
Aklan enacted Resolution No. 020, series of 2012, entitled
Resolution Endorsing the 2.6 Hectares Reclamation
Project of the Provincial Government of Aklan Located at
Barangay Caticlan, Malay, Aklan.132
Respondent Province claims that its compliance with the
requirements of respondents DENREMB RVI and PRA
that led to the approval of the reclamation project by the
said government agencies, as well as the recent enactments
of the Barangay Council of Caticlan and the Sangguniang
Bayan of the Municipality of Malay favorably endorsing the
said project, had categorically addressed all the issues
raised by the Petitioner in its Petition dated June 1, 2011.
Respondent Province prays as follows:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed of
this Honorable Court that after due proceedings, the following be
rendered:
1.The Temporary Environmental Protection Order (TEPO) it issued
on June 7, 2011 be lifted/dissolved.
2.The instant petition be dismissed for being moot and
academic.
_______________
131Id., at p. 1299.
132Id., at pp. 13011302.
600
600

3.Respondent Province of Aklan prays for such other reliefs that are
45/70
7/9/2015
just and equitable under the premises. (Emphases in the

original.)
Issues
The Court will now resolve the following issues:
I.Whether or not the petition should be dismissed for having been
rendered moot and academic
II.Whether or not the petition is premature because petitioner failed
to exhaust administrative remedies before filing this case
III.Whether or not respondent Province failed to perform a full EIA as
required by laws and regulations based on the scope and
classification of the project
IV.Whether or not respondent Province complied with all the
requirements under the pertinent laws and regulations
V.Whether or not there was proper, timely, and sufficient public
consultation for the project
Discussion
On the issue of whether or not the
Petition should be dismissed for
having been rendered moot and
academic
Respondent Province claims in its Manifestation and
Motion filed on April 2, 2012 that with the alleged
favorable endorsement of the reclamation project by the
Sangguniang Barangay of Caticlan and the Sangguniang
Bayan of the Municipality of Malay, all the issues raised by
petitioner had already been addressed, and this petition
should be dismissed for being moot and academic.
601
VOL. 674, JUNE 26, 2012
601
On the contrary, a close reading of the two LGUs

respective resolutions would reveal that they are not
sufficient to render the petition moot and academic, as
there are explicit conditions imposed that must be complied
with by respondent Province. In Resolution No. 003, series
of 2012, of the Sangguniang Barangay of Caticlan it is
stated that any vertical structures to be constructed shall
be subject for barangay endorsement.133 Clearly, what the
barangay endorsed was the reclamation only, and not the
entire project that includes the construction of a
46/70
7/9/2015
commercial building and wellness center, and other

tourismrelated facilities. Petitioners objections, as may be
recalled, pertain not only to the reclamation per se, but also
to the building to be constructed and the entire projects
perceived ill effects to the surrounding environment.
Resolution No. 020, series of 2012, of the Sangguniang
Bayan of Malay134 is even more specific. It reads in part:
WHEREAS, noble it seems the reclamation project to the effect that
it will generate scores of benefits for the Local Government of Malay in
terms of income and employment for its constituents, but the fact cannot
be denied that the project will take its toll on the environment
especially on the nearby fragile island of Boracay and the fact
also remains that the project will eventually displace the local
transportation operators/cooperatives
WHEREAS, considering the sensitivity of the project, this Honorable
Body through the Committee where this matter was referred conducted
several consultations/committee hearings with concerned departments
and the private sector specifically Boracay Foundation, Inc. and they are
one in its belief that this Local Government Unit has never been
against development so long as compliance with the law and
proper procedures have been observed and that paramount
consideration have been given to the environment lest we
disturb the balance of nature to the end that progress will be
brought to naught
_______________
133Id., at p. 1299.
134Id., at pp. 13011302.
602
602

WHEREAS, time and again, to ensure a healthy intergovernmental

relations, this August Body requires no less than transparency and
faithful commitment from the Provincial Government of Aklan in the
process of going through these improvements in the Municipality because
it once fell prey to infidelities in matters of governance
WHEREAS, as a condition for the grant of this endorsement
and to address all issues and concerns, this Honorable Council
necessitates
sincere
commitment
from
the
Provincial
Government of Aklan to the end that:

47/70
7/9/2015
1.To allocate an office space to LGUMalay within the building in

the reclaimed area
2.To convene the Cagban and Caticlan Jetty Port Management
Board before the resumption of the reclamation project
3.That the reclamation project shall be limited only to 2.6 hectares
in Barangay Caticlan and not beyond
4.That the local transportation operators/cooperatives will not be
displaced and
5.The
Provincial
Government
of
Aklan
conduct
simultaneous comprehensive study on the environmental

impact of the reclamation project especially during
Habagat and Amihan seasons and put in place as early as
possible mitigating measures on the effect of the project to
the environment.
WHEREAS, having presented these stipulations, failure to comply
herewith will leave this August Body no choice but to revoke this
endorsement, hence faithful compliance of the commitment of
the Provincial Government is highly appealed for[.]135
(Emphases added.)
The Sangguniang Bayan of Malay obviously imposed

explicit conditions for respondent Province to comply with
on pain of revocation of its endorsement of the project,
including the need to conduct a comprehensive study on the
environ
_______________
135Id.
603
VOL. 674, JUNE 26, 2012
603
mental impact of the reclamation project, which is the

heart of the petition before us. Therefore, the contents of
the two resolutions submitted by respondent Province do
not support its conclusion that the subsequent favorable
endorsement of the LGUs had already addressed all the
issues raised and rendered the instant petition moot and
academic.
On the issue of failure to exhaust
administrative remedies
Respondents, in essence, argue that the present petition
48/70
7/9/2015
should be dismissed for petitioners failure to exhaust

administrative remedies and even to observe the hierarchy
of courts. Furthermore, as the petition questions the
issuance of the ECC and the NTP, this involves factual and
technical verification, which are more properly within the
expertise of the concerned government agencies.
Respondents anchor their argument on Section 6, Article
II of DENR DAO 200330, which provides:
Section6.Appeal
Any party aggrieved by the final decision on the ECC / CNC
applications may, within 15 days from receipt of such decision,
file an appeal on the following grounds:
a.Grave abuse of discretion on the part of the deciding authority, or
b.Serious errors in the review findings.
The DENR may adopt alternative conflict/dispute resolution procedures
as a means to settle grievances between proponents and aggrieved
parties to avert unnecessary legal action. Frivolous appeals shall not be
countenanced.
The proponent or any stakeholder may file an appeal to the
following:
604
604

Deciding Authority
EMB Regional Office Director
EMB Central Office Director
DENR Secretary
Where to file the appeal

Office of the EMB Director
Office of the DENR Secretary
Office of the President
(Emphases supplied.)
Respondents argue that since there is an administrative

appeal provided for, then petitioner is duty bound to
observe the same and may not be granted recourse to the
regular courts for its failure to do so.
We do not agree with respondents appreciation of the
applicability of the rule on exhaustion of administrative
remedies in this case. We are reminded of our ruling in
Pagara v. Court of Appeals,136 which summarized our
earlier decisions on the procedural requirement of
exhaustion of administrative remedies, to wit:
The rule regarding exhaustion of administrative
remedies is not a hard and fast rule. It is not applicable (1)
49/70
7/9/2015
where the question in dispute is purely a legal one, or (2) where

the controverted act is patently illegal or was performed without
jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction or (3) where the
respondent is a department secretary, whose acts as an alter ego
of the President bear the implied or assumed approval of the
latter, unless actually disapproved by him, or (4) where there
are circumstances indicating the urgency of judicial
intervention, Gonzales vs. Hechanova, L21897, October 22,
1963, 9 SCRA 230 Abaya vs. Villegas, L25641, December 17,
1966, 18 SCRA 1034 Mitra vs. Subido, L21691, September 15,
1967, 21 SCRA 127.
Said principle may also be disregarded when it does not
provide a plain, speedy and adequate remedy, (Cipriano vs.
Marcelino, 43 SCRA 291 [1972]), when there is no due process
observed (Villanos vs. Subido, 45 SCRA 299 [1972]), or where
the
_______________
136325 Phil. 66 254 SCRA 606 (1996).
605
VOL. 674, JUNE 26, 2012
605
protestant has no other recourse (Sta. Maria vs. Lopez, 31

SCRA 637 [1970]).137 (Emphases supplied.)
As petitioner correctly pointed out, the appeal provided

for under Section 6 of DENR DAO 200330 is only
applicable, based on the first sentence thereof, if the person
or entity charged with the duty to exhaust the
administrative remedy of appeal to the appropriate
government agency has been a party or has been made a
party in the proceedings wherein the decision to be
appealed was rendered. It has been established by the
facts that petitioner was never made a party to the
proceedings before respondent DENREMB RVI.
Petitioner was only informed that the project had already
been approved after the ECC was already granted.138 Not
being a party to the said proceedings, it does not appear
that petitioner was officially furnished a copy of the
decision, from which the 15day period to appeal should be
reckoned, and which would warrant the application of
Section 6, Article II of DENR DAO 200330.
50/70
7/9/2015
Although petitioner was not a party to the proceedings

where the decision to issue an ECC was rendered, it stands
to be aggrieved by the decision,139 because it claims that
the reclamation of land on the Caticlan side would
unavoidably adversely affect the Boracay side, where
petitioners members own establishments engaged in the
tourism trade. As noted earlier, petitioner contends that
the declared objective of the reclamation project is to
exploit Boracays tourism trade because the project is
intended to enhance support services thereto however, this
objective would not be achieved since the whitesand
beaches for which Boracay is famous might be negatively
affected by the project. Petitioners conclusion is that
respondent Province, aided and abetted by respondents
PRA and DENREMB RVI, ignored the spirit and letter of
our
_______________
137Id., at p. 81 p. 619.
138Rollo, pp. 10581059.
139Id., at pp. 10561057.
606
606

environmental laws, and should thus be compelled to

perform their duties under said laws.
The new Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases,
A.M. No. 0968SC, provides a relief for petitioner under
the writ of continuing mandamus, which is a special civil
action that may be availed of to compel the performance of
an act specifically enjoined by law140 and which provides
for the issuance of a TEPO as an auxiliary remedy prior to
the issuance of the writ itself.141 The Rationale of the said
Rules explains the writ in this wise:
Environmental law highlights the shift in the focalpoint from
the initiation of regulation by Congress to the implementation of
regulatory programs by the appropriate government agencies.
Thus, a government agencys inaction, if any, has
serious implications on the future of environmental law
enforcement. Private individuals, to the extent that they
51/70
7/9/2015
seek to change the scope of the regulatory process, will

have to rely on such agencies to take the initial incentives,
which may require a judicial component. Accordingly,
questions regarding the propriety of an agencys action or
inaction will need to be analyzed.
This point is emphasized in the availability of the remedy of
the writ of mandamus, which allows for the enforcement of the
conduct of the tasks to which the writ pertains: the
performance of a legal duty.142 (Emphases added.)
The writ of continuing mandamus permits the court to

retain jurisdiction after judgment in order to ensure the
successful implementation of the reliefs mandated under
the courts decision and, in order to do this, the court may
com
_______________
140Annotation to the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases, p.
45.
141Id.
142Rationale to the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases, p. 76.
607
VOL. 674, JUNE 26, 2012
607
pel the submission of compliance reports from the

respondent government agencies as well as avail of other
means to monitor compliance with its decision.143
According to petitioner, respondent Province acted
pursuant to a MOA with respondent PRA that was
conditioned upon, among others, a properlysecured ECC
from respondent DENREMB RVI. For this reason,
petitioner seeks to compel respondent Province to comply
with certain environmental laws, rules, and procedures
that it claims were either circumvented or ignored. Hence,
we find that the petition was appropriately filed with this
Court under Rule 8, Section 1, A.M. No. 0968SC, which
reads:
SECTION1.Petition for continuing mandamus.When any
agency or instrumentality of the government or officer thereof
unlawfully neglects the performance of an act which the law
specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust or
52/70
7/9/2015
station in connection with the enforcement or violation of an

environmental law rule or regulation or a right therein, or
unlawfully excludes another from the use or enjoyment of such
right and there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in
the ordinary course of law, the person aggrieved thereby may file
a verified petition in the proper court, alleging the facts with
certainty, attaching thereto supporting evidence, specifying that
the petition concerns an environmental law, rule or regulation,
and praying that judgment be rendered commanding the
respondent to do an act or series of acts until the judgment is fully
satisfied, and to pay damages sustained by the petitioner by
reason of the malicious neglect to perform the duties of the
respondent, under the law, rules or regulations. The petition shall
also contain a sworn certification of nonforum shopping.
SECTION2.Where to file the petition.The petition shall be
filed with the Regional Trial Court exercising jurisdiction over the
territory where the actionable neglect or omission occurred or
with the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court.
_______________
143Annotation to the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases, p.
45.
608
608

Petitioner had three options where to file this case

under the rule: the Regional Trial Court exercising
jurisdiction over the territory where the actionable neglect
or omission occurred, the Court of Appeals, or this Court.
Petitioner had no other plain, speedy, or adequate
remedy in the ordinary course of law to determine the
questions of unique national and local importance raised
here that pertain to laws and rules for environmental
protection, thus it was justified in coming to this Court.
Having resolved the procedural issue, we now move to
the substantive issues.
On the issues of whether, based on
the scope and classification of the
project, a full EIA is required by
laws and regulations, and whether
respondent Province complied with
53/70
7/9/2015
all the requirements under the

pertinent laws and regulations
Petitioners arguments on this issue hinges upon its
claim that the reclamation project is misclassified as a
single project when in fact it is colocated. Petitioner also
questions the classification made by respondent Province
that the reclamation project is merely an expansion of the
existing jetty port, when the project descriptions embodied
in the different documents filed by respondent Province
describe commercial establishments to be built, among
others, to raise revenues for the LGU thus, it should have
been classified as a new project. Petitioner likewise cries
foul to the manner by which respondent Province allegedly
circumvented the documentary requirements of the DENR
EMB RVI by the act of connecting the reclamation project
with its previous project in 1999 and claiming that the new
project is a mere expansion of the previous one.
609
VOL. 674, JUNE 26, 2012
609
As previously discussed, respondent Province filed a

Manifestation and Motion stating that the ECC issued by
respondent DENREMB RVI covered an area of 2,691
square meters in Caticlan, and its application for
reclamation of 40 hectares with respondent PRA was
conditioned on its submission of specific documents within
120 days. Respondent Province claims that its failure to
comply with said condition indicated its waiver to pursue
the succeeding phases of the reclamation project and that
the subject matter of this case had thus been limited to
2.64 hectares. Respondent PRA, for its part, declared
through its General Manager that the Aklan Beach Zone
Restoration and Protection Marine Development Project
will now be confined to the reclamation and development of
the 2.64 hectares, more or less.144
The Court notes such manifestation of respondent
Province. Assuming, however, that the area involved in the
subject reclamation project has been limited to 2.64
hectares, this case has not become moot and academic, as
alleged by respondents, because the Court still has to check
whether respondents had complied with all applicable
environmental laws, rules, and regulations pertaining to
54/70
7/9/2015
the actual reclamation project.

We recognize at this point that the DENR is the
government agency vested with delegated powers to review
and evaluate all EIA reports, and to grant or deny ECCs to
project proponents.145 It is the DENR that has the duty to
implement the EIS system. It appears, however, that
respondent DENREMB RVIs evaluation of this
reclamation project was problematic, based on the valid
questions raised by petitioner.
Being the administrator of the EIS System, respondent
DENREMB RVIs submissions bear great weight in this
case.
_______________
144Rollo, p. 1009.
145REVISED PROCEDURAL MANUAl for DAO 200330, Sec. 1.9, p. 8.
610
610

However, the following are the issues that put in question

the wisdom of respondent DENREMB RVI in issuing the
ECC:
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
colocated 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.
The above issues as raised put in question the

sufficiency of the evaluation of the project by respondent
DENREMB RVI.
Nature of the project
The first question must be answered by respondent
DENREMB RVI as the agency with the expertise and
authority to state whether this is a new project, subject to
the more rigorous environmental impact study requested
by petitioner, or it is a mere expansion of the existing jetty
55/70
7/9/2015
port facility.
The second issue refers to the classification of the project
by respondent Province, approved by respondent DENR
EMB RVI, as single instead of colocated. Under the
Revised Procedural Manual, the Summary List of
Additional NonEnvironmentallyCritical Project
(NECP) Types in ECAs Classified under Group II
(Table I2) lists buildings, storage facilities and other
structures as a separate item from transport terminal
facilities. This creates the question of whether this project
should be considered as consisting of more than one type of
activity, and should more properly be classified as co
located, under the following definition from the same
Manual, which reads:
611
VOL. 674, JUNE 26, 2012
611

f)Group IV (Colocated Projects in either ECA or NECA): A co
located project is a group of single projects, under one or
more proponents/locators, which are located in a contiguous
area and managed by one administrator, who is also the
ECC applicant. The colocated project may be an economic zone or
industrial park, or a mix of projects within a catchment, watershed
or river basin, or any other geographical, political or economic unit
of area. Since the location or threshold of specific projects within
the contiguous area will yet be derived from the EIA process based
on the carrying capacity of the project environment, the nature of
the project is called programmatic. (Emphasis added.)
Respondent DENREMB RVI should conduct a thorough

and detailed evaluation of the project to address the
question of whether this could be deemed as a group of
single projects (transport terminal facility, building, etc.) in
a contiguous area managed by respondent Province, or as a
single project.
The third item in the above enumeration will be
discussed as a separate issue.
The answer to the fourth question depends on the final
classification of the project under items 1 and 3 above
because the type of EIA study required under the Revised
Procedural Manual depends on such classification.
The very definition of an EIA points to what was most
56/70
7/9/2015
likely neglected by respondent Province as project

proponent, and what was in turn overlooked by respondent
DENREMB RVI, for it is defined as follows:
An [EIA] is a process that involves predicting and
evaluating the likely impacts of a project (including cumulative
impacts) on the environment during construction, commissioning,
operation and abandonment. It also includes designing
appropriate preventive, mitigating and enhancement measures
addressing these conse
612
612

quences to protect the environment and the communitys

welfare.146 (Emphases supplied.)
Thus, the EIA process must have been able to predict

the likely impact of the reclamation project to the
environment and to prevent any harm that may otherwise
be caused.
The project now before us involves reclamation of land
that is more than five times the size of the original
reclaimed land. Furthermore, the area prior to construction
merely contained a jetty port, whereas the proposed
expansion, as described in the EPRMP submitted by
respondent Province to respondent DENREMB RVI
involves so much more, and we quote:
The expansion project will be constructed at the north side of the
existing jetty port and terminal that will have a total area of 2.64
hectares, more or less, after reclamation. The Phase 1 of the project
construction costing around P260 million includes the following:
1.Reclamation 3,000 sq m (expansion of jetty port)
2.Reclamation 13,500 sq m (buildable area)
3.Terminal annex building 250 sq m
4.2storey commercial building 2,500 sq m (1,750 sq m of
leasable space)
5.Health and wellness center
6.Access road 12 m (wide)
7.Parking, perimeter fences, lighting and water treatment
sewerage system
8.Rehabilitation of existing jetty port and terminal
xxxx
57/70
7/9/2015
The succeeding phases of the project will consist of [further] reclamation,

completion of the commercial center building, bay walk commercial strip,
staff building, ferry terminal, a cable car system and wharf marina. This
will entail an additional estimated cost of
_______________
146Id., Sec. 1.2, p. 1.
613
VOL. 674, JUNE 26, 2012
613
P785 million bringing the total investment requirement to

about P1.0 billion.147 (Emphases added.)
As may be gleaned from the breakdown of the 2.64
hectares as described by respondent Province above, a
significant portion of the reclaimed area would be devoted
to the construction of a commercial building, and the area
to be utilized for the expansion of the jetty port consists of a
mere 3,000 square meters (sq. m). To be true to its
definition, the EIA report submitted by respondent
Province should at the very least predict the impact that
the construction of the new buildings on the reclaimed land
would have on the surrounding environment. These new
constructions and their environmental effects were not
covered by the old studies that respondent Province
previously submitted for the construction of the original
jetty port in 1999, and which it resubmitted in its
application for ECC in this alleged expansion, instead of
conducting updated and more comprehensive studies.
Any impact on the Boracay side cannot be totally
ignored, as Caticlan and Boracay are separated only by a
narrow strait. This becomes more imperative because of the
significant contributions of Boracays whitesand beach to
the countrys tourism trade, which requires respondent
Province to proceed with utmost caution in
implementing projects within its vicinity.
We had occasion to emphasize the duty of local
government units to ensure the quality of the environment
under Presidential Decree No. 1586 in Republic of the
Philippines v. The City of Davao,148 wherein we held:
Section 15 of Republic Act 7160, otherwise known as the Local
58/70
7/9/2015
Government Code, defines a local government unit as a body

politic and corporate endowed with powers to be exercised by it in
conformity with law. As such, it performs dual functions,
governmental
_______________
147Rollo, pp. 5758.
148437 Phil. 525 388 SCRA 691 (2002).
614
614

and proprietary. Governmental functions are those that concern

the health, safety and the advancement of the public good or
welfare as affecting the public generally. Proprietary functions
are those that seek to obtain special corporate benefits or earn
pecuniary profit and intended for private advantage and benefit.
When exercising governmental powers and performing
governmental duties, an LGU is an agency of the national
government. When engaged in corporate activities, it acts as an
agent of the community in the administration of local affairs.
Found in Section 16 of the Local Government Code is
the duty of the LGUs to promote the peoples right to a
balanced ecology. Pursuant to this, an LGU, like the City of
Davao, can not claim exemption from the coverage of PD 1586. As
a body politic endowed with governmental functions, an LGU has
the duty to ensure the quality of the environment, which is the
very same objective of PD 1586.
xxxx
Section 4 of PD 1586 clearly states that no person, partnership
or corporation shall undertake or operate any such declared
environmentally critical project or area without first securing an
Environmental Compliance Certificate issued by the President or
his duly authorized representative. The Civil Code defines a
person as either natural or juridical. The state and its political
subdivisions, i.e., the local government units are juridical
persons. Undoubtedly therefore, local government units
are not excluded from the coverage of PD 1586.
Lastly, very clear in Section 1 of PD 1586 that said law intends
to implement the policy of the state to achieve a balance between
socioeconomic development and environmental protection, which
are the twin goals of sustainable development. The abovequoted
first paragraph of the Whereas clause stresses that this can only
59/70
7/9/2015
be possible if we adopt a comprehensive and integrated

environmental protection program where all the sectors of
the community are involved, i.e., the government and the
private sectors. The local government units, as part of the
machinery of the government, cannot therefore be deemed
as outside the scope of the EIS system.149 (Emphases
supplied.)
_______________
149Id., at pp. 531533 pp. 694697.
615
VOL. 674, JUNE 26, 2012
615
The Court chooses to remand these matters to

respondent DENREMB RVI for it to make a proper study,
and if it should find necessary, to require respondent
Province to address these environmental issues raised by
petitioner and submit the correct EIA report as required by
the projects specifications. The Court requires respondent
DENREMB RVI to complete its study and submit a report
within a nonextendible period of three months.
Respondent DENREMB RVI should establish to the Court
in said report why the ECC it issued for the subject project
should not be canceled.
Lack of prior public consultation
The Local Government Code establishes the duties of
national government agencies in the maintenance of
ecological balance, and requires them to secure prior public
consultation and approval of local government units for
the projects described therein.
In the case before us, the national agency involved is
respondent PRA. Even if the project proponent is the local
government of Aklan, it is respondent PRA which
authorized the reclamation, being the exclusive agency of
the government to undertake reclamation nationwide.
Hence, it was necessary for respondent Province to go
through respondent PRA and to execute a MOA, wherein
respondent PRAs authority to reclaim was delegated to
respondent Province. Respondent DENREMB RVI,
regional office of the DENR, is also a national government
institution which is tasked with the issuance of the ECC
60/70
7/9/2015
that is a prerequisite to projects covered by environmental

laws such as the one at bar.
This project can be classified as a national project that
affects the environmental and ecological balance of local
communities, and is covered by the requirements found in
the Local Government Code provisions that are quoted
below:
616
616

Section26.Duty of National Government Agencies in

the Maintenance of Ecological Balance.It shall be the duty
of every national agency or governmentowned or controlled
corporation authorizing or involved in the planning and
implementation of any project or program that may cause
pollution, climatic change, depletion of nonrenewable resources,
loss of crop land, rangeland, or forest cover, and extinction of
animal or plant species, to consult with the local government
units, nongovernmental organizations, and other sectors
concerned and explain the goals and objectives of the project or
program, its impact upon the people and the community in terms
of environmental or ecological balance, and the measures that will
be undertaken to prevent or minimize the adverse effects thereof.
Section27.Prior Consultations Required.No project or
program shall be implemented by government authorities unless
the consultations mentioned in Sections 2 (c) and 26 hereof are
complied with, and prior approval of the sanggunian concerned is
obtained: Provided, That occupants in areas where such projects
are to be implemented shall not be evicted unless appropriate
relocation sites have been provided, in accordance with the
provisions of the Constitution.
In Lina, Jr. v. Pao,150 we held that Section 27 of the

Local Government Code applies only to national programs
and/or projects which are to be implemented in a particular
local community151 and that it should be read in
conjunction with Section 26. We held further in this
manner:
Thus, the projects and programs mentioned in Section 27
should be interpreted to mean projects and programs whose
effects are among those enumerated in Section 26 and 27, to wit,
61/70
7/9/2015
those that: (1) may cause pollution (2) may bring about
climatic change (3) may cause the depletion of nonrenewable
resources (4) may result in loss of crop land, rangeland, or forest
cover (5) may eradicate certain animal or plant species from the
face of the planet and (6) other projects or programs that may call
for the eviction of a particular group of people residing in the
locality where these will be im
_______________
150416 Phil. 438 364 SCRA 76 (2001).
151Id., at p. 449 p. 86.
617
VOL. 674, JUNE 26, 2012
617
plemented. Obviously, none of these effects will be produced by

the introduction of lotto in the province of Laguna.152 (Emphasis
added.)
During the oral arguments held on September 13, 2011,

it was established that this project as described above falls
under Section 26 because the commercial establishments to
be built on phase 1, as described in the EPRMP quoted
above, could cause pollution as it could generate garbage,
sewage, and possible toxic fuel discharge.153
Our ruling in Province of Rizal v. Executive Secretary154
is instructive:
We reiterated this doctrine in the recent case of Bangus Fry
Fisherfolk v. Lanzanas, where we held that there was no statutory
requirement for the sangguniang bayan of Puerto Galera to approve the
construction of a mooring facility, as Sections 26 and 27 are inapplicable
to projects which are not environmentally critical.
Moreover, Section 447, which enumerates the powers, duties and
functions of the municipality, grants the sangguniang bayan the power
to, among other things, enact ordinances, approve resolutions and
appropriate funds for the general welfare of the municipality and its
inhabitants pursuant to Section 16 of th(e) Code. These include:
(1)Approving ordinances and passing resolutions to protect the
environment and impose appropriate penalties for acts which
endanger the environment, such as dynamite fishing and other
forms of destructive fishing, illegal logging and smuggling of logs,
smuggling of natural resources products and of endangered
species of flora and fauna, slash and burn farming, and such other
62/70
7/9/2015
activities which result in pollution, acceleration of eutrophication

of rivers and lakes, or of ecological imbalance [Section 447 (1)(vi)]
_______________
152Id., at p. 450 p. 87.
153TSN, September 13, 2011, p. 109. See pp. 109133.
154513 Phil. 557 477 SCRA 436 (2005).
617
VOL. 674, JUNE 26, 2012
617

(2)Prescribing reasonable limits and restraints on the use of
property within the jurisdiction of the municipality, adopting a
comprehensive land use plan for the municipality, reclassifying
land within the jurisdiction of the city, subject to the pertinent
provisions of this Code, enacting integrated zoning ordinances in
consonance with the approved comprehensive land use plan,
subject to existing laws, rules and regulations establishing fire
limits or zones, particularly in populous centers and regulating
the construction, repair or modification of buildings within said
fire limits or zones in accordance with the provisions of this Code
[Section 447 (2)(viix)]
(3)Approving ordinances which shall ensure the efficient and
effective delivery of the basic services and facilities as provided for
under Section 17 of this Code, and in addition to said services and
facilities, providing for the establishment, maintenance,
protection, and conservation of communal forests and watersheds,
tree parks, greenbelts, mangroves, and other similar forest
development projects and, subject to existing laws, establishing
and providing for the maintenance, repair and operation of an
efficient waterworks system to supply water for the inhabitants
and purifying the source of the water supply regulating the
construction, maintenance, repair and use of hydrants, pumps,
cisterns and reservoirs protecting the purity and quantity of the
water supply of the municipality and, for this purpose, extending
the coverage of appropriate ordinances over all territory within
the drainage area of said water supply and within one hundred
(100) meters of the reservoir, conduit, canal, aqueduct, pumping
station, or watershed used in connection with the water service
and regulating the consumption, use or wastage of water.
[Section 447 (5)(i) & (vii)]
Under the Local Government Code, therefore, two requisites
must be met before a national project
that
affects
the
63/70
7/9/2015
environmental and ecological balance of local communities can

be implemented: prior consultation with the affected local
communities,
and
prior
approval
of
the
project
by
the
appropriate sanggunian. Absent either of these mandatory

619
VOL. 674, JUNE 26, 2012
619

requirements,
the
projects
implementation
is
illegal.155
(Emphasis added.)
Based on the above, therefore, prior consultations

and prior approval are required by law to have been
conducted and secured by the respondent Province.
Accordingly, the information dissemination conducted
months after the ECC had already been issued was
insufficient to comply with this requirement under the
Local Government Code. Had they been conducted
properly, the prior public consultation should have
considered the ecological or environmental concerns of the
stakeholders and studied measures alternative to the
project, to avoid or minimize adverse environmental impact
or damage. In fact, respondent Province once tried to
obtain the favorable endorsement of the Sangguniang
Bayan of Malay, but this was denied by the latter.
Moreover, DENR DAO 200330 provides:
5.3Public Hearing/Consultation Requirements
For projects under Category A1, the conduct of public
hearing as part of the EIS review is mandatory unless
otherwise determined by EMB. For all other undertakings,
a public hearing is not mandatory unless specifically
required by EMB.
Proponents should initiate public consultations early
in order to ensure that environmentally relevant
concerns
of
stakeholders
are
taken
into
consideration in the EIA study and the formulation
of the management plan. All public consultations and
public hearings conducted during the EIA process are to be
documented. The public hearing/consultation Process report
shall be validated by the EMB/EMB RD and shall constitute
part of the records of the EIA process. (Emphasis supplied.)
64/70
7/9/2015
_______________
155Id., at pp. 590592 pp. 466467.
620
620

In essence, the abovequoted rule shows that in cases

requiring public consultations, the same should be initiated
early so that concerns of stakeholders could be taken into
consideration in the EIA study. In this case, respondent
Province had already filed its ECC application before it met
with the local government units of Malay and Caticlan.
The claim of respondent DENREMB RVI is that no
permits and/or clearances from National Government
Agencies (NGAs) and LGUs are required pursuant to the
DENR Memorandum Circular No. 200708. However, we
still find that the LGC requirements of consultation and
approval apply in this case. This is because a Memorandum
Circular cannot prevail over the Local Government Code,
which is a statute and which enjoys greater weight under
our hierarchy of laws.
Subsequent to the information campaign of respondent
Province, the Municipality of Malay and the Liga ng mga
BarangayMalay Chapter still opposed the project. Thus,
when respondent Province commenced the implementation
project, it violated Section 27 of the LGC, which clearly
enunciates that [no] project or program shall be
implemented by government authorities unless the
consultations mentioned in Sections 2(c) and 26 hereof are
complied with, and prior approval of the sanggunian
concerned is obtained.
The lack of prior public consultation and approval is not
corrected by the subsequent endorsement of the
reclamation project by the Sangguniang Barangay of
Caticlan on February 13, 2012, and the Sangguniang
Bayan of the Municipality of Malay on February 28, 2012,
which were both undoubtedly achieved at the urging and
insistence of respondent Province. As we have established
above, the respective resolutions issued by the LGUs
concerned did not render this petition moot and academic.
It is clear that both petitioner and respondent Province
are interested in the promotion of tourism in Boracay and
the protection of the environment, lest they kill the
65/70
7/9/2015
proverbial
621
VOL. 674, JUNE 26, 2012
621
hen that lays the golden egg. At the beginning of this

decision, we mentioned that there are common goals of
national significance that are very apparent from both the
petitioners and the respondents respective pleadings and
memoranda.
The parties are evidently in accord in seeking to uphold
the mandate found in Article II, Declaration of Principles
and State Policies, of the 1987 Constitution, which we
quote below:
SECTION16.The State shall protect and advance the right
of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology in accord with
the rhythm and harmony of nature.
xxxx
SECTION20.The State recognizes the indispensable role of
the private sector, encourages private enterprise, and provides
incentives to needed investments.
The protection of the environment in accordance with

the aforesaid constitutional mandate is the aim, among
others, of Presidential Decree No. 1586, Establishing an
Environmental Impact Statement System, Including Other
Environmental Management Related Measures and For
Other Purposes, which declared in its first Section that it
is the policy of the State to attain and maintain a
rational and orderly balance between socio
economic growth and environmental protection.
The parties undoubtedly too agree as to the importance
of promoting tourism, pursuant to Section 2 of Republic Act
No. 9593, or The Tourism Act of 2009, which reads:
SECTION2.Declaration of Policy.The State declares
tourism as an indispensable element of the national
economy and an industry of national interest and
importance, which must be harnessed as an engine of
socioeconomic growth and cultural affirmation to generate
investment, foreign exchange and employment, and to continue to
mold an enhanced sense of national pride for all Filipinos.
66/70
7/9/2015
(Emphasis ours.)
622
622

The primordial role of local government units under the

Constitution and the Local Government Code of 1991 in the
subject matter of this case is also unquestionable. The
Local Government Code of 1991 (Republic Act No. 7160)
pertinently provides:
Section2.Declaration of Policy.(a) It is hereby declared
the policy of the State that the territorial and political
subdivisions of the State shall enjoy genuine and
meaningful local autonomy to enable them to attain their
fullest development as selfreliant communities and make
them more effective partners in the attainment of national
goals. Toward this end, the State shall provide for a more
responsive and accountable local government structure instituted
through a system of decentralization whereby local government
units
shall
be
given
more
powers,
authority,
responsibilities,
and
resources.
The
process
of
decentralization shall proceed from the national government to
the local government units.156 (Emphases ours.)
As shown by the above provisions of our laws and rules,

the speedy and smooth resolution of these issues would
benefit all the parties. Thus, respondent Provinces
cooperation with respondent DENREMB RVI in the Court
mandated review of the proper classification and
environmental impact of the reclamation project is of
utmost importance.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition
is hereby PARTIALLY GRANTED. The TEPO issued
by this Court is hereby converted into a writ of
continuing mandamus specifically as follows:
1.Respondent Department of Environment and
Natural ResourcesEnvironmental Management
Bureau Regional Office VI shall revisit and
review the following matters:
_______________
156Book I, Title One.
67/70
7/9/2015
623
VOL. 674, JUNE 26, 2012
623
a.its classification of the reclamation

project as a single instead of a colocated
project
b.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 and
c.the impact of the reclamation project to
the environment based on new, updated,
and comprehensive studies, which should
forthwith be ordered by respondent DENR
EMB RVI.
2.Respondent Province of Aklan shall perform
the following:
a.fully cooperate with respondent DENR
EMB RVI in its review of the reclamation
project proposal and submit to the latter
the appropriate report and study and
b.secure approvals from local government
units and hold proper consultations with
nongovernmental organizations and other
stakeholders and sectors concerned as
required by Section 27 in relation to
Section 26 of the Local Government Code.
3.Respondent Philippine Reclamation Authority
shall closely monitor the submission by
respondent Province of the requirements to be
issued by respondent DENREMB RVI in
connection to the environmental concerns
raised by petitioner, and shall coordinate with
respondent Province in modifying the MOA, if
necessary, based on the findings of respondent
DENREMB RVI.
4.The petitioner Boracay Foundation, Inc. and
the respondents The Province of Aklan,
represented by Governor Carlito S. Marquez,
The Philippine
624
68/70
7/9/2015
624

Reclamation Authority, and The DENREMB

(Region VI) are mandated to submit their
respective reports to this Court regarding their
compliance with the requirements set forth in
this Decision no later than three (3) months
from the date of promulgation of this Decision.
5.In the meantime, the respondents, their
concerned contractor/s, and/or their agents,
representatives or persons acting in their place
or stead, shall immediately cease and desist
from continuing the implementation of the
project covered by ECCR610030967100 until
further orders from this Court. For this
purpose, the respondents shall report within
five (5) days to this Court the status of the
project as of their receipt of this Decision, copy
furnished the petitioner.
This Decision is immediately executory.
SO ORDERED.
Carpio, Velasco, Jr., Brion, Peralta, Bersamin, Del
Castillo, Abad, Villarama, Jr., Perez, Sereno, Reyes and
PerlasBernabe, JJ., concur.
Mendoza, J., On Official Leave.
Petition partially granted.
Notes.The
doctrine
of
nonexhaustion
of
administrative remedies requires that resort be first made
with the administrative authorities in the resolution of a
controversy falling under their jurisdiction before the
controversy may be elevated to a court of justice for review
a premature invocation of a courts intervention renders
the complaint without cause of action and dismissible. (The
Alexandra Condominium Corporation vs. Laguna Lake
Development Authority, 599 SCRA 452 [2009])
625
VOL. 674, JUNE 26, 2012
625

69/70
7/9/2015
The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies

and the doctrine of primary jurisdiction are not ironclad
rules, numerous exceptions to these rules are enumerated
by the Supreme Court namely: (a) where there is estoppel
on the part of the party invoking the doctrine (b) where the
challenged administrative act is patently illegal,
amounting to lack of jurisdiction (c) where there is
unreasonable delay or official inaction that will
irretrievably prejudice the complainant (d) where the
amount involved is relatively so small as to make the rule
impractical and oppressive (e) where the question involved
is purely legal and will ultimately have to be decided by the
courts of justice (f) where judicial intervention is urgent
(g) where the application of the doctrine may cause great
and irreparable damage (h) where the controverted acts
violate due process (i) where the issue of nonexhaustion of
administrative remedies has been rendered moot (j) where
there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy (k)
where strong public interest is involved and (l) in quo
warranto proceedings. (Vigilar vs. Aquino, 639 SCRA 772
[2011])
o0o
Copyright2015CentralBookSupply,Inc.Allrightsreserved.
70/70

Boracay Foundation, Inc. vs. Province of Aklan

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Boracay Foundation, Inc. vs. Province of Aklan

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Boracay Foundation, Inc. vs. Province of Aklan

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

7/9/2015

G.R. No. 196870.June 26, 2012.*

BORACAY FOUNDATION, INC., petitioner, vs. THE

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

where the protestant has no other recourse (Sta. Maria vs.

omission occurred, the Court of Appeals, or the Supreme Court.

VOL. 674, JUNE 26, 2012