G.R. No. 223076 - Braga vs. Abaya

The Port of Davao, located in Mindanao, comprises several ports within Davao Gulf, with Sasa Wharf as its base port at Barangay Sasa, Davao City.
In 2011, the Sasa Wharf was scheduled for privatization under the Public-Private Partnership (PPP) scheme.
The Philippine Ports Authority (PPA) commissioned a feasibility study in 2012 by Science & Vision For Technology, Inc., estimating project modernization costs at approximately PHP 3.5 billion for new equipment and facilities.
The Department of Transportation and Communications (DOTC) commissioned a second study in 2013 by Hamburg Port Consultants, projecting a cost of PHP 18 billion and requiring the expansion of the wharf by 27.9 hectares.
The DOTC study became a primary consideration for the current expansion project.

On December 21, 2014, the Regional Development Council for Region XI endorsed the project (Resolution No. 118), subject to conditions:

Immediate acquisition of 6.4 hectares of the right of way.
Payment of appropriate compensation to property owners impacted.
Proper relocation or resettlement of informal settlers.
The project must benefit port users and the Davao community through improved services and employment.

On April 10, 2015, DOTC published an invitation to pre-qualify and bid for the project.

On March 15, 2016, petitioners (stakeholders from Davao City and Samal, Davao del Norte) filed an urgent petition seeking a Writ of Continuing Mandamus and/or Writ of Kalikasan, with a prayer to issue a temporary environmental protection order.
Allegations by petitioners:

DOTC issued the public bidding notice without complying with Resolution No. 118.
Failure to conduct prior consultation or public hearings with the local government units (LGUs) and failure to secure sanggunian approval as required under the Local Government Code (LGC).
Davao City sanggunian passed a resolution opposing the project for non-compliance.
DOTC proceeded without obtaining the required Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC) under P.D. 1586.

Petitioners claimed such actions violated their constitutional right to a healthy and balanced ecology and sought to restrain project implementation pending compliance.

The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) argued the petition was premature since the project remained in the bidding phase without an identified proponent.
Responsibility for initiating the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and applying for the ECC lies with the winning proponent, not the government respondents.
Public consultation is premature and speculative without finalized project details or an awarded contract.
The petition did not substantiate the magnitude of environmental damage necessary for a Writ of Kalikasan.

Whether the petition for a Writ of Continuing Mandamus and/or Writ of Kalikasan is premature and proper.
Whether the Department of Transportation and Communications and the Philippine Ports Authority violated environmental laws and the Local Government Code by pursuing the Davao Sasa Wharf Modernization Project without securing an Environmental Compliance Certificate, conducting local consultations, or obtaining sanggunian approval.
Whether the petitioners established the threshold environmental damage requisite for issuing a Writ of Kalikasan.