Case Digest (G.R. No. 223076)
Facts:
Pilar Caneda Braga et al. v. Hon. Joseph Emilio A. Abaya et al., G.R. No. 223076, September 13, 2016, the Supreme Court En Banc, Brion, J., writing for the Court. The petitioners are stakeholders and resort owners from Davao City and Samal (collectively, petitioners); the respondents are Hon. Joseph Emilio A. Abaya in his capacity as DOTC Secretary, the Department of Transportation and Communications (DOTC), the Pre-Qualification, Bids and Awards Committee (PBAC), and the Philippine Ports Authority (PPA).The dispute arose from the DOTC–PPA modernization project for the Davao Sasa Wharf under a 30-year PPP/concession scheme. The Port of Davao’s Sasa Wharf was targeted for privatization in 2011. The PPA commissioned a 2012 feasibility study (the PPA study) estimating a ₱3.5 billion modernization; the DOTC later commissioned a 2013 study (the DOTC study) projecting an ₱18 billion program and expansion of 27.9 hectares. The Regional Development Council XI endorsed the project on December 21, 2014 subject to conditions set out in Resolution No. 118, including acquisition of right-of-way, compensation, relocation of informal settlers, and assurance of public benefit.
The DOTC published an invitation to pre-qualify and bid on April 10, 2015. On March 15, 2016, the petitioners filed an Urgent Petition for a Writ of Continuing Mandamus and/or Writ of Kalikasan with a prayer for issuance of a temporary environmental protection order (TEPO), alleging that (a) the project proceeded despite noncompliance with RDC Resolution No. 118, (b) the DOTC failed to conduct mandatory local consultations and to secure sanggunian approval under Sections 26–27 of the Local Government Code (LGC), and (c) no Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC) or Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) had been secured as required under P.D. 1151 and P.D. 1586.
The respondents, through the OSG, argued prematurity: the project was still in bidding with no identified proponent; the duty to prepare and file the EIS and to apply for the ECC rests with the project proponent under the EIS System and thus cannot be imputed to the DOTC/PPA before award; and consultation obligations under the LGC likewise are premature while project implementation details remain unfinalized. They further contended the petitioners failed to show environmental damage of the scale required for a writ of kalikasan (injury affecting inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces).
The trial court level proceedings are not detailed ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Is the petition premature such that relief by way of writ of continuing mandamus compelling respondents to file an EIS and secure an ECC should be denied?
- Do the respondents (DOTC/PPA) have the present legal duty to prepare and file an EIS and obtain an ECC prior to the selection of a private proponent under the BOT/PPP process?
- Does the petition establish entitlement to a writ of kalikasan (i.e., environmental damage of such magnitude as to prejudice the life, health, or property of inh...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)