Title
Paje vs. Casino
Case
G.R. No. 207257
Decision Date
Feb 3, 2015
A coal-fired power plant project in Subic Bay faced opposition from local officials and environmental advocates, challenging ECC amendments, LGC and IPRA compliance, and environmental standards. The Supreme Court upheld the project, ruling it complied with laws and lacked evidence of environmental harm.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 207257)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Parties and Agreements
    • In 2006, SBMA and Taiwan Cogeneration Corporation (TCC) signed MOUs to build a coal-fired power plant in Subic Bay Industrial Park.
    • In 2008, SBMA Ecology Center issued Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC) No. EC-SBFZ-ECC-69-21-500 to TCC’s subsidiary, TCIC, for a 2×150-MW coal plant at Sitio Naglatore.
    • TCC assigned its rights to Redondo Peninsula Energy, Inc. (RP Energy) in June 2008; parties executed an Addendum to the MOU.
  • ECC Amendments and Lease Agreement
    • RP Energy procured a first ECC amendment (July 8, 2010) to include a barge wharf, breakwater, ash pond, transmission line, etc., submitting an Environmental Performance Report and Management Plan (EPRMP).
    • RP Energy procured a second ECC amendment (May 26, 2011) changing the design to 1×300 MW, submitting a Project Description Report (PDR).
    • RP Energy applied for a third amendment (September 11, 2012) for a 2×300 MW plant; DENR-EMB issued it on November 15, 2012.
    • On June 8, 2010, SBMA and RP Energy entered into a Lease and Development Agreement (LDA) over the 380,004.456 m² project site.
  • Writ of Kalikasan Proceedings
    • On July 20, 2012, petitioners (the “CasiAo Group”) filed a Petition for Writ of Kalikasan before the Supreme Court, alleging:
      • Imminent grave environmental damage and health risks;
      • DENR failed to secure prior Sanggunian (LGU) approval under LGC §§ 26–27;
      • LDA lacked NCIP Certificate of Non-Overlap under IPRA § 59;
      • Section 8.3 of DAO 2003-30 permitting ECC amendments is ultra vires;
      • All ECC amendments are null and void.
    • The SC issued the writ and referred the case to the CA for hearing.
    • The CA (Jan 30, 2013 Decision) denied the writ for lack of proven environmental harm, invalidated the initial ECC and first two amendments for procedural lapses (IPRA, LGC, ECC restrictions), but did not rule on the third amendment.
    • CA (May 22, 2013 Resolution) denied all motions for reconsideration.
    • Parties filed Petitions for Review on Certiorari before the SC.

Issues:

  • Writ of Kalikasan
I.1. Did petitioners prove actual or threatened environmental damage (thermal pollution, air/water pollution, acid deposition; public health risks)? I.2. Do alleged expert assessments and EIS admissions establish imminent harm?
  • Environmental Compliance Certificates
II.1. Is the original ECC void for lack of RP Energy director’s signature in the Statement of Accountability? II.2. Are the first and second ECC amendments void for failure to submit a new EIS and misuse of EPRMP/PDR under DAO 2003-30 and Revised Manual? II.3. Must a NCIP Certificate of Non-Overlap under IPRA § 59 be secured before ECC issuance?
  • Lease & Development Agreement
III.1. Is the LDA invalid for lack of prior NCIP certification under IPRA § 59? III.2. Is the LDA invalid for lack of Sanggunian consent under LGC § 27? III.3. Does SBMA’s special authority under RA 7227 override LGC requirements for Sanggunian consent within the Subic Freeport?
  • Miscellaneous
IV.1. May the validity of the third amendment to the ECC be adjudicated in this Writ of Kalikasan proceeding?

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)
Unlock Full Case Digest

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.

About Privacy Terms