Case Digest (G.R. No. 208702)
Facts:
Cynthia A. Villar v. Alltech Contractors, Inc., G.R. No. 208702, May 11, 2021, Supreme Court En Banc, Carandang, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner Cynthia A. Villar, then Representative (now Senator), filed the petition for writ of kalikasan on behalf of 315,849 Las Piñas residents seeking to enjoin the Las Piñas–Parañaque Coastal Bay Project proposed by respondent Alltech Contractors, Inc.; the petition named as respondents Alltech, the Philippine Reclamation Authority (PRA), the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) and its Environmental Management Bureau (EMB), and the cities of Las Piñas, Parañaque and Bacoor.In 2009 Alltech submitted unsolicited reclamation proposals to Las Piñas and Parañaque; the city councils authorized their mayors to negotiate and the cities executed joint venture agreements with Alltech. In 2010 the PRA approved the coastal bay project (Resolutions No. 4088 and 4091, Series of 2010) and entered MOAs with the cities; Alltech prepared and submitted an Environmental Performance Report and Management Plan (EPRMP) after EIARC preliminary review in October 2010, and submitted a final EPRMP in December 2010. The project site overlapped an area once covered by ECC No. CO-9602-002-208C issued in 1996 for the PEA–Amari project. On March 24, 2011 the DENR-EMB issued ECC No. CO-1101-0001 to Alltech with detailed environmental conditions and restrictions.
Fearing increased flooding and harm to the Las Piñas–Parañaque Critical Habitat and Ecotourism Area (LPPCHEA), Villar collected signatures and on March 16, 2012 filed a petition for a writ of kalikasan in the Supreme Court. The Court issued the writ on April 24, 2012 and remanded the matter to the Court of Appeals (CA) on June 19, 2012 for hearing and reception of evidence. The CA rendered a decision on April 26, 2013 denying Villar’s petition for lack of merit and found that Alltech submitted the proper EIA (an EPRMP), that public hearing was not mandatory, and that petitioner’s expert reports were unreliable; the CA denied reconsideration on August 14, 2013. Villar elevated the case to the Supreme Court by a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45. During Supreme C...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Is the extraordinary remedy of a petition for writ of kalikasan proper to assail the issuance of ECC No. CO-1101-0001 for Alltech’s proposed project?
- Will the proposed reclamation project cause environmental damage of such magnitude as to prejudice the life, health, or property of residents of Las Piñas and Parañaque?
- Does the proposed project impinge on the viability and sustainability of the Las Piñas–Parañaque Critical ...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)