Title
Boracay Foundation, Inc. vs. Province of Aklan
Case
G.R. No. 196870
Decision Date
Jun 26, 2012
Boracay Foundation challenged Aklan's 40-hectare reclamation project, citing environmental harm and procedural lapses. Court issued a writ of continuing mandamus, halting the project pending updated environmental assessments and compliance with public consultation requirements.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 234228)

Project Background

Respondent Province built Caticlan and Cagban jetty ports over a decade ago. Rising tourist traffic prompted conceptualization of a Marina Project involving:
• Phase 1 reclamation of 2.64 ha adjacent to the existing jetty port for port expansion and commercial facilities;
• Future expansion to 40 ha for additional tourism-related development.

Evolution of the Reclamation Plan

• 2008–2009: Local barangay and municipal bodies opposed foreshore lease applications.
• Nov. 2008–Oct. 2009: Sangguniang Panlalawigan resolutions authorized negotiation, bond flotation (P260 M), and foreshore reclamation.
• May 7, 2009: Formal application to PRA for 2.64 ha reclamation.
• Oct. 1, 2009: Bond ordinance amended to fund full Marina Project.
• Nov. 19, 2009: SP resolution for 40 ha Marina Project MOA with PRA.
• Apr. 20, 2010: PRA approves 40 ha project (Resolution No. 4094);
• Apr. 27, 2010: DENR-EMB RVI issues ECC for Phase 1 (2.64 ha).
• May 17, 2010: MOA executed describing a 40 ha project; public “consultations” followed.
• Dec. 1, 2010: Construction began on Phase 1 without full stakeholder approval.

Petitioner’s Contentions

  1. The project is “co-located” and within an Environmentally Critical Area (ECA), requiring a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS).
  2. Respondent Province misclassified it as a single, non-ECP expansion to evade full EIA requirements.
  3. DENR-EMB RVI committed grave abuse by issuing an ECC based on outdated data and a superficial review.
  4. Failure to conduct mandatory consultations and secure favorable endorsements from Barangay Caticlan and the Municipality of Malay as required by the Local Government Code.
  5. Reclamation threatens Boracay’s white-sand beaches and fragile ecological balance.

Respondents’ Defenses

• Province: Phase 1 is a standalone expansion (2.64 ha) funded by bonds; the 40 ha plan is conceptual and subject to future ECC applications and funding. The ECC appropriately covered only Phase 1. Public presentations satisfied consultation duties and LGU endorsements are advisory, not veto powers.
• PRA: Only the 2.64 ha phase has been approved and an NTP issued after exhaustive technical, financial, and environmental evaluation. Further phases require separate ECCs and pre-construction submissions per MOA.
• DENR-EMB RVI: The project falls under Group II (Non-ECP in an ECA) requiring only an Environmental Performance Report and Management Plan (EPRMP). Previous scientific studies and a MERF-UPMSI hydrodynamic analysis support issuance of the ECC.

Issues for Resolution

  1. Whether the petition is moot and academic given subsequent LGU endorsements.
  2. Whether petitioner failed to exhaust administrative remedies.
  3. Whether a full or programmatic EIA was required under the project’s scope and classification.
  4. Whether respondents complied with applicable environmental laws and regulations.
  5. Whether proper, timely public consultations and local-government approvals were obtained.

Constitutional and Statutory Mandates

• 1987 Constitution (Arts. II, XVI) mandates a balanced and healthful ecology and genuine local autonomy (RA 7160).
• PD 1586 requires an ECC for environmentally critical projects.
• LGC Sections 26–27 impose mandatory prior consultation and sanggunian approval for national projects affecting ecological balance.

Administrative Remedies and Procedural Posture

• DENR DAO 2003-30 provides a 15-day appeal from ECC decisions for aggrieved parties, but petitioner was not made a party to that proceeding.
• The writ of continuing mandamus under A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC provides the proper forum for compelling government agencies to fulfill environmental duties when no adequate administrative remedy exists.

Classification and Environmental Impact Assessment

• DENR-EMB RVI must re-evaluate:
– Whether the Phase 1 project is properly classified as an expansion or a new development.
– Whether it constitutes a single project or co-located programmatic development mandating a PEIS/PEPRMP.
– The direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts based on updated, comprehensive studies.

Public Consultation and Local Government Approval

• Sections 26–27, LGC, require prior consultations with stakeholders and favorable sanggunian endorsements before project implement

    ...continue reading

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

    About Privacy Terms