Case Summary (G.R. No. 213426)
Petitioners’ Allegations and Reliefs Sought
Petitioners alleged that the construction and establishment of the diesel power plant violated their constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology and violated environmental statutes and administrative rules. Specific claims included: failure to secure an Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC) under P.D. No. 1586 (and related references to PD No. 1151), lack of Presidential approval under Proclamation No. 1801, failure to conduct statutorily required public consultation under Sections 26 and 27 of the Local Government Code (LGC), and unlawful reclassification/conversion of land in violation of Memorandum Circular No. 54. They invoked the precautionary principle and sought issuance of writs of kalikasan and continuing mandamus and a TEPO.
Procedural History at the Court of Appeals
The Court of Appeals (CA), Cagayan de Oro City, dismissed the twin petitions in a resolution dated 26 May 2014 and denied a motion for reconsideration on 27 June 2014. The CA held that the petition for a writ of kalikasan failed because the alleged environmental damage did not meet the territorial-magnitude requirement of affecting inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces. The CA also dismissed the petition for continuing mandamus for lack of justification for filing directly before the CA instead of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) and reminded petitioners of available remedies in the RTC and administrative procedures.
Respondents’ Positions before the Court
The EMB and the local governments maintained the CA’s rulings were correct: the writ of kalikasan is an extraordinary remedy available only when the environmental damage meets the RPEC magnitude requirement; continuing mandamus is not a free choice-of-court tool that overrides the doctrine of hierarchy of courts; the precautionary principle does not justify avoiding all speculative human activity; and the project qualified for a Certificate of Non-Coverage (CNC) under the Philippine Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) System rather than an ECC. CAMELCO clarified its contractual posture as a power purchaser, not a contractor. KEGI asserted compliance with applicable permits and licensing and defended diesel-plant technology generally.
Supreme Court Disposition
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA resolutions. The Court found no reversible error in the CA’s dismissal of the petitions for writ of kalikasan and continuing mandamus.
Procedural Defects Identified by the Court
The Supreme Court noted defects in the petitioners’ verification: signatures of alleged authorized representatives of petitioner organizations lacked proof of authorization except for one petitioner organization that submitted a Secretary’s Certificate. While the Court accepted the argument of substantial compliance as discussed in Cordillera Global Network v. Paje, it concluded that substantive deficiencies remained and warranted dismissal even if the verification defect were overlooked.
Legal Standard for the Writ of Kalikasan under the RPEC
The Court applied Section 1, Rule 7, Part III of the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases (RPEC): the writ of kalikasan is available to specified petitioners on behalf of persons whose constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology is violated or threatened by environmental damage “of such magnitude as to prejudice the life, health or property of inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces.” The territorial magnitude of environmental damage is a condition sine qua non for a kalikasan petition, must be pleaded in the verified petition, and is an essential jurisdictional and substantive element given the extraordinary nature of the remedy.
Application of the Kalikasan Standard to the Case
The Court found that petitioners set out general allegations of numerous safety, health, and environmental hazards from the diesel plant but failed to allege or substantiate how the project would cause damage “of such magnitude” as to prejudice life, health, or property in two or more cities or provinces. Petitioners’ argument that Camiguin’s isolation should not deny the writ’s benefits was insufficient because the RPEC threshold is territorial. The Court emphasized that the precautionary principle cannot be invoked to supply the necessary allegation of territorial magnitude where the petition itself lacks that claim.
Precautionary Principle and Evidentiary Role
The Court clarified the function of the precautionary principle: it operates in the evaluation of evidence and in cases where scientific certainty cannot be achieved, but it cannot be used to fill pleading deficiencies. The principle cannot substitute for an allegation and proof that the environmental damage meets the RPEC’s required territorial scope. Petitioners’ evidentiary submissions were insufficient—largely a cited IARC press release and a Wikipedia entry—such that they failed to meet the burden of alleging and substantiating the claim for a kalikasan writ.
Local Autonomy and Alleged LGC Violations
The Court referred to its precedent in Paje v. CasiAo to explain that alleged lack of sanggunian approvals under Sections 26 and 27 of the LGC is primarily an issue of local autonomy and administrative procedure; such procedural lapses, without more, are not necessarily reasonably connected to environmental damage of the magnitude required for a writ of kalikasan.
Writ of Continuing Mandamus: Nature and Available Remedies
The Court analyzed the petition for a writ of continuing mandamus, noting petitioners sought orders compelling respondents to undergo the EIS process, produce public consultation documents, and rectify land reclassification. The C
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 213426)
Procedural Posture and Reliefs Sought
- Petitioners filed twin petitions before the Court of Appeals (CA) seeking:
- Writ of Kalikasan;
- Writ of Continuing Mandamus;
- Prayer for issuance of a Temporary Environmental Protection Order under Rules 7 and 8 of the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases (RPEC).
- Respondents before the Supreme Court included King Energy Generation, Inc. (KEGI); Environmental Management Bureau (EMB) of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR); Barangay Balbagon of Mambajao; Municipal Government of Mambajao; Provincial Government of Camiguin; Camiguin Electric Cooperative (CAMELCO).
- The CA, Cagayan de Oro City, in Resolutions dated 26 May 2014 and 27 June 2014 dismissed the petitions; petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied.
- Petitioners sought review of the CA Resolutions by filing a Petition for Review with the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 213426), authored in the Supreme Court by Justice Zalameda.
Parties and Standing
- Petitioners: a long list of individuals and organized petitioning entities including Citizens for A Green and Peaceful Camiguin, Sulog, Inc., Save CDO Now Movement, Inc., Task Force Macajalar, and numerous named individuals.
- Respondents: KEGI (project proponent), EMB (DENR), the local government units (Barangay, Municipal, Provincial), and CAMELCO (electric cooperative).
- Noted verification defect: petitions bore verifications signed by alleged authorized representatives of petitioner-organizations/corporations without proof of such authorization, except Citizens for Green and Peaceful Camiguin which submitted a Secretary’s Certificate authorizing Edilberto Joaquin R. Elio.
Factual Background / Subject Project
- Project contested: establishment and/or construction of a diesel power plant by KEGI in Sitio Maubog, Barangay Balbagon, Mambajao, Camiguin.
- Petitioners alleged the diesel plant would cause “innumerable” health, safety and environmental hazards and therefore violate the constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology and various environmental laws.
- CAMELCO’s role clarified: it entered into a Purchase Supply Agreement with KEGI to buy power from KEGI (denying petitioners’ assertion of contracting for construction).
- KEGI asserted compliance with licensing and permit requirements, including the Philippine Clean Water Act and the Philippine Clean Air Act; KEGI argued that diesel plant technology is not inherently unsafe and cited operational diesel plants in other islands.
Petitioners’ Legal Allegations and Grounds
- Main legal contentions:
- Project violates constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology and several environmental laws.
- Violation of the precautionary principle under national and international environmental law, entitling petitioners to relief despite claimed scientific uncertainty.
- Failure to secure an Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC) as required by PD No. 1151 and PD No. 1586.
- Failure to secure Presidential approval under Proclamation No. 1801 upon recommendation of the Philippine Tourism Authority.
- Non-compliance with public consultation requirements under Sections 26 and 27 of the Local Government Code (LGC).
- Alleged improper reclassification/conversion of the area from agricultural to industrial by the Sangguniang Bayan without conducting necessary public hearings, in violation of Memorandum Circular No. 54.
Court of Appeals’ Disposition (26 May 2014; 27 June 2014)
- The CA dismissed the petitions outright:
- Writ of Kalikasan: dismissed for failure to comply with Section 1, Rule 7 of the RPEC—petitioner failed to allege environmental damage of such magnitude as to prejudice life, health or property of inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces; the CA observed the perceived environmental damage would only affect the island province of Camiguin composed only of municipalities.
- Writ of Continuing Mandamus: dismissed for failure to state reasons justifying immediate filing before the CA rather than the Regional Trial Court; CA noted existence of adequate remedies before the RTC which can issue environmental protection orders.
- CA denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration and advised petitioners to review applicable Rules and to file before the proper forum.
Issues Presented to the Supreme Court
- Whether the CA erred in dismissing the petitions for writ of kalikasan and writ of continuing mandamus.
- Whether petitioners’ invocation of the precautionary principle, and the island’s unique geography, sufficed to establish qualifications for the writ of kalikasan.
- Whether petitioners were entitled to invoke the extraordinary remedy of writ of continuing mandamus given available administrative and judicial remedies.
Legal Standard Applied — Writ of Kalikasan under RPEC
- Text of the controlling provision quoted and applied (Section 1, Rule 7, Part III, RPEC):
- The writ of kalikasan is available to certain persons/entities on behalf of persons whose constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology is violated or threatened by an unlawful act or omission involving environmental damage "of such magnitude as to prejudice the life, health or property of inhabitants in two o