Title
Concerned Citizens of Sta. Cruz, Zambales vs. Paje
Case
G.R. No. 236269
Decision Date
Mar 22, 2022
Residents and environmental groups allege mining operations in Sta. Cruz, Zambales, caused ecological harm, violating their right to a balanced ecology. Despite DENR closure orders, mining resumed, prompting Supreme Court intervention to address unresolved environmental violations.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-26059)

Background and Petitioners’ Allegations

The petitioners filed a special civil action for the issuance of a Writ of Kalikasan and requested a Temporary Environmental Protection Order (TEPO) to halt nickel mining operations in Sta. Cruz, Zambales. They alleged that the mining companies engaged in unsystematic mining practices causing significant environmental harm including flooding, siltation of rivers, destruction of farmlands, fishponds and ecosystems, pollution, soil erosion, disruption of irrigation, and adverse impact on residents' livelihoods. They claimed respondents violated provisions of Republic Act No. 7942 (Mining Act of 1995), DENR Department Administrative Orders, the 1987 Administrative Code, Executive Order No. 192, and the Local Government Code for failing to perform necessary environmental assessment, rehabilitation, and proper regulation.

Procedural History and Lower Courts’ Actions

The Supreme Court issued the Writ of Kalikasan and referred the case to the Court of Appeals (CA) per procedure under the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases. Subsequently, the CA issued a Writ of Continuing Mandamus against local government units and set hearings on the application for TEPO.

The Environmental Management Bureau (EMB) had earlier issued Cease and Desist Orders and subsequent suspension orders to mining companies due to heavy laterite siltation affecting nearby communities. The suspension orders were temporarily lifted by EMB subject to conditions like environmental monitoring, submission of contingency plans, and rehabilitation efforts. Petitioners alleged that despite the suspension, mining operations continued clandestinely.

CA’s Resolution and Reasoning

In its May 22, 2017 Resolution, the CA denied the petition for writ of kalikasan, the application for TEPO, and the motion for ocular inspection. The CA relied heavily on the fact that the DENR, after conducting audits, found environmental violations by the mining companies and issued closure orders cancelling their Mineral Production Sharing Agreements (MPSAs), effectively ceasing operations. The CA reasoned that with the closure orders, there was no ongoing or threatened violation of the petitioners’ constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology, rendering the petition moot. The CA emphasized the DENR’s primary jurisdiction and expertise in environmental enforcement and declined further judicial intervention. The CA’s December 14, 2017 Resolution denied the motion for reconsideration.

Contentions of the Parties on Mootness and Continuance of the Case

Petitioner citizens contended that despite the closure orders, mining operations continued in practice, thus raising justiciable issues. They argued that the CA erred by abdicating its jurisdiction and that environmental rehabilitation remained incomplete. They stressed the constitutional right to a balanced ecology necessitates continued judicial oversight.

Respondent mining companies argued the closure orders rendered the petition moot, denying any violations of law, while some maintained that closure orders were subject to appeal and stayed by the Office of the President, preserving their operations.

The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), representing public respondents, similarly asserted that the DENR closure orders had resolved the case’s main issues. However, it acknowledged that rehabilitation and enforcement actions continue under administrative jurisdiction.

Subsequent Developments Regarding Closure Orders

The Supreme Court was informed of supervening events involving the lifting and setting aside of previous DENR closure orders against the respondent mining companies, permitting them to resume operations. The OSG manifested that as of their last update, all respondent companies had resumed mining activities following the lifting of Closure Orders initially issued in February 2017, and appeals and stay orders before the Office of the President remained pending.

Supreme Court’s Analysis on Writ of Kalikasan and Case Justiciability

The Court examined the nature of the writ of kalikasan under the 1987 Philippine Constitution and the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases, noting it is an extraordinary remedy designed to protect constitutional rights to a balanced and healthful ecology from violations causing large-scale environmental damage affecting multiple communities.

The Court found that th

...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