Case Summary (G.R. No. 207257)
Writ of Kalikasan Requirements
Under Rule 7 of the Environmental Rules, petitioners must prove (1) an actual or threatened violation of the constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology, (2) by unlawful act or omission of public/private entities, (3) causing environmental damage prejudicial to life, health or property in two or more cities or provinces.
Procedural History
The Supreme Court issued a Writ of Kalikasan and referred the case to the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA denied the writ privilege for lack of proof of ecological harm but declared the original ECC and its first two amendments and the SBMA-RP Energy LDA invalid for procedural defects under IPRA and the Local Government Code. Motions for reconsideration were denied, and the petitions were remanded to this Court.
Issues on Environmental Damage
Petitioners alleged thermal pollution, air and water pollution, acid deposition, and adverse health impacts, relying on lay witnesses and hearsay. They also challenged compliance with local and indigenous peoples’ consultation requirements and the ultra vires authority of DENR Administrative Order 2003-30 to amend ECCs without new EIAs.
Evidence on Environmental Impact
RP Energy presented expert testimony and modeling showing negligible temperature rise, compliance with Clean Air Act standards even under upset conditions, controlled ash handling, and dilute emissions insufficient to cause acid rain or significant ecological harm. Petitioners offered no firsthand or expert proof.
ECC Signature Requirement
The CA invalidated the initial ECC for lack of the project proponent’s signature in the Statement of Accountability. The records later showed a certified true copy signed two days after official release, negating any intent to evade conditions and warranting substantial compliance pro hac vice.
Amendments to the ECC
The CA ruled the first and second amendments void for lack of new EIAs. In fact, DAO 2003-30 and its Manual authorize use of an Environmental Performance Report and Management Plan (EPRMP) for major amendments and a Project Description Report (PDR) for minor ones. RP Energy’s submissions met these criteria, and the CA’s strict reading conflicted with the flexible EIA process designed to focus on impacts of project modifications.
Indigenous Peoples Certification
The CA invalidated the ECC and LDA for failing to obtain a Section 59 IPRA “pre-certification” (Certificate of Non-Overlap, CNO) before issuance. However, an ECC is not a license or lease subject to Section 59; it is an environmental clearance. The CNO requirement properly applies to the LDA but was later secured, and equity demands upholding the agreement given good-faith compliance.
Local Government Approval
Sections 26–27 of the Local Government Code require prior local consultations and sanggunian approval for projects that may affect ecological balance. But ECCs are environmental clearances, not implementation permits. Moreover, the SBMA has exclusive authority over Subic Freeport under RA 7227, sub
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 207257)
Factual Background
- In 2006 the Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority (SBMA) and Taiwan Cogeneration Corp. agreed to build a 2×150 MW coal‐fired plant in Subic Bay Freeport Zone.
- Taiwan Cogeneration’s rights were assigned to Redondo Peninsula Energy, Inc. (RP Energy), which obtained an Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC) from the DENR in December 2008.
- The project design was later amended twice: first to add marine and transmission components (first amendment), then to reconfigure the plant from 2×150 MW to 1×300 MW (second amendment).
- A Lease and Development Agreement (LDA) over 380,004.456 m² of SBMA land was signed on June 8, 2010 by SBMA and RP Energy.
- In July 2012 twenty-seven individuals (“Casiào Group”) filed a petition for a Writ of Kalikasan before the Supreme Court, alleging environmental and procedural defects.
- The case was remanded to the Court of Appeals, which in January 2013 denied the Writ, invalidated the ECC and its first two amendments, and nullified the LDA for failure to secure local‐government and indigenous‐peoples clearances.
Issues Presented
- Did the Casiào Group prove grave environmental damage or threat from the proposed coal plant?
- Was the original ECC invalid for lack of the proponent’s signature on its Statement of Accountability?
- Were the first and second amendments to the ECC void for failing to submit a full new Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)?
- Is a Certificate of Non-Overlap under Section 59 of the IPRA Law a precondition to ECC issuance?
- Is that Certificate of Non-Overlap a precondition to the SBMA–RP Energy LDA?
- Must Sections 26 and 27 of the Local Government Code (prior consultation and sanggunian approval) be satisfied before implementing the project?
- May the validity of the third E