En Banc (G.R. No. 208702. May 11, 2021) : Carandang, J.

8/28/23, 9:28 PM [ G.R. No. 208702.
May 11, 2021 ]
EN BANC
[ G.R. No. 208702. May 11, 2021 ]
CYNTHIA A. VILLAR, FORMER MEMBER, HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES, LONE DISTRICT OF LAS PIÑAS CITY
[SUPPORTED BY THREE HUNDRED FIFTEEN THOUSAND EIGHT
HUNDRED FORTY-NINE (315,849) RESIDENTS OF LAS PIÑAS CITY],
PETITIONERS, VS. ALLTECH CONTRACTORS, INC., PHILIPPINE
RECLAMATION AUTHORITY, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT
AND NATURAL RESOURCES, ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
BUREAU AND CITIES OF LAS PIÑAS, PARAÑAQUE, AND BACOOR,
RESPONDENTS.
DECISION
CARANDANG, J.:
Before this Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari[1] under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court
(Rules) assailing the Decision[2] dated April 26, 2013 and the Resolution[3] dated August 14,
2013 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CAG.R. SP. No. 00014 filed by petitioner Cynthia A.
Villar (Villar).
Antecedents
In 2009, respondent Alltech Contractors, Inc. (Alltech) submitted unsolicited proposals to

respondent cities of Las Piñas and Parañaque for the development, financing, engineering,
design, and reclamation of 381.26 hectares of land in Las Piñas and 174.88 hectares of land in
Parañaque, which were both along the coast of Manila Bay.[4] Consequently, the city councils
of Las Piñas and Parañaque issued the corresponding resolutions[5] authorizing their
respective city mayors to explore the proposal under a Joint Venture Agreement (JVA), and to
negotiate with the appropriate government agencies and other local government units.[6] The
cities of Las Piñas and Parañaque eventually accepted Alltech's proposal and the parties
executed their respective JVAs.[7]
Thereafter, respondent Philippine Reclamation Authority (PRA), the agency authorized to

approve reclamation projects in the country, approved the Las Piñas and Parañaque Coastal
Bay Project (proposed project) through Resolution No. 4088, Series of 2010[8] and Resolution
No. 4091, Series of 2010.[9] The approval is subject to full compliance with existing laws,
rules, and regulations in relation to the environment.[10]
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/search 1/81
8/28/23, 9:28 PM [ G.R. No. 208702. May 11, 2021 ]
In March 2010, the PRA entered into separate Memoranda of Agreement (MOA) with the
cities of Las Piñas and Parañaque.[11] On the other hand, Alltech, as directed by respondent
Environmental Management Bureau (EMB), submitted an Environmental Performance Report
Management Plan (EPRMP), for the proposed reclamation project to the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (DENR).[12]
In October 2010, the Environmental Impact Assessment Review Committee (EIARC),

composed of Agerico de Villa, Benjamin Francisco, and Renato Cruz of the DENR-EMB, met
for a preliminary review of the EPRMP submitted. This meeting was also attended by Alltech
representatives, consultants of Mediatrix Business Consultancy who were commissioned by
Alltech to prepare its EPRMP, EMB case handlers, and resource persons from the PRA.[13]
In December 2010, Alltech submitted its final EPRMP[14] which now involved the
reclamation of an estimated 203.43 hectares along the coast of Paranaque and 431.71 hectares
along the coast of Las Piñas. The proposed project area lies within the 750-hectare project site
known as the Amari Coastal Bay Development Corporation (Amari) and covered by
Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC) No. CO-9602-002-208C which the Public
Estates Authority (PEA; now PRA) initially issued in September 1996.[15]
After reviewing the biophysical, social, and economic impact of the proposed project, the
EIARC recommended the issuance of the ECC. On March 24, 2011, the EMB issued ECC No.
CO-1101-0001[16] stating the following conditions:
I. CONDITIONS
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
All commitments, mitigating measures and monitoring requirements, especially
those contained in the EPRMP, particularly in the Environmental Management and
Monitoring Plans (EMMoPs), including all their modifications and additional
information as approved by the EMB, shall be instituted to minimize any adverse
impact of the project to the environment throughout its implementation, including
the following:
1. Implementation of a Coastal Ecosystem Management Plan/Program;
2. Undertake an effective and continuing Information, Education and
Communication (IEC) Program to inform and educate all stakeholders, especially
its local residents on the project's mitigating measures embodied in the EPRMP
and the conditions stipulated in this certificate;
3. Implementation of a Social Development and Management Program;
4. The Proponent needs to align the Environmental Management Plan with the
Manila Bay Coastal Strategy and submit the said revised plan within sixty (60)
days from the receipt of this Certificate; and
5. The Proponent, to address flooding issues, shall undertake the consultation with
the Local Government Units of Parañaque and Las Piñas in the preparation of the
Revised Environmental Management Plan that shall include:
8/28/23, 9:28 PM [ G.R. No. 208702. May 11, 2021 ]
5.1 Flood Monitoring Plan

5.2 Necessary Baseline Data
5.3 Mitigating Plan; and
5.4 IEC corresponding flooding issues
The above requirements, together with the PRA Guidelines for Reclamation Works
should be submitted Ninety (90) days upon the receipt of this Certificate.
GENERAL CONDITIONS
6. The project operations shall conform with the provisions of R.A. No. 6969
(Toxic Substances and Hazardous and Nuclear Wastes Control Act of 1990),
R.A. No. 9003 (Ecological Solid Waste Act of 2000), R.A. No. 9275
(Philippine Clean Water Act of 2004), and R.A. No. 8749 (Philippine Clean
Air Act of 1999) and other relevant environmental laws and regulations.
7. Proper storm drainage system, concrete culverts, and other flood and erosion
control measures needs, noise and air pollution control measures shall be
provided to adequately protect the receiving water body from siltation,
physicochemical/marine pollution, etc. and the surrounding communities
from environmental degradation;
8. The proponent shall set up the following:
8.1 A readily available Environmental Guarantee Fund (EGF)

which can be replenished anytime to cover the following: a)
Expenses for further environmental assessments[,] b)
compensation, indemnification for whatever damages to life and
property that may be caused by the project[,] c) rehabilitation and/
or restoration of areas affected by the project's implementation;
8.2 A Multi-partite Monitoring Team (MMT) composed of
representative(s) from the proponent, EMB, a local environmental
Non-Government Organization (NGO), a representative from
each barangay in the primary impact area, the LGUs where the
project is situated, and other concerned government agencies shall
be organized. The MMT should primarily oversee the compliance
of the proponent with the Environmental Management and
Monitoring Plan (EMMP), other commitments and mitigation
measures that are contained in the Project EPRMP documents and
the ECC conditions; and
8.3 A replenishable Environmental Monitoring Fund (EMF) to
cover all costs attendant to the operation and monitoring activities
of the MMT including but not limited to capability building,
training, actual sampling and laboratory analysis. Said provisions
must be consistent with the DAO 2003-30.
The amount and mechanics of the EGF, EMF, and the establishment of the
MMT shall be determined by EMB and the proponent in consultation with
EMB, through an integrated Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) which shall
8/28/23, 9:28 PM [ G.R. No. 208702. May 11, 2021 ]
be submitted to the EMB Central Office within sixty (60) days upon receipt
of this Certificate;
9. An Environmental Unit (EU) shall be established completely handle the

environment related aspects of the project in addition to the monitoring
requirements as specified in the Environmental Management Plan
(EMP)/Environmental Monitoring Plan (EMoP). The EU shall:
9.1 Monitor actual project impacts [vis-a-vis] the predicted impacts and
management measures in the EIS;
9.2 Ensure that Monitoring and submission of reports to EMB (Central
Office and NCR) are carried out as required;
9.3 Submit an Abandonment Plan one year prior to abandonment. It
shall include rehabilitation measures/clean-up. Remediation of areas
possibly contaminated with toxic substances and presentation of
options on proposed alternative projects in the area; and
9.4 Submit the Geographical coordinates of the Project prior to project
construction.
10. Ensure that its contractors and subcontractors properly comply with the
relevant conditions of this Certificate including those regulations covering the
entire activity of the project.
11. The proponent prior to project implementation shall coordinate with the Manila
Bay Critical Habitat Management Council and PAWB to tackle impacts of the
project to Las Piñas-Parañaque Critical Habitat and Ecotourism Area (LPPCHEA)
and implement the recommendations of the said council.
II. RESTRICTIONS
12. No other activities should be undertaken other than what was stipulated in the
EPRMP document. Expansion of the project/construction of other structures or any
change in the activity beyond those stated in the EPRMP shall be subject to a new
Environmental Impact Assessment; and
13. Transfer of Ownership of this project carries these same conditions and
restrictions for which written notification must be made by herein grantee to EMB
within fifteen (15) days from such transfer. [17]
Fcaring that the proposed project will impede the flow of rivers of Las Piñas-Zapote and
Parañaque which may expose several adjacent barangays to flooding and endanger its
residents, then Representative Villar, now Senator, conducted an information drive regarding
the proposed project and gathered 315,849 signatures of Las Piñas residents opposing the
proposed project. On March 16, 2012, Villar, representing the 315,849 Las Piñas residents
opposing the proposed project, filed a petition for the issuance of a writ of kalikasan before
the Court. In asking the Court to enjoin the implementation of the proposed project, Villar
invoked her constituents' right to a balanced and healthful ecology.
On April 24, 2012, the Court rendered a Resolution issuing the writ against respondents
8/28/23, 9:28 PM [ G.R. No. 208702. May 11, 2021 ]
Alltech, PRA, DENR-EMB, and the cities of Las Piñas, Parañaque, and Bacoor. On June 19,
2012, the Court remanded the case to the CA to accept the return of the writ, and to conduct
the necessary hearing, reception of evidence, and rendition of judgment.[18]
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
On April 26, 2013, the CA rendered its Decision,[19] the dispositive portion of which states:
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED for lack of merit.
IT IS SO ORDERED.[20] (Emphasis in the original)
In denying the petition for the issuance of a writ of kalikasan, the CA declared that the totality
of the evidence proved that the proposed reclamation project underwent the required EIA
review process in compliance with the requirements of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No.
1586[21] and that the submission of the EPRMP was proper and lawful.[22] The CA found the
claim of Villar that Alltech did not undergo the proper EIA review inaccurate because it
submitted its EPRMP, a recognized form of EIA study.[23] The CA held that Alltech's
submission of its EPRMP was proper as it belongs to the project category that requires such
kind of EIA study. The CA added that it was the DENR-EMB which instructed the submission
of an EPRMP.[24] The CA pointed out that in requiring an EPRMP, Alltech was even required
to meet a higher standard. This standard was to preserve the environmental condition in the
vicinity of the proposed project using as basis the higher quality of environment in 1990.[25]
The CA also ruled that a public consultation was conducted on November 25, 2010 between
representatives of Alltech, the cities of Las Piñas and Parañaque, the PRA, the EIA consultant
and other identified stakeholders in the direct and indirect impact areas of the proposed
project.[26] The CA also clarified that the nature of the proposed project does not require
conducting a public hearing. It is mandatory only in projects falling under Category A-1 (new
environmentally critical projects) pursuant to DENR Administrative Order (DAO) No. 2003-
30.[27]
The CA ruled that Villar, though motivated by good faith, failed to support her claim by any
competent, credible, and reliable evidence that the proposed reclamation project will expose
Las Piñas and Parañaque residents to catastrophic environmental damage. For the CA, Tricore
Solutions, Inc. (Tricore) and Center for Environmental Concerns-Philippines (CEC-P), the
companies commissioned by Villar, failed to conduct a comprehensive and objective
assessment of the proposed project and lacked the expertise necessary in the field of
hydrology and hydraulics to competently conclude that the proposed project will cause
environmental damage.[28]
The CA did not give credence to Tricore's report wherein it was concluded that the proposed
project would cause an increase in flood depth and inundate two-thirds of Las Piñas,
Parañaque, and Bacoor for lack of sufficient basis.[29] For the CA, the findings in Tricore's
report were refuted by Alltech who was able to establish that measures were designed to
8/28/23, 9:28 PM [ G.R. No. 208702. May 11, 2021 ]
mitigate the dreaded negative impacts of the proposed project.[30]
The CA also did not give credence to CEC-P's study. The CA noted that CEC-P already had a
conclusion in mind when it conducted its study at Villar's behest as it deliberately ignored the
ECC and the studies conducted by DCCD Engineering Corp. (DCCD), Surbana International
Consultants PTE Ltd. (Surbana), and DHI Water & Environment (S) Pte. Ltd. (DHI). The CA
also noted that CEC-P relied on the EPRMP submitted in August 2010 and not the final
EPRMP Alltech submitted in December 2010, making its findings inaccurate and unreliable.
[31]
The CA also held that the precautionary principle, which shifts the burden of proof to the
project proponent to prove that the threat to the environment does not exist, cannot be
favorably applied to Villar's cause. The CA explained that the threat was not established and
that the volumes of data generated by objective and expert analyses ruled out the scientific
uncertainty of the nature and scope of the anticipated threat.[32] Thus, the CA was not
convinced that sufficient ground exists to grant the privilege of the writ of kalikasan.[33]
In a Resolution[34] dated August 14, 2013, the CA denied the Motion for Reconsideration
Villar filed.[35]
In the present petition,[36] Villar argued that the issuance of an ECC for the proposed coastal
bay project is illegal and unlawful because: (1) Alltech did not prepare the appropriate EIA
study;[37] (2) the meeting that was conducted supposedly as public consultation failed to
satisfy the strict requirements of the law;[38] (3) public hearings are mandatory for the
proposed project;[39] (4) a detailed statement of project alternative to the proposed
reclamation project is a requirement under the law;[40] and (5) questions relating to financial
and technical capabilities of a proponent are relevant and material to the issue relating to its
ability to implement the proposed project.[41]
Villar insists that the proposed project impinges on the viability and sustainability of the Las
Piñas-Parañaque Critical Habitat and Ecotourism Area (LPPCHEA).[42] Villar also maintains
that the proposed project will cause environmental damage so as to prejudice the life, health or
property of Las Piñas and Parañaque residents because: (1) it will aggravate flooding;[43] (2)
the mitigation measures will impede the ecological functions of the LPPCHEA as these will
require giving up 4.35 hectares of the LPPCHEA;[44] and (3) the claim that reclamation per se
may be pursued for its supposed positive impact and restorative qualities lacks basis.[45]
In their Comment,[46] Alltech countered that the proposed project underwent the required EIA
process for environmentally critical projects and that they submitted a detailed and exhaustive
EPRMP for the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) study.[47] It also maintained that an
EPRMP, and not an EIS, was the appropriate report for the proposed project pursuant to DAO
No. 2003-30. Since it is an EPRMP that is the proper form of study for the proposed project,
Alltech posited that public hearing and project alternative are not required to secure an ECC.
8/28/23, 9:28 PM [ G.R. No. 208702. May 11, 2021 ]
[48]
The PRA manifested that it is adopting the Comment of Alltech.[49]
The DENR-EMB, in its Comment,[50] explained that the EPRMP is the proper EIA report
pursuant to DAO No. 2003-30 and that the absence of a public hearing and project alternative
is of no consequence as it is not required in an EPRMP. Moreover, the DENR-EMB
emphasized that the ECC, as a planning tool, did not trigger the actual implementation of the
proposed project.[51]
In their Comment, the cities of Las Piñas[52] and Parañaque insisted that the subject ECC was
lawfully issued in accordance with the applicable laws and rules.[53]
In her Manifestation and Motion filed on September 7, 2020, Villar urged the Court to take
judicial notice of Republic Act No. (R.A.) 11038,[54] otherwise known as the "Expanded
National Integrated Protected Areas System Act of 2018" (ENIPAS). Section 4 of the ENIPAS
lists among the protected areas under its coverage the LPPCHEA.[55] Villar also asked the
Court to take judicial notice of the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands of International
Importance Especially as Waterfowl Habitat (Convention on Wetlands), an international treaty
for the conservation and sustainable use of wetland where the Philippines is a signatory. On
March 15, 2013, the Convention on Wetlands certified LLPCHEA as a "Wetland of National
Importance."[56]
Thereafter, Alltech filed a Motion for Leave to File Motion to Strike Out Petitioner's
Manifestation and Motion with Counter-Manifestation Ad Cautelam. Alltech clarified that: (1)
LPPCHEA is outside the scope of the proposed project;[57] (2) R.A. No. 11038 and the
Convention on Wetlands do not prohibit reclamation on works in the periphery or surrounding
areas of the LPPCHEA;[58] (3) mitigating measures are designed to ensure that the proposed
project will have no negative impact on the LPPCHEA during the construction and operation
stages;[59] and (4) not only can the project co-exist with the LPPCHEA, it can even assist in
enhancing or improving it.[60]
In their Motion for Leave to File Incorporated Rejoinder,[61] Villar argued inter alia that the
ECC issued in favor of Alltech is already functus officio as it had already been more than five
years from the date of its issuance without the proposed project being implemented. Villar
claimed that the baseline characteristics have significantly changed to the extent that the
impact assessment is no longer appropriate.[62] Villar also added that the concepts of Buffer
Zone and Demarcation in the ENIPAS finds application as around 4.35 hectares of the
LPPCHEA will have to be given up if the uniform 160-meter channel width of the Parañaque
River will be built.[63]
Issues
8/28/23, 9:28 PM [ G.R. No. 208702. May 11, 2021 ]
The issues to be resolved in this case are:
1. Whether the extraordinary remedy of filing a petition for writ of kalikasan is proper to
assail the issuance of ECC No. CO-1101-0001 for Alltech's proposed project;
2. Whether the proposed project will cause environmental damage of such magnitude so as
to prejudice the life, health, or property of residents of the cities of Las Piñas and
Parañaque; and
3. Whether the proposed project impinges on the viability and sustainability of the
LPPCHEA.
Ruling of the Court
The petition is not meritorious.
Villar failed to
establish the
causal link
between the
alleged
irregularities in
the issuance of
Alltech's ECC to
justify resorting to
the extraordinary
remedy of filing a
petition for a writ
of kalikasan.
To promote the government's environmental protection programs, P.D. No. 1586 was enacted
declaring inter alia that:
No person, partnership or corporation shall undertake or operate any such declared

environmentally critical project or area without first securing an Environmental
Compliance Certificate issued by the President or his duly authorized
representative. x x x[64] (Emphasis supplied)
In the current structure of the government, it is the DENR-EMB, under the authority of the
DENR Secretary, that is authorized to issue ECCs.
DAO No. 2003-30 delineates the rules and regulations to obtain an ECC under the Philippine
EIS System (EIS System) established in P.D. No. 1586. Through the EIS System, it is the
government's objective to achieve a rational balance between the exigencies of socio-
economic development and the requirements of environment protection for the benefit of
present and future generations.[65]
8/28/23, 9:28 PM [ G.R. No. 208702. May 11, 2021 ]
A petition for writ of kalikasan is an extraordinary remedy classified as a special civil action
under the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases[66] (RPEC). Under Section 1, Rule 7 of
the RPEC:
Section 1. Nature of the Writ. - The writ is a remedy available to a natural or

juridical person, entity authorized by law, people's organization, non-governmental
organization, or any public interest group accredited by or registered with any
government agency, on behalf of persons whose constitutional right to a balanced
and healthful ecology is violated, or threatened with violation by an unlawful act
or omission of a public official or employee, or private individual or entity,
involving environmental damage of such magnitude as to prejudice the life, health
or property of inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces.
The essential requisites for the issuance of a writ of kalikasan are: (1) there is an actual or
threatened violation of the constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology; (2) the
actual or threatened violation arises from an unlawful act or omission of a public official or
employee, or private individual or entity; and (3) the actual or threatened violation involves or
will lead to an environmental damage of such magnitude as to prejudice the life, health or
property of inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces. As a rule, the party claiming the
privilege bears the onus of proving the requisites listed above.[67]
In filing a petition for writ of kalikasan, Villar argued at length the alleged irregularities in the
issuance by the EMB of the ECC for the proposed project. However, it must be clarified that
in assailing the issuance of an ECC, the proper remedy is to file an appeal. Section 6 of DAO
No. 2003-30 provides:
Any party aggrieved by the final decision on the ECC/CNC applications may,
within 15 days from receipt of such decision, file an appeal on the following
grounds:
a. Grave abuse of discretion on the part of the deciding authority, or

b. Serious errors in the review findings.
The DENR may adopt alternative conflict/dispute resolution procedures

as a means to settle grievances between proponents and aggrieved
parties to avert unnecessary legal action. Frivolous appeals shall not be
countenanced.
The proponent or any stakeholder may file an appeal to the following:
Deciding Authority Where to file Appeal

EMB Regional Office Director Office of the EMB Director
EMB General Office Director Office of the DENR Secretary
DENR Secretary Office of the President
8/28/23, 9:28 PM [ G.R. No. 208702. May 11, 2021 ]
Therefore, as a rule, any of the perceived irregularities in the issuance of the proposed
project's ECC should be the subject of an appeal to the proper reviewing authority instead of a
petition for writ of kalikasan. Any alleged irregularity in the process undertaken to obtain the
ECC should be threshed out in the proper forum before the appropriate reviewing authorities.
Nevertheless, in Paje v. Casiño,[68] the Court already recognized that the validity of an ECC
may be challenged via a writ of kalikasan. The Court, speaking through the ponencia of
former Associate Justice Mariano C. Del Castillo, explained that:
The writ of kalikasan is principally predicated on an actual or threatened violation

of the constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology, which involves
environmental damage of a magnitude that transcends political and territorial
boundaries. A party, therefore, who invokes the writ based on alleged defects
or irregularities in the issuance of an ECC must not only allege and prove
such defects or irregularities, but must also provide a causal link or, at least, a
reasonable connection between the defects or irregularities in the issuance of
an ECC and the actual or threatened violation of the constitutional right to a
balanced and healthful ecology of the magnitude contemplated under the
Rules. Otherwise, the petition should be dismissed outright and the action re-filed
before the proper forum with due regard to the doctrine of exhaustion of
administrative remedies. Otherwise, the petition should be dismissed outright and
the action re-filed before the proper forum with due regard to the doctrine of
exhaustion of administrative remedies. This must be so if we are to preserve the
noble and laudable purposes of the writ against those who seek to abuse it.[69]
(Emphasis and underscoring supplied; italics in the original)
Unfortunately, while petitioners raised alleged irregularities in the issuance of the ECC (i.e.,
the use of an improper form of assessment study, lack of public hearing and consultation, and
absence of a project alternative), these are not material and necessary due to the nature of the
proposed project. Therefore, no compelling reason was presented to warrant the intervention
of the Court.
Alltech submitted
the proper form
of study required
for the proposed
project.
In securing an ECC, the proponent is required to submit a form of study depending on the
classification of the proposed project under the EIS System. These reports include: (1) EIS;
(2) Programmatic EIS; (3) Initial Environmental Examination Report; (4) Initial
Environmental Examination Checklist; (5) Project Description Report (PDR); (6) EPRMP;
and (7) Programmatic EPRMP (PEPRMP).
In Alltech's application, the DENR-EMB required an EPRMP which refers to a

"documentation of the actual cumulative environmental impacts and effectiveness of current
measures for single projects that are already operating but without ECCs."[70] On the other
8/28/23, 9:28 PM [ G.R. No. 208702. May 11, 2021 ]
hand, EIS pertains to a "document, prepared and submitted by the project proponent and/or
EIA Consultant that serves as an application for an ECC. It is a comprehensive study of the
significant impacts of a project on the environment. It includes an Environmental
Management Plan/Program that the Proponent will fund and implement to protect the
environment."[71] Based on this definition, an EIS is wider in scope than an EPRMP.
However, it does not automatically mean that an EIS is the appropriate EIA report to be
submitted in all projects. DAO No. 2003-30 provides for the conditions to consider in
requiring the submission of a specific EIA report.
In paragraph (b), subsection 8, Section 1 of the Revised Procedural Manual for DAO No.
2003-30, the project contemplated for the use of EPRMP was explained as follows:
b) For operating projects with previous ECCs but planning or applying for
clearance to modify/expand or re-start operations, or for projects operating
without an ECC but applying to secure one to comply with PD 1586 regulations,
the appropriate document is not an EIS but an EIA Report incorporating the
project's environmental performance and its current Environmental Management
Plan. This report is either an (6) Environmental Performance Report and
Management Plan (EPRMP) for single project applications[.] x x x (Emphasis
supplied; italics and underscoring in the original)
Table 1-4, DAO No. 2003-30, states that an EPRMP is required for "Item I-B: Existing
Projects for Modification or Re-start up (subject to conditions in Annex 2-1c) and I-C:
Operating without ECC." From these definitions and tables, an EPRMP is the required EIA
document type for an ECP-single project which is:
1. Existing and to be expanded (including undertakings that have stopped

operations for more than 5 years and plan to re-start with or without
expansion);
2. Operating but without ECCs;
3. Operating projects with previous ECCs but planning or applying for
clearance to modify/expand or re-start operations; and
4. Existing projects for modification or re-start up.
In Paje v. Casiño,[72] the Court noted that DAO No. 2003-30 and the Revised Manual appear
to use the terms "operating" and "existing" interchangeably.
In the present case, the EPRMP that Alltech submitted was the proper form of study. As
pointed out by the DENR-EMB, the proposed project is premised on the existence of a
reclamation project covered by an ECC previously issued to the PEA, now PRA, and Amari
(ECC No. CO-9602-002-208C) issued in September 1996. In the ECC issued to Alltech (ECC
No. CO-1101-0001[73]) on March 24, 2011, it is clearly written that:
SUBJECT to the conditions and restrictions set out herein labeled as Annex A and
Annex B. This Certificate supersedes/cancels ECC CO-9602-002-208C issued
on September 16, 1996 by this Office. (Emphasis supplied)
8/28/23, 9:28 PM [ G.R. No. 208702. May 11, 2021 ]
The statement accentuated above is a recognition of an existing ECC superseded by the ECC
issued in favor of Alltech. This also bolsters the view that operations are intended to be
restarted as contemplated in paragraph (b), subsection 8, section 1 of the Revised Procedural
Manual DAO 03-30. Under the Revised Procedural Manual for DAO No. 2003-30, the type of
EIA report for a project which had previously operated or existing with previous ECCs
intended to be modified, expanded or restart operations is not an EIS but an EPRMP or
PEPRMP.[74] As explained by the DENR-EMB, the entire area of the proposed project was
within the area of the previous ECC issued in favor of the PEA and Amari on September 16,
1996 covering 750 hectares.[75]
It is worthy to add that although the ECC in the PEA-Amari project failed to be completed, at
the time the JVA between PEA and Amari was nullified by the Court, 157.84 hectares of
the 750-hectare project (which now comprises the Freedom Islands) had already been
reclaimed.[76] Considering that partial operations had been conducted under the superseded
ECC of the PEA-Amari project, the submission of the EPRMP by the project proponent who
took over and replaced the original project was proper.
In Paje v. Casiño,[77] the Court ruled that the enumeration in DAO No. 2003-30 of what
projects may be required to submit an EPRMP is not an exclusive list. In Paje, the Court
upheld the EPRMP despite the seeming contradiction of the proposed coal fire plant of RP
Energy to the definition of what projects may be covered by an EPRMP. The Court explained
that:
x x x The definitions in DAO 2003-30 and the Revised Manual, stating that the
EPM1P is applicable to (1) operating/existing projects with a previous ECC but
planning or applying for modification or expansion, or (2) operating projects but
without an ECC, were not an exclusive list.
The afore-discussed provisions of Figure 2-4, in relation to Annex 2-1c, plainly

show that the EPRMP can, likewise, be used as an appropriate EIA document type
for a single, non-implemented project applying for a major amendment to its ECC,
involving an increase in capacity or auxiliary component, which will exceed PDR
(non-covered project) thresholds, or result in the inability of the EMP and ERA to
address the impacts and risks arising from the modification, such as the subject
project.
That the proposed modifications in the subject project fall under this class or type
of amendment was a determination made by the DENR-EMB and, absent a
showing of grave abuse of discretion, the DENR-EMB's findings are entitled to
great respect because it is the administrative agency with the special competence
or expertise to administer or implement the EIS System.
The apparent confusion of the Casiño Group and the appellate court is
understandable. They had approached the issue with a legal training mindset or
background. As a general proposition, the definition of terms in a statute or rule is
controlling as to its nature and scope within the context of legal or judicial
proceedings. Thus, since the procedure adopted by the DENR-EMB seemed to
8/28/23, 9:28 PM [ G.R. No. 208702. May 11, 2021 ]
contradict or go beyond the definition of terms in the relevant issuances, the

Casiño Group and the appellate court concluded that the procedure was infirm.
However, a holistic reading of DAO 2003-30 and the Revised Manual will show
that such a legalistic approach in its interpretation and application is unwarranted.
This is primarily because the EIA process is a system, not a set of rigid rules and
definitions. In the EIA process, there is much room for flexibility in the
determination and use of the appropriate EIA document type as the foregoing
discussion has shown. To our mind, what should be controlling is the guiding
principle set in DAO 2003-30 in the evaluation of applications for amendments to
ECCs, as stated in Section 8.3 thereof: "[r]equirements for processing ECC
amendments shall depend on the nature of the request but shall be focused on the
information necessary to assess the environmental impact of such changes."
This brings us to the next logical question, did the EPRMP provide the necessary
information in order for the DENR-EMB to assess the environmental impact of RP
Energy's request relative to the first amendment?
We answer in the affirmative.
xxxx
At any rate, we have examined the contents of the voluminous EPRMP submitted
by RP Energy and we find therein substantial sections explaining the proposed
changes as well as the adjustments that will be made in the environmental
management plan in order to address the potential environmental impacts of the
proposed modifications to the original project design. These are summarized in the
"Project Fact Sheet" of the EPRMP and extensively discussed in Section 4 thereof.
Absent any claim or proof to the contrary, we have no bases to conclude that these
data were insufficient to assess the environmental impact of the proposed
modifications. In accordance with the presumption of regularity in the performance
of official duties, the DENR-EMB must be deemed to have adequately assessed
the environmental impact of the proposed changes, before granting the request
under the first amendment to the subject ECC.
In sum, the Revised Manual permits the use of an EPRMP, as the appropriate EIA
document type, for major amendments to an ECC, even for an unimplemented or
non-implemented project with a previous ECC, such as the subject project.
Consequently, we find that the procedure adopted by the DENR, in requiring RP
Energy to submit an EPRMP in order to undertake the environmental impact
assessment of the planned modifications to the original project design, relative to
the first amendment to the ECC, suffers from no infirmity.
We apply the same framework of analysis in determining the propriety of a PDR,

as the appropriate EIA document type, relative to the second amendment to the
subject ECC.[78] (Emphasis in the original; citations omitted; underscoring
supplied)
8/28/23, 9:28 PM [ G.R. No. 208702. May 11, 2021 ]
In the present case, no grave abuse of discretion was proven to be attributed to the DENR-
EMB in instructing the project proponent to file an EPRMP. Hence, it enjoys the presumption
of regularity in the performance of its official duties. Based on its technical expertise, it found
that the information provided in an EPRMP sufficiently addressed the environmental concerns
of the government.
It is within the DENR-EMB's function and expertise to determine the category or

classification of a proposed project as it is equipped with the knowledge and competence to
resolve issues involving the highly technical field of EIS System. Alltech merely complied
with the instruction of the DENR-EMB to submit an EPRMP. The project proponent should
not be faulted for this as it is not in the position to substitute the assessment or technical
opinion of the DENR-EMB with its own judgment. It is within the sphere of the technical
knowledge and expertise of the DENR-EMB, and not the Court nor the project proponent, to
determine the appropriate EIA report to submit for a particular project.
Moreover, the original PEA-Amari project and the current proposed project are similar in
nature. Both projects involve reclamation and horizontal development of the project site
intended for commercial, industrial and residential use in the future. It would have been
different if the project proponent proposed to develop reclamation works and infrastructure
intended for a totally foreign or different purpose from the superseded of PEA-Amari project
such as a nuclear power plant or an airport. Here, the proposed project remained consistent
with the objective of the superseded PEA-Amari project.
As correctly determined by the CA, the EPRMP Alltech submitted is a technical EIS due to its
comprehensiveness. The EIARC took into consideration important issues such as flooding, the
critical habitat, and the plight of fisherfolk who are residents within the project site itself.
A public hearing
is not mandatory

for the proposed
project.
Section 5.3 of DAO No. 2003-30 provides:
5.3 Public Hearing / Consultation Requirements
For projects under Category A-1, the conduct of public hearing as part of the EIS
review is mandatory unless otherwise determined by EMB. For all other
undertakings, a public hearing is not mandatory unless specifically required
by EMB.
Proponents should initiate public consultations early in order to ensure that

environmentally relevant concerns of stakeholders are taken into consideration in
the EIA study and the formulation of the management plan. All public
consultations and public hearings conducted during the EIA process are to be
documented. The public hearing/ consultation Process report shall be validated by
8/28/23, 9:28 PM [ G.R. No. 208702. May 11, 2021 ]
the EMB/EMB RD and shall constitute part of the records of the EIA process.[79]
(Emphasis supplied)
In this case, the records disclosed that despite not being mandated to conduct a public hearing,
Alltech held a consultation on November 25, 2010 with representatives of concerned sectors
such as the cities of Parañaque and Las Piñas, PRA, the EIA consultants, the EIA case handler
and Review Committee.[80] Identified stakeholders in the direct and indirect impact areas of
the proposed project such as the Department of Tourism, the Partnerships for the
Environmental Management of the Sea of Asia, and the United Cooperative Association of the
Bulungan Fish Landing Site/Fisherman's Wharf likewise participated during the public
consultation.[81]
The CA
determined that
there is no actual
or imminent
threat that can be
attributed to the
proposed project

that would
prejudice the life,
health, or
property of
residents of the
cities of Las Piñas
and Parañaque.
It must be understood that an ECC is not a permit to implement a project. Paragraph (d),
Section 3 of the DAO No. 2003-30 defined ECC as:
d. Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC)-document issued by the

DENR/EMB after a positive review of an ECC application, certifying that based
on the representations of the proponent, the proposed project or undertaking will
not cause significant negative environmental impact. The ECC also certifies that
the proponent has complied with all the requirements of the EIS System and has
committed to implement its approved Environmental Management Plan. The ECC
contains specific measures and conditions that the project proponent has to
undertake before and during the operation of a project, and in some cases, during
the project's abandonment phase to mitigate identified environmental impacts.[82]
Clearly, an ECC does not authorize the implementation of the proposed project. It is a
planning tool that imposes restrictions that the proponent must diligently observe and duties
that it must undertake to ensure that the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is protected.
The proponent is expected to secure the pertinent permits and clearances from all concerned
government agencies, such as those listed in Annex "B" of the ECC issued to Alltech, prior to
the implementation of the project. The proponent will have to ensure compliance with all the
conditions and requirements outlined in the ECC before it may commence the implementation
8/28/23, 9:28 PM [ G.R. No. 208702. May 11, 2021 ]
of the proposed project.
Noticeably, the conditions in the ECC issued to Alltech require securing other permits and
clearances that cannot be obtained without the participation of other stakeholders such as the
cities of Parañaque and Las Piñas and PRA. The concurrence of the listed government
agencies in Annex "B" of the ECC such as the Department of Health, Department of Labor
and Employment, Department of Public Works and Highways, Department of Agriculture,
Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources, and Department of Social Welfare and
Development must also be obtained. Considering that the proposed project still has to meet
the conditions listed in its ECC before commencing construction, there is no actual or
imminent threat of danger demonstrable at this stage of the proposed project. Thus, the
petition of Villar is premature.
Furthermore, the perceived dangers posed by the proposed project were not established by
Villar who bears the onus of proving her case. As properly determined by the CA, the
companies commissioned by Villar, CEC-P and Tricore, failed to conduct a comprehensive
and objective assessment of the proposed project and lacked the expertise necessary in the
field of hydrology and hydraulics to competently conclude that the proposed project will
cause environmental damage.[83]
In referring the petition to the CA for hearing and reception of evidence, the CA made an
exhaustive evaluation of the evidence presented, particularly the reports submitted reflecting
the studies conducted to determine the impact of the project to the flooding conditions in the
affected areas and its effect to LPPCHEA. We accord weight to the factual findings of the CA
in identifying that no actual or imminent threat can be attributed to the proposed project that
would prejudice the life, health, or property of residents of the cities of Las Piñas and
Parañaque.
According to the Tricore report, "the construction for the reclamation project will change the
hydrodynamic characteristics of Manila bay that includes current wave actions, tidal
fluctuations, and transport of sediments along the coasts that would restrict circulation of
coastal water resulting to degradation of its water quality and environmental ecosystems."[84]
However, the Tricore report, which concluded that the proposed reclamation project would
cause an increase in flood depth and inundate two-thirds of Las Piñas, Parañaque and Bacoor,
lacked sufficient basis.[85]
The claim that the proposed project will cause flooding in the cities of Las Piñas and
Parañaque was already addressed in Alltech's EPRMP, the pertinent portion of which states:
As discussed during the Public Consultation, floodings are attributable to

impairment in the flow of the Parañaque and Las Piñas rivers due to cloggings
from garbage. There are no aspects of the construction and operations that would
affect the rivers. Discharge channels are sufficiently provided to serve as the
drainage outfalls, as indicated in Figures 2.1 and 2.6. The ECC specifically
contains the following conditions which are being integrated in the [ongoing]
engineering works, "8. The construction of two outlet channels for the Paranaque
River Basin and Las Piñas, Zapote River basin shall be implemented and
8/28/23, 9:28 PM [ G.R. No. 208702. May 11, 2021 ]
maintained to improve drainage of the said rivers. Inland channel separating the
reclamation and the mainland shall also be constructed and maintained to serve as
reservoir and drainage of flood waters and high/low tide from the two rivers; "[86]
(Italics in the original; emphases and underscoring supplied)
Based on the Conceptual Drainage System Plan shown in Figure 3.4 of the EPRMP,[87] no
stream or river volumetric flows are affected since the outflow is Manila Bay.[88] The
drainage outfall of treated water is Manila Bay itself.[89] Flooding will not be caused by the
proposed project because:
Major impacts from reclamation activities would arise if a river system or a

drainage system would be restricted or blocked. This is not the case with this
particular project. As may be seen from Project Development Plan Map in Figure
2.4, pages 2-10, the final outflow Parañaque River to Manila Bay all remain
unimpeded due to the provision of a River outlet fall while that of Las Piñas River
will be unobstructed. Further the drainage outfalls of the project will be the Manila
Bay and away from these Rivers.
Also since only 635.14 hectares of the bay, portion of which had been previously
reclaimed will be reclaimed out of a total 180,000 hectares of Manila Bay surface
area (or 0.3%) the impacts are minimal. The incremental impact arising from the
reduction of the reclamation area further reduces flooding concerns arising from
the project.[90]
In addition, the findings in Tricore's report were refuted by the measures that Alltech intends
to adopt in order to avoid or reduce potential adverse impact of the proposed project. Among
the engineering interventions proposed by Alltech are river flood control and drainage
improvement works. These measures have been designed to anticipate a fully-urbanized
Parañaque and Las Piñas in year 2020.[91] In the Flood Studies and Design Parameters[92]
submitted by Peter Suchianco, Project Director of Alltech, the constructional tabulated[93] as
follows:
Design
River Length Width Cross- Proposed
Discharge
Stretch (Meter) (Meter) Section Structures
(c.u/sec)
Revertment
Las Piñas Single
250-220 6.395 50-30 Parapet Wall
River Trapezoidal
Embankment
South
Parañaque Revertment
Single
(including 630-200 6,500 70-30 Parapet Wall
Trapezoidal
Dongalo Embankment
River)
8/28/23, 9:28 PM [ G.R. No. 208702. May 11, 2021 ]
On the other hand, the constructional features of the proposed improvement works on
drainage are as follows:[94]
Proposed Structure Quantity Dimension

Pump Station 2 sites 19.8 cm
Control Gate 8 sites 195 tons
Channel Improvement 4,800m 15m-8.7m widening
Open Channel Construction 150m 20m in width
Cut-off Channel 500m 30m in width
Bulkhead structures will also be installed. In order to prevent excessive underground water
pressure from storm run-off, a drainage system will be installed behind the bulkhead walls.
This measure will eliminate underground water pressure.[95]
We agree with the observation of the CA that the study of CEC-P is inaccurate and unreliable
as it depended on the EPRMP submitted in August 2010 and not the final EPRMP that the
Alltech submitted in December 2010.[96] This fact was revealed in the Judicial Affidavit of
Frances Q. Quimpo, Executive Director of CEC-P, the pertinent portion of which is
reproduced below:
QUESTION#14: Of the documents you spoke of a while ago, which of these did
you use to form the basis for saying that the project proceeds from inadequate
study?
ANSWER#14: The main document scrutinized in the course of this study is the
Environmental Performance Report Management Plan (EPRMP) submitted by
Alltech to the DENR on (sic) August 2010.
QUESTION#15: Why base your study on Alltech's EPRMP?
ANSWER#15: There were other materials that we relied on as data for our study.
However, as the final report on Alltech's proposed management of the
environmental impacts before the granting of the March 2011 ECC, the EPRMP is
the source document on how the proponent expects its project to affect the
landscape and ecology of the project site and what measures it has taken or will
take to minimize the adverse effects that may be brought by this change.[97]
(Underscoring supplied; emphasis in the original)
It must be clarified that the Final EPRMP of Alltech was submitted in December 2010, and
not in August 2010. Therefore, the study of CEC-P, that was based on wrong and inaccurate
data, cannot be considered a reliable reference in concluding that the proposed project lacked
clear scientific study on the flooding hazards of reclamation and the appropriate mitigation
measures to be adopted by the project proponent.
In the determination of potential adverse effects of the proposed project on flooding and
flushing, the CA heard and received evidence reflecting the Flooding Impact Assessment and
8/28/23, 9:28 PM [ G.R. No. 208702. May 11, 2021 ]
Flushing Impact Assessment conducted. Various circumstances, including the potential worst-
case scenarios, were simulated and recreated by experts contracted to identify possible
flooding and flushing issues and to recommend mitigating measures to address these. The
technical findings of the CA, which We reproduced below, explain the data-gathering method
employed and the results of the hydraulics studies the DHI conducted:
The Flooding Impact Assessment looked at how the proposed reclamation would
affect the existing flooding risks in the Parañaque, Las Piñas and Zapote areas. In
conducting the Flooding Impact Assessment, the following main factors of
flooding were used: (a) rainfall runoff, or flooding caused by heavy rains running
off into low-lying areas and rivers; and (b) coastal flooding, or flooding caused by
storm surges. The water levels at the river mouth were compared between the
predevelopment (baseline) and postdevelopment (reclamation) situation. The
differences in water levels between the two scenarios were considered to be the
incremental impact caused by the proposed reclan1ation. If the proposed
reclamation does not cause any rise in the downstream water level during flood
compared to the existing situation, there would not be any increased flooding
further upstream. Computer models reflecting the present condition of the entire
Manila Bay, including the site for the proposed reclamation, were set-up to
establish the baseline condition. DHI used the available data on the frequency and
maximum level of flooding in the area, as well as the data on rainfall levels. The
effects of the proposed reclamation were evaluated using a computer model
simulating the extreme rainfall runoff and extreme storm surge scenarios. A 3-
dimensional hydrodynamic model of the entire Manila Bay was setup. Bathymetry
information was taken from the electronic navigation chart with reference to the
Philippines Chart Datum at Mean Low Low Water ("MLLW"). In order to
establish the maximum water level conditions for the baseline situation, DHI
obtained historical rainfall data for the Las Piñas-Parañaque area from the
Philippine Atmospheric, Geophysical and Astronomical Services Administration
(PAGASA). DHI also used the data obtained by DCCD from the flood assessment
survey it conducted in August 2011 regarding the frequency and maximum flood
levels within a 1-km radius from the mouths of the Parañaque, Las Piñas, and
Zapote Rivers. Secondary data from the local governments of Parañaque and Las
Piñas were also incorporated in the DCCD data. Given that the Study was
concerned with continuous simulation of the rainfall runoff response, it was
necessary to generate rainfall time-series data. Rather than simply calculating peak
discharge values as DCCD had done, DHI used a full rainfall-runoff time-series.
The flood risk assessments were simulated using the worst case scenarios, i.e.
with the highest astronomical tide coupled with an extreme storm surge or
rainfall runoff event.
The results of the assessment showed that for each of the rivers, the proposed
reclamation, without any mitigating measure, would result in increases in the
maximum water levels at the river mouths, particularly the Las Piñas-Zapote
rivers, which would increase the risk of flooding during the heavy rainfall runoff
event. In terms of flood risk during a storm surge, the proposed reclamation would
act as a storm surge barrier for the Parañaque area. However, it has a funneling
effect in the Las Piñas and Zapote areas, resulting in higher water levels in the
8/28/23, 9:28 PM [ G.R. No. 208702. May 11, 2021 ]
northern end of the southern lagoon. Based on the results of the modeling, DHI
proposed mitigation measures to avoid increasing the water levels or backwater
impact between the predevelopment and postdevelopment conditions at the river
mouths. Various combinations of the following mitigation measures were
simulated in order to test their effectiveness:
"1) Removal of the sandbar at the confluence of the Las Piñas and
Zapote Rivers;
2) Dredging of the channel in front of Parañaque River to -6 meters
MLLW;
3) Dredging the area between the Las Piñas and Zapote Rivers to -4
meters MLLW;
4) Building a flood or sluice gate at the Parañaque causeway joining the
islands; and
5) Building a 100-meter buffer zone and lagoon infill."
Based on the results of the computer simulations of the effects of the proposed
reclamation and of the possible mitigation measures, it was found that if the
following mitigation measures were implemented, all the negative impacts are
removed:
"Maintaining a minimum width of 160 meters in the Parañaque River

extension, and dredging to deepen it by an average of 2 to 3 meters in
order to improve drainage of the Parañaque River;
Dredging to deepen the entrance to the southern lagoon by an average
of 1 meters, and removing the sandbar immediately offshore from the
mouth of the Las Piñas River in order to improve the drainage of the
Las Piñas and Zapote Rivers; and
Installation of a sluice gate, approximately 35 meters wide, in the
causeway separating the two lagoons, in order to allow improved
drainage and flushing of the lagoons."
According to DHI, if all the foregoing mitigation measures were implemented,

including the removal of the sandbar, deepening and widening of the Parañaque
river extension and the entrance to the southern lagoon, the proposed reclamation
would significantly improve the drainage in the rivers, and remove all the potential
negative impact of the proposed reclamation. The modeling simulations predicted
that if all the mitigation measures were taken, there would be a positive impact for
Parañaque and Zapote and no impact at Las Piñas in case of heavy rainfall. The
positive impact indicates that the river mouth discharge condition would be
improved, potentially reducing upstream flood risk. In the case of storm surges, the
mitigating measures would have a positive effect on the Parañaque area, with
reduced surge effects. While there would still be a small residual increase in water
level at Las Piñas and Zapote areas, this would not be measurable in the field,
resulting in zero impact, particularly since the Las Piñas/Zapote area is protected
by the elevated Manila-Cavite expressway, which also acts as a storm surge flood
barrier. The reclamation would also have a positive impact in protecting the
western side of the lagoon which is presently eroding.
8/28/23, 9:28 PM [ G.R. No. 208702. May 11, 2021 ]
In conclusion, the flooding impact assessment indicates that the proposed

reclamation, with the recommended mitigation measures implemented, has
negligible to positive impact for the Parañaque, Las Piñas and Zapote areas. The
proposed reclamation, with the recommended mitigation measures, can bring
positive impact to the river mouth passage conditions, and potentially reduce the
risk of upstream flooding. During storm surge, the reclamation has a positive
impact at the Parañaque area, protecting it and reducing the surge effects. At the
Las Piñas site, the model showed the storm surge to increase the water level by 2
to 3 cm. However, this would not be detectable in the field and has zero impact
towards coastal flooding as the area is protected by the elevated Manila-Cavite
expressway. In addition, the reclamation will have positive impact in terms of
protecting the western side of the lagoon which is presently eroding.
The DHI Flushing Impact Assessment looked into the potential changes to the
flushing of the lagoons as a result of the proposed reclamation. Flushing time is a
measure of water mass retention within the defined boundary, and provides a
description of mass balance and transport dynamics in the lagoons. This is a good
indicator of conditions in the lagoon, especially with regard to variations to
salinity, suspended sediments, and contaminant transport. In other words flushing
can be used to evaluate changes in water quality, such as salinity, nutrients, and
even sediment exchange in the lagoons. The Flushing Impact Assessment was
conducted to determine whether the proposed reclamation would have any
negative impact on the residence or flushing time or water exchange rate in the
lagoon system which may adversely affect the habitat, specifically the mangroves.
Considering that the flushing is very sensitive to rainfall as well as to tidal
conditions, two flushing scenarios were studied: (a) the wet season during the
monsoon, with peak river runoffs; and (b) the dry season during the non-monsoon,
with no discharges from the rivers. After the assessment, it was found that under
the present conditions, during the dry season, both the lagoons are currently, poorly
flushed due to the relatively weak tidal regime and shallow inter-tidal area. Under
the present conditions, during the wet season, flushing is improved due to stronger
tidal forcing and additional discharge into the lagoon from the rivers.
Based on the flushing model, the following mitigation measures were

recommended to remove the negative impacts of the proposed reclamation, and to
improve the current flushing condition in the lagoons:
a. Dredging and maintaining the extension of the Parañaque river to a

depth of -6 meters;
b. Dredging and maintaining the Las Piñas/Zapote river mouths to a
depth of -4meters;
c. Removal of the sand bar at the Las Piñas mouth; and
d. Provision of a 35-meter wide sluice gate and operational procedure
for the causeway.
During the dry season, if the suggested mitigating measure of installing a sluice
gate is taken and it is kept open at all times, there is a slight negative impact in the
8/28/23, 9:28 PM [ G.R. No. 208702. May 11, 2021 ]
lagoon due to the generally poor flushing during the dry season. However, if the
suggested sluice gate is operated only during flood events or during optimal tide
conditions and kept closed during the rest of the time, a positive effect could be
achieved. During the wet season, the addition of the sluice gate significantly
improves the flushing during the wet season. Provided the sluice gate and other
mitigating measures are implemented, a positive overall impact on flushing can be
expected from the proposed reclamation. The sluice gate can be operated to
improve the flushing beyond the present day environmental condition of the
lagoons.
In conclusion, DHI's hydraulic studies show that, at worst, the proposed

reclamation will have no flooding and flushing impacts provided the recommended
mitigation measures are implemented. On the other hand, the proposed reclamation
can improve the existing situation provided the recommended mitigation measures
are taken. The DHI documented their study by preparing a Final Report on the
Model Setups, Results, and Impacts Assessment of the Flooding and Flushing
Study, entitled "Manila Bay Coastal 21 Flooding and Flushing Study Model
Setups, Results and Impacts Assessment."[98] (Emphasis supplied)
DHI presented a comprehensive analysis of the consequences of the implementation of the

proposed project. The findings of DHI is supported by the Flooding Impact Assessment and a
Flushing Impact Assessment conducted that adds credibility and persuasive value to the
proposed project.
DCCD also presented its flood assessment survey entitled Coastal 21 Hydrologic and Flood
Study, wherein it was determined that the current flooding problems in the Las
Piñas/Parañaque areas were largely due to the fact that the existing drainage system cannot
adequately drain the low lying areas. DCCD explained that:
[I]n case of extreme events, no significant difference in flood levels between the
scenario with the reclamation and the existing conditions is expected, if the
uniform width of 160 meters up to the existing bridge for the Parañaque channel
will be implemented adjacent to the reclamation project. The construction of the
uniform 160-meter channel, however, entails giving up around 4.35 hectares of the
Critical Habitat. The widening of the existing channel will actually prevent
flooding. This is because the bird sanctuary/critical habitat constricts the channel
flow from the Parañaque River. However, even by excluding entirely the Critical
Habitat from the reclamation project, the local flooding being experienced
can still be alleviated by freeing the rivers of garbage, debris, silt, informal
settlers along the banks and other obstructions in the rivers. The street
drainage system also needs to be improved especially in the low-lying areas
where ponding occur. A major factor to the local flooding is the Manila
Coastal Road, which is a road on reclaimed land along the coast and acts as a
dike preventing the runoff from freely draining towards the bay. The adequacy
of the culverts and widths of the existing bridges to the bay need to be evaluated as
well. Forecasts on water elevations at the outlets of the Las Piñas-Zapote rivers
8/28/23, 9:28 PM [ G.R. No. 208702. May 11, 2021 ]
were generated in case of extreme events.[99] (Emphasis and underscoring

supplied)
Based on the foregoing, it is clear that the proposed project will not aggravate flooding as
DCCD had already identified the factors that cause flooding in the areas affected. It is worthy
to point out that a major factor to the local flooding is the Manila Coastal Road, which is a
road on reclaimed land along the coast and acts as a dike preventing the runoff from freely
draining towards Manila Bay. Poor drainage system, obstructions in rivers, and the
geographical layout of the Manila Coastal Road are the identified contributing factors in the
flooding problems in Las Piñas and Parañaque. With the implementation of the proposed
project, and adopting the mitigating measures included in the proposed project. The
communities will actually benefit as engineering interventions will be introduced to address
the flooding issues.
Between the study conducted by CEC-P and those produced by DCCD, Surbana, and DHI, We
are inclined to give more weight to the studies commissioned by Alltech which appear to be
duly supported by scientific research. Unlike CEC-P, Surbana has amassed over 45 years of
experience in planning and managing land reclamation and coastal development.[100] It has
undertaken various reclamation and coastal development projects worldwide, including the
Tanjong Rhu and the East Coast reclamation projects in Singapore.[101]
In its Closing Report,[102] Surbana highlighted its reclamation project next to the Kota
Kinabalu City Bird Sanctuary, the only remaining patch of mangrove forest found in Kota
Kinabalu, Malaysia. Surbana opined that the success of this project proves that a bird
sanctuary can coexist alongside a land reclamation project.[103] Surbana also mentioned the
Pulau Ular Reclamation Project in Singapore which was developed approximately 200 meters
from a critical habitat, Singapore's only public access recreational dive area with good quality
coral reefs, seagrass beds, and mangrove habitats.[104] Surbana recommended conducting a
flood and flushing study[105] and made the following conclusion:
The development of the Project, with a commitment to minimizing negative

physical, biological and social environmental impacts at the design stage, and a
wellconsidered EMMP during construction and operation can be expected to
improve the environmental status of the LPPCHEA area when benchmarked
against experience from similar international sites.[106]
As have been already discussed, following the recommendation of Surbana, Alltech engaged
the services of DHI to carry out hydrologic and hydrodynamic study to evaluate the potential
flooding and t1ushing impacts of the proposed project.[107] The flood risk assessments made
by DHI were simulated using projected worst-case scenarios; i.e., with the highest
astronomical tide coupled with an extreme storm surge or rainfall runoff event, extreme wind
conditions, and climate change.[108]
While Villar's intention in taking a proactive role in advancing her constituents' right to a
balanced and healthful ecology is laudable, the Court cmmot simply apply the extraordinary
8/28/23, 9:28 PM [ G.R. No. 208702. May 11, 2021 ]
remedy of a Writ of Kalikasan to all environmental issues elevated to Us. In Paje v. Casiño,
[109] the Court clarified that:
The function of the extraordinary and equitable remedy of a Writ of Kalikasan

should not supplant other available remedies and the nature of the forums that they
provide. The Writ of Kalikasan is a highly prerogative writ that issues only
when there is a showing of actual or imminent threat and when there is such
inaction on the part of the relevant administrative bodies that will make an
environmental catastrophe inevitable. It is not a remedy that is availing when
there is no actual threat or when imminence of danger is not demonstrable. The
Writ of Kalikasan thus is not an excuse to invoke judicial remedies when there
still remain administrative forums to properly address the common concern
to protect and advance ecological rights. After all, we cannot presume that
only the Supreme Court can conscientiously fulfill the ecological duties
required of the entire state.[110] (Emphases supplied)
The writ of kalikasan is not a remedy that may be availed when there is no actual threat or
when the imminence of danger is not apparent to justify judicial intervention. To Our mind,
the writ of kalikasan should only be availed in extraordinary circumstances that require the
immediate attention of the Court and cannot be arbitrarily invoked when remedies are
available in administrative agencies to properly address and resolve concerns involving
protection of ecological rights.
The
precautionary
principle is not
applicable to the
present case.
The precautionary principle is one of the key features introduced in the RPEC wherein the
burden of proof is shifted to the proponent of a project to dispel concerns regarding potential
harmful impacts of a project to the environment. Section 1, Rule 20 of the RPEC states:
Section 1. Applicability. - When there is a lack of full scientific certainty in

establishing a causal link between human activity and environmental effect, the
court shall apply the precautionary principle in resolving the case before it.
The constitutional right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology shall be
given the benefit of the doubt.[111]
It is not meant to apply to all environmental cases. Essential to the application of the
precautionary principle is the presence of scientific uncertainty.
In the present case, We find no reason to apply the precautionary principle to favor Villar as
8/28/23, 9:28 PM [ G.R. No. 208702. May 11, 2021 ]
the proponent had sought the assistance of experts to allay the concerns of stakeholders who
will be affected by the implementation of the proposed project. As explained by the CA, the
threat was not established and the volumes of data generated by objective and expert analyses
ruled out the scientific uncertainty of the nature and scope of the anticipated threat.[112]
There is no
sufficient basis to
hold that the
proposed project

will impinge on
the viability and
sustainability of
LPPCHEA.
The State's primary framework for biodiversity conservation is found in the National
Integrated Protected Areas System (NIPAS) Act of 1992.[113] Thereafter, the Congress enacted
the ENIPAS[114] to enlarge the scope of the original list of identified protected areas in NIPAS
and add 94 more critical habitats nationwide. Section 4 of R.A. No. 11038 establishes
LPPCHEA as a "protected area" or a portion of land and/or water set aside by reason of its
"unique physical and biological significance, manages to enhance biological diversity and
protected against destructive human exploitation."[115] Nevertheless, this development does
not substantially alter Our decision to affirm the ruling of the CA denying Villar's petition for
the issuance of a writ of kalikasan due to the reasons discussed above. It must be clarified that
the classification of LPPCHEA as a "protected area" under the ENIPAS does not
automatically result to a prohibition of reclamation activities within the area, or alongside it.
There is nothing in the NIPAS and ENIPAS expressly declaring that reclamation activities
within or alongside a critical habitat is an incompatible activity that is not allowed.
Moreover, the metes and bounds of the LPPCHEA remain intact. No portion of the LPPCHEA
will be utilized for the proposed project, as shown in the geographical illustrations[116]
submitted by Alltech and its consultants. Even the Tricore report Villar commissioned
acknowledged that LPPCHEA was located adjacent to the project site.[117] This recognition is
critical in validating the assertion of Alltech that no portion of the proposed project will
traverse the LPPCHEA.
Out of the 175-hectare area of LPPCHEA, the alleged 4.3 hectares of the critical habitat
mentioned by DHI that would be utilized in the event that the Parañaque river channel with a
width of 160 meters is developed is not final and remains a proposal and will still be subject to
the approval of the government through the appropriate agencies. Even assuming that the 4.3
hectares of the critical habitat will be utilized, reclamation activities within or alongside a
critical habitat is not prohibited under the NIPAS and ENIPAS. Therefore, the perceived
negative impact of the proposed project to LPPCHEA's viability and sustainability remains
unsubstantiated.
8/28/23, 9:28 PM [ G.R. No. 208702. May 11, 2021 ]
ECC No. CO-

1101-0001 is not
rendered functus

officio despite the
lapse of five years
from its issuance.
With regard to the validity and expiry of Alltech's ECC, paragraph (d), item no. 10, chapter
1.0 of the Revised Procedural Manual for DAO No. 2003-30 provides that:
d) ECC Validity and Expiry: Once a project is implemented, the ECC remains
valid and active for the lifetime of the project ECC conditions and commitments
are permanently relieved from compliance by the Proponent only upon validation
by the EMB of the successful implementation of the environmental
aspects/component of the Proponent's Abandonment/ Rehabilitation/
Decommissioning Plan. This pre-condition for ECC validity applies to all projects
including those wherein ECC expiry dates have been specified in the ECC.
However, the ECC automatically expires if a project has not been implemented
within five (5) years from ECC issuance, or if the ECC was not requested for
extension within three (3) months from the expiration of its validity. If the baseline
characteristics have significantly changed to the extent that the impact assessment
as embodied in the Environmental Management Plan (EMP) is no longer
appropriate, the EMB office concerned shall require the Proponent to submit a new
application. The EIA Report on the new application shall focus only on the
assessment of the environmental component which significantly changed.
(Emphasis in the original, underscoring supplied)
In the present case, the ECC of Alltech is not automatically rendered functus officio simply
because the proposed project was not executed within five years from March 24, 2011, the
date the EMB issued ECC No. CO-1101-0001. It must be highlighted that the project
proponent was not the reason that the immediate implementation of the proposed project was
forestalled. It was the filing of the petition for writ of kalikasan that led to the delay in
carrying out the proposed project. Any revision to the ECC because of the lapse of time is for
the DENR-EMB to decide.
Participation of
the country as a
contracting party
in the Convention
on Wetlands does
not proscribe the
proposed project.
8/28/23, 9:28 PM [ G.R. No. 208702. May 11, 2021 ]
Lastly, while the Court acknowledges the international responsibilities of the Philippines, as a
Contracting Party of the Convention on Wetlands, for the wise use of all designated wetlands
of international importance in the country, this does not mean that a reclamation project
alongside or adjacent a designated wetland is absolutely prohibited. Paragraph 3, Article 2 of
the Convention on Wetlands of International Importance especially Waterfowl Habitat[118]
states:
3. The inclusion of a wetland in the List does not prejudice the exclusive sovereign
rights of the Contracting Party in whose territory the wetland is situated.[119]
It is clear that the classification of an area as a wetland of international importance does not
diminish the control the government exercises over the wetlands and adjacent areas within its
territory. The government may continue to utilize these areas as it may deem beneficial for all
its stakeholders. Here, the government, through the DENR, found Alltech's proposal and
studies conducted sufficient to allay the concerns of the stakeholders.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated April 26, 2013 and the
Resolution dated August 14, 2013 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP. No. 00014, which
denied the petition for writ of kalikasan, are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Gesmundo, C. J., Perlas-Bernabe, Hernando, Inting, Zalameda, M. Lopez, Delos Santos,

Rosario, and J. Lopez, JJ., concur.
Leonen, J., I dissent. See separate opinion.
Caguioa, J., See Concurring Opinion.
Lazaro-Javier, J., Please see my Dissenting Opinion.
Gaerlan,* J., no part.
* No part, in view of prior participation in the assailed Decision and Resolution of the Court
of Appeals.
[1] Rollo, Vol. I, pp. 61-154.
[2] Penned by Associate Justice Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr., with the concurrence of Associate
Justices Rebecca De Quia-Salvador and Samuel H. Gaerlan (now a Member of the Court); id.
at 9-55.
[3] Id. at 56-59.
[4] Id. at 161-162.
8/28/23, 9:28 PM [ G.R. No. 208702. May 11, 2021 ]
[5] Rollo, Vol. II, pp. 1569-1583.
[6] Rollo, Vol. I, p. 162.
[7] Id. at 772-806, 866-881.
[8] Id. at 810.
[9] Id. at 811.
[10] Id. at 81 0-811.
[11] Id. at 977-989, 990-1003.
[12] Id. at 162-163.
[13] Id. at 163.
[14] Id. at 547-669.
[15] Id. at 163, 562.
[16] Id. at 1019-1023.
[17] Id. at 1021-1022.
[18] Id. at 159.
[19] Supra note 2.
[20] Rollo, Vol. I, p. 55.
[21]
Establishing an Environmental Impact Statement System, Including Other Environmental
Management Related Measures and for Other Purposes.
[22] Rollo, Vol. I, p. 42.
[23] Id. at 39.
[24] Id.
8/28/23, 9:28 PM [ G.R. No. 208702. May 11, 2021 ]
[25] Id. at 39-40.
[26] Id. at 40.
[27] Id.
[28] Id. at 48.
[29] Id. at 45.
[30] Id.
[31] Id. at 46-47.
[32] Id. at 53.
[33] Id. at 54.
[34] Supra note 3.
[35] Rollo, Vol. I, p. 59.
[36] Supra note 1.
[37] Rollo, Vol. I, pp. 102-114.
[38] Id. at 116-119.
[39] Id. at 119-123.
[40] Id. at 123-127.
[41] Id. at 127-129.
[42] Id. at 129-138.
[43] Id. at 138-141.
[44] Id. at 141-144.
[45] Id. at 144-147.
8/28/23, 9:28 PM [ G.R. No. 208702. May 11, 2021 ]
[46] Rollo, Vol. II, pp. 1245-1328.
[47] Id. at 1263-1273.
[48] Id. at 1273-1275.
[49] Rollo, Vol. IV, pp. 2781-2782.
[50] Id. at 2795-2833.
[51] Id. at 2814-2821.
[52] Rollo, Vol. IV, pp. 2739-2750.
[53] Id. at 2745-2746.
[54] An Act
Declaring Protected Areas and Providing for their Management, Amending for this
Purpose Republic Act No. 7586, otherwise known as the "National Integrated Protected Areas
System (NIPAS) Act of 1992," and for Other Purposes.
[55] Temporary rollo, pp. 1-2.
[56] Id. at 2.
[57] Id. at 3-4.
[58] Id. at 4-7.
[59] Id. at 7.
[60] Id. at 7-10.
[61] Id. at 1-7.
[62] Id. at 4.
[63] Id. at 4-5.
[64] P.D. No. 1586, Section 4.
[65] Id., Section 1.

8/28/23, 9:28 PM [ G.R. No. 208702. May 11, 2021 ]
[66] Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases, A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC.
[67] Segovia v. The Climate Change Commission, 806 Phil. 1019, 1034 (2017).
[68] 752 Phil. 498 (2015).
[69] Id. at 542.
[70] Glossary, DAO No. 2003-30.
[71] Id.
[72] Supra note 65.
[73] Rollo, Vol. I, pp. 1019-1023.
[74] Rollo, Vol. IV, p. 2804.
[75] Id. at 2804, 2861.
[76] Chavez v. Public Estates Authority, 433 Phil. 506, 560 (2002).
[77] Supra note 65.
[78] Supra note 65 at 611-616.
[79] DAO No. 2003-30, Section 5.3.
[80] Rollo, Vol. I, pp. 1016-1018.
[81] Id. at 130.
[82] DAO No. 2003-30, Section 3(d).
[83] Rollo, Vol. I, p. 48.
[84] Id. at 283.
[85] Id. at 45.
8/28/23, 9:28 PM [ G.R. No. 208702. May 11, 2021 ]
[86] Id. at 608.
[87] Id.
[88] Id.
[89] Id. at 609.
[90] Id. at 619.
[91] Id. at 843-844.
[92] Id. at 839-854.
[93] Id. at 844.
[94] Id.
[95] Id. at 856.
[96] Id. at 46-47.
[97] Id. at 228-229.
[98] Rollo, Vol. I, pp. 26-32.
[99] Id. at 22-23.
[100] Rollo, Vol. III, p. 1997.
[101] Id. at 1997-1999.
[102] Id. at 1993-2026.
[103] Id. at 2005.
[104] Id. at 2007.
[105] Id. at 2026.
[106] Id.
8/28/23, 9:28 PM [ G.R. No. 208702. May 11, 2021 ]
[107] Id. at 2241.
[108] Id. at 2245, 2258, 2263.
[109] Supra note 65.
[110] Id. at 714.
[111] Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases, A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC, supra note 63.
[112] Rollo, Vol. I, p. 53.
[113] Republic Act No. 7586.
[114] Republic Act No. 11038.
[115] Id., Section 3.
[116] Rollo, Vol. I, pp. 585, 635.
[117] Id. at 266.
[118]Convention on Wetlands of International Importance Especially Waterfowl Habitat, July

13, 1994, , visited on February 4, 2021.
[119] Id.
DISSENTING OPINION
LEONEN, J.:
Regretfully but with great respect to the majority, I dissent.
The Department of Environment and Natural Resources should have required the proponent to
submit an environmental impact statement, and not merely the Environmental Performance
Report and Management Plan, as part of the Environmental Impact Assessment. The Court of
Appeals should not have merely relied on the Department's findings to conclude that an
environmental impact statement was not required. It should always take a harder look at the
parties' submissions.
8/28/23, 9:28 PM [ G.R. No. 208702. May 11, 2021 ]
This case involves a reclamation project near a protected bird sanctuary and mangrove forest.
Nearby residents have expressed concerns that the reclamation project may cause flooding in
their neighborhoods. This must be weighed in a petition for the issuance of a writ of kalikasan.
In 2009, Alltech Contractors, Inc. (Alltech) submitted unsolicited proposals to Las Piñas and
Parañaque for the development, financing, engineering, design, and reclamation of 381.26
hectares of land in Las Piñas and 174.88 hectares of land for Parañaque, both along the coast
of the Manila Bay. Each city's Sangguniang Panlungsod later issued a resolution authorizing
its mayor to explore the proposal under a Joint Venture Agreement. Later on, Las Piñas and
Parañaque accepted the proposal and executed their respective Joint Venture Agreements.[1]
In 2010, the Philippine Reclamation Authority approved the Las Piñas and Parañaque Coastal
Bay Project, subject to full compliance with laws, rules, and regulations. Alltech was then
directed to submit an environmental performance report management plan, instead of an
environmental impact statement, as basis for the issuance of an environmental compliance
certificate.[2]
In December 2010, Alltech submitted its final Environmental Performance Report

Management Plan, which involved the reclamation of around 203.43 hectares along the coast
of Parañaque and 431.171 hectares along the coast of Las Piñas. This area was also within the
750-hectare site known as the Amari Coastal Bay Development Corporation, covered by ECC
No. CO-9602-002-208C.[3]
On March 24, 2011, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources-Environmental

Management Bureau issued ECC No. CO-1101-0001 covering the Las Piñas and Parañaque
Coastal Bay Project.[4]
On March 16, 2012, then Las Piñas Representative Cynthia A. Villar (Villar), representing
315,849 residents, filed a Petition for a writ of kalikasan before this Court. She prayed that the
project be enjoined as it will, among others, cause massive Hooding to the residents in the
area.[5]
On April 24, 2012, this Court issued the writ against Alltech, Philippine Reclamation
Authority, Environmental Management Bureau, and the cities of Las Piñas, Parañaque, and
Bacoor, Cavite. The case was remanded to the Court of Appeals for the necessary hearings,
reception of evidence, and rendition of judgment.[6]
On April 26, 2013, the Court of Appeals rendered a Decision[7] denying the Petition for lack
of merit. It found that the Environmental Performance Report Management Plan was also a
form of environmental impact assessment and that an environmental impact statement was
required only for new projects. Since the current reclamation project was already within the
Amari Coastal Bay Development Project, the Court of Appeals found that the statement was
unnecessary. It likewise noted that the submission of the Environmental Performance Report
Management Plan, in lieu of an environmental impact statement, was the Environmental
Management Bureau's decision, and not Alltech's. It pointed out that baseline data gathered in
8/28/23, 9:28 PM [ G.R. No. 208702. May 11, 2021 ]
1996 as basis for the Environmental Performance Report Management Plan did not make the
data inaccurate or outdated, but instead required Alltech to meet a higher standard, since the
basis would be the better quality of environment in 1990.[8]
After her Motion for Reconsideration had been denied, Villar filed this Petition. She argues,
among others, that the issuance of the Environment Compliance Certificate for Las Piñas and
Parañaque Coastal Bay Project was illegal since respondent Alltech did not submit the
appropriate Environment Impact Assessment study. She likewise contends that the project
impinges on the viability and sustainability of the Las PiñasParañaque Critical Habitat and
Ecotourism Area, which was certified as a Wetland of National Importance in 2013.[9]
The majority, however, upheld the Court of Appeals Decision, finding:
In the present case, the EPRMP Alltech submitted was the proper form of study. As
pointed out by the DENR-EMB, the proposed project is premised on the existence
of a reclamation project covered by an ECC previously issued to the Philippine
Estates Authority (PEA), now PRA, and Amari (ECC No. CO-9602-002-208C)
issued in September 1996....
....
... Under the Revised Procedural Manual for DAO No. 2003-30, the type of EIA
report for a project which had previously operated or existing with previous ECCs
intended to be modified, expanded or re-start operations is not an EIS but an
EPRMP or PEPRMP. As explained by the DENR-EMB, the entire area of the
proposed project was within the area of the previous ECC issued in favor of the
PEA and Amari on September 16, 1996 covering 750 hectares.
....

classification of a proposed project as it is equipped with the knowledge and
competence to resolve issues involving the highly technical field of EIS system....
....
As correctly determined by the CA, the EPRMP Alltech submitted is a technical

EIS due to its comprehensiveness. The EIARC took .into consideration important
issues such as flooding, the critical habitat, and the plight of fisherfolk who are
residents within the project site itself.[10] (Citations omitted)
The majority likewise found that the classification of the Las Piñas-Parañaque Critical Habitat
and Ecotourism Area as a "protected area" did not result in the prohibition of reclamation
activities since there was nothing in the law that expressly disallowed it.[11]
8/28/23, 9:28 PM [ G.R. No. 208702. May 11, 2021 ]
I disagree.
Respondent Alltech should have been ordered to submit an environmental impact statement.
This is the appropriate environmental impact assessment study necessary to issue an
environmental compliance certificate for the Coastal Bay Project.
For every project or undertaking that may significantly affect the environment's quality,
Presidential Decree No. 1586[12] requires an environmental impact statement under an
Environmental Impact Statement System to be established by the Department of Environment
and Natural Resources.[13] This system "is concerned primarily with assessing the direct and
indirect impacts of a project on the biophysical and human environment and ensuring that
these impacts are addressed by appropriate environmental protection and enhancement
measures."[14]
An environmental impact assessment, meanwhile, is a "process that involves predicting and

evaluating the likely impacts of a project (including cumulative impacts) on the environment
during construction, commissioning, operation and abandonment. It also includes designing
appropriate preventive, mitigating and enhancement measures addressing these consequences
to protect the environment and the community's welfare."[15]
Under the Revised Manual for Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Administrative Order No. 2003-30:
There are seven (7) major EIA Report types for which preparation and application
procedures have been provided in this Manual. Table 1-4 presents the report type
per project sub-group.
a) For new projects: EIA-covered projects in Groups I, II and IV are required

either an (1) Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), (2) Programmatic EIS (PEIS),
(3) Initial Environmental Examination Report (IEER) or (4), IEE Checklist
(IEEC), depending on project type, location, magnitude of potential impacts and
project threshold. For non-covered projects in Groups II and III, a (5) Project
Description Report (PDR) is the appropriate document to secure a decision from
DENR/EMB. The PDR is a "must" requirement for environmental enhancement
and mitigation projects in both ECAs (Group II) and NECAs (Group III) to allow
EMB to confirm the benign nature of proposed operations for eventual issuance of
a Certificate of Non-Coverage (CNC). All other Group III (non-covered) projects
do not need to submit PDRs - application is at the option of the Proponent should it
need a CNC for its own purposes, e.g. financing prerequisite. For Group V
projects, a PDR is required to ensure new processes/technologies or any new
unlisted project does not pose harm to the environment. The Group V PDR is a
basis for either issuance of a CNC or classification of the project into its proper
8/28/23, 9:28 PM [ G.R. No. 208702. May 11, 2021 ]
project group.
b) For operating projects with previous ECCs but planning for applying for
clearance to modify/expand or re-start operations, or for projects operating without
an ECC but applying to secure one to comply with PD 1586 regulations, the
appropriate document is not an EIS but an EIA Report incorporating the project's
environmental performance and its current Environmental Management Plan. This
report is either an (6) Environmental Performance Report and Management Plan
(EPRMP) for single project applications or a (7) Programmatic EPRMP
(PEPRMP) for co-located project applications. However, for small project
modifications, an updating of the project description or the Environmental
Management Plan with the use of the proponent's historical performance and
monitoring records may suffice.[16]
Under these regulations, an environmental impact statement is required for new projects. For
"operating projects with previous ECCs but planning or applying for clearance to
modify/expand or re-start operations, or for projects operating without an ECC but applying to
secure one to comply with PD 1586 regulations," an environmental performance report and
management plan will be submitted.
The difference is obvious: An environmental impact statement is a new and in-depth

environmental impact assessment study on a specific project site, while an environmental
performance report and management plan is a mere update a prior environmental impact
assessment study already made on the same site. As petitioner correctly pointed out:
138. The rationale behind requiring only an EPRMP for projects that have operated
initially is to dispense with needless submissions of new studies as there
presumably exists a number of useful data about the actual environmental impacts
of a project as observed. Of course, there is no need to duplicate the tedious
processes of an Environmental Impact Statement when the effects of a project have
been recorded upon its implementation and where historical environmental
performance and status of the project and its management plan are already known.
139. Given a project that had operated but stopped for a period of more than five
(5) years, what is required is an environmental impact report on how well the
mitigation and enhancement measures worked, using its environmental
management plan ("EMP") as a yardstick. The convenience of preparing an
EPRMP leaves the proponent to focus on ways to enact improvements on a project
that has been implemented and has operated with plans for modification,
expansion or a restart. This shortcut allows the proponent to suggest modifications
and changes in the original plan to augment environmental performance without
the costly distraction of undertaking a comprehensive environmental impact
statement study.[17]
8/28/23, 9:28 PM [ G.R. No. 208702. May 11, 2021 ]
The Court of Appeals found that the Environmental Performance Report and Management
Plan's submission was appropriate since a prior Environmental Compliance Certificate had
already been issued for Amari Coastal Bay Project in 1996.
This Project, however, was never implemented.[18] Thus, there would be no basis for any
historical environmental impact data. There would be no viable report or update on the effect
of prior mitigation measures and environmental plans already implemented. Amari Coastal
Bay Project's ECC No. CO-9602-002-208C required, among others:
8. The construction of two outlet channels for the Parañaque River Basin and Las
Piñas, Zapote River Basin shall be implemented and maintained to improve
drainage of the said rivers. Inland channel separating the reclamation and the
mainland shall also be constructed and maintained to serve as reservoir and
drainage of flood waters and high/low tide from the two rivers.[19] (Citation
omitted)
No evidence was presented showing that these two outlet channels had already been
constructed, and that these continue to improve drainage among the identified rivers. In
contrast, respondent Alltech appears to have tacitly recognizing that such outlet channels were
ever implemented, since the outlet channels were part of their proposed engineering works:
As discussed during the Public Consultation, floodings are attributable to

impairment in the flow of the Parañaque and Las Pi[ñ]as rivers due to cloggings
from garbage. There are no aspects of the construction and operations that would
affect the rivers. Discharge channels are sufficiently provided to serve as the
drainage outfalls, as indicated in Figures 2.1 and 2.6. The EC specifically contains
the following conditions which are being integrated in the ongoing engineering
works, "8. The construction of two outlet channels for the Parañaque River Basin
and Las Pi[ñ]as, Zapote River basin shall be implemented and maintained to
improve drainage of the said rivers. Inland channel separating the reclamation and
the mainland shall also be constructed and maintained to serve as reservoir and
drainage of flood waters and high/low tide from the two rivers[.]"[20]
The proposed construction, based on their Conceptual Drainage System Plan, appears to also
expand or modify the requirement of an inland channel separating the reclamation and the
mainland:
Major impact from reclamation activities would arise if a river system or a

drainage system would be restricted or block[ed]. This is not the case with this
8/28/23, 9:28 PM [ G.R. No. 208702. May 11, 2021 ]
particular project. As may be seen from Project Development Plan Map in Figure
2.4, page 2-10, the final outflow Paranaque River to Manila Bay all remain
unimpeded due to the provision of a River outlet fall while that of Las Pi[ñ]as
River will be unobstructed. Further the drainage outfalls of the project will be the
Manila Bay and away from these rivers.
Also since only 635.14 hectares of the bay, portion of which had been previously
reclaimed will be reclaimed out of a total 180,000 hectares of Manila Bay surface
area (or 0.3%) the impacts are minimal. The incremental impact arising from the
reduction of the reclamation area further reduces flooding concerns arising from
the project.[21]
Amari Coastal Bay Project's ECC No. CO-9602-002-208C, however, provides:
20. Any expansion or modification of the original plans not identified in the
approved EIS shall undergo the EIS process.[22]
The Environmental Impact Assessment Review Committee's Comments and Chairman's

Report[23] should have also placed the Court of Appeals on guard as to the scope of review
undertaken. In particular, it states the following unresolved issues:
Issues, Concerns, Problems Response or Remarks

1. Nature of the ECC being applied for, Has not been resolved. The committee at
whether it is for expansion of coverage the onset has been appraised both by the
of the old ECC earlier issued or accounts of the EIS, the proponents, and
application for a new one the case handler that the ECC being
applied for is an expansion of coverage
of the earlier ECC earlier [sic] issued by
the EMB; this was during the first
meeting. The new case handler who has
taken over the work of the earlier case
handler, however, has said that the ECC
being applied for is being treated as a
new one.
2. Need for new data Has only been resolved partly. All the
members of the committee have noted
that almost all of the data included in the
draft EIS involve secondary material
from the earlier EIS submitted; there has
been explicit recommendation from Mr.
Ben Francisco, member of the Rev Com
and a fisheries expert, that data on the
8/28/23, 9:28 PM [ G.R. No. 208702. May 11, 2021 ]
municipal fisheries be updated to at least

5 years or later.
3. Sea level rise due to climate change Has not been resolved. It has been noted
effect on the project by at least two member of the Rev Com
that sea level rise due to climate change
is expected; it has been noted that it
would be unfair for project proponents
not to consider this at the onset of the
project and at the same time to rely on
the local government units involved to
mitigate the effects later when these are
already significantly affecting
prospective locators. The proponents
have been required to do a modeling on
the matter but have only responded with
the assurance that the Public Estates
Authority is now preparing a master plan
for all such projects in the entire
Philippines with precisely this issue in
view.
The experts tasked to assess the environmental impact of respondent Alltech's Project noted
that it was unclear whether the coverage of ECC No. CO-9602-002-208C would be expanded.
They also acknowledged that all prior data may be outdated and would not accurately reflect
the expected environmental impact of the Project. Despite the presence of these important, but
unresolved, issues, the Environmental Management Bureau issued the Environmental
Compliance Certificate. It is baffling how the Court of Appeals failed to address these
unresolved issues.
Admittedly, environmental cases are highly technical in nature. Courts, not having the
required expertise, place great weight on the assessments of the administrative agencies tasked
to assess these issues.
The highly technical nature of the case, however, is no excuse for the Court of Appeals to be
remiss in its duty to review all the evidence presented in a case for the issuance of a writ of
kalikasan and merely rely on the Department of Environment and Natural Resources' findings.
In Cordillera Global Network v. Paje,[24] this Court had encountered a similar issue. There,
the proponent submitted an Environmental Performance Report and Management Plan,
claiming that its prior Environmental Impact Statement had already contemplated its tree-
cutting proposal:
Private respondents do not deny that they did not apply for a new environmental
compliance certificate prior to cutting or earth-balling the affected trees.
Nonetheless, they argue that a separate environmental compliance certificate was
8/28/23, 9:28 PM [ G.R. No. 208702. May 11, 2021 ]
not needed because their amended Environmental Compliance Certificate already

covered the planned treecutting and earth-balling. What was required, they claim,
was a treecutting and/or earth-balling permit, which they secured prior to the
operations.
Private respondents are mistaken.
In the Environmental Impact Statement, submitted to support private respondents'

application for an environmental compliance certificate for the SM Pines Resort
Project, the project's construction phase saw the removal "of about 112 trees or
16.54% of the total number of major trees" from the proposed building site. Private
respondents admitted that the removal of these trees will have "[m]edium,
negative[,] and long term" impact and proposed the following mitigation
measures[.]
....
On April 5, 2011, in relation to the application for an amended environmental

compliance certificate, the Environmental Management Bureau-Cordillera
Administrative Region requested additional information on the trees that would be
affected by the Expansion Project[.]
....
Private respondent SM Investments Corporation complied by submitting a revised

Environmental Performance Report and Management Plan. However, while the
document contained a detailed inventory of the trees that would be affected by the
Expansion Project, it did not provide relevant information as to whether the trees
were planted or naturally grown.
The missing information is crucial to determine if the affected trees were part of a
natural and residual forest, which means it was "composed of indigenous trees, not
planted by man[,]" putting them under the coverage of Executive Order No. 23,
series of 2011.
....
The necessity of a separate environmental compliance certificate is evident as the

original Environmental Compliance Certificate only contemplated the removal of
112 trees for the entire SM Pines Resort Project. Meanwhile, the amended
Environmental Compliance Certificate issued for the Expansion Project considered
the environmental impact of the "additional parking levels, retail shops[,] and
restaurants; and construction of a new 1,200 m3/day capacity Sewage Treatment
Plant" but did not account for removing an additional 182 Benguet pine and Alnus
trees.
Notably, the plan on the affected trees in the revised Environmental Performance
Report and Management Plan, in support of the application for an amended
8/28/23, 9:28 PM [ G.R. No. 208702. May 11, 2021 ]
environmental compliance certificate, seemed to be a mere afterthought, as shown

by the lack of a solid strategy in place[.][25] (Citations omitted)
Despite glaring omissions in the proponent's application, this Court in Cordillera noted that
both the trial court and the Court of Appeals had failed to notice that a separate Environmental
Compliance Certificate was necessary, having merely relied on the technical reports submitted
by the proponent and the Department of Environment and Natural Resources' findings on the
matter:
It does not escape this Court's attention that both the Regional Trial Court and the
Court of Appeals missed private respondents' application for the cutting of 182
trees - in addition to 112 already allowed in the earlier Environmental Compliance
Certificate - merely through an amended Environmental Compliance Certificate
and almost nine (9) years after the original had been used. This Court also notes
the lower court's nonchalant attitude when it failed to notice the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources failure to distinguish indigenous long-
standing pine trees from those recently planted when it issued the amended
Environmental Compliance Certificate despite the existence of Executive Order
No. 23.[26]
In this case, the Environmental Impact Assessment Review Committee reported that there
were unresolved issues, particularly in the data submitted or in the data further required. These
alone should have alerted the Court of Appeals that despite the barrage of technical reports by
both parties, the matter required further thoughtful assessment, rather than a mere reliance on
the Department's recommendation.
II
An environmental impact statement was also necessary because there were factors that would
not have been addressed in the assessment of the Amari Coastal Bay Project. Amari Coastal
Bay Project's ECC No. CO-9602-002-208C provided:
3. The eight-hectare mangrove plantation/research project area by the Ecosystems

and Research Development Bureau (ERDB) shall be maintained and protected as
stipulated under the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the DENR and
the Public Estates Authority (PEA) dated December 19, 1991. The reclamation
project shall not impede its ecological function as breeding place for marine life
including wildlife. It shall enhance the goal of the Livelihood Plan to ensure food
security and self-sufficiency.[27]
8/28/23, 9:28 PM [ G.R. No. 208702. May 11, 2021 ]
This Environmental Compliance Certificate has already recognized parts of what would be the
Las Piñas-Parañaque Critical Habitat and Ecotourism Area. However, certain environmental
protection areas had not yet been established in 1996, when the Certificate was issued.
The Las Piñas-Parañaque Critical Habitat and Ecotourism Area was established on April 22,
2007 through Presidential Proclamation No. 1412,[28] which required that a biodiversity
impact assessment of such critical habitats "be integrated into the Environmental Impact
Assessment and the Environmental Risk Assessment Processes, taking into consideration
guidelines adopted under the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity."[29]
Presidential Proclamation No. 1412-A[30] further required that "any reclamation in the
periphery of the Las Piñas-Parañaque Critical Habitat and Ecotourism Area shall not impede
the ecological function of the lagoon and its small Islands' mangroves, salt marshes and tidal
areas as breeding, feeding and roosting place for marine and terrestrial wildlife; [and] that "all
reclamation in nearby areas [must be undertaken] in a way that would help restore and ensure
shellfish and fish productivity[.]"[31]
Republic Act No. 11038[32] established the Las Piñas-Parañaque Critical Habitat and
Ecotourism Area as a protected area,[33] or which means "land and/or water set aside by
reason of their unique physical and biological diversity and protected against destructive
human exploitation[.]"[34]
The key phrase here is protection against "destructive human exploitation." Thus, while the
majority correctly states that nothing in the law prohibits reclamation projects adjacent to
protected areas,[35] the law explicitly protects these areas against any project that would tend
to destroy or exploit them.
DCCD Engineering Corporation (DCCD), a local engineering service consultant contracted

by respondent Alltech, explicitly stated in its report that for the reclamation project to prevent
flooding, 4.35 hectares of the protected habitat be will have to be reclaimed:
If the uniform width of 160 m up to the existing bridge for the Parañaque Channel
will be implemented adjacent to the reclamation project, no increase in flood levels
from the current situation is expected. This is consistent with the parameters
discussed in Boulevard 2000. However, if the Habitat will remain thereby
constricting the channel flow from Parañaque River, the flood levels will expect to
rise from 0.23 m to 0.27 m near the river mouth. There may be corresponding
increase in the inland flooding which may be established by further studies.
Around 4.35 ha of the Habitat Area will have to be given up if the uniform 160 m
channel width will be built as planned in Boulevard 2000.[36] (Citation omitted)
DCCD did propose another alternative later on, in that if the habitat would not be reclaimed,
8/28/23, 9:28 PM [ G.R. No. 208702. May 11, 2021 ]
garbage from the Manila Coastal Road should instead be cleared:
[I]n case of extreme events, no significant difference in flood levels between the
scenario with the reclamation and the existing conditions is expected, if the
uniform width of 160 meters up to the existing bridge for the Parañaque channel
will be implemented adjacent to the reclamation project. The construction of the
uniform 160-meter channel, however, entails giving up around 4.35 hectares of the
Critical Habitat. The widening of the existing channel will actually prevent
flooding. This is because the bird sanctuary/critical habitat constricts the channel
flow from the Parañaque River. However, even by excluding entirely the Critical
Habitat from the reclamation project, the local flooding being experienced can still
be alleviated by freeing the rivers of garbage, debris, silt, informal settlers along
the banks and other obstructions in the rivers. The street drainage system also
needs to be improved especially in the low-lying areas where ponding occur. A
major factor to the local flooding is the Manila Coastal Road, which is a road on
reclaimed land along the coast and acts as a dike preventing the runoff from freely
draining towards the bay. The adequacy of the culverts and widths of the existing
bridges to the bay need to be evaluated as well. Forecasts on water elevations at
the outlets of the Las Pi[ñ]as-Zapote rivers were generated in case of extreme
events.[37] (Citation omitted)
While it is admirable that an alternative was suggested, it was alarming for respondent
Alltech's own consultants to conclude that "the bird sanctuary/critical habitat constrict[ed] the
channel flow from the Parañaque River" and would be problematic for respondent Alltech's
Project.
From these recommendations, it appears that respondent Alltech was being given a choice:
either undertake the relatively simple task of destroying 4.35 hectares of a critical habitat, or
the relatively difficult task of permanently clearing the Manila Coastal Road of garbage,
debris, silt, and informal settlers.
The majority insists that this recommendation "is not final and remains a proposal and will
still be subject to the approval of the government through the appropriate agencies."[38] That
the proposal was even considered should have already notified the Court of Appeals that the
Department of Environment and Natural Resources may not have exercised the proper
diligence in issuing the Environmental Compliance Certificate.
In any case, if this proposal is not undertaken, flood levels will be expected to rise from 0.23
meters to 0.27 meters once the reclamation project begins, as the DCCD reported. This was
precisely the situation that petitioner contemplated. Once the Las Piñas and Parañaque Coastal
Bay Project starts; the reclamation will either destroy 4.35 hectares of a protected bird
sanctuary or cause flooding to the cities' residents, unless respondent Alltech finds a way to
permanently clean up Manila Coastal Road before construction begins.
8/28/23, 9:28 PM [ G.R. No. 208702. May 11, 2021 ]
Thus, whether or not Republic Act No. 11038 prohibits reclamation activities adjacent to or
near protected areas, being near the protected area should be enough reason to assess their
possible effect to that protected area.
Courts have always been in a unique position with regard to environmental protection. Our
Constitution mandates:
SECTION 16. The State shall protect and advance the right of the people to a
balanced and healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature.
[39]
In line with this, this Court promulgated the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases,[40]
which provides for the issuance of the extraordinary writ of kalikasan.[41] However, as the
majority pointed out, the Las Piñas and Parañaque Coastal Bay Project has not yet begun
construction. The Environmental Compliance Certificate's issuance does not mean approval to
begin the reclamation project. There is, therefore, no evidence yet of imminent environmental
damage that may be the subject of a writ of kalikasan.
There are, however, features of the Project that may need further study and approval. Thus, I
recommend that this Court instead issue a temporary environmental protection order[42] to
enjoin any act that may cause grave and irreparable injury to the protected area and to the
residents of Las Piñas and Parañaque, and to monitor any such acts once the Project has been
commenced.
ACCORDINGLY, I vote: (1) to ISSUE a Temporary Environmental Protection Order

enjoining respondents from doing any act that may cause grave and irreparable injury to the
Las Piñas-Parañaque Critical Habitat and Ecotourism Area and to the residents of Las Piñas
and Parañaque; and (2) to REMAND this case to the Department of Environment and Natural
Resources for the proper conduct of an environmental impact assessment to be completed
within six months.
[1] Ponencia, p. 2.
[2] Id. at 2-3.
[3] Id. at 3.
[4] Id.
[5] Id. at 5.
8/28/23, 9:28 PM [ G.R. No. 208702. May 11, 2021 ]
[6] Id.
[7] Rollo, pp. 158-205. The Decision was penned by Associate Justice Apolinario D. Bruselas,
Jr. and concurred in by Associate Justices Rebecca De Guia-Salvador and Samuel H. Gaerlan
(now an Associate Justice of this of the Third Division, Court of Appeals, Manila.
[8] Id. at 89-190.
[9] Ponencia, pp. 7-10.
[10] Id. at 13-17.
[11] Id.
[12]"ESTABLISHING AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT SYSTEM,

INCLUDING OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT RELATED MEASURES
AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES," June 11, 1978.
[13] Presidential Decree No. 1586 (1978), sec. 2.
[14] Revised Procedural Manual for Department Administrative Order No. 2003-30, sec.
1.0(1)(a).
1.0(2).
1.0(8).
[17] Rollo, p. 106.
[18] Chavez v. Public Estates Authority, 433 Phil. 506 (2002) [Per J. Carpio, En Banc].
[19] Rollo, p. 84.
[20] Ponencia, p. 19, Environmental Performance Report and Management Plan.
[21] Id. at 19-20 citing rollo, p. 619.
[22] Rollo, p. 84.
[23] Id. at 1004-1015.

8/28/23, 9:28 PM [ G.R. No. 208702. May 11, 2021 ]
[24] G.R. No. 215988, April 10, 2019, 901 SCRA 261 [Per J. Leonen, En Banc].
[25] Id. at 305-310.
[26] Id. at 312.
[27] Rollo, p. 84.
[28]
Entitled "ESTABLISHING A CRITICAL HABITAT AND ECOTOURJSM AREA
WITHIN THE COASTAL LAGOON OF LAS PIÑAS AND PARAÑAQUE."
[29] Presidential Proclamation No. 1412 (2007), Fifth Whereas Clause.
[30] Entitled "AMENDING PROCLAMATION NO. 1412 DATED 22 APRIL 2007,

ENTITLED "ESTABLISHING A CRITICAL HABITAT AND ECOTOURISM AREA
WITHIN THE COASTAL LAGOON OF LAS PI[Ñ]AS AND PARAÑAQUE," January 31,
2008.
[31] Presidential Proclamation No. 1412-A (2008), sec. 2.
[32] Entitled "Expanded National Integrated Protected Areas System Act of 2018."
[33] Republic Act No. 11038 (2018), sec. 4.
[34] Republic Act No. 11038 (2018), sec. 3(bb).
[35] Ponencia, p. 29.
[36] Rollo, p. 96.
[37] Ponencia, pp. 25-26.
[38] Id. at 29.
[39] CONST., art. XI, sec. 16.
[40] A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC (2010).
[41] A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC (2010), Rule 7.
[42] A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC (2010), Rule 2, sec. 8 states:

8/28/23, 9:28 PM [ G.R. No. 208702. May 11, 2021 ]
SECTION 8. Issuance of Temporary Environmental Protection Order (TEPO). - If it appears

from the verified complaint with a prayer for the issuance of an Environmental Protection
Order (EPO) that the matter is of extreme urgency and the applicant will suffer grave injustice
and irreparable injury, the executive judge of the multiple-sala court before raffle or the
presiding judge of a single-sala court as the case may be, may issue ex parte a TEPO effective
for only seventy-two (72) hours from date of the receipt of the TEPO by the party or person
enjoined. Within said period, the court where the case is assigned, shall conduct a summary
hearing to determine whether the TEPO may be extended until the termination of the case.
The court where the case is assigned, shall periodically monitor the existence of acts that are
the subject matter of the TEPO even if issued by the executive judge, and may lift the same at
any time as circumstances may warrant.
The applicant shall be exempted from the posting of a bond for the issuance of a TEPO.
Section 9. Action on motion for dissolution of TEPO. - The grounds for motion to dissolve a
TEPO shall be supported by affidavits of the party or person enjoined which the applicant may
oppose, also by affidavits.
The TEPO may be dissolved if it appears after hearing that its issuance or continuance would
cause irreparable damage to the party or person enjoined while the applicant may be fully
compensated for such damages as he may stiffer and subject to the posting of a sufficient bond
by the party or person enjoined.
CONCURRING OPINION
CAGUIOA, J.:
The ponencia dismisses the petition for review on certiorari (the petition) filed by petitioner
Cynthia Villar (petitioner) and affirms the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals
(CA), which denied the issuance of the privilege of the writ of kalikasan against the
implementation of the Las Piñas and Parañaque Coastal Bay Project (proposed project) by
respondent Alltech Contractors, Inc. (Alltech).
I concur with the ponencia. I write this Opinion to further elucidate on certain points raised by
petitioner as well as by my esteemed colleagues.
Preliminary
matters on the
writ of kalikasan
The writ of kalikasan is categorized as a special civil action and conceptualized as an

8/28/23, 9:28 PM [ G.R. No. 208702. May 11, 2021 ]
extraordinary remedy. It covers environmental damage of such magnitude that will prejudice
the life, health, or property of inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces, and is available
against an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or private individual or
entity.[1] Thus, to successfully avail of this remedy, the following requisites must be present:
(1) there is an actual or threatened violation of the constitutional right to a balanced and
healthful ecology; (2) the actual or threatened violation arises from an unlawful act or
omission of a public official or employee, or private individual or entity; and (3) the actual or
threatened violation involves or will lead to an environmental damage of such magnitude as to
prejudice the life, health or property of inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces.[2]
Petitioner bears the burden of substantiating these elements.
In the instant case, petitioner harps on the alleged irregularities in the process of the issuance
by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources - Environmental Management
Bureau (DENR-EMB) of the Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC) for the proposed
project on the basis of an Environmental Performance Report Management Plan (EPRMP).
According to petitioner, the correct mode of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for the
proposed project is an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), not an EPRMP.
In this regard, the ponencia correctly points out that, as a rule, any of the perceived
irregularities in the issuance of the proposed project's ECC should be the subject of an appeal
to the proper reviewing authority instead of a petition for writ of kalikasan. Indeed, a writ of
kalikasan cannot be used as a substitute for other remedies that are available to the parties,
whether legal, administrative, or political. Mere concern for the environment is not an excuse
to invoke this Court's jurisdiction in cases where other remedies are available.[3]
Nevertheless, the Court, in Paje v. Casiño[4] (Paje), recognized that a party who invokes the
writ based on alleged defects or irregularities in the issuance of an ECC may do so, provided
that such party not only alleges and proves such defects or irregularities, but also provides a
causal link or, at least, a reasonable connection between the defects or irregularities in the
issuance of the ECC and the actual or threatened violation of the constitutional right to a
balanced and healthful ecology of the magnitude contemplated under the Rules of Procedure
for Environmental Cases (the Rules). Failing in this regard, the petition should be dismissed
outright so that it may be filed before the proper forum in accord with the doctrine of
exhaustion of administrative remedies. Such course of action is necessitated by the need to
preserve the noble and laudable purposes of the writ against those who seek to abuse it.[5]
According to Paje, an example of a defect or an irregularity in the issuance of an ECC which

could conceivably warrant the granting of the extraordinary remedy of the writ of kalikasan is
a case where there are serious and substantial misrepresentations or fraud in the
application for the ECC, which, if not immediately nullified, would cause actual
negative environmental impacts of the magnitude contemplated under the Rules,
because the government agencies and LGUs, with the final authority to implement
the project, may subsequently rely on such substantially defective or fraudulent
ECC in approving the implementation of the project.[6]
8/28/23, 9:28 PM [ G.R. No. 208702. May 11, 2021 ]
The Court, in Paje, also liberally applied this principle and considered the allegation that there
was no EIA conducted relative to the amendments of the ECC therein as one that can be
reasonably connected to an environmental damage of the magnitude contemplated under the
Rules.
The circumstances in Paje are absent in the instant case. Petitioner miserably failed to show a
causal link, or at least a reasonable connection, between the alleged defects or irregularities in
the issuance of the ECC here in question and the actual or threatened violation of the
constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology of the magnitude contemplated under
the Rules. For this reason alone, the petition should have already been dismissed for failure to
exhaust administrative remedies. Nevertheless, even if the Court were to disregard this
procedural infirmity, the petition should still be denied.
On the proper
form of
Environmental

Impact Assessment
for the proposed
project
The ponencia comprehensively discusses how Alltech submitted the proper form of EIA
required for the proposed project. In sum, when the DENR-EMB required an EPRMP for the
proposed project, it took into consideration the fact that the application was premised on the
1996 ECC of the discontinued Philippine Estates Authority (PEA) - Amari Coastal Bay
Development Corporation (Amari) project. This is in full accord with DENR Administrative
Order No. 30, Series of 2003 (DAO 03-30) and its Revised Procedural Manual, which
provides that an EPRMP is the required EIA document type "for operating projects with
previous ECCs but planning or applying for clearance to modify/expand or re-start operations
x x x."
Associate Justices Marvic M.V.F. Leonen (Justice Leonen) and Amy C. Lazaro-Javier (Justice
Javier) echo the argument of petitioner that the EPRMP is not the proper fonn of EIA for the
proposed project considering that the PEA-Amari project covered by the 1996 ECC was never
implemented. They opine that Alltech should have submitted an EIS, which is the applicable
EIA form for new environmentally critical projects. This has already been sufficiently rebutted
by the ponencia. Specifically, the ponencia notes that the PEA-Amari project was partially
implemented, with 157.84 hectares of the 750-hectare project already reclaimed. As explained
by the DENR:
The subject coastal bay project cannot be simply considered as an entirely new
project since the latter logically presuppose[s] the absence of any kind of existing
environn1ental data at all. In other words, the above engineering and associated
works already undertaken in the area generate cumulative environmental
data which can serve as basis for the submission of an EPRMP. x x x
8/28/23, 9:28 PM [ G.R. No. 208702. May 11, 2021 ]
The PEA-Amari project had already been implemented and began operations as
shown by the earth moving activities undertaken thereon. The activities
conducted under the old ECC have actual cumulative environmental impact
and data which can be used as basis in determining the effectiveness of the
applicable measures implemented under the old ECC, in relation to the
current coastal bay project.[7] (Emphasis supplied)
Thus, considering that the PEA-Amari project which was covered by the 1996 ECC had
already been implemented and the entire area of the proposed project of Alltech falls within
the area of the previous ECC issued in favor of Amari, then the EPRMP was the correct form
of EIA report applied in acquiring the ECC.
Justice Leonen underscores that the ECC was issued despite the fact that certain issues,
concerns, and problems raised in the Comments and Chairman's Report (Report) of the EIA
Review Committee (EIARC) were allegedly unresolved. Said Report noted that it was unclear
whether the coverage of the ECC issued in favor of Amari would be expanded, and it also
acknowledged that prior data may be outdated and would not accurately reflect the expected
environmental impact of the proposed project. According to Justice Leonen, these unresolved
issues should have placed the CA on guard as to the scope of review undertaken.[8]
With due respect, I disagree. A careful examination of the records would show that these
issues were all already resolved. As explained by the DENR:
x x x The statement in the Chairman's Report that there is an "issue as to whether

the application [is] for an expansion coverage of the earlier ECC or for a new
ECC" was only made to point out that this matter was among those considered
by the EIARC and the EMB during the initial stages of the EIA process, and
which were eventually resolved upon the issuance by the EMB of the EPRMP
checklist. Thus, in the same paragraph, [the EIARC Chair] stated that all the
shortcomings and issues are capable of being resolved and that the EIARC
recommends the issuance of the ECC with conditions to be specified.[9]
(Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
On the propriety of an EPRMP, petitioner claims that an EPRMP is stripped of the critical and
essential features of a full-fledged EIS such as: the scoping of the technical, environmental,
and social issues that must be addressed; gathering of baseline environmental conditions;
impact assessment focused on significant environmental impacts taking into account
cumulative impacts; proof of consultation with stakeholders; and mandatory public hearings.
[10] According to petitioner, the EPRMP looks backward and is heavily reliant on secondary
sets of data which are more than a decade old and thus irrelevant and unresponsive to present
realities. Petitioner claims that "[i]nstead of scoping forward for possible important issues
based on present and projected realities through an EIS, a diluted and conservative version of
8/28/23, 9:28 PM [ G.R. No. 208702. May 11, 2021 ]
the EIA study via an EPRMP was submitted and used as basis for the issuance of a new ECC."
[11]
Petitioner's attempt to downplay the effectiveness and comprehensiveness of an EPRMP - as

compared to an EIS - is erroneous and inaccurate. In Paje, the Court explained that the EIA
process is a system, not a set of rigid rules and definitions - there is much room for flexibility
in the determination and use of the appropriate EIA document type.[12] Hence, the Court ruled
that what should be controlling is the guiding principle set in DAO 03-30 in the evaluation of
applications for amendments to ECCs, as stated in Section 8.3 thereof: "[r]equirements for
processing ECC amendments shall depend on the nature of the request but shall be focused
on the information necessary to assess the environmental impact of such changes."[13]
Consequently, as applied herein, the next logical question is: Did the EPRMP provide the
necessary information in order for the DENR-EMB to assess the environmental impact of the
proposed project of Alltech? The answer is in the affirmative.
The EIA process conducted by the EMB should not be characterized as an incomplete or
limited study by the mere reasoning that an EPRMP was used. Professor Agerico M. De Villa
(Prof. De Villa), Chairman of the EIARC, explained that by the submission of an EPRMP, it
does not necessarily follow that the EIARC may no longer impose additional requirements for
the ECC application. Thus, the EIARC may deem it necessary to add more parameters on top
of the old, technical EIS to be incorporated to the EPRMP. Here, according to Prof. De Villa,
the EIARC actually imposed a more thorough and in-depth environmental analysis which
yielded an even more comprehensive study compared to the previous PEA-Amari EIS, as
evidenced by the volume of data incorporated in the final EPRMP, while focusing on the more
important issues such as flooding, the critical habitat, and the fisherfolk. In fact, Prof. De Villa
testified that the EIARC actually treated the subject ECC application as if it were a technical
EIS:
Q My question: since it was an EPRMP checklist and you just explained to us

that it is more simplified as to focus, my question is x x x: how can you say
that any review that you would conduct based on this is sufficient in support
[of] the issuance of an ECC by the review committee?
A One, if you are using an EPRMP, it does not necessarily follow that you
cannot add requirements to it, except for the requirement of social impact
assessment. In other words, if the review committee deems it necessary to
add more parameters coming from the old, technical EIS to be added to
the EPRMP, we can do that, which we have done. In fact, in this case[,]
because we have done that, if you will notice the EPRMP is much more
thicker than the original EIS and there is no limit as to what we will
require so long as we do not require public consultation or public hearing, so
in our case so far as we are concerned, being the chair, I actually treated it
as if it were a technical EIS.
Q Why do you say so?

A (1) because we were able to add considerations that would have been part only
of the technical EIS but now we required them of the EPRMP; (2) I have been
8/28/23, 9:28 PM [ G.R. No. 208702. May 11, 2021 ]
able to convince the proponent x x x to have at least public consultation x x x.
Q You mentioned you took into consideration [matters that are] appropriate only
for a technical EIS. What are those matters that you took into consideration?
A Well, for example, when you have EPRMP, that means you have to focus
more on what you think are the most important issues of the project; and
given our assessment, we focused on, for example: flooding, for example:
the critical habitat, for example: the plight of the fisherfolk who were the
residents within the site itself x x x and focusing on these for example in the
case of flooding we required more data, but they furnished data from
[PAGASA], which did not satisfy us, because you cannot make predictions on
micro term even the data they have submitted to us. So we require[d from]
them additional information rather than waiting for all the statistics
involved, we simply presumed that flooding would be [very important and
vital for the project and therefore,] focusing on it[,] we required [that the]
management plan must be compatible with Manila Bay guidelines [on]
critical habitat management plan [and] with Boulevard 2000 plan - all of
which also have to be compatible with the R.A.s [involved,] for example
[C]lean [A]ir [Act, [C]lean [W]ater [A]ct, and the [B]uilding [C]ode. And
so on and so forth.[14] (Emphasis supplied)
Additionally, as pointed out by the CA, Alltech was even required to meet a higher standard
through the EPRMP, which is to preserve the environmental condition in the vicinity of the
proposed project using as basis the higher quality of environment in 1990.[15] In explaining
his preference for the EPRMP over the EIS, Prof. De Villa testified that:
[i]n 1990 compared to fairly recently, the environmental quality of the cited
vicinity was better, and therefore if that would be the basis for the management of
the environment, then, that means you have a higher quality of environment that
the proponent have (sic) to keep. In other words, through time, whether we like it
or not, our environment degrades, so what I am saying precisely because
EPRMP is used, therefore the proponents have to keep their promise to keep
the quality of environment x x x as of 1990 x x x.[16] (Emphasis supplied)
Thus, contrary to the claim of petitioner that the EPRMP "looks backward"[17] and is "not
responsive to present realities,"[18] the EPRMP actually ensures that the proponent will protect
the environment according to the optimum standard. As assured by the DENR, the proponents
are not only required to maintain the contemporary environmental conditions during the
implementation of the project, they are likewise bound to improve the same consistent with
the standards in 1996.[19]
Evidently, the foregoing considerations show that not only was the EPRMP the correct form
8/28/23, 9:28 PM [ G.R. No. 208702. May 11, 2021 ]
of EIA study required based on the nature of the proposed project, it was also sufficient in
assessing the environmental impact of the proposed project.
On the DENR's
determination of
the proper EIA
form for the
proposed project
It should be emphasized that it was the DENR-EMB that instructed Alltech to submit an
EPRMP.[20] In this regard, the ponencia states:
In the present case, no grave abuse of discretion was proven to be attributed to the
DENR-EMB in instructing the project proponent to file an EPRMP. Hence, it
enjoys the presumption of regularity in the performance of its official duties. Based
on its technical expertise, it found that the information provided in an EPRMP
sufficiently addressed the environmental concerns of the government.

classification of a proposed project as it is equipped with the knowledge and
competence to resolve issues involving the highly technical field of EIS system.
Alltech merely complied with the instruction of the DENR-EMB to submit an
EPRMP. The project proponent should not be faulted for this as it is not in the
position to substitute the assessment or technical opinion of the DENR-EMB with
its own judgment. It is within the sphere of technical knowledge and expertise of
the DENR-EMB, and not the Court nor the project proponent, to determine the
appropriate EIA report to submit for a particular project.[21]
I agree with the foregoing pronouncements. The adamant insistence on the "correct" type of
EIA study, in the absence of any allegation of grave abuse of discretion on the part of the
DENR-EMB, and without any technical and scientific expertise to support such claim, simply
cannot be countenanced. As the administrative agency entrusted with the determination as to
which EIA document type applies to a particular application for ECC, falling as it does within
its particular technical expertise, it is the DENR's determination, especially in the absence of a
showing of grave abuse of discretion or patent irregularity, that should be accorded great
respect by the Court. Indeed, this is the demand of the doctrine of separation of powers, which
behooves the Court from interfering in matters addressed to the sound discretion of executive
agencies with special competence unless there is a showing of grave abuse of discretion in the
performance of their duties.
On the
recommendation
for the issuance of
8/28/23, 9:28 PM [ G.R. No. 208702. May 11, 2021 ]
a Temporary
Environmental
Protection Order
For his part, Justice Leonen votes to issue a Temporary Environmental Protection Order
(TEPO) to enjoin respondents from doing any act that may cause grave and irreparable injury
to the Las PiñasParañaque Critical Habitat and Ecotourism Area (LPPCHEA). He explains:
[T]his Court promulgated the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases, which
provides for the issuance of the extraordinary writ of kalikasan. However, as the
majority pointed out, the Las Piñas and Parañaque Coastal Bay Project has not yet
begun construction. The Environmental Compliance Certificate's issuance does not
mean approval to begin the reclamation project. There is, therefore, no evidence
yet of imminent environmental damage that may be the subject of a writ of
kalikasan.
There are, however, features of the Project which may need further study and
approval. Thus, I recommend that this Court instead issue a [T]emporary
[E]nvironmental [P]rotection [O]rder to enjoin any act that may cause grave and
irreparable injury to the protected area and to the residents of Las Piñas and
Parañaque, and to monitor any such acts once the Project has been commenced.[22]
With due respect to my colleague, I believe that a TEPO may be unnecessary or superfluous.
Lest it be forgotten, the ECC is a planning tool - its mere issuance does not automatically
signal the actual implementation of the proposed project. It is still necessary that the
requirements and conditions imposed therein are complied with. The following averments
from the DENR are thus compelling:
x x x [T]he release of the ECC only allows the project to proceed to the next
stage of project planning, which is the acquisition of approvals from other
government agencies and LGUs. Aside from the acquisition of these approvals,
the proponents must also comply with the conditions and undertakings in the
ECC and EPRMP. To name a few, these include the implementation of a Coastal
Ecosystem Management Plan/Program, Information, Education and
Communication Program, Flood Monitoring Plan, and alignment of the
Environmental Management Plan with the Manila Bay Coastal Strategy. x x x
xxxx
Moreover, the ECC demands compliance with the Toxic Substances and
Hazardous and Nuclear Wastes Control Act of 1990, Ecological Solid Waste
Management Program Act of 2000, the Philippine Clear Water Act of 2004, and
8/28/23, 9:28 PM [ G.R. No. 208702. May 11, 2021 ]
the Philippine Clean Air Act of 1999, among other environmental laws and
regulations. Further, the ECC requires proper storm drainage system, concrete
culverts, and other t1ood and erosion control [measures], noise and air pollution
control measures to prevent environmental degradation.
Without any doubt, the absence of compliance with the above conditions and
undertakings, aside from those contained in the EPRMP, prevent the actual
implementation of the coastal bay project. Also, the absence of the above
plans and programs which are intended to direct the course of the project
implementation renders the contention of petitioner as absurd. As a planning
tool, the ECC cmmot embody the "specific details" for the implementation of the
project, inasmuch as the post-conditions thereto, that will form part of the specific
commitments of the proponents, are yet to be formulated by the concerned
government agencies and institutions.
xxxx
For the critical habitat alone [or the LPPCHEA], the proponents are
mandated to coordinate with the Manila Bay Critical Habitat Management
Council and the Protected Areas and Wildlife Bureau (PAWB) to tackle
impacts of the project on the critical habitat, and implement the
recommendations of the said council. Thus, the project implementation cannot
proceed without said recommendations.
Parenthetically, the recommendation of both the Manila Bay Critical Habitat

Management Council and the PAWB must be implemented before any work
or construction activities may be made, especially those affecting the critical
habitat. Again, this condition seems to have been ignored by petitioner in claiming
that the adoption of the Boulevard 2000 Framework Plan would destroy the
ecosystems found in the critical habitat. Considering the ECC-required
recommendations from the Manila Bay Critical Habitat Management Council and
the PAWB, observance of the Boulevard 2000 Framework Plan cannot be made in
its totality without endangering the critical habitat.[23] (Emphasis supplied)
It is evident therefore that before the proposed project can be implemented, Alltech must show
compliance not only with the conditions in the EPRMP and ECC, but also with a plethora of
environmental laws and regulations, and obtain the necessary permits from various
government agencies tasked with protecting the environment. Thus, the prevention of grave
and irreparable injury to the LPPCHEA and the residents of Las Piñas and Parañaque may
already be covered by these requirements prior to implementation. This therefore negates any
need to issue a TEPO.
At this juncture, I wish to emphasize that respondents have shown that mitigating measures
will be undertaken in particular regard to the LPPCHEA. Notably, unlike in the PEA-Amari
project which included the LPPCHEA itself, Alltech's proposed project actually excludes the
LPPCHEA from its coverage to ensure that it is not adversely impacted.[24] Despite the fact
8/28/23, 9:28 PM [ G.R. No. 208702. May 11, 2021 ]
that the LPPCHEA area is already outside of the proposed project, the respondents have
nonetheless recognized the vulnerability of the LPPCHEA and have vowed to undertake
mitigating measures to ensure that the proposed project will not have any negative impact on
the LPPCHEA. Indeed, respondents have considered measures that not only preserve the
LPPCHEA, but improve its condition:
78. To recall, the DENR Vulnerability Report, which Petitioner cites in her
Petition, states that an estimated 572.76 kilos of garbage are being thrown in the
LPPCHEA everyday.
79. The LPPCHEA is expected to deteriorate further if no active intervention is put

in place to improve the current situation. As adequately shown by ALLTECH
during trial, the mitigation measures adopted by the Project proponents, not
to mention the onerous conditions stated in the ECC, ensure that the Project
will move towards the direction of environmental protection. Given all these,
Petitioner's insistence to leave LPPCHEA as it is and let it further degrade is
certainly absurd and irrational.
80. All told, the project masterplan has been formulated to allow the development
works to co-exist with the LPPCHEA, with the latter serving as an eco-park/eco-
tourism area. A vibrant and well-preserved LPPCHEA is, therefore, integral to the
success of the Project.[25] (Emphasis supplied)
On the nature of a
reclamation
project and its
effects on the
environment
As regards the effects of the proposed project on the environment, Justice Javier opines:
Verily, the question is not "whether actual environmental damage will occur"
anymore, but how much more damage will it cause, for it has consistently been
found and proven that reclamation had actually and already caused environmental
damage. In fact, it is not only the aforementioned areas that will be exposed to
flooding and inundation, but also the very reclaimed lands themselves.
For another, the reclamation projects x x x and the eventual construction of road
networks and bridges will more likely than not cause direct negative impacts upon
the [LPPCHEA]. x x x
xxxx
8/28/23, 9:28 PM [ G.R. No. 208702. May 11, 2021 ]
Hence, even respondents' evidence confirmed the conclusion of the Court of

Appeals that "the threat of flooding as a consequence of land reclamation is
conceded and thus the causal link between the human activity of reclamation and
environmental threat of flooding is established."
Worse, respondents' position rests on the premise that the recommended mitigating
measures being in place would purportedly prevent or "would not aggravate" the
flooding situations and "even reduce the level of flooding." [Geological expert
Kelvin S. Rodolfo], however, remains unconvinced and unimpressed by such
measures for being historically ineffective and even aggravating x x x.
xxxx
Clearly, respondents' confidence is misplaced. Short of any certainty, the promise

of safety is but ideal and theoretical. In effect, respondents, again, have clearly
acknowledged, nay, admitted that the proposed reclamation would cause
environmental impacts.[26] (Emphasis omitted)
I disagree. With due respect, these statements do not paint the entire picture.
The need for extreme caution in examining the possible negative effects of reclamation
projects on the environment is understandable and laudable. Nonetheless, the Court should not
operate on the premise that reclamation in itself is harmful to the environment. Notably,
reclamation is not prohibited by our environmental laws. Rather, what the laws provide are
ways to regulate reclamation projects in such a way as to mitigate or prevent altogether any
negative impact these may have on the environment.
Thus, while reclamation activities may have negative impacts on the environment, the same
will only arise if mitigating measures are not put in place to address these possible effects. On
this note, the Court cannot simply brush aside the proposed mitigating measures of the experts
and prematurely claim that these would not be met. The Court does not rule on surmises,
speculations, and generalizations. Otherwise, to base our ruling on mere suppositions would
stymie any reclamation project that would be proposed, regardless of its compliance with the
requirements of law. This would be tantamount to saying, in simple terms, that all reclamation
projects are bad for the environment. As for the credence of such belief, it is not for the Court
to determine. What the Court is called to do is to ensure compliance with the laws. On this
note, the following averments of the DENR are enlightening:
The process of reclamation per se does not result to flooding or significant

environmental damage contrary to petitioner's baseless conclusions.
Petitioner's assertion that "aggravated flooding as a direct result of a reclamation

project is conceded fact, rendering any discussion thereon unnecessary" is literally
taken out of context. To be clear, the Court of Appeals' declaration that "the
threat of flooding as a consequence of land reclamation is conceded" has been
8/28/23, 9:28 PM [ G.R. No. 208702. May 11, 2021 ]
qualified by the conclusion that "the extent and magnitude of this threat have
been scientifically determined and quantified and they do not amount at all to
any such massive flooding nor to any such destruction of the critical habitat
LPPCHEA asserted by the petitioner." x x x
xxxx
Indeed, the mere introduction of works upon the environment, by themselves,

cannot cause significant threat, damage or destruction thereon. Activities which
may affect the environment such as mining, cutting of trees, land development and
urban expansion (which may aggravate global warming) are not proscribed
provided that scientific studies or environmental assessments have been made to
identify the potential risks and measures which may be taken to address the same.
These include reclamation activities which do not necessarily result to massive

flooding or significant environmental damage as long as scientific studies have
been conducted and the needed measures to address the potential risks are
observed during the implementation of the project. The recurring floods in
Metro Manila are not caused by reclamation activities; instead, these are
caused by the proliferation of garbage, human recklessness and poor
engineering, among others.
On the other hand, the vast portions of the Coastal Bay Area, along the stretch of
Roxas Boulevard, are reclaimed lands which, by themselves, do not bring about
flooding to the nearby areas. Well[-]designed and properly executed
reclamation projects will not cause flooding. In fact, these projects can
prevent flooding by providing added protection such as sea barriers to
mitigate the effects of accelerated rising sea levels caused by global warming.
[27] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
The Court, which clearly has no expertise in these matters, should give credence and defer to
these findings by the DENR. While the Court has jurisdiction and power to decide cases, it
clearly oversteps its boundaries by not giving proper respect to the findings and
recommendations of the administrative agency on questions that demand the exercise of sound
administrative discretion requiring the special knowledge, experience, and services of the
administrative tribunal to deten11ine technical and intricate matters of fact.[28]
In sum, considering that the laws do not categorically prohibit reclamation activities, it
becomes a matter of evidence whether such activities would cause damage to the environment
of such magnitude as to prejudice the life, health, or property of inhabitants in two or more
cities or provinces so as to enable the issuance of the privilege of the writ of kalikasan.
However, as found by the CA after an exhaustive study of the evidence presented before it,
which is affirmed by the ponencia, petitioner simply failed to present credible, competent, and
reliable evidence to support her allegations. Moreover, petitioner's apprehensions on the
negative impacts of the proposed project on the environment have been disproved by
objective, expert, and scientific studies of reputable entities with vast international experience.
8/28/23, 9:28 PM [ G.R. No. 208702. May 11, 2021 ]
Final Note
The DAO 03-30 lays down the basic policy and operating principles of the government in
evaluating the impacts of proposed projects on the environment. It provides that consistent
with the principles of sustainable development, the policy of the State in environmental
impact assessments is to "ensure a rational balance between socio-economic development and
environmental protection for the benefit of present and future generations"[29] and to "[assess]
the direct and indirect impacts of a project on the biophysical and human environment and
[ensure] that these impacts are addressed by appropriate environmental protection and
enhancement."[30]
Thus, it is important to strike a delicate balance between protecting the environment and
promoting socio-economic development, both of which are for the benefit of present and
future generations. This balancing act is reflected in the following statement of the City of Las
Piñas as contained in its Comment, which was adopted by the City of Parañaque:
27. Essentially, local revenue multipliers will arise from tourism that would be
expected with the improvement of conditions in the LPPCHEA and expansion of
residential and commercial establishments after completion. These sprang from the
common knowledge that Las [Piñas] City is the fourth most populated but has the
fifth lowest income in the National Capital Region. The City should not be
restrained from pursuing a legitimate project that aims to spur its socio-
economic development.
28. But more importantly, on top of it all, Respondent City of Las [Piñas] will
certainly not allow to be the cause of environmental damage and dangerous
flooding. In pursuing the project, it has directed the adoption of concrete measures
to protect the LPPCHEA and improve Hooding conditions. The City of Las [Piñas]
has insisted on thorough research and studies to avoid any tragedy that may befall
its environment and citizenry. Given the foregoing, it would be a dangerous
precedent to allow the instant Petition supported merely by bare allegation and
suspicion. To do so would be the real tragedy in that sense.[31] (Emphasis
supplied)
The writ of kalikasan is among the mechanisms by which the Court takes a proactive role in
ensuring that the constitutional right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology may be
advanced and protected.[32] However, being proactive does not mean that the Court may
arrogate unto itself the determination of intricacies that are far beyond its capacity by insisting
on generalized and incomplete assumptions and specious speculations when there is strong
scientific evidence to the contrary. In the absence of grave abuse of discretion on the part of
the DENR, the Court must avoid the urge to supplant its own perceived superiority over
administrative agencies which are not only given the specific task and competence by the law,
but are also far more knowledgeable on the technicalities involving environmental matters.
8/28/23, 9:28 PM [ G.R. No. 208702. May 11, 2021 ]
Parties who seek the issuance of the writ of kalikasan, whether on their own or on others'
behalf, carry the burden of substantiating the writ's elements.[33] In this case, petitioner failed
to satisfy the burden to prove her claims. Based on a careful and meticulous weighing of the
evidence presented by the parties, the CA gave more weight to respondent's evidence:
Petitioner Villar may have been motivated by good faith x x x. Unfortunately, the
ones that she commissioned failed to conduct a thorough, rigorous and
objective study on the possible impacts of the proposed reclamation project.
The studies made by Tricore and CEC-P were not comprehensive and the
methodologies applied were inappropriate. There was also lack of expertise on
the part of Tricore and CEC-P in the areas of hydrology and hydraulics, which
areas are pertinent in the conduct of their respective studies. Thus, petitioner Villar
failed to support her claim by any competent, credible and reliable evidence that
the proposed reclamation project will expose her and the Las Piñas and Parañaque
residents and their properties to catastrophic environmental damage.
On the other hand, Alltech and the other respondents were able to establish
the scientific and expert studies [that] assessed the potential flooding and
flushing impact that may arise from the coastal bay project. The expert,
objective studies conducted by DCCD, Surbana and DHI, revealed that if all the
recommended mitigating measures were to be implemented, the [c]oastal bay
project would not aggravate the flooding situation in the river mouths of
Parañaque, Las Piñas-Zapote Rivers, and it may even reduce the level of
flooding.[34] (Emphasis supplied)
To reiterate, petitioner failed to present credible, competent, and reliable evidence to support
her allegations. Moreover, petitioner's apprehensions on the negative impacts of the proposed
project on the environment have been disproved by objective, expert, and scientific studies of
reputable entities with vast international experience. Consequently, petitioner failed to prove
her entitlement to the privilege of the writ of kalikasan.
ACCORDINGLY, I vote to DENY the petition.
[1] LNL Archipelago Minerals, Inc. v. Agham Party List, 784 Phil. 456, 470 (2016).
[2] Id.
[3]Abogado v. Department of Environment and Natural Resources, G.R. No. 246209,

September 3, 2019, accessed at .
[4] 752 Phil. 498 (2015).

8/28/23, 9:28 PM [ G.R. No. 208702. May 11, 2021 ]
[5] Id. at 542.
[6] Id.
[7] Rollo, pp. 2807-2808.
[8] Dissenting Opinion of Justice Leonen, pp. 7-8.
[9] Rollo, p. 2812.
[10] Id. at 90-91.
[11] Id. at 91.
[12] Paje v. Casiño, supra note 4, at 611-612.
[13] Id. at 612. Emphasis supplied.
[14] Rollo, pp. 2809-2810.
[16] Rollo, pp. 1270-1271.
[17] Id. at 91.
[18] Id.
[19] Id. at 2814.
[21] Id. at 16.
[22] Dissenting Opinion of Justice Leonen, pp. 13-14.
[23] Rollo, pp. 2819-2821.
[24] Id. at 1276.
8/28/23, 9:28 PM [ G.R. No. 208702. May 11, 2021 ]
[25] Id. at 1284.
[26] Dissenting Opinion of Justice Javier, pp. 5-9.
[27] Rollo, pp. 2822-2823.
[28] Osmeña v. Garganera, 828 Phil. 560, 573 (2018).
[29] DAO 03-30, Art. 1, Sec. 1; DAO 03-30 Revised Procedural Manual 1.0(1).
[30] DAO 03-30, Art. 1, Sec. 1(a); DAO 03-30 Revised Procedural Manual 1.0(1)(a).
[31] Rollo, pp. 2748-2749.
[32]See RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CASES, A.M. 09-6-8-SC

(2010), Rule 1, Sec. 3 and Rule 7, Sec. 1.
[33] Abogado v. Department of Environment and Natural Resources, supra note 3.
[34] Rollo, pp. 48-49.
DISSENTING OPINION
LAZARO-JAVIER, J.:
I respectfully dissent and vote to partially grant the petition.
Paje v. Casiño[1] has held that a petition for the privilege of the writ of kalikasan addresses (i)
whether the alleged defects or irregularities in the issuance of an environmental compliance
certificate have a causal link or at least a reasonable connection to the actual or threatened
grave violation of the constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology in terms of the
territorial scope of such damage; and (ii) whether actual environmental damage will occur
if the project is implemented.
Whether the
defects or
irregularities in
the issuance of an
environmental
compliance
8/28/23, 9:28 PM [ G.R. No. 208702. May 11, 2021 ]
certificate have a
causal link or at
least a reasonable
connection to the
actual or
threatened grave
violation of the
constitutional
right to a
balanced and
healthful ecology
in terms of the
territorial scope
of such damage
Paje has recognized that the use of a wrong environmental impact assessment document
type is a defect or irregularity in the issuance of an environmental compliance certificate that
has a causal link or at least a reasonable connection to the environmental damage of a
magnitude that transcends political and territorial boundaries. This is because a wrong
document type results in an erroneous environmental impact assessment and flawed
environmental compliance certificate, which government agencies and local governments,
with final authority to implement the project, in turn, incorrectly rely upon in approving the
implementation of the project.
Here, respondents used the wrong environmental impact assessment document type.
According to Paje, an Environmental Performance Report and Management Plan (EPRMP) is
used in the following instances:
1. Expansion of existing projects (including undertakings that have stopped

operations for more than 5 years and plan to re-start with or without
expansion);
2. Operating projects without ECCs;
3. Operating projects with previous ECCs but planning or applying for
clearance to modify/expand or re-start operations;
4. Existing projects for modification or re-start up; and,
5. Single, non-implemented project applying for a major amendment of its
ECC.
The Las Piñas Coastal Bay Project and the Parañaque Coastal Bay Project are new projects.
Hence, as held in Paje, each of these projects requires an environmental impact statement.
These projects cannot use an EPRMP because neither of them is an operating or existing
project.
They cannot be tacked with the PEA-Amari Coastal Bay project because this project
8/28/23, 9:28 PM [ G.R. No. 208702. May 11, 2021 ]
never took off as its ECC expired five (5) years from the date of its issuance. This was
because the governing legal structure for the projects, the Amended Joint Venture
Agreement between the Public Estates Authority (PEA) and the Amari Coastal Bay
Development Corporation, was nullified by the Court in 2002.
The Las Piñas Coastal Bay Project and the Parañaque Coastal Bay Project are not non-
implemented projects applying for major amendments of their ECCs.
Indeed, it is counterintuitive to insist upon an EPRMP as the environmental impact

assessment document type for the Las Piñas Coastal Bay Project and the Parañaque Coastal
Bay Project when there is no ongoing or existing project, and the PEA-Amari Coastal Bay
project they seek to ride on was based on environmental assessment and data dating back
to 1996. The EPRMP is appropriate for ongoing and existing projects or non-implemented
projects seeking to amend substantially their ECCs because, as clearly explained by petitioner:
138. The rationale behind requiring only an EPRMP for projects that have operated
initially is to dispense with needless submissions of new studies as there
presumably exists a number of useful data about the actual environmental impacts
of a project as observed. Of course, there is no need to duplicate the tedious
processes of an Environmental Impact Statement when the effects of a project have
been recorded upon its implementation and where historical environmental
performance and status of the project and its management plan are already known.
139. Given a project that had operated but stopped for a period of more than five
(5) years, what is required is an environmental impact report on how well the
mitigation and enhancement measures worked, using its environmental
management plan ("EMP") as a yardstick. The convenience of preparing an
EPRMP leaves the proponent to focus on ways to enact improvements on a project
that has been implemented and has operated with plans for modification,
expansion or a restart. This shortcut allows the proponent to suggest modifications
and changes in the original plan to augment environmental performance without
the costly distraction of undertaking a comprehensive environmental impact
statement study.[2]
140. Being a documentation of the actual cumulative environmental impacts and

effectiveness of current measure for single projects, basic logic dictates that there
has to be a project that had physically come onto fruition and had actually become
operational. For, otherwise, there is no source from which a report can be made on
such a single project.[3]
One must not confuse an EPRMP with an Environmental Impact Statement, or conflate
one with the other. The reason, according to Paje, is that:
8/28/23, 9:28 PM [ G.R. No. 208702. May 11, 2021 ]
The appropriate EIA document type vis-a-vis a particular project depends on the
potential significant environmental impact of the project. At the highest level
would be an ECP, such as the subject project. The hierarchy of EIA document
type, based on comprehensiveness and detail of the study or report contained
therein, insofar as single projects are concerned, is as follows:
1. Environmental Impact Statement (EIS),

2. Initial Environmental Examination (IEE) Report,
3. Initial Environmental Examination (IEE) Checklist Report,
4. Environmental Performance Report and Management Plan (EPRMP), and
5. Project Description 170 (PD) or Project Description Report (PDR).[4]
It was therefore speculative for the Court of Appeals to have based the environmental
soundness of the Las Piñas Coastal Bay Project and the Parañaque Coastal Bay Project upon
an EPRMP and to have concluded that conducting an EPRMP would not have made any
difference from an environmental impact assessment, since these environmental assessment
document types are distinct varieties of studies in both processes, requirements, and in all
likelihood, findings. Otherwise, the wise bureaucrats in charge of environmental protection in
the country would not have required an EPRMP in distinct circumstances and an
environmental impact assessment in others.
To be clear, I am not saying that the ECC is an outright permit to operate, but it is,
nonetheless, a necessary step in the process of acquiring such permit. Here, since Alltech did
not submit the correct environmental impact assessment document type, the ECC issued to it
is incipiently and irreparably defective, hence, should be revoked at once. For government
agencies and local governments should not be misled into approving the implementation of
Alltech's projects based thereon.
Whether actual
environmental
damage will occur
if the project is
implemented
For one, aggravated flooding in the Cities of Las Piñas and Parañaque is conceded to happen
as a result of the Las Piñas Coastal Bay Project and the Parañaque Coastal Bay Project. Even
the Court of Appeals has admitted this when it said "the threat of flooding as a consequence
of land reclamation is conceded and thus the causal link between the human activity of
reclamation and environmental threat of flooding is established." The assailed Decision
summarized petitioner's evidence on this allegation of environmental damage:
8/28/23, 9:28 PM [ G.R. No. 208702. May 11, 2021 ]
Petitioner Villar also commissioned Tricore Solutions, Inc., an engineering

consultant, to evaluate and assess the impact of the proposed reclamation project.
Tricore came up with a report entitled "Flood Assessment and Evaluation for Las
Piñas City, Parañaque City and Bacoor, Cavite." In order to determine the existing
flood extent along the vicinity of Las Piñas City, Parañaque City and Bacoor,
Cavite, the following scenarios were considered in the said report: 1) highest
rainfall magnitude (as recorded) without reclamation; 2) highest rainfall magnitude
(as recorded) with reclamation; 3) maximum rainfall magnitude and maximum
high tide with reclamation; 4) highest rainfall magnitude (as recorded) with the
highest storm surge, maximum high tide and sea water rise brought about by
climate change with reclamation, 5) highest rainfall magnitude, highest storm
surge and maximum high tide, sea water rise- again due to climate change with
reclamation; and 6) highest rainfall magnitude, highest storm surge and maximum
high tide, sea water rise- again due to climate change with reclamation and another
reclamation in Bacoor, Cavite. According to Engineer Carvajal, who is the
President, head hydrologist, sanitary, geotechnical, structural and coastal engineer
of Tricore, based on their hydrologic and hydraulic calculations, in a worst case
scenario, taking into account Alltech's reclamation project and recorded maximum
rainfall brought about by Typhoon Ondoy and strong winds experienced during
Typhoon Pedring and other factors such as a maximum high tide of 1.44 meters
and a one-meter rise above Mean Sea Level as may be occasioned by climate
change, no less than 37 barangays in the Municipality of Bacoor, 17 barangays in
Las Piñas City and 11 barangays in Parañaque City, will be totally submerged
under 0.15 meters to 5.12 meters of floodwater. In other words, almost two-thirds
of the entire areas of the cities of Las Piñas, Parañaque and Bacoor will be
practically submerged or inundated when reclamation takes place.[5]
Geological expert Kelvin S. Rodolfo, PhD[6] cites four (4) reasons why reclamation of
nearshore Manila Bay is "a very bad idea"[7]:
1. Rapid subsidence of coastal lands is enhancing the risk of flooding and

high tides.
2. Among the reasons for this rapid subsidence, says Rodolfo, is rapid loss of
groundwater due to decades of uncontrolled pumping. Loss of groundwater
has also caused the ground level to fall, leaving these areas vulnerable to
flooding.[8]
3. Storm surges are an ever-worsening threat, due in part to subsidence, but also
because climate change is increasing the frequency of the strongest typhoons.
8/28/23, 9:28 PM [ G.R. No. 208702. May 11, 2021 ]
4. Reclaimed coastal areas are very susceptible to liquefaction and enhanced

ground-shaking during earthquakes.
5. These risks are enhanced by DPWH's and JICA's ignoring or minimizing the
phenomena in their projects.
This scientific claim does not stand alone, as other studies, too, have noted the negative
impact of reclamation, specifically of Manila Bay, viz.:
Manila Bay was once a productive fishing area; destructive fishing practices,
massive pollution, and unabated land conversion of wetlands and coastal areas
have contributed to the marine ecosystem's deterioration. The destruction of
Manila Bay's marine ecosystem threatens the food supply stability of surrounding
communities.
Coastal communities around Manila Bay are already exposed to numerous natural
hazards, particularly those related to earthquakes (e.g. liquefaction, tsunamis) and
hydro-meteorological events (e.g., floods, storm surges). The effects of these
hazards are exacerbated by accelerated land subsidence due to over-extraction of
groundwater.
xxxx
The Philippine government has a clear directive to rehabilitate and preserve Manila
Bay through the writ of continuing mandamus issued by the Philippine Supreme
Court. Land reclamation directly contradicts that mandate. Furthermore, scientific
evidence clearly shows the negative socio-economic effects of reclamation in
Manila Bay. More reclamation project proposals continue to be entertained,
nonetheless.[9]
Verily, the question is not "whether actual environmental damage will occur" anymore, but
how much more damage will it cause, for it has consistently been found and proven that
reclamation had actually and already caused environmental damage. In fact, it is not only
the aforementioned areas that will be exposed to flooding and inundation, but also the very
reclaimed lands themselves.
For another, these reclamation projects and the eventual construction of road networks and
bridges will more likely than not cause direct negative impacts upon the Las Piñas-
Parañaque Critical Habitat and Ecotourism Area (LPPCHEA). The Court of Appeals
summed up petitioner's evidence on this claim:
The Center for Environmental Concerns-Philippines (CECP) was also engaged by

petitioner Villar to conduct a technical assessment of the Las Piñas-Parañaque
8/28/23, 9:28 PM [ G.R. No. 208702. May 11, 2021 ]
Coastal Bay Project. The study made by CEC-P involved the identification of
plausible impacts of the Las Piñas-Parañaque Coastal Bay Project on biodiversity
and the critical habitat, on flooding and on the socioeconomic situation of the
residents in the cities of Las Piñas and Parañaque. It did not assess the whole
development plan as described in the proponent's EPRMP. The main document
scrutinized by CEC-P in the study was the EPRMP submitted by Alltech to the
DENR in August 2010 because it considered the same to be the final report on the
proponent's proposed management of the environmental impacts before the
issuance of the March 2011 ECC. The said EPRMP was the source document of
CEC-P on how the proponent expects its project to affect the landscape and
ecology of the project site, and what measures it has taken or will take to minimize
the adverse effects that may be brought by this change. The CEC-P concluded that
as a large scale project that will change the landscape of the area, the reclamation
can be considered a looming danger to the habitat. The CEC-P findings are as
follows: 1) As to the biophysical resources, the large-scale project will change the
landscape of the area; development activities that will be undertaken in Manila
Bay would likely impact the natural ecosystems and its ecological functions and
services; 2) The expansion of the reclamation area will deposit and spread
additional sediments to the Las Piñas-Parañaque Critical Habitat Environment
Area (LPPCHEA) which will further destroy habitats of existing biodiversity; 3)
With respect to the mangrove ecosystem situated in relation to the Coastal Bay
Project, the coastal construction for the reclamation project will change the
shoreline by altering the hydrodynamic characteristics of the Bay that include
current, wave actions, tidal fluctuations and transport of sediments along the
coasts, which would restrict circulation of coastal water bodies resulting to
degradation of its water quality and environmental ecosystems; the mangrove
ecosystem is also poised to undergo fundamental alterations and changes since the
planned reclamation, which will begin from the coasts of the LPPCHEA facing the
south China Sea, is likely to threaten and impede the continuous flow of seawater
into the lagoon; 4) With regard to the biodiversity, the EPRMP, provides little or no
information on the ecological functions of the mangroves, birds, and other living
things which may be found in the reclamation area which suggests a haphazard
study of the natural resources and the particular ecosystem that will be subject to
the reclamation activity; 5) As to the marine life in the areas, construction activities
such as dredging and filling would cause water turbidity and sedimentation that
would result to decline in water quality, loss of species and toxic contamination of
ecosystems; and 6) As to the socio-economic and cultural effects of the proposed
Coastal Bay Project, one of the foreseen effects on the people would be diminished
aquaculture production as the habitat and breeding ground of marine life will be
destroyed.
According to Frances Quimpo, the Executive Director of the CEC-P, the study
made by CEC-P had established firm bases to conclude that the LP-P Coastal bay
project has not truly addressed the identified threats of flooding to surrounding
areas, threats on biodiversity loss, as well as the threat of displacement of local
livelihood; and that it lacks a clear scientific study on the flooding hazards of the
reclamation, appropriate mitigation measures to counter the dangers of reclamation
to the LPPCHEA, as well as the potential economic displacement of the fisher-
8/28/23, 9:28 PM [ G.R. No. 208702. May 11, 2021 ]
folks in the area with the destruction of the bottom organisms that replenish marine
life. She further asserted that the absence of an Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) was but redundant evidence that the Coastal Bay Project has not undertaken
the de rigueur of a full-fledged environmental study in order to impart scientific
confidence that the proposed reclamation project will not devastate the
surrounding environment, whether human or wildlife, to within a manageable and
acceptable margin. She finally recommended that the reclamation project be halted
until competent, comprehensive, deeper research and study are conducted to
ensure that lives, human or otherwise, are not unduly and unnecessarily put at the
risk of irreparable harm and damage.
Another member of CEC-P, Giovanni A. Tapang, who is an Associate Professor in

Physics in the National Institute of Physics, also noted that the coastal bay project
lacks complete, multi-faceted blueprint for addressing the problem of flow of
seawater; that Alltech's EPRMP did not specify measures for the maintenance of
the brackish waters, and engineering interventions that would utilize the access
road from Roxas Boulevard to facilitate sea water flow to the lagoon; and that the
bold claim by Alltech that if the mitigation measures are implemented, the
reclamation might even improve the flooding situation in the two cities, was not
supported by data presented in Alltech's EPRMP.[10]
The Court of Appeals also examined the evidence for respondents. Their pieces of evidence
point to this conclusion:
On the other hand, Alltech and the other respondents were able to establish that scientific and
expert studies assessed the potential flooding and flushing impact that may arise from the
coastal bay project. The expert, objective studies conducted by DCCD, Surbana and DHI,
revealed that if all the recommended mitigating measures were to be implemented, the
Coastal bay project would not aggravate the flooding situation in the river mouths of
Parañaque, Las Piñas-Zapote Rivers, and it may even reduce the level of flooding.[11]
Hence, even respondents' evidence confirmed the conclusion of the Court of Appeals that
"the threat of flooding as a consequence of land reclamation is conceded and thus the causal
link between the human activity of reclamation and environmental threat of flooding is
established."
Worse, respondents' position rests on the premise that the recommended mitigating
measures being in place would purportedly prevent or "would not aggravate" the flooding
situations and "even reduce the level of flooding." Rodolfo, however, remains unconvinced
and unimpressed by such measures for being historically ineffective and even aggravating,[12]
viz.:
History of ignoring science while building projects that fail
8/28/23, 9:28 PM [ G.R. No. 208702. May 11, 2021 ]
1980s: Flimsy lahar dikes built at Mayan Volcano despite my scientific objections.
Dike building continued until Super Typhoon Reming breached them all in 2006,
killing 1,266 people who had sought safety by living behind them (Paguican et al.
2009).
1990s: Same lahar-dike builders' mistakes on a much larger scale at Pinatubo

despite scientists' objections. October 1995: Tropical Storm Mameng lahars
breached Gugu dike, totally destroyed Bgy Cabalantian in Bacolor, Pampanga.
Hundreds of people killed.
2000s-present: DPWH builds numerous costly, ineffective floodcontrol structures

in Central Luzon and KAMANAVA. Academician Siringan's and my objections
made no difference. Year after year, they fail, and more money is spent on
cosmetic repairs.
xxxx
KAMANAVA Flood Control Project
2003: P3-billion contract to Nishimatsu to be completed in June 2007.
xxxx
2008: Nishimatsu contract expired. Only 88% completed.
February 2009: DPWH awards local contractor BMWAD Joint Ventures P996
million to complete the remaining works.
October 2009: 94% of the project completed.
July 2010: DPWH: "resumes full blast operations, project will be completed by
mid-September." P5.18 billion already spent.
2011: project director Macaria Bartolo says project 99.5% complete.
August 2012: Polder dike overtopped by habagat floods, has to be raised another
meter.
August 19, 2013: Malabon residents evacuated as floods rise.
July 16, 2014: Typhoon 'Glenda' floods force 1.000+ Malabon evacuation.
September 23, 2014: Tropical storm "Mario", southwest monsoon and high tide
force Malabon evacuations.
8/28/23, 9:28 PM [ G.R. No. 208702. May 11, 2021 ]
July 6, 2015: CAMANAVA flooded.
July 29, 2015: MMDA lists 12 most flooded areas in Malabon City.
October 11, 2015: DPWH-NCR office gives additional 931 million to Camanava
from the P351-billion Flood Management Master Plan for Metro Manila and
Surrounding Areas.
December 15, 2015: Typhoon Nona floods Malabon. ...
And so it goes...
Clearly, respondents' confidence is misplaced. Short of any certainty, the promise of safety is
but ideal and theoretical. In effect, respondents, again, have clearly acknowledged, nay,
admitted that the proposed reclamation would cause devastating environmental impacts.
I personally commend the Court of Appeals for examining the evidence painstakingly on this
claim of petitioner. But I most respectfully submit that the conclusion to dismiss the instant
petition outright disregards the rationale for the writ of kalikasan. This writ is a protective
remedy, one where the usual balancing of the probative value of evidence is outweighed by
the inclination to be cautious about activities that could probably wreak havoc on the
environment.
Rule 20 of the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases recognizes this principle as a rule
of law in assessing the evidence in environmental cases:
RULE 20
PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE
Section 1. Applicability. - When there is a lack of full scientific certainty in

establishing a causal link between human activity and environmental effect,
the court shall apply the precautionary principle in resolving the case before it.
The constitutional right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology shall
be given the benefit of the doubt.
Section 2. Standards for application. - In applying the precautionary principle, the

following factors, among others, may be considered: (1) threats to human life or
health; (2) inequity to present or future generations; or (3) prejudice to the
environment without legal consideration of the environmental rights of those
affected.
Here, everyone seems to concede that flood will come as a result of the Las Piñas Coastal
8/28/23, 9:28 PM [ G.R. No. 208702. May 11, 2021 ]
Bay Project and the Parañaque Coastal Bay Project. There will also be direct negative
environmental impacts on the LPPCHEA as a result of the reclamation and related
construction works. The Court of Appeals believes respondents' claim that only complete
mitigation measures could foil the environmental degradations that the projects will bring
about.
But is there certainty that the mitigation measures will come to pass, and if they do, will they
produce what respondents hope they would? I do not think that respondents' pieces of
evidence preponderantly resolve these questions in their favor. There are lots of variables in
the projections ventured by respondents' evidence.
Worse, the Court of Appeals was made to decide the environmental impact of the
projects as if from scratch simply because the government agency used the wrong
document type in issuing the environmental compliance certificate. Had there been
proper compliance from the start with the process of adducing the necessary variables in
making the environmental assessment through, among others, the use of the appropriate
document type, then we can state, indeed, that more likely than not, all environmental
damages wrought by the projects will not come to pass.
Petitioner's burden of proof is not proof beyond a reasonable doubt. All she has to prove
is that more likely than not, if the reclamations do take place, damage to the environment will
happen. I believe she has done that. Respondents merely claim in response that mitigation
measures can offset this environmental damage. Their claim is not that there is no link
between the projects and the harm; rather their claim is that their proposed mitigation
measures might thwart the harm from taking place.
Clearly, as things stand, the totality of the evidence shows the causal link between the
projects and the environmental damage. The mitigation measures may prevent harm from
happening, but that is conditional upon the mitigation measures being funded and done
properly and later working properly as believed. At their best, thus, respondents' pieces of
evidence prove and stand for an uncertainty in the context of a lack of full scientific certainty
in establishing a causal link between human activity and environmental effect.
In this light, the Court is in the right to apply the precautionary principle in resolving the
present case because (i) threats to human life or health as a result of the projects will occur if
the mitigation measures do not work, and there is no certainty that they in fact will; (ii)
inequity to present or future generations will be the costs of the uncertainties that the
mitigation endeavours can only bring about; and (iii) prejudice to the environment without
legal consideration of the environmental rights of those affected will be the price to pay as the
environmental agency in charge of the environmental assessment failed to consult and obtain
the consent of the residents to be greatly impacted by the projects.
Taking all things into consideration, the balancing of the evidence adduced by petitioner and
respondents calls for a conclusion that the constitutional right of the people to a balanced
and healthful ecology shall be given the benefit of the doubt. This means indulging the
present case a second hard look at what the evidence presents us - an uncertainty that the
Court can remedy by sending back the projects for environmental impact assessment using the
Environmental Impact Statement as the document type and involving the residents in a
8/28/23, 9:28 PM [ G.R. No. 208702. May 11, 2021 ]
genuine, not fake, consultation and consent-seeking foras. Thereafter, when the environmental
people and the stakeholders have done all these and the conclusion is acceptable as it is
reasonable and both rights- and evidencebased, if this matter ever reaches the Court of
Appeals and the Court again, the justices will no longer be hard-pressed to choose between
competing evidence, and in the process, to speculate about WHAT IFs and WHAT NOTs.
Whether the
actual
environmental

damage that has
been assessed is
fatally speculative
The world we live in is not fraught with environmental disasters and dangers because tree-
huggers simply want to scare people from achieving development. These disasters have
come and gone. They are a reality. We have all been witnesses to them. The lockdown
caused by CoVID-19 has clear environmental aspects to it. And yet, here we go again trying to
ignore the integrity and truthfulness of the science of patience and due diligence in our
development endeavours.
What are we going to lose from seeking another and perhaps last round of weighing and
determining the enormous environmental impact of respondents' large scale reclamation
projects?
The only projected losses, if losses they really are, simply equate to the delayed profits and
more profits for respondents and their investors. In contrast, if the Court were to allow
post-haste the reclamations to go on without first settling the environmental issues, when
history beckons, the Court will be the real proximate cause of the disaster that will be
done to the lives and properties of millions of already impoverished Filipinos. As it is, the
Court and petitioner in her role as a well-respected Senator are the only last bulwark of
reason to stop this impending environmental pillage.
Senator Villar is no ordinary petitioner. She carries with her the weight of the Philippine
Senate as one of its outstanding leaders. She bears the burden of her constituents who stand to
be severely affected by the adverse consequences of respondents' reclamations. She has put
her reputation, if not her political career, into the cross-hairs of the causes, especially the
present one, she tirelessly advocates. If the Court would not even care to hear her, who else
will the Court listen to?
The issues involved in this case are literally transcendentally important. The environmental
impact will adversely affect Las Piñas and Parañaque initially and thereafter transcend to
contiguous territories and thereafter engulfing the entire country. It will initially impact the
residents of these localities and thereafter transcend to swallow communities in the
metropolis. The conversation that this case entails should not stop here and now. Lots are
uncertain but can be clarified by further proceedings below. Massive floodings and other
adverse environmental impacts of the reclamations are not our only choice, certainly not my
only choice. I am still afraid to live in a raft.
8/28/23, 9:28 PM [ G.R. No. 208702. May 11, 2021 ]
Whether an
environmentally
critical project
should be allowed
to proceed only in
the clearest of
cases
The precautionary principle mentioned above should compel the Court to hold that an
environmentally critical project should be allowed to proceed in the clearest of cases. Hence,
whenever there is doubt about a project's environmental impact, the project must be re-
evaluated to investigate, weigh, mitigate, address, assess and resolve the oppositions to it.
The precautionary principle is very crucial especially when the President himself has
vigorously espoused a policy against reclamation projects. The President has been
recorded to have enunciated this policy in the most colourful and emphatic language clearly
for editorial impact. He said:
Not during my time. I will only allow maybe plans of whatever reclamation if it is
in connection with a government project. I will not allow massive reclamation for
the private sector. Not now. Because if I - if you approve one, you approve all.
Ganun 'yan eh.
xxxx
The entire Manila City would be environmentally at peril. So pag-aralan ninyong

mabuti 'yan. For the next administration, whoever gets to be the president of this
country, study it very carefully. Because that Manila there, that old City is an old
city and it will decay if you add so many things in front of Manila Bay.
xxxx
No - no reclamation. You wait until the next president who would be - they would
look - they might look at it kindly at a different lens.[13]
Independent expert studies also confirm the adverse environmental impact of reclamations. I
have quoted them below in the interest of full disclosure:
Reclaimed lands are also to blame for the rise of the water level on the bay which
causes massive flooding and storm surges. They badly affect not just the lives of
the residents but also may shut down local economic activities particularly those in
low-lying cities. These disasters actually intensify the vulnerability of our cities.
8/28/23, 9:28 PM [ G.R. No. 208702. May 11, 2021 ]
[14]
Reclamation activities changed the environment such as coastal morphology,

hydro-oceanography, mangrove and coral reefs deterioration. Other effects are the
hill-cutting and tree-cutting of the surrounding area to get filling materials for the
reclamation project. Among the consequences observed and recorded were
flooding, erosions, sedimentations, and adverse influences on the seawater quality,
sea biota, local depletion of several kinds of fishes such as snappers, groupers, and
shrimps. These have reduced the income of the fishermen, forcing them to switch
to other professions such as becoming tradesmen, laborers, and farmers.[15]
BIOLOGICAL IMPACTS
The process of coastal land reclamation starts off with sand mining and dredging
operation carried out offshore, followed by backfilling. The activities carried out
during reclamation have direct impacts towards the coastal ecosystem. The impacts
include:
Loss of marine benthic ecosystem
Reclamation activities affect the composition of biodiversity through the

destruction of ecosystems such as coral reefs, sea grass meadows and mudflats.
This will lead to a net decline in faunal biomass and abundance or a shift in species
composition. Once the ecosystem is disturbed, it will take some time for it to
recover to its original state, depending on the ecosystem's resilience.
x x x x Modification of the ocean floor by reclamation works causes destruction to

habitat of the benthic organisms. The disturbance to bottom sediment from
dredging works and placement of fill materials will bury and smother bottom
dwellers and cause permanent loss of habitat of benthos. Marine sediment
extraction causes disturbance and removal of benthic in fauna and epifauna
(Yasser, 2011).
Alteration of sediment composition caused by dredging and backfilling is another

contributing factor to loss of marine benthic ecosystem. Sediment composition is a
key factor in determining benthos distribution. Long-term recovery of benthic
ecosystem can occur only where original sediment composition is being restored.
Destruction of buffer zone
Coastal reclamation is often associated with the loss of coastal ecosystems such as
mangroves, seagrasses and mudflats. These ecosystem acts as natural buffers
against wave energy and minimising the impacts of wave on coastal areas, thus
protecting the coastal area from being flooded and eroded due to wave action.
Removal of the ecosystems will leave the coastal communities vulnerable to

flooding and natural disaster such as tsunami. As widely reported since 2004 when
8/28/23, 9:28 PM [ G.R. No. 208702. May 11, 2021 ]
the worst tsunami in record hit South East Asia, extensive areas of mangroves can
reduce the loss of life and damage caused by tsunamis by taking the first brunt of
the impact and by dissipating the energy of the wave as it passes through the
mangrove area.
The survival of the fisherfolks at Pulau Betong, south-west of Penang Island, was
attributed to the mangroves growing there. The mangrove forests had helped to
buffer the impact of the tsunami heading inland as compared to other places that
received a direct hit (Penang Economic Report, Jan. 2005, Vol. 7, Issue 1).
Disruption of food chain
Coastal developments directly disturb the substrates and microenvironments that

benthic macro invertebrates depend on to survive. x x x x
Mangroves also serve to reduce coastal erosion and is a habitat for many species of
marine life. They serve as a transit place for more than 30 species of migratory
birds, and house mudskippers, fish, crustaceans, and a whole ecosystem of its own.
They are a home to all kinds of fish, snails, cockles, shrimps and crabs, reptiles
like snakes and monitor lizards, migratory and local birds, insects and mammals
such as monkeys, wild boars and otters. Birds seek these places as their sanctuary
and feeding place during their migratory season from October to March.
It is proven that land reclamation does cause disjunctions in the consistency of

suitable habitats for these organisms which we predict will affect organisms higher
in the food chain (Chee & Sim, 2016; Chee et al., 2017). The stress tolerant species
will become dominant and replace other species as they are able to stand the
changes.
Collapsed ecosystems cannot sustain marine organisms that are dependent on it for
survival. Shoreline modification and reclamation works will affect the existing
biotic and abiotic factors that are linked in food chains. Any changes or disruption
to the close relations between certain species will affect the ecosystem's balance.
Removal of primary producers such as mangrove and seagrasses will affect the rest
of the food chain as they serve as a base where every other organism depends on
directly or indirectly for survival.
Coastal water pollution
Pollution can be controlled to some extent, but ecological and environmental

impacts of reclamation cannot be restored. Suspension of organics, heavy metals
and other pollutants into sea through dredging activities will cause disturbance to
bottom sediments. Land filling with dredged materials may release contaminants
which will have impacts on marine life. Eventually, low water quality will affect
the sea biotas around the area, and negatively affect the lives of the fishes and
coral reef (Priyandes & Majid, 2009).
Corals that are stressed by siltation, mechanical damage, or pollution have a

8/28/23, 9:28 PM [ G.R. No. 208702. May 11, 2021 ]
greater likelihood of being subjected to diseases (Clark 1996). As coral reefs are
well known as spawning ground, feeding ground, and nursery ground for
enormous number of marine life, its destruction will cause breakdown in the
ecosystem.
Other than that, sea grass leaves improve[d] water quality by absorbing nutrients in
runoff from the land and slowing the velocity of water, capturing sand, dirt and silt
particles. When the bottom sediments are disturbed during reclamation projects, it
causes the release of toxic chemicals including heavy metals and polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCB) into water column which was trapped by sea grass earlier. The
release of toxic compounds will degrade the water quality and affect the aquatic
life.
Increase in siltation and turbidity
Dredging and extraction of aggregates from the benthic zone or the seabed is a
form of disturbance that leads to increase of suspended particles in the water
column. Dredged material may cause suspended solids during dredging as a result
of substratum disturbance and during transport to the surface, overflow from
barges or leakage from pipelines during transport between dredged and disposal
sites (Yasser, 2011).
Aggregate particles that are too fine to be used are rejected by dredging boats,
releasing vast dust plumes and change the water turbidity, resulting in major
changes to aquatic habitats over a large area. The ecosystems that will be greatly
affected by siltation are the coral reefs and sea grasses. Siltation kills corals by
shading and smothering them and reduces recruitment of juvenile corals (DENR
2001).
Smothered sea grasses will not be able to take up the sunlight efficiently to carry
out photosynthesis. In addition, increased turbidity will increase the scattering of
light penetrating the water, causing difficulties to photosynthetic benthic organism
to absorb the sunlight. x x x x
SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACTS
Livelihood and fisheries
Coastline changes in the coastal areas due to reclamation will impact the local
community in that area. Local fishers whose livelihood and source of income
depended on the fishing industry are adversely impacted due to land reclamation. x
xxx
Other adverse impact includes the reduction of daily fish catch by the fishermen,
forcing them to either double their efforts in catching fish or totally abandon their
age-old profession to try other jobs (Priyandes & Majid, 2009). However, without
experience and knowledge, it will be difficult for them to adjust to their new way
of life. x x x x
8/28/23, 9:28 PM [ G.R. No. 208702. May 11, 2021 ]
PHYSICAL IMPACTS
(A) Saltwater intrusion and alteration of groundwater system
Land reclamation activities in coastal areas causes changes on local groundwater

systems (Guo & Jiao, 2007). This is because the removal of crucial ecosystems
such as mangrove and mudflats maximises the impacts of wave on coastal areas,
causing seawater intrusion into groundwater. This will affect nearby agriculture
land as the pH of the soil is altered thus making it unsuitable for plant growth,
especially species that are sensitive to salinity changes. x x x x
OTHER IMPACTS
Temporary increase in noise pollution and air quality is likely to occur at the site,
caused by construction and reclamation processes. Dust and particulate generation
due to movement into and off the site like scrappers, bulldozers, and loaders and
due to excavated soil is the negative impact of temporary workforce (Yasser,
2011). This gives a negative psychological and physical impact to the people
around the area. x x x x
The stress level of the residents might increase due to traffic congestion as many
routes will be inaccessible for reclamation development Therefore, the residents
were left with no choice but to take alternative routes, causing inconveniences due
to the restrictive access.[16]
Contrary to the ponencia's dismissive attitude towards the foregoing studies, these studies
show that the precautionary principle apply in this case. The Court cannot ignore these
studies because they are cited precisely to justify the plausibility of the project's adverse
environmental impact. The proper forum for considering these and other studies is of course
the Department of Environment and Natural Resources. However, by affirming the assailed
Decision of the Court of Appeals, and approving the commencement of the project, the Court
is thereby foreclosing any further deliberate studies on the real adverse impact of the project.
This could prove to be disastrous for the communities near the project site.
Notably, the Rules on Evidence allows the Court to take judicial notice of certain facts, such
as the laws of nature. In MMDA v. Concerned Citizens of Manila Bay,[17] the Court took
judicial notice of the environmental pollution as a cause of climate change, its ill effects
including but not limited to the destruction of forests, and other critical habitat, oil spills, and
the unabated improper disposal of garbage in Manila Bay.[18] So too, can we take judicial
notice not only of the independent expert studies which either confirm or dispel the adverse
environmental impact of reclamations. It is our bounden duty to leave no stone unturned when
it comes to the safety and protection of our environment.
ACCORDINGLY, I vote to grant the petition in part, to revoke the environmental

compliance certificate issued for the Las Piñas Coastal Bay Project and the Parañaque Coastal
Bay Project, and to refer these projects back to the Department of Environment and Natural
8/28/23, 9:28 PM [ G.R. No. 208702. May 11, 2021 ]
Resources for the proper conduct of the environmental impact assessment using as document
type the Environmental Impact Statement.
[1] 732 Phil. 498 (2015).
[2] Reflections of J. Marvic M.V.F. Leonen dated April 26, 2021, pp. 5-6.
[3] Rollo, p. 106.
[4] Supra note 1 at 599-600.
[5] Id. at 19-19A.
[6]PhD in Geological Sciences, University of Southern California, 1967 MS in Geological

Sciences, University of Southern California, 1964 BS in Geology, University of the
Philippines, 1958; Fellow, American Association for the Advancement of Science; Fellow,
Geological Society of America; American Geophysical Union; Geological Society of the
Philippines; Society of Sedimentary Geologists (SEPM).
[7]Dangerous Aspects of Reclamation Along Manila Bay and Laguna de Bay: NAST Policy
Discussion on the Hazards, Risks and Profits of Reclamation, February 15, 2016, Kelvin S.
Rodolfo.
[8] Rina Jimenez-David, https://opinion.inquirer.net/93493/why-reclamation-is-a-very-bad-

idea, posted 12:20 AM March 06, 2016; Last Accessed March 9, 2021 14:43.
[9] Eco, R.C., Manila Bay reclamation and its impacts on the people and environment,
https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018AGUFMPA43E138x_5E/abstract, last accessed March
9, 2021, 15:08.
[10] Rollo, (Vol. 1), pp. 19-A-22.
[11] Id. at 49.
[12]Dangerous Aspects of Reclamation Along Manila Bay and Laguna de Bay: NAST Policy
Discussion on the Hazards, Risks and Profits of Reclamation, February 15, 2016, Kelvin S.
Rodolfo.
[13] SPEECH OF PRESIDENT RODRIGO ROA DUTERTE DURING THE

INAUGURATION OF THE SANGLEY AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT PROJECT AND
PRESENTATION OF THE SANGLEY POINT INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PROJECT
(https://pcoo.gov.ph/wpcontent/uploads/2020/02/20200215-Speech-of-President-Rodrigo-
Roa-Duterte-during-theInauguration-of-the-Sangley-Airport-Development-Project-and-
8/28/23, 9:28 PM [ G.R. No. 208702. May 11, 2021 ]
Presentation-of-the-Sangley-PointInternational-Airport-Project-converted.pdf).
[14] https://www.smartcitiesdive.com/ex/sustainablecitiescollective/unsustainable-truth-about-
landreclamation-worsening-impacts-manila-bay-r/1271899/
[15]
http://eprints.utm.my/id/eprint/2066/1/MRafeeMajid2009_ImpactReclamationActivities.pdf
[16] Impacts of Coastal Reclamation in Malaysia, published by Sahabat Alam Malaysia

(Friends of the Earth Malaysia), accessed at https://foe-
malaysia.org/wpcontent/uploads/2020/12/190226_Impacts_of_Coastal_Reclamation_in_Malaysia-
compressed.pdf
[17] 595 Phil. 305, 320 (2008).
[18] Id. at 320.
Source: Supreme Court E-Library | Date created: November 23, 2021

This page was dynamically generated by the E-Library Content Management System

En Banc (G.R. No. 208702. May 11, 2021) : Carandang, J.

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

En Banc (G.R. No. 208702. May 11, 2021) : Carandang, J.

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

En Banc (G.R. No. 208702. May 11, 2021) : Carandang, J.

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

8/28/23, 9:28 PM [ G.R. No. 208702.

May 11, 2021 ]

In 2009, respondent Alltech Contractors, Inc. (Alltech) submitted unsolicited proposals to

Thereafter, respondent Philippine Reclamation Authority (PRA), the agency authorized to

In October 2010, the Environmental Impact Assessment Review Committee (EIARC),

5.1 Flood Monitoring Plan

8.1 A readily available Environmental Guarantee Fund (EGF)

9. An Environmental Unit (EU) shall be established completely handle the

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED for lack of merit.

IT IS SO ORDERED.[20] (Emphasis in the original)

mitigate the dreaded negative impacts of the proposed project.[30]

The PRA manifested that it is adopting the Comment of Alltech.[49]

The issues to be resolved in this case are:

Ruling of the Court

The petition is not meritorious.

No person, partnership or corporation shall undertake or operate any such declared

Section 1. Nature of the Writ. - The writ is a remedy available to a natural or

a. Grave abuse of discretion on the part of the deciding authority, or

The DENR may adopt alternative conflict/dispute resolution procedures

The proponent or any stakeholder may file an appeal to the following:

Deciding Authority Where to file Appeal

The writ of kalikasan is principally predicated on an actual or threatened violation

In Alltech's application, the DENR-EMB required an EPRMP which refers to a

1. Existing and to be expanded (including undertakings that have stopped

The afore-discussed provisions of Figure 2-4, in relation to Annex 2-1c, plainly

contradict or go beyond the definition of terms in the relevant issuances, the

We answer in the affirmative.

We apply the same framework of analysis in determining the propriety of a PDR,

It is within the DENR-EMB's function and expertise to determine the category or

Section 5.3 of DAO No. 2003-30 provides:

5.3 Public Hearing / Consultation Requirements

Proponents should initiate public consultations early in order to ensure that

d. Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC)-document issued by the

of the proposed project.

As discussed during the Public Consultation, floodings are attributable to

Major impacts from reclamation activities would arise if a river system or a

Proposed Structure Quantity Dimension

QUESTION#15: Why base your study on Alltech's EPRMP?

"Maintaining a minimum width of 160 meters in the Parañaque River

According to DHI, if all the foregoing mitigation measures were implemented,

In conclusion, the flooding impact assessment indicates that the proposed

Based on the flushing model, the following mitigation measures were

a. Dredging and maintaining the extension of the Parañaque river to a

In conclusion, DHI's hydraulic studies show that, at worst, the proposed

DHI presented a comprehensive analysis of the consequences of the implementation of the

were generated in case of extreme events.[99] (Emphasis and underscoring

The development of the Project, with a commitment to minimizing negative

The function of the extraordinary and equitable remedy of a Writ of Kalikasan

Section 1. Applicability. - When there is a lack of full scientific certainty in

ECC No. CO-

Gesmundo, C. J., Perlas-Bernabe, Hernando, Inting, Zalameda, M. Lopez, Delos Santos,

[1] Rollo, Vol. I, pp. 61-154.

[3] Id. at 56-59.

[4] Id. at 161-162.

[5] Rollo, Vol. II, pp. 1569-1583.

[6] Rollo, Vol. I, p. 162.

[7] Id. at 772-806, 866-881.

[8] Id. at 810.