NATRES

DEFINITION OF NATURAL RESOURCES

Blacks first definition in his 7th ed. is any material from nature having potential economic value or providing for the sustenance of life, such as timber,
minerals, oil, water and wildlife. The second definition is environmental features that serve a communitys well-being or recreational interests, such as
parks.
Natural resource is any naturally occurring substance or feature of the environment (physical or biological) that, while not created by human effort, can
be exploited by humans to satisfy their needs or wants. Many of such resources are our life line such as water, air and solar radiation, which are essential
elements for the existence of all the flora and fauna.
Two basic conditions for a substance or feature to be classified as a natural resource: First, the resource must exist naturally in the environment; that is,
not synthetically produced by human beings, such as in a laboratory or factory. Second, the resource must be able to be exploited by humans to directly
satisfy a need or want.
Natural resources may either be:
Biotic resources which are derived from biosphere such as the forests, marine organism, animals, birds and their products including
mineral fuels come in this category, or

Abiotic which includes water, air, land and elemental ores such as gold, silver, copper, iron etc.

It may also be either be renewable and non-renewable resources. A renewable resource grows again or comes back again after we use it. For example,
sunlight, water, and trees are renewable resources. A non-renewable resource is a resource that does not grow or come back, or a resource that would
take a very long time to come back. For example, coal is a non-renewable resource.

I.

SOURCES AND MECHANISMS

A. PREAMBLE
We, the sovereign Filipino people, imploring the aid of Almighty God, in order to build a just and humane society, and establish a Government that shall
embody our ideals and aspirations, promote the common good, conserve and develop our patrimony, and secure to ourselves and our posterity, the
blessings of independence and democracy under the rule of law and a regime of truth, justice, freedom, love, equality, and peace, do ordain and
promulgate this Constitution.

B. Article I THE NATIONAL TERRITORY

The national territory of the Philippines comprises:
1) the Philippine archipelago;
2) all other territories over which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction
PHILIPPINE ARCHIPELAGO that body of water studded with islands which is delineated in the Treaty of Paris (1898), as amended by the Treaty of
Washington (1900) and the Treaty with Great Britain (1930).
consists of its
a) Terrestrial
b) Fluvial
c) Aerial domains
including its
a) Territorial sea
b) The seabed
c) The subsoil
d) The insular shelves; and
e) The other submarine areas
INTERNAL WATERS the waters Around, Between and Connecting the islands of the archipelago, regardless of their breadth and dimensions
ALL OTHER TERRITORIES OVER WHICH THE PHILIPPINES HAS SOVEREIGNTY OR JURISDICTIONincludes any territory that presently belongs or might in the
future belong to the Philippines through any of the accepted international modes of acquiring territory.
ARCHIPELAGIC PRINCIPLE
Two elements:
1. The definition of internal waters (supra);
2. The straight baseline method of delineating the territorial sea consists of drawing straight lines connecting the outermost points on the coast without
departing to any appreciable extent from the general direction of the coast.
Important distances with respect to the waters around the Philippines
-Territorial Sea 12 nautical miles (n.m.)
-Contiguous Zone 12 n.m. from the edge of the territorial sea
-Exclusive Economic Zone 200 n.m. from the baseline
[includes T.S. and C.Z.]
NOTE: There can be a Continental Shelf without an EEZ, but not an EEZ without a Continental Shelf.
TERRITORIAL SEA
The belt of the sea located between the coast and internal waters of the coastal state on the one hand, and the high seas on the other, extending up to
12 nautical miles from the low water mark.
CONTIGUOUS ZONE

Extends up to 12 nautical miles from the territorial sea. Although not part of the territory, the coastal State may exercise jurisdiction to prevent
infringement of customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary laws.
EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE
Body of water extending up to 200 nautical miles, within which the state may exercise sovereign rights to explore, exploit, conserve and manage the
natural resources
The state in the EEZ exercises jurisdiction with regard to:
1. the establishment and use of artificial islands, installations, and structures;
2. marine scientific research;
3. the protection and preservation of marine environment;
C. ARTICLE II DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES AND STATE POLICIES
Section 15. The State shall protect and promote the right to health of the people and instill health consciousness among them.
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.
Section 22. The State recognizes and promotes the rights of indigenous cultural communities within the framework of national unity and development.
D. ARTICLE XII NATIONAL ECONOMY AND PATRIMONY
Section 2. All lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum, and other mineral oils, all forces of potential energy, fisheries, forests
or timber, wildlife, flora and fauna, and other natural resources are owned by the State. With the exception of agricultural lands, all other natural
resources shall not be alienated. The exploration, development, and utilization of natural resources shall be under the full control and supervision of the
State. The State may directly undertake such activities, or it may enter into co-production, joint venture, or production-sharing agreements with Filipino
citizens, or corporations or associations at least sixty per centum of whose capital is owned by such citizens. Such agreements may be for a period not
exceeding twenty-five years, renewable for not more than twenty-five years, and under such terms and conditions as may be provided by law. In cases of
water rights for irrigation, water supply fisheries, or industrial uses other than the development of water power, beneficial use may be the measure and
limit of the grant.
The State shall protect the nations marine wealth in its archipelagic waters, territorial sea, and exclusive economic zone, and reserve its use and
enjoyment exclusively to Filipino citizens.
The Congress may, by law, allow small-scale utilization of natural resources by Filipino citizens, as well as cooperative fish farming, with priority to
subsistence fishermen and fishworkers in rivers, lakes, bays, and lagoons.
The President may enter into agreements with foreign-owned corporations involving either technical or financial assistance for large-scale exploration,
development, and utilization of minerals, petroleum, and other mineral oils according to the general terms and conditions provided by law, based on real
contributions to the economic growth and general welfare of the country. In such agreements, the State shall promote the development and use of local
scientific and technical resources.
The President shall notify the Congress of every contract entered into in accordance with this provision, within thirty days from its execution.
****THE CONCEPT OF REGALIAN DOCTRINE
This principle means that all natural wealth - agricultural, forest or timber, and mineral lands of the public domain and all other natural resources belong
to the State. Thus, even if the private person owns the property where minerals are discovered, his ownership for such does not give him the right to
extract or utilize said minerals without permission from the state to which such minerals belong.

The abovementioned provision provides that except for agricultural lands for public domain which alone may be alienated, forest or timber, and mineral
lands, as well as all other natural resources must remain with the State, the exploration, development and utilization of which shall be subject to its full
control and supervision albeit allowing it to enter into coproduction, joint venture or production-sharing agreements, or into agreements with foreignowned corporations involving technical or financial assistance for large-scale exploration, development, and utilization
Section 3. Lands of the public domain are classified into agricultural, forest or timber, mineral lands and national parks. Agricultural lands of the public
domain may be further classified by law according to the uses to which they may be devoted. Alienable lands of the public domain shall be limited to
agricultural lands. Private corporations or associations may not hold such alienable lands of the public domain except by lease, for a period not exceeding
twenty-five years, renewable for not more than twenty-five years, and not to exceed one thousand hectares in area. Citizens of the Philippines may lease
not more than five hundred hectares, or acquire not more than twelve hectares thereof, by purchase, homestead, or grant.
Taking into account the requirements of conservation, ecology, and development, and subject to the requirements of agrarian reform, the Congress shall
determine, by law, the size of lands of the public domain which may be acquired, developed, held, or leased and the conditions therefor.
Section 4. The Congress shall, as soon as possible, determine, by law, the specific limits of forest lands and national parks, marking clearly their
boundaries on the ground. Thereafter, such forest lands and national parks shall be conserved and may not be increased nor diminished, except by law.
The Congress shall provide for such period as it may determine, measures to prohibit logging in endangered forests and watershed areas.
Section 5. The State, subject to the provisions of this Constitution and national development policies and programs, shall protect the rights of indigenous
cultural communities to their ancestral lands to ensure their economic, social, and cultural well-being.
The Congress may provide for the applicability of customary laws governing property rights or relations in determining the ownership and extent of
ancestral domain.
Section 6. The use of property bears a social function, and all economic agents shall contribute to the common good. Individuals and private groups,
including corporations, cooperatives, and similar collective organizations, shall have the right to own, establish, and operate economic enterprises,
subject to the duty of the State to promote distributive justice and to intervene when the common good so demands.
E. ARTICLE XIII AGRARIAN AND NATURAL RESOURCES REFORM
Section 6. The State shall apply the principles of agrarian reform or stewardship, whenever applicable in accordance with law, in the disposition or
utilization of other natural resources, including lands of the public domain under lease or concession suitable to agriculture, subject to prior rights,
homestead rights of small settlers, and the rights of indigenous communities to their ancestral lands.
The State may resettle landless farmers and farmworkers in its own agricultural estates which shall be distributed to them in the manner provided by law.
Section 7. The State shall protect the rights of subsistence fishermen, especially of local communities, to the preferential use of the communal marine
and fishing resources, both inland and offshore. It shall provide support to such fishermen through appropriate technology and research, adequate
financial, production, and marketing assistance, and other services. The State shall also protect, develop, and conserve such resources. The protection
shall extend to offshore fishing grounds of subsistence fishermen against foreign intrusion. Fishworkers shall receive a just share from their labor in the
utilization of marine and fishing resources.
*** ADDITIONAL READINGS:
1. RA 9522
Section 2. The baseline in the following areas over which the Philippines likewise exercises sovereignty and jurisdiction shall be determined as "Regime of
Islands" under the Republic of the Philippines consistent with Article 121 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS):

a) The Kalayaan Island Group as constituted under Presidential Decree No. 1596; and
b) Bajo de Masinloc, also known as Scarborough Shoal.
2. CASE DIGEST OF MAGALLONA VS ERMITA
FACTS:
The antecedent facts of this case emerged upon the passing of Republic Act 3046 in 1961. The laws purpose is to demarcate the maritime baselines of
the Philippines as it was deemed to be an archipelago. RA 3046 stood unchallenged until 2009, when Congress amended it and passed RA 9522.
This amending law shortened one baseline and determined new base points of the archipelago. More so, it has identified the Kalayaan Island Group and
the Scarborough Shoal, as "regimes of islands", generating their own maritime zones.
The petitioners filed a case assailing the constitutionality of RA 9522. To their opinion, the law has effectively reduced the maritime territory of the
country. With this, Article I of the 1987 Constitution will be violated.
The petitioners also worried that that because of the suggested changes in the maritime baselines will allow for foreign air crafts and vessels to traverse
the Philippine territory freely. In effect, it steps on the states sovereignty and national security.Meanwhile, the Congress insisted that in no way will the
amendments affect any pertinent power of the state.
It also deferred to agree that the law impliedly relinquishes the Philippines claims over Sabah. Lastly, they have questioned the normative force of the
notion that all the waters within the rectangular boundaries in the Treaty of Paris.
Now, because this treaty still has undetermined controversies, the Congress believes that in the perspective of international law, it did not see any
binding obligation to honor it. Thus, this case of prayer for writs of certiorari and prohibition is filed before the court, assailing the constitutionality of RA
9522.
RULING:
The Court dismissed the case. It upheld the constitutionality of the law and made it clear that it has merely demarcated the countrys maritime zones and
continental shelves in accordance to UNCLOS III.
Secondly, the Court found that the framework of the regime of islands suggested by the law is not incongruent with the Philippines enjoyment of
territorial sovereignty over the areas of Kalayaan Group of Islands and the Scarborough.

Third, the court reiterated that the claims over Sabah remained even with the adoption of the amendments. Further, the Court importantly stressed that
the baseline laws are mere mechanisms for the UNCLOS III to precisely describe the delimitations. It serves as a notice to the international family of
states and it is in no way affecting or producing any effect like enlargement or diminution of territories.
With regard to the petitioners assertion that RA 9522 has converted the internal waters into archipelagic waters, the Court did not appear to be
persuaded. Instead, the Court suggested that the political branches of Government can pass domestic laws that will aid in the competent security
measures and policies that will regulate innocent passage. Since the Court emphasized innocent passage as a right based on customary law, it also
believes that no state can validly invoke sovereignty to deny a right acknowledged by modern states.
In the case of archipelagic states such as ours, UNCLOS III required the imposition of innocent passage as a concession in lieu of their right to claim the
entire waters landward baseline. It also made it possible for archipelagic states to be recognized as a cohesive entity under the UNCLOS III.
3. Oposa vs. Factoran Case Digest (G.R. No. 101083, July 30, 1993)
FACTS:
The plaintiffs in this case are all minors duly represented and joined by their parents. The first complaint was filed as a taxpayer's class suit at the Branch
66 (Makati, Metro Manila), of the Regional Trial Court, National capital Judicial Region against defendant (respondent) Secretary of the Department of
Environment and Natural Reasources (DENR). Plaintiffs alleged that they are entitled to the full benefit, use and enjoyment of the natural resource
treasure that is the country's virgin tropical forests. They further asseverate that they represent their generation as well as generations yet unborn and
asserted that continued deforestation have caused a distortion and disturbance of the ecological balance and have resulted in a host of environmental
tragedies.
Plaintiffs prayed that judgement be rendered ordering the respondent, his agents, representatives and other persons acting in his behalf to cancel all
existing Timber License Agreement (TLA) in the country and to cease and desist from receiving, accepting, processing, renewing or approving new TLAs.
Defendant, on the other hand, filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the complaint had no cause of action against him and that it raises a political
question.
The RTC Judge sustained the motion to dismiss, further ruling that granting of the relief prayed for would result in the impairment of contracts which is
prohibited by the Constitution.
Plaintiffs (petitioners) thus filed the instant special civil action for certiorari and asked the court to rescind and set aside the dismissal order on the ground
that the respondent RTC Judge gravely abused his discretion in dismissing the action.
ISSUES:

(1) Whether or not the plaintiffs have a cause of action.

(2) Whether or not the complaint raises a political issue.
(3) Whether or not the original prayer of the plaintiffs result in the impairment of contracts.
RULING:
First Issue: Cause of Action.
Respondents aver that the petitioners failed to allege in their complaint a specific legal right violated by the respondent Secretary for which any relief is
provided by law. The Court did not agree with this. The complaint focuses on one fundamental legal right -- the right to a balanced and healthful ecology
which is incorporated in Section 16 Article II of the Constitution. The said right carries with it the duty to refrain from impairing the environment and
implies, among many other things, the judicious management and conservation of the country's forests. Section 4 of E.O. 192 expressly mandates the
DENR to be the primary government agency responsible for the governing and supervising the exploration, utilization, development and conservation of
the country's natural resources. The policy declaration of E.O. 192 is also substantially re-stated in Title XIV Book IV of the Administrative Code of 1987.
Both E.O. 192 and Administrative Code of 1987 have set the objectives which will serve as the bases for policy formation, and have defined the powers
and functions of the DENR. Thus, right of the petitioners (and all those they represent) to a balanced and healthful ecology is as clear as DENR's duty to
protect and advance the said right.
A denial or violation of that right by the other who has the correlative duty or obligation to respect or protect or respect the same gives rise to a cause of
action. Petitioners maintain that the granting of the TLA, which they claim was done with grave abuse of discretion, violated their right to a balance and
healthful ecology. Hence, the full protection thereof requires that no further TLAs should be renewed or granted.
After careful examination of the petitioners' complaint, the Court finds it to be adequate enough to show, prima facie, the claimed violation of their rights.

Second Issue: Political Issue.

Second paragraph, Section 1 of Article VIII of the constitution provides for the expanded jurisdiction vested upon the Supreme Court. It allows the Court to
rule upon even on the wisdom of the decision of the Executive and Legislature and to declare their acts as invalid for lack or excess of jurisdiction
because it is tainted with grave abuse of discretion.

Third Issue: Violation of the non-impairment clause.

The Court held that the Timber License Agreement is an instrument by which the state regulates the utilization and disposition of forest resources to the
end that public welfare is promoted. It is not a contract within the purview of the due process clause thus, the non-impairment clause cannot be invoked.
It can be validly withdraw whenever dictated by public interest or public welfare as in this case. The granting of license does not create irrevocable rights,
neither is it property or property rights.
Moreover, the constitutional guaranty of non-impairment of obligations of contract is limit by the exercise by the police power of the State, in the interest
of public health, safety, moral and general welfare. In short, the non-impairment clause must yield to the police power of the State.
The instant petition, being impressed with merit, is hereby GRANTED and the RTC decision is SET ASIDE.
Separate Opinions
FELICIANO, J., concurring
I join in the result reached by my distinguished brother in the Court, Davide, Jr., J., in this case which, to my mind, is one of the most important cases
decided by this Court in the last few years. The seminal principles laid down in this decision are likely to influence profoundly the direction and course of
the protection and management of the environment, which of course embraces the utilization of all the natural resources in the territorial base of our
polity. I have therefore sought to clarify, basically to myself, what the Court appears to be saying.
The Court explicitly states that petitioners have the locus standi necessary to sustain the bringing and, maintenance of this suit (Decision, pp. 11-12).
Locus standi is not a function of petitioners' claim that their suit is properly regarded as a class suit. I understand locus standi to refer to the legal interest
which a plaintiff must have in the subject matter of the suit. Because of the very broadness of the concept of "class" here involved membership in this
"class" appears to embrace everyone living in the country whether now or in the
future it appears to me that everyone who may be expected to benefit from the course of action petitioners seek to require public respondents to take,
is vested with the necessary locus standi. The Court may be seen therefore to be recognizing a beneficiaries' right of action in the field of environmental
protection, as against both the public administrative agency directly concerned and the private persons or entities operating in the field or sector of
activity involved. Whether such beneficiaries' right of action may be found under any and all circumstances, or whether some failure to act, in the first
instance, on the part of the governmental agency concerned must be shown ("prior exhaustion of administrative remedies"), is not discussed in the
decision and presumably is left for future determination in an appropriate case.
The Court has also declared that the complaint has alleged and focused upon "one specific fundamental legal right the right to a balanced and
healthful ecology" (Decision, p. 14). There is no question that "the right to a balanced and healthful ecology" is "fundamental" and that, accordingly, it
has been "constitutionalized." But although it is fundamental in character, I suggest, with very great respect, that it cannot be characterized as "specific,"
without doing excessive violence to language. It is in fact very difficult to fashion language more comprehensive in scope and generalized in character
than a right to "a balanced and healthful ecology." The list of particular claims which can be subsumed under this rubic appears to be entirely openended: prevention and control of emission of toxic fumes and smoke from factories and motor vehicles; of discharge of oil, chemical effluents, garbage
and raw sewage into rivers, inland and coastal waters by vessels, oil rigs, factories, mines and whole communities; of dumping of organic and inorganic
wastes on open land, streets and thoroughfares; failure to rehabilitate land after strip-mining or open-pit mining; kaingin or slash-and-burn farming;
destruction of fisheries, coral reefs and other living sea resources through the use of dynamite or cyanide and other chemicals; contamination of ground

water resources; loss of certain species of fauna and flora; and so on. The other statements pointed out by the Court: Section 3, Executive Order No. 192
dated 10 June 1987; Section 1, Title XIV, Book IV of the 1987 Administrative Code; and P.D. No. 1151, dated 6 June 1977 all appear to be formulations
ofpolicy, as general and abstract as the constitutional statements of basic policy in Article II, Section 16 ("the right to a balanced and healthful
ecology") and 15 ("the right to health").
P.D. No. 1152, also dated 6 June 1977, entitled "The Philippine Environment Code," is, upon the other hand, a compendious collection of more "specific
environment management policies" and "environment quality standards" (fourth "Whereas" clause, Preamble) relating to an extremely wide range of
topics:
(a)
air quality management;
(b)
water quality management;
(c)
land use management;
(d)
natural resources management and conservation embracing:
(i)
fisheries and aquatic resources;
(ii)
wild life;
(iii)
forestry and soil conservation;
(iv)
flood control and natural calamities;
(v)
energy development;
(vi)
conservation and utilization of surface and ground water
(vii) mineral resources
Two (2) points are worth making in this connection. Firstly, neither petitioners nor the Court has identified the particular provision or provisions (if any) of
the Philippine Environment Code which give rise to a specific legal right which petitioners are seeking to enforce. Secondly, the Philippine Environment
Code identifies with notable care the particular government agency charged with the formulation and implementation of guidelines and programs dealing
with each of the headings and sub-headings mentioned above. The Philippine Environment Code does not, in other words, appear to contemplate action
on the part of private persons who are beneficiaries of implementation of that Code.
As a matter of logic, by finding petitioners' cause of action as anchored on a legal right comprised in the constitutional statements above noted, the Court
is in effect saying that Section 15 (and Section 16) of Article II of the Constitution are self-executing and judicially enforceable even in their present form.
The implications of this doctrine will have to be explored in future cases; those implications are too large and far-reaching in nature even to be hinted at
here.
My suggestion is simply that petitioners must, before the trial court, show a more specific legal right a right cast in language of a significantly lower
order of generality than Article II (15) of the Constitution that is or may be violated by the actions, or failures to act, imputed to the public respondent
by petitioners so that the trial court can validly render judgment granting all or part of the relief prayed for. To my mind, the Court should be understood
as simply saying that such a more specific legal right or rights may well exist in our corpus of law, considering the general policy principles found in the
Constitution and the existence of the Philippine Environment Code, and that the trial court should have given petitioners an effective opportunity so to
demonstrate, instead of aborting the proceedings on a motion to dismiss.
It seems to me important that the legal right which is an essential component of a cause of action be a specific, operable legal right, rather than a
constitutional or statutory policy, for at least two (2) reasons. One is that unless the legal right claimed to have been violated or disregarded is given
specification in operational terms, defendants may well be unable to defend themselves intelligently and effectively; in other words, there are due
process dimensions to this matter.

The second is a broader-gauge consideration where a specific violation of law or applicable regulation is not alleged or proved, petitioners can be
expected to fall back on the expanded conception of judicial power in the second paragraph of Section 1 of Article VIII of the Constitution which reads:
Section 1.
...
Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and
to determine whether or not there has been agrave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or
instrumentality of the Government. (Emphasis supplied)
When substantive standards as general as "the right to a balanced and healthy ecology" and "the right to health" are combined with remedial standards
as broad ranging as "a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction," the result will be, it is respectfully submitted, to propel
courts into the uncharted ocean of social and economic policy making. At least in respect of the vast area of environmental protection and management,
our courts have no claim to special technical competence and experience and professional qualification. Where no specific, operable norms and
standards are shown to exist, then the policy making departments the legislative and executive departments must be given a real and effective
opportunity to fashion and promulgate those norms and standards, and to implement them before the courts should intervene.
My learned brother Davide, Jr., J., rightly insists that the timber companies, whose concession agreements or TLA's petitioners demand public respondents
should cancel, must be impleaded in the proceedings below. It might be asked that, if petitioners' entitlement to the relief demanded is not dependent
upon proof of breach by the timber companies of one or more of the specific terms and conditions of their concession agreements (and this, petitioners
implicitly assume), what will those companies litigate about? The answer I suggest is that they may seek to dispute the existence of the specific legal
right petitioners should allege, as well as the reality of the claimed factual nexus between petitioners' specific legal rights and the claimed wrongful acts
or failures to act of public respondent administrative agency. They may also controvert the appropriateness of the remedy or remedies demanded by
petitioners, under all the circumstances which exist.
I vote to grant the Petition for Certiorari because the protection of the environment, including the forest cover of our territory, is of extreme importance
for the country. The doctrines set out in the Court's decision issued today should, however, be subjected to closer examination.

II. The EIS System (Phil. Envi. Impact System)

A. PD 1586
PRESIDENTIAL DECREE No. 1586
ESTABLISHING AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT SYSTEM, INCLUDING OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT RELATED MEASURES AND FOR
OTHER PURPOSES
WHEREAS, the pursuit of a comprehensive and integrated environment protection program necessitates the establishment and institutionalization of a
system whereby the exigencies of socio-economic undertakings can be reconciled with the requirements of environmental quality;
WHEREAS, the regulatory requirements of environmental Impact Statements and Assessments instituted in pursuit of this national environmental
protection program have to be worked into their full regulatory and procedural details in a manner consistent with the goals of the program.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, FERDINAND E. MARCOS, President of the Philippines, by virtue of the powers vested in me by the Constitution do hereby order and
declare:
Section 1. Policy. It is hereby declared the policy of the State to attain and maintain a rational and orderly balance between socio-economic growth and
environmental protection.
Section 2. Environmental Impact Statement System. There is hereby established an Environmental Impact Statement System founded and based on the
environmental impact statement required, under Section 4 of Presidential Decree No. 1151, of all agencies and instrumentalities of the national
government, including government-owned or controlled corporations, as well as private corporations, firms and entities, for every proposed project and
undertaking which significantly affect the quality of the environment.
Section 3. Determination of Lead Agency. The Minister of Human Settlements or his designated representative is hereby authorized to name the lead
agencies referred to in Section 4 of Presidential Decree No. 1151 which shall have jurisdiction to undertake the preparation of the necessary
environmental impact statements on declared environmentally critical projects and areas. All Environmental Impact Statements shall be submitted to the
National Environmental Protection Council for review and evaluation.
Section 4. Presidential Proclamation of Environmentally Critical Areas and Projects. The President of the Philippines may, on his own initiative or upon
recommendation of the National Environmental Protection Council, by proclamation declare certain projects, undertakings or areas in the country as
environmentally critical. 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. For the proper management
of said critical project or area, the President may by his proclamation reorganize such government offices, agencies, institutions, corporations or
instrumentalities including the re-alignment of government personnel, and their specific functions and responsibilities.
For the same purpose as above, the Ministry of Human Settlements shall: (a) prepare the proper land or water use pattern for said critical project(s) or
area (s); (b) establish ambient environmental quality standards; (c) develop a program of environmental enhancement or protective measures against
calamituous factors such as earthquake, floods, water erosion and others, and (d) perform such other functions as may be directed by the President from
time to time.
Section 5. Environmentally Non-Critical Projects. All other projects, undertakings and areas not declared by the President as environmentally critical shall
be considered as non-critical and shall not be required to submit an environmental impact statement. The National Environmental Protection Council, thru
the Ministry of Human Settlements may however require non-critical projects and undertakings to provide additional environmental safeguards as it may
deem necessary.
Section 6. Secretariat. The National Environmental Protection Council is hereby authorized to constitute the necessary secretariat which will administer
the Environmental Impact Statement System and undertake the processing and evaluation of environmental impact statements.
Section 7. Management and Financial Assistance. The Ministry of Human Settlements is hereby authorized to provide management and financial support
to government offices and instrumentalities placed under its supervision pursuant to this Decree financed from its existing appropriation or from
budgetary augmentation as the Minister of Human Settlements may deem necessary.
Section 8. Rules and Regulations. The National Environmental Protection Council shall issue the necessary rules and regulations to implement this Decree.
For this purpose, the National Pollution Control Commission may be availed of as one of its implementing arms, consistent with the powers and
responsibilities of the National Pollution Control Commission as provided in P.D. No. 984.
Section 9. Penalty for Violation. Any person, corporation or partnership found violating Section 4 of this Decree, or the terms and conditions in the
issuance of the Environmental Compliance Certificate, or of the standards, rules and regulations issued by the National Environmental Protection Council

pursuant to this Decree shall be punished by the suspension or cancellation of his/its certificate or and/or a fine in an amount not to exceed Fifty
Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) for every violation thereof, at the discretion of the National Environmental Protection Council.
Section 10. Environmental Revolving Fund. Proceeds from the penalties prescribed in the preceding Section 9 and other penalties imposed by the
National Pollution Control Commission as authorized in P.D. 984, shall be automatically appropriated into an Environment Revolving Fund hereby created
as an exemption to P.D. 711 and P.D. 1234. The fund shall be used exclusively for the operation of the National Environmental Protection Council and the
National Pollution Control Commission in the implementation of this Decree. The rules and regulations for the utilization of this fund shall be formulated
by the Ministry of Human Settlements and submitted to the President for approval.
Section 11. Repealing Clause. The Inter-Agency Advisory Council of the National Pollution Control Commission created under Section 4 of P.D. 984 is
hereby abolished and its powers and responsibilities are forthwith delegated and transferred to the Control of the National Environmental Protection
Council.
All other laws, decrees, executive orders, rules and regulations inconsistent herewith are hereby repealed, amended or modified accordingly.
Section 12. Effectivity Clause. This Decree shall take effect immediately.
DONE in the City of Manila, this 11th day of June, in the year of Our Lord, nineteen hundred and seventy-eight.
B. PD 2146
PROCLAIMING CERTAIN AREAS AND TYPES OF PROJECTS AS ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AND WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
STATEMENT SYSTEM ESTABLISHED UNDER PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 1586.
WHEREAS, it is the national policy to attain and maintain a rational and orderly balance between socio-economic growth and environmental conservation
and protection;
WHEREAS, there is an urgent need to bring about an intensive, integrated program of environmental protection through a requirement of environmental
impact assessments and statements;
WHEREAS, the environmental impact statement system established under Presidential Decree No, 1586 calls for the proper management of
environmentally critical areas;
WHEREAS, the pursuit of a comprehensive and integrated environmental protection program necessitates the establishment and institutionalization of a
system whereby the exigencies of socio-economic undertakings can be reconciled with the requirements of environmental protection and conservation;
WHEREAS, the national leadership mandates the establishment of such a system to regulate and minimize the environmental impacts of projects and
undertakings which may significantly affect the quality of the environment in Presidential Decree No. 1586; and
WHEREAS, in the effective implementation of such a system, there arises the need to identify and declare certain projects determined to be
environmentally critical;
NOW, THEREFORE, I, FERDINAND E. MARCOS, President of the Philippines, by virtue of the powers vested in me by law, hereby proclaim the following
areas and types of projects as environmentally critical and within the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement System;
A. Environmentally Critical Projects
I. Heavy Industries
a. Non-ferrous metal industries
b. Iron and steel mills
c. Petroleum and petro-chemical industries including oil and gas
d. Smelting plants

II. Resource Extractive Industries

a. Major mining and quarrying projects
b. Forestry projects
1. Logging
2. Major wood processing projects
3. Introduction of fauna (exotic-animals) in public/private forests
4. Forest occupancy
5. Extraction of mangrove products
6. Grazing
c. Fishery Projects
1. Dikes for/and fishpond development projects
III. Infrastructure Projects
a. Major dams
b. Major power plants (fossil-fueled, nuclear fueled, hydroelectric or geothermal)
c. Major reclamation projects
d. Major roads and bridges
B. Environmentally Critical Areas
1. All areas declared by law as national parks, watershed reserves, wildlife preserves and sanctuaries;
2. Areas set aside as aesthetic potential tourist spots;
3. Areas which constitute the habitat for any endangered or threatened species of indigenous Philippine Wildlife (flora and fauna);
4. Areas of unique historic, archaeological, or scientific interests;
5. Areas which are traditionally occupied by cultural communities or tribes;
6. Areas frequently visited and/or hard-hit by natural calamities (geologic hazards, floods, typhoons, volcanic activity, etc.);
7. Areas with critical slopes;
8. Areas classified as prime agricultural lands;
9. Recharged areas of aquifers;
10. Water bodies characterized by one or any combination of the following conditions;
a. tapped for domestic purposes
b. within the controlled and/or protected areas declared by appropriate authorities
c. which support wildlife and fishery activities
11. Mangrove areas characterized by one or any combination of the following conditions:
a. with primary pristine and dense young growth;
b. adjoining mouth of major river systems;
c. near or adjacent to traditional productive fry or fishing grounds;
d. which act as natural buffers against shore erosion, strong winds and storm floods;
e. on which people are dependent for their livelihood.
12. Coral reefs characterized by one or any combinations of the following conditions:

a. With 50% and above live coralline cover;

b. Spawning and nursery grounds for fish;
c. which act as natural breakwater of coastlines.
This Proclamation shall take effect immediately.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the Republic of the Philippines to be affixed.
Done in the City of Manila, this 14th day of December, in the year of Our Lord, nineteen hundred and eighty-one.
C. DENR AO 2003-30
Consistent with the

continuing effort of

the Department of Environment and Natural Resources

(DENR) to rationalize and streamline the implementation of the Philippine Environmental

Impact Statement (EIS) System established under Presidential Decree (PD) No. 1586, Presidential
Proclamation No. 2146 defining the scope of the EIS
System and pursuant to Administrative Order No. 42 issued by tile Office of the President on November 2,
2002, the following rules and regulations are hereby promulgated;
ARTICLE I
BASIC POLICY, OPERATING PRINCIPLES, OBJECTIVES AND DEFINITION OF TERMS
Section 1.

Basic

Policy

and

Operating

Principles
Consistent with the principles of sustainable development, it is the policy of the DENR to implement a systems-oriented and integrated approach to the
LIS system to ensure a rational balance between socio-economic development and environmental protection for the benefit of present and future
generations.
The following are the key operating principles in the implementation of the Philippine EIS System:
a. The EIS 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 addressed by

appropriate environmental protection and enhancement measures.

The EIS System aids proponents in incorporating environmental considerations in planning their projects as well as in determining the environment's
impact on their project.
Project proponents are responsible for determining and disclosing all relevant information necessary for a methodical ' assessment of the environmental
impacts of their projects;
The review of the EIS by EMB shall be guided by three general criteria: (1) that environmental considerations are integrated into the overall project
planning, (2) that the assessment is technically sound and proposed environmental mitigation, measures are effective, and (3) that , social acceptability
is based on informed public participation;
Effective regulatory review of the EIS depends largely on timely full; and accurate disclosure of relevant: information by project proponents and, other
stakeholders in the EIA process
The social acceptability of a project is a result of meaningful public participation, which shall be assessed as part of the Environmental Compliance
Certificate (ECC) application, based on concerns related to the project's environmental impacts;
The timelines prescribed by this Order, within which an Environmental - Compliance Certificate must be issued, or denied, apply only to processes and
actions within the Environmental Management
Bureau's (EMB) control and do not include actions or activities that are the responsibility of the proponent.
Section 2. Objective
The objective of this Administrative Order is to rationalize and streamline the EIS System to make it more effective as a project planning and
management tool by:
Making the System more responsive to the demands and needs of the project proponents and the various stakeholders;
Clarifying the, coverage of the System and updating it to take into consideration industrial and technological innovations and trends
Standardizing requirements to ensure focus on critical environment parameters;

Simplifying procedures for processing ECC applications, and establishing measures to ensure adherence to ECC conditions by project proponents, and
Assuring that critical environmental concerns are addressed during project development and implementation
Section 3. Definition of Terms
or the purpose of this Order, the following definitions shall be applied;
Certificate, of Non-Coverage - a certification issued by the EMB certifying that, based on the submitted project description, the project is not covered by
the EIS System and is not required to secure an ECC
Co-located projects / undertakings- projects, or series of similar projects or a project subdivided to several phases and/or stages by the same proponent,
located in contiguous areas.
c Environment - Surrounding air, water (both ground and surface), land, flora, fauna, humans and their interrelations.
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.
Environmentally Critical Area (ECA) - area delineated as environmentally sensitive such that significant environmental impacts are expected if certain
types of proposed projects or programs are located, developed or, implemented in it.
Environmentally Critical Project (ECP) - project or program that has high potential for significant negative environmental impact.
Environmental Guarantee Fund (EGF) - fund to be set up by a project proponent which shall be readily accessible and disbursable for the immediate
clean-up or rehabilitation of areas affected by damages in the environment and the resulting deterioration of environmental quality as a direct
consequence of a project's construction, operation or abandonment. It shall likewise be used to compensate parties and communities affected by the
negative impacts of the project, and to fund community-based environment related projects including, but not limited to, information and education and
emergency preparedness programs.

Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) - process that involves evaluating and predicting 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. The process is undertaken by, among
others, the project proponent and/or EIA
Consultant, EMB, a Review Committee, affected communities and other stakeholders.
re the EIS/IEE and other related documents. In some cases, the person or group referred to may be the proponent's technical staff.
Environmental Impact Assessment Review Committee (EIARC) - a body of independent technical experts and professionals of known probity from various
fields organized by the EMB to evaluate the
EIS and other related documents and to make appropriate recommendations regarding the issuance or non-issuance of an ECC.
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) - 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
Environmental Management Plan/Program (EMP) - section in the EIS that details the prevention, mitigation, compensation, contingency and monitoring
measures to enhance positive impacts and minimize negative impacts and risks of a proposed project or undertaking. For operating projects, the EMP can
also be derived from an EMS,
Environmental Management Systems (EMS) - refers to the EMB PEPP EMS as provided for under
DAO 2003-14, which is a part of the overall management system of a project or organization that includes environmental policy, organizational structure,
planning activities, responsibilities, practices, procedures, processes and resources for developing, implementing, achieving, reviewing and maintaining
an improved overall environmental performance.
Environmental Monitoring Fund (EMF) -fund that a proponent shall set up after an ECC is issued for its project or undertaking, to be used to support the
activities of the multi-partite monitoring team. It shall be immediately accessible and easily disbursable.
Environmental Performance - capability of proponents to mitigate environmental impacts of projects or programs.

Environmental Performance Report and Management Plan (EPRMP) - documentation of the actual cumulative environmental impacts and effectiveness of
current measures for single projects that are already operating but without ECC's, i.e., Category A-3. For Category B-3 projects, a checklist form of the
EPRMP would suffice.
Environmental Risk Assessment (ERA) - assessment, through the use of universally accepted and scientific methods, of risks associated with a project. It
focuses on determining the probability of occurrence of accidents and their magnitude (e.g.
lure, of containment or exposure to hazardous materials or situations.)
EMS-based EMP - environmental management plan based on the environmental management system (EMS) standard as defined in the DAO 2003-14.
Initial Environmental Examination (IEE) Report document similar to an EIS, but with reduced details and depth of assessment and discussion
Initial Environmental Examination (IEE) Checklist
Report - simplified checklist version of an IEE Report, prescribed by the DENR, to be filled up by a proponent to identify and assess a project's
environmental impacts and the mitigation/enhancement measures to address such impacts.
Multipartite Monitoring Team (MMT) - community-based multi-sectoral team organized for the purpose of monitoring the proponent's compliance with ECC
conditions, EMP and applicable laws, rules and regulations.
Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
(PEIS) - documentation of comprehensive studies on environmental baseline conditions of a contiguous area. It also includes an assessment of the
carrying capacity of the area to absorb impacts from co-located projects such as those in industrial estates or economic zones (ecozones),
Programmatic Environmental Performance Report and Management Plan (PEPRMP) - documentation of actual cumulative environmental impacts of
collocated projects with proposals for expansion. The
PEPRMP should also describe the effectiveness of current environmental mitigation measures and plans for performance improvement.
Project Description (PD) - document, which may also be a chapter in an EIS, that describes the nature, configuration, use of raw materials and natural
resources, production system, waste or pollution generation and control and the activities of a proposed project. It includes a description of the use of
human resources as well as activity timelines, during the pre-construction, construction, operation and abandonment phases. It is to be used for
reviewing co-located and single projects under Category C, as well as for Category D projects.

Y. Project or Undertaking - any activity, regardless of scale or magnitude, which may have significant impact on the environment.
z. Proponent - any natural or juridical person intending to implement a project or undertaking.
aa. Public Participation - open, transparent, gender-sensitive, and community based process aimed at ensuring the social acceptability of a project or
undertaking, involving the broadest range of stakeholders, commencing at the earliest possible stage, of project design and development and continuing
until post-assessment monitoring.
Procedural Review - phase in the ECC application review process to check for the completeness the required documents, conducted by EIAM Division at
the EMB Central Office or Regional Office.
ves chemical, mechanical or other processes.
Scoping - the stage in the EIS System where information and project impact assessment requirements are established to provide the proponent and the
stakeholders the scope of work and terms of reference for the EIS.
Secretary - the Secretary of the DENR.
Social Acceptability - acceptability of a project by affected communities based on timely and informed participation in the EIA process particularly with
regard to environmental impacts that are of concern to them.
Stakeholders - entities who may be directly and significantly affected by the project or undertaking.
Substantive Review - the phase in the EIA process whereby the document submitted is subjected to technical evaluation by the EIARC.
Technology - all the knowledge, products, processes, tools, methods and systems employed in the creation of goods or providing services.
***ADDITIONAL READINGS
1. RP v CITY OF DAVAO
Alvarez filed an application for a Certificate of Non-Coverage for its proposed project, the Davao Artica Sports Dome, with the
Environmental Management Bureau (EMB), Region 11. The EMB Region 11 denied the application on ground that the proposed project was within an
environmentally critical area, and ruled that under the
Environmental Impact Statement System, the City of Davao must undergo the environmental impact assessment (EIA) process to secure an
Environmental
Compliance Certificate (ECC), before it can proceed with the construction of its project

Believing that it was entitled to a Certificate of Non-Coverage, respondent filed a petition for mandamus with the RTC of Davao alleging that the proposed
project was neither an environmentally critical project nor within an environmentally critical area, thus it was outside the scope of the EIS system.
The RTC granted the writ of mandamus and directed EMB to issue a Certificate of NonCoverage. It ruled that there is nothing in the EIA System guidelines which requires
LGUs to comply with the EIS law, as only agencies and instrumentalities are mandated to go through the EIA process for their proposed projects which
have significant effect on the quality of the environment. A local government unit, not being an agency or instrumentality of the National Government, is
deemed excluded
Issue: Whether LGUs are covered by the EIA System? Decision:
The Local Government Code provides that it is the duty of the LGUs to promote the peoples right to a balanced ecology. Pursuant to this, an LGU, like the
City of Davao, cannot claim exemption from the coverage of PD 1586. As a body politic endowed with governmental functions, an LGU has the duty to
ensure the quality of the environment, which is the very same objective of PD 1586.
Further, it is a rule of statutory construction that every part must be read with other parts, thus, the
TC in declaring local government units as exempt from the coverage of the EIS law, failed to relate
Section 2 of PD 1586 to the several provision of the same law.
Section 4 of PD 1586 clearly states that no person, partnership or corporation shall undertake or operate
hout first securing an Environmental
Compliance Certificate issued by the President or his duly authorized representative. Undoubtedly therefore, local government units are not excluded
from the coverage of PD 1586. Sec. 1 stated that the policy of the State is to attain an orderly balance between socio- economic growth and
environmental protection. The Whereas clause stresses that such is only possible if we adopt an integrated environmental protection program where all
the sectors of the community are involved, i.e. , the government and the private sectors. The local government units, as part of the machinery of the
government, cannot therefore be deemed as outside the scope of the EIS system

This however presuppose that a project, for which an

Environmental Compliance Certificate is necessary, is environmentally critical or within an environmentally critical area. In the case at bar, respondent
has sufficiently shown that the Artica Sports Dome will not have a significant negative environmental impact because it is not an environmentally critical
project and it is not located in an environmentally critical area. They submitted Certification from the City

Planning

and

Development

Office, PHILVOLCS,

CENRO-West in support thereof.

The Environmental Impact Statement System, which ensures environmental protection and regulates certain government activities affecting the
environment, was established by Presidential Decree
No. 1586. Under Article II, Section 1, of the Rules and Regulations Implementing PD 1586, the declaration of certain projects or areas as environmentally
critical, and which shall fall within the scope of the
Environmental Impact Statement System, shall be by
Presidential Proclamation.
Pursuant thereto, Proclamation No. 2146 was issued proclaiming the following areas and types of projects as environmentally critical and within the scope
of the Environmental Impact Statement
System established under PD 1586:
Environmentally Critical Projects
Heavy Industries
Non-ferrousmetal
industries
Iron and steel mills
Petroleum and petro-chemical industries including
oil and gas
Smelting plants

Resource Extractive Industries

Major mining and quarrying projects
Forestry projects
Logging
Major wood processing projects
Introduction of fauna (exotic-animals) in
public/private forests 4. Forest occupancy
5.

Extraction of mangrove products

6. Grazing c. Fishery Projects

1. Dikes for/and fishpond development projects
Infrastructure Projects
Major dams
Major power plants (fossil-fueled, nuclear fueled,
hydroelectric or geothermal)
Major reclamation projects
Major roads and bridges
B.

Environmentally Critical Areas

1. All areas declared by law as national parks, watershed reserves, wildlife preserves and sanctuaries;

2. Areas set aside as aesthetic potential tourist spots;

3. Areas which constitute the habitat for any endangered or threatened species of indigenous Philippine
4.

Areas

Wildlife (flora and fauna);

of

unique

historic,

archaeological, or scientific interests;

5.

Areas

which

are

traditionally

occupied by cultural communities or

tribes;
6.

frequently visited

and/or

Areas

hard-hit by natural calamities (geologic

hazards, floods, typhoons,

volcanic

activity, etc.);
7.

Areas with critical slopes;

8.

Areas

classified

prime
as

agricultural lands;
9.

Recharged areas of aquifers;

10.

Water bodies characterized by one or any

combination of the following conditions;

a.

tapped for domestic purposes

b.

c.

within

the

protecte
d

areas

controlled and/or
declared

appropriate authorities
which

support

by
and

wildlife

fishery activities
11.

Mangrove areas characterized by one or any

combination of the following conditions:

a.

with primary pristine and dense

young growth;
b.

adjoining mouth of major river

systems;
c.

near or adjacent to traditional

productive fry or fishing grounds;

d.

which act as natural buffers

against shore erosion, strong winds and

storm floods;
e.

on which people are dependent

for their livelihood.

12. Coral reefs, characterized by one or any combinations of the following conditions:

a. with 50% and above live coralline cover;

b. spawning and nursery grounds for fish;
c. which act as natural breakwater of coastlines.
Environmentally Non- Critical Projects. All other projects, undertakings and areas not declared by the
President as environmentally critical shall be considered as non-critical and shall not be required to submit an environmental impact statement. The
National Environmental Protection Council, thru the Ministry of Human Settlements may however require non-critical projects and undertakings to provide
additional environmental safeguards as it may deem necessary.
The Artica Sports Dome in Langub does not come close to any of the projects or areas enumerated above. Neither is it analogous to any of them. It is
clear, therefore, that the said project is not classified as environmentally critical, or within an environmentally critical area. Consequently, the
DENR has no choice but to issue the Certificate of
Non-Coverage. It becomes its ministerial duty, the performance of which can be compelled by writ of mandamus, such as that issued by the trial court in
the case at bar.
****CASES
1. SPECIAL PEOPLE, INC. FOUNDATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, ROBERTO P. CERICOS, Petitioner,
vs.
NESTOR M. CANDA
FACTS:
The petitioner was a proponent of a water-resource development and utilization project in Bohol that would involve the tapping and purifying of water
from the Loboc River, and the distribution of the purified water to the residents of Loboc and six other municipalities.
The petitioner applied for a Certificate of Non-Coverage (CNC) with the Environmental Management Bureau (EMB) of the Department of Environment and
Natural Resources (DENR), Region 7, seeking to be exempt from the requirement of the Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC) under Section 4 of
Presidential Decree No. 1586 on the following justifications, to wit:
1) The whole project simply involves tapping of water from the Loboc River, filtering and purifying it, and distributing the same to the consumers in the
covered towns;
2) From the source to the filtration plant, then to the purifier stations, then finally to the consumers households, water flows through steel pipes;

3) The filtration and purifying process employs the latest technology"electrocatalytic"internationally accepted for safety and environment
friendliness;
4) No waste is generated, as the electrocatalytic process dissolves all impurities in the water;
5) The project involves no destruction [n]or harm to the environment. On the other hand, it is environment friendly. 1
Upon evaluating, respondent(Chief of EMB) replied on a letter:
1) The project is located within a critical area; hence, Initial Environmental Examination is required.
2) The project is socially and politically sensitive therefore proof of social acceptability should be established. Proper indorsement from the Protected Area
Management Bureau or PAMB should be secured.
On January 11, 2002, the petitioner appealed Candas findings to respondent EMB Region 7
April 3, 2002, RD Lipayon notified the petitioner that its documents substantially complied with the procedural aspects of the EMBs review, and that the
application was assigned EMB-DENR-7 Control No. CNC-02-080 for easy reference in case of follow-up and submission of additional requirements. 4
Later on, RD Lipayon informed the petitioner that an Initial Environmental Examination document was required for the project due to its significant impact
in the area.5
On August 26, 2002, RD Lipayon required the petitioner to submit the following documents to enable the EMB to determine whether the project was
within an environmentally critical area or not
On January 28, 2003, the petitioner submitted eight certifications, 7 including the certification issued by the Philippine Institute of Volcanology and
Seismology (PHIVOLCS):
That the project area, Loboc, Bohol was subjected to an earthquake of Intensity VII
The petitioner failed to secure a certification from the Regional Office of the Mines and Geosciences Bureau (RO-MGB) to the effect that
the project area was not located along a fault line/fault zone or a critical slope
Upon the MGBs advice, the petitioner sought and obtained the required certification from PHIVOLCS, but the certification did not state whether the
project area was within a critical slope. Instead, the certification stated that the project site was approximately 18 kilometers west of the East Bohol
Fault.1
Given the tenor of the certification from PHIVOLCS, RD Lipayons letter dated February 4, 2003 declared that the project was within an environmentally
critical area, and that the petitioner was not entitled to the CNC
ISSUE:
WHETHER OR NOT, AFTER PETITIONERS DUE COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS MANDATED BY RESPONDENTS FOR THE ISSUANCE OF THE
CERTIFICATE OF NON-COVERAGE (CNC) APPLIED FOR BY PETITIONER, IT IS NOW THE RIPENED DUTY OF RESPONDENTS, THROUGH RESPONDENT EMB
REGIONAL DIRECTOR, TO ISSUE SAID DOCUMENT IN FAVOR OF PETITIONER;

HELD:
The foregoing considerations indicate that the grant or denial of an application for ECC/CNC is not an act that is purely ministerial in nature, but one that
involves the exercise of judgment and discretion by the EMB Director or Regional Director, who must determine whether the project or project area is
classified as critical to the environment based on the documents to be submitted by the applicant. (Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1586 pursuant to
Section 4 of P.D. No. 1151 (Philippine Environmental Policy) that required all entities to submit an EIS for projects that would have a significant effect on
the environment,
Firstly, RD Lipayon had not yet fully exercised his discretion with regard to the CNC application when he made his finding. It is clear that his finding
referred to the "procedural requirements for review" only. He had still to decide on the substantive aspect of the application, that is, whether the project
and the project area were considered critical to the environment. In fact, this was the reason why RD Lipayon required the petitioner to submit
certifications from the various government agencies concerned. Surely, the required certifications were not mere formalities, because they would serve
as the bases for his decision on whether to grant or deny the application.
Secondly, there is no sufficient showing that the petitioner satisfactorily complied with the requirement to submit the needed certifications. For one, it
submitted no certification to the effect that the project site was not within a critical slope. Also, the PHIVOLCSs certification showed that the project site
had experienced an Intensity VII earthquake in 1990, a fact that sufficed to place the site in the category of "areas frequently visited and/or hard-hit by
natural calamities." Clearly, the petitioner failed to establish that it had the legal right to be issued the CNC applied for, warranting the denial of its
application.

2. BORACAY FOUNDATION, INC., Petitioner, v. THE PROVINCE OF AKLAN,

FACTS:
Boracay Island (Boracay), a tropical paradise located in the Western Visayas region of the Philippines and one of the countrys most popular tourist
destinations, was declared a tourist zone and marine reserve in 1973 under Presidential Proclamation No. 1801. The island comprises the barangays of
Manoc-manoc, Balabag, and Yapak, all within the municipality of Malay, in the province of Aklan.
More than a decade ago, respondent Province built the Caticlan Jetty Port and Passenger Terminal at Barangay Caticlan to be the main gateway to
Boracay.It also built the corresponding Cagban Jetty Port and Passenger Terminal to be the receiving end for tourists in Boracay. Respondent Province
operates both ports to provide structural facilities suited for locals, tourists and guests and to provide safety and security measures.

Governor Marquez sent a letter to respondent PRA on March 12, 2009 expressing the interest of respondent Province to reclaim about 2.64 hectares of
land along the foreshores of Barangay Caticlan, Municipality of Malay, Province of Aklan, pursuant to Resolution No. 13, s. 2008 issued by the
Sangguniang Barangay of Caticlan.
Sometime in April 2009, respondent Province entered into an agreement with the Financial Advisor/Consultant that won in the bidding process held a
month before, to conduct the necessary feasibility study of the proposed project for the Renovation/Rehabilitation of the Caticlan Passenger Terminal
Building and Jetty Port, Enhancement and Recovery of Old Caticlan Coastline, and Reclamation of a Portion of Foreshore for Commercial Purposes (the
Marina Project), in Malay, Aklan.
Subsequently, on May 7, 2009, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of respondent Province issued Resolution No. 2009110, which authorized Governor
Marquez to file an application to reclaim the 2.64 hectares of foreshore area in Caticlan, Malay, Aklan with respondent PRA.
Meanwhile, the Sangguniang Bayan of the Municipality of Malay expressed its strong opposition to the intended foreshore lease application, through
Resolution No. 044, approved on July 22, 2009, manifesting therein that respondent Provinces foreshore lease application was for business enterprise
purposes for its benefit, at the expense of the local government of Malay, which by statutory provisions was the rightful entity to develop, utilize and reap
benefits from the natural resources found within its jurisdiction.
In August 2009, a Preliminary Geohazard Assessmentfor the enhancement/expansion of the existing Caticlan Jetty Port and Passenger Terminal through
beach zone restoration and Protective Marina Developments in Caticlan, Malay, Aklan was completed.
Thereafter, Governor Marquez submitted an Environmental Performance Report and Monitoring Program (EPRMP) to DENR-EMB RVI, which he had
attached to his letter dated September 19, 2009, as an initial step for securing an Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC). The letter reads in part:
With the project expected to start its construction implementation next month, the province hereby assures your good office that it will give preferential
attention to and shall comply with whatever comments that you may have on this EPRMP.
Within the same month of October 2009, respondent Province deliberated on the possible expansion from its original proposed reclamation area of 2.64
hectares to forty (40) hectares.
Respondent PRA approved the reclamation project on April 20, 2010 in its Resolution No. 4094and authorized its General Manager/Chief Executive Officer
(CEO) to enter into a MOA with respondent Province for the implementation of the reclamation project.
On April 27, 2010, DENR-EMB RVI issued to respondent Province ECC-R6-1003-096-7100 (the questioned ECC) for Phase 1 of the Reclamation Project to
the extent of 2.64 hectares to be done along the Caticlan side beside the existing jetty port.

On May 17, 2010, respondent Province entered into a MOA with respondent PRA.
In Resolution No. 046, Series of 2010, adopted on June 23, 2010, the Malay Municipality reiterated its strong opposition to respondent Provinces project
and denied its request for afavorableendorsement of the Marina Project.
The Malay Municipality subsequently issued Resolution No. 016, Series of 2010, adopted on August 3, 2010, to request respondent PRA not to grant
reclamation permit and notice to proceed to the Marina Project of the respondent Provincial Government of Aklan located at Caticlan, Malay, Aklan.
In a letter dated October 12, 2010, petitioner informed respondent PRA of its opposition to the reclamation project.
Petitioner likewise transmitted its Resolution No. 001, Series of 2010, registering its opposition to the reclamation project to respondent Province,
respondent PRA, respondent DENR-EMB, the National Economic Development Authority Region VI, the Malay Municipality, and other concerned entities.
Petitioner alleges that despite the Malay Municipalitys denial of respondent Provinces request for afavorableendorsement, as well as the strong opposition
manifested both by Barangay Caticlan and petitioner as an NGO, respondent Province still continued with the implementation of the Reclamation Project.
On June 1, 2011, petitioner filed the instant Petition for Environmental Protection Order/Issuance of the Writ of Continuing Mandamus. On June 7, 2011,
this Court issued a Temporary Environmental Protection Order (TEPO) and ordered the respondents to file their respective comments to the petition.
After receiving a copy of the TEPO on June 9, 2011, respondent Province immediately issued an order to the Provincial Engineering Office and the
concerned contractor to cease and desist from conducting any construction activities until further orders from this Court.
HELD:
The Local Government Code establishes the duties of national government agencies in the maintenance of ecological balance, and requires them to
secure prior public consultation and approval of local government units for the projects described therein.
In the case before us, the national agency involved is respondent PRA. Even if the project proponent is the local government of Aklan, it is respondent PRA
which authorized the reclamation, being the exclusive agency of the government to undertake reclamation nationwide. Hence, it was necessary for
respondent Province to go through respondent PRA and to execute a MOA, wherein respondent PRAs authority to reclaim was delegated to respondent
Province. Respondent DENR-EMB RVI, regional office of the DENR, is also a national government institution which is tasked with the issuance of the ECC
that is a prerequisite to projects covered by environmental laws such as the one at bar.
This project can be classified as a national project that affects the environmental and ecological balance of local communities, and is covered by the
requirements found in the Local Government Code provisions.

Under the Local Government Code, therefore, two requisites must be met before a national project that affects the environmental and ecological balance
of local communities can be implemented: prior consultationwith the affected local communities, and prior approval of the project by the appropriate
sanggunian. Absent either of these mandatory requirements, the projects implementation is illegal.
Based on the above, therefore, prior consultations and prior approval are required by law to have been conducted and secured by the respondent
Province. Accordingly, the information dissemination conducted months after the ECC had already been issued was insufficient to comply with this
requirement under the Local Government Code. Had they been conducted properly, the prior public consultation should have considered the ecological or
environmental concerns of the stakeholders and studied measures alternative to the project, to avoid or minimize adverse environmental impact or
damage. In fact, respondent Province once tried to obtain the favorable endorsement of the Sangguniang Bayan of Malay, but this was denied by the
latter.
Moreover, DENR DAO 2003-30 provides:
5.3. ublic 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 reportshall be validated by the EMB/EMB RD and shall constitute part of the records of the
EIA process.
In essence, the above-quoted rule shows that in cases requiring public consultations, the same should be initiated early so that concerns of stakeholders
could be taken into consideration in the EIA study. In this case, respondent Province had already filed its ECC application before it met with the local
government units of Malay and Caticlan.
The lack of prior public consultation and approval is not corrected by the subsequent endorsement of the reclamation project by the Sangguniang
Barangay of Caticlan on February 13, 2012, and the Sangguniang Bayan of the Municipality of Malay onFebruary 28, 2012, which were both undoubtedly
achieved at the urging and insistence of respondent Province. As we have established above, the respective resolutions issued by the LGUs concerned did
not render this petition moot and academic.
It is clear that both petitioner and respondent Province are interested in the promotion of tourism in Boracay and the protection of the environment, lest
they kill the proverbial hen that lays the golden egg. At the beginning of this decision, we mentioned that there are common goals of national significance
that are very apparent from both the petitioners and the respondents respective pleadings and memoranda.

As shown by the above provisions of our laws and rules, the speedy and smooth resolution of these issues would benefit all the parties. Thus, respondent
Provinces cooperation with respondent DENR-EMB RVI in the Court-mandated review of the proper classification and environmental impact of the
reclamation project is of utmost importance.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is hereby PARTIALLY GRANTED. The TEPO issued by this Court is hereby converted into a writ of continuing
mandamus specifically as follows:
1. Respondent Department of Environment and Natural Resources-Environmental Management Bureau Regional Office VI shall revisit and review the
following matters:
a. its classification of the reclamation project as a single instead of a co-located project;
b. its approval of respondent Provinces classification of the project as a mere expansion of the existing jetty port in Caticlan, instead of classifying it as a
new project; and
c. the impact of the reclamation project to the environment based on new, updated, and comprehensive studies, which should forthwith be ordered by
respondent DENR-EMB RVI.
2. Respondent Province of Aklan shall perform the following:
a. fully cooperate with respondent DENR-EMB RVI in its review of the reclamation project proposal and submit to the latter the appropriate report and
study; and
b. secure approvals from local government units and hold proper consultations with non-governmental organizations and other stakeholders and sectors
concerned as required by Section 27 in relation to Section 26 of the Local Government Code.
Respondent Philippine Reclamation Authority shall closely monitor the submission by respondent Province of the requirements to be issued by respondent
DENR-EMB RVI in connection to the environmental concerns raised by petitioner, and shall coordinate with respondent Province in modifying the MOA, if
necessary, based on the findings of respondent DENR-EMB RVI.
The petitioner Boracay Foundation, Inc. and the respondents The Province of Aklan, represented by Governor Carlito S. Marquez, The Philippine
Reclamation Authority, and The DENR-EMB (Region VI) are mandated to submit their respective reports to this Court regarding their compliance with the
requirements set forth in this Decision no later than three (3) months from the date of promulgation of this Decision.
In the meantime, the respondents, their concerned contractor/s, and/or their agents, representatives or persons acting in their place or stead, shall
immediately cease and desist from continuing the implementation of the project covered by ECC-R6-1003-096-7100 until further orders from this Court.
For this purpose, the respondents shall report within five (5) days to this Court the status of the project as of their receipt of this Decision, copy furnished
the petitioner.

III.
1. PD1151
PHILIPPINE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY
WHEREAS, the individual and, at times, conflicting, demands of population growth, urbanization, industrial expansion, rapid natural resources utilization
and increasing technological advances have resulted in a piecemeal-approach concept of environmental protection;
WHEREAS, such tunnel-vision concept is not conducive to the attainment of an ideal environmental situation where man and nature can thrive in
harmony with one another; and
WHEREAS, there is now an urgent need to formulate an intensive, integrated program of environmental protection that will bring about a concerted effort
towards the protection of the entire spectrum of the environment through a requirement of environmental impact assessments and statements:
NOW, THEREFORE, I, FERDINAND E. MARCOS, President of the Philippines, by virtue of the powers vested in me by the Constitution, do hereby order and
decree:
Section 1. Policy. It is hereby declared a continuing policy of the State (a) to create, develop, maintain and improve conditions under which man and
nature can thrive in productive and enjoyable harmony with each other, (b) to fulfill the social, economic and other requirements of present and future
generations of Filipinos, and (c) to insure the attainment of an environmental quality that is conducive to a life of dignity and well-being.
Section 2. Goal. In pursuing this policy, it shall be the responsibility of the Government, in cooperation with concerned private organizations and entities,
to use all practicable means, consistent with other essential considerations of national policy, in promoting the general welfare to the end that the Nation
may (a) recognize, discharge and fulfill the responsibilities of each generation as trustee and guardian of the environment for succeeding generations, (b)
assure the people of a safe, decent, healthful, productive and aesthetic environment, (c) encourage the widest exploitation of the environment without
degrading it, or endangering human life, health and safety or creating conditions adverse to agriculture, commerce and industry, (d) preserve important
historic and cultural aspects of the Philippine heritage, (e) attain a rational and orderly balance between population and resource use, and (f) improve the
utilization of renewable and non-renewable resources.
Section 3. Right to a Healthy Environment. In furtherance of these goals and policies, the Government recognizes the right of the people to a healthful
environment. It shall be the duty and responsibility of each individual to contribute to the preservation and enhancement of the Philippine environment.
Section 4. Environmental Impact Statements. Pursuant to the above enunciated policies and goals, all agencies and instrumentalities of the national
government, including government-owned or controlled corporations, as well as private corporations firms and entities shall prepare, file and include in
every action, project or undertaking which significantly affects the quality of the environment a detail statement on
(a) the environmental impact of the proposed action, project or undertaking
(b) any adverse environmental effect which cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemented;
(c) alternative to the proposed action;
(d) a determination that the short-term uses of the resources of the environment are consistent with the maintenance and enhancement of the long-term
productivity of the same; and
(e) whenever a proposal involve the use of depletable or non-renewable resources, a finding must be made that such use and commitment are
warranted.
Before an environmental impact statement is issued by a lead agency, all agencies having jurisdiction over, or special expertise on, the subject matter
involved shall comment on the draft environmental impact statement made by the lead agency within thirty (30) days from receipt of the same.

Section 5. Agency Guidelines. The different agencies charged with environmental protection as enumerated in Letter of Instruction No. 422 shall, within
sixty (60) days from the effectivity of this Decree, submit to the National Environmental Protection Council (NEPC), their respective guidelines, rules and
regulations to carry out the provisions of Sec. 4 hereof on environmental impact assessments and statements.
Section 6. Repealing Clause. All Acts, Presidential Decrees, executive orders, rules and regulations or parts thereof which are inconsistent with the
provisions of this Decree are hereby repealed, amended or modified accordingly.
Section 7. Effectivity. This Decree shall take effect immediately.
Done in the City of Manila this 6th day of June in the year of Our Lord, nineteen hundred and seventy-nine.
2. EO 291
IMPROVING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT SYSTEM
WHEREAS, the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) System was established to facilitate the attainment and maintenance of a rational and orderly
balance between socio-economic growth and environmental protection;
WHEREAS, the integration of the EIS System early into the project development cycle would enhance and promote its desired function as a planning tool
for sustainable economic development and environmental planning and conservation;
WHEREAS, it is necessary to further strengthen the Environmental Management Bureau's and the DENR Regional Office's capabilities to effectively and
efficiently accomplish their mandate in relation to the protection of the environment, in general, and the EIS System, in particular;
WHEREAS, the continued updating and improvement of the Philippine EIS System is vital to expedite the National Government's efforts to make the
delivery of vital infrastructure to the country faster and be consistent with the principles of sustainable development;
WHEREAS, a systematic and cohesive EIS System shall ensure that national development goals are achieved as planned and without delay;
NOW, THEREFORE, I, FIDEL V. RAMOS, President of the Philippines, by virtue of the powers vested in my by law, do hereby order:
SECTION 1.
Declaration of Policy. It is the policy of the State that optimum economic development shall be achieved without delay and shall be
pursued consistent with the principles of sustainable development. Hence, the State shall ensure that the present generation meets its needs without
compromising the ability of the future generations to meet their own needs.
SEC. 2. Simultaneous Conduct of the Environmental Impact Study and Feasibility Study. To maximize the use of resources, project proponents are hereby
directed to simultaneously conduct the environmental impact study and the feasibility study of the proposed project. Proponents are urged to use
simultaneous conduct of the environmental impact study and the feasibility study as a planning tool, with the end in view of minimizing or managing
adverse environmental impacts of the proposed activity. lawphi1.net
SEC. 3. Establishment of In-house Environmental Units in All Implementing Agencies.
Consistent with Section 4 (Environmental Impact Statements) of PD 1151 and upon approval of the Department of Budget and Management, National
Government agencies, government-owned and -controlled corporations (GOCCs) and government financial institutions (GFIs) are encouraged to create
their respective environmental units (EUs). However, all agencies, whose mandate includes the introduction of physical plants and infrastructure, are
required to create their respective EUs. The costs attendant to the establishment of these units shall be within the respective approved budgetary ceilings
of the concerned agencies, corporations, and institutions.
The functions of the above-mentioned units are as follows:
i.
The EUs of national government agencies and GOCCs shall assist in the preparation of EIS, ensure that their respective agencies/GOCCs meet the
procedural requirements of the EIS System, facilitate the securing of the ECCs of their respective projects and, upon securing the ECC, shall ensure the
project's compliance with the conditions of the ECC.

ii.
The EUs of the GFIs shall ensure that loan or related funding applications of government and private institutions have complied with the EIS
System.
The Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) and the Environmental Management Bureau (EMB) shall monitor compliance with the
ECC, and be in-charge of the formulation, dissemination and enforcement of policies on environmental standards and compliance monitoring.
SEC. 4. Continuous Strengthening of the Environmental Impact Assessment Capability of the DENR.
The importance of environmental impact assessment in pursuing balanced economic growth will have to be supported by continuing efforts to further
upgrade DENR-EMB's and DENR Regional Office's capabilities to undertake fast and efficient review of EIS. These efforts shall include but are not limited
to the expansion of the EIA Review Committee members and setting their honoraria within the limits and qualifications set forth by DBM National
Compensation Circulars.
SEC. 5. Repealing Clause. All orders, issuances, circulars, rules and regulations or portions thereof inconsistent with the provisions of this Executive Order
are hereby repealed or amended.
SEC. 6. Effectivity. This Order shall take effect immediately. lawphi1.net
DONE in the City of Manila, this 12th day of January in the year of Our Lord, Nineteen Hundred and Ninety-Six.
3. BANGUS FRY V LANZANAS
FACTS:
On 30 June 1997, Regional Executive Director Antonio G. Principe (RED Principe) of Region IV, Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR),
issued an Environmental Clearance Certificate (ECC) in favor of respondent National Power Corporation (NAPOCOR). The ECC authorized NAPOCOR to
construct a temporary mooring facility in Minolo Cove, Sitio Minolo, Barangay San Isidro, Puerto Galera, Oriental Mindoro. The Sangguniang Bayan of
Puerto Galera has declared Minolo Cove, a mangrove area and breeding ground for bangus fry, an eco-tourist zone. [3]
The mooring facility would serve as the temporary docking site of NAPOCORs power barge, which, due to turbulent waters at its former mooring site in
Calapan, Oriental Mindoro, required relocation to a safer site like Minolo Cove. The 14.4 megawatts power barge would provide the main source of power
for the entire province of Oriental Mindoro pending the construction of a land-based power plant in Calapan, Oriental Mindoro. The ECC for the mooring
facility was valid for two years counted from its date of issuance or until 30 June 1999. [4]
Petitioners, claiming to be fisherfolks from Minolo, San Isidro, Puerto Galera, [5] sought reconsideration of the ECC issuance. RED Principe, however, denied
petitioners plea on 15 July 1997.On 21 July 1997, petitioners filed a complaint with the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 7, for the cancellation of the
ECC and for the issuance of a writ of injunction to stop the construction of the mooring facility. Impleaded as defendants were the following: (1)
NAPOCOR, (2) RED Principe, (3) DENR Region IV Technical Director for Environment Oscar Dominguez, (4) Oriental Mindoro Electric Cooperative
(ORMECO), which is engaged in the distribution of electricity in Oriental Mindoro, and (5) certain officials of Puerto Galera. [6] Petitioners subsequently
amended their complaint to include as additional defendants the elective officials of Oriental Mindoro represented by then Governor Rodolfo G. Valencia.
Petitioners further prayed for the demolition of mooring structures that respondents had already built.
On 28 July 1997, prior to the filing of the amended complaint, the trial court issued a 20-day temporary restraining order enjoining the construction of the
mooring facility. However, the trial court lifted the same on 6 August 1997 on NAPOCORs manifestation that the provincial government of Oriental
Mindoro was the one undertaking the construction of the mooring facility. [7]
On 28 August 1997, before filing their answers, respondents ORMECO and the provincial officials of Oriental Mindoro moved to dismiss the complaint.
These respondents claimed that petitioners failed to exhaust administrative remedies, rendering the complaint without cause of action. They also

asserted that the Manila RTC has no jurisdiction to enjoin the construction of the mooring facility in Oriental Mindoro, which lies outside the Manila RTCs
territorial jurisdiction.
Petitioners opposed the motion on the ground that there was no need to exhaust administrative remedies. They argued that the issuance of the ECC was
in patent violation of Presidential Decree No. 1605, [8] Sections 26 and 27 of Republic Act No. 7160, [9] and the provisions of DENR Department
Administrative Order No. 96-37 (DAO 96-37) on the documentation of ECC applications. Petitioners also claimed that the implementation of the ECC was
in patent violation of its terms.
In its order of 7 November 1997, the trial court granted the motion and dismissed petitioners complaint.
Hence, this petition.
The issue is whether the trial court erred in dismissing petitioners complaint for lack of cause of action and lack of jurisdiction.

HELD:
The settled rule is before a party may seek the intervention of the courts, he should first avail of all the means afforded by administrative processes.
Hence, if a remedy within the administrative machinery is still available, with a procedure prescribed pursuant to law for an administrative officer to
decide the controversy, a party should first exhaust such remedy before resorting to the courts. The premature invocation of a courts intervention
renders the complaint without cause of action and dismissible on such ground. [16]
RED Principe of the DENR Region IV Office issued the ECC based on (1) Presidential Decree No. 1586 (PD No. 1586) and its implementing rules
establishing the Environmental Impact Statement System, (2) DAO 96-37 [17] and (3) the Procedural Manual of DAO 96-37. Section 4 [18] of PD No. 1586
requires a proponent of an environmentally critical project, or a project located within an environmentally critical area as declared by the President, to
secure an ECC prior to the projects operation. [19] NAPOCOR thus secured the ECC because the mooring facility in Minolo Cove, while not an
environmentally critical project, is located within an environmentally critical area under Presidential Proclamation No. 2146, issued on 14 December 1981.
[20]

The rules on administrative appeals from rulings of the DENR Regional Directors on the implementation of PD No. 1586 are found in Article VI of DAO 9637, which provides:
SECTION 1.0. Appeal to the Office of the Secretary. Any party aggrieved by the final decision of the RED may, within 15 days from receipt of such
decision, file an appeal with the Office of the Secretary. The decision of the Secretary shall be immediately executory.
SECTION 2.0. Grounds for Appeal. The grounds for appeal shall be limited to grave abuse of discretion and serious errors in the findings of fact which
would cause grave or irreparable injury to the aggrieved party.Frivolous appeals shall not be countenanced.
SECTION 3.0. Who May Appeal. The proponent or any stakeholder, including but not limited to, the LGUs concerned and affected communities, may file
an appeal.
The DENR Procedural Manual for DAO 96-37 explains these provisions thus:
Final decisions of the RED may be appealed. These decisions include those relating to the issuance or non-issuance of an ECC, and the imposition of fines
and penalties. By inference, the decision of the Secretary on the issuance or non-issuance of the ECC may also be appealed based on this provision.

Resort to courts prior to availing of this remedy would make the appellants action dismissible on the ground of non-exhaustion of administrative
remedies.
The right to appeal must be exercised within 15 days from receipt by the aggrieved party of such decision. Failure to file such appeal within the requisite
period will result in the finality of the REDs or Secretarys decision(s), which can no longer be disturbed.
An appeal shall not stay the effectivity of the REDs decision, unless the Secretary directs otherwise.
The right to appeal does not prevent the aggrieved party from first resorting to the filing of a motion for reconsideration with the RED, to give the RED an
opportunity to re-evaluate his decision. (Emphasis added)
Instead of following the foregoing procedure, petitioners bypassed the DENR Secretary and immediately filed their complaint with the Manila RTC,
depriving the DENR Secretary the opportunity to review the decision of his subordinate, RED Principe. Under the Procedural Manual for DAO 96-37 and
applicable jurisprudence, petitioners omission renders their complaint dismissible for lack of cause of action. [21] Consequently, the Manila RTC did not err
in dismissing petitioners complaint for lack of cause of action.
On the Alleged Patent Illegality of the ECC
Petitioners nevertheless contend that they are exempt from filing an appeal with the DENR Secretary because the issuance of the ECC was in patent
violation of existing laws and regulations.These are (1) Section 1 of Presidential Decree No. 1605, as amended, (2) Sections 26 and 27 of Republic Act No.
7160 (Local Government Code of 1991), and (3) the provisions of DAO 96-37 on the documentary requirements for the zoning permit and social
acceptability of the mooring facility.
Petitioners contention is without merit. While the patent illegality of an act exempts a party from complying with the rule on exhaustion of administrative
remedies,[22] this does not apply in the present case.
Presidential Decree No. 1605
Presidential Decree No. 1605 (PD No. 1605), [23] as amended by Presidential Decrees Nos. 1605-A and 1805, declares as ecologically threatened zone the
coves and waters embraced by Puerto Galera Bay as protected by Medio Island. This decree provides in part:
Section 1. Any provision of law to the contrary notwithstanding, the construction of marinas, hotels, restaurants, other commercial structures; commercial
or semi-commercial wharfs [sic]; commercial docking within the enclosed coves of Puerto Galera; the destruction of its mangrove stands; the devastation
of its corals and coastline by large barges, motorboats, tugboat propellers, and any form of destruction by other human activities are hereby prohibited.
Section 2. x x x
No permit for the construction of any wharf, marina, hotel, restaurants and other commercial structures in Puerto Galera shall be issued without prior
approval of the Office of the President upon the recommendation of the Philippine Tourism Authority. (Emphasis supplied)
NAPOCOR claims that since Minolo Cove lies outside of Puerto Galera Bay as protected by Medio Island, [24] PD No. 1605 does not apply to this case.
However, petitioners assert that Minolo Cove is one of the enclosed coves of Puerto Galera [25] and thus protected under PD No. 1605. This is a question of
fact that the DENR Secretary should have first resolved. In any event, there is no dispute that NAPOCOR will use the mooring facility for its power barge
that will supply 14.4 megawatts of electricity to the entire province of Oriental Mindoro, including Puerto Galera.The mooring facility is obviously a
government-owned public infrastructure intended to serve a basic need of the people of Oriental Mindoro. The mooring facility is not a commercial
structure; commercial or semi-commercial wharf or commercial docking as contemplated in Section 1 of PD No. 1605. Therefore, the issuance of the ECC
does not violate PD No. 1605 which applies only to commercial structures like wharves, marinas, hotels and restaurants.

Lastly, petitioners claim that they are justified in immediately seeking judicial recourse because NAPOCOR is guilty of violating the conditions of the ECC,
which requires it to secure a separate ECC for the operation of the power barge. The ECC also mandates NAPOCOR to secure the usual local government
permits, like zoning and building permits, from the municipal government of Puerto Galera.
The contention is similarly without merit. The fact that NAPOCORs ECC is subject to cancellation for non-compliance with its conditions does not justify
petitioners conduct in ignoring the procedure prescribed in DAO 96-37 on appeals from the decision of the DENR Executive Director. Petitioners vigorously
insist that NAPOCOR should comply with the requirements of consultation and locational clearance prescribed in DAO 96-37. Ironically, petitioners
themselves refuse to abide with the procedure for filing complaints and appealing decisions laid down in DAO 96-37.
DAO 96-37 provides for a separate administrative proceeding to address complaints for the cancellation of an ECC. Under Article IX of DAO 96-37,
complaints to nullify an ECC must undergo an administrative investigation, after which the hearing officer will submit his report to the EMB Director or the
Regional Executive Director, who will then render his decision. The aggrieved party may file an appeal to the DENR Secretary, who has authority to issue
cease and desist orders. Article IX also classifies the types of violations covered under DAO 96-37, including projects operating without an ECC or
violating the conditions of the ECC. This is the applicable procedure to address petitioners complaint on NAPOCORs alleged violations and not the filing of
the instant case in court.