Calvert Cliffs Coordinating Committee, Inc. v.

Atomic Energy Commission

Background:

In 1966, the Baltimore Gas and Electric Company purchased property in Calvert County, Maryland along the edge of
the Chesapeake Bay. Baltimore Gas and Electric bought the property with the intention of building a nuclear power
plant along the shoreline and applied for a nuclear power plant license. Baltimore Gas and Electric began construction
on the plant in 1968. Concerned about the impacts to the Chesapeake Bay's blue crab population, scientists from
Johns Hopkins University analyzed the plant's potential impacts on the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem. The scientists'
apprehension about the potential adverse impacts of the plant's radioactive emissions as well as the discharge of
heated cooling water into the Chesapeake Bay lead to the formation of the Calvert Cliffs' Coordinating Committee
who challenged the Atomic Energy Commission's decision to license the power plant.

Issue:

After the passage of the National Environmental Policy Act in 1969, the Atomic Energy Commission revised its
licensing rules to comply with the new Act. The newly revised rules stated that while a utility company must provide
an environmental report for each proposed plant, the Atomic Energy Commission's hearing board did not have a
mandate to consider the environmental impacts of each new plant unless a challenge was issued to a specific
plant. Calvert Cliffs' Coordinating Committee argued that the Atomic Energy Commission's rules were inadequate and
a direct violation of NEPA's Environmental Impact Statement requirement.

Decision:

Judge Skelly Wright and the D.C. Circuit Court ruled that the Atomic Energy Commission is required to consider the
environmental impacts of licensing a nuclear power plant, regardless of whether a challenge was raised or not.[1]
The D.C. Circuit Court took the ruling a step further and made NEPA judicially enforceable by establishing procedural
and substantive provisions for how federal agencies should comply with NEPA.[1] Judge Wright and the D.C. Circuit
Court ruled that the Atomic Energy Commission's rules were deficient and required revision.[1]

Findings:

The court made several key decisions regarding how federal agencies comply with NEPA:[2]

1. The general substantive policy in Section 101 of NEPA is flexible.

2. The procedural provisions in Section 102 of NEPA are not as flexible and were created to ensure that federal
agencies comply with the substantive discretion they have been granted.
3. Every federal agency and department is required to consider environmental protection and "to take
environmental values into account".
4. How agencies balance environmental issues with other agency priorities should be disclosed in a detailed
statement in accordance with NEPA Section 102.
5. Federal agencies must carry out NEPA's procedural duties "to the fullest extent possible".
6. Federal agencies must conduct a careful and informed decision-making process in accordance with Section
102 of NEPA. Section 102 of NEPA also creates judicially enforceable duties.
7. Federal agencies must take into account the findings of the environmental reports in their decision-making
processes.
 8. The federal agency with the responsibility for a project or action is the only appropriate entity to balance
environmental costs with economic and technical benefits.
9. NEPA requires federal agencies to consider alternatives that would reduce environmental damage.
10. Postponing the operation of a facility does not qualify as a reasonable explanation for eliminating the
consideration of environmental issues under NEPA.

As a result of the decision, the Atomic Energy Commission halted the licensing of all nuclear plants for eighteen
months in order to modify its licensing rules to comply with NEPA.[1] Baltimore Gas and Electric decided to pursue
the operation of the Calvert Cliffs plant and released an Environmental Impact Statement. The final environmental
report determined that the proposed operation of the nuclear plant would have no major adverse effect to the
environment.[1] The Atomic Energy Commission granted Baltimore Gas and Electric an operating license for its first
reactor in 1974 and the plant began producing energy in 1975.[1]

Republic of the Philippines v. The City of Davao

FACTS:

Respondent filed an application for a Certificate of Non-Coverage (CNC) for its proposed project, the Davao City Artica
Sports Dome, with the Environmental Management Bureau however, was denied on the ground that the proposed
project was within an environmentally critical area; that the City of Davao must first undergo the environmental
impact assessment (EIA) process to secure an Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC). Respondent then filed a
petition for mandamus with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), and the latter ruled in favor of respondent.

ISSUE:

WON the LGUs are excluded from the coverage of PD 1586, one which requires an environmental impact assessment
(EIA) process to secure an Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC)

HELD:

No.Section 4 of PD 1586 provides that "no person, partnership or corporation shall undertake or operate any such
declared environmentally critical project or area without first securing an Environmental Compliance Certificate
issued by the President or his duly authorized representative." We note that LGUs are juridical persons.

HOWEVER, after consideration of the evidence finding Artica Sports Dome is not within an environmentally critical
area neither being a critical project. 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.

ISSUES:

(1) Is an LGU like Davao exempt from the coverage of PD 1586?

(2) Is the project entitled to a Certificate of Non-Coverage (CNC)?

APPLICABLE LAWS:
 Section 15 of Republic Act 7160,[5] otherwise known as the Local Government Code, defines a local government
unit as a body politic and corporate endowed with powers to be exercised by it in conformity with law.

Section 4 of PD 1586 clearly states that no person, partnership or corporation shall undertake or operate any such
declared environmentally critical project or area without first securing an Environmental Compliance certificate
issued by the President or his duly authorized representative

RULING:

(1) NO, IT IS WITHIN THE COVERAGE OF PD 1586. Found in Section 16 of the Local Government Code is the duty of
the LGUs to promote the people's 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.

(2) YES. 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.

Boracay Foundation, Inc. v. Province of Aklan

G.R. No. 196870, June 26, 2012
FACTS:
Claiming that tourist arrivals to Boracay would reach 1 million in the future, respondent Province of Aklan
planned to expand the port facilities at Barangay Caticlan, Municipality of Malay. Thus, on May 7, 2009, the
Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Aklan Province issued a resolution, authorizing Governor Carlito Marquez to file an
application with respondent Philippine Reclamation Authority (PRA) to reclaim the 2.64 hectares of foreshore area in
Caticlan. In the same year, the Province deliberated on the possible expansion from its original proposed reclamation
area of 2.64 hectares to forty (40) hectares in order to maximize the utilization of its resources.

After PRAs approval, on April 27, 2010, respondent Department of Environment and Natural Resources-
Environmental Management Bureau-Region VI (DENR-EMB RVI) issued to the Province Environmental Compliance
Certificate-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, the Province finally entered into a MOA with PRA which stated that the land use
development of the reclamation project shall be for commercial, recreational and institutional and other applicable
uses. It was at this point that the Province deemed it necessary to conduct a series of public consultation meetings.

On the other hand, the Sangguniang Barangay of Caticlan, the Sangguniang Bayan of the Municipality of
Malay and petitioner Boracay Foundation, Inc. (BFI), an organization composed of some 160 businessmen and
residents in Boracay, expressed their strong opposition to the reclamation project on environmental, socio-economic
and legal grounds.

Despite the opposition, the Province merely noted their objections and issued a notice to the contractor on
December 1, 2010 to commence with the construction of the project. Thus, on June 1, 2011, BFI filed with the
Supreme Court the instant Petition for Environmental Protection Order/Issuance of the Writ of
Continuing Mandamus. Thereafter, the Court issued a Temporary Environmental Protection Order (TEPO) and
ordered the respondents to file their respective comments to the petition.

The Petition was premised on the following grounds, among others:

a) the Province failed to obtain the favorable endorsement of the LGU concerned;
b) the Province failed to conduct the required consultation procedures as required by the Local
Government Code (LGC).

The Province responded by claiming that its compliance with the requirements of DENR-EMB RVI and PRA
that led to the approval of the reclamation project by the said government agencies, as well as the recent enactments
of the Barangay Council of Caticlan and the Sangguniang Bayan of the Municipality of Malay favorably endorsing the
said project, had categorically addressed all the issues raised by the BFI in its Petition. It also considered the
Petition to be premature for lack of cause of action due to the failure of BFI to fully exhaust the available
administrative remedies even before seeking judicial relief.

ISSUES:

WON the petition is premature because petitioner failed to exhaust administrative remedies before filing this
case?

WON there was proper, timely, and sufficient public consultation for the project?

RULING:

On the issue of prematurity due to failure to exhaust administrative remedies

The Court held that the petition is not premature for failing to exhaust administrative remedies and to
observe the hierarchy of courts as claimed by the respondents.

The Court reiterated their ruling in Pagara v. Court of Appeals where they clarified that the rule regarding
exhaustion of administrative remedies is not a hard and fast rule. It is not applicable where, among others, there are
circumstances indicating the urgency of judicial intervention such as in the instant case. The rule may also be
disregarded when it does not provide a plain, speedy and adequate remedy or where the protestant has no other
recourse.

Meanwhile, the new Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases, A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC, provides a relief for
petitioner under the writ of continuing mandamus, which is a special civil action that may be availed of to compel
the performance of an act specifically enjoined by law and which provides for the issuance of a TEPO as an auxiliary
remedy prior to the issuance of the writ itself.

The writ of continuing mandamus allows an aggrieved party to file a verified petition in the proper court
when any government agency or instrumentality or officer thereof unlawfully neglects the performance of an act
which the law specifically enjoins as a duty xxx in connection with the enforcement or violation of an environmental
law rule or regulation or a right therein, xxx and there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary
course of law. Such proper court may be the Regional Trial Court exercising jurisdiction over the territory where the
actionable neglect or omission occurred, the Court of Appeals, or the Supreme Court.
 Here, the Court found that BFI had no other plain, speedy, or adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law
to determine the questions of unique national and local importance raised that pertain to laws and rules for
environmental protection.

Moreover, the writ of continuing mandamus permits the court to retain jurisdiction after judgment in order
to ensure the successful implementation of the reliefs mandated under the courts decision and, in order to do this,
the court may compel the submission of compliance reports from the respondent government agencies as well as
avail of other means to monitor compliance with its decision.

On the issue of whether or not there was proper, timely, and sufficient public consultation for the project

The Court found that there was no proper, timely, and sufficient public consultation for the project.

The Local Government Code (LGC) establishes the duties of national government agencies in the
maintenance of ecological balance and requires them to secure prior public consultations and approval of local
government units. In Province of Rizal v. Executive Secretary, the Court emphasized that, under the Local Government
Code, two requisites must be met before a national project that affects the environmental and ecological balance of
local communities can be implemented: (1) prior consultation with the affected local communities, and (2) prior
approval of the project by the appropriate sanggunian. The absence of either of such mandatory requirements will
render the projects implementation as illegal.

Here, the Court classified the reclamation project as a national project since it affects the environmental and
ecological balance of local communities. In one ruling, the Court noted that such national projects mentioned in
Section 27 of the LGC include those that may cause pollution and bring about climate change, among others, such as
the reclamation project in this case.

Also, DENR DAO 2003-30 provides that project 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.

Thus, the law requires the Province, being the delegate of the PRAs power to reclaim land in this case, to
conduct prior consultations and prior approval. However, the information dissemination conducted months after the
ECC had already been issued was insufficient to comply with the requirements under the LGC.

Furthermore, 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 and the Sangguniang Bayan in
2012, which were both undoubtedly achieved at the urging and insistence of the Province.

Paje v. Casino et al.

G.R. No. 207257 February 3, 2015

HON. RAMON JESUS PAJE, in his capacity as DENR Secretary v. Hon. Teodoro Casino, et al.

Facts
The Department of Environment and Natural Resources, issued an Environmental Compliance Certificate for a
proposed coal-fired power plant at Subic, Zambales to be implemented by RP Energy.

Hon. Teodoro Casino and a number of legislators filed a Petition for Writ of Kalikasan against RP energy, SBMA, and
Hon. Ramon Paje as the DENR secretary on the ground that actual environmental damage will occur if the power
plant project is implemented and that the respondents failed to comply with certain laws and rules governing or
relating to the issuance of an ECC and amendments thereto.

The Court of Appeals denied the petition for the Writ of Kalikasan and invalidated the ECC. Both the DENR and Casino
filed an appeal, the former imputing error in invalidating the ECC and its amendments, arguing that the
determination of the validity of the ECC as well as its amendments is beyond the scope of a Petition for a Writ
of kalikasan; while the latter claim that it is entitled to a Writ of Kalikasan.

Issues

Whether the parties may raise questions of fact on appeal on the issuance of a writ of Kalikasan; and

Whether the validity of an ECC can be challenged via a writ of Kalikasan

Ruling

Yes, the parties may raise questions of fact on appeal on the issuance of a writ of Kalikasan because the Rules on the
Writ of kalikasan (Rule 7, Section 16 of the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases)allow the parties to raise, on
appeal, questions of fact and, thus, constitutes an exception to Rule 45 of the Rules of Court because of the
extraordinary nature of the circumstances surrounding the issuance of a writ of kalikasan.

Yes, the validity of an ECC can be challenged via a writ of Kalikasan because such writ is principally predicated on an
actual or threatened violation of the constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology, which involves
environmental damage of a magnitude that transcends political and territorial boundaries.

A party, therefore, who invokes the writ based on alleged defects or irregularities in the issuance of an ECC must not
only allege and prove such defects or irregularities, but must also provide a causal link or, at least, a reasonable
connection between the defects or irregularities in the issuance of an ECC and the actual or threatened violation of
the constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology of the magnitude contemplated under the Rules.
Otherwise, the petition should be dismissed outright and the action re-filed before the proper forum with due regard
to the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies.

In the case at bar, no such causal link or reasonable connection was shown or even attempted relative to the
aforesaid second set of allegations. It is a mere listing of the perceived defects or irregularities in the issuance of the
ECC.