G.R. No. 196870 ; June 26, 2012
BORACAY FOUNDATION, INC., Petitioner, vs. THE PROVINCE OF AKLAN, REPRESENTED BY GOVERNOR CARLITO S. MARQUEZ, THE PHILIPPINE RECLAMATION AUTHORITY, AND THE DENR-EMB (REGION VI), Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Boracay Foundation, Inc., a non-stock corporation representing various stakeholders in Boracay Island, filed an original petition for an Environmental Protection Order under the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases. The petition sought to halt the “Aklan Beach Zone Restoration and Protection Marina Development Project,” a reclamation and port expansion project initiated by respondent Province of Aklan in Barangay Caticlan, the main gateway to Boracay. The petitioner alleged that the project, which involved reclamation, would cause irreparable environmental damage to Boracay’s fragile coastal and marine ecosystem, including its famous white-sand beaches. It argued that the respondents failed to comply with mandatory legal requirements, such as securing an Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC) and conducting proper public consultations, before commencing project implementation.
Respondent Province of Aklan, in collaboration with respondent Philippine Reclamation Authority (PRA), defended the project as essential to address severe port congestion due to increasing tourist arrivals. They claimed the project underwent proper processes, including an Environmental Impact Assessment, and that reclamation activities were within the PRA’s delegated authority. During the pendency of the case, however, the Province and PRA executed a subsequent agreement limiting the project scope to only 2.64 hectares, abandoning plans for further reclamation phases totaling 37.4 hectares due to an inability to comply with certain requirements of their Memorandum of Agreement.

ISSUE

Whether the Court should issue an Environmental Protection Order to permanently enjoin the implementation of the reclamation and port expansion project.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition for the issuance of a permanent Environmental Protection Order. The legal logic rests on the principle of mootness and the judicial policy of avoiding advisory opinions on abstract propositions. The core controversy was rendered moot and academic by the supervening act of the respondents themselves. The Province of Aklan and the PRA, through their official communications, mutually agreed to confine the project strictly to the 2.64-hectare area and formally abandoned the subsequent, larger reclamation phases. This limitation directly addressed the petitioner’s primary environmental concerns, which were largely predicated on the scale and cumulative impact of the full 40-hectare project. Consequently, the factual milieu that gave rise to the petition had been fundamentally altered.
The Court emphasized that it does not adjudicate moot cases unless there is a grave violation of the Constitution, an exceptional character of the situation, or a paramount public interest requiring a resolution. No such exceptional circumstances were present. The remaining 2.64-hectare component, as represented by the respondents, was subject to existing environmental laws and regulatory processes, including the requirement of an ECC from the DENR-EMB. The Court found no compelling reason to issue a writ when the specific project scope challenged had been voluntarily restricted. The decision underscores that judicial power is limited to actual cases and controversies, and courts will not intervene when subsequent events have deprived the dispute of its justiciable character.