G.R. No. 208702 , May 11, 2021
CYNTHIA A. VILLAR, FORMER MEMBER, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, LONE DISTRICT OF LAS PIÑAS CITY [SUPPORTED BY THREE HUNDRED FIFTEEN THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED FORTY-NINE (315,849) RESIDENTS OF LAS PIÑAS CITY], PETITIONERS, VS. ALLTECH CONTRACTORS, INC., PHILIPPINE RECLAMATION AUTHORITY, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES, ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT BUREAU AND CITIES OF LAS PIÑAS, PARAÑAQUE, AND BACOOR, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

This case involves a petition for a writ of kalikasan concerning the Las Piñas and Parañaque Coastal Bay Project, a reclamation project near a protected bird sanctuary and mangrove forest. In 2009, Alltech Contractors, Inc. submitted unsolicited proposals to the cities of Las Piñas and Parañaque for the reclamation and development of coastal lands. The Philippine Reclamation Authority approved the project in 2010, directing Alltech to submit an Environmental Performance Report and Management Plan (EPRMP) instead of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) as the basis for an Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC). The DENR-Environmental Management Bureau issued ECC No. CO-1101-0001 for the project on March 24, 2011. On March 16, 2012, former Representative Cynthia A. Villar, representing 315,849 residents, filed a petition for a writ of kalikasan, praying for the project to be enjoined due to concerns, including potential massive flooding. The Supreme Court issued the writ and remanded the case to the Court of Appeals, which denied the petition. Villar filed the present petition, arguing that the ECC was illegally issued because Alltech did not submit the proper Environmental Impact Assessment study and that the project threatens the Las Piñas-Parañaque Critical Habitat and Ecotourism Area.

ISSUE

Whether the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) correctly required only an Environmental Performance Report and Management Plan (EPRMP), instead of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), for the Las Piñas and Parañaque Coastal Bay Project, and whether the Court of Appeals erred in relying on the DENR’s findings without taking a “harder look” at the submissions in the context of a writ of kalikasan petition.

RULING

In his dissenting opinion, Justice Leonen disagreed with the majority’s decision to uphold the Court of Appeals. He argued that the DENR should have required the proponent, Alltech, to submit an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), not merely an Environmental Performance Report and Management Plan (EPRMP), as part of the Environmental Impact Assessment. He contended that an EIS is required for new projects, while an EPRMP is an update for operating projects with previous ECCs. The dissent emphasized that the project site, while within the area of a previous ECC issued in 1996, had been dormant for over a decade, and the baseline data from 1996 was outdated, necessitating a new and in-depth study. Furthermore, Justice Leonen stated that the Court of Appeals should not have merely relied on the DENR’s findings but should have taken a “harder look” at the parties’ submissions, especially given the project’s proximity to a critical habitat and the residents’ flooding concerns, which must be rigorously weighed in a petition for a writ of kalikasan.