Facts:
Petitioner LNL Archipelago Minerals, Inc. (LAMI), operating under a Mineral Production Sharing Agreement with Filipinas Mining Corporation, embarked on building a private port in Brgy. Bolitoc, Sta. Cruz, Zambales. To develop this infrastructure, crucial for exporting mined minerals such as ores, LAMI secured various essential permits and compliance certificates, including an Environmental Compliance Certificate from the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) and a Permit to Construct a Port from the Philippine Ports Authority (PPA).
The Zambales Alliance, a collection of mining companies without proprietary ports, endorsed LAMI’s plans. The proposed venture had garnered local community support, as demonstrated by endorsements from barangay officials and consent from the Sangguniang Bayan of Sta. Cruz. However, LAMI faced opposition from the municipality’s Mayor, Luisito E. Marty, who allegedly showed favoritism to certain mining firms and obstructed LAMI’s operations by withholding permits and receipts for fees.
On 24 April 2012, Mayor Marty ordered the cessation of LAMI’s land-clearing activities, with the local police instructed to enforce compliance. LAMI contested the move, labeling it illegal. Despite presenting their permits during an on-site visit by the Sta. Cruz Municipal Police, a compliance check by the DENR’s Environmental Management Bureau (DENR-EMB R3) noted minor infractions of the ECC due to administrative oversights and a major violation concerning land leveling. A resolution involved a penalty and the lifting of a cease and desist order post-compliance.
Subsequently, AGHAM Party List filed a Petition for a Writ of Kalikasan against LAMI, claiming violations under the Revised Forestry Code and the Philippine Mining Act, focusing on alleged environmental destruction through tree cutting and land leveling.
Procedurally, the Supreme Court initially remanded the petition for hearing to the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA denied the petition on 23 November 2012, citing LAMI’s compliance with pertinent laws. AGHAM sought reconsideration, prompting the CA to revert its decision in an Amended Decision on 13 September 2013, granting the Writ of Kalikasan.
Issues:
1. Whether LAMI violated environmental laws, specifically the Revised Forestry Code and the Philippine Mining Act, as claimed by AGHAM.
2. Whether LAMI’s operations, specifically earth-moving activities, caused environmental harm of significant magnitude impacting residents in Zambales and Pangasinan.
Court’s Decision:
The Supreme Court reversed the CA’s Amended Decision, reinstating the original denial of the Writ of Kalikasan.
1. On the issue of violating the Revised Forestry Code, Section 68 addresses unauthorized tree cutting. The evidence confirmed LAMI had obtained a Tree Cutting Permit and adhered to its conditions, negating claims of unlawful conduct.
2. Regarding the alleged breach of the Philippine Mining Act, sections cited by AGHAM pertain to community development and environmental protection tied to mining permits. The Court found them inapplicable since LAMI’s activities involved preparatory construction, not mining operations. Further assertions about leveling a mountain leading to environmental repercussions were unsupported by substantial evidence or expert testimony.
Doctrine:
The petition for the Writ of Kalikasan necessitates demonstrating significant environmental damage impacting multiple cities or provinces. Petitioners must furnish concrete evidence of violated environmental statutes and tangible harm, as unsupported general claims fail to meet the stringent requirements for this extraordinary remedy.
Class Notes:
– Writ of Kalikasan: Special legal remedy for addressing environmental damage impacting two or more cities/provinces, requiring proof of law violation and damage magnitude.
– Revised Forestry Code, Sec 68: No cutting/possession of timber from forest/private land without authority.
– Philippine Mining Act, Secs 57 & 69: Obligates contractors to community aid and environmental programs but pertains primarily to active mining locales—not construction sites.
Historical Background:
This case is contextualized within the Philippines’ contentious mining sector, battling regulatory frictions between national economic policies favoring resource extraction and local ecological conservation efforts exacerbated by administrative and legislative oversight. The case underscores the judiciary’s role in navigating complex environmental jurisprudence, balancing developmental ambitions against environmental stewardship.
Leave a Reply