Republic Of The Philippines v. City Of Davao
Republic of the Philippines v. City of Davao, G.R. No. 148622, September 12, 2002
- Political Law
- Procedural (Remedial Law)
- Environmental Impact Statement System
- PD 1586
- Certificate of Non-Coverage
- Environmental Compliance Certificate
- local government units
- mandamus
- environmentally critical project
- environmentally critical area
- moot and academic
- Proclamation No. 2146
I. Facts of the Case
The City of Davao applied to the DENR's Environmental Management Bureau, Region XI, for a Certificate of Non-Coverage (CNC) for its proposed Davao City Artica Sports Dome. The EMB denied the application on the ground that the project was within an environmentally critical area and that the City had to secure an Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC). The City obtained a writ of mandamus and injunction from the RTC compelling issuance of the CNC, and the Republic, through the DENR, elevated the case to the Supreme Court.
August 11, 2000
The City of Davao applied with the EMB, Region XI, for a CNC for its proposed Davao City Artica Sports Dome. It attached a location map, a brief project description, and a City Planning and Development Office certification that the project was not in an environmentally critical area.
The EMB Region XI denied the application, finding the project within an environmentally critical area. It ruled that under Section 2 of PD 1586 in relation to Section 4 of PD 1151, the City must undergo the environmental impact assessment process and obtain an ECC before construction.
The City filed a petition for mandamus and injunction with the RTC of Davao City (Civil Case No. 28,133-2000). It alleged the project was neither environmentally critical nor within an environmentally critical area, so it was outside the EIS system and issuance of the CNC was a ministerial duty of the DENR.
December 12, 2000
The RTC issued a preliminary injunction.
May 28, 2001
The RTC, Branch 33, granted the writ of mandamus and injunction, directed the DENR and the other respondents to issue the CNC, and made the injunction permanent. It reasoned that PD 1586, PD 1151 and LOI 1179 cover only national government agencies and instrumentalities, GOCCs, and private entities, so LGUs are excluded under expressio unius est exclusio alterius. It also found, based on DENR-CENRO-West certifications and PHIVOLCS data, that the site was not in an environmentally critical area and the project was not environmentally critical, so the DENR had to issue the CNC.
The Republic's motion for reconsideration was denied, and it filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court.
After a change of administration, the City of Davao filed a manifestation in lieu of a comment, agreeing with the Republic that it needs to secure an ECC and that the petition was therefore moot and academic. The Court nonetheless resolved the issue for the guidance of the bench and bar.
II. Issues
Whether or not local government units are exempt from the coverage of the Environmental Impact Statement System under PD 1586.
Whether or not the Artica Sports Dome is an environmentally critical project or located in an environmentally critical area requiring an Environmental Compliance Certificate.
Whether or not the DENR may be compelled by writ of mandamus to issue a Certificate of Non-Coverage in favor of the City of Davao.
III. Ruling
Whether or not local government units are exempt from the coverage of the Environmental Impact Statement System under PD 1586.
Local government units are not exempt from the Environmental Impact Statement System. Like other persons, they must comply with PD 1586 when their projects fall within its coverage.
How the Court reasoned
- Although the petition was moot because of the City's manifestation, the Court resolved the issue under its symbolic function of educating the bench and bar.
- The RTC wrongly held that LGUs are excluded because they are not listed, relying on expressio unius est exclusio alterius (the express mention of one thing excludes others).
- Section 4 of PD 1586 covers any person, partnership or corporation that undertakes a covered project, and LGUs are juridical persons under the Civil Code.
- LGUs under Sections 15 and 16 of the Local Government Code have the duty to promote the people's right to a balanced ecology, so they cannot claim exemption from the EIS system.
- The EIS system exists to protect the environment, and excluding LGUs would defeat that purpose.
- Hence the RTC erred in holding that LGUs are outside the coverage of PD 1586.
“Undoubtedly therefore, local government units are not excluded from the coverage of PD 1586.”
Rule applied
Section 4 of PD 1586 (Environmental Impact Statement System); Sections 15 and 16 of RA 7160 (Local Government Code)
Whether or not the Artica Sports Dome is an environmentally critical project or located in an environmentally critical area requiring an Environmental Compliance Certificate.
The Artica Sports Dome is not an environmentally critical project and is not in an environmentally critical area. The RTC's factual findings are binding on the Court.
How the Court reasoned
- Under Section 5 of PD 1586 and Proclamation No. 2146, only projects and areas declared environmentally critical require an ECC.
- The sports dome is not among the projects enumerated in Proclamation No. 2146, so it is classified as non-critical.
- The RTC found, based on DENR-CENRO-West certifications and PHIVOLCS data, that the site is not within an environmentally critical area.
- Factual findings of the trial court are binding on the Supreme Court, and no recognized exception applied here.
- Thus the project is neither environmentally critical nor within an environmentally critical area, and an ECC is not required.
“It is clear, therefore, that the said project is not classified as environmentally critical, or within an environmentally critical area.”
Rule applied
Section 5 of PD 1586; Proclamation No. 2146 (1981); Rules and Regulations Implementing PD 1586; rule on the binding effect of trial court factual findings
Whether or not the DENR may be compelled by writ of mandamus to issue a Certificate of Non-Coverage in favor of the City of Davao.
The DENR may be compelled by mandamus to issue the CNC, because its issuance is a ministerial duty once the project is shown to be non-critical and outside an environmentally critical area.
How the Court reasoned
- Mandamus lies to compel the performance of a ministerial duty, one that leaves no room for discretion.
- Because the project is not environmentally critical and not in an environmentally critical area, it is outside the ECC requirement.
- With the required documents submitted and the facts established, the DENR has no discretion to refuse a CNC.
- The RTC therefore correctly issued mandamus and made the injunction permanent.
“Consequently, the DENR has no choice but to issue the Certificate of Non-Coverage.”
Rule applied
Section 5 of PD 1586 and its implementing rules; Rule 65 of the Rules of Court on mandamus (ministerial duty)
Doctrines
Local government units are not exempt from the Environmental Impact Statement System under PD 1586; as juridical persons with a duty to promote a balanced ecology, they must comply with it where their projects are covered.
Only projects declared environmentally critical, or located in environmentally critical areas, as enumerated in Proclamation No. 2146 require an Environmental Compliance Certificate; non-critical projects outside such areas are entitled to a Certificate of Non-Coverage.
Issuance of a Certificate of Non-Coverage for a non-critical project outside an environmentally critical area is a ministerial duty that may be compelled by mandamus.
Even if a case is moot and academic, the Court may resolve it under its symbolic function to educate the bench and bar on issues of public importance.
Final Disposition
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED and the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Davao City, Branch 33, dated May 28, 2001, granting the writ of mandamus and injunction and directing the issuance of a Certificate of Non-Coverage in favor of the City of Davao, is AFFIRMED.
Notes
The petition was rendered moot by the City's manifestation that it would secure an ECC, but the Court resolved it for guidance. Although it held LGUs covered by PD 1586, it affirmed the RTC because the project was non-critical and not in an environmentally critical area.