REPUBLIC ACT NO.

7586
AN ACT PROVIDING FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT AND
MANAGEMENT OF NATIONAL INTEGRATED
PROTECTED AREAS SYSTEM, DEFINING ITS SCOPE
AND COVERAGE, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of
Representatives of the Philippines in Congress
assembled:
SECTION 1.
Title This Act shall be known
and referred to as the National Integrated
Protected Areas System Act of 1992.
SECTION 2.
Declaration of Policy Cognizant
of the profound impact of mans activities on all
components of the natural environment
particularly the effect of increasing population,
resource exploitation and industrial advancement
and recognizing the critical importance of
protecting and maintaining the natural biological
and physical diversities of the environment
notably on areas with biologically unique features
to sustain human life and development, as well as
plant and animal life, it is hereby declared the
policy of the State to secure for the Filipino people
of present and future generations the perpetual
existence of all native plants and animals through
the establishment of a comprehensive system of
integrated protected areas within the
classification of national park as provided for in
the Constitution.

It is hereby recognized that these areas, although

distinct in features, posses common ecological
values that may be incorporated into a holistic
plan representative of our natural heritage; that
effective administration of this area is possible
only through cooperation among national
government, local government and concerned
private organizations; that the use and enjoyment
of these protected areas must be consistent with
the principles of biological diversity and
sustainable development.
To this end, there is hereby established a National
Integrated Protected Areas System (NIPAS), which
shall encompass outstandingly remarkable areas
and biologically important public lands that are
habitats of rare and endangered species of plants
and animals, biogeographic zones and related
ecosystems, whether terrestrial, wetland or
marine, all of which shall be designated as
protected areas.
SECTION 3.
Categories The following
categories of protected areas are hereby
established:
a.
Strict nature reserve;
b.
Natural park;
c.
Natural monument;
d.
Wildlife sanctuary;
e.
Protected landscapes and seascapes;
f.
Resource reserve;
g.
Natural biotic areas; and

h.
Other categories established by law,
conventions or international agreements which
the Philippine Government is a signatory.
SECTION 4.
Definition of Terms For
purposes of this Act, the following terms shall be
defined as follows:
1. National Integrated Protected Areas System
(NIPAS) is the classification and administration of
all designated protected areas to maintain
essential ecological processes and life-support
systems, to preserve genetic diversity, to ensure
sustainable use of resources found therein, and to
maintain their natural conditions to the greatest
extent possible;
2. Protected Area refers to identified portions of
land and water set aside by reason of their unique
physical and biological significance, managed to
enhance biological diversity and protected against
destructive human exploitation;
3. Buffer zones are identified areas outside the
boundaries of and immediately adjacent to
designated protected areas pursuant to Section 8
that need special development control in order to
avoid or minimize harm to the protected area;
4. Indigenous cultural community refers to a
group of people sharing common bonds of
language, customs, traditions and other
distinctive cultural traits and who have since time
immemorial, occupied, possessed and utilized a
territory;

5. National park refers to a forest reservation

essentially of natural wilderness character which
has been withdrawn from settlement, occupancy
or any form of exploitation except in conformity
with approved management plan and set aside as
such exclusively to conserve the area or preserve
the scenery, the natural and historic objects, wild
animals and plants therein and to provide
enjoyment of these features in such areas;
6. Natural monuments is a relatively small area
focused on protection of small features to protect
or preserve nationally significant natural features
on account of their special interest or unique
characteristics;
7. Natural biotic area is an area set aside to
allow the way of life of societies living in harmony
with the environment to adapt to modern
technology at their pace;
8. Natural park is a relatively large area not
materially altered by human activity where
extractive resource uses are not allowed and
maintained to protect outstanding natural and
scenic areas of national or international
significance for scientific, educational and
recreational use;
9. Protected landscapes/seascapes are areas of
national significance which are characterized by
the harmonious interaction of man and land while
providing opportunities for public enjoyment
through the recreation and tourism within the

normal lifestyle and economic activity of these

areas;
10. Resource reserve is an extensive and
relatively isolated and uninhabited area normally
with difficult access designated as such to protect
natural resources of the area for future use and
prevent or contain development activities that
could affect the resource pending the
establishment of objectives which are based upon
appropriate knowledge and planning;
11. Strict nature reserve is an area possessing
some outstanding ecosystem, features and/or
species of flora and fauna of national scientific
importance maintained to protect nature and
maintain processes in an undisturbed state in
order to have ecologically representative
examples of the natural environment available for
scientific study, environmental monitoring,
education, and for the maintenance of genetic
resources in a dynamic and evolutionary state;
12. Tenured migrant communities are
communities within protected areas which have
actually and continuously occupied such areas for
five (5) years before the designation of the same
as protected areas in accordance with this Act and
are solely dependent therein for subsistence; and
13. Wildlife sanctuary comprises an area which
assures the natural conditions necessary to
protect nationally significant species, groups of
species, biotic communities or physical features of

the environment where these may require specific

human manipulations for their perpetuation.
SECTION 5.
Establishment and Extent of the
System The establishment and
operationalization of the System shall involve the
following:
1. All areas or islands in the Philippines
proclaimed, designated or set aside, pursuant to a
law, presidential decree, presidential proclamation
or executive order as national park, game refuge,
bird and wildlife sanctuary, wilderness area, strict
nature reserve, watershed, mangrove reserve, fish
sanctuary, natural and historical landmark,
protected and managed landscape/seascape as
well as identified virgin forests before the
effectivity of this Act are hereby designated as
initial components of the System. The initial
components of the System shall be governed by
existing laws, rules and regulations, not
inconsistent with this Act;
2. Within one (1) year from the effectivity of this
Act, the DENR shall submit to the Senate and the
House of Representatives a map and legal
descriptions or natural boundaries of each
protected area initially comprising the System.
Such maps and legal description shall, by virtue of
this Act, constitute the official documentary
representation of the entire System, subject to
such changes as Congress deems necessary;

3. All DENR records pertaining to said protected

areas, including maps and legal descriptions or
natural boundaries, copies of rules and regulations
governing them, copies of public notices of, and
reports submitted to Congress regarding pending
additions, eliminations, or modifications shall be
made available to the public. These legal
documents pertaining to protected areas shall
also be available to the public in the respective
DENR Regional Offices, Provincial Environment
and Natural Resources Offices (PENROs) and
Community Environment and Natural Resources
Offices (CENROs) where NIPAS areas are located;
4. Within three (3) years from the effectivity of
this Act, the DENR shall study and review each
area tentatively composing the System as to its
suitability or non-suitability for preservation as
protected area and inclusion in the System
according to the categories established in Section
3 hereof and report its findings to the President as
soon as each study is completed. The study must
include in each area:
1.
A forest occupants survey;
2.
An ethnographic study;
3.
A protected area resource profile;
4.
Land use plans done in coordination with
the respective Regional Development Councils;
and
5.
Such other background studies as will be
sufficient bases for selection.

The DENR shall:

1. Notify the public of proposed action through
publication in a newspaper of general circulation,
and such other means as the System deems
necessary in the area or areas in the vicinity of
the affected land thirty (30) days prior to the
public hearing;
i.
Conduct public hearings at the locations
nearest to the area affected;
ii.
At least thirty (30) days prior to the date of
hearing, advise all Local Government Units (LGUs)
in the affected areas, national agencies
concerned, peoples organizations and nongovernment organizations and invite such officials
to submit their views on the proposed action at
the hearing not later than thirty (30) days
following the date of hearing; and
iii.
Give due consideration to the
recommendations at the public hearing; and
provide sufficient explanation for his
recommendations contrary to the general
sentiments expressed in the public hearing;
2. Upon receipt of the recommendations of the
DENR, the President shall issue a presidential
proclamation designating the recommended areas
as protected areas and providing for measures for
their protection until such time when Congress
shall have enacted a law finally declaring such
recommended areas as part of the integrated
protected area systems; and

3. Thereafter, the President shall send to the

Senate and the House of Representatives his
recommendations with respect to the designations
as protected areas or reclassification of each area
on which review has been completed, together
with maps and legal description of boundaries.
The President, in his recommendation, may
propose the alteration of existing boundaries of
any or all proclaimed protected areas, addition of
any contiguous area of public land of predominant
physical and biological value. Nothing contained
herein shall limit the President to propose, as part
of his recommendation to Congress, additional
areas which have not been designated,
proclaimed or set aside by law, presidential
decree, proclamation or executive orders as
protected area/s.
SECTION 6.
Additional Areas to be Integrated
to the System. Notwithstanding the
establishment of the initial component of the
additional areas with outstanding physical
features, anthropological significance and
biological diversity in accordance with the
provisions of Section 5d.
SECTION 7.
Disestablishment as Protected
Area. When in the opinion of the DENR a certain
protected area should be withdrawn or
disestablished, or its boundaries modified as
warranted by a study and sanctioned by the
majority of the members of the respective boards

for the protected area as herein established in

Section 11, it shall, in turn, advice Congress.
Disestablishment of a protected area under the
System or modification of its boundary shall take
effect pursuant to an act of Congress. Thereafter,
said area shall revert to the category of public
forests unless otherwise classified by Congress:
Provided however, that after disestablishment by
Congress, the Secretary may recommend the
transfer of such disestablished area to other
government agencies to serve other priority
programs of national interest.
SECTION 8.
Buffer Zones. For each
protected area, there shall be established
peripheral buffer zones when necessary, in the
same manner as Congress establishes the
protected area, to protect the same from activities
that will directly and indirectly harm it. Such buffer
zones shall be included in the individual protected
area management plan that shall prepared for
each protected area. The DENR shall exercise its
authority over protected areas as provided in this
Act on such area and designated as buffer zones.
SECTION 9.
Management Plans. There shall
be a general management planning strategy to
serve as guide in formulating individual plans for
each protected area. The management planning
strategy shall, at the minimum, promote the
adoption and implementation of innovative
management techniques including if necessary,

the concept of zoning, buffer zone management

for multiple use and protection, habitat
conservation and rehabilitation, diversity
management, community organizing,
socioeconomic and scientific researches, sitespecific policy development, pest management,
and fire control. The management planning
strategy shall also provide guidelines for the
protection of indigenous cultural communities,
other tenured migrant communities and sites for
close coordination between and among local
agencies of the Government as well as the private
sector.
Each component area of the System shall be
planned and administered to further protect and
enhance the permanent preservation of its natural
conditions. A management manual shall be
formulated and developed which must contain the
following: an individual management plan
prepared by three (3) experts, basic background
information, field inventory of the resources within
the area, an assessment of assets and limitations,
regional interrelationships, particular objectives
for managing the area, appropriate division of the
area into management zones, a review of the
boundaries of the area, and a design of the
management programs.
SECTION 10.
Administration and Management
of the System. The National Integrated Protected
Areas System is hereby placed under the control

and administration of the Department of

Environment and Natural Resources. For this
purpose, there is hereby created a division in the
regional offices of the Department to be called the
Protected Areas and Wildlife Division in regions
where protected areas have been established,
which shall be under the supervision of a Regional
Technical Director, and shall include subordinate
officers, clerks, and employees as may be
proposed by the Secretary, duly approved by the
Department of Budget and Management, and
appropriated by the Congress. The Service thus
established shall manage protected areas and
promote the permanent preservation, to the
greatest extent possible of their natural
conditions.
To carry out the mandate of this Act, the Secretary
of the DENR is empowered to perform any and all
of the following acts:
a.
To conduct studies on various
characteristic features and conditions of the
different protected areas, using commonalities in
their characteristics, classify and define them into
categories and prescribe permissible or prohibited
human activities in each category in the System;
b.
To adopt and enforce a land use scheme
and zoning plan in adjoining areas for the
preservation and control of activities that may
threaten the ecological balance in the protected
areas;

c.
To cause the preparation of and exercise
the power to review all plans and proposals for the
management of protected areas;
d.
To promulgate rules and regulations
necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act;
e.
To deputize field officers and delegate any
of his powers under this Act and other laws to
expedite its implementation and enforcement;
f.
To fix and prescribe reasonable NIPAS fees
to be collected from government agencies or any
person, firm or corporation deriving benefits from
the protected areas;
g.
To exact administrative fees and fines as
authorized in Section 21 for violation of
guidelines, rules and regulations of this Act as
would endanger the viability of protected areas;
h.
To enter into contracts and/or agreements
with private entities or public agencies as may be
necessary to carry out the purposes of this Act;
i.
To accept in the name of the Philippine
Government and in behalf of NIPAS funds, gifts or
bequests of money for immediate disbursements
or other property in the interest of the NIPAS, its
activities or its services;
j.
To call on any agency or instrumentality of
the Government as well as academic institutions,
non-government organizations and the private
sector as may be necessary to accomplish the
objectives and activities of the System;

k.
To submit an annual report to the President
of the Philippines and to Congress on the status of
protected areas in the country;
l.
To establish a uniform marker of the
System, including an appropriate and distinctive
symbol for each category in the System, in
consultation with appropriate government
agencies and public and private organizations;
m.
To determine the specification of the class,
type and style of buildings and other structures to
be constructed in protected areas and the
materials to be used;
n.
Control the construction, operation and
maintenance of roads, trails, waterworks,
sewerage, fire protection, and sanitation systems
and other public utilities within the protected area;
o.
Control occupancy of suitable portions of
the protected area and resettle outside of said
area forest occupants therein, with the exception
of the members of indigenous communities area;
and
p.
To perform such other functions as may be
directed by the President of the Philippines, and to
do such acts as may be necessary or incidental to
the accomplishment of the purpose and objectives
of the System.
SECTION 11.
Protected Area Management
Board. A Protected Area Management Board for
each of the established protected area shall be
created and shall be composed of the following:

The Regional Executive Director under whose

jurisdiction the protected area is located; one (1)
representative from the autonomous regional
government, if applicable; the Provincial
Development Officer; one (1) representative from
the municipal government; one (1) representative
from each barangay covering the protected area;
one (1) representative from each tribal
community, if applicable; and, at least three (3)
representatives from non-government
organizations/local community organizations, and
if necessary, one (1) representative from other
departments or national government agencies
involved in protected area management.
The Board shall, by a majority vote, decide the
allocations for budget, approve proposals for
funding, decide matters relating to planning,
peripheral protection and general administration
of the area in accordance with the general
management strategy. The members of the Board
shall serve for a term of five (5) years without
compensation, except for actual and necessary
traveling and subsistence expenses incurred in
the performance of their duties. They shall be
appointed by the Secretary of the DENR as
follows:
a.
A member who shall be appointed to
represent each local government down to
barangay level whose territory or portion is
included in the protected area. Each appointee

shall be the person designated by the head of

such LGU, except for the Provincial Development
Officer who shall serve ex officio;
b.
A member from non-government
organizations who shall be endorsed by heads of
organizations which are preferably based in the
area or which have established and recognized
interest in protected areas;
c.
The RED/s in the region/s where such
protected area lies shall sit as ex officio member
of the Board and shall serve as adviser/s in
matters related to the technical aspect of
management of the area; and
d.
The RED shall act as chairman of the
Board. When there are two (2) or more REDs in
the Board, the Secretary shall designate one (1) of
them to be the Chairman. Vacancies shall be filled
in the same manner as the original appointment.
SECTION 12.
Environmental Impact
Assessment. Proposals for activities which are
outside the scope of the management plan for
protected areas shall be subject to an
environmental impact assessment as required by
law before they are adopted, and the results
thereof shall be taken into consideration in the
decision-making process.
No actual implementation of such activities shall
be allowed without the required Environmental
Compliance Certificate (ECC) under the Philippine
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) system.

In instances where such activities are allowed to

be undertaken, the proponent shall plan and carry
them out in such manner as will minimize any
adverse effects and take preventive and remedial
action when appropriate. The proponent shall be
liable for any damage due to lack of caution or
indiscretion.
SECTION 13.
Ancestral Lands and Rights Over
Them. Ancestral lands and customary rights and
interest arising shall be accorded due recognition.
The DENR shall prescribe rules and regulations to
govern ancestral lands within protected areas:
Provided, that the DENR shall have so power to
evict indigenous communities from their present
occupancy nor resettle them to another area
without their consent: Provided, however, That all
rules and regulations, whether adversely affecting
said communities or not, shall be subjected to
notice and hearing to be participated in by
members of concerned indigenous community.
SECTION 14.
Survey for Energy Resources.
Consistent with the policies declared in Section 2
hereof, protected areas, except strict nature
reserves and natural parks, may be subjected to
exploration only for the purpose of gathering
information on energy resources and only if such
activity is carried out with the least damage to
surrounding areas. Surveys shall be conducted
only in accordance with a program approved by
the DENR, and the result of such surveys shall be

made available to the public and submitted to the

President for recommendation to Congress. Any
exploitation and utilization of energy resources
found within NIPAS areas shall be allowed only
through a law passed by Congress.
SECTION 15.
Areas Under the Management of
Other Departments and Government
Instrumentalities. Should there be protected
areas, or portions thereof, under the jurisdiction of
government instrumentalities other than the
DENR, such jurisdiction shall, prior to the passage
of this Act, remain in the said department or
government instrumentality; Provided, That the
department or government instrumentality
exercising administrative jurisdiction over said
protected area or a portion thereof shall
coordinate with the DENR in the preparation of its
management plans, upon the effectivity of this
Act.
SECTION 16.
Integrated Protected Areas Fund.
There is hereby established a trust fund to be
known as Integrated Protected Areas (IPAS) Fund
for purposes of financing projects of the System.
The IPAS may solicit and receive donations,
endowments, and grants in the form of
contributions, and such endowment shall be
exempted from income or gift taxes and all other
taxes, charges or fees imposed by the
Government or any political subdivision or
instrumentality thereof.

All incomes generated from the operation of the

System or management of wild flora and fauna
shall accrue to the Fund and may be utilized
directly by the DENR for the above purpose. These
incomes shall be derived from:
a.
Taxes from the permitted sale and export
of flora and fauna and other resources from
protected areas;
b.
Proceeds from lease of multiple use areas;
c.
Contributions from industries and facilities
directly benefiting from the protected area; and
d.
Such other fees and incomes derived from
the operation of the protected area.
Disbursements from the Funds shall be made
solely for the protection, maintenance,
administration, and management of the System,
and duly approved projects endorsed by the
PAMBs, in the amounts authorized by the DENR.
SECTION 17.
Annual Report to Congress. At
the opening of each session of Congress, the
DENR shall report to the President, for
transmission to Congress, on the status of the
System, regulation in force and other pertinent
information, together with recommendations.
SECTION 18.
Field Officers. All officials,
technical personnel and forest guards employed in
the integrated protected area service or all
persons deputized by the DENR, upon
recommendation of the Management Board shall
be considered as field officers and shall have the

authority to investigate and search premises and

buildings and make arrests in accordance with the
rules on criminal procedure for the violation of
laws and regulations relating to the protected
areas. Persons arrested shall be brought to the
nearest police precinct for investigation.
Nothing herein mentioned shall be construed as
preventing regular law enforcers and police
officers from arresting any person in the act of
violating said laws and regulations.
SECTION 19.
Special Prosecutors. The
Department of Justice shall designate special
prosecutors to prosecute violations of laws, rules
and regulations in protected areas.
SECTION 20.
Prohibited Acts. Except as may
be allowed by the nature of their categories and
pursuant to rules and regulations governing the
same, the following acts are prohibited within
protected areas:
a.
Hunting, destroying, disturbing, or mere
possession of any plants or animals or products
derived therefrom without a permit from the
Management Board;
b.
Dumping of any waste products
detrimental to the protected area, or to the plants
and animals or inhabitants therein;
c.
Use of any motorized equipment without a
permit from the Management Board;

d.
Mutilating, defacing or destroying objects
of natural beauty, or objects of interest to cultural
communities (of scenic value);
e.
Damaging and leaving roads and trails in a
damaged condition;
f.
Squatting, mineral locating, or otherwise
occupying any land;
g.
Constructing or maintaining any kind of
structure, fence or enclosures, conducting any
business enterprise without a permit;
h.
Leaving in exposed or unsanitary
conditions refuse or debris, or depositing in
ground or in bodies of water; and
i.
Altering, removing destroying or defacing
boundary marks or signs.
SECTION 21.
Penalties. Whoever violates
this Act or any rules and regulations issued by the
Department pursuant to this Act or whoever is
found guilty by a competent court of justice of any
of the offenses in the preceding section shall be
fined in the amount of not less than Five thousand
pesos (P5,000) nor more than Five hundred
thousand pesos (P500,000), exclusive of the value
of the thing damaged or imprisonment for not less
than one (1) year but not more than six (6) years,
or both, as determined by the court: Provided,
that, if the area requires rehabilitation or
restoration as determined by the court, the
offender shall be required to restore or
compensate for the restoration to the damages:

Provided, further, that court shall order the

eviction of the offender from the land and the
forfeiture in favor of the Government of all
minerals, timber or any species collected or
removed including all equipment, devices and
firearms used in connection therewith, and any
construction or improvement made thereon by the
offender. If the offender is an association or
corporation, the president or manager shall be
directly responsible for the act of his employees
and laborers: Provided, finally, that the DENR may
impose administrative fines and penalties
consistent with this Act.
SECTION 22.
Separability Clause. If any part
or section of this Act is declared unconstitutional,
such declaration shall not affect the other parts or
sections of this Act.
SECTION 23.
Repealing Clause. All laws,
presidential decrees, executive orders, rules and
regulations inconsistent with any provisions of this
Act shall be deemed repealed or modified
accordingly.
SECTION 24.
Effectivity Clause. This Act
shall take effect fifteen (15) days after its
complete publication in two (2) newspapers of
general circulation.
PICOP RESOURCES INC. VS. BASE MATERIALS
RESOURCES CORP.
Facts:

Central Mindanao Mining and Development

Corporation (CMMCI for brevity) entered into a
Mines Operating Agreement (Agreement for
brevity) with Banahaw Mining and Development
Corporation (Banahaw Mining for brevity) whereby
the latter agreed to act as Mine Operator for the
exploration,
development,
and
eventual
commercial operation of CMMCIs eighteen (18)
mining claims located in Agusan del Sur.
Pursuant to the terms of the Agreement,
Banahaw Mining filed applications for Mining
Lease Contracts over the mining claims with the
Bureau of Mines. So that Banahaw Mining was
issued a Mines Temporary Permit authorizing it to
extract and dispose of precious minerals found
within its mining claims. Upon its expiration, the
temporary permit was subsequently renewed
thrice by the Bureau of Mines, the last being on
June 28, 1991.Since a portion of Banahaw Minings
mining claims was located in petitioner PICOPs
logging concession in Agusan del Sur, Banahaw
Mining and petitioner PICOP entered into a
Memorandum of Agreement, whereby, in mutual
recognition of each others right to the area
concerned, petitioner PICOP allowed Banahaw
Mining an access/right of way to its mining claims.
Banahaw Mining converted its mining claims to
applications for Mineral Production Sharing
Agreements (MPSA for brevity).

While the MPSA were pending, Banahaw

Mining, on December 18, 1996, decided to
sell/assign its rights and interests over thirtyseven (37) mining claims in favor of private
respondent Base Metals Mineral Resources
Corporation (Base Metals for brevity). The transfer
included mining claims held by Banahaw Mining in
its own right as claim owner, as well as those
covered by its mining operating agreement with
CMMCI. Upon
being
informed
of
the
development,
CMMCI,
as
claim
owner,
immediately approved the assignment made by
Banahaw Mining in favor of private respondent
Base
Metals,
thereby
recognizing
private
respondent Base Metals as the new operator of its
claims.
On
March
10,
1997,
private
respondent Base Metals amended Banahaw
Minings pending MPSA applications with the
Bureau of Mines to substitute itself as applicant
and to submit additional documents in support of
the application. Area clearances from the DENR
Regional Director and
Superintendent of the
Agusan Marsh and Wildlife Sanctuary were
submitted, as required.
On October 7, 1997, private respondent
Base Metals amended MPSA applications were
published in accordance with the requirements of
the Mining Act of 1995.

On November 18, 1997, petitioner PICOP

filed with the Mines Geo-Sciences Bureau (MGB),
Caraga Regional Office No. XIII an Adverse Claim
and/or Opposition to private respondent Base
Metals application. After the submission of their
respective position paper, the Panel Arbitrator
issued
an
Order
disapproving
private
respondent
Base Metals MPSA on the reasons
that adverse claim was filed on time, that the
granting of the MPSA application on area subject
of an
IFMA or PTLA which is covered by a
Presidential Warranty, the panel believes it
cannot, unless the grantee consents thereto,
without the grantees consent, the area is
considered closed to mining location (sec. 19) (b)
(No. 2), DAO No. 96-40) and that the mining
location in forest or timberland is allowed only if
such forest or timberland is not leased by the
government to a qualified person or entity and if it
is leased the consent of the lessor is necessary, in
addition to the area clearance to be issued by the
agency concerned before it is subjected to mining
operation.
Plantation is considered closed to mining
locations because it is off tangent to mining. Both
are extremes. They can not exist at the same
time. The other must necessarily
stop before the other operate.
Private respondent Base Metals filed a
Notice of Appeal with public respondent MAB, the

latter rendered the assailed decision setting aside

the Panel Arbitrators order. The
Court of Appeals upheld the decision of the MAB.
Hence this petition.
PICOP presents the following issues:
(1) the 2,756 hectares subject of Base Metals
MPSA are closed to mining operations except upon
PICOPs written consent pursuant to existing laws,
rules and regulations and by virtue of the
Presidential Warranty;
(2) its Presidential Warranty is protected by the
non-impairment clause of the Constitution; and
(3) it does not raise new issues in its petition.
PICOP asserts that its concession areas are
closed to mining operations as these are within
the
Agusan-Surigao-Davao
forest
reserve
established under Proclamation No. 369 of then
Gov. Gen. Dwight Davis. The area is allegedly also
part of permanent forest established under
Republic Act No. 3092 (RA 3092), and overlaps the
wilderness area where mining applications are
expressly prohibited under RA 7586. Hence, the
area is closed to mining operations under Sec.
19(f) of RA 7942.

ISSUE:
(1)Whether or not the area covered by Base
Metals MPSA is, by law, closed to mining
activities.
(2)Whether or not the Presidential Warranty is
a contract protected by the non-impairment
clause of the 1987 Constitution.
HELD:
Anent the first issue, the Court ruled that
the area covered by Base Metals MPSA is, by law,
not closed to mining activities. There is no
evidence in this case that the area covered by
Base Metals MPSA has been proclaimed as
watershed forest reserves. Even granting that the
area covered by the MPSA is part of the AgusanDavao-Surigao
Forest Reserve, such does not necessarily signify
that the area is absolutely closed to mining
activities.
Contrary to PICOPs obvious misreading of
our decision in Apex in the forest reserve Mining
Co., Inc. v. Garcia, supra, to the effect that mineral
agreements are not allowed established under
Proclamation 369, the Court in that case actually
ruled that pursuant to PD 463 as amended by PD
1385, one can acquire mining rights within forest
reserves, such as the Agusan-Davao-Surigao

Forest Reserve, by initially applying for a permit to

prospect with the Bureau of Forest and
Development and subsequently for a permit to
explore with the Bureau of Mines and
Geosciences.
Moreover, Sec. 18 RA 7942 allows mining
even in timberland or forestry subject to existing
rights and reservations. Similarly, Sec. 47 of PD
705 permits mining operations in forest lands
which include the public forest, the permanent
forest or forest reserves, and forest reservations
With regard to the second issue, the Court
do not subscribe to PICOPs argument that the
Presidential Warranty dated September 25, 1968
is a contract protected by the nonimpairment clause of the 1987 Constitution.
An examination of the Presidential Warranty
at once reveals that it simply reassures
PICOP
of
the
governments commitment to
uphold the terms and conditions of its timber
license and guarantees PICOPs peaceful and
adequate possession and enjoyment of the areas
which are the basic sources of raw materials for
its wood processing complex.
The warranty covers only the right to cut,
collect, and remove timber in its concession area,
and does not extend to the utilization of other
resources, such as mineral resources, occurring
within the concession.

The Presidential Warranty cannot be

considered a contract distinct from PTLA No. 47
and IFMA No. 35.
It is merely a collateral
undertaking which cannot amplify PICOPs rights
under its timber license. Since timber licenses are
not contracts, the
non-impairment clause cannot be invoked

PRESIDENTIAL DECREE No. 1586

ESTABLISHING AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
STATEMENT SYSTEM, INCLUDING OTHER
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT RELATED
MEASURES AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
WHEREAS, the pursuit of a comprehensive and
integrated environment protection program
necessitates the establishment and
institutionalization of a system whereby the
exigencies of socio-economic undertakings can be
reconciled with the requirements of environmental
quality;
WHEREAS, the regulatory requirements of
environmental Impact Statements and
Assessments instituted in pursuit of this national
environmental protection program have to be
worked into their full regulatory and procedural

details in a manner consistent with the goals of

the program.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, FERDINAND E. MARCOS,
President of the Philippines, by virtue of the
powers vested in me by the Constitution do
hereby order and declare:
Section 1. Policy. It is hereby declared the policy of
the State to attain and maintain a rational and
orderly balance between socio-economic growth
and environmental protection.
Section 2. Environmental Impact Statement
System. There is hereby established an
Environmental Impact Statement System
founded and based on the environmental impact
statement required, under Section 4 of
Presidential Decree No. 1151, of all agencies and
instrumentalities of the national government,
including government-owned or controlled
corporations, as well as private corporations, firms
and entities, for every proposed project and
undertaking which significantly affect the quality
of the environment.
Section 3. Determination of Lead Agency. The
Minister of Human Settlements or his designated
representative is hereby authorized to name the
lead agencies referred to in Section 4 of

Presidential Decree No. 1151 which shall have

jurisdiction to undertake the preparation of the
necessary environmental impact statements on
declared environmentally critical projects and
areas. All Environmental Impact Statements shall
be submitted to the National Environmental
Protection Council for review and evaluation.
Section 4. Presidential Proclamation of
Environmentally Critical Areas and Projects. The
President of the Philippines may, on his own
initiative or upon recommendation of the National
Environmental Protection Council, by proclamation
declare certain projects, undertakings or areas in
the country as environmentally critical. 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. For the proper management of
said critical project or area, the President may by
his proclamation reorganize such government
offices, agencies, institutions, corporations or
instrumentalities including the re-alignment of
government personnel, and their specific
functions and responsibilities.
For the same purpose as above, the Ministry of
Human Settlements shall: (a) prepare the proper
land or water use pattern for said critical

project(s) or area (s); (b) establish ambient

environmental quality standards; (c) develop a
program of environmental enhancement or
protective measures against calamituous factors
such as earthquake, floods, water erosion and
others, and (d) perform such other functions as
may be directed by the President from time to
time.
Section 5. Environmentally Non-Critical
Projects. All other projects, undertakings and
areas not declared by the President as
environmentally critical shall be considered as
non-critical and shall not be required to submit an
environmental impact statement. The National
Environmental Protection Council, thru the
Ministry of Human Settlements may however
require non-critical projects and undertakings to
provide additional environmental safeguards as it
may deem necessary.
Section 6. Secretariat. The National Environmental
Protection Council is hereby authorized to
constitute the necessary secretariat which will
administer the Environmental Impact Statement
System and undertake the processing and
evaluation of environmental impact statements.
Section 7. Management and Financial
Assistance. The Ministry of Human Settlements is

hereby authorized to provide management and

financial support to government offices and
instrumentalities placed under its supervision
pursuant to this Decree financed from its existing
appropriation or from budgetary augmentation as
the Minister of Human Settlements may deem
necessary.
Section 8. Rules and Regulations. The National
Environmental Protection Council shall issue the
necessary rules and regulations to implement this
Decree. For this purpose, the National Pollution
Control Commission may be availed of as one of
its implementing arms, consistent with the powers
and responsibilities of the National Pollution
Control Commission as provided in P.D. No. 984.
Section 9. Penalty for Violation. Any person,
corporation or partnership found violating Section
4 of this Decree, or the terms and conditions in
the issuance of the Environmental Compliance
Certificate, or of the standards, rules and
regulations issued by the National Environmental
Protection Council pursuant to this Decree shall be
punished by the suspension or cancellation of
his/its certificate or and/or a fine in an amount not
to exceed Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) for
every violation thereof, at the discretion of the
National Environmental Protection Council.

Section 10. Environmental Revolving

Fund. Proceeds from the penalties prescribed in
the preceding Section 9 and other penalties
imposed by the National Pollution Control
Commission as authorized in P.D. 984, shall be
automatically appropriated into an Environment
Revolving Fund hereby created as an exemption to
P.D. 711 and P.D. 1234. The fund shall be used
exclusively for the operation of the National
Environmental Protection Council and the National
Pollution Control Commission in the
implementation of this Decree. The rules and
regulations for the utilization of this fund shall be
formulated by the Ministry of Human Settlements
and submitted to the President for approval.
Section 11. Repealing Clause. The Inter-Agency
Advisory Council of the National Pollution Control
Commission created under Section 4 of P.D. 984 is
hereby abolished and its powers and
responsibilities are forthwith delegated and
transferred to the Control of the National
Environmental Protection Council.
All other laws, decrees, executive orders, rules
and regulations inconsistent herewith are hereby
repealed, amended or modified accordingly.
Section 12. Effectivity Clause. This Decree shall
take effect immediately.

DONE in the City of Manila, this 11th day of June,

in the year of Our Lord, nineteen hundred and
seventy-eight.

BORACAY FOUNDATION, INC. v. THE

PROVINCE OF AKLAN, REPRESENTED BY GOV.
CARLITO S. MARQUEZ, THE PHIL.
RECLAMATION AUTHORITY & THE DENR-EMB
(REGION VI)
FACTS:
Boracay Island (Boracay), a tropical paradise
located in the Western Visayas region of the
Philippines and one of the countrys most popular
tourist destinations, was declared a tourist zone
and marine reserve in 1973 under Presidential
Proclamation No. 1801. The island comprises the
barangays of Manoc-manoc, Balabag, and Yapak,
all within the municipality of Malay, in the
province of Aklan.
More than a decade ago, respondent Province
built the Caticlan Jetty Port and Passenger
Terminal at Barangay Caticlan to be the main
gateway to Boracay.It also built the corresponding
Cagban Jetty Port and Passenger Terminal to be
the receiving end for tourists in Boracay.

Respondent Province operates both ports to

provide structural facilities suited for locals,
tourists and guests and to provide safety and
security measures.
Governor Marquez sent a letter to respondent PRA
on March 12, 2009 expressing the interest of
respondent Province to reclaim about 2.64
hectares of land along the foreshores of Barangay
Caticlan, Municipality of Malay, Province of Aklan,
pursuant to Resolution No. 13, s. 2008 issued by
the Sangguniang Barangay of Caticlan.
Sometime in April 2009, respondent Province
entered into an agreement with the Financial
Advisor/Consultant that won in the bidding
process held a month before, to conduct the
necessary feasibility study of the proposed project
for the Renovation/Rehabilitation of the Caticlan
Passenger Terminal Building and Jetty Port,
Enhancement and Recovery of Old Caticlan
Coastline, and Reclamation of a Portion of
Foreshore for Commercial Purposes (the Marina
Project), in Malay, Aklan.
Subsequently, on May 7, 2009, the Sangguniang
Panlalawigan of respondent Province issued
Resolution No. 2009110, which authorized
Governor Marquez to file an application to reclaim
the 2.64 hectares of foreshore area in Caticlan,

Malay, Aklan with respondent PRA.

Meanwhile, the Sangguniang Bayan of the
Municipality of Malay expressed its strong
opposition to the intended foreshore lease
application, through Resolution No. 044, approved
on July 22, 2009, manifesting therein that
respondent Provinces foreshore lease application
was for business enterprise purposes for its
benefit, at the expense of the local government of
Malay, which by statutory provisions was the
rightful entity to develop, utilize and reap benefits
from the natural resources found within its
jurisdiction.
In August 2009, a Preliminary Geohazard
Assessmentfor the enhancement/expansion of the
existing Caticlan Jetty Port and Passenger Terminal
through beach zone restoration and Protective
Marina Developments in Caticlan, Malay, Aklan
was completed.
Thereafter, Governor Marquez submitted an
Environmental Performance Report and Monitoring
Program (EPRMP) to DENR-EMB RVI, which he had
attached to his letter dated September 19, 2009,
as an initial step for securing an Environmental
Compliance Certificate (ECC). The letter reads in
part:

With the project expected to start its construction

implementation next month, the province hereby
assures your good office that it will give
preferential attention to and shall comply with
whatever comments that you may have on this
EPRMP.
Within the same month of October 2009,
respondent Province deliberated on the possible
expansion from its original proposed reclamation
area of 2.64 hectares to forty (40) hectares.
Respondent PRA approved the reclamation project
on April 20, 2010 in its Resolution No. 4094and
authorized its General Manager/Chief Executive
Officer (CEO) to enter into a MOA with respondent
Province for the implementation of the
reclamation project.
On April 27, 2010, DENR-EMB RVI issued to
respondent Province ECC-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, respondent Province entered
into a MOA with respondent PRA.
In Resolution No. 046, Series of 2010, adopted on

June 23, 2010, the Malay Municipality reiterated

its strong opposition to respondent Provinces
project and denied its request for
afavorableendorsement of the Marina Project.
The Malay Municipality subsequently issued
Resolution No. 016, Series of 2010, adopted on
August 3, 2010, to request respondent PRA not to
grant reclamation permit and notice to proceed to
the Marina Project of the respondent Provincial
Government of Aklan located at Caticlan, Malay,
Aklan.
In a letter dated October 12, 2010, petitioner
informed respondent PRA of its opposition to the
reclamation project.
Petitioner likewise transmitted its Resolution No.
001, Series of 2010, registering its opposition to
the reclamation project to respondent Province,
respondent PRA, respondent DENR-EMB, the
National Economic Development Authority Region
VI, the Malay Municipality, and other concerned
entities.
Petitioner alleges that despite the Malay
Municipalitys denial of respondent Provinces
request for afavorableendorsement, as well as the
strong opposition manifested both by Barangay
Caticlan and petitioner as an NGO, respondent

Province still continued with the implementation

of the Reclamation Project.
On June 1, 2011, petitioner filed the instant
Petition for Environmental Protection
Order/Issuance of the Writ of Continuing
Mandamus. On June 7, 2011, this Court issued a
Temporary Environmental Protection Order (TEPO)
and ordered the respondents to file their
respective comments to the petition.
After receiving a copy of the TEPO on June 9,
2011, respondent Province immediately issued an
order to the Provincial Engineering Office and the
concerned contractor to cease and desist from
conducting any construction activities until further
orders from this Court.
ISSUES:
[1] Whether or not the petition should be
dismissed for having been rendered moot and
academic;
[2] Whether or not the petition is premature
because petitioner failed to exhaust
administrative remedies before filing this case;
[3] Whether or not respondent Province failed to
perform a full EIA as required by laws and
regulations based on the scope and classification
of the project;

[4] Whether or not respondent Province complied

with all the requirements under the pertinent laws
and regulations; and
[5] Whether or not there was proper, timely, and
sufficient public consultation for the project
HELD:
A close reading of the two LGUs respective
resolutions would reveal that they are not
sufficient to render the petition moot and
academic, as there are explicit conditions
imposed that must be complied with by
respondent Province. In Resolution No. 003,
series of 2012, of the Sangguniang Barangay of
Caticlan it is stated that any vertical structures to
be constructed shall be subject for barangay
endorsement. Clearly, what the barangay
endorsed was the reclamation only, and not the
entire project that includes the construction of a
commercial building and wellness center, and
other tourism-related facilities.Petitioners
objections, as may be recalled, pertain not only to
the reclamation per se, but also to the building to
be constructed and the entire projects perceived
ill effects to the surrounding environment.
The Sangguniang Bayan of Malay obviously
imposed explicit conditions for respondent
Province to comply with on pain of revocation of

its endorsement of the project, including the need

to conduct a comprehensive study on the
environmental impact of the reclamation project,
which is the heart of the petition before us.
Therefore, the contents of the two resolutions
submitted by respondent Province do not support
its conclusion that the subsequent favorable
endorsement of the LGUs had already addressed
all the issues raised and rendered the instant
petition moot and academic.
We do not agree with respondents
appreciation of the applicability of the rule
on exhaustion of administrative remedies in
this case. We are reminded of our ruling in
Pagara v. Court of Appeals, which summarized our
earlier decisions on the procedural requirement of
exhaustion of administrative remedies, to wit:
REMEDIAL LAW: exhaustion of
administrative remedies
The rule regarding exhaustion of administrative
remedies is not a hard and fast rule. It is not
applicable: (1) where the question in dispute is
purely a legal one, or (2) where the controverted
act is patently illegal or was performed without
jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction; or (3)
where the respondent is a department secretary,
whose acts as an alter ego of the President bear

the implied or assumed approval of the latter,

unless actually disapproved by him, or (4) where
there are circumstances indicating the urgency of
judicial intervention.
Said principle may also be disregarded when it
does not provide a plain, speedy and adequate
remedy, when there is no due process observed,
or where the protestant has no other recourse.
Although petitioner was not a party to the
proceedings where the decision to issue an ECC
was rendered, it stands to be aggrieved by the
decision, because it claims that the reclamation of
land on the Caticlan side would unavoidably
adversely affect the Boracay side, where
petitioners members own establishments engaged
in the tourism trade. As noted earlier, petitioner
contends that the declared objective of the
reclamation project is to exploit Boracays tourism
trade because the project is intended to enhance
support services thereto; however, this objective
would not be achieved since the white-sand
beaches for which Boracay is famous might be
negatively affected by the project. Petitioners
conclusion is that respondent Province, aided and
abetted by respondents PRA and DENR-EMB RVI,
ignored the spirit and letter of our environmental
laws, and should thus be compelled to perform
their duties under said laws.

REMEDIAL LAW: new rules of procedure for

environmental cases; writ of continuing
mandamus
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
Rationale of the said Rules explains the writ in this
wise:
Environmental law highlights the shift in the focalpoint from the initiation of regulation by Congress
to the implementation of regulatory programs by
the appropriate government agencies.
Thus, a government agencys inaction, if any, has
serious implications on the future of
environmental law enforcement. Private
individuals, to the extent that they seek to change
the scope of the regulatory process, will have to
rely on such agencies to take the initial incentives,
which may require a judicial component.
Accordingly, questions regarding the propriety of
an agencys action or inaction will need to be

analyzed.
This point is emphasized in the availability of the
remedy of the writ of mandamus, which allows for
the enforcement of the conduct of the tasks to
which the writ pertains: the performance of a legal
duty.
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.
Petitioner had three options where to file this case
under the rule: the Regional Trial Court exercising
jurisdiction over the territory where the actionable
neglect or omission occurred, the Court of
Appeals, or this Court.
Petitioner 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 here that pertain to laws and
rules for environmental protection, thus it was
justified in coming to this Court.

3) Being the administrator of the EIS System,

respondent DENR-EMB RVIs submissions bear
great weight in this case.However, the following
are the issues that put in question the wisdom of
respondent DENR-EMB RVI in issuing the ECC:
[1] Its approval of respondent Provinces
classification of the project as a mere expansion of
the existing jetty port in Caticlan, instead of
classifying it as a new project;
[2] Its classification of the reclamation project as a
single instead of a co-located project;
[3] The lack of prior public consultations and
approval of local government agencies; and
[4] The lack of comprehensive studies regarding
the impact of the reclamation project to the
environment.
As may be gleaned from the breakdown of the
2.64 hectares as described by respondent
Province above, a significant portion of the
reclaimed area would be devoted to the
construction of a commercial building, and the
area to be utilized for the expansion of the jetty
port consists of a mere 3,000 square meters (sq.
m). To be true to its definition, the EIA report
submitted by respondent Province should at the
very least predict the impact that the construction
of the new buildings on the reclaimed land would
have on the surrounding environment. These new
constructions and their environmental effects

were not covered by the old studies that

respondent Province previously submitted for the
construction of the original jetty port in 1999, and
which it re-submitted in its application for ECC in
this alleged expansion, instead of conducting
updated and more comprehensive studies.
Any impact on the Boracay side cannot be totally
ignored, as Caticlan and Boracay are separated
only by a narrow strait. This becomes more
imperative because of the significant
contributions of Boracays white-sand beach to the
countrys tourism trade, which requires respondent
Province to proceed with utmost caution in
implementing projects within its vicinity.

undertake reclamation nationwide. Hence, it was

necessary for respondent Province to go through
respondent PRA and to execute a MOA, wherein
respondent PRAs authority to reclaim was
delegated to respondent Province. Respondent
DENR-EMB RVI, regional office of the DENR, is also
a national government institution which is tasked
with the issuance of the ECC that is a prerequisite
to projects covered by environmental laws such as
the one at bar.
This project can be classified as a national project
that affects the environmental and ecological
balance of local communities, and is covered by
the requirements found in the Local Government
Code provisions.

POLITICAL LAW: public consultation

The Local Government Code establishes the duties
of national government agencies in the
maintenance of ecological balance, and requires
them to secure prior public consultation and
approval of local government units for the projects
described therein.
In the case before us, the national agency
involved is respondent PRA. Even if the project
proponent is the local government of Aklan, it is
respondent PRA which authorized the reclamation,
being the exclusive agency of the government to

Under the Local Government Code, therefore, two

requisites must be met before a national project
that affects the environmental and ecological
balance of local communities can be
implemented: prior consultationwith the affected
local communities, and prior approval of the
project by the appropriate sanggunian. Absent
either of these mandatory requirements, the
projects implementation is illegal.
Based on the above, therefore, prior consultations
and prior approval are required by law to have
been conducted and secured by the respondent

Province. Accordingly, the information

dissemination conducted months after the ECC
had already been issued was insufficient to
comply with this requirement under the Local
Government Code. Had they been conducted
properly, the prior public consultation should have
considered the ecological or environmental
concerns of the stakeholders and studied
measures alternative to the project, to avoid or
minimize adverse environmental impact or
damage. In fact, respondent Province once tried to
obtain the favorable endorsement of the
Sangguniang Bayan of Malay, but this was denied
by the latter.

and public hearings conducted during the EIA

process are to be documented. The public
hearing/consultation Process reportshall be
validated by the EMB/EMB RD and shall constitute
part of the records of the EIA process.

Moreover, DENR DAO 2003-30 provides:

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 on February 13, 2012, and
the Sangguniang Bayan of the Municipality of
Malay onFebruary 28, 2012, which were both
undoubtedly achieved at the urging and insistence
of respondent Province. As we have established
above, the respective resolutions issued by the
LGUs concerned did not render this petition moot
and academic.

5.3. ublic Hearing / Consultation Requirements

For projects under Category A-1, the conduct of
public hearing as part of the EIS review is
mandatory unless otherwise determined by EMB.
For all other undertakings, a public hearing is not
mandatory unless specifically required by EMB.
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. All public consultations

In essence, the above-quoted rule shows that in

cases requiring public consultations, the same
should be initiated early so that concerns of
stakeholders could be taken into consideration in
the EIA study. In this case, respondent Province
had already filed its ECC application before it met
with the local government units of Malay and
Caticlan.

It is clear that both petitioner and respondent

Province are interested in the promotion of
tourism in Boracay and the protection of the

environment, lest they kill the proverbial hen that

lays the golden egg. At the beginning of this
decision, we mentioned that there are common
goals of national significance that are very
apparent from both the petitioners and the
respondents respective pleadings and
memoranda.
As shown by the above provisions of our laws and
rules, the speedy and smooth resolution of these
issues would benefit all the parties. Thus,
respondent Provinces cooperation with respondent
DENR-EMB RVI in the Court-mandated review of
the proper classification and environmental
impact of the reclamation project is of utmost
importance.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is
hereby PARTIALLY GRANTED. The TEPO issued by
this Court is hereby converted into a writ of
continuing mandamus specifically as follows:
1. Respondent Department of Environment and
Natural Resources-Environmental Management
Bureau Regional Office VI shall revisit and review
the following matters:
a. its classification of the reclamation project as a
single instead of a co-located project;
b. its approval of respondent Provinces
classification of the project as a mere expansion of

the existing jetty port in Caticlan, instead of

classifying it as a new project; and
c. the impact of the reclamation project to the
environment based on new, updated, and
comprehensive studies, which should forthwith be
ordered by respondent DENR-EMB RVI.
2. Respondent Province of Aklan shall perform the
following:
a. fully cooperate with respondent DENR-EMB RVI
in its review of the reclamation project proposal
and submit to the latter the appropriate report
and study; and
b. secure approvals from local government units
and hold proper consultations with nongovernmental organizations and other
stakeholders and sectors concerned as required
by Section 27 in relation to Section 26 of the Local
Government Code.
Respondent Philippine Reclamation
Authority shall closely monitor the
submission by respondent Province of the
requirements to be issued by respondent
DENR-EMB RVI in connection to the
environmental concerns raised by petitioner,
and shall coordinate with respondent
Province in modifying the MOA, if necessary,
based on the findings of respondent DENREMB RVI.

The petitioner Boracay Foundation, Inc. and

the respondents The Province of Aklan,
represented by Governor Carlito S. Marquez,
The Philippine Reclamation Authority, and
The DENR-EMB (Region VI) are mandated to
submit their respective reports to this Court
regarding their compliance with the
requirements set forth in this Decision no
later than three (3) months from the date of
promulgation of this Decision.
In the meantime, the respondents, their
concerned contractor/s, and/or their agents,
representatives or persons acting in their
place or stead, shall immediately cease and
desist from continuing the implementation
of the project covered by ECC-R6-1003-0967100 until further orders from this Court.
For this purpose, the respondents shall
report within five (5) days to this Court the
status of the project as of their receipt of
this Decision, copy furnished the petitioner.