Search for books, audiobooks, sheet music and more...

Upload EN

The world's largest digital library

Home

2 0 RELATED TITLES
1.5K views
Saved

Paje v Casino Digest

Bestsellers Uploaded by nicole hinanay on Oct
17, 2017

Books m Full description

West Tower Arigo v. Swift - Residen

Audiobooks Condo v FPIC Case Digest Mamma
Save Embed Share Print Angelo R

Magazines
Download Search document

Documents

Sheet Music Paje vs Casino (749 SCRA 39)

FACTS:

! In February 2006, Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority (SBMA), a government agency organized and
established under Republic Act No. (RA) 7227, and Taiwan Cogeneration Corporation (TCC) entered
into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) expressing their intention to build a power plant in Subic
Bay which would supply reliable and affordable power to Subic Bay Industrial Park (SBIP).
! On July 28, 2006, SBMA and TCC entered into another MOU, whereby TCC undertook to build and
operate a coal-fired power plant.
! On April 4, 2007, the SBMA Ecology Center issued SBFZ Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC) in
favor of Taiwan Cogeneration International Corporation (TCIC), a subsidiary of TCC, for the
construction, installation, and operation of 2x150-MW Circulating Fluidized Bed (CFB) Coal-Fired
Thermal Power Plant at Sitio Naglatore.
! On June 6, 2008, TCC assigned all its rights and interests under the MOU dated July 28, 2006 to
Redondo Peninsula Energy, Inc. (RP Energy).
! RP Energy then contracted GHD Pty., Ltd. (GHD) to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
for the proposed coal-fired power plant and to assist RP Energy in applying for the issuance of an ECC
from the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR).
! The Sangguniang Panglungsod of Olongapo City issued Resolution No. 131, Series of 2008,
expressing the city government’s objection to the coal -fired power plant as an energy source
and urging the proponent to consider safer alternative sources ofenergy for Subic Bay.
! On December 22, 2008, the DENR, through former Secretary Jose L. Atienza, Jr., issued an ECC for the
proposed 2x150-MW coal-fired power plant.
! Sometime thereafter, RP Energy decided to include additional components in its proposed coal-fired
power plant. On July 8, 2010, the DENR-EMB issued an amended ECC (first amendment) allowing the
inclusion of additional components, among others.
!
This document is...
Several months later, RP Energy again requested the DENR-EMB to amend the ECC. Instead of
Read books, audiobooks,
coal-firedand more
Related titles
constructing a 2x150-MW
Scribd coal-fired power plant.
power
Useful Not useful
plant, as originally planned, it now sought to construct a
1x300-MW
View
! On May 26,½2011, the DENR-EMB granted the request and further amended the ECC (second
GET — On the App Store
amendment).
! The Sangguniang Panglalawiganof Zambales issued Resolution No. 2011-149, opposing the
establishment of a coal-fired thermal power plant.
! The Liga ng mga Barangayof Olongapo City issued Resolution No. 12, Series of 2011,
expressing its strong objection to the coal-fired power plant as an energy source.
! Hon. Casino’s group filed for a writ of kalikasan against RP energy, SBMA, DENR. The Casiño Group
alleged, among others, that the power plant project would cause environmental damage. that it would
adversely affect the health of the residents of the municipalities of Subic, Zambales, Morong, Hermosa,
and the City of Olongapo.
! While the case was pending in the CA, RP Energy applied for another amendment to its ECC proposing
the construction and operation of a 2x300-MW coal fired power plant

CA:

Denied the writ of kalikasan due to the failure of the Casiño Group to prove that its constitutional right to
West Tower Arigoecology
a balanced and healthful v. Swift
was- violatedResident Marine
or threatened International Boracay
Condo v FPIC Case Digest Mammals v.…
Service for the… Foundation,
Angelo Reyes,
Acquisition of Province of A
Et.al. - Case Digest
Agri-Biotech
Applications, Inc.,
Et. Al. v.
Greenpeace
Southeast Asia
(Philippines),
You're reading a preview. Unlock full access with a free
Et.al.trial.
(Bt Talong
Download
Case) - Digest
Pages 2 to 3 are not shown in this preview. With Free
Trial

- no reason also to nullify sec 8.3 of DAO 2003-30) which allows amendments of ECCs. Not ultra vires, as
the express power of the Secretary of DENR, director and regional directors of the EMB to issue an ECC
impliedly includes the incidental power to amend the same.
- The validity of the said section cannot be collaterally attacked in a petition fo r a writ of kalikasan

But invalidated the ECC for non-compliance with the IPRA law and LGC and failure to affix the signature in
the sworn statement of full responsibility

- Non-compliance with sec 59 of IPRA Law (enjoins all departments and other governmental agencies
from granting any lease without a prior certification that the area affected does not overlap with any
ancestral domain)
- The CA also invalidated the LDA entered into by SBMA and RP Energy as it was issued
without the prior consultation and approval of all the sanggunians concerned as required under
Sections 26 and 27 of the LGC
- For failure of Luis Miguel Abolitz, director of RP Energy to affix his signature in the sworn statement of
full responsibility (integral part of the ECC)
- no reason also to nullify sec 8.3 of DAO 2003-30) which allows amendments of ECCs. Not ultra vires, as
- The first and second amendment for failure to comply with the restrictions in the ECC which requires
the express power of the Secretary of DENR, director and regional directors of the EMB to issue an ECC
that any expansion of the project beyond the project description or any change in the activity shall be
impliedly includes the incidental power to amend the same.
subject to a new environmental impact assessment
- The validity of the said section cannot be collaterally attacked in a petition fo r a writ of kalikasan
Invalidated the LDA entered into by SBMA and RP Energy
But invalidated the ECC for non-compliance with the IPRA law and LGC and failure to affix the signature in
-the Issued without prior
sworn statement consultation
of full and approval of all the sanggunians concerned as under secs 26 and
responsibility
27 of the LGC You're Reading a Preview
- Non-compliance with sec 59 of IPRA Law (enjoins all departments and other governmental agencies
- In violation of sec 59 chapter VIII of the IPRA Law which enjoins all departments and other
from granting any lease without a prior certification that the area affected does not overlap with any
governmental agencies from
ancestral domain) Unlock
grantingfull
anyaccess with aa free
lease without prior trial.
certification that the area affected does
not overlap with any ancestral domain
-
The CA- noalso
CNOinvalidated
was securedthefrom
LDAtheentered into by
NCIP prior SBMA
to the and RP
execution of Energy
the LDA as
andit that
wasthe
issued
CNO dated
withoutOctober
- Sections
the prior
For failure26 and
ofRP
Luis
consultation
Download With Free Trial
and approval of all the sanggunians concerned as
31, 2012 was secured during the pendency of the case and was issued in connection
27 of the
Miguel LGC director
Abolitz, of RP Energy to fired
affix his
required under
signature in the sworn statement of
with Energy’s application for a 2x300 MW Coal plant
full responsibility (integral part of the ECC)
ISSUE
- The first and second amendment for failure to comply with the restrictions in the ECC which requires
that any expansion of the project beyond the project description or any change in the activity shall be
1. Whether the parties may raise questions of fact on appeal on the issuance of a writ of Kalikasan; and
subject to a new environmental impact assessment
2. Whether the validity of an ECC can be challenged via a writ of Kalikasan
Invalidated the LDA entered into by SBMA and RP Energy
Ruling
- Issued without prior consultation and approval of all the sanggunians concerned as under secs 26 and
27 of the LGC
1. Yes,
- the
In parties
violationmay raise
of sec questions
59 chapter VIIIof
offact on appeal
the IPRA on the
Law which issuance
enjoins of a writ ofand
all departments Kalikasan
other because
the Rules on the Writagencies
governmental of kalikasan (Rule 7,any
from granting Section 16 of thea prior
lease without Rulescertification
of Procedurethatfor Environmental
the area affected does
Cases) allow the parties to raise, on appeal, questions of fact — and, thus, constitutes an exception to
not overlap with any ancestral domain
Rule 45 of the Rules of Court — because of the extraordinary nature of the circumstances surrounding
the issuance of a CNO
- no writ of
was secured .from the NCIP prior to the execution of the LDA and that the CNO dated
kalikasan
October 31, 2012 was secured during the pendency of the case and was issued in connection
with RP Energy’s application for a 2x300 MW Coal fired plant

ISSUEthe validity of an ECC can be challenged via a writ of Kalikasan because such writ is principally
2. Yes,
predicated on an actual or threatened violation of the constitutional right to a balanced and healthful
ecology, which involves environmental damage of a magnitude that transcends political and territorial
1. Whether the parties may raise questions of fact on appeal on the issuance of a writ of Kalikasan; and
boundaries.
2. Whether the validity of an ECC can be challenged via a writ of Kalikasan

Ruling
kalikasan

1. Yes, the parties may raise questions of fact on appeal on the issuance of a writ of Kalikasan because
the Rules on the Writ of kalikasan (Rule 7, Section 16 of the Rules of Procedure for Environmental
Cases) allow the parties to raise, on appeal, questions of fact — and, thus, constitutes an exception to
Rule 45 of the Rules of Court — because of the extraordinary nature of the circumstances surrounding
theparty,
A issuance of a writ
therefore, whoofinvokes the. writ based on alleged defects or irregularities in the issuance of
an ECC must not only allege and prove such defects or irregularities, but must also provide a causal
link or, at least, a reasonable connection between the defects or irregularities in the issuance of an
ECC and the actual or threatened violation of the constitutional right to a balanced and healthful
2. Yes,
ecologythe of
validity of an ECCcontemplated
the magnitude can be challenged
under via
the aRules.
writ ofOtherwise,
Kalikasan the
because such
petition writ be
should is principally
dismissed
predicated
outright andon anaction
the actualre-filed
or threatened violation
before the properofforum
the constitutional righttotothe
with due regard a balanced and
doctrine of healthful
exhaustion
ecology, which involves
of administrative environmental damage of a magnitude that transcends political and territorial
remedies.
boundaries.

In the case at bar, no such causal link or reasonable connection was shown or even attempted
relative to the aforesaid second set of allegations. It is a mere listing of the perceived defects or
irregularities in the issuance of the ECC.
The appellate court correctly ruled that the Casino group FAILED to substantiate its claims that the
construction and operation of the power plant will cause environmental damage of the magnitude
contemplated under the writ of kalikasan. On the other hand, RP Energy presented evidence to
establish that the subject project will not cause grave environmental damage through its
environmental
A management
party, therefore, who invokplan es thewhich will ensure
writ based that thedeproject
on alleged fects orwill operate within
irregularitie s in thetheiss
limits
uance of of
existing environmental laws and standars.
an ECC must not only allege and prove such defects or irregularities, but must also provide a causal
link or, at least, a reasonable connection between the defects or irregularities in the issuance of an
ECC and the actual or threatened violation of the constitutional right to a balanced and healthful
ecology of
OTHER the magnitude contemplated under the Rules. Otherwise, the petition should be dismissed
ISSUES:
outright and the action re-filed before the proper forum with due regard to the doctrine of exhaustion
! CA erred in
of administrative remedies. You're Reading a Preview
invalidating the ECC on the ground of lack of signature of Mr. Abolitz in the ECC’s
statement of accountability relative to the copy of the ECC submitted by RP Energy to the CA.
The circumstance of the case show that the DENR and RP Energy were not properly apprised
In the case
of theatissue
bar, no suchofcausal
of lack Unlock
signature infull
link or access
reasonable
order for them withto a
connection freewas
present trial.
shown or even
controverting attempted
evidence and
relativearguments
to the aforesaid
on thissecond setthe
point, as of allegations.
issue only arose It is aduring
mere listing of theofperceived
the course defects upon
the proceedings or
irregularities in the issuance of the
clarificatory questions from the CA. ECC.
! CA
The appellate erred
failureand
when
court
to comply
correctly
withofathe
Download With Free Trial
it ruledruled
that the
new
thatfirst
the and
EIA and
Casinosecond
forwill
group
violating
amendments to the ECC were
FAILED to substantiate invalid
its claims forthe
that
construction operation power plant cause DAO 2003-30 and
environmental the Revised
damage Manual.
of the magnitude
DENR reasonably exercised its discretion in requiring
contemplated under the writ of kalikasan. On the other hand, RP Energy presented evidence an ERMP and a PDR for theto first
and second amendment respectively. Through these
establish that the subject project will not cause grave environmental damage through its documents which the DENR
reviewed,
environmental a new EIA plan
management was which
conducted relative
will ensure thattothet he proposed
project project
will operate modificat
within ions.
the limits of No
showing of grave abuse
existing environmental laws and standars. of discretion or patent illegality.
!
! CA erred when it invalidated ECC for failure to comply with sec 59 of the IPRA Law . The ECC
is not the license or permit contemplated under sec 59. There is no necessity to secure
the Certificate of Non Overlap (CNO) under sec 59 before and ECC may be issued and
OTHER ISSUES:
the issuance of the subject ECC without first securing the aforesaid certification does
CA erred
not render in it
invalidating
invalid. the ECC on the ground of lack of signature of Mr. Abolitz in the ECC’s
! CA erred when
statement it ruled that relative
of accountability compliance to thewith
copy secof27 theinECCrelation to sec 26
submitted of the
by RP LGC to
Energy (approval
the CA.
!
of the concerned sanggunian requirement) is necessary prior to
The circumstance of the case show that the DENR and RP Energy were not properly apprised issuance of the subject ECC)
issuance
of the issue of the ECC
of lack ofdoes not, by
signature itself, result
in order for them in the implementation
to present of theevidence
controverting project. Hence,
and
there is no necessity
arguments on this point, to as
secure prioronly
the issue compliance
arose during with the
the approval
course of theofproceedings
the concerned upon
sanggunian requirement
clarificatory questions from the CA. and the issuance of the subject ECC without first complying
witherred
CA the aforesaid
when it ruled requirement
that the first does
and not
secondrender it invalid . to the ECC were invalid for
amendments
failure to comply with a new EIA and for violating DAO 2003-30 and the Revised Manual.
!
DENR reasonably exercised its discretion in requiring an ERMP and a PDR for the first
and second amendment respectively. Through these documents which the DENR
reviewed, a new EIA was conducted relative to t he proposed project modificat ions. No
showing of grave abuse of discretion or patent illegality.
CA erred when it invalidated ECC for failure to comply with sec 59 of the IPRA Law . The ECC
!
is not the license or permit contemplated under sec 59. There is no necessity to secure
the Certificate of Non Overlap (CNO) under sec 59 before and ECC may be issued and
the issuance of the subject ECC without first securing the aforesaid certification does
not render it invalid.
CA erred when it ruled that compliance with sec 27 in relation to sec 26 of the LGC (approval
of the concerned sanggunian requirement) is necessary prior to issuance of the subject ECC)

Reward Your Curiosity

issuance of the ECC does not, by itself, result in the implementation of the project. Hence,
there is no necessity to secure prior compliance with the approval of the concerned
sanggunian requirement and the issuance of the subject ECC without first complying
with the aforesaid requirement does not render it invalid .
Everything you want to read.
Anytime. Anywhere. Any device.

Read Free For 30 Days

No Commitment. Cancel anytime.

Share this document

Related Interests

Environmental Impact Assessment

U.S. Securities And Exchange Commission Coal Power Station

Writ

Documents Similar To Paje v Casino Digest

West Tower Condo v Arigo v. Swift - Case Resident Marine Internatio

FPIC Digest Mammals v. Angelo… for the Ac
UPLOADED BY UPLOADED BY Reyes,
UPLOADED Et.al.
BY - Case Agri-Biote
UPLOADED
Al Mayo Paglinawan jill_oria Digest
jill_oria Applicati
jill_oria
Al. v. Gree
Southeas
More From nicole hinanay (Philippin
(Bt Talon
Digest

Credtrans First Set of credtrans first set of Credtrans First Set of Successio
Cases Til… cases til… Cases Til… UPLOADED
Commodatum
UPLOADED BY commodatum.docx
UPLOADED BY Commodatum
UPLOADED BY nicole h
nicole hinanay nicole hinanay nicole hinanay

ABOUT SUPPORT LEGAL

About Scribd Help / FAQ Terms

Press Accessibility Privacy

Our blog Purchase help Copyright

Join our team! AdChoices

Contact Us Publishers

Invite Friends

Gifts

Copyright © 2019 Scribd Inc. . Browse Books . Site Directory . Site Language: English