695. Paje vs.

Casińo,

EN BANC
[G.R. No. 207257. February 3, 2015.]
HON. RAMON JESUS P. PAJE, in his capacity as SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES (DENR), petitioner, vs. HON. TEODORO A.
CASIÑO, HON. RAYMOND V. PALATINO, HON. RAFAEL V. MARIANO, HON.
EMERENCIANA A. DE JESUS, CLEMENTE G. BAUTISTA, JR., HON. ROLEN C. PAULINO,
HON. EDUARDO PIANO, HON. JAMES DE LOS REYES, HON. AQUILINO Y. CORTEZ, JR.,
HON. SARAH LUGERNA LIPUMANO-GARCIA, NORAIDA VELARMINO, BIANCA CHRISTINE
GAMBOA ESPINOS, CHARO SIMONS, GREGORIO LLORCA MAGDARAOG, RUBELH
PERALTA, ALEX CORPUS HERMOSO, RODOLFO SAMBAJON, REV. FR. GERARDO
GREGORIO P. JORGE, CARLITO A. BALOY, OFELIA D. PABLO, MARIO ESQUILLO, ELLE
LATINAZO, EVANGELINE Q. RODRIGUEZ, JOHN CARLO DELOS REYES, respondents.

WRIT OF KALIKASAN

FACTS: The Department of Environment and Natural Resources, issued an Environmental

Compliance Certificate (ECC) for a proposed coal-fired power plant at Subic, Zambales to be
implemented by RP Energy.

Hon. Teodoro Casino and a number of legislators filed a Petition for Writ of Kalikasan against RP
energy, SBMA, and Hon. Ramon Paje as the DENR secretary on the ground that actual
environmental damage will occur if the power plant project is implemented and that the
respondents failed to comply with certain laws and rules governing or relating to the issuance of
an ECC and amendments thereto.

The Court of Appeals denied the petition for the Writ of Kalikasan and invalidated the ECC. Both
the DENR and Casino filed an appeal, the former imputing error in invalidating the ECC and its
amendments, arguing that the determination of the validity of the ECC as well as its amendments
is beyond the scope of a Petition for a Writ of kalikasan; while the latter claim that it is entitled to
a Writ of Kalikasan.

ISSUES

1. Whether the parties may raise questions of fact on appeal on the issuance of a writ of
Kalikasan; and
2. Whether the validity of an ECC can be challenged via a writ of Kalikasan

RULING

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 the issuance of a writ
of kalikasan.
 695. Paje vs. Casińo,

2. Yes, the validity of an ECC can be challenged via a writ of Kalikasan because such writ is
principally 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 boundaries.

[T]he writ of kalikasan was refashioned as a tool to bridge the gap between allegation and proof
by providing a remedy for would-be environmental litigants to compel the production of information
within the custody of the government. The writ would effectively serve as a remedy for the
enforcement of the right to information about the environment. The scope of the fact-finding power
could be: (1) anything related to the issuance, grant of a government permit issued or information
controlled by the government or private entity and (2) [i]nformation contained in documents such
as environmental compliance certificate (ECC) and other government records. In addition, the
[w]rit may also be employed to compel the production of information, subject to constitutional
limitations. This function is analogous to a discovery measure, and may be availed of upon
application for the writ

A party, therefore, who invokes 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 ecology of the magnitude contemplated under the Rules. Otherwise, the petition
should be dismissed outright and the action re-filed before the proper forum with due regard to
the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies.

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.