Paje v.

Casino et al.
Posted on October 27, 2016
(Remedial law: Appeal; Environmental Law: Writ of Kalikasan)

G.R. No. 207257        February 3, 2015

HON. RAMON JESUS PAJE, in his capacity as DENR Secretary v. Hon.

Teodoro Casino, et al.

Facts

The Department of Environment and Natural Resources, issued an

Environmental Compliance Certificate 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.
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.

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.