TL;DR

The Supreme Court partially granted a petition regarding the Boracay reclamation project, emphasizing the need for a balanced approach between socio-economic development and environmental protection. The Court mandated the Department of Environment and Natural Resources-Environmental Management Bureau (DENR-EMB) to revisit its classification of the reclamation project and ensure comprehensive environmental impact studies are conducted. This decision means that development projects must undergo thorough scrutiny to prevent ecological damage, safeguard tourism, and respect the rights of local communities.

This ruling ensures that projects comply with environmental laws and prioritize sustainability, reflecting a commitment to protecting Boracay’s unique ecosystem while supporting responsible development.

Boracay’s Shores: Can Reclamation and Tourism Coexist?

This case, Boracay Foundation, Inc. v. The Province of Aklan, revolves around the proposed reclamation project in Boracay, a renowned tourist destination. The Boracay Foundation, Inc. (BFI), a non-stock corporation dedicated to preserving Boracay’s environment and culture, filed a petition against the Province of Aklan, the Philippine Reclamation Authority (PRA), and the DENR-EMB, raising concerns about the environmental impact of the project and the lack of proper consultations.

At the heart of the controversy was the Province of Aklan’s plan to reclaim a portion of the foreshore area in Caticlan, Malay, Aklan, initially proposed as 2.64 hectares but later expanded to 40 hectares. BFI argued that the project required a full Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) due to its location in an environmentally critical area. They also contended that the province failed to secure the necessary endorsements from local government units (LGUs) and conduct adequate public consultations. As a result, BFI sought an Environmental Protection Order in the nature of a continuing mandamus to compel compliance with environmental laws and regulations.

The Supreme Court addressed several key issues. One significant point was whether the petition should be dismissed as moot, given the province’s claim that they were only pursuing the initial 2.64-hectare phase. The Court found that explicit conditions imposed by the Sangguniang Barangay of Caticlan and the Sangguniang Bayan of Malay meant the petition could not be considered moot, especially since a comprehensive study on the environmental impact of the reclamation project was still needed.

The Court also tackled the argument that BFI failed to exhaust administrative remedies before filing the case. The Court clarified that the administrative appeal process under DENR DAO 2003-30 applied only to parties involved in the decision-making process, which BFI was not. Thus, the rule on exhaustion of administrative remedies did not apply, especially given the urgency of the environmental concerns and the absence of a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy.

Regarding whether the province performed a full EIA as required by law, the Court emphasized that the DENR is responsible for implementing the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) system. However, the Court noted several problematic aspects of the DENR-EMB RVI’s evaluation, including the classification of the project as a mere expansion rather than a new project, and as a single project instead of a co-located project. These classifications affected the type of EIA study required, as a more comprehensive study would be needed for a new or co-located project.

The Court underscored the necessity of predicting and preventing environmental harm through the EIA process. It noted that the proposed expansion involved significantly more than just a jetty port, including commercial buildings and tourism-related facilities. These new constructions and their environmental effects were not covered by the older studies, warranting updated and more comprehensive assessments.

The Court also emphasized the importance of prior public consultation and approval, as mandated by the Local Government Code. According to Sections 26 and 27 of the Local Government Code, national government agencies must consult with local government units, non-governmental organizations, and other sectors to explain the goals and objectives of any project that may cause pollution, climatic change, or depletion of resources. These consultations must occur prior to project implementation, and the project requires the approval of the sanggunian concerned.

Section 26. Duty of National Government Agencies in the Maintenance of Ecological Balance. – It shall be the duty of every national agency or government-owned or controlled corporation authorizing or involved in the planning and implementation of any project or program that may cause pollution, climatic change, depletion of non-renewable resources, loss of crop land, rangeland, or forest cover, and extinction of animal or plant species, to consult with the local government units, nongovernmental organizations, and other sectors concerned and explain the goals and objectives of the project or program, its impact upon the people and the community in terms of environmental or ecological balance, and the measures that will be undertaken to prevent or minimize the adverse effects thereof.

In light of these findings, the Supreme Court partially granted the petition and issued a writ of continuing mandamus. The Court directed the DENR-EMB RVI to revisit its classification of the project, ensuring the proper EIA report is submitted. It also ordered the Province of Aklan to fully cooperate with the DENR-EMB RVI and to secure approvals from local government units, holding proper consultations with all stakeholders.

FAQs

This decision serves as a reminder of the critical balance between development and environmental protection. By emphasizing the need for thorough environmental impact assessments and genuine public consultations, the Supreme Court reinforces the importance of sustainable practices in projects that could affect ecologically sensitive areas like Boracay.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact Atty. Gabriel Ablola through gaboogle.com or via email at connect@gaboogle.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Boracay Foundation, Inc. v. The Province of Aklan, G.R. No. 196870, June 26, 2012