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).
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 (rst amendment)
allowing the inclusion of additional components, among others.
Several months later, RP Energy again requested the DENR-EMB to amend the ECC. Instead of
constructing a 2x150-MW coal-red power plant, as originally planned, it now sought to
construct a 1x300-MW coal-red power plant.
On May 26, 2011, the DENR-EMB granted the request and further amended the ECC (second
amendment).
The sangguniang bayan opposed the coal power plant. Hon. Casinos group filed for a writ of
kalikasan against RP energy, SBMA, DENR. The Casio Group alleged, among others, that the
power plant project would cause grave 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.
CA: Denied the writ of kalikasan due to the failure of the Casio Group to prove that its
constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology was violated or threatened.

ISSUE:

W/N the denying of the writ is proper? NO

HELD:

The Rules on the Writ of Kalikasan, which is Part III of the Rules of Procedure for Environmental
Cases, was issued by the Court pursuant to its power to promulgate rules for the protection and
 enforcement of constitutional rights, in particular, the individual's right to a balanced and
healthful ecology.
The writ is categorized as a special civil action and was, thus, conceptualized as an extraordinary
remedy, which aims to provide judicial relief from threatened or actual violation/s of the
constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology of a magnitude or degree of damage
that transcends political and territorial boundaries.
The following requisites must be present to avail of this extraordinary remedy:
(1) There is an actual or threatened violation of the constitutional right to a balanced and
healthful ecology;
(2) The actual or threatened violation arises from an unlawful act or omission of a public official
or employee, or private individual or entity; and
(3) The actual or threatened violation involves or will lead to an environmental damage of such
magnitude as to prejudice the life, health or property of inhabitants in two or more cities or
provinces.
In their Petition for Writ of Kalikasan, Casinos group has 2 set of allegations.
o The first set of allegations deals with the actual environmental damage that will occur if
the power plant project is implemented.
o The second set of allegations deals with the failure to comply with certain laws and rules
governing or relating to the issuance of an ECC and amendments thereto. The Casio
Group claims that the ECC was issued in violation of DENR rules on issuance of ECC.
As to the second allegation, 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.
There is only one group of allegations, relative to the ECC, that can be reasonably connected to
an environmental damage of the magnitude contemplated under the Rules. This is with respect
to the allegation that there was no environmental impact assessment relative to the first and
second amendments to the subject ECC. If this were true, then the implementation of the
project can conceivably actually violate or threaten to violate the right to a healthful and
balanced ecology of the inhabitants near the vicinity of the power plant. Thus, the issuance of a
writ is necessary.