Prof. Antonio G. M.

La Viña
Lyceum College of Law

Environmental Law Moot Court Exercise: Boracay Renewal

Instructions
TEAMS:
The class will be divided into 4 litigation teams of 2-4 members each and a
Supreme Court of nine members led by a Chief Justice. (Please follow
assignments.)
The six teams are:
Public respondent – Departments of Environment and Natural Resources and
Interior and Local Government, represented by the Solicitor General
Public respondents – Governor of Aklan, Mayor of Malay Municipality, and
Barangay Captain of Boracay Island, represented jointly by a private law firm
Petitioners – Aetas and Environment Boracay (an NGO), they have filed the
petitions jointly and represented by a public interest law firm;
Petitioners – Boracay Development Foundation (association of Boracay resort
owners), represented by a private law fir,
CASE BACKGROUND:
This is a fictitious case, although based on real facts. It begins in October 15, 2018
when Boracay was supposed to be reopened. Without warning, the government
announced on that day that the island will be closed until further notice. This is
because of the need to continue the rehabilitation work that has been started. At
the same time, the government also announced that two big Chinese owned
casinos of 1000 rooms will be allowed in the island. The casinos will be located in
areas in Boracay with the only remaining significant mangrove forests and near
the only surviving coral reefs in the area. Those forests will be cut and the coral
reefs will have to be sacrificed for the building of a pier for the casinos. The DENR
has approved the projects even without undergoing Environmental Impact
Assessment on the theory that casinos do not have serious impacts on the
environment. The DENR also claims that all lands in Boracay are public lands and
the state can do whatever it wants to do with those lands.
In the meantime, the three local governments of Boracay – the province of Aklan,
municipality of Malay, and the Barangay of Boracay Island – have issued a joint
circular stating that they approve the two casino projects. They have done so
without any process. Moreover, they also approve the waste system proposed by
the casinos which is open dumping/burning of solid waste on land and discharge
of wastewater on the open ocean. The air and water pollution from these activities
will like have an impact to as far as Kalibo City, in Aklan. The local governments
and the national agencies also stated that they will not clean up the waste left by
resorts that have closed down after Boracay was closed on the ground that this
was not their responsibility.
Petitioners Aetas, Environment Boracay, and Boracay Development Foundation
immediately filed petitions for writs of Kalikasan and Continuing Mandamus against
the DENR, DILG, and the local governments. In addition to the environmental
causes of action, the Aetas also assert their right to ancestral domain and their
right to free and prior informed consent for all projects in Boracay. Likewise,
Environment Boracay claims to speak for the mangrove forests and the coral reefs
who have inherent rights and can be represented in the case. Finally, Boracay
Development Foundation assert the due process and property rights of the resort
owners.

ISSUES FOR ORAL ARGUMENTS:

1. Is the Writ of Kalikasan an applicable remedy in this case, in particular to

stop the DENR, DILG, and the local governments from approving the two
casino projects?

2. Is the writ of Continuing Mandamus applicable against the DENR, DILG,

and local governments for their refusal to clean up the waste left by the
abandoned resorts?

3. Can the mangrove forests and coral reefs be represented in the case by
Environment Boracay?

4. Is Boracay island ancestral domain of the Aetas? Is their free and prior
informed consent necessary for the casino projects?

5. Do the resort owners have due process and property rights? Assume for
this question that none of them have titles although most have tax
declarations and deeds of sale. They can of course prove their investment
and government approvals/permits.

6. Is an Environmental Impact Assessment required before the casino projects

are approved?

7. Should the petition of Writ of Kalikasan be given due course and the remedy
sought – to stop the two casino projects – granted?

8. Should the petition of Writ of Continuing Mandamus – to order the clean up

of the waste left behind by the abandoned resorts – granted.
PROCESS:
Every litigation team will have 30 minutes each, with two counsels speaking
maximum. The order will be according to the issues indicated above and with the
Petitioners speaking first. They will be followed by the two Public Respondents.
The Petitioners and Respondents may yield time to their allied counsels as agreed
upon by them. After five minutes have elapsed, counsels can be interrupted any
time by any member of the Court to ask questions which must be immediately
responded to by the counsels concerned.
AFTER THE ORAL ARGUMENTS:
After the oral arguments, the Court shall immediately convene and vote on the
case, voting on each issue as outlined above and then deciding whether to grant
the remedies requested.
SUBMISSION OF LEGAL MEMORANDUMS
Each litigation team must submit by July 31 electronic copies of tlegal
memorandums stating their case. Each team will address all tlegal issues up for
adjudication and not just their assigned issue.
The Justices will draft majority decision/dissenting/concurring opinions and submit
electronic copies by July 31.