FACTS:

This case involves an Urgent Petition for a Writ of Continuing Mandamus and/or Writ of Kalikasan filed against the Department of Transportation and Communications (DOTC) and the Philippine Ports Authority (PPA) for their modernization project of the Davao Sasa Wharf (the project). The project, which is a 30-year concession under the Public-Private Partnership scheme, is being carried out without the necessary Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC) or Environmental Impact Statements required under Presidential Decree No. (P.D.) 1586 and P.D. 1151. It is also alleged that the project failed to conduct local consultation and secure prior sanggunian approval as required by the Local Government Code.

The Port of Davao, located in Mindanao, is composed of several ports, with the Sasa Wharf as its base port. In 2011, the Sasa Wharf was earmarked for privatization under the PPP scheme. In 2012, the PPA commissioned a feasibility study on the Sasa Wharf's condition and potential for expansion, which estimated a cost of 3.5 Billion pesos. However, the DOTC commissioned another firm to conduct a second feasibility study in 2013, which projected a cost of 18 billion pesos and required the expansion of Sasa Wharf by 27.9 hectares.

The Regional Development Council for Region XI endorsed the project in December 2014, subject to certain conditions being met. On April 10, 2015, the DOTC published an invitation to pre-qualify and bid for the project. On March 15, 2016, the petitioners, stakeholders from Davao City and Samal, filed the Urgent Petition, alleging noncompliance with Resolution No. 118, lack of prior consultation and approval, and absence of an ECC.

The respondents, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), argue that the petition is premature as the project is still in the bidding process and there is no proponent to implement it yet. They contend that the proponent has the duty to initiate the Environmental Impact Assessment process and apply for the ECC, and that compliance with consultation requirements and noncompliance with the Environmental Impact Statement System cannot be imputed until after the bidding process concludes. The respondents also argue that the allegations do not warrant the issuance of a writ of kalikasan as the petitioners failed to prove a threat of environmental damage that would prejudice the life, health, or property of inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not the petition is premature.

2. Who is responsible for preparing and filing the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and securing the Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC) in a Public-Private Partnership (PPP) project?

3. When does the duty to prepare and file the EIS and secure the ECC arise in a PPP project?

4. Whether the Department of Transportation and Communications (DOTC) is responsible for consulting with local government units (LGUs) and stakeholders regarding the Sasa Wharf Modernization Project.

5. When does implementation of a project begin?

6. Whether a writ of continuing mandamus can be issued in this case.

7. Whether a writ of kalikasan can be issued in this case.

8. Whether or not the petition for a writ of kalikasan is warranted based on the allegations of the negative impacts of the port project.

9. Whether or not the petition adequately identified the environmental risks and proposed mitigation measures.

10. Whether or not the court has the technical competence to assess the project and determine the sufficiency of the proposed mitigation measures.

11. Whether or not the bidding process itself poses an environmental risk.

12. Whether or not the respondents violated the conditions of Resolution No. 118.

RULING:

1. The petition is premature.

2. The responsible party in a PPP project for preparing and filing the EIS and securing the ECC is the private sector entity that has contractual responsibility for the project, as identified in the Build-Operate-Transfer (BOT) Law. However, in a PPP project that is still in the bidding stage and where the contract has not yet been awarded, there is no project proponent responsible for the EIS and ECC. As such, a petition or continuing mandamus to compel the submission of an EIS and the securing of an ECC in such a stage is premature and misplaced. The public respondents do not have the duty to submit the EIS or secure the ECC in this scenario.

3. The DOTC is responsible for consulting with LGUs and stakeholders regarding the Sasa Wharf Modernization Project, not the private sector proponent. The consultations required under the Local Government Code (LGC) may overlap with the consultations prescribed under the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) System. However, the agency must ensure that the concerned LGUs and stakeholders are thoroughly and truthfully informed about the project's objectives and ecological impact before seeking their approval.

4. Implementation of a project begins with the signing of the contract between the agency and the winning bidder, and the issuance of a "Notice to Commence Implementation" to the project proponent. However, the construction stage and the actual implementation of the project start when the finalized contract incorporating the detailed engineering design is signed by the proponent and the agency.

5. A writ of continuing mandamus cannot be issued in this case because the period for the DOTC to perform its legal duty of consultation under the LGC has not yet expired.

6. A writ of kalikasan cannot be issued in this case because the alleged violation does not involve environmental damage of such magnitude that it prejudices the life, health, or property of inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces.

7. The Supreme Court denied the petition for its prematurity and lack of merit.

PRINCIPLES:

• The Philippine Environmental Policy requires all agencies and entities to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for projects that significantly affect the environment.

• The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) System aims to evaluate and predict the likely impacts of a project on the environment and protect the welfare of the affected community.

• Project proponents are responsible for disclosing all relevant information necessary for a methodical assessment of the environmental impacts of their projects.

• The Environmental Management Bureau (EMB) reviews the EIS based on criteria such as the integration of environmental considerations in project planning, technical soundness of the assessment, and social acceptability based on informed public participation.

• Meaningful public participation is essential in ensuring the social acceptability of a project.

• The issuance of an Environmental Compliance Certificate is subject to timely, full, and accurate disclosure of relevant information by project proponents and other stakeholders.

• Projects with potential significant impacts on the environment must undergo impact assessment to secure Environmental Compliance Certificates (ECCs).

• The comprehensive EIS should include an executive summary, project description, scoping agreement, baseline environmental conditions, impact assessment, environmental risk assessment, environmental management program/plan, supporting documents, proposals for environmental monitoring and guarantee funds, and other clearances and documents.

• The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) System requires agencies, instrumentalities of the national government, government-owned or controlled corporations (GOCCs), and private corporations, firms, and entities to prepare and file an EIS for every proposed project or undertaking that significantly affects the environment.

• The responsible party for preparing and filing the EIS and securing the Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC) in a PPP project is the private sector entity that has contractual responsibility for the project, as identified in the Build-Operate-Transfer (BOT) Law.

• In a PPP project that is still in the bidding stage and where the contract has not yet been awarded, there is no project proponent responsible for the EIS and ECC.

• The duty to consult the concerned LGUs and stakeholders belongs to the national government agency or government-owned and controlled corporation (GOCC) involved in the planning and implementation of the project.

• Implementation of a project begins with the signing of the contract and the issuance of a "Notice to Commence Implementation" to the project proponent, but actual construction and implementation start when the finalized contract incorporating the detailed engineering design is signed.

• A writ of continuing mandamus is available when a government agency unlawfully neglects a specific legal duty in connection with the enforcement or violation of an environmental law, rule, or regulation, and there is no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. However, it cannot be resorted to when the respondent is not the person obliged to perform the duty under the law or when the period for the respondent to perform its legal duty has not yet expired.

• A writ of kalikasan can be issued to anyone whose constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology is violated or threatened with violation by an unlawful act or omission. However, the violation must involve environmental damage of such magnitude that it prejudices the life, health, or property of inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces.

• The allegations supporting an application for a writ of kalikasan must clearly identify the threats posed by the project itself.

• Allegations of environmental risks must also include the existence and availability of mitigating measures.

• The court does not have the technical competence to assess the project and determine the sufficiency of the proposed mitigation measures.

• The bidding process itself does not pose any environmental risk.

• Compliance with conditions of a resolution is required before the implementation of the project.