G.R. No. 223076, September 13, 2016 PILAR CAÑEDA BRAGA, PETER TIU LAINA, ANT!NI! ". ERGARA, BEN#IE T. BADAL, DI!SDAD! ANGEL! A. $A"IPUS, AND SA$AL CIT% RES!RT !&NERS ASS!CIATI!N, ASS!CIAT I!N, INC. 'SCR!A(, Petitioners Petitioners,, v. "!N. #!SEP" E$ILI! A. ABA%A, IN "IS CAPACIT% AS SECRETA SECRE TAR% R% !) T"E DEPAR DE PART$ENT T$ENT !) TRANSP!RTA TRANSP! RTATI!N TI!N AND C!$$UNICATI!NS, DEPART$ENT !) TRANSP!RTATI!N AND C!$$UNICATI!NS 'D!TC(, PRE*+UALI)ICATI!N, BIDS AND A&ARDS C!$$ITTEE 'PBAC( AND P"ILIPPINE P!RTS P !RTS AUT"!RIT% AUT"!RIT% 'PPA( 'PPA(, Respondents Respondents.. D!CTRINE The bidding process is not equivalent to the implementation of the project. The bidding process itself cannot conceivably cause any environmental damage.
BRI!N, J. )-t/ The Port of Davao is a seaport located in Mindanao. It is compose of several ports, all within the gulf of Davao, but its base port p ort is the asa !harf located at "arangay asa, Davao #ity. In $%&&, the asa !harf was pegged for privati'ation under the PPP scheme. The D(T# study served as one of the primary considerations for current asa !harf e)pansion project. (n December $&, $%&*, the +egional Development #ouncil for +egion I -the -the Council endorsed the project through Re/oto No. 114 subject to conditions. (n /pril &%, $%&0, the D(T# published an invitation to pre1qualify and bid for the Project. Project.& (n March &0, $%&2, the petitioners 1 all sta3eholders from Davao #ity and amal, Da vao del Writ of Continuing Mandamus and/or Writ Writ of 4orte 1 filed this Urgent Petition for a Writ Kalikasan. The petitioners see3 to restrain the implementation of the Project 1 including its bidding and award 1 until the respondents secure an 5## and comply with the 67#. The respondents, through the (ffice of the olicitor 7eneral -OSG -OSG argue that the -e5-to/ o ot -rr-t t8e //-e o9 - rt o9 kalikasan because the petitioners failed to prove the threat of environmental damage of such magnitude as to prejudice the life, health, or propert y of inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces. provinces.$
ISSUE !hether or not the petition warrant a !rit of 8ali3asan.
RULING 4o. The #ourt cannot issue a writ of kalikasan kalikasan based based on the petition. The writ is a remedy to anyone whose constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology is violated or threatened with violation by an lawful act or omission. o mission. 9owever, the violation must involve e:romet- 1 Id. at 263. 2 Id. at 275.
-m-5e o9 /8 m-5te as to prejudice the life, health, or property of inhabitants to or more te/ or pro:e/ in order to arrant the issuance of the writ.: The petitioners allege that the respondents have begun the process of transgressing their right to health and a balanced ecology t8ro58 t8e b5 proe//.; They cite The Competitiveness of Global Port-Cities: Synthesis Report to identify the four major negative impacts related to port operations; & environmental impacts, $ land use impacts, : traffic impacts, and * o ther impacts. The synthesis report claims that most of these impacts affect the surrounding localities. 9owever, these allegations are insufficient to warrant a writ of kalikasan. !irst , the petition failed to identify the particular threats from the P roject itself. /ll it does is cite the negative impacts of operating a port inside a city based on the ynthesis +eport. 9owever, these impacts already e)ist because the Port of Davao has been operating since &<%%. The Project is not for the creation of a new port but the moderni'ation of an e)isting one. /t best, the allegations in support of the application for the writ of kalikasan are ha'y and speculative. Second , the joint publication is titled "ana#in# $mpacts of %evelopment in the Coastal &one for a reason= it identifies the potential environmental impacts and proposes mitigation measures to protest the environment. The petition is misleading because it only identified the ris3s but neglected to mention the e)istence and availability of mitigating measures.2 !urther , we fail to see an environmental ris3 that threatens to prejudice the inhabitants of two or more cities or municipalities if we do not estrain the conduc t of the biddin# process. T8e
b5 proe// / ot e<:-et to t8e mpemet-to o9 t8e pro=et. T8e b5 proe// t/e9 -ot oe:-b> -/e -> e:romet- -m-5e. &"ERE)!RE, we DEN% the petition for its prematurity and lac3 of merit.
3 A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC, Rule 7, Section 1. Nature of the writ . - The writ is a remedy available to a natural or juridical person, entity authoried by law, people!s or"aniation, non-"overnmental or"aniation, or any public interest "roup accredited by or re"istered with any "overnment a"ency, on behal# o# persons whose constitutional ri"ht to a balanced and health#ul ecolo"y is violated, or threatened with violation by an unlaw#ul act or omission o# a public o##icial or e mployee, or private individual or entity, involvin" environmental dama"e o# such ma"nitude as to prejudice the li#e$ health or property o# inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces. 4 Rollo, p. %2. 5 Id. 6 Managing Impacts of Development in the Coastal Zone , p. &5, available at http'((#aspselib.dens."ov.ph(sites(de#ault(#iles(publication)2*#iles(crm"uboo+7.pd#
