Boracay Foundation Vs Province of Aklan

 

BORACAY FOUNDATION, INC., Petitioner vs. THE PROVINCE OF AKLAN, REPRESENTED BYGOVERNOR CARLITO S. AR!UE", THE PHILIPPINE RECLAATION AUTHORITY, AND THE DENR#EB $REGION VI%, Res&on'ents  ()ne *+, *-* *-* G.R. No. -+/0 -+/0 Boraca Bor acay y Island Island (Borac (Boracay) ay),, a tropi tropica call paradi paradise se locate located d in the FACTS1 Western Visayas region of the Philippines and one of the countrys most popular tourist destinations. The island comprises the barangays barangays of  of Manoc-manoc, Balaag, and !apa", all #ithin the municipality of Malay, in the pro$ince of %"lan. &espondent Pro$ince Pro$in ce operates oth ports to pro$ide structural facilities suited for locals, tourists and guests and to pro$ide safety and security measures. In ', Boracay '* +ummit #as held and participated in y representati$es from national go$ernment agencies, local go$ernment units (s), and the pri$ate sector. The summit yielded a repo report rt #hich #hich sho#ed sho#ed that that there there #as a need need to e/pand e/pand the port port facili faciliti ties es at 0aticl 0at iclan an due to conges congestio tion n in the holdi holding ng area area of the e/ist e/isting ing port, port, caused caused y inade1uate facilities, thus tourists su2ered long 1ueues #hile #aiting for the oat ride going to the island. 3n May May 4, '5, 5, th the e Sangguniang Panlalawigan  Panlalawigan of respond respondent ent Pro$inc Pro$ince e issued iss ued &esolut esolution ion 6o. 6o. '5** '5**, , #hich #hich autho authori7 ri7ed ed o$er o$ernor nor Mar1ue Mar1ue7 7 to 8le an application to reclaim the '.9: hectares of foreshore area in 0aticlan, Malay, %"lan #ith respondent P&%. Within the same month of 3ctoer '5, respondent Pro$ince delierated on the possile e/pansion from its original proposed reclamation area of  '.9: '.9 : hec hectar tares es to forty forty (:) (:) hectar hectares es in or order der to ma/imi ma/imi7e 7e the utili utili7at 7ation ion of its res esou ourc rces es and and as a res espo pons nse e to th the e 8ndi 8nding ngs s of th the e Prel Prelim imin inar ary y eoh eoha7 a7ar ard d %ssessment study #hich sho#ed that the recession and retreat of the shoreline caused y coastal erosion and scouring should e the 8rst ma;or concern in the pro;ect site and neary coastal area. &espondent P&% appro$ed the reclamation pro;ect on %pril ', '* in its &esolution esolution 6o. :5: and authori7 authori7ed ed its eneral eneral Managercer (0=3) to enter into a M3% #ith respondent Pro$ince for the implementation of the reclamation pro;ect. 3n %pril '4, '*, ?=6&-=MB &VI issued to respondent Pro$ince =00-&9-*@-594* (the 1uestioned =00) for Phase * of the &eclamation Pro;ect to the e/tent of  '.9: hectares to e done along the 0aticlan side eside the e/isting ;etty port. 3n  Aune *, '**, petitioner 8led the instant Petition for =n$ironmental =n$ironmental Protection Protection 3rderce and the concerned contractor to cease and desist from conducting any construction acti$ities until further orders from this 0ourt. Petitioner also 1uestions the classi8cation made y respondent Pro$ince that the reclamation pro;ect is merely an e/pansion of the e/isting ;etty port, #hen the pro;e pro;ect ct descri descripti ptions ons emodi emodied ed in th the e di2er di2erent ent docume documents nts 8led 8led y resp respond onden entt Pro$ince descrie commercial estalishments to e uilt, among others, to raise re$enues for the  thus, it should ha$e een classi8ed as a ne# pro;ect. Petitioner li"e#ise cries foul to the manner y #hich respondent Pro$ince allegedly circum$ented the documentary re1uirements of the ?=6&-=MB ?=6&-=MB &VI y the

 

act of connecting the reclamation pro;ect #ith its pre$ious pro;ect in *555 and claiming that the ne# pro;ect is a mere e/pansion of the pre$ious one.

ISSUE1 Whether or not respondent Pro$ince failed to perform a full =I% as re1uired y la#s and regulations ased on the scope and classi8cation of the pro;ect RULING1  &espondent 8led Manifestation Motions1uare stating that the =00 issued y respondent Pro$ince ?=6&-=MB &VIaco$ered an areaand of ',95* meters in 0aticlan, and its application for reclamation of : hectares #ith respondent P&% #as conditioned on its sumission of speci8c documents #ithin *' days. &espondent Pro$ince claims that its failure to comply #ith said condition indicated its #ai$er to pursu pur sue e th the e succe succeedi eding ng phases phases of the recla reclamat mation ion pro;e pro;ect ct and that that the su;e su;ect ct matter of this case had thus een limited to '.9: hectares. &espondent P&%, for its part, declared through its eneral Manager that the %"lan Beach Cone &estoration and Protection Marine ?e$elopment Pro;ect #ill no# e con8ned to the reclamation and de$elopment of the '.9: hectares, more or less.    The 0ourt notes such manifestation of respondent respondent Pro$ince. Pro$ince. %ssuming, ho#e$er, that the area in$ol$ed in the su;ect reclamation pro;ect has een limited to '.9: hectares,, this case has not ecome moot and academic, as alleged y respondents, hectares respondents, ecause the 0ourt still has to chec" #hether respondents had complied #ith all applic app lical ale e en$ir en$ironm onment ental al la#s, la#s, rules rules,, and regul regulati ations ons pertai pertainin ning g to th the e actual actual reclamation pro;ect.   We recogni7e at this point that the ?=6& is the go$ernment agency $ested #ith delegated po#ers to re$ie# and e$aluate all =I% reports, and to grant or deny =00s to pro;e pro;ect ct propo proponen nents ts.. It is th the e ?=6& ?=6& that that has the duty duty to implem implement ent the =I+ system. syst em. It appears, appears, ho#e$er, ho#e$er, that respond respondent ent ?=6&-=MB ?=6&-=MB &VIs e$aluati e$aluation on of this recl reclama amatio tion n pro; pro;ect ect #as prol prolema ematic tic,, ased ased on the $alid $alid 1uest 1uestion ions s raised raised y petitioner. &espondent ?=6&-=MB &VI should conduct a thorough and detailed e$aluation of  the pro;ect to address the 1uestion of #hether this could e deemed as a group of  single sing le pro;ects pro;ects (transpo (transport rt termina terminall facility, facility, uilding uilding,, etc. etc.)) in a cont contig iguo uous us ar area ea managed y respondent Pro$ince, or as a single pro;ect.  The $ery de8nition de8nition of an =I% points to #hat #hat #as most li"ely li"ely neglected y respondent respondent Pr Pro$in o$ince ce as pro;ect pro;ect proponent, proponent, and #hat #as in turn turn o$erloo" o$erloo"ed ed y respond respondent ent ?=6&-=MB &VI, for it is de8ned as follo#sD   %n E=I%F is a process that in$ol$es &re'i2tin3  and e$aluating the li"ely impacts of a pro;ect pro ;ect (includi (including ng cumulati cumulati$e $e impacts) impacts) on the en$ironme en$ironment nt during during construc construction tion,, comm co mmis issi sion onin ing, g, oper operat atio ion n and and aan aando donm nmen ent. t. It al also so in incl clud udes es desi design gnin ing g appropriate &reventive,  mitigating and enhancement measures addressing these conse1uences to protect the en$ironment and the communityGs #elfare. %s may e gleane gleaned d fr from om th the e rea" rea"do# do#n n of the '.9: hectar hectares es as descri descried ed y respondent Pro$ince ao$e, a signi8cant portion of the reclaimed area #ould e de$oted to the construction of a commercial uilding, and the area to e utili7ed for

 

the e/pansion of the ;etty port consists of a mere @, s1uare meters (s1. m). To e true to its de8nition, the =I% report sumitted y respondent Pro$ince should at the $ery least predict the impact that the construction of the ne# uildings on the recla eclaim imed ed la land nd #oul #ould d ha$e ha$e on the the sur surrou ound ndin ing g en$i en$irronme onment nt.. Thes These e ne# ne# constructions and their en$ironmental e2ects #ere not co$ered y the old studies that respondent Pro$ince pre$iously sumitted for the construction of the original  ;etty port in *555, and #hich it re-sumitted re-sumitted in its applic application ation for =00 in this alleged  e/pansion, instead of conducting updated and more comprehensi$e studies. %ny impact on the Boracay side cannot e totally ignored, as 0aticlan and Boracay are separated only y a narro# strait. This ecomes more imperati$e ecause of the signi8can sign i8cantt contriu contriutions tions of Boracays Boracays #hite-san #hite-sand d each each to the countrys countrys tourism tourism trade, trad e, #hich #hich re1uir re1uires es respond respondent ent Pr Pro$in o$ince ce to &ro2ee' 4it5 )t6ost 27)tion  in implementing pro;ects #ithin its $icinity.  The 0ourt chooses to remand these matters to respondent respondent ?=6&-=MB ?=6&-=MB &VI for it to ma"e a proper study, and if it should 8nd necessary, to re1uir re1uire e respondent Pro$ince Pro$ince to address these en$ironmental issues raised y petitioner and sumit the correct =I% report as re1uired y the pro;ects speci8cations. The 0ourt re1uires respondent ?=6&-=MB &VI to complete its study and sumit a report #ithin a non-e/tendile period of three months. &espondent ?=6&-=MB &VI should estalish to the 0ourt in said report #hy the =00 it issued for the su;ect pro;ect shoul should d not e canceled.