Dolot vs Paje

Dolot vs. Paje, etc., et al., G.R. No. 199199, August 27,2013 Facts  This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rue !" of the Rues of o f #ourt assaiing the $rder $rder dated %epte& %epte&'er 'er 1(, 2011 and Resouti esoution3 on3 dated dated $cto'e $cto'err 1), 2011 2011 issued issued '* RT# of  %orsogon, %orsogon, +ranch "3 on #ontinuing anda&us, -a&ages and Attorne*s Attorne*s /ees /ees with ra*er for the ssuance of a Te&porar* Te&porar* nviron&ent rotection $rder T$4. etitioner aricris -oot, et a, 5ed the aforesaid petition with the RT# of %orsogon aeging that &ining operations operations conducted '* Antones Antones nterprises, nterprises, Go'a %u&&it ines -eveop&ent -eveop&ent #orporation and TR $re puts the &unicipait* of atnog in environ&enta dangers and despite this fact, %orsogon Governor Rau 6ee and his predecessor %a* 6ee issued to the operators a s&a scae &ining per&it. %i&iar*, it was aeged that representatives of % and -NR did nothing to protect the interest of the peope in sa&e co&&unit*, thus, respondents vioated Repu'ic Act R.A.4 No. 707( or the eopes %&a%cae ining Act of 1991, R.A. No. 79!2 or the hiippine ining Act of 199", and the 6oca Govern&ent #ode. -oot, et a pri&ari* pra*ed for the shutdown of said &ining operations through issuance of T$ as we as the reha'iitation of the &ining sites and the return of the iron ore o re &ined in the area.  The case was referred referred '* ' * the 8ecutive udge to the RT# RT# of %orsogon, % orsogon, +ranch "3 'eing the desig designat nated ed envir environ& on&en enta ta cour court. t. :owe :oweve ver, r, the the case case was su&&ar su&&ari* i* dis&i dis&isse ssed d for for ac; ac; of