Concerned Citizens v. Paje
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioners, representing residents of Sta. Cruz, Zambales, and Infanta, Pangasinan, initiated a special civil action for a Writ of Kalikasan, seeking to halt nickel mining operations in Sta. Cruz, Zambales. They alleged that these operations, conducted by several mining companies including Benguet Corp., Nickel Mines, Inc. (BNMI), Eramen Minerals, Inc. (EMI), LnL Archipelago Minerals, Inc. (LAMI), Zambales Diversified Metals Corp. (ZDMC), and ShangFil Mining & Trading Corp. (SMTC), violated their constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology. The petitioners detailed environmental damage such as unsystematic mining practices, nickel laterite siltation of rivers and farmlands, water, air, and soil pollution, forest denudation, exacerbated flooding, destruction of irrigation systems, and adverse impacts on livelihoods. Despite suspensions, the petitioners claimed mining activities continued, and that respondents failed to conduct proper assessments and rehabilitation as required by law. Procedural History: The case was initially filed before the Supreme Court as G.R. No. 224375, which issued a Writ of Kalikasan and referred the case, along with the application for a Temporary Environmental Protection Order (TEPO), to the Court of Appeals (CA) for hearing. The CA docketed this as CA-G.R. SP No. 00032 and subsequently issued a Writ of Continuing Mandamus. During the proceedings, the Environmental Management Bureau (EMB) and Mines and Geosciences Bureau (MGB) issued various cease and desist orders and suspension orders against the mining companies due to environmental violations. The DENR later issued closure orders canceling the Mineral Production Sharing Agreements (MPSAs) of several companies. The CA, in its Resolution dated May 22, 2017, denied the petition for Writ of Kalikasan, TEPO, and ocular inspection, ruling that the DENR closure orders rendered the case moot. The CA denied the motion for reconsideration on December 14, 2017. The Petition: The petitioners are before the Supreme Court via a Petition for Review on Certiorari, assailing the CA's Resolutions that denied their environmental protection claims. They argue that the CA erred in ruling that the DENR closure orders rendered the case moot, as subsequent developments, including the lifting of these closure orders and the resumption of mining operations by all respondent companies, have revived the controversy. The petitioners contend that the CA abandoned its primary jurisdiction by deferring to the DENR's administrative proceedings and that the courts have a duty to monitor and exact compliance with environmental orders. They seek the continuation of proceedings to address the ongoing environmental damage and the necessity of rehabilitation, asserting that the lifting of closure orders makes their claims for a Writ of Kalikasan and TEPO material and significant once again.
Issue(s)
Whether the petition for writ of kalikasan and the application for a TEPO have been rendered moot with the closure of respondent mining companies, considering subsequent supervening events. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in denying the petition for writ of kalikasan and TEPO based solely on the DENR Closure Orders, and whether the CA properly addressed the ultimate relief sought in a petition for writ of kalikasan.
Ruling
The Supreme Court set aside the Resolutions of the Court of Appeals dated May 22, 2017, and December 14, 2017, and remanded the case to the Court of Appeals for the continuation of proceedings with dispatch. The Court ruled that the lifting of the DENR Closure Orders and the subsequent resumption of mining operations by the respondent companies rendered the issue of mootness moot, thereby reinstating the case as a justiciable controversy.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of mootness due to closure orders: The Court ruled that the CA's basis for dismissing the case – the DENR Closure Orders canceling the mining companies' MPSAs – was rendered obsolete by subsequent supervening events. Specifically, the lifting of these closure orders and the subsequent resumption of mining operations by all respondent mining companies meant that the alleged unlawful acts or omissions causing environmental damage were once again a live issue. Therefore, the CA's conclusion that no useful purpose could be served in passing upon the merits of the petition was no longer tenable. The Court emphasized that the alleged violations of environmental and mining laws, which were the basis for the original closure orders, became material and significantly relevant once more. The Court found that the CA did not squarely pass upon or resolve the ultimate relief sought in a petition for writ of kalikasan, which is to prevent further violations of the constitutionally protected right to a balanced and healthful ecology. The CA's decision to defer to the DENR's audit findings and subsequent closure orders, without addressing the merits of the environmental claims themselves, was thus set aside. The case was remanded to the CA for a proper determination of the environmental issues raised by the petitioners. The CA's reliance on the closure orders to declare the case moot was therefore erroneous because it failed to consider the subsequent developments that revived the controversy.
Main Doctrine
The lifting of closure orders against mining companies, which previously rendered a case moot, reinstates the justiciable controversy, necessitating the remand of the case for further proceedings to determine the merits of the environmental claims.