BY ATTY. JULIUS GREGORY B. DELGADO
PROTECT MANICANI ISLAND SOCIETY INCORPORATED (PROMISI), ET AL. VS. HON. MA. ANTONIA YULO-LOYZAGA AND HINATUAN MINING CORPORATION, G.R. NO. 262969 (JANUARY 28, 2026): RESTATEMENT OF THE REQUISITES FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A WRIT OF KALIKASAN AND THE APPLICATION OF PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE UNDER THE RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CASES
The case involves the tenement of respondent Hinatuan Mining Corporation (HMC), a subsidiary of Nickel Asia Corporation, in the island of Manicani, Guiuan, Eastern Samar. Petitioners Protect Manicani Island Society, Inc., United Manicani Metro Manila Residence Organization, Inc. and Hamorawon Manila Residence Elementary Batch Association, Inc. are non-government organizations which are represented by their respective members and which all claim to be composed of concerned citizens who are primarily residents of Manicani Island and nearby towns supposedly directly affected by the mining operations in the island.
On October 28, 1992, the National Government granted HMC a Mineral Production and Sharing Agreement (MPSA) to conduct mining operations in an area of 1,165 hectares in the island for a period of 25 years. In 2000, a Complaint was lodged before the Mines and Geosciences Bureau (MGB) Regional Office (RO) No. VIII by barangay officials, residents of Manicani and the Roman Catholic Church Diocese of Borangan, Eastern Samar, seeking the closure of the Manicani mines on supposed irregularities and violations by the HMC, e.g.: 1) lack of public hearing and social acceptability; 2) non-payment of taxes; and 3) violation of the Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC).
On November 13, 2002, then Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) Secretary Heherson T. Alvarez issued a Memorandum to the MGB ordering it to cause the stoppage of the mining operations of HMC in the Island of Manicani pending the conduct of an investigation. A Special Investigating Team of the DENR recommended corrective actions which HMC complied and resolved but the suspension of their operation was not lifted.
On October 29, 2018, HMC sought the renewal of its MPSA by submitting an Application for Renewal with MGB RO No. VIII with an alternative prayer for the extension of the original term of its MPSA for a period of 15 years due to force majeure. HMC cited the Order of Suspension of the MGB as the underlying cause of the alleged force majeure. HMC also stated that its letter application for extension was a continuation of the renewal process of their MPSA which they commenced in May 2015 or more than two years prior to its expiration.
MGB RO No. VIII denied both the Application for Renewal and the alternative prayer for extension of the MPSA as well as its subsequent Motion for Reconsideration. On appeal, DENR, through former Acting Secretary Jim O. Sampulna, issued an Order extending the term of HMC’s MPSA and lifting the suspension of its mining operations under the same MPSA. Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration before the Office of the DENR Secretary, but the latter has yet to resolve the same, hence, they filed the instant Petition for the Issuance of a Writ of Kalikasan with prayer for the issuance of a Temporary Environmental Protection Order (TEPO) invoking the application of the Precautionary Principle under the Rules of Procedure on Environmental Cases.
The Supreme Court restated the requisites for the issuance of a writ of kalikasan as follows; (1) there is an actual or threatened violation of the constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology; (2) the actual or threatened violation arises from an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or private individual or entity; and (3) the actual or threatened violation involves or will lead to an environmental damage of such magnitude as to prejudice the life, health or property of inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces.
The Supreme Court held that the Petition patently failed to allege the environmental damage of such magnitude as to prejudice the life, health or property of inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces. The Court underscored that the Petition only makes a general allegation of environmental harm to the surrounding areas of the Island of Manicani merely banking on the supposed small size of the island speculating that it is, therefore, highly susceptible to the adverse impacts of large-scale mining operations. The Court also found speculative the allegation that neighboring coastal communities in the municipalities of Samar and Leyte will be affected by HMC’s operations. The Court also held that the photos submitted by the Petitioners merely depict several trucks and machines and several personnel of HMC but does not necessarily depict environmental damage. The Court held that at best, one can only surmise that the activities captured in the photos depict, “the conduct of ongoing operations of HMC.”
Petitioners invoke the application of the Precautionary Principle under Section 4 (d), Rule 1 of the Rules of Procedure on Environmental Cases, i.e., “when human activities may lead to threats of serious and irreversible damage to the environment that is scientifically plausible but uncertain, actions shall be taken to avoid or diminish that threat.”
Citing West Tower Condominium Corporation vs. First Philippine Industrial Corporation, G.R. No. 1943239 (July 16, 2015), and Mosqueda vs. Pilipino Banana Growers & Exporters Association, Inc., G.R. No. 189185 (August 16, 2016), the Supreme Court held that the Precautionary Principle only applies when the link between the cause – the human activity sought to be inhibited – and the effect – the damage to the environment – cannot be established with full scientific certainty. The principle only applies when there is concurrence of three elements, namely: uncertainty, threat of environmental damage, and serious or irreversible harm. The Court held that in situations where the threat is relatively certain, or that the causal link between an action and environmental damage can be established, or the probability of occurrence can be calculated, only preventive, not precautionary measures, may be taken. The Court further held that this principle still requires scientific basis and that it will not apply if there is no indication of a threat of environmental harm, or if the threatened harm is trivial or easily reversible.
In the instant case, the Supreme Court held that the Petitioners failed to provide scientific basis required for the Precautionary Principle to apply. DENR correctly countered that the MPSA provides information on the extent of the agreement between HMC and the National Government with the contract area defined and sets out limitations through safeguards that are established to protect the environment
Lastly, on the issue of the extension of the original period of HMC’s MPSA, the Supreme Court held that the Petitioners failed to exhaust administrative remedies as their motion for reconsideration of the order of then DENR Secretary Sampulna is still pending. Reliefs sought under the instant petition may be addressed by the DENR and not through the issuance of an extraordinary writ of kalikasan. As held in Abogado vs. DENR, G.R. No. 246209 (September 3, 2019), “writ of kalikasan cannot and should not substitute other remedies that may be available to the parties, whether legal, administrative, or political.”