BY ATTY. JULIUS GREGORY B. DELGADO
VERONICA R. BATAN, ET AL. VS. MINES AND GEOSCIENCES BUREAU, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES AND ALTAI PHILIPPINES MINING CORPORATION, G.R. NO. 27730 (NOVEMBER 4, 2025): WRIT OF KALIKASAN NOT A SUBSTITUTE TO AVAILABLE LEGAL, ADMINISTRATIVE OR POLITICAL REMEDIES
The instant case is a Petition for the issuance of Writ of Kalikasan under the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases (RPEC) filed by Veronica R. Batan, Elmor A. Borda and Alfreo P. Pascual, residents of San Fernando, Sibuyan Island, Romblon and members of the ad hoc group Bantay Kalikasan ng Sibuyan supposedly established to curb the purported looming threat of environmental destruction in their island hometown from large-scale mining.
The controversy started after the lifting by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) of the Cease-and-Desist Order it issued against Altai Philippines Mining Corporation (APMC) on September 9, 2021. APMC holds a Mineral Production Sharing Agreement (MPSA) with an area of 1,580.80 hectares in the Municipality of San Fernando, Sibuyan Island, Romblon. Despite Sangguniang Panlalawigan Resolutions and Joint Resolution from the municipalities of San Fernando, Cajidiocan and Magdiwang strongly opposing metallic large-scale mining in Sibuyan Island, APMC constructed its own port and attempted to ship out nickel ore.
Petitioners, concerned about the environmental destruction by the operations of APMC, wrote an e-mail letter to the concerned agencies: (1) DENR, (2) Mines and Geosciences Bureau (MGB), and (3) the Environmental Management Bureau (EMB). The e-mail letter sought clarification on the scope of APMC’s exploration permit and the status of APMC’s Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC). The same e-mail letter urged DENR, MGB, and EMB to: (1) revoke the relevant transport and export permits issued to APMC; (2) conduct a thorough investigation of the anomalous and highly irregular issuance of APMC’s transport and export permits; and (3) issue a CDO against APMC for conducting illegal mining operations without the requisite ECC.
Although petitioners did not receive a response, the EMB held a scoping session and learned from San Fernando Mayor Nanette B. Tansingco that she was not aware of the construction by APMC of a private port in Barangay Espaňa. Petitioners and residents then took upon themselves to set up an outpost near the vicinity of APMC’s causeway to document any potential violation and to visibly register their protest to APMC’s officials and personnel. Several days after the scoping, several dump trucks attempted to haul and loan nickel ore which prompted residents to barricade outside of APMC’s property to prevent it from further stockpiling and loading of ores.
APMC defended its actions presenting Ore Transport Permit (OTP), Mineral Ore Export Permit (MOEP), Certificates of Accreditation from PPA. Petitioners wrote a Letter-Complaint dated January 30, 2023 addressed to DENR, MGB and EMB expressing their concerns of the serious irregularities in the transport and export permits presented by APMC. In response, EMB-MIMAROPA replied that it has endorsed the matter to EMB’s Central office and informing petitioners that APMC duly filed its ECC Application.
Notwithstanding the pendency of its complaint to the concerned agencies, the petitioners filed a petition for the issuance of Writ of Kalikasan before the Supreme Court which was remanded to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals denied their petition and held that (1) the petition failed to comply with Section 1, Rule 7 of RPEC because petitioners failed to allege that APMC’s exploration activity and transport of nickel ore would cause damage of such magnitude to prejudice the life, health, or property of inhabitants of two or more cities or provinces. In addition, the purported threat or damage to the environment was merely speculative or hypothetical rather than real or apparent; (2) petitioners committed forum shopping by willfully and deliberately instituting two actions in two different fora seeking identical reliefs that is through a Letter-Complaint to MGB ad EMB and the instant petition; and (4) the Petition was already rendered moot by the expiration of the OTP and MOEP sought to be annulled by petitioners.
On the first issue, the Supreme Court held that the appellate court correctly ruled upon the affirmative defenses raised by the respondents in their Verified Answer. The Court held that the Rules of Court being suppletory in environmental cases, it would be absurd to argue that their hands are tied in situation wherein the case is clearly dismissible on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction, litis pendentia and forum shopping and it would be forced to proceed to trial and reception of evidence wasting precious time and resources.
On the second issue, citing Paje vs. Casiňo, G.R. No. 207257 (February 3, 2015), the Supreme Court held that the petitioners failed to prove that the requisites for the issuance of a Writ of Kalikasan are present, to wit: (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.
In Paje vs. Casiňo, supra, which involves the construction and operation of a power plant in Subic Bay, the Court further expounded the third requisite and held that ecological threats to be addressed by a Writ of Kalikasan should be potentially exponential in nature or large-scale, which, if not prevented may result in an actual or imminent environmental catastrophe. The Court held that these requisites must be substantiated with evidence, and not merely environmental advocacy. In that case, the Court held that the petitioners failed to substantiate its claims that the construction and operation of power plant will cause environmental damage of the magnitude contemplated under the Writ of Kalikasan. On the other hand, private respondent presented evidence that its project will not cause grave environmental damage, and that the project will operate within the limits of existing environmental laws and standards. Applying the said case, the Court held that the petitioners herein failed to establish that APMC’s exploration activity and transport of nickel ore would cause damage of such magnitude as to prejudice the life, health, or property of inhabitants of two or more cities or provinces.
Citing the case of Citizens for a Green and Peaceful Camiguin, Sulog, Inc. vs. King Energy Generation, Inc., G.R. No. 213426 (June 29, 2021), wherein the Supreme Court denied similar petition against the establishment and/or construction of a diesel power plant in Camiguin since the petition shows that only municipalities of one province will be affected, the Court took judicial notice of the ruling of the Court of Appeals when it held (1) that Sibuyan Island is one of the islands in the province of Romblon; and (2) that Sibuyan Island is composed of three municipalities, namely: Cajidiocan, Magdiwang, and San Fernando. The Court held that APMC’s project or contract area in the MPSA was limited to a single municipality in San Fernando. The Supreme Court agreed with the ruling of the appellate court that the perceived environmental damage from APMC’s mining activities would only affect the island province of Romblon and its component municipalities.
On the third issue of forum shopping, the Supreme Court disagreed with the Court of Appeals since the resolution of the Letter-Complaint of petitioners addressed to MGB, DENR and EMB would not amount to res judicata to the instant petition since the letter merely called these agencies to exercise regulatory and executive functions, not adjudicatory function. On the other hand, the grant of the Petition for the issuance of Writ of Kalikasan will not amount to res judicata to the Letter-Complaint to these agencies for the (1) revocation of the OTP and MOEP; (2) conduct of investigation on the alleged irregularities on the permits issued in the mining operations complained of; or (3) issuance of the requested cease-and-desist order.
Finally, on the issue of mootness, the Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeals that the issue was rendered moot by the expiration of the OTP and MOEP of APMC. The petitioners also failed to prove that one of the exceptions to the general rule that the Court can still proceed to rule upon otherwise an academic issue is present in the instant case.