THE Court of Appeals (CA) has denied the appeal of various environmental and fisherfolks organization seeking the issuance of a writ of continuing mandamus to prohibit the issuance of new discharge permits and environmental compliance certificates (ECCs) to facilities that it said could become additional sources of pollutants in Verde Island Passage and other ecologically critical areas, including Batangas Bay and its coastal waters and the coastal waters of Oriental Mindoro.
The facilities include fossil gas-fired power plants and liquified natural gas terminals.
In a 20-page resolution promulgated on May 20, 2025, the CA’s former Sixteenth Division, through Associate Justice Rafael Antonio Santos, held that the motion for partial reconsideration against respondents Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), DENR-Environmental Management Bureau (EMB), Water Resources Board (WRB), Department of Health (DOH), and Department of Agriculture (DA) lacked merit.
“The Court notes that the arguments raised by petitioners relative to their prayer for the prohibition of issuance of new discharge permits and/or ECCs, and suspension or cancellation of existing ones, had already been squarely addressed and exhaustively discussed in the afore-quoted discussion in the Court’s decision dated August 6, 2024,” the CA said.
“In view of the foregoing, the Court finds no compelling reason to modify or reverse the assailed Decision.The petitioners failed to advance any argument in their Omnibus Motion that would warrant a modification of the Court’s finding,” it added.
To recall, the appellate court in August 6, 2024 partially granted the petitioners’ plea for the issuance of a continuing writ of mandamus with prayers for the issuance of a temporary environmental protection order, and directed the respondents, particularly the DENR and the EMB, to come up with guidelines for the designation of non-attainment areas (NAAs) where specific pollutants from either natural or man-made sources have already exceeded the water quality under the Philippine Clean Water Act.
In the same ruling, the appellate court also resolved the letter-complaint and requests by two of the petitioners – Center for Energy, Environment, and Development Incorporated (CEED) and Bukluran ng Mangingisda ng Batangas (BMB) – for the designation of NAAs and whether the bodies of water or portion thereof, should be designated as NAAs for phosphate and ammonia.
However, the CA denied the petitioner’s plea for the issuance of a mandamus to bar the issuance of new discharge permits and/or ECCs to facilities that would be new sources of pollutants such as fossil gas-fired power plants and liquified natural gas terminals in the said critical waterways for violation of the doctrine of hierarchy of courts and doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies.
The petitioners appealed this particular portion of the CA ruling, which the latter has now denied.
In its current ruling, the appellate court also junked the petitioners’ motion for the appointment of a commissioner for the enforcement of its decision and monitoring of the respondents’ compliance with the reliefs that the court granted in the 2024 ruling, saying it has no merit.
“Based on respondents submission, the Court thus finds that the appointment of a commissioner to ensure compliance by respondents DENR and DENR-EMB with the Court’s directive to issue the appropriate guidelines is no longer necessary considering that respondents’ submission that the draft guidelines is already complete, after having undergone public consultations and review and evaluation on many occasion in a span of six years, and is now only awaiting the approval of the DENR Secretary,” it ruled.
However, the CA reminded the DENR and DENR-EMB to “forthwith” issue the guidelines on the designation of waterbodies as NAAs or Attainment Areas (AAs), stressing that “there is no reason” for them not to comply expeditiously with its directives under the continuing mandamus.
“The writ of continuing mandamus would be rendered futile if respondent agencies would only initiate preparatory acts and not complete their mandate to fruition,” it said.
The appellate court also directed the DENR and DENR-EMB to submit a copy of the guidelines within “one month” from receipt of the resolution, and that within one month from the issuance of the guidelines on NAAs and AAs, for them to commence the proceedings for the resolution of the letter-complaints and letter-requests filed by petitioners CEED and BMB and to report to the CA the status within three months therefrom and every month thereafter until the resolution of the complaints.
Concurring with the ruling are Associate Justices Roberto Quiroz and Jaime Fortunato Caringal.
