Concerned Citizens of Sta. Cruz, Zambales vs. Paje

A petition for writ of kalikasan rendered moot by an administrative closure order is revived when that closure order is subsequently lifted and the respondent entities resume their operations, restoring the actual or threatened violation of the constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology that the writ is designed to remedy.

Petitioners are concerned citizens of the Municipality of Sta. Cruz, Province of Zambales, and residents of the Municipality of Infanta, Province of Pangasinan, suing for themselves and in representation of their fellow residents. Respondents include officials of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), the Mines and Geosciences Bureau (MGB), the Environmental Management Bureau (EMB), local government officials of Zambales, and five mining companies — Benguet Corporation Nickel Mines, Inc. (BNMI), Eramen Minerals, Inc. (EMI), LnL Archipelago Minerals, Inc. (LAMI), Zambales Diversified Metals Corporation (ZDMC), and ShangFil Mining & Trading Corporation (SMTC) — all engaged in nickel mining operations in Sta. Cruz and neighboring municipalities. The writ of kalikasan is a special civil action under the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases (A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC), available to parties whose constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology is violated or threatened by environmental damage prejudicial to inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces. The Mining Act of 1995 (Republic Act No. 7942) and its implementing rules govern mining operations, environmental impact assessment, and rehabilitation obligations.

Petitioners are concerned citizens of Sta. Cruz, Zambales, and residents of Infanta, Pangasinan, who filed a special civil action for the issuance of a writ of kalikasan with a prayer for a Temporary Environmental Protection Order (TEPO) before the Supreme Court, seeking to enjoin nickel mining operations by five respondent mining companies — BNMI, EMI, LAMI, ZDMC, and SMTC — in the Municipality of Sta. Cruz, Zambales. The mining companies held Mineral Production Sharing Agreements (MPSAs) and conducted surface, contour, and modified contour mining of nickel laterite and associated metallic ores across thousands of hectares in barangays of Sta. Cruz and neighboring Candelaria, Zambales, with LAMI also operating a port/stockyard in Cato, Infanta, Quezon. Petitioners alleged that the mining companies adopted unsystematic mining practices resulting in severe environmental degradation: during Typhoon Labuyo on August 12, 2013, a six-foot muddy flood submerged residential areas and farmlands, permanently contaminating them with nickel laterite siltation; rivers turned the "color of blood"; shorelines and fishponds were silted; and the destruction extended to the ecosystem of Sta. Cruz, Candelaria, and Infanta, Pangasinan, encompassing water, air, and soil pollution, forest denudation, exacerbated flooding, destruction of irrigation systems, and severe reduction of palay production.

Regulatory action began on June 9, 2014, when the EMB issued Cease and Desist Orders against EMI and BNMI directing them to stop hauling operations due to heavy laterite siltation of the Panalabawan and Sta. Cruz "Alinsaog" Rivers. On July 15, 2014, the MGB issued suspension orders against ZDMC, EMI, BNMI, and LAMI, ordering suspension of nickel ore extraction and future expansion pending compliance with systematic mining methods. On January 13, 2015, the EMB temporarily lifted the suspension on BNMI's and EMI's hauling operations subject to six conditions, including formation of a multipartite monitoring team, submission of contingency plans, and continued rehabilitation, with automatic reimposition of the cease and desist orders upon any violation. Additional temporary lifting orders followed on February 10 and 20, 2015, for a 90-day period subject to six further conditions including construction of alternative mine haulage roads, resolution of coastal destruction, payment of fishpond damage claims, and full rehabilitation of adversely affected river systems. Petitioners alleged that the 90-day period lapsed on May 16, 2016, yet public respondents had taken extraordinary lengths to accommodate the mining companies' requests for permits for continued hauling and mining operations.

The Supreme Court found the petition sufficient in form and substance and issued the writ of kalikasan on June 21, 2016, referring the case to the CA. The CA issued a writ of continuing mandamus on July 19, 2016, and set the TEPO for hearing. The OSG opposed the TEPO, citing a Joint Suspension Order dated July 7, 2016 issued by the DENR, MGB-Region III, and EMB-Region III suspending all respondent mining companies' operations, and alleged forum shopping. On February 2, 2017, the DENR Secretary announced the closure of the mining operations of BNMI, EMI, ZDMC, and LAMI; on February 8, 2017, the DENR issued separate orders cancelling the MPSAs of all respondent mining companies after an audit found violations of environmental and mining laws. The CA, in its Resolution dated May 22, 2017, denied the petition solely on the basis of these closure orders, ruling that with the closure there could be no unlawful act or omission threatening petitioners' constitutional right, and that no useful purpose would be served in passing upon the merits. Petitioners' motion for reconsideration was denied on December 14, 2017.

Subsequently, the Supreme Court directed the parties to inform it of supervening events. The OSG manifested that the DENR had lifted the closure orders: on January 7, 2021, as to LAMI; on September 30, 2019, as to ZDMC (lifting the suspension of mining operations); on August 4, 2020, as to BNMI; and on August 4, 2020, as to EMI. The OSG further stated that all respondent mining companies were already operational as a result of the lifting of the closure orders, and that the appeals of the mining companies with the Office of the President — which had issued a Stay Order on March 15, 2017 — remained pending. Petitioners maintained that despite the cancellation order, the mining companies had returned to their mining operations and that the closure orders were "paper victories" unless properly implemented.

• Mootness Due to Supervening Events: Petitioners argued that the CA erred in rendering the case moot based solely on the DENR closure orders, because subsequent supervening events — the lifting of those closure orders and the resumption of all mining companies' operations — revived the actual controversy requiring judicial intervention.
• Court's Duty to Monitor Compliance: Petitioners maintained that under Section 3, Rule 1 of A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC, courts are mandated to monitor and exact compliance with orders and judgments in environmental cases, and that the CA abdicated this objective by rendering the case moot based on the administrative audit before the DENR.
• Constitutional Rights at Stake: Petitioners asserted that the case involves the constitutional rights of the residents of Sta. Cruz, Candelaria, Zambales, and Infanta, Pangasinan, who deserve the judicious intervention of the courts, and that closure orders can only be "paper victories" unless properly implemented.
• Need for Ocular Inspection: Petitioners insisted that mining operations had been unhampered, making the motion for ocular inspection necessary to discover possible violations by the mining companies despite the issuance of the writs.
• Rehabilitation Claims: Petitioners clarified that their claims for rehabilitation are not claims for damages but are intended as rehabilitation funds to restore what Zambales and Pangasinan lost from the mining operations.

• Mootness (BNMI): BNMI argued that it totally ceased its mining operations, rendering the writ of kalikasan moot; that the DENR closure order is a supervening event with practical and legal effects; that the relief prayed for in the TEPO had been mooted; and that prior to cessation, it was conducting responsible and systematic activities. It denied violating RA 7942.
• Non-Finality of Closure Order (LAMI): LAMI maintained that the DENR closure order is not final, pending its timely appeal before the Office of the President which issued a Stay Order, and that the petition is therefore not rendered moot. LAMI asserted it did not commit any gross violation of environmental laws and that all its activities were done responsibly.
• Mootness and Continuing Mandamus (EMI): EMI took the view that the closure order rendered the petition for writ of kalikasan and TEPO moot, but noted that the CA had yet to order the lifting of the writ of continuing mandamus, so the DENR remains compelled to enforce environmental laws.
• Ancillary Matters (SMTC): SMTC adopted the CA ruling that the closure order rendered the case moot, and alleged that rehabilitation and payment of fines are ancillary matters that follow the fate of the main issue and are highly factual matters requiring presentation of evidence in a full-blown trial.
• Procedural and Factual Defenses (ZDMC): ZDMC sought dismissal, arguing that petitioners submitted the case for resolution based on the closure order instead of presenting evidence; that it has no operations in Infanta, Pangasinan; that the closure order did not accord it the opportunity to refute accusations; that it did not violate any environmental laws; and that the Regional Investigation and Assessment Team report showed it did not contribute to the siltation of affected areas.
• Mootness and Primary Jurisdiction (OSG): The OSG alleged that the DENR's cancellation of the MPSAs rendered the case moot and that all reliefs sought were resolved by the closure orders; that closure orders remain subject to compliance with RA 7942 on final mine rehabilitation; and that petitioners' insistence on ocular inspection is procedurally infirm under Section 12(a) and (b), Part III of the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases.

• Mootness: Whether the petition for writ of kalikasan and the application for a TEPO have been rendered moot with the closure of respondent mining companies.

• Mootness: No. The CA's dismissal of the petition on mootness grounds no longer holds, because the DENR closure orders upon which the CA relied were subsequently lifted, and all respondent mining companies have resumed operations, reviving the actual or threatened violation of the constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology.

• Mootness: The writ of kalikasan is an extraordinary remedy designed to provide judicial relief from threatened or actual violations of the constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology of a magnitude transcending political and territorial boundaries. Its requisites are: (1) an actual or threatened violation of the constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology; (2) the violation arises from an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or private individual or entity; and (3) the violation involves or will lead to environmental damage of such magnitude as to prejudice the life, health, or property of inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces. The CA denied the petition solely on the basis of the DENR closure orders dated February 8, 2017, reasoning that with the closure of the mining companies, no unlawful act or omission could threaten petitioners' constitutional right. However, subsequent supervening events — manifested by the OSG and LAMI — established that the DENR lifted the closure orders: on September 30, 2019 as to ZDMC, on August 4, 2020 as to BNMI and EMI, and on January 7, 2021 as to LAMI. The OSG further confirmed that all respondent mining companies were already operational. With the lifting of the closure orders and the resumption of mining operations, petitioners' allegations that the mining companies conduct unsystematic mining activities violating environmental and mining laws — the very same allegations considered by the DENR in issuing the closure orders — became material and significantly relevant to the petition for writ of kalikasan. The propriety of the ultimate relief, to prevent further violations of the constitutionally protected right to a balanced and healthful ecology, thus remained a justiciable controversy that the CA had never squarely passed upon or resolved. The CA made no factual evaluation of petitioners' allegations, merely deferring to the DENR audit findings which culminated in the closure orders; but those closure orders had been lifted. Accordingly, the CA Resolutions were set aside and the case remanded for continuation of proceedings.

• Writ of Kalikasan — A special civil action under Section 1, Rule 7 of the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases, available to a natural or juridical person, entity authorized by law, people's organization, non-governmental organization, or any public interest group accredited by or registered with any government agency, on behalf of persons whose constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology is violated, or threatened with violation by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or private individual or entity, involving environmental damage of such magnitude as to prejudice the life, health, or property of inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces. The requisites are: (1) 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 Court applied this doctrine by holding that with the resumption of mining operations after the lifting of closure orders, the requisites of the writ — actual or threatened violation of the right to a balanced and healthful ecology across two or more provinces — were once again present, defeating the CA's mootness ruling.

• Mootness by Supervening Events and Subsequent Revival of Justiciable Controversy — A case rendered moot by an administrative action (here, DENR closure orders) is revived when that administrative action is subsequently reversed or lifted, restoring the actual controversy between the parties. The Court held that the CA's mootness ruling "no longer holds" because the closure orders were lifted and operations resumed, making the petitioners' allegations of environmental violations once again material and the propriety of the writ of kalikasan a live justiciable question.

• "The foregoing ruling of the CA no longer holds, owing to the subsequent and supervening events as manifested by the OSG and LAMI, more particularly on the lifting of the DENR Closure Order dated February 8, 2017 which previously cancelled the respective MPSA's of respondent mining companies." — This passage states the ratio decidendi: that supervening events subsequent to the CA's mootness ruling — the lifting of the closure orders — revived the justiciable controversy.

• "Indeed, with the lifting of the Closure Orders dated February 8, 2017 and the resumption of the mining operations of respondent companies as manifested by the OSG, petitioners' allegations—i.e. that respondent companies conduct unsystematic mining activities, and that their mining operations violate pertinent environmental and mining laws, which were considered by the DENR in the issuance of said Closure Orders—become material and significantly relevant in the subject petition for writ of kalikasan." — This passage explains why the mootness ruling was reversed: the resumption of operations restored the materiality of petitioners' environmental allegations to the writ of kalikasan petition.

• "Thus, the propriety of the ultimate relief in a petition for writ of kalikasan, that is, to prevent further violations of the constitutionally protected rights to a balanced and healthful ecology remains a justiciable controversy. This has not been squarely passed upon or resolved by the CA." — This passage defines the scope of the remand: the CA never ruled on the merits of the writ of kalikasan petition, and the controversy remained live and justiciable.

• Paje vs. Casiño, 752 Phil. 498 (2015) — Cited as controlling authority for the definition and requisites of the writ of kalikasan. The Court relied on this case to set out the three requisites of the writ and its characterization as an extraordinary remedy providing judicial relief from threatened or actual violations of the constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology of a magnitude transcending political and territorial boundaries.

• Section 1, Rule 7, Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases (A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC) — Defines the nature of the writ of kalikasan, identifying who may file it, on whose behalf, and the scope of environmental damage required (prejudice to life, health, or property of inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces). Applied as the governing procedural rule for determining whether the petition stated a valid claim for the writ.
• Section 70, Republic Act No. 7942 (Mining Act of 1995) — Requires an environmental clearance certificate based on environmental impact assessment, with participation of people's organizations and NGOs. Cited by petitioners as violated by respondents' failure to conduct assessment of destruction caused by mining operations.
• Section 71, Republic Act No. 7942 — Requires contractors and permittees to technically and biologically rehabilitate excavated, mined-out, and disturbed areas, and establishes a mine rehabilitation fund. Cited by petitioners as requiring restoration that respondents allegedly ignored.
• Sections 4 and 5, Executive Order No. 192 (1987) — Define the mandate and powers and functions of the DENR. Petitioners alleged public respondents violated these provisions through continued inaction.
• Section 21, Chapter 4, 1987 Administrative Code — Duties of DENR, EMB, PENRO, and CENRO officials. Petitioners alleged these officials failed to discharge their duties thereunder.
• Section 16, Republic Act No. 7160 (Local Government Code) — Local government units' duty. Petitioners alleged the LGU of Sta. Cruz, Zambales failed to comply.
• Rule 359, DENR Administrative Order No. 2000-98 (Mine Safety and Health Standards) — Provides that the vertical height of working benches shall be kept at the maximum reach of the shovel/loader being used. The MGB cited this rule in its July 15, 2014 suspension orders.
• Sections 3 and 39, DENR DAO 2010-21 (Revised Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 7942) — Section 3 refers to governing principles; Section 39 pertains to terms and conditions of a mineral agreement. Petitioners alleged respondents violated these provisions.

Gesmundo, C.J., Leonen, Caguioa, Hernando, Lazaro-Javier, Zalameda, M. Lopez, Gaerlan, Rosario, J. Lopez, Marquez, and Kho, Jr., JJ. concurred. Perlas-Bernabe, J. was on official leave. Dimaampao, J. was on official business.