Republic of the Philippines vs. City of Davao

Local Government Units are subject to the Environmental Impact Statement System under Presidential Decree No. 1586 as they constitute juridical persons and agencies of the national government when exercising governmental functions; however, when a proposed project is demonstrably neither environmentally critical nor located in an environmentally critical area, the DENR has a ministerial duty to issue a Certificate of Non-Coverage, which may be compelled through a writ of mandamus.

The case arises from the City of Davao's proposed construction of the Artica Sports Dome, a sports infrastructure project. The dispute centers on the interpretation of the coverage of the Environmental Impact Statement System (EIS) established under Presidential Decree No. 1586, specifically whether Local Government Units are required to secure an Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC) for their projects or whether they may be issued a Certificate of Non-Coverage (CNC) exempting them from the environmental impact assessment process.

• On August 11, 2000, the City of Davao filed an application for a Certificate of Non-Coverage for its proposed Artica Sports Dome project with the Environmental Management Bureau, Region XI.
• The application included a detailed location map, brief project description, and a certification from the City Planning and Development Office stating the project was not located in an environmentally critical area.
• The EMB Region XI denied the application after finding the proposed project was within an environmentally critical area, ruling that pursuant to Section 2 of Presidential Decree No. 1586 and Section 4 of Presidential Decree No. 1151, the City must undergo the environmental impact assessment process to secure an Environmental Compliance Certificate.
• The City of Davao filed a petition for mandamus and injunction with the RTC of Davao City, alleging its project was neither environmentally critical nor within an environmentally critical area, and that the DENR had a ministerial duty to issue the Certificate of Non-Coverage.
• The RTC ruled in favor of the City, holding that LGUs were not agencies or instrumentalities of the national government and were therefore exempt from PD 1586 under the principle of expressio unius est exclusio alterius.
• The RTC also found based on certifications from DENR-CENRO-West and PHIVOLCS data that the project site was not within an environmentally critical area and was not an environmentally critical project.
• During the pendency of the appeal, the respondent City of Davao filed a manifestation expressing agreement with the petitioner DENR that it needed to secure an Environmental Compliance Certificate, rendering the case seemingly moot.

• That the Regional Trial Court erred in ruling that Local Government Units are exempt from the coverage of Presidential Decree No. 1586.
• That the Artica Sports Dome project is located within an environmentally critical area and/or constitutes an environmentally critical project requiring an Environmental Compliance Certificate.
• That the Regional Trial Court erred in granting the writ of mandamus as there is no ministerial duty to issue a Certificate of Non-Coverage when the project is subject to the environmental impact assessment process.

• That the proposed Artica Sports Dome project is neither an environmentally critical project nor located within an environmentally critical area, placing it outside the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement System.
• That Local Government Units are not "agencies or instrumentalities of the national government" as contemplated by PD 1586, and are thus excluded from the law's coverage under the principle of expressio unius est exclusio alterius.
• That the DENR, through the EMB, has a ministerial duty to issue a Certificate of Non-Coverage once the applicant has satisfied all requirements and shown the project is not environmentally critical.

• Procedural Issues:
  • Whether the case has become moot and academic due to the supervening change of administration and the respondent's manifestation expressing agreement with the petitioner that an Environmental Compliance Certificate is required.
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether Local Government Units are covered by Presidential Decree No. 1586, the Environmental Impact Statement System.
  • Whether the Davao City Artica Sports Dome project constitutes an environmentally critical project or is located within an environmentally critical area.
  • Whether the DENR has a ministerial duty to issue a Certificate of Non-Coverage for the project, thereby making mandamus an appropriate remedy.

• Procedural:
  • The Court proceeded to decide the case despite the manifestation of mootness, invoking its symbolic function to educate the bench and bar and to provide guidance to implementors of the Environmental Impact Statement System.
• Substantive:
  • Local Government Units are covered by PD 1586. As bodies politic and corporate endowed with governmental functions under the Local Government Code, LGUs are agencies of the national government when exercising governmental powers. Under the Civil Code, the State and its political subdivisions (LGUs) are juridical persons, and Section 4 of PD 1586 applies to "persons," which includes juridical persons.
  • The Artica Sports Dome project is not environmentally critical and is not located in an environmentally critical area. The certifications from DENR-CENRO-West and PHIVOLCS, as well as the trial court's factual findings supported by evidence, demonstrate the project is outside areas declared environmentally critical under Proclamation No. 2146 and does not fall under any category of environmentally critical projects.
  • The DENR has a ministerial duty to issue the Certificate of Non-Coverage. Under Section 5 of PD 1586, projects not declared environmentally critical are considered non-critical and are not required to submit an environmental impact statement. When a project is proven to be non-critical and the applicant has complied with requirements, the DENR has no discretion but to issue the CNC, and mandamus lies to compel its issuance.

• Expressio unius est exclusio alterius — The principle that the express mention of one thing excludes all others. The Regional Trial Court applied this to hold that the mention of "agencies and instrumentalities of the national government" in PD 1586 excluded LGUs; the Supreme Court rejected this narrow interpretation, ruling that LGUs are included as juridical persons and agencies of the government when performing governmental functions.
• Dual Nature of Local Government Units — LGUs are bodies politic and corporate that perform dual functions: governmental (concerning health, safety, and public welfare) and proprietary (seeking corporate benefits). When exercising governmental powers, an LGU is an agency of the national government; when engaged in corporate activities, it acts as an agent of the community.
• Ministerial Duty — A duty is ministerial when an officer has no choice but to perform a specific act required by law in a prescribed manner. When a project is established to be environmentally non-critical, the DENR's duty to issue a Certificate of Non-Coverage becomes ministerial and may be compelled by mandamus.
• Sustainable Development — The state policy of attaining a rational and orderly balance between socio-economic growth and environmental protection, which requires comprehensive and integrated environmental protection programs involving all sectors of the community, including local government units.

• "As a body politic endowed with governmental functions, an LGU has the duty to ensure the quality of the environment, which is the very same objective of PD 1586."
• "It is a rule of statutory construction that every part of a statute must be interpreted with reference to the context, i.e., that every part must be considered with other parts, and kept subservient to the general intent of the enactment."
• "The local government units, as part of the machinery of the government, cannot therefore be deemed as outside the scope of the EIS system."
• "It is axiomatic that factual findings of the trial court, when fully supported by the evidence on record, are binding upon this Court and will not be disturbed on appeal."
• "This Court is not a trier of facts."

• Gonzales v. Chavez — Cited for the doctrine that the Supreme Court may address legal issues for the guidance of the bench and bar despite the case having become moot and academic, fulfilling its symbolic function of educating the public on legal matters.
• Consolidated Bank and Trust Corporation v. Court of Appeals — Cited in conjunction with Gonzales v. Chavez regarding the Court's symbolic function to educate.
• Department of Public Services Labor Unions v. Court of Industrial Relations — Cited for the definition of governmental functions as those concerning the health, safety, and advancement of the public good or welfare.
• Blaquera v. Alcala — Cited for the definition of proprietary functions as those seeking to obtain special corporate benefits or earn pecuniary profit.
• Tiu San v. Republic — Cited for the principle that when exercising governmental powers and performing governmental duties, a local government unit is an agency of the national government.
• Lidasan v. Commission on Elections — Cited for the principle that when engaged in corporate activities, a local government unit acts as an agent of the community in the administration of local affairs.
• Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission — Cited for the rule of statutory construction that every part of a statute must be interpreted with reference to the context and the general intent of the enactment.
• MOF Company, Inc. v. Enriquez — Cited for the rule that factual findings of the trial court, when fully supported by evidence, are binding upon the Supreme Court.
• Jacutin v. People of the Philippines — Cited for the principle that the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts.
• Herbosa v. Court of Appeals — Cited for the enumeration of exceptions when the Supreme Court may disregard factual findings of the trial court.

• Presidential Decree No. 1586 — Established the Environmental Impact Statement System; requires Environmental Compliance Certificates for environmentally critical projects and areas, and provides for Certificates of Non-Coverage for non-critical projects.
• Presidential Decree No. 1151, Section 4 — The Philippine Environment Policy; requires environmental impact statements for projects significantly affecting the quality of the environment.
• Republic Act No. 7160 (Local Government Code), Section 15 — Defines local government units as bodies politic and corporate endowed with powers to be exercised in conformity with law.
• Republic Act No. 7160 (Local Government Code), Section 16 — The General Welfare Clause; mandates LGUs to ensure and support, among other things, the enhancement of the right of the people to a balanced ecology.
• Civil Code of the Philippines, Article 44 — Defines juridical persons to include the State and its political subdivisions.
• Administrative Code of 1987, Section 2(1) — Defines the Government of the Republic of the Philippines to include various arms through which political authority is made effective, including local government subdivisions.
• Administrative Code of 1987, Section 2(3) — Defines Local Government as political subdivisions established by or in accordance with the Constitution.
• Proclamation No. 2146 — Declares specific areas and types of projects as environmentally critical and within the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement System.