Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2011 > September 2011 Resolutions > [G.R. No. 196870 : September 13, 2011] BORACAY FOUNDATION, INC. VS. PROVINCE OF AKLAN, REPRESENTED BY GOVERNOR CARLITO S. MARQUEZ, THE PHILIPPINE RECLAMATION AUTHORITY AND THE DENR-EMB REGION VI :

Please take notice that the Court en banc issued a Resolution dated SEPTEMBER 13, 2011, which reads as follows:cralaw

"G.R. No. 196870 (Boracay Foundation, Inc. vs. Province of Aklan, represented by Governor Carlito S. Marquez, The Philippine Reclamation Authority and the DENR-EMB Region VI).- The Court Resolved to NOTE the Manifestation and Motion dated September 5, 2011, filed by respective counsels for respondents Province of Aklan, represented by Governor Carlito S. Marquez, the Philippine Reclamation Authority and the DENR-EMB (Region VI), respectfully praying that the petition be dismissed as no further justiciable controversy exists since the feared adverse effect to Boracay�s ecology has become academic all together.

At the hearing of this case this afternoon, the following counsels appeared: 

(a) Counsels for Petitioner 

1. Atty. Joel Ruiz Butuyan
2. Atty. Roger R. Rayel
3. Atty. Toni Angeli V. Coo 

(b) Counsels for Public Respondent 

1. Solicitor General Jose Anselmo I. Cadiz
2. State Solicitor Mary Jean D. Valderama 

(c) Counsel for Respondent DENR-EMB

Atty. Jonathan P. Bulos

(d) Counsels for Respondent Philippine Reclamation Authority 

1. Government Corporate Counsel Raoul C. Creencia
2. GCA Kate U. Rebadulla
3. GCA Caron Aicitel E. Lascano

(e) Counsel for Respondent Province of Aklan

Atty. Lee T. Manares

The counsels focused their discussions on the issues enumerated in the Advisory issued by the Court on September 6, 2011, to wit: 

I. Whether or not the petition is premature because Boracay Foundation, Inc. (petitioner) failed to exhaust administrative remedies before filing this case 

II. Whether or not respondent Province of Aklan (respondent Province) failed to perform a full environmental impact assessment as required by laws and regulations based on the scope and classification of the project

A. Whether or not the reclamation project to rehabilitate, renovate, and expand the existing Caticlan jetty port in Malay ("the reclamation project") covers only 2.64 hectares 

B. Whether or not the reclamation project has been expanded to forty (40) hectares to include adjacent coastal areas in Caticlan with a portion thereof in Manoc-manoc, Boracay Island 

C. Whether the 2.64-hectare project is but a component of the expanded 40-hectare reclamation project, which consists of several phases in two different sites, or is a "stand alone project," which is separate and independent from the one involving an area of 40 hectares

III. What are the requirements under the pertinent laws and regulations that should be complied with in order to undertake the project?

A. Whether or not the Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC) which the respondent Province obtained is sufficient to start the reclamation project 

B. Whether or not a full, or programmatic, environmental impact assessment for a reclamation project co-located within an environmentally critical area is required 

C. Whether or not the classification under the Revised Procedural Manual for the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) Administrative Order No. 30, Series of 2003 insofar as it creates a category of non-environmentally critical projects in environmentally critical areas, should be annulled

IV. Whether or not the reclamation of land bordering the strait between Caticlan and Boracay would adversely affect the ecological balance of the area and the famed white sand beaches of Boracay Island 

V. Whether or not the respondent Philippine Reclamation Authority issued a Notice to Proceed for the reclamation project to respondent Province 

VI. Whether or not there was proper, timely, and sufficient public consultation for the project, under Sections 26 and 27 of the Local Government Code

A. Whether or not it is necessary for respondent Province to obtain the favorable endorsement of the local governments units (LGUs) of Barangay Caticlan and Malay Municipality before proceeding with the reclamation project

B. Whether or not respondent Province was able to properly address the concerns of the LGUs of Caticlan and Malay 

C. Whether or not the reclamation project best addresses the priority plan of both respondent Province and the LGUs of Caticlan and Malay of having world-class land, water, and air infrastructures to meet the needs of their booming tourism industry, while maintaining the ecological balance in Boracay Island

VII. Whether or not the Temporary Environmental Protection Order (TEPO) issued by this Court on June 9, 2011 may be dissolved

A. Whether or not the TEPO's continuance would cause irreparable damage to respondent Province 

B. Whether or not petitioner may be compensated for such damages it may suffer.

Counsel for the petitioner, Atty. Butuyan, was given twenty (20) minutes to present his arguments.

Counsels for respondents were also given a maximum of twenty (20) minutes to argue, which they divided among themselves. Solicitor General Cadiz tackled issues nos. I, III (A, B, and C), IV and VI for six (6) minutes and thirty (30) seconds; Atty. Manares, issues nos. II (A, B and C), III (A), IV, VI (A, B and C) and VII (A and B) for seven (7) minutes and thirty (30) seconds; and Government Corporate Counsel Creencia, issues nos. II (A,B and C), V and VI (A and B) for six (6) minutes.

The time allotted for the counsels to argue and counter-argue was exclusive of the time devoted for interpellation by the members of the Court.

After hearing the issues and arguments raised, in open Court, the Court Resolved to require the parties to FILE simultaneously their respective MEMORANDA  within a non-extendible period of twenty (20) days from date. Thereafter, with or without their respective memoranda, this case shall be deemed SUBMITTED for resolution."

Del Castillo and Reyes, JJ., on leave.

Very truly yours, 

(Sgd.) ENRIQUETA E. VIDAL
  Clerk of Court