LNL ARCHIPELAGO MINERALS, INC., Petitioner (LAMI), vs.

AGHAM PARTY LIST (rep.by its President Rep. Angelo B. Palmones) , Respondent (AGHAM)

LAMI Acquired the necessary permits :

Tree Cutting permit

Permit for development of causeway
Provisional foreshore lease agreement
Clearance to develop a port
Special permit to operate a Beaching Facility
for the construction of a port in Sta. Cruz,
Zambales.

The subject port to be developed is also approved by the Sangguniang Bayan and the Bolitoc
Community; and intent of use of the port manifested by other mining companies in that area.

LAMI, however, encountered problems with Mayor Marty in seeking the approval of the building
permit. Marty issued a cease and desist order to LAMI for violations of its ECC regarding the
submission of documents and the levelling of the elevated portion. This controversy was solved
when DENR composite team inspected the plce and mandated LAMI, after payment of the
necessary penalty for the violation of its ECC, to install the necessary measures to prevent the
environmental damage.

AGHAM filed a petition to the SC for the issuane of a Writ of Kalikasan. This petition was
remanded to the CA for decision. The Original Decision of the CA concluded the denial of the
petition stating as reason that LAMI has acquired all the necessary permits for the construction
of the port and that the levelling issue has already been rectified by the payment of the penalty
and the installation of the measures to rectify the wrongs. However, in the MR filed by AGHAM,
the CA reversed its decision and favoured the issuance of the Writ of Kalikasan to AGHAM
ordering LAMI to cease and desist from the construction of the port.

LAMI files this petition for review of the CA MR Decision stating its contentions that :

(1) LAMI had the necessary permits and authorization to cut trees in the port site;

(2) LAMI had the necessary permits to construct its port;

(3) LAMI consulted with and obtained the support of the Sangguniang Barangay
and residents of Barangay Bolitoc;

(4) LAMI’s port site is located on private and alienable land;

(5) there is no mountain on the port site;

(6) the Philippine Mining Act is irrelevant and inapplicable to the present case;
and
 (7) the other allegations of Agham that LAMI violated environmental laws, rules
or regulations are likewise baseless, irrelevant and false.

** LAMI stated further that there is no environmental damage of such magnitude

as to prejudice the life, health, or property of inhabitants in two or more cities and
provinces.

On the other hand AGHAM contended in its defence that: leveling of the subject hill by LAMI:

(1) was not sanctioned by the DENR since LAMI allegedly had no ECC from the
DENR;

(2) affected the ecological balance of the affected towns and provinces since
such leveling was done without the concurrence of its residents; and

(3) instigated the gradual eradication of the strip of land mass in Sta. Cruz,
Zambales that serves as protective barrier from floods brought about by the swelling or
surging of the coastal water moving inward reaching other towns of Zambales and
Pangasinan.

ISSUE: WON the issuance of the Writ of Kalikasan is justified

RULING:

NO, the issuance of the Writ of Kalikasan is not justified. LAMI has acquired all the
necessary permits for the construction of the port. The issue regarding the levelling of the”
mountain” was already resolved in the past issue with Marty. Furthermore, there is no actual
mountain in this case. The elevated landmass is only an elongated mound. This is based on the
expert definitions presented by LAMI. AGHAM’s sole witness, Palmones, was admittedly and
proven to be incompetent in proving that the elevated landmass is a mountain. The Writ of
Kalikasan is a remedy 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 following are the requisites for the issuance of the Writ of Kalikasan:

(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 the case at bar, there is no actual or threatened violation of the constitutional right to a
balanced and healthful ecology as proven by the fact that the ”protective barrier” use of the land
mass is not supported by the facts that when typhoon hits the area, it comes usually from the
other side. Also, the only people protected by the elongated mound are those immediately south
of it therefore, the protection offered by the mound is not significantly diminished.