In the landmark case of Oposa v. Factoran, Jr.

,13 we recognized the "public

right" of citizens to "a balanced and healthful ecology which, for the first
time in our constitutional history, is solemnly incorporated in the
fundamental law." We declared that the right to a balanced and healthful
ecology need not be written in the Constitution for it is assumed, like other
civil and polittcal rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, to exist from the
inception of mankind and it is an issue of transcendental importance with
intergenerational implications. Such right carries with it the correlative duty
1wphi1

to refrain from impairing the environment

The Casio Groups arguments

The Casio Group, in essence, argues that it is entitled to a Writ of kalikasan as it was able to
prove that the operation of the power plant would cause environmental damage and pollution,
and that this would adversely affect the residents of the provinces of Bataan and Zambales,
particularly the municipalities of Subic, Morong, Hermosa, and the City of Olongapo. It cites as
basis RP Energys EIS, which allegedly admits that acid rain may occur in the combustion of
coal;77 that the incidence of asthma attacks among residents in the vicinity of the project site
may increase due to exposure to suspended particles from plant operations;78 and that increased
sulfur oxides (SOx) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions may occur during plant operations.79 It
also claims that when the SBMA conducted Social Acceptability Policy Consultations with different
stakeholders on the proposed power plant, the results indicated that the overall persuasion of
the participants was a clear aversion to the project due to environmental, health, economic and
socio-cultural concerns.80 Finally, it contends that the ECC third amendment should also be
nullified for failure to comply with the procedures and requirements for the issuance of the
ECC.81 chanRo blesvi rtua lLaw lib rary

The DENRs arguments

The DENR imputes error on the CA in invalidating the ECC and its amendments, arguing that the
determination of the validity of the ECC as well as its amendments is beyond the scope of a
Petition for a Writ of kalikasan.82 And even if it is within the scope, there is no reason to
invalidate the ECC and its amendments as these were issued in accordance with DAO No. 2003-
30.83 The DENR also insists that contrary to the view of the CA, a new EIS was no longer
necessary since the first EIS was still within the validity period when the first amendment was
requested, and that this is precisely the reason RP Energy was only required to submit an EPRMP
in support of its application for the first amendment.84 As to the second amendment, the DENR-
EMB only required RP Energy to submit documents to support the proposed revision considering
that the change in configuration of the power plant project, from 2x150MW to 1x300MW, was
not substantial.85 Furthermore, the DENR argues that no permits, licenses, and/or clearances
from other government agencies are required in the processing and approval of the ECC.86 Thus,
non-compliance with Sections 26 and 27 of the LGC as well as Section 59 of the IPRA Law is not
a ground to invalidate the ECC and its amendments.87 The DENR further posits that the ECC is
not a concession, permit, or license but is a document certifying that the proponent has complied
with all the requirements of the EIS System and has committed to implement the approved
Environmental Management Plan.88 The DENR invokes substantial justice so that the belatedly
submitted certified true copy of the ECC containing the signature of Mr. Aboitiz on the Statement
of Accountability may be accepted and accorded weight and credence.89 chanRob lesvi rtua lLawl ibra ry