G.R. No.

209165
LNL Archipelago Minerals Inc. v Agham Party List
FACTS:
Petitioner LNL Archipelago Minerals, Inc. (LAMI) is the operator of a mining claim located in Sta.
Cruz, Zambales. LAMI embarked on a project to build a private, non-commercial port in Brgy.
Bolitoc, Sta. Cruz, Zambales. In this area, three other mining corporations have been operating
since 2007 (Shangfil, A3Una, and DMCI). For its operations, LAMI secured the following permits
and compliance certificates for the port project: (1) Department of Environment and Natural
Resources (DENR) Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC) (2) DENR provisional
foreshore lease agreement with LAMI (3) Philippine Ports Authority (PPA) Clearance to Develop
a Port (4) PPA Permit to Construct a Port (5) PPA Special Permit to Operate a Beaching Facility
(6) Tree Cutting Permit/Certification from the Community Environment and Natural Resources
Office (CENRO) of the DENR.
Mayor Marty of Sta. Cruz issued an order which directed LAMI to refrain from continuing its
clearing works. When Sta. Cruz Municipal Chief Generico Binan went to the port site to
implement the order, LAMI’s supervisor showed him their permits. Chief Binan issued a
memorandum saying that there was in fact no leveling of a mountain on the port site.
Thereafter, Rep. Dan Fernandez, a member of the Committee on Ecology of the House of
Representatives, passed House Resolution No. 117 (HR 117) entitled "Resolution Directing the
Committee on Ecology to Conduct an Inquiry, in Aid of Legislation, on the Implementation of
Republic Act No. 7942, Otherwise Known as the Philippine Mining Act of 1995, Particularly on
the Adverse Effects of Mining on the Environment."
The DENR Provincial Environment and Natural Resources Office (PENRO) team found that
LAMI violated some of its conditions under the ECC. Accordingly, a Notice of Violation (NOV)
was issued against LAMI with a cease and desist order from further constructing and developing
until such time that the ECC conditions were fully complied. The DENR Environmental
Management Bureau in Region III (DENR-EMB R3) ascertained that LAMI’s violations of the
four conditions of its ECC constitute minor violations since they only pertain to non-submission
of documents. However, the leveling of the elevated portion of the area was a major violation. A
penalty was consequently imposed on LAMI, and the DENREMB R3 directed LAMI to (1)
immediately cause the installation of mitigating measures to prevent soil erosion and siltation of
the waterbody, and (2) submit a rehabilitation plan. LAMI responded and said that it has
complied with the conditions of DENREMB R3. After investigation, the DENR composite team
found that LAMI’s activities in its property would not result to any environmental damage to
surrounding communities, hence the cease and desist order was lifted.
Agham Party List, represented by its president Angelo B. Palmones, filed a petition for a Writ of
Kalikasan [this petition is available, among others, to people whose right to a balanced and
healthful ecology is threatened or damaged) against LAMI, DENR, PPA, and Zambales Police
Provincial Office
(ZPPO). Agham cited two laws which LAMI allegedly violated: (1) Section 68 of the Revised
Forestry Code, as amended; and (2) Sections 57 and 69 of the Philippine Mining Act.
LAMI stated that it did not and was not violating any environmental law, rule or regulation. LAMI
argued 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.
FIRST CA DECISION. Petition is denied. The appellate court found that LAMI was authorized to
cut trees. They also stated that there can be no flattening of a mountain when there is no
mountain to speak of.
SECOND CA DECISION. [Upon filing for motion for reconsideration by Agham] First CA
decision is reconsidered and the petition for the Writ of Kalikasan is granted. LAMI is to
permanently cease and desist from its activities. They are also directed, along with the
Secretary of DENR, to protect, preserve, rehabilitate, and restore the subject land formation
including the plants and trees.
Hence, the current petition for review on certiorari against the Second CA Decision.
ISSUE 1: W/N LAMI violated Section 68 of the Revised Forestry Code and/or Sections 57 and
69 of the Philippine Mining Act?
RULING: NO
On Section 68 of Revised Forestry Code. LAMI strictly followed the permit issued by the
CENRO and even passed the evaluation conducted after the issuance of the permit. They were
allowed to cut 37 trees with volume of 7.64 cubic meters – to which they followed – within the
port site. Given, however, that they should also replace the trees with a ratio of 1-30 fruit and
non-bearing fruit trees. The Forest Management Service and Forest Utilization unit issued a
report which stated that LAMI properly followed these conditions.
Therefore, LAMI clearly had the authority to cut trees and did not violate Section 68 of the
Revised Forestry Code.
On Sections 57 and 69 of the Philippine Mining Act. These two provisions are inapplicable to
this case. First, LAMI is not conducting any mining activity on the port site. LAMI’s mine site is
about 25 kilometers away from the port site. Second, LAMI secured all the necessary permits
and licenses for the construction of a port and LAMI’s activity was limited to preparatory works
for the port’s construction. The Philippine Mining Act deals with mining operations and other
mining activities. Sections 57 and 69 deal with the development of a mining community and
environmental protection covering a mineral agreement or permit.
It is well-settled that a party claiming the privilege for the issuance of a Writ of Kalikasan has to
show that a law, rule or regulation was violated or would be violated.—It is well-settled that a
party claiming the privilege for the issuance of a Writ of Kalikasan has to show that a law, rule or
regulation was violated or would be violated. In the present case, the allegation
by Agham that two laws — the Revised Forestry Code, as amended, and the Philippine Mining
Act — were violated by LAMI was not adequately substantiated by Agham. Even the facts
submitted by Agham to establish environmental damage were mere general allegations.
Agham did not give proper justifications for citing Sections 57 and 69 of the Philippine Mining
Act. Agham did not even present any evidence that LAMI violated the mining law or any mining
undertakings in relation to LAMI’s construction of a port facility. Agham only alleged in very
general terms that LAMI was destroying the environment and leveling a mountain without
conducting any scientific studies or submitting expert testimonies that would corroborate such
allegations.

ISSUE 2: W/N LAMI flattened any mountain and caused environmental damage of such
magnitude as to prejudice the health and property of inhabitants in two or more cities or
provinces?
RULING: NO
The rules are clear that in a Writ of Kalikasan, the petitioner has the burden to prove the
(1) environmental law, rule or regulation violated or threatened to be violated
(2) act or omission complained of and
(3) the environmental damage of such magnitude as to prejudice the life, health or property of
inhabitants in two or more cities or province.
Agham, in accusing that LAMI allegedly flattened a mountain, did not cite any law allegedly
violated by LAMI in relation to this claim. Agham did not present any proof to demonstrate that
the local residents in Zambales, and even the nearby towns of Pangasinan, complained of any
great danger or harm on the alleged leveling of the land formation which may affect their lives,
health or properties. Neither was there any evidence showing of a grave and real environmental
damage to the barangay and the surrounding vicinity. To belie Agham’s contentions, the
records, from the testimonies of those experts (such as the Mines and Geosciences Bureau) in
their fields, show that there is in fact no mountain in Brgy. Bolitoc, Sta. Cruz, Zambales.
It was determined as a result of our verification and based on the above findings supported with
field GPS reading that there had been no leveling of the mountain undertaken in the project site
as there is no mountain existing inside the area covered by the ECC issued by EMB-Region 3.
The landform claimed by Mayor Marty to be a mountain is actually an elongated low ridge with a
peak of approximately 23 meters above sea level.
Expert findings are afforded great weight, and it is thus presumed that their findings are regular
as they are done in their official duties.It was also found that even the Geoscience Foundation,
Inc., which conducted a scientific study on the port site regarding the possible damage to the
environment from the construction of the port facility, found that the landform was too small to
protect against typhoons, monsoons and floods due to heavy rains and storm surges. The
construction of the access road on the low ridge does not pose adverse environmental impact to
the adjoining communities more so to the larger areas or the entire province of Zambales and
Pangasinan.
WHEREFORE, we GRANT the petition. We REVERSE and SET ASIDE the Amended Decision
of
the Court of Appeals and REINSTATE AND AFFIRM the original of the Court of Appeals which
DENIED the petition for the issuance of the privilege of the Writ of Kalikasan.

RELEVANT DOCTRINES/LAWS:
WRIT OF KALIKASAN Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases.
Section 1-2, Rule 7, Part III
Section 1. Nature of the writ. — The writ is a remedy available to a natural or juridical person,
entity authorized by law, people's organization, nongovernmental 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.
Section 2. Contents of the petition. — The verified petition shall contain the following: (c) The
environmental law, rule or regulation violated or threatened to be violated, the act or omission
complained of, and the environmental damage of such magnitude as to prejudice the life, health
or property of inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces.
Section 68 of the Revised Forestry Code,
Sec. 68. Cutting, Gathering and/or Collecting Timber, or Other Forest Products Without License.
— Any person who shall cut, gather, collect, remove timber or other forest products from any
forest land, or timber from alienable or disposable public land, or from private land, without any
authority, or possess timber or other forest products without the legal documents as required
under existing forest laws and regulations, shall be punished with the penalties imposed under
Articles 309 and 310 of the Revised Penal Code: Provided, That in the case of partnerships,
associations, or corporations, the officers who ordered the cutting, gathering, collection or
possession shall be liable, and if such officers are aliens, they shall, in addition to the penalty,
be deported without further proceedings on the part of the Commission on Immigration and
Deportation.
Sections 57 and 69 of the Philippine Mining Act
Section 57. Expenditure for Community Development and Science and Mining Technology. — A
contractor shall assist in the development of its mining community, the promotion of the general
welfare of its inhabitants, and the development of science and mining technology.
Section 69. Environmental Protection. — Every contractor shall undertake an environmental
protection and enhancement program covering the period of the mineral agreement or permit.
Such environmental program shall be incorporated in the work program which the contractor or
permittee shall submit as an accompanying document to the application for a mineral
agreement or permit. The work program shall include not only plans relative to mining
operations but also to rehabilitation, regeneration, revegetation and reforestation of mineralized
areas, slope stabilization of mined-out and tailings covered areas, aquaculture, watershed
development and water conservation; and socioeconomic development.