BORACAY FOUNDATION v.

PROVINCE OF AKLAN
GR No. 196870, 2012-06-26

Facts:
This is an original petition for the issuance of an Environmental Protection Order in the nature of
a continuing mandamus.
Petitioner Boracay Foundation, Inc. (petitioner) is a duly registered, non-stock domestic
corporation. Its primary purpose is "to foster a united, concerted and environment-conscious
development of Boracay Island, thereby preserving and maintaining its culture, natural beauty...
and ecological balance, marking the island as the crown jewel of Philippine tourism, a prime
tourist destination in Asia and the whole world."
Respondent Province of Aklan (respondent Province) is a political subdivision of the
government created pursuant to Republic Act No. 1414, represented by Honorable Carlito S.
Marquez, the Provincial Governor (Governor Marquez).
Respondent Philippine Reclamation Authority (respondent PRA), formerly called the Public
Estates Authority (PEA), is a government entity created by Presidential Decree No. 1084,[3]
which states that one of the purposes for which respondent PRA was created... was to reclaim
land, including foreshore and submerged areas.
PEA eventually became the lead agency primarily responsible for all reclamation projects in the
country under Executive Order No. 525, series of 1979.
In June 2006, the President of the Philippines issued Executive
Order No. 543, delegating the power "to approve reclamation projects to PRA through its
governing Board, subject to compliance with existing laws and rules and further subject to the
condition that reclamation contracts to be executed with any person or entity (must) go
through... public bidding."
Respondent Department of Environment and Natural Resources Environmental Management
Bureau (DENR-EMB), Regional Office VI (respondent DENR-EMB RVI), is the government
agency in the Western Visayas Region authorized to issue environmental compliance
certificates regarding... projects that require the environment's protection and management in
the region.
Issues:
1. Whether or not the petition should be dismissed for having been rendered moot and
academic.
2. Whether or not the petition is premature because petitioner failed to exhaust
administrative remedies before filing this case.
3. Whether or not respondent Province failed to perform a full EIA as required by laws and
regulations based on the scope and classification of the project.
4. Whether or not respondent Province complied with all the requirements under the
pertinent laws and regulations.
 5. Whether or not there was proper, timely, and sufficient public consultation for the project.
Ruling:
It is not sufficient to render the petition moot and academic as there are explicit conditions
imposed that must be complied with by respondent Province.
Sangguniang Barangay of Caticlan it is stated that "any vertical structures to be constructed
shall be subject for barangay endorsement clearly. What the barangay endorsed was the
reclamation only, and not the entire project that includes the construction of a commercial
building and wellness center, and other tourism-related facilities. Petitioner's objections, as may
be recalled, pertain not only to the reclamation per se, but also to the building to be constructed
and the entire perceived ill effects to the surrounding environment.
Petition should be dismissed for petitioner's failure to exhaust administrative remedies and even
to observe the hierarchy of courts.
Section 6. Appeal
Any party aggrieved by the final decision on the ECC / CNC applications may, within 15
days from receipt of such decision, file an appeal on the following grounds:
a. Grave abuse of discretion on the part of the deciding authority, or
b. Serious errors in the review findings.
The DENR may adopt alternative conflict/dispute resolution procedures as a means to settle
grievances between proponents and aggrieved parties to avert unnecessary legal action.
Frivolous appeals shall not be countenanced.
Respondents argue that since there is an administrative appeal provided for, then petitioner is
duty bound to observe the same and may not be granted recourse to the regular courts for its
failure to do so.
We do not agree with respondents' appreciation of the applicability of the rule on exhaustion of
administrative remedies in this case.
Pagara v. Court of Appeals. The rule regarding exhaustion of administrative remedies is not a
hard and fast rule. It is not applicable (1) where the question in dispute is purely a legal one, or
(2) where the controverted act is patently illegal or was performed without jurisdiction or... in
excess of jurisdiction; or (3) where the respondent is a department secretary, whose acts as an
alter ego of the President bear the implied or assumed approval of the latter, unless actually
disapproved by him, or (4) where there are circumstances indicating the urgency of... judicial
intervention, - Gonzales vs. Hechanova, L-21897, October 22, 1963, 9 SCRA 230; Abaya vs.
Villegas, L-25641, December 17, 1966, 18 SCRA; Mitra vs. Subido, L-21691, September 15,
1967, 21 SCRA 127.
Said principle may also be disregarded when it does not provide a plain, speedy and adequate
remedy, or where the protestant has no other recourse (Sta.Maria vs. Lopez, 31 SCRA 637).
Petitioner had no other plain, speedy, or adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law to
determine the questions of unique national and local importance raised here that pertain to laws
and rules for environmental protection, thus it was justified in coming to thisCourt.