SC Petition for Writ of Kalikasan on Davao-Sasa port modernization project

8/19/2019 SC Petition for Writ of Kalikasan on Davao-Sasa port modernization project

1/26


2/26

2

PREFATORY STATEMENT

The Port of Davao, Sasa Wharf (Sasa Port), is a government operatedport terminal with a total area of 18.09 hectares that include commercial and

operational areas. It handles “mainly containerized cargo, some general andbreak bulk cargo and small number of passengers” with a maximum handlingcapacity of 500,000 Twenty-Feet Equivalent Units (TEU) annually with thehighest actual handled capacity in 2013 consisting of 407,000 TEU. It has aquay length of 1,093 meters, a berth depth of -11 meters, 4.15 hectares ofcontainer yard with 864 container yard ground slots, 0.2 hectares of reefer yardand 0.6 hectares for other storage.1

The Department of Transportation and Communications (DOTC) has

invited bidders “to finance, design, construct, operate and maintain the DavaoSasa Port Modernization Project (“Project”). The Project consists of:

a) The expansion of the existing port and the establishment of dedicatedcontainer handling facilities with a design capacity of approximately 1.2million TEU comprising among others the construction of a new apron,linear quay, expansion of back-up area, container yards, warehouses andthe installation of new container handling equipment;

b) Operation and maintenance of the port for thirty (30) years.”2

The bidding for the Project is being carried out without the necessaryEnvironmental Compliance Certificate and therefore, without the necessarystudies on the environmental impacts of the proposed port expansion on theshores of Davao City as well as the famous tourism destinations in the IslandGarden of Samal. Even the separate studies of the Philippine Port Authority(PPA)3 and the DOTC for the modernization and development of the DavaoSasa port do not contain the environmental impact assessment of theirrespective proposed projects.

Moreover, the required consultation with affected communities and the

approval of the concerned local government units have not been complied withand yet, the Project is already being bidded out and may be due to be awardedto private entities who, without the necessary consultations and the invaluableinputs of the stakeholders and therefore without the proper adjustments on theproposal for the Project, are wooed to pursue a government project whose true

1 See Davao Sasa Port Modernization Project Information Memorandum (“InformationMemorandum”), April 2015; available at https://ppp.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/DSP-Info-Memo-15-April-2015-Final.pdf (last accessed 14 March2016). A copy of the Information Memorandum is attached hereto as Annex “A”. 2

See Instructions to Prospective Bidders (“ITPB”) April 2015 Davao Sasa Modernization Project. Acopy of the ITPB is attached hereto as Annex “B”. See also http://ppp.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/DSP-GBB-No-17-2016.pdf on Bid Submission scheduled on 28 March2016; A copy of the General Bid Bulletin No. 17-2016 is attached as Annex “B-1”.3 See Science & Vision For Technology, Inc., Consultancy Services For the Conduct of FeasibilityStudy and Implementation Plan For the Proposed Public-Private Partnership In the ManagementOperations & Development of the Port of Davao (Sasa) [“PPA Study”], Davao City, July 2012. Acopy of the PPA Study is attached hereto as Annex “C”.

https://ppp.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/DSP-Info-Memo-15-April-2015-Final.pdfhttps://ppp.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/DSP-Info-Memo-15-April-2015-Final.pdfhttps://ppp.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/DSP-Info-Memo-15-April-2015-Final.pdfhttp://ppp.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/DSP-GBB-No-17-2016.pdfhttp://ppp.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/DSP-GBB-No-17-2016.pdfhttp://ppp.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/DSP-GBB-No-17-2016.pdfhttp://ppp.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/DSP-GBB-No-17-2016.pdfhttp://ppp.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/DSP-GBB-No-17-2016.pdfhttps://ppp.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/DSP-Info-Memo-15-April-2015-Final.pdfhttps://ppp.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/DSP-Info-Memo-15-April-2015-Final.pdf


3/26

3

and total cost – not just economics but social and environmental as well – isnot being reflected in the proposed terms thereof.

At present, the access roads leading to Sasa Port already suffers from

severe traffic congestion, even in non-peak hours. The contemplatedmodernization and expected increase in TEU volume to come into the port

will lead to even more severe traffic jams on land routes and possibly, in thesea. This will trigger a domino effect especially prejudicial to the surroundingbusinesses and affected residents of Davao City; it is a universally-acceptedtruth that port operations bring about, among other environmental concerns,pollution, noise pollution, an increased carbon trail and ultimately, healthproblems for the people, and serious damage in the surrounding land andmarine ecosystems – not only in mainland Davao but likewise in the beautiful

tourist destination of the Garden Island of Samal.

While the Court of Appeals has concurrent jurisdiction over a Petitionfor a writ of kalikasan and continuing mandamus, Petitioners respectfullysubmit that the proper court with which to file and to decide this Petition is theHonorable Supreme Court given the prayer for a temporary environmentalprotection order which, to all intents and purposes, is a restraining orderapplied for to halt what is otherwise a national government infrastructureproject on environmental grounds. The urgency of the application for atemporary environmental protection order is made more manifest by the fact

that Bid Submission is scheduled on 28 March 2016 and the award of theProject shall be made thereafter.

THE PARTIES

1. Following are the petitioners:

1.1 PILAR CAÑEDA BRAGA , a Filipino of legal age, is a formercouncilor of Davao City and one of the foremost oppositors of the proposedmodernization project for Sasa Port. Petitioner Braga resides at No. 4

Governor Gregorio V. Caneda Road, Garcia Heights, Davao City.1.2 PETER TIU LAVIÑA , fifty-eight (58) years old, is likewise a formercity councilor of Davao City, also a fervent oppositor of the project. LikeBraga, he represents the concerned citizens of Davao City against the awardand implementation of the project for the potential environmental hazards theexpected port congestion and traffic the modernization will bring. He has hisresidential address at Block 27, Lot 10, NHA Main Road, Bangkal, Davao City.1.3 ANTONIO H. VERGARA , Filipino, of legal age and resident ofPurok Niño, Upper Quidodo, Kaputian, District 3, Island Garden City ofSamal, Davao del Norte. Petitioner Vergara is a Broadcaster, environmentaland consumer rights advocate and a former Davao City Councilor.1.4 BENJIE T. BADAL, twenty-five (25) years old, is the spokesperson ofKalipunan ng Damayang Mahihirap (KADAMAY), the largest alliance of urbanpoor organizations in the Philippines, which aims to eradicate poverty andpromote a just, free and prosperous society. He may be served court processesat Barangay 26-C Lizada Street, Davao City.


4/26

4

1.5 DIOSDADO ANGELO A. MAHIPUS is a city councilor of DavaoCity, likewise opposed to the proposed Sasa Port Modernization project. Hisresidential address is Sto. Rosario Street, Buhangin, Davao City.

1.6

SAMAL CITY RESORT OWNERS ASSOCIATION (SCROA) is acorporation consisting of resort owners whose businesses are located on SamalIsland. It is represented in this Petition by its President, Engr. Pastor Lozada,

Jr.. The association is filing this suit out of genuine concern regarding theimpact of the proposed modernization not just on their respective businesses,but also on the ecology and environment of Samal Island as a whole. It may beserved court processes through Engr. Pastor Lozada, Jr. at Mahan GardentResort Co. Inc., Island Garden City, Samal Island, Davao Del Norte.

2.

The following are the respondents:

2.1 HON. JOSEPH EMILIO A. ABAYA is impleaded as respondent inhis capacity as Secretary of the Department of Transportation andCommunication, as the DOTC is the leading government agency tasked withthe proposed Sasa Port modernization project. He may be served with courtprocesses at The Columbia Tower, Ortigas Avenue, Barangay Wack-Wack,Mandaluyong City, 1555, Metro Manila.

2.2

THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ANDCOMMUNICATION is impleaded as respondent as it is the governmentagency primarily responsible for the Sasa Port modernization project. It maylikewise be served with court processes at The Columbia Tower, Ortigas

Avenue, Barangay Wack-Wack, Mandaluyong City, 1555, Metro Manila.2.3 THE PRE-QUALIFICTION, BIDS AND AWARDSCOMMITTEE created under DOTC Special Order No. 2014-475 (issued on16 December 2014)is impleaded primarily because it is responsible for theoverview and compliance check of the prospective bidders joining in theproject, and will eventually select the prospective concessionaire from such

bidders. It may be served with court processes at Chairman’s Office, Unit 164,16/F, The Columbia Tower, Ortigas Avenue, Barangay Wack-Wack,Mandaluyong City, 1555, Metro Manila.2.4 THE PHILIPPINE PORTS AUTHORITY , aside from its being aco-proponent of Respondent DOTC, is likewise impleaded as it is the primaryagency responsible for all ports and wharves in the country, and Sasa Port fallsunder its jurisdiction. It also has the primary responsibility for the port’smaintenance and upkeep. It may be served court processes at Bonifacio Drive,South Harbor Port Area, Manila.


5/26

5

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. The Aquino administration launched several Public-Private Partnership(PPP) projects to privatize and modernize several key infrastructure, industry

and utility services in the nation. Among the most important infrastructure andutility services concerned in these projects is port improvement.

2. The Port of Davao, Sasa Wharf (Sasa Port), was first pegged down forprivatization under the PPP scheme as early as 2011.

3. Sasa Port is one of the four (4) commercialized ports in the area;the three (3) others are Tefasco located toward the northern city limit of DavaoCity, Davao International Container Terminal (DICT) located in Panabo City,

and Hijo Port (HIPS), located in Tagum City. There are also a number ofprivate non-commercial ports that export their own banana and pineappleproduction.

4. Presently, much of the banana market exports are coursed through theabove-mentioned ports as these ports are located nearer to the bananaplantations in Davao del Norte and Compostela Valley. “ The Davao region isthe largest producer of bananas (Cavendish) in the country with 2.4millionMetric Tons (“MT”) accounting for 57% of total Philippines production in2013 and representing 78% of total banana exports of the Davao region

(equivalent to 3.08million MT) in 2013.4

5. In 2012, the Philippine Ports Authority (PPA) conducted a feasibilitystudy on the current condition of Sasa Port and its potential new targets in

TEU (twenty-foot equivalent unit) volume increase and export increase in theevent of an expansion of said port. This study was done by Science & VisionFor Technology Inc., and was completed also in 2012.

Under this report, the Sasa Port modernization project needs a total of THREE BILLION, FOUR HUNDRED NINETY-NINE AND FIVE

HUNDRED TEN PESOS (P3,499,510,000.00) to enable the purchase of newequipment and installation of new facilities. The study also provided anitemized list of improvements and an estimated Port Development Costs table,as follows:

Minimum Proposed Equipments: 5 Ship to Shore Cranes12 Rubber Tired Gantries (RTG)20 Prime movers (inclusive of replacements)9 Chassis27 Forklifts (inclusive of replacements)

Additional Facilities: 20x115 meters Closed Storage AreaFuel Station/Maintenance ShopEquipment Shed

4 Information Memorandum, at p. 4.


6/26

6

Facilities (in millions)

• Wharf Widening 931.000Php

• RTG Crane Runway 13.471

• Paving Blocks 35.323 • Concrete Pavement 6.895

• Buildings 119.375

• Yard Lightings and

Reefers 20.000

• Demolition and Minor

Works 10.000

• Land Acquisition 3.750

Total Cost of Works 1,139.814

General Expenses 22.796

Total Project Costs 1,162.610

Equipment

• Ship to Shore Cranes (x5) 1,500.000 • RTG Cranes (x12) 720.000

• Chasis (x9) 9.900

• Prime Movers (x20) 80.000

• Forklift Trucks (x27) 27.000

Total Cost of Equipment 2,336.900

Grand Total 3,499.510Php

Operators Office Building

6. The DOTC, however, commissioned another firm, Hamburg PortConsultants, to conduct a second feasibility study. This study was finished in

2013, and was used as one of the primary considerations for the currentexpansion project of Sasa Port. The study is contained in the Davao Sasa PortModernization Project Information Memorandum (InformationMemorandum) dated April 2015.

It is of note that this second study does not provide any itemized table and onlyshows a whopping lump sum cost of the project amounting to EIGHTEENBILLION PESOS (P18,000,000,000.00), or more than a shocking five timesthe cost projected in the previous study. Aside from a general proposed layoutdescription and minimum proposed requirements, there is no itemized table

unlike the PPA study mentioned in the preceding paragraph.

7. Under the DOTC commissioned study, it has been proposed that SasaPort’s quay leng th be increased alongside its container yard size, container yardslots and recommended additional equipment such as two (2) to five (5) ship-to-shore cranes and seven (7) to fourteen (14) electric rubber tyred gantry,among others designed to meet the projected capacity of 1.2 million TEUs.

8. Statistics from the PPA5 show that the volumes handled by the Davaoports are decreasing, for both foreign and domestic vessels. Despite this generaldecreasing trend, Sasa Port still has the biggest volume of vessels and shipmenthandled6, followed by DICT7.

5 Philippine Ports Authority, available at http://www.ppa.com.ph (last accessed Feb 16, 2016).6 Id.7Id.

http://www.ppa.com.ph/http://www.ppa.com.ph/http://www.ppa.com.ph/http://www.ppa.com.ph/


7/26

7

9. As of 2014 PPA statistics8 it has been shown that majority of foreigncontainer traffic has transferred to other ports, primarily DICT and the otherprivate ports located in the area.

10. Sasa Port is located alongside the National Highway and the neighboringareas are highly urbanized. Yet, it only has an area of 18 hectares and currentlyhas no provision for container yards. The situation today is that shippers andshipping lines still utilizing Sasa Port’s services line their own container areas inthe national highway, and therefore contribute to the traffic congestion.

11. In the proposed expansion project, Sasa Port is expected to have a totaladditional area of 27.9 hectares. The linear quay length is to be extended by a

minimum of 250 meters, and the current ground slots to be increased from1,900 to 2,700 and an addition 3.6 hectares proposed to be reclaimed for anincreased quay depth.9

12. The expansion is primarily targeted to direct banana exports to Sasa Portand entice more container traffic. If the modernization pushes forward, the

winning bidder is guaranteed upto an 80% initial increase in tariff rates andescalation thereof every three (3) years thereafter.

13. On December 21, 2014 the Regional Development Council for Region

XI issued Resolution no. 11810

endorsing the expansion project. Pertinent inthis resolution are the following ‘conditions’ before the project’simplementation, to wit:

a) Acquisition of additional 6.4 hectares of right-of-way perNEDA-ICC’s recommendation shall be secured immediately;b) Ensure that the appropriate compensation is paid for theprivate properties that will be acquired as additional right-of-way;c) Specify in the Terms of Reference (TOR) who willshoulder the payment of the Real Property Tax;d) Ensure the proper relocation/resettlement of informal

settlers affected by the Project; ande) Ensure that in the implantation of the Project concernedparties shall benefit not only the private port operator but toinclude the port users in the form of better and affordableservices, and, more importantly, opportunities for sustainableemployment and entrepreneurial activities of the people of DavaoRegion resulting from the operations of the port.” (Emphasissupplied).

Informal settlers’ relocation was included precisely because there are about fivethousand (5,000) families living within the port area that will need to bedisplaced by the modernization.

8Id. 9 Information Memorandum, at p. 27.10 Resolution No. 118, Regional Development Council for Region XI, (December 21, 2014) a copyof which is attached as Annex “D”.


8/26

8

14. On April 10, 2015 despite non-compliance with the requirements of theaforementioned resolution, the DOTC proceeded to issue the notice of publicbidding on the project entitled “P17B Davao Sasa Port Modernization.”11

15.

Also as of issuance of the notice of public bidding and even at present,the DOTC has yet to comply with the requirements of Section 27 of the 1991Local Government Code (LGC), which mandates prior consultation and publichearings mentioned in Section 26 and prior approval of the project by thesanggunian concerned. In fact, the Davao City Council has passed byunanimous vote Resolution No. 02573-15 Series of 2015 dated 14 December2015 entitled “Expressing the Objection of the Sangguniang Panlungsod ofDavao on the Irregular Procedure as well as the Various Questions Raised

Against the Sasa Port Modernization Project Now Being Bidded Out Without

Prior Consultation and Expressed Approval of the Local Government asProvided for by the Local Government Code”.12

16. On August 28, 2015, various sectors represented by Tagum AgriculturalDevelopment Co., Inc. (TADECO), Davao International Container Terminal(DICT) and Pilipino Banana Growers and Exporters Association (PBGEA)sent a strongly-worded letter to Governor Rodolfo Del Rosario of DavaoProvince expressing concerns regarding the DOTC’s non-compliance withResolution No. 118 previously issued by the Regional Development Council,among others. The letter enumerates irregularities plaguing the project, namely

– the previously mentioned non-compliance with the LGC, the inexplicableconduct of the DOTC’s second feasibility study by a finance group instead of aports specialist group and the omission of the potential of cruise tourism in theconsideration of the project. The letter also stresses the fact that other portsnearer and more accessible to the banana markets exist and are operational, andquestion once again the DOTC’s insistence of converting Sasa Port into acargo port for banana exports.13

17. This same letter also points out the existence of the P2.9 billion ViabilityGuarantee Fund (VGF), alleged to be a government guarantee. It also stresses

the lack of transparency from the side of the DOTC.

18. Another important concern raised before Governor Del Rosario by thehousing and subdivision development sectors represented by Maryline Lim,chairman of the Organization of Socialized Housing Developers Association ofthe Philippines (OSHDAP) and Kristin Lu, President of Subdivision HousingDevelopers Association (SHDA) is the Project’s intended conversion of theport into purely containerized commercial operation that will severely affect thehousing sector since their materials are classified as bulk cargo or break bulk,

which is not containerized. The same is true for other agricultural productsbeing shipped at the Sasa port. If Sasa Port is converted into a purely containerterminal, these shipments cannot anymore use the only public port in Davao

11 A copy of the Invitation to Pore-Qualify and Bid is attached hereto as Annex “E”.12 An original copy of the resolution is attached hereto as Annex “F”.13 A copy of the letter is attached as Annex “G”.


9/26

9

City and may be refused or may not be readily accommodated by the privatecommercial ports in the region to their owners’ great damage and prejudice.

19. Another problematic area pointed out in the abovementioned letter was

the purported increase in port charges and fees that would be allowed to the winning bidder of the project.

20. As of the filing of this petition, the DOTC also has yet to obtain anEnvironmental Compliance Certificate14 for the proposed project as requiredunder Presidential Decree 1586.

GROUNDS FOR THE ISSUANCE

OF A WRIT OF CONTINUING MANDAMUS AND/OR THE WRIT OF KALIKASAN

I.THE DAVAO SASA PORT MODERNIZATIONPROJECT THAT ENTAILS THE REHABILITATION,DEVELOPMENT, EXPANSION OF AND INCREASEIN THE PORT OPERATIONS AS IMPLEMENTED BYTHE BIDDING PROCESS BEING CONDUCTED BY

THE RESPONDENTS WILL VIOLATE THE RIGHTOF THE PETITIONERS AND THE FILIPINO PEOPLETO HEALTH AND A BALANCED AND HEALTHFULECOLOGY AS ENSHRINED IN SECTIONS 15 AND 16OF THE 1987 CONSTITUTION.

II.THE DAVAO SASA PORT MODERNIZATIONPROJECT THAT ENTAILS THE REHABILITATION,

DEVELOPMENT, EXPANSION OF AND INCREASEIN THE PORT OPERATIONS AS IMPLEMENTED BYTHE BIDDING PROCESS BEING CONDUCTED BYTHE RESPONDENTS IS VIOLATIVE OF THEPHILIPPINE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTSTATEMENT SYSTEM AS THE RESPONDENTSFAILED TO UNDERGO THE NECESSARYENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT PROCESS

AND SECURE THE REQUIRED ENVIRONMENTALCOMPLIANCE CERTIFICATE.

14 Petitioners’ counsel has written a letter to the EMB for a written confirmation of earlierinformation received by its clients from the Regional Office that no ECC has been applied andissued for the Davao Sasa Port Modernization Project. EMB has yet to issue its reply.


10/26

10

III.THE DAVAO SASA PORT MODERNIZATIONPROJECT THAT ENTAILS THE REHABILITATION,DEVELOPMENT, EXPANSION OF AND INCREASEIN THE PORT OPERATIONS AS IMPLEMENTED BYTHE BIDDING PROCESS BEING CONDUCTED BYTHE RESPONDENTS IS VIOLATIVE OF SECTIONS 26

AND 27 OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE OF1991 AND THE RIGHT OF THE PETITIONERS ANDTHE PEOPLE TO INFORMATION ON MATTERS OFPUBLIC CONCERN.

IV.THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE CALL FORTHE APPLICATION OF THE PRECAUTIONARYPRINCIPLE AND THE ISSUANCE OF A TEMPORARYENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ORDER (TEPO).

DISCUSSION

Violation of the Right To Health and a

Healthy and Balanced Ecology

21. Sections 15 and 16 of the 1987 Constitution provide that the people have aright to health and the right to a healthy and balanced ecology with the statebeing tasked with the affirmative duty to promote and advance suchcompelling state interests15. In compliance with such duty, the Supreme Courteven promulgated its own set of rules on the procedure for environmentalcases16.

22. Respondents on the other hand, instead of observing such duty, have begun

the process of transgressing the Petitioners and the people’s right to health anda balanced ecology with the bidding process that they are undertaking and theconsequent award and implementation of the proposed port expansion subjectof this case.

23. In connection with port operations, a special study was made for theOrganisation for Economic Cooperation and Development on the impacts ofthe operations of port cities. In The Competitiveness of Global Port-Cities:Synthesis Report (“Synthesis Report”)17, four major negative impacts werelisted related to port activities. These are: 1) environmental impacts; 2) land use

15 See Leonen, J. Dissenting Opinion in International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-BiotechApplications, Inc. vs. Greenpeace Southeast Asia, Inc. (G.R. No. 209271; 8 December 2015)16 The Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases.17 At http://www.oecd.org/gov/regional-policy/Competitiveness-of-Global-Port-Cities-Synthesis-Report.pdf (last accessed on 2 March 2016).

http://www.oecd.org/gov/regional-policy/Competitiveness-of-Global-Port-Cities-Synthesis-Report.pdfhttp://www.oecd.org/gov/regional-policy/Competitiveness-of-Global-Port-Cities-Synthesis-Report.pdfhttp://www.oecd.org/gov/regional-policy/Competitiveness-of-Global-Port-Cities-Synthesis-Report.pdfhttp://www.oecd.org/gov/regional-policy/Competitiveness-of-Global-Port-Cities-Synthesis-Report.pdfhttp://www.oecd.org/gov/regional-policy/Competitiveness-of-Global-Port-Cities-Synthesis-Report.pdf


11/26

11

impacts; 3) traffic impacts; and 4) other impacts.18 On the environment, theimpacts “are within the field of air emissions, water quality, soil, waste,biodiversity, noise and other impacts. These environmental impacts can havesevere consequences for the health of the population of the port-city, especially

for the poorer parts of port-cities.”19

24. According to the Synthesis Report, most of these impacts are localized andaffect the surrounding localities to wit:

2.2.5 Where do the negative impacts take place?Port impacts have generally become sub-urbanised, as many portsites have relocated from city centres. Port relocations and gradualspatial disintegration of ports and cities over time have taken

place in many countries and have had a profound influence onport impacts. Remaining port functions near highly populatedareas have become constrained by limited acceptance by thepopulation of negative impacts. However, there is a large varietybetween port-cities. As ports are capital intensive, port relocationscan in many cases not immediately take place and have in manycases been a gradual shift, through new terminal developmentaway from city development. Several ports have thus developedon multiple sites, which adds a new layer of complexity in termsof disintegration of positive and negative impacts. Port lay out

also is important, as the boundary of the port area with the citycould be considered the area were most of the environmentalimpacts take place. If this boundary touches a large populationconcentration, the intensity of port impacts will evidently belarger. Finally, there is also a governance component to thisdiscussion, when most of the impacts touch surroundingmunicipalities, which would imply a metropolitan orregional approach to these impacts.

The effects of pollution, dust and noise are all very localised

and most of the congestion costs occur close to the ports.Other regions are also subject to the negative impacts of thehinterland transport of port cargo to or from their region, butthese effects are more diluted than the impacts in the port-city.Moreover, there is a large skewedness with respect to the negativeimpacts; large port-cities can be considered environmentalhotspots. According to our estimates the largest 25 ports in the

world account for around half of the shipping emissions in allports in the world (Merk, 2012). So there is a large difference innegative port-city impacts depending on port size. Otherenvironmental impacts from shipping are evidently globalimpacts, and many of these actually take place at sea, but these

18 At pp. 32-42.19 At p. 32.


12/26

12

impacts become particularly evident in port-cities.20 (Emphasissupplied)

25. In the Philippines, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources

together with the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources of theDepartment of Agriculture and the Department of Interior and LocalGovernment, among others, have come up with its Managing Impacts ofDevelopment in the Coastal Zone (“Managing Impacts”)21 where it identifiedthe effects of coastal construction and reclamation, including ports andoffshore moorings.22

26. According to Managing Impacts, “Coastal construction has been the most widespread of activities affecting coastal resources”23 since “Any construction

that modifies the shoreline will invariably change currents, wave action, tidalfluctuations, and the transport of sediments along the coast”24 while “Coastalconstruction that restricts the circulation of coastal water bodies can alsodegrade water qualify and coastal ecosystems.”25

27. Considering the Project involved in this case, all the foregoingenvironmental pollution and concerns will be affecting the petitioners and thepeople of Davao region if the bidding process and the Project’simplementation is not stopped.

Violation of the Philippine EnvironmentalImpact Statement System

28. Opposite the Davao City (Sasa) Port and separated by a narrow strait is theIsland City of Samal which, like Boracay in Malay, Aklan, is a world famoustourist destination. As such, the effects on the said island of the port expansionand the increased shipping traffic cannot be ignored. Thus, the samepronouncement of the Supreme Court in Boracay Foundation, Inc. vs. Province of

Aklan 26, is applicable in this case to wit:

Any impact on the Boracay side cannot be totally ignored,as Caticlan and Boracay are separated only by a narrow strait. Thisbecomes more imperative because of the significant contributionsof Boracay’s white-sand beach to the country’s tourism trade,

which requires respondent Province to proceed with utmostcaution in implementing projects within its vicinity.

20

At pp. 42-43.21 See http://oneocean.org/download/db_files/crmguidebook7.pdf (last accessed on 2 March2016).22 At pp. 41-45.23 At p. 42.24 At p. 43.25 At p. 43.26 G.R. No. 196870; 26 June 2012.

http://oneocean.org/download/db_files/crmguidebook7.pdfhttp://oneocean.org/download/db_files/crmguidebook7.pdfhttp://oneocean.org/download/db_files/crmguidebook7.pdf


13/26

13

29. With such well-established negative environmental effects of any portactivity, the least that the Respondents could have done was to study thepossible negative environmental impacts of the proposed port expansionproject through an environmental impact assessment.

30. Respondent PPA has even seen the need therefor when it contracted theservices of Science and Vision for Technology, Inc.27 for its own study on the“Conduct of Feasibility and Implementation Plan for the Proposed Public-Private Partnership in the Management, Operations and Development of thePort of Davao (Sasa), Davao City” when it charged said consultant with,among others, the following:

2.01.6 INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL

EXAMINATION

1. Undertake Initial Environmental Examination (IEE) of theimpact of the proposed development, if any, under the PPPProgram/Plan, to include but not limited to:

- Impact relating to the project location- Impact during construction- Impact during port operation

2. Such IEEs shall be undertaken in preparation, if and were warranted, for any recommended full-blown EnvironmentalImpact Assessment (EIA) required under Philippine laws,policies, rules and regulations of the Department of Environmentand Natural Resources (DENR) and other concerned governmentagencies.

3. The results of such IEEs shall be submitted together with theDraft Final Report.

31. Unfortunately, even the PPA Study does not contain the foregoing requiredinitial environmental examination.

32. Moreover, when Respondent DOTC came up with its own study ascontained in the Davao Sasa Port Modernization Project InformationMemorandum, it appears that the environmental impacts of the proposedproject were not assessed and no recommendations to mitigate the same werereported (at least from the dearth of materials available to Petitioners regardingthe Project). There is nothing in the Information Memorandum that even deals

with the environmental concerns that may be casued by or incidental toProject.

27 http://www.ppa.com.ph/bidding/head%20office/2012/12_0216%20Contract%20Davao%20SASA%20(H.O.).pdf (last accessed on 29 February 2016).

http://www.ppa.com.ph/bidding/head%20office/2012/12_0216%20Contract%20Davao%20SASA%20(H.O.).pdfhttp://www.ppa.com.ph/bidding/head%20office/2012/12_0216%20Contract%20Davao%20SASA%20(H.O.).pdfhttp://www.ppa.com.ph/bidding/head%20office/2012/12_0216%20Contract%20Davao%20SASA%20(H.O.).pdfhttp://www.ppa.com.ph/bidding/head%20office/2012/12_0216%20Contract%20Davao%20SASA%20(H.O.).pdfhttp://www.ppa.com.ph/bidding/head%20office/2012/12_0216%20Contract%20Davao%20SASA%20(H.O.).pdf


14/26

14

33. Respondents have not likewise applied for and secured an EnvironmentalCompliance Certificate (“ECC”) for the Project as required under thePhilippine Environmental Impact Statement System (PEISS) under PresidentialDecree No. 1586. The proposed port expansion with the capacity for

containerized cargo being more than doubled as compared to current capacityand operations is certainly covered by the PEISS and is considered to be aproject within an environmentally critical area. This is evident from the RevisedProcedural Manual for DAO 2003-30 of the DENR which lists “sea port,causeways and harbors” under Group II which are Non-EnvironmentallyCritical Projects in Environmentally Critical Areas.28

34. In Boracay Foundation, Inc. vs. Province of Aklan 29, the DENR Regional Officeinvolved in the said case admitted that a jetty port, being within a water body, is

necessarily within an environmentally critical area, to wit:

Respondent DENR-EMB RVI stresses that the declarationin 1978 of several islands, which includes Boracay as tourist zoneand marine reserve under Proclamation No. 1801, has norelevance to the expansion project of Caticlan Jetty Port andPassenger Terminal for the very reason that the project is notlocated in the Island of Boracay, being located in BarangayCaticlan, Malay, which is not a part of mainland Panay. It admitsthat the site of the subject jetty port falls within the ECA

under Proclamation No. 2146 (1981), being within the categoryof a water body. This was why respondent Province hadfaithfully secured an ECC pursuant to the Revised ProceduralManual for DENR DAO 2003-30 by submitting the necessarydocuments as contained in the EPRMP on March 19, 2010, which

were the bases in granting ECC No. R6-1003-096-7100(amended) on April 27, 2010 for the expansion of Caticlan JettyPort and Passenger Terminal, covering 2.64 hectares. (Emphasissupplied)

35. Given the foregoing, Respondents are required to go through the processof environmental impact assessment and secure an ECC.

36. Moreover, in the conduct of an EIA in connection with the application foran ECC, the proponent is required to determine whether there are viablealternatives30 to the proposed Project. In this case, there exist at least three (3)other commercial ports near the vicinity of the Davao Sasa Port aside fromother non-commercial ports in the area. The commercial ports are (1) Tefascolocated toward the northern city limit of Davao City; (2) Davao InternationalContainer Terminal located in Panabo City; and (3) Hijo International Port in

Tagum City – all within an 80 kilometer radius from the downtown center ofDavao City. These are described in the Information Memorandum as follows:

28 At p. 51.29 G.R. No. 196870; 26 June 2012.30 Section 4 (c) of Presidential Decree No. 1151.


15/26


16/26

16

Violation of the Right to PublicParticipation, Prior Approval and Right toInformation on Matters of Public Concern

38. Aside from the failure to comply with the requirements under the PEISS,Respondents have also failed to comply with the requirements under Sections26 and 27 of the Local Government Code of prior consultations and priorapproval of the local government.

39. This doctrine has been clearly enunciated by the Honorable Court in theafore-mentioned case of Boracay Foundation, Inc. vs. Province of Aklan , to wit:

The Local Government Code establishes the duties

of national government agencies in the maintenance of ecologicalbalance, and requires them to secure prior public consultation andapproval of local government units for the projects describedtherein.

In the case before us, the national agency involved isrespondent PRA. Even if the project proponent is the localgovernment of Aklan, it is respondent PRA which authorized thereclamation, being the exclusive agency of the government toundertake reclamation nationwide. Hence, it was necessary for

respondent Province to go through respondent PRA and toexecute a MOA, wherein respondent PRA’s authority to reclaim

was delegated to respondent Province. Respondent DENR-EMBRVI, regional office of the DENR, is also a national governmentinstitution which is tasked with the issuance of the ECC that is aprerequisite to projects covered by environmental laws such as theone at bar.

This project can be classified as a national project thataffects the environmental and ecological balance of local

communities, and is covered by the requirements found in theLocal Government Code provisions that are quoted below:

Section 26. Duty of National Government Agencies in the Maintenance of EcologicalBalance . - It shall be the duty of every nationalagency or government-owned or controlledcorporation authorizing or involved in the planningand implementation of any project or program thatmay cause pollution, climatic change, depletion ofnon-renewable resources, loss of crop land,rangeland, or forest cover, and extinction of animalor plant species, to consult with the localgovernment units, nongovernmental organizations,and other sectors concerned and explain the goalsand objectives of the project or program, its impact


17/26

17

upon the people and the community in terms ofenvironmental or ecological balance, and themeasures that will be undertaken to prevent orminimize the adverse effects thereof.

Section 27. Prior Consultations Required . - Noproject or program shall be implemented bygovernment authorities unless the consultationsmentioned in Sections 2 (c) and 26 hereof arecomplied with, and prior approval of the sanggunianconcerned is obtained: Provided, That occupants inareas where such projects are to be implementedshall not be evicted unless appropriate relocation

sites have been provided, in accordance with theprovisions of the Constitution.

In Lina, Jr. v. Paño, we held that Section 27 of the LocalGovernment Code applies only to “national programs and/orprojects which are to be implemented in a particular localcommunity” and that it should be read in conjunction withSection 26. We held further in this manner:

Thus, the projects and programs mentioned in

Section 27 should be interpreted to mean projectsand programs whose effects are among thoseenumerated in Section 26 and 27, to wit, those that:(1) may cause pollution; (2) may bring aboutclimatic change; (3) may cause the depletion of non-renewable resources; (4) may result in loss of cropland, range-land, or forest cover; (5) may eradicatecertain animal or plant species from the face of theplanet; and (6) other projects or programs that maycall for the eviction of a particular group of people

residing in the locality where these will beimplemented. Obviously, none of these effects willbe produced by the introduction of lotto in theprovince of Laguna. (Emphasis added.)

During the oral arguments held on September 13, 2011, it was established that this project as described above falls underSection 26 because the commercial establishments to be built onphase 1, as described in the EPRMP quoted above, could causepollution as it could generate garbage, sewage, and possible toxicfuel discharge.

Our ruling in Province of Rizal v. Executive Secretary isinstructive:


18/26

18

We reiterated this doctrine in the recent caseof Bangus Fry Fisherfolk v. Lanzanas , where we heldthat there was no statutory requirement forthe sangguniang bayan of Puerto Galera to approve the

construction of a mooring facility, as Sections 26 and27 are inapplicable to projects which are notenvironmentally critical.

Moreover, Section 447, which enumerates thepowers, duties and functions of the municipality,grants the sangguniang bayan the power to, amongother things, “enact ordinances, approve resolutionsand appropriate funds for the general welfare of the

municipality and its inhabitants pursuant to Section16 of th(e) Code.” These include:

(1) Approving ordinances and passingresolutions to protect the environment and imposeappropriate penalties for acts which endanger theenvironment, such as dynamite fishing and otherforms of destructive fishing, illegal logging andsmuggling of logs, smuggling of natural resourcesproducts and of endangered species of flora and

fauna, slash and burn farming, and such otheractivities which result in pollution, acceleration ofeutrophication of rivers and lakes, or of ecologicalimbalance; [Section 447 (1)(vi)]

(2) Prescribing reasonable limits and restraintson the use of property within the jurisdiction of themunicipality, adopting a comprehensive land useplan for the municipality, reclassifying land withinthe jurisdiction of the city, subject to the pertinent

provisions of this Code, enacting integrated zoningordinances in consonance with the approvedcomprehensive land use plan, subject to existinglaws, rules and regulations; establishing fire limits orzones, particularly in populous centers; andregulating the construction, repair or modification ofbuildings within said fire limits or zones inaccordance with the provisions of this Code;[Section 447 (2)(vi-ix)]

(3) Approving ordinances which shall ensure theefficient and effective delivery of the basic servicesand facilities as provided for under Section 17 of thisCode, and in addition to said services and facilities,…providing for the establishment, maintenance,protection, and conservation of communal forests


19/26

19

and watersheds, tree parks, greenbelts, mangroves,and other similar forest development projects …and,subject to existing laws, establishing and providingfor the maintenance, repair and operation of an

efficient waterworks system to supply water for theinhabitants and purifying the source of the watersupply; regulating the construction, maintenance,repair and use of hydrants, pumps, cisterns andreservoirs; protecting the purity and quantity of the

water supply of the municipality and, for thispurpose, extending the coverage of appropriateordinances over all territory within the drainage areaof said water supply and within one hundred (100)

meters of the reservoir, conduit, canal, aqueduct,pumping station, or watershed used in connection with the water service; and regulating theconsumption, use or wastage of water.” [Section 447(5)(i) & (vii)]

Under the Local Government Code, therefore,two requisites must be met before a national

project that affects the environmental andecological balance of local communities can be

implemented: prior consultation with theaffected local communities, and prior approval of the project by theappropriate sanggunian . Absent either of thesemandator y requirements, the project’simplementation is illegal. (Emphasis added.)

Based on the above, therefore, prior consultationsand prior approval are required by law to have beenconducted and secured by the respondent

Province. Accordingly, the information dissemination conductedmonths after the ECC had already been issued was insufficient tocomply with this requirement under the Local GovernmentCode. Had they been conducted properly, the prior publicconsultation should have considered the ecological orenvironmental concerns of the stakeholders and studied measuresalternative to the project, to avoid or minimize adverseenvironmental impact or damage. In fact, respondent Provinceonce tried to obtain the favorable endorsement of the SangguniangBayan of Malay, but this was denied by the latter.

Moreover, DENR DAO 2003-30 provides:

5.3 Public Hearing / Consultation Requirements


20/26

20

For projects under Category A-1, theconduct of public hearing as part of the EIS reviewis mandatory unless otherwise determined byEMB. For all other undertakings, a public hearing is

not mandatory unless specifically required by EMB.

Proponents should initiate publicconsultations early in order to ensure thatenvironmentally relevant concerns ofstakeholders are taken into consideration in theEIA study and the formulation of themanagement plan. All public consultations andpublic hearings conducted during the EIA process

are to be documented. The publichearing/consultation Process report shall be validated by the EMB/EMB RD and shall constitutepart of the records of the EIA process. (Emphasissupplied.)

In essence, the above-quoted rule shows that in cases requiringpublic consultations, the same should be initiated early so thatconcerns of stakeholders could be taken into consideration in theEIA study. In this case, respondent Province had already filed its

ECC application before it met with the local government units ofMalay and Caticlan.

40. Precisely because of the failure to consult the affected communities and getthe approval of the local sanggunian for the Project that, undoubtedly, willincrease pollution in and near the locality and the surrounding environs, theDavao City Council was forced to issue its Resolution expressing it objection tothe project on 14 December 2015.

41. The move of the Respondents to exclude public participation in the

affected communities, including the Petitioners, denies the latter theopportunity to voice out the costs to their lives and to the environment of theProject that may not have been taken into consideration by the proponents intheir valuation of the Project. These are legitimate concerns that, as pointed outby Justice Leonen, ought to be made part of the cost equation, to wit:

These provisions represent, in no small measure, a shift inthe concept of governance in relation to society’s health. It is arecognition that if private actors and entities are left tothemselves, they will pursuer motivations which may not be tooadvantageous to nutrition or able to reduce the risks of traditionaland modern diseases. At best, the actors may not be aware oftheir incremental contributions to increasing risks. At worse, theremay be conscious efforts to examine health consequences ofproducts and processes introduced in the market. It is expedient


21/26

21

for most to consider such costs as extraneous and affecting theirfinal profit margins.

In short, the constitutional provisions embed the idea that

there is no invisible hand that guides participants in the economicmarket to move toward optimal social welfare in its broadestdevelopmental sense.

Producers, by their very nature, participate in the marketmotivated by their objective to recover costs and maximize theirprofits. Costs for them usually refer to their pecuniaryexpenditures. Costs suffered incidentally by the ecology of thelocations of their factories or by the health of their consumers are

not costs which producers readily and naturally internalize. In anunregulated market, they do not spend their capital to mitigate orremedy these types of damages. In many instances, there is thetendency even to avoid incurring expense to find out whetherthese types of damages actually occur. Environmental damage andhealth risks are, thus, externalities which are usually invisible tothem. Externalities are costs which remain unrecognized in theprivate transaction between the producers and their consumers.33

42. Aside from the failure to conduct the necessary consultations and to secure

the approval of the local government, Respondents are bent on keeping the whole bidding process secret such that instead of making the bidding public, ithas imposed the rule of confidentiality and for such purpose has restrictedinternet access of the public to the documents and announcements with respectthereto.

43. Thus, Section 3.7 of the Instructions to Prospective Bidders state the ruleon confidentiality thus:

3.7 Confidentiality

The Invitation Documents provided by the DOTC and the PPAare being made available to Prospective Bidders only inconnection with the Project and may not be disclosed or usedother than for purposes of Bidding. Information relating to theexamination, clarification, evaluation and comparison of Pre-Qualification Documents shall not be disclosed to any of theProspective Bidders or other persons not officially involved in theBidding Process; provided that the DOTC and the PPA, includingthe PBAC, shall not have the obligation to keep any informationsubmitted by a Prospective Bidder confidential after award of theProject.

33 See Leonen, J. Dissenting Opinion in International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications, Inc. vs. Greenpeace Southeast Asia, Inc. (G.R. No. 209271; 8 December 2015).


22/26

22

44. On the other hand, when the links in Respondent DOTC’s websitepertaining to the bidding for the Project are clicked, what appears on the screenis a notification that “You don’t have permission to access” the informationrepresented by the link. Following are some of the samples:

Forbidden

You don’t have permission toaccess/images/PPP/2015/P17BDavaoSasaPortMP/DavaoSasaGBB17-2016.pdf ;

Forbidden

You don’t have permission toaccess/images/Public_Bidding/Memo-COMELEC_ProjectExemption.pdf on this server.

45. From the foregoing, not only have Respondents failed to consult thestakeholders, they are determined to exclude the public from accessinginformation and proceedings relating to the Project in violation of Petitioners’right to information on matters of public concern – a right that is critical intheir proper exercise of the right to public participation under Sections 26 ofthe Local Government Code.

46. Aside therefrom, the Regional Development Council of Region XI hasimposed certain conditions in its approval of the Project among which are:

a) Acquisition of additional 6.2 hectares of right-of-way perNEDA-ICC’s recommendation shall be secured immediately; b) Ensure that appropriate compensation is paid for the privateproperties that will be acquired as additional right of way;c) Specify in the Terms of Reference (TOR) who will shoulder the

payment of the Real Property Tax;d) Ensure the proper relocation/resettlement of informal settlersaffected by the Project; and,e) Ensure that in the implementation of the Project concernedparties shall benefit not only the private operator but to includethe port users in the form of better and affordable services, and,more importantly, opportunities for sustainable employment andentrepreneurial activities of the people of Davao Region resultingfrom the operations of the port.

47. It appears that the acquisition of the right of way and therelocation/resettlement of the informal settlers have not been complied with bythe Respondents, and yet, they are already in the final stretch of the biddingprocess, and the award and implementation of the Project.


23/26

23

Applicability of the PrecautionaryPrinciple and Necessity for the Issuanceof the Temporary EnvironmentalProtection Order (TEPO)

48. Given the inevitability of negative environmental impacts of the proposedexpansion of the Davao Sasa port and its operations, Petitioners beseech theHonorable Court to apply the Precautionary Principle and issue a TemporaryEnvironmental Protection Order (TEPO) against the bidding, award andimplementation of the Project.

49. The principle finds application in this case especially since, aside from thetarget of 1.2 million TEU capacity “comprising among others the construction

of a new apron, linear quay, expansion of the back-up area, container yards, warehouses and the installation of new container handling equipment”,Petitioners are completely without any information as to what, eventually, willbe the actual design of the Project. Without the actual design, the effect of theexpanded port as well as its accompanying operations will be difficult to predictespecially with respect to the foreshores surrounding the Project. This thusbrings about an uncertainty in the sense that the predictive purpose of the EIAprocess is defeated and mitigation measures become merely theoretical.

50. Nevertheless, there is no question that port operations, in this case, the

proposed port expansion in the physical structures and in its traffic capacity,are certain to bring about serious and irreversible harm on the marine life andthe foreshores that need to be mitigated.

51. In this case, the features necessary for the application of the precautionaryprinciple are present. As enunciated by the Honorable Court in the case ofInternational Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications, Inc. vs. GreenpeaceSoutheast Asia, Inc., the principle applies when:

Under this Rule, the precautionary principle finds direct

application in the evaluation of evidence in cases before thecourts. The precautionary principle bridges the gap in cases

wherein scientific certainty in factual findings cannot be achieved.By applying the precautionary principle, the court may construe aset of facts as warranting either judicial action or inaction, withthe goal of preserving and protecting the environment. This maybe further evinced from the second paragraph where bias iscreated in favor of the constitutional right of the people to abalanced and healthful ecology. In effect, the precautionaryprinciple shifts the burden of evidence of harm away from thoselikely to suffer harm and onto those desiring to change the statusquo. An application of the precautionary principle to the rules onevidence will enable courts to tackle future environmentalproblems before ironclad scientific consensus emerges.


24/26

24

For purposes of evidence, the precautionary principleshould be treated as a principle of last resort, where application ofthe regular Rules of Evidence would cause in an inequitable resultfor the environmental plaintiff – (a) settings in which the risks of

harm are uncertain; (b) settings in which harm might beirreversible and what is lost is irrepleaceable; and (c) settings in

which the harm that might result would be serious. When thesefeatures – uncertainty, the possibility of irreversible harm, andpossibility of serious harm – coincide, the case for theprecautionary principle is strongest. When in doubt, cases must beresolved in favor of the constitutional right to a balanced andhealthful ecology. Parenthetically, judicial adjudication is one ofthe strongest for a in which the precautionary principle may find

applicability.

52. Given the foregoing and the fact that the Bid Submission is due on 28March 2016 and the award may be made immediately after the opening of thebids, Petitioners respectfully submit that the issuance of a TemporaryEnvironmental Protection Order (TEPO) and of a writ of Kalikasan upon thefiling of this case are warranted.

PRAYER

PREMISES CONSIDERED, Petitioners respectfully pray for theHonorable Court to:

1. Immediately upon filing of this case, to issue:

a) A Writ of Kalikasan directing the Respondents to submittheir Answer to the Petition within ten (10) days from receiptthereof; and

b) A Temporary Environmental Protection Order (TEPO)directing the Respondents to Cease and Desist fromImplementing the Project including the bidding and awardthereof.

2. Upon trial on the merits, to render judgment converting the TEPOinto a Writ of Continuing Mandamus ordering the Respondents to comply withthe mandatory provisions of the law under the Philippine EnvironmentalImpact Statement System and Sections 26 and 27 of the Local GovernmentCode of 1991.

Petitioners pray for such other reliefs as are just and equitable under thepremises.

Makati City for Manila …


25/26

25

… 14 March 2016.

ROQUE & BUTUYAN LAW OFFICESCounsel for Petitioners

Unit 1904, Antel 2000 Corporate Center121 Valero Street, Salcedo Village

1200 Makati CityEmail: [email protected] Tel. Nos. 887-4445 / 887-3894

Fax No: 887-3893

By:

H. HARRY L. ROQUE, JR .Roll No. 36976

PTR No. 5334537| Jan. 11, 2016 | MakatiIBP No. 01749 | Lifetime

MCLE Exemption No.IV-000513 | Feb. 15, 2013

JOEL RUIZ BUTUYANRoll No. 36911

PTR No. 5334536 | Jan. 11, 2016 | MakatiIBP No. 01742 | Lifetime

MCLE Compliance No. V-0013082 / Jan. 12, 2016

ROGER R. RAYELRoll No. 44106

PTR No. 2208483/ Jan. 7, 2016 – Quezon CityIBP No. 02159 / Lifetime

MCLE Compliance No.IV-017519 / Apr. 19, 2013

EXPLANATION

A copy of the foregoing petition was served by registered mail to therespondents due to time, distance and manpower constraints.

ROGER R. RAYEL


26/26

Copy furnished:

OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

134 Amorsolo Street, Legaspi VillageMakati City

HON. JOSEPH EMILIO A. ABAYA The Columbia Tower, Ortigas AvenueBarangay Wack-Wack, Mandaluyong City1555 Metro Manila.

THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND

COMMUNICATION The Columbia Tower, Ortigas AvenueBarangay Wack-Wack, Mandaluyong City1555 Metro Manila.

THE PRE-QUALIFICTION, BIDS AND AWARDS COMMITTEEChairman’s Office, Unit 164, 16/F, The Columbia TowerOrtigas Avenue, Barangay Wack-WackMandaluyong City, 1555 Metro Manila

THE PHILIPPINE PORTS AUTHORITYBonifacio Drive, South Harbor Port AreaManila City

SC Petition for Writ of Kalikasan on Davao-Sasa port modernization project

Documents

Transcript of SC Petition for Writ of Kalikasan on Davao-Sasa port modernization project