The antecedent facts of the case are as follows:

FIRST DIVISION
On August 11, 2000, respondent filed an application for a
Certificate of Non-Coverage (CNC) for its proposed project, the
[G.R. No. 148622. September 12, 2002] Davao City Artica Sports Dome, with the Environmental
Management Bureau (EMB), Region XI. Attached to the
application were the required documents for its issuance, namely,
a) detailed location map of the project site; b) brief project
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by HON.
description; and c) a certification from the City Planning and
HEHERSON T. ALVAREZ, in his capacity as
Development Office that the project is not located in an
Secretary of the DEPARTMENT OF
environmentally critical area (ECA). The EMB Region XI
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
denied the application after finding that the proposed project was
(DENR), CLARENCE L. BAGUILAT, in his capacity
within an environmentally critical area and ruled that, pursuant to
as the Regional Executive Director of DENR-Region XI
Section 2, Presidential Decree No. 1586, otherwise known as the
and ENGR. BIENVENIDO L. LIPAYON, in his
Environmental Impact Statement System, in relation to Section 4
capacity as the Regional Director of the DENR-
of Presidential Decree No, 1151, also known as the Philippine
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT BUREAU
Environment Policy, the City of Davao must undergo the
(DENR-EMB), Region XI,petitioners, vs. THE CITY
environmental impact assessment (EIA) process to secure an
OF DAVAO, represented by BENJAMIN C. DE
Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC), before it can
GUZMAN, City Mayor, respondent.
proceed with the construction of its project.
DECISION Believing that it was entitled to a Certificate of Non-
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.: Coverage, respondent filed a petition for mandamus and
injunction with the Regional Trial Court of Davao, docketed as
Before us is a petition for review[1] on certiorari assailing the Civil Case No. 28,133-2000.It alleged that its proposed project
decision[2] dated May 28, 2001 of the Regional Trial Court of was neither an environmentally critical project nor within an
Davao City, Branch 33, which granted the writ of mandamus and environmentally critical area; thus it was outside the scope of the
injunction in favor of respondent, the City of Davao, and against EIS system. Hence, it was the ministerial duty of the DENR,
petitioner, the Republic, represented by the Department of through the EMB-Region XI, to issue a CNC in favor of
Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). The trial court respondent upon submission of the required documents.
also directed petitioner to issue a Certificate of Non-Coverage in The Regional Trial Court rendered judgment in favor of
favor of respondent. respondent, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows:
WHEREFORE, finding the petition to be meritorious, judgment The trial court also declared, based on the certifications of
granting the writ of mandamus and injunction is hereby rendered the DENR-Community Environment and Natural Resources
in favor of the petitioner City of Davao and against respondents Office (CENRO)-West, and the data gathered from the
Department of Environment and Natural Resources and the other Philippine Institute of Volcanology and Seismology
respondents by: (PHIVOLCS), that the site for the Artica Sports Dome was not
within an environmentally critical area. Neither was the project
1) directing the respondents to issue in favor of the petitioner an environmentally critical one. It therefore becomes mandatory
City of Davao a Certificate of Non-Coverage, pursuant to for the DENR, through the EMB Region XI, to approve
Presidential Decree No. 1586 and related laws, in connection respondents application for CNC after it has satisfied all the
with the construction by the City of Davao of the Artica Sports requirements for its issuance. Accordingly, petitioner can be
Dome; compelled by a writ of mandamus to issue the CNC, if it refuses
to do so.
2) making the preliminary injunction issued on December 12,
2000 permanent. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, however, the
same was denied. Hence, the instant petition for review.
Costs de oficio. With the supervening change of administration, respondent,
in lieu of a comment, filed a manifestation expressing its
SO ORDERED.[3] agreement with petitioner that, indeed, it needs to secure an ECC
for its proposed project. It thus rendered the instant petition moot
The trial court ratiocinated that there is nothing in PD 1586,
and academic. However, for the guidance of the implementors of
in relation to PD 1151 and Letter of Instruction No. 1179
the EIS law and pursuant to our symbolic function to educate the
(prescribing guidelines for compliance with the EIA system),
bench and bar,[4] we are inclined to address the issue raised in
which requires local government units (LGUs) to comply with
this petition.
the EIS law. Only agencies and instrumentalities of the national
government, including government owned or controlled Section 15 of Republic Act 7160,[5] otherwise known as the
corporations, as well as private corporations, firms and entities Local Government Code, defines a local government unit as a
are mandated to go through the EIA process for their proposed body politic and corporate endowed with powers to be exercised
projects which have significant effect on the quality of the by it in conformity with law. As such, it performs dual functions,
environment. A local government unit, not being an agency or governmental and proprietary. Governmental functions are those
instrumentality of the National Government, is deemed excluded that concern the health, safety and the advancement of the public
under the principle of expressio unius est exclusio alterius. good or welfare as affecting the public generally.[6] Proprietary
functions are those that seek to obtain special corporate benefits
or earn pecuniary profit and intended for private advantage and
benefit.[7] When exercising governmental powers and performing Section 4. Presidential Proclamation of Environmentally Critical
governmental duties, an LGU is an agency of the national Areas and Projects. The President of the Philippines may, on his
government.[8] When engaged in corporate activities, it acts as an own initiative or upon recommendation of the National
agent of the community in the administration of local affairs.[9] Environmental Protection Council, by proclamation declare
certain projects, undertakings or areas in the country as
Found in Section 16 of the Local Government Code is the
environmentally critical. No person, partnership or corporation
duty of the LGUs to promote the peoples right to a balanced
shall undertake or operate any such declared environmentally
ecology.[10] Pursuant to this, an LGU, like the City of Davao, can
critical project or area without first securing an Environmental
not claim exemption from the coverage of PD 1586. As a body
Compliance Certificate issued by the President or his duly
politic endowed with governmental functions, an LGU has the
authorized representative. For the proper management of said
duty to ensure the quality of the environment, which is the very
critical project or area, the President may by his proclamation
same objective of PD 1586.
reorganize such government offices, agencies, institutions,
Further, it is a rule of statutory construction that every part of corporations or instrumentalities including the realignment of
a statute must be interpreted with reference to the context, i.e., government personnel, and their specific functions and
that every part must be considered with other parts, and kept responsibilities.
subservient to the general intent of the enactment.[11] The trial
court, in declaring local government units as exempt from the Section 4 of PD 1586 clearly states that no person,
coverage of the EIS law, failed to relate Section 2 of PD partnership or corporation shall undertake or operate any such
1586[12] to the following provisions of the same law: declared environmentally critical project or area without first
securing an Environmental Compliance Certificate issued by the
WHEREAS, the pursuit of a comprehensive and integrated President or his duly authorized representative.[13] The Civil
environmental protection program necessitates the establishment Code defines a person as either natural or juridical. The state and
and institutionalization of a system whereby the exigencies of its political subdivisions, i.e., the local government units[14] are
socio-economic undertakings can be reconciled with the juridical persons.[15] Undoubtedly therefore, local government
requirements of environmental quality; x x x. units are not excluded from the coverage of PD 1586.

Section 1. Policy. It is hereby declared the policy of the State to Lastly, very clear in Section 1 of PD 1586 that said law
attain and maintain a rational and orderly balance between socio- intends to implement the policy of the state to achieve a balance
economic growth and environmental protection. between socio-economic development and environmental
protection, which are the twin goals of sustainable development.
xxxxxxxxx The above-quoted first paragraph of the Whereas clause stresses
that this can only be possible if we adopt a comprehensive
and integrated environmentalprotection program where all the
sectors of the community are involved, i.e., the government and supported by the evidence on record, are binding upon this Court
the private sectors. The local government units, as part of the and will not be disturbed on appeal.[17] This Court is not a trier of
machinery of the government, cannot therefore be deemed as facts.[18]
outside the scope of the EIS system.[16]
There are exceptional instances when this Court may
The foregoing arguments, however, presuppose that a disregard factual findings of the trial court, namely: a) when the
project, for which an Environmental Compliance Certificate is conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculations,
necessary, is environmentally critical or within an surmises, or conjectures; b) when the inference made is
environmentally critical area. In the case at bar, respondent has manifestly mistaken, absurd, or impossible; c) where there is a
sufficiently shown that the Artica Sports Dome will not have a grave abuse of discretion; d) when the judgment is based on a
significant negative environmental impact because it is not an misapprehension of facts; e) when the findings of fact are
environmentally critical project and it is not located in an conflicting; f) when the Court of Appeals, in making its findings,
environmentally critical area. In support of this contention, went beyond the issues of the case and the same are contrary to
respondent submitted the following: the admissions of both appellant and appellee; g) when the
findings of the Court of Appeals are contrary to those of the trial
1. Certification from the City Planning and Development Office court; h) when the findings of fact are conclusions without
that the project is not located in an environmentally critical area; citation of specific evidence on which they are based; i) when the
finding of fact of the Court of Appeals is premised on the
2. Certification from the Community Environment and Natural supposed absence of evidence but is contradicted by the evidence
Resources Office (CENRO-West) that the project area is within on record; and j) when the Court of Appeals manifestly
the 18-30% slope, is outside the scope of the NIPAS (R.A. overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties and
7586), and not within a declared watershed area; and which, if properly considered, would justify a different
conclusion.[19] None of these exceptions, however, obtain in this
3. Certification from PHILVOCS that the project site is thirty- case.
seven (37) kilometers southeast of the southernmost extension of
the Davao River Fault and forty-five (45) kilometers west of the The Environmental Impact Statement System, which ensures
Eastern Mindanao Fault; and is outside the required minimum environmental protection and regulates certain government
buffer zone of five (5) meters from a fault zone. activities affecting the environment, was established by
Presidential Decree No. 1586. Section 2 thereof states:
The trial court, after a consideration of the evidence, found
that the Artica Sports Dome is not within an environmentally There is hereby established an Environmental Impact Statement
critical area. Neither is it an environmentally critical project. It is System founded and based on the environmental impact
axiomatic that factual findings of the trial court, when fully statement required under Section 4 of Presidential Decree No.
1151, of all agencies and instrumentalities of the national Before an environmental impact statement is issued by a lead
government, including government-owned or controlled agency, all agencies having jurisdiction over, or special expertise
corporations, as well as private corporations, firms and entities, on, the subject matter involved shall comment on the draft
for every proposed project and undertaking which significantly environmental impact statement made by the lead agency within
affect the quality of the environment. thirty (30) days from receipt of the same.

Section 4 of PD 1151, on the other hand, provides: Under Article II, Section 1, of the Rules and Regulations
Implementing PD 1586, the declaration of certain projects or
Environmental Impact Statements. Pursuant to the above areas as environmentally critical, and which shall fall within the
enunciated policies and goals, all agencies and instrumentalities scope of the Environmental Impact Statement System, shall be
of the national government, including government-owned or by Presidential Proclamation, in accordance with Section 4 of PD
controlled corporations, as well as private corporations, firms 1586 quoted above.
and entities shall prepare, file and include in every action, project
or undertaking which significantly affects the quality of the Pursuant thereto, Proclamation No. 2146 was issued on
environment a detailed statement on December 14, 1981, proclaiming the following areas and types
of projects as environmentally critical and within the scope of the
(a) the environmental impact of the proposed action, project or Environmental Impact Statement System established under PD
undertaking 1586:

(b) any adverse environmental effect which cannot be avoided A. Environmentally Critical Projects
should the proposal be implemented
I. Heavy Industries
(c) alternative to the proposed action
a. Non-ferrous metal industries
(d) a determination that the short-term uses of the resources of b. Iron and steel mills
the environment are consistent with the maintenance and c. Petroleum and petro-chemical industries
enhancement of the long-term productivity of the same; and including oil and gas
d. Smelting plants
(e) whenever a proposal involves the use of depletable or
nonrenewable resources, a finding must be made that such use II. Resource Extractive Industries
and commitment are warranted.
a. Major mining and quarrying projects
b. Forestry projects
 1. Logging 6. Areas frequently visited and/or hard-hit by natural
2. Major wood processing projects calamities (geologic hazards, floods, typhoons,
3. Introduction of fauna (exotic-animals) volcanic activity, etc.);
in public/private forests 7. Areas with critical slopes;
4. Forest occupancy 8. Areas classified as prime agricultural lands;
5. Extraction of mangrove products 9. Recharged areas of aquifers;
6. Grazing 10. Water bodies characterized by one or any combination of the
following conditions;
c. Fishery Projects
a. tapped for domestic purposes
1. Dikes for/and fishpond development projects b. within the controlled and/or protected areas
declared by appropriate authorities
III. Infrastructure Projects c. which support wildlife and fishery activities
a. Major dams 11. Mangrove areas characterized by one or any combination of
b. Major power plants (fossil-fueled, nuclear the following conditions:
fueled, hydroelectric or geothermal)
c. Major reclamation projects a. with primary pristine and dense young growth;
d. Major roads and bridges b. adjoining mouth of major river systems;
c. near or adjacent to traditional productive fry or
B. Environmentally Critical Areas fishing grounds;
d. which act as natural buffers against shore
1. All areas declared by law as national parks, erosion, strong winds and storm
watershed reserves, wildlife preserves and floods;
sanctuaries; e. on which people are dependent for their
2. Areas set aside as aesthetic potential tourist spots; livelihood.
3. Areas which constitute the habitat for any
endangered or threatened species of indigenous 12. Coral reefs, characterized by one or any combinations of the
Philippine Wildlife (flora and fauna); following conditions:
4. Areas of unique historic, archaeological, or scientific
interests; a. with 50% and above live coralline cover;
5. Areas which are traditionally occupied by cultural b. spawning and nursery grounds for fish;
communities or tribes; c. which act as natural breakwater of coastlines.
 In this connection, Section 5 of PD 1586 expressly states: DIGESTS:

Environmentally Non-Critical Projects. All other projects, RP v City of Davao (Environmental Law)
undertakings and areas not declared by the President as Republic of the Philippines v City of Davao
environmentally critical shall be considered as non-critical and
shall not be required to submit an environmental impact GR No. 148622
statement. The National Environmental Protection Council, thru
September 12, 2002
the Ministry of Human Settlements may however require non-
critical projects and undertakings to provide additional
environmental safeguards as it may deem necessary.
FACTS:
The Artica Sports Dome in Langub does not come close to
any of the projects or areas enumerated above. Neither is it On August 11, 2000, The City of Davao filed an application for a
analogous to any of them. It is clear, therefore, that the said Certificate of Non- Coverage (CNC) for its proposed project, the
project is not classified as environmentally critical, or within an Davao City Artica Sports Dome, with the Environmental
environmentally critical area. Consequently, the DENR has no Management Bureau (EMB), Region XI.
choice but to issue the Certificate of Non-Coverage. It becomes
its ministerial duty, the performance of which can be compelled
by writ of mandamus, such as that issued by the trial court in the
case at bar. ISSUES:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the instant (1) Is an LGU like Davao exempt from the coverage of PD
petition is DENIED. The decision of the Regional Trial Court of 1586?
Davao City, Branch 33, in Civil Case No. 28,133-2000, granting
the writ of mandamus and directing the Department of (2) Is the project entitled to a Certificate of Non-Coverage
Environment and Natural Resources to issue in favor of the City (CNC)?
of Davao a Certificate of Non-Coverage, pursuant to Presidential
Decree No. 1586 and related laws, in connection with the
construction of the Artica Sports Dome, is AFFIRMED.
APPLICABLE LAWS:
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman), Vitug, and Carpio, JJ., concur.
 Section 15 of Republic Act 7160,[5] otherwise known as the project is not classified as environmentally critical, or within an
Local Government Code, defines a local government unit as a environmentally critical area. Consequently, the DENR has no
body politic and corporate endowed with powers to be exercised choice but to issue the Certificate of Non- Coverage. It becomes
by it in conformity with law. its ministerial duty, the performance of which can be compelled
by writ of mandamus, such as that issued by the trial court in the
case at bar.
Section 4 of PD 1586 clearly states that no person, partnership
or corporation shall undertake or operate any such declared
environmentally critical project or area without first securing an RP (Hon. Heherson Alvarez as Sec. Of the DENR, Clarence
Environmental Compliance certificate issued by the President or Baguilat as the Reg. Executive Dir. Of DENR- Region XIand
his duly authorized representative Engr. Bienvenido Lipa as Reg. Dir. Of the DENR-
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT BUREAU (DENR-
EMB),Region XI v. THE CITY OF DAVAOG.R. No. 148622.
September 12, 2002
RULING:

(1) NO, IT IS WITHIN THE COVERAGE OF PD 1586. Found SYNOPSIS Respondent filed an application for a Certificate of
Non-Coverage (CNC) for its proposed project, the Davao
in Section 16 of the Local Government Code is the duty of the
CityArtica Sports Dome, with the Environmental Management
LGUs to promote the people's right to a balanced ecology. Bureau (EMB), Region XI. The same, however, wasdenied on
Pursuant to this, an LGU, like the City of Davao, cannot claim the ground that the proposed project was within
exemption from the coverage of PD 1586. As a body politic an environmentally critical area; that the City of Davaomust first
endowed with governmental functions, an LGU has the duty to undergo the environmental impact assessment (EIA) process to
ensure the quality of the environment, which is the very same secure an Environmental ComplianceCertificate (ECC).
objective of PD 1586. Respondent then filed a petition for mandamus
with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), and the latterruled in favor
of respondent.

(2) YES. The Artica Sports Dome in Langub does not come As the project in issue is not classified as environmentally
close to any of the projects or areas enumerated above. Neither is critical or within an environmentally critical area, theDENR has
it analogous to any of them. It is clear, therefore, that the said
no choice but to issue the CNC. It becomes its ministerial duty, Pursuant to this, an LGU, like the City of Davao, can not claim
the performance of which can becompelled by writ of exemption from thecoverage of PD 1586. As a body politic
mandamus, such as that issued herein by the trial court. The endowed with governmental functions, an LGU has the duty to
petition filed by the Republic was denied. ensure thequality of the environment, which is the very same
objective of PD 1586. Further, it is a rule of statutoryconstruction
SYLLABUS that every part of a statute must be interpreted with reference to
1.POLITICAL LAW; ADMINISTRATIVE LAW; LOCAL the context, i.e., that every partmust be considered with other
GOVERNMENT CODE; LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNIT; parts, and kept subservient to the general intent of the enactment.
FUNCTIONS. Section 4 of PD1586 clearly states that no person, partnership
or corporation shall undertake or operate any such declared
Section 15 of Republic Act 7160, otherwise known as the Local environmentally critical project or area without first securing an
Government Code, defines a local governmentunit as a body Environmental Compliance Certificate issued bythe President or
politic and corporate endowed with powers to be exercised by it his duly authorized representative. The Civil Code defines a
in conformity with law. As such, itperforms dual functions, person as either natural or juridical.The state and its political
governmental and proprietary. Governmental functions are those subdivisions, i.e., the local government units are juridical
that concern thehealth, safety and the advancement of the public persons. Undoubtedlytherefore, local government units are not
good or welfare as affecting the public generally. excluded from the coverage of PD 1586. Lastly, very clear in
Proprietaryfunctions are those that seek to obtain special Section 1 of PD 1586 that said law intends to implement the
corporate benefits or earn pecuniary profit and intended for policy of the state to achieve a balance between socio-economic
privateadvantage and benefit. When exercising governmental development and environmental protection, which are the twin
powers and performing governmental duties, an LGU is goals of sustainable development. The firstparagraph of the
anagency of the national government. When engaged in Whereas clause of the law stresses that this can only be possible
corporate activities, it acts as an agent of the community inthe if we adopt a comprehensiveand integrated environmental
administration of local affairs.ASDTEa protection program where all the sectors of the community are
involved, i.e., thegovernment and the private sectors. The local
2.ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; NOT EXCLUDED FROM THE government units, as part of the machinery of the
COVERAGE OF PD 1586 (ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT government,cannot therefore be deemed as outside the scope of
STATEMENTSYSTEM). the EIS system.

3.REMEDIAL LAW; EVIDENCE; FACTUAL FINDINGS OF

Found in Section 16 of the Local Government Code is the duty THE TRIAL COURT, GENERALLY RESPECTED;
of the LGUs to promote the peoples right to a balanced ecology. EXCEPTIONS.
 TheArtica Sports Dome in Langub is not classified as
The trial court, after a consideration of the evidence, found that environmentally critical, or within an environmentally critical
the Artica Sports Dome is not within anenvironmentally critical area.Consequently, the DENR has no choice but to issue the
area. Neither is it an environmentally critical project. It is Certificate of Non-Coverage. It becomes its ministerial duty,the
axiomatic that factual findings of the trial court, when fully performance of which can be compelled by writ of
supported by the evidence on record, are binding upon this Court mandamus, such as that issued by the trial court in the case at
and will not bedisturbed on appeal. This Court is not a trier of bar.
facts. There are exceptional instances when this Court
maydisregard factual findings of the trial court, namely: a) when FACTS:
the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely onspeculations,
surmises, or conjectures; b) when the inference made is 1. August 11, 2000- respondent filed an application for a
manifestly mistaken, absurd, or impossible;c) where there is a Certificate of Non-Coverage (CNC) for its proposed
grave abuse of discretion; d) when the judgment is based on a project, the Davao City Artica Sports Dome, with the EMB
misapprehension of facts; e)when the findings of fact are - Region XI ; attached to the application
conflicting; f) when the Court of Appeals, in making its findings,
went beyond theissues of the case and the same are contrary to 2. EMB Region XI denied the application after finding that
the admissions of both appellant and appellee; g) when the proposed project was within anenvironmentally critical area.
thefindings of the Court of Appeals are contrary to those of
the trial court; h) when the findings of fact are conclusions Basis: Section 2, Presidential Decree No. 1586, otherwise known
without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; i) as the Environmental ImpactStatement System, in relation to
when the finding of fact of the Court of Appeals ispremised on Section 4 of Presidential Decree No. 1151, also known as
the supposed absence of evidence but is contradicted by the thePhilippine Environment Policy - the City of Davao must
evidence on record; and j) when theCourt of Appeals manifestly undergo the environmental impactassessment (EIA) process to
overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties and secure an Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC), before it
which, if properlyconsidered, would justify a different can proceed with the construction of its project.
conclusion. None of these exceptions, however, obtain in this
case. 3. Respondent filed a petition for mandamus and
injunction with the RTC of Davao with the ff. Allegations:
4.ID.; SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS; MANDAMUS; PROPER a. project was neither an environmentally critical
FOR THE PERFORMANCE OF A MINISTERIAL DUTY. project nor within an environmentally critical area

 b. it was the ministerial duty of the DENR to issue a through the EMB Region XI, to approve
CNC in favor of respondent upon submission of the required respondent's application for CNC after it has
documents. satisfied all the requirements for its issuance.

4. RTC ruled in favour of the City of Davao and hence 5. Petitioner filed a MR but it was denied.
directed the DENR ro issue the CNC for the project (PD1586 as
basis) 6. Hence, this petition.
a. Ratio:

i. there is nothing in PD 1586, in relation to PD

1151 and Letter of Instruction No. *Notes:
1179(prescribing guidelines for compliance
with the EIA system), which requires LGUs Sec. 15, RA 7160 (LGC)
tocomply with the EIS law.
ii. Only agencies and instrumentalities of the local government unit as a body politic and corporate
national government, including GOCCs, as endowed with powers to be exercised by itin conformity
well as private corporations, firms and with law.
entities are mandated to go through the EIA
process for their proposed projects which performs dual functions, governmental (those that concern
have significant effect on the quality of the the health, safety and theadvancement of the public good
environment. or welfare as affecting the public generally ) and
proprietary(those that seek to obtain special corporate
iii. A local government unit, not being an agency benefits or earn pecuniary profit and intended forprivate
or instrumentality of the advantage and benefit)
NationalGovernment, is deemed excluded
under the principle of RULES:
expressio unius est exclusio alterius.
When exercising governmental powers and
iv. based on the certifications of the DENR- performing governmental duties, an LGU isan
CENRO, site for the Artica Sports Dome was agency of the national government
notwithin an environmentally critical area - It
therefore becomes mandatory for theDENR,
 When engaged in corporate activities, it acts as an 2.) Section 1 of PD 1586 - law intends to implement the
agent of the community in theadministration of local policy of the state to achieve a balance betweensocio-
affairs. economic development and environmental protection,
which are the twin goals of sustainabledevelopment

Sec. 16, RA 7160 (LGC) duty of the LGUs to promote the a. Whereas clause stresses that this can only be
people's right to a balanced ecology possible if we adopt a comprehensive andintegrated
environmental protection program where all the
an LGU, like the City of Davao, can not claim exemption sectors of the community areinvolved, i.e., the
from the coverage of PD 1586 government and the private sectors. The local
government units, as part of themachinery of the
As a body politic endowed with governmental functions, government, cannot therefore be deemed as outside
an LGU has the duty to ensure thequality of the the scope of the EIS system.
environment, which is the very same objective of PD 158
3.) HOWEVER, after consideration of the evidence finding
Artica Sports Dome is not within anenvironmentally
ISSUE: critical area neither being a critical project... findings of
WON the LGUs are excluded from the coverage of PD 1586, the trial court becomes bindingwith the SC.
one which requires an environmental impact
assessment (EIA) process to secure an Environmental 4.) The Artica Sports Dome in Langub does not come close to
Compliance Certificate (ECC) any of the projects or areas enumerated inPresidential
2146 (proclaiming areas and types of projects as
environmentally critical and w/in scope of the EIS).
HELD: No. Neither is it analogous to any of them. It is clear,
therefore, that the said project is not classifiedas
1.) Section 4 of PD 1586 - "no person, partnership or environmentally critical, or within an environmentally
corporation shall undertake or operate any suchdeclared critical area. Consequently, the DENR has nochoice but to
environmentally critical project or area without first issue the Certificate of Non-Coverage. It becomes its
securing an Environmental ComplianceCertificate issued ministerial duty, the performance of which can be
by the President or his duly authorized representative." compelled by writ of mandamus, such as that issued by the
trial court in the case at bar. ^TC affirmed ^
a. LGUs are juridical persons