E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
10 of 40
http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65160
Public respondents maintain that social acceptability, as understood by petitioners, is
not required to issue an environmental compliance certificate. Instead, what is
required is the stakeholders' participation in the environmental impact assessment
process. Nonetheless, public respondents note that even if this was not mandatory,
private respondents still conducted public consultations and submitted a report on
social acceptability.[79]
Private respondents SM Prime Holdings, Inc. and Shopping Center Management
Corporation allege that petitioners erred in relying on Lina, which categorically stated
that public projects needed public consultation but was silent on a similar
requirement for private projects.[80] They likewise claim that Boracay Foundation,
Inc. does not apply in petitioners' case.[81]
On the issue of validity of the issued permits, private respondent SM Investments
Corporation refutes petitioners' claim that Baguio City's central business district is a
low-density commercial zone over which a large mall or parking lot could not be
constructed. It points out that petitioners' own witness, Engineer Evelyn Cayat
(Engineer Cayat) of the City Planning and Development Office, testified that SM City
Baguio satisfied the zoning requirements.[82]
Private respondent SM Investments Corporation also disputes petitioners' allegation
that the Expansion Project is "a regional mall with an aggregate of 11 [stories] with
a 5-[story] parking lot."[83] It stresses that Engineer Oscar Flores, the city building
official, testified that the mall expansion has four (4) stories composed of split
levels.[84]
As for the different applicants in the original and amended environmental compliance
certificates, private respondent SM Investments Corporation claims that private
respondent SM Prime Holdings, Inc., the applicant in the amended Environmental
Compliance Certificate, only acted as its attorney-in-fact. Additionally, it denies
petitioners' claim that the Expansion Project is a co-located project under the
Revised Procedural Manual for Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Administrative Order 2003-30.
Both private and public respondents posit that all of the pertinent permits were
issued regularly by the appropriate government officials.[85] They emphasize that
the lower courts correctly invoked the presumption of regularity in justifying the
permits issued as they supported their conclusions with evidence.[86]
Finally, private respondents SM Prime Holdings, Inc. and Shopping Center
Management Corporation state that the Expansion Project will not cause irreparable
damage to the environment and the residents of Baguio.[87] They, thus, move for
the lifting of the Temporary Restraining Order.[88]
The issues for this Court's resolution are:
4/23/2020, 10:52 AM