Download Boracay Foundation, Inc. v. Province of Aklan PDF

TitleBoracay Foundation, Inc. v. Province of Aklan
Tags Crime & Justice Government Justice Mandamus
File Size358.3 KB
Total Pages3
Document Text Contents
Page 2

Municipality of Malay favorably endorsing the said project, had “categorically addressed all the issues”

raised by the BFI in its Petition. It also considered the Petition to be premature for lack of cause of action

due to the failure of BFI to fully exhaust the available administrative remedies even before seeking

judicial relief.


WON the petition is premature because petitioner failed to exhaust administrative remedies

before filing this case?

WON there was proper, timely, and sufficient public consultation for the project?


On the issue of prematurity due to failure to exhaust administrative remedies

The Court held that the petition is not premature for failing to exhaust administrative remedies

and to observe the hierarchy of courts as claimed by the respondents.

The Court reiterated their ruling in Pagara v. Court of Appeals where they clarified that the rule

regarding exhaustion of administrative remedies is not a hard and fast rule. It is not applicable where,

among others, there are circumstances indicating the urgency of judicial intervention such as in the

instant case. The rule may also be disregarded when it does not provide a plain, speedy and adequate

remedy or where the protestant has no other recourse.

Meanwhile, the new Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases, A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC, provides

a relief for petitioner under the writ of continuing mandamus, which is a special civil action that may be

availed of “to compel the performance of an act specifically enjoined by law” and which provides for the

issuance of a TEPO “as an auxiliary remedy prior to the issuance of the writ itself.”

The writ of continuing mandamus allows an aggrieved party to file a verified petition in the

proper court when any government agency or instrumentality or officer thereof “unlawfully neglects the

performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty xxx in connection with the

enforcement or violation of an environmental law rule or regulation or a right therein, xxx and there is

no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.” Such proper court may be

the Regional Trial Court exercising jurisdiction over the territory where the actionable neglect or

omission occurred, the Court of Appeals, or the Supreme Court.

Here, the Court found that BFI 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 that pertain to

laws and rules for environmental protection.

Similer Documents