a
Guide and recommendations for LGUs for a rights-based approach to environmental protection

Screencap of Semirara Island from Google Earth

Published on Jun 6, 2025
Last Updated on Jun 6, 2025 at 7:42 pm

The Supreme Court’s (SC) ruling in Occidental Mindoro v. Agusan Petroleum and Mineral Corp. (2025) marks another pivotal moment in local environmental governance, one that left many environmental defenders disappointed. The decision struck down several local ordinances in the Province of Occidental Mindoro imposing a 25-year moratorium on large-scale mining activities as unconstitutional, arguing that the prohibition exceeds local government powers and authority. 

Impact on LGU Autonomy

The Supreme Court’s decision chips away at the constitutional guarantee of local autonomy. Article II, Section 25 of the Constitution provides that the State shall ensure the autonomy of local governments. In Article X, Section 2, the territorial and political subdivisions shall enjoy local autonomy. In the past, the Supreme Court explained the concept of local autonomy as the decentralization of administration and power (Limbona v. Mangelin, G.R. No. 80391 (February 28, 1999)). Section 3 of the Local Government Code (LGC) provides that the local government shall share with the national government the responsibility in the management and maintenance of ecological balance within their territorial jurisdiction (Section 3i). 

Unfortunately, the SC stressed in the Occidental Mindoro case that the power of local government units (LGUs) is more centered in regulation of environmentally critical projects, not in prohibition. It explained that while LGUs may withhold its approval to the application of environmentally critical projects, it may only do so for specific projects “based on its evaluation of the project’s social acceptability and impact on environment, livelihood, and land rights of its constituents”. In other words, LGUs may prohibit projects on a case-to-case basis and not by enacting a total ban.

The Court’s framing shifts the burden to LGUs to justify rejections one project at a time, inevitably making the process highly dependent on local politics and vulnerable to external influences. The Supreme Court justified this interpretation and limitation of LGU autonomy by citing previous cases where it had declared certain ordinances unconstitutional — such as those requiring heavy industries to construct desalination plants, prohibiting aerial spraying in agriculture, regulating subscriber rates, banning casinos, and removing license plates for traffic violations. However, notably, none of these examples involve the management of natural resources or the protection of the environment to the same magnitude and impact as large-scale mining operations, which is the crux of the Occidental Mindoro case, for which the moratorium was passed.

Unlike all the other previously struck down ordinances, both the Constitution and the Local Government Code was very specific with the role of the local government in environmental protection. In light of this narrowed interpretation of LGU authority, are local governments still equipped to serve as genuine protectors of the environment?

LGU powers in environmental protection

The Local Government Code (LGC) of 1991 empowers LGUs across all levels (barangay, city/municipal, and provincial) to regulate projects with environmental consequences. Section 16, known as the general welfare clause, mandates LGUs to promote a balanced and healthful ecology. This was explained by the Supreme Court in Ruzol v. Sandiganbayan (2013) as the duty to promulgate ordinances aimed at enhancing the right of the people to a balanced ecology. 

Sections 26 and 27 of the LGC require that all projects with significant environmental impact undergo prior consultation with affected communities and secure the consent of the appropriate sanggunian. The Court in Paje v. Casiño (2015) clarified that the process of securing the ECC is separate from the prior approval of the LGU. It emphasized that the issuance of an ECC does not, by itself result in the implementation of the project and that the prior approval of the concerned sanggunian is required before the project may be implemented. This is consistent with the Revised Procedural Manual of the Philippine Environmental Impact Statement System (otherwise known as Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) Administrative Order (AO) 2003-30 which states that no permits from other national government agencies or LGUs shall be required in the processing of ECC.

DENR Administrative Orders 2003-30 and 2017-015 also embed LGUs deeply into the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process. These rules mandate that LGUs be consulted in the drafting of Social Development Plans (SDP), receive copies of full EIA reports and executive summaries, and be represented in Multi-Partite Monitoring Teams (MMTs) through the Municipal or Provincial Environment and Natural Resources Officer (MENRO/PENRO), Rural Health Units (RHUs), and Barangay Captains. The barangay, in particular, is recognized as the primary unit for expressing the people’s collective views and for implementing pollution control laws under Sections 384, 389, and 391 of the LGC.

City and municipal governments are not only empowered to enact ordinances that protect public welfare and the environment (Sec. 447, 458), but are also authorized to issue, suspend, or revoke permits in the face of environmental harm (Sec. 455). These powers are echoed at the provincial level through Sections 465 and 468.

Level of LGULegal BasisPowers & Responsibilities in Environmental ProtectionKey Roles in Environmental Governance
BarangaySec. 384, 389, 391, LGC
DAO 2003-30, Sec. 1(11)
DAO 2017-015, Sec. 16
Implement national laws on pollution control and environmental protectionEnact ordinances to promote general welfareParticipate in EIA consultationsKeep copy of EIA Executive SummaryPrimary unit for expressing community viewsMember of Multi-Partite Monitoring Team (MMT) through the Barangay Captain
City and/or Municipal GovernmentSec. 447, 455, 458, LGC
DAO 2003-30, Sec. 1(11)
DAO 2017-015, Sec. 16
Enact ordinances for environmental protectionEnforce laws and impose penaltiesIssue, suspend, or revoke permitsParticipate in SDP drafting and EIA reviewConsulted in EIA and SDP draftingImplement local ordinances with sanctionsRepresented in MMT via MENRO/CENRO and RHU
Provincial GovernmentSec. 465, 468, LGC
DAO 2003-30, Sec. 1(11)
DAO 2017-015, Sec. 16
Enact ordinances for environmental protectionEnforce laws and oversee permit systemsParticipate in SDP drafting and EIA reviewPolicy harmonization across cities/municipalitiesRepresented in MMT via PENRO and RHU
All LGU LevelsSec. 16, 26, 27, LGC
Ruzol v. Sandiganbayan (2013)
Paje v. Casiño (2015)
Occidental Mindoro v. Agusan Petroleum (2025)
Duty to promote a balanced and healthful ecologyRequire prior consultation and sanggunian consent before project implementationEnact ordinances guided by local context and community impactWithhold approval of specific projects with adverse environmental, livelihood, or social impactsInstitutionalize local accountability mechanisms

The 2025 Occidental Mindoro case offers a crucial blueprint: while it prohibits blanket bans on environmentally critical projects, it also places a heavier burden of responsibility on LGUs to protect their constituents and the environment. Rather than relying on sweeping prohibitions, LGUs must exercise its mandate to protect the environment in evaluating every project. Unfortunately, this interpretation makes environmental protection vulnerable to political accommodation. 

In light of these developments, what concrete steps can incumbent local officials take to institutionalize lasting reforms in environmental protection?

Recommendations

Considering both the limitations and powers of LGUs and drawing frameworks the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights and the Declaration on the Right to Development, as well as recommendations from the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI), LGUs should enact the following measures:

  1. Enact Environmental Regulation with a Human Rights Based Approach
    Local ordinances should reflect core values of equity, participation, and sustainability—ensuring the protection of livelihoods and mandating fair compensation for communities adversely affected by development projects. They should also establish clear standards for public participation in Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) processes, including requirements for transparent, accessible, and multilingual information dissemination during community consultations in formats and language that are understood by the community. EIA reports should be easily accessible by the public.
  2. Institutionalize Human Rights Impact Assessment Mechanisms (HRIAM)
    As development projects increasingly intersect with Indigenous territories and rural communities, LGUs must create systems to evaluate both environmental and human rights risks, identifying potential human rights and environmental risks associated with a project and closely monitoring the implementation of the project. These assessments must continue beyond approval, ensuring monitoring during implementation.
  3. Mandate Counter-EIAs and Transparency Mechanisms
    Independent, community-led EIAs must be institutionalized to challenge data submitted by project proponents. This counterbalance will promote transparency and reduce the risk of regulatory capture. 
  1. Establish Accountability and Revocation Protocols
    Ordinances should specify that violations of ECC conditions by proponents trigger automatic review and potential suspension or revocation of permits.

The SC has consistently affirmed that local governments bear primary responsibility for managing and protecting their environment alongside the national government. While blanket prohibitions might have offered a simpler path, the decision of the Supreme Court requiring individual evaluation has now become law. LGUs must ensure that the evaluation of environmentally critical projects is guided by strict standards to avoid arbitrary approvals and is conducted in a fair and consistent manner with a heavy emphasis on public participation and corporate accountability. (RTS, DAA)

SUPPORT BULATLAT.

BE A PATRON.

A community of readers and supporters that help us sustain our operations through microdonations for as low as $1.

Ads

0 Comments

Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This