{"id":149434,"date":"2018-01-29T00:54:45","date_gmt":"2018-01-29T05:54:45","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/?p=149434"},"modified":"2018-01-29T00:54:45","modified_gmt":"2018-01-29T05:54:45","slug":"ca-junks-plea-for-writ-of-kalikasan-vs-zambales-mining-firms","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/2018\/01\/29\/ca-junks-plea-for-writ-of-kalikasan-vs-zambales-mining-firms\/","title":{"rendered":"CA junks plea for writ of kalikasan vs. Zambales mining firms"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"The<\/a>
The CA noted that it failed to present new arguments that would warrant the reversal of its May 22, 2017 decision.(judiciary.gov.ph)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

MANILA\u2014<\/strong>\u00a0The Court of Appeals (CA) denied the motion for reconsideration filed by some residents of Sta. Cruz, Zambales to reverse its earlier ruling denying their petition for the issuance of a writ of kalikasan with permanent environmental protection order (PEPO) against all mining operations in the province.<\/p>\n

In a five-page resolution penned by Associate Justice Renato Francisco, and concurred in by the Associate Justices Jose Reyes, Jr. and Apolinario Bruselas, Jr., CA\u2019s Former Special Fourteenth Division affirmed its May 22, 2017 decision that also lifted the provisional writ of kalikasan issued by the Supreme Court in June 2016 in favor of petitioner Concerned Citizens of Sta. Cruz, Zambales (CCOSZ).<\/p>\n

In denying the petitioner\u2019s motion for reconsideration, the CA noted that it failed to present new arguments that would warrant the reversal of its May 22, 2017 decision.<\/p>\n

\u201cA perusal of the motion for reconsideration reveals no new and meritorious arguments and yields mere rehashed arguments, which had already been exhaustively discussed and squarely passed upon by this Court in the Resolution sought to be considered,\u201d the CA declared.<\/p>\n

\u201cAccordingly, petitioners\u2019 motion for reconsideration is hereby denied for lack of merit,\u201d it added.<\/p>\n

The appellate court did not give weight to the argument of the petitioner that it is the court\u2019s duty to protect and advance the constitutional right of the people to healthful and balanced ecology.<\/p>\n

The petitioner added that it is also the court\u2019s duty to make sure that there is strict compliance to the suspension and closure orders issued by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) against mining operations in the province.<\/p>\n

It insisted that a permanent environmental protection order (PEPO) should have been issued against respondent mining firms instead of a TEPO.<\/p>\n

In the CA\u2019s May 22, 2017 decision, the CA ruled that the closure order issued by then DENR Secretary Gina Lopez against the operations of five mining companies in the province had rendered the petition moot and academic.<\/p>\n

In its petition, the CCOSZ claimed that their constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology is being violated by five mining companies, namely, Benguet Corp Nickel Mines Inc, Eramen Minerals Inc, LNL Archipelago Minerals Inc, Zambales Diversified Metals Corp, and Shangfil Mining and Trading Corp.<\/p>\n

The petitioners noted that their mining activities are destroying the irrigation system and the ecosystem in Sta. Cruz, Zambales and its neighboring municipality of Candelaria, Zambales, extending up to Infanta, Pangasinan.<\/p>\n

The mining firms \u201cunsystematic\u201d mining practices, according to the petitioner, are causing water, air, and soil pollution, as well as heavy laterite siltation of river systems, coast, farmlands, fishponds, and residential areas.<\/p>\n

Forest denudation caused by mining also could result in soil erosion and could exacerbate flood problems, the petitioners said. The livelihood of residents was likewise adversely affected, they added.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

MANILA\u2014\u00a0The Court of Appeals (CA) denied the motion for reconsideration filed by some residents of Sta. Cruz, Zambales to reverse …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":33,"featured_media":48463,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[95],"tags":[45010,38379,45011],"class_list":["post-149434","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-news-ph","tag-ca-junks-plea","tag-court-of-appeals-ca","tag-zambales-mining-firms","mauthors-christopher-lloyd-caliwan","mauthors-philippine-news-agency"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/149434","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/33"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=149434"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/149434\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/48463"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=149434"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=149434"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=149434"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}