Post

Resident Marine Mammals of the Protected Seascape Tañon Strait vs. Angelo Reyes, et al.

Posted
By Anonymous
7 min read
Resident Marine Mammals of the Protected Seascape Tañon Strait vs. Angelo Reyes, et al.

Case Title and Citation

Resident Marine Mammals of the Protected Seascape Tañon Strait, e.g., toothed whales, dolphins, porpoises, and other cetacean species, joined in and represented herein by Gloria Estenzo Ramos and Rose-Liza Eisma-Osorio, petitioners, vs. Secretary Angelo Reyes, et al., respondents.
G.R. No. 180771 & G.R. No. 181527, April 21, 2015
Supreme Court — En Banc
Ponente: Justice Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro
Concurring opinion: Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen

Facts

  • Petitioners in G.R. No. 180771 styled themselves as the Resident Marine Mammals (toothed whales, dolphins, porpoises, other cetaceans) joined by Gloria Estenzo Ramos and Rose-Liza Eisma-Osorio as legal guardians (the “Stewards”). Petitioners in G.R. No. 181527 were FIDEC and several subsistence fisherfolk and their representatives.
  • Respondents included then-Secretary Angelo T. Reyes (DOE), then-Secretary Jose L. Atienza (DENR), DENR regional officers, JAPEX (Japan Petroleum Exploration Co., Ltd.) and its Philippine branch/agent (JAPEX Philippines Ltd.) and Supply Oilfield Services, Inc. (SOS).
  • On 2002-06-13 DOE entered GSEC-102 with JAPEX for geophysical studies of the Tañon Strait. On 2004-12-21 GSEC-102 was converted into Service Contract No. 46 (SC-46) covering about 2,850 sq. km. offshore Tañon Strait.
  • JAPEX conducted seismic surveys (including May 9–18, 2005) and sampled; JAPEX committed to drill an exploratory well in a later sub-phase. JAPEX began drilling on 2007-11-16 near Pinamungajan, Cebu; drilling continued until 2008-02-08.
  • The Tañon Strait was declared a protected seascape by Proclamation No. 1234 (1998) and is an environmentally critical area under Proclamation No. 2146; NIPAS (R.A. No. 7586) classifies and regulates activities in such areas.
  • PAMB-Tañon Strait adopted JAPEX’s Initial Environmental Examination on 2007-01-31 and EMB Region VII issued an Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC) on 2007-03-06 for the offshore project.
  • Petitioners filed separate original petitions on 2007-12-17 seeking certiorari, mandamus, prohibition, and injunctive relief nullifying SC-46 and/or the ECC and disputing procedural and substantive compliance with environmental and constitutional requirements.
  • The cases were consolidated on 2008-04-08. Procedural disputes involved impleading JAPEX/JAPEX Philippines Ltd. and SOS; the Court later treated JAPEX Philippines Ltd. as real party-in-interest.
  • Respondents asserted SC-46 had been mutually terminated effective 2008-06-21 and raised mootness; petitioners alleged harm to fisheries and marine life (reduced catches, fish kills, damage to payao/artificial reefs), and incomplete public consultation and document access.

Issues

  1. Do petitioners Resident Marine Mammals and the Stewards (Ramos and Eisma-Osorio) have locus standi to file the petition?
  2. Is Service Contract No. 46 valid under Section 2, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution and consistent with R.A. No. 7586 (NIPAS) and P.D. No. 1586 (EIS system)?

Ruling

  1. Yes - The Stewards (Ramos and Eisma-Osorio) possess legal standing to file the petition in representation of the Resident Marine Mammals; citizen-suit principles and the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases justify liberalized standing in environmental actions.
  2. No - SC-46 is null and void for violating Section 2, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution and for contravening R.A. No. 7586 and P.D. No. 1586 (failure to observe constitutional signatory/notification requirements and EIA/ECC and NIPAS safeguards for protected areas).

Reasoning / Ratio Decidendi

  • Standing:
    • The Court applied the liberalized approach in environmental litigation: Oposa v. Factoran (intergenerational responsibility) and the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases (A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC, Rule 2, Sec. 5) which allow citizen suits and permit Filipino citizens to enforce environmental laws in representation of others, including future generations.
    • Procedural rules may be applied retroactively to pending undetermined cases; thus the Stewards, who joined as real parties, have standing to sue on behalf of the resident marine mammals.
    • Impleading an unwilling co-plaintiff (former President Arroyo) was improper; Rule 3 Sec.10 requires making such a person a defendant if consent cannot be obtained. The Court struck Arroyo from the title.
  • Validity of SC-46 under Section 2, Article XII:
    • La Bugal-B’laan precedent: paragraph 4 of Section 2, Article XII (agreements involving technical or financial assistance) are permissible but subject to safeguards: (1) existence of a general law setting standards; (2) President as signatory; (3) notification to Congress within thirty days.
    • Presidential Decree No. 87 (Oil Exploration and Development Act of 1972) remains operative as a general law; implied repeal was not established.
    • SC-46 failed the constitutional safeguards: it was not signed by the President nor shown to have been notified to Congress as required by paragraph 4, Section 2, Article XII. Those requirements are constitutional, not mere formalities, and noncompliance renders the agreement void.
    • Even if P.D. No. 87 provided authority for petroleum exploration, the special status of Tañon Strait as a NIPAS protected seascape imposes additional constraints: Section 12 of R.A. No. 7586 requires an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and an ECC for activities outside the management plan.
    • Section 14 of R.A. No. 7586 allows surveys for energy resources only (except strict nature reserves and natural parks) and only in accordance with a DENR-approved program; any exploitation/utilization of energy resources within NIPAS areas requires a law passed by Congress.
    • The Court found seismic surveys and exploration activities in Tañon Strait were undertaken without prior compliance with the EIA/ECC requirement (surveys preceding the issuance of an ECC) and that SC-46 contemplated drilling and possible extraction, which exploitation is permissible in a NIPAS area only by statute.
    • Thus, SC-46 violated the Constitution (absence of presidential execution and congressional notification) and violated NIPAS and P.D. No. 1586 (EIA/ECC requirements), rendering it null and void.
  • Mootness:
    • The Court applied exceptions to mootness (grave constitutional violation, paramount public interest, need for controlling principles, and capability of repetition yet evading review) and proceeded to adjudicate the petitions despite termination of SC-46.

Doctrine / Legal Principle

  • Citizen-suit and liberalized standing in environmental cases: private citizens may sue in representation of affected natural entities or future generations under the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases and Oposa doctrine.
  • Constitutional safeguards for service contracts involving natural resources (Section 2, Article XII): agreements with foreign corporations for minerals/petroleum are permitted only subject to general law, presidential execution, and congressional notification; noncompliance voids the contract.
  • Protected areas under NIPAS (R.A. No. 7586) require EIA/ECC for activities outside the management plan; surveys for energy resources require DENR-approved programs and exploitation requires express congressional authorization.
  • Procedural rules (remedial statutes) may apply retroactively to pending, undetermined cases.

Disposition

  • The consolidated petitions (G.R. No. 180771 and G.R. No. 181527) are GRANTED.
  • Service Contract No. 46 (SC-46) is declared NULL AND VOID for violating Section 2, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution, Republic Act No. 7586 (NIPAS), and Presidential Decree No. 1586 (EIS system).
  • The name of former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo is stricken from the petition title insofar as she was improperly impleaded as an unwilling co-petitioner.
  • No further remedies are specified in the dispositive paragraph of the decision beyond nullification of SC-46 and the grant of the petitions.

Concurring / Dissenting Opinions

  • Concurring opinion by Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen.
  • No dissenting opinion noted in the decision.

Significance / Notes

  • Establishes that service contracts for petroleum involving foreign corporations must comply with constitutional safeguards (general law authority, presidential execution, congressional notification); failure renders such contracts void.
  • Affirms the applicability and force of NIPAS protections: exploration and exploitation in declared protected areas are tightly circumscribed; exploitation requires a law enacted by Congress and surveys must follow DENR-approved programs and EIA/ECC procedures.
  • Confirms the Court’s willingness to adjudicate environmental claims despite asserted mootness where constitutional issues and public interest persist and where repetition yet evading review is possible.
  • Clarifies standing in environmental litigation in the Philippines: citizen-suit rules and related procedural rules permit representatives (stewards) to litigate on behalf of natural entities/future generations.
  • Reaffirms that Presidential Decree No. 87 (1972) remained operative until expressly repealed and that statutory/regulatory provisions must be harmonized with constitutional requirements.
  • Practice point for government agencies and private proponents: secure EIA/ECC prior to surveys/drilling in environmentally critical/NIPAS areas, ensure presidential execution and congressional notification where constitutionally required, and conduct required public consultations and DENR-approved programs.
Special Proceedings Public Officers Judicial Review
This post is licensed under CC BY 4.0 by the author.