Title
Department of Transportation vs. Philippine Petroleum Sea Transport Association
Case
G.R. No. 230107
Decision Date
Jul 24, 2018
The case challenges the constitutionality of the Oil Pollution Management Fund under RA 9483, with petitioners arguing it violates equal protection, due process, and legislative delegation. The Supreme Court upheld the fund, ruling it essential for environmental protection and compensation, with reasonable classification and valid delegation of authority.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 230107)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • The Case
    • Petitioners: Department of Transportation (DOTR), Maritime Industry Authority (MARINA), Philippine Coast Guard (PCG)
    • Respondents: Philippine Petroleum Sea Transport Association and eight shipping corporations
    • Subject Matter: Constitutionality of establishing an Oil Pollution Management Fund (OPMF) under Section 22(a) of Republic Act No. 9483 and Section 1, Rule I of its Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR), imposing a ten-centavo per liter impost on oil deliveries by tankers and barges
  • Antecedents
    • Marine Biodiversity and Oil Spill Disasters
      • December 2005 Antique spill: 364,000 liters bunker oil, 40 km coastline polluted, 230 ha mangroves destroyed
      • August 2006 Guimaras spill: 2.1 million liters, worst in Philippine history, 320 km coastline sludge, 1,100 ha marine sanctuaries damaged, 40,000 fishers affected
    • Legislative Response
      • Enactment of RA 9483 (Oil Pollution Compensation Act of 2007) to implement the 1992 Civil Liability and Fund Conventions
      • Section 22(a): creation of OPMF with initial impost of ₱0.10 per liter; fund to be used for PCG clean-up operations (90%) and research/enforcement/monitoring (10%)
      • April 12, 2016 IRR, Rule I: detailed provisions on establishment, sources, OPMF Committee, collection, disbursement, audit, and reporting
  • Procedural History
    • May 2016 Petition for Declaratory Relief (Rule 63) filed by respondents; RTC granted preliminary injunction (July 25, 2016)
    • RTC Decision (February 22, 2017): declared Section 22(a) RA 9483 and Section 1, Rule I IRR unconstitutional (grounds: equal protection, due process, prohibited rider, undue delegation)
    • Petitioners elevated the case to the Supreme Court via petition for review on certiorari

Issues:

  • Are the assailed provisions properly justiciable and actionable under the Petition for Declaratory Relief?
  • Do Section 22(a) of RA 9483 and Section 1, Rule I of the IRR amount to a prohibited rider?
  • Does the classification of “owners and operators of oil tankers and barges” violate the equal protection clause?
  • Is the ten-centavo per liter impost confiscatory and violative of the due process clause?
  • Does delegating to the OPMF Committee the power to set future impost rates constitute an undue delegation of legislative power?

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.