G.R. No. 182734 - Ocampo vs. Arroyo

Petitioners: Bayan Muna Party-List Representatives Satur C. Ocampo and Teodoro A. Casiao, Anakpawis Representative Crispin B. Beltran, Gabriela Women's Party Representatives Liza L. Maza and Luzviminda C. Ilagan, Representative Lorenzo R. Taada III, and Representative Teofisto L. Guingona III.
Respondents: President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, Executive Secretary Eduardo R. Ermita, Secretary of the Department of Foreign Affairs, Secretary of the Department of Energy, Philippine National Oil Company (PNOC), and PNOC Exploration Corporation.
The petitioners filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition challenging the constitutionality of the Tripartite Agreement for Joint Marine Seismic Undertaking (JMSU) in the South China Sea involving CNOOC (China), PETROVIETNAM (Vietnam), and PNOC (Philippines).

The JMSU aimed to conduct seismic surveys to determine the "petroleum resource potential" of a disputed area (the Agreement Area) in the South China Sea, which the Philippines claims as part of its territory.
The Agreement allowed for joint research and sharing of seismic data among the parties.
PNOC and/or the Government allegedly allowed foreign corporations the sharing of information about petroleum presence, thereby allegedly violating the State's full control over its natural resources.

Section 2, Article XII of the 1987 Philippine Constitution mandates that the exploration, development, and utilization (EDU) of natural resources shall be under the full control and supervision of the State.
The Constitution provides four modes for execution of EDU:

Directly by the State;
Through co-production, joint venture or production-sharing agreements with Filipino citizens or qualified corporations;
Through small-scale utilization by qualified Filipino citizens;
Through agreements the President may enter into with foreign-owned corporations involving technical or financial assistance.

The Supreme Court initially declared the JMSU unconstitutional and void for violating the constitutional provision.
Respondents filed a Motion for Reconsideration contesting the ruling on multiple grounds including standing, mootness, and that the activities did not constitute exploration.

Whether the Supreme Court correctly took cognizance of the petition despite alleged questions of fact and the doctrine of the hierarchy of courts.
Whether the petition is moot given the expiration of the JMSU.
Whether the petitioners have legal standing to challenge the JMSU.
Whether JMSU is a foreign relations instrument, thereby falling under executive discretion.

Whether the activities under JMSU constitute "exploration" under Section 2, Article XII of the Constitution.
Whether the JMSU complies with the four modes of execution allowed under the Constitution.
Whether the State retains full control and supervision under the JMSU.