Case Digest (G.R. No. 182734)
Facts:
This is Bayan Muna Party-List Representatives Satur C. Ocampo and Teodoro A. Casino, Anakpawis Representative Crispin B. Beltran, Gabriela Women’s Party Representatives Liza L. Maza and Luzviminda C. Ilagan, Representative Lorenzo R. Tanada III, and Representative Teofisto L. Guingona III v. President Gloria Macapagal‑Arroyo et al., G.R. No. 182734, promulgated June 27, 2023, the Supreme Court En Banc, Gaerlan, J., writing for the Court. The ruling is a Resolution denying a Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s January 10, 2023 Decision that declared the Tripartite Agreement for Joint Marine Seismic Undertaking (the JMSU) among China National Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC), Vietnam Oil and Gas Corporation (PETROVIETNAM), and the Philippine National Oil Company (PNOC) unconstitutional.On May 21, 2008, the petitioners—suing as legislators, taxpayers, and citizens—filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition directly before the Supreme Court challenging the constitutionality of the JMSU. In the Court’s January 10, 2023 Assailed Decision, it held that the JMSU involved “exploration” within the meaning of Section 2, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution (i.e., the search or discovery of natural resources), and that it was not entered into under any constitutionally permitted mode (direct State action; co‑production/joint venture/production‑sharing with Filipino citizens; small‑scale Filipino utilization; or an agreement entered into by the President with foreign‑owned corporations). The Court also found that under JMSU PNOC/shared information with foreign companies, thereby impairing the State’s full control and supervision over information obtained from exploration.
Respondents, represented by the Office of the Solicitor General, moved for reconsideration of the Assailed Decision, arguing (inter alia) that the Court violated the hierarchy of courts and improperly resolved factual issues, that the petition was moot, that petitioners lacked standing, that JMSU was a foreign‑relations/economic policy instrument outside judicial review, that JMSU did not constitute “exploration,” and that the State did not surrender full control. The Court in this Resolution denied the Motion for Reconsider...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Supreme Court properly take cognizance of the petition (i.e., was direct recourse to the Court permissible and were there questions of fact requiring remand)?
- Is the petition moot or academic, barring adjudication?
- Do the petitioners have legal standing to challenge the JMSU as legislators, taxpayers, and concerned citizens?
- Does JMSU qualify as a foreign‑relations instrument immune from judicial review and thus outside the Court’s power to decide?
- Does the JMSU involve “exploration” under Section 2, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution?
- Is the JMSU constitutional under Section 2, Article XII, including whether it violated the requirement that agreements involving foreign‑owned corporations for large‑scale exploration be entered into by the President and whether the Stat...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)