Case Digest (G.R. No. 182734) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
On March 14, 2005, PNOC, the Republic’s national oil company, CNOOC of the People’s Republic of China, and PETROVIETNAM of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam executed the Tripartite Agreement for Joint Marine Seismic Undertaking (JMSU) in Manila, covering 142,886 square kilometers in the South China Sea. Pursuant to the Agreement’s Article 4.1 and Article 5, the parties agreed to collect, process, and reprocess 2D/3D seismic data under Joint Operating Committee supervision, with confidential handling of maps, coordinates, and reports. Under Article 11.6, the JMSU required each government’s approval within three months of signing to become effective; the Department of Energy issued two six-month permits to PNOC-EC in 2005 and 2007, yet the JMSU expired on July 1, 2008. On May 21, 2008, Bayan Muna 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, Represent Case Digest (G.R. No. 182734) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Background of the Petition
- Petitioners
- Bayan Muna 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
- Representatives Lorenzo R. Tañada III and Teofisto L. Guingona III
- Suing as legislators, taxpayers, and citizens.
- Relief Sought
- Annulment of the Tripartite Agreement for Joint Marine Seismic Undertaking (JMSU)
- Declaration of its unconstitutionality and voidness
- Injunctive relief against its implementation
- The JMSU and Government Approval
- Parties to the JMSU
- Philippine National Oil Company (PNOC) – national oil company of the Philippines
- China National Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC) – state-owned of China
- Vietnam Oil and Gas Corporation (PETROVIETNAM) – state-owned of Vietnam
- Key Features of the JMSU (executed March 14, 2005)
- Area and Term
- 142,886 sq. km. in the South China Sea (coordinates in annex)
- Three-year term from commencement date
- Purpose and Scope
- “Pre-exploration activity” to research petroleum potential
- Collection, processing, and reprocessing of 2D/3D seismic lines (Art. 4.1)
- Joint Operating Committee (JOC)
- Nine representatives (3 per party) to approve work plans, budgets, data exchange
- Equal participation and cost-sharing among the parties
- Confidentiality Clause (Arts. 10–11)
- All data, information, and reports remain confidential during term + 5 years
- No disclosure without unanimous written consent
- Philippine Government Approval
- DOE Secretary issued six-month permit to PNOC-EC on June 5, 2005 (constituting approval)
- Implementation commenced July 1, 2005; first permit expired December 10, 2005
- Second six-month permit issued October 4, 2007
- JMSU expired June 30, 2008; no renewal reported
- Respondents’ Position
- Parties Named
- President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo (PGMA) – later dropped for immunity
- Executive Secretary Eduardo R. Ermita
- Secretaries of DFA and DOE
- PNOC and PNOC Exploration Corporation (PNOC-EC)
- Main Defenses
- President immune from suit; PNOC acted as separate GOCC
- Proper remedy is civil annulment of contract, not certiorari/prohibition
- JMSU expired; case is moot and academic
- Constitutional issues involve facts; unsuitable for Rule 65 remedies
Issues:
- Procedural Issues
- Proper Respondent
- Is the President immune from suit here?
- Appropriate Remedy
- Are writs of certiorari and prohibition proper against alleged grave abuse?
- Hierarchy of Courts
- Was direct recourse to the Supreme Court justified?
- Judicial Review Requisites
- Actual case or controversy (mootness)?
- Standing (locus standi) of petitioners?
- Early raising of constitutional questions?
- Lis mōta (heart of the case)?
- Certified Copy Requirement
- Should failure to attach a certified true copy of the JMSU be excused?
- Substantive Issues
- Does the JMSU involve “exploration” under Article XII, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution?
- Is a seismic survey an integral part of exploration?
- Does the JMSU fall within any of the Constitution’s permissible modes (direct State undertaking, joint venture with ≥60% Filipino capital, small-scale by Filipinos, or FTAA/service contract)?
- If it is a service contract or FTAA, did it comply with constitutional safeguards (general law, President’s signature, Senate concurrence, notice to Congress)?
- Does the JMSU’s data-sharing/confidentiality clause violate the State’s full control and supervision?
- Did PNOC have authority to bind the State, or was presidential signature required?
- What is the role of foreign affairs and international law (UNCLOS) in interpreting the JMSU’s validity?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)