Title
Resident Marine Mammals of the Protected Seascape Tanon Strait vs. Reyes
Case
G.R. No. 180771
Decision Date
Apr 21, 2015
The Supreme Court nullified Service Contract No. 46, ruling it unconstitutional and violative of environmental laws due to lack of presidential approval, congressional notification, and proper environmental assessments in Tañon Strait.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 180771)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Parties and Nature of Petitions
    • Petitioners in G.R. No. 180771 (“Resident Marine Mammals”):
      • Resident marine mammals of the TaAon Strait Protected Seascape (toothed whales, dolphins, porpoises, other cetaceans) joined and represented by Gloria Estenzo Ramos and Rose-Liza Eisma-Osorio as their legal guardians (“the Stewards”).
      • Former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo was impleaded as an “unwilling co-petitioner” based on her ASEAN Charter undertakings.
    • Petitioners in G.R. No. 181527 (FIDEC case):
      • Central Visayas Fisherfolk Development Center (non-stock NGO for marginal fisherfolk welfare).
      • Cerilo D. Engarcial, Ramon Yanong, Francisco Labid, in their personal capacities and as representatives of subsistence fisherfolk of Aloguinsan and Pinamungajan, Cebu, their families, and present/future generations of Filipinos.
    • Respondents (both cases):
      • DOE Secretary Angelo Reyes; DENR Secretary Jose L. Atienza; DENR Region VII Director-Chair of the TaAon Strait Protected Seascape Management Board; Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR) and its regional director.
      • Japan Petroleum Exploration Co., Ltd. (JAPEX) and Supply Oilfield Services, Inc. (SOS) as its alleged Philippine agent; additional EMB Region VII and DOE Region VIII heads in G.R. No. 181527.
  • Contract and Project Background
    • June 13, 2002 – DOE and JAPEX entered GSEC-102 for geophysical studies (seismic/magnetic surveys, sampling) in the TaAon Strait.
    • December 21, 2004 – Conversion of GSEC-102 into Service Contract No. 46 (SC-46) for exploration, development, and production over 2,850 km² offshore TaAon Strait.
    • May 9–18, 2005 – JAPEX conducted seismic surveys (751 km multi-channel sub-bottom profiling).
    • January 31, 2007 – TaAon Strait Protected Area Management Board adopted JAPEX’s Initial Environmental Examination and recommended ECC issuance.
    • March 6, 2007 – DENR Region VII EMB granted ECC for the offshore exploration project.
    • November 16, 2007–February 8, 2008 – JAPEX drilled a 3,150-meter exploratory well near Pinamungajan, Cebu.
  • Pleadings and Procedural History
    • December 17, 2007 – Filing of two Rule 65 petitions:
      • G.R. 180771: Certiorari, Mandamus, Injunction to nullify SC-46 for constitutional, international, and statutory violations; enjoin implementation.
      • G.R. 181527: Certiorari, Prohibition, Mandamus to nullify ECC; prohibit SC-46; compel access to project documents.
    • Early 2008 – SOS moved to strike its name; petitioners opposed and sought to implead JAPEX Philippines Ltd.
    • April 8, 2008 – Supreme Court consolidated G.R. Nos. 180771 and 181527.
    • 2008–2012 – Multiple service and pleading rounds; JAPEX Philippines Ltd. appeared specially, sought clarification, was deemed real party in interest, granted extension then denied further delays; petitioners and public respondents filed memoranda; case submitted for decision.

Issues:

  • Procedural Issue
    • Do the Resident Marine Mammals and the Stewards have legal standing (locus standi) to file G.R. No. 180771?
    • May Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo be impleaded as an “unwilling co-petitioner”?
  • Substantive/Main Issue
    • Is Service Contract No. 46 valid under Section 2, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution?
    • Does SC-46 or its implementation violate:
      • The National Integrated Protected Areas System Act (RA 7586) and related protected-area proclamations?
      • The Environmental Impact Statement System (PD 1586) and its Implementing Rules and Regulations?
      • Other environmental and fisheries statutes (e.g., RA 9147, RA 8550)?
    • Was the ECC issuance for SC-46 valid?
    • May petitioners compel respondents to produce all project documents by mandamus?

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.