Case Summary (G.R. No. 168120)
Applicable Law
The decision is rooted in the 1987 Philippine Constitution, particularly Section 2, Article XII, which mandates that the exploration, development, and utilization of natural resources shall be under the full control and supervision of the State.
Facts of the Case
On May 21, 2008, the petitioners filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition against the JMSU, claiming it violated constitutional provisions governing natural resources. The Supreme Court defined "exploration" as the search for natural resources and determined that the JMSU was designed for seismic surveying to ascertain petroleum resource potential, thereby qualifying as exploration under the Constitution. The Court held that the JMSU failed to comply with any of the constitutionally provided modes for exploration, thus rendering it unconstitutional.
Motion for Reconsideration
The respondents lodged a Motion for Reconsideration, contesting the Supreme Court's ruling on the following grounds: violation of the hierarchy of courts, mootness of the petition, lack of legal standing by the petitioners, encroachment on presidential powers regarding foreign and economic policies, the nature of activities under the JMSU not constituting exploration, and the assertion of continued state control under the JMSU.
Court's Ruling on Procedure
The Court denied the Motion for lack of merit, emphasizing that respondents merely reiterated issues previously considered. The Court reaffirmed that it properly took cognizance of the case, clarifying that the respondents did not dispute the location of the JMSU activities in Philippine territory.
Status of the Petition
The Court ruled that the case fell under exceptions to the mootness principle. Although the JMSU had expired, the Court found the activity raised paramount public interest, involved a grave constitutional violation, required formulation of guiding principles, and could potentially recur, thus necessitating a determination on its constitutionality.
Petitioners' Legal Standing
The Court established that the petitioners had sufficient standing, as they were current legislators and taxpayers. Their claims of unconstitutional activity and reasonable expectation of government transparency regarding foreign contracts satisfied the standing requirements.
Nature of JMSU
The ruling contended that the JMSU did not qualify as a foreign relations instrument, as it was executed by the PNOC and did not involve direct action from the President. The responsibilities under the JMSU solely rested with the PNOC, indicating a separation of corporate and state activities.
Unconstitutionality of JMSU
The Court reiterated that the JMSU violated Section 2, Article XII of the Constitution as the contract was not executed by the President and did not adhere to statutory requirements for agreements involving foreign entities. Th
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 168120)
Case Background and Parties
- 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 petition assails the constitutionality of the Tripartite Agreement for Joint Marine Seismic Undertaking (JMSU) in the South China Sea.
- JMSU is a joint agreement among China National Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC), Vietnam Oil and Gas Corporation (PETROVIETNAM), and Philippine National Oil Company (PNOC).
- The case involves constitutional questions particularly on Section 2, Article XII of the 1987 Philippine Constitution regarding the State's control over natural resources.
Legal Issues Presented
- Procedural: Whether the Supreme Court correctly took cognizance of the petition directly despite the doctrine of hierarchy of courts.
- Substantive: Whether the JMSU is constitutional under Section 2, Article XII of the Constitution regarding exploration, development, and utilization (EDU) of natural resources.
Court's Holding on Procedural Matters
- The Court correctly took cognizance of the case as it involved a question of law, not fact.
- No factual controversy exists regarding the Agreement Area as respondents admitted it lies within the Philippine claimed territory.
- Respondents failed to deny allegations regarding the location of the Agreement Area, deeming facts admitted under the Rules of Court.
- The case meets exceptions to the mootness doctrine including grave constitutional violation, exceptional character, paramount public interest, necessity to formulate controlling principles, and possibility of repetition yet evading review.
- Petitioners possess legal standing as legislators deprived of their prerogative to review, as taxpayers due to illegal disbursement of public funds, and as concerned citizens given the transcendental public interest.
- JMSU is not a foreign relations instrument; it was a corporate act of PNOC, not entered into or signed by the President.
Analysis on the Constitutional Issue
Definition and Nature of "Exploration"
- "Exploration" under Section 2, Article XII, is defined as the search or discovery of