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 Summary (G.R. No. 180771)

Factual Background

DOE entered GSEC-102 with JAPEX in 2002 for seismic studies. In 2004, DOE and JAPEX converted GSEC-102 into SC-46, covering 2,850 km² offshore TaAon Strait. JAPEX conducted seismic surveys in 2005 without EIA. The Stewards asserted drastic declines in fish catch and alleged marine mammal disturbances. PAMB-TaAon Strait approved JAPEX’s IEE in January 2007; EMB-Region VII issued ECC in March 2007. JAPEX drilled one well from November 2007 to February 2008.

Procedural History

Two petitions were filed December 17, 2007. SOS moved to strike its impleading; JAPEX Philippines, Ltd. sought clarification of its status. Parties consolidated in April 2008. Additional service efforts and motions ensued until submission in June 2012. Despite mutual termination of SC-46 in June 2008, Court retained jurisdiction under moot-and-academic exceptions.

Issues Posited

  1. Locus standi of Resident Marine Mammals and Stewards.
  2. Constitutional validity of SC-46 under Article XII, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution.
  3. Compliance with NIPAS Act and EIA requirements in protected areas.
  4. Legality of the ECC and procedural propriety of public consultations.
  5. Right to injunctive relief and access to documents.

Standing and Representation

• The 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure require parties to be natural or juridical persons; real party in interest must stand to benefit or be injured by the judgment.
• Under the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases (2010), any Filipino citizen may file a citizen suit on behalf of others, including future generations. Such rules apply retroactively to pending environmental cases.
• Oposa doctrine permits class actions in environmental matters, but representative suits still require: a clear legal basis; identifiable beneficiaries with concrete legal rights; and a proper representative under Rule 3, Section 3.
• Stewards (Ramos and Eisma-Osorio) as natural persons and self-appointed guardians have standing to enforce environmental laws. Resident Marine Mammals (animals) lack juridical capacity and cannot be real parties in interest; representation of animals by themselves exceeds procedural allowances.
• Former President Macapagal-Arroyo was improperly impleaded as an unwilling co-petitioner; absent her consent, she may only be impleaded as a defendant under Rule 3, Section 10. Her name was stricken.
• FIDEC and individual fisherfolk suffered direct harm to their livelihood (fish catch reductions) and possess standing as real parties in interest and as representatives of affected subsistence fisherfolk.

Constitutional Framework for Service Contracts

Article XII, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution reserves all natural resources to the State. Paragraph 1 limits exploitation to Filipinos or entities 60% Filipino-owned. Paragraph 4 permits the President to enter into agreements with foreign-owned corporations for technical or financial assistance under general terms “provided by law,” subject to safeguards:
• A general enabling law establishing uniform standards.
• Presidential signature on each contract.
• Presidential notification to Congress within 30 days of execution.

Service Contract No. 46 under Article XII, Section 2

• Governing “general law” for petroleum exploration is PD 87 (Oil Exploration and Development Act of 1972), which remains in force absent express repeal.
• SC-46 was not signed by the President; it was executed solely by DOE officials, violating the constitutional requirement that the President enter service contracts.
• No evidence that the President notified Congress of SC-46 within 30 days; Congress was deprived of its oversight function.
• Under La Bugal-B’laan Tribal Ass’n v. Ramos, failure to comply with these constitutional safeguards renders a service contract null and void.

Protected Area and EIA Violations

• TaAon Strait is a protected seascape under PD 1234 and the NIPAS Act of 1992.
• Section 12 of the NIPAS Act mandates an EIA and ECC for any activity outside the approved management plan. PD 1586 similarly requires an ECC for “environmentally critical areas.”
• Section 14 of the NIPAS Act allows only surveys “for the purpose of gathering information on energy resources,” subject to DENR-ap




...continue reading

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

About Privacy Terms