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)

Reliefs Sought and Procedural Posture

Two original petitions under Rule 65 were consolidated: G.R. No. 180771 (Resident Marine Mammals and Stewards) sought certiorari, mandamus, injunction and nullification of Service Contract No. 46 (SC-46); G.R. No. 181527 (FIDEC and fisherfolk) sought certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, nullification of the ECC issued for SC-46, access to project documents, and prohibition of implementation. The Court consolidated the petitions, required memoranda, admitted JAPEX Philippines Ltd. as real party-in-interest, received motions concerning party impleading and service, and ultimately submitted the case for decision despite assertions that SC-46 had been mutually terminated (allegedly effective June 21, 2008).

Factual Background — Contracts, Surveys, and Drilling

In 2002 DOE entered GSEC-102 with JAPEX for geophysical and geological studies of TaAon Strait. GSEC-102 was converted into Service Contract No. 46 (SC-46) on December 21, 2004, covering approximately 2,850 square kilometers offshore. JAPEX conducted seismic surveys in May 2005 and a multi-channel sub-bottom profiling; JAPEX committed to drill an exploratory well and began drilling November 16, 2007 (depth ~3,150 meters), with drilling continuing until February 8, 2008. The TaAon Strait had been declared a protected seascape by Proclamation No. 1234 (1998) under NIPAS.

Environmental Compliance and ECC

JAPEX commissioned an Initial Environmental Examination (IEE) adopted by the Protected Area Management Board (PAMB-TaAon Strait) in January 2007. The Environmental Management Bureau (EMB), DENR Region VII, issued an Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC) on March 6, 2007. Petitioners allege that seismic surveys occurred in 2005 without prior EIA/ECC as required and that public consultations required prior to ECC issuance did not occur or were inadequate.

Petitioners’ Allegations and Claims

Petitioners alleged: severe ecological and livelihood impacts (reported drastic reductions in fish catch and alleged fish kills attributed to the seismic survey); invalidity of SC-46 for violating the 1987 Constitution (foreign ownership and improper form for service contracts); nullity of the ECC for procedural defects including lack of prior public consultation; violation of NIPAS and other environmental statutes; infringement of fisherfolk preferential rights under the Fisheries Code; and failure of public respondents to provide requested project documents.

Respondents’ Defenses and Counterclaims

Public respondents, represented by the Solicitor General, argued petitioners lacked standing, that SC-46 complied with applicable law, and that the ECC issuance complied with procedures. They contended the petitions were moot because SC-46 had been terminated. They also denied that seismic surveys caused the alleged decline in fish catch and asserted compliance with statutory and administrative requirements.

Issues Framed for Decision

The consolidated petitions raised, chiefly: (1) procedural issue of locus standi—whether the Resident Marine Mammals and their human stewards had standing; and (2) substantive issue—legality of SC-46 under the 1987 Constitution and other environmental and fisheries laws, including whether the ECC issuance complied with legal requirements and whether energy exploration/exploitation in a NIPAS protected seascape was permissible without express Congressional authorization.

Mootness and the Court’s Decision to Decide

Although respondents argued mootness due to the termination of SC-46, the Court invoked established exceptions to the mootness doctrine (grave constitutional violation, paramount public interest, need for controlling principles, capable of repetition but evading review) and deemed the consolidated petitions appropriate for resolution.

Locus Standi — Analysis and Ruling

The Court examined standing under Rule 3 of the Rules of Court and the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases (citizen suit provisions). It recognized the liberal doctrinal trend in environmental cases (citing Oposa and the citizen-suit rule) and held that the Stewards (Gloria Estenzo Ramos and Rose-Liza Eisma-Osorio) are real parties in interest who have demonstrated sufficient interest and are proper litigants as stewards of the environment; therefore they possess legal standing to file the petition on behalf of environmental interests including the resident marine mammals. The Court clarified that rules of procedure (including citizen suit provisions) may be applied retroactively to pending cases. The Court rejected the improvident inclusion of former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo as an unwilling co-petitioner, explaining that impleading an unwilling would-be plaintiff must follow Rule 3 (and if consent cannot be obtained the person should be impleaded as a defendant with reasons stated); the Court struck Arroyo’s name from the title.

Main Constitutional Issue — Service Contract No. 46 and Article XII, Section 2

The Court analyzed SC-46 under Section 2, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution (State ownership and restrictions on disposition/exploitation of natural resources; exception permitting the President to enter into agreements with foreign-owned corporations involving technical or financial assistance subject to general law, President’s signature, and congressional notification). The Court reaffirmed La Bugal-B’laan (which interpreted paragraph 4 as permitting service contracts with safeguards) and spelled out constitutional safeguards derived from the framers’ intent: (1) a general law prescribing uniform standards for such agreements; (2) the President must be the signatory on behalf of the State; and (3) the President must notify Congress within 30 days of execution.

Application to SC-46 — General Law Requirement

The Court found Presidential Decree No. 87 (Oil Exploration and Development Act of 1972) still operative as a general law because it had not been expressly repealed and implied repeal is not lightly presumed; thus PD 87 can supply a general-law framework for petroleum service contracts. The Court emphasized statutory construction principles requiring harmony between PD 87 and the Constitution.

Application to SC-46 — President’s Signature and Congressional Notification

The Court found that SC-46 was executed without the President’s signature and that no evidence was presented that the President signed or subsequently approved the agreement or that Congress was notified within thirty days. The Court held that the constitutional requirements are substantive safeguards (not mere formalities) intended to prevent abuses and corruption; failure to satisfy these constitutional requirements renders the service contract null and void. The Court rejected invocation of the alter ego or qualified political agency doctrine as a substitute for the President’s direct role.

Application to SC-46 — Compliance with Environmental and Protected-Area Laws (NIPAS, PD 1586)

The Court examined SC-46 in light of Republic Act No. 7586 (NIPAS) and PD No. 1586 (EIS system). It held that TaAon Strait is a protected seascape and an environmentally critical area; therefore any activity outside the management plan must undergo an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and secure an ECC prior to implementation. Section 14 of NIPAS allows surveys for energy resources in protected areas (except strict nature reserves/natural parks) only for information-gathering and only under a DENR-approved program; any exploitation or utilization of resources found within NIPAS areas requires a law passed by Congress. The Court concluded seismic surveys conducted in 2005 preceded any EIA/ECC and, even where an ECC was later issued (March 6, 2007), the initial noncompliance could not be cured retroactively for activities already implemented. The Court further found SC-46 contemplated exploitation should commercially viable reserves be found and, because the TaAon Strait is a NIPAS area, exploitation and utilization could only be authorized by a law of Congress — which did not exist.

Other Statutory Considerations (Fisheries, Wildlife)

Petitioners alleged violations of RA 8550 (Fisheries Code) and RA 9147 (Wildlife Act). The Court noted petitioners’ allegations of reduced fish catch and asserted adverse impacts, and observed that SC-46 did not purport to grant exclusive fishing rights to JAPEX but nevertheless held that SC-46’s failure to comply with constitutional and protected-area statutory regimes rendered the contract unlawful. The Court also observed that Section 27 of RA 9147 (prohibiting exploration of minerals in certain areas) did not on its face apply to petroleum resources, but the Court’s principal ruling rested on constitutional and NIPAS grounds.

Disposition and Relief

The

    ...continue reading

    Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
    Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.

    About Privacy Terms