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.
resident marine mammals
protected seascape
null and void

Case Summary (G.R. No. 180771)

Factual Background

SC-46 authorized JAPEX to conduct exploration, development, and potential exploitation of petroleum resources offshore in the Tanon Strait covering roughly 2,850 square kilometers. JAPEX undertook geophysical and seismic surveys in 2005 and committed to drill an exploratory well, which was later drilled near Pinamungajan, Cebu, between November 2007 and February 2008. The Tanon Strait had been declared a protected seascape pursuant to Proclamation No. 1234 in 1998 and was listed as an environmentally critical area under Proclamation No. 2146, thereby bringing projects within the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement system.

Procedural History

Two original petitions dated December 17, 2007 were docketed as G.R. Nos. 180771 and 181527 and were consolidated by the Court on April 8, 2008. Petitioners sought injunctive and declaratory relief to nullify SC-46 and the ECC and to prohibit respondents from implementing the project. SOS moved to strike its name as respondent. JAPEX Philippines Ltd. later appeared as real party in interest and requested time to file memoranda. The Court required memoranda, and after filings and extensions, the case was submitted for decision. The Court rendered judgment on April 21, 2015.

Petitioners' Contentions

The Resident Marine Mammals and Stewards alleged that SC-46 and the seismic surveys caused drastic reduction in fish catch, destruction of fish aggregating devices, and fish kills, and that the ECC was issued without proper public consultations. FIDEC and municipal fisherfolk alleged loss of livelihood due to exclusion zones greater than those in the IEE, denial of access to project documents, and administrative and substantive irregularities in the issuance of the ECC and in the implementation of SC-46.

Respondents' Contentions

Public respondents, through the Solicitor General, argued that the Resident Marine Mammals lacked legal standing; that SC-46 complied with applicable laws and that the ECC was properly issued; that mandamus should not compel them to produce all project documents; and that SC-46 had become moot and academic because the contract was mutually terminated effective June 21, 2008. JAPEX and its Philippine branch maintained that exploration activities had ceased in 2008 and contested impleading and procedural matters.

Issues Presented to the Court

The Court distilled the petitions into two principal issues: the procedural question of locus standi for the Resident Marine Mammals and their human stewards, and the substantive question whether Service Contract No. 46 was legal and constitutionally valid under Article XII, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution and whether the project complied with environmental statutes such as Republic Act No. 7586 and Presidential Decree No. 1586.

Mootness and Continuing Public Interest

The Court declined to dismiss the petitions as moot despite termination of SC-46. The Court stated that the mootness doctrine yields to exceptions where grave constitutional violations are alleged, paramount public interest is involved, controlling principles require formulation, or the controversy is capable of repetition yet evading review. The Court found those exceptions applicable given the constitutional questions and public and environmental stakes.

Locus Standi and Citizen Suits

The Court evaluated standing against Rule 3 of the Rules of Court and recent procedural developments. The Court held that the human stewards, Ramos and Eisma-Osorio, had standing under the liberalized approach to environmental actions, particularly in light of the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases and precedents such as Oposa v. Factoran, Jr. The Court determined that the stewards were real parties in interest and that the Rules permit Filipino citizens to bring citizen suits to enforce environmental rights; hence the Resident Marine Mammals were represented through qualified human petitioners who were declared to have legal standing to prosecute the petitions.

Impleading of Former President and Procedural Constraints

The Court rejected petitioners' impleading of former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo as an unwilling co-petitioner. The Court explained that Rule 3, Section 10 requires that one who should be a plaintiff but whose consent cannot be obtained be made a defendant and that an unwilling party cannot be placed on the title without due process. The Court struck the former President's name from the title.

Constitutional Validity of SC-46 — Framework

The Court examined paragraph four of Section two, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution, the jurisprudence of La Bugal-B'laan Tribal Association, Inc. v. Ramos, and the safeguards the Constitution imposes on service contracts and agreements involving foreign participation in exploration and exploitation of petroleum. The Court reiterated that paragraph four constitutes an exception to the national patrimony provisions and requires compliance with specified safeguards including adherence to a general law, presidential signatory authority, and congressional notification.

Analytical Findings on SC-46 and Article XII, Section 2

The Court found that although Presidential Decree No. 87 remains operative as a general law absent express repeal, SC-46 violated the Constitution because it was not signed by the President and there was no showing that the President had approved or that Congress was notified within thirty days of execution as required by paragraph four of Section two, Article XII. The Court emphasized that these constitutional safeguards are substantive conditions, not mere formality, and their nonobservance renders the contract null and void.

Compliance with Environmental Statutes and Protected Area Rules

The Court held that Tanon Strait is a protected seascape under Republic Act No. 7586 and an environmentally critical area under Proclamation No. 2146. The Court found that seismic surveys in 2005 and other early exploratory activities were undertaken before an EIA and prior to issuance of an ECC and therefore breached Section 12 of the NIPAS Act and Presidential Decree No. 1586. The Court interpreted Section 14 of the NIPAS Act to allow surveys only as part of a DENR-approved program and to require that any exploitation of energy resources found within NIPAS areas be authorized only by a law passed by Congress; no such law existed for Tanon Strait. The Court concluded that SC-46 also violated RA 7586 and PD 1586.

Ruling and Disposition

The Supreme Court granted the consolidated petitions in G.R. Nos. 180771 and 181527 and declared Service Contract No. 46 null and void for violating the 1987 Constitution, Republic Act No. 7586, and Presidential Decree No. 1586. The Court thereby enjoined implementation of SC-46 and disposed of the petitions accordingly.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The Court anchored its decision on constitutional supremacy and contractual compliance with constitutional safeguards established in Article XII, Section 2. The Court relied on the La Bugal guidance that service contracts involving minerals and petroleum may be permitted only with safeguards: conformity to a general law, presidential signatory authority, and prompt notification to Congress. The Court found those safeguards absent. The Court al

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms