Resident Marine Mammals of the Protected Seascape Taon Strait v.
The Court then held that while SC-46 was authorized Presidential Decree
Secretary Angelo Reyes
Resident Marine Mammals of the Protected Seascape Taon Strait v.
Secretary Angelo Reyes, G.R. No. 180771 (April 21, 2015)
Supreme Court of the Philippines
Two sets of petitioners filed separate cases challenging the legality of
Service Contract No. 46 (SC-46) awarded to Japan Petroleum Exploration Co.
(JAPEX). The service contract allowed JAPEX to conduct oil exploration in
the Taon Strait during which it performed seismic surveys and drilled one
exploration well. The first petition was brought on behalf of resident
marine mammals in the Taon Strait by two individuals acting as legal
guardians and stewards of the marine mammals. The second petition was
filed by a non-governmental organization representing the interests of
fisherfolk, along with individual representatives from fishing communities
impacted by the oil exploration activities. The petitioners filed their cases in
2007, shortly after JAPEX began drilling in the strait. In 2008, JAPEX and the
government of the Philippines mutually terminated the service contract and
oil exploration activities ceased. The Supreme Court consolidated the cases
for the purpose of review.
In its decision, the Supreme Court first addressed the important procedural
point of whether the case was moot because the service contract had been
terminated. The Court declared that mootness is not a magical formula
that can automatically dissuade the courts in resolving a case. Id., p. 12.
Due to the alleged grave constitutional violations and paramount public
interest in the case, not to mention the fact that the actions complained of
could be repeated, the Court found it necessary to reach the merits of the
case even though the particular service contract had been terminated. Id.
Reviewing the numerous claims filed by the petitioners, the Supreme Court
narrowed them down to two: 1) whether marine mammals, through their
stewards, have legal standing to pursue the case; and 2) whether the service
contract violated the Philippine Constitution or other domestic laws. Id., p.
11.
As to standing, the Court declined to extend the principle of standing
beyond natural and juridical persons, even though it recognized that the
current trend in Philippine jurisprudence moves towards simplification of
procedures and facilitating court access in environmental cases. Id., p. 15.
Instead, the Court explained, the need to give the Resident Marine
Mammals legal standing has been eliminated by our Rules, which allow any
Filipino citizen, as a steward of nature, to bring a suit to enforce our
environmental laws. Id., p. 16-17.
No. 87 on oil extraction, the contract did not fulfill two additional
constitutional requirements. Section 2 Article XII of the 1987 Constitution
requires a service contract for oil exploration and extraction to be signed by
the president and reported to congress. Because the JAPEX contract was
executed solely by the Energy Secretary, and not reported to the Philippine
congress, the Court held that it was unconstitutional. Id., pp. 24-25.
In addition, the Court also ruled that the contract violated the National
Integrated Protected Areas System Act of 1992 (NIPAS Act), which generally
prohibits exploitation of natural resources in protected areas. In order to
explore for resources in a protected area, the exploration must be
performed in accordance with an environmental impact assessment (EIA).
The Court noted that JAPEX started the seismic surveys before any EIA was
performed; therefore its activity was unlawful. Id., pp. 33-34. Furthermore,
the Tanon Strait is a NIPAS area, and exploration and utilization of energy
resources can only be authorized through a law passed by the Philippine
Congress. Because Congress had not specifically authorized the activity in
Taon Strait, the Court declared that no energy exploration should be
permitted in that area. Id., p. 34.
CASE: Resident Marine Mammals of the Protected Seascape Taon
Strait v. Secretary Angelo Reyes in his capacity as Secretary of the
Department of Energy, et.al. (G.R. No. 180771 and 181527)
DATE: 21 April 2015
PONENTE: J. Leonardo-De Castro
FACTS
On 13 June 2002, the Government of the Philippines, acting through
the Department of Energy (DOE) entered into a Geophysical Survey
and Exploration Contract-102 (GSEC-102) with Japan Petroleum
Exploration Co., Ltd. (JAPEX).
The studies included surface geology, sample analysis, and
reprocessing of seismic and magnetic data. Geophysical and satellite
surveys as well as oil and gas sampling in Taon Strait was conducted.
On 12 December 2004, DOE and JAPEX converted GSEC-102 to
Service Contract No. 46 (SC-46) for the exploration, development, and
production of petroleum resources in a block covering approximately
2,850 sqm. offshore the Taon Strait.
From 9-18 May 2005, JAPEX conducted seismic surveys in and
around Taon Strait, including a multi-channel sub-bottom profiling
covering approximately 751 kms. to determine the areas underwater
composition.
During the 2nd sub-phase of the project, JAPEX committed to drill one
exploration well. Since the same was to be drilled in the marine waters
of Aloguisan and Pinamungajan where the Taon Strait was declared a
protected seascape in 1988, JAPEX agreed to comply with the
Environmental Impact Assessment requirements under Presidential
Decree No. 1586 (PD 1586), entitled Establishing an Environmental
Impact Statement System, Including Other Environmental
Management Related Measures and For Other Purposes.
On 31 January 2007, the Protected Area Management Board (PAMB)
of the Taon Strait issued Resolution No. 2007-01 where it adopted
the Initial Environmental Examination commissioned by JAPEX, and
favourably recommended the approval of the latters application for an
Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC).
On 6 March 2007, DENR-EMB Region VII granted an ECC to DOE
and JAPEX for the offshore oil and gas exploration project in Taon
Strait.
From 16 November 2007 to 8 February 2008, JAPEX drilled an
exploratory well with a depth of 3,150 meters near Pinamungajan
town.
On 17 December 2007, two separate original petitions were filed
commonly seeking that the implementation of SC-46 be enjoined for
violation of the 1987 Constitution.
The petitioners in G.R. No. 180771 are the Resident Marine
Mammals which inhibit the waters in and around the Taon Strait,
joined by Stewards Gloria Estenzo Ramos and Rose-Liza Eisma-
Osorio as their legal guardians and friends seeking their protection.
Also impleaded as unwilling co-petitioner is former President Gloria
Macapagal-Arroyo. In G.R. No. 181527, the petitioners are the Central
Visayas Fisherfolk Development Center (FIDEC), a non-stock, non-
profit, non-governmental organization established for the welfare of
the marginal fisherfolk in Region VII and representatives of the
subsistence fisherfolk of the municipalities of Aloguinsan and
Pinamungajan, Cebu. Their contentions are:
A study made after the seismic survey showed that there is a drastic
reduce in fish catch by 50-70% attributable to the destruction of the
payao or the artificial reef.
The ECC obtained by the respondents is invalid because there is no
public consultations and discussions prior to its issuance.
SC-46 is null and void for having violated Section 2, Article XII of the
1987 Constitution, considering that there is no general law prescribing
the standard or uniform terms, conditions, and requirements for service
contracts involving oil exploration and extraction
FIDEC alleges that it was barred from entering and fishing within a 7-
kilometer radius from the point where the oilrig was located, an area
grated than the 1.5-kilometer radius exclusion zone stated in the Initial
Environmental Examination
The respondents in both petitions are: the late Angelo T. Reyes, DOE
Secretary; Jose L. Atienza, DENR Secretary; Leonardo Sibbaluca,
DENR-Region VII Director and Chairman of Taon Strait PAMB;
JAPEX, a Japanese company; and Supply Oilfield Services, Inc. (SOS)
as the alleged Philippine agent of JAPEX. Their counter-allegations
are:
The Resident Marine Mammals and Stewards have no legal
standing to file the petition.
SC-46 is constitutional.
The ECC was legally issued.
The case is moot and academic since SC-46 is mutually terminated on
21 June 2008.
ISSUES
WON the case is moot and academic
WON Petitioners have a legal standing
WON SC-46 is unconstitutional
RULING
No. The Court makes clear that the moot and academic principle is
not a magic formula that can automatically dissuade the courts in
resolving a case. Despite the termination of SC-46, the Court deems it
necessary to resolve the consolidated petitions as it falls within the
exceptions. Both petitioners allege that SC-46 is violative of the
Constitution, the environmental and livelihood issues raised
undoubtedly affect the publics interest, and the respondents contested
actions are capable of repetition.
Yes. In our jurisdiction, locus standi in environmental cases has been
given a more liberalized approach. The Rules of Procedure for
Environmental Cases allow for a citizen suit, and permit any
Filipino citizen to file an action before our courts for violation of our
environmental laws on the principle that humans are stewards of
nature:
Section 5. Citizen suit. Any Filipino citizen in representation of
others, including minors or generations yet unborn, may file an action
to enforce rights or obligations under environmental laws. Upon the
filing of a citizen suit, the court shall issue an order which shall
contain a brief description of the cause of action and the reliefs prayed
for, requiring all interested parties to manifest their interest to
intervene in the case within fifteen (15) days from notice thereof. The
plaintiff may publish the order once in a newspaper of general
circulation in the Philippines or furnish all affected baragngays copies
of said order.
Citizen suits filed under R.A. No. 8749 and R.A. No. 9003 shall be
governed by their respective provisions. (Emphasis supplied)
Although the petition was filed in 2007, years before the effectivity of
the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases, it has been
consistently held that rules of procedure may be retroactively applied
to actions pending and undetermined at the time of their passage and
will not violate any right of a person who may feel that he is adversely
affected, inasmuch as there is no vested rights in rules of procedure.
Moreover, even before the Rules of Procedure for Environmental
Cases became effective, the SC had already taken a permissive
position on the issue of locus standi in environmental cases. In Oposa,
the SC allowed the suit to be brought in the name of generations yet
unborn based on the concept of intergenerational responsibility
insofar as the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is concerned.
It is also worth noting that the Stewards in the present case are joined
as real parties in the Petition and not just in representation of the
named cetacean species.
Yes. Section 2, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution provides in part:
The President may enter into agreement with foreign-owned
corporations involving either technical or financial assistance for
large-scale exploration, development, and utilization of minerals,
petroleum, and other mineral oils according to the general terms and
conditions provided by law, based on real contributions to the
economic growth and general welfare of the country. In such
agreements, the State shall promote the development and use of local
scientific and technical resources.
The President shall notify the Congress of every contract entered into
in accordance with this provision, within thirty days from its
execution. (Emphases supplied)
The disposition, exploration, development, exploitation, and utilization
of indigenous petroleum in the Philippines are governed by
Presidential Decree No. 87 (PD 87) or the Oil Exploration and
Development Act of 1972. Although the Court finds that PD 87 is
sufficient to satisfy the requirement of a general law, the absence of
the two other conditions, that the President be a signatory to SC-46,
and that the Congress be notified of such contract, renders it null and
void.
SC-46 appears to have been entered into and signed by the DOE
through its then Secretary Vicente S. Perez, Jr. Moreover, public
respondents have neither shown nor alleged that Congress was
subsequently notified of the execution of such contract.
Service contracts involving the exploitation, development, and
utilization of our natural resources are of paramount interest to the
present and future generations. Hence, safeguards were out in place to
insure that the guidelines set by law are meticulously observed and
likewise eradicate the corruption that may easily penetrate departments
and agencies by ensuring that the President has authorized or approved
of the service contracts herself.
Even under the provisions of PD 87, it is required that the Petroleum
Board, now the DOE, obtain the Presidents approval for the execution
of any contract under said statute.
The SC likewise ruled on the legality of SC-46 vis--vis other
pertinent laws to serve as a guide for the Government when executing
service contracts.
Under Proclamation No. 2146, the Taon Strait is an
environmentally critical area, having been declared as a protected area
in 1998; therefore, any activity outside the scope of its management
plan may only be implemented pursuant to an ECC secured after
undergoing an Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) to determine
the effects of such activity on its ecological system.
Public respondents admitted that JAPEX only started to secure
an ECC prior to the 2nd sub-phase of SC-46, which required the
drilling of the exploration well. This means that no environmental
impact evaluation was done when the seismic surveys were conducted.
Unless the seismic surveys are part of the management plan of the
Taon Strait, such surveys were done in violation of Section 12 of
NIPAS Act and Section 4 of Presidential Decree No. 1586.
While PD 87 may serve as the general law upon which a service
contract for petroleum exploration and extraction may be authorized,
the exploitation and utilization of this energy resource in the present
case may be allowed only through a law passed by Congress, since the
Taon Strait is a NIPAS area. Since there is no such law specifically
allowing oil exploration and/or extraction in the Taon Strait, no
energy resource exploitation and utilization may be done in said
protected seascape.
Oposa vs. Factoran Case Digest (G.R. No. 101083, July 30, 1993)
FACTS:
The plaintiffs in this case are all minors duly represented and joined by their
parents. The first complaint was filed as a taxpayer's class suit at the Branch
66 (Makati, Metro Manila), of the Regional Trial Court, National capital
Judicial Region against defendant (respondent) Secretary of the Department
of Environment and Natural Reasources (DENR). Plaintiffs alleged that they
are entitled to the full benefit, use and enjoyment of the natural resource
treasure that is the country's virgin tropical forests. They further asseverate
that they represent their generation as well as generations yet unborn and
asserted that continued deforestation have caused a distortion and
disturbance of the ecological balance and have resulted in a host of
environmental tragedies.
Plaintiffs prayed that judgement be rendered ordering the respondent, his
agents, representatives and other persons acting in his behalf to cancel all
existing Timber License Agreement (TLA) in the country and to cease and
desist from receiving, accepting, processing, renewing or approving new
TLAs.
Defendant, on the other hand, filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that
the complaint had no cause of action against him and that it raises a
political question.
The RTC Judge sustained the motion to dismiss, further ruling that granting
of the relief prayed for would result in the impairment of contracts which is
prohibited by the Constitution.
Plaintiffs (petitioners) thus filed the instant special civil action for certiorari
and asked the court to rescind and set aside the dismissal order on the
ground that the respondent RTC Judge gravely abused his discretion in
dismissing the action.
ISSUES:
(1) Whether or not the plaintiffs have a cause of action.
(2) Whether or not the complaint raises a political issue.
(3) Whether or not the original prayer of the plaintiffs result in the
impairment of contracts.
RULING:
First Issue: Cause of Action.
Respondents aver that the petitioners failed to allege in their complaint a
specific legal right violated by the respondent Secretary for which any relief
is provided by law. The Court did not agree with this. The complaint focuses
on one fundamental legal right -- the right to a balanced and healthful
ecology which is incorporated in Section 16 Article II of the Constitution. The
said right carries with it the duty to refrain from impairing the environment
and implies, among many other things, the judicious management and
conservation of the country's forests. Section 4 of E.O. 192 expressly
mandates the DENR to be the primary government agency responsible for
the governing and supervising the exploration, utilization, development and
conservation of the country's natural resources. The policy declaration of
E.O. 192 is also substantially re-stated in Title XIV Book IV of the
Administrative Code of 1987. Both E.O. 192 and Administrative Code of
1987 have set the objectives which will serve as the bases for policy
formation, and have defined the powers and functions of the DENR. Thus,
right of the petitioners (and all those they represent) to a balanced and
healthful ecology is as clear as DENR's duty to protect and advance the said
right.
A denial or violation of that right by the other who has the correlative duty
or obligation to respect or protect or respect the same gives rise to a cause
of action. Petitioners maintain that the granting of the TLA, which they claim
was done with grave abuse of discretion, violated their right to a balance
and healthful ecology. Hence, the full protection thereof requires that no
further TLAs should be renewed or granted.
After careful examination of the petitioners' complaint, the Court finds it to
be adequate enough to show, prima facie, the claimed violation of their
rights.
Second Issue: Political Issue.
Second paragraph, Section 1 of Article VIII of the constitution provides for
the expanded jurisdiction vested upon the Supreme Court. It allows the
Court to rule upon even on the wisdom of the decision of the Executive and
Legislature and to declare their acts as invalid for lack or excess of
jurisdiction because it is tainted with grave abuse of discretion.
Third Issue: Violation of the non-impairment clause.
The Court held that the Timber License Agreement is an instrument by
which the state regulates the utilization and disposition of forest resources
to the end that public welfare is promoted. It is not a contract within the
purview of the due process clause thus, the non-impairment clause cannot
be invoked. It can be validly withdraw whenever dictated by public interest
or public welfare as in this case. The granting of license does not create
irrevocable rights, neither is it property or property rights.
Moreover, the constitutional guaranty of non-impairment of obligations of
contract is limit by the exercise by the police power of the State, in the
interest of public health, safety, moral and general welfare. In short, the
non-impairment clause must yield to the police power of the State.
The instant petition, being impressed with merit, is hereby GRANTED and
the RTC decision is SET ASIDE.
Oposa vs Factoran
Natural and Environmental Laws; Constitutional Law: Intergenerational
Responsibility
GR No. 101083; July 30 1993
FACTS:
A taxpayers class suit was filed by minors Juan Antonio Oposa, et al.,
representing their generation and generations yet unborn, and represented
by their parents against Fulgencio Factoran Jr., Secretary of DENR. They
prayed that judgment be rendered ordering the defendant, his agents,
representatives and other persons acting in his behalf to:
1. Cancel all existing Timber Licensing Agreements (TLA) in the
country;
2. Cease and desist from receiving, accepting, processing,
renewing, or appraising new TLAs;
and granting the plaintiffs such other reliefs just and equitable under the
premises. They alleged that they have a clear and constitutional right to a
balanced and healthful ecology and are entitled to protection by the State in
its capacity as parens patriae. Furthermore, they claim that the act of the
defendant in allowing TLA holders to cut and deforest the remaining forests
constitutes a misappropriation and/or impairment of the natural resources
property he holds in trust for the benefit of the plaintiff minors and
succeeding generations.
The defendant filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the following
grounds:

1. Plaintiffs have no cause of action against him;

2. The issues raised by the plaintiffs is a political question which
properly pertains to the legislative or executive branches of the
government.

ISSUE:
Do the petitioner-minors have a cause of action in filing a class suit to
prevent the misappropriation or impairment of Philippine rainforests?

HELD:
Yes. Petitioner-minors assert that they represent their generation as well as
generations to come. The Supreme Court ruled that they can, for
themselves, for others of their generation, and for the succeeding
generation, file a class suit. Their personality to sue in behalf of succeeding
generations is based on the concept of intergenerational responsibility
insofar as the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is concerned. Such a
right considers the rhythm and harmony of nature which indispensably
include, inter alia, the judicious disposition, utilization, management,
renewal and conservation of the countrys forest, mineral, land, waters,
fisheries, wildlife, offshore areas and other natural resources to the end that
their exploration, development, and utilization be equitably accessible to
the present as well as the future generations.
Needless to say, every generation has a responsibility to the next to
preserve that rhythm and harmony for the full enjoyment of a balanced and
healthful ecology. Put a little differently, the minors assertion of their right
to a sound environment constitutes at the same time, the performance of
their obligation to ensure the protection of that right for the generations to
come.