CASE DIGEST: Resident Marine Mammals v. Reyes (G.R. No. 180771)
CASE DIGEST: [ 758 Phil. 724 .G.R. No. 180771. April 21, 2015 ]
RESIDENT MARINE MAMMALS OF THE PROTECTED SEASCAPE TANON STRAIT, E.G.,
TOOTHED WHALES, DOLPHINS, PORPOISES, AND OTHER CETACEAN SPECIES, JOINED IN
AND REPRESENTED HEREIN BY HUMAN BEINGS GLORIA ESTENZO RAMOS AND ROSE-LIZA
EISMA-OSORIO, IN THEIR CAPACITY AS LEGAL GUARDIANS OF THE LESSER
LIFE-FORMS AND AS RESPONSIBLE STEWARDS OF GOD'S CREATIONS, PETITIONERS,
VS. SECRETARY ANGELO REYES, IN HIS CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT
OF ENERGY (DOE), SECRETARY JOSE L. ATIENZA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS SECRETARY
OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES (DENR), LEONARDO R.
SIBBALUCA, DENR REGIONAL DIRECTOR-REGION VII AND IN HIS CAPACITY AS
CHAIRPERSON OF THE TANON STRAIT PROTECTED SEASCAPE MANAGEMENT BOARD,
BUREAU OF FISHERIES AND AQUATIC RESOURCES (BFAR), DIRECTOR MALCOLM I.
SARMIENTO, JR., BFAR REGIONAL DIRECTOR FOR REGION VII ANDRES M. BOJOS,
JAPAN PETROLEUM EXPLORATION CO., LTD. (JAPEX), AS REPRESENTED BY ITS
PHILIPPINE AGENT, SUPPLY OILFIELD SERVICES, INC. RESPONDENTS.
FACTS
This case concerns Service Contract No. 46 (SC-46), which allowed
the exploration, development, and exploitation of petroleum resources
within Tañon Strait, a narrow passage of water situated between the
islands of Negros and Cebu.
Represented by their human stewards, petitioners are marine mammals who are residents of Tañon Strait who
filed an original Petition for Certiorari, Mandamus, and Injunction, which seeks to enjoin respondents from implementing
SC-46 and to have it nullified for willful and gross violation of the
1987 Constitution and certain international and municipal laws.
Aside from the resident marine mammals, another petitioner, Central Visayas Fisherfolk Development Center (FIDEC), a non-stock,
non-profit, non-governmental organization, filed an original Petition
for Certiorari, Prohibition, and Mandamus, which seeks to nullify the
Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC) issued by the Environmental
Management Bureau (EMB) of the Department of Environment and Natural
Resources (DENR), Region VII in connection with SC-46; to prohibit
respondents from implementing SC-46; and to compel public respondents to
provide petitioners access to the pertinent documents involving the Tañon
Strait Oil Exploration Project.
It turns out that the Department of Energy (DOE) entered into SC-46
with Japan Petroleum Exploration Co., Ltd. (JAPEX), a company organized
and existing under the laws of Japan with a Philippine branch
office. This contract involved geological and geophysical studies of
the Tañon Strait. The studies included surface geology, sample analysis, and
reprocessing of seismic and magnetic data. JAPEX, assisted by DOE, also
conducted geophysical and satellite surveys, as well as oil and gas sampling
in Tañon Strait.
It turns out that the Department of Energy (DOE) entered into SC-46
with Japan Petroleum Exploration Co., Ltd. (JAPEX), a company organized
and existing under the laws of Japan with a Philippine branch
office. This contract involved geological and geophysical studies of
the Tañon Strait. The studies included surface geology, sample analysis, and
reprocessing of seismic and magnetic data. JAPEX, assisted by DOE, also
conducted geophysical and satellite surveys, as well as oil and gas sampling
in Tañon Strait.
Petitioners argued that there has been fish kill and reduction of cath as a
result of the activities of JAPEX. They also allege the destruction of fish
aggregating devices. Filipino fishers were also barred from entering and
fishing within the radius of the oil rig activities.
ISSUES AND RULINGS
1. Whether or not the case is moot and academic because SC-46 had been
mutually terminated by the parties thereto prior to the Supreme Court's
decision on the case.
No, because the constitutional issue raised requires formulation of
controlling principles to guide the bench, the bar, and the public,
the case is capable of repetition yet evading review, and
the exceptional character of the situation and the paramount public
interest is involved.
2. Whether the resident mammals have legal standing to sue.
No. Although the animals themselves have no standing to sue, they are
represented by their human stewards who are Filipino citizens in
representation of others, especially on the grounds of intergenerational
responsibility. Additionally, this is a citizen's suit under Section 5 of
the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases.
The human stewards are joined as real parties in this case and not just
in representation of the named cetacean species.
3. Whether or not the President should be impleaded, as she was, in this
case.
No, the President should not have been impleaded. There is a public
policy against embroiling the President in suits.
4. Whether SC-46 is null and void for having violated Section 2,
Article XII of the 1987 Constitution
Yes, for various reasons.
First, the La Bugal B'laan Under Section 4 of the NIPAS Act, a protected
area refers to portions of land and water, set aside due to their unique
physical and biological significance, managed to enhance biological
diversity and protected against human exploitation.doctrine. Such
service contracts may be entered into only with respect to minerals,
petroleum, and other mineral oils. The grant thereof is subject to several
safeguards, among which are these requirements: (a) the contract must
be crafted according to a general law that regulates it; (b) the President
herself must sign the contract; and (c) the President must report to
Congress within 30 days from execution of the contract.
Although Presidential Decree No. 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 Tañon Strait is a NIPAS area under the National Integrated Protected
Areas System Act of 1992; Republic Act No. 7586, Section 14. Also, the
President was not the signatory to SC-46 and the same was not submitted to
Congress.
Even under the provisions of Presidential Decree No. 87, it is required that
the Petroleum Board, now the DOE, obtain the President's approval for the
execution of any contract under said statute.
Second, under Section 4 of the NIPAS Act, a protected area refers to
portions of land and water, set aside due to their unique physical and
biological significance, managed to enhance biological diversity and
protected against human exploitation. The Tañon Strait, pursuant to
Proclamation No. 1234, was set aside and declared a protected area under the
category of Protected Seascape. The NIPAS Act defines a Protected Seascape
to be an area of national significance characterized by the harmonious
interaction of man and land while providing opportunities for public
enjoyment through recreation and tourism within the normal lifestyle and
economic activity of this areas; thus a management plan for each area must
be designed to protect and enhance the permanent preservation of its natural
conditions. Consistent with this endeavor is the requirement that an
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) be made prior to undertaking any
activity outside the scope of the management plan. Unless an ECC under the
EIA system is obtained, no activity inconsistent with the goals of the NIPAS
Act shall be implemented.
Under Proclamation No. 2146, the Tañon 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 EIA to determine the effects
of such activity on its ecological system.
Surveying for energy resources under Section 14 of the NIPAS Act is not an
exemption from complying with the EIA requirement in Section 12; instead,
Section 14 provides for additional requisites before any exploration for
energy resources may be done in protected areas.
Third, SC-46 was not executed for the mere purpose of gathering
information on the possible energy resources in the Tañon Strait as it also
provides for the parties' rights and obligations relating to extraction and
petroleum production should oil in commercial quantities be found to exist
in the area. While Presidential Decree No. 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 Tañon Strait is a NIPAS area. Since there is no such law specifically
allowing oil exploration and/or extraction in the Tañon Strait, no energy
resource exploitation and utilization may be done in said protected
seascape.
