CASE DIGEST: RESIDENT MARINE MAMMALS V. REYES (G.R. NO. 180771)
- [NO RECOMMENDED CITATION]
- PJP UNDOCKETED: This content is yet to be be peer reviewed and has not yet received any favorable recommendation for citation. It may or may not be queued up for citation recommendation or peer review. Caution is advised.
- CONTACT US: For immediate action on requests, comments, concerns, suggestions, and other forms of feedback, please message us on Facebook at www.m.me/projectjuris.
CASE DIGEST: [ 758 Phil. 724, G.R. No. 180771. April 21, 2015 ] RESIDENT MARINE MAMMALS OF THE PROTECTED SEASCAPE TANON STRAIT, ET AL., PETITIONERS, V. SECRETARY ANGELO REYES, ET AL., 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.
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.
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.