Resident Marine Mammals of the Protected Seascape Tañon Strait v. Reyes
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: This case concerns Service Contract No. 46 (SC-46), which authorized Japan Petroleum Exploration Co., Ltd. (JAPEX) to explore, develop, and exploit petroleum resources within the Tañon Strait, a protected seascape. Petitioners, including resident marine mammals represented by human guardians and fisherfolk, allege that SC-46 violates the Constitution and environmental laws, leading to adverse ecological impacts such as reduced fish catch and potential harm to marine life. They also contest the validity of the Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC) issued for the project. 2. Procedural History: Two consolidated petitions, G.R. No. 180771 and G.R. No. 181527, were filed under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. The first petition sought to nullify SC-46, while the second sought to nullify the ECC and compel the release of project documents. Lower court proceedings involved motions to strike, consolidation of cases, and extensive arguments regarding the legal standing of petitioners, particularly the marine mammals. The Supreme Court eventually gave due course to the petitions and required the submission of memoranda. 3. The Petition: The petitions, filed under Rule 65, primarily argue that SC-46 is unconstitutional and illegal. Petitioners contend that the contract violates provisions of the 1987 Constitution regarding the exploration of natural resources by foreign entities and the protection of protected areas. They also assert violations of the National Integrated Protected Areas System (NIPAS) Act and the Philippine Fisheries Code. The petitions seek to nullify SC-46 and the ECC, and to prohibit further exploration activities, arguing that the contract was not signed by the President and was not reported to Congress, and that the environmental impact assessment and public consultation processes were flawed.
Issue(s)
Whether the Resident Marine Mammals and Stewards have locus standi to file the petition. Whether former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo was properly impleaded as an unwilling co-petitioner. Whether Service Contract No. 46 (SC-46) is violative of Section 2, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution. Whether SC-46 is violative of the National Integrated Protected Areas System (NIPAS) Act and the Environmental Impact Statement System (EISS). Whether the issuance of the Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC) for the project was legal and proper.
Ruling
The Supreme Court GRANTED the Petitions in G.R. Nos. 180771 and 181527. Service Contract No. 46 is declared NULL AND VOID for violating the 1987 Constitution, Republic Act No. 7586, and Presidential Decree No. 1586.
Ratio Decidendi
On the Locus Standi of Petitioners Resident Marine Mammals and Stewards: The Court held that the liberalized approach to locus standi in environmental cases, particularly under the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases allowing "citizen suits," grants standing to any Filipino citizen to file actions enforcing environmental laws. The Stewards, Ramos and Eisma-Osorio, were declared to possess legal standing as they showed potential violations of laws concerning the habitat of the Resident Marine Mammals. The Court cited the principle that humans are stewards of nature, and the "citizen suit" provision, though enacted after the petition was filed, can be retroactively applied to pending cases. On the Impleading of Former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo: The Court ruled that former President Macapagal-Arroyo could not be impleaded as an unwilling co-petitioner. Under Rule 3, Section 10 of the Rules of Court, an unwilling party may be made a defendant, not a co-plaintiff, and their inclusion requires proper process. Furthermore, impleading the President for acts performed in the performance of her official functions is contrary to public policy, which protects the President from being embroiled in suits that could hinder her duties. Her name was stricken off the title of the case. On the Legality of Service Contract No. 46 vis-a-vis Section 2, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution: The Court declared SC-46 null and void for non-compliance with the safeguards outlined in Section 2, Article XII of the Constitution. While Presidential Decree No. 87 (Oil Exploration and Development Act of 1972) can serve as the general law for oil exploration, the Constitution requires that service contracts involving petroleum exploration, development, and utilization with foreign corporations must be entered into by the President herself and reported to Congress. SC-46 was signed by the DOE Secretary, not the President, and there was no showing of presidential notification to Congress. The Court emphasized that these constitutional safeguards are not mere formalities but are crucial to prevent abuses. On the Legality of Service Contract No. 46 vis-a-vis Other Laws: The Court found SC-46 to be in violation of the National Integrated Protected Areas System (NIPAS) Act (Republic Act No. 7586) and the Environmental Impact Statement System (EISS) under Presidential Decree No. 1586. The Tañon Strait, being a protected seascape, requires an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and an Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC) for any activity outside its management plan. The seismic surveys conducted by JAPEX were done without an ECC, violating Section 12 of the NIPAS Act and Section 4 of PD 1586. Furthermore, while Section 14 of the NIPAS Act allows exploration for energy resources in protected areas (except strict nature reserves and natural parks) for information gathering with minimal damage, any exploitation and utilization of energy resources found within NIPAS areas can only be allowed through a law passed by Congress. No such law existed for the Tañon Strait, rendering the exploitation aspect of SC-46 illegal. On the Issuance of the Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC): The Court found that the ECC was improperly issued. The seismic surveys, which are part of the exploration activities, were conducted without the required ECC. The subsequent compliance for the drilling phase could not cure the prior violation. The Court also noted that SC-46 was not solely for information gathering but also included provisions for extraction and production, which require a specific law passed by Congress for protected areas.
Main Doctrine
Service Contract No. 46 (SC-46) is declared NULL AND VOID for violating the 1987 Constitution, Republic Act No. 7586 (National Integrated Protected Areas System Act of 1992), and Presidential Decree No. 1586 (Environmental Impact Statement System).