(A40) Law 121 - Resident Marine Mammals of The Protected Seascape Tanon Strait v. Secretary Reyes
(A40) Law 121 - Resident Marine Mammals of The Protected Seascape Tanon Strait v. Secretary Reyes
(A40) Law 121 - Resident Marine Mammals of The Protected Seascape Tanon Strait v. Secretary Reyes
Secretary Reyes
G.R. No. 180771
April 21, 2015
Leonardo De Castro
SUBJECT MATTER:
Requisites of Judicial Review - Proper Party (Government Standing)
The State shall protect the nations marine wealth in its archipelagic waters, territorial sea, and exclusive
economic zone, and reserve its use and enjoyment exclusively to Filipino citizens.
The Congress may, by law, allow small-scale utilization of natural resources by Filipino citizens, as well as
cooperative fish farming, with priority to subsistence fishermen and fish workers in rivers, lakes, bays, and lagoons.
The President may enter into agreements 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.
Citizen suits filed under R.A. No. 8749 and R.A. No. 9003 shall be governed by their respective provisions.
SUMMARY:
DOE and JAPEX agreed on 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. Petitioners want SC 46
nullified mainly because it violates the 1987 constitution (it also violates RA 7586 and PD 1586). Petitioners have locus
standi because of the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases, Section 5.
RATIO:
1. In the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases it is stated that “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 xxx this provision liberalizes standing for all cases filed enforcing environmental laws and collapses the
traditional rule on personal and direct interest, on the principle that humans are stewards of nature”.
Additional support:
In Oposa v Factoran, the rule on legal standing was relaxed for minors and generations yet unborn.
In Sierra Club v Rogers C.B. Morton, Justice Douglas opined that inanimate objects should be allowed to become
parties in litigation in as much as there is injury that is the subject of public outrage. “The river as a plaintiff speaks
for the ecological unit of life that is a part of it. Those people who have a meaningful relation to that body of water
– whether it be a fisherman, a canoeist, a zoologist, or a logger, must be able to speak for the values which the
river represents and which are threatened with destruction”.
In the opinion of the Supreme Court, the primary reason animal rights advocates and environmentalist seek to
give animals and inanimate objects standing is due to the need to comply with the strict requirements in bringing a
suit to court, because it is difficult for persons to show themselves as real parties-in-interest, in actions in
representation of these animals or inanimate objects.
SC-46 contrary to Republic Act No. 7586 or the NIPAS Act. Under Section 12 of the NIPAS act requires an
Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC) under the Philippine Environmental Impact Assessment system for
activities that are outside the scope of the management plan for protected areas. Since SC-46 is outside the
management plan for the protected area Tanon Strait, JAPEX required an ECC before the seismic surveys were
done, which was not complied with.
SC-46 contrary to Presidential Decree No. 1586. PD 1586 requires that “no person, partnership, or corporation
shall undertake or operate any such declared environmentally critical project or area without first securing an
Environmental Compliance Certificate issued by the president or his duly authorized representative xxx” Seismic
surveys done by JAPEX were not in compliance as the ECC was sought only for the second phase which was
drilling an exploratory well.
DISPOSITIVE:
WHEREFORE, the Petitions in G.R. Nos. 180771 and 181527 are GRANTED, Service
Contract No. 46 is hereby declared NULL AND VOID for violating the 1987 Constitution,
Republic Act No. 7586, and Presidential Decree No. 1586.