Professional Documents
Culture Documents
3 GR 180771
3 GR 180771
FACTS
RULING
1. 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.
2. 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:
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.
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.
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.