Digest by Kenny Espina from Civpro (Edited for SpecPro)

Resident Marine Mammals of the Protected Seascape Tanon Straight, et al. v. Reyes
GR. No. 180771 & 181527 – 21 April 2015
J. Leonardo-De Castro

Topic: Writ of Kalisan

Note: No mention of writ of kalikasan in the case

Case Summary (RECIT READY)

Background on Petitioners:
Petitioners in GR No. 180771 are referred to as the “Resident Marine Mammals (RMMs)” which
includes toothed whales, dolphins, etc. which inhabit the waters of Tañon Strait. They are joined by
humans Gloria Ramos and Rose Eisma-Osorio, as their legal guardians and as friends ( “the
Stewards”). On the other hand, petitioners in GR No. 181527 are the Central Visayas Fisherfolk
Development Center (FIDEC), a non-stock, non-profit NGO established for the welfare of the
marginal fisherfolk in Region VII

Facts:
Environmental advocates, filed a petition on the behalf of whales, dolphins, and other marine
mammals inhabiting the waters in and around the Tañon Strait. They sought the protection of such
species from the damage caused by JAPEX who conducted geological and geophysical studies
under a contract (Service Contract 46) with Department of Energy (DOE) for oil exploration. Fish
catch was sharply reduced after this study was conducted; hence, the petition was made. Former
president GMA was also impleaded in this petition as an unwilling co-petitioner for her declaration
and undertaking in the ASEAN Charter to protect the Tañon Strait, among others

Complaint:
In view of these facts, the petitioners filed the instant cases. [GR No. 180771] Petition for Certiorari,
Mandamus, and Injunction, which seeks to enjoin respondents from implementing SC- 46 and to
have it nullified. [GR No. 181527] Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition, and Mandamus, which seeks
to nullify JAPEX’s ECC, to prohibit SC-46’s implementation, and to compel public respondents to
provide access to documents involving the Tañon Strait Oil Exploration Project

SC Ruling:
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioners, and ultimately declared that SC-46 is null and
void for violating the Constitution and other pertinent laws.

On Standing: The respondents argued that the RMMs and the Stewards had no locus standi to file
the case. The Supreme Court ruled that the RMMs have standing under the concept of a Citizen Suit
which was introduced under the Rules of Procedure on Environmental Cases (RPEC). Before, in
order to file a case “on behalf” of animals or the environment, the petitioners should be able to
show that they’re real parties-in-interest. This means that they must show that they stand to be
benefitted or injured by the possible judgment of the Court. However, pursuant to the RPEC, the
Court allowed for a “citizen suit” [Section 5] and permitted any Filipino citizen to file an action
before our courts for violations of environmental laws. This provision liberalizes standing for all
cases filed enforcing environmental laws and collapses the traditional rule on personal and direct
 Digest by Kenny Espina from Civpro (Edited for SpecPro)
interest, on the principle that humans are stewards of nature. Although the case was filed in 2007, it
has been consistently held that rules of procedure may be retroactively applied to actions pending
and undetermined at the time of their passage.
The Court also cited Oposa v. Factoran, Jr. stating that even before the RPEC became effective, the
SC had already taken a permissive position on the issue of locus standi in environmental cases. In
Oposa, the SC allowed the suit to be brought in the name of generations yet unborn "based on the
concept of intergenerational responsibility insofar as the right to a balanced and healthful ecology
is concerned."
Thus, the need to give the RMMs legal standing has been eliminated by our Rules, which allow any
Filipino citizen, as a steward of nature, to bring a suit to enforce our environmental laws. The
Stewards, having shown in their petition that there may be possible violations of laws concerning
the habitat of the RMMs, are therefore declared to possess the legal standing.

On Constitutionality: The Court ruled that SC-46 contravened the 1987 prohibition on Service
Contracts in relation to exploration of natural resources. Under Par. 4, Section 2, Article XII, 1987
Constitution, the following requisites must be obtained in order for such service contracts to be
considered valid: (a) the service contract shall be crafted in accordance with a general law, (b) the
President shall be the signatory for the government, and (c) within thirty days of the executed
agreement, the President shall report it to Congress. 🡪 ITC: Only the Secretary of the DOE was the
signatory, and not the President herself (PGMA). The alter ego principle does not apply in this case
given that it is the Constitution itself which mandated that the President him/herself signs such
contract as a safeguard against abuses.

On Legality: The Court also ruled that SC-46 also contravenes other pertinent laws.
Under Section 12, NIPAS, unless an ECC under the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) System
is obtained, no activity inconsistent with the goals of the NIPAS Act shall be implemented. 🡪 ITC, the
ECC was only acquired prior the second sub-phase of SC-46, which required the drilling of an oil
exploration well. This means that when the seismic surveys were done in the Tañon Strait, no such
environmental impact evaluation was done. The respondents' subsequent compliance with the
EISS for the second sub- phase of SC-46 cannot and will not cure this violation.

Doctrine: Pursuant to the Rules of Procedure on Environmental Cases, the Court allowed for a
“citizen suit” [Section 5] and permitted any Filipino citizen to file an action before our courts for
violations of environmental laws. 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.

Facts:
● Petitioners in GR No. 180771 are collectively referred to as the “Resident Marine Mammals”
which includes toothed whales, dolphins, etc which inhabit the waters of Tañon Strait. They
are joined by humans Gloria Ramos and Rose Eisma-Osorio, as their legal guardians and as
friends (to be collectively known as “the Stewards”) who allegedly empathize with, and seek
protection of, the marine mammals.
o On the other hand, petitioners in GR No. 181527 are the Central Visayas Fisherfolk
Development Center (FIDEC), a non-stock, non-profit NGO established for the welfare
of the marginal fisherfolk in Region VII. Other petitioners include private individuals as
 Digest by Kenny Espina from Civpro (Edited for SpecPro)
representatives of the subsistence fisherfolks of the municipalities of Aloguinsan and
Pinamungajan, Cebu.
● June 13, 2002: The government through the DOE entered into a Geophysical Survey and
Exploration Contract-102 (GSEC-102) with JAPEX [Respondent]. This allowed JAPEX to
conduct studies which included surface geology, sample analysis, and reprocessing of seismic
and magnetic data.
o December 21, 2004: The GSEC-102 was converted into Service Contract-46 (SC-46)
for the exploration, development, and production of petroleum resources in a block
(~2.8k sqm) offshore the Tañon Strait.
o May 9-18, 2005: JAPEX proceeded to conduct seismic surveys. A multi-channel sub-
bottom profiling covering ~751km was also done to determine the area’s underwater
composition.
● Complying with PD15861, JAPEX applied for an Environmental Compliance Certificate for it
to be allowed to drill one exploration well during the second sub-phase of the project. 🡪 On
January 31, 2007, the Protected Area Management Board (PAMB) issued Resolution No.
2007-01, wherein it adopted the Initial Environmental Examination (IEE) commissioned by
JAPEX, and favorably recommended the approval of JAPEX’s application for an ECC.
o March 6, 2007: The EMB of DENR Region VII granted an ECC to the DOE and JAPEX for
the offshore oil and gas exploration project. Thus, months later, JAPEX began to drill
an exploratory well (~3,105m) near Pinamungajan town in Cebu. This drilling lasted
until Feb 2008.
● Complaint: In view of these facts, the petitioners filed the instant petition. [GR No. 180771]
Petition for Certiorari, Mandamus, and Injunction, which seeks to enjoin respondents from
implementing SC- 46 and to have it nullified. [GR No. 181527] Petition for Certiorari,
Prohibition, and Mandamus, which seeks to nullify JAPEX’s ECC, to prohibit SC-46’s
implementation, and to compel public respondents to provide access to documents involving
the Tañon Strait Oil Exploration Project
o [NOT IMPT] Supply Oilfield Services, Inc [SOS] filed a Motion to Strike on the ground
that it is not the Philippine agent of JAPEX. It was mere a logistics contractor for
JAPEX. This was opposed by the petitioners. 🡪 Not mentioned ano naging resolution,
but I guess against SOS given that respondents pa rin sila
o [NOT IMPT] JAPEX PH was also impleaded. All the parties were asked to submit their
memoranda but JAPEX PH failed to do so even though they asked for two extensions
already.
● [Petitioner] Resident Mammals’ Allegations: The Resident Mammals and the Stewards
alleged that a study made after the seismic survey showed that the fish catch was reduced
drastically by 50%-70%, lowering the harvests from 15-20kg to 1-2kg per day. They attribute
this reduced fish catch to the destruction of the "payao," also known as the "fish aggregating
device" or "artificial reef." They further allege that the ECC obtained by JAPEX is invalid
because public consultations and discussions, a pre-requisite to the issuance of the ECC, were
not held.
● [Petitioner] FIDEC’s Allegations: FIDEC confirmed the allegation of reduced fish catch and
lack of public consultations or discussions with the fisherfolk and other stakeholders prior to
the issuance of the ECC. Moreover, it alleges that during the seismic surveys and drilling, it was

1
Establishing an Environmental Impact Statement System, Including Other Environmental Management Related Measures and
for Other Purposes
 Digest by Kenny Espina from Civpro (Edited for SpecPro)
barred from entering and fishing within a 7-km radius from the point where the oilrig was
located, an area greater than the 1.5-km radius "exclusion zone" stated in the IEE.
● [OSG] Public Respondents’ counter-argument: They contend that (a) Resident Mammals
and the Stewards have no legal standing, (b) SC-46 does not violate the Constitution and other
laws, (c) the ECC was issued in accordance with laws and regulations, (d) mandamus does not
lie to compel them from giving petitioners copies of all documents relating to SC-46, (e) they
petitioners failed to show that they are entitled to injunctive relief.

Issue + Held:
1. [IMPT] W/N the Resident Marine Mammals and the Stewards have Standing [YES, as a citizen
suit]
● Petitioners’ arguments: Citing Oposa v. Factoran, Jr., the RMMs (through the Stewards)
assert their right to sue for the faithful performance of international and municipal
environmental laws created in their favor and for their benefit. They claim that they have the
legal standing to file this action since they stand to be benefited or injured by the judgment in
this suit.
o On the other hand, the Stewards argued that they have the right to represent the
RMMs as have stakes in the case as forerunners of a campaign to build awareness,
given that the Government, the primary stewards, failed to do its duty to protect the
environment.
● Public respondents’ arguments: The RMM has no locus standi because Section 1, Rule 32
requires parties to an action to be either natural or juridical persons. The public respondents
also contest the applicability of Oposa, pointing out that the petitioners therein were all
natural persons, albeit some of them were still unborn.
o As to the Stewards, they don’t have legal standing given that they’re representing
animals, which cannot be parties to an action. Thus, they are not the real parties-in-
interest for their failure to show how they stand to be benefited or injured by the
decision in this case.
● Difficulty of Standing on Environmental Cases: The Court took note that it was indeed hard
for animal rights advocates and environmentalists to seek standing due to the need to comply
with the strict requirements to bring a suit to court given that they by themselves should be
able to show that they are real parties-in-interest, and not just those who they represent.
o [Baka lang itanong] Citing Justice Douglas’ dissent in the US case Sierra Club v.
Rogers Morton, he said “The critical question of "standing" would be simplified and also
put neatly in focus if we fashioned a federal rule that allowed environmental issues to be
litigated before federal agencies or federal courts in the name of the inanimate object
about to be despoiled, defaced, or invaded by roads and bulldozers and where injury is
the subject of public outrage.”

2
Section 1, Rule 3, ROC: Who may be parties; plaintiff and defendant. — Only natural or juridical persons, or entities
authorized by law may be parties in a civil action. The term "plaintiff" may refer to the claiming party, the counter-claimant, the
cross-claimant, or the third (fourth, etc.)-party plaintiff. The term "defendant" may refer to the original defending party, the
defendant in a counterclaim, the cross-defendant, or the third (fourth, etc.)-party defendant.
 Digest by Kenny Espina from Civpro (Edited for SpecPro)
● Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases [RPEC]: Recently (April 13, 2010), the Court
passed this landmark rule which allow for a “citizen suit” [Section 5 3] and permit any Filipino
citizen to file an action before our courts for violations of environmental laws.
o Rationale: To further encourage the protection of the environment, the Rules enable
litigants enforcing environmental rights. 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.
o Although the case was filed in 2007, 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.
● Moreover, even before the RPEC became effective, the SC had already taken a permissive
position on the issue of locus standi in environmental cases. In Oposa, the SC allowed the suit
to be brought in the name of generations yet unborn "based on the concept of
intergenerational responsibility insofar as the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is
concerned." The right to a balanced and healthful ecology, a right that does not even need to
be stated in our Constitution as it is assumed to exist from the inception of humankind, carries
with it the correlative duty to refrain from impairing the environment.
● Thus, the need to give the RMMs legal standing has been eliminated by our Rules, which allow
any Filipino citizen, as a steward of nature, to bring a suit to enforce our environmental laws.
The Stewards, having shown in their petition that there may be possible violations of laws
concerning the habitat of the RMMs, are therefore declared to possess the legal standing.

2. [Semi-IMPT] W/N Former President GMA be considered as an unwilling co-petitioner [NO]

● Petitioners’ arguments: Citing Section 10, Rule 34, the Stewards impleaded as an unwilling
co-petitioner former PGMA based on the fact that she made a declaration under the ASEAN
Charter to protect the RMM’s habitat. However, her signature cannot be obtained due to her
affiliation with the public respondents.
● SC Ruling: The reason cited by the petitioners Stewards for including former President
Macapagal-Arroyo in their petition, is not sufficient to implead her as an unwilling co-
petitioner.
● Impleading PGMA for an act she made in the performance of the functions of her office, is
contrary to the public policy against embroiling the President in suits to assure the exercise of
Presidential duties and functions free from any hindrance or distraction.

[Ken Note: The following are substantial issues, which are not really related na to our topic. I won’t be
expounding on each na, pero I will make sure that material concepts are discussed]

3
SEC. 5, RPEC: Citizen suit. — 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. Upon the filing of a citizen suit, the
court shall issue an order which shall contain a brief description of the cause of action and the reliefs prayed for, requiring all
interested parties to manifest their interest to intervene in the case within fifteen (15) days from notice thereof. The plaintiff may
publish the order once in a newspaper of a general circulation in the Philippines or furnish all affected barangays copies of said
order.
Citizen suits filed under R.A. No. 8749 and R.A. No. 9003 shall be governed by their respective provisions.
4
Sec. 10, Rule 3, ROC: Unwilling co-plaintiff. — If the consent of any party who should be joined as plaintiff can not be
obtained, he may be made a defendant and the reason therefor shall be stated in the complaint.
 Digest by Kenny Espina from Civpro (Edited for SpecPro)
3. W/N Service Contract No. 46 (SC-46) contravenes the Constitution [YES]
● Petitioners’ arguments: The petitioners argued that SC-46 transgresses the Jura Regalia
provision of Paragraph 15, Section 2, Article XII, 1987 Constitution because JAPEX is 100%
owned. Furthermore, they claim that SC-46 failed to comply with the requisites laid down in
the La Bugal-B’laan Tribal Association, Inc. v. Ramos decision, namely (a) a legislative
enactment of a general law, and (b) presidential notification
● Respondents’ arguments: SC-46 does not fall under such paragraph of the Constitution.
Instead, it falls under Paragraph 46 on FTAAs.
● SC Ruling: In La Bugal, the SC ruled that the deletion of the words “service contracts” in the
1987 Constitution is not a ban on them per se. Based on the ConCom deliberations, the
deletion was for the removal of “service contracts” in the context of the 1973 Constitution
during the Martial Law era.
o The commissioners were crafting provisions to put in place to eliminate or minimize
the abuses prevalent during ML. In brief, they were going to permit service contracts
with foreign corporations as contractors, but with safety measures to prevent abuses,
as an exception to the general norm. 🡪 Par. 4 (agreements involving technical or
financial assistance) is the exception to par. 1.
● The following are the safeguards:
1. The service contract shall be crafted in accordance with a general law
2. The President shall be the signatory for the government
3. Within thirty days of the executed agreement, the President shall report it to Congress
● On Safeguard #1 [Passed]: There is a general law, namely PD87 (Oil Exploration and
Development Act). This was not repealed, expressly nor impliedly, by the 1987 Constitution
● On Safeguard #2 and #3 [Failed]: The President was not the signatory to SC-46 and the same
was not submitted to Congress.
o Par. 4 of the consti provision requires that the President himself enter into any service
contract for the exploration of petroleum. SC-46 was signed merely by the Secretary
of the DOE, contrary to the consti provision.
o On Alter Ego Principle: This principle does not apply in this case. This is the general
rule, and the current situation falls under one of the exceptions, which is in cases
where the President is required by the Constitution or law to act in person.
o Even under the provisions of PD87, it is required that the Petroleum Board, now the
DOE, obtain the President's approval for the execution of any contract under said
statute, as shown in the following provision

5
Par. 1, Section 2, Article XII, 1987 Constitution: All lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum, and other
mineral oils, all forces of potential energy, fisheries, forests or timber, wildlife, flora and fauna, and other natural resources are
owned by the State. With the exception of agricultural lands, all other natural resources shall not be alienated. The exploration,
development, and utilization of natural resources shall be under the full control and supervision of the State. The State may
directly undertake such activities, or it may enter into co-production, joint venture, or production-sharing agreements with
Filipino citizens, or corporations or associations at least sixty per centum of whose capital is owned by such citizens. Such
agreements may be for a period not exceeding twenty-five years, renewable for not more than twenty-five years, and under such
terms and conditions as may be provided by law. In cases of water rights for irrigation, water supply, fisheries, or industrial uses
other than the development of water power, beneficial use may be the measure and limit of the grant.
6
Par. 4, Section 2, Article XII, 1987 Constitution: 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.
 Digest by Kenny Espina from Civpro (Edited for SpecPro)
4. W/N Service Contract No. 46 (SC-46) contravenes other laws [YES]
● Petitioners’ arguments: FIDEC argues that SC-46 violates Section 27, RA9147 (Wildlife
Resources Conservation and Protection Act), Section 14, RA7586 (National Integrated
Protected Areas System Act), and RA8550 (Philippine Fisheries Code).
● SC Ruling: Although the SC already ruled that SC-46 is unconstitutional, it also decided to
resolve the illegality of SC-46 in relation to other laws to serve as a guide in the future.
● On NIPAS Act: 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. The Tañon Strait
was declared as a protected area under the category of Protected Seascape, thus a
management plan for each area must be designed to protect and enhance the permanent
preservation of its natural conditions.
o Under Section 12, NIPAS, unless an ECC under the Environmental Impact Assessment
(EIA) System is obtained, no activity inconsistent with the goals of the NIPAS Act shall
be implemented.
● ITC, the ECC was only acquired prior the second sub-phase of SC-46, which required the
drilling of an oil exploration well. This means that when the seismic surveys were done in the
Tañon Strait, no such environmental impact evaluation was done. The respondents'
subsequent compliance with the EISS for the second sub- phase of SC-46 cannot and will not
cure this violation.
● Moreover, 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.

Ruling: 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.