CASE NO.

05
Resident Marine Mammals of the Protected Seascape Tañon Strait v. Reyes
G.R. Nos. 180771 & 181527 April 21, 2015

Facts:

This case involves two consolidated petitions filed under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules
of Court. The first petition, G.R. No. 180771, is filed by the Resident Marine
Mammals of the Protected Seascape Ta on Strait, represented by Gloria Estenzo
Ramos and Rose-Liza Eisma-Osorio, as their legal guardians. The second petition,
G.R. No. 181527, is filed by the Central Visayas Fisherfolk Development Center
(FIDEC) and representatives of the subsistence fisherfolk of the municipalities of
Aloguinsan and Pinamungajan, Cebu.

The petitions seek to enjoin the implementation of Service Contract No. 46 (SC-46),
which allows the exploration, development, and exploitation of petroleum resources
within Ta on Strait, a narrow passage of water between the islands of Negros and
Cebu. The petitioners argue that SC-46 violates the 1987 Constitution and certain
international and municipal laws.

The antecedent facts and proceedings of the case are as follows: The Government of
the Philippines, through the Department of Energy (DOE), entered into a
Geophysical Survey and Exploration Contract-102 (GSEC-102) with Japan
Petroleum Exploration Co., Ltd. (JAPEX) for geological and geophysical studies of
Ta on Strait. GSEC-102 was later converted into SC-46 for the exploration,
development, and production of petroleum resources in Ta on Strait.

JAPEX conducted seismic surveys and drilling activities in Ta on Strait, which is

declared a protected seascape. The Protected Area Management Board (PAMB) and
the Environmental Management Bureau (EMB) of the Department of Environment
and Natural Resources (DENR) issued favorable recommendations and an
Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC) for the project.

The petitioners argue that the implementation of SC-46 violates the 1987
Constitution, particularly the provisions on the protection of the environment and
the rights of the fisherfolk. They also claim that the ECC was improperly issued
without proper public consultations and discussions.

Issue:

The main issues raised in the case are: (1) the locus standi of the Resident Marine
Mammals and Stewards to file the petition, and (2) the legality of SC-46.

Ruling:

In its ruling, the court declares SC-46 null and void for being unconstitutional and
in violation of applicable laws. It also declares the ECC issued for the project as
invalid. The court further orders the respondents to provide the petitioners with
copies of all documents pertaining to the oil exploration project.
Ratio:

The court first addresses the issue of locus standi. The petitioners argue that they
have standing to sue as they are directly affected by the oil exploration activities and
have a right to demand the enforcement of international and municipal
environmental laws. They also claim to represent the interests of the Resident
Marine Mammals and the environment as stewards. The court considers the
arguments and concludes that the petitioners have standing to file the petition.

Moving on to the main issue, the court examines the legality of SC-46. The
petitioners argue that SC-46 violates the Philippine Constitution and applicable laws.
They also claim that the ECC was improperly issued without proper public
consultations and discussions. The court considers these arguments and determines
that SC-46 is indeed violative of the Constitution and laws, and that the ECC was
improperly issued.

The court rules that SC-46 violates the 1987 Constitution, particularly the provisions
on the protection of the environment and the rights of the fisherfolk. It also finds that
the ECC was improperly issued without proper public consultations and discussions.
Therefore, the court declares SC-46 null and void and invalidates the ECC.

Summary:

This case involves a dispute over the legality of Service Contract No. 46 (SC-46),
which grants JAPEX Company, Ltd. and JAPEX Philippines Ltd. the right to explore
and exploit oil and natural gas in the Taon Strait protected seascape in the
Philippines. The petitioners, Resident Marine Mammals and Stewards, argue that
SC-46 violates the Philippine Constitution and various laws, and that the oil
exploration activities have caused ecological damage and harm to the livelihood of
the fisherfolk in the area. They also claim that the issuance of the Environmental
Compliance Certificate (ECC) for the project was improper. The court rules in favor
of the petitioners, declaring SC-46 null and void and invalidating the ECC.