- Herein petitioners, resident marine mammals
92. RESIDENT MARINE MAMMALS v. REYES
)
Locus Standi
In Oposa v. Factoran, we 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." Furthermore, we
said that 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.
In light of the foregoing, the need to give the
Resident Marine Mammals 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. It is worth noting
here that the Stewards are joined as real parties in
the Petition and not just in representation of the
named cetacean species. The Stewards, Ramos
and Eisma-Osorio, having shown in their petition that
there may be possible violations of laws concerning
the habitat of the Resident Marine Mammals, are
therefore declared to possess the legal standing to
file this petition.
FACTS:
- Two sets of petitioners filed separate cases
that were consolidated and filed under Rule
65 challenging the legality of Service
Contract No. 46 (SC-46) awarded to Japan
Petroleum Exploration Co. (JAPEX). The
service contract allowed JAPEX to conduct
oil exploration in the Tañon Strait during
which it performed seismic surveys and
drilled one exploration well.
- The first petition was brought on behalf of
resident marine mammals in the Tañon Strait
by two individuals (Ramos and Eisma-
Osorio) acting as legal guardians and
stewards of the marine mammals.
- The second petition was filed by Central
Visayas Fisherfolk Development Center
(FIDEC), a non-governmental organization
representing the interests of fisherfolk, along
with individual representatives from fishing
communities impacted by the oil exploration
activities.
are the toothed whales, dolphins, porpoises
and other cetacean species which inhabit the
waters in and around the Tanon Strait
(islands of Negros and Cebu).
- Petitioners seek to nullify the service contract
which permits exploration, development and
exploitation by Japan petroleum exploration
within the Tanon Strait, which is a protected
seascape. Originally the contract was
entered by the government with JAPEX for
geophysical survey and exploration.
However it was converted into a service
contract by the DOE and JAPEX. JAPEX had
started its operations through conducting a
survey and exploration of the areas. While in
the second sub-phase of the project, JAPEX
apply for Environmental impact assessment
since it knew that the areas the contract
covers are within the protected seascapes.
Thereafter, JAPEX obtained an
Environmental Compliance Certificate.
- In 2008, JAPEX and the government of the
Philippines mutually terminated the service
contract and oil exploration activities
ceased. The Supreme Court consolidated
the petitions filed under Rule 65 for the
purpose of review.
Allegation before the SC
NAME OF PLAINTIFF
» Protesting the adverse ecological impact of
JAPEX's oil exploration activities in the
Tañon Strait, petitioners Resident Marine
Mammals and Stewards aver that a study
made after the seismic survey showed that
the fish catch was reduced drastically by 50
to 70 percent. They claim that before the
seismic survey, the average harvest per day
would be from 15 to 20 kilos; but after the
activity, the fisherfolk could only catch an
average of 1 to 2 kilos a day. They attribute
this "reduced fish catch" to the destruction of
the "payao" also known as the "fish
aggregating device" or "artificial reef."
» Petitioners Resident Marine Mammals and
Stewards also impute the incidences of "fish
kill" observed by some of the local fisherfolk
to the seismic survey.
 » In its separate petition, petitioner FIDEC rights or obligations under environmental laws. Upon
confirms petitioners Resident Marine the filing of a citizen suit, the court shall issue an
Mammals and Stewards' allegations of order which shall contain a brief description of the
reduced fish catch and lack of public cause of action and the reliefs prayed for, requiring
consultations or discussions with the all interested parties to manifest their interest to
fisherfolk and other stakeholders prior to the intervene in the case within fifteen (15) days from
issuance of the ECC. notice thereof. The plaintiff may publish the order
once in a newspaper of a general circulation in the
NAME OF DEFENDANT
Philippines or furnish all affected barangays copies
» Public respondents, through the Solicitor of said order.
General, contend that petitioners Resident
Citizen suits filed under R.A. No. 8749 and R.A. No.
Marine Mammals and Stewards have no
9003 shall be governed by their respective
legal standing to file the present petition
provisions.
(eto lang relevant sa topic); that SC-46
does not violate the 1987 Constitution and Although this petition was filed in 2007, years before
the various laws cited in the petitions; that the the effectivity of the Rules of Procedure for
ECC was issued in accordance with existing Environmental Cases, it has been consistently held
laws and regulations; that public that rules of procedure "may be retroactively applied
respondents may not be compelled to actions pending and undetermined at the time of
by mandamus to furnish petitioners copies of their passage and will not violate any right of a
all documents relating to SC-46; and that all person who may feel that he is adversely affected,
the petitioners failed to show that they are inasmuch as there is no vested rights in rules of
entitled to injunctive relief. They further procedure."
contend that the issues raised in these
Moreover, even before the Rules of Procedure for
petitions have been rendered moot and
Environmental Cases became effective, this Court
academic by the fact that SC-46 had been
had already taken a permissive position on the issue
mutually terminated by the parties thereto
of locus standi in environmental cases. In Oposa v.
effective June 21, 2008.
Factoran, we allowed the suit to be brought in the
name of generations yet unborn "based on the
concept of intergenerational responsibility insofar as
ISSUE:
the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is
Whether or not the petitioners in the case have a concerned." Furthermore, we said that the right to a
legal standing? 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,
RULING: carries with it the correlative duty to refrain from
YES, the petitioners in this case have a legal impairing the environment.
standing but SC ruled that the need to give the
Resident Marine Mammals legal standing has been
eliminated by our Rules of Procedure for
Environmental Cases which allow for a “citizen suit.”
A citizen suit would allow any Filipino citizen, as a
steward of nature, to bring a suit to enforce our
environmental laws. It is worth noting here that the
Stewards are joined as real parties in the Petition
and not just in representation of the named cetacean
species. The Stewards, Ramos and Eisma-Osorio,
having shown in their petition that there may be
possible violations of laws concerning the habitat of
the Resident Marine Mammals, are therefore
declared to possess the legal standing to file this
petition.
SEC. 5. Citizen suit. - Any Filipino citizen in
representation of others, including minors or
generations yet unborn, may file an action to enforce