UP Law F2021 [98] Resident Mammals of Tañon Strait v.

Reyes
Civil Procedure Rule 3, secs. 1-3 2015 Sandoval-Gutierrez

SUMMARY

The Resident Mammals of Tanon Strait and Stewards, joined by fisherfolks, instituted actions to enjoin the
government from enacting Service Contract No. 46 it entered into by JAPEX. They allege that the joint
exploration caused reduced numbers of fish catch as well as fish kill. The respondents assail the standing of
petitioner Mammals and Stewards as they said that the Mammals were neither natural nor juridical persons
and the Stewards are not real-parties-in-interest. The Court held that pursuant to Sec. 5 of the Rules of
Procedure for Environmental Proceedings, a citizen’s suit may be filed for minors and generations yet
unborn. The Court considered the mammals as falling into this category. It also noted that the Stewards
sued in their own capacity and not just as a representative and that they have standing because they stand
to be injured by the alleged environmental violations.

FACTS

 These are two consolidated petitions to enjoin the enforcement of Service Contract No. 46 (SC-46)
which allowed the exploration, development and exploitation of petroleum services in Tañ on Strait.
 Petitioners in G.R. No. 180771 are toothed whales, dolphins, porpoises and other cetacean species
which inhabit the waters in and around Tañ on Strait. They are joined by Ramos and Eisma-Osorio as
“the Stewards”. Also impleaded as unwilling co-petitioner is President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.
 Petitioners in G.R. No. 181527 are the Central Visayas Fisherfolk Development Center (FIDEC), and
Engarcial, Yanong and Labid, in their capacity as subsistence fisherfolk.
 Respondents are the late Sec. of Energy, Angelo Reyes, DENR Sec. Jose L. Atienza, DENR Regional Dir.,
Sibbaluca. Also impleaded were EMB Dir., Arranguez and DOE Regional Dir. Labios.
 June 13, 2002: The Govt. of the Philippines, through DOE, entered into a Geophysical Survey and
Exploration Contract-102 (GSEC-102) with Japan Petroleum Exploration Co. Ltd. (JAPEX) to perform
surface geology, ample analysis and reprocessing of seismic data in Tañ on Strait.
 Dec. 21, 2004: GSEC-102 was formally converted to SC-46 for the exploration, development and
production of petroleum resources covering approx. 2,850 sq km offshore Tañ on Strait.
 As JAPEX needed to drill in a protected seascape in Alonguisan, it needed to secure an Environmental
Compliance Certificate (ECC) pursuant to Pres. Dec. No. 1586 which the Protected Area Management
Board approved. Months later, JAPEX started drilling an exploratory well.
 With this, petitioners instituted the present actions for Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus to
enjoin respondents from implementing SC-46 for violations of the 1987 Constitution.
 Petitioner Mammals & Stewards allege that SC-46 has adverse ecological impact which reduced their
fish catch due to the destruction of the “payao” or the artificial reef. They also observed incidence of
“fish kill”. Petitioner fisherfolk added that they were not allowed to fish within a 7km radius from the
oil rig which was 1.5 km more than the Initial Environmental Examination JAPEX adopted.
 Petitioner Resident Mammals & Stewards assert they have standing to file the present suit, citing
Oposa v. Factoran, as they are asserting their right to the faithful performance of municipal
environmental laws and to the benefits granted to them in international multilateral instruments the
Philippines have signed, under the concept of stipulations pour atrui.
 Respondents assail the locus standi of petitioner Mammals. They argue that Rule 3, sec. 1 of the ROC
permits only natural or juridical persons to file a suit. They ague that Oposa cannot apply in this case,
for even if the petitioners in that case were unborn children, they were still natural persons. As for
the stewards, respondents say that they failed to show how they stand to be benefited or injured by
SC-46. Respondents content that since the petition by the Resident Mammals and Stewards were not
brought by the real parties-in-interest, the same should be dismissed for lack of cause of action.
 Furthermore, they allege that the case has been rendered moot as SC-46 have been mutually
terminated by the parties effective June 21, 2008.
 RATIO

W/N the Resident Mammals and Stewards of Tañon Strait have locus standi. (RELEVANT)
Yes. In our jurisdiction, standing in environmental cases have been given a more liberal approach. Under
Sec. 5 of the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Procedure, “citizen suits” may be filed to represent
minors or generations yet unborn on the principle that humans are stewards of nature. In this case, the
court considered the Marine Mammals as parties that may be represented in a citizen’s suit.

This provision in the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Procedure liberalizes standing for all cases
led enforcing environmental laws and collapses the traditional rule on personal and direct interest,
on the principle that humans are stewards of nature. This reflects the doctrine first enunciated in
Oposa v. Factoran, insofar as it refers to minors and generations yet unborn.”

In Oposa, the court 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, the right to a balanced and healthful ecology does not even
need to be stated in the Constitution as it is assumed to exist from the inception of humankind and
carries with it the correlative duty to refrain from impairing the environment.

Hence, even before the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases became effective, the Supreme
Court had already taken a permissive position on the issue of locus standi in environmental cases. It
is also important to note that although the present suit was filed before the effectivity of the Rules of
Procedure for Environmental Procedure, rules of procedure may be applied retroactively to actions pending
at the time fo their passage.

This permissive view on standing is in consonance with the US case of Sierra Club v. Rogers C.B. Morton
where inanimate objects were given the legal personalities in environmental cases.

Lastly, the court held that the Stewards joined as real parties-in-interest and not just in representation of
the Marine Mammals. The Stewards were able to show that they too will be benefited and injured by the
alleged violations of laws concerning the habitat of the Resident Marine Mammals.

W/N Service Contract 46 was void for violating the Constitution

YES. While Presidential Decree No. 87 may serve as the general law which a service contract for
petroleum exploration and extraction may be authorized, the exploitation utilization of this energy
resource in the present case may be allowed only through a law passed by Congress, since the
Tañ on Strait is a NIPAS area.

Since there is no such law specially allowing oil exploration and/or extraction in the Tañ on Strait,
no energy resource exploitation and utilization extraction in the Tañ on Strait, no energy resource
exploitation and utilization may be done in said protected seascape.

FALLO

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. SO ORDERED.