G.R. No. 182734 , January 10, 2023.
BAYAN MUNA PARTY-LIST REPRESENTATIVES SATUR C. OCAMPO AND TEODORO A. CASIÑO, ANAKPAWIS REPRESENTATIVE CRISPIN B. BELTRAN, GABRIELA WOMEN’S PARTY REPRESENTATIVES LIZA L. MAZA AND LUZVIMINDA C. ILAGAN, REP. LORENZO R. TAÑADA III, AND REP. TEOFISTO L. GUINGONA III, PETITIONERS, VS. PRESIDENT GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY EDUARDO R. ERMITA, SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS, SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, PHILIPPINE NATIONAL OIL COMPANY, AND PHILIPPINE NATIONAL OIL COMPANY EXPLORATION CORPORATION, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Petitioners, suing as legislators, taxpayers, and citizens, filed an original action for certiorari and prohibition assailing the constitutionality of the Tripartite Agreement for Joint Marine Seismic Undertaking (JMSU) signed on March 14, 2005, by the Philippine National Oil Company (PNOC), China National Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC), and Vietnam Oil and Gas Corporation (PETROVIETNAM). The JMSU covered 142,886 square kilometers in the South China Sea and authorized the parties to conduct seismic work within a three-year term. The Department of Energy issued permits constituting the Philippine government’s approval. Petitioners argued the JMSU violated Section 2, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution , which mandates that the exploration, development, and utilization of natural resources shall be under the full control and supervision of the State, as it allowed large-scale exploration by foreign state-owned corporations in Philippine waters, including the EEZ and the Spratly Islands. They imputed grave abuse of discretion to the respondents for authorizing and implementing the agreement. The JMSU expired on June 30, 2008, and was not renewed. Respondents, through the OSG, argued the petition was moot, that the President was immune from suit, that PNOC’s act was a separate corporate act, and that the proper remedy was an ordinary civil action.

ISSUE

Whether the petition presents a justiciable controversy, given that the JMSU had already expired, rendering the case moot and academic.

RULING

The Supreme Court DISMISSED the petition for being moot and academic. The Court held that the expiration of the JMSU on June 30, 2008, and the absence of its renewal, removed any actual substantial controversy that required judicial intervention. A judicial pronouncement on the constitutionality of the JMSU would have no practical legal effect. The Court found that none of the recognized exceptions to the mootness doctrine were sufficiently compelling to justify resolving the constitutional questions. The Court did not reach the substantive constitutional issues regarding the JMSU’s compliance with Section 2, Article XII of the Constitution . The Court also noted that certiorari and prohibition were improper remedies as the acts complained of were not judicial, quasi-judicial, or ministerial in nature, and that the President generally enjoys immunity from suit for official acts.