G.R. No. 180771 & 181527, April 21, 2015
Resident Marine Mammals of the Protected Seascape Tañon Strait, et al. v. Angelo Reyes, et al. / Central Visayas Fisherfolk Development Center (FIDEC), et al. v. Angelo Reyes, et al.

FACTS

The consolidated petitions concern Service Contract No. 46 (SC-46) between the Philippine government (through the Department of Energy or DOE) and Japan Petroleum Exploration Co., Ltd. (JAPEX) for the exploration, development, and production of petroleum resources in the Tañon Strait, a protected seascape. The petitions were filed under Rule 65. In G.R. No. 180771 , the petitioners are the “Resident Marine Mammals” (toothed whales, dolphins, porpoises, and other cetaceans) joined by human beings Gloria Estenzo Ramos and Rose-Liza Eisma-Osorio as their legal guardians or “Stewards.” In G.R. No. 181527, the petitioners are the Central Visayas Fisherfolk Development Center (FIDEC) and individual subsistence fisherfolk. The respondents include government officials (the Secretaries of the DOE and DENR, among others) and JAPEX. The antecedents show that after a Geophysical Survey and Exploration Contract, SC-46 was formalized. JAPEX conducted seismic surveys and, after obtaining an Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC) from the DENR’s Environmental Management Bureau, drilled an exploratory well from November 16, 2007, to February 8, 2008. The petitions seek to enjoin the implementation of SC-46 and nullify the ECC, alleging violations of the Constitution and environmental laws.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the petitioners have legal standing to file the suits. Specifically, whether the Resident Marine Mammals, joined by human stewards, and the fisherfolk groups have the requisite standing to challenge the government’s actions and contracts regarding oil exploration in the Tañon Strait.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petitions for lack of legal standing. The Court held that the Resident Marine Mammals are not endowed with legal personality and cannot be parties to the suit. While the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases allow for a citizen’s suit, the human petitioners acting as “legal guardians” for the animals do not constitute a proper party as they do not assert a violation of their own personal rights. The Court distinguished this from the doctrine of intergenerational responsibility in Oposa v. Factoran, where the petitioners were minors suing in their own and future generations’ behalf. Here, the Stewards are not asserting their own constitutional rights to a balanced ecology but are purporting to represent the marine mammals, which lack juridical personality. Regarding the fisherfolk petitioners, the Court found they failed to specifically allege how the oil exploration directly injured them, as required for standing in a taxpayer’s or citizen’s suit. The Court also noted that the constitutional policy on indigenous resources (Article XII, Section 2) was not violated as SC-46 was a service contract where the government retained full control, consistent with La Bugal-B’laan Tribal Association, Inc. v. Ramos. The procedural issues regarding the implementation of environmental laws (like the need for an Environmental Impact Statement) were deemed moot since the exploratory drilling had already been completed.