G.R. No. 182734 , June 27, 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, directly filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition assailing the constitutionality of the Tripartite Agreement for Joint Marine Seismic Undertaking (JMSU) in the South China Sea entered into by the Philippine National Oil Company (PNOC) with China National Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC) and Vietnam Oil and Gas Corporation (PETROVIETNAM). The JMSU aimed to conduct a seismic survey to determine the petroleum resource potential of an area in the South China Sea claimed by the Philippines. In a Decision dated January 10, 2023, the Supreme Court declared the JMSU unconstitutional and void for violating Section 2, Article XII of the Constitution , which mandates that the exploration, development, and utilization (EDU) of natural resources shall be under the full control and supervision of the State. The Court ruled that the JMSU constituted “exploration” under the Constitution and did not fall under any of the constitutionally permitted modes for EDU. Respondents filed a Motion for Reconsideration, reiterating procedural and substantive grounds for reversal.

ISSUE

1. Procedurally, whether the Supreme Court correctly took cognizance of the petition.
2. Substantively, whether the JMSU is constitutional.

RULING

The Motion for Reconsideration is denied for lack of merit.
On Procedural Issues:
1. Hierarchy of Courts: The Court correctly took cognizance of the petition. Respondents argued the petition raised questions of fact regarding the location of the JMSU’s Agreement Area. The Court held that no question of fact existed, as respondents did not specifically deny petitioners’ allegation that the area was part of Philippine territory; under the rules, such an allegation is deemed admitted. The sole issue of whether the JMSU complied with constitutional provisions is a question of law.
2. Mootness: The case falls under exceptions to the moot and academic principle, despite the JMSU’s expiration on June 30, 2008. The exceptions are: (a) there is a grave violation of the Constitution; (b) the situation is exceptional and involves paramount public interest; (c) the constitutional issue requires formulation of controlling principles; and (d) the case is capable of repetition yet evading review. All four exceptions apply.
3. Legal Standing: Petitioners have legal standing. As legislators, they have a direct and personal interest in ensuring the Executive Branch complies with laws they helped enact. As citizens and taxpayers, they have standing because the case involves a constitutional issue of transcendental importance affecting the nation’s patrimony.
On Substantive Issues:
1. Nature of JMSU Activities: The activities under the JMSU constitute “exploration” as defined in Section 2, Article XII of the Constitution . The agreement’s purpose was to conduct a seismic survey to discover the existence of petroleum resources, which aligns with the legal definition of exploration as “all work that have for their object the discovery of petroleum.”
2. Constitutionality of the JMSU: The JMSU is unconstitutional. The Constitution permits EDU of natural resources only through four modes: (a) directly by the State; (b) through co-production, joint venture, or production-sharing agreements with Filipino citizens or qualified corporations; (c) through small-scale utilization by qualified Filipino citizens; or (d) through agreements with foreign-owned corporations for technical or financial assistance, subject to specific safeguards. The JMSU, involving foreign state-owned corporations (CNOOC and PETROVIETNAM) without the required constitutional safeguards, does not fall under any permitted mode.
3. Full Control and Supervision: The State lost full control and supervision over the exploration activity under the JMSU. The agreement required the sharing of all seismic data and interpretations among the three parties, thereby bargaining away the State’s exclusive control over vital information regarding the existence of natural resources within its territory. This violates the constitutional mandate that the State exercise full control and supervision over all aspects of EDU.
The Assailed Decision declaring the JMSU unconstitutional and void is affirmed.