Resident Marine Mammals of the Protected Seascape Tanon Strait (Toothed Whales, Dolphins,
Porpoises and other Cetacean Species) represented by Atty. Osorio and Estenzo-Ramos v. Secretary
Angelo Reyes G.R. No. 181527 April 21, 2015
FACTS:
This is a joint petition brought by two separate petitioners challenging the legality of Service Contract
No. 46 (SC-46), that authorized the research, development, and utilization of petroleum resources in the
Taon Strait. The small waterway that connects the islands of Negros and Cebu. SC46 arose from DOE's
Geophysical Survey and Exploration Contract-102 (GSEC-102) with JAPEX.
Following that, an ECC was issued to JAPEX for the offshore oil and gas drilling project in Taon
Strait. An exploration well for a depth of 3,150 meters was dug in Pinamungajan town from November
16 to February 8, 2008. This petition was filed as a result of being harmed by the acts.
ISSUES:
1. If the Petitioners have legal status or not
2. Whether President Arroyo can be named as an involuntary co-petitioner.
3. Whether SC-46 is unlawful or not
RULING:
1. YES. In our jurisdiction, the concept of locus standi in environmental cases has been
democratized. The Environmental Cases Rules of Procedure allow for a "citizen suit," which
allows any Filipino citizen to initiate a case in our courts for a breach of our environmental
rules based on the idea that people are custodians of nature:
“Section 5. Citizen suit. – Any Filipino citizen in representation of others, including minors or
generations yet unborn, may file an action to enforce rights or obligations under environmental
laws
2. NO. In this case, we cannot implead the president as defendant, because her functions as
President need her full devotion. Impleading the former President as an unwilling co-
petitioner, for an act she made in the performance of her office, is contrary to the public
policy against embroiling the president in suits.
3. YES. Petitioners maintain that SC-46 transgresses the Jura Regalia Provision or. paragraph 1,
Section 2, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution because JAPEX is 100% Japanese-owned. The
Court explained that par.4 of Sec.2 Article XII was an exception to the general rule in par.1 of
the same provision (in short,pwede raW mo enter into service contracts subject to certain
conditions).