Resident Marine Mammals of the Protected Seascape Tañon Strait vs Secretary Angelo Reyes

G.R. No. 180771; G.R. No. 181527 – 758 Phil. 724 – Political Law – Constitutional Law – General Principles – State; Elements of a State – Citizens – Animals are not citizens

The Tañon Strait, between Cebu and Negros, was declared a protected seascape under the National Integrated Protected Areas System (NIPAS) Act.

Despite this, the Department of Energy entered into Service Contract No. 46 (SC-46) with Japan Petroleum Exploration Co., Ltd. (JAPEX) to conduct oil exploration in the area.

Two petitions (G.R. No. 180771 and G.R. No. 181527) were filed to stop this:

1. One by marine mammals, represented by environmental lawyers as “stewards” and

2. Another by fisherfolk and NGOs from Cebu, who depended on the Strait for livelihood.

They alleged that:

1. SC-46 violated the Constitution;

2. The environmental permit (ECC) was invalid; and

3. The oil exploration endangered marine life and communities.

ISSUES:

1. Do the petitioners (marine mammals and fisherfolk) have legal standing to sue?

2. Is Service Contract No. 46 valid?

3. Was the Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC) legally issued?

HELD: 

1. On Legal Standing:

Marine mammals do not have legal standing, but their human representatives (environmental stewards) and the fisherfolk do, due to their interest in protecting the environment and their source of livelihood.

2. On the Validity of SC-46:

SC-46 is unconstitutional and void because:

It was not approved by the President

It was not reported to Congress

It was not enacted under a general law as required by the 1987 Constitution

The Strait is part of a protected area, and exploration activities there require specific legislative approval.

3. On the ECC:

The ECC issued to JAPEX was invalid due to failure in following proper environmental procedures, such as consultations and assessments.

Read full text.

NOTE: This is an AI-generated digest.