Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
MEMORANDUM OF LAW
Your Petitioners respectfully submit as their:
PREFATORY
A headline in a Philippine daily
screams:
Dolphins
save
Palawan
fisherman!
The news is about the saga of a tuna
fisherman,
Princesa,
Ronnie
Dabal
Philippines
who
from
Puerto
was
saved
it
really
miracle?
For
www.people-oceans-dolphins.com
Id
4
Id
5
Plutarch, Ibid
6
Also known as Oppinos (early third century AD) of Cilicia in south-east Asia Minor, writer of Greek
didactic poetry in hexameters. His Halieutica (on fishing) is in five books; the Cynegetica (on hunting),
in three books, is also ascribed to him but seems to be the work of a different poet, a native of Syria, though
perhaps of the same name. Both poems contain passages of power and beauty, despite the unpromising
material. (http://www.answers.com/topic/oppian)
3
II.
III.
RESOURCES
(DENR)
COMMIT
GRAVE
ABUSE
OF
OIL
EXPLORATION
INSIDE
THE
TAON
STRAIT
V.
Anak Mindanao Party-List Group v. The Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 166052, August 29, 2007
Ibid
10
Ibid
9
These
unpalatable
effects
on
marine
mammals
caused
by
http://www.mmc.gov/sound/committee/pdf/soundFACAreport.pdf
Noise source
Remarks
Reference
Undersea earthquake
272 dB
Wenz, 1962
255+ dB
255 dB
250 dB
Seismic exploration
devices
212-230 dB
Includes vibroseis,
sparker, gas sleeve,
exploder, water gun and
boomer seismic profiling
methods
Container ship
198 dB
Supertanker
190 dB
DAYTIME
50 db
MORNING
AND EVENING
45 db
NIGHTTIME
40 db
55 db
50 db
45 db
65 db
60 db
55 db
70 db
65 db
60 db
75 db
70 db
65 db
http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sound.html
Minors Oposa, et al. v. Factoran, et al., G.R. No. 101083 July 30, 1993
An ecosystem is a natural unit consisting of all plants, animals and micro-organisms (biotic factors) in an
area functioning together with all of the non-living physical (abiotic) factors of the environment. The term
ecosystem was coined in 1930 by Roy Clapham to denote the combined physical and biological
components of an environment. British ecologist Arthur Tansley later refined the term, describing it as
"The whole system, including not only the organism-complex, but also the whole complex of physical
factors forming what we call the environment". Tansley regarded ecosystems not simply as natural units,
but as "mental isolates". Tansley later defined the spatial extent of ecosystems using the term "ecotope".
Central to the ecosystem concept is the idea that living organisms interact with every other element in their
local environment. Eugene Odum, a founder of ecology, stated: "Any unit that includes all of the organisms
(ie: the "community") in a given area interacting with the physical environment so that a flow of energy
leads to clearly defined trophic structure, biotic diversity, and material cycles (ie: exchange of materials
between living and nonliving parts) within the system is an ecosystem. The human ecosystem concept is
then grounded in the deconstruction of the human/nature dichotomy and the premise that all species are
ecologically integrated with each other, as well as with the abiotic constituents of their biotope.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecosystem)
16
grounds, and areas of similar significance for each species of marine mammal from
the adverse effect of mans actions;
x x x x
(6) Marine mammals have proven themselves to be resources of great
international significance, aesthetics and recreational as well as economic, and it is
the sense of the Congress that they should be protected and encouraged to develop
to the greatest extent feasible commensurate with sound policies of resource
management and that the primary objective of their management should be to
maintain the health and stability of marine ecosystem. Whenever consistent with
this primary objective, it should be the goal to obtain an optimum sustainable
population keeping in mind the carrying capacity of the habitat.
19. Biodiversity is essential to the functioning of the ecosystems. Each
species plays a unique role within an ecosystem and every species is dependent
on others for food, shelter, or other resources. The loss of a single species like
Your Petitioners can have profound effects to the ecosystem and to the
environment as a whole.
20. According to Dr. Lemnuel V. Aragones of the University of the
Philippines, a marine scientist who for more than a decade have been
conducting studies of marine mammals in Taon Strait, dolphins and their
cetacean relatives play a very important role to the marine ecosystem at the
narrow strait.
21. He said that being the top predators, they maintain the best genepool of the fish stocks, particularly those that we humans consume. The best of
the stocks are those healthy populations that are left to propagate instead of
those possibly sick stocks whose disease may be transferred to humans who
consume them. Dr. Aragones further explained that the first that dolphins
consume would usually be the fish that are weak and maybe sick as they would
be easier to catch.
22. In unraveling the seeming mysterious attitude of dolphins as saviors
of helpless humans at sea, Dr. Aragones pointed out that this in effect is a
manifestation of their selflessness or exhibition of 'altruism' - a very high level
of behavior, most likely representing a very high level of intelligence as
reflected by their highly social structure.
23. Petitioners cetacea should be given legal standing in suits involving
their protection, preservation and perpetuation. Their decimation or extinction
would undoubtedly disturb the symbiosis of nature and cause imbalance to the
ecology. As such, the right of the Filipino people to a balanced ecology that is
in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature would be thereby violated.
10
11
evidence and clear signs of a climate crisis that need bold action, the voice of
cynicism, naysayers, and procrastinators can still be heard.
28. Depriving legal standing to the dolphins and other ceteacean species
to whom are scientifically proven to be gifted with intelligence and cognition
may be difficult to divine where the same rules allow a ship, a corporation, or
even an estate to sue. This argument is the gist of the passionate dissent by
Justice William Douglas before an almost equally divided U.S. Supreme Court in
the famous case of Sierra Club v. Rogers C.B. Morton, et al.21 where he
argued that:
Inanimate objects are sometimes parties in litigation. A ship has a legal
personality, a fiction found useful for maritime purposes. The corporation sole a
creature of ecclesiastical law - is an acceptable adversary and large fortunes ride on
its cases. The ordinary corporation is a person for purposes of the adjudicatory
processes, whether it represents proprietary, spiritual, aesthetic, or charitable
causes.
Mineral King is doubtless like other wonders of the Sierra Nevada such as
Tuolumne Meadows and the John Muir Trail. Those who hike it, fish it, hunt it, camp
in it, frequent it, or visit it merely to sit in solitude and wonderment are legitimate
spokesmen for it, whether they may be few or many. Those who have that intimate
relation with the inanimate object about to be injured, polluted, or otherwise
despoiled are its legitimate spokesmen.
The Solicitor General, whose views on this subject are in the Appendix to
this opinion, takes a wholly different approach. He considers the problem in terms
of government by the Judiciary. With all respect, the problem is to make certain
that the inanimate objects, which are the very core of Americas beauty, have
spokesmen before they are destroyed. It is of course, true that most of them are
under the control of a federal or state agency. The standards given those agencies
are usually expressed in terms of the public interest. Yet public interest has so
many differing shades of meaning as to be quite meaningless on the environmental
front. Congress accordingly has adopted ecological standards in the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969, Pub.L. 91-90,83 Stat. 852, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.,
and guidelines for agency action have been provided by the Council on
Environmental Quality of which Russell E. Train is Chairman.
Yet the pressures on agencies for favorable action one way or the other are
enormous. The suggestion that Congress can stop action which is undesirable is
true in theory; yet even Congress is too remote to give meaningful direction and its
machinery is too ponderous to use very often. The federal agencies of which I speak
are not venal or corrupt. But they are notoriously under the control of powerful
interests who manipulate them through advisory committees, or friendly working
relations, or who have that natural affinity with the agency which in time develops
between the regulator and the regulated.
As early as 1894, Attorney General Olney predicted that regulatory agencies
might become industry- minded, as illustrated by his forecast concerning the
Interstate Commerce Commission:
The Commission ..... is, or can be made, of great use to the railroads. It
satisfies the popular clamor for a government supervision of railroads, at the same
time that that supervision is almost entirely nominal. Further, the older such a
21
12
commission gets to be, the more inclined it will be found to take the business and
railroad view of things. M. Josephson, The Politicos 525 (1938).
The voice of the inanimate object, therefore, should not be stilled. That does
not mean that the judiciary takes over the managerial functions from the federal
agency. It merely means that before these priceless bits of Americana (such as a
valley, an alpine meadow, a river, or a lake) are forever lost or are so transformed as
to be reduced to the eventual rubble of our urban environment, the voice of the
existing beneficiaries of these environmental wonders should be heard.
Perhaps they will not win. Perhaps the bulldozers of progress will plow
under all the aesthetic wonders of this beautiful land. That is not the present
question. The sole question is, who has standing to be heard?
29. Yes, perhaps in this
case the dolphins and the whales
may not win at all. Perhaps, the
oil
rigs
ultimately
of
progress
plow
under
may
and
eventually
killing
or
32. Beginning February 23, 2006, Petitioners Cetacea are now both listed
under the category of Mammalia in Appendix I and Appendix II of the Bonn
Convention for the Conservation of Migratory Species.22
22
13
33. Those listed under Appendix I are migratory species that are
endangered to be extinct while those listed under Appendix II are migratory
species which have an unfavorable conservation status and which require
international agreements for their conservation and management, as well as
those which have a conservation status which would significantly benefit from
the international cooperation that could be achieved by an international
agreement.23
34. The Philippine Government as one of the parties to the aforesaid
convention has acknowledged the importance of migratory species being
conserved and agreed to take action to this end whenever possible and
appropriate, paying special attention to migratory species the conservation
status of which is unfavorable, and taking individually or in co-operation
appropriate and necessary steps to conserve such species and their habitat.24
35. Such a commitment by the Philippine Government to them is in the
nature of a stipulation pour autrui. In contract law, a stipulation pour autrui is
a stipulation in favor of a third person (in this case, a party or a species)
conferring a clear and deliberate favor upon him (or it), which stipulation is
found in a contract entered into by parties neither of whom acted as agent of
the beneficiary.25
36. Being third party beneficiaries thereof, Your Petitioners may validly
demand from the Philippine Government, through their representatives or
stewards, the performance of its treaty obligation and commitment by way
enjoining its state organs from doing acts or projects which may otherwise
injure them or threaten their existence.
37. This posture of Your Petitioners is consistent with the rule laid in
down in the early case of Uy Tam and U Yet v. Thomas Leonard, et al26,
where it was held that:
Should the contract contain any stipulation in favor of a third person, he
may demand its fulfillment, provided he has given notice of his acceptance to the
persons bound before it may have been revoked.
23
Arts. III & IV, Convention for Conservation of Migratory Species (CMS)
Fundamental Principle No. 1, Art. II, Ibid
25
Marmont Resot Hotel Enterprises v. Federico Guiang, et al., G.R. No. 79734, December 8, 1988
26
G.R. No. L-8312, March 29, 1915
24
14
38. A lot of formal and public demands had been made to respondents
for them to forego the violative oil exploration project inside Your Petitioners
habitat in Taon Strait Protected Seascape. But they all fell on deaf ears.
Moreover, the requirement on the notice of Your Petitioners acceptance to
the benefits under the Convention is met by their use and choice of Taon
Strait as their natural habitat.
39. The legal standing of Your Petitioners representatives, Professors
Gloria Ramos and Liza Osorio of the University of Cebu College of Law is
however a non-issue. They definitely have stakes in the suit as they are in the
forefront of building awareness to protect the Taon Strait Protected Seascape
in order to conserve its splendor and marine wealth. Together with other
environmental advocates young and old, they formed the Save Taon Strait
Citizens Movement to advance the rights of Your Petitioners, the other marine
lives in the area and the fisherfolks who rely on the marine resources of the
strait for their subsistence.
40. The Honorable Supreme Court may please take judicial notice that it
is this citizens network to which Professors Ramos and Osorio belong that is
presently actively advancing the conservation and protection of the Taon
Strait. They are doing their advocacy by way of capacitating the stakeholders
and at the same time objecting to the unwarranted oil exploration thereat.
This same citizens network of theirs is also active in campaigning against the
on-going oil exploration project within the municipal waters of Sibonga and
Argao, Cebu by NorAsia Ltd. of Australia pursuant to Service Contract No. 56
which the latter signed with public respondent DOE.
41. Professors Ramos and Osorio are truly Your Petitioners rightful
stewards and of other Gods creations as all of us ought to be, especially where
the primary steward which is the Philippine State abjectly failed in its duty
pursuant to the public trust doctrine.
42. Under this doctrine, certain resources like air, sea, waters and the
forests have such a great importance to the people as a whole that it would be
wholly unjustified to make them a subject of private ownership. The said
resources being a gift of nature, they should be made freely available to
everyone irrespective of the status in life.27
27
Vide M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath & Others (1977) 1 SCC 388 (India)
15
43. The public trust doctrine enjoins upon the Government to protect
the resources of the enjoyment of the general public rather than to permit
their use for private ownership or commercial purposes. As held by the Highest
Court of India in M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath & Others 28, and to quote:
The State is the trustee of all natural resources which are by nature meant
for public use and enjoyment. Public at large is the beneficiary of the sea-shore,
running waters, airs, forests and ecologically fragile lands. The State as a trustee is
under a legal duty to protect the natural resources. These resources meant for
public use cannot be converted into private ownership. Thus the Public Trust
doctrine is a part of the law of the land.
xxxx-x
In the present case, large area of the bank of River Beas which is part of
protected forest has been given on a lease purely for commercial purposes to the
Motels. The area being ecologically fragile and full of scenic beauty should not have
been permitted to be converted into private ownership and for commercial gains.
Therefore, the Himachal Pradesh Government committed patent breach of public
trust by leasing the ecologically fragile land to the Motel management. The lease
transactions are in patent breach of the trust held by the State Government.
44. Being the more intelligent species (and this is according to man
himself, although the claim may not probably be accorded weight in evidence
for being self-serving), man occupies a unique position as a steward to all of
earths creations.
45. A stewards juridical bond with his ward is always fiduciary. He is
required to act ubberime fide since as a steward he is expected to do and act
only to the best interest of his ward. But man utterly failed in this selfappointment. As the late Pope John Paul II poignantly laments in his treatise
God Made Man the Steward of Creation:
Man is no longer the Creator's steward, but an autonomous despot, who is
finally beginning to understand that he must stop at the edge of the abyss. Another
welcome sign is the growing attention being paid to the quality of life and to
ecology, especially in more developed societies, where people's expectations are no
longer concentrated so much on problems of survival as on the search for an
overall improvement of living conditions" (Evangelium vitae, n. 27). At stake, then, is
not only a physical ecology that is concerned to safeguard the habitat of the
various living beings, but also a human ecology which makes the existence of
creatures more dignified, by protecting the fundamental good of life in all its
manifestations and by preparing for future generations an environment more in
conformity with the Creator's plan.
46. The time for the dolphins, whales, porpoises and other cetacean
species to be conferred upon with legal standing has surely come.
Roger
28
16
48.
If this Honorable Supreme Court did vest legal standing unto the
minors in Oposa, there seems to be no plausible reason why it may not give the
same treatment to Your Petitioners.
30
17
like that of private respondent JAPEX, the applicable rule is paragraph (5) in
the same Constitutional provision where it states: The President may enter
into agreements with foreign-owned corporations involving either technical or
financial assistance for large-scale exploration, development, and utilization
of minerals, petroleum, and other mineral oils according to the general terms
and conditions provided by law, based on real contributions to the economic
growth and general welfare of the country. In such agreements, the State
shall promote the development and use of local scientific and technical
resources.
55. In her comment, the Honorable Solicitor General cited the
annotation of Dean Joaquin G. Bernas, S.J. in his book The 1987 Constitution
of the Republic of the Philippines: A commentary, and arrived at the following
erroneous contention: The adoption of the above provision on service
contracts is recognition that local technical and financial resources in the area
of
large-scale
exploration,
development
and
utilization
of
minerals,
33
19
(1) The service contract shall be crafted in accordance with a general law
that will set standard or uniform terms, conditions and requirements, presumably to
attain certain uniformity in provisions and avoid the possible insertion of terms
disadvantageous to the country.
(2) The President shall be the signatory for the government because,
supposedly before an agreement is presented to the President for signature, it will
have been vetted several times over at different levels to ensure that it conforms to
law and can withstand public scrutiny.
(3) Within thirty days of the executed agreement, the President shall report
it to Congress to give that branch of government an opportunity to look over the
agreement and interpose timely objections, if any.
58. The service contracts being referred to in La Bugal which are
declared to be in conformity with the Constitution are those so-called new
ones which were or to be negotiated by the DENR but executed or to be
executed by the President pursuant to the Republic Act 7942 or the Philippine
Mining Act of 1995, the latter being the general law alluded to as having set
the standards or uniform terms and conditions to be followed by the Executive
Department in their course of issuing mining tenements.
59. By express declaration in La Bugal, those service contracts that were
of the 1973 variety and executed pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 87 (The
Oil Exploration and Development Act of 1972) such as Service Contract No. 46
and other similar contracts entered into by public respondent DOE are
expressly excluded. For reference in the succeeding disquisition, a machine
copy of Service Contract No. 46 is attached as Annex A for this Memorandum.
Your Petitioners were not able to procure a certified true copy of the
document as it is accordingly confidential in nature. This claim shall be
tackled elsewhere in the subsequent discussions.
60. Meanwhile, La Bugal is right all along in finding that the 1973 variety
of service contracts is anathema to the 1987 Constitution in view of the reasons
given in the succeeding.
61. Firstly, Section 6 of P.D. 87 on the nature of service contract
provides that in Service Contract, service and technology are furnished by
the service contractor for which it shall be entitled to the stipulated
service fee while financing is provided by the GOVERNMENT to which all
petroleum produced shall belong.
62. In fact, in the amendatory Presidential Decree 1857, the Government
categorically commits in Sec. 2 thereof as amendment to Sec. 8 of P.D. 87 to
20
21
67. With these intrinsic vices, it should become effortless on the part of
the Honorable Supreme Court to declare Service Contract No. 46 as being
invalid, ultra vires and unconstitutional. And ditto with all other similar
contracts entered into by public respondent DOE pursuant to Presidential
Decree No. 87 as amended.
III
Allowing Oil Exploration
Inside Taon Strait Is
Illegal In the Absence of
A Protected Area Management
Plan
34
Paraphrasing Sec. 3, R.A. 6173, otherwise known as the Oil Industry Commission Act
22
68. The area subject matter in this controversy is the Taon Strait, a
narrow but deep body of water separating the Islands of Cebu and Negros in
the Philippines. Because of its rich marine biodiversity and biologically unique
features capable of sustaining human life and development as well as marine
life, the area was duly declared a protected seascape on May 27, 1998 by
President Fidel V. Ramos pursuant to Presidential Proclamation 1234.
69. The action by the
former President is consistent
with Sec. 5 (e) of Republic
Act 7586, otherwise known as
the
National
Integrated
receipt
of
the
recommendation
of
the
presidential
areas
as
protected areas and providing for measures for their protection until such
time when Congress shall have enacted a law finally declaring such
recommended areas as part of the integrated protected area systems.
70. A National Integrated Protected Areas Systems (NIPAS) is the
classification and administration of all designated protected areas to maintain
essential ecological processes and life-support systems, to preserve genetic
diversity, to ensure sustainable use of resources found therein, and to maintain
their natural conditions to the greatest extent possible.35
71. On the other hand, a protected area refers to identified portions of
land and water set aside by reason of their unique physical and biological
significance, managed to enhance biological diversity and protected against
destructive human exploitation.36
72. A protected area may be a strict nature reserve, a natural park, a
natural monument, a wildlife sanctuary, a protected landscape or seascape, a
35
36
23
Sec. 3, Ibid
Sec. 4 (i), Ibid
24
which
is
attached
to
public
respondent
DENR
in
order
to
39
Crawford, Statutory Construction, pp. 334-335, quoted in Sario Mainias v. COMELEC, G.R. No.
146943, Oct. 4, 2002
25
80. This must be the only plausible ratio legis in establishing the NIPAS
Act, view that:
a. Congress created a special division in all regional offices known as the
Protected Areas and Wildlife Division (PAWD) under the supervision of a
specific Regional Technical Director.40 If the Law intended it to be part
of the Environmental Management Bureau (EMB), it would have
subsumed the PAWD under the EMB, instead of creating a particular
division within the DENR Regional Office;
b. The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Law (Pres. Dec. 1586) is
implemented on the ground by the EMB while the NIPAS Law by the
Protected Areas and Wildlife Division (PAWD);
c. The process followed under the EIA Law is known as the Environmental
Impact System (EIS), the output of which is the ECC. Meanwhile the
process observed in the NIPAS Law is three-tiered, to wit:
1st The
26
g. The Rules and Regulations for a protected area management Plan are all
contained in a Management Manual prepared by at least three (3)
experts41. On the other hand, the EIA/ECC application is prepared by
the Project Proponent;
h. The standards and conditions for the entry into, and use of, a protected
area are much more stringent than the standards for the use of a
property outside the protected area.
The
the
development.
principles
of
biological
diversity
and
sustainable
41
42
Section 9, NIPAS
Paraphrasing Section 2, NIPAS Act
27
82. For it to be valid, the NIPAS law sets forth the following fundamental
components to be made part of a Protected Area Management Plan:
a. Boundaries - The identification of the metes and bounds of the
protected area, including the buffer zones;
b. Zoning - Which includes the setting aside the areas for strict
protection, habitat conservation and rehabilitation, recreation zones,
multiple use zones and buffer zones;
c. Carrying Capacity The assessment of the carrying capacity, the
natural assets and limitations (for human population, water supply,
construction limits, etc.;
d. Resource Inventory The inventory of all resources inside the
protected seascape including flora and fauna; and
e. Other scientific studies as required by Sections 9 and 10 of RA 7586.
83. It is not controverted that when private respondent JAPEX started its
oil exploration project inside Taon Strait sometime in January of 2008, it was
armed only with an Environmental Compliance Certificate procured through a
highly irregular exemption from EIA process granted by public respondent DENR
through its bureau, the EMB. In lieu of the tedious EIA procedure, private
respondent was simply required by EMB to undergo the so-called IEE Checklist
process43.
84. It is likewise of judicial notice that when private respondent JAPEX
commenced its oil exploration project, public respondent DENR had no
Protected Area Management Plan formulated for the Taon Strait Protected
Seascape which in accord with Sec. (9) of the NIPAS Act.
85. By such omission and impropriety, the oil exploration project inside
Your Petitioners habitat pursuant to Service Contract No. 46 must perforce be
struck down for having been undertaken in contravention to law.
IV
The ECC issued to JAPEX
Resultant from IEE
Transgresses the EIA Law
Initial Environmental Examination is applied in lieu of the EIA process for, among others, NonEnvironmentally Critical Projects within an Environmentally Critical Area.
28
issued however to private respondent JAPEX is another matter. The ECC which
was handed over to JAPEX in a silver platter was done in gross violation of the
EIA Law44 and fruit of an ultra vires act.
87. Its ECC must therefore be treated as an invalid document since it
was procured through an abbreviated process called Initial Environmental
Examination (IEE) Checklist, which procedure is short of what is required by the
statute for projects considered as environmentally critical and sited at
environmentally critical areas.
88. According to public respondent DENRs implementing rules and
regulations to the EIA Law, the Philippine EIA Process has six (6) sequential
stages: (1) Screening, (2) Scoping, (3) EIA Study and Report Preparation, (4) EIA
Review and Evaluation, (5) Decision Making, and (6.a) Post-ECC Monitoring,
Validation and (6.b) Evaluation/Audit stage. Stages 1, 2, 3 and 6a are all
proponent-driven while Stages 4, 5 and 6b are DENR-EMB driven stages.45
89. For purposes of a full-blown EIA Process, each of the preceding stage
has been described in the same IRR as follows:
a. Screening determines if a project is covered or not covered by the
PEISS. If a project is covered, screening further determines what
document type the project should prepare to secure the needed
approval, and what the rest of the requirements are in terms of EMB
office of application, endorsing and decision authorities, duration of
processing;
b. Scoping is a proponent-driven multi-sectoral formal process of
determining the focused Terms of Reference of the EIA Study.
Scoping identifies the most significant issues/impacts of a proposed
project, and then, delimits the extent of baseline information to
those necessary to evaluate and mitigate the impacts. The need for
and scope of an Environmental Risk Assessment (ERA) is also done
during the scoping session. Scoping is done with the local community
through Public Scoping and with a third party EIA Review Committee
(EIARC) through Technical Scoping, both with the participation of the
DENR-EMB. The process results in a signed Formal Scoping Checklist
by the review team, with final approval by the EMB Chief;
c. The EIA Study involves a description of the proposed project and its
alternatives, characterization of the project environment, impact
44
45
29
the
Proponent
signs
sworn
statement
of
full
30
the Proponent and EMB jointly fill out the Scoping Checklist. The
accomplished form may be signed by both parties to serve as the
official TOR of the IEER;
b. EIA Study and Report Preparation where Proponent undertakes the
IEE Study. DENR-EMB personnel may clarify procedural and technical
matters on the EIA process but is not allowed to take part in the EIA
study or in the preparation of the report. X x x Project Grouping
Matrix highlights project types with available IEE Checklists under
Groups I and II. Checklists must be used if these are provided by EMB.
The IEE Report Outline is x x x provide(d) (in) templates for the
Impacts Management Plan and Environmental Monitoring Plan. The
Proponent is reminded to submit the filled-out (form) with the
IEER/IEEC as basis of EMB for prioritization in compliance monitoring
and evaluation x x x (and) Pro-forma Sworn Statements of
Accountability of Proponent and Preparers for attachment in the
IEER/IEEC;
c. EIA Report Review and Evaluation which includes procedural
screening, setting up the review fund, and submission of procedurally
acceptable application documents;
d. Substantive review of the application which includes inviting EMB
Reviewers and Distribution of EIA Reports, optional site visitation,
etc;
e. Endorsement of Recommendation;
f. Issuance of Decision Document; and
g. Transmittal of ECC.
The immediately preceding was the process applied to JAPEX regarding
its oil exploration project at Your Petitioners habitat in Tanon Strait Protected
Seascape.
91. As gleaned from the above comparative presentation, the IEE process
may be appropriately monickered as an office-table made process. Due to its
superficial character, the IEE Checklist method cannot validly apply to projects
involving oil exploration inside a critical habitat like the one at bar.
92. Your Petitioners note that Sec. (4) of Presidential Decree 1586 which
establishes the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) System expressly
prohibits any person, partnership or corporation to undertake any project
inside an environmentally critical area without first securing an Environmental
Compliance Certificate (ECC).
31
93. Environmentally Critical Areas (ECAs) include, inter alia, all areas
declared by law as national parks, watershed reserves, wildlife preserves, and
sanctuaries and areas set aside as aesthetic potential tourist spots; and areas
which constitute the habitat of any endangered or threatened species of
Philippine wildlife (flora and fauna) like Tanon Strait.46 On the other hand,
Environmentally Critical Projects (ECPs) include, among others, resourceextractive industries like major mining and quarrying activities47; and by
implication, oil exploration like the one undertaken by private respondent
JAPEX.
94. In Section 2 of Presidential Decree 1586, it is declared that: There
is hereby established an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) System founded
and based on the environmental impact statement required, under Section 4 of
Presidential Decree No. 1151, of all agencies and instrumentalities of the
national government, including government-owned or controlled corporations,
as well as private corporations, firms and entities, for every proposed project
and undertaking which significantly affect the quality of the environment.
95. The statute defines an Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC)
as a document issued by the government agency concerned certifying that the
project
under
consideration
will
not
bring
about
an
unacceptable
environmental impact and that the proponent has complied with the
requirements of the environmental impact statement system.48 Under the law,
an ECC may be issued after its project proponent has truly undergone the EIA
process. Hence, an IEE Checklist procedure should not result into the issuance
of an ECC as the process is short of what is required of the statute.
96. An Environment Impact Assessment (EIA), on one hand, is a process
that involves predicting and evaluating the likely impacts of a project
(including cumulative impacts) on the environment during construction,
commissioning, operation and abandonment. It also includes designing
appropriate preventive, mitigating and enhancement measures addressing
these consequences to protect the environment and the communitys welfare.49
97. However, there is a better definition which can be found in the
European Union website where it describes an Environmental Impact
46
DAO 03-30
Ibid
48
Sec. 3[m], Republic Act 7945 or the Philippine Mining Act of 1995
49
DAO 03-30
47
32
Assessment
as
procedure
that
ensures
that
the
environmental
implications of decisions are taken into account before the decisions are
made. The process involves an analysis of the likely effects on the
environment, recording those effects in a report, undertaking a public
consultation exercise on the report, taking into account the comments and
the report when making the final decision and informing the public about
that decision afterwards.50
98. The EIA procedure ensures that environmental consequences of
projects are identified and assessed before authorization is given. The public
can give its opinion and all results are taken into account in the authorization
procedure of the project. The public is informed of the decision afterwards.51
99. Based on the immediately foregoing definition, public participation
is always an indispensable element in an EIA process. Anything less such as the
office-table process and report in an IEE Checklist procedure as observed by
public respondent DENR cannot qualify as one since it derogates the public
character of the EIA.
100. As a basic principle, EIA is used to enhance planning and guide
decision-making. EIA is primarily presented in the context of a requirement to
integrate environmental concerns in the planning process of projects at the
feasibility stage. Through the EIA Process, adverse environmental impacts of
proposed actions are considerably reduced through a reiterative review process
of project siting, design and other alternatives, and the subsequent
formulation of environmental management and monitoring plans.52
101. Pursuant to Sec. 4 of PD 1586 (1978), the EIA Process covers
projects which have been originally declared as Environmentally Critical
Projects (ECPs) or projects in Environmentally Critical Areas (ECAs) presumed
to have significant impacts on the quality of the environment. On the other
hand, Sec. (5) of PD 1586 provides for noncovered projects, which may be
required environmental safeguards if deemed necessary by DENR.53
102. Meanwhile, Section 4 of the Philippine Environment Policy (P.D.
1151) outlines the EIS in the following manner:
50
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/eia-legalcontext.htm#legalcontext
52
Ibid
53
Ibid
51
33
34
109. When public respondent DOE and private respondent JAPEX inked
their constitutionally-infirmed Service Contract No. 46, they knew that the
area subject in their contract is a protected seascape and a critical habitat to
Your Petitioners. But they proceeded anyway although they were well aware of
the many legal obstacles ranged against the project.
110. And when private respondent JAPEX submitted its concept paper or
feasibility study or application for issuance of an ECC or whatever scrap of
paper it had to public respondent DENR, the latter more than knew that the
area involved in the oil exploration project is a protected area and a wellknown critical habitat to Your Petitioners. After all, it is supposed to be the
agency who recommended to then President Ramos to declare Your Petitioners
habitat in Taon Strait as a protected seascape.
35
111. Moreover, public respondent DENR must have fully known that
mineral exploration within Taon Strait is prohibited since it is also the lead
agency tasked to implement Republic Act 9147.
112. Yet, despite all these readily available information on hand, public
respondent DENR coyly or rather unabashedly allowed the illegal oil exploration
project to proceed - never mind if Your Petitioners will be killed, harmed or
displaced by it. But what is worst is that it unduly exempted private
respondent JAPEX from the tedious EIA process although the project is clearly
covered under the law and even its rules.
113. In a series of fora preceding the filing of this case, representatives
from public respondent DENR justified their position by conveniently taking
refuge under Sec. 14 of the NIPAS Act which according to them expressly
sanctions oil exploration inside Taon Strait, and to quote:
Sec. 14. Survey for Energy Resources. Consistent with the policies declared
in Section 2 hereof, protected areas, except strict nature reserves and natural parks,
may be subjected to exploration only for the purpose of gathering information on
energy resources and only if such activity is carried out with the least damage to
surrounding areas. Surveys shall be conducted only in accordance with a program
approved by the DENR, and the result of such surveys shall be made available to the
public and submitted to the President for recommendation to Congress. Any
exploitation and utilization of energy resources found within NIPAS areas shall be
allowed only through a law passed by Congress.
114. The preceding posture of public respondent DENR may seem fine at
its face value. Yet if one is to study carefully the above provision of the law or
makes reference to other related laws on the subject matter, it would readily
show that such contention is erroneous.
115. Consider this Your Honors: the NIPAS Act was passed on June 1,
1991 while the Republic Act 9147 which is a penal law was passed on July 30,
2001 or more than a decade later. The latter law must be construed to be the
latest legislative policy over critical habitats so that Sec. 27 of R.A. 9147
should be viewed as an amendment to Section 14 of Republic Act 7586.
116. Nevertheless, assuming arguendo that oil exploration is indeed
allowed by law inside a well-known critical habitat for marine mammals like
Taon Strait, such exploration must still comply with the following stringent
requirements set in NIPAS Law to the effect that:
a. The exploration must only for the purposes of gathering information
on energy resources;
36
37
38
55
39
Philippine legal system. Thus, in the leading case of Kuroda vs. Jalandoni56,
this Honorable Supreme Court declared that:
It cannot be denied that the rules and regulations of the Hague and Geneva
conventions from part of and are wholly based on the generally accepted principles
of international law. In fact, these rules and principles were accepted by the two
belligerent nations, the United States and Japan, who were signatories to the two
Conventions.
Such rules and principles, therefore, form part of the law of our nation even if
the Philippines was not a signatory to the conventions embodying them, for our
Constitution has been deliberately general and extensive in its scope and is not
confined to the recognition of rules and principles of international law as contained
in treaties to which our government may have been or shall be a signatory.
129. The above jurisprudence was reiterated in Santos III vs. Northwest
Orient Airlines57, where it was held that: Convention which is a Treaty
commitment voluntarily assumed by the Philippine government has the force
and effect of law in this country.
Precautionary Principle is
Derogated by the reckless
Oil exploration inside a
Critical habitat in Tanon
Strait Protected Seascape
130. The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development
which was held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil in June 1992 marked an important
milestone in the development of the law on environmental conservation.
Among the important documents adopted at Rio was the Rio Declaration of
Environment and Development. This is a set of 27 principles which States are
urged to adopt in order to integrate environmental conservation in their
development programmes. It is not a legally binding document. However, it
sets standards for States to follow and falls under the category of soft law.58
131. Principle 15 of the Rio Declaration deals with the concept of
precaution. It states that:
In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be
widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of
serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a
reason for postponing cost effective measures to prevent environmental
degradation.
56
40
132. Along with the Polluter Pays Principle,59 the Precautionary Principle
quickly became one of the most frequently cited of the Rio principles. Among
the notable jurisprudence dealing with the Precautionary Principle in
Environmental Law are those presented in the succeeding paragraphs.
133. In the case of Shehla Zia v. WAPDA60 which was triggered by a
letter sent to the Supreme Court by some citizens who were apprehensive of
the construction of a grid station in their residential area, it was held that:
The concern for protecting environment was first internationally recognised
when the declaration of United Nations Conference on the Human Environment was
adopted at the Stockholm on 16-6-1972. Thereafter it had taken two decades to
create awareness and consensus among the countries when in 1992 Rio Declaration
was adopted. Pakistan is a signatory to this declaration and according to Dr. Parvez
Hasan although it has not been ratified or enacted, the principle so adopted has its
own sanctity and it should be implemented, if not in letter, at least in spirit. An
international agreement between the nations if signed by any country is always
subject to ratification, but it can be enforced as a law only when legislation is made
by the country through its legislature. Without framing a law in terms of the
international agreement the covenants of such agreement cannot be implemented
as a law nor do they bind down any party. This is the legal position of such
documents, but the fact remains that they have a persuasive value and command
respect. The Rio Declaration is the product of hectic discussion among the leaders
of the nations of the world and it was after negotiations between the developed and
the developing countries that an almost consensus declaration had been sorted out.
Environment is an international problem having to frontiers creating trans-boundary
effects. In this field every nation has to cooperate and contribute and for this reason
the Rio Declaration would serve as a great binding force and to create discipline
among the nations while dealing with environmental problems. Coming back to the
present subject, it would not be out of place to mention that Principle No. 15
envisages rule of precaution and prudence. According to it if there are threats of
serious damage, effective measures should be taken to control it and it should not
be postponed merely on the ground that scientific research and studies are
uncertain and not conclusive. It enshrines the principle that prevention is better
than cure. It is a cautious approach to avert a catastrophe at the earliest stage.
Pakistan is a developing country. It cannot afford the researches and studies made
in developed countries on scientific problems particularly the subject at hand.
However, the researches and their conclusions with reference to specific cases are
available, the information and knowledge is at hand and we should take benefit out
of it. In this background if we consider the problem faced by us in this case, it
seems reasonable to take preventive and precautionary measures straightaway
instead of maintaining status quo because there is no conclusive finding on the
effect of electromagnetic fields on human life. One should not wait for conclusive
finding as it may take ages to find it out and, therefore, measures should be taken to
avert any possible danger and for that reason one should not go to scrap the entire
scheme but could make such adjustments, alterations or additions which may
ensure safety and security or at least minimize the possible hazards.
134. In the case of Leatch v. National Parks & Wildlife Service and
Shoalhaven City Council61 where the objector, May Leatch appealed before
the Supreme Court the lower Courts decision granting license to Shoalhaven
59
41
City to take or kill endangered fauna in the course of constructing a link road
and arguing that the precautionary principle should be applied, the Supreme
Court of Australia ruled that:
While there has been express references to what is called the
precautionary principle since the 1970s, international endorsement has occurred
only in recent years. Indeed, the principle has been referred to in almost every
recent international environmental agreement, including the 1992 Rio Declaration on
Environment and Development [Principle 15], the 1992 UN Framework Convention
on Climate Change [art 3(3)], the June 1990 London Amendments to the Montreal
Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer [preamble, par 6] and the 1992
Convention on Biological Diversity. This latter convention, which Australia has
ratified, is of relevance to the present case. It formulates the precautionary principle
in the following terms: ... where there is a threat of significant reduction or loss of
biological diversity, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason
for postponing measures to avoid or minimise such a threat.
xxxx
The question for the Court is therefore, should the licence be granted, and if so
upon what conditions? In this regard I would suggest that a licence should not in
most circumstances be general in its coverage of endangered species but should
specify the species which it permits to be taken. I think this view is shared by the
National Parks and Wildlife Service, according to the submission of Mr. Preston. It
makes good sense not to grant a licence in relation to all endangered fauna when
some species may be later located which were not the subject of a fauna impact
statement or added to the schedule by the scientific committee at a date after the
issue of a general licence.
xxxx
It is the context of a thorough examination of alternatives, especially ones which
have minimal environmental impact, that one must balance the issue of a licence to
take or kill endangered fauna. The need for a link road is accepted but I question,
when all pertinent factors are weighed in the balance, whether the need is for this
particular road. The issue of the best route, taking account of all relevant
circumstances, including environmental factors, needs to be carefully assessed. I
am not satisfied that a licence to take or kill the Yellow-bellied Glider, or any of the
other species discussed in the fauna impact statement, is justified. The applicant for
such a licence needs to satisfy the Court, on the civil standard on the balance of
probabilities, that it is appropriate in all the relevant circumstances to grant the
licence. I am not convinced of the strength and validity of the economic arguments
presented to the Court by the Council, nor do I take such a predictable view of
human behaviour as Mr. Nairn.
135. The aforequoted decisions from other jurisdictions were handed
down in the early 1990s, just a few years after the principle was embodied in
the Rio Declaration, a multilateral environment agreement which the
Philippines is a signatory. But judicial notice should be taken that in recent
years the precautionary principle has already been widely applied as a norm of
conduct among many states in pursuance to their respective environmental
policies. This event has therefore elevated the precautionary principle from a
soft law into a binding customary international law.
42
43
scientific proof of any adverse effect their oil drilling project may do to marine
mammals as well as to other fauna and flora inside Taon Strait, this lack of
scientific certainty is never a valid excuse to short-cut the EIA process as to
allow private respondent JAPEX to proceed despite overwhelming objections
coming from all stakeholders, including some 170 Philippine Marine Scientists
who signed a manifesto opposing the project on October 26, 2007 during their
gathering held at Punta Villa Resort, Iloilo City.
.
142. These valid objections against the propriety of the oil exploration
project inside Your Petitioners habitat coming at that from experts on the
subject mammalia would have been good reason enough for public respondents
to demand from private respondent JAPEX to lay down all its card about its
preventive or mitigating measures to every eventual, potential, probable or
actual adverse effect that its project may have to the protected area,
especially to Your Petitioners.
143. This could have been judiciously arrived at if only public
respondent DENR conducted a truly EIA procedure about the project with
encouraged public participation. But sad to say, this was not done in this
extant since the proponent was unwarrantedly excused from the drudgery of
the process.
144. Hence, because of the omissions of its state organs (public
respondent DENR especially occupying the most dishonorable mention) the
Philippine Government thereby committed breach in the above-mentioned
generally-accepted Precautionary Principle in International Law.
The Oil Exploration Project also
Derogates the Principles embodied
In the UN Charter for Nature
145.
Nations 48th plenary meeting on 28 October 1982 adopted, inter alia, the
following principles of conservation by which all human conduct affecting
nature is to be guided and judged, that:
a. Nature shall be respected and its essential processes shall not be
impaired;63
b. The genetic viability on the earth shall not be compromised; the
population levels of all life forms, wild and domesticated, must be at
63
General principle no. 1, UN World Charter for Nature, 48th plenary meeting, 28 October 1982
44
least sufficient for their survival, and to this end necessary habitats
shall be safeguarded;64
c. All areas of the earth, both land and sea shall be subject to these
principles of conservation; special protection shall be given to unique
areas, to representative samples of all the different types of
ecosystems and to the habitats of rare or endangered species;65
d. Ecosystems and organisms, as well as the land, marine and
atmospheric resources that are utilized by man, shall be managed to
achieve and maintain optimum sustainable productivity, but not in
such a way as to endanger the integrity of those other ecosystems or
species with which they coexist.66
146. In order to carry out the above general principles, every signatory
State is required or rather reminded, among others, that:
a. In the decision-making process, it shall be recognized that mans
needs can be met only by ensuring the proper function of natural
systems and by respecting the principles set forth in the present
charter;67
b. In the planning and implementation of social and economic
development activities, due account shall be taken of the fact that
the conservation of nature is an integral part of those activities;68
c. In formulating long-term plans for economic development, population
growth and the improvement of standards of living, due account shall
be taken of the long-term capacity of natural systems to ensure the
subsistence and settlement of the populations concerned, recognizing
that
this
capacity
may
be
enhanced
through
science
and
technology;69 and
d. The allocation of areas of the earth to various uses shall be planned,
and due account shall be taken of the physical constraints, the
biological productivity and diversity and the natural beauty of the
areas concerned.70
147. The Charter further reminded states that activities which might
have an impact on nature shall be controlled, and the best available
64
45
71
46
b.
153. Albeit, the subject oil exploration project that the Philippine
Government has sanctioned has only shown to gravely endanger Your
Petitioners integrity, well-being and existence.
CONCLUDING STATEMENT:
ON EPISTOLARY JURISDICTION AND
HARD LOOK DOCTRINE
154. At the core of this suit are three focal issues: (a) the right of Marine
Mammals to sue through their stewards; (b) the constitutionality of petroleum72
15.5. Governments at the appropriate levels, consistent with national policies and practices, with the
cooperation of the relevant United Nations bodies and, as appropriate, intergovernmental organizatihons
and, with the support of indigenous people and their communities, non-governmental organizations and
other groups, including the business and scientific communities, and consistent with the requirements of
international law, should, as appropriate: (g) Take action where necessary for the conservation of
biological diversity through the in situ conservation of ecosystems and natural habitats, as well as primitive
cultivars and their wild relatives, and the maintenance and recovery of viable populations of species in their
natural surroundings, and implement ex situ measures, preferably in the source country. In situ measures
should include the reinforcement of terrestrial, marine and aquatic protected area systems and embrace,
inter alia, vulnerable freshwater and other wetlands and coastal ecosystems, such as estuaries, coral reefs
and mangroves.
73
A. In-Situ Conservation: Each Contracting Party shall, as far as possible and as appropriate: (d)
Promote the protection of ecosystems, natural habitats and the maintenance of viable populations of species
in natural surroundings;
B. Ex-situ Conservation. Each Contracting Party shall, as far as possible and as appropriate, and
predominantly for the purpose of complementing in-situ measures: (c) Adopt measures for the recovery and
rehabilitation of threatened species and for their reintroduction into their natural habitats under appropriate
conditions
47
related Service Contracts; and (c) the extent of the powers of the Philippine
Courts to inquire into the administrative procedures relating to the
environment.
155. The first issue may be novel at first glance. But looking back at
how man abused his unique position in the order of things on this earth, it now
becomes imperative to grant legal standing unto nature, especially to Your
Petitioners Marine Mammals residents of Taon Strait Protected Seascape to
sue through their stewards who will be affected by their damage or loss.
Lowering the benchmark
In locus standi is an
Exercise of Epistolary
Jurisdiction
156. Relaxing the rules by way granting locus standi to Your Petitioners
through their stewards or representatives is a valid exercise of this Honorable
Courts epistolary jurisdiction. By epistolary jurisdiction, access to judicial
redress may be obtained without a lawyer or even filing of formal papers.
157. The Supreme Court of India blazed the trail. It took the view that
when any member of a public or social organization espoused the cause of the
poor and the downtrodden such member should be permitted to move the
Court even by merely writing a letter without incurring expenditure of his own.
In such a case the letter was regarded as an appropriate proceeding falling
within the purview of Article 32 of the Constitution.74
158. Epistolary jurisdiction is nothing new in this jurisdiction. Very
recently, the Honorable Supreme Court has established its Small Claims Court,
promulgating its epistolary rules of procedure.
Invalidity of Service
Contract No. 46 is already
Settled by this Court
159. The second issue however is chicken75 for the Honorable Court to
deal with as it had already ruled that service contracts which are of the 1973
variety are invalid.76
74
Page xxxiii Compendium on Judicial Decisions Related to Environment, Vol. I, published by the United
Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP), December 1998
75
A street term which means easy
76
La Bugal, supra as restated in Didipio Earth-Savers Multipurpose Assn., Inc., et al. vs. Elisea Gozun,
et al
48
49
166. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of the U.S. mandates
that all Federal agencies "to the fullest extent possible" must provide a
detailed environmental impact statement (EIS).77 From this provision sprung
the so-called doctrine of hard look, where courts consistently hold that at a
minimum, NEPA imposes a duty on Federal agencies to take a hard look at
environmental consequences.78
.
167. Under this doctrine, courts carefully check every EIS for
77
78
42 U.S.C. 4332
Natural Resources Defense Council v. Morton, 458 F.2d 827, 838 (D.C. Cir., 1972)
50
DENR
through
its
statutorily-created
bureau,
the
51