Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Remedial Law
Issue 1: W/N the Resident Marine Mammals, or animals in general, have
standing as the real party-in-interests in this suit
Yes. The Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases allows filing of a citizens
suit. A citizens suit under this rule allows any Filipino citizen to file an action for
the enforcement of environmental law on behalf of minors or generations yet
unborn. It is essentially a representative suit that allows persons who
are not real parties in interest to institute actions on behalf of the real party in
interest.
Dissent
Issue 2: W/N the name of former President Arroyo impleaded in the petition as
an unwilling co-plaintiff is proper
No. The name of Pres Arroyo as an unwilling plaintiff impleaded in the petition
should be stricken from the title of the case.
First, under Rule 3, Sec 10 of the ROC, when the consent of a party who should
be joined as plaintiff cannot be obtained, he or she may be made a
party defendant. This will put the unwilling party under the jurisdiction of the
court, which may properly implead him or her through its processes. The
unwilling partys name cannot be simply included in the petition without her
knowledge or consent, as this would be a denial of due process.
Second, impleading the former President for an act she made in performance of
the functions of her office is contrary to the public policy against embroiling
Presidents in suits.
Political Law
Issue 3: W/N service contracts are no longer allowed by the 1987 Constitution
No. As settled in the La Bugal case, the deletion of the words service contracts
in the 1987 Constitution did not amount to a ban on them per se. In fact, the
deliberations of the members of the Constitutional Commission show that in
deliberating on Art XII Sec 2(4), they were actually referring to service contracts
as understood in the 1973 Constitution. The framers, in short, used the term
service contracts in referring to agreements involving technical or financial
assistance.
Relevant La
Resident Marine Mammals of the Protected Seascape
The Court then held that while SC-46 was authorized Presidential
Decree No. 87 on oil extraction, the contract did not fulfill two
additional constitutional requirements. Section 2 Article XII of the
1987 Constitution requires a service contract for oil exploration and
extraction to be signed by the president and reported to congress.
Because the JAPEX contract was executed solely by the Energy
Secretary, and not reported to the Philippine congress, the Court
held that it was unconstitutional. Id., pp. 24-25.
In addition, the Court also ruled that the contract violated the
National Integrated Protected Areas System Act of 1992 (NIPAS Act),
which generally prohibits exploitation of natural resources in
protected areas. In order to explore for resources in a protected
area, the exploration must be performed in accordance with an
environmental impact assessment (EIA). The Court noted that JAPEX
started the seismic surveys before any EIA was performed; therefore
its activity was unlawful. Id., pp. 33-34. Furthermore, the Tanon
Strait is a NIPAS area, and exploration and utilization of energy
resources can only be authorized through a law passed by the
Philippine Congress. Because Congress had not specifically
authorized the activity in Taon Strait, the Court declared that no
energy exploration should be permitted in that area. Id., p. 34.