Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 142 views

    GR 180771

    Uploaded by

    Joeford Maxi Offemaria
    The petitioners, resident marine mammals and their human representatives, opposed oil and gas exploration by JAPEX and its logistics contractor SOS in Tañon Strait. SOS filed a motion to be dropped as a respondent since it was only a contractor, not JAPEX's Philippine agent. The petitioners argued against dismissing SOS at this stage. The court considered whether Service Contract No. 46 between the Philippine government and JAPEX for exploration in Tañon Strait violated the 1987 Constitution. The court held that service contracts are still allowed under the Constitution if they promote economic growth and welfare, and local resources are developed. The deletion of "service contracts" from the Constitution did not ban them, but aimed to

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    GR 180771

    Uploaded by

    Joeford Maxi Offemaria
    142 views2 pages
    The petitioners, resident marine mammals and their human representatives, opposed oil and gas exploration by JAPEX and its logistics contractor SOS in Tañon Strait. SOS filed a motion to be dropped as a respondent since it was only a contractor, not JAPEX's Philippine agent. The petitioners argued against dismissing SOS at this stage. The court considered whether Service Contract No. 46 between the Philippine government and JAPEX for exploration in Tañon Strait violated the 1987 Constitution. The court held that service contracts are still allowed under the Constitution if they promote economic growth and welfare, and local resources are developed. The deletion of "service contracts" from the Constitution did not ban them, but aimed to

    Original Description:

    Digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The petitioners, resident marine mammals and their human representatives, opposed oil and gas exploration by JAPEX and its logistics contractor SOS in Tañon Strait. SOS filed a motion to be dropped as a respondent since it was only a contractor, not JAPEX's Philippine agent. The petitioners argued against dismissing SOS at this stage. The court considered whether Service Contract No. 46 between the Philippine government and JAPEX for exploration in Tañon Strait violated the 1987 Constitution. The court held that service contracts are still allowed under the Constitution if they promote economic growth and welfare, and local resources are developed. The deletion of "service contracts" from the Constitution did not ban them, but aimed to

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    142 views2 pages

    GR 180771

    Uploaded by

    Joeford Maxi Offemaria
    The petitioners, resident marine mammals and their human representatives, opposed oil and gas exploration by JAPEX and its logistics contractor SOS in Tañon Strait. SOS filed a motion to be dropped as a respondent since it was only a contractor, not JAPEX's Philippine agent. The petitioners argued against dismissing SOS at this stage. The court considered whether Service Contract No. 46 between the Philippine government and JAPEX for exploration in Tañon Strait violated the 1987 Constitution. The court held that service contracts are still allowed under the Constitution if they promote economic growth and welfare, and local resources are developed. The deletion of "service contracts" from the Constitution did not ban them, but aimed to

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    G.R. No.

    180771               April 21, 2015

    RESIDENT MARINE MAMMALS OF THE PROTECTED SEASCAPE TAÑON STRAIT, e.g.,


    TOOTHED WHALES, DOLPHINS, PORPOISES, AND OTHER CETACEAN SPECIES, Joined in
    and Represented herein by Human Beings Gloria Estenzo Ramos and Rose-Liza Eisma-
    Osorio, In Their Capacity as Legal Guardians of the Lesser Life-Forms and as Responsible
    Stewards of God's Creations, Petitioners,
    vs.
    SECRETARY ANGELO REYES, in his capacity as Secretary of the Department of Energy
    (DOE), SECRETARY JOSE L. ATIENZA, in his capacity as Secretary of the Department of
    Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), LEONARDO R. SIBBALUCA, DENR Regional
    Director-Region VII and in his capacity as Chairperson of the Tañon Strait Protected
    Seascape Management Board, Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR),
    DIRECTOR MALCOLM J. SARMIENTO, JR., BFAR Regional Director for Region VII ANDRES
    M. BOJOS, JAPAN PETROLEUM EXPLORATION CO., LTD. (JAPEX), as represented by its
    Philippine Agent, SUPPLY OILFIELD SERVICES, INC. Respondents.

    Facts:

    The Government of the Philippines, acting through the DOE, entered into a Geophysical Survey and
    Exploration Contract-I 02 (GSEC-102) with JAPEX. This contract involved geological and
    geophysical studies of the Tañon Strait. The studies included surface geology, sample analysis, and
    reprocessing of seismic and magnetic data. JAPEX, assisted by DOE, also conducted geophysical
    and satellite surveys, as well as oil and gas sampling in Tañon Strait.

    SOS filed a Motion to Strike its name as a respondent on the ground that it is not the Philippine
    agent of JAPEX. In support of its motion, it submitted the branch office application of JAPEX,
    wherein the latter's resident agent was clearly identified. SOS claimed that it had acted as a mere
    logistics contractor for JAPEX in its oil and gas exploration activities in the Philippines.

    Petitioners Resident Marine Mammals and Stewards opposed SOS' s motion on the ground that it
    was premature, it was pro-forma, and it was patently dilatory. They claimed that SOS admitted that
    "it is in law privy to JAPEX" since it did the drilling and other exploration activities in Tañon Strait
    under the instructions of its principal, JAPEX. They argued that it would be premature to drop SOS
    as a party as JAPEX had not yet been joined in the case; and that it was "convenient" for SOS to
    ask the Court to simply drop its name from the parties when what it should have done was to either
    notify or ask JAPEX to join it in its motion to enable proper substitution. At this juncture, petitioners
    Resident Marine Mammals and Stewards also asked the Court to" implead JAPEX Philippines as a
    correspondent or as a substitute for its parent company, JAPEX.

    Issue:

    Whether or not Service Contract No. 46 is violative of the 1987 Philippine Constitution And Statutes.
    Held:

    The State shall protect the nation's marine wealth in its archipelagic waters, territorial sea, and
    exclusive economic zone, and reserve its use and enjoyment exclusively to Filipino citizens. The
    Congress may, by law, allow small-scale utilization of natural resources by Filipino citizens, as well
    as cooperative fish farming, with priority to subsistence fishermen and fish workers in rivers, lakes,
    bays, and lagoons.

    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.

    The Court has previously settled the issue of whether service contracts are still allowed under the
    1987 Constitution. The Court held that the deletion of the words "service contracts" in the 1987
    Constitution did not amount to a ban on them per se. In fact, in that decision, we quoted in length,
    portions of the deliberations of the members of the Constitutional Commission to show that in
    deliberating on paragraph 4, Section 2, Article XII, they were actually referring to service contracts
    as understood in the 1973 Constitution, albeit with safety measures to eliminate or minimize the
    abuses prevalent during the martial law regime, to wit: Summation of the

    You might also like