The significance of the Tañon Strait Ruling

The day before Earth Day in April this year, the Supreme Court (SC) announced its much-awaited ruling on the seismic survey and oil drilling in Tañon Strait Protected Seascape (TSPS).

In December, 2007, twin cases were filed by the displaced fisherfolk, in their personal and representative capacities, the Central Visayas Fisherfolk Development Center (FIDEC), a nongovernment organization, and the resident marine mammals in TSPS, represented by Liza Osorio and this columnist, against government and the oil exploration company, as respondents, for their obstinate refusal to stop an oil drilling in the protected seascape, on the grounds of violation of the Constitution, our national laws and international conventions, among other issues raised

Japex, the drilling company, declared on its website that it was withdrawing from the area in May 2008 and it did. But, we did not withdraw the case as we wanted the SC to rule on the issues we raised.

The victory plus the prevailing issues still facing TSPS, triggered a reunion recently among the stalwarts of the Save Tañon Strait Citizens Movement (STSCM) with coworkers from Oceana which is prioritizing the enforcement of laws in the protected area.

We recalled with pride the heady days in 2007 and thereafter when fisherfolk and citizens fought together, despite the odds, to have their voices heard to protect TSPS.

The citizens’ passion was our principal strength. The relentless coverage of the controversy from media mainstreamed it in the public consciousness.

We were very positive and we never even thought of money to sustain the movement.

The mind-set of giving-what-we-can-share (the “We” rather than the “Me”) prevailed. This allowed us to explore, innovate and reach new heights we never thought we could attain had we done it alone.

Personalities from the fields of Law, natural and social sciences, economics and governance, students, fisherfolks, NGO workers and citizens converged to assert that precious right to a healthy environment and right to life that Government, as duty holder, should never forget has the principal responsibility to uphold and promote.

As the Tañon Ruling was not immediately posted in the SC website, we, as petitioners-cum-stewards of the resident marine mammals in Tañon Strait, waited awhile until we were finally able to read the ruling penned by SC Justice Leonardo-de Castro, only a few days ago.

The judgment is doubly significant as it applies not only to TSPS but to all protected areas as well as all service contracts that Government has and will enter into regarding oil exploration. It also declared that the world-acclaimed Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases (Rules) promulgated in April 13, 2010, over two years, after the cases were filed, can be given retroactive application as there is “no vested rights in rules of procedure.”

On the procedural aspect, the SC ruled that:

1. Despite the withdrawal of Japex, the cases could not be dismissed for being “moot and academic” as the  issues raised by petitioners refer to infringement of the Constitution, involve public interest as environment and livelihood are such, and the respondents’ action are capable of repetition.

2. The locus standi or standing to sue of the whales and dolphins was not allowed, but the resident marine mammals case prospered as they were represented by citizens, which under our jurisdiction are allowed to bring a citizen suit. The ruling highlighted the citizen suit provision under the Rules,  and the SC commentary that the citizen suit provision “liberalizes standing for all cases filed enforcing environmental laws and collapses the traditional rule on personal and direct interest, on the principle that humans are stewards of nature.”

On the substantive issue on the legality of the service contracts, the SC declared it invalid, as it did not comply with the provisions of the Constitution.

The President herself should have signed the contract and regular reports made to Congress, which did not happen. These two conditions, if not done in other service contracts, as required by the Constitution, cannot be dispensed with and make them vulnerable to suits.

The Court held that, in addition, our national laws, notably those on Environmental Impact Assessment System and the National Integrated Protected Area System, were not complied with by respondents before implementation of the seismic survey.

I could not help but be struck by the portion in the SC decision where the respondents referred to the BFAR fish catch data showing fishing decline in Tañon Strait  “started in the 1970s due to destructive fishing practices.”

The precautionary principle is quite material to show that further destruction of the marine ecosystems through offshore drilling and other destructive projects such as reclamation will further aggravate the already precarious condition in the protected seascape.

The Tañon Ruling is a categorical statement by the judiciary that  environmental protection is a primordial duty of the State that must never be compromised.

Therefore, the Constitution and the national laws which contain safeguards to protect it should be complied with by government agencies tasked to implement them.

It is definitely a boost to the enforcers who are serious and earnest in their desire to fulfill the functions of their office. It is inspiring to us who care for our unique natural heritage and our people’s quality of life.