Resident Marine Mammals of the Protected Seascape Tanon Strait vs. Sec. Angelo Reyes(Sec. of DOE) .R. .R. !o !o. "#$ "#$%% %%" "
April pril &"' &"' &$" &$"
Overview: This
is a novel case recently decided by the Supreme Court where a suit was fled fled by resid resident ent marine marine mammals, mammals, like whales, whales, dolphi dolphins, ns, etc. etc. in order order to preve prevent nt the explo explorat ration ion,, develo developme pment nt and exploi exploitat tation ion o petro petroleu leum m resour resources ces within Tanon Strait, a narrow passage o water situated between the islands o Negros and Cebu. ne o the basic !uestions is whether they have the capacity to sue or otherwise known in constitutional law as locus standi. Stewards " are natural persons who are considered as the legal guardians and riends o the animals.
A*TS+ This case arose when #$ and %apan &etroleum $xploration Co. 'td. (%)&$*+ entered into an agreement or the exploration, development and production o petroleum resources at the oshore o Tanon Strait. The -esident arine ammals, through the Stewards, /claimed0 that they have the legal standing to fle this action since they stand to be benefted or in1ured by the 1udgment in this suit. Citing posa v. 2actoran, %r., %r., they also asserted their right to sue or the aithul perormance o international and municipal environmental laws created in their avor and or their beneft. 3n this regard, they propounded that they have the right to demand that they be accorded the benefts granted to them in multilateral international instruments that the &hilippine 4overnment had signed, under the concept o stipulation pour autrui. The Stewards contended that there should be no !uestion o their right to represent the -esident arine ammals as they have stakes in the case as orerunners o a campaign to build awareness among the aected residents o Ta5on Strait and as stewards o the environment since the primary steward, the 4overnment, had ailed in its duty to protect the environment pursuant to the public trust doctrine. They also contended that the Court may lower the benchmark in locus standi st andi as an exercise exercise o epistolary 1urisdiction. &ublic respondents argued that the -esident arine ammals have no standing because Section 6, -ule 7 o the -ules o Court re!uires parties to an action to be either natural or 1uridical persons. They also contested the applicability o posa, pointing out that the petitioners therein were all natural persons, albeit some o them were still unborn.
)s regards the Stewards, the public respondents likewise challenged their claim o legal standing on the ground that they are representing animals, which cannot be parties to an action. oreover, the public respondents argued that the Stewards are not the real parties8in8interest or their ailure to show how they stand to be benefted or in1ured by the decision in this case. Since the petition was not brought in the name o a real party8in8interest, it should be dismissed or ailure to state a cause o action. R,-!+ -uling in avor o the petitioners. The Supreme Court held that inanimate ob1ects are sometimes parties in litigation. ) ship has a legal personality, a fction ound useul or maritime purposes. The corporation sole 8 a creature o ecclesiastical law 8 is an acceptable adversary and large ortunes ride on its cases. The ordinary corporation is a /person0 or purposes o the ad1udicatory processes, whether it represents proprietary, spiritual, aesthetic, or charitable causes. So it should be as respects valleys, alpine meadows, rivers, lakes, estuaries, beaches, ridges, groves o trees, swampland, or even air that eels the destructive pressures o modern technology and modem lie. The river, or example, is the living symbol o all the lie it sustains or nourishes9fsh, a!uatic insects, water ou:els, otter, fsher, deer, elk, bear, and all other animals, including man, who are dependent on it or who en1oy it or its sight, its sound, or its lie. The river as plainti speaks or the ecological unit o lie that is part o it. Those people who have a meaningul relation to that body o water9whether it be a fsherman, a canoeist, a :oologist, or a logger9must be able to speak or the values which the river represents and which are threatened with destruction. The primary reason animal rights advocates and environmentalists seek to give animals and inanimate ob1ects standing is due to the need to comply with the strict re!uirements in bringing a suit to court. ur own 6;;< -ules o Court demand that parties to a suit be either natural or 1uridical persons, or entities authori:ed by law. 3t urther necessitates the action to be brought in the name o the real party8in8 interest, even i fled by a representative, vi:.= )lthough this petition was fled in >??<, years beore the eectivity o the -ules o &rocedure or $nvironmental Cases, it has been consistently held that rules o procedure /may be retroactively applied to actions pending and undetermined at the time o their passage and will not violate any right o a person who may eel that he is adversely aected, inasmuch as there is no vested rights in rules o procedure.0 $lucidating on this doctrine, the Court, in Systems 2actors Corporation v. National 'abor -elations Commission (7;; &hil. <>6 (>???+ held that=
/-emedial statutes or statutes relating to remedies or modes o procedure, which do not create new or take away vested rights, but only operate in urtherance o the remedy or confrmation o rights already existing, do not come within the legal conception o a retroactive law, or the general rule against retroactive operation o statutes. Statutes regulating the procedure o the courts will be construed as applicable to actions pending and undetermined at the time o their passage. &rocedural laws are retroactive in that sense and to that extent.0 oreover, even beore the -ules o &rocedure or $nvironmental Cases became eective, the Court had already taken a permissive position on the issue o locus standi in environmental cases. 3n posa, the Court allowed the suit to be brought in the name o generations yet unborn /based on the concept o intergenerational responsibility insoar as the right to a balanced and healthul ecology is concerned.0 2urthermore, the right to a balanced and healthul ecology, a right that does not even need to be stated in our Constitution as it is assumed to exist rom the inception o humankind, carries with it the correlative duty to rerain rom impairing the environment. 3n light o the oregoing, the need to give the -esident arine ammals legal standing has been eliminated by our -ules, which allow any 2ilipino citi:en, as a steward o nature, to bring a suit to enorce our environmental laws. 3t is worth noting here that the Stewards are 1oined as real parties in the &etition and not 1ust in representation o the named cetacean species. The Stewards, -amos and $isma8 sorio, having shown in their petition that there may be possible violations o laws concerning the habitat o the -esident arine ammals, are thereore declared to possess the legal standing to fle this petition.
