SC declares unconstitutional 2005 joint deal among PH, China, Vietnam on oil exploration


Supreme Court (SC)

The Supreme Court (SC) on Tuesday, Jan. 10, declared void and unconstitutional the 2005 Tripartite Agreement for Joint Marine Seismic Undertaking (JMSU) among China National Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC), Vietnam Oil and Gas Corporation (PETROVIETNAM), and Philippine National Oil Company (PNOC) on 142,886 square kilometers in the South China Sea.

In a decision handed down in Baguio City during its full court session, the SC’s public information office (PIO) said the High Court ruled the JMSU ruled the JMSU unconstitutional “for allowing wholly-owned foreign corporations to participate in the exploration of the country’s natural resources without observing the safeguards provided in Section 2, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution.”

A copy of the full court decision, written by Associate Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan, was not immediately available. The PIO released the summary of the ruling.

The JMSU was questioned before the SC in 2008 by a group of then Bayan Muna Party-List Reps. Neri Colmenares, Satur C. Ocampo and Teodoro A. Casino.

They told the SC the JMSU violated Section 2, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution which mandates that “the exploration, development, and utilization (EDU) of natural resources shall be under the full control and supervision of the State.”

They also pointed out that the tripartite agreement “was illegal as it allowed foreign corporations wholly-owned by China and Vietnam to undertake largescale exploration of the country’s petroleum resources, in violation of the Constitutional provision which reserves the EDU of natural resources to Filipino citizens, or corporations or associations at least sixty (60%) percent of whose capital is owned by such citizens.”

The government at that time countered that Section 2, Article XII of the Constitution was inapplicable as the said provision contemplates EDU of natural resources, whereas the JMSU only involves pre-exploration activities.

In resolving the issue, the PIO said that the SC noted that the term “exploration” pertains to a search or discovery of something in both its ordinary or technical sense, but the JMSU “involves the exploration of the country’s natural resources, particularly petroleum.”

It said the court also cited the text of the fifth whereas clause of the JMSU, which states the “Parties expressed desire to engage in a joint research of petroleum resource potential of a certain area of the South China Sea as a pre-exploration activity.”

Thus, the SC said, “it is clear that the JMSU was executed for the purpose of determining if petroleum exists in the Agreement Area,” the PIO also said.

“That the Parties designated the joint research as a ‘pre-exploration activity’ is of no moment. Such designation does not detract from the fact that the intent and aim of the agreement is to discover petroleum which is tantamount to exploration,” it also said quoting from the decision.

It said the SC also held that the “JMSU involves the exploration of the country’s petroleum resources; it falls within the ambit of Section 2, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution.”

Chief Justice Alexander G. Gesmundo, and 10 other justices concurred in the decision. Associate Justices Amy C. Lazaro-Javier and Rodil V. Zalameda dissented, while Associate Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando was on leave and did not take part.

The SC’s PIO said a copy of the decision would be made public as soon as it is available.

TAGS: #SC #JMSU #Exploration of natural resources