‘No basis to void exploration deal with China, Vietnam’

Two Supreme Court (SC) justices dissented with the majority opinion that the 2005 tripartite agreement for the Joint Marine Seismic Undertaking (JMSU) signed by the Philippine government with China and Vietnam was unconstitutional.

In their dissenting opinions, Associate Justices Amy Lazaro-Javier and Rodil Zalameda noted that there is no factual basis to void the petroleum exploration deal entered into by the Philippines during the presidency of Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.

The SC en bank voted 12-2-1 to declare as unconstitutional the agreement among China National Offshore Oil Corp. (CNOOC), Vietnam Oil and Gas Corp. (Petrovietnam) and the Philippine National Oil Co. (PNOC) for petroleum exploration in a 142,886-square-kilometer area within the country’s exclusive economic zone (EEZ).

In the ponencia decision penned by Associate Justice Samuel Gaerlan, the high court voided the deal for violating the constitutional provision against allowing foreign corporations to exploit the country’s natural resources, which reserves this right to Filipino citizens or corporations with at least 60 percent Filipino ownership.

The agreement covered six islands claimed and occupied by the Philippines in the Spratlys such as Pag-Asa Island, Likas Island, Lawak Island, Kota Island, Patag Island and Panata Island. The deal lapsed in 2008 amid the controversy.

In her opinion, Lazaro-Javier pointed out that the petitioners went straight to the SC without going to the trial courts to secure a true copy of the JMSU, a mere photocopy of which was provided to the court, and the official map of the area to be explored, which was not provided to petitioners because of the deal’s confidentiality clause.

In the absence of these documents, the ponencia supplied facts in the case, which is outside the mandate of the highest court in the land, Javier added. For one, the ponencia accepted an unofficial map submitted by petitioners and constructed using coordinates mentioned in a certain online news article.

“Petitioners bear the burden of proving facts. This Court does not unearth the facts for them. Much less should we supply the facts to give substance to their petition,” Lazaro-Javier said, noting that the majority decision was based on “hearsay statements that favor only the petitioners.”