G.R. No. 246209 - Separate Opinion




G.R. No. 246209, September 3, 2019, ♦ Decision, Leonen, [J] ♦ Separate Opinion, Peralta, [J] ♦ Separate Opinion, Jardeleza, [J] [ G.R. No. 246209, September 03, 2019 ] MONICO A. ABOGADO, ROBERTO M. ASIADO, LARRY HUGO, ANGELO SADANG, NONELON BALBONTIN, SALITO LAGROSA, ARZEL BELIDAN, RONALD GRANDIA, TROY LAGROSA, RONEL BADILLA, ARCHIE GARCIANO, REGIDOR ASIADO, ELY LOPEZ, EXPEDITO MAGDAYAO, RENY MAGBANUA, ROMULO CANA, JR., ROGELIO HINGPIT, JONEL HUGO, ROBERT VALDEZ, RIZEN GALVAN, RICARDO NATURAL, SANNY BELIDAN, ROWEL P. EJONA, FELIX ULZON, RAFFY M. ASIADO, PRIMO M. ASIADO, ADRIAN P. ABAYAN, RANDY DACUMOS, DANILO BELONO, ROMEO MALAGUIT, DENNIS BANIA, JASON VILLAMOR, GARY CASTILLOS, ALBERTO SONIO, DOLIE DUSONG, BJ PIRING AND JING MALINAO (COLLECTIVELY KNOWN AS THE "KALAYAAN PALAWAN FARMERS AND FISHERFOLK ASSOCIATION"), NILO LABRADOR, W1LFREDO LABANDELO AND ROLANDO LABANDELO, AND INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONERS, VS. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY HON. ROY A. CIMATU, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY HON. EMMANUEL PIÑOL, BUREAU OF FISHERIES AND AQUATIC RESOURCES, REPRESENTED BY NATIONAL DIRECTOR HON. EDUARDO B. GONGONA, PHILIPPINE NAVY, REPRESENTED BY FLAG OFFICER IN COMMAND HON. VADM ROBERT EMPEDRAD, PN, PHILIPPINE COAST GUARD, REPRESENTED BY COMMANDANT HON. ADMIRAL ELSON E. HERMOGINO, PCG, PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF HON. PDG. OSCAR ALBAYALDE, PNP MARITIME GROUP, REPRESENTED BY DIRECTOR HON. PCSUPT RODELIO B. JOCSON, AND DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY HON. MENARDO I. GUEVARRA, RESPONDENTS. SEPARATE OPINION JARDELEZA, J.: Petitioners come to this Court seeking, the issuance of writs of kalikasan and continuing mandamus against agencies of the Philippine government.ℒαwρhi৷ They claim, among their causes of action, violations by China of environmental law within the Philippine exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Petitioners invoke factual findings made by the Arbitral Tribunal in the Award it issued in PCA Case No. 2013-19, entitled "Republic of the Philippines v. The People's Republic of China," a case filed by the Philippine Government concerning the interpretation and application of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). The Arbitral Award is an undeniably unanimous,1 historic, and sweeping victory,2 not only for the government but also for the Filipino people. It has become an enduring part of international law, clarifying, as it did, important aspects of the UNCLOS, such as the nature of the maritime entitlements provided therein and the limits of their lawful exercise. Unfortunately, however, there is no international law enforcer or sheriff who can compel China to comply with the Arbitral Award. Such is a limitation of international law which makes enforcement of international law obligations, in general, and international awards, much like the one issued in our country's favor, in particular, a genuine challenge. There are nevertheless a number of ways by which one can attempt to enforce international law obligations.3 It is my view that the case brought before Us now is an attempt on the part of petitioners to enforce compliance with the Arbitral Award, this time, through the use of domestic environmental laws. Specifically, petitioners, on the strength of the findings of violations of environmental laws within the Philippine's EEZ as set forth in the arbitral award,4 seek the issuance of writs of kalikasan and continuing mandamus to enjoin respondents-government agencies to comply with their duties to protect and preserve the marine environment, as allegedly provided under the provisions of Republic Act No. 8550, or the Philippine Fisheries Code of 1998, as amended.5 As it turns out, petitioners decided to withdraw the action they filed. I concur with the majority in granting the motion to withdraw petition and considering the case dismissed without passing upon any of the issues raised.6 I submit this Opinion, however, to remind that the ponencia's pronouncement that "[b]efore any private parties or public interest groups proceed with the case, they must already be ready with the evidence necessary for the determination of [the writ's] issuance"7 should be read in light of the Court's ruling in Gios-Samar, Inc. v. Department of Transportation and Communication.8 While the Court shares original and concurrent jurisdiction with the Courc of Appeals (over actions seeking the issuance of writs of kalikasan and continuing mandamus) and the Regional Trial Courts (for petitions for writs of continuing mandamus only), petitioners must still observe the rule on hierarchy of courts and seek immediate resort with this Court only to resolve pure questions of law. As this case demonstrates, a proceeding for the issuance of writs of kalikasan and continuing mandamus necessarily involves the evaluation of evidence and resolution of factual questions which this Court is not wont to undertake. To reiterate, this Court is not a trier of facts. We are unsuited to receive and evaluate evidence in the first instance; these are the primary functions of the lower courts or regulatory agencies. Thus, and unless the questions involved are purely legal in nature, the doctrine of hierarchy of courts should be observed. To my mind, due process considerations, at the very least, demand that such matters be first and fully presented before a trier of fact, fully equipped to receive and evaluate evidence in the first instance. Footnotes 1 See Permanent Court Arbitration Press Release, July 12, 2016 (visited July 9, 2019); Panda, International Court Issues Unanimous Award in Philippines v. China Case on South China Sea, July 12,- 2016 (visited July 9, 2019). 2 See Perlez, Tribunal Rejects Beijing's Claims in South China Sea, July 12, 2016 (visited July 9, 2019); Graham, The Hague Tribunal's South China Sea Ruling: Empty Provocation or Slow-Burning Influence? August 18, 2016 (visited July 9, 2019). 3 Legal remedies may include (1) filing by affected States of a case with the International Court of Justice (ICJ) or under other modes of dispute settlement provided in any or all of the erring State's treaty obligations (such as in this case, UNCLOS), (2) invocation, through diplomatic action or other peaceful means, of the responsibility of another State for an injury caused by an internationally wrongful act to a natural or legal person that is a national of that State (see Art. 1, Part 1, Draft Articles on Diplomatic Protection, 2006), and (3) those provided under human rights mechanisms before regional courts such as the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and the African Court, among others. 4 Petition for the issuance of the writ of kalikasan and the writ of continuing mandamus, p. 5. 5 Id. 6 Ponencia, p. 30. 7 Id. at 18. 8 G.R. No. 217158, March 12, 2019. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation