|
THE Court of Appeals (CA) has junked a petition
seeking to declare as unconstitutional Executive Order (EO) No. 683,
allocating the 40-percent share of Palawan from the proceeds of the
Camago-Malampaya oil and gas fields project as part of the “pork
barrel” funds of the governor and two congressmen of the province.
EO 683, issued by the Office of
the President on December 1, 2007, is entitled Authorizing the Use
of Fees, Revenues and Receipts from Service Contract No. 38 for the
Implementation of Development Projects for the People of Palawan.
The President, in signing EO 683,
had earlier said that the funds intended for the province must be
utilized “for the immediate and effective implementation of
development projects for the people of Palawan.”
The CA’s 11th Division, in a
seven-page resolution penned by Associate Justice Rebecca de Guia-Salvador,
said that the petition merits outright dismissal because of
procedural lapses that the court finds “unacceptable.”
The CA also pointed out that the
petition is based on the same facts and issues raised in G.R. No.
170867, a petition for review now pending before the Supreme Court.
Palawan Bishop Pedro Dulay Arigo,
Cesar N. Sarino, Dr. Jose Antonio N. Socrates and Prof. Harry Roque
filed the petition.
Named as respondents were
Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita, Energy Secretary Angelo Reyes,
Finance Secretary Margarito Teves Jr., Budget Secretary Rolando
Andaya, Palawan, Gov. Joel Reyes, Rep. Antonio Alvarez (First
District, Palawan), Rep. Abraham Mitra (Second District, Palawan)
and Rafael del Pilar, president and chief executive of the
Philippine National Oil Corp.-Exploration Corp.
The petition for review seeks the
reversal of the December 16, 2005 decision rendered by the Regional
Trial Court Branch 95 of Puerto Princesa City, Palawan, declaring
that the province of Palawan is entitled to the 40-percent share of
the national wealth, computed based on revenues generated from the
Camago-Malampaya natural gas project since October 16, 2001.
“Because the issue which
inextricably links the instant petition and G.R. No. 170867 is
whether the Camago-Malampaya natural gas reservoir is within the
territorial jurisdiction of Palawan forms part of the national
territory of the Philippines, it would be premature for the Court to
rule on this case when G.R. No. 170867 is still up for adjudication
before the Supreme Court,” the CA pointed out.
The CA also stressed that the
interim undertaking between the national government and the province
of Palawan to grant the latter a 50-percent share of the disputed 40
percent from the proceeds of the Camago-Malampaya project under the
terms of the Provisional Implementation Agreement is dependent on
the final resolution of G.R. No. 170867.
The CA also takes into
consideration the ongoing efforts of both the legislative and
executive departments to arrive at a common position in redefining
the country’s baseline in the light of the United Nations
Convention on the Law of the Sea, saying that issuing a ruling now
would also be tantamount to a “collateral adjudication” of the
archipelagic baseline.
“The task of defining the
baseline involves policy determination; accordingly, ample
opportunity must be accorded the legislative and executive
departments to forge a policy concensus, and to implement them
before the courts may intervene under the expanded concept of
judicial power in Section 1, Article VIII of the Constitution,” it
said.
The CA also junked the petition
due to the failure of the group to include relevant pleadings and
other important documents to support the allegations of the
petitions such as a copy of the petition for review on certiorari in
G.R. No. 170867, the PIA, and the Service Contract No. 38.
Records showed that the
Department of Energy entered into a service contract with Shell
Philippines Exploration BV and Occidental Philippines on December
11, 1990 for the exclusive contract of petroleum operations in the
area.
The exploration led to the
drilling of the Camago-Malampaya natural gas reservoir which is
located 80 kilometers from the coastline of Palawan in the South
China Sea with projected revenues of approximately $8 billion to $10
billion for the government.
But a dispute arose between the
local and national governments over the share of proceeds for the
gas project.
The Palawan government had
asserted its claim over a 40-percent share of the proceeds, based on
the 1991 Local Government Code.
But the national government said
Palawan’s claim was unfounded because the natural gas reservoir is
approximately 80 kilometers from the coastline of Palawan and is
thus outside its territorial jurisdiction.
--William B. Depasupil
|
