|
SAYING
that the case was prematurely filed, the Court of
Appeals (CA) has dismissed the petition filed by a group
of taxpayers seeking to declare as unconstitutional
Executive Order (EO) 683 allocating the P6-billion share
of Palawan, from the Camago-Malampaya oil and natural
gas project as part of the pork barrel of the governor
and the two congressmen of the province.
In a
seven-page decision penned by Associate Justice Rebecca
de Guia-Salvador, the CA’s Eleventh Division also noted
that the petition filed by Bishop Pedro Dulay Arigo,
Cesar Sarino, Jose Antonio Socrates and lawyer Harry
Roque is anchored on the same facts and issues raised in
GR 170867, a petition for review pending before the
Supreme Court.
The said
petition for review seeks the reversal of the December
16, 2005, decision rendered by Branch 95 of the Regional
Trial Court in Puerto Princesa, Palawan, declaring that
the province of Palawan is entitled to 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 GR 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 GR 170867 is still up for adjudication
before the Supreme Court,” the CA said.
Furthermore, the appellate court explained 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 (PIA) is dependent
on the final resolution of GR 170867.
A ruling
on the issue, according to the CA, would also be
tantamount to a “collateral adjudication” of the
archipelagic baseline considering 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.
“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 8 of the
Constitution,” the CA stressed.
The CA
also dismissed the petition owing to the failure of the
petitioners to attach 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 GR 170867, the PIA, and Service Contract
(SC) 38.
In their
petition, the petitioners asked the appellate court to
nullify EO 683, titled “Authorizing the Use of Fees,
Revenues and Receipts from Service Contract 38 for the
Implementation of Development Projects for the People of
Palawan” issued by President Arroyo on December 1, 2007.
Named
respondents in the case were Executive Secretary Eduardo
Ermita, Energy Secretary Angelo Reyes, Finance Secretary
Margarito Teves, Budget Secretary Rolando Andaya,
Palawan Gov. Joel Reyes, Kabalikat ng Malayang Pilipino
Rep. Antonio Alvarez of Palawan, Nationalist People’s
Coalition Rep. Abraham Mitra of Palawan and Rafael del
Pilar, president and chief executive of the Philippine
National Oil Co.,-Exploration Corp.
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 located about 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 government
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 km
from the coastline of Palawan and is thus outside its
territorial jurisdiction.
Negotiations ensued resulting in the issuance of EO 683
with a PIA that would allow 50 percent of the disputed
40 percent in the net government share in the proceeds
of SC 38 to be utilized for development projects in the
province.
The suit
seeks to prohibit the disbursement following the EO and
urges the appellate court to “declare it illegal for
being a violation of the Local Government Code and the
1987 Constitution and made in grave abuse of discretion
amounting to a lack of jurisdiction.”
“In EO
683, what the government wants to do really is a
realignment of funds, which is a violation of the
Constitution. For in usual budgeting procedures of
Congress, the share from the national wealth is included
in the appropriation for ‘allocation to local
governments’ which is classified as a mandatory
obligation of the national government to the local
government and automatically released to the local
government in accordance with Section 29 of Republic Act
7160, otherwise known as the Local Government Code,” the
petitioners said.
The
petitioners noted that the PIA illegally grants the
governor and the representatives from
Palawan’s two congressional districts a huge pork barrel, which is larger than
the allocation of pork barrel for all members of the
House of Representatives’ appropriations. |
