THE Supreme Court (SC) has unanimously declared constitutional a provision in Republic Act (RA) 9483 that compels operators of petroleum tankers and barges to pay a 10-centavo levy per liter for every delivery and transshipments of oil from storage facility to its point of destination. It would cover damage to property, containment, cleanup and rehabilitation in case of oil spills.
In a 35-page decision, penned by now-retired Associate Justice Presbitero J. Velasco Jr., the Court en banc reversed and set aside the decision issued by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Quezon City on February 22, 2017, which declared as unconstitutional Section 22 of RA 9483, as well as Section 1, Rule X of its implementing rules and regulations (IRR).
The law imposes a 10-centavo levy per liter for every delivery and transshipment of oil, which will go to the Oil Pollution Management Fund (OPMF), which will be used for the immediate containment, removal and cleanup operations of the Philippine Coast Guard (PCG) in all pollution cases.
The fund will also be used in the research, enforcement and monitoring activities of relevant agencies, such as the PCG, Maritime Industry Authority and Philippine Ports Authority, and other ports authority of the Department of Transportation (DOTr), Environmental Management Bureau of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources and the Department of Energy.
The case before the QC RTC was filed by petroleum marine and transport companies namely the Philippine Petroleum Sea Transport Association, Herma Shipping and Transport Corp., Islas Tankers Sea Transport Corp., MIS Maritime Corp., Petrolift Inc., Golden Albatross Shipping Corp., Via Marine Corp. and Cargomarine Corp.
The QC RTC gave weight to their arguments that the obligation to contribute to the OPMF solely imposed on the owners and operators of oil/petroleum tankers and barges violates their right to equal protection of the law.
It added that the 10-centavo levy is confiscatory, thus, violates their right to due process.
In reversing the lower court’s decision, the SC agreed with the contention of the petitioners—PCG, Marina and the DOTr—that public interest in protecting the marine wealth of the country warrants the imposition of the 10-centavo levy.
“Indeed, by employing preventive and/or immediate containment measures or response techniques, the State is but affording protection to persons or all stakeholders who stand to suffer from oil-pollution incidents—the main thrust of the conventions that is now effectively translated and implemented in Section 22 [a] of RA 9483 and its IRR,” the Court ruled.
“In other words, by creating the OPMF, Congress sought to ensure that our enforcement agencies are capable of protecting our marine wealth and preventing harm from being caused to the people and their livelihood by reason of these unfortunate events. Time is of the essence when it comes to oil-spill response,” it added.
Likewise, the Court dismissed the claim of petroleum marine and transport companies that the assailed provisions violate the equal protection guarantee in singling out “owners and operators of oil or petroleum tankers and barges.”
The respondent companies claimed that since all vessels plying the Philippine waters are susceptible to accidents, which may cause oil spills, all should be made to contribute to the OPMF.
But the SC pointed out that while all vessels, channels and storage facilities that carry or store oil are capable of causing oil pollution, this does not make them “similarly situated within the context of the equal-protection clause.”
Besides the difference in the purposes behind their existence and navigation, the SC noted that it is internationally well recognized that oil tankers pose a greater risk to the environment and to people.
“In the instant case, we agree with petitioners that separating ‘tankers and barges hauling oil and for petroleum products in Philippine waterways and coastwise shipping routes’ from other sea-borne vessels does not violate the equal-protection clause,” the SC explained.
Furthermore, the SC ruled that the imposition of the 10-centavo impost does not violate the constitutional provision against deprivation of property without due process.
The High Court said the respondents merely provided computations of their losses to prove that their businesses would suffer due to the imposition of a 10-centavo levy.
“It would be improper to declare an imposition as unlawful or unconstitutional on the basis of purely hypothetical and unsubstantiated computations,” the Court said.