EN BANC
G.R. No. 230107, July 24, 2018
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (DOTR), MARITIME INDUSTRY AUTHORITY (MARINA), AND PHILIPPINE COAST GUARD (PCG), Petitioners, v. PHILIPPINE PETROLEUM SEA TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION, HERMA SHIPPING TRANSPORT CORPORATION, ISLAS TANKERS SEATRANSPORT CORPORATION, MIS MARITIME CORPORATION, PETROLIFT, INC., GOLDEN ALBATROSS SHIPPING CORPORATION, VIA MARINE CORPORATION, AND CARGOMARINE CORPORATION, Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
VELASCO JR., J.:
SEC. 22. Oil Pollution Management Fund. - An Oil Pollution Management Fund (OPMF) to be administered by the MARINA is hereby established. Said Fund shall be constituted from:Nine years later, or on April 12, 2016, the IRR of RA 9483 was promulgated, with Section 1, Rule thereof implementing the questioned Section 22 of RA 9483. It states:
(a) Contributions of Owners and operators of tankers and barges hauling Oil and for petroleum products in Philippine waterways and coast wise shipping routes. During its first year of existence, the Fund shall be constituted by an impost of ten centavos (10c) per liter for every delivery or transshipment of Oil made by tanker barges and tanker haulers. For the succeeding fiscal years, the amount of contribution shall be jointly determined by Marina, other concerned government agencies, and representatives from the Owners of tankers barges, tankers haulers, and Ship hauling Oil and/or petroleum products. In determining the amount of contribution, the purposes for which the fund was set up shall always be considered; and
(b) Fines imposed pursuant to this Act, grants, donations, endowment from various sources, domestic or foreign, and amounts specifically appropriated for OPMF under the annual General Appropriations Act.
The Fund shall be used to finance the following activities:
(a) Immediate containment, removal and clean-up operations of the PCG in all Oil pollution cases, whether covered by this Act or not; and
(b) Research, enforcement and monitoring activities of relevant agencies such as the PCG, MARINA and PPA, and other ports authority of the DOTC, Environmental Management Bureau of the DENR, and the DOE: Provided, That ninety percent (90%) of the Fund shall be maintained annually for the activities set forth under item (a) of this paragraph: Provided, further, That any amounts specifically appropriated for said Fund under the General Appropriations Act shall be used exclusively for the activities set forth under item (a) of this paragraph.
In no case, however, shall the Fund be used for personal services expenditures except for the compensation of those involved in clean-up operations.
Provided, That amounts advanced to a responding entity or claimant shall be considered as advances in case of final adjudication/award by the RTC under Section 18 and shall be reimbursed to the Fund. (emphasis ours)
Respondents lost no time in assailing the law and the IRR. A month after the promulgation of the IRR, they filed a Petition for Declaratory Relief (with Prayer for the Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order and/or a Writ of Preliminary Injunction) under Rule 63, contesting Section 22 (a) of RA 9483, as well as Section 1, Rule of its IRR. The petition was raffled off and heard by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 216, Quezon City (RTC).RULE
FINAL PROVISIONS
Section 1. Oil Pollution Management Fund (OPMF) - Administration of the OPMF shall be [the] responsibility of the Maritime Industry Authority.
1.1. Establishment of the OPMF The Maritime Industry Authority (MARINA) is hereby authorized to establish and open a trust fund account with any government depository bank for OPMF - the OPMF shall be available for disbursement/payment of expenses immediately after any occurrence of any oil pollution case or incident. 1.2. Source/Composition of OPMF - OPMF shall be composed mainly from the following sources[:] 1.2.1. Contribution of Owners and Operators of Tankers and barges hauling oil and/or petroleum products in Philippines (sic) waterways and coastwise shipping routes; 1.2.1.1. During its first year of existence from the date of implementation of the Act(,) [t]he OPMF shall be constituted through an impost of levy of ten centavos (0.10) per liter for every delivery of transshipment of oil received by tanker barges or tanker hauler from an oil depot, refinery, or other storage facility for carriage to its point of destination regardless of any intervening or intermediate point for consolidation, de consolidation or change of means of transportation of such oil. 1.2.1.2. An OPMF Committee shall be constituted to determine the amount of contribution for the succeeding years. 1.2.2. Fines and Penalties under Section 1, Rule IX of this IRR and other fines and penalties that may be determined by the OPMF Committee; 1.2.3. Grants, donations and endowment from various domestic and foreign sources; and 1.2.4. Amounts appropriated under the Annual General Appropriations Act pursuant to Section 2, Rule of this IRR. 1.3. The OPMF Committee shall be constituted as follows:
Chairman - Administrator, MARINA
Vice Chairman - Commandant, PCG
Members: representative from the following:DOTCSecretariat - MARINA staff designated by the Administrator
PPA
DOE
DENR-EMB
Tanker Association
(to be designated/appointed by the association members) 1.4. The OPMF Committee shall perform the following Duties and Functions: 1.4.1. Determine the contribution for the year based on the utilization of the OPMF; 1.4.2. Conduct/undertake an annual review and evaluation to determine the need to increase/decrease the amount of contribution for the following year/period; 1.4.3. Issue circulars to prescribe the rate/amount of contributions of Owners and Operators of Tankers and barges hauling oil and/or petroleum products in Philippines (sic) waterways and coastwise shipping routes for any particular period; 1.4.4. Issue, in addition to the violations provided under Section 1, Rule of this IRR Circular prescribing fines and penalties for additional violations of (sic) relative to the implementation of this Act; 1.4.5. Determine/approve amount for the initial and succeeding transfer of funds to the PCG, in accordance with National Oil Spill Contingency Plan; 1.4.6. Determine/approve the conduct of research activities pursuant to Para. (sic) 1.4.1.2, of this Rule; and 1.4.7. Approve the proposed annual budget for the enforcement and monitoring activities of concerned agencies/offices. 1.5. Utilization of the OPMF 1.5.1. Transfer or funds/disbursement from OPMF shall be with prior approval of the OPMF Committee which will cover expenditures relative to the following: 1.5.1.1. For the immediate containment, removal and clean-up operations of the PCG in all Oil Pollution cases the amount shall be in accordance with the Claims Manual. 1.5.1.2. Research, enforcement and monitoring activities as approved by the OPMF Committee. 1.5.2. Reimbursement of expenses incurred for immediate containment, removal and clean-up operations undertaken following an incident shall require approval from the OPMF Committee; 1.5.3. Total expenses for immediate containment, removal and clean-up operations undertaken following an incident shall not exceed 90% of the funds available in the OPMF on the date of the incident; 1.5.4. Amounts appropriated under the General Appropriations Act for the immediate containment, removal and clean-up operations undertaken following an incident. 1.5.5. The fund shall not be used for payment of personal services expenditures, except for the compensation of those involved in clean-up operations undertaken following [an] incident. 1.5.6. Total expenses for research, enforcement and monitoring activities as approved by the OPMF Committee shall not exceed 10% of the total funds available in the OPMF for any given calendar year. 1.6. Procedures for the Collection and Deposit/Remittance of the OPMF: 1.6.1. Owners and Operators of Tankers and barges hauling oil and/or petroleum products in the Philippines (sic) waterways and coastwise shipping routes shall pay their monthly contributions to the MARINA Central Office or to any of its Maritime Regional Offices (MROs) within the first days of the succeeding month; 1.6.2. In the case of economic zone authorizes (sic) with special charters, MARINA shall put up collection desk in its premises, monthly contributions shall be paid to the MARINA collecting officer. 1.6.3. Contribution shall be computed based on the rate prescribed by the OPMF Committee and the number of liters of oil delivered/transported as reflected/reported in the Monthly Voyage Report (MVR). The MVR shall be supported with copies of the bill of lading issued for the month; 1.6.4. MARINA Collection/Accountable Officers shall deposit all collection received for the OPMF intact the following day to the OPMF Fund Account; 1.6.5. MARINA Collecting Officers in the MROs and (sic) shall submit to the Central Office a Monthly Report of Collection and Deposits. 1.7. Transfer/Disbursement of Funds 1.7.1. Immediately after receipt of report from PCG of any incident of oil spill/pollution, the MARINA shall transfer to the latter the amount covering the initial requirements for the containment and removal of the spill; 1.7.2. The amount transfer (sic) shall be considered as Revolving fund by the PCG; 1.7.3. The PCG shall request MARINA for the replenishment of the Revolving Fund when disbursement has reached at least 75% of the total amount; 1.7.4. Disbursement or payment of expenses relative to the containment, removal and clean-up operations undertaken by other government agencies/offices or private companies shall be made by the PCG; 1.7.5. Any unexpended portion of the cash advance shall be refunded to the OPMF. 1.8. Disbursement Procedures (10%): 1.8.1. MARINA, PCG, PPA, and other government agencies/offices concerned shall submit annual plans and budget estimates covering enforcement/monitoring and research activities, pursuant to Section 1.4.1.2 to 1.4.1.4 of this Rule. 1.8.2. Annual Plans and Budget estimates for research, enforcement and monitoring activities shall be submitted to the OPMF for deliberation and approval. 1.8.3. Any new research proposal, in addition to the annual plan may be submitted to the OPMF Committee for deliberation/approval. 1.8.4. Transfer of funds for research activities shall be as approved by the OPMF Committee. 1.9. Reimbursement to the OPMF: 1.9.1. MARINA shall be provided copy of any decision/order issued by the RTC on the settlement of claims for compensation for pollution damages. 1.10. Audit of the OPMF 1.10.1. The OPMF shall be subjected to the usual audit procedures by the Commission on Audit (COA). 1.11. Reporting 1.11.1. The MARINA, as administrator of the OPMF, shall prepare the following quarterly reports and submit the same to the Secretary of the DOTC, the members of the OPMF Committee and other concerned government offices; 1.11.1.1. Collection and Deposit 1.11.1.2. Disbursement 1.11.1.3. Status of Funds 1.11.2. An audited report of disbursement shall be prepared and submitted by PCF to the MARINA within 90 days after the termination of the clean-up operations. 1.11.3. MARINA shall submit financial reports as required by COA, Bureau of Treasury and Department of Budget (DBM) and Congress.
WHEREFORE, the Petition is hereby granted. The court renders judgment as follows:Aggrieved, petitioners are now with this Court via the present petition for review on certiorari assailing the February 22, 2017 Decision of the RTC. Petitioners argue that the RTC erred in declaring Section 22(a) of RA 9483 and its implementing rule unconstitutional, given that respondents' petition for declaratory relief questioned the wisdom behind them and was, thus, beyond the lower court's jurisdiction. Petitioners further add that the classification in Section 22 of RA 9483 and its IRR is reasonable and just, and does not violate the equal protection clause. Likewise, petitioners maintain that public interest in protecting the marine wealth of the country warrants the imposition of the 10-centavo impost. Finally, the petitioners insist that the creation of the OPMF is relevant to the subject matter of RA 9483.21
1) The Injunction enjoining the respondents from implementing Assailed Provision (Section 22, paragraph (a) of Republic Act No. 9483), and Assailed IRR (Section 1, Rule of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 9438) is made permanent; and 2) Section 22, paragraph (a) of Republic Act No. 9483, and Section 1, Rule of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 9483 are declared unconstitutional.
SO ORDERED.20
x x it refers to "those questions which, under the Constitution, are to be decided by the people in their sovereign capacity, or in regard to which full discretionary authority has been delegated to the Legislature or executive branch of the Government." It is concerned with issues dependent upon the wisdom, not legality, of a particular measure.In the case at bar, however, while it may appear that contesting the creation of the OPMF amounts to questioning the wisdom behind the measure, such is not the case. As correctly argued by respondents, the Court may take judicial action on said question since it is not contesting the creation of the OPMF per se, but rather its inclusion in RA 9483, and the specific parameters incorporated by the legislature in the implementation of the contested provision. More importantly, violations of the due process and the equal protection clauses of the 1987 Constitution alleged by the respondents are well-recognized grounds for a judicial inquiry into a legislative measure.
Section 1. Who may file petition. - Any person interested under a deed, will, contract or other written instrument, or whose rights are affected by a statute, executive order or regulation, ordinance, or any other governmental regulation may, before breach or violation thereof bring an action in the appropriate Regional Trial Court to determine any question of construction or validity arising, and for a declaration of his rights or duties, thereunder.Thus, there is no actual case involved in a Petition for Declaratory Relief. It cannot, therefore, be the proper vehicle to invoke the judicial review powers to declare a statute unconstitutional.
AN ACT PROVIDING FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE 1992 INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION ON CIVIL LIABILITY FOR OIL POLLUTION DAMAGE AND THE 1992 INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION ON THE ESTABLISHMENT OF AN INTERNATIONAL FUND FOR COMPENSATION FOR OIL POLLUTION DAMAGE, PROVIDING PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSESOn the basis thereof, respondents draw this Court's attention to the two mentioned Conventions and bid us to examine both documents to see that the OPMF cannot be found therein.
The 1992 Civil Liability Convention governs the liability of shipowners for oil pollution damage. The Convention lays down the principle of strict liability for shipowners and creates a system of compulsory liability insurance. The shipowner is normally entitled to limit its liability to an amount which is linked to the tonnage of its ship.Indeed, as argued by respondents, the thrust of the 1992 Civil Liability and the 1992 Fund Conventions is to impose upon covered shipowners strict liability for pollution damage arising from oil spills and to provide compensation for the victims thereof. On the other hand, the questioned OPMF governs the immediate containment, removal, and clean-up operations in oil pollution cases and provides for the conduct of research, enforcement, and monitoring activities of relevant agencies.
The 1992 Fund Convention, which is supplementary to the 1992 Civil Liability Convention, establishes regime for compensating victims when the compensation under the applicable Civil Liability Convention is inadequate. The International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund 1992, generally referred to as the 1992 Fund, was set up under the 1992 Fund Convention. The 1992 Fund is worldwide intergovernmental organization established for the purpose of administering the regime of compensation created by the 1992 Fund Convention. By becoming Party to the 1992 Fund Convention, a State becomes a Member of the 1992 Fund. The IOPC Funds headquarters is based in London.30
Constitutional provisions relating to the subject matter and titles of statutes should not be so narrowly construed as to cripple or impede the power of legislation. The requirement that the subject of an act shall be expressed in its title should receive reasonable and not a technical construction. It is sufficient if the title be comprehensive enough reasonably to include the general object which a statute seeks to effect, without expressing each and every end and means necessary or convenient for the accomplishing of that object. Mere details need not be set forth. The title need not be an abstract or index of the act.31Also, in Sumulong v. Comelec,32 the Court held that all that can reasonably be required is that the title shall not be made to cover legislation incongruous in itself, and which by no fair intendment can be considered as having necessary or proper connection, viz:
As stated by the Supreme Court of the United States: "We must give the constitutional provision reasonable construction and effect. The constitution requires no law to embrace more than one subject, which shall be expressed in its title. Now the object may be very comprehensive and still be without objection, and the one before us is of that character. But it is by no means essential that every end and means necessary or convenient for the accomplishment of the general object should be either referred to or necessarily indicated by the title. All that can reasonably be required is that the title shall not be made to cover legislation incongruous in itself, and which by no fair intendment can be considered as having a necessary or proper connection."33 (emphasis ours)Thus, following these jurisprudential guides, it would undoubtedly be improper for this Court to make a superficial reading of the texts of the conventions in order to determine whether the inclusion of Section 22 in RA 9483, which was enacted to implement these Conventions, is infirm more in-depth analysis of the conventions is necessary.
(a) loss or damage caused outside the ship by contamination resulting from the escape or discharge of oil from the ship, wherever such escape or discharge may occur, provided that compensation for impairment of the environment other than loss of profit from such impairment shall be limited to costs of reasonable measures of reinstatement actually undertaken or to be undertaken;In its 2011 Annual Report, the International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund (IOPCF) enumerated the types of claims that are admissible, thus:
(b) the costs of preventive measures34 and further loss or damage caused by preventive measures.35
An oil pollution incident can generally give rise to claims for five types of pollution damage:The Conventions, therefore, also cover damage to property, containment, clean-up, and rehabilitation. Thus, the policy underpinning the establishment of the OPMF in Section 22(a) of RA 9483 and its IRR is wholly consistent with the objectives of the conventions. Section of RA 9483 states:
• Property damage
• Costs of clean-up operations at sea and on shore
• Economic losses by fisher folk or those engaged in mariculture
• Economic losses in the tourism sector
• Costs for reinstatement of the environment.36
SEC. 2. Declaration of Policy. - The State, in the protection of its marine wealth in its archipelagic waters, territorial sea and exclusive economic zone, adopts internationally accepted measures which and ensure prompt and adequate compensation for persons who suffer such damage. This Act adopts and implements the provisions of the 1992 International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage and the 1992 International Convention on the Establishment of an International Fund for Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage.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. 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.
The equal protection of the laws clause of the Constitution allows classification. Classification in law, as in the other departments of knowledge or practice, is the grouping of things in speculation or practice because they agree with one another in certain particulars law is not invalid because of simple inequality. The very idea of classification is that of inequality, so that it goes without saying that the mere fact of inequality in no manner determines the matter of constitutionality. All that is required of a valid classification is that it be reasonable, which means that the classification should be based on substantial distinctions which make for real differences, that it must be germane to the purpose of the law; that it must not be limited to existing conditions only; and that it must apply equally to each member of the class. This Court has held that the standard is satisfied if the classification or distinction is based on a reasonable foundation or rational basis and is not palpably arbitrary.In the instant case, We agree with petitioners that separating "tankers and barges hauling oil and for petroleum products in Philippine waterways and coast wise shipping routes" from other sea-borne vessels does not violate the equal protection clause.
The standard, as the Court has already stated, may even be implied. In that light, there can be no ground upon which to sustain the petition, inasmuch as the challenged law sets forth a determinable standard which guides the exercise of the power granted to the ERB. By the same token, the proper exercise of the delegated power may be tested with ease. It seems obvious that what the law intended was to permit the additional imposts for as long as there exists a need to protect the general public and the petroleum industry from the adverse consequences of pump rate fluctuations. "Where the standards set up for the guidance of an administrative officer and the action taken are in fact recorded in the orders of such officer, so that Congress, the courts and the public are assured that the orders in the judgment of such officer conform to the legislative standard, there is no failure in the performance of the legislative functions."Further, in Tatad v. Secretary of the Department of Energy, We stated that courts bend as far back as possible to sustain the constitutionality of laws which are assailed as unduly delegating legislative powers:
This Court thus finds no serious impediment to sustaining the validity of the legislation; the express purpose for which the imposts are permitted and the general objectives and purposes of the fund are readily discernible, and they constitute a sufficient standard upon which the delegation of power may be justified. (Citations omitted; emphasis ours)
The validity of delegating legislative power is now a quiet area in our constitutional landscape. As sagely observed, delegation of legislative power has become an inevitability in light of the increasing complexity of the task of government. Thus, courts bend as far back as possible to sustain the constitutionality of laws which are assailed as unduly delegating legislative powers. Citing Hirabayashi v. United States as authority, Mr. Justice Isagani Cruz states "that even if the law does not expressly pinpoint the standard, the courts will bend over backward to locate the same elsewhere in order to spare the statute, if it can, from constitutional infirmity."51 (emphasis ours)Thus, this Court has previously instructed that a standard as general as the phrases "as far as practicable," "decline of crude oil prices in the world market," and "stability of the peso exchange rate to the US dollar" are neither unclear nor inconcrete in meaning, but are in fact determinable by the simple expedient of referring to their dictionary meanings.52 The Court even stated that "[t]he fear of petitioners that these words will result in the exercise of executive discretion that will run riot is thus groundless. To be sure, the Court has sustained the validity of similar, if not more general standards in other cases."53 Indeed, the Court has, in numerous instances, accepted as sufficient standards policies as general as:
x x x "public interest" in People v. Rosenthal, "justice and equity" in Antamok Gold Fields v. CIR, "public convenience and welfare" in Calalang v. Williams, and "simplicity, economy and efficiency" in Cervantes v. Auditor General, to mention only a few cases. In the United States, the "sense and experience of men" was accepted in Mutual Film Corp. v. Industrial Commission, and "national security" in Hirabayashi v. United States.54 (citations omitted)Thus, applying this commitment to sift each and every part of the assailed law or provision thereof in order to locate any and all standards possible provided therein, We are duty bound to analyze the statute in question to determine once and for all whether indeed the legislature failed to incorporate therein a standard of such character as will pass this test of constitutionality. We shall first tackle the standards expressly embodied in Section 22. To recall, the assailed provision containing the questioned delegation reads:
SEC. 22. Oil Pollution Management Fund. - An Oil Pollution Management Fund (OPMF) to be administered by the MARINA is hereby established. Said Fund shall be constituted from:A review of the contested provision reveals that contrary to respondents' assertion that the law only provides a vague standard for the exercise of the delegated authority, there are in fact a number of set parameters included therein within which the authority to fix the amount of the impost shall be exercised. These are:(a) Contributions of Owners and operators of tankers and barges hauling Oil and for petroleum products in Philippine waterways and coast wise shipping routes. During its first year of existence, the Fund shall be constituted by an impost of ten centavos (IOc) per liter for every delivery or transshipment of Oil made by tanker barges and tanker haulers. For the succeeding fiscal years, the amount of contribution shall be jointly determined by Marina, other concerned government agencies, and representatives from the Owners of tankers barges, tankers haulers, and Ship hauling Oil and/or petroleum products. In determining the amount of contribution, the purposes for which the fund was set up shall always be considered; and(b) Fines imposed pursuant to this Act, grants, donations, endowment from various sources, domestic or foreign, and amounts specifically appropriated for OPMF under the annual General Appropriations Act.
The Fund shall be used to finance the following activities:(a) Immediate containment, removal and clean-up operations of the PCG in all Oil pollution cases, whether covered by this Act or not; and(b) Research, enforcement and monitoring activities of relevant agencies such as the PCG, MARINA and PPA, and other ports authority of the DOTC, Environmental Management Bureau of the DENR, and the DOE: Provided, That ninety percent (90%) of the Fund shall be maintained annually for the activities set forth under item (a) of this paragraph: Provided, further, That any amounts specifically appropriated for said Fund under the General Appropriations Act shall be used exclusively for the activities set forth under item (a) of this paragraph.
In no case, however, shall the Fund be used for personal services expenditures except for the compensation of those involved in clean-up operations.
Provided, That amounts advanced to a responding entity or claimant shall be considered as advances in case of final adjudication/award by the RTC under Section 18 and shall be reimbursed to the Fund. (emphasis ours)
Put otherwise, in authorizing the OPMF Committee in determining the rate of impost for the succeeding years, Congress in fact directed them to ensure that 90% of the funds that will be accumulated will be enough to finance the following: (1) emergency response measures for oil pollution cases; (2) clean-up operations for oil spill incidents; (3) research; (4) enforcement; and (5) monitoring activities of the stated agencies in connection with oil pollution.
- the purposes for which the fund was set up;
- the Fund shall be used to finance the following activities:
- Immediate containment, removal and clean-up operations of the PCG in all Oil pollution cases, whether covered by this Act or not; and
- Research, enforcement and monitoring activities of relevant agencies such as the PCG, MARINA and PPA, and other ports authority of the DOTC, Environmental Management Bureau of the DENR, and the DOE;
- Ninety percent (90%) of the Fund shall be maintained annually for the activities set forth under item (a) of this paragraph;
- Any amounts specifically appropriated for said Fund under the General Appropriations Act shall be used exclusively for the activities set forth under item (a) of this paragraph;
- In no case shall the Fund be used for personal services expenditures except for the compensation of those involved in clean-up operations.
SEC. 4. Incorporation of the 1992 Civil Liability Convention and 1992 Fund Convention. - Subject to the provisions of this Act, the 1992 Civil Liability Convention and 1992 Fund Convention and their subsequent amendments shall form part of the law of the Republic of the Philippines.As for the Conventions which the subject statute expressly adopts and incorporates therein, making the Conventions form part of the law of the country, it bears to stress that the respective thrusts thereof are to provide "adequate compensation available to persons who suffer damage caused by pollution resulting from the escape or discharge of oil from ships"57 and "compensation for victims who do not obtain full compensation under the 1992 Civil Liability Convention."58
x x x x
SEC. 6. Liability on Pollution Damage. - The Owner of the Ship at the time of an Incident, or where the Incident consists of a series of occurrences, at the time of the first such occurrence, shall be liable for any Pollution Damage caused by the Ship as a result of the Incident. Such damages shall include, but not limited to:(a) Reasonable expenses actually incurred in clean-up operations at sea or on shore;(b) Reasonable expenses of Preventive Measures and further loss or damage caused by preventive measures;(c) Consequential loss or loss of earnings suffered by Owners or users of property contaminated or damaged as a direct result of an Incident;(d) Pure economic loss or loss of earnings sustained by persons although the property contaminated or damaged as a direct result of an Incident does not belong to them;(e) Damage to human health or loss of life as a direct result of the Incident, including expenses for rehabilitation and recuperation: Provided, That costs of studies or diagnoses to determine the long-term damage shall also be included; and(f) Environmental damages and other reasonable measures of environmental restoration.
(a) Reasonable expenses actually incurred in clean-up operations at sea or on shore;The rate of impost should, thus, be enough to accumulate an amount that, when combined with the funds that will be derived from the appropriations under the GAA, grants, donations, and endowment from various sources, domestic or foreign, can sufficiently enable our agencies to fulfill their duty of protecting the country's marine wealth and the stakeholders by ensuring that any damage caused by oil spills is minimal and the resulting cost can be fully or adequately covered by the Conventions. Put differently, the rate of the impost for the succeeding years must not be so low as to be insufficient to meet the budgetary needs of the agencies for the items identified under Section 22. This is so since the mandate of the law will not be fulfilled if the agencies' capacity for oil spill response is inadequate, ineffective, or less than what is necessary for the declared purpose. Conversely, it must also not be so high that the totality of the amount accumulated from the various sources gravely exceeds the financial requirements for said items. Simply put, the sum of the amounts to be collected or received from the various sources must not exceed the administrative costs and expenses of implementing the activities.
(b) Reasonable expenses of Preventive Measures and further loss or damage caused by preventive measures;
(c) Consequential loss or loss of earnings suffered by Owners or users of property contaminated or damaged as a direct result of an Incident;
(d) Pure economic loss or loss of earnings sustained by persons although the property contaminated or damaged as a direct result of an Incident does not belong to them;
(e) Damage to human health or loss of life as a direct result of the Incident, including expenses for rehabilitation and recuperation: Provided, That costs of studies or diagnoses to determine the long-term damage shall also be included; and
(f) Environmental damages and other reasonable measures of environmental restoration.
The effects of an oil spill will depend on a variety of factors including, the quantity and type of oil spilled, and how it interacts with the marine environment. Prevailing weather conditions will also influence the oil's physical characteristics and its behaviour. Other key factors include the biological and ecological attributes of the area; the ecological significance of key species and their sensitivity to oil pollution as well as the time of year. It is important to remember that the clean-up techniques selected will also have a bearing on the environmental effects of a spill.59 (emphasis ours)This highly multifaceted character of oil spill incidents, coupled with the fact that the Philippine archipelago is comprised of thousands of islands with varying sizes and ecology and has one of the longest coastlines in the world-estimated at 36,289 kilometers, reflects a certain complexity in its state of affairs that undoubtedly makes the setting of rigid and exhaustive parameters difficult, if not impossible.
A profession, trade or calling is property right within the meaning of our constitutional guarantees. One cannot be deprived of the right to work and the right to make living because these rights are property rights, the arbitrary and unwarranted deprivation of which normally constitutes an actionable wrong.63Nonetheless, equally well-settled is the rule that "where the due process and equal protection clauses are invoked, considering that they are not fixed rules but rather broad standards, there is a need for proof of such persuasive character as would lead to such a conclusion. Absent such a showing, the presumption of validity must prevail."64 Thus, in asserting that the 10-centavo per liter impost is unconstitutional, respondents have the burden of proof to convince this Court that indeed said imposition is arbitrary, oppressive, excessive, and confiscatory, thereby violating the constitutional proscription against deprivation of property without due process of law.
Surely, before the courts are called upon to adjudge an act of the legislature fixing the maximum passenger rates for railroad companies to be unconstitutional, on the ground that its enforcement would prevent the stockholders from receiving any dividends on their investments, or the bondholders any interest on their loans, they should be fully advised as to what is done with the receipts and earnings of the company; for if so advised, it might clearly appear that a prudent and honest management would, within the rates prescribed, secure to the bondholders their interest, and to the stockholders reasonable dividends. While the protection of vested rights of property is a supreme duty of the courts, it has not come to this, that the legislative power rests subservient to the discretion of any railroad corporation which may, by exorbitant and unreasonable salaries, or in some other improper way, transfer its earnings into what it is pleased to call 'operating expenses.'67Additionally, the error in said computations lies in the fact that it failed to consider the operation of Section 22 which dictates that the impost shall be 10 centavos per liter only on the first year. This allows for a retention, increase, or reduction in the succeeding years, whichever is determined to be necessary. This scenario was obviously not taken into account when respondents made said computations.
If it were necessary to prove that the imposition of this contribution on owners of ships is made for the general welfare of the United States, it would not be difficult to show that it is so, and particularly that it is among the means which congress may deem necessary and proper for that purpose, and beyond this we are not permitted to inquire. But the true answer to all these objections is that the power exercised in this instance is not the taxing power. The burden imposed on the ship-owner by this statute is the mere incident of the regulation of commerce-of that branch of foreign commerce which is involved in immigration. x x xThe same situation obtains in the present case. The 10-centavo impost is collected from the covered owners and operators, taking into consideration their use of the country's waters and the exposure of this natural resource to a risk of grave and irreparable damage brought about by said use. Moreover, the amounts collected are to be used solely for the identified items in the assailed law and only for the furtherance of the declared purposes of the statute. As stated by the Supreme Court of Washington, En Banc in Teter v. Clark County:72
It is true, not much is said about protecting the ship-owner. But he is the man who reaps the profit from the transaction, who has the means to protect himself, and knows well how to do it, and whose obligations in the premises need the aid of the statute for their enforcement. The sum demanded of him is not, therefore, strictly speaking, a tax or duty within the meaning of the constitution. The money thus raised, though paid into the treasury, is appropriated in advance to the uses of the statute, and does not go to the general support of the government.71 x x x
x x x In Craig v. Macon, 543 S.W.2d 772 (Mo. 1976), the court held valid the charges imposed by the city for solid waste disposal, even though appellants did not have their garbage removed by the city and thus obtained no "service". The Missouri Supreme Court held that the statute under which the city acted was a public health regulation, intended to protect the entire population. As a police power measure, the statute enabled the city to take whatever measures were reasonably required to meet the public health needs. The charges were only incidental to the regulatory scheme: the payments went only toward the costs of that program; none of the money went into general revenue. Thus, because the money was collected for a specific purpose (to pay the cost of a public health program) the charge was deemed valid. x x x In Hobbs, the city enacted a garbage collection ordinance and charged property owners for collection; appellant property owners did not use the city's service. There the court held that a due process violation did not exist because the ordinance is a health measure and the charges are not merely for the specific act of garbage removal, but to defray the expenses of the entire program. Further, appellants received a general benefit from the removal of others' garbage the control of insects, etc.73The collection of administrative charges and fees on vessels is not new. To name a few, reference may be made to RA 137174 which imposes upon owners and operators of vessels various charges and fees for the use of Philippine ports, among others.75
| Very truly yours, |
(SGD) | |
EDGAR O. ARICHETA | |
Clerk of Court |
Endnotes:
1 See <http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/rough/2007/08/philippines_parlinks.html> Last Accessed: May 18, 2018.
2 See The Philippine Marine Biodiversity: A Unique World Treasure. Available at <http://www.oneocean.org/flash/philippine_biodiversity.html> Last Accessed: May 18, 2018.
3 See Philippines Coastal & Marine Resources: An Introduction, <http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTPHILIPPINES/Resources/PEM05-chl.pdf> Last Accessed: May 18, 2018.
4 See The Philippine Marine Biodiversity: A Unique World Treasure <http://www.oneocean.org/flash/philippine_biodiversity.html> Last Accessed: May 18, 2018; citations omitted.
5 See <http://wwf.panda.org/?78300/Large-oil-spill-in-the-Philippines-threatens-marine-ecosystem> Last accessed: May 18, 2018.
6 See <https://www.greenpeace.org/archive-international/en/news/features/philippines-seen-andheard/> Last accessed: May 18, 2018.
7 See <https://earth.esa.int/web/earth-watching/natural-disasters/oil-slicks/content/-/asset_publisher/71yyBClMdfOT/content/philippines-august-2006> Last accessed: May 18, 2018.
8 Id.
9 Id.
10See Page 1537, Journal Session No. 65, February 8, 2007, Thirteenth Congress - Third Regular Session, Senate of the Philippines.
11 These conventions were ratified by the Philippine Senate in 1997.
12Rollo, pp. 77-78.
13 Id. at 169-176.
14 Petitioners questioned said July 25, 2016 Order before the Court of Appeals (CA), docketed as C.A. G.R. SP No. 147709 and entitled "Department o[Transportation (DOTR), et al. v. Hon. Alfonso C. Ruiz II, et al."
15Rollo, p. 84.
16 Id. at 85.
17 Id. at 80.
18 Id. at 87.
19 Id. at 87-88.
20 Id. at 88.
21 Id. at 36-37.
22 Id. at 301.
23 Id. at 310.
24 Id. at 322.
25 103 Phil. 1051 (1957).
26Board of Optometry v. Colet, G.R. No. 122241, July 30, 1996, 260 SCRA 88, cited in Velarde v. Social Justice Society, G.R. No. 159357, April 28, 2004.
27 63 Phil. 139, 158 (1936).
28 See Ifurung v. Carpio-Morales, G.R. No. 232131, April 24, 2018, citing Samahan ng mga Progresibong Kabataan v. Quezon City, G.R. No. 225442, August 8, 2014.
29 Id.
30 Explanatory Note, International Oil Pollution Compensation Funds, March 2018 <https://www.iopcfunds.org/fileadmin/IOPC_Upload/Downloads/English/explanatory_note.pdf> Last Accessed May 17, 2018.
31Giron v. Commission on Elections, 702 Phil. 30 (2013). See also Cordero v. Cabatuando, 116 Phil. 736 (1962); Remman Enterprises, Inc. v. Professional Regulatory Board of Real Estate Service, 726 Phil. 104 (2014); Government of the Philippine Islands v. Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corp., 66 Phil. 483 (1938); Fariñas v. Executive Secretary, 463 Phil. 179 (2003); Commission on Elections v. Cruz, 620 Phil. 175 (2009).
32 73 Phil. 288 (1941), citing 26 S. Ct. 427, 201 U. S. 400, 50 L. ed. 801.
33 Citing Blair v. Chicago, 26 S. Ct. 427, 201 U.S. 400, 50 L. ed. 801.
34 "Preventive measures" means any reasonable measures taken by any person after an incident has occurred to prevent or minimize pollution damage.
35 INTERNATIONAL OIL POLLUTION COMPENSATION FUNDS, Texts of the Conventions, p. 5. <https://www.iopcfunds.org/uploads/tx_iopcpublications/Text_of_Conventions_e.pdf>Last Accessed, May 18, 2018. Emphasis supplied.
36 International Oil Pollution Compensation Funds, 2011 Annual Report, p. 12. Available at <https://www.iopcfunds.org/uploads/tx_iopcpublications/FINAL_IOPC_Funds_Annual_Review_2016_ENGLISH.pdf>Last Accessed, May 23, 2018.
37Philippine Rural Electric Cooperatives Association, Inc. vs. Department of Interior and Local Government, G.R. No. 143076, June 10, 2003, 403 SCRA 558, 565. Cited in Abakada Guro Party List v. Ermita, G.R. No. 168056, September 1, 2005, 469 SCRA 14, 139.
38Villareña v. Commission on Audit, G.R. Nos. 145383-84, August 6, 2003, 408 SCRA 455, 462.
39 G.R. No. 166715, August 14, 2008.
40 Article I, Item 1, 1992 Civil Liability Convention provides:
For the purposes of this Convention:
"Ship" means any 1. sea-going vessel and seaborne craft of any type whatsoever constructed or adapted for the carriage of oil in bulk as cargo, provided that a ship capable of carrying oil and other cargoes shall be regarded as a ship only when it is actually carrying oil in bulk as cargo and during any voyage following such carriage unless it is proved that it has no residues of such carriage of oil in bulk aboard.
Article I, Item 2 of the 1992 Fund Convention states:
2. "Ship", "Person", "Owner", "Oil", "Pollution Damage", "Preventive Measures", "Incident", and "Organization" have the same meaning as in Article I of the 1992 Liability Convention.
41 <http://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Safety/Regulations/Pages/OilTankers.aspx> Last Accessed, May 23, 2018.
42 Id.
43 Id.
44 International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships.
45 MARPOL - International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, pp. 66-238. Available at <http://www.mar.ist.utl.pt/mventura/Projecto-Navios-I/IMO-Conventions%20%28copies%29/MARPOL.pdf> Last Accessed: May 23, 2018.
46Abakada Guro Party List v. Purisima, G.R. No. 166715, August 14, 2008, 562 SCRA 251, 275, citing Victoriano v. Elizalde Rope Workers' Union, 158 Phil. 60 (1974).
47 See Ormoc Sugar Co., Inc. v. Treasurer of Ormoc City, No. L-23794, February 17, 1968, 22 SCRA 603, 606.
48Rollo, p. 377.
49Osmeña v. Orbos, G.R. No. 99886, March 31, 1993, 220 SCRA 703, 712.
50 Id.
51 G.R. No. 124360, November 5, 1997, 281 SCRA 330, 352, citing Philippine Political Law, 1995 ed., p. 99.
52 Id. at 350-352.
53 Id. at 352-353.
54 See Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. v. POEA, No. L-76633, October 18, 1988, 166 SCRA 533, 545.
55 See Tatad v. Secretary of the Department of Energy, G.R. No. 124360, November 5, 1997, 281 SCRA 330, 353-354.
56 65 Phil. 56 (1937), cited in AbakadaGuro Party List v. Ermita, G.R. No. 168056, September 1, 2005, 469 SCRA 14, 118.
57 Liability and Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage, Text of the Conventions, IOPCF, p. 6.
58 Id. at 5.
59 Environmental Effects of Oil Spills, Available at <http://www.itopf.com/knowledgeresources/documents-guides/environmental-effects/> Last Accessed: May 24, 2018.
60 G.R. No. 99886, March 31, 1993, 220 SCRA 703.
61 See City of Manila v. Laguio, Jr., G.R. No. 118127, April 12, 2005, 455 SCRA 308, 329.
62 See Smith, Bell Co. v. Natividad, 40 Phil. 136, 145 (1919), cited in City of Manila v. Laguio, Jr., id. at 330.
63 G.R. No. 120095, August 5, 1996, 260 SCRA 319, 330.
64Abakada Guro Party List v. Ermita, G.R. No. 168056, September 1, 2005, 469 SCRA 14, 130-131.
65 Id. at 139. (citation omitted)
66Rollo, p. 43.
67 34 Phil. 969, 973 (1916), citing Chicago and Grand Trunk Railway Co. v. Wellman, 143 U. S. 339.
68Rollo, p. 369.
69 Id. at 370.
70 112 U.S. 580 (1884).
71 Emphasis supplied.
72 104 Wn.2d 227 (1985), 704 P.2d 1171.
73 Emphasis supplied.
74 AN ACT TO DEFINE, CLASSIFY, FIX AND REGULATE THE AMOUNT OF ALL CHARGES AND FEES IN PHILIPPINE PORTS, OTHER THAN CUSTOMS DUTIES, INTERNAL REVENUE TAXES AND TONNAGE DUES.
75 RA 1371, Section 1. Definitions. As used in this Act:
(a) Harbor fee is the amount which the owner, agent, operator or master of a vessel has to pay for each entrance into or departure from port of entry in the Philippines.
(b) Wharfage charge is the amount assessed against the cargo of a vessel engaged in the foreign trade, based on the quantity, weight or measure received and/or discharged by such vessel. The owner, consignee, or agent of either, of the merchandise is the person liable for such charge.
(c) Berthing charge is the amount assessed against a vessel for mooring or berthing at pier, wharf, bulkhead wharf, river or channel marginal wharf at any port in the Philippines; or for mooring or making fast to a vessel so berthed; or for coming or mooring within any slip, channel, basin, river or canal under the jurisdiction of any port of the Philippines. The owner, agent, operator or master of the vessel is liable for this charge.
(d) Storage charge is the amount assessed on merchandise for storage in customs premises, cargo sheds and warehouses of the government. The owner, consignee, or agent of either, of the merchandise is liable for this charge.
(e) Arrastre charge is the amount which the owner, consignee, or agent of either, of merchandise or baggage has to pay for the handling, receiving and custody of the imported or exported merchandise or the baggage of the passengers.
76 Section 16, Article II [State Policies], 1987 Constitution.
77 Section 15, Article II [State Policies], 1987 Constitution.
78Binay v. Domingo, G.R. No. 92389, September 11, 1991, 201 SCRA 508, 514, cited in Metropolitan Manila Development Authority v. Viron Transportation Co., Inc., G.R. No. 170656, August 15, 2007, 530 SCRA 341, 362.
79Metropolitan Manila Development Authority v. Viron Transportation Co., Inc., G.R. No. 170656, August 15, 2007, 530 SCRA 341, 362.