Department of Transportation v. Philippine Petroleum Sea Transport Association,
G.R. No. 230107,
July 24, 2018
*RA 9483. Oil Pollution Compensation Act of 2007
FACTS:
After repeated oil spills in the Philippines, and noting the lack of a proper response strategy, the
absence of the necessary equipment for containing, cleaning up, and removing spilled oil, and the
difficulty in pinning liability on oil companies, Congress passed a law implementing the CLC 1969 and
the Fund Convention 1992. The CLC 1969 was later amended by the 1992 Protocol (the CLC 1992). On
2 June 2007, RA 9483, entitled '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 Purposes', or simply the Oil Pollution
Compensation Act 2007, was signed into law.
The respondents filed a petition for declaratory relief (with a prayer for the issuance of a
temporary restraining order and/or a writ of preliminary injunction), contesting the establishment of the
OPMF. The petition was heard by the regional trial Court, Branch 216, Quezon City (RTC). The
respondents argued that the obligation to contribute to the OPMF solely imposed upon the owners and
operators of oil/petroleum tankers and barges violated their right to equal protection of the law; that the
10c impost was confiscatory and, thus, violated their right to due process; that s 22(a) was a prohibited
rider; and, finally, that the provision provided an undue delegation of legislative power. The RTC granted
the prayer for issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction and enjoined the implementation of the
provision.
The petitioners now seek review on certiorari before the Supreme Court, arguing that the RTC
erred in declaring s 22(a) of RA 9483 and its implementing rule unconstitutional, given that the
respondents' petition for declaratory relief questioned the wisdom behind them and was, thus, beyond the
RTC's jurisdiction. The petitioners further argue that the provision is reasonable and just, and does not
violate the equal protection clause. The petitioners maintain that public interest in protecting the marine
wealth of the country warrants the imposition of the 10c impost. Finally, the petitioners insist that the
creation of the OPMF is relevant to the subject matter of RA 9483.
The respondents argue that since RA 9483 was passed to implement the CLC 1992 and the Fund
Convention 1992, the creation of the OPMF must be found in these Conventions for it to be validly
included in RA 9483. Otherwise, according to the respondents, its inclusion in the law is constitutionally
infirm for being a proscribed rider.
ISSUE:
Whether or not is RA 9483 constitutional?
HELD:
Yes. The respective subject matters of the two Conventions are as follows: The CLC 1992
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. The Fund
Convention 1992, which is supplementary to the CLC 1992, establishes a regime for compensating
victims when the compensation under the applicable CLC is inadequate. The International Oil Pollution
Compensation Fund 1992, generally referred to as the 1992 Fund, was set up under the Fund Convention
1992. The 1992 Fund is a worldwide intergovernmental organization, established for the purpose of
administering the regime of compensation created by the 1992 Fund Convention. By becoming Party to
the Fund Convention 1992, a State becomes a member of the 1992 Fund. The Fund headquarters is based
in London.
As argued by the respondents, the thrust of the CLC 1992 and the Fund Convention 1992 is to
impose upon covered shipowners strict liability for pollution damage arising from oil spills and to provide
compensation for victims. On the other hand, the 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. On this basis, it would appear that the Conventions and the
OPMF cover two different subject matters - that is, providing compensation versus pollution containment
and clean-up - as asserted by the respondents. However, this simplistic, if not myopic, view is not the
proper measure to determine whether a provision of law should be declared as unconstitutional. 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.
No comments:
Post a Comment