BAYAN MUNA V ARROYO

Bayan Muna Party-List Representatives et al.
, Petitioners,
vs.
President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo et al., Respondents.
GR No. January 10, 2023
182734
Ponente: Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan
Topic: The constitutionality of the Tripartite Agreement for Joint Marine

Seismic Undertaking (JMSU)
Facts of the A tripartite agreement for Joint Marine Seismic Undertaking

Case: (JMSU) was signed on March 14, 2005, by the China National
Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC), Vietnam Oil and Gas
Corporation (PETROVIETNAM), and the Philippine National Oil
Company (PNOC). The JMSU took effect on July 1, 2005 and was
set to expire on June 30, 2008.
The agreement, covering 142,886 square kilometers in the West
Philippine , aimed to jointly explore petroleum resources and was
approved by the Philippine government.
The petitioners filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition on
May 21, 2008, asserting that the JMSU violated a certain
provision of the 1987 Constitution.
Issue/s:  Whether former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo has

presidential immunity from being impleaded in this lawsuit.
 Whether the writs of certiorari and prohibition are proper to
assail the constitutionality of the JMSU.
 Whether the doctrine of hierarchy of courts was violated.
 Whether the petitioners have legal standing to challenge the
JMSU as legislators and taxpayers.
 Whether the Tripartite Agreement for JMSU is
unconstitutional.
Arguments of  The petitioners argued that the JMSU is unconstitutional

the because it allows foreign corporations to engage in the
Petitioner/s: exploration of Philippine natural resources, violating Section
2(1), Article XII of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, which
mandates that such activities must be under the full control
and supervision of the State.
 They contended that the agreement is not valid due to the
absence of required approvals, as agreements regarding the
exploration of natural resources must be signed by the
President and have the congressional approval.
 The argued that the seismic survey conducted under the
JMSU constitutes "exploration" within the constitutional
definition.
 They maintained that they possess legal standing to
challenge the JMSU because the case raises significant
constitutional issues pertaining to resource sovereignty and
national interest being legislators, taxpayers and citizen of
the republic.
 The petitioners also highlighted that their direct filing with
the Supreme Court is justified due to the grave constitutional
issues at stake and the urgent need for judicial intervention.
Argument of  The respondents argued that former President Arroyo should

the not be impleaded as a respondent in the lawsuit based on
Respondent: the principle of presidential immunity.
 They contended that the appropriate legal remedy for the
petitioners should be an ordinary civil suit for annulment of
contract in the RTC rather than the direct challenge being
made through the petition for certiorari and prohibition in the
Supreme Court.
 They claimed that the JMSU is primarily a preliminary
research activity and thus does not infringe upon
constitutional provisions does not involve actual exploration.
 They argued that the petitions for writs of certiorari and
prohibition to contest its constitutionality may not be
appropriate.
Supreme  The Supreme Court ruled that former President Gloria

Court Ruling: Macapagal-Arroyo is immune from being impleaded in the
lawsuit while in office. This immunity preserves the dignity of
the presidential office and prevents distractions from official
duties.
 The SC held that the writs of certiorari and prohibition are
proper remedies to challenge the constitutionality of the
JMSU since the case involved significant constitutional
questions regarding the exploitation of natural resources.
 The SC found no violation of the doctrine of hierarchy of
courts and that direct filing with the Supreme Court was
justified due to the importance of the constitutional issues
raised.
 The SC ruled that the petitioners, as members of the
legislature and taxpayers, have legal standing to challenge
the JMSU.
 The Supreme Court declared the JMSU unconstitutional
because it allowed foreign corporations to participate in the
exploration of the Philippines' natural resources without
adhering to the safeguards prescribed in Section 2, Article XII
of the 1987 Constitution. The JMSU was deemed to involve
"exploration" and thus required strict compliance with
constitutional provisions regarding the utilization of natural
resources.
Doctrine/  Presidential Immunity from Suit

Principle:  Principle of Constitutional Construction- Verba legis
 Locus Standi

BAYAN MUNA V ARROYO

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

BAYAN MUNA V ARROYO

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

BAYAN MUNA V ARROYO

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bayan Muna Party-List Representatives et al.

GR No. January 10, 2023

Ponente: Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan

Topic: The constitutionality of the Tripartite Agreement for Joint Marine

Facts of the A tripartite agreement for Joint Marine Seismic Undertaking

Issue/s:  Whether former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo has

Arguments of  The petitioners argued that the JMSU is unconstitutional

Argument of  The respondents argued that former President Arroyo should

Supreme  The Supreme Court ruled that former President Gloria

Doctrine/  Presidential Immunity from Suit

You might also like