Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
order, safety and general welfare of the people. This government regulation involves the adjustment of rights for the public good
and that this adjustment curtails some potential for the use or economic exploitation of private property. Public respondents
concluded that to require compensation in all such circumstances would compel the government to regulate by purchase.
ISSUE: Whether or not RA 7942 and the DENR RRs are valid.
HELD: The SC that the RRs are indeed valid. The SC noted the requisites of eminent domain. They are;
(1)
the expropriator must enter a private property;
(2)
the entry must be for more than a momentary period.
(3)
the entry must be under warrant or color of legal authority;
(4)
the property must be devoted to public use or otherwise informally appropriated or injuriously affected;
(5)
the utilization of the property for public use must be in such a way as to oust the owner and deprive him of beneficial
enjoyment of the property.
In the case at bar, Didipio failed to show that the law is invalid. There is taking involved but it is not w/o just compensation. Sec 76 of
RA 7942 provides for just compensation as well as section 107 of the DENR RR. To wit,
Section 76. xxx Provided, that any damage to the property of the surface owner, occupant, or concessionaire as a
consequence of such operations shall be properly compensated as may be provided for in the implementing rules and
regulations.
Section 107. Compensation of the Surface Owner and Occupant- Any damage done to the property of the surface
owners, occupant, or concessionaire thereof as a consequence of the mining operations or as a result of the construction
or installation of the infrastructure mentioned in 104 above shall be properly and justly compensated.
Further, mining is a public policy and the government can invoke eminent domain to exercise entry, acquisition and use of
private lands.
3. republic vs rosemoor mar 30, 2004
DOCTRINE
Proclamation 84, which merely restored the area excluded from the Biak-na-Bato national park by canceling respondents license, is
clearly not penal in character and neither is it ex post facto.
FACTS
Petitioner Rosemoor Mining and Development Corporation (spearheaded by four individuals) after having been
granted permission to prospect for marble deposits in the mountains of Biak-na-Bato, San Miguel, Bulacan, succeeded in
discovering marble deposits of high quality and in commercial quantities in Mount Mabio which forms part of the Biak-na-Bato
mountain range.
Rosemor thereafter applied with the Bureau of Mines, now Mines and Geosciences Bureau, for the issuance of the
corresponding license to exploit said marble deposits.
Within that same year, License No. 33 was issued by the Bureau of Mines in favor of the herein petitioners. It is largely
unfortunate that thereafter, Respondent Ernesto Maceda cancelled the petitioners license stating that their license had illegally
been issued, because it violated Section 69 of PD 463; and that there was no more public interest served by the continued
existence or renewal of the license. The latter reason was confirmed by the language of Proclamation No. 84. According to this law,
public interest would be served by reverting the parcel of land that was excluded by Proclamation No. 2204 to the former status of
that land as part of the Biak-na-Bato national park.
Issue: Whether or not Presidential Proclamation No. 84 is valid.
Held:
Yes. Proclamation No. 84 is not a bill of attainder; that is, a legislative act which inflicts punishment without judicial trial."
Its declaration that QLP No. 33 is a patent nullity is certainly not a declaration of guilt. Neither is the cancellation of the license a
punishment within the purview of the constitutional proscription against bills of attainder.
There is no merit in the argument that the proclamation is an ex post facto law. It is settled that an ex post facto law is
limited in its scope only to matters criminal in nature. Proclamation 84, which merely restored the area excluded from the Biak-naBato national park by canceling respondents license, is clearly not penal in character.
Also at the time President Aquino issued Proclamation No. 84 on March 9, 1987, she was still validly exercising legislative
powers under the Provisional Constitution of 1986. Section 1 of Article II of Proclamation No. 3, which promulgated the Provisional
Constitution, granted her legislative power until a legislature is elected and convened under a new Constitution. The grant of such
power is also explicitly recognized and provided for in Section 6 of Article XVII of the 1987 Constitution.
4.
labugal vs ramos jan 27, 2004
DOCTRINE
Although counsel for respondents claim that technical is a very broad term that may cover the management and operation of
such activities, it is still clear from the deliberation of the Constitutional Commission that they intended to limit the utilization of the
natural resources for the sole enjoyment of the Filipinos.
FACTS
1987: Pres. Aquino issued EO 279 whereby she authorized DENR to accept, consider and evaluate proposals
from foreign-ownedcorporations or foreign investors for contracts or agreements involving either technical or financial assistancefor
large-scale exploration, development, and utilization of minerals, which, upon appropriate recommendationof the Secretary,
the President may execute with the foreign proponent.
In entering into such proposals, the President shall consider the real contributions to the economic growth and general
welfare of the country that will be realized, as well as the development and use of local scientific and technical resources that will be
promoted by the proposed contract or agreement. Until Congress shall determine otherwise, large-scalemining, for purpose of this
Section, shall mean those proposals for contracts or agreements for mineralr esources exploration, development, and utilization
involving a committed capital investment in a single miningunit project of at least Fifty Million Dollars in United States Currency
(US $50,000,000. 00)
The timeline illustrates:
March 1995 RA 7942 signed into law
March 1995 Government entered FTAA with WMCP 99,387 hectares of land in South Cotabato, SultanKudarat, Davao
del Sur and North Cotabato .
April 1995 30 days after publication on 10 March 1995, RA 7942 took effect
December 1996 DENR Secretary Victor Ramos issued DAO 96-40
January 1997 counsels for petitioner sent letter to Ramos demanding DENR to stop implementing RA7942 and DAO
96-40. No response, thus this petition for Mandamus and Prohibition with prayer of TRO and preliminary injunction(denied) claiming
that petitioner Ramos acted without or in excess of jurisdiction in implementing the assailed Constitutionality of RA 7942 of DENR
Administrative Order 96-40 and of the Financial and TechnicalAssistance Agreement entered into on 30 March 1995 between the
Republic of the Philippines and WMC(Philippines) , Inc..
January 2001 Manifestation of respondents that WMCP is no longer foreign-owned as WMC has sold100% of its equity
to Filipino company Sagittarius Mines, Inc. which is 60% owned by Filipinos or Filipino-owned corporations. WMCP is renamed
as Tampakan Mineral Resources Corporation. 18 December 2001 DENR approved the transfer and registration of FTAA to
Sagittarius from WMCP. Supreme Court said that this manifestation and transfer does not render the issue moot since the question
of validity of the FTAA will affect even that held by Sagittarius.
Issue/s
Preliminary Issue:
Petitioners have standing since they are residents of the land covered by the FTAA. Sincethe petition if for mandamus and
prohibition and the issue is of constitutionality of a statute, the Supreme is no longer concerned whether or not petitioners are real
parties of interest to the contract/agreement.
EO 279 is valid and whether or not the laws effectivity date lies beyond the expiration of the Presidents legislative power
is irrelevant since it was still enacted when the president held such power. It does not runcounter to EO 200 requiring laws to have
15 days after publication requirement before its effectivity since EO200 also provides unless it is otherwise provided, EO
279 having stated its own effectivity as shall take effectimmediately. In addition, the 15-day post-publication requirement was for
the information of the public anddoes not in any way affect the date of enactment and is not a ground for invalidation. EO 279
nonetheless waspublished on the Official Gazette on 3 August 1987.
The 1987 Constitution provides The President may enter into agreements with foreign-owned
corporations involving either technical or financial assistance for large-scale exploration, development, or utilization of minerals,
petroleum, and other mineral oils according to the general terms and conditions providedby law, based on real contributions to the
economic growth and general welfare of the country. In suchagreements, the State shall promote the development and use of
local scientific and technical resources
Some interesting notes:
1) State may directly undertake such activities
(2) State may enter into co-production, joint-venture or production-sharing agreements with Filipino citizens or qualified corporations
(60% Filipino owned
(3) Congress may allow small-scale utilization of natural resources by Filipino citizens
(4) For the large-scale exploration, development, or utilization of minerals, petroleum, and other mineral oils,the President may enter
into agreements with foreign-owned corporation for technical or financial assistance. The framers of this Constitution expressly
omitted the phrase service contracts that was provided for in the1973 Constitution which allowed foreign companies to manage
and operate mining activities and replaced itwith technical or financial assistance only. RA 7942, DAO 96-40, and the FTAA
between the government and WMCP allows for the management andoperation of the foreign-owned corporation for the large-scale
exploration, development, or utilization of minerals, petroleum, and other mineral oils.
Although counsel for respondents claim that technical is a very broad term that may cover the management and
operation of such activities, it is still clear from the deliberation of the Constitutional Commission that they intended to limit the
utilization of the natural resources for the sole enjoyment of the Filipinos.
Ultimate decision.
Petition Granted. Certain provisions of RA 7942 are declared null and void. So are all provisions of Departmentof
Environment and Natural Resources Administrative Order 96-40, s. 1996 which are not in conformity withthis Decision, and the
Financial and Technical Assistance Agreement between the Government of the Republicof the Philippines and WMC Philippines, Inc
5. labugal vs ramos dec 1, 2004
DOCTRINE
Under the doctrine of separation of powers and due respect for co-equal and coordinate branches of government, the Court must
restrain itself from intruding into policy matters and must allow the President and Congress maximum discretion in using the
resources of our country and in securing the assistance of foreign groups to eradicate the grinding poverty of our people and answer
their cry for viable employment opportunities in the country.
FACTS
The extant case involves a Petition for Prohibition and Mandamus before the Court which challenges the constitutionality
of (1) Republic Act 7942 (The Philippine Mining Act of 1995); (2) its Implementing Rules and Regulations (DENR Administrative
Order [DAO] 96-40); and (3) the Financial and Technical Assistance Agreement (FTAA) dated 30 March 1995, executed by the
government with Western Mining Corporation (Philippines), Inc. (WMCP).
Before February, the Court released its Decision, granting the Petition and declaring the unconstitutionality of certain
provisions of RA 7942, DAO 96-40, as well as of the entire FTAA executed between the government and WMCP, mainly on the
finding that FTAAs are service contracts prohibited by the 1987 Constitution.
The Decision struck down the subject FTAA for being similar to service contracts,which, though permitted under the 1973
Constitution, were subsequently denounced for being antithetical to the principle of sovereignty over our natural resources, because
they allowed foreign control over the exploitation of our natural resources, to the prejudice of the Filipino nation.
The landmark decision drew strength from several legal scholars and authors who had criticized service contracts for,
inter alia, vesting in the foreign contractor exclusive management and control of the enterprise, including operation of the field in the
event petroleum was discovered; control of production, expansion and development; nearly unfettered control over the disposition
and sale of the products discovered/extracted; effective ownership of the natural resource at the point of extraction; and beneficial
ownership of our economic resources.
According to the Decision, the 1987 Constitution (Section 2 of Article XII) effectively banned such service contracts.
Subsequently, Ramos several government officials filed a motion for reconsideration.
Issue:
Whether or not the Court has a role in the exercise of the power of control over the EDU of our natural resources?
Held:
After due consideration and evaluation of the financial and technical qualifications of Sagittarius Mines, Inc., the DENR
Secretary approved the transfer of the Columbio FTAA from WMC Philippines to Sagittarius Mines, Inc. in the assailed Order.
According to said Order, pursuant to Section 66 of Department Administrative Order No. 96-40, as amended, Sagittarius Mines, Inc.
meets the qualification requirements as Contractor-Transferee of FTAA No. 02-95-XI, and that the application for transfer of said
FTAA went thru the procedure and other requirements set forth under the law.
Aggrieved by the transfer of the Columbio FTAA in favor of Sagittarius Mines, Inc., petitioner filed a Petition for Review of
the Order of the DENR Secretary with the Office of the President. Petitioner assails the validity of the 18 December 2001 Order of
the Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) approving the application for and the consequent
registration of FTAA No. 02-95-XI from WMC Philippines to Sagittarius Mines, Inc.on the ground that: 1) it violates the constitutional
right of Lepanto to due process; 2) it preempts the resolution of very crucial legal issues pending with the regular courts; and 3) it
blatantly violates Section 40 of the Mining Act.
In a Decision dated 23 July 2002, the Office of the President dismissed the petition
ISSUE:
WHETHER OR NOT the Philippine Mining Act of 1995, particularly Section 40 thereof requiring the approval of the
President of the assignment or transfer of financial or technical assistance agreements should have a retroactive application to the
Columbio FTAA.
HELD:
NO. Applying the above-cited law retroactively would contradict the established legal doctrine that statutes are to be
construed as having only a prospective operation unless the contrary is expressly stated or necessarily implied from the language
used in the law.
In the case at bar, there is an absence of either an express declaration or an implication in the Philippine Mining Act of
1995 that the provisions of said law shall be made to apply retroactively, therefore, any section of said law must be made to apply
only prospectively, in view of the rule that a statute ought not to receive a construction making it act retroactively, unless the words
used are so clear, strong, and imperative that no other meaning can be annexed to them, or unless the intention of the legislature
cannot be otherwise satisfied.
G.R. No. 163101
BENGUET CORPORATION vs. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES-MINES ADJUDICATION
BOARD and J.G. REALTY AND MINING CORPORATION
FACTS:
Benguet and J.G. Realty entered into a Royalty Agreement with Option to Purchase (RAWOP) , wherein J.G. Realty was
acknowledged as the owner of four mining claims with a total area of 288.8656 hectares. The parties also executed a Supplemental
Agreement.The mining claims were covered by Mineral Production Sharing Agreement (MPSA) Application No. APSA-V-0009 jointly
filed by J.G. Realty as claim-owner and Benguet as operator.
After some time, the Executive Vice-President of Benguet, Antonio N. Tachuling, issued a letter informing J.G. Realty of its intention
to develop the mining claims. However, J.G. Realty, through its President, Johnny L. Tan, then sent a letter to the President of
Benguet informing the latter that it was terminating the RAWOP. The latter alleged that petitioner violated some of the provisions of
the RAWOP, specifically on non-payment of royalties and non-fulfillment of obligations stipulated therein.
J.G. Realty filed a Petition for Declaration of Nullity/Cancellation of the RAWOP. POA issued a Decision, cancelling the RAWOP and
its Supplemental Agreement. BENGUET was subsequently excluded from the joint MPSA Application over the mineral claims.
Subsequent MR was denied. Said decision was upheld by DENR-MAB.
Hence this instant petition.
ISSUE:
Whether or no the filing of the petition with the Supreme Court is proper.
HELD:
NO. the instant petition can be denied outright as Benguet resorted to an improper Remedy.
The last paragraph of Section 79 of Republic Act No. (RA) 7942 or the Philippine Mining Act of 1995 states, A petition
for review by certiorari and question of law may be filed by the aggrieved party with the Supreme Court within thirty (30) days from
receipt of the order or decision of the [MAB].
The Revised Rules of Civil Procedure included Rule 43 to provide a uniform rule on appeals from quasi-judicial agencies.
Under the rule, appeals from their judgments and final orders are now required to be brought to the CA on a verified petition for
review. A quasi-judicial agency or body has been defined as an organ of government, other than a court or legislature, which affects
the rights of private parties through either adjudication or rule-making. MAB falls under this definition; hence, it is no different from
the other quasi-judicial bodies enumerated under Rule 43. Besides, the introductory words in Section 1 of Circular No. 191among these agencies areindicate that the enumeration is not exclusive or conclusive and acknowledge the existence of
other quasi-judicial agencies which, though not expressly listed, should be deemed included therein.
The judicial policy of observing the hierarchy of courts dictates that direct resort from administrative agencies to this Court will not be
entertained, unless the redress desired cannot be obtained from the appropriate lower tribunals, or unless exceptional and
compelling circumstances justify availment of a remedy falling within and calling for the exercise of our primary jurisdiction.
Thus Benguet should have filed the appeal with the CA.
Petitioner having failed to properly appeal to the CA under Rule 43, the decision of the MAB has become final and executory. On
this ground alone, the instant petition must be denied.
discoverer. The discoverer or locator can only develop and utilize said minerals for his own benefit if he has complied with all the
requirements set forth by applicable laws and if the State has conferred on him such right through permits, concessions or
agreements. In other words, without the imprimatur of the State, any mining aspirant does not have any definitive right over the
mineral land because, unlike a private landholding, mineral land is owned by the State, and the same cannot be alienated to any
private person as explicitly stated in Section 2, Article XIV of the 1987 Constitution:
All lands of public domain, waters, minerals x x x and all other natural resources are owned by the
State. With the exception of agricultural lands, all other natural resources shall not be alienated. (Emphases
supplied.)
Further, a closer scrutiny of the deed of assignment in favor of SEM reveals that MMC assigned to the former the rights
and interests it had in EP 133, thus:
1. That for ONE PESO (P1.00) and other valuable consideration received by the ASSIGNOR from
the ASSIGNEE, the ASSIGNOR hereby ASSIGNS, TRANSFERS and CONVEYS unto the ASSIGNEE whatever
rights or interest the ASSIGNOR may have in the area situated in Monkayo, Davao del Norte and Cateel, Davao
Oriental, identified as Exploration Permit No. 133 and Application for a Permit to Prospect in Bunawan, Agusan
del Sur respectively. (Emphasis supplied.)
It is evident that what MMC had over the disputed area during the assignment was an exploration permit. Clearly, the
right that SEM acquired was limited to exploration, only because MMC was a mere holder of an exploration permit. As
previously explained, SEM did not acquire the rights inherent in the permit, as the assignment by MMC to SEM was done
in violation of the condition stipulated in the permit, and the assignment was effected without the approval of the proper
authority in contravention of the provision of the mining law governing at that time. In addition, the permit expired on 6
July 1994. It is, therefore, quite clear that SEM has no right over the area.
G.R. No. 98332
January 16, 1995
MINERS ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES, INC., petitioner,
vs.
HON. FULGENCIO S. FACTORAN, JR., Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources, and JOEL D. MUYCO, Director of Mines
and Geosciences Bureau, respondents.
FACTS:
Pursuant to Section 6 of Executive Order No. 279, authorizing the DENR Secretary to negotiate and conclude joint venture, coproduction, or production-sharing agreements for the exploration, development and utilization of mineral resources, and prescribing
the guidelines for such agreements and those agreements involving technical or financial assistance by foreign-owned corporations
for large-scale exploration, development, and utilization of minerals, the DENR Secretary issued DENR Administrative Order No. 57,
series of 1989, entitled "Guidelines on Mineral Production Sharing Agreement under Executive Order No. 279." Under the transitory
provision of said DENR Administrative Order No. 57, embodied in its Article 9, all existing mining leases or agreements which were
granted after the effectivity of the 1987 Constitution pursuant to Executive Order No. 211, except small scale mining leases and
those pertaining to sand and gravel and quarry resources covering an area of twenty (20) hectares or less, shall be converted into
production-sharing agreements within one (1) year from the effectivity of these guidelines.
The Secretary of the DENR then further issued DENR Administrative Order No. 82, series of 1990, laying down the "Procedural
Guidelines on the Award of Mineral Production Sharing Agreement (MPSA) through Negotiation."
The issuance and the impending implementation by the DENR of Administrative Order Nos. 57 and 82 after their respective
effectivity dates compelled the Miners Association of the Philippines, Inc. to file the instant petition assailing their validity and
constitutionality before this Court.
Petitioner Miners Association of the Philippines, Inc., mainly contends that the administrative orders do not conform with Executive
Order Nos. 211 and 279, petitioner contends that both orders violate the non-impairment of contract provision under Article III,
Section 10 of the 1987 Constitution on the ground that Administrative Order No. 57 unduly pre-terminates existing mining leases and
other mining agreements and automatically converts them into production-sharing agreements within one (1) year from its effectivity
date. On the other hand, Administrative Order No. 82 declares that failure to submit Letters of Intent and Mineral ProductionSharing Agreements within two (2) years from the date of effectivity of said guideline or on July 17, 1991 shall cause the
abandonment of their mining, quarry and sand gravel permits.
Petitioner argued that Executive Order No. 279 does not contemplate automatic conversion of mining lease agreements into mining
production-sharing agreement as provided under Article 9, Administrative Order No. 57 and/or the consequent abandonment of
mining claims for failure to submit LOIs and MPSAs under Section 3, Administrative Order No. 82 because Section 1 of said
Executive Order No. 279 empowers the DENR Secretary to negotiate and enter into voluntary agreements which must set forth the
minimum terms and conditions provided under Section 2 thereof. Moreover, petitioner contends that the power to regulate and
enter into mining agreements does not include the power to preterminate existing mining lease agreements.
ISSUE:
Whether or not DENR Administrative Order Nos. 57 and 82 issued by the DENR Secretary are unconstitutional.
HELD:
NO. DENR Administrative Order Nos. 57 and 82 are not unconstitutional.
The questioned administrative orders are reasonably directed to the accomplishment of the purposes of the law under which they
were issued and were intended to secure the paramount interest of the public, their economic growth and welfare. The validity and
constitutionality of Administrative Order Nos. 57 and 82 must be sustained, and their force and effect upheld.
Administrative Order No. 57 applies only to all existing mining leases or agreements which were granted after the effectivity of the
1987 Constitution pursuant to Executive Order No. 211. It bears mention that under the text of Executive Order No. 211, there is a
reservation clause which provides that the privileges as well as the terms and conditions of all existing mining leases or agreements
granted after the effectivity of the 1987 Constitution, pursuant to Executive Order No. 211, shall be subject to any and all
modifications or alterations which Congress may adopt pursuant to Article XII, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution. Hence, the
strictures of the non-impairment of contract clause under Article III, Section 10 of the 1987 Constitution do not apply to the aforesaid
mining leases or agreements granted after the effectivity of the 1987 Constitution, pursuant to Executive Order No. 211. They can
be amended, modified or altered by a statute passed by Congress to achieve the purposes of Article XII, Section 2 of the 1987
Constitution.
Moreover, nowhere in Administrative Order No. 57 is there any provision which would lead us to conclude that the questioned order
authorizes the automatic conversion of mining leases and agreements granted after the effectivity of the 1987 Constitution, pursuant
to Executive Order No. 211, to production-sharing agreements. The provision in Article 9 of Administrative Order No. 57 that "all
such leases or agreements shall be converted into production sharing agreements within one (1) year from the effectivity of these
guidelines" could not possibly contemplate a unilateral declaration on the part of the Government that all existing mining leases and
agreements are automatically converted into production-sharing agreements. On the contrary, the use of the term "productionsharing agreement" in the same provision implies negotiation between the Government and the applicants, if they are so minded.
Negotiation negates compulsion or automatic conversion as suggested by petitioner in the instant petition. A mineral productionsharing agreement (MPSA) requires a meeting of the minds of the parties after negotiations arrived at in good faith and in
accordance with the procedure laid down in the subsequent Administrative Order No. 82.
FACTS:
The instant case involves a rich tract of mineral land situated in the Agusan-Davao-Surigao Forest Reserve known as the Diwalwal
Gold Rush Area. Located at Mt. Diwata in the municipalities of Monkayo and Cateel in Davao Del Norte, the land has been
embroiled in controversy since the mid-80s due to the scramble over gold deposits found within its bowels.
On March 10, 1988, Marcopper Mining Corporation (Marcopper) was granted Exploration Permit No. 133 (EP No. 133) over 4,491
hectares of land, which included the hotly-contested Diwalwal area.
Not long thereafter, Congress enacted on June 27, 1991 Republic Act No. 7076, or the Peoples Small-Scale Mining Act. The law
established a Peoples Small-Scale Mining Program to be implemented by the Secretary of the DENR and created the Provincial
Mining Regulatory Board (PMRB) under the DENR Secretarys direct supervision and control. The statute also authorized the PMRB
to declare and set aside small-scale mining areas subject to review by the DENR Secretary and award mining contracts to smallscale miners under certain conditions.
On December 21, 1991, DENR Secretary Fulgencio S. Factoran issued Department Administrative Order (DAO) No. 66, declaring
729 hectares of the Diwalwal area as non-forest land open to small-scale mining. The issuance was made pursuant to the powers
vested in the DENR Secretary by Proclamation No. 369, which established the Agusan-Davao-Surigao Forest Reserve.
On June 24, 1997, the DENR Secretary issued Memorandum Order No. 97-03 which directs the DENR to study thoroughly and
exhaustively the option of direct state utilization of the mineral resources in the Diwalwal Gold-Rush Area. Such study shall include,
but shall not be limited to, studying and weighing the feasibility of entering into management agreements or operating agreements,
or both, with the appropriate government instrumentalities or private entities, or both, in carrying out the declared policy of
rationalizing the mining operations in the Diwalwal Gold Rush Area; such agreements shall include provisions for profit-sharing
between the state and the said parties, including profit-sharing arrangements with small-scale miners, as well as the payment of
royalties to indigenous cultural communities, among others. The Undersecretary for Field Operations, as well as the Undersecretary
for Legal and Legislative Affairs and Attached Agencies, and the Director of the Mines and Geo-sciences Bureau are hereby ordered
to undertake such studies. x x x
Petitioner filed a special civil action for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus before the Court of Appeals against PMRB-Davao, the
DENR Secretary and Balite Communal Portal Mining Cooperative (BCPMC), which represented all the OTP grantees. It prayed for
the nullification of the above-quoted Memorandum Order No. 97-03 on the ground that the direct state utilization espoused therein
would effectively impair its vested rights under EP No. 133.
The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition. It ruled that the DENR Secretary did not abuse his discretion in issuing Memorandum
Order No. 97-03 since the same was merely a directive to conduct studies on the various options available to the government for
solving the Diwalwal conflict.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred when it concluded that the assailed memorandum order did not adopt the direct state
utilization scheme in resolving the Diwalwal dispute.
Held:
We agree with the Court of Appeals ruling that the challenged MO 97-03 did not conclusively adopt direct state utilization as a
policy in resolving the Diwalwal dispute. The terms of the memorandum clearly indicate that what was directed thereunder was
merely a study of this option and nothing else. Contrary to petitioners contention, it did not grant any management/operating or
profit-sharing agreement to small-scale miners or to any party, for that matter, but simply instructed the DENR officials concerned to
undertake studies to determine its feasibility.