15. GR No. 127882/La Bugal-BLaan Tribal Association, Inc. v.

Victor Ramos/January 27, 2004

Facts: President Corazon Aquino issued Executive Order (EO) 279, as part of her interim legislative power which authorizes the DENR Secretary to accept, consider and evaluate proposals from foreign-owned corporations or foreign investors for contracts or agreements involving either technical or financial assistance for large-scale exploration, development, and utilization of minerals, which, upon appropriate recommendation of the Secretary, the she may execute with the foreign proponent. President Fidel Ramos approved RA 7942 known as the Mining Act to "govern the exploration, development, utilization and processing of all mineral resources. Shortly, after its effectivity, the President entered into a Financial and Technical Assistance Agreement (FTAA) with Western Mining Corporation Philippines (WMCP) which is owned by WMC Resources International Pty., Ltd. (The latter is a wholly owned subsidiary of Western Mining Corporation Holdings Limited, a publicly listed major Australian mining and exploration company.), covering 99, 387 hectares of land in South Cotabato, Sultan Kuradat, Davao del Sur and North Cotabato. Then DENR Secretary Victor O. Ramos issued DENR Administrative Order (DAO) No. 95-23, s. 1995, known as the Implementing Rules and Regulations of the said RA 7942 which was later repealed by DAO No. 96-40, s. 1996. Counsels for petitioners sent a letter to the DENR Secretary demanding that the DENR stop the implementation of the said law and its implementing rules giving the DENR fifteen days from receipt to act thereon. The DENR, however, has yet to respond or act on petitioners letter. The petitioners filed the present petition for prohibition and mandamus, with a prayer for a temporary restraining order alleging that at the time of the filing of the petition, 100 FTAA applications has already been filed, covering an area of 8.4 million hectares, 64 of the application are by fully foreign-owned corporations, and at least one by a fully foreign-owned mining company over offshore areas. They are questioning the effectivity of EO 279 which says that the effectivity of the said presidential issuance is contrary to what is provided in EO 200 which says laws are effective after fifteen (15) days following its publication. Given this, the power of that issuance has ceased to exist because prior to the lapse of the 15-day period Congress has convened making the powers to legislate by the President ceased to exist. The FTAA issued by the President with WMC, the original company before it was called WMCP. They also claim that the DENR Secretary acted without or in excess of jurisdiction on the ground of the issuance of DAO No. 96-40 regulations of RA 7942, which the latter is unconstitutional for it: a.) allows fully foreign-owned corporations to explore, develop, utilize and exploit mineral resources in a manner contrary to Sec. 2, par. 4, Art. XII of the Constitution; b.) allows the taking of private property without the determination of public use and for just compensation; c.) violates Sec. 1, Art. III of the Constitution; d.) allows enjoyment by foreign citizens as well as fully foreign owned corporations of the nations marine wealth contrary to Sec. 2, par. 2 of Art. XII of the Constitution; e.) allows priority to foreign and fully foreign owned corporations in the exploration, development and utilization of mineral resources contrary to Art. XII of the Constitution; f.) allows the inequitable sharing of wealth contrary to Sec. 1, par. 1. and Sec. 2, par. 4 of Art. XII of the Constitution. Moreover, in recommending approval of and implementing the FTAA between the President and WMCP because the same is illegal and unconstitutional. They pray that the Court issue an order: a.) permanently enjoining the respondents from acting on any application for FTAAs; b.) declaring RA 7942 as unconstitutional and null and void; c.) declaring the IRR contained in DAO 96-40 and all other similar administrative issuances as unconstitutional and null and void; and d.) cancelling the FTAA issued to WMCP as unconstitutional, illegal and null and void. Respondents argued that the EO 279 is constitutional according to the ruling in Miners Association of the Philippines vs. Factoran. They further argues that the first three requisites to warrant judicial review in this case are not present such as absence of actual controversy and legal standing of the petitioners and the question is not raised at the earliest opportunity. On the issue of the constitutionality of the DAO 96-40, respondents insisted that agreements involving technical or financial assistance is just another term for service contracts as reflected in the deliberations of the Constitutional Commission preparing the draft of the 1987 Constitution. Issues Procedural Issue 1. Is there a violation on the rule of hierarchy of courts against the petitioners?

Substantive Issue 1. Is the petition a justiciable question given that the petition was raised after two years of the execution of the FTAA? 2. When did EO 279 become effective, as provided in the presidential issuance itself or as provided in EO 200? 3. Is RA 7942 constitutional? 4. Is DAO 96-40 valid? 5. Is the WMCP FTAA valid? Rulings According to the Cited Issues Procedural Issue 1. Although the Supreme Court has concurrent jurisdiction with the Regional Trial Courts and the Court of Appeals to issue writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus and injunction, such concurrence does not give a party unrestricted freedom of choice of court forum. It is allowed to directly file the petition in the Supreme Court where the redress desired cannot be obtained in the appropriate courts or where exceptional and compelling circumstances justify such invocation as held in People vs. Cuaresma. The issues raised constitute exceptional and compelling circumstances to justify the direct petition. The Court has the discretion to take cognizance of a suit which does not satisfy the requirements of an actual or legal standing when paramount importance to the public interest is involved. Thus, the Court may brush aside technicalities of procedure. Substantive Issues 1. The issue is justiciable on the ground that this requisite should not be taken to mean that the question of constitutionality must be raised immediately after the execution of the state action complained of. That the question of constitutionality has not been raised before is not a valid reason for refusing to allow it to be raised later. A contrary rule would mean that a law, otherwise unconstitutional, would lapse into constitutionality by the mere failure of the proper party to promptly file a case to challenge the same. 2. Nothing in EO 200 which prevents a law from taking effects on a date other thaneven before- the 15day period after its publication. Where a law provides for its own date of effectivity, such date prevails over that prescribed by said issuance. It is the very essence of the phrase unless it is otherwise provided Sec. 1 of EO 200, therefore, appli es only when a statute does not provide for its own date of effectivity. What is mandatory under EO 200 and what due process requires is the publication of the law for without such notice and publication, there would be no basis for the application of the maxim ignorantia legis n[eminem] excusat It is clear that EO 279 was published in the Official Gazette on August 3, 1987. The said effectivity took place after the convening of the first Congress is irrelevant. At the time President Aquino issued EO 279 on July 25, 1987, she was still validly exercising legislative powers under the Provisional Constitution. The ruling in Miners Association of the Philippines is not applicable since the question raised in the said case was the unconstitutionality of the DAO 57 and 82 which were pursuant to EO 279. 3. As to the third, fourth and last issues, the ruling are consolidated given the relation of the said issuances. The national patrimony or our natural resources are exclusively reserved for the Filipino people. No alien must be allowed to enjoy, exploit and develop our natural resources. As a matter of fact, that principle proceeds from the fact that our natural resources are gifts from God to the Filipino people and it would be a breach of that special blessing from God if we will allow aliens to exploit our natural resources. The phrase management or other forms of assistance in the 1973 Constitution was deleted in the 1987 Constitution, which allows only technical or financial assistance. Casus omisus pro om isso habendus est. A person, object or thing omitted from an enumeration must be held to have been omitted intentionally. The management or operation of mining activities by foreign contractors, which is the primary feature of service contracts, was precisely the evil that the drafters of the 1987 Constitution sought to eradicate. To uphold respondents' theory would reduce the latter to a mere euphemism for the former and render the change in phraseology meaningless. It is apparent that service contracts are not allowed in the 1987 Constitution.

There can be little doubt that the WMCP FTAA itself is a service contract. Section 1.3 of the WMCP FTAA grants WMCP "the exclusive right to explore, exploit, utilize [,] process and dispose of all Minerals products and byproducts thereof that may be produced from the Contract Area." While WMCP invokes the Agreement on the Promotion and Protection of Investments between the Philippine and Australian Governments, the annulment of the FTAA would not be a violation of the principle pacta sunt servanda since the decision forms part of the legal system of the Philippines. Disposition WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Court hereby declares unconstitutional and void: (1) The following provisions of Republic Act No. 7942: (a) The proviso in Section 3 (aq), (b) Section 23, (c) Section 33 to 41, (d) Section 56, (e) The second and third paragraphs of Section 81, and (f) Section 90. (2) All provisions of Department of Environment and Natural Resources Administrative Order 96-40, s. 1996 which are not in conformity with this Decision, and (3) The Financial and Technical Assistance Agreement between the Government of the Republic of the Philippines and WMC Philippines, Inc.