GR # L-49109 December 1, 1987

FACTS: Presidential Decree No.1214 was issued requiring holders of

subsisting and valid patentable mining claims located under the provisions
of the Philippine Bill of 1902 to file a mining lease of application within one
(1) year from the approval of the Decree. To protect its rights, petitioner
Santa Rosa Mining Company files a special civil action for certiorari and
prohibition confronting the said Decree as unconstitutional in that it
amounts to a deprivation of property without due process of law.
Subsequently, three (3) days after, petitioner filed a mining lease
application, but under protest, with a reservation that it is not waiving its
rights over its mining claims until the validity of the Decree shall have
been passed upon by the Court.
The respondents allege that petitioner has no standing to file the instant
petition and question the Decree as it failed to fully exhaust administrative
remedies.
ISSUE: Whether or not Presidential Decree No. 1214 is constitutional.
HELD: Yes, Presidential Decree No. 1214 is constitutional, even assuming
arguendo that petitioners was not bound to exhaust administrative
remedies for its mining claims to be valid in the outset. It is a valid
exercise of the sovereign power of the State, as owner, over the lands of
the public domain, of which petitioners mining claims still form a part.
Moreover, Presidential Decree No. 1214 is in accord with Sec. 8, Art XIV of
the 1937 Constitution.

DIPiDio earth savers vs DENR Secretary Police Power Eminent

Domain

In 1987, Cory rolled out EO 279 w/c empowered DENR to stipulate with foreign
companies when it comes to either technical or financial large scale exploration or
mining. In 1995, Ramos signed into law RA 7942 or the Philippine Mining Act. In
1994, Ramos already signed an FTAA with Arimco Mining Co, an Australian
company. The FTAA authorized AMC (later CAMC) to explore 37,000 ha of land in
Quirino and N. Vizcaya including Brgy Didipio. After the passage of the law, DENR
rolled out its implementing RRs. Didipio petitioned to have the law and the RR to be
annulled as it is unconstitutional and it constitutes unlawful taking of property. In
seeking to nullify Rep. Act No. 7942 and its implementing rules DAO 96-40 as
unconstitutional, petitioners set their sight on Section 76 of Rep. Act No. 7942 and
Section 107 of DAO 96-40 which they claim allow the unlawful and unjust taking
of private property for private purpose in contradiction with Section 9, Article III of
the 1987 Constitution mandating that private property shall not be taken except for
public use and the corresponding payment of just compensation. They assert that
public respondent DENR, through the Mining Act and its Implementing Rules and
Regulations, cannot, on its own, permit entry into a private property and allow taking
of land without payment of just compensation.
Traversing petitioners assertion, public respondents argue that Section 76 is not a
taking provision but a valid exercise of the police power and by virtue of which, the
state may prescribe regulations to promote the health, morals, peace, education, good
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 ruled against Didipio. 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. Indeed 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.