Philippine

Mining Act of
1995
(R.A. 7942)
 Legislative History
R.A. 7942 (Philippine Mining Act) is a consolidation of
H.B.10816 and S.B.1639.

It was passed by the House of Representatives and the

Senate n February 10, 1995.

It was signed into law by President Fidel V. Ramos on

March 03, 1995.

2
R.A.7642, as a law liberalizing the mining
industry, was hailed to boost the country’s
economic growth.

It was also hyped to bring rural progress and

development especially in communities
hosting large scale mining.
 Introduction
Mining:
▪ Plays a crucial role in industrial development.
▪ Induces and supports economic growth.
▪ Contributes foreign currency
▪ Provides employment
▪ Source of tax revenues.

4
 Introduction
Philippines has $840 billion worth of untapped mineral wealth,
but growth of mining investments have been slower (before the
passage of RA7942).

Such untapped mineral includes copper, gold, nicckel, chromite,

limestone, clays, feldspar and semi-precious stones.

5
 Introduction
RA7942 was designed to revive the mining industry and attract
more foreign investment by defining the agreements for mineral
exploitation, and provide

6
 Introduction
Although the mining industry generates outputs and provides
employment, it also has a destructive impact on the environment
through deforestation, and the loss of vegetation and
biodiversity.

Such facts prompted some of our legislators to revisit R.A.7942.

There is now a pending bill in Congress for some amendments
of the Philippine Mining Act of 1995.

7
 Highlights of RA7942 and
its Revised IRR
RA7942 and its Revised IRR is considered in the industry today
as one of the most socially and environmentally-sensitive
legislations in its class. It has specific provisions that take into
consideration:

▪ Local government empowerment;

▪ Respect and concern for the indigenous cultural
communities;
▪ Equitable sharing of benefits of natural wealth;
8
 Highlights of RA7942 and
its Revised IRR
▪ Economic demands of present generation while providing
the necessary foundation for future generations;
▪ Worldwide trend towards globalization; and
▪ Protection for and wise management of the environment.

These were the products of long periods of assessment,

evaluation, and rectification of the sins of the past, the gaps of
the old mining law, and the realities of the present times.

9
 Governing Principles
The Implementing Rules and Regulations (DENR
Administrative Order No.96-40) of the Philippine Mining Act of
1995 provides strict adherence to the principle of
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT.

It provides that the use of mineral wealth shall be pro-people

and pro-environment in sustaining wealth creation and improve
quality of life.

10
 Governing Principles
The principles of SUSTAINABLE MINING operates under the
following terms:

▪ Mining is a temporary land use for the creation of wealth,

leading to an optimum land use in post-mining stage as
consequence of progressive and engineered mine
rehabilitation works done in cycle with mining operations;

11
 Governing Principles
▪ Mining activities must always be guided by current Best
Practices in environmental management committed to
reducing the impacts of mining while efficiently and
effectively protecting the environment.

▪ The wealth created as a result of mining accruing to the

Government and the community should lead to other wealth-
generating opportunities for people in the communities and
for other environment-responsible endeavors.
12
 Governing Principles
▪ Mining activities shall be undertaken with due and equal
regard for economic and environmental considerations, as
well as for health, safety, social and cultural concerns.

▪ Conservation of minerals is effected not only through

technological efficiencies of mining operations but also
through the recycling of mineral-based products, to
effectively lengthen the usable life of mineral commodities.

13
 Governing Principles
▪ The granting of mining rights shall harmonize existing
activities, policies and programs of the Government that
directly or indirectly promote self-reliance, development and
resource management. Activities, policies and programs that
promote community-based, community-oriented and
procedural development shall be encouraged, consistent with
the principles of people empowerment and grassroots
development.

14
 Organizational Implementations
The Mining Act reverts back the Mines and Geosciences Bureau
(MGB) from a Staff to a Line Bureau. Under this arrangement,
the MGB Central Office has now the administrative jurisdiction
and responsibility over its regional offices. The Line Bureau
structure was contemplated to ensure organizational efficiency
and flexibility in managing limited resources and technical
expertise.

15
 Organizational Implementations
The authorities/responsibilities of the MGB are as follows:

▪ Management and administration of mineral lands and

resources, including the granting of mining permits and
mineral agreements;

▪ Enforcement and monitoring of Environmental Work

Programs (EWP) and Environmental Protection and
Enhancement Program (EPEP);
16
 Organizational Implementations
▪ Establishment and operationalization of the Contingent
Liability and Rehabilitation Fund (CLRF), as well as the
mandatory Final Mine Rehabilitation and Decommissioning
Plan;

▪ Cancel mining applications and mining rights violating the

provisions of the Mining Act, its implementing rules and
regulations, and/or the terms and conditions of a mining
permit/contract/agreement;
17
 Organizational Implementations
▪ For the Regional Directors to impose Cease-and-Desist
Orders (CDO);

▪ To deputize the PNP, LGUs, NGOs and other responsible

entities to police mining activities;

18
 Role of Local Governments
The IRR highlights the role of local government units (LGUs) in
mining projects, both as beneficiaries and as active participants
in mineral resources management, in consonance with the
Constitution and government policies on local autonomy and
empowerment.

As such, the Mining Act provides the following:

19
 Role of Local Governments
▪ In consonance with the Local Government Code of 1992
(LGC), LGUs have a share of forty percent (40%) of the
gross collection derived by the National Government from
mining taxes, royalties and other such taxes, fees or charges
from mining operations in addition to the occupational fees
(30% to the Province and 70% to the Municipalities
concerned);

20
 Role of Local Governments
▪ In consonance with the LGC and the People Small-Scale
Mining Act (RA 7076), the LGUs shall be responsible for
the issuance of permits for small-scale mining and quarrying
operations, through the Provincial/City Mining Regulatory
Boards (PMRBs/CMRBs);

▪ To actively participate in the process by which the

communities shall reach an informed decision on the social
acceptability of a mining project as a requirement for
securing an Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC);
21
 Role of Local Governments
▪ To ensure that relevant laws on public notices, consultations
and public participation are complied with;

▪ To participate in the monitoring of mining activities as a

member of the Multipartite Monitoring Team, as well as in
the Mine Rehabilitation Fund Committee;

▪ To act as mediator between the Indigenous Cultural

Communities (ICCs) and the mining contractor as may be
requested/necessary;
22
 Role of Local Governments
▪ To be the recipients of social infrastructures and community
development projects for the utilization and benefit of the
host and neighboring communities; and

▪ To coordinate with and assist the DENR and the MGB in the
implementation of the Mining Act and the IRR.

23
 Areas Closed to the
Mining Application
Pursuant to R.A.7942, and in consonance with State policies and
existing laws, areas may either be closed to mining operations,
or conditionally opened, as follows:

Areas CLOSED to mining applications:

▪ Areas covered by valid and existing mining rights and

applications;

24
 Areas Closed to the
Mining Application
▪ Old growth or virgin forests, mossy forests, national parks,
provincial/municipal forests, tree parks, greenbelts, game
refuge, bird sanctuaries and areas proclaimed as marine
reserve/marine parks and sanctuaries and areas proclaimed as
marine reserve/marine parks and tourist zones as defined by
law and identified initial components of the NIPAS, and
such areas as expressly prohibited thereunder, as well as
under DENR Administrative Order No. 25, s. 1992, and
other laws;
25
 Areas Closed to the
Mining Application
▪ Areas which the Secretary may exclude based, inter alia, or
proper assessment of their environmental impacts and
implications on sustainable land uses, such as built-up areas
and critical watershed with appropriate
barangay/municipal/provincial Sanggunian ordinances
specifying therein the location and specific boundaries of the
concerned area; and

▪ Areas expressly prohibited by law.

26
 Areas Closed to the
Mining Application
The following areas may be opened for mining operations, the
approval of which are subject to the following conditions:

▪ Military and other government reservations, upon prior

written consent by the government agency having
jurisdiction over such areas;

27
 Areas Closed to the
Mining Application
▪ Areas near or under public or private buildings, cemeteries,
and archaeological and historic sites, bridges, highways,
waterways, railroads, reservoirs, dams and other
infrastructure projects, public or private works, including
plantations or valuable crops, upon written consent of the
concerned government agency or private entity, subject to
technical evaluation and validation by the MGB;

28
 Areas Closed to the
Mining Application
▪ Areas covered by FTAA applications, which shall be
opened, for quarry resources upon written consent of the
FTAA applicants/contractors. However, mining applications
for sand and gravel shall require no such consent;

▪ DENR Project areas upon prior consent from the concerned

agency.

29
 Ancestral Lands and ICC Areas
The Mining Act fully recognizes the rights of the Indigenous
Peoples (IPs)/Indigenous Cultural Communities (ICCs) and
respect their ancestral lands. Thus, in accordance with DENR
Administrative Order No. 2, and consistent with the new
Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (IPRA), the following shall be
observed:

30
 Ancestral Lands and ICC Areas
▪ No mineral agreements, FTAA and mining permits shall be
granted in ancestral lands/domains except with prior
informed consent in: a) CADC/CLC areas; and b) areas
verified by the DENR Regional Office and/or appropriate
offices as actually occupied by Indigenous Cultural
Communities under a claim of time immemorial possession;

31
 Ancestral Lands and ICC Areas
▪ Where written consent is granted by the ICCs, a royalty
payment shall be negotiated which shall not be less than 1%
of the Gross Output of the mining operations in the area.
This Royalty shall form part of a Trust Fund for socio-
economic well being of the ICCs in accordance with the
management plan formulated by the ICCs in the CADC/
CALC area. (In a large-scale mining operation the 1%
Royalty could easily run into several tens of million pesos
per year).
32 ▪ Representation in the Multi-partite Monitoring Committee;
 Social & Community Development
and Research & Development
The Mining contractors/operators shall allocate a minimum of
1% of their direct mining and milling costs for the following:

▪ Development of the host and neighboring communities and

mine camp, including the construction and maintenance of
social infrastructures to promote the general welfare of the
inhabitants in the area. Such infrastructures include roads
and bridges, school buildings, churches, recreational
facilities, housing facilities, water and power supplies, etc.;
33
 Social & Community Development
and Research & Development
▪ For the development of mining technology and geosciences,
particularly those related to improved efficiencies and
environmental protection and rehabilitation;
The mining contracts under the regimes of MPSA & FTAA also
provide for the mandatory Filipinization program, technology
transfer, and the training and priority employment of local
residents. These contracts further mandate that mining
operations shall maximize the utilization of local goods and
services, the creation of self-sustaining generating activities, and
34 skills-development.
 Environmental & Safety Concerns
A significant feature of the Mining Act of 1995 and its IRR
is the premium given to environmental protection.
Stringent measures were institutionalized to ensure the
compliance of mining contractors/operators to
internationally accepted standards of environmental
management. On top of the ECC conditionalities, herewith
are some of the highlights provided for in the IRR:

35
 Environmental & Safety Concerns
▪ Mandatory allocation of an approximately 10% of the initial
capital expenditures of the mining project for environment-
related activities;

▪ Mandatory annual allocation of 3-5% of the direct mining

and milling costs to implement an Annual Environmental
Protection and Enhancement Program;

36
 Environmental & Safety Concerns
▪ Mandatory establishment of a MINE REHABILITATION
FUND (MRF) to be composed of: (a) a Monitoring Trust
Fund of P50,000 which is replenishable; and (b) a
Rehabilitation Cash Fund of P5 Million or 10% of the EPEP
cost, whichever is lower. Such Funds are to be deposited as
trust account in a government depository bank to be
managed by MRF Committee composed of the MGB
Regional Director, DENR Regional Executive Director,
representatives from the LGU and an NGO, and the
Contractor;
37
 Environmental & Safety Concerns
▪ Mandatory establishment of the Contingent Liability and
Rehabilitation Fund (CLRF) to be managed by a Steering
Committee chaired by the MGB Director with members
coming from concerned government agencies;

▪ Conduct of Environmental Work Program (EWP) during the

exploration stage and an Environmental Protection and
Enhancement Program (EPEP) during the development and
operations stage.
38
 Environmental & Safety Concerns
▪ Institutionalization of an incentive mechanism to mining
companies utilizing engineered and well-maintained mine
waste and tailings disposal systems with zero-discharge of
materials/effluents and/or with wastewater treatments plants;

▪ Mandatory constitution and operationalization of a

Multipartite Monitoring Team composed of representatives
from the MGB, DENR Reg’l Office, affected communities,
ICC, an environmental NGO, and the Contractor/Permit
Holder, to monitor mining operations;
39
 Environmental & Safety Concerns
▪ Mandatory establishment and operationalization of a Mine
Environmental and Protection and Enhancement Office
(MEPEO) in each mining/contract area which shall set the
level of priorities and marshal the resources needed to
implement environmental management programs;

▪ Conduct of an independent environmental audit to identify

environmental risks affecting mining operations as a basis
for the development of an effective environmental
management system;
40
 Environmental & Safety Concerns
▪ Mandatory preparation and implementation of a final Mine
Rehabilitation/ Decommissioning Plan at least five (5) year
prior to the end of the life of the mine, to be undertaken in
consultation and in coordination with the concerned
communities, and shall be submitted for approval by the
MGB and LGU concerned;
▪ Imposition of higher penalty (P50.00/MT) to mining
companies that are found to have illegally discharged and/or
discharging solid fractions of tailings into areas other than
41 the approved tailings disposal area;
 Environmental & Safety Concerns
▪ Authorizing the MGB Regional Director to summarily
suspend mining/quarrying operations in case of imminent
danger to human safety or the environment;

▪ Mandatory compliance with the rules and regulations of the

Mines Safety Rules and Regulations by all Contractors,
Permittees, Lessees, Permit Holders and Service Contractors;
and

42
 Environmental & Safety Concerns
▪ Institution of the Presidential Mineral Industry
Environmental Award to be given to exploration or operating
mining companies based on their exemplary environmental
performance and accomplishments.

43
 On Social Acceptability
Mining contractors/operators shall allocate a minimum of 1% of
their direct mining and milling costs for the development of the
following:

▪ Host and neighboring communities and mine camp to

promote the general welfare of inhabitants in the area. This
includes construction and maintenance of infrastructures
such as roads and bridges, school buildings, housing and
recreational facilities, water and power supplies, etc.; and
44
 On Social Acceptability

▪ Mining technology and geosciences, particularly those

related to improved efficiencies and environmental
protection and rehabilitation.

45
 Mining Permits Granted to
Qualified Persons

The following are the types of mining permits granted under the
Mining Act of 1995 and its IRR:

▪ Exploration Permit - these permits are issued to qualified

individuals or local and foreign corporations granting them
to undertake purely mineral exploration activities. Has a term
of two (2) years renewable for like terms but not to exceed a
total term of six (6) years for non-metallic minerals and eight
(8) years for metallic minerals.
46
 Mining Permits Granted to
Qualified Persons
The Permittee may eventually apply for Mineral
Agreement or FTAA, subject to maximum areas
limitations. The maximum areas allowed per qualified
person under an Exploration Permit are: 1,620 hectares
in any one province or 3,240 hectares in the entire
country for an individual; and 16, 200 hectares in any
one province or 32,400 hectares in the entire country
for a corporation, association, cooperative or
partnership.
47
 Mining Permits Granted to
Qualified Persons
▪ Mineral Agreement - are granted to individuals or local
corporations giving them the right to explore, develop and
utilize the minerals within the contract area. There are three
modes of Mineral Agreements namely:

▪ Mineral Production Sharing Agreement (MPSA) - an agreement

wherein the Government grants to the contractor the exclusive right
to conduct mining operations within, but not title over, the contract
area and shares in the production whether in kind or in value as the
owner of the minerals therein. The Contractor shall provide the
48 necessary financing technology, management and personnel;
 Mining Permits Granted to
Qualified Persons
▪ Co-Production Agreement (CA) - an agreement between the
Government and the Contractor wherein the Government shall
provide inputs to the mining operations other than the mineral
resources; and

▪ Joint Venture Agreement (JVA) - an agreement where the

Government and the Contractor organize a joint venture company
with both parties having equity shares. Aside from earnings in
equity, the Government shall be entitled to a share in the gross
output.
49
 Mining Permits Granted to
Qualified Persons
The features of a Mineral Agreement are as follows:

▪ Term of 25 years, renewable for another term of 25 years;

▪ Exploration Period of two (2) years renewable for like terms

but not to exceed a total term of six (6) years for nonmetallic
minerals or eight (8) years for metallic minerals;

50
 Mining Permits Granted to
Qualified Persons
▪ Maximum allowable areas of 810 hectares in any one
province or 1,620 hectares in the entire country for an
individual, or 8,100 hectares in any one province or 16,200
in the entire country for a corporation, association,
cooperative or partnership.

▪ Provides for mandatory relinquishment such that the

maximum final area shall not exceed 5,000 hectares for
metallic minerals or 2,000 hectares for non-metallic mines;
51
 Mining Permits Granted to
Qualified Persons
▪ Subject to Environmental Work Program (EWP) during the
exploration period, and to Environmental Compliance
Certificate (ECC) and Environmental Protection and
Enhancement Program (EPEP) during the development and
operation period;

▪ Approval by the DENR Secretary

52
 Mining Permits Granted to
Qualified Persons
Financial or Technical Assistance Agreements (FTAA) - a
mining contract for large-scale exploration, development and
utilization of minerals which allows up to 100% foreign equity
participation/ownership. The terms and conditions under an
FTAA are as follows::

▪ Term of 25 years, extendable for like periods;

▪ Minimum capitalization, $4Million, or its peso equivalent;

53
 Mining Permits Granted to
Qualified Persons
▪ Minimum investment for infrastructure and development of
$50Million;

▪ Minimum ground expenditures: For Years 1 & 2 $2/ha/yr;

Years 3 & 4 - $8/ha/yr; Year 5 - $19/ha/yr; Year 6 $23/ha/yr

▪ Allowed only for metallic minerals such as gold, copper,

nickel, chromite, lead, zinc and other metals;

54
 Mining Permits Granted to
Qualified Persons
▪ Maximum allowable area: Aggregate total of 81,000 in the
entire country;

▪ Mandatory area relinquishments : 25% on the first 2-yrs;

10% per year thereafter;

▪ Maximum final area: 5,000 hectares for each mining area;

55
 Mining Permits Granted to
Qualified Persons
▪ Maximum periods: Exploration Period – 4 years; Pre-
Feasibility Study Period – 2 yrs; Feasibility Study Period – 2
years;

▪ Subject to Environmental Work Program (EWP) during the

exploration/pre-feasibility study/feasibility study period, and
to Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC) and
Environmental Protection and Enhancement Program
(EPEP) during the development and operation period;
56
 Mining Permits Granted to
Qualified Persons
▪ Approval by the President, upon recommendation of the
Negotiating Panel composed of the DENR Secretary, the
MGB Director, and representatives from NEDA, DTI/BOE,
Dept. of Finance, DENR Field Operations Office, DENR
Legal Office, and MGB Regional Office.

57
 Mining Permits Granted to
Qualified Persons
▪While the maximum area allowable for FTAA is apparently
substantial, the eventual significant area reduction is ensured by
the mandatory relinquishment provision. Further, the P50/ha/yr
Occupation Fees and the stipulations for minimum ground
expenditures that correspondingly graduate annually upwards
are expected to deter any company for holding on unnecessarily
any excess land areas that are unmineralized.

58
 Mining Permits Granted to
Qualified Persons
Sand and Gravel Permits - are issued for the extraction, removal
and disposition of sand and gravel and other loose or
unconsolidated materials. Permits with areas not exceeding 5
hectares are issued by the Provincial Governor/City Mayor
while those exceeding 5 hectares but not more than 20 hectares
are issued by the MGB Regional Director. A Sand and Gravel
Permit has a term of 5 years and renewable for like terms.

59
 Mining Permits Granted to
Qualified Persons
Quarry Resources Permits - In accordance with the Local
Government Code of 1991, mining permits with areas not more
than 5 hectares have been devolved to the Provincial Governor
or the City Mayor for approval upon recommendation of the
Provincial/City Mining Regulatory Board. These include the
Quarry Permit, Guano Permit, Gratuitous Permit and Gemstone
Gathering Permit.

60
 Mining Permits Granted to
Qualified Persons
Small-Scale Mining Permits - In consonance with the Local
Government Code and RA No. 7076, small-scale mining
permits are approved and issued by the City Mayor/Provincial
Governor, upon recommendation of the Provincial/City Mining
Regulatory Board.

Mineral Processing Permit – a permit granting the right to

process minerals. It is issued by the DENR Secretary with a
term of 5 years and renewable for like terms.
61
 Mining Permits Granted to
Qualified Persons

Ore Transport Permit – no minerals, mineral products and by-

products shall be transported unless accompanied by an Ore
Transport Permit. The OTP is issued by the MGB Regional
Director concerned.

62
 Taxes and Incentives
Mining contractors of MPSA and FTAA can avail of fiscal and
non-fiscal incentives granted under the Omnibus Investment
Code of 1987, as amended.

In addition to these incentives, the following are also granted by

the Mining Act.

▪ Incentives for pollution control devises;

▪ Incentives for income tax carry forward of losses;

63
 Taxes and Incentives
▪ Incentives for income tax accelerated depreciation on fixed
assets;

▪ Investment guarantees, such as investment repatriation,

earnings remittance, freedom from expropriation, and
requisition of investment, and confidentiality of information.

64
 Taxes and Incentives
For FTAA contractors, an additional incentive, in the form of a
tax holiday on national taxes is granted from the start of the
construction and development period up to the end of the cost
recovery period, but not to exceed five years from the start of
commercial operation. After the recovery period, the contractor
starts paying these taxes, including the additional government
share based on negotiated scheme.

65
 Taxes Paid

Mining activities generate income both for the local and national
governments. The following tax payments are provided for in
the Mining Act, the National Internal Revenue Code and other
laws:

66
 Taxes Paid
Payments to the National Government:

▪ Corporate Income Tax

▪ Excise Tax on Minerals
▪ Customs Duties
▪ Value Added Tax
▪ Royalties on Minerals Extracted from Mineral Reservation
▪ Documentary Stamp Tax
▪ Capital Gains Tax
67
 Taxes Paid
Payments to Local Government:

▪ Business Tax
▪ Real Property Tax
▪ Registration Fees
▪ Occupation Fees
▪ Community Tax
▪ Other Local Taxes

68
 Taxes Paid
Withholding Taxes on:

▪ Payroll
▪ Interest Income in Banks
▪ Royalties to Technology Transfer
▪ Interest Payments to Foreign Loans
▪ Foreign Stockholders Dividends
▪ Remittance to Principal

69
 Taxes Paid
In addition to the above taxes, duties and fees, mining
contractors are required to pay or expend on:

▪ Additional Government Share for FTAA contractors

▪ Royalties to Landowners/Claim owners
▪ Royalties to Indigenous Peoples
▪ Environmental Obligations
▪ Research and Development of Mining Technology and
Geosciences
70
 Taxes Paid
The benefits of mining projects provides approximately not less
than sixty percent (60%) of the total proceeds of the mining
operations to the government and the Filipino people,
considering that the contractor infused 100% of the capital.
These proceeds include all direct and indirect taxes and fees and
benefits to other Filipinos.

71
People’s Small-
Scale Mining
Act of 1991
(R.A. 7076)
 Legislative History
Primarily authored by Senator. Aquilino Pimentel, Jr.,
Republic Act 7076 (People’s Small-scale Mining Act of 1991)
is a consolidation of H.B.10516 and S.B.1333.

It was passed by the House of Representatives and the

Senate n May 30, 1991.

It was signed into law by President Corazon C. Aquino on

June 27, 1991.
73
Undeniably the Philippines is endowed with large
deposits of minerals, and with these, the
exploitation of such contributes largely to the
growth of the national economy. But these mining
operations have adverse effects on the ecological
balance. The large-scale extraction and usage of
mineral resources are inherently and essentially
polluting.

It is for there reasons that mining legislation was

enacted to oblige environmental protection
measures to be undertaken by mining operators.
 Overview of the Law

R.A. 7076 defines small-scale as minimum activities which rely

heavily on manual labor using simple implements and methods,
and, and which do not use explosives or heavy mining
equipment.

75
 Overview of the Law
The main purpose of the law is: (1) To effect an orderly and
systematic disposition of small-scale mining areas in the
country; (2) To regulate the small-scale mining industry with the
view to encourage their growth and productivity; and (3) To
provide technical, financial and marketing assistance and
efficient collection of government revenues.

Through this law, the harmful effects of the classic trade-off

between development and environment could be minimized if
not totally avoided.
76
 Overview of the Law
With R.A.7076 it allows small miners under this law to use only
simple equipment like pick and shovel in extracting gold and
other precious metals in their mining areas.

In this age of modern technology, this law is making sure that

the small mining law should benefit the small miners and not
only the big-time operators who are using the skills and sweat of
small-scale miners to accumulate a fortune.

77
 Overview of the Law
Under R.A.7076, no ancestral land may be declared as a
people’s small scale mining area without the prior consent of the
cultural communities concerned. This respects the rights of the
indigenous peoples to their ancestral lands which are fully
guaranteed under existing laws.
The law defines small miners as Filipino citizens who,
individually or in tandem with others, voluntarily form a
cooperative, duly licensed by the DENR, to engage in the
extraction or removal of minerals or ore-bearing materials from
78 the ground.
 Highlights of R.A.7076 and its IRR
It’s implementing rules lay down the powers and functions of
the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the
Provincial/City Mining Regulatory Board and in coordination
with other concerned government agencies. The DENR together
with the other concerned government agencies is designed to
achieve an orderly, systematic and rational scheme for the
small-scale development and utilization of mineral resources in
certain mineral areas in order to address the social, economic,
technical, and environmental connected with small-scale mining
activities.
79
 Highlights of R.A.7076 and its IRR
While the Provincial/City Mining Regulatory Board (PCMRB)
created under the direct supervision and control of the Secretary
which is the board of PCMRB, is the implementing agency of
the Department of Environment and Natural Resources which
has the powers and function subject to review by the Secretary.

80
 Prohibited Acts
Awarded contracts may be canceled on the following grounds:

▪ Non-Compliance with the terms and conditions of the

contract and that of existing mining laws, rules and
regulations including those pertaining to mine safety,
environmental protection and conservation, tree cutting,
mineral processing and pollution control;
▪ Non.-compliance with the contractor's obligations to existing
mining claim holders/private landowners as stipulated in
81 Section 13, 17 and 18 of this Order;
 Prohibited Acts
▪ Non-payment of fees, taxes, royalties or government share in
accordance with this Order and existing mining laws;

▪ Abandonment of mining site by the contractor; and

▪ Ejectment from the People's Small-scale Mining Area of the

Contractor by the government for reasons of national interest
and security.

82
 Penalties/Fines
When contracts are canceled for grounds from the
abovementioned, the Secretary may impose fines of an amount
not less than Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20, 000.00) but not
more than One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100, 000.00). Non-
payment of the fine imposed shall render the small-scale mining
contractor ineligible for other small-scale mining contracts.

83
 THE IRR
In the revised IRR, contracts for small-scale mining operations
shall now be issued by the Provincial/City Mining Regulatory
Board instead of the Provincial Governor or City Mayor that
often lacks the technical expertise to understand their
operations. The declaration of Minahang Bayan would be
reviewed by the Provincial/City Mining Regulatory Board that
would be submitted to the office of the DENR Secretary for
clearance.

84
 THE IRR
DAO No. 2015-03 limited the extraction of small scale mining
of metallic materials to just three minerals namely: gold, silver
and chromite.

Among the other salient features of DAO No. 2015-03 is the

complete banning of the use of mercury in any phase of mineral
processing. The use of hydraulicking, and compressor mining
methods shall as well be prohibited.

85
 THE IRR
The revised IRR also provides for centralized custom mill
within the confined designated mineral processing zone inside a
Minahang Bayan.

These Minahang Bayan sites will be limited to a maximum

period of six years, including its renewal.

86
 THE IRR
Moreover, the revised IRR also limited the qualified applicants
of a Small-Scale Mining Contract to a cooperative or group of
small scale miners. Thus, Small scale miners can organize
themselves into a group or cooperatives and apply for the
establishment of Minahang Bayan sites in their locality.
DAO 2015- 03 also allows the establishment of Minahang
Bayan in areas covered by large-scale mining applications that
have been denied but with pending appeals, provided that
royalties shall be paid in escrow, while awaiting for the final
87 resolution of the said appeals.
 THE IRR
It further requires the Small-Scale Mining Contractors to pay a
Government Share in the amount to be set by the Board, on top
of the payment of the usual taxes and it mandates to require
mineral processors to secure Mineral Processing Licenses from
the Board.

DAO No. 2015- 03 aims to transform the small scale mining

operations in the country to be a more responsible sector in the
mining industry that can contribute to the improvement of the
country.
88
Clarificatory Guidelines in the Implementation
of the Small-Scale Mining Laws
I. Co-existence of the Small Scale Mining Laws

▪ PD No. 1899 and RA No. 7076 shall continue to govern

small-scale mining operations. For areas not declared as
People’s Small-Scale Mining area (PSSMA) under RA No.
7076, the pertinent rules and regulations of PD 1899 shall
apply.

89
Clarificatory Guidelines in the Implementation
of the Small-Scale Mining Laws
▪ Mines Administrative Order No. MRD-
41, Series of 1984,
Department Administrative Order (DAO) No. 28 and
MRDB Administrative Order Nos. 3 and 3A as provided in
DAO No. 96-40, as amended, shall continue to be the
implementing rules and regulations of PD No. 1899, while
DAO No. 34, Series of 1992, shall continue to be the
implementing rules and regulations of RA No. 7076.

90
Clarificatory Guidelines in the Implementation
of the Small-Scale Mining Laws
II. Scope of Small-Scale Mining Permits and Contracts

▪ Small-scale mining operations in areas not declared as

PSSMA shall be covered by Small-Scale Mining Permits
(SSMPs) issued under PD No. 1899. Small-scale mining
operations in PSSMAs declared under RA No. 7076 shall be
covered by Small-Scale Mining Contracts (SSMCs) pursuant
to the pertinent provisions thereof.

91
Clarificatory Guidelines in the Implementation
of the Small-Scale Mining Laws
▪ In case, where a PSSMA is declared covering SSMP areas,
the term of the SSMPs, including their renewal, shall be
recognized unless such SSMPs are revoked, cancelled or
terminated with the cause: Provided, that the SSMP shall
have the option to shift to a SSMC pursuant to the provisions
of DAO No. 34, Series of 1997.

92
Clarificatory Guidelines in the Implementation
of the Small-Scale Mining Laws
III. Term of a Small-Scale Mining Permit or Contract

▪ The two (2)-year term of an SSMP is renewable only

once: Provided, that the pertinent application shall be filed
prior to the expiration thereof, among other
requirements. No SSMP shall be renewed unless its two (2)-
year term is fully consumed.

▪ In the case of an SSMC, no renewal shall likewise be granted

unless its two(2)-year term is fully consumed.
93
Clarificatory Guidelines in the Implementation
of the Small-Scale Mining Laws
IV. Qualification of Applicants

▪ For PD No. 1899, any Qualified Person may apply for an

SSMP. For this purpose, a Qualified Person shall mean a
Filipino citizen, of legal age, and with capacity to contract,
or a corporation of partnership authorized to engage in
mining, registered with the Securities and Exchange
Commission, at least 60% of the capital of which is owned t
all times by Filipino citizens.
94
Clarificatory Guidelines in the Implementation
of the Small-Scale Mining Laws

▪ For RA No. 7076, only a Filipino small-scale mining

cooperative organized by licensed and registered small-scale
miners may apply.

95
Clarificatory Guidelines in the Implementation
of the Small-Scale Mining Laws
V. Maximum Annual Production

▪ For metallic minerals, the maximum annual production

under an SSMP/SSMC shall be 50,000 dry metric tons
(DMT) of ore, while for non-metallic minerals, the
maximum annual production shall be 50,000 DMT of the
material itself, e.g., 50,000 DMT of limestone, 50,000 DMT
of silica, or 50,000 DMT of perlite.

96
Clarificatory Guidelines in the Implementation
of the Small-Scale Mining Laws

▪ The maximum annual production above shall include low-

grade and/or marginal ore, and/or minerals or rocks that are
intended for sampling and/or metallurgical testing purpose/s.

97
Clarificatory Guidelines in the Implementation
of the Small-Scale Mining Laws
VI. Maximum Capital Investment

▪ The maximum capital investment for a single small-scale

mining operation under PD No. 1899 or R.A. No. 7076
shall be PHP 10 Million. This shall cover raw, additional
and existing capital, such as processing plants, mine and
hauling equipment, tools, infrastructures, capitalized
exploration and development costs, support facilities and
working capital.
98
Clarificatory Guidelines in the Implementation
of the Small-Scale Mining Laws
VII. Reliance on Manual Labor
▪ Small-scale mining operations under PD1899 or RA7076 shall
be largely artisanal w/ heavy reliance on manual labor & w/o
the use of explosives and/or blasting accessories. For this
purpose, a single unit small-scale mining operation, in open cast
or shallow underground, shall be prohibited from using
sophisticated and/or heavy equipment, i.e., excavators, loaders,
backhoes, dozers, drilling machines and/or related or similar
equipment for the extraction and/or breakage of materials, as
99 well as hauling equipment w/in the mining/permit/contract area.
Clarificatory Guidelines in the Implementation
of the Small-Scale Mining Laws
VII. Reliance on Manual Labor

▪ Hauling equipment for the transport of the ore or mined

materials from the mine to the shipping point/market are not
included in the prohibited use of sophisticated and/or heavy
equipment.

100
Clarificatory Guidelines in the Implementation
of the Small-Scale Mining Laws
VII. Reliance on Manual Labor

▪ In case non-sophisticated and non-heavy equipment shall be

use, the ratio of labor cost to equipment utilization cost of the
small-scale mining operations, including the extraction,
processing and/or marketing activity(ies), shall not exceed
on (1) for this purpose, the rental, lease and/or contracting of
such equipment shall be considered as part of the equipment
utilization.
101
Clarificatory Guidelines in the Implementation
of the Small-Scale Mining Laws
VIII. Environmental, Safety and Health Concerns

▪ The SSMP/SSMC holder shall strictly comply with the

environmental, safety and health, and social provisions
of R.A. No. 7942, the Philippine Mining Act of 1995, the
Small-Scale Mining Laws and their implementing rules and
regulations, among others.

102
Clarificatory Guidelines in the Implementation
of the Small-Scale Mining Laws
In particular, the SSMP/SSMC holder shall comply with the
following requirements:

A. The Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC) for a

small-scale mining operation shall be secured from the
Environmental Management Bureau Regional Office concerned
and shall fully conform with the provisions of the Small-Scale
Mining Laws, especially with respect to the annual production
limit of 50,000 DMT, area of 20 hectares per permit/contact,
among others.
103
Clarificatory Guidelines in the Implementation
of the Small-Scale Mining Laws
B. The following documents shall be required prior to the start
of small-scale mining under a SSMP/SSMC:

1. Potential Environment Impact Report, which is a

simplified Environmental Protection and Enhancement Program,
and a Final Mine Rehabilitation/Decommissioning Plan duly
approved by the Mine Rehabilitation Fund Committee
concerned.

104
Clarificatory Guidelines in the Implementation
of the Small-Scale Mining Laws

2. Community Development and Management

Program, a simplified Social Development and Management
Program, duly approved by the Mines and Geosciences Bureau
Regional Office concerned.

C. Small-Scale mining operations shall strictly comply with the

provisions of DAO No. 97-30 in re: Small-Scale Mine Safety
Rules and Regulations.
105
 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.
G.R. No. 98332 January 16, 1995

Facts:
• Executive Order No. 211 was promulgated by President Corazon C. Aquino, prescribing the
interim procedures in the processing and approval of applications for the exploration,
development and utilization of minerals.
• Executive Order No. 279 was also issued authorizing the DENR Secretary to negotiate and
conclude joint venture, co-production, or production-sharing agreements 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 a DENR Administrative Order No. 57 the "Guidelines of Mineral
Production Sharing Agreement” which embodied that 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.
• Administrative Order No. 82 was also issued laying down the "Procedural Guidelines on the
Award of Mineral Production Sharing Agreement (MPSA) through Negotiation“ which
enumerates the persons or entities required to submit Letter of Intent (LOIs) and Mineral
Production Sharing Agreement (MPSAs) within two (2) years from the effectivity of DENR
Administrative Order No. 57 or until July 17, 1991. Failure to do so within the prescribed period
 The issuance and the impeding 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. Contending that:
• respondent Secretary of DENR issued both Administrative Order
Nos. 57 and 82 in excess of his rule-making power under Section 6
of Executive Order No. 279
• questioned administrative orders do not conform with Executive
Order Nos. 211 and 279,
• It violates 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 agreements and
automatically converts them into production-sharing agreements
within one (1) year from its effectivity date.
Ruling:
The SC ruled that the questioned administrative orders are reasonably directed to the
accomplishment of the purposes 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.
Petitioner's insistence on the application of Presidential Decree No. 463, as amended, as the
governing law on the acceptance and approval of all other kinds of applications for the exploration,
development, and utilization of mineral resources is erroneous. Presidential Decree No. 463, as amended,
pertains to the old system of exploration, development and utilization of natural resources through "license,
concession or lease" which, however, has been disallowed by Article XII, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution.
Upon the effectivity of the 1987 Constitution on February 2, 1987, the State assumed a more
dynamic role in the exploration, development and utilization of the natural resources of the country. Article
XII, Section 2 of the said Charter explicitly ordains that the exploration, development and utilization of
natural resources shall be under the full control and supervision of the State.
The State, in the exercise of its police power, may not be precluded by the constitutional
restriction on non-impairment of contract from altering, modifying and amending the mining leases or
agreements granted under Presidential Decree No. 463, as amended, pursuant to Executive Order No. 211.
 LA BUGAL-B'LAAN TRIBAL ASSOCIATION, INC. vs.
VICTOR O. RAMOS, Secretary, Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR);

Facts:
On July 25, 1987, President Corazon C. Aquino issued EO
No. 279, authorizing the secretary of DENR 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 President may execute with the foreign proponent.”
On March 3, 1995, then President Fidel V. Ramos approved
RA 7942 to “govern the exploration, development, utilization and
processing of all mineral Resources. Its Implementing Rules and
Regulations were embodied in DENR Administrative Order (DAO) No.
96-40.
The President entered into a financial and technical
assistance agreement (FTAA) with Western Mining Corporation
Philippines, Inc. (WMCP) covering 99,387 hectares of land in South
Cotabato, Sultan Kudarat, Davao del Sur and North Cotabato.
On 1997, counsels for petitioners sent a letter demanding to
stop the implementation of RA 7942 and DAO No. 96-40 as it is
unconstitutional because it allowed fully foreign-owned corporations to
explore, develop and exploit mineral resources in a manner contrary to
 WMCP subsequently filed before the Supreme Court a
Manifestation, alleging that on January 23, 2001, WMC
Resources International Pty., Ltd. (WMC),[3] had sold all its
shares in WMCP to Sagittarius Mines, Inc. (“Sagittarius”), a
corporation organized under Philippine laws, at least 60 percent
of the capital of which was owned by Filipinos and/or Filipino-
owned corporations; and about 40 percent, by Indophil
Resources NL, an Australian company. WMCP further claimed
that, by the sale and transfer of shares, it had “ceased to be
connected in any way with WMC.” Consequently, in an Order
dated December 18, 2001, the DENR secretary approved the
transfer from WMCP to Sagittarius as well as the registration, of
the subject FTAA.
The original decision pf the Supreme Court en banc
declared some provisions in RA 7942 unconstitutional.
However, upon the motion for reconsideration of the
respondents, the Supreme court reversed its previous decision.
Ruling:
Case rendered Moot:

• The fact that WMCP, at the time it entered into the FTAA, was wholly
foreign-owned, it was no longer possible for the Court to declare the
Agreement unconstitutional, inasmuch as 60 percent of the shares of
WMCP (now Sagittarius) had been transferred to a Filipino-owned
corporation, and the FTAA would henceforth be implemented by a
Filipino entity. The objective of the Constitution to keep the
exploration, development and utilization of our natural resources in
Filipino hands had been served.
Concept of “Control”
Though reversing its Decision of January 27, 2004, the
Court nonetheless pointed out that “full control and supervision” could
not be taken literally to mean that the State controlled and supervised
everything involved down to the minutest details and made all
decisions required, in the mining operations.
The concept of control under Section 2 of Article XII must be
taken to mean less than dictatorial and all-encompassing control, but
nevertheless sufficient for the State to direct, restrain, regulate and
govern the affairs of the extractive enterprises. As provided by RA
7942, certain government agencies are empowered to approve or
disapprove the various work programs and the corresponding minimum
expenditure commitments for each of the exploration, development and
utilization phases of the mining enterprise.
The State may compel the contractor’s compliance with
mandatory requirements on mine safety, health and environmental
protection; and the use of anti-pollution technology and facilities.
Moreover, the contractor is obligated to assist in the development of
the mining community and to pay royalties to the indigenous peoples
concerned. Cancellation of the FTAA may be the penalty for violation of
any of its terms and conditions and/or noncompliance with statutes or
Foreigners Allowed to Hold Exploration Permits

The Court also upheld the constitutionality of Section 3 of RA

7942, which would allow a foreign contractor to apply for and hold an
exploration permit. The permit would merely grant to a qualified person
the right to conduct exploration of all minerals in specified areas. It would
not amount to an authorization to extract and carry off the mineral
resources discovered.

The permit grantee may apply for a mineral production sharing

agreement (MPSA), a joint venture agreement (JVA), a co-production
agreement (CPA), or an FTAA over the permit area, if the grantee meets
the necessary qualifications and the terms and conditions of the
agreement. The contractor will be in a position to extract minerals and
earn revenues only when the mineral agreement or FTAA is granted.
Beneficial Ownership of Mineral Resources

An examination of the WMCP FTAA, however, uncovers no

indication that it confers upon WMCP the ownership -- beneficial or
otherwise -- of the mining property to be developed, the minerals to be
produced, or the proceeds of their sale. Similarly, neither RA 7942 nor
DAO 99-56[36] can be said to convey beneficial ownership of any
mineral resource or product to any foreign FTAA contractor.
On the contrary, DAO 99-56 aims to ensure an equitable
sharing of benefits derived from mineral resources. These benefits are to
be equitably shared among the government (national and local), the
FTAA contractor, and the affected communities. Specifically, the
government’s expectation is, inter alia, the taxes and fees normally paid
by a mining enterprise.

The basic government share is comprised of direct taxes,

fees and royalties, as well as other payments made by the contractor
during the term of the FTAA.
The FTAA More Advantageous Than Other Agreements

On the subject of beneficial interest, the Court additionally remarked that the FTAA was a more
advantageous proposition for the government as compared with other agreements
permitted by the Constitution.
In a CPA, the government shall provide inputs to the mining operations other than the mineral
resource itself.
In a JVA, a JV company is organized by the government and the contractor, with both parties
having equity shares; yet, the contractor is granted the exclusive right to conduct mining operations and to
extract minerals found in the area.
In an MPSA, the government grants the contractor the exclusive right to conduct mining
operations within the contract area and shares in the gross output; the contractor provides the necessary
financing, technology, management and manpower.
In other words, in two of the three types of agreement under consideration, the government has
to ante up some risk capital for the enterprise. This fact notwithstanding, management and control of the mining
operations in all three arrangements are in the hands of the contractor, with the government being mainly a silent
partner. These three types of agreement apply to any natural resource, without limitation and regardless of the
size or magnitude of the project or operations.
In contrast, and pursuant to paragraph 4 of Section 2 of Article XII, the FTAA is limited
to large-scale projects and only those for minerals, petroleum and other mineral oils. Here, the
Constitution removes the 40 percent cap on foreign ownership and allows the foreign corporation to own up to
100 percent of the equity. Correlatively, the foreign stakeholder bears
up to 100 percent of the risk of loss if the project fails.
 Finally, in response to the urging of the petitioners that the
Court should consider whether mining as an industry and economic
activity deserved to be accorded priority, preference and government
support -- as against agriculture and other activities in which Filipinos
and the Philippines might have an “economic advantage” the Court said:

“Whatever priority or preference may be given to

mining vis-à-vis other economic or non-economic activities is
a question of policy that the President and Congress will
have to address; it is not for this Court to decide. This Court
declares what the Constitution and the laws say, interprets
only when necessary, and refrains from delving into matters
of policy.”
 The Court fully sympathize with the plight of La
Bugal B’laan and other tribal groups, and commend their
efforts to uplift their communities.
However, the Court cannot justify the invalidation of
an otherwise constitutional statute along with its
implementing rules, or the nullification of an otherwise legal
and binding FTAA contract.
The Court believes that it is not unconstitutional to
allow a wide degree of discretion to the Chief Executive,
given the nature and complexity of such agreements, the
amounts of capital and financing required for large-scale
mining operations, the complicated technology needed, and
the intricacies of international trade, coupled with the State’s
need to maintain flexibility in its dealings, in order to preserve
and enhance our country’s competitiveness in world markets.
On the basis of this control standard, the Court upholds the
constitutionality of the Philippine Mining Law, its
 JOHN ERIC LONEY,
TEVEN PAUL REID and
PEDRO B. HERNANDEZ

vs

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

G.R. No. 152644

February 10, 2006

Facts:
▪Petitioners John Eric Loney, Steven Paul Reid, and Pedro B. Hernandez are the
President and Chief Executive Officer, Senior Manager, and Resident Manager for
Mining Operations, respectively, of Marcopper Mining Corporation (Marcopper)

▪Marcopper Mining Corporation (Marcopper), a corporation engaged in mining in

the province of Marinduque.

▪Marcopper had been storing tailings from its operations in a pit in Mt. Tapian,
Marinduque.

▪At the base of the pit ran a drainage tunnel leading to the Boac and Makalupnit
rivers. It appears that Marcopper had placed a concrete plug at the tunnels end.

▪On 24 March 1994, tailings gushed out of or near the tunnels end. In a few days,
the Mt. Tapian pit had discharged millions of tons of tailings into the Boac and
Makalupnit rivers.
Facts:
▪The Department of Justice separately charged petitioners with violation of:

 The Water Code of the Philippines (PD 1067)

Article 91(B), sub-paragraphs 5 and 6

 The National Pollution Control Decree of 1976 (PD 984)

 Section 8

 The Philippine Mining Act of 1995 (RA 7942)

Section 108

 Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) for Reckless Imprudence
Facts:
▪Petitioners moved to quash the Informations on the following grounds:

a) The Informations were duplicitous as the Department of Justice

charged more than one offense for a single act;

b) Petitioners John Eric Loney and Steven Paul Reid were not yet
officers of Marcopper when the incident subject of the Informations
took place;

c) The Informations contain allegations which constitute legal excuse or

justification.
MTC Ruling:
▪ The MTC issued a Consolidated Order:

 Quashing the Informations for violation of PD 1067 and PD 984.

The MTC maintained the Informations for violation of RA 7942 and Article 365 of the
RPC.

The Court is convinced that as far as the three (3) aforesaid laws are concerned,
only the Information for violation of Philippine Mining Act should be maintained.

The Information for violation of Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code should also be
maintained and heard in a full blown trial because the common accusation therein is
reckless imprudence resulting to [sic] damage to property.
RTC Ruling:
▪Set aside the Consolidated Order in so far as it quashed the Informations for
violation of PD 1067 and PD 984

▪Ordered those charges reinstated.

▪The Court Held:

After a careful perusal of the laws concerned, this court is of the opinion that
there can be no absorption by one offense of the three other offenses, as
[the] acts penalized by these laws are separate and distinct from each
other.
Contentions of Petitioners:
1) The Informations for violation of PD 1067, PD 984, RA 7942
and the Article 365 of the RPC proceed from and are based
on a single act or incident of polluting the Boac and
Makalupnit rivers thru dumping of mine tailing

2) The duplicitous nature of the Informations contravenes the

ruling in People v. Relova.

3) The acts complained of in the charges for violation of PD

1067, PD 984, and RA 7942 are the very same acts
complained of in the charge for violation of Article 365 of the
Duplicity of Charges:
▪No Duplicity of Charges in the Present Case

▪Duplicity of charges simply means a single complaint or information charges more than
one offense, as Section 13 of Rule 110 of the 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure clearly
states:

▪Duplicity of offense. A complaint or information must charge but one offense, except
only in those cases in which existing laws prescribe a single punishment for various
offenses.

▪In short, there is duplicity (or multiplicity) of charges when a single Information charges
more than one offense

▪The prosecution charged each petitioner with four offenses, with each Information
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
▪Section 3 of Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of
Court specifically provides the grounds upon
which an information may be quashed.

▪Duplicity of Informations is not among those

included in Section 3, Rule 117
People vs. Relova
▪The issue in Relova is whether the act of the Batangas Acting
City Fiscal in charging one Manuel Opulencia (Opulencia) with
theft of electric power under the RPC, after the latter had been
acquitted of violating a City Ordinance penalizing the
unauthorized installation of electrical wiring, violated Opulencias
right against double jeopardy.

▪We held that it did, not because the offenses punished by those
two laws were the same but because the act giving rise to the
charges was punished by an ordinance and a national statute,
thus falling within the proscription against multiple prosecutions
People v. Relova
▪Relova is no authority for petitioners claim
against multiple prosecutions based on a single
act not only because the question of double
jeopardy is not at issue here, but also because,
as the Court of Appeals held, petitioners are
being prosecuted for an act or incident
punished by four national statutes and not
by an ordinance and a national statute.
People v. Doriquez
▪Two (or more) offenses arising from the same act are not the same

▪ If one provision [of law] requires proof of an additional fact or

element which the other does not, x x x.

▪Phrased elsewise, where two different laws (or articles of the same
code) define two crimes, prior jeopardy as to one of them is no
obstacle to a prosecution of the other, although both offenses arise
from the same facts, if each crime involves some important act
which is not an essential element of the other.
Double Jeopardy
▪Here, double jeopardy is not at issue because
not all of its elements are present.
▪Comparative analysis of PD 1067, PD 984, RA
7942, and Article 365 of the RPC showing that in
each of these laws on which petitioners were
charged, there is one essential element not
required of the others
Additional Element:
▪P.D. 1067 (Philippines Water Code)
The gravamen of the offense here is the absence of the proper permit to dump said mine
tailings.

•P.D. 984 (Anti-Pollution Law)

 the existence of actual pollution.

• R.A. 7942 (Philippine Mining Act)

The willful violation and gross neglect on the part of the accused to abide by the terms and
conditions of the Environmental Compliance Certificate

•Art. 365 of the Revised Penal Code

The lack of necessary or adequate precaution, negligence, recklessness and imprudence on
the part of the accused to prevent damage to property
Didipio Earth Savers Multipurpose Association et al

vs

DENR Sec Elisea Gozun et al

G.R. No. 157882

March 30, 2006
Facts:
▪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.

▪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 Rules Regulations.

▪Didipio petitioned to have the law and the RR to be annulled as it is unconstitutional

and it constitutes unlawful taking of property.
Facts:
▪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

▪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.
 Facts:
▪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 (the Philippine Mining

Act) and the DENR IRRs are valid.
Court Ruling:
▪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
Court Ruling:
▪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.
SOUTHEAST MINDANAO GOLD MINING CORPORATION

vs.

BALITE PORTAL MINING COOPERATIVE

G.R. No. 135190

April 3, 2002
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.

▪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.

▪Marcoppers acquisition of mining rights over Diwalwal under its EP No. 133 was
subsequently challenged before this Court in

▪Apex Mining Co., Inc., et al. v. Hon. Cancio C. Garcia, et al. where Marcoppers claim was
sustained over that of another mining firm, Apex Mining Corporation (Apex).

▪The Court found that Apex did not comply with the procedural requisites for acquiring
mining rights within forest reserves.
Facts:
▪Subsequently, a petition for the cancellation of EP No. 133

▪The admission of a Mineral Production Sharing Arrangement (MPSA) proposal over

Diwalwal was filed before the DENR Regional Executive Director, docketed as RED Mines
Case No. 8-8-94

▪While the RED Mines case was pending, Marcopper assigned its EP No. 133 to petitioner
Southeast Mindanao Gold Mining Corporation (SEM)

▪Republic Act No. 7942, the Philippine Mining Act, referred MAC cases to a Regional
Panel of Arbitrators (RPA) tasked to resolve disputes involving conflicting mining rights.

▪ Provincial Mining Regulatory Board of Davao passed Resolution No. 26, Series of 1997,
authorizing the issuance of ore transport permits (OTPs) to small-scale miners operating in
 Facts:
▪The RPA resolved the Consolidated Mines cases and decreed the validity of
Exploration Permit No. 133 is hereby reiterated.
▪Thee DENR Secretary issued Memorandum Order No. 97-03:

The DENR shall 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;
Facts:
▪On July 16, 1997, 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;

that the DENR Secretary unduly usurped and interfered with the jurisdiction of
the RPA which had dismissed all adverse claims against SEM in the
Consolidated Mines cases; and that the memorandum order arbitrarily imposed
the unwarranted condition that certain studies be conducted before mining and
environmental laws are enforced by the DENR.
Issue:
I. Whether or not the acts of DENR Secretary are in violation of the mining
laws and in derogation of petitioners vested rights covered by E.P. No.
133

Petitioner insists that 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. On the contrary, petitioner
submits, said memorandum order dictated the said recourse
According to petitioner, MO 97-03 was issued to preempt the resolution of
the Consolidated Mines cases. The direct state utilization scheme espoused
in the challenged memorandum is nothing but a legal shortcut, designed to
divest petitioner of its vested right to the gold rush area under its EP No.
133.
Court Ruling:
▪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.
Court Ruling:
▪Consequently, the petition was premature. The said memorandum order did not
impose any obligation on the claimants or fix any legal relation whatsoever between
and among the parties to the dispute.

▪Until the DENR actually does so and petitioners fears turn into reality, no valid
objection can be entertained against MO 97-03 on grounds which are purely
speculative and anticipatory.

▪With respect to the alleged vested rights claimed by petitioner, it is well to note that
the same is invariably based on EP No. 133, whose validity is still being disputed in the
Consolidated Mines cases.

▪Whether or not petitioner actually has a vested right over Diwalwal under EP No. 133
is still an indefinite and unsettled matter, hence, EP No. 133 cannot be deemed as a
source of any conclusive rights that can be impaired by the issuance of MO 97-03.
Court Ruling:
▪Petitioners reliance on the Apex Mining case to justify its rights under E.P. No. 133 is
misplaced.

▪For one, the said case was litigated solely between Marcopper and Apex Mining
Corporation and cannot thus be deemed binding and conclusive on respondent BCMC
and the other mining entities presently involved.
▪While petitioner may be regarded as Marcoppers successor to EP No. 133 and
therefore bound by the judgment rendered in the Apex Mining case, the same cannot
be said of respondent BCMC and the other oppositor mining firms, who were not
impleaded as parties therein.

▪While petitioner may be regarded as Marcoppers successor to EP No. 133 and

therefore bound by the judgment rendered in the Apex Mining case, the same cannot
be said of respondent BCMC and the other oppositor mining firms, who were not
impleaded as parties therein.
Court Ruling:
▪Incidentally, it must likewise be pointed out that under no circumstances
may petitioners rights under EP No. 133 be regarded as total and absolute.

▪ EP No. 133 merely evidences a privilege granted by the State, which may
be amended, modified or rescinded when the national interest so requires.

▪ The DENR Secretary acted within his authority when he ordered a study of
the first option, which may be undertaken consistently in accordance with
the constitutional policy (Article XII, Section 2, of the 1987 Constitution)