Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 356 views

    DESAMA vs. Elisea Gozun 157882 March 30, 2006

    Uploaded by

    MichyLG
    The SC ruled against Didipio Earth-Savers' Multi-Purpose Association, Inc. in their challenge of the validity of the Philippine Mining Act of 1995 and its implementing rules. The SC found that while mining operations may involve the taking of private property, both the law and rules provide for just compensation for property owners as required by the Constitution. The SC also noted that mining is considered a public policy where the government can invoke eminent domain and that actual eviction of landowners is not required for the court to intervene if the law itself violates the Constitution. However, the petition was still dismissed as the FTAA between the government and the mining company was found to be in compliance with all applicable laws and the Constitution.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    DESAMA vs. Elisea Gozun 157882 March 30, 2006

    Uploaded by

    MichyLG
    356 views2 pages
    The SC ruled against Didipio Earth-Savers' Multi-Purpose Association, Inc. in their challenge of the validity of the Philippine Mining Act of 1995 and its implementing rules. The SC found that while mining operations may involve the taking of private property, both the law and rules provide for just compensation for property owners as required by the Constitution. The SC also noted that mining is considered a public policy where the government can invoke eminent domain and that actual eviction of landowners is not required for the court to intervene if the law itself violates the Constitution. However, the petition was still dismissed as the FTAA between the government and the mining company was found to be in compliance with all applicable laws and the Constitution.

    Original Description:

    DESAMA vs. Elisea Gozun 157882 March 30, 2006

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The SC ruled against Didipio Earth-Savers' Multi-Purpose Association, Inc. in their challenge of the validity of the Philippine Mining Act of 1995 and its implementing rules. The SC found that while mining operations may involve the taking of private property, both the law and rules provide for just compensation for property owners as required by the Constitution. The SC also noted that mining is considered a public policy where the government can invoke eminent domain and that actual eviction of landowners is not required for the court to intervene if the law itself violates the Constitution. However, the petition was still dismissed as the FTAA between the government and the mining company was found to be in compliance with all applicable laws and the Constitution.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    356 views2 pages

    DESAMA vs. Elisea Gozun 157882 March 30, 2006

    Uploaded by

    MichyLG
    The SC ruled against Didipio Earth-Savers' Multi-Purpose Association, Inc. in their challenge of the validity of the Philippine Mining Act of 1995 and its implementing rules. The SC found that while mining operations may involve the taking of private property, both the law and rules provide for just compensation for property owners as required by the Constitution. The SC also noted that mining is considered a public policy where the government can invoke eminent domain and that actual eviction of landowners is not required for the court to intervene if the law itself violates the Constitution. However, the petition was still dismissed as the FTAA between the government and the mining company was found to be in compliance with all applicable laws and the Constitution.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Didipio Earth-Savers' Multi-Purpose Association, Inc. (DESAMA) Et al. vs.

    EliseaGozun, et al.; G.R. No. 157882; March 30, 2006


    Facts:
    On 25 July 1987, then President Corazon C. Aquino promulgated Executive Order
    No. 279 which authorized the DENR Secretary to accept, consider and evaluate
    proposals from foreign-owned corporations or foreign investors for contracts of
    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.A petition for mandamus and prohibition assailing the constitutionality
    of the Philippine Mining Act of 1995,together with the IRR issued by the DENR
    Administrative Order No. 96-40, s. 1996(DAO 96-40) and of the Financialand
    Technical Assistance Agreement (FTAA) entered into on20 June 1994 by the
    Republic of the Philippines and Arimco Mining Corporation (AMC), a corporation
    established under the laws of Australia and owned by its nationals. After several
    unsuccessful actions to cancel the FTAA agreement with the government, the
    petitioners finally submitted a petition to the court. In their memorandum
    petitioners pose whether or notRepublic Act No. 7942 and the CAMC FTAA are
    void because they allow theunjust and unlawful taking of property without
    payment of just compensation , in violation of Section 9, Article III of the
    Constitution issues, amongothers issues.
    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.

    Public respondents are of the view that petitioners eminent domain claim is not
    ripefor adjudication as they fail to allege that CAMC has actually taken their
    properties nor do they allege thattheir property rights have been endangered or
    are in danger on account of CAMCs FTAA. In effect, public respondents insist that
    the issue of eminent domain is not a justiciable controversy which this Court can
    take cognizance of. Aquestion is considered ripe for adjudication when the act
    being challenged has had a direct adverse effect onthe individual challenging it.
    However, the court cannot await the adverse consequences of the law in order to
    consider thecontroversy actual and ripe for judicial intervention.Actual eviction of
    the land owners and occupants need not happen for this Court to intervene. By
    the mereenactment of the questioned law or the approval of the challenged act,
    the dispute is said to have ripenedinto a judicial controversy even without any
    other overt act. Indeed, even a singular violation of theConstitution and/or the
    law is enough to awaken judicial duty. Nevertheless, the petition was still
    dismissed due to the baseless contention of the issues submitted. The FTAA was
    in full compliance with the necessary requirements of the lawand Constitution.
    The allegation of the lack of payment of just compensation was dismissed since
    the court has hadauthority in eminent domain cases to make sure the proper
    amount was established regardless of the fact that therewould be an intervention
    from an executive department or legislature to make any initial determination of
    the amount.

    You might also like