Week 8 and Week 9

Week 9 and week 9
Cases
Comilang vs Buendia GR 124757 Oct 25 1967
G.R. No. L-24757
October 25, 1967
MARCOS B. COMILANG, petitioner-appellant,

vs.
HON. GENEROSO A. BUENDIA, Judge of the City Court of Baguio;
ABDON DELENELA, GUILLERMO PEREZ and THE PROVINCIAL
SHERIFF OF BAGUIO AND BENGUET, Mountain Province,
respondents-appellees.
Bienvenido L. Garcia for petitioner-appellant.
Daniel M. Zarate for respondents-appellees.
ANGELES, J.:
On appeal from an order of the Court of First Instance of Baguio City, in
Civil Case No. 1440, denying the petition of Marcos Comilang to annul the
order of the Municipal Court of Baguio City, in Civil Case No. 1433, dated
August 11, 1964, directing the sheriff of Mountain Province to place Abdon
Delenela and Guillermo Perez in possession of a parcel of land occupied
by the petitioner.
The antecedents of the controversy which culminated in this appeal are as
follows:
About the year 1908, Nicolas Comilang staked a mining claim known as
the "Bua Fraction Mineral Claim" over a parcel of land in Tuding, Benguet,
Mountain Province, with an area of 76,809 square meters, more or less.
His exploration works in the mining claim did not last for long, for he
abandoned it, and stopped the exploration, but he continued to live in the
house he built on a portion of the land with his wife, brothers and sisters.
In the year 1918, Macario Comilang also settled on a portion of the land
with an area of about one (1) hectare, for residential and agricultural
purposes. After his death, his daughter, Fabiana Comilang Perez remained
to live in the house built by her father on the land. Still later, other relatives
of the old Nicolas Comilang settled and built their own houses over other
portions of the land, one of which houses was acquired by Abdon Delenela
who now resides on the land with the other Comilang heirs.
Surface rights over the area embraced in the original Bua Fraction Mineral
Claim of Nicolas Comilang soon became the subject of litigation in the
Court of First Instance of Baguio City (Civil Case No. 250 Action to
Quiet Title), instituted by the heirs of Guillerma, Marcelina, Julian, Timoteo,
Melecio and Macario, all surnamed Comilang, against appellant herein
Marcos Comilang who claimed to have bought the rights and interest of
Nicolas Comilang in the old mining claim. In a decision rendered in said
case No. 250, dated November 26, 1952, the court dismissed both claims
of ownership of the plaintiffs and the defendant and declared the area
public land. The court, however, recognized the possession of the parties
over certain specified portions of the area, among which was an area of
about one and one-half (1-1/2) hectares in possession of Marcos
Comilang, which has been declared for taxation purposes in his name.
This decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. 11157R on October 29, 1955.
In the same year, the 1-1/2 hectares of land occupied by Marcos
Comilang, then declared under Tax Declaration No. 4771 in his name, was
levied upon and sold at public auction by the sheriff of Mountain Province
to satisfy a judgment for a sum of money obtained by the spouses Jose
Coloma and Eugenia Rumbaoa against Marcos Comilang in the Court of
First Instance of Baguio, in Civil Case No. 1433. The judgment creditors
were the purchasers at the auction sale, and a certificate of sale was
executed in their favor by the sheriff on June 1, 1957.
In the meantime, an application for lode patent covering the Bua Fraction
Mineral Claim was filed with the Bureau of Mines. Abdon Delenela and his
co-heirs filed their opposition to the application. Pending the controversy
before the Bureau of Mines, Delenela and his co-heirs instituted an action
for determination of their rights on the land in the Court of First Instance of
Baguio City, docketed as Civil Case No. 735. The parties submitted an
amicable settlement recognizing co-ownership among themselves of the
Bua Mineral Claim. In a decision rendered in said Case No. 735, dated
March 3, 1958, the court awarded one-half in undivided share in the
mineral claim in favor of Marcos Comilang, and the other half also in
undivided share in favor of Abdon Delenela and co-heirs.
Later, in the exercise of their right as co-owners, Abdon Delenela and
Guillermo Perez, with the knowledge and conformity of Marcos Comilang,
redeemed and bought from the Coloma spouses, the latter's rights, title,
interest and claim to the 1-1/2 hectares of land acquired under the
certificate of sale thereof executed in the latter's favor by the sheriff on
June 1, 1957. This redemption sale took place on June 11, 1958.
On February 9, 1959, the Director of Mines recommended the issuance of

a lode patent over the Bua Mineral Claim in favor of Marcos Comilang,
Delenela, and the other claimants in the proportion of one-half (1/2) in
undivided share in favor of Marcos Comilang, and the other one-half (1/2)
also in undivided share in favor of Delenela and the other heirs pursuant to
the decision of March 3, 1958, aforementioned, in Civil Case No. 735.
On August 12, 1959, upon motion of Abdon Delenela and Perez, who have
thus acquired and succeeded to the rights of the Coloma spouses on the
1-1/2 hectares, the Municipal Court of Baguio City issued a writ of
possession in their favor directing the sheriff of Mountain Province to evict
Marcos Comilang and his wife from the 1-1/2 hectares of land sold in the
execution sale.
In a petition for certiorari with preliminary injunction filed in the Court of
First Instance of Baguio City, docketed as Civil Case No. 897, Maxima
Nieto de Comilang, wife of Marcos Comilang, questioned the power of the
Municipal Court to issue said writ of possession on two grounds, namely:
(1) that conjugal property had been levied upon and sold in the execution
sale, and her share therein is affected; and (2) that there can be no
severance of surface rights over a mineral claim located under the
Philippine Bill of 1902, and petitioner argued that the sheriff could not have
validly sold the surface rights in the execution sale of June 1, 1957. On
February 23, 1961, the court rendered a decision in said case, holding that
the writ of possession issued by the respondent Municipal Judge was
within his competence and jurisdiction. On appeal to the Supreme Court,
docketed as G. R. No. L-18897, a decision was rendered on March 31,
1964, the dispositive portion of which is as follows:
For the foregoing considerations the judgment appealed from is
hereby affirmed insofar as it denies the petition of Maxima Nieto
de Comilang to exclude from the sale, or annul the sale on
execution of the residential lot formerly owned by her husband,
of 1-1/2 hectares covered in the final certificate of sale; but that
part of the appealed decision holding that the sale at public
auction included the 1/2 undivided share of Marcos Comilang to
the Bua Mineral Claim, is hereby set aside and said mineral
rights of Marcos Comilang are hereby declared free from the
execution or sale on execution.
The decision having become final, Abdon Delenela and Guillermo Perez
reiterated their motion in the Municipal Court of Baguio City in Civil Case
No. 1433, praying that an alias writ of possession be issued to evict
Marcos Comilang and his wife from the 1-1/2 hectares of land in question.
On August 11, 1964, over the objection of Marcos Comilang, the court
issued the writ prayed for.
For a second time, a petition for certiorari and mandamus with preliminary
injunction was instituted by Marcos Comilang in the Court of First Instance
of Baguio City seeking the annulment of the order granting the alias writ of
possession in favor of Delenela and Perez, and again the Court of First
Instance of Baguio threw out the petition in its order dated October 22,
1964. The court expressed its views in the following rationale:
The one and one-half hectares of land referred to therein (S.C.
decision) is the same parcel of land and house above-described
which was already sold at public auction to the respondents,
Guillermo Perez and Abdon Delenela.
The said judgment is res adjudicata and the consequent
execution, and the writ of possession is but its necessary
consequence.
All the authorities cited by the petitioner were no longer of any
value because they were necessarily passed upon and disposed
of in the course of finally deciding the case.
Wherefore, the petition for certiorari is hereby denied.
Marcos Comilang is now before Us on appeal from this last decision.
Appellant contends that the lower court erred in denying his petition on the
ground of res adjudicata, arguing that it was his wife Maxima Nieto de
Comilang, and not be, the party in the former case appealed to the
Supreme Court in G. R. No. L-18897. Therefore, it is claimed, one of the
requisites of res adjudicata is lacking. We find no merit in the argument. As
husband and wife and before the dissolution of their marital union, their
interest in the said property is one and the same. The fact that the wife
was the party in the former case while it is the husband who is the
petitioner in the instant case, when admittedly both actions were instituted
for the protection of their common interest therein, is no argument to the
proposition that there is no identity of parties in these cases. Such identity
of interest is enough to hold that they are privy to one another, having a
common interest in the property. Neither is it tenable to contend that the
issue involved in the two cases are not identical. It cannot be disputed that
in both cases, the main relief sought is the annulment of writs of
possession issued by the Municipal Court of Baguio City directing the
sheriff concerned to evict the spouses Comilang from the land, and the
Page 1 of 126
questions involved in both cases pertain to the legality or validity of those

writs aforementioned. In the decision in L-18897, this Court sustained the
validity of the execution sale. There can be no doubt, therefore, that the
judgment in the former case is binding in the instant proceeding.
It is argued further by the appellant that the final certificate of sale
conveying the land described in Tax Declaration No. 4771 to the
purchasers in the execution sale is not a valid disposition of a portion of
the public domain, and specially in view of the subsequent issuance of a
mineral lode patent over the Bua Mineral Claim by the Director of Mines
(Patent issued on November 7, 1966) whereby full ownership not only of
the minerals therein but also of the surface ground have been conveyed to
the patentee thereof, and, therefore, the Municipal Court of Baguio City
may no longer eject them from the land.
We do not agree with the contention of the appellant.
The Court has not overlooked the doctrines heavily relied upon by the
appellant that the moment the locator discovered a valuable mineral
deposit on the land located, and perfected his location in accordance with
the provisions of the Philippine Bill of 1902, the power of the Government
to deprive him of the exclusive right to possession of the located claim was
gone, the land had become mineral land and they were excepted from the
lands that could be granted to any other person (McDaniel v. Apacible and
Cuisia, 42 Phil. 749, 756); and that when a location of a mining claim is
perfected under said law, it has the effect of a grant by the United States of
the right of present possession, with the right to the exclusive enjoyment of
all the surface ground as well as of all the minerals within the lines of the
claim (Gold Creek Mining Corporation v. Rodriguez, 66 Phil. 259). We are
also cognizant of the rule invoked by the appellant that when
circumstances have arisen subsequent to the remanding of the record
from the Supreme Court to the trial court, a stay of execution may be
allowed on grounds which are in their nature peculiarly equitable, as for
instance, to give defendant an opportunity to set off a claim against plaintiff
(Chua A. H. Lee v. Mapa, 51 Phil. 624); or when after judgment has been
rendered and it has become final, facts and circumstances transpire which
rendered its execution impossible and unjust, the interested party may ask
the court to alter or modify the judgment to harmonize the same with
justice and the facts (De la Costa v. Cleopas, 67 Phil. 686; Realiza v.
Duarte, L-25027, L-20528 & L-20529, August 31, 1967); and this remains
true, notwithstanding affirmance of the judgment by the Supreme Court,
which imparts no higher quality than to a final judgment unappealed from,
except that it cannot be questioned or reviewed (Chua A. H. Lee v. Mapa,
supra). However, these authorities, by no means, render the argument of
herein appellant unassailable . There are factual differences in the settings
of the case cited and the one at bar, the equities of which require the
application of a different rule.
To begin with, the 1- hectares portions of the Bua Fraction Mineral Claim
described in Tax Declaration No. 4771 in the name of herein appellant was
levied upon and sold at public auction to satisfy the money judgment
against him in Civil Case No. 1433 of the Municipal Court of Baguio City,
and the corresponding certificate of sale was issued in favor of the
judgment creditors. Interest acquired under like certificates of sale alone
has been described as more than a lien on the property, more than an
equitable estate, an inchoate legal title to the property. (21 Am. Jur.,
section 264, p. 133). The validity of that sale was questioned when the
Municipal Court ordered the eviction of appellant from the land sold on
execution, and the Supreme Court declared in L-18897 that the sale was
valid. The sale operated to divest appellant of his rights to the land which
vested in the purchasers at the auction sale. The parties herein
subsequently litigated their rights to the mineral claim in Civil Case No. 735
of the Court of First Instance of Baguio City, and on the basis of their
amicable agreement (appellant was a party in the case), the court declared
the Bua Mineral Claim co-ownership property of the parties thereto "except
the improvements existing thereon" (p. 9, appellant's petition). There is no
room for doubt, therefore, that the right to possess or own the surface
ground is separate and distinct from the mineral rights over the same land.
And when the application for lode patent to the mineral claim was
prosecuted in the Bureau of Mines, the said application could not have
legally included the surface ground sold to another in the execution sale.
Consequently, We have to declare that the patent procured thereunder, at
least with respect to the 1- hectares sold in execution pertains only to the
mineral right and does not include the surface ground of the land in
question.
Viewed from another perspective, We have arrived at the same
conclusion. In his letter to the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural
Resources, dated February 9, 1959, recommending the approval of
Mineral Lode Patent No. V-24, the Director of Mines said that applicants
Marcos Comilang, et al., had acquired vested rights on the Bua Fraction
Mineral Claim before the Constitution of the Philippines was approved on
November 15, 1935. Under the doctrines laid down in McDaniel v.
Apacible, and in Gold Creek Mining v. Rodriguez, supra, said vested rights
include the ownership of both the minerals and the surface ground; that
such was the locator's right before as well as after the issuance of the
patent; and that such was vested property although fee remains in the
Government until patent issues. Such vested right of herein appellant
passed to the appellees under the sale on execution aforementioned of the
1- hectares portion of the mineral claim. The subsequent issuance of the
Lode Patent to the entire area of the Bua Mineral Claim did not militate
against that acquired rights, for Sec. 45 of the Philippine Bill of 1902
expressly provides that nothing in said Act shall be deemed to impair any
lien which may have attached in any way whatever prior to the issuance of
the patent. Moreover, it is significant to note that the very Lode Patent No.
V-24 aforementioned expressly declares on its face that "the mining
premises hereby conveyed shall be held subject to all vested lights and
accrued rights", the legal import of which is that the patentee Marcos
Comilang, shall hold the1 hectares portion of the area embraced in the
patent as described in the Tax Declaration No. 4771, in trust for the
appellees.
Apart and independent of the statute, there is a rule in American Law
known as the "Doctrine of Relation", to the effect "that all parts and
ceremonies necessary to complete a conveyance shall be taken together
as one act, and operate from the substantial part by relation." This
"substantial part" is recognized as the "original act" which is to be
preferred, and to this all subsequent acts are to have relation. This doctrine
of relation appears to have been often applied to the adjudication of real
actions by American courts.
The case of Landes v. Brant, 10 How. 348, U. S. 13 Law ed., 449, broadly
asserts this doctrine of relation. In that case, a Spanish claim of land was
acquired by Clamorgan under Dodier, the original claimant, by virtue of ten
consecutive years possession prior to December 20, 1903. Such claim
was authorized by the Act of Congress. Clamorgan was entitled to a patent
by virtue of a certificate of confirmation made by commissioners. His
petition for such confirmation was filed in December, 1805. In 1808
judgment was recovered against Clamorgan, the claim was sold and the
sheriff's deed executed to McNair. It was held that the execution sale
passed to the purchaser all the title that could have passed from
Clamorgan to McNair by a quitclaim deed; that applying the doctrine of
relation and taking all the parts and ceremonies necessary to complete the
title together as one act, then the confirmation of 1811 and the patent of
1845 must be taken to relate to the first act; that of filing the claim in 1805.
On this assumption, intermediate conveyances made by the confirmed or
by the sheriff on his behalf, of a date after the first substantial act, are
covered by the legal title and pass that title to the alienee. And on this
ground, the deed made by the sheriff to McNair is valid. This doctrine has
been applied in a great number of decisions.
Applying the same rule to the case before Us, it is seen that the original act
that ripened into Mineral Lode Patent No. V-24 was the location of the
mineral claim and the recording thereof in the Mining Recorder of Mt.
Province sometime in 1922. Vested right to the property accrued to the
locator before 1935, although patent was issued only recently (November
7, 1966). This Patent cannot nullify the intermediate conveyance of that
right in the execution sale of 1958 to herein appellees.
Finally, the argument that the proceedings for the issuance of a writ of
possession, as has been resorted to by the appellees, is not the proper
court procedure, the appellant intimating that it should be by a proper
action. The contention does not deserve serious consideration. The
corresponding rights of the parties to the property in question had been
ventilated in the various cases affecting it, and the decisions in those
cases have sustained the validity of the sale. It is now a matter of right on
the part of the appellees to be placed in possession of the land by clear
mandate of Sec. 35, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court which requires that
upon execution and delivery of the final deed of sale in execution the
possession of the property shall be given to the purchaser or last
redemptioner unless a third party is actually holding the property adversely
to the judgment debtor. As this Court said in Tan Soo Huat v. Ongwico, 63
Phil. 747:
There is no law in this jurisdiction whereby the purchaser at a
sheriff's sale of real property is obliged to bring a separate and
independent suit for possession after the one-year period for
redemption has expired and after he has obtained the sheriff's
final certificate of sale. There is neither legal ground nor reason
of public policy precluding the court from ordering the sheriff in
this case to yield possession of the property purchased at public
auction where it appears that the judgment debtor is the one in
possession thereof and no rights of third persons are involved.
WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is affirmed. Costs against
appellants.
Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez,
Castro and Fernando, JJ., concur.
Alvarez vs PICOP Resources 606 SCRA 444, GR 162243 Dec 3, 2009
Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
Page 2 of 126
G.R. No. 162243
December 3, 2009
HON. HEHERSON ALVAREZ substituted by HON. ELISEA G. GOZUN,

in her capacity as Secretary of the Department of Environment and
Natural Resources, Petitioner,
vs.
PICOP RESOURCES, INC., Respondent.
July 29, 1969 between the government and PICOPs

predecessor-in-interest; and
3. to honor and respect the Government Warranties and
contractual obligations to PICOP strictly in accordance with the
warranty and agreement dated July 29, 1999 (sic) between the
government and PICOPs predecessor-in-interest (Exhibits "H",
"H-1" to "H-5", particularly the following:
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
a) the area coverage of TLA No. 43, which forms part
and parcel of the government warranties;
G.R. No. 164516

PICOP RESOURCES, INC., Petitioner,
vs.
HON. HEHERSON ALVAREZ substituted by HON. ELISEA G. GOZUN,
in her capacity as Secretary of the Department of Environment and
Natural Resources Respondent.
b) PICOP tenure over the said area of TLA No. 43 and

exclusive right to cut, collect and remove sawtimber
and pulpwood for the period ending on April 26, 1977;
and said period to be renewable for [an]other 25 years
subject to compliance with constitutional and statutory
requirements as well as with existing policy on timber
concessions; and
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
c) The peaceful and adequate enjoyment by PICOP of
the area as described and specified in the aforesaid
amended Timber License Agreement No. 43.
G.R. No. 171875

THE HON. ANGELO T. REYES (formerly Hon. Elisea G. Gozun), in his
capacity as Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural
Resources (DENR), Petitioner,
vs.
PAPER INDUSTRIES CORP. OF THE PHILIPPINES (PICOP),
Respondent.
RESOLUTION
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
The cause of action of PICOP Resources, Inc. (PICOP) in its Petition for
Mandamus with the trial court is clear: the government is bound by
contract, a 1969 Document signed by then President Ferdinand Marcos, to
enter into an Integrated Forest Management Agreement (IFMA) with
PICOP. Since the remedy of mandamus lies only to compel an officer to
perform a ministerial duty, and since the 1969 Document itself has a
proviso requiring compliance with the laws and the Constitution, the issues
in this Motion for Reconsideration are the following: (1) firstly, is the 1969
Document a contract enforceable under the Non-Impairment Clause of the
Constitution, so as to make the signing of the IFMA a ministerial duty? (2)
secondly, did PICOP comply with all the legal and constitutional
requirements for the issuance of an IFMA?
To recall, PICOP filed with the Department of Environment and Natural
Resources (DENR) an application to have its Timber License Agreement
(TLA) No. 43 converted into an IFMA. In the middle of the processing of
PICOPs application, however, PICOP refused to attend further meetings
with the DENR. Instead, on 2 September 2002, PICOP filed before the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City a Petition for Mandamus1
against then DENR Secretary Heherson T. Alvarez. PICOP seeks the
issuance of a privileged writ of mandamus to compel the DENR Secretary
to sign, execute and deliver an IFMA to PICOP, as well as to
[I]ssue the corresponding IFMA assignment number on the area covered
by the IFMA, formerly TLA No. 43, as amended; b) to issue the necessary
permit allowing petitioner to act and harvest timber from the said area of
TLA No. 43, sufficient to meet the raw material requirements of petitioners
pulp and paper mills in accordance with the warranty and agreement of
July 29, 1969 between the government and PICOPs predecessor-ininterest; and c) to honor and respect the Government Warranties and
contractual obligations to PICOP strictly in accordance with the warranty
and agreement dated July 29, [1969] between the government and
PICOPs predecessor-in-interest. x x x.2
On 11 October 2002, the RTC rendered a Decision granting PICOPs
Petition for Mandamus, thus:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition for Mandamus is hereby
GRANTED.
The Respondent DENR Secretary Hon. Heherson Alvarez is hereby
ordered:
1. to sign, execute and deliver the IFMA contract and/or
documents to PICOP and issue the corresponding IFMA
assignment number on the area covered by the IFMA, formerly
TLA No. 43, as amended;
2. to issue the necessary permit allowing petitioner to act and
harvest timber from the said area of TLA No. 43, sufficient to
meet the raw material requirements of petitioners pulp and
paper mills in accordance with the warranty and agreement of
The Respondent Secretary Alvarez is likewise ordered to pay petitioner the

sum of P10 million a month beginning May 2002 until the conversion of
TLA No. 43, as amended, to IFMA is formally effected and the harvesting
3
from the said area is granted.
On 25 October 2002, the DENR Secretary filed a Motion for
Reconsideration.4 In a 10 February 2003 Order, the RTC denied the DENR
Secretarys Motion for Reconsideration and granted PICOPs Motion for
the Issuance of Writ of Mandamus and/or Writ of Mandatory Injunction.5
The fallo of the 11 October 2002 Decision was practically copied in the 10
February 2003 Order, although there was no mention of the damages
imposed against then DENR Secretary Alvarez.6 The DENR Secretary
7
filed a Notice of Appeal from the 11 October 2002 Decision and the 10
February 2003 Order.
On 19 February 2004, the Seventh Division of the Court of Appeals
affirmed8 the Decision of the RTC, to wit:
WHEREFORE, the appealed Decision is hereby AFFIRMED with
modification that the order directing then DENR Secretary Alvarez "to pay
petitioner-appellee the sum of P10 million a month beginning May, 2002
until the conversion to IFMA of TLA No. 43, as amended, is formally
effected and the harvesting from the said area is granted" is hereby
deleted. 9
Challenging the deletion of the damages awarded to it, PICOP filed a
Motion for Partial Reconsideration10 of this Decision, which was denied by
the Court of Appeals in a 20 July 2004 Resolution.11
The DENR Secretary and PICOP filed with this Court separate Petitions for
Review of the 19 February 2004 Court of Appeals Decision. These
Petitions were docketed as G.R. No. 162243 and No. 164516,
respectively. These cases were consolidated with G.R. No. 171875, which
relates to the lifting of a Writ of Preliminary Injunction enjoining the
execution pending appeal of the foregoing Decision.
On 29 November 2006, this Court rendered the assailed Decision on the
Consolidated Petitions:
WHEREFORE, the Petition in G.R. No. 162243 is GRANTED. The
Decision of the Court of Appeals insofar as it affirmed the RTC Decision
granting the Petition for Mandamus filed by Paper Industries Corp. of the
Philippines (PICOP) is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Petition
in G.R. No. 164516 seeking the reversal of the same Decision insofar as it
nullified the award of damages in favor of PICOP is DENIED for lack of
merit. The Petition in G.R. No. 171875, assailing the lifting of the
Preliminary Mandatory Injunction in favor of the Secretary of Environment
and Natural Resources is DISMISSED on the ground of mootness.12
On 18 January 2006, PICOP filed the instant Motion for Reconsideration,
based on the following grounds:
I.
THE HONORABLE COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE
CONTRACT WITH PRESIDENTIAL WARRANTY SIGNED BY THE
PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC ON 29 JUNE 1969 ISSUED TO PICOP
IS A MERE PERMIT OR LICENSE AND IS NOT A CONTRACT,
PROPERTY OR PROPERTY RIGHT PROTECTED BY THE DUE
PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION
II.
THE EVALUATION OF PICOPS MANAGEMENT OF THE TLA 43
NATURAL FOREST CLEARLY SHOWED SATISFACTORY
PERFORMANCE FOR KEEPING THE NATURAL FOREST GENERALLY
INTACT AFTER 50 YEARS OF FOREST OPERATIONS. THIS
COMPLETES THE REQUIREMENT FOR AUTOMATIC CONVERSION
UNDER SECTION 9 OF DAO 99-53.
III.
Page 3 of 126
WITH DUE RESPECT, THE HONORABLE COURT, IN REVERSING THE

FINDINGS OF FACTS OF THE TRIAL COURT AND THE COURT OF
APPEALS, MISAPPRECIATED THE EVIDENCE, TESTIMONIAL AND
DOCUMENTARY, WHEN IT RULED THAT:
i.
PICOP FAILED TO SUBMIT A FIVE-YEAR FOREST PROTECTION PLAN
AND A SEVEN-YEAR REFORESTATION PLAN FOR THE YEARS
UNDER REVIEW.
IV
As a result of respondent Secretarys unlawful refusal and/or neglect to
sign and deliver the IFMA contract, and violation of the constitutional rights
of PICOP against non-impairment of the obligation of contract (Sec. 10,
Art. III, 1997 [sic] Constitution), PICOP suffered grave and irreparable
damages.15
Petitions for Mandamus are governed by Rule 65 of the Rules of Court,
Section 3 of which provides:
ii.
SEC. 3. Petition for mandamus.When any tribunal, corporation, board,

officer or person unlawfully neglects the performance of an act which the
law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station,
or unlawfully excludes another from the use and enjoyment of a right or
office to which such other is entitled, and there is no other plain, speedy
and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, the person aggrieved
thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court, alleging the facts
with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered commanding the
respondent, immediately or at some other time to be specified by the court,
to do the act required to be done to protect the rights of the petitioner, and
to pay the damages sustained by the petitioner by reason of the wrongful
acts of the respondent. (Emphasis supplied.)
PICOP FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE PAYMENT OF FOREST

CHARGES.
iii.
PICOP DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENT FOR A
CERTIFICATION FROM THE NCIP THAT THE AREA OF TLA 43 DOES
NOT OVERLAP WITH ANY ANCESTRAL DOMAIN.
iv.
PICOP FAILED TO HAVE PRIOR CONSULTATION WITH AND
APPROVAL FROM THE SANGUNIAN CONCERNED, AS REQUIRED BY
SECTION 27 OF THE REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7160, OTHERWISE KNOWN
AS THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE OF 1991.
v.
PCIOP FAILED TO SECURE SOCIAL ACCEPTABILITY UNDER
PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 1586.
IV
THE MOTIVATION OF ALVAREZ IN RECALLING THE CLEARANCE
FOR AUTOMATIC CONVERSION HE ISSUED ON 25 OCTOBER 2001
WAS NOT DUE TO ANY SHORTCOMING FROM PICOP BUT DUE TO
HIS DETERMINATION TO EXCLUDE 28,125 HECTARES FROM THE
CONVERSION AND OTHER THINGS.
On 15 December 2008, on Motion by PICOP, the Third Division of this
Court resolved to refer the consolidated cases at bar to the Court en banc.
On 16 December 2008, this Court sitting en banc resolved to accept the
said cases and set them for oral arguments. Oral arguments were
conducted on 10 February 2009.
PICOPs Cause of Action: Matters PICOP Should Have Proven to Be
Entitled to a Writ of Mandamus
In seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the issuance of an IFMA in its
favor, PICOP relied on a 29 July 1969 Document, the so-called
Presidential Warranty approved by then President Ferdinand E. Marcos in
favor of PICOPs predecessor-in-interest, Bislig Bay Lumber Company,
Inc. (BBLCI). PICOPs cause of action is summarized in paragraphs 1.6
and 4.19 of its Petition for Mandamus:
1.6 Respondent Secretary impaired the obligation of contract under the
said Warranty and Agreement of 29 July 1969 by refusing to respect the
tenure; and its renewal for another twenty five (25) years, of PICOP over
the area covered by the said Agreement which consists of permanent
forest lands with an aggregate area of 121,587 hectares and alienable and
disposable lands with an aggregate area of approximately 21,580
hectares, and petitioners exclusive right to cut, collect and remove
sawtimber and pulpwood therein and the peaceful and adequate
enjoyment of the said area as described and specified in petitioners
Timber License Agreement (TLA) No. 43 guaranteed by the Government,
under the Warranty and Agreement of 29 July 1969.13
4.19 Respondent is in violation of the Constitution and has impaired the
obligation of contract by his refusal to respect: a) the tenurial rights of
PICOP over the forest area covered by TLA No. 43, as amended and its
renewal for another twenty five (25) years; b) the exclusive right of PICOP
to cut, collect and remove sawtimber and pulpwood therein; and c)
PICOPs peaceful and adequate enjoyment of the said area which the
government guaranteed under the Warranty and Agreement of 29 July
1969.14
The grounds submitted by PICOP in its Petition for Mandamus are as
follows:
I
Respondent secretary has unlawfully refused and/or neglected to sign and
execute the IFMA contract of PICOP even as the latter has complied with
all the legal requirements for the automatic conversion of TLA No. 43, as
amended, into an IFMA.
II
Respondent Secretary acted with grave abuse of discretion and/or in
excess of jurisdiction in refusing to sign and execute PICOPs IFMA
contract, notwithstanding that PICOP had complied with all the
requirements for Automatic Conversion under DAO 99-53, as in fact
Automatic Conversion was already cleared in October, 2001, and was a
completed process.
III
Respondent Secretary has impaired the obligation of contract under a valid
and binding warranty and agreement of 29 July 1969 between the
government and PICOPs predecessor-in-interest, by refusing to respect:
a) the tenure of PICOP, and its renewal for another twenty five (25) years,
over the TLA No.43 area covered by said agreement; b) the exclusive right
to cut, collect and remove sawtimber and pulpwood timber; and c) the
peaceful and adequate enjoyment of the said area.
PICOP is thus asking this Court to conclude that the DENR Secretary is
specifically enjoined by law to issue an IFMA in its favor. An IFMA, as
defined by DENR Administrative Order (DAO) No. 99-53,16 is [A] production-sharing contract entered into by and between the DENR
and a qualified applicant wherein the DENR grants to the latter the
exclusive right to develop, manage, protect and utilize a specified area of
forestland and forest resource therein for a period of 25 years and may be
renewed for another 25-year period, consistent with the principle of
sustainable development and in accordance with an approved CDMP, and
17
under which both parties share in its produce.
PICOP stresses the word "automatic" in Section 9 of this DAO No. 99-53:
Sec. 9. Qualifications of Applicants. The applicants for IFMA shall be:
(a) A Filipino citizen of legal age; or,
(b) Partnership, cooperative or corporation whether public or
private, duly registered under Philippine laws.
However, in the case of application for conversion of TLA into IFMA, an
automatic conversion after proper evaluation shall be allowed, provided the
TLA holder shall have signified such intention prior to the expiry of the
TLA, PROVIDED further, that the TLA holder has showed satisfactory
performance and have complied in the terms of condition of the TLA and
pertinent rules and regulations. (Emphasis supplied.)18
This administrative regulation provision allowing automatic conversion after
proper evaluation can hardly qualify as a law, much less a law specifically
enjoining the execution of a contract. To enjoin is "to order or direct with
urgency; to instruct with authority; to command."19 "Enjoin is a mandatory
word, in legal parlance, always; in common parlance, usually."20 The word
"allow," on the other hand, is not equivalent to the word "must," and is in
no sense a command.21
As an extraordinary writ, the remedy of mandamus lies only to compel an
officer to perform a ministerial duty, not a discretionary one; mandamus will
not issue to control the exercise of discretion of a public officer where the
law imposes upon him the duty to exercise his judgment in reference to
any manner in which he is required to act, because it is his judgment that
is to be exercised and not that of the court.22
The execution of agreements, in itself, involves the exercise of discretion.
Agreements are products of negotiations and mutual concessions,
necessitating evaluation of their provisions on the part of both parties. In
the case of the IFMA, the evaluation on the part of the government is
specifically mandated in the afore-quoted Section 3 of DAO No. 99-53.
This evaluation necessarily involves the exercise of discretion and
judgment on the part of the DENR Secretary, who is tasked not only to
negotiate the sharing of the profit arising from the IFMA, but also to
evaluate the compliance with the requirements on the part of the applicant.
Furthermore, as shall be discussed later, the period of an IFMA that was
merely automatically converted from a TLA in accordance with Section 9,
paragraph 2 of DAO No. 99-53 would only be for the remaining period of
the TLA. Since the TLA of PICOP expired on 26 April 2002, the IFMA that
could have been granted to PICOP via the automatic conversion provision
in DAO No. 99-53 would have expired on the same date, 26 April 2002,
and the PICOPs Petition for Mandamus would have become moot.
This is where the 1969 Document, the purported Presidential Warranty,
comes into play. When PICOPs application was brought to a standstill
upon the evaluation that PICOP had yet to comply with the requirements
for such conversion, PICOP refused to attend further meetings with the
Page 4 of 126
DENR and instead filed a Petition for Mandamus, insisting that the DENR
Secretary had impaired the obligation of contract by his refusal to respect:
a) the tenurial rights of PICOP over the forest area covered by TLA No. 43,
as amended, and its renewal for another twenty-five (25) years; b) the
exclusive right of PICOP to cut, collect and remove sawtimber and
pulpwood therein; and c) PICOPs peaceful and adequate enjoyment of
the said area which the government guaranteed under the Warranty and
Agreement of 29 July 1969. 23
An examination of the Presidential Warranty at once reveals that it simply

reassures PICOP of the governments commitment to uphold the terms
and conditions of its timber license and guarantees PICOPs peaceful and
adequate possession and enjoyment of the areas which are the basic
sources of raw materials for its wood processing complex. The warranty
covers only the right to cut, collect, and remove timber in its concession
area, and does not extend to the utilization of other resources, such as
mineral resources, occurring within the concession.
PICOP is, thus, insisting that the government is obligated by contract to

issue an IFMA in its favor because of the 1969 Document.
The Presidential Warranty cannot be considered a contract distinct from

PTLA No. 47 and FMA No. 35. We agree with the OSGs position that it is
merely a collateral undertaking which cannot amplify PICOPs rights under
its timber license. Our definitive ruling in Oposa v. Factoran that a timber
license is not a contract within the purview of the non-impairment clause is
edifying. We declared:
A contract, being the law between the parties, can indeed, with respect to
the State when it is a party to such contract, qualify as a law specifically
enjoining the performance of an act. Hence, it is possible that a writ of
mandamus may be issued to PICOP, but only if it proves both of the
following:
1) That the 1969 Document is a contract recognized under the
non-impairment clause; and
2) That the 1969 Document specifically enjoins the government
to issue the IFMA.
If PICOP fails to prove any of these two matters, the grant of a privileged
writ of mandamus is not warranted. This was why we pronounced in the
assailed Decision that the overriding controversy involved in the Petition
24
was one of law. If PICOP fails to prove any of these two matters, more
significantly its assertion that the 1969 Document is a contract, PICOP fails
25
to prove its cause of action. Not even the satisfactory compliance with all
legal and administrative requirements for an IFMA would save PICOPs
Petition for Mandamus.
The reverse, however, is not true. The 1969 Document expressly states
that the warranty as to the tenure of PICOP is "subject to compliance with
constitutional and statutory requirements as well as with existing policy on
timber concessions." Thus, if PICOP proves the two above-mentioned
matters, it still has to prove compliance with statutory and administrative
requirements for the conversion of its TLA into an IFMA.
Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies
PICOP uses the same argument that the government is bound by
contract to issue the IFMA in its refusal to exhaust all administrative
remedies by not appealing the alleged illegal non-issuance of the IFMA to
the Office of the President. PICOP claimed in its Petition for Mandamus
with the trial court that:
1.10 This petition falls as an exception to the exhaustion of administrative
remedies. The acts of respondent DENR Secretary complained of in this
petition are patently illegal; in derogation of the constitutional rights of
petitioner against non-impairment of the obligation of contracts; without
jurisdiction, or in excess of jurisdiction or so capriciously as to constitute an
abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction; and
moreover, the failure or refusal of a high government official such as a
Department head from whom relief is brought to act on the matter was
considered equivalent to exhaustion of administrative remedies (Sanoy v.
Tantuico, 50 SCRA 455 [1973]), and there are compelling and urgent
reasons for judicial intervention (Bagatsing v. Ramirez, 74 SCRA 306
[1976]).
Thus, if there has been no impairment of the obligation of contracts in the
DENR Secretarys non-issuance of the IFMA, the proper remedy of PICOP
in claiming that it has complied with all statutory and administrative
requirements for the issuance of the IFMA should have been with the
Office of the President. This makes the issue of the enforceability of the
1969 Document as a contract even more significant.
The Nature and Effects of the Purported 29 July 1969 Presidential
Warranty
Base Metals Case
PICOP challenges our ruling that the 1969 Document is not a contract.
Before we review this finding, however, it must be pointed out that one
week after the assailed Decision, another division of this Court
promulgated a Decision concerning the very same 1969 Document. Thus,
in PICOP Resources, Inc. v. Base Metals Mineral Resources
Corporation,26 five other Justices who were still unaware of this Divisions
Decision,27 came up with the same conclusion as regards the same issue
of whether former President Marcoss Presidential Warranty is a contract:
Finally, we do not subscribe to PICOPs argument that the Presidential
Warranty dated September 25, 1968 is a contract protected by the nonimpairment clause of the 1987 Constitution.
Needless to say, all licenses may thus be revoked or rescinded by

executive action. It is not a contract, property or a property right protected
by the due process clause of the Constitution. In Tan vs. Director of
Forestry, this Court held:
"x x x A timber license is an instrument by which the State regulates the
utilization and disposition of forest resources to the end that public welfare
is promoted. A timber license is not a contract within the purview of the due
process clause; it is only a license or a privilege, which can be validly
withdrawn whenever dictated by public interest or public welfare as in this
case.
A license is merely a permit or privilege to do what otherwise would be
unlawful, and is not a contract between the authority, federal, state, or
municipal, granting it and the person to whom it is granted; neither is it a
property or a property right, nor does it create a vested right; nor is it
taxation' (C.J. 168). Thus, this Court held that the granting of license does
not create irrevocable rights, neither is it property or property rights
(People vs. Ong Tin, 54 O.G. 7576). x x x"
We reiterated this pronouncement in Felipe Ysmael, Jr. & Co., Inc. vs.
Deputy Executive Secretary:
"x x x Timber licenses, permits and license agreements are the principal
instruments by which the State regulates the utilization and disposition of
forest resources to the end that public welfare is promoted. And it can
hardly be gainsaid that they merely evidence a privilege granted by the
State to qualified entities, and do not vest in the latter a permanent or
irrevocable right to the particular concession area and the forest products
therein. They may be validly amended, modified, replaced or rescinded by
the Chief Executive when national interests so require. Thus, they are not
deemed contracts within the purview of the due process of law clause [See
Sections 3(ee) and 20 of Pres. Decree No. 705, as amended. Also, Tan v.
Director of Forestry, G.R. No. L-24548, October 27, 1983, 125 SCRA
302]."
Since timber licenses are not contracts, the non-impairment clause, which
reads:
"SEC. 10. No law impairing the obligation of contracts shall be passed."
cannot be invoked.
The Presidential Warranty cannot, in any manner, be construed as a
contractual undertaking assuring PICOP of exclusive possession and
enjoyment of its concession areas. Such an interpretation would result in
the complete abdication by the State in favor of PICOP of the sovereign
power to control and supervise the exploration, development and utilization
of the natural resources in the area.28
The Motion for Reconsideration was denied with finality on 14 February
2007. A Second Motion for Reconsideration filed by PICOP was denied on
23 May 2007.
PICOP insists that the pronouncement in Base Metals is a mere obiter
dictum, which would not bind this Court in resolving this Motion for
Reconsideration. In the oral arguments, however, upon questioning from
the ponente himself of Base Metals, it was agreed that the issue of
whether the 1969 Document is a contract was necessary in the resolution
of Base Metals:
JUSTICE TINGA:
And do you confirm that one of the very issues raised by PICOP in that
case [PICOP Resources Inc. v. Base Metal Mineral Resources
Corporation] revolves around its claim that a Presidential Warranty is
protected by the non-impairment c[l]ause of the Constitution.
ATTY. AGABIN:
Yes, I believe that statement was made by the Court, your Honor.
JUSTICE TINGA:
Yes. And that claim on the part of PICOP necessarily implies that the
Presidential Warranty according to PICOP is a contract protected by the
non-impairment clause.
ATTY. AGABIN:
Yes, Your Honor.
JUSTICE TINGA:
Essentially, the PICOP raised the issue of whether the Presidential
Warranty is a contract or not.
ATTY. AGABIN:
Yes, Your Honor.
JUSTICE TINGA:
Page 5 of 126
And therefore any ruling on the part of the Court on that issue could not be
an obiter dictum.
ATTY. AGABIN:
Your Honor, actually we believe that the basic issue in that case was
whether or not Base Metals could conduct mining activities underneath the
forest reserve allotted to PICOP and the Honorable Court ruled that the
Mining Act of 1995 as well as the Department Order of DENR does not
disallow mining activity under a forest reserve.
JUSTICE TINGA:
But it was PICOP itself which raised the claim that a Presidential Warranty
is a contract. And therefore be, should be protected on the under the nonimpairment clause of the Constitution.
ATTY. AGABIN:
Yes, Your Honor. Except that
JUSTICE TINGA:
So, how can you say now that the Court merely uttered, declared, laid
down an obiter dictum in saying that the Presidential Warranty is not a
contract, and it is not being a contract, it is not prohibited by the nonimpairment clause.
ATTY. AGABIN:
This Honorable Court could have just ruled, held that the mining law allows
mining activities under a forest reserve without deciding on that issue that
was raised by PICOP, your Honor, and therefore we believe.
JUSTICE TINGA:
It could have been better if PICOP has not raised that issue and had not
claimed that the Presidential Warranty is not a contract.
ATTY. AGABIN:
Well, that is correct, your Honor except that the Court could have just
avoided that question. Because
JUSTICE TINGA:
Why[?]
ATTY. AGABIN:
It already settled the issue, the basic issue.
JUSTICE TINGA:
Yes, because the Court in saying that merely reiterated a number of
rulings to the effect that the Presidential Warranty, a Timber License for
that matter is not a contract protected by the non-impairment laws.
ATTY. AGABIN:
Well, it is our submission, your Honor, that it is obiter because, that issue
even a phrase by PICOP was not really fully argued by the parties for the
Honorable Court and it seems from my reading at least it was just an aside
given by the Honorable Court to decide on that issue raised by PICOP but
it was not necessary to the decision of the court.
JUSTICE TINGA:
It was not necessary[?]
ATTY. AGABIN:
To the decision of the Court.
JUSTICE TINGA:
It was.
ATTY. AGABIN:
It was not necessary.
JUSTICE TINGA:
It was.
ATTY. AGABIN:
Yes.
JUSTICE TINGA:
And PICOP devoted quite a number of pages in [its] memorandum to that
issue and so did the Court [in its Decision].
ATTY. AGABIN:
Anyway, your Honor, we beg the Court to revisit, not to29
Interpretation of the 1969 Document That Would Be in Harmony with the
Constitution
To remove any doubts as to the contents of the 1969 Document, the
purported Presidential Warranty, below is a complete text thereof:
Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
Diliman, Quezon City
D-53, Licenses (T.L.A. No. 43)
Bislig Bay Lumber Co., Inc.
(Bislig, Surigao)
July 29, 1969
Bislig Bay Lumber Co., Inc.
[unreadable word] Bldg.
Makati, Rizal
S i r s:
This has reference to the request of the Board of Investments through its
Chairman in a letter dated July 16, 1969 for a warranty on the boundaries
of your concession area under Timber License Agreement No. 43, as
amended.
We are made to understand that your company is committed to support the
first large scale integrated wood processing complex hereinafter called:
"The Project") and that such support will be provided not only in the form of
the supply of pulpwood and other wood materials from your concession but
also by making available funds generated out of your own operations, to
supplement PICOPs operational sources of funds and other financial
arrangements made by him. In order that your company may provide such
support effectively, it is understood that you will call upon your
stockholders to take such steps as may be necessary to effect a unification
of managerial, technical, economic and manpower resources between

your company and PICOP.
It is in the public interest to promote industries that will enhance the proper
conservation of our forest resources as well as insure the maximum
utilization thereof to the benefit of the national economy. The
administration feels that the PICOP project is one such industry which
should enjoy priority over the usual logging operations hitherto practiced by
ordinary timber licensees: For this reason, we are pleased to consider
favorably the request.
We confirm that your Timber License Agreement No. 43, as amended
(copy of which is attached as Annex "A" hereof which shall form part and
parcel of this warranty) definitely establishes the boundary lines of your
concession area which consists of permanent forest lands with an
aggregate area of 121,587 hectares and alienable or disposable lands with
an aggregate area of approximately 21,580 hectares.
We further confirm that your tenure over the area and exclusive right to
cut, collect and remove sawtimber and pulpwood shall be for the period
ending on April 26, 1977; said period to be renewable for other 25 years
subject to compliance with constitutional and statutory requirements as
well as with existing policy on timber concessions.
The peaceful and adequate enjoyment by you of your area as described
and specified in your aforesaid amended Timber License Agreement No.
43 is hereby warranted provided that pertinent laws, regulations and the
terms and conditions of your license agreement are observed.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) FERNANDO LOPEZ
Secretary of Agriculture
and Natural Resources
PICOP interprets this document in the following manner:
6.1 It is clear that the thrust of the government warranty is to establish a
particular area defined by boundary lines of TLA No. 43 for the PICOP
Project. In consideration for PICOPs commitment to pursue and establish
the project requiring huge investment/funding from stockholders and
lending institutions, the government provided a warranty that ensures the
continued and exclusive right of PICOP to source its raw materials needs
from the forest and renewable trees within the areas established.
6.2 As a long-term support, the warranty covers the initial twenty five (25)
year period and is renewable for periods of twenty five (25) years provided
the project continues to exist and operate. Very notably, the wording of the
Presidential Warranty connotes that for as long as the holder complies with
all the legal requirements, the term of the warranty is not limited to fifty (50)
years but other twenty five (25) years.
6.3 Note must be made that the government warranted that PICOPs
tenure over the area and exclusive right to cut, collect and remove saw
timber and pulpwood shall be for the period ending on 26 April 1977 and
said period to be renewable for other 25 years subject to "compliance with
constitutional and statutory requirements as well as existing policy on
timber requirements". It is clear that the renewal for other 25 years, not
necessarily for another 25 years is guaranteed. This explains why on 07
October 1977, TLA No. 43, as amended, was automatically renewed for
another period of twenty five (25) years to expire on 26 April 2002.30
PICOPs interpretation of the 1969 Document cannot be sustained.
PICOPs claim that the term of the warranty is not limited to fifty years, but
that it extends to other fifty years, perpetually, violates Section 2, Article XII
of the Constitution which provides:
Section 2. All lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal,
petroleum, and other mineral oils, all forces of potential energy, fisheries,
forests or timber, wildlife, flora and fauna, and other natural resources are
owned by the State. With the exception of agricultural lands, all other
natural resources shall not be alienated. The exploration, development,
and utilization of natural resources shall be under the full control and
supervision of the State. The State may directly undertake such activities,
or it may enter into co-production, joint venture, or production-sharing
agreements with Filipino citizens, or corporations or associations at least
sixty per centum of whose capital is owned by such citizens. Such
agreements may be for a period not exceeding twenty-five years,
renewable for not more than twenty-five years, and under such terms and
conditions as may be provided by law. In cases of water rights for
irrigation, water supply fisheries, or industrial uses other than the
development of water power, beneficial use may be the measure and limit
of the grant.
Mr. Justice Dante O. Tingas interpretation of the 1969 Document is much
more in accord with the laws and the Constitution. What one cannot do
directly, he cannot do indirectly. Forest lands cannot be alienated in favor
Page 6 of 126
of private entities. Granting to private entities, via a contract, a permanent,

irrevocable, and exclusive possession of and right over forest lands is
tantamount to granting ownership thereof. PICOP, it should be noted,
claims nothing less than having exclusive, continuous and uninterrupted
possession of its concession areas,31 where all other entrants are illegal,32
and where so-called "illegal settlers and squatters" are apprehended.33
IFMAs are production-sharing agreements concerning the development
and utilization of natural resources. As such, these agreements "may be
for a period not exceeding twenty-five years, renewable for not more than
twenty-five years, and under such terms and conditions as may be
provided by law." Any superior "contract" requiring the State to issue TLAs
and IFMAs whenever they expire clearly circumvents Section 2, Article XII
of the Constitution, which provides for the only permissible schemes
wherein the full control and supervision of the State are not derogated: coproduction, joint venture, or production-sharing agreements within the time
limit of twenty-five years, renewable for another twenty-five years.
On its face, the 1969 Document was meant to expire on 26 April 2002,
upon the expiration of the expected extension of the original TLA period
ending on 26 April 1977:
well as with existing policy on timber concessions.1avvphi1
Any interpretation extending the application of the 1969 Document beyond
26 April 2002 and any concession that may be granted to PICOP beyond
the said date would violate the Constitution, and no amount of legal
hermeneutics can change that. Attempts of PICOP to explain its way out of
this Constitutional provision only led to absurdities, as exemplified in the
following excerpt from the oral arguments:
JUSTICE CARPIO:
The maximum trend of agreement to develop and utilize natural resources
like forest products is 25 years plus another 25 years or a total of 50 years
correct?
ATTY. AGABIN
Yes, Your Honor.
JUSTICE CARPIO:
That is true for the 1987, 1973, 1935 Constitution, correct?
ATTY. AGABIN:
Yes, Your Honor.
JUSTICE CARPIO:
The TLA here, TLA 43, expired, the first 25 years expired in 1977, correct?
ATTY. AGABIN:
Yes, Your Honor.
JUSTICE CARPIO:
And it was renewed for another 25 years until 2002, the 50th year?
ATTY. AGABIN:
Yes, Your Honor.
JUSTICE CARPIO:
Now, could PICOP before the end of the 50th year lets say in 2001, one
year before the expiration, could it have asked for an extension of another
25 years of its TLA agreement[?]
ATTY. AGABIN:
I believe so, Your Honor.
JUSTICE CARPIO:
But the Constitution says, maximum of fifty years. How could you ask for
another 25 years of its TLA.
ATTY. AGABIN:
Well, your Honor, we believe on a question like this, this Honorable Court
should balance the interest.
JUSTICE CARPIO:
The Constitution is very clear, you have only a maximum of 50 years, 25
plus another 25. PICOP could never have applied for an extension, for a
third 25-year term whether under the 1935 Constitution, the 1973
Constitution and the 1987 Constitution, correct?
ATTY. AGABIN:
Your Honor, except that we are invoking the warranty, the terms of the
warranty.
JUSTICE CARPIO:
Can the warranty prevail over the Constitution?
ATTY. AGABIN:
Well, it is a vested right, your Honor.
JUSTICE CARPIO:
Yes, but whatever it is, can it prevail over the Constitution?
ATTY. AGABIN:
The Constitution itself provides that vested rights should be .
JUSTICE CARPIO:
If it is not in violation of specific provision of the Constitution. The
Constitution says, 25 years plus another 25 years, thats the end of it. You
mean to say that a President of the Philippines can give somebody 1,000
years license?
ATTY. AGABIN:
Well, that is not our position, Your Honor. Because our position is that .
JUSTICE CARPIO:
My question is, what is the maximum term, you said 50 years. So, my next
question is, can PICOP apply for an extension of another 25 years after
2002, the 50th year?
ATTY. AGABIN:
Yes, based on the contract of warranty, Your Honor, because the contract
of warranty.
JUSTICE CARPIO:
But in the PICOP license it is very clear, it says here, provision 28, it says
the license agreement is for a total of 50 years. I mean it is very simple, the
President or even Congress cannot pass a law extending the license,
whatever kind of license to utilize natural resources for more than fifty
year[s]. I mean even the law cannot do that. It cannot prevail over the
Constitution. Is that correct, Counsel?
ATTY. AGABIN:
It is correct, Your Honor, except that in this case, what is actually our
application is that the law provides for the conversion of existing TLA into
IFMA.
JUSTICE CARPIO:
So, they file the petition for conversion before the end of the 50th year for
IFMA.
ATTY. AGABIN:
Yes, Your Honor.
JUSTICE CARPIO:
But IFMA is the same, it is based on Section 2, Article 12 of the
Constitution, develop and utilize natural resources because as you said
when the new constitution took effect we did away with the old licensing
regime, we have now co-production, a production sharing, joint venture,
direct undertaking but still the same developing and utilizing the natural
resources, still comes from section 2, Art. 12 of the Constitution. It is still a
license but different format now.
ATTY. AGABIN:
It is correct, Your Honor, except that the regimes of joint venture, coproduction and production sharing are what is referred to in the
constitution, Your Honor, and still covered
JUSTICE CARPIO:
Yes, but it is covered by same 25 year[s], you mean to say people now can
circumvent the 50 year maximum term by calling their TLA as IFMA and
after fifty years calling it ISMA, after another 50 years call it MAMA.
ATTY. AGABIN:
Yes, Your Honor. Because
JUSTICE CARPIO:
It can be done.
ATTY. AGABIN:
That is provided for by the department itself.34
PICOP is, in effect, arguing that the DENR issued DAO No. 99-53 in order
to provide a way to circumvent the provisions of the Constitution limiting
agreements for the utilization of natural resources to a maximum period of
fifty years. Official duties are, however, disputably considered to be
regularly performed,35 and good faith is always presumed.
DAO No. 99-53 was issued to change the means by which the government
enters into an agreement with private entities for the utilization of forest
products. DAO No. 99-53 is a late response to the change in the
constitutional provisions on natural resources from the 1973 Constitution,
which allowed the granting of licenses to private entities,36 to the present
Constitution, which provides for co-production, joint venture, or productionsharing agreements as the permissible schemes wherein private entities
may participate in the utilization of forest products. Since the granting of
timber licenses ceased to be a permissible scheme for the participation of
private entities under the present Constitution, their operations should
have ceased upon the issuance of DAO No. 99-53, the rule regulating the
schemes under the present Constitution. This would be iniquitous to those
with existing TLAs that would not have expired yet as of the issuance of
DAO No. 99-53, especially those with new TLAs that were originally set to
expire after 10 or even 20 or more years. The DENR thus inserted a
provision in DAO No. 99-53 allowing these TLA holders to finish the period
of their TLAs, but this time as IFMAs, without the rigors of going through a
new application, which they have probably just gone through a few years
ago.
Such an interpretation would not only make DAO No. 99-53 consistent with
the provisions of the Constitution, but would also prevent possible
discrimination against new IFMA applicants:
ASSOCIATE JUSTICE DE CASTRO:
I ask this question because of your interpretation that the period of the
IFMA, if your TLA is converted into IFMA, would cover a new a fresh
period of twenty-five years renewable by another period of twenty-five
years.
DEAN AGABIN:
Yes, Your Honor.
Dont you think that will, in effect, be invidious discrimination with respect
to other applicants if you are granted a fresh period of twenty-five years
extendible to another twenty-five years?
DEAN AGABIN:
Page 7 of 126
I dont think it would be, Your Honor, considering that the IFMA is different
regime from the TLA. And not only that, there are considerations of public
health and ecology which should come into play in this case, and which we
had explained in our opening statement and, therefore the provision of the
Constitution on the twenty-five limits for renewal of co-production, joint
venture and production sharing agreements, should be balanced with
other values stated in the Constitution, like the value of balanced ecology,
which should be in harmony with the rhythm of nature, or the policy of
forest preservation in Article XII, Section 14 of the Constitution. These are
all important policy considerations which should be balanced against the
term limits in Article II of the Constitution.
The provision of this Administrative Order regarding automatic conversion
may be reasonable, if, I want to know if you agree with me, if we limit this
automatic conversion to the remaining period of the TLA, because in that
case there will be a valid ground to make a distinction between those with
existing TLA and those who are applying for the first time for IFMA?
DEAN AGABIN:
Well, Your Honor, we beg to disagree, because as I said TLAs are
completely different from IFMA. The TLA has no production sharing or coproduction agreement or condition. All that the licensee has to do is, to pay
forest charges, taxes and other impositions from the local and national
government. On the other hand, the IFMAs contained terms and conditions
which are completely different, and that they either impose co-production,
production sharing or joint venture terms. So its a completely different
regime, Your Honor.
Precisely, that is the reason why there should be an evaluation of what you
mentioned earlier of the development plan.
DEAN AGABIN:
Yes, Your Honor.
So it will be reasonable to convert a TLA into an IFMA without considering
the development plan submitted by other applicants or the development
plan itself of one seeking conversion into IFMA if it will only be limited to
the period, the original period of the TLA. But once you go beyond the
period of the TLA, then you will be, the DENR is I think should evaluate the
different proposals of the applicants if we are thinking of a fresh period of
twenty-five years, and which is renewable under the Constitution by
another twenty-five years. So the development plan will be important in this
case, the submission of the development plan of the different applicants
must be considered. So I dont understand why you mentioned earlier that
the development plan will later on be a subject matter of negotiation
between the IFMA grantee and the government. So it seems that it will be
too late in the day to discuss that if you have already converted the TLA
into IFMA or if the government has already granted the IFMA, and then it
will later on study the development plan, whether it is viable or not, or it is
sustainable or not, and whether the development plan of the different
applicants are, are, which of the development plan of the different
applicants is better or more advantageous to the government.37
PICOP insists that the alleged Presidential Warranty, having been signed
on 29 July 1969, could not have possibly considered the limitations yet to
be imposed by future issuances, such as the 1987 Constitution. However,
Section 3, Article XVIII of said Constitution, provides:
Section 3. All existing laws, decrees, executive orders, proclamations,
letters of instructions, and other executive issuances not inconsistent with
this Constitution shall remain operative until amended, repealed, or
revoked.
38
In the recent case Sabio v. Gordon, we ruled that "(t)he clear import of
this provision is that all existing laws, executive orders, proclamations,
letters of instructions and other executive issuances inconsistent or
repugnant to the Constitution are repealed."
When a provision is susceptible of two interpretations, "the one that will
render them operative and effective and harmonious with other provisions
of law"39 should be adopted. As the interpretations in the assailed Decision
and in Mr. Justice Tingas ponencia are the ones that would not make the
subject Presidential Warranty unconstitutional, these are what we shall
adopt.
Purpose of the 1969 Document: Assurance That the Boundaries of Its
Concession Area Would Not Be Altered Despite the Provision in the TLA
that the DENR Secretary Can Amend Said Boundaries
In the assailed Decision, we ruled that the 1969 Document cannot be
considered a contract that would bind the government regardless of
changes in policy and the demands of public interest and social welfare.
PICOP claims this conclusion "did not take into consideration that PICOP
already had a valid and current TLA before the contract with warranty was
40
signed in 1969." PICOP goes on: "The TLA is a license that equips any
TLA holder in the country for harvesting of timber. A TLA is signed by the
Secretary of the DANR now DENR. The Court ignored the significance of
the need for another contract with the Secretary of the DANR but this time
with the approval of the President of the Republic."41 PICOP then asks us:
"If PICOP/BBLCI was only an ordinary TLA holder, why will it go through
the extra step of securing another contract just to harvest timber when the
same can be served by the TLA signed only by the Secretary and not
requiring the approval of the President of the Republic(?)" 42
The answer to this query is found in TLA No. 43 itself wherein, immediately
after the boundary lines of TLA No. 43 were established, the following
conditions were given:
This license is granted to the said party of the second part upon the
following express conditions:
I. That authority is granted hereunder to the party of the second
part43 to cut, collect or remove firewood or other minor forest
products from the area embraced in this license agreement
except as hereinafter provided.
II. That the party of the first part44 may amend or alter the
description of the boundaries of the area covered by this license
agreement to conform with official surveys and that the decision
of the party of the first part as to the exact location of the said
boundaries shall be final.
III. That if the party of the first part deems it necessary to
establish on the ground the boundary lines of the area granted
under this license agreement, the party of the second part shall
furnish to the party of the first part or its representatives as many
laborers as it needs and all the expenses to be incurred on the
work including the wages of such laborers shall be paid by the
party of the second part.45
Thus, BBLCI needed an assurance that the boundaries of its concession
area, as established in TLA No. 43, as amended, would not be altered
despite this provision. Hence, BBLCI endeavored to obtain the 1969
Document, which provides:
We confirm that your Timber License Agreement No. 43, as amended
(copy of which is attached as Annex "A" hereof which shall form part and
46
terms and conditions of your license agreement are observed.
In Koa v. Court of Appeals,47 we ruled that a warranty is a collateral
undertaking and is merely part of a contract. As a collateral undertaking, it
follows the principal wherever it goes. When this was pointed out by the
Solicitor General, PICOP changed its designation of the 1969 Document
from "Presidential Warranty" or "government warranty" in all its pleadings
prior to our Decision, to "contract with warranty" in its Motion for
Reconsideration. This, however, is belied by the statements in the 29 July
1969 Document, which refers to itself as "this warranty."
Re: Allegation That There Were Mutual Contract Considerations
Had the 29 July 1969 Document been intended as a contract, it could have
easily said so. More importantly, it could have clearly defined the mutual
considerations of the parties thereto. It could have also easily provided for
the sanctions for the breach of the mutual considerations specified therein.
PICOP had vigorously argued that the 1969 Document was a contract
because of these mutual considerations, apparently referring to the
following paragraph of the 1969 Document:
first large scale integrated wood processing complex hereinafter called:
supplement PICOPs operational surces (sic) of funds and other financial
stockholders to take such steps as may be necessary to effect a unification
of managerial, technical, economic and manpower resources between
your company and PICOP.1avvphi1
This provision hardly evinces a contract consideration (which, in PICOPs
interpretation, is in exchange for the exclusive and perpetual tenure over
121,587 hectares of forest land and 21,580 hectares of alienable and
disposable lands). As elucidated by PICOP itself in bringing up the
Investment Incentives Act which we shall discuss later, and as shown by
the tenor of the 1969 Document, the latter document was more of a
conferment of an incentive for BBLCIs investment rather than a contract
creating mutual obligations on the part of the government, on one hand,
and BBLCI, on the other. There was no stipulation providing for sanctions
for breach if BBLCIs being "committed to support the first large scale
integrated wood processing complex" remains a commitment. Neither did
the 1969 Document give BBLCI a period within which to pursue this
commitment.
According to Article 1350 of the Civil Code, "(i)n onerous contracts the
cause is understood to be, for each contracting party, the prestation or
promise of a thing or service by the other."48 Private investments for ones
businesses, while indeed eventually beneficial to the country and
deserving to be given incentives, are still principally and predominantly for
the benefit of the investors. Thus, the "mutual" contract considerations by
both parties to this alleged contract would be both for the benefit of one of
the parties thereto, BBLCI, which is not obligated by the 1969 Document to
surrender a share in its proceeds any more than it is already required by its
TLA and by the tax laws.
PICOPs argument that its investments can be considered as contract
consideration derogates the rule that "a license or a permit is not a
contract between the sovereignty and the licensee or permittee, and is not
Page 8 of 126
a property in the constitutional sense, as to which the constitutional

proscription against the impairment of contracts may extend." All licensees
obviously put up investments, whether they are as small as a tricycle unit
or as big as those put up by multi-billion-peso corporations. To construe
these investments as contract considerations would be to abandon the
foregoing rule, which would mean that the State would be bound to all
licensees, and lose its power to revoke or amend these licenses when
public interest so dictates.
The power to issue licenses springs from the States police power, known
as "the most essential, insistent and least limitable of powers, extending as
it does to all the great public needs."49 Businesses affecting the public
interest, such as the operation of public utilities and those involving the
exploitation of natural resources, are mandated by law to acquire licenses.
This is so in order that the State can regulate their operations and thereby
protect the public interest. Thus, while these licenses come in the form of
"agreements," e.g., "Timber License Agreements," they cannot be
considered contracts under the non-impairment clause.50
PICOP found this argument "lame," arguing, thus:
43. It is respectfully submitted that the aforesaid pronouncement in the
Decision is an egregious and monumental error.
44. The Decision could not dismiss as "preposterous" the mutual
covenants in the Presidential Warranty which calls for a huge investment
of Php500 million at that time in 1969 out of which Php268,440,000 raised
from domestic foreign lending institution to establish the first large scale
integrated wood processing complex in the Philippines.
45. The Decision puts up a lame explanation that "all licensees put up
investments in pursuing their business"
46. Now there are about a hundred timber licenses issued by the
Government thru the DENR, but these are ordinary timber licenses which
involve the mere cutting of timber in the concession area, and nothing else.
Records in the DENR shows that no timber licensee has put up an
integrated large wood processing complex in the Philippines except
PICOP.51
PICOP thus argues on the basis of quantity, and wants us to distinguish
between the investment of the tricycle driver and that of the multi-billion
corporation. However, not even billions of pesos in investment can change
the fact that natural resources and, therefore, public interest are involved in
PICOPs venture, consequently necessitating the full control and
supervision by the State as mandated by the Constitution. Not even billions
of pesos in investment can buy forest lands, which is practically what
PICOP is asking for by interpreting the 1969 Document as a contract
giving it perpetual and exclusive possession over such lands. Among all
TLA holders in the Philippines, PICOP has, by far, the largest concession
area at 143,167 hectares, a land area more than the size of two Metro
Manilas.52 How can it not expect to also have the largest investment?
Investment Incentives Act
PICOP then claims that the contractual nature of the 1969 Document was
brought about by its issuance in accordance with and pursuant to the
Investment Incentives Act. According to PICOP:
The conclusion in the Decision that to construe PICOPs investments as a
consideration in a contract would be to stealthily render ineffective the
principle that a license is not a contract between the sovereignty and the
licensee is so flawed since the contract with the warranty dated 29 July
1969 was issued by the Government in accordance with and pursuant to
Republic Act No. 5186, otherwise known as "The Investment Incentives
Act."53
PICOP then proceeds to cite Sections 2 and 4(d) and (e) of said act:
Section 2. Declaration of Policy To accelerate the sound development of
the national economy in consonance with the principles and objectives of
economic nationalism, and in pursuance of a planned, economically
feasible and practicable dispersal of industries, under conditions which will
encourage competition and discharge monopolies, it is hereby declared to
be the policy of the state to encourage Filipino and foreign investments, as
hereinafter set out, in projects to develop agricultural, mining and
manufacturing industries which increase national income most at the least
cost, increase exports, bring about greater economic stability, provide
more opportunities for employment, raise the standards of living of the
people, and provide for an equitable distribution of wealth. It is further
declared to be the policy of the state to welcome and encourage foreign
capital to establish pioneer enterprises that are capital intensive and would
utilize a substantial amount of domestic raw materials, in joint venture with
substantial Filipino capital, whenever available.
Section 4. Basic Rights and Guarantees. All investors and enterprises
are entitled to the basic rights and guarantees provided in the constitution.
Among other rights recognized by the Government of the Philippines are
the following:
xxxx
d) Freedom from Expropriation. There shall be no expropriation by the
government of the property represented by investments or of the property
of enterprises except for public use or in the interest of national welfare
and defense and upon payment of just compensation. x x x.
e) Requisition of Investment. There shall be no requisition of the property
represented by the investment or of the property of enterprises, except in
the event of war or national emergency and only for the duration thereof.
Just compensation shall be determined and paid either at the time of
requisition or immediately after cessation of the state of war or national
emergency. Payments received as compensation for the requisitioned
property may be remitted in the currency in which the investment was
originally made and at the exchange rate prevailing at the time of
remittance, subject to the provisions of Section seventy-four of republic Act
Numbered Two hundred sixty-five.
Section 2 speaks of the policy of the State to encourage Filipino and
foreign investments. It does not speak of how this policy can be
implemented. Implementation of this policy is tackled in Sections 5 to 12 of

the same law,54 which PICOP failed to mention, and for a good reason.
None of the 24 incentives enumerated therein relates to, or even remotely
suggests that, PICOPs proposition that the 1969 Document is a contract.
PICOP could indeed argue that the enumeration is not exclusive. Certainly,
granting incentives to investors, whether included in the enumeration or
not, would be an implementation of this policy. However, it is presumed
that whatever incentives may be given to investors should be within the
bounds of the laws and the Constitution. The declaration of policy in
Section 2 cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be read to provide an
exception to either the laws or, heaven forbid, the Constitution. Exceptions
are never presumed and should be convincingly proven. Section 2 of the
Investment Incentives Act cannot be read as exempting investors from the
Constitutional provisions (1) prohibiting private ownership of forest lands;
(2) providing for the complete control and supervision by the State of
exploitation activities; or (3) limiting exploitation agreements to twenty-five
years, renewable for another twenty-five years.
Section 4(d) and (e), on the other hand, is a recognition of rights already
guaranteed under the Constitution. Freedom from expropriation is granted
under Section 9 of Article III55 of the Constitution, while the provision on
requisition is a negative restatement of Section 6, Article XII. 56
Refusal to grant perpetual and exclusive possession to PICOP of its
concession area would not result in the expropriation or requisition of
PICOPs property, as these forest lands belong to the State, and not to
PICOP. This is not changed by PICOPs allegation that:
Since it takes 35 years before the company can go back and harvest their
residuals in a logged-over area, it must be assured of tenure in order to
provide an inducement for the company to manage and preserve the
residuals during their growth period. This is a commitment of resources
over a span of 35 years for each plot for each cycle. No company will
undertake the responsibility and cost involved in policing, preserving and
managing residual forest areas until it were sure that it had firm title to the
timber.57
The requirement for logging companies to preserve and maintain forest
areas, including the reforestation thereof, is one of the prices a logging
company must pay for the exploitation thereof. Forest lands are meant to
be enjoyed by countless future generations of Filipinos, and not just by one
logging company. The requirements of reforestation and preservation of
the concession areas are meant to protect them, the future generations,
and not PICOP. Reforestation and preservation of the concession areas
are not required of logging companies so that they would have something
to cut again, but so that the forest would remain intact after their
operations. That PICOP would not accept the responsibility to preserve its
concession area if it is not assured of tenure thereto does not speak well of
its corporate policies.
Conclusion
In sum, PICOP was not able to prove either of the two things it needed to
prove to be entitled to a Writ of Mandamus against the DENR Secretary.
The 1969 Document is not a contract recognized under the nonimpairment clause and, even if we assume for the sake of argument that it
is, it did not enjoin the government to issue an IFMA in 2002 either. These
are the essential elements in PICOPs cause of action, and the failure to
prove the same warrants a dismissal of PICOPs Petition for Mandamus,
as not even PICOPs compliance with all the administrative and statutory
requirements can save its Petition now.
Whether PICOP Has Complied with the Statutory and Administrative
Requirements for the Conversion of the TLA to an IFMA
In the assailed Decision, our ruling was based on two distinct grounds,
each one being sufficient in itself for us to rule that PICOP was not entitled
to a Writ of Mandamus: (1) the 1969 Document, on which PICOP hinges
its right to compel the issuance of an IFMA, is not a contract; and (2)
PICOP has not complied with all administrative and statutory requirements
for the issuance of an IFMA.
When a court bases its decision on two or more grounds, each is as
authoritative as the other and neither is obiter dictum.58 Thus, both grounds
on which we based our ruling in the assailed Decision would become
judicial dictum, and would affect the rights and interests of the parties to
this case unless corrected in this Resolution on PICOPs Motion for
Reconsideration. Therefore, although PICOP would not be entitled to a
Writ of Mandamus even if the second issue is resolved in its favor, we
should nonetheless resolve the same and determine whether PICOP has
indeed complied with all administrative and statutory requirements for the
issuance of an IFMA.
While the first issue (on the nature of the 1969 Document) is entirely legal,
this second issue (on PICOPs compliance with administrative and
statutory requirements for the issuance of an IFMA) has both legal and
factual sub-issues. Legal sub-issues include whether PICOP is legally
required to (1) consult with and acquire an approval from the Sanggunian
concerned under Sections 26 and 27 of the Local Government Code; and
(2) acquire a Certification from the National Commission on Indigenous
Peoples (NCIP) that the concession area does not overlap with any
ancestral domain. Factual sub-issues include whether, at the time it filed its
Petition for Mandamus, PICOP had submitted the required Five-Year
Forest Protection Plan and Seven-Year Reforestation Plan and whether
PICOP had paid all forest charges.
For the factual sub-issues, PICOP invokes the doctrine that factual findings
of the trial court, especially when upheld by the Court of Appeals, deserve
great weight. However, deserving of even greater weight are the factual
findings of administrative agencies that have the expertise in the area of
concern. The contentious facts in this case relate to the licensing,
Page 9 of 126
regulation and management of forest resources, the determination of

which belongs exclusively to the DENR:
SECTION 4. Mandate. The Department shall be the primary government
agency responsible for the conservation, management, development and
proper use of the countrys environment and natural resources, specifically
forest and grazing lands, mineral resources, including those in reservation
and watershed areas, and lands of the public domain, as well as the
licensing and regulation of all natural resources as may be provided for by
law in order to ensure equitable sharing of the benefits derived therefrom
for the welfare of the present and future generations of Filipinos.59
When parties file a Petition for Certiorari against judgments of
administrative agencies tasked with overseeing the implementation of
laws, the findings of such administrative agencies are entitled to great
weight. In the case at bar, PICOP could not have filed a Petition for
Certiorari, as the DENR Secretary had not yet even determined whether
PICOP should be issued an IFMA. As previously mentioned, when
PICOPs application was brought to a standstill upon the evaluation that
PICOP had yet to comply with the requirements for the issuance of an
IFMA, PICOP refused to attend further meetings with the DENR and
instead filed a Petition for Mandamus against the latter. By jumping the
gun, PICOP did not diminish the weight of the DENR Secretarys initial
determination.
Forest Protection and Reforestation Plans
The Performance Evaluation Team tasked to appraise PICOPs
performance on its TLA No. 43 found that PICOP had not submitted its
Five-Year Forest Protection Plan and its Seven-Year Reforestation Plan.60
In its Motion for Reconsideration, PICOP asserts that, in its Letter of Intent
dated 28 August 2000 and marked as Exhibit L in the trial court, there was
a reference to a Ten-Year Sustainable Forest Management Plan (SFMP),
in which a Five-Year Forest Protection Plan and a Seven-Year
Reforestation Plan were allegedly incorporated. PICOP submitted a
machine copy of a certified photocopy of pages 50-67 and 104-110 of this
SFMP in its Motion for Reconsideration. PICOP claims that the existence
of this SFMP was repeatedly asserted during the IFMA application
process.61
Upon examination of the portions of the SFMP submitted to us, we cannot
help but notice that PICOPs concept of forest protection is the security of
the area against "illegal" entrants and settlers. There is no mention of the
protection of the wildlife therein, as the focus of the discussion of the
silvicultural treatments and the SFMP itself is on the protection and
generation of future timber harvests. We are particularly disturbed by the
portions stating that trees of undesirable quality shall be removed.
However, when we required the DENR Secretary to comment on PICOPs
Motion for Reconsideration, the DENR Secretary did not dispute the
existence of this SFMP, or question PICOPs assertion that a Ten-Year
Forest Protection Plan and a Ten-Year Reforestation Plan are already
incorporated therein. Hence, since the agency tasked to determine
compliance with IFMA administrative requirements chose to remain silent
in the face of allegations of compliance, we are constrained to withdraw
our pronouncement in the assailed Decision that PICOP had not submitted
a Five-Year Forest Protection Plan and a Seven-Year Reforestation Plan
for its TLA No. 43. As previously mentioned, the licensing, regulation and
management of forest resources are the primary responsibilities of the
DENR.62
The compliance discussed above is, of course, only for the purpose of
determining PICOPs satisfactory performance as a TLA holder, and
covers a period within the subsistence of PICOPs TLA No. 43. This
determination, therefore, cannot prohibit the DENR from requiring PICOP,
in the future, to submit proper forest protection and reforestation plans
covering the period of the proposed IFMA.
Forest Charges
In determining that PICOP did not have unpaid forest charges, the Court of
Appeals relied on the assumption that if it were true that PICOP had
unpaid forest charges, it should not have been issued an approved
Integrated Annual Operation Plan (IAOP) for the year 2001-2002 by
Secretary Alvarez himself.63
In the assailed Decision, we held that the Court of Appeals had been
selective in its evaluation of the IAOP, as it disregarded the part thereof
that shows that the IAOP was approved subject to several conditions, not
the least of which was the submission of proof of the updated payment of
forest charges from April 2001 to June 2001.64 We also held that even if
we considered for the sake of argument that the IAOP should not have
been issued if PICOP had existing forestry accounts, the issuance of the
IAOP could not be considered proof that PICOP had paid the same. Firstly,
the best evidence of payment is the receipt thereof. PICOP has not
presented any evidence that such receipts were lost or destroyed or could
not be produced in court.65 Secondly, the government cannot be estopped
by the acts of its officers. If PICOP has been issued an IAOP in violation of
the law, allegedly because it may not be issued if PICOP had existing
forestry accounts, the government cannot be estopped from collecting
such amounts and providing the necessary sanctions therefor, including
the withholding of the IFMA until such amounts are paid.
We therefore found that, as opposed to the Court of Appeals findings,
which were based merely on estoppel of government officers, the positive
and categorical evidence presented by the DENR Secretary was more
convincing with respect to the issue of payment of forestry charges:
1. Forest Management Bureau (FMB) Senior Forest
Management Specialist (SFMS) Ignacio M. Evangelista testified
that PICOP had failed to pay its regular forest charges covering
the period from 22 September 2001 to 26 April 2002 in the total
amount of P15,056,054.0566 PICOP also allegedly paid late
most of its forest charges from 1996 onwards, by reason of
which, PICOP is liable for a surcharge of 25% per annum on the
tax due and interest of 20% per annum which now amounts to
P150,169,485.02.67 Likewise, PICOP allegedly had overdue and
unpaid silvicultural fees in the amount of P2,366,901.00 as of 30
August 2002.68 Summing up the testimony, therefore, it was
alleged that PICOP had unpaid and overdue forest charges in
the sum of P167,592,440.90 as of 10 August 2002.69
2. Collection letters were sent to PICOP, but no official receipts
are extant in the DENR record in Bislig City evidencing payment
of the overdue amount stated in the said collection letters. 70
There were no official receipts for the period covering 22
September 2001 to 26 April 2002.
We also considered these pieces of evidence more convincing than the
other ones presented by PICOP:
1. PICOP presented the certification of Community Environment
and Natural Resources Office (CENRO) Officer Philip A.
Calunsag, which refers only to PICOPs alleged payment of
regular forest charges covering the period from 14 September
2001 to 15 May 2002.71 We noted that it does not mention
similar payment of the penalties, surcharges and interests that
PICOP incurred in paying late several forest charges, which fact
was not rebutted by PICOP.
2. The 27 May 2002 Certification by CENRO Calunsag specified
only the period covering 14 September 2001 to 15 May 2002
and the amount of P53,603,719.85 paid by PICOP without
indicating the corresponding volume and date of production of
the logs. This is in contrast to the findings of SFMS Evangelista,
which cover the period from CY 1996 to 30 August 2002 and
includes penalties, interests, and surcharges for late payment
pursuant to DAO 80, series of 1987.
3. The 21 August 2002 PICOP-requested certification issued by
Bill Collector Amelia D. Arayan, and attested to by CENRO
Calunsag himself, shows that PICOP paid only regular forest
charges for its log production covering 1 July 2001 to 21
September 2001. However, there were log productions after 21
September 2001, the regular forest charges for which have not
been paid, amounting to P15,056,054.05.72 The same
certification shows delayed payment of forest charges, thereby
corroborating the testimony of SFMS Evangelista and
substantiating the imposition of penalties and surcharges.
In its Motion for Reconsideration, PICOP claims that SFMS Evangelista is
assigned to an office that has nothing to do with the collection of forest
charges, and that he based his testimony on the Memoranda of Forest
Management Specialist II (FMS II) Teofila Orlanes and DENR, Bislig City
Bill Collector Amelia D. Arayan, neither of whom was presented to testify
on his or her Memorandum. PICOP also submitted an Addendum to
Motion for Reconsideration, wherein it appended certified true copies of
CENRO Summaries with attached Official Receipts tending to show that
PICOP had paid a total of P81,184,747.70 in forest charges for 10 January
2001 to 20 December 2002, including the period during which SFMS
Evangelista claims PICOP did not pay forest charges (22 September 2001
to 26 April 2002).
Before proceeding any further, it is necessary for us to point out that, as
with our ruling on the forest protection and reforestation plans, this
determination of compliance with the payment of forest charges is
exclusively for the purpose of determining PICOPs satisfactory
performance on its TLA No. 43. This cannot bind either party in a possible
collection case that may ensue.
An evaluation of the DENR Secretarys position on this matter shows a
heavy reliance on the testimony of SFMS Evangelista, making it imperative
for us to strictly scrutinize the same with respect to its contents and
admissibility.
PICOP claims that SFMS Evangelistas office has nothing to do with the
collection of forest charges. According to PICOP, the entity having
administrative jurisdiction over it is CENRO, Bislig City by virtue of DENR
Administrative Order No. 96-36, dated 20 November 1996, which states:
1. In order for the DENR to be able to exercise closer and more effective
supervision, management and control over the forest resources within the
areas covered by TLA No. 43, PTLA No. 47 and IFMA No. 35 of the
PICOP Resources, Inc., (PRI) and, at the same time, provide greater
facility in the delivery of DENR services to various publics, the aforesaid
forest holdings of PRI are hereby placed under the exclusive jurisdiction of
DENR Region No. XIII with the CENR Office at Bislig, Surigao del Sur, as
directly responsible thereto. x x x.
We disagree. Evangelista is an SFMS assigned at the Natural Forest
Management Division of the FMB, DENR. In Evangelistas aforementioned
affidavit submitted as part of his direct examination, Evangelista
enumerated his duties and functions as SFMS:
1. As SFMS, I have the following duties and functions:
a) To evaluate and act on cases pertaining to forest
management referred to in the Natural forest
Management Division;
b) To monitor, verify and validate forest management
and related activities by timber licences as to their
compliance to approved plans and programs;
c) To conduct investigation and verification of
compliance by timber licenses/permittees to existing
DENR rules and regulations;
d) To gather field data and information to be used in
the formulation of forest policies and regulations; and
e) To perform other duties and responsibilities as may
be directed by superiors.73
PICOP also alleges that the testimony of SFMS Evangelista was
based on the aforementioned Memoranda of Orlanes and
Page 10 of 126
Arayan and that, since neither Orlanes nor Arayan was

presented as a witness, SFMS Evangelistas testimony should
be deemed hearsay. SFMS Evangelistas 1 October 2002
Affidavit,74 which was offered as part of his testimony, provides:
2. Sometime in September, 2001 the DENR Secretary was
furnished a copy of forest Management Specialist II (FMS II)
Teofila L. Orlanes Memorandum dated September 24, 2001
concerning unopaid forest charges of PICOP. Attached to the
said Memorandum was a Memorandum dated September 19,
2001 of Amelia D. Arayan, Bill collector of the DENR R13-14,
Bislig City. Copies of the said Memoranda are attached as
Annexes 1 and 2, respectively.
3. The said Memoranda were referred to the FMB Director for
appropriate action.
4. Thus, on August 5, 2002, I was directed by the FMB Director
to proceed to Region 13 to gather forestry-related data and
validate the report contained in the Memoranda of Ms. Orlanes
and Arayan.
5. On August 6, 2002, I proceeded to DENR Region 13 in Bislig
City. A copy of my Travel Order is attached as Annex 3.
6. Upon my arrival at CENRO, Bislig, surigao del Sur, I
coordinated with CENRO Officer Philip A. Calunsag and
requested him to make available to me the records regarding the
forest products assessments of PICOP.
7. After I was provided with the requested records, I evaluated
and collected the data.
8. After the evaluation, I found that the unpaid forest charges
adverted to in the Memoranda of Mr. Orlanes and Arayan
covering the period from May 8, 2001 to July 7, 2001 had
already been paid but late. I further found out that PICOP had
not paid its forest charges covering the period from September
22, 2001 to April 26, 2002 in the total amount of
P15,056,054.05.
9. I also discovered that from 1996 up to august 30, 2002,
PICOP paid late some of its forest charges in 1996 and
consistently failed to pay late its forest charges from 1997 up to
the present time.
10. Under Section 7.4 of DAO No. 80 Series of 197\87 and
Paragraph (4a), Section 10 of BIR revenue Regulations No. 2-81
dated November 18, 1980, PICOP is mandated to pay a
surcharge of 25% per annum of the tax due and interest of 20%
per annum for late payment of forest charges.
11. The overdue unpaid forest charges of PICOP as shown in
the attached tabulation marked as Annex 4 hereof is
P150,169,485.02. Likewise, PICOP has overdue and unpaid
silvicultural fees in the amount of P2,366,901.00 from 1996 to
the present.
12. In all, PICOP has an outstanding and overdue total
obligation of P167,592,440.90 as of August 30, 2002 based on
the attached tabulation which is marked as Annex 5 hereof.75
Clearly, SFMS Evangelista had not relied on the Memoranda of Orlanes
and Arayan. On the contrary, he traveled to Surigao del Sur in order to
verify the contents of these Memoranda. SFMS Evangelista, in fact,
revised the findings therein, as he discovered that certain forest charges
adverted to as unpaid had already been paid.
This does not mean, however, that SFMS Evangelistas testimony was not
hearsay. A witness may testify only on facts of which he has personal
knowledge; that is, those derived from his perception, except in certain
circumstances allowed by the Rules.76 Otherwise, such testimony is
considered hearsay and, hence, inadmissible in evidence.77
SFMS Evangelista, while not relying on the Memoranda of Orlanes and
Arayan, nevertheless relied on records, the preparation of which he did not
78
participate in. These records and the persons who prepared them were
not presented in court, either. As such, SFMS Evangelistas testimony,
insofar as he relied on these records, was on matters not derived from his
own perception, and was, therefore, hearsay.
Section 44, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, which speaks of entries in
official records as an exception to the hearsay rule, cannot excuse the
testimony of SFMS Evangelista. Section 44 provides:
SEC. 44. Entries in official records. Entries in official records made in the
performance of his duty by a public officer of the Philippines, or by a
person in the performance of a duty specially enjoined by law, are prima

facie evidence of the facts therein stated.
In Africa v. Caltex,79 we enumerated the following requisites for the
admission of entries in official records as an exception to the hearsay rule:
(1) the entries were made by a public officer or a private person in the
performance of a duty; (2) the performance of the duty is especially
enjoined by law; (3) the public officer or the private person had sufficient
knowledge of the facts stated by him, which must have been acquired by
him personally or through official information.
The presentation of the records themselves would, therefore, have been
admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule even if the public officer/s
who prepared them was/were not presented in court, provided the above
requisites could be adequately proven. In the case at bar, however, neither
the records nor the persons who prepared them were presented in court.
Thus, the above requisites cannot be sufficiently proven. Also, since SFMS
Evangelista merely testified based on what those records contained, his
testimony was hearsay evidence twice removed, which was one step too
many to be covered by the official-records exception to the hearsay rule.
SFMS Evangelistas testimony of nonpayment of forest charges was,
furthermore, based on his failure to find official receipts corresponding to
billings sent to PICOP. As stated above, PICOP attached official receipts in
its Addendum to Motion for Reconsideration to this Court. While this
course of action is normally irregular in judicial proceedings, we merely
stated in the assailed Decision that "the DENR Secretary has adequately
proven that PICOP has, at this time, failed to comply with administrative
and statutory requirements for the conversion of TLA No. 43 into an
IFMA,"80 and that "this disposition confers another chance to comply with
81
the foregoing requirements."
In view of the foregoing, we withdraw our pronouncement that PICOP has
unpaid forestry charges, at least for the purpose of determining compliance
with the IFMA requirements.
NCIP Certification
The Court of Appeals held that PICOP need not comply with Section 59 of
Republic Act No. 8371, which requires prior certification from the NCIP that
the areas affected do not overlap with any ancestral domain before any
IFMA can be entered into by the government. According to the Court of
Appeals, Section 59 should be interpreted to refer to ancestral domains
that have been duly established as such by the continuous possession and
occupation of the area concerned by indigenous peoples since time
immemorial up to the present. The Court of Appeals held that PICOP had
acquired property rights over TLA No. 43 areas, being in exclusive,
continuous and uninterrupted possession and occupation of these areas
since 1952 up to the present.
In the assailed Decision, we reversed the findings of the Court of Appeals.
Firstly, the Court of Appeals ruling defies the settled jurisprudence we have
mentioned earlier, that a TLA is neither a property nor a property right, and
that it does not create a vested right.82
Secondly, the Court of Appeals resort to statutory construction is
misplaced, as Section 59 of Republic Act No. 8379 is clear and
unambiguous:
SEC. 59. Certification Precondition. All departments and other
governmental agencies shall henceforth be strictly enjoined from issuing,
renewing or granting any concession, license or lease, or entering into any
production-sharing agreement, without prior certification from the NCIP
that the area affected does not overlap with any ancestral domain. Such
certification shall only be issued after a field-based investigation is
conducted by the Ancestral Domains Office of the area concerned:
Provided, That no certification shall be issued by the NCIP without the free
and prior informed and written consent of the ICCs/IPs concerned:
Provided, further, That no department, government agency or governmentowned or controlled corporation may issue new concession, license, lease,
or production sharing agreement while there is a pending application for a
CADT: Provided, finally, That the ICCs/IPs shall have the right to stop or
suspend, in accordance with this Act, any project that has not satisfied the
requirement of this consultation process.
PICOP had tried to put a cloud of ambiguity over Section 59 of Republic
Act No. 8371 by invoking the definition of Ancestral Domains in Section
3(a) thereof, wherein the possesssion by Indigenous Cultural
Communities/Indigenous Peoples (ICCs/IPs) must have been continuous
to the present. However, we noted the exception found in the very same
sentence invoked by PICOP:
a) Ancestral domains Subject to Section 56 hereof, refers to all areas
generally belonging to ICCs/IPs comprising lands, inland waters, coastal
areas, and natural resources therein, held under a claim of ownership,
occupied or possessed by ICCs/IPs, by themselves or through their
ancestors, communally or individually since time immemorial, continuously
to the present except when interrupted by war, force majeure or
Page 1 of 126
displacement by force, deceit, stealth or as a consequence of government

projects or any other voluntary dealings entered into by government and
private individuals/corporations, and which are necessary to ensure their
economic, social and cultural welfare. It shall include ancestral lands,
forests, pasture, residential, agricultural, and other lands individually
owned whether alienable and disposable or otherwise, hunting grounds,
burial grounds, worship areas, bodies of water, mineral and other natural
resources, and lands which may no longer be exclusively occupied by
ICCs/IPs but from which they traditionally had access to for their
subsistence and traditional activities, particularly the home ranges of
ICCs/IPs who are still nomadic and/or shifting cultivators;
Ancestral domains, therefore, remain as such even when possession or
occupation of these areas has been interrupted by causes provided under
the law, such as voluntary dealings entered into by the government and
private individuals/corporations. Consequently, the issuance of TLA No. 43
in 1952 did not cause the ICCs/IPs to lose their possession or occupation
over the area covered by TLA No. 43.
Thirdly, we held that it was manifestly absurd to claim that the subject
lands must first be proven to be part of ancestral domains before a
certification that the lands are not part of ancestral domains can be
required, and invoked the separate opinion of now Chief Justice Reynato
Puno in Cruz v. Secretary of DENR83:
As its subtitle suggests, [Section 59 of R.A. No. 8371] requires as a
precondition for the issuance of any concession, license or agreement over
natural resources, that a certification be issued by the NCIP that the area
subject of the agreement does not lie within any ancestral domain. The
provision does not vest the NCIP with power over the other agencies of the
State as to determine whether to grant or deny any concession or license
or agreement. It merely gives the NCIP the authority to ensure that the
ICCs/IPs have been informed of the agreement and that their consent
thereto has been obtained. Note that the certification applies to
agreements over natural resources that do not necessarily lie within the
ancestral domains. For those that are found within the said domains,
Sections 7(b) and 57 of the IPRA apply.
PICOP rejects the entire disposition of this Court on the matter, relying on
the following theory:
84. It is quite clear that Section 59 of R.A. 8371 does not apply to the
automatic conversion of TLA 43 to IFMA.
First, the automatic conversion of TLA 43 to an IFMA is not a new project.
It is a mere continuation of the harvesting process in an area that PICOP
had been managing, conserving and reforesting for the last 50 years since
1952. Hence any pending application for a CADT within the area, cannot
affect much less hold back the automatic conversion. That the government
now wishes to change the tenurial system to an IFMA could not change
the PICOP project, in existence and operating for the last 30 (sic) years,
into a new one.84
PICOPs position is anything but clear. What is clearly provided for in
Section 59 is that it covers "issuing, renewing or granting (of) any
concession, license or lease, or entering into any production sharing
agreement." PICOP is implying that, when the government changed the
tenurial system to an IFMA, PICOPs existing TLA would just be upgraded
or modified, but would be the very same agreement, hence, dodging the
inclusion in the word "renewing." However, PICOP is conveniently leaving
out the fact that its TLA expired in 2002. If PICOP really intends to pursue
the argument that the conversion of the TLA into an IFMA would not create
a new agreement, but would only be a modification of the old one, then it
should be willing to concede that the IFMA expired as well in 2002. An
automatic modification would not alter the terms and conditions of the TLA
except when they are inconsistent with the terms and conditions of an
IFMA. Consequently, PICOPs concession period under the renewed TLA
No. 43, which is from the year 1977 to 2002, would remain the same.
PICOP cannot rely on a theory of the case whenever such theory is
beneficial to it, but refute the same whenever the theory is damaging to it.
In the same way, PICOP cannot claim that the alleged Presidential
Warranty is "renewable for other 25 years" and later on claim that what it is
asking for is not a renewal. Extensions of agreements must necessarily be
included in the term renewal. Otherwise, the inclusion of "renewing" in
Section 59 would be rendered inoperative.
PICOP further claims:
85. Verily, in interpreting the term "held under claim of ownership," the
Supreme Court could not have meant to include claims that had just been
filed and not yet recognized under the provisions of DENR Administrative
Order No. 2 Series of 1993, nor to any other community / ancestral domain
program prior to R.A. 8371.
xxxx
87. One can not imagine the terrible damage and chaos to the country, its
economy, its people and its future if a mere claim filed for the issuance of a
CADC or CADT will already provide those who filed the application, the
authority or right to stop the renewal or issuance of any concession,
license or lease or any production-sharing agreement. The same
interpretation will give such applicants through a mere application the right
to stop or suspend any project that they can cite for not satisfying the
requirements of the consultation process of R.A. 8371. If such
interpretation gets enshrined in the statures of the land, the unscrupulous
and the extortionists can put any ongoing or future project or activity to a
stop in any part of the country citing their right from having filed an
application for issuance of a CADC or CADT claim and the legal doctrine
established by the Supreme Court in this PICOP case.85
We are not sure whether PICOPs counsels are deliberately trying to
mislead us, or are just plainly ignorant of basic precepts of law. The term
"claim" in the phrase "claim of ownership" is not a document of any sort. It
is an attitude towards something. The phrase "claim of ownership" means
"the possession of a piece of property with the intention of claiming it in
hostility to the true owner."86 It is also defined as "a partys manifest
intention to take over land, regardless of title or right."87 Other than in
Republic Act No. 8371, the phrase "claim of ownership" is thoroughly
discussed in issues relating to acquisitive prescription in Civil Law.
Before PICOPs counsels could attribute to us an assertion that a mere
attitude or intention would stop the renewal or issuance of any concession,
license or lease or any production-sharing agreement, we should stress
beforehand that this attitude or intention must be clearly shown by overt
acts and, as required by Section 3(a), should have been in existence
"since time immemorial, continuously to the present except when
interrupted by war, force majeure or displacement by force, deceit, stealth
or as a consequence of government projects or any other voluntary
dealings entered into by government and private individuals/corporations."
Another argument of PICOP involves the claim itself that there was no
overlapping:
Second, there could be no overlapping with any Ancestral Domain as
proven by the evidence presented and testimonies rendered during the
hearings in the Regional Trial Court. x x x.
x x x x.
88. The DENR issued a total of 73 CADCs as of December 11, 1996. The
DENR Undersecretary for Field Operations had recommended another 11
applications for issuance of CADCs. None of the CADCs overlap the TLA
43 area.
89. However former DENR Secretary Alvarez, in a memorandum dated 13
September, 2002 addressed to PGMA, insisted that PICOP had to comply
with the requirement to secure a Free and Prior Informed Concent
because CADC 095 was issued covering 17,112 hectares of TLA 43.
90. This CADC 095 is a fake CADC and was not validly released by the
DENR. While the Legal Department of the DENR was still in the process of
receiving the filings for applicants and the oppositors to the CADC
application, PICOP came across filed copies of a CADC 095 with the
PENRO of Davao Oriental as part of their application for a Community
Based Forest Management Agreement (CBFMA). Further research came
across the same group filing copies of the alleged CADC 095 with the
Mines and Geosciences Bureau in Davao City for a mining agreement
application. The two applications had two different versions of the CADCs
second page. One had Mr. Romeo T. Acosta signing as the Social reform
Agenda Technical Action Officer, while the other had him signing as the
Head, Community-Based Forest Management Office. One had the word
"Eight" crossed out and "Seven" written to make it appear that the CADC
was issued on September 25, 1997, the other made it appear that there
were no alterations and the date was supposed to be originally 25
September 1997.
What is required in Section 59 of Republic Act No. 8379 is a Certification
from the NCIP that there was no overlapping with any Ancestral Domain.
PICOP cannot claim that the DENR gravely abused its discretion for
requiring this Certification, on the ground that there was no overlapping.
We reiterate that it is manifestly absurd to claim that the subject lands must
first be proven to be part of ancestral domains before a certification that
they are not can be required. As discussed in the assailed Decision,
PICOP did not even seek any certification from the NCIP that the area
covered by TLA No. 43, subject of its IFMA conversion, did not overlap
with any ancestral domain.88
Sanggunian Consultation and Approval
While PICOP did not seek any certification from the NCIP that the formers
concession area did not overlap with any ancestral domain, PICOP initially
sought to comply with the requirement under Sections 26 and 27 of the
Local Government Code to procure prior approval of the Sanggunians
concerned. However, only one of the many provinces affected approved
the issuance of an IFMA to PICOP. Undaunted, PICOP nevertheless
submitted to the DENR the purported resolution89 of the Province of
Surigao del Sur indorsing the approval of PICOPs application for IFMA
conversion, apparently hoping either that the disapproval of the other
provinces would go unnoticed, or that the Surigao del Sur approval would
be treated as sufficient compliance.
Page 12 of 126
Surprisingly, the disapproval by the other provinces did go unnoticed

before the RTC and the Court of Appeals, despite the repeated assertions
thereof by the Solicitor General. When we pointed out in the assailed
Decision that the approval must be by all the Sanggunians concerned and
not by only one of them, PICOP changed its theory of the case in its
Motion for Reconsideration, this time claiming that they are not required at
all to procure Sanggunian approval.
Sections 2(c), 26 and 27 of the Local Government Code provide:
SEC. 2. x x x.
xxxx
(c) It is likewise the policy of the State to require all national agencies and
offices to conduct periodic consultations with appropriate local government
units, nongovernmental and peoples organizations, and other concerned
sectors of the community before any project or program is implemented in
their respective jurisdictions.
SEC. 26. Duty of National Government Agencies in the Maintenance of
Ecological Balance. It shall be the duty of every national agency or
government-owned or controlled corporation authorizing or involved in the
planning and implementation of any project or program that may cause
pollution, climatic change, depletion of non-renewable resources, loss of
crop land, rangeland, or forest cover, and extinction of animal or plant
species, to consult with the local government units, nongovernmental
organizations, and other sectors concerned and explain the goals and
objectives of the project or program, its impact upon the people and the
community in terms of environmental or ecological balance, and the
measures that will be undertaken to prevent or minimize the adverse
effects thereof.
SEC. 27. Prior Consultations Required. No project or program shall be
implemented by government authorities unless the consultations
mentioned in Sections 2(c) and 26 hereof are complied with, and prior
approval of the sanggunian concerned is obtained: Provided, That
occupants in areas where such projects are to be implemented shall not be
evicted unless appropriate relocation sites have been provided, in
accordance with the provisions of the Constitution.
As stated in the assailed Decision, the common evidence of the DENR
Secretary and PICOP, namely, the 31 July 2001 Memorandum of Regional
Executive Director (RED) Elias D. Seraspi, Jr., enumerated the local
government units and other groups which had expressed their opposition
to PICOPs application for IFMA conversion:
7. During the conduct of the performance evaluation of TLA No. 43 issues
complaints against PRI were submitted thru Resolutions and letters. It is
important that these are included in this report for assessment of what are
their worth, viz:
xxxx
7.2 Joint Resolution (unnumbered), dated March 19, 2001 of the Barangay
Council and Barangay Tribal Council of Simulao, Boston, Davao Oriental
(ANNEX F) opposing the conversion of TLA No. 43 into IFMA over the
17,112 hectares allegedly covered with CADC No. 095.
7.3 Resolution Nos. 10, s-2001 and 05, s-2001 (ANNEXES G & H) of the
Bunawan Tribal Council of Elders (BBMTCE) strongly demanding none
renewal of PICOP TLA. They claim to be the rightful owner of the area it
being their alleged ancestral land.
7.4 Resolution No. 4, S-2001 of Sitio Linao, San Jose, Bislig City (ANNEX
I) requesting not to renew TLA 43 over the 900 hectares occupied by them.
7.5 Resolution No. 22, S-2001 (ANNEX J) of the Sanguniang Bayan,
Lingig, Surigao del Sur not to grant the conversion of TLA 43 citing the
plight of former employees of PRI who were forced to enter and farm
portion of TLA No. 43, after they were laid off.
7.6 SP Resolution No. 2001-113 and CDC Resolution Nos. 09-2001 of the
Sanguniang Panglungsod of Bislig City (ANNEXES K & L) requesting to
exclude the area of TLA No. 43 for watershed purposes.
7.7 Resolution No. 2001-164, dated June 01, 2001 (ANNEX M)
Sanguniang Panglungsod of Bislig City opposing the conversion of TLA 43
to IFMA for the reason that IFMA do not give revenue benefits to the City.90
PICOP had claimed that it complied with the Local Government Code
requirement of obtaining prior approval of the Sanggunian concerned by
submitting a purported resolution91 of the Province of Surigao del Sur
indorsing the approval of PICOPs application for IFMA conversion. We
ruled that this cannot be deemed sufficient compliance with the foregoing
provision. Surigao del Sur is not the only province affected by the area
covered by the proposed IFMA. As even the Court of Appeals found,
PICOPs TLA No. 43 traverses the length and breadth not only of Surigao
del Sur but also of Agusan del Sur, Compostela Valley and Davao
Oriental.92
On Motion for Reconsideration, PICOP now argues that the requirement
under Sections 26 and 27 does not apply to it:
97. PICOP is not a national agency. Neither is PICOP government owned
or controlled. Thus Section 26 does not apply to PICOP.
98. It is very clear that Section 27 refers to projects or programs to be
implemented by government authorities or government-owned and
controlled corporations. PICOPs project or the automatic conversion is a

purely private endevour. First the PICOP project has been implemented
since 1969. Second, the project was being implemented by private
investors and financial institutions.
99. The primary government participation is to warrant and ensure that the
PICOP project shall have peaceful tenure in the permanent forest allocated
to provide raw materials for the project. To rule now that a project whose
foundations were commenced as early as 1969 shall now be subjected to
a 1991 law is to apply the law retrospectively in violation of Article 4 of the
Civil Code that laws shall not be applied retroactively.
100. In addition, under DAO 30, Series of 1992, TLA and IFMA operations
were not among those devolved function from the National Government /
DENR to the local government unit. Under its Section 03, the devolved
function cover only:
a) Community Based forestry projects.
b) Communal forests of less than 5000 hectares
c) Small watershed areas which are sources of local water
supply.93
We have to remind PICOP again of the contents of Section 2, Article XII of
the Constitution:
Section 2. All lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal,
petroleum, and other mineral oils, all forces of potential energy, fisheries,
forests or timber, wildlife, flora and fauna, and other natural resources are
owned by the State. With the exception of agricultural lands, all other
natural resources shall not be alienated. The exploration, development,
and utilization of natural resources shall be under the full control and
irrigation, water supply, fisheries, or industrial uses other than the
of the grant.
All projects relating to the exploration, development and utilization of
natural resources are projects of the State. While the State may enter into
co-production, joint venture, or production-sharing agreements with Filipino
citizens, or corporations or associations at least sixty per centum of whose
capital is owned by these citizens, such as PICOP, the projects
nevertheless remain as State projects and can never be purely private
endeavors.
Also, despite entering into co-production, joint venture, or productionsharing agreements, the State remains in full control and supervision over
such projects. PICOP, thus, cannot limit government participation in the
project to being merely its bouncer, whose primary participation is only to
"warrant and ensure that the PICOP project shall have peaceful tenure in
the permanent forest allocated to provide raw materials for the project."
PICOP is indeed neither a national agency nor a government-owned or
controlled corporation. The DENR, however, is a national agency and is
the national agency prohibited by Section 27 from issuing an IFMA without
the prior approval of the Sanggunian concerned. As previously discussed,
PICOPs Petition for Mandamus can only be granted if the DENR
Secretary is required by law to issue an IFMA. We, however, see here the
exact opposite: the DENR Secretary was actually prohibited by law from
issuing an IFMA, as there had been no prior approval by all the other
Sanggunians concerned.
As regards PICOPs assertion that the application to them of a 1991 law is
in violation of the prohibition against the non-retroactivity provision in
Article 4 of the Civil Code, we have to remind PICOP that it is applying for
an IFMA with a term of 2002 to 2027. Section 2, Article XII of the
Constitution allows exploitation agreements to last only "for a period not
exceeding twenty-five years, renewable for not more than twenty-five
years." PICOP, thus, cannot legally claim that the projects term started in
1952 and extends all the way to the present.
Finally, the devolution of the project to local government units is not
required before Sections 26 and 27 would be applicable. Neither Section
26 nor 27 mentions such a requirement. Moreover, it is not only the letter,
but more importantly the spirit of Sections 26 and 27, that shows that the
devolution of the project is not required. The approval of the Sanggunian
concerned is required by law, not because the local government has
control over such project, but because the local government has the duty
to protect its constituents and their stake in the implementation of the
project. Again, Section 26 states that it applies to projects that "may cause
pollution, climatic change, depletion of non-renewable resources, loss of
crop land, rangeland, or forest cover, and extinction of animal or plant
species." The local government should thus represent the communities in
such area, the very people who will be affected by flooding, landslides or
even climatic change if the project is not properly regulated, and who
Page 13 of 126
likewise have a stake in the resources in the area, and deserve to be

adequately compensated when these resources are exploited.
Indeed, it would be absurd to claim that the project must first be devolved
to the local government before the requirement of the national government
seeking approval from the local government can be applied. If a project
has been devolved to the local government, the local government itself
would be implementing the project. That the local government would need
its own approval before implementing its own project is patently silly.
EPILOGUE AND DISPOSITION
PICOPc cause of action consists in the allegation that the DENR
Secretary, in not issuing an IFMA, violated its constitutional right against
non-impairment of contracts. We have ruled, however, that the 1969
Document is not a contract recognized under the non-impairment clause,
much less a contract specifically enjoining the DENR Secretary to issue
the IFMA. The conclusion that the 1969 Document is not a contract
recognized under the non-impairment clause has even been disposed of in
another case decided by another division of this Court, PICOP Resources,
Inc. v. Base Metals Mineral Resources Corporation,94 the Decision in
which case has become final and executory. PICOPs Petition for
Mandamus should, therefore, fail.
Furthermore, even if we assume for the sake of argument that the 1969
Document is a contract recognized under the non-impairment clause, and
even if we assume for the sake of argument that the same is a contract
specifically enjoining the DENR Secretary to issue an IFMA, PICOPs
Petition for Mandamus must still fail. The 1969 Document expressly states
that the warranty as to the tenure of PICOP is "subject to compliance with
constitutional and statutory requirements as well as with existing policy on
timber concessions." Thus, if PICOP proves the two above-mentioned
matters, it still has to prove compliance with statutory and administrative
requirements for the conversion of its TLA into an IFMA.
While we have withdrawn our pronouncements in the assailed Decision
that (1) PICOP had not submitted the required forest protection and
reforestation plans, and that (2) PICOP had unpaid forestry charges, thus
effectively ruling in favor of PICOP on all factual issues in this case, PICOP
still insists that the requirements of an NCIP certification and Sanggunian
consultation and approval do not apply to it. To affirm PICOPs position on
these matters would entail nothing less than rewriting the Indigenous
Peoples Rights Act and the Local Government Code, an act simply
beyond our jurisdiction.
WHEREFORE, the Motion for Reconsideration of PICOP Resources, Inc.
is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, it is hereby certified
that the conclusions in the above Resolution were reached in consultation
before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
Footnotes
6
The dispositive portion of the 10 February 2003 Order reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Motion for Reconsideration
dated October 25, 2002 is hereby DENIED for utter lack of merit while the
Motion for the Issuance of Writ of Mandamus and/or Writ of Mandatory
Injunction is GRANTED. Accordingly, respondent DENR Secretary
Heherson Alvarez, now substituted by Secretary Elisea Gozun, is hereby
ordered:
1. to sign, execute and deliver the IFMA contract and/or documents to
PICOP and issue the corresponding IFMA assignment number on the area
covered by IFMA, formerly TLA No. 43, as amended;
2. to issue the necessary permit allowing petitioner to act and harvest

timber from the said area of TLA No. 43, sufficient to meet the raw material
requirements of petitioners pulp and paper mills in accordance with the
warranty and agreement of July 29, 1969 between the government and
PICOPs predecessor-in-interest; and
3. to honor and respect the Government Warranties and contractual
obligations to PICOP strictly in accordance with the warranty and
agreement dated July 29, 1999 (sic) between the government and
PICOPs predecessor-in-interest (Exhibits "H", "H-1" to "H-5", particularly
the following:
a) The area coverage of TLA No. 43, which forms part and parcel of the
government warranties;
b) PICOP tenure over the said area of TLA No. 43 and exclusive right to
cut, collect and remove sawtimber and pulpwood for the period ending on
April 26, 1977; and said period to be renewable for another 25 years
well as with existing policy on timber concessions, and
c) The peaceful and adequate enjoyment by PICOP of the area as

described and specified in the aforesaid amended Timber License
Agreement No. 43. (Records, Vol. 4, pp. 1374-1375)
25
The nature of PICOPs Petition for Mandamus reads in full:
NATURE OF THE PETITION/COMPLAINT
1. This is a Special Civil Action for Mandamus, with prayer for issuance of
Writ of Preliminary Prohibitory and Mandatory Injunction with Damages
under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended.
1.1 Petitioner invokes the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court conferred by
Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, The Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980,
under Sections 21 thereof:
"Sec. 21. Original Jurisdiction in other cases. Regional Trial Court shall
exercise original jurisdiction:
(1) In the issuance of writs of certiorari, prohibition mandamus, quo
warranto, habeas corpus and injunction which may be enforced in any part
of their respective regions; xxx (underscoring supplied).
1.2 Petitioner brings the instant petition for the grant of the privileged writ
of mandamus, with prayer for the issuance of provisional remedies of
preliminary prohibitory and mandatory injunction pendente lite against
respondent Secretary for illegal acts which impinge on and violate the
constitutional rights of petitioner, and respondent Secretary has acted
without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction or so capriciously as to
constitute an abuse of discretion amounting to excess of jurisdiction.
1.3 Appropriateness of Recourse to Mandamus. The 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure, as amended, under Rule 65, Sec. 3 thereof provides relief
against official acts by public officers which are illegal and traduces
fundamental rights of a party aggrieved, or acts done without or in excess
of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction. Thus:
"Sec. 3. Petition for Mandamus. When any tribunal, corporation, board,
officer or person unlawfully neglects the performance of an act which the
law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust or station, or
unlawfully excludes another person from the use and enjoyment of a right
or office to which such other is entitled, and there is no other plain, speedy
and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, the person aggrieved
thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court, alleging the facts
with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered commanding the
respondent, immediately or at some other time to be specified by the court,
to do the act required to be done to protect the rights of the petitioner, and
to pay damages sustained by the petitioner by reason of the wrongful acts
of the respondent." (Emphasis supplied)
1.4 The jurisdiction of this Honorable Court to adjudicate the matters raised
in this petition and to issue the privileged writ of mandamus is a settled
matter. In Taada v. Angara, 272 SCRA 18 [1997], the Supreme Court
held:
The jurisdiction of this Court to adjudicate the matters raised in the petition
is clearly set out in the 1987 Constitution, as follows:
Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual
controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and
enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part
of any branch or instrumentality of the government.
The foregoing text emphasizes the judicial departments duty and power to
strike down grave abuse of discretion on the part of any branch or
instrumentality of government including Congress. It is innovation in our
political law. As explained by former Chief Justice Roberto Concepcion,
the judiciary is the final arbiter on the question of whether or not a branch
of government or any of its officials has acted without jurisdiction or in
excess of jurisdiction or so capriciously as to constitute an abuse of
discretion amounting to excess of jurisdiction. This is not a judicial power
but a duty to pass judgment on matters of this nature.
As this Court has repeatedly and firmly emphasized in many cases, it will
not shirk, digress from or abandon its sacred duty and authority to uphold
the Constitution in matters that involve grave abuse of discretion brought
before it in appropriate cases, committed by any officer, agency,
instrumentality or department of the government.
As the petition alleges grave abuse of discretion and as there is no other
plain, speedy or adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, we have
no hesitation at all in holding that this petition should be given due course
and the vital questions raised therein ruled upon under Rule 65 of the
Rules of Court. Indeed, certiorari, prohibition and mandamus are
appropriate remedies to raise constitutional issues and to review and/or
prohibit/nullify, when proper, acts of legislative and executive officials. On
this, we have no equivocation.
1.5 By this privileged writ of mandamus, petitioner seeks to:
1.5.1 Compel respondent Department of Environment and Natural
Resources (DENR) Secretary Heherson T. Alvarez to execute and deliver
the Integrated Forestry Management Agreement (IFMA for short), and
issue the corresponding IFMA number assignment to petitioner and to
which it has a clear legal right and respondent has the legal duty to
perform.
Respondent DENR Secretary has unlawfully refused and neglected and
continue to unlawfully refuse and neglect, to issue the IFMA and
corresponding IFMA number assignment to PICOP, the performance of
which the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from his office.
Respondent Secretary Alvarez in refusing to sign, execute and deliver the
IFMA and corresponding IFMA assignment number to PICOP has acted
without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction or so capriciously as to
constitute an abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of
jurisdiction.
1.5.2 Compel respondent DENR Secretary to abide by and respect the
obligation of contract embodied under a letter warranty and agreement
Page 14 of 126
entered into by and between the Government and PICOPs predecessorin-interest dated 29 July 1969, with the following covenants:
"This has reference to the request of the Board of Investment through its
Chairman in a letter dated July 16, 1969 for a warranty on the boundaries
of your concession area under Timber License Agreement No. 43, as
amended.
first large scale integrated wood processing complex (hereinafter called
supplement PICOPs operational sources of funds and other financial
stockholders to take such steps as may be necessary to effect in
unification of managerial, technical, economical and manpower resources
between your company and PICOP.
It is in the public interest to promote industries that will enhance the proper
conservation of our forest resources as well as insure the maximum
utilization thereof to the benefit of the national economy. The
Administration feels that the PICOP project is one such industry which
should enjoy priority over the usual logging operations hitherto practiced by
ordinary timber licenses for this reason, we are pleased to consider
favorably the request.
We confirm that your Timber License Agreement No. 43, as amended,
(copy of which is attached as Annex "A") hereof attached to form part and
terms and conditions of your license agreement are observed."
Copy of which is attached as Annex "A".
1.6 Respondent Secretary impaired the obligation of contract under the
said Warranty and Agreement of 29 July 1969 by refusing to respect the
tenure; and its renewal for other twenty five (25) years, of PICOP over the
area covered by said Agreement which consists of permanent forest lands
with an aggregate area of 121,587 hectares and alienable or disposable
lands with an aggregate area of approximately 21,580 hectares, and
petitioners exclusive right to cut, collect and remove sawtimber and
pulpwood therein and the peaceful and adequate enjoyment of the said
area as described and specified in petitioners Timber License Agreement
(TLA) No. 43 guaranteed by the Government, under the Warranty and
Agreement of 29 July 1969.
1.7 The Bill of Rights of the 1987 Constitution guarantees the nonimpairment of the obligation of contract, providing in Sec. 10, Art. III thereof
that:
"Sec. 10. No law impairing the obligation of contracts shall be passed."
1.8 The obligation of a contract is the law or duty which binds the parties to
perform their agreement according to its terms or intent (Sturgess v.
Crownshields, 4 Wheat 122). The treaties on the Constitution state the
scope of terms "law" and "contract", to mean:
(1) The law, the enactment of which is prohibited, includes executive and
administrative orders issued by heads of departments, and ordinances
enacted by local governments. (citing Lim v. Secretary of Agriculture, 34
SCRA 751 [1970]).
(2) The contract, the obligation of which is secured against impairment by
the Constitution, includes contracts entered into by the Government (citing
Maddumba v. GSIS, 182 SCRA 281 [1990]). An example of impairment by
law is when a tax exemption based on a contract entered into by the
government is revoked by a letter taxing statute (citing Casanova v. Hord,
8 Phil. 125 [1907]).
(3) The State when contracting does so upon the same terms as a private
individual or corporation and may not plead its sovereignty as justification
in impairing a contractual obligation which it has assumed (citing
Willoughby, op. Cit. p. 1224).
(4) In a Contract, a party acquires a right and the other assumed an
obligation arising from the same (Art. 1305, New Civil Code). A contract is
the law between the contracting parties, their assigns, and their heirs (Arts.
1159, 1311 par. 1, Civil Code) (De Leon, Philippine Constitutional Law,
Principles and Cases, 1999 Ed., pp. 682, 283).
As used in the Constitution, the word "Contracts" includes other
arrangement not normally considered to be contracts such as a legislative
grant of a public land to particular individuals, such that a subsequent
attempt by the State to annul the title of purchasers in good faith from the
grantee would be unconstitutional (citing Fletcher v. Peck, 10 US 87).
(ibid., p. 6).
1.9 There is no appeal or any other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in
the ordinary course of law except the privileged writ of mandamus prayed
for in this petition.
1.10 This petition falls as an exception to the exhaustion of administrative
remedies. The acts of respondent DENR Secretary complained of in this
petition are patently illegal; in derogation of the constitutional rights of

petitioner against non-impairment of the obligation of contracts; without
jurisdiction, or in excess of jurisdiction or so capriciously as to constitute an
abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction; and
moreover, the failure or refusal of a high government official such as a
Department head from whom relief is brought to act on the matter was
considered equivalent to exhaustion of administrative remedies (Sanoy v.
Tantuico, 50 SCRA 455 [1973]), and there are compelling and urgent
reasons for judicial intervention (Bagatsing v. Ramirez, 74 SCRA 306
[1976]). (PICOPs Petition for Mandamus, Records pp. 1-6.)
27
That the erstwhile Third Division of this Court was still unaware of this
Divisions Decision is shown by the following excerpts in its Decision:
PICOP brings to the Courts attention the case of PICOP Resources, Inc.
v. Hon. Heherson T. Alvarez, wherein the Court of Appeals ruled that the
Presidential Warranty issued to PICOP for its TLA No. 43 dated July 29,
1969, a TLA distinct from PTLA No. 47 involved in this case, is a valid
contract involving mutual prestations on the part of the Government and
PICOP.
xxxx
The case of PICOP Resources, Inc. v. Hon. Heherson T. Alvarez, supra,
cited by PICOP cannot be relied upon to buttress the latters claim that a
presidential warranty is a valid and subsisting contract between PICOP
and the Government because the decision of the appellate court in that
case is still pending review before the Courts Second Division. (Id. at 411415.)
36
Article XIV, Section 8, 1973 Constitution provides:
Section 8. All lands of public domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum
and other mineral oils, all forces of potential energy, fisheries, wildlife, and
other natural resources of the Philippines belong to the State. With the
exception of agricultural, industrial or commercial, residential, or
resettlement lands of the public domain, natural resources shall not be
alienated, and no license, concession, or lease for the exploration, or
utilization of any of the natural resources shall be granted for a period
exceeding twenty-five years, except as to water rights for irrigation, water
supply, fisheries, or industrial uses other than development of water power,
in which cases, beneficial use may by the measure and the limit of the
grant.
52
The land area of Metro Manila is 63,600 hectares, or 636 square
kilometers. Metro Manila includes within its boundaries the following cities
and municipalities: Quezon City, Manila, Caloocan, Makati, Pasig,
Marikina, Mandaluyong, Pasay City, Muntinlupa, Paraaque, Las Pias,
Valenzuela, Taguig, Malabon, Navotas, San Juan and Pateros.
53
PICOPs Motion for Reconsideration, pp. 22-23; rollo, pp. 1386a-1386b.
54
SECTION 5. Incentives to Investors in a Registered Enterprise. An
investor, with respect to his investment in a registered enterprise, shall be
granted the following incentive benefits:
(a) Protection of Patents and Other Proprietary Rights. The right to be
protected from infringement of patents, trademarks, copyright, trade
names, and other proprietary rights, where such patents, trade marks,
copyright, trade names, and other proprietary rights have been registered
with the Board and the appropriate agencies of the Government of the
Philippines.
(b) Capital Gains Tax Exemption. Exemption from income tax on that
portion of the gains realized from the sale, disposition, or transfer of capital
assets, as defined in Section thirty-four of the National Internal Revenue
Code, that corresponds to the portion of the proceeds of the sale that is
invested in new issues of capital stock of a registered enterprise within six
months from the date the gains were realized: Provided, (1) that the said
sale, disposition or transfer and the investment of the proceeds thereof
have been registered with the Board and the Bureau of Internal Revenue;
and (2) that the shares of stock representing the investment are not
disposed of, transferred, assigned, or conveyed for a period of five years
from the date the investment was made. If such shares of stock are
disposed of within the said period of five (5) years, all taxes due on the
gains realized from the original transfer, sale or disposition of the capital
assets shall immediately become due and payable.
SECTION 6. Incentives to Philippine Nationals Investing in Pioneer
Enterprises. In addition to the incentives provided in the preceding
sections, Philippine Nationals investing in a pioneer enterprise shall be
granted the following incentives benefits:
(a) Tax Allowance for Investments. An investment allowance to the
extent of his actual investment, paid in cash or property shall be allowed as
a deduction from his taxable income but not to exceed ten per cent thereof:
Provided, (1) That the investment is made in a subscription of shares in the
original and/or increased capital stock of a pioneer enterprise within seven
years from the date of registration; (2) that the shares are held for a period
of not less than three years and; (3) that the investment is registered with
the Board. If the shares are disposed of within the said three year period,
the tax payer shall lose the benefit of this deduction, his income tax liability
shall be recomputed, and he shall pay whatever additional sum be due
plus interest thereon, within thirty days from the date of disposition.
(b) Capital Gains Tax Exemption.Exemption from income tax on the
portion of the gains realized from the sale, disposition, or transfer of capital
assets, as defined in Section thirty-four of the National Internal Revenue
Code, that corresponds to the portion of the proceeds of the sale that is
invested in new issues of capital stock of, or in the purchase of stock
owned by foreigners in, pioneer enterprises, within six months from the
date the gains were realized: Provided, (1) That such sale, disposition or
transfer and the investment of the proceeds thereof are registered with the
Board and the Bureau of Internal Revenue; and (2) that the shares of stock
representing the investment are not disposed of, transferred, assigned or
conveyed for a period of three (3) years from the date the investment was
made. If said shares of stock are disposed of within the said period of three
Page 15 of 126
(3) years, all taxes due on the gains realized from the original transfer, sale
or disposition of the capital assets shall immediately become due and
payable.
(c) Tax Exemption on Sale of Stock Dividends. Exemption from income
tax on all gains realized from the sale, disposition, or transfer of stock
dividends received from a pioneer enterprise: Provided, That the sale,
disposition or transfer occurs within seven years from the date of
registration of the enterprise.
SECTION 7. Incentives to a Registered Enterprise. A registered
enterprise, to the extent engaged in a preferred area of investment, shall
be granted the following incentive benefits:
(a) Deduction of Organizational and Pre-Operating Expenses. All
capitalized organizational and pre-operating expenses attributable to the
establishment of a registered enterprise may be deducted from its taxable
income over a period of not more than ten years beginning with the month
the enterprise begins operations, provided the taxpayer indicates the
desired amortization period at the time of the filing of the income tax
returns for the first taxable year. For the purpose of this provision,
organizational and pre-operating expenses shall include expenses for preinvestment studies, start up costs, costs of initial recruitment and training,
and similar expenses.
(b) Accelerated Depreciation. At the option of the taxpayer and in
accordance with the procedure established by the Bureau of Internal
Revenue, fixed assets may be (1) depreciated to the extent of not more
than twice as fast as normal rate of depreciation or depreciated at normal
rate of depreciation if expected life is ten years or less; or (2) depreciated
over any number of years between five years and expected life if the latter
is more than ten (10) years; and the depreciation thereon allowed as a
deduction from taxable income: Provided, That the taxpayer notifies the
Bureau of Internal Revenue at the beginning of the depreciation period
which depreciation rate allowed by this section will be used by it.
(c) Net Operating Loss Carry-over. A net operating loss incurred in any
of the first ten years of operations may be carried over as a deduction from
taxable income for the six years immediately following the year of such
loss. The entire amount of the loss shall be carried over to the first of the
six taxable years following the loss, and any portion of such loss which
exceeds the taxable income of such first year shall be deducted in like
manner from the taxable income of the next remaining five years. The net
operating loss shall be computed in accordance with the provisions of the
National Internal Revenue Code, any provision of this Act to the contrary
notwithstanding, except that income not taxable either in whole or in part
under this or other laws shall be included in gross income.
(d) Tax Exemption on Imported Capital Equipment. Within seven years
from the date of registration of the enterprise, importation of machinery and
equipment, and spare parts shipped with such machinery and equipment,
shall not be subject to tariff duties and compensating tax: Provided, That
said machinery, equipment and spare parts: (1) are not manufactured
domestically in reasonable quantity and quality at reasonable prices; (2)
are directly and actually needed and will be used exclusively by the
registered enterprise in the manufacture of its products; (3) are covered by
shipping documents in the name of the registered enterprise to whom the
shipment will be delivered direct by customs authorities; (4) the prior
approval of the Board was obtained by the registered enterprise before the
importation of such machinery, equipment and spare parts; and (5) the
registered enterprise chooses not to avail of the privileges granted by
Republic Act Numbered Thirty-one hundred twenty-seven, as amended. If
the registered enterprise sells, transfers, or disposes of these machinery,
equipment and spare parts without the prior approval of the Board within
five (5) years from the date of acquisition, the registered enterprise shall
pay twice the amount of the tax exemption given it. However, the Board
shall allow and approve the sale, transfer, or disposition of the said items
within the said period of five (5) years if made: (1) to another registered
enterprise; (2) for reasons of proven technical obsolescence; or (3) for
purposes of replacement to improve and/or expand the operations of the
enterprise.
(e) Tax Credit on Domestic Capital Equipment. A tax credit equivalent to
one hundred per cent (100%) of the value of the compensating tax and
customs duties that would have been paid on the machinery, equipment
and spare parts had these items been imported shall be given to the
registered enterprise who purchases machinery, equipment and spare
parts from a domestic manufacturer, and another tax credit equivalent to
fifty per cent (50%) thereof shall be given to the said manufacturer:
Provided, (1) That the said machinery, equipment and spare parts are
directly and actually needed and will be used exclusively by the registered
enterprise in the manufacture of its products; (2) that the prior approval of
the Board was obtained by the local manufacturer concerned; and (3) that
the sale is made within seven years from the date of registration of the
registered enterprise. If the registered enterprise sells, transfers or
disposes of these machinery, equipment and spare parts without the prior
approval of the Board within five years from the date of acquisition, then it
shall pay twice the amount of the tax credit given it. However, the Board
shall allow and approve the sale, transfer, or disposition of the said items
within the said period of five years if made (1) to another registered
enterprise; (2) for reasons of proven technical obsolescence; or (3) for
purposes of replacement to improve and/or expand the operations of the
enterprise
(f) Tax Credit for Withholding Tax on Interest. A tax credit for taxes
withheld on interest payments on foreign loans shall be given a registered
enterprise when (1) no such credit is enjoyed by the lender-remittee in his
country and (2) the registered enterprise has assumed the liability for
payment of the tax due from the lender-remittee.
(g) Employment of Foreign Nationals. Subject to the provisions of

Section twenty-nine of Commonwealth Act Numbered Six hundred
thirteen, as amended, an enterprise may, within five years from
registration, employ foreign nationals in supervisory, technical or advisory
positions not in excess of five per centum of its total personnel in each
such category: Provided, That in no case shall each employment exceed
five years. The employment of foreign nationals after five years from
registration, or within such five years but in excess of the proportion herein
provided, shall be governed by Section twenty of Commonwealth Act
Numbered Six hundred thirteen, as amended.
Foreign nationals under employment contract within the purview of this
Act, their spouse and unmarried children under twenty-one years of age,
who are not excluded by Section twenty-nine of Commonwealth Act
Numbered Six hundred thirteen, shall be permitted to enter and reside in
the Philippines during the period of employment of such foreign nationals.
A registered enterprise shall train Filipinos in administrative, supervisory,
and technical skills and shall submit annual reports on such training to the
Board of Investments.
(h) Deduction for Expansion Reinvestment. When a registered
enterprise reinvests its undistributed profit or surplus by actual transfer
thereof to the capital stock of the corporation for procurement of
machinery, equipment and spare parts previously approved by the Board
under Subsections "d" and "e" hereof or for the expansion of machinery
and equipment used in production or for the construction of the buildings,
improvements or other facilities for the installation of the said machinery
and equipment, the amount so reinvested shall be allowed as a deduction
from its taxable income in the year in which such reinvestment was made:
Provided, (1) That prior approval by the Board of such reinvestment was
obtained by the registered enterprise planning such reinvestment, and (2)
that the registered enterprise does not reduce its capital stock represented
by the reinvestment within seven years from the date such reinvestment
was made. In the event the registered enterprise does not order the
machinery and equipment within two (2) years from the date the
reinvestment was made or reduces its capital stock represented by the
reinvestment within a period of seven years from the date of reinvestment,
a recomputation of the income tax liability therefor shall be made for the
period when the deduction was made, and the proper taxes shall be
assessed and paid with interest.
(i) Anti-Dumping Protection. Upon recommendation of the Board, made
after notice and hearing, the President shall issue a directive banning for a
limited period the importation of goods or commodities which, as provided
in Section three hundred one (a) of the Tariff and Customs Code of the
Philippines, unfairly or unnecessarily complete with those produced by
registered enterprises: Provided, (1) That the Board certifies to the
satisfactory quality of the goods or commodities produced or manufactured
by the registered enterprises; and (2) that the enterprises agree not to
increase the price of these goods or commodities during this period, unless
for good cause, the Board allows such an increase.
(j) Protection from Government Competition. No agency or
instrumentality of the government shall import, or allow the importation tax
and duty free of products or items that are being produced or
manufactured by registered enterprises, except when the President
determines that the national interest so requires or when international
commitments require international competitive bidding.
SECTION 8. Incentives to a Pioneer Enterprise. In addition to the
incentives provided in the preceding section, pioneer enterprises shall be
granted the following incentives benefits:
(a) Tax Exemptions. Exemptions from all taxes under the National
Internal Revenue Code, except income tax, to the following extent:
(1) One hundred per cent up to December 31, 1972;
(2) Seventy-five per cent up to December 31, 1975;
(3) Fifty per cent up to December 31, 1977;
(4) Twenty per cent up to December 31, 1979;
(5) Ten per cent up to December 31, 1981;
(b) Employment of Foreign Nationals. Subject to the provisions of
Section twenty nine of Commonwealth Act Numbered Six hundred thirteen,
as amended, to employ and bring into the Philippines foreign nationals
under the following conditions:
(1) That all such foreign nationals shall register with the Board;
(2) That the employment of all foreign nationals shall cease and they shall
be repatriated five years after the registered enterprise has begun
operating: Provided, That when the majority of the capital stock of the
pioneer enterprise is owned by foreign investors, the positions of president,
treasurer and general manager, or their equivalents, may be retained by
foreign nationals. In exceptional cases, the Board may allow employment
of foreign nationals in other positions that cannot be filled by the Philippine
nationals, but in such cases the limitations of Section seven paragraph (g)
of this Act shall apply.
Page 16 of 126
Foreign nationals under employment contract within the purview of this

Act, their spouse and unmarried children under twenty-one years of age,
who are not excluded by Section twenty-nine of Commonwealth Act
Numbered Six hundred thirteen, shall be permitted to enter and reside in
the Philippines during the period of employment of such foreign nationals.
(c) Post-Operative Tariff Protection. Upon recommendation of the
Board, the President, with or without the recommendation of the Tariff
Commission or the National Economic Council, shall issue a certification
that a pioneer industry shall be entitled to post-operative tariff protection to
an extent not exceeding fifty per cent of the dutiable value of imported
items similar to those being manufactured or produced by a pioneer
enterprise, unless a higher rate or amount is provided for in the Tariff Code
or pertinent laws. Said tariff shall take effect automatically upon
certification by the Board that the pioneer enterprise is operating on a
commercial scale: Provided, That said tariff, once operative, may be
modified in accordance with Section four hundred one of the Tariff and
Customs Code.
SECTION 9. Special Export Incentives for Registered Enterprises.
Registered enterprises shall be entitled to the following special incentives
for exports of their completely finished products and commodities:
(a) Double Deduction of Promotional Expenses. To deduct from taxable
income twice the amount of the ordinary and necessary expenses incurred
for the purpose of promoting the sale of their products abroad;
(b) Double Deduction of Shipping Costs. To deduct from taxable income
twice the amount of shipping freight incurred in connection with the export
of their products, if the shipments are made in vessels of Philippine registry
to their regular ports of call; and to deduct one hundred fifty per cent
(150%) of the freight when shipments are made in vessels of foreign
registry to a port which is not a regular port of call of Philippine vessels;
(c) Special Tax Credit on Raw Materials. A tax credit equivalent to
seven per cent (7%) of the total cost of the raw materials and supplies
purchased by registered enterprises or an amount equivalent to the taxes
actually paid by registered enterprises on said raw materials, whichever is
higher, to the extent used in manufacturing exported products and
commodities.
Before registered enterprises may avail themselves of the foregoing
exports incentives benefits, the shall apply first with the Board, which shall
approve the application upon proof: (1) that the enterprise proposes to
engage in good faith in creating a market for its products abroad; (2) that
the product to be exported is one included in the government priorities plan
as suitable for export, or if not so included that its export will not adversely
affect the needs of the domestic market for the finished product to be
exported or for the domestic raw materials used in its manufacture; (3) that
the enterprise has or will set up an adequate accounting system to
segregate revenues, purchases and expenses of its export market
operations from those of its domestic market operations; and (4) that the
exported products and commodities meet the standards of quality
established by the Bureau of Standards or, in default thereof, by the
Board.
SECTION 10. Preference in Grant of Government Loans. Government
financial institutions such as the Development Bank of the Philippines,
Philippine National Bank, Government Service Insurance System, Social
Security System, Land Bank, and such other government institutions as
are now engaged or may hereafter engage in financing or investment
operations shall, in accordance with and to the extent allowed by the
enabling provisions of their respective charters or applicable laws, accord
high priority to applications for financial assistance submitted by pioneer
and other registered enterprises, whether such financial assistance be in
the form of equity participation in preferred, common, or preferred
convertible shares of stock, or in loans and guarantees, and shall facilitate
the processing thereof and the release of the funds therefor. However, no
financial assistance shall be extended under this section to any investor or
enterprise that is not a Philippine National.
The above-mentioned financial institutions, to the extent allowed by their
respective charters or applicable laws, shall contribute to the capital of a
registered enterprise whenever the said contribution would enable the
formation of pioneer or other registered enterprise with at least sixty per
cent control by Philippine Nationals: Provided, That the capital contribution
of the said financial institutions shall be limited to the amount that cannot
be contributed by private Filipino investors, and shall in no case exceed
thirty per cent of the total capitalization of the pioneer or other registered
enterprises. The shares representing the contribution of the said financial
institutions shall be offered for public sale to Philippine Nationals through
all the members of a registered Philippine stock exchange.
To facilitate the implementation of the provisions of this Section, all the
said financial institutions shall coordinate their financial assistance
programs with each other, exchange relevant information about applicants
and applications, and submit a monthly report to the Board showing the
amount of funds available for financial assistance to pioneer or other
registered enterprises. The Board shall recommend to the Board of
Directors of each such financial institution what order of priority shall be

given the applications of pioneer and other registered enterprises, or of
applicants that propose to seek registration as such.
SECTION 11. Private Financial Assistance. Any provision of existing
laws to the contrary notwithstanding, the Insurance Commissioner is
hereby authorized to allow insurance companies, under such rules and
regulations as he may issue, to invest in new issues of stock of registered
enterprises, notwithstanding that said enterprises may not have paid
regular dividends, to the extent set out in section two hundred, paragraphs
(c) and (f) of the Insurance Act, as amended: Provided, that said
investments are diversified.
SECTION 12. Loans for Investment. The Government Service
Insurance System and the Social Security System shall extend to their
respective members five-year loans at a rate of interest not to exceed six
per cent per annum for the purchase of shares of stock in any registered
enterprise: Provided, That (1) the shares so purchased shall be deposited
in escrow with the lending institution for the full five-year term of the loan;
partial releases of the shares shall, however, be allowed to the extent of
the payment of amortization made therefor; (2) such loans shall be
amortized in sixty equal monthly installments which shall be withheld by
the employer from the monthly salary of the employee concerned and
remitted to the lending institution by the employer; but any and all
dividends earned by shares of stock while they are held in escrow shall be
delivered to the employee; and (3) the maximum loan available to each
employee in any one calendar year shall not exceed fifty per centum of the
employee's annual gross income: Provided, further, That the total
investment of the government financial institution concerned, consisting of
its direct investment in the registered enterprise and the loans it has
extended to its respective members which have been invested by the
members in a registered enterprise, shall not be more than forty-nine per
cent (49%) of the total capitalization of the registered enterprise in which
the investments have been made.
55
Section 9. Private property shall not be taken for public use without just
compensation.
56
Section 18. The State may, in the interest of national welfare or

defense, establish and operate vital industries and, upon payment of just
compensation, transfer to public ownership utilities and other private
enterprises to be operated by the Government.

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. 127882
December 1, 2004
LA BUGAL-B'LAAN TRIBAL ASSOCIATION, INC., Represented by its

Chairman F'LONG MIGUEL M. LUMAYONG; WIGBERTO E. TAADA;
PONCIANO BENNAGEN; JAIME TADEO; RENATO R. CONSTANTINO
JR.; F'LONG AGUSTIN M. DABIE; ROBERTO P. AMLOY; RAQIM L.
DABIE; SIMEON H. DOLOJO; IMELDA M. GANDON; LENY B.
GUSANAN; MARCELO L. GUSANAN; QUINTOL A. LABUAYAN;
LOMINGGES D. LAWAY; BENITA P. TACUAYAN; Minors JOLY L.
BUGOY, Represented by His Father UNDERO D. BUGOY and ROGER
M. DADING; Represented by His Father ANTONIO L. DADING; ROMY
M. LAGARO, Represented by His Father TOTING A. LAGARO;
MIKENY JONG B. LUMAYONG, Represented by His Father MIGUEL M.
LUMAYONG; RENE T. MIGUEL, Represented by His Mother EDITHA
T. MIGUEL; ALDEMAR L. SAL, Represented by His Father DANNY M.
SAL; DAISY RECARSE, Represented by Her Mother LYDIA S.
SANTOS; EDWARD M. EMUY; ALAN P. MAMPARAIR; MARIO L.
MANGCAL; ALDEN S. TUSAN; AMPARO S. YAP; VIRGILIO CULAR;
MARVIC M.V.F. LEONEN; JULIA REGINA CULAR, GIAN CARLO
CULAR, VIRGILIO CULAR JR., Represented by Their Father VIRGILIO
CULAR; PAUL ANTONIO P. VILLAMOR, Represented by His Parents
JOSE VILLAMOR and ELIZABETH PUA-VILLAMOR; ANA GININA R.
TALJA, Represented by Her Father MARIO JOSE B. TALJA;
SHARMAINE R. CUNANAN, Represented by Her Father ALFREDO M.
CUNANAN; ANTONIO JOSE A. VITUG III, Represented by His Mother
ANNALIZA A. VITUG, LEAN D. NARVADEZ, Represented by His
Father MANUEL E. NARVADEZ JR.; ROSERIO MARALAG LINGATING,
Represented by Her Father RIO OLIMPIO A. LINGATING; MARIO
JOSE B. TALJA; DAVID E. DE VERA; MARIA MILAGROS L. SAN
JOSE; Sr. SUSAN O. BOLANIO, OND; LOLITA G. DEMONTEVERDE;
BENJIE L. NEQUINTO;1 ROSE LILIA S. ROMANO; ROBERTO S.
VERZOLA; EDUARDO AURELIO C. REYES; LEAN LOUEL A. PERIA,
Represented by His Father ELPIDIO V. PERIA; 2 GREEN FORUM
PHILIPPINES; GREEN FORUM WESTERN VISAYAS (GF-WV);
ENVIRONMENTAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE CENTER (ELAC); KAISAHAN
TUNGO SA KAUNLARAN NG KANAYUNAN AT REPORMANG
PANSAKAHAN (KAISAHAN);3 PARTNERSHIP FOR AGRARIAN
REFORM and RURAL DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, INC. (PARRDS);
Page 17 of 126
PHILIPPINE PARTNERSHIP FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF HUMAN

RESOURCES IN THE RURAL AREAS, INC. (PHILDHRRA); WOMEN'S
LEGAL BUREAU (WLB); CENTER FOR ALTERNATIVE
DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVES, INC. (CADI); UPLAND DEVELOPMENT
INSTITUTE (UDI); KINAIYAHAN FOUNDATION, INC.; SENTRO NG
ALTERNATIBONG LINGAP PANLIGAL (SALIGAN); and LEGAL
RIGHTS AND NATURAL RESOURCES CENTER, INC. (LRC),
petitioners,
vs.
VICTOR O. RAMOS, Secretary, Department of Environment and
Natural Resources (DENR); HORACIO RAMOS, Director, Mines and
Geosciences Bureau (MGB-DENR); RUBEN TORRES, Executive
Secretary; and WMC (PHILIPPINES), INC.,4 respondents.
The Decision struck down the subject FTAA for being similar to service
contracts,9 which, though permitted under the 1973 Constitution,10 were
subsequently denounced for being antithetical to the principle of
sovereignty over our natural resources, because they allowed foreign
control over the exploitation of our natural resources, to the prejudice of
the Filipino nation.
The Decision quoted several legal scholars and authors who had criticized
service contracts for, inter alia, vesting in the foreign contractor exclusive
management and control of the enterprise, including operation of the field
in the event petroleum was discovered; control of production, expansion
and development; nearly unfettered control over the disposition and sale of
the products discovered/extracted; effective ownership of the natural
resource at the point of extraction; and beneficial ownership of our
economic resources. According to the Decision, the 1987 Constitution
(Section 2 of Article XII) effectively banned such service contracts.
RESOLUTION
Subsequently, respondents filed separate Motions for Reconsideration. In
a Resolution dated March 9, 2004, the Court required petitioners to
comment thereon. In the Resolution of June 8, 2004, it set the case for
Oral Argument on June 29, 2004.
PANGANIBAN, J.:
All mineral resources are owned by the State. Their exploration,
development and utilization (EDU) must always be subject to the full
control and supervision of the State. More specifically, given the
inadequacy of Filipino capital and technology in large-scale EDU activities,
the State may secure the help of foreign companies in all relevant matters
-- especially financial and technical assistance -- provided that, at all times,
the State maintains its right of full control. The foreign assistor or
contractor assumes all financial, technical and entrepreneurial risks in the
EDU activities; hence, it may be given reasonable management,
operational, marketing, audit and other prerogatives to protect its
investments and to enable the business to succeed.
Full control is not anathematic to day-to-day management by the
contractor, provided that the State retains the power to direct overall
strategy; and to set aside, reverse or modify plans and actions of the
contractor. The idea of full control is similar to that which is exercised by
the board of directors of a private corporation: the performance of
managerial, operational, financial, marketing and other functions may be
delegated to subordinate officers or given to contractual entities, but the
board retains full residual control of the business.
Who or what organ of government actually exercises this power of control
on behalf of the State? The Constitution is crystal clear: the President.
Indeed, the Chief Executive is the official constitutionally mandated to
"enter into agreements with foreign owned corporations." On the other
hand, Congress may review the action of the President once it is notified of
"every contract entered into in accordance with this [constitutional]
provision within thirty days from its execution." In contrast to this express
mandate of the President and Congress in the EDU of natural resources,
Article XII of the Constitution is silent on the role of the judiciary. However,
should the President and/or Congress gravely abuse their discretion in this
regard, the courts may -- in a proper case -- exercise their residual duty
under Article VIII. Clearly then, the judiciary should not inordinately
interfere in the exercise of this presidential power of control over the EDU
of our natural resources.
The Constitution should be read in broad, life-giving strokes. It should not
be used to strangulate economic growth or to serve narrow, parochial
interests. Rather, it should be construed to grant the President and
Congress sufficient discretion and reasonable leeway to enable them to
attract foreign investments and expertise, as well as to secure for our
people and our posterity the blessings of prosperity and peace.
On the basis of this control standard, this Court upholds the
constitutionality of the Philippine Mining Law, its Implementing Rules and
Regulations -- insofar as they relate to financial and technical agreements - as well as the subject Financial and Technical Assistance Agreement
(FTAA).5
After hearing the opposing sides, the Court required the parties to submit
their respective Memoranda in amplification of their arguments. In a
Resolution issued later the same day, June 29, 2004, the Court noted,
inter alia, the Manifestation and Motion (in lieu of comment) filed by the
Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) on behalf of public respondents. The
OSG said that it was not interposing any objection to the Motion for
Intervention filed by the Chamber of Mines of the Philippines, Inc. (CMP)
and was in fact joining and adopting the latter's Motion for
Reconsideration.
Memoranda were accordingly filed by the intervenor as well as by

petitioners, public respondents, and private respondent, dwelling at length
on the three issues discussed below. Later, WMCP submitted its Reply
Memorandum, while the OSG -- in obedience to an Order of this Court -filed a Compliance submitting copies of more FTAAs entered into by the
government.
Three Issues Identified by the Court
During the Oral Argument, the Court identified the three issues to be
resolved in the present controversy, as follows:
1. Has the case been rendered moot by the sale of WMC shares in WMCP
to Sagittarius (60 percent of Sagittarius' equity is owned by Filipinos and/or
Filipino-owned corporations while 40 percent is owned by Indophil
Resources NL, an Australian company) and by the subsequent transfer
and registration of the FTAA from WMCP to Sagittarius?
2. Assuming that the case has been rendered moot, would it still be proper
to resolve the constitutionality of the assailed provisions of the Mining Law,
DAO 96-40 and the WMCP FTAA?
3. What is the proper interpretation of the phrase Agreements Involving
Either Technical or Financial Assistance contained in paragraph 4 of
Section 2 of Article XII of the Constitution?
Should the Motion for Reconsideration Be Granted?
Respondents' and intervenor's Motions for Reconsideration should be
granted, for the reasons discussed below. The foregoing three issues
identified by the Court shall now be taken up seriatim.
First Issue:
Mootness
Background
The Petition for Prohibition and Mandamus before the Court challenges the
constitutionality of (1) Republic Act No. [RA] 7942 (The Philippine Mining
Act of 1995); (2) its Implementing Rules and Regulations (DENR
Administrative Order No. [DAO] 96-40); and (3) the FTAA dated March 30,
6
1995, executed by the government with Western Mining Corporation
(Philippines), Inc. (WMCP).7
On January 27, 2004, the Court en banc promulgated its Decision8
granting the Petition and declaring the unconstitutionality of certain
provisions of RA 7942, DAO 96-40, as well as of the entire FTAA executed
between the government and WMCP, mainly on the finding that FTAAs are
service contracts prohibited by the 1987 Constitution.
In declaring unconstitutional certain provisions of RA 7942, DAO 96-40,

and the WMCP FTAA, the majority Decision agreed with petitioners'
contention that the subject FTAA had been executed in violation of Section
2 of Article XII of the 1987 Constitution. According to petitioners, the
FTAAs entered into by the government with foreign-owned corporations
are limited by the fourth paragraph of the said provision to agreements
involving only technical or financial assistance for large-scale exploration,
development and utilization of minerals, petroleum and other mineral oils.
Furthermore, the foreign contractor is allegedly permitted by the FTAA in
question to fully manage and control the mining operations and, therefore,
to acquire "beneficial ownership" of our mineral resources.
The Decision merely shrugged off the Manifestation by WMPC informing
the Court (1) that on January 23, 2001, WMC had sold all its shares in
WMCP to Sagittarius Mines, Inc., 60 percent of whose equity was held by
Page 18 of 126
Filipinos; and (2) that the assailed FTAA had likewise been transferred
from WMCP to Sagittarius.11 The ponencia declared that the instant case
had not been rendered moot by the transfer and registration of the FTAA to
a Filipino-owned corporation, and that the validity of the said transfer
remained in dispute and awaited final judicial determination.12 Patently
therefore, the Decision is anchored on the assumption that WMCP had
remained a foreign corporation.
The crux of this issue of mootness is the fact that WMCP, at the time it
entered into the FTAA, happened to be wholly owned by WMC Resources
International Pty., Ltd. (WMC), which in turn was a wholly owned
subsidiary of Western Mining Corporation Holdings Ltd., a publicly listed
major Australian mining and exploration company.
The nullity of the FTAA was obviously premised upon the contractor being
a foreign corporation. Had the FTAA been originally issued to a Filipinoowned corporation, there would have been no constitutionality issue to
speak of. Upon the other hand, the conveyance of the WMCP FTAA to a
Filipino corporation can be likened to the sale of land to a foreigner who
subsequently acquires Filipino citizenship, or who later resells the same
land to a Filipino citizen. The conveyance would be validated, as the
property in question would no longer be owned by a disqualified vendee.
And, inasmuch as the FTAA is to be implemented now by a Filipino
corporation, it is no longer possible for the Court to declare it
unconstitutional. The case pending in the Court of Appeals is a dispute
between two Filipino companies (Sagittarius and Lepanto), both claiming
the right to purchase the foreign shares in WMCP. So, regardless of which
side eventually wins, the FTAA would still be in the hands of a qualified
Filipino company. Considering that there is no longer any justiciable
controversy, the plea to nullify the Mining Law has become a virtual
petition for declaratory relief, over which this Court has no original
jurisdiction.
In their Final Memorandum, however, petitioners argue that the case has
not become moot, considering the invalidity of the alleged sale of the
shares in WMCP from WMC to Sagittarius, and of the transfer of the FTAA
from WMCP to Sagittarius, resulting in the change of contractor in the
FTAA in question. And even assuming that the said transfers were valid,
there still exists an actual case predicated on the invalidity of RA 7942 and
its Implementing Rules and Regulations (DAO 96-40). Presently, we shall
discuss petitioners' objections to the transfer of both the shares and the
FTAA. We shall take up the alleged invalidity of RA 7942 and DAO 96-40
later on in the discussion of the third issue.
No Transgression of the Constitution
by the Transfer of the WMCP Shares
Petitioners claim, first, that the alleged invalidity of the transfer of the
WMCP shares to Sagittarius violates the fourth paragraph of Section 2 of
Article XII of the Constitution; second, that it is contrary to the provisions of
the WMCP FTAA itself; and third, that the sale of the shares is suspect and
should therefore be the subject of a case in which its validity may properly
be litigated.
On the first ground, petitioners assert that paragraph 4 of Section 2 of
Article XII permits the government to enter into FTAAs only with foreignowned corporations. Petitioners insist that the first paragraph of this
constitutional provision limits the participation of Filipino corporations in the
exploration, development and utilization of natural resources to only three
species of contracts -- production sharing, co-production and joint venture - to the exclusion of all other arrangements or variations thereof, and the
WMCP FTAA may therefore not be validly assumed and implemented by
Sagittarius. In short, petitioners claim that a Filipino corporation is not
allowed by the Constitution to enter into an FTAA with the government.
However, a textual analysis of the first paragraph of Section 2 of Article XII
does not support petitioners' argument. The pertinent part of the said
provision states: "Sec. 2. x x x The exploration, development and utilization
of natural resources shall be under the full control and supervision of the
State. The State may directly undertake such activities, or it may enter into
capital is owned by such citizens. x x x." Nowhere in the provision is there
any express limitation or restriction insofar as arrangements other than the
three aforementioned contractual schemes are concerned.
Neither can one reasonably discern any implied stricture to that effect.
Besides, there is no basis to believe that the framers of the Constitution, a
majority of whom were obviously concerned with furthering the
development and utilization of the country's natural resources, could have
wanted to restrict Filipino participation in that area. This point is clear,
especially in the light of the overarching constitutional principle of giving
preference and priority to Filipinos and Filipino corporations in the
development of our natural resources.
Besides, even assuming (purely for argument's sake) that a constitutional
limitation barring Filipino corporations from holding and implementing an
FTAA actually exists, nevertheless, such provision would apply only to the
transfer of the FTAA to Sagittarius, but definitely not to the sale of WMC's
equity stake in WMCP to Sagittarius. Otherwise, an unreasonable
curtailment of property rights without due process of law would ensue.
Petitioners' argument must therefore fail.
FTAA Not Intended
Solely for Foreign Corporation
Equally barren of merit is the second ground cited by petitioners -- that the
FTAA was intended to apply solely to a foreign corporation, as can
allegedly be seen from the provisions therein. They manage to cite only
one WMCP FTAA provision that can be regarded as clearly intended to
apply only to a foreign contractor: Section 12, which provides for
international commercial arbitration under the auspices of the International
Chamber of Commerce, after local remedies are exhausted. This
provision, however, does not necessarily imply that the WMCP FTAA
cannot be transferred to and assumed by a Filipino corporation like
Sagittarius, in which event the said provision should simply be disregarded
as a superfluity.
No Need for a Separate
Litigation of the Sale of Shares
Petitioners claim as third ground the "suspicious" sale of shares from WMC
to Sagittarius; hence, the need to litigate it in a separate case. Section 40
of RA 7942 (the Mining Law) allegedly requires the President's prior
approval of a transfer.
A re-reading of the said provision, however, leads to a different conclusion.
"Sec. 40. Assignment/Transfer -- A financial or technical assistance
agreement may be assigned or transferred, in whole or in part, to a
qualified person subject to the prior approval of the President: Provided,
That the President shall notify Congress of every financial or technical
assistance agreement assigned or converted in accordance with this
provision within thirty (30) days from the date of the approval thereof."
Section 40 expressly applies to the assignment or transfer of the FTAA,
not to the sale and transfer of shares of stock in WMCP. Moreover, when
the transferee of an FTAA is another foreign corporation, there is a logical
application of the requirement of prior approval by the President of the
Republic and notification to Congress in the event of assignment or
transfer of an FTAA. In this situation, such approval and notification are
appropriate safeguards, considering that the new contractor is the subject
of a foreign government.
On the other hand, when the transferee of the FTAA happens to be a
Filipino corporation, the need for such safeguard is not critical; hence, the
lack of prior approval and notification may not be deemed fatal as to render
the transfer invalid. Besides, it is not as if approval by the President is
entirely absent in this instance. As pointed out by private respondent in its
Memorandum,13 the issue of approval is the subject of one of the cases
brought by Lepanto against Sagittarius in GR No. 162331. That case
involved the review of the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated
November 21, 2003 in CA-GR SP No. 74161, which affirmed the DENR
Order dated December 31, 2001 and the Decision of the Office of the
President dated July 23, 2002, both approving the assignment of the
WMCP FTAA to Sagittarius.
Petitioners also question the sale price and the financial capacity of the
transferee. According to the Deed of Absolute Sale dated January 23,
2001, executed between WMC and Sagittarius, the price of the WMCP
shares was fixed at US$9,875,000, equivalent to P553 million at an
exchange rate of 56:1. Sagittarius had an authorized capital stock of P250
million and a paid up capital of P60 million. Therefore, at the time of
approval of the sale by the DENR, the debt-to-equity ratio of the transferee
was over 9:1 -- hardly ideal for an FTAA contractor, according to
petitioners.
However, private respondents counter that the Deed of Sale specifically
provides that the payment of the purchase price would take place only
after Sagittarius' commencement of commercial production from mining
operations, if at all. Consequently, under the circumstances, we believe it
would not be reasonable to conclude, as petitioners did, that the
transferee's high debt-to-equity ratio per se necessarily carried negative
implications for the enterprise; and it would certainly be improper to
invalidate the sale on that basis, as petitioners propose.
FTAA Not Void,
Thus Transferrable
To bolster further their claim that the case is not moot, petitioners insist
that the FTAA is void and, hence cannot be transferred; and that its
transfer does not operate to cure the constitutional infirmity that is inherent
in it; neither will a change in the circumstances of one of the parties serve
to ratify the void contract.
Page 19 of 126
While the discussion in their Final Memorandum was skimpy, petitioners in

their Comment (on the MR) did ratiocinate that this Court had declared the
FTAA to be void because, at the time it was executed with WMCP, the
latter was a fully foreign-owned corporation, in which the former vested full
control and management with respect to the exploration, development and
utilization of mineral resources, contrary to the provisions of paragraph 4 of
Section 2 of Article XII of the Constitution. And since the FTAA was per se
void, no valid right could be transferred; neither could it be ratified, so
petitioners conclude.
our natural resources. It does not take deep knowledge of law and logic to
understand that what the Constitution grants to foreigners should be
equally available to Filipinos.
Petitioners have assumed as fact that which has yet to be established.

First and foremost, the Decision of this Court declaring the FTAA void has
not yet become final. That was precisely the reason the Court still heard
Oral Argument in this case. Second, the FTAA does not vest in the foreign
corporation full control and supervision over the exploration, development
and utilization of mineral resources, to the exclusion of the government.
This point will be dealt with in greater detail below; but for now, suffice it to
say that a perusal of the FTAA provisions will prove that the government
has effective overall direction and control of the mining operations,
including marketing and product pricing, and that the contractor's work
programs and budgets are subject to its review and approval or
disapproval.
All the protagonists are in agreement that the Court has jurisdiction to
decide this controversy, even assuming it to be moot.
As will be detailed later on, the government does not have to micromanage the mining operations and dip its hands into the day-to-day
management of the enterprise in order to be considered as having overall
control and direction. Besides, for practical and pragmatic reasons, there is
a need for government agencies to delegate certain aspects of the
management work to the contractor. Thus the basis for declaring the FTAA
void still has to be revisited, reexamined and reconsidered.
Petitioners sniff at the citation of Chavez v. Public Estates Authority,14 and
15
Halili v. CA, claiming that the doctrines in these cases are wholly
inapplicable to the instant case.
Chavez clearly teaches: "Thus, the Court has ruled consistently that where
a Filipino citizen sells land to an alien who later sells the land to a Filipino,
the invalidity of the first transfer is corrected by the subsequent sale to a
citizen. Similarly, where the alien who buys the land subsequently acquires
Philippine citizenship, the sale is validated since the purpose of the
constitutional ban to limit land ownership to Filipinos has been achieved. In
short, the law disregards the constitutional disqualification of the buyer to
hold land if the land is subsequently transferred to a qualified party, or the
buyer himself becomes a qualified party."16
In their Comment, petitioners contend that in Chavez and Halili, the object
of the transfer (the land) was not what was assailed for alleged
unconstitutionality. Rather, it was the transaction that was assailed; hence
subsequent compliance with constitutional provisions would cure its
infirmity. In contrast, in the instant case it is the FTAA itself, the object of
the transfer, that is being assailed as invalid and unconstitutional. So,
petitioners claim that the subsequent transfer of a void FTAA to a Filipino
corporation would not cure the defect.
Petitioners are confusing themselves. The present Petition has been filed,
precisely because the grantee of the FTAA was a wholly owned subsidiary
of a foreign corporation. It cannot be gainsaid that anyone would have
asserted that the same FTAA was void if it had at the outset been issued
to a Filipino corporation. The FTAA, therefore, is not per se defective or
unconstitutional. It was questioned only because it had been issued to an
allegedly non-qualified, foreign-owned corporation.
We believe that this case is clearly analogous to Halili, in which the land
acquired by a non-Filipino was re-conveyed to a qualified vendee and the
original transaction was thereby cured. Paraphrasing Halili, the same
rationale applies to the instant case: assuming arguendo the invalidity of its
prior grant to a foreign corporation, the disputed FTAA -- being now held
by a Filipino corporation -- can no longer be assailed; the objective of the
constitutional provision -- to keep the exploration, development and
utilization of our natural resources in Filipino hands -- has been served.
More accurately speaking, the present situation is one degree better than
that obtaining in Halili, in which the original sale to a non-Filipino was
clearly and indisputably violative of the constitutional prohibition and thus
void ab initio. In the present case, the issuance/grant of the subject FTAA
to the then foreign-owned WMCP was not illegal, void or unconstitutional
at the time. The matter had to be brought to court, precisely for
adjudication as to whether the FTAA and the Mining Law had indeed
violated the Constitution. Since, up to this point, the decision of this Court
declaring the FTAA void has yet to become final, to all intents and
17
purposes, the FTAA must be deemed valid and constitutional.
At bottom, we find completely outlandish petitioners' contention that an
FTAA could be entered into by the government only with a foreign
corporation, never with a Filipino enterprise. Indeed, the nationalistic
provisions of the Constitution are all anchored on the protection of Filipino
interests. How petitioners can now argue that foreigners have the
exclusive right to FTAAs totally overturns the entire basis of the Petition -preference for the Filipino in the exploration, development and utilization of
Second Issue:
Whether the Court Can Still Decide the Case,
Even Assuming It Is Moot
Petitioners stress the following points. First, while a case becomes moot
and academic when "there is no more actual controversy between the
parties or no useful purpose can be served in passing upon the merits,"18
what is at issue in the instant case is not only the validity of the WMCP
FTAA, but also the constitutionality of RA 7942 and its Implementing Rules
and Regulations. Second, the acts of private respondent cannot operate to
cure the law of its alleged unconstitutionality or to divest this Court of its
jurisdiction to decide. Third, the Constitution imposes upon the Supreme
Court the duty to declare invalid any law that offends the Constitution.
Petitioners also argue that no amendatory laws have been passed to make
the Mining Act of 1995 conform to constitutional strictures (assuming that,
at present, it does not); that public respondents will continue to implement
and enforce the statute until this Court rules otherwise; and that the said
law continues to be the source of legal authority in accepting, processing
and approving numerous applications for mining rights.
Indeed, it appears that as of June 30, 2002, some 43 FTAA applications
had been filed with the Mines and Geosciences Bureau (MGB), with an
aggregate area of 2,064,908.65 hectares -- spread over Luzon, the
Visayas and Mindanao19 -- applied for. It may be a bit far-fetched to assert,
as petitioners do, that each and every FTAA that was entered into under
the provisions of the Mining Act "invites potential litigation" for as long as
the constitutional issues are not resolved with finality. Nevertheless, we
must concede that there exists the distinct possibility that one or more of
the future FTAAs will be the subject of yet another suit grounded on
constitutional issues.
But of equal if not greater significance is the cloud of uncertainty hanging
over the mining industry, which is even now scaring away foreign
investments. Attesting to this climate of anxiety is the fact that the
Chamber of Mines of the Philippines saw the urgent need to intervene in
the case and to present its position during the Oral Argument; and that
Secretary General Romulo Neri of the National Economic Development
Authority (NEDA) requested this Court to allow him to speak, during that
Oral Argument, on the economic consequences of the Decision of January
27, 2004.20
We are convinced. We now agree that the Court must recognize the
exceptional character of the situation and the paramount public interest
involved, as well as the necessity for a ruling to put an end to the
uncertainties plaguing the mining industry and the affected communities as
a result of doubts cast upon the constitutionality and validity of the Mining
Act, the subject FTAA and future FTAAs, and the need to avert a
multiplicity of suits. Paraphrasing Gonzales v. Commission on Elections,21
it is evident that strong reasons of public policy demand that the
constitutionality issue be resolved now.22
In further support of the immediate resolution of the constitutionality issue,
public respondents cite Acop v. Guingona,23 to the effect that the courts
will decide a question -- otherwise moot and academic -- if it is "capable of
repetition, yet evading review."24 Public respondents ask the Court to avoid
a situation in which the constitutionality issue may again arise with respect
to another FTAA, the resolution of which may not be achieved until after it
has become too late for our mining industry to grow out of its infancy. They
also recall Salonga v. Cruz Pao,25 in which this Court declared that "(t)he
Court also has the duty to formulate guiding and controlling constitutional
principles, precepts, doctrines or rules. It has the symbolic function of
educating the bench and bar on the extent of protection given by
constitutional guarantees. x x x."
The mootness of the case in relation to the WMCP FTAA led the
undersigned ponente to state in his dissent to the Decision that there was
no more justiciable controversy and the plea to nullify the Mining Law has
become a virtual petition for declaratory relief.26 The entry of the Chamber
of Mines of the Philippines, Inc., however, has put into focus the
seriousness of the allegations of unconstitutionality of RA 7942 and DAO
96-40 which converts the case to one for prohibition27 in the enforcement
of the said law and regulations.
Indeed, this CMP entry brings to fore that the real issue in this case is
whether paragraph 4 of Section 2 of Article XII of the Constitution is
contravened by RA 7942 and DAO 96-40, not whether it was violated by
specific acts implementing RA 7942 and DAO 96-40. "[W]hen an act of the
legislative department is seriously alleged to have infringed the
Constitution, settling the controversy becomes the duty of this Court. By
Page 20 of 126
the mere enactment of the questioned law or the approval of the

challenged action, the dispute is said to have ripened into a judicial
controversy even without any other overt act."28 This ruling can be traced
from Taada v. Angara,29 in which the Court said:
"In seeking to nullify an act of the Philippine Senate on the
ground that it contravenes the Constitution, the petition no doubt
raises a justiciable controversy. Where an action of the
legislative branch is seriously alleged to have infringed the
Constitution, it becomes not only the right but in fact the duty of
the judiciary to settle the dispute.
xxxxxxxxx
"As this Court has repeatedly and firmly emphasized in many
cases, it will not shirk, digress from or abandon its sacred duty
and authority to uphold the Constitution in matters that involve
grave abuse of discretion brought before it in appropriate cases,
committed by any officer, agency, instrumentality or department
of the government."30
Additionally, the entry of CMP into this case has also effectively forestalled
any possible objections arising from the standing or legal interest of the
original parties.
For all the foregoing reasons, we believe that the Court should proceed to
a resolution of the constitutional issues in this case.
Third Issue:
The Proper Interpretation of the Constitutional Phrase
"Agreements Involving Either Technical or Financial Assistance"
The constitutional provision at the nucleus of the controversy is paragraph
4 of Section 2 of Article XII of the 1987 Constitution. In order to appreciate
its context, Section 2 is reproduced in full:
"Sec. 2. All lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal,
petroleum, and other mineral oils, all forces of potential energy,
fisheries, forests or timber, wildlife, flora and fauna, and other
natural resources are owned by the State. With the exception of
agricultural lands, all other natural resources shall not be
alienated. The exploration, development and utilization of natural
resources shall be under the full control and supervision of the
State. The State may directly undertake such activities, or it may
enter into co-production, joint venture or production-sharing
agreements with Filipino citizens or corporations or associations
at least sixty per centum of whose capital is owned by such
citizens. Such agreements may be for a period not exceeding
twenty-five years, renewable for not more than twenty-five years,
and under such terms and conditions as may be provided by
law. In cases of water rights for irrigation, water supply, fisheries,
or industrial uses other than the development of water power,
beneficial use may be the measure and limit of the grant.
"The State shall protect the nation's marine wealth in its
archipelagic waters, territorial sea, and exclusive economic
zone, and reserve its use and enjoyment exclusively to Filipino
citizens.
"The Congress may, by law, allow small-scale utilization of
natural resources by Filipino citizens, as well as cooperative fish
farming, with priority to subsistence fishermen and fish-workers
in rivers, lakes, bays and lagoons.
"The President may enter into agreements with foreign-owned
corporations involving either technical or financial
assistance for large-scale exploration, development, and
utilization of minerals, petroleum, and other mineral oils
according to the general terms and conditions provided by law,
based on real contributions to the economic growth and general
welfare of the country. In such agreements, the State shall
promote the development and use of local scientific and
technical resources.
"The President shall notify the Congress of every contract
entered into in accordance with this provision, within thirty days
from its execution."31
No Restriction of Meaning by
a Verba Legis Interpretation
To interpret the foregoing provision, petitioners adamantly assert that the
language of the Constitution should prevail; that the primary method of
interpreting it is to seek the ordinary meaning of the words used in its
provisions. They rely on rulings of this Court, such as the following:
"The fundamental principle in constitutional construction

however is that the primary source from which to ascertain
constitutional intent or purpose is the language of the provision
itself. The presumption is that the words in which the
constitutional provisions are couched express the objective
sought to be attained. In other words, verba legis prevails. Only
when the meaning of the words used is unclear and equivocal
should resort be made to extraneous aids of construction and
interpretation, such as the proceedings of the Constitutional
Commission or Convention to shed light on and ascertain the
true intent or purpose of the provision being construed."32
Very recently, in Francisco v. The House of Representatives,33 this Court
indeed had the occasion to reiterate the well-settled principles of
constitutional construction:
"First, verba legis, that is, wherever possible, the words used in
the Constitution must be given their ordinary meaning except
where technical terms are employed. x x x.
xxxxxxxxx
"Second, where there is ambiguity, ratio legis est anima. The
words of the Constitution should be interpreted in accordance
with the intent of its framers. x x x.
xxxxxxxxx
"Finally, ut magis valeat quam pereat. The Constitution is to be
interpreted as a whole."34
For ease of reference and in consonance with verba legis, we reconstruct
and stratify the aforequoted Section 2 as follows:
1. All natural resources are owned by the State. Except for
agricultural lands, natural resources cannot be alienated by the
State.
2. The exploration, development and utilization (EDU) of natural
State.
3. The State may undertake these EDU activities through either
of the following:
(a) By itself directly and solely
(b) By (i) co-production; (ii) joint venture; or (iii)
production sharing agreements with Filipino citizens or
corporations, at least 60 percent of the capital of which
is owned by such citizens
4. Small-scale utilization of natural resources may be allowed by
law in favor of Filipino citizens.
5. For large-scale EDU of minerals, petroleum and other mineral
oils, the President may enter into "agreements with foreignowned corporations involving either technical or financial
assistance according to the general terms and conditions
provided by law x x x."
Note that in all the three foregoing mining activities -- exploration,
development and utilization -- the State may undertake such EDU activities
by itself or in tandem with Filipinos or Filipino corporations, except in two
instances: first, in small-scale utilization of natural resources, which
Filipinos may be allowed by law to undertake; and second, in large-scale
EDU of minerals, petroleum and mineral oils, which may be undertaken by
the State via "agreements with foreign-owned corporations involving either
technical or financial assistance" as provided by law.
Petitioners claim that the phrase "agreements x x x involving either
technical or financial assistance" simply means technical assistance or
financial assistance agreements, nothing more and nothing else. They
insist that there is no ambiguity in the phrase, and that a plain reading of
paragraph 4 quoted above leads to the inescapable conclusion that what a
foreign-owned corporation may enter into with the government is merely an
agreement for either financial or technical assistance only, for the largescale exploration, development and utilization of minerals, petroleum and
other mineral oils; such a limitation, they argue, excludes foreign
management and operation of a mining enterprise.35
This restrictive interpretation, petitioners believe, is in line with the general
policy enunciated by the Constitution reserving to Filipino citizens and
corporations the use and enjoyment of the country's natural resources.
They maintain that this Court's Decision36 of January 27, 2004 correctly
declared the WMCP FTAA, along with pertinent provisions of RA 7942,
void for allowing a foreign contractor to have direct and exclusive
management of a mining enterprise. Allowing such a privilege not only
runs counter to the "full control and supervision" that the State is
constitutionally mandated to exercise over the exploration, development
and utilization of the country's natural resources; doing so also vests in the
foreign company "beneficial ownership" of our mineral resources. It will be
recalled that the Decision of January 27, 2004 zeroed in on "management
or other forms of assistance" or other activities associated with the "service
contracts" of the martial law regime, since "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."
Page 21 of 126
On the other hand, the intervenor37 and public respondents argue that the
FTAA allowed by paragraph 4 is not merely an agreement for supplying
limited and specific financial or technical services to the State. Rather,
such FTAA is a comprehensive agreement for the foreign-owned
corporation's integrated exploration, development and utilization of
mineral, petroleum or other mineral oils on a large-scale basis. The
agreement, therefore, authorizes the foreign contractor's rendition of a
whole range of integrated and comprehensive services, ranging from the
discovery to the development, utilization and production of minerals or
petroleum products.
We do not see how applying a strictly literal or verba legis interpretation of
paragraph 4 could inexorably lead to the conclusions arrived at in the
ponencia. First, the drafters' choice of words -- their use of the phrase
agreements x x x involving either technical or financial assistance -- does
not indicate the intent to exclude other modes of assistance. The drafters
opted to use involving when they could have simply said agreements for
financial or technical assistance, if that was their intention to begin with. In
this case, the limitation would be very clear and no further debate would
ensue.
In contrast, the use of the word "involving" signifies the possibility of the
inclusion of other forms of assistance or activities having to do with,
otherwise related to or compatible with financial or technical assistance.
The word "involving" as used in this context has three connotations that
can be differentiated thus: one, the sense of "concerning," "having to do
with," or "affecting"; two, "entailing," "requiring," "implying" or
"necessitating"; and three, "including," "containing" or "comprising."38
Plainly, none of the three connotations convey a sense of exclusivity.
Moreover, the word "involving," when understood in the sense of
"including," as in including technical or financial assistance, necessarily
implies that there are activities other than those that are being included. In
other words, if an agreement includes technical or financial assistance,
there is apart from such assistance -- something else already in, and
covered or may be covered by, the said agreement.
In short, it allows for the possibility that matters, other than those explicitly
mentioned, could be made part of the agreement. Thus, we are now led to
the conclusion that the use of the word "involving" implies that these
agreements with foreign corporations are not limited to mere financial or
technical assistance. The difference in sense becomes very apparent
when we juxtapose "agreements for technical or financial assistance"
against "agreements including technical or financial assistance." This
much is unalterably clear in a verba legis approach.
Second, if the real intention of the drafters was to confine foreign
corporations to financial or technical assistance and nothing more, their
language would have certainly been so unmistakably restrictive and
stringent as to leave no doubt in anyone's mind about their true intent. For
example, they would have used the sentence foreign corporations are
absolutely prohibited from involvement in the management or operation
of mining or similar ventures or words of similar import. A search for such
stringent wording yields negative results. Thus, we come to the
inevitable conclusion that there was a conscious and deliberate
decision to avoid the use of restrictive wording that bespeaks an
intent not to use the expression "agreements x x x involving either
technical or financial assistance" in an exclusionary and limiting
manner.
Deletion of "Service Contracts" to
Avoid Pitfalls of Previous Constitutions,
Not to Ban Service Contracts Per Se
Third, we do not see how a verba legis approach leads to the conclusion
that "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."
Nowhere in the above-quoted Section can be discerned the objective to
keep out of foreign hands the management or operation of mining activities
or the plan to eradicate service contracts as these were understood in the
1973 Constitution. Still, petitioners maintain that the deletion or omission
from the 1987 Constitution of the term "service contracts" found in the
1973 Constitution sufficiently proves the drafters' intent to exclude
foreigners from the management of the affected enterprises.
To our mind, however, such intent cannot be definitively and conclusively
established from the mere failure to carry the same expression or term
over to the new Constitution, absent a more specific, explicit and
unequivocal statement to that effect. What petitioners seek (a complete
ban on foreign participation in the management of mining operations, as
previously allowed by the earlier Constitutions) is nothing short of bringing
about a momentous sea change in the economic and developmental
policies; and the fundamentally capitalist, free-enterprise philosophy of our
government. We cannot imagine such a radical shift being undertaken by
our government, to the great prejudice of the mining sector in particular
and our economy in general, merely on the basis of the omission of the
terms service contract from or the failure to carry them over to the new
Constitution. There has to be a much more definite and even unarguable

basis for such a drastic reversal of policies.
Fourth, a literal and restrictive interpretation of paragraph 4, such as that
proposed by petitioners, suffers from certain internal logical
inconsistencies that generate ambiguities in the understanding of the
provision. As the intervenor pointed out, there has never been any
constitutional or statutory provision that reserved to Filipino citizens or
corporations, at least 60 percent of which is Filipino-owned, the rendition of
financial or technical assistance to companies engaged in mining or the
development of any other natural resource. The taking out of foreigncurrency or peso-denominated loans or any other kind of financial
assistance, as well as the rendition of technical assistance -- whether to
the State or to any other entity in the Philippines -- has never been
restricted in favor of Filipino citizens or corporations having a certain
minimum percentage of Filipino equity. Such a restriction would certainly
be preposterous and unnecessary. As a matter of fact, financial, and even
technical assistance, regardless of the nationality of its source, would be
welcomed in the mining industry anytime with open arms, on account of
the dearth of local capital and the need to continually update technological
know-how and improve technical skills.
There was therefore no need for a constitutional provision specifically
allowing foreign-owned corporations to render financial or technical
assistance, whether in respect of mining or some other resource
development or commercial activity in the Philippines. The last point
needs to be emphasized: if merely financial or technical assistance
agreements are allowed, there would be no need to limit them to
large-scale mining operations, as there would be far greater need for
them in the smaller-scale mining activities (and even in non-mining
areas). Obviously, the provision in question was intended to refer to
agreements other than those for mere financial or technical
assistance.
In like manner, there would be no need to require the President of the
Republic to report to Congress, if only financial or technical assistance
agreements are involved. Such agreements are in the nature of foreign
39
loans that -- pursuant to Section 20 of Article VII of the 1987 Constitution
-- the President may contract or guarantee, merely with the prior
concurrence of the Monetary Board. In turn, the Board is required to report
to Congress within thirty days from the end of every quarter of the calendar
year, not thirty days after the agreement is entered into.
And if paragraph 4 permits only agreements for loans and other forms of
financial, or technical assistance, what is the point of requiring that they be
based on real contributions to the economic growth and general welfare of
the country? For instance, how is one to measure and assess the "real
contributions" to the "economic growth" and "general welfare" of the
country that may ensue from a foreign-currency loan agreement or a
technical-assistance agreement for, say, the refurbishing of an existing
power generating plant for a mining operation somewhere in Mindanao?
Such a criterion would make more sense when applied to a major business
investment in a principal sector of the industry.
The conclusion is clear and inescapable -- a verba legis construction
shows that paragraph 4 is not to be understood as one limited only to
foreign loans (or other forms of financial support) and to technical
assistance. There is definitely more to it than that. These are provisions
permitting participation by foreign companies; requiring the
President's report to Congress; and using, as yardstick,
contributions based on economic growth and general welfare. These
were neither accidentally inserted into the Constitution nor carelessly
cobbled together by the drafters in lip service to shallow nationalism.
The provisions patently have significance and usefulness in a context that
allows agreements with foreign companies to include more than mere
financial or technical assistance.
Fifth, it is argued that Section 2 of Article XII authorizes nothing more than
a rendition of specific and limited financial service or technical assistance
by a foreign company. This argument begs the question "To whom or for
whom would it be rendered"? or Who is being assisted? If the answer is
"The State," then it necessarily implies that the State itself is the one
directly and solely undertaking the large-scale exploration, development
and utilization of a mineral resource, so it follows that the State must itself
bear the liability and cost of repaying the financing sourced from the
foreign lender and/or of paying compensation to the foreign entity
rendering technical assistance.
However, it is of common knowledge, and of judicial notice as well, that the
government is and has for many many years been financially strapped, to
the point that even the most essential services have suffered serious
curtailments -- education and health care, for instance, not to mention
judicial services -- have had to make do with inadequate budgetary
allocations. Thus, government has had to resort to build-operate-transfer
and similar arrangements with the private sector, in order to get vital
infrastructure projects built without any governmental outlay.
The very recent brouhaha over the gargantuan "fiscal crisis" or "budget
deficit" merely confirms what the ordinary citizen has suspected all along.
Page 22 of 126
After the reality check, one will have to admit the implausibility of a direct
undertaking -- by the State itself -- of large-scale exploration, development
and utilization of minerals, petroleum and other mineral oils. Such an
undertaking entails not only humongous capital requirements, but also the
attendant risk of never finding and developing economically viable
quantities of minerals, petroleum and other mineral oils.40
It is equally difficult to imagine that such a provision restricting foreign
companies to the rendition of only financial or technical assistance to the
government was deliberately crafted by the drafters of the Constitution,
who were all well aware of the capital-intensive and technology-oriented
nature of large-scale mineral or petroleum extraction and the country's
deficiency in precisely those areas.41 To say so would be tantamount to
asserting that the provision was purposely designed to ladle the largescale development and utilization of mineral, petroleum and related
resources with impossible conditions; and to remain forever and
permanently "reserved" for future generations of Filipinos.
A More Reasonable Look
at the Charter's Plain Language
Sixth, we shall now look closer at the plain language of the Charter and
examining the logical inferences. The drafters chose to emphasize and
highlight agreements x x x involving either technical or financial assistance
in relation to foreign corporations' participation in large-scale EDU. The
inclusion of this clause on "technical or financial assistance" recognizes
the fact that foreign business entities and multinational corporations are
the ones with the resources and know-how to provide technical and/or
financial assistance of the magnitude and type required for large-scale
exploration, development and utilization of these resources.
The drafters -- whose ranks included many academicians, economists,
businessmen, lawyers, politicians and government officials -- were not
unfamiliar with the practices of foreign corporations and multinationals.
Neither were they so nave as to believe that these entities would provide
"assistance" without conditionalities or some quid pro quo. Definitely, as
business persons well know and as a matter of judicial notice, this matter
is not just a question of signing a promissory note or executing a
technology transfer agreement. Foreign corporations usually require that
they be given a say in the management, for instance, of day-to-day
operations of the joint venture. They would demand the appointment of
their own men as, for example, operations managers, technical experts,
quality control heads, internal auditors or comptrollers. Furthermore, they
would probably require seats on the Board of Directors -- all these to
ensure the success of the enterprise and the repayment of the loans and
other financial assistance and to make certain that the funding and the
technology they supply would not go to waste. Ultimately, they would also
want to protect their business reputation and bottom lines.42
In short, the drafters will have to be credited with enough pragmatism and
savvy to know that these foreign entities will not enter into such
"agreements involving assistance" without requiring arrangements for the
protection of their investments, gains and benefits.
Thus, by specifying such "agreements involving assistance," the drafters
necessarily gave implied assent to everything that these agreements
necessarily entailed; or that could reasonably be deemed necessary to
make them tenable and effective, including management authority with
respect to the day-to-day operations of the enterprise and measures for
the protection of the interests of the foreign corporation, PROVIDED THAT
Philippine sovereignty over natural resources and full control over the
enterprise undertaking the EDU activities remain firmly in the State.
Petitioners' Theory Deflated by the
Absence of Closing-Out Rules or Guidelines
Seventh and final point regarding the plain-language approach, one of the
practical difficulties that results from it is the fact that there is nothing by
way of transitory provisions that would serve to confirm the theory that the
omission of the term "service contract" from the 1987 Constitution signaled
the demise of service contracts.
The framers knew at the time they were deliberating that there were
various service contracts extant and in force and effect, including those in
the petroleum industry. Many of these service contracts were long-term (25
years) and had several more years to run. If they had meant to ban service
contracts altogether, they would have had to provide for the termination or
pretermination of the existing contracts. Accordingly, they would have
supplied the specifics and the when and how of effecting the
extinguishment of these existing contracts (or at least the mechanics for
determining them); and of putting in place the means to address the just
claims of the contractors for compensation for their investments, lost
opportunities, and so on, if not for the recovery thereof.
If the framers had intended to put an end to service contracts, they would
have at least left specific instructions to Congress to deal with these
closing-out issues, perhaps by way of general guidelines and a timeline
within which to carry them out. The following are some extant examples of
such transitory guidelines set forth in Article XVIII of our Constitution:
"Section 23. Advertising entities affected by paragraph (2),
Section 11 of Article XVI of this Constitution shall have five years
from its ratification to comply on a graduated and proportionate
basis with the minimum Filipino ownership requirement therein.
xxxxxxxxx
"Section 25. After the expiration in 1991 of the Agreement
between the Republic of the Philippines and the United States of
America concerning military bases, foreign military bases,
troops, or facilities shall not be allowed in the Philippines except
under a treaty duly concurred in by the Senate and, when the
Congress so requires, ratified by a majority of the votes cast by
the people in a national referendum held for that purpose, and
recognized as a treaty by the other contracting State.
"Section 26. The authority to issue sequestration or freeze
orders under Proclamation No. 3 dated March 25, 1986 in
relation to the recovery of ill-gotten wealth shall remain operative
for not more than eighteen months after the ratification of this
Constitution. However, in the national interest, as certified by the
President, the Congress may extend such period.
A sequestration or freeze order shall be issued only upon
showing of a prima facie case. The order and the list of the
sequestered or frozen properties shall forthwith be registered
with the proper court. For orders issued before the ratification of
this Constitution, the corresponding judicial action or proceeding
shall be filed within six months from its ratification. For those
issued after such ratification, the judicial action or proceeding
shall be commenced within six months from the issuance
thereof.
The sequestration or freeze order is deemed automatically lifted
if no judicial action or proceeding is commenced as herein
provided." 43]
It is inconceivable that the drafters of the Constitution would leave such an
important matter -- an expression of sovereignty as it were -- indefinitely
hanging in the air in a formless and ineffective state. Indeed, the complete
absence of even a general framework only serves to further deflate
petitioners' theory, like a child's balloon losing its air.
Under the circumstances, the logical inconsistencies resulting from
petitioners' literal and purely verba legis approach to paragraph 4 of
Section 2 of Article XII compel a resort to other aids to interpretation.
Petitioners' Posture Also Negated
by Ratio Legis Et Anima
Thus, in order to resolve the inconsistencies, incongruities and ambiguities
encountered and to supply the deficiencies of the plain-language
approach, there is a need for recourse to the proceedings of the 1986
Constitutional Commission. There is a need for ratio legis et anima.
Service Contracts Not
"Deconstitutionalized"
Pertinent portions of the deliberations of the members of the Constitutional
Commission (ConCom) conclusively show that they discussed agreements
involving either technical or financial assistance in the same breadth as
service contracts and used the terms interchangeably. The following
exchange between Commissioner Jamir (sponsor of the provision) and
Commissioner Suarez irrefutably proves that the "agreements involving
technical or financial assistance" were none other than service contracts.
THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Jamir is recognized. We are
still on Section 3.
MR. JAMIR. Yes, Madam President. With respect to the second
paragraph of Section 3, my amendment by substitution reads:
THE PRESIDENT MAY ENTER INTO AGREEMENTS WITH
FOREIGN-OWNED CORPORATIONS INVOLVING EITHER
TECHNICAL OR FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR LARGESCALE EXPLORATION, DEVELOPMENT AND UTILIZATION
OF NATURAL RESOURCES ACCORDING TO THE TERMS
AND CONDITIONS PROVIDED BY LAW.
MR. VILLEGAS. The Committee accepts the amendment.
Commissioner Suarez will give the background.
MR. JAMIR. Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Suarez is recognized.
MR. SUAREZ. Thank you, Madam President.
Will Commissioner Jamir answer a few clarificatory questions?
MR. JAMIR. Yes, Madam President.
MR. SUAREZ. This particular portion of the section has
reference to what was popularly known before as service
contracts, among other things, is that correct?
MR. JAMIR. Yes, Madam President.
MR. SUAREZ. As it is formulated, the President may enter into
service contracts but subject to the guidelines that may be
promulgated by Congress?
MR. JAMIR. That is correct.
MR. SUAREZ. Therefore, that aspect of negotiation and
consummation will fall on the President, not upon Congress?
MR. JAMIR. That is also correct, Madam President.
MR. SUAREZ. Except that all of these contracts, service or
otherwise, must be made strictly in accordance with guidelines
prescribed by Congress?
MR. JAMIR. That is also correct.
MR. SUAREZ. And the Gentleman is thinking in terms of a law
that uniformly covers situations of the same nature?
MR. JAMIR. That is 100 percent correct.
MR. SUAREZ. I thank the Commissioner.
MR. JAMIR. Thank you very much.44
Page 23 of 126
The following exchange leaves no doubt that the commissioners knew

exactly what they were dealing with: service contracts.
THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Gascon is recognized.
MR. GASCON. Commissioner Jamir had proposed an
amendment with regard to special service contracts which was
accepted by the Committee. Since the Committee has accepted
it, I would like to ask some questions.
THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Gascon may proceed.
MR. GASCON. As it is proposed now, such service contracts
will be entered into by the President with the guidelines of a
general law on service contract to be enacted by Congress. Is
that correct?
MR. VILLEGAS. The Commissioner is right, Madam President.
MR. GASCON. According to the original proposal, if the
President were to enter into a particular agreement, he would
need the concurrence of Congress. Now that it has been
changed by the proposal of Commissioner Jamir in that
Congress will set the general law to which the President shall
comply, the President will, therefore, not need the concurrence
of Congress every time he enters into service contracts. Is that
correct?
MR. VILLEGAS. That is right.
MR. GASCON. The proposed amendment of Commissioner
Jamir is in indirect contrast to my proposed amendment, so I
would like to object and present my proposed amendment to the
body.
xxxxxxxxx
MR. GASCON. Yes, it will be up to the body.
I feel that the general law to be set by Congress as regard
service contract agreements which the President will enter into
might be too general or since we do not know the content yet of
such a law, it might be that certain agreements will be
detrimental to the interest of the Filipinos. This is in direct
contrast to my proposal which provides that there be effective
constraints in the implementation of service contracts.
So instead of a general law to be passed by Congress to serve
as a guideline to the President when entering into service
contract agreements, I propose that every service contract
entered into by the President would need the concurrence of
Congress, so as to assure the Filipinos of their interests with
regard to the issue in Section 3 on all lands of the public domain.
My alternative amendment, which we will discuss later, reads:
THAT THE PRESIDENT SHALL ENTER INTO SUCH
AGREEMENTS ONLY WITH THE CONCURRENCE OF TWOTHIRDS VOTE OF ALL THE MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
SITTING SEPARATELY.
xxxxxxxxx
MR. BENGZON. The reason we made that shift is that we
realized the original proposal could breed corruption. By the
way, this is not just confined to service contracts but also to
financial assistance. If we are going to make every single
contract subject to the concurrence of Congress which,
according to the Commissioner's amendment is the concurrence
of two-thirds of Congress voting separately then (1) there is a
very great chance that each contract will be different from
another; and (2) there is a great temptation that it would breed
corruption because of the great lobbying that is going to happen.
And we do not want to subject our legislature to that.
Now, to answer the Commissioner's apprehension, by "general
law," we do not mean statements of motherhood. Congress can
build all the restrictions that it wishes into that general law so
that every contract entered into by the President under that
specific area will have to be uniform. The President has no
choice but to follow all the guidelines that will be provided by
law.
MR. GASCON. But my basic problem is that we do not know as
of yet the contents of such a general law as to how much
constraints there will be in it. And to my mind, although the
Committee's contention that the regular concurrence from
Congress would subject Congress to extensive lobbying, I think
that is a risk we will have to take since Congress is a body of
representatives of the people whose membership will be
changing regularly as there will be changing circumstances
every time certain agreements are made. It would be best then
to keep in tab and attuned to the interest of the Filipino people,
whenever the President enters into any agreement with regard
to such an important matter as technical or financial
assistance for large-scale exploration, development and
utilization of natural resources or service contracts, the
people's elected representatives should be on top of it.
xxxxxxxxx
MR. OPLE. Madam President, we do not need to suspend the
session. If Commissioner Gascon needs a few minutes, I can fill
up the remaining time while he completes his proposed
amendment. I just wanted to ask Commissioner Jamir whether
he would entertain a minor amendment to his amendment, and it
reads as follows: THE PRESIDENT SHALL SUBSEQUENTLY
NOTIFY CONGRESS OF EVERY SERVICE CONTRACT

ENTERED INTO IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE GENERAL
LAW. I think the reason is, if I may state it briefly, as
Commissioner Bengzon said, Congress can always change the
general law later on to conform to new perceptions of standards
that should be built into service contracts. But the only way
Congress can do this is if there were a notification requirement
from the Office of the President that such service contracts had
been entered into, subject then to the scrutiny of the Members of
Congress. This pertains to a situation where the service
contracts are already entered into, and all that this amendment
seeks is the reporting requirement from the Office of the
President. Will Commissioner Jamir entertain that?
MR. JAMIR. I will gladly do so, if it is still within my power.
MR. VILLEGAS. Yes, the Committee accepts the amendment.
xxxxxxxxx
SR. TAN. Madam President, may I ask a question?
THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Tan is recognized.
SR. TAN. Am I correct in thinking that the only difference
between these future service contracts and the past service
contracts under Mr. Marcos is the general law to be enacted by
the legislature and the notification of Congress by the President?
That is the only difference, is it not?
MR. VILLEGAS. That is right.
SR. TAN. So those are the safeguards.
MR. VILLEGAS. Yes. There was no law at all governing service
contracts before.
SR. TAN. Thank you, Madam President.45
More Than Mere Financial
and Technical Assistance
Entailed by the Agreements
The clear words of Commissioner Jose N. Nolledo quoted below explicitly
and eloquently demonstrate that the drafters knew that the agreements
with foreign corporations were going to entail not mere technical or
financial assistance but, rather, foreign investment in and management of
an enterprise involved in large-scale exploration, development and
utilization of minerals, petroleum, and other mineral oils.
THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Nolledo is recognized.
MR. NOLLEDO. Madam President, I have the permission of the
Acting Floor Leader to speak for only two minutes in favor of the
amendment of Commissioner Gascon.
THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Nolledo may proceed.
MR. NOLLEDO. With due respect to the members of the
Committee and Commissioner Jamir, I am in favor of the
objection of Commissioner Gascon.
Madam President, I was one of those who refused to
sign the 1973 Constitution, and one of the reasons is
that there were many provisions in the Transitory
Provisions therein that favored aliens. I was shocked
when I read a provision authorizing service contracts
while we, in this Constitutional Commission, provided
for Filipino control of the economy. We are, therefore,
providing for exceptional instances where aliens may
circumvent Filipino control of our economy. And one
way of circumventing the rule in favor of Filipino
control of the economy is to recognize service
contracts.
As far as I am concerned, if I should have my own
way, I am for the complete deletion of this provision.
However, we are presenting a compromise in the
sense that we are requiring a two-thirds vote of all the
Members of Congress as a safeguard. I think we
should not mistrust the future Members of Congress
by saying that the purpose of this provision is to avoid
corruption. We cannot claim that they are less patriotic
than we are. I think the Members of this Commission
should know that entering into service contracts is an
exception to the rule on protection of natural resources
for the interest of the nation, and therefore, being an
exception it should be subject, whenever possible, to
stringent rules. It seems to me that we are liberalizing
the rules in favor of aliens.
I say these things with a heavy heart, Madam
President. I do not claim to be a nationalist, but I love
my country. Although we need investments, we
must adopt safeguards that are truly reflective of the
sentiments of the people and not mere cosmetic
safeguards as they now appear in the Jamir
amendment. (Applause)
Thank you, Madam President.46
Another excerpt, featuring then Commissioner (now Chief Justice) Hilario
G. Davide Jr., indicates the limitations of the scope of such service
contracts -- they are valid only in regard to minerals, petroleum and other
mineral oils, not to all natural resources.
THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Davide is recognized.
MR. DAVIDE. Thank you, Madam President. This is an
amendment to the Jamir amendment and also to the Ople
amendment. I propose to delete "NATURAL RESOURCES" and
substitute it with the following: MINERALS, PETROLEUM AND
OTHER MINERAL OILS. On the Ople amendment, I propose to
add: THE NOTIFICATION TO CONGRESS SHALL BE WITHIN
THIRTY DAYS FROM THE EXECUTION OF THE SERVICE
CONTRACT.
Page 24 of 126
THE PRESIDENT. What does the Committee say with respect to

the first amendment in lieu of "NATURAL RESOURCES"?
MR. VILLEGAS. Could Commissioner Davide explain that?
MR. DAVIDE. Madam President, with the use of "NATURAL
RESOURCES" here, it would necessarily include all lands of the
public domain, our marine resources, forests, parks and so on.
So we would like to limit the scope of these service contracts to
those areas really where these may be needed, the exploitation,
development and exploration of minerals, petroleum and other
mineral oils. And so, we believe that we should really, if we want
to grant service contracts at all, limit the same to only those
particular areas where Filipino capital may not be sufficient,
and not to all natural resources.
MR. SUAREZ. Just a point of clarification again, Madam
President. When the Commissioner made those enumerations
and specifications, I suppose he deliberately did not include
"agricultural land"?
MR. DAVIDE. That is precisely the reason we have to
enumerate what these resources are into which service
contracts may enter. So, beyond the reach of any service
contract will be lands of the public domain, timberlands, forests,
marine resources, fauna and flora, wildlife and national parks. 47
After the Jamir amendment was voted upon and approved by a vote of 21
to 10 with 2 abstentions, Commissioner Davide made the following
statement, which is very relevant to our quest:
THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Davide is recognized.
MR. DAVIDE. I am very glad that Commissioner Padilla
emphasized minerals, petroleum and mineral oils. The
Commission has just approved the possible foreign entry into the
development, exploration and utilization of these minerals,
petroleum and other mineral oils by virtue of the Jamir
amendment. I voted in favor of the Jamir amendment because it
will eventually give way to vesting in exclusively Filipino citizens
and corporations wholly owned by Filipino citizens the right to
utilize the other natural resources. This means that as a matter
of policy, natural resources should be utilized and exploited only
by Filipino citizens or corporations wholly owned by such
citizens. But by virtue of the Jamir amendment, since we feel
that Filipino capital may not be enough for the development and
utilization of minerals, petroleum and other mineral oils, the
President can enter into service contracts with foreign
corporations precisely for the development and utilization of
such resources. And so, there is nothing to fear that we will
stagnate in the development of minerals, petroleum and mineral
oils because we now allow service contracts. x x x."48
The foregoing are mere fragments of the framers' lengthy discussions of
the provision dealing with agreements x x x involving either technical or
financial assistance, which ultimately became paragraph 4 of Section 2 of
Article XII of the Constitution. Beyond any doubt, the members of the
ConCom were actually debating about the martial-law-era service
contracts for which they were crafting appropriate safeguards.
In the voting that led to the approval of Article XII by the ConCom, the
explanations given by Commissioners Gascon, Garcia and Tadeo
indicated that they had voted to reject this provision on account of their
objections to the "constitutionalization" of the "service contract" concept.
Mr. Gascon said, "I felt that if we would constitutionalize any provision on
service contracts, this should always be with the concurrence of
Congress and not guided only by a general law to be promulgated by
Congress."49 Mr. Garcia explained, "Service contracts are given
constitutional legitimization in Sec. 3, even when they have been proven to
be inimical to the interests of the nation, providing, as they do, the legal
loophole for the exploitation of our natural resources for the benefit of
foreign interests."50 Likewise, Mr. Tadeo cited inter alia the fact that service
contracts continued to subsist, enabling foreign interests to benefit from
51
our natural resources. It was hardly likely that these gentlemen would
have objected so strenuously, had the provision called for mere
technical or financial assistance and nothing more.
The deliberations of the ConCom and some commissioners' explanation of
their votes leave no room for doubt that the service contract concept
precisely underpinned the commissioners' understanding of the
"agreements involving either technical or financial assistance."
Summation of the
Concom Deliberations
At this point, we sum up the matters established, based on a careful
reading of the ConCom deliberations, as follows:
In their deliberations on what was to become paragraph 4, the
framers used the term service contracts in referring to
agreements x x x involving either technical or financial
assistance.
They spoke of service contracts as the concept was
understood in the 1973 Constitution.
It was obvious from their discussions that they were not about
to ban or eradicate service contracts.
Instead, they were plainly crafting provisions to put in place
safeguards that would eliminate or minimize the abuses
prevalent during the marital law regime. In brief, they were going
to permit service contracts with foreign corporations as
contractors, but with safety measures to prevent abuses, as an
exception to the general norm established in the first paragraph
of Section 2 of Article XII. This provision reserves or limits to
Filipino citizens -- and corporations at least 60 percent of which
is owned by such citizens -- the exploration, development and
utilization of natural resources.
This provision was prompted by the perceived insufficiency of

Filipino capital and the felt need for foreign investments in the
EDU of minerals and petroleum resources.
The framers for the most part debated about the sort of
safeguards that would be considered adequate and reasonable.
But some of them, having more "radical" leanings, wanted to ban
service contracts altogether; for them, the provision would permit
aliens to exploit and benefit from the nation's natural resources,
which they felt should be reserved only for Filipinos.
In the explanation of their votes, the individual commissioners
were heard by the entire body. They sounded off their individual
opinions, openly enunciated their philosophies, and supported or
attacked the provisions with fervor. Everyone's viewpoint was
heard.
In the final voting, the Article on the National Economy and
Patrimony -- including paragraph 4 allowing service contracts
with foreign corporations as an exception to the general norm in
paragraph 1 of Section 2 of the same article -- was resoundingly
approved by a vote of 32 to 7, with 2 abstentions.
Agreements Involving Technical
or Financial Assistance Are
Service Contracts With Safeguards
From the foregoing, we are impelled to conclude that the phrase
agreements involving either technical or financial assistance, referred to in
paragraph 4, are in fact service contracts. But unlike those of the 1973
variety, the new ones are between foreign corporations acting as
contractors on the one hand; and on the other, the government as principal
or "owner" of the works. In the new service contracts, the foreign
contractors provide capital, technology and technical know-how, and
managerial expertise in the creation and operation of large-scale
mining/extractive enterprises; and the government, through its agencies
(DENR, MGB), actively exercises control and supervision over the entire
operation.
Such service contracts may be entered into only with respect to minerals,
petroleum and other mineral oils. The grant thereof is subject to several
safeguards, among which are these requirements:
(1) The service contract shall be crafted in accordance with a
general law that will set standard or uniform terms, conditions
and requirements, presumably to attain a certain uniformity in
provisions and avoid the possible insertion of terms
disadvantageous to the country.
(2) The President shall be the signatory for the government
because, supposedly before an agreement is presented to the
President for signature, it will have been vetted several times
over at different levels to ensure that it conforms to law and can
withstand public scrutiny.
(3) Within thirty days of the executed agreement, the President
shall report it to Congress to give that branch of government an
opportunity to look over the agreement and interpose timely
objections, if any.
Use of the Record of the
ConCom to Ascertain Intent
At this juncture, we shall address, rather than gloss over, the use of the
"framers' intent" approach, and the criticism hurled by petitioners who
quote a ruling of this Court:
"While it is permissible in this jurisdiction to consult the debates
and proceedings of the constitutional convention in order to
arrive at the reason and purpose of the resulting Constitution,
resort thereto may be had only when other guides fail as said
proceedings are powerless to vary the terms of the Constitution
when the meaning is clear. Debates in the constitutional
convention 'are of value as showing the views of the individual
members, and as indicating the reason for their votes, but they
give us no light as to the views of the large majority who did not
talk, much less the mass of our fellow citizens whose votes at
the polls gave that instrument the force of fundamental law. We
think it safer to construe the constitution from what appears upon
its face.' The proper interpretation therefore depends more on
how it was understood by the people adopting it than in the
framers' understanding thereof."52
The notion that the deliberations reflect only the views of those members
who spoke out and not the views of the majority who remained silent
should be clarified. We must never forget that those who spoke out were
heard by those who remained silent and did not react. If the latter were
silent because they happened not to be present at the time, they are
presumed to have read the minutes and kept abreast of the deliberations.
By remaining silent, they are deemed to have signified their assent to
and/or conformity with at least some of the views propounded or their lack
of objections thereto. It was incumbent upon them, as representatives of
the entire Filipino people, to follow the deliberations closely and to speak
their minds on the matter if they did not see eye to eye with the proponents
of the draft provisions.
In any event, each and every one of the commissioners had the
opportunity to speak out and to vote on the matter. Moreover, the
individual explanations of votes are on record, and they show where each
delegate stood on the issues. In sum, we cannot completely denigrate
the value or usefulness of the record of the ConCom, simply because
certain members chose not to speak out.
It is contended that the deliberations therein did not necessarily reflect the
thinking of the voting population that participated in the referendum and
ratified the Constitution. Verily, whether we like it or not, it is a bit too much
to assume that every one of those who voted to ratify the proposed Charter
Page 25 of 126
did so only after carefully reading and mulling over it, provision by
provision.
Likewise, it appears rather extravagant to assume that every one of those
who did in fact bother to read the draft Charter actually understood the
import of its provisions, much less analyzed it vis--vis the previous
Constitutions. We believe that in reality, a good percentage of those who
voted in favor of it did so more out of faith and trust. For them, it was the
product of the hard work and careful deliberation of a group of intelligent,
dedicated and trustworthy men and women of integrity and conviction,
whose love of country and fidelity to duty could not be questioned.
In short, a large proportion of the voters voted "yes" because the drafters,
or a majority of them, endorsed the proposed Constitution. What this fact
translates to is the inescapable conclusion that many of the voters in the
referendum did not form their own isolated judgment about the draft
Charter, much less about particular provisions therein. They only relied or
fell back and acted upon the favorable endorsement or recommendation of
the framers as a group. In other words, by voting yes, they may be
deemed to have signified their voluntary adoption of the understanding and
interpretation of the delegates with respect to the proposed Charter and its
particular provisions. "If it's good enough for them, it's good enough for
me;" or, in many instances, "If it's good enough for President Cory Aquino,
it's good enough for me."
And even for those who voted based on their own individual assessment of
the proposed Charter, there is no evidence available to indicate that their
assessment or understanding of its provisions was in fact different from
that of the drafters. This unwritten assumption seems to be petitioners' as
well. For all we know, this segment of voters must have read and
understood the provisions of the Constitution in the same way the framers
had, an assumption that would account for the favorable votes.
Fundamentally speaking, in the process of rewriting the Charter, the
members of the ConCom as a group were supposed to represent the
entire Filipino people. Thus, we cannot but regard their views as being very
much indicative of the thinking of the people with respect to the matters
deliberated upon and to the Charter as a whole.
It is therefore reasonable and unavoidable to make the following
conclusion, based on the above arguments. As written by the framers
and ratified and adopted by the people, the Constitution allows the
continued use of service contracts with foreign corporations -- as
contractors who would invest in and operate and manage extractive
enterprises, subject to the full control and supervision of the State -sans the abuses of the past regime. The purpose is clear: to develop
and utilize our mineral, petroleum and other resources on a large
scale for the immediate and tangible benefit of the Filipino people.
In view of the foregoing discussion, we should reverse the Decision of
January 27, 2004, and in fact now hold a view different from that of the
Decision, which had these findings: (a) paragraph 4 of Section 2 of Article
XII limits foreign involvement in the local mining industry to agreements
strictly for either financial or technical assistance only; (b) the same
paragraph precludes agreements that grant to foreign corporations the
management of local mining operations, as such agreements are
purportedly in the nature of service contracts as these were understood
under the 1973 Constitution; (c) these service contracts were supposedly
"de-constitutionalized" and proscribed by the omission of the term service
contracts from the 1987 Constitution; (d) since the WMCP FTAA contains
provisions permitting the foreign contractor to manage the concern, the
said FTAA is invalid for being a prohibited service contract; and (e)
provisions of RA 7942 and DAO 96-40, which likewise grant managerial
authority to the foreign contractor, are also invalid and unconstitutional.
Ultimate Test: State's "Control"
Determinative of Constitutionality
But we are not yet at the end of our quest. Far from it. It seems that we are
confronted with a possible collision of constitutional provisions. On the one
hand, paragraph 1 of Section 2 of Article XII explicitly mandates the State
to exercise "full control and supervision" over the exploration, development
and utilization of natural resources. On the other hand, paragraph 4
permits safeguarded service contracts with foreign contractors. Normally,
pursuant thereto, the contractors exercise management prerogatives over
the mining operations and the enterprise as a whole. There is thus a
legitimate ground to be concerned that either the State's full control and
supervision may rule out any exercise of management authority by the
foreign contractor; or, the other way around, allowing the foreign contractor
full management prerogatives may ultimately negate the State's full control
and supervision.
Ut Magis Valeat
Quam Pereat
Under the third principle of constitutional construction laid down in
Francisco -- ut magis valeat quam pereat -- every part of the Constitution is
to be given effect, and the Constitution is to be read and understood as a
harmonious whole. Thus, "full control and supervision" by the State must
be understood as one that does not preclude the legitimate exercise of
management prerogatives by the foreign contractor. Before any further
discussion, we must stress the primacy and supremacy of the principle of
sovereignty and State control and supervision over all aspects of
exploration, development and utilization of the country's natural resources,

as mandated in the first paragraph of Section 2 of Article XII.
But in the next breadth we have to point out that "full control and
supervision" cannot be taken literally to mean that the State controls and
supervises everything involved, down to the minutest details, and makes
all decisions required in the mining operations. This strained concept of
control and supervision over the mining enterprise would render impossible
the legitimate exercise by the contractors of a reasonable degree of
management prerogative and authority necessary and indispensable to
their proper functioning.
For one thing, such an interpretation would discourage foreign entry into
large-scale exploration, development and utilization activities; and result in
the unmitigated stagnation of this sector, to the detriment of our nation's
development. This scenario renders paragraph 4 inoperative and useless.
And as respondents have correctly pointed out, the government does not
have to micro-manage the mining operations and dip its hands into the
day-to-day affairs of the enterprise in order for it to be considered as
having full control and supervision.
The concept of control53 adopted in Section 2 of Article XII must be taken
to mean less than dictatorial, all-encompassing control; but nevertheless
sufficient to give the State the power to direct, restrain, regulate and
govern the affairs of the extractive enterprises. Control by the State may
be on a macro level, through the establishment of policies, guidelines,
regulations, industry standards and similar measures that would enable the
government to control the conduct of affairs in various enterprises and
restrain activities deemed not desirable or beneficial.
The end in view is ensuring that these enterprises contribute to the
economic development and general welfare of the country, conserve the
environment, and uplift the well-being of the affected local communities.
Such a concept of control would be compatible with permitting the foreign
contractor sufficient and reasonable management authority over the
enterprise it invested in, in order to ensure that it is operating efficiently
and profitably, to protect its investments and to enable it to succeed.
The question to be answered, then, is whether RA 7942 and its
Implementing Rules enable the government to exercise that degree of
control sufficient to direct and regulate the conduct of affairs of
individual enterprises and restrain undesirable activities.
On the resolution of these questions will depend the validity and
constitutionality of certain provisions of the Philippine Mining Act of 1995
(RA 7942) and its Implementing Rules and Regulations (DAO 96-40), as
well as the WMCP FTAA.
Indeed, petitioners charge54 that RA 7942, as well as its Implementing
Rules and Regulations, makes it possible for FTAA contracts to cede full
control and management of mining enterprises over to fully foreign-owned
corporations, with the result that the State is allegedly reduced to a passive
regulator dependent on submitted plans and reports, with weak review and
audit powers. The State does not supposedly act as the owner of the
natural resources for and on behalf of the Filipino people; it practically has
little effective say in the decisions made by the enterprise. Petitioners then
conclude that the law, the implementing regulations, and the WMCP FTAA
cede "beneficial ownership" of the mineral resources to the foreign
contractor.
A careful scrutiny of the provisions of RA 7942 and its Implementing Rules
belies petitioners' claims. Paraphrasing the Constitution, Section 4 of the
statute clearly affirms the State's control thus:
"Sec. 4. Ownership of Mineral Resources. Mineral resources
are owned by the State and the exploration, development,
utilization and processing thereof shall be under its full control
and supervision. The State may directly undertake such
activities or it may enter into mineral agreements with
contractors.
"The State shall recognize and protect the rights of the
indigenous cultural communities to their ancestral lands as
provided for by the Constitution."
The aforequoted provision is substantively reiterated in Section 2 of DAO
96-40 as follows:
"Sec. 2. Declaration of Policy. All mineral resources in public and
private lands within the territory and exclusive economic zone of
the Republic of the Philippines are owned by the State. It shall
be the responsibility of the State to promote their rational
exploration, development, utilization and conservation through
the combined efforts of the Government and private sector in
order to enhance national growth in a way that effectively
safeguards the environment and protects the rights of affected
communities."
Sufficient Control Over Mining
Operations Vested in the State
by RA 7942 and DAO 96-40
RA 7942 provides for the State's control and supervision over mining
operations. The following provisions thereof establish the mechanism of
inspection and visitorial rights over mining operations and institute
reportorial requirements in this manner:
1. Sec. 8 which provides for the DENR's power of over-all
supervision and periodic review for "the conservation,
management, development and proper use of the State's
mineral resources";
2. Sec. 9 which authorizes the Mines and Geosciences Bureau
(MGB) under the DENR to exercise "direct charge in the
administration and disposition of mineral resources", and
empowers the MGB to "monitor the compliance by the contractor
of the terms and conditions of the mineral agreements",
"confiscate surety and performance bonds", and deputize
whenever necessary any member or unit of the Phil. National
Page 26 of 126
Police, barangay, duly registered non-governmental organization

(NGO) or any qualified person to police mining activities;
3. Sec. 66 which vests in the Regional Director "exclusive
jurisdiction over safety inspections of all installations, whether
surface or underground", utilized in mining operations.
4. Sec. 35, which incorporates into all FTAAs the following
terms, conditions and warranties:
"(g) Mining operations shall be conducted in
accordance with the provisions of the Act and its IRR.
"(h) Work programs and minimum expenditures
commitments.
xxxxxxxxx
"(k) Requiring proponent to effectively use appropriate
anti-pollution technology and facilities to protect the
environment and restore or rehabilitate mined-out
areas.
"(l) The contractors shall furnish the Government
records of geologic, accounting and other relevant
data for its mining operation, and that books of
accounts and records shall be open for inspection by
the government. x x x.
"(m) Requiring the proponent to dispose of the
minerals at the highest price and more advantageous
terms and conditions.
"(n) x x x x x x x x x
"(o) Such other terms and conditions consistent with
the Constitution and with this Act as the Secretary
may deem to be for the best interest of the State and
the welfare of the Filipino people."
The foregoing provisions of Section 35 of RA 7942 are
also reflected and implemented in Section 56 (g), (h),
(l), (m) and (n) of the Implementing Rules, DAO 96-40.
Moreover, RA 7942 and DAO 96-40 also provide various stipulations
confirming the government's control over mining enterprises:
The contractor is to relinquish to the government those portions
of the contract area not needed for mining operations and not
covered by any declaration of mining feasibility (Section 35-e,
RA 7942; Section 60, DAO 96-40).
The contractor must comply with the provisions pertaining to
mine safety, health and environmental protection (Chapter XI,
RA 7942; Chapters XV and XVI, DAO 96-40).
For violation of any of its terms and conditions, government
may cancel an FTAA. (Chapter XVII, RA 7942; Chapter XXIV,
DAO 96-40).
An FTAA contractor is obliged to open its books of accounts
and records for inspection by the government (Section 56-m,
DAO 96-40).
An FTAA contractor has to dispose of the minerals and byproducts at the highest market price and register with the MGB a
copy of the sales agreement (Section 56-n, DAO 96-40).
MGB is mandated to monitor the contractor's compliance with
the terms and conditions of the FTAA; and to deputize, when
necessary, any member or unit of the Philippine National Police,
the barangay or a DENR-accredited nongovernmental
organization to police mining activities (Section 7-d and -f, DAO
96-40).
An FTAA cannot be transferred or assigned without prior
approval by the President (Section 40, RA 7942; Section 66,
DAO 96-40).
A mining project under an FTAA cannot proceed to the
construction/development/utilization stage, unless its Declaration
of Mining Project Feasibility has been approved by government
(Section 24, RA 7942).
The Declaration of Mining Project Feasibility filed by the
contractor cannot be approved without submission of the
following documents:
1. Approved mining project feasibility study (Section
53-d, DAO 96-40)
2. Approved three-year work program (Section 53-a-4,
DAO 96-40)
3. Environmental compliance certificate (Section 70,
RA 7942)
4. Approved environmental protection and
enhancement program (Section 69, RA 7942)
5. Approval by the Sangguniang
Panlalawigan/Bayan/Barangay (Section 70, RA 7942;
Section 27, RA 7160)
6. Free and prior informed consent by the indigenous
peoples concerned, including payment of royalties
through a Memorandum of Agreement (Section 16,
RA 7942; Section 59, RA 8371)
The FTAA contractor is obliged to assist in the development of
its mining community, promotion of the general welfare of its
inhabitants, and development of science and mining technology
(Section 57, RA 7942).
The FTAA contractor is obliged to submit reports (on quarterly,
semi-annual or annual basis as the case may be; per Section
270, DAO 96-40), pertaining to the following:
1. Exploration
2. Drilling
3. Mineral resources and reserves
4. Energy consumption
5. Production
6. Sales and marketing

7. Employment
8. Payment of taxes, royalties, fees and other
Government Shares
9. Mine safety, health and environment
10. Land use
11. Social development
12. Explosives consumption
An FTAA pertaining to areas within government reservations
cannot be granted without a written clearance from the
government agencies concerned (Section 19, RA 7942; Section
54, DAO 96-40).
An FTAA contractor is required to post a financial guarantee
bond in favor of the government in an amount equivalent to its
expenditures obligations for any particular year. This
requirement is apart from the representations and warranties of
the contractor that it has access to all the financing, managerial
and technical expertise and technology necessary to carry out
the objectives of the FTAA (Section 35-b, -e, and -f, RA 7942).
Other reports to be submitted by the contractor, as required
under DAO 96-40, are as follows: an environmental report on the
rehabilitation of the mined-out area and/or mine waste/tailing
covered area, and anti-pollution measures undertaken (Section
35-a-2); annual reports of the mining operations and records of
geologic accounting (Section 56-m); annual progress reports
and final report of exploration activities (Section 56-2).
Other programs required to be submitted by the contractor,
pursuant to DAO 96-40, are the following: a safety and health
program (Section 144); an environmental work program (Section
168); an annual environmental protection and enhancement
program (Section 171).
The foregoing gamut of requirements, regulations, restrictions and
limitations imposed upon the FTAA contractor by the statute and
regulations easily overturns petitioners' contention. The setup under RA
7942 and DAO 96-40 hardly relegates the State to the role of a "passive
regulator" dependent on submitted plans and reports. On the contrary, the
government agencies concerned are empowered to approve or disapprove
-- hence, to influence, direct and change -- the various work programs and
the corresponding minimum expenditure commitments for each of the
exploration, development and utilization phases of the mining enterprise.
Once these plans and reports are approved, the contractor is bound to
comply with its commitments therein. Figures for mineral production and
sales are regularly monitored and subjected to government review, in order
to ensure that the products and by-products are disposed of at the best
prices possible; even copies of sales agreements have to be submitted to
and registered with MGB. And the contractor is mandated to open its
books of accounts and records for scrutiny, so as to enable the State to
determine if the government share has been fully paid.
The State may likewise 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 also 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 regulations.
This general, all-around, multipurpose sanction is no trifling matter,
especially to a contractor who may have yet to recover the tens or
hundreds of millions of dollars sunk into a mining project.
Overall, considering the provisions of the statute and the regulations just
discussed, we believe that the State definitely possesses the means by
which it can have the ultimate word in the operation of the enterprise, set
directions and objectives, and detect deviations and noncompliance by the
contractor; likewise, it has the capability to enforce compliance and to
impose sanctions, should the occasion therefor arise.
In other words, the FTAA contractor is not free to do whatever it
pleases and get away with it; on the contrary, it will have to follow the
government line if it wants to stay in the enterprise. Ineluctably then,
RA 7942 and DAO 96-40 vest in the government more than a
sufficient degree of control and supervision over the conduct of
mining operations.
Section 3(aq) of RA 7942
Not Unconstitutional
An objection has been expressed that Section 3(aq)55 of RA 7942 -- which
allows a foreign contractor to apply for and hold an exploration permit -- is
unconstitutional. The reasoning is that Section 2 of Article XII of the
Constitution does not allow foreign-owned corporations to undertake
mining operations directly. They may act only as contractors of the State
under an FTAA; and the State, as the party directly undertaking
exploitation of its natural resources, must hold through the government all
exploration permits and similar authorizations. Hence, Section 3(aq), in
permitting foreign-owned corporations to hold exploration permits, is
unconstitutional.
Page 27 of 126
The objection, however, is not well-founded. While the Constitution

mandates the State to exercise full control and supervision over the
exploitation of mineral resources, nowhere does it require the government
to hold all exploration permits and similar authorizations. In fact, there is no
prohibition at all against foreign or local corporations or contractors holding
exploration permits. The reason is not hard to see.
Pursuant to Section 20 of RA 7942, an exploration permit merely grants to
a qualified person the right to conduct exploration for all minerals in
specified areas. Such a permit does not amount to an authorization to
extract and carry off the mineral resources that may be discovered. This
phase involves nothing but expenditures for exploring the contract area
and locating the mineral bodies. As no extraction is involved, there are no
revenues or incomes to speak of. In short, the exploration permit is an
authorization for the grantee to spend its own funds on exploration
programs that are pre-approved by the government, without any right to
recover anything should no minerals in commercial quantities be
discovered. The State risks nothing and loses nothing by granting these
permits to local or foreign firms; in fact, it stands to gain in the form of data
generated by the exploration activities.
Pursuant to Section 24 of RA 7942, an exploration permit grantee who
determines the commercial viability of a mining area may, within the term
of the permit, file with the MGB a declaration of mining project feasibility
accompanied by a work program for development. The approval of the
mining project feasibility and compliance with other requirements of RA
7942 vests in the grantee the exclusive right to an MPSA or any other
mineral agreement, or to an FTAA.
Thus, the permit grantee may apply for an MPSA, a joint venture
agreement, a co-production agreement, or an FTAA over the permit area,
and the application shall be approved if the permit grantee meets the
necessary qualifications and the terms and conditions of any such
agreement. Therefore, the contractor will be in a position to extract
minerals and earn revenues only when the MPSA or another mineral
agreement, or an FTAA, is granted. At that point, the contractor's rights
and obligations will be covered by an FTAA or a mineral agreement.
But prior to the issuance of such FTAA or mineral agreement, the
exploration permit grantee (or prospective contractor) cannot yet be
deemed to have entered into any contract or agreement with the State,
and the grantee would definitely need to have some document or
instrument as evidence of its right to conduct exploration works within the
specified area. This need is met by the exploration permit issued pursuant
to Sections 3(aq), 20 and 23 of RA 7942.
In brief, the exploration permit serves a practical and legitimate
purpose in that it protects the interests and preserves the rights of
the exploration permit grantee (the would-be contractor) -- foreign or
local -- during the period of time that it is spending heavily on
exploration works, without yet being able to earn revenues to recoup
any of its investments and expenditures. Minus this permit and the
protection it affords, the exploration works and expenditures may end up
benefiting only claim-jumpers. Such a possibility tends to discourage
investors and contractors. Thus, Section 3(aq) of RA 7942 may not be
deemed unconstitutional.
The Terms of the WMCP FTAA
A Deference to State Control
A perusal of the WMCP FTAA also reveals a slew of stipulations providing
for State control and supervision:
1. The contractor is obligated to account for the value of
production and sale of minerals (Clause 1.4).
2. The contractor's work program, activities and budgets must be
approved by/on behalf of the State (Clause 2.1).
3. The DENR secretary has the power to extend the exploration
period (Clause 3.2-a).
4. Approval by the State is necessary for incorporating lands into
the FTAA contract area (Clause 4.3-c).
5. The Bureau of Forest Development is vested with discretion in
regard to approving the inclusion of forest reserves as part of the
FTAA contract area (Clause 4.5).
6. The contractor is obliged to relinquish periodically parts of the
contract area not needed for exploration and development
(Clause 4.6).
7. A Declaration of Mining Feasibility must be submitted for
approval by the State (Clause 4.6-b).
8. The contractor is obligated to report to the State its
exploration activities (Clause 4.9).
9. The contractor is required to obtain State approval of its work
programs for the succeeding two-year periods, containing the
proposed work activities and expenditures budget related to
exploration (Clause 5.1).
10. The contractor is required to obtain State approval for its
proposed expenditures for exploration activities (Clause 5.2).
11. The contractor is required to submit an annual report on
geological, geophysical, geochemical and other information
relating to its explorations within the FTAA area (Clause 5.3-a).
12. The contractor is to submit within six months after expiration
of exploration period a final report on all its findings in the
contract area (Clause 5.3-b).
13. The contractor, after conducting feasibility studies, shall

submit a declaration of mining feasibility, along with a description
of the area to be developed and mined, a description of the
proposed mining operations and the technology to be employed,
and a proposed work program for the development phase, for
approval by the DENR secretary (Clause 5.4).
14. The contractor is obliged to complete the development of the
mine, including construction of the production facilities, within the
period stated in the approved work program (Clause 6.1).
15. The contractor is obligated to submit for approval of the
DENR secretary a work program covering each period of three
fiscal years (Clause 6.2).
16. The contractor is to submit reports to the DENR secretary on
the production, ore reserves, work accomplished and work in
progress, profile of its work force and management staff, and
other technical information (Clause 6.3).
17. Any expansions, modifications, improvements and
replacements of mining facilities shall be subject to the approval
of the secretary (Clause 6.4).
18. The State has control with respect to the amount of funds
that the contractor may borrow within the Philippines (Clause
7.2).
19. The State has supervisory power with respect to technical,
financial and marketing issues (Clause 10.1-a).
20. The contractor is required to ensure 60 percent Filipino
equity in the contractor, within ten years of recovering specified
expenditures, unless not so required by subsequent legislation
(Clause 10.1).
21. The State has the right to terminate the FTAA for the
contractor's unremedied substantial breach thereof (Clause
13.2);
22. The State's approval is needed for any assignment of the
FTAA by the contractor to an entity other than an affiliate
(Clause 14.1).
We should elaborate a little on the work programs and budgets, and what
they mean with respect to the State's ability to exercise full control and
effective supervision over the enterprise. For instance, throughout the
initial five-year exploration and feasibility phase of the project, the
contractor is mandated by Clause 5.1 of the WMCP FTAA to submit a
series of work programs (copy furnished the director of MGB) to the DENR
secretary for approval. The programs will detail the contractor's proposed
exploration activities and budget covering each subsequent period of two
fiscal years.
In other words, the concerned government officials will be informed
beforehand of the proposed exploration activities and expenditures of the
contractor for each succeeding two-year period, with the right to
approve/disapprove them or require changes or adjustments therein if
deemed necessary.
Likewise, under Clause 5.2(a), the amount that the contractor was
supposed to spend for exploration activities during the first contract year of
the exploration period was fixed at not less than P24 million; and then for
the succeeding years, the amount shall be as agreed between the DENR
secretary and the contractor prior to the commencement of each
subsequent fiscal year. If no such agreement is arrived upon, the previous
year's expenditure commitment shall apply.
This provision alone grants the government through the DENR secretary a
very big say in the exploration phase of the project. This fact is not
something to be taken lightly, considering that the government has
absolutely no contribution to the exploration expenditures or work activities
and yet is given veto power over such a critical aspect of the project. We
cannot but construe as very significant such a degree of control over the
project and, resultantly, over the mining enterprise itself.
Following its exploration activities or feasibility studies, if the contractor
believes that any part of the contract area is likely to contain an economic
mineral resource, it shall submit to the DENR secretary a declaration of
mining feasibility (per Clause 5.4 of the FTAA), together with a technical
description of the area delineated for development and production, a
description of the proposed mining operations including the technology to
be used, a work program for development, an environmental impact
statement, and a description of the contributions to the economic and
general welfare of the country to be generated by the mining operations
(pursuant to Clause 5.5).
The work program for development is subject to the approval of the DENR
secretary. Upon its approval, the contractor must comply with it and
complete the development of the mine, including the construction of
production facilities and installation of machinery and equipment, within the
period provided in the approved work program for development (per
Clause 6.1).
Thus, notably, the development phase of the project is likewise subject to
the control and supervision of the government. It cannot be emphasized
enough that the proper and timely construction and deployment of the
production facilities and the development of the mine are of pivotal
significance to the success of the mining venture. Any missteps here will
potentially be very costly to remedy. Hence, the submission of the work
program for development to the DENR secretary for approval is particularly
noteworthy, considering that so many millions of dollars worth of
investments -- courtesy of the contractor -- are made to depend on the
State's consideration and action.
Throughout the operating period, the contractor is required to submit to the
DENR secretary for approval, copy furnished the director of MGB, work
programs covering each period of three fiscal years (per Clause 6.2).
During the same period (per Clause 6.3), the contractor is mandated to
submit various quarterly and annual reports to the DENR secretary, copy
Page 28 of 126
furnished the director of MGB, on the tonnages of production in terms of

ores and concentrates, with corresponding grades, values and
destinations; reports of sales; total ore reserves, total tonnage of ores,
work accomplished and work in progress (installations and facilities related
to mining operations), investments made or committed, and so on and so
forth.
Under Section VIII, during the period of mining operations, the contractor is
also required to submit to the DENR secretary (copy furnished the director
of MGB) the work program and corresponding budget for the contract area,
describing the mining operations that are proposed to be carried out during
the period covered. The secretary is, of course, entitled to grant or deny
approval of any work program or budget and/or propose revisions thereto.
Once the program/budget has been approved, the contractor shall comply
therewith.
In sum, the above provisions of the WMCP FTAA taken together, far from
constituting a surrender of control and a grant of beneficial ownership of
mineral resources to the contractor in question, bestow upon the State
more than adequate control and supervision over the activities of the
contractor and the enterprise.
No Surrender of Control
Under the WMCP FTAA
Petitioners, however, take aim at Clause 8.2, 8.3, and 8.5 of the WMCP
FTAA which, they say, amount to a relinquishment of control by the State,
since it "cannot truly impose its own discretion" in respect of the submitted
work programs.
"8.2. The Secretary shall be deemed to have approved any
Work Programme or Budget or variation thereof submitted by the
Contractor unless within sixty (60) days after submission by the
Contractor the Secretary gives notice declining such approval or
proposing a revision of certain features and specifying its
reasons therefor ('the Rejection Notice').
8.3. If the Secretary gives a Rejection Notice, the Parties shall
promptly meet and endeavor to agree on amendments to the
Work Programme or Budget. If the Secretary and the Contractor
fail to agree on the proposed revision within 30 days from
delivery of the Rejection Notice then the Work Programme or
Budget or variation thereof proposed by the Contractor shall be
deemed approved, so as not to unnecessarily delay the
performance of the Agreement.
8.4. x x x x x x x x x
8.5. So far as is practicable, the Contractor shall comply with any
approved Work Programme and Budget. It is recognized by the
Secretary and the Contractor that the details of any Work
Programmes or Budgets may require changes in the light of
changing circumstances. The Contractor may make such
changes without approval of the Secretary provided they do not
change the general objective of any Work Programme, nor entail
a downward variance of more than twenty per centum
(20percent) of the relevant Budget. All other variations to an
approved Work Programme or Budget shall be submitted for
approval of the Secretary."
From the provisions quoted above, petitioners generalize by asserting that
the government does not participate in making critical decisions regarding
the operations of the mining firm. Furthermore, while the State can require
the submission of work programs and budgets, the decision of the
contractor will still prevail, if the parties have a difference of opinion with
regard to matters affecting operations and management.
We hold, however, that the foregoing provisions do not manifest a
relinquishment of control. For instance, Clause 8.2 merely provides a
mechanism for preventing the business or mining operations from grinding
to a complete halt as a result of possibly over-long and unjustified delays in
the government's handling, processing and approval of submitted work
programs and budgets. Anyway, the provision does give the DENR
secretary more than sufficient time (60 days) to react to submitted work
programs and budgets. It cannot be supposed that proper grounds for
objecting thereto, if any exist, cannot be discovered within a period of two
months.
On the other hand, Clause 8.3 seeks to provide a temporary, stop-gap
solution in the event a disagreement over the submitted work program or
budget arises between the State and the contractor and results in a
stalemate or impasse, in order that there will be no unreasonably long
delays in the performance of the works.
These temporary or stop-gap solutions are not necessarily evil or wrong.
Neither does it follow that the government will inexorably be aggrieved if
and when these temporary remedies come into play. First, avoidance of
long delays in these situations will undoubtedly redound to the benefit of
the State as well as the contractor. Second, who is to say that the work
program or budget proposed by the contractor and deemed approved
under Clause 8.3 would not be the better or more reasonable or more
effective alternative? The contractor, being the "insider," as it were, may be
said to be in a better position than the State -- an outsider looking in -- to
determine what work program or budget would be appropriate, more
effective, or more suitable under the circumstances.
All things considered, we take exception to the characterization of the
DENR secretary as a subservient nonentity whom the contractor can
overrule at will, on account of Clause 8.3. And neither is it true that under
the same clause, the DENR secretary has no authority whatsoever to
disapprove the work program. As Respondent WMCP reasoned in its
Reply-Memorandum, the State -- despite Clause 8.3 -- still has control over
the contract area and it may, as sovereign authority, prohibit work thereon
until the dispute is resolved. And ultimately, the State may terminate the
agreement, pursuant to Clause 13.2 of the same FTAA, citing substantial
breach thereof. Hence, it clearly retains full and effective control of the
exploitation of the mineral resources.
On the other hand, Clause 8.5 is merely an acknowledgment of the parties'
need for flexibility, given that no one can accurately forecast under all
circumstances, or predict how situations may change. Hence, while
approved work programs and budgets are to be followed and complied
with as far as practicable, there may be instances in which changes will
have to be effected, and effected rapidly, since events may take shape
and unfold with suddenness and urgency. Thus, Clause 8.5 allows the
contractor to move ahead and make changes without the express or
implicit approval of the DENR secretary. Such changes are, however,
subject to certain conditions that will serve to limit or restrict the variance
and prevent the contractor from straying very far from what has been
approved.
Clause 8.5 provides the contractor a certain amount of flexibility to meet
unexpected situations, while still guaranteeing that the approved work
programs and budgets are not abandoned altogether. Clause 8.5 does not
constitute proof that the State has relinquished control. And ultimately,
should there be disagreement with the actions taken by the contractor in
this instance as well as under Clause 8.3 discussed above, the DENR
secretary may resort to cancellation/termination of the FTAA as the
ultimate sanction.
Discretion to Select Contract
Area Not an Abdication of Control
Next, petitioners complain that the contractor has full discretion to select -and the government has no say whatsoever as to -- the parts of the
contract area to be relinquished pursuant to Clause 4.6 of the WMCP
FTAA.56 This clause, however, does not constitute abdication of control.
Rather, it is a mere acknowledgment of the fact that the contractor will
have determined, after appropriate exploration works, which portions of the
contract area do not contain minerals in commercial quantities sufficient to
justify developing the same and ought therefore to be relinquished. The
State cannot just substitute its judgment for that of the contractor and
dictate upon the latter which areas to give up.
Moreover, we can be certain that the contractor's self-interest will propel
proper and efficient relinquishment. According to private respondent,57 a
mining company tries to relinquish as much non-mineral areas as soon as
possible, because the annual occupation fees paid to the government are
based on the total hectarage of the contract area, net of the areas
relinquished. Thus, the larger the remaining area, the heftier the amount of
occupation fees to be paid by the contractor. Accordingly, relinquishment is
not an issue, given that the contractor will not want to pay the annual
occupation fees on the non-mineral parts of its contract area. Neither will it
want to relinquish promising sites, which other contractors may
subsequently pick up.
Government Not a Subcontractor
Petitioners further maintain that the contractor can compel the government
to exercise its power of eminent domain to acquire surface areas within the
contract area for the contractor's use. Clause 10.2 (e) of the WMCP FTAA
provides that the government agrees that the contractor shall "(e) have the
right to require the Government at the Contractor's own cost, to purchase
or acquire surface areas for and on behalf of the Contractor at such price
and terms as may be acceptable to the contractor. At the termination of
this Agreement such areas shall be sold by public auction or tender and
the Contractor shall be entitled to reimbursement of the costs of acquisition
and maintenance, adjusted for inflation, from the proceeds of sale."
According to petitioners, "government becomes a subcontractor to the
contractor" and may, on account of this provision, be compelled "to make
use of its power of eminent domain, not for public purposes but on behalf
of a private party, i.e., the contractor." Moreover, the power of the courts to
determine the amount corresponding to the constitutional requirement of
just compensation has allegedly also been contracted away by the
government, on account of the latter's commitment that the acquisition
shall be at such terms as may be acceptable to the contractor.
However, private respondent has proffered a logical explanation for the
provision.58 Section 10.2(e) contemplates a situation applicable to foreignowned corporations. WMCP, at the time of the execution of the FTAA, was
a foreign-owned corporation and therefore not qualified to own land. As
contractor, it has at some future date to construct the infrastructure -- the
mine processing plant, the camp site, the tailings dam, and other
infrastructure -- needed for the large-scale mining operations. It will then
have to identify and pinpoint, within the FTAA contract area, the particular
surface areas with favorable topography deemed ideal for such
infrastructure and will need to acquire the surface rights. The State owns
the mineral deposits in the earth, and is also qualified to own land.
Section 10.2(e) sets forth the mechanism whereby the foreign-owned
contractor, disqualified to own land, identifies to the government the
specific surface areas within the FTAA contract area to be acquired for the
mine infrastructure. The government then acquires ownership of the
surface land areas on behalf of the contractor, in order to enable the latter
to proceed to fully implement the FTAA.
The contractor, of course, shoulders the purchase price of the land. Hence,
the provision allows it, after termination of the FTAA, to be reimbursed
from proceeds of the sale of the surface areas, which the government will
dispose of through public bidding. It should be noted that this provision will
not be applicable to Sagittarius as the present FTAA contractor, since it is
a Filipino corporation qualified to own and hold land. As such, it may
therefore freely negotiate with the surface rights owners and acquire the
surface property in its own right.
Page 29 of 126
Clearly, petitioners have needlessly jumped to unwarranted conclusions,

without being aware of the rationale for the said provision. That provision
does not call for the exercise of the power of eminent domain -- and
determination of just compensation is not an issue -- as much as it calls for
a qualified party to acquire the surface rights on behalf of a foreign-owned
contractor.
Rather than having the foreign contractor act through a dummy
corporation, having the State do the purchasing is a better alternative. This
will at least cause the government to be aware of such transaction/s and
foster transparency in the contractor's dealings with the local property
owners. The government, then, will not act as a subcontractor of the
contractor; rather, it will facilitate the transaction and enable the parties to
avoid a technical violation of the Anti-Dummy Law.
Absence of Provision
Requiring Sale at Posted
Prices Not Problematic
The supposed absence of any provision in the WMCP FTAA directly and
explicitly requiring the contractor to sell the mineral products at posted or
market prices is not a problem. Apart from Clause 1.4 of the FTAA
obligating the contractor to account for the total value of mineral production
and the sale of minerals, we can also look to Section 35 of RA 7942, which
incorporates into all FTAAs certain terms, conditions and warranties,
including the following:
"(l) The contractors shall furnish the Government records of
geologic, accounting and other relevant data for its mining
operation, and that books of accounts and records shall be open
for inspection by the government. x x x
(m) Requiring the proponent to dispose of the minerals at the
highest price and more advantageous terms and conditions."
For that matter, Section 56(n) of DAO 99-56 specifically obligates an FTAA
contractor to dispose of the minerals and by-products at the highest market
price and to register with the MGB a copy of the sales agreement. After all,
the provisions of prevailing statutes as well as rules and regulations are
deemed written into contracts.
Contractor's Right to Mortgage
Not Objectionable Per Se
Petitioners also question the absolute right of the contractor under Clause
10.2 (l) to mortgage and encumber not only its rights and interests in the
FTAA and the infrastructure and improvements introduced, but also the
mineral products extracted. Private respondents do not touch on this
matter, but we believe that this provision may have to do with the
conditions imposed by the creditor-banks of the then foreign contractor
WMCP to secure the lendings made or to be made to the latter. Ordinarily,
banks lend not only on the security of mortgages on fixed assets, but also
on encumbrances of goods produced that can easily be sold and
converted into cash that can be applied to the repayment of loans. Banks
even lend on the security of accounts receivable that are collectible within
59
90 days.
It is not uncommon to find that a debtor corporation has executed deeds of
assignment "by way of security" over the production for the next twelve
months and/or the proceeds of the sale thereof -- or the corresponding
accounts receivable, if sold on terms -- in favor of its creditor-banks. Such
deeds may include authorizing the creditors to sell the products
themselves and to collect the sales proceeds and/or the accounts
receivable.
Seen in this context, Clause 10.2(l) is not something out of the ordinary or
objectionable. In any case, as will be explained below, even if it is allowed
to mortgage or encumber the mineral end-products themselves, the
contractor is not freed of its obligation to pay the government its basic and
additional shares in the net mining revenue, which is the essential thing to
consider.
In brief, the alarum raised over the contractor's right to mortgage the
minerals is simply unwarranted. Just the same, the contractor must
account for the value of mineral production and the sales proceeds
therefrom. Likewise, under the WMCP FTAA, the government remains
entitled to its sixty percent share in the net mining revenues of the
contractor. The latter's right to mortgage the minerals does not negate the
State's right to receive its share of net mining revenues.
Shareholders Free to Sell Their Stocks
Petitioners likewise criticize Clause 10.2(k), which gives the contractor
authority "to change its equity structure at any time." This provision may
seem somewhat unusual, but considering that WMCP then was 100
percent foreign-owned, any change would mean that such percentage
would either stay unaltered or be decreased in favor of Filipino ownership.
Moreover, the foreign-held shares may change hands freely. Such

eventuality is as it should be.
We believe it is not necessary for government to attempt to limit or restrict
the freedom of the shareholders in the contractor to freely transfer, dispose
of or encumber their shareholdings, consonant with the unfettered exercise
of their business judgment and discretion. Rather, what is critical is that,
regardless of the identity, nationality and percentage ownership of the
various shareholders of the contractor -- and regardless of whether these
shareholders decide to take the company public, float bonds and other
fixed-income instruments, or allow the creditor-banks to take an equity
position in the company -- the foreign-owned contractor is always in a
position to render the services required under the FTAA, under the
direction and control of the government.
Contractor's Right to Ask
For Amendment Not Absolute
With respect to Clauses 10.4(e) and (i), petitioners complain that these
provisions bind government to allow amendments to the FTAA if required
by banks and other financial institutions as part of the conditions for new
lendings. However, we do not find anything wrong with Clause 10.4(e),
which only states that "if the Contractor seeks to obtain financing
contemplated herein from banks or other financial institutions, (the
Government shall) cooperate with the Contractor in such efforts provided
that such financing arrangements will in no event reduce the Contractor's
obligations or the Government's rights hereunder." The colatilla obviously
safeguards the State's interests; if breached, it will give the government
cause to object to the proposed amendments.
On the other hand, Clause 10.4(i) provides that "the Government shall
favourably consider any request from [the] Contractor for amendments of
this Agreement which are necessary in order for the Contractor to
successfully obtain the financing." Petitioners see in this provision a
complete renunciation of control. We disagree.
The proviso does not say that the government shall grant any request for
amendment. Clause 10.4(i) only obliges the State to favorably consider
any such request, which is not at all unreasonable, as it is not equivalent to
saying that the government must automatically consent to it. This provision
should be read together with the rest of the FTAA provisions instituting
government control and supervision over the mining enterprise. The clause
should not be given an interpretation that enables the contractor to wiggle
out of the restrictions imposed upon it by merely suggesting that certain
amendments are requested by the lenders.
Rather, it is up to the contractor to prove to the government that the
requested changes to the FTAA are indispensable, as they enable the
contractor to obtain the needed financing; that without such contract
changes, the funders would absolutely refuse to extend the loan; that there
are no other sources of financing available to the contractor (a very
unlikely scenario); and that without the needed financing, the execution of
the work programs will not proceed. But the bottom line is, in the exercise
of its power of control, the government has the final say on whether to
approve or disapprove such requested amendments to the FTAA. In short,
approval thereof is not mandatory on the part of the government.
In fine, the foregoing evaluation and analysis of the aforementioned
FTAA provisions sufficiently overturns petitioners' litany of
objections to and criticisms of the State's alleged lack of control.
Financial Benefits Not
Surrendered to the Contractor
One of the main reasons certain provisions of RA 7942 were struck down
was the finding mentioned in the Decision that beneficial ownership of the
mineral resources had been conveyed to the contractor. This finding was
based on the underlying assumption, common to the said provisions, that
the foreign contractor manages the mineral resources in the same way that
foreign contractors in service contracts used to. "By allowing foreign
contractors to manage or operate all the aspects of the mining operation,
the above-cited provisions of R.A. No. 7942 have in effect conveyed
beneficial ownership over the nation's mineral resources to these
contractors, leaving the State with nothing but bare title thereto."60 As the
WMCP FTAA contained similar provisions deemed by the ponente to be
abhorrent to the Constitution, the Decision struck down the Contract as
well.
Beneficial ownership has been defined as ownership recognized by law
and capable of being enforced in the courts at the suit of the beneficial
owner.61 Black's Law Dictionary indicates that the term is used in two
senses: first, to indicate the interest of a beneficiary in trust property (also
called "equitable ownership"); and second, to refer to the power of a
corporate shareholder to buy or sell the shares, though the shareholder is
not registered in the corporation's books as the owner.62 Usually, beneficial
ownership is distinguished from naked ownership, which is the enjoyment
of all the benefits and privileges of ownership, as against possession of the
bare title to property.
Page 30 of 126
An assiduous examination of the WMCP FTAA uncovers no indication that

it confers upon WMCP ownership, beneficial or otherwise, of the mining
property it is to develop, the minerals to be produced, or the proceeds of
their sale, which can be legally asserted and enforced as against the State.
As public respondents correctly point out, any interest the contractor may
have in the proceeds of the mining operation is merely the equivalent of
the consideration the government has undertaken to pay for its services.
All lawful contracts require such mutual prestations, and the WMCP FTAA
is no different. The contractor commits to perform certain services for the
government in respect of the mining operation, and in turn it is to be
compensated out of the net mining revenues generated from the sale of
mineral products. What would be objectionable is a contractual provision
that unduly benefits the contractor far in excess of the service rendered or
value delivered, if any, in exchange therefor.
A careful perusal of the statute itself and its implementing rules reveals
that neither RA 7942 nor DAO 99-56 can be said to convey beneficial
ownership of any mineral resource or product to any foreign FTAA
contractor.
Equitable Sharing
of Financial Benefits
On the contrary, DAO 99-56, entitled "Guidelines Establishing the Fiscal
Regime of Financial or Technical Assistance Agreements" aims to ensure
an equitable sharing of the 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. The purpose is
to ensure sustainable mineral resources development; and a fair,
equitable, competitive and stable investment regime for the large-scale
exploration, development and commercial utilization of minerals. The
general framework or concept followed in crafting the fiscal regime of the
FTAA is based on the principle that the government expects real
contributions to the economic growth and general welfare of the country,
while the contractor expects a reasonable return on its investments in the
project.63
Specifically, under the fiscal regime, the government's expectation is, inter
alia, the receipt of its share from the taxes and fees normally paid by a
mining enterprise. On the other hand, the FTAA contractor is granted by
the government certain fiscal and non-fiscal incentives64 to help support
the former's cash flow during the most critical phase (cost recovery) and to
make the Philippines competitive with other mineral-producing countries.
After the contractor has recovered its initial investment, it will pay all the
normal taxes and fees comprising the basic share of the government, plus
an additional share for the government based on the options and formulae
set forth in DAO 99-56.
The said DAO spells out the financial benefits the government will receive
from an FTAA, referred to as "the Government Share," composed of a
basic government share and an additional government share.
The basic government share is comprised of all direct taxes, fees and
royalties, as well as other payments made by the contractor during the
term of the FTAA. These are amounts paid directly to (i) the national
government (through the Bureau of Internal Revenue, Bureau of Customs,
Mines & Geosciences Bureau and other national government agencies
imposing taxes or fees), (ii) the local government units where the mining
activity is conducted, and (iii) persons and communities directly affected by
the mining project. The major taxes and other payments constituting the
basic government share are enumerated below:65
Payments to the National Government:
Excise tax on minerals - 2 percent of the gross output of mining
operations
Contractor' income tax - maximum of 32 percent of taxable income for
corporations
Customs duties and fees on imported capital equipment -the rate is set
by the Tariff and Customs Code (3-7 percent for chemicals; 3-10 percent
for explosives; 3-15 percent for mechanical and electrical equipment; and
3-10 percent for vehicles, aircraft and vessels
VAT on imported equipment, goods and services 10 percent of value
Royalties due the government on minerals extracted from mineral
reservations, if applicable 5 percent of the actual market value of the
minerals produced
Documentary stamp tax - the rate depends on the type of transaction
Capital gains tax on traded stocks - 5 to 10 percent of the value of the
shares
Withholding tax on interest payments on foreign loans -15 percent of the
amount of interest
Withholding tax on dividend payments to foreign stockholders 15
percent of the dividend
Wharfage and port fees
Licensing fees (for example, radio permit, firearms permit, professional
fees)
Other national taxes and fees.
Payments to Local Governments:
Local business tax - a maximum of 2 percent of gross sales or receipts

(the rate varies among local government units)
Real property tax - 2 percent of the fair market value of the property,
based on an assessment level set by the local government
Special education levy - 1 percent of the basis used for the real property
tax
Occupation fees - PhP50 per hectare per year; PhP100 per hectare per
year if located in a mineral reservation
Community tax - maximum of PhP10,500 per year
All other local government taxes, fees and imposts as of the effective
date of the FTAA - the rate and the type depend on the local government
Other Payments:
Royalty to indigenous cultural communities, if any 1 percent of gross
output from mining operations
Special allowance - payment to claim owners and surface rights holders
Apart from the basic share, an additional government share is also
collected from the FTAA contractor in accordance with the second
paragraph of Section 81 of RA 7942, which provides that the government
share shall be comprised of, among other things, certain taxes, duties and
fees. The subject proviso reads:
"The Government share in a financial or technical assistance agreement
shall consist of, among other things, the contractor's corporate income
tax, excise tax, special allowance, withholding tax due from the
contractor's foreign stockholders arising from dividend or interest
payments to the said foreign stockholder in case of a foreign national, and
all such other taxes, duties and fees as provided for under existing laws."
(Bold types supplied.)
The government, through the DENR and the MGB, has interpreted the
insertion of the phrase among other things as signifying that the
government is entitled to an "additional government share" to be paid by
the contractor apart from the "basic share," in order to attain a fifty-fifty
sharing of net benefits from mining.
The additional government share is computed by using one of three
options or schemes presented in DAO 99-56: (1) a fifty-fifty sharing in the
cumulative present value of cash flows; (2) the share based on excess
profits; and (3) the sharing based on the cumulative net mining revenue.
The particular formula to be applied will be selected by the contractor, with
a written notice to the government prior to the commencement of the
development and construction phase of the mining project.66
Proceeds from the government shares arising from an FTAA contract are
distributed to and received by the different levels of government in the
following proportions:
National Government
50 percent
Provincial Government
10 percent
Municipal Government
20 percent
Affected Barangays
20 percent
The portion of revenues remaining after the deduction of the basic and
additional government shares is what goes to the contractor.
Government's Share in an
FTAA Not Consisting Solely
of Taxes, Duties and Fees
In connection with the foregoing discussion on the basic and additional
government shares, it is pertinent at this juncture to mention the criticism
leveled at the second paragraph of Section 81 of RA 7942, quoted earlier.
The said proviso has been denounced, because, allegedly, the State's
share in FTAAs with foreign contractors has been limited to taxes, fees
and duties only; in effect, the State has been deprived of a share in the
after-tax income of the enterprise. In the face of this allegation, one has to
consider that the law does not define the term among other things; and the
Office of the Solicitor General, in its Motion for Reconsideration, appears to
have erroneously claimed that the phrase refers to indirect taxes.
The law provides no definition of the term among other things, for the
reason that Congress deliberately avoided setting unnecessary limitations
as to what may constitute compensation to the State for the exploitation
and use of mineral resources. But the inclusion of that phrase clearly and
unmistakably reveals the legislative intent to have the State collect more
than just the usual taxes, duties and fees. Certainly, there is nothing in that
phrase -- or in the second paragraph of Section 81 -- that would suggest
that such phrase should be interpreted as referring only to taxes, duties,
fees and the like.
Precisely for that reason, to fulfill the legislative intent behind the inclusion
of the phrase among other things in the second paragraph of Section 81,67
the DENR structured and formulated in DAO 99-56 the said additional
government share. Such a share was to consist not of taxes, but of a
share in the earnings or cash flows of the mining enterprise. The
additional government share was to be paid by the contractor on top of the
basic share, so as to achieve a fifty-fifty sharing -- between the
government and the contractor -- of net benefits from mining. In the
Ramos-DeVera paper, the explanation of the three options or formulas68
-- presented in DAO 99-56 for the computation of the additional
government share -- serves to debunk the claim that the government's
take from an FTAA consists solely of taxes, fees and duties.
Page 31 of 126
Unfortunately, the Office of the Solicitor General -- although in possession

of the relevant data -- failed to fully replicate or echo the pertinent
elucidation in the Ramos-DeVera paper regarding the three schemes or
options for computing the additional government share presented in DAO
99-56. Had due care been taken by the OSG, the Court would have been
duly apprised of the real nature and particulars of the additional share.
But, perhaps, on account of the esoteric discussion in the Ramos-DeVera
paper, and the even more abstruse mathematical jargon employed in DAO
99-56, the OSG omitted any mention of the three options. Instead, the
OSG skipped to a side discussion of the effect of indirect taxes, which had
nothing at all to do with the additional government share, to begin with.
Unfortunately, this move created the wrong impression, pointed out in
Justice Antonio T. Carpio's Opinion, that the OSG had taken the position
that the additional government share consisted of indirect taxes.
In any event, what is quite evident is the fact that the additional
government share, as formulated, has nothing to do with taxes -- direct or
indirect -- or with duties, fees or charges. To repeat, it is over and above
the basic government share composed of taxes and duties. Simply put, the
additional share may be (a) an amount that will result in a 50-50 sharing of
the cumulative present value of the cash flows69 of the enterprise; (b) an
amount equivalent to 25 percent of the additional or excess profits of the
enterprise, reckoned against a benchmark return on investments; or (c) an
amount that will result in a fifty-fifty sharing of the cumulative net mining
revenue from the end of the recovery period up to the taxable year in
question. The contractor is required to select one of the three options or
formulae for computing the additional share, an option it will apply to all of
its mining operations.
As used above, "net mining revenue" is defined as the gross output from
mining operations for a calendar year, less deductible expenses (inclusive
of taxes, duties and fees). Such revenue would roughly be equivalent to
"taxable income" or income before income tax. Definitely, as compared
with, say, calculating the additional government share on the basis of
net income (after income tax), the net mining revenue is a better and much
more reasonable basis for such computation, as it gives a truer picture of
the profitability of the company.
To demonstrate that the three options or formulations will operate as
intended, Messrs. Ramos and de Vera also performed some
quantifications of the government share via a financial modeling of each of
the three options discussed above. They found that the government would
get the highest share from the option that is based on the net mining
revenue, as compared with the other two options, considering only the
basic and the additional shares; and that, even though production rate
decreases, the government share will actually increase when the net
mining revenue and the additional profit-based options are used.
Furthermore, it should be noted that the three options or formulae do not
yet take into account the indirect taxes70 and other financial contributions71
of mining projects. These indirect taxes and other contributions are real
and actual benefits enjoyed by the Filipino people and/or government.
Now, if some of the quantifiable items are taken into account in the
computations, the financial modeling would show that the total government
share increases to 60 percent or higher -- in one instance, as much as 77
percent and even 89 percent -- of the net present value of total benefits
from the project. As noted in the Ramos-DeVera paper, these results are
not at all shabby, considering that the contractor puts in all the capital
requirements and assumes all the risks, without the government having to
contribute or risk anything.
Despite the foregoing explanation, Justice Carpio still insisted during the
Court's deliberations that the phrase among other things refers only to
taxes, duties and fees. We are bewildered by his position. On the one
hand, he condemns the Mining Law for allegedly limiting the government's
benefits only to taxes, duties and fees; and on the other, he refuses to
allow the State to benefit from the correct and proper interpretation of the
DENR/MGB. To remove all doubts then, we hold that the State's share is
not limited to taxes, duties and fees only and that the DENR/MGB
interpretation of the phrase among other things is correct. Definitely, this
DENR/MGB interpretation is not only legally sound, but also greatly
advantageous to the government.
One last point on the subject. The legislature acted judiciously in not
defining the terms among other things and, instead, leaving it to the
agencies concerned to devise and develop the various modes of arriving at
a reasonable and fair amount for the additional government share. As
can be seen from DAO 99-56, the agencies concerned did an admirable
job of conceiving and developing not just one formula, but three different
formulae for arriving at the additional government share. Each of these
options is quite fair and reasonable; and, as Messrs. Ramos and De Vera
stated, other alternatives or schemes for a possible improvement of the
fiscal regime for FTAAs are also being studied by the government.
Besides, not locking into a fixed definition of the term among other things
will ultimately be more beneficial to the government, as it will have that
innate flexibility to adjust to and cope with rapidly changing circumstances,
particularly those in the international markets. Such flexibility is especially
significant for the government in terms of helping our mining enterprises

remain competitive in world markets despite challenging and shifting
economic scenarios.
In conclusion, we stress that we do not share the view that in FTAAs
with foreign contractors under RA 7942, the government's share is
limited to taxes, fees and duties. Consequently, we find the attacks
on the second paragraph of Section 81 of RA 7942 totally
unwarranted.
Collections Not Made Uncertain
by the Third Paragraph of Section 81
The third or last paragraph of Section 8172 provides that the government
share in FTAAs shall be collected when the contractor shall have
recovered its pre-operating expenses and exploration and development
expenditures. The objection has been advanced that, on account of the
proviso, the collection of the State's share is not even certain, as there is
no time limit in RA 7942 for this grace period or recovery period.
We believe that Congress did not set any time limit for the grace period,
preferring to leave it to the concerned agencies, which are, on account of
their technical expertise and training, in a better position to determine the
appropriate durations for such recovery periods. After all, these recovery
periods are determined, to a great extent, by technical and technological
factors peculiar to the mining industry. Besides, with developments and
advances in technology and in the geosciences, we cannot discount the
possibility of shorter recovery periods. At any rate, the concerned agencies
have not been remiss in this area. The 1995 and 1996 Implementing Rules
and Regulations of RA 7942 specify that the period of recovery, reckoned
from the date of commercial operation, shall be for a period not exceeding
five years, or until the date of actual recovery, whichever comes earlier.
Approval of Pre-Operating
Expenses Required by RA 7942
Still, RA 7942 is criticized for allegedly not requiring government approval
of pre-operating, exploration and development expenses of the foreign
contractors, who are in effect given unfettered discretion to determine the
amounts of such expenses. Supposedly, nothing prevents the contractors
from recording such expenses in amounts equal to the mining revenues
anticipated for the first 10 or 15 years of commercial production, with the
result that the share of the State will be zero for the first 10 or 15 years.
Moreover, under the circumstances, the government would be unable to
say when it would start to receive its share under the FTAA.
We believe that the argument is based on incorrect information as well as
speculation. Obviously, certain crucial provisions in the Mining Law were
overlooked. Section 23, dealing with the rights and obligations of the
exploration permit grantee, states: "The permittee shall undertake
exploration work on the area as specified by its permit based on an
approved work program." The next proviso reads: "Any expenditure in
excess of the yearly budget of the approved work program may be carried
forward and credited to the succeeding years covering the duration of the
permit. x x x." (underscoring supplied)
Clearly, even at the stage of application for an exploration permit, the
applicant is required to submit -- for approval by the government -- a
proposed work program for exploration, containing a yearly budget of
proposed expenditures. The State has the opportunity to pass upon (and
approve or reject) such proposed expenditures, with the foreknowledge
that -- if approved -- these will subsequently be recorded as pre-operating
expenses that the contractor will have to recoup over the grace period.
That is not all.
Under Section 24, an exploration permit holder who determines the
commercial viability of a project covering a mining area may, within the
term of the permit, file with the Mines and Geosciences Bureau a
declaration of mining project feasibility. This declaration is to be
accompanied by a work program for development for the Bureau's
approval, the necessary prelude for entering into an FTAA, a mineral
production sharing agreement (MPSA), or some other mineral agreement.
At this stage, too, the government obviously has the opportunity to approve
or reject the proposed work program and budgeted expenditures for
development works on the project. Such expenditures will ultimately
become the pre-operating and development costs that will have to be
recovered by the contractor.
Naturally, with the submission of approved work programs and budgets for
the exploration and the development/construction phases, the government
will be able to scrutinize and approve or reject such expenditures. It will be
well-informed as to the amounts of pre-operating and other expenses that
the contractor may legitimately recover and the approximate period of time
needed to effect such a recovery. There is therefore no way the contractor
can just randomly post any amount of pre-operating expenses and expect
to recover the same.
Page 32 of 126
The aforecited provisions on approved work programs and budgets have

counterparts in Section 35, which deals with the terms and conditions
exclusively applicable to FTAAs. The said provision requires certain terms
and conditions to be incorporated into FTAAs; among them, "a firm
commitment x x x of an amount corresponding to the expenditure
obligation that will be invested in the contract area" and "representations
and warranties x x x to timely deploy these [financing, managerial and
technical expertise and technological] resources under its supervision
pursuant to the periodic work programs and related budgets x x x," as well
as "work programs and minimum expenditures commitments."
(underscoring supplied)
Unarguably, given the provisions of Section 35, the State has every
opportunity to pass upon the proposed expenditures under an FTAA and
approve or reject them. It has access to all the information it may need in
order to determine in advance the amounts of pre-operating and
developmental expenses that will have to be recovered by the contractor
and the amount of time needed for such recovery.
In summary, we cannot agree that the third or last paragraph of
Section 81 of RA 7942 is in any manner unconstitutional.
No Deprivation of Beneficial Rights
It is also claimed that aside from the second and the third paragraphs of
Section 81 (discussed above), Sections 80, 84 and 112 of RA 7942 also
operate to deprive the State of beneficial rights of ownership over mineral
resources; and give them away for free to private business enterprises
(including foreign owned corporations). Likewise, the said provisions have
been construed as constituting, together with Section 81, an ingenious
attempt to resurrect the old and discredited system of "license, concession
or lease."
Specifically, Section 80 is condemned for limiting the State's share in a
mineral production-sharing agreement (MPSA) to just the excise tax on the
mineral product. Under Section 151(A) of the Tax Code, such tax is only 2
percent of the market value of the gross output of the minerals. The
colatilla in Section 84, the portion considered offensive to the Constitution,
reiterates the same limitation made in Section 80.73
It should be pointed out that Section 80 and the colatilla in Section 84
pertain only to MPSAs and have no application to FTAAs. These particular
statutory provisions do not come within the issues that were defined and
delineated by this Court during the Oral Argument -- particularly the third
issue, which pertained exclusively to FTAAs. Neither did the parties argue
upon them in their pleadings. Hence, this Court cannot make any
pronouncement in this case regarding the constitutionality of Sections 80
and 84 without violating the fundamental rules of due process. Indeed, the
two provisos will have to await another case specifically placing them in
issue.
On the other hand, Section 11274 is disparaged for allegedly reverting
FTAAs and all mineral agreements to the old and discredited "license,
concession or lease" system. This Section states in relevant part that "the
provisions of Chapter XIV [which includes Sections 80 to 82] on
government share in mineral production-sharing agreement x x x shall
immediately govern and apply to a mining lessee or contractor."
(underscoring supplied) This provision is construed as signifying that the 2
percent excise tax which, pursuant to Section 80, comprises the
government share in MPSAs shall now also constitute the government
share in FTAAs -- as well as in co-production agreements and joint venture
agreements -- to the exclusion of revenues of any other nature or from any
other source.
Apart from the fact that Section 112 likewise does not come within the
issues delineated by this Court during the Oral Argument, and was never
touched upon by the parties in their pleadings, it must also be noted that
the criticism hurled against this Section is rooted in unwarranted
conclusions made without considering other relevant provisions in the
statute. Whether Section 112 may properly apply to co-production or joint
venture agreements, the fact of the matter is that it cannot be made to
apply to FTAAs.
First, Section 112 does not specifically mention or refer to FTAAs; the only
reason it is being applied to them at all is the fact that it happens to use the
word "contractor." Hence, it is a bit of a stretch to insist that it covers
FTAAs as well. Second, mineral agreements, of which there are three
types -- MPSAs, co-production agreements, and joint venture agreements
-- are covered by Chapter V of RA 7942. On the other hand, FTAAs are
covered by and in fact are the subject of Chapter VI, an entirely different
chapter altogether. The law obviously intends to treat them as a breed
apart from mineral agreements, since Section 35 (found in Chapter VI)
creates a long list of specific terms, conditions, commitments,
representations and warranties -- which have not been made applicable to
mineral agreements -- to be incorporated into FTAAs.
Third, under Section 39, the FTAA contractor is given the option to
"downgrade" -- to convert the FTAA into a mineral agreement at any time
during the term if the economic viability of the contract area is inadequate
to sustain large-scale mining operations. Thus, there is no reason to think
that the law through Section 112 intends to exact from FTAA contractors
merely the same government share (a 2 percent excise tax) that it
apparently demands from contractors under the three forms of mineral
agreements. In brief, Section 112 does not apply to FTAAs.
Notwithstanding the foregoing explanation, Justices Carpio and Morales
maintain that the Court must rule now on the constitutionality of Sections
80, 84 and 112, allegedly because the WMCP FTAA contains a provision
which grants the contractor unbridled and "automatic" authority to convert
the FTAA into an MPSA; and should such conversion happen, the State
would be prejudiced since its share would be limited to the 2 percent
excise tax. Justice Carpio adds that there are five MPSAs already signed
just awaiting the judgment of this Court on respondents' and intervenor's
Motions for Reconsideration. We hold however that, at this point, this
argument is based on pure speculation. The Court cannot rule on mere
surmises and hypothetical assumptions, without firm factual anchor. We
repeat: basic due process requires that we hear the parties who have a
real legal interest in the MPSAs (i.e. the parties who executed them)
before these MPSAs can be reviewed, or worse, struck down by the Court.
Anything less than that requirement would be arbitrary and capricious.
In any event, the conversion of the present FTAA into an MPSA is
problematic. First, the contractor must comply with the law, particularly
Section 39 of RA 7942; inter alia, it must convincingly show that the
"economic viability of the contract is found to be inadequate to justify largescale mining operations;" second, it must contend with the President's
exercise of the power of State control over the EDU of natural resources;
and third, it will have to risk a possible declaration of the unconstitutionality
(in a proper case) of Sections 80, 84 and 112.
The first requirement is not as simple as it looks. Section 39 contemplates
a situation in which an FTAA has already been executed and entered into,
and is presumably being implemented, when the contractor "discovers"
that the mineral ore reserves in the contract area are not sufficient to justify
large-scale mining, and thus the contractor requests the conversion of the
FTAA into an MPSA. The contractor in effect needs to explain why, despite
its exploration activities, including the conduct of various geologic and
other scientific tests and procedures in the contract area, it was unable to
determine correctly the mineral ore reserves and the economic viability of
the area. The contractor must explain why, after conducting such
exploration activities, it decided to file a declaration of mining feasibility,
and to apply for an FTAA, thereby leading the State to believe that the
area could sustain large-scale mining. The contractor must justify fully why
its earlier findings, based on scientific procedures, tests and data, turned
out to be wrong, or were way off. It must likewise prove that its new
findings, also based on scientific tests and procedures, are correct. Right
away, this puts the contractor's technical capabilities and expertise into
serious doubt. We wonder if anyone would relish being in this situation.
The State could even question and challenge the contractor's qualification
and competence to continue the activity under an MPSA.
All in all, while there may be cogent grounds to assail the aforecited
Sections, this Court -- on considerations of due process -- cannot
rule upon them here. Anyway, if later on these Sections are declared
unconstitutional, such declaration will not affect the other portions
since they are clearly separable from the rest.
Our Mineral Resources Not
Given Away for Free by RA 7942
Nevertheless, if only to disabuse our minds, we should address the
contention that our mineral resources are effectively given away for free by
the law (RA 7942) in general and by Sections 80, 81, 84 and 112 in
particular.
Foreign contractors do not just waltz into town one day and leave the next,
taking away mineral resources without paying anything. In order to get at
the minerals, they have to invest huge sums of money (tens or hundreds of
millions of dollars) in exploration works first. If the exploration proves
unsuccessful, all the cash spent thereon will not be returned to the foreign
investors; rather, those funds will have been infused into the local
economy, to remain there permanently. The benefits therefrom cannot be
simply ignored. And assuming that the foreign contractors are successful
in finding ore bodies that are viable for commercial exploitation, they do not
just pluck out the minerals and cart them off. They have first to build camp
sites and roadways; dig mine shafts and connecting tunnels; prepare
tailing ponds, storage areas and vehicle depots; install their machinery and
equipment, generator sets, pumps, water tanks and sewer systems, and
so on.
In short, they need to expend a great deal more of their funds for facilities,
equipment and supplies, fuel, salaries of local labor and technical staff,
and other operating expenses. In the meantime, they also have to pay
taxes,75 duties, fees, and royalties. All told, the exploration, pre-feasibility,
feasibility, development and construction phases together add up to as
many as eleven years.76 The contractors have to continually shell out
funds for the duration of over a decade, before they can commence
Page 33 of 126
commercial production from which they would eventually derive revenues.

All that money translates into a lot of "pump-priming" for the local
economy.
Granted that the contractors are allowed subsequently to recover their preoperating expenses, still, that eventuality will happen only after they shall
have first put out the cash and fueled the economy. Moreover, in the
process of recouping their investments and costs, the foreign contractors
do not actually pull out the money from the economy. Rather, they recover
or recoup their investments out of actual commercial production by not
paying a portion of the basic government share corresponding to national
taxes, along with the additional government share, for a period of not more
than five years77 counted from the commencement of commercial
production.
It must be noted that there can be no recovery without commencing actual
commercial production. In the meantime that the contractors are recouping
costs, they need to continue operating; in order to do so, they have to
disburse money to meet their various needs. In short, money is continually
infused into the economy.
The foregoing discussion should serve to rid us of the mistaken belief that,
since the foreign contractors are allowed to recover their investments and
costs, the end result is that they practically get the minerals for free, which
leaves the Filipino people none the better for it.
All Businesses Entitled
to Cost Recovery
Let it be put on record that not only foreign contractors, but all
businessmen and all business entities in general, have to recoup their
investments and costs. That is one of the first things a student learns in
business school. Regardless of its nationality, and whether or not a
business entity has a five-year cost recovery period, it will -- must -- have
to recoup its investments, one way or another. This is just common
business sense. Recovery of investments is absolutely indispensable for
business survival; and business survival ensures soundness of the
economy, which is critical and contributory to the general welfare of the
people. Even government corporations must recoup their investments in
order to survive and continue in operation. And, as the preceding
discussion has shown, there is no business that gets ahead or earns
profits without any cost to it.
It must also be stressed that, though the State owns vast mineral wealth,
such wealth is not readily accessible or transformable into usable and
negotiable currency without the intervention of the credible mining
companies. Those untapped mineral resources, hidden beneath tons of
earth and rock, may as well not be there for all the good they do us right
now. They have first to be extracted and converted into marketable form,
and the country needs the foreign contractor's funds, technology and
know-how for that.
After about eleven years of pre-operation and another five years for cost
recovery, the foreign contractors will have just broken even. Is it likely that
they would at that point stop their operations and leave? Certainly not.
They have yet to make profits. Thus, for the remainder of the contract
term, they must strive to maintain profitability. During this period, they pay
the whole of the basic government share and the additional government
share which, taken together with indirect taxes and other contributions,
amount to approximately 60 percent or more of the entire financial benefits
generated by the mining venture.
In sum, we can hardly talk about foreign contractors taking our mineral
resources for free. It takes a lot of hard cash to even begin to do what they
do. And what they do in this country ultimately benefits the local economy,
grows businesses, generates employment, and creates infrastructure, as
discussed above. Hence, we definitely disagree with the sweeping claim
that no FTAA under Section 81 will ever make any real contribution to the
growth of the economy or to the general welfare of the country. This is not
a plea for foreign contractors. Rather, this is a question of focusing the
judicial spotlight squarely on all the pertinent facts as they bear upon the
issue at hand, in order to avoid leaping precipitately to ill-conceived
conclusions not solidly grounded upon fact.
Repatriation of After-Tax Income
Another objection points to the alleged failure of the Mining Law to ensure
real contributions to the economic growth and general welfare of the
country, as mandated by Section 2 of Article XII of the Constitution.
Pursuant to Section 81 of the law, the entire after-tax income arising from
the exploitation of mineral resources owned by the State supposedly
belongs to the foreign contractors, which will naturally repatriate the said
after-tax income to their home countries, thereby resulting in no real
contribution to the economic growth of this country. Clearly, this contention
is premised on erroneous assumptions.
First, as already discussed in detail hereinabove, the concerned agencies
have correctly interpreted the second paragraph of Section 81 of RA 7942
to mean that the government is entitled to an additional share, to be

computed based on any one of the following factors: net mining revenues,
the present value of the cash flows, or excess profits reckoned against a
benchmark rate of return on investments. So it is not correct to say that all
of the after-tax income will accrue to the foreign FTAA contractor, as the
government effectively receives a significant portion thereof.
Second, the foreign contractors can hardly "repatriate the entire after-tax
income to their home countries." Even a bit of knowledge of corporate
finance will show that it will be impossible to maintain a business as a
"going concern" if the entire "net profit" earned in any particular year will be
taken out and repatriated. The "net income" figure reflected in the bottom
line is a mere accounting figure not necessarily corresponding to cash in
the bank, or other quick assets. In order to produce and set aside cash in
an amount equivalent to the bottom line figure, one may need to sell off
assets or immediately collect receivables or liquidate short-term
investments; but doing so may very likely disrupt normal business
operations.
In terms of cash flows, the funds corresponding to the net income as of a
particular point in time are actually in use in the normal course of business
operations. Pulling out such net income disrupts the cash flows and cash
position of the enterprise and, depending on the amount being taken out,
could seriously cripple or endanger the normal operations and financial
health of the business enterprise. In short, no sane business person,
concerned with maintaining the mining enterprise as a going concern
and keeping a foothold in its market, can afford to repatriate the
entire after-tax income to the home country.
The State's Receipt of Sixty
Percent of an FTAA Contractor's
After-Tax Income Not Mandatory
We now come to the next objection which runs this way: In FTAAs with a
foreign contractor, the State must receive at least 60 percent of the aftertax income from the exploitation of its mineral resources. This share is the
equivalent of the constitutional requirement that at least 60 percent of the
capital, and hence 60 percent of the income, of mining companies should
remain in Filipino hands.
First, we fail to see how we can properly conclude that the Constitution
mandates the State to extract at least 60 percent of the after-tax income
from a mining company run by a foreign contractor. The argument is that
the Charter requires the State's partner in a co-production agreement, joint
venture agreement or MPSA to be a Filipino corporation (at least 60
percent owned by Filipino citizens).
We question the logic of this reasoning, premised on a supposedly parallel
or analogous situation. We are, after all, dealing with an essentially
different equation, one that involves different elements. The Charter did
not intend to fix an iron-clad rule on the 60 percent share, applicable
to all situations at all times and in all circumstances. If ever such was
the intention of the framers, they would have spelt it out in black and white.
Verba legis will serve to dispel unwarranted and untenable conclusions.
Second, if we would bother to do the math, we might better appreciate the
impact (and reasonableness) of what we are demanding of the foreign
contractor. Let us use a simplified illustration. Let us base it on gross
revenues of, say, P500. After deducting operating expenses, but prior to
income tax, suppose a mining firm makes a taxable income of P100. A
corporate income tax of 32 percent results in P32 of taxable income going
to the government, leaving the mining firm with P68. Government then
takes 60 percent thereof, equivalent to P40.80, leaving only P27.20 for the
mining firm.
At this point the government has pocketed P32.00 plus P40.80, or a total
of P72.80 for every P100 of taxable income, leaving the mining firm with
only P27.20. But that is not all. The government has also taken 2 percent
excise tax "off the top," equivalent to another P10. Under the minimum 60
percent proposal, the government nets around P82.80 (not counting other
taxes, duties, fees and charges) from a taxable income of P100 (assuming
gross revenues of P500, for purposes of illustration). On the other hand,
the foreign contractor, which provided all the capital, equipment and labor,
and took all the entrepreneurial risks -- receives P27.20. One cannot but
wonder whether such a distribution is even remotely equitable and
reasonable, considering the nature of the mining business. The amount of
P82.80 out of P100.00 is really a lot it does not matter that we call part of
it excise tax or income tax, and another portion thereof income from
exploitation of mineral resources. Some might think it wonderful to be able
to take the lion's share of the benefits. But we have to ask ourselves if we
are really serious in attracting the investments that are the indispensable
and key element in generating the monetary benefits of which we wish to
take the lion's share. Fairness is a credo not only in law, but also in
business.
Third, the 60 percent rule in the petroleum industry cannot be insisted
upon at all times in the mining business. The reason happens to be the
fact that in petroleum operations, the bulk of expenditures is in exploration,
but once the contractor has found and tapped into the deposit, subsequent
Page 34 of 126
investments and expenditures are relatively minimal. The crude (or gas)
keeps gushing out, and the work entailed is just a matter of piping,
transporting and storing. Not so in mineral mining. The ore body does not
pop out on its own. Even after it has been located, the contractor must
continually invest in machineries and expend funds to dig and build tunnels
in order to access and extract the minerals from underneath hundreds of
tons of earth and rock.
As already stated, the numerous intrinsic differences involved in their
respective operations and requirements, cost structures and investment
needs render it highly inappropriate to use petroleum operations FTAAs as
benchmarks for mining FTAAs. Verily, we cannot just ignore the realities of
the distinctly different situations and stubbornly insist on the "minimum 60
percent."
The Mining and the Oil Industries
Different From Each Other
To stress, there is no independent showing that the taking of at least a 60
percent share in the after-tax income of a mining company operated by a
foreign contractor is fair and reasonable under most if not all
circumstances. The fact that some petroleum companies like Shell
acceded to such percentage of sharing does not ipso facto mean that it is
per se reasonable and applicable to non-petroleum situations (that is,
mining companies) as well. We can take judicial notice of the fact that
there are, after all, numerous intrinsic differences involved in their
respective operations and equipment or technological requirements, costs
structures and capital investment needs, and product pricing and markets.
There is no showing, for instance, that mining companies can readily cope
with a 60 percent government share in the same way petroleum
companies apparently can. What we have is a suggestion to enforce the
60 percent quota on the basis of a disjointed analogy. The only factor
common to the two disparate situations is the extraction of natural
resources.
Indeed, we should take note of the fact that Congress made a distinction
between mining firms and petroleum companies. In Republic Act No. 7729
-- "An Act Reducing the Excise Tax Rates on Metallic and Non-Metallic
Minerals and Quarry Resources, Amending for the Purpose Section 151(a)
of the National Internal Revenue Code, as amended" -- the lawmakers
fixed the excise tax rate on metallic and non-metallic minerals at two
percent of the actual market value of the annual gross output at the time of
removal. However, in the case of petroleum, the lawmakers set the excise
tax rate for the first taxable sale at fifteen percent of the fair international
market price thereof.
There must have been a very sound reason that impelled Congress to
impose two very dissimilar excise tax rate. We cannot assume, without
proof, that our honorable legislators acted arbitrarily, capriciously and
whimsically in this instance. We cannot just ignore the reality of two
distinctly different situations and stubbornly insist on going "minimum 60
percent."
To repeat, the mere fact that gas and oil exploration contracts grant the
State 60 percent of the net revenues does not necessarily imply that
mining contracts should likewise yield a minimum of 60 percent for the
State. Jumping to that erroneous conclusion is like comparing apples with
oranges. The exploration, development and utilization of gas and oil are
simply different from those of mineral resources.
To stress again, the main risk in gas and oil is in the exploration. But once
oil in commercial quantities is struck and the wells are put in place, the risk
is relatively over and black gold simply flows out continuously with
comparatively less need for fresh investments and technology.
On the other hand, even if minerals are found in viable quantities, there is
still need for continuous fresh capital and expertise to dig the mineral ores
from the mines. Just because deposits of mineral ores are found in one
area is no guarantee that an equal amount can be found in the adjacent
areas. There are simply continuing risks and need for more capital,
expertise and industry all the time.
Note, however, that the indirect benefits -- apart from the cash revenues -are much more in the mineral industry. As mines are explored and
extracted, vast employment is created, roads and other infrastructure are
built, and other multiplier effects arise. On the other hand, once oil wells
start producing, there is less need for employment. Roads and other public
works need not be constructed continuously. In fine, there is no basis for
saying that government revenues from the oil industry and from the
mineral industries are to be identical all the time.
Fourth, to our mind, the proffered "minimum 60 percent" suggestion tends
to limit the flexibility and tie the hands of government, ultimately hampering
the country's competitiveness in the international market, to the detriment
of the Filipino people. This "you-have-to-give-us-60-percent-of-after-taxincome-or-we-don't-do- business-with-you" approach is quite perilous.
True, this situation may not seem too unpalatable to the foreign contractor
during good years, when international market prices are up and the mining
firm manages to keep its costs in check. However, under unfavorable
economic and business conditions, with costs spiraling skywards and
minerals prices plummeting, a mining firm may consider itself lucky to
make just minimal profits.
The inflexible, carved-in-granite demand for a 60 percent government
share may spell the end of the mining venture, scare away potential
investors, and thereby further worsen the already dismal economic
scenario. Moreover, such an unbending or unyielding policy prevents the
government from responding appropriately to changing economic
conditions and shifting market forces. This inflexibility further renders our
country less attractive as an investment option compared with other
countries.
And fifth, for this Court to decree imperiously that the government's share
should be not less than 60 percent of the after-tax income of FTAA
contractors at all times is nothing short of dictating upon the government.
The result, ironically, is that the State ends up losing control. To avoid
compromising the State's full control and supervision over the exploitation
of mineral resources, this Court must back off from insisting upon a
"minimum 60 percent" rule. It is sufficient that the State has the power and
means, should it so decide, to get a 60 percent share (or more) in the
contractor's net mining revenues or after-tax income, or whatever other
basis the government may decide to use in reckoning its share. It is not
necessary for it to do so in every case, regardless of circumstances.
In fact, the government must be trusted, must be accorded the liberty and
the utmost flexibility to deal, negotiate and transact with contractors and
third parties as it sees fit; and upon terms that it ascertains to be most
favorable or most acceptable under the circumstances, even if it means
agreeing to less than 60 percent. Nothing must prevent the State from
agreeing to a share less than that, should it be deemed fit; otherwise the
State will be deprived of full control over mineral exploitation that the
Charter has vested in it.
To stress again, there is simply no constitutional or legal provision fixing
the minimum share of the government in an FTAA at 60 percent of the net
profit. For this Court to decree such minimum is to wade into judicial
legislation, and thereby inordinately impinge on the control power of the
State. Let it be clear: the Court is not against the grant of more benefits to
the State; in fact, the more the better. If during the FTAA negotiations, the
President can secure 60 percent,78 or even 90 percent, then all the better
for our people. But, if under the peculiar circumstances of a specific
contract, the President could secure only 50 percent or 55 percent, so be
it. Needless to say, the President will have to report (and be responsible
for) the specific FTAA to Congress, and eventually to the people.
Finally, if it should later be found that the share agreed to is grossly
disadvantageous to the government, the officials responsible for entering
into such a contract on its behalf will have to answer to the courts for their
malfeasance. And the contract provision voided. But this Court would
abuse its own authority should it force the government's hand to adopt the
60 percent demand of some of our esteemed colleagues.
Capital and Expertise Provided,
Yet All Risks Assumed by Contractor
Here, we will repeat what has not been emphasized and appreciated
enough: the fact that the contractor in an FTAA provides all the needed
capital, technical and managerial expertise, and technology required to
undertake the project.
In regard to the WMCP FTAA, the then foreign-owned WMCP as
contractor committed, at the very outset, to make capital investments of up
to US$50 million in that single mining project. WMCP claims to have
already poured in well over P800 million into the country as of February
1998, with more in the pipeline. These resources, valued in the tens or
hundreds of millions of dollars, are invested in a mining project that
provides no assurance whatsoever that any part of the investment will be
ultimately recouped.
At the same time, the contractor must comply with legally imposed
environmental standards and the social obligations, for which it also
commits to make significant expenditures of funds. Throughout, the
contractor assumes all the risks79 of the business, as mentioned earlier.
These risks are indeed very high, considering that the rate of success in
exploration is extremely low. The probability of finding any mineral or
petroleum in commercially viable quantities is estimated to be about
1:1,000 only. On that slim chance rides the contractor's hope of recouping
investments and generating profits. And when the contractor has recouped
its initial investments in the project, the government share increases to
sixty percent of net benefits -- without the State ever being in peril of
incurring costs, expenses and losses.
And even in the worst possible scenario -- an absence of commercial
quantities of minerals to justify development -- the contractor would already
have spent several million pesos for exploration works, before arriving at
Page 35 of 126
the point in which it can make that determination and decide to cut its
losses. In fact, during the first year alone of the exploration period, the
contractor was already committed to spend not less than P24 million. The
FTAA therefore clearly ensures benefits for the local economy, courtesy of
the contractor.
All in all, this setup cannot be regarded as disadvantageous to the
State or the Filipino people; it certainly cannot be said to convey
beneficial ownership of our mineral resources to foreign contractors.
Deductions Allowed by the
WMCP FTAA Reasonable
Petitioners question whether the State's weak control might render the
sharing arrangements ineffective. They cite the so-called "suspicious"
deductions allowed by the WMCP FTAA in arriving at the net mining
revenue, which is the basis for computing the government share. The
WMCP FTAA, for instance, allows expenditures for "development within
and outside the Contract Area relating to the Mining Operations,"80
"consulting fees incurred both inside and outside the Philippines for work
related directly to the Mining Operations,"81 and "the establishment and
administration of field offices including administrative overheads incurred
within and outside the Philippines which are properly allocatable to the
Mining Operations and reasonably related to the performance of the
Contractor's obligations and exercise of its rights under this Agreement." 82
It is quite well known, however, that mining companies do perform some
marketing activities abroad in respect of selling their mineral products and
by-products. Hence, it would not be improper to allow the deduction of
reasonable consulting fees incurred abroad, as well as administrative
expenses and overheads related to marketing offices also located abroad - provided that these deductions are directly related or properly allocatable
to the mining operations and reasonably related to the performance of the
contractor's obligations and exercise of its rights. In any event, more facts
are needed. Until we see how these provisions actually operate, mere
"suspicions" will not suffice to propel this Court into taking action.
Section 7.9 of the WMCP FTAA
Invalid and Disadvantageous
Having defended the WMCP FTAA, we shall now turn to two defective
provisos. Let us start with Section 7.9 of the WMCP FTAA. While Section
7.7 gives the government a 60 percent share in the net mining revenues of
WMCP from the commencement of commercial production, Section 7.9
deprives the government of part or all of the said 60 percent. Under the
latter provision, should WMCP's foreign shareholders -- who originally
owned 100 percent of the equity -- sell 60 percent or more of its
outstanding capital stock to a Filipino citizen or corporation, the State loses
its right to receive its 60 percent share in net mining revenues under
Section 7.7.
Section 7.9 provides:
The percentage of Net Mining Revenues payable to the
Government pursuant to Clause 7.7 shall be reduced by
1percent of Net Mining Revenues for every 1percent ownership
interest in the Contractor (i.e., WMCP) held by a Qualified
Entity.83
Evidently, what Section 7.7 grants to the State is taken away in the next
breath by Section 7.9 without any offsetting compensation to the State.
Thus, in reality, the State has no vested right to receive any income from
the FTAA for the exploitation of its mineral resources. Worse, it would
seem that what is given to the State in Section 7.7 is by mere tolerance of
WMCP's foreign stockholders, who can at any time cut off the
government's entire 60 percent share. They can do so by simply selling 60
percent of WMCP's outstanding capital stock to a Philippine citizen or
corporation. Moreover, the proceeds of such sale will of course accrue to
the foreign stockholders of WMCP, not to the State.
The sale of 60 percent of WMCP's outstanding equity to a corporation that
is 60 percent Filipino-owned and 40 percent foreign-owned will still trigger
the operation of Section 7.9. Effectively, the State will lose its right to
receive all 60 percent of the net mining revenues of WMCP; and foreign
stockholders will own beneficially up to 64 percent of WMCP, consisting of
the remaining 40 percent foreign equity therein, plus the 24 percent prorata share in the buyer-corporation.84
compensation whatsoever. It is possible that the inclusion of the offending

provision was initially prompted by the desire to provide some form of
incentive for the principal foreign stockholder in WMCP to eventually
reduce its equity position and ultimately divest in favor of Filipino citizens
and corporations. However, as finally structured, Section 7.9 has the
deleterious effect of depriving government of the entire 60 percent share in
WMCP's net mining revenues, without any form of compensation
whatsoever. Such an outcome is completely unacceptable.
The whole point of developing the nation's natural resources is to benefit
the Filipino people, future generations included. And the State as
sovereign and custodian of the nation's natural wealth is mandated to
protect, conserve, preserve and develop that part of the national patrimony
for their benefit. Hence, the Charter lays great emphasis on "real
contributions to the economic growth and general welfare of the country"85
as essential guiding principles to be kept in mind when negotiating the
terms and conditions of FTAAs.
Earlier, we held (1) that the State must be accorded the liberty and the
utmost flexibility to deal, negotiate and transact with contractors and third
parties as it sees fit, and upon terms that it ascertains to be most favorable
or most acceptable under the circumstances, even if that should mean
agreeing to less than 60 percent; (2) that it is not necessary for the State to
extract a 60 percent share in every case and regardless of circumstances;
and (3) that should the State be prevented from agreeing to a share less
than 60 percent as it deems fit, it will be deprived of the full control over
mineral exploitation that the Charter has vested in it.
That full control is obviously not an end in itself; it exists and subsists
precisely because of the need to serve and protect the national interest. In
this instance, national interest finds particular application in the protection
of the national patrimony and the development and exploitation of the
country's mineral resources for the benefit of the Filipino people and the
enhancement of economic growth and the general welfare of the country.
Undoubtedly, such full control can be misused and abused, as we
now witness.
Section 7.9 of the WMCP FTAA effectively gives away the State's share of
net mining revenues (provided for in Section 7.7) without anything in
exchange. Moreover, this outcome constitutes unjust enrichment on the
part of the local and foreign stockholders of WMCP. By their mere
divestment of up to 60 percent equity in WMCP in favor of Filipino citizens
and/or corporations, the local and foreign stockholders get a windfall. Their
share in the net mining revenues of WMCP is automatically increased,
without their having to pay the government anything for it. In short, the
provision in question is without a doubt grossly disadvantageous to the
government, detrimental to the interests of the Filipino people, and
violative of public policy.
86
Moreover, it has been reiterated in numerous decisions that the parties to

a contract may establish any agreements, terms and conditions that they
deem convenient; but these should not be contrary to law, morals, good
87
customs, public order or public policy. Being precisely violative of antigraft provisions and contrary to public policy, Section 7.9 must therefore be
stricken off as invalid.
Whether the government officials concerned acceded to that provision by
sheer mistake or with full awareness of the ill consequences, is of no
moment. It is hornbook doctrine that the principle of estoppel does not
operate against the government for the act of its agents,88 and that it is
never estopped by any mistake or error on their part.89 It is therefore
possible and proper to rectify the situation at this time. Moreover, we may
also say that the FTAA in question does not involve mere contractual
rights; being impressed as it is with public interest, the contractual
provisions and stipulations must yield to the common good and the
national interest.
Since the offending provision is very much separable90 from Section 7.7
and the rest of the FTAA, the deletion of Section 7.9 can be done without
affecting or requiring the invalidation of the WMCP FTAA itself. Such a
deletion will preserve for the government its due share of the benefits. This
way, the mandates of the Constitution are complied with and the interests
of the government fully protected, while the business operations of the
contractor are not needlessly disrupted.
Section 7.8(e) of the WMCP FTAA
Also Invalid and Disadvantageous
Section 7.8(e) of the WMCP FTAA is likewise invalid. It provides thus:
In fact, the January 23, 2001 sale by WMCP's foreign stockholder of the
entire outstanding equity in WMCP to Sagittarius Mines, Inc. -- a domestic
corporation at least 60 percent Filipino owned -- may be deemed to have
automatically triggered the operation of Section 7.9, without need of further
action by any party, and removed the State's right to receive the 60
percent share in net mining revenues.
At bottom, Section 7.9 has the effect of depriving the State of its 60
percent share in the net mining revenues of WMCP without any offset or
"7.8 The Government Share shall be deemed to include all of the following
sums:
"(a) all Government taxes, fees, levies, costs, imposts, duties and royalties
including excise tax, corporate income tax, customs duty, sales tax, value
added tax, occupation and regulatory fees, Government controlled price
stabilization schemes, any other form of Government backed schemes,
any tax on dividend payments by the Contractor or its Affiliates in respect
Page 36 of 126
of revenues from the Mining Operations and any tax on interest on

domestic and foreign loans or other financial arrangements or
accommodations, including loans extended to the Contractor by its
stockholders;
"(b) any payments to local and regional government, including taxes, fees,
levies, costs, imposts, duties, royalties, occupation and regulatory fees and
infrastructure contributions;
"(c) any payments to landowners, surface rights holders, occupiers,
indigenous people or Claimowners;
"(d) costs and expenses of fulfilling the Contractor's obligations to
contribute to national development in accordance with Clause 10.1(i) (1)
and 10.1(i) (2);
"(e) an amount equivalent to whatever benefits that may be extended in
the future by the Government to the Contractor or to financial or technical
assistance agreement contractors in general;
"(f) all of the foregoing items which have not previously been offset against
the Government Share in an earlier Fiscal Year, adjusted for inflation."
(underscoring supplied)
Section 7.8(e) is out of place in the FTAA. It makes no sense why, for
instance, money spent by the government for the benefit of the contractor
in building roads leading to the mine site should still be deductible from the
State's share in net mining revenues. Allowing this deduction results in
benefiting the contractor twice over. It constitutes unjust enrichment on the
part of the contractor at the expense of the government, since the latter is
effectively being made to pay twice for the same item.91 For being grossly
disadvantageous and prejudicial to the government and contrary to public
policy, Section 7.8(e) is undoubtedly invalid and must be declared to be
without effect. Fortunately, this provision can also easily be stricken off
without affecting the rest of the FTAA.
Nothing Left Over
After Deductions?
In connection with Section 7.8, an objection has been raised: Specified in
Section 7.8 are numerous items of deduction from the State's 60 percent
share. After taking these into account, will the State ever receive anything
for its ownership of the mineral resources?
We are confident that under normal circumstances, the answer will be yes.
If we examine the various items of "deduction" listed in Section 7.8 of the
WMCP FTAA, we will find that they correspond closely to the components
or elements of the basic government share established in DAO 99-56, as
discussed in the earlier part of this Opinion.
Likewise, the balance of the government's 60 percent share -- after netting
out the items of deduction listed in Section 7.8 --corresponds closely to the
additional government share provided for in DAO 99-56 which, we once
again stress, has nothing at all to do with indirect taxes. The RamosDeVera paper92 concisely presents the fiscal contribution of an FTAA
under DAO 99-56 in this equation:
Receipts from an FTAA = basic gov't share + add'l gov't share
Transposed into a similar equation, the fiscal payments system from the
WMCP FTAA assumes the following formulation:
Government's 60 percent share in net mining revenues of WMCP = items
listed in Sec. 7.8 of the FTAA + balance of Gov't share, payable 4 months
from the end of the fiscal year
It should become apparent that the fiscal arrangement under the WMCP
FTAA is very similar to that under DAO 99-56, with the "balance of
government share payable 4 months from end of fiscal year" being the
equivalent of the additional government share computed in accordance
with the "net-mining-revenue-based option" under DAO 99-56, as
discussed above. As we have emphasized earlier, we find each of the
three options for computing the additional government share -- as
presented in DAO 99-56 -- to be sound and reasonable.
We therefore conclude that there is nothing inherently wrong in the
fiscal regime of the WMCP FTAA, and certainly nothing to warrant the
invalidation of the FTAA in its entirety.
"3.3 This Agreement shall be renewed by the Government for a

further period of twenty-five (25) years under the same terms
and conditions provided that the Contractor lodges a request for
renewal with the Government not less than sixty (60) days prior
to the expiry of the initial term of this Agreement and provided
that the Contractor is not in breach of any of the requirements of
this Agreement."
Allegedly, the above provision runs afoul of Section 2 of Article XII of the
1987 Constitution, which states:
"Sec. 2. All lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum,
and other mineral oils, all forces of potential energy, fisheries, forests or
timber, wildlife, flora and fauna, and other natural resources are owned by
the State. With the exception of agricultural lands, all other natural
resources shall not be alienated. The exploration, development and
utilization of natural resources shall be under the full control and
or it may enter into co-production, joint venture or production-sharing
agreements with Filipino citizens or corporations or associations at least
renewable for not more than twenty-five years, and under such terms
and conditions as may be provided by law. In cases of water rights for
of the grant.
"The State shall protect the nation's marine wealth in its archipelagic
waters, territorial sea, and exclusive economic zone, and reserve its use
and enjoyment exclusively to Filipino citizens.
"The Congress may, by law, allow small-scale utilization of natural
resources by Filipino citizens, as well as cooperative fish farming, with
priority to subsistence fishermen and fish-workers in rivers, lakes, bays
and lagoons.
"The President may enter into agreements with foreign-owned
corporations involving either technical or financial assistance for largescale exploration, development, and utilization of minerals, petroleum, and
other mineral oils according to the general terms and conditions provided
by law, based on real contributions to the economic growth and general
welfare of the country. In such agreements, the State shall promote the
development and use of local scientific and technical resources.
"The President shall notify the Congress of every contract entered into in
accordance with this provision, within thirty days from its execution."93
We hold that the term limitation of twenty-five years does not apply to
FTAAs. The reason is that the above provision is found within paragraph 1
of Section 2 of Article XII, which refers to mineral agreements -- coproduction agreements, joint venture agreements and mineral productionsharing agreements -- which the government may enter into with Filipino
citizens and corporations, at least 60 percent owned by Filipino citizens.
The word "such" clearly refers to these three mineral agreements -- CPAs,
JVAs and MPSAs -- not to FTAAs.
Specifically, FTAAs are covered by paragraphs 4 and 5 of Section 2 of
Article XII of the Constitution. It will be noted that there are no term
limitations provided for in the said paragraphs dealing with FTAAs. This
shows that FTAAs are sui generis, in a class of their own. This omission
was obviously a deliberate move on the part of the framers. They probably
realized that FTAAs would be different in many ways from MPSAs, JVAs
and CPAs. The reason the framers did not fix term limitations applicable to
FTAAs is that they preferred to leave the matter to the discretion of the
legislature and/or the agencies involved in implementing the laws
pertaining to FTAAs, in order to give the latter enough flexibility and elbow
room to meet changing circumstances.
Note also that, as previously stated, the exploratory phrases of an FTAA
lasts up to eleven years. Thereafter, a few more years would be gobbled
up in start-up operations. It may take fifteen years before an FTAA
contractor can start earning profits. And thus, the period of 25 years may
really be short for an FTAA. Consider too that in this kind of agreement,
the contractor assumes all entrepreneurial risks. If no commercial
quantities of minerals are found, the contractor bears all financial losses.
To compensate for this long gestation period and extra business risks, it
would not be totally unreasonable to allow it to continue EDU activities for
another twenty five years.
Section 3.3 of the WMCP

FTAA Constitutional
In any event, the complaint is that, in essence, Section 3.3 gives the
contractor the power to compel the government to renew the WMCP FTAA
for another 25 years and deprives the State of any say on whether to
renew the contract.
Section 3.3 of the WMCP FTAA is assailed for violating supposed

constitutional restrictions on the term of FTAAs. The provision in question
reads:
While we agree that Section 3.3 could have been worded so as to prevent
it from favoring the contractor, this provision does not violate any
constitutional limits, since the said term limitation does not apply at all to
Page 37 of 126
FTAAs. Neither can the provision be deemed in any manner to be illegal,

as no law is being violated thereby. It is certainly not illegal for the
government to waive its option to refuse the renewal of a commercial
contract.
removes the 40 percent cap on foreign ownership and allows the foreign
corporation to own up to 100 percent of the equity. Filipino capital may not
be sufficient on account of the size of the project, so the foreign entity may
have to ante up all the risk capital.
Verily, the government did not have to agree to Section 3.3. It could have
said "No" to the stipulation, but it did not. It appears that, in the process of
negotiations, the other contracting party was able to convince the
government to agree to the renewal terms. Under the circumstances, it
does not seem proper for this Court to intervene and step in to undo what
might have perhaps been a possible miscalculation on the part of the
State. If government believes that it is or will be aggrieved by the effects of
Section 3.3, the remedy is the renegotiation of the provision in order to
provide the State the option to not renew the FTAA.
Correlatively, the foreign stakeholder bears up to 100 percent of the risk of

loss if the project fails. In respect of the particular FTAA granted to it,
WMCP (then 100 percent foreign owned) was responsible, as contractor,
for providing the entire equity, including all the inputs for the project. It was
to bear 100 percent of the risk of loss if the project failed, but its maximum
potential "beneficial interest" consisted only of 40 percent of the net
beneficial interest, because the other 60 percent is the share of the
government, which will never be exposed to any risk of loss whatsoever.
Financial Benefits for Foreigners

Not Forbidden by the Constitution
Before leaving this subject matter, we find it necessary for us to rid
ourselves of the false belief that the Constitution somehow forbids foreignowned corporations from deriving financial benefits from the development
of our natural or mineral resources.
The Constitution has never prohibited foreign corporations from acquiring
and enjoying "beneficial interest" in the development of Philippine natural
resources. The State itself need not directly undertake exploration,
development, and utilization activities. Alternatively, the Constitution
authorizes the government to enter into joint venture agreements (JVAs),
co-production agreements (CPAs) and mineral production sharing
agreements (MPSAs) with contractors who are Filipino citizens or
corporations that are at least 60 percent Filipino-owned. They may do the
actual "dirty work" -- the mining operations.
In the case of a 60 percent Filipino-owned corporation, the 40 percent
individual and/or corporate non-Filipino stakeholders obviously participate
in the beneficial interest derived from the development and utilization of
our natural resources. They may receive by way of dividends, up to 40
percent of the contractor's earnings from the mining project. Likewise, they
may have a say in the decisions of the board of directors, since they are
entitled to representation therein to the extent of their equity participation,
which the Constitution permits to be up to 40 percent of the contractor's
equity. Hence, the non-Filipino stakeholders may in that manner also
participate in the management of the contractor's natural resource
development work. All of this is permitted by our Constitution, for any
natural resource, and without limitation even in regard to the magnitude of
the mining project or operations (see paragraph 1 of Section 2 of Article
XII).
It is clear, then, that there is nothing inherently wrong with or
constitutionally objectionable about the idea of foreign individuals and
entities having or enjoying "beneficial interest" in -- and participating in the
management of operations relative to -- the exploration, development and
utilization of our natural resources.
FTAA More Advantageous
Than Other Schemes
Like CPA, JVA and MPSA
A final point on the subject of beneficial interest. We believe the FTAA is a
more advantageous proposition for the government as compared with
other agreements permitted by the Constitution. In a CPA that the
government enters into with one or more contractors, the government shall
provide inputs to the mining operations other than the mineral resource
itself.94
In a JVA, a JV company is organized by the government and the
contractor, with both parties having equity shares (investments); and the
contractor is granted the exclusive right to conduct mining operations and
to extract minerals found in the area.95 On the other hand, 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; and the
contractor provides the necessary financing, technology, management and
manpower.
The point being made here is that, in two of the three types of agreements
under consideration, the government has to ante up some risk capital for
the enterprise. In other words, government funds (public moneys) are
withdrawn from other possible uses, put to work in the venture and placed
at risk in case the venture fails. This notwithstanding, management and
control of the operations of the enterprise are -- in all three arrangements -in the hands of the contractor, with the government being mainly a silent
partner. The three types of agreement mentioned above apply to any
natural resource, without limitation and regardless of the size or magnitude
of the project or operations.
In contrast to the foregoing arrangements, and pursuant to paragraph 4 of
Section 2 of Article XII, the FTAA is limited to large-scale projects and only
for minerals, petroleum and other mineral oils. Here, the Constitution
In consonance with the degree of risk assumed, the FTAA vested in

WMCP the day-to-day management of the mining operations. Still such
management is subject to the overall control and supervision of the State
in terms of regular reporting, approvals of work programs and budgets, and
so on.
So, one needs to consider in relative terms, the costs of inputs for, degree
of risk attendant to, and benefits derived or to be derived from a CPA, a
JVA or an MPSA vis--vis those pertaining to an FTAA. It may not be
realistically asserted that the foreign grantee of an FTAA is being unduly
favored or benefited as compared with a foreign stakeholder in a
corporation holding a CPA, a JVA or an MPSA. Seen the other way
around, the government is definitely better off with an FTAA than a CPA, a
JVA or an MPSA.
Developmental Policy on the Mining Industry
During the Oral Argument and in their Final Memorandum, petitioners
repeatedly urged the Court to consider whether mining as an industry and
economic activity deserved to be accorded priority, preference and
government support as against, say, agriculture and other activities in
which Filipinos and the Philippines may have an "economic advantage."
For instance, a recent US study96 reportedly examined the economic
performance of all local US counties that were dependent on mining and
20 percent of whose labor earnings between 1970 and 2000 came from
mining enterprises.
The study -- covering 100 US counties in 25 states dependent on mining -showed that per capita income grew about 30 percent less in miningdependent communities in the 1980s and 25 percent less for the entire
period 1980 to 2000; the level of per capita income was also lower.
Therefore, given the slower rate of growth, the gap between these and
other local counties increased.
Petitioners invite attention to the OXFAM America Report's warning to
developing nations that mining brings with it serious economic problems,
including increased regional inequality, unemployment and poverty. They
also cite the final report97 of the Extractive Industries Review project
commissioned by the World Bank (the WB-EIR Report), which warns of
environmental degradation, social disruption, conflict, and uneven sharing
of benefits with local communities that bear the negative social and
environmental impact. The Report suggests that countries need to decide
on the best way to exploit their natural resources, in order to maximize the
value added from the development of their resources and ensure that they
are on the path to sustainable development once the resources run out.
Whatever priority or preference may be given to mining vis--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.
Suffice it to say that the State control accorded by the Constitution over
mining activities assures a proper balancing of interests. More pointedly,
such control will enable the President to demand the best mining practices
and the use of the best available technologies to protect the environment
and to rehabilitate mined-out areas. Indeed, under the Mining Law, the
government can ensure the protection of the environment during and after
mining. It can likewise provide for the mechanisms to protect the rights of
indigenous communities, and thereby mold a more socially-responsive,
culturally-sensitive and sustainable mining industry.
Early on during the launching of the Presidential Mineral Industry
Environmental Awards on February 6, 1997, then President Fidel V.
Ramos captured the essence of balanced and sustainable mining in these
words:
"Long term, high profit mining translates into higher revenues for
government, more decent jobs for the population, more raw materials to
feed the engines of downstream and allied industries, and improved
chances of human resource and countryside development by creating selfreliant communities away from urban centers.
Page 38 of 126
xxxxxxxxx
"Against a fragile and finite environment, it is sustainability that holds the
key. In sustainable mining, we take a middle ground where both production
and protection goals are balanced, and where parties-in-interest come to
terms."
Neither has the present leadership been remiss in addressing the
concerns of sustainable mining operations. Recently, on January 16, 2004
and April 20, 2004, President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo issued Executive
Orders Nos. 270 and 270-A, respectively, "to promote responsible mineral
resources exploration, development and utilization, in order to enhance
economic growth, in a manner that adheres to the principles of sustainable
development and with due regard for justice and equity, sensitivity to the
culture of the Filipino people and respect for Philippine sovereignty."98
Should Oposa be deemed applicable to the case at bar, on the argument

that natural resources are also involved in this situation? We do not think
so. A grantee of a timber license, permit or license agreement gets to cut
the timber already growing on the surface; it need not dig up tons of earth
to get at the logs. In a logging concession, the investment of the licensee is
not as substantial as the investment of a large-scale mining contractor. If a
timber license were revoked, the licensee packs up its gear and moves to
a new area applied for, and starts over; what it leaves behind are mainly
the trails leading to the logging site.
In contrast, the mining contractor will have sunk a great deal of money
(tens of millions of dollars) into the ground, so to speak, for exploration
activities, for development of the mine site and infrastructure, and for the
actual excavation and extraction of minerals, including the extensive
tunneling work to reach the ore body. The cancellation of the mining
contract will utterly deprive the contractor of its investments (i.e., prevent
recovery of investments), most of which cannot be pulled out.
REFUTATION OF DISSENTS
The Court will now take up a number of other specific points raised in the
dissents of Justices Carpio and Morales.
1. Justice Morales introduced us to Hugh Morgan, former president and
chief executive officer of Western Mining Corporation (WMC) and former
president of the Australian Mining Industry Council, who spearheaded the
vociferous opposition to the filing by aboriginal peoples of native title
claims against mining companies in Australia in the aftermath of the
landmark Mabo decision by the Australian High Court. According to
sources quoted by our esteemed colleague, Morgan was also a racist and
a bigot. In the course of protesting Mabo, Morgan allegedly uttered
derogatory remarks belittling the aboriginal culture and race.
An unwritten caveat of this introduction is that this Court should be careful
not to permit the entry of the likes of Hugh Morgan and his hordes of
alleged racist-bigots at WMC. With all due respect, such scare tactics
should have no place in the discussion of this case. We are deliberating on
the constitutionality of RA 7942, DAO 96-40 and the FTAA originally
granted to WMCP, which had been transferred to Sagittarius Mining, a
Filipino corporation. We are not discussing the apparition of white AngloSaxon racists/bigots massing at our gates.
2. On the proper interpretation of the phrase agreements involving either
technical or financial assistance, Justice Morales points out that at times
we "conveniently omitted" the use of the disjunctive eitheror, which
according to her denotes restriction; hence the phrase must be deemed to
connote restriction and limitation.
But, as Justice Carpio himself pointed out during the Oral Argument, the
disjunctive phrase either technical or financial assistance would, strictly
speaking, literally mean that a foreign contractor may provide only one or
the other, but not both. And if both technical and financial assistance were
required for a project, the State would have to deal with at least two
different foreign contractors -- one for financial and the other for technical
assistance. And following on that, a foreign contractor, though very much
qualified to provide both kinds of assistance, would nevertheless be
prohibited from providing one kind as soon as it shall have agreed to
provide the other.
But if the Court should follow this restrictive and literal construction, can we
really find two (or more) contractors who are willing to participate in one
single project -- one to provide the "financial assistance" only and the other
the "technical assistance" exclusively; it would be excellent if these two or
more contractors happen to be willing and are able to cooperate and work
closely together on the same project (even if they are otherwise
competitors). And it would be superb if no conflicts would arise between or
among them in the entire course of the contract. But what are the chances
things will turn out this way in the real world? To think that the framers
deliberately imposed this kind of restriction is to say that they were either
exceedingly optimistic, or incredibly nave. This begs the question -- What
laudable objective or purpose could possibly be served by such strict and
restrictive literal interpretation?
3. Citing Oposa v. Factoran Jr., Justice Morales claims that a service
contract is not a contract or property right which merits protection by the
due process clause of the Constitution, but merely a license or privilege
which may be validly revoked, rescinded or withdrawn by executive action
whenever dictated by public interest or public welfare.
Oposa cites Tan v. Director of Forestry and Ysmael v. Deputy Executive
Secretary as authority. The latter cases dealt specifically with timber
licenses only. Oposa allegedly reiterated that a license is merely a permit
or privilege to do what otherwise would be unlawful, and is not a contract
between the authority, federal, state or municipal, granting it and the
person to whom it is granted; neither is it property or a property right, nor
does it create a vested right; nor is it taxation. Thus this Court held that the
granting of license does not create irrevocable rights, neither is it property
or property rights.
To say that an FTAA is just like a mere timber license or permit and does
not involve contract or property rights which merit protection by the due
process clause of the Constitution, and may therefore be revoked or
cancelled in the blink of an eye, is to adopt a well-nigh confiscatory stance;
at the very least, it is downright dismissive of the property rights of
businesspersons and corporate entities that have investments in the
mining industry, whose investments, operations and expenditures do
contribute to the general welfare of the people, the coffers of government,
and the strength of the economy. Such a pronouncement will surely
discourage investments (local and foreign) which are critically needed to
fuel the engine of economic growth and move this country out of the rut of
poverty. In sum, Oposa is not applicable.
4. Justice Morales adverts to the supposedly "clear intention" of the
framers of the Constitution to reserve our natural resources exclusively for
the Filipino people. She then quoted from the records of the ConCom
deliberations a passage in which then Commissioner Davide explained his
vote, arguing in the process that aliens ought not be allowed to participate
in the enjoyment of our natural resources. One passage does not suffice to
capture the tenor or substance of the entire extensive deliberations of the
commissioners, or to reveal the clear intention of the framers as a group. A
re-reading of the entire deliberations (quoted here earlier) is necessary if
we are to understand the true intent of the framers.
5. Since 1935, the Filipino people, through their Constitution, have decided
that the retardation or delay in the exploration, development or utilization of
the nation's natural resources is merely secondary to the protection and
preservation of their ownership of the natural resources, so says Justice
Morales, citing Aruego. If it is true that the framers of the 1987 Constitution
did not care much about alleviating the retardation or delay in the
development and utilization of our natural resources, why did they bother
to write paragraph 4 at all? Were they merely paying lip service to largescale exploration, development and utilization? They could have just
completely ignored the subject matter and left it to be dealt with through a
future constitutional amendment. But we have to harmonize every part of
the Constitution and to interpret each provision in a manner that would give
life and meaning to it and to the rest of the provisions. It is obvious that a
literal interpretation of paragraph 4 will render it utterly inutile and
inoperative.
6. According to Justice Morales, the deliberations of the Constitutional
Commission do not support our contention that the framers, by specifying
such agreements involving financial or technical assistance, necessarily
gave implied assent to everything that these agreements implicitly entailed,
or that could reasonably be deemed necessary to make them tenable and
effective, including management authority in the day-to-day operations. As
proof thereof, she quotes one single passage from the ConCom
deliberations, consisting of an exchange among Commissioners Tingson,
Garcia and Monsod.
However, the quoted exchange does not serve to contradict our argument;
it even bolsters it. Comm. Christian Monsod was quoted as saying: "xxx I
think we have to make a distinction that it is not really realistic to say that
we will borrow on our own terms. Maybe we can say that we inherited
unjust loans, and we would like to repay these on terms that are not
prejudicial to our own growth. But the general statement that we should
only borrow on our own terms is a bit unrealistic." Comm. Monsod is one
who knew whereof he spoke.
7. Justice Morales also declares that the optimal time for the conversion of
an FTAA into an MPSA is after completion of the exploration phase and
just before undertaking the development and construction phase, on
account of the fact that the requirement for a minimum investment of $50
million is applicable only during the development, construction and
utilization phase, but not during the exploration phase, when the foreign
contractor need merely comply with minimum ground expenditures. Thus
by converting, the foreign contractor maximizes its profits by avoiding its
obligation to make the minimum investment of $50 million.
This argument forgets that the foreign contractor is in the game precisely
to make money. In order to come anywhere near profitability, the
Page 39 of 126
contractor must first extract and sell the mineral ore. In order to do that, it
must also develop and construct the mining facilities, set up its
machineries and equipment and dig the tunnels to get to the deposit. The
contractor is thus compelled to expend funds in order to make profits. If it
decides to cut back on investments and expenditures, it will necessarily
sacrifice the pace of development and utilization; it will necessarily
sacrifice the amount of profits it can make from the mining operations. In
fact, at certain less-than-optimal levels of operation, the stream of
revenues generated may not even be enough to cover variable expenses,
let alone overhead expenses; this is a dismal situation anyone would want
to avoid. In order to make money, one has to spend money. This truism
applies to the mining industry as well.
8. Mortgaging the minerals to secure a foreign FTAA contractor's
obligations is anomalous, according to Justice Morales since the contractor
was from the beginning obliged to provide all financing needed for the
mining operations. However, the mortgaging of minerals by the contractor
does not necessarily signify that the contractor is unable to provide all
financing required for the project, or that it does not have the financial
capability to undertake large-scale operations. Mortgaging of mineral
products, just like the assignment (by way of security) of manufactured
goods and goods in inventory, and the assignment of receivables, is an
ordinary requirement of banks, even in the case of clients with more than
sufficient financial resources. And nowadays, even the richest and best
managed corporations make use of bank credit facilities -- it does not
necessarily signify that they do not have the financial resources or are
unable to provide the financing on their own; it is just a manner of
maximizing the use of their funds.
9. Does the contractor in reality acquire the surface rights "for free," by
virtue of the fact that it is entitled to reimbursement for the costs of
acquisition and maintenance, adjusted for inflation? We think not. The
"reimbursement" is possible only at the end of the term of the contract,
when the surface rights will no longer be needed, and the land previously
acquired will have to be disposed of, in which case the contractor gets
reimbursement from the sales proceeds. The contractor has to pay out the
acquisition price for the land. That money will belong to the seller of the
land. Only if and when the land is finally sold off will the contractor get any
reimbursement. In other words, the contractor will have been cash-out for
the entire duration of the term of the contract -- 25 or 50 years, depending.
If we calculate the cost of money at say 12 percent per annum, that is the
cost or opportunity loss to the contractor, in addition to the amount of the
acquisition price. 12 percent per annum for 50 years is 600 percent; this,
without any compounding yet. The cost of money is therefore at least 600
percent of the original acquisition cost; it is in addition to the acquisition
cost. "For free"? Not by a long shot.
10. The contractor will acquire and hold up to 5,000 hectares? We doubt it.
The acquisition by the State of land for the contractor is just to enable the
contractor to establish its mine site, build its facilities, establish a tailings
pond, set up its machinery and equipment, and dig mine shafts and
tunnels, etc. It is impossible that the surface requirement will aggregate
5,000 hectares. Much of the operations will consist of the tunneling and
digging underground, which will not require possessing or using any land
surface. 5,000 hectares is way too much for the needs of a mining
operator. It simply will not spend its cash to acquire property that it will not
need; the cash may be better employed for the actual mining operations, to
yield a profit.
11. Justice Carpio claims that the phrase among other things (found in the
second paragraph of Section 81 of the Mining Act) is being incorrectly
treated as a delegation of legislative power to the DENR secretary to issue
DAO 99-56 and prescribe the formulae therein on the State's share from
mining operations. He adds that the phrase among other things was not
intended as a delegation of legislative power to the DENR secretary, much
less could it be deemed a valid delegation of legislative power, since there
is nothing in the second paragraph of Section 81 which can be said to
grant any delegated legislative power to the DENR secretary. And even if
there were, such delegation would be void, for lack of any standards by
which the delegated power shall be exercised.
While there is nothing in the second paragraph of Section 81 which can
directly be construed as a delegation of legislative power to the DENR
secretary, it does not mean that DAO 99-56 is invalid per se, or that the
secretary acted without any authority or jurisdiction in issuing DAO 99-56.
As we stated earlier in our Prologue, "Who or what organ of government
actually exercises this power of control on behalf of the State? The
Constitution is crystal clear: the President. Indeed, the Chief Executive is
the official constitutionally mandated to 'enter into agreements with foreign
owned corporations.' On the other hand, Congress may review the action
of the President once it is notified of 'every contract entered into in
accordance with this [constitutional] provision within thirty days from its
execution.'" It is the President who is constitutionally mandated to enter
into FTAAs with foreign corporations, and in doing so, it is within the
President's prerogative to specify certain terms and conditions of the
FTAAs, for example, the fiscal regime of FTAAs -- i.e., the sharing of the
net mining revenues between the contractor and the State.
Being the President's alter ego with respect to the control and supervision
of the mining industry, the DENR secretary, acting for the President, is
necessarily clothed with the requisite authority and power to draw up

guidelines delineating certain terms and conditions, and specifying therein
the terms of sharing of benefits from mining, to be applicable to FTAAs in
general. It is important to remember that DAO 99-56 has been in existence
for almost six years, and has not been amended or revoked by the
President.
The issuance of DAO 99-56 did not involve the exercise of delegated
legislative power. The legislature did not delegate the power to determine
the nature, extent and composition of the items that would come under the
phrase among other things. The legislature's power pertains to the
imposition of taxes, duties and fees. This power was not delegated to the
DENR secretary. But the power to negotiate and enter into FTAAs was
withheld from Congress, and reserved for the President. In determining the
sharing of mining benefits, i.e., in specifying what the phrase among other
things include, the President (through the secretary acting in his/her
behalf) was not determining the amount or rate of taxes, duties and fees,
but rather the amount of INCOME to be derived from minerals to be
extracted and sold, income which belongs to the State as owner of the
mineral resources. We may say that, in the second paragraph of Section
81, the legislature in a sense intruded partially into the President's sphere
of authority when the former provided that
"The Government share in financial or technical assistance agreement
shall consist of, among other things, the contractor's corporate income tax,
excise tax, special allowance, withholding tax due from the contractor's
foreign stockholders arising from dividend or interest payments to the said
foreign stockholder in case of a foreign national and all such other taxes,
duties and fees as provided for under existing laws." (Italics supplied)
But it did not usurp the President's authority since the provision merely
included the enumerated items as part of the government share, without
foreclosing or in any way preventing (as in fact Congress could not validly
prevent) the President from determining what constitutes the State's
compensation derived from FTAAs. In this case, the President in effect
directed the inclusion or addition of "other things," viz., INCOME for the
owner of the resources, in the government's share, while adopting the
items enumerated by Congress as part of the government share also.
12. Justice Carpio's insistence on applying the ejusdem generis rule of
statutory construction to the phrase among other things is therefore
useless, and must fall by the wayside. There is no point trying to construe
that phrase in relation to the enumeration of taxes, duties and fees found
in paragraph 2 of Section 81, precisely because "the constitutional
power to prescribe the sharing of mining income between the State
and mining companies," to quote Justice Carpio pursuant to an FTAA is
constitutionally lodged with the President, not with Congress. It thus
makes no sense to persist in giving the phrase among other things a
restricted meaning referring only to taxes, duties and fees.
13. Strangely, Justice Carpio claims that the DENR secretary can change
the formulae in DAO 99-56 any time even without the approval of the
President, and the secretary is the sole authority to determine the amount
of consideration that the State shall receive in an FTAA, because Section 5
of the DAO states that "xxx any amendment of an FTAA other than the
provision on fiscal regime shall require the negotiation with the Negotiation
Panel and the recommendation of the Secretary for approval of the
President xxx". Allegedly, because of that provision, if an amendment in
the FTAA involves non-fiscal matters, the amendment requires approval of
the President, but if the amendment involves a change in the fiscal regime,
the DENR secretary has the final authority, and approval of the President
may be dispensed with; hence the secretary is more powerful than the
President.
We believe there is some distortion resulting from the quoted provision
being taken out of context. Section 5 of DAO 99-56 reads as follows:
"Section 5. Status of Existing FTAAs. All FTAAs approved prior to the
effectivity of this Administrative Order shall remain valid and be recognized
by the Government: Provided, That should a Contractor desire to amend
its FTAA, it shall do so by filing a Letter of Intent (LOI) to the Secretary thru
the Director. Provided, further, That if the Contractor desires to amend the
fiscal regime of its FTAA, it may do so by seeking for the amendment of its
FTAA's whole fiscal regime by adopting the fiscal regime provided hereof:
Provided, finally, That any amendment of an FTAA other than the provision
on fiscal regime shall require the negotiation with the Negotiating Panel
and the recommendation of the Secretary for approval of the President of
the Republic of the Philippines." (underscoring supplied)
It looks like another case of misapprehension. The proviso being objected
to by Justice Carpio is actually preceded by a phrase that requires a
contractor desiring to amend the fiscal regime of its FTAA, to amend the
same by adopting the fiscal regime prescribed in DAO 99-56 -- i.e., solely
in that manner, and in no other. Obviously, since DAO 99-56 was issued
by the secretary under the authority and with the presumed approval
of the President, the amendment of an FTAA by merely adopting the
fiscal regime prescribed in said DAO 99-56 (and nothing more) need
not have the express clearance of the President anymore. It is as if the
same had been pre-approved. We cannot fathom the complaint that that
Page 40 of 126
makes the secretary more powerful than the President, or that the former
is trying to hide things from the President or Congress.
14. Based on the first sentence of Section 5 of DAO 99-56, which states
"[A]ll FTAAs approved prior to the effectivity of this Administrative Order
shall remain valid and be recognized by the Government", Justice Carpio
concludes that said Administrative Order allegedly exempts FTAAs
approved prior to its effectivity -- like the WMCP FTAA -- from having to
pay the State any share from their mining income, apart from taxes, duties
and fees.
We disagree. What we see in black and white is the statement that the
FTAAs approved before the DAO came into effect are to continue to be
valid and will be recognized by the State. Nothing is said about their fiscal
regimes. Certainly, there is no basis to claim that the contractors under
said FTAAs were being exempted from paying the government a share in
their mining incomes.
For the record, the WMCP FTAA is NOT and has never been exempt from
paying the government share. The WMCP FTAA has its own fiscal
regime -- Section 7.7 -- which gives the government a 60 percent
share in the net mining revenues of WMCP from the commencement
of commercial production.
For that very reason, we have never said that DAO 99-56 is the basis for
claiming that the WMCP FTAA has a consideration. Hence, we find quite
out of place Justice Carpio's statement that ironically, DAO 99-56, the very
authority cited to support the claim that the WMCP FTAA has a
consideration, does not apply to the WMCP FTAA. By its own express
terms, DAO 99-56 does not apply to FTAAs executed before the issuance
of DAO 99-56, like the WMCP FTAA. The majority's position has allegedly
no leg to stand on since even DAO 99-56, assuming it is valid, cannot save
the WMCP FTAA from want of consideration. Even assuming arguendo
that DAO 99-56 does not apply to the WMCP FTAA, nevertheless, the
WMCP FTAA has its own fiscal regime, found in Section 7.7 thereof.
Hence, there is no such thing as "want of consideration" here.
Still more startling is this claim: The majority supposedly agrees that the
provisions of the WMCP FTAA, which grant a sham consideration to the
State, are void. Since the majority agrees that the WMCP FTAA has a
sham consideration, the WMCP FTAA thus lacks the third element of a
valid contract. The Decision should declare the WMCP FTAA void for want
of consideration unless it treats the contract as an MPSA under Section
80. Indeed the only recourse of WMCP to save the validity of its contract is
to convert it into an MPSA.
To clarify, we said that Sections 7.9 and 7.8(e) of the WMCP FTAA are
provisions grossly disadvantageous to government and detrimental to the
interests of the Filipino people, as well as violative of public policy, and
must therefore be stricken off as invalid. Since the offending provisions are
very much separable from Section 7.7 and the rest of the FTAA, the
deletion of Sections 7.9 and 7.8(e) can be done without affecting or
requiring the invalidation of the WMCP FTAA itself, and such deletion will
preserve for government its due share of the 60 percent benefits.
Therefore, the WMCP FTAA is NOT bereft of a valid consideration
(assuming for the nonce that indeed this is the "consideration" of the
FTAA).
SUMMATION
To conclude, a summary of the key points discussed above is now in
order.
The Meaning of "Agreements Involving
Either Technical or Financial Assistance"
Applying familiar principles of constitutional construction to the phrase
agreements involving either technical or financial assistance, the framers'
choice of words does not indicate the intent to exclude other modes of
assistance, but rather implies that there are other things being included or
possibly being made part of the agreement, apart from financial or
technical assistance. The drafters avoided the use of restrictive and
stringent phraseology; a verba legis scrutiny of Section 2 of Article XII of
the Constitution discloses not even a hint of a desire to prohibit foreign
involvement in the management or operation of mining activities, or to
eradicate service contracts. Such moves would necessarily imply an
underlying drastic shift in fundamental economic and developmental
policies of the State. That change requires a much more definite and
irrefutable basis than mere omission of the words "service contract" from
the new Constitution.
Furthermore, a literal and restrictive interpretation of this paragraph leads
to logical inconsistencies. A constitutional provision specifically allowing
foreign-owned corporations to render financial or technical assistance in
respect of mining or any other commercial activity was clearly
unnecessary; the provision was meant to refer to more than mere financial
or technical assistance.
Also, if paragraph 4 permits only agreements for financial or technical

assistance, there would be no point in requiring that they be "based on real
contributions to the economic growth and general welfare of the country."
And considering that there were various long-term service contracts still in
force and effect at the time the new Charter was being drafted, the
absence of any transitory provisions to govern the termination and closingout of the then existing service contracts strongly militates against the
theory that the mere omission of "service contracts" signaled their
prohibition by the new Constitution.
Resort to the deliberations of the Constitutional Commission is therefore
unavoidable, and a careful scrutiny thereof conclusively shows that the
ConCom members discussed agreements involving either technical or
financial assistance in the same sense as service contracts and used the
terms interchangeably. The drafters in fact knew that the agreements with
foreign corporations were going to entail not mere technical or financial
assistance but, rather, foreign investment in and management of an
enterprise for large-scale exploration, development and utilization of
minerals.
The framers spoke about service contracts as the concept was understood
in the 1973 Constitution. It is obvious from their discussions that they did
not intend to ban or eradicate service contracts. Instead, they were intent
on crafting provisions to put in place safeguards that would eliminate or
minimize the abuses prevalent during the martial law regime. In brief, they
were going to permit service contracts with foreign corporations as
contractors, but with safety measures to prevent abuses, as an
exception to the general norm established in the first paragraph of
Section 2 of Article XII, which reserves or limits to Filipino citizens
and corporations at least 60 percent owned by such citizens the
exploration, development and utilization of mineral or petroleum
resources. This was prompted by the perceived insufficiency of Filipino
capital and the felt need for foreign expertise in the EDU of mineral
resources.
Despite strong opposition from some ConCom members during the final
voting, the Article on the National Economy and Patrimony -- including
paragraph 4 allowing service contracts with foreign corporations as an
exception to the general norm in paragraph 1 of Section 2 of the same
Article -- was resoundingly and overwhelmingly approved.
The drafters, many of whom were economists, academicians, lawyers,
businesspersons and politicians knew that foreign entities will not enter
into agreements involving assistance without requiring measures of
protection to ensure the success of the venture and repayment of their
investments, loans and other financial assistance, and ultimately to protect
the business reputation of the foreign corporations. The drafters, by
specifying such agreements involving assistance, necessarily gave implied
assent to everything that these agreements entailed or that could
reasonably be deemed necessary to make them tenable and effective -including management authority with respect to the day-to-day operations
of the enterprise, and measures for the protection of the interests of the
foreign corporation, at least to the extent that they are consistent with
Philippine sovereignty over natural resources, the constitutional
requirement of State control, and beneficial ownership of natural resources
remaining vested in the State.
From the foregoing, it is clear that agreements involving either technical or
financial assistance referred to in paragraph 4 are in fact service contracts,
but such new service contracts are between foreign corporations acting as
contractors on the one hand, and on the other hand government as
principal or "owner" (of the works), whereby the foreign contractor provides
the capital, technology and technical know-how, and managerial expertise
in the creation and operation of the large-scale mining/extractive
enterprise, and government through its agencies (DENR, MGB) actively
exercises full control and supervision over the entire enterprise.
Such service contracts may be entered into only with respect to minerals,
petroleum and other mineral oils. The grant of such service contracts is
subject to several safeguards, among them: (1) that the service contract be
crafted in accordance with a general law setting standard or uniform terms,
conditions and requirements; (2) the President be the signatory for the
government; and (3) the President report the executed agreement to
Congress within thirty days.
Ultimate Test: Full State Control
To repeat, the primacy of the principle of the State's sovereign ownership
of all mineral resources, and its full control and supervision over all aspects
of exploration, development and utilization of natural resources must be
upheld. But "full control and supervision" cannot be taken literally to mean
that the State controls and supervises everything down to the minutest
details and makes all required actions, as this would render impossible the
legitimate exercise by the contractor of a reasonable degree of
management prerogative and authority, indispensable to the proper
functioning of the mining enterprise. Also, government need not micromanage mining operations and day-to-day affairs of the enterprise in order
to be considered as exercising full control and supervision.
Page 41 of 126
Control, as utilized in Section 2 of Article XII, must be taken to mean a

degree of control sufficient to enable the State to direct, restrain, regulate
and govern the affairs of the extractive enterprises. Control by the State
may be on a macro level, through the establishment of policies, guidelines,
regulations, industry standards and similar measures that would enable
government to regulate the conduct of affairs in various enterprises, and
restrain activities deemed not desirable or beneficial, with the end in view
of ensuring that these enterprises contribute to the economic development
and general welfare of the country, conserve the environment, and uplift
the well-being of the local affected communities. Such a degree of control
would be compatible with permitting the foreign contractor sufficient and
reasonable management authority over the enterprise it has invested in, to
ensure efficient and profitable operation.
Government Granted Full Control
by RA 7942 and DAO 96-40
Baseless are petitioners' sweeping claims that RA 7942 and its
Implementing Rules and Regulations make it possible for FTAA contracts
to cede full control and management of mining enterprises over to fully
foreign owned corporations. Equally wobbly is the assertion that the State
is reduced to a passive regulator dependent on submitted plans and
reports, with weak review and audit powers and little say in the decisionmaking of the enterprise, for which reasons "beneficial ownership" of the
mineral resources is allegedly ceded to the foreign contractor.
As discussed hereinabove, the State's full control and supervision over
mining operations are ensured through the following provisions in RA
7942: Sections 8, 9, 16, 19, 24, 35[(b), (e), (f), (g), (h), (k), (l), (m) and (o)],
40, 57, 66, 69, 70, and Chapters XI and XVII; as well as the following
provisions of DAO 96-40: Sections7[(d) and (f)], 35(a-2), 53[(a-4) and (d)],
54, 56[(g), (h), (l), (m) and (n)], 56(2), 60, 66, 144, 168, 171 and 270, and
also Chapters XV, XVI and XXIV.
Through the foregoing provisions, the government agencies concerned are
empowered to approve or disapprove -- hence, in a position to influence,
direct, and change -- the various work programs and the corresponding
minimum expenditure commitments for each of the exploration,
development and utilization phases of the enterprise. Once they have
been approved, the contractor's compliance with its commitments therein
will be monitored. Figures for mineral production and sales are regularly
monitored and subjected to government review, to ensure that the
products and by-products are disposed of at the best prices; copies of
sales agreements have to be submitted to and registered with MGB.
The contractor is mandated to open its books of accounts and records for
scrutiny, to enable the State to determine that the government share has
been fully paid. The State may likewise compel compliance by the
contractor with mandatory requirements on mine safety, health and
environmental protection, and the use of anti-pollution technology and
facilities. The contractor is also obligated to assist the development of the
mining community, and pay royalties to the indigenous peoples concerned.
And violation of any of the FTAA's terms and conditions, and/or noncompliance with statutes or regulations, may be penalized by cancellation
of the FTAA. Such sanction is significant to a contractor who may have yet
to recover the tens or hundreds of millions of dollars sunk into a mining
project.
Overall, the State definitely has a pivotal say in the operation of the
individual enterprises, and can set directions and objectives, detect
deviations and non-compliances by the contractor, and enforce compliance
and impose sanctions should the occasion arise. Hence, RA 7942 and
DAO 96-40 vest in government more than a sufficient degree of control
and supervision over the conduct of mining operations.
Section 3(aq) of RA 7942 was objected to as being unconstitutional for
allowing a foreign contractor to apply for and hold an exploration permit.
During the exploration phase, the permit grantee (and prospective
contractor) is spending and investing heavily in exploration activities
without yet being able to extract minerals and generate revenues. The
exploration permit issued under Sections 3(aq), 20 and 23 of RA 7942,
which allows exploration but not extraction, serves to protect the interests
and rights of the exploration permit grantee (and would-be contractor),
foreign or local. Otherwise, the exploration works already conducted, and
expenditures already made, may end up only benefiting claim-jumpers.
Thus, Section 3(aq) of RA 7942 is not unconstitutional.
WMCP FTAA Likewise Gives the
State Full Control and Supervision
The WMCP FTAA obligates the contractor to account for the value of
production and sale of minerals (Clause 1.4); requires that the contractor's
work program, activities and budgets be approved by the State (Clause
2.1); gives the DENR secretary power to extend the exploration period
(Clause 3.2-a); requires approval by the State for incorporation of lands
into the contract area (Clause 4.3-c); requires Bureau of Forest
Development approval for inclusion of forest reserves as part of the FTAA
contract area (Clause 4.5); obligates the contractor to periodically
relinquish parts of the contract area not needed for exploration and
development (Clause 4.6); requires submission of a declaration of mining

feasibility for approval by the State (Clause 4.6-b); obligates the contractor
to report to the State the results of its exploration activities (Clause 4.9);
requires the contractor to obtain State approval for its work programs for
the succeeding two year periods, containing the proposed work activities
and expenditures budget related to exploration (Clause 5.1); requires the
contractor to obtain State approval for its proposed expenditures for
exploration activities (Clause 5.2); requires the contractor to submit an
annual report on geological, geophysical, geochemical and other
information relating to its explorations within the FTAA area (Clause 5.3-a);
requires the contractor to submit within six months after expiration of
exploration period a final report on all its findings in the contract area
(Clause 5.3-b); requires the contractor after conducting feasibility studies
to submit a declaration of mining feasibility, along with a description of the
area to be developed and mined, a description of the proposed mining
operations and the technology to be employed, and the proposed work
program for the development phase, for approval by the DENR secretary
(Clause 5.4); obligates the contractor to complete the development of the
mine, including construction of the production facilities, within the period
stated in the approved work program (Clause 6.1); requires the contractor
to submit for approval a work program covering each period of three fiscal
years (Clause 6.2); requires the contractor to submit reports to the
secretary on the production, ore reserves, work accomplished and work in
progress, profile of its work force and management staff, and other
technical information (Clause 6.3); subjects any expansions, modifications,
improvements and replacements of mining facilities to the approval of the
secretary (Clause 6.4); subjects to State control the amount of funds that
the contractor may borrow within the Philippines (Clause 7.2); subjects to
State supervisory power any technical, financial and marketing issues
(Clause 10.1-a); obligates the contractor to ensure 60 percent Filipino
equity in the contractor within ten years of recovering specified
expenditures unless not so required by subsequent legislation (Clause
10.1); gives the State the right to terminate the FTAA for unremedied
substantial breach thereof by the contractor (Clause 13.2); requires State
approval for any assignment of the FTAA by the contractor to an entity
other than an affiliate (Clause 14.1).
In short, the aforementioned provisions of the WMCP FTAA, far from
constituting a surrender of control and a grant of beneficial ownership of
mineral resources to the contractor in question, vest the State with control
and supervision over practically all aspects of the operations of the FTAA
contractor, including the charging of pre-operating and operating
expenses, and the disposition of mineral products.
There is likewise no relinquishment of control on account of specific
provisions of the WMCP FTAA. Clause 8.2 provides a mechanism to
prevent the mining operations from grinding to a complete halt as a result
of possible delays of more than 60 days in the government's processing
and approval of submitted work programs and budgets. Clause 8.3 seeks
to provide a temporary, stop-gap solution in case a disagreement between
the State and the contractor (over the proposed work program or budget
submitted by the contractor) should result in a deadlock or impasse, to
avoid unreasonably long delays in the performance of the works.
The State, despite Clause 8.3, still has control over the contract area, and
it may, as sovereign authority, prohibit work thereon until the dispute is
resolved, or it may terminate the FTAA, citing substantial breach thereof.
Hence, the State clearly retains full and effective control.
Clause 8.5, which allows the contractor to make changes to approved work
programs and budgets without the prior approval of the DENR secretary,
subject to certain limitations with respect to the variance/s, merely provides
the contractor a certain amount of flexibility to meet unexpected situations,
while still guaranteeing that the approved work programs and budgets are
not abandoned altogether. And if the secretary disagrees with the actions
taken by the contractor in this instance, he may also resort to
cancellation/termination of the FTAA as the ultimate sanction.
Clause 4.6 of the WMCP FTAA gives the contractor discretion to select
parts of the contract area to be relinquished. The State is not in a position
to substitute its judgment for that of the contractor, who knows exactly
which portions of the contract area do not contain minerals in commercial
quantities and should be relinquished. Also, since the annual occupation
fees paid to government are based on the total hectarage of the contract
area, net of the areas relinquished, the contractor's self-interest will assure
proper and efficient relinquishment.
Clause 10.2(e) of the WMCP FTAA does not mean that the contractor can
compel government to use its power of eminent domain. It contemplates a
situation in which the contractor is a foreign-owned corporation, hence, not
qualified to own land. The contractor identifies the surface areas needed
for it to construct the infrastructure for mining operations, and the State
then acquires the surface rights on behalf of the former. The provision
does not call for the exercise of the power of eminent domain (or
determination of just compensation); it seeks to avoid a violation of the
anti-dummy law.
Clause 10.2(l) of the WMCP FTAA giving the contractor the right to
mortgage and encumber the mineral products extracted may have been a
result of conditions imposed by creditor-banks to secure the loan
Page 42 of 126
obligations of WMCP. Banks lend also upon the security of encumbrances

on goods produced, which can be easily sold and converted into cash and
applied to the repayment of loans. Thus, Clause 10.2(l) is not something
out of the ordinary. Neither is it objectionable, because even though the
contractor is allowed to mortgage or encumber the mineral end-products
themselves, the contractor is not thereby relieved of its obligation to pay
the government its basic and additional shares in the net mining revenue.
The contractor's ability to mortgage the minerals does not negate the
State's right to receive its share of net mining revenues.
Clause 10.2(k) which gives the contractor authority "to change its equity
structure at any time," means that WMCP, which was then 100 percent
foreign owned, could permit Filipino equity ownership. Moreover, what is
important is that the contractor, regardless of its ownership, is always in a
position to render the services required under the FTAA, under the
direction and control of the government.
Clauses 10.4(e) and (i) bind government to allow amendments to the
FTAA if required by banks and other financial institutions as part of the
conditions of new lendings. There is nothing objectionable here, since
Clause 10.4(e) also provides that such financing arrangements should in
no event reduce the contractor's obligations or the government's rights
under the FTAA. Clause 10.4(i) provides that government shall "favourably
consider" any request for amendments of this agreement necessary for the
contractor to successfully obtain financing. There is no renunciation of
control, as the proviso does not say that government shall automatically
grant any such request. Also, it is up to the contractor to prove the need for
the requested changes. The government always has the final say on
whether to approve or disapprove such requests.
Under Section 23 of RA 7942, the applicant for exploration permit is

required to submit a proposed work program for exploration, containing a
yearly budget of proposed expenditures, which the State passes upon and
either approves or rejects; if approved, the same will subsequently be
recorded as pre-operating expenses that the contractor will have to recoup
over the grace period.
Under Section 24, when an exploration permittee files with the MGB a
declaration of mining project feasibility, it must submit a work program for
development, with corresponding budget, for approval by the Bureau,
before government may grant an FTAA or MPSA or other mineral
agreements; again, government has the opportunity to approve or reject
the proposed work program and budgeted expenditures for development
works, which will become the pre-operating and development costs that
will have to be recovered. Government is able to know ahead of time the
amounts of pre-operating and other expenses to be recovered, and the
approximate period of time needed therefor. The aforecited provisions
have counterparts in Section 35, which deals with the terms and conditions
exclusively applicable to FTAAs. In sum, the third or last paragraph of
Section 81 of RA 7942 cannot be deemed defective.
Section 80 of RA 7942 allegedly limits the State's share in a mineral
production-sharing agreement (MPSA) to just the excise tax on the mineral
product, i.e., only 2 percent of market value of the minerals. The colatilla in
Section 84 reiterates the same limitation in Section 80. However, these
two provisions pertain only to MPSAs, and have no application to
FTAAs. These particular provisions do not come within the issues
defined by this Court. Hence, on due process grounds, no
pronouncement can be made in this case in respect of the
constitutionality of Sections 80 and 84.
In fine, the FTAA provisions do not reduce or abdicate State control.

No Surrender of Financial Benefits
The second paragraph of Section 81 of RA 7942 has been denounced for
allegedly limiting the State's share in FTAAs with foreign contractors to just
taxes, fees and duties, and depriving the State of a share in the after-tax
income of the enterprise. However, the inclusion of the phrase "among
other things" in the second paragraph of Section 81 clearly and
unmistakably reveals the legislative intent to have the State collect more
than just the usual taxes, duties and fees.
Thus, DAO 99-56, the "Guidelines Establishing the Fiscal Regime of
Financial or Technical Assistance Agreements," spells out the financial
benefits government will receive from an FTAA, as consisting of not only a
basic government share, comprised of all direct taxes, fees and royalties,
as well as other payments made by the contractor during the term of the
FTAA, but also an additional government share, being a share in the
earnings or cash flows of the mining enterprise, so as to achieve a
fifty-fifty sharing of net benefits from mining between the government and
the contractor.
The additional government share is computed using one of three (3)
options or schemes detailed in DAO 99-56, viz., (1) the fifty-fifty sharing of
cumulative present value of cash flows; (2) the excess profit-related
additional government share; and (3) the additional sharing based on the
cumulative net mining revenue. Whichever option or computation is used,
the additional government share has nothing to do with taxes, duties, fees
or charges. The portion of revenues remaining after the deduction of the
basic and additional government shares is what goes to the contractor.
The basic government share and the additional government share do not
yet take into account the indirect taxes and other financial contributions of
mining projects, which are real and actual benefits enjoyed by the Filipino
people; if these are taken into account, total government share increases
to 60 percent or higher (as much as 77 percent, and 89 percent in one
instance) of the net present value of total benefits from the project.
The third or last paragraph of Section 81 of RA 7942 is slammed for
deferring the payment of the government share in FTAAs until after the
contractor shall have recovered its pre-operating expenses, exploration
and development expenditures. Allegedly, the collection of the State's
share is rendered uncertain, as there is no time limit in RA 7942 for this
grace period or recovery period. But although RA 7942 did not limit the
grace period, the concerned agencies (DENR and MGB) in formulating the
1995 and 1996 Implementing Rules and Regulations provided that the
period of recovery, reckoned from the date of commercial operation, shall
be for a period not exceeding five years, or until the date of actual
recovery, whichever comes earlier.
And since RA 7942 allegedly does not require government approval for the
pre-operating, exploration and development expenses of the foreign
contractors, it is feared that such expenses could be bloated to wipe out
mining revenues anticipated for 10 years, with the result that the State's
share is zero for the first 10 years. However, the argument is based on
incorrect information.
Section 112 is disparaged for reverting FTAAs and all mineral agreements
to the old "license, concession or lease" system, because it allegedly
effectively reduces the government share in FTAAs to just the 2 percent
excise tax which pursuant to Section 80 comprises the government share
in MPSAs. However, Section 112 likewise does not come within the issues
delineated by this Court, and was never touched upon by the parties in
their pleadings. Moreover, Section 112 may not properly apply to FTAAs.
The mining law obviously meant to treat FTAAs as a breed apart from
mineral agreements. There is absolutely no basis to believe that the law
intends to exact from FTAA contractors merely the same government
share (i.e., the 2 percent excise tax) that it apparently demands from
contractors under the three forms of mineral agreements.
While there is ground to believe that Sections 80, 84 and 112 are indeed
unconstitutional, they cannot be ruled upon here. In any event, they are
separable; thus, a later finding of nullity will not affect the rest of RA 7942.
In fine, the challenged provisions of RA 7942 cannot be said to
surrender financial benefits from an FTAA to the foreign contractors.
Moreover, there is no concrete basis for the view that, in FTAAs with a
foreign contractor, the State must receive at least 60 percent of the aftertax income from the exploitation of its mineral resources, and that such
share is the equivalent of the constitutional requirement that at least 60
percent of the capital, and hence 60 percent of the income, of mining
companies should remain in Filipino hands. Even if the State is entitled to
a 60 percent share from other mineral agreements (CPA, JVA and MPSA),
that would not create a parallel or analogous situation for FTAAs. We are
dealing with an essentially different equation. Here we have the old apples
and oranges syndrome.
The Charter did not intend to fix an iron-clad rule of 60 percent share,
applicable to all situations, regardless of circumstances. There is no
indication of such an intention on the part of the framers. Moreover, the
terms and conditions of petroleum FTAAs cannot serve as standards for
mineral mining FTAAs, because the technical and operational
requirements, cost structures and investment needs of off-shore
petroleum exploration and drilling companies do not have the
remotest resemblance to those of on-shore mining companies.
To take the position that government's share must be not less than 60
percent of after-tax income of FTAA contractors is nothing short of this
Court dictating upon the government. The State resultantly ends up losing
control. To avoid compromising the State's full control and supervision
over the exploitation of mineral resources, there must be no attempt to
impose a "minimum 60 percent" rule. It is sufficient that the State has the
power and means, should it so decide, to get a 60 percent share (or
greater); and it is not necessary that the State does so in every case.
Invalid Provisions of the WMCP FTAA
Section 7.9 of the WMCP FTAA clearly renders illusory the State's 60
percent share of WMCP's revenues. Under Section 7.9, should WMCP's
foreign stockholders (who originally owned 100 percent of the equity) sell
60 percent or more of their equity to a Filipino citizen or corporation, the
State loses its right to receive its share in net mining revenues under
Section 7.7, without any offsetting compensation to the State. And what is
Page 43 of 126
given to the State in Section 7.7 is by mere tolerance of WMCP's foreign

stockholders, who can at any time cut off the government's entire share by
simply selling 60 percent of WMCP's equity to a Philippine citizen or
corporation.
In fact, the sale by WMCP's foreign stockholder on January 23, 2001 of the
entire outstanding equity in WMCP to Sagittarius Mines, Inc., a domestic
corporation at least 60 percent Filipino owned, can be deemed to have
automatically triggered the operation of Section 7.9 and removed the
State's right to receive its 60 percent share. Section 7.9 of the WMCP
FTAA has effectively given away the State's share without anything in
exchange.
Moreover, it constitutes unjust enrichment on the part of the local and
foreign stockholders in WMCP, because by the mere act of divestment, the
local and foreign stockholders get a windfall, as their share in the net
mining revenues of WMCP is automatically increased, without having to
pay anything for it.
Being grossly disadvantageous to government and detrimental to the
Filipino people, as well as violative of public policy, Section 7.9 must
therefore be stricken off as invalid. The FTAA in question does not involve
mere contractual rights but, being impressed as it is with public interest,
the contractual provisions and stipulations must yield to the common good
and the national interest. Since the offending provision is very much
separable from the rest of the FTAA, the deletion of Section 7.9 can be
done without affecting or requiring the invalidation of the entire WMCP
FTAA itself.
Section 7.8(e) of the WMCP FTAA likewise is invalid, since by allowing the
sums spent by government for the benefit of the contractor to be
deductible from the State's share in net mining revenues, it results in
benefiting the contractor twice over. This constitutes unjust enrichment on
the part of the contractor, at the expense of government. For being grossly
disadvantageous and prejudicial to government and contrary to public
policy, Section 7.8(e) must also be declared without effect. It may likewise
be stricken off without affecting the rest of the FTAA.
EPILOGUE
AFTER ALL IS SAID AND DONE, it is clear that there is unanimous
agreement in the Court upon the key principle that the State must exercise
full control and supervision over the exploration, development and
utilization of mineral resources.
The crux of the controversy is the amount of discretion to be accorded the
Executive Department, particularly the President of the Republic, in
respect of negotiations over the terms of FTAAs, particularly when it
comes to the government share of financial benefits from FTAAs. 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 humongous 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.
We are all, in one way or another, sorely affected by the recently reported
scandals involving corruption in high places, duplicity in the negotiation of
multi-billion peso government contracts, huge payoffs to government
officials, and other malfeasances; and perhaps, there is the desire to see
some measures put in place to prevent further abuse. However, dictating
upon the President what minimum share to get from an FTAA is not
the solution. It sets a bad precedent since such a move institutionalizes
the very reduction if not deprivation of the State's control. The remedy may
be worse than the problem it was meant to address. In any event,
provisions in such future agreements which may be suspected to be
grossly disadvantageous or detrimental to government may be challenged
in court, and the culprits haled before the bar of justice.
The Constitution of the Philippines is the supreme law of the land. It is the
repository of all the aspirations and hopes of all the people. We fully
sympathize with the plight of Petitioner La Bugal B'laan and other tribal
groups, and commend their efforts to uplift their communities. However, we
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.
We must never forget that it is not only our less privileged brethren in tribal
and cultural communities who deserve the attention of this Court; rather, all
parties concerned -- including the State itself, the contractor (whether
Filipino or foreign), and the vast majority of our citizens -- equally deserve
the protection of the law and of this Court. To stress, the benefits to be
derived by the State from mining activities must ultimately serve the great
majority of our fellow citizens. They have as much right and interest in the
proper and well-ordered development and utilization of the country's
mineral resources as the petitioners.
Whether we consider the near term or take the longer view, we cannot
overemphasize the need for an appropriate balancing of interests and
needs -- the need to develop our stagnating mining industry and extract
what NEDA Secretary Romulo Neri estimates is some US$840 billion
(approx. PhP47.04 trillion) worth of mineral wealth lying hidden in the
ground, in order to jumpstart our floundering economy on the one hand,
and on the other, the need to enhance our nationalistic aspirations, protect
our indigenous communities, and prevent irreversible ecological damage.
This Court cannot but be mindful that any decision rendered in this case
will ultimately impact not only the cultural communities which lodged the
instant Petition, and not only the larger community of the Filipino people
now struggling to survive amidst a fiscal/budgetary deficit, ever increasing
prices of fuel, food, and essential commodities and services, the shrinking
value of the local currency, and a government hamstrung in its delivery of
basic services by a severe lack of resources, but also countless future
generations of Filipinos.
For this latter group of Filipinos yet to be born, their eventual access to
education, health care and basic services, their overall level of well-being,
the very shape of their lives are even now being determined and affected
partly by the policies and directions being adopted and implemented by
government today. And in part by the this Resolution rendered by this
Court today.
Verily, the mineral wealth and natural resources of this country are meant
to benefit not merely a select group of people living in the areas locally
affected by mining activities, but the entire Filipino nation, present and
future, to whom the mineral wealth really belong. This Court has therefore
weighed carefully the rights and interests of all concerned, and decided for
the greater good of the greatest number. JUSTICE FOR ALL, not just for
some; JUSTICE FOR THE PRESENT AND THE FUTURE, not just for the
here and now.
WHEREFORE, the Court RESOLVES to GRANT the respondents' and the
intervenors' Motions for Reconsideration; to REVERSE and SET ASIDE
this Court's January 27, 2004 Decision; to DISMISS the Petition; and to
issue this new judgment declaring CONSTITUTIONAL (1) Republic Act
No. 7942 (the Philippine Mining Law), (2) its Implementing Rules and
Regulations contained in DENR Administrative Order (DAO) No. 9640 -insofar as they relate to financial and technical assistance agreements
referred to in paragraph 4 of Section 2 of Article XII of the Constitution; and
(3) the Financial and Technical Assistance Agreement (FTAA) dated
March 30, 1995 executed by the government and Western Mining
Corporation Philippines Inc. (WMCP), except Sections 7.8 and 7.9 of the
subject FTAA which are hereby INVALIDATED for being contrary to public
policy and for being grossly disadvantageous to the government.
SO ORDERED.
CONCURRING OPINION
Verily, under the doctrine of separation of powers and due respect for coequal and coordinate branches of government, this Court must restrain
itself from intruding into policy matters and must allow the President and
Congress maximum discretion in using the resources of our country and in
securing the assistance of foreign groups to eradicate the grinding poverty
of our people and answer their cry for viable employment opportunities in
the country.
"The judiciary is loath to interfere with the due exercise by coequal
branches of government of their official functions."99 As aptly spelled out
seven decades ago by Justice George Malcolm, "Just as the Supreme
Court, as the guardian of constitutional rights, should not sanction
usurpations by any other department of government, so should it as strictly
confine its own sphere of influence to the powers expressly or by
implication conferred on it by the Organic Act."100 Let the development of
the mining industry be the responsibility of the political branches of
government. And let not this Court interfere inordinately and unnecessarily.
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
I concur in the well-reasoned ponencia of my esteemed colleague Mr.
Justice Artemio V. Panganiban. I feel obligated, however, to add the
following observations:
I. RE "FULL CONTROL AND SUPERVISION"
With all due respect, I believe that the issue of unconstitutionality of
Republic Act No. 7942, its implementing rules, and the Financial
Assistance Agreement between the Philippine Government and WMPC
(Philippines) Inc. (WMPC FTAA) executed pursuant to Rep. Act No. 7942
hinges, to a large extent, on the interpretation of the phrase in Section 2,
Article XII of the 1987 Constitution, which states:
Page 44 of 126
(T)he exploration, development, and utilization of natural resources shall

be under the full control and supervision of the State. x x x. (Emphasis
supplied)
Construing said phrase vis--vis the entire provision, it appears from the
deliberations in the Constitutional Commission that the term "control" does
not have the meaning it ordinarily has in political law which is the power of
a superior to substitute his judgment for that of an inferior. 1 Thus
MR. NOLLEDO: Suppose a judicial entity is given the power to exploit
natural resources and, of course, there are decisions made by the
governing board of that judicial entity, can the state change the decisions
of the governing board of that entity based on the words "full control".
MR. VILLEGAS: If it is within the context of the contract, I think the State
cannot violate the laws of the land.2
Moreover, "full control and supervision" does not mean that foreign
stockholders cannot be legally elected as members of the board of a
corporation doing business under, say, a co-production, joint venture or
profit-sharing agreement, 40% of whose capital is foreign owned.
Otherwise, and as Commissioner Romulo declared, it would be unfair to
the foreign stockholder3 and, per Commissioner Padilla, "refusing them a
voice in management would make a co-production, joint venture and
production sharing illusory."4
It is apparently for the foregoing reasons that there was a disapproval of
the amendment proposed by Commissioner, now Mr. Chief Justice Davide,
that the governing and managing bodies of such corporations shall be
5
vested exclusively in citizens of the Philippines so that control of all
corporations involved in the business of utilizing our natural resources
would always be in Filipino hands.
The disapproval must be juxtaposed with the fact that a provision
substantially similar to the proposed Davide amendment was approved
with regard to educational institutions, viz:
Section 4 (2). Educational institutions, other than those established by
religious groups and mission boards, shall be owned solely by citizens of
the Philippines or corporations or associations at least sixty per centum of
the capital of which is owned by such citizens. The Congress may,
however, require increased Filipino equity participation in all educational
institutions.
The control and administration of educational institutions shall be vested
in citizens of the Philippines. (Emphasis supplied)
From the foregoing, it can be clearly inferred that it was NOT the intention
of the framers of the Constitution to deprive governing boards of domestic
corporations with non-Filipino members, the right to control and administer
the corporation that explores, develops and utilizes natural resources
insofar as agreements with the State for co-production, joint venture and
production-sharing are concerned, otherwise the Davide amendment
would have been approved and, like the prohibition in above-quoted
Section 4(2), Article XIV, control and supervision of all business involved in
the exploration and development of mineral resources would have been
left solely in Filipino hands.
Accordingly, to the extent that the corporate board governs and manages
the operations for the exploration and use of natural resources, to that
extent the "full control and supervision" thereof by the State is diminished.
In effect, therefore, when the State enters into such agreements as
provided in the Constitution, it allows itself to surrender part of its
sovereign right to full control and supervision of said activities, the State
having the right to partly surrender the exercise of sovereign powers under
the doctrine of auto-limitation.6
If foreigners (under joint ventures etc.) have a say in the management of
the business of utilizing natural resources as corporate directors of
domestic corporations, there is no justification for holding that foreign
corporations who put in considerably large amounts of money under
agreements involving either technical or financial assistance for large scale
exploration, development and utilization of minerals, petroleum and other
mineral oils are prohibited from managing such business.
Indeed, to say that the Constitution requires the State to have full and total
control and supervision of the exploration, development and utilization of
minerals when undertaken in a large scale under agreements with foreign
corporations involving huge amounts of money is to divorce oneself from
reality. As Mr. Justice Panganiban said, no firm would invest funds in such
enterprise unless it has a say in the management of the business.
To paraphrase this Court in one of its landmark cases, the fundamental
law does not intend an impossible undertaking.7 It must therefore be
presumed that the Constitution did not at all intend an interpretation of
Section 2, Article XII which deprives the foreign corporation engaged in

large scale mining activities a measure of control in the management and
operation of such activities, and in said manner, remove from the realm of
the possible the enterprise the Constitution envisions thereunder.
This brings me to the final point raised by my esteemed colleague, Mme.
Justice Conchita Carpio Morales, that it is of no moment that the
declaration of Rep. Act No. 7942 may discourage foreign assistance
and/or retard or delay the exploration, development or utilization of the
nation's natural resources as the Filipino people, as early as the 1935
Constitution, have determined such matters as secondary to the protection
and preservation of their ownership of these natural resources. With due
respect, I find such proposition not legally justifiable as it looks backward to
the justification in the 1935 Constitution instead of forward under the 1987
Constitution which expressly allows foreign participation in the exploration,
development or utilization of the nation's marine wealth to allow the State
to take advantage of foreign funding or technical assistance. As long as
the means employed by such foreign assistance result in real contributions
to the economic growth of our country and enhance the general welfare of
our people, the development of our mineral resources by and through
foreign corporations, such FTAAs are not unconstitutional.
II. RE: REQUIREMENT THAT FTAAs MUST BE "BASED
ON REAL CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE ECONOMIC GROWTH
AND GENERAL WELFARE OF THE COUNTRY"
The policy behind Rep. Act No. 7942 is to promote the "rational
exploration, development, utilization and conservation" of the State-owned
mineral resources "through the combined efforts of government and the
private sector in order to enhance national growth in a way that effectively
safe-guards the environment and protect the rights of affected
communities".8 This policy, with reference specifically to FTAAs, is in
keeping with the constitutional precept that FTAAs must be based on real
contributions to the economic growth and general welfare of the country.
As has been said, "a statute derives its vitality from the purpose for which it
is enacted and to construe it in a manner that disregards or defeats such
purpose is to nullify or destroy the law."9 In this regard, much has been
said about the alleged unconstitutionality of Section 81 of Rep. Act No.
7942 as it allegedly allows for the waiver of the State's right to receive
income from the exploitation of its mineral resources as it limits the State's
share in FTAAs with foreign contractors to taxes, duties and fees. For
clarity, the provision states
SEC. 81. Government Share in Other Mineral Agreements. -The share of the Government in co-production and joint-venture
agreements shall be negotiated by the Government and the
contractor taking into consideration the: (a) capital investment of
the project, (b) risks involved, (c) contribution of the project to
the economy, and (d) other factors that will provide for a fair and
equitable sharing between the Government and the contractor.
The Government shall also be entitled to compensations for its
other contributions which shall be agreed upon by the parties,
and shall consist, among other things, the contractor's income
contractor's foreign stockholders, arising from dividend or
interest payments to the said foreign stockholders, in case of a
foreign national, and all such other taxes, duties and fees as
provided for under existing laws.
The Government share in financial or technical assistance
agreement shall consist of, among other things, the
contractor's corporate income tax, excise tax, special allowance,
withholding tax due from the contractor's foreign stockholders
arising from dividend or interest payments to the said foreign
stockholder in case of foreign national and all such other
taxes, duties and fees as provided for under existing laws.
The collection of Government share in financial or technical
assistance agreement shall commence after the financial or
technical assistance agreement contractor has fully recovered its
pre-operating expenses, exploration, and development
expenditures, inclusive. (Emphasis supplied)
The controversy revolves around the proper interpretation of "among other
things" stated in the second paragraph of Section 81. Mr. Justice Carpio is
of the opinion that "among other things" could only mean "among other
taxes", referring to the unnamed "other taxes, duties, and fees as provided
for under existing laws" contained in the last clause of Section 81,
paragraph 2. If such were the correct interpretation, then truly, the
provision is unconstitutional as a sharing based only on taxes cannot be
considered as contributing to the economic growth and general welfare of
the country. I am bothered, however, by the interpretation that the phrase
"among other things" refers to "and all such other taxes, duties and fees as
provided for under existing laws" since it would render the former phrase
superfluous. In other words, there would have been no need to include the
phrase "among other things" if all it means is "all other taxes" since the
latter is already expressly stated in the provision. As it is a truism that all
terms/phrases used in a statute has relevance to the object of the law,
then I find the view of Mr. Justice Panganiban that "all other things"
means "additional government share" in the form of "earnings or cash flow
Page 45 of 126
of the mining enterprise" as interpreted by the DENR -- more compelling.

Besides, such an interpretation would affirm the constitutionality of the
provision which would then be in keeping with the rudimentary principle
that a law shall not be declared invalid unless the conflict with the
Constitution is clear beyond reasonable doubt.10 To justify nullification of a
law, there must be a clear and unequivocal breach of the Constitution, not
a doubtful and argumentative implication.11
Finally, I wish to stress that it would appear that the constitutional mandate
that large-scale mining activities under FTAAs must be based on real
contributions to the economic growth and general welfare of the country is
both a standard for the statute required to implement subject provision as
well as the vehicle for the exercise of the State's resultant residual control
and supervision of the mining activities.
In all FTAAs, the State is deemed to reserve its right to control the end to
be achieved so that real contributions to the economy can be realized and,
in the final analysis, the business will redound to the general welfare of the
country.
However, the question of whether or not the FTAA will, in fact, redound to
the general welfare of the public involves a "judgment call" by our policy
makers who are answerable to our people during the appropriate electoral
exercises and are not subject to judicial pronouncements based on grave
abuse of discretion.12
For the foregoing reasons, I vote to grant the motion for reconsideration.
DISSENTING OPINION
CARPIO, J.:
I dissent and vote to deny respondents' motions for reconsideration. I find
that Section 3(aq), Section 39, Section 80, the second paragraph of
Section 81, the proviso in Section 84, and the first proviso in Section 112
of Republic Act No. 79421 ("RA 7942") violate Section 2, Article XII of the
1987 Constitution and are therefore unconstitutional.
In essence, these provisions of RA 7942 waive the State's ownership
rights under the Constitution over mineral resources. These provisions
also abdicate the State's constitutional duty to control and supervise
fully the exploitation of mineral resources.
A. The Threshold Issue for Resolution
Petitioners claim that respondent Department of Environment and Natural
Resources Secretary Victor O. Ramos, in issuing the rules to implement
RA 7942, gravely abused his discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction. Petitioners assert that RA 7942 is unconstitutional for the
following reasons:
1. RA 7942 "allows fully foreign owned corporations to explore, develop,
utilize and exploit mineral resources in a manner contrary to Section 2,
paragraph 4, Article XII of the Constitution";
2. RA 7942 "allows enjoyment by foreign citizens as well as fully foreign
owned corporations of the nation's marine wealth contrary to Section 2,
paragraph 2 of Article XII of the Constitution";
3. RA 7942 "violates Section 1, Article III of the Constitution";
4. RA 7942 "allows priority to foreign and fully foreign owned corporations
in the exploration, development and utilization of mineral resources
contrary to Article XII of the Constitution";
5. RA 7942 "allows the inequitable sharing of wealth contrary to
Section 1, paragraph 1, and Section 2, paragraph 4, Article XII of the
Constitution."2 (Emphasis supplied)
Petitioners also assail the validity of the Financial and Technical
Assistance Agreement between the Philippine Government and WMCP
(Philippines), Inc. dated 2 March 19953 ("WMCP FTAA") for violation of
Section 2, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution.
The issues that petitioners raise boil down to whether RA 7942 and
the WMCP FTAA violate Section 2, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution.
B. The Constitutional Declaration and Mandate
Section 2, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution4 provides as follows:
All x x x minerals, x x x petroleum, and other mineral oils, x xx and other

natural resources are owned by the State. x x x The exploration,
development, and utilization of natural resources shall be under the full
control and supervision of the State. x x x. (Emphasis supplied)Two
basic principles flow from this constitutional provision. First, the
Constitution vests in the State ownership of all mineral resources.
Second, the Constitution mandates the State to exercise full control and
supervision over the exploitation of mineral resources.
The first principle reiterates the Regalian doctrine, which established State
ownership of natural resources since the arrival of the Spaniards in the
Philippines in the 16th century. The 1935, 1973 and 1987 Constitutions
incorporate the Regalian doctrine.5 The State, as owner of the nation's
natural resources, exercises the attributes of ownership over its natural
resources.6 An important attribute of ownership is the right to receive the
income from any commercial exploitation of the natural resources.7
The second principle insures that the benefits of State ownership of natural
resources accrue to the Filipino people. The framers of the 1987
Constitution introduced the second principle to avoid the adverse effects of
the "license, concession or lease"8 system of exploitation under the 1935
and 1973 Constitutions.9 The "license, concession or lease" system
enriched the private concessionaires who controlled the exploitation of
natural resources. However, the "license, concession or lease" system left
the Filipino people impoverished, starkly exemplified by the nation's
denuded forests whose exploitation did not benefit the Filipino people.
The framers of the 1987 Constitution clearly intended to abandon the
"license, concession or lease" system prevailing under the 1935 and 1973
Constitutions. This exchange in the deliberations of the Constitutional
Commission reveals this clear intent:
MR. DAVIDE: Thank you, Mr. Vice-President. I would like to seek some
clarifications.
MR. VILLEGAS: Yes.
MR. DAVIDE: Under the proposal, I notice that except for the lands of the
public domain, all the other natural resources cannot be alienated and in
respect to lands of the public domain, private corporations with the
required ownership by Filipino citizens can only lease the same.
Necessarily, insofar as other natural resources are concerned, it
would only be the State which can exploit, develop, explore and
utilize the same. However, the State may enter into a joint venture,
co-production or production-sharing. Is that not correct?
MR. VILLEGAS: Yes.
MR. DAVIDE: Consequently, henceforth upon the approval of this
Constitution, no timber or forest concessions, permits or
authorization can be exclusively granted to any citizen of the
Philippines nor to any corporation qualified to acquire lands of the
public domain?
MR. VILLEGAS: Would Commissioner Monsod like to comment on that? I
think his answer is "yes."
MR. DAVIDE: So, what will happen now to licenses or concessions earlier
granted by the Philippine government to private corporations or to Filipino
citizens? Would they be deemed repealed?
MR. VILLEGAS: This is not applied retroactively. They will be respected. 10
(Emphasis supplied)
To carry out this intent, the 1987 Constitution uses a different phraseology
from that used in the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions. The previous
Constitutions used the phrase "license, concession or lease" in referring to
exploitation of natural resources. The 1987 Constitution uses the phrase
"co-production, joint venture or production-sharing agreements," with "full
control and supervision" by the State. The change in language was a clear
rejection of the old system of "license, concession or lease."
The 1935 and 1973 Constitutions also used the words "belong to" in
stating the Regalian doctrine, thus declaring that natural resources "belong
to the State." The 1987 Constitution uses the word "owned," thus
prescribing that natural resources are "owned" by the State. In using the
word "owned," the 1987 Constitution emphasizes the attributes of
ownership, among which is the right to the income of the property owned. 11
The State as owner of the natural resources must receive income from the
exploitation of its natural resources. The payment of taxes, fees and
charges, derived from the taxing or police power of the State, is not a
substitute. The State is duty bound to secure for the Filipino people a fair
share of the income from any exploitation of the nation's precious and
exhaustible natural resources. As explained succinctly by a textbook writer:
Under the former licensing, concession, or lease schemes, the government
benefited from such activities only through fees, charges and taxes.
Such benefits were very minimal compared with the enormous profits
reaped by the licensees, concessionaires or lessees who had control over
the particular resources over which they had been given exclusive right to
exploit. Moreover, some of them disregarded the conservation of natural
resources. With the new role, the State will be able to obtain a greater
share in the profits. It can also actively husband our natural resources and
engage in development programs that will be beneficial to the nation. 12
(Emphasis supplied)
Thus, the 1987 Constitution commands the State to exercise full control
and supervision over the exploitation of natural resources to insure that
the State receives its fair share of the income. In Miners Association of
the Philippines v. Hon. Factoran, Jr., et al.,13 the Court ruled that "the
old system of exploration, development and utilization of natural
resources through 'license, concession or lease' x x x has been
disallowed by Article XII, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution." The
Court explained:
Page 46 of 126
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. Consonant therewith, the
exploration, development and utilization of natural resources
may be undertaken by means of direct act of the State, or it may
opt to enter into co-production, joint venture, or productionsharing agreements, or it may enter into agreements with
foreign-owned corporations involving either technical or financial
assistance for large-scale exploration, development, and
utilization of minerals, petroleum, and other mineral oils
according to the general terms and conditions provided by law,
based on real contributions to the economic growth and
general welfare of the country. (Emphasis supplied)
The old system of "license, concession or lease" which merely gave the
State a pittance in the form of taxes, fees and charges is now buried in
history. Any attempt to resurrect it is unconstitutional and deserves outright
rejection by this Court.
The Constitution prohibits the alienation of all natural resources except
agricultural lands.14 The Constitution, however, allows the State to exploit
commercially its natural resources and sell the marketable products from
such exploitation. This the State may do through a co-production, joint
venture or production-sharing arrangement with companies at least 60%
Filipino owned. The necessary implication is that the State, as owner of the
natural resources, must receive a fair share of the income from such
commercial operation. The State may receive its share of the net income in
cash or in kind.
The State may also directly exploit its natural resources in either of two
ways. The State may set up its own company to engage in the exploitation
of natural resources. Alternatively, the State may enter into a financial or
technical assistance agreement ("FTAA") with private companies who act
as contractors of the State. The State may seek from such contractors
either financial or technical assistance, or both, depending on the State's
own needs. Under an FTAA, the contractor, foreign or local, manages the
contracted work or operations to the extent of its financial or technical
contribution, subject to the State's control and supervision.
Except in large-scale exploitation of certain minerals, the State's
contractors must be 60% Filipino owned companies. The State pays such
contractors, for their technical services or financial assistance, a share of
the income from the exploitation of the natural resources. The State retains
the remainder of the income after paying the Filipino owned contractor.
In large-scale exploitation of minerals, petroleum and other mineral oils,
the Constitution allows the State to contract with "foreign-owned
corporations" under an FTAA. This is still a direct exploitation by the
State but using a foreign instead of a local contractor. However, the
Constitution requires that the participation of foreign contractors must
make a real contribution to the national economy and the general welfare.
The State pays the foreign contractor, for its technical services or financial
assistance, a share of the income from the exploitation of the minerals,
petroleum or other mineral oils. The State retains the rest of the income
after paying the foreign contractor.
Whether the FTAA contractor is local or foreign, the State must retain its
fair share of the income from the exploitation of the natural resources that
it owns. To insure it retains its fair share of the income, the State must
exercise full control and supervision over the exploitation of its natural
resources. And whether the FTAA contractor is local or foreign, the State is
directly undertaking the exploitation of its natural resources, with the
FTAA contractor providing technical services or financing to the State.
Since the State is directly undertaking the exploitation, all exploration
permits and similar authorizations are in the name of the Philippine
Government, which then authorizes the contractor to act on its behalf.
The State exercises full control and supervision over the mining operations
in the Philippines of the foreign contractor. However, the State does not
exercise control and supervision over the foreign contractor itself or its
board of directors. The State does not also exercise any control or
supervision over the foreign contractor's mining operations in other
countries, or even its non-mining operations in the Philippines. There is no
conflict of power between the State and the foreign contractor's board of
directors. By entering into an FTAA, the foreign contractor, through its
board of directors, agrees to manage the contracted work or operations to
the extent of its financial or technical contribution subject to the State's
control and supervision.
No government should contract with a corporation, local or foreign, to
exploit commercially the nation's natural resources without the State
receiving any income as owner of the natural resources. Natural resources
are non-renewable and exhaustible assets of the State. Certainly, no
government in its right mind should give away for free its natural resources
to private business enterprises, local or foreign, amidst widespread poverty
among its people.
In sum, two basic constitutional principles govern the exploitation of natural

resources in the country. First, the State owns the country's natural
resources and must benefit as owner from any exploitation of its natural
resources. Second, to insure that it receives its fair share as owner of the
natural resources, the State must exercise full control and supervision over
the exploitation of its natural resources.
We shall subject RA 7942 to constitutional scrutiny based on these two
basic principles.
C. Waiver of Beneficial Rights from Ownership of Mineral Resources
RA 7942 contains five provisions which waive the State's right to receive
income from the exploitation of its mineral resources. These provisions are
Sections 39, 80, 81, 84 and 112:
Section 39. Option to Convert into a Mineral Agreement. The
contractor has the option to convert the financial or
technical assistance agreement to a mineral agreement at
any time during the term of the agreement, if the economic
viability of the contract area is found to be inadequate to
justify large-scale mining operations, after proper notice to
the Secretary as provided for under the implementing rules and
regulations: Provided, That the mineral agreement shall only be
for the remaining period of the original agreement.
In the case of a foreign contractor, it shall reduce its equity to
forty percent (40%) in the corporation, partnership, association,
or cooperative. Upon compliance with this requirement by
the contractor, the Secretary shall approve the conversion
and execute the mineral production-sharing agreement.
Section 80. Government Share in Mineral Production Sharing
Agreement. The total government share in a mineral
production sharing agreement shall be the excise tax on
mineral products as provided in Republic Act No. 7729,
amending Section 151(a) of the National Internal Revenue
Code, as amended.
Section 81. Government Share in Other Mineral Agreements.
The share of the Government in co-production and joint-venture
agreements shall be negotiated by the Government and the
contractor taking into consideration the: (a) capital investment of
the project, (b) risks involved, (c) contribution of the project to
the economy, and (d) other factors that will provide for a fair and
equitable sharing between the Government and the contractor.
The Government shall also be entitled to compensation for its
other contributions which shall be agreed upon by the parties,
and shall consist, among other things, the contractor's income
payments to the said foreign stockholders, in case of a foreign
national, and all such other taxes, duties and fees as provided
for under existing laws.
agreement shall consist of, among other things, the
contractor's corporate income tax, excise tax, special
allowance, withholding tax due from the contractor's foreign
stockholders arising from dividend or interest payments to
the said foreign stockholder in case of a foreign national
and all such other taxes, duties and fees as provided for
under existing laws.
The collection of Government share in financial or technical
assistance agreement shall commence after the financial or
technical assistance agreement contractor has fully
recovered its pre-operating expenses, exploration, and
development expenditures, inclusive.
Section 84. Excise Tax on Mineral Products. The contractor
shall be liable to pay the excise tax on mineral products as
provided for under Section 151 of the National Internal Revenue
Code: Provided, however, That with respect to a mineral
production sharing agreement, the excise tax on mineral
products shall be the government share under said
agreement.
Section 112. Non-impairment of Existing Mining/Quarrying
Rights. - All valid and existing mining lease contracts,
permits/licenses, leases pending renewal, mineral production
sharing agreements granted under Executive Order No. 279, at
the date of effectivity of this Act, shall remain valid x x x
Provided, That the provisions of Chapter XIV15 on
government share in mineral production-sharing agreement
x x x shall immediately govern and apply to a mining lessee
or contractor unless the mining lessee or contractor indicates
his intention to the Secretary, in writing, not to avail of said
provisions: x x x.
(Emphasis supplied)
Section 80 of RA 7942 limits to the excise tax the State's share in a
mineral production-sharing agreement ("MPSA"). Section 80 expressly
states that the excise tax on mineral products shall constitute the "total
government share in a mineral production sharing agreement." Under
Section 151(A) of the Tax Code, this excise tax on metallic and nonmetallic minerals is only 2% of the market value, as follows:
Section 151. Mineral Products.
(A) Rates of Tax. There shall be levied, assessed and
collected on minerals, mineral products and quarry resources,
excise tax as follows:
(1) On coal and coke, a tax of Ten pesos (P10.00) per metric
ton;
Page 47 of 126
(2) On all nonmetallic minerals and quarry resources, a tax of

two percent (2%) based on the actual market value of the gross
output thereof at the time of removal, in the case of those locally
extracted or produced; or the value used by the Bureau of
Customs in determining tariff and customs duties, net of excise
tax and value-added tax, in the case of importation.
xxx
(3) On all metallic minerals, a tax based on the actual market
value of the gross output thereof at the time of removal, in the
case of those locally extracted or produced; or the value used by
the Bureau of Customs in determining tariff and customs duties,
net of excise tax and value-added tax, in the case of importation,
in accordance with the following schedule:
(a) Copper and other metallic minerals:
(i) On the first three (3) years upon the effectivity of
Republic Act No. 7729, one percent (1%);
(ii) On the fourth and the fifth years, one and a half
percent (1%); and
(iii) On the sixth year and thereafter, two percent
(2%).
(b) Gold and chromite, two percent (2%).
x x x. (Emphasis supplied)
Section 80 of RA 7942 does not allow the State to receive any income
as owner of the mineral resources. The proviso in Section 84 of RA
7942 reiterates this when it states that "the excise tax on mineral
products shall be the government share under said agreement." 16 The
State receives only an excise tax flowing from its taxing power, not from its
ownership of the mineral resources. The excise tax is imposed not only on
mineral products, but also on alcohol, tobacco and automobiles17 produced
by companies that do not exploit natural resources owned by the State.
The excise tax is not payment for the exploitation of the State's natural
resources, but payment for the "privilege of engaging in business."18
Clearly, under Section 80 of RA 7942, the State does not receive as
owner of the mineral resources any income from the exploitation of its
mineral resources.
The second paragraph of Section 81 of RA 7942 also limits the State's
share in FTAAs with foreign contractors to taxes, duties and fees. Section
81 of RA 7942 provides that the State's share in FTAAs with foreign
contractors
shall consist of, among other things, the contractor's corporate
income tax, excise tax, special allowance, withholding tax due
from the contractor's foreign stockholders arising from dividend
or interest payments to the said foreign stockholder in case of a
foreign national and all such other taxes, duties and fees as
provided for under existing laws. (Emphasis supplied)
RA 7942 does not explain the phrase "among other things." The Solicitor
General states correctly that the phrase refers to taxes.19 The phrase is an
ejusdem generis phrase, and means "among other taxes, duties and fees"
since the items specifically enumerated are all taxes, duties and fees. The
last phrase "all such other taxes, duties and fees as provided for under
existing laws" at the end of the sentence clarifies further that the phrase
"among other things" refers to taxes, duties and fees.
The second paragraph of Section 81 does not require the Government and
the foreign FTAA contractor to negotiate the State's share. In contrast, the
first paragraph of Section 81 expressly provides that the "share of the
Government in co-production and joint-venture agreements shall be
negotiated by the Government and the contractor" which is 60% Filipino
owned.
In a co-production or joint venture agreement, the Government contributes
other inputs or equity in addition to its mineral resources. 20 Thus, the first
paragraph of Section 81 requires the Government and the 60% Filipino
owned company to negotiate the State's share. However, in an FTAA with
a foreign contractor under the second paragraph of Section 81, the
Government's contribution is only the mineral resources. Section 81 does
not require the Government and the foreign contractor to negotiate the
State's share from the net proceeds because there is no share for the
State. Section 81 does not recognize the State's contribution of
mineral resources as worthy of any share of the net proceeds from
the mining operations.
Thus, in FTAAs with foreign contractors under RA 7942, the State's
share is limited to taxes, fees and duties. The taxes include
"withholding tax due from the contractor's foreign stockholders arising from
dividend or interest payments." All these taxes, fees and duties are
imposed pursuant to the State's taxing power. The tax on income,
including dividend and interest income, is imposed on all taxpayers
whether or not they are stockholders of mining companies. These taxes,
fees and duties are not contractual payments to the State as owner of the
mineral resources but are mandatory exactions based on the taxing power
of the State.
Section 112 of RA 7942 is another provision that violates Section 2, Article
XII of the 1987 Constitution. Section 112 "immediately" reverts all
mineral agreements to the old and discredited "license, concession or
lease" system outlawed by the 1987 Constitution. Section 112 states that
"the provisions of Chapter XIV21 on government share in mineral
production-sharing agreement x x x shall immediately govern and
apply to a mining lessee or contractor." The contractor, local or foreign,
will now pay only the "government share in a mineral productionsharing agreement" under RA 7942. Section 80 of RA 7942, which
specifically governs MPSAs, limits the "government share" solely to
the excise tax on mineral products - 2% on metallic and non-metallic
minerals and 3% on indigenous petroleum.
In allowing the payment of the excise tax as the only share of the
government in any mineral agreement, whether co-production, joint
venture or production-sharing, Section 112 of RA 7942 reinstates the old

"license, concession or lease" system where the State receives only
minimal taxes, duties and fees. This clearly violates Section 2, Article XII of
the Constitution and is therefore unconstitutional. Section 112 of RA 7942
is a sweeping negation of the clear letter and intent of the 1987
Constitution that the exploitation of the State's natural resources must
benefit primarily the Filipino people.
Of course, Section 112 gives contractors the option not to avail of the
benefit of Section 112. This is in the guise that the enactment of RA 7942
shall not impair pre-existing mining rights, as the heading of Section 112
states. It is doubtful, however, if any contractor of sound mind would refuse
to receive 100% rather than only 40% of the net proceeds from the
exploitation of minerals under the FTAA.
Another provision that violates Section 2, Article XII of the Constitution is
Section 39 of RA 7942. Section 39 grants the foreign contractor the option
to convert the FTAA into a "mineral production-sharing agreement" if the
foreign contractor finds that the mineral deposits do not justify large-scale
mining operations. Section 39 of RA 7942 operates to deprive the State of
income from the mining operations and limits the State to the excise tax on
mineral products.
Section 39 grants the foreign contractor the option to revert to the "license,
concession or lease" system which the 1987 Constitution has banned. The
only requirement for the exercise of the option is for the foreign contractor
to divest 60% of its equity to a Philippine citizen or to a corporation 60%
Filipino owned. Section 39 states, "Upon compliance with this
requirement by the contractor, the Secretary shall approve the
conversion and execute the mineral production-sharing agreement."
The foreign contractor only needs to give "proper notice to the Secretary
as provided for under the implementing rules and regulations" if the
contractor finds the contract area not viable for large-scale mining. Thus,
Section 39 of RA 7942 is unconstitutional.
Sections 39, 80, 81, 84 and 112 of RA 7942 operate to deprive the State of
the beneficial rights arising from its ownership of mineral resources. What
Section 2, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution vests in absolute ownership
to the State, Sections 80, 81, 84 and 112 of RA 7942 take away and give
for free to private business enterprises, including foreign-owned
companies.
The legislature has discretion whether to tax a business or product. If the
legislature chooses to tax a business or product, it is free to determine the
22
rate or amount of the tax, provided it is not confiscatory. The legislature
has the discretion to impose merely a 2% excise tax on mineral products.
Courts cannot inquire into the wisdom of the amount of such tax, no matter
how meager it may be. This discretion of the legislature emanates from the
State's taxing power, a power vested solely in the legislature.
However, the legislature has no power to waive for free the benefits
accruing to the State from its ownership of mineral resources. Absent
considerations of social justice, the legislature has no power to give away
for free what forms part of the national patrimony of the State. Any
surrender by the legislature of the nation's mineral resources, especially to
foreign private enterprises, is repugnant to the concept of national
patrimony. Mineral resources form part of the national patrimony under
Article XII (National Economy and Patrimony) of the 1987 Constitution.
Under the last paragraph of Section 81, the collection of the State's socalled "share" (consisting of taxes) in FTAAs with foreign contractors is not
even certain. This paragraph provides that the State's "share x x x shall
commence after the financial or technical assistance agreement contractor
has fully recovered its pre-operating expenses, exploration, and
development expenditures." There is no time limit in RA 7942 for this grace
period when the collection of the State's "share" does not run.23
RA 7942 itself does not require government approval for the pre-operating,
exploration and development expenses of the foreign contractor. The
determination of the amount of pre-operating, exploration and
development expenses is left solely to the discretion of the foreign
contractor. Nothing prevents the foreign contractor from recording preoperating, exploration and development expenses equal to the mining
revenues it anticipates for the first 10 years. If that happens, the State's
share is ZERO for the first 10 years.
The Government cannot tell the Filipino people when the State will start to
receive its "share" (consisting of taxes) in mining revenues under the
FTAA. The Executive Department cannot correct these deficiencies in RA
7942 through remedial implementing rules. The correction involves
substantive legislation, not merely filling in the implementing details of the
law.
Taxes, fees and duties cannot constitute payment for the State's share as
owner of the mineral resources. This was the mode of payment used under
the old system of "license, concession or lease" which the 1987
Constitution abrogated. Obviously, Sections 80, 81, 84 and 112 of RA
7942 constitute an ingenious attempt to resurrect the old and
discredited system, which the 1987 Constitution has now outlawed.
Under the 1987 Constitution, the State must receive its fair share as owner
of the mineral resources, separate from taxes, fees and duties paid by
taxpayers. The legislature may waive taxes, fees and duties, but it cannot
waive the State's share in mining operations.
Any law waiving for free the State's right to the benefits arising from its
ownership of mineral resources is unconstitutional. Such law negates
Section 2, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution vesting ownership of mineral
resources in the State. Such law will not contribute to "economic growth
and the general welfare of the country" as required in the fourth paragraph
of Section 2. Thus, in waiving the State's income from the exploitation of
mineral resources, Section 80, the second paragraph of Section 81, the
proviso in Section 84, and Section 112 of RA 7942 violate the Constitution
and are therefore void.
Page 48 of 126
D. Abdication of the State's Duty to Control and Supervise

Fully the Exploitation of Mineral Resources
The 1987 Constitution commands the State to exercise "full control and
supervision" over the exploitation of natural resources. The purpose of
this mandatory directive is to insure that the State receives its fair share in
the exploitation of natural resources. The framers of the Constitution were
determined to avoid the disastrous mistakes of the past. Under the old
system of "license, concession or lease," the State gave full control to the
concessionaires who enriched themselves while paying the State minimal
taxes, fees and charges.
Under the 1987 Constitution, for a co-production, joint venture or
production-sharing agreement to be valid the State must exercise full
control and supervision over the mining operations. This means that the
State should approve all capital and operating expenses in the exploitation
of the natural resources. Approval of capital expenses determines how
much capital is recoverable by the mining contractor. Approval of operating
expenses determines the reasonable amounts deductible from the annual
income from mining operations. Such approvals are essential because the
net income from mining operations, which is the basis of the State's share,
depends on the allowable amount of capital and operating expenses.
There is approval of capital and operating expenses when the State
approves them, or if the State disapproves them and a dispute arises,
when their final allowance is subject to arbitration.
The provisions of RA 7942 on MPSAs and FTAAs do not give the State
any control and supervision over mining operations. The reason is obvious.
The State's so-called "share" in a mineral production-sharing agreement
under Section 80 is limited solely to the excise tax on mineral products.
This excise tax is based on the market value of the mineral product
determined without reference to the capital or operating expenses of the
mining contractor.
Likewise, the State's "share" in an FTAA under Section 81 has no relation
to the capital or operating expenses of the foreign contractor. The State's
"share" constitutes the same excise tax on mineral products, in addition to
other direct and indirect taxes. The basis of the excise tax is the selling
price of the mineral product. Hence, there is no reason for the State to
approve or disapprove the capital or operating expenses of the mining
contractor. Consequently, RA 7942 does not give the State any control and
supervision over mining operations contrary to the express command of
the Constitution. This makes Section 80, the second paragraph of Section
81, the proviso in Section 84, and Section 112 of RA 7942
unconstitutional.
E. RA 7942 Will Not Contribute to Economic
Growth or General Welfare of the Country
The fourth paragraph of Section 2, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution
requires that FTAAs with foreign contractors must make "real
contributions to the economic growth and general welfare of the
country." Under Section 81 of RA 7942, all the net proceeds arising from
the exploitation of mineral resources accrue to the foreign contractor even
if the State owns the mineral resources. The foreign contractor will
naturally repatriate the entire after-tax net proceeds to its home country.
Sections 94(a) and 94(b) of RA 7942 guarantee the foreign contractor the
right to repatriate its after-tax net proceeds, as well as its entire capital
investment, after the termination of its mining operations in the country.24
Clearly, no FTAA under Section 81 will ever make any real contribution to
the growth of the economy or to the general welfare of the country. The
foreign contractor, after it ceases to operate in the country, can even remit
to its home country the scrap value of its capital equipment. Thus, the
second paragraph of Section 81 of RA 7942 is unconstitutional for failure
to meet the constitutional requirement that the FTAA with a foreign
contractor should make a real contribution to the national economy and
general welfare.
F. Example of FTAA that Complies with Section 2, Article XII of the
1987 Constitution
The Solicitor General warns that declaring unconstitutional RA 7942 or its
provisions will endanger the Philippine Government's contract with the
foreign contractor extracting petroleum in Malampaya, Palawan.25 On the
contrary, the FTAA with the foreign petroleum contractor meets the
essential constitutional requirements since the State receives a fair share
of the income from the petroleum operations. The State also exercises
control and supervision over the exploitation of the petroleum. The
petroleum FTAA provides enough safeguards to insure that the petroleum
operations will make a real contribution to the national economy and
general welfare.
The Service Contract dated 11 December 1990 between the Philippine
Government as the first party, and Occidental Philippines, Inc. and Shell
Exploration B.V. as the second party26 ("Occidental-Shell FTAA"), covering
offshore exploitation of petroleum in Northwest Palawan, contains the
following provisions:
a. There is express recognition that the "conduct of Petroleum
Operations shall be under the full control and supervision
of the Office of Energy Affairs,"27 now Department of Energy
("DOE"), and that the "CONTRACTOR shall undertake and
execute the Petroleum Operations contemplated hereunder
under the full control and supervision of the OFFICE OF
ENERGY AFFAIRS;"28
b. The State receives 60% of the net proceeds from the
petroleum operations, while the foreign contractor receives
the remaining 40%;29
c. The DOE has a right to inspect and audit every year the
foreign contractor's books and accounts relating to the
petroleum operations, and object in writing to any expense
(operating and capital expenses)30 within 60 days from
completion of the audit, and if there is no amicable
settlement, the dispute goes to arbitration; 31
d. The operating expenses in any year cannot exceed 70% of
the gross proceeds from the sale of petroleum in the same year,
and any excess may be carried over in succeeding years; 32
e. The Bureau of Internal Revenue ("BIR") can inspect and
examine all the accounts, books and records of the foreign
contractor relating to the petroleum operations upon 24 hours
written notice;33
f. The petroleum output is sold at posted or market prices; 34
g. The foreign contractor pays the 32% Philippine corporate
income tax on its 40% share of the net proceeds, including
withholding tax on dividends or remittances of profits.35
(Emphasis supplied)
The Occidental-Shell FTAA gives the State its fair share of the income
from the petroleum operations of the foreign contractor. There is no
question that the State receives its rightful share, amounting to 60% of
the net proceeds, in recognition of its ownership of the petroleum
resources. In addition, Occidental-Shell's 40% share in the net proceeds is
subject to the 32% Philippine income tax. The Occidental-Shell FTAA also
gives the State, through the DOE and BIR, full control and supervision over
the petroleum operations of the foreign contractor. The foreign contractor
can recover only the capital and operating expenses approved by the
DOE or by the arbitral panel.36 The Occidental-Shell FTAA also contains
other safeguards to protect the interest of the State as owner of the
petroleum resources. While the foreign contractor manages the contracted
work or operations to the extent of its financial or technical contribution,
there are sufficient safeguards in the FTAA to insure compliance with the
constitutional requirements. The terms of the Occidental-Shell FTAA are
fair to the State and to Occidental-Shell.
In FTAAs with a foreign contractor, the State must receive at least 60%
percent of the net proceeds from the exploitation of its mineral resources.
This share is the equivalent of the constitutional requirement that at least
60% of the capital, and hence 60% of the income, of mining companies
should remain in Filipino hands. Intervenor CMP and even respondent
WMCP agree that the State has a 60% interest in the mining
operations under an FTAA with a foreign contractor. Intervenor CMP
asserts that the Philippine Government "stands in the place of the 60%
Filipino-owned company."37 Intervenor CMP also states that "the
contractor will get 40% of the financial benefits,"38 admitting that the
State, which is the owner of the mineral resources, will retain the remaining
60% of the net proceeds.
Respondent WMCP likewise admits that the 60%-40% "sharing ratio
between the Philippine Government and the Contractor is also in
accordance with the 60%-40% equity requirement for Filipino-owned
corporations."39 Respondent WMCP even adds that the 60%-40%
sharing ratio is "in line with the intent behind Section 2 of Article XII
that the Filipino people, as represented by the State, benefit primarily
from the exploration, development, and utilization of the Philippines'
natural resources."40 If the State has a 60% interest in the mining
operations under an FTAA, then it must retain at least 60% of the net
proceeds.
Otherwise, there is no sense exploiting the State's natural resources if all
or a major part of the profits are remitted abroad, precluding any real
contribution to the national economy or the general welfare. The
constitutional requirement of full control and supervision necessarily
means that the State must receive the income that corresponds to the
party exercising full control, and this logically means a majority of the
income.
The Occidental-Shell FTAA satisfies these constitutional requirements
because the State receives 60% of the net proceeds and exercises full
control and supervision of the petroleum operations. The State's right to
receive 60% of the net proceeds and its exercise of full control and
supervision are the essential constitutional requirements for the validity of
any FTAA. The name given to the contract is immaterial whether a
"Service Contract" or any other name - provided these two essential
constitutional requirements are present. Thus, the designation of the
Occidental-Shell FTAA as a "Service Contract" is inconsequential since the
two essential constitutional requirements for the validity of the contract as
an FTAA are present.
With the State's right to receive 60% of the net proceeds, coupled with its
control and supervision, the petroleum operations in the Occidental-Shell
FTAA are legally and in fact 60% owned and controlled by Filipinos.
Indeed, the State is directly undertaking the petroleum exploitation with
Occidental-Shell as the foreign contractor. The Occidental-Shell FTAA
does not provide for the issuance of exploration permits to OccidentalShell precisely because the State itself is directly undertaking the
petroleum exploitation.
Section 3(aq) of RA 7942 allows the foreign contractor to hold the
exploration permit under the FTAA. However, Section 2, Article XII of the
1987 Constitution does not allow foreign owned corporations to undertake
directly mining operations. Foreign owned corporations can only act as
contractors of the State under the FTAA, which is one method for the State
to undertake directly the exploitation of its natural resources. The State, as
the party directly undertaking the exploitation of its natural resources, must
hold through the Government all exploration permits and similar
authorizations. Section 3(aq) of RA 7942, in allowing foreign owned
corporations to hold exploration permits, is unconstitutional.
Page 49 of 126
The Occidental-Shell FTAA, involving a far riskier offshore venture than

land-based mining operations, is a model for emulation if foreign
contractors want to comply with the constitutional requirements. Section
112 of RA 7942, however, negates the benefits of the State from the
Occidental-Shell FTAA.
Occidental-Shell can invoke Section 112 of RA 7942 and deny the State its
60% share of the net proceeds from the exploitation of petroleum. Section
112 allows the foreign contractor to pay only the "government share in a
mineral production-sharing agreement" under RA 7942. Section 80 of
RA 7942 on MPSAs limits the "government share" solely to the excise tax
2% on metallic and non-metallic mineral products and 3% on petroleum.
Section 112 of RA 7942 is unconstitutional since it is contrary to Section 2,
Article XII of the 1987 Constitution.
G. The WMCP FTAA Violates Section 2, Article XII of the 1987
Constitution
The WMCP FTAA41 ostensibly gives the State 60% share of the net mining
revenue. In reality, this 60% share is illusory. Section 7.7 of the WMCP
FTAA provides that:
From the Commencement of Commercial Production, the
Contractor shall pay a government share of sixty per
centum (60%) of Net Mining Revenues, calculated in
accordance with the following provisions (the Government
Share). The Contractor shall be entitled to retain the balance of
all revenues from the Mining Operations. (Emphasis supplied)
However, under Section 7.9 of the WMCP FTAA, if WMCP's foreign
stockholders sell 60% of their equity to a Philippine citizen or corporation,
the State loses its right to receive its 60% share of the net mining revenues
under Section 7.7. Thus, Section 7.9 provides:
The percentage of Net Mining Revenues payable to the
Government pursuant to Clause 7.7 shall be reduced by 1%
of Net Mining Revenues for every 1% ownership interest in
the Contractor held by a Qualified Entity. (Emphasis
supplied)
What Section 7.7 gives to the State, Section 7.9 takes away without any
offsetting compensation to the State. In reality, the State has no vested
right to receive any income from the exploitation of its mineral resources.
What the WMCP FTAA gives to the State in Section 7.7 is merely by
tolerance of WMCP's foreign stockholders, who can at anytime cut off
the State's entire 60% share by selling 60% of WMCP's equity to a
42
Philippine citizen or corporation. The proceeds of such sale do not
accrue to the State but belong entirely to the foreign stockholders of
WMCP.
Section 2.1 of the WMCP FTAA defines a "Qualified Entity" to include a
corporation 60% Filipino owned and 40% foreign owned.43 WMCP's foreign
stockholders can sell 60% of WMCP's equity to such corporation and the
sale will still trigger the operation of Section 7.9 of the WMCP FTAA. Thus,
the State will receive ZERO percent of the income but the foreign
stockholders will own beneficially 64% of WMCP, consisting of their
remaining 40% equity and 24% pro-rata share in the buyer-corporation.
WMCP will then invoke Section 39 of RA 7942 allowing it to convert the
FTAA into an MPSA, thus subjecting WMCP to pay only 2% excise tax on
mineral products in lieu of sharing its mining income with the State. This
violates Section 2, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution requiring that only
corporations "at least sixty per centum of whose capital is owned by such
citizens" can enter into co-production, joint venture or production-sharing
agreements with the State.
The State, as owner of the mineral resources, must receive a fair share of
the income from any commercial exploitation of its mineral resources.
Mineral resources form part of the national patrimony, and so are the net
proceeds from such resources. The Legislature or Executive Department
cannot waive the State's right to receive a fair share of the income from
such mineral resources.
The intervenor Chamber of Mines of the Philippines ("CMP") admits that
under an FTAA with a foreign contractor, the Philippine Government
"stands in the place of the 60% Filipino owned company" and hence
must retain 60% of the net proceeds. Thus, intervenor CMP concedes that:
x x x In other words, in the FTAA situation, the Government stands in
the place of the 60% Filipino-owned company, and the 100% foreignowned contractor company takes all the risks of failure to find a
commercially viable large-scale ore body or oil deposit, for which the
contractor will get 40% of the financial benefits.44 (Emphasis supplied)
For this reason, intervenor CMP asserts that the "contractor's stipulated
share under the WMCP FTAA is limited to a maximum of 40% of the
net production."45 Intervenor CMP further insists that "60% of its
(contractor's) net returns from mining, if any, will go to the
Government under the WMCP FTAA."46 Intervenor CMP, however, fails
to consider that the Government's 60% share is illusory because under
Section 7.9 of the WMCP FTAA the foreign stockholders of WMCP can
reduce at any time to ZERO percent the Government's share.
If WMCP's foreign stockholders do not immediately sell 60% of WMCP's
equity to a Philippine citizen or corporation, the State in the meantime
receives its 60% share. However, under Section 7.10 of the WMCP FTAA,
the State shall receive its share "after the offsetting of the items
referred to in Clauses 7.8 and 7.9," namely:
7.8. The Government Share shall be deemed to include all of the following
sums:
(a) all Government taxes, fees, levies, costs, imposts, duties and royalties
including excise tax, corporate income tax, customs duty, sales tax, value
added tax, occupation and regulatory fees, Government controlled price
stabilization schemes, any other form of Government backed schemes,
any tax on dividend payments by the Contractor or its Affiliates in respect
of revenues from the Mining Operations and any tax on interest on
domestic and foreign loans or other financial arrangements or
accommodation, including loans extended to the Contractor by its

stockholders;
(b) any payments to local and regional government, including taxes, fees,
levies, costs, imposts, duties, royalties, occupation and regulatory fees and
(c) any payments to landowners, surface rights holders, occupiers,
indigenous people or Claim-owners;
(d) costs and expenses of fulfilling the Contractor's obligations to
contribute to national development in accordance with Clause 10.1(i)(1)
and 10.1(i)(2);
(e) an amount equivalent to whatever benefits that may be extended in the
future by the Government to the Contractor or to financial or technical
assistance agreement contractors in general;
(f) all of the foregoing items which have not previously been offset against
the Government Share in an earlier Fiscal year, adjusted for inflation.
7.9. The percentage of Net Mining Revenues payable to the
Government pursuant to Clause 7.7 shall be reduced by 1% of
Net Mining Revenues for every 1% ownership interest in the
Contractor held by a Qualified Entity.
It makes no sense why under Section 7.8(e) money spent by the
Government for the benefit of the contractor, like building roads leading to
the mine site, is deductible from the State's 60% share of the Net Mining
Revenues. Unless of course the purpose is solely to reduce further the
State's share regardless of any reason. In any event, the numerous
deductions from the State's 60% share make one wonder if the State will
ever receive anything for its ownership of the mineral resources. Even
assuming the State will receive something, the foreign stockholders of
WMCP can at anytime take it away by selling 60% of WMCP's equity to a
Philippine citizen or corporation.
In short, the State does not have any right to any share in the net income
from the mining operations under the WMCP FTAA. The stipulated 60%
share of the Government is illusory. The State is left to collect only the 2%
excise tax as its sole share from the mining operations.
Indeed, on 23 January 2001, WMCP's foreign stockholders sold 100% of
WMCP's equity to Sagittarius Mines, Inc., a domestic corporation 60%
Filipino owned and 40% foreign owned.47 This sale automatically
triggered the operation of Section 7.9 of the WMCP FTAA reducing
the State's share in the Net Mining Revenues to ZERO percent
without any offsetting compensation to the State. Thus, as of now, the
State has no right under the WMCP FTAA to receive any share in the
mining revenues of the contractor, even though the State owns the mineral
resources being exploited under the WMCP FTAA.
Intervenor CMP anchors its arguments on the erroneous interpretation that
the WMCP FTAA gives the State 60% of the net income of the foreign
contractor. Thus, intervenor CMP states that "60% of its (WMCP's) net
returns from mining, if any, will go to the Government under the WMCP
FTAA."48 This basic error in interpretation leads intervenor CMP to
erroneous conclusions of law and fact.
Like intervenor CMP, respondent WMCP also maintains that under the
WMCP FTAA, the State is "guaranteed" a 60% share of the foreign
contractor's Net Mining Revenues. Respondent WMCP contends, after
quoting Section 7.7 of the WMCP FTAA, that:
In other words, the State is guaranteed a sixty per centum (60%)
share of the Mining Revenues, or 60% of the actual fruits of the
endeavor. This is in line with the intent behind Section 2 of Article XII
natural resources.
Incidentally, this sharing ratio between the Philippine Government
and the Contractor is also in accordance with the 60%-40% equity
requirement for Filipino-owned corporations in Paragraph 1 of
Section 2 of Article XII.49 (Italics and underscoring in the original)
This so-called "guarantee" is a sham. Respondent WMCP gravely
misleads this Court. Section 7.9 of the WMCP FTAA provides that the
State's share "shall be reduced by 1% of Net Mining Revenues for
every 1% ownership interest in the Contractor held by a Qualified
Entity." This reduction is without any offsetting compensation to the State
and constitutes a waiver of the State's share to WMCP's foreign
stockholders. The Executive Department cannot give away for free,
especially to foreigners, what forms part of the national patrimony. This
negates the constitutionally mandated State ownership of mineral
resources for the benefit of the Filipino people.
WMCP's stockholders may also invoke Section 112 of RA 7942 allowing a
mining contractor to pay the State's share in accordance with Section 80 of
RA 7942. WMCP will end up paying only the 2% excise tax to the
Philippine Government for the exploitation of the mineral resources the
State owns. In short, the old and discredited system of "license,
concession or lease" will govern the WMCP FTAA.
The WMCP FTAA is also emphatic in stating that WMCP shall have
exclusive right to exploit, utilize, process and dispose of all mineral
products produced under the WMCP FTAA. Section 1.3 of the WMCP
FTAA provides:
The Contractor shall have the exclusive right to explore, exploit, utilise,
process and dispose of all Mineral products and by-products thereof that
may be derived or produced from the Contract Area but shall not, by virtue
only of this Agreement, acquire any title to lands encompassed within the
Contract Area.
Under the WMCP FTAA, the contractor has exclusive right to exploit,
utilize and process the mineral resources to the exclusion of third parties
and even the Philippine Government. Since WMCP's right is exclusive,
the Government has no participation in approving the operating expenses
of the foreign contractor relating to the exploitation, utilization, and
processing of mineral resources. The Government will have to accept
Page 50 of 126
whatever operating expenses the contractor decides to incur in exploiting,

utilizing and processing mineral resources.
Under the WMCP FTAA, the contractor has exclusive right to dispose of
the minerals recovered in the mining operations. This means that the
contractor can sell the minerals to any buyer, local or foreign, at the price
and terms the contractor chooses without any intervention from the State.
There is no requirement in the WMCP FTAA that the contractor must sell
the minerals at posted or market prices. The contractor has the sole right
to "mortgage, charge or encumber" the "Minerals produced from the
Mining Operations."50
Section 8.3 of the WMCP FTAA also makes a sham of the DENR
Secretary's authority to approve the foreign contractor's Work Program.
Section 8.3 provides:
If the Secretary gives a Rejection Notice the Parties shall
promptly meet and endeavour to agree on amendments to the
Work Program or budget. If the Secretary and the Contractor
fail to agree on the proposed revision within 30 days from
delivery of the Rejection Notice then the Work Programme
or Budget or variation thereof proposed by the Contractor
shall be deemed approved, so as not to unnecessarily delay
the performance of the Agreement. (Emphasis supplied)
The DENR Secretary is the representative of the State which owns the
mineral resources. The DENR Secretary implements the mining laws,
including RA 7942. Section 8.3, however, treats the DENR Secretary like a
subservient non-entity whom the contractor can overrule at will. Under
Section 8.3 of the WMCP FTAA, the DENR Secretary has no authority
whatsoever to disapprove the Work Program. This is not what the
Constitution means by full control and supervision by the State of mining
operations.
Section 10.4(i) of the WMCP FTAA compels the Philippine Government
to agree to any request by the foreign contractor to amend the WMCP
FTAA to satisfy the conditions of creditors of the contractor. Thus, Section
10.4(i) states:
(i) the Government shall favourably consider any request,
from Contractor for amendments of this Agreement which
are necessary in order for the Contractor to successfully
obtain the financing;
x x x. (Emphasis supplied)
This provision requires the Government to favorably consider any request
from the contractor - which means that the Government must render a
response favorable to the contractor. In effect, the contractor has the
right to amend the WMCP FTAA even against the will of the Philippine
Government just so the contractor can borrow money from banks.
True, the preceding Section 10.4(e) of the WMCP FTAA provides that
"such financing arrangements will in no event reduce the Contractor's
obligations or the Government's rights." However, Section 10.4(i) binds
the Government to agree to any future amendment requested by the
foreign contractor even if the Government does not agree with the wisdom
of the amendment. This provision is contrary to the State's full control and
supervision in the exploitation of mineral resources.
Clearly, under the WMCP FTAA the State has no full control and
supervision over the mining operations of the contractor. Provisions in the
WMCP FTAA that grant the State full control and supervision are negated
by other provisions that take away such control and supervision.
The WMCP FTAA also violates the constitutional limits on the term of an
FTAA. Section 2, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution limits the term of a
mineral agreement to "a period not exceeding twenty-five years,
renewable for not more than twenty-five years, and under such terms
and conditions as may be provided by law." The original term cannot
exceed 25 years, and at the end of such term, either the Government or
the contracting party may decide not to renew the mineral agreement.
However, both the Government and the contracting party may also decide
to renew the agreement, in which case the renewal cannot exceed another
25 years. What is essential is that either party has the option to renew or
not to renew the mineral agreement at the end of the original term.
violates the constitutional limits because it binds the Government to a 50year FTAA at the sole option of the contractor.
H. Arguments of the Solicitor General and the NEDA Secretary
The Solicitor General states that the "basic share" of the State in FTAAs
involving large-scale exploitation of minerals, petroleum and other mineral
oils
x x x consists of all direct taxes, fees and royalties, as well as
other payments made by the Contractor during the term of the
FTAA. The amounts are paid to the (i) national government, (ii)
local governments, and (iii) persons directly affected by the
mining project. Some of the major taxes paid are as follows
Section 3(g) of DAO-99-56:
A. Payments to National Government
Excise tax on minerals 2% of gross output of
mining operations
Contractor's income tax 32% of taxable income for
corporation
Customs duties and fees - rate is set by Tariff and
Customs Code
VAT on imported equipment, goods and services 10% of value
Royalty on minerals extracted from mineral
reservations, if applicable 5% of the actual market
value of the minerals produced
Documentary stamp tax rate depends on the type
of transaction
Capital gains tax on traded stocks 5 to 10% of the
value
Tax on interest payments on foreign loans 15% of
the interest
Tax on foreign stockholders dividends - 15% of the
dividend
Wharfage and port fees
Licensing fees (e.g., radio permit, firearms permit,
professional fees)
B. Payments to Local Governments
Local business tax - maximum of 2% of gross sale or
receipt
Real property tax - 2% of the fair market value of
property based on an assessment level set by the
local government
Local business tax - maximum of 2% of gross sale or
receipt
Special education levy - 1% of the basis used in real
property tax
Occupation tax - 50 pesos per hectare per year; 100
pesos per hectare per year if located in a mineral
concession
Community tax - 10,500 pesos maximum per year
Other local taxes and fees - rate and type depends
on the local government
C. Other Payments
Royalty to indigenous cultural communities, if any not less than 1% of the gross output from mining
operations
Special allowance payment to claim owners or
surface right owners
The Solicitor General argues that the phrase "among other things" in the
second paragraph of Section 81 of RA 7942 means that the State "is
entitled to an additional government share to be paid by the Contractor."
The Solicitor General explains:
However, Section 3.3 of the WMCP FTAA binds the Philippine

Government to an ironclad 50-year term. Section 3.3 compels the
Government to renew the FTAA for another 25 years after the original
25-year term expires. Thus, Section 3.3 states:
An additional government share is collected from an FTAA

contractor to fulfill the intent of Section 81 of RA No. 7942, to wit:
This Agreement shall be renewed by the Government for a

further period of twenty-five (25) years under the same terms
and conditions provided that the Contractor lodges a request
for a renewal with the Government not less than sixty (60) days
prior to the expiry of the initial term of this Agreement and
provided that the Contractor is not in breach of any of the
requirements of this Agreement. (Emphasis supplied)
Sec. 81. The Government share in an FTAA shall

consist of, among other things, the Contractor's
corporate income tax, excise tax, special allowance,
withholding tax due from the Contractor's foreign
stockholders arising from dividends or interest
payments to the said foreign stockholders in case of a
foreign-owned corporation and all such other taxes,
duties and fees as provided for in existing laws.
(Underscoring supplied)
Under Section 3.3, the contractor has the option to renew or not to renew
the agreement. The Government has no such option and must renew the
agreement once the contractor makes a request for renewal. Section 3.3
The phrase "among other things" indicates that the

Government is entitled to an additional share to be paid by the
Page 51 of 126
Contractor, aside from the basic share in order to achieve the

fifty-fifty sharing of net benefits from mining.
billion.55 Secretary Neri also estimates the "potential mining wealth in

the Philippines" at P47 trillion or US$840 billion, 15 times our total
foreign debt of US$56 billion.56
By including indirect taxes and other financial contributions

in the form of fuel tax; employees' payroll and fringe
benefits; various withholding taxes on royalties to land
owners and claim owners, and employees' income; value
added tax on local goods, equipment, supplies and
services; and expenditures for social infrastructures in the
mine site (hospitals, schools, etc.) and development of host
and neighboring communities, geosciences and mining
technology, the government share will be in the range of
60% or more of the total financial benefits. (Bold and
underscoring in the original)
If all that the State will receive from its P47 trillion potential mineral wealth
is the P157 billion in direct and indirect taxes, then the State will truly
receive only a pittance. The P157 billion in taxes constitute a mere .33% or
a third of 1% of the total mineral wealth of P47 trillion. Even if the P157
billion is collected annually over 25 years, the original term of an FTAA, the
total tax collection will amount to only P3.92 trillion, or a mere 8.35% of the
total mineral wealth. The rest of the country's mineral wealth will flow out of
the country if foreign contractors exploit our mineral resources under
FTAAs pursuant to RA 7942.
The Solicitor General enumerates this "additional government share" as

"indirect taxes and other financial contributions in the form of fuel
tax; employees' payroll and fringe benefits; various withholding taxes
on royalties to land owners and claim owners, and employees'
income; value added tax on local goods, equipment, supplies and
services; x x x." The Solicitor General's argument merely confirms that
under Section 81 of RA 7942 the State only receives taxes, duties and
fees under the FTAA. The State does not receive, as owner of the mineral
resources, any income from the mining operations of the contractor.
In short, the "basic share" of the State consists of direct taxes by the
national and local governments. The "additional share" of the State
consists of indirect taxes including even fringe benefits to employees
and compensation to private surface right owners. Direct and indirect
taxes, however, are impositions by the taxing authority, a burden borne by
all taxpayers whether or not they exploit the State's mineral resources.
Fringe benefits of employees are compensation for services rendered
under an employer-employee relationship. Compensation to surface right
owners is payment for the damage suffered by private landowners arising
from the mining operations. All these direct and indirect taxes, as well
as other expenses of the contractor, do not constitute payment for
the share of the State as owner of the mineral resources.
Clearly, the so-called "share" of the State consists only of direct and
indirect taxes, as well as other operating expenses not even payable to the
State. The Solicitor General in effect concedes that under the second
paragraph of Section 81, the State does not receive any share of the net
proceeds from the mining operations of the FTAA contractor. Despite this,
the Solicitor General insists that the State remains the owner of the mineral
resources and exercises full control over the mining operations of the
FTAA contractor. The Solicitor General has redefined the civil law concept
of ownership,51 by giving the owner full control in the exploitation of the
property he owns but denying him the fruits or income from such
exploitation. The only satisfaction of the owner is that the FTAA contractor
pays taxes to the Government.
Secretary Neri also warns that foreign investors who have acquired local
cement factories in the last ten years will find their investments illegal if the
Court declares unconstitutional the assailed provisions of RA 7942.57 Such
specious arguments deserve scant consideration. Cement manufacturing
is not a nationalized activity. Hence, foreigners can own 100% of cement
companies in this country. When the foreign investors acquired the local
cement factories, they spun off the quarry operations into separate
companies 60% owned by Filipino citizens. The foreign investors knew the
constitutional requirements of holding quarry permits.
Besides, the quarrying requirement of cement companies is just a simple
surface mining of limestone. Such activity does not constitute large-scale
exploitation of mineral resources. It definitely cannot qualify for FTAAs with
foreign contractors under the fourth paragraph of Section 2, Article XII of
the Constitution. Obviously, only a company at least 60% Filipino owned
can engage in such mining activity.
The offshore Occidental-Shell FTAA shows that even in riskier ventures
involving far more capital investments, the State can negotiate and secure
at least 60% of the net proceeds from the exploitation of mineral
resources. Foreign contractors like Occidental-Shell are willing to pay the
State 60% of the net proceeds from petroleum operations, in addition to
paying the Government the 32% corporate income tax on its 40% share of
the net proceeds. Even intervenor CMP and respondent WMCP agree
that the State has a 60% interest in mining operations under an FTAA.
I simply cannot fathom why the NEDA Secretary is willing to accept a
ZERO percent share in the income from the exploitation of inland mineral
resources.
FTAAs like the WMCP FTAA, which gives the State an illusory 60% share
of the net proceeds from mining revenues, will only impoverish further the
Filipino people. The nation's potential mineral wealth of P47 trillion will
contribute to economic development only if the bulk of the wealth remains
in the country, not if remitted abroad by foreign contractors.
I. Refutation of Arguments of Majority Opinion
However, even this psychological satisfaction is dubious. Under the third

paragraph of Section 81 of RA 7942, the "collection of Government share
in financial and technical assistance agreement shall commence after the
financial and technical assistance agreement contractor has fully
recovered its pre-operating expenses, exploration, and development
expenditures, inclusive." This provision does not defer the collection of the
State's "share," but prevents the accrual of the State's "share" until the
contractor has fully recovered all its pre-operating, exploration and
development expenditures. This provision exempts for an undefined
period the contractor from all existing taxes that are part of the
Government's so-called "share" under Section 81.52 The Solicitor
General has interpreted these taxes to include "other national taxes and
fees" as well as "other local taxes and fees."
Secretary Romulo L. Neri of the National Economic and Development
Authority ("NEDA") has warned this Court of the supposed dire
repercussions to the nation's long-term economic growth if this Court
declares the assailed provisions of RA 7942 unconstitutional.53 Under the
Constitution, the NEDA is the "independent (economic) planning agency of
the government."54 However, in this case the NEDA Secretary has joined
the chorus of the foreign chambers of commerce to uphold the validity of
RA 7942 as essential to entice foreign investors to exploit the nation's
mineral resources.
We cannot fault the foreign chambers of commerce for driving a hard
bargain to maximize the profits of foreign investors. We are, however,
saddened that the NEDA Secretary is willing to give away for free to
foreign investors the State's share of the income from its ownership of
mineral resources. If the NEDA Secretary owns the mineral resources
instead of the State, will he allow the foreign contractor to exploit his
mineral resources for free, the only obligation of the foreign contractor
being to pay taxes to the Government?
Secretary Neri claims that the potential tax collection from the mining
industry alone is P57 billion as against the present collection of P2 billion.
Secretary Neri adds that the potential tax collection from incremental
activities linked to mining is another P100 billion, thus putting the total
potential tax collection from mining and related industries at P157
The majority opinion advances the following arguments:

1. DENR Department Administrative Order No. 56-99 ("DAO 5699") is the basis for determining the State's share in the mining
income of the foreign FTAA contractor. The DENR Secretary
issued DAO 56-99 pursuant to the phrase "among other
things" in Section 81 of RA 7942. The majority opinion claims
that the phrase "among other things" "clearly and
unmistakably reveals the legislative intent to have the State
collect more than just the usual taxes, duties and fees." The
majority opinion anchors on the phrase "among other things"
its argument that RA 7942 allows the State to collect a share in
the mining income of the foreign FTAA contractor, in addition to
taxes, duties and fees. Thus, on the phrase "among other
things" depends whether the State and the Filipino people
are entitled under RA 7942 to share in the vast mineral
wealth of the nation, estimated by NEDA at P47 trillion or
US$840 billion.
2. FTAAs, like the WMCP FTAA, are not subject to the term
limit in Section 2, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution. In
short, while co-production, joint venture and production-sharing
agreements cannot exceed 25 years, renewable for another 25
years, as provided in Section 2, Article XII of the 1987
Constitution, the WMCP FTAA is not governed by the
constitutional limitation. The majority opinion states that the
"constitutional term limitations do not apply to FTAAs."
Thus, the majority opinion upholds the validity of Section 3.3 of
the WMCP FTAA providing for a 50-year term at the sole option
of WMCP.
3. Section 112 of RA 7942, placing "all valid and existing"
mining agreements under the fiscal regime prescribed in Section
80 of RA 7942, does not apply to FTAAs. Thus, the majority
opinion states, "[W]hether Section 112 may properly apply to
co-production or joint venture agreements, the fact of the
matter is that it cannot be made to apply to FTAAs."
Page 52 of 126
4. Foreign FTAA contractors and even foreign corporations

can hold exploration permits, despite Section 2, Article XII of the
1987 Constitution reserving to Philippine citizens and to
corporations 60% Filipino owned the "exploration, development
and utilization of natural resources." Thus, the majority opinion
states that "there is no prohibition at all against foreign or
local corporations or contractors holding exploration
permits."
5. The Constitution does not require that the State's share in
FTAAs or other mineral agreements should be at least 60% of
the net mining revenues. Thus, the majority opinion states that
"the Charter did not intend to fix an iron-clad rule on the 60
percent share, applicable to all situations at all times and in
all circumstances."
I respond to the arguments of the majority opinion.
1. DAO 99-56 as Basis for Government's Share in FTAAs
The main thrust of my separate opinion is that mineral agreements under
RA 7942, whether FTAAs under Section 81 or MPSAs under Section 80,
do not allow the State to receive any share from the income of mining
companies. The State can collect only taxes, duties and fees from mining
companies.
The majority opinion, however, points to the phrase "among other
things" in the second paragraph of Section 81 as the authority of the State
to collect in FTAAs a share in the mining income separate from taxes,
duties and fees. The majority opinion can point to no other provision in RA
7942 allowing the State to collect any share. The majority opinion admits
that limiting the State's share in any mineral agreement to taxes, duties
and fees is unconstitutional. Thus, the majority opinion's case rises or
falls on whether the phrase "among other things" allows the State to
collect from FTAA contractors any income in addition to taxes, duties
and fees.
In the case of MPSAs, the majority opinion cannot point to any provision in
RA 7942 allowing the State to collect any share in MPSAs separate from
taxes, duties and fees. The language of Section 80 is so crystal clear
"the total government share in a mineral production sharing
agreement shall be the excise tax on mineral products" - that there is
no dispute whatsoever about it. The majority opinion merely states that the
constitutionality of Section 80 is not in issue in the present case. Section
81, the constitutionality of which the majority opinion admits is in issue
here, is intertwined with Sections 39, 80, 84 and 112. Resolving the
constitutionality of Section 81 necessarily involves a determination of the
constitutionality of Sections 39, 80, 84 and 112.
The WMCP FTAA, the constitutionality of which is certainly in issue, is
governed not only by Section 81 but also by Sections 39, 80 and 112. The
reason is that the WMCP FTAA is a reversible contract that gives WMCP
the absolute option at anytime to convert the FTAA into an MPSA. In
short, the WMCP FTAA is like a single coin with two sides - one an FTAA
and the other an MPSA.
a. The Integrated Intent, Plan and Structure of RA 7942
The clear intent of RA 7942 is to limit the State's share from mining
operations to taxes, duties and fees, unless the State contributes equity in
addition to the mineral resources. RA 7942 does not recognize the mere
contribution of mineral resources as entitling the State to receive a share in
the net mining revenues separate from taxes, duties and fees. Thus,
Section 80 expressly states that the "total government share in a
mineral production sharing agreement shall be the excise tax on
mineral products." Section 84 reiterates this by stating that "with
respect to mineral production sharing agreement, the excise tax on
mineral products shall be the government share under said
agreement." The only share of the State in an MPSA is the excise tax.
Ironically, Sections 80 and 84 disallow the State from sharing in the
production or income, even as the contract itself is called a mineral
production sharing agreement.
In co-production and joint venture agreements, where the State contributes
equity in addition to the mineral resources, the first paragraph of Section
81 expressly requires that "the share of the government x x x shall be
negotiated by the Government and the contractor." However, in FTAAs
where the State contributes only its mineral resources, the second
paragraph of Section 81 states
agreement shall consist of, among other things, the contractor's
corporate income tax, excise tax, special allowance, withholding
tax due from the contractor's foreign stockholders arising from
dividend or interest payments to the said foreign stockholder in
case of a foreign national and all such other taxes, duties and
fees as provided for under existing laws.
All the items enumerated in the second paragraph of Section 81 as

comprising the "Government share" refer to taxes, duties and fees. The
phrase "all such other taxes, duties and fees as provided for under
existing laws" makes this clear.
Section 112 places "all valid and existing mining" agreements "at the
date of effectivity" of RA 7942 under the fiscal regime prescribed in
Section 80. Section 112 expressly states that the "government share in
mineral production sharing agreement x x x shall immediately govern
and apply to a mining lessee or contractor." Section 112 provides:
Section 112. Non-impairment of Existing Mining/Quarrying
Rights. All valid and existing mining lease contracts,
permits/licenses, leases pending renewal, mineral productionsharing agreements granted under Executive Order No. 279,
at the date of effectivity of this Act, shall remain valid, shall
not be impaired, and shall be recognized by the Government:
Provided, That the provisions of Chapter XIV on
government share in mineral production-sharing agreement
and of Chapter XVI on incentives of this Act shall
immediately govern and apply to a mining lessee or
contractor unless the mining lessee or contractor indicates his
intention to the secretary, in writing, not to avail of said
provisions: Provided, further, That no renewal of mining lease
contracts shall be made after the expiration of its term: Provided,
finally, That such leases, production-sharing agreements,
financial or technical assistance agreements shall comply with
the applicable provisions of this Act and its implementing rules
and regulations. (Emphasis supplied)
Thus, Section 112 requires "all" FTAAs and MPSAs, as of the date of
effectivity of RA 7942, to pay only the excise tax - 2% on metallic and non58
metallic minerals and 3% on petroleum - instead of the stipulated mining
income sharing, if any, in their respective FTAAs or MPSAs.
This means that Section 112 applies even to the Occidental-Shell
FTAA, which was executed before the enactment of RA 7942. This
reduces the State's share in the Malampaya gas extraction from 60%
of net proceeds to 3% of the market price of the gas as provided in
Section 80 of RA 7942 in relation to Section 151 of the National
Internal Revenue Code. This is disastrous to the national economy
because Malampaya under the original Occidental-Shell FTAA
generates annually some US$0.5 billion to the National Treasury.
Section 112 applies to all agreements executed "under Executive Order
No. 279." The WMCP FTAA expressly states in its Section 1.1, "This
Agreement is a Financial & Technical Assistance Agreement entered
into pursuant to Executive Order No. 279." Thus, Section 112 applies to
the WMCP FTAA.
Section 39 of RA 7942 grants the FTAA contractor the "option to
convert" the FTAA into an MPSA "at any time during the term" of the
FTAA if the contract areas are not economically viable for large-scale
mining. Once the contractor reduces its foreign equity to not more than
40%, the Secretary "shall approve the conversion and execute the
mineral production sharing agreement. Thus, Section 39 provides:
Section 39. Option to Convert into a Mineral Agreement. The
contractor has the option to convert the financial or
technical assistance agreement to a mineral agreement at
any time during the term of the agreement, if the economic
viability of the contract area is found to be inadequate to justify
large-scale mining operations, after proper notice to the
Secretary as provided for under the implementing rules and
regulations: Provided, That the mineral agreement shall only be
In the case of a foreign contractor, it shall reduce its equity to forty percent
(40%) in the corporation, partnership, association, or cooperative. Upon
compliance with this requirement by the contractor, the Secretary
shall approve the conversion and execute the mineral productionsharing agreement. (Emphasis supplied)
The only requirement in the second paragraph of Section 39 is that the
FTAA contractor shall reduce its foreign equity to 40%. The second
paragraph states, "Upon compliance with this requirement, the
Secretary shall approve the conversion and execute the mineral
production sharing agreement." The determination of the economic
viability of the contract area for large-scale mining, which is left to the
foreign contractor with "proper notice" only to the DENR Secretary, is not
even made a condition for the conversion.
Under Section 3(aq) of RA 7942, the foreign contractor holds the
exploration permit and conducts the physical exploration. The foreign
contractor controls the release of the technical data on the mineral
resources. The foreign contractor can easily justify the non-viability of the
contract area for large-scale mining. The Philippine Government will
have to depend on the foreign contractor for technical data on
Page 53 of 126
whether the contract area is viable for large-scale mining. Obviously,

such a situation gives the foreign contractor actual control in determining
whether the contract area is viable for large-scale mining.
The conversion from an FTAA into an MPSA is solely at the will of the
foreign contractor because the contractor can choose at any time to sell
60% of its equity to a Philippine citizen. The price or consideration for the
sale of the contractor's 60% equity does not go to the State but to the
foreign stockholders of the contractor. Under Section 80 of RA 7942, once
the FTAA is converted into an MPSA the only share of the State is the 2%
excise tax on mineral products. Thus, under RA 7942 the FTAA
contractor has the absolute option to pay the State only the 2%
excise tax, despite any other stipulated consideration in the FTAA.
Clearly, Sections 3(aq), 39, 80, 81, 84 and 112 are tightly integrated under
a single intent, plan and structure: unless the State contributes equity in
addition to the mineral resources, the State shall receive only taxes, duties
and fees. The State's contribution of mineral resources is not sufficient to
entitle the State to receive any income from the mining operations
separate from taxes, duties and fees.
b. The Meaning of the Phrase "Among Other Things"
As far as the State and the Filipino people are concerned, the most
important part of an FTAA is the consideration: how much will the State
receive from the exploitation of its non-renewable and exhaustible
mineral resources?
Section 81 of RA 7942 does not require the foreign FTAA contractor to pay
the State any share from the mining income apart from taxes, duties and
fees. The second paragraph of Section 81, just like Section 80, only allows
the State to collect taxes, duties and fees as the State's share from the
mining operations. The intent of RA 7942 is that the State cannot share in
the income from mining operations, separate from taxes, duties and fees,
based only on the mineral resources that the State contributes to the
mining operations.
This is also the position of the Solicitor General that the State's share
under Section 81 refers only to direct and indirect taxes. Thus, the
Solicitor General agrees that Section 81 does not allow the State to
collect any share from the mining income separate from taxes, duties
and fees. The majority opinion agrees that Section 81 is unconstitutional if
it does not require the foreign FTAA contractor to pay the State any share
of the net mining income apart from taxes, duties and fees.
However, the majority opinion says that the phrase "among other things"
in Section 81 is the authority to require the FTAA contractor to pay a
consideration separate from taxes, duties and fees. The majority opinion
cites the phrase "among other things" as the source of power of the
59
DENR Secretary to adopt DAO 56-99 prescribing the formulae on
the State's share from mining operations separate from taxes, duties
and fees.
In short, the majority opinion says that the phrase "among other things"
is a delegation of legislative power to the DENR Secretary to adopt the
formulae on the share of the State from mining operations. The issue now
is whether the phrase "among other things" in the second paragraph
of Section 81 is intended as a delegation of legislative power to the
DENR Secretary. If so, the issue turns on whether it is a valid
delegation of legislative power. I reproduce again the second paragraph
of Section 81 for easy reference:
The Government share in financial or technical assistance agreement shall
consist of, among other things, the contractor's corporate income tax,
excise tax, special allowance, withholding tax due from the contractor's
foreign stockholders arising from dividend or interest payments to the said
foreign stockholder in case of a foreign national and all such other taxes,
duties and fees as provided for under existing laws. (Emphasis supplied)
In sharp contrast, the first paragraph of the same Section 81, in prescribing
the State's share in co-production and joint venture agreements,
expressly specifies the standards in determining the State's share as
follows: "(a) capital investment of the project, (b) risks involved, (c)
contribution of the project to the economy, and (d) other factors that will
provide for a fair and equitable sharing between the Government and the
contractor." The reason for the absence of similar standards in the
succeeding paragraph of Section 81 in determining the State's share in
FTAAs is obvious - the State's share in FTAAs is limited solely to taxes,
duties and fees. Thus, such standards are inapplicable and irrelevant.
The majority opinion now makes the formulae in DAO 56-99 the heart and
soul of RA 7942 because the formulae supposedly determine the
consideration of the FTAA. The consideration is the most important part of
the FTAA as far as the State and Filipino people are concerned. The
formulae in DAO 56-99 derive life solely from the phrase "among other
things." DAO 56-99 itself states that it is issued "[P]ursuant to Section 81
and other pertinent provisions of Republic Act No. 7942." Without the
phrase "among other things," the majority opinion could not point to any
other provision in RA 7942 to support the existence of the formulae in DAO
56-99.
Thus, the phrase "among other things" determines whether the FTAA
has the third element of a valid contract the commercial value or
consideration that the State will receive. The majority opinion in effect says
that Congress made the wealth and even the future prosperity of the nation
to depend on the phrase "among other things."
The DENR Secretary can change the formulae in DAO 56-99 any time
even without the approval of the President or Congress. The DENR
Secretary is the sole authority to determine the amount of consideration
that the State shall receive in an FTAA. Section 5 of DAO 56-99 states:
x x x any amendment of an FTAA other than the provision on
fiscal regime shall require the negotiation with the Negotiation
Panel and the recommendation of the Secretary for approval of
the President of the Republic of the Philippines. (Emphasis
supplied)
Under Section 5, if the amendment in the FTAA involves non-fiscal
matters, the amendment requires the approval of the President. However,
if the amendment involves a change in the fiscal regime referring to the
consideration of the FTAA - the DENR Secretary has the final authority
and approval of the President is not required. This makes the DENR
Secretary more powerful than the President.
Section 5 of DAO 56-99 violates paragraphs 4 and 5 of Section 2, Article
XII of the 1987 Constitution mandating that the President shall approve all
FTAAs and send copies of all approved FTAAs to Congress. The
consideration of the FTAA is the most important part of the FTAA as far as
the State and the Filipino people are concerned. The DENR Secretary, in
issuing DAO 56-99, has arrogated to himself the power to approve
FTAAs, a power vested by the Constitution solely in the President. By
not even informing the President of changes in the fiscal regime and thus
preventing such changes from reaching Congress, DAO 56-99 even seeks
to hide changes in the fiscal regime from Congress. By its provisions
alone, DAO 56-99 is clearly unconstitutional and void.
Section 5 of DAO 56-99 also states that "[A]ll FTAAs approved prior to the
effectivity of this Administrative Order shall remain valid and be
recognized by the Government." This means that the fiscal regime of an
FTAA executed prior to the effectivity of DAO 56-99 "shall remain valid and
be recognized." If the earlier FTAA provides for a fiscal regime different
from DAO 56-99, then the fiscal regime in the earlier FTAA shall prevail. In
effect, DAO 56-99 exempts an FTAA approved prior to its effectivity from
paying the State the share prescribed in the formulae under DAO 56-99 if
the earlier FTAA provides for a different fiscal regime. Such is the case of
the WMCP FTAA.
Section 81 of RA 7942 does not delegate any legislative power to the

DENR Secretary to adopt the formulae in determining the share of the
State. There is absolutely no language in the second paragraph of
Section 81 granting the DENR Secretary any delegated legislative
power. Thus, the DENR Secretary acted without authority or jurisdiction in
issuing DAO 56-99 based on a supposed delegated power in the second
paragraph of Section 81. This makes DAO 56-99 void.
Based on the majority opinion's position that the 1987 Constitution requires
payment in addition to taxes, duties and fees, this makes DAO 56-99
unconstitutional and void. DAO 56-99 does not require prior FTAAs to pay
the State the share prescribed in the formulae under DAO 56-99 even if
the consideration in the prior FTAAs is limited only to taxes, duties and
fees. DAO 56-99 recognizes such payment of taxes, duties and fees as a
"valid" consideration. Certainly, the DENR Secretary has no authority to
exempt foreign FTAA contractors from a constitutional requirement. Not
even Congress or the President can do so.
Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that there is language in Section
81 delegating legislative power to the DENR Secretary to adopt the
formulae in DAO 56-99, such delegation is void. Section 81 has no
standards by which the delegated power shall be exercised. There is no
specification on the minimum or maximum share that the State must
receive from mining operations under FTAAs. No parameters on the extent
of the delegated power to the DENR Secretary are found in Section 81.
Neither were such parameters ever discussed even remotely by Congress
when it enacted RA 7942.
Ironically, DAO 56-99, the very authority the majority opinion cites to
support its claim that the WMCP FTAA has a consideration, does not apply
to the WMCP FTAA. By its own express terms, DAO 56-99 does not
apply to FTAAs executed before the issuance of DAO 56-99, like the
WMCP FTAA. The majority opinion's position has no leg to stand on since
even DAO 56-99, assuming it is valid, cannot save the WMCP FTAA from
want of consideration.
Page 54 of 126
The formulae prescribed in DAO 56-99 are totally alien to the phrase
"among other things." There is no relationship whatsoever between the
phrase "among other things" and the highly esoteric formulae prescribed in
DAO 56-99. No one in this Court can assure the Filipino people that the
formulae in DAO 56-99 will guarantee the State 60%, or 30% or even 10%
of the net proceeds from the mining operations. And yet the majority
opinion trumpets DAO 56-99 as the savior of Section 81 from certain
constitutional infirmity.
The majority opinion gives the stamp of approval and legitimacy on DAO
56-99. This assumes that the majority understand fully the formulae in
DAO 56-99. Can the majority tell the Court and the Filipino people the
minimum share that the State will receive under the formulae in DAO 5699? The formulae in DAO 56-99 are fuzzy since they do not guarantee
the minimum share of the State, unlike the clear and specific income
sharing provisions in the Occidental-Shell FTAA or in the case of
Consolidated Mines, Inc. v. Court of Tax Appeals.60
The Solicitor General asserts that the phrase "among other things"
refers to indirect taxes, an interpretation that contradicts the DENR
Secretary's interpretation under DAO 56-99. The Solicitor General is
correct. The ejusdem generis rule of statutory interpretation applies
squarely to the phrase "among other things."
The majority opinion praises the DENR for "conceiving and developing"
the formulae in DAO 56-99. Thus, the majority opinion states:
As can be seen from DAO 56-99, the agencies concerned did an
admirable job of conceiving and developing not just one formula, but
three different formulas for arriving at the additional government share.
(Emphasis supplied)
Indeed, we credit the DENR for conceiving and developing on their own
the formulae in DAO 56-99. The formulae are the creation of DENR, not
of Congress.
The DENR conceived and developed the formulae to save Section 81 not
only from constitutional infirmity, but also from blatantly depriving the State
and Filipino people from any share in the income of mining companies.
However, the DENR's admittedly "admirable job" cannot amend Section 81
of RA 7942. The DENR has no legislative power to correct constitutional
infirmities in RA 7942. The DENR does not also possess the constitutional
power to prescribe the sharing of mining income between the State and
mining companies, the act the DENR attempts to do in adopting DAO 5699.
d. DAO 56-99 is an Exercise in Futility
In Philippine Bank of Communications v. Court of Appeals,61 the Court

held:
Under the rule of ejusdem generis, where a description of things of a
particular class or kind is 'accompanied by words of a generic character,
the generic words will usually be limited to things of a kindred nature with
those particularly enumerated x x x.'
In Grapilon v. Municipal Council of Cigara,62 the Court construed the
general word "absence" in the phrase "absence, suspension or other
temporary disability of the mayor" in Section 2195 of the Revised
Administrative Code as "on the same level as 'suspension' and 'other
forms of temporary disability'." The Court quoted with approval the
following Opinion of the Secretary of Interior:
The phrase 'other temporary disability' found in section 2195 of the Code,
follows the words 'absence' and 'suspension' and is used as a modifier of
the two preceding words, under the principle of statutory construction
known as ejusdem generis.
In City of Manila v. Entote,63 the Court ruled that broad expressions such
as "and all others" or "any others" or "other matters," when
accompanied by an enumeration of items of the same kind or class, "are
usually to be restricted to persons or things of the same kind or class with
those specifically named" in the enumeration. Thus, the Cour held:
In our jurisdiction, this Court in Ollada vs. Court of Tax Appeals, et al.
applied the rule of "ejusdem generis" to construe the purview of a general
phrase "other matters" appearing after an enumeration of specific cases
decided by the Collector of Internal Revenue and appealable to the Court
of Tax Appeals found in section 7, paragraph 1, of Republic Act No. 1125,
and it held that in order that a matter may come under said general clause,
it is necessary that it belongs to the same kind or class of cases therein
specifically enumerated. (Emphasis supplied)
64
The four requisites of the ejusdem generis rule are present in the
phrase "among other things" as appearing in Section 81 of RA 7942.
First, the general phrase "among other things" is accompanied by an
enumeration of specific items, namely, "the contractor's corporate income
payments to the said foreign stockholder in case of a foreign national and
all such other taxes, duties and fees as provided for under existing
laws." Second, all the items enumerated are of the same kind or class they are all taxes, duties and fees. Third, the enumeration of the specific
items is not exhaustive because "all such other taxes, duties and fees" are
included. Thus, the enumeration of specific items is merely illustrative.
Fourth, there is no indication of legislative intent to give the general phrase
"among other things" a broader meaning. On the contrary, the legislative
intent of RA 7942 is to limit the State's share from mining operations to
taxes, duties and fees.
In short, the phrase "among other things" refers to taxes, duties and
fees. The phrase "among other things" is even followed at the end of the
sentence by the phrase "and all such other taxes, duties, and fees,"
reinforcing even more the restriction of the phrase "among other things"
to taxes, duties and fees. The function of the phrase "and such other
taxes, duties and fees" is to clarify that the taxes enumerated are not
exhaustive but merely illustrative.
c. Formulae in DAO 56-99 a Mere Creation of DENR
Even assuming arguendo the majority opinion is correct that the phrase
"among other things" constitutes sufficient legal basis to issue DAO 56-99,
the FTAA contractor can still prevent the State from collecting any share of
the mining income. By invoking Section 39 of RA 7942 giving the foreign
FTAA contractor the option to convert the FTAA into an MPSA, the FTAA
contractor can easily place itself outside the scope of DAO 56-99
which expressly applies only to FTAAs.
Also, by invoking Section 112, the foreign contractor need not even
convert its FTAA into a mineral production agreement to place its contract
under Section 80 and outside of Section 81. Section 112 automatically and
immediately places all FTAAs under the fiscal regime applicable to
MPSAs, forcing the State to collect only the 2% excise tax. Thus, DAO 5699 is an exercise in futility. This now compels the Court to resolve the
constitutionality of Sections 39 and 112 of RA 7942 in the present case.
e. Congress Prescribes the Terms and Conditions of FTAAs.
In a last-ditch attempt to justify the constitutionality of DAO 56-99, the
majority opinion now claims that the President has the prerogative to
prescribe the terms and conditions of FTAAs, including the fiscal
regime of FTAAs. The majority opinion states:
x x x It is the President who is constitutionally mandated to enter into
FTAAs with foreign corporations, and in doing so, it is within the
President's prerogative to specify certain terms and conditions of the
FTAAs, for example, the fiscal regime of FTAAs - i.e., the sharing of the
net revenues between the contractor and the State. (Emphasis in the
original; underscoring supplied)
The majority opinion is re-writing the 1987 Constitution and even RA 7942.
Paragraph 4, Section 2, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution expressly
provides:
The President may enter into agreements with foreign-owned corporations
involving either technical or financial assistance for large-scale exploration,
development, and utilization of minerals, petroleum, and other mineral oils
according to the general terms and conditions provided by law, x x x.
(Emphasis supplied)
Clearly, the 1987 Constitution mandates that the President may enter into
FTAAs only "according to the general terms and conditions provided
by law." There is no doubt whatsoever that it is Congress that prescribes
the terms and conditions of FTAAs, not the President as the majority
opinion claims. The 1987 Constitution mandates the President to comply
with the terms and conditions prescribed by Congress for FTAAs.
Indeed, RA 7942 stipulates the terms and conditions for FTAAs. Section
35 of RA 7942 provides that the "following terms, conditions, and
warranties shall be incorporated in the financial or technical
assistance agreement to wit: x x x." Section 38 of RA 7942 expressly
limits an FTAA to a "term not exceeding twenty-five (25) years," which
is one of the issues in the present case.
The majority opinion claims that the President has the power to prescribe
"the fiscal regime of FTAAs i.e., the sharing of the net mining
revenues between the contractor and the State." This claim of the
majority opinion renders the entire Chapter XIV of RA 7942 an act of
usurpation by Congress of Presidential power. Chapter XIV entitled
"Government Share" - prescribes the fiscal regimes of MPSAs and
FTAAs. The constitutionality of Sections 80 and 81 of Chapter XIV -
Page 55 of 126
whether the fiscal regimes prescribed in these sections of RA 7942 comply

with the 1987 Constitution - is the threshold issue in this case.
The majority opinion seeks to uphold the constitutionality of Section 81 of
RA 7942, an act of Congress prescribing the fiscal regime of FTAAs. If it is
the President who has the constitutional authority to prescribe the fiscal
regime of FTAAs, then Section 81 is unconstitutional for being a usurpation
by Congress of a Presidential power. The majority opinion not only rewrites the 1987 Constitution, it also contradicts itself.
That is not all. By claiming that the President has the prerogative to
prescribe the fiscal regime of FTAAs, the majority opinion contradicts its
basic theory that DAO 56-99 draws life from the phrase "among other
things" in Section 81 of RA 7942. Apparently, the majority opinion is no
longer confident of its position that DAO 56-99 draws life from the phrase
"among other things." The majority opinion now invokes a non-existent
Presidential power that directly collides with the express constitutional
power of Congress to prescribe the "general terms and conditions" of
FTAAs.
f. Sections 80 and 84 of RA 7942 are Void on their Face
Definitely, Section 80 of RA 7942 is constitutionally infirm even based on
the reasoning of the majority opinion. The majority opinion agrees that the
1987 Constitution requires the mining contractor to pay the State "more
than just the usual taxes, duties and fees." Under Section 80, the
excise tax 2% for metallic and non-metallic minerals and 3% for
petroleum - is the only and total share of the State from mining
operations. Section 80 provides:
Section 80. Government Share in Mineral Production Sharing Agreement.
The total government share in a mineral production sharing
agreement shall be the excise tax on mineral products as provided in
Republic Act No. 7729, amending Section 151(a) of the National Internal
Revenue Code, as amended. (Emphasis supplied)
Section 80 has no ifs or buts. Section 84 even reiterates Section 80 that
"with respect to a mineral production sharing agreement, the excise
tax on mineral products shall be the government share under said
agreement." There is no ejusdem generis phrase like "among other
things" in Section 80 that the majority opinion can cling on to save it from
constitutional infirmity. DAO 56-99, the magic wand of the majority opinion,
expressly applies only to FTAAs and not to MPSAs. By any legal yardstick,
even by the arguments of the majority opinion, Sections 80 and 84 are void
and unconstitutional.
g. Necessity of Resolving Constitutionality of Sections 39, 80 and 84
The majority opinion states that the constitutionality of Sections 80 and 84
of RA 7942 is not in issue in the present case. The majority opinion forgets
that petitioners have assailed the constitutionality of RA 7942 and the
WMCP FTAA for violation of Section 2, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution.
Petitioner specifically assails the "inequitable sharing of wealth" in
the WMCP FTAA, which petitioners assert is "contrary to Section 1,
paragraph 1, and Section 2, paragraph 4, Article XII of the
Constitution."
Section 9.1 of the WMCP FTAA grants WMCP the absolute option, by
mere notice to the DENR Secretary, to convert the FTAA into an MPSA
under Section 80. The "sharing of wealth" in Section 80 is "inequitable"
and "contrary to x x x Section 2, paragraph 4, Article XII of the
Constitution" because the State will only collect the 2% excise tax in an
MPSA. Such a pittance of a sharing will not make any "real contributions to
the economic growth and general welfare of the country" as required in
paragraph 4, Section 2, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution.
Section 39 of RA 7942 also grants foreign FTAA contractors the option, by
mere notice to the DENR Secretary, to convert their FTAAs into MPSAs
under Section 80. Necessarily, the constitutionality of the WMCP FTAA
must be resolved in conjunction with Section 80 of RA 7942.
The WMCP FTAA is like a coin with two sides, one side is an FTAA, and
the other an MPSA. By mere notice to the DENR Secretary, WMCP can
convert the contract from an FTAA to an MPSA, a copy of which,
complete with all terms and conditions, is annexed to the WMCP
FTAA.65 The DENR Secretary has no option but to sign the annexed
MPSA. There are only two conditions to WMCP's exercise of this option:
the reduction of foreign equity in WMCP to 40%, and notice to the DENR
Secretary. The first condition is already fulfilled since all the equity of
WMCP is now owned by a corporation 60% Filipino owned. The notice to
the DENR Secretary is solely at the will of WMCP.
What this Court is staring at right now is a dual contract - an FTAA which,
by mere notice to the DENR Secretary, immediately becomes an MPSA.
The majority opinion agrees that the provisions of the WMCP FTAA, which
grant a sham consideration to the State, are void. Since the majority
opinion agrees that the WMCP FTAA has a sham consideration, the
WMCP FTAA thus lacks the third element of a valid contract. The
majority opinion should declare the WMCP FTAA void for want of
consideration unless the majority opinion treats the contract as an
MPSA under Section 80. Indeed, the only recourse of WMCP to save the
validity of its contract is to convert it into an MPSA.
Thus, with the absence of consideration in the WMCP FTAA, what is
actually before this Court is an MPSA. This squarely puts in issue whether
an MPSA is constitutional if the only consideration or payment to the State
is the 2% excise tax as provided in Section 80 of RA 7942.
The basic constitutional infirmity of the WMCP FTAA is the absence of a
fair consideration to the State as owner of the mineral resources.
Petitioners call this the "inequitable sharing of wealth." The constitutionality
of the consideration for the WMCP FTAA cannot be resolved without
determining the validity of both Sections 80 and 81 of RA 7942 because
the consideration for the WMCP FTAA is anchored on both Sections 80
and 81.
The majority opinion refuses to face the issue of whether the WMCP
contract can validly rely on Section 80 for its consideration. If this issue is
not resolved now, then the WMCP FTAA has no consideration. The
majority opinion admits that the consideration in the WMCP FTAA granting
the State 60% share in the mining revenues is a sham and thus void ab
initio.
Strangely, the majority opinion claims that the share of the State in the
mining revenues is not the principal consideration of the FTAA. The
majority opinion claims that the principal consideration of the FTAA is the
"development" of the minerals by the foreign contractor. The foreign
contractor can bring equipment to the mine site, tunnel the mines, and
construct underground rails to bring the minerals to the surface - in short
develop the mines. What will the State and the Filipino people benefit from
such activities unless they receive a share of the mining proceeds? After
the minerals are exhausted, those equipment, tunnels and rails would be
dilapidated and even obsolete. Besides, those equipment belong to the
foreign contractor even after the expiration of the FTAA.
Plainly, even a businessman with limited experience will not agree that the
principal consideration in an FTAA, as far as the State and Filipino people
are concerned, is the development of the mines. It is obvious why the
majority opinion will not accept that the principal consideration is the share
of the State in the mining proceeds. Otherwise, the majority opinion will
have to admit that the WMCP FTAA lacks the third element of a valid
contract - the consideration. This will compel the majority opinion to admit
that the WMCP FTAA is void ab initio.
The only way for the majority opinion to save the WMCP FTAA from nullity
is to treat it as an MPSA and thus apply Section 80 of RA 7942. This puts
in issue the constitutionality of Section 80. The majority opinion, however,
refuses to treat the WMCP FTAA as an MPSA. Thus, the WMCP FTAA still
lacks a valid consideration. However, the majority opinion insists that the
WMCP FTAA is valid.
If the majority opinion puts the constitutionality of Section 80 in issue, the
majority opinion will have to declare Section 80 unconstitutional. The
majority opinion agrees that the 1987 Constitution requires the State to
collect "more than the usual taxes, duties and fees." Section 80
indisputably limits the State to collect only the excise tax and nothing more.
The equivocal stance of the majority opinion will not put an end to this
litigation. Once WMCP converts its FTAA into an MPSA to avoid paying
"more than the usual taxes, duties and fees," petitioners will immediately
question the validity of WMCP's MPSA as well as the constitutionality of
Section 80. The case will end up again in this Court on the same issue of
whether there is a valid consideration for such MPSA, which necessarily
involves a determination of the constitutionality of Section 80. Clearly, this
Court has no recourse but to decide now the constitutionality of Section 80.
As the Solicitor General reported in his Compliance dated 20 October
2004, the DENR has signed five MPSAs with different parties.66 These five
MPSAs uniformly contain the following provision:
Share of the Government - The Government Share shall be the excise
tax on mineral products at the time of removal and at the rate
provided for in Republic Act No.7729 amending Section 151(a) of the
National Internal Revenue Code, as amended, as well as other taxes,
duties, and fees levied by existing laws. (Emphasis supplied)
If the constitutionality of Section 80 is not resolved now, these five MPSAs,
including the WMCP FTAA once converted into an MPSA, will remain in
limbo. There will be no implementation of these MPSAs until the Court
finally resolves this constitutional issue.
Even if evaded now, the constitutionality of Section 80 will certainly
resurface, resulting in a repeat of this litigation, most probably even
Page 56 of 126
between the same parties. To avoid unnecessary delay, this Court must
rule now on the constitutionality of Section 80 of RA 7942.
resources. Existing valid and binding service contracts for financial,

technical, management, or other forms of assistance are hereby
recognized as such.
2. The Constitutional Term Limit Applies to FTAAs

Section 3.3 of the WMCP FTAA provides a fixed contract term of 50 years
at the option of WMCP. Thus, Section 3.3 provides:
This Agreement shall be renewed by the Government for a further
period of twenty-five (25) years under the same terms and conditions
provided that the Contractor lodges a request for a renewal with the
Government not less than sixty (60) days prior to the expiry of the initial
term of this Agreement and provided that the Contractor is not in breach of
any of the requirements of this Agreement. (Emphasis supplied)
This provision grants WMCP the absolute right to extend the first 25year term of the FTAA to another 25-year term upon mere lodging of a
request or notice to the Philippine Government. WMCP has the
absolute right to extend the term of the FTAA to 50 years and all that the
Government can do is to acquiesce to the wish of WMCP.
Section 3.3 of the WMCP FTAA is void because it violates Section 2,
Article XII of the 1987 Constitution, the first paragraph of which provides:
All lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum, and other
mineral oils, all forces of potential energy, fisheries, forests or timber,
wildlife, flora and fauna, and other natural resources are owned by the
State. With the exception of agricultural lands, all other natural resources
shall not be alienated. The exploration, development, and utilization of
natural resources shall be under the full control and supervision of the
State. The State may directly undertake such activities, or it may enter into
capital is owned by such citizens. Such agreements may be for a period
not exceeding twenty-five years, renewable for not more than twentyfive years, and under such terms and conditions as may be provided
by law. In cases of water rights for irrigation, water supply, fisheries, or
industrial uses other than the development of water power, beneficial use
may be the measure and limit of the grant. (Emphasis supplied)
The majority opinion, however, makes the startling assertion that FTAAs
are not covered by the term limit under Section 2, Article XII of the 1987
Constitution. The majority opinion states:
I believe that the constitutional term limits do not apply to FTAAs. The
reason is that the above provision is found within paragraph 1 of
Section 2 of Article XII, which refers to mineral agreements coproduction agreements, joint venture agreements and mineral production
sharing agreements - which the government may enter into with Filipino
citizens and corporations, at least 60 percent owned by Filipino citizens.
(Emphasis supplied)
If the term limit does not apply to FTAAs because the term limit is found in
the first paragraph of Section 2, then the other limitations in the same first
paragraph of Section 2 do not also apply to FTAAs. These limitations are
three: first, that the State owns the natural resources; second, except for
agricultural lands, natural resources shall not be alienated; third, the State
shall exercise full control and supervision in the exploitation of natural
resources. Under the majority opinion's interpretation, these three
limitations will no longer apply to FTAAs, leading to patently absurd
results. The majority opinion will also contradict its own admission that
even in FTAAs the State must exercise full control and supervision in
the exploitation of natural resources.
Section 2, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution is a consolidation of
Sections 8 and 9, Article XIV of the 1973 Constitution, which state:
Section 8. All lands of public domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum
and other mineral oils, all forces of potential energy, fisheries, wildlife, and
other natural resources of the Philippines belong to the State. With the
exception of agricultural, industrial or commercial, residential, or
resettlement lands of the public domain, natural resources shall not be
alienated, and no license, concession, or lease for the exploration, or
utilization of any of the natural resources shall be granted for a period
exceeding twenty-five years, except as to water rights for irrigation, water
supply, fisheries, or industrial uses other than development of water power,
in which cases, beneficial use may be the measure and the limit of the
grant.
Section 9. The disposition, exploration, development, exploitation, or
utilization of any of the natural resources of the Philippines shall be limited
to citizens of the Philippines, or to corporations or associations at least
sixty per centum of the capital which is owned by such citizens. The
Batasang Pambansa, in the national interest, may allow such citizens,
corporations or associations to enter into service contracts for financial,
technical, management, or other forms of assistance with any foreign
person or entity for the exploration, or utilization of any of the natural
Section 9, Article XIV of the 1973 Constitution, a one-paragraph section,

contained the provision reserving the exploration, development and
utilization of natural resources to Philippine citizens or corporations
60% Filipino owned as well as the provision on FTAAs. The provision
on the 25-year term limit was found in the preceding Section 8 of Article
XIV. If the 25-year term limit under the 1973 Constitution did not apply to
FTAAs, then it should not also have applied to non-FTAA mining contracts,
an interpretation that is obviously wrong. Thus, the term limit in Section 8,
Article XIV of the 1973 Constitution necessarily applied to both non-FTAA
mining contracts and FTAAs in Section 9.
What the framers of the 1987 Constitution did was to consolidate Sections
8 and 9, Article XIV of the 1973 Constitution into one section, the present
Section 2, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution. The consolidation
necessitated re-arranging the sentences and paragraphs without any
intention of destroying their unity and coherence. Certainly, the
consolidation did not mean that the FTAAs are no longer subject to the 25year term limit. If anything, the consolidation merely strengthened the
need, following the rules of statutory construction, to read and interpret
together all the paragraphs, and even the sentences, of Section 2, Article
XII of the 1987 Constitution.
In his book The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines: A
Commentary, Father Joaquin G. Bernas, S.J., who was a leading member
of the 1986 Constitutional Commission, discussed the limitations on the
exploitation of natural resources. Father Bernas states:
4. Other limitations
Agreements for the exploitation of the natural resources can have a
life of only twenty-five years. This twenty-five year limit dates back to the
1935 Constitution and is considered to be a "reasonable time to attract
capital, local and foreign, and to enable them to recover their investment
and make a profit. The twenty-five year limit on the exploitation of natural
resources is not applicable to "water rights for irrigation, water supply,
fisheries, or industrial uses other than the development of water power." In
these cases, "beneficial use may be the measure and the limit of the
grant." But in the case of water rights for water power, the twenty-five year
limit is applicable."67 (Emphasis supplied)
The 1935, 1973 and 1987 Constitutions all limit the exploitation of natural
resources to 25-year terms. They also limit franchises for public utilities,
leases of alienable lands of public domain, and water rights for power
development to 25-year terms. If a different term is intended, the
Constitution expressly says so as in water rights for uses other than power
development. Under the 1973 and 1987 Constitutions, there is no separate
term for FTAAs other than the 25-year term for the exploitation of natural
resources.
The WMCP FTAA draws life from Executive Order No. 279 issued on 25
July 1987 by then President Corazon C. Aquino when she still exercised
legislative powers. Section 1.1 of the WMCP FTAA expressly states, "This
into pursuant to Executive Order No. 279." Section 7 of Executive Order
No. 279 provides:
Section 7. All provisions of Presidential Decree No. 463, as amended,
other existing mining laws, and their implementing rules and regulations, or
parts thereof, which are not inconsistent with the provisions of this
Executive Order, shall continue in force and effect. (Emphasis supplied)
Section 40 of Presidential Decree No. 463 ("PD 463"), as amended by
Presidential Decree No. 1385, provides:
Section 40. Issuance of Mining Lease Contracts - x x x After the mining
claim has been verified as to its mineral contents and its actual location on
the ground as determined through reports submitted to the Director, the
Secretary shall approve and issue the corresponding mining lease
contract, which shall be for a period not exceeding twenty-five (25)
years, renewable upon the expiration thereof for another period not
exceeding twenty-five (25) years under such terms and conditions as
provided by law. (Emphasis supplied)
Thus, at the time of execution of the WMCP FTAA, statutory law limited the
term of all mining contracts to 25-year terms. PD 463 merely implemented
the mandate of the 1973 Constitution on the 25-year term limit, which is
the same 25-year term limit in the 1987 Constitution. Under Section 7 of
Executive Order No. 279, Section 40 of PD 463 limiting mining
contracts to a 25-year term applies to the WMCP FTAA. Therefore,
Section 3.3 of the WMCP FTAA providing for a 50-year term is void.
Page 57 of 126
Then President Aquino also issued Executive Order No. 211 on 10 July
1987, a bare 17 days before issuing Executive Order No. 279. Section 3 of
Executive Order No. 211 states:
Section 3. The processing, evaluation and approval of all mining
applications, declarations of locations, operating agreements and service
contracts as provided for in Section 2 above, shall be governed by
Presidential Decree No. 463, as amended, other existing mining laws, and
their implementing rules and regulations: Provided, However, that the
privileges granted as well as the terms and conditions thereof shall
be subject to any and all modifications or alterations which Congress
may adopt pursuant to Section 2, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution.
(Emphasis supplied)
Section 3 of Executive Order No. 211 applies to the WMCP FTAA which
was executed on 22 March 1995, more than seven years after the
issuance of Executive Order No. 211. Subsequently, Congress enacted
RA 7942 to prescribe new terms and conditions for all mineral agreements.
RA 7942 took effect on 9 April 1995.
RA 7942 governs the WMCP FTAA because Executive Order No. 211
expressly makes mining agreements like the WMCP FTAA subject to "any
and all modifications or alterations which Congress may adopt
pursuant to Section 2, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution." Section 38
of RA 7942 provides for a 25-year term limit specifically for FTAAs, thus:
Section 38. Term of Financial or Technical Assistance Agreement. A
financial or technical assistance agreement shall have a term not
exceeding twenty-five (25) years to start from the execution thereof,
renewable for not more than twenty-five (25) years under such terms
and conditions as may be provided by law. (Emphasis supplied)
Thus, the 25-year term limit specifically for FTAAs in Section 38 of RA
7942 applies to the WMCP FTAA. Again, Section 3.3 of the WMCP FTAA
providing for a 50-year term is void.
What is clear from the foregoing is that the 25-year statutory term limit on
mining contracts is merely an implementation of the 25-year constitutional
term limit, whether under the 1935, 1973 or 1987 Constitutions. The
majority opinion's assertion that the 25-year term in the first paragraph of
Section 2, Article XII of the 1987 Constitutions does not apply to FTAAs is
obviously wrong.
3. Section 112 of RA 7942 Applies to the WMCP FTAA
The majority opinion insists that Section 112 of RA 7942 does not apply to
the WMCP FTAA. Section 112 provides:
Section 112. Non-impairment of Existing Mining/Quarrying Rights. All
valid and existing mining lease contracts, permits/licenses, leases
pending renewal, mineral production-sharing agreements granted under
Executive Order No. 279, at the date of effectivity of this Act, shall
remain valid, shall not be impaired, and shall be recognized by the
Government: Provided, That the provisions of Chapter XIV on
government share in mineral production-sharing agreement and of
Chapter XVI on incentives of this Act shall immediately govern and
apply to a mining lessee or contractor unless the mining lessee or
contractor indicates his intention to the secretary, in writing, not to avail of
said provisions: Provided, further, That no renewal of mining lease
contracts shall be made after the expiration of its term: Provided, finally,
That such leases, production-sharing agreements, financial or technical
assistance agreements shall comply with the applicable provisions of this
Act and its implementing rules and regulations. (Emphasis supplied)
Section 112 "immediately" applies the fiscal regime under Section 80 on
"mineral production sharing agreement" to "all valid and existing mining"
contracts, including those "granted under Executive Order No. 279." If
Section 112 applies to the WMCP FTAA, then the WMCP FTAA is
subject only to the 2% excise tax under Section 80 as the "total
share" of the Philippine Government.
The majority opinion states, "Whether Section 112 may properly apply
to co-production or joint venture agreements, the fact of the matter is
that it cannot be made to apply to FTAAs." This position of the majority
opinion is understandable. If Section 112 applies to FTAAs, the majority
opinion would have to rule on the constitutionality of Section 80 of RA
7942. The majority opinion already agrees that the 1987 Constitution
requires the FTAA contractor to pay the State "more than the usual taxes,
duties and fees." If Section 112 applies to FTAAs, the majority opinion
would have no choice but declare unconstitutional Section 80.
Thus, the majority opinion insists that Section 112 "cannot be made to
apply to FTAAs." This insistence of the majority opinion collides with
the very clear and plain language of Section 112 of RA 7942 and
Section 1.1 of the WMCP FTAA. This insistence of the majority opinion
will lead to absurd results.
First, Section 112 of RA 7942 speaks of "all valid and existing mining"
contracts. The phrase "all valid and existing mining" contracts means
the entire or total mining contracts in existence "at the date of effectivity"
of RA 7942 without exception. The word "all" negates any exception.
This certainly includes the WMCP FTAA, unless the majority opinion
concedes that the WMCP FTAA is not a mining contract, or if it is, that it is
not a valid contract.
Second, the last proviso of Section 112 itself expressly states that
"financial or technical assistance agreements shall comply with the
applicable provisions of this Act and its implementing rules and
regulations." There is no shadow of doubt whatsoever that Section 112,
by its own plain, clear and indisputable language, commands that
FTAAs shall comply with RA 7942. I truly cannot fathom how the majority
opinion can assert that Section 112 cannot apply to FTAAs.
Third, Section 112 expressly refers to Chapters XIV and XVI of RA 7942.
Chapter XIV refers to the "Government Share" and covers Sections 80, 81
and 82 of RA 7942. Section 81, as the majority opinion concedes,
applies to FTAAs. Chapter XVI refers to "Incentives" and covers Section
90 to 94 of RA 7942. Section 90 states that the "contractors in mineral
agreements, and financial technical and assistance agreements shall
be entitled to the fiscal and non-fiscal incentives as provided under
Executive Order No. 226 x x x." Clearly, Section 112 applies to FTAAs.
Fourth, Section 1.1 of the WMCP FTAA expressly states, "This
into pursuant to Executive Order No. 279." Section 112 states in
unequivocal language that "all valid and existing" agreements "granted
under Executive Order No. 279" are immediately placed under the fiscal
regime of MPSAs. In short, mining agreements granted under Executive
Order No. 279 are expressly among the agreements included in
Section 112 and placed under the fiscal regime prescribed in Section 80.
There is no doubt whatsoever that Section 112 applies to the WMCP FTAA
which was "entered into pursuant to Executive Order No. 279."
Fifth, Section 3 of Executive Order No. 211 expressly subjects all mining
contracts executed by the Executive Department to the terms and
conditions of new mining laws that Congress might enact in the future.
Thus, Section 3 of Executive Order No. 211 states:
Section 3. The processing, evaluation and approval of all mining
applications, declarations of locations, operating agreements and service
contracts as provided for in Section 2 above, shall be governed by
Presidential Decree No. 463, as amended, other existing mining laws, and
their implementing rules and regulations: Provided, However, that the
privileges granted as well as the terms and conditions thereof shall
be subject to any and all modifications or alterations which Congress
may adopt pursuant to Section 2, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution.
(Emphasis supplied)
There is no dispute that Executive Order No. 211, issued prior to the
execution of the WMCP FTAA, applies to the WMCP FTAA. There is also
no dispute that RA 7942 took effect after the issuance of Executive Order
No. 211 and after the execution of the WMCP FTAA. Therefore, Section
112 of RA 7942 applies specifically to the WMCP FTAA.
Indeed, it is plain to see why Section 112 of RA 7942 applies to FTAAs,
like the WMCP FTAA, that were executed prior to the enactment of RA
7942. Section 112 is found in Chapter XX of RA 7942 on "Transitory and
Miscellaneous Provisions." The title of Section 112 refers to the "[N]onimpairment of Existing Mining Quarrying Rights." RA 7942 is the general
law governing all kinds of mineral agreements, including FTAAs. In fact,
Chapter VI of RA 7942, covering nine sections, deals exclusively on
FTAAs. The fiscal regime in FTAAs executed prior to the enactment of RA
7942 may differ from the fiscal regime prescribed in RA 7942. Hence,
Section 112 provides the transitory provisions to resolve differences in the
fiscal regimes, ostensibly to avoid impairment of contract obligations.
Clearly, Section 112 applies to FTAAs.
There are no ifs or buts in Section 112. The plain, simple and clear
language of Section 112 makes FTAAs, like the WMCP FTAA, subject to
Section 112. We repeat the express words of Section 112 (1) "All valid and existing mining lease contracts x x x mineral
production-sharing agreements granted under Executive Order No.
279, at the date of effectivity of this Act x x x."
(2) the "x x x government share in mineral production- sharing
agreement x x x shall immediately govern and apply to a mining
lessee or contractor x x x."
(3) "financial or technical assistance agreements shall comply with
the applicable provisions of this Act and its implementing rules and
regulations."
Page 58 of 126
With such clear and unequivocal language, how can the majority opinion
blithely state that Section 112 "cannot be made to apply to FTAAs"? It
defies common sense, simple logic and plain English to assert that Section
112 does not apply to FTAAs. It defies the fundamental rule of statutory
construction as repeated again and again in jurisprudence:
Time and time again, it has been repeatedly declared by this Court that
where the law speaks in clear and categorical language, there is no room
for interpretation. There is only room for application.68
For nothing is better settled than that the first and fundamental duty of
courts is to apply the law as they find it, not as they like it to be. Fidelity to
such a task precludes construction or interpretation, unless application is
69
impossible or inadequate without it.
Where the law is clear and unambiguous, it must be taken to mean exactly
what it says and the court has no choice but to see to it that its mandate is
obeyed.70
If Section 112 of RA 7942 does not apply to FTAAs as the majority
opinion asserts, what will govern FTAAs executed before the
enactment of RA 7942, like the WMCP FTAA? Section 112 expressly
addresses FTAAs executed before the enactment of RA 7942, requiring
these earlier FTAAs to comply with the provisions of RA 7942 and its
implementing rules. Executive Order No. 211, issued seven years before
the execution of the WMCP FTAA, requires all FTAAs subsequently
executed to comply with the terms and conditions of any future mining law
that Congress may enact. That law is RA 7942 which took effect after the
execution of the WMCP FTAA.
The majority opinion allows the WMCP FTAA to become sui generis, an
FTAA outside the scope of RA 7942 which expressly governs "all" mining
agreements, whether MPSAs or FTAAs. This means that the WMCP FTAA
is not even governed by Section 81 of RA 7942 and its phrase "among
other things," which the majority opinion claims is the authority to subject
the WMCP FTAA to the payment of consideration that is "more than the
usual taxes, duties and fees."
This makes the majority opinion's position self-contradictory and inutile.
The majority opinion claims that the WMCP FTAA is subject to the phrase
"among other things" in Section 81. At the same time, the majority opinion
asserts that Section 112, which requires earlier FTAAs to comply with
Section 81 and other provisions of RA 7942, does not apply to the WMCP
FTAA. The majority opinion is caught in a web of self-contradictions.
This exemption by the majority opinion of the WMCP FTAA from
Section 112 is judicial class legislation. Why is the WMCP FTAA so
special that the majority opinion wants it exempted from Section 112 of RA
7942? Why are only "all" other FTAAs subject to the terms and conditions
of RA 7942 and not the WMCP FTAA?
4. Foreign Corporations and Contractors Cannot Hold Exploration
Permits
The majority opinion states that "there is no prohibition at all against
foreign or local corporations or contractors holding exploration
permits." This is another assertion of the majority opinion that directly
collides with the plain language of the 1987 Constitution.
Section 2, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution expressly reserves to
Philippine citizens and corporations 60% Filipino owned the "exploration,
development and utilization of natural resources." The majority opinion
rationalizes its assertion in this manner:
Pursuant to Section 20 of RA 7942, an exploration permit merely
grants to a qualified person the right to conduct exploration for
minerals in specified areas. Such a permit does not amount to an
authorization to extract and carry off the mineral resources that may
be discovered. x x x. (Italics in original)
The issue is not whether an exploration permit allows a foreign contractor
or corporation to extract mineral resources, for apparently by its language
alone a mere exploration permit does not. There is no dispute that an
exploration permit merely means authority to explore, not to extract. The
issue is whether the issuance of an exploration permit to a foreign
contractor violates the constitutional limitation that only Philippine citizens
or corporations 60% Filipino owned can engage in the "exploration x x x
of natural resources."
The plain language of Section 2, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution clearly
limits to Philippine citizens or to corporations 60% Filipino owned the right
to engage in the "exploration x x x of natural resources." To engage in
"exploration" is simply to explore, not to develop, utilize or extract.
To engage in exploration one must secure an exploration permit. The
mere issuance of the exploration permit is the authority to engage in the
exploration of natural resources.
This activity of exploration, which requires an exploration permit, is a

reserved activity not allowed to foreign contractors or foreign corporations.
Foreign contractors and foreign corporations cannot secure exploration
permits because they cannot engage in the exploration of natural
resources. If, as the majority opinion asserts, foreign contractors or foreign
corporations can secure and hold exploration permits, then they can
engage in the "exploration x x x of natural resources." This violates
Consequently, Section 3(aq) of RA 7942, which provides that "a legally
organized foreign-owned corporation shall be deemed a qualified person
for purposes of granting an exploration permit," is void and
unconstitutional.
However, the State may directly undertake to explore, develop and utilize
the natural resources. To do this the State may contract a foreign
corporation to conduct the physical act of exploration in the State's
behalf, as in an FTAA. In such a case, the foreign FTAA contractor is
merely an agent of the State which holds the right to explore. No
exploration permit is given to the foreign contractor because it is the State
that is directly undertaking the exploration, development and utilization of
the natural resources.
The requirement reserving "exploration x x x of natural resources" to
Philippine citizens or to corporations 60% Filipino owned is not a matter of
constitutional whim. The State cannot allow foreign corporations, except as
contractual agents under the full control and supervision of the State, to
explore our natural resources because information derived from such
exploration may have national security implications.
If a Chinese company from the People's Republic of China is allowed to
explore for oil and gas in the Spratlys, the technical information obtained
by the Chinese company may only bolster the resolve of the Chinese
Government to hold on to their occupied reefs in the Spratlys despite these
reefs being within the Exclusive Economic Zone of the Philippines.
Certainly, we cannot expect the Chinese company to disclose to the
Philippine Government the important technical data obtained from such
exploration.
In Africa, foreign mining companies who have explored the mineral
resources of certain countries shift their support back and forth between
government and rebel forces depending on who can give them better
terms in exploiting the mineral resources. Technical data obtained from
mineral exploration have triggered or fueled wars and rebellions in many
countries. The right to explore mineral resources is not a trivial matter as
the majority opinion would want us to believe.
Even if the foreign companies come from countries with no territorial
dispute with the Philippines, can we expect them to disclose fully to the
Philippine Government all the technical data they obtain on our mineral
resources? These foreign companies know that the Philippine Government
will use the very same data in negotiating from them a higher share of the
mining revenues. Why will the foreign companies give to the Philippine
Government technical data justifying a higher share for the Philippine
Government and a lower share for the foreign companies? The framers of
the 1935, 1973 and 1986 Constitutions were acutely aware of this problem.
That is why the 1987 Constitution not only reserves the "exploration x x x
of natural resources" to Philippine citizens and to corporations 60%
Filipino owned, it also now requires the State to exercise "full control and
supervision" over the "exploration x xx of natural resources."
5. The State is Entitled to 60% Share in the Net Mining Revenues
The majority opinion claims that the Constitution does not require that the
State's share in FTAAs or other mineral agreements should be at least
60% of the net mining revenues. Thus, the majority opinion states that
"the Charter did not intend to fix an iron-clad rule on the 60 percent
share, applicable to all situations at all times and in all
circumstances."
The majority opinion makes this claim despite the express admission by
intervenor CMP and respondent WMCP that the State, as owner of the
natural resources, is entitled to 60% of the net mining revenues. The
intervenor CMP admits that under an FTAA, the Philippine Government
"stands in the place of the 60% Filipino owned company" and hence
must retain 60% of the net income. Thus, intervenor CMP concedes that:
x x x In other words, in the FTAA situation, the Government stands in
the place of the 60% Filipino-owned company, and the 100% foreignowned contractor company takes all the risks of failure to find a
commercially viable large-scale ore body or oil deposit, for which the
71
contractor will get 40% of the financial benefits. (Emphasis supplied)
As applied to the WMCP FTAA, intervenor CMP asserts that the
"contractor's stipulated share under the WMCP FTAA is limited to a
maximum of 40% of the net production."72 Intervenor CMP further
insists that "60% of its (contractor's) net returns from mining, if any,
will go to the Government under the WMCP FTAA."73
Page 59 of 126
Like intervenor CMP, respondent WMCP also maintains that under an

FTAA, the State is "guaranteed" a 60% share of the foreign contractor's
Net Mining Revenues. Respondent WMCP admits that:
In other words, the State is guaranteed a sixty per centum (60%)
share of the Mining Revenues, or 60% of the actual fruits of the
endeavor. This is in line with the intent behind Section 2 of Article XII
natural resources.
Incidentally, this sharing ratio between the Philippine Government
and the Contractor is also in accordance with the 60%-40% equity
requirement for Filipino-owned corporations in Paragraph 1 of
Section 2 of Article XII.74 (Emphasis supplied)
In short, the entire mining industry, as represented by intervenor CMP, is
willing to pay the State a share equivalent to 60% of the net mining
revenues. Even the foreign contractor WMCP agrees to pay the State 60%
of its net mining revenues, albeit dishonestly.
However, the majority opinion refuses to accept that the State is entitled to
what the entire mining industry is willing to pay the State. Incredibly, the
majority opinion claims that "there is no independent showing that the
taking of at least 60 percent share in the after-tax income of a mining
company operated by a foreign contractor is fair and reasonable
under most if not all circumstances." Despite the willingness of the
entire mining industry to pay the State a 60% share without exception, the
majority opinion insists that such sharing is not fair and reasonable to the
mining industry "under most if not all circumstances." What is the basis
of the majority opinion in saying this when the entire mining industry
already admits, concedes and accepts that the State is entitled, without
exception, to 60% of the net mining revenues?
Oddly, the majority opinion cites only the personal experience of the
ponente, who had previously "been engaged in private business for many
years." The majority opinion even states, in insisting that the State should
receive less than 60% share, that "[F]airness is a credo not only in law,
but also in business." The majority opinion cannot be more popish
than the Pope. The majority opinion ponente's business judgment cannot
supplant the unanimous business judgment of the entire mining industry,
as manifested by intervenor CMP before this Court. What is obvious is that
it is not fair to deprive the Filipino people, many of whom live in hand to
mouth existence, of what is legally their share of the national patrimony, in
light of the willingness of the entire mining industry to pay the Filipino
people their rightful share.
The majority opinion gives a "simplified illustration" to show that the State
does not deserve a 60% share of the net proceeds from mining revenues.
The majority opinion states:
x x x Let us base it on gross revenues of, say, P500. After deducting
operating expenses, but prior to income tax, suppose a mining makes a
taxable income of P100. A corporate income tax of 32 percent results in
P32 of taxable income going to the government, leaving the mining firm
with P68. Government then takes 60 percent thereof, equivalent to P40.80,
leaving only P27.20 for the mining firm.
The majority opinion's "simplified illustration" is indeed too simplified
because it does not even consider the exploration, development and
capital expenses. The majority opinion's "simplified illustration" deducts
from gross revenues only "operating expenses." This is an egregious error
that makes this "simplified illustration" misleading. Exploration,
development and other capital expenses constitute a huge part of the
deductions from gross revenues. In the early years of commercial
production, the exploration, development and capital expenses, if not
subject to a cap or limitation, can wipe out the gross revenues.
The majority opinion's operating expenses are not even taken from mining
industry rates. One can even zero out the taxable income by simply jacking
up the operating expenses. A "simplified illustration" of an income
statement of an operating mining company, omitting the deduction of
amortized capital expenses, serves no purpose whatsoever. What is
important is the return on the investment of the foreign contractor. The
absolute amount that goes to the contractor may be smaller than what
goes to the State. However, the amount that goes to the contractor may be
a hundred times its investment. This can only be determined if the capital
expenditures of the contractor are taken into account.
Under an FTAA, the State is directly undertaking the exploitation of mineral
resources. The net proceeds are not subject to income tax since there is
no separate taxable entity. The State is an entity but not a taxable
corporate entity. The State does not pay income tax to itself, and even if it
does, it is just a book entry since it is the payor and payee at the same
time. Only the 40% share of the FTAA contractor is subject to the 32%
corporate income tax. On this score alone, the majority opinion's
"simplified illustration" is wrong.
Intervenor CMP and respondent WMCP are correct in anchoring on

Section 2, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution their admission that the State
is entitled to 60% of the net mining revenues. Their common position is
based on the Constitution, existing laws and industry practice.
First, the State owns the mineral resources. To the owner of the mineral
resources belongs the income from any exploitation of the mineral
resources. The owner may share its income with the contractor as
compensation to the contractor, which is an agent of the owner. The
industry practice is the owner receives an equal or larger share of the
income as against the share of the contractor or agent.
In the Occidental-Shell FTAA covering Malampaya, where the contractor
contributed all the capital and technology, the State receives 60% of the
net proceeds. In addition, Occidental-Shell's 40% share is subject to the
32% Philippine income tax. Occidental-Shell's US$2 billion investment75 in
Malampaya is by far the single biggest foreign investment in the
Philippines. The offshore Malampaya gas extraction is also by far more
capital intensive and riskier than land-based mineral extraction. Over the
20-year life of the natural gas reserves, the State will receive US$8-10
billion76 from its share in the Occidental-Shell FTAA.
In Consolidated Mines, Inc. v. Court of Tax Appeals,77 a case decided
under the 1973 Constitution, Consolidated Mines, the concessionaire of
the mines, shared equally the net mining income with Benguet
Consolidated Mines, the mining operator or contractor. Thus, as quoted
in Consolidated Mines, the agreement between the concessionaire and
operator stated:
X. After Benguet has been fully reimbursed for its expenditures, advances
and disbursements as aforesaid the net profits from the operation shall be
divided between Benguet and Consolidated share and share alike, it
being understood however, that the net profits as the term is used in this
agreement shall be computed by deducting from gross income all
operating expenses and all disbursements of any nature whatsoever as
may be made in order to carry out the terms of this agreement. (Emphasis
supplied)
Incidentally, in Consolidated Mines the State did not receive any share in
the net mining income because of the "license, concession or lease"
system under the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions. The State and the Filipino
people received only taxes, duties and fees.
Second, the State exercises "full control and supervision" over the
exploitation of mineral resources. "Full control" as used in the Constitution
means more than ordinary majority control. In corporate practice, ordinary
control of a corporation means a simple majority control, or at least 50%
plus one of the total voting stock. In contrast, full or total control means
two-thirds of the voting stock, which enables the owner of the two-thirds
equity to amend any provision in the charter of the corporation. However,
since foreigners can own up to 40% of the equity of mining companies,
"full control" cannot exceed the control corresponding to the State's 60%
equity. Thus, the State's share in the net proceeds of mining companies
should correspond to its 60% interest and control in mining companies.
Third, Section 2, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution requires that the FTAA
must make "real contributions to the economic growth and general
welfare of the country." As respondent WMCP aptly admits, "the intent
behind Section 2 of Article XII (is) that the Filipino people, as
represented by the State, (shall) benefit primarily from the
exploration, development, and utilization of the Philippines' natural
resources." For the Filipino people to benefit primarily from the
exploitation of natural resources, and for FTAAs to make real
contributions to the national economy, the majority of the net proceeds
from mining operations must accrue to the State.
Fourth, the 1987 Constitution ordains the State to "conserve and develop
our patrimony." The nation's mineral resources are part of our national
patrimony. The State can "conserve" our mineral resources only if the
majority of the net proceeds from the exploitation of mineral resources
accrue to the State.
In sum, only the majority opinion refuses to accept that the State has a
right to receive at least 60% of the net proceeds from mining operations.
The principal parties involved in this case do not object that the State shall
receive such share. The entire mining industry and respondent WMCP
admit that the State is entitled to a 60% share of the net proceeds. The
State, represented by the Government, will certainly not object to such
share.
More than anything else, the intent and language of the 1987 Constitution
require that the State receive the bulk of the income from mining
operations. Only Congress, through a law, may allow a share lesser than
60% if certain compelling conditions are present. Congress may
authorize the President to make such determination subject to standards
and limitations that Congress shall prescribe.
Page 60 of 126
The majority opinion wants to give the President the absolute discretion to
determine the State's share from mining revenues. The President will be
hard put accepting anything less than 60% of the net proceeds. If the
President accepts less than 60%, the President is open to a charge of
entering into a manifestly and grossly disadvantageous contract to the
Government because the entire mining industry, including WMCP, has
already agreed to pay 60% of the net proceeds to the State. The only way
to avoid this is for Congress to enact a law providing for the conditions
when the State may receive less than 60% of the net proceeds.
Conclusion
Let us assume that one of the Justices of this Court is the owner of mineral
resources say gold reserves. A foreigner offers to extract the gold and
pay for all development, capital and operating expenses. How much will
the good Justice demand as his or her share of the gold extracted by the
foreigner? If the Justice follows the Malampaya precedent, he or she will
demand a 60% share of the net proceeds. If the Justice follows the
manifestation of intervenor CMP and respondent WMCP before this Court,
he or she will also demand a 60% share in the net proceeds. If the Justice
follows the Consolidated Mines precedent, he or she will demand no less
than 50% of the net proceeds. In either case, the 2% excise tax on the
gold extracted is part of the operating expenses to be paid by the foreigner
but deducted from the gross proceeds.
Now, under the Regalian doctrine the State, not the Justice, owns the gold
reserves. How much should the State demand from the foreigner as the
State's share of the gold that is extracted? If we follow Sections 39, 80,
81, 84 and 112 of RA 7942, the State will receive only 2% excise tax as
its "total share" from the gold that is extracted.
Is this fair to the State and the Filipino people, many of whom live below
the poverty line? Is this what the 1987 Constitution mandates when it says
that (a) the State must conserve and develop the nation's patrimony, (b)
the State owns all the natural resources, (c) the State must exercise full
control and supervision over the exploitation of its natural resources, and
(d) FTAAs must make real contributions to the national economy and the
general welfare?
How this Court decides the present case will determine largely whether our
country will remain poor, or whether we can progress as a nation. Based
on NEDA's estimates, the total mineral wealth of the nation is P47 trillion,
or US$840 billion. This is 15 times more than our US$56 billion foreign
debt. Can this Court in conscience agree that the State will receive
only 2% of the P47 trillion mineral wealth of the nation?
In Miners Association, this Court ruled that the 1987 Constitution has
abandoned the old system of "license, concession or lease" and instead
installed full State control and supervision over the exploitation of natural
resources. No amount of dire warnings or media publicity should intimidate
this Court into resurrecting the old and discredited system that has caused
the denudation of almost all of the nation's virgin forests without any visible
benefit to the Filipino people.
The framers of the 1987 Constitution have wisely instituted the new system
to prevent a repeat of the denudation of our forestlands that did not even
make any real contribution to the economic growth of the nation. This
Court must do its solemn duty to uphold the intent and letter of the
Constitution and, in the words of the Preamble of the 1987 Constitution,
"conserve and develop our patrimony" for the benefit of the Filipino people.
This Court cannot trivialize the Filipino people's right to be the primary
beneficiary of the nation's mineral resources by ruling that the phrase
"among other things" is sufficient to insure that FTAAs will "make real
contributions to the economic growth and general welfare of the
country." This Court cannot tell the Filipino people that the phrase
"among other things" is sufficient to "preserve and develop the national
patrimony." This Court cannot tell the Filipino people that the phrase
"among other things" means that they will receive the bulk of mining
revenues.
This Court cannot tell the Filipino people that Congress deliberately used
the phrase "among other things" to guarantee that the Filipino people will
receive their equitable share from mining revenues of foreign contractors.
This Court cannot tell the Filipino people that with the phrase "among
other things," this Court has protected the national interest as mandated
by the 1987 Constitution.
I therefore vote to deny the motions for reconsideration. I vote to declare
unconstitutional Section 3(aq), Section 39, Section 80, the second
paragraph of Section 81, the proviso in Section 84, and the first proviso in
Section 112 of RA 7942 for violation of Section 2, Article XII of the 1987
Constitution. In issuing the rules to implement these void provisions of RA
7942, DENR Secretary Victor O. Ramos gravely abused his discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
However, WMCP may negotiate with the Philippine Government for a new
mineral agreement covering the same area consistent with this Decision.
DISSENTING OPINION
CARPIO MORALES, J.:
Regrettably, a majority of the members of this Court has voted to reverse
its January 27, 2004 Decision in La Bugal-B'Laan Tribal Association, Inc.
v. Ramos1 by which it declared certain provisions2 of the Mining Act of
3
1995 on Financial or Technical Assistance Agreements (FTAAs), the
related provisions of Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Administrative Order 96-40 (DAO No. 96-40), and the March 22, 1995
Financial and Technical Assistance Agreement (FTAA) executed between
the Government of the Republic of the Philippines and WMC Philippines,
Inc. (WMCP) in violation of Section 2, Article XII of the Constitution.
Because I find that: (1) the "agreements involving either technical or
financial assistance" contemplated by the fourth paragraph of Section 2,
Article XII of the 1987 Constitution are distinct and dissimilar from the
"service contracts" under the 1973 Constitution; and (2) these certain
provisions of the Mining Act, its implementing rules, and the WMCP FTAA
unconstitutionally convey beneficial ownership and control over Philippine
mineral and petroleum resources to foreign contractors, I most respectfully
dissent.
Antecedents
By motion, private respondent WMCP seeks a reconsideration of this
Court's Decision, it arguing essentially that FTAAs are the same as service
contracts which were sanctioned under the 1973 Constitution.
By Resolution of June 22, 2004, this Court, upon motion,4 impleaded
Philippine Chamber of Mines (PCM), as respondent-in-intervention.
Intervenor PCM argues that the "agreements" referred to in paragraph 4 of
Section 2, Article XII of the Constitution were intended to involve or include
the "service contracts" provided for in the 1973 Constitution.
The parties were, on June 29, 2004, heard on oral arguments during which
two major issues were tackled: first, the proper interpretation of the phrase
"agreements involving either technical or financial assistance" in Section
2, Article XII of the Constitution, and second, mootness.
Thereafter, the parties submitted their respective memoranda, as required
by Resolution of this Court. However, despite the verbal request of
Associate Justice Artemio V. Panganiban during the oral arguments, 5
intervenor PCM failed to submit along with its memorandum any
documents to establish international mining practices, particularly in
developing countries.
Issues for Resolution
The majority opinion holds that the resolution of the Motions for
Reconsideration in this case should be confined to the issues taken up
during the oral arguments on June 29, 2004. These were: (1) the proper
interpretation of the phrase "agreements involving either technical or
financial assistance" in Section 2, Article XII of the Constitution, and (2)
mootness.
It further holds that the issue of whether the Mining Act and the WMCP
FTAA are manifestly disadvantageous to the government could not be
passed upon because the same was supposedly not raised in the original
petition.
These rulings, while well intentioned, cannot be accepted.
First, there is no rule of procedure, whether in Rule 52 or elsewhere, which
restricts the resolution of a case to the issues taken up in the oral
arguments. The reason is obvious. The issues for resolution in any given
case are determined by the conflicting arguments of the parties as set forth
in their pleadings. On the other hand, the matters to be taken up in an oral
argument may be limited, by order of the court, to only such points as the
court may deem necessary. Thus, Section 1 of Rule 49 provides:
Section 1. When allowed. At its own instance or upon motion of a party,
the court may hear the parties in oral argument on the merits of a case,
or on any material incident in connection therewith.
The oral argument shall be limited to such matters as the court may
specify in its order or resolution (Emphasis supplied)
I also vote to declare unconstitutional the present WMCP FTAA for

violation of the same Section 2, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution.
Page 61 of 126
A narrow delimitation of matters to be taken up during oral argument is a

matter of practical necessity since often not all the relevant issues can be
thoroughly discussed without unduly imposing on the time of the Court.
However, unlike a pre-trial order,6 the delimitation does not control or limit
the issues to be resolved. These issues may be subject matter of the
parties' memoranda, as in this case.
Section 10.2 (a) of the COLUMBIO FTAA does not prohibit the State
from partaking of the fruits of the exploration. In fact, Section 7.7 of the
COLUMBIO FTAA provides:
Second, as noted in the Decision,7 the issue of whether the Mining Act and
the WMCP FTAA afford the State a just share in the proceeds of its natural
resources was in fact raised by the petitioners, viz:
From the Commencement of Commercial Production, the Contractor shall

pay a government share of sixty per centum (60%) of Net Mining
Revenues, calculated in accordance with the following provisions (the
"Government Share"). The Contractor shall be entitled to retain the
balance of all revenues from the Mining Operations."
Petitioners claim that the DENR Secretary acted without or in excess of

jurisdiction:
I
x x x in signing and promulgating DENR Administrative Order No. 96-40
implementing Republic Act No. 7942, the latter being unconstitutional in
that it allows fully foreign owned corporations to explore, develop, utilize
and exploit mineral resources in a manner contrary to Section 2, paragraph
4, Article XII of the Constitution;
II
that it allows the taking of private property without the determination of
public use and for just compensation;
"7.7 Government Share
In other words, the State is guaranteed a sixty per centum (60%) share of
the Net Mining Revenues, or 60% of the actual fruits of the endeavor. This
is in line with the intent behind Section 2 of Article XII that the Filipino
people, as represented by the State, benefit primarily from the
exploration, development, and utilization of the Philippines' natural
resources. 10 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
while the petitioners, for their part, claim:
For instance, government share is computed on the basis ofnet mining
revenue. Net mining revenue is gross mining revenue less, among others,
deductible expenses. Some of the allowable deductions from the base
amount to be used to compute government share are suspicious. The
WMCP FTAA contract, for instance, allows expenditures for development
"outside the Contract Area," consulting fees for work done "outside the
Philippines," and the "establishment and administration of field offices
including administrative overheads incurred within and outside the
Philippines."
III
xxx
that it violates Sec. 1, Art. III of the Constitution;
IV
that it allows enjoyment by foreign citizens as well as fully foreign owned
corporations of the nation's marine wealth contrary to Section 2, paragraph
2 of Article XII of the Constitution;
One mischief inherent in past service contracts was the practice of transfer
pricing. UNCTAD defines this as the "pricing of transfers of goods,
services and other assets within a TNC network." If government does not
control the exploration, development and utilization of natural
resources, then the intra-transnational corporation pricing of
expenditures may not become transparent. 11 (Emphasis supplied;
footnotes omitted)
In fine, the majority opinion skirts an issue raised in the original Petition for
Prohibition and Mandamus, passed upon in its Decision of January 27,
2004 and argued by the parties in the present Motion for Reconsideration.
V
that it allows priority to foreign and fully foreign owned corporations in the
exploration, development and utilization of mineral resources contrary to
Article XII of the Constitution;
VI
x x x in signing and promulgating DENR Administrative Order No. 9640 implementing Republic Act No. 7942, the latter being
unconstitutional in that it allows the inequitable sharing of wealth
contrary to Sections [sic] 1, paragraph 1, and Section 2, paragraph 4[,]
[Article XII] of the Constitution;
VII
x x x in recommending approval of and implementing the Financial and
Technical Assistance Agreement between the President of the Republic of
the Philippines and Western Mining Corporation Philippines Inc. because
the same is illegal and unconstitutional.8 (Emphasis and underscoring
supplied)
Indeed, this Court expressly passed upon this issue in the Decision when it
held that:
With the foregoing discussion in mind, this Court finds that R.A. No. 7942
is invalid insofar as said Act authorizes service contracts. Although the
statute employs the phrase "financial and technical agreements" in
accordance with the 1987 Constitution, it actually treats these
agreements as service contracts that grant beneficial ownership to
foreign contractors contrary to the fundamental law.9 (Emphasis and
underscoring supplied)
Moreover, the issue of whether the State is deprived of its just share in the
proceeds from mining was touched upon by the parties in their
memoranda. Thus, respondent WMCP argues that:
Instead, I find that the myriad arguments raised by the parties may be
grouped according to two broad categories: first, the arguments pertaining
to the constitutionality of FTAA provisions of the Mining Act; and second,
those pertaining to the validity of the WMCP FTAA. Within these
categories, the following issues are submitted for resolution: (1) whether in
invalidating certain provisions of the Mining Act a non-justiciable political
question is passed upon; (2) whether the FTAAs contemplated in Section
2, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution are identical to, or inclusive of, the
"service contracts" provided for in the 1973 Constitution; (3) whether the
declaration of the unconstitutionality of certain provisions of the Mining Act
should be reconsidered; (4) whether the question of validity of the WMCP
FTAA was rendered moot before the promulgation of the Decision; and (5)
whether the decision to declare the WMCP FTAA unconstitutional and void
should be reconsidered.
Following the foregoing framework of analysis, I now proceed to resolve
the issues raised in the motion for reconsideration.
I
Constitutionality of the Philippine Mining Act of 1995
The issues presented constitute
justiciable questions.
Contrary to the posture of respondent WMCP, this Court did not tread on a
political question in rendering its Decision of January 27, 2004.
The Constitution delineates the parameters of the powers of the legislative,
the executive and the judiciary.12 Whether the first and second great
departments of government exceeded those parameters is the function of
the third.13 Thus, the Constitution defines judicial power to include "the
duty to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any
branch or instrumentality of the Government."14
Judicial power does not extend to political questions, which are concerned
with issues dependent upon the wisdom, not the legality, of a particular
measure.15 The reason is that, under our system of government, policy
issues are within the domain of the political branches of government and of
Page 62 of 126
the people themselves as the repository of all state power.16 In short, the
judiciary does not settle policy issues.17
The distinction between a truly political question and an ostensible one lies
in the answer to the question of whether there are constitutionally imposed
limits on powers or functions conferred upon political bodies. 18 If there are
constitutionally imposed limits, then the issue is justiciable, and a court is
duty-bound to examine whether the branch or instrumentality of the
government properly acted within those limits.19
Respondent WMCP argues that the "exploration, development, and
utilization of natural resources are matters of policy, in other words,
political matters or questions," over which this Court has no jurisdiction.
Respondent is mistaken. The questions involved in this case are not
political. The provisions of paragraph 4, Section 2 of Article XII of the
Constitution, including the phrase "agreements involving either technical
or financial assistance," incorporate limitations20 on the scope of such
agreements or FTAAs. Consequently, they constitute limitations on the
powers of the legislative to determine their terms, as well as the powers of
the Executive to enter into them. In its Decision, this Court found that, by
enacting the objectionable portions of the Mining Act and in entering into
the subject FTAA, the Congress and the President went beyond the
constitutionally delimited scope of such agreements and thereby
transgressed the boundaries of their constitutional powers.
The "agreements" contemplated in paragraph 4, Section 2,
Article XII of the Constitution are distinct and dissimilar from the old
"service contracts."
The majority and respondents share a common thesis: that the fourth
paragraph of Sec. 2, Article XII contemplates not only financial or technical
assistance but, just like the service contracts which were allowed under the
1973 Constitution, management assistance as well.
The constitutional provision in dispute reads:
Art. XII
National Economy and Patrimony
xxx
Sec. 2. All lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum,
resources shall not be alienated. The exploration, development, and
supervision of the State. The State may directly undertake such activities
of the grant.
The State shall protect the nation's marine wealth in its archipelagic
waters, territorial sea, and exclusive economic zone, and reserve its use
The Congress may, by law, allow small-scale utilization of natural
priority to subsistence fishermen and fish workers in rivers, lakes, bays,
and lagoons.
The President may enter into agreements with foreign-owned
corporations involving either technical or financial assistance for
large-scale exploration, development, and utilization of minerals,
petroleum, and other mineral oils according to the general terms and
conditions provided by law, based on real contributions to the
economic growth and general welfare of the country. In such
agreements, the State shall promote the development and use of
local scientific and technical resources.
The President shall notify the Congress of every contract entered into
in accordance with this provision, within thirty days from its
execution. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
Its counterpart provision in Article XIV of the 1973 Constitution authorized
"service contracts" as follows:
Sec. 9. The disposition, exploration, development, exploitation, or

utilization of any of the natural resources of the Philippines shall be limited
to citizens, or to corporations or associations at least sixty per centum of
which is owned by such citizens. The Batasang Pambansa, in the
national interest, may allow such citizens, corporations or
associations to enter into service contracts for financial, technical,
management, or other forms of assistance with any person or entity
for the exploration, development, exploration, or utilization of any of
the natural resources. Existing valid and binding service contracts for
financial, technical, management, or other forms of assistance are hereby
recognized as such. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
Respondent WMCP contends that the fourth paragraph of Section 2 is an
exception to the rule that participation in the country's natural resources is
reserved to Filipinos.21 It hastens to add, however, that the word "may"
therein is permissive not restrictive;22 and that consistent with the
provision's permissive nature, the word "involving" therein should be
construed to mean "to include," such that the assistance by foreign
corporations should not be confined to technical or financial, but also to
management forms.23 And it notes that the Constitution used "involving"
instead of such restrictive terms as "solely," "only," or "limited to."24
To the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), the intent behind the fourth
paragraph is to prevent the practice under the 1973 Constitution of
allowing foreigners to circumvent the capitalization requirement,25 as well
as to address the absence of a governing law that led to the abuse of
service contracts.26 The phrase "technical or financial" is merely for
emphasis, the OSG adds, that it is descriptive, not definitive, of the forms
of assistance that the State needs and which foreign corporations may
provide in the large-scale exploration, development and utilization of the
specified resources.27 Furthermore, the OSG contends that the
denomination of the subject FTAA as a "financial and technical assistance
agreement" is a misnomer and should more properly be called
"agreements for large-scale exploration, development, and utilization of
minerals, petroleum, and other mineral oils."28 It argues that the President
has broad discretion to enter into any agreement, regardless of the scope
of assistance, with foreign corporations.29 Driving its point, the OSG poses:
If the framers of the Constitution intended to limit the service of foreign
corporations to "passive assistance," such as simple loan agreements,
why confine them to large-scale ventures?30 Why does the Constitution
require that such agreements be based on real contributions to economic
growth and general welfare of the country?31 Why the condition in the last
paragraph of Section 2 that the President report to Congress?32 Finally, the
OSG asserts that these requirements would be superfluous if the
assistance to be rendered were merely technical or financial.33 And that it
would make more sense if the phrase "agreements involving technical or
financial assistance" were construed to mean the same concept as the
service contracts under the 1973 Constitution.
The OSG's contentions are complemented by intervenor PCM which
maintains that the FTAA "is an agreement for [the] rendition of a whole
range of services of an integrated and comprehensive character, ranging
from discovery through development and utilization and production of
minerals or petroleum by the foreign-owned corporation."34 In fine,
intervenor posits that the change in phraseology in the 1987 Constitution
35
does not relate to the substance of the agreement, otherwise, the State
itself would be compelled to conduct the exploration, development and
utilization of natural resources, ventures that it is ill-equipped to
undertake.36
Primary Concepts in Article XII of the Constitution
Before passing upon the foregoing arguments and for better clarity, it may
be helpful to first examine the concepts of (a) "beneficial ownership," (b)
"full control and supervision," and (c) "real contributions to the economic
growth and general welfare of the country" which are at the heart of
Section 2, Article XII of the Constitution.
Beneficial Ownership
Beneficial ownership, as the plain meaning of the words implies, refers to
the right to the gains, rewards and advantages generated by the
property.37
The concept is not new, but in fact is well entrenched in the law of trusts. 38
Thus, while the trustee holds the legal title to or ownership of the property
entrusted to him, he is nevertheless not the beneficial owner. Rather, he
holds and administers the property for the benefit of another, called the
beneficiary or the cestui que trust. Hence, the profits realized from the
administration and management of the property by the trustee, who is the
"naked owner," less any lawful fees due to the latter, accrue to the cestui
que trust, who is the "beneficial" or "equitable" owner.39
The foregoing concepts are directly applicable to the statement in Section
2, Article XII of the Constitution that "[a]ll lands of the public domain,
waters, minerals, coal, petroleum, and other mineral oils, all forces of
potential energy, fisheries, forests or timber, wildlife, flora and fauna, and
other natural resources are owned by the State."
Page 63 of 126
The words "owned" and "State" should both be understood on two levels.
"Owned" or "ownership" refers to both the legal title to and the beneficial
ownership of the natural resources. Similarly, "State" should be understood
as denoting both the body politic making up the Republic of the
Philippines, i.e., the Filipino people, as well as the Government which
represents them and acts on their behalf.
Thus, the phrase "natural resources are owned by the State"
simultaneously vests the legal title to the nation's natural resources in the
Government, and the beneficial ownership of these resources in the
sovereign Filipino people, from whom all governmental authority
emanates.40
On this point, petitioners and respondent WMCP appear to be in rare
agreement. Thus, petitioners, in their Memorandum state:
xxx With respect to exploration, development and utilization of mineral
resources, the State should not merely be concerned about passing laws.
It is expected that it holds these natural resources covered in Article
XII, Section 2 in dominium and in trust for [the] Filipino people.41
(Emphasis and underscoring supplied; italics in the original)
Respondent WMCP is even more emphatic:
The Regalian Doctrine, as embodied under the Constitution, is a
recognition that sovereignty resides in the Filipino people, and the prime
duty of government or the State is to serve and protect the people. Thus,
the ownership of natural resources by the State under Section 2,
Article XII of the Constitution is actually a beneficial trust in favor of
the Filipino people.
Stated differently, it is the Filipino people who own the nation's
natural resources, and the State is merely the guardian-in-trust
therof.42 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied; italics in the original;
citations omitted)
Clearly, in the exploration, development and utilization of the nation's
natural resources, the Government is in a position analogous to a trustee,
holding title to and managing these resources for the benefit of the Filipino
people, including future generations.43 As the trustee of the sovereign, the
Government has a fiduciary duty to ensure that the gains, rewards and
advantages generated by the Philippines' natural resources accrue to the
benefit of the Filipino people. Corollary to this, the Government cannot,
without violating its sacred trust, enter into any agreement or arrangement
which effectively deprives the Filipino people of their beneficial ownership
of these resources e.g., when it enters into an agreement whereby the
vast majority of the resources, or the profit generated from the resources,
is bargained away in favor of a foreign entity.
Full Control and Supervision
In the context of its role as trustee, the Government's "full control and
supervision" over the exploration, development and utilization of the
nation's natural resources, in its most basic and fundamental sense, is
accomplished by maintaining a position whereby it can carry out its
fiduciary duty to protect the beneficial interest of its cestui que trust in
these resources.
Significantly, Section 2, Article XII of the Constitution provides that the
Government may undertake the exploration, development and utilization of
these resources by itself or together with a third party.44 In the first case,
where no third party is involved, the Government's "full control and
supervision" over the resources is easily achieved. In the second case,
where the third party may naturally be expected to seek participation in the
operation of the venture and ask for compensation in proportion to its
contribution(s), the Government must still maintain a position vis--vis its
third party partner whereby it can adequately protect the interest of the
Filipino people, who are the beneficial owners of the resources.
By way of concrete example, the Government may enter into a joint
venture agreement45 with a third party to explore, develop or utilize certain
natural resources through a jointly owned corporation, wherein the
government has the controlling interest. Under this arrangement, the
Government would clearly be in a position to protect the interest of the
beneficial owners of the natural resources.
In the alternative, as suggested by the OSG,46 the Government may be
allowed one or more directors (holding nominal shares) on the governing
board and executive committee(s) of the private corporation contracted to
undertake mining activities in behalf of the government. Depending on the
by-laws of the private corporation, strategic representation of the
Government in its governing board and executive committee(s) may afford
sufficient protection to the interest of the people.
However, Section 2, Article XII of the Constitution does not limit the options
available to the Government, when dealing with prospective mining
partners, to joint ventures or representation in the contractor's board of
directors. To be sure, the provision states that the Government may enter
into "co-production, joint venture, or production-sharing agreements with
Filipino citizens, or corporations or associations," or, for large scale
exploration, development and utilization, "agreements with foreign-owned
corporations involving either technical or financial assistance." But
whatever form the agreement entered into by the Government and its third
party partner(s) may take, the same must contain, as an absolute
minimum, provisions that ensure that the Government can effectively
perform its fiduciary duty to safeguard the beneficial interest of the Filipino
people in their natural resources, as mandated by the Constitution.
Real Contributions to the Economy
and the General Welfare of the Country
Section 2, Article XII likewise requires that "agreements involving
financial or technical assistance" be "based on real contributions to the
economic growth and general welfare of the country." This provision
articulates the value which the Constitution places on natural resources,
and recognizes their potential benefits. It likewise acknowledges the fact
that the impact of mining operations is not confined to the economy but,
perhaps to a greater extent, affects Philippine society as a whole as well.
"Minerals, petroleum and other mineral oils," are part of the non-renewable
wealth of the Filipino people. By pursuing large scale exploration,
development and utilization of these resources, the State would be
allowing the consumption or exhaustion of these resources, and thus
deprive future Filipino generations the enjoyment thereof. Mining
especially large-scale mining often results in the displacement of local
residents. Its negative effects on the environment are well-documented.47
Thus, for benefits from the exploration, development and utilization of
these resources to be real, they must yield profits over and above 1) the
capital and operating costs incurred, 2) the resulting damage to the
environment, and 3) the social costs to the people who are immediately
and adversely affected thereby.
Moreover, the State must ensure that the real benefits from the utilization
of these resources are sufficient to offset the corresponding loss of these
resources to future generations. Real benefits are intergenerational
benefits because the motherland's natural resources are the birthright not
only of the present generation of Filipinos but of future generations as
well.48
The requirement of real benefit is applicable even when the exploration,
development and utilization are being undertaken directly by the
Government or with the aid of Filipinos or Filipino corporations. But it takes
on greater significance when a foreign entity is involved. In the latter
instance, the foreign entity would naturally expect to be compensated for
its assistance. In that event, it is inescapable that a foreigner would be
benefiting from an activity (i.e. mining) which also results in numerous,
serious and long term harmful consequences to the environment and to
Philippine society.
Moreover, as recognized by the 1935 Constitutional Convention, foreign
involvement in the exploitation of Philippine natural resources has serious
implications on national security. As recounted by delegate Jose Aruego:
The nationalization of the natural resources was also intended as an
instrument of national defense. The Convention felt that to permit
foreigners to own or control the natural resources would be to
weaken the national defense. It would be making possible the gradual
extension of foreign influence into our politics, thereby increasing
the possibility of foreign control. xxx
Not only these. The nationalization of the natural resources, it was
believed, would prevent making the Philippines a source of
international conflicts with the consequent danger to its internal
security and independence. For unless the natural resources were
nationalized, with the nationals of foreign countries having the opportunity
to own or control them, conflicts of interest among them might arise inviting
danger to the safety and independence of the nation.49 (Emphasis
supplied)
Significantly, and contrary to the posture of the OSG, it is immaterial
whether the foreign involvement takes the form of "active" participation in
the mining concern or "passive" assistance such as a foreign mining loan
or the licensing of mining technology. Whether the foreign involvement is
passive or active, the fact remains that the foreigner will expect to be
compensated and, as a necessary consequence, a fraction of the gains,
rewards and advantages generated by Philippine natural resources will be
diverted to foreign hands even as the long term pernicious "side effects" of
the mining activity will be borne solely by the Filipino people.
Under such circumstances, the Executive, in determining whether or not to
avail of the assistance of a foreign corporation in the large scale
exploration, development and utilization of Philippine natural resources,
must carefully weigh the costs and benefits if it is to faithfully discharge its
Page 64 of 126
fiduciary duty to protect the beneficial interest of the Filipino people in

these resources.
These same considerations likewise explain why the last paragraph of
Section 2 mandates that the President "notify the Congress of every
contract entered into in accordance with this provision, within thirty days
from its execution." The Constitution requires that the Legislative branch,
which is perceived to be more broadly representative of the people and
therefore more immediately sensitive to their concerns, be given a timely
opportunity to scrutinize and evaluate the Executive's decision.
With these concepts in mind, I now turn to what I believe to be the proper
interpretation of "agreements involving either technical or financial
assistance" in paragraph 4 of Section 2, Article XII of the Constitution.
Construction of paragraph 4, Section 2,
Article XII of the Constitution
The suggestion that the avoidance of the term "service contracts" in the
fourth paragraph is to prevent the circumvention, prevalent under the 1973
Constitution, of the 60-40 capital requirement does not persuade, it being
too narrow an interpretation of that provision. If that were the only purpose
in the change of phraseology, this Court reiterates, there would have been
no need to replace the term "service contracts" with "agreements
involving either technical or financial assistance."
The loophole in the 1973 Constitution that sanctioned dummyism is easily
plugged by the provision in the present Constitution that the President,
not Congress or the Batasan Pambansa (under the 1973 Constitution),
may enter into either technical or financial agreements with foreign
corporations. The framers then could have easily employed the more
traditional term "service contracts" in designating the agreements
contemplated, and thus obviated confusion, especially since the term was
employed by the legal system then prevailing50 and had a settled
acceptation.
The other proffered raison d'tre of the fourth paragraph, i.e. to address
the absence of a governing law that led to the abuse of service contracts,
is equally unpersuasive. In truth, there were a host of laws governing
service contracts pertaining to various natural resources, as this Court
noted when it traced the history of Section 2, Article XII in its Decision.51
Respondent WMCP nevertheless correctly states that the fourth paragraph
establishes an exception to the rule limiting the exploration, development
and utilization of the nation's natural resources to Filipinos. As an
exception, however, it is illogical to deduce that the provision should
be interpreted liberally, not restrictively. It bears repeating that the
provision, being an exception, should be strictly construed against foreign
participation.
In any case, the constitutional provision allowing the President to enter into
FTAAs with foreign-owned corporations is an exception to the rule that
participation in the nation's natural resources is reserved exclusively to
Filipinos. Accordingly, such provision must be construed strictly against
their enjoyment by non-Filipinos. As Commissioner Villegas
emphasized, the provision is "very restrictive." Commissioner
Nolledo also remarked that "entering into service contracts is an
exception to the rule on protection of natural resources for the
interest of the nation and, therefore, being an exception, it should be
subject, whenever possible, to stringent rules." Indeed, exceptions
should be strictly but reasonably construed; they extend only so far as their
language fairly warrants and all doubts should be resolved in favor of the
general provision rather than the exception.52 (Emphasis and underscoring
supplied; citations omitted).
That the fourth paragraph employs the word "may" does not make it nonrestrictive. Indeed, "may" does make the provision permissive, but only as
opposed to mandatory,53 and operates to confer discretion upon a party.54
Thus, as used in the fourth paragraph, "may" provides the President with
the option to enter into FTAAs. It is, however, not incumbent upon the
President to do so for, as owner of the natural resources, the "State [itself]
may directly undertake such activities."55 If the President opts to exercise
the prerogative to enter into FTAAs, the agreement must conform to the
restrictions laid down by Section 2, including the scope of the assistance,
which must be limited to financial or technical forms.
"May" in the fourth paragraph, therefore, should be understood in the same
sense as it is used in the first paragraph, that is, that the State "may enter
into agreements with Filipino citizens, or corporations or association at
least sixty per centum of whose capital is owned by such citizens."
The majority, however, opines that the "agreements involving either
technical or financial assistance" referred to in paragraph 4 of Section 2 of
Article XII of the 1987 Constitution are indeed service contracts. In support
of this conclusion, the majority maintains that the use of the phrase
"agreements involving either technical or financial assistance" does not
indicate the intent to exclude other modes of assistance because the use
of the word "involving" signifies the possibility of the inclusion of other
forms of assistance or activities. And it proffers that the word "involving"

has three connotations that can be differentiated as follows: (1) the sense
of concerning, having to do with, or affecting; (2) entailing, requiring,
implying or necessitating; (3) including, containing or comprising. None of
these three connotations, it is contended, convey a sense of exclusivity.
Thus, it concludes that had the framers intended to exclude other forms of
assistance, they would have simply said "agreements for technical or
financial assistance" as opposed to "agreements including technical or
financial assistance."
To interpret the term "involving" in the fourth paragraph to mean
"including," as the majority contends, would run counter to the restrictive
spirit of the provision. Notably, the 1987 Constitution uses "involving" not
"including." As admitted in the majority opinion, the word "involve" may
also mean concerning, having to do with or affecting. Following the
majority opinion's own methodology of substitution, "agreements
involving either technical or financial assistance" means
"agreementsconcerning either technical or financial assistance." And the
word "concerning" according to Webster's Third New International
Dictionary means "regarding", "respecting" or "about." To reiterate, these
terms indicate exclusivity. More tellingly, the 1987 Constitution not only
deleted the term "management" in the 1973 Constitution, but also the
catch-all phrase "or other forms of assistance,"56 thus reinforcing the
exclusivity of "either technical or financial assistance."
That the fourth paragraph does not employ the terms "solely," "only," or
"limited to" to qualify "either technical or financial assistance" does not
detract from the provision's restrictive nature. Moreover, the majority
opinion's illustration conveniently omits "either or." As Senior Associate
Justice Reynato S. Puno pointed out during the oral arguments, the use of
the disjunctive "either or" denotes restriction.57
According to the Penguin Dictionary, the word "either" may be used as (1)
an adjective or (2) a pronoun or (3) a conjunction or (4) an adverb. As an
adjective, the word "either" means (1) any one of two; one or the other; or
(2) one and the other; each. As a pronoun, the word "either" means the
one or the other. As a conjunction, the word "either" is used before
two or more sentence elements of the same class or function joined
usually by "or" to indicate what immediately follows is the first of two
or more alternatives. Lastly, as an adverb, "either" is used for emphasis
after a negative or implied negation (i.e. for that matter or likewise). The
traditional rule holds that "either" should be used only to refer to one of two
items and that "any" is required when more than two items are involved.58
However, modern English usage has relaxed this rule when "either" is
used as a conjunction.59 Thus, the word "either" may indicate the choice
between two or more possibilities.
"Either" in paragraph 4, section 2, Article XII, is clearly used as a
conjunction, joining two (and only two) concepts financial and technical.
The use of the word "either" clearly limits the President to only two
possibilities, financial and technical assistance. Other forms of assistance
are plainly not allowed, since only the words "financial and technical" follow
the word "either."
In accordance with the intent of the provision, "agreements involving
either technical or financial" is deemed restrictive and not just descriptive.
It is a condition, a limitation, not a mere description.
The OSG's suggestion that the President may enter into "any" agreement,
the scope of which may go beyond technical or financial assistance, with a
foreign-owned corporation, does not impress. The first paragraph of
Section 2 limits contracts with Filipino citizens or corporations to coproduction, joint venture or production-sharing agreements. To subscribe
to the OSG's theory would allow foreign-owned corporations participation
in the country's natural resources equal to, perhaps even greater than, that
of Filipino citizens or corporations.
The OSG cites the Separate Opinion of Justice Jose C. Vitug, now retired,
who proposed that, on the premise that the State itself may undertake the
exploration, development and utilization of natural resources, a foreignowned corporation may engage in such activities in behalf of the State:
The Constitution has not prohibited the State from itself exploring,
developing, or utilizing the country's natural resources, and, for this
purpose, it may, I submit, enter into the necessary agreements with
individuals or entities in the pursuit of a feasible operation.
The fundamental law is deemed written in every contract. The FTAA
entered into by the government and WMCP recognizes this vital principle.
Thus, two of the agreement's clauses provide:
"WHEREAS, the 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines
provides in Article XII, Section 2 that all lands of the public domain, waters,
minerals, coal, petroleum, and other natural resources are owned by the
State, and that the exploration, development and utilization of natural
resources shall be under the full control and supervision of the State; and
Page 65 of 126
"WHEREAS, the Constitution further provides that the Government may

enter into agreements with foreign-owned corporations involving either
technical or financial assistance for large scale exploration, development
and utilization of minerals."
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 assailed contract or its provisions must then be read in conformity with
abovementioned constitutional mandate. Hence, Section 10.2(a) of the
FTAA, for instance, which states that "the Contractor shall have the
exclusive right to explore for, exploit, utilize, process, market, export and
dispose of all minerals and products and by-products thereof that may be
derived or produced from the Contract Area and to otherwise conduct
Mining Operations in the Contract Area in accordance with the terms and
conditions hereof," must be taken to mean that the foregoing rights are to
be exercised by WMCP for and in behalf of the State and that WMCP, as
the Contractor, would be bound to carry out the terms and conditions of the
agreement acting for and in behalf of the State. In exchange for the
financial and technical assistance, inclusive of its services, the Contractor
enjoys an exclusivity of the contract and a corresponding compensation
therefor.60 (Underscoring supplied).
I voted in favor of the Jamir proposal because it is not really

exploitation that we granted to the alien corporations but only for
them to render financial or technical assistance. It is not for them to
enjoy our natural resources. Madam President, our natural resources
are depleting; our population is increasing by leaps and bounds. Fifty years
from now, if we will allow these aliens to exploit our natural resources,
there will be no more natural resources for the next generations of
Filipinos. It may last long if we will begin now. Since 1935 the aliens have
been allowed to enjoy to a certain extent the exploitation of our natural
resources, and we became victims of foreign dominance and control. The
aliens are interested in coming to the Philippines because they would like
to enjoy the bounty of nature exclusively intended for the Filipinos by God.
This proposition must be rejected since it sanctions the circumvention, if

not outright violation, of the fourth paragraph by allowing foreign
corporations to render more than technical or financial assistance on the
pretext that it is an agent of the State. Quando aliquid prohibitur ex directo,
prohibitur et per obliquum. What is prohibited directly is prohibited
indirectly.61 Further, the proposition lends itself to mischievous
consequences. If followed to its logical conclusion, nothing would stop the
State from engaging the services of a foreign corporation to undertake in
its behalf the exploration, development and utilization of all other natural
resources, not just "minerals, petroleum and mineral oils," even on a
small scale, not just "large-scale."
The present Constitution restricts foreign involvement to large-scale
activities because the idea is to limit the participation of foreign
corporations only to areas where they are needed.
MS. QUESADA. Going back to Section 3, the section suggests that:
The exploration, development, and utilization of natural resources may
be directly undertaken by the State, or it may enter into co-production, joint
venture or production-sharing agreement with corporations or
associations at least sixty percent of whose voting stock or controlling
interest is owned by such citizens.
Lines 25 to 30 on the other hand, suggest that in the large-scale
exploration, development and utilization of natural resources, the President
with the concurrence of Congress may enter into agreements with foreignowned corporations even for technical or financial assistance.
I wonder if this first part of Section 3 contradicts the second part. I
am raising this point for fear that foreign investors will use their
enormous capital resources to facilitate the actual exploitation or
exploration, development and effective disposition of our natural
resources to the detriment of Filipino investors. I am not saying that
we should not consider borrowing money from foreign sources. What
I refer to is that foreign interest should be allowed to participate only
to the extent that they lend us money and give us technical
assistance with the appropriate government permit. In this way, we
can insure the enjoyment of our natural resources by out people.
MR. VILLEGAS. Actually, the second provision about the President
does not permit foreign investors to participate. It is only technical or
financial assistance they do not own anything but on conditions
that have to be determined by law with the concurrence of Congress. So, it
is very restrictive.
If the Commissioner will remember, this removes the
possibility for service contracts which we said yesterday
were avenues used in the previous regime to go around the
60-40 requirement.62 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
The intent is to allow Filipinos to benefit from Filipino resources.
MR. DAVIDE. May I be allowed to explain the proposal?
MR. MAAMBONG. Subject to the three-minute rule, Madam President.
MR. DAVIDE. It will not take me three minutes.
The Commission had just approved the Preamble. In the Preamble we
clearly sated there that the Filipino people are sovereign and that one of
the objectives for the creation or establishment of a government is to
conserve and develop the national patrimony. The implication is that 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
And so I appeal to all, for the sake of the future generations, that if we
have to pray in the Preamble "to preserve and develop the national
patrimony for the sovereign Filipino people and for the generations to
come," we must at this time decide once and for all that our natural
resources must be reserved only to Filipino citizens.
Thank you.63 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
The intent loses all significance if foreign-owned corporations are likewise
allowed to participate even in small or medium-scale ventures.
Thus, in keeping with the clear intent and rationale of the Constitution,
financial or technical assistance by foreign corporations are allowable only
where there is no Filipino or Filipino-owned corporation (including
corporations at least 60% of the capital of which are owned by Filipinos)
which can provide the same or similar assistance.
To reiterate, the over-arching letter and intent of the Constitution is to
reserve the exploration, development and utilization of natural resources to
Filipinos.
The justification for foreign involvement in the exploration, development
and utilization of natural resources was that Filipino nationals or
corporations may not possess the necessary capital, technical knowledge
or technology to mount a large scale undertaking. In the words of the
"Draft of the 1986 U.P. Law Constitution Project" (U.P. Law Draft) which
was taken into consideration during the deliberation of the CONCOM:64
Under the proposed provision, only technical assistance or financial
assistance agreements may be entered into, and only for large-scale
activities. These are contract forms which recognize and assert our
sovereignty and ownership over natural resources since the foreign
entity is just a pure contractor and not a beneficial owner of our
economic resources. The proposal recognizes the need for capital
and technology to develop our natural resources without sacrificing
our sovereignty and control over such resources65 x x x (Emphasis
and underscoring supplied)
Thus, the contention that Section 2, Article XII allows for any agreement for
assistance by a foreign corporation "so long as such assistance requires
specialized knowledge or skills, and are related to the exploration,
66
development and utilization of mineral resources" is erroneous.
Where a foreign corporation does not offer financial or technological
assistance beyond the capabilities of its Philippine counterparts, an FTAA
with such a corporation would be highly questionable. Similarly, where the
scope of the undertaking does not qualify as "large scale," an FTAA with a
foreign corporation is equally suspect.
"Agreements" in Section 2, Article XII
do not include "service contracts."
This Court's ruling in the Decision under reconsideration that the
agreements involving either technical or financial assistance contemplated
by the 1987 Constitution are different and dissimilar from the service
contracts under the 1973 Constitution must thus be affirmed. That there is
this difference, as noted in the Decision, is gathered from the change in
phraseology.67 There was no need to employ strongly prohibitory
language, like that found in the Bill of Rights.68 For the framers to expressly
prohibit "management and other forms of assistance" would be redundant
inasmuch as the elimination of such phrase serves the same purpose. The
deletion is simply too significant to ignore and speaks just as profoundly
it is an outright rejection.
It bears noting that the fourth paragraph does not employ the same
language adopted in the first paragraph, which specifically denominates
the agreements that the State may enter into with Filipinos or Filipinoowned corporations. The fourth paragraph does not state "The President
may also enter into co-production, joint venture, or production-sharing
Page 66 of 126
agreements with foreign-owned corporations for large-scale exploration,

development, and utilization of minerals, petroleum, and other mineral
oils." On the other hand, the fourth paragraph cannot be construed as a
grant of boundless discretion to the President to enter into any agreement
regardless of the scope of assistance because it would result in a bias
against Filipino citizens and corporations.
On this point, the following observations from the U.P. Law Draft on the
odious and objectionable features of service contracts bear restating:
5. The last paragraph is a modification of the service contract provision
found in Section 9, Article XIV of the 1973 Constitution as amended. This
1973 provision shattered the framework of nationalism in our fundamental
law (see Magallona, "Nationalism and its Subversion in the Constitution").
Through the service contract, the 1973 Constitution had legitimized
that which was prohibited under the 1935 constitutionthe
exploitation of the country's natural resources by foreign nationals.
Through the service contract, acts prohibited by the Anti-Dummy Law were
recognized as legitimate arrangements. Service contracts lodge
exclusive management and control of the enterprise to the service
contractor, not unlike the old concession regime where the
concessionaire had complete control over the country's natural
resources, having been given exclusive and plenary rights to exploit
a particular resource and, in effect, having been assured of
ownership of that resource at the point of extraction (see Agabin,
"Service Contracts: Old Wine in New Bottles"). Service contracts, hence,
are antithetical to the principle of sovereignty over our natural resources,
as well as the constitutional provision on nationalization or Filipinization of
the exploitation of our natural resources.69 (Emphasis supplied)
Furthermore, Professor Pacifico A. Agabin, a member of the working group
of the U.P. Law Constitution Project and now counsel for intervenor PCM,
stated in his position paper:
Recognizing the service contract for what it is, we have to expunge it from
the Constitution and reaffirm ownership over our natural resources. That is
the only way we can exercise effective control over our natural
resources.
This should not mean complete isolation of the country's natural resources
from foreign investment. Other contract forms which are less derogatory
to our sovereignty and control over natural resources like technical
assistance agreements, financial assistance [agreements], coproduction agreements, joint ventures, production-sharing [agreements]
could still be utilized and adopted without violating constitutional
provisions. In other words, we can adopt contract forms which recognize
and assert our sovereignty and ownership over natural resources, and
where the entity is just a pure contractor instead of the beneficial owner of
our economic resources.70 (Emphasis & underscoring supplied),
indicating that the proposed financial or technical assistance agreements
are contract forms different from the 1973 Constitution service contracts.
Thus the phrase "agreements with foreign-owned corporations involving
either technical or financial assistance" in Section 2, Article XII of the
Constitution must be interpreted as restricting foreign involvement in the
exploration, development and utilization of natural resources to large
scale undertakings requiring foreign financial or technical assistance and
not, as alleged by respondents, inclusive of any possible agreement under
the sun.
The majority however argues that the deletion or omission from the 1987
Constitution of the term "service contracts" found in the 1973 Constitution
does not sufficiently prove the drafters' intent to exclude foreigners from
management since such intent cannot be definitively and conclusively
established. This argument overlooks three basic principles of statutory
construction.
First, casus omisus pro omisso habendus est.71 As recently as 2001 in
Commission on Audit of the Province of Cebu v. Province of Cebu,72 this
Court held that a person, object or thing omitted from an enumeration must
be held to have been omitted intentionally.73 That there is a difference
between technical or financial assistance contemplated by the 1987
Constitution and the service contracts under the 1973 Constitution is
gathered from the omission of the phrase "management or other forms of
assistance."
As earlier noted, the phrase "service contracts" has been deleted in the
1987 Constitution's Article on National Economy and Patrimony. If the
CONCOM intended to retain the concept of service contracts under the
1973 Constitution, it would have simply adopted the old terminology
("service contracts") instead of employing new and unfamiliar terms
("agreementsinvolving either technical or financial assistance.") Such a
difference between the language of a provision in a revised
constitution and that of a similar provision in the preceding
constitution is viewed as indicative of a difference in purpose. If, as
respondents suggest, the concept of "technical or financial assistance"
agreements is identical to that of "service contracts," the CONCOM would
not have bothered to fit the same dog with a new collar. To uphold
respondents' theory would reduce the first to a mere euphemism for the
second render the change in phraseology meaningless.74 (Emphasis and
underscoring supplied; citation omitted)
Second, expressio unius est exclusion alterius.75 The express mention of
one person, thing, act, or consequence excludes all others.76
Third and lastly, expressium facit cessare tacitum.77 What is expressed
puts an end to that which is implied.78 Since the constitutional provision, by
its terms, is expressly limited to financial or technical agreements, it may
not, by interpretation or construction, be extended to other forms of
assistance.
These three principles of statutory construction, derived from the wellsettled principle of verba legis, proceed from the premise that the
Constitutional Commission would not have made specific enumerations in
the provision if it had the intention not to restrict its meaning and confine its
terms to those expressly mentioned. And this Court may not, in the guise
of interpretation, enlarge the scope of a constitutional provision and
include therein situations not provided nor intended by the framers. To do
so would be to do violence to the very language of the Constitution, the
same Constitution which this Court has sworn to uphold.
The majority counters, however, that service contracts were not deconstitutionalized since the deliberations of the members of the
Constitutional Commission conclusively show that they discussed
agreements involving either technical or financial assistance in the same
breath as service contracts and used the terms interchangeably. This
argument merely echoes that of private respondent WMCP which had
already been addressed in this Court's Decision of January 27, 2004, (the
Decision) viz:
While certain commissioners may have mentioned the term "service
contracts" during the CONCOM deliberations, they may not have been
necessarily referring to the concept of service contracts under the 1973
Constitution. As noted earlier "service contracts" is a term that
assumes different meanings to different people. The commissioners
may have been using the term loosely, and not in its technical and
legal sense, to refer, in general, to agreements concerning natural
resources entered into by the Government with foreign corporations.
These loose statements do not necessarily translate to the adoption of the
1973 Constitution provision allowing service contracts.
It is true that, as shown in the earlier quoted portions of the proceedings in
[the] CONCOM, in response to Sr. Tan's question, Commissioner Villegas
commented that, other than congressional notification, the only difference
between "future" and "past" "service contracts" is the requirement of a
79
general law as there were no laws previously authorizing the same.
However, such remark is far outweighed by his more categorical
statement in his exchange with Commissioner Quesada that the draft
article "does not permit foreign investors to participate" in the
nation's natural resources which was exactly what service
contracts did except to provide "technical or financial assistance."
In the case of the other commissioners, Commissioner Nolledo himself
clarified in his work that the present charter prohibits service contracts.
Commissioner Gascon was not totally averse to foreign participation, but
favored stricter restrictions in the form of majority congressional
concurrence. On the other hand, Commissioners Garcia and Tadeo may
have veered to the extreme side of the spectrum and their objections may
be interpreted as votes against any foreign participation in our natural
resources whatsoever.80 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied; citations
omitted)
In fact, the opinion of Commissioner Nolledo in his textbook which is cited
in this Court's January 27, 2004 Decision should leave no doubt as to the
intention of the framers to eliminate service contracts altogether.
Are service contracts allowed under the new Constitution? No. Under the
new Constitution, foreign investors (fully alien-owned) can NOT participate
in Filipino enterprises except to provide: (1) Technical Assistance for highly
technical enterprises; and (2) Financial Assistance for large-scale
enterprises.
The intention of this provision, as well as other provisions on foreign
investments, is to prevent the practice (prevalent in the Marcos
government) of skirting the 60/40 equation using the cover of service
contracts.81
Next, the majority opinion asserts that if the framers had meant to ban
service contracts altogether, they would have provided for the termination
or pre-termination of the existing service contracts.
There was no need for a constitutional provision to govern the termination
or pre-termination of existing service contracts since the intention of the
framers was to apply the rule banning service contracts prospectively.
Page 67 of 126
MR. DAVIDE. Under the proposal, I notice that except for the lands of the
public domain, all other natural resources cannot be alienated and in
respect to lands of the public domain, private corporations with the
required ownership by Filipino citizens can only lease the same.
Necessarily, insofar as other natural resources are concerned, it would
only be the State which can exploit, develop, explore and utilize the same.
However, the State may enter into a joint venture, coproduction (sic) or
production-sharing. Is that not correct?
MR. VILLEGAS. Yes.
MR. DAVIDE. Consequently, henceforth upon the approval of this
Constitution, no timber or forest concessions, permits or authorization can
be exclusively granted to any citizen of the Philippines nor to any
corporation qualified to acquire lands of the public domain?
MR. VILLEGAS. Would Commissioner Monsod like to comment on that? I
think his answer is "yes."
MR. DAVIDE. So, what will happen now to licenses or concessions earlier
granted by the Philippine government to private corporations or to Filipino
citizens? Would they be deemed repealed?
MR. VILLEGAS. This is not applied retroactively. They will be respe
ted.
MR. D VIDE. In effect, they will be deemed repealed?
MR. VILLEGAS. No.82 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
Besides, a service contract is only a license or privilege, not a contract or
property right which merits protection by the due process clause of the
Constitution. Thus in the landmark case of Oposa v. Factoran, Jr,83 this
Court held:
x x x Needless to say, all licenses may thus be revoked or rescinded
by executive action. It is not a contract, property or a property right
protected by the due process clause of the Constitution. In Tan vs.
Director of Forestry, this Court held:
"x x x A timber license is an instrument by which the State regulates the
utilization and disposition of forest resources to the end that public welfare
is promoted. A timber license is not a contract within the purview of the due
process clause; it is only a license or privilege, which can be validly
withdrawn whenever dictated by public interest or pu lic welfare as in
this case.
'A license is merely a permit or privilege to do what otherwise would be
unlawful, and is not a contract between the authority, federal, state, or
municipal, granting it and the person to whom it is granted; neither is it
property or a property right, nor does it create a vested right; nor is it
taxation' Thus, this Court held that the granting of license does not
create irrevocable rights, neither is it property or property rights."
We reiterated this pronouncement in Felipe Ysmael, Jr. & Co, Inc. vs.
Deputy Executive Secretary:
"x x x Timber licenses, permits and license agreements are the principal
instruments by which the State regulates the utilization and disposition of
forest resources to the end that public welfare is promoted. And it can
hardly be gainsaid that they merely evidence a privilege granted by the
State to qualified entities, and do not vest in the latter a permanent or
irrevocable right to the particular concession area and the forest products
therein. They may be validly amended, modified, replaced or
rescinded by the Chief Executive when national interests so require.
Thus, they are not deemed contracts within the purview of the due
process clause."
Since timber licenses are not contracts, the non-impairment clause which
reads:
"SEC 10. No law impairing, the obligation of contracts shall be passed."
cannot be invoked.
In the second place, even if it is to be assumed that the same are
contracts, the instant case does not involve a law or even an executive
issuance declaring the cancellation or modification of existing timber
licenses. Hence, the non-impairment clause cannot as yet be invoked.
Nevertheless, granting further that a law has actually been passed
mandating cancellations or modifications, the same cannot still be
stigmatized as a violation of the non-impairment clause. This is because by
its very nature and purpose, such a law could have only been passed in
the exercise of the police power of the state for the purpose of advancing
the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology, promoting their
health and enhancing the general welfare. In Abe vs. Foster Wheeler
Corp., this Court stated:
"The freedom of contract, under our system of government, is not meant to
be absolute. The same is understood to be subject to reasonable
legislative regulation aimed at the promotion of public health, moral, safety
and welfare. In other words, the constitutional guaranty of nonimpairment of obligations of contract is limited by the exercise of the
police power of the State, in the interest of public health, safety,
moral and general welfare."
The reason for this is emphatically set forth in Nebia vs. New York quoted
in Philippine American Life Insurance Co. vs. Auditor General, to wit:
"Under our form of government the use of property and the making of
contracts are normally matters of private and not of public concern. The
general rule is that both shall be free of governmental interference. But
neither property rights nor contract rights are absolute; for government
cannot exist if the citizen may at will use his property to the detriment of his
fellows, or exercise his freedom of contract to work them harm. Equally
fundamental with the private right is that of the public to regulate it in the
common interest."
In short, the non-impairment clause must yield to the police power of
the state.84 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied; citations omitted)
The majority however argues that Oposa is not applicable since the
investment in a logging concession is not as substantial an investment as
that of a large scale mining contractor. Such a contention is patently
absurd. Taken to its logical conclusion, the majority would have this Court
exempt firms in highly capital intensive industries from the exercise of
police power simply to protect their investment. That would mean that the
legislature would, for example, be powerless to revoke or amend
legislative franchises of public utilities, such as power and
telecommunications firms, which no doubt require huge sums of capital.
The majority opinion then proffers that the framers of the Constitution were
pragmatic enough to know that foreign entities would not enter into such
agreements without requiring arrangements for the protection of their
investments, gains, and benefits or other forms of conditionalities. It goes
on to argue that "by specifying such 'agreements involving assistance,' the
framers of the Constitution necessarily gave implied assent to everything
that these agreements necessarily entailed; or that could reasonably be
deemed necessary to make them tenable and effective, including
management authority with respect to the day-to-day operations of the
enterprise and measures for the protection of the interests of the foreign
corporation."
The deliberations of the Constitutional Commission, however, do not
support the immediately foregoing contentions.
MR. TINGSON. Within the purview of what the Gentleman is saying, would
he welcome friendly foreigners to lend us their technical expertise in
helping develop our country?
MR. GARCIA. Part 2 of this proposal, Filipino control of the economy, in
fact, says that the entry of foreign capital, technology and business
enterprises into the national economy shall be effectively regulated to
ensure the protection of the interest of our people.
In other words, we welcome them but on our own terms. This is very
similar to our position on loans. We welcome loans as long as they
are paid on our own terms, on our ability to pay, not on their terms.
For example, the case of Peru is instructive. They decided first to develop
and grow, and were willing to pay only 10 percent of their foreign exchange
earnings. That, I think, is a very commendable position given the economic
situation of a country such as Peru. The Philippines is a similar case,
especially when we realize that the foreign debt was made by a
government that was bankrupt in its desire to serve the people.
MR. MONSOD. Mr. Vice-President, I think we have to make a distinction
that it is not really realistic to say that we will borrow on our own terms.
Maybe we can say that we inherited unjust loans, and we would like to
repay these on terms that are not prejudicial to our own growth. But the
general statement that we should only borrow on our own terms is a bit
unrealistic.
MR. GARCIA. Excuse me. The point I am trying to make is that we do
not have to borrow. If we have to borrow, it must be on our terms. In
other words, banks do not lend out of the goodness of their hearts.
Banks lend to make a profit.
MR. TINGSON. Mr. Vice-President, I think the trouble in our country is that
we have forgotten the scriptural injunction that the borrower
becomes a slave to the lender. That is the trouble with our country;
we have borrowed and borrowed but we forget that we become
slaves to those who lend us.85 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
Page 68 of 126
By public respondent's information, "[t]he potential mining wealth in the

Philippines is estimated at $840 billion or P47 trillion or 10 times our
annual GDP, and 15 times our total foreign debt of $56 billion. Globally, the
Philippines ranks third in gold, fourth in copper, fifth in nickel and sixth in
chromite."86 With such high concentration of valuable minerals coupled
with the Filipino people's willingness to protect and preserve ownership of
their natural resources at the expense of retarding or postponing the
exploration, development, and utilization of these resources, the
Philippines clearly has the superior bargaining position and should be able
to dictate its terms. No foreign entity should be able to bully the Philippines
and intimidate the Government into conceding to certain conditions
incompatible with the Constitution.
Extent of foreign corporation's
participation in the management of an FTAA
Foreign-owned corporations, however, are not precluded from a limited
participation in the management of the exploration, development and
utilization of natural resources.
Some degree of participation by the contractor in management, to assure
the proper application of its investment and/or to facilitate the technical
assistance and transfer of technology may be unavoidable and not
necessarily undesirable. Thus, there is merit in respondent WMCP's
contention, to which even petitioners conceded during the oral arguments,
that a foreign-owned corporation is not prevented from having limited
participation in the management assistance or participation so long as it is
incidental to the financial or technical assistance being rendered:
JUSTICE PANGANIBAN:
Alright. Going back to verba legis, you say that the
FTAA's are limited to financial or technical assistance
only.
ATTY. LEONEN:
Either financial or technical assistance, yes your
Honor.
ATTY. LEONEN:
Full management, your Honor.
JUSTICE PANGANIBAN:
Full management is excluded.
ATTY. LEONEN:
Yes your Honor.
JUSTICE PANGANIBAN:
But incidental management to protect the financial
or technical assistance should be allowed.
ATTY. LEONEN:
If a mining company would get the technical
expertise to bring in drilling rig your Honor, and
that is the sole contract, then we cannot imagine a
situation were it is not the technicians that we will
do the actual drilling your Honor, but for the entire
contract area your Honor as it is now in the FTAA
then I think that would be different.
JUSTICE PANGANIBAN:
Yes I agree. In other words, the words financial or
technical may include parts of management, isn't
it? Its reasonable in other words if I may re state it,
it's reasonable to expect that entities, foreign
entities who don't know anything about this country,
well that is an exaggeration, who know not too much
about this country, would not just extend money,
period. They would want to have a say a little bit of
say management and sometimes even in auditing
of the company, isn't it reasonable to expect.
ATTY. LEONEN:
I would qualify my answer your Honor with
management of what your Honor. It means if it's for
development and utilization of the minerals.
JUSTICE PANGANIBAN:
No.
ATTY. LEONEN:
Yes your Honor, but if it's management of subcontracted activity like a symposium then that would
be all right your Honor. Mining companies do
symposiums also.
JUSTICE PANGANIBAN:
Management to protect their own investments,
whether it be technical or financial.
ATTY. LEONEN:
Their investment, your Honor, which cannot be the
entire mining operation from my perspective, your
Honor.
JUSTICE PANGANIBAN:
Yes I agree because there is the Constitutional
provision of control and supervision, full control
and supervision to the State.
ATTY. LEONEN:
And Filipino corporations your Honor.
JUSTICE PANGANIBAN:
Or even Filipino corporation, the full control and
supervision is still with the State.
ATTY. LEONEN:
Yes your Honor.
JUSTICE PANGANIBAN:
Even with Filipino citizens being the contractors, full
control and supervision is still with the State.
ATTY. LEONEN:
Yes, your Honor.
JUSTICE PANGANIBAN:
In all these contract full control and supervision is with
the State.
ATTY. LEONEN:
Yes your Honor and we can only hope that the State is
responsive to the people we represent.
xxx
JUSTICE PANGANIBAN:
Yes, yes. Can it also not be said reading that the
Constitution that the safeguards on contracts with
foreigners was left by the Constitutional Commission
or by Constitution itself to Congress to craft out.
ATTY. LEONEN:
I can accept your Honor that there was a province of
power that was given to Congress, but it was
delimited by the fact, that they removed the word
management and other arrangement and put the
words either financial and technical.
JUSTICE PANGANIBAN:
Yes but you just admitted earlier that these two
words would also include some form of
management or other things to protect the
investment or the technology being put by the
foreign company.
ATTY. LEONEN:
Yes your Honor for so long as it's not the entire.
JUSTICE PANGANIBAN:
Yes, yes provided the State does not lose control
and supervision, isn't it?
ATTY. LEONEN:
Yes your Honor.87 (Emphasis and underscoring
supplied)
Thus, the degree of the foreign corporation's participation in the
management of the mining concern is co-extensive with and strictly limited
to the degree of financial or technical assistance extended. The scope of
the assistance defines the limits of the participation in management.
However, to whatever extent the foreign corporation's incidental
participation in the management of the mining concern may be, full
control and supervision, sufficient to protect the interest of the
Filipino people, over all aspects of mining operations must be
retained by the Government. While this does not necessarily mean that
the Government must assume the role of a back seat driver, actively
second guessing every decision made by the foreign corporation, it does
mean that sufficient safeguards must be incorporated into the FTAA to
insure that the people's beneficial interest in their natural resources are
protected at all times.
Moreover, the foreign contractor's limited participation in management, as
the Court held in its Decision, should not effectively grant foreignowned corporations beneficial ownership over the natural resources.
The opinion, submitted by the OSG, of Bernardo M. Villegas, who was a
Member of the Constitutional Commission and Chair of its Committee on
National Economy and Patrimony, is not inconsistent with the foregoing
conclusion. Commissioner Villegas opined:
The phrase "service contracts" contained in the 1973 Constitution was
deleted in the 1987 Constitution because there was the general perception
among the Concom members that it was used during the Marcos regime
as an instrument to circumvent the 60-40 limit in favor of Filipino
ownership. There was also the impression that the inclusion of the word
"management" in the description of the service contract concept in the
1973 Constitution was tantamount to ownership by the foreign partner.
The majority of the Concom members, however, recognized the vital need
of the Philippine economy for foreign capital and technology in the
exploitation of natural resources to benefit Filipinos, especially the poor in
the countryside where the mining sites are located. For this reason, the
majority voted for "agreements involving financial or technical assistance"
or FTAA.
I maintain that the majority who voted Yes to this FTAA provision realized
that an FTAA involved more than borrowing money and/or buying
technology from foreigners. If an FTAA involved only a loan and/or
purchase of technology, there would not have been a need for a
constitutional provision because existing laws in the Philippines more than
adequately regulate these transactions.
It can be deducted from the various comments of both those who voted
Yes and No to the FTAA provision that an FTAA also involves the
participation in management of the foreign partner. What was then
assumed in 1986 is now even clearer in the way business organizations
Page 69 of 126
have evolved in the last decade or so under the modern concept of good
governance. There are numerous stakeholders in a business other than
the stockholders or equity owners who participate actively in the
management of a business enterprise. Not only do creditors and suppliers
demand representation in boards of directors. There are also other socalled independent directors who actively participate in management.
In summary, the word "management" was deleted from the
description of the FTAA because some CONCOM delegates identified
management with beneficial ownership. In order not to prolong the
debate, those in favor of the FTAA provision agreed not to include the
word management. But from what has been discussed above, it was clear
in the minds of those who voted YES that the FTAA included more than
just a loan and/or purchase of technology from foreigners but
necessarily allowed the active participation of the foreign partners in
the management of the enterprise engaged in the exploitation of
natural resources.88 (Emphasis supplied).
Under no circumstances should the execution of an FTAA be tantamount
to the grant of a roving commission whereby a foreign contractor is given
blanket and unfettered discretion to do whatever it deems necessary
denude watersheds, divert sources of water, drive communities from their
homes in pursuit of its pecuniary goals.
Nor should the scope of an FTAA be broadened to include "managerial
89
assistance." As discussed extensively in the Decision, "managerial
assistance" a euphemism by which full control and beneficial ownership
of natural resources were vested in foreigners is part and parcel of the
martial law era "service contracts" and the old "concession regime" which
the 1987 Constitution has consigned to the dust bin of history.
The elimination of the phrase "service contracts" effectuates another
purpose. Intervenor PCM agrees that the Constitution tries to veer away
from the old concession system,90 which vested foreign-owned
corporations control and beneficial ownership over Philippine natural
resources. Hence, the 1987 Constitution also deleted the provision in the
1935 and 1973 Constitutions authorizing the State to grant licenses,
concessions, or leases for the exploration, exploitation, development, or
utilization of natural resources.91
Prof. Agabin had no flattering words for the concession system, which he
described in his position paper as follows:
Under the concession system, the concessionaire makes a direct equity
investment for the purpose of exploiting a particular natural resource within
a given area. Thus, the concession amounts to a complete control by
the concessionaire over the country's natural resource, for it is given
exclusive and plenary rights to exploit a particular resource and is in
effect assured ownership of that resource at the point of extraction.
In consideration for the right to exploit a natural resource, the
concessionaire either pays rent or royalty which is a fixed percentage of
the gross proceeds. But looking beyond the legal significance of the
concession regime, we can see that there are functional implications
which give the concessionaire great economic power arising from its
exclusive equity holding. This includes, first, appropriation of the
returns of the undertaking, subject to a modest royalty; second,
exclusive management of the project; third, control of production of
the natural resource, such as volume of production, expansion,
research and development; and fourth, exclusive responsibility for
downstream operations, like processing, marketing, and distribution.
In short, even if nominally, the state is the sovereign and owner of the
natural resource being exploited, it has been shorn of all elements of
control over such natural resource because of the exclusive nature of
the contractual regime of the concession. The concession system,
investing as it does ownership of natural resources, constitutes a
consistent inconsistency with the principle embodied in our Constitution
that natural resources belong to the State and shall not be alienated, not to
mention the fact that the concession was the bedrock of the colonial
system in the exploitation of natural resources.92 (Underscoring in the
original)
Vestiges of the concession system endured in the service contract regime,
including the vesting on the contractor of the management of the
enterprise, as well as the control of production and other matters, such as
expansion and development. 93 Also, while title to the resource discovered
was nominally in the name of the government, the contractor had almost
unfettered control over its disposition and sale.94
The salutary intent of the 1987 Constitution notwithstanding, these
stubborn features of the concession system persist in the Mining Act of
1995. The statute allows a foreign-owned corporation to carry out mining
operations,95 which includes the conduct of exploration,96 development97
98
99
and utilization of the resources. The same law grants foreign
contractors auxiliary mining rights, i.e., timber rights,100 water rights,101 the
right to possess explosives,102 easement rights,103 and entry into private
lands and concession areas.104 These are the very same rights granted
under the old concession and service contract systems.
The majority opinion proposes two alternative standards of Government

control over FTAA operations. Thus, in the opening paragraphs it states:
Full control is not anathema to day-to-day management by the contractor,
provided that the State retains the power to direct overall strategy;
and to set aside, reverse, or modify plans and actions of the
contractor. The idea of full control is similar to that which is
exercised by the board of directors of a private corporation x x x
(Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
However, the majority opinion subsequently substantially reduces the
scope of its definition of "control" in this wise:
The concept of control adopted in Section 2 of Article XII must be taken to
mean less than dictatorial, all-encompassing control; but nevertheless
sufficient to give the State the power to direct, restrain, regulate and
govern the affairs of the extractive enterprises. Control by the State
may be on a macro level, through the establishment of policies,
guidelines, regulations, industry standards and similar measures that
would enable the government to control the conduct of affairs in
various enterprises and restrain activities deemed not desirable or
beneficial. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied; citations omitted; italics
in the original)
This second definition is apparently analogous to regulatory control which
the Government is automatically presumed to exercise over all business
activities by virtue of the Police Power. This definition of the "full control
and supervision" mandated by Section 2, Article XII of the Constitution
strikes a discordant and unconvincing chord as it gives no effect to the
mandated "full" character of the State's control but merely places it at par
with any other business activity or industry regulated by the Government.
But even under this second and more limited concept of regulatory control,
the provisions of the Mining Act pertaining to FTAAs do not pass the test of
constitutionality.
To be sure, the majority opinion cites a litany of documents, plans, reports
and records which the foreign FTAA contractor is obliged to submit or
make available under the Mining Act and DAO 96-40. However, the mere
fact that the Act requires the submission of work programs and minimum
expenditure commitments105 does not provide adequate protection. These
were also required under the old concession106 and service contract107
systems, but did not serve to place full control and supervision of the
country's natural resources in the hands of the Government.
Conspicuously absent from the Mining Act are effective means by which
the Government can protect the beneficial interest of the Filipino people in
the exploration, development and utilization of their resources. It appears
from the provisions of the Mining Act that the Government, once it has
determined that a foreign corporation is eligible for an FTAA and enters
into such an agreement, has very little say in the corporation's actual
operations.
Thus, when pressed to identify the mechanism by which the Government
can administratively compel compliance with the foregoing requirements
as well as the other terms and conditions of the Mining Act, DAO 96-40
and DAO 99-56, the majority can only point to the cancellation of the
agreement(s) and/or the incentives concerned under Section 95 to 99 of
the Mining Act:108
CHAPTER XVII
Ground for Cancellation, Revocation, and Termination
SECTION 95. Late or Non-filing of Requirements. Failure of the
permittee or contractor to comply with any of the requirements provided in
this Act or in its implementing rules and regulations, without a valid reason,
shall be sufficient ground for the suspension of any permit or agreement
provided under this Act.
SECTION 96. Violation of the Terms and Conditions of Permit or
Agreements. Violation of the terms and conditions of the permits or
agreements shall be a sufficient ground for cancellation of the same.
SECTION 97. Non-payment of Taxes and Fees. Failure to pay taxes
and fees due the Government for two (2) consecutive years shall cause
the cancellation of the exploration permit, mineral agreement, financial or
technical assistance agreement and other agreements and the re-opening
of the area subject thereof to new applicants.
SECTION 98. Suspension or Cancellation of Tax Incentives and Credits.
Failure to abide by the terms and conditions of tax incentives and
credits shall cause the suspension or cancellation of said incentives and
credits.
Page 70 of 126
SECTION 99. Falsehood or Omission of Facts in the Statement All

statements made in the exploration permit, mining agreement and financial
or technical assistance agreement shall be considered as conditions and
essential parts thereof and any falsehood in said statements or omission of
facts therein which may alter, change or affect substantially the facts set
forth in said statements may cause the revocation and termination of the
exploration permit, mining agreement and financial or technical assistance
agreement.
An examination of the foregoing fails to impress. For instance, how does
cancellation of the FTAA under Section 97 for nonpayment of taxes and
fees (comprising the "basic share" of the government) for two consecutive
years facilitate the collection of the unpaid taxes and fees? How does it
preserve and protect the beneficial interest of the Filipino people? For that
matter, how does the DENR administratively compel compliance with the
anti-pollution and other requirements?109 If minerals are found to have
been sold overseas at less than the most advantageous market prices,
how does the DENR obtain satisfaction from the offending foreign FTAA
contractor for the difference?
In sum, the enforcement provisions of the Mining Act and its Implementing
Rules are scarcely effective, and, worse, perceptibly less than the
analogous provisions of other Government Regulatory Agencies.
For instance, the Bangko Sentral Ng Pilipinas, the Central Monetary
Authority mandated by the Constitution to exercise supervision (but not full
control and supervision) over banks,110 is empowered to (1) appoint a
conservator with such powers as shall be deemed necessary to take
charge of the assets, liabilities and management of a bank or quasibank;111 (2) under certain well defined conditions, summarily and without
need for prior hearing forbid a bank from doing business in the Philippines
and appoint the Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation as receiver; 112
and (3) impose a number of administrative sanctions such as (a) fines not
to exceed P30,000 per day for each violation, (b) suspension of a bank's
rediscounting privileges, (c) suspension of lending or foreign exchange
operations or authority to accept new deposits or make new investments,
(d) suspension of interbank clearing privileges, and (e) revocation of quasi113
banking license.
Similarly, to give effect to the Constitutional mandate to afford full
protection to labor,114 the Labor Code115 grants the Secretary of Labor the
power to (1) issue compliance orders to give effect to the labor standards
provisions of the Code;116 and (2) enjoin an intended or impending strike or
lockout by assuming jurisdiction over a labor dispute in an industry
determined to be indispensable to the national interest.117
Under the Tax Code, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue has the power
to (1) temporarily suspend the business operations of a taxpayer found to
have committed certain specified violations;118 (2) order the constructive
119
distraint of the property of a taxpayer; and (3) impose the summary
remedies of distraint of personal property and or levy on real property for
nonpayment of taxes.120
In comparison, the Mining Act and its Implementing Rules conspicuously
fail to provide the DENR with anything remotely analogous to the foregoing
regulatory and enforcement powers of other government agencies.
In fine, the provisions of the Mining Act and its Implementing Rules
give scarcely more than lip service to the constitutional mandate for
the State to exercise full control and supervision over the
exploration, development and utilization of Philippine Natural
Resources. Evaluated as a whole and in comparison with other
government agencies, the provisions of the Mining Act and its
Implementing Rules fail to meet even the reduced standard of
effective regulatory control over mining operations. In effect, they
abdicate control over mining operations in favor of the foreign FTAA
contractor. For this reason, the provisions of the Mining Act, insofar
as they pertain to FTAA contracts, must be declared unconstitutional
and void.
The majority opinion vigorously asserts that it is the Chief Executive who
exercises the power of control on behalf of the State.
This only begs the question. How does President effectively enforce the
terms and conditions of an FTAA? What specific powers are subsumed
within the constitutionally mandated "power of control?" On these particular
matters the majority opinion, like the Mining Act, is silent.
Provisions of the Mining Act pertaining to FTAAs
void for conveying beneficial ownership of
Philippine mineral resources to foreign contractors
The Government share in financial or technical assistance agreement

shall consist of, among other things, the contractor's corporate
income tax, excise tax, special allowance, withholding tax due from
the contractor's foreign stockholders arising from dividend or interest
payments to the said foreign stockholder in case of a foreign national and
all such other taxes, duties and fees as provided for under existing
laws.
The collection of Government share in financial or technical assistance
agreement shall commence after the financial or technical assistance
agreement contractor has fully recovered its pre-operating expenses,
exploration, and development expenditures, inclusive. (Emphasis
supplied)
Under the foregoing provisions, the Government does not receive a
share in the proceeds of the mining operation. All it receives are taxes
and fees from the foreign corporation, just as in the old concession121 and
service contract122 regimes. The collection of taxes and fees cannot be
considered a return on the resources mined corresponding to beneficial
ownership of the Filipino people. Taxes are collected under the State's
power to generate funds to finance the needs of the citizenry and to
advance the common weal.123 They are not a return on investment or
property. Similarly, fees are imposed under the police power primarily for
purposes of regulation.124 Again, they do not correspond to a return on
investment or property.
Even more galling is the stipulation in the above-quoted third paragraph
that the Government's share (composed only of taxes and fees) shall not
be collected until after the foreign corporation has "fully recovered its preoperating expenses, exploration, and development expenditures,
inclusive." In one breath this provision virtually guarantees the foreigner a
return on his investment while simultaneously leaving the Government's
(and People's) share to chance.
It is, therefore, clearly evident that the foregoing provisions of the Mining
Act effectively transfer the beneficial ownership over the resources
covered by the agreement to a foreigner, in contravention of the letter and
spirit of the Constitution.
Consequently, the assailed Decision inescapably concluded that:
The underlying assumption in all these provisions is that the
foreign contractor manages the mineral resources, just like the
foreign contractor in a service contract.125
The Mining Act gives the foreign-owned corporation virtually
complete control, not mere "incidental" participation in management,
over the entire operations.
The law is thus at its core a retention of the concession system. It
still grants beneficial ownership of the natural resources to the
foreign contractor and does little to affirm the State's ownership over
them, and its supervision and control over their exploration,
development and utilization.
While agreeing that the Constitution vests the beneficial ownership of
Philippine minerals with the Filipino people, entitling them to gains,
rewards and advantages generated by these minerals, the majority opinion
nevertheless maintains that the Mining Act, as implemented by DENR
126
Administrative Order 99-56 (DAO 99-56), is constitutional as, so it
claims, it does not "convey beneficial ownership of any mineral resource or
product to any foreign FTAA contractor." The majority opinion adds that
the State's share, as expounded by DAO 99-56, amounts to "real
contributions to the economic growth and general welfare of the country,"
at the same time allowing the contractor to recover "a reasonable return on
its investments in the project."
Under DAO 99-56, the "government's share" in an FTAA is divided into (1)
a "basic government share" composed of a number of taxes and fees127
and (2) an "additional government share"128 computed according to one of
three possible methods (a) a 50-50 sharing in the cumulative present
value of cash flows,129 (b) a profit related additional government share130 or
(c) an additional share based on the cumulative net mining revenue131 at
the option of the contractor.
Thus, the majority opinion claims that the total government share, equal to
the sum of the "basic government share" and the "additional government
share," will achieve "a fifty-fifty sharing between the government and the
contractor of net benefits from mining."
This claim is misleading and meaningless for two reasons:
An examination of the Mining Act reveals that the law grants the lion's
share of the proceeds of the mining operation to the foreign corporation.
Thus the second and third paragraphs of Section 81 of the law provide:
SECTION 81. Government Share in Other Mineral Agreements. x x x
First, as priorly discussed, the taxes and fees which make up the
government's "basic share" cannot be considered a return on the
resources mined corresponding to the beneficial ownership of the
Filipino people. Again, they do not correspond to a return on investment
or property.
Page 71 of 126
Second, and more importantly, the provisions of the Mining Act

effectively allow the foreign contractor to circumvent all the
provisions of DAO 99-56, including its intended "50-50 sharing" of the
net benefits from mining, and reduce government's total share to as
low as TWO percent (2%) of the value of the minerals mined.
The foreign contractor can do this because Section 39 of the Mining Act
allows it to convert its FTAA into a Mineral Production-Sharing Agreement
(MPSA) by the simple expedient of reducing its equity in the corporation
undertaking the FTAA to 40%:
SECTION 39. Option to Convert into a Mineral Agreement. The
contractor has the option to convert the financial or technical
assistance agreement to a mineral agreement at any time during the
term of the agreement, if the economic viability of the contract area is
found to be inadequate to justify large-scale mining operations, after
proper notice to the Secretary as provided for under the implementing
rules and regulations: Provided, That the mineral agreement shall only be
In the case of a foreign contractor, it shall reduce its equity to forty
percent (40%) in the corporation, partnership, association, or
cooperative. Upon compliance with this requirement by the contractor, the
Secretary shall approve the conversion and execute the mineral
production-sharing agreement. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
And under Section 80 of the Mining Act, in connection with Section 151(a)
of the National Internal Revenue Code132 (Tax Code), the TOTAL
GOVERNMENT SHARE in an MPSA is ONLY TWO PERCENT (2%) of
the value of the minerals. Section 80 of the Mining Act provides:
SECTION 80. Government Share in Mineral Production Sharing
Agreement. The total government share in a mineral production
sharing agreement shall be the excise tax on mineral products as
provided in Republic Act No. 7729, amending Section 151(a) of the
National Internal Revenue Code, as amended. (Emphasis supplied)
While Section 151(a) of the Tax Code reads:
Sec. 151. Mineral Products. (a) Rates of Tax. There shall be levied,
assessed and collected on mineral, mineral products and quarry
resources, excise tax as follows:
(1) On coal and coke, a tax of ten pesos (P10.00) per metric ton.
(2) On non-metallic minerals and quarry resources, a tax of two
percent (2%) based on the actual market value of the annual gross output
thereof at the time of removal, in the case of those locally extracted or
produced; or the value used by the Bureau of Customs in determining tariff
and customs duties, net of excise tax and value-added tax, in the case of
importation.
(3) On all metallic minerals, a tax based on the actual market value of the
gross output thereof at the time of removal, in the case of those locally
extracted or produced; or the value used by the Bureau of Customs in
determining tariff and customs duties, net of excise tax and value-added
tax, in the case of importation, in accordance with the following schedule:
(a) Copper and other metallic minerals:
(i) On the first three (3) years upon the effectivity of this Act, one percent
(1%);
(ii) On the fourth and fifth year, one and ahalf percent (1 1/2%); and
(iii) On the sixth year and thereafter, two percent (2%)
(b) Gold and chromite, two percent (2%)
(4) On indigenous petroleum, a tax of fifteen percent (15%) of the fair
international market price thereof, on the first taxable sale, such tax to be
paid by the buyer or purchaser within 15 days from the date of actual or
constructive delivery to the said buyer or purchaser. The phrase 'first
taxable sale, barter, exchange or similar transaction' means the transfer of
indigenous petroleum in its original state to a first taxable transferee. The
fair international market price shall be determined in consultation with an
appropriate government agency.
For the purpose of this subsection, 'indigenous petroleum' shall include
locally extracted mineral oil, hydrocarbon gas, bitumen, crude asphalt,
mineral gas and all other similar or naturally associated substances with
the exception of coal, peat, bituminous shale and/or stratified mineral
deposits. (Emphasis supplied)
By taking advantage of the foregoing provisions and selling 60% of its

equity to a Filipino corporation (such as any of the members of
respondent-in-intervention Philippine Chamber of Mines) a foreign
contractor can easily reduce the total government's share (held in trust for
the benefit of the Filipino People) in the minerals mined to a paltry 2%
while maintaining a 40% beneficial interest in the same.
What is more, if the Filipino corporation acquiring the foreign contractor's
stake is itself 60% Filipino-owned and 40% foreign-owned (a "60-40"
Filipino corporation such as Sagittarius Mines, the putative purchaser of
WMC's 100% equity in WMCP), then the total beneficial interest of
foreigners in the mineral output of the mining concern would constitute a
majority of 64%133 while the beneficial ownership of Filipinos would, at
most,134 amount to 36% 34% for the Filipino stockholders of the 60-40
Filipino corporation and 2% for the Government (in trust for the Filipino
People).
The foregoing scheme, provided for in the Mining Act itself, is no different
and indeed is virtually identical to that embodied in Section 7.9 of the
WMCP FTAA which the majority opinion itself found to be "without a
doubt grossly disadvantageous to the government, detrimental to the
interests of the Filipino people, and violative of public policy:"
x x x While Section 7.7 gives the government a 60 percent share in the net
mining revenues of WMCP from the commencement of commercial
production; Section 7.9 deprives the government of part or all of the
said 60 percent. Under the latter provision, should WMCP's foreign
shareholders who originally owned 100 percent of the equity sell 60
percent or more of its outstanding capital stock to a Filipino citizen or
corporation, the State loses its right to receive its 60 percent share in net
mining revenues under Section 7.7.
Section 7.9 provides
The percentage of Net Mining Revenues payable to the Government
pursuant to Clause 7.7 shall be reduced by 1percent of Net Mining
Revenues for every 1percent ownership interest in the Contractor (i.e.,
WMCP) held by a Qualified Entity.
Evidently, what Section 7.7 grants to the State is taken away in the next
breath by Section 7.9 without any offsetting compensation to the State.
Thus, in reality, the State has no vested right to receive any income
from the FTAA for the exploration of its mineral resources. Worse, it
would seem that what is given to the State in Section 7.7 is by mere
tolerance of WMCP's foreign stockholders, who can at any time cut
off the government's entire 60 percent share. They can do so by
simply selling 60 percent of WMCP's outstanding stock to a
Philippine citizen or corporation. Moreover, the proceeds of such sale
will of course accrue to the foreign stockholders of WMCP, not to the
State.
The sale of 60 percent of WMCP's outstanding equity to a corporation that
is 60 percent Filipino-owned and 40 percent foreign-owned will still trigger
the operation of Section 7.9. Effectively, the State will lose its right to
receive all 60 percent of the net mining revenues of WMCP; and
foreign stockholders will own beneficially up to 64 percent of WMCP,
consisting of the remaining 40percent foreign equity therein, plus the
24 percent pro-rata share in the buyer-corporation.
xxx
At bottom, Section 7.9 has the effect of depriving the State of its 60
percent share in the net mining revenues of WMCP without any offset or
compensation whatsoever. It is possible that the inclusion of the
offending provision was initially prompted by the desire to provide
some form of incentive for the principal foreign stockholder in WMCP
to eventually reduce its equity position and ultimately divest itself
thereof in favor of Filipino citizens and corporations. However, as
finally structured, Section 7.9 has the deleterious effect of depriving
government of the entire 60 percent share in WMCP's net mining
revenues, without any form of compensation whatsoever. Such an
outcome is completely unacceptable.
The whole point of developing the nation's natural resources is to benefit
the Filipino people, future generations included. And the State as
sovereign and custodian of the nation's natural wealth is mandated to
protect, conserve, preserve and develop that part of the national patrimony
for their benefit. Hence, the Charter lays great emphasis on "real
contributions to the economic growth and general welfare of the country"
[Footnote 75 of the Dissent omitted] as essential guiding principles to be
kept in mind when negotiating the terms and conditions of FTAAs.
xxx
Section 7.9 of the WMCP FTAA effectively gives awaythe State's
share of net mining revenues (provided for in Section 7.7) without
anything in exchange. Moreover, this outcome constitutes unjust
Page 72 of 126
enrichment on the part of local and foreign stockholders of WMCP.

By their mere divestment of up to 60 percent equity in WMCP in favor of
Filipino citizens and/or corporations, the local and foreign stockholders get
a windfall. Their share in the net mining revenues of WMCP is
automatically increased, without their having to pay the government
anything for it. In short, the provision in question is without a doubt
grossly disadvantageous to the government, detrimental to the
interests of the Filipino people, and violative of public policy.
(Emphasis supplied; italics and underscoring in the original; footnotes
omitted)
The foregoing disquisition is directly applicable to the provisions of the
Mining Act. By selling 60% of its outstanding equity to a 60% Filipinoowned and 40% foreign-owned corporation, the foreign contractor can
readily convert its FTAA into an MPSA. Effectively, the State's share in
the net benefits from mining will be automatically and drastically
reduced from the theoretical 50% anticipated under DAO 99-56 to
merely 2%. What is given to the State by Section 81 and DAO 99-56 is
all but eliminated by Sections 39 and 80. At the same time, foreign
stockholders will beneficially own up to 64% of the mining concern,
consisting of the remaining 40% foreign equity therein plus the 24%
pro-rata share in the buyer-corporation.
It is possible that, like Section 7.9 of the WMCP FTAA, Section 39 of the
Mining Act was intended to provide some form of incentive for the foreign
FTAA contractor to eventually reduce its equity position and ultimately
divest itself thereof in favor of Filipino citizens and corporations. However,
the net effect is to allow the Filipino people to be robbed of their just
share in Philippine mineral resources. Such an outcome is
completely unacceptable and cannot be sanctioned by this Court.
By this simple conversion, which may be availed of at any time, the local
and foreign stockholders will obtain a windfall at the expense of the
Government, which is the trustee of the Filipino people. The share of these
stockholders in the net mining revenues from Philippine resources will be
automatically increased without their having to pay the government
anything in exchange.
On this basis alone, and despite whatever other differences of opinion
might exist, the majority must concede that the provisions of the
Mining Act are grossly disadvantageous to the government,
detrimental to the interests of the Filipino people, and violative of
Section 2, Article XII of the Constitution.
En passant, it is significant to note that Section 39 of the Mining Act allows
an FTAA holder to covert its agreement to an MPSA "at any time during
the term of the agreement."
As any reasonable person with a modicum of business experience can
readily determine, the optimal time for the foreign contractor to convert its
FTAA into an MPSA is after the completion of the exploration phase and
just before undertaking the development, construction and utilization
phase. This is because under Section 56 (a) of DAO 40-96, the
requirement for a minimum investment of Fifty Million U.S. Dollars (US$
50,000,000.00)135 is only applicable during the development, construction
and utilization phase and NOT during the exploration phase where the
foreign contractor need only comply with the stipulated minimum ground
expenditures:
SECTION 56. Terms and Conditions of an FTAA. The
following terms, conditions and warranties shall be incorporated
in the FTAA, namely:
a. A firm commitment, in the form of a sworn statement during
the existence of the Agreement, that the Contractor shall comply
with minimum ground expenditures during the exploration
and pre-feasibility periods as follows:
Year US $/Hectare
development in the contract area. If a Temporary/Special

Exploration Permit has been issued prior to the approval of an
FTAA, the exploration expenditures incurred shall form part of
the expenditures during the first year of the exploration period of
the FTAA.
In the event that the Contractor exceeds the minimum
expenditure requirement in any one (1) year, the amount in
excess may be carried forward and deducted from the minimum
expenditure required in the subsequent year. In case the
minimum ground expenditure commitment for a given year is not
met for justifiable reasons as determined by the
Bureau/concerned Regional Office, the unexpended amount
may be spent on the subsequent year(s) of the exploration
period. (Emphasis supplied)
By converting its FTAA to an MPSA just before undertaking development,
construction and utilization activities, a foreign contractor further
maximizes its profits by avoiding its obligation to make a minimum
investment of US$ 50,000,000.00. Assuming an exploration term of 6
years, it will have paid out only a little over US$ 2.4 million136 in minimum
ground expenditures.
Clearly, under the terms and provisions of the Mining Act, even the
promised influx of tens of millions of dollars in direct foreign
investments is merely hypothetical and ultimately illusory.
Grant of Exploration Permits to Foreign
Corporations is Unconstitutional
The majority is also convinced that Section 3(aq) of the Mining Act,
defining foreign corporations as a qualified entity for the purposes of
granting exploration permits, is "not unconstitutional."
The questioned provision reads:
SECTION 3. Definition of Terms. As used in and for purposes
of this Act, the following terms, whether in singular or plural,
shall mean:
xxx
(aq) "Qualified person" means any citizen of the Philippines with
capacity to contract, or a corporation, partnership, association,
or cooperative organized or authorized for the purpose of
engaging in mining, with technical and financial capability to
undertake mineral resources development and duly registered in
accordance with law at least sixty per centum (60%) of the
capital of which is owned by citizens of the Philippines:
Provided, That a legally organized foreign-owned
corporation shall be deemed a qualified person for
purposes of granting an exploration permit, financial or
technical assistance agreement or mineral processing permit.
(Emphasis supplied)
In support of its contention that the above-quoted provision does not
offend against the Constitution, the majority opinion states that: (1) "there
is no prohibition at all against foreign or local corporations or contractors
holding exploration permits;" and (2) an "exploration permit serves a
practical and legitimate purpose in that it protects the interests and
preserves the rights of the exploration permit grantee x x x during the
period of time that it is spending heavily on exploration works, without yet
being able to earn revenues x x x."
The majority opinion also characterizes an exploration permit as "an
authorization for the grantee to spend its funds on exploration programs
that are pre-approved by the government." And it comments that "[t]he
State risks nothing and loses nothing by granting these permits" to foreign
firms.
12
These contentions fail for two obvious reasons.
22
38
48
5 18
6 23
and a minimum investment of Fifty Million US Dollars
($50,000,000.00) or its Philippine Peso equivalent in the
case of Filipino Contractor for infrastructure and
First, setting aside for the moment all disagreements pertaining to the
construction of Section 2, Article XII of the Constitution, the following, at
the very least, may be said to have been conclusively determined by this
Court: (1) the only constitutionally sanctioned method by which a foreign
entity may participate in the natural resources of the Philippines is by virtue
of paragraph 4 of Section 2, Article XII of the Constitution; (2) said
provision requires that an agreement be entered into (3) between the
President and the foreign corporation (4) for the large-scale exploration,
development, and utilization of minerals, petroleum, and other mineral oils
(5) according to the general terms and conditions provided by law, (6)
based on real contributions to the economic growth and general welfare of
the country; (7) such agreements will promote the development and use of
local scientific and technical resources; and (8) the President shall notify
the Congress of every contract entered into in accordance with this
provision, within thirty days from its execution.
Page 73 of 126
However, by the majority opinion's express admission, the grant of an

exploration permit does not even contemplate the entry into an agreement
between the State and the applicant foreign corporation since "prior to the
issuance of such FTAA or mineral agreement, the exploration permit
grantee (or prospective contractor) cannot yet be deemed to have entered
into any contract or agreement with the State."
Consequently, the grant of an exploration permit which is not an
agreement cannot possibly be construed as being favorably sanctioned
by paragraph 4 of Section 2, Article XII of the Constitution which refers to
"agreements involving either financial or technical assistance." Not
falling within the exception embodied in paragraph 4 of Section 2, Article
XII of the Constitution, the grant of such a permit to a foreign corporation is
prohibited and the proviso providing for such grant in Section 3 (aq) of the
Mining Act is void for being unconstitutional.
Second, given the foregoing discussion on the circumvention of the State's
share in an FTAA, it is clearly evident that to allow the grant of exploration
permits to foreign corporations is to allow the whole-sale circumvention of
the entire system of FTAAs mandated by the Constitution.
For Chapter IV of the Mining Act on Exploration Permits grants to the
permit holder, including foreign corporations, the principal rights conferred
on an FTAA contractor during the exploration phase, including (1) the right
to enter, occupy and explore the permit area under Section 23,137 and (2)
the exclusive right to an MPSA or other mineral agreements or FTAAs
upon the filing of a Declaration of Mining Project Feasibility under Sections
23 and 24;138 but requires none of the obligations of an FTAA not even
the obligation under Section 56 of DAO 40-96 to pay the minimum ground
expenditures during the exploration and feasibility period. 139
Thus, all that a foreign mining company need do to further maximize its
profits and further reduce the Government's revenue from mining
operations is to apply for an exploration permit and content itself with the
"smaller" permit area of 400 meridional blocks onshore (which itself is not
small considering that it is equivalent to 32,400 hectares or 324,000,000
square meters).140 It is not obligated to pay any minimum ground
expenditures during the exploration period.
Should it discover minerals in commercial quantities, it can circumvent the
Fiscal Regime in DAO 99-56 by divesting 60% of its equity in favor of a
Philippine corporation and opting to enter into an MPSA. By doing so it
automatically reduces the Government's TOTAL SHARE to merely 2% of
value of the minerals mined by operation of Section 81.
And if the Philippine corporation to which it divested its 60% foreign equity
is itself a 60-40 Philippine Corporation, then the beneficial interest of
foreigners in the minerals mined would be a minimum of 64%.
In light of the foregoing, Section 3 (aq), in so far as it allows the granting of
exploration permits to foreign corporations, is patently unconstitutional,
hence, null and void.
II
Invalidity of the WMCP FTAA Sale of foreign
interest in WMCP to a Filipino corporation
did not render the case moot and academic.
Respondent WMCP, now renamed Tampakan Mineral Resources
Corporation, submits that the case has been rendered moot since "[e]xcept
for the nominal shares of directors, 100% of TMRC's share are now owned
by Sagittarius Mines, which is a Filipino-owned corporation. More than
60% of the equity of Sagittarius is owned by Filipinos or Filipino-owned
corporations."141 This Court initially reserved judgment on this issue.142
Petitioner invokes by analogy the rule that where land is invalidly
transferred to an alien who subsequently becomes a Filipino citizen or
transfers it to one, the infirmity in the original transaction is considered
cured and the title of the transferee is rendered valid, citing Halili v. Court
of Appeals.143 The rationale for this rule is that if the ban on aliens from
acquiring lands is to preserve the nation's lands for future generations of
Filipinos, that aim or purpose would not be thwarted but achieved by
making lawful the acquisition of real estate by Filipino citizens.144
primary purpose of the provisions on National Patrimony is to preserve to

the Filipino people the beneficial ownership of their natural resources
i.e. the right to the gains, rewards and advantages generated by their
natural resources. Except under the terms of Section 2, Article XII,
foreigners are prohibited from involving themselves in the exploration,
development or utilization of these resources, much less from profiting
from them.
Divestment by a foreigner of an illegally acquired right to mine Philippine
resources does not alter the illegal character of the right being divested or
sold. Indeed, such divestment or sale is obviously a method by which the
foreigner may derive pecuniary benefit from his unlawful act since he
receives payment for his illegally acquired interest in the country's natural
resources.
To rule otherwise would be to condone, even to invite, foreign entities to
obtain Philippine mining interests in violation of the Constitution with the
assurance that they can escape liability and at the same time make a tidy
sum by later selling these interests to Filipinos. This is nothing less than
allowing foreign speculation in Philippine natural resources. Worse, there
is the very real possibility that these foreign entities may intentionally
inflate the value of their illegallyacquired mineral rights to the detriment of
their Filipino purchasers as the past Bre-X scandal145 and recent Shell oil
reserve controversy146 vividly illustrate.
To allow a foreigner to profit from illegally obtained mining rights or FTAAs
subverts and circumvents the letter and intent of Article XII of the
Constitution. It facilitates rather than prevents the rape and plunder of the
nation's natural resources by unscrupulous neo-colonial entities. It thwarts,
rather than achieves, the purpose of the fundamental law.
As applied to the facts of this case, respondent WMCP, in essence, claims
that now that the operation and management of the WMCP FTAA is in the
hands of a Filipino company, no serious question as to the FTAA's validity
need arise.
On the contrary, this very fact that WMC has sold its 100% interest in
WMCP to a Filipino company for US$10,000,000.00 directly leads to
some very serious questions concerning the WMCP FTAA and its validity.
First, if a Filipino corporation is capable of undertaking the terms of the
FTAA, why was an agreement with a foreign owned corporation entered
into in the first place? Second, does not the fact that, as alleged by
petitioners147 and admitted by respondent WMCP,148 Sagittarius, WMCP's
putative new owner, is capitalized at less than half the purchase price149 of
WMC's shares in WMCP, a strong indication that Sagittarius is merely
acting as the dummy of WMC? Third, if indeed WMCP has, to date, spent
US$40,000,000.00 in the implementation of the FTAA, as it claims,150 why
did WMC sell 100% of its shares in WMCP for only US$10,000,000.00?
Finally, considering that, as emphasized by WMCP,151 "payment of the
purchase price by Sagittarius to WMC will come only after the
commencement of commercial production," hasn't WMC effectively
acquired a beneficial interest in any minerals mined in the FTAA area to
the extent of US$10,000,000.00? If so, is the acquisition of such a
beneficial interest by a foreign corporation permitted under our
Constitution?
Succinctly put, the question remains: What is the validity of the FTAA by
which WMC, a fully foreign owned corporation, has acquired a more
152
than half billion peso interest in Philippine mineral resources located
in a contract area of 99,387 (alleged to have later been reduced to
30,000)153 hectares of land spread across the four provinces of South
Cotabato, Sultan Kudarat, Davao del Sur and North Cotabato?
Clearly then, the issues of this case have not been rendered moot by the
sale of WMC's 100% interest in WMCP to a Filipino corporation, whether
the latter be Sagittarius or Lepanto. If the FTAA is held to be valid under
the Constitution, then the sale is valid and, more importantly, WMC's
US$10,000,000.00 interest in Philippine mineral deposit, arising as it did
from the sale and its prior 100% ownership of WMCP, is likewise valid.
However, if the FTAA is held to be invalid, then neither WMC's interest nor
the sale which gave rise to said interest is valid for no foreigner may
profit from the natural resources of the Republic of the Philippines in
a manner contrary to the terms of the Philippine Constitution. If held
unconstitutional, the WMCP FTAA is void ab initio for being contrary to the
fundamental law and no rights may arise from it, either in favor of WMC or
its Filipino transferee.
Respondent WMCP's analogy is fallacious. Whether the legal title to the

corporate vehicle holding the FTAA has been transferred from a foreigner
to a Filipino is irrelevant. What is relevant is whether a foreigner has
improperly and illegally obtained an FTAA and has therefore benefited
from the exploration, development or utilization of Philippine natural
resources in a manner contrary to the provisions of the Constitution.
Evidently, the transfer of the shares in WMCP from WMC Resources

International Pty. Ltd. (WMC), a foreign-owned corporation, to a Filipinoowned one, whether Sagittarius or Lepanto, now presently engaged in a
154
dispute over said shares, did not "cure" the FTAA nor moot the petition
at bar. On the contrary, it is the Decision in this case that rendered those
pending cases moot for the invalidation of the FTAA leaves Sagittarius and
Lepanto with nothing to dispute.
As above-stated the doctrine enunciated in Halili is based on the premise

that the purpose of the Constitution in prohibiting alien ownership of
agricultural land is to retain the ownership or legal title of the land in the
hands of Filipinos. This purpose is not identical or even analogous to that
in Section 2, Article XII of the Constitution. As priorly discussed, the
Terms of the WMCP FTAA are

contrary to the Constitution and
render said FTAA null and void.
Page 74 of 126
The WMCP FTAA is clearly contrary to the agreements provided for in

Section 2, Article XII of the Constitution. In the Decision under
reconsideration, this Court observed:
Section 1.3 of the WMCP FTAA grants WMCP "the exclusive
right to explore, exploit, utilise[,] process and dispose of all
Minerals products and by-products thereof that may be produced
from the Contract Area." The FTAA also imbues WMCP with the
following rights:
(b) to extract and carry away any Mineral samples from the
Contract area for the purpose of conducting tests and studies in
respect thereof;
(c) to determine the mining and treatment processes to be
utilized during the Development/Operating Period and the
project facilities to be constructed during the Development and
Construction Period;
(d) have the right of possession of the Contract Area, with full
right of ingress and egress and the right to occupy the same,
subject to the provisions of Presidential Decree No. 512 (if
applicable) and not be prevented from entry into private lands by
surface owners and/or occupants thereof when prospecting,
exploring and exploiting for minerals therein;
other.157 On the part of WMCP, a foreign-owned corporation, the cause

was to extend not only technical or financial assistance but management
assistance as well. The management prerogatives contemplated by the
FTAA are not merely incidental to the two other forms of assistance, but
virtually grant WMCP full control over its mining operations. Thus, in
Section 8.3158 of the FTAA, in case of a dispute between the DENR and
WMCP, it is WMCP's decision which will prevail.
The questioned FTAA also grants beneficial ownership over Philippine
natural resources to WMCP, which is prohibited from entering into such
contracts not only by the fourth paragraph of Section 2, Article XII of the
Constitution, but also by the first paragraph, the FTAA practically being a
production-sharing agreement reserved to Filipinos.
Contracts whose cause is contrary to law or public policy are inexistent
and void from the beginning.159 They produce no effect whatsoever.160
They cannot be ratified,161 and so cannot the WMCP FTAA.
The terms of the WMCP FTAA effectively give away
the Beneficial Ownership of Philippine minerals
As previously observed, the majority opinion finds Section 7.9. of the
WMCP FTAA to be "grossly disadvantageous to the government,
detrimental to the interests of the Filipino people, and violative of public
policy" since it "effectively gives away the State's share of net mining
revenues (provided for in Section 7.7) without anything in exchange."
xxx
(f) to construct roadways, mining, drainage, power generation
and transmission facilities and all other types of works on the
Contract Area;
It likewise finds Section 7.8(e) of the WMCP FTAA to be invalid. Said

provision states:
7.8 The Government Share shall be deemed to include all of
the following sums:
(g) to erect, install or place any type of improvements, supplies,

machinery and other equipment relating to the Mining
Operations and to use, sell or otherwise dispose of, modify,
remove or diminish any and all parts thereof;
(h) enjoy, subject to pertinent laws, rules and regulations and the
rights of third Parties, easement rights and the use of timber,
sand, clay, stone, water and other natural resources in the
Contract Area without cost for the purposes of the Mining
Operations;
xxx
(l) have the right to mortgage, charge or encumber all or part of
its interest and obligations under this Agreement, the plant,
equipment and infrastructure and the Minerals produced from
the Mining Operations;
x x x.
All materials, equipment, plant and other installations erected or
placed on the Contract Area remain the property of WMCP,
which has the right to deal with and remove such items within
twelve months from the termination of the FTAA.
Pursuant to Section 1.2 of the FTAA, WMCP shall provide "[all]
financing, technology, management and personnel necessary for
the Mining Operations." The mining company binds itself to
"perform all Mining Operations . . . providing all necessary
services, technology and financing in connection therewith," and
to "furnish all materials, labour, equipment and other installations
that may be required for carrying on all Mining Operations."
WMCP may make expansions, improvements and replacements
of the mining facilities and may add such new facilities as it
considers necessary for the mining operations.
These contractual stipulations, taken together, grant WMCP
beneficial ownership over natural resources that properly belong
to the State and are intended for the benefit of its citizens. These
stipulations are abhorrent to the 1987 Constitution. They are
precisely the vices that the fundamental law seeks to avoid, the
evils that it aims to suppress. Consequently, the contract from
which they spring must be struck down.155 (Citations omitted)
Indeed, save for the fact that the contract covers a larger area, the subject
FTAA is actually a mineral production sharing agreement. Respondent
156
WMCP admitted as much in its Memorandum. The first paragraph of
Section 2, Article XII of the Constitution, however, allows this type of
agreement only with Filipino citizens or corporations.
That the subject FTAA is void for having an unlawful cause bears
reaffirmation. In onerous contracts the cause is understood to be, for each
contracting party, the prestation or promise of a thing or service by the
xxx
(e) an amount equivalent to whatever benefits that
may be extended in the future by the Government
to the Contractor or to financial or technical
assistance agreement contractors in general.
(Emphasis supplied)
And in its own estimation:
Section 7.8(e) is out of place in the FTAA. This provision does
not make any sense why, for instance, money spent by the
government for the benefit of the contractor in building roads
leading to the mine site should still be deductible from the
State's share in net mining revenues. Allowing this deduction
results in benefiting the contractor twice over. To do so
would constitute unjust enrichment on the part of the
contractor at the expense of the government, since the
latter is effectively being made to pay twice for the same
item. For being grossly disadvantageous and prejudicial to
the government and contrary to public policy, Section 7.8(e)
is undoubtedly invalid and must be declared to be without
effect. xxx (Emphasis supplied; citations omitted; underscore in
the original)
The foregoing estimation notwithstanding, the majority opinion declines to
invalidate the WMCP FTAA on the theory that Section 7.9 and 7.8 are
separable from the rest of the agreement, which may supposedly be given
effect without the offending provisions.
As previously discussed, the same deleterious results are easily achieved
by the foreign contractor's conversion of its FTAA into an MPSA under the
provisions of the Mining Act. Hence, merely striking out Sections 7.9 and
7.8(e) of the WMCP FTAA will not suffice; the provisions pertaining to
FTAAs in the Mining Act must be stricken out for being unconstitutional as
well.
Moreover, Section 7.8 (e) and 7.9 are not the only provisions of the WMCP
FTAA which convey beneficial ownership of mineral resources to a foreign
corporation.
Under Section 10.2 (l) of the WMCP FTAA, the foreign FTAA contractor
shall have the right to mortgage and encumber, not only its rights and
interests in the FTAA, but the very minerals themselves:
10.2 Rights of Contractor
The Government agrees that the Contractor shall:xxx
Page 75 of 126
(l) have the right to mortgage, charge or encumber all or part of

its interest and obligations under this Agreement, the plant,
equipment and infrastructure and the Minerals produced from
the Mining Operations; (Emphasis supplied)
Although respondents did not proffer their own explanation, the majority
opinion theorizes that the foregoing provision is necessitated by the
conditions that may be imposed by creditor-banks on the FTAA contractor:
xxx I believe that this provision may have to do with the
conditions imposed by the creditor-banks of the then foreign
contractor WMCP to secure the lendings made to the latter.
Ordinarily, banks lend not only on the security of mortgages on
fixed assets, but also on encumbrances of goods produced that
can easily be sold and converted into cash that can be applied to
the repayment of loans. Banks even lend on the security of
accounts receivable that are collectible within 90 days. (Citations
omitted; underscore in the original)
It, however, overlooks the provision of Art. 2085 of the Civil Code which
enumerates the essential requisites of a contract of mortgage:
Petitioners, in their Memorandum, point out that pursuant to the foregoing,

the foreign FTAA contractor may compel the Government to exercise its
power of eminent domain to acquire the title to the land under which the
minerals are located for and in its behalf.
The majority opinion, however, readily accepts the explanation proffered
by respondent WMCP, thus:
Section 10.2 (e) sets forth the mechanism whereby the foreignowned contractor, disqualified to own land, identifies to the
government the specific surface areas within the FTAA contract
area to be acquired for the mine infrastructure. The government
then acquires ownership of the surface land areas on behalf of
the contractor, in order to enable the latter to proceed to fully
implement the FTAA.
The contractor, of course, shoulders the purchase price of the
land. Hence, the provision allows it, after the termination of the
FTAA to be reimbursed from proceeds of the sale of the surface
areas, which the government will dispose of through public
bidding.
Art. 2085. The following requisites are essential to the

contracts of pledge and mortgage:
And it concludes that "the provision does not call for the exercise of the
power of eminent domain" and the determination of just compensation.
(1) That they be constituted to secure the fulfillment of a principal

obligation;
The foregoing arguments are specious.
(2) That the pledgor or mortgagor be the absolute owner of

the thing pledged or mortgaged;
(3) That the persons constituting the pledge or mortgage have
the free disposal of their property, and in the absence thereof,
that they be legally authorized for the purpose.
Third persons who are not parties to the principal obligation may
secure the latter by pledging or mortgaging their own property.
(Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
From the foregoing provision of law, it is abundantly clear that only the
absolute owner of the minerals has the right to mortgage the same,
and under Section 2, Article XII of the Constitution the absolute
owner of the minerals is none other than the State. While the foreign
FTAA contractor may have an interest in the proceeds of the minerals, it
does not acquire ownership over the minerals themselves.
Put differently, the act of mortgaging the minerals is an act of
ownership, which, under the Constitution, is reserved solely to the State.
In purporting to grant such power to a foreign FTAA contractor, Section
10.2 (l) of the WMCP FTAA clearly runs afoul of the Constitution.
Moreover, it bears noting that to encumber natural resources of the State
to secure a foreign FTAA contractor's obligations is anomalous since
Section 1.2 of the WMCP FTAA provides that "[a]ll financing, technology,
management and personnel necessary for the Mining Operations shall be
provided by the Contractor."
Indeed, even the provisions of the Mining Act, irredeemably flawed though
they may be, require that the FTAA contractor have the financial capability
to undertake the large-scale exploration, development and utilization of
mineral resources in the Philippines;162 and, specifically, that the contractor
warrant that it has or has access to all the financing required to promptly
and effectively carry out the objectives of the FTAA.163
Under Section 10.2 (e) of the WMCP FTAA, the foreign FTAA Contractor
has the power to require the Government to acquire surface rights in its
behalf at such price and terms acceptable to it:
10.2 Rights of Contractor
The Government agrees that the Contractor shall:xxx
(e) have the right to require the Government at the
Contractor's own cost, to purchase or acquire surface areas
for and on behalf of the Contractor at such price and terms
as may be acceptable to the Contractor. At the termination of
this Agreement such areas shall be sold by public auction or
tender and the Contractor shall be entitled to reimbursement
of the costs of acquisition and maintenance, adjusted for
inflation, from the proceeds of sale; (Emphasis supplied)
First, the provision in question clearly contemplates a situation where the

surface area is not already owned by the Government i.e. when the land
over which the minerals are located is owned by some private person.
Second, the logical solution in that situation is not, as asserted by
respondent WMCP, to have the Government purchase or acquire the land,
but for the foreign FTAA contractor to negotiate a lease over the property
with the private owner.
Third, it is plain that the foreign FTAA contractor would only avail of
Section 10.2 (e) if, for some reason or another, it is unable to lease the
land in question at the price it is willing to pay. In that situation, it would
have the power under Section 10.2 (e) to compel the State, as the only
entity which can legally compel the landowner to involuntarily part with his
property, to acquire the land at a price dictated by the foreign FTAA
contractor.
Clearly, the State's power of eminent domain is very much related to the
practical workings of Section 10.2 (e) of the WMCP FTAA. It is the very
instrument by which the contractor assures itself that it can obtain the
"surface right" to the property at a price of its own choosing. Moreover,
under Section 60 of DAO 40-96, the contractor may, after final
relinquishment, hold up to 5,000 hectares of land in this manner.
More. While the foreign FTAA contractor advances the purchase price for
the property, in reality it acquires the "surface right" for free since under the
same provision of the WMCP FTAA it is entitled to reimbursement of the
costs of acquisition and maintenance, adjusted for inflation. And as if the
foregoing were not enough, when read together with Section 3.3,164 the
foreign FTAA contractor would have the right to hold the "surface area" for
a maximum of 50 years, at its option.
In sum, by virtue of Sections 10.2 (e) and 3.3. of the WMCP FTAA, the
foreign FTAA contractor is given the power to hold inalienable
mineral land of up to 5,000 hectares, with the assistance of the
State's power of eminent domain, free of charge, for a period of up to
50 years in contravention of Section 3, Article XII of the Constitution:
Section 3. Lands of the public domain are classified into
agricultural, forest or timber, mineral lands, and national parks.
Agricultural lands of the public domain may be further classified
by law according to the uses which they may be devoted.
Alienable lands of the public domain shall be limited to
agricultural lands. Private corporations or associations may
not hold such alienable lands of the public domain except
by lease, for a period not exceeding twenty-five years,
renewable for not more than twenty-five years, and not to
exceed one thousand hectares in area. Citizens of the
Philippines may lease not more than five hundred hectares, or
acquire not more than twelve hectares thereof by purchase,
homestead, or grant.
Taking into account the requirements of conservation, ecology,
and development, and subject to the requirements of agrarian
reform, the Congress shall determine, by law, the size of lands
of the public domain which may be acquired, developed, held, or
leased and the conditions therefor. (Emphasis supplied)
Page 76 of 126
Taken together, the foregoing provisions of the WMCP FTAA amount to a

conveyance to a foreign corporation of the beneficial ownership of both the
minerals and the surface rights to the same in contravention of the clear
provisions of the Constitution.
The majority opinion posits that "[t]he acquisition by the State of land for
the contractor is just to enable the contractor to establish its mine site,
build its facilities, establish a tailings pond, set up its machinery and
equipment, and dig mine shafts and tunnels, etc." It thus concludes that
"5,000 hectares is way too much for the needs of a mining operator."
Evidently, the majority opinion does not take into account open pit mining.
Open pit or opencut mining, as differentiated from methods that require
tunneling into the earth, is a method of extracting minerals by their removal
from an open pit or borrow;165 it is a mine working in which excavation is
performed from the surface.166 It entails a surface mining operation in
which blocks of earth are dug from the surface to extract the ore contained
in them. During the mining process, the surface of the land is excavated
forming a deeper and deeper pit until the end of mining operations.167 It is
used extensively in mining metal ores, copper, gold, iron, aluminum 168
the very minerals which the Philippines is believed to possess in vast
quantities; and is considered the most cost-effective mining method.169
Furthermore, considering that FTAAs deal with large scale exploration,
development and utilization of mineral resources and that the original
contract area of the WMCP FTAA was 99,387 hectares, an open pit mining
operation covering a total of 5,000 hectares is not outside the realm of
possibility.
In any event, regardless of what the majority opinion considers "way too
much" (or too little), it is undisputed that under Section 60 of DAO 40-96,
which is among the enactments under review, the contractor may, after
final relinquishment, hold up to 5,000 hectares of land. And, under Section
3.3. of the WMCP FTAA, it may do so for a term of 25 years automatically
renewable for another 25 years, at the option of the contractor.
The majority opinion also argues that, although entitled to reimbursement
of its acquisition cost at the end of the contract term, the FTAA contractor
does not acquire its surface rights for free since "the contractor will have
been cash-out for the entire duration of the term of the contract 25 to 50
years, depending," thereby foregoing any interest income he might have
earned. This is the "opportunity cost" of the contractor's decision to use its
money to acquire the surface rights instead of leaving it in the bank.
The majority opinion does not consider the fact that "opportunity cost" is
more theoretical rather than actual and, for that reason, is not an allowable
deduction from gross income in an income statement. In layman's terms it
is equivalent to "the value of the chickens that might have been hatched if
only the cook had not scrambled the eggs." Neither does it consider the
fact that the contractor's foregone interest income does not find its way to
the pockets of either the previous land owner (in this case, the Bugal
B'Laans) or the State.
But even if the contractor does incur some opportunity cost in holding the
surface rights for 35 to 50 years. The fact remains that, under the terms of
the WMCP FTAA, the contractor is given the power to hold inalienable
mineral land of up to 5,000 hectares, with the assistance of the
State's power of eminent domain for a period of up to 50 years in
contravention of Section 3, Article XII of the Constitution.
Clearly, Section 3 and 10.2 (e) of the WMCP FTAA in conjunction with
Section 60 of DAO 40-96, amount to a conveyance to a foreign corporation
of the beneficial ownership of both the minerals and the surface rights over
the same, in contravention of the clear provisions of the Constitution.
The terms of the WMCP FTAA abdicate all control over the
mining operation in favor of the foreign FTAA contractor
The majority opinion's defense of the constitutionality of Section 8.1, 8.2,
8.3 of the WMCP FTAA is similarly unpersuasive. These Sections provide:
8.1 The Secretary shall be deemed to have approved any
Work Programme or Budget or variation thereof submitted
by the Contractor unless within sixty (60) days after
submission by the Contractor the Secretary gives notice
declining such approval or proposing a revision of certain
features and specifying its reasons therefore ("the Rejection
Notice").
8.2 If the Secretary gives a Rejection Notice the Parties shall
promptly meet and endeavour to agree on amendments to the
Work Programme or budget. If the Secretary and the
Contractor fail to agree on the proposed revision within 30
days from delivery of the Rejection Notice then the Work
Programme or Budget or variation thereof proposed by the
Contractor shall be deemed approved so as not to
unnecessarily delay the performance of this Agreement.
Even measured against the majority opinion's standards of control i.e.

either (1) the power to set aside, reverse, or modify plans and actions of
the contractor; or (2) regulatory control the foregoing provisions cannot
pass muster. This is because, by virtue of the foregoing provisions, the
foreign FTAA contractor has unfettered discretion to countermand the
orders of its putative regulator, the DENR.
Contrary to the majority's assertions, the foregoing provisions do not
provide merely temporary or stop-gap solutions. The determination of the
FTAA contractor permanently reverses the "Rejection Notice" of the DENR
since, by the majority opinion's own admission, there is no available
remedy for the DENR under the agreement except to seek the cancellation
of the same.
Indeed, the justification for the foregoing provisions is revealing:
xxx First, avoidance of long delays in these situations will
undoubtedly redound to the benefit of the State as well as to the
contractor. Second, who is to say that the work program or
budget proposed by the contractor and deemed approved
under Clause 8.3 would not be the better or more
reasonable or more effective alternative? The contractor,
being the "insider," as it were, may be said to be in a better
position than the State an outsider looking in to
determine what work program or budget would be
appropriate, more effective, or more suitable under the
circumstances. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
Both reasons tacitly rely on the unstated assumption that the interest of the
foreign FTAA contractor and that of the Government are identical. They
are not.
Private businesses, including large foreign-owned corporations brimming
with capital and technical expertise, are primarily concerned with
maximizing the pecuniary returns to their owners or shareholders. To this
extent, they can be relied upon to pursue the most efficient courses of
action which maximize their profits at the lowest possible cost.
The Government, on the other hand, is mandated to concern itself with
more than just narrow self-interest. With respect to the nation's natural
wealth, as the majority opinion points out, the Government is mandated to
preserve, protect and even maximize the beneficial interest of the Filipino
people in their natural resources. Moreover, it is directed to ensure that the
large-scale exploration, development and utilization of these resources
results in real contributions to the economic growth and general welfare of
the nation. To achieve these broader goals, the Constitution mandates that
the State exercise full control and supervision over the exploration,
development and utilization of the country's natural resources.
However, taking the majority opinion's reasoning to its logical conclusion,
the business "insider's opinion" would always be superior to the
Government's administrative or regulatory determination with respect to
mining operations. Consequently, it is the foreign contractor's opinion that
should always prevail. Ultimately, this means that, at least for the majority,
foreign private business interests outweigh those of the State at least
with respect to the conduct of mining operations.
Indeed, in what other industry can the person regulated permanently
overrule the administrative determinations of the regulatory agency?
To any reasonable mind, the absence of an effective means to enforce
even administrative determinations over an FTAA contractor, except to
terminate the contract itself, falls far too short of the concept of "full control
and supervision" as to cause the offending FTAA to fall outside the ambit
of Section 2, Article XII of the Constitution.
Verily, viewed in its entirety, the WMCP FTAA cannot withstand a
rigid constitutional scrutiny since, by its provisions, it conveys both
the beneficial ownership of Philippine minerals and control over their
exploration, development and utilization to a foreign corporation.
Being contrary to both the letter and intent of Section 2, Article XII of
the Constitution, the WMCP FTAA must be declared void and of no
effect whatsoever.
A Final Note
For over 350 years, the natural resources of this nation have been under
the control and domination of foreign powers whether political or
corporate. Philippine mineral wealth, viciously wrenched from the bosom of
the motherland, has enriched foreign shores while the Filipino people, to
whom such wealth justly belongs, have remained impoverished and
unrecompensed.
Time and time again the Filipino people have sought an end to this
intolerable situation. From 1935 they have struggled to assert their legal
control and ownership over their patrimony only to have their efforts
repeatedly subverted first, by the parity amendment to the 1935
Page 77 of 126
Constitution and subsequently by the service contract provision in the 1973

Constitution.
It is not surprising that an industry, overly dependent on foreign support
and now in decline, should implore this Court to reverse itself if only to
perpetuate its otherwise economically unsustainable conduct. It is even
understandable, however regrettable, that a government, strapped for cash
and in the midst of a self-proclaimed fiscal crisis, would be inclined to turn
a blind eye to the consequences of unconstitutional legislation in the hope,
however false or empty, of obtaining fabulous amounts of hard currency.
But these considerations should not outweigh the Constitution.
As always, the one overriding consideration of this Court should be the will
of the sovereign Filipino people as embodied in their Constitution. The
Constitution which gives life to and empowers this Court. The same
Constitution to which the members of this Court have sworn their
unshakable loyalty and their unwavering fidelity.
Now, the unmistakable letter and intent of the 1987 Constitution
notwithstanding, the majority of this Court has chosen to reverse its earlier
Decision which, to me, would once again open the doors to foreign control
and ownership of Philippine natural resources. The task of reclaiming
Filipino control over Philippine natural resources now belongs to another
generation.
ACCORDINGLY, I vote to deny respondents' Motions for Reconsideration.
SEPARATE OPINION
TINGA, J.:
The Constitution was crafted by men and women of divergent backgrounds
and varying ideologies. Understandably, the resultant document is
accommodative of these distinct, at times competing philosophies. Untidy
as any mlange would seem, our fundamental law nevertheless hearkens
to the core democratic ethos over and above the obvious inconveniences it
spawns.
However, when the task of judicial construction of the Constitution comes
to fore, clarity is demanded from this Court. In turn, there is a need to
balance and reconcile the diverse views that animate the provisions of the
Constitution, so as to effectuate its true worth as an instrument of national
unity and progress.
The variances and consequent challenges are vividly reflected in Article XII
of the Constitution on National Patrimony, in a manner akin to Article II on
Declaration of Principles and State Policies. Some of the provisions
impress as protectionist, yet there is also an undisguised accommodation
of liberal economic policies. Section 2, Article XII,1 the provision key to this
case, is one such Janus-faced creature. It seems to close the door on
foreign handling of our natural resources, but at the same time it leaves
open a window for alien participation in some aspects. The central
question before us is how wide is the entry of opportunity created by the
provision.
My vote on the motions for reconsideration is hinged on a renewed
exegesis of Section 22 of Article XII in conjunction with the proper
understanding of the nature of the power vested on the President under
Section 2. It has to be appreciated in relation to the inherent functions of
the executive branch of government.
The Contract-Making Power of the President
While all government authority emanates from the people, the breadth and
depth of such authority are not brought to bear by direct popular action, but
through representative government in accord with the principles of
3
republicanism. By investiture of the Constitution, the function of executive
power is parceled solely to the duly elected President.4 The Constitution
contains several express manifestations of executive power, such as the
provision on control over all executive departments, bureaus and offices, 5
as well as the so-called "Commander-in-Chief" clause.6
Yet it has likewise been recognized in this jurisdiction that "executive
power" is not limited to such powers as are expressly granted by the
Constitution. Marcos v. Manglapus7 concedes that the President has
8
powers other than those expressly stated under the Constitution, and thus
implies that these powers may be exercised without being derivative from
constitutional authority.9 The precedental value of Marcos v. Manglapus
10
may be controvertible, but the cogency of its analysis of the scope of
executive power is indisputable. Neither is the concept of plenary
executive power novel, as discussed by Justice Irene Cortes in her
ponencia:
It has been advanced that whatever power inherent in the

government that is neither legislative nor judicial has to be
executive. Thus, in the landmark decision of Springer v.
Government of the Philippine Islands, 277 U.S. 189 (1928), on
the issue of who between the Governor-General of the
Philippines and the Legislature may vote the shares of stock
held by the Government to elect directors in the National Coal
Company and the Philippine National Bank, the U.S. Supreme
Court, in upholding the power of the Governor-General to do so,
said:
. . . Here the members of the legislature who
constitute a majority of the "board" and "committee"
respectively, are not charged with the performance of
any legislative functions or with the doing of anything
which is in aid of performance of any such functions
by the legislature. Putting aside for the moment the
question whether the duties devolved upon these
members are vested by the Organic Act in the
Governor-General, it is clear that they are not
legislative in character, and still more clear that they
are not judicial. The fact that they do not fall within the
authority of either of these two constitutes logical
ground for concluding that they do fall within that of
the remaining one among which the powers of
government are divided . . . [At 202-203; emphasis
supplied.]
We are not unmindful of Justice Holmes' strong dissent. But in
his enduring words of dissent we find reinforcement for the view
that it would indeed be a folly to construe the powers of a branch
of government to embrace only what are specifically mentioned
in the Constitution:
The great ordinances of the Constitution do not
establish and divide fields of black and white. Even the
more specific of them are found to terminate in a
penumbra shading gradually from one extreme to the
other. . . .
xxx xxx xxx
It does not seem to need argument to show that
however we may disguise it by veiling words we do
not and cannot carry out the distinction between
legislative and executive action with mathematical
precision and divide the branches into watertight
compartments, were it ever so desirable to do so,
which I am far from believing that it is, or that the
11
Constitution requires.[At 210-211.]
Such general power has not been diminished notwithstanding the avowed
intent of some of the framers of the 1987 Constitution to limit the powers of
the President as a reaction to abuses under President Marcos, for as the
Court noted, "the result was a limitation of the specific powers of the
President, particularly those relating to the commander-in-chief clause, but
not a diminution of the general grant of executive power." 12 The critical
perspective of this case should spring from a recognition of this elemental
fact.
Undeniably, the particular power now in question is expressly provided for
by Section 2, Article XII of the Constitution. Still, it originates from the
concept of executive power that is not explicitly provided for by the
Constitution. As a necessary incident of the functions of the executive
office, it can be concluded that the President has the authority to enter into
contracts in behalf of the State in matters which are not denied him or her
or not otherwise assigned to the other great branches of government, even
if such general power is not categorically recognized in the Constitution.
Among these traditional functions of the executive branch is the power to
determine economic policy.
As once noted by Justice Feliciano, the Republic of the Philippines is itself
a body corporate and juridical person vested with the full panoply of
powers and attributes which are compendiously described as "legal
personality."13 As "Chief of State" the President is also regarded as the
head of this body corporate,14 and thus is capacitated to represent the
State when engaging with other entities. Such executive function, in
theory, does not require a constitutional provision, or even a Constitution,
in order to be operative. It is a power possessed by every duly constituted
presidency starting with Aguinaldo's. This faculty is complementary to the
traditional regard of a Head of State as emblematic of the State he/she
represents.
The power to contract in behalf of the State is clearly an executive
function, as opposed to legislative or judicial. This is easily discernible
through the process of exclusion. The other branches of government
the legislative and the judiciary are not similarly capacitated since their
core functions pertain to legislating and adjudicating respectively.
Page 78 of 126
However, I am not making any pretense that such executive power to

contract is unimpeachable or limitless. The Constitution frowns on
unchecked executive power, mandating in broad strokes, the power of
judicial review15 and legislative oversight.16 The Constitution itself may
expressly restrict the exercise of any sort of executive function. Section 2
undeniably constrains the exercise of the executive power to contract in
several regards.
contracts for financial, technical, management, or other forms of

assistance with any person or entity, including foreigners, and for the
exploration or utilization of any of the natural resources.23 These requisites
imposed by the 1987 Constitution, which are significantly more onerous
than those laid down in the 1973 Constitution, warrant obeisance by the
executive branch and recognition by this Court.
Not Strictly Technical or Financial Assistance
Constitutional Limitations under Section 2, Article XII

What are the express limitations under Section 2 on the power of the
executive to contract with foreign corporations regarding the exploration,
development and utilization of our natural resources?
There are two fundamental restrictions, both of which are asserted in the
second paragraph of Section 2. These are that the State retains legal
ownership of all natural resources,17 and that the State shall have full
control and supervision over the exploration, development and utilization of
natural resources.18 These key postulates are facially broad and warrant
clarification. They also predicate several specific restrictions laid down in
the fourth paragraph of Section 2 on the power of the President to enter
into agreements with foreign corporations. These specific limitations are as
follows:
First, the natural resources that may be subject of the agreement are a
limited class, particularly minerals, petroleum, and other mineral oils.
Among the natural resources which are excluded from these agreements
are lands of the public domain, waters, coal, fisheries, forests or timbers,
wildlife, flora and fauna. Most notable of the exclusions are forests and
timbers which are in all respects expressly limited to Filipinos.
It is noteworthy that a previous version of the fourth paragraph of Section 2
deliberated upon during the 1987 Constitutional Commission allowed
agreements with foreign-owned corporations with respect to all classes of
19
natural resources. However, on the initiative of Commissioner (now Chief
Justice) Davide, the provision was amended to limit the scope of such
agreements to minerals, petroleum and other mineral oils, which
Commissioner Davide recognized as "those particular areas where Filipino
capital may not be sufficient."20
The exclusion of timber resources from the scope of
financial/technical assistance agreements marks a significant
distinction from the service contracts of old. This does not come as a
surprise, considering well-reported abuses under the old regime of
issuing timber licensing agreements, which numbered in the
thousands prior to the 1987 Constitution. On the other hand, no
similar extensive collateral damage has been reported for the
petroleum and mining industry, capital-intensive industries whose
potential for government revenues in billions of pesos has long been
sought after by the State.21 Hence, the variance in treatment from the
timber industry and the rest of the natural resources.
Second, these agreements with foreign-owned corporations can only be
entered into for only large-scale exploration, development and utilization of
minerals, petroleum, and other mineral oils.
Third, it is only the President who may enter into these agreements. This is
another pronounced change from the 1973 Constitution, which allowed
private persons to enter into service contracts with foreign corporations.
Fourth, these agreements must be in accord with the general terms and
conditions provided by law. This proviso by itself, and more so when taken
together, as it should, with another provision,22 entails legislative
intervention and affirmance in the exercise of this executive power. While it
is the President who enters into these contracts, he/she must act within
such terms and conditions as may be prescribed by Congress through
legislation. The value of legislative input as a means of influencing policy
should not be discounted. Policy initiatives grounded on particular
economic ideologies may find enactment through legislation when
approved by the necessary majorities in Congress. Legislative work
includes consultative processes with persons of diverse interests, assuring
that economic decisions need not be made solely from an ivory tower.
There is also the possible sanction of repudiation by the voters of
legislators who prove insensate to the economic concerns of their
constituents.
Fifth, the President is mandated to base the decision of entering into these
agreements on "real contributions to the economic growth and general
welfare of the country." In terms of real limitations, this condition has
admittedly little effect. The discretion as to whether or not to enter into
these agreements is vested solely by the Constitution in the President, and
such exercise of discretion, pertaining as it does to the political wisdom of
a co-equal branch, generally deserves respect from the courts.
The above conditionalities, particularly the first three, effect the desire of
the framers of the 1987 Constitution to limit foreign participation in natural
resource-oriented enterprises. They provide a vivid contrast to the 1973
Constitution, which permitted private persons to enter into service
The Court's previous Decision, now for reconsideration, insisted on

another restriction purportedly imposed by the fourth paragraph of Section
2. It is argued that foreignowned corporations are allowed to render only
technical or financial assistance in the large-scale exploration,
development and utilization of minerals, petroleum and mineral oils. This
conservative view is premised on the sentiment that the Constitution limits
foreign involvement only to areas where they are needed, the
overpowering intent being to allow Filipinos to benefit from Filipino
resources.24 Towards that end, the perception arises that the power of the
executive to enter into agreements with foreign-owned corporations is an
executive privilege, hampered by the limitations that generally attach to the
grant of privileges.
On the fundamental nature of this power, I harbor an entirely different view.
The actual art of governing under our Constitution does not and cannot
conform to judicial definitions of the power of any of its branches based on
25
isolated clauses or even single articles torn from context. The previously
adopted approach is rigidly formalist, and impervious to the traditional
prerogatives of executive power.
As I stated earlier, the executive authority to contract is a right emanating
from traditional executive functions, and is connected with the power of the
executive branch to determine economic policy. Hence, the proper
approach in interpreting Section 2, Article XII is to tilt in favor of
asserting the right rather than view the provision as a limitation on a
privilege. To subscribe to the Court's previous view will necessitate
adopting as a fundamental premise that absent an express grant of
power, the executive branch has no capacity to contract since such
capacity arises from a privilege.
Had the provision been worded to state that the President may enter into
agreements for technical or financial assistance only, then this
unambiguous limitation should be affirmed. Yet the Constitution does not
express such an intent. The controversial provision is crafted in such a way
that allows any type of agreement, so long as they involve either technical
or financial assistance. In fact, the provision does not restrict the scope of
the agreement so as to pertain exclusively either to technical or financial
assistance.
The Constitution, in allowing foreign participation specifically in the large
scale exploration, development and utilization of natural resources, is
cognizant of the sad truth that such activities entail significant outlay of
capital and advanced technological know-how that domestic corporations
26
may not yet have. The provision expressly adverts to "technical" and
"financial" assistance in recognition of the reality that these two
facets are the indispensable requisites to qualify foreign participants
in the exploration, development, and utilization of mineral and
petroleum resources.
Had the framers chosen to restrict all aspects of all mining activities to
domestic persons, the real fear would have materialized that our mineral
reserves could remain untapped for a significant period of time, owing to
the paucity of venture capital. There was a real option to heed dogmatic
guns who insisted that the mineral resources remain unutilized until the
day when the domestic mining industry becomes capacitated to undertake
the extraction without need of foreign aid. Obviously, the more pragmatic
view won the day.
If indeed the foreign entity is limited only to technical or financial
participation, the implication is that it is up to the State to do all the
rest. Considering the lack of know-how and financial capital, matters
which were appreciated by the framers of the Constitution, this
intended effect is preposterous. Even the State itself would hesitate
to undertake such extractive activities owing to the intensive capital
and extensive training such enterprise would entail. By allowing this
expansive set-up under Section 2, the Constitution enables the
minimization of risk on the part of the State should it desire to
undertake large-scale mineral extractive activities. The pay-off
though, understandably, is an atypical cession of several State
prerogatives in the development of its mineral and petroleum
resources.
Perhaps there is need to be explicit and incisive about the implications of
Section 2. The word "assistance," shorn of context, implies a charitable
grant offered without any quid pro quo attached. Unconditional foreign aid
may be more prevalent this day and age with the acceptance of the notion
that there are base minimum standards of decent living which all persons
are entitled to. However, such concept is alien to the mining industry.
There is no such entity as an International Benevolent Association for
Extraction of Minerals. If "assistance" is to be restrictively interpreted
Page 79 of 126
according to ordinary parlance, no entity would be interested in

undertaking this regulated industry.
Any decision by any enterprise to assist in the exploration, development or
utilization of mineral resources does not arise from a philanthropic impulse.
It is a pure and simple investment, and one that is not engaged in unless
there is the expectation or hope of a reasonable return. I hasten to add
that the deliberate incorporation of the fourth paragraph of Section 2 has
created a window of opportunity for foreign investments in the extractive
enterprises involving petroleum and other mineral oils, subject of course to
limitations under the law. The term may prove discomfiting to the
ideologically committed, the sentimental nationalist or the visceral
oppositionist. Still, the notion is not inconsistent with the general power of
the executive to enter into agreements for the purpose of enticing foreign
investments.
Why then the term "assistance?" Apart from its apparent political
palatability in comparison with "investment," as intimated before, the
term is useful in underscoring the essential facets of the foreign
investment which is assistance in the financial or technical areas, as
well as the fundamental limitations and conditionalities of the
investment. What is allowed is participation, though limited, by foreign
corporations which in turn are entitled to expect a return on their
investments.
The Court had earlier premised the invalidity of several provisions of the
Mining Act on the argument that those provisions authorized service
contracts. But while the 1987 Constitution does not utilize the term
"service contracts," it actually contemplates a broader expanse of
agreements beyond mere contracts for services rendered. Still,
although the provision sanctions a more numerous class of agreements,
these are subjected to more stringent restrictions than what had been
allowed under the 1973 Constitution. Thus, the test should be whether
the law and the contract take away the State's full control and
supervision over the exploration, development and utilization of the
country's mineral resources and negate or defeat the State's
ownership thereof.
In line with the test, Section 2 should be accorded a liberal interpretation
so as to recognize this fundamental prerogative of the presidency. Such
"liberal interpretation" does not equate to a wholesale concession of
mining resources to foreigners, much less to an atmosphere of
complaisance, whether from their perception or the Filipinos.' The fourth
paragraph sets specific limitations on the exercise by the President of this
contract-making power. On the other hand, the second paragraph of
Section 2 lays down the fundamental limitations which likewise may not be
countermanded.
On the basis of the foregoing discussion, and as a necessary
consequence of my view that the agreements under Section 2 are not
strictly limited to financial or technical assistance, I would consider the
following questioned provisions of Republic Act No. 7942 as valid
Sections 3 (g), 34 to 38, 40 to 41, 56 and 90. These provisions were struck
down on the premise that they allowed the constitution of "service
contracts," an agreement which to my mind is still within the contemplation
of Section 2, Article XII.
State Ownership over Mineral and Petroleum Resources
There is need to clarify the specific meaning of these general limitations
arising from the State's assertion of ownership, full control and supervision.
In respect to the petition, the question of ownership has become material
to the proper share the State should receive from the exploration,
development and utilization of mineral resources. I perceive that all the
members of the Court agree that such profit may not be limited to only
such revenue derived from the taxation of the mining activities. Since the
right of the State to obtain a share in the net proceeds and not merely
through taxes arises as an attribute of ownership unequivocally reserved
by the Constitution for the State, such right may not be proscribed either by
legislative provision or contractual stipulation.
Yet it should be conceded that the State has the right to enter into an
agreement concerning such profits. There are, as probably should be,
political consequences if the President opts to surrender all of the State's
profits to a foreign corporation, yet in bare theory, the right to bargain
profits pertains to the wisdom of a political act not ordinarily justiciable
before this Court. Still, the overriding adherence of the Constitution to the
regalian doctrine should be given due respect, and an interpretation
allowing "beneficial ownership" by the foreign corporation should not be
favored.
For purposes of the present judicial review, I would consider it prudent to
limit myself to conceding that the Court had previously erred in invalidating
certain provisions of Rep. Act No. 7942 and the WMC FTAA on the
mistaken notion that the law and the agreement cede beneficial ownership
of mineral resources to a foreign corporation.
Section 4 of Rep. Act No. 7942 expressly recognizes State ownership over
mineral resources, though it is silent on the operational terms of such
ownership. Of course, such general submission would not be in itself
curative of whatever contraventions to State ownership are contained in
the same law; hence, the need for deeper inquiry.
The dissenters wish to strike down the second paragraph of Section 81 of
Rep. Act No. 7942 because it purportedly precludes the Government from
obtaining profits under the agreement from sources other than its share in
taxation. However, as the ponencia points out, the phrase "among other
things" sufficiently allows the government from demanding a share in the
cash flow or earnings of the mining enterprise. A contrary view is anchored
on a rule of statutory construction that concludes that "among other things"
refers only to taxes. Yet, there is also a rule of construction that laws
should be interpreted with a view of upholding rather than destroying it.
Thus, the ponencia's formulation, which achieves the result of the minority
without need of statutory invalidation, is highly preferable.
The provisions of Rep. Act No. 7942 which authorize the conversion of a
financial or technical assistance into a mineral production sharing
agreement (MPSA) turned out to be just as controversial. In this regard,
the minority wishes to strike down Section 39, which in conjunction with
Sections 80 and 84 of the law would purportedly allow such conversion, in
that it would effectively limit the government share in the profits to only the
excise tax on mineral products under internal revenue law.
These concerns are valid and raise troubling questions. Yet equally
troubling is that the Court is being called upon to rule on a premature
question. There is no such creature yet as an FTAA converted into an
MPSA, and so there is no occasion that calls for the application of Sections
39, 80 and 84. I do not subscribe to judicial pre-emptive strikes, as they
preclude the application of still undisclosed considerations which may
prove illuminating and even crucial to the proper disposition of the case. By
seeking invalidation of these "MPSA provisions," the Court is also asked to
strike down an enactment of a co-equal branch which has not given rise to
an actual case or controversy. After all, such enactment deserves due
respect from this branch of government. Assuming that the provisions are
indeed invalid, the Court will not hesitate, at the proper time, to strike them
down or at least impose a proper interpretation that does not run afoul of
the Constitution.27 However, in the absence of any actual attempt to
convert an FTAA to an MPSA, the time is not now.
I likewise agree with the ponencia that Section 7.9 deprives the State of its
rightful share as an incident of ownership without offsetting compensation.
The provisions of the FTAA are fair game for judicial review considering
their present applicability. In fact, the invalidation of Section 7.9 becomes
even more proper now under the circumstances since the provision has
become effectual considering the sale of the foreign equity in WMCP to a
domestic corporation. It is within the competence of this Court to invalidate
Section 7.9 here and now. For that matter, Section 7.8(e) of the FTAA may
be similarly invalidated as it can already serve to unduly deprive the
Government of its proper share by allowing double recovery by WMC.
"Full Control and Supervision" of the State
The matter of "full control and supervision" emerges just as controversial.
Does this grant of power mandate that the State exercise management
over the activity, or exclude the exercise of managerial control by the
foreign corporation?
I don't think it proper to construe the word "full" as implying that such
control or supervision may not be at all yielded or delegated, for reasons I
shall elaborate upon. Instead, "full" should be read as pertaining to the
encompassing scope of the concerns of the State relating to the extractive
enterprises on which it may interfere or impose its will.
It must be conceded that whichever party obtains managerial control must
be allowed considerable elbow room in the exercise of management
prerogatives. Management is in the most informed position to make
resources productive in the pursuit of the enterprise's objectives. 28 In this
age of specialization, corporations have benefited with the devolution of
operational control to specialists, rather than generalists. The era of the
buccaneer entrepreneur chartering his industry solely on gut feel is over.
The vagaries of international finance have dictated that prudent capitalists
cede to the opinion of their experts who are hired because they trained
within their particular fields to know better than the persons who employ
them. The Constitution does not prescribe a particular manner of
management; thus, we can conclude that the State is not compelled to
adopt outmoded methods that could tend to minimize profits.
Still, the question as to who should exercise management is best left to the
parties of the agreement, namely the President and the foreign
corporations. They would be in the best position to determine who is best
qualified to exert managerial control. This prerogative of management can
be exercised by the State if it so insists and the co-parties agree, and the
wisdom of such arrogation is ultimately a policy question this Court has
little control over. And even if the State cedes management to a
different entity such as the foreign corporation, it has the duty to
Page 80 of 126
safeguard that the actual exercise of managerial power does not

contravene our laws and public policy.
There is barely any support of the view that only the State may exert
managerial control. Even the minority concede that these foreign
corporations are not precluded from participating in the management of the
project. I think it unwise to construe "full supervision and control" to the
effect that the State's assent or opinion is necessary before any day-to-day
operational questions may be resolved. There is neither an express rule to
that effect, nor any law of construction that necessitates such
interpretation. Ideally of course, the most qualified party should be allowed
to manage the enterprise, and we should not allow an interpretation that
compels a possibly unsuited entity, such as the State, to operationalize the
business.29 Such a limited construction would be inconvenient and
absurd,30 not to mention potentially wasteful.
The Constitution itself concedes that the State may not have the best
sense as to how to undertake large-scale exploration, development and
utilization of mineral and petroleum resources. This is evinced by the
allowance of foreign technical assistance and foreign participation in the
extractive enterprise. Had the Constitution recognized that the State was
supremely qualified to undertake the operational aspects of the activity,
then it could have phrased the provision in such a way that would strictly
limit the foreign participation to monetary investment or a financial grant of
assistance.
The absence of an express provision on management permits
consideration of the following sensible critique on yielding too many
management prerogatives to a remote overseer such as the State. An
early United Nations report once noted that while it is theoretically possible
to endow a government department with a high degree of operating
flexibility, it is in practice difficult to do so.31 It has been proposed that the
further away a decision-maker is to the market, the higher the information
cost, or the opportunity cost to the gaining of information.32 Remoteness
can be achieved through the layering of bureaucratic structure, and
because of the information loss that accompanies the transmission of
information and judgments from lower levels of the hierarchy to higher
levels, the ultimate basis of a decision may be misleading at best and
erroneous at worst.33
The same conclusion arises from the view that what the provision
authorizes is foreign investment. The foreign player necessarily at least
has a reasonable say in how the mining venture is run. The interest of the
investor in seeing that the investment is not wasted should be recognized
not only as a right available to the investor, but from the broader view that
such say would lead to a more prudent management of the project. It must
be noted that mineral and petroleum resources are non-renewable, thus a
paramount interest arises to ensure against wasteful exploitation.
Next for consideration is the situation, as in this case, if management is
ceded to the foreign corporation, or even to a private domestic corporation
for that matter. What should be the proper dichotomy, if any, between the
private entity's exercise of managerial control, and the State's full control
and supervision?
The President may insist on conditions into the agreement pertaining to the
State's degree of control and supervision in the mining activity. This was
certainly done with the WMC FTAA, which is replete with stipulations
delineating the State's control which are judicially enforceable, imposed
presumably at the President's call. But the FTAA itself is not the only
vehicle by which State control and supervision is exercised. These can
similarly be enforced through statutes, as well as executive or
administrative issuances. The Mining Act itself is an expression of State
control and supervision, implemented in coordination with the executive
and legislative branches.
As a general point, I believe that State control and supervision is
unconstitutionally yielded if either of the Mining Act or the FTAA precludes
the application of the laws and regulations of the Philippines, enunciatory
as they are of State policy. Neither the Mining Act nor the WMC FTAA are
flawed in that regard. The agreements under contemplation are not beyond
the ambit of our regular laws, or regulatory enactments pertaining to such
areas as environmental concerns. Violations of these laws uttered in the
name of the FTAA are punishable in this jurisdiction.
Still, the fact that the Constitution requires "full control and supervision"
indicates an expectation of a more activist role on the part of the State in
the operations of the mining enterprise, perhaps to the prejudice of the
laissez-faire capitalist. Most importantly, the State cannot abdicate its
traditional functions by contractual limitations. It could compel the mining
operations to comply with existing environmental regulations, as well as
with future issuances. It may compel the foreign corporation payment of all
assessable levies. It may evict officers of the foreign corporation for
violation of immigration laws. It may preclude mining operations that affect
prerogatives granted by law to indigenous peoples. It could restrict
particular mining operations which are established to be disasters or
nuisances to the affected communities. The power of the State to enforce
its police powers needs no statutory grant and are certainly not limited
either by the Mining Act or the WMC FTAA.
As to "business decisions," I think that the State may exercise control for
the purpose of ensuring profit of the enterprise as a whole. This may
involve visitorial activity, the conduct of periodic audits, and such powers
normally attributed to an overseer of a business. Just as the foreign
corporation is expected to guard against waste of financial capital, the
State is expected likewise to guard against the waste of resource capital.
I might as well add that, in my view, the constitutional objective of
maintaining full control and supervision over the exploration, development
and utilization of the country's mineral resources in the State would be best
served by the creation of a public corporation for the development and
utilization of these resources, accountable to the State for all actions in its
behalf. The device of a corporation properly utilized provides sufficient
protection to the State's interests while affording flexibility and efficiency in
the conduct of mining operations.34
The creation of a public corporation could remedy a number of potential
problems regarding full State control and supervision of extractive activities
concerning our mineral resources by entities which have the funds and/or
technical know-how but which cannot have a great degree of control and
supervision over such activities. Persons knowledgeable and competent in
mining operations may sit in the corporation's board of directors and craft
policies which implement and further concretize the broad aims of R.A. No.
7942, taking into consideration the nature of the mining industry. The
Board would also be in charge of studying existing contracts for mining
activities, and approving proposed contracts. The Board may also employ
corporate officers and employees to take charge of the day-to-day
operations of the mining activities pursuant to the corporation's contracts
with other entities.
Under such a scheme, the perceived abdication by the State of control and
supervision over mining activities in favor of the foreign entities rendering
financial and/or technical assistance would be greatly diminished. It would
be the public corporation which would principally undertake mining
activities and contract with foreign entities for financial and/or technical
assistance if necessary. The foreign contractor in such cases would not
have the power to determine the course of the project or the major policies
involved therein because these functions would belong to the public
corporation as the agent of the State.
A public corporation would also have the additional benefit of compelling
the input of not only the executive branch, but also that of the legislative.
Such executive-legislative coordination is necessary since public
corporations may only be created through statute.
Section 3.3 of WMC FTAA Constitutional
Finally, it is argued that Section 3.3 of the WMC FTAA violates paragraph
1, Section 2, Article XII of the Constitution, which imposes a limitation on
the term of mineral agreements. I agree with the ponencia that the
constitutional provision does not pertain to FTAAs. It is clear from reading
Section 1 that the agreements limited in term therein are co-production
agreements, joint venture agreements, and mineral production-sharing
agreements, which are all referred to in Section 1, and not the FTAAs
mentioned only in Section 4. Accordingly, Section 3.3 of the WMC FTAA is
not infirm.
Epilogue
Behind the legal issues presented by the petition are fundamental policy
questions from which highly opinionated views can develop, even from the
members of this Court. The promise brought about by the large-scale
exploitation of our mineral and petroleum resources may bring in much
needed revenue, but Filipinos should properly inquire at what cost. As a
Filipino, I am distressed whenever the government crosses the line from
cooperation to subservience to foreign partners in development. Popular
Western wisdom aside, what is good for General Motors is not necessarily
good for the country. The propagation of a foreign-influenced mining
industry may lead to a whole slew of social problems35 which shall be
exacerbated if the government is complicit, either through active
participation or benign neglect, to abuses committed by the mining industry
against the Filipino people. Unlike the foreign corporation, the bottom line
which the State should consider is not found below a ledger, but in the
socio-economic dynamic that will confront the government as a result of
the large-scale mining venture. Political capital is more fickle than financial
capital.
Still, the right to vote I exercise today is that as of a member of the Court,
and not that of the general electorate. The limits of judicial power would
exasperate any well-meaning judge who feels duty-bound to affirm a
constitutionally valid law or principle he or she may otherwise disagree
with. My views on how the government should act are segregate from my
view on whether the government has the power to act at all.
My conclusions are borne out of a close textual analysis of Section 2 in
light of my fundamental understanding of the constitutional powers of the
executive branch. This is in line with my perception of the judicial duty as
being limited to charting the scope and boundaries of the law. The
Page 81 of 126
philosophy of inclusiveness that drives my interpretation of Section 2 is

bolstered not because it might lead to benefits to the economy, but
because it gives due regard to the discretion of the Executive to determine
what is good for the economy. This judicial attitude may not always ensure
the economic good. But before we carve that judicial path out of what we
believe are good intentions, restraint is imperative out of due deference to
our co-equal branches, since the duty of formulating and implementing
economic policies falls exclusively within their purview.
In view of the foregoing, I concur with the opinion of Justice Panganiban.
foreign-owned corporation shall be deemed a qualified person

for purposes of granting an exploration permit, financial or
technical assistance agreement or mineral processing permit."
Underscoring supplied.
56
Per Clause 4.6 of the WMCP FTAA, the contractor is required

to relinquish each year during the exploration period at least ten
percent (10%) of the original contract area, by identifying and
dropping from the FTAA coverage those areas which do not
have mineral potentials, in order that by the time actual mining
operations commence, the FTAA contract area shall have been
reduced to only 5,000 hectares.
57
Footnotes
35
During the Oral Argument, petitioner's counsel, Atty. Marvic

Leonen conceded that the foreign contractor may exercise
limited management prerogatives to the extent of the financial or
technical assistance given. TSN, pp. 181-186. How such "limited
management" can be operationalized was not explained.
36
In the January 27, 2004 Decision, this Court held that the
fourth paragraph of Section 2 of Art. XII limits foreign
involvement in the local mining industry to agreements strictly for
financial and/or technical assistance only, and precludes
agreements which grant to foreign corporations the management
of local mining operations, since the latter agreements are
purportedly in the nature of service contracts, as this concept
was understood under the 1973 Constitution. Such contracts
were supposedly deconstitutionalized and proscribed by the
omission of the phrase "service contracts" from the 1987
Constitution. Since the WMCP FTAA contains provisions that
permit the contractor's management of the concern, the Decision
struck down the FTAA for being a prohibited service contract.
Provisions of RA 7942 which granted managerial authority to the
foreign contractor were also declared unconstitutional.
39
It reads as follows: "Section 20. The President may contract or

guarantee foreign loans on behalf of the Republic of the
Philippines with the prior concurrence of the Monetary Board,
and subject to such limitations as may be provided by law. The
Monetary Board shall, within thirty days from the end of every
quarter of the calendar year, submit to the Congress a complete
report of its decision on applications for loans to be contracted or
guaranteed by the Government or government-owned and
controlled corporations which would have the effect of increasing
the foreign debt, and containing other matters as may be
provided by law."
40
According to estimates by the MGB, the success-to-failure

ratio of large-scale mining or hydrocarbon projects is about
1:1,000. It goes without saying that such a miniscule success
ratio hardly encourages the investment of tremendous amounts
of risk capital and modern technology required for the discovery,
extraction and treatment of mineral ores, and oil and gas
deposits.
41
The Constitutional Commission (ConCom) began its work in

1986, three short years after the assassination in August 21,
1983 of former Senator Benigno "Ninoy" Aquino, Jr. During the
early part of this three-year period, the country underwent a
wracking economic crisis characterized by scarcity of funds,
capital flight, stringent import controls, grave lack of foreign
exchange needed to fund critical importations of raw materials,
panic-buying, hoarding of commodities, and grave lack of foreign
exchange needed to fund critical importations of raw materials.
Many businesses were on the verge of failure and collapse, and
many in fact did. The members of the ConCom were unlikely to
forget the critical condition of the Philippine economy and the
penury of its government.
42
The management of every business has two primary

objectives. The first is to earn profit. The second is to stay
solvent, that is, to have on hand sufficient cash to pay debts as
they fall due. Other objectives may be targeted, but a business
cannot hope to accomplish them, unless it meets these two
basic tests of survival -- operating profitably and staying solvent.
Meigs and Meigs, Accounting: The Basis for Business Decisions
(5th ed., 1982), p. 11.
55
Sec. 3(aq) of RA 7942 reads as follows: "aq. Qualified person

means any citizen of the Philippines with capacity to contract, or
a corporation, partnership, association, or cooperative organized
or authorized for the purpose of engaging in miring, with
technical and financial capability to undertake mineral resources
development and duly registered in accordance with law at least
sixty per centum (60 percent) of the capital of which is owned by
citizens of the Philippines: Provided, That a legally organized
Memorandum (in support of WMCP's Motion and

Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration), p. 61.
58
Id., pp. 63-64.
59
Accounts receivable may be converted to cash in one of three

ways: (1) assignment of receivables, which is a borrowing
arrangement with receivables pledged as security on the loan;
(2) factoring receivables, which is a sale of receivables without
recourse for cash to a third party, usually a bank or other
financial institution; and (3) the transfer of receivables with
recourse, which is a hybrid of the other two forms of receivable
financing. Smith and Skousen, Intermediate Accounting, (1992,
11th ed.), pp. 317-321.
Banks usually prefer lending against the security of accounts
receivable backed up by postdated checks. They refer to these
facilities as "bills discounting lines."
61
"Beneficial interest has been defined as the profit, benefit, or

advantage resulting from a contract, or the ownership of an
estate as distinct from the legal ownership or control."
Christiansen v. Department of Social Security, 131 P. 2d 189,
191, 15 Wash. 2d 465, 467, November 25, 1942, per Driver, J.
Beneficial use, ownership or interest in property means "such a
right to its enjoyment as exists where the legal title is in one
person and the right to such beneficial use or interest is in
another x x x." Montana Catholic Missions v. Missoula County,
26 S Ct. 197, 200, 200 U.S. 118, 127-128, January 2, 1906, per
Peckham, J.
64
These incentives consist principally of the waiver of national

taxes during the cost recovery period of the FTAA. During such
period, the contractor pays only part of the basic government's
share in taxes consisting of local government taxes and fees.
These are the local business tax, real property tax, community
tax, occupation fees, regulatory fees, all other local taxes and
fees in force, and royalty payments to indigenous cultural
communities, if any.
These national taxes, however, are not to be paid by the
contractor: (i) excise tax on minerals; (ii) contractor's income tax;
(iii) customs duties and fees on imported capital equipment; (iv)
value added tax on purchases of imported equipment, goods
and services; (v) withholding tax on interest payments on foreign
loans; (vi) withholding tax on dividends to foreign stockholders;
and (vii) royalties due the government on mineral reservations.
Other incentives to the contractor include those under the
Omnibus Investment Code of 1997; those for the use of pollution
control devices and facilities; income tax carry-forward of losses
(five-year net loss carry forward); and income tax accelerated
depreciation.
65
See 3(g), DAO 99-56. According to the paper by Messrs.

Ramos and De Vera, supra, who are, respectively, the director
of the MGB and chief of the Mineral Economics, Information and
Publication Division of the MGB, majority of the payments listed
under Sec. 3(g) are relatively small in value. The most significant
payments in terms of amount are the excise tax, royalties to
mineral reservations and indigenous cultural communities,
income tax and real property tax.
66
Per Messrs. Ramos and De Vera, supra, "(t)he term of a

successful FTAA may be divided into a pre-operating period, a
cost recovery period and a post recovery period. The preoperating period consists of the exploration, pre-feasibility,
feasibility, development and construction phases. The aggregate
of this period is a maximum of eleven (11) years. The cost
recovery period, on the other hand, consists of the initial years of
commercial operation where the contractor is allowed to recover
its pre-operating expenses. The end of this period is when the
aggregate of the net cash flow from the mining operation
Page 82 of 126
becomes equal to the total pre-operating expenses or a

maximum of five (5) years from commencement of commercial
production, whichever comes first. The post recovery period is
the remaining term of the FTAA immediately following the cost
recovery period. The additional government share from an FTAA
is collected after the cost recovery period."
67
Ramos and De Vera, supra, pp. 3-4.
Environmental expenses of the Contractor

including such expenses necessary to fully
comply with its environmental obligations;
Expenses for the development of host and
neighboring communities and for the
development of geoscience and mining
technology together with training costs and
expenses;
68
The discussion on pp. 4-7 of the Ramos-DeVera report,

focusing on the modes of computation of the additional
government share as spelled out in DAO 99-56, is significant:
The phrase "among other things" demands that
Government is entitled to additional share aside from
the normal taxes and fees paid during operation.
Simple as it was formulated, the phrase is another
challenging task to operationalize. In 1997, the
Philippine government conducted several consultative
meetings with various investor groups, national
government agencies concerned with taxation and
incentives and other stakeholders of the mining
industry to formulate the possible modes of
determining the additional government share for
FTAA. The negotiation took into consideration the
following:
Royalty payments to claim owners or

surface land owners relating to the Contract
Area during the Operating Phase;
Continuing exploration and mine
development expenses within the Contract
Area after the pre-operating period; and
Interest expenses charged on loans or
such other financing-related expenses
incurred by the Contractor subject to
limitations in debt/equity ratio as given in the
contract and which shall not be more than
the prevailing international rates charged for
similar types of transactions at the time the
financing was arranged, and where such
loans are necessary for the operations; and
Capital investment in the project;

Government taxes, duties and fees.
Risks involved;
Contribution of the project to the economy;
Contribution of the project to community
and local government;
Technical complexity of the project; and
Other factors that will provide for a fair and
equitable sharing between the government
and the contractor.
During these consultations, some investor groups
have repeatedly expressed their objections to the
imposition of an additional government share.
However, since Government is firmly committed to
adhere to its interpretation of Section 81 of the mining
law on government share in an FTAA, it decided to
push through with the collection of this additional
government share by formally making part of the
mining regulation through the issuance by the
Department of Environment and Natural Resources of
Administrative Order No. 99-56 providing for the
guidelines in establishing the fiscal regime of Financial
or Technical Assistance Agreements.
There were three schemes for computing the
additional government share presented in the
administrative order.
5.1 Net Mining Revenue-Based Option
Net mining revenue means the gross output from
mining operations during a calendar year less
deductible expenses. These deductible expenses
consist of expenses incurred by the Contractor
directly, reasonably and necessarily related to mining
operations in the contract area during a calendar year,
namely:
Mining, milling, transport and handling
expenses together with smelting and
refining costs other than smelting and
refining costs paid to third parties;
General and administrative expenses
actually incurred by the Contractor in the
Philippines;
Consulting fees incurred for work related to
the project; provided that those expenses
incurred outside of the Philippines are
justifiable and allowable subject to the
approval of the Director of Mines and
Geosciences Bureau;
The additional government share from this option for

any year i is the difference between 50% of the
cumulative annual net mining revenues CNi and the
cumulative total government share CGi (basic and
additional). The intention is to distribute the cumulative
net mining revenue equally between the Government
and the contractor. It can be expressed through the
following formula:
If 50% of CNi < CGi
Additional Government Share = 0
Else, if 50% of CNi > CGi
Additional Gov't Share = (50% x CNi) - CGi
5.2 Cash Flow-Based Option
Project cash flow before financing and tax (CFi) is
calculated as follows:
CFi = GO - DE + I - PE - OC
In this formula, GO is the gross output; DE are the
deductible expenses; I is the interest expense; PE is
unrecovered pre-operating expense; and OC is ongoing capital expenditures. This option provides that
Government gets an additional share from the project
cash flow if the cumulative present value of the
previous total government share collected (basic and
additional) is less than 50% of the cumulative present
value of the project cash flows. The additional
government share AGS is therefore the difference
between 50% and the percentage of the cumulative
present value of total government shares CGA over
the cumulative present value of the project cash flows
CP. The cumulative present value of project cash flow
for any year i is given by the following formula:
CPi = CPi-1 x (1.10) + CFi
The factor 1.10 is a future value factor based on the
cost of borrowed money with allowance for inflation of
the US dollar. The cumulative present value of the
total government share before additional government
share CGB for year i is:
CGBi = CGAi-1 x (1 + Cost of Capital) + BGSi
where CGAi is the cumulative present value of total
government share inclusive of the additional
government share during the year is CGAi = CGBi +
AGSi.
Page 83 of 126
If CGBi > 50% of CPi :
doubtful accounts expense for probable losses, and write-offs of

bad debts.

Else, if CGBi < 50% of CPi :
Additional Government Share = (50% x CPi)
CGBi
5.3 Profit-Based Option
This third option provides that Government shall
receive an additional share of twenty-five percent
(25%) of the additional or excess profits during a
taxable year when the two-year average ratio of the
net income after tax (NIAT) to gross output (GO) is
0.40 or better. The trigger level of 0.40 ratio is
approximately equivalent to a 20% return on
investment when computed based on the life of the
project. Investors have indicated that their minimum
return on investment before they would invest on a
mining project in the Philippine is 15%. It was agreed
upon that a return on investment below 20% but not
lower than 15% is normal profit. If the project reaches
20% or better, there is then an additional or excess
profits. The computation of the 0.40 trigger shall be
based on a 2-year moving average which is the
average of the previous year's ratio and the current
year's ratio. The additional or excess profit is
computed using the following formula:
Additional Profits = [NIAT - (0.40 x GO)] / (1 - ITR)
In the above formula, ITR refers to the prevailing
income tax rate applied by the Bureau of Internal
Revenue in computing the income tax of the
contractor during a taxable year.
If the two-year average ratio is less than 0.40:
Else, if the two-year average ratio is 0.40 or better:
Cash flows provide relevant information about the cash effects of

an entity's operations, and its investing and financing
transactions. Smith and Skousen, supra, p. 184.
70
Some of these indirect taxes are: fuel taxes; withholding tax

on payrolls, on royalty payments to claim owners and surface
owners and on royalty payments for technology transfer; value
added tad on local equipment, supplies and services.
71
Other contributions of mining projects include: infrastructure

(hospitals, roads, schools, public markets, churches, and the
like) and social development projects; payroll and fringe benefits
(direct and indirect employment); expenditures by the contractor
for development of host and neighboring communities;
expenditures for the development of geosciences/mining
technology; expenditures for social infrastructures; and the
resulting multiplier effects of mining operations.
72
The third paragraph of 81, RA 7942 states: "The collection of

Government share in financial or technical assistance
agreement shall commence after the financial or technical
assistance agreement contractor has fully recovered its preoperating expenses, exploration, and development expenditures,
inclusive."
73
Sec. 80. Government Share in Mineral Production Sharing

Agreement. The total government share in a mineral
production sharing agreement shall be the excise tax on mineral
products as provided in Republic Act No. 7729, amending
Section 151(a) of the National Internal Revenue Code, as
amended.
Sec. 84. Excise Tax on Mineral Products. The contractor shall
be liable to pay the excise tax on mineral products as provided
for under Section 151 of the National Internal Revenue Code:
Provided, however, That with respect to a mineral production
sharing agreement, the excise tax on mineral products shall be
the government share under said agreement. (Underscoring
supplied)
74
Additional Government Share = 25% x Excess Profits
In all of these three options, the basis of computation

are all in US dollars based on prevailing foreign
exchange rate at the time the expenses were incurred.
Alternatives or options aside from these three
schemes are studied by Government for possible
improvement of the current fiscal system. The basic
guideline, however, is that the total government share
should not be less than fifty percent of the sharing.
6. Collection of the Additional Government Share
69
The cash flows of a business concern tend to be more

accurate and realistic indicia of the financial capacity of the
enterprise, rather than net income or taxable income, which are
arrived at after netting out non-cash items like depreciation,
112 of RA 7942 is reproduced below:

Sec. 112. Non-impairment of Existing
Mining/Quarrying Rights. All valid and existing
mining lease contracts, permits/licenses, leases
pending renewal, mineral production-sharing
agreements granted under Exec. Order No. 279, at
the date of effectivity of this Act, shall remain valid,
shall not be impaired, and shall be recognized by the
Government: Provided, That the provisions of Chapter
XIV on government share in mineral production
sharing agreement and of Chapter XVI on incentives
of this Act shall immediately govern and apply to a
mining lessee or contractor unless the mining lessee
or contractor indicates his intention to the Secretary, in
writing, not to avail of such provisions: Provided,
further, That no renewal of mining lease contracts
shall be made after the expiration of its term:
Provided, finally, That such leases, production-sharing
agreements, financial or technical assistance
agreements shall comply with the applicable
provisions of this Act and its implementing rules and
regulations. (Underscoring supplied)
The government shares 25% of any marginal profit

derived by the contractor at 20% or higher return on
investment.
The term of a successful FTAA may be divided into a

pre-operating period, a cost recovery period and a
post recovery period. The pre-operating period
consists of the exploration, pre-feasibility, feasibility,
development and construction phases. The aggregate
of this period is a maximum of eleven (11) years. The
cost recovery period, on the other hand, consists of
the initial years of commercial operation where the
contractor is allowed to recover its pre-operating
expenses. The end of this period is when the
aggregate of the net cash flow from the mining
operation becomes equal to the total pre-operating
expenses or a maximum of five (5) years from
commencement of commercial production, whichever
comes first. The post recovery period is the remaining
term of the FTAA immediately following the cost
recovery period. The additional government share
from an FTAA is collected after the cost recovery
period. (underscoring supplied)
80 and 84 of RA 7942 are reproduced below:
75
Even during the cost recovery period, the contractor will still
have to pay a portion of the basic government share consisting
of local government taxes and fees, such as local business
taxes, real property taxes, community taxes, occupation fees,
regulatory fees, and all other local taxes and fees, plus royalty
payments to indigenous cultural communities, if any.
76
Ramos and DeVera, supra, p. 7.
77
Ibid., p. 11. See also 3e of DAO 99-56.
78
Justice Carpio argues thus: The WMCP FTAA grants the

State 60 percent of net profit; CMP likewise agrees to 60
percent; the Malampaya-Shell FTAA provides for 60 percent
also; so the Court should decree a minimum of 60 percent. Our
answer: no law authorizes this Court to issue such a decree. It is
up to the State to negotiate the most advantageous percentage.
This Court cannot be stampeded into the realm of legislation.
Page 84 of 126
79
Clause 1.2 thereof states: "All financing, technology,

management and personnel necessary for the Mining
Operations shall be provided by the Contractor in accordance
with the provisions of this Agreement. If no Minerals in
commercial quantity are developed and produced, the
Contractor acknowledges that it will not be entitled to
reimbursement of its expenses incurred in conducting the Mining
Operations."
83
"Qualified Entity" is defined as "an entity that at the relevant

time is qualified to enter into a mineral production sharing
agreement with the Government under the laws restricting
foreign ownership and equity in natural resource projects." 2 -Definitions, WMCP FTAA, p. 10. (Underscoring supplied.)
Pursuant to 26a in relation to 3g and 3aq of RA 7942, a
contractor in an MPSA should be a citizen of the Philippines or a
corporation at least 60 percent of the capital of which is owned
by citizens of the Philippines.
84
Since we assume that the buyer-corporation, which buys up

60% equity in WMCP, is 60% Filipino-owned and 40% foreignowned, therefore, the foreign stockholders in such buyercorporation hold 24% beneficial interest in WMCP.
farming, with priority to subsistence fishermen and fishworkers in

rivers, lakes, bays, and lagoons.
The President may enter into agreements with foreign-owned
corporations involving either technical or financial assistance for
large-scale exploration, development, and utilization of minerals,
petroleum, and other mineral oils according to the general terms
and conditions provided by law, based on real contributions to
the economic growth and general welfare of the country. In such
agreements, the State shall promote the development and use
of local scientific and technical resources.
The President shall notify the Congress of every contract
entered into in accordance with this provision, within thirty days
from its execution."
6
The only limitation is that the State cannot alienate its natural
resources except for agricultural lands. However, the State can
exploit commercially its natural resources and sell the
marketable products from such exploitation. See note 12.
16
The five Mineral Production Sharing Agreements (Annexes A

to F) attached to the 20 October 2004 Compliance of the
Solicitor General uniformly contain the following provision:
87
Art. 1306 of the Civil Code provides: "The contracting parties

may establish such stipulations, clauses, terms and conditions
as they may deem convenient, provided they are not contrary to
law, morals, good customs, public order, or public policy.".
Share of the Government - The Government Share

shall be the excise tax on mineral products at the
time of removal and at the rate provided for in
Republic Act No. 7729 amending Section 151(a) of
the National Internal Revenue Code, as amended,
as well as other taxes, duties, and fees levied by
existing laws. (Emphasis supplied)
89
Philippine Basketball Association v. CA, 337 SCRA 358, 369,

August 8, 2000. Likewise, 11 of Book I of Chapter 3 of Exec.
Order No. 292, otherwise known as "The Administrative Code of
1987," states: "Sec. 11. The State's Responsibility for Acts of
Agents. (1) The State shall be legally bound and responsible
only through the acts performed in accordance with the
Constitution and the laws by its duly authorized representatives.
(2) The State shall not be bound by the mistakes or errors of its
officers or agents in the exercise of their functions."
Clearly, the State's share is limited to taxes, duties

and fees just like under the old system of "license,
concession or lease." See the (1) Mineral Production
Sharing Agreement between the Republic of the
Philippines and Ungay-Malobago Mines, Inc. and
Rapu-Rapu Minerals, Inc. dated 12 September 2000;
(2) Mineral Production Sharing Agreement between
the Republic of the Philippines and Ungay-Malobago
Mines, Inc. and TVI Resource Development (Phils.),
Inc. dated 17 June 1998; (3) Mineral Production
Sharing Agreement between the Republic of the
Philippines and Base Metals Mineral Resources
Corporation (BMMRC) dated 20 November 1997; (4)
Mineral Production Sharing Agreement between the
Republic of the Philippines and Philex Gold
Philippines, Inc. dated 29 December 1999 (MPSA No.
148-99XIII); and (5) Mineral Production Sharing
Agreement between the Republic of the Philippines
and Philex Gold Philippines, Inc. dated 29 December
1999 (MPSA No. 149-99-XIII).
90
Art. 1420 of the Civil Code provides: "In case of a divisible

contract, if the illegal terms can be separated from the legal
ones, the latter may be enforced."
6
In Reagan v. Commission on Internal Revenue (L-26379, 27

December 1969, 30 SCRA 968,973) the Court discussed the
concept of auto-limitation in this wise: "It is to be admitted that
any State may by its consent, express or implied, submit to a
restriction of its sovereignty rights. That is the concept of
sovereignty as auto-limitation which, in the succinct language of
Jellinek, 'is the property of a state-force due to which it has the
exclusive capacity of legal-self determination and selfrestriction.' A State then, if it chooses to, may refrain from the
exercise of what otherwise is illimitable competence." See also
Taada v. Angara, GR No. 118295, 2 May 1997, 272 SCRA 18
3
Ibid., pp. 65-120. Then Executive Secretary Teofisto Guingona,

Jr. signed the WMCP FTAA on behalf of then President Fidel V.
Ramos upon recommendation of then DENR Secretary Angel C.
Alcala.
4
Section 2, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution provides in full:

"All lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal,
natural resources are owned by the State. With the exception of
agricultural lands, all other natural resources shall not be
alienated. The exploration, development, and utilization of
natural resources shall be under the full control and supervision
of the State. The State may directly undertake such activities, or
it may enter into co-production, joint venture, or productionsharing agreements with Filipino citizens, or corporations or
associations at least sixty per centum of whose capital is owned
by such citizens. Such agreements may be for a period not
exceeding twenty-five years, renewable for not more than
twenty-five years, and under such terms and conditions as may
be provided by law. In cases of water rights for irrigation, water
supply, fisheries, or industrial uses other than the development
of water power, beneficial use may be the measure and limit of
the grant.
The State shall protect the nation's marine wealth in its
citizens.
The Congress may, by law, allow small-scale utilization of
22
China Banking Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos.

146749 & 147938, 10 June 2003, 403 SCRA 634; City of Baguio
v. De Leon, 134 Phil. 912 (1968).
23
The 1995 Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 7942

attempt to limit the period to five years. Thus, Section 236 of the
Implementing Rules states that the "period of recovery which is
reckoned from the date of commercial operation shall be for a
period not exceeding five years or until the date of actual
recovery, whichever comes first." However, the succeeding
sentence of Section 236 also states, "For clarification, the
Government's entitlement to its share shall commence after the
FTAA contractor has fully recovered its pre-operating,
exploration and development stage expenses, inclusive and the
contractor's obligations under Chapter XXVII (on Taxes and
Fees) of the rules and regulations do not arise until this time."
What the first sentence limits the succeeding sentence cancels.
The 1996 Revised Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA
7942 omit the clarificatory sentence.
24
Section 94(a) of RA 7942 guarantees the foreign contractor

the "right to repatriate the entire proceeds of the liquidation of
the foreign investment in the currency in which the investment
was originally made and at the exchange rate prevailing at the
time of repatriation." Section 94(b) guarantees the "right to remit
earnings from the investment in the currency in which the foreign
investment was originally made and at the exchange rate
prevailing at the time of remittance."
36
Under Section 12.1 of the Occidental-Shell FTAA, the threeman arbitral panel consists of the Philippine Government's
nominee, Occidental-Shell's nominee, and a third member
mutually chosen by the nominees of the Government and
Occidental-Shell.
Page 85 of 126
42
The same provision appears in the FTAA between the

Republic of the Philippines and ARIMCO Mining Corporation
dated 20 June 1994. ARIMCO, a domestic corporation owned
and controlled by an Australian mining company, does not need
to pay the 60% share of the Philippine Government in the mining
revenues if ARIMCO's foreign parent company sells 60% of
ARIMCO's equity to a Philippine citizen or to a 60% Filipino
owned corporation. In such event, the share of the Philippine
Government in the mining revenues is ZERO percent. ARIMCO
will only pay the Philippine Government the 2% excise tax due
on mineral products under a mineral production sharing
agreement. See Annex 5, Compliance of Solicitor General dated
20 October 2004.
in a Calendar Year during the Operating Phase.

Allowable deductible expenses shall include the
following:
1. Mining, milling, transport and handling expenses
together with smelting and refining costs other than
smelting and refining costs paid to third parties;
2. General and administrative expenses actually
incurred by the Contractor in the Philippines;
3. Consulting fees:
43
Section 2.1 of the WMCP FTAA defines a "Qualified Entity" as

an "entity that at the relevant time is qualified to enter into a
mineral production sharing agreement with the Government
under the laws restricting foreign ownership and equity in natural
resource projects."
59
DENR ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 56-99

SUBJECT: Guidelines Establishing the Fiscal Regime
of Financial or Technical Assistance Agreements
Pursuant to Section 81 and other pertinent provisions
of Republic Act No. 7942, otherwise known as the
Philippine Mining Act of 1995 (the "Mining Act"), the
following guidelines establishing the fiscal regime
of Financial or Technical Assistance Agreements
(FTAA) are hereby promulgated.
SECTION 1. Scope
This Administrative Order is promulgated to:
a. Establish the fiscal regime for FTAAs which the
Government and the FTAA Contractors shall adopt for
the large-scale exploration, development and
commercial utilization of mineral resources in the
country; and
b. Provide for the formulation of a Pro Forma FTAA
embodying the fiscal regime established herein and
such other terms and conditions as provided in the
Mining Act and the Implementing Rules and
Regulations (IRR) of the Mining Act.
SECTION 2. Objectives
a) incurred within the Philippines for work related to

the project
b) incurred outside the Philippines for work related to
the project: Provided, That such fees are justifiable
and subject to the approval of the Director.
4. Environmental expenses of the Contractor including
such expenses necessary to fully comply with its
environmental obligations as stipulated in the
environmental protection provision of the FTAA and in
the IRR;
5. Expenses for the development of host and
neighboring communities and for the development of
geoscience and mining technology as stipulated in the
FTAA and in the IRR together with the training costs
and expenses referred to in the FTAA;
6. Royalty payments to Claimowners or surface land
owners relating to the Contract Area during the
Operating Phase;
7. Continuing exploration and mine development
expenses within the Contract Area after the preoperating period;
8. Interest expenses charged on loans or such other
financing-related expenses incurred by the Contractor
subject to the financing requirement in the FTAA,
which shall not be more than the prevailing
international rates charged for similar types of
transactions at the time the financing was arranged,
and where such loans are necessary for the
operations; and
The objectives of this Administrative Order are:

9. Government taxes, duties and fees.
a. To achieve an equitable sharing among the
Government, both National and Local, the FTAA
Contractor and the concerned communities of the
benefits derived from mineral resources to ensure
sustainable mineral resources development; and
b. To ensure a fair, equitable, competitive and stable
investment regime for the large scale exploration,
development and commercial utilization of minerals.
SECTION 3. Fiscal Regime of a Financial or Technical
Assistance Agreement
The Financial or Technical Assistance Agreement
which the Government and the FTAA Contractor shall
enter into shall have a Fiscal Regime embodying the
following provisions:
a. General Principles. The Government Share derived
from Mining Operations after the Date of
Commencement of Commercial Production shall be
determined in accordance with this Section.
b. Occupation Fees. Prior to or upon registration of the
FTAA and on the same date every year thereafter, the
Contractor shall pay to the concerned Treasurer of the
municipality(ies) or city(ies) the required Occupation
Fee over the Contract Area at the rate provided for by
existing laws, rules and regulations.
c. Deductible Expenses. Allowable deductible
expenses shall include all the expenses incurred by
the Contractor directly, reasonably and necessarily
related to the Mining Operations in the Contract Area
Ongoing Capital Expenditures shall be considered as

capital expenses subject to Depreciation Charges.
"Ongoing Capital Expenditures" shall mean expenses
for approved acquisitions of equipment and approved
construction of buildings necessary for the Mining
Operations as provided in its approved Mining Project
Feasibility Study.
"Depreciation Charges" means the annual non-cash
deduction from the Operating Income for the use of
fixed assets that are subject to exhaustion, wear and
tear and obsolescence during their employment in a
Mining Operation. Its applicability and computation are
regulated by existing taxation laws, the Mining Act and
the IRR. Incentives relating to depreciation allowance
shall be in accordance to the provisions of the Mining
Act and the IRR.
"Operating Income" means the Gross Output less
Deductible Expenses, while "Gross Output" has the
meaning ascribed to it in the National Internal
Revenue Code.
d. Payment of Government Taxes and Fees. The
Contractor shall promptly pay all the taxes and fees
required by the Government in carrying out the
activities covered in the FTAA and in such amount,
venue, procedure and time as stipulated by the
particular law and implementing rules and regulations
governing such taxes and fees subject to all rights of
objection or review as provided for in relevant laws,
rules and regulations. In case of non-collection as
covered by Clause 3-g-1 of this Section, the
Page 86 of 126
Contractor shall follow the prevailing procedures for

availment of such non-collection in accordance with
pertinent laws, rules and regulations. Where prevailing
orders, rules and regulations do not fully recognize
and implement the provisions covered by Clause 3-g-1
of this Section, the Government shall exert its best
efforts to ensure that all such orders, rules and
regulations are revised or modified accordingly.
e. Recovery of Pre-Operating Expenses. Considering
the high risk, high cost and long term nature of Mining
Operations, the Contractor is given the opportunity to
recover its Pre-Operating Expenses incurred during
the pre-operating period, after which the Government
shall receive its rightful share of the national
patrimony. The Recovery Period, which refers to the
period allowed to the Contractor to recover its PreOperating Expenses as provided in the Mining Act and
the IRR, shall be for a maximum of five (5) years or at
a date when the aggregate of the Net Cash Flows
from the Mining Operations is equal to the aggregate
of its Pre-operating Expenses, reckoned from the Date
of Commencement of Commercial Production,
whichever comes first. The basis for determining the
Recovery Period shall be the actual Net Cash Flows
from Mining Operations and actual Pre-Operating
Expenses converted into its US dollar equivalent at
the time the expenditure was incurred.
"Net Cash Flow" means the Gross Output less
Deductible Expenses, Pre-Operating Expenses,
Ongoing Capital Expenditures and Working Capital
charges.
Million US Dollars: Provided, That the interests shall

not be more than the prevailing international rates
charged for similar types of transaction at the time the
financing was arranged;
12. All costs of constructing and developing the mine
incurred before the Date of Commencement of
Commercial Production, including capital and property
as hereinafter defined irrespective as to their means of
financing, subject to the limitations defined by Clause
3-f-11 hereof, and inclusive of the principal obligation
and the interests arising from any Contractor's leasing,
hiring, purchasing or similar financing arrangements
including all payments made to Government both
National and Local; and
13. General and administrative expenses actually
incurred by the Contractor for the benefit of the
Contract Area.
The foregoing recoverable Pre-Operating Expenses
shall be subject to verification of its actual expenditure
by an independent audit recognized by the
Government and chargeable against the Contractor.
g. Government Share.
1. Basic Government Share. The following taxes, fees
and other such charges shall constitute the Basic
Government Share:
a) Excise tax on minerals;
f. Recoverable Pre-Operating Expenses. PreOperating Expenses for recovery which shall be

approved by the Secretary upon recommendation of
the Director shall consist of actual expenses and
capital expenditures relating to the following:
1. Acquisition, maintenance and administration of any
mining or exploration tenements or agreements
covered by the FTAA;
2. Exploration, evaluation, feasibility and
environmental studies, production, mining, milling,
processing and rehabilitation,
3. Stockpiling, handling, transport services, utilities
and marketing of minerals and mineral products;
4. Development within the Contract Area relating to
the Mining Operations;
b) Contractor's income tax;

c) Customs duties and fees on imported capital
equipment;
d) Value added tax on the purchase of imported
equipment, goods and services;
e) Withholding tax on interest payments on foreign
loans;
f) Withholding tax on dividends to foreign
stockholders;
g) Royalties due the Government on Mineral
Reservations;
h) Documentary stamps taxes,
5. All Government taxes and fees;

i) Capital gains tax;
6. Payments made to local Governments and
7. Payments to landowners, surface rights holders,
Claimowners, including the Indigenous Cultural
Communities, if any;
8. Expenses incurred in fulfilling the Contractor's
obligations to contribute to national development and
training of Philippine personnel;
9. Consulting fees incurred inside and outside the
Philippines for work related directly to the Mining
Operations;
10. The establishment and administration of field and
regional offices including administrative overheads
incurred within the Philippines which are properly
allocatable to the Mining Operations and directly
related to the performance of the Contractor's
obligations and exercise of its rights under the FTAA;
11. Costs incurred in financial development, including
interest loans payable within or outside the
Philippines, subject to the financing requirements
required in the FTAA and to a limit on debt-equity ratio
of 5:1 for investments equivalent to 200 Million US
Dollars or less, or for the first 200 Million US Dollars of
investments in excess of 200 Million US Dollars, or 8:1
for that part of the investment which exceeds 200
j) Local business tax;

k) Real property tax,
l) Community tax;
m) Occupation fees;
n) All other local Government taxes, fees and imposts
as of the effective date of the FTAA;
o) Special Allowance, as defined in the Mining Act;
and
p) Royalty payments to any Indigenous
People(s)/Indigenous Cultural Community(ies).
From the Effective Date, the foregoing taxes, fees and
other such charges constituting the Basic Government
Share, if applicable, shall be paid by the Contractor:
Provided, That above items (a) to (g) shall not be
collected from the Contractor upon the date of
approval of the Mining Project Feasibility Study up to
the end of the Recovery Period. Any taxes, fees,
royalties, allowances or other imposts, which should
not be collected by the Government, but nevertheless
paid by the Contractor and are not refunded by the
Government before the end of the next taxable year,
Page 87 of 126
shall be included in the Government Share in the next

taxable year. Any Value-Added Tax refunded or
credited shall not form part of Government Share.
I = Interest payments on loans included in the

Deductible Expenses shall be equivalent to those
referred to in Clause 3-c-8 hereof;
2. Additional Government Share. Prior to the

commencement of Development and Construction
Phase, the Contractor may select one of the formula
for calculating the Additional Government Share set
out below which the Contractor wishes to apply to all
of its Mining Operations and notify the Government in
writing of that selection. Upon the issuance of such
notice, the formula so selected shall thereafter apply
to all of the Contractor's Mining Operations.
PE = unrecovered Pre-Operating Expenses;
a) Fifty-Fifty Sharing of the Cumulative Present Value

of Cash Flows. The Government shall collect an
Additional Government Share from the Contractor
equivalent to an amount which when aggregated with
the cumulative present value of Government Share
during the previous Contract Years and the Basic
Government Share for the current Contract Year is
equivalent to a minimum of fifty percent (50%) of the
Cumulative Present Value of Project Cash Flow before
financing for the current Contract Year. as defined
below.
Computation. The computation of the Additional
Government Share shall commence immediately after
the Recovery Period. If the computation covers a
period of less than one year, the Additional
Government Share corresponding to this period shall
be computed pro-rata wherein the Additional
Government Share during the year shall be multiplied
by the fraction of the year after recovery. The
Additional Government Share shall be computed as
follows:
Project Cash Flow Before Financing and Tax ("CF")
for a taxable year shall be calculated as follows:
CF = GO - DE +I - PE - OC
OC = On-going Capital Expenditures as defined in

Clause 3-c hereof;
CPi-1 = cumulative present value of project cash flow
during the previous year; and
CGA = cumulative present value of total Government
Share during the previous year.
b) Profit Related Additional Government Share. The
Government shall collect an Additional Government
Share from the Contractor based on twenty-five
percent (25%) of the additional profits once the
arithmetic average of the ratio of Net Income After Tax
To Gross Output as defined in the National Internal
Revenue Code, for the current and previous taxable
years is 0.40 or higher rounded off to the nearest two
decimal places.
Government Share from additional profit shall
commence immediately after the Recovery Period. If
the computation covers a period of less than a year,
the additional profit corresponding to this period shall
be computed pro-rata wherein the total additional
profit during the year shall be multiplied by the fraction
of the year after recovery.
The additional profit shall be derived from the following
formula.:
If the computed average ratio as derived from above is
less than 0.40:
Cumulative Present Value of Project Cash Flow ("CP")

shall be the sum of the present value of the cumulative
present value of project cash flow during the previous
year (CP i-1 x 1.10) and the Project Cash Flow Before
Financing and Tax for the current year ("CF"), and
shall be calculated as follows:
Additional Profit = 0
CP = (CP i-1 x 1.10)
Additional Profit = ------------------------------
Cumulative Present Value of Total Government Share

Before Additional Government Share ("CGB") shall be
the sum of: the present value of the cumulative
present value of the Total Government Share during
the previous year (CGA i-J x 1.10), and the Basic
Government Share for the current year (BGS), and
(1-ITR)
CGB = (CGA i-1 x 1.10) + BGS
From Additional Profit = 25% x Additional Profit
The Additional Government Share ("AGS") shall be:
where:
If: CGB > CP x 0.5 then AGS = 0
NIAT = Net Income After Tax for the particular taxable

year under consideration.
If CGB < CP x 0.5 then AGS = [CP x 0.5] - CGB

(CGA):
CGA = CGB + AGS
where:
BGS = Basic Government Share shall have the
meaning as described in Clause 3-g-1 hereof;
GO = Gross Output shall have the same meaning as
defined in the National Internal Revenue Code;
DE = Deductible Expenses shall have the meaning as
described in Clause 3-c hereof;
If the computed average ratio is 0.40 or higher:

[NIAT-(0.40xGO)]
The Additional Government Share from the additional

profit is computed using the following formula:
Additional Government Share
GO = Gross Output from operations during the same

taxable year.
ITR = Income Tax Rate applied by the Bureau of
Internal Revenue in computing the income tax of the
Contractor during the taxable year.
c) Additional Share Based from the Cumulative Net
Mining Revenue. The Additional Government Share
for a given taxable year shall be calculated as follows:
(i) Fifty percent (50%) of cumulative Net Mining
Revenue from the end of the Recovery Period to the
end of that taxable year;
LESS
(ii) Cumulative Basic Government Share for that
period as calculated under Clause 3-g-1 hereof;
Page 88 of 126
AND LESS (if applicable)

(iii) Cumulative Additional Government Share in
respect of the period commencing at the end of the
Recovery Period and expiring at the end of the taxable
year immediately preceding the taxable year in
question.
"Net Mining Revenue" means the Gross Output from
Mining Operations during a Calendar year less
Deductible Expenses, plus Government taxes, duties
and fees included as part of Deductible Expenses.
3. Failure to Notify. If the Contractor does not notify
the Government within the time contemplated by
Clause 3-g-2 of the formula for calculating the
Additional Government Share which the Contractor
wishes to apply to all of its Mining Operations, the
Government shall select and inform the Contractor
which option will apply to the latter.
4. Filing and Payment of Additional Government
Share. Payment of the Additional Government Share
shall commence after the Recovery Period. The
Additional Government Share shall be computed, filed
and paid to the MGB within fifteen (15) clays after the
filing and payment of the final income tax return during
the taxable year to the Bureau of Internal Revenue.
Late filing and payment of the Additional Government
Share shall be subject to the same penalties
applicable to late filing of income tax returns. The
Contractor shall furnish the Director a copy of its
income tax return not later than fifteen (15) days after
the date of filing.
A record of all transactions relating to the computation
of the Additional Government Share shall be
maintained by the Contractor and shall be made
available to the Secretary or his/her authorized
representative for audit.
h. Sales and Exportation The Contractor shall
endeavor to dispose of the minerals and by-products
produced in the Contract Area at the highest
commercially achievable market price and lowest
commercially achievable commissions and related
fees in the circumstances then prevailing and to
negotiate for sales terms and conditions compatible
with world market conditions. The Contractor may
enter into long term sales and marketing contracts or
foreign exchange and commodity hedging contracts
which the Government acknowledges to be
acceptable notwithstanding that the sale price of
minerals may from time to time be lower, or that the
terms and conditions of sales are less favorable, than
those available elsewhere.
The Government shall be informed by the Contractor
when it enters into a marketing agreement with both
foreign and local buyers. The Contractor shall provide
the Government a copy of the final marketing
agreement entered into with buyers subject to the
confidentiality clause of the FTAA.
The Government shall be entitled to check and inspect
all sales and exportation of minerals and/or mineral
products including the terms and conditions of all
sales commitments.
Sales commitments with affiliates, if any, shall be
made only at prices based on or equivalent to arm's
length sales and in accordance with such terms and
conditions at which such agreement would be made if
the parties had not been affiliated, with due allowance
for normal selling discounts or commissions. Such
discounts or commissions allowed the affiliates must
be no greater than the prevailing rate so that such
discounts or commissions will not reduce the net
proceeds of sales to the Contractor below those which
it would have received if the parties had not been
affiliated. The Contractor shall, subject to
confidentiality clause of the FTAA, submit to the
Government evidence of the correctness of the figures
used in computing the prices discounts and
commissions, and a copy of the sales contract.
The Contractor undertakes that any mining,
processing or treatment of Ore by the Contractor shall
be conducted in accordance with such generally

accepted international standards as are economically
and technically feasible, and in accordance with such
standards the Contractor undertakes to use all
reasonable efforts to optimize the mining recovery of
Ore from proven reserves and metallurgical recovery
of minerals from the Ore: Provided, That it is
economically and technically feasible to do so.
For purposes of this Clause 3-h, an affiliate of an
affiliated company means:
a) any company in which the Contractor
holds fifty percent (50%) or more of the
shares;
b) any company which holds fifty percent
(50%) or more of the Contractor's shares;
c) any company affiliated by the same
definition in (a) or (b) to an affiliated
company of the Contractor is itself
considered an affiliated company for
purposes of the FTAA;
d) any company which, directly or indirectly,
is controlled by or controls, or is under
common control by the Contractor;
e) any shareholder or group of shareholders
of the Contractor or of an affiliated
company; or
f) any individual or group of individuals in
the employment of the Contractor or of any
affiliated company.
Control means the power exercisable, directly or
indirectly, to direct or cause the direction of the
management and policies of a company exercised by
any other company and shall include the right to
exercise control or power to acquire control directly or
indirectly, over the company's affairs and the power to
acquire not less than fifty percent (50%) of the share
capital or voting power of the Contractor. For this
purpose, a creditor who lends, directly or indirectly, to
the contractor, unless he has lent money to the
Contractor in the ordinary course of money-lending
business, may be deemed to be a Person with power
to acquire not less than fifty percent (50%) of the
share capital or voting power of the Contractor if the
amount of the total of its loan is not less than fifty
percent (50%) of the total loan capital of the company.
cdll
If a person ("x") would not be an affiliate of an affiliated
company ("y") on the basis of the above definition but
would be an affiliate if each reference in that definition
to "fifty percent (50%)" was read as a reference to
"forty percent (40%)" and the Government has
reasonable grounds for believing that "x" otherwise
controls "y" or "x" is otherwise controlled by "y," then,
upon the Contractor being notified in writing by the
Government of that belief and the grounds therefore,
"x" and "y" shall be deemed to be affiliates unless the
Contractor is able to produce reasonable evidence to
the contrary.
i. Price or Cost Transfers. The Contractor commits
itself not to engage in transactions involving price or
cost transfers in the sale of minerals or mineral
products and in the purchase of input goods and
services resulting either in the illegitimate loss or
reduction of Government Share or illegitimate increase
in Contractor's share. If the Contractor engages
affiliates or an affiliated company in the sale of its
mineral products or in providing goods, services, loans
or other forms of financing hereunder, it shall do so on
terms no less than would be the case with unrelated
persons in arms-length transactions.
SECTION 4. Pro Forma FTAA Contract
The fiscal regime provided herein, and the terms and
conditions provided in the Mining Act and IRR shall be
embodied in a Pro Forma FTAA Contract to be
prepared by the Department of Environment and
Page 89 of 126
Natural Resources. The Pro Forma FTAA Contract

shall also incorporate such other provisions as the
DENR may formulate as a result of consultations or
negotiations conducted for that purpose with
concerned entities.
Justice Jose C. Vitug (ret.) describes a trust

relationship as follows:
A trust is a juridical relationship that exists between
one person having the equitable title or beneficial
enjoyment of property, real or personal, and another
having the legal title thereto. The person who
establishes the trust is the trustor (or grantor); one in
whom confidence is reposed as regards property for
the benefit of another person is known as the trustee
(fiduciary), and the person for whose benefit the trust
has been created is referred to as the beneficiary
(cestui que trust). The Code has adopted the
principles of the general law of trusts, insofar as they
are not in conflict with its provisions, the Code of
Commerce, the Rules of Court and special laws. [III
J.C. Vitug Civil Law 175 (2003); citations omitted]
The Pro Forma FTAA Contract shall be used by the

DENR, the Negotiating Panel and the mining applicant
for negotiation of the terms and conditions of the
FTAA: Provided, That the terms and conditions
provided in the Pro Forma FTAA Contract shall be
incorporated in each and every FTAA.
SECTION 5. Status of Existing FTAAs
All FTAAs approved prior to the effectivity of this
Administrative Order shall remain valid and be
recognized by the Government: Provided, That
should a Contractor desire to amend its FTAA, it
shall do so by filing a Letter of Intent (LOI) to the
Secretary thru the Director. Provided, further, That
if the Contractor desires to amend the fiscal
regime of its FTAA, it may do so by seeking for the
amendment of its FTAA's whole fiscal regime by
adopting the fiscal regime provided hereof:
Provided, finally, That any amendment of an FTAA
other than the provision on fiscal regime shall
require the negotiation with the Negotiating Panel
and the recommendation of the Secretary for
approval of the President of the Republic of the
Philippines.
47
For instance an article written by Patricia Thompson describes

the 1996 Marcopper environmental disaster:
Between 2.4 and 4 million tons of tailings solids
escaped from an open pit impoundment at
Marcopper's copper mine on the island of Marinduque
in the Philippines on March 24, 1996, when a concrete
drainage plug gave way. The sediment-laden water
flowed into the Boac River system at rates of 5 to 10
cubic meters per second. Although "independent
studies by the United Nations and the Philippine
Department of Science and Technology have
concluded that the escaped material is not toxic," the
increased sediment load in the Boac River led to
substantial salt and freshwater kills. An impact
assessment estimated that ten years would elapse
before freshwater fish would be viable in the river
again and predicted a seventy percent reduction in the
"salt water fish catch from the mouth of the Boac
River," however, there are some indications that this
initial estimate may be too high. Although the Boac
River itself is not a drinking water source, the release
threatened potable water supplies along the banks of
the river and necessitated airdrops of food and
medical supplies. [P. Thompson, II. Mining Criminal
Sanctions Sought in Philippine Mine Tailings Spill,
1996 Colo. J. Int'l Envt'l. l. & Pol'y 54 (1996).]
SECTION 6. Repealing Clause

All orders and circulars or parts thereof inconsistent
with or contrary to the provisions of this Order are
hereby repealed, amended or modified accordingly.
SECTION 7. Effectivity
This Order shall take effect fifteen (15) days upon its
complete publication in newspaper of general
circulation and fifteen (15) days after registration with
the Office of the National Administrative Register.
50
(SGD.) ANTONIO H. CERILLES

Secretary
9.1 The Contractor may, at any time, give notice to the
Secretary of its intention to convert this Agreement either in
whole or in part into one or more Mineral Production
Sharing Agreements in the form of the Agreement annexed
hereto in Annexure B ("the MPSA") over such part or parts
of the Contract Area as are specified in the notice.
66
The five Mineral Production Sharing Agreements (Annexes A

to F) attached to the 20 October 2004 Compliance of the
Solicitor General are: (1) Mineral Production Sharing Agreement
between the Republic of the Philippines and Ungay-Malobago
Mines, Inc. and Rapu-Rapu Minerals, Inc. dated 12 September
2000; (2) Mineral Production Sharing Agreement between the
Republic of the Philippines and Ungay-Malobago Mines, Inc. and
TVI Resource Development (Phils.), Inc. dated 17 June 1998;
(3) Mineral Production Sharing Agreement between the Republic
of the Philippines and Base Metals Mineral Resources
Corporation (BMMRC) dated 20 November 1997; (4) Mineral
Production Sharing Agreement between the Republic of the
Philippines and Philex Gold Philippines, Inc. dated 29 December
1999 (MPSA No. 148-99XIII); and (5) Mineral Production
Sharing Agreement between the Republic of the Philippines and
Philex Gold Philippines, Inc. dated 29 December 1999 (MPSA
No. 149-99-XIII).
4
In its Motion for Intervention, intervenor PCM alleged that the

Court's January 27, 2004 Decision in this case would adversely
affect the ability of domestic mining companies to contract with
their foreign counterparts with regard to mining operations
beyond the resources of the local companies. (Rollo, at 2096.)
38
Article 1440 of the Civil Code provides:

Art. 1440. A person who establishes a trust is called a
trustor; one in whom confidence is reposed as regards
property for the benefit of another person is known as
the trustee; and the person for whose benefit the trust
has been created is referred to as the beneficiary.
Vide: Pres. Decree No. 87 (Amending Presidential Decree No.

8 issued on October 2, 1972, and Promulgating an Amended Act
to Promote the Discovery and Production of Indigenous
Petroleum and Appropriate Funds therefor), Pres. Decree No.
151 (Allowing Citizens of the Philippines or Corporations or
Associations at least Sixty Per Centum of the Capital of which is
Owned by such Citizens to Enter into Service Contracts with
Foreign Persons, Corporations for the Exploration,
Development, Exploitation or Utilization of Lands of the Public
Domain, amending for the purpose certain provisions of
Commonwealth Act No. 141), Pres. Decree No. 463 (Providing
for A Modernized System of Administration and Disposition of
Mineral Lands and to Promote and Encourage the Development
and Exploitation thereof), and Pres. Decree No. 1442 (An Act to
Promote the Exploration and Development of Geothermal
Resources).
68
Vide: Section 1 ("No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or

property without due process of law, nor shall any person be
denied of the equal protection of the laws."); Section 4 ("No law
shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression,
or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble
and petition the government for redress of grievances."); Section
5 ("No law shall be made respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the exercise thereof. The free exercise
and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without
discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed. No
religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political
rights.")
69
I Draft Proposal of the 1986 U.P. Law Constitution Project,

Article XV at 11-12.
70
P. A. Agabin, Service Contracts: Old Wines in New Bottles?, II

Draft Proposal of the 1986 U.P. Law Constitution Project 16,
cited in La Bugal-B'Laan Tribal Association, Inc. v. Ramos,
supra at 229.
71
A case omitted is to be held as intentionally omitted. [Black's

Law Dictionary 219 (6th ed., 1991)]
76
Vide: Canet v. Decena, G.R. No. 155344, January 20, 2004;

Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Michel J. Lhuiller
Page 90 of 126
Pawnshop, Inc., 406 SCRA 178, 186 (2003); National Power

Corporation v. City of Cabanatuan, 401 SCRA 259, 280 (2003);
Malinias v. Commission on Elections, 390 SCRA 480, 491
(2002); Integrated Bar of the Philippines v. Zamora, 338 SCRA
81, 109 (2000); People v. Mamac, 332 SCRA 547, 556 (2000);
Mathay, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, 320 SCRA 703, 711 (1999);
Miranda v. Abaya, 311 SCRA 617, 624 (1999); City Government
of San Pablo, Laguna v. Reyes, 305 SCRA 353, 361 (1999);
Centeno v. Villalon-Pornillos, 236 SCRA 197, 203 (1994); Phil.
American Life Insurance Company v. Ansaldo, 234 SCRA 509,
515 (1994); Commissioner of Customs v. Court of Tax Appeals,
224 SCRA 665, 669-670 (1993); Ledesma v. Court of Appeals,
211 SCRA 753, 760 (1992); Montoya v. Escayo, 171 SCRA 442,
448 (1989); Singapore Airlines Local Employees Association v.
NLRC, 130 SCRA 472, 479 (1984); Vera v. Fernandez, 89
SCRA 199, 203 (1979); Central Barrio v. City Treasurer of
Davao, 23 SCRA 6, 9 (1968); Catuiza v. People, 13 SCRA 538,
542 (1965); Ursal v. Court of Tax Appeals, 101 Phil. 209, 212
(1957); Vega v. Mun. Board of the City of Iloilo, 94 Phil. 949, 953
(1954); Sotto v. Commission on Elections, 76 Phil. 516, 530
(1946).
d) Value added tax on the purchase of

imported equipment, goods and services;
e) Withholding tax on interest payments on
foreign loans;
f) Withholding tax on dividends to foreign
stockholders;
g) Royalties due the Government on Mineral
Reservations;
h) Documentary stamps taxes;
i) Capital gains tax;
j) Local business tax;
k) Real property tax;
77
That which is expressed makes that which is implied to cease.

[Black's Law Dictionary 581 (6th ed., 1991)]
l) Community tax;
78
Vide: Canet v. Decena, G.R. No. 155344, January 20, 2004;

Malinias v. Commission on Election 390 SCRA 480, 491 (2002);
National Electrification Administration v. Commission on Audit,
377 SCRA 223, 232 (2002); Espiritu v. Cipriano, 55 SCRA 533,
538 (1974).
m) Occupation fees;
n) All other local Government taxes, fees
and imposts as of the effective date of the
FTAA;
79
Comm. Villegas' response that there was no requirement in

the 1973 Constitution for a law to govern service contracts and
that, in fact, there were then no such laws is inaccurate. The
1973 Charter required similar legislative approval, although it did
not specify the form it should take: "The Batasang Pambansa, in
the national interest, may allow such citizens to enter into
service contracts " As previously noted in this Court's Decision
of January 27, 2004, however, laws authorizing service contracts
were actually enacted by presidential decree [i.e. Presidential
Decree No. 87 (Amending Presidential Decree No. 8 issued on
October 2, 1972, and Promulgating an Amended Act to Promote
the Discovery and Production of Indigenous Petroleum and
Appropriate Funds therefore), Pres. Decree No. 151 (Allowing
Citizens of the Philippines or Corporations or Associations at
least Sixty Per Centum of the Capital of which is Owned by such
Citizens to Enter into Service Contracts with Foreign Persons,
Corporations for the Exploration, Development, Exploitation or
Utilization of Lands of the Public Domain, amending for the
purpose certain provisions of Commonwealth Act No. 141),
Pres. Decree No. 463 (Providing for a Modernized System of
Administration and Disposition of Mineral Lands and to Promote
and Encourage the Development and Exploitation thereof), and
Pres. Decree No. 1442 (An Act to Promote the Exploration and
Development of Geothermal Resources)]
o) Special Allowance, as defined in the

Mining Act; and
p) Royalty payments to any Indigenous
People(s)/Indigenous Cultural Community
(ies).
From the Effective Date, the foregoing taxes, fees and
other such charges constituting the Basic Government
Share, if applicable, shall be paid by the Contractor:
Provided, That above items (a) to (g) shall not be
collected from the Contractor upon the date of
approval of the Mining Project Feasibility Study up to
the end of the Recovery Period. Any taxes, fees,
royalties, allowances or other imposts, which should
not be collected by the Government, but nevertheless
paid by the Contractor and are not refunded by the
Government before the end of the next taxable year,
shall be included in the Government Share in the next
taxable year. Any Value-Added Tax refunded or
credited shall not form part of Government Share.
128
108
The DENR Secretary is also empowered to charge fines for

late or non-submission of reports under Section 111 of the
Mining Act, but the majority opinion either overlooked this
provision or considered it too insubstantial to be able to compel
enforcement of the law and its implementing rules.
2. Additional Government Share. Prior to the

commencement of Development and Construction
Phase, the Contractor may select one of the formula
for calculating the Additional Government Share set
out below which the Contractor wishes to apply to all
of its Mining Operations and notify the Government in
writing of that selection. Upon the issuance of such
notice, the formula so selected shall thereafter apply
to all of the Contractor's Mining Operations.
109
Section 108 provides a criminal penalty for violation of the

terms and conditions of an environmental compliance certificate,
but this remedy is judicial and not administrative. In any event,
what is the likelihood of a Philippine court acquiring criminal
jurisdiction over the person of the foreign corporate officers of
the foreign FTAA contractor who may be responsible for such
violations?
Section 3. Fiscal Regime of a Financial or Technical
Assistance Agreement
xxx
g. Government Share.
1. Basic Government Share. The following taxes, fees
and other such charges shall constitute the Basic
Government Share:
Section 3 (g) (2) of DAO 99-56 provides:
xxx
129
Section 3 (g) (2) (1) of DAO 99-56 provides:

a) Fifty-Fifty Sharing of the Cumulative Present Value
of Cash Flows. The Government shall collect an
Additional Government Share from the Contractor
equivalent to an amount which when aggregated with
the cumulative present value of Government Share
during the previous Contract Years and the Basic
Government Share for the current Contract Year is
equivalent to a minimum of fifty percent (50%) of the
Cumulative Present Value of Project Cash Flow before
financing for the current Contract Year, as defined
below.
a) Excise tax on minerals;

b) Contractor's income tax;
c) Customs duties and fees on imported
capital equipment;

Government Share shall commence immediately after
the Recovery Period. If the computation covers a
period of less than one year, the Additional
Government Share corresponding to this period shall
be computed pro-rata wherein the Additional
Page 91 of 126
Government Share during the year shall be multiplied

by the fraction of the year after recovery. The
Additional Government Share shall be computed as
follows:
130

b) Profit Related Additional Government Share. The
Government shall collect an Additional Government
Share from the Contractor based on twenty-five
percent (25%) of the additional profits once the
arithmetic average of the ratio of Net Income After Tax
To Gross Output as defined in the National Internal
Revenue Code, for the current and previous taxable
years is 0.40 or higher rounded off to the nearest two
decimal places.
Project Cash Flow Before Financing and Tax ("CF")

for a taxable year shall be calculated as follows:
CF = GO - DE + I - PE - OC
Cumulative Present Value of Project Cash Flow ("CP")
shall be the sum of the present value of the cumulative
present value of project cash flow during the previous
year (CP i-1 x 1.10) and the Project Cash Flow Before
Financing and Tax for the current year ("CF"), and

Government Share from additional profit shall
commence immediately after the Recovery Period. If
the computation covers a period of less than a year,
the additional profit corresponding to this period shall
be computed pro-rata wherein the total additional
profit during the year shall be multiplied by the fraction
of the year after recovery.
CP = (CP i-1 x 1.10) + CF

Before Additional Government Share ("CGB") shall be
the sum of: the present value of the cumulative
present value of the Total Government Share during
the previous year (CGAi-1 x 1.10), and the Basic
Government Share for the current year (BGS), and
The additional profit shall be derived from the following

formula:
If the computed average ratio as derived from above is
less than 0.40:
Additional Profit = 0
CGB = (CGA i-1 x 1.10) + BGS
If the computed average ratio is 0.40 or higher:
The Additional Government Share ("AGS") shall be:

If: CGB > CP 0.5 then AGS = 0
[NIAT-(0.40 x GO)]
If: CGB < CP 0.5 then AGS = [ CP x 0.5 ] - CGB
Additional Profit = -----------------------( 1 - ITR )

(CGA):
The Additional Government Share from the additional

profit is computed using the following formula:
CGA = CGB + AGS
Additional Government Share
where:
From Additional Profit = 25% x Additional Profit
BGS = Basic Government Share shall have the

meaning as
where:
described in Clause 3-g-1 hereof;
NIAT = Net Income After Tax for the particular taxable
year under consideration.
GO = Gross Output shall have the same meaning as

defined in
GO = Gross Output from operations during the same

taxable year.
the National Internal Revenue Code;
ITR = Income Tax Rate applied by the Bureau of

Internal Revenue in computing the income tax of the
Contractor during the taxable year.
DE = Deductible Expenses shall have the meaning as

described in Clause 3-c hereof;
131
I = Interest payments on loans included in the

Deductible
Expenses shall be equivalent to those referred to in
Clause 3-c-8 hereof;
PE = unrecovered Pre-Operating Expenses;
OC = On-going Capital Expenditures as defined in
Clause 3-c
hereof;
CP i-1 = cumulative present value of project cash flow
during the
previous year; and
CGAi-1 = cumulative present value of total
Government Share
during the previous year.

c) Additional Share Based from the Cumulative Net
Mining Revenue. The Additional Government Share
for a given taxable year shall be calculated as follows:
(i) Fifty percent (50%) of cumulative Net Mining
Revenue from the end of the Recovery Period to the
end of that taxable year;
LESS
(ii) Cumulative Basic Government Share for that
period as calculated under Clause 3-g-1 hereof;
AND LESS (if applicable)
(iii) Cumulative Additional Government Share in
respect of the period commencing at the end of the
Recovery Period and expiring at the end of the taxable
year immediately preceding the taxable year in
question.
"Net Mining Revenue" means the Gross Output from
Mining Operations during a Calendar year less
Page 92 of 126
Deductible Expenses, plus Government taxes, duties

and fees included as part of Deductible Expenses.
132
Republic Act No. 8424 as amended.
133
The 40% equity of the foreign stockholders in a 60-40 Filipino

corporation would translate to a 24% (40% x 60%) beneficial
interest in the corporation undertaking the MPSA.
134
Of course, the 60% Filipino equity in a 60-40 Filipino

corporation could also be held by another 60-40 Filipino
corporation or corporations, further diluting actual Filipino
beneficial interest and increasing foreign beneficial interest.
135
As noted in the Decision (La Bugal-B'Laan Tribal Association,

Inc., supra at 212-213), unlike E.O. 279, the Mining Act does not
define "large-scale" in terms of capital expenditure although this
was evidently the way it was understood by the 1986
Constitutional Commission. (vide: III Records of the
Constitutional Commission 255).
In fact, the Mining Act does not categorically define
"large-scale" at all. However, a comparison of the
maximum areas for exploration in Section 22 for
Exploration Permits (400 meridional blocks onshore
for corporations), Section 28 for Mineral Agreements
(200 meridional blocks for corporations) and Section
34 for FTAAs (1,000 meridional blocks for
corporations) indicates that "large-scale" under the
Mining Act refers to the size of the contract area.
of the permit, file with the Bureau a declaration of mining project

feasibility accompanied by a work program for development. The
approval of the mining project feasibility and compliance
with other requirements provided in this Act shall entitle the
holder to an exclusive right to a mineral production sharing
agreement or other mineral agreements or financial or technical
assistance agreement. (Emphasis supplied)
145
In 1997 Bre-X, a large Canadian mining firm, was found to

have inflated the prospective amount of gold deposits in its
Busang, Indonesia mining operation by "salting" and tampering
with gold samples taken from the site. After news of the gold
salting scam had broken out, Bre-X's share price fell by almost
90%. [W. Symonds & M. Shari, 'After Bre-X, Gold's Glow is
Gone' Available at http://
www.businessweek.com/1997/15/b352267.htm]
146
In January, 2004, 20% of Royal Dutch/Shell's reserves of oil

and gas were reclassified from "proven" to merely "probable" or
other even less certain categories. As a result, Shell's share
prices fell by 7% ['Shell shock' Available at http://
www.economist.co.uk/business/PrinterFriendly.cfm?Story_ID=2
354469]
152
At the prevailing rate of exchange, the US$10,000,000.00

selling price of WMC's shares in WMCP is worth approximately
P560,000,000.00.
If the Secretary gives a Rejection Notice the Parties
shall promptly meet and endeavour to agree on
amendments to the Work Programme or budget. If the
Secretary and the Contractor fail to agree on the
proposed revision within 30 days from delivery of the
Rejection Notice then the Work Programme or
Budget or variation thereof proposed by the
Contractor shall be deemed approved, so as not to
unnecessarily delay the performance of this
Agreement. (Emphasis supplied; Rollo, p. 92-93.)
It is only Section 56 of DAO 40-96 that any reference

to the US$50,000,000.00 minimum capital investment
prescribed by E.O. 279 is made.
136
Applying the formula in Section 56 (a) of DAO 40-96 and

assuming: (1) the foreign FTAA contractor began with the
maximum contract area of 1,000 meridional blocks onshore, (2)
an exploration period of 6 years and (3) compliance with Section
60 of DAO 40-96 on relinquishment of areas covered by FTAA.
The figure for an exploration period of 10 years is US$
4.8 million. The figure for a 20-year exploration period
is US$ 7.7 million.
One meridional block is equivalent to 81 hectares.
(Website of the Philippine Mines and Geosciences
Bureau www.mgb.gov.ph/epprimer.htm)
137
SECTION 23. Rights and Obligations of the

Permittee. An exploration permit shall grant to the
permittee, his heirs or successors-in-interest, the right
to enter, occupy and explore the area: Provided,
That if private or other parties are affected, the
permittee shall first discuss with the said parties the
extent, necessity, and manner of his entry, occupation
and exploration and in case of disagreement, a panel
of arbitrators shall resolve the conflict or
disagreement.
The permittee shall undertake an exploration work on
the area as specified by its permit based on an
approved work program.
Any expenditure in excess of the yearly budget of the
approved work program may be carried forward and
credited to the succeeding years covering the duration
of the permit. The Secretary, through the Director,
shall promulgate rules and regulations governing the
terms and conditions of the permit.
The permittee may apply for a mineral production
sharing agreement, joint venture agreement, coproduction agreement or financial or technical
assistance agreement over the permit area, which
application shall be granted if the permittee meets
the necessary qualifications and the terms and
conditions of any such agreement: Provided, That
the exploration period covered by the exploration
permit shall be included as part of the exploration
period of the mineral agreement or financial or
technical assistance agreement. (Emphasis supplied)
138
SECTION 24. Declaration of Mining Project Feasibility. A

holder of an exploration permit who determines the commercial
viability of a project covering a mining area may, within the term
164
3.3. This Agreement shall be renewed by the Government for

a further period of twenty-five (25) years under the same terms
and conditions provided that the Contractor lodges a request for
renewal with the Government not less than sixty (60) days prior
to the expiry of the initial terms of this Agreement and provided
that the Contractor is not in breach of any of the requirements of
this Agreement.
TINGA, J.:
1
SECTION 2. All lands of the public domain, waters, minerals,

coal, petroleum, and other mineral oils, all forces of potential
energy, fisheries, forests or timber, wildlife, flora and fauna, and
other natural resources are owned by the State. With the
exception of agricultural lands, all other natural resources shall
not be alienated. The exploration, development, and utilization of
natural resources shall be under the full control and supervision
of the State. The State may directly undertake such activities, or
it may enter into co-production, joint venture, or productionsharing agreements with Filipino citizens, or corporations or
associations at least sixty per centum of whose capital is owned
by such citizens. Such agreements may be for a period not
exceeding twenty-five years, renewable for not more than
twenty-five years, and under such terms and conditions as may
be provided by law. In cases of water rights for irrigation, water
supply, fisheries, or industrial uses other than the development
of water power, beneficial use may be the measure and limit of
the grant.
The State shall protect the nation's marine wealth in
its archipelagic waters, territorial sea, and exclusive
economic zone, and reserve its use and enjoyment
exclusively to Filipino citizens.
The Congress may, by law, allow small-scale
utilization of natural resources by Filipino citizens, as
well as cooperative fish farming, with priority to
subsistence fishermen and fishworkers in rivers, lakes,
bays, and lagoons.
The President may enter into agreements with
foreign-owned corporations involving either
technical or financial assistance for large-scale
exploration, development, and utilization of
minerals, petroleum, and other mineral oils
according to the general terms and conditions
provided by law, based on real contributions to
the economic growth and general welfare of the
country. In such agreements, the State shall
Page 93 of 126
promote the development and use of local

scientific and technical resources.
The President shall notify the Congress of every
contract entered into in accordance with this provision,
within thirty days from its execution. (Emphasis
supplied)
3
"The Philippines is a democratic and republican State. xxx"

See Section 1, Article II, Constitution. "Republicanism, in so far
as it implies the adoption of a representative type of government,
necessarily points to the enfranchised citizen as a particle of
popular sovereignty and as the ultimate source of the
established authority." Moya v. Del Fierro, 69 Phil. 199, 204
(1939), See also Badelles v. Cabili, 136 Phil. 383, 395-396
(1969).
4
Section 1, Article VII of the Constitution states: "The executive

power shall be vested in the President of the Philippines."
5
See Section 17, Article VII, Constitution, which reads: "The

President shall have control of all the executive departments,
bureaus and offices. He shall ensure that the laws be faithfully
executed."
6
See Section 18, Article VII, Constitution, which begins: "The

President shall be the Commander-in-Chief of all armed forces
of the Philippines and whenever it becomes necessary, he may
call out such armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless
violence, invasion or rebellion. xxx"
7
G.R. No. 88211, 27 October 1989, 178 SCRA 760.
Id. at 764. Citing the eminent American legal scholar Laurence

Tribe, who notes that US jurisprudence makes clear "that the
constitutional concept of inherent power is not a synonym for
power without limit; rather, the concept suggests only that not all
powers granted in the Constitution are themselves exhausted by
internal enumeration, so that, within a sphere properly regarded
as one of "executive" power, authority is implied unless there or
elsewhere expressly limited." Ibid.
ed., 2002), at 329. In analyzing the U.S. Supreme Court's

divided opinions in the seminal case of Youngstown Sheet,
supra note 2, he notes that while the majority opinion of Justice
Black seems to deny the existence of any inherent presidential
power, the concurring opinions of Justices Douglas, Frankfurter
and Jackson do seem to acknowledge the existence of such
power, albeit subject to proscription by the legislative branch.
Chemerinsky also notes that the view of inherent presidential
authority had been affirmed in the earlier case of U.S. v. CurtissWright Export Corporation, 299 U.S. 304 (1936), which pertained
to the presidential power to conduct foreign policy. Id. at 334.
12
13
Iron and Steel Authority v. Court of Appeals, 319 Phil. 648,

658 (1995).
14
Apropos to the nature of the Filipino presidency is the

following comment on the U.S. presidency by an American
historian, "As our Chief of State, and as such the embodiment of
the people's elective will, the President is clad with the
prerogative of the office, and possesses more actual sovereign
power than any British king since George III. In his role as Chief
of Foreign Relations, from the beginning he has been the sole
organ of the nation in its external relations, and its sole
representative with foreign nations. While the Senate must
advise and consent to any treaty, the President has exclusive
initiative in their negotiation." G.F. Milton, The Use of
Presidential Power: 1789-1943 (1980 ed.), at 3.
15
Section 1, Article VIII, Constitution enables the courts to

determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part
of the executive, a duty which is made easier if there is a
specifically prescribed constitutional standard which warrants
obeisance by the executive branch.
16
Justice Irene Cortes, who penned the Court's decision in

Marcos v. Manglapus, has opined elsewhere on the grant of
plenary executive powers on the President, "[who] personifies
the executive branch. There is a unity in the executive branch
absent from the two other branches of government. The
president is not the chief of many executives. He is the
executive. His direction of the executive branch can be more
immediate and direct than the United States president because
he is given by express provision of the constitution control over
all executive departments, bureaus and offices." I. Cortes, The
Philippine Presidency: A Study of Executive Power, pp. 68-69;
cited in Sanlakas v. Executive Secretary et al., G.R. Nos.
159086, 159103, 159185, 159196, 3 February 2004.
Sec. 22. The heads of departments may upon their

own initiative, with the consent of the President, or
upon the request of either House, as the rules of each
House shall provide, appear before and be heard by
such House or any matter pertaining to their
departments. Written questions shall be submitted to
the President of the Senate or the Speaker of the
House of Representatives at least three days before
their scheduled appearance. Interpellations shall not
be limited to written questions, but may cover matters
related thereto. When the security of the State or the
public interest so requires and the President so states
in writing, the appearance shall be conducted in
executive session.
10
11
Id. at 692. See also supra note 8. In light of the U.S. Supreme
Court decision in the famed Steel Seizure case, Youngstown
Sheet v. Sawyer, supra note 2, and the competing analyses of
Justice Black (whose "formalist" approach led to rigid
categorization of separate legislative, executive and judicial
functions), and Justices Frankfurter and Jackson (who opted for
a more flexible, functional approach), Gunther and Sullivan note
that "[m]uch scholarly commentary on separation of powers has
endorsed the functional approach, and cite this following
argument for the "functional" view: "When the Constitution
confers power, it confers power on the three generalist political
heads of authority, not on branches as such. [Its] silence about
the shape of the inevitable, actual government was a product
both of drafting compromises and of the explicit purpose to leave
Congress free to make whatever arrangements it deemed
'necessary and proper' for the detailed pursuit of government
purposes." G. Gunther and K. Sullivan, Constitutional Law (14th
ed., 2001), at 342; citing Strauss, "Formal and Functional
Approaches to Separation of Powers Questions A Foolish
Inconsistency," 72 Corn.L.Rev. 488 (1987).
Another analysis is proferred by Chemerinsky, who
acknowledges that the debate on inherent presidential power
has existed "from the earliest days of the country." E.
Chemerinsky, Constitutional Law: Principles and Policies (2nd
See Secs. 21 and 22, Art. VI, Const., which read:

Sec. 21. The Senate or the House of Representatives
or any of its respective committees may conduct
inquiries in aid of legislation in accordance with its duly
published rules of procedure. The rights of persons
appearing in or affected by such inquiries shall be
respected.
"This case is unique. It should not create a precedent, for the

case of a dictator forced out of office and into exile after causing
twenty years of political, economic and social havoc in the
country and who within the short space of three years seeks to
return, is in a class by itself." Marcos v. Manglapus, supra note
7, at 682.
Ibid. See also Sanlakas v. Executive Secretary; supra note 9.
17
See Section 2, Article XII, Constitution, which states in part,

"All lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal,
natural resources are owned by the State." An offshoot of the
long-standing Regalian doctrine recognized in this jurisdiction.
18
"The exploration, development, and utilization of natural

State." Id.
19
The so-called "Jamir amendment," proposed by

Commissioner Alberto M.K. Jamir, which read "The President
may enter into agreements with foreign-owned corporations
involving either technical or financial assistance for large-scale
exploration, development and utilization of natural resources
according to the general terms and conditions provided by law
based on real contributions to the long-term growth of the
economy." 3 Record of the Constitutional Commission:
Proceedings and Debates (1987), at 351.
26
The following exchanges during the debates of the 1987

Constitutional Commission indicate that the absence of domestic
capital for mineral and petroleum development was duly
considered by the framers.
Page 94 of 126
MR. GASCON. As far as investment is concerned in

developing certain priority areas for our economic
development, are there areas where there is much
need for foreign investments?
MR. VILLEGAS. During the public hearings, we heard
people from the mining and oil exploration industries,
who presented a very strong case, that foreign
investment is actually indispensable because there is
no risk capital available in the Philippines. If the
Gentleman will remember, the figure cited over the
last ten years is that P800 million literally went down
the drain in oil exploration and up to now, no oil has
been found, and all that money was foreign money.
These people asked a rhetorical question: Can you
imagine if that money belonged to Filipinos? 3 Record
of the Constitutional Commission: Proceedings and
Debates (1987), at 310.
34
The employment of the corporate entity was suggested by Neil

W. Hamilton, a Professor of Regulatory Policy in the William
Mitchell College of Law, in his article analyzing the effectiveness
and economic efficiency of a government board for the
rehabilitation iron mines in Minnesota, U.S.A. which were being
depleted. Professor Hamilton proffered the view that the
executive and the legislative branches of government would
have control over the general and public policy concerning the
operation of iron mines and should monitor the efficiency of the
public corporation created to take care of the operation of iron
mines, but the corporation, through its board of directors and
officers, would have control over day-to-day operations. ("The
Iron Range Resources and Rehabilitation Board: An
Unconstitutional and Confused Delegation of Executive Power to
Legislators," 25 William Mitchell Law Review 1203 [1999] ).
35
The following perspective from sectors not affiliated with the

business community deserve contemplation:
xxx
"Creating a favorable investment climate for foreign

mining companies has led to new social problems,
namely human rights problems and dislocation of
indigenous peoples. The country has experienced
incidents of armed violence from mining guards and
military personnel assigned to assist the mining
companies. Indigenous tribes have been displaced as
military operations facilitate the entry of corporations
into mining areas. Mining operations are severely
infringing on communities and their livelihoods. In
1996, a mining tailings spill from the Marcopper tailing
dam in Marinduque seriously polluted the Boac River
and Calancan Bay on which the local communities
depend." See
http://www.foe.org/camps/intl/imf/selling/asia4.html.
MR. DAVIDE. I am very glad that Commissioner

Padilla emphasized minerals, petroleum and mineral
oils. The Commission has just approved the possible
foreign entry into the development, exploration and
utilization of these minerals, petroleum and other
mineral oils by virtue of the Jamir amendment. I voted
in favor of the Jamir amendment because it will
eventually give way to vesting in exclusively Filipino
citizens and corporations wholly owned by Filipino
citizens the right to utilize the other natural resources.
This means that as a matter of policy, natural
resources should be utilized and exploited only by
Filipino citizens or corporations wholly owned by such
citizens. But by virtue of the Jamir amendment, since
we feel that Filipino capital may not be enough for the
development and utilization of minerals, petroleum
and other mineral oils, the President can enter into
service contracts with foreign corporations precisely
for the development and utilization of such resources.
3 Record of the Constitutional Commission:
Proceedings and Debates (1987), at 361.
"At risk to the peoples of the Philippines is their

remaining patrimony and economic sovereignty.
Mining legislation opens up the country to further
foreign domination and control. It perpetuates the
semi-feudal, semi-capitalist neocolonial character of
the economy. It is creating mass displacement,
especially of indigenous communities and upland
farmers. Foreign companies have an abominable
history of creating environmental disasters as well,
and turning virgin forests and clean water sources and
farming lands into wastelands and deserts. They also
have a terrible reputation for excessive exploitation of
workers and mass unemployment. Finally, foreign
owned mines will bring militarization as the owners will
guard mining areas." B.J. Warden, at
http://www.canadianliberty.bcca/relatedinfo/miningco.h
tml.
27
Invalidity of provisions which do not adequately assert

constitutional rights or prerogatives need not always be the
proper remedy, considering, as Justice Vitug noted in his
separate opinion in this case, that "[t]he fundamental law is
deemed written in every contract." Vitug, J., Separate Opinion,
La Bugal-B'laan Tribal Association, Inc. v. Ramos, G.R. No.
127882, 27 January 2004.
28
N. Hamilton, The Iron Range Resources and Rehabilitation

Board: An Unconstitutional and Confused Delegation of
Executive Power to Legislators, 25 William Mitchell Law Rev.
1204, 1235 (1999).
Southeast Mindanao Gold Mining Corporation vs Balite Portal Mining

Cooperative 380 SCRA 145 GR 135190 April 3, 2002
29
The following traditional observation of John Thurston, as

cited in a periodical article, bears noting:
[G.R. No. 135190. April 3, 2002]
[Thurston] explained that the day-to-day administration
of the corporation should be independent of the
executive and the legislature, but "[I]n matters of
general and public policy, the corporation must
necessarily be subject to executive and legislative
control." In addition to having control over "general
and public policy," the executive and legislature also
should monitor the efficiency of the public corporation.
However, Thurston perceived a dilemma in balancing
the need "to ensure that the corporation functions
efficiently and without waste," and the problem of
"preventing unnecessary interference with details of
administration." xxx Id., at 1231.
30
Interpretatio talis in ambiguis simper fienda est, ut evitur

inconveniens et absurdum. Where there is ambiguity, such
interpretation as will avoid inconvenience and absurdity is to be
adopted. Cosico v. NLRC, 338 Phil. 1080, 1089 (1997); citing
Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. TMX Sales, Inc., 205
SCRA 184, 188 (1992).
31
United Nations Technical Assistance Administration, Some

Problems in the Organization and Administration of Public
Enterprise in the Industrial Field 8 (1954), cited in Hamilton,
supra note 35, at 1230. "As long as an enterprise is not clearly
differentiated from other types of governmental activity, strong
pressures will be brought to make it conform to standard
government regulations and procedures." Ibid.
SOUTHEAST MINDANAO GOLD MINING CORPORATION, petitioner, vs.

BALITE PORTAL MINING COOPERATIVE and others similarly situated;
and THE HONORABLE ANTONIO CERILLES, in his capacity as Secretary
of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR),
PROVINCIAL MINING REGULATORY BOARD OF DAVAO (PMRBDavao), respondents.
DECISION
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
This is a petition for review of the March 19, 1998 decision of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 44693, dismissing the special civil action for
certiorari, prohibition and mandamus, and the resolution dated August 19,
1998 denying petitioners motion for reconsideration.
The instant case involves a rich tract of mineral land situated in the
Agusan-Davao-Surigao Forest Reserve known as the Diwalwal Gold Rush
Area. Located at Mt. Diwata in the municipalities of Monkayo and Cateel in
Davao Del Norte, the land has been embroiled in controversy since the
mid-80s due to the scramble over gold deposits found within its bowels.
From 1985 to 1991, thousands of people flocked to Diwalwal to stake their
respective claims. Peace and order deteriorated rapidly, with hundreds of
people perishing in mine accidents, man-made or otherwise, brought about
by unregulated mining activities. The multifarious problems spawned by
Page 95 of 126
the gold rush assumed gargantuan proportions, such that finding a win-win
solution became a veritable needle in a haystack.
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.i[1] 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.,ii[2] 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.
Not long thereafter, Congress enacted on June 27, 1991 Republic Act No.
7076, or the Peoples Small-Scale Mining Act. The law established a
Peoples Small-Scale Mining Program to be implemented by the Secretary
of the DENRiii[3] and created the Provincial Mining Regulatory Board
(PMRB) under the DENR Secretarys direct supervision and control.iv[4]
The statute also authorized the PMRB to declare and set aside small-scale
mining areas subject to review by the DENR Secretaryv[5] and award
mining contracts to small-scale miners under certain conditions.vi[6]
On December 21, 1991, DENR Secretary Fulgencio S. Factoran issued
Department Administrative Order (DAO) No. 66, declaring 729 hectares of
the Diwalwal area as non-forest land open to small-scale mining.vii[7] The
issuance was made pursuant to the powers vested in the DENR Secretary
by Proclamation No. 369, which established the Agusan-Davao-Surigao
Forest Reserve.
Subsequently, a petition for the cancellation of EP No. 133 and 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 entitled, Rosendo Villaflor, et al.
v. Marcopper Mining Corporation.
On February 16, 1994, while the RED Mines case was pending,
Marcopper assigned its EP No. 133 to petitioner Southeast Mindanao Gold
Mining Corporation (SEM),viii[8] which in turn applied for an integrated
MPSA over the land covered by the permit.
In due time, the Mines and Geosciences Bureau Regional Office No. XI in
Davao City (MGB-XI) accepted and registered the integrated MPSA
application of petitioner. After publication of the application, the following
filed their oppositions:
a)
k)
MAC Case No. 004(XI) - JB Management Mining Corporation;

b) MAC Case No. 005(XI) - Davao United Miners
Cooperative;
c)
MAC Case No. 006(XI) - Balite Integrated Small
Scale Miners Cooperative;
d)
MAC Case No. 007(XI) - Monkayo Integrated
Small Scale Miners Association, Inc.;
e)
MAC Case No. 008(XI) - Paper Industries
Corporation of the Philippines;
f)
MAC Case No. 009(XI) - Rosendo Villaflor, et
al.;
g) MAC Case No. 010(XI) - Antonio Dacudao;
h) MAC Case No. 011(XI) - Atty. Jose T. Amacio;
i) MAC Case No. 012(XI) - Puting-Bato Gold Miners
Cooperative;
j) MAC Case No. 016(XI) - Balite Communal Portal Mining
Cooperative; and
MAC Case No. 97-01(XI) - Romeo Altamera, et al.
In the meantime, on March 3, 1995, Republic Act No. 7942, the Philippine
Mining Act, was enacted. Pursuant to this statute, the above-enumerated
MAC cases were referred to a Regional Panel of Arbitrators (RPA) tasked
to resolve disputes involving conflicting mining rights. The RPA
subsequently took cognizance of the RED Mines case, which was
consolidated with the MAC cases.
On April 1, 1997, 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 the Diwalwal
mines.
Thus, on May 30, 1997, petitioner filed a complaint for damages before the
Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 61, against the DENR
Secretary and PMRB-Davao. SEM alleged that the illegal issuance of the
OTPs allowed the extraction and hauling of P60,000.00 worth of gold ore
per truckload from SEMs mining claim.
Meanwhile, on June 13, 1997, the RPA resolved the Consolidated Mines
cases and decreed in an Omnibus Resolution as follows:
VIEWED IN THE LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING, the validity of Exploration

Permit No. 133 is hereby reiterated and all the adverse claims against
MPSAA No. 128 are DISMISSED.ix[9]
On June 24, 1997, the DENR Secretary issued Memorandum Order No.
97-03x[10] which provided, among others, that:
1.
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; such agreements shall include provisions for profit-sharing between
the state and the said parties, including profit-sharing arrangements with
small-scale miners, as well as the payment of royalties to indigenous
cultural communities, among others. The Undersecretary for Field
Operations, as well as the Undersecretary for Legal and Legislative Affairs
and Attached Agencies, and the Director of the Mines and Geo-sciences
Bureau are hereby ordered to undertake such studies. x x xxi[11]
On July 16, 1997, petitioner filed a special civil action for certiorari,
prohibition and mandamus before the Court of Appeals against PMRBDavao, 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.
Meanwhile, on January 6, 1998, the MAB rendered a decision in the
Consolidated Mines cases, setting aside the judgment of the RPA.xii[12]
This MAB decision was then elevated to this Court by way of a
consolidated petition, docketed as G.R. Nos. 132475 and 132528.
On March 19, 1998, the Court of Appeals, through a division of five
members voting 3-2,xiii[13] dismissed the petition in CA-G.R. SP No.
44693. It ruled that the DENR Secretary did not abuse his discretion in
issuing Memorandum Order No. 97-03 since the same was merely a
directive to conduct studies on the various options available to the
government for solving the Diwalwal conflict. The assailed memorandum
did not conclusively adopt direct state utilization as official government
policy on the matter, but was simply a manifestation of the DENRs intent to
consider it as one of its options, after determining its feasibility through
studies. MO 97-03 was only the initial step in the ladder of administrative
process and did not, as yet, fix any obligation, legal relationship or right. It
was thus premature for petitioner to claim that its constitutionally-protected
rights under EP No. 133 have been encroached upon, much less, violated
by its issuance.
Additionally, the appellate court pointed out that petitioners rights under EP
No. 133 are not inviolable, sacrosanct or immutable. Being in the nature of
a privilege granted by the State, the permit can be revoked, amended or
modified by the Chief Executive when the national interest so requires. The
Court of Appeals, however, declined to rule on the validity of the OTPs,
reasoning that said issue was within the exclusive jurisdiction of the RPA.
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the above decision, which
was denied for lack of merit on August 19, 1998.xiv[14]
Hence this petition, raising the following errors:
I.
THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED GRAVE AND
REVERSIBLE ERROR, AND HAS DECIDED A QUESTION OF
SUBSTANCE NOT THERETOFORE DETERMINED BY THIS
HONORABLE SUPREME COURT, OR HAS DECIDED IT IN A WAY
PROBABLY NOT IN ACCORD WITH LAW OR WITH APPLICABLE
DECISIONS OF THIS HONORABLE COURT IN UPHOLDING THE
QUESTIONED ACTS OF RESPONDENT DENR SECRETARY WHICH
ARE IN VIOLATION OF MINING LAWS AND IN DEROGATION OF
PETITIONERS VESTED RIGHTS OVER THE AREA COVERED BY ITS
EP NO. 133;
II.
THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED GRAVE AND
REVERSIBLE ERROR IN HOLDING THAT AN ACTION ON THE
VALIDITY OF ORE TRANSPORT PERMIT (OTP) IS VESTED IN THE
REGIONAL PANEL OF ARBITRATORS.xv[15]
In a resolution dated September 11, 2000, the appealed Consolidated
Mines cases, docketed as G.R. Nos. 132475 and 132528, were referred to
the Court of Appeals for proper disposition pursuant to Rule 43 of the 1997
Rules of Civil Procedure.xvi[16] These cases, which were docketed as CA-
Page 96 of 126
G.R. SP Nos. 61215 and 61216, are still pending before the Court of
Appeals.
In the first assigned error, 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 and, in effect, granted management or operating agreements as
well as provided for profit sharing arrangements to illegal small-scale
miners.
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.
Neither can the Apex Mining case foreclose any question pertaining to the
continuing validity of EP No. 133 on grounds which arose after the
judgment in said case was promulgated. While it is true that the Apex
Mining case settled the issue of who between Apex and Marcopper validly
acquired mining rights over the disputed area by availing of the proper
procedural requisites mandated by law, it certainly did not deal with the
question raised by the oppositors in the Consolidated Mines cases, i.e.
whether EP No. 133 had already expired and remained valid subsequent
to its transfer by Marcopper to petitioner. Besides, as clarified in our
decision in the Apex Mining case:
x x x is conclusive only between the parties with respect to the particular
issue herein raised and under the set of circumstances herein prevailing.
In no case should the decision be considered as a precedent to resolve or
settle claims of persons/entities not parties hereto. Neither is it intended to
unsettle rights of persons/entities which have been acquired or which may
have accrued upon reliance on laws passed by appropriate
agencies.xx[20]
We are not persuaded.

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. As the Court of
Appeals extensively discussed in its decision:
x x x under the Memorandum Order, the State still had to study prudently
and exhaustively the various options available to it in rationalizing the
explosive and ever perilous situation in the area, the debilitating adverse
effects of mining in the community and at the same time, preserve and
enhance the safety of the mining operations and ensure revenues due to
the government from the development of the mineral resources and the
exploitation thereof. The government was still in earnest search of better
options that would be fair and just to all parties concerned, including,
notably, the Petitioner. The direct state utilization of the mineral resources
in the area was only one of the options of the State. Indeed, it is too plain
to see, x x x that before the State will settle on an option, x x x an
extensive and intensive study of all the facets of a direct state exploitation
was directed by the Public Respondent DENR Secretary. And even if
direct state exploitation was opted by the government, the DENR still had
to promulgate rules and regulations to implement the same x x x, in
coordination with the other concerned agencies of the government.xvii[17]
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. At this stage,
petitioner can show no more than a mere apprehension that the State,
through the DENR, would directly take over the mines after studies point to
its viability. But 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.xviii[18]
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. A reading of the
appealed MAB decision reveals that the continued efficacy of EP No. 133
is one of the issues raised in said cases, with respondents therein
asserting that Marcopper cannot legally assign the permit which
purportedly had expired. In other words, whether or not petitioner actually
has a vested right over Diwalwal under EP No. 133 is still an indefinite and
unsettled matter. And until a positive pronouncement is made by the
appellate court in the Consolidated Mines cases, EP No. 133 cannot be
deemed as a source of any conclusive rights that can be impaired by the
issuance of MO 97-03.
Clearly then, the Apex Mining case did not invest petitioner with any
definite right to the Diwalwal mines which it could now set up against
respondent BCMC and the other mining groups.
Incidentally, it must likewise be pointed out that under no circumstances
may petitioners rights under EP No. 133 be regarded as total and absolute.
As correctly held by the Court of Appeals in its challenged decision, EP
No. 133 merely evidences a privilege granted by the State, which may be
amended, modified or rescinded when the national interest so requires.
This is necessarily so since the exploration, development and utilization of
the countrys natural mineral resources are matters impressed with great
public interest. Like timber permits, mining exploration permits do not vest
in the grantee any permanent or irrevocable right within the purview of the
non-impairment of contract and due process clauses of the
Constitution,xxi[21] since the State, under its all-encompassing police
power, may alter, modify or amend the same, in accordance with the
demands of the general welfare.xxii[22]
Additionally, there can be no valid opposition raised against a mere study
of an alternative which the State, through the DENR, is authorized to
undertake in the first place. Worth noting is Article XII, Section 2, of the
1987 Constitution, which specifically provides:
SEC. 2. All lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum,
resources shall not be alienated. The exploration, development, and
of the grant. (Underscoring ours)
Likewise, Section 4, Chapter II of the Philippine Mining Act of 1995 states:
SEC. 4. Ownership of Mineral Resources. - Mineral Resources are owned
by the State and the exploration, development, utilization, and processing
thereof shall be under its full control and supervision. The State may
directly undertake such activities or it may enter into mineral agreements
with contractors. (Underscoring ours)
Similarly, there is no merit in petitioners assertion that MO 97-03 sanctions

violation of mining laws by allowing illegal miners to enter into mining
agreements with the State. Again, whether or not respondent BCMC and
the other mining entities it represents are conducting illegal mining
activities is a factual matter that has yet to be finally determined in the
Consolidated Mines cases. We cannot rightfully conclude at this point that
respondent BCMC and the other mining firms are illegitimate mining
operators. Otherwise, we would be preempting the resolution of the cases
which are still pending before the Court of Appeals.xix[19]
Thus, the State may pursue the constitutional policy of full control and
supervision of the exploration, development and utilization of the countrys
natural mineral resources, by either directly undertaking the same or by
entering into agreements with qualified entities. 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 enunciated above. Obviously, the State may not be precluded from
considering a direct takeover of the mines, if it is the only plausible remedy
in sight to the gnawing complexities generated by the gold rush. As implied
earlier, the State need be guided only by the demands of public interest in
settling for this option, as well as its material and logistic feasibility.
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.
In this regard, petitioners imputation of bad faith on the part of the DENR
Secretary when the latter issued MO 97-03 is not well-taken. The avowed
rationale of the memorandum order is clearly and plainly stated in its
whereas clauses.xxiii[23] In the absence of any concrete evidence that the
DENR Secretary violated the law or abused his discretion, as in this case,
he is presumed to have regularly issued the memorandum with a lawful
intent and pursuant to his official functions.
Page 97 of 126
Given these considerations, petitioners first assigned error is baseless and

premised on tentative assumptions. Petitioner cannot claim any absolute
right to the Diwalwal mines pending resolution of the Consolidated Mines
cases, much less ask us to assume, at this point, that respondent BCMC
and the other mining firms are illegal miners. These factual issues are to
be properly threshed out in CA G.R. SP Nos. 61215 and 61216, which
have yet to be decided by the Court of Appeals. Any objection raised
against MO 97-03 is likewise premature at this point, inasmuch as it merely
ordered a study of an option which the State is authorized by law to
undertake.
We see no need to rule on the matter of the OTPs, considering that the
grounds invoked by petitioner for invalidating the same are inextricably
linked to the issues raised in the Consolidated Mines cases.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the instant petition is DENIED.
The decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 44693 is
AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
People vs Abad 165 SCRA 57 GR L-55132, August 30, 1998

SUPREME COURT
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
protestations, and without any permit of their own

pursuant to law, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully,
and feloniously extract, gather, remove, take and/or
dispose of the minerals or material aggregates like
sand, gravel, stones, and boulders; by the use of
force, threat and intimidations against the Permittee
and his laborers for the purpose of driving them away
from the Quarry Site, and by accused extracting,
gathering, taking and hauling said material aggregates
or minerals therefrom, and disposing of the same for
gain, as in fact they did gain from the disposition of all
said minerals or aggregates so extracted, gathered,
and removed, pursuant to FOUR (4) Contracts with
the Ministry of Public Highways, Ifugao Engineering
District, Lagawe Province of Ifugao, and ONE (1)
Contract with the DIVISION (Manila), Inc., stationed at
Banawe, Ifugao, to the prejudice of said FELIX DE
CASTRO, as permittee in terms of the value of the
minerals and material aggregates thus gathered,
extracted, removed., and disposed of, to the extent of
FORTY THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED AND NINETY
TWO PESOS and THIRTY EIGHT CENTAVOS (P
40,592.38) in addition to the royalty and the damage
caused thereby.
ALL CONTRARY TO LAW. (Annex "A," Petition, pp.
10-11, Rollo)
4. Respondents-accused filed a Motion to Quash on the ground that the
facts charged do not constitute an offense inasmuch as they had paid
"sand and gravel tax," as shown by three official receipts dated February 2,
1978, April 13, 1978, and April 27, 1978, respectively, to the Municipal
Treasurer of Banawe, Ifugao, for the quarrying of sand and gravel. The
taking, therefore, according to private respondents, was with the consent
of the government. They also invoked LOI No. 243, which allows persons
to extract sand and gravel even within the leased area for use in
government infrastructures.
G.R. No. L-55132 August 30, 1988

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by the Office of the
Provincial Fiscal Lagawe Ifugao, petitioner,
vs.
HON. FRANCISCO MEN ABAD, Judge of the Court of First Instance of
Ifugao, Lagawe, Ifugao, JULIUS ROBLES, EDUARDO BANDAO,
MARCOS OYAGON, DAGYO UYANG, UDULON LATTOD, BUCCAHAN
MUNDIGUING, JUNIOR MUNDIGUING, PIWIT TUNDAGUI, GUINOMON
CHONGA-AP, FERNANDO TID-ONG, JULIO BALLOGAN, FERNAN
GAGGO, CARMEN GAGGO AND BALBINA POCYA, respondents.
The Solicitor General for petitioner.
Delano V. Europa for respondents.
MELENCIO-HERRERA, J.:
We annul the Order of respondent Judge of the Court of First Instance of
Ifugao, Lagawe Ifugao, dismissing the Information for "Theft of Minerals"
filed against private respondents Julius Robles and thirteen (13) others on
the ground that the facts charged do not constitute an offense.
The antecedental facts may be briefly recited thus:
1. Prior to 27 March 1978, the Director of Mines issued a commercial lease
permit to one Felix de Castro granting him the exclusive right to quarry,
extract and carry away sand and gravel from the Sumigar Quarry located
at Banawe, Ifugao.
2. On complaint by Felix de Castro, an Information was filed in the Court of
First Instance of Ifugao (Criminal Case No. 316), presided over by
respondent Judge, charging private respondents with the crime of "Theft of
Minerals" defined and penalized under Section 78 of Presidential Decree
No. 483, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 1385.
3. The Information particularized the offense as follows:
That on or about March 27, 1978, continuing thru
April, May and June of 1978, thence to July, August
and September of the same year, ... and within the
jurisdiction of this honorable Court, the above-named
accused, all residents of Banawe, Ifugao, conspiring,
confederating, confabulating and mutually helping one
another with evident premeditation, and with intent of
gain, without the knowledge or consent of the said
Permitted as well as against the latter's prohibition and
5. Petitioner opposed the quashal arguing that it is error to imply that

consent was given by the Government through the Municipal Treasurer
inasmuch as the taxes paid to the Municipal Government are not the fees
required by the Bureau of Mines, which is the government entity
empowered to approve permits and licenses and to regulate the
exploitation of mineral resources. Further, LOI 243, as implemented by
Mines Administrative Order No. MRD-16 Series of 1977, grants to
government entities only the right to extract sand and gravel for
infrastructure projects and not to any private person or entity.
6. On 28 January 1980, respondent Judge issued the assailed Order
quashing the Information on the ground that violation of P.D. No. 463 is
limited to an administrative violation and that the crime of Theft under the
Revised Penal Code (Article 308) has not been committed since malice,
which is an essential element in the commission of a crime, is lacking.
7. The reconsideration prayed for by petitioner was denied by respondent
on 18 July 1980. Hence, this certiorari Petition alleging grave abuse of
discretion on the part of respondent Judge.
The crucial issue for resolution is whether or not the facts charged in the
Information constitute an offense.
It is basic that since respondents-accused invoked the ground "that the
facts charged do not constitute an offense" (Rule 1 17, Sec. 2[a] Rules of
Court), the sufficiency of the Information hinges on the question of whether
the facts alleged, if hypothetically admitted, meet the essential elements of
the offense as defined in the law (People vs. Segovia 103 Phil. 1162
[1958]).
The Information, filed on 31 May 1979, charged private respondents with
the crime of "Theft of Minerals" defined and penalized under Section 78 of
P.D. No. 463, as amended by Section 23 of P.D. No. 1385, effective 25
May 1978, providing:
Section 78. Theft of Minerals. Any person who, without
a mining lease or a temporary permit or, any other
permit granted by the Secretary or the Director under
existing mining decrees, laws and regulations to mine,
shall extract, remove and/or dispose of minerals
belonging to the Government or from a mining claim or
claims leased, held or owned by other persons, shall
be deemed to have stolen the ores or the products
thereof from the mines or mills. He shall, upon
conviction, be imprisoned from six (6) months to six
(6) years or pay a fine from one hundred pesos
(Pl00.00) to ten thousand pesos (P10,000.00) or both,
in the discretion of the court, besides paying
compensation for the minerals removed, extracted and
disposed of, the royalty and the damage caused
thereby.
Page 98 of 126
The elements of the offense, therefore, are that : (1) the accused
extracted, removed and/or disposed of minerals; (2) these minerals belong
to the Government or have been taken from a mining claim or claims
leased, held or owned by other persons; and (3) the accused did not
possess a mining lease or a temporary permit or any other permit to mine
granted by the Secretary or the Director under existing mining decrees,
laws and regulations.
Evidently, the Information filed in the Court below includes all the foregoing
elements. Thus, it alleged (1) that the accused, conspiring and mutually
helping one another, wilfully and feloniously extracted, removed and/or
disposed of minerals or material aggregates like sand and gravel; (2) the
minerals were taken from the Sumigar Quarry, Banawe, Ifugao, which is
covered by a commercial permit issued by the Bureau of Mines, Baguio
City, in favor of complaining witness Felix de Castro; and (3) the extracting
was done without any mining lease or permit of their own pursuant to law.
It will have to be held, therefore, that based upon the facts alleged in the
Information, the essential requisites of the Offense of "Theft of Minerals,"
as specified by substantive law, are present. Thus, respondent Judge, in
considering as evidence the three receipts of tax payments issued by the
Municipal Treasurer of Banawe, Ifugao, exceeded his jurisdiction
amounting to grave abuse of discretion when he considered matters of
defense extrinsic to the allegations in the Information and which should be
substantiated during the trial. Moreover, said receipts merely show
payment of taxes pursuant to Provincial Ordinance No. 14 and not the
authority to extract, remove, and/or dispose of minerals from the Sumigar
Quarry as required by P.D. No. 463. Those receipts are insufficient
evidence to prove that the proper Government office had, in effect, granted
the required permit to extract minerals from said quarry.
The rationalization by respondent Judge that the taking away of sand and
gravel was without malice because it was done with the knowledge and
participation of the Government since private respondents had paid taxes
on the sand and gravel extracted is not well-taken. In crimes punished by
special laws, the act alone, irrespective of its motives, constitutes the
offense.
The adoption of the concept of jura regalia 2 that all natural resources are
owned by the State embodied in the 1935, 1973 and 1987 Constitutions,
as well as the recognition of the importance of the country's natural
resources, not only for national economic development, but also for its
security and national
defense, 3 ushered in the adoption of the constitutional policy of "full control
and supervision by the State" in the exploration, development and
utilization of the country's natural resources. The options open to the State
are through direct undertaking or by entering into co-production, joint
venture; or production-sharing agreements, or by entering into agreement
with foreign-owned corporations for large-scale exploration, development
and utilization.
Article XII, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution provides:
Sec. 2. All lands of the public domain, waters,
minerals, coal, petroleum, and other mineral oils, all
forces of potential energy, fisheries, forests or timber,
wildlife, flora and fauna, and other natural resources
are owned by the State. With the exception of
agricultural lands, all other natural resources shall not
be alienated. The exploration, development, and
utilization of natural resources shall be under the full
control and supervision of the State. The State may
directly undertake such activities, or it may enter into
co-production, joint venture, or product-sharing
agreements with Filipino citizens, or corporations or
associations at least sixty per centum of whose capital
is owned by such citizens. Such agreements may be
for a period not exceeding twenty-five years,
renewable for not more than twenty-five years, and
under such terms and conditions as may be provided
by law. In cases of water rights for irrigation, water
supply, fisheries, or industrial uses other than the
development of water power, beneficial use may be
the measure and limit of the grant.
xxx xxx xxx
WHEREFORE, the Petition is granted; the Orders, dated 28 January 1980

and 18 July 1980, of respondent Judge are annulled and set aside; and
Criminal Case No. 316 of the Court a quo is ordered reinstated for further
proceedings in accordance with law.
SO ORDERED.
Miners Association of the Philippines inc vs Factoran Jr 240 SCRA

100 GR 98332 January 16, 1995

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. 98332 January 16, 1995

MINERS ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES, INC., petitioner,
vs.
HON. FULGENCIO S. FACTORAN, JR., Secretary of Environment and
Natural Resources, and JOEL D. MUYCO, Director of Mines and
Geosciences Bureau, respondents.
ROMERO, J.:
The instant petition seeks a ruling from this Court on the validity of two
Administrative Orders issued by the Secretary of the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources to carry out the provisions of certain
Executive Orders promulgated by the President in the lawful exercise of
legislative powers.
Herein controversy was precipitated by the change introduced by Article
XII, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution on the system of exploration,
development and utilization of the country's natural resources. No longer is
the utilization of inalienable lands of public domain through "license,
1
concession or lease" under the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions allowed
under the 1987 Constitution.
The President may enter into agreements with foreignowned corporations involving either technical or
financial assistance for large-scale exploration,
development, and utilization of minerals, petroleum,
and other mineral oils according to the general terms
and conditions provided by law, based on real
contributions to the economic growth and general
welfare of the country. In such agreements, the State
shall promote the development and use of local
scientific and technical resources.
The President shall notify the Congress of every
contract entered into in accordance with this provision,
within thirty days from its execution. (Emphasis
supplied)
Pursuant to the mandate of the above-quoted provision, legislative acts 4
were successively issued by the President in the exercise of her legislative
power. 5
To implement said legislative acts, the Secretary of the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) in turn promulgated
Administrative Order Nos. 57 and 82, the validity and constitutionality of
which are being challenged in this petition.
On July 10, 1987, President Corazon C. Aquino, in the exercise of her then
legislative powers under Article II, Section 1 of the Provisional Constitution
and Article XIII, Section 6 of the 1987 Constitution, promulgated Executive
Order No. 211 prescribing the interim procedures in the processing and
approval of applications for the exploration, development and utilization of
minerals pursuant to the 1987 Constitution in order to ensure the continuity
of mining operations and activities and to hasten the development of
mineral resources. The pertinent provisions read as follows:
Sec. 1. Existing mining permits, licenses, leases and
other mining grants issued by the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources and Bureau of
Mines and Geo-Sciences, including existing operating
agreements and mining service contracts, shall
continue and remain in full force and effect, subject to
the same terms and conditions as originally granted
and/or approved.
Sec. 2. Applications for the exploration, development
and utilization of mineral resources, including renewal
applications for approval of operating agreements and
mining service contracts, shall be accepted and
processed and may be approved; concomitantly
thereto, declarations of locations and all other kinds of
Page 99 of 126
mining applications shall be accepted and registered

by the Bureau of Mines and Geo-Sciences.
MPSAs within two (2) years from the effectivity of

DENR A.O. 57 or until July 17, 1991.
Sec. 3. The processing, evaluation and approval of all

mining applications, declarations of locations,
operating agreements and service contracts as
provided for in Section 2 above, shall be governed by
Presidential Decree No. 463, as amended, other
existing mining laws and their implementing rules and
regulations: Provided, however, that the privileges
granted, as well as the terms and conditions thereof
shall be subject to any and all modifications or
alterations which Congress may adopt pursuant to
i. Declaration of Location (DOL) holders, mining lease

applicants, exploration permitees, quarry applicants
and other mining applicants whose mining/quarry
applications have not been perfected prior to the
effectivity of DENR Administrative Order No. 57.
On July 25, 1987, President Aquino likewise promulgated Executive Order

No. 279 authorizing the DENR Secretary to negotiate and conclude joint
venture, co-production, or production-sharing agreements for the
exploration, development and utilization of mineral resources, and
prescribing the guidelines for such agreements and those agreements
involving technical or financial assistance by foreign-owned corporations
for large-scale exploration, development, and utilization of minerals. The
pertinent provisions relevant to this petition are as follows:
Sec. 1. The Secretary of the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (hereinafter
referred to as "the Secretary") is hereby authorized to
negotiate and enter into, for and in behalf of the
Government, joint venture, co-production, or
production-sharing agreements for the exploration,
development, and utilization of mineral resources with
any Filipino citizens, or corporation or association at
least sixty percent (60%) of whose capital is owned by
Filipino citizens. Such joint venture, co-production, or
production-sharing agreements may be for a period
not exceeding twenty-five years, renewable for not
more than twenty-five years, and shall include the
minimum terms and conditions prescribed in Section 2
hereof. In the execution of a joint venture, coproduction or production agreements, the contracting
parties, including the Government, may consolidate
two or more contiguous or geologically related
mining claims or leases and consider them as one
contract area for purposes of determining the subject
of the joint venture, co-production, or productionsharing agreement.
xxx xxx xxx
Sec. 6. The Secretary shall promulgate such
supplementary rules and regulations as may be
necessary to effectively implement the provisions of
this Executive Order.
Sec. 7. All provisions of Presidential Decree No. 463,
as amended, other existing mining laws, and their
implementing rules and regulations, or parts thereof,
which are not inconsistent with the provisions of this
Executive Order, shall continue in force and effect.
Pursuant to Section 6 of Executive Order No. 279, the DENR Secretary
issued on June 23, 1989 DENR Administrative Order No. 57, series of
1989, captioned "Guidelines of Mineral Production Sharing Agreement
under Executive Order No. 279." 6 Under the transitory provision of said
DENR Administrative Order No. 57, embodied in its Article 9, all existing
mining leases or agreements which were granted after the effectivity of the
1987 Constitution pursuant to Executive Order No. 211, except small scale
mining leases and those pertaining to sand and gravel and quarry
resources covering an area of twenty (20) hectares or less, shall be
converted into production-sharing agreements within one (1) year from the
effectivity of these guidelines.
On November 20, 1980, the Secretary of the DENR Administrative Order
No. 82, series of 1990, laying down the "Procedural Guidelines on the
Award of Mineral Production Sharing Agreement (MPSA) through
Negotiation." 7
Section 3 of the aforementioned DENR Administrative Order No. 82
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 shall cause the
abandonment of mining, quarry and sand and gravel claims. Section 3 of
DENR Administrative Order No. 82 provides:
Sec. 3. Submission of Letter of Intent (LOIs) and
MPSAs). The following shall submit their LOIs and
ii. All holders of DOL acquired after the effectivity of

DENR A.O. No. 57.
iii. Holders of mining leases or similar agreements
which were granted after (the) effectivity of 1987
Constitution.
Failure to submit letters of intent and MPSA
applications/proposals within the prescribed period
shall cause the abandonment of mining, quarry and
sand and gravel claims.
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. 8 to file the instant
petition assailing their validity and constitutionality before this Court.
In this petition for certiorari, petitioner Miners Association of the
Philippines, Inc. mainly contends that respondent Secretary of DENR
issued both Administrative Order Nos. 57 and 82 in excess of his rulemaking power under Section 6 of Executive Order No. 279. On the
assumption that the questioned administrative orders do not conform with
Executive Order Nos. 211 and 279, petitioner contends that both orders
violate the
non-impairment of contract provision under Article III, Section 10 of the
1987 Constitution on the ground that Administrative Order No. 57 unduly
pre-terminates existing mining agreements and automatically converts
them into production-sharing agreements within one (1) year from its
effectivity date. On the other hand, Administrative Order No. 82 declares
that failure to submit Letters of Intent and Mineral Production-Sharing
Agreements within two (2) years from the date of effectivity of said
guideline or on July 17, 1991 shall cause the abandonment of their mining,
quarry and sand gravel permits.
On July 2, 1991, the Court, acting on petitioner's urgent ex-parte petition
for issuance of a restraining order/preliminary injunction, issued a
Temporary Restraining Order, upon posting of a P500,000.00 bond,
enjoining the enforcement and implementation of DENR Administrative
Order Nos. 57 and 82, as amended, Series of 1989 and 1990,
respectively. 9
On November 13, 1991, Continental Marble Corporation, 10 thru its
President, Felipe A. David, sought to intervene 11 in this case alleging that
because of the temporary order issued by the Court , the DENR, Regional
Office No. 3 in San Fernando, Pampanga refused to renew its Mines
Temporary Permit after it expired on July 31, 1991. Claiming that its rights
and interests are prejudicially affected by the implementation of DENR
Administrative Order Nos. 57 and 82, it joined petitioner herein in seeking
to annul Administrative Order Nos. 57 and 82 and prayed that the DENR,
Regional Office No. 3 be ordered to issue a Mines Temporary Permit in its
favor to enable it to operate during the pendency of the suit.
Public respondents were acquired to comment on the Continental Marble
Corporation's petition for intervention in the resolution of November 28,
1991. 12
Now to the main petition. If its argued that Administrative Order Nos. 57
and 82 have the effect of repealing or abrogating existing mining laws 13
which are not inconsistent with the provisions of Executive Order No. 279.
Invoking Section 7 of said Executive Order No. 279, 14 petitioner maintains
that respondent DENR Secretary cannot provide guidelines such as
Administrative Order Nos. 57 and 82 which are inconsistent with the
provisions of Executive Order No. 279 because both Executive Order Nos.
211 and 279 merely reiterated the acceptance and registration of
declarations of location and all other kinds of mining applications by the
Bureau of Mines and Geo-Sciences under the provisions of Presidential
Decree No. 463, as amended, until Congress opts to modify or alter the
same.
In other words, petitioner would have us rule that DENR Administrative
Order Nos. 57 and 82 issued by the DENR Secretary in the exercise of his
rule-making power are tainted with invalidity inasmuch as both contravene
or subvert the provisions of Executive Order Nos. 211 and 279 or embrace
matters not covered, nor intended to be covered, by the aforesaid laws.
We disagree.
Page 100 of 126
We reiterate the principle that the power of administrative officials to

promulgate rules and regulations in the implementation of a statute is
necessarily limited only to carrying into effect what is provided in the
legislative enactment. The principle was enunciated as early as 1908 in the
case of United States v. Barrias. 15 The scope of the exercise of such rulemaking power was clearly expressed in the case of United States v. Tupasi
Molina, 16 decided in 1914, thus: "Of course, the regulations adopted under
legislative authority by a particular department must be in harmony with the
provisions of the law, and for the sole purpose of carrying into effect its
general provisions. By such regulations, of course, the law itself can not be
extended. So long, however, as the regulations relate solely to carrying
into effect its general provisions. By such regulations, of course, the law
itself can not be extended. So long, however, as the regulations relate
solely to carrying into effect the provision of the law, they are valid."
Recently, the case of People v. Maceren 17 gave a brief delienation of the
scope of said power of administrative officials:
Administrative regulations adopted under legislative
authority by a particular department must be in
harmony with the provisions of the law, and should be
for the sole purpose of carrying into effect its general
provision. By such regulations, of course, the law itself
cannot be extended (U.S. v. Tupasi Molina, supra). An
administrative agency cannot amend an act of
Congress (Santos vs. Estenzo, 109 Phil. 419, 422;
Teoxon vs. Members of the Board of Administrators,
L-25619, June 30, 1970, 33 SCRA 585; Manuel vs.
General Auditing Office, L-28952, December 29, 1971,
42 SCRA 660; Deluao v. Casteel, L-21906, August 29,
1969, 29 SCRA 350).
The rule-making power must be confined to details for
regulating the mode or proceeding to carry into effect
the law as it has been enacted. The power cannot be
extended to amending or expanding the statutory
requirements or to embrace matters not covered by
the statute. Rules that subvert the statute cannot be
sanctioned (University of Santo Tomas v. Board of
Tax Appeals, 93 Phil. 376, 382, citing 12 C.J. 845-46.
As to invalid regulations, see Collector of Internal
Revenue v. Villaflor, 69 Phil. 319; Wise & Co. v. Meer,
78 Phil. 655, 676; Del Mar v. Phil. Veterans
Administration, L-27299, June 27, 1973, 51 SCRA
340, 349).
xxx xxx xxx
. . . The rule or regulation should be within the scope
of the statutory authority granted by the legislature to
the administrative agency (Davis, Administrative Law,
p. 194, 197, cited in Victorias Milling Co., Inc. v. Social
Security Commission, 114 Phil. 555, 558).
In case of discrepancy between the basic law and a
rule or regulation issued to implement said law, the
basic prevails because said rule or regulations cannot
go beyond the terms and provisions of the basic law
(People v. Lim, 108 Phil. 1091).
Considering that administrative rules draw life from the statute which they
seek to implement, it is obvious that the spring cannot rise higher than its
source. We now examine petitioner's argument that DENR Administrative
Order Nos. 57 and 82 contravene Executive Order Nos. 211 and 279 as
both operate to repeal or abrogate Presidential Decree No. 463, as
amended, and other mining laws allegedly acknowledged as the principal
law under Executive Order Nos. 211 and 279.
Petitioner's insistence on the application of Presidential Decree No. 463,
as amended, as the governing law on the acceptance and approval of
declarations of location and all other kinds of applications for the
exploration, development, and utilization of mineral resources pursuant to
Executive Order No. 211, 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. By virtue of the said constitutional mandate and its
implementing law, Executive Order No. 279 which superseded Executive
Order No. 211, the provisions dealing on "license, concession or lease" of
mineral resources under Presidential Decree No. 463, as amended, and
other existing mining laws are deemed repealed and, therefore, ceased to
operate as the governing law. In other words, in all other areas of
administration and management of mineral lands, the provisions of
Presidential Decree No. 463, as amended, and other existing mining laws,
still govern. Section 7 of Executive Order No. 279 provides, thus:
Sec. 7. All provisions of Presidential Decree No. 463,
as amended, other existing mining laws, and their
implementing rules and regulations, or parts thereof,
which are not inconsistent with the provisions of this

Executive Order, shall continue in force and effect.
Specifically, the provisions of Presidential Decree No. 463, as amended,
on lease of mining claims under Chapter VIII, quarry permits on privatelyowned lands of quarry license on public lands under Chapter XIII and other
related provisions on lease, license and permits are not only inconsistent
with the raison d'etre for which Executive Order No. 279 was passed, but
contravene the express mandate of Article XII, Section 2 of the 1987
Constitution. It force and effectivity is thus foreclosed.
Upon the effectivity of the 1987 Constitution on February 2, 1987, 18 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
supervision of the State. Consonant therewith, the exploration,
development and utilization of natural resources may be undertaken by
means of direct act of the State, or it may opt to enter into co-production,
joint venture, or production-sharing agreements, or it may enter into
agreements with foreign-owned corporations involving either technical or
financial assistance for large-scale exploration, development, and
utilization of minerals, petroleum, and other mineral oils according to the
general terms and conditions provided by law, based on real contributions
to the economic growth and general welfare of the country.
Given these considerations, there is no clear showing that respondent
DENR Secretary has transcended the bounds demarcated by Executive
Order No. 279 for the exercise of his rule-making power tantamount to a
grave abuse of discretion. Section 6 of Executive Order No. 279
specifically authorizes said official to promulgate such supplementary rules
and regulations as may be necessary to effectively implement the
provisions thereof. Moreover, the subject sought to be governed and
regulated by the questioned orders is germane to the objects and
purposes of Executive Order No. 279 specifically issued to carry out the
mandate of Article XII, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution.
Petitioner likewise maintains that Administrative Order No. 57, in relation to
Administrative Order No. 82, impairs vested rights as to violate the nonimpairment of contract doctrine guaranteed under Article III, Section 10 of
the 1987 Constitution because Article 9 of Administrative Order No. 57
unduly pre-terminates and automatically converts mining leases and other
mining agreements into production-sharing agreements within one (1) year
from effectivity of said guideline, while Section 3 of Administrative Order
No. 82, declares that failure to submit Letters of Intent (LOIs) and MPSAs
within two (2) years from the effectivity of Administrative Order No. 57 or
until July 17, 1991 shall cause the abandonment of mining, quarry, and
sand gravel permits.
In Support of the above contention, it is argued by petitioner that Executive
Order No. 279 does not contemplate automatic conversion of mining lease
agreements into mining production-sharing agreement as provided under
Article 9, Administrative Order No. 57 and/or the consequent abandonment
of mining claims for failure to submit LOIs and MPSAs under Section 3,
Administrative Order No. 82 because Section 1 of said Executive Order
No. 279 empowers the DENR Secretary to negotiate and enter into
voluntary agreements which must set forth the minimum terms and
conditions provided under Section 2 thereof. Moreover, petitioner contends
that the power to regulate and enter into mining agreements does not
include the power to preterminate existing mining lease agreements.
To begin with, we dispel the impression created by petitioner's argument
that the questioned administrative orders unduly preterminate existing
mining leases in general. A distinction which spells a real difference must
be drawn. Article XII, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution does not apply
retroactively to "license, concession or lease" granted by the government
under the 1973 Constitution or before the effectivity of the 1987
Constitution on February 2, 1987. The intent to apply prospectively said
constitutional provision was stressed during the deliberations in the
Constitutional Commission, 19 thus:
MR. DAVIDE: Under the proposal,
I notice that except for the
[inalienable] lands of the public
domain, all other natural
resources cannot be alienated
and in respect to [alienable] lands
of the public domain, private
corporations with the required
ownership by Filipino citizens can
only lease the same. Necessarily,
insofar as other natural resources
are concerned, it would only be
the State which can exploit,
develop, explore and utilize the
same. However, the State may
enter into a joint venture, coproduction or production-sharing.
Is that not correct?
Page 101 of 126
MR. VILLEGAS: Yes.

MR. DAVIDE: Consequently,
henceforth upon, the approval of
this Constitution, no timber or
forest concession, permits or
authorization can be exclusively
granted to any citizen of the
Philippines nor to any corporation
qualified to acquire lands of the
public domain?
MR. VILLEGAS: Would
Commissioner Monsod like to
comment on that? I think his
answer is "yes."
MR. DAVIDE: So, what will
happen now license or
concessions earlier granted by
the Philippine government to
private corporations or to Filipino
citizens? Would they be deemed
repealed?
MR. VILLEGAS: This is not
applied retroactively. They will be
respected.
MR. DAVIDE: In effect, they will
be deemed repealed?
MR. VILLEGAS: No. (Emphasis
supplied)
During the transition period or after the effectivity of the 1987 Constitution
on February 2, 1987 until the first Congress under said Constitution was
convened on July 27, 1987, two (2) successive laws, Executive Order Nos.
211 and 279, were promulgated to govern the processing and approval of
applications for the exploration, development and utilization of minerals. To
carry out the purposes of said laws, the questioned Administrative Order
Nos. 57 and 82, now being assailed, were issued by the DENR Secretary.
Article 9 of Administrative Order No. 57 provides:
ARTICLE 9
TRANSITORY PROVISION
9.1. 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 subject to
these guidelines. All such leases or agreements shall
be converted into production sharing agreement within
one (1) year from the effectivity of these guidelines.
However, any minimum firm which has established
mining rights under Presidential Decree 463 or other
laws may avail of the provisions of EO 279 by
following the procedures set down in this document.
It is clear from the aforestated provision that Administrative Order No. 57
applies only to all existing mining leases or agreements which were
granted after the effectivity of the 1987 Constitution pursuant to Executive
Order No. 211. It bears mention that under the text of Executive Order No.
211, there is a reservation clause which provides that the privileges as well
as the terms and conditions of all existing mining leases or agreements
granted after the effectivity of the 1987 Constitution pursuant to Executive
Order No. 211, shall be subject to any and all modifications or alterations
which Congress may adopt pursuant to Article XII, Section 2 of the 1987
Constitution. Hence, the strictures of the
non-impairment of contract clause under Article III, Section 10 of the 1987
20
Constitution do not apply to the aforesaid leases or agreements granted
after the effectivity of the 1987 Constitution, pursuant to Executive Order
No. 211. They can be amended, modified or altered by a statute passed by
Congress to achieve the purposes of Article XII, Section 2 of the 1987
Constitution.
Clearly, Executive Order No. 279 issued on July 25, 1987 by President
Corazon C. Aquino in the exercise of her legislative power has the force
and effect of a statute or law passed by Congress. As such, it validly
modified or altered the privileges granted, as well as the terms and
conditions of mining leases and agreements under Executive Order No.
211 after the effectivity of the 1987 Constitution by authorizing the DENR
Secretary to negotiate and conclude joint venture, co-production, or
production-sharing agreements for the exploration, development and

utilization of mineral resources and prescribing the guidelines for such
agreements and those agreements involving technical or financial
assistance by foreign-owned corporations for large-scale exploration,
development, and utilization of minerals.
Well -settled is the rule, however, that regardless of the reservation clause,
mining leases or agreements granted by the State, such as those granted
pursuant to Executive Order No. 211 referred to this petition, are subject to
alterations through a reasonable exercise of the police power of the State.
In the 1950 case of Ongsiako v. Gamboa, 21 where the constitutionality of
Republic Act No. 34 changing the 50-50 sharecropping system in existing
agricultural tenancy contracts to 55-45 in favor of tenants was challenged,
the Court, upholding the constitutionality of the law, emphasized the
superiority of the police power of the State over the sanctity of this
contract:
The prohibition contained in constitutional provisions against: impairing the
obligation of contracts is not an absolute one and it is not to be read with
literal exactness like a mathematical formula. Such provisions are
restricted to contracts which respect property, or some object or value, and
confer rights which may be asserted in a court of justice, and have no
application to statute relating to public subjects within the domain of the
general legislative powers of the State, and involving the public rights and
public welfare of the entire community affected by it. They do not prevent a
proper exercise by the State of its police powers. By enacting regulations
reasonably necessary to secure the health, safety, morals, comfort, or
general welfare of the community, even the contracts may thereby be
affected; for such matter can not be placed by contract beyond the power
of the State shall regulates and control them. 22
In Ramas v. CAR and Ramos 23 where the constitutionality of Section 14 of
Republic Act No. 1199 authorizing the tenants to charge from share to
leasehold tenancy was challenged on the ground that it impairs the
obligation of contracts, the Court ruled that obligations of contracts must
yield to a proper exercise of the police power when such power is
exercised to preserve the security of the State and the means adopted are
reasonably adapted to the accomplishment of that end and are, therefore,
not arbitrary or oppressive.
The economic policy on the exploration, development and utilization of the
country's natural resources under Article XII, Section 2 of the 1987
Constitution could not be any clearer. As enunciated in Article XII, Section
1 of the 1987 Constitution, the exploration, development and utilization of
natural resources under the new system mandated in Section 2, is geared
towards a more equitable distribution of opportunities, income, and wealth;
a sustained increase in the amount of goods and services produced by the
nation for the benefit of the people; and an expanding productivity as the
key to raising the quality of life for all, especially the underprivileged.
The exploration, development and utilization of the country's natural
resources are matters vital to the public interest and the general welfare of
the people. The recognition of the importance of the country's natural
resources was expressed as early as the 1984 Constitutional Convention.
In connection therewith, the 1986 U.P. Constitution Project observed: "The
1984 Constitutional Convention recognized the importance of our natural
resources not only for its security and national defense. Our natural
resources which constitute the exclusive heritage of the Filipino nation,
should be preserved for those under the sovereign authority of that nation
and for their prosperity. This will ensure the country's survival as a viable
and sovereign republic."
Accordingly, the State, in the exercise of its police power in this regard,
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. Police Power, being co-extensive
with the necessities of the case and the demands of public interest;
extends to all the vital public needs. The passage of Executive Order No.
279 which superseded Executive Order No. 211 provided legal basis for
the DENR Secretary to carry into effect the mandate of Article XII, Section
2 of the 1987 Constitution.
Nowhere in Administrative Order No. 57 is there any provision which would
lead us to conclude that the questioned order authorizes the automatic
conversion of mining leases and agreements granted after the effectivity of
the 1987 Constitution, pursuant to Executive Order No. 211, to productionsharing agreements. The provision in Article 9 of Administrative Order No.
57 that "all such leases or agreements shall be converted into production
sharing agreements within one (1) year from the effectivity of these
guidelines" could not possibility contemplate a unilateral declaration on the
part of the Government that all existing mining leases and agreements are
automatically converted into
production-sharing agreements. On the contrary, the use of the term
"production-sharing agreement" if they are so minded. Negotiation negates
compulsion or automatic conversion as suggested by petitioner in the
instant petition. A mineral production-sharing agreement (MPSA) requires
a meeting of the minds of the parties after negotiations arrived at in good
faith and in accordance with the procedure laid down in the subsequent
Administrative Order No. 82.
Page 102 of 126
We, therefore, rule that the questioned administrative orders are

reasonably directed to the accomplishment of the purposes of the law
under which they were issued and were intended to secure the paramount
interest of the public, their economic growth and welfare. The validity and
constitutionality of Administrative Order Nos. 57 and 82 must be sustained,
and their force and effect upheld.
We now, proceed to the petition-in-intervention. Under Section 2, Rule 12
of the Revised Rules of Court, an intervention in a case is proper when the
intervenor has a "legal interest in the matter in litigation, or in the success
of either of the parties, or an interest against both, or when he is so
situated as to be adversely affected by a distribution or other disposition of
property in the custody of the court or of an officer thereof. "Continental
Marble Corporation has not sufficiently shown that it falls under any of the
categories mentioned above. The refusal of the DENR, Regional Office
No. 3, San Fernando, Pampanga to renew its Mines Temporary Permit
does not justify such an intervention by Continental Marble Corporation for
the purpose of obtaining a directive from this Court for the issuance of said
permit. Whether or not Continental Marble matter best addressed to the
appropriate government body but certainly, not through this Court.
Intervention is hereby DENIED.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit. The
Temporary Restraining Order issued on July 2, 1991 is hereby LIFTED.
SO ORDERED.
Narvasa, C.J., Feliciano, Padilla, Bidin, Regalado, Davide, Jr., Bellosillo,
Melo, Quiason, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan and Mendoza, JJ., concur.
application without their permission. The Bureau of Mines held SMPI's

application in abeyance pending submission of the permission of the
surface owners. No agreement having been reached by the parties, on 20
December 1965, SMPI brought an action in the Court of First Instance of
Rizal against Respondents-Appellees praying that it be granted surface
rights for mining purposes over fifteen (15) hectares of the Landowner's
property and a right-of-way over a portion of five (5) hectares leading to
and covered by the said mining claims.
The Landowners traversed the Complaint, by averring that SMPI is not
entitled to the relief demanded because the prospecting was accomplished
without previously securing the Landowner's written permission as surface
owners as required by Section 27 of the Mining Act (Commonwealth Act
No. 137, as amended).
On 29 October 1968, the Trial Court, finding that the mineral claims were
not located in accordance with law dismissed the complaint and, on the
counterclaim, sentenced SMPI to pay to Deeunhong and the Tanjuatcos
actual damages in the sum of P50,000.00 each, attorney's fees of
P5,000.00 and costs. The Appellate Court 1 affirmed that Decision with the
sole modification that temperate or moderate damages (not actual
damages) of P25,000.00 each were awarded instead.
In another Resolution dated 18 June 1976 2 the Appellate Court likewise
denied, for being devoid of legal interest, the Petition for Intervention filed
on 23 March 1976 by the Republic of the Philippines through the Solicitor
General, claiming that it had filed Civil Case No. 11410 with the then Court
of First Instance of Rizal for the reversion to the State of the same property
subject of this case.
After SMPI elevated the case to this Court for review on Certiorari, the
Republic reiterated its Petition for Intervention, which we granted in the
Resolution of 24 November 1976 (p. 215, Rollo).
Standard Mineral Products inc vs CA 184 scra 671, GR L-43277 April

26, 1990

SUPREME COURT
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. L-43277
April 26, 1990
STANDARD MINERAL PRODUCTS, INC., petitioner,

vs.
THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, RUFINO DEEUNHONG, PAZ
SUMULONG-TANJUATCO AND EMIGDIO G. TANJUATCO,
respondents, REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, intervenor.
Bengzon, Zarraga, Narciso, Cudala, Pecson, Azcuna & Bengson for
petitioner.
Tanjuatco, Oreta, Tanjuatco, Berenguer & Sanvicente for private
respondents.
MELENCIO-HERRERA, J.:
A Petition for Review on Certiorari of the Decision of Respondent Appellate
Court in CA-G.R. No. 44220-R, affirming the judgment of the former Court
of First Instance of Rizal denying surface rights for mining purposes to
Petitioner.
Petitioner-Appellant Standard Mineral Products, Inc. (SMPI, for short)
claims that it is the locator of placer mining claims "Celia IV" and "Celia VI"
containing limestone in Kaysipot, Antipolo, Rizal, which were duly
registered in the Office of the Mining Recorder of Rizal on 13 April 1959
(Exhibits "S" and "T") and 3 July 1959 (Exhibits "S-3" and "T-3",). The
aforementioned mining claims cover about fifteen (15) hectares of the one
hundred-twenty (120) hectares of land registered in the name of
Respondent-Appellee, Rufino Deeunhong, under TCT-NO. 92665 of the
Register of Deeds of Rizal. Although title is in the name of Deeunhong
alone, it is a fact that he and his co-Respondents, Paz SumulongTanjuatco and her husband (the Tanjuatcos, for short), are the co-owners
in undivided equal shares of the said one hundred-twenty (120) hectare
property, as shown by an "Acknowledgment of Trust" executed by
Deeunhong (Exhibits "5" and "6"). Collectively, they shall hereinafter be
referred to as the Landowners.
After locating the claims, SMPI applied for a mining lease from the Bureau
of Mines on 8 May 1959. The Landowners opposed the application on the
ground that SMPI had entered their land and filed its mining lease
On 3 July 1985, the Solicitor General manifested that the then Court of
First Instance of Rizal decided Civil Case No. 11410 adversely to the
Republic, but that said decision is the subject of an appeal in the then
Intermediate Appellate Court.
"Considering that the appealed case was closely interrelated with the case
at bar, such that the final determination of the rights of the parties herein is
dependent and subject to the outcome of this appeal," the Court resolved,
on 2 September 1985, to hold this case in abeyance until the then
Appellate Court shall have resolved the appeal in Civil Case No. 11410,
with the directive to the latter Court to decide the appeal promptly.
On 29 February 1988, the parties were required to inform the Court of the
status of the appealed case and whether or not supervening events had
transpired which have rendered the case moot and academic.
In its Compliance of 29 March 1988, the Solicitor General manifested that
he knew of no such supervening event.
On 23 May 1988, having been informed that the appealed case had not
yet been resolved and since the case was not yet ripe for determination,
the case was ordered archived.
On 8 December 1989, the private respondents manifested that the
Appellate Court had promulgated a decision on 21 September 1989
affirming the dismissal of Civil Case No. 11410 and declaring that the land
in question cannot be reverted to the State as it is essentially an
agricultural and not a mineral land. This decision became final on 12
October 1989. As the ownership of the land in question has been finally
settled, the controversy between the parties is now ripe for determination.
The focal issue for resolution is whether or not SMPI is entitled to surface
rights and a right of way to a 15-hectare portion of the Landowners'
property covered by SMPI's mining claims for mining purposes. A corollary
issue raised is whether or not the Trial Court and the Appellate Court had
jurisdiction over the proceedings before them in the light of Section 61 of
the Mining Act.
We agree with the declaration of both lower Courts that SMPI is not
entitled to said surface rights as it failed to comply with the requisite of
prior written permission by the Landowners before entering the private land
in question.
Section 27 of the Mining Act explicitly provides:
Section 27. Before entering private lands the prospector shall
first apply in writing for written permission of the private owner,
claimant, or holder thereof, and in case of refusal by such private
owner, claimant, or holder to grant such permission, or in case of
disagreement as to the amount of compensation to be paid for
such privilege of prospecting therein, the amount of such
compensation shall be fixed by agreement among the
Page 103 of 126
prospector, the Director of the Bureau of Mines and the surface

owner, and in case of their failure to unanimously agree as to the
amount of compensation, all questions at issue shall be
determined by the Court of First Instance of the province in
which said lands are situated in an action instituted for the
purpose by the prospector, or his principal: Provided, however,
that the prospector, or his principal upon depositing with the
court the sum considered jointly by him and the Director of the
Bureau of Mines and the court to be just compensation for the
damages resulting from such prospecting, shall be permitted to
enter upon, and locate the said land without such written
permission pending final adjudication of the amount of such
compensation; and in such case the prospector, or his principal,
shall have a prior right as against the world, from the date of his
application. The court in its final judgment, besides determining
the corresponding compensation of the damages which may be
caused by the prospecting, shall make a pronouncement as to
the value and the reasonable rental for the occupation and
utilization thereof for mining purposes in case the prospector
decides to locate and exploit the minerals found therein.
(Emphasis ours).
The purpose of the law is obvious, which is, to prevent trespass on private
property. The importance of the written permission of the owner of private
land is also apparent from the forms prescribed by the Bureau of Mines for
the declaration of location of a mining claim which require the locator to
state that the landowner has granted written permission for the prospecting
and location of the mining claim if the latter is located on private property.
It is evident that the foregoing speaks of lease of a mining claim to which

SMPI would neither be entitled for failure to comply with the provisions of
the Mining Act and to accompany its application for lease with a written
authority of the Landowners. In fact, SMPI left the space provided for the
same in its application blank. For the same reasons, authority cannot be
granted by the Court, nor can rental be fixed, compliance with the terms of
this Act being an indispensable prerequisite.
We proceed to SMPI's averment that its constitutional and statutory rights
to use and exploit mineral resources discovered and located by it are being
unduly curtailed. Again, we find this submission untenable. No one can
dispute that under the Regalian doctrine, minerals found in one's land
belong to the State and not to a private landowner (Section 8, Article XIV,
1973 Constitution; Sections 3 and 4, Mining Act). Nonetheless, a condition
sine qua non is that the prospecting, exploration, discovery and location
must be done in accordance with the law. As it is, SMPI's rights to use and
exploit the mineral resources discovered and located never matured
because of its omission to comply with a condition precedent. To allow
SMPI its claim for surface rights and right of way would be to countenance
illegal trespass into private property.
SMPI would also deprive the lower Courts of jurisdiction over the
controversy arguing that exclusive jurisdiction to resolve it rests with the
Director of Mines (now the Bureau of Mines on Geo-Sciences pursuant to
P.D. No. 128) invoking Section 61 of the Mining Act, quoted hereinbelow:
Section 61. Conflicts and disputes arising out of mining locations
shall be submitted to the Director of Mines for decision;
Provided, That the decision or order of the Director of Mines may
be appealed to the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural
Resources within thirty days from receipt of such decision or
order. In case any one of the parties should disagree with the
decision or order of the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural
Resources, the matter may be taken to the Court of Appeals or
the Supreme Court, as the case may be, within thirty days from
the receipt of such decision or order, otherwise the said decision
or order shall be final and binding upon the parties concerned.
Findings of facts in the decision or order of the Director of Mines
when affirmed by the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural
Resources shall be final and conclusive, and the aggrieved party
or parties desiring to appeal from such decision or order shall file
in the Supreme Court a petition for review wherein only
questions of law may be raised.
The subsequent amendments requiring only mere notification to the owner

of the private land (Section 2, P.D. No. 512) are not discussed for being
inapplicable during the period pertinent to this controversy.
SMPI argues, however, that Section 27 is inapplicable as it never entered
the land for the purpose of "prospecting" but already for "locating" a mining
claim inasmuch as the limestone deposits were prominently exposed and
spread visibly and recognizably on the surface of the land such that "there
was no need of "entering" the land." In finding the same to be without
merit, suffice it to state that "entering" has to be precede "prospecting";
"prospecting" necessarily precedes "discovery"; and a valid "discovery" is
essential for the "location" of a mining claim. As expounded by the Court of
Appeals:
Section 26 of the Mining Act provides that prospecting shall be
carried on "in accordance with the provisions of this Act". As
appellants prospecting was done in violation of the law, it was an
illegal act and the subsequent location of the mining claims was
also illegal and null and void. For the Mining Act regards a valid
discovery as that which gives the prospector the right to locate a
mining claim (Sections 29 and 30), and the validity of a location
depends upon Compliance with the law.
Said provision is inapplicable, however, as it refers to "conflicts and

disputes arising out of mining locations," which is not the subject matter in
the case at bar. The basic issue herein is SMPI's entitlement to surface
rights and right of way. The dispute is not a mining conflict. It is essentially
judicial. In SMPI's own words. "The present case is not for resolving a
conflict, if any, between the "Celia" claims and the "Tanjuatco" claims as
this is for the Bureau of Mines to decide."
It is clear, of course, that the validity of a location

depends upon compliance with the statutes. The law
requires that the locator shall act in good faith, and it
will not countenance a trespass as the basis of a
mining right (36 Am. Jur. Sec. 77).
SMPI would have us believe that it did not have knowledge of the private
ownership of the land. Both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court,
however, found as a fact that SMPI knew that the land in question is the
property of the Landowners. That is a finding of fact, which we not only find
supported by substantial evidence but also conclusive upon us, the wellknown exceptions to the rule not obtaining in the case at bar.
SMPI's suggestion that the remedy provided in Section 67 of the Mining
Act be applied to it is also unacceptable. This Section itself provides:
Section 67. Any person authorized to locate a mining claim,
having claimed and located a piece of land for mining purposes
who has complied the terms of this Act, may file with the Director
of the Bureau of Mines an application under oath for a mining
lease thereon, showing such compliance. . . . In the case of an
application to lease a mining claim located on private lands, the
same shall be accompanied by a written authority of the owners
of the land: Provided, however, that in case of refusal of the
owner of the land to grant such written authority, the same shall
be granted by the court as soon as the applicant deposits the
amount fixed as the value of the land and as compensation for
any resulting damage or file a bond to be approved by the court
sufficient to insure the payment of the rental of the land as
determined in accordance with section twenty seven of this Act.
Should there have been no proceeding instituted by the
applicant as provided for under section twenty-seven of this Act,
the court shall determine the value of the land and the
compensation for any resulting damage or its reasonable rental
for the purposes above mentioned and grant the written authority
required herein.
As the petitioner's adverse claim is not one grounded on

overlapping of claims nor is it a mining conflict arising out of
mining locations (there being only one involved) but one
originating from the alleged fiduciary or contractual relationship
between the petitioner mining corporation and the locator and
his transferees, the adverse claim is not within the executive or
administrative authority of the mining director to resolve, but in
the courts (Philex Mining Corporation vs. Zaldivar, G.R. No. L29669, 29 February 1972, 43 SCRA 479).
The suit below was not merely for a determination of the amount to be paid
for surface rights, as SMPI contends, inasmuch as the very validity of
those surface rights was likewise squarely put in issue.
Of significance, too, is the fact that SMPI filed its action with the Trial
Court, actively participated in the hearings therein, but, it was only after a
judgment adverse to it was rendered that it raised the issue of jurisdiction.
It is now estopped, therefore, from impugning said jurisdiction (Tijam vs.
Sibonghanoy, G.R. No. L-21450, 15 April 1968, 23 SCRA 29; Royales vs.
Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. L-65072, 31 January 1984, 127
SCRA 470; Philippine National Bank vs. Intermediate Appellate Court,
G.R. No. L-62831-32, 31 July 1986, 143 SCRA 299).
In the exercise of our discretion, we are reducing the award of temperate
damages to P10,000. 00 for Deeunhong, and another P10,000.00 for the
Tanjuatcos, which we find reasonable under the circumstances.
WHEREFORE, with the sole modification as to the award of temperate
damages, which are hereby reduced as indicated, the judgment under
review is hereby affirmed in all other respects.
No costs.
SO ORDERED.
Page 104 of 126
Lat. Thus
Paras, Padilla, Sarmiento and Regalado, JJ., concur.
Remman enterprises vs CA 330 scra 145 GR 125018 April 6, 2000

[G.R. No. 125018. April 6, 2000.]
REMMAN ENTERPRISES, INC., Petitioner, v. COURT OF APPEALS
and CRISPIN E. LAT, Respondents.
DECISION
BELLOSILLO, J.:
REMMAN ENTERPRISES, INC. (REMMAN), and CRISPIN E. LAT are

adjoining landowners in Barangay Bugtong Na Pulo, Lipa City. The land of
Lat containing an area of 1.8 hectares is agricultural and planted mostly
with fruit trees while REMMAN occupies a land area of fifteen (15)
hectares six (6) hectares of which are devoted to its piggery business.
REMMANs land is one and a half (1) meters higher in elevation than that
of respondent Lat.chanroblesvirtual|awlibrary
Sometime in July 1984 Lat noticed that REMMANs waste disposal lagoon
was already overflowing and inundating one-fourth (1/4) of Lats plantation.
He made several representations with REMMAN but they fell on deaf ears.
On 14 March 1985, after almost one (1) hectare of Lats plantation was
already inundated with water containing pig manure, as a result of which
the trees growing on the flooded portion started to wither and die, Lat filed
a complaint for damages with preliminary mandatory injunction against
REMMAN. Lat alleged that the acidity of the soil in his plantation increased
because of the overflow of the water heavy with pig manure from
REMMANs piggery farm.
REMMAN denied all the allegations of Lat and raised as an affirmative
defense that measures such as the construction of additional lagoons were
already adopted to contain the waste water coming from its piggery to
prevent any damage to the adjoining estates.
After conducting an ocular inspection and evaluating the evidence of both
parties the Regional Trial Court found that indeed REMMANs waste
disposal lagoon overflowed with the contaminated water flooding one (1)
hectare of Lats plantation. The waste water was ankle-deep and caused
death and destruction to one (1) jackfruit tree, fifteen (15) coconut trees,
one hundred twenty-two (122) coffee trees, and an unspecified number of
mango trees, bananas and vegetables. As a consequence, the trial court
ordered REMMAN to indemnify Lat P186,975.00 for lost profits for three
(3) crop years and P30,000.00 as attorneys fees. 1
The decision of the court a quo was affirmed in toto by the Court of
Appeals. 2
In this Petition for Review on Certiorari REMMAN prays that we pass upon
the findings of the trial court as well as of the appellate court. REMMAN
insists that factual findings of lower courts may be passed upon, reviewed
and reversed: (a) when the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on
speculation, surmises or conjectures; (b) when the inference made is
manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (c) when there is grave abuse
of discretion; (d) when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of
facts; (e) when the Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked certain relevant
facts not disputed by the parties and which, if properly considered, would
justify a different conclusion; (f) when the conclusions of the Court of
Appeals are not supported by the evidence on record; (g) when facts of
substance were overlooked which, if correctly considered, might have
changed the outcome of the case; and, (h) when the findings of the Court
of Appeals are not in accord with what reasonable men would readily
accept are the correct inferences from the evidence extant in the records.
3
Indeed, in the abovementioned instances, the factual milieu of a particular
case may be passed upon, reversed or modified by this Court. But
examination of the record reveals that all the above instances are
unavailing. From this point of view alone the instant petition is dismissible.
Nevertheless, we shall discuss them hereunder to dispose finally of the
contentions of REMMAN.
First, REMMAN argues that its liability for the damages suffered by Lat
was not clearly established.
We disagree. During the ocular inspection conducted by the lower court
where representatives of both parties were present, it was established that
the waste water containing pig manure was continuously flowing from
REMMANs piggery farm to Lats plantation. The water was ankle-deep
and flooded one (1) hectare of Lats plantation. The overflow of the "acidic,
malodorous and polluted water" continued from June 1984 to March 1985
thus destroying one (1) jackfruit tree, fifteen (15) coconut trees, one
hundred an twenty-two (122) coffee trees, and an unspecified number of
mango trees, bananas and vegetables. 4
In addition, the appellate court found that there was indeed negligence on
the part of REMMAN which directly caused the damage to the plantation of
. . . Negligence was clearly established. It is uncontroverted that the land of

appellee was flooded on account of the overflow of acidic, malodorous and
polluted water coming from the adjacent piggery farm of appellant
sometime in May 1984. This resulted in the impairment of the productivity
of appellees land as well as the eventual destruction and death of several
fruit trees, such as coconuts, coffee, jackfruits, bananas and other plants . .
. Appellant cannot avoid liability because their negligence was the
proximate cause of the damage. Appellees property was practically made
a catch-basin of polluted water and other noxious substances emptying
from appellants piggery which could have been prevented had it not been
for the negligence of appellant arising from its: (a) failure to monitor the
increases in the level of water in the lagoons before, during and after the
heavy downpours which occurred during the rainy months of 1984; (b)
failure to augment the existing lagoons prior to the incident,
notwithstanding the fact that at the time of the flooding, the piggery had
grown to a capacity of 11,000 heads, and considering that it was
reasonably foreseeable that the existing waste disposal facilities were no
longer adequate to accommodate the increasing volume of waste matters
in such a big farm; and more importantly, (c) the repeated failure to comply
with their promise to appellee. 5
Second, REMMAN argues that the trial court as well as the Court of
Appeals should not have rejected its request for the production of Lats
income tax returns. According to REMMAN had Lats income tax returns
been produced, the issue of the alleged damages suffered by Lat would
have been settled.
This argument is moot, if not trite. For this matter has been laid to rest
when we affirmed the Court of Appeals decision in an earlier case
involving the same parties. 6 In sustaining the trial courts quashed of the
subpoena duces tecum previously issued compelling Lat to produce his
income tax returns for the years 1982-1986, the appellate court explained
that the production of the income tax returns would not necessarily serve
to prove the special and affirmative defenses set up by REMMAN nor rebut
Lats testimony regarding the losses he sustained due to the piggery. The
tax returns per se could not reflect the total amount of damages suffered
by Lat, as income losses from a portion of the plantation could be offset by
any profit derived from the rest of the plantation or from other sources of
income. Conversely, losses incurred from other sources of income would
be totally unrelated to the income from the particular portion of the
plantation flooded with waste matter coming from REMMANs piggery. 7
Third, REMMAN contends that the damages allegedly sustained by Lat
have not been satisfactorily established.chanrobles.com.ph : red
We are not convinced. The factual findings of the court a quo rightly
support its conclusions on this respect
Coming now to the issue of damages, We find appellants allegations not
well-taken. Appellant contends that actual and compensatory damages
require evidentiary proof, and there being no evidence presented as to the
necessity of the award for damages, it was erroneous for the lower court to
have made such award. It must be remembered that after the ocular
inspection, the court a quo rendered an inventory of dead and rotten trees
and plants found in appellees property. Appellee also testified on the
approximate annual harvest and fair market value thereof. Significantly, no
opposition or controverting evidence was presented by appellant on the
matter. Hence, appellant is bound thereby and cannot now be heard to
complain. As correctly held by the court a quo:chanrob1es virtual 1aw
library
An ocular inspection has been conducted by the trial court. The inventory
of the trees damaged and the itemized valuation placed therein by private
respondent after the ocular inspection which is not rebutted by the
petitioner, is the more accurate indicator of the said amount prayed for as
damages. If the valuation is indeed unreasonable, petitioner should
present controverting evidence of the fair market value of the crops
involved. The trial court held that the private respondent himself had been
subjected to extensive cross and re-cross examination by the counsel for
the petitioner on the amount of damages. 8
Finally, REMMAN complains that the damages, if any, were due to a
fortuitous event.
Again cannot agree with petitioner. We defer instead to the findings
opinions expressed by the lower courts
Even assuming that the heavy rains constituted an act of God, by reason
of their negligence, the fortuitous event became humanized, rendering
appellants liable for the ensuing damages. In National Power Corporation
v. Court of Appeals, 233 SCRA 649 (1993), the Supreme Court
held:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
Accordingly, petitioners cannot be heard to invoke the act of God or force
majeure to escape liability for the loss or damage sustained by private
respondents since they, the petitioners, were guilty of negligence. This
event then was not occasioned exclusively by an act of God or force
majeure; a human factor negligence or imprudence had intervened.
The effect then of the force majeure in question may be deemed to have,
even if only partly, resulted from the participation of man. Thus, the whole
occurrence was thereby humanized, as it were, and removed from the
Page 105 of 126
rules applicable to acts of God.

As regards the alleged natural easement imposed upon the property of
appellee, resort to pertinent provisions of applicable law is imperative.
Under the Civil Code, it is provided:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
ARTICLE 637. Lower estates are obliged to receive the waters which
naturally and without the intervention of man descend from the higher
estates, as well as the stones or earth which they carry with them.
The owner of the lower estate cannot construct works which will impede
this easement; neither can the owner of the higher estate make works
which will increase the burden.
A similar provision is found in the Water Code of the Philippines (P.D.
No.1067), which provides:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
ARTICLE 50. Lower estates are obliged to receive the water which
naturally and without the intervention of man flow from the higher estates,
as well as the stone or earth which they carry with them.
The owner of the lower estate cannot construct works which will impede
this natural flow, unless he provides an alternative method of drainage;
neither can the owner of the higher estate make works which will increase
this natural flow.
As worded, the two (2) aforecited provisions impose a natural easement
upon the lower estate to receive the waters which naturally and without the
intervention of man descend from higher states. However, where the
waters which flow from a higher state are those which are artificially
collected in man-made lagoons, any damage occasioned thereby entitles
the owner of the lower or servient estate to compensation. 9
On the basis of the foregoing discussion, it is crystal clear that REMMAN is
directly accountable to Lat for the damages sustained by him. The
negligence of REMMAN in maintaining the level of waste water in its
lagoons has been satisfactorily established. The extent of damages
suffered by Lat remains unrebutted; in fact, has been proved.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The 19 October 1995 Decision of
the Court of Appeals affirming that of the Regional Trial Court-Br. 16, Lipa
City, holding petitioner Remman Enterprises, Inc. (REMMAN) liable to
private respondent Crispin E. Lat for damages and to indemnify the latter
P186,975.00 for lost profits for three (3) crop years and P30,000.00 as
attorneys fees, is AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner.
SO ORDERED.chanrobles.com : law library
Mendoza, Quisumbing, Buena and De Leon, Jr., JJ., concur.
Hizon vs CA 265 SCRA 517 GR 119619 December 13, 1996

SUPREME COURT
Manila
In an Information dated October 15, 1992, petitioners were charged with a

violation of P.D. 704 committed as follows:
That on or about the 30th day of September 1992, at
Brgy. San Rafael, Puerto Princesa City, Philippines
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused crew members and fishermen
of F/B Robinson owned by First Fishermen Fishing
Industries, Inc., represented by Richard Hizon, a
domestic corporation duly organized under the laws of
the Philippines, being then the owner, crew members
and fishermen of F/B Robinson and with the use of
said fishing boat, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully
and feloniously the said accused conspiring and
confederating together and mutually helping one
another catch, take or gather or cause to be caught,
taken or gathered fish or fishery aquatic products in
the coastal waters of Puerto Princess City, Palawan,
with the use of obnoxious or poisonous substance
(sodium cyanide), of more or less one (1) ton of
assorted live fishes which were illegally caught thru
the use of obnoxious/poisonous substance (sodium
cyanide). 1
The following facts were established by the prosecution: In September
1992, the Philippine National Police (PNP) Maritime Command of Puerto
Princesa City, Palawan received reports of illegal fishing operations in the
coastal waters of the city. In response to these reports, the city mayor
organized Task Force Bantay Dagat to assist the police in the detection
and apprehension of violators of the laws on fishing.
On September 30, 1992 at about 2:00 in the afternoon, the Task Force
Bantay Dagat reported to the PNP Maritime Command that a boat and
several small crafts were fishing by "muro ami" within the shoreline of
Barangay San Rafael of Puerto Princesa. The police, headed by SPO3
Romulo Enriquez, and members of the Task Force Bantay Dagat, headed
by Benito Marcelo, Jr., immediately proceeded to the area and found
several men fishing in motorized sampans and a big fishing boat identified
as F/B Robinson within the seven-kilometer shoreline of the city. They
boarded the F/B Robinson and inspected the boat with the acquiescence
of the boat captain, Silverio Gargar. In the course of their inspection, the
police saw two foreigners in the captain's deck. SP03 Enriquez examined
their passports and found them to be mere photocopies. The police also
discovered a large aquarium full of live lapu-lapu and assorted fish
weighing approximately one ton at the bottom of the boat. 2 They checked
the license of the boat and its fishermen and found them to be in order.
Nonetheless, SP03 Enriquez brought the boat captain, the crew and the
fishermen to Puerto Princesa for further investigation.
At the city harbor, members of the Maritime Command were ordered by
SP03 Enriquez to guard the F/B Robinson. The boat captain and the two
foreigners were again interrogated at the PNP Maritime Command office.
Thereafter, an Inspection/Apprehension Report was prepared and the
boat, its crew and fishermen were charged with the following violations:
1. Conducting fishing operations within Puerto
Princesa coastal waters without mayor's permit;
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 119619 December 13, 1996
RICHARD HIZON, SILVERIO GARGAR, ERNESTO ANDAYA, NEMESIO
GABO, RODRIGO ABRERA, CHEUNG TAI FOOK, SHEK CHOR LUK,
EFREN DELA PENA, JONEL AURELIO, GODOFREDO VILLAVERDE,
ANGELITO DUMAYBAG, DEOMEDES ROSIL, AMADO VILLANUEVA,
FRANCISCO ESTREMOS, ANGEL VILLAVERDE, NEMESIO
CASAMPOL, RICHARD ESTREMOS, JORNIE DELA PENA, JESUS
MACTAN, MARLON CAMPORAZO, FERNANDO BIRING, MENDRITO
CARPO, LUIS DUARTE, JOSEPH AURELIO, RONNIE JUEZAN,
BERNARDO VILLACARLOS, RICARDO SALES, MARLON ABELLA,
TEODORO DELOS REYES, IGNACIO ABELLA, JOSEPH MAYONADO,
JANAIRO LANGUYOD, DODONG DELOS REYES, JOLLY
CABALLERO and ROPLANDO ARCENAS, petitioners,
vs.
HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and THE PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, respondents.
PUNO, J.:p
This is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 15417 affirming the decision of the Regional
Trial Court, Branch 52, Palawan in Criminal Case No. 10429 convicting
petitioners of the offense of illegal fishing with the use of obnoxious or
poisonous substance penalized under Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 704,
the Fisheries Decree of 1975.
2. Employing excess fishermen on board (Authorized

26; On board 36);
3. Two (2) Hongkong nationals on board without
original passports. 3
The following day, October 1, 1992, SPO3 Enriquez directed the boat
captain to get random samples of fish from the fish cage of F/B Robinson
for laboratory examination. As instructed, the boat engineer, petitioner
Ernesto Andaya, delivered to the Maritime Office four (4) live lapu-lapu fish
inside a plastic shopping bag filled with water. SPO3 Enriquez received the
fish and in the presence of the boat engineer and captain, placed them
inside a large transparent plastic bag without water. He sealed the plastic
with heat from a lighter. 4
The specimens were brought to the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI)
sub-office in the city for examination "to determine the method of catching
the same for record or evidentiary purposes." 5 They were received at the
NBI office at 8:00 in the evening of the same day. The receiving clerk,
Edna Capicio, noted that the fish were dead and she placed the plastic
bag with the fish inside the office freezer to preserve them. Two days later,
on October 3, 1992, the chief of the NBI sub-office, Onos Mangotara,
certified the specimens for laboratory examination at the NBI Head Office
in Manila. The fish samples were to be personally transported by Edna
Capicio who was then scheduled to leave for Manila for her board
examination in Criminology. 6 On October 4, 1992, Ms. Capicio, in the
presence of her chief, took the plastic with the specimens from the freezer
and placed them inside two shopping bags and sealed them with masking
tape. She proceeded to her ship where she placed the specimens in the
ship's freezer.
Page 106 of 126
Capicio arrived in Manila the following day, October 5, 1992 and

immediately brought the specimens to the NBI Head Office. On October 7,
1992, NBI Forensic Chemist Emilia Rosaldes conducted two tests on the
fish samples and found that they contained sodium cyanide, thus:
FINDINGS:
Weight of Specimen. . . . . . 1.870
kilograms
Examinations made on the abovementioned
specimen gave POSITIVE
RESULTS to the
test for the presence of SODIUM
CYANIDE. . . .
REMARKS:
Sodium Cyanide is a violent
poison. 7
In light of these findings, the PNP Maritime Command of Puerto Princesa
City filed the complaint at bar against the owner and operator of the F/B
Robinson, the First Fishermen Fishing Industries, Inc., represented by
herein petitioner Richard Hizon, the boat captain, Silverio Gargar, the boat
engineer, Ernesto Andaya, two other crew members, the two Hongkong
nationals and 28 fishermen of the said boat.
Petitioners were arraigned and they pled not guilty to the charge. As
defense, they claimed that they are legitimate fishermen of the First
Fishermen Industries, Inc., a domestic corporation licensed to engage in
fishing. They alleged that they catch fish by the hook and line method and
that they had used this method for one month and a half in the waters of
Cuyo Island. They related that on September 30, 1992 at about 7:00 A.M.,
they anchored the F/B Robinson in the east of Podiado Island in Puerto
Princesa City. The boat captain and the fishermen took out and boarded
their sampans to fish for their food. They were still fishing in their sampans
at 4:00 P.M. when a rubber boat containing members of the PNP Maritime
Command and the Task Force Bantay Dagat approached them and
boarded the F/B Robinson. The policemen were in uniform while the
Bantay Dagat personnel were in civilian clothes. They were all armed with
guns. One of the Bantay Dagat personnel introduced himself as
Commander Jun Marcelo and he inspected the boat and the boat's
documents. Marcelo saw the two foreigners and asked for their passports.
As their passports were photocopies, Marcelo demanded for their original.
The captain explained that the original passports were with the company's
head office in Manila. Marcelo angrily insisted for the originals and
threatened to arrest everybody. He then ordered the captain, his crew and
the fishermen to follow him to Puerto Princesa. He held the magazine of
his gun and warned the captain "Sige, huwag kang tatakas, kung hindi
babarilin ko kayo!" 8 The captain herded all his men into the boat and
followed Marcelo and the police to Puerto Princesa.
They arrived at the city harbor at 7:45 in the evening and were met by
members of the media. As instructed by Marcelo, the members of the
9
media interviewed and took pictures of the boat and the fishermen.
The following day, October 1, 1992, at 8:00 in the morning, Amado
Villanueva, one of the fishermen at the F/B Robinson, was instructed by a
policeman guarding the boat to get five (5) fish samples from the fish cage
and bring them to the pier. Villanueva inquired whether the captain knew
about the order but the guard replied he was taking responsibility for it.
Villanueva scooped five pieces of lapu-lapu, placed them inside a plastic
bag filled with water and brought the bag to the pier. The boat engineer,
Ernesto Andaya, received the fish and delivered them to the PNP Maritime
Office. Nobody was in the office and Andaya waited for the apprehending
officers and the boat captain. Later, one of the policemen in the office
instructed him to leave the bag and hang it on a nail in the wall. Andaya
did as he was told and returned to the boat at 10:00 A.M. 10
In the afternoon of the same day, the boat captain arrived at the Maritime
office. He brought along a representative from their head office in Manila
who showed the police and the Bantay Dagat personnel the original
passports of the Hongkong nationals and other pertinent documents of the
F/B Robinson and its crew. Finding the documents in order, Marcelo
approached the captain and whispered to him "Tandaan mo ito, kapitan,
kung makakaalis ka dito, magkikita pa rin uli tayo sa dagat, kung hindi
kayo lulubog ay palulutangin ko kayo!" It was then that SP03 Enriquez
informed the captain that some members of the Maritime Command, acting
under his instructions, had just taken five (5) pieces of lapu-lapu from the
boat. SP03 Enriquez showed the captain the fish samples. Although the
captain saw only four (4) pieces of lapu-lapu, he did not utter a word of
protest. 11 Under Marcelo's threat, he signed the "Certification" that he
received only four (4) pieces of the fish. 12
Two weeks later, the information was filed against petitioners. The case
was prosecuted against thirty-one (31) of the thirty-five (35) accused.
Richard Hizon remained at large while the whereabouts of Richard

Estremos, Marlon Camporazo and Joseph Aurelio were unknown.
On July 9, 1993, the trial court found the thirty one (31) petitioners guilty
and sentenced them to imprisonment for a minimum of eight (8) years and
one (1) day to a maximum of nine (9) years and four (4) months. The court
also ordered the confiscation and forfeiture of the F/B Robinson, the 28
sampans and the ton of assorted live fishes as instruments and proceeds
of the offense, thus:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is
hereby rendered finding the accused SILVERIO
GARGAR, ERNESTO ANDAYA, NEMESIO GABO,
RODRIGO ABRERA, CHEUNG TAI FOOK, SHEK
CHOR LUK, EFREN DELA PENA, JONEL AURELIO,
GODOFREDO VILLAVERDE, ANGELITO
DUMAYBAG, DEOMEDES ROSIL, AMADO
VILLANUEVA, FRANCISCO ESTREMOS, ARNEL
VILLAVERDE, NEMESIO CASAMPOL, JORNIE
DELA CRUZ, JESUS MACTAN, FERNANDO BIRING,
MENDRITO CARPO, LUIS DUARTE, RONNIE
JUEZAN, BERNARDO VLLLACARLOS, RICARDO
SALES, MARLON ABELLA, TEODORO DELOS
REYES, IGNACIO ABELLA, JOSEPH MAYONADO,
JANAIRO LANGUYOD, DODONG DELOS REYES,
ROLANDO ARCENAS and JOLLY CABALLERO
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Illegal
Fishing with the use of obnoxious or poisonous
substance commonly known as sodium cyanide,
committed in violation of section 33 and penalized in
section 38 of Presidential Decree No. 704, as
amended, and there being neither mitigating nor
aggravating circumstances appreciated and applying
the provisions of the Indeterminate Sentence Law,
each of the aforenamed accused is sentenced to an
indeterminate penalty of imprisonment ranging from a
minimum of EIGHT (8) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY to a
maximum of NINE (9) YEARS and FOUR (4)
MONTHS and to pay the costs.
Pursuant to the provisions of Article 45, in relation to the second sentence
of Article 10 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended:
a) Fishing Boat (F/B) Robinson;
b) The 28 motorized fiberglass sampans; and
c) The live fishes in the fish cages installed in the F/B
Robinson, all of which have been respectively shown
to be tools or instruments and proceeds of the offense,
are hereby ordered confiscated and declared forfeited
in favor of the government.
SO ORDERED. 13
On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court.
Hence, this petition.
Petitioners contend that:
I
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN
HOLDING THAT THE MERE "POSITIVE RESULTS
TO THE TEST FOR THE PRESENCE OF SODIUM
CYANIDE" IN THE FISH SPECIMEN, ALBEIT
ILLEGALLY SEIZED ON THE OCCASION OF A
WARRANTLESS SEARCH AND ARREST, IS
ADMISSIBLE AND SUFFICIENT BASIS FOR THE
PETITIONERS' CONVICTION OF THE CRIME OF
ILLEGAL FISHING.
II
NOT HOLDING THAT THE STATUTORY
PRESUMPTION OF GUILT UNDER SEC. 33 OF
PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 704 CANNOT
PREVAIL AGAINST THE CONSTITUTIONAL
PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE, SUCH THAT THE
GRAVAMEN OF THE OFFENSE OF ILLEGAL
FISHING MUST STILL BE PROVED BEYOND
REASONABLE DOUBT.
III
Page 107 of 126

NOT REVERSING THE JUDGMENT OF THE TRIAL
COURT AND ACQUITTING THE PETITIONERS. 14
The Solicitor General submitted a "Manifestation in Lieu of Comment"
praying for petitioners' acquittal. 15
The petitioners, with the concurrence of the Solicitor General, primarily
question the admissibility of the evidence against petitioners in view of the
warrantless search of the fishing boat and the subsequent arrest of
petitioners. More concretely, they contend that the NBI finding of sodium
cyanide in the fish specimens should not have been admitted and
considered by the trial court because the fish samples were seized from
the F/B Robinson without a search warrant.
Our Constitution proscribes search and seizure and the arrest of persons
without a judicial warrant. 16 As a general rule, any evidence obtained
without a judicial warrant is inadmissible for any purpose in any
proceeding. The rule is, however, subject to certain exceptions. Some of
these are: 17 (1) a search incident to a lawful of arrest; 18 (2) seizure of
evidence in plain view; (3) search of a moving motor vehicle; 19 and (4)
search in violation of customs laws. 20
Search and seizure without search warrant of vessels and aircrafts for
violations of customs laws have been the traditional exception to the
constitutional requirement of a search warrant. It is rooted on the
recognition that a vessel and an aircraft, like motor vehicles, can be quickly
moved out of the locality or jurisdiction in which the search warrant must
be sought and secured. Yielding to this reality, judicial authorities have not
required a search warrant of vessels and aircrafts before their search and
seizure can be constitutionally effected. 21
The same exception ought to apply to seizures of fishing vessels and
boats breaching our fishery laws. These vessels are normally powered by
high-speed motors that enable them to elude arresting ships of the
Philippine Navy, the Coast Guard and other government authorities
enforcing our fishery laws. 22
We thus hold as valid the warrantless search on the F/B Robinson, a
fishing boat suspected of having engaged in illegal fishing. The fish and
other evidence seized in the course of the search were properly admitted
by the trial court. Moreover, petitioners failed to raise the issue during trial
and hence, waived
their right to question any irregularity that may have attended the said
search and seizure. 23
Given the evidence admitted by the trial court, the next question now is
whether petitioners are guilty of the offense of illegal fishing with the use of
poisonous substances. Again, the petitioners, joined by the Solicitor
General, submit that the prosecution evidence cannot convict them.
We agree.
Petitioners were charged with illegal fishing penalized under sections 33
and 38 of P.D. 704 24 which provide as follows:
Sec. 33. Illegal fishing, illegal possession of explosives
intended for illegal fishing; dealing in illegally caught
fish or fishery/aquatic products. It shall be unlawful
for any person to catch, take or gather or cause to be
caught, taken or gathered fish or fishery/aquatic
products in Philippine waters with the use of
explosives, obnoxious or poisonous substance, or by
the use of electricity as defined in paragraphs (l), (m)
and (d), respectively, of section 3 hereof: Provided,
That mere possession of such explosives with intent to
use the same for illegal fishing as herein defined shall
be punishable as hereinafter provided: Provided, That
the Secretary may, upon recommendation of the
Director and subject to such safeguards and
conditions he deems necessary, allow for research,
educational or scientific purposes only, the use of
explosives, obnoxious or poisonous substance or
electricity to catch, take or gather fish or
fishery/aquatic products in the specified area:
Provided, further, That the use of chemicals to
eradicate predators in fishponds in accordance with
accepted scientific fishery practices without causing
deleterious effects in neighboring waters shall not be
construed as the use of obnoxious or poisonous
substance within the meaning of this section:
Provided, finally, That the use of mechanical bombs
for killing whales, crocodiles, sharks or other large
dangerous fishes, may be allowed, subject to the
approval of the Secretary.
It shall, likewise, be unlawful for any person knowingly
to possess, deal in, sell or in any manner dispose of,
for profit, any fish or fishery/aquatic products which

have been illegally caught, taken or gathered.
The discovery of dynamite, other explosives and
chemical compounds containing combustible
elements, or obnoxious or poisonous substance, or
equipment or device for electric fishing in any fishing
boat or in the possession of a fisherman shall
constitute a presumption that the same were used for
fishing in violation of this Decree, and the discovery in
any fishing boat of fish caught or killed by the use of
explosives, obnoxious or poisonous substance or by
electricity shall constitute a presumption that the
owner, operator or fisherman were fishing with the use
of explosives, obnoxious or poisonous substance or
electricity.
xxx xxx xxx
Sec. 38. Penalties. (a) For illegal fishing and
dealing in illegally caught fish or fishery/aquatic
products. Violation of Section 33 hereof shall be
punished as follows:
xxx xxx xxx
(2) By imprisonment from eight (8) to ten (10) years, if
obnoxious or poisonous substances are used:
Provided, That if the use of such substances results 1)
in physical injury to any person, the penalty shall be
imprisonment from ten (10) to twelve (12) years, or 2)
in the loss of human life, then the penalty shall be
imprisonment from twenty (20) years to life or death;
xxx xxx xxx 25
The offense of illegal fishing is committed when a person
catches, takes or gathers or causes to be caught, taken or
gathered fish, fishery or aquatic products in Philippine waters
with the use of explosives, electricity, obnoxious or poisonous
substances. The law creates a presumption that illegal fishing
has been committed when: (a) explosives, obnoxious or
poisonous substances or equipment or device for electric fishing
are found in a fishing boat or in the possession of a fisherman;
or (b) when fish caught or killed with the use of explosives,
obnoxious or poisonous substances or by electricity are found in
a fishing boat. Under these instances, the boat owner, operator
or fishermen are presumed to have engaged in illegal fishing.
Petitioners contend that this presumption of guilt under the Fisheries
Decree violates the presumption of innocence guaranteed by the
Constitution. 26 As early as 1916, this Court has rejected this argument by
holding that: 27
In some States, as well as in England, there exist what
are known as common law offenses. In the Philippine
Islands no act is a crime unless it is made so by
statute. The state having the right to declare what acts
are criminal, within certain well-defined limitations, has
the right to specify what act or acts shall constitute a
crime, as well as what proof shall constitute prima
facie evidence of guilt, and then to put upon the
defendant the burden of showing that such act or acts
are innocent and are not committed with any criminal
intent or intention. 28
The validity of laws establishing presumptions in criminal cases
is a settled matter. It is generally conceded that the legislature
has the power to provide that proof of certain facts can constitute
prima facie evidence of the guilt of the accused and then shift
the burden of proof to the accused provided there is a rational
connection between the facts proved and the ultimate fact
presumed. 29 To avoid any constitutional infirmity, the inference
of one from proof of the other must not be arbitrary and
30
unreasonable. In fine, the presumption must be based on facts
and these facts must be part of the crime when committed. 31
The third paragraph of section 33 of P.D. 704 creates a presumption of
guilt based on facts proved and hence is not constitutionally impermissible.
It makes the discovery of obnoxious or poisonous substances, explosives,
or devices for electric fishing, or of fish caught or killed with the use of
obnoxious and poisonous substances, explosives or electricity in any
fishing boat or in the possession of a fisherman evidence that the owner
and operator of the fishing boat or the fisherman had used such
substances in catching fish. The ultimate fact presumed is that the owner
and operator of the boat or the fisherman were engaged in illegal fishing
and this presumption was made to arise from the discovery of the
substances and the contaminated fish in the possession of the fisherman
Page 108 of 126
in the fishing boat. The fact presumed is a natural inference from the fact
proved. 32
We stress, however, that the statutory presumption is merely prima
facie. 33 It can not, under the guise of regulating the presentation of
evidence, operate to preclude the accused from presenting his defense to
rebut the main fact presumed. 34 At no instance can the accused be denied
the right to rebut the presumption. 35 thus:
The inference of guilt is one of fact and rests upon the
common experience of men. But the experience of
men has taught them that an apparently guilty
possession may be explained so as to rebut such an
inference and an accused person may therefore put
witnesses on the stand or go on the witness stand
himself to explain his possession, and any reasonable
explanation of his possession, inconsistent with his
guilty connection with the commission of the crime, will
rebut the inference as to his guilt which the
prosecution seeks to have drawn from his guilty
possession of the stolen goods. 36
the two Bantay Dagat personnel

were SPO3 Romulo Enriquez and
Mr. Benito Marcelo and SPO1
Marzan, you did not witness that
kind of moro ami fishing, correct?
A: None, sir.
Q: In other words, there was
negative activity of moro ami type
of fishing on September 30, 1992
at 4:00 in the afternoon at San
Rafael?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: And what you saw were 5
motorized sampans with
fishermen each doing a hook and
line fishing type?
We now review the evidence to determine whether petitioners have

successfully rebutted this presumption. The facts show that on November
13, 1992, after the Information was filed in court and petitioners granted
bail, petitioners moved that the fish specimens taken from the F/B
Robinson be reexamined. 37 The trial court granted the motion. 38 As
prayed for, a member of the PNP Maritime Command of Puerto Princesa,
in the presence of authorized representatives of the F/B Robinson, the NBI
and the local Fisheries Office, took at random five (5) live lapu-lapu from
the fish cage of the boat. The specimens were packed in the usual manner
of transporting live fish, taken aboard a commercial flight and delivered by
the same representatives to the NBI Head Office in Manila for chemical
analysis.
A: Yes, sir. More or less they

were five.
On November 23, 1992, Salud Rosales, another forensic chemist of the

NBI in Manila conducted three (3) tests on the specimens and found the
39
fish negative for the presence of sodium cyanide, thus:
xxx xxx xxx 43
Gross weight of specimen = 3.849 kg.

Examinations made on the above-mentioned
specimens gave NEGATIVE RESULTS to the tests for
the presence of SODIUM CYANIDE. 40
The Information charged petitioners with illegal fishing "with the use of
obnoxious or poisonous substance (sodium cyanide), of more or less one
(1) ton of assorted live fishes" There was more or less one ton of fishes in
the F/B Robinson's fish cage. It was from this fish cage that the four dead
specimens examined on October 7, 1992 and the five specimens
examined on November 23, 1992 were taken. Though all the specimens
came from the same source allegedly tainted with sodium cyanide, the two
tests resulted in conflicting findings. We note that after its apprehension,
the F/B Robinson never left the custody of the PNP Maritime Command.
The fishing boat was anchored near the city harbor and was guarded by
41
members of the Maritime Command. It was later turned over to the
custody of the Philippine Coast Guard Commander of Puerto Princesa
City. 42
The prosecution failed to explain the contradictory findings on the fish
samples and this omission raises a reasonable doubt that the one ton of
fishes in the cage were caught with the use of sodium cyanide.
The absence of cyanide in the second set of fish specimens supports
petitioners' claim that they did not use the poison in fishing. According to
them, they caught the fishes by the ordinary and legal way, i.e., by hook
and line on board their sampans. This claim is buttressed by the
prosecution evidence itself. The apprehending officers saw petitioners
fishing by hook and line when they came upon them in the waters of
Barangay San Rafael. One of the apprehending officers, SPO1 Demetrio
Saballuca, testified as follows:
ATTY. TORREFRANCA ON
CROSS-EXAMINATION:
Q: I get your point therefore, that
the illegal fishing supposedly
conducted at San Rafael is a
moro ami type of fishing [that]
occurred into your mind and that
was made to understand by the
Bantay Dagat personnel?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Upon reaching the place, you
and the pumpboat, together with
Q: And despite the fact you had

negative knowledge of this moro
ami type of fishing, SP03
Enriquez together with Mr.
Marcelo boarded the vessel just
the same?
A: Yes, sir.
The apprehending officers who boarded and searched the boat did not find
any sodium cyanide nor any poisonous or obnoxious substance. Neither
did they find any trace of the poison in the possession of the fishermen or
in the fish cage itself. An Inventory was prepared by the apprehending
officers and only the following items were found on board the boat:
ITEMS QUANTITY REMARKS
F/B Robinson (1) unit operating
engine (1) unit ICE-900-BHP
sampans 28 units fiberglass
outboard motors 28 units operating
assorted fishes more or less 1 ton live
hooks and lines assorted
xxx xxx xxx
44
We cannot overlook the fact that the apprehending officers found

in the boat assorted hooks and lines for catching fish. 45 For this
obvious reason, the Inspection/Apprehension Report prepared
by the apprehending officers immediately after the search did
not charge petitioners with illegal fishing, much less illegal
fishing with the use of poison or any obnoxious substance. 46
The only basis for the charge of fishing with poisonous substance is the
result of the first NBI laboratory test on the four fish specimens. Under the
circumstances of the case, however, this finding does not warrant the
infallible conclusion that the fishes in the F/B Robinson, or even the same
four specimens, were caught with the use of sodium cyanide.
Prosecution witness SPO1 Bernardino Visto testified that for the first
laboratory test, boat engineer Ernesto Andaya did not only get four (4)
samples of fish but actually got five (5) from the fish cage of the F/B
Robinson. 47 The Certification that four (4) fish samples were taken from
the boat shows on its face the number of pieces as originally "five (5)" but
this was erased with correction fluid and "four (4)" written over it. 48 The
specimens were taken, sealed inside the plastic bag and brought to Manila
by the police authorities in the absence of petitioners or their
representative. SP02 Enriquez testified that the same plastic bag
containing the four specimens was merely sealed with heat from a lighter.
49
Emilia Rosales, the NBI forensic chemist who examined the samples,
testified that when she opened the package, she found the two ends of the
same plastic bag knotted. 50 These circumstances as well as the time
Page 109 of 126
interval from the taking of the fish samples and their actual examination 51
fail to assure the impartial mind that the integrity of the specimens had
been properly safeguarded.
Apparently, the members of the PNP Maritime Command and the Task
Force Bantay Dagat were the ones engaged in an illegal fishing
expedition. As sharply observed by the Solicitor General, the report
received by the Task Force Bantay Dagat was that a fishing boat was
fishing illegally through "muro ami" on the waters of San Rafael. "Muro
ami" according to SPO1 Saballuca is made with "the use of a big net with
sinkers to make the net submerge in the water with the fishermen
surround[ing] the net." 52 This method of fishing needs approximately two
hundred (200) fishermen to execute. 53 What the apprehending officers
instead discovered were twenty eight (28) fishermen in their sampans
fishing by hook and line. The authorities found nothing on the boat that
would have indicated any form of illegal fishing. All the documents of the
boat and the fishermen were in order. It was only after the fish specimens
were tested, albeit under suspicious circumstances, that petitioners were
charged with illegal fishing with the use of poisonous substances.
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the petition is granted and the decision of the Court
of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 15417 is reversed and set aside. Petitioners
are acquitted of the crime of illegal fishing with the use of poisonous
substances defined under Section 33 of Republic Act No. 704, the
Fisheries Decree of 1975. No costs.
SO ORDERED.
Regalado, Romero, Mendoza and Torres, Jr., JJ., concur.
PENEYRA, CIPRIANO C. BARROMA, CLARO E. ORDINARIO,

ERNESTO A. LLACUNA, RODOLFO C. FLORDELIZA, GILBERT S.
BAACO, WINSTON G. ARZAGA, NAPOLEON F. ORDONEZ and GIL P.
ACOSTA, CITY MAYOR EDWARD HAGEDORN, MEMBERS OF
SANGGUNIANG PANLUNGSOD NG PUERTO PRINCESA, ALL
MEMBERS OF BANTAY DAGAT, MEMBERS OF PHILIPPINE
NATIONAL POLICE OF PALAWAN, PROVINCIAL AND CITY
PROSECUTORS OF PALAWAN and PUERTO PRINCESA CITY, and
ALL JUDGES OF PALAWAN, REGIONAL, MUNICIPAL AND
METROPOLITAN, respondents.
DAVIDE, JR., J.:

Petitioners caption their petition as one for "Certiorari, Injunction With
Preliminary and Mandatory Injunction, with Prayer for Temporary
Restraining Order" and pray that this Court: (1) declare as unconstitutional:
(a) Ordinance No. 15-92, dated 15 December 1992, of the Sangguniang
Panglungsod of Puerto Princesa; (b) Office Order No. 23, Series of 1993,
dated 22 January 1993, issued by Acting City Mayor Amado L. Lucero of
Puerto Princesa City; and (c) Resolution No. 33, Ordinance No. 2, Series
of 1993, dated 19 February 1993, of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of
Palawan; (2) enjoin the enforcement thereof; and (3) restrain respondents
Provincial and City Prosecutors of Palawan and Puerto Princesa City and
Judges of the Regional Trial Courts, Metropolitan Trial Courts 1 and
Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in Palawan from assuming jurisdiction over
and hearing cases concerning the violation of the Ordinances and of the
Office Order.
More appropriately, the petition is, and shall be treated as, a special civil
action for certiorari and prohibition.
Tano vs Socrates 278 SCRA 154 GR 110249 August 21 197

The following is petitioners' summary of the factual antecedents giving rise
to the petition:

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. 110249 August 21, 1997

ALFREDO TANO, BALDOMERO TANO, DANILO TANO, ROMUALDO
TANO, TEOCENES MIDELLO, ANGEL DE MESA, EULOGIO
TREMOCHA, FELIPE ONGONION, JR., ANDRES LINIJAN, ROBERT
LIM, VIRGINIA LIM, FELIMON DE MESA, GENEROSO ARAGON,
TEODORICO ANDRE, ROMULO DEL ROSARIO, CHOLITO ANDRE,
ERICK MONTANO, ANDRES OLIVA, VITTORIO SALVADOR,
LEOPOLDO ARAGON, RAFAEL RIBA, ALEJANDRO LEONILA, JOSE
DAMACINTO, RAMIRO MANAEG, RUBEN MARGATE, ROBERTO
REYES, DANILO PANGARUTAN, NOE GOLPAN, ESTANISLAO
ROMERO, NICANOR DOMINGO, ROLDAN TABANG, ADRIANO
TABANG, FREDDIE SACAMAY, MIGUEL TRIMOCHA, PACENCIO
LABABIT, PABLO H. OMPAD, CELESTINO A. ABANO, ALLAN
ALMODAI, BILLY D. BARTOLAY, ALBINO D. LIQUE, MECHOR J.
LAYSON, MELANIE AMANTE, CLARO E. YATOC, MERGELDO B.
BALDEO, EDGAR M. ALMASETA, JOSELITO MANAEG, LIBERATO
ANDRADA, JR., ROBERTO BERRY, RONALD VILLANUEVA,
EDUARDO VALMORIA, WILFREDO MENDOZA, NAPOLEON
BABANGGA, ROBERTO TADEPA, RUBEN ASINGUA, SILVERIO
GABO, JERRY ROMERO, DAVID PANGGARUTAN, DANIEL
PANGGARUTAN, ROMEO AGAWIN, FERNANDO EQUIZ, DITO
LEQUIZ, RONILO MODERABLE, BENEDICTO TORRES, ROSITO A.
VALDEZ, CRESENCIO A. SAYANG, NICOMEDES S. ACOSTA,
ERENEO A. SEGARINO, JR., WILFREDO A. RAUTO, DIOSDADO A.
ACOSTA, BONIFACIO G. SISMO, TACIO ALUBA, DANIEL B.
BATERZAL, ELISEO YBAEZ, DIOSDADO E. HANCHIC, EDDIE
ESCALICAS, ELEAZAR B. BATERZAL, DOMINADOR HALICHIC,
ROOSEVELT RISMO-AN, ROBERT C. MERCADER, TIRSO
ARESGADO, DANIEL CHAVEZ, DANILO CHAVEZ, VICTOR
VILLAROEL, ERNESTO C. YBAEZ, ARMANDO T. SANTILLAN, RUDY
S. SANTILLAN, JODJEN ILUSTRISIMO, NESTOR SALANGRON,
ALBERTO SALANGRON, ROGER L. ROXAS, FRANCISCO T.
ANTICANO, PASTOR SALANGRON, BIENVENIDO SANTILLAN,
GILBUENA LADDY, FIDEL BENJAMIN, JOVELITO BELGANO, HONEY
PARIOL, ANTONIO SALANGRON, NICASIO SALANGRON, & AIRLINE
SHIPPERS ASSOCIATION OF PALAWAN, petitioners,
vs.
HON. GOV. SALVADOR P. SOCRATES, MEMBERS OF
SANGGUNIANG PANLALAWIGAN OF PALAWAN, namely, VICEGOVERNOR JOEL T. REYES, JOSE D. ZABALA, ROSALINO R.
ACOSTA, JOSELITO A. CADLAON, ANDRES R. BAACO, NELSON P.
1. On December 15, 1992, the Sangguniang Panlungsod ng

Puerto Princesa City enacted Ordinance No. 15-92 which took
effect on January 1, 1993 entitled: "AN ORDINANCE BANNING
THE SHIPMENT OF ALL LIVE FISH AND LOBSTER OUTSIDE
PUERTO PRINCESA CITY FROM JANUARY 1, 1993 TO
JANUARY 1, 1998 AND PROVIDING EXEMPTIONS,
PENALTIES AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES THEREOF", the
full text of which reads as follows:
Sec. 1. Title of the Ordinance. This Ordinance is entitled: AN
ORDINANCE BANNING THE SHIPMENT OF ALL LIVE FISH AND
LOBSTER OUTSIDE PUERTO PRINCESA CITY FROM JANUARY 1,
1993 TO JANUARY 1, 1998 AND PROVIDING EXEMPTIONS,
PENALTIES AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES THEREOF.
Sec. 2. Purpose, Scope and Coverage. To effectively free our City Sea
Waters from Cyanide and other Obnoxious substance[s], and shall cover
all persons and/or entities operating within and outside the City of Puerto
Princesa who is are (sic) directly or indirectly in the business or shipment
of live fish and lobster outside the City.
Sec. 3. Definition of terms. For purpose of this Ordinance the following
are hereby defined:
A. SEA BASS A kind of fish under the family of Centropomidae, better
known as APAHAP;
B. CATFISH A kind of fish under the family of Plotosidae, better known
as HITO-HITO
C. MUDFISH A kind of fish under the family of Orphicaphalisae better
known as DALAG;
D. ALL LIVE FISH All alive, breathing not necessarily moving of all
specie[s] use[d] for food and for aquarium purposes.
E. LIVE LOBSTER Several relatively, large marine crusteceans [sic] of
the genus Homarus that are alive and breathing not necessarily moving.
Sec. 4. It shall be unlawful [for] any person or any business enterprise or
company to ship out from Puerto Princesa City to any point of destination
either via aircraft or seacraft of any live fish and lobster except SEA BASS,
CATFISH, MUDFISH, AND MILKFISH FRIES.
Sec. 5. Penalty Clause. Any person/s and or business entity violating
this Ordinance shall be penalized with a fine of not more than P5,000.00 or
imprisonment of not more than twelve (12) months, cancellation of their
permit to do business in the City of Puerto Princesa or all of the herein
stated penalties, upon the discretion of the court.Sec. 6. If the owner
Page 1 0 of 126
and/or operator of the establishment found violating the provisions of this

ordinance is a corporation or a partnership, the penalty prescribed in
Section 5 hereof shall be imposed upon its president and/or General
Manager or Managing Partner and/or Manager, as the case maybe [sic].
Sec. 7. Any existing ordinance or any provision of any ordinance
inconsistent to [sic] this ordinance is deemed repealed.
WHEREAS, Sec. 468, Par. 1, Sub-Par. VI of the [sic] R.A. 7160 otherwise
known as the Local Government Code of 1991 empowers the
Sangguniang Panlalawigan to protect the environment and impose
appropriate penalties [upon] acts which endanger the environment such as
dynamite fishing and other forms of destructive fishing, among others.
NOW, THEREFORE, on motion by Kagawad Nelson P. Peneyra and upon
unanimous decision of all the members present;
Sec. 8. This Ordinance shall take effect on January 1, 1993.

Be it resolved as it is hereby resolved, to approve Resolution No. 33,
Series of 1993 of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan and to enact Ordinance
No. 2 for the purpose, to wit:
SO ORDAINED.
xxx xxx xxx
2. To implement said city ordinance, then Acting City Mayor
Amado L. Lucero issued Office Order No. 23, Series of 1993
dated January 22, 1993 which reads as follows:
In the interest of public service and for purposes of City
Ordinance No. PD 426-14-74, otherwise known as "AN
ORDINANCE REQUIRING ANY PERSON ENGAGED OR
INTENDING TO ENGAGE IN ANY BUSINESS, TRADE,
OCCUPATION, CALLING OR PROFESSION OR HAVING IN
HIS POSSESSION ANY OF THE ARTICLES FOR WHICH A
PERMIT IS REQUIRED TO BE HAD, TO OBTAIN FIRST A
MAYOR'S PERMIT" and "City Ordinance No. 15-92, AN
ORDINANCE BANNING THE SHIPMENT OF ALL LIVE FISH
AND LOBSTER OUTSIDE PUERTO PRINCESA CITY FROM
JANUARY 1, 1993 TO JANUARY 1, 1998, you are hereby
authorized and directed to check or conduct necessary
inspections on cargoes containing live fish and lobster being
shipped out from the Puerto Princesa Airport, Puerto Princesa
Wharf or at any port within the jurisdiction of the City to any point
of destinations [sic] either via aircraft or seacraft.
The purpose of the inspection is to ascertain whether the shipper
possessed the required Mayor's Permit issued by this Office and
the shipment is covered by invoice or clearance issued by the
local office of the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources
and as to compliance with all other existing rules and regulations
on the matter.
Any cargo containing live fish and lobster without the required
documents as stated herein must be held for proper disposition.
In the pursuit of this Order, you are hereby authorized to
coordinate with the PAL Manager, the PPA Manager, the local
PNP Station and other offices concerned for the needed support
and cooperation. Further, that the usual courtesy and diplomacy
must be observed at all times in the conduct of the inspection.
Please be guided accordingly.
xxx xxx xxx
3. On February 19, 1993, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan, Provincial
Government of Palawan enacted Resolution No. 33 entitled: "A
RESOLUTION PROHIBITING THE CATCHING, GATHERING,
POSSESSING, BUYING, SELLING AND SHIPMENT OF LIVE MARINE
CORAL DWELLING AQUATIC ORGANISMS, TO WIT: FAMILY:
SCARIDAE (MAMENG), EPINE PHELUS FASCIATUS (SUNO).
CROMILEPTES ALTIVELIS (PANTHER OR SENORITA), LOBSTER
BELOW 200 GRAMS AND SPAWNING, TRIDACNA GIGAS (TAKLOBO),
PINCTADA MARGARITEFERA (MOTHER PEARL, OYSTERS, GIANT
CLAMS AND OTHER SPECIES), PENAEUS MONODON (TIGER
PRAWN-BREEDER SIZE OR MOTHER), EPINEPHELUS SUILLUS
(LOBA OR GREEN GROUPER) AND FAMILY: BALISTIDAE (TROPICAL
AQUARIUM FISHES) FOR A PERIOD FIVE (5) YEARS IN AND COMING
FROM PALAWAN WATERS", the full text of which reads as follows:
WHEREAS, scientific and factual researches [sic] and studies disclose that
only five (5) percent of the corals of our province remain to be in excellent
condition as [a] habitat of marine coral dwelling aquatic organisms;
WHEREAS, it cannot be gainsaid that the destruction and devastation of
the corals of our province were principally due to illegal fishing activities
like dynamite fishing, sodium cyanide fishing, use of other obnoxious
substances and other related activities;
WHEREAS, there is an imperative and urgent need to protect and
preserve the existence of the remaining excellent corals and allow the
devastated ones to reinvigorate and regenerate themselves into vitality
within the span of five (5) years;
ORDINANCE NO. 2Series of 1993

BE IT ORDAINED BY THE SANGGUNIANG PANLALAWIGAN
IN SESSION ASSEMBLED:
Sec. 1. TITLE This Ordinance shall be known as an "Ordinance
Prohibiting the catching, gathering, possessing, buying, selling and
shipment of live marine coral dwelling aquatic organisms, to wit: 1. Family:
Scaridae (Mameng), 2. Epinephelus Fasciatus (Suno) 3. Cromileptes
altivelis (Panther or Senorita), lobster below 200 grams and spawning), 4.
Tridacna Gigas (Taklobo), 5. Pinctada Margaretefera (Mother Pearl,
Oysters, Giant Clams and other species), 6. Penaeus Monodon (Tiger
Prawn-breeder size or mother), 7. Epinephelus Suillus (Loba or Green
Grouper) and 8. Family: Balistidae (T[r]opical Aquarium Fishes) for a
period of five (5) years in and coming from Palawan Waters.
Sec. II. PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS
1. Sec. 2-A (Rep. Act 7160). It is hereby declared, the policy of the state
that the territorial and political subdivisions of the State shall enjoy genuine
and meaningful local autonomy to enable them to attain their fullest
development as self-reliant communities and make them more effective
partners in the attainment of national goals. Toward this end, the State
shall provide for [a] more responsive and accountable local government
structure instituted through a system of decentralization whereby local
government units shall be given more powers, authority, responsibilities
and resources.
2. Sec. 5-A (R.A. 7160). Any provision on a power of [a] local Government
Unit shall be liberally interpreted in its favor, and in case of doubt, any
question thereon shall be resolved in favor of devolution of powers and of
the lower government units. "Any fair and reasonable doubts as to the
existence of the power shall be interpreted in favor of the Local
Government Unit concerned."
3. Sec. 5-C (R.A. 7160). The general welfare provisions in this Code shall
be liberally interpreted to give more powers to local government units in
accelerating economic development and upgrading the quality of life for
the people in the community.
4. Sec. 16 (R.A. 7160). General Welfare. Every local government unit
shall exercise the powers expressly granted, those necessarily implied
therefrom, as well as powers necessary, appropriate, or incidental for its
efficient and effective governance; and those which are essential to the
promotion of the general welfare.
Sec. III. DECLARATION OF POLICY. It is hereby declared to be the
policy of the Province of Palawan to protect and conserve the marine
resources of Palawan not only for the greatest good of the majority of the
present generation but with [the] proper perspective and consideration of
[sic] their prosperity, and to attain this end, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan
henceforth declares that is (sic) shall be unlawful for any person or any
business entity to engage in catching, gathering, possessing, buying,
selling and shipment of live marine coral dwelling aquatic organisms as
enumerated in Section 1 hereof in and coming out of Palawan Waters for a
period of five (5) years;
Sec. IV. PENALTY CLAUSE. Any person and/or business entity
violating this Ordinance shall be penalized with a fine of not more than Five
Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00), Philippine Currency, and/or imprisonment of
six (6) months to twelve (12) months and confiscation and forfeiture of
paraphernalias [sic] and equipment in favor of the government at the
discretion of the Court;
Sec. V. SEPARABILITY CLAUSE. If for any reason, a Section or
provision of this Ordinance shall be held as unconditional [sic] or invalid, it
shall not affect the other provisions hereof.
Sec. VI. REPEALING CLAUSE. Any existing Ordinance or a provision
of any ordinance inconsistent herewith is deemed modified, amended or
repealed.
Page 1 1 of 126
Sec. VII. EFFECTIVITY This Ordinance shall take effect ten (10) days
after its publication.
SO ORDAINED.
xxx xxx xxx
4. The respondents implemented the said ordinances, Annexes "A" and
"C" hereof thereby depriving all the fishermen of the whole province of
Palawan and the City of Puerto Princesa of their only means of livelihood
and the petitioners Airline Shippers Association of Palawan and other
marine merchants from performing their lawful occupation and trade;
5. Petitioners Alfredo Tano, Baldomero Tano, Teocenes Midello, Angel de
Mesa, Eulogio Tremocha, and Felipe Ongonion, Jr. were even charged
criminally under criminal case no. 93-05-C in the 1st Municipal Circuit Trial
Court of Cuyo-Agutaya-Magsaysay, an original carbon copy of the criminal
complaint dated April 12, 1993 is hereto attached as Annex "D"; while
xerox copies are attached as Annex "D" to the copies of the petition;
6. Petitioners Robert Lim and Virginia Lim, on the other hand, were
charged by the respondent PNP with the respondent City Prosecutor of
Puerto Princess City, a xerox copy of the complaint is hereto attached as
Annex "E";
Without seeking redress from the concerned local government units,
prosecutor's office and courts, petitioners directly invoked our original
jurisdiction by filing this petition on 4 June 1993. In sum, petitioners
contend that:
First, the Ordinances deprived them of due process of law, their livelihood,
and unduly restricted them from the practice of their trade, in violation of
Section 2, Article XII and Sections 2 and 7 of Article XIII of the 1987
Constitution.
Second, Office Order No. 23 contained no regulation nor condition under
which the Mayor's permit could be granted or denied; in other words, the
Mayor had the absolute authority to determine whether or not to issue the
permit.
Third, as Ordinance No. 2 of the Province of Palawan "altogether
prohibited the catching, gathering, possession, buying, selling and
shipping of live marine coral dwelling organisms, without any distinction
whether it was caught or gathered through lawful fishing method," the
Ordinance took away the right of petitioners-fishermen to earn their
livelihood in lawful ways; and insofar as petitioners-members of Airline
Shippers Association are concerned, they were unduly prevented from
pursuing their vocation and entering "into contracts which are proper,
necessary, and essential to carry out their business endeavors to a
successful conclusion."
Finally, as Ordinance No. 2 of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan is null and
void, the criminal cases based thereon against petitioners Tano and the
others have to be dismissed.
In the Resolution of 15 June 1993 we required respondents to comment on
the petition, and furnished the Office of the Solicitor General with a copy
thereof.
In their comment filed on 13 August 1993, public respondents Governor
Socrates and Members of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Palawan
defended the validity of Ordinance No. 2, Series of 1993, as a valid
exercise of the Provincial Government's power under the general welfare
clause (Section 16 of the Local Government Code of 1991 [hereafter,
LGC]), and its specific power to protect the environment and impose
appropriate penalties for acts which endanger the environment, such as
dynamite fishing and other forms of destructive fishing under Section 447
(a) (1) (vi), Section 458 (a) (1) (vi), and Section 468 (a) (1) (vi), of the LGC.
They claimed that in the exercise of such powers, the Province of Palawan
had "the right and responsibility . . . to insure that the remaining coral
reefs, where fish dwells [sic], within its territory remain healthy for the
future generation." The Ordinance, they further asserted, covered only live
marine coral dwelling aquatic organisms which were enumerated in the
ordinance and excluded other kinds of live marine aquatic organisms not
dwelling in coral reefs; besides the prohibition was for only five (5) years to
protect and preserve the pristine coral and allow those damaged to
regenerate.
Aforementioned respondents likewise maintained that there was no
violation of the due process and equal protection clauses of the
Constitution. As to the former, public hearings were conducted before the
enactment of the Ordinance which, undoubtedly, had a lawful purpose and
employed reasonable means; while as to the latter, a substantial distinction
existed "between a fisherman who catches live fish with the intention of
selling it live, and a fisherman who catches live fish with no intention at all
of selling it live," i.e., "the former uses sodium cyanide while the latter does
not." Further, the Ordinance applied equally to all those belonging to one
class.
On 25 October 1993 petitioners filed an Urgent Plea for the Immediate
Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order, claiming that despite the
pendency of this case, Branch 50 of the Regional Trial Court of Palawan
was bent on proceeding with Criminal Case No. 11223 against petitioners
Danilo Tano, Alfredo Tano, Eulogio Tremocha, Romualdo Tano,
Baldomero Tano, Andres Linijan and Angel de Mesa for violation of
Ordinance No. 2 of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Palawan. Acting on
said plea, we issued on 11 November 1993 a temporary restraining order
directing Judge Angel Miclat of said court to cease and desist from
proceeding with the arraignment and pre-trial of Criminal Case No. 11223.
On 12 July 1994, we excused the Office of the Solicitor General from filing
a comment, considering that as claimed by said office in its Manifestation
of 28 June 1994, respondents were already represented by counsel.
The rest of the respondents did not file any comment on the petition.
In the resolution of 15 September 1994, we resolved to consider the
comment on the petition as the Answer, gave due course to the petition
and required the parties to submit their respective memoranda. 2
On 22 April 1997 we ordered impleaded as party respondents the
Department of Agriculture and the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic
Resources and required the Office of the Solicitor General to comment on
their behalf. But in light of the latter's motion of 9 July 1997 for an
extension of time to file the comment which would only result in further
delay, we dispensed with said comment.
After due deliberation on the pleadings filed, we resolved to dismiss this
petition for want of merit, and on 22 July 1997, assigned it to the ponente
to write the opinion of the Court.
I
There are actually two sets of petitioners in this case. The first is
composed of Alfredo Tano, Baldomero Tano, Danilo Tano, Romualdo
Tano, Teocenes Midello, Angel de Mesa, Eulogio Tremocha, Felipe
Ongonion, Jr., Andres Linijan, and Felimon de Mesa, who were criminally
charged with violating Sangguniang Panlalawigan Resolution No. 33 and
Ordinance No. 2, Series of 1993, of the Province of Palawan, in Criminal
Case No. 93-05-C of the 1st Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of
Palawan; 3 and Robert Lim and Virginia Lim who were charged with
violating City Ordinance No. 15-92 of Puerto Princesa City and Ordinance
No. 2, Series of 1993, of the Province of Palawan before the Office of the
City Prosecutor of Puerto Princesa. 4 All of them, with the exception of
Teocenes Midello, Felipe Ongonion, Jr., Felimon de Mesa, Robert Lim and
Virginia Lim, are likewise the accused in Criminal Case No. 11223 for the
violation of Ordinance No. 2 of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Palawan,
pending before Branch 50 of the Regional Trial Court of Palawan. 5
The second set of petitioners is composed of the rest of the petitioners
numbering seventy-seven (77), all of whom, except the Airline Shippers
Association of Palawan an alleged private association of several marine
merchants are natural persons who claim to be fishermen.
The primary interest of the first set of petitioners is, of course, to prevent
the prosecution, trial and determination of the criminal cases until the
constitutionality or legality of the Ordinances they allegedly violated shall
have been resolved. The second set of petitioners merely claim that being
fishermen or marine merchants, they would be adversely affected by the
ordinance's.
As to the first set of petitioners, this special civil for certiorari must fail on
the ground of prematurity amounting to a lack of cause of action. There is
no showing that said petitioners, as the accused in the criminal cases,
have filed motions to quash the informations therein and that the same
were denied. The ground available for such motions is that the facts
charged therein do not constitute an offense because the ordinances in
question are unconstitutional. 6 It cannot then be said that the lower courts
acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion
to justify recourse to the extraordinary remedy of certiorari or prohibition. It
must further be stressed that even if petitioners did file motions to quash,
the denial thereof would not forthwith give rise to a cause of action under
Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. The general rule is that where a motion to
quash is denied, the remedy therefrom is not certiorari, but for the party
aggrieved thereby to go to trial without prejudice to reiterating special
defenses involved in said motion, and if, after trial on the merits an adverse
decision is rendered, to appeal therefrom in the manner authorized by law.
7 And, even where in an exceptional circumstance such denial may be the
subject of a special civil action for certiorari, a motion for reconsideration
must have to be filed to allow the court concerned an opportunity to correct
its errors, unless such motion may be dispensed with because of existing
exceptional circumstances. 8 Finally, even if a motion for reconsideration
has been filed and denied, the remedy under Rule 65 is still unavailable
absent any showing of the grounds provided for in Section 1 thereof. 9 For
Page 1 2 of 126
obvious reasons, the petition at bar does not, and could not have, alleged
any of such grounds.
As to the second set of petitioners, the instant petition is obviously one for
DECLARATORY RELIEF, i.e., for a declaration that the Ordinances in
question are a "nullity . . . for being unconstitutional." 10 As such, their
petition must likewise fail, as this Court is not possessed of original
jurisdiction over petitions for declaratory relief even if only questions of law
are involved, 11 it being settled that the Court merely exercises appellate
jurisdiction over such petitions. 12
II
Even granting arguendo that the first set of petitioners have a cause of
action ripe for the extraordinary writ of certiorari, there is here a clear
disregard of the hierarchy of courts, and no special and important reason
or exceptional and compelling circumstance has been adduced why direct
recourse to us should be allowed. While we have concurrent jurisdiction
with Regional Trial courts and with the Court of Appeals to issue writs of
certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus and
injunction, such concurrence gives petitioners no unrestricted freedom of
choice of court forum, so we held in People v. Cuaresma. 13
This concurrence of jurisdiction is not . . . to be taken as according to
parties seeking any of the writs an absolute unrestrained freedom of
choice of the court to which application therefor will be directed. There is
after all hierarchy of courts. That hierarchy is determinative of the venue of
appeals, and should also serve as a general determinant of the
appropriate forum for petitions for the extraordinary writs. A becoming
regard for that judicial hierarchy most certainly indicates that petitions for
the issuance of extraordinary writs against first level ("inferior") courts
should be filed with the Regional Trial Court, and those against the latter,
with the Court of Appeals. A direct invocation of the Supreme Court's
original jurisdiction to issue these writs should be allowed only when there
are special and important reasons therefor, clearly and specifically set out
in the petition. This is established policy. It is a policy necessary to prevent
inordinate demands upon the Court's time and attention which are better
devoted to those matters within its exclusive jurisdiction, and to prevent
further over-crowding of the Court's docket. . . .
The Court feels the need to reaffirm that policy at this time, and to enjoin
strict adherence thereto in the light of what it perceives to be a growing
tendency on the part of litigants and lawyers to have their applications for
the so-called extraordinary writs, and sometimes even their appeals,
passed upon and adjudicated directly and immediately by the highest
tribunal of the land. . . .
In Santiago v. Vasquez, 14 this Court forcefully expressed that the
propensity of litigants and lawyers to disregard the hierarchy of courts must
be put to a halt, not only because of the imposition upon the precious time
of this Court, but also because of the inevitable and resultant delay,
intended or otherwise, in the adjudication of the case which often has to be
remanded or referred to the lower court, the proper forum under the rules
of procedure, or as better equipped to resolve the issues since this Court is
not a trier of facts. We reiterated "the judicial policy that this Court will not
entertain direct resort to it unless the redress desired cannot be obtained in
the appropriate courts or where exceptional and compelling circumstances
justify availment of a remedy within and calling for the exercise of [its]
primary jurisdiction."
III
Notwithstanding the foregoing procedural obstacles against the first set of
petitioners, we opt to resolve this case on its merits considering that the
lifetime of the challenged Ordinances is about to end. Ordinance No. 15-92
of the City of Puerto Princesa is effective only up to 1 January 1998, while
Ordinance No. 2 of the Province of Palawan, enacted on 19 February
1993, is effective for only five (5) years. Besides, these Ordinances were
undoubtedly enacted in the exercise of powers under the new LGC relative
to the protection and preservation of the environment and are thus novel
and of paramount importance. No further delay then may be allowed in the
resolution of the issues raised.
It is of course settled that laws (including ordinances enacted by local
government units) enjoy the presumption of constitutionality. 15 To
overthrow this presumption, there must be a clear and unequivocal breach
of the Constitution, not merely a doubtful or argumentative contradiction. In
short, the conflict with the Constitution must be shown beyond reasonable
doubt. 16 Where doubt exists, even if well-founded, there can be no finding
of unconstitutionality. To doubt is to sustain. 17
After a scrutiny of the challenged Ordinances and the provisions of the
Constitution petitioners claim to have been violated, we find petitioners'
contentions baseless and so hold that the former do not suffer from any
infirmity, both under the Constitution and applicable laws.
Petitioners specifically point to Section 2, Article XII and Sections 2 and 7,

Article XIII of the Constitution as having been transgressed by the
Ordinances.
The pertinent portion of Section 2 of Article XII reads:
Sec. 2. . . .
The State shall protect the nation's marine wealth in its
citizens.
The Congress may, by law, allow small-scale utilization of
farming, with priority to subsistence fishermen and fishworkers in
rivers, lakes, bays, and lagoons.
Sections 2 and 7 of Article XIII provide:
Sec. 2. The promotion of social justice shall include the commitment to
create economic opportunities based on freedom of initiative and selfreliance.
xxx xxx xxx
Sec. 7. The State shall protect the rights of subsistence fishermen,
especially of local communities, to the preferential use of the communal
marine and fishing resources, both inland and offshore. It shall provide
support to such fishermen through appropriate technology and research,
adequate financial, production, and marketing assistance, and other
services. The State shall also protect, develop, and conserve such
resources. The protection shall extend to offshore fishing grounds of
subsistence fishermen against foreign intrusion. Fishworkers shall receive
a just share from their labor in the utilization of marine and fishing
resources.
There is absolutely no showing that any of the petitioners
qualifies as a subsistence or marginal fisherman. In their
petition, petitioner Airline Shippers Association of Palawan is
self-described as "a private association composed of Marine
Merchants;" petitioners Robert Lim and Virginia Lim, as
"merchants;" while the rest of the petitioners claim to be
"fishermen," without any qualification, however, as to their
status.
Since the Constitution does not specifically provide a definition
of the terms "subsistence" or "marginal" fishermen, 18 they
should be construed in their general and ordinary sense. A
marginal fisherman is an individual engaged in fishing whose
margin of return or reward in his harvest of fish as measured by
existing price levels is barely sufficient to yield a profit or cover
the cost of gathering the fish, 19 while a subsistence fisherman is
one whose catch yields but the irreducible minimum for his
livelihood. 20 Section 131(p) of the LGC (R.A. No. 7160) defines
a marginal farmer or fisherman as "an individual engaged in
subsistence farming or fishing which shall be limited to the sale,
barter or exchange of agricultural or marine products produced
by himself and his immediate family." It bears repeating that
nothing in the record supports a finding that any petitioner falls
within these definitions.
Besides, Section 2 of Article XII aims primarily not to bestow any
right to subsistence fishermen, but to lay stress on the duty of
the State to protect the nation's marine wealth. What the
provision merely recognizes is that the State may allow, by law,
cooperative fish farming, with priority to subsistence fishermen
and fishworkers in rivers, lakes, bays and lagoons. Our survey of
the statute books reveals that the only provision of law which
speaks of a preferential right of marginal fishermen is Section
149 of the LGC, which pertinently provides:
Sec. 149. Fishery Rentals, Fees and Charges. . . .
(b) The sangguniang bayan may:
(1) Grant fishery privileges to erect fish corrals, oyster, mussels or other
aquatic beds or bangus fry areas, within a definite zone of the municipal
waters, as determined by it: Provided, however, That duly registered
organizations and cooperatives of marginal fishermen shall have the
preferential right to such fishery privileges . . . .
In a Joint Administrative Order No. 3 dated 25 April 1996, the Secretary of
the Department of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Department of
Interior and Local Government prescribed guidelines concerning the
preferential treatment of small fisherfolk relative to the fishery right
Page 1 3 of 126
mentioned in Section 149. This case, however, does not involve such
fishery right.
Anent Section 7 of Article XIII, it speaks not only of the use of communal
marine and fishing resources, but of their protection, development and
conservation. As hereafter shown, the ordinances in question are meant
precisely to protect and conserve our marine resources to the end that
their enjoyment may be guaranteed not only for the present generation,
but also for the generations to come.
The so-called "preferential right" of subsistence or marginal fishermen to
the use of marine resources is not at all absolute. In accordance with the
Regalian Doctrine, marine resources belong to the State, and, pursuant to
the first paragraph of Section 2, Article XII of the Constitution, their
"exploration, development and utilization . . . shall be under the full control
and supervision of the State." Moreover, their mandated protection,
development and conservation as necessarily recognized by the framers of
the Constitution, imply certain restrictions on whatever right of enjoyment
there may be in favor of anyone. Thus, as to the curtailment of the
preferential treatment of marginal fishermen, the following exchange
between Commissioner Francisco Rodrigo and Commissioner Jose F.S.
Bengzon, Jr., took place at the plenary session of the Constitutional
Commission:
MR. RODRIGO:
Let us discuss the implementation of this because I would not raise the
hopes of our people, and afterwards fail in the implementation. How will
this be implemented? Will there be a licensing or giving of permits so that
government officials will know that one is really a marginal fisherman? Or if
policeman say that a person is not a marginal fisherman, he can show his
permit, to prove that indeed he is one.
MR. BENGZON:
Certainly, there will be some mode of licensing insofar as this is concerned
and this particular question could be tackled when we discuss the Article
on Local Governments whether we will leave to the local governments
or to Congress on how these things will be implemented. But certainly, I
think our congressmen and our local officials will not be bereft of ideas on
how to implement this mandate.
xxx xxx xxx
Sec. 16. General Welfare. Every local government unit shall exercise
the powers expressly granted, those necessarily implied therefrom, as well
as powers necessary, appropriate, or incidental for its efficient and
effective governance, and those which are essential to the promotion of
the general welfare. Within their respective territorial jurisdictions, local
government units shall ensure and support, among other things, the
preservation and enrichment of culture, promote health and safety,
enhance the right of the people to a balanced ecology, encourage and
support the development of appropriate and self-reliant scientific and
technological capabilities, improve public morals, enhance economic
prosperity and social justice, promote full employment among their
residents, maintain peace and order, and preserve the comfort and
convenience of their inhabitants. (emphasis supplied).
Moreover, Section 5(c) of the LGC explicitly mandates that the general
welfare provisions of the LGC "shall be liberally interpreted to give more
powers to the local government units in accelerating economic
development and upgrading the quality of life for the people of the
community."
The LGC vests municipalities with the power to grant fishery privileges in
municipal waters and impose rentals, fees or charges therefor; to penalize,
by appropriate ordinances, the use of explosives, noxious or poisonous
substances, electricity, muro-ami, and other deleterious methods of fishing;
and to prosecute any violation of the provisions of applicable fishery laws.
24
Further, the sangguniang bayan, the sangguniang panlungsod and the
sangguniang panlalawigan are directed to enact ordinances for the general
welfare of the municipality and its inhabitants, which shall include, inter
alia, ordinances that "[p]rotect the environment and impose appropriate
penalties for acts which endanger the environment such as dynamite
fishing and other forms of destructive fishing . . . and such other activities
which result in pollution, acceleration of eutrophication of rivers and lakes,
or of ecological
imbalance." 25
Finally, the centerpiece of LGC is the system of decentralization 26 as
expressly mandated by the Constitution. 27 Indispensable to
decentralization is devolution and the LGC expressly provides that "[a]ny
provision on a power of a local government unit shall be liberally
interpreted in its favor, and in case of doubt, any question thereon shall be
resolved in favor of devolution of powers and of the lower local government
unit. Any fair and reasonable doubt as to the existence of the power shall
be interpreted in favor of the local government unit concerned." 28
Devolution refers to the act by which the National Government confers
power and authority upon the various local government units to perform
specific functions and responsibilities. 29
MR. RODRIGO:
So, once one is licensed as a marginal fisherman, he can go anywhere in
the Philippines and fish in any fishing grounds.
One of the devolved powers enumerated in the section of the LGC on

devolution is the enforcement of fishery laws in municipal waters including
the conservation of mangroves. 30 This necessarily includes the enactment
of ordinances to effectively carry out such fishery laws within the municipal
waters.
MR. BENGZON:
Subject to whatever rules and regulations and local laws that may be
passed, may be existing or will be passed. 21 (emphasis supplied)
What must likewise be borne in mind is the state policy enshrined in the
Constitution regarding the duty of the State to protect and advance the
right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology in accord with the
rhythm and harmony of nature. 22 On this score, in Oposa v. Factoran, 23
this Court declared:
While the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is to be found under
the Declaration of Principles the State Policies and not under the Bill of
Rights, it does not follow that it is less important than any of the civil and
political rights enumerated in the latter. Such a right belongs to a different
category of rights altogether for it concerns nothing less than selfpreservation and self-perpetuation aptly and fittingly stressed by the
petitioners the advancement of which may even be said to predate all
governments and constitutions. As a matter of fact, these basic rights need
not even be written in the Constitution for they are assumed to exist from
the inception of humankind. If they are now explicitly mentioned in the
fundamental charter, it is because of the well-founded fear of its framers
that unless the rights to a balanced and healthful ecology and to health are
mandated as state policies by the Constitution itself, thereby highlighting
their continuing importance and imposing upon the state a solemn
obligation to preserve the first and protect and advance the second, the
day would not be too far when all else would be lost not only for the
present generation, but also for those to come generations which stand
to inherit nothing but parched earth incapable of sustaining life.
The right to a balanced and healthful ecology carries with it a correlative
duty to refrain from impairing the environment. . . .
The term "municipal waters," in turn, includes not only streams, lakes, and
tidal waters within the municipality, not being the subject of private
ownership and not comprised within the national parks, public forest,
timber lands, forest reserves, or fishery reserves, but also marine waters
included between two lines drawn perpendicularly to the general coastline
from points where the boundary lines of the municipality or city touch the
sea at low tide and a third line parallel with the general coastline and
fifteen kilometers from
it. 31 Under P.D. No. 704, the marine waters included in municipal waters is
limited to three nautical miles from the general coastline using the above
perpendicular lines and a third parallel line.
These "fishery laws" which local government units may enforce
under Section 17(b)(2)(i) in municipal waters include: (1) P.D.
No. 704; (2) P.D. No. 1015 which, inter alia, authorizes the
establishment of a "closed season" in any Philippine water if
necessary for conservation or ecological purposes; (3) P.D. No.
1219 which provides for the exploration, exploitation, utilization
and conservation of coral resources; (4) R.A. No. 5474, as
amended by B.P. Blg. 58, which makes it unlawful for any
person, association or corporation to catch or cause to be
caught, sell, offer to sell, purchase, or have in possession any of
the fish specie called gobiidae or "ipon" during closed season;
and (5) R.A. No. 6451 which prohibits and punishes
electrofishing, as well as various issuances of the BFAR.
To those specifically devolved insofar as the control and
regulation of fishing in municipal waters and the protection of its
marine environment are concerned, must be added the
following:
1. Issuance of permits to construct fish cages within municipal waters;
The LGC provisions invoked by private respondents merely seek to give

flesh and blood to the right of the people to a balanced and healthful
ecology. In fact, the General Welfare Clause, expressly mentions this right:
2. Issuance of permits to gather aquarium fishes within municipal waters;
Page 1 4 of 126
3. Issuance of permits to gather kapis shells within municipal waters;

4. Issuance of permits to gather/culture shelled mollusks within municipal
waters;
5. Issuance of licenses to establish seaweed farms within municipal
waters;
6. Issuance of licenses to establish culture pearls within municipal waters;
7. Issuance of auxiliary invoice to transport fish and fishery products; and
they expel the cyanide from their system and are ready to be
hauled. They are then placed in saltwater tanks or packaged in
plastic bags filled with seawater for shipment by air freight to
major markets for live food fish. 39 While the fish are meant to
survive, the opposite holds true for their former home as "[a]fter
the fisherman squirts the cyanide, the first thing to perish is the
reef algae, on which fish feed. Days later, the living coral starts
to expire. Soon the reef loses its function as habitat for the fish,
which eat both the algae and invertebrates that cling to the coral.
The reef becomes an underwater graveyard, its skeletal remains
brittle, bleached of all color and vulnerable to erosion from the
pounding of the waves." 40 It has been found that cyanide fishing
kills most hard and soft corals within three months of repeated
application. 41
8. Establishment of "closed season" in municipal waters.

These functions are covered in the Memorandum of Agreement of 5 April
1994 between the Department of Agriculture and the Department of
Interior and Local Government.
In light then of the principles of decentralization and devolution enshrined
in the LGC and the powers granted therein to local government units under
Section 16 (the General Welfare Clause), and under Sections 149, 447(a)
(1) (vi), 458 (a) (1) (vi) and 468 (a) (1) (vi), which unquestionably involve
the exercise of police power, the validity of the questioned Ordinances
cannot be doubted.
Parenthetically, we wish to add that these Ordinances find full support
under R.A. No. 7611, otherwise known as the Strategic Environmental
Plan (SEP) for Palawan Act, approved on 19 June 1992. This statute
adopts a "comprehensive framework for the sustainable development of
Palawan compatible with protecting and enhancing the natural resources
and endangered environment of the province," which "shall serve to guide
the local government of Palawan and the government agencies concerned
in the formulation and implementation of plans, programs and projects
affecting said province." 32
At this time then, it would be appropriate to determine the relation between
the assailed Ordinances and the aforesaid powers of the Sangguniang
Panlungsod of the City of Puerto Princesa and the Sangguniang
Panlalawigan of the Province of Palawan to protect the environment. To
begin, we ascertain the purpose of the Ordinances as set forth in the
statement of purposes or declaration of policies quoted earlier.
It is clear to the Court that both Ordinances have two principal
objectives or purposes: (1) to establish a "closed season" for the
species of fish or aquatic animals covered therein for a period of
five years; and (2) to protect the coral in the marine waters of the
City of Puerto Princesa and the Province of Palawan from further
destruction due to illegal fishing activities.
The accomplishment of the first objective is well within the
devolved power to enforce fishery laws in municipal waters, such
as P.D. No. 1015, which allows the establishment of "closed
seasons." The devolution of such power has been expressly
confirmed in the Memorandum of Agreement of 5 April 1994
between the Department of Agriculture and the Department of
Interior and Local Government.
The realization of the second objective clearly falls within both
the general welfare clause of the LGC and the express mandate
thereunder to cities and provinces to protect the environment
and impose appropriate penalties for acts which endanger the
environment. 33
The destruction of coral reefs results in serious, if not
irreparable, ecological imbalance, for coral reefs are among
nature's life-support systems. 34 They collect, retain and recycle
nutrients for adjacent nearshore areas such as mangroves,
seagrass beds, and reef flats; provide food for marine plants and
animals; and serve as a protective shelter for aquatic organisms.
35
It is said that "[e]cologically, the reefs are to the oceans what
forests are to continents: they are shelter and breeding grounds
36
for fish and plant species that will disappear without them."
The prohibition against catching live fish stems, in part, from the
modern phenomenon of live-fish trade which entails the catching
of so-called exotic species of tropical fish, not only for aquarium
use in the West, but also for "the market for live banquet fish
[which] is virtually insatiable in ever more affluent Asia. 37 These
exotic species are coral-dwellers, and fishermen catch them by
"diving in shallow water with corraline habitats and squirting
sodium cyanide poison at passing fish directly or onto coral
crevices; once affected the fish are immobilized [merely stunned]
and then scooped by hand." 38 The diver then surfaces and
dumps his catch into a submerged net attached to the skiff.
Twenty minutes later, the fish can swim normally. Back on
shore, they are placed in holding pens, and within a few weeks,
The nexus then between the activities barred by Ordinance No.

15-92 of the City of Puerto Princesa and the prohibited acts
provided in Ordinance No. 2, Series of 1993 of the Province of
Palawan, on one hand, and the use of sodium cyanide, on the
other, is painfully obvious. In sum, the public purpose and
reasonableness of the Ordinances may not then be
controverted.
As to Office Order No. 23, Series of 1993, issued by Acting City
Mayor Amado L. Lucero of the City of Puerto Princesa, we find
nothing therein violative of any constitutional or statutory
provision. The Order refers to the implementation of the
challenged ordinance and is not the Mayor's Permit.
The dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Josue N. Bellosillo relies
upon the lack of authority on the part of the Sangguniang
Panglungsod of Puerto Princesa to enact Ordinance No. 15,
Series of 1992, on the theory that the subject thereof is within
the jurisdiction and responsibility of the Bureau of Fisheries and
Aquatic Resources (BFAR) under P.D. No. 704, otherwise
known as the Fisheries Decree of 1975; and that, in any event,
the Ordinance is unenforceable for lack of approval by the
Secretary of the Department of Natural Resources (DNR),
likewise in accordance with P.D. No. 704.
The majority is unable to accommodate this view. The
jurisdiction and responsibility of the BFAR under P.D. No. 704,
over the management, conservation, development, protection,
utilization and disposition of all fishery and aquatic resources of
the country is not all-encompassing. First, Section 4 thereof
excludes from such jurisdiction and responsibility municipal
waters, which shall be under the municipal or city government
concerned, except insofar as fishpens and seaweed culture in
municipal centers are concerned. This section provides,
however, that all municipal or city ordinances and resolutions
affecting fishing and fisheries and any disposition thereunder
shall be submitted to the Secretary of the Department of Natural
Resources for appropriate action and shall have full force and
effect only upon his approval. 42
Second, it must at once be pointed out that the BFAR is no
longer under the Department of Natural Resources (now
Department of Environment and Natural Resources). Executive
Order No. 967 of 30 June 1984 transferred the BFAR from the
control and supervision of the Minister (formerly Secretary) Of
Natural Resources to the Ministry of Agriculture and Food (MAF)
and converted it into a mere staff agency thereof, integrating its
functions with the regional offices of the MAF.
In Executive Order No. 116 of 30 January 1987, which
reorganized the MAF, the BFAR was retained as an attached
agency of the MAF. And under the Administrative Code of 1987,
43
the BFAR is placed under the Title concerning the Department
of Agriculture. 44
Therefore, it is incorrect to say that the challenged Ordinance of
the City of Puerto Princesa is invalid or unenforceable because it
was not approved by the Secretary of the DENR. If at all, the
approval that should be sought would be that of the Secretary of
the Department of Agriculture. However, the requirement of
approval by the Secretary of the Department of Agriculture (not
DENR) of municipal ordinances affecting fishing and fisheries in
municipal waters has been dispensed with in view of the
following reasons:
(1) Section 534 (Repealing Clause) of the LGC expressly
repeals or amends Sections 16 and 29 of P.D. No. 704 45 insofar
as they are inconsistent with the provisions of the LGC.
(2) As discussed earlier, under the general welfare clause of the
LGC, local government units have the power, inter alia, to enact
ordinances to enhance the right of the people to a balanced
ecology. It likewise specifically vests municipalities with the
power to grant fishery privileges in municipal waters, and impose
Page 1 5 of 126
rentals, fees or charges therefor; to penalize, by appropriate

ordinances, the use of explosives, noxious or poisonous
substances, electricity, muro-ami, and other deleterious methods
of fishing; and to prosecute any violation of the provisions of
applicable fishery laws. 46 Finally, it imposes upon the
sangguniang bayan, the sangguniang panlungsod, and the
sangguniang panlalawigan the duty to enact ordinances to
"[p]rotect the environment and impose appropriate penalties for
acts which endanger the environment such as dynamite fishing
and other forms of destructive fishing . . . and such other
activities which result in pollution, acceleration of eutrophication
of rivers and lakes or of ecological imbalance." 47
In closing, we commend the Sangguniang Panlungsod of the
City of Puerto Princesa and Sangguniang Panlalawigan of the
Province of Palawan for exercising the requisite political will to
enact urgently needed legislation to protect and enhance the
marine environment, thereby sharing in the herculean task of
arresting the tide of ecological destruction. We hope that other
local government units shall now be roused from their lethargy
and adopt a more vigilant stand in the battle against the
decimation of our legacy to future generations. At this time, the
repercussions of any further delay in their response may prove
disastrous, if not, irreversible.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DISMISSED for lack of
merit and the temporary restraining order issued on 11
November 1993 is LIFTED.
No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
Narvasa, C.J., Padilla, Romero, Melo, Vitug, Francisco Panganiban and
Torres, Jr., JJ., concur.
Regalado, J., is on leave.
Separate Opinions
MENDOZA, J., concurring:

I fully concur in the opinion of the Court written by Justice Davide. I write
separately to emphasize two points which I believe are important. The first
is the need to uphold the presumption of validity of the ordinances in this
case in view of the total absence of evidence to undermine their factual
basis. The second is the need not to allow a shortcircuiting of the normal
process of adjudication on the mere plea that unless we take cognizance
of petitions like this, by-passing the trial courts, alleged violations of
constitutional rights will be left unprotected, when the matter can very well
be looked into by trial courts and in fact should be brought there.
The ordinances in question in this case are conservation measures which
the local governments of Palawan have adopted in view of the widespread
destruction caused by cyanide fishing of corals within their territorial
waters. At the very least, these ordinances must be presumed valid in the
absence of evidence to show that the necessary factual foundation for their
enactment does not exist. Their invalidation at this point can result in the
untimely exoneration of otherwise guilty parties on the basis of doubtful
constitutional claims.
Ordinance No. 2-93, which the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Palawan
adopted in 1993, prohibits, for a period of five years, the "catching,
gathering, possessing, buying, selling and shipment" of five fish and
lobsters. As originally enacted, the prohibition applied to eight species of
fish and lobsters caught in the waters of Palawan, namely, "1. Family:
Scaridae (Mameng), 2. Epinephelus Fasciatus (Suno), 3. Cromileptes
altivelis (Panther or Seorita), lobster (below 200 grams and spawning), 4.
Tridacna Gigas (Giant Clams or Taklobo and other species), 5. Pinctada
Margaritifera (Mother Pearl Oysters), 6. Penaeus Monodon (Tiger Prawn
breeder size or mother), 7. Epinephelus Suillus (Loba or Green
Grouper) and 8. Family: Balistidae (Tropical Aquarium Fishes)." 1 Later,
however, the ordinance was amended to limit the ban to three species
only, namely: mameng (scaridae), panther or seorita (cromileptes
altivelis) and ornamental or aquarium fishes (balistidae). Violation of the
ordinance is punishable by a fine of P5,000.00 and/or imprisonment of not
less than 6 nor more than 12 months and confiscation of the paraphernalia
and equipment used in the commission of the offense. 2
Ordinance No. 2-93 was adopted by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan on the
basis of a 1992 study submitted by the Department of Agriculture, 3
showing that, as a result of the use of cyanide and other noxious
substances for fishing, only 5% of the coral reefs in the Province of

Palawan remained in excellent condition as fish sanctuaries and habitats,
while 75% was heavily damaged.
The rampant use of cyanide has been encouraged by the lucrative trade in
live fishes which are shipped not only to Manila but also abroad, principally
to Hongkong, Taiwan and Malaysia. The fishes are sold to gourmet
restaurants because of the great demand for exotic food, to aquariums and
to pet shops. In its issue of July 19, 1993. Time Magazine 4 reported that
the illicit trade in live animals is the third biggest contraband business in
the world, after drugs and arms, and identified the Philippines as a major
source of tropical fishes for the global traffic in live fishes.
The use of cyanide enables fishermen to catch fish alive and in
commercial quantity in a way not possible with the use of such traditional
methods as hook and line, fish traps, baklad and the like, which allows only
limited catch and often results in injuries to fishes and the loss of their
scales, thereby reducing their survival for transportation abroad. 5 Cyanide
does not kill fish but only stuns them. The stunned creatures are then
scooped up and placed in containers ready for shipment across borders,
national and transnational. What cyanide does, however, is poison the
fragile reefs and cause them to die and cease as fish habitats. 6
Concern over the use of cyanide in fishing and its ill effect on the marine
environment also prompted the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Puerto
Princesa to pass Ordinance No. 15-92, which makes it unlawful for any
person or business enterprise or company "to ship out from Puerto
Princesa City to any point of destinations either via aircraft or seacraft of
any live fish and lobster except SEA BASS, CATFISH, MUDFISH and
MILKFISH FRIES." 7 The ban is for five years, from January 1, 1993 to
January 1, 1998. The penalty for violation of the ordinance is a fine of not
more than P5,000.00 or imprisonment of not more than 12 months. 8
To enforce the ordinance, the mayor of Puerto Princesa ordered the
inspection of cargoes of live fish and lobsters leaving the city by air or sea.
Inspectors are to ascertain if the shipper has a permit issued by the office
of the city mayor. Any cargo of live fish and lobster without a permit from
the mayor's office will be "held for proper disposition." 9
The ordinances in question are police power measures, enacted by the
Province of Palawan and the City of Puerto Princesa, pursuant to the Local
Government Code of 1991 which makes it in fact their duty to enact
measures to "protect the environment and impose appropriate penalties for
acts which endanger the environment, such as dynamite fishing and other
forms of destructive fishing. . . ." 10 There is no basis for the claim in the
dissenting opinion that the subject of these ordinances lies within the
competence of the national government. For the matter concerns a local
problem, namely, the destruction of aquatic resources in the Province of
Palawan. For this reason the Solicitor General asked for leave to withdraw
from this case. On the other hand, the Department of Agriculture submitted
its report on the extent of the devastation of coral reefs caused by illegal
fishing to the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Palawan and thereby left the
solution of the problem to be worked out by the local authorities. It would
therefore set back the policy of decentralization were this Court to sustain
such a claim.
Indeed, petitioners' challenge to the validity of the ordinances does not rest
on the claim that the ordinances are beyond the power of local
governments to enact but on the ground that they deprive petitioners of
their means of livelihood and occupation and for that reason violate the
Constitution of the Philippines. For support, petitioners invoke the following
constitutional provisions:
Art. XII, 2 . . . . .
The State shall protect the nation's marine wealth in its archipelagic
waters, territorial sea and exclusive economic zone, and reserve its use
The Congress may, by law, allow small-scale utilization of natural
priority to subsistence fishermen and fishworkers in rivers, lakes, bays and
lagoons.
Art. XIII, 1: The Congress shall give highest priority to the enactment of
measures that protect and enhance the right of all the people to human
dignity, reduce social, economic, and political inequalities, and remove
cultural inequities by equitably diffusing wealth and political power for the
common good.
Id., 7: The State shall protect the rights of subsistence fishermen,
especially of local communities, to the preferential use of the communal
marine and fishing resources, both inland and offshore. It shall provide
support to such fishermen through appropriate technology and research,
adequate financial, production, and marketing assistance, and other
services. The State shall also protect, develop, and conserve such
resources. The protection shall extend to offshore fishing grounds of
subsistence fishermen against foreign intrusion. Fishworkers shall receive
Page 1 6 of 126
a just share from their labor in the utilization of marine and fishing
resources.
I cannot see how these provisions can, in any way, lend support
to petitioners' contention that the ordinances violate the
Constitution. These provisions refer to the duty of the State to
protect the nation's marine resources for the exclusive use and
enjoyment of Filipino citizens, to the preferential right of
subsistence fishermen in the use of such communal marine
resources, and to their right to be protected, even in offshore
fishing grounds, against foreign intrusion. There is no question
here of Filipino preference over aliens in the use of marine
resources. What is in issue is the protection of marine resources
in the Province of Palawan. It was precisely to implement Art.
XII, 2 that the ordinances in question were enacted. For,
without these marine resources, it would be idle to talk of the
rights of subsistence fishermen to be preferred in the use of
these resources.
It has been held that "as underlying questions of fact may
condition the constitutionality of legislation of this character, the
presumption of constitutionality must prevail in the absence of
some factual foundation of record for overthrowing the statute."
11
No evidence has been presented by petitioners to overthrow
the factual basis of the ordinances that, as a result of the use
of cyanide and other noxious substances for fishing, only 5% of
the coral reefs in Palawan was in excellent condition, that 75%
had been heavily destroyed, and that because of the thriving
market for live fish and lobster here and abroad there was
rampant illicit trade in live fish.
Nor has it been shown by petitioners that the local legislation
here involved is arbitrary or unreasonable. It has been held: "If
the laws passed are seen to have a reasonable relation to a
proper legislative purpose, and are neither arbitrary nor
discriminatory, the requirements of due process are satisfied,
and judicial determination to that effect renders a court functus
officio. . . . With the wisdom of the policy adopted, with the
adequacy or practicability of the law enacted to forward it, the
courts are both incompetent and unauthorized to deal. . . ." 12
It is contended that neither Provincial Ordinance No. 2-93 nor
City Ordinance No. 15-92 prohibits cyanide fishing and therefore
the prohibition against catching certain species of fish and their
transportation is "excessive and irrational." It is further argued
that the ban is unreasonable because it is not limited to cyanide
fishing but includes even legitimate fishing.
The ban on the use of cyanide and other noxious substances is
already provided for in other legislation. P.D. No. 534, 2
punishes fishing by means of "explosives, obnoxious or
poisonous substances or by the use of electricity."
Consequently, the ordinances in question can be seen as a
necessary corollary of the prohibition against illegal fishing
contained in this Decree. By prohibiting the catching of certain
fishes and lobsters, Ordinance No. 2-93 in effect discourages
cyanide fishing because, as already stated, cyanide is preferred
in catching fishes because it does not kill but only stuns them
and thus preserves them for export to the world market.
On the other hand, the claim that the ordinance sweeps overbroadly by
"absolutely prohibit[ing] the catching, gathering, buying and shipment of
live fishes and marine coral resources by any and all means including
those lawfully executed or done in the pursuit of legitimate occupation"
misconceives the principal purpose of the ordinance, which is not so much
to prohibit the use of cyanide for fishing as to rebuild corals because of
their destruction by cyanide fishing. This is clear from the "whereas"
clauses of Resolution No. 33, accompanying Ordinance No. 2-93:
WHEREAS, scientific and factual researches and studies disclose that only
five (5) percent of the corals of our province remain to be in excellent
condition as habitat of marine coral dwelling aquatic organisms
WHEREAS, it cannot be gainsaid that the destruction and devastation of
the corals of our province were principally due to illegal fishing activities
like dynamite fishing, sodium cyanide fishing, use of other obnoxious
substances and other related activities;
WHEREAS, there is an imperative and urgent need to protect and
preserve the existence of the remaining excellent corals and allow the
devastated ones to reinvigorate and regenerate themselves into vitality
WHEREAS, Sec. 468, Par. 1, Sub-Par. VI of R.A.
7160 otherwise known as the Local Government Code
of 1991 empowers the Sangguniang Panlalawigan to
protect the environment and impose appropriate
penalties [for] acts which endanger the environment
such as dynamite fishing and other forms of

destructive fishing, among others;
The principal aim of the ordinance is thus the preservation and
rehabilitation of the corals. Only indirectly is it also concerned
with prohibiting the use of cyanide. That this is the aim of the
ordinance can also be inferred from the fact that the ban
imposed by it on the catching and gathering of fishes is for a
limited period (5 years) calculated to be the time needed for the
growth and regeneration of the corals. Were the purpose of the
ordinance the prohibition of the use of cyanide for fishing, the
ban would not be for a limited period only but for all time.
I am not much moved by the plea that the ordinances deprive
small fishermen of their means of livelihood and occupation. The
ban imposed by Ordinance No. 2-93, as amended, covers only
three species, i.e., mameng (scaridae), panther or seorita
(cromilepres altivelis) and ornamental aquarium fishes
(balistiedae), which are prized in the black market. With respect
to other species, it is open season for legitimate fishermen. On
the other hand, the ban imposed by Ordinance No. 15-92 allows
the transportation and shipment of sea bass, catfish, mudfish
and milkfish fries. The ban imposed by the two ordinances is
limited to five years. It is thus limited both as to scope and as to
period of effectivity. There is, on the other hand, the imperative
necessity for measures to prevent the extinction of certain
species of fish.
Indeed, the burden of showing that there is no reasonable
relation between the end and the means adopted in this case is
not on the local governments but on petitioners because of the
presumption that a regulatory statute is valid in the absence of
factual evidence to the contrary. As held in United States v.
Salaveria. 13 "The presumption is all in favor of validity. . . The
councilors must, in the very nature of things, be familiar with the
necessities of their particular municipality and with all the facts
and circumstances which surround the subject, and necessitate
action. The local legislative body, by enacting the ordinance, has
in effect given notice that the regulations are essential to the well
being of the people. . . . The Judiciary should not lightly set aside
legislative action when there is not a clear invasion of personal
or property rights under the guise of police regulation."
Finally, petitioners question Office Order No. 23, s. of 1993, of
the city mayor of Puerto Princesa, for being allegedly vague.
This order prohibits the transportation of fish outside the city
without permit from the mayor's office. Petitioners contend that
the order does not state under what condition a permit may be
granted and, consequently, leaves it to the absolute discretion of
the mayor when to grant and when to deny a permit. The
questioned paragraph of the order states:
The purpose of the inspection is to ascertain whether
the shipper possessed the required Mayor's Permit
issued by this Office and the shipment is covered by
invoice or clearance issued by the local office of the
Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources and as to
compliance with all other existing rules and regulations
on the matter.
This contention is untenable. As the office order is intended to
implement City Ordinance No. 15-92, resort must be made to the
ordinance in order to determine the scope of such office order.
As already noted, the ordinance prohibits the shipment out of
Puerto Princesa of live fish and lobsters, with the exception of
catfish, mudfish and milkfish fries. Consequently, a permit may
be denied if it is for the transportation of fishes which are
covered by the ban, but not for those not covered by it. This is
the common sense meaning of the office order in question.
Criminal laws must be precisely drawn, but, as Justice Holmes
once said, "We agree to all the generalities about not supplying
criminal laws with what they omit, but there is no canon against
using common sense in construing laws as saying what they
obviously mean." 14
One final point. This case was brought to this Court on the bare
bones of the ordinances, on the mere claim of petitioner Alfredo
Tano and his 83 copetitioners that they are subsistence
fishermen. The constitutional protection refers to small fishermen
who depend on the sea for their existence. Ten of the
petitioners, led by Alfredo Tano, are accused in the Municipal
Circuit Trial Court of possession of the species covered by
Provincial Ordinance No. 2-93, while two, Roberto Lim and
Virginia Lim, are charged with violation of the two ordinances in
the City Prosecutor's Office. There is no telling from the records
of this case whether petitioners are subsistence fishermen or
simply impecunious individuals selling their catch to the big
businessmen. The other petitioners are admittedly fish traders,
members of an association of airline shippers, to whom the
constitutional provisions obviously do not apply.
Page 1 7 of 126
The judicial invalidation of the ordinances in this case could

undermine the on-going trial of some of petitioners. Instead of
leaving the determination of the validity of the ordinances to the
trial court, where some of petitioners are facing charges, this
Court will be shortcircuiting the criminal process by prematurely
passing upon the constitutional questions and indirectly on the
criminal liability of some of the petitioners. This is a task which
should await the development of evidence of record.
Indeed because of the unsatisfactory abstractness of the record,
this case should not have been brought here. The mere fact that
some of petitioners are facing prosecution for violation of the
ordinances is no reason for entertaining their suit. Our
jurisdiction is limited to cases and controversies. Who are
petitioners? What is the impact of the ordinance on their
economic situation? Are the factual bases of the two ordinances
supported by evidence? These questions must be raised in the
criminal trial or in a suit brought in the trial court so that facts
necessary to adjudicate the constitutional questions can be
presented. Nothing can take the place of the flesh and blood of
litigation to assess the actual operation of a statute and thus
ground the judicial power more firmly.
Petitioners justify the filing of the present action in this Court on
the ground that constitutional questions must be raised at the
earliest time. That is true, but it does not mean that the
questions should be presented to the Supreme Court first hand.
Moreover, the rule is not absolute. Constitutional questions like
those invoked by petitioners can be raised anytime, even in a
motion for reconsideration, if their resolution is necessary to the
decision of an actual case or controversy, as our recent
resolution 15 of the constitutionality of R.A. No. 7659, reimposing
the death penalty, amply demonstrates.
Romero, Melo, Puno and Francisco, JJ., concur.
BELLOSILLO, J., dissenting:

It is settled rule that where the provisions of the law are clear
and unambiguous there is no room for interpretation. The duty of
the court is only to apply the law. The exception to such rule
cannot be justified on the sole basis of good motives or noble
objectives. For it is also basic that the end does not justify the
means.
The petition raises significant constitutional questions. While
petitioners apparently instituted the action to enjoin their criminal
prosecution, the issue boils down to whether the subject
ordinances of Palawan and Puerto Princesa are valid and
enforceable as to authorize the criminal prosecution of those
charged with violation thereof.
Notwithstanding the procedural limitations strictly applied in the
majority opinion to render the petition dismissible on grounds of
prematurity and lack of real interest in the controversy, the case
clearly falls under the exceptions allowed by law. The petition, I
submit, can be properly treated as a special civil action for
certiorari and prohibition under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court to
correct errors of jurisdiction committed by the lower court arising
from the implementation of a void ordinance. Even if the purpose
of the petition is for declaratory relief, if the petition has farreaching implications and raises questions that should be
resolved as they involve national interest, it may be treated as a
special civil action under Rule 65. 1 The mere absence of a prior
motion to quash the Information in the trial court should not
prevent the accused, petitioners herein, from seeking to render
null and void the criminal proceedings below.
In criminal cases, when the constitutionality or validity of a law or
ordinance is essentially involved, the same may be raised at any
stage of the proceedings. It can also be considered by the
appellate court at any time if it involves the jurisdiction of the
lower Court. 2 Further, under Sec. 8, Rule 117, of the Rules on
Criminal Procedure, the failure of the accused to assert any
ground of a motion to quash before he pleads to the Complaint
or Information either because he did not file a motion to quash or
failed to allege the same in the motion shall be deemed a waiver
of the grounds of a motion to quash, except the grounds of no
offense charged, lack of jurisdiction over the offense charged,
extinction of the offense or penalty, and jeopardy.
Petitioners are proper parties to set aside the proceedings in the
trial court. A proper party is one who has sustained or is in
immediate danger of sustaining an injury as a result of the act
complained of. Petitioners have been criminally charged and
arrested for alleged violation of the ordinances in question.
Consequently, unless the trial court is enjoined from continuing

with the proceedings, petitioners are in danger of being
convicted and punished under ordinances which they allege to
be invalid and ineffective. In fact this Court initially recognized
the real interest of petitioners in instituting the action when it
issued a restraining order directing Judge Angel R. Miclat to
cease and desist until further orders from proceeding with the
arraignment and pre-trial of People v. Alfredo Tano, et al., Crim.
Case No. 11223, for violation of Resolution No. 2-93 of the
Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Palawan, and Ordinance No. 1592 of the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Puerto Princesa City.
The question to be resolved is whether Resolution No. 2-93,
Office Order No. 23 and Ordinance No. 15-92 are constitutional,
valid and enforceable. By considering the purpose and objective
of the ordinances as laudable, the majority adopts the affirmative
view in consonance with the general welfare clause and principle
of devolution well-rooted in the Local Government Code of 1991.
While I agree with the majority that the local leaders of Palawan
and Puerto Princesa City be commended for their efforts to uplift
and protect the environment and natural resources within their
areas, the general welfare clause is not the sole criterion to
determine the validity or constitutionality of the ordinances. In
Magtajas v. Pryce Properties Corporation, 3 we reiterated that
the well-established tests of a valid ordinance are: (a) It must not
contravene the Constitution or any statute; (b) It must not be
unfair or oppressive; (c) It must not be partial or discriminatory;
(d) It must not prohibit but may regulate trade; (e) It must be
general and consistent with public policy; and, (f) It must not be
unreasonable.
As admitted by the majority, among our existing statutes on
fishing and fishery or aquatic resources are P.D. Nos. 704, 1015
and 1219. P.D. No. 704 is titled "Revising and Consolidating All
Laws and Decrees Affecting Fishing and Fisheries." With the
enactment of the Local Government Code of 1991, only Secs.
16 and 29 of P.D. No. 704 were expressly repealed. All the rest
of the provisions of P.D. No. 704 remain valid and effective, Sec.
4 of which is enlightening
Sec. 4. Jurisdiction of the Bureau (of Fisheries and
Aquatic Resources). The Bureau shall have
jurisdiction and responsibility in the management,
conservation, development, protection, utilization and
disposition of all fishery and aquatic resources of the
country except municipal waters which shall be under
the municipal or city government concerned: Provided,
That fishpens and seaweed culture in municipal
centers shall be under the jurisdiction of the Bureau:
Provided, further, That all municipal or city ordinances
and resolutions affecting fishing and fisheries and any
disposition thereunder shall be submitted to the
Secretary for appropriate action and shall have full
force and effect only upon his approval. The Bureau
shall also have authority to regulate and supervise the
production, capture and gathering of fish and
fishery/aquatic products.
There is no doubt that under P.D. No. 704 fishing, fishery and aquatic
resources in municipal waters are under the jurisdiction of the municipal or
city government concerned. However, the same decree imposes a
mandatory requirement directing municipal or city governments to submit
ordinances enacted pertinent to fishing and fishery resources to the
Secretary of Agriculture who now has control and supervision over the
Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR). The ordinances will
attain full force and effect only upon the approval of the Secretary of
Agriculture.
Ordinance 15-92 of Puerto Princesa City, admittedly, was not submitted to
the Secretary of Agriculture through the BFAR for approval. Such failure of
compliance with the law prevented it from becoming valid and effective.
Consequently, Office Order No. 23 of the Mayor of Puerto Princesa City
which seeks to implement and enforce Ordinance No. 15-92 is also
ineffective as there is nothing to implement.
To say that Sec. 4 of P.D. No. 704 was impliedly repealed by the Local
Government Code is gratuitous. For, if it was the intention of the legislature
to dispense with the requirement of prior approval by the Secretary of
Agriculture of ordinances pertinent to fishery resources, it would. have
expressly repealed Sec. 4 when, in fact, it did so with Secs. 16 and 29 of
P.D. No. 704. Cases abound holding that a repeal by implication is not
presumed or favored considering that the legislature is presumed to be
aware of existing laws; ordinarily, if it intends to revoke a statute it would
manifest such intention in express terms. 4 Before such a repeal is
deemed to exist it should be shown that the statutes or statutory provisions
deal with the same subject matter and that the latter be inconsistent with
the former. There must be a showing of repugnancy clear and convincing
in character. The language used in the latter statute must be such as to
render it irreconcilable with what has been formerly enacted. An
Page 1 8 of 126
inconsistency that falls short of that standard does not suffice. In fact, there
is no inconsistency between the Local Government Code and P.D. No. 704
as amended. While the Local Government Code vests power upon the
local government to enact ordinances for the general welfare of its
inhabitants, such power is subject to certain limitations imposed by the
Code itself and by other statutes. When the legislature failed to repeal Sec.
4 of P.D. No. 704 it accepted and recognized a limitation on the power of
the local government to enact ordinances relative to matters affecting
fishery and aquatic resources. A reading of particular provisions of the
Local Government Code itself will reveal that devolution on the powers of
the local government pertaining to the protection of environment is limited
and not all-encompassing, as will be discussed in the succeeding
paragraphs.
Further, while the Local Government Code is a general law on
the powers, responsibilities and composition of different local
government units, P.D. No. 704 is a special law dealing with the
protection and conservation of fishing and aquatic resources
including those in the municipal waters. Hence, the special law
should prevail over the general law.
There is also P.D. No. 1015 which vests upon the Secretary of
Agriculture the authority to establish closed seasons. Another
existing law on fisheries which has not been repealed by the
Local Government Code is P.D. No. 1219, which provides for the
exploration, exploitation, utilization and conservation of coral
resources. Section 4 thereof provides that the decree shall be
implemented by the Secretary of Environment and Natural
Resources who shall have jurisdiction and responsibility in the
resources. Section 6 authorizes the Secretary to issue special
permit to any person or institution to gather in limited quantities
any coral for scientific or educational purposes. Section 10
empowers the Secretary to promulgate rules and regulations for
the implementation of this law.
It is true that police power can be exercised through the general
welfare clause. But, while police power is inherent in a state, it is
not so in municipal corporations or local governments. In order
that a local government may exercise police power, there must
be a legislative grant which necessarily sets the limits for the
exercise of the power. 5 In this case, Congress has enacted the
Local Government Code which provides the standards as well
as the limitations in the exercise of the police power by the local
government unit.
Section 2 of the Local Government Code provides for a system
of decentralization whereby local government units are given
more powers, authority, responsibilities and resources, and the
process shall proceed from the national government to the local
government units. However, under Sec 3, par. (i), of the Local
Government Code, the operative principles of decentralization
upon the environment and natural resources are not absolute
when it is provided therein that "local government units shall
share with the national government the responsibility in the
management and maintenance of ecological balance within their
territorial jurisdiction, subject to the provisions of this Code and
national policies." The national policies mentioned here refer to
existing policies which the DENR and other government
agencies concerned with the environment may implement at any
given moment. The national policies are embodied in existing
laws, rules and regulations pertaining to environment and natural
resources, such as P.D. Nos. 704 and 1219 relating to fishery
resources. The above provision was crafted to make sure that
local government enactments do not supplant or negate national
government policies on environment. 6 This is precisely the
reason why the Local Government Code did not repeal Sec. 4 of
P.D. NO. 704 requiring prior submission to and approval by the
Secretary of Agriculture of ordinances relative to fishery and
aquatic resources. Needless to stress, the approval of the
Secretary is necessary in order to ensure that these ordinances
are in accordance with the laws on fisheries and national
policies. Likewise, the jurisdiction of the Secretary of
Environment and Natural Resources over coral resources under
P.D. No. 1219 remains.
The core of the devolution adopted by the Local Government
Code is found in Sec. 17 thereof which reiterates the basic
services and facilities to be rendered by the local governments.
With respect to the protection and conservation of fisheries, Sec.
17, par. 2 (i), specifically provides that the municipality shall
conduct "extension and on-site research services and facilities
related to agriculture and fishery activities which include
dispersal of livestock and poultry, fingerlings and other seeding
materials for aquaculture
. . . . and enforcement of fishery laws in municipal waters
including the conservation of mangroves . . . ." The power
devolved upon the municipality under the Local Government
Code is the enforcement of existing fishery laws of the State and
not the enactment thereof. While a local government unit may
adopt ordinances upon subjects covered by law or statute, such
ordinances should be in accordance with and not repugnant to

the law. 7 In view thereof, ordinances which may be enacted by
the municipality or city should be pursuant to the provisions of
P.D. Nos. 704, 1015 and 1219. Thus, under the provisions of
Secs. 447, par. 1 (vi), 458, par. 1 (vi) and 468, par. 1 (vi), the
municipality, city and province respectively may approve
ordinances protecting the environment by specifically penalizing
only those acts which endanger the environment such as
dynamite fishing and other forms of destructive fishing which are
already prohibited under P.D. Nos. 704 and 1219, and other
laws on illegal fishing. 8
The questioned ordinances may also be struck down for being
not only a prohibitory legislation but also an unauthorized
exercise of delegation of powers. An objective, however worthy
or desirable it may be, such as the protection and conservation
of our fisheries in this case, can be attained by a measure that
does not encompass too wide a field. The purpose can be
achieved by reasonable restrictions rather than by absolute
prohibition. Local governments are not possessed with
prohibitory powers but only regulatory powers under the general
welfare clause. 9 They cannot therefore exceed the powers
granted to them by the Code by altogether prohibiting fishing
and selling for five (5) years all live fishes through Ordinance No.
15-92 and coral organisms through Ordinance No. 2-93 involving
even lawful methods of fishing.
These prohibitions are tantamount to the establishment of a
closed season for fish and aquatic resources which authority is
not among those powers vested by the Local Government Code
to the local government units. For the authority to establish a
closed season for fisheries is vested upon the Secretary of
Agriculture by virtue of P.D. Nos. 704 and 1015 and in the
Secretary of Environment and Natural resources pursuant to
P.D. No. 1219 in relation to coral resources. The power of the
local governments is confined and limited to ensuring that these
national fishery laws are implemented and enforced within their
territorial jurisdictions. Hence, any memorandum of agreement
which might have been executed by the Department of
Agriculture or Department of Environment and Natural
Resources granting additional powers and functions to the local
governments which are not vested upon the latter by the Local
Government Code because such powers are covered by existing
statutes, is an undue delegation of power and, consequently,
null and void.
The majority also cites R.A. No. 7611, otherwise known as the
Strategic Environmental Plan (SEP) for Palawan Act, as proof of
the power of the local governments of Palawan and Puerto
Princesa City to issue the assailed ordinances. Although the
objectives of R.A. No. 7611 and of the ordinances are one and
the same, i.e., the protection, conservation and development of
natural resources, the former does not grant additional powers to
the local governments pertaining to the environment. In fact, the
law adopts a comprehensive framework which shall serve to
direct and guide local governments and national government
agencies in the implementation of programs and projects
affecting Palawan. With the enactment of this Act, the local
governments are mandated to coordinate and align their
developmental plans, projects and budgets in accord with the
framework of the SEP. It can be said that this is another
limitation on the exercise of police power by the local
governments of Palawan and Puerto Princesa City because the
governance, implementation and policy direction of the SEP
shall be exercised by the Palawan Council for Sustainable
Development (PCSD) which is under the Office of the President.
Finally, I find unreasonable Resolution No. 2-93 of Palawan and
Ordinance No. 15-92 of Puerto Princesa City. The prohibitions
set forth are not germane to the accomplishment of their goals.
Ordinance No. 15-92 is aimed to free effectively the marine
resources of Puerto Princesa from cyanide and other obnoxious
substances. But the means to achieve this objective borders on
the excessive and irrational, for the edict would absolutely ban
the shipment of live fishes and lobsters out of the city for a
period of five (5) years without prohibiting cyanide fishing itself
which is the professed goal of the ordinance. The purpose of
Resolution No. 2-93, on the other hand, is to protect and
preserve all marine coral-dwelling organisms from devastation
and destruction by illegal fishing activities, e.g., dynamite fishing,
sodium cyanide fishing, and the use of other obnoxious
substances. But in absolutely prohibiting the catching, gathering,
buying and shipment of live fishes and marine coral resources
by any means including those lawfully executed or done in the
pursuit of legitimate occupation, the ordinance overstepped the
reasonable limits and boundaries of its raison d'etre. This I
cannot help viewing as plain arbitrariness masquerading as
police power. For the consequent deprivation of the main source
of livelihood of the people of Palawan can only be regarded as
utter depravation of this awesome power of the State.
Page 1 9 of 126
For all the foregoing, I vote to grant the petition.

Kapunan and Hermosisima, Jr., JJ., concur.
company "to ship out from Puerto Princesa City to any point of
destinations either via aircraft or seacraft of any live fish and
lobster except SEA BASS, CATFISH, MUDFISH and MILKFISH
FRIES." 7 The ban is for five years, from January 1, 1993 to
January 1, 1998. The penalty for violation of the ordinance is a
fine of not more than P5,000.00 or imprisonment of not more
than 12 months. 8
Separate Opinions
MENDOZA, J., concurring:
I fully concur in the opinion of the Court written by Justice
Davide. I write separately to emphasize two points which I
believe are important. The first is the need to uphold the
presumption of validity of the ordinances in this case in view of
the total absence of evidence to undermine their factual basis.
The second is the need not to allow a shortcircuiting of the
normal process of adjudication on the mere plea that unless we
take cognizance of petitions like this, by-passing the trial courts,
alleged violations of constitutional rights will be left unprotected,
when the matter can very well be looked into by trial courts and
in fact should be brought there.
The ordinances in question in this case are conservation
measures which the local governments of Palawan have
adopted in view of the widespread destruction caused by
cyanide fishing of corals within their territorial waters. At the very
least, these ordinances must be presumed valid in the absence
of evidence to show that the necessary factual foundation for
their enactment does not exist. Their invalidation at this point
can result in the untimely exoneration of otherwise guilty parties
on the basis of doubtful constitutional claims.
Ordinance No. 2-93, which the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of
Palawan adopted in 1993, prohibits, for a period of five years,
the "catching, gathering, possessing, buying, selling and
shipment" of five fish and lobsters. As originally enacted, the
prohibition applied to eight species of fish and lobsters caught in
the waters of Palawan, namely, "1. Family: Scaridae (Mameng),
2. Epinephelus Fasciatus (Suno), 3. Cromileptes altivelis
(Panther or Seorita), lobster (below 200 grams and spawning),
4. Tridacna Gigas (Giant Clams or Taklobo and other species),
5. Pinctada Margaritifera (Mother Pearl Oysters), 6. Penaeus
Monodon (Tiger Prawn breeder size or mother), 7.
Epinephelus Suillus (Loba or Green Grouper) and 8. Family:
Balistidae (Tropical Aquarium Fishes)." 1 Later, however, the
ordinance was amended to limit the ban to three species only,
namely: mameng (scaridae), panther or seorita (cromileptes
altivelis) and ornamental or aquarium fishes (balistidae).
Violation of the ordinance is punishable by a fine of P5,000.00
and/or imprisonment of not less than 6 nor more than 12 months
and confiscation of the paraphernalia and equipment used in the
commission of the offense. 2
Ordinance No. 2-93 was adopted by the Sangguniang
Panlalawigan on the basis of a 1992 study submitted by the
Department of Agriculture, 3 showing that, as a result of the use
the coral reefs in the Province of Palawan remained in excellent
condition as fish sanctuaries and habitats, while 75% was
heavily damaged.
The rampant use of cyanide has been encouraged by the
lucrative trade in live fishes which are shipped not only to Manila
but also abroad, principally to Hongkong, Taiwan and Malaysia.
The fishes are sold to gourmet restaurants because of the great
demand for exotic food, to aquariums and to pet shops. In its
issue of July 19, 1993. Time Magazine 4 reported that the illicit
trade in live animals is the third biggest contraband business in
the world, after drugs and arms, and identified the Philippines as
a major source of tropical fishes for the global traffic in live
fishes.
The use of cyanide enables fishermen to catch fish alive and in
commercial quantity in a way not possible with the use of such
traditional methods as hook and line, fish traps, baklad and the
like, which allows only limited catch and often results in injuries
to fishes and the loss of their scales, thereby reducing their
survival for transportation abroad. 5 Cyanide does not kill fish
but only stuns them. The stunned creatures are then scooped up
and placed in containers ready for shipment across borders,
national and transnational. What cyanide does, however, is
poison the fragile reefs and cause them to die and cease as fish
habitats. 6
Concern over the use of cyanide in fishing and its ill effect on the
marine environment also prompted the Sangguniang
Panlungsod of Puerto Princesa to pass Ordinance No. 15-92,
which makes it unlawful for any person or business enterprise or
To enforce the ordinance, the mayor of Puerto Princesa ordered

the inspection of cargoes of live fish and lobsters leaving the city
by air or sea. Inspectors are to ascertain if the shipper has a
permit issued by the office of the city mayor. Any cargo of live
fish and lobster without a permit from the mayor's office will be
"held for proper disposition." 9
The ordinances in question are police power measures, enacted
by the Province of Palawan and the City of Puerto Princesa,
pursuant to the Local Government Code of 1991 which makes it
in fact their duty to enact measures to "protect the environment
and impose appropriate penalties for acts which endanger the
environment, such as dynamite fishing and other forms of
destructive fishing. . . ." 10 There is no basis for the claim in the
dissenting opinion that the subject of these ordinances lies within
the competence of the national government. For the matter
concerns a local problem, namely, the destruction of aquatic
resources in the Province of Palawan. For this reason the
Solicitor General asked for leave to withdraw from this case. On
the other hand, the Department of Agriculture submitted its
report on the extent of the devastation of coral reefs caused by
illegal fishing to the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Palawan and
thereby left the solution of the problem to be worked out by the
local authorities. It would therefore set back the policy of
decentralization were this Court to sustain such a claim.
Indeed, petitioners' challenge to the validity of the ordinances
does not rest on the claim that the ordinances are beyond the
power of local governments to enact but on the ground that they
deprive petitioners of their means of livelihood and occupation
and for that reason violate the Constitution of the Philippines.
For support, petitioners invoke the following constitutional
provisions:
Art. XII, 2 . . . . .
The State shall protect the nation's marine wealth in
its archipelagic waters, territorial sea and exclusive
economic zone, and reserve its use and enjoyment
exclusively to Filipino citizens.
The Congress may, by law, allow small-scale
utilization of natural resources by Filipino citizens, as
well as cooperative fish farming, with priority to
subsistence fishermen and fishworkers in rivers, lakes,
bays and lagoons.
Art. XIII, 1: The Congress shall give highest priority to
the enactment of measures that protect and enhance
the right of all the people to human dignity, reduce
social, economic, and political inequalities, and
remove cultural inequities by equitably diffusing wealth
and political power for the common good.
Id., 7: The State shall protect the rights of
subsistence fishermen, especially of local
communities, to the preferential use of the communal
marine and fishing resources, both inland and
offshore. It shall provide support to such fishermen
through appropriate technology and research,
adequate financial, production, and marketing
assistance, and other services. The State shall also
protect, develop, and conserve such resources. The
protection shall extend to offshore fishing grounds of
subsistence fishermen against foreign intrusion.
Fishworkers shall receive a just share from their labor
in the utilization of marine and fishing resources.
I cannot see how these provisions can, in any way, lend support
to petitioners' contention that the ordinances violate the
Constitution. These provisions refer to the duty of the State to
protect the nation's marine resources for the exclusive use and
enjoyment of Filipino citizens, to the preferential right of
subsistence fishermen in the use of such communal marine
resources, and to their right to be protected, even in offshore
fishing grounds, against foreign intrusion. There is no question
here of Filipino preference over aliens in the use of marine
resources. What is in issue is the protection of marine resources
in the Province of Palawan. It was precisely to implement Art.
XII, 2 that the ordinances in question were enacted. For,
without these marine resources, it would be idle to talk of the
Page 120 of 126
rights of subsistence fishermen to be preferred in the use of

these resources.
ordinance the prohibition of the use of cyanide for fishing, the

ban would not be for a limited period only but for all time.
It has been held that "as underlying questions of fact may

condition the constitutionality of legislation of this character, the
presumption of constitutionality must prevail in the absence of
some factual foundation of record for overthrowing the statute."
11
No evidence has been presented by petitioners to overthrow
the factual basis of the ordinances that, as a result of the use
the coral reefs in Palawan was in excellent condition, that 75%
had been heavily destroyed, and that because of the thriving
market for live fish and lobster here and abroad there was
rampant illicit trade in live fish.
I am not much moved by the plea that the ordinances deprive

small fishermen of their means of livelihood and occupation. The
ban imposed by Ordinance No. 2-93, as amended, covers only
three species, i.e., mameng (scaridae), panther or seorita
(cromilepres altivelis) and ornamental aquarium fishes
(balistiedae), which are prized in the black market. With respect
to other species, it is open season for legitimate fishermen. On
the other hand, the ban imposed by Ordinance No. 15-92 allows
the transportation and shipment of sea bass, catfish, mudfish
and milkfish fries. The ban imposed by the two ordinances is
limited to five years. It is thus limited both as to scope and as to
period of effectivity. There is, on the other hand, the imperative
necessity for measures to prevent the extinction of certain
species of fish.
Nor has it been shown by petitioners that the local legislation

here involved is arbitrary or unreasonable. It has been held: "If
the laws passed are seen to have a reasonable relation to a
proper legislative purpose, and are neither arbitrary nor
discriminatory, the requirements of due process are satisfied,
and judicial determination to that effect renders a court functus
officio. . . . With the wisdom of the policy adopted, with the
adequacy or practicability of the law enacted to forward it, the
courts are both incompetent and unauthorized to deal. . . ." 12
It is contended that neither Provincial Ordinance No. 2-93 nor
City Ordinance No. 15-92 prohibits cyanide fishing and therefore
the prohibition against catching certain species of fish and their
transportation is "excessive and irrational." It is further argued
that the ban is unreasonable because it is not limited to cyanide
fishing but includes even legitimate fishing.
The ban on the use of cyanide and other noxious substances is
already provided for in other legislation. P.D. No. 534, 2
punishes fishing by means of "explosives, obnoxious or
poisonous substances or by the use of electricity."
Consequently, the ordinances in question can be seen as a
necessary corollary of the prohibition against illegal fishing
contained in this Decree. By prohibiting the catching of certain
fishes and lobsters, Ordinance No. 2-93 in effect discourages
cyanide fishing because, as already stated, cyanide is preferred
in catching fishes because it does not kill but only stuns them
and thus preserves them for export to the world market.
On the other hand, the claim that the ordinance sweeps
overbroadly by "absolutely prohibit[ing] the catching, gathering,
by any and all means including those lawfully executed or done
in the pursuit of legitimate occupation" misconceives the
principal purpose of the ordinance, which is not so much to
prohibit the use of cyanide for fishing as to rebuild corals
because of their destruction by cyanide fishing. This is clear from
the "whereas" clauses of Resolution No. 33, accompanying
Ordinance No. 2-93:
WHEREAS, scientific and factual researches and
studies disclose that only five (5) percent of the corals
of our province remain to be in excellent condition as
habitat of marine coral dwelling aquatic organisms;
WHEREAS, it cannot be gainsaid that the destruction
and devastation of the corals of our province were
principally due to illegal fishing activities like dynamite
fishing, sodium cyanide fishing, use of other
obnoxious substances and other related activities;
WHEREAS, there is an imperative and urgent need to
protect and preserve the existence of the remaining
excellent corals and allow the devastated ones to
reinvigorate and regenerate themselves into vitality
WHEREAS, Sec. 468, Par. 1, Sub-Par. VI of R.A.
7160 otherwise known as the Local Government Code
of 1991 empowers the Sangguniang Panlalawigan to
protect the environment and impose appropriate
penalties [for] acts which endanger the environment
such as dynamite fishing and other forms of
destructive fishing, among others;
The principal aim of the ordinance is thus the preservation and
rehabilitation of the corals. Only indirectly is it also concerned
with prohibiting the use of cyanide. That this is the aim of the
ordinance can also be inferred from the fact that the ban
imposed by it on the catching and gathering of fishes is for a
limited period (5 years) calculated to be the time needed for the
growth and regeneration of the corals. Were the purpose of the
Indeed, the burden of showing that there is no reasonable

relation between the end and the means adopted in this case is
not on the local governments but on petitioners because of the
presumption that a regulatory statute is valid in the absence of
factual evidence to the contrary. As held in United States v.
Salaveria. 13 "The presumption is all in favor of validity. . . The
councilors must, in the very nature of things, be familiar with the
necessities of their particular municipality and with all the facts
and circumstances which surround the subject, and necessitate
action. The local legislative body, by enacting the ordinance, has
in effect given notice that the regulations are essential to the well
being of the people. . . . The Judiciary should not lightly set aside
legislative action when there is not a clear invasion of personal
or property rights under the guise of police regulation."
Finally, petitioners question Office Order No. 23, s. of 1993, of
the city mayor of Puerto Princesa, for being allegedly vague.
This order prohibits the transportation of fish outside the city
without permit from the mayor's office. Petitioners contend that
the order does not state under what condition a permit may be
granted and, consequently, leaves it to the absolute discretion of
the mayor when to grant and when to deny a permit. The
questioned paragraph of the order states:
The purpose of the inspection is to ascertain whether
the shipper possessed the required Mayor's Permit
issued by this Office and the shipment is covered by
invoice or clearance issued by the local office of the
Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources and as to
compliance with all other existing rules and regulations
on the matter.
This contention is untenable. As the office order is intended to
implement City Ordinance No. 15-92, resort must be made to the
ordinance in order to determine the scope of such office order.
As already noted, the ordinance prohibits the shipment out of
Puerto Princesa of live fish and lobsters, with the exception of
catfish, mudfish and milkfish fries. Consequently, a permit may
be denied if it is for the transportation of fishes which are
covered by the ban, but not for those not covered by it. This is
the common sense meaning of the office order in question.
Criminal laws must be precisely drawn, but, as Justice Holmes
once said, "We agree to all the generalities about not supplying
criminal laws with what they omit, but there is no canon against
using common sense in construing laws as saying what they
obviously mean." 14
One final point. This case was brought to this Court on the bare
bones of the ordinances, on the mere claim of petitioner Alfredo
Tano and his 83 copetitioners that they are subsistence
fishermen. The constitutional protection refers to small fishermen
who depend on the sea for their existence. Ten of the
petitioners, led by Alfredo Tano, are accused in the Municipal
Circuit Trial Court of possession of the species covered by
Provincial Ordinance No. 2-93, while two, Roberto Lim and
Virginia Lim, are charged with violation of the two ordinances in
the City Prosecutor's Office. There is no telling from the records
of this case whether petitioners are subsistence fishermen or
simply impecunious individuals selling their catch to the big
businessmen. The other petitioners are admittedly fish traders,
members of an association of airline shippers, to whom the
constitutional provisions obviously do not apply.
The judicial invalidation of the ordinances in this case could
undermine the on-going trial of some of petitioners. Instead of
leaving the determination of the validity of the ordinances to the
trial court, where some of petitioners are facing charges, this
Court will be shortcircuiting the criminal process by prematurely
passing upon the constitutional questions and indirectly on the
criminal liability of some of the petitioners. This is a task which
should await the development of evidence of record.
Page 121 of 126
Indeed because of the unsatisfactory abstractness of the record,

this case should not have been brought here. The mere fact that
some of petitioners are facing prosecution for violation of the
ordinances is no reason for entertaining their suit. Our
jurisdiction is limited to cases and controversies. Who are
petitioners? What is the impact of the ordinance on their
economic situation? Are the factual bases of the two ordinances
supported by evidence? These questions must be raised in the
criminal trial or in a suit brought in the trial court so that facts
necessary to adjudicate the constitutional questions can be
presented. Nothing can take the place of the flesh and blood of
litigation to assess the actual operation of a statute and thus
ground the judicial power more firmly.
Petitioners justify the filing of the present action in this Court on
the ground that constitutional questions must be raised at the
earliest time. That is true, but it does not mean that the
questions should be presented to the Supreme Court first hand.
Moreover, the rule is not absolute. Constitutional questions like
those invoked by petitioners can be raised anytime, even in a
motion for reconsideration, if their resolution is necessary to the
decision of an actual case or controversy, as our recent
resolution 15 of the constitutionality of R.A. No. 7659, reimposing
the death penalty, amply demonstrates.
Romero, Melo, Puno and Francisco, JJ., concur.
BELLOSILLO, J., dissenting:

It is settled rule that where the provisions of the law are clear and
unambiguous there is no room for interpretation. The duty of the court is
only to apply the law. The exception to such rule cannot be justified on the
sole basis of good motives or noble objectives. For it is also basic that the
end does not justify the means.
The petition raises significant constitutional questions. While petitioners
apparently instituted the action to enjoin their criminal prosecution, the
issue boils down to whether the subject ordinances of Palawan and Puerto
Princesa are valid and enforceable as to authorize the criminal prosecution
of those charged with violation thereof.
Notwithstanding the procedural limitations strictly applied in the majority
opinion to render the petition dismissible on grounds of prematurity and
lack of real interest in the controversy, the case clearly falls under the
exceptions allowed by law. The petition, I submit, can be properly treated
as a special civil action for certiorari and prohibition under Rule 65 of the
Rules of Court to correct errors of jurisdiction committed by the lower court
arising from the implementation of a void ordinance. Even if the purpose of
the petition is for declaratory relief, if the petition has far-reaching
implications and raises questions that should be resolved as they involve
national interest, it may be treated as a special civil action under Rule 65. 1
The mere absence of a prior motion to quash the Information in the trial
court should not prevent the accused, petitioners herein, from seeking to
render null and void the criminal proceedings below.
In criminal cases, when the constitutionality or validity of a law or
ordinance is essentially involved, the same may be raised at any stage of
the proceedings. It can also be considered by the appellate court at any
time if it involves the jurisdiction of the lower Court. 2 Further, under Sec.
8, Rule 117, of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, the failure of the accused
to assert any ground of a motion to quash before he pleads to the
Complaint or Information either because he did not file a motion to quash
or failed to allege the same in the motion shall be deemed a waiver of the
grounds of a motion to quash, except the grounds of no offense charged,
lack of jurisdiction over the offense charged, extinction of the offense or
penalty, and jeopardy.
Petitioners are proper parties to set aside the proceedings in the trial court.
A proper party is one who has sustained or is in immediate danger of
sustaining an injury as a result of the act complained of. Petitioners have
been criminally charged and arrested for alleged violation of the
ordinances in question. Consequently, unless the trial court is enjoined
from continuing with the proceedings, petitioners are in danger of being
convicted and punished under ordinances which they allege to be invalid
and ineffective. In fact this Court initially recognized the real interest of
petitioners in instituting the action when it issued a restraining order
directing Judge Angel R. Miclat to cease and desist until further orders
from proceeding with the arraignment and pre-trial of People v. Alfredo
Tano, et al., Crim. Case No. 11223, for violation of Resolution No. 2-93 of
the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Palawan, and Ordinance No. 15-92 of
the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Puerto Princesa City.
The question to be resolved is whether Resolution No. 2-93,
Office Order No. 23 and Ordinance No. 15-92 are constitutional,
valid and enforceable. By considering the purpose and objective
of the ordinances as laudable, the majority adopts the affirmative
view in consonance with the general welfare clause and principle

of devolution well-rooted in the Local Government Code of 1991.
While I agree with the majority that the local leaders of Palawan
and Puerto Princesa City be commended for their efforts to uplift
and protect the environment and natural resources within their
areas, the general welfare clause is not the sole criterion to
determine the validity or constitutionality of the ordinances. In
Magtajas v. Pryce Properties Corporation, 3 we reiterated that
the well-established tests of a valid ordinance are: (a) It must not
contravene the Constitution or any statute; (b) It must not be
unfair or oppressive; (c) It must not be partial or discriminatory;
(d) It must not prohibit but may regulate trade; (e) It must be
general and consistent with public policy; and, (f) It must not be
unreasonable.
As admitted by the majority, among our existing statutes on
fishing and fishery or aquatic resources are P.D. Nos. 704, 1015
and 1219. P.D. No. 704 is titled "Revising and Consolidating All
Laws and Decrees Affecting Fishing and Fisheries." With the
enactment of the Local Government Code of 1991, only Secs.
16 and 29 of P.D. No. 704 were expressly repealed. All the rest
of the provisions of P.D. No. 704 remain valid and effective, Sec.
4 of which is enlightening
Sec. 4. Jurisdiction of the Bureau (of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources).
The Bureau shall have jurisdiction and responsibility in the management,
conservation, development, protection, utilization and disposition of all
fishery and aquatic resources of the country except municipal waters which
shall be under the municipal or city government concerned: Provided, That
fishpens and seaweed culture in municipal centers shall be under the
jurisdiction of the Bureau: Provided, further, That all municipal or city
ordinances and resolutions affecting fishing and fisheries and any
disposition thereunder shall be submitted to the Secretary for appropriate
action and shall have full force and effect only upon his approval. The
Bureau shall also have authority to regulate and supervise the production,
capture and gathering of fish and fishery/aquatic products.
There is no doubt that under P.D. No. 704 fishing, fishery and
aquatic resources in municipal waters are under the jurisdiction
of the municipal or city government concerned. However, the
same decree imposes a mandatory requirement directing
municipal or city governments to submit ordinances enacted
pertinent to fishing and fishery resources to the Secretary of
Agriculture who now has control and supervision over the
Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR). The
ordinances will attain full force and effect only upon the approval
of the Secretary of Agriculture.
Ordinance 15-92 of Puerto Princesa City, admittedly, was not
submitted to the Secretary of Agriculture through the BFAR for
approval. Such failure of compliance with the law prevented it
from becoming valid and effective. Consequently, Office Order
No. 23 of the Mayor of Puerto Princesa City which seeks to
implement and enforce Ordinance No. 15-92 is also ineffective
as there is nothing to implement.
To say that Sec. 4 of P.D. No. 704 was impliedly repealed by the
Local Government Code is gratuitous. For, if it was the intention
of the legislature to dispense with the requirement of prior
approval by the Secretary of Agriculture of ordinances pertinent
to fishery resources, it would. have expressly repealed Sec. 4
when, in fact, it did so with Secs. 16 and 29 of P.D. No. 704.
Cases abound holding that a repeal by implication is not
presumed or favored considering that the legislature is
presumed to be aware of existing laws; ordinarily, if it intends to
revoke a statute it would manifest such intention in express
terms. 4 Before such a repeal is deemed to exist it should be
shown that the statutes or statutory provisions deal with the
same subject matter and that the latter be inconsistent with the
former. There must be a showing of repugnancy clear and
convincing in character. The language used in the latter statute
must be such as to render it irreconcilable with what has been
formerly enacted. An inconsistency that falls short of that
standard does not suffice. In fact, there is no inconsistency
between the Local Government Code and P.D. No. 704 as
amended. While the Local Government Code vests power upon
the local government to enact ordinances for the general welfare
of its inhabitants, such power is subject to certain limitations
imposed by the Code itself and by other statutes. When the
legislature failed to repeal Sec. 4 of P.D. No. 704 it accepted and
recognized a limitation on the power of the local government to
enact ordinances relative to matters affecting fishery and aquatic
resources. A reading of particular provisions of the Local
Government Code itself will reveal that devolution on the powers
of the local government pertaining to the protection of
environment is limited and not all-encompassing, as will be
discussed in the succeeding paragraphs.
Page 122 of 126
Further, while the Local Government Code is a general law on

the powers, responsibilities and composition of different local
government units, P.D. No. 704 is a special law dealing with the
protection and conservation of fishing and aquatic resources
including those in the municipal waters. Hence, the special law
should prevail over the general law.
There is also P.D. No. 1015 which vests upon the Secretary of
Agriculture the authority to establish closed seasons. Another
existing law on fisheries which has not been repealed by the
Local Government Code is P.D. No. 1219, which provides for the
resources. Section 4 thereof provides that the decree shall be
implemented by the Secretary of Environment and Natural
Resources who shall have jurisdiction and responsibility in the
resources. Section 6 authorizes the Secretary to issue special
permit to any person or institution to gather in limited quantities
any coral for scientific or educational purposes. Section 10
empowers the Secretary to promulgate rules and regulations for
the implementation of this law.
It is true that police power can be exercised through the general
welfare clause. But, while police power is inherent in a state, it is
not so in municipal corporations or local governments. In order
that a local government may exercise police power, there must
be a legislative grant which necessarily sets the limits for the
exercise of the power. 5 In this case, Congress has enacted the
Local Government Code which provides the standards as well
as the limitations in the exercise of the police power by the local
government unit.
Section 2 of the Local Government Code provides for a system
of decentralization whereby local government units are given
more powers, authority, responsibilities and resources, and the
process shall proceed from the national government to the local
government units. However, under Sec 3, par. (i), of the Local
Government Code, the operative principles of decentralization
upon the environment and natural resources are not absolute
when it is provided therein that "local government units shall
share with the national government the responsibility in the
management and maintenance of ecological balance within their
territorial jurisdiction, subject to the provisions of this Code and
national policies." The national policies mentioned here refer to
existing policies which the DENR and other government
agencies concerned with the environment may implement at any
given moment. The national policies are embodied in existing
laws, rules and regulations pertaining to environment and natural
resources, such as P.D. Nos. 704 and 1219 relating to fishery
resources. The above provision was crafted to make sure that
local government enactments do not supplant or negate national
government policies on environment. 6 This is precisely the
reason why the Local Government Code did not repeal Sec. 4 of
P.D. NO. 704 requiring prior submission to and approval by the
Secretary of Agriculture of ordinances relative to fishery and
aquatic resources. Needless to stress, the approval of the
Secretary is necessary in order to ensure that these ordinances
are in accordance with the laws on fisheries and national
policies. Likewise, the jurisdiction of the Secretary of
Environment and Natural Resources over coral resources under
P.D. No. 1219 remains.
The core of the devolution adopted by the Local Government
Code is found in Sec. 17 thereof which reiterates the basic
services and facilities to be rendered by the local governments.
With respect to the protection and conservation of fisheries, Sec.
17, par. 2 (i), specifically provides that the municipality shall
conduct "extension and on-site research services and facilities
related to agriculture and fishery activities which include
dispersal of livestock and poultry, fingerlings and other seeding
materials for aquaculture
. . . . and enforcement of fishery laws in municipal waters
including the conservation of mangroves . . . ." The power
devolved upon the municipality under the Local Government
Code is the enforcement of existing fishery laws of the State and
not the enactment thereof. While a local government unit may
adopt ordinances upon subjects covered by law or statute, such
ordinances should be in accordance with and not repugnant to
the law. 7 In view thereof, ordinances which may be enacted by
the municipality or city should be pursuant to the provisions of
P.D. Nos. 704, 1015 and 1219. Thus, under the provisions of
Secs. 447, par. 1 (vi), 458, par. 1 (vi) and 468, par. 1 (vi), the
municipality, city and province respectively may approve
ordinances protecting the environment by specifically penalizing
only those acts which endanger the environment such as
dynamite fishing and other forms of destructive fishing which are
already prohibited under P.D. Nos. 704 and 1219, and other
laws on illegal fishing. 8
The questioned ordinances may also be struck down for being
not only a prohibitory legislation but also an unauthorized
exercise of delegation of powers. An objective, however worthy

or desirable it may be, such as the protection and conservation
of our fisheries in this case, can be attained by a measure that
does not encompass too wide a field. The purpose can be
achieved by reasonable restrictions rather than by absolute
prohibition. Local governments are not possessed with
prohibitory powers but only regulatory powers under the general
welfare clause. 9 They cannot therefore exceed the powers
granted to them by the Code by altogether prohibiting fishing
and selling for five (5) years all live fishes through Ordinance No.
15-92 and coral organisms through Ordinance No. 2-93 involving
even lawful methods of fishing.
These prohibitions are tantamount to the establishment of a
closed season for fish and aquatic resources which authority is
not among those powers vested by the Local Government Code
to the local government units. For the authority to establish a
closed season for fisheries is vested upon the Secretary of
Agriculture by virtue of P.D. Nos. 704 and 1015 and in the
Secretary of Environment and Natural resources pursuant to
P.D. No. 1219 in relation to coral resources. The power of the
local governments is confined and limited to ensuring that these
national fishery laws are implemented and enforced within their
territorial jurisdictions. Hence, any memorandum of agreement
which might have been executed by the Department of
Agriculture or Department of Environment and Natural
Resources granting additional powers and functions to the local
governments which are not vested upon the latter by the Local
Government Code because such powers are covered by existing
statutes, is an undue delegation of power and, consequently,
null and void.
The majority also cites R.A. No. 7611, otherwise known as the
Strategic Environmental Plan (SEP) for Palawan Act, as proof of
the power of the local governments of Palawan and Puerto
Princesa City to issue the assailed ordinances. Although the
objectives of R.A. No. 7611 and of the ordinances are one and
the same, i.e., the protection, conservation and development of
natural resources, the former does not grant additional powers to
the local governments pertaining to the environment. In fact, the
law adopts a comprehensive framework which shall serve to
direct and guide local governments and national government
agencies in the implementation of programs and projects
affecting Palawan. With the enactment of this Act, the local
governments are mandated to coordinate and align their
developmental plans, projects and budgets in accord with the
framework of the SEP. It can be said that this is another
limitation on the exercise of police power by the local
governments of Palawan and Puerto Princesa City because the
governance, implementation and policy direction of the SEP
shall be exercised by the Palawan Council for Sustainable
Development (PCSD) which is under the Office of the President.
Finally, I find unreasonable Resolution No. 2-93 of Palawan and
Ordinance No. 15-92 of Puerto Princesa City. The prohibitions
set forth are not germane to the accomplishment of their goals.
Ordinance No. 15-92 is aimed to free effectively the marine
resources of Puerto Princesa from cyanide and other obnoxious
substances. But the means to achieve this objective borders on
the excessive and irrational, for the edict would absolutely ban
the shipment of live fishes and lobsters out of the city for a
period of five (5) years without prohibiting cyanide fishing itself
which is the professed goal of the ordinance. The purpose of
Resolution No. 2-93, on the other hand, is to protect and
preserve all marine coral-dwelling organisms from devastation
and destruction by illegal fishing activities, e.g., dynamite fishing,
sodium cyanide fishing, and the use of other obnoxious
substances. But in absolutely prohibiting the catching, gathering,
by any means including those lawfully executed or done in the
pursuit of legitimate occupation, the ordinance overstepped the
reasonable limits and boundaries of its raison d'etre. This I
cannot help viewing as plain arbitrariness masquerading as
police power. For the consequent deprivation of the main source
of livelihood of the people of Palawan can only be regarded as
utter depravation of this awesome power of the State.
For all the foregoing, I vote to grant the petition.
Kapunan and Hermosisima, Jr., JJ., concur.
First Philippine Industrial Corporation vs CA 300 SCRA 661 GR

125948 December 29 1998

SUPREME COURT
Manila
Page 123 of 126
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 125948 December 29, 1998

FIRST PHILIPPINE INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION, petitioner,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS, HONORABLE PATERNO V. TAC-AN,
BATANGAS CITY and ADORACION C. ARELLANO, in her official
capacity as City Treasurer of Batangas, respondents.
MARTINEZ, J.:
This petition for review on certiorari assails the Decision of the Court
of Appeals dated November 29, 1995, in CA-G.R. SP No. 36801,
affirming the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Batangas City,
Branch 84, in Civil Case No. 4293, which dismissed petitioners'
complaint for a business tax refund imposed by the City of Batangas.
Petitioner is a grantee of a pipeline concession under Republic Act
No. 387, as amended, to contract, install and operate oil pipelines.
1
The original pipeline concession was granted in 1967 and renewed
by the Energy Regulatory Board in 1992. 2
Sometime in January 1995, petitioner applied for a mayor's permit
with the Office of the Mayor of Batangas City. However, before the
mayor's permit could be issued, the respondent City Treasurer
required petitioner to pay a local tax based on its gross receipts for
the fiscal year 1993 pursuant to the Local Government Code 3. The
respondent City Treasurer assessed a business tax on the petitioner
amounting to P956,076.04 payable in four installments based on the
gross receipts for products pumped at GPS-1 for the fiscal year 1993
which amounted to P181,681,151.00. In order not to hamper its
operations, petitioner paid the tax under protest in the amount of
P239,019.01 for the first quarter of 1993.
On January 20, 1994, petitioner filed a letter-protest addressed to the
respondent City Treasurer, the pertinent portion of which reads:
Please note that our Company (FPIC) is a pipeline operator with a
government concession granted under the Petroleum Act. It is
engaged in the business of transporting petroleum products from the
Batangas refineries, via pipeline, to Sucat and JTF Pandacan
Terminals. As such, our Company is exempt from paying tax on
gross receipts under Section 133 of the Local Government Code of
1991 . . . .
Moreover, Transportation contractors are not included in the
enumeration of contractors under Section 131, Paragraph (h) of the
Local Government Code. Therefore, the authority to impose tax "on
contractors and other independent contractors" under Section 143,
Paragraph (e) of the Local Government Code does not include the
power to levy on transportation contractors.
The imposition and assessment cannot be categorized as a mere fee
authorized under Section 147 of the Local Government Code. The
said section limits the imposition of fees and charges on business to
such amounts as may be commensurate to the cost of regulation,
inspection, and licensing. Hence, assuming arguendo that FPIC is
liable for the license fee, the imposition thereof based on gross
receipts is violative of the aforecited provision. The amount of
P956,076.04 (P239,019.01 per quarter) is not commensurate to the
cost of regulation, inspection and licensing. The fee is already a
revenue raising measure, and not a mere regulatory imposition. 4
On March 8, 1994, the respondent City Treasurer denied the protest
contending that petitioner cannot be considered engaged in
transportation business, thus it cannot claim exemption under
5
Section 133 (j) of the Local Government Code.
On June 15, 1994, petitioner filed with the Regional Trial Court of
Batangas City a complaint 6 for tax refund with prayer for writ of
preliminary injunction against respondents City of Batangas and
Adoracion Arellano in her capacity as City Treasurer. In its complaint,
petitioner alleged, inter alia, that: (1) the imposition and collection of
the business tax on its gross receipts violates Section 133 of the
Local Government Code; (2) the authority of cities to impose and
collect a tax on the gross receipts of "contractors and independent
contractors" under Sec. 141 (e) and 151 does not include the
authority to collect such taxes on transportation contractors for, as
defined under Sec. 131 (h), the term "contractors" excludes
transportation contractors; and, (3) the City Treasurer illegally and
erroneously imposed and collected the said tax, thus meriting the
immediate refund of the tax paid. 7
Traversing the complaint, the respondents argued that petitioner
cannot be exempt from taxes under Section 133 (j) of the Local
Government Code as said exemption applies only to "transportation
contractors and persons engaged in the transportation by hire and
common carriers by air, land and water." Respondents assert that
pipelines are not included in the term "common carrier" which refers
solely to ordinary carriers such as trucks, trains, ships and the like.
Respondents further posit that the term "common carrier" under the
said code pertains to the mode or manner by which a product is
delivered to its destination. 8
On October 3, 1994, the trial court rendered a decision dismissing the
complaint, ruling in this wise:
. . . Plaintiff is either a contractor or other independent contractor.
. . . the exemption to tax claimed by the plaintiff has become unclear.
It is a rule that tax exemptions are to be strictly construed against the
taxpayer, taxes being the lifeblood of the government. Exemption
may therefore be granted only by clear and unequivocal provisions of
law.
Plaintiff claims that it is a grantee of a pipeline concession under
Republic Act 387. (Exhibit A) whose concession was lately renewed
by the Energy Regulatory Board (Exhibit B). Yet neither said law nor
the deed of concession grant any tax exemption upon the plaintiff.
Even the Local Government Code imposes a tax on franchise holders
under Sec. 137 of the Local Tax Code. Such being the situation
obtained in this case (exemption being unclear and equivocal) resort
to distinctions or other considerations may be of help:
1. That the exemption granted under Sec. 133 (j) encompasses only
common carriers so as not to overburden the riding public or
commuters with taxes. Plaintiff is not a common carrier, but a special
carrier extending its services and facilities to a single specific or
"special customer" under a "special contract."
2. The Local Tax Code of 1992 was basically enacted to give more
and effective local autonomy to local governments than the previous
enactments, to make them economically and financially viable to
serve the people and discharge their functions with a concomitant
obligation to accept certain devolution of powers, . . . So, consistent
with this policy even franchise grantees are taxed (Sec. 137) and
contractors are also taxed under Sec. 143 (e) and 151 of the Code. 9
Petitioner assailed the aforesaid decision before this Court via a
petition for review. On February 27, 1995, we referred the case to the
respondent Court of Appeals for consideration and
adjudication. 10 On November 29, 1995, the respondent court
rendered a decision 11 affirming the trial court's dismissal of
petitioner's complaint. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was
12
denied on July 18, 1996.
Hence, this petition. At first, the petition was denied due course in a
Resolution dated November 11, 1996. 13 Petitioner moved for a
reconsideration which was granted by this Court in a Resolution 14 of
January 22, 1997. Thus, the petition was reinstated.
Petitioner claims that the respondent Court of Appeals erred in
holding that (1) the petitioner is not a common carrier or a
transportation contractor, and (2) the exemption sought for by
petitioner is not clear under the law.
There is merit in the petition.
A "common carrier" may be defined, broadly, as one who holds
himself out to the public as engaged in the business of transporting
persons or property from place to place, for compensation, offering
his services to the public generally.
Art. 1732 of the Civil Code defines a "common carrier" as "any
person, corporation, firm or association engaged in the business of
carrying or transporting passengers or goods or both, by land, water,
or air, for compensation, offering their services to the public."
The test for determining whether a party is a common carrier of
goods is:
1. He must be engaged in the business of carrying goods for others
as a public employment, and must hold himself out as ready to
Page 124 of 126
engage in the transportation of goods for person generally as a

business and not as a casual occupation;
2. He must undertake to carry goods of the kind to which his
business is confined;
3. He must undertake to carry by the method by which his business is
conducted and over his established roads; and
4. The transportation must be for hire. 15
Based on the above definitions and requirements, there is no doubt
that petitioner is a common carrier. It is engaged in the business of
transporting or carrying goods, i.e. petroleum products, for hire as a
public employment. It undertakes to carry for all persons
indifferently, that is, to all persons who choose to employ its
services, and transports the goods by land and for compensation.
The fact that petitioner has a limited clientele does not exclude it
from the definition of a common carrier. In De Guzman vs. Court of
Appeals 16 we ruled that:
The above article (Art. 1732, Civil Code) makes no distinction
between one whose principal business activity is the carrying of
persons or goods or both, and one who does such carrying only as
an ancillary activity (in local idiom, as a "sideline"). Article 1732 . . .
avoids making any distinction between a person or enterprise
offering transportation service on a regular or scheduled basis and
one offering such service on an occasional, episodic or unscheduled
basis. Neither does Article 1732 distinguish between a carrier offering
its services to the "general public," i.e., the general community or
population, and one who offers services or solicits business only
from a narrow segment of the general population. We think that
Article 1877 deliberately refrained from making such distinctions.
So understood, the concept of "common carrier" under Article 1732
may be seen to coincide neatly with the notion of "public service,"
under the Public Service Act (Commonwealth Act No. 1416, as
amended) which at least partially supplements the law on common
carriers set forth in the Civil Code. Under Section 13, paragraph (b) of
the Public Service Act, "public service" includes:
every person that now or hereafter may own, operate. manage, or
control in the Philippines, for hire or compensation, with general or
limited clientele, whether permanent, occasional or accidental, and
done for general business purposes, any common carrier, railroad,
street railway, traction railway, subway motor vehicle, either for
freight or passenger, or both, with or without fixed route and
whatever may be its classification, freight or carrier service of any
class, express service, steamboat, or steamship line, pontines,
ferries and water craft, engaged in the transportation of passengers
or freight or both, shipyard, marine repair shop, wharf or dock, ice
plant, ice-refrigeration plant, canal, irrigation system gas, electric
light heat and power, water supply and power petroleum, sewerage
system, wire or wireless communications systems, wire or wireless
broadcasting stations and other similar public services. (Emphasis
Supplied)
Also, respondent's argument that the term "common carrier" as used
in Section 133 (j) of the Local Government Code refers only to
common carriers transporting goods and passengers through
moving vehicles or vessels either by land, sea or water, is erroneous.
As correctly pointed out by petitioner, the definition of "common
carriers" in the Civil Code makes no distinction as to the means of
transporting, as long as it is by land, water or air. It does not provide
that the transportation of the passengers or goods should be by
motor vehicle. In fact, in the United States, oil pipe line operators are
considered common carriers. 17
Under the Petroleum Act of the Philippines (Republic Act 387),
petitioner is considered a "common carrier." Thus, Article 86 thereof
provides that:
Art. 86. Pipe line concessionaire as common carrier. A pipe line
shall have the preferential right to utilize installations for the
transportation of petroleum owned by him, but is obligated to utilize
the remaining transportation capacity pro rata for the transportation
of such other petroleum as may be offered by others for transport,
and to charge without discrimination such rates as may have been
approved by the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources.
Republic Act 387 also regards petroleum operation as a public utility.
Pertinent portion of Article 7 thereof provides:
that everything relating to the exploration for and exploitation of
petroleum . . . and everything relating to the manufacture, refining,
storage, or transportation by special methods of petroleum, is hereby
declared to be a public utility. (Emphasis Supplied)
. . . since [petitioner] is a pipeline concessionaire that is engaged

only in transporting petroleum products, it is considered a common
carrier under Republic Act No. 387 . . . . Such being the case, it is not
subject to withholding tax prescribed by Revenue Regulations No.
13-78, as amended.
From the foregoing disquisition, there is no doubt that petitioner is a
"common carrier" and, therefore, exempt from the business tax as
provided for in Section 133 (j), of the Local Government Code, to wit:
Sec. 133. Common Limitations on the Taxing Powers of Local
Government Units. Unless otherwise provided herein, the exercise
of the taxing powers of provinces, cities, municipalities, and
barangays shall not extend to the levy of the following:
xxx xxx xxx
(j) Taxes on the gross receipts of transportation contractors and
persons engaged in the transportation of passengers or freight by
hire and common carriers by air, land or water, except as provided in
this Code.
The deliberations conducted in the House of Representatives on the
Local Government Code of 1991 are illuminating:
MR. AQUINO (A). Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, we would like to proceed to page 95, line
1. It states: "SEC. 121 [now Sec. 131]. Common Limitations on the
Taxing Powers of Local Government Units." . . .
MR. AQUINO (A.). Thank you Mr. Speaker.
Still on page 95, subparagraph 5, on taxes on the business of
transportation. This appears to be one of those being deemed to be
exempted from the taxing powers of the local government units. May
we know the reason why the transportation business is being
excluded from the taxing powers of the local government units?
MR. JAVIER (E.). Mr. Speaker, there is an exception contained in
Section 121 (now Sec. 131), line 16, paragraph 5. It states that local
government units may not impose taxes on the business of
transportation, except as otherwise provided in this code.
Now, Mr. Speaker, if the Gentleman would care to go to page 98 of
Book II, one can see there that provinces have the power to impose a
tax on business enjoying a franchise at the rate of not more than onehalf of 1 percent of the gross annual receipts. So, transportation
contractors who are enjoying a franchise would be subject to tax by
the province. That is the exception, Mr. Speaker.
What we want to guard against here, Mr. Speaker, is the imposition of
taxes by local government units on the carrier business. Local
government units may impose taxes on top of what is already being
imposed by the National Internal Revenue Code which is the socalled "common carriers tax." We do not want a duplication of this
tax, so we just provided for an exception under Section 125 [now Sec.
137] that a province may impose this tax at a specific rate.
MR. AQUINO (A.). Thank you for that clarification, Mr. Speaker. . . . 18
It is clear that the legislative intent in excluding from the taxing power
of the local government unit the imposition of business tax against
common carriers is to prevent a duplication of the so-called
"common carrier's tax."
Petitioner is already paying three (3%) percent common carrier's tax
on its gross sales/earnings under the National Internal Revenue
Code. 19 To tax petitioner again on its gross receipts in its
transportation of petroleum business would defeat the purpose of the
Local Government Code.
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby GRANTED. The decision of the
respondent Court of Appeals dated November 29, 1995 in CA-G.R. SP
No. 36801 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
SO ORDERED.
Bellosillo, Puno and Mendoza, JJ., concur.
The Bureau of Internal Revenue likewise considers the petitioner a

"common carrier." In BIR Ruling No. 069-83, it declared:
Page 125 of 126
Page 126 of 126

Week 8 and Week 9

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Week 8 and Week 9

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Week 8 and Week 9

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Week 9 and week 9

G.R. No. L-24757

October 25, 1967

MARCOS B. COMILANG, petitioner-appellant,

On February 9, 1959, the Director of Mines recommended the issuance of

questions involved in both cases pertain to the legality or validity of those

Republic of the Philippines

G.R. No. 162243

HON. HEHERSON ALVAREZ substituted by HON. ELISEA G. GOZUN,

July 29, 1969 between the government and PICOPs

G.R. No. 164516

b) PICOP tenure over the said area of TLA No. 43 and

G.R. No. 171875

The Respondent Secretary Alvarez is likewise ordered to pay petitioner the

WITH DUE RESPECT, THE HONORABLE COURT, IN REVERSING THE

SEC. 3. Petition for mandamus.When any tribunal, corporation, board,

PICOP FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE PAYMENT OF FOREST

An examination of the Presidential Warranty at once reveals that it simply

PICOP is, thus, insisting that the government is obligated by contract to

The Presidential Warranty cannot be considered a contract distinct from

Needless to say, all licenses may thus be revoked or rescinded by

of managerial, technical, economic and manpower resources between

of private entities. Granting to private entities, via a contract, a permanent,

a property in the constitutional sense, as to which the constitutional

implemented. Implementation of this policy is tackled in Sections 5 to 12 of

regulation and management of forest resources, the determination of

Arayan and that, since neither Orlanes nor Arayan was

person in the performance of a duty specially enjoined by law, are prima

displacement by force, deceit, stealth or as a consequence of government

Surprisingly, the disapproval by the other provinces did go unnoticed

controlled corporations. PICOPs project or the automatic conversion is a

likewise have a stake in the resources in the area, and deserve to be

2. to issue the necessary permit allowing petitioner to act and harvest

c) The peaceful and adequate enjoyment by PICOP of the area as

petition are patently illegal; in derogation of the constitutional rights of

(g) Employment of Foreign Nationals. Subject to the provisions of

Foreign nationals under employment contract within the purview of this

Directors of each such financial institution what order of priority shall be

Section 18. The State may, in the interest of national welfare or

Republic of the Philippines

LA BUGAL-B'LAAN TRIBAL ASSOCIATION, INC., Represented by its

PHILIPPINE PARTNERSHIP FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF HUMAN

Memoranda were accordingly filed by the intervenor as well as by

In declaring unconstitutional certain provisions of RA 7942, DAO 96-40,

While the discussion in their Final Memorandum was skimpy, petitioners in

Petitioners have assumed as fact that which has yet to be established.

the mere enactment of the questioned law or the approval of the

"The fundamental principle in constitutional construction

Constitution. There has to be a much more definite and even unarguable

The following exchange leaves no doubt that the commissioners knew

NOTIFY CONGRESS OF EVERY SERVICE CONTRACT

THE PRESIDENT. What does the Committee say with respect to

This provision was prompted by the perceived insufficiency of

exploration, development and utilization of the country's natural resources,

Police, barangay, duly registered non-governmental organization

6. Sales and marketing

The objection, however, is not well-founded. While the Constitution

13. The contractor, after conducting feasibility studies, shall