Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Substantive Issue 1. Is the petition a justiciable question given that the petition was raised after two years of the execution of the FTAA? 2. When did EO 279 become effective, as provided in the presidential issuance itself or as provided in EO 200? 3. Is RA 7942 constitutional? 4. Is DAO 96-40 valid? 5. Is the WMCP FTAA valid? Rulings According to the Cited Issues Procedural Issue 1. Although the Supreme Court has concurrent jurisdiction with the Regional Trial Courts and the Court of Appeals to issue writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus and injunction, such concurrence does not give a party unrestricted freedom of choice of court forum. It is allowed to directly file the petition in the Supreme Court where the redress desired cannot be obtained in the appropriate courts or where exceptional and compelling circumstances justify such invocation as held in People vs. Cuaresma. The issues raised constitute exceptional and compelling circumstances to justify the direct petition. The Court has the discretion to take cognizance of a suit which does not satisfy the requirements of an actual or legal standing when paramount importance to the public interest is involved. Thus, the Court may brush aside technicalities of procedure. Substantive Issues 1. The issue is justiciable on the ground that this requisite should not be taken to mean that the question of constitutionality must be raised immediately after the execution of the state action complained of. That the question of constitutionality has not been raised before is not a valid reason for refusing to allow it to be raised later. A contrary rule would mean that a law, otherwise unconstitutional, would lapse into constitutionality by the mere failure of the proper party to promptly file a case to challenge the same. 2. Nothing in EO 200 which prevents a law from taking effects on a date other thaneven before- the 15day period after its publication. Where a law provides for its own date of effectivity, such date prevails over that prescribed by said issuance. It is the very essence of the phrase unless it is otherwise provided Sec. 1 of EO 200, therefore, appli es only when a statute does not provide for its own date of effectivity. What is mandatory under EO 200 and what due process requires is the publication of the law for without such notice and publication, there would be no basis for the application of the maxim ignorantia legis n[eminem] excusat It is clear that EO 279 was published in the Official Gazette on August 3, 1987. The said effectivity took place after the convening of the first Congress is irrelevant. At the time President Aquino issued EO 279 on July 25, 1987, she was still validly exercising legislative powers under the Provisional Constitution. The ruling in Miners Association of the Philippines is not applicable since the question raised in the said case was the unconstitutionality of the DAO 57 and 82 which were pursuant to EO 279. 3. As to the third, fourth and last issues, the ruling are consolidated given the relation of the said issuances. The national patrimony or our natural resources are exclusively reserved for the Filipino people. No alien must be allowed to enjoy, exploit and develop our natural resources. As a matter of fact, that principle proceeds from the fact that our natural resources are gifts from God to the Filipino people and it would be a breach of that special blessing from God if we will allow aliens to exploit our natural resources. The phrase management or other forms of assistance in the 1973 Constitution was deleted in the 1987 Constitution, which allows only technical or financial assistance. Casus omisus pro om isso habendus est. A person, object or thing omitted from an enumeration must be held to have been omitted intentionally. The management or operation of mining activities by foreign contractors, which is the primary feature of service contracts, was precisely the evil that the drafters of the 1987 Constitution sought to eradicate. To uphold respondents' theory would reduce the latter to a mere euphemism for the former and render the change in phraseology meaningless. It is apparent that service contracts are not allowed in the 1987 Constitution.
There can be little doubt that the WMCP FTAA itself is a service contract. Section 1.3 of the WMCP FTAA grants WMCP "the exclusive right to explore, exploit, utilize [,] process and dispose of all Minerals products and byproducts thereof that may be produced from the Contract Area." While WMCP invokes the Agreement on the Promotion and Protection of Investments between the Philippine and Australian Governments, the annulment of the FTAA would not be a violation of the principle pacta sunt servanda since the decision forms part of the legal system of the Philippines. Disposition WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Court hereby declares unconstitutional and void: (1) The following provisions of Republic Act No. 7942: (a) The proviso in Section 3 (aq), (b) Section 23, (c) Section 33 to 41, (d) Section 56, (e) The second and third paragraphs of Section 81, and (f) Section 90. (2) All provisions of Department of Environment and Natural Resources Administrative Order 96-40, s. 1996 which are not in conformity with this Decision, and (3) The Financial and Technical Assistance Agreement between the Government of the Republic of the Philippines and WMC Philippines, Inc.