La Bugal-BLaan Tribal Association vs.

Ramos
G.R. no. 127882

Facts:
It was when former President Corazon Aquino issued E.O no. 2796, which authorizes the D.E.N.R
secretary to consider and evaluate proposals from foreign investors for agreements involving either
technical or financial assistance for large-scale exploration, development, and utilization of minerals.
Such agreement will be subject for recommendation of the Secretary, and the President may execute
with the foreign proponent.
During the incumbency of President Fidel Ramos R.A 7942 was approved, the mentioned Act govern the
exploration, development, utilization and processing of all mineral resources. Upon its implementation
on March 10, 1995 and after twenty days, the former President Ramos entered into a FTAA with WMCP.
In relation to the aforeabove statement on August 15, 1995 then DENR Sec. Victor Ramos issued DAO
no. 95-23 (The Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A no. 7942) which was later repealed by DAO
96-40.
The implementation of the said Act was questioned by the petitioners through the filling of a Prohibition
and Mandamus before the court.

Issues:
1. Whether or not the case at hand is a justiciable question?
2. Whether or not mootness prevents the SC for judicial review?
3. Whether or not R.A no. 7942 and DAO 96-40 is unconstitutional.
Conclusion:
1. Yes. Any allegation of infringement of the constitution and settling the same is a courts duty.
2. No. Mootness does not bar the Supreme court for judicial review
3. No. the law (R.A no. 7942 and DAO 96-42) vest in the government more than a sufficient degree
of control and supervision over the conduct of mining operations.
Held:
Wherefore, the court RESOLVES to GRANT the respondents and the intervenors Motions for
reconsideration; to reverse and set aside this courts January 27, 2004 decision; to DISMISS the petition;
and to issue this new judgement declaring CONSTITUTIONAL R.A no. 7942 and DAO no. 96-40 -----
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 the FTAA dated March 30, 1995 executed by the
government and 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.
Ratio Decidendi:
1. When an act of the legislative department is seriously alleged to have infringed the constitution,
settling the controversy becomes the duty of this court. By 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.
2. 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 the
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 vs. COMELEC,
it is evident that strong reasons of public policy demand that the constitutionality issue be
resolved now. In further support of the immediate resolution of the constitutionality the courts
will decide a question --- otherwise moot and academic ---- if it is capable of repetition, yet
evading review. 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 vs. Cruz Puno, in which this court declared that the court also
has the duty to formulate guiding and controlling constitutional principles, precepts, doctrine or
rules. It has the symbolic function of educating the bench and bar on the extent of protection
given by constitutional guarantees.
3. Considering the provision 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 enterprises, 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, R.A 7942 and DAO 96-40 vest in the
government more than a sufficient degree of control and supervision over the conduct of mining
operation.