LEAGUE OF PROVINCES OF THE PHILIPPINES v.
DENR and Secretary The DENR Secretary decided in favor of the AMTC and nullified and cancelled the governors
GR. No. 175368 April 11, 2013
Petitioner: League of Provinces - a duly organized league of local governments incorporated
under the Local Government Code; it is composed of 81 provincial governments, including the
Province of Bulacan
Respondent: DENR and DENR Secretary Angelo Reyes
Other parties:
Golden Falcon Mineral Exploration Corporation (Golden Falcon) applicant for a
Financial and Technical Assistance Agreement (FTAA); filed before Mines and Geosciences
Bureau, Regional Office No. III (MGB-RO); application was denied twice
Mercado, Cruz, Cruz and Sembrano (MCCS) applicants for Quarry Permit; filed before the
Provincial Environment and Natural Resources Office (PENRO) of Bulacan
Atlantic Mines and Trading Corporation (AMTC) applicant for Exploration Permit; filed
before the PENRO of Bulacan
FACTS
Golden Falcon applied for FTAA before the MGB-RO. On April 29, 1998, MGB-RO denied Golden
Falcons application for FTAA on for failure to secure the required area clearances from the
Forest Management Sector and Lands Management Sector of the DENR-RO. Golden Falcon
appealed the denial with the Mines and Geosciences Bureau-Central Office (MGB-CO).
On February 10, 2004, pending Golden Falcon's appeal to the MGB-CO, MCCS filed with the
PENRO of Bulacan their applications for quarry permit covering the same area subject of
Golden Falcon's FTAA application. MGB-CO finally denied Golden Falcons appeal on July 16,
2004.
AMTC filed with the PENRO of Bulacan an application for exploration permit covering the
same subject area on September 13, 2004. Confusion of rights resulted from the overlapping
applications of AMTC and the persons applying for quarry permits the contention was the date
the area of Golden Falcons application became open to other permit applications from other
parties
On October 19, 2004, upon query by MGB-RO Director Cabantog, DENR-MGB Director Ramos
stated that the denial of Golden Falcons application became final on August 11, 2004, or fifteen
days after Golden Falcon received the order of denial of its application. Hence, the area of
Golden Falcons application became open to permit applications only on that date.
Subsequently, the Provincial Legal Officer of Bulacan issued a legal opinion on the issue, stating
that the subject area became open for new applications on the date of the first denial
on April 29, 1998 (MGB-ROs order of denial), as MGB-COs order of denial on July 16,
2004 was a mere reaffirmation of the MGB-ROs April 29 order; hence, the reckoning period
should be April 29.
Based on this legal opinion, MGB-RO Director Cabantog endorsed the applications for quarry
permit, now apparently converted to applications for small-scale mining permit, to
the Governor of Bulacan. PENRO of Bulacan recommended to the Governor the approval of said
applications. Eventually, the Governor issued the small-scale mining permits. AMTC appealed to
the DENR Secretary.
issuance of small-scale mining permits. It agreed with DENR-MGB Director Ramos that the area
was open to mining location only on August 11, 2004 (15 days after the MGB-CO denial). Hence,
the applications for quarry permit filed on February 10, 2004 were null as these were filed when
the area was still closed to mining location. On the other hand, AMTC filed its application when
the area was already open to other mining applicants, hence, its application was valid. The
small-scale mining permits were also issued in violation of Section 4 of R.A. No. 7076 and
beyond the authority of the Governor pursuant to Sec. 43 of RA 7942 because the area was
never proclaimed to be under the small-scale mining program.
The petitioner League of the Provinces of the Philippines filed this petition saying that that this is
not an action of one province alone, but the collective action of all provinces through the
League, as a favorable ruling will not only benefit one province, but all provinces and all local
governments.
ISSUES
1. Whether DENRs act of nullifying the small-scale mining permits amounts to executive control,
not merely supervision and usurps the devolved powers of all provinces, as the DENR Secretary
substituted the judgment of the Provincial Governor of Bulacan.
2. Whether or not Section 17, b(3)(III) of the Local Government Code and Section 24 of the
Small-Scale Mining Act, which confer upon DENR and the DENR Secretary the power of control
are unconstitutional, as the Constitution states that the President (and Exec Depts) has the
power of supervision only, not control over acts of LGUs
RULING
[The Court finds that petitioner has legal standing to file this petition because it is tasked under
Section 504 of the Local Government Code of 1991 to promote local autonomy at the provincial
level; adopt measures for the promotion of the welfare of all provinces and its officials and
employees; and exercise such other powers and perform such other duties and functions as the
league may prescribe for the welfare of the provinces.]
DENR Secs act was valid and authorized pursuant to its power of review under the
RA 7076 and its IRR; Assailed statutes did not overcome the presumption of
constitutionality, hence, are not unconstitutional.
Control of the DENR/DENR Secretary over small-scale mining in the provinces is granted by
three statutes: (1) R.A. 7061 or The Local Government Code of 1991; (2) R.A. 7076 or the
People's Small Scale Mining Act of 1991; and (3) R.A. No. 7942 or the Philippine Mining Act of
1995.
Control is the power of an officer to alter or modify or set aside what a subordinate officer had
done in the performance of his/her duties and to substitute the judgment of the former for the
latter. Supervision is the power of a superior officer to see to it that lower officers perform their
function in accordance with law.
The Constitutional guarantee of local autonomy in the Article X, Sec. 2 of the Constitution refers
to the administrative autonomy of the LGUs or the decentralization of government authority.
It does not make local governments within the State. Administrative autonomy may involve
devolution of powers, but it is still subject to limitations, like following national policies or
standards and those provided by the Local Government Code, as the structuring of LGUs and
the allocation of powers/responsibilities/resources among the LGUs and local officials are placed
by the Constitution to Congress under Article X Section 3.
 Petition was dismissed for lack of merit.
It is the DENR which is in-charge of carrying out the States constitutional mandate to control
and supervise the exploration, development and utilization of the countrys natural resources,
pursuant to the provisions of Section 17, b(3)(III) of the LGC. Hence, the enforcement of the
small-scale mining law by the provincial government is subject to the supervision,
control and review of the DENR. The LGC did not fully devolve to the provincial
government the enforcement of the small-scale mining law.

RA 7076 or the Peoples Small-Scale Mining program was established to be implemented

by the DENR Secretary in coordination with other government agencies (Section 4, RA 7076).
Section 24 of the law makes the Provincial/ Mining Regulatory Board under the direct
supervision and control of the Secretary, its powers and functions subject to review
by the same.

Under Section 123 of DENR AO No. 23, small-scale mining applications should be filed with the
PMRB and the permits shall be issued by the provincial governor, for applications outside the
mineral reservations.

DENR Administrative Order No. 34 (1992) which contains the IRR of RA 7076 likewise provides
that the DENR Secretary shall exercise direct supervision and control over the Peoples Small-
Scale Mining Program, and that the Provincial/City Mining Regulatory Boards (PMRB) powers
and functions shall be subject to review by the DENR Secretary. DENR Administrative Order No.
96-40 or the Revised IRR of the Philippine Mining Act of 1995 provides that applications for
Small-Scale Mining Permits shall be filed with the Provincial Governor/City Mayor through their
respective Mining Regulatory Boards for areas outside the Mineral Reservations, and further,
that the LGUs in coordination with the Bureau/Regional Offices shall approve applications for
small-scale mining, sand and gravel, quarry xxx and gravel permits not exceeding 5 hectares.

Petitioners contention that the aforementioned laws and rules did not confer upon DENR and
DENR Secretary the power to reverse, abrogate, nullify, void, cancel the permits issued by the
Provincial Governor or small-scale mining contracts entered into by the Board are without merit
because the DENR Secretary was granted the power of review in the PMRBs
resolution of disputes under Sec. 24 of RA 7076 and Section 22 of its IRR. The
decision of the DENR Secretary to nullify and cancel the Governors issuance of
permits emanated from its power of review under RA 7076 ad its IRR. Its power to
review and decide on the validity of the issuance of the Small-Scale Mining Permits by the
Provincial Governor is a quasi-judicial function which involves the determination of what the
law is and what the legal rights of the contending parties are, with respect to the matter in
controversy and on the basis thereof and the facts obtaining, the adjudication of their respective
rights.

The DENR Secretary exercises quasi-judicial function under RA 7076 and its IRR to
the extent necessary in settling disputes, conflicts, or litigations over conflicting
claims. This quasi-judicial power of the DENR can neither be equated with
substitution of judgment of the Provincial Governor in issuing Small-Scale Mining
Permits nor control over the said act of the Provincial Governor as it is a
determination of the rights of the AMTC over conflicting claims based on the law.

In Beltran v. Secretary of Health, the Court held that every law has in its favor the presumption
of constitutionality. For a law to be nullified, it must be shown that there is a clear and
unequivocal breach of the Constitution. The ground for nullity must be clear and beyond
reasonable doubt. In this case, the grounds raised by the petitioner to challenge the
constitutionality of Sec. 17 b(3)(iii) of the LGC and Section 24 of RA 7076 has failed to overcome
the constitutionality of the said provisions of the law.