15. GR No. 127882/La Bugal-B’Laan Tribal Association, Inc. v.

Victor Ramos/January 27, 2004

Facts: President Corazon Aquino issued Executive Order (EO) 279, as part of her interim legislative power which
authorizes the DENR Secretary to accept, consider and evaluate proposals from foreign-owned corporations or
foreign investors for contracts or agreements involving either technical or financial assistance for large-scale
exploration, development, and utilization of minerals, which, upon appropriate recommendation of the Secretary,
the she may execute with the foreign proponent. President Fidel Ramos approved RA 7942 known as the Mining
Act to "govern the exploration, development, utilization and processing of all mineral resources. Shortly, after its
effectivity, the President entered into a Financial and Technical Assistance Agreement (FTAA)
with Western Mining Corporation Philippines (WMCP) which is owned by WMC Resources International Pty., Ltd.
(The latter is a wholly owned subsidiary of Western Mining Corporation Holdings Limited, a publicly listed major
Australian mining and exploration company.), covering 99, 387 hectares of land in South Cotabato, Sultan Kuradat,
Davao del Sur and North
Cotabato. Then DENR Secretary Victor O. Ramos issued DENR Administrative Order (DAO) No. 95-23, s. 1995,
known as the Implementing Rules and Regulations of the said RA 7942 which was later repealed by DAO No. 96-40,
s. 1996. Counsels for petitioners sent a letter to the DENR Secretary demanding that the DENR stop the
implementation of the said law and its
implementing rules giving the DENR fifteen days from receipt to act thereon. The DENR, however, has yet to
respond or act on petitioner’s letter. The petitioners filed the present petition for prohibition and mandamus, with
a prayer for a temporary restraining order alleging that at the time of the filing of the petition, 100 FTAA
applications has already been filed, covering an area of 8.4 million hectares, 64 of the application are by fully
foreign-owned corporations, and at least one by a fully foreign-owned mining
company over offshore areas. They are questioning the effectivity of EO 279 which says that the effectivity of the
said presidential issuance is contrary to what is provided in EO 200 which says laws are effective after fifteen (15)
days following its publication. Given this, the power of that issuance has ceased to exist because prior to the lapse
of the 15-day period Congress has convened making the powers to legislate by the President ceased to exist. The
FTAA issued by the President with WMC, the original company before it was called WMCP. They also claim that the
DENR Secretary acted without or in excess of jurisdiction on the
ground of the issuance of DAO No. 96-40 regulations of RA 7942, which the latter is unconstitutional for it: a.)
allows fully foreign-owned corporations to explore, develop, utilize and exploit mineral resources in a manner
contrary to Sec. 2, par. 4, Art. XII of the Constitution; b.) allows the taking of private property without the
determination of public use and for just compensation; c.) violates Sec. 1, Art. III of the Constitution; d.) allows
enjoyment by foreign citizens as well as fully foreign owned corporations of the nation’s marine wealth contrary to
Sec. 2, par. 2 of Art. XII of the Constitution; e.) allows priority to foreign and fully foreign owned corporations in the
exploration, development and utilization of mineral resources contrary to Art. XII of the Constitution; f.) allows the
inequitable sharing of wealth contrary to Sec. 1, par. 1. and Sec. 2, par. 4 of Art. XII of the Constitution. Moreover,
in recommending approval of and implementing the FTAA between the President and WMCP because the same is
illegal and
unconstitutional. They pray that the Court issue an order: a.) permanently enjoining the respondents from
acting on any application for FTAAs; b.) declaring RA 7942 as unconstitutional and null and void; c.) declaring the
IRR contained in DAO 96-40 and all other similar administrative issuances as unconstitutional and null and void;
and d.) cancelling the FTAA issued to WMCP as unconstitutional, illegal and null and void. Respondents argued that
the EO 279 is constitutional according to the ruling in Miners Association of the Philippines vs. Factoran. They
further argues that the first three requisites to warrant judicial review in this case are not present such as absence
of actual controversy and legal standing of the petitioners and the question is not raised at the earliest
opportunity. On the issue of the constitutionality of the DAO 96-40, respondents insisted that “agreements
involving technical or financial assistance” is just another term for service contracts as reflected in the
deliberations of the Constitutional Commission preparing the draft of the 1987 Constitution.

Issues
Procedural Issue
1. Is there a violation on the rule of hierarchy of courts against the petitioners?
 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 15-
day 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, applies 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 omisso 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 by-
products 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.