2. State two legal maxims found in the case.

How were these maxims applied in order to understand the legal issues? In the case of La Bugal-Blaan Tribal Association, Inc. versus Victor O. Ramos, Secretary, Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the court as well as the petitioners applied legal maxims to further elaborate and explain the true essence of the provision in controversy based on their own interpretations. Paragraph 4 of Section 2 of Article XII of the 1987 Constitution provides that: 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 present case posits three issues to be resolved. In relation to statutory construction, the main issue that needs prompt resolution by the court is to determine 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. Herein petitioners aver that such provision shall be interpreted in its own simple meaning applying Verba Legis interpretation or also known as the plainmeaning rule. According to the plain meaning rule, statutes are to be interpreted using its ordinary meaning, if a statute explicitly defines some of its terms then it shall be followed. In other words, the law is to be read word for word and should not divert from its ordinary meaning. Stressing that where the language of the law is clear and unambiguous, it must be given its literal application and applied without interpretation. In the present case, they claim that the language and words used by the drafters of the constitution is clear and by no means be considered as ambiguous. Their argument gives rise to a restriction and exclusivity in terms of the agreements that the President may enter and in turn, what agreements may a foreign-owned corporation may enter with the Republic of the Philippines. For the petitioners, this interpretation may be viewed as exclusive and restrictive but they believe that it is in consonance with the constitutional right bestowed upon us by the Constitution which gives the Filipino citizens as well as corporations the benefit and right to use and enjoy the countrys natural resources. However, the Supreme Court was not persuaded by the petitioners strict interpretation. They thought that the petitioners argument is misplaced and lacks merit. As a matter of fact, the court has its own approach in interpreting the above quoted provision. The court, relied on the words used by the drafters of the constitution, putting emphasis on the word Involving would show the original intent of the framers not to bar other known modes of assistance (other than technical and financial). The drafters use of such word would simply imply that there is a likelihood that other forms of assistance and activities may be possibly included other than that mentioned in paragraph 4 of Section 2 of Article XII of the 1987 constitution. Ut Magis Valeat Quam Pereat is another legal maxim applied in the present case. Such maxim connotes that every part of the Constitution is to be given effect, and the Constitution is to be read and understood as a harmonious whole. It further suggests that if a law seems to be unclear, it should be understood in a way that makes sense of it. The essential idea is that all laws make sense as it has its own purpose. On the other hand, if a law seems inconceivable, one should comprehend it in a way that makes sense of it. Section 2 paragraph 1 of Article XII of the 1987 Constitution, 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 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 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. The court, in its attempt to scrutinize the above quoted provision, applied the legal maxim Ut Magis Valeat Quam Perea. An application of said maxim to the provision would propose that the sentence full control and supervision should not be interpreted that the state controls and supervises all that exists in the mining industry. This interpretation the state supervising and controlling without limits all that includes in the above subject matter - if tolerated would discourage foreign investors from entering our country to engage in businesses. This, nevertheless, would hinder our nations development and growth. Additionally, the use of the sentence full control and supervision as it is bestowed upon the state only signifies how supreme and ultimate the latter is. The sovereign state has been given the authority to take full control and supervision of the exploration, development and utilization of natural resources. Furthermore, the Supreme Court is convinced that the term control, which was used on the same provision, shall be used and interpreted in accordance to its plain meaning without losing its true purpose. The states control over the subject matter shall be used on a larger scale without however being detrimental to the economic development and general welfare of the country. In addition thereto, the sentence full control and supervision shall be read in consonance with the whole paragraph, it should not be singly interpreted as interpreting it without considering the other sentence would run afoul to the true intent of the framers and it would be prone to different interpretations which people chose to be as it would be favorable to them.