1. GR. No.

98332
Miners Association of the Philippines vs. Factoran
January 16, 1995
Facts
Former President Corazon Aquino issued Executive Order Nos. 211 and 279 as par to her interim legislative powers. Executive Order
No. 211 prescribes the interim procedures in the processing and approval of applications for the exploration, development and utilization of
minerals pursuant to Section 2, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution. Executive Order No. 279authorizes the Department of Natural Resources
(DENR) Secretary to negotiate and conclude joint venture, co-production or production-sharing agreements for the exploration, development,and
utilization of mineral resources
Petitioner is an organization composed of mining prospectors and claim owners or claimholders questions the constitutionality of the
two administrative orders (DAO) issued by then Secretary of DENR Fulgencio Factoran Jr. pursuant to the abovementioned executive issuances.
Department Administrative Order No. 57 declares all existing mining lease or agreements which are granted after the effectivity of the 1987
Constitutionshall be convertedinto production-sharing agreements within one (1) year from the effectivity of these guidelines.In relation to
this, DAO No. 82 provides that a failure to submit Letter of Intent (LOI) and Mineral Production-Sharing Agreement (MPSA) within from the
effectivity of Department Administrative Order No. 57 shall cause the abandonment of mining, quarry, and sand and gravel claims.
Furthermore, it claims that the DAOs are issued in excess of jurisdiction and are inconsistent with the executive orders. Also, DAO No.
57 violates the non-impairment clause of the 1987 Constitution for the unduly pre-termination of the existing mining leases and other mining
agreements and automatic conversion of said agreements into production-sharingagreements within one (1) year from its effectivity.
The Court, acting on petitioner's urgent ex-parte petition for issuance of a restrainingorder/preliminary injunction, issued a Temporary
Restraining Order, upon posting of a P500,000.00 bond, enjoining the enforcement and implementation of DENR Administrative Order Nos. 57
and 82, as amended, Series of 1989 and 1990, respectively.
ISSUES:
1.Did the DENR Secretary act with grave abuse of discretion in the issuance of the twoDAOs?
2. Are the two DAOs valid?
Ruling
1.It cannot be established that the Secretary went beyond what is prescribed by the EO279. Section 6 of the said issuance specifically
authorizes him to promulgate such supplementary rules and regulations as may be necessary to effectively implement the provisions thereof.
Also, the DAOs and the EOs are related in order to carry out the mandate of Article XII, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution.
2.The two are reasonably directed to the accomplishment of the purposes of the law under which they were issued and were intended to
secure the paramount interest of the public, their economic growth and welfare. Their constitutionality must be sustained and their force and
effect upheld for they were part of the legitimate exercise of the police power of the State. The non-impairment clause guaranteed by the 1987
Constitution should not prevail over the legitimate exercise of police power since it has been ruled by the Court that such power is not absolute.
Thus, it is a valid exercise.
Disposition
WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit. The Temporary Restraining Order issued on July 2, 1991 is hereby LIFTED.

2. Didipio Earth Savers Multipurpose Association et al vs DENR Sec Elisea Gozun et al

G.R. No. 157882
March 30, 2006
FACTS:
In 1987, Cory rolled out EO 279 w/c empowered DENR to stipulate with foreign companies when it comes to either technical or financial large
scale exploration or mining. In 1995, Ramos signed into law RA 7942 or the Philippine Mining Act. In 1994, Ramos already signed an FTAA
with Arimco Mining Co, an Australian company. The FTAA authorized AMC (later CAMC) to explore 37,000 ha of land in Quirino and N.
Vizcaya including Brgy Didipio. After the passage of the law, DENR rolled out its implementing RRs. Didipio petitioned to have the law and the
RR to be annulled as it is unconstitutional and it constitutes unlawful taking of property. In seeking to nullify Rep. Act No. 7942 and its
implementing rules DAO 96-40 as unconstitutional, petitioners set their sight on Section 76 of Rep. Act No. 7942 and Section 107 of DAO 96-40
which they claim allow the unlawful and unjust taking of private property for private purpose in contradiction with Section 9, Article III of the
1987 Constitution mandating that private property shall not be taken except for public use and the corresponding payment of just compensation.
They assert that public respondent DENR, through the Mining Act and its Implementing Rules and Regulations, cannot, on its own, permit entry
into a private property and allow taking of land without payment of just compensation.
Traversing petitioners assertion, public respondents argue that Section 76 is not a taking provision but a valid exercise of the police power and
by virtue of which, the state may prescribe regulations to promote the health, morals, peace, education, good order, safety and general welfare of
the people. This government regulation involves the adjustment of rights for the public good and that this adjustment curtails some potential for
the use or economic exploitation of private property. Public respondents concluded that to require compensation in all such circumstances
would compel the government to regulate by purchase.
ISSUE: Whether or not RA 7942 and the DENR RRs are valid.
Ruling : The SC ruled against Didipio. The SC noted the requisites of eminent domain. They are;
(1 )the expropriator must enter a private property;
(2) the entry must be for more than a momentary period.
(3) the entry must be under warrant or color of legal authority;
(4) the property must be devoted to public use or otherwise informally appropriated or injuriously affected;
(5) the utilization of the property for public use must be in such a way as to oust the owner and deprive him of beneficial enjoyment of the
property.

In the case at bar, Didipio failed to show that the law is invalid. Indeed there is taking involved but it is not w/o just compensation. Sec 76 of RA
7942 provides for just compensation as well as section 107 of the DENR RR. To wit,
Section 76. xxx Provided, that any damage to the property of the surface owner, occupant, or concessionaire as a consequence of such operations
shall be properly compensated as may be provided for in the implementing rules and regulations.
Section 107. Compensation of the Surface Owner and Occupant- Any damage done to the property of the surface owners, occupant, or
concessionaire thereof as a consequence of the mining operations or as a result of the construction or installation of the infrastructure mentioned
in 104 above shall be properly and justly compensated.
Further, mining is a public policy and the government can invoke eminent domain to exercise entry, acquisition and use of private lands.
3.G.R. Nos. 152613 & 152628
APEX MINING CO., INC., vs. Southeast Mindanao Gold Mining Corp.,(SEM) et. al
G.R. No. 152619-20
BALITE COMMUNAL PORTAL MINING COOPERATIVE vs. southeast mindanao gold mining corp.
G.R. No. 152870-71
THE MINES ADJUDICATION BOARD AND ITS MEMBERS, THE HON. VICTOR O. RAMOS (Chairman), UNDERSECRETARY
VIRGILIO MARCELO (Member) and DIRECTOR HORACIO RAMOS (Member) vs. southeast mindanao gold mining corporation
FACTS:
A motion for reconsideration was filed by SEM. The Assailed Decision held that the assignment of Exploration Permit (EP) 133 in
favor of SEM violated one of the conditions stipulated in the permit. It also ruled that the transfer of EP 133 violated Presidential Decree No. 463,
which requires that the assignment of a mining right be made with the prior approval of the Secretary of the Department of Environment and
Natural Resources (DENR). Moreover, the Assailed Decision pointed out that EP 133 expired by non-renewal since it was not renewed before or
after its expiration. It likewise upheld the validity of Proclamation No. 297 absent any question against its validity. In view of this, and
considering that under Section 5 of Republic Act No. 7942, otherwise known as the Mining Act of 1995, mining operations in mineral
reservations may be undertaken directly by the State or through a contractor, the Court deemed the issue of ownership of priority right over the
contested Diwalwal Gold Rush Area as having been overtaken by the said proclamation. Thus, it was held in the Assailed Decision that it is now
within the prerogative of the Executive Department to undertake directly the mining operations of the disputed area or to award the operations to
private entities including petitioners Apex and Balite, subject to applicable laws, rules and regulations, and provided that these private entities are
qualified.
Apex, for its part, filed a Motion for Clarification of the Assailed Decision, praying that the Court elucidate on the Decisions
pronouncement that mining operations, are now, therefore within the full control of the State through the executive branch. Moreover, Apex
asks this Court to order th eMines and Geosciences Board (MGB) to accept its application for an exploration permit.
Balite echoes the same concern as that of Apex on the actual takeover by the State of the mining industry in the disputed area to the
exclusion of the private sector. In addition, Balite prays for this Court to direct MGB to accept its application for an exploration permit.
CamiloBanad, et al., likewise filed a motion for reconsideration and prayed that the disputed area be awarded to them. In the
Resolution, the Court En Banc resolved to accept the instant cases.
ISSUES:

Whether the transfer or assignment of Exploration Permit (EP) 133 by MMC to SEM was validly made without violating any of the
terms and conditions set forth in Presidential Decree No. 463 and EP 133 itself.

Whether Southeast Mindanao Mining Corp. acquired a vested right over the disputed area, which constitutes a property right protected
by the Constitution.

Whether the assailed Decision dated 23 June 2006 of the Third Division in this case is contrary to and overturns the earlier Decision of
this Court in Apex v. Garcia (G.R. No. 92605, 16 July 1991, 199 SCRA 278).

Whether the issuance of Proclamation No. 297 declaring the disputed area as mineral reservation outweighs the claims of SEM, Apex
Mining Co. Inc. and Balite Communal Portal Mining Cooperative over the Diwalwal Gold Rush Area.

Whether the issue of the legality/constitutionality of Proclamation No. 297 was belatedly raised.
Ruling:

The assailed Decision did not overturn the 16 July 1991 Decision in Apex Mining Co., Inc. v. Garcia. The former was decided on facts
and issues that were not attendant in the latter, such as the expiration of EP 133, the violation of the condition embodied in EP 133
prohibiting its assignment, and the unauthorized and invalid assignment of EP 133 by MMC to SEM, since this assignment was
effected without the approval of the Secretary of DENR;

SEM did not acquire vested right over the disputed area because its supposed right was extinguished by the expiration of its exploration
permit and by its violation of the condition prohibiting the assignment of EP 133 by MMC to SEM. In addition, even assuming that
SEM has a valid exploration permit, such is a mere license that can be withdrawn by the State. In fact, the same has been withdrawn by
the issuance of Proclamation No. 297, which places the disputed area under the full control of the State through the Executive
Department;

The approval requirement under Section 97 of Presidential Decree No. 463 applies to the assignment of EP 133 by MMC to SEM, since
the exploration permit is an interest in a mining lease contract;

The issue of the constitutionality and the legality of Proclamation No. 297 was raised belatedly, as SEM questions the same for the first
time in its Motion for Reconsideration. Even if the issue were to be entertained, the said proclamation is found to be in harmony with
the Constitution and other existing statutes;

The motion for reconsideration of CamiloBanad, et al. cannot be passed upon because they are not parties to the instant cases;

The prayers of Apex and Balite asking the Court to direct the MGB to accept their applications for exploration permits cannot be
granted, since it is the Executive Department that has the prerogative to accept such applications, if ever it decides to award the mining
operations in the disputed area to a private entity;