1.

Employees who have separate The CAMC FTAA grants in surface rights can be
retirement schemes under special
laws and are therefore covered favor of CAMC the right of acquired other than
by their respective retirement possession of the Exploration expropriation. The FTAA
laws Contract Area, the full right provision under attack merely
2. Contractual employees who have no
employer-employee relationship of ingress and egress and the facilitates the implementation
with the agencies they serve right to occupy the same. It of the FTAA given to CAMC
3. Uniformed members of AFP and also bestows CAMC the right and shields it from violating
PNP, BJMP and BFP
not to be prevented from the Anti-Dummy Law.
entry into private lands by
Didipio v Gozun surface owners or occupants There is also no basis for the
(Natural resources) thereof when prospecting, claim that the Mining Law
exploring and exploiting and its implementing rules
minerals therein. and regulations do not
DIDIPIO v GOZUN
provide for just compensation
GR No. 157882
Didipio Earth-Savers' Multi- in expropriating private
March 30, 2006
Purpose Association, Inc., an properties. Section 76 of
organization of farmers and Rep. Act No. 7942 and
FACTS:
indigenous peoples organized Section 107 of DAO 96-40
under Philippine laws, provide for the payment of
This petition for prohibition
representing a community just compensation.
and mandamus under Rule
actually affected by the
65 of the Rules of Court
mining activities of CAMC, as II
assails the constitutionality of
well as other residents of
Republic Act No. 7942
areas affected by the mining WHETHER OR NOT THE
otherwise known as the
activities of CAMC. MINING ACT AND ITS
Philippine Mining Act of 1995,
IMPLEMENTING RULES AND
together with the
ISSUES & RULINGS: REGULATIONS ARE VOID
Implementing Rules and
AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL
Regulations issued pursuant
I FOR SANCTIONING AN
thereto, Department of
UNCONSTITUTIONAL
Environment and Natural
WHETHER OR NOT REPUBLIC ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS
Resources (DENR)
ACT NO. 7942 AND THE OF DETERMINING JUST
Administrative Order No. 96-
CAMC FTAA ARE VOID COMPENSATION.
40, s. 1996 (DAO 96-40) and
BECAUSE THEY ALLOW THE
of the Financial and Technical
UNJUST AND UNLAWFUL NO.
Assistance Agreement (FTAA)
TAKING OF PROPERTY
entered into on 20 June 1994
WITHOUT PAYMENT OF JUST there is nothing in the
by the Republic of the
COMPENSATION , IN provisions of the assailed law
Philippines and Arimco Mining
VIOLATION OF SECTION 9, and its implementing rules
Corporation (AMC), a
ARTICLE III OF THE and regulations that exclude
corporation established under
CONSTITUTION. the courts from their
the laws of Australia and
jurisdiction to determine just
owned by its nationals.
NO. compensation in
expropriation proceedings
Subsequently, AMC
The provision of the FTAA in involving mining operations.
consolidated with Climax
question lays down the ways
Mining Limited to form a
and means by which the Although Section 105 confers
single company that now
foreign-owned contractor, upon the Panel of Arbitrators
goes under the new name of
disqualified to own land, the authority to decide cases
Climax-Arimco Mining
identifies to the government where surface owners,
Corporation (CAMC), the
the specific surface areas occupants, concessionaires
controlling 99% of
within the FTAA contract area refuse permit holders entry,
stockholders of which are
to be acquired for the mine thus, necessitating
Australian nationals.
infrastructure. The involuntary taking, this does
government then acquires not mean that the
on 20 June 1994, President
ownership of the surface land determination of the just
Ramos executed an FTAA
areas on behalf of the compensation by the Panel of
with AMC over a total land
contractor, through a Arbitrators or the Mines
area of 37,000 hectares
voluntary transaction in order Adjudication Board is final
covering the provinces of
to enable the latter to and conclusive. The
Nueva Vizcaya and
proceed to fully implement determination is only
Quirino. Included in this area
the FTAA. Eminent domain is preliminary unless accepted
is Barangay Dipidio, Kasibu,
not yet called for at this by all parties concerned.
Nueva Vizcaya.
stage since there are still There is nothing wrong with
various avenues by which the grant of primary
jurisdiction by the Panel of
Arbitrators or the Mines
Adjudication Board to
determine in a preliminary
matter the reasonable
compensation due the
affected landowners or
occupants. The original and
exclusive jurisdiction of the
courts to decide
determination of just
compensation remains intact
despite the preliminary
determination made by the
administrative agency.
III
WHETHER OR NOT THE
STATE, THROUGH REPUBLIC
ACT NO. 7942 AND THE
CAMC FTAA, ABDICATED ITS
PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY
TO THE FULL CONTROL AND
SUPERVISION OVER
NATURAL RESOURCES.
RA 7942 provides for the
state's control and
supervision over mining
operations. The following
provisions thereof establish
the mechanism of inspection
and visitorial rights over
mining operations and
institute reportorial
requirements.
The setup under RA 7942 and any categorical statement
DAO 96-40 hardly relegates
the State to the role of a
“passive regulator”
dependent on submitted
plans and reports. On the
contrary, the government
agencies concerned are
empowered to approve or
disapprove -- hence, to
influence, direct and change - contracts with foreign
- the various work programs corporations as contractors
and the corresponding
minimum expenditure
commitments for each of the extractive enterprises,
exploration, development and subject to the full control and
utilization phases of the
mining enterprise.
IV
WHETHER OR NOT THE
RESPONDENTS'
INTERPRETATION OF THE
ROLE OF WHOLLY FOREIGN
AND FOREIGN-OWNED
CORPORATIONS IN THEIR
INVOLVEMENT IN MINING
ENTERPRISES, VIOLATES
PARAGRAPH 4, SECTION 2,
ARTICLE XII OF THE
CONSTITUTION.
the use of the word
“involving” signifies the
possibility of the inclusion of
other forms of assistance or
activities having to do with,
otherwise related to or
compatible with financial or
technical assistance.
Thus, we come to the
inevitable conclusion that
there was a conscious and
deliberate decision to avoid
the use of restrictive wording
that bespeaks an intent not
to use the expression
“agreements x x x involving
either technical or financial
assistance” in an exclusionary
and limiting manner.
V court of law through the
WHETHER OR NOT THE 1987
CONSTITUTION PROHIBITS
SERVICE CONTRACTS
NO. The mere fact that the
term service contracts found
in the 1973 Constitution was
not carried over to the
present constitution, sans
banning service contracts in
mining activities, does not
mean that service contracts
as understood in the 1973
Constitution was eradicated
in the 1987 Constitution.
The 1987 Constitution allows
the continued use of service
who would invest in and
operate and manage
supervision of the State; this
time, however, safety
measures were put in place
to prevent abuses of the past
regime.
the phrase agreements
involving either technical or
financial assistance, referred
to in paragraph 4, are in fact
service contracts. But unlike
those of the 1973 variety, the
new ones are between
foreign corporations acting as
contractors on the one hand;
and on the other, the
government as principal or
“owner” of the works. In the
new service contracts, the
foreign contractors provide
capital, technology and
technical know-how, and
managerial expertise in the
creation and operation of
large-scale mining/extractive
enterprises; and the
government, through its
agencies (DENR, MGB),
actively exercises control and
supervision over the entire
operation.
OBITER DICTA: ! justiciable
controversy: definite and
concrete dispute touching on
the legal relations of parties
having adverse legal interests
which may be resolved by a
application of a law. ! to
exercise the power of judicial
review, the following must be
extant (1) there must be an
actual case calling for the
exercise of judicial power; -
involves a conflict of legal
rights, an assertion of
opposite legal claims,
susceptible of judicial
resolution as distinguished
from a hypothetical or
abstract difference or
dispute.
In the instant case, there
exists a live controversy
involving a clash of legal
rights as Rep. Act No. 7942
has been enacted, DAO 96-
40 has been approved and an
FTAAs have been entered
into. The FTAA holders have
already been operating in
various provinces of the
country.
(2) the question must be ripe
for adjudication; and - A
question is considered ripe
for adjudication when the act
being challenged has had a
direct adverse effect on the
individual challenging it. (3)
the person challenging must
have the “standing" -
personal or substantial
interest in the case such that ! Taking in Eminent Domain appropriated and applied to
the party has sustained or Distinguished from some public purpose, there is
will sustain direct injury as a Regulation in Police Power compensable taking.
result of the governmental
act that is being challenged, The power of eminent domain ! On different roles and
alleging more than a is the inherent right of the responsibilities:
generalized grievance. state (and of those entities to
which the power has been * DENR Secretary : accept,
By the mere enactment of lawfully delegated) to consider and evaluate
the questioned law or the condemn private property to proposals from foreign-owned
approval of the challenged public use upon payment of corporations or foreign
act, the dispute is said to just compensation.On the investors for contracts of
have ripened into a judicial other hand, police power is agreements involving either
controversy even without any the power of the state to technical or financial
other overt act. Indeed, promote public welfare by assistance for large-scale
even a singular violation of restraining and regulating the exploration, development,
the Constitution and/or the use of liberty and property. and utilization of minerals,
law is enough to awaken which, upon appropriate
judicial duty. Although both police power recommendation of the
and the power of eminent Secretary, the President may
! “taking” under the concept domain have the general execute with the foreign
of eminent domain as welfare for their object, and proponent. (Executive Order
entering upon private recent trends show a No. 279, 1987)
property for more than a mingling of the two with the
momentary period, and, latter being used as an ! in re: easements and
under the warrant or color of implement of the former, taking
legal authority, devoting it to there are still traditional
a public use, or otherwise distinctions between the In Ayala de Roxas v. City of
informally appropriating or two. Manila, it was held that the
injuriously affecting it in such imposition of burden over a
a way as to substantially oust Property condemned under private property through
the owner and deprive him of police power is usually easement was considered
all beneficial enjoyment noxious or intended for a taking; hence, payment of
thereof. noxious purpose; hence, no just compensation is
compensation shall be required. The Court
requisites of taking in paid. Likewise, in the declared:
eminent domain, to wit: exercise of police power,
property rights of private And, considering that the
(1) the expropriator individuals are subjected to easement intended to be
must enter a private restraints and burdens in established, whatever may be
property; order to secure the general the object thereof, is not
comfort, health, and merely a real right that will
(2) the entry must prosperity of the state. Thus, encumber the property, but is
be for more than a an ordinance prohibiting one tending to prevent the
momentary period. theaters from selling tickets exclusive use of one portion
in excess of their seating of the same, by expropriating
(3) the entry must capacity (which would result it for public use which, be it
be under warrant or color of in the diminution of profits of what it may, can not be
legal authority; the theater-owners) was accomplished unless the
upheld valid as this would owner of the property
(4) the property promote the comfort, condemned or seized be
must be devoted to public convenience and safety of the previously and duly
use or otherwise informally customers. indemnified, it is proper to
appropriated or injuriously protect the appellant by
affected; where a property interest is means of the remedy
merely restricted because the employed in such cases, as it
(5) the utilization of continued use thereof would is only adequate rem
the property for public use be injurious to public welfare, BENGUET CORPORATION v
must be in such a way as to or where property is DENR-MAB
oust the owner and deprive destroyed because its G.R. No. 163101
him of beneficial enjoyment continued existence would be February 13, 2008
of the property. injurious to public interest,
there is no compensable FACTS:
taking. However, when a
property interest is
On June 1, 1987, Benguet
and J.G. Realty entered into a
RAWOP, wherein J.G. Realty
was acknowledged as the
owner of four mining claims
respectively named as
Bonito-I, Bonito-II, Bonito-
III, and Bonito-IV, with a
total area
of 288.8656 hectares,
situated in Barangay
Luklukam, Sitio Bagong
Bayan, Municipality of Jose
Panganiban, Camarines
Norte.
Thus, on August 9, 1989, the
Executive Vice-President of
Benguet, Antonio N.
Tachuling, issued a letter
informing J.G. Realty of its
intention to develop the
mining claims. However, on
February 9, 1999, J.G.
Realty, through its President,
Johnny L. Tan, then sent a
letter to the President of
Benguet informing the latter
that it was terminating the
RAWOP on the following
grounds:
a. The fact that your
company has failed to
perform the obligations set
forth in the RAWOP, i.e., to
undertake development
works within 2 years from the
execution of the
Agreement; b. Violation
of the Contract by allowing
high graders to operate on
our claim. c. No
stipulation was provided with
respect to the term limit of
the RAWOP. d. Non-
payment of the royalties
thereon as provided in the
RAWOP.
On June 7, 2000, J.G. Realty OWNER and the third to be
filed a Petition for Declaration selected by the
of Nullity/Cancellation of the
RAWOP with the Legaspi City arbitrators so
POA, Region V, docketed as
DENR Case No. 2000-01 and
entitled J.G. Realty v.
Benguet.
DECISION OF LOWER
COURTS: *POA: declared the No action shall be instituted
RAWOP cancelled. *MAB:
affirmed POA.
ISSUES: (1) Should the
controversy have first been
submitted to arbitration
before the POA took
cognizance of the case?; (2)
Was the cancellation of the
RAWOP supported by
evidence?; and (3) Did the
cancellation of the RAWOP
amount to unjust enrichment
of J.G. Realty at the expense
of Benguet?
HELD: On correctness of
appeal: Petitioner having
failed to properly appeal to
the CA under Rule 43, the
decision of the MAB has
become final and executory.
On this ground alone, the
instant petition must be
denied.
(1) YES, the case should
have first been brought to
voluntary arbitration before
the POA.
Secs. 11.01 and 11.02 of the
RAWOP pertinently provide:
11.01 Arbitration
Any disputes, differences or
disagreements between
BENGUET and the OWNER
with reference to anything
whatsoever pertaining to this
Agreement that cannot be
amicably settled by them
shall not be cause of any
action of any kind whatsoever
in any court or administrative
agency but shall, upon notice
of one party to the other, be
referred to a Board of
Arbitrators consisting of three
(3) members, one to be
selected by BENGUET,
another to be selected by the
aforementioned two
appointed.
xxxx
11.02 Court Action
in court as to any matter in
dispute as hereinabove
stated, except to enforce the
decision of the majority of
the Arbitrators
A contractual stipulation that
requires prior resort to
voluntary arbitration before
the parties can go directly to
court is not illegal and is in
fact promoted by the State.
To reiterate, availment of
voluntary arbitration before
resort is made to the courts
or quasi-judicial agencies of
the government is a valid
contractual stipulation that
must be adhered to by the
parties.
In other words, in the event a
case that should properly be
the subject of voluntary
arbitration is erroneously filed
with the courts or quasi-
judicial agencies, on motion
of the defendant, the court or
quasi-judicial agency shall
determine whether such
contractual provision for
arbitration is sufficient and
effective. If in affirmative, the
court or quasi-judicial agency
shall then order the
enforcement of said
provision.
In sum, on the issue of
whether POA should have
referred the case to voluntary
arbitration, we find that,
indeed, POA has no
jurisdiction over the dispute
which is governed by RA 876,
the arbitration law.
HOWEVER, ESTOPPEL
APPLIES. the Court rules that
the jurisdiction of POA and
that of MAB can no longer be
questioned by Benguet at this
late hour. What Benguet
should have done was to
immediately challenge the
POA's jurisdiction by a special
civil action for certiorari when
POA ruled that it has
jurisdiction over the
dispute. To redo the
proceedings fully participated
in by the parties after the
lapse of seven years from
date of institution of the
original action with the POA
would be anathema to the
speedy and efficient
administration of justice.
(2) The cancellation of the
RAWOP was supported by
evidence.
(3) There is no unjust
enrichment in the instant
case. There is no unjust
enrichment when the person
who will benefit has a valid
claim to such benefit.
The principle of unjust
enrichment under Article 22
requires two conditions: (1)
that a person is benefited
without a valid basis or
justification, and (2) that
such benefit is derived at
another's expense or
damage.
Clearly, there is no unjust
enrichment in the instant
case as the cancellation of
the RAWOP, which left
Benguet without any legal
right to participate in further of a poisonous substance (sodium
developing the mining claims, cyanide). A report that some
was brought about by its
violation of the RAWOP.
Hence, Benguet has no one
to blame but itself for its
predicament.
OBITER DICTA:
(1) Difference between
compulsory & voluntary
arbitration --
In Reformist Union of R.B.
Liner, Inc. vs. NLRC,
compulsory arbitration has
been defined both as “the
process of settlement of labor
disputes by a government
agency which has the
authority to investigate and
to make an award which is
binding on all the parties, and
as a mode of arbitration
where the parties are
compelled to accept the
resolution of their dispute
through arbitration by a third
party.” While a voluntary
arbitrator is not part of the
governmental unit or labor
department's personnel, said
arbitrator renders arbitration
services provided for under
labor laws.
There is a clear distinction
between compulsory and
voluntary arbitration. The
arbitration provided by the
POA is compulsory, while the
nature of the arbitration
provision in the RAWOP is
voluntary, not involving any
government agency.
You might also like:
edy when no other legal
action can be resorted to,
against an intent which is
nothing short of an arbitrary
restriction imposed by the
city by virtue of the coercive
power with which the same is
invested.
! in order that one law may
operate to repeal another
law, the two laws must be
inconsistent.The former must
be so repugnant as to be
irreconciliable with the latter
act
FACTS: HIZON et al. were
charged with violating PD 704 for
supposedly fishing without the use
fishing boats were fishing by "muro
ami" led to the apprehension of
such boat (F/B Robinson), where
Hizon et al were Does the proscription
against ex post facto laws apply to the
interpretation of Section 11, a provision
which does not provide for a penal
sanction but which merely authorizes
the inspection of suspect accounts and
deposits? Does the proscription
against ex post facto laws apply to the
interpretation of Section 11, a provision
which does not provide for a penal
sanction but which merely authorizes
the inspection of suspect accounts and
deposits? present. The police (PNP
Maritime Command and the Task
Force Bantay Dagat) directed the
boat captain to get random
samples of the fish from the fish
cage for testing. The initial results
tested the fish positive for sodium
cyanide and that was the basis of
the information against Hizon et al.
However, a second set of fish
samples yielded a negative result
on the sodium cyanide.
Notwithstanding this, the
RTC found Hizon et al. guilty and
sentenced them to imprisonment
and forfeiture of the fishes. The CA
affirmed this decision. Hizon et al.,
together with the Solicitor general
now question the admissibility of
the evidence against petitioners in
view of the warrantless search of
the fishing boat and the
subsequent arrest of petitioners.
ISSUE/S:
1. W/N fish samples seized
by the NBI in the F/B
Robinson without a
search warrant are
admissible in evidence. –
YES.
2. W/N Hizon et al., are guilty
of illegal fishing with the
use of poisonous
substances. NO.
RATIO: As a general rule, any
evidence obtained without a
judicial warrant is inadmissible for
any purpose in any proceeding.
The rule is, however, subject to
certain exceptions. Search and
seizure without search warrant of
vessels and aircrafts for violations
of customs laws have been the
traditional exception to the
constitutional requirement of a
search warrant. The same
exception ought to apply to
seizures of fishing vessels and
boats breaching our fishery laws.
Hizon et al. were charged
with illegal fishing penalized under
sections 33 and 38 of P.D. 704.
These provisions create a
presumption of guilt for
possession of explosives or
poisonous substances. However,
this presumption is merely prima
facie and the accused has the right
to present evidence to rebut this
presumption.
In this case, the only basis
for the charge of fishing with
poisonous substance is the result
of the first NBI laboratory test on
the four fish specimens. The
apprehending officers who
boarded and searched the boat
did not find any sodium cyanide
nor any poisonous or obnoxious
substance. Neither did they find
any trace of the poison in the
possession of the fishermen or in
the fish cage itself. Under the
circumstances of the case,
however, this finding does not
warrant the infallible conclusion
that the fishes in the F/B Robinson,
or even the same four specimens,
were caught with the use of
sodium cyanide.
Apparently, it was the
police who were the ones engaged
in an illegal fishing expedition.
"Muro ami", as what was reported
the fishermen were doing, is made
with "the use of a big net with
sinkers to make the net submerge
in the water with the fishermen
surround[ing] the net." This
method of fishing needs XII and Sections 2 and 7 of therein to LGUs which
approximately two hundred (200) Article XIII of the 1987 unquestionably involve the
fishermen to execute. What the Constitution. exercise of police power, the
apprehending officers instead
discovered were twenty eight (28)
validity of the questioned
fishermen in their sampans fishing ISSUE: ordinances cannot be
by hook and line. The authorities Are the challenged doubted.
found nothing on the boat that ordinances unconstitutional? Mn m hvkjkkvhjvcjhcmh
would have indicated any form of Kjbaskjdbakdbask.bdaskbdkasbdk
illegal fishing. All the documents of HELD: asdb
the boat and the fishermen were in No. The Supreme Court kskhdkasjfksa
order. It was only after the fish
found the petitioners
specimens were tested, albeit
under suspicious circumstances, contentions baseless and held
that petitioners were charged with that the challenged sjhbgsjkdgasjbdasljdbsajdvaslj
illegal fishing with the use of ordinances did not suffer Mn m
poisonous substances. from any infirmity, both hvkjkkvhjvcjnkkmslaknldnaskj;j
under the Constitution and bkasbjhcmh
Tano vs applicable laws. There is Kjbaskjdbakdbask.bdaskbdkasbdk
absolutely no showing that
Socrates any of the petitioners
asdb
kskhdkasjfksa
Natural and Environmental qualifies as a subsistence or
Laws; Constitutional Law; marginal fisherman. Besides,
Regalian Doctrine Section 2 of Article XII aims
GR No. 110249; August 21, primarily not to bestow any
1997 right to subsistence
fishermen, but to lay stress
on the duty of the State to
FACTS: protect the nation’s marine
On Dec 15, 1992, the wealth. The so-called
Sangguniang Panglungsod ng “preferential right” of
Puerto Princesa enacted an subsistence or marginal
ordinance banning the fishermen to the use of
shipment of all live fish and marine resources is not at all
lobster outside Puerto absolute.
Princesa City from January 1, In accordance with the
1993 to January 1, 1998. Regalian Doctrine, marine
Subsequently the resources belong to the state
Sangguniang Panlalawigan, and pursuant to the first
Provincial Government of paragraph of Section 2,
Palawan enacted a resolution Article XII of the
prohibiting the catching , Constitution, their
gathering, possessing, “exploration, development
buying, selling, and shipment and utilization...shall be
of a several species of live under the full control and
marine coral dwelling aquatic supervision of the State.
organisms for 5 years, in and
coming from Palawan waters. In addition, one of the
Petitioners filed a special civildevolved powers of the LCG
action for certiorari and on devolution is the
prohibition, praying that the enforcement of fishery laws
ABUSE OF RIGHT
Elements ABUSE OF RIGHT in municipal waters including
Elements court declare the said the conservation of
ordinances and resolutions as mangroves. This necessarily
unconstitutional on the includes the enactment of
ground that the said ordinances to effectively
ordinances deprived them of carry out such fishery laws
the due process of law, their within the municipal waters.
livelihood, and unduly In light of the principles of
restricted them from the decentralization and
practice of their trade, in devolution enshrined in the
violation of Section 2, Article LGC and the powers granted
Mn m hvkjkkvhjvcjhcmh
Kjbaskjdbakdbask.bdaskbdkasbdkasdb
kskhdkasjfksa
Mn m hvkjkkvhjvcjhcmh
Kjbaskjdbakdbask.bdaskbdkasbdkasdb
kskhdkasjfksa