REPUBLIC OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Represented by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources
(DENR) Under then Minister ERNESTO R. MACEDA; and Former Government
Officials CATALINO MACARAIG, FULGENCIO S. FACTORAN, ANGEL C. ALCALA, BEN
MALAYANG, ROBERTO PAGDANGANAN, MARIANO Z. VALERA and ROMULO SAN JUAN,vs.ROSEMOOR MINING
AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, PEDRO DEL CONCHA, and ALEJANDRO and RUFO DE
GUZMAN,
G.R. No. 149927
March 30, 2004
Case Digest
"The four (4) petitioners, after having
been granted permission to prospect for marble deposits in the mountains of
Biak-na-Bato, San Miguel, Bulacan, succeeded in discovering marble deposits of
high quality and in commercial quantities in Mount Mabio which forms part of
the Biak-na-Bato mountain range.After compliance with numerous required
conditions, License No. 33 was issued by the Bureau of Mines in favor of the
herein petitioners."Shortly after Respondent Ernesto R. Maceda was
appointed Minister of the Department of Energy and Natural Resources (DENR),
petitioners’ License No. 33 was cancelled by him through his letter to ROSEMOOR
MINING AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
The trial court ruled that the privilege
granted under respondents’ license had already ripened into a property right,
which was protected under the due process clause of the Constitution. Such
right was supposedly violated when the license was cancelled without notice and
hearing. The cancellation was said to be unjustified, because the area that
could be covered by the four separate applications of respondents was 400
hectares. Finally, according to the RTC, Proclamation No. 84, which confirmed
the cancellation of the license, was an ex post facto law; as such, it violated
Section 3 of Article XVIII of the 1987 Constitution.
the CA held that the grant of the quarry
license covering 330.3062 hectares to respondents was authorized by law,
because the license was embraced by four (4) separate applications -- each for
an area of 81 hectares. Moreover, it held that the limitation under
Presidential Decree No. 463 -- that a quarry license should cover not more than
100 hectares in any given province -- was supplanted by Republic Act No. 7942,7 which
increased the mining areas allowed under PD 463.
Issues
"(1)
[W]hether or not QLP No. 33 was issued in blatant contravention of Section 69,
P.D. No. 463;
Held: It is
relevant to state, however, that Section 2 of Article XII of the 1987
Constitution does not apply retroactively to a "license, concession or
lease" granted by the government under the 1973 Constitution or before the
effectivity of the 1987 Constitution on February 2, 1987.17 As
noted in Miners Association of the Philippines v. Factoran Jr., the
deliberations of the Constitutional Commission18 emphasized the
intent to apply the said constitutional provision prospectively.
"SECTION 112. Non-impairment of Existing
Mining/ Quarrying Rights. — All valid and existing mining lease
contracts, permits/licenses, leases pending renewal, mineral production-sharing
agreements granted under Executive Order No. 279, at the date of effectivity of
this Act, shall remain valid, shall not be impaired, and shall be recognized by
the Government: Provided, That the provisions of Chapter XIV on government
share in mineral production-sharing agreement and of Chapter XVI on incentives
of this Act shall immediately govern and apply to a mining lessee or contractor
unless the mining lessee or contractor indicates his intention to the
secretary, in writing, not to avail of said provisions: Provided, further, That
no renewal of mining lease contracts shall be made after the expiration of its
term: Provided, finally, That such leases, production-sharing agreements,
financial or technical assistance agreements shall comply with the applicable
provisions of this Act and its implementing rules and regulations.
"SECTION 113. Recognition of Valid and
Existing Mining Claims and Lease/Quarry Application. — Holders of valid
and existing mining claims, lease/quarry applications shall be given
preferential rights to enter into any mode of mineral agreement with the
government within two (2) years from the promulgation of the rules and
regulations implementing this Act." (Underscoring supplied)
Section 3(p) of RA 7942 defines an existing
mining/quarrying right as "a valid and subsisting mining claim or permit
or quarry permit or any mining lease contract or agreement covering a
mineralized area granted/issued under pertinent mining laws."
Consequently, determining whether the license of respondents falls under this
definition would be relevant to fixing their entitlement to the rights and/or
preferences under RA 7942. Hence, the present Petition has not been mooted.
Petitioners submit that the license clearly
contravenes Section 69 of PD 463, because it exceeds the maximum area that may
be granted. This incipient violation, according to them, renders the license
void ab initio.
Respondents, on the other hand, argue that
the license was validly granted, because it was covered by four separate
applications for areas of 81 hectares each.
The license in question, QLP No. 33,19 is
dated August 3, 1982, and it was issued in the name of Rosemoor Mining
Development Corporation. The terms of the license allowed the corporation to
extract and dispose of marbleized limestone from a 330.3062-hectare land in San
Miguel, Bulacan. The license is, however, subject to the terms and conditions
of PD 463, the governing law at the time it was granted; as well as to the
rules and regulations promulgated thereunder.20 By the same
token, Proclamation No. 2204 -- which awarded to Rosemoor the right of
development, exploitation, and utilization of the mineral site -- expressly
cautioned that the grant was subject to "existing policies, laws, rules
and regulations."21
The license was thus subject to Section 69 of
PD 463, which reads:
"Section 69. Maximum Area of Quarry
License – Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 14 hereof, a quarry license
shall cover an area of not more than one hundred (100) hectares in any one
province and not more than one thousand (1,000) hectares in the entire
Philippines." (Italics supplied)
The language of PD 463 is clear. It states in
categorical and mandatory terms that a quarry license, like that of
respondents, should cover a maximum of 100 hectares in any given province. This
law neither provides any exception nor makes any reference to the number of
applications for a license. Section 69 of PD 463 must be taken to mean exactly
what it says. Where the law is clear, plain, and free from ambiguity, it must
be given its literal meaning and applied without attempted interpretation.22
Moreover, the lower courts’ ruling is
evidently inconsistent with the fact that QLP No. 33 was issued solely in the
name of Rosemoor Mining and Development Corporation, rather than in the names
of the four individual stockholders who are respondents herein. It likewise brushes
aside a basic postulate that a corporation has a separate personality from that
of its stockholders.23
The interpretation adopted by the lower
courts is contrary to the purpose of Section 69 of PD 463. Such intent to
limit, without qualification, the area of a quarry license strictly to 100
hectares in any one province is shown by the opening proviso that reads:
"Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 14 hereof x x x." The
mandatory nature of the provision is also underscored by the use of the word
shall. Hence, in the application of the 100-hectare-per-province limit, no
regard is given to the size or the number of mining claims under Section 14,
which we quote:
"SECTION 14. Size of Mining Claim. --
For purposes of registration of a mining claim under this Decree, the
Philippine territory and its shelf are hereby divided into meridional blocks or
quadrangles of one-half minute (1/2) of latitude and longitude, each block or
quadrangle containing area of eighty-one (81) hectares, more or less.
"A mining claim shall cover one such
block although a lesser area may be allowed if warranted by attendant
circumstances, such as geographical and other justifiable considerations as may
be determined by the Director: Provided, That in no case shall the locator be
allowed to register twice the area allowed for lease under Section 43
hereof." (Italics supplied)
Clearly, the intent of the law would be
brazenly circumvented by ruling that a license may cover an area exceeding the
maximum by the mere expediency of filing several applications. Such ruling
would indirectly permit an act that is directly prohibited by the law.
(2) whether or not Proclamation No. 84 issued
by then President Corazon Aquino is valid. The corollary issue is whether or
not the Constitutional prohibition against ex post facto law applies to
Proclamation No. 84"9
In line with the foregoing jurisprudence,
respondents’ license may be revoked or rescinded by executive action when the
national interest so requires, because it is not a contract, property or a
property right protected by the due process clause of the Constitution.29 Respondents
themselves acknowledge this condition of the grant under paragraph 7 of QLP No.
33, which we quote:
"7. This permit/license may be revoked
or cancelled at any time by the Director of Mines and Geo-Sciences when, in his
opinion public interests so require or, upon failure of the permittee/licensee
to comply with the provisions of Presidential Decree No. 463, as amended, and
the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder, as well as with the terms and
conditions specified herein; Provided, That if a permit/license is
cancelled, or otherwise terminated, the permittee/licensee shall be liable for
all unpaid rentals and royalties due up to the time of the termination or
cancellation of the permit/license[.]"30 (Italics
supplied)
The determination of what is in the public
interest is necessarily vested in the State as owner of all mineral resources.
That determination was based on policy considerations formally enunciated in
the letter dated September 15, 1986, issued by then Minister Maceda and,
subsequently, by the President through Proclamation No. 84. As to the exercise
of prerogative by Maceda, suffice it to say that while the cancellation or
revocation of the license is vested in the director of mines and geo-sciences,
the latter is subject to the former’s control as the department head. We also
stress the clear prerogative of the Executive Department in the evaluation and
the consequent cancellation of licenses in the process of its formulation of
policies with regard to their utilization. Courts will not interfere with the
exercise of that discretion without any clear showing of grave abuse of
discretion.31
Moreover, granting that respondents’ license
is valid, it can still be validly revoked by the State in the exercise of
police power.32 The exercise of such power through Proclamation
No. 84 is clearly in accord with jura regalia, which reserves to the State
ownership of all natural resources.33 This Regalian doctrine is
an exercise of its sovereign power as owner of lands of the public domain and
of the patrimony of the nation, the mineral deposits of which are a valuable
asset.34
Proclamation No. 84 cannot be stigmatized as
a violation of the non-impairment clause. As pointed out earlier, respondents’
license is not a contract to which the protection accorded by the
non-impairment clause may extend.35Even if the license were, it is
settled that provisions of existing laws and a reservation of police power are
deemed read into it, because it concerns a subject impressed with public
welfare.36 As it is, the non-impairment clause must yield to
the police power of the state.37
We cannot sustain the argument that
Proclamation No. 84 is a bill of attainder; that is, a "legislative act
which inflicts punishment without judicial trial."38 Its
declaration that QLP No. 33 is a patent nullity39 is certainly
not a declaration of guilt. Neither is the cancellation of the license a
punishment within the purview of the constitutional proscription against bills
of attainder.
Too, there is no merit in the argument that
the proclamation is an ex post facto law. There are six recognized instances
when a law is considered as such: 1) it criminalizes and punishes an action
that was done before the passing of the law and that was innocent when it was
done; 2) it aggravates a crime or makes it greater than it was when it was
committed; 3) it changes the punishment and inflicts one that is greater than
that imposed by the law annexed to the crime when it was committed; 4) it
alters the legal rules of evidence and authorizes conviction upon a less or
different testimony than that required by the law at the time of the commission
of the offense; 5) it assumes the regulation of civil rights and remedies only,
but in effect imposes a penalty or a deprivation of a right as a consequence of
something that was considered lawful when it was done; and 6) it deprives a
person accused of a crime of some lawful protection to which he or she become
entitled, such as the protection of a former conviction or an acquittal or the
proclamation of an amnesty.40 Proclamation No. 84 does not fall
under any of the enumerated categories; hence, it is not an ex post facto law.
It is settled that an ex post facto law is
limited in its scope only to matters criminal in nature.41 Proclamation
84, which merely restored the area excluded from the Biak-na-Bato national park
by canceling respondents’ license, is clearly not penal in character.
Finally, it is stressed that at the time
President Aquino issued Proclamation No. 84 on March 9, 1987, she was still
validly exercising legislative powers under the Provisional Constitution of
1986.42 Section 1 of Article II of Proclamation No. 3, which
promulgated the Provisional Constitution, granted her legislative power
"until a legislature is elected and convened under a new
Constitution." The grant of such power is also explicitly recognized and
provided for in Section 6 of Article XVII of the 1987 Constitution.43
WHEREFORE, this Petition is hereby GRANTED
and the appealed Decision of the Court of Appeals SET ASIDE. No costs.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comment: