Natres Cases- Chapters 5 And 6.docx

SR Metals, Inc. v. Reyes FACTS: Each of the petitioners was awarded a 2-year Small- Scale Mining Permit (SSMP) by the Provincial Mining Regulatory Board of Agusan del Norte; they were allowed to extract Nickel and Cobalt (Ni-Co) in a 20-hectare mining site in Sitio Bugnang, Brgy. La Fraternidad, Tubay, Agusan del Norte. The EMB sent the mining corporations a Notice of Violation informing them that they had exceeded the allowed annual volume of 150,000 MTs combined production as their stockpile inventory of Nickeliferous ore had already total 177,297 dry metric tons (DMT). Then, DENR Secretary Angelo T. Reyes issued a Cease and Desist Order (CDO) against the mining corporations suspending their operations for their operations for the following reasons: 1. The excess in 1) annual production of SR Metals, Inc., 2) maximum capitalization, and, 3) labor cost to equipment utilization of 1:1 is, by itself, a violation of existing laws. 2. The ECCs issued in favor of San R Construction Corporation and Galeo Equipment Corporation have no legal basis and [are] therefore considered null and void from the beginning. Similarly, the small scale mining permits that were issued by reason of such ECCs are likewise null and void. DOJ categorically concluded that the term 'ore' should be confined only to Ni-Co, that is, excluding soil and other materials that are of no economic value to the mining corporations. This is considering that their ECCs explicitly specified '50,000 MTs of Ni-Co ore.' The mining corporations then filed before the CA a Petition for Certiorari with prayer for Temporary Restraining Order and/or Preliminary Injunction, imputing grave abuse of discretion on the part of DENR in issuing the CDO but was denied the mining corporations' petition, not only because the ECCs have been mooted by their expiration, but also due to its recognition of the power of the DENR to issue the CDO as the agency reposed with the duty of managing and conserving the country's resources under Executive Order 192.

ISSUE: Whether or not there is a correct interpretation of the 50,000 MT limit. HELD: No. There are two different laws governing small-scale mining: PD 1899 and RA 7076. According to Section 1 of PD 1899: Small-scale mining refers to any single unit mining operation having an annual production of not more than 50,000 metric tons of ore and satisfying the following requisites: 1. The working is artisanal, whether open cast or shallow underground mining, without the use of sophisticated mining equipment; 2. Minimal investment on infrastructures and processing plant; 3. Heavy reliance on manual labor; and 4. Owned, managed or controlled by an individual or entity qualified under existing mining laws, rules and regulations. While under Section 3(b) of RA 7076, small-scale mining refers to 'mining activities which rely heavily on manual labor using simple implements and methods and do not use explosives or heavy mining equipment.' Significantly, this definition does not provide for annual extraction limit unlike in PD 1899. DOJ Opinion No. 74, Series of 2006 concluded that as nothing from RA 7076 speaks of an annual production limit, Section 1 of PD 1899 should be considered impliedly repealed by RA 7076, the later law. However, while these two laws tackle the definition of what small-scale mining is, both have different objects upon which the laws shall be applied to. PD 1899 applies to individuals, partnerships and corporations while RA 7076 applies to cooperatives.

The DENR, being the agency mandated to protect the environment and the country's natural resources, is authoritative on interpreting the 50,000- MT limit. MAO No. MRD-41 specifies measuring the 'run-ofmine ore,' meaning the ore as it emerges from the mine, i.e., before treatment. This definition is congruent with RA 7942 or The Philippine Mining Act of 1995.

League of Provinces of the Philippines v. DENR G.R. No. 175368. April 11, 2013 FACTS: Golden Falcon filed with the DENR an Application for Financial and Technical Assistance Agreement in Bulacan. Their subsequent applications and appeals were later denied by the DENR. While Golden Falcon's appeal was pending, Eduardo D. Mercado, Benedicto S. Cruz, Gerardo R. Cruz and Liberato Sembrano filed with the Provincial Environment and Natural Resources Office (PENRO) of Bulacan their respective Applications for Quarry Permit (AQP), which covered the same area Atlantic Mines and Trading Corporation (AMTC) filed with the PENRO of Bulacan an Application for Exploration Permit (AEP) covering 5,281 hectares of the area covered by Golden Falcon's Application for Financial and Technical Assistance Agreement.6

Director Cabantog, who was the concurrent Chairman of the Provincial Mining Regulatory Board PMRB, endorsed to the Provincial Governor of Bulacan, Governor Josefina M. dela Cruz, the aforesaid Applications for Quarry Permit that had apparently been converted to Applications for Small-Scale Mining Permit of Eduardo D. Mercado, Benedicto S. Cruz, Gerardo R. Cruz and Lucila S. Valdez (formerly Liberato Sembrano). August 10, 2005, Governor Dela Cruz issued the corresponding Small-Scale Mining Permits in favor of Eduardo D. Mercado, Benedicto S. Cruz, Gerardo R. Cruz and Lucila S. Valdez AMTC appealed to respondent DENR Secretary the grant of the aforesaid Small-Scale Mining Permits August 8, 2006, respondent DENR Secretary rendered a Decision14 in favor of AMTC. the Small-Scale Mining Permits granted by the PMRB

and the Governor were null and void. On the other hand, the DENR Secretary declared that AMTC filed its Application for Exploration Permit when the area was already open to other mining applicants; thus, AMTC’s Application for Exploration Permit was valid. Moreover, the DENR Secretary held that the questioned Small-Scale Mining Permits were issued in violation of Section 4 of R.A. No. 7076 and beyond the authority of the Provincial Governor pursuant to Section 43 of R.A. No. 7942, because the area was never proclaimed to be under the People's Small-Scale Mining Program. ISSUES: (1) Whether or not Section 17(B)(3)(III) of R.A. No. 7160 and Section 24 of R.A. No. 7076 are unconstitutional for providing for executive control and infringing upon the local autonomy of provinces. (2) Whether or not, the act of respondent in nullifying, voiding and cancelling the small-scale mining permits amounts to executive control, not merely supervision and usurps the devolved powers of all provinces. HELD: (1) No. In this case, respondent DENR Secretary has the authority to nullify the Small-Scale Mining Permits issued by the Provincial Governor of Bulacan, as the DENR Secretary has control over the PMRB, and the implementation of the Small-Scale Mining Program is subject to control by respondent DENR. Paragraph 1 of Section 2, Article XII of the Constitution provides that "the exploration, development and utilization of natural resources shall be under the full control and supervision of the State." Under said provision, the DENR has the duty to control and supervise the exploration, development, utilization and conservation of the country's natural resources. Hence, the enforcement of small-scale mining law in the provinces is made subject to the supervision, control and review of the DENR under the Local Government Code of 1991, while the People’s Small-Scale Mining Act of 1991 provides that the People’s Small-Scale Mining Program is to be implemented by the DENR Secretary in coordination with other concerned local government agencies. The Court has clarified that the constitutional guarantee of local autonomy in the Constitution Art. X, Sec. 2 refers to the administrative autonomy of local government units or the decentralization of government

authority. It does not make local governments sovereign within the State. The Local Government Code did not fully devolve the enforcement of the small-scale mining law to the provincial government, as its enforcement is subject to the supervision, control and review of the DENR, which is in charge, subject to law and higher authority, of carrying out the State's constitutional mandate to control and supervise the exploration, development, utilization of the country's natural resources. Bacaltos Coal Mines v. CA G.R. No. 114091

June 29, 1995

FACTS: In an “Authorization,” petitioner Bacaltos authorized Savellon, to use the coal operating contract of Bacaltos Coal Mine of which he is the proprietor, “For any legitimate purpose that it may serve” and particularly: (1) to acquire purchase orders; (2) to engage in trading; (3) to collect all receivables due or in arrears; (4) to extend to any person or company by substitution the same extent of authority that is granted to Rene Savellon; (5) in connection with the preceding paragraphs to execute and sign documents, contracts, and other pertinent papers. In 1988, a Trip Charter Party was executed between Bacaltos Coal Mines (represented by Savellon) and San Miguel. The agreement was that For Php 650,000 to be paid within seven days after the execution of the contract, it "lets, demises" the vessel to charterer SMC "For three round trips to Davao." The vessel was able to make only one trip, so SMC filed an action for specific performance. Petitioners alleged that Savellon was not their Chief Operating Officer and that the powers granted to him are only those clearly expressed in the Authorization which do not include the power to enter into any contract with SMC.

ISSUE: WON Savellon was duly authorized by the petitioners to enter into the Trip Charter Party. RULING: NO. The broadest scope of Savellon's authority is limited to the use of the coal operating contract and the clause cannot contemplate any other power not included in the enumeration or which are unrelated either to the power to use the coal operating contract or to those already enumerated. In short, while the clause allows some room for flexibility, it can comprehend only additional prerogatives falling within the primary power and within the same class as those enumerated. There is no evidence at all that Bacaltos Coal Mines as a coal mining company owns and operates vessels, and even if it owned any such vessels, that it was allowed to charter or lease them. Also, the Authorization is not a general power of attorney. It is a special power of attorney for it refers to a clear mandate specially authorizing the performance of a specific power and of express acts subsumed therein. Furthermore, had SMC exercised due diligence and prudence, it should have known in no time that there is absolutely nothing on the Face of the Authorization that confers upon Savellon the authority to enter into any Trip Charter Party Before this Court determines the validity of an act of a co-equal and coordinate branch of the Government, it bears emphasis that ingrained in our jurisprudence is the time-honored principle that a statute is presumed to be valid. This presumption is rooted in the doctrine of separation of powers which enjoins upon the three coordinate departments of the Government a becoming courtesy for each other's acts. This Court, however, may declare a law, or portions thereof, unconstitutional where a petitioner has shown a clear and unequivocal breach of the Constitution, leaving no doubt or hesitation in the mind of the Court. (2) No. The Court finds that the decision of the DENR Secretary was

rendered in accordance with the power of review granted to the DENR Secretary in the resolution of disputes, which is provided for in Section 24 of R.A. No. 707651 and Section 22 of its Implementing Rules and Regulations. The decision of the DENR Secretary, declaring that the Application for Exploration Permit of AMTC was valid and may be given due course, and canceling the Small-Scale Mining Permits issued by the Provincial Governor, emanated from the power of review granted to the DENR Secretary under R.A. No. 7076 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations. The DENR Secretary's power to review and decide the issue on the validity of the issuance of the Small-Scale Mining Permits by the Provincial Governor as recommended by the PMRB, is a quasi-judicial function, which involves the determination of what the law is, and what the legal rights of the contending parties are, with respect to the matter in controversy and, on the basis thereof and the facts obtaining, the adjudication of their respective rights. The DENR Secretary exercises quasi-judicial function under R.A. No. 7076 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations to the extent necessary in settling disputes, conflicts or litigations over conflicting claims. This quasi-judicial function of the DENR Secretary can neither be equated with "substitution of judgment" of the Provincial Governor in issuing Small-Scale Mining Permits nor "control" over the said act of the Provincial Governor as it is a determination of the rights of AMTC over conflicting claims based on the law.