La Bugal-BLaan Tribal Association vs.

Ramos
G.R. no. 127882

Facts:
It was when former President Corazon Aquino issued E.O no. 2796, which authorizes
the D.E.N.R secretary to consider and evaluate proposals from foreign investors for
agreements involving either technical or financial assistance for large-scale
exploration, development, and utilization of minerals. Such agreement will be
subject for recommendation of the Secretary, and the President may execute with
the foreign proponent.
During the incumbency of President Fidel Ramos R.A 7942 was approved, the
mentioned Act govern the exploration, development, utilization and processing of all
mineral resources. Upon its implementation on March 10, 1995 and after twenty
days, the former President Ramos entered into a FTAA with WMCP.
In relation to the aforeabove statement on August 15, 1995 then DENR Sec. Victor
Ramos issued DAO no. 95-23 (The Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A no.
7942) which was later repealed by DAO 96-40.
The implementation of the said Act was questioned by the petitioners through the
filling of a Prohibition and Mandamus before the court.

Issues:
1. Whether or not the case at hand is a justiciable question?
2. Whether or not mootness prevents the SC for judicial review?
3. Whether or not R.A no. 7942 and DAO 96-40 is unconstitutional.
Conclusion:
1. Yes. Any allegation of infringement of the constitution and settling the same
is a courts duty.
2. No. Mootness does not bar the Supreme court for judicial review
3. No. the law (R.A no. 7942 and DAO 96-42) vest in the government more than
a sufficient degree of control and supervision over the conduct of mining
operations.
Held:
Wherefore, the court RESOLVES to GRANT the respondents and the intervenors
Motions for reconsideration; to reverse and set aside this courts January 27, 2004
decision; to DISMISS the petition; and to issue this new judgement declaring

CONSTITUTIONAL R.A no. 7942 and DAO no. 96-40 ----- insofar as they relate to
financial and technical assistance agreements referred to in paragraph 4 of Section
2 of Article XII of the constitution; and the FTAA dated March 30, 1995 executed by
the government and WMCP, except sections 7.8 and 7.9 of the subject FTAA which
are hereby INVALIDATED for being contrary to public policy and for being grossly
disadvantageous to the government.
Ratio Decidendi:
1. When an act of the legislative department is seriously alleged to have
infringed the constitution, settling the controversy becomes the duty of this
court. By the mere enactment of the questioned law or the approval of the
challenged action, the dispute is said to have ripened into a judicial
controversy even without any other overt act.
2. We now agree that the Court must recognize the exceptional character of the
situation and the paramount public interest involved, as well as the necessity
for a ruling to put an end to the uncertainties plaguing the mining industry
and the affected communities as a result of the doubts cast upon the
constitutionality and validity of the Mining Act, the subject FTAA and future
FTAAs, and the need to avert a multiplicity of suits. Paraphrasing Gonzales
vs. COMELEC, it is evident that strong reasons of public policy demand that
the constitutionality issue be resolved now. In further support of the
immediate resolution of the constitutionality the courts will decide a question
--- otherwise moot and academic ---- if it is capable of repetition, yet evading
review. Public respondents ask the court to avoid a situation in which the
constitutionality issue may again arise with respect to another FTAA, the
resolution of which may not be achieved until after it has become too late for
our mining industry to grow out of its infancy. They also recall Salonga vs.
Cruz Puno, in which this court declared that the court also has the duty to
formulate guiding and controlling constitutional principles, precepts, doctrine
or rules. It has the symbolic function of educating the bench and bar on the
extent of protection given by constitutional guarantees.
3. Considering the provision of the statute and the regulations just discussed,
we believe that the State definitely possesses the means by which it can
have the ultimate word in the operation of the enterprises, set directions and
objectives and detect deviations and noncompliance by the contractor;
likewise, it has the capability to enforce compliance and to impose sanctions,
should the occasion therefor arise. In other words the FTAA contractor is not
free to do whatever it pleases and get away with it; on the contrary, it will
have to follow the government line if it wants to stay in the enterprise.
Ineluctably then, R.A 7942 and DAO 96-40 vest in the government more than
a sufficient degree of control and supervision over the conduct of mining
operation.