LA BUGAL-BLAAN TRIBAL ASSOCIATION v.

RAMOS
FACTS. The Petitioners in this case challenges the constitutionality of RA 7942 (The Philippine Mining
Act of 1995), its IRR provided by DENR, and the Financial and Technical Assistance Agreement
(FTAA), executed by the government with Western Mining Corporation Philippines, Inc. (WMCP)
before RA 7942s effectivity.
According to petitioners RA 7942, its IRR, and the FTAA are all unconstitutional because they
allow fully foreign owned corporations like WMCP to exploit, explore and develop Philippine
mineral resources in contravention of Article XII Section 2 paragraphs 2 and 4 of the
Constitution.

HELD. All mineral resources were owned by the State. Their exploration, development and utilization
always had to be subject to the full control and supervision of the State. However, given the
inadequacy of Filipino capital and technology, the State could secure the help of foreign
companies in all relevant matters -- especially financial and technical assistance -- provided that,
at all times, the State maintained its right of full control.

The regulations in question vested in the government more than a sufficient degree of control
and supervision over the conduct of mining operations. The proposal recognizes the need for
capital and technology to develop our natural resources without sacrificing our sovereignty and
control over such resources by the safeguard of a special law which requires two-thirds vote of
all the members of the Legislature. This setup could not be regarded as disadvantageous to the
State or the Filipino people; it did not convey beneficial ownership of Filipino mineral resources
to foreign contractors.

The Court upheld the constitutionality of the Philippine Mining Law and its implementing rules
and regulations - insofar as they related to financial and technical agreements - as well as the
Financial and Technical Assistance Agreement in question.


OPOSA v. FACTORAN
FACTS. A taxpayers class suit was initiated by the Philippine Ecological Network Incorporated (PENI)
together with the minors Oposa and their parents. They claimed that as taxpayers they have
the right to the full benefit, use and enjoyment of the natural resources of the countrys
rainforests. They prayed that a judgment be rendered ordering Honorable Factoran Jr, his
agents, representatives and other persons acting in his behalf to cancel all existing timber
license agreements in the country and cease and desist from receiving, accepting, processing,
renewing or approving new timber license agreements.

HELD. The complaint focuses on one specific fundamental legal right the right to a balanced and
healthful ecology which, for the first time in our nation's constitutional history, is solemnly
incorporated in the fundamental law: Section 16, Article II of the 1987 Constitution.

While the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is to be found under the Declaration of
Principles and State Policies and not under the Bill of Rights, it does not follow that it is less
important than any of the civil and political rights enumerated in the latter. Such a right belongs
to a different category of rights altogether for it concerns nothing less than self-preservation
and self-perpetuation aptly and fittingly stressed by the petitioners the advancement of
which may even be said to predate all governments and constitutions. As a matter of fact, these
basic rights need not even be written in the Constitution for they are assumed to exist from the
inception of humankind. If they are now explicitly mentioned in the fundamental charter, it is
because of the well-founded fear of its framers that unless the rights to a balanced and healthful
ecology and to health are mandated as state policies by the Constitution itself, thereby
highlighting their continuing importance and imposing upon the state a solemn obligation to
preserve the first and protect and advance the second, the day would not be too far when all
else would be lost not only for the present generation, but also for those to come generations
which stand to inherit nothing but parched earth incapable of sustaining life.

*** As to the matter of the cancellation of the TLAs, respondents submit
that the same cannot be done by the State without due process of law.
Once issued, a TLA remains effective for a certain period of time
usually for twenty-five (25) years. During its effectivity, the same can
neither be revised nor cancelled unless the holder has been found, after
due notice and hearing, to have violated the terms of the agreement or
other forestry laws and regulations. Petitioners' proposition to have all
the TLAs indiscriminately cancelled without the requisite hearing would
be violative of the requirements of due process.


MMDA v. CONCERNED CITIZENS OF MANILA BAY
FACTS. On January 29, 1999, Concerned Residents of Manila Bay filed a complaint before the Regional
Trial Court (RTC) in Imus, Cavite against several government agencies, for the cleanup,
rehabilitation, and protection of the Manila Bay to restore its quality into class B fit for
swimming and other forms of contact recreation.
In their individual causes of action, respondents alleged that the continued neglect of
petitioners in abating the pollution of the Manila Bay constitutes a violation of, among others:
Respondents constitutional right to life, health, and a balanced ecology; the Environment Code,
Pollution Control Law, Water Code, Sanitation Code, Illegal Disposal of Wastes Decree, Marine
Pollution Law, Toxic and Hazardous Wastes Law etc.
Respondents, as plaintiffs a quo, prayed that petitioners be ordered to clean the Manila Bay and
submit to the RTC a concerted concrete plan of action for the purpose.
HELD. Finding merit in the complaint, the Court ordered defendant-government agencies, jointly and
solidarily, to clean up and rehabilitate Manila Bay and restore its waters to SB classification to
make it fit for swimming, skin-diving and other forms of contact recreation.

To attain this, defendant-agencies, with defendant DENR as the lead agency, are directed, within
six (6) months from receipt hereof, to act and perform their respective duties by devising a
consolidated, coordinated and concerted scheme of action for the rehabilitation and restoration
of the bay.
The importance of the Manila Bay as a sea resource, playground, and as a historical landmark
cannot be over-emphasized. It is not yet too late in the day to restore the Manila Bay to its
former splendor and bring back the plants and sea life that once thrived in its blue waters. But
the tasks ahead, daunting as they may be, could only be accomplished if those mandated, with
the help and cooperation of all civic-minded individuals, would put their minds to these tasks
and take responsibility. This means that the State, through petitioners, has to take the lead in
the preservation and protection of the Manila Bay.
So it was that in Oposa v. Factoran, Jr. the Court stated that the right to a balanced and healthful
ecology need not even be written in the Constitution for it is assumed, like other civil and
political rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, to exist from the inception of mankind and it is an
issue of transcendental importance with intergenerational implications. Even assuming the
absence of a categorical legal provision specifically prodding petitioners to clean up the bay,
they and the men and women representing them cannot escape their obligation to future
generations of Filipinos to keep the waters of the Manila Bay clean and clear as humanly as
possible. Anything less would be a betrayal of the trust reposed in them.
MINERS ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES, INC v. FACTORAN
FACTS. Former President Corazon Aquino issued Executive Order Nos 211 and 279 in the exercise of her
legislative powers. EO 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. EO No. 279 authorizes the DENR Secretary to negotiate
and conclude joint-venture, co-production, or production- sharing agreements for the
exploration, development, and utilization of mineral resources.

The issuance and the impeding implementation by the DENR of Administrative Order Nos. 57
which declares that all existing mining leases or agreements which were granted after the
effectivity of the 1987 Constitutionshall be converted into production-sharing agreements
within one (1) year from the effectivity of these guidelines. and Administrative Order No. 82
which provides that a failure to submit Letter of Intent and Mineral Production-Sharing
Agreement within 2 years from the effectivity of the Department Administrative Order No. 57
shall cause the abandonment of the mining, quarry, and sand and gravel claims, after their
respective effectivity dates compelled the Miners Association of the Philippines, Inc., an
organization composed of mining prospectors and claim owners and claim holders, to file the
instant petition assailing their validity and constitutionality before this Court.
HELD. Well -settled is the rule, however, that regardless of the reservation clause, mining leases or
agreements granted by the State, such as those granted pursuant to Executive Order No. 211
referred to this petition, are subject to alterations through a reasonable exercise of the police
power of the State.
Accordingly, the State, in the exercise of its police power in this regard, may not be precluded by
the constitutional restriction on non-impairment of contract from altering, modifying and
amending the mining leases or agreements granted under Presidential Decree No. 463, as
amended, pursuant to Executive Order No. 211. Police Power, being co-extensive with the
necessities of the case and the demands of public interest; extends to all the vital public needs.
The passage of Executive Order No. 279 which superseded Executive Order No. 211 provided
legal basis for the DENR Secretary to carry into effect the mandate of Article XII, Section 2 of the
1987 Constitution.

KRIVENKO v. REGISTER OF DEEDS OF MANILA
FACTS. Alexander Krivenko, an alien, bought a residential lot from Magdalena Estate Inc. in December
1941. The registration was interrupted by the war. In May 1945, he sought to accomplish the
said registration but was denied by the Register of Deeds of Manila on the grounds that he is a
foreigner and he cannot acquire a land in this jurisdiction. Krivenko brought the case to the CFI
of Manila. The CFI ruled that he cannot own a land, being an alien. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE. WON an alien may own private lands in the Philippines.

HELD. NO.
Save in cases of hereditary succession, aliens have no right to acquire any public or private land
or private agricultural, commercial, or residential lands.

Sec. 1, Art 13 of the Constitution talks about the conservation and utilization of natural
resources. The said provision embraces all lands of any kind of the public domain. Its purpose is
to establish a permanent and fundamental policy for the conservation and utilization of all
natural resources of the nation. Although it mentions agricultural, timber, and mineral lands,
the court held that in determining whether a parcel of land is agricultural, the test is not only
whether it is actually agricultural, but also its susceptibility to cultivation for agricultural
purposes. Hence, public agricultural land was construed as referring to those lands that were
not timber or mineral. Therefore, it includes residential lands.