You are on page 1of 5

G.R. No.

Didipio Earth-Savers Multi-Purpose Association, Inc. v. Elisea
March 30, 2006
This petition for prohibition and mandamus assails the
constitutionality of Republic Act No. 7942 or the Philippine Mining
Act of 1995, its Implementing Rules and Regulations Department
of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) Administrative
Order No. 96-40, s. 1996 (DAO 96-40), and of the Financial and
Technical Assistance Agreement (FTAA) entered into on 20 June
1994 by the Republic of the Philippines and Arimco Mining
Corporation (AMC), a corporation established under the laws of
Australia and owned by its nationals.
Subsequently, AMC consolidated with Climax Mining Limited
to form a single company that now goes under the new name of
Climax-Arimco Mining Corporation (CAMC), the controlling 99% of
stockholders of which are Australian nationals.
On 20 June 1994, President Ramos executed an FTAA with
AMC over a total land area of 37,000 hectares covering
the provinces of Nueva Vizcaya and Quirino. Included in this area
is Barangay Dipidio, Kasibu, Nueva Vizcaya.
The CAMC FTAA grants in favor of CAMC the right of
possession of the Exploration Contract Area, the full right of
ingress and egress and the right to occupy the same. It also
bestows CAMC the right not to be prevented from entry into
private lands by surface owners or occupants thereof when
prospecting, exploring and exploiting minerals therein.
Didipio Earth-Savers' Multi-Purpose Association, Inc., an
organization of farmers and indigenous peoples organized under
Philippine laws, representing a community actually affected by
the mining activities of CAMC, as well as other residents of areas
affected by the mining activities of CAMC. They argue that Section

76 is not a taking provision but a valid exercise of the police

power and by virtue of which, the state may prescribe regulations
to promote the health, morals, peace, education, good order,
safety and general welfare of the people. This government
regulation involves the adjustment of the rights for the public
good and that this adjustment curtails some potential for the use
or economic exploitation of private property. Public respondents
concluded that to require compensation in all such
circumstances would compel the government to regulate by
Whether or not RA 7942 and its Implementing Rules and
Regulations are valid
Yes. RA 7942 and its Implementing Rules Regulations are
valid. Didipio failed to show that the law is invalid. The Court
noted the requisites of eminent domain and these are: (1) the
expropriator must enter a private property; (2) the entry must be
for more than a momentary period; (3) the entry must be under
warrant or color of legal authority; (4) the property must be
devoted to public use or otherwise informally appropriated or
injuriously affected; and (5) the utilization of the property for
public use must be in such a way as to oust the owner and
deprive him of beneficial enjoyment of the property.
Indeed, there is taking involved but it is not without just
compensation. Section 76 of RA 7942 provides for just
compensation as well as section 107 of the IRR.

G.R. No. 149927

Republic of the Philippines v. Rosemoor Mining and Development
March 30, 2004
This petition for review seeks to nullify the decision and
resolution of the Court of Appeals. The petitioner Rosemoor
Mining and Development Corporation 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. They then applied with the Mines and Geosciences Bureau
for the issuance of the corresponding license to exploit said
marble deposits.
The Bureau issued License No. 33 to the petitioners. Shortly
thereafter, respondent Ernesto Maceda cancelled the petitioners
license stating that their license had illegally been said issued,
because it violated Section 69 of PD 463; and that there was no
more public interest served by the continued existence or renewal
of the license. The latter reason was confirmed by the language of
Proclamation No. 84. According to this law, public interest would
be served by reverting the parcel of land that was excluded by
Proclamation No. 2204 to the former status of that land as part of
the Biak-na-Bato national park.
Whether or not the Presidential Proclamation No. 84 is valid
Yes. The Presidential Proclamation No. 84 is valid. Its
declaration that License No. 33 is a patent nullity is certainly not a
declaration of guilty. There is no merit in the argument that the

proclamation is 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.
Proclamation No. 84 merely restored the area excluded from the
Biak-na-Bato national park by canceling respondents license.
Hence, it clearly not penal in character.
G.R. No. 183576
Diamond Drilling Corporation of the Philippines v. Newmont
Philippines Incorporated
May 30, 2011
This petition for review assails the decision and resolution of
the Court of Appeals. Respondent Newmont Philippines
Incorporated filed eight FTAA applications since they wanted to
explore and develop large gold deposits in the Central Cordillera
comprising a maximum contract area of 100,000 hectares of land
for each application.
The petitioner Diamond Drilling Corporation of the
Philippines likewise filed an application for Mineral Production
Sharing Agreement (MPSA) covering 4,860 hectares of land in the
areas situated in Benguet and Mountain Province. Upon
verification, the Bureau found that Diamond Drillings MPSA
application was in conflict with a portion of one of Newmonts
FTAA applications.
On 2 August 1996, Diamond Drilling sought to annul the
eight FTAA applications of Newmont and asked that it be granted
preferential right over areas covered by its MPSA application.
The Mines Adjudication Board (MAB) ruled in favor of
Newmonts. CA then affirmed MABs decision.
Whether or not the CA committed a reversible error in
affirming the decision of the MAB giving preferential right to

Newmonts FTAA applications over Diamond Drillings MPSA

No. The CA did not commit a reversible error in affirming the
decision of the MAB giving preferential right to Newmonts FTAA
applications over Diamond Drillings MPSA application. Newmonts
have already paid the fees on the same date of its FTAA
applications. It is clear from Section 8 DAO 63 that the MGB
Central Office processes all FTAA applications after payment of
the requisite fees. However for the Diamond Drilling, they have
just paid their fees two days after Newmonts FTAA applications
were registered with the MGB Central Office.
Since Newmonts FTAA applications preceded that of
Diamond Drillings MPSA application priority should be given to
Newmont. Section 8 of DAO 64 is clear. It states that in the event
there are two or more applicants over the same area, priority shall
be given to the applicant that first filed its application.