Section 2.

All lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum, and other
mineral oils, all forces of potential energy, fisheries, forests or timber, wildlife, flora and
fauna, and other natural resources are owned by the State. With the exception of
agricultural lands, all other natural resources shall not be alienated. The exploration,
development, and utilization of natural resources shall be under the full control and
supervision of the State. The State may directly undertake such activities, or it may
enter into co-production, joint venture, or production-sharing agreements with Filipino
citizens, or corporations or associations at least sixty per centum  of whose capital is
owned by such citizens. Such agreements may be for a period not exceeding twenty-five
years, renewable for not more than twenty-five years, and under such terms and
conditions as may be provided by law. In cases of water rights for irrigation, water
supply fisheries, or industrial uses other than the development of water power,
beneficial use may be the measure and limit of the grant.

The State shall protect the nation’s marine wealth in its archipelagic waters, territorial
sea, and exclusive economic zone, and reserve its use and enjoyment exclusively to
Filipino citizens.

The Congress may, by law, allow small-scale utilization of natural resources by Filipino
citizens, as well as cooperative fish farming, with priority to subsistence fishermen and
fishworkers in rivers, lakes, bays, and lagoons.

The President may enter into agreements with foreign-owned corporations involving
either technical or financial assistance for large-scale exploration, development, and
utilization of minerals, petroleum, and other mineral oils according to the general terms
and conditions provided by law, based on real contributions to the economic growth
and general welfare of the country. In such agreements, the State shall promote the
development and use of local scientific and technical resources.

The President shall notify the Congress of every contract entered into in accordance
with this provision, within thirty days from its execution.
Miners Association of the Philippines v. Factoran, Case Digest
G.R. No. 98332 January 16, 1995

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 Constitution…shall 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.

Issue :
Are the two Department Administrative Orders valid?
Ruling :

Yes. Petitioner's insistence on the application of Presidential Decree No. 463, as

amended, as the governing law on the acceptance and approval of declarations of
location and all other kinds of applications for the exploration, development, and
utilization of mineral resources pursuant to Executive Order No. 211, is erroneous.
Presidential Decree No. 463, as amended, pertains to the old system of exploration,
development and utilization of natural resources through "license, concession or lease"
which, however, has been disallowed by Article XII, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution.
By virtue of the said constitutional mandate and its implementing law, Executive Order
No. 279 which superseded Executive Order No. 211, the provisions dealing on "license,
concession or lease" of mineral resources under Presidential Decree No. 463, as
amended, and other existing mining laws are deemed repealed and, therefore, ceased to
operate as the governing law. In other words, in all other areas of administration and
management of mineral lands, the provisions of Presidential Decree No. 463, as
amended, and other existing mining laws, still govern. Section 7 of Executive Order No.
279 provides, thus:
Sec. 7. All provisions of Presidential Decree No. 463, as amended, other existing mining
laws, and their implementing rules and regulations, or parts thereof, which are not
inconsistent with the provisions of this Executive Order, shall continue in force and
effect.

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.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit.

LA BUGAL-B’LAAN VS RAMOS (GR NO. 127882 DECEMBER 1, 2004)

La Bugal-B’Laan Tribal Association Inc. vs Ramos

GR No. 127882 December 1, 2004

Facts: The Petition for Prohibition and Mandamus before the Court challenges the
constitutionality of (1) Republic Act No. [RA] 7942 (The Philippine Mining Act of 1995);
(2) its Implementing Rules and Regulations (DENR Administrative Order No. [DAO]
96-40); and (3) the FTAA dated March 30, 1995,6 executed by the government with
Western Mining Corporation (Philippines), Inc. (WMCP). On January 27, 2004, the
Court en banc promulgated its Decision granting the Petition and declaring the
unconstitutionality of certain provisions of RA 7942, DAO 96-40, as well as of the entire
FTAA executed between the government and WMCP, mainly on the finding that
FTAAs are service contracts prohibited by the 1987 Constitution. The Decision struck
down the subject FTAA for being similar to service contracts, which, though permitted
under the 1973 Constitution, were subsequently denounced for being antithetical to the
principle of sovereignty over our natural resources, because they allowed foreign
control over the exploitation of our natural resources, to the prejudice of the Filipino
nation. The Decision quoted several legal scholars and authors who had criticized
service contracts for, inter alia, vesting in the foreign contractor exclusive management
and control of the enterprise, including operation of the field in the event petroleum
was discovered; control of production, expansion and development; nearly unfettered
control over the disposition and sale of the products discovered/extracted; effective
ownership of the natural resource at the point of extraction; and beneficial ownership of
our economic resources. According to the Decision, the 1987 Constitution (Section 2 of
Article XII) effectively banned such service contracts. Subsequently, respondents filed
separate Motions for Reconsideration. In a Resolution dated March 9, 2004, the Court
required petitioners to comment thereon. In the Resolution of June 8, 2004, it set the case
for Oral Argument on June 29, 2004.
Issue: Whether or not the FTAA issued were valid.

Held: Yes. The notion that the deliberations reflect only the views of those members
who spoke out and not the views of the majority who remained silent should be
clarified. We must never forget that those who spoke out were heard by those who
remained silent and did not react. If the latter were silent because they happened not to
be present at the time, they are presumed to have read the minutes and kept abreast of
the deliberations. By remaining silent, they are deemed to have signified their assent to
and/or conformity with at least some of the views propounded or their lack of
objections thereto. It was incumbent upon them, as representatives of the entire Filipino
people, to follow the deliberations closely and to speak their minds on the matter if they
did not see eye to eye with the proponents of the draft provisions.

In any event, each and every one of the commissioners had the opportunity to speak
out and to vote on the matter. Moreover, the individual explanations of votes are on
record, and they show where each delegate stood on the issues. In sum, we cannot
completely denigrate the value or usefulness of the record of the ConCom, simply
because certain members chose not to speak out.

However, it is of common knowledge, and of judicial notice as well, that the

government is and has for many many years been financially strapped, to the point that
even the most essential services have suffered serious curtailments — education and
health care, for instance, not to mention judicial services — have had to make do with
inadequate budgetary allocations. Thus, government has had to resort to build-operate-
transfer and similar arrangements with the private sector, in order to get vital
infrastructure projects built without any governmental outlay.

The drafters — whose ranks included many academicians, economists, businessmen,

lawyers, politicians and government officials — were not unfamiliar with the practices
of foreign corporations and multinationals.
Neither were they so naïve as to believe that these entities would provide “assistance”
without conditionalities or some quid pro quo. Definitely, as business persons well
know and as a matter of judicial notice, this matter is not just a question of signing a
promissory note or executing a technology transfer agreement. Foreign corporations
usually require that they be given a say in the management, for instance, of day-to-day
operations of the joint venture. They would demand the appointment of their own men
as, for example, operations managers, technical experts, quality control heads, internal
auditors or comptrollers. Furthermore, they would probably require seats on the Board
of Directors — all these to ensure the success of the enterprise and the repayment of the
loans and other financial assistance and to make certain that the funding and the
technology they supply would not go to waste. Ultimately, they would also want to
protect their business reputation and bottom lines.

Envi Assignment #1

 Write down your answers on a notebook/yellow pad and email the pictures/pdf to
me at reescanlariii@gmail.com and/or rescanlar@usa.edu.ph

 Deadline: 8am, 25 October 2020

- you may refer to your codals/slides/notes while answering

- please observe margins and indentations

1.) X Corporation was given a timber license to cut and collect timber in the province of
Bukidnon in 1970. In 1990, a memorandum order was issued revoking all timber
licenses in Bukidnon. X Corporation argues that this memorandum order violates the
non-impairment of contracts clause of the Constitution. Rule on the contention of X
Corporation.

2.) P Corporation is planning to enter into a joint venture with the Philippine
government for the purpose of exploring possible natural gas deposits in the Lingayen
Gulf. P Corporation’s capital is 75 percent owned by Filipinos and 25 percent owned by
Chinese investors. May the Philippine government validly enter into a joint venture
with P Corporation?

3.) Because of the increasing air pollution and cases of air pollution-related respiratory
ailments in Metro Manila and other cities in the country, Q Organization, a student
advocacy group, filed a petition for the issuance of a writ of kalikasan against the DENR
in the Supreme Court. DENR argues that Q Organization should not have filed the
petition directly to the Supreme Court, citing the doctrine of hierarchy of courts. Rule
on the contention of DENR.

4.) Because of the increasing air pollution and cases of air pollution-related respiratory
ailments in Metro Manila and other cities in the country, F Organization, a student
advocacy group, filed a petition for the issuance of a writ of continuing mandamus
against the DENR in the Supreme Court. DENR argues that F Organization must prove
that they are a real party-in-interest for the writ of continuing mandamus to issue. Rule
on the contention of DENR