REPUBLIC V.

ROSEMOORE MINING
G.R. No. 14997, March 30, 2004

FACTS:

Four respondents were granted permission to look for marble deposits in the mountains of
Biak-na-Bato. When they discovered marble deposits in Mount Mabio, they applied for license
to exploit said marble deposits and they were issued such license. However, in a letter, Ernest o
Maceda (newly-appointed Minister of the Department of Energy and Natural Resources)
cancelled their license. Proclamation No. 84 was then issued, confirming the cancellation of the
license.

RULING OF THE TRIAL COURT:

The privilege granted under respondents’ license already became a property right, which is
protected under the due process clause. License cancellation, without notice and hearing was
unjust. Moreover, the proclamation, which confirmed the cancellation of the license was an ex
post facto law.

RULING OF THE COURT OF APPEALS:

CA affirmed the decision of the Trial Court.

It adds that the Constitution provides for the non-impairment of obligations and contracts,
which implies that the license of the respondents must be respected.

ISSUES:

1. WON the license was valid.

Petitioners: License was issued in violation of PD 463 – a quarry license should cover
not more than 100 hectares in any given province. The license was issued to Rosemoor
Mining and Development Corporation and covered a 330-hectare land.

Respondents: The license was embraced by 4 separate applications, each for an aread of
81 hectares. Also, the issue has been mooted because PD 463 has already been repealed
by RA 7942 or the Philippine Mining Act of 1995.

2. WON Proclamation No. 84 – which confirmed the cancellation of the license, is valid.

Petitioners: The license was validly declared a nullity and terminated. Maceda’sletter did not
cancel or revoke the license, but merely declared its nullity. Also, the respondents waived their
right to notice and hearing in their license application.

Respondents: Their right to due process was violated because there was no notice and hearing.
Proclamation No. 84 is not valid because it violates the clause on non-impairment of contracts, it
is an ex post facto law and/or a bill of attainder, and it was issued by the President after the
effectivity of the 1987 Constitution.

RULING OF THE SUPREME COURT:

The Petition is GRANTED.

SC set aside the decision of the CA and TC.

1. THE LICENSE IS NOT VALID.

The issue has not been mooted because while RA 7942 has expressly repealed provisions of
mining laws that are inconsistent with its own, it respects previously issued valid and existing
licenses.

When the license was issued, the governing law was PD 463. Thus, it was subject to the terms
and conditions of PD 463, including the part where it says that the quarry license shall cover an
area of not more than 100 hectares in any one province and not more than 1000 hectares in the
entire Philippines. The license in question was issued in the name of Rosemoor Mining
Development Corporation and not the 4 individual stockholders. It clearly violates PD 463
because the license covered an area of 330-hectares.

2. PROCLAMATION NO. 84, CONFIRMING THE CANCELLATION OF THE LICENSE,

IS VALID.

Respondents’ license may be revoked or rescinded by executive action when the national
interest so requires because it is not a contract, property or a property right protected by the due
process clause of the Constitution. The license itself provides such condition. The license can
also be validly revoked by the State in the exercise of police power, in accordance with the
Regalian doctrine.

Also, since the license is not a contract, the non-impairment clause may not be invoked. Even if
it were, the non-impairment clause must yield to the police power of the State.

The proclamation cannot also be said to be a bill-of-attainder, which is a legislative act which
inflicts punishment without judicial trial. The proclamation only declares the nullity of the
license. It does not declare guilt or impose punishment.

The proclamation can also be said to be an ex post facto law because it does not fall under any
of the six recognized instances when a law is considered as such. It is not even criminal or penal
in nature.

Lastly, when President Aquino issued Proclamation No. 84, she was still validly exercising
legislative powers under the Provisional Constitution of 1986.