[Alvarez vs Picop Resources ] (2009)
secretary to issue or automatically convert their existing
[J.Chico-Nazario]
TOPIC Consultation
SUMMARY (optional for relatively long cases)
DOCTRINE The approval of the Sanggunian
concerned is required by law, not because
the local government has control over
such project, but because the local
government has the duty to protect its
constituents and their stake in the
implementation of the project.
Again, Section 26 states that it applies to
projects that "may cause pollution,
climatic change, depletion of non-
renewable resources, loss of crop land,
rangeland, or forest cover, and extinction
of animal or plant species". The local
government should thus represent the
communities in such area, the very people
who will be affected by flooding,
landslides or even climatic change if the
project is not properly regulated, and who
likewise have a stake in the resources in
the area, and deserve to be adequately
compensated when these resources are
exploited.
I. FACTS
(Note this case is already a MR of a previous case
wherein PICOP lost its petition for mandamus)
The case is quite long and pertains to the issue of
whether or not PICOP is entitled to file a petition for
Mandamus to compel the petitioner DENR secretary to
issue an Integrated Forest Management Agreement
(IFMA) to respondent PICOP.
The basis for this is the presidential warranty issued by
President Ferdinand Marcos in 1969 which in the
perspective of PICOP constitutes a contract between the
Government and PICOP that will enable it to
automatically get an IFMA after the expiration of their
existing Timber License Agreement.
Nevertheless, the SC herein held that mandamus does
not lie against petitioner DENR secretary because the
Presidential Warranty issued in 1969 is not a contract
which would make it a matter of duty for the DENR
Timber License Agreement into an IFMA. (Note: long
discussion on the nature of licenses not being a contract
and the constitutional prohibition on extending a timber
co-production agreement for more than 25 years after its
initial 25 year lifetime).
The SC also said that assuming arguendo that the
Presidential Warranty is a contract, it must also be
proven that PICOP complied with all the administrative
and statutory requirements for the issuance of an IFMA.
This is the topic which has a connection to our topic.
The two requirements which will be discussed are :
1) Consultation with and approval from the LGU
councils of the LGU’s affected by the IFMA
2) Certification from the NCIP that the coverage of
the IFMA does not overlap with any ancestral
domain
II. ISSUE
WON PICOP is required to consult with and secure
approval from the LGU councils of the LGU’s affected by
the IFMA? YES
III. RATIONALE
PICOP initially sought to comply with the requirement
under Sections 26 and 27 of the Local Government
Code to procure prior approval of the Sanggunians
concerned. However, only one of the many provinces
affected approved the issuance of an IFMA to PICOP.
Surprisingly, the disapproval by the other provinces did
go unnoticed before the RTC and the Court of Appeals,
despite the repeated assertions thereof by the Solicitor
General. When we pointed out in the assailed Decision
that the approval must be by all the Sanggunians
concerned and not by only one of them, PICOP
changed its theory of the case in its Motion for
Reconsideration, this time claiming that they are not
required at all to procure Sanggunian approval.
The SC reproduced sections 26 & 27 of the LGC to
show that prior consultation and approval of all the
LGU’s concerned. Only the Provincial Council of
Surigao was secured. The SC held this was not a
sufficient compliance since the IFMA would cover as should thus represent the communities in such area,
well Agusan del Sur, Compostela Valley, and Davao the very people who will be affected by flooding,
Oriental. landslides or even climatic change if the project is
not properly regulated, and who likewise have a
In this MR, PICOP now claims that section 26 of the
stake in the resources in the area, and deserve to be
LGC does not apply to it since it is NOT a national
adequately compensated when these resources are
agency or a gocc. The conversion to IFMA is purely a
exploited.
private endeavour.
IV. DISPOSITIVE
The SC then stated that all projects relating to the
exploration, development and utilization of natural WHEREFORE, the Motion for Reconsideration of PICOP
resources are projects of the State. While the State Resources, Inc. is DENIED.
may enter into co-production, joint venture, or
SO ORDERED.
production-sharing agreements with Filipino citizens, or
corporations or associations at least sixty per centum of
whose capital is owned by these citizens, such as
PICOP, the projects nevertheless remain as State
projects and can never be purely private endeavors.
PICOP is indeed neither a national agency nor a
government-owned or controlled corporation. The
DENR, however, is a national agency and is the
national agency prohibited by Section 27 from
issuing an IFMA without the prior approval of the
Sanggunian concerned. As previously discussed,
PICOP's Petition for Mandamus can only be granted if
the DENR Secretary is required by law to issue an IFMA.
We, however, see here the exact opposite: the DENR
Secretary was actually prohibited by law from issuing an
IFMA, as there had been no prior approval by all the
other Sanggunians concerned.
Finally, the devolution of the project to local government
units is not required before Sections 26 and 27 would be
applicable. Neither Section 26 nor 27 mentions such a
requirement. Moreover, it is not only the letter, but more
importantly the spirit of Sections 26 and 27, that shows
that the devolution of the project is not required.
The approval of the Sanggunian concerned is
required by law, not because the local government
has control over such project, but because the local
government has the duty to protect its constituents
and their stake in the implementation of the project.
Again, Section 26 states that it applies to projects
that "may cause pollution, climatic change,
depletion of non-renewable resources, loss of crop
land, rangeland, or forest cover, and extinction of
animal or plant species". The local government