CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
Didipio Earth Savers
Multipurpose Association vs Gozun
G.R. No. 157882 [March
30, 2006]
FIRST DIVISION, CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Police Power; Eminent
Domain; Delegation of Legilative Power to Administrative Agencies
Republic Act No. 7942 (Philippine Mining
Act of 1995) and the DENR’s implementing rules and regulations are valid and
constitutional. Delegation of legislative authority to administrative agencies
is permissible when it provides specificity and ensures effective implementation
of the law.
In 1987, Cory rolled out EO 279 w/c empowered DENR to stipulate with foreign companies when it comes to either technical or financial large scale exploration or mining. In 1995, Ramos signed into law RA 7942 or the Philippine Mining Act. In 1994, Ramos already signed an FTAA with Arimco Mining Co, an Australian company. The FTAA authorized AMC (later CAMC) to explore 37,000 ha of land in Quirino and N. Vizcaya including Brgy Didipio.After the passage of the law, DENR rolled out its implementing RRs. Didipio petitioned to have the law and the RR to be annulled as it is unconstitutional and it constitutes unlawful taking of property.
The Didipio Earth-Savers’ Multi-Purpose Association, Inc. (DESAMA) and several individuals petitioned to nullify a Financial or Technical Assistance Agreement (FTAA) granted by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) to Climax-Arimco Mining Corporation (CAMC). They argued that Republic Act No. 7942, the Philippine Mining Act of 1995, and its implementing rules and regulations (IRRs) were unconstitutional. Specifically, they claimed the law violated the constitutional mandate to protect natural resources, failed to safeguard the rights of indigenous peoples, and infringed on the constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology. Additionally, the petitioners contended that RA 7942 improperly delegated legislative powers to the DENR by authorizing it to issue detailed regulations.
The DENR and CAMC argued that the
Mining Act and its IRRs were constitutional and consistent with the
constitutional framework for the responsible utilization of natural resources.
They emphasized that the law provided safeguards for environmental protection
and indigenous peoples' rights and was designed to support national development.
Whether RA 7942 (Philippine Mining Act of 1995) and
the DENR’s implementing rules and regulations (IRRs) are unconstitutional.
NO. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the DENR and CAMC, upholding the validity and constitutionality of RA 7942 and its implementing rules and regulations. The Court ruled that the Mining Act of 1995 was enacted to operationalize the constitutional mandate allowing the state to utilize natural resources for economic development. The law is consistent with Article XII of the 1987 Constitution, which recognizes both the state’s authority to manage natural resources and the need to protect the environment.
The Court held that RA 7942 provided the necessary safeguards to ensure the responsible utilization of natural resources. It required environmental impact assessments, consultations with affected communities, and adherence to strict environmental standards. Furthermore, the law protected the rights of indigenous peoples through mechanisms such as free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC) for mining activities within ancestral domains, as mandated by the Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act (IPRA).
On the issue of delegation of legislative power, the Court ruled that the delegation of authority to the DENR to craft implementing regulations was valid. The delegation was specific and necessary to enable the DENR, as the agency with technical expertise, to execute the law effectively. The regulations issued by the DENR were deemed consistent with the policy objectives of RA 7942.
The Court also emphasized the need to
balance the constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology with the
state's duty to promote economic development. RA 7942 and its IRRs embody this
balance by allowing mining operations under strict environmental controls and
community protections. Petitioners failed to show any concrete violations of
constitutional or statutory rights.
No comments:
Post a Comment