CREBA vs secretary of Agrarian Reform

Facts:
The Secretary of Agrarian Reform issued administrative orders and a memorandum
regarding the procedures governing land conversion from agricultural to non-agricultural.
Petitioner assailed its constitutionality, stating that the Secretary committed grave abuse
of discretion in including lands already reclassified by LGUs and the President under the
coverage of the said orders whereby such lands must now undergo the conversion process
over which the DAR has jurisdiction. According to petitioner, this violates the autonomy
granted to the LGUs.

Issue: Whether or not DAR AO no 01-02 a amended violates the local autonomy of the
Local Government Units.

Held:
No, the DAR ao no. 01-02 did not violate the local autonomy of local government units.
It is of no moment whether the reclassification of agricultural lands to residential,
commercial, industrial or other non-agricultural uses was done by the LGUs or by way of
Presidential Proclamations because either way they must still undergo conversion
process. It bears stressing that the act of reclassifying agricultural lands to non-
agricultural uses simply specifies how agricultural lands shall be utilized for non-
agricultural uses and does not automatically convert agricultural lands to non-agricultural
uses or for other purposes. As explained in DAR Memorandum Circular No. 7, Series of
1994, reclassification of lands denotes their allocation into some specific use and
providing for the manner of their utilization and disposition or the act of specifying how
agricultural lands shall be utilized for non-agricultural uses such as residential, industrial,
or commercial, as embodied in the land use plan. For reclassified agricultural lands,
therefore, to be used for the purpose to which they are intended there is still a need to
change the current use thereof through the process of conversion. The authority to do so
is vested in the DAR, which is mandated to preserve and maintain agricultural lands with
increased productivity. Thus, notwithstanding the reclassification of agricultural lands to
non-agricultural uses, they must still undergo conversion before they can be used for
other purposes.

Miners Association vs Factoran

Facts:
 Former President Corazon Aquino issued Executive Order which prescribes the
procedures in processing and approving applications for the exploration, development,
and utilization of minerals. E.O 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. Petitioners questions the
constitutionality of the 2 AO issued by hen Secretary of DENR Factoran pursuant to the
Executive orders issued by Former President Corazon Aquino. Department
Administrative Order no. 57 declares that “all existing mining lease or agreements which
are granted after the effectivity of the 1987 constitution shall be converted into
production sharing agreement within 1 year from the effectivity of these guidelines.” In
relation to this, DAO no. 82 provides that a failure to submit letter of intent and Mineral
Production Sharing agreement from the effectivity of the DAO no. 57 shall cause the
abandonment of mining, quarry, sand and gravel claims.
Issue:
Whether or not the two DAO are valid.
Held:
The two DAO are valid. The DAO issued by the Secretary of DENR are directed
to the accomplishment of the purpose of the law under which they were issued and were
intended to secure the paramount interest of the public, their economic growth and
welfare. Their constitutionality must be sustained, and their force and effect be upheld for
they were part of the legitimate exercise of the police power of the state. The non-
impairment clause guaranteed by the 1987 constitution should not prevail over the
legitimate exercise of the police power since it has been ruled by the Supreme Court that
such power is not absolute.

Labugal-B’laan Tribal Association vs Ramos

Facts:
The Petitioner filed a petition for prohibition and mandamus which challenges the
constitutionality of R.A 7942 also known as The Philippine Mining Act of 1995, its IRR
and Financial and Technical Assistance Agreement. The Petitioner argue that the FTAA
violated the 1987 constitution in the way that it is a service contract and is antithetical to
the principle of sovereignty over our natural resources, because it allows foreign control
on the exploitation of our natural resources.
Issue:
Whether or not the FTAA violates the 1987 constitution.
Held:
The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Philippine Mining Law and
its IRR. Insofar as they relate to financial and technical agreement as well as the subject
FTAA. Full control is not anathematic to day-to-day management by the contractor,
provided that the state retains the power to direct overall strategy and to set aside, reverse
or modify plans and actions of the contractor. The idea of full control is similar to that
which is exercised by the board of directors of a private corporation, the performance of
managerial, operational, financial and other functions may be delegated to subordinate
officers or given to contractual entities, but the board retains full residual control of the
business.

PICOP resources vs Base Metal Resources Corporation

Facts:
The CMMCI entered into a Mines operation Agreement with Banahaw Mining
and Development Corporation wherein the later will serve as the mine operator of the
CMMCI. Banahaw Mining and PICOP entered into a Memorandum of Agreement
recognizing each other’s right to the area concerned since the mining claims were within
the logging concession of PICO. These mining claims were later converted to Mineral
Production Sharing Agreements.
During the pendency of the MPSA, Banahaw Mining sold/assigned its rights and
interest over 37 mining claims, including those covered with its agreement with
CMMCE, in favor of Base Metals. CMMCI approved the assignment and recognized
Base Metals as the new operator of the mining claims. Base Metals amended the pending
MPSA applications to substitute itself as the applicant. However, PICOP filed an
opposition to Base Metal application because the approval will violate the constitutional
mandate against impairment of obligations in a contract and PICOP’s rights will be
defeated by the approval of the application.
Issue:
Whether or not the PICOP’s logging concession established under Proclamation
no. 369 is closed to mining applications in accordance with Section 19 of R.A no. 7942.
Held:
No, The mere fact that the area is government reservation does not necessarily
prohibit mining activities in the area. DAO 96-40, Section 15(b) allows government
reservations to be opened for mining applications with a condition precedent of a prior
written clearance issued by the government agency having jurisdiction over the
reservation. As provided in Section 6 of RA No. 7942, “mining operations in reserved
lands other than mineral reservations may be undertaken by the DENR, subject to certain
limitations.” RA No. 7942 only prohibits mining applications in areas proclaimed as
watershed forest reserves.

In this case, the area covered by the MPSAs were not proclaimed as watershed forest
reserves. Assuming that it is, PD No. 463 (as amended by PD No. 1385) provides that
mining rights may be acquired over forest reserves, such as the Agusan-Davao-Surigao
Forest Reserve by applying for a prospecting permit, and subsequently a permit to
explore.
The SC also held that DENR Memorandum Order No. 03-98 providing for the guidelines
in the issuance of area status and clearance or consent for mining applications pursuant to
RA No. 7942, allows government reservations to be open to mining applications subject
to area status and clearance. The required clearance and certifications have already been
issued to Base Metals and included in its application.
 APEX Mining v. Southeast Mindanao Gold Mining
Facts:
Marcopper Mining Corporation was granted an Exploration Permit by the Bureau
of Mines and Geo-Sciences. A long battle ensued between Apex and MMC with the latter
seeking the cancellation of the mining claims of Apex on the ground that such mining
claims were within a forest reservation and thus the acquisition on mining rights should
have been through an application for a permit to prospect with the BFD and not through
registration of a DOL with the BMG. When it reached the SC in 1991, the Court ruled
against Apex holding that the area is a forest reserve and thus it should have applied for a
permit to prospect with the BFD.
 On February 16 1994, MMC assigned all its rights to EP 133 to Southeast
Mindanao Gold Mining Corporation (SEM), a domestic corporation which is alleged to
be a 100%-owned subsidiary of MMC. Subsequently, BMG registered SEM’s Mineral
Production Sharing Agreement (MPSA) application and the Deed of Assignment. Several
oppositions were filed. The Panel of Arbitrators created by the DENR upheld the validity
of EP 133. During the pendency of the case, DENR AO No. 2002-18 was issued
declaring an emergency situation in the Diwalwal Gold Rush Area and ordering the
stoppage of all mining operations therein.
Issue:
Whether or not EP 133 and its subsequent transfer to SEM in valid.
Held:
EP 133 is invalid. One of the terms and conditions of EP 133 is that “That this
permit shall be for the exclusive use and benefit of the permittee or his duly authorized
agents and shall be used for mineral exploration purposes only and for no other
purpose.” While it may be true that SEM is a 100% subsidiary corporation of MMC,
there is no showing that the former is the duly authorized agent of the latter. As such,
the assignment is null and void as it directly contravenes the terms and conditions of the
grant of EP 133. With the expiration of EP 133 on July 6, 1994, MMC lost any right to the
Diwalwal Gold Rush Area. SEM, on the other hand, has not acquired any right to the said
area because the transfer of EP 133 in its favor is invalid. Hence, both MMC and SEM
have not acquired any vested right over the area covered by EP 133