UTILIZATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES
FOREIGN PERSON/ENTITY.
LA BUGAL BLAAN TRIBAL V. DENR (INITIAL DECISION)
FACTS:
Jul. 25, 1987: Pres. Aquino issued EO 279 authorizing the DENR
Secretary to accept, consider and evaluate proposals from foreign-
owned corporations for contracts involving either technical or financial
assistance for large-scale exploration, development and utilization of
minerals. The President may execute with the foreign proponent,
upon recommendation of the Secretary.
Mar. 3, 1995: Pres. Ramos approved RA 7942 (Philippine Mining Act
1995) to govern the exploration, development, utilization, and
processing of all mining resources. It took effect on Apr. 9, 1995.
Mar. 30, 1995: Pres. Ramos entered into a Financial and Technical
Assistance Agreement (FTAA) with WMCP covering 99,387 hectares of
land in S. Cotabato, Sultan Kudarat, Davao del Sur and N. Cotabato.
WMCP sold all its shares to Sagittarius Mines, Inc. (Sagittarius), a
corporation organized under Philippine Laws with at least 60% of its
equity owned by Filipinos and/or Filipino owned corporations.
By virtue of such sale and transfer, the DENR Secretary approved the
transfer and registration of the FTAA from WMCP to Sagittarius.
This was protested by Lepanto Consolidated Co. It alleges that the
case has not been rendered moot either by the transfer and
registration of the FTAA to a Filipino-owned corporation. It alleges
that the transfer did not cure the FTAAs unconstitutionality.
Petitioners allege that RA 7942 allows fully foreign owned
corporations to explore, develop, utilize and exploit mineral resources
contrary to Sec. 2, Par. 4, Art. 12.
o It allows foreign-owned companies to extend more than mere
financial or technical assistance. It permits foreign owned
companies to OPERATE AND MANAGE mining activities.
o It allows foreign-owned companies to extend BOTH financial AND
technical assistance instead of financial OR technical assistance.
In the 1987 Constitution, Sec. 2, Art. 12 sanctions the participation of
foreign-owned corporations in the exploration, development and
utilization of natural resources but imposes certain limitations:
o First, the PARTIES to the FTAA: Only the PRESIDENT may enter
into agreements and only with CORPORATIONS. In the 1973
Constitution, a FILIPINO CITIZEN, CORPORATION OR
1B Consti Digests 2007-2008
ASSOCIATION may enter into a SERVICE CONTRACT with a
o Second, the SIZE of the activities: Only LARGE-SCALE (very
capital-intensive activities) exploration, development and
utilization are now allowed.
o Third, NATURAL RESOURCES subject of the activities: restricted
to MINERALS, PETROLEUM and OTHER MINERAL OILS. This is to
limit service contracts to areas where Filipino capital is
insufficient.
o Fourth, the agreements must be IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
TERMS AND CONDITIONS PROVIDED BY LAW.
o Fifth, the agreement must be based on REAL CONTRIBUTIONS TO
ECONOMIC GROWTH AND GENERAL WELFARE of the country.
o Sixth, the agreement must contain rudimentary stipulations for
the PROMOTION OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND USE OF LOCAL
SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL RESOURCES.
o Seventh, the NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENT: the President shall
notify the Congress of every FTAA entered into within 30 days
from its execution.
o Eighth, the SCOPE of the AGREEMENTS: AGREEMENTS involving
financial or technical assistance. In the 1973 Constitution, it
referred to SERVICE CONTRACTS for financial, technical,
management or other forms of assistance. It bears noting that
service contracts and management or other forms of
assistance have been omitted.
There are 4 modes that the State, being the owner of natural
resources, can conduct exploration, development and utilization:
o State may DIRECTLY UNDERTAKE such activities.
o State may enter into CO-PRODUCTION, JOINT VENTURE or
PRODUCTION-SHARING AGREEMENTS with Filipino citizens or
qualified corporations.
o Congress, may by law, allows SMALL-SCALE utilization of natural
resources by Filipino citizens.
o For LARGE-SCALE exploration, development and utilization of
minerals, petroleum and mineral oils, the President may enter
into agreements with foreign-owned corporations involving
financial or technical assistance.
Page 1
 For the 4th mode like in the case at bar, a legally-organized foreign-
owned corporation (less than 50% of the capital is owned by Filipino
citizens) is deemed a qualified person.
Large scale in RA 7942 is determined by the size of the contract area
as opposed to the amount invested ($50 M) under EO 279.
Also, the collection of government share in an FTAA shall commence
AFTER the FTAA Contractor has fully recovered its pre-operating
expenses, exploration and development expenditures.
ISSUE 1: W/N EO 279, the law in force when the WMC FTAA was
executed, came into effect.
HELD: YES. EO 279 became effective immediately upon its
publication in the OG on August 3, 1987.
RATIO:
While the effectivity clause of EO 279 does not require publication, it
is not a ground for its invalidation since the Constitution, being the
fundamental law of the land is deemed written in the law. Thus, the
due process clause, stressed in Taada v. Tuvera, is read into
Section 8 of EO 279.
Pres. Aquino was still validly exercising legislative powers at the time
the law was enacted. The convening of Congress has no effect upon
the validity of the laws she had already passed.
ISSUE 2: W/N RA 7942, the Philippine Mining Act is constitutional.
HELD: NO. It is unconstitutional insofar as it authorizes service
contracts. Although the statute employs the phrase financial and
technical agreements in accordance with the 1987 Constitution, it
actually treats these agreements as service contracts.
It follows that the WMCP FTAA entered into under such Act is also
unconstitutional.
All provisions of the DENR AO 96-40 not in conformity with the
Decision are also invalidated.
RATIO:
Following the literal text of the Constitution, assistance accorded by
foreign-owned corporations in the large-scale exploration,
development, and utilization of petroleum, minerals and mineral oils
should be limited to technical or financial assistance only.
Contrary to this, the WMCP FTAA allows WMCP, a fully-foreign-owned
mining corporation, to extend more than mere financial or technical
assistance to the State, for it permits WMCP to manage and operate
every aspect of the mining activity.
1B Consti Digests 2007-2008
o In Section 33, Chapter VI the underlying assumption is that the
foreign contractor manages the mineral resources, just like the
foreign contractor in a service contract.
o Chapter XII grants foreign contractors in FTAAs the same
auxiliary mining rights that it grants contractors in mineral
agreements.
o An FTAA contractor has or has access to all the financing,
managing, and technical expertise, suggesting that some
management assistance is prescribed.
o Section 1.3 of the WMCP FTAA grants WMCP the exclusive right
to explore, exploit, utilize, process and dispose of all Minerals
products and by-products thereof that may be produced from the
Contract Area.
o Under Section 1.2, WMCP shall provide all financing, technology,
management and personnel necessary for the Mining Operations.
o All in all, WMCP is granted beneficial ownership over natural
resources that properly belong to the State and are intended for
the benefit of the citizens.
Casus omisus pro omisso habendus est. The phrase
management or other forms of assistance in the 1973 Constitution
was deleted in the 1987 Constitution, which allows only technical or
financial assistance. The omission was intentional and purposeful.
The phrase service contracts has likewise been deleted in the 1987
Constitution. This omission is indicative of a difference in purpose.
The concept of technical or financial assistance agreements is not
identical to that of service contracts. The drafters, as evidenced
from their deliberations, intended to do away with service contracts
which were used to circumvent the capitalization (60%-40%)
requirement. It was intended to be a safeguard to prevent abuses.
Service contracts are not allowed.
The CONCOM took into consideration the Draft of the 1986 UP Law
Constitutional Project when it adopted the concept of agreements
involving either technical or financial assistance.
o The UP Law draft proponents viewed service contracts under the
1973 Constitution as grants of beneficial ownership of the
countrys natural resources to foreign owned corporations. While
in theory, the State owns these natural resources and Filipino
citizens, their beneficiaries service contracts actually vested
foreigners with the right to dispose, explore for, develop, exploit,
and utilize the same. This is clearly incompatible with the
Page 2
 constitutional ideal of nationalization of natural resources, with PANGANIBAN , J. - dissents
the Regalian doctrine, and with Philippine sovereignty.
The controversy is moot. The FTAA is now to be implemented by a
o But the proponents still recognized the need for capital and Filipino corporation (either Lepanto or Saggitarius). The petition has
technical know-how in the large-scale exploitation, development become a virtual petition for declaratory relief, over which the SC has
and utilization of natural resources. Thus, they proposed a no original jurisdiction.
compromise: agreementsinvolving either technical or financial
The drafters choice of words - agreementsinvolving either technical
assistance. This compromise is deemed to be more consistent
or financial assistance - does not absolutely indicate the intent to
with the States ownership of and its full control and supervision
exclude other modes of assistance. The phrase signifies the possibility
over such resources.
of the inclusion of other activities, provided they bear some
The constitutional provision allowing the President to enter into FTAAs reasonable relationship to and compatibility with financial or technical
with foreign-owned corporations is an exception to the general rule assistance. Had they intended for an absolute prohibition, they would
that participation in the nations natural resources is reserved have adopted language unmistakably restrictive and stringent.
exclusively to Filipinos. Such provision must be construed strictly
Is of the view that the 1987 Constitution still allows for service
against non-Filipinos.
contracts subject to several restrictions and modifications.
ISSUE: W/N the invalidation of the FTAA constitutes a breach of
Invalidating RA 7942 and the FTAA could unnecessarily burden the
the treaty invoked by WMCP (Agreement on the Promotion and
recovery of the industry and the employment of opportunities it would
Protection of Investments between the Philippine and Australian
likely generate. Prudent lending practices necessitate a certain degree
Governments)
of involvement in the borrowers management process. Also, technical
HELD: NO. arrangements often necessarily include interface with the
management process itself.
RATIO:
Is of the view that he CONCOM intended the Constitution to be
This decision forms part of the legal system of the country. The equal flexible and adaptable.
protection clause guarantees that such decision shall apply to all
contracts belonging to the same class, hence, upholding rather than Taada v. Angara: There is a need to interpret the Constitution to
violating the fair equitable treatment stipulation is said treaty. cover refreshing winds of change necessitated by unfolding events.
NOTE: The Constitution limits the foreign agreements involving:
(1) technical assistance , (2) financial assistance or (3) both.
SEPARATE OPINIONS
VITUG, J. dissents
Does not share with the majority position that the adoption of the
terms agreementsinvolving either technical or financial assistance
in lieu of service contracts reflects the intention to disallow the
execution of service contracts with foreign entities.
Views RA 7942, its rules and regulations and the FTAA are
constitutional.
The 1987 Constitution has indeed provided for safeguards but does
not prevent service contracts per se.
The FTAA must be read in conformity with Section 2, Article XII of the
Constitution. The rights to be exercised by the WMCP are for and in
behalf of the State.

1B Consti Digests 2007-2008 Page 3

LA BUGAL BLAAN TRIBAL ASSOCIATION vs. DENR (Reconsideration)
BACKGROUND:
1. Petitioner filed the petition for Prohibition and Mandamus before the Court, which
challenges the constitutionality of:
a. The Philippine Mining Act of 1995 (R.A. 7942)
b. Its Implementing Rules and Regulations (DENR Administrative Order No. or
DOA 96-40
c. FTAA executed by the government with Western Mining Corporation (Phil)
or WMCP
2. SC en banc promulgated its decision granting the petition and declaring the
unconstitutionality of certain provisions of:
a. R.A. 7942
b. DAO 96-40
and entire FTAA executed between the government and WMCP, mainly on the finding
that FTAAs are service contracts prohibited by the 1987 Constitution
FIRST ISSUE: MOOTNESS
Petitioners insist that the FTAA is void and hence cant be transferred.
Petitioners claim case is not moot considering the invalidity of the alleged sale of the shares
in WMCP from WMC to Sagittarius, and of the transfer of the FTAA from WMCP to
Sagittarius, resulting in the change of contractor in the FTAA in question
A. Petitioners assert that par. 4 of Sec. 2 of Article. 12 permits the government to enter
into FTAAs ONLY with foreign-owned corporations
Constitutional provision limits the participation of Filipino corporations in the
exploration, development, and utilization of natural resources to only 3 species of
contracts- production sharing, co-production, and joint venture- to the exclusion
of all other arrangements or variations thereof, and the WMCP. FTAA may
therefore not be validly assumed and implemented by Sagittarius.
Court Held:
1. Par. 1 of Sec. 2 of Art. 12 does not support petitioners argument:
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
arguments with Filipino citizens, or corporations/associations at least 60% of whose
capital is owned by such citizens
Nowhere in the provision is there any express limitation or restriction insofar
as arrangements other than 3 aforementioned contractual scheme are
concerned.
2. No basis to believe that the framers of the Constitution, majority of whom were
obviously concerned with furthering the development and utilization of the countrys
natural resources, could have wanted to restrict Filipino participation in that area.
There is an overarching constitutional principle of giving preferences and priority to
Filipinos and Filipino corporations in the development of our natural resources.
3. Even assuming that a constitutional limitation barring Filipino corporations from holding
an implementing on FTAA actually exists, nevertheless, such provision will apply only
1B Consti Digests 2007-2008
to the transfer of the FTAA to Sagittarius, but not to the sale of WMC s equity stake in
WMCP to Sagittarius. Otherwise, an unreasonable curtailment of property rights
without due process of law would ensue.
4. FTAA is to be implemented now by a Filipino corporation; therefore it is no longer
possible for the Court to declare it unconstitutional. The case pending in the CA is a
dispute between two Filipino companies (Sagittarius and Lepant), both claiming the
right to purchase the foreign shares in WMCP. So regardless of which side eventually
wins, the FTAA would still be in the hands of a qualified Filipino company.
Considering that there is no longer any justiciable controversy, the plea to
nullify the Mining Law has become a virtual petition for declaratory relief,
over which this Court has original jurisdiction.
B. Petitioners claim that FTAA was intended t apply solely to a foreign corporation.
Court Held:
1. Petitioners manage to cite only one WMCP FTAA provision that can be regarded as
clearly intended to apply only to a foreign contractor.
2. This provision (Sec. 12, which provide for international commercial arbitration under
the International Chamber of Commerce after local remedies are exhausted) does not
necessarily imply that the WMCP FTAA cannot be transferred to and assumed by a
Filipino corporation like Sagittarius, in which event the said provision should simply be
disregarded as a superfluity.
C. Petitioners claim as third ground for not being moot that the suspicious sale of shares
from WMC to Sagittarius, hence the need to litigate in a separate case. Sec. 40 of R.A.
7942 allegedly requires the Presidents prior approval of a transfer.
Court Held:
1. Sec. 40 Assignment/Transfer:
A financial or technical assistance agreement may be assigned or transferred, in whole
or in part, to a qualified person subject to the prior approval of the President.
Provided, that the President shall notify Congress of every financial or technical
assistance agreement assigned or converted in accordance with this provision within
30 days from the date of the approval thereof.
2. Sec. 40 expressly applies to the assignment or transfer of the FTAA, not to the sale
and transfer of shares of stock in WMCP. Also, when the transferee of an FTAA is
another foreign corporation, there is a logical application of the requirement of prior
approval by the President of the Republic and notification to Congress in the in the
event of assignment or transfer of an FTAA. In this situation, such approval and
notification are appropriate safeguards considering that the new contractor is the
subject of a foreign government. On the other hand, when the transferee of the FTAA
happens to be a Filipino corporation, the need for such safeguard is not critical, hence,
the lack of prior approval and notification may not be deemed fatal as to render the
transfer invalid.
D. Petitioners, to bolster further their claim that the case is not moot, insist that the FTAA
is void, and hence cannot be transferred; and that its transfer does not operate to cure
the constitutional infirmity that is inherent in it; neither will a change in the circum of
one of the parties serve to ratify the void contract.
Petitioners, in their comment on the MR did not ratiocinate that this Court had declared
the FTAA to be void because at the time it was executed with WMCP, the latter was a
Page 4
 fully foreign-owned corporation, in which the former vested full control and
management with respect to the exploration, development, and utilization of mineral
resources, which is unconstitutional. Since the FTAA was per se void, no valid right
could be transferred; neither could it be ratified.
Court Held:
1. The decision of this Court declaring the FTAA void has not yet become final. That was
precisely the reason the Court still heard Oral Argument in this case.
2. The FTAA does not rest in the foreign corporations full control and supervision over
the exploration, development, and utilization of mineral resources, to the exclusion of
the government.
The government has effective overall direction and control of the mining
operation, including marketing and product pricing, and that the contractors work
programs and budgets are subject to the review and approval or disapproval.
The government does not have to micro-manage the mining operation and dip its
hands into the day-to-day management of the enterprise in order to be
considered as having overall control and direction. For practical and pragmatic
reasons, there is a need for government agencies to delegate certain aspects of
management work to the contractor.
3. Court believes that this case is clearly analogous to the Halili case, in which the land
acquired by a non-Filipino was reconveyed to a qualified vendee and the original
transaction was thereby cured.
Assuming arguendo the invalidity of its prior grant to a foreign corporation, the
disputed FTAA, being now held by a Filipino corporation, can no longer be
assailed; the objective of the constitutional provision- to keep the exploration,
development, and utilization of our natural resource in Filipino hands- has been
served.
4. The issuance or grant of the FTAA to the then foreign-owned WMCP was not illegal,
void, nor unconstitutional at the time. Since up to this point, the decision of this Court
declaring the FTAA void has yet to become final, to all interests and purposes, the
FTAA must be deemed valid and unconstitutional.
5. We find in the outlandish that the government could enter into an FTAA only with a
foreign corporation, never with a Filipino enterprise. The Nationalistic provisions of the
constitution are all anchored on the protection of Filipino interests.
SECOND ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT CAN STILL DECIDE THE CASE, EVEN
ASSUMING IT IS MOOT
Court Held:
Yes the Court must recognize the exceptional character of the situation and the paramount
public interest involved, and the necessity for a ruling to put an end to the uncertainties
plaguing the mining industry with the constitutionality and validity of the Mining Act, subject
FTAA, and future FTAAs.
THIRD ISSUE: THE PROPER INTERPRETATION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL PHRASE
AGREEMENTS INVOLVING EITHER TECHNICAL OR FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE
Whether RA 7942 and its Implementing Rules enable the government to exercise that
degree of control sufficient to direct and regulate the conduct of affairs of individual
enterprises and restrain undesirable activities.
Court Held: Yes.
1B Consti Digests 2007-2008
1. The court must recognize the exceptional character of the situation and the paramount
public interest involved, as well as the necessity for a ruling to put an end to the
uncertainties plaguing the mining industry and the affected communities as a result of
doubts cast upon the constitutionality of and validity of the Mining Act, the subject
FTAA and future FTAAs, and the need to avert a multiplicity of suits.
2. a) Paragtaph 4, section 2, art 12
b) no restriction of verba legis interpretation
1) Wherever possible, the words used in the constitution must be given their
ordinary meaning except where technical terms are employed
2) where there is ambiguity, ratio legis et anima.The words of the constitution
should be interpreted in accordance with the intent of its framers.
3) The constitution is to interpreted as a whole
The court cannot see how applying a strictly literal or verba legis
interpretation of par 4 could inexorably lead to the conclusions arrived at in
the ponencia:
a) the drafters choice of words- their use of the phrase agreements
involving either technical or financial assistance does not indicate the intent
to exclude other modes of assistance
b) the inevitable conclusion that there was a conscious and deliberate
decision to avoid the use of restrictive wording that bespeaks an intent not
to use the expression agreements involving either technical or financial and
limiting manner
3. Such intent cannot be definitively and conclusively established from the mere failure to
carry the same expression or term over the new constitution, absent a more specific,
explicit and unequivocal statement to that effect.
4. A literal and restrictive interpretation of par 4 such as that proposed by petitioners,
suffers from certain internal logical inconsistencies that generate ambiguities in the
understanding of the provision. There has never been any constitutional or statutory
provision that reserved the Filipino citizens or corporations, atleast 60% of w//c is
Filipino-owned, the rendition of financial or technical assistance to companies engaged
in mining or the devt of any other natural resource.
The conclusion of the provision is clear and inescapable. A verba legis construction
shows par 4 is not to be understood as one limited only to foreign loans and technical
assistance.
5. The state, whom the financial service or technical assistance is rendered, implies that
it is the one directly and solely undertaking the large scale exploration, development
and utilization of a mineral resource, the state must itself bear the liability of and cost of
repaying the financing sourced from the foreign lender and/or of paying compensation
to the foreign entity rendering technical assistance.
6. The inclusion of the clause technical or financial assistance recognizes the fact that
foreign business entities and multinational corporations are the ones with the
resources and know-how to provide technical and/or financial assistance of the
magnitude and type required for large scale exploration, devt and utilization of the said
resources.
Page 5
 7. There is nothing by way of transitory provisions that would serve to confirm the theory
that the omission of the term service contract from the 1987 Constitution signaled the
demise of service contracts.
SUMMATION OF THE CONCOM DELIBERATIONS
Based on a careful reading of the ConCom deliberations, it was obvious that they were
not about to ban or eradicate service contracts.
They were plainly crafting provisions to put in place safeguards that would eliminate or
minimize the abuses prevalent during the martial law regime.
They were going to permit service contracts with foreign corporations as contractors,
but with safety measures to prevent abuses.
There is a recognition of the insufficiency of Filipino capital and the felt need for foreign
investment in the EDU (exploration, development, and utilization) of minerals and
petroleum resources.
In the final voting, the Article on the National Economy and Patrimony including par. 4
allowing service contracts with foreign corporations as an exception to the general
norm in par. 1, Sec. 2 of same article was approved.
The phrase agreements involving either technical or financial assistance referred in
par. 4 is service contracts.
o There are between foreign corporations acting as contractors on one hand and
on the other, the government or principal or owner of the works.
o Foreign contractors provide capital, technical know-how, and managerial
expertise in the creation and operation of large-scale mining or extractive
enterprise. While the government, through its agencies, actively exercises control
and supervision over the entire operation.
o Such service contracts may be entered into ONLY WITH RESPECT TO
MINERALS, PETROLEUM, AND OTHER MINERAL OILS, the grant being
subject to several safeguards:
1. Service contract be crafted in accordance with a general law setting
standard or uniform terms, conditions, and requirements;
2. President be the signatory fir the government and;
3. President report the executed agreement to congress within 30 days.
As written by the Framers and ratified and adopted by the people, the Constitution
allows the continued use of service contracts with foreign corporations- as contractors
who would invest in and operate and manage extractive enterprise, subject to the full
control and supervision of the state- sans the abuses of the past regime. The purpose
is clear: to develop and utilize our mineral, petroleum, and other resources on a large
scale for the immediate and tangible benefit of the Filipino people
SC reversed the decision of January 27, 2004 and in fact now hold a view different
from that of the Decision.
ULTIMATE TEST: STATES CONTROL DETERMINATIVE OF CONSTITUTIONALITY
There is a legitimate ground to be concerned that either the States full control and
supervision may rule out any exercise of management authority by the foreign
contractor; or the other way around, allowing the foreign contractor full management
prerogatives may ultimately negate the States full control and supervision.
UT MAGIS VALAET QUAM PEREAT
1B Consti Digests 2007-2008
Every part of the Constitution is to be given effect, and the Constitution is to be read
and understood as a harmonious whole.
Therefore the full control and suprvision by the State must be understood as one that
does not preclude the legitimate exercise of management prerogatives by the foreign
contractor.
Their primacy and supremacy of the principle of sovereignty and States control and
supervision over all aspects of EDU of the countrys natural resources as mandated in
par. 1 of Sec. 2 of Art. 12.
Full control and supervision cannot be taken literally to mean that the State controls
and supervises everything involved, down to the minutest details, and makes all
decisions required in the mining corporations.
The concept of control adopted in Sec. 2 of Art. 12 must be taken to mean less than
dictatorial, all encompassing control; but nevertheless sufficient to give the State the
power to direct, restrain, regulate, and govern the affairs of the extractive enterprises.
Control by the State may be on a macro level, through the establishment of policies,
guidelines, regulators, industry standards and similar measures that would enable the
government to control the conduct of affairs in various enterprises and restrain
activities deemed not desirable or beneficial.
The end in view is ensuring that these enterprises contribute to the economic
development and general welfare of the country, conserve the environment and uplift
the well being of the affected local communities. Such a concept of control would be
compatible with permitting the foreign contractor sufficient and reasonable
management authority over the enterprise it invested in, in order to ensure that it is
operating efficiently and profitably, to protect its investments and enable it to succeed.
The question to be answered, then, is whether R.A. 7042 and its Implementing Rules enable
the government to exercise that degree of control sufficient to direct and regulate the
conduct of affairs of individual enterprises and restrain undesirable activities.
RA 7942 PROVIDES FOR THE STATES CONTROL AND SUPERVISION OVER MINING
OPERATIONS
1. Sec 3(aq) of RA 7942- allows a foreign contractor to apply for and hold an exploration
permit- is unconstitutional
While the constitution mandates the State to exercise full control and supervision
over the exploration of mineral resources, nowhere does it require the
government to hold all exploration permits and similar authorizations.
2. Sec 20 of RA 7942- an exploration permit merely grants to a qualified person the right
to conduct exploration for all minerals in specified areas. Such permit does not amount
to an authorization to extract and carry off the mineral resources that may be
discovered.
THE TERMS OF THE WMCP FTAAA DEFERENCE TO STATE CONTROL
A perusal of the WMCP FTAAA also reveals a slew of stipulations providing for State
control and supervision.
The concerned government officials will be informed beforehand of the proposed
exploration activities and expenditures of the contractor for each succeeding 2 year
period, with the right to approve/disapprove them or require changes or adjustments
therein if deemed necessary.
NO SURRENDER OF CONTROL UNDER THE WMCP FTAAA
Page 6
 Petitioners generalize the provision by asserting that the government does not
participate in making critical decisions regarding the operations of the mining firm.
The court held that the foregoing provisions do not manifest a relinquishment of
control.
ALL BUSINESS ENTITILED TO COST RECOVERY
Recovery of investments is absolutely indispensable for business survival; and
business survival ensures soundness of the economy, w/c is critical and contributory to
the general welfare of the people
In conclusion, they can hardly talk about foreign contractors taking mineral resources
for free. It takes a lot of hard cash to even begin to do what they do. And what they do
in this country ultimately benefits the local economy, grows businesses, generates
employment, and creates infrastructure.
SUMMATION
A. The Meaning of Agreements Involving Either Technical or Financial Assistance
The framers choice of words does not indicate the intent to exclude other modes
of assistance, but rather implies that there are other things being included or
possibly being made part of the agreement, apart from financial or technical
assistance.
Sec. 2 of Art. 12 of the Constitution disclose not even a hint of desire to prohibit
foreign involvement in the management and operation of mining activities, or to
eradicate service contracts.
The ConCom members discussed agreements involving either technical or
financial assistance in the same sense as service contracts and used the terms
interchangeably.
The drafters, many of whom were economists, academicians, lawyers,
businesspersons and politicians knew that foreign entities will not enter into
agreements involving assistance without requiring measures of protection to
ensure the success of their venture and repayment of investments.
The grant of such service contracts is subject to several safeguards, among
them:
1. That the service contract be crafted in accordance with the general law
setting standard or uniform terms, conditions, and requirements;
2. The President be the signatory for the government;
3. The President reports the executed agreement to Congress within 30 days.
B. Ultimate Test: Full State Control
Control and Supervision cannot be taken literally to mean that the State controls
and supervises everything up to the minutest details and makes all required
actions.
Control, as utilized in Sec. 2 of Art. 12, must be taken to mean a degree of control
sufficient to enable the State to direct, restrain, regulate, and govern the affairs of
the extractive enterprises.
Such degree of control would be compatible with permitting the foreign contractor
sufficient and reasonable management authority over the enterprise it has
invested in.
C. Government Granted Full Control by R.A. 7042 and DOA 96-40
1B Consti Digests 2007-2008
The State definitely has a pivotal say in the operation of the individual
enterprises, and can set directions and objectives, detect deviations and non-
compliances by the contractor, and enforce compliance and impose sanctions
should the occasion arise.
R.A. 7942 and DOA 96-40 vest in the government more than a sufficient degree
of control and supervision over the conduct of mining operations.
Sec. 3(aq) of R.A. 7942 is not unconstitutional for it serves to protect the interests
and rights of the exploration permit grantee (and would be contractor), foreign or
local.
D. WMCP FTAA Likewise Gives the State Full Control and Supervision
The provisions of the WMCP FTAA vest the State with control and supervision
over practically all aspects of the operations of the FTAA contractor, including the
charging of pre-operating and operating expenses, and disposition of mineral
products.
The FTAA provisions do not reduce or abdicate State control.
The challenged provisions of R.A. 7942 cannot be said to surrender
financial benefits from an FTAA to the foreign contractors.
Invalid provisions of the WMCP FTAA: Section 7.9 because it has effectively
given away the States share without anything in exchange and Section 7.8
because it results to benefiting the contractor twice over.
EPILOGUE
It is clear that there is unanimous agreement in the Court upon the key principle that
the State must exercise full control and supervision over the exploration, development
and utilization of mineral resources.
The crux of the controversy is the amount of discretion accorded to the Executive
Department. The Court believes that it is not unconstitutional to allow a wide degree of
discretion to the Chief Executive, given the nature and complexity of such agreements.
Under the doctrine of separation of powers and due respect for co-equal and
coordinate branches if government, this Court must restrain itself from intruding into
policy matters.
The SC sympathizes with the plight of Petitioner La Bugal Blaan and other tribal
groups, and commends their efforts to uplift their communities. However, the
invalidation of an otherwise constitutional statute along with its implementing rules, or
the nullification of an otherwise legal and binding FTAA contract.
The Court resolves to grant the repondents and intervenors motion for
reconsideration, to reverse and set aside the January 27, 2004 decision and to declare
R.A. 7942, its implementing rules and regulations contained in DAO 9640, and the
FTAA executed by the government (except Sec. 7.8 and Sec. 7.9) constitutional.
Page 7