Case Digest (G.R. No. 127882)
Facts:
La Bugal-BLaan Tribal Association, Inc., G.R. No. 127882, December 01, 2004, the Supreme Court En Banc, Panganiban, J., writing for the Court.
Petitioners (an indigenous peoples association and allied NGOs and individuals) sought prohibition and mandamus challenging the constitutionality of (1) Republic Act No. 7942 (The Philippine Mining Act of 1995), (2) its Implementing Rules and Regulations (DAO No. 96-40), and (3) the Financial and Technical Assistance Agreement (FTAA) dated March 30, 1995 between the Philippine Government and Western Mining Corporation (Philippines), Inc. (WMCP). They alleged that FTAAs are the disallowed “service contracts” the 1987 Constitution meant to prohibit and that the law and the subject FTAA unlawfully ceded effective control/beneficial ownership of minerals to foreign parties.
On January 27, 2004 the Court (majority opinion) had granted the petition, declaring certain provisions of RA 7942, DAO 96-40 and the WMCP FTAA unconstitutional as tantamount to prohibited service contracts. Respondents (DENR Secretary Victor Ramos, MGB Director, Executive Secretary, and WMCP) and intervenor Chamber of Mines of the Philippines (CMP) filed motions for reconsideration. The Court set oral argument for June 29, 2004; the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed memoranda, the CMP intervened and filed pleadings, and the parties submitted supplemental memoranda (including the Ramos–DeVera fiscal paper and copies of other FTAAs/ MPSAs).
During re-deliberation the Court (En Banc) identified three core issues — mootness because of a subsequent transfer of WMCP shares to a Filipino-controlled entity, whether a moot controversy should nonetheless be resolved, and the proper scope/meaning of the constitutional phrase “agreements involving either technical or financial assistance” in paragraph 4, Sec. 2, Art. XII. On December 1, 2004 the Court en banc (Panganiban, J., ponente) GRANTED the motions for reconsideration, REVERSED its January 27, 2004 Decision, DISMISSED the petition, and held RA 7942 and DAO 96-40 constitutional insofar as they relate to FTAAs and upheld the WMCP FTAA, but INVALIDATED Sections 7.8(e) and 7.9 of the WMCP FTAA as contrary to public policy and grossly disadvantageous to the government.
Separate opinions were filed: Justice Tinga (separate concurrence), Justice Chico-Nazario (concurring with separate opinion),...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Has the case been rendered moot by the sale of WMC shares in WMCP and the transfer/registration of the FTAA to Sagittarius?
- If the case is moot, should the Supreme Court nevertheless decide the constitutionality of the challenged provisions of RA 7942 and DAO 96-40 (and related FTAA rules)?
- What is the proper interpretation of the constitutional phrase “agreements involving either technical or financial assistance” in paragraph 4, Section 2, Article XII — i.e., do these mean only limited technical/financial assistance or do they permit wider service/manageme...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)