G.R. No. 224825 - City of Cagayan De Oro vs. Cagayan Electric Power and Light Co., Inc.

Petitioners: La Bugal-BaLaan Tribal Association, Inc., represented by its chairman and numerous individuals and organizations concerned with indigenous rights and environmental protection.
Respondents: Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) Secretary Victor O. Ramos, Mines and Geosciences Bureau Director, Executive Secretary Ruben Torres, and Western Mining Corporation (Philippines), Inc. (WMCP), among others.

Petitioners challenged the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 7942 (the Philippine Mining Act of 1995), its Implementing Rules and Regulations (DENR Administrative Order No. 96-40), and the Financial and Technical Assistance Agreement (FTAA) dated March 30, 1995 executed between the government and WMCP.
The FTAA involved the exploration, development, and exploitation of mineral resources in specific provinces covering thousands of hectares.
Initially, WMCP was wholly foreign-owned but sold shares to Sagittarius Mines, Inc., a Filipino-owned corporation, resulting in debates over mootness and the validity of the agreement transfer.
The Supreme Court en banc issued a January 27, 2004 Decision declaring certain provisions of the law and the FTAA unconstitutional mainly on the ground that FTAAs are service contracts prohibited by the 1987 Constitution.
Motions for Reconsideration and intervention motions followed, prompting the Court to resolve key issues on the constitutionality of RA 7942, its IRRs, and the FTAA.

The Constitution mandates the State’s ownership and full control over natural resources but allows the President to enter into agreements with foreign corporations involving “either technical or financial assistance” for large-scale development.
RA 7942 and its IRRs grant specific terms, permit issuance, and government supervision on mining operations including provisions on government shares in mining revenues.
The WMCP FTAA grants the contractor exclusive rights to explore, utilize, and dispose of minerals but requires government approval on key aspects such as work programs, budget, and relinquishment of contract areas.

Whether the sale of WMCP shares to Sagittarius Mines and the transfer of the FTAA rendered the case moot.

Whether the Court may resolve the constitutionality of RA 7942, its IRRs, and the FTAA despite any mootness claims.

What is the proper meaning of "agreements involving either technical or financial assistance" in the fourth paragraph of Section 2, Article XII of the Constitution?
Whether the Constitution allows foreign corporations management and operational control under FTAAs.
Whether FTAAs are effectively service contracts permitted with safeguards, or whether they are unconstitutional as ceding beneficial ownership to foreigners.

Whether specific provisions of RA 7942 and its IRRs violate constitutional mandates on State control and ownership.
Whether provisions such as Section 3(aq), 39, 80, 81, 84, and 112 of RA 7942 contravene the constitution.

Whether the FTAA grants beneficial ownership improperly to WMCP and is thus invalid.
Whether terms such as Section 7.8(e) and 7.9 of the WMCP FTAA are grossly disadvantageous and invalid.
Whether the term of 50 years under the FTAA violates the constitutional 25-year limitation for mineral agreements.