Case Summary (G.R. No. 195987)
Key Dates and Events
• March 2, 1992: Pampanga enacts Provincial Tax Code imposing quarry taxes.
• January 11, 1999: Proclamation No. 66 places lahar-affected areas under DENR control.
• April 23, 2002: Proclamation No. 183 revokes Proclamation No. 66.
• July 4, 2003: EO 224 issued to rationalize sand, gravel, lahar extraction in Pampanga, Tarlac, Zambales.
• July 18, 2003: Pampanga files declaratory-relief petition in RTC challenging EO 224’s constitutionality.
• May 21, 2004: RTC declares EO 224 invalid as executive legislation and infringing local taxing authority.
• August 24, 2010: CA reverses RTC, upholding EO 224 as valid exercise of presidential rule-making.
• January 12, 2021: Supreme Court denies petition for review, affirms CA decision under the 1987 Constitution.
Applicable Law
• 1987 Constitution: Article VII (executive power), Article X (local autonomy), Article XII (state ownership of natural resources)
• Republic Act No. 7160 (Local Government Code of 1991)
• Republic Act No. 7942 (Philippine Mining Act of 1995)
• Administrative Code of 1987 (ordinance-making power of the President)
Factual Background
After the 1991 Mt. Pinatubo eruption, Pampanga enacted ordinances taxing quarry operations and prescribing permit fees. Proclamation No. 66 (1999) centralized control of lahar-affected resources in the DENR; its revocation by Proclamation No. 183 (2002) restored local rights but left regulatory gaps. EO 224 (2003) created a joint DENR–provincial Task Force to process extraction permits, monitor operations, enforce environmental laws, and collect quarry taxes/fees in three provinces.
Procedural History
Petitioner secured a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction from the RTC. In May 2004, the RTC declared EO 224 unconstitutional for infringing the province’s exclusive taxing and permitting powers and for being an act of executive legislation without valid legislative delegation. The CA reversed in August 2010, finding EO 224 a valid exercise of presidential rule-making to implement the Mining Act and not interfering with local autonomy. Reconsideration was denied, prompting this Supreme Court review.
Issue
Whether EO 224 is a valid and constitutional exercise of the President’s rule-making power under the 1987 Constitution, or whether it usurps the exclusive permitting and taxing authority granted to the Province of Pampanga by the Local Government Code and the Mining Act.
Delegated Legislative Power vs Inherent Ordinance-Making Power
Under the separation-of-powers doctrine, the legislature may delegate rule-making to the executive only to “fill in the details” of statutory policy. EO 224, however, was not a legislative delegation but an exercise of the President’s inherent ordinance-making power—the executive’s authority to issue internal rules and instructions for faithful execution of existing laws. EO 224 neither creates new law nor amends statutes; it implements and harmonizes the Mining Act and the Local Government Code.
Implementation of the Philippine Mining Act and Local Government Code
Chapter 8 of RA 7942 divides quarry permit authority: provincial governors handle permits for areas up to five hectares (commercial sand and gravel); the Mines and Geosciences Bureau (MGB) handles industrial permits for areas exceeding five hectares. Section 1 of EO 224 directs the joint Task Force to process applications in accordance with those statutory divisions. Far from supplanting local power, EO 224 operationalizes the Mining Act’s policy of state supervision over mineral resources while respecting the province’s permit-granting role.
Supervision, Control, and Local Autonomy
Article X, Section 4 of the 1987 Constitution grants the President general supervision over local governments “to see to it that subordinates perform their functions according to law.” EO 224’s Task Force supervises permit processing, monitors illegal operations, and ensures compliance with environmental and mining statutes. Such supervision does not equate to executive control that alters local dec
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 195987)
Facts
- In 1992 and 1998, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Pampanga enacted local tax ordinances imposing quarry fees and setting per-cubic-meter rates for sand, gravel, lahar and other quarry resources.
- On January 11, 1999, President Estrada issued Proclamation No. 66 declaring lahar-affected areas in Pampanga, Tarlac and Zambales as environmentally critical and mineral reservation under DENR supervision.
- Proclamation No. 66 was revoked by Proclamation No. 183 in 2002, allegedly to restore local government shares and autonomy.
- On July 4, 2003, President Macapagal-Arroyo issued Executive Order No. 224 to “rationalize” extraction and disposition of sand, gravel and lahar in the three provinces.
- EO 224 created a two-member Task Force (MGB regional director as team leader; provincial governor as deputy team leader) empowered to process and evaluate permits, monitor operations, arrest and confiscate on-site, deputize police, and collect all applicable local taxes, fees and charges.
- Province of Pampanga filed a petition in the Regional Trial Court seeking declaratory relief and injunctive relief, alleging EO 224 violated local autonomy under the Local Government Code, was ultra vires executive legislation, and offended equal protection.
Procedural History
- August 11, 2003: RTC issued Temporary Restraining Order against implementation of EO 224.
- September 1, 2003: RTC granted a Writ of Preliminary Injunction, enjoining respondents from implementing EO 224 pending hearing and bond posting.
- May 21, 2004: RTC Decision declared EO 224 invalid and unconstitutional, holding it infringed on provincial taxing and permit-issuing powers, usurped legislative authority, and endangered local revenue lifeblood.
- August 24, 2010: Court of Appeals reversed the RTC, findi