Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 476 views

    Southeast Mindanao Gold Mining Corp vs. Balite Portal Mining

    Uploaded by

    Rob3rtJohnson
    1) The case involved a dispute over mining rights in the Diwalwal gold rush area between Southeast Mindanao Gold Mining Corporation (SEM) and small-scale miners. SEM claimed rights under Exploration Permit 133 while the miners asserted the permit had expired. 2) The DENR Secretary issued Memorandum Order 97-03 directing DENR officials to study the feasibility of "direct state utilization" or state management of the mineral resources in the area. 3) The Court ruled that the Memorandum Order did not divest SEM of rights because it only directed a study and did not conclusively adopt any policy. Any rights SEM had under the permit were also still being disputed in other legal cases.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as TXT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Southeast Mindanao Gold Mining Corp vs. Balite Portal Mining

    Uploaded by

    Rob3rtJohnson
    476 views2 pages
    1) The case involved a dispute over mining rights in the Diwalwal gold rush area between Southeast Mindanao Gold Mining Corporation (SEM) and small-scale miners. SEM claimed rights under Exploration Permit 133 while the miners asserted the permit had expired. 2) The DENR Secretary issued Memorandum Order 97-03 directing DENR officials to study the feasibility of "direct state utilization" or state management of the mineral resources in the area. 3) The Court ruled that the Memorandum Order did not divest SEM of rights because it only directed a study and did not conclusively adopt any policy. Any rights SEM had under the permit were also still being disputed in other legal cases.

    Original Description:

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    TXT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) The case involved a dispute over mining rights in the Diwalwal gold rush area between Southeast Mindanao Gold Mining Corporation (SEM) and small-scale miners. SEM claimed rights under Exploration Permit 133 while the miners asserted the permit had expired. 2) The DENR Secretary issued Memorandum Order 97-03 directing DENR officials to study the feasibility of "direct state utilization" or state management of the mineral resources in the area. 3) The Court ruled that the Memorandum Order did not divest SEM of rights because it only directed a study and did not conclusively adopt any policy. Any rights SEM had under the permit were also still being disputed in other legal cases.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as TXT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as txt, pdf, or txt
    476 views2 pages

    Southeast Mindanao Gold Mining Corp vs. Balite Portal Mining

    Uploaded by

    Rob3rtJohnson
    1) The case involved a dispute over mining rights in the Diwalwal gold rush area between Southeast Mindanao Gold Mining Corporation (SEM) and small-scale miners. SEM claimed rights under Exploration Permit 133 while the miners asserted the permit had expired. 2) The DENR Secretary issued Memorandum Order 97-03 directing DENR officials to study the feasibility of "direct state utilization" or state management of the mineral resources in the area. 3) The Court ruled that the Memorandum Order did not divest SEM of rights because it only directed a study and did not conclusively adopt any policy. Any rights SEM had under the permit were also still being disputed in other legal cases.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as TXT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as txt, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Southeast Mindanao Gold Mining Corporation vs.

    Balite Portal ining Coorperative

    SOUTHEAST MINDANAO GOLDMINING CORP. vs. BALITE PORTALMINING COOP., et al.[G.R. No.
    135190, April 3, 2002]

    FACTS:

    On March 10, 1988, Marcopper Mining Corporation (Marcopper) was


    grantedExploration Permit No. 133 (EP No. 133) over 4,491 hectares of land, which
    included the Diwalwal area. On June

    27, 2991, Congress enacted Republic Act No. 7076, or the People's
    Small-Scale Mining Act. The law established a People's Small-Scale Mining Program
    to beimplemented by the Secretary of the DENR and created the Provincial Mining
    Regulatory Board (PMRB) under the DENR Secretary's direct supervision and control.

    Subsequently, a petition for the cancellation of EP No. 133 and the


    admission of a Mineral Production Sharing Arrangement (MPSA) proposal over Diwalwal
    was filed before the DENR Regional Executive Director, docketed as RED Mines Case.

    On February 16, 1994, while the RED Mines case was pending,
    Marcopper assigned its EP No. 133 to petitioner Southeast Mindanao Gold Mining
    Corporation (SEM), which in turn applied for an integrated MPSA over the land
    covered by the permit. In due time, the Mines and Geosciences Bureau Regional
    Office No. XI in Davao City (MGB-XI) accepted and registered the integrated MPSA
    application of petitioner and thereafter, several MAC cases were filed.

    On March 3, 1995, Republic Act No. 7942, the Philippine Mining Act,
    was enacted. Pursuant to this statute, the MAC cases were referred to a Regional
    Panel of Arbitrators (RPA) tasked to resolve disputes involving conflicting mining
    rights. The RPA subsequently took cognizance of the RED Mines case, which was
    consolidated with the MAC cases.

    On June 24, 1997, the DENR Secretary issued Memorandum Order No.
    97-03 which provided that the DENR shall study thoroughly and exhaustively the
    option of diret state utilization of the mineral resources in the Diwalwal Gold-
    Rush Area.

    On July 16, 1997, petitioner filed a special civil action for


    certiorari, prohibition and mandamus before the Court of Appeals against PMRB-
    Davao, the DENR Secretary and Balite Communal Portal Mining Cooperative (BCPMC). It
    prayed for the nullification of the above-quoted Memorandum Order No. 97-03 on the
    ground that the "direct state utilization" espoused therein would effectively
    impair its vested rights under EP No. 133; and that the memorandum order
    arbitrarily imposed the unwarranted condition that certain studies be conducted
    before mining and environmental laws are enforced by the DENR.

    ISSUE:

    Whether or not the "direct state utilization scheme" espoused in MO 97-


    03 divested petitioner of its vested right to the gold rush area under its EP No.
    133.
    HELD:

    No. MO 97-03 did not conclusively adopt "direct state utilization"


    as a policy in resolving the Diwalwal dispute. The terms of the memorandum clearly
    indicate that what was directed hereunder was merely a study of this option and
    nothing else. Contrary to petitioner's contention, it did not grant any
    management/operating or profit-sharing agreement to small-scale miners or to any
    party, for that matter, but simply instructed the DENR officials concerned to
    undertake studies to determine its feasibility. As to the alleged "vested rights"
    claimed by petitioner, it is well to note that the same is invariably based on EP
    No. 133, whose validity is still being disputed in the Consolidated Mines cases. A
    reading of the appealed MAB decision reveals that the continued efficacy of EP No.
    133 is one of the issues raised in said cases, with respondents therein asserting
    that Marcopper cannot legally assign the permit which purportedly had expired. In
    other words, whether or not petitioner actually has a vested right over Diwalwal
    under EP No. 133 is still an indefinite and unsettled matter. And until a positive
    pronouncement is made by the appellate court in the Consolidated Mines cases, EP
    No. 133 cannot be deemed as a source of any conclusive rights that can be impaired
    by the issuance of MO 97-03. It must likewise be pointed out that under no
    circumstances may petitioner's rights under EP No. 133 be regarded as total and
    absolute. As correctly held by the Court of Appeals EP No.133 merely evidences a
    privilege granted by the State, which may be amended, modified or rescinded when
    the national interest so requires. This is necessarily so since the exploration,
    development and utilization of the country's natural mineral resources are matters
    impressed with great public interest. Like timber permits, mining exploration
    permits do not vest in the grantee any permanent or irrevocable right within the
    purview of the non-impairment of contract and due process clauses of the
    Constitution, since the State, under its all-encompassing police power, may alter,
    modify or amend the same, in accordance with the demands of the general welfare.
    Additionally, there can be no valid opposition raised against a mere study of an
    alternative which the State, through the DENR, is authorized to undertake in the
    first place. Worth noting is Article XII, Section 2, of the 1987 Constitution and
    Section 4, Chapter II of the Philippine Mining Act of 1995. Thus, the State may
    pursue the constitutional policy of full control and supervision of the
    exploration, development and utilization of the country's natural mineral
    resources, by either directly undertaking the same or by entering into agreements
    with qualified entities. The DENR Secretary acted within his authority when he
    ordered a study of the first option, which may be undertaken consistently in
    accordance with the constitutional policy enunciated above. Obviously, the State
    may not be precluded from considering a direct takeover of the mines, if it is the
    only plausible remedy in sight to the gnawing complexities generated by the gold
    rush.

    You might also like