Professional Documents
Culture Documents
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.
FACTS:
Jul. 25, 1987: Pres. Aquino issued EO 279 authorizing the DENR
Secretary to accept, consider and evaluate proposals from foreignowned 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.
By virtue of such sale and transfer, the DENR Secretary approved the
transfer and registration of the FTAA from WMCP to Sagittarius.
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
There are 4 modes that the State, being the owner of natural
resources, can conduct exploration, development and utilization:
o
Page 1
For the 4th mode like in the case at bar, a legally-organized foreignowned corporation (less than 50% of the capital is owned by Filipino
citizens) is deemed a qualified person.
ISSUE 1: W/N EO 279, the law in force when the WMC FTAA was
executed, came into effect.
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.
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.
Page 2
But the proponents still recognized the need for capital and
technical know-how in the large-scale exploitation, development
and utilization of natural resources. Thus, they proposed a
compromise: agreementsinvolving either technical or financial
assistance. This compromise is deemed to be more consistent
with the States ownership of and its full control and supervision
over such resources.
PANGANIBAN , J. - dissents
Is of the view that the 1987 Constitution still allows for service
contracts subject to several restrictions and modifications.
This decision forms part of the legal system of the country. The equal
protection clause guarantees that such decision shall apply to all
contracts belonging to the same class, hence, upholding rather than
violating the fair equitable treatment stipulation is said treaty.
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.
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.
Page 3
2.
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
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
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
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.
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.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
The State definitely has a pivotal say in the operation of the individual
enterprises, and can set directions and objectives, detect deviations and noncompliances 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.
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
Page 8