Didipio Earth-Savers Multi-Purpose Association, Inc. (Desama) v.

Gozun
485 SCRA 586 | March 30, 2006
J. CHICO-NAZARIO

Mining is an industry of public benefit. Mining activities amount to compensable taking for
public use.

FACTS

Special Civil Action in the Supreme Court for Prohibition and Mandamus.

Before the Philippine Mining Act of 1995 (R.A. 7942) was signed into law, then President Fidel
Ramos executed a Financial and Technical Assistance Agreement (FTAA) with Australian
mining firm Arimco Mining Corporation, later consolidated with Climax Mining Ltd. to form
Climax-Arimco Mining Corporation (CAMC). This authorized CAMC to explore 37,000
hectares of land in Quirino and Nueva Vizcaya including Brgy. Didipio.

Petitioners are various members of farmers, indigenous peoples, residents and communities
affected by mining activities of CAMC. They sent various letters to the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) and to President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo
demanding for the cancellation of the CAMC FTAA because R.A. 7942 and its implementing
rules and regulations, DENR Administrative Order 96-40 (DAO 96-40) are allegedly
unconstitutional and constitute unlawful and unjust taking of private property for private purpose
in contradiction with Section 9, Article III of the 1987 Constitution mandating that private
property shall not be taken except for public use and the corresponding payment of just
compensation.

They assert that public respondent DENR, through the Mining Act and its Implementing Rules
and Regulations, cannot, on its own, permit entry into a private property and allow taking of land
without payment of just compensation.

Their demand was referred to the Mines and Geosciences Bureau which denied their request.

Petitioners filed before the Court for prohibition and mandamus assailing the constitutionality of
R.A. 7942, DAO 96-40 and the CAMC FTAA.

ISSUES AND HOLDING

1. Whether Sec. 76 of the Philippine Mining Act of 1975 (R.A. 7942) is a taking provision.
YES.

Sec. 76 of R.A. 7942 is a taking provision. The mining industry is of public benefit. Mining
activities of exploration, extraction and processing of minerals oust private owners from their
land.

[RODRIGUEZ] C2020 | 1
Sec. 76 of R.A. 7942 provides that holders of mining rights shall not be prevented from entry
into private lands and concession areas by surface owners, occupants, or concessionaires when
conducting mining operations. It is not a simple right-of-way which is ordinarily allowed by the
Civil Code. Mining operations consist of a considerable amount of construction and deployment
that will definitely oust owners or occupants of beneficial ownership of their lands. Once mining
operations commence, there is already compensable taking. Moreover, mining is for a public
benefit. All requisites of taking are therefore present.

2. Whether R.A. 7942 and Sec. 107 of DAO 96-40 encroach on the power of the courts to
determine just compensation. NO.

No, power to determine just compensation still rests with the courts. Sec. 107 of DAO 96-40
contemplates a voluntary transaction between private owners and mining firms.

The situation contemplated in Sec. 107 of DAO 96-40 is a voluntary agreement or transaction
between the holder of the mining rights and surface owners, occupants or concessionaire as to
the proper compensation for the latter. The courts are not excluded from the provision. Should
there be any disagreement, Sec. 206 provides that recourse may be made to the Panel of
Arbitrators to the Mines Adjudication Board. The latters disagreement is only preliminary and
may be reviewed by the Supreme Court under certiorari.

Instant petition for prohibition and mandamus is hereby DISMISSED. Section 76 of

Republic Act No. 7942 and Section 107 of DAO 96-40; Republic Act No. 7942 and its
Implementing Rules and Regulations contained in DAO 96-40 insofar as they relate to
financial and technical assistance agreements referred to in paragraph 4 of Section 2 of
Article XII of the Constitution are NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

[RODRIGUEZ] C2020 | 2