Republic Of The Philippines v. Rosemoor Mining And Development Corporation
Republic of the Philippines (DENR) v. Rosemoor Mining and Development Corporation, G.R. No. 149927, March 30, 2004
- Civil Law
- Political Law
- mining license
- quarry license area limitation
- due process
- cancellation of privilege
- ex post facto
- Presidential Proclamation
- Presidential Decree No. 463
- Rule 45
I. Facts of the Case
Petitioners were granted License No. 33 (QLP No. 33) to exploit marbleized limestone discovered in Mount Mabio, Biak-na-Bato, San Miguel, Bulacan. After DENR Minister Ernesto R. Maceda assumed office, the license was cancelled, prompting a case challenging the cancellation and the legal validity/effects of Proclamation No. 84.
Petitioners were granted permission to prospect for marble deposits in Biak-na-Bato, San Miguel, Bulacan, and discovered commercially viable marble deposits in Mount Mabio.
After compliance with requirements, License No. 33 (QLP No. 33) was issued by the Bureau of Mines to exploit marbleized limestone from a 330.3062-hectare land in San Miguel, Bulacan, subject to the terms and conditions of P.D. No. 463.
September 6, 1986
Soon after Ernesto R. Maceda became DENR Minister, petitioners’ License No. 33 was cancelled through his letter to Rosemoor Mining and Development Corporation, citing reasons stated in the letter.
August 21, 1991
Petitioners filed an amended petition to assail the cancellation of License No. 33, with an application for injunctive relief.
February 28, 1992
The trial court granted injunctive relief and issued preliminary writs after petitioners posted an injunction bond of ₱1,000,000.00.
September 27, 1996
The trial court rendered a decision setting aside the cancellation, ruling that the mining privilege under the license had ripened into a property right protected by due process, and that cancellation without notice and hearing violated due process. It also ruled that Proclamation No. 84 was an ex post facto law violating Section 3 of Article XVIII of the 1987 Constitution.
The Court of Appeals sustained the trial court, holding that the 330.3062 hectares was authorized because the license was allegedly embraced by separate applications and that any quarry license limitation under P.D. No. 463 was supplanted by R.A. No. 7942; it further held that cancellation without notice and hearing deprived the holders of property without due process.
May 29, 2001
The Court of Appeals issued a decision affirming the trial court’s judgment in CA-GR SP No. 46878.
September 6, 2001
The Court of Appeals denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration through a resolution.
Petitioners filed a Rule 45 petition before the Supreme Court, seeking to nullify the Court of Appeals’ decision and resolution, arguing that the cancellation violated due process and that Proclamation No. 84 was invalid as an ex post facto law and/or otherwise unconstitutional.
March 30, 2004
The Supreme Court granted the petition, set aside the Court of Appeals decision, and ruled that a mining license issued in blatant contravention of a mandatory legal provision is void and that a mining license is a mere privilege that may be revoked in the public interest without violating due process or non-impairment clauses; it also held that Proclamation No. 84 was not an ex post facto law.
II. Issues
Whether or not QLP No. 33 (License No. 33) was issued in blatant contravention of Section 69 of Presidential Decree No. 463.
Whether or not Proclamation No. 84 issued by then President Corazon Aquino is valid.
Whether or not the Constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws applies to Proclamation No. 84.
III. Ruling
Whether or not QLP No. 33 (License No. 33) was issued in blatant contravention of Section 69 of Presidential Decree No. 463.
The license was void because it violated the mandatory area limitation rules under Section 69 of P.D. No. 463.
How the Court reasoned
- A mining license that contravenes a mandatory provision of the law under which it is granted is void.
- The area limitation in P.D. No. 463 for quarry/mining licenses is categorical and mandatory, not a mere guideline.
- The Court rejected the idea that petitioners could effectively circumvent the limitation by parsing the coverage through multiple applications.
- Because the license’s issuance/coverage was contrary to the mandatory statutory requirement, the supposed rights flowing from the license could not be sustained.
“A mining license that contravenes a mandatory provision of the law under which it is granted is void.”
Rule applied
Section 69, Presidential Decree No. 463
Whether or not Proclamation No. 84 issued by then President Corazon Aquino is valid.
Proclamation No. 84 was valid; it did not unlawfully impair rights protected by the Constitution.
How the Court reasoned
- A mining license is a mere privilege and does not create vested, absolute rights in the holder.
- Since the holder’s interest is a privilege, the State may revoke or regulate it in the public interest without offending constitutional protections aimed at impairing vested rights.
- The Court treated the revocation/cancellation framework as consistent with constitutional limits because the license was not protected as an absolute right.
“Being a mere privilege, a license does not vest absolute rights in the holder.”
Rule applied
Section 69, Presidential Decree No. 463; constitutional protections on non-impairment and due process (as discussed in relation to Proclamation No. 84)
Whether or not the Constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws applies to Proclamation No. 84.
Proclamation No. 84 is not an ex post facto law.
How the Court reasoned
- The Court held that Proclamation No. 84 did not operate as an ex post facto law prohibited by the Constitution.
- The Court’s analysis distinguished between permissible regulatory/state-interest measures and truly retroactive criminal/penal legislation contemplated by the ex post facto clause.
- Thus, the constitutional prohibition invoked by the petitioners did not invalidate Proclamation No. 84.
Rule applied
Section 3, Article XVIII of the 1987 Constitution
Doctrines
A mining license that contravenes a mandatory provision of the law under which it is granted is void.
A mining license is a mere privilege that does not vest absolute rights in the holder; it may be revoked by the State in the public interest without violating due process or the constitutional non-impairment clauses.
When the law provides a categorical and mandatory maximum area/coverage for mining/quarry privileges, the requirement cannot be circumvented by using separate applications to reach a larger effective coverage.
Proclamation No. 84 is not an ex post facto law and does not violate the constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws.
Final Disposition
WHEREFORE, this Petition is hereby GRANTED and the appealed Decision of the Court of Appeals SET ASIDE.
Notes
The decision emphasizes that mining/quarry licenses are privileges subject to mandatory statutory limits and to the State’s continuing regulatory power, especially where the license was issued in contravention of a mandatory legal requirement.