Republic v. Rosemoor Mining
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Respondents Rosemoor Mining and Development Corporation, Pedro del Concha, and Alejandro and Rufo de Guzman were granted Quarry License No. 33 (QLP No. 33) on August 3, 1982, for the extraction and disposal of marbleized limestone from a 330.3062-hectare area in San Miguel, Bulacan. This license was issued under Presidential Decree No. 463 (PD 463), the governing law at the time, and was subject to its terms and conditions, as well as applicable rules and regulations. The license was later cancelled by then Minister of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) Ernesto R. Maceda on September 6, 1986, citing illegality due to violation of Section 69 of PD 463 and lack of public interest. This cancellation was subsequently affirmed by Proclamation No. 84. 2. Procedural History: Following the cancellation of QLP No. 33, the respondents filed an amended petition with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) to assail the cancellation. The RTC ruled in favor of the respondents, declaring the cancellation of License No. 33 void for lack of jurisdiction and violation of due process, and maintaining their right to continue exploitation for the license's duration. The RTC also made preliminary injunctions permanent. The petitioners, the Republic of the Philippines represented by DENR and former government officials, appealed this decision to the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA affirmed the RTC's decision in its entirety. The petitioners then filed the present Petition for Review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. 3. The Petition: The petitioners seek to nullify the CA's decision, arguing that QLP No. 33 was issued in blatant contravention of Section 69 of PD 463, which limits quarry licenses to a maximum of 100 hectares per province, rendering the license void ab initio. They also question the validity of Proclamation No. 84, asserting it is not an ex post facto law and was validly issued. The petitioners contend that a license is a mere privilege, not a property right, and can be revoked by the State in the public interest without violating due process or the non-impairment clause. They argue that the respondents' license, exceeding the statutory area limit, was void from its inception and thus could be cancelled without notice and hearing.
Issue(s)
Whether or not Quarry License No. 33 (QLP No. 33) was issued in blatant contravention of Section 69, Presidential Decree No. 463. Whether or not Proclamation No. 84 issued by then President Corazon Aquino is valid, and if it violates the Constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws.
Ruling
The Supreme Court granted the petition, setting aside the decision of the Court of Appeals. No costs were awarded.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether QLP No. 33 was issued in blatant contravention of Section 69, PD 463: The Court ruled that the license was issued in contravention of Section 69 of PD 463, which mandates that a quarry license shall cover an area of not more than one hundred (100) hectares in any one province. The license in question, QLP No. 33, covered 330.3062 hectares, far exceeding the statutory limit. The Court emphasized that the language of PD 463 is clear, categorical, and mandatory, admitting no exceptions or references to the number of applications. The interpretation adopted by the lower courts, allowing multiple applications to circumvent the 100-hectare limit, was deemed contrary to the clear intent of the law and would brazenly circumvent its purpose. The Court also noted that the license was issued solely in the name of Rosemoor Mining and Development Corporation, a separate juridical entity from its stockholders, further undermining the argument that it was covered by four separate individual applications. On the issue of the validity of Proclamation No. 84 and its potential violation of the prohibition against ex post facto laws: The Court held that Proclamation No. 84 is valid and does not violate the non-impairment clause or the prohibition against ex post facto laws. The Court reiterated that a mining license, like an exploration permit, merely evidences a privilege granted by the State and does not vest absolute or irrevocable rights. Such licenses can be amended, modified, or rescinded when the national interest so requires, as they are not contracts protected by the non-impairment clause. The Court cited jurisprudence in Southeast Mindanao Gold Mining Corporation v. Balite Portal Mining Cooperative, Tan v. Director of Forestry, and Ysmael v. Deputy Executive Secretary to support the principle that these licenses are subject to the State's police power. Furthermore, the Court found that Proclamation No. 84 was not an ex post facto law because it did not criminalize past actions, aggravate crimes, change punishments, alter legal rules of evidence, impose penalties for lawful acts, or deprive accused persons of lawful protection; it merely restored land to a national park. The Court also noted that President Aquino was validly exercising legislative powers when she issued the proclamation under the Provisional Constitution of 1986.
Main Doctrine
A mining license that contravenes a mandatory provision of the law under which it is granted is void ab initio. Being a mere privilege, a license does not vest absolute rights in the holder and can be revoked by the State in the public interest without offending the due process and non-impairment clauses of the Constitution.