DIPIDIO EARTH-SAVERS vs.
DENR (2006)
Power of Eminent Domain
FACTS
On 25 July 1987, then President Corazon C. Aquino promulgated Executive Order No. 279 which authorized the DENR
Secretary to accept, consider and evaluate proposals from foreign-owned corporations or foreign investors for contracts of
agreements involving either technical or financial assistance for large-scale exploration, development, and utilization of
minerals, which, upon appropriate recommendation of the Secretary, the President may execute with the foreign
proponent. On 3 March 1995, then President Fidel V. Ramos signed into law Rep. Act No. 7942 entitled, "An Act
Instituting A New System of Mineral Resources Exploration, Development, Utilization and Conservation," otherwise
known as the Philippine Mining Act of 1995.
Petitioners assails the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 7942 otherwise known as the Philippine Mining Act of 1995,
together with the Implementing Rules and Regulations issued pursuant thereto, Department of Environment and Natural
Resources (DENR) Administrative Order No. 96-40, s. 1996 (DAO 96-40) and of the Financial and Technical Assistance
Agreement (FTAA) entered into on 20 June 1994 by the Republic of the Philippines and Arimco Mining Corporation
(AMC), a corporation established under the laws of Australia and owned by its nationals. On 7 September 2001, counsels
for petitioners filed a demand letter addressed to then DENR Secretary Heherson Alvarez, for the cancellation of the
CAMC FTAA for the primary reason that Rep. Act No. 7942 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations DAO 96-40 are
unconstitutional.
ISSUE
Whether or not Republic Act No. 7942 and the CAMC FTAA are void because they allow the unjust and unlawful taking
of property without payment of just compensation , in violation of Section 9, Article III of the Constitution.
RULING
NO. By entering private lands and concession areas, FTAA holders do not oust the owners thereof nor deprive them of all
beneficial enjoyment of their properties as the said entry merely establishes a legal easement upon surface owners,
occupants and concessionaires of a mining contract area. While the power of eminent domain often results in the
appropriation of title to or possession of property, it need not always be the case. Taking may include trespass without
actual eviction of the owner, material impairment of the value of the property or prevention of the ordinary uses for which
the property was intended such as the establishment of an easement.
While this Court declares that the assailed provision is a taking provision, this does not mean that it is unconstitutional on
the ground that it allows taking of private property without the determination of public use and the payment of just
compensation. The taking to be valid must be for public use. Public use as a requirement for the valid exercise of the
power of eminent domain is now synonymous with public interest, public benefit, public welfare and public
convenience. It includes the broader notion of indirect public benefit or advantage. Public use as traditionally understood
as "actual use by the public" has already been abandoned. Mining industry plays a pivotal role in the economic
development of the country and is a vital tool in the government’s thrust of accelerated recovery.
There is also no basis for the claim that the Mining Law and its implementing rules and regulations do not provide for just
compensation in expropriating private properties. Section 76 of Rep. Act No. 7942 and Section 107 of DAO 96-40
provide for the payment of just compensation:
Section 76. Provided, that any damage to the property of the surface owner, occupant, or concessionaire as a consequence
of such operations shall be properly compensated as may be provided for in the implementing rules and regulations.
Section 107. Compensation of the Surface Owner and Occupant- Any damage done to the property of the surface owners,
occupant, or concessionaire thereof as a consequence of the mining operations or as a result of the construction or
installation of the infrastructure mentioned in 104 above shall be properly and justly compensated.
Such compensation shall be based on the agreement entered into between the holder of mining rights and the surface
owner, occupant or concessionaire thereof, where appropriate, in accordance with P.D. No. 512.
WHEREFORE, the 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.
