see - Supreme Court: Environment Secretary can cancel small-scale mining permits | Economy | GMA News Online
"x x x.
The Supreme Court has ruled that the Environment Secretary has the authority to cancel small-scale mining permits issued by a local government.
In a 20-page decision dated April 11 but released to media only on Monday, the SC sitting en banc denied for lack of merit a petition filed by the League of Provinces of the Philippines to declare as illegal Section 17 (b)(3)(iii) of the Local Government Code of 1991 and Section 24 of RA No. 7076, or the People's Small Scale Mining Act.
Section 17 (b)(3)(iii) of the LGC states: "Pursuant to national policies and subject to supervision, control and review of the DENR, enforcement of forestry laws limited to community-based forestry projects, pollution control law, small-scale mining law, and other laws on the protection of the environment; and mini-hydroelectric projects for local purposes."
Section 24 of RA 7076 creates the provincial/city mining regulatory board that would be under the the "direct supervision and control" of the Environment Secretary.
The LPP argued that then-Environment Secretary Angelo Reyes had no authority to cancel the mining permit issued by Bulacan Gov. Josefina dela Cruz on August 10, 2006 to Eduardo D. Mercado, Benedicto S. Cruz, Gerardo R. Cruz and Liberato Sembrano, who in February 2004 filed an application for a permit to quarry in an area covering the cities of San Miguel, San Ildefonso, Norzagaray and San Jose del Monte, Bulacan.
Reyes stepped in after the Atlantic Mines and Trading Corp. sought his help, insisting the land covered by mining permit fell within the area covered by AMTC's existing application for exploration permit.
In his August 2006 decision, Reyes said Mercado and his group filed their application for a quarry permit in February 2004 when the area was still closed for mining applications due to an earlier pending application by another firm. Meanwhile, Reyes said, AMTC filed its application much later that year, in August 2004, when the area was already up for mining applications, since the original pending application had already been resolved and denied by that time.
In its petition, the LPP said the the Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Philippine Mining Act of 1995 did not "explicitly confer upon respondents DENR and the DENR Secretary the power to reverse, abrogate, nullify, void, or cancel the permits issued by the Provincial Governor or small-scale mining contracts entered into by the PMRB."
The petitioner said Section 17 (b)(3)(iii) of the Local Government Code of 1991 and Section 24 of R.A. No. 7076, which gives the DENR and the DENR Secretary "the power of control," should be struck down as unconstitutional.
The LPP said the Constitution only gives the president and his alter-egos, including executive secretaries, supervisory powers only, and not control, over acts of the local government units. The LPP stressed the autonomy provided by the Constitution to local government units.
In its ruling, the high tribunal said the DENR Secretary's cancellation of the Small-Scale Mining Permits issued by the provincial Governor, was part of his "judicial review" under Republic Act 7076 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations.
"The DENR Secretary's power to review and, therefore, decide, in this case, the issue on the validity of the issuance of the Small-Scale Mining Permits by the Provincial Governor as recommended by the PMRB, is a quasi-judicial function, which involves the determination of what the law is, and what the legal rights of the contending parties are, with respect to the matter in controversy and, on the basis thereof and the facts obtaining, the adjudication of their respective rights," the SC said.
The high court cited its 2005 ruling in Beltran vs Secretary of Health, which states: "For a law to be nullified it must be shown that there is a clear and unequivocal breach of the Constitution." The ruling stated that a petitioner seeking to nullify a law must "clearly establish the basis thereof. Otherwise, the petition must fail."
In its latest ruling, the SC said it "finds that the grounds raised by petitioner to challenge the conatitutionality of Section 17 (b)(3)(iii) of the Local Government Code of 1991 and Section 24 of RA 7076 failed to overcome the constitutionality of the said provision of law." — BM, GMA News.
x x x."
