8/12/2019 76. La Bugal Tribal v Ramos Digest

1/2

76. LA BUGAL-BLAAN TRIBAL ASSOCIATION INC. VS. DENR SECRETARY

G.R. No. 127882, January 27 2004

FACTS:On July 25, 1987, President Corazon C. Aquino issued Executive Order (E.O.) No. 279 authorizing

the DENR Secretary to accept, consider and evaluate proposals from foreign-owned corporations or

foreign investors for contracts or 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 March 3, 1995, President Fidel V. Ramos approved R.A. No. 7942 to govern the exploration,

development, utilization and processing of all mineral resources.

On April 9, 1995, R.A. No. 7942 took effect. But shortly before the effectivity of R.A. No. 7942,

(March 30th), the President entered into an Financial and Technical Assistance Agreement (FTAA)

with WMC Philippines, Inc. (WMCP) covering 99,387 hectares of land in South Cotabato, SultanKudarat, Davao del Sur and North Cotabato. Subsequently, DENR Secretary Victor O. Ramos

issued DENR Administrative Order (DAO) No. 95-23, s. 1995, otherwise known as the

Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No. 7942 which was also later repealed by DAO No.

96-40, s. 1996.

Petitioners claim that the DENR Secretary acted without or in excess of jurisdiction in signing and

promulgating DENR Administrative Order No. 96-40 implementing Republic Act No. 7942, the

latter being unconstitutional.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the requisites for judicial review are present to raise the constitutionality ofRepublic Act No. 7942.

HELD:

When an issue of constitutionality is raised, this Court can exercise its power of judicial review only

if the following requisites are present:

(1) The existence of an actual and appropriate case;

(2) A personal and substantial interest of the party raising the constitutional question;

(3) The exercise of judicial review is pleaded at the earliest opportunity; and

(4) The constitutional question is the lis mota of the case.Respondents claim that the first three requisites are not present. Section 1, Article VIII of the

Constitution states that judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual

controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable. The power ofjudicial review, therefore, is limited to the determination of actual cases and controversies.

An actual case or controversy means an existing case or controversy that is appropriate or ripe for

determination, not conjectural or anticipatory, lest the decision of the court would amount to an

advisory opinion. The power does not extend to hypothetical questions since any attempt at

abstraction could only lead to dialectics and barren legal questions and to sterile conclusions

unrelated to actualities.

8/12/2019 76. La Bugal Tribal v Ramos Digest

2/2