Scribd
Upload
79 views2 pages

Mining Contracts and Police Power

The petitioner challenged the validity of two Administrative Orders issued by the Secretary of the DENR to carry out provisions of certain Executive Orders issued by the President. The petitioner argued the Orders violated the constitutional prohibition on non-impairment of contracts by pre-terminating existing mining leases and agreements and automatically converting them to production-sharing agreements within one year. Meanwhile, one Order declared failure to submit letters of intent and agreements within two years would cause abandonment of permits. The Court ruled that mining leases granted by the State are subject to reasonable alterations under the State's police power, and the constitutional prohibition is not absolute and does not prevent proper exercises of police power. Therefore, the State was not precluded from amending

Uploaded by

Hazel P.
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
79 views2 pages

Mining Contracts and Police Power

The petitioner challenged the validity of two Administrative Orders issued by the Secretary of the DENR to carry out provisions of certain Executive Orders issued by the President. The petitioner argued the Orders violated the constitutional prohibition on non-impairment of contracts by pre-terminating existing mining leases and agreements and automatically converting them to production-sharing agreements within one year. Meanwhile, one Order declared failure to submit letters of intent and agreements within two years would cause abandonment of permits. The Court ruled that mining leases granted by the State are subject to reasonable alterations under the State's police power, and the constitutional prohibition is not absolute and does not prevent proper exercises of police power. Therefore, the State was not precluded from amending

Uploaded by

Hazel P.
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

Miners Association of the PH v.

Factoran, Sec of DENR N/A


Jan. 16, 1995 | Romero | Police Power

FACTS:
PETITIONERS: Miners of Association of the PH, Inc. 1. This petition questions the validity of Administrative Order Nos. 57 and
RESPONDENTS: Hon. Fulgencio S. Factoran, Secretary of DENR and Joel D. 82 issued by the Sec. of the DENR to carry out the provisions of certain
Muyco, Director of Mines and Geosciences Bureau Executive Orders issued by the President.
2. Petitioner Miners Association contends that both Administrative Orders
SUMMARY: violate the non-impairment of contract provision found in the 1987
Petitioner in the case at bar challenges the validity of Administrative Order Nos. Constitution on the ground that Admin Order No. 57 unduly pre-
57 and 82 issued by the Sec. of the DENR to carry out the provisions of certain terminates existing mining leases and other mining agreements, and
Executive Orders issued by the President. The contention of petitioner is that automatically converts them into production-sharing agreements w/in
both Admin Orders violate the constitutional prohibition on non-impairment of one year from its [the admin order’s] effectivity. Meanwhile, Admin
contracts on the ground that Admin Order No. 57 unduly pre-terminates existing Order No. 82 declares that failure to submit letters of intent (LOI) and
mining leases and other mining agreements, and automatically converts them mineral productivity-sharing agreements w/in 2 years from its [the admin
into production-sharing agreements w/in one year from its [the admin order’s] order’s] effectivity shall cause the abandonment of their mining, quarry,
effectivity. Meanwhile, Admin Order No. 82 declares that failure to submit and sand-gravel permits.
letters of intent (LOI) and mineral productivity-sharing agreements w/in 2 years
from its [the admin order’s] effectivity shall cause the abandonment of their ISSUES:
mining, quarry, and sand-gravel permits. The issue then is W/N the challenged 1. W/N the challenged Admin Orders violate the constitutional non-
Admin Orders violate the constitutional non-impairment of contract impairment of contract provision - NO
provision. The ruling of the Court was in the negative by saying that mining
leases or agreements granted by the State are subject to alterations through a RATIO:
reasonable exercise of the State’s police power. It has been previously held in 1. The Court held that well-settled is the rule that mining leases or
jurisprudence that the constitutional prohibition against impairing contracts is agreements granted by the State, such as those granted pursuant to
not an absolute rule and it is not to be read w/ literal exactness. It does not the Executive Order involved in this case, are subject to alterations
prevent a proper exercise of police power. In the case at bar, the State may not through a reasonable exercise of police power of the State. Citing
be precluded by the same constitutional restriction on non-impairment of previous jurisprudence, it has been held that the constitutional
contracts from altering, modifying, and amending the mining leases or prohibition against impairing contracts is not an absolute rule and it
agreements granted pursuant to the EO. Hence, the petition was properly is not to be read w/ literal exactness. It does not prevent a proper
dismissed. exercise of the State’s police power.
2. In the case at bar, the State may not be precluded by the same
DOCTRINE: constitutional restriction on non-impairment of contracts from altering,
modifying, and amending the mining leases or agreements granted
pursuant to the EO.
3. Police power being co-extensive w/ the necessities of the case and the
demands of public interest, extends to all vital public needs.
DISPOSITION:
Wherefore, the Court resolved to DISMISS the petition.

You might also like