8/8/15, 6:13 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 421Page 1 of 124 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a394f1da81fa4fa000a0094004f00ee/p/AKM417/?username=GuestG.R. No. 127882. January 27, 2004.*LABUGAL-BLAANTRIBALASSOCIATION,INC.,representedbyitsChairmanFLONGMIGUELM.LUMAYONG,WIGBERTOE.TAADA,PONCIANOBENNAGEN,JAIMETADEO,RENATOR.CONSTANTINO,JR.,FLONGAGUSTINM.DABIE,ROBERTOP.AMLOY,RAQIML.DABIE,SIMEONH.DOLOJO,IMELDAM.GANDON,LENYB.GUSANAN,MARCELOL.GUSANAN,QUINTOLA.LABUAYAN,LOMINGGESD.LAWAY,BENITAP.TACUAYAN,minorsJOLYL.BUGOY,representedbyhisfatherUNDEROD.BUGOY,ROGERM.DADING,representedbyhisfatherANTONIOL.DADING,ROMYM.LAGARO,representedbyhisfatherTOTINGA.LAGARO,MIKENYJONGB.LUMAYONG,representedbyhisfatherMIGUELM.LUMAYONG,RENET.MIGUEL,representedbyhismotherEDITHAT.MIGUEL,ALDEMARL.SAL,representedbyhisfatherDANNYM.SAL,DAISYRECARSE, represented by her mother LYDIA S. SANTOS,EDWARD M. EMUY, ALAN P. MAM_______________* EN BANC.149VOL. 421, JANUARY 27, 2004 149La Bugal-BLaan Tribal Association, Inc. vs. RamosPARAIR,MARIOL.MANGCAL,ALDENS.TUSAN,AMPAROS.YAP,VIRGILIOCULAR,MARVICM.V.F.LEONEN,JULIAREGINACULAR,GIANCARLO8/8/15, 6:13 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 421Page 2 of 124 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a394f1da81fa4fa000a0094004f00ee/p/AKM417/?username=GuestCULAR,VIRGILIOCULAR,JR.,representedbytheirfatherVIRGILIOCULAR,PAULANTONIOP.VILLAMOR, represented by his parents JOSE VILLAMORandELIZABETHPUA-VILLAMOR,ANAGININAR.TALJA, represented by her father MARIO JOSE B. TALJA,SHARMAINER.CUNANAN,representedbyherfatherALFREDO M. CUNANAN, ANTONIO JOSE A. VITUG III,represented by his mother ANNALIZA A. VITUG, LEAN D.NARVADEZ,representedbyhisfatherMANUELE.NARVADEZ,JR.,ROSERIOMARALAGLINGATING,representedbyherfatherRIOOLIMPIOA.LINGATING,MARIOJOSEB.TALJA,DAVIDE.DEVERA,MARIAMILAGROSL.SANJOSE,SR,,SUSANO.BOLANIO,OND,LOLITAG.DEMONTEVERDE,BENJIEL.NEQUINTO,1ROSELILIAS.ROMANO,ROBERTOS.VERZOLA,EDUARDOAURELIOC.REYES,LEANLOUELA.PERIA,representedbyhisfatherELPIDIOV.PERIA,2GREENFORUMPHILIPPINES,GREENFORUMWESTERNVISAYAS,(GF-WV),ENVIRONMENTALLEGALASSISTANCECENTER(ELAC),PHILIPPINEKAISAHANTUNGOSAKAUNLARANNGKANAYUNANATREPORMANGPANSAKAHAN(KAISAHAN),3KAISAHANTUNGOSAKAUNLARANNGKANAYUNANATREPORMANGPANSAKAHAN(KAISAHAN),PARTNERSHIPFORAGRARIANREFORMandRURALDEVELOPMENTSERVICES,INC.(PARRDS),PHILIPPINEPARTNERSHIPFORTHEDEVELOPMENTOFHUMANRESOURCESINTHERURALAREAS,INC.(PHILDHRRA),WOMENSLEGALBUREAU(WLB),CENTERFORALTERNATIVEDEVELOPMENTINITIATIVES,INC.(CADI),UPLANDDEVELOPMENTINSTITUTE(UDI),KINAIYAHANFOUNDATION,INC.,SENTRONGALTERNATIBONGLINGAPPANLIGAL(SALIGAN),LEGALRIGHTSANDNATURALRESOURCES_______________1 Appears as Nequito in the caption of the Petition by Nequinto inthe body. (Rollo, p. 12.)2 As appears in the body of the Petition. (Id., at p. 13.) The caption of8/8/15, 6:13 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 421Page 3 of 124 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a394f1da81fa4fa000a0094004f00ee/p/AKM417/?username=Guestthe petition does not include Louel A. Peria as one of the petitioners butthe name of his father Elpidio V. Peria appears therein.3AppearsasKaisahanTungosaKaunlaranngKanayunanatRepormangPansakahan(KAISAHAN)inthecaptionofthePetitionbyPhilippine Kaisahan Tungo sa Kaunlaran ng Kanayunan at RepormangPansakahan (KAISAHAN) in the body. (Id., at p. 14.)150150 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATEDLa Bugal-BLaan Tribal Association, Inc. vs. RamosCENTER, INC. (LRC), petitioners, vs. VICTOR O. RAMOS,SECRETARY,DEPARTMENTOFENVIRONMENTANDNATURALRESOURCES(DENR),HORACIORAMOS,DIRECTOR,MINESANDGEOSCIENCESBUREAU(MGB-DENR),RUBENTORRES;EXECUTIVESECRETARY,andWMC(PHILIPPINES),INC.,4respondents.JudicialReview;Requisites.Whenanissueofconstitutionalityisraised,thisCourtcanexerciseitspowerofjudicialreviewonlyifthefollowingrequisitesarepresent:(1)Theexistenceofanactualandappropriatecase;(2)Apersonalandsubstantial interest of the party raising the constitutional question;(3)Theexerciseofjudicialreviewispleadedattheearliestopportunity;and(4)Theconstitutionalquestionisthelismotaofthe case.Same; Same; Words and Phrases; An actual case or controversymeans an existing case or controversy that is appropriate or ripe fordetermination,notconjecturaloranticipatory.Anactualcaseorcontroversymeansanexistingcaseorcontroversythatisappropriateorripefordetermination,notconjecturaloranticipatory,lestthedecisionofthecourtwouldamounttoanadvisoryopinion.Thepowerdoesnotextendtohypotheticalquestionssinceanyattemptatabstractioncouldonlyleadtodialecticsandbarrenlegalquestionsandtosterileconclusionsunrelated to actualities.Same;Same;Same;LocusStandi;Legalstandingorlocusstandi has been defined as a personal and substantial interest in the8/8/15, 6:13 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 421Page 4 of 124 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a394f1da81fa4fa000a0094004f00ee/p/AKM417/?username=Guestcasesuchthatthepartyhassustainedorwillsustaindirectinjuryas a result of the governmental act that is being challenged, allegingmorethanageneralizedgrievance.Legalstandingorlocusstandihasbeendefinedasapersonalandsubstantialinterestinthecasesuchthatthepartyhassustainedorwillsustaindirectinjury as a result of the governmental act that is being challenged,alleging more than a generalized grievance. The gist of the questionofstandingiswhetherapartyallegessuchpersonalstakeintheoutcomeofthecontroversyastoassurethatconcreteadversenesswhichsharpensthepresentationofissuesuponwhichthecourtdependsforilluminationofdifficultconstitutionalquestions.Unlessapersonisinjuriouslyaffectedinanyofhisconstitutionalrights by the operation of statute or ordinance, he has no standing._______________4ErroneouslydesignatedinthePetitionasWesternMiningPhilippinesCorporation.(Id.,atp.212.)Subsequently,WMC(Philippines),Inc.wasrenamed Tampakan Mineral Resources Corporation. (Id., at p. 778.)151VOL. 421, JANUARY 27, 2004 151La Bugal-BLaan Tribal Association, Inc. vs. RamosSame; Same; Asthecaseinvolvesconstitutionalquestions,thisCourtisnotconcernedwithwhetherpetitionersarerealpartiesininterest,butwithwhethertheyhavelegalstanding.Thepresentactionisnotmerelyoneforannulmentofcontractbutforprohibitionandmandamus.Petitionersallegethatpublicrespondentsactedwithoutorinexcessofjurisdictioninimplementing the FTAA, which they submit is unconstitutional. Asthecaseinvolvesconstitutionalquestions,thisCourtisnotconcerned with whether petitioners are real parties in interest, butwithwhethertheyhavelegalstanding.AsheldinKilosbayanv.Morato: x x x. It is important to note . . . that standing because ofits constitutional and public policy underpinnings, is very differentfrom questions relating to whether a particular plaintiff is the realpartyininterestorhascapacitytosue.Althoughallthreerequirementsaredirectedtowardsensuringthatonlycertain8/8/15, 6:13 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 421Page 5 of 124 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a394f1da81fa4fa000a0094004f00ee/p/AKM417/?username=Guestpartiescanmaintainanaction,standingrestrictionsrequireapartialconsiderationofthemerits,aswellasbroaderpolicyconcerns relating to the proper role of the judiciary in certain areas.[](FRIEDENTHAL,KANEANDMILLER,CIVILPROCEDURE328[1985])Standingisaspecialconcerninconstitutionallawbecauseinsomecasessuitsarebroughtnotbypartieswhohavebeenpersonallyinjuredbytheoperationofalaworbyofficialactiontaken,butbyconcernedcitizens,taxpayersorvoterswhoactually sue in the public interest. Hence, the question in standingiswhethersuchpartieshaveallegedsuchapersonalstakeintheoutcomeofthecontroversyastoassurethatconcreteadversenesswhichsharpensthepresentationofissuesuponwhichthecourtsolargelydependsforilluminationofdifficultconstitutionalquestions. (Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 7 L.Ed.2d 633 [1962].)Same; Same; Thethirdrequisiteforjudicialreviewshouldnotbetakentomeanthatthequestionofconstitutionalitymustberaised immediately after the execution of the state action complainedofthatthequestionofconstitutionalityhasnotbeenraisedbeforeisnotavalidreasonforrefusingtoallowittoberaisedlater.MisconstruingtheapplicationofthethirdrequisiteforjudicialreviewthattheexerciseofthereviewispleadedattheearliestopportunityWMCPpointsoutthatthepetitionwasfiledonlyalmost two years after the execution of the FTAA, hence, not raisedat the earliest opportunity. The third requisite should not be takentomeanthatthequestionofconstitutionalitymustberaisedimmediatelyaftertheexecutionofthestateactioncomplainedof.Thatthequestionofconstitutionalityhasnotbeenraisedbeforeisnotavalidreasonforrefusingtoallowittoberaisedlater.Acontraryrulewouldmeanthatalaw,otherwiseunconstitutional,would lapse into constitutionality by the mere failure of the properparty to promptly file a case to challenge the same.Same;Prohibition;WordsandPhrases;Prohibitionisapreventiveremedy;Whiletheexecutionofthecontractitselfmaybefait accompli, its implementation is not.Prohibition is a preventiveremedy. It seeks a152152 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATEDLa Bugal-BLaan Tribal Association, Inc. vs. Ramos8/8/15, 6:13 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 421Page 6 of 124 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a394f1da81fa4fa000a0094004f00ee/p/AKM417/?username=Guestjudgment ordering the defendant to desist from continuing with thecommissionofanactperceivedtobeillegal.Thepetitionforprohibitionatbaristhusanappropriateremedy.Whiletheexecutionofthecontractitselfmaybefaitaccompli,itsimplementationisnot.Publicrespondents,inbehalfoftheGovernment,haveobligationstofulfillundersaidcontract.Petitioners seek to prevent them from fulfilling such obligations onthe theory that the contract is unconstitutional and, therefore, void.Same;HierarchyofCourts;TherepercussionsoftheissuesinthiscaseonthePhilippineminingindustry,ifnotthenationaleconomy,aswellasthenoveltythereof,constituteexceptionalandcompellingcircumstancestojustifyresorttotheSupremeCourtinthefirstinstance.Therepercussionsoftheissuesinthiscaseonthe Philippine mining industry, if not the national economy, as wellasthenoveltythereof,constituteexceptionalandcompellingcircumstances to justify resort to this Court in the first instance. Inall events, this Court has the discretion to take cognizance of a suitwhichdoesnotsatisfytherequirementsofanactualcaseorlegalstandingwhenparamountpublicinterestisinvolved.Whentheissues raised are of paramount importance to the public, this Courtmay brush aside technicalities of procedure.National Economy and Patrimony; Regalian Doctrine; The firstsentenceofSection2,ArticleXIIoftheConstitution,embodiestheRegaliandoctrineorjuraregalia;IntroducedbySpainintotheseIslands,thisfeudalconceptisbasedontheStatespowerofdominium,whichisthecapacityoftheStatetoownoracquireproperty.ThefirstsentenceofSection2embodiestheRegaliandoctrine or jura regalia. Introduced by Spain into these Islands, thisfeudal concept is based on the States power of dominium, which isthecapacityoftheStatetoownoracquireproperty.Initsbroadsense, the term jura regalia refers to royal rights, or those rightswhich the King has by virtue of his prerogatives. In Spanish law, itreferstoarightwhichthesovereignhasoveranythinginwhichasubjecthasarightofpropertyorpropriedad.Thesewererightsenjoyedduringfeudaltimesbythekingasthesovereign.Thetheory of the feudal system was that title to all lands was originallyheldbytheKing,andwhiletheuseoflandswasgrantedouttootherswhowerepermittedtoholdthemundercertainconditions,the King theoretically retained the title. By fiction of law, the Kingwasregardedastheoriginalproprietorofalllands,andthetrue8/8/15, 6:13 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 421Page 7 of 124 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a394f1da81fa4fa000a0094004f00ee/p/AKM417/?username=Guestandonlysourceoftitle,andfromhimalllandswereheld.Thetheoryofjuraregaliawasthereforenothingmorethananaturalfruit of conquest.Same; Same; The Regalian doctrine extends not only to land butalsotoallnaturalwealththatmaybefoundinthebowelsoftheearth.ThePhilippineshavingpassedtoSpainbyvirtueofdiscoveryandconquest,earlierSpanishdecreesdeclaredthatalllands were held from the153VOL. 421, JANUARY 27, 2004 153La Bugal-BLaan Tribal Association, Inc. vs. RamosCrown. The Regalian doctrine extends not only to land but also toallnaturalwealththatmaybefoundinthebowelsoftheearth.Spain,inparticular,recognizedtheuniquevalueofnaturalresources,viewingthem,especiallyminerals,asanabundantsource of revenue to finance its wars against other nations. Mininglaws during the Spanish regime reflected this perspective.Same;Same;UnlikeSpain,theUnitedStatesconsiderednatural resources as a source of wealth for its nationals and saw fittoallowbothFilipinoandAmericancitizenstoexploreandexploitmineralsinpubliclands,andtograntpatentstoprivateminerallands;TheRegaliandoctrineandtheAmericansystem,therefore,differinoneessentialrespectundertheRegaliantheory,mineralrightsarenotincludedinagrantoflandbythestatewhileundertheAmericandoctrine,mineralrightsareincludedinagrantoflandbythegovernment.UnlikeSpain,theUnitedStatesconsidered natural resources as a source of wealth for its nationalsand saw fit to allow both Filipino and American citizens to exploreand exploit minerals in public lands, and to grant patents to privateminerallands.Apersonwhoacquiredownershipoveraparcelofprivateminerallandpursuanttothelawsthenprevailingcouldexcludeotherpersons,eventheState,fromexploitingmineralswithinhisproperty.Thus,earlierjurisprudenceheldthat:Avalidandsubsistinglocationofmineralland,madeandkeptupinaccordance with the provisions of the statutes of the United States,hastheeffectofagrantbytheUnitedStatesofthepresentand8/8/15, 6:13 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 421Page 8 of 124 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a394f1da81fa4fa000a0094004f00ee/p/AKM417/?username=Guestexclusive possession of the lands located, and this exclusive right ofpossessionandenjoymentcontinuesduringtheentirelifeofthelocation. x x x x x x. The discovery of minerals in the ground by onewho has a valid mineral location, perfect his claim and his location,not only against third persons but also against the Government. x xx. [Italics in the original.] The Regalian doctrine and the Americansystem,therefore,differinoneessentialrespect.UndertheRegaliantheory,mineralrightsarenotincludedinagrantoflandbythestate;undertheAmericandoctrine,mineralrightsareincluded in a grant of land by the government.Same; Same; Concession System; Words and Phrases; Under theconcessionsystem,theconcessionairemakesadirectequityinvestmentforthepurposeofexploitingaparticularnaturalresourcewithinagivenareatheconcessionamountstocompletecontrol by the concessionaire over the countrys natural resource, foritisgivenexclusiveandplenaryrightstoexploitaparticularresourceatthepointofextraction.Section21alsomadepossibletheconcession(frequentlystyledpermit,licenseorlease)system.Thiswasthetraditionalregimeimposedbythecolonialadministratorsfortheexploitationofnaturalresourcesintheextractive sector (petroleum, hard minerals, timber, etc.). Under theconcessionsystem,theconcessionairemakesadirectequityinvestmentforthepurposeofexploitingaparticularnaturalresource within a given area. Thus, the154154 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATEDLa Bugal-BLaan Tribal Association, Inc. vs. Ramosconcessionamountstocompletecontrolbytheconcessionaireoverthe countrys natural resource, for it is given exclusive and plenaryrightstoexploitaparticularresourceatthepointofextraction.Inconsiderationfortherighttoexploitanaturalresource,theconcessionaireeitherpaysrentorroyalty,whichisafixedpercentage of the gross proceeds.Same;Same;Same;Asadoptedinarepublicansystem,themedievalconceptofjuraregaliaisstrippedofroyalovertonesandownership of the land is vested in the State.The 1935 Constitution8/8/15, 6:13 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 421Page 9 of 124 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a394f1da81fa4fa000a0094004f00ee/p/AKM417/?username=Guestadopted the Regalian doctrine, declaring all natural resources of thePhilippines,includingminerallandsandminerals,tobepropertybelongingtotheState.Asadoptedinarepublicansystem,themedievalconceptofjura regaliaisstrippedofroyalovertonesandownership of the land is vested in the State.Same;Same;Same;Nationalization;ObjectivesofNationalization;Thenationalizationandconservationofthenatural resources of the country was one of the fixed and dominatingobjectivesofthe1935ConstitutionalConvention.Thenationalizationandconservationofthenaturalresourcesofthecountry was one of the fixed and dominating objectives of the 1935ConstitutionalConvention.Thenationalizationofthenaturalresources was intended (1) to insure their conservation for Filipinoposterity; (2) to serve as an instrument of national defense, helpingpreventtheextensiontothecountryofforeigncontrolthroughpeacefuleconomicpenetration;and(3)toavoidmakingthePhilippinesasourceofinternationalconflictswiththeconsequentdanger to its internal security and independence.Same;Same;Same;Same;ParityAmendments;Theswellofnationalismthatsuffusedthe1935Constitutionwasradicallydiluted when in November 1946, the Parity Amendment, which cameintheformofanOrdinanceAppendedtotheConstitution,wasratified in a plebiscite.The swell of nationalism that suffused the1935ConstitutionwasradicallydilutedwhenonNovemberl946,theParityAmendment,whichcameintheformofanOrdinanceAppendedtotheConstitution,wasratifiedinaplebiscite.TheAmendmentextended,fromJuly4,1946toJuly3,1974,therightto utilize and exploit our natural resources to citizens of the UnitedStatesandbusinessenterprisesownedorcontrolled,directlyorindirectly, by citizens of the United States. The Parity Amendmentwassubsequentlymodifiedbythe1954RevisedTradeAgreement,also known as the Laurel-Langley Agreement, embodied in RepublicAct No. 1355.Same;Same;ServiceContracts;TheOilExplorationandDevelopmentActof1972(PresidentialDecreeNo.87);WordsandPhrases; The Oil Exploration and Development Act of 1972 signaledatransformationfromtheconcessionsystemtotheexplorationforand production of indigenous1558/8/15, 6:13 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 421Page 10 of 124 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a394f1da81fa4fa000a0094004f00ee/p/AKM417/?username=GuestVOL. 421, JANUARY 27, 2004 155La Bugal-BLaan Tribal Association, Inc. vs. Ramospetroleumthroughservicecontracts;Servicecontractsisatermthatassumesvaryingmeaningstodifferentpeople,andithascarriedmanynamesindifferentcountries,likeworkcontractsinIndonesia,concessionagreementsinAfrica,production-sharingagreementsintheMiddleEast,andparticipationagreementsinLatinAmerica.ThepromulgationonDecember31,1972ofPresidentialDecreeNo.87,otherwiseknownasTHEOILEXPLORATIONANDDEVELOPMENTACTOF1972signaledsuchatransformation.P.D.No.87permittedthegovernmenttoexploreforandproduceindigenouspetroleumthroughservicecontracts.Servicecontractsisatermthatassumesvaryingmeaningstodifferentpeople,andithascarriedmanynamesindifferentcountries,likeworkcontractsinIndonesia,concessionagreementsinAfrica,production-sharingagreementsintheMiddleEast,andparticipationagreementsinLatinAmerica.AfunctionaldefinitionofservicecontractsinthePhilippinesisprovided as follows: A service contract is a contractual arrangementforengagingintheexploitationanddevelopmentofpetroleum,mineral,energy,landandothernaturalresourcesbywhichagovernmentoritsagency,oraprivatepersongrantedarightorprivilegebythegovernmentauthorizestheotherparty(servicecontractor)toengageorparticipateintheexerciseofsuchrightortheenjoymentoftheprivilege,inthatthelatterprovidesfinancialor technical resources, undertakes the exploitation or production ofagivenresource,ordirectlymanagestheproductiveenterprise,operationsoftheexplorationandexploitationoftheresourcesorthe disposition of marketing or resources.Same;Same;Same;Ithasbeenopined,though,that,inthePhilippines,theconceptofaservicecontract,atleastinthepetroleumindustry,wasbasicallyaconcessionregimewithaproduction-sharingelement.Ostensibly,theservicecontractsystemhadcertainadvantagesovertheconcessionregime.Ithasbeenopined,though,that,inthePhilippines,ourconceptofaservice contract, at least in the petroleum industry, was basically aconcession regime with a production-sharing element.Same;Same;Same;WhileSection9,ArticleXIVofthe1973Constitution maintained the Filipino-only policy in the enjoyment of8/8/15, 6:13 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 421Page 11 of 124 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a394f1da81fa4fa000a0094004f00ee/p/AKM417/?username=Guestnaturalresources,italsoallowedFilipinos,uponauthorityoftheBatasang Pambansa, to enter into service contracts with any personor entity for the exploration or utilization of natural resources.OnJanuary 17, 1973, then President Ferdinand E. Marcos proclaimedtheratificationofanewConstitution.ArticleXIVontheNationalEconomyandPatrimonycontainedprovisionssimilartothe1935ConstitutionwithregardtoFilipinoparticipationinthenationsnaturalresources.Section8,ArticleXIVthereofprovides:WhileSection 9 of the same Article maintained the Filipino-only policy intheenjoymentofnaturalresources,italsoallowedFilipinos,uponauthority of the Batasang Pambansa, to enter into service contracts156156 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATEDLa Bugal-BLaan Tribal Association, Inc. vs. Ramoswithanypersonorentityfortheexplorationorutilizationofnatural resources.Same; Same; Same; ConspicuouslyabsentinSection2,ArticleXIIofthe1987Constitutionistheprovisioninthe1935and1973Constitutions authorizing the State to grant licenses, concessions, orleases for the exploration, exploitation, development, or utilization ofnaturalresourcesbysuchomission,theutilizationofinalienablelandsofpublicdomainthroughlicense,concessionorleaseisnolonger allowed under the 1987 Constitution.The 1987 ConstitutionretainedtheRegaliandoctrine.ThefirstsentenceofSection2,Article XII states: All lands of the public domain, waters, minerals,coal,petroleum,andothermineraloils,allforcesofpotentialenergy,fisheries,forestsortimber,wildlife,floraandfauna,andother natural resources are owned by the State. Like the 1935 and1973Constitutionsbeforeit,the1987Constitution,inthesecondsentenceofthesameprovision,prohibitsthealienationofnaturalresources, except agricultural lands. The third sentence of the sameparagraph is new: The exploration, development and utilization ofnatural resources shall be under the full control and supervision ofthe State.TheconstitutionalpolicyoftheStatesfullcontrolandsupervisionovernaturalresourcesproceedsfromtheconceptofjuraregalia,aswellastherecognitionoftheimportanceofthe8/8/15, 6:13 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 421Page 12 of 124 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a394f1da81fa4fa000a0094004f00ee/p/AKM417/?username=Guestcountrysnaturalresources,notonlyfornationaleconomicdevelopment,butalsoforitssecurityandnationaldefense.Underthisprovision,theStateassumesamoredynamicroleintheexploration,developmentandutilizationofnaturalresources.ConspicuouslyabsentinSection2istheprovisioninthe1935and1973ConstitutionsauthorizingtheStatetograntlicenses,concessions, or leases for the exploration, exploitation, development,or utilization of natural resources. By such omission, the utilizationof inalienable lands of public domain through license, concession orlease is no longer allowed under the 1987 Constitution.Same; Same; Under the 1987 Constitution, the State itself mayundertaketheoperationofaconcessionorenterintojointventures.Having omitted the provision on the concession system, Section 2proceededtointroduceunfamiliarlanguage:TheStatemaydirectly undertake such activities or it may enter into co-production,jointventure,orproduction-sharingagreementswithFilipinocitizens, or corporations or associations at least sixty per centum ofwhose capital is owned by such citizens. Consonant with the Statesfullsupervisionandcontrolovernaturalresources,Section2offerstheStatetwooptions.One,theStatemaydirectlyundertaketheseactivitiesitself;ortwo,itmayenterintocoproduction, joint venture, or production-sharing agreements withFilipino citizens, or entities at least 60% of whose capital is owned-by such citizens.157VOL. 421, JANUARY 27, 2004 157La Bugal-BLaan Tribal Association, Inc. vs. RamosSame;Same;Same;LimitationsonTechnicalorFinancialAssistanceAgreements.AlthoughSection2sanctionstheparticipationofforeign-ownedcorporationsintheexploration,development, and utilization of natural resources, it imposes certainlimitationsorconditionstoagreementswithsuchcorporations.First,thepartiestoFTAAs.OnlythePresident,inbehalfoftheState, may enter into these agreements, and only with corporations.Bycontrast,underthe1973Constitution,aFilipinocitizen,corporationorassociationmayenterintoaservicecontractwithaforeignpersonorentity.Second,thesizeoftheactivities:onlylarge-scale exploration, development, and utilization is allowed. The8/8/15, 6:13 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 421Page 13 of 124 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a394f1da81fa4fa000a0094004f00ee/p/AKM417/?username=Guestterm large-scale usually refers to very capital-intensive activities.Third, the naturalresourcessubjectoftheactivitiesisrestrictedtominerals, petroleum and other mineral oils, the intent being to limitservicecontractstothoseareaswhereFilipinocapitalmaynotbesufficient.Fourth,consistencywiththeprovisionsofstatute.Theagreementsmustbeinaccordancewiththetermsandconditionsprovidedbylaw.Fifth,Section2prescribescertainstandardsforenteringintosuchagreements.Theagreementsmustbebasedonrealcontributionstoeconomicgrowthandgeneralwelfareofthecountry.Sixth,theagreementsmustcontainrudimentarystipulationsforthepromotionofthedevelopmentanduseoflocalscientificandtechnicalresources.Seventh,thenotificationrequirement. ThePresidentshallnotifyCongressofeveryfinancialortechnicalassistanceagreemententeredintowithinthirtydaysfromitsexecution.Finally,thescopeoftheagreements.Whilethe1973Constitutionreferredtoservicecontractsforfinancial,technical,management,orotherformsofassistancethe1987Constitution provides for agreements . . . involving either financialortechnicalassistance.Itbearsnotingthatthephrasesservicecontractsandmanagementorotherformsofassistanceintheearlier constitution have been omitted.Same;Same;Same;ModesbyWhichtheStateMayExplore,Develop and Utilize Natural Resources.The State, being the ownerofthenaturalresources,isaccordedtheprimarypowerandresponsibilityintheexploration,developmentandutilizationthereof.Assuch,itmayundertaketheseactivitiesthroughfourmodes:TheStatemaydirectlyundertakesuchactivities.(2)TheStatemayenterintoco-production,jointventureorproduction-sharing agreements with Filipino citizens or qualified corporations.(3)Congressmay,bylaw,allowsmall-scaleutilizationofnaturalresourcesbyFilipinocitizens.(4)Forthelarge-scaleexploration,developmentandutilizationofminerals,petroleumandothermineral oils, the President may enter into agreements with foreign-ownedcorporationsinvolvingtechnicalorfinancialassistance.ExcepttochargetheMinesandGeosciencesBureauoftheDENRwithperformingresearchesandsurveys,andapassingmentionofgovernment-ownedorcontrolledcorporations,R.A.No.7942doesnot specify how the State should go about the first mode. The thirdmode, on the other hand, is governed by Republic Act No.1588/8/15, 6:13 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 421Page 14 of 124 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a394f1da81fa4fa000a0094004f00ee/p/AKM417/?username=Guest158 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATEDLa Bugal-BLaan Tribal Association, Inc. vs. Ramos7076(thePeoplesSmall-ScaleMiningActof1991)andotherpertinentlaws.R.A.No.7942primarilyconcernsitselfwiththesecond and fourth modes.Same;Same;Same;WordsandPhrases;ProductionSharingAgreements,Co-ProductionAgreements,andJointVentureAgreements,Explained.Mineralproductionsharing,co-productionandjointventureagreementsarecollectivelyclassifiedbyR.A.No.7942asmineralagreements.TheGovernmentparticipatestheleastinamineralproductionsharingagreement(MPSA).InanMPSA,theGovernmentgrantsthecontractortheexclusive right to conduct mining operations within a contract areaandsharesinthegrossoutput.TheMPSAcontractorprovidesthefinancing, technology, management and personnel necessary for theagreementsimplementation.ThetotalgovernmentshareinanMPSA is the excise tax on mineral products under Republic Act No.7729,amendingSection151(a)oftheNationalInternalRevenueCode,asamended.Inaco-productionagreement(CA),theGovernmentprovidesinputstotheminingoperationsotherthanthemineralresource,whileinajointventureagreement(JVA),wheretheGovernmentenjoysthegreatestparticipation,theGovernment and the JVA contractor organize a company with bothpartieshavingequityshares.Asidefromearningsinequity,theGovernment in a JVA is also entitled to a share in the gross output.TheGovernmentmayenterintoaCAorJVAwithoneormorecontractors.Same; Statutes; Statutory Construction; ExecutiveOrder(E.O.)No. 279; There is nothing in E.O. No. 200 that prevents a law fromtakingeffectonadateotherthanevenbeforethe15-dayperiodafteritspublication;Wherealawprovidesforitsowndateofeffectivity, such date prevails over that prescribed by E.O. No. 200.It bears noting that there is nothing in E.O. No. 200 that prevents alawfromtakingeffectonadateotherthanevenbeforethe15-dayperiodafteritspublication.Wherealawprovidesforitsowndateofeffectivity,suchdateprevailsoverthatprescribedbyE.O.No. 200. Indeed, this is the very essence, of the phrase unless it isotherwiseprovidedinSection1thereof.Section1,E.O.No.200,therefore,appliesonlywhenastatutedoesnotprovideforitsown8/8/15, 6:13 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 421Page 15 of 124 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a394f1da81fa4fa000a0094004f00ee/p/AKM417/?username=Guestdate of effectivity. What is mandatory under E.O. No. 200, and whatdue process requires, as this Court held in Taada v. Tuvera, is thepublication of the law for without such notice and publication, therewould be no basis for the application of the maxim ignorantia legisn[eminem] excusat. It would be the height of injustice to punish orotherwise burden a citizen for the transgression of a law of which hehad no notice whatsoever, not even a constructive one.Same;Same;Same;FromareadingthenofSection8ofE.O.No. 279, Section 1 of E.O. No. 200, and Taada v. Tuvera, this CourtholdsthatE.O.No.279becameeffectiveimmediatelyuponitspublication in the159VOL. 421, JANUARY 27, 2004 159La Bugal-BLaan Tribal Association, Inc. vs. RamosOfficialGazetteon3August1987.WhiletheeffectivityclauseofE.O. No. 279 does not require its publication, it is not a ground foritsinvalidationsincetheConstitution,beingthefundamental,paramountandsupremelawofthenation,isdeemedwritteninthelaw.Hence,thedueprocessclause,which,soTaadaheld,mandates the publication of statutes, is read into Section 8 of E.O.No.279.Additionally,Section1ofE.O.No.200whichprovidesforpublicationeitherintheOfficialGazetteorinanewspaperofgeneral circulation in the Philippines, finds suppletory application.It is significant to note that E.O. No. 279 was actually published intheOfficialGazetteonAugust3,1987.FromareadingthenofSection 8 of E.O. No. 279, Section 1 of E.O. No. 200, and Taada v.Tuvera,thisCourtholdsthatE.O.No.279becameeffectiveimmediatelyuponitspublicationintheOfficialGazetteonAugust3, 1987.Same; Same; Same; The convening of the first Congress merelyprecludedtheexerciseoflegislativepowersbyPresidentAquinoitdidnotpreventtheeffectivityoflawsshehadpreviouslyenacted.ThatsucheffectivitytookplaceaftertheconveningofthefirstCongressisirrelevant.AtthetimePresidentAquinoissuedE.O.No. 279 on July 25, 1987, she was still validly exercising legislativepowersundertheProvisionalConstitution.ArticleXVIII8/8/15, 6:13 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 421Page 16 of 124 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a394f1da81fa4fa000a0094004f00ee/p/AKM417/?username=Guest(TransitoryProvisions)ofthe1987Constitutionexplicitlystates:SEC.6.TheincumbentPresidentshallcontinuetoexerciselegislativepowersuntilthefirstCongressisconvened.TheconveningofthefirstCongressmerelyprecludedtheexerciseoflegislativepowersbyPresidentAquino;itdidnotpreventtheeffectivityoflawsshehadpreviouslyenacted.Therecanbenoquestion,therefore,thatE.O.No.279isaneffective,andavalidlyenacted, statute.Same;Same;Itisacardinalruleintheinterpretationofconstitutionsthattheinstrumentmustbesoconstruedastogiveeffecttotheintentionofthepeoplewhoadoptedit;Followingtheliteral text of the Constitution, assistance accorded by foreign-ownedcorporationsinthelarge-scaleexploration,development,andutilization of petroleum, minerals and mineral oils should be limitedto technical or financial assistance only.It is a cardinal rule intheinterpretationofconstitutionsthattheinstrumentmustbesoconstruedastogiveeffecttotheintentionofthepeoplewhoadoptedit.Thisintentionistobesoughtintheconstitutionitself,and the apparent meaning of the words is to be taken as expressingit,exceptincaseswherethatassumptionwouldleadtoabsurdity,ambiguity,orcontradiction.WhattheConstitutionsaysaccordingtothetextoftheprovision,therefore,compelsacceptanceandnegatesthepowerofthecourtstoalterit,basedonthepostulatethattheframersandthepeoplemeanwhattheysay.Accordingly,following the literal text of the Constitution, assistance accorded byforeign-ownedcorporationsinthelarge-scaleexploration,development,andutilizationofpetroleum,mineralsandmineraloils should be limited to technical or financial assistance only.160160 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATEDLa Bugal-BLaan Tribal Association, Inc. vs. RamosSame; Same; The management or operation of mining activitiesbyforeigncontractors,whichistheprimaryfeatureofservicecontracts,waspreciselytheevilthatthedraftersofthe1987Constitution sought to eradicate.As priorly pointed out, the phrasemanagement or other forms of assistance in the 1973 Constitutionwasdeletedinthe1987Constitution,whichallowsonlytechnicalorfinancialassistance.Casusomisusproomissohabendusest.A8/8/15, 6:13 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 421Page 17 of 124 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a394f1da81fa4fa000a0094004f00ee/p/AKM417/?username=Guestperson,objectorthingomittedfromanenumerationmustbeheldtohavebeenomittedintentionally.Aswillbeshownlater,themanagementoroperationofminingactivitiesbyforeigncontractors,whichistheprimaryfeatureofservicecontracts,waspreciselytheevilthatthedraftersofthe1987Constitutionsoughtto eradicate.Same;Same;ServiceContracts;IftheConstitutionalCommission intended to retain the concept of service contracts underthe1973Constitution,itcouldhavesimplyadoptedtheoldterminology(servicecontracts)insteadofemployingnewandunfamiliarterms(agreements...involvingeithertechnicalorfinancialassistance).Asearliernoted,thephraseservicecontractshasbeendeletedinthe1987ConstitutionsArticleonNationalEconomyandPatrimony.IftheCONCOMintendedtoretain the concept of service contracts under the 1973 Constitution,itcouldhavesimplyadoptedtheoldterminology(servicecontracts)insteadofemployingnewandunfamiliarterms(agreements . . . involving either technical or financial assistance).Suchadifferencebetweenthelanguageofaprovisioninarevisedconstitutionandthatofasimilarprovisionintheprecedingconstitution is viewed as indicative of a difference in purpose. If, asrespondentssuggest,theconceptoftechnicalorfinancialassistance agreements is identical to that of service contracts, theCONCOM would not have bothered to fit the same dog with a newcollar.Toupholdrespondentstheorywouldreducethefirsttoamereeuphemismforthesecondandrenderthechangeinphraseology meaningless. An examination of the reason behind thechangeconfirmsthattechnicalorfinancialassistanceagreementsare not synonymous to service contracts. [T]he Court in construingaConstitutionshouldbearinmindtheobjectsoughttobeaccomplishedbyitsadoption,andtheevils,ifany,soughttobepreventedorremedied.Adoubtfulprovisionwillbeexaminedinlightofthehistoryofthetimes,andtheconditionandcircumstances under which the Constitution was framed. The objectistoascertainthereasonwhichinducedtheframersoftheConstitutiontoenacttheparticularprovisionandthepurposesought to be accomplished thereby, in order to construe the whole asto make the words consonant to that reason and calculated to effectthat purpose.Same; Same; Same;TheinsightsoftheproponentsoftheU.P.LawDraftareinstructiveininterpretingthephrasetechnicalorfinancial assistance.It appears that Proposed Resolution No. 496,8/8/15, 6:13 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 421Page 18 of 124 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a394f1da81fa4fa000a0094004f00ee/p/AKM417/?username=GuestwhichwasthedraftArticleonNationalEconomyandPatrimony,adopted the concept of161VOL. 421, JANUARY 27, 2004 161La Bugal-BLaan Tribal Association, Inc. vs. Ramosagreements...involvingeithertechnicalorfinancialassistancecontainedintheDraftofthe1986U.P.LawConstitutionProject(U.P.Lawdraft)whichwastakenintoconsiderationduringthedeliberation of the CONCOM. The former, as well as Article XII, asadopted,employedthesameterminology,xxxTheinsightsoftheproponentsoftheU.P.Lawdraftare,therefore,instructiveininterpreting the phrase technical or financial assistance.Same;Same;Same;TheU.P.Lawdraftproponentsviewedservice contracts under the 1973 Constitution as grants of beneficialownershipofthecountrysnaturalresourcestoforeignownedcorporations.TheU.P.Lawdraftproponentsviewedservicecontractsunderthe1973Constitutionasgrantsofbeneficialownershipofthecountrysnaturalresourcestoforeignownedcorporations.While,intheory,theStateownsthesenaturalresourcesandFilipinocitizens,theirbeneficiariesservicecontractsactuallyvestedforeignerswiththerighttodispose,explorefor,develop,exploit,andutilizethesame.Foreigners,notFilipinos,becamethebeneficiariesofPhilippinenaturalresources.Thisarrangementisclearlyincompatiblewiththeconstitutionalidealofnationalizationofnaturalresources,withtheRegaliandoctrine, and on a broader perspective, with Philippine sovereignty.Same; Same; Same; The replacement of service contracts withagreements...involvingeithertechnicalorfinancialassistance,as well as the deletion of the phrase management or other forms ofassistance, assumes greater significance when note is taken that theU.P.LawdraftproposedotherequallycrucialchangesthatwereobviouslyheededbytheCONCOM;Inlightofthedeliberationsofthe CONCOM, the text of the Constitution, and the adoption of otherproposed changes, there is no doubt that the framers considered andsharedtheintentoftheU.P.Lawproponentsinemployingthephraseagreements...involvingeithertechnicalorfinancial8/8/15, 6:13 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 421Page 19 of 124 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a394f1da81fa4fa000a0094004f00ee/p/AKM417/?username=Guestassistance.Theproponentsneverthelessacknowledgedtheneedforcapitalandtechnicalknow-howinthelarge-scaleexploitation,developmentandutilizationofnaturalresourcesthesecondparagraphoftheproposeddraftitselfbeinganadmissionofsuchscarcity.Hence,theyrecommendedacompromisetoreconcilethenationalistic provisions dating back to the 1935 Constitution, whichreserved all natural resources exclusively to Filipinos, and the moreliberal 1973 Constitution, which allowed foreigners to participate inthese resources through service contracts. Such a compromise calledfortheadoptionofanewsystemintheexploration,development,andutilizationofnaturalresourcesintheformoftechnicalagreementsorfinancialagreementswhich,necessity,aredistinctconceptsfromservicecontracts.Thereplacementofservicecontractswithagreements...involvingeithertechnicalorfinancialassistance,aswellasthedeletionofthephrasemanagementorotherformsofassistance,assumesgreatersignificance when note is taken that the162162 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATEDLa Bugal-BLaan Tribal Association, Inc. vs. RamosU.P.Lawdraftproposedotherequallycrucialchangesthatwereobviously heeded by the CONCOM. These include the abrogation oftheconcessionsystemandtheadoptionofnewoptionsfortheStateintheexploration,development,andutilizationofnaturalresources.TheproponentsdeemedthesechangestobemoreconsistentwiththeStatesownershipof,anditsfullcontrolandsupervision(aphrasealsoemployedbytheframers)over,suchresources. In light of the deliberations of the CONCOM, the text ofthe Constitution, and the adoption of other proposed changes, thereis no doubt that the framers considered and shared the intent of theU.P.Lawproponentsinemployingthephraseagreements...involving either technical or financial assistance.Same;Same;Same;LoosestatementsofsomeoftheCommissionersintheCONCOMdonotnecessarilytranslatetotheadoptionofthe1973Constitutionprovisionallowingservicecontracts.Whilecertaincommissionersmayhavementionedthe8/8/15, 6:13 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 421Page 20 of 124 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a394f1da81fa4fa000a0094004f00ee/p/AKM417/?username=GuesttermservicecontractsduringtheCONCOMdeliberations,theymaynothavebeennecessarilyreferringtotheconceptofservicecontractsunderthe1973Constitution.Asnotedearlier,servicecontractsisatermthatassumesdifferentmeaningstodifferentpeople.Thecommissionersmayhavebeenusingthetermloosely,andnotinitstechnicalandlegalsense,torefer,ingeneral,toagreementsconcerningnaturalresourcesenteredintobytheGovernmentwithforeigncorporations.Theseloosestatementsdonotnecessarilytranslatetotheadoptionofthe1973Constitutionprovision allowing service contracts.Same;Same;Same;AdministrativeLaw;Whenanadministrativeorexecutiveagencyrendersanopinionorissuesastatementofpolicy,itmerelyinterpretsapre-existinglaw;andtheadministrativeinterpretationofthelawisatbestadvisory,foritisthe courts that finally determine what the law means.WMCP citesOpinionNo.75,s.1987,andOpinionNo.175,s.1990oftheSecretaryofJustice,expressingtheviewthatafinancialortechnical assistance agreement is no different in concept from theservice contract allowed under the 1973 Constitution. This Court isnot, however, bound by this interpretation. When an administrativeorexecutiveagencyrendersanopinionorissuesastatementofpolicy,itmerelyinterpretsapreexistinglaw;andtheadministrative interpretation, of the law is at best advisory, for it isthe courts that finally determine what the law means.Same; Same; Same; ThePresidentmayenterintoFTAAswithforeign-ownedcorporationintheexploitationofournaturalresources.Inanycase,theconstitutionalprovisionallowingthePresidenttoenterintoFTAAswithforeign-ownedcorporationsisanexceptiontotherulethatparticipationinthenationsnaturalresourcesisreservedexclusivelytoFilipinos.Accordingly,suchprovisionmustbeconstruedstrictlyagainsttheirenjoymentbynon-Filipinos. As Commissioner Villegas emphasized,163VOL. 421, JANUARY 27, 2004 163La Bugal-BLaan Tribal Association, Inc. vs. Ramostheprovisionisveryrestrictive.CommissionerNolledoalso8/8/15, 6:13 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 421Page 21 of 124 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a394f1da81fa4fa000a0094004f00ee/p/AKM417/?username=Guestremarked that entering into service contracts is an exception to therule on protection of natural resources for the interest of the nationand,therefore,beinganexception,itshouldbesubject,wheneverpossible,tostringentrules.Indeed,exceptionsshouldbestrictlybut reasonably construed; they extend only so far as their languagefairlywarrantsandalldoubtsshouldberesolvedinfavorofthegeneral provision rather than the exception.Same;Same;Same;PhilippineMiningActof1995(RepublicActNo.7942);Withtheforegoingdiscussioninmind,thisCourtfindsthatR.A.No.7942isinvalidinsofarassaidActauthorizesservice contracts.With the foregoing discussion in mind, this CourtfindsthatR.A.No.7942isinvalidinsofarassaidActauthorizesservicecontracts.Althoughthestatuteemploysthephrasefinancialandtechnicalagreementsinaccordancewiththe1987Constitution,itactuallytreatstheseagreementsasservicecontractsthatgrantbeneficialownershiptoforeigncontractorscontrary to the fundamental law.Same;Same;Same;Same;Theunderlyingassumptioninallsome of the provisions of R.A. No. 7942 is that the foreign contractormanagesthemineralresources,justliketheforeigncontractorinaservicecontract;Byallowingforeigncontractorstomanageoroperatealltheaspectsoftheminingoperation,theabove-citedprovisionsofR.A.No.7942haveineffectconveyedbeneficialownershipoverthenationsmineralresourcestothesecontractors,leavingtheStatewithnothingbutbaretitlethereto.Theunderlyingassumptioninalltheseprovisionsisthattheforeigncontractormanagesthemineralresources,justliketheforeigncontractorinaservicecontract.Furthermore,ChapterXIIoftheAct grants foreign contractors in FTAAs the same auxiliary miningrights that it grants contractors in mineral agreements (MPSA, CAandJV).Parenthetically,Sections72to75usethetermcontractor,withoutdistinguishingbetweenFTAAandmineralagreementcontractors.AndsodoesholdersofminingrightsinSection76.AforeigncontractormayevenconvertitsFTAAintoamineralagreementiftheeconomicviabilityofthecontractareaisfoundtobeinadequatetojustifylarge-scaleminingoperations,providedthatitreducesitsequityinthecorporation,partnership,association or cooperative to forty percent (40%). Finally, under theAct,anFTAAcontractorwarrantsthatithasorhasaccesstoallthefinancing,managerial,andtechnicalexpertise....ThissuggeststhatanFTAAcontractorisboundtoprovidesomemanagementassistanceaformofassistancethathasbeen8/8/15, 6:13 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 421Page 22 of 124 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a394f1da81fa4fa000a0094004f00ee/p/AKM417/?username=Guesteliminatedand,therefore,proscribedbythepresentCharter.Byallowing foreign contractors to manage or operate all the aspects oftheminingoperation,theabove-citedprovisionsofR.A.No.7942haveineffectconveyedbeneficialownershipoverthenationsmineralresourcestothesecontractors,leavingtheStatewithnothing but bare title thereto.164164 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATEDLa Bugal-BLaan Tribal Association, Inc. vs. RamosSame; Same; Same; Same; Provisions of R.A. No. 7942 ViolativeofSection2,ArticleXIIoftheConstitution.Insum,theCourtfindsthefollowingprovisionsofR.A.No.7942tobeviolativeofSection 2, Article XII of the Constitution: (1) The proviso in Section3(aq),whichdefinesqualifiedperson,towit:Provided,Thatalegallyorganizedforeign-ownedcorporationshallbedeemedaqualifiedpersonforpurposesofgrantinganexplorationpermit,financialortechnicalassistanceagreementormineralprocessingpermit. (2) Section 23, which specifies the rights and obligations ofanexplorationpermittee,insofarassaidsectionappliestoafinancialortechnicalassistanceagreement;(3)Section33,whichprescribestheeligibilityofacontractorinafinancialortechnicalassistanceagreement;(4)Section35,whichenumeratesthetermsandconditionsforeveryfinancialortechnicalassistanceagreement; (5) Section 39, which allows the contractor in a financialandtechnicalassistanceagreementtoconvertthesameintoamineralproduction-sharingagreement;Section37,whichprescribestheprocedureforfilingandevaluationoffinancialortechnicalassistanceagreementproposals;Section38,whichlimitsthe term of financial or technical assistance agreements; Section 40,whichallowstheassignmentortransferoffinancialortechnicalassistanceagreements;Section41,whichallowsthewithdrawalofthecontractorinanFTAA;ThesecondandthirdparagraphsofSection 81, which provide for the Governments share in a financialand technical assistance agreement; and Section 90, which providesforincentivestocontractorsinFTAAsinsofarasitappliestosaidcontractors;Same; Same; Same; Same; When the parts of the statute are somutuallydependentandconnectedasconditions,considerations,8/8/15, 6:13 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 421Page 23 of 124 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a394f1da81fa4fa000a0094004f00ee/p/AKM417/?username=Guestinducements, or compensations for each other, as to warrant a beliefthatthelegislatureintendedthemasawhole,andthatifallcouldnotbecarriedintoeffect,thelegislaturewouldnotpasstheresidueindependently,then,ifsomepartsareunconstitutional,alltheprovisionswhicharethusdependent,conditional,orconnected,must fall with them.When the parts of the statute are so mutuallydependentandconnectedasconditions,considerations,inducements, or compensations for each other, as to warrant a beliefthat the legislature intended them as a whole, and that if all couldnot be carried into effect, the legislature would not pass the residueindependently,then,ifsomepartsareunconstitutional,alltheprovisionswhicharethusdependent,conditional,orconnected,must fall with them.Same;InternationalLaw;Treaties;EqualProtectionClause;TheannulmentoftheFTAAwouldnotconstituteabreachoftheAgreementonthePromotionandProtectionofInvestmentsbetweenthePhilippineandAustralianGovernments,forthedecisionhereininvalidatingthesubjectFTAAformspartofthelegalsystemofthePhilippines,andtheequalprotectionclauseguaranteesthatsuchdecisionshallapplytoallcontractsbelongingtothesameclass,hence, upholding rather than violating, the fair and165VOL. 421, JANUARY 27, 2004 165La Bugal-BLaan Tribal Association, Inc. vs. Ramosequitable treatment stipulation in said treaty.The invalidation ofthesubjectFTAA,itisargued,wouldconstituteabreachofsaidtreatywhich,inturn,wouldamounttoaviolationofSection3,ArticleIIoftheConstitutionadoptingthegenerallyacceptedprinciples of international law as part of the law of the land. One ofthesegenerallyacceptedprinciplesispactasuntservanda,whichrequirestheperformanceingoodfaithoftreatyobligations.EvenassumingarguendothatWMCPiscorrectinitsinterpretationofthetreatyanditsassertionthatthePhilippinescouldnot...depriveanAustralianinvestor(like[WMCP])offairandequitabletreatmentbyinvalidating[WMCPs]FTAAwithoutlikewisenullifying the service contracts entered into before the enactment of8/8/15, 6:13 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 421Page 24 of 124 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a394f1da81fa4fa000a0094004f00ee/p/AKM417/?username=GuestRA7942...,theannulmentoftheFTAAwouldnotconstituteabreachofthetreatyinvoked.Forthisdecisionhereininvalidatingthe subject FTAA forms part of the legal system of the Philippines.Theequalprotectionclauseguaranteesthatsuchdecisionshallapply to all contracts belonging to the same class, hence, upholdingrather than violating, the fair and equitable treatment stipulationin said treaty.Same;StatutoryConstruction;Aconstitutionisnottobeinterpreted as demanding the impossible or the impracticableandunreasonable or absurd consequences, if possible, should be avoidedcourts are not to give words a meaning that would lead to absurdorunreasonableconsequencesandaliteralinterpretationistoberejectedifitwouldbeunjustorleadtoabsurdresults.One othermatterrequiresclarification.Petitionerscontendthat,consistentwith the provisions of Section 2, Article XII of the Constitution, thePresidentmayenterintoagreementsinvolvingeithertechnicalorfinancial assistance only. The agreement in question, however, is atechnicalandfinancialassistanceagreement.Petitionerscontentiondoesnotlie.ToadheretotheliterallanguageoftheConstitutionwouldleadtoabsurdconsequences.AsWMCPcorrectly put it: x x x such a theory of petitioners would compel thegovernment (through the President) to enter into contract with two(2)foreign-ownedcorporations,oneforfinancialassistanceagreement and with the other, for technical assistance over one andthesameminingareaorland;ortoexecutetwo(2)contractswithonlyoneforeign-ownedcorporationwhichhasthecapabilitytoprovidebothfinancialandtechnicalassistance,oneforfinancialassistanceandanotherfortechnicalassistance,overthesameminingarea.Suchanabsurdresultisdefinitelynotsanctionedunderthecanonsofconstitutionalconstruction.[Italicsintheoriginal.]Surely,theframersofthe1987Charterdidnotcontemplatesuchanabsurdresultfromtheiruseofeither/or.Aconstitution is not to be interpreted as demanding the impossible ortheimpracticable;andunreasonableorabsurdconsequences,ifpossible, should be avoided. Courts are not to give words a meaningthatwouldleadtoabsurdorunreasonableconsequencesandaliteral interpretation is to be rejected if it would be unjust or lead toabsurd results. That1668/8/15, 6:13 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 421Page 25 of 124 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a394f1da81fa4fa000a0094004f00ee/p/AKM417/?username=Guest166 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATEDLa Bugal-BLaan Tribal Association, Inc. vs. Ramosisastrongargumentagainstitsadoption.Accordingly,petitionersinterpretation must be rejected.VITUG, J., Separate Opinion:NationalEconomyandPatrimony;StatutoryConstruction;Itcould not have been the object of the framers of the Charter to limitthecontractswhichthePresidentmayenterinto,tomereagreements for financial and technical assistance; The ConstitutionhasnotprohibitedtheStatefromitselfexploring,developing,orutilizingthecountrysnaturalresources,and,forthispurpose,itmay, enter into the necessary agreements with individuals or entitiesin the pursuit of a feasible operation.The majority would cite theemphaticstatementsofCommissionersVillegasandDavidethatthe countrys natural resources are exclusively reserved for Filipinocitizens and that, according to Commissioner Villegas, the deletionofthephraseservicecontracts(isthe)firstattempttoavoidsomeof the abuses in the past regime in the use of service contracts to goaroundthe60-40arrangement.ThesedeclarationsdonotnecessarilymeanthattheGovernmentmaynolongerenterintoservicecontractswithforeignentities.InordertoupholdandstrengthenthenationalpolicyofpreservinganddevelopingthecountrysnaturalresourcesexclusivelyfortheFilipinopeople,thepresent Constitution indeed has provided for safeguards to preventtheexecutionofservicecontractsoftheoldregime,butnotofservicecontractsperse.ItcouldnothavebeentheobjectoftheframersoftheChartertolimitthecontractswhichthePresidentmayenterinto,tomereagreementsforfinancialandtechnicalassistance. One would take it that the usual terms and conditionsrecognizedandstipulatedinagreementsofsuchnaturehavebeencontemplated.Basically,thefinancierandtheownerofknow-howwould understandably satisfy itself with the proper implementationandtheprofitabilityoftheproject.Itwouldbeabnormalforthefinancier and owner of the know-how not to assure itself that all theactivitiesneededtobringtheprojectintofruitionareproperlyimplemented,attendedto,andcarriedout.Needlesstosay,noforeign investor would readily lend financial or technical assistancewithouttheproperincentives,includingfairreturns,therefor.The8/8/15, 6:13 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 421Page 26 of 124 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a394f1da81fa4fa000a0094004f00ee/p/AKM417/?username=GuestConstitutionhasnotprohibitedtheStatefromitselfexploring,developing, or utilizing the countrys natural resources, and, for thispurpose, it may, I submit, enter into the necessary agreements withindividuals or entities in the pursuit of a feasible operation.Same; Supreme Court;JudicialReview;SeparationofPowers;While I cannot ignore an impression of the business community thattheSupremeCourtiswont,attimes,tointerferewiththeeconomicdecisionsofCongressandthegovernmentseconomicmanagers,Imusthastentoadd,however,thatinsovotingasabove,Ihavenotbeen unduly overwhelmed by that perception.Just a word. While Icannot ignore an impression of the busi-167VOL. 421, JANUARY 27, 2004 167La Bugal-BLaan Tribal Association, Inc. vs. RamosnesscommunitythattheCourtiswont,attimes,tointerferewiththeeconomicdecisionsofCongressandthegovernmentseconomicmanagers,Imusthastentoadd,however,thatinsovotingasabove,Ihavenotbeenundulyoverwhelmedbythatperception.Quitethecontrary,theCourthasalwaysproceededwithgreatcaution,suchasnow,inresolvingcasesthatcouldinextricablyinvolvepolicyquestionsthoughttobebestlefttothetechnicalexpertise of the legislative and executive departments.PANGANIBAN, J., Separate Opinion:MootandAcademicIssues;IbelievethattheCourtshoulddismissthePetitiononthegroundofmootnessadecisionontheconstitutionalityissueshouldawaitthewisdomofanewdaywhentheCourtwouldhavealivecasebeforeit.Withduerespect,Ibelieve that the Court should dismiss the Petition on the ground ofmootness.Isubmitthatadecisionontheconstitutionalityissueshould await the wisdom of a new day when the Court would have alive case before it. The nullity of the FTAA is unarguably premisedupon the contractor being a foreign corporation. Had the FTAA beenoriginallyissuedtoaFilipino-ownedcorporation,wewouldhavehadnoconstitutionalityissuetospeakof.Upontheotherhand,conveyanceoftheFTAAtoaFilipinocorporationcanbelikenedto8/8/15, 6:13 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 421Page 27 of 124 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a394f1da81fa4fa000a0094004f00ee/p/AKM417/?username=GuestthesaleoflandtoaforeignerwhosubsequentlyacquiresFilipinocitizenship, or who later re-sells the same land to a Filipino citizen.Theconveyancewouldbevalidated,asthepropertyinquestionwould no longer be owned by a disqualified vendee. Since the FTAAisnowtobeimplementedbyaFilipinocorporation,howcantheCourtstilldeclareitunconstitutional?TheCAcaseisadisputebetweentwoFilipinocompanies(SagittariusandLepanto)bothclaimingtherighttopurchasetheforeignsharesinWMCP.Soregardless of which side eventually wins, the FTAA would still be inthe hands of a qualified Filipino company.NationalEconomyandPatrimony;StatutoryConstruction;Iftheintentionofthedrafterswerestrictlytoconfineforeigncorporationstofinancialortechnicalassistanceandnothingmore,theirlanguagewouldhavebeenunmistakablyrestrictiveandstringent.First,thedrafterschoiceofwordstheiruseofthephraseagreementsxxxinvolvingxxxtechnicalorfinancialassistancedoes not absolutely indicate the intent to exclude othermodesofassistance.Rather,thephrasesignifiesthepossibilityofthe inclusion of other activities, provided they bear some reasonablerelationshiptoandcompatibilitywithfinancialortechnicalassistance.Iftheintentionofthedrafterswerestrictlytoconfineforeign corporations to financial or technical assistance and nothingmore,Iamcertainthattheirlanguagewouldhavebeenunmistakablyrestrictiveandstringent.Theywouldhavesaid,forexample:Foreigncorporationsareprohibitedfromprovidingmanagementorotherformsofassistance,orwordstothateffect.The conscious avoidance of restrictive wording bespeaks an intent168168 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATEDLa Bugal-BLaan Tribal Association, Inc. vs. Ramosnot to employin an exclusionary, inflexible and limiting mannertheexpressionagreementsinvolvingtechnicalorfinancialassistance.Same;Same;ServiceContracts;ThepresentConstitutionstillrecognizesandallowsservicecontracts(andhasnotrenderedthemtaboo), albeit subject to several restrictions and modifications aimed8/8/15, 6:13 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 421Page 28 of 124 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a394f1da81fa4fa000a0094004f00ee/p/AKM417/?username=Guestat avoiding the pitfalls of the past.Second, I believe the foregoingposition is supported by the fact that our present Constitution stillrecognizes and allows service contracts (and has not rendered themtaboo), albeit subject to several restrictions and modifications aimedat avoiding the pitfalls of the past. Below are some excerpts from thedeliberationsoftheConstitutionalCommission(Concom),showingthatitsmembersdiscussedtechnicalorfinancialagreementsinthesamebreathasservicecontractsandusedthetermsinterchangeably.Same;Same;Same;Inthemindsofthecommissioners,theconceptoftechnicalandfinancialassistanceagreementsdidnotexist at all apart from the concept of service contracts duly modifiedtopreventabusestechnicalandfinancialagreementswereunderstoodbythedelegatestoincludeservicecontractsdulymodified to prevent abuses.The foregoing is but a small samplingofthelengthydiscussionsoftheconstitutionalcommissionersonthesubjectofservicecontractsandtechnicalandfinancialassistanceagreements.Quotingtherestoftheirdiscussionswouldhavetakenupseveralmorepages,andthesehavethusbeenomittedforthesakeofbrevity.Inanyevent,itwouldappearthatthemembersoftheConcomactuallyhadinmindtheMarcoseraservice contracts thattheywerefamiliarwith(butwhichtheydulymodifiedandrestrictedsoastopreventabuses),whentheywerecrafting and polishing the provisions dealing with financial and/ortechnical assistance agreements. These provisions ultimately becamethe fourth and the fifth paragraphs of Section 2 of Article XII of the1987Constitution.Putdifferently,technicalandfinancialassistance agreements were understood by the delegates to includeservice contracts duly modified to prevent abuses. Since the drafterswerereferringonlytoservicecontractstobegrantedtoforeignersand to nothing else, this fact necessarily implies that we ought nottreat the idea of agreements involving either technical or financialassistanceashavinganysignificanceorexistenceapartfromservicecontracts.Inotherwords,inthemindsofthecommissioners,theconceptoftechnicalandfinancialassistanceagreementsdidnotexistatallapartfromtheconceptofservicecontracts duly modified to prevent abuses.Same;Same;Same;Currentbusinesspracticesoftenrequireborrowersseekinghugeloanstoallowcreditorsaccesstofinancialrecordsandotherdata,andprobablyaseatortwoontheformersboardofdirectors,oratleastsomeparticipationincertainmanagementdecisionsthatmayhaveanimpactonthefinancial8/8/15, 6:13 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 421Page 29 of 124 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a394f1da81fa4fa000a0094004f00ee/p/AKM417/?username=Guesthealth or long-term viability of the debtor,169VOL. 421, JANUARY 27, 2004 169La Bugal-BLaan Tribal Association, Inc. vs. Ramoswhichofcoursewilldirectlyaffectthelatterscapacitytorepayitsloans.Tantamount to closing ones eyes to reality is the insistencethatthetermagreementsinvolvingtechnicalorfinancialassistance refers only to purely technical or financial assistance tobe rendered to the State by a foreign corporation (and must perforceexcludemanagementandotherformsofassistance).Nowadays,securingthekindoffinancialassistancerequiredbylarge-scaleexplorations,whichinvolvehundredsofmillionsofdollars,isnotjustamatterofsigningasimplepromissorynoteinfavorofalender.Currentbusinesspracticesoftenrequireborrowersseekinghugeloanstoallowcreditorsaccesstofinancialrecordsandotherdata, and probably a seat or two on the formers board of directors;or at least some participation in certain management decisions thatmay have an impact on the financial health or long-term viability ofthe debtor, which of course will directly affect the latters capacity torepayitsloans.Prudentlendingpracticesnecessitateacertaindegree of involvement in the borrowers management process.Same;Same;Same;IftheSupremeCourtclosesitsdoorstointernationalrealitiesandunilaterallysetsupitsownconceptsofstricttechnicalandfinancialassistance,thenitmayunwittinglymake the country a virtual hermitan economic isolationistin thereal world of finance.Given the modern-day reality that even theWorldBank(WB)andtheInternationalMonetaryFund(IMF)donot lend on the basis merely of bare promissory notes, but on someconditionalities designed to assure the borrowers financial viability,I would like to hear in an Oral Argument in a live, not a moot, casewhat these international practices are and how they impact on ourconstitutionalrestrictions.Thisisnottosaythatweshouldbendourbasiclaw;rather,weshouldfindoutwhatkindofFTAAprovisionsarerealisticvis--vistheseinternationalstandardsandour constitutional protection. Unless there is a live FTAA, the Courtwouldnotbeabletoanalyzetheprovisionsvis--visthe8/8/15, 6:13 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 421Page 30 of 124 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a394f1da81fa4fa000a0094004f00ee/p/AKM417/?username=GuestConstitution,theMiningLawandthesemoderndaylendingpractices. I mentioned the WB and the IMF, not necessarily becauseI agree with their oftentimes stringent policies, but because they setthestandardsthatinternationalandmultinationalfinancialinstitutionsoftentakebearingsfrom.TheWBandIMFareakin(though not equivalent) to the Bangko Sentral, which all Philippinebanksmustabideby.IfthisCourtclosesitsdoorstotheseinternationalrealitiesandunilaterallysetsupitsownconceptsofstricttechnicalandfinancialassistance,thenitmayunwittinglymake the country a virtual hermitan economic isolationistin thereal world of finance.Constitutions; Statutory Construction; Thecommissionersfullyrealizedthattheirworkwouldhavetowithstandthetestoftime,thattheCharter,thoughcraftedwiththewisdombornofpastexperiences and lessons painfully learned, would have to be a livingdocumentthatwouldanswertheneedsofthenationwellintothefuture.I believe that the170170 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATEDLa Bugal-BLaan Tribal Association, Inc. vs. RamosConcom did not mean to tie the hands of the President and restrictthelatteronlytoagreementsonrigidfinancialandtechnicalassistanceandnothing else.Thecommissionersfullyrealizedthattheirworkwouldhavetowithstandthetestoftime;thattheCharter,thoughcraftedwiththewisdombornofpastexperiencesandlessonspainfullylearned,wouldhavetobealivingdocumentthat would answer the needs of the nation well into the future. Thus,the unerring emphasis on flexibility and adaptability.SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION in the Supreme Court.Mandamus and Prohibition.The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.MarivicM.V.F.Leonen,EdgarDLBernal,IngridRosalie L. Gorre and Emily L. Manuel for petitioners.Ma. Paz G. Luna for petitioner David de Vera, et al.Magistrado A. Mendoza for petitioner KAISAHAN.8/8/15, 6:13 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 421Page 31 of 124 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a394f1da81fa4fa000a0094004f00ee/p/AKM417/?username=GuestThe Solicitor General for public respondents.FactoranandAssociatesLawOffice;Belo,Gozon,Elma, Parel,AsuncionandLucila;andAzcuna,Yorac,Sarmiento,Arroyo & Chua for private respondent WMC (Phils.).Mario C.V. Jalandoni co-counsel for WMC (Phils.).CARPIO-MORALES, J.:The present petition for mandamus and prohibition assailstheconstitutionalityofRepublicActNo.7942,5otherwiseknownasthePHILIPPINEMININGACTOF1995,alongwiththeImplementingRulesandRegulationsissuedpursuant thereto, Department of Environment and NaturalResources(DENR)AdministrativeOrder96-40,andoftheFinancialandTechnicalAssistanceAgreement(FTAA)enteredintoonMarch30,1995bytheRepublicofthePhilippinesandWMC(Philippines),Inc.(WMCP),acorporation organized under Philippine laws.OnJuly25,1987,thenPresidentCorazonC.AquinoissuedExecutiveOrder(E.O.)No.2796authorizingtheDENR Secretary to_______________5 An Act Instituting A New System of Mineral Resources Exploration,Development, Utilization and Conservation.6 Authorizing the Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources toNegotiate and Conclude Joint Venture, Co-Production, or Production-171VOL. 421, JANUARY 27, 2004 171La Bugal-BLaan Tribal Association, Inc. vs. Ramosaccept, consider and evaluate proposals from foreign-ownedcorporationsorforeigninvestorsforcontractsofagreementsinvolvingeithertechnicalorfinancialassistanceforlarge-scaleexploration,development,andutilizationofminerals,which,uponappropriaterecommendationoftheSecretary,thePresidentmayexecutewiththeforeignproponent.Inenteringintosuch8/8/15, 6:13 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 421Page 32 of 124 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a394f1da81fa4fa000a0094004f00ee/p/AKM417/?username=Guestproposals,thePresidentshallconsidertherealcontributionstotheeconomicgrowthandgeneralwelfareofthecountrythatwillberealized,aswellasthedevelopmentanduseoflocalscientificandtechnicalresources that will be promoted by the proposed contract oragreement.UntilCongressshalldetermineotherwise,large-scalemining,forpurposeofthisSection,shallmeanthoseproposalsforcontractsoragreementsformineralresourcesexploration,development,andutilizationinvolvingacommittedcapitalinasingleminingunitprojectofatleastFiftyMillionDollarsinUnitedStatescurrency (US $50,000,000.00).7OnMarch3,1995,thenPresidentFidelV.RamosapprovedR.A.No.7942togoverntheexploration,development,utilizationandprocessingofallmineralresources.8R.A.No.7942definesthemodesofmineralagreementsforminingoperations,9outlinestheprocedurefortheirfilingandapproval,10assignment/transfer11andwithdrawal,12andfixestheirterms.13Similarprovisionsgovern financial or technical assistance agreements.14The law prescribes the qualifications of contractors15 andgrantsthemcertainrights,includingtimber,16 water17andease-_______________Sharing Agreements for the Exploration, Development and UtilizationofMineralResources,andPrescribingtheGuidelinesforsuchAgreementsandthoseAgreementsinvolvingTechnicalorFinancialAssistancebyForeign-OwnedCorporationsforLarge-ScaleExploration,Development and Utilization of Minerals.7 Exec. Order No. 279 (1987), sec. 4.8 Rep. Act No. 7942 (1995), sec. 15.9Id., sec. 26 (a)-(c).10 Id., sec. 29.11 Id., sec. 30.12 Id., sec. 31.13 Id., sec. 32.14 Id., ch. VI.15 Id., secs. 27 and 33 in relation to sec. 3 (aq).16 Id., sec. 72.17 Id., sec. 73.8/8/15, 6:13 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 421Page 33 of 124 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a394f1da81fa4fa000a0094004f00ee/p/AKM417/?username=Guest172172 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATEDLa Bugal-BLaan Tribal Association, Inc. vs. Ramosment18 rights, and the right to possess explosives.19 Surfaceowners,occupants,orconcessionairesareforbiddenfrompreventingholdersofminingrightsfromenteringprivatelandsandconcessionareas.20Aprocedureforthesettlement of conflicts is likewise provided for.21TheActrestrictstheConditionsforexploration,22quarry23andother24permits.Itregulatesthetransport,saleandprocessingofminerals,25andpromotesthedevelopmentofminingcommunities,scienceandminingtechnology,26 and safety and environmental protection.27The governments share in the agreements is spelled outandallocated,28taxesandfeesareimposed,29incentivesgranted.30Asidefrompenalizingcertainacts,31thelawlikewisespecifiesgroundsforthecancellation,revocationand termination of agreements and permits.32OnApril9,1995,30daysfollowingitspublicationonMarch10,1995inMalayaandManilaTimes,twonewspapersofgeneralcirculation,R.A.No.7942tookeffect.33ShortlybeforetheeffectivityofR.A.No.7942,however,or on March 30, 1995, the President entered into an FTAAwithWMCPcovering99,387hectaresoflandinSouthCotabato,SultanKudarat,DavaodelSurandNorthCotabato.34_______________18 Id., sec. 75.19 Id., sec. 74.20 Id., sec. 76.21 Id., ch. XIII.22 Id., secs. 20-22.23 Id., secs. 43, 45.24 Id., secs. 46-49, 51-52.25 Id., ch. IX.26 Id., ch. X.8/8/15, 6:13 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 421Page 34 of 124 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a394f1da81fa4fa000a0094004f00ee/p/AKM417/?username=Guest27 Id., ch. XI.28 Id., ch. XIV.29 Id., ch. XV.30 Id., ch. XVI.31 Id., ch. XIX32 Id., ch. XVII.33Section116,R.A.No.7942providesthattheActshalltakeeffectthirty (30) days following its complete publication in two (2) newspapersof general circulation in the Philippines.34 WMCP FTAA, sec. 4.1.173VOL. 421, JANUARY 27, 2004 173La Bugal-BLaan Tribal Association, Inc. vs. RamosOnAugust15,1995,thenDENRSecretaryVictorO.RamosissuedDENRAdministrativeOrder(DAO)No.95-23,s.1995,otherwiseknownastheImplementingRulesandRegulationsofR.A.No.7942.Thiswaslaterrepealedby DAO No. 96-40, s. 1996 which was adopted on December20, 1996.OnJanuary10,1997,counselsforpetitionerssentalettertotheDENRSecretarydemandingthattheDENRstop the implementation of R.A. No, 7942 and DAO No. 96-40,35givingtheDENRfifteendaysfromreceipt36toactthereon. The DENR, however, has yet to respond or act onpetitioners letter.37Petitioners thus filed the present petition for prohibitionand mandamus, with a prayer for a temporary restrainingorder.Theyallegethatatthetimeofthefilingofthepetition,100FTAAapplicationshadalreadybeenfiled,coveringanareaof8.4millionhec-tares,3864ofwhichapplicationsarebyfullyforeign-ownedcorporationscovering a total of 5.8 million hectares, and at least one byafullyforeign-ownedminingcompanyoveroffshoreareas.39PetitionersclaimthattheDENRSecretaryactedwithout or in excess of jurisdiction:I8/8/15, 6:13 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 421Page 35 of 124 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a394f1da81fa4fa000a0094004f00ee/p/AKM417/?username=Guestx x x in signing and promulgating DENR Administrative Order No.96-40implementingRepublicActNo.7942,thelatterbeingunconstitutionalinthatitallowsfullyforeignownedcorporationstoexplore,develop,utilizeandexploitmineralresourcesinamannercontrarytoSection2,paragraph4,ArticleXIIoftheConstitution;IIxxxinsigningandpromulgatingDENRAdministrativeOrderNo.96-40implementingRepublicActNo.7942,thelatterbeingunconstitutionalinthatitallowsthetakingofprivatepropertywithout the determination of public use and for just compensation;_______________35 Rollo, p. 22.36 Ibid.37 Ibid.38 Ibid. The number has since risen to 129 applications when the petitionersfiled their Reply. (Rollo, p. 363.)39 Id., at p. 22.174174 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATEDLa Bugal-BLaan Tribal Association, Inc. vs. RamosIIIxxxinsigningandpromulgatingDENRAdministrativeOrderNo.96-40implementingRepublicActNo.7942,thelatterbeingunconstitutionalinthatitviolatesSec.1,Art.IIIoftheConstitution;IVxxxinsigningandpromulgatingDENRAdministrativeOrderNo.96-40implementingRepublicActNo.7942,thelatterbeingunconstitutionalinthatitallowsenjoymentbyforeigncitizensaswellasfullyforeignownedcorporationsofthenationsmarinewealthcontrarytoSection2,paragraph2ofArticleXIIoftheConstitution;8/8/15, 6:13 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 421Page 36 of 124 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a394f1da81fa4fa000a0094004f00ee/p/AKM417/?username=Guest(a)(b)(c)VxxxinsigningandpromulgatingDENRAdministrativeOrderNo.96-40implementingRepublicActNo.7942,thelatterbeingunconstitutionalinthatitallowsprioritytoforeignandfullyforeignownedcorporationsintheexploration,developmentandutilizationofmineralresourcescontrarytoArticleXIIoftheConstitution;VIxxxinsigningandpromulgatingDENRAdministrativeOrderNo.96-40implementingRepublicActNo.7942,thelatterbeingunconstitutional in that it allows the inequitable sharing of wealthcontrary to Sections [sic]1,paragraph1,andSection2,paragraph4[,] [Article XII] of the Constitution;VIIxxxinrecommendingapprovalofandimplementingtheFinancialandTechnicalAssistanceAgreementbetweenthePresidentoftheRepublicofthePhilippinesandWesternMiningCorporationPhilippines,Inc.becausethesameisillegalandunconstitutional.40They pray that the Court issue an order:PermanentlyenjoiningrespondentsfromactingonanyapplicationforFinancialorTechnicalAssistance Agreements;DeclaringthePhilippineMiningActof1995orRepublic Act No. 7942 as unconstitutional and nulland void;Declaring the Implementing Rules and RegulationsofthePhilippineMiningActcontainedinDENRAdministrativeOrderNo.96-40andallothersimilaradministrativeissuancesasunconstitutional and null and void; and_______________40 Id., at pp. 23-24.1758/8/15, 6:13 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 421Page 37 of 124 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a394f1da81fa4fa000a0094004f00ee/p/AKM417/?username=Guest(d)VOL. 421, JANUARY 27, 2004 175La Bugal-BLaan Tribal Association, Inc. vs. RamosCancellingtheFinancialandTechnicalAssistanceAgreementissuedtoWesternMiningPhilippines,Inc. as unconstitutional, illegal and null and void.41ImpleadedaspublicrespondentsareRubenTorres,thethen Executive Secretary, Victor O. Ramos, the then DENRSecretary,andHoracioRamos,DirectoroftheMinesandGeosciencesBureauoftheDENR.Alsoimpleadedisprivate respondent WMCP, which entered into the assailedFTAA with the Philippine Government. WMCP is owned byWMCResourcesInternationalPty.,Ltd.(WMC),awhollyownedsubsidiaryofWesternMiningCorporationHoldingsLimited,apubliclylistedmajorAustralianminingandexploration company.42 By WMCPs information, it is a100% owned subsidiary of WMC LIMITED.43Respondents,asidefrommeetingpetitionerscontentions,arguethattherequisitesforjudicialinquiryhavenotbeenmetandthatthepetitiondoesnotcomplywiththecriteriaforprohibitionandmandamus.Additionally, respondent WMCP argues that there has beena violation of the rule on hierarchy of courts.After petitioners filed their reply, this Court granted duecoursetothepetition.Thepartieshavesincefiledtheirrespective memoranda.WMCPsubsequentlyfiledaManifestationdatedSeptember25,2002allegingthatonJanuary23,2001WMCsoldallitssharesinWMCPtoSagittariusMines,Inc. (Sagittarius), a corporation organized under Philippinelaws.44WMCPwassubsequentlyrenamedTampakanMineralResourcesCorporation.45WMCPclaimsthatatleast 60% of the equity of Sagittarius is owned by Filipinosand/orFilipino-ownedcorporationswhileabout40%isowned by Indophil Resources NL, an Australian company.46Itfurtherclaimsthatbysuchsaleandtransferofshares,WMCPhasceasedtobeconnectedinanywaywithWMC.47_______________8/8/15, 6:13 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 421Page 38 of 124 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a394f1da81fa4fa000a0094004f00ee/p/AKM417/?username=Guest41 Id., at pp. 52-53. Emphasis and italics supplied.42 WMCP FTAA, p. 2.43 Rollo, p. 220.44 Id., at p. 754.45 Vide Note 4.46 Rollo, p. 754.47 Id., at p. 755.176176 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATEDLa Bugal-BLaan Tribal Association, Inc. vs. RamosBy virtue of such sale and transfer, the DENR Secretary, byOrderofDecember18,2001,48approvedthetransferandregistrationofthesubjectFTAAfromWMCPtoSagittarius. Said Order, however, was appealed by LepantoConsolidatedMiningCo.(Lepanto)totheOfficeofthePresident which upheld it by Decision of July 23, 2002.49 Itsmotion for reconsideration having been denied by the OfficeofthePresidentbyResolutionofNovember12,2002,50Lepantofiledapetitionforreview51beforetheCourtofAppeals. Incidentally, two other petitions for review relatedto the approval of the transfer and registration of the FTAAto Sagittarius were recently resolved by this Court.52Itbearsstressingthatthiscasehasnotbeenrenderedmoot either by the transfer and registration of the FTAA toaFilipino-ownedcorporationorbythenon-issuanceofatemporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction tostaytheabove-saidJuly23,2002decisionoftheOfficeofthePresident.53Thevalidityofthetransferremainsindisputeandawaitsfinaljudicialdetermination.Thisassumes,ofcourse,thatsuchtransfercurestheFTAAsallegedunconstitutionality,onwhichquestionjudgmentisreserved.WMCP also points out that the original, claimowners ofthe major mineralized areas included in the WMCP FTAA,namely,Sagittarius,TampakanMiningCorporation,andSouthcotMiningCorporation,areallFilipino-ownedcorporations,54eachofwhichwasaholderofanapprovedMineral Production Sharing Agreement8/8/15, 6:13 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 421Page 39 of 124 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a394f1da81fa4fa000a0094004f00ee/p/AKM417/?username=Guest_______________48 Id., at pp. 761-763.49 Id., at pp. 764-776.50 Id., at pp. 782-786.51 Docketed as C.A.-G.R. No. 74161.52 G.R. No. 153885, entitled Lepanto Consolidated Mining Company v.WMCResourcesInternationalPty.Ltd.,etal.,decidedSeptember24,2003,412SCRA101andG.R.No.156214,entitledLepantoMiningCompany v. WMC Resources International Pty. Ltd., WMC (Philippines),Inc.,SouthcotMiningCorporation,TampakanMiningCorporationandSagittarius Mines, Inc., decided September 23, 2003.53Section12,Rule43oftheRulesofCourt,invokedbyprivaterespondent, states, The appeal shall not stay the award, judgment, finalorderorresolutionsoughttobereviewedunlesstheCourtofAppealsshall direct otherwise upon such terms as it may deem just.54 WMCPs Reply (dated May 6, 2003) to Petitioners Comment (to theManifestation and Supplemental Manifestation), p. 3.177VOL. 421, JANUARY 27, 2004 177La Bugal-BLaan Tribal Association, Inc. vs. Ramosawardedin1994,albeittheirrespectivemineralclaimswere subsumed in the WMCP FTAA;55 and that these threecompanies are the same companies that consolidated theirinterests in Sagittarius to whom WMC sold its 100% equityinWMCP.56WMCPconcludesthatintheeventthattheFTAAisinvalidated,theMPSAsofthethreecorporationswouldberevivedandthemineralclaimswouldreverttotheir original claimants.57Thesecircumstances,whileinformative,arehardlysignificantintheresolutionofthiscase,itinvolvingthevalidityoftheFTAA,notthepossibleconsequencesofitsinvalidation.Oftheabove-enumeratedsevengroundscitedbypetitioners,aswillbeshownlater,onlythefirstandthelastneedbedelvedinto;inthelatter,thediscussionshalldwell only insofar as it questions the effectivity of E.O. No.279byvirtueofwhichorderthequestionedFTAAwasforged.8/8/15, 6:13 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 421Page 40 of 124 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a394f1da81fa4fa000a0094004f00ee/p/AKM417/?username=Guest(1)(2)(3)(4)IBeforegoingintothesubstantiveissues,theproceduralquestions posed by respondents shall first be tackled.Requisites For Judicial ReviewWhen an issue of constitutionality is raised, this Court canexerciseitspowerofjudicialreviewonlyifthefollowingrequisites are present:The existence of an actual and appropriate case;Apersonalandsubstantialinterestofthepartyraising the constitutional question;Theexerciseofjudicialreviewispleadedattheearliest opportunity; andTheconstitutionalquestionisthelismotaofthecase.58_______________55 Ibid.56 Ibid.57 WMCPs Reply (dated May 6, 2003) to Petitioners Comment (to theManifestation and Supplemental Manifestation), p. 4.58PhilippineConstitutionAssociationv.Enriquez,235SCRA506(1994);NationalEconomicProtectionismAssociationv.Ongpin,171SCRA657(1989);Dumlaov.CommissiononElections,95SCRA392(1980).178178 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATEDLa Bugal-BLaan Tribal Association, Inc. vs. RamosRespondentsclaimthatthefirstthreerequisitesarenotpresent.Section1,ArticleVIIIoftheConstitutionstatesthat(j)udicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice tosettleactualcontroversiesinvolvingrightswhicharelegally demandable and enforceable. The power of judicial8/8/15, 6:13 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 421Page 41 of 124 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a394f1da81fa4fa000a0094004f00ee/p/AKM417/?username=Guestreview,therefore,islimitedtothedeterminationofactualcases and controversies.59An actual case or controversy means an existing case orcontroversythatisappropriateorripe.fordetermination,notconjecturaloranticipatory,60lestthedecisionofthecourtwouldamounttoanadvisoryopinion.61Thepowerdoesnotextendtohypotheticalquestions62sinceanyattemptatabstractioncouldonlyleadtodialecticsandbarren legal questions and to sterile conclusions unrelatedto actualities.63Legalstandingorlocusstandihasbeendefinedasapersonal and substantial interest in the case such that theparty has sustained or will sustain direct injury as a resultof the governmental act that is being challenged,64 allegingmorethanageneralizedgrievance.65Thegistofthequestionofstandingiswhetherapartyallegessuchpersonalstakeintheoutcomeofthecontroversyastoassurethatconcreteadversenesswhichsharpensthepresentationofissuesuponwhichthecourtdependsforilluminationofdifficultconstitutionalquestions.66Unlessa person is injuriously affected in any of his constitutionalrightsbytheoperationofstatuteorordinance,hehasnostanding.67Petitionerstraverseawiderangeofsectors.AmongthemareLaBugalBlaanTribalAssociation,Inc.,afarmers and indigenous_______________59 Dumlao v. Commission on Elections, supra.60 Board of Optometry v. Colet, 260 SCRA 88 (1996).61 Dumlao v. Commission on Elections, supra.62 SubicBayMetropolitanAuthorityv.CommissiononElections,262SCRA 492 (1996).63 Angara v. Electoral Commission, 63 Phil. 139 (1936).64IntegratedBarofthePhilippinesv.Zamora,338SCRA81,100(2000);Dumlaov.CommissiononElections,supra;Peoplev.Vera,65Phil. 56 (1937).65 Dumlao v. Commission on Elections, supra.66 Integrated Bar of the Philippines v. Zamora, supra.67 Ermita-MalateHotelandMotelOperatorsAssociation,Inc.v.CityMayor of Manila, 21 SCRA 449 (1967).8/8/15, 6:13 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 421Page 42 of 124 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a394f1da81fa4fa000a0094004f00ee/p/AKM417/?username=Guest179VOL. 421, JANUARY 27, 2004 179La Bugal-BLaan Tribal Association, Inc. vs. RamospeoplescooperativeorganizedunderPhilippinelawsrepresentingacommunityactuallyaffectedbytheminingactivitiesofWMCP,membersofsaidcooperative,68aswellasotherresidentsofareasalsoaffectedbytheminingactivitiesofWMCP.69ThesepetitionershavestandingtoraisetheconstitutionalityofthequestionedFTAAastheyallegeapersonalandsubstantialinjury.Theyclaimthatthey would suffer irremediable displacement70 as a resultoftheimplementationoftheFTAAallowingWMCPtoconductminingactivitiesintheirareaofresidence.Theythus meet the appropriate case requirement as they assertaninterestadversetothatofrespondentswho,ontheother hand, insist on the FTAAs validity.In view of the alleged impending injury, petitioners alsohavestandingtoassailthevalidityofE.O.No.279,byauthority of which the FTAA was executed.Publicrespondentsmaintainthatpetitioners,beingstrangerstotheFTAA,cannotsueeitherorbothcontractingpartiestoannulit.71Inotherwords,theycontendthatpetitionersarenotrealpartiesininterestinan action for the annulment of contract.Publicrespondentscontentionfails.Thepresentactionisnotmerelyoneforannulmentofcontractbutforprohibitionandmandamus.PetitionersallegethatpublicrespondentsactedwithoutorinexcessofjurisdictioninimplementingtheFTAA,whichtheysubmitisunconstitutional.Asthecaseinvolvesconstitutionalquestions,thisCourtisnotconcernedwithwhetherpetitionersarerealpartiesininterest,butwithwhetherthey have legal standing. As held in Kilosbayan v. Morato:72xxx.Itisimportanttonote...thatstandingbecauseofitsconstitutionalandpublicpolicyunderpinnings,isverydifferentfrom questions relating to whether a particular plaintiff is the realparty in interest or has8/8/15, 6:13 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 421Page 43 of 124 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a394f1da81fa4fa000a0094004f00ee/p/AKM417/?username=Guest_______________68PetitionersRobertoP.Amloy,RaqimL.Dabie,SimeonH.Dolojo,ImeldaGandon,LenyB.Gusanan,MarceloL.Gusanan,QuintalA.Labuayan,Lomingges Laway, and Benita P. Tacuayan.69PetitionersFlongAgustinM.Dabie,MarioL.Mangcal,AldenS.Tusan,Sr. Susuan O. Bolanio, OND, Lolita G. Demonteverde, Benjie L. Nequinto, RoseLilia S. Romano and Amparo S. Yap.70 Rollo, p. 6.71 Id., at p. 337, citing Malabanan v. Gaw Ching, 181 SCRA 84 (1990).72 246 SCRA 540 (1995).180180 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATEDLa Bugal-BLaan Tribal Association, Inc. vs. Ramoscapacitytosue.Althoughallthreerequirementsaredirectedtowards ensuring that only certain parties can maintain an action,standingrestrictionsrequireapartialconsiderationofthemerits,as well as broader policy concerns relating to the proper role of thejudiciaryincertainareas.[](FRIEDENTHAL,KANEANDMILLER, CIVIL PROCEDURE 328 [1985])Standingisaspecialconcerninconstitutionallawbecauseinsomecasessuitsarebroughtnotbypartieswhohavebeenpersonallyinjuredbytheoperationofalaworbyofficialactiontaken,butbyconcernedcitizens,taxpayersorvoterswhoactuallysueinthepublicinterest.Hence,thequestioninstandingiswhethersuchpartieshaveallegedsuchapersonalstakeintheoutcomeofthecontroversyastoassurethatconcreteadversenesswhichsharpensthepresentationofissuesuponwhichthecourtsolargelydependsforilluminationofdifficultconstitutionalquestions. (Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 7 L.Ed.2d 633 [1962].)As earlier stated, petitioners meet this requirement.ThechallengeagainsttheconstitutionalityofR.A.No.7942andDAONo.96-40likewisefulfillstherequisitesofjusticiability.Althoughtheselawswerenotinforcewhenthe subject FTAA was entered into, the question as to theirvalidity is ripe for adjudication.The WMCP FTAA provides:14.3 Future Legislation8/8/15, 6:13 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 421Page 44 of 124 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a394f1da81fa4fa000a0094004f00ee/p/AKM417/?username=GuestAnytermandconditionmorefavourabletoFinancial&TechnicalAssistance Agreement contractors resulting from repeal or amendment ofany existing law or regulation or from the enactment of a law, regulationor administrative order shall be considered a part of this Agreement.ItisundisputedthatR.A.No.7942andDAONo.96-40containprovisionsthataremorefavorabletoWMCP,hence,theselaws,totheextentthattheyarefavorabletoWMCP, govern the FTAA.Inaddition,R.A.No.7942explicitlymakescertainprovisions apply to pre-existing agreements.SEC. 112. Non-impairment of Existing Mining/Quarrying Rights.xxxThattheprovisionsofChapterXIVongovernmentshareinmineralproduction-sharingagreementandofChapterXVIonincentivesofthisActshallimmediatelygovernandapplytoamininglesseeorcontractorunlessthemininglesseeorcontractorindicates his intention to the secretary in writing not to avail of saidprovisions x x x Provided, finally,181VOL. 421, JANUARY 27, 2004 181La Bugal-BLaan Tribal Association, Inc. vs. RamosThatsuchleases,production-sharingagreements,financialortechnicalassistanceagreementsshallcomplywiththeapplicableprovisions of this Act and its implementing rules and regulations.AsthereisnosuggestionthatWMCPhasindicateditsintentionnottoavailoftheprovisionsofChapterXVIofR.A. No. 7942, it can safely be presumed that they apply tothe WMCP FTAA.MisconstruingtheapplicationofthethirdrequisiteforjudicialreviewthattheexerciseofthereviewispleadedattheearliestopportunityWMCPpointsoutthatthepetition was filed only almost two years after the executionof the FTAA, hence, not raised at the earliest opportunity.The third requisite should not be taken to mean that thequestionofconstitutionalitymustberaisedimmediatelyaftertheexecutionofthestateactioncomplainedof.Thatthe question of constitutionality has not been raised beforeisnotavalidreasonforrefusingtoallowittoberaised8/8/15, 6:13 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 421Page 45 of 124 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f0a394f1da81fa4fa000a0094004f00ee/p/AKM417/?username=Guestlater.73Acontraryrulewouldmeanthatalaw,otherwiseunconstitutional,wouldlapseintoconstitutionalitybythemerefailureoftheproperpartytopromptlyfileacasetochallenge the same.Propriety of Prohibition and MandamusBeforetheeffectivityinJuly1997oftheRevisedRulesofCivil Procedure, Section 2 of Rule 65 read:SEC.2.Petitionforprohibition.Whentheproceedingsofanytribunal,corporation,board,orperson,whetherexercisingfunctionsjudicialorm