Scribd
Upload
159 views3 pages

Didipio Earth Savers Multipurpose Association Et Al Vs DENR Sec Elisea Gozun Et Al

The Supreme Court ruled against Didipio Earth Savers Multipurpose Association et al in their case against DENR Sec Elisea Gozun et al. Didipio claimed that RA 7942 and its implementing rules were unconstitutional as it allowed unlawful taking of private property. However, the Supreme Court found that while the law allows the government to enter private property for mining, it does not constitute unlawful taking because it provides for just compensation to property owners. The Court also noted that mining falls under the government's police power and public policy, allowing the invocation of eminent domain. Therefore, RA 7942 and the DENR rules were deemed valid.

Uploaded by

Paul Joshua Suba
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
159 views3 pages

Didipio Earth Savers Multipurpose Association Et Al Vs DENR Sec Elisea Gozun Et Al

The Supreme Court ruled against Didipio Earth Savers Multipurpose Association et al in their case against DENR Sec Elisea Gozun et al. Didipio claimed that RA 7942 and its implementing rules were unconstitutional as it allowed unlawful taking of private property. However, the Supreme Court found that while the law allows the government to enter private property for mining, it does not constitute unlawful taking because it provides for just compensation to property owners. The Court also noted that mining falls under the government's police power and public policy, allowing the invocation of eminent domain. Therefore, RA 7942 and the DENR rules were deemed valid.

Uploaded by

Paul Joshua Suba
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
You are on page 1/ 3

Didipio Earth Savers

Multipurpose Association et al vs
DENR Sec Elisea Gozun et al

G.R. No. 157882 – 485 SCRA 586 – Police Power – Eminent Domain

In 1987, Cory rolled out EO 279 w/c empowered DENR to stipulate with
foreign companies when it comes to either technical or financial large
scale exploration or mining. In 1995, Ramos signed into law RA 7942 or
the Philippine Mining Act. In 1994, Ramos already signed an FTAA with
Arimco Mining Co, an Australian company. The FTAA authorized AMC
(later CAMC) to explore 37,000 ha of land in Quirino and N. Vizcaya
including Brgy Didipio. After the passage of the law, DENR rolled out its
implementing RRs. Didipio petitioned to have the law and the RR to be
annulled as it is unconstitutional and it constitutes unlawful taking of
property. In seeking to nullify Rep. Act No. 7942 and its implementing
rules DAO 96-40 as unconstitutional, petitioners set their sight on Section
76 of Rep. Act No. 7942 and Section 107 of DAO 96-40 which they claim
allow the unlawful and unjust “taking” of private property for private
purpose in contradiction with Section 9, Article III of the 1987 Constitution
mandating that private property shall not be taken except for public use
and the corresponding payment of just compensation. They assert that
public respondent DENR, through the Mining Act and its Implementing
Rules and Regulations, cannot, on its own, permit entry into a private
property and allow taking of land without payment of just compensation.

Traversing petitioners’ assertion, public respondents argue that Section 76


is not a taking provision but a valid exercise of the police power and by
virtue of which, the state may prescribe regulations to promote the health,
morals, peace, education, good order, safety and general welfare of the
people.  This government regulation involves the adjustment of rights for
the public good and that this adjustment curtails some potential for the
use or economic exploitation of private property.  Public respondents
concluded that “to require compensation in all such circumstances would
compel the government to regulate by purchase.”

ISSUE: Whether or not RA 7942 and the DENR RRs are valid.

HELD: The SC ruled against Didipio. The SC noted the requisites of


eminent domain. They are:

(1)  the expropriator must enter a private property;

(2)  the entry must be for more than a momentary period.

(3)  the entry must be under warrant or color of legal authority;

(4)  the property must be devoted to public use or otherwise informally


appropriated or injuriously affected;

(5)  the utilization of the property for public use must be in such a way as
to oust the owner and deprive him of beneficial enjoyment of the
property.

In the case at bar, Didipio failed to show that the law is invalid. Indeed
there is taking involved but it is not w/o just compensation. Sec 76 of RA
7942 provides for just compensation as well as section 107 of the DENR
RR. To wit,

Section 76. xxx Provided, that any damage to the property of the surface
owner, occupant, or concessionaire as a consequence of such operations
shall be properly compensated as may be provided for in the
implementing rules and regulations.

Section 107. Compensation of the Surface Owner and Occupant- Any


damage done to the property of the surface owners, occupant, or
concessionaire thereof as a consequence of the mining operations or as a
result of the construction or installation of the infrastructure mentioned in
104 above shall be properly and justly compensated.

Further, mining is a public policy and the government can invoke eminent
domain to exercise entry, acquisition and use of private lands.

You might also like