La Bugal B'Laan Tribal Assn v. Ramos : 127882 : February 1, 2005 : En Banc : Resolution
EN BANC
[G.R. NO. 127882 : February 1, 2005]
Supplemental Agenda for February 1, 2005, Item No. 123
LA BUGAL BLAAN TRIBAL ASSOCIATION et al. v. RAMOS et al.
RESOLUTION
Before the Court is petitioners' 38-page Motion for Reconsideration praying for the reversal of this Court's Resolution promulgated on December 1, 2004, on the following grounds:ςηαñrοblεš νιr†υαl lαω lιbrαrÿ
I
The assumption that Filipino-owned corporations cannot put up the capital and that foreign-owned corporations are not willing to provide large amounts of financial assistance are belied by the very facts of this case.
II
The interpretation of paragraph four, section 2, article XII of the Constitution practically negates the operation of the first paragraph, section 2, article XII of the Constitution.
III
The interpretation in the Decision violates the constitutional requirement of equitable sharing.
IV
The 'control test in the Decision is not in consonance with the requirement of 'full control and supervision required of the state considering that the kind of service contracts during Martial Law has been reestablished and reinstated.
V
The alleged transfer of the FTAA to TMRC is null and void because it violates the fourth paragraph, section 2, article XII of the Constitution.
VI
The provisions of the FTAA which were invalidated by the Decision dated December 1, 2004 are not separable and are intrinsic to the agreements.
VII
The 'closing out theory of interpretation is not valid.
chanroblesvirtuallawlibraryA close perusal of the above issues and the discussions thereof shows that they are a mere rehash of arguments and positions already raised and discussed extensively in the 246-page Resolution of December 1, 2004, penned by Justice Artemio V. Panganiban; as well as in the 125-page Dissenting Opinion of Justice Antonio T. Carpio, the 100-page Dissenting Opinion of Justice Conchita Carpio Morales, the 29-page Separate Opinion of Justice Dante O. Tinga, and the 10-page Concurring Opinion of Justice Minita V. Chico-Nazario.
Further discussion of these issues would not serve any useful purpose, as it would merely repeat the same justifications and reasons already taken up in the foregoing Opinions, which tackled precisely those matters and even more; any further elucidations, disquisitions and disputations would merely reiterate the same points already passed upon.
In regard to the present Dissenting Opinion of Justice Carpio, which in the main attacks RA 7942 (the Mining Law), DAO 56-99 and the subject FTAA for allegedly limiting 'the equitable share of the State from the mining profits of the foreign contractor (p. 46), suffice it to reiterate that 'the development of the mining industry [is] the responsibility of the political branches of government. And let not this Court interfere inordinately and unnecessarily. The issue of how much 'profit the nation should or could derive from the exploration, development and utilization of the country's mineral resources is a policy matter, over which we 'must allow the President and Congress maximum discretion in using the resources of our country and in securing the assistance of foreign groups to eradicate the grinding poverty of our people and answer their cry for viable employment opportunities in the country, (pp. 240-241, Resolution dated December 1, 2004). That the aforementioned law, executive issuance and contract had been declared constitutional will not prevent Congress or the President or the parties to the FTAA from amending or modifying them, if indeed, in their opinion they are unwise or wanting in any respect.
In any event, after a thorough deliberation on the Motion, none of the members of this Court have changed their opinions or votes. Indeed, all the conceivable aspects of this litigation -- factual, constitutional, legal, philosophical, technical, financial, ecological, environmental and technological -- have all been extensively taken up and addressed during the Court's lengthy and purposeful debates and deliberations.
WHEREFORE, the Motion is DENIED with finality. The prayer for oral argument is likewise DENIED.
Ynares-Santiago, Carpio, Morales, and Callejo Sr., JJ, maintain their dissents; Azcuna, J, no part.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUZVIMINDA D. PUNO
Clerk of Court
