G.R. No. 195987 - PROVINCE OF PAMPANGA, Petitioner, v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY ALBERTO ROMULO AND DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES (DENR), Respondents.
G.R. No. 195987 - PROVINCE OF PAMPANGA, Petitioner, v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY ALBERTO ROMULO AND DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES (DENR), Respondents.
On May 21, 2004, the Regional Trial Court issued a Decision20 granting the Petition and declaring Executive Order No. 224 as invalid and unconstitutional.
The trial court emphasized that any diminution or constriction in the taxing power of the local government units infringes on their authority to raise their own sources of revenue.21
The trial court noted that both the Local Government Code and the Philippine Mining Act of 1995 conferred on Pampanga the exclusive power to impose taxes on extracted sand, gravel, and other quarry resources, and collect fees from quarry operators, in response to the local government's constitutional mandate of local autonomy.22 The trial court stated:
Thus, the trial court held Section 4 of Executive Order No. 224 to be unconstitutional as it empowered a task force comprised of the Mines and Geosciences Bureau director, as team leader, and the provincial governor, as deputy team leader, to collect taxes, fees, charges, and excise taxes.24
The trial court observed that the task force will become the repository of all local taxes, fees, and charges collected from the extracted quarry resources and will function as a "regulatory valve" that may reduce, increase, delay, or even stop the flow of local taxes to the provincial government. Since the task force is made accountable to the Environment Secretary, this may delay or stop the release of funds, added the trial court.25 It maintained that Section 4 goes against the constitutional intent to empower local governments to create sources of revenue, with only Congress authorized to limit such power.26
The trial court eventually struck down Executive Order No. 224 in its entirety for being a form of executive legislation, without a valid delegation of legislative authority.27 The dispositive portion of its Decision reads:
Executive Secretary Romulo and the Department of Environment and Natural Resources appealed.29 On August 24, 2010, the Court of Appeals issued its Decision30 reversing the Regional Trial Court Decision.
The Court of Appeals ruled that the provisions of Executive Order No. 224 that carried out the mandate of the Philippine Mining Act did not conflict with the provincial governor's authority to issue permits as conferred by the Local Government Code.31
Owing to the statutory construction rule that a special law prevails over a general law, the Court of Appeals held that the distinction carved out by the Philippine Mining Act—limiting the governor's authority to issue permits for applications below five hectares and authorizing the Mines and Geosciences Bureau to issue permits for applications above five hectares—was a valid modification of the Local Government Code.32
The Court of Appeals likewise emphasized that Executive Order No. 224 did not interfere with the provincial government's tax collection efforts because the task force created under it would merely oversee the process.33 It pointed out that the task force's creation was in line with the Philippine Mining Act's policy that the State is responsible for all mineral resources within the Philippines' territory and exclusive economic zone, and is duty bound to enhance national growth while safeguarding the environment and the rights of affected communities.34
The Court of Appeals also brushed aside the Province of Pampanga's allegation that Executive Order No. 224 violated the equal protection clause, since there was a reasonable classification behind the assailed issuance.35
Finally, the Court of Appeals reiterated that Executive Order No. 224 carried out the policy and objectives of the Philippine Mining Act, making it "a valid exercise of the rule-making power of the chief executive."36 The dispositive of the Court of Appeals Decision reads:
The Province of Pampanga moved for reconsideration,38 but its Motion was denied in the Court of Appeals' February 22, 2011 Resolution.39
In so ruling, the Court of Appeals repeated that the task force created under Executive Order No. 224 would do nothing more than oversee the collection of taxes and fees from the quarried construction materials. It maintained that the task force would benefit the province.40
The Court of Appeals also justified the State control over Pampanga, Tarlac, and Zambales by citing the need to improve "the water flows of the river systems and ensure the integrity of the various protective dikes and infrastructures"41 which would be under the Department of Environment and Natural Resources' control and management.42
The Province of Pampanga filed this Petition for Review.43 Petitioner maintains that Executive Order No. 224 is an ultra vires act, in that it is an invalid exercise of the president's rule-making power because it amended the provisions of the Local Government Code and the Philippine Mining Act, as well as its Implementing Rules and Regulations.44
Petitioner then asserts that Executive Order No. 224 encroached on its authority from the Constitution and the Local Government Code to raise and collect revenues and taxes.45
Petitioner points out that the task force created under Executive Order No. 224 will not, as the Court of Appeals held, merely oversee or supervise the collection of taxes and fees; it empowered the Department of Environment and Natural Resources to take an active part in collecting quarry taxes and fees to the exclusion of the provincial government.46
Finally, petitioner asserts that Executive Order No. 224 violated its right to equal protection since it only pertained to the quarry operations in the provinces of Pampanga, Tarlac, and Zambales, while other provinces which maintained their own quarry operations were not included.47
Subsequently, respondents Executive Secretary Romulo and the Department of Environment and Natural Resources filed their Comment.48
They state that the local governments' power to impose taxes is not absolute, but is subject to guidelines and limitations provided by Congress.49 The Philippine Mining Act, they say, limits the local government's power to impose taxes, which Executive Order No. 224 merely implemented.50
Respondents explain that Executive Order No. 224 recognized the authorities of both the provincial government and the Mines and Geosciences Bureau to issue quarry permits, and did not change the provincial governor's authority to issue permits for applications with areas below five hectares.51
Respondents further claim that Executive Order No. 224 complements the Local Government Code and the Philippine Mining Act by creating a task force.52 Allaying petitioner's fears, they point out that the task force will not infringe on petitioner's power to issue permits or collect fees and taxes, since it is only supervisory in nature.53 They add that the task force would ensure that the taxes and fees due to petitioner would be paid and its share of the proceeds timely remitted to it.54
Respondents then emphasize that being a special law, the Philippine Mining Act takes precedence over the Local Government Code, a general law. Thus, they say that the Code is deemed amended as regards the local government unit's authority to issue permits over applications for areas within its territorial jurisdiction exceeding five hectares.55
Respondents highlight that under the Philippine Mining Act, the president may declare certain areas as mineral reservations if required by national interest.56 Citing the Constitution, they add that the State "may directly undertake the exploration, development, utilization, and processing of mineral resources."57
Finally, respondents stress that Executive Order No. 224 does not violate the equal protection clause because the provinces involved contain vast lahar deposits, which pose a danger to both life and property, while the other provinces with quarry operations do not have such hazards.58
In its Reply,59 petitioner contends that the Philippine Mining Act did not delimit the provincial governor's power to issue permits as provided by the Local Government Code, but merely supplemented it, as mandated by the Constitution.60
Petitioner refutes respondents' allegation that Executive Order No. 224 is consistent with the Local Government Code's provisions enumerating the limitations of a province's enforcement of forestry laws. It explains that the Code's provision refers to small-scale mining law, which involves the extraction of precious or valuable minerals, while the assailed executive order involves quarrying.61
Petitioner likewise refutes respondents' assertion that the task force was merely intended to oversee and supervise the sand and gravel permit operations. It notes that the wording of Executive Order No. 224 leaves no other interpretation than the exclusion of the Provincial Mining and Regulatory Board, amending both the Local Government Code and the Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Philippine Mining Act.62
Petitioner adds that the appointment of the provincial governor as the task force's deputy team leader, with the Mines and Geosciences Bureau Regional Office acting as the team leader, encroaches on the provincial government's authority to issue quarry permits.63 This setup created by Executive Order No. 224 interferes with petitioner's authority, it says. It adds that contrary to respondents' assertion, Executive Order No. 224 makes no mention of the word "oversee" as the function of the task force.64
Finally, petitioner reiterates that Executive Order No. 224 violates the equal protection clause.65
The sole issue for this Court's resolution is whether or not Executive Order No. 224 is valid and constitutional.
I
Executive Order No. 224, issued by President Macapagal-Arroyo on July 4, 2003, states:
Executive orders pertain to the president's acts that provide rules to implement or execute existing laws.67Executive Secretary v. Southwing Heavy Industries, Inc.68 instructs that an administrative issuance, such as an executive order, must comply with the following requisites to be held valid:
For the first requisite, Executive Order No. 224 was issued to carry out the Philippine Mining Act's provisions, which grant the State full control and supervision over mineral resources.70 Section 4 of the law states:
This finds basis in Article XII, Section 271 of the Constitution which declared all natural resources, including minerals, to be owned by the State.
For the second requisite, official acts by the government branches are presumed to be valid, absent strong evidence showing otherwise. Thus, the presumption is that Executive Order No. 224 was promulgated in accordance with the prescribed procedure.72
To hurdle the third requisite, Executive Order No. 224 must not be ultra vires, or an act which goes beyond the limits of its delegated legislative authority. Here, petitioner assails the issuance for allegedly supplanting portions of the Local Government Code and the Philippine Mining Act, along with its Implementing Rules and Regulations.73
Petitioner is mistaken.
The principle of separation of powers dictates that each of the three government branches has exclusive cognizance of matters falling within its constitutionally allocated sphere.74
The power to enact laws is primarily lodged with the legislature, which is generally prohibited from delegating its legislative functions and duties and relieving itself from its mandate under the Constitution.
However, the rule is not absolute. Legislative power may be validly delegated to the president,75 which power is not actual lawmaking, but is only limited "to fill[ing] in the details in the execution, enforcement or administration of a law."76 To be a valid delegated legislative power, it must not supplant or modify existing laws, including the Constitution, as the power to create, change, or abolish laws is exclusive to the legislature and any usurpation of such power renders the issuance invalid.77
Pelaez v. Auditor General78 teaches that in exercising the delegated legislative power, the executive must be guided by the standards established in the law set to be enforced to prevent the executive from making or unmaking the law, the very danger sought to be prevented by the principle of separation of powers:
Thus, the president's delegated legislative power, or quasi-legislative power, is not absolute. The president can only adopt rules and regulations to carry out the provisions of law and implement legislative policy,80 with the further limitation that the administrative or executive acts must not be contrary to laws or the Constitution.81
Nonetheless, the president also exercises an inherent ordinance-making82 prerogative, which forms part of the power of executive control. ABAKADA Guro Party List v. Purisima83 expounds:
In differentiating the delegated legislative power from the ordinance-making power, ABAKADA Guro Party List is enlightening. It explains that under the delegated legislative authority, the power to issue implementing rules creates rights and obligations that affect the public at large, while the ordinance-making power is the authority to issue "intrabranch orders and instructions or internal rules for the executive branch,"85 which do not bind the public. This is why implementing rules and regulations are subject to the rule of publication for their effectivity, while internal rules or instructions in the executive department are not.86
As shown below, in no way is Executive Order No. 224 an ultra vires act. It is a valid exercise of the president's ordinance-making power.
I(A)
To justify the State's supervision and control over the local government units, respondents point to the first Whereas clause of Executive Order No. 224, which refers to the Department of Environment and Natural Resource's power of supervision and control over the enforcement of environmental protection laws, as provided in the Local Government Code:
Section 17 of the Local Government Code provides the essential functions of the different local government units, among which is the enforcement of forestry, small-scale mining, and other environmental laws:
The Philippine Mining Act of 1995 is an environmental protection law. This already justifies the State's supervision, control, and review of the concerned local government units' compliance with and enforcement of existing regulations on quarrying-related activities.
Section 138 of the Local Government Code empowers provincial governments to issue permits to quarry operators and to collect taxes on extracted quarry resources within their respective territorial jurisdictions:
To be clear, the Philippine Mining Act, a later law, modified the Local Government Code by confining the provincial government's authority to issue quarry permits to applications for areas below five hectares and empowering the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, through the Mines and Geosciences Bureau, to issue permits to applications for areas above five hectares. Section 43, 46, and 47 of the Philippine Mining Act provides:
Through its repealing and amending clause,87 the Philippine Mining Act amended the Local Government Code's provisions by limiting the provincial government's authority to issue permits only to quarry applications covering areas less than five hectares.
In line with this, Section 1 of Executive Order No. 224 refers to permits for the extraction of industrial sand and gravel or lahar deposits:
Section 1 thus implies that the task force is only empowered to act on quarry applications for areas above five hectares, respecting the provincial government's authority to act on applications for areas below five hectares and validly implementing the provisions of the Philippine Mining Act. As the Court of Appeals has found:
The laws make it clear that State control over the local government units' compliance with and enforcement of quarrying-related activities is valid. In any case, Executive Order No. 224 simply reinforces the Philippine Mining Act, and is in no way an ultra vires act.
I(B)
Similarly, nothing in the entirety of Executive Order No. 224 suggests that it disrespected the local government units' constitutionally mandated fiscal autonomy. Respondents are correct that the task force's role is only as a supervisory mechanism, a function that would even inure to the benefit of the local government units concerned.
The local government units' power to impose and collect taxes finds basis in Article X, Section 5 of the Constitution:
The Local Government Code's enactment in 1991 embodied the basic policy of local autonomy. A crucial part of local autonomy is fiscal autonomy,89 which refers to the local government units' power to "create [their] own sources of revenues and to levy taxes, fees, and charges"90 that shall then accrue exclusively to them. Fiscal autonomy also includes their power to allocate resources to align with their own priorities.91
Section 138 of the Local Government Code empowered a province to levy and collect not more than 10% of the fair market value of the quarry resources extracted from its territorial jurisdiction. It states in part:
Meanwhile, Section 44 of the Philippine Mining Act, in relation to Section 105 of its Implementing Rules and Regulations, issued by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, directs the city or municipal treasurer to receive the quarry fees and taxes:
Section 4 of Executive Order No. 224 is not repugnant to the Philippine Mining Act or its Implementing Rules and Regulations. Section 4 of Executive Order No. 224 states:
Section 4 empowered the task force to perform the following: (1) collect applicable quarry taxes, fees, and charges; (2) ensure that proper taxes and fees are paid before any delivery receipt is issued; (3) ensure that the appropriate shares of the concerned local government units are fully and timely remitted; and (4) render an accounting with the Environment Secretary.
Nothing in the wording of Section 4 suggests that the task force exercises control over the provincial government. Executive Order No. 224 also does not authorize the task force to impose its own set of rules or regulations over the local government unit when it comes to the collection of quarry taxes, fees, and charges. Section 4 is merely a supervisory mechanism, as seen in how it directs the task force to oversee the collection and ensure that the appropriate shares are remitted to the local government units concerned. Again, the Court of Appeals aptly observed:
This Court also notes that the Philippine Mining Act by itself does not empower the city or municipal treasurers to collect the quarry fees and taxes, as it was only its Implementing Rules and Regulations that designated these officials as collection agents. Thus, Section 4 of Executive Order No. 224, which delegated the collection of quarry taxes and fees to the task force, can be seen as an amendment to the Implementing Rules and Regulations.
The task force's oversight function is in line with the president's power of general supervision over local governments,95 to ensure that local programs are aligned with national goals.96Province of Negros Occidental v. The Commissioners, Commission on Audit97 differentiated between general supervision and executive control as follows:
This general supervision over local government units likewise cannot be said to infringe on the local governments' constitutionally protected right of fiscal autonomy.
The task force's mandate of overseeing the collection of taxes does not violate local fiscal autonomy. The power to impose quarry fees and taxes remains with the local government units. Likewise, the full income due from those sources will ultimately find its way to the coffers of the concerned local government units.
II
Finally, going back to the requisites for the validity of an administrative issuance, the fourth requisite demands that the administrative issuance must be reasonable.
Executive Order No. 224 is a valid and reasonable exercise of the president's inherent ordinance-making power.99 It provided the necessary rules for the concerned agency to execute the Philippine Mining Act in relation to the quarry industry of the provinces affected by Mt. Pinatubo's eruption, without going beyond the bounds of the law it meant to implement.
It is a basic precept in statutory construction that a law should be construed in harmony and not in violation of the Constitution.100 Executive acts enjoy the presumption of constitutionality;101 thus, if they are susceptible to two or more constructions, the one that would not be in conflict with what is ordained in the Constitution is preferred.
The presumption of constitutionality is rooted in "the doctrine of separation of powers which enjoins upon each department a becoming respect for the acts of the other departments."102 For the judiciary to justify the nullification of any legislative or executive act, it must be shown that the statute or issuance clearly violates the Constitution.
There was no such palpable violation of the Constitution here.
WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED. The assailed August 24, 2010 Decision and February 22, 2011 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 83341 are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Peralta, C.J., Gesmundo, Hernando, Carandang, Inting, Zalameda, M. Lopez, Delos Santos, Gaerlan, Rosario, and J. Lopez, JJ., concur.
Perlas-Bernabe, Caguioa, and Lazaro-Javier, JJ., please see concurring opinion.
NOTICE OF JUDGMENT
Sirs/Mesdames:
Please take notice that on January 12, 2021 a Decision, copy attached herewith, was rendered by the Supreme Court in the above-entitled case, the original of which was received by this Office on November 29, 2021 at 9:55 a.m.
CONCURRING OPINION
I concur.
The present petition assails the constitutionality of Executive Order No. (EO) 224,1 series of 2003, issued by then President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.
Essentially, EO 224 established a Task Force, composed of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) - Mining and Geosciences Bureau (MGB) Regional Director as Team Leader and the Provincial Governor of the concerned provinces as the deputy Team Leader.2 As per the EO, the Task Force has multiple functions, which cover not only the collection of the taxes and fees from sand and gravel/lahar operations but also the issuance of regulatory permits for the extraction of the above-mentioned resources, the regulation of compliance with the permit's terms and conditions, the monitoring of illegal mining and quarrying operations, and the like, as follows:
As the ponencia correctly ruled, Section 4 of EO 224 as above-cited is unconstitutional since it violates the concerned local government units' (LGUs) local autonomy by placing the provincial government's taxing and collecting power under the Task Force's control and supervision. To expound, RA 71603 or the Local Government Code of 1991 (LGC) states that the "province may levy and collect not more than ten percent (10%) of fair market value in the locality per cubic meter of ordinary stones, sand, gravel, earth, and other quarry resources x x x."4 Accordingly, aside from the power to levy, the power to collect taxes for sand and gravel/lahar is statutorily-lodged with the provinces. Further, the LGC Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR)5 provide that the governor, as chief executive of the province, has the power to "[e]nsure that all taxes and other revenues of the province are collected, and that provincial funds are applied to the payment of expenses and settlement of obligations of the province, in accordance with law or ordinance."6 Thus, by conferring the responsibility of collecting taxes to the Task Force, Section 4 of EO 224 contravenes the LGC and its IRR and therefore, must necessarily be struck down.
However, it should be stressed that Section 4 is one of several provisions of EO 224. Section 4 only pertains to the tax collection functions of the Task Force, whereas the other provisions of EO 224 pertain to regulatory functions on permit issuance, monitoring, and compliance. Indeed, as these other provisions of EO 224 show, the Task Force was not merely intended to be a tax collection agency but, moreover, a coordinated body composed of the DENR-MGB Regional Director and the Provincial Governor that was constituted to holistically address the regulatory issues pervading an industry prone to exploitation. As the whereas clauses of EO 224 evince:
In my view, considering that the Task Force is composed of the DENR-MGB Regional Director, who has the authority to issue quarry permits for applications covering areas above five (5) hectares, and the Provincial Governor, who is responsible for approving permits for areas five (5) hectares and below, there is ample legal basis to uphold EO 224 with respect to the regulatory aspects of permits issuance, while declaring only the tax collection provisions under Section 4 as unconstitutional. At the very least, the Task Force's authority to issue permits may be harmonized, and hence, limited to applications for permits for areas above five (5) hectares.
That being said, it is, however, apt to clarify that the unconstitutionality of Section 4 does not affect the other provisions of EO 224.
In the foregoing relation, it is observed that EO 224 has no separability clause, which in concept, harbors doubt as to whether or not its provisions are severable from each other. There is case law which evokes that the "intent [of severability] is expressed in a separability clause stating that the invalidity or unconstitutionality of any provision or section of the law will not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remainder."7
Nonetheless, case law equally recognizes that "the separability clause only creates a presumption that the act is severable. It is merely an aid in statutory construction. It is not an inexorable command."8 As I see it, given that the Task Force's regulatory functions in terms of permit issuance, among others, may be considered as functionally different from its tax collection function, it is reasonably apparent that Section 4 of EO 224 may be severable from the EO's other provisions. In fact, their separability is further evinced by the deliberate placement of these distinct functions in separate provisions of the EO.
Thus, in light of the foregoing, only Section 4 should be declared unconstitutional for violating the principle of local autonomy with respect to the collection of taxes.9 The other provisions may be substantially severed from the infirm provision and hence, remain valid. As such, I vote to partly grant the petition on this limited score.
CONCURRING OPINION
The instant Petition seeks to nullify Executive Order No. (EO) 224.1 Petitioner claims that Section 1 of EO 224 infringes upon the Provincial Governor's exclusive power and authority to issue permits to extract gravel and sand within his territorial jurisdiction, while Section 4 thereof interferes with the Provincial Treasurer's authority to collect all local taxes, fees and charges in accordance with the Local Government Code of 1991 (LGC) and Republic Act No. (RA) 79422 (Mining Act).
I concur with the ponencia in denying the petition and upholding the validity and constitutionality of EO 224. I submit this concurring opinion to further emphasize that EO 224 was issued in the valid exercise of the President's constitutional duty to enforce and administer the laws.
For proper context, a brief history on the issuance of EO 224 is important to consider.
On January 11, 1999, then President Joseph Estrada issued Proclamation No. 66, Declaring the Lahar Affected Rivers and Embankment Areas in the Provinces of Pampanga, Tarlac and Zambales as Environmentally Critical Areas and as Mineral Reservation under the Direct Supervision and Control of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). This issuance of Proclamation No. 66 was prompted by the continuing danger that lahar deposits pose to the lives and properties in the affected provinces, and the possible adverse impacts to the environment caused by the growing demand for the utilization of the sand and gravel/lahar deposits therein in connection with government and private sector infrastructure projects.3 Thus, in order to protect and properly manage these affected areas, the exploration, development, exploitation and utilization of the sand and lahar deposits in these provinces were placed under the control and supervision of the DENR.4
In 2002, then President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo (PGMA) issued Proclamation No. 183,5 revoking Proclamation No. 66 because the latter failed to recognize the rights and equitable share of the local government from the utilization and development of national wealth within their respective jurisdictions, as provided under the LGC.6
On July 4, 2003, PGMA issued the assailed EO 224. Unlike its predecessor, EO 224 recognized that the protection and proper management of the utilization and exploitation of sand and gravel/lahar deposits in the provinces of Pampanga, Tarlac and Zambales should be for the benefit of both local and national governments, viz.:
The whereas clauses also indicate that EO 224 was issued to ensure that the provisions of the Mining Act and the LGC, in relation to the extraction and disposition of sand and gravel/lahar deposits in these three provinces, are properly implemented.7
To achieve these objectives, Section 2 of EO 224 created a Task Force – composed of the Regional Director of the Mines and Geosciences Bureau (MGB) and the Provincial Governor – primarily tasked "[t]o ensure compliance by all permit holders with the terms and conditions of their permits, properly monitor the volume of extracted materials, and collect the proper taxes and fees from sand and gravel/lahar operations." In fact, EO 224 reiterates that the processing and issuance of permits shall be governed by Chapter 8 of the Mining Act8and that the appropriate share of the concerned local government in the taxes and fees on the sand and gravel operations, per Section 138 of the LGC, are duly remitted fully and on time.9
Clearly, EO 224 is nothing but an issuance in exercise of the President's inherent ordinance making power10 — to ensure that laws are faithfully executed.11 EO 224 was plainly intended to safeguard the interests of both the local and national governments – as represented by the Provincial Governor and Regional Director of the MGB, respectively – by enforcing due observance of the relevant provisions of the Mining Act and the LGC, in relation to the sand and gravel operations of the lahar deposits in the three provinces.
Contrary to petitioner's assertion, EO 224 does not infringe upon the Provincial Governor's authority under the LGC to issue permits for extraction and removal of sand and gravel deposits within his territorial jurisdiction. Notably, Section 138 of the LGC, which confers upon the Provincial Governor the exclusive authority to issue permit to extract sand, gravel and other quarry resources, has been modified by Chapter 8 of the Mining Act. Under the Mining Act, the Provincial Governor is authorized to grant sand and gravel permit for areas not more than five hectares; while the MGB is authorized to grant sand and gravel permit for areas of more than five hectares.12
While Section 1 of EO 224 provides that acceptance, processing and evaluation of applications for permits to extract industrial sand and gravel/lahar deposits in the three provinces shall be undertaken through a Task Force composed of the MGB and the Provincial Governor, it nonetheless clearly and unequivocally mandates that the issuance of permits by the MGB shall be governed by Chapter 8 of the Mining Act. Thus, Section 1 simply authorizes the Task Force to supervise the processing and evaluation of the applications for sand and gravel permits. The respective authority and jurisdiction of the MGB and the Provincial Governor to issue sand and gravel permits under the Mining Act are maintained and respected.
There is also nothing repugnant between Section 4 of EO 224 and the Mining Act or its Implementing Rules and Regulations13 (IRR) in relation to the collection of taxes. The IRR states that the required quarry fees shall be paid to the concerned Provincial/City Treasurer in accordance with pertinent provisions of the LGC.14 In turn, Section 4 of EO 224 ensures that these taxes are duly paid and remitted as required by the LGC, to wit:
Hence, Section 4 — read in its entirety — merely authorized the Task Force to oversee "the collection of all necessary taxes and fees that may be derived from the extraction of industrial sand and gravel in the territorial jurisdiction of the concerned local government unit."15 Section 4 therefore does not, in any way, contravene but, in fact, complements the Mining Act, its IRR and the LGC.
Furthermore, nothing in Section 4 even remotely suggests that the Task Force exercises control over the provincial government.
Control has been defined as "the power of an officer to alter or modify or nullify or set aside what a subordinate officer had done in the performance of his duties and to substitute the judgment of the former for test of the latter."16 Supervision, on the other hand, means "overseeing or the power or authority of an officer to see that subordinate officers perform their duties."17 Officers in control "lay down the rules in the performance or accomplishment of an act. If these rules are not followed, they may, in their discretion, order the act undone or redone by their subordinates or even decide to do it themselves."18 On the other hand, "[s]upervising officials merely see to it that the rules are followed, but they themselves do not lay down such rules, nor do they have the discretion to modify or replace them. If the rules are not observed, they may order the work done or redone, but only to conform to such rules. They may not prescribe their own manner of execution of the act. They have no discretion on this matter except to see to it that the rules are followed.”19
Section 4 does not grant the Task Force any authority to impose rules or regulations on how the local government should collect the appropriate taxes, fees or charges. Neither does it allow the Task Force to alter, modify, nullify or substitute the discretion of the local government with respect to the collection of the fees and taxes due to them. All that Section 4 mandates the Task Force to do is to ensure that ail permit holders pay the necessary taxes and fees due the local government and that the appropriate share of the concerned local government are remitted on time and in full. This clearly is not control but a simple exercise of general supervision.
There is also nothing in EO 224 which can be construed as infringing upon the fiscal autonomy of local governments.
To be clear, fiscal autonomy is the power of local government units (LGUs) to create their own sources of revenues and to levy taxes, fees, and charges, subject to such guidelines and limitations as the Congress may provide, and which shall accrue exclusively to the local governments.20 It also includes the power to allocate their resources in accordance with their own priorities.21 Thus, I cannot see how authorizing the Task Force to oversee the collection of all applicable local taxes, fees and charges could violate local fiscal autonomy, when the authority to levy quarry fees and taxes and entitlement thereto remain with the provincial government and other concerned LGUs. Section 4 of EO 224 simply provides that "[t]he Task Force shall be responsible for the collection of all applicable local taxes, fees and charges." It did not, in any way, limit the provincial government's authority to levy taxes on quarrying operations under Section 138 of the LGC. Neither did it deprive the concerned LGUs of the revenue or income due to them under the LGC.
In Film Development Council of the Philippines v. Colon Heritage Realty Corporation,22 the Court En Banc struck down Sections 13 and 14 of RA 9167 as it completely deprived the LGUs of the income which otherwise inures to them as the taxing authority.23 The Court found this "in clear contravention of the constitutional command that taxes levied by LGUs shall accrue exclusively to said LGU and is repugnant to the power of LGUs to apportion their resources in line with their priorities."24 This is not the case with EO 224. Again, all that Section 4 of EO 224 does is to ensure "that the necessary taxes and fees due the local government are duly paid for prior to the issuance of any [Delivery Receipts]"25 and "that the appropriate share of the concerned Provinces, Municipalities and Barangays, as per Section 138 of the Local Government Code of 1991, are duly remitted fully and on time."26 Thus, to my mind, EO 224 does not contravene, but in fact, recognizes the fiscal autonomy granted to the local government. It is a basic precept in statutory construction that a law should be construed in harmony with and not in violation of the Constitution.27 If a statute is susceptible to two or more constructions, the one which would not be in conflict with what is ordained in the Constitution is to be preferred.28
Indeed, courts should always exercise caution in dealing with constitutionality issues. Executive acts enjoy the presumption of constitutionality.29 This presumption is based on the doctrine of separation of powers which enjoins upon each department a becoming respect for the acts of the other departments.30 To justify the nullification of any legislative or executive act, it must be shown that the statute or issuance violates the Constitution, clearly, palpably and plainly, and in such a manner as to leave no doubt or hesitation in the mind of the Court.31 To doubt is to sustain the constitutionality of the assailed issuance.
In light of the foregoing, I concur with the ponencia in denying the present petition and upholding the validity and constitutionality of EO 224 in its entirety.
CONCURRING OPINION
I concur with the ponencia that Executive Order (EO) No. 224 (2003), entitled Rationalizing the Extraction and Disposition of Sand and Gravel/Lahar Deposits in the Provinces of Pampanga, Tarlac and Zambales, is valid in its entirety.
EO 224 states:
One. The well-settled doctrine is that between two possible modes of construction, the one which would not be in conflict with what is ordained by the Constitution is to be preferred.1 Here, EO 224 can be read in such a way that it would be consistent with R.A. No. 7076, the People's Small-scale. Mining Act, and R.A. No. 7942, the Mining Act, and therefore not ultra vires.
We can read down EO 224 so as to refer only to quarry operations covering an area of more than five (5) hectares and a production rate of more than 50,000 tons annually and/or whose project cost is more than P10,000,000.00 so as to fall within the intendment of R.A. No. 7942 and its regulations.
We also can read down EO 224 to pertain only to small scale quarry operations that rely heavily on manual labor using simple implements and methods and do not use explosives or heavy mining equipment so as to fall under R.A. No. 7076.2
In this regard, quarry operations do not involve massive undertakings. Quarry operations may likewise be done utilizing small scale equipment and methods. Quarrying and small scale mining are not mutually exclusive terms. Small scale mining may include quarry operations, though quarry operations cannot extend to small scale mining.3 The description of quarrying as the extraction by light blasting and barring down with steel bars and crushing by manual labor and crushers is attuned with R.A. No. 7076's definition of small-scale mining, i.e., heavy reliance upon manual labor using simple implements and methods, without using explosives or heavy mining equipment.
Read in this non-exhaustive and not all-inclusive manner, the substance of EO 224 cannot be said to be ultra vires.
Two. EO 224 cannot be ultra vires because it tasked the Task Force to collect the quarry fees and taxes. Note that R.A. No. 7942 does not itself empower the city and municipal treasurers as the collecting agents of these fees, much less, the sole collecting agents for this purpose. It is only the Implementing Rules that does, and the assignment is not even exclusive. Though the latter has binding force, the validity of EO 224 is not measured by what is provided for in the implementing regulations but by what is set forth in the originating legislation.4
In truth, EO 224 can be seen as an amendment to the Implementing Rules of R.A. No. 7942 on the ground that the President has the power of executive control over the statutory delegate, the DENR, which issued the Implementing Rules designating the city and municipal treasurers as the collecting agents of the quarry fees and taxes. As the Court has held –
Three. I agree with my senior colleague, Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa, when he opined during the deliberations that Section 4 of EO 224 does nothing but oversee the proper collection of the quarry fees and that this section has nothing to do with, much less, impaired petitioner's fiscal autonomy. The latter's core is the ability to create one's own financial sources and allocate the proceeds according to its plans and programs. The description of the job assigned to the Task Force is merely to oversee the proper collection of the fees.
Notably, petitioner and respondents are all agencies of the Executive Branch. The key public service value is not checks and balances or separation of powers but coordination and faithful execution of the laws. So, unless this key public service value is compromised, we should be slow in condemning the acts of our co-equal branches and instead indulge in the validity of their official acts.
Part and parcel of this task of ensuring propriety in the collection is the issuance of the delivery receipts by the Task Force because. For as the Court may take judicial notice of the unstated legislative facts that probably went into the issuance of EO 224, of the corrupt schemes that beset quarrying in the past through the use of fake delivery receipts.6 Lahar and other quarry materials are so bountiful in Pampanga that their overabundance made them timid prey for transactional regulation at the local levels. No one really audited how much was taken out, since they are plentiful, and as a result, it was easy to let quarry trucks in and out according to the field regulators' discretion. Delivery receipts – fake and recycled – were central in the scheme to sidestep the process of quarry fee collection. Though untold, besides its express purposes, EO 224 was issued to open up what otherwise was a targeted opportunity for invisible rent-seeking.
Four. Petitioner is seeking a declaration of invalidity of Section 4, EO 224 on the basis of a facial challenge. This facial challenge is inappropriate. There is no actual case or controversy in the sense propounded by petitioner. It has not been deprived of the collections of quarry fees. Its power to allocate the collections has not been set aside or overruled. Petitioner's claim of subversion of its fiscal autonomy is speculative and therefore unproven.
Five. EO 224, inclusive of the assailed Section 4, was not an exercise by then President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo of a delegated power from Congress. The EO flowed from her inherent ordinance-making power that was part and parcel of her power of executive control. Hence, it cannot be said that the EO merely delegated again what had been delegated by Congress to the Executive Branch.
Under the Administrative Code of 1987, the President may enact on her own measured discretion the following ordinances:
The President issued EO 224 for the purpose of rationalizing the quarry industry in the most affected provinces by the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo. She made mention of RA 7076, RA 7942, and the Local Government Code not to provide the details for their implementation because obviously these statutes already have their respective implementing rules, but as an incident of her power of executive control to establish a structure of what she believed in good faith to be an efficient utilization of the resources impacted by these legislations.
In ABAKADA Guro Party List, et al. v. Cesar V. Purisima, et al., G.R. No. 166715, August 14, 2008, the Court confirmed the inherent character of this ordinance-making power of the President:
Ocampo v. Enriquez, supra, reiterated this doctrine:
Ocampo further confirmed the President's authority to delegate the enactment of subordinate rules supplementing, implementing, or interpreting the presidential ordinance:
Another example of this valid delegation was mentioned in Saguisag v. Ochoa, G.R. No. 212426, January 12, 2016:
Section 5 of EO 224 cannot therefore be faulted for delegating to the DENR the issuance of supplemental, implementing, or interpretative rules, if needed, to attain the objectives of EO 224.
Six. We have to be slow in nullifying Section 4 of EO 224 not only because of its presumptive validity but especially since administrative officials and even the Court have relied on it in the past as a source of power for government officials.7 Administrative officials in charge of implementing these statutes have contemporaneously interpreted the relevant provisions thereof, and that interpretation is now embodied in EO 224. Unlike these officials' interpretation of constitutional provisions, their understanding of the statutes they are duty-bound to enforce is entitled to great weight in the present proceeding. Thus:chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
ACCORDINGLY, I vote to dismiss the petition. I concur with the ponencia as it affirms the validity of EO 224.
EN BANC
G.R. No. 195987, January 12, 2021
PROVINCE OF PAMPANGA, Petitioner, v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY ALBERTO ROMULO AND DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES (DENR), Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
LEONEN, J.:
While the power to enact laws is lodged with the legislature under the principle of separation of powers, this power may be delegated to the executive to fill in the details of the law. To be a valid delegation, however, the executive issuance must remain within the scope of authority given by the legislature.
In contrast, the president's inherent ordinance-making power is not a delegated authority from the legislature, but is a consequence of executive control over officials of the executive branch. In the exercise of executive control, the president has the inherent power to adopt rules and regulations and delegate this power to subordinate executive officials.
This Court resolves the Petition for Review1 filed by the Province of Pampanga assailing the Decision2 and Resolution3 of the Court of Appeals, which reversed the Regional Trial Court Decision4 declaring Executive Order No. 224 invalid and unconstitutional.
On March 2, 1992, about a year after Mt. Pinatubo in Zambales had erupted and spewed lahar and other volcanic material, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Pampanga enacted Tax Ordinance No. 1,5 or Pampanga's Provincial Tax Code of 1992. Its Section 6 provided a 10% tax on the fair market value of quarry resources extracted from public lands and beds of water bodies in the province, and imposed permit fees for quarry operators.6
On December 14, 1992, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Pampanga passed Tax Ordinance No. 3,7 which fixed the fair market value of sand, gravel, and other quarry resources at P40.00 per cubic meter and assessed a fee of P4.00 per cubic meter for every such resource extracted within the province's jurisdiction.
On October 21, 1998, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan passed Tax Ordinance No. 1,8 repealing Tax Ordinance No. 3, series of 1992. Tax Ordinance No. 1 imposed a quarry fee of 10% of the prevailing fair market value of the extracted materials and directed the creation of a committee that shall fix the prevailing market value of quarry resources every quarter.
On January 11, 1999, President Joseph E. Estrada issued Proclamation No. 66,9 declaring the lahar-affected rivers and embankment areas in the provinces of Pampanga, Tarlac, and Zambales to be environmentally critical areas and mineral reservations under the direct control and supervision of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources.
Proclamation No. 66 authorized the Department of Environment and Natural Resources Secretary (Environment Secretary) to engage the services of the Natural Resources Development Corporation to manage the extraction and transportation of sand, gravel, and lahar, as well as to manage the rehabilitation of quarries in Pampanga, Tarlac, and Zambales.10
On April 23, 2002, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo (President Macapagal-Arroyo) issued Proclamation No. 183, revoking Proclamation No. 66.11 However, on July 4, 2003, she issued Executive Order No. 224,12 which rationalized the extraction and disposition of sand, gravel, and lahar deposits in the provinces of Pampanga, Tarlac, and Zambales.
On July 18, 2003, the Province of Pampanga filed before the Regional Trial Court a Petition for Declaratory Relief seeking to declare Executive Order No. 22413 unconstitutional. The case was filed against Executive Secretary Alberto G. Romulo (Executive Secretary Romulo) and the Department of Environment and Natural Resources.
The Petition alleged, among others, that Executive Order No. 224 violated the principle of local government autonomy under the Local Government Code; was an invalid exercise of presidential control and not just general supervision; was a violation of the equal protection clause; and was a form of executive lawmaking.14
The Province of Pampanga also applied for a temporary restraining order and writ of preliminary injunction.15 The trial court later issued a Temporary Restraining Order16 on August 11, 2003, directing Executive Secretary Romulo and the Department of Environment and Natural Resources to desist from implementing Executive Order No. 224 for 20 days while the hearing on the merits of the application for preliminary injunction was still pending.17
On September 1, 2003, the Regional Trial Court issued a Writ of Preliminary Injunction,18 thus:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the application for the issuance of Writ of Preliminary Injunction, being meritorious, the same is hereby granted.
The Respondents Executive Secretary, The Hon. Alberto G. Romulo, and the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) as well as its officers representing them are hereby enjoined not to implement E.O. No. 224, pending termination of the above-entitled Petition and/or until further order of this Court.
The Petitioner is hereby ordered and directed to post an injunction bond in the sum of P400,000.00, and upon approval of the same, this will be effective.
SO ORDERED.19
On May 21, 2004, the Regional Trial Court issued a Decision20 granting the Petition and declaring Executive Order No. 224 as invalid and unconstitutional.
The trial court emphasized that any diminution or constriction in the taxing power of the local government units infringes on their authority to raise their own sources of revenue.21
The trial court noted that both the Local Government Code and the Philippine Mining Act of 1995 conferred on Pampanga the exclusive power to impose taxes on extracted sand, gravel, and other quarry resources, and collect fees from quarry operators, in response to the local government's constitutional mandate of local autonomy.22 The trial court stated:
The reason of the law is to bring directly to the coffer of the local government unit the local funds collected so that they can be used immediately without delay to meet their urgent needs in terms of local projects, general services, payrolls and others for administration purposes.
This is further emphasized by Section 6 of Article X [of the Constitution] with respect to the share of said local government unit in the national taxes which shall be automatically released to them[.] Local taxes are their very lifeblood which can not be delayed and withheld any minute longer. This is what local autonomy demands.23 (Emphasis in the original)
Thus, the trial court held Section 4 of Executive Order No. 224 to be unconstitutional as it empowered a task force comprised of the Mines and Geosciences Bureau director, as team leader, and the provincial governor, as deputy team leader, to collect taxes, fees, charges, and excise taxes.24
The trial court observed that the task force will become the repository of all local taxes, fees, and charges collected from the extracted quarry resources and will function as a "regulatory valve" that may reduce, increase, delay, or even stop the flow of local taxes to the provincial government. Since the task force is made accountable to the Environment Secretary, this may delay or stop the release of funds, added the trial court.25 It maintained that Section 4 goes against the constitutional intent to empower local governments to create sources of revenue, with only Congress authorized to limit such power.26
The trial court eventually struck down Executive Order No. 224 in its entirety for being a form of executive legislation, without a valid delegation of legislative authority.27 The dispositive portion of its Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the Province of Pampanga, by:
- Declaring that petitioner Province of Pampanga has the exclusive power and legal authority to issue permit to extract sand, gravel and other gravel resources within their territorial jurisdiction pursuant to Section 38 of R.A. 7[16]0 and applicable related laws such as R.A. 7942; and
- Declaring the Treasurers of the Province of Pampanga, municipality or city concerned or their authorized deputies, shall have the sole legal authority to collect all local taxes, fees and charges in accordance to Section 170 R.A. 7160 and applicable related laws such as R.A. 7942.
SO ORDERED.28
Executive Secretary Romulo and the Department of Environment and Natural Resources appealed.29 On August 24, 2010, the Court of Appeals issued its Decision30 reversing the Regional Trial Court Decision.
The Court of Appeals ruled that the provisions of Executive Order No. 224 that carried out the mandate of the Philippine Mining Act did not conflict with the provincial governor's authority to issue permits as conferred by the Local Government Code.31
Owing to the statutory construction rule that a special law prevails over a general law, the Court of Appeals held that the distinction carved out by the Philippine Mining Act—limiting the governor's authority to issue permits for applications below five hectares and authorizing the Mines and Geosciences Bureau to issue permits for applications above five hectares—was a valid modification of the Local Government Code.32
The Court of Appeals likewise emphasized that Executive Order No. 224 did not interfere with the provincial government's tax collection efforts because the task force created under it would merely oversee the process.33 It pointed out that the task force's creation was in line with the Philippine Mining Act's policy that the State is responsible for all mineral resources within the Philippines' territory and exclusive economic zone, and is duty bound to enhance national growth while safeguarding the environment and the rights of affected communities.34
The Court of Appeals also brushed aside the Province of Pampanga's allegation that Executive Order No. 224 violated the equal protection clause, since there was a reasonable classification behind the assailed issuance.35
Finally, the Court of Appeals reiterated that Executive Order No. 224 carried out the policy and objectives of the Philippine Mining Act, making it "a valid exercise of the rule-making power of the chief executive."36 The dispositive of the Court of Appeals Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is granted. Accordingly, the Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 48 of San Fernando City, Pampanga dated May 21, 2004 is hereby REVERSED AND SET ASIDE.
SO ORDERED.37 (Emphasis in the original)
The Province of Pampanga moved for reconsideration,38 but its Motion was denied in the Court of Appeals' February 22, 2011 Resolution.39
In so ruling, the Court of Appeals repeated that the task force created under Executive Order No. 224 would do nothing more than oversee the collection of taxes and fees from the quarried construction materials. It maintained that the task force would benefit the province.40
The Court of Appeals also justified the State control over Pampanga, Tarlac, and Zambales by citing the need to improve "the water flows of the river systems and ensure the integrity of the various protective dikes and infrastructures"41 which would be under the Department of Environment and Natural Resources' control and management.42
The Province of Pampanga filed this Petition for Review.43 Petitioner maintains that Executive Order No. 224 is an ultra vires act, in that it is an invalid exercise of the president's rule-making power because it amended the provisions of the Local Government Code and the Philippine Mining Act, as well as its Implementing Rules and Regulations.44
Petitioner then asserts that Executive Order No. 224 encroached on its authority from the Constitution and the Local Government Code to raise and collect revenues and taxes.45
Petitioner points out that the task force created under Executive Order No. 224 will not, as the Court of Appeals held, merely oversee or supervise the collection of taxes and fees; it empowered the Department of Environment and Natural Resources to take an active part in collecting quarry taxes and fees to the exclusion of the provincial government.46
Finally, petitioner asserts that Executive Order No. 224 violated its right to equal protection since it only pertained to the quarry operations in the provinces of Pampanga, Tarlac, and Zambales, while other provinces which maintained their own quarry operations were not included.47
Subsequently, respondents Executive Secretary Romulo and the Department of Environment and Natural Resources filed their Comment.48
They state that the local governments' power to impose taxes is not absolute, but is subject to guidelines and limitations provided by Congress.49 The Philippine Mining Act, they say, limits the local government's power to impose taxes, which Executive Order No. 224 merely implemented.50
Respondents explain that Executive Order No. 224 recognized the authorities of both the provincial government and the Mines and Geosciences Bureau to issue quarry permits, and did not change the provincial governor's authority to issue permits for applications with areas below five hectares.51
Respondents further claim that Executive Order No. 224 complements the Local Government Code and the Philippine Mining Act by creating a task force.52 Allaying petitioner's fears, they point out that the task force will not infringe on petitioner's power to issue permits or collect fees and taxes, since it is only supervisory in nature.53 They add that the task force would ensure that the taxes and fees due to petitioner would be paid and its share of the proceeds timely remitted to it.54
Respondents then emphasize that being a special law, the Philippine Mining Act takes precedence over the Local Government Code, a general law. Thus, they say that the Code is deemed amended as regards the local government unit's authority to issue permits over applications for areas within its territorial jurisdiction exceeding five hectares.55
Respondents highlight that under the Philippine Mining Act, the president may declare certain areas as mineral reservations if required by national interest.56 Citing the Constitution, they add that the State "may directly undertake the exploration, development, utilization, and processing of mineral resources."57
Finally, respondents stress that Executive Order No. 224 does not violate the equal protection clause because the provinces involved contain vast lahar deposits, which pose a danger to both life and property, while the other provinces with quarry operations do not have such hazards.58
In its Reply,59 petitioner contends that the Philippine Mining Act did not delimit the provincial governor's power to issue permits as provided by the Local Government Code, but merely supplemented it, as mandated by the Constitution.60
Petitioner refutes respondents' allegation that Executive Order No. 224 is consistent with the Local Government Code's provisions enumerating the limitations of a province's enforcement of forestry laws. It explains that the Code's provision refers to small-scale mining law, which involves the extraction of precious or valuable minerals, while the assailed executive order involves quarrying.61
Petitioner likewise refutes respondents' assertion that the task force was merely intended to oversee and supervise the sand and gravel permit operations. It notes that the wording of Executive Order No. 224 leaves no other interpretation than the exclusion of the Provincial Mining and Regulatory Board, amending both the Local Government Code and the Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Philippine Mining Act.62
Petitioner adds that the appointment of the provincial governor as the task force's deputy team leader, with the Mines and Geosciences Bureau Regional Office acting as the team leader, encroaches on the provincial government's authority to issue quarry permits.63 This setup created by Executive Order No. 224 interferes with petitioner's authority, it says. It adds that contrary to respondents' assertion, Executive Order No. 224 makes no mention of the word "oversee" as the function of the task force.64
Finally, petitioner reiterates that Executive Order No. 224 violates the equal protection clause.65
The sole issue for this Court's resolution is whether or not Executive Order No. 224 is valid and constitutional.
Executive Order No. 224, issued by President Macapagal-Arroyo on July 4, 2003, states:
RATIONALIZING THE EXTRACTION AND DISPOSITION OF SAND AND GRAVEL/LAHAR DEPOSITS IN THE PROVINCES OF PAMPANGA, TARLAC AND ZAMBALES
WHEREAS, Section 17(3)(iii) (sic) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7160, otherwise known as the Local Government Code of 1991, provides that a province shall, subject to the supervision, control and review of the Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), enforce small-scale mining law and other laws on the protection of the environment;
WHEREAS, Sections 4 and 8 of R.A. No. 79[42], otherwise known as the Philippine Mining Act of 1995, provides that the exploration, development, utilization and processing of mineral resources shall be under the full control and supervision of the State, that it may directly undertake such activities or it may enter into mineral agreements with contractors and that the DENR shall be the primary agency responsible for the conservation, management, development and proper use of the State's mineral resources;
WHEREAS, Executive Order (E.O.) No. 192 mandates that the DENR shall be the primary government agency responsible for the conservation, management, development and proper use of the country's environment and natural resources as may be provide (sic) for by law in order to ensure equitable sharing of the benefits derived therefrom for the welfare of the present and future generations of Filipinos;
WHEREAS, Chapter 8 of R.A. [No.] 7942 further provides that industrial sand and gravel permit covering an area of more than five (5) hectares shall be issued by the Mines and Geosciences Bureau (MGB);
WHEREAS, it is necessary to protect and properly manage the utilization of the sand and gravel/lahar deposits of the provinces of Pampanga, Tarlac and Zambales to improve the water flows of its river systems, ensure the integrity of the various protective dikes and infrastructures, and thereby reduce risks to lives and properties;
WHEREAS, it is in the interest of the State that said sand and gravel/lahar deposits be properly utilized for the benefit of both local and the national governments and all concerned, with due regard to the environment.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO, President of the Republic of the Philippines, by virtue of the powers vested in me by law, do hereby order:
SECTION 1. Processing and Issuance of Mining Permits. The issuance of permit to extract and dispose of industrial sand and gravel/lahar deposits by the MGB shall be governed by Chapter 8 of R.A. No. 7942 .
The acceptance, processing and evaluation of applications for permits to extract industrial sand and gravel/lahar deposits in Pampanga, Tarlac and Zambales shall be undertaken through a Task Force composed of the MGB and the Provincial Governor.
SEC. 2. Creation of a Task Force. To ensure compliance by all permit holders with the terms and conditions of their permits, properly monitor the volume of extracted materials, and collect the proper taxes and fees from sand and gravel/lahar operations, a Task Force is hereby created for the purpose to be composed of the following:
- The [Mines and Geosciences Bureau] Regional Director, by himself or through his duly authorized representative – Team Leader
- The Provincial Governor, by himself or his duly authorized representative – Deputy Team Leader
SEC. 3. Functions and Authorities of the Task Force. The Task Force shall have the following functions:
- To accept, process and evaluate applications for permits to extract industrial sand and gravel/lahar deposits;
- To immediately monitor all reported illegal mining and quarrying operations and, for this purpose, set up as may be necessary checkpoints and other monitoring stations within the territorial jurisdiction of the province of Pampanga;
- To arrest mining/quarrying operators, and their agents and employees who willfully cooperate in the violation of provincial and national mining and environmental laws, and to confiscate and detain as evidence all instruments, objects and products of illegal mining/quarrying operations committed within the territorial jurisdiction of the Province;
- To immediately deliver confiscated and detained instruments, objects or products of illegal mining/quarrying operations to the nearest police station or area designated by the Task Force, which shall be properly receipted and shall not be released unless an instruction in writing to that effect is issued by the Office of the Governor; and
- Insofar as may be allowed by law, to assign and deputize a special contingent from the Philippine National Police specifically to assist the Task Force in the fulfillment of its functions.
SEC. 4. Collection of Taxes, Fees, and Charges. The Task Force shall be responsible for the collection of all applicable local taxes, fees and charges and shall, among others:
- Issue the required DR only to legitimate sand and gravel operators/permit holders and upon the issuance of Order of Payment by the PMRB;
- Ensure that the necessary taxes and fees due the local government are duly paid for prior to the issuance of any DRs;
- Assist in ensuring that the excise tax for mineral products is duly paid for prior to the issuance of such DRs; and
- Ensure that the appropriate share of the concerned Provinces, Municipalities and Barangays, as per Section 138 of the Local Government Code of 1991, are duly remitted fully and on time.
- Render an accounting to the Secretary of Environment and Natural Resourccs[.]
Excise tax payments shall likewise be immediately remitted and shared in accordance with law.
SEC. 5. Supplemental Orders, Rules and Regulations. The DENR, if deemed necessary, shall issue supplemental orders, rules and regulations to effectively implement this Order.
SEC. 6. Repealing Clause. All orders, issuances, rules and regulations, or parts thereof which are inconsistent with this Executive Order are hereby repealed or modified accordingly.
SEC. 7. Effectivity. This Executive Order shall take effect immediately.66 (Emphasis in the original)
Executive orders pertain to the president's acts that provide rules to implement or execute existing laws.67Executive Secretary v. Southwing Heavy Industries, Inc.68 instructs that an administrative issuance, such as an executive order, must comply with the following requisites to be held valid:
(1) Its promulgation must be authorized by the legislature;
(2) It must be promulgated in accordance with the prescribed procedure;
(3) It must be within the scope of the authority given by the legislature; and
(4) It must be reasonable.69
For the first requisite, Executive Order No. 224 was issued to carry out the Philippine Mining Act's provisions, which grant the State full control and supervision over mineral resources.70 Section 4 of the law states:
SECTION 4. Ownership of Mineral Resources. Mineral resources are owned by the State and the exploration, development, utilization, and processing thereof shall be under its full control and supervision. The State may directly undertake such activities or it may enter into mineral agreements with contractors.
The State shall recognize and protect the rights of the indigenous cultural communities to their ancestral lands as provided for by the Constitution.
This finds basis in Article XII, Section 271 of the Constitution which declared all natural resources, including minerals, to be owned by the State.
For the second requisite, official acts by the government branches are presumed to be valid, absent strong evidence showing otherwise. Thus, the presumption is that Executive Order No. 224 was promulgated in accordance with the prescribed procedure.72
To hurdle the third requisite, Executive Order No. 224 must not be ultra vires, or an act which goes beyond the limits of its delegated legislative authority. Here, petitioner assails the issuance for allegedly supplanting portions of the Local Government Code and the Philippine Mining Act, along with its Implementing Rules and Regulations.73
Petitioner is mistaken.
The principle of separation of powers dictates that each of the three government branches has exclusive cognizance of matters falling within its constitutionally allocated sphere.74
The power to enact laws is primarily lodged with the legislature, which is generally prohibited from delegating its legislative functions and duties and relieving itself from its mandate under the Constitution.
However, the rule is not absolute. Legislative power may be validly delegated to the president,75 which power is not actual lawmaking, but is only limited "to fill[ing] in the details in the execution, enforcement or administration of a law."76 To be a valid delegated legislative power, it must not supplant or modify existing laws, including the Constitution, as the power to create, change, or abolish laws is exclusive to the legislature and any usurpation of such power renders the issuance invalid.77
Pelaez v. Auditor General78 teaches that in exercising the delegated legislative power, the executive must be guided by the standards established in the law set to be enforced to prevent the executive from making or unmaking the law, the very danger sought to be prevented by the principle of separation of powers:
Indeed, without a statutory declaration of policy, the delegate would, in effect, make or formulate such policy, which is the essence of every law; and, without the aforementioned standard, there would be no means to determine, with reasonable certainty, whether the delegate has acted within or beyond the scope of his authority. Hence, he could thereby arrogate upon himself the power, not only to make the law, but, also — and this is worse — to unmake it, by adopting measures inconsistent with the end sought to be attained by the Act of Congress, thus nullifying the principle of separation of powers and the system of checks and balances, and, consequently undermining the very foundation of our Republican system.79 (Emphasis supplied, citation omitted)
Thus, the president's delegated legislative power, or quasi-legislative power, is not absolute. The president can only adopt rules and regulations to carry out the provisions of law and implement legislative policy,80 with the further limitation that the administrative or executive acts must not be contrary to laws or the Constitution.81
Nonetheless, the president also exercises an inherent ordinance-making82 prerogative, which forms part of the power of executive control. ABAKADA Guro Party List v. Purisima83 expounds:
Apart from whatever rule-making power that Congress may delegate to the President, the latter has inherent ordinance powers covering the executive branch as part of the power of executive control ("The President shall have control of all the executive departments, bureaus and offices. . ." Section 17, Article VII, Constitution.). By its nature, this ordinance power does not require or entail delegation from Congress. Such faculty must be distinguished from the authority to issue implementing rules to legislation which does not inhere in the presidency but instead, as explained earlier, is delegated by Congress.84
In differentiating the delegated legislative power from the ordinance-making power, ABAKADA Guro Party List is enlightening. It explains that under the delegated legislative authority, the power to issue implementing rules creates rights and obligations that affect the public at large, while the ordinance-making power is the authority to issue "intrabranch orders and instructions or internal rules for the executive branch,"85 which do not bind the public. This is why implementing rules and regulations are subject to the rule of publication for their effectivity, while internal rules or instructions in the executive department are not.86
As shown below, in no way is Executive Order No. 224 an ultra vires act. It is a valid exercise of the president's ordinance-making power.
To justify the State's supervision and control over the local government units, respondents point to the first Whereas clause of Executive Order No. 224, which refers to the Department of Environment and Natural Resource's power of supervision and control over the enforcement of environmental protection laws, as provided in the Local Government Code:
WHEREAS, Section 17(3)(iii) (sic) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7160, otherwise known as the Local Government Code of 1991, provides that a province shall, subject to the supervision, control and review of the Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), enforce small-scale mining law and other laws on the protection of the environment[.] (Emphasis in the original)
Section 17 of the Local Government Code provides the essential functions of the different local government units, among which is the enforcement of forestry, small-scale mining, and other environmental laws:
SECTION 17. Basic Services and Facilities. – (a) Local government units shall endeavor to be self-reliant and shall continue exercising the powers and discharging the duties and functions currently vested upon them. They shall also discharge the functions and responsibilities of national agencies and offices devolved to them pursuant to this Code. Local government units shall likewise exercise such other powers and discharge such other functions and responsibilities as are necessary, appropriate, or incidental to efficient and effective provision of the basic services and facilities enumerated herein.
(b) Such basic services and facilities include, but are not limited to, the following:
....
(3) For a Province:....
(iii) Pursuant to national policies and subject to supervision, control and review of the DENR, enforcement of forestry laws limited to community-based forestry projects, pollution control law, small-scale mining law, and other laws on the protection of the environment; and mini-hydroelectric projects for local purposes[.]
The Philippine Mining Act of 1995 is an environmental protection law. This already justifies the State's supervision, control, and review of the concerned local government units' compliance with and enforcement of existing regulations on quarrying-related activities.
Section 138 of the Local Government Code empowers provincial governments to issue permits to quarry operators and to collect taxes on extracted quarry resources within their respective territorial jurisdictions:
SECTION 138. Tax on Sand, Gravel and Other Quarry Resources. — The province may levy and collect not more than ten percent (10%) of fair market value in the locality per cubic meter of ordinary stones, sand, gravel earth, and other quarry resources, as defined under the National Internal Revenue Code, as amended, extracted from public lands or from the beds of seas, lakes, rivers, streams, creeks, and other public waters within its territorial jurisdiction.
The permit to extract sand, gravel and other quarry resources shall be issued exclusively by the provincial governor, pursuant to the ordinance of the sangguniang panlalawigan.
The proceeds of the tax on sand, gravel and other quarry resources shall be distributed as follows:
To be clear, the Philippine Mining Act, a later law, modified the Local Government Code by confining the provincial government's authority to issue quarry permits to applications for areas below five hectares and empowering the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, through the Mines and Geosciences Bureau, to issue permits to applications for areas above five hectares. Section 43, 46, and 47 of the Philippine Mining Act provides:
SECTION 43. Quarry Permit. — Any qualified person may apply to the provincial/city mining regulatory board for a quarry permit on privately-owned lands and/or public lands for building and construction materials such as marble, basalt, andesite, conglomerate, tuff, adobe, granite, gabbro, serpentine, inset filling materials, clay for ceramic tiles and building bricks, pumice, perlite and other similar materials that are extracted by quarrying from the ground. The provincial governor shall grant the permit after the applicant has complied with all the requirements as prescribed by the rules and regulations.
The maximum area which a qualified person may hold at any one time shall be five hectares (5 has.): Provided, That in large-scale quarry operations involving cement raw materials, marble, granite, sand and gravel and construction aggregates, a qualified person and the government may enter into a mineral agreement as defined herein.
A quarry permit shall have a term of five (5) years, renewable for like periods but not to exceed a total term of twenty-five (25) years. No quarry permit shall be issued or granted on any area covered by a mineral agreement or financial or technical assistance agreement.
....
SECTION 46. Commercial Sand and Gravel Permit. — Any qualified person may be granted a permit by the provincial governor to extract and remove sand and gravel or other loose or unconsolidated materials which are used in their natural state, without undergoing processing from an area of not more than five hectares (5 has.) and in such quantities as may be specified in the permit.
SECTION 47. Industrial Sand and Gravel Permit. — Any qualified person may be granted an industrial sand and gravel permit by the Bureau for the extraction of sand and gravel and other loose or unconsolidated materials that necessitate the use of mechanical processing covering an area of more than five hectares (5 has.) at any one time. The permit shall have a term of five (5) years, renewable for a like period but not to exceed a total term of twenty-five (25) years. (Emphasis supplied)
Through its repealing and amending clause,87 the Philippine Mining Act amended the Local Government Code's provisions by limiting the provincial government's authority to issue permits only to quarry applications covering areas less than five hectares.
In line with this, Section 1 of Executive Order No. 224 refers to permits for the extraction of industrial sand and gravel or lahar deposits:
SECTION 1. Processing and Issuance of Mining Permits. The issuance of permit to extract and dispose of industrial sand and gravel/lahar deposits by the MGB shall be governed by Chapter 8 of R.A. No. 79[42].
The acceptance, processing and evaluation of applications for permits to extract industrial sand and gravel/lahar deposits in Pampanga, Tarlac and Zambales shall be undertaken through a Task Force composed of the MGB and the Provincial Governor. (Emphasis supplied)
Section 1 thus implies that the task force is only empowered to act on quarry applications for areas above five hectares, respecting the provincial government's authority to act on applications for areas below five hectares and validly implementing the provisions of the Philippine Mining Act. As the Court of Appeals has found:
In the case at bar, We find that the provisions of E.O. No. 224 carrying out the mandate of R.A. No. 7942 are not in conflict with the specific provision of Section 138 of R.A. No. 7160 conferring upon the provincial governor the exclusive authority to issue permit for the extraction and removal of sand and gravel. In fact, Section 46 of R.A. No. 7942 specifically affirms this authority of the provincial governor to issue permit for the extraction and removal of sand and gravel or other loose or unconsolidated materials provided that the area covers not more than five (5) hectares. Section 47 of the said statute, on the other hand, simply supplements that in the extraction of sand and gravel covering more than five hectares, it is the Mines and Geosciences Bureau which has the authority to grant permit thereof.88
The laws make it clear that State control over the local government units' compliance with and enforcement of quarrying-related activities is valid. In any case, Executive Order No. 224 simply reinforces the Philippine Mining Act, and is in no way an ultra vires act.
Similarly, nothing in the entirety of Executive Order No. 224 suggests that it disrespected the local government units' constitutionally mandated fiscal autonomy. Respondents are correct that the task force's role is only as a supervisory mechanism, a function that would even inure to the benefit of the local government units concerned.
The local government units' power to impose and collect taxes finds basis in Article X, Section 5 of the Constitution:
SECTION 5. Each local government unit shall have the power to create its own sources of revenues and to levy taxes, fees, and charges subject to such guidelines and limitations as the Congress may provide, consistent with the basic policy of local autonomy. Such taxes, fees, and charges shall accrue exclusively to the local governments.
The Local Government Code's enactment in 1991 embodied the basic policy of local autonomy. A crucial part of local autonomy is fiscal autonomy,89 which refers to the local government units' power to "create [their] own sources of revenues and to levy taxes, fees, and charges"90 that shall then accrue exclusively to them. Fiscal autonomy also includes their power to allocate resources to align with their own priorities.91
Section 138 of the Local Government Code empowered a province to levy and collect not more than 10% of the fair market value of the quarry resources extracted from its territorial jurisdiction. It states in part:
SECTION 138. Tax on Sand, Gravel and Other Quarry Resources. — The province may levy and collect not more than ten percent (10%) of fair market value in the locality per cubic meter of ordinary stones, sand, gravel, earth, and other quarry resources, as defined under the National Internal Revenue Code, as amended, extracted from public lands or from the beds of seas, lakes, rivers, streams, creeks, and other public waters within its territorial jurisdiction.
Meanwhile, Section 44 of the Philippine Mining Act, in relation to Section 105 of its Implementing Rules and Regulations, issued by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, directs the city or municipal treasurer to receive the quarry fees and taxes:
SECTION 44. Quarry Fee and Taxes. — A permittee shall, during the term of his permit, pay a quarry fee as provided for under the implementing rules and regulations. The permittee shall also pay the excise tax as provided by pertinent laws.92
SECTION 105. Quarry Fee and Taxes to be Paid. — All permit holders except for gratuitous permits under this Chapter shall pay the required quarry fees (Annex 4-A) to the city/municipal treasurer concerned. Likewise, an excise tax in mineral products as provided for in Republic Act No. 7729 amending Section 151 (a) of the National Internal Revenue Code shall be paid upon removal thereof to the Government thru the concerned agent or representative of the Bureau of Internal Revenue.93 (Emphasis supplied)
Section 4 of Executive Order No. 224 is not repugnant to the Philippine Mining Act or its Implementing Rules and Regulations. Section 4 of Executive Order No. 224 states:
SEC. 4. Collection of Taxes, Fees, and Charges. The Task Force shall be responsible for the collection of all applicable local taxes, fees and charges and shall, among others:
- Issue the required DR only to legitimate sand and gravel operators/permit holders and upon the issuance of Order of Payment by the PMRB;
- Ensure that the necessary taxes and fees due the local government are duly paid for prior to the issuance of any DRs;
- Assist in ensuring that the excise tax for mineral products is duly paid for prior to the issuance of such DRs; and
- Ensure that the appropriate share of the concerned Provinces, Municipalities and Barangays, as per Section 138 of the Local Government Code of 1991, are duly remitted fully and on time.
- Render an accounting to the Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources[.]
Excise tax payments shall likewise be immediately remitted and shared in accordance with law. (Emphasis in the original)
Section 4 empowered the task force to perform the following: (1) collect applicable quarry taxes, fees, and charges; (2) ensure that proper taxes and fees are paid before any delivery receipt is issued; (3) ensure that the appropriate shares of the concerned local government units are fully and timely remitted; and (4) render an accounting with the Environment Secretary.
Nothing in the wording of Section 4 suggests that the task force exercises control over the provincial government. Executive Order No. 224 also does not authorize the task force to impose its own set of rules or regulations over the local government unit when it comes to the collection of quarry taxes, fees, and charges. Section 4 is merely a supervisory mechanism, as seen in how it directs the task force to oversee the collection and ensure that the appropriate shares are remitted to the local government units concerned. Again, the Court of Appeals aptly observed:
As explained by herein appellant, the creation of task force under E.O. No. 224 would merely oversee the collection of all necessary taxes and fees that may be derived from the extraction of industrial sand and gravel in the territorial jurisdiction of the concerned local government unit. Needless to say, such supervision and overseeing in the collection of taxes and fees would even work to appellee's advantage. 94
This Court also notes that the Philippine Mining Act by itself does not empower the city or municipal treasurers to collect the quarry fees and taxes, as it was only its Implementing Rules and Regulations that designated these officials as collection agents. Thus, Section 4 of Executive Order No. 224, which delegated the collection of quarry taxes and fees to the task force, can be seen as an amendment to the Implementing Rules and Regulations.
The task force's oversight function is in line with the president's power of general supervision over local governments,95 to ensure that local programs are aligned with national goals.96Province of Negros Occidental v. The Commissioners, Commission on Audit97 differentiated between general supervision and executive control as follows:
The President's power of general supervision means the power of a superior officer to see to it that subordinates perform their functions according to law. This is distinguished from the President's power of control which is the power to alter or modify or set aside what a subordinate officer had done in the performance of his duties and to substitute the judgment of the President over that of the subordinate officer. The power of control gives the President the power to revise or reverse the acts or decisions of a subordinate officer involving the exercise of discretion.98 (Citations omitted)
This general supervision over local government units likewise cannot be said to infringe on the local governments' constitutionally protected right of fiscal autonomy.
The task force's mandate of overseeing the collection of taxes does not violate local fiscal autonomy. The power to impose quarry fees and taxes remains with the local government units. Likewise, the full income due from those sources will ultimately find its way to the coffers of the concerned local government units.
Finally, going back to the requisites for the validity of an administrative issuance, the fourth requisite demands that the administrative issuance must be reasonable.
Executive Order No. 224 is a valid and reasonable exercise of the president's inherent ordinance-making power.99 It provided the necessary rules for the concerned agency to execute the Philippine Mining Act in relation to the quarry industry of the provinces affected by Mt. Pinatubo's eruption, without going beyond the bounds of the law it meant to implement.
It is a basic precept in statutory construction that a law should be construed in harmony and not in violation of the Constitution.100 Executive acts enjoy the presumption of constitutionality;101 thus, if they are susceptible to two or more constructions, the one that would not be in conflict with what is ordained in the Constitution is preferred.
The presumption of constitutionality is rooted in "the doctrine of separation of powers which enjoins upon each department a becoming respect for the acts of the other departments."102 For the judiciary to justify the nullification of any legislative or executive act, it must be shown that the statute or issuance clearly violates the Constitution.
There was no such palpable violation of the Constitution here.
WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED. The assailed August 24, 2010 Decision and February 22, 2011 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 83341 are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Peralta, C.J., Gesmundo, Hernando, Carandang, Inting, Zalameda, M. Lopez, Delos Santos, Gaerlan, Rosario, and J. Lopez, JJ., concur.
Perlas-Bernabe, Caguioa, and Lazaro-Javier, JJ., please see concurring opinion.
Sirs/Mesdames:
Please take notice that on January 12, 2021 a Decision, copy attached herewith, was rendered by the Supreme Court in the above-entitled case, the original of which was received by this Office on November 29, 2021 at 9:55 a.m.
Very truly yours,
EDGAR O. ARICHETA
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) ANNA-LI R. PAPA-GOMBIO
Deputy Clerk of Court En Banc
EDGAR O. ARICHETA
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) ANNA-LI R. PAPA-GOMBIO
Deputy Clerk of Court En Banc
Endnotes:
1Rollo, pp. 9-38.
2 Id. at 39-57. The August 24, 2010 Decision in CA-G.R. CV No. 83341 was penned by Associate Justice Franchito N. Diamante and concurred in by Associate Justices Josefina Guevara-Salonga and Mariflor Punzalan Castillo of the Fourth Division, Court of Appeals, Manila.
3 Id. at 78-81. The February 22, 2011 Resolution in CA-G.R. CV No. 83341 was penned by Associate Justice Franchito N. Diamante and concurred in by Associate Justices Josefina Guevara-Salonga and Mariflor Punzalan Castillo of the Fourth Division, Court of Appeals, Manila.
4 Id. at 161-174. The May 21, 2004 Decision in Special Civil Case No. 12740 was penned by Judge Serafin B. David of the Regional Trial Court of San Fernando City, Pampanga, Branch 48.
5 Id. at 93-101.
6 Id. at 94-95.
7 Id. at 102.
8 Id. at 103-104.
9 Id. at 105-106.
10 Id. at 106. Proclamation No. 66 (1999), sec. 3.
11 Id. at 85.
12 Id. at 89-92.
13 Id. at 82-88.
14 Id. at 83 and 87.
15 Id. at 107-111.
16 Id. at 135-137. The Temporary Restraining Order was issued by Judge Serafin B. David of the Regional Trial Court of San Fernando, Pampanga, Branch 48.
17 Id. at 137.
18 Id. at 145-146. The Writ of Preliminary Injunction was issued by Judge Serafin B. David of the Regional Trial Court of San Fernando, Pampanga, Branch 48.
19 Id. at 146.
20 Id. at 161-174. The Decision in Special Civil Case No. 12740 was penned by Judge Serafin B. David.
21 Id. at 167.
22 Id. at 167-169.
23 Id. at 169.
24 Id. at 171-172.
25 Id. at 171.
26 Id. at 172.
27 Id. at 173-174.
28 Id. at 174.
29 Id. at 436-463.
30 Id. at 39-57.
31 Id. at 51-52.
32 Id. at 51-53.
33 Id. at 54.
34 Id. at 54-55.
35 Id. at 55.
36 Id.
37 Id. at 56.
38 Id. at 58-76.
39 Id. at 78-81.
40 Id. at 79.
41 Id. at 80.
42 Id. at 79-80.
43 Id. at 9-38.
44 Id. at 23-25.
45 Id. at 25-29.
46 Id. at 29-31.
47 Id. at 33-34.
48 Id. at 350-382
49 Id. at 361.
50 Id. at 360-362.
51 Id. at 365-369.
52 Id. at 368-369.
53 Id. at 369-370.
54 Id. at 378.
55 Id. at 370-371.
56 Id. at 373-375.
57 Id. at 375.
58 Id. at 379-380.
59 Id. at 712-721.
60 Id. at 712-713.
61 Id. at 713-714.
62 Id. at 715-716.
63 Id. at 716.
64 Id. at 717-719.
65 Id. at 719-720.
66 Executive Order No. 224 (2003), < https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/2003/07/04/executive-order-no-224-s-2003/ > (last accessed on January 11, 2021).
67 ADM. CODE, Book III, Title I, Ch. 2, sec. 2 provides:
SECTION 2. Executive Orders. — Acts of the President providing for rules of a general or permanent character in implementation or execution of constitutional or statutory power shall be promulgated in executive orders.
68 518 Phil. 103 (2006) [Per J. Ynares-Santiago, En Banc]
69 Id. at 117 citing CARLO L. CRUZ, PHILIPPINE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW 41 (2003 ed.).
70Rollo, pp. 373-375.
71 CONST., art. XII, sec. 2 states:
SECTION 2. All lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum, and other mineral oils, all forces of potential energy, fisheries, forests or timber, wildlife, flora and fauna, and other natural resources are owned by the State. With the exception of agricultural lands, all other natural resources shall not be alienated. The exploration, development, and utilization of natural resources shall be under the full control and supervision of the State. The State may directly undertake such activities, or it may enter into co-production, joint venture, or production-sharing agreements with Filipino citizens, or corporations or associations at least sixty per centum of whose capital is owned by such citizens. Such agreements may be for a period not exceeding twenty-five years, renewable for not more than twenty-five years, and under such terms and conditions as may be provided by law. In cases of water rights for irrigation, water supply fisheries, or industrial uses other than the development of water power, beneficial use may be the measure and limit of the grant.
The State shall protect the nation's marine wealth in its archipelagic waters, territorial sea, and exclusive economic zone, and reserve its use and enjoyment exclusively to Filipino citizens.
The Congress may, by law, allow small-scale utilization of natural resources by Filipino citizens, as well as cooperative fish farming, with priority to subsistence fishermen and fish-workers in rivers, lakes, bays, and lagoons.
The President may enter into agreements with foreign-owned corporations involving either technical or financial assistance for large-scale exploration, development, and utilization of minerals, petroleum, and other mineral oils according to the general terms and conditions provided by law, based on real contributions to the economic growth and general welfare of the country. In such agreements, the State shall promote the development and use of local scientific and technical resources.
The President shall notify the Congress of every contract entered into in accordance with this provision, within thirty days from its execution.
72Mangune v. Ermita, 796 Phil. 52, 67 (2016) [Per J. Jardeleza, En Banc] citing Executive Secretary v. Southwing Heavy Industries, Inc., 518 Phil. 103 (2006) [Per J. Ynares-Santiago, En Banc].
73Rollo, pp. 24-25.
74Republic v. Bayao, 710 Phil. 279, 297 (2013) [Per J. Leonen, Third Division] citing Santiago v. Guingona, 359 Phil. 276, 284 (1998) [Per J. Panganiban, En Banc].
75 Camarines Norte Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Torres, 350 Phil. 315, 331 (1998) [Per J. Davide. Jr., En Banc].
76Pelaez v. Auditor General, 122 Phil. 965, 974 (1965) [Per J. Concepcion, En Banc].
77 Id. at 68.
78 122 Phil. 965 (1965) [Per J. Concepcion, En Banc].
79 Id. at 974-975.
80Executive Secretary v. Southwing Heavy Industries, Inc., 518 Phil. 103, 117 (2006) [Per J. Ynares-Santiago, En Banc] citing CARLO L. CRUZ, PHILIPPINE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW 24 (2003 ed.).
81 CIVIL CODE, art. 7 provides:
ARTICLE 7. Laws are repealed only by subsequent ones, and their violation or non-observance shall not be excused by disuse, or custom or practice to the contrary.
When the courts declared a law to be inconsistent with the Constitution, the former shall be void and the latter shall govern.
Administrative or executive acts, orders and regulations shall be valid only when they are not contrary to the laws or the Constitution.
82 ADM. CODE, Book III, Title 1, Ch. 2, secs. 6-7 states:
SECTION 2. Executive Orders. — Acts of the President providing for rules of a general or permanent character in implementation or execution of constitutional or statutory powers shall be promulgated in executive orders.
SECTION 3. Administrative Orders. — Acts of the President which relate to particular aspect of governmental operations in pursuance of his duties as administrative head shall be promulgated in administrative orders.
SECTION 4. Proclamations. — Acts of the President fixing a date or declaring a status or condition of public moment or interest, upon the existence of which the operation of a specific law or regulation is made to depend, shall be promulgated in proclamations which shall have the force of an executive order.
SECTION 5. Memorandum Orders. — Acts of the President on matters of administrative detail or of subordinate or temporary interest which only concern a particular officer or office of the Government shall be embodied in memorandum orders.
SECTION 6. Memorandum Circulars. — Acts of the President on matters relating to internal administration, which the President desires to bring to the attention of all or some of the departments, agencies, bureaus or offices of the Government, for information or compliance, shall be embodied in memorandum circulars.
SECTION 7. General or Special Orders. — Acts and commands of the President in his capacity as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the Philippines shall be issued as general or special orders.
83 584 Phil. 246 (2008) [Per J. Corona, En Banc].
84 Id. at 289. See fn. no. 63.
85 Id.
86 Id.
87 Republic Act No. 7942 (1995), sec. 115 states:
SECTION 115. Repealing and Amending Clause. — All laws, executive orders, presidential decrees, rules and regulations or parts thereof which are inconsistent with any of the provisions of this Act are hereby repealed or amended accordingly.
88Rollo, pp. 51-52.
89Pimentel, Jr. v. Hon. Aguirre, 391 Phil. 84, 102-103 (2000) [Per J. Panganiban, En Banc].
90 CONST., art. X, sec. 5.
91Mandanas v. Ochoa, 835 Phil. 97 (2018) [Per Bersamin, En Banc].
92 Republic Act No. 7942 (1995), sec. 44.
93 Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Philippine Mining Act (1995), sec. 105.
94Rollo, p. 54.
95 CONST., art. X, sec. 4 provides:
SECTION 4. The President of the Philippines shall exercise general supervision over local governments. Provinces with respect to component cities and municipalities, and cities and municipalities with respect to component barangays shall ensure that the acts of their component units are within the scope of their prescribed powers and functions.
96Mandanas v. Ochoa, 835 Phil. 97 (2018) [Per Bersamin. En Banc].
97 646 Phil. 50 (2010) [Per J. Carpio, En Banc].
98 Id. at 61.
99 ADM. CODE, Book III, Title 1, Ch. 2, sec. 2 provides:
SECTION 2. Executive Orders. – Acts of the President providing rules of a general or permanent character in implementation or execution of constitutional or statutory powers shall be promulgated in executive orders.
100Resident Marine Mammals of the Protected Seascape Tañon Strait v. Reyes, 758 Phil. 724 (2015) [Per J. Leonardo-De Castro, En Banc].
101Garcia v. Executive Secretary, 286 Phil. 322, 333 (1992) [Per J. Feliciano, En Banc].
102Garcia v. Executive Secretary, 281 Phil. 572, 579-580 (1991) [Per J. Cruz, En Banc].
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
I concur.
The present petition assails the constitutionality of Executive Order No. (EO) 224,1 series of 2003, issued by then President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.
Essentially, EO 224 established a Task Force, composed of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) - Mining and Geosciences Bureau (MGB) Regional Director as Team Leader and the Provincial Governor of the concerned provinces as the deputy Team Leader.2 As per the EO, the Task Force has multiple functions, which cover not only the collection of the taxes and fees from sand and gravel/lahar operations but also the issuance of regulatory permits for the extraction of the above-mentioned resources, the regulation of compliance with the permit's terms and conditions, the monitoring of illegal mining and quarrying operations, and the like, as follows:
SECTION 1. Processing and Issuance of Mining Permits. The issuance of permit to extract and dispose of industrial sand and gravel/lahar deposits by the MGB shall be governed by Chapter 8 of R.A. No. 7924.
The acceptance, processing and evaluation of applications for permits to extract industrial sand and gravel/lahar deposits in Pampanga, Tarlac and Zambales shall be undertaken through a Task Force composed of the MGB and the Provincial Governor.
SEC. 2. Creation of a Task Force. To ensure compliance by all permit holders with the terms and conditions of their permits, properly monitor the volume of extracted materials, and collect the proper taxes and fees from sand and gravel/lahar operations, a Task Force is hereby created for the purpose to be composed of the following:
- The MGB Regional Director, by himself or through his duly authorized representative – Team Leader
- The Provincial Governor, by himself or his duly authorized representative – Deputy Team Leader
SEC. 3. Functions and Authorities of the Task Force. The Task Force shall have the following functions:
- To accept, process and evaluate applications for permits to extract industrial sand and gravel/lahar deposits;
- To immediately monitor all reported illegal mining and quarrying operations and, for this purpose, set up as may be necessary checkpoints and other monitoring stations within the territorial jurisdiction of the province of Pampanga;
- To arrest mining/quarrying operators, and their agents and employees who willfully cooperate in the violation of provincial and national mining and environmental laws, and to confiscate and detain as evidence all instruments, objects and products of illegal mining/quarrying operations committed within the territorial jurisdiction of the Province;
- To immediately deliver confiscated and detained instruments, objects or products of illegal mining/quarrying operations to the nearest police station or area designated by the Task Force, which shall be properly receipted and shall not be released unless an instruction in writing to that effect is issued by the Office of the Governor; and
- Insofar as may be allowed by law, to assign and deputize a special contingent from the Philippine National Police specifically to assist the Task Force in the fulfillment of its functions.
SEC. 4. Collection of Taxes, Fees and Charges. The Task Force shall be responsible for the collection of all applicable local taxes, fees and charges and shall, among others:
- Issue the required DR only to legitimate sand and gravel operators/permit holders and upon the issuance of Order of Payment by the PMRB;
- Ensure that the necessary taxes and fees due the local government are duly paid for prior to the issuance of any DRs;
- Assist in ensuring that the excise tax for mineral products is duly paid for prior to the issuance of such DRs; and
- Ensure that the appropriate share of the concerned Provinces, Municipalities and Barangays, as per Section 138 of the Local Government Code of 1991, are duly remitted fully and on time.
- Render an accounting to the Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources
Excise tax payments shall likewise be immediately remitted and shared in accordance with law. (Emphases and underscoring supplied)
As the ponencia correctly ruled, Section 4 of EO 224 as above-cited is unconstitutional since it violates the concerned local government units' (LGUs) local autonomy by placing the provincial government's taxing and collecting power under the Task Force's control and supervision. To expound, RA 71603 or the Local Government Code of 1991 (LGC) states that the "province may levy and collect not more than ten percent (10%) of fair market value in the locality per cubic meter of ordinary stones, sand, gravel, earth, and other quarry resources x x x."4 Accordingly, aside from the power to levy, the power to collect taxes for sand and gravel/lahar is statutorily-lodged with the provinces. Further, the LGC Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR)5 provide that the governor, as chief executive of the province, has the power to "[e]nsure that all taxes and other revenues of the province are collected, and that provincial funds are applied to the payment of expenses and settlement of obligations of the province, in accordance with law or ordinance."6 Thus, by conferring the responsibility of collecting taxes to the Task Force, Section 4 of EO 224 contravenes the LGC and its IRR and therefore, must necessarily be struck down.
However, it should be stressed that Section 4 is one of several provisions of EO 224. Section 4 only pertains to the tax collection functions of the Task Force, whereas the other provisions of EO 224 pertain to regulatory functions on permit issuance, monitoring, and compliance. Indeed, as these other provisions of EO 224 show, the Task Force was not merely intended to be a tax collection agency but, moreover, a coordinated body composed of the DENR-MGB Regional Director and the Provincial Governor that was constituted to holistically address the regulatory issues pervading an industry prone to exploitation. As the whereas clauses of EO 224 evince:
WHEREAS, it is necessary to protect and properly manage the utilization of the sand and gravel/lahar deposits of the provinces of Pampanga, Tarlac and Zambales to improve the water flows of its river systems, ensure the integrity of the various protective dikes and infrastructures, and thereby reduce risks to lives and properties;
WHEREAS, it is in the interest of the State that said sand and gravel/lahar deposits be properly utilized for the benefit of both local and the national governments and all concerned, with due regard to the environment.
In my view, considering that the Task Force is composed of the DENR-MGB Regional Director, who has the authority to issue quarry permits for applications covering areas above five (5) hectares, and the Provincial Governor, who is responsible for approving permits for areas five (5) hectares and below, there is ample legal basis to uphold EO 224 with respect to the regulatory aspects of permits issuance, while declaring only the tax collection provisions under Section 4 as unconstitutional. At the very least, the Task Force's authority to issue permits may be harmonized, and hence, limited to applications for permits for areas above five (5) hectares.
That being said, it is, however, apt to clarify that the unconstitutionality of Section 4 does not affect the other provisions of EO 224.
In the foregoing relation, it is observed that EO 224 has no separability clause, which in concept, harbors doubt as to whether or not its provisions are severable from each other. There is case law which evokes that the "intent [of severability] is expressed in a separability clause stating that the invalidity or unconstitutionality of any provision or section of the law will not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remainder."7
Nonetheless, case law equally recognizes that "the separability clause only creates a presumption that the act is severable. It is merely an aid in statutory construction. It is not an inexorable command."8 As I see it, given that the Task Force's regulatory functions in terms of permit issuance, among others, may be considered as functionally different from its tax collection function, it is reasonably apparent that Section 4 of EO 224 may be severable from the EO's other provisions. In fact, their separability is further evinced by the deliberate placement of these distinct functions in separate provisions of the EO.
Thus, in light of the foregoing, only Section 4 should be declared unconstitutional for violating the principle of local autonomy with respect to the collection of taxes.9 The other provisions may be substantially severed from the infirm provision and hence, remain valid. As such, I vote to partly grant the petition on this limited score.
Endnotes:
1 Entitled "RATIONALIZING THE EXTRACTION AND DISPOSITION OF SAND AND GRAVEL/LAHAR DEPOSITS IN THE PROVINCES OF PAMPANGA, TARLAC AND ZAMBALES" (July 4, 2003).
2 See Section 2 of EO 224.
3 Entitled "AN ACT PROVIDING FOR A LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE OR 1991." approved on October 10, 1991.
4 Section 138 of the Local Government Code of 1991.
5 Administrative Order No. 270 entitled "PRESCRIBING THE IMPLEMENTING RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE OF 1991" (February 21, 1992).
6 See Article 85 (3)(iii), Rule XV of the LGC IRR.
7Tatad v. Secretary of the Department of Energy, 347 Phil. 1, 23 (1997)
8 Id., citing Dorchy v. Kansas, 68 L. ed. 686 (1924). See also Ruben Agpalo, Statutory Construction, 1990, p. 15.
9 See ponencia, p. 19.
CAGUIOA, J.:
The instant Petition seeks to nullify Executive Order No. (EO) 224.1 Petitioner claims that Section 1 of EO 224 infringes upon the Provincial Governor's exclusive power and authority to issue permits to extract gravel and sand within his territorial jurisdiction, while Section 4 thereof interferes with the Provincial Treasurer's authority to collect all local taxes, fees and charges in accordance with the Local Government Code of 1991 (LGC) and Republic Act No. (RA) 79422 (Mining Act).
I concur with the ponencia in denying the petition and upholding the validity and constitutionality of EO 224. I submit this concurring opinion to further emphasize that EO 224 was issued in the valid exercise of the President's constitutional duty to enforce and administer the laws.
For proper context, a brief history on the issuance of EO 224 is important to consider.
On January 11, 1999, then President Joseph Estrada issued Proclamation No. 66, Declaring the Lahar Affected Rivers and Embankment Areas in the Provinces of Pampanga, Tarlac and Zambales as Environmentally Critical Areas and as Mineral Reservation under the Direct Supervision and Control of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). This issuance of Proclamation No. 66 was prompted by the continuing danger that lahar deposits pose to the lives and properties in the affected provinces, and the possible adverse impacts to the environment caused by the growing demand for the utilization of the sand and gravel/lahar deposits therein in connection with government and private sector infrastructure projects.3 Thus, in order to protect and properly manage these affected areas, the exploration, development, exploitation and utilization of the sand and lahar deposits in these provinces were placed under the control and supervision of the DENR.4
In 2002, then President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo (PGMA) issued Proclamation No. 183,5 revoking Proclamation No. 66 because the latter failed to recognize the rights and equitable share of the local government from the utilization and development of national wealth within their respective jurisdictions, as provided under the LGC.6
On July 4, 2003, PGMA issued the assailed EO 224. Unlike its predecessor, EO 224 recognized that the protection and proper management of the utilization and exploitation of sand and gravel/lahar deposits in the provinces of Pampanga, Tarlac and Zambales should be for the benefit of both local and national governments, viz.:
WHEREAS, it is necessary to protect and properly manage the utilization of the sand and gravel/lahar deposits of the provinces of Pampanga, Tarlac and Zambales to improve the water Hows of its river systems, ensure the integrity of the various protective dikes and infrastructures, and thereby reduce risks to lives and properties;
WHEREAS, it is in the interest of the State that said sand and gravel/lahar deposits be properly utilized for the benefit of both local and the national governments and all concerned, with due regard to the environment.
The whereas clauses also indicate that EO 224 was issued to ensure that the provisions of the Mining Act and the LGC, in relation to the extraction and disposition of sand and gravel/lahar deposits in these three provinces, are properly implemented.7
To achieve these objectives, Section 2 of EO 224 created a Task Force – composed of the Regional Director of the Mines and Geosciences Bureau (MGB) and the Provincial Governor – primarily tasked "[t]o ensure compliance by all permit holders with the terms and conditions of their permits, properly monitor the volume of extracted materials, and collect the proper taxes and fees from sand and gravel/lahar operations." In fact, EO 224 reiterates that the processing and issuance of permits shall be governed by Chapter 8 of the Mining Act8and that the appropriate share of the concerned local government in the taxes and fees on the sand and gravel operations, per Section 138 of the LGC, are duly remitted fully and on time.9
Clearly, EO 224 is nothing but an issuance in exercise of the President's inherent ordinance making power10 — to ensure that laws are faithfully executed.11 EO 224 was plainly intended to safeguard the interests of both the local and national governments – as represented by the Provincial Governor and Regional Director of the MGB, respectively – by enforcing due observance of the relevant provisions of the Mining Act and the LGC, in relation to the sand and gravel operations of the lahar deposits in the three provinces.
Contrary to petitioner's assertion, EO 224 does not infringe upon the Provincial Governor's authority under the LGC to issue permits for extraction and removal of sand and gravel deposits within his territorial jurisdiction. Notably, Section 138 of the LGC, which confers upon the Provincial Governor the exclusive authority to issue permit to extract sand, gravel and other quarry resources, has been modified by Chapter 8 of the Mining Act. Under the Mining Act, the Provincial Governor is authorized to grant sand and gravel permit for areas not more than five hectares; while the MGB is authorized to grant sand and gravel permit for areas of more than five hectares.12
While Section 1 of EO 224 provides that acceptance, processing and evaluation of applications for permits to extract industrial sand and gravel/lahar deposits in the three provinces shall be undertaken through a Task Force composed of the MGB and the Provincial Governor, it nonetheless clearly and unequivocally mandates that the issuance of permits by the MGB shall be governed by Chapter 8 of the Mining Act. Thus, Section 1 simply authorizes the Task Force to supervise the processing and evaluation of the applications for sand and gravel permits. The respective authority and jurisdiction of the MGB and the Provincial Governor to issue sand and gravel permits under the Mining Act are maintained and respected.
There is also nothing repugnant between Section 4 of EO 224 and the Mining Act or its Implementing Rules and Regulations13 (IRR) in relation to the collection of taxes. The IRR states that the required quarry fees shall be paid to the concerned Provincial/City Treasurer in accordance with pertinent provisions of the LGC.14 In turn, Section 4 of EO 224 ensures that these taxes are duly paid and remitted as required by the LGC, to wit:
SEC. 4. Collection of Taxes, Fees and Charges. The Task Force shall be responsible for the collection of all applicable local taxes, fees and charges and shall, among others:
- Issue the required DR only to legitimate sand and gravel operators/permit holders and upon the issuance of Order of Payment by the PMRB;
- Ensure that the necessary taxes and fees due the local government are duly paid for prior to the issuance of any DRs;
- Assist in ensuring that the excise tax for mineral products is duly paid for prior to the issuance of such DRs; and
- Ensure that the appropriate share of the concerned Provinces, Municipalities and Barangays, as per Section 138 of the Local Government Code of 1991, are duly remitted fully and on time.
- Render an accounting to the Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources
Excise tax payments shall likewise be immediately remitted and shared in accordance with law. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
Hence, Section 4 — read in its entirety — merely authorized the Task Force to oversee "the collection of all necessary taxes and fees that may be derived from the extraction of industrial sand and gravel in the territorial jurisdiction of the concerned local government unit."15 Section 4 therefore does not, in any way, contravene but, in fact, complements the Mining Act, its IRR and the LGC.
Furthermore, nothing in Section 4 even remotely suggests that the Task Force exercises control over the provincial government.
Control has been defined as "the power of an officer to alter or modify or nullify or set aside what a subordinate officer had done in the performance of his duties and to substitute the judgment of the former for test of the latter."16 Supervision, on the other hand, means "overseeing or the power or authority of an officer to see that subordinate officers perform their duties."17 Officers in control "lay down the rules in the performance or accomplishment of an act. If these rules are not followed, they may, in their discretion, order the act undone or redone by their subordinates or even decide to do it themselves."18 On the other hand, "[s]upervising officials merely see to it that the rules are followed, but they themselves do not lay down such rules, nor do they have the discretion to modify or replace them. If the rules are not observed, they may order the work done or redone, but only to conform to such rules. They may not prescribe their own manner of execution of the act. They have no discretion on this matter except to see to it that the rules are followed.”19
Section 4 does not grant the Task Force any authority to impose rules or regulations on how the local government should collect the appropriate taxes, fees or charges. Neither does it allow the Task Force to alter, modify, nullify or substitute the discretion of the local government with respect to the collection of the fees and taxes due to them. All that Section 4 mandates the Task Force to do is to ensure that ail permit holders pay the necessary taxes and fees due the local government and that the appropriate share of the concerned local government are remitted on time and in full. This clearly is not control but a simple exercise of general supervision.
There is also nothing in EO 224 which can be construed as infringing upon the fiscal autonomy of local governments.
To be clear, fiscal autonomy is the power of local government units (LGUs) to create their own sources of revenues and to levy taxes, fees, and charges, subject to such guidelines and limitations as the Congress may provide, and which shall accrue exclusively to the local governments.20 It also includes the power to allocate their resources in accordance with their own priorities.21 Thus, I cannot see how authorizing the Task Force to oversee the collection of all applicable local taxes, fees and charges could violate local fiscal autonomy, when the authority to levy quarry fees and taxes and entitlement thereto remain with the provincial government and other concerned LGUs. Section 4 of EO 224 simply provides that "[t]he Task Force shall be responsible for the collection of all applicable local taxes, fees and charges." It did not, in any way, limit the provincial government's authority to levy taxes on quarrying operations under Section 138 of the LGC. Neither did it deprive the concerned LGUs of the revenue or income due to them under the LGC.
In Film Development Council of the Philippines v. Colon Heritage Realty Corporation,22 the Court En Banc struck down Sections 13 and 14 of RA 9167 as it completely deprived the LGUs of the income which otherwise inures to them as the taxing authority.23 The Court found this "in clear contravention of the constitutional command that taxes levied by LGUs shall accrue exclusively to said LGU and is repugnant to the power of LGUs to apportion their resources in line with their priorities."24 This is not the case with EO 224. Again, all that Section 4 of EO 224 does is to ensure "that the necessary taxes and fees due the local government are duly paid for prior to the issuance of any [Delivery Receipts]"25 and "that the appropriate share of the concerned Provinces, Municipalities and Barangays, as per Section 138 of the Local Government Code of 1991, are duly remitted fully and on time."26 Thus, to my mind, EO 224 does not contravene, but in fact, recognizes the fiscal autonomy granted to the local government. It is a basic precept in statutory construction that a law should be construed in harmony with and not in violation of the Constitution.27 If a statute is susceptible to two or more constructions, the one which would not be in conflict with what is ordained in the Constitution is to be preferred.28
Indeed, courts should always exercise caution in dealing with constitutionality issues. Executive acts enjoy the presumption of constitutionality.29 This presumption is based on the doctrine of separation of powers which enjoins upon each department a becoming respect for the acts of the other departments.30 To justify the nullification of any legislative or executive act, it must be shown that the statute or issuance violates the Constitution, clearly, palpably and plainly, and in such a manner as to leave no doubt or hesitation in the mind of the Court.31 To doubt is to sustain the constitutionality of the assailed issuance.
In light of the foregoing, I concur with the ponencia in denying the present petition and upholding the validity and constitutionality of EO 224 in its entirety.
Endnotes:
1 RATIONALIZATING THE EXTRACTION AND DISPOSITION OF SAND AND GRAVEL/LAHAR DEPOSITS IN THE PROVINCES OF PAMPANGA, TARLAC AND ZAMBALES, approved on July 4, 2003.
2 Philippine Mining Act of 1995, approved on March 3, 1995.
3 The whereas clauses of Proclamation No. 66 states:
WHEREAS, the various rivers and river systems in the Provinces of Pampanga, Tarlac and Zambales have been greatly affected by the volcanic eruption and lahar deposits from the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo;
WHEREAS, the lahar deposits continue to pose grave danger to lives and properties, public infrastructures like the mega-dike and critical bridges, as well as private infrastructures, particularly during extended rainy periods like the La Niña;
WHEREAS, these sand and lahar deposits have now become a very important source of sand materials for various government and private sector infrastructure and construction projects;
WHEREAS, it is in the interest of the State that the said sand and lahar materials be properly utilized for the benefit of the government and all concerned with due regard to any possible adverse environmental impacts;
WHEREAS, it is necessary to protect and properly manage these river systems and the exploitation and utilization of their sand and lahar deposits in order to maintain or improve their water flows, reduce risks to lives and properties, and to restrain inappropriate mineral exploitation and land-use[.]
4 Section 2 of Proclamation No. 66 states:
Section 2. Pursuant to Section 5 of R.A. 7942, the above-mentioned areas are also hereby established and set apart, subject to valid and existing private rights, as mineral reservation under the administration of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, for the purpose of exploring, developing, exploiting, and utilizing of all the lahar deposits in these areas.
5 REVOKING PROCLAMATION NO. 66, SERIES OF 1999. DECLARING THE LAHAR-AFFECTED RIVERS AND EMBANKMENT AREAS IN THE PROVINCES OF PAMPANGA, TARLAC AND ZAMBALES AS ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREAS AND AS MINERAL RESERVATION UNDER THE DIRECT SUPERVISION AND CONTROL OF THE DEPARTMENT OR ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES, April 23, 2002.
6 The whereas clauses of Proclamation No. 183 states:
WHEREAS, Proclamation No. 66 dated January 1, 1999, declared the lahar-affected rivers and embankment areas in the provinces of Pampanga, Tarlac and Zambales as environmentally critical areas and as mineral reservation under the direct supervision and control of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources;
WHEREAS, the Local Government Code of 1991 mandates that local government units shall have an equitable share derived from the utilization and development of the national wealth within their respective areas, including sharing the same with the inhabitants by way of direct benefits;
WHEREAS, Proclamation No. 66, series of 1999, has virtually deprived the three (3) provinces aforementioned and/or their component cities and municipalities supervision and control over the river systems and embankment areas found within their respective territorial jurisdictions;
WHEREAS, sound governance demands that control and supervision over these river systems and the exploitation and utilization of the sand and lahar deposits in the area be returned to the local government units concerned.
7 The whereas clauses of EO 224 further states:
WHEREAS, Section 17(3)(iii) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7160, otherwise known as the Local Government Code of 1991, provides that a province shall, subject to the supervision, control and review of the Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), enforce small-scale mining law and other laws on the protection of the environment;
WHEREAS, Sections 4 and 8 of R.A. No. 7942, otherwise known as the Philippine Mining Act of 1995, provides that the exploration, development, utilization and processing of mineral resources shall be under the full control and supervision of the State, that it may directly undertake such activities or it may enter into mineral agreements with contractors and that the DENR shall be the primary agency responsible for the conservation, management, development and proper use of the State's mineral resources;
WHEREAS, Executive Order (E.O.) No. 192 mandates that the DENR shall be the primary government agency responsible for the conservation, management, development and proper use of the country's environment and natural resources as may be provided for by law in order to ensure equitable sharing of the benefits derived therefrom for the welfare of the present and future generations of Filipinos;
WHEREAS, Chapter 8 of R.A. 7942 further provides that industrial sand and gravel permit covering an area of more than five (5) hectares shall be issued by the Mines and Geosciences Bureau (MGB)[.]
8 EO 224, Sec. 1.
9 Id. at Sec. 4(d).
10 Executive Order No. 292, Administrative Code of 1987, Book III, Title I, Chapter 2, Sec. 2, July 25, 1987.
11 1987 CONSTITUTION, Article VII, Sec. 17.
12 The Mining Act provides:
SEC. 46. Commercial Sand and Gravel Permit. — Any qualified person may be granted a permit by the provincial governor to extract and remove sand and gravel or other loose or unconsolidated materials which are used in their natural state, without undergoing processing from an area of not more than five hectares (5 has.) and in such quantities as may be specified in the permit.
SEC. 47. Industrial Sand and Gravel Permit. — Any qualified person may be granted an industrial sand and gravel permit by the Bureau for the extraction of sand and gravel and other loose or unconsolidated materials that necessitate the use of mechanical processing covering an area of more than five hectares (5 has.) at any one time. The permit shall have a term of five (5) years, renewable for a like period but not to exceed a total term of twenty-five (25) years.
13 Revised Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 7942, Otherwise Known as the "Philippine Mining Act of 1995," DENR Administrative Order No. 96-40, December 19, 1996.
14 Id. at Chapter VIII, Sec. 97.
15Rollo, p. 54.
16Ganzon v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 93252, 93746 & 95245, August 5, 1991, 200 SCRA 271, 283.
17 Id. at 283-284.
18Pimentel, Jr. v. Aguirre, G.R. No. 132988, July 19, 2000, 336 SCRA 201, 215.
19 Id.
20 1987 CONSTITUTION, Article X, Sec. 5. See also Pimentel, Jr. v. Aguirre, supra note 18, at 218, cited in Province of Batangas v. Romulo, G.R. No. 152774, May 27, 2004, 429 SCRA 736, 766-767; Villafuerte, Jr. v. Robredo, G.R. No. 195390, December 10, 2014, 744 SCRA 534, 560-561; and Mandanas v. Ochoa, Jr., G.R. Nos. 199802 & 208488, July 3, 2018, 869 SCRA 440.
21Mandanas v. Ochoa, Jr., id.
22 G.R. No. 203754 & 204418, June 16, 2015, 758 SCRA 536 [En Banc, Per Justice Velasco Jr.].
23 Id.
24 Id. at 569.
25 EO 224, Sec. 4(b).
26 Id. at Sec. 4(d).
27 See Resident Marine Mammals of the Protected Seascape Tañon Strait v. Reyes, G.R. Nos. 180771 & 181527, April 21, 2015. 756 SCRA 513, 558
28 Id.; see also San Miguel Corporation v. Avelino, G R No. L-39699, March 14, 1979, 89 SCRA 69, 75.
29Garcia v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 101273, July 3, 1992, 211 SCRA 219, 229.
30 See Garcia v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 100883, December 2, 1991, 204 SCRA 516, 523.
31Coconut Oil Refiners Association, Inc. v. Torres, G.R. No. 132527, July 29, 2005, 465 SCRA 47, 63.
LAZARO-JAVIER, J.:
I concur with the ponencia that Executive Order (EO) No. 224 (2003), entitled Rationalizing the Extraction and Disposition of Sand and Gravel/Lahar Deposits in the Provinces of Pampanga, Tarlac and Zambales, is valid in its entirety.
EO 224 states:
WHEREAS, Section 17(3)(iii) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7160, otherwise known as the Local Government Code of 1991, provides that a province shall, subject to the supervision, control and review of the Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), enforce small-scale mining law and other laws on the protection of the environment;
WHEREAS, Sections 4 and 8 of R.A. No. 7942, otherwise known as the Philippine Mining Act of 1995, provides that the exploration, development, utilization and processing of mineral resources shall be under the full control and supervision of the State, that it may directly undertake such activities or it may enter into mineral agreements with contractors and that the DENR shall be the primary agency responsible for the conservation, management, development and proper use of the State's mineral resources;
WHEREAS, Executive Order (E.O.) No. 292 mandates that the DENR shall be the primary government agency responsible for the conservation, management, development and proper use of the country's environment and natural resources as may be provided for by law in order to ensure equitable sharing of the benefits derived therefrom for the welfare of the present and future generations of Filipinos;
WHEREAS, Chapter 8 of R.A. 7942 further provides that industrial sand and gravel permit covering an area of more than five (5) hectares shall be issued by the Mines and Geoscienccs Bureau (MGB);
WHEREAS, it is necessary to protect and properly manage the utilization of the sand and gravel/lahar deposits of the provinces of Pampanga, Tarlac and Zambales to improve the water flows of its river systems, ensure the integrity of the various protective dikes and infrastructures, and thereby reduce risks to lives and properties;
WHEREAS, it is in the interest of the State that said sand and gravel/lahar deposits be properly utilized for the benefit of both local and the national governments and all concerned, with due regard to the environment.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO. President of the Republic of the Philippines, by virtue of the powers vested in me by law, do hereby order:
SECTION 1. Processing and Issuance of Mining Permits. — The issuance of permit to extract and dispose of industrial sand and gravel/lahar deposits by the MGB shall be governed by Chapter 8 of R.A. No. 7924.
The acceptance, processing and evaluation of applications for permits to extract industrial sand and gravel/lahar deposits in Pampanga, Tarlac and Zambales shall be undertaken through a Task Force composed of the MGB and the Provincial Governor.
SECTION 2. Creation of a Task Force. — To ensure compliance by all permit holders with the terms and conditions of their permits, properly monitor the volume of extracted materials, and collect the proper taxes and fees from sand and gravel/lahar operations, a Task Force is hereby created for the purpose to be composed of the following:
- The MGB Regional Director, by himself or through his duly authorized representative — Team Leader
- The Provincial Governor, by himself or his duly authorized representative — Deputy Team Leader
SECTION 3. Functions and Authorities of the Task Force. — The Task Force shall have the following functions:
- To accept, process and evaluate applications for permits to extract industrial sand and gravel/lahar deposits;
- To immediately monitor all reported illegal mining and quarrying operations and, for this purpose, set up as may be necessary checkpoints and other monitoring stations within the territorial jurisdiction of the province of Pampanga;
- To arrest mining/quarrying operators, and their agents and employees who willfully cooperate in the violation of provincial and national mining and environmental laws, and to confiscate and detain as evidence all instruments, objects and products of illegal mining/quarrying operations committed within the territorial jurisdiction of the Province;
- To immediately deliver confiscated and detained instruments, objects or products of illegal mining/quarrying operations to the nearest police station or area designated by the Task Force, which shall be properly receipted and shall not be released unless an instruction in writing to that effect is issued by the Office of the Governor; and
- Insofar as may be allowed by law, to assign and deputize a special contingent from the Philippine National Police specifically to assist the Task Force in the fulfillment of its functions.
SECTION 4. Collection of Taxes, Fees and Charges. — The Task Force shall be responsible for the collection of all applicable local taxes, fees and charges and shall, among others:
- Issue the required DR only to legitimate sand and gravel operators/permit holders and upon the issuance of Order of Payment by the PMRB;
- Ensure that the necessary taxes and fees due the local government are duly paid for prior to the issuance of any DRs;
- Assist in ensuring that the excise tax for mineral products is duly paid for prior to the issuance of such DRs; and
- Ensure that the appropriate share of the concerned Provinces, Municipalities and Barangays, as per Section 138 of the Local Government Code of 1991, are duly remitted fully and on time.
- Render an accounting to the Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources
Excise tax payments shall likewise be immediately remitted and shared in accordance with law.
SECTION 5. Supplemental Orders, Rules and Regulations. — The DENR, if deemed necessary, shall issue supplemental orders, rules and regulations to effectively implement this Order.
SECTION 6. Repealing Clause. — All orders, issuances, rules and regulations, or parts thereof which are inconsistent with this Executive Order are hereby repealed or modified accordingly.
SECTION 7. Effectivity. — This Executive Order shall take effect immediately.
DONE in the City of Manila, this 4th day of July, in the year of Our Lord, Two Thousand and Three.
One. The well-settled doctrine is that between two possible modes of construction, the one which would not be in conflict with what is ordained by the Constitution is to be preferred.1 Here, EO 224 can be read in such a way that it would be consistent with R.A. No. 7076, the People's Small-scale. Mining Act, and R.A. No. 7942, the Mining Act, and therefore not ultra vires.
We can read down EO 224 so as to refer only to quarry operations covering an area of more than five (5) hectares and a production rate of more than 50,000 tons annually and/or whose project cost is more than P10,000,000.00 so as to fall within the intendment of R.A. No. 7942 and its regulations.
We also can read down EO 224 to pertain only to small scale quarry operations that rely heavily on manual labor using simple implements and methods and do not use explosives or heavy mining equipment so as to fall under R.A. No. 7076.2
In this regard, quarry operations do not involve massive undertakings. Quarry operations may likewise be done utilizing small scale equipment and methods. Quarrying and small scale mining are not mutually exclusive terms. Small scale mining may include quarry operations, though quarry operations cannot extend to small scale mining.3 The description of quarrying as the extraction by light blasting and barring down with steel bars and crushing by manual labor and crushers is attuned with R.A. No. 7076's definition of small-scale mining, i.e., heavy reliance upon manual labor using simple implements and methods, without using explosives or heavy mining equipment.
Read in this non-exhaustive and not all-inclusive manner, the substance of EO 224 cannot be said to be ultra vires.
Two. EO 224 cannot be ultra vires because it tasked the Task Force to collect the quarry fees and taxes. Note that R.A. No. 7942 does not itself empower the city and municipal treasurers as the collecting agents of these fees, much less, the sole collecting agents for this purpose. It is only the Implementing Rules that does, and the assignment is not even exclusive. Though the latter has binding force, the validity of EO 224 is not measured by what is provided for in the implementing regulations but by what is set forth in the originating legislation.4
In truth, EO 224 can be seen as an amendment to the Implementing Rules of R.A. No. 7942 on the ground that the President has the power of executive control over the statutory delegate, the DENR, which issued the Implementing Rules designating the city and municipal treasurers as the collecting agents of the quarry fees and taxes. As the Court has held –
The powers of the Philippine President is not limited only to the specific powers enumerated in the Constitution, i.e., executive power is more than the sum of specific powers so enumerated. Thus, he or she should not be prevented from accomplishing his or her constitutionally and statutorily assigned functions and discretionary responsibilities in a broad variety of areas. Presidential prerogative ought not be lettered or embarrassed as the powers, express or implied, may be impermissibly undermined...."5
Three. I agree with my senior colleague, Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa, when he opined during the deliberations that Section 4 of EO 224 does nothing but oversee the proper collection of the quarry fees and that this section has nothing to do with, much less, impaired petitioner's fiscal autonomy. The latter's core is the ability to create one's own financial sources and allocate the proceeds according to its plans and programs. The description of the job assigned to the Task Force is merely to oversee the proper collection of the fees.
Notably, petitioner and respondents are all agencies of the Executive Branch. The key public service value is not checks and balances or separation of powers but coordination and faithful execution of the laws. So, unless this key public service value is compromised, we should be slow in condemning the acts of our co-equal branches and instead indulge in the validity of their official acts.
Part and parcel of this task of ensuring propriety in the collection is the issuance of the delivery receipts by the Task Force because. For as the Court may take judicial notice of the unstated legislative facts that probably went into the issuance of EO 224, of the corrupt schemes that beset quarrying in the past through the use of fake delivery receipts.6 Lahar and other quarry materials are so bountiful in Pampanga that their overabundance made them timid prey for transactional regulation at the local levels. No one really audited how much was taken out, since they are plentiful, and as a result, it was easy to let quarry trucks in and out according to the field regulators' discretion. Delivery receipts – fake and recycled – were central in the scheme to sidestep the process of quarry fee collection. Though untold, besides its express purposes, EO 224 was issued to open up what otherwise was a targeted opportunity for invisible rent-seeking.
Four. Petitioner is seeking a declaration of invalidity of Section 4, EO 224 on the basis of a facial challenge. This facial challenge is inappropriate. There is no actual case or controversy in the sense propounded by petitioner. It has not been deprived of the collections of quarry fees. Its power to allocate the collections has not been set aside or overruled. Petitioner's claim of subversion of its fiscal autonomy is speculative and therefore unproven.
Five. EO 224, inclusive of the assailed Section 4, was not an exercise by then President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo of a delegated power from Congress. The EO flowed from her inherent ordinance-making power that was part and parcel of her power of executive control. Hence, it cannot be said that the EO merely delegated again what had been delegated by Congress to the Executive Branch.
Under the Administrative Code of 1987, the President may enact on her own measured discretion the following ordinances:
CHAPTER 2
Ordinance Power
SECTION 2. Executive Orders. — Acts of the President providing for rules of a general or permanent character in implementation or execution of constitutional or statutory powers shall be promulgated in executive orders.
SECTION 3. Administrative Orders. — Acts of the President which relate to particular aspects of governmental operations in pursuance of his duties as administrative head shall be promulgated in administrative orders.
SECTION 4. Proclamations. — Acts of the President fixing a date or declaring a status or condition of public moment or interest, upon the existence of which the operation of a specific law or regulation is made to depend, shall be promulgated in proclamations which shall have the force of an executive order.
SECTION 5. Memorandum Orders. — Acts of the President on matters of administrative detail or of subordinate or temporary interest which only concern a particular officer or office of the Government shall be embodied in memorandum orders.
SECTION 6. Memorandum Circulars. — Acts of the President on matters relating to internal administration, which the President desires to bring to the attention of all or some of the departments, agencies, bureaus or offices of the Government, for information or compliance, shall be embodied in memorandum circulars.
SECTION 7. General or Special Orders. — Acts and commands of the President in his capacity as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the Philippines shall be issued as general or special orders.
The President issued EO 224 for the purpose of rationalizing the quarry industry in the most affected provinces by the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo. She made mention of RA 7076, RA 7942, and the Local Government Code not to provide the details for their implementation because obviously these statutes already have their respective implementing rules, but as an incident of her power of executive control to establish a structure of what she believed in good faith to be an efficient utilization of the resources impacted by these legislations.
In ABAKADA Guro Party List, et al. v. Cesar V. Purisima, et al., G.R. No. 166715, August 14, 2008, the Court confirmed the inherent character of this ordinance-making power of the President:
These provisions of the Revised Administrative Code do not grant, but, merely recognize the President's Ordinance Power and enjoin that such power shall be promulgated according to certain nomenclatures. The President's Ordinance Power is the Executive's rule-making authority in implementing or executing constitutional or statutory powers. Indisputably, there are constitutional powers vested in the Executive that are self-executory. The President may issue "rules of a general or permanent character in implementation or execution" of such self-executory constitutional powers. The power to issue such rules is inherent in Executive power. Otherwise, the President cannot execute self-executory constitutional provisions without a grant of delegated power from the Legislature, a legal and constitutional absurdity.
....
Apart from whatever rule-making power that Congress may delegate to the President, the latter has inherent ordinance powers covering the executive branch as part of the power of executive control ("The President shall have control of all the executive departments, bureaus and offices. . ." Section 17, Article VII, Constitution.). By its nature, this ordinance power does not require or entail delegation from Congress. Such faculty must be distinguished from the authority to issue implementing rules to legislation which does not inhere in the presidency but instead, as explained earlier, is delegated by Congress.
....
The prevalent practice in the Office of the President is to issue orders or instructions to officials of the executive branch regarding the enforcement or carrying out of the law. This practice is valid conformably with the President's power of executive control. The faculty to issue such orders or instructions is distinct from the power to promulgate implementing rules to legislation. The latter originates from a different legal foundation — the delegation of legislative power to the President.
Ocampo v. Enriquez, supra, reiterated this doctrine:
In the exercise of executive power, the President has inherent power to adopt rules and regulations — a power which is different from a delegated legislative power that can be exercised only within the prescribed standards set by law ....
Ocampo further confirmed the President's authority to delegate the enactment of subordinate rules supplementing, implementing, or interpreting the presidential ordinance:
In the exercise of executive power, the President has inherent power to adopt rules and regulations... and to delegate this power to subordinate executive officials. On July 12, 1957, then President Carlos P. Garcia, in the exercise of his powers of control and to reserve public land, issued Proclamation No. 423. Pursuant thereto, the AFP Chief of Staff issued AFP Regulations G 161-371 on February 2, 1960, which was eventually succeeded by AFP Regulations G 161-375. By granting the AFP Chief of Staff the power to administer a military reservation site then known as Fort Wm Mckinley (now Fort Andres Bonifacio), part of which is now the LNMB, former President Garcia and the presidents subsequent to him effectively delegated their rule-making power. As expressed in said regulations, they were issued "By Order of the Secretary of National Defense/Defense Minister," who, in turn, is under the Office of the President.
Another example of this valid delegation was mentioned in Saguisag v. Ochoa, G.R. No. 212426, January 12, 2016:
Section 9 of Executive Order No. 459, or the Guidelines in the Negotiation of International Agreements and its Ratification, thus, correctly reflected the inherent powers of the President when it stated that the DFA "shall determine whether an agreement is an executive agreement or a treaty."
Section 5 of EO 224 cannot therefore be faulted for delegating to the DENR the issuance of supplemental, implementing, or interpretative rules, if needed, to attain the objectives of EO 224.
Six. We have to be slow in nullifying Section 4 of EO 224 not only because of its presumptive validity but especially since administrative officials and even the Court have relied on it in the past as a source of power for government officials.7 Administrative officials in charge of implementing these statutes have contemporaneously interpreted the relevant provisions thereof, and that interpretation is now embodied in EO 224. Unlike these officials' interpretation of constitutional provisions, their understanding of the statutes they are duty-bound to enforce is entitled to great weight in the present proceeding. Thus:chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
The interpretation of an administrative government agency like the ERB, which is tasked to implement a statute, is accorded great respect and ordinarily controls the construction of the courts. A long line of cases establish the basic rule that the courts will not interfere in matters which are addressed to the sound discretion of government agencies entrusted with the regulation of activities coming under the special technical knowledge and training of such agencies. More explicitly —
Generally, the interpretation of an administrative government agency, which is tasked to implement a statute, is accorded great respect and ordinarily controls the construction of the courts. The reason behind this rule was explained in Nestle Philippines, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, in this wise:
"The rationale for this rule relates not only to the emergence of the multifarious needs of a modern or modernizing society and the establishment of diverse administrative agencies for addressing and satisfying those needs; it also relates to the accumulation of experience and growth of specialized capabilities by the administrative agency charged with implementing a particular statute. In Asturias Sugar Central, Inc. v. Commissioner of Customs, the Court stressed that executive officials are presumed to have familiarized themselves with all the considerations pertinent to the meaning and purpose of the law, and to have formed an independent, conscientious and competent expert opinion thereon. The courts give much weight to the government agency or officials charged with the implementation of the law, their competence, expertness, experience and informed judgment, and the fact that they frequently are drafters of the law they interpret."
As a general rule, contemporaneous construction is resorted to for certainty and predictability in the laws, especially those involving specific terms having technical meanings.8
ACCORDINGLY, I vote to dismiss the petition. I concur with the ponencia as it affirms the validity of EO 224.
Endnotes:
1San Miguel Corporation v. Avelino, 178 Phil. 47, 53 (1979).
2 AN ACT CREATING A PEOPLE'S SMALL-SCALE MINING PROGRAM AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
3League of Provinces of the Philippines v. Department of Environment and Natural Resources, 709 Phil. 189, 229-230 (2013): "The question in this case is whether or not the provincial governor had the power to issue the subject permits. The fact that the application for small-scale mining permit was initially filed as applications for quarry permits is not contested. Quarry permits, however, may only be issued "on privately-owned land and/or public lands for building and construction materials such as marble, basalt, andesite, conglomerate, tuff, adobe, granite, gabbro, serpentine, inset filling materials, clay for ceramic tiles and building bricks, pumice, perlite and other similar materials ..." It may not be issued on "... resources that contain metals or metallic constituents and/or other valuable materials in economic quantities." Not only do iron ores fall outside the classification of any of the enumerated materials in Section 43 of the Mining Act, but iron is also a metal. It may not be classified as a quarry resource, hence, the provincial governor had no authority to issue the quarry permits in the first place. Probably realizing this error, the applications for quarry permit were converted to applications for small-scale mining permit. Even so, the issuance of the small-scale mining permit was still beyond the authority of the provincial governor. Small-scale mining areas must first be declared and set aside as such before they can be made subject of small-scale mining rights. The applications for small-scale mining permit, in this case, involved covered areas, which were never declared as people's small-scale mining areas. This is enough reason to deny an application for small-scale mining permit. Permits issued in disregard of this fact are void for having been issued beyond the authority of the issuing officer."
4Genuino v. De Lima, 829 Phil. 691, 769 (2018): "Jurisprudence dictates that the validity of an administrative issuance is hinged on compliance with the following requirements: 1) its promulgation is authorized by the legislature; 2) it is promulgated in accordance with the prescribed procedure; 3) it is within the scope of the authority given by the legislature; and 4) it is reasonable."
5Ocampo v. Enriquez, 815 Phil. 1175, 1244-1245 (2017).
6 Manila Bulletin, "Go urges crackdown on unsanctioned quarrying," https://mb.com.ph/2020/12/12/go-urges-crackdown-on-unsanctioned-quarrying/; "After bringing tragedy, lahar makes money." at https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/610891/after-bringing-tragedy-lahar-makes-money; "Pampanga Governor Lito Lapid Suspended for Lahar Overprice," at http://www.newsflash.org/1999/01/ht/ht000651.htm; Lapid v. Court of Appeals, 390 Phil. 236 (2000).
7 See e.g. Batac v. Office of the Ombudsman, G.R. No. 216949, July 3, 2019: "Anchored solely on this provision, petitioner claims that the lahar deposits belonged to him, having naturally been attached to his land as a result of a volcano eruption. Public respondent, however, points out that natural resources are owned by the State.... Furthermore, Executive Order No. 224, series of 2003, entitled, 'Rationalizing the Extraction and Disposition of Sand and Gravel/Lahar Deposits in the Provinces of Pampanga, Tarlac and Zambales,' provides.... These provisions treat lahar deposits as minerals, which are owned by the State and are covered by various laws on mining. Thus, on this matter, public respondent ruled that there was no undue injury...."
8Energy Regulatory Board v. Court of Appeals, 409 Phil. 36, 46-48 (2001).
cralawredlibrary
