regulations. Section 107. Compensation of the Surface Owner and Occupant- Any damagedone to the property of the surface owners, occupant, or concessionaire thereof as aconsequence of the mining operations or as a result of the construction or installation of theinfrastructure mentioned in 104 above shall be properly and justly compensated.Further, miningis a public policy and the government can invoke eminent domain to exercise entry, acquisitionand use of private lands.Republic vs RosemoorFacts:Petitioner Rosemoor Mining and Development Corporation after having been grantedpermission to prospect for marble deposits in the mountains of Biak-na-Bato, San Miguel,Bulacan, succeeded in discovering marble deposits of high quality and in commercial quantitiesin Mount Mabio which forms part of the Biak-na-Bato mountain range. The petitioner thenapplied with the Bureau of Mines, now Mines and Geosciences Bureau, for the issuance of thecorresponding license to exploit said marble deposits. License No. 33 was issued by the Bureauof Mines in favor of the herein petitioners. Shortly thereafter, Respondent Ernesto Macedacancelled the petitioner’s license stating that their license had illegally been issued, because itviolated Section 69 of PD 463; and that there was no more public interest served by thecontinued existence or renewal of the license. The latter reason was confirmed by the languageof Proclamation No. 84. According to this law, public interest would be served by reverting theparcel of land that was excluded by Proclamation No. 2204 to the former status of that land aspart of the Biak-na-Bato national park.Issue:Whether or not Presidential Proclamation No. 84 is valid.Ruling: Yes. We cannot sustain the argument that Proclamation No. 84 is a bill of attainder; thatis, a legislative act which inflicts punishment without judicial trial.” Its declaration that QLP No.33 is a patent nullity is certainly not a declaration of guilt. Neither is the cancellation of thelicense a punishment within the purview of the constitutional proscription against bills ofattainder.
Too, there is no merit in the argument that the proclamation is an ex post facto law. It issettled that an ex post facto law is limited in its scope only to matters criminal in nature.Proclamation 84, which merely restored the area excluded from the Biak-na-Bato national parkby canceling respondents’ license, is clearly not penal in character.Also at the time President Aquino issued Proclamation No. 84 on March 9, 1987, shewas still validly exercising legislative powers under the Provisional Constitution of 1986. Section1 of Article II of Proclamation No. 3, which promulgated the Provisional Constitution, granted herlegislative power until a legislature is elected and convened under a new Constitution. The grantof such power is also explicitly recognized and provided for in Section 6 of Article XVII of the1987 Constitution.
You've reached the end of your free preview.
Want to read all 60 pages?
Supreme Court of the United States, Trial court, DENR