Petitioners: La Bugal-B'Laan Tribal Association Inc, Rep. Chariman F'Long Miguel Lumayong Etc Respondent: Secretary Victor O. Ramos, DENR Etc

La Bugal-B’Laan Tribal Association Inc, vs Ramos
G.R. No. 127882

December 1, 2004
Petitioners: La Bugal-B’Laan Tribal Association Inc, rep. Chariman F’Long Miguel Lumayong etc
Respondent: Secretary Victor O. Ramos, DENR etc
FACTS
Petitioners prayed that RA 7942 aka The Philippine Mining Act, its implementing rules, and the Financial and Technical
Assistance Agreement (FTAA) between the government and Western Mining Corporation (Philippines) WMCP be
declared unconstitutional on ground that they allow fully foreign owned corporations like WMCP to exploit, explore and
develop Philippine mineral resources in contravention of Article 12 (XII) Section 2 paragraphs 2 and 4 of the Charter.
Granting the Petition and declaring the unconstitutionality of certain provisions of RA 7942, DAO 96-40, as well as of the
entire FTAA executed between the government and WMCP, mainly on the finding that FTAAs are service contracts
prohibited by the 1987 Constitution.
WMCP likewise contended that the annulment of the FTAA would violate a treaty between the Philippines and Australia
which provides for the protection of Australian investments.
WMC – a publicly listed Australian mining and exploration company – sold its whole stake in WMCP to Sagittarius Mines,
60% of which is owned by Filipinos while 40% of which is owned by Indophil Resources, an Australian company. DENR
approved the transfer and registration of the FTAA in Sagittarius‘ name.
ISSUE
WON R.A. No. 7942 is unconstitutional?
RULING
No, R.A. No. 7942 is not unconstitutional.
According to Article XII Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution ― that the exploration and development and utilization of
natural resources shall be under the full control and supervision of the State.
In this case, the nullity of the FTAA was obviously premised upon the contractor being a foreign corporation. Had the
FTAA been originally issued to a Filipino-owned corporation, there would have been no constitutionality issue to speak of.
Upon the other hand, the conveyance of the WMCP FTAA to a Filipino corporation can be likened to the sale of land to a
foreigner who subsequently acquires Filipino citizenship, or who later resells the same land to a Filipino citizen. The
conveyance would be validated, as the property in question would no longer be owned by a disqualified vendee.
And, inasmuch as the FTAA is to be implemented now by a Filipino corporation, it is no longer possible for the Court to
declare it unconstitutional. The case pending in the Court of Appeals is a dispute between two Filipino companies
(Sagittarius and Lepanto), both claiming the right to purchase the foreign shares in WMCP.
So, regardless of which side eventually wins, the FTAA would still be in the hands of a qualified Filipino company.
Considering that there is no longer any justiciable controversy, the plea to nullify the Mining Law has become a virtual
petition for declaratory relief, over which this Court has no original jurisdiction.
Pharmaceutical and Health Care Association of the Philippines v Duque III
G.R. No. 173034
October 9, 2007
FACTS
Milk Code was issued by President Cory Aquino under the Freedom Constitution on October 1986. One of the preambular
clauses of the Milk Code states that the law seeks to give effect to Art 11 of the Int’l Code of Marketing and Breastmilk
Substitutes(ICBMS), a code adopted by the World Health Assembly(WHA).
From 1982-2006, The WHA also adopted severe resolutions to the effect that breastfeeding should be supported, hence, it
should be ensured that nutrition and health claims are not permitted for breastmilk substitutes.
In 2006, the DOH issued the assailed RIRR.
Petition for certiorari seeking to nullify the Revised Implementing Rules and Regulations (RIRR) of E.O. 51 (Milk Code).
Petitioner claims that the RIRR is not valid as it contains provisions that are not constitutional and go beyond what it is
supposed to implement.
ISSUE
W/N the pertinent int’l agreements entered into by the Phil are part of the law of the land and may be implemented by
DOH through the RIR?
RULING
No, pertinent int’l agreements entered into by the Phil are not part of the law of the land and may be implemented by
DOH through the RIR.
“Generally accepted principles of international law” actually refers to norms of general customary international law which
are binding all states, like renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy. But “soft laws”, like ICMBS represents,
do not fall into any of the categories of international law. “Soft laws” are non-binding norms, principles and practices that
influence state behavior.
Consequently, it is the Milk Code that has the force and effect of law in this jurisdiction and not the ICMBS per
se. The Milk Code is almost a verbatim reproduction of the ICMBS, but the Court noted that the Milk Code
did not adopt the provision in the ICMBS absolutely prohibiting advertising or other forms of promotion
to the general public of products within the scope of the ICMBS. Instead, the Milk Code expressly provides that
advertising, promotion, or other marketing materials may be allowed if such materials are duly authorized and approved
by the Inter-Agency Committee (IAC).

Petitioners: La Bugal-B'Laan Tribal Association Inc, Rep. Chariman F'Long Miguel Lumayong Etc Respondent: Secretary Victor O. Ramos, DENR Etc

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Petitioners: La Bugal-B'Laan Tribal Association Inc, Rep. Chariman F'Long Miguel Lumayong Etc Respondent: Secretary Victor O. Ramos, DENR Etc

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Petitioners: La Bugal-B'Laan Tribal Association Inc, Rep. Chariman F'Long Miguel Lumayong Etc Respondent: Secretary Victor O. Ramos, DENR Etc

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

La Bugal-B’Laan Tribal Association Inc, vs Ramos

G.R. No. 127882

WON R.A. No. 7942 is unconstitutional?

No, R.A. No. 7942 is not unconstitutional.

In 2006, the DOH issued the assailed RIRR.

You might also like