Moncayo Integrated Small-Scale Miners Association, Inc. vs. Southeast Mindanao Gold Mining Corp.

Supervening events that invalidate the legal bases of the challenged administrative actions render the case moot and academic, and the Court will not resolve the merits, including forum shopping and litis pendencia. The decision also recognized that under R.A. No. 7076 the DENR Secretary exercises control—not mere supervision—over the PMRB, including the power to affirm with modification its decision.

The Diwalwal Gold Rush Area in Mt. Diwata, Mindanao, has been the subject of controversies since the mid-1980s. It lies within the Agusan-Davao-Surigao Forest Reserve established by Proclamation No. 369 in 1931. Marcopper held prospecting and exploration permits over 4,941 hectares, later transferred to SMGMC, while small-scale miners asserted rights under DAO No. 66 and R.A. No. 7076, the People’s Small-Scale Mining Act of 1991. The DENR, through the PMRB and the Secretary, and the MAB under R.A. No. 7942, the Mining Act of 1995, are the administrative bodies whose overlapping authority frames the dispute.

The Diwalwal Gold Rush Area is located in Mt. Diwata, Monkayo, Compostela Valley, within the Agusan-Davao-Surigao Forest Reserve established by Proclamation No. 369 issued on February 27, 1931. On July 1, 1985, the Bureau of Forest Development issued Marcopper Mining Corporation a prospecting permit covering 4,941 hectares within the forest reserve. On March 10, 1986, the Bureau of Mines and Geo-Sciences issued Marcopper a permit to explore, EP 133, covering the same area. On February 16, 1994, Marcopper assigned EP 133 to Southeast Mindanao Gold Mining Corporation (SMGMC). On December 19, 1995, the Mines and Geo-Sciences Bureau director ordered publication of SMGMC’s application for Mineral Production Sharing Agreement, MPSA No. 128, over the 4,941 hectares covered by EP 133.

JB Management Mining Corporation, Davao United Miners Cooperative, Balite Integrated Small Scale Miners Cooperative, MISSMA, PICOP, Rosendo Villaflor, et al., Antonio G. Dacudao, Puting Bato Gold Miners Cooperative, and Romeo Altamera, et al. filed adverse claims against MPSA No. 128. These adverse claims were anchored on DENR Administrative Order No. 66 issued on December 27, 1991, which declared 729 hectares of the Agusan-Davao-Surigao Forest Reserve as forest land open for small-scale mining purposes, subject to existing and valid private rights. The DENR constituted a panel of arbitrators pursuant to Section 77 of the Philippine Mining Act of 1995 to resolve the adverse claims. In its decision dated June 13, 1997, the panel of arbitrators reiterated the validity of EP 133 and dismissed all adverse claims against MPSA No. 128. The adverse claimants appealed to the Mines Adjudication Board.

In its decision dated January 6, 1998, the Mines Adjudication Board vacated the panel of arbitrators’ decision. It gave due course to SMGMC’s MPSA application subject to full and strict compliance with the Mining Act and its implementing rules; excluded from SMGMC’s application the area covered by DAO No. 66 actually occupied and actively mined by small-scale miners on or before August 1, 1987 as determined by the Provincial Mining Regulatory Board; imposed a moratorium on all mining and mining-related activities; encouraged SMGMC and the small-scale miners to negotiate in good faith; and recognized the contract between JB and SEM.

Independent of the MAB decision and the appeals to the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court, the Provincial Mining Regulatory Board of Davao proposed to declare a People’s Small Scale Mining Area in accordance with the MAB decision. On February 24, 1992, the notice for the proposed declaration was approved and issued for publication to notify any and all oppositors or protestors. SMGMC, PICOP, Mt. Diwata-Upper Ulip Mandaya Tribal Council, and JB Management Mining Corporation filed oppositions. In its decision dated March 30, 1999, the Provincial Mining Regulatory Board dismissed the oppositions for lack of merit and segregated and declared the 729-hectare gold rush area in Mt. Diwalwal actually occupied and actively mined on or before August 1, 1987 as a People’s Small-Scale Mining Area.

DENR Secretary Antonio H. Cerilles, in his decision dated September 20, 1999, affirmed the Provincial Mining Regulatory Board decision with modifications. The modifications directed that the two main areas of operations of the 729 hectares be delineated and embodied in a Memorandum of Agreement among stakeholders; divided the area into Block I [BaleteNang Area], composed of Sub-Block A and Sub-Block B, intended for Blucor and Helica Group of Tunnels, representing MISSMA, and for various qualified small-scale miners actually occupying and actively mining the area, and Block II [Buenas-Tinago Area], intended for JB Management and other qualified small-scale miners actually occupying and actively mining the area; required qualified small-scale miners in each area, as may be determined by the PMRB, to apply for small-scale mining contracts with an option thereafter to apply for an MPSA; directed relocation of mineral processing plants to designated processing zones; and directed the Natural Resources Development Corporation to extend technical expertise and supervision over mining and milling operations, environmental clean-up and rehabilitation, and identification of alternative livelihood activities. The DENR Secretary denied reconsideration on February 2, 2000.

SMGMC filed a petition under Rule 43 before the Court of Appeals. In its decision dated July 31, 2000, the Court of Appeals denied the petition. It reasoned that, absent an injunction from the Supreme Court preventing enforcement of the MAB decision, the DENR Secretary acted with propriety in issuing the assailed decision affirming the PMRB’s declaration of a People’s Small Scale Mining Area. It also denied the petition based on litis pendencia, considering that the pending case before the Supreme Court assailing the MAB decision involved a prejudicial question. SMGMC and BISSMICO filed separate motions for reconsideration. In its amended decision dated August 27, 2001, the Court of Appeals granted the motions and set aside and annulled the DENR Secretary’s decision for having been issued with grave abuse of discretion in excess of his jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals cited a memorandum dated March 27, 1998 by then DENR Undersecretary Antonio La Viña to support its finding that SMGMC may apply and be entitled to a particular area within the 729 hectares subject to conditions, and found that the DENR Secretary’s outright delineation of the subject area in favor of certain entities contravened the MAB decision and the purpose of R.A. No. 7076 by disenfranchising SMGMC and other small-scale miners who may apply for and be awarded small-scale mining contracts by the local government units upon recommendation of the PMRB after fulfillment of necessary conditions.

Subsequent developments changed the legal landscape. On June 23, 2006, the Supreme Court in Apex Mining vs. SMGMC declared that EP 133 expired on July 7, 1994 and that its subsequent transfer to SMGMC on February 16, 1994 was void; it also affirmed the Court of Appeals’ declaration that DAO No. 66 was illegal for having been issued in excess of the DENR Secretary’s authority. On November 20, 2009, the Supreme Court En Banc denied reconsideration. Proclamation No. 297 dated November 25, 2002 excluded an area of 8,100 hectares in Moncayo, Compostela Valley from Proclamation No. 369 and declared it a mineral reservation and environmentally critical area. DAO No. 2002-18 declared an emergency situation on the Diwalwal gold rush area and ordered the stoppage of all mining operations. Executive Order No. 217 dated June 17, 2003 created the National Task Force Diwalwal.

• Forum Shopping and Litis Pendencia (MISSMA): MISSMA argued that the Court of Appeals should not have amended its decision because it had already found SMGMC guilty of forum shopping and litis pendencia; the petition docketed as G.R. No. 132475 involved the same issues, and SMGMC’s ultimate objective was to solely obtain all mining rights over the 729-hectare gold rush area to the exclusion of MISSMA and other claimants.
• Independent Authority of PMRB and DENR Secretary (MISSMA): MISSMA maintained that in declaring and segregating gold rush areas for small-scale mining under R.A. No. 7076, both the PMRB and, upon review, the DENR Secretary may act independently of the MAB, which is a quasi-judicial body tasked to settle mining conflicts, disputes, or claims.
• No Actual Awards (MISSMA): MISSMA argued that the DENR Secretary’s decision only delineated and identified areas available for small-scale mining contract applications and did not make actual awards.
• Forum Shopping and Litis Pendencia (DENR Secretary): The DENR Secretary similarly argued that the Court of Appeals should have maintained its earlier decision dismissing the case due to forum shopping and litis pendencia.
• Authority to Modify PMRB Decision (DENR Secretary): The DENR Secretary argued that he acted within authority in modifying the PMRB’s decision, citing Sections 24 and 26 of R.A. No. 7076 on the DENR Secretary’s power of direct supervision and control.
• No Contravention of MAB Decision (DENR Secretary): The DENR Secretary added that dividing the segregated 729-hectare small-scale mining area into two areas did not contravene the MAB decision or the purpose of R.A. No. 7076 because no license or permit had yet been awarded to any qualified small-scale miner.
• Mootness (DENR Secretary): The DENR Secretary contended that the petitions had been mooted by Proclamation No. 297 and by the Supreme Court’s June 23, 2006 decision in G.R. Nos. 152613, 152628, 152619-20, and 152870-71 declaring DAO No. 66 void, declaring EP 133 expired, and underscoring the Executive’s power of supervision and control over the exploration, development, and utilization of the country’s mineral resources.

• No Forum Shopping or Litis Pendencia (SMGMC): SMGMC countered that no forum shopping or litis pendencia existed because the present petitions emanated from the PMRB decision declaring the 729 hectares as a People’s Small-Scale Mining Area, while G.R. No. 132475 emanated from the MAB decision on SMGMC’s MPSA application; records also showed that G.R. No. 132475 was made known to the Supreme Court.
• Scope of MAB Decision (SMGMC): SMGMC quoted at length DENR Undersecretary La Viña’s memorandum on the scope of the MAB decision.
• DENR Secretary Abandoned MAB Decision (SMGMC): SMGMC submitted that the DENR Secretary’s decision “practically abandoned the MAB decision and fashioned his own formula for disaster,” such as mentioning the Blucor and Helica groups, which were never parties before the PMRB.
• Adoption of SMGMC’s Memorandum (BISSMICO): BISSMICO admitted and adopted SMGMC’s memorandum.
• Forest Reserve Reclassification (PICOP): PICOP discussed the difference between “forest reserves” and “forest reservations” under Presidential Decree No. 705 and argued that under Republic Act No. 3092, a law must be passed by Congress to reclassify areas in a forest reserve to another use; Executive Order No. 318 likewise provides that conversions of forest lands into non-forestry uses shall be allowed only through an act of Congress and upon recommendation of concerned government agencies. Consequently, the PMRB had no authority to declare the 729 hectares within the forest reserve as a People’s Small-Scale Mining Area.
• Validity of Proclamation No. 297 (PICOP): PICOP argued that Proclamation No. 297 was issued without congressional concurrence as required by Republic Act No. 3092 and was thus revocable; its memorandum also included arguments that Proclamation No. 297 was the first step in a series of constitutional violations, such as an agreement with ZTE-NBN involving the gold rush area.
• Mootness (SMGMC): SMGMC later conceded in its explanation, manifestation, and compliance dated September 1, 2014 that supervening developments, such as the 2006 decision and 2009 resolution in Apex Mining vs. SMGMC, mooted the cases.

• Forum Shopping and Litis Pendencia: Whether the Court of Appeals can set aside the issue of forum shopping and litis pendencia and dwell on the merits.
• DENR Secretary’s Authority to Modify PMRB Decision: Whether the DENR Secretary’s decision went beyond the PMRB’s decision, or whether the DENR Secretary can modify the PMRB’s decision.
• Conformity with MAB Decision and R.A. No. 7076: Whether the DENR Secretary’s modification dividing the 729 hectares into two areas contravened the mandate of the MAB decision and the purpose of Republic Act No. 7076.
• Mootness: Whether supervening events rendered the consolidated petitions moot and academic.

• Forum Shopping and Litis Pendencia: Not resolved. The Court declined to decide whether there was forum shopping or litis pendencia because Apex Mining vs. SMGMC mooted the petitions.
• DENR Secretary’s Authority to Modify PMRB Decision: Yes, in the abstract. Under R.A. No. 7076, the DENR Secretary exercises control over the PMRB and may affirm with modification its decision; the merits, however, were not resolved because the petitions were moot.
• Conformity with MAB Decision and R.A. No. 7076: Not resolved on the merits. The supervening Apex Mining vs. SMGMC rulings invalidated DAO No. 66 and EP 133, removing the legal bases of the PMRB and DENR Secretary actions.
• Mootness: Yes. The petitions were denied for being moot and academic due to supervening events.

• Forum Shopping and Litis Pendencia: The Court set out the elements of litis pendencia: (a) identity of parties, or at least such as representing the same interests in both actions; (b) identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being founded on the same facts; and (c) identity of the two cases such that judgment in one, regardless of which party is successful, would amount to res judicata in the other. The existence of litis pendencia also means that the rule against forum shopping was violated. The Court of Appeals initially denied SMGMC’s petition on the ground of litis pendencia and forum shopping due to the then pending G.R. No. 132475, but its amended decision annulled the DENR Secretary’s decision for grave abuse of discretion. SMGMC argued that no forum shopping or litis pendencia existed, but later conceded that supervening developments mooted the cases. The Court held that it did not need to decide whether there was forum shopping or litis pendencia because Apex Mining vs. SMGMC mooted the petitions.
• DENR Secretary’s Authority to Modify PMRB Decision: The Court discussed the powers of the MAB, the PMRB, and the DENR Secretary. Under R.A. No. 7942, the panel of arbitrators has exclusive and original jurisdiction over disputes involving rights to mining areas, mineral agreements or permits, surface owners, occupants and claimholders or concessionaires, and disputes pending before the Bureau and the Department at the time of the law’s effectivity; the MAB has appellate jurisdiction over the panel and powers including conducting hearings on all matters within its jurisdiction. Under R.A. No. 7076, the PMRB is the implementing agency of the Department under the direct supervision and control of the Secretary, with powers including declaring and segregating existing gold-rich areas for small-scale mining, reserving future gold and other mining areas, awarding contracts to small-scale miners, formulating and implementing rules, settling disputes within a people’s small-scale mining area, and performing other necessary functions, subject to review by the Secretary. Section 26 of R.A. No. 7076 and DAO No. 34-92 Sections 21.1 and 22 reiterate the Secretary’s direct supervision and control over the small-scale mining program. The Court distinguished control from supervision: supervision is overseeing or the power or authority of an officer to see that subordinate officers perform their duties; control is the power of an officer to alter, modify, nullify, or set aside what a subordinate officer has done in the performance of his duties and to substitute the judgment of the former for that of the latter. Because the DENR Secretary has control, he had the power to affirm with modification the PMRB’s decision. League of Provinces vs. DENR likewise held that the Local Government Code did not fully devolve enforcement of the small-scale mining law to the provincial government, as its enforcement is subject to the supervision, control, and review of the DENR. The ultimate petitions, however, were denied as moot.
• Conformity with MAB Decision and R.A. No. 7076: The Court of Appeals found that the DENR Secretary’s outright delineation of the subject area in favor of certain entities contravened the mandate of the MAB decision and the purpose of R.A. No. 7076 because it disenfranchised SMGMC and other small-scale miners who may apply for and be awarded small-scale mining contracts by the local government units upon recommendation of the PMRB after fulfillment of necessary conditions. The Supreme Court did not resolve this issue on the merits because supervening events mooted the petitions. It noted that Apex Mining vs. SMGMC declared EP 133 expired and its transfer to SMGMC void, and DAO No. 66 illegal for having been issued in excess of the DENR Secretary’s authority. Consequently, both the PMRB decision and the DENR Secretary’s decision affirming it with modification were overturned for lack of basis in delineating the 729 hectares from the MPSA. The 2009 resolution in Apex Mining vs. SMGMC stated that the State, through the Executive Department, may now award mining operations in the disputed area to any qualified entity it may determine, and the Mines and Geosciences Bureau may process exploration permits pending before it under applicable mining laws, rules, and regulations. Proclamation No. 297 later excluded an area in Moncayo, Compostela Valley and declared it a mineral reservation and environmentally critical area; DAO No. 2002-18 declared an emergency and ordered stoppage of all mining operations; and Executive Order No. 217 created the National Task Force Diwalwal. The Court also discussed the Executive Department’s constitutional and statutory authority over mineral resources: Article XII, Section 2 of the Constitution; R.A. No. 7942 Sections 4 and 5; Apex Mining vs. SMGMC on Section 5 as a special provision granting the President the power to proclaim a mineral land as a mineral reservation regardless of whether it is also an existing forest reservation; and Southeast Mindanao Gold Mining Corporation vs. Balite Portal Mining Cooperative on the State’s possible direct takeover of the mines. PICOP’s challenge to the validity of Proclamation No. 297 was not an issue in these cases; it was not litigated, and this was not the proper case to assail its validity.
• Mootness: Supervening events after the petitions were filed mooted the case. The parties recognized these developments in their recent submissions. The DENR Secretary raised that the petitions were mooted by Proclamation No. 297 and by the Supreme Court’s June 23, 2006 decision in G.R. Nos. 152613, 152628, 152619-20, and 152870-71 declaring DAO No. 66 void, declaring EP 133 expired, and underscoring the Executive’s power of supervision and control over mineral resources. SMGMC similarly manifested that Proclamation No. 297 dated November 25, 2002 and the 2006 decision and 2009 resolution mooted the present cases. Since the Supreme Court declared that EP 133 expired and its transfer to SMGMC was void, SMGMC had no more basis to claim any right over the disputed 729 hectares in the Diwalwal gold rush area excluded from its MPSA. Since the Supreme Court declared that the DENR Secretary had no authority to issue DAO No. 66, both the PMRB decision and the DENR Secretary’s decision affirming it with modification were overturned for lack of basis in delineating the 729 hectares from the MPSA. Proclamation No. 297, DAO No. 2002-18, and Executive Order No. 217 further changed the legal landscape. Thus, no live controversy remained, and the petitions were denied for being moot and academic.

• Moot and Academic Principle — A case is moot and academic when a supervening event removes the legal basis of the controversy or renders it no longer capable of judicial resolution. In this case, the final Apex Mining vs. SMGMC rulings invalidated EP 133, its transfer to SMGMC, and DAO No. 66, while Proclamation No. 297 and related issuances changed the status of the area; the Court thus denied the petitions as moot and academic.
• Power of Control vs. Power of Supervision — Supervision is the power or authority of an officer to oversee that subordinate officers perform their duties; control is the power to alter, modify, nullify, or set aside what a subordinate has done and to substitute the former’s judgment for the latter’s. The Court applied this distinction to hold that the DENR Secretary, who has control over the PMRB under R.A. No. 7076, may affirm with modification the PMRB’s decision.
• Litis Pendencia and Forum Shopping — Litis pendencia exists when there is (a) identity of parties, or at least such as representing the same interests in both actions; (b) identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being founded on the same facts; and (c) identity of the two cases such that judgment in one, regardless of which party is successful, would amount to res judicata in the other. Its existence also means the rule against forum shopping was violated. The Court did not decide the issue because the case was moot.
• State Ownership and Control of Mineral Resources — Under Article XII, Section 2 of the Constitution and R.A. No. 7942, mineral resources are owned by the State, and their exploration, development, utilization, and processing are under its full control and supervision. The State may directly undertake such activities or enter into mineral agreements; the President may establish mineral reservations under R.A. No. 7942, Section 5. The Court cited these principles in discussing the Executive Department’s authority and the supervening Proclamation No. 297.
• Jurisdiction and Functions in Mining Regulation — The MAB, under R.A. No. 7942, exercises quasi-judicial authority over mining disputes, including appellate jurisdiction over the panel of arbitrators. The PMRB, under R.A. No. 7076, exercises executive functions such as declaring and segregating gold-rich areas for small-scale mining, subject to review by the DENR Secretary. The Court distinguished these functions in discussing the DENR Secretary’s power to modify the PMRB’s decision.

• "Due to supervening events, we declare the petitions moot and academic." — This states the Court’s core disposition and the controlling reason for denying the consolidated petitions without reaching the merits.
• "Since this court declared that EP 133 expired and its transfer to SMGMC is void, respondent SMGMC has no more basis to claim any right over the disputed 729 hectares in the Diwalwal gold rush area excluded from its MPSA." — This explains why the prior Apex Mining vs. SMGMC ruling removed SMGMC’s legal interest and contributed to mootness.
• "Control, on the other hand, means the power of an officer to alter or modify or nullify or set aside what a subordinate officer ha[s] done in the performance of his duties and to substitute the judgment of the former for that of the latter." — This is the Court’s canonical formulation of the power of control, used to uphold the DENR Secretary’s authority to affirm with modification the PMRB’s decision.
• "WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the petitions are DENIED for being moot and academic." — This is the dispositive portion of the decision.

• Apex Mining Co., Inc. vs. Southeast Mindanao Gold Mining Corp., 525 Phil. 436 (2006) and 620 Phil. 100 (2009) — Controlling supervening decision. The 2006 decision declared EP 133 expired on July 7, 1994 and its transfer to SMGMC void, and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ declaration that DAO No. 66 was illegal for having been issued in excess of the DENR Secretary’s authority; the 2009 En Banc resolution denied reconsideration and made the ruling final. This removed the legal bases of the challenged PMRB and DENR Secretary actions and mooted the petitions.
• Apex Mining Co., Inc. vs. Garcia, 276 Phil. 301 (1991) — Distinguished and clarified. It involved conflicting mining claims between Apex and Marcopper over the 4,941-hectare disputed area and ruled that areas within a forest reserve are not open to mining location; the 2006 Apex Mining vs. SMGMC decision did not overturn it because the later case involved facts and issues not attendant in the 1991 case, such as the expiration of EP 133 and the invalid assignment.
• Southeast Mindanao Gold Mining Corporation vs. Balite Portal Mining Cooperative, 429 Phil. 668 (2002) — Cited in discussing the State’s power over the Diwalwal gold rush area; the Court stated that the State may not be precluded from considering a direct takeover of the mines if it is the only plausible remedy in sight to the complexities generated by the gold rush.
• League of Provinces vs. Department of Environment and Natural Resources, G.R. No. 175368, April 11, 2013, 696 SCRA 190 — Followed in discussing DENR authority; held that the Local Government Code did not fully devolve enforcement of the small-scale mining law to the provincial government, as enforcement is subject to the supervision, control, and review of the DENR.
• Pimentel vs. Aguirre, 391 Phil. 84 (2000) — Cited for the distinction between power of control and power of supervision; the Court used the distinction to conclude that the DENR Secretary had power to affirm with modification the PMRB’s decision.
• Yap vs. Chua, G.R. No. 186730, June 13, 2012, 672 SCRA 419 — Cited for the elements of litis pendencia and the rule that its existence also means the rule against forum shopping was violated; the Court did not decide the issue because the case was moot.
• Villarica Pawnshop, Inc. vs. Gernale, 601 Phil. 66 — Cited in Yap vs. Chua for the elements of litis pendencia.
• Mondano vs. Silvosa, 97 Phil. 143 (1955) — Cited in Pimentel vs. Aguirre for the definition of control and supervision.
• The National Liga Ng Mga Barangay vs. Paredes, 482 Phil. 331 (2004) — Cited in League of Provinces vs. DENR in the discussion of control and supervision.

• 1987 Constitution, Article XII, Section 2 — Provides that the State may directly undertake exploration, development, and utilization of natural resources or enter into co-production, joint venture, or production-sharing agreements with Filipino citizens or corporations at least sixty per centum of whose capital is owned by such citizens; the President may enter into agreements with foreign-owned corporations for large-scale exploration, development, and utilization of minerals, petroleum, and other mineral oils under general terms and conditions provided by law. Cited in discussing the Executive Department’s authority over mineral resources.
• R.A. No. 7076, Section 24 — Creates the Provincial/City Mining Regulatory Board under the direct supervision and control of the Secretary; enumerates powers including declaring and segregating existing gold-rich areas for small-scale mining, reserving future areas, awarding contracts, formulating rules, settling disputes within a people’s small-scale mining area, and performing other necessary functions, subject to review by the Secretary. Applied to the PMRB’s authority and the Secretary’s review power.
• R.A. No. 7076, Section 26 — Provides that the Secretary, through his representative, shall exercise direct supervision and control over the program and activities of small-scale miners within the people’s small-scale mining area. Applied to hold that the DENR Secretary had control over the PMRB and could affirm with modification its decision.
• R.A. No. 7942, Sections 77, 78, and 79 — Section 77 grants the panel of arbitrators exclusive and original jurisdiction over disputes involving rights to mining areas, mineral agreements or permits, surface owners, occupants and claimholders or concessionaires, and disputes pending before the Bureau and the Department; Section 78 provides the MAB’s appellate jurisdiction over the panel; Section 79 enumerates the MAB’s powers and functions, including conducting hearings. Applied to distinguish the MAB’s quasi-judicial role from the PMRB’s executive functions.
• R.A. No. 7942, Section 4 — Declares that mineral resources are owned by the State and their exploration, development, utilization, and processing are under its full control and supervision; the State may directly undertake such activities or enter into mineral agreements with contractors. Cited in discussing State ownership and control.
• R.A. No. 7942, Section 5 — Provides that when national interest requires, the President may establish mineral reservations upon recommendation of the Director through the Secretary; mining operations in existing and future mineral reservations shall be undertaken by the Department or through a contractor. Cited in relation to Proclamation No. 297 and Apex Mining vs. SMGMC’s discussion that Section 5 is a special provision allowing the President to proclaim mineral reservations regardless of existing forest reservation.
• DAO No. 34-92, Sections 6, 21.1, and 22 — Implementing rules of R.A. No. 7076; Section 22 states the PMRB’s powers and functions are subject to review by the Secretary; Section 6 states the Board may declare and set aside People’s Small-Scale Mining Areas subject to review by the DENR Secretary through the Director; Section 21.1 states the Secretary has direct supervision and control over the small-scale mining program. Applied to the Secretary’s authority.
• P.D. No. 705 — Revised Forestry Code of the Philippines; cited by PICOP in discussing the difference between forest reserves and forest reservations.
• R.A. No. 3092 — Cited by PICOP for the argument that reclassification of forest reserve areas requires an act of Congress; also cited in challenging Proclamation No. 297’s lack of congressional concurrence.
• P.D. No. 463, Section 97 — Cited in Apex Mining vs. SMGMC as violated by Marcopper’s assignment of EP 133 to SMGMC; the assignment was effected without approval of the Secretary of DENR.
• Proclamation No. 369 (1931) — Established the Agusan-Davao-Surigao Forest Reserve; the Diwalwal area is within it.
• Proclamation No. 297 (2002) — Excluded an 8,100-hectare area in Moncayo, Compostela Valley from Proclamation No. 369 and declared it a mineral reservation and environmentally critical area; cited as a supervening event.
• DAO No. 2002-18 — Declared an emergency situation in the Diwalwal gold rush area and ordered stoppage of all mining operations; cited as a supervening event.
• E.O. No. 217 (2003) — Created the National Task Force Diwalwal; cited as a supervening event.
• E.O. No. 318 (2004) — Cited by PICOP on guiding principles for sustainable forest management, providing that conversions of forest lands into non-forestry uses shall be allowed only through an act of Congress and upon recommendation of concerned government agencies.
• Rule 43, Rules of Court — SMGMC filed a petition under Rule 43 before the Court of Appeals from the DENR Secretary’s decision.
• Rule 45, Rules of Court — The petitions for review in G.R. Nos. 149638 and 149916 were filed pursuant to Rule 45.

Antonio T. Carpio (Chairperson), Mariano C. Del Castillo, Martin S. Villarama, Jr., and Jose Catral Mendoza.