Republic vs. Rosemoor Mining and Development Corporation

A mining license that contravenes a mandatory provision of the law under which it is granted is void ab initio; being a mere privilege, it does not vest absolute rights and may be revoked by the State in the public interest without violating the due process and non-impairment clauses.

After discovering marble deposits in the Biak-na-Bato mountain range in Bulacan, respondents applied for and were granted Quarry License No. 33, covering 330.3062 hectares. Then DENR Minister Ernesto Maceda cancelled the license via a 1986 letter, citing its illegal issuance in violation of the 100-hectare limit under PD 463 and the absence of public interest in its continuation. President Corazon Aquino subsequently issued Proclamation No. 84, reverting the area to the Biak-na-Bato national park and declaring the license a patent nullity.

• Discovery and Issuance of License: Respondents discovered marble deposits of high quality and commercial quantity in Mount Mabio, part of the Biak-na-Bato mountain range in San Miguel, Bulacan. After complying with required conditions, the Bureau of Mines issued Quarry License No. 33 to Rosemoor Mining Development Corporation on August 3, 1982. The license allowed the extraction and disposal of marbleized limestone from a 330.3062-hectare area, subject to the terms of PD 463 and Proclamation No. 2204, which awarded the mineral rights subject to existing laws.
• Cancellation of License: Through a letter dated September 15, 1986, DENR Minister Ernesto Maceda informed Rosemoor that its license was cancelled. The cancellation was premised on the license having been illegally issued in violation of Section 69 of PD 463, which limits quarry licenses to 100 hectares per province, and on the lack of public interest served by the license's continued existence.
• Issuance of Proclamation No. 84: On March 9, 1987, President Corazon Aquino issued Proclamation No. 84, which reverted the land excluded by Proclamation No. 2204 back to the Biak-na-Bato national park. The proclamation declared the award to Rosemoor a patent violation of the 100-hectare limit under PD 463.
• Lower Court Findings: The RTC ruled that the privilege under the license had ripened into a property right protected by due process, and its cancellation without notice and hearing was invalid. It also held that Proclamation No. 84 was an ex post facto law. The CA affirmed, reasoning that the 330-hectare coverage was valid because it stemmed from four separate applications of 81 hectares each, and that RA 7942 had supplanted the area limitations of PD 463.

• Validity of License: Petitioners argued that QLP No. 33 blatantly contravened Section 69 of PD 463, which imposes a mandatory 100-hectare limit per province, rendering the license void ab initio.
• Validity of Proclamation No. 84: Petitioners maintained that the license was validly declared a nullity and withdrawn based on public interest, as confirmed by Proclamation No. 84. They contended that Section 74 of PD 463, which prescribes procedures for cancellation, did not apply because Minister Maceda's letter merely declared the license's nullity rather than cancelling or revoking a valid license. Furthermore, respondents had waived notice and hearing in their application.

• Mootness: Respondents argued that the petition had no legal basis and should be dismissed for mootness, claiming PD 463 had already been repealed by RA 7942.
• Validity of License: Respondents contended that the license was validly granted because the 330.3062 hectares were covered by four separate applications of 81 hectares each, and that RA 7942 increased the allowable mining areas.
• Due Process: Respondents asserted that their right to due process was violated when the license was cancelled without notice and hearing, as required by Section 74 of PD 463.
• Constitutionality of Proclamation No. 84: Respondents argued that Proclamation No. 84 violated the non-impairment clause, constituted an ex post facto law and/or a bill of attainder, and was invalidly issued by the President after the effectivity of the 1987 Constitution.

• Validity of License: Whether QLP No. 33 was issued in blatant contravention of Section 69 of PD 463, rendering it void ab initio.
• Validity of Proclamation No. 84: Whether Proclamation No. 84 is valid, and whether the constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws applies to it.

• Validity of License: QLP No. 33 is void for contravening the mandatory 100-hectare limit prescribed by Section 69 of PD 463. The language of the law is clear, categorical, and mandatory, providing no exception for the number of applications filed. The interpretation that multiple applications can circumvent the statutory limit would indirectly permit an act directly prohibited by law. Furthermore, the license was issued solely in the name of the corporation, which has a personality separate from its individual stockholders.
• Validity of Proclamation No. 84: Proclamation No. 84 is valid. A mining license is a mere privilege, not a contract or property right protected by the due process or non-impairment clauses. It may be revoked or rescinded by executive action when the national interest so requires, pursuant to the State's police power. The non-impairment clause must yield to the police power of the State in matters impressed with public welfare. Proclamation No. 84 is not a bill of attainder because the cancellation of a license is not a punishment or declaration of guilt. Neither is it an ex post facto law, as such laws are limited to matters criminal in nature, and the proclamation merely restored land to a national park. Finally, President Aquino validly exercised legislative power under the Provisional Constitution of 1986 when she issued the proclamation on March 9, 1987.

• Nature of Mining and Timber Licenses — Mining licenses, permits, and agreements are mere privileges granted by the State and do not vest permanent or irrevocable rights in the grantee. They are not contracts or property rights within the purview of the non-impairment and due process clauses. The State, under its police power, may alter, modify, amend, or rescind them when the national interest or public welfare so requires.
• Police Power vs. Non-Impairment Clause — The non-impairment clause must yield to the police power of the State. Provisions of existing laws and a reservation of police power are deemed read into licenses concerning subjects impressed with public welfare.
• Ex Post Facto Law — Limited in scope only to matters criminal in nature. A proclamation restoring land to a national park and cancelling a license is not penal in character and therefore cannot be stigmatized as an ex post facto law.
• Bill of Attainder — A legislative act that inflicts punishment without judicial trial. Declaring a license a patent nullity and cancelling it does not constitute a declaration of guilt or punishment.

• "A mining license that contravenes a mandatory provision of the law under which it is granted is void. Being a mere privilege, a license does not vest absolute rights in the holder. Thus, without offending the due process and the non-impairment clauses of the Constitution, it can be revoked by the State in the public interest."
• "Where the law is clear, plain, and free from ambiguity, it must be given its literal meaning and applied without attempted interpretation."
• "Clearly, the intent of the law would be brazenly circumvented by ruling that a license may cover an area exceeding the maximum by the mere expediency of filing several applications. Such ruling would indirectly permit an act that is directly prohibited by the law."

• Miners Association of the Philippines v. Factoran Jr., 240 SCRA 100 (1995) — Followed. Declared provisions of PD 463 dealing with leases, permits, and licenses contrary to the 1987 Constitution's mandate of full state control and supervision over natural resources. Noted that the 1987 Constitution applies prospectively and does not impair valid existing licenses.
• Southeast Mindanao Gold Mining Corporation v. Balite Portal Mining Cooperative, 380 SCRA 145 (2002) — Followed. Held that exploration permits are mere privileges that may be amended, modified, or rescinded when national interest requires, as they are impressed with great public interest.
• Tan v. Director of Forestry, 210 Phil. 244 (1983) — Followed. Ruled that timber licenses are privileges, not contracts, and can be validly amended or rescinded by the Chief Executive when national interests so require.
• Oposa v. Factoran Jr., 224 SCRA 792 (1993) — Followed. Affirmed that a timber license is not a contract protected by the non-impairment clause, as it merely evidences a privilege.

• Section 69, Presidential Decree No. 463 — Mandated that a quarry license shall cover an area of not more than 100 hectares in any one province and not more than 1,000 hectares in the entire Philippines. Applied to void QLP No. 33, which exceeded the 100-hectare provincial limit.
• Section 2, Article XII, 1987 Constitution — Provides that the exploration, development, and utilization of natural resources shall be under the full control and supervision of the State. Cited to emphasize the shift in constitutional policy supporting the State's authority to revoke licenses in the public interest.
• Sections 5, 7, 18, 19, 112, and 113, Republic Act No. 7942 — Provisions of the Philippine Mining Act of 1995 respecting valid and existing mining rights and applications. Applied to determine that the petition was not moot, as establishing the validity of respondents' license would affect their entitlement to rights and preferences under the new law.
• Proclamation No. 84 — Issued by President Corazon Aquino, reverting the subject land to the Biak-na-Bato national park and declaring QLP No. 33 a patent nullity. Upheld as a valid exercise of police power and legislative authority under the Provisional Constitution.

Davide, Jr., C.J. (Chairman), Ynares-Santiago, Carpio, and Azcuna, JJ.