Mining activities in Diwalwal Gold Rush Area are within the control of the Executive Department.

Thus reiterated the Supreme Court recently as it denied motions for reconsideration of its June 23, 2006 decision holding, among others, that it is within the prerogative of the Executive Department to undertake directly the mining operations in the disputed area or to award the operations to qualified private entities.
 
In a 46-page resolution penned by Justice Minita V. Chico-Nazario, the Court also clarified that the Mines and Geosciences Bureau (MGB) may process exploration permits,  taking into consideration the applicable laws, rules, and regulations relative thereto. It held that it cannot direct the MGB to accept applications for exploration permits since it is the Executive Department that has the sole prerogative to accept such applications.

The Court held that the issue as to the constitutionality of Proclamation No. 297, issued by President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo on November 25, 2002, declaring the Diwalwal Gold Rush Area as a mineral reservation and as an environmentally critical area, cannot be belatedly raised on motion for reconsideration. It ruled that in any case, Proclamation No. 297, issued pursuant to RA 7942, the Mining Act of 1995, is in harmony with Art. XIII, sec. 4 of the Constitution. It stressed that mineral reservations can exist within forest reserves because of the multiple land use policy in our laws.

The Court also ruled that its decision did not overturn the July 16, 1991 ruling in Apex Mining Co., Inc. v. Garcia that Marcopper Mining Corporation (MMC) was legally entitled to exploration rights in the disputed area since the said rights were extinguished by subsequent events such as the expiration of MMC’s Exploration Permit (EP) 133 by non-renewal on July 6, 1994 and its transfer/assignment to Southeast Mindanao Gold Mining Corporation (SEM)  in violation of the prohibition in the EP and of PD 463 requiring prior approval of the Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources. It said that it cannot pass upon the issue of MMC’s compliance with the mandatory exploration work program as this was not raised before the lower tribunals.

The Court noted that even assuming SEM, MMC’s transferee/assignee, has a valid exploration permit, such is a mere license that can be withdrawn by the State as it in fact did by the issuance of Proclamation No. 297.

The Court further held that it cannot pass upon the motions for reconsideration of Camilo Banad, et al. since they are not parties int the instant cases. GR Nos. 152613 & 152628, Apex Mining Co., Inc. v. Southeast Mindanao Gold Mining Corp.; GR Nos. 152619-20, Balite Communal Portal Mining Cooperative v. Southeast Mindanao Gold Mining Corp.; GR No. 152870-71, The Mines Adjudication Board v. Southeast Mindanao Gold Mining Corp., November 20, 2009)