political law reviewer batch7

♥POLITICAL LAW REVIEWER♥ iii. Promulgation of Rules and Regulations VDA. DE PINEDA vs. PEÑA (THE MINISTER OF NATURAL RESOURCES) The "Ped" mining claim was locate d by Pedro Sibayan in 1932 . After Sibay an's death, his heir s exec uted a Deed of Extra -Jud icial Settleme nt wherein they waived their rights and interest over the "Ped" claim, in favor of co-heir Feliza Sibayan. Feliza then transferred said claims to Sofia Reyes. The "Ullmann" mining claim was located by Elvira Carmelo in 1932, and was subsequently transferred to Joseph Palengaoan. In 1962, Reyes , Pal eng aoan and sever al oth ers formed the KM. 21 Explo ratio n Corp orati on, to whic h the memb ers conveyed their respective mining claims, including the "Ped" and "Ullmann" claims. During this time, an amended declaration of location for the "Ullmann" claim was registered. In 1972, petit ioner s instituted a Civil Case against Feliza Sibayan , Sofia Reyes, KM. 21 Mining Exploration Corporation, with the CFI, claiming that the Deed of Extra-Judicial Settlement from which priva te respo ndent s derived their ownership and possession over the "Ped" claim was maliciously falsified and prayed for annulment of all subsequent transfers involving the mining claims. In 1974, petitioners filed with the Bureau of Mines a letter-complaint against pri vat e respon den ts for all ege d ove rla ppi ng and encroa chment of the "Ullmann" claim over the "Ped" claim. In 1977, the Director of Mines rendered a dec isi on dec lar ing that the re was no con fli ct bet ween the "Ped" and "Ullmann" claims. Si nce the pr ot est ca se was fi led af ter PD 463 (Miner al Resources Development Decree of 1974) took effect in 1974, the provisions of the law were made appli cabl e to petit ioner s. PD 463 mand ates complia nce with certain requirements in order for subsisting mining claims, such as the "Ped" claim, to avail of the benefits granted under the Decree. Otherwise, mining rights to the claim will be lost. Findi ng that peti tione rs failed to comp ly with the provisi ons of PD 463, respondent director declared in his decision that petitioners abandoned and lost their rights over their mining claim. On appeal to the Minister of Natu ral Resource s, petitione rs argu ed that respondent Director was without jurisdiction in ruling that they have lost their rights over the "Ped" mining claim, since the case was only for overlapping or encroachment and the question of whether they complied with the provisions of PD 463 was never placed at issue in the pleadings. Minister of Natural Resources dismissed the appeal. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was likewise denied. Hence, this petition for certiorari and prohibition. WHETHER PUBLIC RESPONDENTS HAVE JURISDICTION TO PASS UPON THE VALIDITY OF THE "PED" CLAIM IN A PROTEST CASE OF OVERLAPPING OF MINING CLAIMS. Petitioners contend that public respondents may not validly and legally take cogni zance of an issue not raise d in the comp laint , i .e., the issue of the validity of the "Ped" mining claim. This assertion is mistaken. Petitioners had filed the protest case pursuant to PD 463 whic h vest s the Bureau of Mines with jurisdi ctio n over protest s involving mining claims. Sec tion 90 confers upo n the Sec ret ary of Natural Resources, upo n rec ommend ati on of the Dir ector of Mines, the aut hor ity to issue rules, regulations and orders necessary to carry out the provisions and purposes of the Decree. In accordance with the statutory grant of rule-making power, the Department Secretary on issued the Consolidated Mines Administrative Order Implementing PD 463. One such implementing rule is Section 128, which respondent Minister of Natural Resources relied upon in his decision to dispose of the jurisdictional issue raised by petitioners, which provides that The Director, or the Secretary, in case of appeals, may motu proprio look into the validity of mining claims, whether raised as an issue or not. It is established in jurisprudence that Congress may validly delegate to admini st rati ve agencies the author it y to pr omul ga te rules and regulations to implement a given legislation and effectuate its policies . In order to be valid, the administrative regulation must be germane to the objec ts and purpo ses of the law, conform to the standards that the law prescribes , and mus t rel ate sol ely to car ryi ng int o eff ect the gen era l provisions of the law. With these guidelines, Section 128 of the implementing rules invoked by public respondents as basis for their jurisdiction cannot be tainted with ♥ ALBANO ♥ APORTADERA ♥ BALDON ♥ DAVID ♥ LAGASCA ♥ MANGAHAS ♥ MARONILLA TWINS ♥ ORIGINAL ♥ ORILLAZA ♥ PEDRENA ♥ SANDOVAL ♥ SAWIT ♥ TRINIDAD ♥ ♥♥♥ WE ARE THE SHARE BEARS!!! ♥♥♥

Upload: jancelmido1

Post on 10-Apr-2018

233 views

Category:

Documents

0 download

Report

Download

Embed Size (px):

TRANSCRIPT