By: Jord Jharoah B. Valenton

(a) Introduction

The poverty incidence of the Philippines, or the proportion of Filipinos below the poverty line to the total population, is estimated to be as high as 26.6%.[1] The subsistence incidence, on the other hand, or the proportion of Filipinos in extreme poverty, is estimated at 10.8%.[2]

The other side of the coin, however, is that the Philippines is ranked 5th in the list of mineral-rich countries in the world.[3] Within the territory are 14.5 billion metric tons of metallic ore deposits and 67.66 billion metric tons of non-metallic ore deposits.[4] Such deposits are worth more or less US$1 trillion[5].

In other words, poverty remains a gargantuan problem, and mining poses a solution, a source of economic boost.

But the country has never realized its full potential as a mining capital.[6] Tall hurdles have continued to hound the mining industry discouraging investors and depriving the country of much needed resources. It then is not much of a surprise why the country is at the bottom nine (9) of the list of countries conducive to mining investments.[7]

One of those perceived to be a hurdle is Executive Order 79[8] as it imposed a moratorium on the grant of mineral concessions[9], expanded the areas closed to mining[10], and asserted the plan to increase taxes on mining activities.[11]

The moratorium has been lifted as regards financial and technical assistance agreements. It, however, was not of much help as further hurdles surfaced: the increase in capitalization requirements[12], the increase of fees in mining applications[13], the enactment of local ordinances banning mining, and the impending increase in taxes.

All these hurdles have been set principally in the name of environmental protection.

(ii) Ecological Footprint

However, the clamor for environmental protection is not baseless.

The world has already been suffering from the ill effects of climate change, ozone depletion, species extinction, loss of biodiversity, and food scarcity.

The Philippine Climate Change Commission released a report entitled, “A Measure for Resilience, 2012 Report on the Ecological Footprint of the Philippines”. It maintained that the ideal is that development occurs within ecological budgets or bio-capacity. A country, however, can maintain an ecological deficit firstly by overharvesting domestic resources. The Philippines, according to the report, has long been in ecological deficit, as shown by deforestation and the 90% drop in the quantity of marine organisms.

Another manifestation of ecological deficit is reliance on imports. It bears mentioning that the country is one of the world’s largest rice producer[14] and the world’s largest rice importer at the same time.

The Supreme Court accordingly took judicial notice of the sorry state of the environment in Ysmael, Jr. & Co. Inc. v.  Deputy Executive Secretary.[15]

(iii) Mining and the Environment

Mining activities even further threaten the environment. There are serious environmental impacts at all stages of mining. These involve deforestation, removal of the topsoil, soil erosion, slope destabilization, and alteration, if not total destruction, of the natural landscape of the mine site.[16] But the greatest environmental problems have been caused in the Philippines by the disposal and management of tailings suspended in water carrying heavy pollutants.

These are the adverse effects, while taking into account merely the normal course of mining. The environmental scourge brought about by unforeseen causes has not yet been factored in. Environmental catastrophes have occurred, and the public has not been too forgiving about the same. [17]

(iv) Right to Healthful Ecology

(a) Global Initiatives

The first significant political response to increasing environmental awareness in the United States was the enactment of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, requiring project proponents to submit environmental impact assessment statements, or a study about the ecological impact of their proposed projects and how such impacts could be prevented or mitigated. [18]

Upon recommendation of the United Nations, the General Assembly adopted in 1968 a resolution convening a Conference on the Human Environment, which later established the United Nations Environment Programme.

To likewise address ecological issues, there subsequently were the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer, the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, Rio Declaration on Environmental and Development, and the Kyoto Protocol.

In 1987, the World Commission on Environment and Development submitted the so-called “Brundtland Report” that introduced the conceptof sustainable development, as to be discussed hereunder.

(c) Financial Institutions’ Initiatives

It was not just states though which exerted environmental protection initiatives. The World Bank and the International Finance Corporation (IFC) set environmental standards in assessing projects in which they respectively have financial stakes. The World Bank developed the Operational Directive 4.01 and produced an Environmental Assessment Sourcebook.[19] The IFC released its own Environmental Safeguard Policies. [20]

ABN Amro, Barclays, Citigroup, and West LB subsequently drafted guidelines to ensure environmentally and socially responsible project financing, called the Equator Principles. The Equator Principles have become the accepted standard for environmental assessment. More than sixty financial institutions, accounting for 80% of private project funding all over the world, have adopted the Equator Principles.[21]

d. Constitutional, statutory,and Jurisprudential Bases

The right to healthful ecology was first recognized in the Philippines in Presidential Decree 1151 of 1979.[22] It took another eight (8) years before such right found itself in the hallowed pages of the Constitution. Section 16, Article II of the 1987 Constitution provides that, “The State shall protect and advance the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature.”

The fact that it gained constitutional recognition only in 1987 and was even placed only under the Declaration of Principles, and not the Bill of Rights, does not undermine its importance. The Supreme Court explained in the landmark case of Oposa vs. Factoran[23] that the right to healthful ecology predates all constitutions and need not even be expressly recognized. If it ever is now enshrined in the Constitution, it is not to belatedly give birth to a right, but only to highlight the correlative duty on the part of the government to preserve the ecology and to advance health.

Judicial activism in environmental protection was further shown in C & M Timber Corporation and Alcala[24], and most especially in MMDA, et al vs. Concerned Residents Of Manila Bay,[25] where the Supreme Court even required a positive act from government agencies[26] i.e. the clean-up of Manila Bay.

Judicial activism, however, has not only been exhibited in the exercise of the Supreme Court’s judicial power, but also that of its rule-making power. The Supreme Court promulgated on 13 April 2010 Administrative Matter No. 09-6-8-SC, or the Rules Of Procedure For Environmental Cases, for the purpose of providing simplified, speedy, and inexpensive procedure for the implementation of environmental laws.[27]

The Philippine Legislature, on the other hand, has enacted environmental protection legislations, including theClean Air Act[28], Clean Water Act[29], Solid Waste Act[30], and the National Integrated Protected Areas System Act[31]. On said environmental laws, the Supreme Court asserted in Province Of Rizal, et al. vs. Executive Secretarythat, “they were not drafted in a vacuum. Congress passed these laws fully aware of the perilous state of both our economic and natural wealth. They should thus not be so lightly cast aside in the face of what is easy and expedient”.[32]

The Executive Department has, moreover, stepped- up by, among others, creating the Philippine Council for Sustainable Development and establishing the Philippine Climate Change Commission.

Local government units have been granted local autonomy under the Constitution[33] and vested with police power under the Local Government Code[34]. Pursuant thereto, local government units have enacted ordinances to protect the environment within their territorial jurisdiction. In Tano, et al, vs. Socrates, et al.[35], the Supreme Court affirmed the power of the local government units to exercise police power in the protection of the environment and exhorted all local government units to exercise the “requisite political will to enact urgently needed legislation to protect and enhance the marine environment, thereby sharing in the herculean task of arresting the tide of ecological destruction”.

(v) Benefits of Mining

In his speech during the World Economic Forum held on 25 January 2013 at Davos Switzerland, President Benigno Aquino solicited investments in three (3) sectors he found to be the key drivers of Philippine economy under his administration. He mentioned them in the order of priority- tourism, agriculture, and infrastructure.

The order of priority, however, appears to be incorrect for infrastructure should first be prioritized, as tourism and agriculture will not develop without infrastructure.[36] Agriculture will not develop without proper irrigation[37], arterial streets, farm to market roads, warehouses, post-harvest technologies and mechanization. Tourists will not come in without adequate and reliable ports, airports, public transport, and hotels.[38]

Yet, something is left out of the equation. There will be no infrastructure without mining. Sand, gravel, and quarry resources are all products of mining. Limestone is crushed and used as construction materials.[39] Energy is still very much dependent on coal; copper is used for electrical wires; there has been demand for copper-substitutes, such as aluminum[40]. All these are products of mining. Mining has been an essential component of social development.[41]

One does not, however, have to deal with the complex systems of development in order to highlight the importance of mining. Without mining, there would be no civilization, as everybody knows it. There would be no houses, watches, chairs, spoons and cellphones.

Mining further could be an economic driver for this mineral rich country. The country’s mineral deposits are spread across nine million hectares of mineralized land, which presents a huge potential mineral wealth worth US$1 Trillion.

v. Balancing

While environmental protection is a must, so are poverty-alleviation and hunger-eradication.

In fact, economic development is it itself an act of environmental governance since poverty is the greatest polluter. Informal settlers at riverbanks, with inadequate waste management facilities or none at all, have turned rivers into their huge comfort rooms. Most subsistence farmers or fisherfolks, in their desperate move to survive, have engaged in dynamite and cyanide fishing, slash and burn agriculture, risky small-scale mining, or farming in environmentally critical areas.

Article XII of the Constitution accordingly asserts economic upliftment as a public policy itself. Further, Republic Act No. 7942, or the Mining Act, affirms that it is the responsibility of the State to promote mining activities.[42] Still further, the Supreme Court recognized the pivotal role of the mining industry in the economic development of the country and affirmed it as a vital tool in the government’s thrust of accelerated recovery in the Didipio Earth-Savers’ Multi-Purpose Association, Incorporated, et al vs. Gozun (Didipio Case)[43]and Miners Association of the Philippines, Inc., vs. Factoran (Map Case)[44].

Owing to the value of both ecology and economics, it is then humbly submitted that Filipinos need not choose one over the other. The challenge is to harmonize the two (2) as well as find a suitable middle ground, where both essential objectives are advanced simultaneously. Such has been successfully done in mining countries such as Indonesia, Australia, Canada, Brazil, Chile, and South Africa. There must be a way.

vi. Sustainable Development

The World Commission on Environment and Development articulated in 1987 in the Brundtland Report the principle of sustainable development as the solution. It was defined as “development that meets the needs of today without compromising the ability of those coming tomorrow to meet their own needs”.

Accordingly, the present generation is not prevented from making use of the earth’s existing resources to satisfy their needs. Resources should be made available for consumption and development.

However, such utilization should be done judiciously and prudently so as not to deprive the next generation of its own ability to survive, as well as lead meaningful and productive lives. The earth should be treated as one borrowed from our children’s children, and not as one people have the power to waste away.

vii. Sustainable Mining

Sustainable development in mining, or sustainable mining, consists of several components, which ought to be advanced. They include the following:

(i) Mineral resources are of depletable and non-renewable nature. Recycling should then be more aggressively promoted, as mandated under the Solid Waste Act, so that the economic life of minerals may be maximized and extended.

(ii) As emphasized during the 2014 Philippine Mining Conference, there should be a credible and rational national land use plan determining the ecological profile of areas in the Philippines and the best use thereof.

Hence, there is no point arguing in favor of food security, if the subject land is not arable. Moreover, the grant of more exploration permits is recommended so that there be a technical determination at least of what actually lies beneath and the cost and impact of mining activities. Extraction anyhow, which is that stage that causes greater environmental impact, shall be the subject still of a separate application and approval process. Further, the existence and commercial quantity of mineral resources should not justify mining in water reservations.

(iii) Mining companies must be cautioned about the pronouncements of the Supreme Court in Dizon Copper Silver Mines, Inc. vs. Dizon[45], La Bugal-B’laan Tribal Association, Inc. v. Ramos[46], MAP Case[47],and Didipio[48] Cases as to how awesome the power of control of the State over natural resources is under the regalian doctrine enshrined in the Constitution.

Their failure to comply with laws and best practices may lead to the exercise of the power of the Department of the Environment and Natural Resources (DENR)to cancel mining agreements and permits. Such power to cancel mineral agreements was affirmed in Celestial Nickel Mining Exploration Corporation vs. Macroasia Corporation, et al..[49]

The power to cancel exploration permits was affirmed in Republic Of The Philippines, et al, vs. Rosemoor Mining And Development Corporation, et al.[50] Said power was reiterated in Pyro Copper Mining Corporation vs. Mines Adjudication Board-Department Of Environment, Montague Resources Corporation, et al[51], which the Law Firm successfully litigated up to the Supreme Court.

The DENR, nevertheless, has to be guided by the ruling in the La Bugal Case[52] that mineral agreements are contracts, and are thus protected under the due process clause.

(iv)The DENR, through the Bureau of Mines (Bureau), should be able to effectively use the aforementioned power and implement the directives and standards under the Mining Act towards environmental protection. In this regard, there should be continuous capability-building effort on the part of the Bureau by the increase of competent personnel, continuous education on best practices, provision for innovative technologies, and prosecution of officers for corrupt acts.

Under the Mining Act, applicants for exploration permits and mineral agreements shall submit an environmental work program incorporating an environmental protection and enhancement program (EPEP).[53] The program shall include rehabilitation, regeneration, revegetation and reforestation of mineralized areas, slope stabilization of mined-out and tailings covered areas, aquaculture, watershed development and water conservation, and socioeconomic development.[54]

The EPEP shall provide a description of the expected acceptable impacts and the strategies based on best practices in environmental management in mining.[55] To effectively implement the approved EPEP during the entire mining operation, an Annual Environmental Protection and Enhancement Program (AEPEP) shall yearly be submitted.[56] The contractor shall allocate for its annual environmental activity a minimum of three (3) to five (5) percent of its direct mining and milling costs.[57] The contractor shall further undertake regularly an independent environmental audit.[58]

Applicants shall likewise submit upon application proof of satisfactory environmental management and community relations in its past mineral resource use venture, in the form of a Certificate of Environmental Management and Community Relations Record.[59]

Applicants of mineral agreements shall secure an Environmental Compliance Certificate based on the Environmental Impact Assessment accepted, processed, evaluated, and thereafter monitored by the DENR.[60] Part of the EIA is a completed ecological profile of the proposed mining area. [61]

The Regional Director of the Bureau shall require the mining contractor to remedy any practice inconsistent with the environmental programs, laws, or rules.[62] The Regional Director may even summarily suspend operations in case of imminent danger to the environment.[63] The Environmental Management Bureau or the Pollution Adjudication Board may likewise take immediate remedial measures and submit a report thereon to the Regional Director.[64]

Still in line with environmental responsibility, Executive Order 26 and Memorandum Order No. 2012-01 were issued establishing a national greening program for the mining sector.

The legal directives, however, are minimum requirements and mining companies ought to go beyond the law in protecting the environment. Mining companies established in different parts of the world should be exhorted to perform in the Philippines the same best practices, which they perform abroad.

(vi) There should be continuous and meaningful interaction with and participation of stakeholders holders from the application process up to mine- closure so that all concerns can be effectively and promptly addressed.

(vii) Successful rehabilitation is the key to mitigate and build resilience against environmental impacts. Mined-out areas should be restored to their state prior to extraction. But transformation of the area for another pre-determined more valuable land use should be better.

Under the Mining Act, a mining company shall technically and biologically rehabilitate the excavated, mined-out, tailings covered and disturbed areas to the condition of environmental safety,[65] in accordance with the approved Final Mine Rehabilitation/Decommissioning Plan.[66] To ensure just and timely compensation for damages and progressive and sustainable rehabilitation for any adverse effect a mining operation or activity may cause, a mining contractor shall establish and maintain an environmental guarantee fund mechanism, known as the Contingent Liability and Rehabilitation Fund in the form of the Mine Rehabilitation Fund, the Mine Wastes and Tailings Fund, and the Final Mine Rehabilitation and Decommissioning Fund.[67]

A mining contractor shall submit progress report of the rehabilitation activities.[68] If the objectives of the mine closure have been achieved, the contractor shall submit a Final Rehabilitation Report with third party environmental audit for final approval.[69] If residual care is still needed, the contractor shall submit a Site Management Plan.[70]

It is only when a Certificate of Final Relinquishment[71] is issued to the contractor that it is freed from further obligations.

(viii) Mining has global benefits, but local impacts. It behooves mining companies to work for the development and empowerment of host and neighboring communities.

Accordingly, the Mining Act[72] and its implementing rules[73] mandate the submission of a Community Development Programor a Social Development Management Program.[74]

The program shall include provisions on human resources development and institutional building, enterprise development and networking, assistance infrastructure development and support services, access to education, access to health, protection and respect of socio-cultural values, and use of facilities in the mine camp.[75]

The program shall further include provisions on the promotion of public awareness and education on mining technology and geo-sciences. In this regard, scholarships and trainings shall be conducted on mining technology and geo-sciences, and related subjects.[76]

The Regional Office of the Bureau shall evaluate said programs with experts, and approve the same if they conform with standards.[77] Thereafter, a memorandum of agreement shall be entered into with representatives of host and neighboring communities and register the same with the Regional Office of the Bureau. Compliance with such programs shall be duly monitored[78], as well as reviewed and evaluated.[79]

(ix) For mining to further contribute in poverty reduction, the collection, distribution, and utilization of revenues arising from mining should be transparent and efficient.

The Extractive Industry Transparent Initiative (EITI) is a global initiative towards practicing and implementing transparency and accountability among mining companies.[80] EITI involves companies publishing payments they make by way of taxes and fees, and for the government publishing the payments it receives.

Being declared EITI compliant has its benefits. For the country, it will curb corruption, dispel the resource curse, and send positive signals to foreign investors; for local communities, it shall potentially receive its rightful share in mining revenue; for companies, it levels the playing field; for stakeholders, it creates trust among them.[81] The President has highlighted the need for being declared EITI compliant in Executive Order 79. The country should vigorously move for its declaration as compliant.

(x) EITI is likewise about the prompt release to local government units of their share in the taxes collected from mining companies operating within their territories.

The Joint Memorandum Circular 2009-01 and the DENR-DOF-DBM-DILG Joint Circular No. 2010-01 were issued to effect the immediate release of the share of local government units.

There, nonetheless, have been complaints still about the late release of the share of local government units. The process should further be streamlined.

(ix) Exports of raw materials should be regulated as the country is itself in need of the same resources in its industrialization efforts. Likewise, processing and manufacturing plants should be established in the Philippines so that resources will not be cheaply exported as raw ores, but as processed and value-added products.

(x) Local laws should be harmonized with national laws, and the latter considered as paramount, in accordance with Magtajas v. Pryce Properties Corporation[82] and Lina vs. Paño.[83]. Otherwise, local officials shall render nugatory mineral rights granted by the national government.

The control of the DENR of the mining sector vis-à-vis local autonomy has recently been enunciated in the case of League of Provinces of the Philippines vs. Department of Environment and Natural Resources and Reyes.[84]

(xi) In the end, the right to engage in mining should be reserved to those willing and capable of complying with laws and best practices, addressing sensitivities and vulnerabilities, empowering communities, mitigating impacts, bringing in necessary technologies, building government capabilities and curbing corruption, establishing resilience, meaningfully engaging with stakeholders, and providing the government with its fair share in the resources extracted.

This is where ecology and economy should meet.

[1] (Accessed 1 November 2014)


[3] (Accessed 1 November 2014)


[5] (Accessed 1 November 2014)

[6]Ismak V. Mastura, Status of Mineral Rights under the Financial and Technical Assistance Agreement Recent Trends, Review of Legal and Fiscal Frameworks for Exploration and Mining)London Mining Journal Books, Ltd., 2001, page 1

[7] (Accessed 1 November 2014)

[8]On September 10, 2012, DENR issued Administrative Order No. 2012-07 or the Implementing
Rules and Regulations for EO 79

[9]SECTION 4. Grant of Mineral Agreements Pending New Legislation. No new mineral agreements shall be entered into until a legislation rationalizing existing revenue sharing schemes and mechanisms shall have taken effect.”

[10]SECTION 1. Areas Closed to Mining Applications. Applications for mineral contracts, concessions, and agreements shall not be allowed in the following:

  1. a) Areas expressly enumerated under Section 19 of RA No. 7942;
  2. b) Protected areas categorized and established under the National Integrated Protected Areas System (NIPAS) under RA No. 7586;
  3. c) Prime agricultural lands, in addition to lands covered by RA No. 6657, or the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988, as amended, including plantations and areas devoted to valuable crops, and strategic agriculture and fisheries development zones and fish refuge and sanctuaries declared as such by the Secretary of the Department of Agriculture (DA);
  4. d) Tourism development areas, as identified in the National Tourism Development Plan (NTDP); and,
  5. e) Other critical areas, island ecosystems, and impact areas of mining as determined by current and existing mapping technologies, that the DENR may hereafter identify pursuant to existing laws, rules, and regulations, such as, but not limited to, the NIPAS Act.”

[11] Supra Note 9

[12]2 Memorandum Order No. 2013-01

[13] Department Administrative Order No. 2013-10

[14] (Accessed 7 May 2013)

[15] G.R. No. 101083, 30 July 1993.: “The ongoing administrative reassessment is apparently in response to the renewed and growing global concern over the despoliation of forest lands and the utter disregard of their crucial role in sustaining a balanced ecological system. The legitimacy of such concern can hardly be disputed, most especially in this country. The Court takes judicial notice of the profligate waste of the country’s forest resources which has not only resulted in the irreversible loss of flora and fauna peculiar to the region, but has produced even more disastrous and lasting economic and social effects. The delicate balance of nature having been upset, a vicious cycle of floods and droughts has been triggered and the supply of food and energy resources required by the people seriously depleted.”

[16]Karlheinz Spitz and John Trudinger, Mining and the Environment From Ore To Metal, , CRC Press, (2008), at page 19

[17] On 24 March 1996, a cement plug in the base of tailings pit burst at the mine site on Marinduque Island and into Boac River. (Mining in the Philippines, A Christian Aid and Piplinks Reports, December 2004, At Page 3) Between 1997 and 2002, overflows from tailings dams repeatedly destroyed rice fields, silted the bay, damaged mangroves of Zamboanga Del Norte. Philippine Mining or Food, Case Study: Zamboanga Del Norte, At page 85). In August 2012, mine tailings spilled out into water channels of Itogon, Benguet. (

[18]Supra Note 16, at page 31

[19] Supra Note 16, at Page 20

[20]Ibid, at page 21

[21] Ibid, at Page 36

[22]Section 3: Right to a Healthy Environment. In furtherance of these goals and policies, the Government recognizes the right of the people to a healthful environment. It shall be the duty and responsibility of each individual to contribute to the preservation and enhancement of the Philippine environment.

[23] G.R. No. 101083, 30 July 1993.

[24]G.R. No. 111088, 13 June 1997

[25]G.R. Nos. 171947-48 ,  18   December 12008

[26] G.R. Nos. 171947-48 ,  18   December 12008

[27]Kalikasan Rules, Rule 1, Section 3(b),

[28]Republic Act No. 8749

[29]Republic Act No. 9275

[30]Republic Act 9003,

[31]Republic Act No 7586

[32]G.R. No. 129546, 13 December 2005

[33] Constitution, Article X, Section 2

[34] Section 16. General Welfare. – Every local government unit shall exercise the powers expressly granted, those necessarily implied therefrom, as well as powers necessary, appropriate, or incidental for its efficient and effective governance, and those which are essential to the promotion of the general welfare. Within their respective territorial jurisdictions, local government units shall ensure and support, among other things, the preservation and enrichment of culture, promote health and safety, enhance the right of the people to a balanced ecology, encourage and support the development of appropriate and self-reliant scientific and technological capabilities, improve public morals, enhance economic prosperity and social justice, promote full employment among their residents, maintain peace and order, and preserve the comfort and convenience of their inhabitants.

[35]G.R. No. 110249 August 21, 1997

[36]BizNews Asia/ 4 February 2013, At page 4

[37] Ibid

[38] Ibid


[40] (Accessed May 2013)

[41] Supra Note 16, at page 30

[42] Mining Act, Section 2

[43]G.R. No. 157882,   30 March 2006

[44]G.R. No. 98332 16 January 1995

[45]G.R. No. 183573,   16 July 2012

[46]G.R. No. 127882,  1 December 2004

[47] Supra Note 44

[48] Supra Note 43

[49] G.R. No. 169080, 19 December 2007

[50]G.R. No. 149927,   30 March 2004

[51]G.R. No. 179674   July 28, 2009

[52] Supra Note 292

[53] Mining Act, at Section 69

[54] Department of Environment and Natural Resources Administrative Order No. 2010-21 (DAO 2010-21), Subject” Providing for a Consolidated Department of Environment and Natural Resources Administrative Order for the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 7942, otherwise known as the Philippine Mining Act of 1995” dated 28 June 2010,


[56] Ibid, at Section 171

[57] Ibid,

[58] Ibid

[59]Ibid, at Section 167-A

[60]Supra Note 53, Section 70

[61] Ibid

[62]Supra Note 54, at 175

[63] Ibid

[64] Ibid

[65] Supra Note 53, Section 71

[66]Supra Note 54, at Section 187

[67]Ibid , at Section 180

[68] Ibid, at Section 187-c

[69] Ibid, at Section 187-f

[70] Ibid

[71] Ibid

[72] Supra Note 53, Chapter 10

[73] Supra Note 54, Chapter 14

[74] Ibid, Section 134

[75] Ibid, Section 135

[76] Ibid

[77]Ibid, Section 136-B

[78] Ibid, Section 136-D

[79] Ibid, Section 136-E

[80] Atty. Donna Gasgonia ,Transparency in Mining Taxation Advocating for EITI, Mining Philippines 2012, 20 September 2012,

[81] Ibid

[82]G.R. No. 111097 20 July 1994

[83] G.R. No. 129093, 30 August 2001

[84][84] G.R. No. 175368, 11 April 2013