Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 1

REPUBLIC VS ROSEMOOR MINING AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (RMDC)

G.R. NO. 149927 MARCH 30, 2004


This case was petitioned for review to nullify the decision of the Court of Appeals.
FACTS:

RMDC had been granted License No. 33 by the Bureau of Mines to allow them to
mine in the mountains (Mt. Mabio) of Biak na Bato, San Miguel, Bulacan, after they
had discovered high quality marble deposits.
After Ernesto Maceda was appointed as DENR Minister, he cancelled License No.
33 through a letter addressed to RMDC.
Maceda said the the issuance of License No. 33 was illegal since it violated section
69 of PD 463 and that there is no more public interest served by the continued
existence or renewal of the license. Also, according to Proclamation No. 84, public
interest would be served by reverting back the excluded land and making it part of
Biak na Bato National Park
RMDC claimed that in the cancellation of the license, their right to due process was
violated and that Proclamation No. 84 was invalid because:
- It violates the clause on non-impairment of contracts and
- It is an ex post facto law/bill of attainder
- It was issued by the President after the effectively of the 1987
Constitution
Court ruled in favor of the petitioners, reversed the ruling of CA

Whether or not Proclamation No. 84 was valid.

Issue:

Ruling/Ratio:

Yes Proclamation No. 84 was valid. It did not violate the clause on non-impairment of
contract since the respondents license is not a contract to which the protection of the
clause can extend to. It is not a bill of attainder because the cancellation of the
license was not a punishment within the constitutional proscription against the bill of
attainder. It is also not an ex post facto law because Proclamation 84 was not penal
in character. Ex post facto laws are limited to matters criminal in nature. Also, the
President during the time when she issued the Proclamation still validly have the
legislative power under the Provisional Constitution