THE Supreme Court (SC) has affirmed the constitutionality of Executive Order (EO) 224 issued by former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, which scales down the extraction and disposition of sand, gravel and lahar deposits in provinces affected by Mt. Pinatubo’s eruption in 1991.
In a 24-page decision released to the public last December 2, the Court en banc denied the petition filed by the provincial government of Pampanga assailing the decision of the Court of Appeals issued on April 24, 2010, which reversed the lower court’s decision declaring EO 224 invalid and unconstitutional.
The petition argued that EO 224 violated the principle of local government autonomy under the Local Government Code (LGC). It also argued that the order was an invalid exercise of presidential control and not just general supervision. Other arguments were that EO 224 was a violation of the equal protection clause and was a form of executive lawmaking.
However, the Court held that the issuance of EO 224 was a valid exercise of the President’s ordinance-making prerogative, which forms part of the power of executive control.
It added that the Philippine Mining Act of 1995 is an environmental protection law, which “justifies the State’s supervision, control and review of the concerned local government units’ compliance with and enforcement of existing regulations on quarrying-related activities.”
Furthermore, the SC noted that the Philippine Mining Act amended the LGC’s provisions by limiting the provincial government’s authority to issue permits only to quarry applications covering areas less than five hectares.
The Court also dismissed the claim of the petitioner that the creation of a task force under EO 224 to ensure compliance of all permit holders with the terms and conditions of their permits disrespected the constitutionally-mandated fiscal autonomy of local government units (LGUs).
Under Section 138 of the Local Government Code, a province has the power to levy and collect not more than 10 percent of the fair market value of the quarry resources extracted from its territorial jurisdiction.
On the other hand, Section 4 of EO 224 gave the task force the following powers: to collect applicable quarry taxes, fees and charges; to ensure that proper taxes and fees are paid before any delivery receipt is issued; to ensure that the appropriate shares of the concerned local government units are fully and timely remitted; and, to render an accounting with the environment secretary.
The SC pointed out there is nothing in the wording of Section 4 that suggests that the task force exercises control over the provincial government.
It added that EO 224 also doesn’t authorize the task force to impose its own set of rules or regulations over the local government unit when it comes to the collection of quarry taxes, fees and charges.
“The task force’s mandate of overseeing the collection of taxes does not violate local fiscal autonomy. The power to impose quarry fees and taxes remains with the local government units. Likewise, the full income due from those sources will ultimately find its way to the coffers of the concerned [LGUs],” the Court said in a decision penned by Associate Justice Marvic MVF Leonen.
“There was no such palpable violation of the Constitution here,” it declared.