[G.R. No. 137174. July 10, 2000.

]
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Represented by the POLLUTION ADJUDICATION
BOARD (DENR), petitioner, vs. MARCOPPER MINING CORPORATION, respondent.

SYNOPSIS:

When respondent MMC's temporary permit to operate a tailings sea disposal system expired,
the Pollution Adjudication Board (PAB) directed the MMC to cease and desist operating tailing
sea disposal at the Calancan Bay. On appeal, the Office of the President issued a TRO but
ordered MMC to remit the amount of P30,000 a day to rehabilitate the polluted waters, starting
May 13, 1988 to the Ecology Trust Fund (ETF) thereof.

In compliance therewith, MMC made contributions to the ETF from May 13, 1988 until June 30,
1991 (the time when MMC stopped discharging its tailings in the Bay).

On February 5, 1993, the Office of the President dismissed the appeal, affirmed the cease and
desist Order issued by the PAB and lifted the TRO.

Subsequently, Marinduque Mayor Wilfredo Red filed a letter-complaint informing the PAB that
MMC stopped remitting the amount of P30,000 per day as of July 1, 1991 to the ETF. On April
23, 1997, PAB ordered MMC to pay arrears in deposit to the ETF, not until June 30, 1991 when
MMC stopped dumping tailings in the Bay, until February 5, 1993, the date when the TRO was
lifted.

On certiorari, the Court of Appeals ruled that the with the passage of the Mining Act, the Mines
Regional Director, not the PAB has the power to impose measures against violations of
environmental policies of mining operators.

The Supreme Court, however, ruled that PAB has jurisdiction to act and rule on the complaint of
Mayor Red for violation of PD 984 (Pollution Control Law) and its implementing rules and
regulations which jurisdiction was not lost upon the passage of RA 7942 (the Philippine Mining
Act of 1995). There is no irreconcilable conflict between the two laws. RA 7942 gives the Mines
Regional Director administrative and regulatory powers over mining operations and installations,
but does not vest quasi-judicial power over complaints on pollution-related matters on mining
operations which remains with the PAB. Nevertheless, MMC must be declared not to have
arrears in deposits as admittedly, the ETF already has more than sufficient funds to undertake
the rehabilitation of Calancan Bay.

FACTS:

• Respondent Marcopper Mining Corporation (MMC) was issued a temporary permit to operate
a tailings sea disposal system.
• Before it expired, MMC 􏰚led an application for the renewal thereof with the National Pollution
Control Commission (NPCC).
• MMC received a telegraphic order from the NPCC directing the former to “ immediately cease
and desist from discharging mine tailings into Calancan Bay."
• The NPCC issued to MMC a new temporary permit with the condition that “the tailings
disposal system shall be transferred to San Antonio pond within 2 months from the date of this
permit.
• MMC requested the NPCC for an extension of TPO No. POW-86-454-EJ and the indefinite
suspension of condition in said permit until such time that the NPCC shall have finally
resolved the NPCC case entitled “Msgr. Rolly Oliverio,et al. vs. Marcopper Mining
Corporation.”
• NPCC was abolished by EO no. 192 and its powers and functions were integrated into the
Environmental Management Bureau and into the PAB.
• SENR, in his capacity as Chairman of PAB, issued an Order directing MMC to “cease and
desist from charging mine tailings into Calancan Bay”
• Office of the President denied MMC’s requests for issuance of restraining orders against the
orders of the PAB, that was later reconsidered.
• In line with the directive from the Office of the President, the Calancan Bay Rehabilitation
Project (CBRP) was created, and MMC remitted the amount of P30,000.00 a day, starting
from May 13,1988 to the Ecology Trust Fund (ETF) thereof. However, on June 30, 1991,
MMC stopped discharging tailings in the Bay, hence, it likewise ceased from making further
deposits to the ETF.
• MMC filed a Motion dated July 9, 1991 manifesting that it would discontinue its
contributions/deposits to the ETF.
• Office of the President rendered a decision in O.P. Case No. 3802 dismissing the appeal;
affirming the cease and desist Order issued by PAB.
• PAB ruled that the obligation of MMC to deposit P30,000.00 per day to the ETF of the CBRP
susbsists, as provided for in the Order of the Office of the President dated May 13, 1988,
during the “efficacy of said order restraining the PAB from enforcing its cease and desist order
against MMC.” Since the Order was lifted only in Feb 5, 1993, the obligation of MMC to remit
was likewise extinguished only on said date and not earlier as contended by MMC from the
time it ceases dumping tailings into the Bay on July 1, 1991.
• MMC assailed the aforequoted Order dated April 23, 1997 of the PAB as null and void for
having been issued without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in a petition for
Certiorari and Prohibition (with prayer for temporary restraining order and preliminary
injunction) before the CA.
• CA granted petition of MMC. It opined that with the passage of the Mining Act of 1995,
polution-related issues in mining operations are addressed to the Mines Regional
Director, not the PAB.

ISSUE:

1. Has the PAB under RA 3931 as ameneded by PD984 (National Pollution Control
Decree of 1976) been divested of its authority to try and hear pollution cases
connected with mining operations by virtue of the subsequent enactment of RA7942
(Philippine Mining Act of 1995)?
2. Whether the CA erred in ruling that there is no basis for further payments by MMC to
the ETC of the CBRP considering that MMC “convincingly argued and which
respondent unsatisfactorily rebuked, the existing 14 million pesos in the ETF is more
that enough to complete the rehabilitation project.”

RULING:

1. No. Thus, it has been held: “The two laws must be absolutely incompatible, and a clear
finding thereof must surface, before the inference of implied repeal may be drawn. The rule
 is expressed in the maxim, interpretare et concordare leqibus est optimus interpretendi, i.e.,
every statute must be so interpreted and brought into accord with other laws as to form a
uniform system of jurisprudence. The fundament is that the legislature should be presumed
to have known the existing laws on the subject and not to have enacted conflicting statutes.
Hence, all doubts must be resolved against any implied repeal, and all efforts should be
exerted in order to harmonize and give effect to all laws on the subject.”

There is no irreconcilable conflict between the two laws. Section 19 of EO 192 vested the
PAB with the specific power to adjudicate pollution cases in general. Sec. 2, par. (a) of PD 984
defines the term “pollution” as referring to any alteration of the physical, chemical and biological
properties of any water, air and/or land resources of the Philippines, or any discharge thereto of
any liquid, gaseous or solid wastes as will or is likely to create or to render such water, air and
land resources harmful, detrimental or injurious to public health, safety or welfare or which will
adversely affect their utilization for domestic, commercial, industrial, agricultural, recreational or
other legitimate purposes.

On the other hand, the authority of the minesregional director is complementary to that of
the PAB. Section 66 of RA 7942 gives the mines regional director exclusive jurisdiction over the
safety inspection of all installations, surface or underground in mining operations. Section 67
thereof vests upon the regional director power to issue orders requiring a contractor to remedy
any practice connected with mining or quarrying operations which is not in accordance with
safety and anti-pollution laws and regulations; and to summarily suspend mining or quarrying
operations in case of imminent danger to life or property. The law likewise requires every
contractor to undertake an environmental protection and enhancement program which shall be
incorporated in the work program which the contractor shall submit as an accompanying
document to the application for a mineral agreement or permit. In addition, an environmental
clearance certificate is required based on an environment impact assessment. The law also
requires contractors and permittees to rehabilitate the mined-out areas, and set up a mine
rehabilitation fund. Significantly, the law allows and encourages people’s organizations and non-
governmental organizations to participate in ensuring that contractors/permittees shall observe
all the requirements of environmental protection.

From the foregoing, it readily appears that the power of the mines regional director does
not foreclose PAB’s authority to determine and act on complaints filed before it. The power
granted to the mines regional director to issue orders requiring the contractor to remedy any
practice connected with mining or quarrying operations or to summarily suspend the same in
cases of violation of pollution laws is for purposes of effectively regulating and monitoring
activities within mining operations and installations pursuant to the environmental protection and
enhancement program undertaken by contractors and permittees in procuring their mining
permit. While the mines regional director has express administrative and regulatory powers over
mining operations and installations, it has no adjudicative powers over complaints for violation of
pollution control statutes and regulations.

Neither was such authority conferred upon the Panel of Arbitrators and the Mines
Adjudication Board which were created by the said law. The provisions creating the Panel of
Arbitrators for the settlement of conflicts refer to disputes involving rights to mining areas,
mineral agreements or permits and those involving surface owners, occupants and claim-
holders/concessionaires. The scope of authority of the Panel of Arbitrators and the Mines
Adjudication Board conferred by RA 7942 clearly exclude adjudicative responsibility over
pollution cases. Nowhere is there vested any authority to adjudicate cases involving violations of
pollution laws and regulations in general.
1. NO. MMC must be declared not to have arrears in deposits as admittedly, the ETF already
had more than sufficient funds to undertake the rehabilitation of Calancan Bay. Indeed, the
records reveal that witness for PAB, Mr. Edel Genato, who is the Technical Resource
person of PAB for the project admitted that the funds in the ETF amounting to about
14million pesos are more than sufficient to cover the costs of rehabilitation. Further, we note
that the Office of the President never objected nor ruled on the manifestation dated July 9,
1991 filed by MMC that it would stop paying since it already ceased dumping mine tailings
into the bay. Still further, the order of the OP directing MMC to rehabilitate at a cost of
P30,000.00 a day “during the efficacy of the restraining order” had become functus officio
since MMC voluntarily stopped dumping mine tailings into the bay.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION : WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby partially GRANTED. The