By: Atty. Allan Julian V. Antenor
In the Philippines, Local Government Units (LGUs) such as provinces, cities, municipalities, and barangays serve as vital extensions of the National Government, helping to carry out its mandate at the community level. As agents of the State, LGUs are entrusted with the responsibility to implement national laws, policies, and programs within their jurisdictions. They are granted sufficient freedom and autonomy to administer their affairs. In fact, even the President only exercises general supervision over these LGUs.[1]
The 1987 Constitution cemented the importance of LGUs by explicitly providing that the territorial and political subdivisions shall enjoy local autonomy.[2] Of importance is an LGU’s power to enact local ordinances not repugnant to law and those that may be necessary and proper for its inhabitants, properly termed as police power.[3] From the foregoing, it is evident that LGUs wield an array of powers within their respective jurisdictions.
This, however, is not absolute. Local autonomy does not mean total freedom to depart from the National Government. LGUs are bound to follow and comply with the Constitution and laws enacted by Congress.[4] One of which is Republic Act No. 7160, otherwise known as the Local Government Code of 1991 (LGC), which defines the extent and limitations of the LGU’s powers. It must be recalled that LGUs only exercise delegated legislative powers.[5] It cannot exceed or overrule the authority granted to it by Congress.
Indeed, the apprentice does not outrank the master.
What happens when an LGU enacts an ordinance that conflicts with national law? This is precisely the situation that the Supreme Court faced in the case of Province of Occidental Mindoro v. Agusan Petroleum.[6] The factual milieu of this case involves a 25-year moratorium on large-scale mining imposed by the Municipality of Abra de Ilog (Municipality) and the Province of Occidental Mindoro (Province) through two (2) separate Ordinances.
In a strong move to safeguard the environment and uphold local interests, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Occidental Mindoro approved a 25-year moratorium on large-scale mining in the municipality of Abra de Ilog on July 14, 2008, through Municipal Ordinance No. 106-2008. This moratorium prohibits all large-scale mining operations in the area, with the exception of oil and natural gas exploration and extraction.
The following year, on November 23, 2009, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Occidental Mindoro followed suit. Through a provincial resolution, Provincial Ordinance No. 34-09 was adopted, extending the same 25-year moratorium to cover all municipalities within the province.
However, it’s important to highlight that Agusan Petroleum and Mineral Corporation (Agusan Petroleum), a contractor involved in large-scale mining, had earlier entered into a Financial or Technical Assistance Agreement No. 03-2008-IVB (FTAA) with the Philippine government on October 16, 2008. This agreement granted Agusan Petroleum exclusive rights to explore, extract, and market mineral resources from certain areas in Oriental Mindoro and Abra de Ilog, Occidental Mindoro, regions now affected by the local mining bans.
This development sets the stage for a complex legal and environmental debate, as national mining rights intersect with local government efforts to protect land and resources for future generations.
Following the enactment of the local ordinances banning large-scale mining, Agusan Petroleum responded by filing a Petition for Declaratory Relief with the Regional Trial Court (RTC). In its Petition for Declaratory Relief, Agusan Petroleum questioned the validity and constitutionality of both the municipal and provincial ordinances, claiming that the measures were unreasonable, oppressive, discriminatory, and in violation of existing laws.
In contrast, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), along with the Municipality and Province, defended the ordinances. In their respective comments, they argued that the moratoriums were a legitimate exercise of police power to protect local communities and the environment. They also pointed out that no prior consultation was conducted with local government units before the national government entered into the FTAA with Agusan Petroleum.
The RTC declared the assailed Ordinances and Resolutions unconstitutional and contrary to law. Thus, the province, through its provincial legal officer, brought a Petition for Review on Certiorari (Petition) before the Supreme Court.
Procedurally, the Petition was challenged for the provincial legal officer’s lack of authority to represent the province, as it should be the OSG. The Supreme Court held that the power of the provincial legal officer to represent the province is limited to civil actions and special proceedings before the lower courts. Despite this, the Supreme Court relaxed the rules, recognizing the importance and novelty of the legal questions involved. The Court also noted that the OSG eventually submitted its comment, supporting the province’s position.
On its merits, the Supreme Court upheld the RTC’s ruling that the assailed Ordinances and Resolutions are void. The Supreme Court emphasized that the LGU’s autonomy is limited and confined within the extent allowed by the national government, meaning that their acts must conform to the Constitution, LGC, and any other existing statute enacted by Congress. The reason is simple: LGUs “merely derive their power from the State legislature; as such, they cannot regulate activities already allowed by statute.”
The Constitution provides that the State owns all mineral resources and exercises full control and supervision over their exploration, development, and utilization. Related thereto, the State may enter into FTAAs under such terms and conditions as may be provided by law.
Currently, the governing law regulating FTAAs is Republic Act No. 7942, also known as the Philippine Mining Act of 1995 (RA 7942). Under the law, the Department of Natural Resources (DENR) is designated the primary government agency that implements its provisions. Importantly, before any FTAA can be granted, the law requires prior consultation with the affected communities, especially those likely to be impacted by the mining project. In addition, approval from the Sanggunian concerned must be obtained. These requirements are clearly outlined in RA 7942, DENR Administrative Order No. 2003-30, and its Revised Implementing Rules and Regulations.
LGUs are likewise responsible for the protection of the ecological balance within their jurisdictions. This duty is imposed upon the LGUs under Sections 26 and 27 of the LGC. In fact, the LGC also imposed the requirement of prior consultation and concurrence of the affected LGUs in relation to projects with environmental or ecological impact.
It is clear from the discussion that LGUs do not have the authority to impose a total ban on large-scale mining within their areas, especially since such activities are legally permitted under national law. Instead, LGUs are expected to participate in the decision-making process through prior consultation, rather than unilaterally prohibiting mining operations. Neither can the LGUs justify the moratorium under Section 19(d) of RA 7942 with reference to areas expressly prohibited by law. An Ordinance, having been enacted pursuant to a delegated authority from Congress, cannot be subsumed within the term “law.” Thus, the Ordinances and Resolutions must be struck down for being too broad.
While LGUs have a duty to protect the environment and ensure ecological balance within their areas, they must do so within the framework of national law. Both the LGC and RA 7942 mandate that LGUs be consulted on projects with environmental impacts, and they have the power to approve or oppose (by refusing to give approval) mining applications through proper channels. However, this does not mean they can enforce a blanket ban on legally permitted activities like large-scale mining.
The Court concluded that although the intent behind the large-scale mining moratorium was to protect local communities and the environment, LGUs cannot go beyond what national law allows.
This decision highlights the delicate balance between local autonomy and national policy. While LGUs play a key role in safeguarding the environment, they must work within the bounds of national law. The existing legal framework provides safeguards, such as suspension or cancellation of permits or agreements, prior informed consent, and environmental compliance requirements, to ensure that mining activities are conducted responsibly.
Faithful environmental stewardship requires not only good intentions but also adherence to the rule of law. Moving forward, collaboration between the National Government and LGUs remains key to ensuring that development is both responsible and sustainable. This ruling does not strip LGUs of their voice in mining projects. Instead, it reiterates their responsibility to engage through the legal mechanisms available to them as mandated by law.
[1] 1987 Const., Art. X, Sec. 4
[2] 1987 Const., Art. X, Sec. 2
[3] Rural Bank of Makati v. Municipality of Makati, G.R. No. 150763, July 2, 2004
[4] Lina, Jr. v. Dizon-Paño, G.R. No. 129093, August 30, 2001
[5] Id
[6] G.R. No. 248932, April 15, 2025