Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PICOP RESOURCES v. BASE METALS MINERAL RESOURCES CORPORATION

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 162243 2009-12-03	HEHERSON ALVAREZ SUBSTITUTED BY ELISEA G. GOZUN v. PICOP RESOURCES CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
PICOP challenges our ruling that the 1969 Document is not a contract. Before we review this finding, however, it must be pointed out that one week after the assailed Decision, another division of this Court promulgated a Decision concerning the very same 1969 Document. Thus, in PICOP Resources, Inc. v. Base Metals Mineral Resources Corporation,[26] five other Justices who were still unaware of this Division's Decision,[27] came up with the same conclusion as regards the same issue of whether former President Marcos's Presidential Warranty is a contract: Finally, we do not subscribe to PICOP's argument that the Presidential Warranty dated September 25, 1968 is a contract protected by the non-impairment clause of the 1987 Constitution.
	GR Nos. 152613 & 152628 2009-11-20	APEX MINING CO. v. SOUTHEAST MINDANAO GOLD MINING CORP. CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The above-quoted provision says that the area covered by forest lands and national parks may not be expanded or reduced, unless pursuant to a law enacted by Congress. Clear in the language of the constitutional provision is its prospective tenor, since it speaks in this manner: "Congress shall as soon as possible." It is only after the specific limits of the forest lands shall have been determined by the legislature will this constitutional restriction apply. SEM does not allege nor present any evidence that Congress had already enacted a statute determining with specific limits forest lands and national parks. Considering the absence of such law, Proclamation No. 297 could not have violated Section 4, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution. In PICOP Resources, Inc. v. Base Metals Mineral Resources Corporation,[39] the Court had the occasion to similarly rule in this fashion: x x x Sec. 4, Art. XII of the 1987 Constitution, on the other hand, provides that Congress shall determine the specific limits of forest lands and national parks, marking clearly their boundaries on the ground. Once this is done, the area thus covered by said forest lands and national parks may not be expanded or reduced except also by congressional legislation. Since Congress has yet to enact a law determining the specific limits of the forest lands covered by Proclamation No. 369 and marking clearly its boundaries on the ground, there can be no occasion that could give rise to a violation of the constitutional provision.
	GR No. 167614 2009-03-24	ANTONIO M. SERRANO v. GALLANT MARITIME SERVICES AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
The prohibition is aligned with the general principle that laws newly enacted have only a prospective operation,[58] and cannot affect acts or contracts already perfected;[59] however, as to laws already in existence, their provisions are read into contracts and deemed a part thereof.[60] Thus, the non-impairment clause under Section 10, Article II is limited in application to laws about to be enacted that would in any way derogate from existing acts or contracts by enlarging, abridging or in any manner changing the intention of the parties thereto.