By Conrado R. Banal III, Inquirer –

http://business. inq7.net/ money/columns/ view_article. php?article_ id=36819

December 7, 2006 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer....

ALL RIGHT, so they say that our untapped mineral resources (i.e. still under the ground) could be worth P2-P3 trillion, easily.

And what are we doing? For one, we are making headway in the mining industry by having no clear policy on 1) the mining business itself, and 2) how to mitigate its effects on the environment.

Almost 10 years ago, sure, Congress passed the Mining Code. But in no time at all, the code was questioned before the Supreme Court.

After a couple of years, the Supreme Court upheld its constitutionality.

This rejuvenated the mining industry somehow, and investors started coming in. And so that's the end of the story? Not quite!

Last Tuesday, we reported on another decision of the Supreme Court that might yet again dampen interest in the industry.

We quoted University of the Philippines (UP) law professor Harry L. Roque, director of the Institute of International Legal Studies of the UP Law Center, who talked about the case of Apex Mining vs. Southeast Mindanao Gold Mining Corp. The Supreme Court decided in favor of Apex Mining. Roque said the decision was alarming investors again.

That's because, in effect, a division of the Supreme Court ruled that the law prohibited the transfer of "mineral rights." Roque believes that the ruling was against established jurisprudence that mineral rights were property rights (i.e., you can transfer them).

I thought Roque made an important point. And that is, the Supreme Court en banc, and not just a division of the Court, should decide on such a big case.

To think, the new ruling even overturned other earlier rulings of the Supreme Court on cases involving the mining industry. Hmm.

Now, word in the mining industry has it that the Supreme Court is rushing the case. For instance, the Supreme Court scheduled the promulgation of its decision for Dec. 6, which was yesterday, although the Office of the Solicitor General had asked for an extension to file its comment, which should have scheduled the promulgation on Dec. 20.

Know what? Somebody is retiring from the Supreme Court very soon. And that somebody happens to chair the division that made the ruling.