Dear or no dear

By Conrado R. Banal III, Inquirer

http://business. inq7.net/ money/columns/ view_article. php?article_ id=36399

Published on page B2 of the December 5, 2006 issue of the
Philippine Daily Inquirer

And now, the not-so-dear news: The Supreme Court just ruled that the transfer of "mineral rights" is unconstitutional (i.e., NOT okay), and it is already alarming investors.

The bad news came from University of the Philippines (UP) professor Harry L. Roque, director of the Institute of International Legal Studies of the UP Law Center, in a UP-sponsored forum.

To Roque, the ruling will dampen interest in mining. So what else is new, prof?

In another case, you see, the same Supreme Court said the government scheme called financial and technical assistance agreements (FTAA), allowing foreign investments in existing mines, is constitutional (i.e., OKAY).

But then came the Supreme Court ruling on Apex Mining vs. Southeast Mining Gold Mining Corp., declaring the transfer of "mineral rights" as unconstitutional.

Based on established jurisprudence, according to Roque, "mineral rights" are property rights and, thus, may be transferred.

And so what went wrong? Roque theorizes that the Supreme Court mistakenly equated "mining permit" with "mineral rights."

In fact, the Supreme Court had another earlier ruling that said "mining rights," but not permits to mine, could be assigned.

Because of possible mix-ups in the future, Roque fears that the latest Supreme Court ruling could ruin the mining industry.

To think, only a division of the Supreme Court made the ruling.

Roque suggests that if it is such a big issue, something that in fact can make or break this country, the Supreme Court en banc should make the ruling.

Hmm. I don't know, but does it mean that the ruling could have been . well, "cooked?"