VILLAROSA RULING: SUBVERTING THE GOVERNOR’S EXCLUSIVE POWER TO ISSUE QUARRY PERMITS
The Supreme Court En Banc issued a Decision dated 23 June 2020 reversing and setting aside the conviction of the Mayor of San Jose, Mindoro Occidental, petitioner Jose Tapales Villarosa, of nine (9) counts of violation of Republic Act No. 3019, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. The Sandiganbayan earlier convicted the petitioner for issuing extraction or quarry permits within his municipality based on a complaint filed by the Provincial Environmental and Natural Resources Office Area Supervisor. PENRO earlier issued a Cease and Desist Order on these quarry operations considering that the extraction permits did not come from the Office of the Governor. Under Republic Act No. 7160, otherwise known as the Local Government Code of 1991, the Governor has the sole and exclusive authority to issue quarry and extraction permits.
In acquitting Mayor Villarosa, the Supreme Court En Banc held that the prosecution failed to meet the evidentiary burden, or the quantum of evidence required in criminal cases, which is proof beyond reasonable doubt. Under Section 3 (e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, the elements are the following: (1) the offender is a public officer; (2) the act was done in the discharge of the public officer’s official, administrative or judicial functions; (3) the act was done through manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence; and (4) the public officer caused any undue injury to any party, including the Government, or gave any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference.
The Supreme Court found wanting the existence of the third element. It sustained the arguments of Mayor Villarosa; first, the issuance of extraction permit went through a legitimate process as these were filed with the Municipal Environment and Natural Resources Office (MENRO), forwarded to the Municipal Administrator, and finally to the Office of the Mayor; and second, the applicant paid extraction fee to the Municipal Treasurer who issued Official Receipts and the shares of the Province and the Barangay were remitted to their respective Treasurers. Mayor Villarosa argued that if he has no authority to issue these extraction permits, why did the Provincial Treasurer continue to accept their remittance of the share of the province in the extraction fees. Likewise, the Supreme Court held that the fourth element is absent since there was no sufficient proof that the persons in whose favor the Mayor issued the subject extraction permits received unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference as at the time of the issuance of the permits, Mayor Villarosa was justified by his honest belief that he is authorized by law to issue said permits.
With all due respect, the author disagrees to the ruling that the permittees did not obtain unwarranted benefits and undue advantage. The fact that their applications did not undergo the scrutiny of the Province, through the Provincial Mining Regulatory Board (PMRB), is already an unwarranted benefit and undue advantage. The MENRO may not be the competent body to assess if the quarry permitees have the financial and technical competence to conduct quarry activities and to properly care and protect the environment. The ruling creates a dangerous precedent which effectively undermines or subverts the sole and exclusive authority of the Governor to issue quarry and extraction permits under the Local Government Code.
The ruling was not without dissents as three (3) Associate Justices disagreed with the majority. Notably, Justice Marvic Leonen, a known environmentalist before he joined the Court, opined that at the very least, Mayor Villarosa should be convicted of gross inexcusable negligence. The author agrees with Justice Leonen. The Mayor’s ignorance of the provision of the Local Government Code should not exonerate him from culpability and liability. It is difficult to believe that he did not observe or notice that the other Mayors in his province were not issuing such permits. It is difficult to maintain that it is an honest belief that he has the authority to issue quarry permits. The Court bailed him out from conviction by his Letter to the Sangguniang Panlalwigan asserting his “honest” (albeit mistaken) belief that he has authority to issue these permits. In short, his ignorance of the law saved him from incarceration.
The ruling also amounts to judicial legislation as it justified non-compliance with the process laid down by environmental law, rules and regulations, particularly the need for the scrutiny of the PMRB, as the Court raciocinated that the applications underwent a legtimate process in the municipality anyway. The familiarity of the local applicants with those who manned the process at the municipal level may have made the issuance of these extraction permits very easy to the detriment of our environment. These municipal officers may have only based their scrutiny of the applications under the lense of their municipal ordinances to the exclusion of national environmental laws and provincial ordinances.