MANILA, Philippines - The Supreme Court is standing pat on its decision that Picop Resources, Inc. did not comply with administrative measures needed to claim a forest management permit covering 75,545 hectares in Mindanao.

In a 75-page resolution penned by Associate Justice Minita V. Chico-Nazario, the high court en banc dismissed the motion for reconsideration filed by the country’s largest paper producer, which had stressed that the government was bound by a contract -- a 1969 document signed by then President Ferdinand Marcos -- to enter into the more comprehensive permit called the Integrated Forest Management Agreement (IFMA).

The 75,545-hectare concession spans Surigao del Sur, Agusan del Sur, Compostela Valley and Davao Oriental.

“Businesses affecting the public interest, such as the operation of public utilities and those involving the exploitation of natural resources, are mandated by law to acquire licenses. This is so in order that the state can regulate their operations and thereby protect the public interest,” the high court said.

Previously, the company had a 25-year Timber License Agreement (TLA), which expired April 26, 2002. Prior to this, Picop Resources sought the conversion of the TLA into an IFMA, which would have given Picop more freedom in managing the forest area. The presidential warranty, which it got in 1969, was supposedly a commitment of sorts from the government to uphold the terms and conditions of the timber license.

The Department of Environment and Natural Resources, then under Heherson T. Alvarez, refused Picop Resources’ application, citing noncompliance with various regulations. Among these were Picop Resources’ supposed failure to submit a five-year forest protection plan, a seven-year reforestation plan, and the payment of P167.6 million in overdue forest charges as of Aug. 10, 2002.

In its latest resolution, the high court noted that the presidential warranty expressly states that the tenure of Picop Resources is “subject to compliance with constitutional and statutory requirements as well as with existing policy on timber concessions.”

“Forest lands cannot be alienated in favor of private entities. Granting to private entities, via a contract, a permanent, irrevocable, and exclusive possession of and right over forest lands is tantamount to granting ownership thereof,” the high court added. -- Ira P. Pedrasa