+ Follow FRANCIS JOSEPH BALLESTEROS Tag
Array
(
[results] => Array
(
[0] => Array
(
[ArticleID] => 40454
[Title] => SC asked to stop Nueva Vizcaya mining project
[Summary] =>
[DatePublished] => 2008-01-24 00:00:00
[ColumnID] => 133272
[Focus] => 0
[AuthorID] => 1673868
[AuthorName] => Reinir Padua
[SectionName] => Nation
[SectionUrl] => nation
[URL] =>
)
[1] => Array
(
[ArticleID] => 349564
[Title] => SC reaffirms constitutionality of Mining Act
[Summary] =>
The Supreme Court (SC) upheld the constitutionality of the Philippine Mining Act of 1995 when it junked with finality the motion for reconsideration filed by the Didipio Earth Savers Multi-Purpose Association Inc. (DESAMA).
In a resolution dated June 14, the high court denied DESAMAs petition regarding its March 30 decision to uphold the constitutionality of the Mining Act, saying that the basic issues have already been addressed and there is no substantial argument to warrant a modification of its decision.
[DatePublished] => 2006-07-27 00:00:00
[ColumnID] => 133272
[Focus] => 0
[AuthorID] => 1097177
[AuthorName] => Katherine Adraneda
[SectionName] => Headlines
[SectionUrl] => headlines
[URL] =>
)
)
)
FRANCIS JOSEPH BALLESTEROS
Array
(
[results] => Array
(
[0] => Array
(
[ArticleID] => 40454
[Title] => SC asked to stop Nueva Vizcaya mining project
[Summary] =>
[DatePublished] => 2008-01-24 00:00:00
[ColumnID] => 133272
[Focus] => 0
[AuthorID] => 1673868
[AuthorName] => Reinir Padua
[SectionName] => Nation
[SectionUrl] => nation
[URL] =>
)
[1] => Array
(
[ArticleID] => 349564
[Title] => SC reaffirms constitutionality of Mining Act
[Summary] =>
The Supreme Court (SC) upheld the constitutionality of the Philippine Mining Act of 1995 when it junked with finality the motion for reconsideration filed by the Didipio Earth Savers Multi-Purpose Association Inc. (DESAMA).
In a resolution dated June 14, the high court denied DESAMAs petition regarding its March 30 decision to uphold the constitutionality of the Mining Act, saying that the basic issues have already been addressed and there is no substantial argument to warrant a modification of its decision.
[DatePublished] => 2006-07-27 00:00:00
[ColumnID] => 133272
[Focus] => 0
[AuthorID] => 1097177
[AuthorName] => Katherine Adraneda
[SectionName] => Headlines
[SectionUrl] => headlines
[URL] =>
)
)
)
abtest