The Wolf Trap
(first published in the Zamboanga Peninsula Journal, February 2007;
legal writing assignment under Prof. Adel Tamano)
In the 18th century, indigenous people from Northern Europe would hunt wolves by using an ingeniously cruel wolf trap. This trap consists of a bloodied knife blade frozen into winter ice. When the wolf smells blood, it starts licking the blood off the knife, eventually cutting its own tongue on the sharp blade. The wolf licks at the knife in a maddened frenzy, unaware that it was drinking its own blood. The wolf’s blood attracts others nearby who would attack the trap’s victim and one another. With a single trap, the entire pack of wolves are killed.
Similarly, mining in the Philippines operates like the wolf trap. Blessed with the fifth largest reserve of gold and copper in the world, the Philippines boasts of nine million hectares of potential mining land - of which just 1.4 is covered by mining permits.[1] Thus, the government is all too eager to grant mining concessions with added fiscal and non-fiscal incentives under the R.A. 7942 or the Philippine Mining Act of 1995. Is the system of mineral resources exploration, development, utilization and conservation really beneficial or is it slowly killing our environment through bleeding to death by our own undoing? In an attempt to implement the RA 7076 or the People’s Small Scale Mining Act of 1991, are big firms skirting the legal safeguards for environmental protection?
One example is the case of Tubay, Agusan del Norte. Estimated mining reserves of Tubay amounting to 1,566,139 MT of gold[2] were offered to a firm, which obtained a permit to engage in “small-scale” mining. This permit is questionable, and thus, should be revoked, on four grounds, namely:
1. The municipal council may award only one small scale mining contract per year;
2. The Local Government Code was violated;
3. The operation of the firm does not fit the definition of small scale mining;
4. Protected areas closed to mining were included in the permit.
First, RA 7076 or the People’s Small Scale Mining Act of 1991, states: “A people’s small scale mining contract may be awarded by the Board [municipal council]… provided that only one people’s small scale mining contract may be awarded at one time to a small scale operator within one year from date of award.” According to reports of the local church and environmental groups in the community, several corporations were organized to circumvent this law on awarding of mining contracts.
Second, there were violations of the Local Government Code because of the open gestalt between the practices there and what the law stipulates. Sec. 447 of the said Code states the duty of the sangguniang bayan to: “(i) Provide for the establishment, maintenance, protection, and conservation of communal forests and watersheds…; (iv) Adopt measures to protect the inhabitants of the municipality from the harmful effects of man-made or natural disasters and calamities… (vi) Protect the environment and impose appropriate for acts which endanger the environment, such as… activities which result in pollution, acceleration of eutrophication of rivers and lakes or of ecological imbalance;”[3]
Third, “small scale mining,” as defined in RA 7076, refers to “mining activities which rely heavily on manual labor using simple implements and methods and do not use explosives or heavy mining equipment.” Since heavy mining equipment, explosives, and mineral transport barges were employed by mining concessionaires in Tubay, the operations should not be considered small scale.
Lastly, Sec. 19(f) of the Mining Act of 1995 delineates: “Areas Closed to Mining Applications… Old growth or virgin forests, proclaimed watershed forest reserves, wilderness area…provincial/municipal forests… bird sanctuaries as defined by law and in areas expressly prohibited under the National Integrated Protected Area System (NIPAS) under RA No. 7586 other laws.” Unfortunately, the mining permit of the corporations covered areas that are expressly closed to mining applications as stated in the law.
These four points prove the imminent environmental threat in Tubay, as well as similar situations in other provinces that have borne witness to the ill-effects of unabated natural resource exploitation. The crux of the legal issue lies in multi-sectoral emphasis on environmental law enforcement, governance and jurisprudence.
Rather than succumb to the wolf trap of satiating our nation’s temporal economic desires, we must also take into account the “right of Filipinos to a balanced and healthful ecology as associated with the twin concepts of ‘inter-generational responsibility’ and ‘inter-generational justice.’”[4] Otherwise, what shall befall us is a slow, painful death, at the hands of our own greed.
-for verification, please contact:
Vida Soraya Salih Verzosa,
Ateneo Law Student,
vsorayav@gmail.com
Wordcount: 737 Words
Footnotes:
[1] Philippine Embassy - USA, A PRIMER ON MINING IN THE PHILIPPINES:
http://www.philippineembassy-usa.org/other/miningprimerrp.htm[2] Government of Agusan del Norte, Economic Information:
http://www.skyinet.net/~ppdoadn/location.html[3] Tanggol.org, Philippine Laws on the Environment:
http://www.tanggol.org/environmental_laws/index_elaws.htm[4]JUAN ANTONIO, ET AL. vs. FULGENCIO S. FACTORAN, JR., ET AL., G.R. No. 101083 July 30, 1993:
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1993/jul1993/gr_101083_1993.html