Didipio campaign

The Didipio Earth Savers’ Multi-Purpose Association,
Inc. (DESAMA) is unfazed by the recent ruling of the
Supreme Court’s First Division in the case they filed
against the DENR Secretary and Climax-Arimco Mining
Corp. as they vowed to defend their lands against
mining firms.

“Di kami titigil sa paglaban para sa lupa at
kabuhayan. Ang lupa ay para sa mamamayan, hindi para
sa dayuhang minahan,” stressed Peter Duyapat, leader
of the DESAMA, after learning of the Supreme Court’s
ruling on July 19.

In the said case, the Court upheld the
constitutionality of the Philippine Mining Act even as
it declared the entry of mining concessionaires into
private property, as a “taking”. Under section 9,
Article III of the Constitution, a valid exercise of
the eminent domain requires (1) taking for (2) public
use and (3) upon payment of just compensation. The
court affirms the first while the other two
requirements remained unsettled.

DESAMA, in its Motion for Reconsideration, argued that
the Philippine Mining Act does not provide for a
public purpose for such a taking nor does it provide
for the payment of just compensation to affected
landowners.

Other concerned groups have also filed a petition for
intervention on the case, claiming that the taking
under Section 76 is a violation of the constitutional
right to due process, However, this motion for
intervention was also denied in the same ruling. This
is all in contrast to a decision of the Court rendered
EN BANC in the case of La Bugal B’laan Tribal
Association, Inc. where it allowed the intervention of
the Chamber of Mines.

“We feel that a lot of questions remain unanswered and
poses a threat to our rights.” says Francis Joseph
Ballesteros of the Legal Rights and Natural Resources
Center, Inc., counsel for DESAMA.

Despite the series of setbacks in the legal arena,
DESAMA, together with other communities threatened by
the large scale mining corporations as well as
advocates for community control of natural resources
remain resilient. The community spirit and resistance
against the watering down of their rights to land and
livelihood seeks out new venues and forms. 

          
Mining Act’s Constitutionality to
Deprive RP of Economic Gains

Thee
Supreme Court’s recent decision upholding the constitutionality of the Mining
Act of 1995 will be detrimental to the economic interest of the government, the
public and private landowners especially to the thousands of indigenous peoples
who are losing their ancestral lands due to mining operations.

This
was the contention of the Didipio Earth Savers’ Multi-Purpose Association Inc.
(DESAMA) as they filed yesterday a motion for reconsideration urging the SC to
set aside its

March 30, 2006

decision which upheld the
constitutionality of R.A. 7942 or the Mining Act of 1995.

The
Mining Act according to DESAMA must be declared unconstitutional as it only
intends to enrich mining contractors at the expense of the economic interest of
the Philippine government and the Filipino people.

The
Mining Act, DESAMA claims, intends to practically surrender the eminent domain
power of the State to mining operators and also deprive individuals of their
right to just compensation over their lands taken away from them for mining
purposes.

Eminent domain

DESAMA
argued that the SC ruling erroneously delegated the power of eminent domain –
or the forcible acquisition of private property for  public use — to
mining operators.

"How
could the Climax Arimco Mining Corp. (CAMC) be given the power of eminent
domain when it is not a private entity operating a public utility but a foreign
mining corporation whose primary interest is for private gain and not for
public benefit? This is tantamount to the government voluntarily  giving
up its sovereign power to mining operators and relinquishing its obligation to
protect the interest of the public" said  Peter Duyapat Sr., a member
of the Board of Directors and a leader of DESAMA

Eminent
domain,  DESAMA noted, could only be exercised by the State  and not
by private mining operators except in public utilities operated by private
entities.

The
power of eminent domain according to DESAMA may be delegated by Congress to a
few exclusive bodies such as government entities, local government units and
private entities operating public utilities.

"The
law is clear. Only private entities that operate public utilities work as
exception to the rule barring further delegation of an already delegated
power," noted DESAMA in its petition.

Citing
Presidential Decree No. 512,  which the SC said was not expressly repealed
by section 76 of R.A. 7942, the court earlier ruled that: "The
evolution  of mining laws gives positive indication that mining operators
who are qualified to own lands were granted the authority to exercise eminent
domain for the entry, acquisition and use of private lands in areas open for
mining operations."

The
SC decision upheld the Financial and Technical Assistance Agreement (FTAA) of
CAMC thus allowing it to negotiate for the acquisition of lands which DESAMA
claimed is "a clear violation of the exclusive sovereign right of the
government to exercise the power of eminent domain."

Public purpose

The
Mining Act is unconstitutional according to DESAMA because the law’s provisions
do not fully satisfy the requirements in the exercise of eminent domain.

R.A.
7942 according to DESAMA lacks two essential provisions that would guarantee
that (1) mining operations are for public purposes and that (2) landowners
whose private properties  will be used for mining activities should be
justly compensated. 

There
are three requirements for a valid exercise of the power of eminent domain
under section 9, Article III of the Constitution. These are:  (1) taking
(of a private property) whose purpose must be for (2) public use which should
be made (3) upon payment of just compensation.

DESAMA
noted that the Mining Act only satisfied "the taking" requirement but
failed to comply with the "public use" and the "just
compensation" requirements of eminent domain.

Instead
of ensuring that mining operations will be for public purpose and hence for
public benefit, the Mining Act, DESAMA noted  "obliges the Philippine
government to ensure that mining contractors do not come out of the mining
venture poorer than when they came in."

If
mining operations in the

Philippines

are indeed a direct
undertaking of the State as the owner in trust of mineral resources, and is
designed to benefit the public, DESAMA said that the government, should have
received the majority of the income or proceeds from the mining operations of
CAMC.

"The
Mining Act failed to provide the country of economic growth based on real
contributions from mining operations that should have served the  general
welfare of the country. The law does not provide for the government’s equitable
share of the mining contractors’ profit," said Atty. Melizel Asuncion,
counsel of DESAMA. 

DESAMA
said that Mining contractors enjoy incentives such as corporate tax and duty
holidays from the Board of Investments. Corporations who hold FTAAs such as
CAMC, are given the privilege to fully recover its pre-operating and property
expenses before they give the government its share in the net revenue which are
nothing but levies such as taxes, duties and other fees that are not part of investment
return.

Just compensation

The
Mining Act also lacks a provision on just compensation required to satisfy the
legal exercise of eminent domain.

In
its motion for reconsideration, DESAMA argued that the SC erred in its
interpretation of equating damage compensation to just compensation.

The
SC said in its decision that section 76 of the Mining Law and section 107 of
Department Administrative Order (DAO) 96-40 of the Department of Environment
and Natural Resources both provide for the payment of just compensation.

DESAMA
countered the SC’s pronouncement claiming that the Mining Act and its
implementing rules and regulations only provide for damage compensation in
actual mining operations and/or the installation of machineries and other mining
facilities but not for the payment of just compensation.

Section
76 of the law only states that "any damage done to the property of the
surface owner, occupant or concessionaire as a consequence of such operation
shall be properly compensated as may be provided in the implementing rules and
regulations." 

According
to DESAMA, just compensation pertains to the full payment of a property taken
away from the owner based on its fair market value. 

This,
DESAMA said differs from the concept of damage compensation which only pertains
to payment for the harm or injury to a property resulting in the loss of its
value or impairment of its usefulness.

En banc decision

The
group also argued that instead of dismissing their earlier petition in DESAMA vs.
Elisea Gozun through affirming the First Division’s earlier decision in La
Bugal B’laan vs. Ramos which declared that section 76 of R.A. 7942 was not
unconstitutional,  the SC should have acted on DESAMA’s petition en banc
since the case involves the constitutionality of a law.

Section
4(2), Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution requires that all cases involving
the constitutionality of a treaty, international or executive agreement or
law have to be heard or decided by the SC en banc.

DIDIPIO
COMMUNITY FILES CASE AGAINST DENR & Mining Companies

Northern Luzon

Bishops hold a Thanksgiving Mass to support the
Community’s Action

March 8, 2006

 

Philippines

: Bayombong,
Nueva Vizcaya Regional Trial Court:

 

The Community of Baranggay Didipio,
Kasibu Nueva Vizcaya filed a Petition for Mandamus against the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources and Climax Arimco Mining Corporation (CAMC),
and its transferee Australasian Philippines Mining Incorporated (APMI) to force
the agency to cancel the environmental compliance certificate (ECC) issued to Climax
Arimco/ Australasian Philippines Mining Inc. (CAMC/APMI) and prevent the
implementation of an invalid Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC).

 

The Environmental Compliance
Certificate and the Financial Technical Assistance Agreement (FTAA) issued to
CAMC are conditioned on the local government consent requirement under sections 26 and 27 of the Republic Act
7160 or the Local Government Code of
the

Philippines

.
Under the law, CAMC/APMI should have obtained the consent of the Barangay,
Municipal and Provincial councils as precondition to their mining operation.
Both the Barangay and Municipal councils have already registered their
opposition to the Didipio Gold/Copper mining project. “Accordingly, the failure
to fulfill the local government consent requirement has rendered invalid the
ECC of CAMC/APMI and therefore, any mining operation that will be commenced in
the area will be illegal”, said Atty. Mary Ann Dela Pena –Regional Lawyer
LRC-KSK/Friends of the Earth –

Philippines

.

 

On

August 8, 2005

, the municipal council of Kasibu,

Nueva
  Vizcaya

,

Philippines

resolved NOT TO ENDORSE the Didipio
Gold-Copper Mining Project of CAMC/APMI. 

 

Despite demands to DENR and its
attached agencies to enforce the Ministerial cancellation of the ECC, no response
has been given. Hence, a Petition for Mandamus is being filed to compel the
DENR to issue a cancellation of the subject ECC.

 

This case represents the right of
local government units to determine their own development applicable within their
boundaries to suit the specific circumstances of their local economic, social
and environmental situations, while maintaining consistency with overall
regional objectives of sustainable development. It also asserts the local
government’s responsibility to prevent any projects which they deem to have
potential social and environmental impacts from operating within the areas
under their jurisdiction. “Large Scale Mining
in the

Philippines

has never in its history proven to be a sustainable enterprise.
In the past hundred years the country has been host to numerous mine spills and
other environmental disasters not to mention the associated social ills mining
brings to their host communities.” –JP
Alipio Luzon Campaigner LRC-KSK/Friends of the Earth –

Philippines

 

 

In line with this activity the
Bishops of Northern Luzon led by Bishop Ramon Villena of Nueva Vizcaya and
participated in by Bishop Sergio Utleg, of the Diocese of Ilagan, and Bishop
Jun Andaya of the Diocese of Tabuk will be holding a thanksgiving mass at the
Cathedral of Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya to support the Didipio community’s
campaign against Climax Arimco/Australasian Philippines Mining Inc. The
thanksgiving mass will be attended by the members of the Didipio community
together with the Municipal officials of Kasibu and other advocates against
large scale corporate mining in Nueva Vizcaya.

 

For inquiries or requests for
interviews with the community members, Bishops, DSAC, or Lawyers of
LRC-KSK/Friends of the Earth –

Philippines

please get in touch with:

 

 

JP Alipio

Luzon

Campaigns

 

LRC-KSK/Friends of the Earth –

Philippines

87- Madasalin St. Teachers Village,
Q.C.

Tel: 434-4079 

Email: jpalipio@yahoo.com

 

LRC-KSK/Friends of the Earth –

Philippines

 

Email: lrc.friendsoftheearth@gmail.com

To know more
about the Didipio campaign, please visit http://didipio.blogs.friendster.com/didipio_campaign/

 

 

 

The Didipio Struggle Against Mining Activities of

Climax-Arimco Mining Corporation: A Summary

 

 

Former President Fidel V. Ramos granted the
Financial or Technical Assistance Agreement (FTAA) to Climax-Arimco Mining
Corporation (“Climax”) on

20 June 1994

, a year before Republic
Act 7942, otherwise known as the Philippine Mining Act of 1995, was enacted
into law. The exploration area has been
reduced to 21,465.00 hectares (from the initial contract area of 34,992
hectares. The Mining Act provides only a maximum of 5,000 hectares as mining
project site).  

 

Social
Acceptability

 

The mining project required a large underground
mining operation and the removal of the local Dinkindi Hill. The Ifugao communities feared farmland would
be destroyed and the village would be used as a catch basin for mining waste.
In response, they formed a barangay-wide organization called The Didipio
Earth-Savers’ Multi Purpose Association, Inc. (DESAMA), a duly organized
people’s organization registered with the Securities and Exchange
Commission. 

 

Other sectors of the community also made their
opposition to Climax’s project known, including a violent protest that led to
the deployment of a company of the Philippine Army, which set up camp beside
Dinkidi Hill. In an effort to quiet
local protests, Climax persuaded barangay officials to enter into a Memorandum
of Agreement (MOA) stipulating that Climax would allocate funds for education
and health programs, as well as promising jobs for residents.

 

CAMC’S
1999 ECC

 

An Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC) was
issued on

11 August 1999

. However, the ECC was subject to several
conditions, one of which was the recommendation of the Regional Development
Council (RDC).

 

On

17 October 2000

, the RDC rejected the proposal of Climax despite the endorsements of
the Regional Land Use Committee and the Economic Development Committee for the reason that the proposed project is
located within a critical watershed area. Climax requested the RDC for a reconsideration of their decision, but
their previous rejection was sustained in a special meeting on

23
February 2001

.
(Incidentally, until now, there has been
no resolution as to the issue of whether CAMC’s project is within a critical
watershed area.)

 

Another major condition to the grant of the ECC is
the MOA, which has also been disputed with charges that the approval and
signatures were secured under threat and bribery. In 1997, DESAMA headed the campaign for a
“People’s Initiative,” petitioning for a recall of the MOA, and the conduct of
a referendum to validate the Agreement. (In
the meantime, in the election of local barangay officials, the majority of
those voted were against CAMC’s mining activities such that Barangay Didipio
issued a Resolution revoking the MOA in 2001. Hence, the petition for initiative was withdrawn.)

 

Notice of
Suspension by the DENR

 

Because of these issues, former DENR Secretary Alvarez issued a Notice of Suspension of
Exploration Activities on

11 October 2001

until such
time that various issues have been resolved. (No
act has been done by the DENR expressly lifting such suspension. However, the
re-issuance of an ECC to CAMC may effectively result in such lifting of the
suspension.)

 

CAMC’s
2004 ECC

 

On

6 August 2004

, the DENR issued an
amended Environmental Compliance Certificate to CAMC. The ECC now covers areas
in Kasibu, Nueva Vizcaya and Cabarroguis, Quirino. In the previous ECC, the
local government consent required was at the level of the barangay and the
provincial councils. Curiously, in the amended ECC, it only required the
endorsement of the Sanggunian Bayan.

 

(Incidentally,
in December 2004, the DENR approved the assignment of CAMC’s interest in the
project to its local affiliate, Australasian Philippines Mining, Inc.).

 

Since then, the local government units (LGU) of
Nueva Vizcaya have engaged in a political tug-of-war regarding the endorsement
of CAMC’s mining activities in the province.

 

On

8 August 2005

, the Sangguniang Bayan of
Kasibu, Nueva Vizcaya, resolved not to endorse CAMC’s mining activities. Surprisingly, even before the documentation
of such resolution was released, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Nueva Vizcaya
held a hearing on the endorsement of CAMC’s mining project on

7
September 2005

.  A few hours of deliberating later, the Sangguniang
Panlalawigan unanimously endorsed CAMC’s project. (It was relayed later that the actions of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan
resulted from the endorsement of the project by the Sangguniang Kabataan of
Barangay Didipio, Kasibu, Nueva Vizcaya.)

 

Currently, the conflicting positions of the LGUs
concerned are as follows:

 

[Sangguniang Kabataan –
endorse (The SK is not a recognized LGU.)]

Sangguniang Barangay –
reject

Sangguniang Bayan – reject

Sangguniang Panlalawigan -
endorse

 

It bears repeating that the only LGU identified in CAMC’s ECC to give its consent is the
Sangguniang Bayan. Furthermore, no
procedure for appeal from the Sangguniang Bayan’s decision is found in either
the ECC or in existing laws on local governance. 

 

Legal
Questions Raised

 

In view of the foregoing, there are three basic
issues that arise from the request made by the SK, on behalf of CAMC, to the
Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Nueva Vizcaya to review and possibly overrule the
resolution of the Sangguniang Bayan of Kasibu. These are the following:

 

1. Does Climax-Arimco Mining Corporation (CAMC) or
the Sangguniang Kabataan have the right to appeal the unfavorable resolution of
the Sangguniang Bayan of Kasibu to the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Nueva
Vizcaya?

 

2. Does the Sangguniang Panlalawigan have the right
to review and overrule any and all resolutions and ordinances of the
Sangguniang Bayan?

 

3. What is the effect of the review to be made by
the Sangguniang Panlalawigan on the resolution of the Sangguniang Bayan to
withhold its endorsement of CAMC’s project?

 

First, it must be pointed out that the most current
Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC) of CAMC issued by the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) specifically requires the consent of
the Sangguniang Bayan as a pre-condition to the start of its mining
operations. Considering that the ECC
also specifically identifies the areas of CAMC’s mining operations as located
in both Cabarroguis, Quirino and Kasibu, Nueva Vizcaya, it is from the
Sangguniang Bayan of these two localities that CAMC must request permission.

 

The ECC does not provide for a means by which CAMC
or any other person may appeal the decision of the Sangguniang Bayan whether it
is to grant or withhold its consent.

 

Likewise, the Local Government Code recognizes the
autonomy of local government units over their respective territories. Several provisions of the Code
require the consent
of local government units to projects before they are implemented. For reference, these provisions are as follows:

 

“SEC. 2. (c) It is likewise the policy
of the State to require all national agencies and offices to conduct periodic
consultations with appropriate local government units, non-governmental and
people’s organizations, and other concerned sectors of the community before any
project or program is implemented in their respective jurisdictions.

 

“SEC. 26. Duty of
National Government Agencies in the Maintenance of Ecological Balance. - It
shall be the duty of every national agency or government-owned or -controlled
corporation authorizing or involved in the planning and implementation of any
project or program that may cause pollution, climatic change, depletion of
non-renewable resources, loss of crop land, rangeland, or forest cover, and
extinction of animal or plant species, to consult with the local government
units, nongovernmental organizations, and other sectors concerned and explain
the goals and objectives of the project or program, its impact upon the people
and the community in terms of environmental or ecological balance, and the
measures that will be undertaken to prevent or minimize the adverse effects
thereof.

 

And,

 

“SEC. 27. Prior
Consultations Required.- No project or program shall be implemented by
government authorities unless the consultations mentioned in Sections 2 (c) and
26 hereof are complied with, and prior approval of the sanggunian concerned is
obtained: Provided, That occupants in areas where such projects are to be
implemented shall not be evicted unless appropriate relocation sites have been
provided, in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution.”

 

Aside from the autonomy of local government units
from the national government, the Local Government Code also
recognizes the autonomy of each local government unit from other local
government units. Thus, Article
110 of the Local Government Code only requires the secretary of the
Sangguniang Bayan to transmit to the Sangguniang Panlalawigan for review,
copies of approved ordinances and resolutions that approve and adopt local development plans and public investment
programs formulated by the local development councils. Other than the foregoing ordinances and
resolutions, the Sangguniang Bayan is not required to forward its acts to the
Sangguniang Panlalawigan for review.

 

Even if the rejection of the mining operations of
CAMC is to be considered a resolution pertaining to a local development plan or
a public investment program, the power of review of the Sangguniang
Panlalawigan is limited to a finding if the had the authority to issue
Sangguniang Bayan the resolution or ordinance. The wisdom or the rationale for issuing the resolution is irrelevant.

 

Clearly, in this case, with the ECC requiring its
prior consent, the Sangguniang Bayan of Kasibu had every right to endorse or
reject the operation of CAMC. Being a
pre-condition to the ECC, the endorsement of the project cannot be imposed on
the Sangguniang Bayan. 

 

When it required consent, the DENR could not have
possibly meant that such endorsement is a mere ministerial act by the
Sangguniang Bayan. Consent connotes a
careful deliberation that can either result favorably or unfavorably on the
applicant. Regardless of whether or not
other local government units agree with the resolution of the Sangguniang Bayan
of Kasibu, the fact remains that its resolution was made within its authority
as recognized and specified by the ECC of CAMC.

 

Incidentally, the previous ECC of CAMC had required
the consent of the barangay and municipal councils. It is
unfortunate that when Barangay Didipio issued a resolution revoking the
previous endorsement it gave CAMC to proceed with its mining operations, CAMC
was issued a new ECC requiring instead only the consent of the Sanggunian
Bayan.

 

Again, there is no basis for the appeal of CAMC to
the Sangguniang Panlalawigan to review or even overrule the non-endorsement of
the Sangguniang Bayan of Kasibu of its mining project. The ECC categorically requires the consent of
the Sangguniang Bayan and of said local government council alone. Whether or not the Sangguniang Panlalawigan
issues its own endorsement of the project, the same will not fulfill the
condition stipulated in the ECC.

 

The Local Government Code also does not provide for
the power of control by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan over the Sangguniang
Bayan. The former, in certain instances
only, has the mere power of supervision. It can only check if the Sangguniang Bayan acts within its authority. It cannot delve into the wisdom, the
rationale, or the justification of the decision. In this case, it is clear that the
Sangguniang Bayan exercised a clear and unquestionable power to withhold its
endorsement. Necessarily, if it acts on
the appeal of CAMC to endorse the project despite the resolution of the
Sangguniang Bayan, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan does so beyond its power of
review and any result therefrom is illegal and, therefore, void.

 

Legal
Actions Done

 

Because of the uncertainty that the political
tug-of-war brings to Didipio, it was necessary to request the DENR to recognize
the non-endorsement of the Sangguniang Bayan, which the Legal Rights and
Natural Resources Center did, in a letter dated

19
September 2005

. 

 

In response, the DENR referred the matter to the
DENR Regional Director of Region II. Unfortunately, the Memorandum dated

27
September 2005

misleadingly states
that the said project is only in Quirino province. Thus, we wrote the DENR again to clarify the
actual coverage of CAMC’s ECC. Such
clarificatory letter was also endorsed to the Regional Office.

 

Other
Incidents

 

As additional evidence to the efforts of supposedly
unbiased public officials to hasten the procedures for the implementation of
CAMC’s project despite the overwhelming objections thereto, DENR Secretary Michael Defensor issued a
statement vetoing the Sangguniang Bayan’s resolution and giving CAMC the
go-signal for its mining project.

 

Clearly, such act of DENR Secretary Defensor is a
violation of the autonomy accorded local government units.

 

As an alter-ego, the President can alter or nullify
the act of any executive department. Definitely, as an alter-ego of the President, the DENR Secretary can exercise
no more power than the President can. 

 

To emphasize that it is
only supervisory power that is exercised by the President and his alter-egos
over local government units, the Local Government Code provides for procedures
by which projects are to be implemented that require the consent of local
government units before they are implemented. (Please refer to afore-quoted Sections 2, 26, and 27 of the Local
Government Code.)

 

Said provisions establish the need for the consent
of the local government unit to the implementation of a project. There
are no exceptions or short-cuts that will allow for an executive department to
remove such power.

 

The decision of the Sangguniang Bayan of Nueva
Vizcaya not to endorse CAMC’s project is well-within its power. Similarly to the Sangguniang Panlalawigan, the
DENR may not agree with the Sangguniang Bayan but it is a decision that will
stand despite any opposition even if made by the President herself. 

 

The issue is simple enough and the answer is
clearly provided in the Local Government Code, and, more importantly, in the
1987 Constitution of the Republic of the

Philippines

. There is no gray area; there is no room for
discussion. 

DIDIPIO COMMUNITY FILES CASE AGAINST DENR & Mining Companies

Northern Luzon

Bishops hold a Thanksgiving Mass to support the Community’s Action

March 8, 2006

Philippines

: Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya Regional Trial Court:

The Community of Baranggay Didipio, Kasibu Nueva Vizcaya filed a Petition for Mandamus against the Department of Environment and Natural Resources and Climax Arimco Mining Corporation (CAMC), and its transferee Australasian Philippines Mining Incorporated (APMI) to force the agency to cancel the environmental compliance certificate (ECC) issued to Climax Arimco/ Australasian Philippines Mining Inc. (CAMC/APMI) and prevent the implementation of an invalid Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC).

The Environmental Compliance Certificate and the Financial Technical Assistance Agreement (FTAA) issued to CAMC are conditioned on the local government consent requirement under sections 26 and 27 of the Republic Act 7160 or the Local Government Code of the

Philippines

. Under the law, CAMC/APMI should have obtained the consent of the Barangay, Municipal and Provincial councils as precondition to their mining operation. Both the Barangay and Municipal councils have already registered their opposition to the Didipio Gold/Copper mining project. “Accordingly, the failure to fulfill the local government consent requirement has rendered invalid the ECC of CAMC/APMI and therefore, any mining operation that will be commenced in the area will be illegal”, said Atty. Mary Ann Dela Pena –Regional Lawyer LRC-KSK/Friends of the Earth –

Philippines

.

On August 8, 2005, the municipal council of Kasibu,

Nueva Vizcaya

,

Philippines

resolved NOT TO ENDORSE the Didipio Gold-Copper Mining Project of CAMC/APMI. 

Despite demands to DENR and its attached agencies to enforce the Ministerial cancellation of the ECC, no response has been given. Hence, a Petition for Mandamus is being filed to compel the DENR to issue a cancellation of the subject ECC.

This case represents the right of local government units to determine their own development applicable within their boundaries to suit the specific circumstances of their local economic, social and environmental situations, while maintaining consistency with overall regional objectives of sustainable development.  It also asserts the local government’s responsibility to prevent any projects which they deem to have potential social and environmental impacts from operating within the areas under their jurisdiction.  “Large Scale Mining in the

Philippines

has never in its history proven to be a sustainable enterprise. In the past hundred years the country has been host to numerous mine spills and other environmental disasters not to mention the associated social ills mining brings to their host communities.”  –JP Alipio Luzon Campaigner LRC-KSK/Friends of the Earth –

Philippines

In line with this activity the Bishops of Northern Luzon led by Bishop Ramon Villena of Nueva Vizcaya and participated in by Bishop Sergio Utleg, of the Diocese of Ilagan, and Bishop Jun Andaya of the Diocese of Tabuk will be holding a thanksgiving mass at the Cathedral of Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya to support the Didipio community’s campaign against Climax Arimco/Australasian Philippines Mining Inc. The thanksgiving mass will be attended by the members of the Didipio community together with the Municipal officials of Kasibu and other advocates against large scale corporate mining in Nueva Vizcaya.

For inquiries or requests for interviews with the community members, Bishops, DSAC, or Lawyers of LRC-KSK/Friends of the Earth –

Philippines

please get in touch with:

JP Alipio

Luzon

Campaigns

LRC-KSK/Friends of the Earth –

Philippines

87- Madasalin St. Teachers Village, Q.C.

Tel: 434-4079    

Email: jpalipio@yahoo.com

LRC-KSK/Friends of the Earth –

Philippines

Email: lrc.friendsoftheearth@gmail.com

To know more about the Didipio campaign, please visit http://didipio.blogs.friendster.com/didipio_campaign/

DIDIPIO COMMUNITY FILES CASE AGAINST DENR & Mining Companies

Northern Luzon Bishops hold a Thanksgiving Mass to support the Community’s Action

March 8, 2006 Philippines: Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya Regional Trial Court:

The Community of Baranggay Didipio, Kasibu Nueva Vizcaya filed a Petition for Mandamus against the Department of Environment and Natural Resources and Climax Arimco Mining Corporation (CAMC), and its transferee Australasian Philippines Mining Incorporated (APMI) to force the agency to cancel the environmental compliance certificate (ECC) issued to Climax Arimco/ Australasian Philippines Mining Inc. (CAMC/APMI) and prevent the implementation of an invalid Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC).

The Environmental Compliance Certificate and the Financial Technical Assistance Agreement (FTAA) issued to CAMC are conditioned on the local government consent requirement under sections 26 and 27 of the Republic Act 7160 or the Local Government Code of the Philippines. Under the law, CAMC/APMI should have obtained the consent of the Barangay, Municipal and Provincial councils as precondition to their mining operation. Both the Barangay and Municipal councils have already registered their opposition to the Didipio Gold/Copper mining project. “Accordingly, the failure to fulfill the local government consent requirement has rendered invalid the ECC of CAMC/APMI and therefore, any mining operation that will be commenced in the area will be illegal”, said Atty. Mary Ann Dela Pena –Regional Lawyer LRC-KSK/Friends of the Earth –Philippines.

On August 8, 2005, the municipal council of Kasibu, Nueva Vizcaya, Philippines resolved NOT TO ENDORSE the Didipio Gold-Copper Mining Project of CAMC/APMI. Despite demands to DENR and its attached agencies to enforce the Ministerial cancellation of the ECC, no response has been given. Hence, a Petition for Mandamus is being filed to compel the DENR to issue a cancellation of the subject ECC.

This case represents the right of local government units to determine their own development applicable within their boundaries to suit the specific circumstances of their local economic, social and environmental situations, while maintaining consistency with overall regional objectives of sustainable development. It also asserts the local government’s responsibility to prevent any projects which they deem to have potential social and environmental impacts from operating within the areas under their jurisdiction. “Large Scale Mining in the Philippines has never in its history proven to be a sustainable enterprise. In the past hundred years the country has been host to numerous mine spills and other environmental disasters not to mention the associated social ills mining brings to their host communities.” –JP Alipio Luzon Campaigner LRC-KSK/Friends of the Earth –Philippines

In line with this activity the Bishops of Northern Luzon led by Bishop Ramon Villena of Nueva Vizcaya and participated in by Bishop Sergio Utleg, of the Diocese of Ilagan, and Bishop Jun Andaya of the Diocese of Tabuk will be holding a thanksgiving mass at the Cathedral of Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya to support the Didipio community’s campaign against Climax Arimco/Australasian Philippines Mining Inc. The thanksgiving mass will be attended by the members of the Didipio community together with the Municipal officials of Kasibu and other advocates against large scale corporate mining in Nueva Vizcaya. For inquiries or requests for interviews with the community members, Bishops, DSAC, or Lawyers of LRC-KSK/Friends of the Earth –Philippines please get in touch with: JP Alipio Luzon Campaigns LRC-KSK/Friends of the Earth –Philippines 87- Madasalin St. Teachers Village, Q.C. Tel: 434-4079 Email: jpalipio@yahoo.com LRC-KSK/Friends of the Earth –Philippines Email: lrc.friendsoftheearth@gmail.com To know more about the Didipio campaign, please visit http://didipio.blogs.friendster.com/didipio_campaign/

November 24, 2005

Dear Secretary Mike Defensor,

Please stop the mining in Didipio and other places in the Philippines because people will be affected and also crops, farms will be affected, also children.

Please stop the mining. Just do it.

From:

Joseph Christian Raynaldo Ruiz
Loyola Heights, QC

Dear Secretary of DENR, (Mike Defensor and Angelo Reyes)

Please reconsider about the mining activities . If they include tearing down the farms and homes of the people in that area.  The farms and or fish wil be contaminated by the mine tailings if they escape from their ponds and into the river. Besides since it’s an Australian company, they get most of the money, even if its from our land.

Think about it.

You can help sir.  Think about it.

From Rebecca Georgia V. Yu
Loyola Heights, Quezon City

November 24, 2005

Dear Sec. Mike Defensor,

Do you care about our country? why do you let the foreigners mine in the Philippines?? Do you know that they get the gold and throw their waste in our river and oceans? why do you turn our forests and fields into mines? Do you know that our produce is more precious than gold? Do you think that mining will make the Philippines a better place?? Do you know that you already ruined the lives of the people of Marinduque?  Do you know that miners already destroyed the lives of a young generation?? Do you know that you are making the poor poorer?

If you care about our country, as a simple request from CENTRO Montessori international and your former teacher, please do the right thing to stop Mining.

Thank You

From,

Carlos Angel D. Pascual
Grade 7 Thirteen Years old
Teachers Village West, Quezon City

November 22, 2005

Dear Mr. Defensor,

I’m Dominique Pavia. I’m in grade 3. I study in Centro Montessori. Our school heard about what’s going to happen to Didipio, NUeva Vizcaya. We felt sorry for the people who live in the beautiful places.  Please kindly top the other countries from mining in the Philippine, and exploding the mountain Didipio. If they make the mountain explode, the people who live there will lose their homes.

Respectfully yours,

Dominique Pavia
CENTRO Montessori, Quezon City