November 24, 2005
Dear Secretary Defensor,
Please stop the mining because the rivers will be affected by the mine tailings. The Sea creatures will also be affected. When the people catch the fish and eat them they too will be poisoned. I hope that you will protect the people from Didipio.
Thank You
From,
Enzo Galvez
CENTRO Montessori, Quezon City
Dear Secretary Defensor,
Our environment is surrounded with mountains, streams, and forests. We make our living from the land through planting fruits and vegetables like Citrus, Pomelo, and others.
We are very happy living in Binogowan, kasibu, Nueva Vizcaya. Playing with fresh rivers, air, and forests of our valley. The climate is cool and the water is plentiful.
I’m so sad to learn that a mining company is coming to destroy our place. Please help us save this valley. Stop the mining company from destroying our future. Give this as your Christmas gift to us.
Thank You Very Much
Dezeiris A. Kimayong
Grade VI
Binogowan
Elementary School
December 5, 2005
Dear Secretary Defensor,
Ang aming kapaligiran ay malinis at masaya. Maraming punongkahoy, prutas tulad ng citrus at iba pa.
Masaya kaming naninirahan dito sa Binogawan, kasibu, Nueva Vizcaya. Na kung saan sariwa ang tubig at hangin.
Pero nang malaman naming may pagmiminang magaganap nalungkot kami sapagkat napag-alaman naming na ang pagmimina ay nakakasira sa kalikasan. Ibig sabihin pagkatapos ng labinlimang taon wala na lahat ng aming pananim pagkat wala nang tubig.
Paano kami? Paano an gaming kinabukasan? Tulungan sana niyo kami na iligtas an gaming mahal na lugar at ang aming kinabukasan, sapagkat ang pagtanim lang an gaming hanapbuhay na siyang pinagkukunan namin ng pangangailangang araw-araw.
Ito po sana ang regalo nyo sa amin ngayong Pasko.
Maraming salamat po.
Nagmamakaawa
Zairah D. Mendiola
Grade V Pupil
Binogowan
Elementary School
Malabing Kasibu, Nueva Vizcaya
Sir/Madam,
Magandang
Araw pos a Inyong lahat. Ako po ay isang
estudyante sa Malabing Valley National High School. Ako po ay di sumasang ayon sa mining doon sa Didipio dahil ito po ay
nakakasira sa kalikasan. Ako po ay humihingi ng tulong sa inyo para hindi
matuloy ang pagmimina. Kung ito po ay
matuloy ay mahirapan ang mga tao lalo na sa mga katulad naming kabataan. Masisira ang mga Kabundukan at saan kami
kukuha ng ikabubuhay? Ditoy magandang magmina dahil pagkuhaan ng pera pero
kapag matapos ang mina at kinuha na nila lahat ng makukuha at sila ay umalis paano
na ang mga tao sa lugar na ito?
Hindi naman kakasya ang pera na ibinigay nila sa mga
tao. Kahit
sabihin nila na sesementohin nila ang mga kalsada, pero saan gagamitin ang
kalsadang sementado kung walang produkto ang mga tao sa lugar na ito. Pati nga tubig ay mawawala at siyempre
mamatay lahat ng nakatanim. Tayo sana ay magkakaisa para gumawa ng paraan para hindi matuloy
ang mina. Sanay maasahan naming ang
inyong tulong. Di ba? Ang Trabaho ng mga
DENR ay pangalagaan ang Kabundukan? Kung ang kabundukan ay makalbo at masira
ang mga hugis ng mga bundok ay parang walang silbi ang mga DENR. So tayo’y
magkaisa para hindi matupad ang mina.
Ang
napakagandang ibinigay ng diyos ay para sa atin para pagkuhanan ng ikabubuhay
ay huwag
sana nating biglain ang pagkasira. Ito man ay masisira
pero unti-unit at para sa mga taong sumusuonod sa inyo. Buti pa sa mga katulad
ninyo dahil malapit na ang nakatakdang araw o panahon para sa inyo, pero kami
at ang mga sumusunod na maliliit? Kailangan
bang sila ay maghihirap? Samantalang ang mga tao na gumagawa ng mining ay
maganda ang buhay nila?
Yours truly,
Jema Pinikihan
Malabing Valley High
School
Wangal, Kasibu, Nueva Vizcaya
NO TO
MINING
Ika-14 ng Dec. 2005
Ako
ay di sumasangayon sa MINING dahil sa masisira ang kalikasan naming ditto sa
buong Kasibu. Kung pahihintulutan ng pamahalaan ang MINING papaano na kami??
Paano na ang kabuhayan naming dito? Bakit?? Mababayaran ba ang mga buhay na
mawawasak sa idudulot ng MINING? Sapat ba dahilang pambayad ng utang ng
Pilipinas? Papaano Kami? Papaano na ang produkot naming na siyang pinagkukunan
naming ng ikabubuhay? Bakit? Naisip ban g pamahalaan ang lahat ng ito? Minsan
bang sumagi sa isipan nila ang masasamang dulot ng mining? Puro nalang bang
mabuti ang iniisip nila?
Kung
kami nga di naming miniminas an gaming lugar, ang mga taong taga ibang bansa pa
kaya?! Kung gusto naming mag MINING bakit hindi pa
noon
? Bakit hanggang ngayon hindi pa? MAHAL NAMIN ANG AMING LUGAR kaya ayaw namin
ng mining… Bakit
pa naming sisirain ang Biyaya ng Diyos kung ito ay may malaking pakinabang sa
amin??
Marami
naming ibang lugar diyan na puedeng Minasin, bakit ang lugar pa naming?
Sana
naman mag-isip-isip ang pamahalaan, makonsensya
naman sila, yun ay kung may tinatawag silang konsensya. Kayong
mga di madadamay sa MINING alam kong mararamdaman din ninyo ang aming
nararamdaman sa ngayon kung kayo ang nasa katayuan namin…
Student of MVNHS, Wangal, Wangal Kasibu, Nueva Vizcaya
to post your own letters:
email your letters to: lettersfordidipio@gmail.com
or snail mail to: LRC-KSK/Friends of the Earth -Philippines
87 Madasalin St. Teachers Village, QC
NO TO
MINING
Ika-14 ng Dec. 2005
Ako
ay di sumasangayon sa MINING dahil sa masisira ang kalikasan naming ditto sa
buong Kasibu. Kung pahihintulutan ng pamahalaan ang MINING papaano na kami??
Paano na ang kabuhayan naming dito? Bakit?? Mababayaran ba ang mga buhay na
mawawasak sa idudulot ng MINING? Sapat ba dahilang pambayad ng utang ng
Pilipinas? Papaano Kami? Papaano na ang produkot naming na siyang pinagkukunan
naming ng ikabubuhay? Bakit? Naisip ban g pamahalaan ang lahat ng ito? Minsan
bang sumagi sa isipan nila ang masasamang dulot ng mining? Puro nalang bang
mabuti ang iniisip nila?
Kung
kami nga di naming miniminas an gaming lugar, ang mga taong taga ibang bansa pa
kaya?! Kung gusto naming mag MINING bakit hindi pa noon? Bakit hanggang ngayon hindi pa? MAHAL NAMIN ANG AMING LUGAR kaya ayaw namin
ng mining… Bakit
pa naming sisirain ang Biyaya ng Diyos kung ito ay may malaking pakinabang sa
amin??
Marami
naming ibang lugar diyan na puedeng Minasin, bakit ang lugar pa naming? Sana naman mag-isip-isip ang pamahalaan, makonsensya
naman sila, yun ay kung may tinatawag silang konsensya. Kayong
mga di madadamay sa MINING alam kong mararamdaman din ninyo ang aming
nararamdaman sa ngayon kung kayo ang nasa katayuan namin…
Student of MVNHS, Wangal, Wangal Kasibu, Nueva Vizcaya
to post your own letters:
email your letters to: lettersfordidipio@gmail.com
or snail mail to: LRC-KSK/Friends of the Earth -Philippines
87 Madasalin St. Teachers Village, QC
Letters for Didipio Campaign
For communities affected by
Large-scale mining the question that seems to arise is how many statements of
no are ever enough? “ When will we be given the right to determine the faith of
our own development? When the government seems hell bent on telling us how to
develop our land.”
For the community of Didipio
this has been the question for the better part of the last decade the people of
Didipio have been worn thin by their struggle with the mining giant, Climax
Arimco Mining Corporation. And it seems their labor to keep their land from
destruction is far from over with the mine poised to start operations next year
amid the protests of the entire Municipality of Kasibu.
Didipio is composed mostly
of farming households. Didipio itself is approximately 2000 hectares of
productive agricultural land. Crops include rice, bananas, citrus (pomelo and
oranges). In 1994, CAMC was awarded a Financial and Technical Assistance
Agreement (FTAA) by former President Fidel V. Ramos. This was a year before the
passage of RA 7942 or the Philippine Mining Act of 1995.
The FTAA covers a total of
37,000 hectares of land in the provinces of Nueva Vizcaya and Quirino. Also in
these areas are found:
§ Addalam river, a
watershed in Nueva Viscaya running through 35, 000 hectares of agricultural
land;
§ The Malabing
Valley, considered the “Fruit Bowl” of Nueva Viscaya, producing much of the
high grade citrus that the province is known for; and
§ The Kapisaan Caves,
a world-class system of caves ‘cared’ for and maintained by the local people
and a major tourist attraction.
The Community’s Action:
· 100% of the Baranggay
captains in Kasibu, Nueva Viscaya have signed statements indicating their
opposition to the CAMC operations and passed a resolution in 2002 rejecting the
operation of CAMC in the area.
· The Sangguniang
Baranggay of Kasibu rejected CAMC’s proposed pre-development MOA (2001).
· In October 2000,
the Regional Development Council passed a resolution rejecting the proposal of
CAMC to operate the mining project in the area. The following year, majority of
the RDC members reiterated their opposition.
· In October 2001,
then-DENR Secretary Heherson Alvarez suspended CAMC’s FTAA for its Didipio Gold
Project.
· A resolution was
passed by the local Sangguniang Bayan of Kasibu last August 8, 2005, denying
endorsement of the Didipio copper-Gold Project of the Australasian Philippines
Mining Inc. (APMI), at Baranggay Didipio, Municipality of Kasibu, Nueva Viscaya.
Miners Dirty Tactics
§ Without the
endorsement of the Baranggay of their operations, which is required under their
Environmental Compliance Certificate, CAMC applied for a new ECC which requires
the consent of the Sangguniang Bayan of Kasibu instead of the local Baranggay
officials of the affected communities.
§ With the recent
rejection of the Sangguniang Bayan of CAMC/APMI’s operations, the DENR has
still to cancel the mining company’s environmental compliance certificate and
in indifference to the local governments demands an announcement given by DENR
Sec. Michael Defensor in early November stated that the Didipio Mining Project
is poised to start early in 2006, even without the endorsement of the LGU,
Baranggay, or RDC –all of which are required under CAMC/APMIs environmental
compliance certificate.
§ Even with the
cancellation of the exploration permit by then secretary Heherson Alvarez the
operations of CAMC/APMI still continued in Kasibu
The communities of Kasibu
are asking for your support in their fight to keep their land, waters, and
forests from the destruction that will happen once the mining company starts
its operations.
The Letter Campaign:
If the Didipio gold project
is to push through, this will be the first FTAA to go into operation in the Philippines and will be the key to the destruction of our
remaining pristine areas and the homes of our indigenous brethren whose land
lies on most mineral and biodiversity rich areas in our country.
The communities of Didipio
and Kasibu, Nueva Vizcaya need your assistance. If you are one of those who has
eaten oranges from SM, Rustans, Farmers, Walter Mart, and many other groceries
and retail outlets in Manila and other parts of the country, then you too share
in the plight of these people and their environment and if the mining is to
push through, the sweet oranges of Nueva Vizcaya will be something found only
in memory.
We are starting this letter drive to the following:
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Secretary
§ Seeking the
cancellation of CAMC/APMIs ECC and FTAA contract in Kasibu, Nueva Vizcaya.
President CEO
of CAMC/APMI in the Philippines: Jose Leviste Jr.
CAMC/Australasian Philippines Mining Inc
Climax-Arimco Mining Corporation
3 Tolentino Street, San Lorenzo Village
1223 Makati City
of CAMC in Australia: R. P. Thomson
Suite 2, Level 14
BT Tower
1 Market Street
SYDNEY
NSW 2000 Australia
Telephone: 61 2 9262 7061
Facsimile: 61 2 9264 5620
Email: info@climaxmining.com.au
http://www.climaxmining.com.au/
Provincial Government Officials of Nueva Vizcaya
· Who currently support the mining operations of
CAMC/APMI.
In support of the Didipio
Campaign against the CAMC/APMI
mining company, it is time that the people speak up for those little voices
that keep our forests and waters pure.
To support this campaign
please send or bring your letters to our office:
LRC-KSK/Friends of the Earth -Philippines
87-B Madasalin St Teachers Village, QC
(02) 434-4079
or email your letters to lettersfordidipio@gmail.com
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.
