NAVALTA, Maryous SJ.

2013 – 58146

EM 10 Reaction Paper

Philippine mining industry has been the center of attention in exposing to what seems
‘detrimental’ impacts on the economics, environment, social and even political status of the
country. Rather than making the mining industry as one of the country’s greatest assets, our
government seems to seek ways to bring it down and reject the advantages it brings. There have
passages of laws and bills invaluable to the development on one of the major sectors this country
possesses. We have the abundance of resources and mineral deposits but we have been passive
on the major markup this can give if we focus and put importance in responsible mining.

Covered by the Philippine Mining Act of 1995 are the requirements set by qualified
governing bodies to assess whether a specific mining company can mine in the Philippine land
areas and sustain a clean and responsible mining operation without affecting its neighboring
communities. However, it is not an old news that several large-scale mining companies have been
suspended for a while because of its said ‘incompliance’ to the regulations of the said law but
have been debunked and resumed eventually. On the other hand, small-scale industries, who
were in fact the cause of environmental incompliance, were easily passed on. This just proves
that there is no standard and strict regulation on the said law but then here comes a new act
raising the addition of legislative bodies, the Congress, on the qualified governing group that
approves the permits of mining companies. This new act will entail a lot questions and negative
outcomes. One, who will decide who are qualified and unbiased to be part of the ‘legislative body’
that will be added to the agreeing body? It is difficult to detach that there will be no political wills
involved in these decisions because, let’s admit it, Philippine politics sucks – words ‘fair’ and ‘just’
are way off their vocabulary. Two, if these supposed to be ‘qualified legislative body’ overrule a
decision of a more qualified body (e.g. Mines and Geosciences Bureau) because of political
reasons, who will mediate? Knowing that a legislative body has a higher ground than a mere
bureau like MGB, there is a big possibility that the decision of these bureaus will be dismissed.
This might lead to environmental deterioration (if the company does not comply but profitable for
the Congressmen) and social problems as well, since we can’t remove the fact that mining
companies will affect communities in one way or another. Three, this may bring about a fairer
decision (hoping that was the real objective of this new act) since there will be more people
involved which means more sides to hear, more areas to consider however, is it necessary? This
will just open an avenue for politicians to make more money because they can require mining
companies to pay more than what is set just to let them operate even though they abide to the
regulations.

The country carries a big potential to be one of the largest producers of mineral deposits
in the world but the government does not seem to see mining as a major economic boost but
rather a meltdown. If the regulation of the law has been well-observed and monitored, we won’t
be having any problem at all. Thus, this leads to the suggestion that rather focusing on how we
can close down more mines, go back to the root cause of the problem which is the regulation of
the law and provide a solution rather than ignoring the whole thing.