78 no-mining zones in Aquino EO

It’s centerpiece of President’s Executive Order 79


LIGHT IN THE TUNNEL Under EO 79, small-scale miners like the one above in Itogon, Benguet, will be confined to the “Minahan ng Bayan.” They are also banned from using mercury to process the mined ores. RICHARD BALONGLONG / INQUIRER NORTHERN LUZON

President Benigno Aquino has expanded the “no-go” mining zones in the country to include 78 tourism sites, and farms, marine sanctuaries and island ecosystems in response to the public clamor to protect the environment from mining.

The identification of more mine-free areas in the country is the centerpiece of the administration’s mining reforms program under Executive Order No. 79, which the President signed on July 6. A copy of the order was released Monday.

“One of the most important provisions here is Section 1, expanding in effect the areas close to mining,” Environment Secretary Ramon Paje said at a press briefing in Malacañang. “We call them the ‘no-go’ zones. Before this EO, the no-go zones were confined [to] the protected areas.”

Other highlights of the executive order:

  • Moratorium on the grant of new mining agreements until Congress shall have come up with a revenue-sharing scheme between the government and mining firms.
  • Consistency of ordinances with national laws.
  • Confining small-scale mining to designated areas to be called “Minahang Bayan.”
  • Review and possible renegotiation of existing contracts.
  • Awarding of areas with verified reserves through public bidding.
  • State ownership of mine tailings and wastes upon expiration of contract.
  • Formation of a Mining Industry Coordinating Council to implement industry reforms.
  • Ban on the use of mercury in small-scale mining.

On top of the protected areas cited in the Philippine Mining Act of 1995 and the National Integrated Protected Area System, EO 79 bans mining in these areas:

  • Tourism development areas identified by the National Tourism Development Plan (NTDP);
  • Prime agricultural lands such as plantations and other properties devoted to valuable crops;
  • Fisheries development zones and marine sanctuaries as declared by the agriculture secretary; and
  • Island ecosystems to be determined by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) through mapping technology.

“Based on the DOT (Department of Tourism) submission, there were 78 sites identified by the DOT in the NTDP as no-go zones. This, in effect, will be completely banned for mining activities,” said Paje.

The new EO also reiterated the government’s commitment to fully enforce environmental standards by setting up a multistakeholder team that will review the performance of existing mining operations.

The team, to be led by the DENR, is tasked with recommending actions  against firms that do not fully comply with state regulations on mining and the environment.

5-percent royalty

Aside from widening the areas banned from mining, Paje said the EO would seek to boost state revenues from mining by including a 5-percent royalty in future mining contracts and areas to be declared as mineral reservations by the President.

The new order also seeks to increase occupational and application fees, and to sell abandoned ores and valuable metals in mine wastes and mill tailings.

“You know, before, mine wastes (were) considered wastes. But, now, we found out that based on recent technologies, we can extract other metals or other forms of minerals from the mine waste so it is now a resource or input for new processing. Therefore, we put  in this EO that all mine wastes, all mill tailings should be considered owned by the state and, therefore, should be disposed of through competitive bidding,” the environment secretary said.


Paje said the government expected a  windfall of P50 billion from the sale of mining wastes; P760 million from occupational fees upon filing (it used to be paid only when the Financial Technical Assistance Agreement [FTAA] was approved); and up to P16 billion from royalty payments from the existing 33 mining operations in the country by 2016.

“We would like to somehow tell the investors, the business community that we will respect existing contracts and, if they invest, we will protect their investments.

Paje said there were 300 existing mineral production sharing agreements and FTAAs of which only 33 were in operation. Of the 33, 11 are in mineral reservations and have been paying royalties to the government.

“It (EO) will not affect, I think, the mining industry. It will only affect a few—those who are in the final stages of their exploration activities,” said Paje. “This is the reason why the President said ‘put a break. Stop issuing new mining contracts if we cannot get the best or the optimal revenue for government,’” the environment secretary said.

Moratorium extended

Paje said the new EO would extend the moratorium on the grant of new mining agreements until Congress shall have finalized the proposed revenue-sharing scheme between the government and mining companies, specifically the 5-percent royalty government wants  the mining firms to pay.

“Some people will be happy with this provision. Some of course will be affected. We have to wait for the new legislation pertaining to revenues before we can sign new agreements on mining. But, of course, this provision also respects the existing mining contracts. It will respect existing mining contracts,” said Paje.

Exploration permits only

While Congress deliberates on the royalty formula, Paje said the DENR would grant only exploration permits, review existing mining contracts for possible renegotiation and remove idle mining rights holders.

Paje said that the EO would spur the government to renegotiate any mining contract in order for the state to take a slice of the windfall profits of mining firms, specifically from the steep rise in metal prices.

“We only get 2 percent in excise tax and that is somehow hurting government. The instruction of the President is to copy best practices because these mining companies are also operating in Canada or in Australia, for example. If they are operating in Australia, they must be paying that same royalties and charges and taxes, right? So the question is: ‘Why don’t you want to pay (the same) in the Philippines?,”’ he said.

To further help increase government revenue, Paje said areas with verified reserves would be awarded through public bidding instead of the previous policy of assigning these to certain groups on a first come, first serve basis.

Bidding, ‘Minahang Bayan’

A provision of the EO also limits small-scale mining to “Minahang Bayan” or people’s small-scale mining areas. This provision effectively reins in local government units, which are known to grant mining permits in their jurisdictions.

Paje said the EO would straighten out the guidelines on small- scale mining by declaring that only Republic Act No. 7076 or the People’s Small-Scale Mining Act of 1991 would be recognized.

“We also have a very comprehensive provision pertaining to small-scale mining. With the opinion given to us by the Department of Justice, we will only be using one law and that is RA 7076 which states that all small-scale mining can only happen or occur inside what you call ‘Minahang Bayan.’ We have to contain them in one place so that we can contain the wastes and we can treat them properly,” he said.

Paje noted that Presidential Decree No. 1899 had allowed local government units to issue mining permits anywhere which made it difficult to contain and treat effluents.

“With this provision of ‘Minahang Bayan,’ we will contain them in one place; we can put one tailings’ pond; and we can treat the wastes efficiently,” he said.

Conform to nat’l laws

The EO also directed the Department of Interior and Local Government to ensure that governors and mayors conform with national regulations and policies.

The EO explicitly limited the LGUs to “confine themselves only to the imposition of reasonable limitations on mining activities.”

Paje added that the EO would ban the use of mercury by small-scale miners, who are also prohibited from digging up metallic minerals except  gold, silver and chromite. With a report from Daxim Lucas

Get Inquirer updates while on the go, add us on these apps:

Inquirer Viber

Disclaimer: The comments uploaded on this site do not necessarily represent or reflect the views of management and owner of INQUIRER.net. We reserve the right to exclude comments that we deem to be inconsistent with our editorial standards.

  • Hey_Dudes

    Naturally, even with these provisions, the CBCP bishops and other protesters for rent mobs will not accept anything short of No Mining policy in the country.  Uncontrolled baby production yes – mining a big NO NO.

    • arthur1401

      bro, take note ha, the EO has not been released and but CBCP is already protesting even if it does not know what it is protesting.
      In other news report, the CBCP president said that CBCP does not know that “somewhere” where it failed, which is the cause of losing memberships.
      CBCP is in complete denial and has bishop/members who protest for the sake of protesting or for talking without understanding what they are talking about.  

      • ROVEN DINO

        cbcp protest para makatanggap ng SUVs…..to shut them up…..

    • Pepito Manaloto

      The Archdiocese of Manila benefited by investing in Philex Mining.  Those bishops don’t even teach Filipinos to invest.

      Double standard.

  • Ben Tampadong

    Before, I’m against mining, but after hearing that there are  “no go zones” , I think there’s some sort of a balance now. But I don’t feel comfortable with our bidding process, most government projects runs through the same procedure and we have those noodles scam , the million or billion worth of coffee scam, etc.,

  • bobbydecastro

    Mining is not evil per se.  It is in the way it is implemented and in containing its evil effects on the environment and the health of people.  It is supposed to give livelihood and employment to people, process minerals for the use of man, be an instrument towards human development, distribute revenues with equity and fairness, and protect the enviroment or at least mitigate effectively its negative impacts on the environment.  It is abuse of the environment, neglect of health and safety of workers and the community and irresponsibility that leaves a bad taste in the mouth.  Identification of “no mining zones,” the protection of tourism and agricultural sites and “protected environmental sites” in addition, are a welcome feature of the Order.  Tailings which can be processed further, more efficiently, by the government or through bidding, is a new and good addition or innovation.  It would have been more desirable, however, if the new EO said more about the protection of small miners, who are presumed to come from the poorer sector of society (bigger capitalists and middlemen do really unjustly exploit them!) and who are more in need of state protection and welfare.

  • raffyb0i

    all these policies are useless if the law enforcement is crap

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/UMWOE42657PJ5HVI5OUQ74VAB4 Albert, Jr.

    Thank God for this Executive Order. Our nation can finally move forward. 

  • FernandoBusi

    sounds good hopefully this can be implemented properly

  • carlcid

    Government expects a windfall of over $1 Billion. But what about the communities where the mines are located? And how does government hope to enforce the law? The bigger the money involved, the larger the room for corruption.

  • rosamistika16

    Seems this EO is well balance. hope the legislative branch will pass a law based on this perspective.

    • Magsasaka

      sana nga po pero ang nakikita kong butas dito ay ganito:
      kunwari idedeklara ng DOT na no-go zones ang isang lugar pero palihim nilang itong pagmiminahan gamit ang sarili nilang tao o kaya sa una ay sasabihin nilang isang no-go zone ang isang lugar pero dahil alam nilang maraming itong mina magtatayo sila ng isang kumpanya tapos tsaka nila sasabihing nagkamali sila na ito ay isang no-go zone at yaong kumpanyang itinayo nila ang magmimina, ang solusyon – hindi dapat DOT ang magdeklara ng mga no-go zones dapat kongreso ang magdedetermina kung aling mga lugar ang mga no-go zones at ito ay dapat na rebyuhin kada tatlong taon ng sa gayon ay laging napapanahon ang listahan ng mga no-go zones.

  • Sir Buddy

    Ang hindi ko lubos na maunawaan at maintindihan ay kung bakit mahigpit ang pagtutol ng CBCP sa  Executive Order No. 79 na iyan ni Pangulong Aquino.  Ano bang probisyon sa Executive Order No. 79 ang naglalagay ng ating kalikasan sa panganib o nagtatanggal sa karapatang pantao ng mga mamamayan?  Ano bang napaka-imoral sa Executive Order No. 79 na ito para maigting na tutulan ng CBCP?

    • leobsky

       Sir Buddy, I think nakakulong ka lang dyan sa bahay mo. Try to see the realities outside. Why don’t you visit existing mining areas and talk to the affected local people. By then perhaps you might understand the stand of the CBCP. Papers signed by the politician are different from what is the existing practices of mining companies.

      • Sir Buddy

         Maraming salamat leobsky sa iyong komento pero hindi nito sinasagot ang tanong ko.

    • http://www.facebook.com/eduardo.f.manuel Eduardo Ferrer Manuel

      well mababwasan kasi ang ang abuloy o donation sa kanila, maapektuhan collection ba…yah know na! ang sarap pa naman sumakay sa bagong magagarang SUV

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/K63PQGGWTWPALHJE7FMKKPAOCE Public

    This is good. I have been waiting for this.

    Well balanced and fair and Philippines would have more funding for modernization.

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/ZVS4MKYAHNFS6TCFBFGRZNIIGQ Nueva

       hello anong well balance dun eh ung share ng govt na 2% to increase so that it would be at par with other countries with 15-30% share eh wala ata nabanggit and mukhang favor din sa miners lol

  • Pogi=”No To Political Dynasty”

     Kawawa naman ang susunod na henerasyon ng kabataan. Wala ng maiiwan na
    natural resources dahil uubusin na ng mga swapang at mga ganid sa pera.
    Para nyo na ring ibinenta ang Pinas. Iyan ang daang matuwid ni Pinoy!

  • kismaytami

    Eh yung mga kalahing tsekwa ni Abnoy, exploration permit pa lang, nagbu-bulldozed na ng bundok sa Zambales, at ini-export ang chromite sa china. Na-isyuhan na yan ng Writ of Kalikasan ng SC, pero tuloy pa rin ang ligaya ng mga hinayupak na tsekwa. Paano kami magtitiwala sa EO na yan?

  • Fulpol

    wala yata akong nabasang hilly o kabundukan sa protected areas… as no-mining zones..

    78 no-mining zones?? tapos limited lang ang protected areas?

    eh gagawin nila, hukay na lang ng hukay kahit saan basta hindi sa lugar na protected… kahit matamaan pa ang matamaan dyaan…

    ang pilipinas magmumukang “moon” na maraming craters… tapos may ilang spots lang na okey dahil daw protected..


  • http://twitter.com/wadjitzain coty

     the only way the Philippines can maximise the revenues from the mining industry is when it claims for itself the ownership of all the minerals being mined! foreigners should only be made a full partner and not a concessionaire wherein the govt. collects a fee which is nothing but scraps of bones falling from the tables! since the foreigners only interest is to get the ores and export it to where they have plants to process it should be rescinded. a processing plant should be built right here and nowhere else. after some time when the industry has fully developed then it is also the time to buy out the foreigners share and make it fully nationalised! this is exactly how the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia did it and look where they are right now!

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_5STEU22AD7YRHQSB6RE56ZDSYA J

    Maganda ang batas sa papel lang. Ang mga taga-DENR na magbabantay diyan sa mga 78-no-mining zone sila ang magmiminas o kaya makikihati sa mga il-legal na mineros. 

  • tarikan

    CBCP wants no mining at all I think. No amount of balance policy will make them happy. Pero mahilig sa Pajero at SUV eh galing sa mining most of their parts. 

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/U4BDUQMIHWXLR56MPSURZM3HPQ alex

      No mining at all? The church have a PHILEX shares in their hands. lol

    • itonlysoundsgood

       If you are doing your research, you would know that CBCP through Bp Pabillo is supporting the passage of Alternative Minerals Management Bill (AMMB), a bill that would replace the Phil. Mining Act of 1995. So, it’s not true that CBCP is against mining, per se. I have been following the church’s sentiments with regard to mining in the country as my place is affected by mining operations and I want to learn more about the issue since mining destroyed our farms. Objectively, Mining Act of 1995 states that the investors will own the minerals they mine and they can bring them to their mother country. Most large scale mining investors are from industrialized countries. Our government will only earn 2% from the gross income. It’s almost like donating our mineral resources to the rich countries. The perceived economic benefits through job generation that mining will bring in to the host communities are not permanent, not considering the negative impact of mining to the environment which are mostly irreversible, and the high rate of corruption among host lgus.
      Also, what happens to the future Pinoys when they need the minerals and we have given these already to the foreign investors? There are so many issues to understand regarding mining in the country. Make your research before you throw your criticism against CBCP. The pajero issue does not cover all the bishops of CBCP, they are just the rotten few in a basketful of good and honest bishops in the country. Yes, I am a Catholic, but I don’t abide by blind obedience. I don’t mouth what I simply understand half baked.

  • jga94

    Just based on this article, the EO seems fair so I don’t understand what the CBCP and the militants are protesting about—-wala pa namang details, just guidelines….so what’s the fuss?Mining per se is not bad just as long as it is not abused and becomes detrimental to the community.

    But while I see the logic behind syncing local ordinances on mining with national laws/guidelines,I still think that the community which will be affected by mining in their place should have a say-so in this…if everything comes from the central govt—nuances seen by the local people may not be appreciated and thus overlooked….there should be some sort of mechanism where there is a local board or something whose membership includes local stakeholders, people of the community—which will decide on the mining-related ordinances.

    • leobsky

       @jga94. You may seem just basing on this article to judge the CBCP. The CBCP is talking about the present situation in the mining areas. What the document said is different from what is happening. Because, prior to EO there is still the “Mining Act of 1995″. Why don’t you read this law and then tell me if existing mining law and mining practices will not broke your heart. Unless, this law will be repealed mining companies are still “very happy”. We need alternative mining law to replace the existing “Mining Act of 1995″ and of course to refine more the EO signed by Pnoy. The government is only getting 2 percent excise tax after 5 years of mining operations. By then, the toxic damaging the environment and the local people cost more than the excise taxes that the government got after five years. Mining Act of 1995 granted 5 years tax free. You may try to look at the existing mining sites in Rapu-Rapu island in Albay, Marinduque, Palawan and Agusan de Norte. Or the 33 existing mining operations that the new EO cited.

  • ChinaObserver

    State ownership of mine tailings and wastes upon expiration of contract. What an idiotic idea! This gives license to irresponsible mining. Mining companies will be absolved from the responsibility of taking care of their wastes. Tambakan ng basura (i.e., highly toxic chemical wastes such as slimes, leach residue, slickens, radioactive arsenic compounds, etc. from ore tailings) ang mining areas, ergo, ang Pilipinas, pagkatapos e-exploit ang natural resources.

    • RomyLitz

      These idiot-turned political advisers does not know any iota of gold extraction. The waste here if coming from cyanide leaching process is already unprofitable. The mining companies instead of giving these waste to the govt, should process these wastes and tailings for water treatment instead. The govt will be holding a huge headache in assuming the disposal of waste. There is nothing left profitable to these waste under the present extraction processes. Question: why will multinational companies like Apex or Dow in Canada gives the waste if these can still be extracted profitably? Pnoy is very ill advised.

  • RomyLitz

    The govt can only make money on tailings and waste from mercury extraction or amalgamation process. The other economical and very efficient is the cyanide based leaching process where waste is really waste since extraction efficiency on these conventional method approaches 99%. The foreign mining companies are therefore released from the burden of waste treatment of lowering the level of cyanide ppm to the accepted safe level and the govt is so naive if not ill advised of economic and political ramification for absorbing these unprofitable waste. Pnoy advisers are mediocre if not stupid in assuming expertise of this EO on mining. The waste here is more important for the mining companies to make it safe for biological disposal. There is nothing to be extracted from conventional process. This EO is aptly called Executive Oxymorons. I pity Pnoy, he needs help.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/U4BDUQMIHWXLR56MPSURZM3HPQ alex

    This is a good start of the 1995 mining law revisions. We should support improvements of law. Besides, we cannot ban mining at all.  

  • Meetong

    Maganda sana kung ipapakita nila sa national TV ang lahat ng existing na minahan sa Pilipinas at mga lugar na miminahin nila para mas transparent. Then people can clamor.
    Mabuti pa nga mga miner firms 2% lang ang tax. Tayong mga Pilipino 12% tax.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/24M3JZHF3SSM77ZZFLTBHCNQAM darkarrow

    Imposible ang total ban on mining since marami ng existing, kay sa magkanya-kanyang ordinances kada Probinsya sa tiningin ko mas okay ang may unified na Guidelines like this EO. As long as it is responsible mining no problem. And mga professional ang gumagawa ng EO considering every sides concerned  rather na critics dito and critics doon which is pilipino very good at dapat tingnan or hintayin muna natin ang result ng fully implemented na EO.   

  • Alajero

    …handiong…first thanks for spending time…
    …my response:
    item 1.  We may not have a like-minded President for the next 10 years (your time 

    frame) answer:  AQUINO is distracted by many things…i see sharks all around him…i think he is gullible and makes a lot of mistake…as i said environmental 

    damage is irreversible…let’s have moratorium on new mines…and review the 

    current ones…
    …item 2…”With all those environmentalists ganging up on the mining industry, I 

    don’t see how the people could not be aware of the deleterious effect of irresponsible mining on the environment.”…. not enough concern people…most of them are just loud activist…poor and hungry residents…are easily vulnerable..they don’t care much about their future…only the present…not reliable people to take care of their environment…item 3..”..I don’t know how PNoy could take pains in crafting a policy, ahead of congressional overhaul of the mining law, …”  …this new law is meant to green light new start up mines…a window dressing…unless, it provides for mining moratorium…to evaluate “environmental impacts” of new mines…it cannot be good…

  • Alajero

    …”estimated US$800 Billion in mineral resources. Letting all those minerals lying 

    underground uselessly is not “natural resource development”….the way to heil is 

    pave with gold…let us be honest…US$800B is the projected benefit for the mining 

    business…not the people impacted by this operations…once the mines are 

    depleted…these communities are dead…check the ghost towns and old mining 

    community in US…and this is US…but, we would rather buy our oil from terrorist 

    countries instead of mine our own…so, the reason is obvious…mining will destroy 

    the country…
    …mining means food for today…but hunger and famine tomorrow…
    …the stake holders need to decide…the good bishops of CBCP got it right this 


  • taga_ilog

    isama sa lugar na banned ang mining ang barangay baha talibayog sa calatagan, batangas, taniman ang lugar na ito, pero binibili ng isang mining firm ang lugar para gawing minahan.

  • dukaponte

    Dapat magsaya ang mga activists at ang cbcp dahil sa eo 79 dahil nabawasan ang saklaw ng batas sa pagmimina. At least, hindi status quo. Nabawasan ang damage ng batas na iyon. Sa lahat ng laban, kailangan mo manalo ng mga maliliit na hakbang bago mo makamit ang buong panalo. Dapat ma encourage si Pnoy na ang reporma sa batas sa pagmimina ay dagdagan pa. Nandiyan na ang batas noong 1995, kaya kailangan na natin ang congress ang mag repeal niyan. Iyong ginawa ni Pnoy ay unang hakbang na dapat suportahan ng cbcp at himukin si Pnoy na dagdagan pa ang mga reporma. Iyan ang dapat gawin ng cbcp, hindi salungat lang ng salungat at hindi maipakita kung ano talaga ang dapat. Kung titingnan natin ng malapitan, iyong mga activists at mga miyembro ng simbahan ng cbcp ay nakikinabang sa pagmimina. Hindi ako maniniwala kung sasabihin na walang simbahan o chapel doon sa minahan.

  • Fulpol

    Philippines will just become a footprint of lost paradise… 

    barren land, abandoned….

    a very small country being outstripped… unlike continent Australia or China..



  • Fulpol

    ang bansang Australia, Canada, India, China , US, Brazil ay halos continente ang laki ng mga yan..

    ang Pilipinas, ang liit, parang state o probinsya laang ang laki ng mga bansang ito.. 

    imagine, minahan ang maliit na bansang pilipinas ng malalaking mining companies.. ano na lang matitira? ang maliit na protected areas laang…

    tapos, ang laki pa ng populasyon? 

    imagine ang damage na mangyayari sa ecosystem, environment, at sa mga tao… mga ilog, erosion, matatamaan ang mga taniman, flooding.. at iba pang damages…

    ay sus maryosep… kawawang mga batang di pa naipapanganak..


    • WeAry_Bat

       pol, you are making sense.  kala ko…

  • malek_abdul

    Only after the last tree has been cut, only after the last river has been poisoned, only after the last fish has been caught, only after the last rice field has been silted, only then will you find that money cannot be eaten.

    NO TO SMALL SCALE MINING. No to coyote mining…Respect the Indigenous People’s Right Act (IPRA).

  • Beguine

    Is this something that will simply end up like the constant
    banning of illegal logging? 

    It’s always against the law but it’s always and forever going on and on!

    Don’t ban on paper and ignore in reality. Be truly vigilant and arrest and
    charge and jail the crooks! 

  • Garote

    Where is the glimmer of hope for the poor Filipinos in mining? The Philippine gov’t gets only 2% (with the E.O. it is increased to a miserly 7%) of the gold and minerals extracted out from our soil. The 98% goes to the miners who are mostly foreign corporations. This is stealing from the Filipinos what is supposed to be for them and their families. Not only that, these miners after extracting all the minerals then leave our rivers poisoned with mercury, our mountains and forest permanently destroyed without even taking the steps to rehabilitate them. The Philippine gov’t has to loan millions of dollars from the world bank or IMF for rehabilitation. We have to pay the huge loans with our sweat and tears and hard earned money for the irresponsible mining of these crooks as statics has shown. The people living near the mining operations are usually stricken with diseases due to exposure to the toxic chemicals used in mining.What glimmer of hope are the Chamber of Mines of the Philippines talking about. Stop lying to the Filipino people and stop stealing what is ours! STOP MINING!

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_NJNV6WMCAJ44FECKWLLVIWGC2E Vic

    This is a welcome development and highly commendable. However, I am disappointed that there is no mention on how the host barangay or the town could directly benefit from the profit of these mining firms.

    The recent “Failon Ngayon” story on minings shown depicted the miserable condition of barangay folks around some mining sites. Their long existence in the area never made no difference in the lives of the folks because the taxes and royalties all go to the national treasury and also because some of these firms never really cared about social welfare. Worst, some of these mining operations inflicted an almost irreparable damage to their surroundings that adversly affected their means of livelihood which made them even poorer.

    Perhaps, the national government should require the medium and large mining firms to build schools and health centers in the host barangay ( in addition to the traditional practice of providing employment ) as a pre-condition to granting mining licenses. Winning the hearts of poor will surely create an atmosphere of peace and order.

To subscribe to the Philippine Daily Inquirer newspaper in the Philippines, call +63 2 896-6000 for Metro Manila and Metro Cebu or email your subscription request here.

Factual errors? Contact the Philippine Daily Inquirer's day desk. Believe this article violates journalistic ethics? Contact the Inquirer's Reader's Advocate. Or write The Readers' Advocate:

c/o Philippine Daily Inquirer Chino Roces Avenue corner Yague and Mascardo Streets, Makati City,Metro Manila, Philippines Or fax nos. +63 2 8974793 to 94


editors' picks



latest videos