The Provincial Board had already approved the large-scale mining application of MacroAsia Mining Corp. in Brooke’s Point despite claims that the endorsement from the municipal council was illegal.
During the Board’s 139th regular session on June 22, which was supposed to be their last since a new set of legislators would sit starting June 30, the committee report endorsing the mining operation was adopted.
The Committee on Environmental Protection and Natural Resources, in its report, said that the mining company had complied with all the requirements and that they found no reason not to endorse the operation.
“The Committee did not see anything illegal here so we really have to endorse it (MacroAsia mining operation),” Board Member Cipriano Barroma, chairman of the environment committee, pointed.
Municipal endorsement was legal
The Board’s Committee on Rules and Laws had also decided that the Brooke’s Point municipal council resolution, which endorsed the mining operation of MacroAsia, was legal and did not violate any parliamentary rule.
“After thorough discussions, the Committee decided to sustain the endorsement of the Brooke’s Point municipal council,” said Board Member Modesto Rodriguez II, chairman of the rules committee.
Last May, the council adopted a resolution endorsing the application of MacroAsia. However, the resolution was questioned by the council’s own presiding officer, Vice-Mayor Mary Jean Feliciano, and was brought to the Provincial Board’s Committee on Rules and Laws.
Feliciano, a well-known anti-mining advocate claimed that the resolution was illegitimately approved since it was during the “second session” when the council reported it.
The municipal council, according to Feliciano, held another regular session despite her adjournment. It was held to approve the application of MacroAsia, she stressed.
Rodriguez, one of the main authors of the 25-year mining moratorium resolution in the province, said that being chairman of the rules committee, he had to endorse the application of MacroAsia Mining Corp. since they found the municipal resolution valid.
Minutes of the municipal council session showed that the committee report where the mining application was included was adopted when Feliciano was still the presiding officer.
“This is not a question whether you are anti- or pro-mining. The issue is centered on the validity of the municipal resolution,” Rodriguez said in his committee report.
He added: “I am still the author of the moratorium but as chairman of the committee (rules and laws), I have to report it to the Board.”
‘Express endorsement’
“Why are we in haste to approve this mining application? Why don’t we pass it on to the next Provincial Board for it to be thoroughly studied?” Board Member Vicky de Guzman reacted to the report of the Committee on Environmental Protection and Natural Resources.
De Guzman openly opposed the endorsement of the mining application. She pointed that she does not want to leave the Board with a ‘heavy heart’, adding that approval of such application might put the 39th Provincial Board in a bad light.
De Guzman, one of the authors of the mining moratorium, questioned the environment committee for endorsing the application despite lack of necessary documents such as updated barangay resolutions and an endorsement from the indigenous people’s community. It was a practice of the Board to ask for the latest barangay resolution endorsing a project, whatever it may be, she claimed.
“I don’t know why the committee (environment) overlooked that important document when it is a policy that we would always request for a barangay resolution of current date,” de Guzman said.
Three barangay resolutions endorsing MacroAsia were included in the requirements submitted by the company to the Board. However, these were dated 2007 and 2008.
“I am objecting to the endorsement of the project on grounds that I am in doubt with the municipal resolution; I am consistent with Palawan ’s stand on mining; the areas applied for are within Mt. Mantalingahan
In an interview, de Guzman said that she expected some of the other board members to support her objection to the application. She related that before the committee reports, not more than four of her colleagues assured her that they will rally behind her. However, only de Guzman voiced her opposition to the mining project.
“I don’t know what happened. I counted on their words but now, it’s only me opposing,” she told reporters.
She also said that the committee reports, both of rules and environment, came as a surprise for her.
“I thought that our last session would be dedicated to valedictory addresses,” she said.
During the session, the agenda came in a form of a programme listing the flow of activities for the day, not the usual list of issues to be decided by the Board. However, it still included the part ‘other matters’ where the two committee reports were conducted.
Rodriguez claimed that the steering committee, which decides the issues to be covered in the agenda, had agreed to include the committee report under ‘other matters’.
Zero backlog
Environment committee chairman Barroma, on the other hand, insisted that all requirements were complied with MacroAsia and that his committee had meticulously studied the application.
MacroAsia have completed the requirements as far as the committee on environment is concerned, he said.
“Only MacroAsia has submitted these many documents,” Barroma said referring to the three thickly ring-bound papers. “We have endorsed Rio Tuba Nickel Corp., Coral Bay Nickel Corp. and LeBach Mining. Why can’t we endorse MacroAsia when they have already finished the exploration?”
He also stressed that they just want a “zero backlog” before leaving the Provincial Board.
“As far as the committee on environment is concerned, if there is no new resolution in contrary to the old resolution, that is still valid,” Barroma said answering de Guzman’s claim that no new barangay resolutions were submitted.
There is really no house rule to that effect, he added.
Barroma told reporters that the application has been with the Board since May and that if they would not act on the issue, the company could charge them with dereliction of duty.
“MacroAsia was already endorsed by the municipality and the barangays. There’s no rush in this endorsement . We decided based on the evidences that we have,” he furthered.
MacroAsia Mining Corp. applied to mine a 1,113-hectare land in Brgys. Mambalot, Maasin and Ipilan but only 699 hectares was approved since the other areas are within the Mt. Mantalingahan
No comments:
Post a Comment