Provincial Board endorses MacroAsia

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 139^th 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 39^th 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 protected landscape; and that a project of this magnitude should be thoroughly studied,” de Guzman explained.

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 protected landscape.

MacroAsia endorsement questioned

Brooke’s Point Vice-Mayor Mary Jean Feliciano had requested the Provincial Board not to endorse the large-scale mining application of Macro Asia despite the municipal council’s approval of its application.

Feliciano, together with other anti-mining advocates of Brooke’s Point, questioned the legality of the municipal resolution endorsing the mining company.

The resolution was approved during the ‘second’ session which was said to be illegal.

Feliciano said that she had already adjourned their May 20 regular session but majority of the councilors called for another session after she left the session hall with Councilor Mary Ann Racuya and the municipal council secretary.

“There were lots of people inside the session hall and outside the municipal building because of a rally. As presiding officer, I have the prerogative to adjourn (the session) when there was chaos or public disorder,” Feliciano explained.

The vice-mayor related that the councilors who held the second session elected Councilor Mark Barroma as temporary presiding officer and ABC Pres. Georjalyn Joy Quiachon as temporary secretary.

The minutes of the session, which reached the Provincial Board, confirmed Quiachon as the secretary.

“Only in Brooke’s Point can we find a member of the council acting as the secretary,” Board Member Vicky de Guzman quipped.

The minutes showed that Feliciano declared a recess but also resumed with the session after a few minutes. However, she pointed that “it was them who prepared the minutes. I was not even a signatory of that.”

“I wonder why they were such in a hurry to approve the endorsement. It’s not like an emergency. It was not even in the agenda,” Feliciano said.

The Board’s Committee on Rules and Laws requested Feliciano to file a formal communication questioning the legality of the session held by some of Brooke’s Point councilors.

De Guzman, a member of the committee, said that they were hoping to come up with a decision on the issue before they leave office on June 30.

“You cannot have two regular sessions in one day. To call for another session is not in the parliamentary procedures,” de Guzman stressed.

Board Member Modesto Rodriguez II, chairman of the committee, also requested Feliciano to furnish the Board with their house rules.