THE PHILIPPINES’ untapped mineral reserves of USD 1 trillion makes it the fifth most mineralized country in the world. Industrial firms have found an abundance of natural resources such as these in the country, often using them to support capital-intensive infrastructure projects. In 2020, such operations accrued over Php 102 billion in the country’s Gross Domestic Product.
However, tapping these natural resources comes at the expense of indigenous peoples (IPs) and communities that inhabit the land. While the past decade has seen a development in the protection of IP rights, a disjunct still exists between the laws protecting ancestral domains and the mining operations disrupting those lands. In the face of golden coffers, discrepancies in institutional processes particularly undermine the interests of IP communities, and glaring anomalies in the processes of industrial activities reveal the greater need for such statutes to be enforced.
Behind the scenes
The Philippines’ mining industry has often been considered one of the main contributors to the country’s economic development, leveraging on the country’s plethora of natural resources.
In 2020 alone, a Mines and Geosciences Bureau (MGB) report highlighted the production value of select metallic minerals such as gold, nickel ore, and chromite to be at Php 132.69 billion. The report also delved into the total value of minerals exported in 2021 at USD 5.2 billion and the number of jobs generated from the mining industry at 184,000.
However, the unseen cost of this profit is the displacement of IP communities and the disturbance of their livelihoods. Some primary examples are the cases of Zamboanga del Norte’s Subanen indigenous group and South Cotabato’s Blaan indigenous group—both of which share the experience of environmental destruction from illegal mining.
Between paper and ground
The broad extent of socio-political and environmental damage can be attributed to the lack of proper implementation of policies, as well as the discrepancies in granting mining permits to companies and associations.
On the one hand, the Philippines’ Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act of 1997 (IPRA) provides the basis for the legal empowerment of IPs vis-a-vis the protection of their ancestral domains. Central to its provisions is safeguarding the cultural landscape of IPs by upholding their right to self-determination and tenure of land through the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP). Alongside this, another legal instrument that protects ancestral domains is the Philippine Mining Act of 1995, which requires engagement among the stakeholders involved, including the IPs themselves.
In particular, a critical juncture of executing these laws is the provision of Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC) which highlights IPs’ autonomous decision-making process. IPRA states that before the conduct of any project, one must consult with the communities in the area, and there should be no coercion of the community by the proponent to allow the project. In the FPIC process, IP groups must consent to each stage in the activity, including the potential environmental or social consequences incurred. Without the completion of the FPIC, no permit from the Department of Environment and Natural Resources will be issued.
Despite the law’s ability to delineate due processes, there have been anomalies in community consultations and the issuance of permits.
For instance, Sagittarius Mines Inc. (SMI) held they had duly secured access to Tampakan’s copper and gold exploration field. However, environmental defenders in the area alleged that no public consultations were done regarding the extension of the project. Furthermore, the mine had been highly scrutinized as the activity was projected to displace over 4,000 IPs and pollute rivers used by downstream communities.
Due to SMI’s misinterpretation as a mineral exploration manufacturer rather than a general engineering contractor, the Tampakan municipality revoked the company’s business permit. South Cotabato Governor Reynaldo Tamayo Jr. has then heeded calls for sustaining the open-pit mining ban in the area after a series of protests against the industrial operations in the area followed.
Another instance of FPIC violations is the case of the Florjenmar Mining and Development Corporation setting foot on the Subanen tribe’s domain in Zamboanga del Norte. As per reports, the MGB has issued an exploration permit to the mining company. However, leaders of the Subanen tribe and local officials of Gutalac contested this claim by highlighting the company’s lack of compliance with the necessary processes for securing a permit. Subanen leaders pointed out that the mining operations have disrupted 15 of the town’s 33 villages, amounting to 85 hectares of the Subanens’ 1,921-hectare territorial claim.
Ultimately, Atty. Raymond Baguilat, Senior Legal Associate of the UP Law Center Institute of Human Rights, emphasized that land security is central to indigenous cultures. “The core element of indigeneity is our relationship to the land—this avoids the conflation of indigenous peoples to just about any native in a local community. Unfortunately, this isn’t being discussed,” Baguilat asserted.
These recent cases are just two of the many occurrences of corporations allegedly circumventing processes stipulated by law. While there are comprehensive processes on paper, anomalies that impede IP communities’ right to the security of their domains underscore due process in the law’s provisions.
Filling gaps
The effect of the disconnect between existing IP legislation and its enforcement on the ground manifests in poor access to justice for land security and tenure of IPs. These barriers can be analyzed on two main levels. Ateneo de Davao University Department of Anthropology Chair Rosalinda C. Tomas, PhD states, “On a personal level, you must deal with the people. On the institutional level, you have to [deal with] the organizations of local communities.”
However, with the Philippines’ current socio-political environment that fosters red-tagging and violence against human rights activists, just working with IPs can lead to people being deemed communists.
Aside from such socio-political issues, additional barriers are the lack of inclusivity in consultations, the different language used in materials, the ineffective information dissemination systems between IP leaders and their communities, NCIP budget limitations, and the lengthy consultation procedures. This large issue of lacking inclusivity can be traced back to the time of the FPIC’s creation, as there were already cases of IP stakeholder exclusion then.
While the conduct of FPIC was facilitated by the NCIP and done in the IPs’ local language, most of the other materials were in English. “How can they understand the implication of mining if it isn’t in their local language? Most of them are unfamiliar with [English],” Tomas continued.
To address the negative socio-political effects of the gap between policy creation and implementation, financial support must be provided to regulatory agencies, such as the NCIP. Having a larger budget would ensure the successful implementation of IP-related projects and contribute to the improvement of the agency’s internal systems.
For instance, it is necessary to help them create a proper information dissemination system, connect with networking bodies that can support their advocacies, and familiarize themselves with the law to properly represent themselves. By harmonizing different stakeholder interests, only then can a common economic and environmental advocacy be pursued.
