BASED on EON’s Philippine Trust Index (2011 Study), mining was the least trusted industry in the business sector, with a 22% trust rating (out of at least 19 other business industries), and shares the bottom slot together with alcohol and tobacco. Well, this sociological phenomenon can be attributed to two main reasons: (1) the growing environmental awareness of our society brought about by the blitzkrieg of media related campaigns, and (2) the chain of environmental disasters which have been readily attributed to reckless mining and logging practices.  Mining has now to some extent been personified as the “big bad wolf” of environmental preservation.

So despite the implementation of Republic Act 7942 (The Philippine Mining Act of 1995), why is the mining industry still being depicted as the scoundrel in all our environmental woes? Like in the theological concept of “original sin,” what we are experiencing today are the consequences brought about by our precedent indiscriminate use of our natural resources... the sins of our past. So if we apply Newton’s Law of Interaction, what we are experiencing today is simply the equal effect of the actions we did towards our environment. For instance, the Marinduque disaster in 1996 (along the Boac River) which affected more or less 20,700 villagers was a result of mining done in the 1970s.

For every action, there is always an equal and opposite reaction. We reap what we sow. So placing the blame solely on the hands of our present day mining industries would be unfair to such an extent. Most especially when the fruits of their present-day actions (mining activities) have nothing to do with the environmental degradation we are experiencing today. Having said that, the next logical question would be: should we discontinue mining in the Philippines despite the sins of our past? Should an urgent environmental concern equally demand a radical solution?

Imposing a total ban on mining as a radical solution to our present “ecological wounds” without carefully considering its overall impact to holistic livelihood and development may have its repercussions.  I personally believe that “amputation” should only be the last resort in dealing with a wound. Drastic measures, yes! But radical approaches, let’s be cautious. The implementing rules and regulations (DENR Administrative Order No.96-40) of the Philippine Mining Act of 1995 already provides strict adherence to the principle of sustainable development, and as such mandates that the needs of the present should be met without compromising the ability of the future generations to meet their own needs, with the view of improving the quality of life, both now and in the future. Moreover the law likewise provides that the use of mineral wealth shall be pro-people and pro-environment in sustaining wealth creation and improve quality of life. Theoretically, we are on the right track. Now, we need the political will to guarantee that responsible mining be implemented.

Others would argue that since government is not fully equipped to effectively implement this decree and that the temptation for personal gain may overshadow the intent of the law (creating an unholy alliance among certain stakeholders), this piece of legislation may be used as subterfuge to a sinister plot between unscrupulous public officials and equally falsehearted mining corporations to deceive a gullible public of financial gains that rightfully belongs to them. True, there is validity to this claim but shouldn’t the right approach be the strengthening of the axiological foundations (values) and institutional linkages of the mining industry, and not to penalize this sector as a whole? As I have said, let’s try healing the wounds first before radically considering to hastily amputating it.

My only prayer is that the Mines and Geosciences Bureau (MGB) in partnership with all Local Government Units (LGUs) and all local stakeholders will not only pay “lip service” to the cause of responsible and sustainable mining but be faithful to its principles that all, “Mining activities shall be undertaken with due and equal regard for economic and environmental considerations, as well as for health, safety, social and cultural concerns;” and that “the granting of mining rights shall harmonize existing activities, policies and programs of the government that directly or indirectly promote self-reliance, development and resource management. Activities, policies and programs that promote community-based, community-oriented and procedural development shall be encouraged, consistent with the principles of people empowerment and grassroots development.”

* * *

For any personal comments or suggestions you may call 0917-4805585 or email me at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. .