Balancing mining issues

President Duterte is caught between a rock and a hard place on the issue of closure of 23 mining sites and suspension of operations of five others.

For Environment Secretary Gina Lopez, the closure and suspension are necessary to protect the environment and to promote social justice in the affected areas.

Without passing judgment on the propriety of Lopez’s orders, Finance Secretary Carlos Dominguez III expressed concern about the adverse effects of her action on the 1.2 million people who depend on the mines for their livelihood.

As expected, the Chamber of Mines of the Philippines opposed Lopez’s action and demanded the disclosure of the audit reports that formed the basis of her orders.

For now, the mining companies are not going to court to question the validity of Lopez’s orders. They plan to appeal her orders to the President and see how things will go from there.

This is a wise move because if they seek judicial intervention at this stage, the case will no doubt be dismissed by the court as premature for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

It’s small comfort to the mining companies that the issue has been elevated to the Cabinet and the instruction from Malacañang is to observe due process and follow the rule of law in deciding on the fate of the mining sites concerned.

The two sides of the issue have strong proponents inside the Cabinet. Lopez has in her corner “leftists” Agriculture Secretary Emmanuel Piñol and Social Welfare Secretary Judy Taguiwalo who have made no secret their opposition to mining operations.

On the other side of the fence are the economic managers—Dominquez and Socioeconomic Planning Secretary Ernesto Pernia—who, understandably, are apprehensive that the closure of the mines would reduce the revenue flow from the mining companies and result in the loss of jobs.

President Duterte will make the final executive call on this issue. He has to balance the interests of environmental protection and social justice, on the one hand, and the financial requirements of the government and welfare of the workers who will be displaced by the closure, on the other.

In the early days of his administration, the President expressed his antipathy toward mining operations in Mindanao. He said only the wealthy businessmen enjoy the benefits of the mineral-rich region to the prejudice of the poor farmers and fishermen.

Now that he has full access to information about the inner workings of government, and with his economic managers sounding the alarm bells about the possible deleterious effects of the closure on taxes and employment, will the President have a change, or at the very least make some adjustments, in his attitude toward the mining industry?

A zero-sum solution—with either Lopez or the mining companies completely winning over the other—to this issue is not realistic. Both sides have raised valid arguments in their favor that cannot be ignored nor treated lightly.

Undoubtedly, some mining companies have engaged in activities that have harmed the environment or were less consistent in their compliance with regulatory standards.

But that should not detract from the fact that many of them have also scrupulously followed the mining rules and have been good corporate citizens in their areas of operation.

The challenge to the President, his economic managers and Lopez is to find a win-win solution to this issue at their level so that resort to judicial intervention (which can be costly and tedious) can be avoided.

Besides, knowing how slow our system of justice is, a prolonged stalemate on the resolution of this significant economic and environmental issue is not in the country’s best interests.

Compromise, not hard ball positioning, should guide them in determining the perfect balance between environmental and social justice concerns, and the reality that mining companies also play a significant role in national development.

So what are the chances of the President softening his stand on mining operations and agreeing to a win-win solution?

A lot. He said recently that two out of his five public statements are not true.

For comments, please send your e-mail to [email protected].