he resurgence of
mining in the Philippines can be traced to December 1, 2004 when the Supreme
Court declared all provisions on foreign participation of the Philippine Mining
Act of 1995 constitutional by a vote of ten to four with one abstention. This
reversed the Court’s decision of 11 months prior on January 27, 2004.
The 246-page decision ruled that the provisions of the Mining
Act and its Implementing Rules and Regulations did not contravene with the
Constitution.
On March 30, 2006, the Supreme Court upheld anew the
constitutionality of the law and its IRR when the Court’s First Division
dismissed the petition questioning the constitutionality of Sec. 76 of RA 7942
and its IRR, Department of Environment and Natural Resources Administrative
Order 96-40, as well as the Financial and Technical Assistance Agreement entered
into by the government with Armco Mining Corporation (later renamed Climax-Arimco
Mining Corporation or CAMC).
President Gloria Arroyo welcomed this decision: "The Supreme
Court has rendered a decision that firmly upholds the national interest.
"As the 5th mineralized country in the world with a close
proximity to the biggest market for minerals, China, the Philippines is poised
for a strong economic take off based on a reinvigorated mining industry.
"As mining investments pour in, the rural areas will
experience a significant boost in jobs and productivity, plus a strong surge in
infrastructure development."
For the President’s vision to come true, the stake-holders in
the mining community must behave. The SC has before it a case between Platinum
Group Metals Corp. (PGMC) and Citinickel Mines and Development Corp. that would
set the tone on how corporations should conduct themselves amid the
billion-dollar opportunities in a resurgent mining industry.
This case is about claim jumping and forum shopping, which,
if unchecked, could ruin the prospects of the mining industry.
There are big bucks involved in this case. The firm behind
Citinickel is a company that has just made its initial public offering to the
investing public and is listed on the trading board of the Philippine Stock
Exchange as ORE (Oriental Peninsula Resources Group Inc.)
According to its listing in the PSE Web-page, "Oriental
Peninsula Resources Group, Inc. (ORE) was incorporated on April 16, 2007 as a
holding company intended primarily to consolidate and operate companies that own
mining tenements located within the Philippines. Currently, ORE has a 94% equity
interest in Citinickel Mines and Development Corporation, which owns two nickel
mining projects in the Province of Palawan, namely in the municipalities of
Sofronio Espanola and Narra."
The dispute between PGMC and Citinickel that is now before
the SC is that, according to PGMC, Citinickel has no rights to these rich mines
in Palawan. On top of that, despite eight rulings by different courts in Quezon
City, Parañaque and Palawan, it was able to acquire a 25-year Mineral Production
Sharing Agreement (MPSA) for the Palawan nickel mines.
How was Citinickel able to do this? It presented itself to
the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) as the
successor-in-interest of Olympic Mines and Development Corp. (OMDC), the
original owner of the mining tenements covering those mines. What Citinickel did
not tell the DENR was that, in 2003, PGMC already had a 25-year operating
agreement with Olympic over these tenement. It was PGMC that worked for the
approval of the Mineral Production Sharing Agreement (MPSA) application on
behalf of Olympic. then, despite of the existence of an operating agreement
between PGMC and Olympic, Citinickel bought out Olympic and misrepresented
itself as an operator.
Citinickel could take over from Olympic but only to the
extent of being the claimant for the mine; Citinickel would still have to
fulfill Olympics’ agreement with PGMC for PGMC to operate the mine. In that
case, the idea that Citinickel, owned by Oriental Peninsula, would be making no
more than loose change from its ownership. Despite a court order preventing any
further misrepresentation about the Palawan nickel mines, Citinickel and
Oriental Peninsula continue to do so.
As a result of Citinickel’s claim jumping, operations at the
Palawan nickel mines have been at a standstill since 2006. This has led to the
dislocation of PGMC employees and their families in Palawan, whose lives had
vastly improved when the mines were running smoothly between 2004 and early
2006. There has also been opportunity loss for the mining industry, as no
production or exports can take place while the legal dispute is ongoing.
Because of the PSE Board listing last December of Oriental
Peninsula Resources Group, which had earlier acquired Citinickel and buttressed
its IPO on the Palawan nickel mines, the affected parties now include the
investing public from whom Oriental generated P804 million from its IPO.
PGMC points out that a TRO from the Supreme Court disallows
Citinickel from operating the Palawan mines. What would allow Citinickel to
operate is only a small-scale mining permit from the Province of Palawan,
pending the issuance of an environmental clearance certificate (ECC) from the
DENR. To date, Citinickel has not even yet filed an application for a
small-scale mining permit with the Office of the Palawan Provincial Governor nor
has it received an ECC from the DENR.
Oriental Peninsula has announced that it would start mining
operations at the Citinickel Palawan mines by February. This is an impossibility
considering the limited time involved and the fact that PGMC has a contract to
operate the mine with Olympic and, as its successor in interest, Citinickel.
"Investors need to be assured of a level playing field to attain this
(mining) industry revitalization. That’s what this is all about," PGMC counsel
Joaquin Obieta points out. "We welcome the SC review because it’s about time to
put a stop to the large-scale scam foisted by Citinickel, not only on PGMC, but
also on the people of Palawan and the entire mining industry."