THE local government of Kasibu, Nueva Vizcaya
on Thursday petitioned the Supreme Court to issue a temporary
restraining order enjoining the Department of Environment and
Natural Resources against allowing mining company Oceana Gold to
operate in the ore-rich Didipio region.
The Sangguniang Bayan of Kasibu through Mayor
Romeo Tayaban also asked the high court for a writ of injunction
against Environment Secretary Angelo Reyes for continuing to
implement the Financial and Technical Assistance Agreement (FTAA)
of Oceana Gold by issuing the necessary permits for its
implementation.
Tayaban described the mining project as "lack(ing)
in social acceptability" after the company failed to secure
local government consent to pursue the project. On Aug. 7, 2005
the municipality passed a resolution rejecting the Didipio
Gold-Copper project.
Tayaban said respondents continued to refuse
to accede to the demand of the Sangguniang Bayan pursuant to the
Local Government Code which "gives it the right and duty to
protect their territorial and political jurisdictions against
projects that have serious effects and welfare of their
constituents."
The petitioners said an injunction order from
the high court will prevent the illegal implementation of the
FTAA by Oceana that will result in the massive displacement and
loss of livelihood of indigenous peoples who live in Didipio and
other communities.
Tayaban claimed the houses of Didipio
residents who have sold their land to APMI have been set for
demolition despite the fact they have yet to be paid in full,
while residents who refused to sell their lands to APMI are also
being threatened with demolition.
Petitioners also assailed the ruling of the
Quezon City regional trial court which dismissed their complaint
and denied their application for a TRO, saying the matter was
under the jurisdiction of the arbitration panels of the DENR,
pursuant to the Philippine Mining Act.
"Assuming that there are questions of facts, the lower court
is not prevented from exercising its power to restrain or
prohibit administrative acts. The issue is whether respondents
may implement their project in petitioners’ political territory
despite absence of the required prior consultation and local
government consent," said the petitioners’ lawyer Marvic Leonen.
– Evangeline C. de Vera
