The Need for Enduring Hope

A Palm Sunday Reflection for the Alay Kapwa National Campaign 2011
"Kapwa at Kalikasan, Pananagutan Nating Lahat"
Lenten Action-Evangelization Program of the CBCP National Secretariat for Social Action - Justice and Peace



As we enter the holiest of our liturgical seasons, the story of our Lord’s passion from the Gospel of Matthew is read. This passion narrative begins with the scene that was the turning point in Jesus’ public ministry: not His triumphal entry to Jerusalem but the betrayal of Judas.

1. Betrayal

“One of the Twelve, who was called Judas Iscariot, went to the chief priests and said, ‘What are you willing to give me if I hand him over to you?’ They paid him thirty pieces of silver, and from that time on he looked for an opportunity to hand him over” (Mt 26,14-15).

In a way, our government’s record of pursuing national development, harnessing our natural resources and protecting the environment has been somewhat taken straight from the Gospels’ passion narratives. Time and again, we have seen hopes dashed and best efforts undone when state officials and institutions betray the people’s trust. The words of Judas ring true till today: “What are you willing to give me to hand it over to you?”

Case in point: Rapu-Rapu island in the Bicol region. The island’s long history of mining has been a history filled with corruption and callousness, greed and neglect, and a disregard both to people’s lives and the environment. The Japanese army mined the island during World War II. The Hixbar Mining Company took over from the Japanese and left it in the 1970s with three of four rivers contaminated and an extensive tract of land barren and useless. Toronto Ventures Inc. came in the 1980s and operated without the mandated public hearings and consultations. Lafayette Philippines Inc. entered the picture in 1999.

From the start, majority of the island’s residents were against the latest mining project. The Diocese of Legazpi has issued a pastoral letter condemning the move. Civil society staged protest actions. A senate inquiry was made. A few small victories were won by opponents of the mining project, but in the end Lafayette still had its way. It proceeded with its operations.

In vain, the people turned to their elected officials and the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) for help. In the end they would realize that it was actually the government that invited mining companies to come to their island without their knowing it. They would realize the DENR is the government’s lead mining salesman. It is the DENR that identifies sites as suitable for mining. It is the DENR that advertises those sites for mining investors, conveniently downgrading environmental harm. It is the DENR that grants MPSAs without consulting local residents and ECCs even without social acceptability. It is the same department that admits it cannot sufficiently monitor production and operation of mining companies; and connives with mining officials to cover-up incidents of mishaps and fish kills. When a company like Lafayette fails, the DENR scurries to look for other investors to “save” the project. And should the people seek legal action, it is the DENR who would first receive their complaints and judge its merits before any court could hear their case.

Father, forgive them for they do not know what they do

First Word: “Father, forgive them for they do not know what they do.” (Lk 23,23)

The seven last words of Jesus start on the theme of forgiveness. He is crucified on the cross, severely bruised and in terrible pain, mocked and shamed by his tormentors, and the first words ascribed to him are “Father, forgive them for they do not know what they do”.

These are words that do not fail to inspire and perplex. Even in the worst of suffering, Jesus still preached and embodied the Father’s mercy. The magnanimity of His expression is made more manifest if we reflect upon our own responses to situations of unjust suffering. Would we be so similarly instantaneous, Christ-like in our dispensing of forgiveness? Or would we view such response as an expression of giving-up too early, of resignation to the futility of our quest for justice?

I remember Rapu-Rapu and the sufferings of its people. The Diocese of Legazpi and many concerned groups and individuals, fought alongside them in resisting the large-scale mining operations of Lafayette on their island since 1999. Nowadays the mining operations project themselves as RRMI and RRPI. I remember the series of fish kills in 2005, 2006, and 2007. The fish kill in 2006 happened within the period of a DENR mandated test-run. I remember the arrogance and callousness of many government and mining company officials. I remember the suffering of the people – the dwindling fish catch, hunger, harassment, health problems, uncertain future, and the pain of hearing hard facts twisted and their sentiments misrepresented on national media.

Should the residents of Rapu-Rapu, and we who help them, also have to be so willing and ready to dispense forgiveness as Jesus did? How would such act benefit our cause? Forgiveness seems so out of touch with our situation. Or is it really? There is an admittedly strange attractive power, a sense of liberation even, when a victim utters Jesus' line.

To forgive doesn’t necessarily mean to give-up. To forgive may also mean to let go, or more precisely, to let God. To forgive is to acknowledge that though we seek justice and resist oppression, we can still go beyond our human claims and dispositions and seek affinity with the divine. To forgive is to trust that the power and providence of God is greater than the evil that resides in the hearts of those who do us harm.

To say that they do not know what they do does not mean being co-opted to our oppressors’ web of lies or dismissing their acts as mere human failings. For indeed they are still responsible for their actions. It is an acknowledgment rather that, despite their skills in manipulating truth and handling morally dubious negotiations, they are still practically ignorant of the great power of God working in all things. In short, it is an acknowledgment that there is hope for them still.

Am I just fooling myself when I say this? Am I in a state of wishful thinking? Let me tell you what is clear and present to me about the current mining situation in our country. It is the DENR that identifies sites as suitable for mining; and advertises those sites for mining investors, conveniently downgrading environmental harm. It is the DENR that grants MPSAs without consulting local residents, and ECCs even without social acceptability. It is the same DENR that admits it cannot sufficiently monitor the operation of mining companies; and then connives with mining officials to cover-up incidents of mishaps and fish kills. When a company like Lafayette fails, it is the DENR that scurries to look for other investors in order to “save” the project. And should we seek legal action, it is the DENR who will first receive our complaints and judge their merits.

Could we actually dream of receiving a fair hearing from the current DENR? Maybe not yet in the present nor in the near future, but I am still filled with hope that the situation can and will change for the better. Otherwise, the options left would either be indeed giving-up, or going over less enlightened paths.

Lastly, “Forgive them for they do not know what they do” are words spoken by Jesus to victims and their advocates as well. It is a gentle reminder that even as we fight for justice we cannot lose the best parts of our humanity. It is a solemn promise that just as Jesus Christ transcended hate and injustice, and then triumphed over sin and death, so we too will find our victory in the end.

Responsible mining drives growth?

A Response to "Responsible mining drives growth - Jose Leviste Jr."

Trust a miner to talk about the hopes and dreams of a better Philippines pinned upon a measly 2% excise tax on mining, and then to belittle the Catholic Church's and "international welfare agencies"' anti-mining polemics as nothing but appeals to romantic ideals of national patrimony, and then conveniently lump them with certain seedy local powers-that-be who just want the money for themselves.

The issue for Mr. Leviste is money. What about sustainable development? And are we forgetting something else, like the environment? By the way Mr. Leviste analyzed things, it seemed like the environment was never an issue. The word was mentioned not even once in his article. Okay, the article was just an excerpt, so there just might be some other things left out. And he did use "responsible mining", the one motherhood statement pro-miners rally about.

Could mining be ever responsible in a corruption-mired industry, with a corrupt and inept State monitoring and regulatory system? Could mining be ever responsible when indigenous peoples and local communities are, at turns, deceived, threatened and their rights violated? Could mining be ever responsible in such ecologically fragile islands as Rapu-Rapu, Sibuyan and Palawan?

But for Mr. Leviste, the main issue is money. Let's talk about money then. In most countries around the world, where there is mining, there exist the State's pre-tax share of the cash flow generated by a mining project, representing the national patrimony, which averages a hefty 38% (Chile 15.00%, Bolivia 27.06%, Venezuela 32.82%, Peru 36.52%, United States 36.61%, Mexico 37.21%, Botswana 40.10%, Brazil 40.85%, Argentina 46.13%, Canada 46.71%, Guyana 48.16%, Australia 50.60%)! In the Philippines , the share representing the national patrimony is exactly zero percent.

If this government is giddy about the financial benefits of mining, and mining companies are harping about following international standards, then why is nobody from both sides talking about a 38% pre-tax share from mining? Of course, the issue is money, more money for themselves. Obviously, mining companies and certain seedy national government powers-that-be want the rest of us to believe a 2% excise tax is the best deal we could ever have.

Thankfully, the Catholic Church and Mr. Leviste's "international welfare agencies" don't think so. Unfortunately though, no matter how they whine about the bad rep they're getting, mining companies and corrupt government officials are already getting the money, while the rest of the Filipinos are left with an environment irreparably damaged and patrimony irreversibly wasted.

Responsible mining drives growth - Jose Leviste Jr. http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/storypage.aspx?StoryId=123095

The report of the Fraser Institute of Canada shows that the Philippines ranks among the highest in the world in terms of prospectivity and among the lowest in the world in terms of investability.

I have some difficulty with that position and I will tell you why. First, if the Philippines is bad as they say, why is that companies are still fighting to get a piece of the action in the Philippines? Sure, much of the promised investment on the ground is still waiting to happen but on the exchanges of Sydney, London, Toronto and elsewhere, the stocks of
companies that have projects in the Philippines are much sought after.

The fact is that despite the noise, quite a deal is happening in the Philippines and much of it for the good of the industry. We may not have seen much of the promised investment actually hit the ground as yet but we have certainly seen quite a deal of activity in regard to the shares of international companies that are developing local projects.

Only around 30 percent of the Philippines has been properly surveyed and yet already it is regarded as the fifth most mineralized country in the world. The total value of those minerals in today’s market is estimated at more than $840 billion.

If “exploited” in the proper way, with an excise tax of 2 percent being paid to government, that is $16.8 billion in royalty payments alone, of which $6.7 billion would be paid to local government units; plus a further one percent in royalties to indigenous communities—$8.4 billion.

Those numbers would start to make a real difference, especially if they provided the catalyst for further downstream investment. Mining, responsible mining that is, is an important driver of future growth of the Philippines.

Bad news

You hear much about the bad news on mining in the Philippines but much less about the good news. That is the nature of journalism. Anything unfortunate that happens is considered newsworthy. Anything good that happens is regarded as corporate propaganda.

What is the true story of what is happening with mining in the Philippines?

The fact is that there continues to be a battle for the hearts and minds of the people of the Philippines over the efficacy of the 1995 Mining Act which back in late 2004 was declared to be constitutional ‘with finality’ by the Supreme Court and which allows foreign companies to enter into agreements with the government of the Philippines to explore and develop local mineral deposits on behalf of the people of the Philippines.

At root, and in the context of responsible mining, it is all about money. This is not an issue that is unique to the Philippines. Fights over money and who gets what are as old as time and mining companies are used to such fights.

To exploit known mineral reserves in a manner consistent with international best practice requires both money and technology that is not available locally. International best practice is locked in battle right now (in some places) with vested local interests who wish to exploit these resources for themselves. Their argument is couched in terms of “national patrimony” and “Filipino first.” These are terms that appeal to certain elements of the Catholic Church and to international welfare agencies who echo the refrain—but the truth of the matter is somewhat different.

What these people really mean by the terms they use is that they do not wish to share local wealth but keep it for themselves. Remember that small-scale miners (ostensibly pick-and-shovel stuff but in fact many so-called small-scale miners are anything but small-scale) do not report their income to the national government, do not pay excise taxes and often pay their “taxes” not by cheque but in cash—without the corresponding receipts.

So the real battle is between a system whereby earnings from mining will be returned to the national and local governments as well as the people of the Philippines through defined revenue sharing formula and in a manner that will redistribute wealth throughout the Philippines versus a system which enriches a few local oligarchs and the politicians that support them while keeping the mass of the people impoverished.

Pockets of resistance

Among the various “stakeholders,” some of the opposition to national mining policy is brought about through ignorance while other opposition is ideological in nature—vested interests are under threat.

At the national level, the fight has already been won. The national government is firmly behind the minerals industry as a future driver of our growth. What you are seeing now are the mopping up operations of that fight—pockets of resistance that are holding out and fighting ferociously in the process. And yes, sadly, there are delays and occasional road blocks in some prospective mining areas of the country.

But these delays and occasional road blocks, as unfortunate as they are, should not discourage us but should steel us in our resolve to win the fight on behalf of the legitimate industry.

Indeed, the situation is changing for the better and the legitimate industry is slowly again gaining the upper hand. We say “again” because it was a battle already won back in 2005 but which was set back immeasurably by the incidents at the Rapu Rapu mine in Albay province. The response to those incidents and the manner in which they were handled by the previous management at the time damaged not only the company but set back the entire industry. It was caught flat-footed.

Rapu Rapu got new Filipino management, was rehabilitated and is now under new Korean and Malaysian ownership and management and it remains to be seen how the new owners handle things from this point.

Certainly the industry cannot afford another setback of this nature.

Revenues for local government

Evidently, “enough is enough” and mining companies, traditionally wanting to keep a low profile and needing to refer any public comment back to their corporate headquarters, are now starting to realize that profiles can sometimes be too low.

The key issue of course again comes back to money and the need to ensure that revenues from mining activities flow back to local government in a transparent and timely fashion. There is some validity to the complaint of many local officials that they have yet to see any benefit from allowing foreign mining companies to undertake activities in their areas. That has to change and is changing.

So while the Philippines may not represent the best of all possible worlds, it is far from being the worst either. Our international credibility is starting to improve.

But in the Philippines as in any business venture, the time to get in is when things are just starting to move. Wait too long and you will assuredly miss the boat.

These are excerpts from the speech of the author in Brisbane, Australia on June 26, 2008. He is resident representative of the Australia-Philippine Business Council and chairman of Oceana Gold Philippines Inc.

Latest Update on Lafayette

Carlos Dominguez of Lafayette Philippines Inc. has been oft-quoted in press releases as saying: “this temporary legal process we are going through is actually a blessing for the Rapu Rapu project because it will resolve the financial issues the local management team has been urging LML to address.”

Somehow, the truth has an uncanny way of surfacing out, like dead fishes. No matter how much you try to scoop 'em & bury 'em as quickly and stealthily as you can, at one point, Murphy's Law will catch up on you. When that happens, you won't just have to contend with a respectable fish kill, but also big investor pull-out, creditors coming out of the woodwork, activists breathing down your neck... You know what they say about the weather these days in Albay: when it rains, it pours.

Here's an excerpt from the "Full Statement of Lafayette Mining Ltd. to the Administrators Ferrier Hodgson", dated 20 December 2007, but released today 020108. (From http://saverapurapu.blogspot.com/)

"6. On 17 December 2007, Rapu Rapu Minerals Inc ("RRMI"), an associate of Lafayette, received a default notice from its mining contractor Leighton Contractor (Philippines) Inc ("Leighton"). Lafayette is a co-guarantor of the payment of money due under the mining contract with Leighton and while there was a cure period for default provided under the terms of the contract, Lafayette could not be certain that either RRMI or Lafayette would be in a position to settle this claim by Leighton at the expiry of the cure period, given the delayed nature and inherent uncertainty in the Bank Group's processes.

7. By 17 December 2007, it was also evident that Lafayette's cash reserves would be insufficient to meet corporate expenses beyond 31 December 2007. While the Bank Group had in the past provided the necessary financial support to Lafayette to continue to meet its obligations, (including as recently as 11 December 2007 when a further US$300,000 was made available to the Company to fund expenses expected to be incurred in December 2007) the availability of this continued support was uncertain, creating further doubt for Directors about the ability of the Company to continue to meet it obligations.

8. Given all of the above, the Board of Lafayette met on 18 December 2007, and being of the view that they no longer had reasonable grounds to believe that the Company could meet its obligations as and when they fell due resolved to voluntarily appoint Messrs Sutton and McCluskey of Ferrier Hodgson to the role of Administrator. In making this appointment, the Board expected that the Administration process would allow all options for either the sale of the Project or a restructure and recapitalization of the Lafayette group to be fully explored."

So Lafayette is not bankcrupt.

• It just won't be able to pay Leighton just yet.
• It just couldn't make ends meet by 31 December 2007.
• Its parent company in Australia just won't be able to meet its obligations.
• It's now just being ran by the banks.
  

I get the feeling that "it is a hoax!" will soon be joined by "we are not bankcrupt!" as the new company "it-mantra". But no matter how you make yourself hoarse shouting it, somehow the picture of the boy who cried wolf just couldn't be shooed away from the mind.

I wonder what the Lafayette people will say about this interesting piece of news. I wonder what text messages will I be getting this time.

Death in Rapu-Rapu

Maurita de Ramas, 27, married, with 4 kids, from Brgy. Poblacion, Rapu-Rapu, passed away at 11 a.m. on 23 November 2007.

She complained of nausea and vomiting immediately after eating some fish caught by her husband on 28 October 2007, the same day a massive fish kill was witnessed by residents in Brgy. Poblacion. As she was the first to eat what was supposed to be their meal, and having seen her condition, the rest of her family no longer ate the cooked fish. She was immediately brought to the hospital and was given some medication. For the next few days, she went back several times to the hospital because of her ailment. She developed a boil on her face and wounds over her stomach before eventually succumbing to heart failure.

Her husband blamed her death to the apparently contaminated fish she ate days before, and to the Lafayette mine, the most probable cause of the fish kill. He also said she had no history of any major illness. She was buried the next day as her family could not afford embalming services.

It was a gloomy day on her funeral, both figuratively and literally. It was the day the typhoon (coincidentally named) "Mina" was predicted to arrive in Albay. The typhoon changed course eventually, sparing the province.

Maurita de Ramas' illness and death seemed eerily symbolic of the suffering of the people, and of the island itself, of Rapu-Rapu.

Lafayette says this is a hoax.

This video is real.
The suffering of Rapu-Rapu is REAL.
When will the government finally take side with the people on this issue?

Pastoral Letter on the Most Recent Fish Kill in Rapu-Rapu

DIOCESE OF LEGAZPI
CHANCERY
P.O. Box 38, Legazpi City 4500, Philippines

PASTORAL BULLETIN NO. 10, Series of 2007

To: People of God in Legazpi, All Men and Women of Good Will and Faith
Re: ON THE MOST RECENT FISH KILL IN RAPU-RAPU

Hear this, you who trample upon the needy
and destroy the poor of the land!
The Lord has sworn by the pride of Jacob:
Never will I forget a thing they have done! (Amos 8,4-7)

On the morning of 28 October 2007, Sunday, the people in Brgy. Poblacion, Rapu-Rapu awoke to the sight and stench of dead fish everywhere littering their shores. Their shock and questions grew into gnawing anxiety, then into panic, as, in waves, they beheld their worst fears coming true.

That day and the days that followed, several people fell sick after eating fish and other food from the sea. With the health concerns, came the realization: they could not fish. Based from previous experience, full recovery of the fishing industry on the island would take several months. For the 70% of the island’s population whose livelihood is dependent on fishing, there could be no worse economic disaster than this. They could not bring home food from the sea. Soon they would have no more money left to buy food from elsewhere.

Several sacks of rice were distributed by the municipality. Food relief trickled in from the provincial government, the Church and non-government organizations (NGOs). But they seemed to be never enough – both the food and the justice they are seeking.

They blamed the Lafayette mine for unleashing yet another disaster upon them. It was not the first fish kill incident on this island. In 2005, despite repeated denials from the company, the Rapu-Rapu Fact-Finding Commission found Lafayette culpable of the mine spill that caused the fish kill and subsequent fish scare in nearby towns.

The mining company, in statements made by its representatives, denied culpability of the recent fish kill, claimed sabotage, called it a hoax, and even threatened to sue anyone suspected to be responsible for their proposed hoax.

A team from the Department of Environment and Natural Resources – Environmental Management Bureau (DENR-EMB) made initial investigation and concluded, among other things, that:

1. The fish kill was limited only to Brgy. Poblacion, around 10 kilometers away from the mine site. Thus, it was too far away from the mine site.

2. No fish kill happened in the shorelines of Brgys. Carogcog, Sta. Barbara, Malobago, Pagcolbon and Binosawan. The Brgy. Chairmen of these five barangays issued certifications to the non-existence of any fish kill in their areas.

3. The quality of marine waters between the mine site and Brgy. Poblacion was found to be within DENR standards and showed no trace of cyanide contamination.

The Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR), which analyzed some fish kill samples, reported that the fish they had, died not of chemical contamination but probably because of strong sea currents.

The conclusions submitted by the DENR-EMB and BFAR practically absolved Lafayette of any link to the fish kill, undermined the extent of its damage to the community and to the island, and made it a non-issue to the national government.

However, our consultations with the people of Rapu-Rapu and concerned individuals and organizations, revealed certain information that prompts us to seriously question the methods and motives of these government agencies’ findings and Lafayette representatives’ denials.

1. The fish kill was not limited to Brgy. Poblacion only. Cases of food poisoning took place not only in Brgy. Poblacion but in other barangays as well. Eyewitness accounts from the other five barangays testified to fish kill sightings in their areas, too. Several residents from Brgy. Binosawan even claimed that the fish kill started in their place as early as 26 October 2007. In one instance, a resident from Brgy. Carogcog, who was interviewed by a team from the EMB, also testified that he saw dead fish littering the shorelines of his barangay. This detail never found its way to the EMB report.

2. The contention that Brgy. Poblacion is too far away from the mine site did not take into consideration the direction and speed of the wind and water current at the time of the fish kill. Seasoned fisherfolks and astute observers not only point out this fact, but also how the EMB conveniently took this fact aside.

3. Is the quality of all marine and inland waters between Brgy. Poblacion and the mine site really well within DENR standards? Can this conclusion pass the scrutiny of credible independent scientific experts? Then as now, we have been receiving disturbing reports of researchers being harassed by barangay and private security personnel, and prevented from taking water and soil samples, or even pictures, near the mine site, even when the studies are being done outside company property.

4. The BFAR theory of fish drowning in the strong sea currents and not of chemical contamination strains credulity not only at the first instance but especially when one takes into consideration the following:

a. The sea has always been rough in these parts at this time of year. But the fish kill incidents only happened when the mining company started its operations. This appears to be a valid case of post hoc ergo propter hoc. It happened after it, therefore, it happened on account of it.

b. Several residents of the island fell sick after eating fish and other sea food caught around the same time as the fish kill. A dog even died in Brgy. Poblacion after eating some dead fish by the seashore. If the food they ate did not contain some chemical contaminants, could strong sea currents then induce the fish and crustaceans to produce toxins in their body?

The ultimate measure of the reality and extent of the damage of the fish kill lies in its effect on the people. Most of the island’s residents are poor and dependent on fishing. Now their existence has been made even more precarious. They worry about their food for the day, their health, their livelihood and their uncertain future. A 73-year old resident cried out in the vernacular: “Fish is our life! Kill them at the sea, and you kill us here living on dry land!”

They feel betrayed by the authorities who, they see, not only failed to protect them, in favor of the powerful, but still managed to publicly question their misery. Their voices and reactions speak in so many ways of anger and desperation. A woman recounted how her fears crept into her dreams; she dreamt of seeing her elderly father eating his fish net for lack of food.

As Pastors, it pains us to see so much suffering, especially suffering caused by man’s inhumanity to man and to the environment. Our response, as members of the One Body of Christ, should be to help alleviate their suffering and find ways so it would not happen again.

1. We strongly support the move by the Sangguniang Bayan of Rapu-Rapu to finally declare a State of Emergency on the island, in order to facilitate the granting of financial and food assistance from government and international funding institutions.

2. We enjoin our faithful in the parishes, schools and ecclesial communities to organize relief efforts for the people of Rapu-Rapu. Our Diocesan Social Action Center will coordinate the relief operations.

3. We condemn the violence, harassment and illegal detentions which have been the response of certain local authorities to the peaceful protest gatherings which the people of Rapu-Rapu have been regularly staging ever since the most recent fish kill happened.

4. We appeal to our government officials to conduct thorough investigations and public hearings on the fish kill, even as we reiterate our position that Rapu-Rapu island is not suitable for large-scale mining and that the most just and proper response is the closure of the Lafayette mine.

5. We ask our faithful and all concerned citizens to join this call by supporting a signature campaign which will be addressed to our leaders, policy makers, and other concerned individuals and institutions.

As Pastors, it is our duty to teach and remind our faithful, and all men and women of good will, of certain moral imperatives to this case that are important in the formation of our individual consciences.

1. Stewardship of God’s creation is everybody’s responsibility. God’s offer to subdue the earth is not a license to wantonly exploit it but a charge to take care of it so everybody, including future generations, may benefit from its bounty. Stewardship has no room for apathy and indifference in the face of very real threats to the environment and to the lives and livelihood of the poor. All of us, thus, are environmentalists by divine vocation.

2. Truth-telling is necessary for genuine development to happen. Truth-telling is crucial to the promotion of justice. Social justice, in turn, is the foundation of any program that seeks to achieve sustainable development, genuine prosperity and lasting peace. The issue of mining in Rapu-Rapu has unfortunately been marred by assertion of half-truths, suppression of evidence, corruption of witnesses, harassment of truth-seekers, manipulation of scientific data and plain deception.

Those who know the truth but speak and act otherwise, either by invoking official documents that lie or succumbing to the influence of unscrupulous superiors or lobbyists, are guilty of being party to the cause of the suffering of the people of Rapu-Rapu.

3. Public office is at the service of the people. Any public official who considers his personal interests, or the confidence and predispositions of his political patrons or foreign investors, above the rights and wellbeing of his constituents, especially the poor, has misguided priorities and misplaced loyalty. He may, for some time, escape accountability from the people, but never from God. For the highest sovereign in a democracy is not the people, it is God.

As Pastors, we join ourselves with the aspirations and labors of the people of Rapu-Rapu, and all men and women who are committed to the protection of the environment and of the poor. Though we may feel the hardship of our task at hand, yet we do not lose hope for God is with us.

Let us continue to pray with greater fervor the Oratio Imperata, our Prayer for Deliverance against Calamities – natural and man-made. For God is not deaf to our cries and blind to our afflictions.

The prayer of the lowly pierces the clouds; it does not rest
till it reaches its goal, nor will it withdraw
till the Most High responds, judges justly and affirms the right.
God indeed will not delay, and like a warrior, will not be still
till he breaks the backs of the merciless
and wreaks vengeance upon the proud;
till he destroys the haughty root and branch,
and smashes the scepter of the wicked;
till he requites mankind according to its deeds,
and repays men according to their thoughts;
till he defends the cause of his people,
and gladdens them by his mercy.(Sirach 35:17-24)

Sincerely in His service,

(Signed)
+LUCILO B. QUIAMBAO
Apostolic Administrator

With 73 signatures of the Clergy in the Diocese of Legazpi gathered in a Diocesan General Presbyteral Assembly.

Rev. Fr. Rex Paul B. Arjona

Chancellor-Secretary

20 November 2007
Please Keep on File

we don't want to delve into that

“Technically Lafayette has been compliant with all the conditions. The political and economic issues would be a different matter… we don’t want to delve into that.” So said Mines and Geosciences Bureau (MGB) Director Horacio Ramos (Phil. Star, Fri, 8 Sept. 2006, p.2).

What’s wrong with this statement? Two things:

1. A high-ranking DENR official gives advance notice of yet another anomalous government decision: the permanent lifting of the order which suspended the operations of a recidivist multinational mining company, in the aftermath of a series of mine spills and fish kill in October 2005.

2. A virtual announcement of yet another government-Lafayette collusion and whitewash. Ramos, in his great fervor to endorse Lafayette’s mining operations in Rapu-Rapu, admits to have judged as having no practical merit to the case, as far as he/the MGB is concerned, such issues as: Lafayette's glaring lack of social acceptability, its cheating the people of taxes and revenues, its social and economic cost to the lives and livelihood of the locals (which the company tries to assuage with its palliative and deceptive community development programs), its proven destruction of the environment, and the MOST RECENT SERIES OF FISH KILL WHICH HAPPENED ON JULY 2006 - well within the schedule of the test run.

On record in the Rapu-Rapu Sangguniang Bayan minutes: some residents saw several DENR officials on the site of the fish kill, while it was happening. As usual, no picture evidence of the incident ever surfaced. And all this time company representatives were all over the media, preaching their new-found mantra ever since the “take-over” of the “new” board: transparency...responsible mining...transparency... responsible mining...

That is when they weren’t busy accusing Greenpeace and the whole motley of local anti-mining advocates (including, presumably but left unmentioned, the Dioceses of Legazpi and Sorsogon) of staging the fish kill themselves via an elaborate plan that involved smuggling into Rapu-Rapu a sizable volume of pesticide and then stealthily dumping it all into one of several heavily guarded (by both private guards and the military) creeks in the island.

But they don’t have pictures of that Operation Whatever taken either. What they have is made of far stronger stuff: the testimony/rantings of Gov. Raul Lee of Sorsogon in an interview with a notoriously pro-Lafayette PDI Southern Luzon Bureau reporter. How reassuring it is for the people of Sorsogon to hear their governor passionately defend a company coming from foreign lands, operating in another province, yet posing as the gravest threat to date to their own province's booming eco-tourism industry. Pity the butandings, they're no match for Lafayette in enlisting the support of local officials.

What's wrong with the quote again? DENR should be releasing the result of the tests they have presumably conducted during/right after the fish kill, instead the news article where that quote is taken has this for its headline: "DENR says Lafayette fit to resume operations in Rapu-Rapu".

As an afterthought, MGB Director Ramos gives a token display of realism and balance: “We cannot preempt though the Pollution Adjudication Board (PAB), which would decide on whether to lift the suspension order or not.” But of course, he doesn't want to preempt the PAB, he just wants to prepare the ground for when their decision comes out.

In a recent mobilization in Legazpi City, a couple or so banners bore the words, "DENR: Destroyer of the Environment and Natural Resources". With public officials like these, that claim might turn out to be closer to reality than we think.

pastoral letter: mining in rapu-rapu

in light of relatively recent events: the 11 and 31 oct 2005 mine spills in rapu-rapu island, albay; the fish kills and the subsequent fish scare; the final report of the rapu-rapu fact-finding commission, also known as the bastes commission, on 19 may 2006; the recent DENR announcement allowing a 30-day test run of mining operations; & other events pertaining to the lafayette mining operations in rapu-rapu, our diocese, thru bp. quiambao, released a pastoral letter, or bulletin, reiterating our consistent stand: rapu-rapu is not suitable for mining, thus, stop mining, close the lafayette mine. just read the details below.

this will be read in a press con on 11 july, so we issued an embargo to members of the press who have gotten hold of early copies of this pastoral letter. there will be a rally in the afternoon of the same day, dubbed the 'black tuesday' grand rally against mining. we urge participants to wear black to express mourning for DENR’s approval of a 30-day test run of mining operations and indignation at the govt’s and lafayette’s sustained indifference to stop the harm being done to our land and people. those who can't join the rally, are asked wear black even in the confines of their school or office. those who can't wear black, a black arm band may do.

.......

The Chancery
DIOCESE OF LEGAZPI
Legazpi City


PASTORAL BULLETIN NO. 05, Series of 2006

To: Clergy, Religious, Heads of CEAL Schools, Lay Faithful, Men and Women of good will
Re: ON MINING AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS IN RAPU-RAPU

Dear People of God:

“Do not defile the land where you live and where I dwell” (Num 35,34).

The Mine Spill Incidents. On 11 and 31 October 2005, two mine spill incidents took place at the mining site of Lafayette Philippines, Inc. (LPI), and its two subsidiaries, i.e., Rapu-Rapu Minerals, Inc. (RRMI) and Rapu-Rapu Processing, Inc. (RRPI), in the island municipality of Rapu-Rapu, Albay. The mine spills flowed into nearby creeks and rivers and into the open sea.

After both incidents, fish kill ensued in several bodies of water in Rapu-Rapu. Fish kills were also reported to have occurred on several occasions in November 2005 in the coastal waters of Sorsogon and the Albay Gulf. The Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR) found positive for cyanide several fish kill samples submitted by the Mayor of Prieto Diaz, Sorsogon. After the fish kill came the fish scare which adversely affected the lives and livelihood of fisher folk families, fish traders and the fish consuming public.

Three months after the last mine spill, a study conducted by a team from the University of the Philippines–Natural Science Research Institute (UP-NSRI) reported that Sorsogon’s, as well as Albay’s waters, fish and underwater sediments are safe. However, the team admitted that its findings were not conclusive and need further studies. Further, UP-NSRI and various other groups and individuals, which also conducted different studies taken at different periods within five months following the tailings incidents, yield a telling common result: “the presence of toxic heavy metals in the soil, water, and sediment samples and in the urine and blood of some of the patients coming from communities near the mine site” (RRFFC Final Report).

The Rapu-Rapu Fact-Finding Commission (RRFFC), created by President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and headed by Bishop Arturo Bastes of Sorsogon, reported, among others, the following findings:

1. “Lafayette is guilty of irresponsibility for starting operations prior to the completion of environmental protection infrastructure.” “11 of 29 conditionalities and subconditionalities contained in the Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC) were violated by the LPI Group.”

2. “The Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) and its bureaus, i.e., the Mines and Geosciences Bureau (MGB) and the Environmental Management Bureau (EMB), its regional offices, including its monitoring team… did not have sufficient capability of monitoring mining operations in Rapu-Rapu. Worse, though, is that if they had the capability then they utterly lacked will.” The Mines Rehabilitation Fund Committee (MRFC) and the Multi-partite Monitoring Team (MMT) were also found to have exhibited poor monitoring and management capability.

3. The Commission also noted the hasty and irregular manner by which Lafayette was able to secure its Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC) in the first place, despite vehement opposition voices raising valid concerns, such as, its dubious social acceptability and its potential to harm the environment, and despite a Senate committee investigation, led by former Senator Jaworski, which recommended the non-issuance of an ECC.

The Church’s Involvement on Mining and Environmental Concerns. In November 1999, when Lafayette and another mining company, Miracle Mile, were still in the process of initial exploration and application for the necessary permits, the Diocese released a Pastoral Letter on the “Rapu-Rapu Island Mining Case”, warning, among others, that:

“The much touted economic development and industrial growth to be brought upon by the mining companies will definitely be beneficial only to them and to certain government officials. In fact, it will only aggravate the poverty of the people since the land will be taken away from them and the agricultural and marine life of the island will be gradually and systematically destroyed. The livelihood programs being offered by the mining companies are mere palliatives and are actually meant to lure the people into acquiescing to their demands and activities… The countless effects of the toxic wastes and mineral tailings will be terribly felt and will gravely affect the livelihood and health of the people.”

Such prophetic words. Some though question the Church’s involvement in the issues of mining in general and the mine spill incidents in Rapu-Rapu. The answer is simple: our preaching and living the Gospel demands the prophetic duty of teaching about the integrity of God’s creation and our responsibility as stewards of creation, and, whenever necessary, of speaking against the grave injustice of pursuing profit at the expense of the environment and people’s lives, especially, those of the poor. Pope Benedict XVI, in his very first encyclical, says that “the social concern is as essential to [the Church’s] mission as the ministry of the sacraments and the preaching of the Gospel” (Deus Caritas Est 22).

Call to Action. “Whatsoever you do to the least of My brethren, you do unto Me” (Mt 25,40).

Thus, we, your bishops and priests, together with the Diocesan Social Action Commission, would like to reiterate what we have held consistently from the very start: that mining must not be conducted in Rapu-Rapu and that the best course of action is the immediate closure of the Lafayette mine.

Our position is supported by the findings of the Ateneo de Naga University–Institute for Environmental Conservation and Research (INECAR) which has been doing scientific research for more than six years now in Rapu-Rapu. Studies done by Dr. Emelina Regis, INECAR Director, find the island gravely unsuitable for mining due to the following reasons:

“[It is an] island ecosystem with steep slopes; [it has a] Type II climate, [i.e.,] there is no dry season, with very pronounced wet period from November to January; [it is] located along the typhoon path; and [it has] massive iron sulfide rocks with acid-generating capacity or Acid Mine Drainage (AMD)... The resulting impacts of AMD include death to living organisms and release of toxic heavy metals that causes loss of productivity of aquatic and terrestrial plants… [and ultimately,] destruction of livelihood in agriculture and fisheries… These impacts will persist for a long time. Heavy rains will continue to erode loosened contaminated soil. Silt and tailings that poison the land and sea will leave behind unproductive land and dead coral reefs… There is no justice in sacrificing the survival of generations of people and other living organisms for the short-term gains of a few.” (INECAR Position Paper regarding mining in Rapu-Rapu: Closure of Lafayette Mine, 15 February 2006)

For the same reasons, we express our opposition to the announced 30-day Temporary Lifting Order (TLO) by the DENR that will allow a three-stage test run of mining operations by RRMI and RRPI, which many believe is but a ploy and a prelude to regular operations.

We also support the recommendations of the Rapu-Rapu Fact-Finding Commission (RRFFC). In particular, we wish to highlight some of these recommendations and appeal to the President, the DENR Secretary, officials of local government units (LGUs) and concerned government agencies, to consider them as moral imperatives:

1. “Cancel the Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC) of RRMI and RRPI” for serious violations of the ECC conditionalities and other previously-mentioned grounds.

2. “Cancel the RRMI and RRPI Philippine Economic Zone Authority (PEZA) registration on the basis of the irregularities found (by the RRFFC) and for the reason that the Rapu-Rapu LGU has been unduly deprived of local taxes.”

3. Review R.A. 7942 or the Philippine Mining Act of 1995, and its Revised Implementing Rules and Regulations, and repeal provisions that put the interest of the Filipino people at a disadvantage.

We call on the faithful in the parishes and religious communities, and men and women of faith and good will, to act and unite to protect our environment from further degradation, and to support the people of Rapu-Rapu and those in nearby towns in Albay and Sorsogon who are adversely affected by Lafayette’s mining operations. A Diocesan Circular, released alongside this Pastoral Bulletin, details our Diocese’s plan for immediate actions.

Conclusion. No doubt, our present situation reflects what the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) refers to in its “Statement on Mining Issues and Concerns”, released on 29 January 2006, which is but a repeat of what the bishops previously declared in 1998:

“[The] government[‘s] mining policy is offering our lands to foreigners, with liberal conditions, while our people continue to grow in poverty… [Further,] the adverse social impact on the affected communities far outweigh the gains promised by mining transnational corporations (TNCs).”

The celebration of the World Environment Month this June, and the CBCP declaration of 2006 as the Year of Social Concerns, are powerful reminders that the story of Rapu-Rapu need not continue nor end as yet another reiteration of our dire pronouncements. The situation is not hopeless. Let us unite and work together “for the cause of truth and goodness and right” (Ps 45,5). Let us hold on to the struggle to put an end to destructive mining and unjust State and corporate practices in Rapu-Rapu, in other parts of our country, and in developing countries around the world.

Finally, let us pray unceasingly for our elected government leaders; for DENR officials; for the executives of Lafayette; for the victims of the mine spills; and for us all; that we may open our hearts to receive the Holy Spirit. Then He shall renew the face of the earth. Amen.

Devotedly yours in the Lord,

+LUCILO B. QUIAMBAO
Auxiliary Bishop of Legazpi


(Sgd.) Fr. John B. Mendoza

Ad-Interim Chancellor-Secretary

30 June 2006