Members of Pi Sigma Fraternity, esteemed judges, ladies and gentlemen, I give you my warmest greeting of good morning.

Over the years, things, attitudes, preferences, ideas have passed through a constant cycle of obsolescence and change. Rationality dictates the need to change something that no longer serves its purpose. Nobody wants to use something that is neither beneficial nor practical anymore. This is what our team firmly believes in; a system that no longer functions necessitates change without compromises. With this belief, today, we stand here before you to defend our stand that mining should be totally banned in the Philippines. The first speaker shall focus on two points, the benefits and the practicability of mining in the Philippines. Is it beneficial? Are the benefits of mining enough for people to overlook the damage which the very process of it causes upon not only our countrys natural resources but even more, on our people? In the context of mining under the existing Philippine society and its laws, I daresay it is not. To address my point, let me pose this question: Does the mining industry indeed provide for a big percentage of jobs in the Philippines that it may cripple our peoples livelihoods if it is stopped? Theoretically speaking, Section 35 J of RA 7942 or the Philippine Mining Act of 1995 ensures that Filipinos be given priority in job allocations. Despite this, various researches have shown otherwise. Results from research conducted by independent thinktank IBON have shown that in 2011, mining only accounts for 0.6% of employment. Bantay Kita, on the other hand, reported a 2011 figure of 0.376% of total employment; far less than the IBON results, if I may add. Meanwhile, government agencies such as the Mines and Geosciences Bureau and the Department on Labor and Employment have reported that in the last two decades, mining contributed a meager .44% to total annual employment in the country. Is this the large chunk that the pro-mining bloc is so proud of? Another point of contention here is the quality and sustainability of the jobs being provided. In Section 62 of the same act it is stated, and I quote in no case shall each employment exceed five (5) years or the payback period as represented in the original project study, whichever is longer. This proves that though the hazards of working in a mining site may last 10, 15 years or even the rest of the workers lifespans, the jobs they are ensured of will not be enough to compensate for the damage caused to community, livelihood, and even personal health. Worse, the lasting and irreparable damage to their health due to exposure to hazardous materials such as lead and mercury, far outlives the duration of their employment! Furthermore, Large Scale Mining Companies have reportedly been at the forefront of implementing contractualization among their workers ranks. In April of 2012, the International Solidarity Mission on Mining conducted a 4-day mission in mining areas in the regions of Cordillera and Caraga. They found the dire situation of workers wherein contractualization, overly depressed wages, and workers rights violations were rampant. In Lepanto mining corp., 800 out of the 1400 workers are contractual and the minimum wage is a measly P 255/day; way below than the P 570 daily cost of living in the region. Similar conditions exist in Philsaga Mining of Caraga and Medusa Mining Corp. in Agusan del Sur, where 3,300 out of 4000 workers are contractual.

One of the most proclaimed benefits of mining is that mining companies provide the communities they conduct operations in with schools, hospitals, basketball courts, etc. While these companies are seemingly teeming with generosity, in fact, these donations comprise merely 1.5% of the operating expenditures of the companies, as the Chamber of Mines of the Philippines (COMP) admits. This percentage is certainly not a huge deduction to their operating revenues, which are estimated at P 30M for a mere 2-day operation. From these, we see that these contributions do not even match the value that the companies derive from our own resources; natural and labor alike. Also, how can we forget that once the mining contracts of these companies finish, so shall the obligation of providing for the communities? But most importantly, we should keep in mind that these so-called providers were the very ones who, with the aid of legislation and the armed forces, deprived multitudes of indigenous peoples of the right to their own lands. Were they not the ones who polluted and contaminated the lands that were once the source of livelihood and sustenance of these same people? Were they not the ones who caused the destruction of many homes, property, and even lives? One of the clear examples of how communities view these so-called agreements with the mining companies is shown in the 7th Anniversary special documentary of the Reporters Notebook. It was shown that the contracts with these companies were an act of desperation on the part of the locals. Since the government has no concrete plans of development for their communities, these people are forced to enter a contract where they are being cheated, and robbed off of their natural resources, health, and even life. In return these companies claim to be developing these communities, when in fact, for the same reasons stated prior, it is very clear that they are not. Another major benefit these companies seem worth mentioning is its very substantial contribution to our countrys GDP. The estimated industry net worth of mining, in fact, reaches 47 trillion according to NEDA in their survey last 2004. It then follows that it can give a very big boost to our countrys economy, right? Wrong. In fact, 2010 and 2011 figures have shown that mining only accounted for 1.3% and 1.2% of the total GDP and economy, respectively. These figures find their basis in the pronouncements of RA 7729, the Act that Section 80 of RA 7942 abides to, that only a maximum of 2% shall be considered as excise tax, that is, a tax on the privilege to conduct business here in the country. This translates to this, of the 144.4 Billion pesos that the mining companies get, only 13.7 million goes to the Philippines. RA 7942, a major law that governs the mining industry in the country, also provides for hefty incentives to these companies (majority of which is foreign) such as 8-yr. tax holidays, and 100% repatriation of investments. Meaning, even when the foreign companies are already allowed to repatriate, or take home all of their profits net of the excise tax, there are times when even the mere 2% excise tax is forgiven! In other words, no revenue is left for the government. Even the new EO 79 on mining barely helped to change this injustice. It merely increased excise taxes to 5% but this value is negligible compared to the amount of profits expected at the end of the exploration, extraction, and final processing activities of the mining companies. And the rationale of the companies behind this tax treatment? The minerals that they extract from the Philippines are low value-adding materials since they are still in raw material form. Therefore, they feel that putting a cheap price tag on our minerals is justified. It is safe to say that the mining industry in the Philippines is heavily dependent

on exporting not finished goods, but raw materials and indirectly, cheap labor. Currently, it remains without any prospect of nationalizing the development of the countrys own resources. In addressing the issue of practicality of mining, let me first proclaim that our team firmly believes that mining under a foreign-owned, profit-oriented scheme is never practical. Since when did profit that we don't even feel exists nor get a share of, become more important than the lives of both nature, and the people living in it? Do we really believe that the supposed developments and income these mining corporations provide for the country compensate for the exhaustion of our finite resources and the destruction and of our world? No. We do not believe that these sacrifices are practical or necessary. First of all, it was already established that mining in the current system, aside from being profit-oriented, is also mainly just extractive and export-oriented. I would go so far as to claim that profit-driven interests could never be reconciled with environmental and human rights preservation. Why? Because the prerequisite to superprofit generation is the accumulation of as much capital and producing as much finished goods at the least possible cost. In other words, take from those that provide cheap, and sell to those who can afford expensive; buy low, sell high. They also say that they allocate 5, 10, or even more years to make up for the damage they have done. But, we all know that that span of time is not enough to allow recuperation. We all know that the damage that has been done to the earth cannot be made amends with anymore, at least for this lifetime. Also, they say that they carefully plan the boundaries of their sites as based on the Mining Act of 1995 and that only 60,000 or 0.4% of the total land area will be affected. However, data shows otherwise. According to Kalikasan's data this 2012, 1.125 million hectares of land are under mining contracts as of now. And when these companies say they will work on a 5-hectare patch of land, let us not be idealists and believe that only that patch of land will be affected. Pollution, like love, knows no boundaries. The silt, mud, and other wastes produced seeps into communities' water systems. Another worrying fact is that the mining companies are exempted from the EO 23 or the Total Log Ban and are handed water and timber rights under the RA 7942. The question boils down to this, they say that mining is practical because it pushes the national interest, but let us ask ourselves, whose nation is it for? For that, our group gives this answer; certainly not ours.