July 16, 2008,

MR. JUAN V. SARMIENTO, JR.
Editor, “Talk of the Town”
Philippine Daily Inquirer

Dear Mr. Sarmiento,

This is in reference to the reaction-letter of Mr. Ricardo Dimaculangan, regarding the article of Mr. Joel Pagsanghan, published by Talk of the Town, last July 13, 2008.

The Philippine Asset Reform Report Card (PARRC) was a project of the Philippine Partnership for the Development of Human Resources in Rural Areas. The PhilDHRRA network knows Mr. Rocky Dimaculangan from other activities and respects the stance he holds on behalf of TVIRD. He is well within his rights to challenge the article and the study’s findings, though he seems to be mainly concerned with the opening paragraph. We note with interest that he is solely discontent with the reference to the specific case of Timuay Boy Anoy and the situation in Canatuan, Zamboanga del Norte, and proceeds to conclude in the latter part of his letter, that Mr. Pagsanghan has “clear misconceptions” that “are part of old issues”.

Timuay Jose Anoy, chieftain of the Subanon of Mt. Canatuan, Siocon, Zamboanga del Norte has gone on the record multiple times expressing the views the Talk of the Town article published. He has given his sworn testimony to that effect before both various Philippine courts as well as our Congress. He has also done so before international bodies, most recently the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) to which he submitted a complaint on the very subject. The entirety of the complaint is far too lengthy to discuss here, but item twenty of it reads:

The entry of large-scale mining operations into Mount Canatuan was facilitated though a

parallel process during the 1990s by which the government offices within the DENR granted mining rights within the ancestral lands of the Subanon, but did so without their agreement.

And item twenty one:

Both the 1995 Mining Act and IPRA require indigenous peoples consent before mining can proceed on their ancestral lands. The Subanon leadership filed petitions and raised legal challenges to try to make the outside world aware of their sustained opposition.

The full text of the complaint can be found in full here:

http://www.piplinks.org/development_issues/Subanon_CERD.pdf

Suffice it to say, Timuay Jose Anoy is the chieftain and tribal leader of the Subanon of Mt. Canatuan. He speaks for the tribe and on the topic of mining, his word was “no.” And his word was ignored.

In response to the complaint, the CERD sent a letter to the Philippine government, requesting a response particularly on: “reports that the mining concession granted to TVI Pacific was issued without the prior consent of the Subanon community or its duly authorized representatives.”

Additionally it requested information as to how a body alleged to have “no status in indigenous structure and not deemed representative by the Subanon’ was ‘granted representative status for the Subanon community’ thereby enabling it to conclude ‘an agreement with a Canadian mining company (TVI Pacific) in order to authorize mining activities on Mount Canatuan, a sacred site of the Subanon.” This is referring to the “majority representatives of the Subanon tribal council” as described by Mr. Dimaculangan. What Mr. Dimaculangan failed to disclose, was that an illegitimate and illegal tribal council of Subanons was organized, underwent a procedure of “consent” that was not recognized by customary laws, and TVIRD proceeded to negotiate with this council, in direct disrespect and dismissal of traditional leadership structure of the Subanons.

The response of the Committee can be found in full here:

http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cerd/docs/philippines_letter.pdf

While Timuay Anoy is not here in Manila to give his exact statements on the matter, the facts are present and recorded.

We take offense in Mr. Dimaculangan’s allegation that “some of the NGOs who are supporting him (Timuay Boy Anoy) are financing continuing conflict rather than resolution because of their need for a basis on which to fight against the government’s mining program of which they disapprove.” The support groups of the local communities maintain their stand that the Subanon communities themselves have registered their continued opposition to the mining operations in their areas, and as champions of the marginalized indigenous peoples sector, concerned organizations made up of NGOs, Church, academe, human rights groups and environmental activists will sustain their actions against development aggression. Mr. Dimaculangan might be served well if he remembers that even a senior officer from TVIRD has publicly (and recorded on video) apologized to the affected communities, for the earlier provocative and impertinent offenses of TVIRD to the Subanons.

Finally, we challenge Mr. Dimaculangan to reveal the exact model of this dreamy concept of “responsible mining” that he harps about. In the past three years, many organizations have been reveled by the colorful powerpoint presentations of the DENR and the mining companies, but these all fail to convincingly present concrete cases where “responsible mining” has been successfully implemented. It is the height of arrogance, bordering on ignorance, to loosely equate sustainable development with the extractive and socially-disruptive activity such as large-scale mining.

We’d like to thank the Philippine Daily Inquirer for giving us the opportunity to present the PARRC findings, and also in giving further opportunities to different sides of the arguments to share their deeper impressions. It was our hope that in producing a scientific, quantifiable and objective research, we would be able to sharpen and improve the asset reform policies of this government. We’d be more than happy if Mr. Dimaculangan can present arguments against our findings and observations, based on equally meritorious data and facts, rather than on simple public relations materials that their company has continually mass produced.

Sincerely,

(signed)

Jesus Vicente Garganera

National Coordinator