Mining and plunder under Marcos Sr.

During the Marcos  dictatorship, the regime aggressively pushed for the extraction of the country’s natural resources. In 1974, Marcos Sr. issued P.D. 463 and P.D. 464 which fast tracked permits for large-scale mining corporations. 

Using government funds, Marcos Sr. took control of several existing mining corporations and created new ones under his own name and that of his cronies. These corporations were eventually forfeited by the government after being determined as ill-gotten wealth. The Marcos heirs tried to regain control of these corporations and several others by filing a motion for reversion and reconveyance before the Sandiganbayan in 2019. Thankfully, Sandiganbayan threw out the case in 2023.

One of these corporations is the Marcopper Mining Corporation which operated in Marinduque. Mostly owned by Marcos Sr. himself, the mining company dumped mine tailings into Calancan Bay for years, poisoning water sources and destroying livelihoods. Marcopper Mining operated with impunity with little to no regulation, as the dictator himself owned the majority stock. Marcopper Mining did not comply with the required submission of an environmental impact assessment. In 1981, the National Environmental Protection Council (NEPC) released a “cease and desist” order to stop Marcopper from discharging its tailings due to environmental concerns and local protests but Marcos released a presidential memorandum that overrode it.

When a tailings dam collapsed in 1996—ten years after Marcos was ousted—the extent of the environmental catastrophe became undeniable, leaving behind a toxic legacy that persists to this day.

Persisting problems

Marcos Sr. created lasting policies that unduly favor extractive industries. Under Presidential Decree No. 972 of 1976, coal mining operations are exempt from all taxes except income tax. The biggest beneficiary of these tax exemptions is the Semirara Mining Corporation, which remains to be the biggest coal mining operator in the Philippines. Since 1976, SMPC has been exempt from most taxes and even got an additional income tax holiday up until this year. 

SMPC has persistently been the center of several controversies, with little to no accountability. In 2009, residents in Semirara Island in Antique province complained of the pollution of their coastal resources from wastes from coal mining operations. In 2013 and 2015, its Pavian Mine caved in, killing a total of 13 workers. The Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) suspended its environmental compliance certificate (ECC) in July 2015 but lifted its suspension a few days later. In 2016, three of its workers drowned after inhaling poisonous gas inside a barge at an SMPC pier. In 2019, a mudslide killed one employee. The Department of Energy (DOE) suspended its ECC in November 2019 but lifted it again after a few days. In 2022, DENR imposed a measly P1.4 million (USD 24,854.42) penalty on SMPC for violating the rules under its ECC, equivalent to 0.003509 percent of its net income in the same year.

The environmental and social cost

The mining industry’s track record in the Philippines is stained with environmental disasters and human rights violations. The expansion of mining activities pushed by the first Marcos regime has resulted in extensive deforestation, contamination of water sources, and displacement of local communities, both indigenous and non-indigenous peoples. The Philippines also remains to be the deadliest country in Asia for environmental defenders. According to Kalikasan PNE, more than half of environmental defenders killed in the Philippines are anti-mining advocates. 

Kalinga, the site of Makilala’s operations, has long been at the center of mining issues. The indigenous peoples of the region as well as the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines have consistently opposed large-scale mining, recognizing its threats to ancestral domains, water sources, and livelihoods. 

With the Philippine government directly investing in mining operations, can we expect the government to effectively regulate its own when it barely regulates purely private corporations? History tells us otherwise.

Lack of accountability measures for MIC

While Section 17 of the Maharlika Investment Act mandates that the MIC stipulate investment policies that promote environmental, social, and governance (ESG) principles, mandates, strategies, and guidelines on financing infrastructure projects and other investments, the Maharlika Investment Act does not explicitly detail procedures for defunding or withdrawing investments from projects or corporations that are found to be violating human or environmental rights. 

The issue of financial institutions funding oppressive projects has been a long discussion in the human rights and business sector. The UN Human Rights Council recognized this problem as it endorsed implementing guidelines for the Principles on Business and Human Rights and proceeded to recommend a human rights due diligence framework for development finance institutions.

MIC unfortunately does not have accountability measures that address possible human and environmental rights violations with the projects it funds. Considering that taxpayers’ money are being used to bankroll MIC, this gap in investment accountability presents a serious danger in misuse of public funds.

A sovereign fund for whom?

The MIC was marketed as a tool for economic progress, but as it invests in environmentally destructive projects such as mining, it begs the question – progress for whom? A study by the IBON Foundation in 2017 shows that regions with the biggest mining operations remain to be the poorest. Clearly, mining in the Philippines does not trickle down to benefit the communities affected by the destruction it causes. 

Today, with climate change intensifying and the need for sustainable development greater than ever, the government should be shifting away from destructive extractive industries—not doubling down on them. Rather than investing in sustainable industries or social services, the government is gambling public resources on an industry notorious for human and environmental rights violations. 

The administration claims it is serious about transparency and economic justice; it must ensure that the Maharlika fund does not become a repeat of the Martial Law-era economic model—one where development was synonymous with exploitation. Investments should prioritize sectors that create long-term, broad-based growth, such as renewable energy, sustainable agriculture, and technological innovation, rather than the short-term gains of mining.

If the MIC is meant to serve the nation’s interests as claimed, it must not be used to finance projects that destroy our lands, displace our people, and echo the crony capitalism of the past. (RVO)