Philippine Mining Act

1. 1. Philippine Mining Act Of 1995 Reported by: Jilyn Amoroso III- H BSE Soc. Stud.
2. 2. REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7942 -Is the governing law that regulates mineral resources
development in the country. -One of the primary objectives of this act is to revitalize the ailing
Philippine mining industry by providing fiscal reforms and incentives and maintaining the
viable inventory of minerals to sustain the industry.
3. 3. THE ACT AND ITS RIRR TAKE INTOCONSEDIRATION THE FOLLOWING: - Local
government empowerment -Respect and concern for the indigenous cultural communities. -
Equitable sharing of benefits and natural wealth. -Demands of present generation while
providing the foundation for future generations worldwide trends generation. -Protection and
wise management of the environment.
4. 4. Law contains social and Environmental safety: -Built-in protection for the indigenous
peoples. -Competitive fiscal regime -Equitable sharing of the benefits of mining. -
Environmental and social provisions.
5. 5. What is the status ofthe Philippine when the Mining Act enacted?
6. 6. PHILIPPINE CASHING IN: -Our country were open to foreign investor, particularly large-
scale mining project under the Financial or Technical Assistant Agreement (FTAA which
allows 100% foreign equity). -Industry is cashing in on developments. -The country is ranked
in 3rd in gold, 4th in copper, 5th in nickel, 6th in chromites.
7. 7. COMPETITIVE EDGE: -The Philippine strategic location along the Pacific ring of fire
endows the country with abundant mineral resources. -In terms of mineral prospectively, the
country consistently ranked high, despite more than a million hectares of high potential
mineral rich not explored -Mineral resources abound in almost all areas in country.
8. 8. WHAT ARE THECONSEQUENCES OFMINING HERE IN THE PHILIPPINES?
9. 9. On the top of the natural wealth and beauty of the Philippine is a great good news, the
bad news is, the massive destruction of our environment is happening because of greed for
profits by few.(Sr. Stella Matutina)This law opened the floodgates to widespread plunder of
our natural wealth, unprecented environmental duration and worsening human rights
violations.(Renato Reyes Jr.)
10. 10.  The cost of mining here in the Philippine the environment damage such as pollution of
the waterways and poisoning of water resources, the collapse of mountains are not clearly
reflected in the income accounts. The Philippine neither brought to economic development
nor alleviation from poverty .It cause more hardship and environmental catastrophe.
Ironically we are so rich with mineral resources, we remain heavily dependent on imported
metal manufactures.
11. 11. TOTAL MINERAL EXPORTS
12. 12. PROS in Philippine Mining act: -The group of mining company. -The government.
13. 13. CONS in Philippine Mining Act:-those people who are live in the placewhere the mining
against.-replacing their home and harmingtheir resources.
14. 14. WHAT IS THEACTION OF THEGOVERNMENT?
15. 15. There is a need to avertdisasters by putting inplace a “farsightedapproach to
economicdevelopment. The supreme court decision to uphold the constitutionality of R.A
7942 will not deter him from pushing for passage the bill.
The Philippine Mining Act of 1995
Former Philippine President Fidel Ramos signed “An Act Instituting a New System of
Mineral Resources Exploration, Development, Utilization, and Conservation”—the
Philippine Mining Act—into law in 1995. The pro-mining law was a clear attempt to
spur foreign direct investment and boost the economy. It provided many incentives
to prospective companies, including political rights, full ownership of land, and tax
holidays. As a result, from 1994 to 1996, the country hosted a 400 percent increase
of foreign mining companies. However, many of the mineral-rich areas in the
Philippines overlapped with its indigenous population. Thus, court battles ensued
between indigenous people—some of whom were displaced—and the Philippine
government. The former challenged the constitutionality of the law, citing
provisions in the 1987 Constitution that protected indigenous people and restricted
foreign involvement in natural resource extraction; the latter argued that
outsourcing mining would increase foreign investment, create jobs, and be worth up
to 840 billion USD. In 2004, the Supreme Court of the Philippines initially ruled on
behalf of the anti-mining crowd. However, under immense pressure, it soon
overruled its decision and sided strongly on behalf of the pro-mining government,
supporting economic growth over ethical and environmental matters.