The negative believes that a moratorium is not practicable for the following reasons:

1. The status quo is already sufficient to address any issues concerning the mining industry
2. A temporary stoppage of operations in a whole industry would adversely affect the
national income, potential investors, the labor force, and the communities surrounding the
mines.
3. A mere moratorium will not solve the problems plaguing the effect of the mining industry
on the environment.

First Argument: The status quo is already sufficient to address any issues concerning the
mining industry

A system of periodic review already exists under the Mining Act. Multipartite monitoring teams
serve as the frontline to ensure that mines have complied with their environmental and societal
obligations.

A blanket moratorium would halt the operation of companies practicing responsible mining.
Assuming that a moratorium is justified, it should not include fully compliant companies.

The mining industry itself has taken steps towards responsible mining. Two Philippine Mining
Companies won during the first ASEAN Mineral Awards in the best practices and mineral
processing category.

The Philippines is also the first county in South East Asia to adopt the Towards Sustainable
Mining (TSM)” program, which is a globally recognized set of standards that would serve as the
industry’s latest benchmark in measuring its performance.

Thus, a moratorium is redundant when the current model has safeguards in place. What we need
is not a moratorium but proper implementation and regulation of this industry.

Second Argument: A temporary stoppage of operations in a whole industry would

adversely affect the national income, potential investors, the labor force, and the
communities surrounding the mines.

The negative effects of the moratorium would cause a ripple effect across various

In 2017, the mining industry contributed P4.25B to the total exports of the country. Mining
companies paid P25.54B in taxes. And in 2018, it was able to contribute P87.12B to the Gross
Domestic Production.

Our country is currently experiencing rapid growth. We need all the funds from all Philippine
industries. The stoppage of a whole industry no matter the duration is detrimental to our progress
as a developing nation.

It would negatively affect the attractiveness of the Philippines to foreign investors who bring in
capital, income and jobs. Harsh measures reflects on the country’s ability to resolve its issues
and its economic stability in general. We are not only focusing on investors into mining
operations but in other industries as well (deleted kay irepeat ni sa domino effect agument).

Moreover, the mining and quarrying industry employs a total of 205,000 laborers as of July
2018. What will happen to these people when the companies they work for ceases operations for
a period of time. As of October 2018, approximately 2.2M Filipinos are already unemployed.
Need we add 205,000 more?

Also, communities built around these mines would be left without sources of income. According
to SWS, 3.1 million families missed a meal at least one in Q3 of 2018. Stores, businesses, and
services built to supply the commodities around mining areas will be out of business while the
mines are closed.
Third Argument: A mere moratorium will not solve the problems plaguing the effect of the
mining industry on the environment.

Rehabilitation is not a one-time process: after a few years, the animals return to their old habitats,
and in seven years’ time, “a mined-out area becomes a forest.”

It is more practical to immediately enforce sustainable and environmentally safe mining practices
rather than wait for a few months or even years just to implement them. Proper compliance with
the regulations is needed to minimize environmental impacts.

Conclusion

To conclude, a moratorium is not a cure-all. Saying that this will only affect the mining
companies and its laborers is shortsighted. The closing of an entire industry will cause a domino
effect. Communities, laborers, their families, the surrounding economies, the national income,
potential investors, all these aspects of the nation will be affected. To reiterate, we do not need a
moratorium. What we need is the proper implementation of the law.

Q: Counsel, are you aware that mining is an 87 Billion industry?

Q: And are you aware that it provides for jobs to hundreds of thousands of Filipinos?

Q: Counsel, are you also aware that mining operations usually employ members of the
community where they mine?

Q: Then, if we close down these mines we lose an 87 billion industry and will leave hundreds of
thousands of Filipinos jobless, correct?

Q: Counsel, do you know that it takes about seven years before a mined out area becomes a
forest?

Q: And if that were the case, wouldn’t we deprive the country with 87 billion per year and add
up to the unemployment rate?

Q: Are you aware that there are multipartite monitoring teams which work to ensure that mines
have complied with their environmental and societal obligations?

Q: And are you aware that our mining industry has subscribed to the Mi Mining Association of
Canada’s (MAC) initiative called “Towards Sustainable Mining (TSM)” program, known as a
globally recognized set of standards that would serve as the industry’s latest benchmark in
measuring its performance.

Conclude: So Counsel, do you agree with me that it would be more practical to reinforce
enforcement of our mining laws, rules and regulations, rather than have a complete shutdown of
the mining industry?