Eighteen Questions on the Calmia/Infanta Mining Project: Why Transparency Matters in Palawan

Introduction

Recent developments in Brooke’s Point, Palawan—from community mobilizations to shifts in local government positions—have renewed public attention to mining activities associated with the Calmia/Infanta project.

At this stage, the issue is not only what is known, but what remains unclear.

In a province globally recognized for its ecological importance, transparency, accountability, and respect for community rights are not optional—they are fundamental.

A Set of Necessary Questions

To better understand the situation, the concerned media (The Palawan News - they send the questionaire to Save Palawan Movement - SPM), in which communities, CSOs, and stakeholders share, in raising the following 18 questions:

Permits and Legal Status

1. What is the current legal status of the Calmia / Infanta mining project?
2. Does the company currently have all required local and national permits to operate (e.g., ECC, SEP Clearance, LGU permits)?
3. If permits are missing, what are they—and what are the legal implications?

Compliance and Enforcement

4. Have there been any enforcement actions, warnings, or notices issued for non-compliance?
5. Are there existing court cases, administrative complaints, or legal proceedings involving the project?
6. Are there reports or documented incidents of environmental violations?
7. Has the company violated local ordinances or national environmental laws?

Rights and Community Impacts

8. Are there any labor, human rights, or Indigenous Peoples’ rights concerns linked to the project?
9. Have Indigenous Peoples’ households or communities been physically blocked or displaced?
10. Have there been restrictions on access to ancestral domains, farmlands, or community resources?

FPIC and Consent

11. Has a proper Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC) process been conducted?
12. If so, who facilitated it and who were the signatories?
13. Have there been objections, complaints, or revocations of consent from community members?
14. How legally binding is the FPIC obtained, and can it be challenged?

Governance and Project Continuity

15. Are there differences between current operations and the previous MacroAsia / Infanta project?
16. What activities are legally allowed under the company’s current permits, if any?

Obligations and Protections

17. Are there legal provisions protecting Indigenous Peoples’ rights in this context, and how are they enforced?
18. What legal obligations exist for community development, social services, and environmental protection—and are these being fulfilled?

A Context of Uncertainty

These questions emerge amid:

• Calls to operationalize the Mining Moratorium Council (MMC)
• Conflicting local government actions, including endorsements and reversals
• Community protests and heightened public concern
• Ongoing national revisions to FPIC guidelines

Together, these signal a dynamic and contested governance landscape, where clarity is urgently needed.

The Transparency Gap

At present, there is no clear, consolidated, and publicly accessible information that allows communities and stakeholders to independently verify:

• The status of permits (ECC, SEP Clearance, LGU approvals)
• Compliance and enforcement records
• FPIC processes and documentation
• The scope of legally authorized activities

Without such information, public trust cannot be meaningfully sustained.

Law Exists—But Is It Enforced?

Philippine law provides strong protections:

• The Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act guarantees FPIC and ancestral domain rights
• The Strategic Environmental Plan for Palawan mandates sustainable land use
• The Mining Act requires environmental safeguards and community development programs

However, the strength of these laws depends on their implementation.

Where enforcement is unclear or inaccessible, legal protections risk becoming symbolic rather than substantive.

The Central Issue: Consent and Accountability

At the heart of the issue is consent—not as a formality, but as a process.

FPIC must be:

• Free from coercion
• Based on complete and understandable information
• Inclusive of legitimate representation
• Open to dissent and review

Where questions arise about how consent was obtained, it is not only valid but necessary to revisit the process.

Conclusion: The Burden of Proof

These eighteen questions are not accusations.

They are necessary inquiries in a democratic society, particularly in a place as ecologically and culturally significant as Palawan.

In a UNESCO Biosphere Reserve, the burden of proof does not lie with communities defending their land.
It lies with those who seek to operate within it, and with the agencies mandated to enforce the law, ensure compliance, and keep the public informed.

Transparency, accountability, and genuine consent must be demonstrated—not assumed. Until these questions are clearly and publicly answered, the call to uphold the precautionary principle, vigilance, and meaningful participation will persist.

(Disclaimer)

This article is based on publicly available information, media, and community-raised concerns. ELAC continues to support community-led efforts toward transparency, accountability, and environmental justice.