THE Court of Appeals (CA) has dismissed the petition of a writ of kalikasan and an environmental protection order against the operation of a gold mine in Aroroy, Masbate, after it found the allegations raised by an environmental group untrue.
In a decision issued on March 8 and penned by former appellate court Associate Justice and now Supreme Court Associate Justice Noel Tijam, the CA’s Fourth Division held petitioners Ang Aroroy Ay Alagaan Inc. and four private citizens failed to substantiate their allegations the operations of mining firm Filminera Resources Corp. had adversely affected the environment in and around the municipalities of Aroroy and Baleno in Masbate, or that these had any impact on the petitioners’ livelihoods.
Concurring with Tijam’s were Associate Justices Francisco P. Acosta and Eduardo B. Peralta Jr.
“Petitioners’ allegations in the petition, therefore, absent any concrete proof, are bereft of any merit. Petitioners simply failed to substantiate their claims that any environmental damage is directly attributable to Filminera’s mining activities. Their uncorroborated claim of that fact, even under oath, is self-serving,” said the CA.
The CA added Filminera “was able to controvert with overwhelming evidence, the allegations put forth by the petitioners.”
The appellate court rendered its decision after studying several sets of pleadings and holding a series of hearings last October and November, when evidence and testimony from both sides were presented.
The petitioners claimed Filminera was operating without the needed permits, including a valid environmental clearance certificate (ECC).
The petitioners said the mine operations had caused pollution in the waters in and around Aroroy and Baleno that affected the health and livelihood of residents.
The CA said the mining firm was able to present evidence to disprove the petitioners’ claim using data from government agencies, like the Environmental Management Bureau (EMB), and its own regular multipartite water testing conducted with local stakeholders.
The mining company was also able to provide the appellate court copies of the permits necessary for its operation, including a valid ECC.
“In sum, the petitioners failed to substantiate their claims that Filminera’s operations caused environmental damage of the magnitude contemplated under the writ of kalikasan. The evidence it presented is inadequate to establish the factual bases of its claims,” the CA said. “Respondents were also able to show the permits necessary for its operations, all of which were not sufficiently rebutted by the petitioners.”
The CA said the studies on water quality submitted by the petitioners did not prove the presence of cyanide or mercury hazardous to the environment or inhabitants.
The CA also said water-sampling tests from the petitioners showing the presence of mercury could not be attributable to Filminera since these were made even before the miner began its operations.
Filminera said it did not use mercury in any of its processes, and the contamination likely resulted from the unregulated operations of 3,000 small-scale miners in the area who use mercury.
The CA’s decision also included testimony from the petitioners’ own expert witnesses who admitted the water-sampling tests they presented showed results that were not harmful to humans and wildlife, or that had exceeded the standards set by the Department of the Environment and Natural Resources.
The CA said the petitioners also failed to show evidence of their allegations that Filminera had gone beyond their allowed operating area, or that they had encroached on any waterways.