By Chris V. Panganiban
Inquirer Mindanao Bureau
SAN FRANCISCO, Agusan del Sur — An environmental advocate has challenged the Cantilan, Surigao del Sur municipal council’s claim that its “no objection” resolution involving a mining company’s proposed tree-cutting activities should not be interpreted as approval.
Emma Hotchkiss, a founding leader of Alyansa Tigil Mina, questioned the distinction.
“Synonyms of no objection: Yes, approve, go!” Hotchkiss said sarcastically.
Resolution No. 237-2026, adopted on July 27, states that the Sangguniang Bayan has “no objection to the conduct” of special tree-cutting and earth-balling activities across approximately 47.10 hectares in Barangay Cabangahan.
The clearing would prepare the site for Marcventures Mining and Development Corp.’s mining operations scheduled to begin in 2027 under Mineral Production Sharing Agreement No. 016-93-XI.
The council said the resolution was not a tree-cutting permit and that only the Department of Environment and Natural Resources could authorize the activity. Critics, however, argue that formally expressing no objection still constitutes substantive local support.
The resolution was adopted five days after a final public hearing where residents and other stakeholders reportedly opposed the proposal. A concerned resident has asked Mayor Philip Pichay whether those objections were formally evaluated before the council acted.
An online petition has also been launched through Change.org, asking the municipal government to clarify the resolution and reconsider its declaration of no objection.
Protesters have raised further questions because MMDC’s existing MPSA is scheduled to expire on June 30, 2027—the same year its planned operations in Cabangahan are expected to begin.
Company records show that MMDC submitted an intent to renew the agreement and requested two additional years through restitution in June 2025. However, publicly available records reviewed did not establish that either request had received final DENR approval.
Opponents are therefore asking why 47.10 hectares would be cleared for operations whose continuation may depend on the renewal or extension of the company’s mining agreement.
The controversy has also revived questions about Cantilan’s long-standing opposition to mining. Municipal resolutions adopted in 2001 and 2007 expressed anti-mining positions, while reports in 2009 described Cantilan as a “no-mining town.”
Although those earlier measures may no longer be legally binding, records reviewed showed no indication that they had been formally repealed before Resolution No. 237-2026 was adopted.
Environmental concerns focus on the possible effects of clearing on the Carac-an Watershed Forest Reserve, which supplies water to communities in Cantilan, Carrascal and Madrid.
Residents are seeking information on the number and species of trees affected, possible impacts on erosion and water quality, and the results of the joint ocular inspection cited in the resolution.
The resolution prohibits clearing within 20 meters of rivers, creeks, streams, springs and other natural waterways. It also requires compliance with the Environmental Compliance Certificate, Tree Cutting Permit, rehabilitation commitments and conditions imposed by the DENR and other regulatory agencies.
Critics, however, question whether those safeguards are sufficient for clearing 47.10 hectares in an area connected to an important watershed.
Questions also remain over a proposed ordinance seeking to declare portions of Cantilan’s protected watersheds as no-go zones for mining. The measure was reportedly endorsed for deliberation in January, but its current status remains unclear.
The dispute is therefore not simply about which agency can issue a tree-cutting permit. It also concerns whether the council’s declaration amounts to municipal support, whether public objections were adequately considered, whether clearing should proceed before the MPSA’s future is settled and whether Cantilan has abandoned its historically anti-mining position.
###
