By Chris V. Panganiban
Inquirer Mindanao Bureau
SAN FRANCISCO, Agusan del Sur — The municipal government of Cantilan, Surigao del Sur, long associated with opposition to mining, is facing questions after it raised “no objection” to a mining company’s plan to clear 47.10 hectares in an area linked to a major watershed.
A concerned Cantilan resident has asked Mayor Philip Pichay to explain the Sangguniang Bayan’s adoption of Resolution No. 237-2026, which supports Marcventures Mining and Development Corp.’s application for special tree-cutting and earth-balling activities in Barangay Cabangahan.
The council adopted the resolution on July 27, just five days after a final public hearing during which residents and other stakeholders reportedly opposed the proposed activities.
In a letter to Pichay, the resident asked whether the concerns raised at the hearing had been formally evaluated and adequately addressed before the council issued its “no objection.”
“These are reasonable questions, not accusations,” the resident said.
The Inquirer repeatedly sought comments from Pichay and Vice Mayor Rodrigo Salazar but had received no response as of press time.
Policy shift
The council’s decision marks a significant turn in Cantilan’s decades-old debate over mining.
In 2001, the municipal council reaffirmed a “no to mining” position through Resolution No. 01-2001. Resolution No. 2007-32 similarly expressed opposition to mining activities.
Reports published in 2009 described Cantilan as a “no-mining town,” with then Mayor Tomasa Guardo declaring that mining would not be allowed during her administration.
The municipal council was also reported to have passed an ordinance opposing the entry of MMDC and Carac-an Development Corp. The following year, the municipal government reportedly denied MMDC’s application for a business permit.
While these earlier actions do not necessarily remain legally binding, the records reviewed showed no indication that they had been formally repealed before the passage of Resolution No. 237-2026.
The resident is therefore asking the municipal government to explain whether Cantilan has officially abandoned or modified its previous policy.
Watershed risks
The proposed clearing has also raised concerns over its possible effects on the Carac-an Watershed Forest Reserve, established under Presidential Proclamation No. 1747 in 2009.
Covering about 23,570 hectares in parts of Cantilan and Carrascal, the reserve forms part of a watershed that supplies water to communities in Cantilan, Carrascal and Madrid.
The resident cited the Cantilan Irrigation System’s dependence on the Carac-an River and earlier concerns raised by the Cantilan Water District over the possible effects of forest clearing on erosion, groundwater recharge, sedimentation and water supply.
The letter also noted previous episodes of excessive water turbidity that had disrupted water operations.
Resolution No. 237-2026 prohibits tree cutting, earth-balling, land clearing and related activities within 20 meters of rivers, creeks, streams, springs and other natural waterways. It also requires compliance with environmental laws, permits and regulatory conditions.
The resident, however, questioned whether these safeguards would be enough for a clearing operation covering 47.10 hectares.
The letter sought details about the site-specific environmental assessment, the number and species of trees within the area, and the possible presence of threatened or protected species.
It also requested the findings of a joint ocular inspection reportedly conducted at the proposed clearing site and an explanation of how these shaped the council’s decision.
‘No-go’ measure
Questions have also emerged over the status of a proposed ordinance seeking to declare portions of Cantilan’s protected watersheds as “no-go zones for mining.”
The measure was reportedly endorsed for legislative deliberation in January 2026. It remains unclear whether it was approved, amended, rejected or left pending.
The resident said the proposal appeared difficult to reconcile with the council’s subsequent decision to support MMDC’s clearing application.
The letter asked the municipal government to disclose which objections raised during the July 22 hearing were accepted, rejected or addressed. It also sought details of the mitigation, rehabilitation, erosion-control and water-protection measures that would be required of the company.
The resident further asked how compliance would be independently monitored and whether the results would be made available to the public.
According to the resident, the controversy should not be reduced to a choice between development and environmental protection. The central issue is whether the municipal government adequately assessed the long-term effects of clearing forest in an area connected to the water sources and agricultural lands of Cantilan and neighboring towns.
More than one resolution is now at issue. The controversy has revived questions about whether Cantilan still stands by its long-held opposition to mining—and what prompted the municipal government’s apparent change in direction.
###
