By Chris V. Panganiban
Inquirer Mindanao Bureau
SAN FRANCISCO, Agusan del Sur — A local environmental group in Cantilan town in Surigao del Sur has asked the municipal council to disclose the factual and legal basis for its “no objection” to proposed preparatory activities linked to mining operations, saying the council’s clarification has not answered concerns over the Carac-an watershed and the town’s water security.
In a rejoinder posted Wednesday on their page, One Cantilan for Water acknowledged the Sangguniang Bayan’s clarification that Resolution No. 237-2026 was neither a tree-cutting permit nor an authorization to conduct mining. The council had said the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) remained the agency responsible for issuing the necessary permits.
The group said, however, that its principal concern was not whether the council had assumed the DENR’s permitting authority, but whether the council’s decision to express “no objection” was based on sufficient evidence and consideration of environmental and community concerns.
“The issue is the legal basis, factual foundation, scope and effect of the Sangguniang’s own ‘No Objection,’ particularly in relation to its responsibilities concerning ecological balance, general welfare, environmental protection and the interests of the municipality and its constituents,” the group said.
Consultation questioned
One Cantilan for Water said public consultations were conducted in June, followed by a final public hearing on July 22. It said opposition and concerns over the proposed activity were raised during the proceedings.
The group cited a report stating that stakeholders had reached a “decisive conclusion” opposing the permit. It stressed that the council was not necessarily bound to adopt the position expressed during the consultation but should explain how the concerns and evidence presented were evaluated before Resolution No. 237-2026 was approved.
“The question is not whether the public was allowed to speak, but whether what the public said was actually considered,” it said.
The group asked for the minutes and documentation of the July 22 public consultation and the council’s July 27 regular session, as well as records of committee hearings, a joint ocular inspection and the environmental documents considered in adopting the resolution.
Mining questions
The rejoinder also sought details about the “preparatory activities” described in the resolution as connected to mining operations planned to begin in 2027.
The group asked the council to identify the nature, scope, location, schedule and legal basis of those activities. It also sought clarification on the status of Mineral Production Sharing Agreement No. 016-93-XI, which it said was reportedly due to expire in 2027.
It asked whether an application to renew, extend or otherwise continue the agreement had been filed, approved or remained under consideration.
The group also sought information on the Environmental Compliance Certificate covering the proposed activity and whether its supporting assessment accounted for current environmental conditions and Cantilan’s present and future water requirements.
Watershed impact
One Cantilan for Water said the proposed activity was connected to the Carac-an Watershed Forest Reserve, which supports the town’s water supply, agriculture and livelihoods.
It asked whether the municipal council had considered protections under Proclamation No. 1747 and the possible effects of the project on the watershed before passing the resolution.
The group also questioned whether a reported 20-meter riparian buffer was adequate when the potential downstream effects on water sources were considered. It acknowledged that technical findings on compliance remained the responsibility of the appropriate regulatory agencies.
The rejoinder further cited reports that about 600 hectares had previously been disturbed, of which approximately 200 hectares had been rehabilitated. It asked for records identifying the rehabilitated areas and the estimated 400 hectares that still required rehabilitation, as well as information on the mining company’s existing obligations.
Records sought
The group asked the council to clarify that Resolution No. 237-2026 does not constitute a tree-cutting or earth-balling permit, authorize mining, amend or extend the mineral agreement, or waive any DENR requirement.
It also called for the release of the company’s application and supporting technical papers, the relevant environmental compliance documents, and the complete local government endorsement and resolution with its attachments.
One Cantilan for Water asked the council to reconsider or suspend reliance on the resolution if warranted until the questions were addressed.
“This is not an argument that the public has an automatic veto over government decisions,” the group said, adding that it was seeking meaningful consultation, transparency, evidence-based decision-making and accountability.
The rejoinder was signed by Chito U. Trillanes of the One Cantilan for Water secretariat. The municipal council and the mining company have yet to respond to the group’s latest statement.
###
