Who Calls the Shots? The Legal Battle Over Palawan’s Mining Moratorium

By Louis ‘Barok’ C Biraogo — February 7, 2025

WHEN a province defies national law, who wins? That’s the legal battleground in Palawan, where the provincial council’s proposed 25-year mining moratorium is challenging the authority of the Philippine Mining Act of 1995 (RA 7942). While the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) and the Mines and Geosciences Bureau (MGB) hold the reins on mining regulation, the Local Government Code (RA 7160) gives local governments a say in environmental matters. Now, Palawan’s leaders are testing the limits of that power. Is this an act of rightful self-governance or a legal overreach?

The Legal Framework: A Clash of Laws

1. Philippine Mining Act (RA 7942): National Authority Prevails?

RA 7942 is clear about who holds primary control over mining in the Philippines: the national government. The law authorizes DENR and MGB to regulate mining permits, approve applications, and oversee environmental compliance. Section 8 of RA 7942 states that mining areas are under state ownership, and the government has the power to grant exploration and extraction rights.

If the Palawan council moves forward with its moratorium, mining companies will likely challenge it by arguing that local governments cannot override a national law that explicitly grants regulatory control to DENR. This argument is backed by the Supreme Court ruling in League of Provinces of the Philippines vs. DENR Secretary Angelo Reyes, which reaffirmed that local government units (LGUs) are not sovereign entities within the state—they operate within the framework of national policies. This precedent could prove fatal to the council’s case.

2. Local Government Code (RA 7160): The Case for Local Control

The Palawan council, however, is not without legal ammunition. Under the Local Government Code, Sections 26 and 27 require national government projects—including mining—to undergo prior consultation with local governments and affected communities. Furthermore, the implementing rules and regulations (IRR) of RA 7942 explicitly recognize the role of LGUs in endorsing mining projects. The council argues that if it has the power to endorse, it should also have the power to withhold endorsement—effectively creating a de facto moratorium.

Palawan officials also point to other MIMAROPA provinces that have successfully imposed mining bans without facing legal challenges. However, an unchallenged ordinance does not equate to a legally sound one. If the moratorium is tested in court, national law may ultimately trump local policy.

Whose Rules Apply? The Fight for Control Over Palawan’s Mining Future

This case is about more than mining—it’s about the broader question of how much power LGUs should have in regulating industries that directly impact their environment and economy. The national government, through DENR and MGB, has a vested interest in maintaining centralized control over natural resources. If Palawan succeeds, it could set a legal precedent for other LGUs to impose similar moratoriums, threatening the mining sector’s stability.

On the other hand, the provincial council is responding to genuine local concerns. Palawan is often called the Philippines’ “Last Ecological Frontier,” and the environmental risks of large-scale mining are undeniable. The council argues that a 25-year pause is necessary to assess the province’s ecological carrying capacity. The tension lies in whether Palawan’s environmental concerns outweigh the national government’s prerogative to regulate mining.

The Environmental Concerns: A Legal Shield for Palawan?

Environmental arguments could be the council’s strongest legal defense. The Philippine Clean Water Act (RA 9275), Ecological Solid Waste Management Act (RA 9003), and National Integrated Protected Areas System (NIPAS) Act provide legal bases for restricting activities that could cause environmental harm. If the provincial council frames its moratorium as a protective measure rather than an outright mining ban, it may stand on stronger legal ground.

However, mining companies will argue that environmental laws should be enforced through regulation, not through a sweeping moratorium. They will likely point to existing environmental impact assessment (EIA) requirements, arguing that these already ensure responsible mining practices.

The Potential Consequences: What’s at Stake?

If Palawan enacts the moratorium:

For the Environment: A pause on new mining applications could allow for more rigorous environmental assessments and sustainable development planning.
For the Economy: Southern Palawan relies heavily on mining revenues. A moratorium could lead to job losses and reduced local government income.
For Legal Precedent: If challenged in court, the decision will either reaffirm or redefine the limits of LGU power over mining.

If the moratorium is struck down:

For Local Autonomy: It would reinforce the national government’s primacy over mining regulation, limiting LGUs’ ability to impose restrictions.
For the Mining Industry: A ruling against Palawan would ensure stability for mining companies, preventing similar moratoriums elsewhere.
For Environmental Governance: It could signal that environmental protection must work within existing mining regulations rather than through local bans.

Uncovering the Hidden Agendas: Who Benefits, Who Loses?

This legal battle is also a power struggle between different interests:

The Palawan Council: Politicians may be using the moratorium to boost their pro-environment credentials ahead of elections.
The National Government: DENR and MGB want to maintain centralized control to facilitate mining investments and economic growth.
Mining Companies: They have a financial stake in ensuring the moratorium does not set a national precedent that restricts operations.
Environmental Advocates: Groups like the Environmental Legal Assistance Center (ELAC) see this as a fight for sustainable governance.

The motivations behind each party’s stance should not be overlooked. The provincial council’s legal gamble could be part of a broader strategy to assert greater control over natural resource management, even if they anticipate a legal defeat.

Recommendations: A Way Forward

For the Palawan Provincial Council:
- Strengthen the legal basis of the moratorium by framing it as a temporary environmental study rather than a mining ban.
- Engage with legal experts to draft an ordinance that aligns with both the Philippine Mining Act and environmental laws.
For the National Government:
- Consider amending RA 7942 to clarify LGU powers in mining regulation.
- Strengthen EIAs and monitoring mechanisms to address environmental concerns while maintaining national control.
For the Filipino People:
- Demand transparency in both mining regulations and local governance decisions.
- Advocate for a balanced approach that does not sacrifice either environmental protection or economic progress.

Final Verdict: Who Holds the Power?

Palawan’s mining moratorium is a legal test of LGU autonomy versus national authority. While the council’s environmental concerns are legitimate, the weight of legal precedent favors national control over mining. If the moratorium is challenged in court, the Supreme Court may strike it down, reinforcing national supremacy. However, if the ordinance is framed as a study rather than a ban, Palawan might find a legal loophole that allows it to proceed.

Palawan’s mining moratorium is more than a legal question—it’s a test of sovereignty within the country itself. If national law prevails, the message is clear: local voices can only go so far. But if Palawan succeeds, it may inspire a wave of defiance across the archipelago. One way or another, this case will shape the balance of power in the Philippines for years to come.

What do you think? Should Palawan be allowed to enforce a mining moratorium, or does this undermine national law? Share your thoughts in the comments below.