What the CPP Leaves Out About Philippine Mining

Mining has caused real harm in many Philippine communities. Forests have been damaged, ancestral domains contested, rivers polluted and promised benefits unevenly distributed. These are not invented grievances, and no serious discussion of Executive Order No. 122 should dismiss them.

But the CPP’s September 7 article, “EO 122: To benefit the US,” turns Executive Order No. 122 into a simple story where foreign capital arrives, the Philippines is robbed and the environment is destroyed. Within the Party’s political line, this is not merely an argument for better mining rules. It becomes another proof that the existing order is beyond reform and that revolutionary struggle is the answer.

The story, which appeared in Ang Bayan, opens by declaring that the “US-Marcos regime” is “aggressively selling out” the country’s natural resources to foreign mining companies “for the benefit of American capitalists.” It claims that EO 122 will fast-track new mines across more than nine million hectares, complement a US-Philippines critical-minerals agreement and the proposed Pax Silica hub, sell remaining state-held mining assets, and nullify local ordinances banning mining. It also points to proposed expansions in Palawan, Davao de Oro, Apayao and Nueva Vizcaya as proof of an aggressive nationwide drive.

Some of these concerns deserve aggressive public scrutiny. The proposed cutting of 57,000 trees for the expansion of Berong Nickel Corporation in Palawan, and the reported expansion of the Kingking project in Pantukan from 1,521 hectares to 6,933 hectares, are serious allegations. The responsible companies and government agencies should answer them with permits, maps, environmental studies, rehabilitation plans and records of community consultation, and not just publicity statements.

Former rebels recognize, however, the method used in the CPP’s argument. Political education inside the revolutionary movement rarely begins by asking people to support armed struggle immediately. It begins with a real grievance, such as landlessness, low wages, destructive mining, corruption or government neglect. The grievance is then placed inside a predetermined conclusion that the system cannot be corrected, every government policy serves foreign and ruling-class interests, and armed revolution is the only meaningful response.

The CPP does not need to invent every problem it discusses. Its propaganda is often effective precisely because it begins with something real. The manipulation happens when a complicated problem is stripped of facts, analyses and nuances that do not support the Party’s predetermined conclusion.

The CPP’s argument sounds sweeping. The documents and numbers are more complicated. Let us go beyond the CPP’s slogan and understand what EO 122 actually says.

First, EO 122 does not transfer Philippine mineral ownership to the United States or Japan. Under Article XII, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution, natural resources belong to the State and their exploration and development remain under State control and supervision. Filipino participation is constitutionally protected, while foreign-owned corporations may participate through legally authorized financial or technical assistance agreements. In La Bugal-B’laan Tribal Association v. Ramos, the Supreme Court upheld this constitutional framework for large-scale mineral development.

State ownership, however, does not automatically guarantee that Filipino workers, Indigenous Peoples, host communities or the national economy will receive a fair share. That depends on the actual agreements, taxes, royalties, local processing, environmental enforcement and distribution of benefits. But that is different from claiming that EO 122 itself transfers Philippine minerals to the US or Japan.

Second, EO 122 is not merely a mining-permit giveaway. Signed on August 21, 2026, it establishes a national framework for critical minerals that explicitly calls for value-added processing, refining and downstream industries, including batteries, electronic components and renewable-energy technologies. It also calls for responsible and sustainable mining.

That does not mean the policy is beyond criticism. Fast-tracked investment, privatization of government mineral assets, the “Virtual One-Stop Shop,” the “Use It or Lose It” policy and streamlined permitting deserve aggressive public scrutiny. The real investigative questions are ownership, environmental compliance, Indigenous Peoples’ rights, taxes, royalties, rehabilitation and who ultimately captures the value.

But the Ang Bayan article repeatedly moves from risk to certainty without showing each step. It says EO 122 is “set to nullify” local mining bans, targets more than nine million hectares, and was supported by a US grant of $5 million. Those are verifiable claims. Filipinos should be shown the exact provisions, maps, grant documents and implementing orders that establish what the article says they establish.

The strategic interest of the United States in Philippine nickel, copper, cobalt and rare-earth elements is not a secret. Ang Bayan says the US has “blatantly declared” its plan to “benefit from” the country’s reserves, citing the Philippines’ “strategic proximity” to technology factories in Taiwan, Japan and South Korea. These minerals are important to semiconductors, renewable energy, advanced manufacturing and weapons systems. 

But the fact that the US expects to benefit does not, by itself, prove that the Philippines cannot also benefit. The decisive questions are the terms: Who owns the projects? Where will minerals be processed? How much value will remain in the Philippines? What safeguards will protect communities? Who will be held liable when those safeguards fail?

Calling mining nothing but “plunder” also leaves out the relevant numbers. According to the Mines and Geosciences Bureau, the minerals sector in 2024 generated ₱179.07 billion in gross value added, ₱252.90 billion in metallic mineral production, US$7.38 billion in mineral exports, and 291,672 jobs.

These figures do not prove mining is harmless, nor do gross production and export values show how much benefit reached host communities. They prove that the issue is more complicated than the slogan presented by the CPP.

The question, therefore, is not whether Filipinos should blindly trust mining companies or government officials. Claims from companies, government agencies and revolutionary organizations should all be tested against evidence.

Young Filipinos should ask harder questions and not just repeat political narratives. Does EO 122 actually say what its critics claim it says? Where is the evidence that EO 122 itself abolishes environmental safeguards, transfers Philippine ownership to Americans or Japanese, or makes nationwide ecological disaster inevitable? At the same time, where are the enforceable guarantees that local communities will be protected and that the Philippines will move beyond raw extraction?

Former rebels know where the CPP’s reasoning is intended to lead. The audience is first taught that regulation is meaningless, reform is impossible, lawful political action is useless and every development program is merely another instrument of foreign domination. Once those conclusions are accepted, armed struggle can be presented not as one political choice, but as the only moral choice left.

That is why the answer cannot be to deny mining abuses or tell affected communities simply to trust the government. The government must prove that EO 122 will protect ancestral domains, enforce environmental standards, secure a fair national share and create Filipino industries rather than another cycle of extraction.

Criticize mining where the evidence demands it in order to protect communities and ecosystems. We must demand transparency and accountability, but do not mistake political rhetoric for proven fact, or allow a legitimate debate over our natural resources to be weaponized as a recruitment narrative for the CPP-NPA-NDF’s armed conflict. Public policy should be challenged with facts, evidence and better alternatives, and not turned into a justification for violence.