RESUBMITTED

Let us understand the proposition let it be resolved that absolute mining should not be
banned. In black's law dictionary, mining is the process or business of extracting from the
earth the precious or valuable metals, either in their native state or in their ores. Meanwhile,
ban means to officially or legally prohibit. We repeat, completely prohibit.

Ladies and gentlemen, we, as the affirmative side firmly oppose against the banning of
absolute mining in the country.

The job of the affirmative side is to provide valid and strong arguments which our group
succeeded at, whereas the job of the opposition is to demolish our points. However, our
opponents failed to disprove the cases that we laid down. They began presenting
counterarguments with unsure evidences which cannot and never be used in a debate to build
strong points that could decimate the affirmative stance. The opposition relied on throwing us
purely hypothetical questions.

Let us address all these one by one.

The opposition started talking about Economy. However, when we asked them if they know
how much does the Philippine mining sector contributes to our GDP, they were not even
aware. Simply meaning that they just kept questioning us about something that they were not
even aware of. This is their strongest argument, economy-related. That is why the opposition
should be informed about this information at the very beginning since they are trying to
destroy our points--- but failed.

Philippines has enormous nature sources due to its geographical location, thus, the
government take care of these natural resources by providing laws, and by taking revenues to
the companies who are manufacturing these resources, that will be beneficial in our economy
because it can increase our Gross Domestic Product. One of the activities that the Philippine
has that contribute largely through our Economy is Mining. Philippines is known for being
top five in the world for overall mineral reserves, second in gold and third in copper
resources, according to the Mines and Geosciences Bureau (MGB). The gold alone covers
about 76% of the country’s gross domestic product (GDP) due to its amount of 7.36 trillion
pesos. This only means that the Philippines has many untapped minerals that can be the key
to end poverty that the country facing for a long run. Due to mining, the revenue that the
government get from these companies increases over time, this will be put in the future
government activities that will be essential in the improvement of this country. On the
average, from 2003 to 2012, nearly three quarters of total revenues from mining were
accounted for mostly by taxes collected by national government agencies. Excise tax
collected by the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) accounted for 13 percent while fees,
charges and royalties accounted for a relatively small amount of the total revenues from the
sector. In the term of the late President Benigno Aquino III, the revenue and the taxes that the
government received was not sufficient, therefore, Aquino released an Executive Order
which tackled about protection of the environment, promote responsible mining, and provide
a more equitable revenue-sharing scheme amid the projected boom in the sector due to the
increase of world metal prices. It is supported by the Senate Bill 457 which tackle to increase
the revenues to two to seven percent for the government receive a large tax that will be
consumed in government projects. In this bill, it also indicates that the increase in excise tax
on mineral products shall be equally divided between the national government and the LGUs
where the mineral and quarry resources are extracted. Because the government only receives
its revenue share from two mining contracts: Mineral Production Sharing Agreement
(MPSA); and the Financial or Technical Assistance Agreement (FTAA). Under the MPSA,
the share of the State is limited to the excise tax, which is two percent of the value of the
mineral extracted. Under the FTAA, the State receives no share of the value of the minerals
extracted by foreign firms, other than the usual taxes. In particular, revenues from the 3.5
percent tax on minerals shall accrue to the National Treasury, while revenues from the other
3.5 percent tax on minerals shall be remitted directly to the LGUs as support for their Special
Education Fund (SEF). With the infusion of additional funds, it is hoped that the perennial
shortages of classrooms, tables and chairs, books, teaching aids, and other educational
materials will be addressed. These revenues that will go under the LGU will be beneficial in
the education quality of the students because of another budget provide by the State. Due to
the larger amount of revenues that will go to Special Education Fund (SEF), public schools
around our city will have an improvement in the education they offer and its structure. If the
Philippine abolished mining, there are some institutions especially the education department
will be affected because this budget will be used in the improvement of the quality education.

Importing minerals from another nation will effect product pricing and the country's GDP,
especially because the Philippines is experiencing the worst inflation rate in history, with the
peso weakening. Foreign exchange risk occurs in the Philippines when there is a sudden big
shift in the currency exchange rate, which implies that the Philippines purchases these
minerals at a higher price due to the poor peso-to-dollar exchange rate. This might have an
impact on companies that rely on minerals, such as the medical and construction industries.
The supply of minerals required will be depleted over a short period of time due to demand,
which may impede operations in certain industries.

The opposition began questioning us about mining's environmental impact, which we

confirmed. We are cognizant of the issue. Nevertheless, the Philippine Mining Act of 1995
was written collaboratively by stakeholders to address the needs of both the company and the
people it affects. The law is comprehensive in and of itself, covering the three bottom lines of
sustainable development: economic growth, environmental protection, and social
responsibility. Under Chapter 11 of the RA 7942, it is stated that “All contractors and
permittees shall strictly comply with all the mines safety rules and regulations as may be
promulgated by the Secretary concerning the safe and sanitary upkeep of the mining
operations and achieve waste-free and efficient mine development. Personnel of the
Department involved in the implementation of mines safety, health and environmental rules
and regulations shall be covered under Republic Act No. 7305.” They also failed to address
the fact of the status quo that, as of September 2022, twenty-nine (29) mining companies are
competing for this year's Presidential Mineral Industry Environmental Award (PMIEA),
which means that the government is recognizing these mining groups and companies for their
outstanding efforts in achieving environmentally and socially responsible mining operations.
Not knowing what the motion's status quo is indeed roughly analogous to going to war
without a weapon and just throwing whatever you see around you, resulting in unjustified and
weak defenses. The opposition made a hypothetical claim, asserting that even if the
government has already established rules and regulations, environmental issues are still likely
to arise. Thus, the question on the affirmative side remains: are we going to ban absolute
mining because of a hypothetical claim and disregard the benefits it brings to the
environmental sector, given that the mining sector, according to the DENR-MGB has
allocated 379 billion for the implementation of the Environmental Protection and
Enhancement Program in 2020?

Section 85 states that a semiannual fee to be known as mine wastes and tailings fee is hereby
imposed on all operating mining companies in accordance with the implementing rules and
regulations. The mine wastes and tailings fee shall accrue to a reserve fund to be used
exclusively for payment for damages to:
According to Section 70 of RA 7942, there is an environmental impact assessment which
includes a completed biological profile of the potential mining region. People's organizations
and nongovernmental organizations are welcome to participate in ensuring that contractors
and permittees follow all environmental regulations. This is to prevent any misconduct that
could happen in the operation.

Concerns regarding the health impacts of mining on those in the vicinity were also voiced by
the opposition. However, according to the Philippine mining law, it is the duty of the
government to make sure that its residents can exercise their right to a healthy environment.
This idea was included in core state policy and articulated in the 1987 Constitution. The
health and environmental impact assessment shall contain a comprehensive health profile of
the surrounding communities and a completed ecological profile of the proposed mining area.
The adoption of this Convention also not just safeguards the health safety of the local
residents in the area, but also signifies a global agreement on the fundamental standards for
miners' health and safety in all mining operations, whether surface or subsurface, small or
large-scale. This refutes the opposition's claim that all mining operations will harm people's
health considering that they are located far away from the process.

The opposition also stated that the PH mining sector neglects the indigenous people.
However, it is stated under section 16 that “No ancestral land shall be opened for mining
operations without the prior consent of the indigenous cultural community concerned”.
Section 4 also states that “The State shall recognize and protect the rights of the indigenous
cultural communities to their ancestral lands as provided for by the Constitution”. The
opposition may argue that even with these regulations, there have been problems with the
relationship between indigenous peoples' lands and the mining industry. However, this issue
is structural or systemic, rather than inherent with the law's intent. Any issue is outside the
legal framework of the act.

The Marcopper mining disaster is one of the worst mining and environmental disasters in
Philippine history. The issue with the opposition is that the penalty that the company must
face has not been faced. Regardless, the question remains: should this one incident dictate the
state of the mining sector in the Philippines? This is not a solid basis or ground for
prohibiting absolute mining in the country as it is a fallacy, particularly generalization. It is
unjust to prohibit something because of a single incident, especially since many people,
including our nation, rely on the benefits of mining. If we allow a single incident to determine
the state of mining in the country, wouldn't that be unfair to the miners who will lose their
jobs and to the country as a whole since it will have a significant impact on our economy and,
as a result, the Filipinos, potentially leading to extreme poverty? To say that this is not a one-
time occurrence and that it could happen again is hypothetical.

The opposition also pointed out that mineral resources are nonrenewable therefore, the ore is
gone once extracted and will take a long time to replenish. As a result, mining activity is
confronted with the issue of sustainability. If this issue is not addressed properly, serious
consequences may result. While the construction of the asset account for other natural
resources is undoubtedly important, it is especially critical for minerals due to their
exhaustibility. However, this perspective ignores the dynamics in mineral supplies. The non-
renewable nature of minerals may actually be less restricting than it seems. Benefits of
mining are much more long-lasting than they initially appear to be due to five factors. First,
through ongoing exploration and development, mining companies continually renew,
increase, or "sustain" their reserves. The mineral resources still present in the earth's crust are
much greater than the current reserves. Through exploration and development, new mineral
deposits are found and revealed, and more reserves are added to already-existing mines and
well-known deposits.

Furthermore, technological progress keeps mineral production going. Previously unprofitable

mineral production from mineralized rock is now possible thanks to technological advances
in mining and mineral processing. Minerals can be extracted from rock that would otherwise
remain in the ground or end up in waste piles and tailings. For example, Nevada and Utah's
"micron" gold deposits, which now account for the majority of the nation's gold production,
rely on recovery techniques that were not fully developed 25 years ago. The evidence
currently available indicates that increases in reserves due to discovery and technological
advancement have more than offset decreases due to mine depletion over the last few
decades.

Third, recycling can still be seen as a form of primary mining even after a mine has been
physically exhausted. In reality, a lot of metals come from recycling.

Fourth, a more plentiful substance can occasionally replace a scarce one. Aluminum, for
example, can be used in place of copper in long-distance transmission power lines.

Fifth, and more generally, even if a mine is physically exhausted, the value of the proceeds
may still be maintained if a sufficient amount of the proceeds is invested in either human
capital (such as healthcare or education) or artificial physical capital (such as infrastructure or
technology).

Mining and quarrying activities supported 184,000 jobs in the Philippines. Our group asked
the opposition what the situation would be for those who lost their jobs as miners. They
advised us that the country should prioritize other industries such as farming and fishing, as
these could also provide employment opportunities. This statement is completely illogical.
This is analogous to offering a job as a doctor to an unemployed lawyer who knows nothing
about the field. The opposition ignored this factor, leaving us without a viable replacement.
The unemployment rate will largely contribute to an increase in poverty in the country,
compounding the nation's problem. Why not just use the years to fix the system instead of
spending time training people to be experts in the field, which in the end is still not
proportional to the benefits of mining?

Let’s list all it one by one. In our home, the structure itself is made from limestone, steel bars,
and nails. In addition to that, electrical appliances work with the use of copper wires. In
transportation, Cars cannot run without steel body, copper wirings, and batteries. How is the
opposition going to address how banning mining will jeopardize the quality of life? Unless,
of course, they have a solid proposal, which it appears they do not.

The opposition's responsibility is to present us with a solid proposal that can outweigh or
equal the benefits of mining. They kept pointing out flaws in the system while failing to
acknowledge flaws in the farming and fishing industry system that they are proposing as a
replacement. In agriculture, the passage of the RTL in 2019 is regarded as the pinnacle of the
Duterte administration. It has sparked numerous controversies of being anti-farmers. Rising
energy, oil, fertilizer, wheat and wheat products prices, combined with export bans imposed
by other countries to "protect their own people," continue to put many countries at risk,
particularly the Philippines, which relies on these key producing countries to fill the gap in
local production. Not to mention that the agricultural sector also impose threat to the
environment and health of the people. So, should we also abandon agriculture due to its
problems? Or should we reform in light of the incomparable benefits they provide to the
Philippines? As a result of not providing a solid and strong replacement, the opposition is
heavily unable to fulfill their responsibility.
The parameter of this debate is also set on ‘absolute’ mining. In spite of that, the opposition
just kept mentioning open pit mining and kept focusing on that part while they were unable to
address the disadvantages of underground mining and other modes of mining in the nation.
Does this imply that the opposition is only against open pit mining, given their failure to
focus on other issues? In this case, they are only seeking to prohibit 'open pit' mining rather
than 'absolute' mining. Thus, the opposition failed to base their arguments on the motion's
parameters. The points of their contention centers on the systematic flaws rather than the act's
legal framework. This means that they are focusing on reforming the mining sector in the
Philippines rather than outright prohibiting it.

The opposition may regard absolute mining as ineffective. They, on the other hand, failed to
recognize the parameter set by our side, leaving them unable to provide strong arguments and
forced to rely on completely hypothetical statements. The opposition also failed to
acknowledge the motion's status quo, which is critical for proving their points. The most
important responsibility is to provide the affirmative side with an effective proposal in the
event that the country truly bans mining; however, the opposition has yet to do so. They were
also unsure of their sources and arguments during the debate, indicating that they are not fully
aware of their stance. The opposition presented weak arguments with no foundation,
hypothetical claims, and suggested an ineffective proposal.