Environmental advocacy group Alyansa Tigil Mina (ATM) strongly criticized the Mining Fiscal Regime Bill, particularly its provision capping royalties for Indigenous Cultural Communities and Indigenous Peoples (ICCs/IPs). 

The bill, recently submitted by the Ways and Means Committee to the Senate, has drawn ire from the group for what it deems an unfair limitation on indigenous royalties.

Jaybee Garganera, ATM’s National Coordinator, said the proposed provision is “not fair to indigenous groups for it limits the royalties they can get.”

“Instead of a cap or ceiling on the royalties, a minimum should have been proposed to ensure that Indigenous communities receive a sufficient amount,” said Garganera. 

Garganera argued that the cap on royalties favors mining companies, as it limits the amount they are required to pay without establishing a minimum payment obligation. 

He also pointed out that this cap contradicts the Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act (IPRA), which sets a minimum for royalty payments but does not impose a ceiling.

Under the proposed law, the ICC/IP shall be paid not more than 2% of the gross output of minerals produced from the ancestral domain. 

It further stipulates that the parties “shall be free to negotiate on its components, both monetary and non-financial, such as employment, social development, and environmental management of the ancestral domain.”

Garganera argued that community development programs should not be considered as royalty payments. 

“The non-financial aspect of the mining firm’s obligations should be separate from the minimum monetary royalties that should be directly given to communities,” he added.

He also warned that the stipulation on monetary and non-financial royalties is “a loophole that can be used by mining corporations to escape from their obligations to the ICCs/IPs.”

ATM further expressed skepticism regarding the committee’s consultation with the affected Indigenous communities on this specific provision. 

“If the voices and perspectives of IPs were not adequately considered in this report, this is another clear example of marginalizing the interests of the indigenous communities affected by destructive mining,” said Garganera.