Bishop takes stand against mining
Anti-mining villagers of Dupax del Norte hold signs to assert their resistance against mining operations. The demonstration persists despite an RTC ruling that extended a TRO, legally prohibiting residents from blocking the entry of mine workers and equipment.
PHOTOGRAPH courtesy of pia nueva viscaya
BAYOMBONG, Nueva Vizcaya — When police arrived in the quiet upland village of Bitnong, Dupax del Norte, they came not for crime, but for a barricade — a wall of bamboo, tarpaulins, and conviction built by residents who said they were only protecting their land.
Within hours, the barricade was gone. Some of the residents were in handcuffs. And by sunset, the Diocese of Nueva Vizcaya broke its silence.
Bishop Jose Elmer I. Mangalinao, his voice both pastoral and political, issued a rare public rebuke — questioning not just a mining company’s permit, but the moral compass of a system that, he said, “protects profit over people.”
“There are floods, earthquakes, storms, and massive corruption in government — and yet mining permits are being issued?” he said.
The bishop’s statement — written in Tagalog and shared widely on social media — came days after Woggle Corporation secured both an exploration permit and a temporary restraining order (TRO) from a local court, effectively halting anti-mining protests in Dupax del Norte.
Police, acting on the TRO, dismantled the residents’ barricade and arrested several who resisted.
A question of priorities
The controversy stems from Woggle Corporation’s exploration project, which covers 3,101 hectares across five barangays in Dupax del Norte. The Mines and Geosciences Bureau granted the permit on 4 August 2025, allowing the firm to conduct mineral exploration in an area locals describe as “ancestral and fragile.”
Environmental groups and residents claim they were never properly consulted, warning that exploration could pave the way for destructive large-scale mining.
The bishop echoed those fears, highlighting what he called “favoritism” toward Woggle and questioning the court’s justification that the company might suffer “irreparable damage” without immediate relief.
“The TRO was issued in favor of Woggle Corporation… Why so favored? Why? Why? Why?” the bishop asked, emphasizing each “why” as both a plea and an indictment.
He also demanded transparency on what the company has promised local officials and communities:
“What are they giving? What are they offering? What is the promise of wealth that cannot be refused?”