 |
| It's the Marcopper minesite, folks! |
The authorization was subject to the following conditions:
1 " Pursuant to the authority conferred by this
resolution the provincial Governor shall forthwith cause the appointment and sign
the contract of engagement of the services of outside counsel, in the person of
Atty. Walter J. Scott and to exercise such powers and perform such acts as are
incidental and necessary for the accomplishment of the objectives and purposes
for which this authority is intended;
2. The appointment and engagement of the services
of the herein outside counsel for the remuneration of his services shall be
dependent upon successful litigation of the case or recoveries as defined in
the contract of engagement, subject to the following percentage sharing:
a)
1st $15 Million - 10% plus reimbursement of not
more than $500,000.00
b)
Next $35 Million -
40% plus reimbursement of not more than $ 1,000,000.00
c)
$50 Million and above – 33% plus reimbursement
of not more than $ 1,500,000.00;
3. The Office of the Provincial Governor shall
upon signing by the parties of the appointment and engagement contract of
special outside counsel referred to above, submit the same to the Sangguniang
Panlalawigan for legislative concurrence.
4. Any amendment or modifications of the
terms and conditions of the signed agreement shall only be affected by mutual
agreement of the parties thereto, subject
to the ratification of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan."
From 2007 to 2010.
The case against Placer Dome filed in 2005, was removed
to U.S. District Court at the request of Placer Dome. Then U.S. District Judge
Brian Sandoval dismissed the case in June 2007, citing an improper choice of
forum or court. Read
In late September
2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the District
Court decision dismissing the case in favor of Canada on forum non conveniens
grounds. The defendants moved for a reconsideration of that ruling by the
judicial panel that had decided it and the request for reconsideration was
denied. The case was returned to the
Nevada state court where it was originally filed. Read
In 2010 the
Sangguniang Panlalawigan passed Resolution No. 775 series 2010 – Resolution of
consent to the continued representation of the Province of Marinduque by the
Diamond McCarthy LLP, Suell & Wilmer LLP and Zambrano & Gruba Law
Office in the case filed by the province against Barrick Gold Corporation and
Placer Dome, Inc. in the Nevada State Court. In relation to this, then
provincial administrator, J. Roberto Abling, sent a formal letter, May 20, 2010, to the
Sangguniang Panlalawigan with the following queries, to wit:
 |
| Query from Carrion administration ignored? |
1. "1. Is there an original contract/agreement between
the Provincial Government and Diamond-McCarthy LLP, Snell & Wilmer LLP and
Zambrano & Gruba Law Office covering the proposed legal services?
2. "2. If there is such a contract, who were the
signatories? Better yet, can the Office of the Governor be furnished a
certified copy of such a contract/agreement?
3. "3. What are the obligations of the Provincial
Government financially and otherwise if we were to extend their service?
4. "4. Is there an SP resolution
authorizing/creating the SP Liaison Committee as mentioned in the fax letter of
Mr. James D. McCarthy? If so, can the Office of the Governor be furnished a
certified copy?"
Questions that
apparently remained unanswered by the SP during the term of Gov. Bong Carrion,
probably all in the name of ‘confidentiality’. So was Carrion also kept in the dark? But the so-called SP Liaison
Committee stated in No. 4, above may never have been authorized or created by
the SP to act as such in the first place.
For why would certain board members who’ve
assumed that liaison role feel strongly that they are not compelled to inform the Sangguniang Panlalawigan as a legislative body on matters about the Nevada case that are of critical importance to the people of Marinduque.
 |
| Board Member Mel Go and Vice-Governor Antonio Uy, Jr. |
So it goes. There appears to be wailing, gnashing of teeth and shooting of arrows among
them, some Marcopper stakeholders now. A board member (Mel Go), declared in a recent Barrick Gold open forum in Marinduque: "We have been kept in the dark!"
We may yet also uncover the
probability, given the manner by which the Marcopper Mining Disaster has been
handled all these years, that the signed Agreement between the Provincial Government
of Marinduque and the lawyers concerned may never have been ratified by the SP, as expressly stated in Resolution No. 264 s. 2005 authorizing the governor to enter into that
agreement. That's in view of the seeming inability of the SP or Secretariat to respond to official letters as stated above.
See previous post: Keeping Marinduquenos in the dark
See previous post: Keeping Marinduquenos in the dark
