2006-2017 Constitutional Challenges to Honduran Mining Law [ASP1 and ASP2]

In 2006, a constitutional challenge was brought on behalf of 20 Honduran citizens, including representatives of the Honduran Association of Environmental and Agro-Forest Journalists (AHPAAF) and the Committee for the Defense and Development of the Gulf of Fonseca Plant and Wildlife, against the 1998 Mining Law. In 2006, the Court found that 13 of the legislation’s provisions were unconstitutional, including a provision which allowed companies to expropriate the land of any person who did not reach an agreement with the mining company or opposed mining on his or her property. 

The 1998 Mining Law was ultimately replaced by the 2013 Mining Law (see Legal Action entitled “1998-2013 Honduran Mining Laws [ASP1 and ASP2]” for more detail). This new law faced a constitutional challenge in 2014 brought by, among others, the Honduran Centre for the Promotion of Community Development (CEHPRODEC). In June 2017, the Constitutional chamber of the Supreme Court ruled that 7 of the 20 challenged articles of the Mining Law were unconstitutional. These included articles relating to, among other things, public consultation with affected communities, the use of natural resources by transnational corporations, control over vacant lands, and the use of mercury, cyanide, and lead in mining operations (Criterio.hn, 2017). 

Despite the 2017 Constitutional Court decision, the Honduran Institute of Geology and Mines (INHGEOMIN) has continued to issue mining concessions (La Prensa 2018). According to a March 2018 report released by the CEHPRODEC, there were 302 registered metallic and non-metallic mining concessions, with an additional 193 requests in process at the INHGEOMIN. 

In November 2019, Congress approved reforms to the invalidated articles of the Mining Law (see Legal Action entitled “1998-2013 Honduran Mining Laws [ASP1 and ASP2]”).