 |
|
SC ON PANDACAN OIL DEPOTS CLOSURE “(B)ased on the hierarchy of constitutionally protected rights, the right to life enjoys precedence over the right to property. The reason is obvious: life is irreplaceable, property is not.” – Supreme Court First Division With these words, the residents of Pandacan last week scored a major victory when no other than the highest court of the land ruled that their safety is more important than the right of oil companies to continue operating their decades-old oil depots in Pandacan. This welcome news indeed stuck out like a sore thumb amid the flurry of political noise generated by mounting calls for President Arroyo to step down. At least some social concerns are being attended to while most in government were busy saving their ass. In a 78-page decision, the High Tribunal's first division upheld a The ordinance had reclassified portions of the The high court's latest decision gave the oil firms a 90-day non-extendible period to submit to the Particularly cited as argument in the court's decision was the event in January 23 when a defective tanker containing 2,000 liters of gasoline and 14,000 liters of diesel exploded after coming from the Shell oil depot, leading to millions in property damages and to the death of one person who was just plying that same route. “Need we say anything about what will happen if it is the estimated 162 to 211 million liters of petroleum products in the terminal complex which blow up?” the First Division said. Stressing the danger The High Court, in its ruling, highlighted the facts presented by the (1) the depot facilities contains 313.5 million liters of highly flammable and highly volatile products which include petroleum gas, liquefied petroleum gas, aviation fuel, diesel, gasoline, kerosene and fuel oil among others; (2) the depot is open to attack through land, water or air; (3) it is situated in a densely populated place and near (4) in case of an explosion or conflagration in the depot, the fire could spread to the neighboring communities. Economic costs outweighed; DOE rebuked The High Court went on further to say that “any delay is unfair to the inhabitants of the City of “Their power to chart and control their own destiny and preserve their lives and safety should not be curtailed by the intervenors' warnings of doomsday scenarios and threats of economic disorder if the ordinance is enforced.” Also reprimanded by the court was the Department of Energy which asserted that the issue is within the jurisdiction of the department – and not the local government – for the simple reason that the agency is tasked by law to “to ensure a continuous, adequate, and economic supply of energy.” Oil companies and the energy department have insisted that a relocation should not be allowed considering that it has a nationwide economic impact and affects public interest transcending the territorial jurisdiction of the City of But to this the court replied that what were given to the DOE were general powers, which can be exercised without emasculating the LGUs of the powers granted them. “When these ambiguous powers are pitted against the unequivocal power of the LGU to enact police power and zoning ordinances for the general welfare of its constituents, it is not difficult to rule in favor of the latter. Considering that the powers of the DOE regarding the Pandacan Terminals are not categorical, the doubt must be resolved in favor of the City of Economic repercussions Oil companies have warned time and again it would entail billions of pesos to relocate the oil depots, and that the whole exercise itself would be costly not only to consumers who will have to bear the brunt of higher oil prices, but on the economy in general as rising oil prices are a major threat to inflation and growth. After the Manila City Council passed its ordinance in 2001 rezoning the 33 hectares where the oil depots currently stand, the oil companies' warning against immediate removal of the depots were heeded. An agreement was reached with the local government giving the oil companies time to scale down their operations and to search for a most economical alternative venue. After almost eight years, the oil companies are still raising the same scare arguments, and many are wondering what the oil companies have done during the moratorium period given them to pave the way for a smooth phase out of Pandacan. Apparently, the oil companies are stubbornly clinging to Pandacan. Given the Supreme Court stance on the issue, it looks like the economic disorder being conjured by the oil companies may no longer hold water. As I've said in my previous columns, it is time for oil companies to go. Will luck hold? When the clamor for the upgrading of ships carrying oil products was gaining ground, oil companies were also reluctant to act citing the economic costs that are involved. Not until a Petron chartered ship caused the worst environmental disaster at Guimaras did the government thru the MARINA (Maritime Industry Authority) put its foot down and mandated the use of double-hulled ships to transport oil products. While the oil companies try to exhaust all legal remedies to overturn the Supreme Court ruling on Pandacan, while they drag their feet in coming up with a long overdue phase-out plan, I am sure Pandacan residents are keeping their fingers crossed hoping that their luck will continue to hold, and that no disastrous incidents will occur in the meantime.
| |||
|