The Daily Tribune <<< Without Fear or Favor >>>

»HEADLINES

»NATION

Supreme Court asked to throw out ‘Big Three’ oil firms out of Manila

By Benjamin B. Pulta

09/12/2009

Former Manila Mayor and Environment Secretary Lito Atienza has asked the Supreme Court (SC) to nullify a Manila city ordinance which would allow the so-called "Big Three" petroleum industry players to stay inside city limits.

In a 15-page pleading to the comments of Manila Mayor Alfredo Lim and the Manila City Council on the petition to declare unconstitutional City Ordinance 8187, Atienza opposed the argument of Lim’s group that the passage of the ordinance is well within the power of the local government to enact laws.

Atienza as well as the Social Justice System (SJS) are seeking the nullification of Ordinance No. 8187 entitled "An Ordinance Amending Ordinance 8119, otherwise known as "The Comprehensive Land Use and Zoning Ordinance of 2006," as it would allow the country’s top oil companies — Caltex (Philippines) Inc., Petron Corp. and Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corp. — to remain at the Pandacan oil depot despite an earlier ruling of the SC ordering them to vacate the place due health and security concerns.

Atienza pointed out the power of the local governments to enact laws is not absolute and limitless as city ordinances should strictly conform with existing laws, particularly provisions of the Constitution.

"Petitioners concede that indeed local governments have the power to enact laws of local application but not without limitation. Petitioners submit that local ordinances should not contravene constitutional provisions…," Atienza said.

"By enacting Ordinance No. 8187…highly-pollutive and extremely hazardous industries such as those located and operating in the so-called Pandacan oil depot are now allowed to operate…," he added.

Atienza also denied Lim’s claim that he failed to implement Ordinance 8027 during his term as city mayor.

Ordinance 8027 reclassifies portions of the Manila districts of Pandacan and Sta. Ana from industrial to commercial and directs certain business owners and operators, including Caltex (Philippines) Inc., Petron Corp. and Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corp. to cease from operating their businesses.

He stressed records would show that he and the SJS successfully defended the validity of the ordinance when the three major oil firms were allowed to intervene and sought the reconsideration of the SC’s decision dated March 7, 2007.

In the ruling, the SC affirmed the validity of Ordinance 8027 and granted the petition for mandamus filed by SJS and several Manila residents seeking to compel Manila city officials to implement the ordinance.

The SC held that the objective of the ordinance "is to protect the residents of Manila from the catastrophic devastation that will surely occur in case of a terrorist attack on the Pandacan oil terminals."

He said the extension of the deadline for the implementation of Ordinance 8027 should not be construed as a reluctance on his part to implement.

Atienza explained the delay was due to the strong request of the national government for its systematic implementation and the temporary restraining orders issued by the various regional trial courts of Manila.

Also, Atienza called Lim’s issuance of Executive Order 19 Series of 2009, which prohibits highly hazardous and pollutive industries from operating in Manila, as a "deceitful move."

"The hidden but obvious truth is that the Executive Order has a prospective effect while it also institutionalized and made permanent the existing oil depots in Pandacan. Respondents’ attempt to be clever in this instance merely unmasked their true intention to allow and protect the perpetual existence of the oil depots in Pandanca," Atienza said.

In their separate petitions, Atienza and SJS, represented by its officer-lawyers Samson Alcantara and Vladimir Alarique Cabigao, insisted that the ordinance is illegal as it violates Article III, Section 8 of the Revised Manila Charter which mandates the city government to legislate laws that would promote the general welfare and not to enact measures that "expose inhabitants to serious physical danger."