|
SAYING
billions of pesos that oil companies stand to lose is
nothing compared with the possible loss of many lives in
case of terror attacks, the Supreme Court (SC) Wednesday
affirmed its 2007 decision ordering the Manila City
government and the oil firms to facilitate the
relocation of the 36-hectare Pandacan oil depot.
In a
78-page decision penned by Associate Justice Renato
Corona, the SC’s First Division took into consideration
the January 23, 2008 incident where a defective tanker
containing 2,000 liters of gasoline and 14,000 liters of
diesel exploded at the foot of the Nagtahan flyover
near the exit gate of the Pandacan terminals, killing
one person, hurting scores of others and causing a
“frightening conflagration.”
“Need we
say anything about what will happen if it is the
estimated 162 [million] to 211 million liters of
petroleum products in the terminal complex [that] blow
up?” the court said in upholding its March 7, 2007
ruling.
The
court, however, acknowledged that an immediate transfer
of the oil terminals has far-reaching consequences and
might trigger a crisis; thus, it should be carried out
in accordance with a comprehensive and well-coordinated
plan.
To
ensure the orderly transfer of the oil terminals, the
court directed the oil companies—Chevron Philippines
Inc., Petron Corp. and Pilipinas Shell Petroleum—to
submit to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila City
Branch 38 the comprehensive plan and relocation schedule
which “allegedly have been prepared.”
The SC
noted that as early as October 2001, the oil companies
signed a memorandum of agreement with the Department of
Energy (DOE), obliging themselves to undertake a
comprehensive and comparative study to include
preparation of a master plan for relocation of the oil
terminals.
“Now
that they are being compelled to discontinue their
operations in the Pandacan terminals, they cannot feign
unreadiness considering that they had years to prepare
for this eventuality,” the court noted.
Any
delay in the relocation of the oil depot, according to
the court, “is unfair” to Manila residents who have been
demanding the transfer of the terminals.
During
last year’s oral argument on the case, the oil firms
admitted that there is still no viable place to relocate
the oil depot and sought the government’s assistance in
finding a suitable relocation site.
The SC
directed the presiding judge of Manila RTC Branch 39 to
monitor the strict enforcement of the court’s order.
The
court noted that the oil companies are essentially
fighting for their right to property as they alleged
that they stand to lose P30 billion if forced to
relocate.
The SC,
however, stressed that the right to life “enjoys
precedence over the right to property.”
“The
reason is obvious: life is irreplaceable, property is
not. When the state or local government units’ exercise
of police power clashes with a few individual rights to
property, the former should prevail,” the Court said.
It
agreed with the Manila government that the oil companies
failed to present a specific security plan that would
prevent possible large-scale terrorist attacks aimed at
Malacańang.
The SC
reiterated its March 7, 2007 ruling declaring valid
Manila City Ordinance 8027, and therefore, should be
implemented.
The
ordinance 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 within six months from the ordinance’s
effectivity date, which was December 28, 2001.
The High
Tribunal did not give credence to the oil companies’
claim that the ordinance is unfair and oppressive as
they have invested billions of pesos in the depot, and
its closure will spell huge income losses and tremendous
costs in constructing new facilities.
It said
oil companies are not entitled to any compensation since
the enactment of the ordinance is a valid exercise of
police power by the city government.
Compensation is only necessary, according to the court,
when the state’s power of eminent domain is exercised.
In eminent domain, property is appropriated and applied
to some public purpose.
Likewise, the court rejected the contention of oil
companies and the DOE that Manila City Ordinance 8119
repealed Ordinance 8027.
Ordinance 8119, passed on June 16, 2006, allowed oil
depots in Pandacan to continuously operate for seven
more years.
Earlier,
the DOE warned that in the event of closure pending its
relocation, it will only take 36 hours to plunge
Luzon into oil shortage by 62 percent. While there are other
alternative supply sources in
Bataan,
Batangas, Cavite, Navotas, Poro Point, La Union, Clark
and Subic, these have a collective storage capacity of
only 188.5 million liters—compared with Pandacan’s
203.117 million liters.
The
shortfall may prompt a fuel rationing to motorists to
meet various sectors’ fuel demands; and oil companies
would consequently be forced to adjust their prices.
“Their
[Manila residents and officials] right 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,” the SC stressed. |
