|
CAN
potential hazards to communities be tolerated for
business concerns? The question has been raised with a
statement Thursday by the Foreign Chambers of the
Philippines (FCP) that spot zoning such as that of
Pandacan in Manila, which resulted in a court order to
transfer the huge stockpile of highly flammable fuels
there, is a “serious disincentive to investment.”
The
group warned that the ruling of the Supreme Court
upholding the Manila ordinance effectively removing the
Pandacan fuel terminals may have a negative impact on
the supply and pricing of petroleum products.
The FCP
said in a letter to Chief Justice Reynato Puno that, “If
local governments spot-zone everywhere, industries will
not be assured of continuous tenure in the areas in
which they operate.”
The oil
companies affected have been able to stave off the
transfer until the recent SC decision and are now
preparing to relocate; at the same time they have filed
an appeal that is now pending at the High Tribunal.
The oil
companies were given 90 days to draw up their depot
relocation blueprint by the Court after their motion for
reconsideration was rejected. The FCP kept arguing,
however, that it already is and will be much difficult
to invest anywhere for any facility amid fears of being
rezoned anytime; and the Pandacan case could be a
“dangerous precedent.”
But they
did not distinguish what are hazardous products and what
are not and whether hazardous products could justifiably
be placed in crowded communities just to satisfy the
bottom lines of companies.
The FCP
further said, “In recent years, we have seen many abuses
where mayors, town counselors, and local government
offices have dishonored decisions of the predecessors,
have withdrawn commitments made before factories, hotels
and resorts were built, and have made ridiculous tax
claims—these instances have scared existing and
potential investors away.” |
