Saturday, February 25, 2012

Does SCTEx now mean "Stone Casting and Throwing Expressway"?

It may sound corny. But I am posing this query because we have been recently victimized in the Subic Clark Tarlac Expressway (SCTEx) by nefarious individuals who seemed to have no scruples if they harmed or hurt innocent people.

On the evening of 19 February 2012, my brother-in-law was driving our 2012 Hyundai Santa Fe and cruising at a speed of not more than 100kph along the SCTEx - coming from the South Clark Interchange and bound for the Subic Bay Freeport. With us were my wife and two kids. At about 8:45 to 9:00 in the evening of said date, while traversing the Floridablanca-Dinalupihan segment of the SCTEx, and as my brother-in-law slowed down to avoid some rocks scattered on the road, we suddenly heard a loud “bang!” from the right side part of the Santa Fe.

Owing to the isolation of the place, and as said portion of the SCTex was dark - there were no lampposts there - and in consideration of the safety and security of my family, we decided not to stop to check whatever it was that seemed to have hit the vehicle. The car behind us, was apparently hit, too - it even momentarily stopped and blinked its hazard lights. We proceeded instead to the Tipo toll plaza. Upon reaching the toll plaza, I alighted from the Santa Fe to see and check what caused the loud bang. I noticed an ugly depression on the top front, right side of the vehicle, still bearing a dusty, dirty white color, most likely, of the rock that hit it. By all indications, someone with malicious intentions threw a rock at it. Luckily, it did not hit the glass.

We told the toll collector and the guard on duty to report to their mobile patrol the incident and for the patrol to proceed to the said portion of SCTEx to deter further rock throwing by some evildoers who seemed to have no qualms destroying properties and/or harming innocent people. As it was getting late and our kids were tired, we couldn't wait for another mobile patrol to arrive in the toll plaza anymore, so we decided to head home.

Now, this incident was scary and dangerous especially for regular users of the SCTEx such as ourselves. Unfortunately, this was by no means an isolated incident, as another blogger previously reported the same. Please check: http://baldrunner.com/2010/05/19/travel-advisory/.

To date, despite notice, we have yet to hear from SCTEx officials, including those of the BCDA's, on the steps they plan to undertake to address this serious concern, considering that this has been going on for years. 


(Disclosure: Our law office previously represented MNTC in a criminal case. However, public interest demands that it is not a sufficient justification to withhold reporting this incident.

Sunday, February 5, 2012

The coal-fired thermal power plant, the Subic Watershed Forest Reserve and the Writ of Kalikasan

In 1992, then President CORAZON C. AQUINO, issued Proclamation No. 926 to “withdraw from sale, entry, settlement, exploitation, exploration and other forms of disposition, subject to private rights, if any there be, and set aside and declare Subic Watershed Forest Reserve to protect and preserve the rare biological diversity of the flora and fauna therein and keep intact the productive capacity of the hydrologic unit supplying the developable portions of the Subic Bay Military Reservation…”

The initiative of the present administration of the Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority (SBMA) to “institutionalize public consultations for environmentally sensitive projects to give stakeholders a voice in determining development directions and ensure transparency in the Subic Bay Freeport,” is legally sound, duly commendable and must be fully supported by all stakeholders.

Just recently, SBMA conducted a stakeholders’ consultation process to understand and consolidate the opinions of various concerned sectors on the coal-fired thermal power plant being proposed for construction at the Redondo Peninsula. At the moment, according to SBMA, only a site preparation permit has been issued to the consortium that owns the proposed coal-fired thermal power plant.

Hopefully, the residents, fisher-folks, businesses such as resorts, hotels, amusement parks and water utilities, contiguous to and within the Subic Bay Freeport Zone (SBFZ), wouldn’t have to resort to legal relief and remedies - such as the “Writ of Kalikasan” - to save and protect the pristine forest, coast and waters of Subic Bay, consistent with and pursuant to Proclamation 926, Republic Act No. 7227 and other pertinent environmental laws.

No matter how one looks at it, a coal-fired thermal power plant appears anathema to SBFZ’s thrust as a prime eco-tourism destination and health and retirement haven. According to news reports, Subic already surpassed Baguio in terms of numbers of visitors. With its vision of becoming a part of cruise ship itineraries, a world-class leisure- and resort-type residences, and preferred meetings, incentives, conventions and exhibitions (MICE) venue, a coal-fired thermal power plant ominously jutting out across the bay would be a huge turn-off and disappointment. The equally important protection of several endangered species such as fruit bats and marine turtles ought not to be discounted.

Should the threat of a coal-fired thermal power plant persist, the effectivity of the Supreme Court-sanctioned “The Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases” would be tested.

There it provides for the extraordinary remedy called “Writ of Kalikasan.” The writ is a remedy available to a natural or juridical person, entity authorized by law, people’s organization, non-governmental organization, or any public interest group accredited by or registered with any government agency, on behalf of persons whose constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology is violated, or threatened with violation by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or private individual or entity, involving environmental damage of such magnitude as to prejudice the life, health or property of inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces.” (Section 1, Rule 7)

According to the Supreme Court (SC), “the underlying emphasis in the Writ of Kalikasan is magnitude as it deals with damage that transcends political and territorial boundaries. Magnitude is thus measured according to the qualification set forth in this Rule — when there is environmental damage that prejudices the life, health or property of inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces.”

“The petition for the issuance of a Writ of Kalikasan can be filed by any of the following: (1) a natural or juridical person; (2) entity authorized by law; or (3) people’s organization, non-governmental organization, or any public interest group accredited by or registered with any government agency “on behalf of persons whose constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology is violated… involving environmental damage of such magnitude as to prejudice the life, health or property of inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces.”  Those who may file for this remedy must represent the inhabitants prejudiced by the environmental damage subject of the writ. The requirement of accreditation of a group or organization is for the purpose of verifying its existence. The accreditation is a mechanism to prevent “fly by night” groups from abusing the writ.”

“The Writ of Kalikasan is a special remedy available against an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or private individual or entity, involving environmental damage of such magnitude as to prejudice the life, health or property of inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces,” adds the SC.