SC orders closure of Pandacan oil depot

[Bogeyman]

You failed to mention that the SC decision is not yet final and executory, as the oil companies have 15 days to file their respective motions for reconsideration.

[Zeus]

You failed to mention that the SC decision is not yet final and executory, as the oil companies have 15 days to file their respective motions for reconsideration.

Oo nga

[Zeus]

(UPDATE) SC upholds transfer order of Manila oil depot


By Tetch Torres
INQUIRER.net
First Posted 15:16:00 02/13/2008


MANILA, Philippines -- The Supreme Court has upheld an ordinance by the Manila City government ordering the transfer of the oil depot housing the operations of three oil firms.
In a 78-page resolution released Wednesday by the First Division, through Associate Justice Renato Corona, the high court dismissed the petition by Chevron Philippines, Petron Corp., and Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corp. and the Department of Environment against Manila Ordinance No. 8027 directing the removal of the oil terminals from Pandacan.
The same ordinance reclassified portions of Pandacan and Sta. Ana from industrial to commercial and directed certain business owners and operators, including Chevron, Petron, and Shell to cease and desist from operating their businesses in these areas.
The high tribunal also ordered the Manila mayor, in this case, Alfredo Lim, to oversee the relocation and transfer of the oil terminal from Pandacan in coordination with appropriate agencies and other parties involved.
It asked Branch 39 of the Manila regional trial court to ensure that the resolution would be strictly enforced.
The high court gave the three oil companies a 90-day non-extendable period to submit before the Manila RTC their comprehensive plans and relocation schedules to ensure the orderly transfer, movement, and relocation of assets and personnel.
“Essentially, the oil companies are fighting for their right to property. They allege that they stand to lose billions of pesos if forced [to] relocate. However, based 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. When the state or [local government unit] LGU’s exercise of police power clashes with a few individuals’ right to property, the former should prevail,” the court said.
The high court also dismissed the pending case with the Manila RTC questioning the validity of the ordinance.
It noted that the injunctive writs previously issued by the Manila RTC against the city government were not impediments to the enforcement of Ordinance No. 8027 because the writs “had no legal leg to stand on.”
“Nowhere in the judge’s discussion can we see that, in addition to a showing of a clear legal right of Chevron and Shell to the remedy sought, he was convinced that they had made out a case of unconstitutionality or invalidity strong enough to overcome the presumption of validity of the ordinance.”
The high court also held that Ordinance No. 8027 was not superseded by Ordinance No. 8119 (An Ordinance Adopting the Manila Comprehensive Land Use Plan and Zoning Regulations of 2006 and Providing for the Administration, Enforcement and Amendment Thereto) and did not impliedly repeal Ordinance No. 8027.
“The conflict between the two ordinances is more apparent than real. The two ordinances can be reconciled. Ordinance No. 8027 is applicable to the area particularly described therein whereas Ordinance No. 8119 is applicable to the entire City of Manila,” the court said.
This high court ruling stemmed from an original action for mandamus filed by the political party Social Justice Society (SJS) and Manila residents Vladimir T. Cabigao and Bonifacio S. Tumbokon asking the high court to compel Atienza to enforce a city ordinance that would shut down the Pandacan depot.
The high court granted the petition and the city government did not appeal, prompting the oil companies to seek a reversal of the tribunal’s decision.
Meanwhile, spokesman Jose Midas Marquez said the oil companies could still appeal for their case to be elevated to the en banc.

Source: www.inquirer.net
Feb.13, 2008

Ito na ang updated

[baker123]

edit2 prices would always go up, why are you worried???

hahahah tama gasjunkie. even when it goes down, its just for a moment. it would still go up.

transfering to other place wont have to be a reason for them to increase the price again. because im quite sure their municipal licenses and other such expenses would be lower compared to metro manila. but then again. it can be a reason for them to increase prices lalo at kailangan pa nila mag construct ng new depot (additional/expansion expense)

the weird thing is. i was told before that the oil depots there are operational a long time ago. and the community (no disrespect to those within the area) are only new or just went there after the depots were installed. and as law would have it. and if the depots was not supposed to be there. then the local govt should have not let them install or construct a depot there in the first place.

[chilli]

Well one good thing of removing this oil depots in Pandacan is that, safety. Kasi I have some friends na nakatira dun and sila mismo nagsasabi kinakabahan sila pag may sunog.

Pero ang next question given na na approve na ng SC about closure of the Pandacan Oil Depot, saan sila ililipat ngayon?

[DonCamote]

It seems this is not closed after all.

Move to let oil depot stay in Manila splits dads

THE Manila minority councilors on Monday condemned efforts of the present city administration to
re-allow the oil depot to stay in Pandacan even though these have been ordered relocated by City Ordinances 8027 and 8119, which were approved in the past administration.

Councilor Bonjay Isip-Garcia, principal author of Ordinance 8119, said the impact of the present city administration’s move would be “tremendous” to Manila residents if approved. “If all other cities out there are opposing this kind of environment, then here in Manila, they are still welcoming it.”

The Pandacan oil depot is near Malacañang and surrounded by residential and commercial areas on three sides, with the Pasig River on the fourth.

The ordinance called for the mandated clearing of the Pandacan district—classified as residential—of the terminals of the big oil companies and directed terminal owners and operators to cease operation within six months of the ordinance’s effectivity date.

However, Garcia said now there is a proposed ordinance, authored by councilor Arlene Koa, seeking to amend City Ordinances 8027 and 8119, and allowing the continued stay of the oil depot in Pandacan.

She said the movement of the ordinance in the chamber was apparently being fast-tracked. “The first reading
was held just last Tuesday. Then on Friday, the proposed ordinance was already in the committee hearing. Five hours later, it was already deemed submitted for resolutions.”

Garcia added that proponents are in a “conspiracy” to keep the oil depot in Manila and are the same people who supported the local laws ordering the Big Three’s move-out.

She pledged to block Koa’s proposed ordinance at all cost. “We will certainly lose in council. We might seek support from other environmentalists. We will not allow our people to be endangered by irresponsibility even if it entails struggling it out in the courts. We have already won in the Supreme Court but now they are trying to reverse it.”

“It’s incomprehensible why the city government of Manila wants to repeal previous ordinances that secure the lives of the people they work for, the Manileños. . ..Why change something truly beneficial for the people? Only God knows their millions of reasons,” said Councilor Joy Dawis-Asuncion, principal author of Ordinance 8027.

“We are the only country in the whole world which still has oil depots situated in a densely populated area. The oil depots don’t belong in the country’s capital, especially where the seat of power resides. The former City Council of Manila acknowledges that. The Supreme Court, no less, acknowledges that. Even the oil companies acknowledge that. Ordinances 8027 and 8119 are non-negotiable,” said Councilor and Minority Floor Leader Letlet Zarcal.

Big 3 still face cartel probe

Meanwhile, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Manila has denied the petition of the oil industry Big Three—Shell, Petron, Chevron (formerly Caltex)—to dismiss a case asking for an investigation into their alleged cartel activities.

The petition for investigation was filed by the private group Social Justice System (SJS).

In his ruling, Presiding Judge Silvino Pampilo Jr. said, “During the last hearing on March 13, 2009, the counsels of Petron and Chevron [Caltex] made oral motion to resolve the motion to dismiss. Upon perusal of the records of the case, the said motion has already been resolved on December 17, 2003, by then Acting Presiding Judge Oscar P. Barrientos.”

He added, “The decision was not necessarily patterned after Judge Barrientos’ decision. . . .It was simply that the three oil companies did not present new arguments during the hearing.”

The resumption of the hearing has been set on April 23, 2009.

On February 23, the SJS asked the RTC in Manila to open the books of the three oil companies for examination by the Bureau of Internal Revenue, Bureau of Customs, and Commission on Audit to see if the firms have been involved in cartel activities.

http://www.businessmirror.com.ph/hom...its-dads-.html

[Zeus]

It seems this is not closed after all.



http://www.businessmirror.com.ph/hom...its-dads-.html

Oo nga...ano ba talaga? Pero anu ba sa tingin niyo mas nakakabuti? ilipat o hindi?

[jatcos]

Yun Total nasa Harbor Center, dapat doon na din sila lahat. Palagay ko naman may technology for oil spill and they will install buffer zone in the area. Kung masunog man, konti lang mamatay sa oxygen depletion dahil near open sea.

[DonCamote]

The new argument of one councilor, Arlene Koa, who is not from the district of Pandacan is to save the work of the residents surrounding the area who work for the big 3. I think that is a very flimsy argument. The safety of the residents within the vicinity is more important than the profits of the big 3.

What is the impact to us as a motorist? The argument that they will raise their prices if they move the depots? Simple - I will just buy from the small players instead if they raise their prices. They may be fewer but even a 1 peso difference in price will make me change my gas loading routine. I will go past 5 shell/petron/chevron stations just to get to a small player with lesser priced gas.

Who is losing money if they move? - the big 3 Petron, Shell and Chevron. And if I were the big 3, it will be a lot cheaper to deal with a few councilors and a mayor than to relocate.

[Horsepower]

Nabayaran lang yun. hehe.

Everyone has a price.