ENVIRONMENTAL advocates declare partial victory and vow to remain resolute in stopping the construction of the Subic Coal-Fired Power Plant in the face of the dismissal of the writ of kalikasan against the dangerous project.
Environmental groups maintain that though the 15th Division of Court of Appeals (CA) dismissed their case against the Subic Coal Power project, the plant should not continue with the construction because the CA nullified a couple of legal documents needed for the plant to proceed with its operations.
“We are partly satisfied with the result of the legal battle. Although the court failed to favor the demand of the Subic residents and environmentalists to protect the local environment and communities from pollution and ill effects of the project, the construction of the plant is brought to a standstill because of several technicalities,” says Clemente Bautista, president of Kalikasan Partylist, one of the petitioners against the project.
Bautista explains that, “The aim of the writ of kalikasan is to stop the construction of the dangerous coal power plant in Subic, and this has been achieved. Although this may be temporary, the people could still benefit from the respite and take this time to plan its next steps.”
The writ of kalikasan was filed before the Supreme Court on July 20, 2012 by progressive party list groups Kalikasan, Bayan Muna, Kabataan, Gabriela, Anakpawis with residents of Olongapo City and local organizations and government units against the Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority (SBMA), the Redondo Peninsula Energy Inc. (RP Energy) and the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR).
The writ of Kalikasan was junked but CA nullified the environmental compliance certificate (ECC) and the lease and development agreement of SBMA and RP Energy as they were found defective.
According to petitioners’ lawyer, Atty. Terry Ridon of Kabataan Partylist, “RP Energy suffered a big blow with the CA decision. The decision states that the project cannot proceed without the approval of concerned LGUs, such as Brgy Cawag, Subic, Olongapo, the Province of Zambales, etc. It also nullified the ECC amendments, saying that it failed to comply with the conditions of the original ECC requiring a new EIA. Without these permits, RP Energy cannot proceed with construction and operation.”
“The project proponents have no legal leg to stand on to proceed with the construction. They have to start from the beginning and complete the legal requirements before they are allowed to continue the project. If it insists on proceeding, we will file appropriate cases against it in due course,” Ridon explains.
The petitioners argued that the proposed 600-megawatt coal power plant violates the constitutional rights of the residents to a balanced and healthful ecology because of the health and environmental risks the plant poses.
The Court of Appeals argued that the petitioners failed to prove that the power plant will cause environmental damage to the residents of Bataan and Zambales as the plant has not yet been constructed. The temporary environmental protection order sought by the petitioner was also denied by the Court of Appeals.
“When the Rules of Procedure for environmental cases came out in April 2010, one of the ideals that it supposedly upholds is the precautionary principle. This means that if a project or policy poses a risk to the public, the burden of proof should fall on the project proponents, and not on the public. With this principle, the judiciary supposedly recognizes the social responsibility of the state to protect the public from imminent danger,” says Bautista.
“While we regret that the Court of Appeals found the testimonies of the people and petitioners lacking, it cannot negate the fact that there is a wide opposition and vigorous attempt by the public to stop the construction of the plant,” Butista said.