Metro Clark brushed aside the crucial provisions of the BOT law, that is no TRO or injunction may be issued against national projects.
The government’s plan to make a smart and disaster-resilient community in New Clark City is being torpedoed by a recalcitrant landfill operator.
The Bases Conversion and Development Authority (BCDA) and unit Clark Development Corp. (CDC) have envisioned a new metropolis on an area straddling Pampanga and Tarlac provinces.
New Clark City or Clark Green City will emerge as country’s first green and smart city that can rise to the challenges of climate change. Its development includes the establishment of a modern landfill site
utilizing carbon-neutral technologies and make Clark Green City a hub for premier and tourism destination.
A Danish company specializing in energy-efficient solutions earlier offered to develop a decarbonization framework for New Clark City.
The BCDA is open to the the company’s roadmap for green urban transition. The plan, per a Danfoss Philippines executive, shows how cities can act as ambitious and inspirational front-runners with green technology that creates attractive places to live and work.
Singapore, meanwhile, is lending its hand to develop New Clark City after the recent visit of Singaporean Prime Minister Lawrence Wong to the Philippines this year.
The Clark vision, though, may have to wait if Metro Clark Waste Management Corp., operator of Kalangitan sanitary landfill facilities in Capas, Tarlac, continues to insist on its flawed legal arguments before the Capas, Tarlac Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 66.
Presiding Judge Ronald Leo Haban of Capas (RTC), Branch 66, unfortunately, favored Metro Clark with a temporary restraining order and a subsequent preliminary injunction despite a pending similar case before the Angeles City RTC in Pampanga. The Angeles court has dismissed Metro Clark’s complaint.
The Office of the Government Corporate Counsel (OGCC) has already opined that extending the contract between CDC and Metro Clark beyond October 2024 would be against the Build-Operate-Transfer (BOT) Law, the framework used in bidding and awarding the contract for the project.
Besides, the BCDA maintains that a sanitary landfill is no longer consistent with the government’s vision of transforming New Clark City into a premier investment and tourism destination.
An adamant Metro Clark ignored the provisions of the BOT law and, instead, invoked Republic Act 7652, or the the Investors’ Lease Act.
Metro Clark brushed aside the crucial provisions of the BOT law, that is no TRO or injunction may be issued against national projects. Judge Haban, nonetheless, issued a TRO and injunction against the government bodies implementing the BOT project.
The Capas RTC judge may have exercised a grave abuse of discretion in this case. The Angeles City RTC swiftly identified flaws within the case. It recognized the redundancy of Metro Clark’s filing, identical to the ongoing case in Judge Haban’s court.
In the first place, there should be no dispute regarding the written legal document governing Metro Clark’s occupation of the 100-hectare landfill. It is a contract with an expiration date—a fundamental element of agreements between lessor and lessee.
Metro Clark’s claim of an unwritten provision for a 50-year extension is misleading Any court or judge should clearly recognize the absence of legal authority for Metro Clark to cling to the landfill site without a valid contract.
The lessor is not legally obligated to renew the agreement if it chooses a different utilization for its property. Moreover, any court should have acknowledged its lack of jurisdiction over contractual matters.
The Capas RTC judge should have promptly dismissed the complaint based on forum shopping, as the complainant had initiated the case in another court.
The Capas judge also disregarded Republic Act 8975, which prohibits any court, except the Supreme Court, from issuing TROs or injunctions to impede the government’s progress on national projects, including terminating or rescinding contracts.
Metro Clark had ample time to prepare for its contract expiration. Instead, it resorted to exaggerated scenarios to justify its legal position. It refused to acknowledge the authority of BCDA and CDC by citing weak legal arguments.
The landfill poses an environmental hazard and could threaten local health and safety. By refusing to vacate, Metro Clark endangers the health of the community after conceding that it is unable to continue waste disposal because of the contract expiration.
Its refusal to respect the authority of the CDC and BCDA smacks of disrespect and arrogance.
E-mail: rayenano@yahoo.com or extrastory2000@gmail.com
Be the first to comment