|
By Ma. Ester L. Espina,
Correspondent
BACOLOD CITY: The Office of the
President may just become the newest respondent to the case filed by
environmentalists against the Energy Development Corporation (EDC),
Environment Sec. Lito Atienza and the Protected Area Management
Board (PAMB).
In a highly tensed hearing of
motions at the sala of Judge Rodney Bulonia in the Regional Trial
Court here, the Solicitor General’s office represented by Senior
State Solicitor Thomas Laragan, acting as counsel to Atienza said,
the local courts have no jurisdiction to even hear the case since
“indispensable parties” to the case, including the President, is
absent as respondents.
The case was filed by members of
the Save Mount Kanlaon Coalition, seeking a temporary restraining
order to prevent EDC from entering the buffer zone of Mount Kanlaon
Natural Park for their geothermal expansion program.
Bulonia ordered the petitioners,
represented by lawyer, Andrea Si, to file a position paper amending
their case and include in their pleadings so-called “indispensable
parties” or answer the motion of dismissal filed by the Solicitor
General within seven days.
Agreeing with the argument of the
respondents, Bulonia said there were procedural matters that were
not followed and had the petitioners insisted for a ruling, the case
would have been dismissed outright.
Indispensable parties apart from
the President, in this case to be represented by Exec. Sec. Eduardo
Ermita may also include the Department of Energy, the provincial
government and the localities of Murcia and Bago City for endorsing
the entry of EDC into the buffer zone.
The case filed by Si questioned
the constitutionality of the law allowing the entry of EDC into the
169-hectare buffer zone.
The law was created and signed by
then-President Fidel Ramos, through Presidential Proclamation 1005
in May 1997 declaring portions of Negros Occidental as part of Mount
Kanlaon Natural Park, of which 1,437 hectares shall be allocated and
devoted to exploration, development and utilization of geothermal
energy resources.
The Solicitor General said that
this makes the President “an indispensable party,” but because
of the right to immunity by the office, in this case, if the
opposition will include indispensable parties as respondents, it
will be Ermita who will represent the President in the case.
“Indispensable parties are
those with such an interest in the controversy that a final decree
would necessarily affect their rights, so that the court cannot
proceed without their presence,” the Solgen’s motion cited.
“The absence of an
indispensable party renders all subsequent actions of the court null
and void for want of authority to act,” Laragan added.
Laragan also asked the petitioners to clarify what acts do the
complainant feel are illegal or unconstitutional so their counsels
can prepare their answers.
“The parties concerned are not
here so how can we proceed,” Laragan said, adding that it is a
mandatory obligation of the accuser to bring in parties concerned in
this case.
Si however said they will
re-think their position as “we have no quarrel with the provincial
government” nor with other indispensable parties that may be
needed to be cited as part of the case.
During the hearing, Si countered
that the solicitor general’s motion is simply another delaying
tactic “and meanwhile, trees are being cut down at the buffer
zone” to pave the way for EDC’s civil works.
But Bulonia said the court could
not issue even a 72-hour temporary restraining order as sought by
the petitioners as “the non-presence of parties here prohibits
this court from acting on the matter.”
Meanwhile, counsels for PAMB and
EDC said they have not filed any individual motion as they are
joining the solicitor general’s manifestation.
EDC Counsel, Alexis Jacoma said
contrary to the claims of the petitioners, “we are not violating
the law, we are in fact complying with it and it took us more than
seven years to comply with the requirements of the law.”
Si, clearly dejected said “we
tried our best to save the forest,” but would not comment when
asked whether they got a fair day in court.
|
