Other forms of protests seen vs Subic coal plant
SUBIC BAY FREEPORT—Groups opposing a 600-megawatt coal-fired power plant here admitted that the Supreme Court (SC) decision paving the way for the plant’s construction was a “major setback.”
But despite the high court ruling that reversed a Court of Appeals (CA) decision stopping the project, the groups vowed to pursue the fight and oppose the construction.
“The SC decision only strengthens our resolve to stop the Redondo Peninsula Energy Inc. (RP Energy) coal-fired power plant,” Kabataan party-list Rep. Terry Ridon said in a text message on Wednesday.
Ridon, also lawyer of groups in the Subic Bay Freeport that petitioned for a Writ of Kalikasan in the CA, said they would file a motion for reconsideration as soon as they receive a copy of the SC decision.
RP Energy is a consortium of firms composed of the Manila Electric Co. (Meralco), Aboitiz Power and Taiwan Cogeneration Corp.
On June 28, 2010, RP Energy signed a 50-year lease development agreement with the Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority (SBMA) for use of 38 hectares in the free port.
Mt. Redondo in Subic town in Zambales province is the proposed site of the coal plant.
The Inquirer sought SBMA Chair Roberto Garcia but he declined to comment, saying he has yet to receive a copy of the SC decision.
In reversing the CA decision, the SC upheld the validity of the environmental compliance certificate (ECC) issued by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources on Dec. 22, 2008.
The SC also denied the Writ of Kalikasan that militant groups and the No to Coal in Subic Bay Broader Coalition, a group of environmental and renewable energy advocates, filed in the high court.
“We were surprised that the SC reversed the CA findings based on a technicality instead of confirming the actual defects in the contract and the ECC,” Ridon said.
Alex Hermoso, lead convenor of Zambales-Olongapo Civil Society Network, said his group would seek other avenues to stop the project despite the SC ruling.
“What is more valid is the refusal of the people of Olongapo, Subic and part of Bataan [province] to accept the coal-fired power plant,” Hermoso said in a post on the Facebook page “No to Coal Plant in Subic Bay.”
He said the high court failed to consider other arguments, including the project’s impact on the environment and health of residents around the area.
“How about the pristine beaches and luscious forest of Subic? How about our health and that of our children? How about climate change that affects the entire planet, mainly due to pollution from coal plants?” he said.
Jen Velarmino-van der Heijde, one of the leaders of the anti-coal plant groups, said the SC ruling could be the “biggest crisis” in the fight to stop the coal project.
“Most of the decision makers in our free port, in our province, in our country, have their own important agenda except for the basic: keeping the environment safe, the people healthy,” she said on the same Facebook page.
Members of the Subic Bay Chamber for Health and Environment Conservation (SBCHEC) said while they were “deeply disappointed with the SC decision, they would respect its ruling.”
“We maintain our position that a coal-fired power plant is detrimental to the environment and the health of the people. We remain strongly opposed to the location of a coal-fired power plant in Subic Bay,” the group said in a statement sent to the Inquirer.
SBCHEC, co-organizer of No to Coal in Subic Bay Broader Coalition, said coal is a “dying fuel” and they believed it will be banned worldwide within 10 years.
“It is foolish for RP Energy to build something that will soon be banned by the world. It is foolish for the Philippines to allow such investments,” the group said.
The group said it was hoping that Meralco would instead build a power plant fueled with natural gas. “Renewable energy options are growing every day. We encourage Meralco to build power plants in Subic Bay based on renewable energy,” it said.
The group also said Subic has one of the last remaining lowland dipterocarp forests in the country. “We stand by the preservation of Subic Bay’s natural beauty, the conservation of its environment and health of the people,” SBCHEC said.
