House study urges greater use of Batangas, Subic ports
The government should seriously consider shifting international container traffic to the Batangas and Subic ports to address the problem of congestion in Metro Manila, according to the research body of the House of Representatives.
A policy brief written by the Congressional Policy and Budget Research Department (CPBRD), which studied last year’s staggering congestion problem at the Port of Manila, recommended placing a cap on the volume of shipments to the capital city “in terms of potential additional cost to shippers.”
Released last week, the 17-page report written by Ricardo Mira said that diverting part of the traffic of container trucks to the Batangas and Subic ports should ease the bottleneck in Manila and catalyze growth in outlying regions.
It cited a study by supply chain stakeholders showing that some 70 percent of imported raw materials, equipment and consumer goods went to Metro Manila and northern Cavite, 18 percent to Laguna, six percent to Batangas and Quezon, and the rest to Pampanga and northern areas.
The bulk of exports also come from Metro Manila and northern Cavite, which accounts for 73 percent of outgoing traffic, 15 percent from Laguna, 7 percent from Batangas and Quezon, and the rest from Pampanga and northern areas, it said.
The heavy volume of shipments lead to transport bottlenecks that stunt the growth of the economy. The problem was exacerbated by the Manila truck ban last year, which
disrupted port operations, the report said.
“Various groups have advocated the use of the Batangas and Subic ports as alternatives to the Port of Manila and to deliberately address the issue of underutilization of these ports,” it said.
The Mira report cited a policy paper by the Philippine Chamber of Commerce in 2014 which said that some P17.5 billion was borrowed during the term of Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo to finance the development of the Batangas and Subic ports.
This does not include the P111.1 billion in additional investment for the expressways leading to the two ports.
The CPBRD also proposed separating the regulatory and operational functions of the Philippine Ports Authority (PPA).
“While the Batangas port is under the PPA, the Subic port is owned by the Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority. Thus it may seem challenging for the PPA to strongly promote Subic as a competitor to the PPA-owned ports, including the Port of Manila, because of its potential to erode PPA’s revenues substantially,” it said.
In September 2014, President Aquino signed an executive order declaring the Subic and Batangas ports as extensions of the Manila port during times of congestion and other emergency situations, such as strikes, lockouts and natural calamities.
The Mira report also proposed a number of short-term reform measures, such as shipping out overstaying containers, imposing higher storage fees and having weekend operations.
It also recommended upgrading and modernizing infrastructure, such as a proposal to construct a “mega port” within or outside Manila to support the growing trade volume in the next five to six years.
Finally, the report adopted the proposal of the Joint Foreign Chambers of the Philippines for the formulation of a “comprehensive national transport policy,”
Under the proposed “Master Plan,” Metro Manila would transform into a financial and service hub for tourism, finance, education, and medical and business process outsourcing.
“This would require moving factories and manufacturing activities to the outskirts of Metro Manila, particularly Cavite, Laguna, Bulacan, Pampanga, Batangas and Subic,” the report said.
