Punchline
The economic saboteurs in Pangasinan
By Ermin Garcia Jr.
THE cable thieves are digging up underground cables and cutting wires off electric posts all over the province like picking apples in a farm.
That is not as shocking as much as knowing that the governor’s office, the provincial board and provincial police have not gotten their acts together to stop the widespread pilferage that can no longer be ignored.
Pure and simple, the unabated theft of cables vital for delivery of communication and power is an act of economic sabotage, not merely a case of ordinary theft.
How can the Espino administration continue to declare that the province is a business-friendly province where investments are protected when it cannot even assure continued communication and power service to investors?
Millions-worth of cables have already been lost to the cable theft syndicate operating in the province and one can only wonder why the provincial police has not even gathered enough intelligence to identify, arrest the culprits and stop the rampage?
Intelligence is the key but are the police already in the pockets of the syndicate?
* * * * *
If there is any useful justification for the earlier issuance of shotguns to barangay kapitans in the province, that opportunity is finally here. The wrong reason for its issuance was again affirmed by the incident in Bugallon.
The kapitans should load their shotguns this minute and authorize tanod chiefs to use it to patrol roads and highways nightly till 5 a. m. in search of the economic saboteurs. Perhaps, the kapitans and their tanods can do a better job than the police this time.
The provincial board, on the other hand, should consider passing an ordinance making the theft, sale and purchase of stolen cables in the province as an act of economic sabotage, with corresponding penalty, possibly including a proviso making it as a no-bail offense in the province.
* * * * *
WAKE UP CALL. The tragic incident in Baguio City should be enough wake up call for the provincial government (and the Dagupan City government) to begin strictly enforcing the Ecological Waste Management Act of 2000.
The good news is, there is finally one sanitary landfill in Pangasinan that can serve as a good testimonial to break down the resistance of communities in hosting sanitary landfill.
There are huge benefits for hosting a sanitary landfill as the Urdaneta experience will tell us. In addition to making the community cleaner, a landfill provides huge revenue opportunities for the host community.
Curiously, the law says provincial, city and municipal solid waste management boards must be organized. How many are organized in the province? The boards are tasked to develop and implement Local Government Solid Waste Management Plans.
Guv Spines is the special representative of the DENR Secretary charged with the task of overseeing the implementation of laws aimed at protecting the environment. Methinks it is high time the Guv calls for a summit on the implementation of the basic aspects of the law before it’s too late.
* * * * *
Just for the quick reference of the public, here is the list of “Prohibited Acts” under the law. Seeing any of these being committed in your communities is instructive of how complacent and incompetent your city/town officials are. Take note:
“(1) Littering, throwing, dumping of waste matters in public places, such as roads, sidewalks, canals, esteros or parks, and establishment, or causing or permitting the same; (2) Undertaking activities or operating, collecting or transporting equipment in violation of sanitation operation and other requirements or permits set forth in or established pursuant to this Act; (3) The open burning of solid waste; (4) Causing or permitting the collection of non-segregated or unsorted waste;
(5) Squatting in open dumps and landfills; (6) Open dumping, burying of biodegradable or non-biodegradable materials in flood-prone areas; (7) Unauthorized removal of recyclable material intended for collection by authorized persons; (8) The mixing of source-separated recyclable material with other solid waste in any vehicle, box, container or receptacle used in solid waste collection or disposal; (9) Establishment or operation of open dumps as enjoined in this Act, or closure of said dumps in violation of Sec. 37;
(10) The manufacture, distribution or use of non-environmentally acceptable packaging materials; (11) Importation of consumer products packaged in non-environmentally acceptable materials; (12) Importation of toxic wastes misrepresented as “recyclable” or “with recyclable content”; (13) Transport and dumping in bulk of collected domestic, industrial, commercial and institutional wastes in areas other than centers of facilities prescribed under this Act;
(14) Site preparation, construction, expansion or operation of waste management facilities without an Environmental Compliance Certificate required pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 1586 and this Act and not conforming with the land use plan of the LGU; (15) The construction of any establishment within two hundred (200) meters from open dumps or controlled dumps or sanitary landfills; and (16) The construction or operation of landfills or any waste disposal facility on any aquifer, groundwater reservoir or watershed area and or any portions thereof;”
Note: Section 37 of the law specifies the “Prohibition Against the Use of Open Dumps for Solid Waste.” It reads “No open dumps shall be established and operated, nor any practice or disposal of solid waste by any person, including LGUs, which constitutes the use of open dumps for solid waste, be allowed after the effectivity of this Act: Provided, That within three (3) years after the effectivity of this Act, every LGU shall convert its open dumps into controlled dumps, provided further, that no controlled dumps shall be allowed five (5) years following effectivity of this Act.”
Incidentally, any resident who is gravely affected by these flagrant violations in his/her community can file a case against the mayor of the city/town before the Ombudsman or the regional trial court for damages invoking the writ of kalikasan for criminal negligence in enforcing the Ecological Waste Management Act of 2000.
(Atty. Antonio Oposa has filed and won cases vs. negligent public officials).
* * * * *
VISION AND CORRUPTION. Dagupan Mayor Benjie Lim has been heard to regale friends about his vision in the city. Most impressive is his plan to transform the landscape of the city with a series of innovations in land use and development. To him, I say Great! And Godspeed! It’s a legacy that’s worth keeping for generations to remember. If I may add, do it quick…but above all do it within the bounds of law and stop the hanky-panky part.
Mr. Lim is no doubt an enterprising and imaginative person, qualities of an ideal pubic servant. However, he continues to disappoint many (including this corner) because he is found to have surreptitiously allowed use of public projects as opportunities for graft and corruption in his office.
The most scandalous project that I have come across so far was using the feeding program for indigent children as an occasion for people in his administration to milk public funds by paying for grossly overpriced (by 200-300%) basic goods and food for hefty kickbacks.
Now comes the “deal” being hatched for the “Daongan sa Dawel” in support of the laudable tourism plan for the city. He’s about to ask the city to reimburse him (or his contractor) P11 million after refusing to be transparent from the very beginning and without observing the legal process as required by law.
To pursue a vision for corruption is insidious and hypocritical.
Share your Comments or Reactions
Powered by Facebook Comments
