By Rey E. Requejo

The Manila City government yesterday urged the Supreme Court to dismiss the motions for reconsideration filed by the Department of Energy alongside Shell, Petron and Chevron, formerly Caltex, who are opposed to the removal of the oil depot from Pandacan.

In a 58-page memorandum, Mayor Lito Atienza said the claim of economic loss by the so-called “big three” oil firms cannot supercede the right of life, safety and security of the people in the city.

He said City Ordinance 8119 did not constitute a legal impediment to the execution of the March 7, 2007 decision of the tribunal.

Atienza also stressed that the implementation of Ordinance 8027 would not encroach on the energy office’s authority to regulate critical and vital activities involving energy products and resources.

He filed the memorandum on order of the SC during the oral arguments on the Pandacan oil depot issue held in Baguio City last April 11.

Earlier, the high tribunal ordered the Manila City government to immediately enforce Ordinance 8027, which took effect in December 2001, and called for the shutting down of the terminal and the re-classification of the districts of Pandacan and Sta. Ana where the oil depot is located, from industrial to commercial use.

In its decision written by Associate Justice Renato Corona, the First Division granted the petition filed by Social Justice Society and Manila residents Vladimir Cabigao and Bonifacio Tumbokon to compel the city government to enforce Ordinance 8027.

The high court’s ruling prompted the energy department to file an intervention through a motion for reconsideration, seeking a reversal of its March 7 decision, ordering the city government to remove and relocate the oil depot in Pandacan.

The energy office argued that Ordinance 8119, which was passed on June 16, 2006, allowed the oil depot in Pandacan to continue operating and gave the three oil companies using the depot—Petron, Shell and Caltex (now Chevron)—a grace period of seven years to transfer to another site.

The three firms have also earlier filed a separate motion before the high court asking it to reconsider its March 7 decision.

The energy department noted that Ordinance 8119 was passed into law while the case was pending before the high tribunal, and none of the parties informed it about the case.

In ordering the removal of the Pandacan oil depot, the High Court cited a possible terrorist threat to the depot in the wake of the Sept. 11 terrorist attack.

The SC said the city government of Manila should implement Ordinance 8027 “as long as it has not been repealed by the Manila City Council or annulled by the courts.”

But the energy office insisted that Ordinance 8119 had repealed Ordinance 8027 over the re-zoning of Pandacan.

Ordinance 8027 gave oil companies six months to cease its operations and relocate while Ordinance 8119 gave them seven years to phase out.

The energy office warned against the move, noting the rationing of fuel due to supply shortage, and that the firms would adjust their prices to recoup their losses.

During the oral arguments, at least three Supreme Court justices rebuked the three oil firms for failing to find a relocation site.

Associate Justices Angelina Sandoval-Gutierrez, Cancio Garcia and Renato Corona, also criticized the firms’ officials for intervening in the case only after the high court made a decision on March 7, granting the petition for mandamus filed by Social Justice System and several Manila residents who are seeking to compel the Manila city officials to enforce Ordinance 8027.

The magistrates were unconvinced by the firms’ assurance that no lives would be lost even if terrorists attacked the oil terminals in Pandacan.