Is VFA a shield for toxic waste dumping?

A new factor has been added to the usual grounds raised for questioning the benefits that the government claims to receive from the yearly US-Phl military exercises under the Visiting Forces Agreement.

The toxic waste dumped by American warships in Philippine waters is an issue arising from last month’s joint military exercises, the latest of a series conducted this year involving 37 US warships altogether. 

A Malaysian-owned shipping subsidiary, Glenn Defense Marine Asia Philippines Inc. — contracted by the US Navy to service its warships used in the exercises — is being investigated by the Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority for the alleged toxic-waste dumping.

The SBMA took its cue from:

1)  Test results of the waste-water samples taken by the SBMA Ecology Center from two of the firm’s tankers, showing levels of toxicity going beyond the standards set by international marine pollution conventions; and 

2) Information from the captain of Glenn Guardian, one of the vessels inspected, that the liquid waste had been dumped 37 kilometers, or 20 nautical miles, off Subic Bay.

Moreover, the dumping was done allegedly without the permission of either the SBMA-EC or the Coast Guard. The Coast Guard had reportedly told the captain that a permit from its office was required because the waste was dumped in Philippine territory.

Thus, the SBMA-EC issued a “show cause” letter asking the firm to explain why it dumped the wastes without permission and why it did not treat the wastes before dumping.

“There are treatment plants in Central Luzon, where the wastes should have been brought first” before dumping, SBMA chair Roberto Garcia pointed out.  

But instead of confronting the issue, Glenn Defense Marine Asia Phil., through its Filipino lawyers, invoked the VFA to claim that the SBMA had no jurisdiction to investigate it. Its operations have to do with servicing US ships used in the military exercises, the firm claimed, and fall within the jurisdiction of the VFA Commission, formed through Executive Order No. 199 issued on Jan. 17, 2010.  

The lawyers, from the Villaraza Cruz Marcelo and Angangco law office, argued that their client firm’s “marine husbandry and logistics support services” were “solely and exclusively to US Navy vessels” visiting the Philippines pursuant to the VFA. In its reply to the show-cause letter, GDMAP said:

“With all due respect, it is our client’s position that its support vessels are not commercial vessels that are subject to the regulation of your office. Rather, the support vessels solely operate for the benefit of the US armed forces under the stated provisions of the VFA. As such, (the vessels) are in the country for at most several days per visit and engage in no other business or purpose except to service visiting US Navy vessels.”

The servicing firm also expressed umbrage over the action of an unnamed Filipino firm that alerted the SBMA about its alleged violations. It remonstrated:

“We find it unfortunate that interlopers with perceived competing business interests continue to harass our client and continue to lobby against the operations of its support vessels, thereby jeopardizing our country’s ability to comply in good faith with its treaty obligations and adversely impact on our national security as it gives rise to doubts on our dependability as a defense and treaty ally of the United States of America.”

One gets a gust of hubris and self-righteousness from the tone and language of this letter-response. 

The response implies that because its support vessels operate “solely… for the benefit of the US armed forces” in the context of the VFA, the firm can get away with flouting Philippine laws — in this instance, our environmental laws. This bitterly reminds us of numerous criminal violations of our laws by US troops in the past, from which they escaped accountability by invoking controversial treaty provisions in their favor.

Yet, by citing the complaint of “interlopers with perceived competing business interests,” the letter-response let slip the fact that GDMAP is a registered SBMA locator, to which Garcia firmly reacted:

“Our position is that they are (bound by our laws). They cannot claim that the VFA is their defense... As far as I am concerned, if they violate environmental laws — even if it’s the US Navy — they are liable.”

Hurrah for Garcia for taking this stand!

The SBMA chief did not leave matters at that. Besides violating environmental laws, GDMAP vessels also violated seaport rules. Stressing that the public has the right to know of such violations, Garcia added:

“If any ship comes and goes (within the free port), they have to notify the free port authorities. They didn’t.” 

 It’s interesting to note that the GDMAP head, as chair and chief executive officer, is retired Philippine Navy Chief Vice Adm. Mateo Mayuga. He is thus expected to be knowledgeable of naval and Coast Guard laws. 

Yes, he’s the same guy who, as AFP inspector general, headed a panel that investigated generals linked to the “Hello Garci!” election fraud scandal in 2004. The Mayuga Report submitted by his panel in 1995 was withheld from the public until after the Arroyo government exited.

*      *      *

E-mail: [email protected]