Binaliw: The need for clarity amid outrage

Cebu City Councilor Joel Garganera revealed in recent media interviews that the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) has allowed the limited reopening of the private landfill facility in Barangay Binaliw operated by Prime Integrated Waste Solutions, Inc. (PIWSI). This is the same facility where a massive trash slide occurred last January, killing 36 sanitation workers and injuring 18 others after heavy rain caused a mountain of garbage to collapse.

Garganera said Mayor Nestor Archival received DENR-7 communication on the limited reopening but did not provide the City Council with a copy. DENR-7 clarified that the partial lifting applies only to a designated interim cell, not to the entire landfill.

At first glance, this development is jarring. It almost sounds as if, while no one was looking, the facility was quietly allowed to resume operations, albeit on a limited basis, while the wounds from the January tragedy remain fresh.

But precisely because it is jarring, we should be careful not to react instinctively. A cautious response is to examine how the process actually works. What exactly was lifted? Who has the authority to issue the clearance? What safety assessments were made? And who has the duty to inform whom about any action concerning the facility?

Under our laws, LGUs have a duty to implement or enforce solid waste law and protect public welfare. Meanwhile, environmental standards compliance monitoring are primarily within DENR’s regulatory domain. Thus, the scope and timing of release of any document are bound by DENR processes and disclosure policies.

But even if the DENR allowed a “limited reopening”, the city government can still act through its various offices to ensure proper solid waste management enforcement, pursuant to its general welfare duty to protect health and safety of its residents. The City Council, on the other hand, can investigate in aid of legislation. It may want to look into whether city waste disposal decisions were properly authorized, or whether the city’s own contingency plans, hauling contracts, and disaster risk reduction measures were adequate.

However, Garganera said the City Council could not properly assess safety, rehabilitation, traffic, and disaster-response concerns because it lacked the documents. Perhaps the City Council can adopt a resolution formally requesting the necessary documents from the DENR Environmental Management Bureau (EMB). Indeed, the people of Cebu City deserve to know the written basis for, and the conditions attached to, the “limited reopening” of the landfill, as well as the EMB findings and monitoring results relating to safety-critical compliance. A resolution would institutionalize the request as an act of the City Council, which generally carries more weight in inter-agency coordination.

And while waiting for the DENR to produce the documents, the council can require the city’s own officials to brief them about the city’s waste disposal arrangement with the facility (if any), safety protocols implemented after the tragic January incident, and DRRM measures, geohazard assessment steps, and contingency plans. This is in line with the LGU’s statutory duty to ensure local solid waste facilities comply with regulations.

The idea is to stay true to the policy of Republic Act No. 9003, or the Ecological Solid Waste Management Act of 2000, by promoting public participation and fostering cooperation among national agencies and local government units. The DENR, for example, has visitorial and enforcement powers to ensure compliance with RA 9003. The City Council can urge formal coordination with the DENR-EMB, but the mayor need not wait for such formal resolution. Given the public safety concerns involved, the mayor should act immediately and coordinate with the DENR-EMB for inspections, compliance verification, and monitoring of the facility.

At some point, complaining about who missed what, who failed to act, or who kept whom in the dark becomes pointless. The laws and policies are already there. They provide the guidelines and guardrails meant to prevent precisely this kind of confusion.

Blame, or the demand for accountability, has its place. Someone must answer for what happened last January, and someone must explain why the public should now be assured that it will not happen again. But it need not dictate the entire news cycle on the issue. The media also has the duty to clarify. If the public is left angry but not informed, the outrage eventually fades and nothing changes, as so often happens in this country.