Court junks TEPO vs ALQC

CEBU, Philippines — The Regional Trial Court has denied the application for the issuance of a Temporary Environmental Protection Order sought by the survivors of the killer landslide in the City of Naga against the Apo Land and Quarry Corporation for lack of merit and urgency.

In a 14-page decision dated August 16, Regional Trial Court Branch 23 Judge Generosa Labra found no extreme urgency to issue a TEPO. The ruling came less than a month before the first anniversary of the massive landslides in Barangays Tinaan and Naalad on September 20, 2018 killing at least 78 residents and buried over 20 houses. Residents blamed the incident on the quarry operations of ALQC.

The 39 residents of Barangay Tinaan, along with the Philippine Earth Justice Center, who filed a P4.5 billion class suit, asked the court to issue a TEPO following the expiration of the 72-hour TEPO issued earlier by the RTC Branch 65 in the City of Naga on November 9 last year.

According to the court, the plaintiffs failed to present any evidence and memorandum to support its allegations that there is further aggravation of the cracks in the ALQC’s quarry site that will result to soil erosion or landslide in the barangays of Tinaan, Naalad, Inoburan, Mainit and Cabungahan. 

Labra said the judicial affidavits attached to the complaint and those submitted during the pendency of the case pertained only to the landslide on September 20, 2018. Defendant ALQC claimed the alleged cracks appearing at the crown of the landslide are natural consequence of the landslide incident and are mere surface cracks being addressed by its Hazard Reduction Plan (HRP).

During its site visit at the ground zero and ALQC’s quarry site on May 29, the court observed the benching activities and stabilization of the landslide area under the HRP.

The plaintiffs were not round during the ocular inspection. Labra said the complainants failed to prove all the elements for the issuance of a TEPO.

She ruled that there is no extreme urgency and no present or imminent danger or threat that could result to grave injustice and irreparable injury of the plaintiffs. This was after the ALQC had already stopped its quarry operation by virtue of the suspension orders issued by Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Mines and Geosciences Bureau, Environmental Management Bureau and the Naga City government in September 2018, contrary to claim of the plaintiff that the ALQC and other quarry firms are now back in business. Said suspension orders are still in full force and effect to date, the court said.

“Considering that the function of a TEPO is to direct or enjoin any person or government agency to perform or desist from performing an act in order to protect, preserve, or rehabilitate the environment, if there is no existing act that is sought to be prevented (quarry operation), then there could be no extreme urgency for the issuance of a TEPO,” the order read.

It added that the precautionary principle invoked by the complainants does not apply in the cases since there is no doubt in the evidence available.

“While plaintiffs failed to present evidence to establish the connection between the alleged acts of Defendant ALQC and the alleged environmental damage, Defendant ALQC was able to present evidentiary proofs that the elements for the issuance of TEPO are wanting in this cases,” it said.

Lawyer Benjamin Cabrido of the Philippine Earth Justice Center said they will ask for reconsideration from the court.

“We’ll ask for reconsideration of the denial of our plea for a Temporary Protection Order,” Cabrido said in a text message to The Freeman.

He said that while there is a subsisting administrative suspension order on ALQC quarry operations issued by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the quarry activities allegedly continue unabated in the guise of slope protection and removal.

Cabrido vowed to bring the matter before the Court of Appeals by certiorari if they don’t get a favorable decision from the lower court. ALQC publicist Cerwin Eviota refused to issue a statement.--  FPL (FREEMAN)