More benefits sought for barangay officials

Benefits that barangay (village) officials are getting under pro-visions of the Local Government Code are not commensurate to their duties and functions, according to a lawmaker.

The provisions enumerating benefits and privileges for the barangay officials “leave much to be desired,” Rep. Sherwin Gatchalian of Valenzuela City (Metro Manila) on Sunday said, adding that their political jurisdiction may be small but their duties are expansive.

Under the law, village officials including village watchmen and members of the peace board are entitled to honoraria, allowances and other emoluments as may be authorized by law or village, municipal or city ordinance “but in no case shall it be less than one thousand pesos per month for the [village chief] and six hundred pesos per month for the [council] members, [treasurer] and [secretary].”

During incumbency, they are also entitled to insurance coverage and free medical care in any government hospital or institution provided that such includes surgery or surgical expenses, medicines, X-rays, laboratory fees and other hospital expenses.

In case of emergency where there is no available government hospital or institution, the village official concerned may submit himself for immediate medical attendance to the nearest private clinic, hospital or institution and expenses not exceeding P5,000 that may be incurred are chargeable against village funds.

They are also exempted from paying tuition and matriculation fees for their children who attend state colleges or universities, and may also avail of such educational benefits in a state college or university within the province or city where the barangay is.

Gatchalian proposed an increase in the emoluments that village chiefs receive that shall be not less than P5,000 a month under House Bill (HB) 5245.

Village council members, village youth council chairman, village treasurer and village secretary shall receive not less than P3,000 a month and village watchmen and members of the peace board shall receive not less than P2,000 per month in benefits, under the proposed measure.

HB 5245 also aims to change the at least P1,000 in Christmas bonus provided by law for the village chief, village council members, village treasurer and village secretary.

The measure provides that the Christmas bonus shall be at least P2,000 each for village chiefs, village treasurer, village secretary and members of the peace board.

Barangay officials shall also have a P1,000-each hazard duty pay during incumbency; another P1,000 for representation and transportation allowances; productivity incentive bonus of the same amount and; clothing allowance of P1,000 per year.

“A microcosm of the government, which by itself is authorized to enact laws, enforce them…, the barangay officials are on-call 24/7 for the welfare of their constituencies,” Gatchalian said.

“If we are to effectively give to local government units the self-sufficiency that the government envisions, we must be able to provide the conditions conducive to a productive leadership,” he added.

source:  Manila Times

All about LBT

LIKE IT OR NOT, the Christmas rush is upon us. The harried nature of the season is often characterized by inexplicable traffic, overcrowded shopping centers, work deadlines before the end of the year and calendars marked by this or that party or reunion.

After the Christmas season and just when we are about to heave a sigh of collective relief -- another equally busy season comes rushing in and this is the period for the renewal of business permits.

The Local Government Code requires all business entities to renew their business permits and pay their local business taxes (LBT) on or before the 20th of January of each year. The deadline applies to all cities and municipalities in the country. The Code, however, allows local government units (LGUs) to extend the time of payment but only for a justifiable reason or cause.

Note that the extended deadline only pertains to the payment date, which means that applicants for business permit renewal should still submit and file all the necessary documents beginning the first working day of January and only until the 20th thereof.

Some LGUs usually extend the payment date until the end of January. Quarterly payments of LBT may be allowed in some cases but some LGUs give discounts to businesses that opt to pay the full amount in a single payment.

Based on experience, applications for renewal of business permits with complete supporting documents submitted a day or a few days after the 20th of January, particularly in LGUs within the Metro Manila area, are considered as late filing, and will trigger penalties and surcharges based on the amount of LBT assessed.

Businesses that are liable to pay a large amount of business tax must ensure that applications are duly filed and LBT paid within the deadline; otherwise, the penalties and surcharges will likewise be great.

Most, if not all, LGUs only start accepting applications on the first working day of January, and not a day earlier. Given the tight deadline, prudence dictates that businesses start preparing and gathering all the required documents for renewal as early as October or November. Such documents include the audited financial statements, if applicable, and statements of gross receipts and value-added tax (VAT) returns filed -in the preceding year. If not earning income, such as in the case of a representative office, an Affidavit of No Income is normally required by some LGUs aside from other documentation.

The procedures for renewal and payment may vary from one LGU to another so it pays to know the specific steps and processes early on to avoid the risk of mistakes and having to start all over again with the January 20th deadline looming near.

Another thing to consider is the Papal Visit of Pope Francis which coincides with the renewal season. The City of Manila has declared January 16 to 19, 2015 as holidays, thereby reducing the available dates for filing applications in Manila. LGUs where the Pope is scheduled to visit may likewise declare holidays in the coming days. It is hoped that deadline extensions in these areas are declared as well.

Before the renewal period starts, concerned businesses must also take heed of certain policies of some LGUs when it comes to the assessment and collection of LBT. Some impose LBT on PEZA-registered entities based on the gross receipts generated by their non-PEZA registered activities.

By law, PEZA-registered entities are exempt from paying LBT regardless of whether they are enjoying income tax holiday or are under the 5% gross income tax regime. However some LGUs insist that the tax incentives apply only to PEZA-registered activities and not to “unregistered” ones. This reasoning may perhaps be the result of a BIR ruling which imposed regular income tax on income generated by PEZA-registered enterprises from activities which are not covered by their PEZA registration.

Another issue that commonly arises in the payment of LBT is the proper situs of the tax where the business entity has branches, sales offices, project offices, and plants scattered in different cities and provinces but maintains a head or principal office in a different area.

In one fairly recent decision, the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) ruled that the City of Makati should not be allocated any LBT by virtue of a so-called project office as declared by a taxpayer. In that case, the taxpayer treated its office in Makati City as one of three project offices and/or plants, and allocated a portion of its LBT payment thereto. The court ruled that since said office in Makati is not indispensable to the main purpose of the company, it cannot be treated as a project office, hence the allocation of LBT to that Makati office was held to be improper and without basis.

Holders of government or legislative franchises must also take note of a recent CTA decision which declared that an LGU may impose both the LBT and the local franchise tax on the gross receipts and sale of the same taxpayer in the same year. A prominent cable company called this imposition double taxation and questioned the legality of such a move. The CTA then ruled that there is no double taxation if the franchise holders pay both the LBT and franchise tax in the same year because the two taxes are different in nature -- LBT is based on the privilege of engaging in business while franchise tax is imposed on the exercise of enjoying a franchise.

In sum, I advise all applicants for business permit renewals to start and prepare early, determine the procedures and requirements adopted by your concerned LGUs before the renewal period, know your rights and remedies in case of erroneous LBT assessments and most important, have a merry renewal season. Happy Holidays!

Susan M. Aquino is a senior manager at the tax services department of Isla Lipana & Co., the Philippine member firm of the PwC network.

(02) 845-2728

susan.m.aquino@ph.pwc.com

source:  Businessworld

Experts flag depot site’s dev’t needs

EVEN with a relatively cheap price tag of just P30,000-40,000 per square meter (/sq.m.), the 30-hectare site which the Pandacan oil depot now occupies will need more than a mere face-lift to turn into a business district, property experts said when asked on the Manila City government’s plan for the area.

“[M]uch infrastructure work needs to be done to transform this area. The roads are too narrow and traffic congestion will be an issue,” Julius M. Guevara, director of Research and Advisory Services of Colliers International Philippines, said in a text message last Sunday.

David T. Leechiu, country head of Jones Lang Lasalle Leechiu, Inc., said separately that Manila “badly needs” the planned redevelopment because urban decay is already setting in. “The conversion is easy; what is hard is who will build the infrastructure,” he said by phone on Sunday.

Infrastructure required includes roads, water treatment, sewage treatment, electricity, parking, and storm drainage facilities, Mr. Leechiu said.

While he described the city government’s land valuation of P30,000-40,000/sq.m. as “fair,” he noted the area’s problem with persistent flooding.

“Pandacan is a central area, with access to Quezon City, Mandaluyong, and San Juan, so a business district may work,” Mr. Guevara said.

He noted that Manila, being “one of the densest cities in the metropolis,” has a “high labor base” that could be tapped.

“We’ve had a lot of discussions with major developers, I’m sure they’re looking at it already,” Jose Carmelo J. Porciuncula, head of Capital Markets and Investments at KMC MAG Group, Inc., said in an interview on Nov. 26.

Mr. Porciuncula also cited the site’s attractiveness, noting “limited access to large chunks of land” in Metro Manila. “And of course the more land you have, the more flexibility you have in terms of development,” he said.

However, Mr. Leechiu warned that interested developers should conduct “due diligence” on the property and be aware of possible environmental problems.

“That site has been an oil depot for 20-30 years. I’m sure the oil firms took care of the site, but you’ll never know; so the developers have to do their checks,” Mr. Leechiu said.

On Nov. 27, Manila Vice-Mayor Francisco “Isko Moreno” Domagoso said the City of Manila plans to talk to major developers for conversion of the site into a business hub, particularly Ayala Land,Inc., Megaworld Corp., Robinsons Land, Inc., SM Prime Holdings, Inc., and Federal Land, Inc.

On Nov. 25, the Supreme Court, sitting en banc, voted 10-2 against Manila City Ordinance No. 8187, enacted under former mayor Alfredo S. Lim, saying it was “unconstitutional and invalid with respect to the continuing stay of the Pandacan oil terminals.” That 2009 ordinance had repealed a November 2001 precedent, Ordinance No. 8027 enacted during the administration of former mayor Jose L. Atienza, Jr., that reclassified parts of Pandacan and Sta. Ana districts as commercial from industrial on grounds of safety.

On the same day, the high court also ordered Chevron Philippines, Inc; Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corp.; and Petron Corp. to submit to Manila Regional Trial Court Branch 39 updated comprehensive relocation plans and schedules within 45 days. Relocation, in turn, should be completed not later than six months afterwards.

source:  Businessworld

SC to Comelec: Carry out Puerto Princesa recall elections

The High Court cites the Commission on Elections' fiscal autonomy and the chairman's power to augment items in its budget from savings to fund the exercise

MANILA, Philippines (UPDATED) – The Supreme Court has ordered the Commission on Elections (Comelec) to conduct recall elections against Puerto Princesa City Mayor Lucilo Bayron.

Voting 12-0 on Tuesday, November 25, the Supreme Court en banc ruled in favor of petitioner Alroben Goh and set aside two Comelec resolutions that suspended all proceedings on pending recall petitions, including that in Puerto Princesa, due to lack of funds.

"We hold that the Comelec committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing Resolution Nos. 9864 and 9882," the SC decision said.

The Court cited the Comelec's fiscal autonomy, and the Comelec chairman's power to augment items in its budget from its savings. There is no need, therefore, to secure a supplemental budget from Congress to conduct recall elections in 2014, it said.

It also pointed to an existing line item appropriation in the 2014 national budget – in the "Programs" category of the poll body's budget – for the conduct of recall polls, which is among Comelec's constitutional mandates.

"Should the funds in the 2014 budget be deemed insufficient, the Comelec chairman "may exercise his authority to augment such line item appropriation from the Comelec's existing savings, as this augmentation is expressly authorized in the 2014 [General Appropriations Act]," the SC ruling said.

The Comelec has yet to receive a copy of the Court's decision as of posting time.

Goh, former Puerto Princesa City administrator, filed the recall petition against Bayron before the Comelec early this year, citing the "loss of trust and confidence" in him as city mayor. (Fast Facts: The recall process)

In April, through Comelec Resolution No. 9864, the Comelec certified the sufficiency of the petition, but suspended any proceeding in furtherance thereof – including the verification of signatures on the petition and the conduct of the recall election itself – due to lack of funds.

The following month, the Comelec issued Resolution No. 9882, suspending all proceedings on recall petitions until the funding issue is resolved.

On November 21, the poll body resumed taking up recall petitions by partially lifting its suspension order. In the case of the Puerto Princesa petition, the Comelec allowed Goh's request to publish the petition for 3 weeks. – Rappler.com

For whom are our fishes?

A COUPLE OF years ago, while sitting on a sandy beach on a Cebu island north of Malapascua, I had a thought-provoking conversation with an artisanal (non-motorized) fisherman. In response to my question on how his livelihood was going for him, he said that fish catch was getting lower and lower, like never before.

When I asked him if there was dynamite fishing in the area, he said the problem was really because the big fishing boats which used purse seines (giant fishing nets) had been entering the municipal waters.

This was against the law because municipal waters up to 15 kilometers from the coast line were only for use by small fishers. However, the big trawlers were not only catching most of the fish, they were dragging the baby fishes into their giant nets which trawled the bottom of the sea, thus reducing even further future harvests.

I asked him what the barangay-based Bantay Dagat (Sea Watch) was doing about it, and he said their barangay captain tried his best. However, when their kapitan tried to board one of these vessels, he ended up facing a gun. That was it.

So, I asked, what about the mayor? Have you tried to elevate your case? The mayor? He said that was part of the problem, she happened to own some of these fishing boats.

No wonder fishers are among the poorest of the poor in our country.

Today, I read in the papers that a bill has been passed by both houses of Congress to revise some provisions of the Philippine Fisheries Code. The item, which was in the business pages, said that members of the Alliance of Philippine Fishing Federations Inc. (APFFI), which has over 2,358 operators owning 6,371 commercial vessels, are opposing the bill. They claim that the bill favors irresponsible dynamite fishers and threatens to kill their businesses. Commercial fishing refers to the use of vessels weighing three tons or more.

I guess that with the invasion of our rich marine resources in the West Philippine Sea by China, these fishing vessels are depending more and more on municipal waters for their harvests, much of which are for export markets.

I have not had a chance to see a draft of the bill, and I do not know who the proponents are. It is interesting to note that it passed the House in one week, and the Senate in six.

However, it looks like the big fishers are mobilizing a powerful lobby to kill the bill. Let us hope that the bill, if revisions are to be made in bicameral committee, makes it clear for whom primarily are the fishes of Philippine waters. We have to ensure that there has to be a preferential option for the poor. This is a very complex problem that calls for the support of the Department of the Interior and Local Government which has administrative supervision over local governments, which in turn have authority over the municipal waters. And of course, the Department of Agriculture, of which the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR) is a part.

During the administration of Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, fisheries, for once, was the bright star in the Department of Agriculture, delivering growth rates of 6% versus dismal growth in land-based crops.

For this we must credit retired Director Malcolm Sarmiento of BFAR. Sarmiento aggressively promoted fish farming through fish cages and aquaculture in the sea and on land. He also heavily promoted the establishment of fish sanctuaries, which enabled fishers to reap rich harvests within three years after fishing coops agreed to leave marine waters alone within a five-kilometer radius. He also promoted bottled sardines production in his home province of Zamboanga.

I once met the president of the fishing cooperative in Western Samar, in Talalora, Zumarraga, Sta. Margarita, Matobato, etc. The people of Matobato even traditionally value-add by processing fat mackerels into tinapa (smoked fish) which are now even reaching foreign markets. He told me that for several years the fishers in their area had been suffering from poor catch because of dynamite fishing and other illegal fishing methods. Three years after they got organized into coops and set up fish sanctuaries, they began to have rich fishing harvests.

Fisheries these days do not deliver such high growth numbers. Perhaps it is because Agriculture Secretary Proceso Alcala is so focused on achieving self-sufficiency in rice, a lost cause it seems to me, especially when the tariffs on rice are finally brought down with ASEAN integration, and we get swamped with cheaper rice from Thailand and Vietnam.

What will happen to our rice farmers? Is there enough time to reorient them perhaps into alternative production of higher-value crops, even of high grade rice such as brown, red and organic? Can the private sector mobilize for this the way Henry Lim Bon Liong has done with his specialty Dona Maria brand? It is hard to compete with cheaper rice from Thailand and Vietnam, which have natural irrigation waters from the Mekong River.

Does Secretary Alcala know what his mission should be? That it is not just a matter of output (production growth), but of outcomes (getting the farmers and fishers out of poverty)? Alcala has been there for four years, and there seems to be little decrease if any in poverty among the rural folk, who comprise the majority of the Philippine poor.

One wonders why Alcala is still at his post. Perhaps the President is impressed by how hard he works. But what we need is someone who works smart, not just hard. Alcala is not delivering the goods. We need fresh, new thinking in agriculture and fisheries; otherwise, we will continue to lag behind our neighbors in poverty reduction statistics.

Teresa S. Abesamis is a former professor at the Asian Institute of Management and an independent development management consultant.

tsabesamis0114@yahoo.com

source:  Businessworld

Are we ready for a federal government?

NOT VERY MANY political leaders know Mindanao as a whole -- and not just the Bangsamoro territories -- like the Guingona family does. So, it is not totally unexpected for Senator Teofisto “TG” Guingona III -- a third-generation Mindanao leader -- to push for the relatively radical proposal of a “Mindanao Commonwealth.” This is in reaction to the proposed Bangsamoro Basic Law (BBL).

As quoted in a news report, he said the national government was giving “too much concession” to the Bangsamoro under the proposed BBL. And this move may be unfair to three-fourths of Mindanao’s population, with the majority composed of Christian settlers and Indigenous Peoples (IPs).

He noted that Lumad and Christian settlers have just as much rights as the Bangsamoro people as stipulated in the BBL, where the latter will have 75% of resources within its territory like marine, agriculture and minerals, while the other 25% will go to the national coffers. If the national government can ensure a fair sharing system with the Bangsamoro, then it has no reason not to grant the same concession to Lumads and Christians, he added.

He appears to suggest that what may be deemed good for Muslims in Mindanao should be deemed good for everybody else on the island. Thus, any law on the use of Mindanao resources should also apply to everybody in Mindanao, sans special accommodation for any particular ethnic group.

To even the playing field, Guingona wants to file a bill proposing the establishment of the Commonwealth of Mindanao. He had told reporters that “we must start to push for federalism now for the time is ripe,” and that he would “continue to push for it even after the present dispensation.”

In my opinion, Guingona has a point. Under a federal setup, all states or provinces can enjoy similar privileges like the Bangsamoro with respect to the use of and benefit from resources within their respective territories. This can minimize the situation where localities rely too much on the national government for support.

Mindanao, of course, holds a special place in Guingona’s heart. His grandfather, Teofisto Guingona Sr., was governor of Agusan from 1913 to 1917; acting governor of the Department of Mindanao and Sulu from 1918 to 1920; first director of the Bureau of Non-Christian Tribes from 1920 to 1921; senator for the 12th Senatorial District comprising Mindanao and Sulu; and again director of the Bureau of Non-Christian Tribes until its abolition in 1935.

His father, Teofisto Guingona Jr., was the 13th Vice-President of the Philippines, from 2001 to 2004. But when he was a senator from 1987 until 1992, he also served as the director and chairman of the Mindanao Development Authority as well as the Mindanao Labor Management Advisory Council.

His mother, Ruth De Lara Guingona, is a former governor of Misamis Oriental and mayor of Gingoog City. TG himself had also served in Mindanao, locally. Prior to his election as senator in 2010, he was the duly elected congressman of the second legislative district of Bukidnon for two terms.

My concern, however, is that Guingona is now a senator of the republic, and not just of Mindanao. He should thus consider any federal proposal in totality, and not just as a way of leveling the playing field, particularly in Mindanao. A federal structure may yet prove to be the necessary catalyst to finally get the country out of the political doldrums.

Any proposal for a federal structure needs extensive study, of course. But offhand, I believe the Philippines can ill afford “selective federalism,” where only Mindanao stands to benefit from structural change, as opposed to considering a federal structure for the system of government nationwide.

All localities should be given the chance to enjoy greater self-government, autonomy, and the greater use of their resources. However, there is nothing worse than granting independence and autonomy to localities that are simply not ready for it. The federal proposal thus begs the question: Is the Philippines ready for it, either in a limited way or nationwide?

I look back to my recent discussions with Herminio “Meniong” Teves, former governor and congressman of Negros Oriental, regarding his concern over how local governments were seemingly being deprived of their “fair share” in taxes collected by the national government, or the so-called Internal Revenue Allotments (IRA).

In discussing this problem in his letter to Senate President Frankin Drilon and House Speaker Sonny Belmonte, Meniong said the budgets of most local government units or LGUs were still largely dependent on IRA or the LGUs’ share in national taxes. Through the years, he claimed, LGUs have been short-changed by at least P67 billion.

Meniong pointed to Article X, Section 6 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, which required that LGUs be given their “just share” in “national taxes,” and that this should be “automatically released to them.” But under Republic Act 7160 or the Local Government Code, he said this was adjusted to cover only “Internal Revenue Taxes” as opposed to all national taxes.

As such, LGUs have been receiving only about 40% of all taxes collected by the national Government, instead of what he believed to be their “fair” share. He thus questioned how the Local Government Code could “supersede a constitutional mandate.”

Meniong also questioned how devolution could benefit LGUs if only functions were devolved and not the funds or the budget to pay for these services.

Any federal proposal should also be seen in light of Meniong’s valid concerns. Devolution and local government autonomy have already resulted in a myriad of problems with respect to funding and delivering basic services. It remains uncertain whether these present problems can be mitigated by a federal structure.

Moreover, it needs to be ascertained whether a federal system will further push Guingona’s own advocacy for greater transparency, accountability and clarity in how the government manages public funds. At the end of the day, it must answer two concerns: Will it pave the way for better government and more effective and efficient delivery of public service? Will it make people’s lives easier if not better?

Marvin Tort is a former managing editor of BusinessWorld, and former chairman of the Philippine Press Council.

source:  Businessworld

matort@yahoo.com

SC declares, after 2 ordinances and one decade: Pandacan oil depot must go

MANILA - (UPDATE2, 6:08PM) The Supreme Court on Tuesday ordered the relocation of the oil depot in Pandacan, where three major petroleum companies store their products, thus ending a protracted battle of ordinances enacted during two different city administrations. The incumbent mayor, Joseph Estrada, said he would promptly enforce it; and former mayor Lito Atienza hailed the ruling.

In an en banc ruling, the High Tribunal voted 10-2 to declare as unconstitutional Manila City Ordinance No. 8187 passed during the term of then Mayor Alfredo Lim, allowing the continued stay of the oil depot - used by Petron, Chevron and Shell - in the congested, predominantly commercial-residential area.

Ordinance 8187 had been passed by the City Council in Lim's time to reverse an earlier Ordinance, Number 8027, passed during the term of Mayor Atienza, which reclassified the Pandacan area from industrial to commercial for environmental, public safety and health reasons, and thus made it imperative to relocate the oil depot out of the city.

In ruling on two petitions - GR 187836 filed by Social Justice Society officers Samson Alcantara and Vladimir Cabigao, against Mayor Lim; and GR 187916 filed by Atienza against Lim - the SC granted the petitioners' request to strike down against Ordinance 8187, which, the court had declared earlier, never had the effect of superseding Ordinance 8027.

The latter was a valid exercise of police power, the Court had held in an earlier decision, because it had: (1) a lawful subject – “to safeguard the rights to life, liberty, security and safety of all the inhabitants of Manila” – and (2) a lawful method – “the enactment of Ordinance No. 8027 reclassifying the land use from industrial to commercial, which effectively ends the continued stay of the oil depots in Pandacan."

In Tuesday's decision, the SC adopted its reasoning in that earlier ruling in GR 156052 in sustaining Ordinance No. 8027. It said the continued stay of the oil depots placed the residents of Manila in danger of being a terrorist target.

The Court, in the present case, stated that it was “the removal of the danger to life not the mere subdual of risk of catastrophe, that we saw in and made us favor Ordinance No. 8027. That reason, unaffected by Ordinance No. 8187, compels the affirmance of our Decision in G.R. No. 156052.”

Also on Tuesday, SC Spokesperson, Atty. Theodore Te, said in a press briefing that the high court had directed "the incumbent mayor of the City of Manila [Joseph Estrada]  . . . . to cease and desist from enforcing Ordinance No. 8187. In coordination with the appropriate government agencies and the parties hereto involved, he is further ordered to oversee the relocation and transfer of the oil terminals  out of the Pandacan area."

The High Tribunal also directed the three oil companies to submit to the Manila City Regional Trial Court Branch 39 a “"comprehensive plan and relocation schedule” within 45 days.

Likewise, it directed that the “relocation shall be completed not later than six months from the date the required documents were submitted.”

The SC also directed the RTC Branch 39 Judge to monitor the strict enforcement of its ruling.

Mayor Erap 'happy' to comply with SC order

Former President now Manila Mayor Joseph “Erap”  Estrada hailed the Supreme Court decision, saying it was always his position that the oil depot should leave Pandacan.

“I have given them until January to leave but now it can be earlier,” Mayor Estrada said.

The former chief executive said that the Pandacan oil depot continues to endanger the lives of the residents living beside and around it, adding this was what prompted the City Council to pass an ordinance ordering their relocation in the first place.

“Nothing is more important than the lives of our people,” Estrada said. 

Ex-mayor Atienza cheers ruling

Former three-term mayor, now Buhay partylist Rep. Lito Atienza, welcomed the ruling and praised the SC's “unwavering support of constitutional issues included in ordinance making.”

Atienza said in a statement, “We are very happy that the Supreme Court saw this through, ensuring the protection of thousands of lives and property and upholding the legality and good intentions of our Ordinance 8027.”

Atienza initiated moves to relocate the oil depot after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in America, citing the "imminent danger of being a possible terror target." At that time, there were projections that an attack on the oil depot could spark a conflagration engulfing a huge chunk of Pandacan and the adjoining Paco and Sta. Ana areas, all crowded residential zones. With Ernie Reyes and Lira Dalangin-Fernandez, InterAksyon.com