In a striking turn of events, the future of the 100-hectare Kalangitan sanitary landfill in Tarlac has been thrust into judicial hands, as the Metro Clark Waste Management Corporation (MCWMC) seeks intervention from the Angeles City court to avert an impending garbage crisis in Central and Northern Luzon.
This legal confrontation underscores the broader challenges facing the Bases Conversion and Development Authority (BCDA) in managing critical infrastructure projects. Such disputes not only threaten environmental stability but also cast a shadow over the region’s attractiveness to foreign investors, who value predictability and stability. As the courts deliberate on this pressing issue, the stakes for public health, investor confidence, and regional development have never been higher.
This move by the BCDA is likely to discourage foreign investors. The legal uncertainty and ongoing disputes surrounding the Kalangitan sanitary landfill contract can undermine investor confidence. When potential investors observe such conflicts and a lack of clear resolution mechanisms, they may become hesitant to commit resources, fearing similar complications in their own ventures. Stability and predictability are crucial for attracting foreign investments, and actions that create doubt or instability can significantly detract from the region’s appeal to international businesses.
Judicial Showdown
During a press conference at Quest Hotel in Clark Freeport, MCWMC emphasized that the decision on the landfill’s operation will be made by the courts. Vicky Gaetos, Executive Vice-President of MCWMC, clarified that while the service contract expires in October, the lease does not, arguing for a 50-year lease under RA 7652.
MCWMC has called for the reformation of the contract to reflect the agreed 50-year lease accurately. This legal action aims to ensure the continuation of landfill operations beyond 2024, as originally intended under the Investors Lease Act and E.O. 429.
Engineer Holger Holst, MCWM’s Chairman, highlighted that the investment was made with the understanding of a long-term lease. He also questioned the feasibility of alternative landfill sites proposed by BCDA, CDC, and DENR, pointing out the significant time needed to build adequate capacity.
MCWMC remains focused on meeting the waste management needs of the region, hoping for an amicable resolution while leaving the final decision to the courts.
BCDA’s Defense
BCDA has outlined plans to redevelop the 100-hectare parcel of land where the Kalangitan sanitary landfill is located. This area will be rezoned for industrial use under the New Clark City Master Development Plan.
BCDA Chairman Delfin Lorenzana assured that there will be no garbage crisis when the Kalangitan sanitary landfill contract in Capas, Tarlac expires, citing three alternative facilities ready to manage waste needs. However, for transparency and accountability, I strongly recommend that these facility operators, rather than BCDA, conduct consultative meetings and media forums to avoid any perception of BCDA acting as their spokesperson.
Furthermore, BCDA relies solely on the legal opinion of the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel, which states that extending the contract between Clark Development Corporation (CDC) and MCWMC beyond October 2024 would violate the Build-Operate-Transfer (BOT) Law.
This is a misleading assertion because the Kalangitan landfill is not a BOT agreement. Investments within freeport zones are not covered by the BOT Law. Even if it were a BOT agreement, there are legal provisions or exceptions for emergencies.
The government, particularly BCDA, has discretionary powers to make exceptions under extraordinary circumstances. If extending the contract is crucial to prevent a public health crisis due to unmanaged waste, the government can argue that public interest outweighs the need for a new bidding process.