Dear Donald,
I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry with your interpretation of my column in Palawan Sun (July 15-21). Anyone who reads and interpret it the way you do is either desperate, gullible or alliterate (someone who can read but not understand). I advise you to look at it again and try reading between the lines. You see, there is such a thing as "irony" to stress a point.
Anyway, I came back to this thread prinarily to react to Fenway's statement issued August 21, 1997. I was surprised that Fenway could lie through its teeth the way it did in that outrageous piece. It did not only distort the facts concerning the outcome of that PCSD meeting; it lied about the present status of the project.
During the PCSD meeting, both the Council and the DENR agreed NOT TO ACCEPT the EIS submission of the cement project. In a complete reversal of its earlier support, the PCSD had rejected the EIS. (People who followed Palawan Sun coverage on our web site should have monitored this). The reason: the proponents failed to address the legal constraints to the project e.g. cutting of old-growth forest, opposition of the communities that are directly affected, conflict with the Strategic Environmental Law for Palawan, illegal conversion of agricultural lands, etcetera. The Council's deliberation centered on the fact that while the proponent did acknowledge in its EIS document that these legal constraints exist, it failed to offer any solution on how these constraints could be resolved (there's actually no way unless they change the law). In the words of Governor Socrates, who publicly announced his support to the project four days earlier only to retract it during the meeting: "While I have stated my support to the cement project, I am not willing to violate the law just to accommodate it."
Fenway reported that the EIS was presented to the PCSD and forwarded to the DENR. It did not announce the material fact that the PCSD technical report recommended the REJECTION of the project and that both agencies found the document incomplete and decided not to act on it. The PCSD forwarded the document to the DENR merely to ask the DENR to study the non-legal and technical aspects in it for whatever general purpose it may serve in the future. The document was not passed on to the DENR for its consideration in the issuance of an ECC. This was made very clear by the DENR undersecretary Delfin Ganapin who sat in the Council. Dr. Ganapin even stressed from the outset that the document would not even pass first stage in the DENR EIS review system if it is a formal submission because it does not address the legal constraints. He explained during the meeting that they have long told Fenway and Central Palawan to first resolve the legal issues. This was when they rejected their first attempt to submit the EIS draft document early this year.
Having clarified that, I am amazed that Fenway has the temerity to announce that it will get an ECC soon and that it will commence the project in three months.
Regards to all.
Redempto D. Anda
For additional inquiries, I can be reached at palsun@pal-onl.com |
