A definitely-not-funny incident happened on our way up to the office of the Department of Energy in Central Visayas (DOE-7) at the Metrobank Building in Cebu City, mid-morning of November 14. We, peaceful citizens, were barred from entering the DOE premises. Aghast, we – lawyers, scientists, teachers, students, volunteers and representatives of people’s organizations and non-government organizations – asked ourselves and the DOE officer-in-charge, “How can a government office slam its door to the public?”The Code of Ethical Standards, Republic Act 6713, is very clear: all government agencies shall deliver efficient, effective and responsive services to the people at regular working hours of each working day, without discrimination. Public servants shall act with justness and sincerity and not discriminate against anyone, especially the poor and the underprivileged, and regardless of party affiliation or preference. Lest it be forgotten, the raison d’être or the very reason for government’s existence is to protect and serve the public – at all times. Have the DOE officers and employees forgotten about courtesy and respect and their oath of office? Is the DOE unaware of the plethora of laws on public service and ethical standards? Under Republic Act 9485, the “Anti-Red Tape Act” and its Implementing Rules and Regulations, all government agencies are even required to craft a Citizens Charter or a service standard through an information billboard in the entrance of the office that informs the public of the procedure to be followed, the officers involved for each step, timetable for service delivery, requirements and procedures for filing complaints. Under the IRR, a refusal to accept a document from the public makes the head of the agency liable for a light offense, punishable by 30 days suspension without pay and mandatory attendance in Values Orientation Program. Our main reason for going to DOE was to deliver an important document and a message. Despite the blatant display of “power” by DOE, demanding that only two from the group can enter its office, we managed to maintain our dignity and equanimity. We softly but firmly relayed our request for the officer to descend from the ivory tower and meet us at the Metrobank lobby. There, the fisherfolk letter was finally received by the officer-in-charge of DOE. But, because of the discriminatory action against us, we chose not to deliver the message. Why did we opt to talk with DOE that day? We want to exhaust all possible avenues for peaceful resolution and, if it is not yet possible, a plain understanding of the issues and respect for our divergent views. The fisherfolk wanted to deliver a final personal message – stop the project as their families are suffering and will suffer from the displacement and the ecological devastation taking place in an oil exploration activity. Explorations are targeted to start in January 2009. While the fisherfolk are thankful to the governor for stopping the DOE project for the reason that the stakeholders in Argao and Sibonga were excluded from the decision-making process, only a definitive Supreme Court ruling can provide them a permanent sense of security. Questions of law are involved again in this case. Which prevails – a social justice provision of the Constitution giving subsistence fisherfolk the preferential use of the traditional fishing grounds, their right to life and livelihood, and a healthy environment, food security as a declared state policy or a carbon-emitting and polluting offshore oil drilling by the national government as an energy policy in a “planet in peril” due to climate crisis? The issue on the power of control vis-a-vis the power of supervision by the President is another. While the President exercises control over DOE, she has no such power over local government units. She exercises supervisory powers, that is, ensure that they perform their functions in accordance with law, but not the power of control. There is a whale of a difference between the two powers. DOE cannot impose its will upon the LGUs, including the barangays. Coastal LGUs are mandated to enforce fisheries law and ensure that the rights of the fisherfolk to be secure in their traditional fishing grounds are respected. A collision course is inevitable if human rights are not respected and the procedures spelled out by the Local Government Code, Fisheries Code, among other laws, are not followed. Our subsistence fisherfolk felt they have exhausted all the possible avenues for DOE to re-evaluate its second offshore oil-drilling project in Cebu – in Argao and Sibonga municipal waters, more specifically. Like what happened in the Tañon offshore drilling, the activity has negatively impact not just the integrity of our frail ecosystem, but their lifeblood – fishing being the only source of livelihood of our subsistence fisherfolk, most of whom have not even finished elementary schooling. Because their call for permanent stoppage or even a moratorium pending the resolution of the twin Tañon cases has gone unheeded, they realized that the only way to resolve the conflict was to go to court to protect their rights. Only the Supreme Court can resolve the impasse – let the law prevail. On that sunny Friday morning, we wanted to emphasize that the fishers’ rights must be protected, that they must not be stripped of their honor and dignity. No harassment of any kind – like what they experienced when they had a fluvial activity and when the President went to Argao last month when their streamers were destroyed by unidentified men in civilian clothing. The military categorically denied its involvement. We thank the Commission on Human Rights for promptly conducting an investigation on this matter. As a lawyer and a political law teacher, I know that what the DOE-7 office did last Friday was not just a violation of our Constitution and our laws, an affront to our dignity and our political right as citizens; it was also a great disservice to the public to whom it is tasked to serve. We call on the Civil Service Commission and the Office of the Ombudsman to look into the Friday event. DOE must learn to be courteous and prioritize public service. We cannot attain peace and harmony if government shut its doors to the public, as what DOE recently did. But, it is not a reason not to persist. For all peace-loving Filipinos, let us reflect on what former president Corazon Aquino said: “While we all hope for peace, it shouldn’t be peace at any cost, but peace based on principle, on justice.” The journey for peace, justice, empowerment, the rule of law and good environmental governance should continue. In behalf of the officers and members of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines-Cebu Province, and its partners, the Commission on Human Rights, the University of Cebu College of Law and Save Tañon Strait Citizens Movement, I also take this opportunity to thank the government institutions such as the Province of Cebu, DOE, the military, Philippine National Police, Philippine Coast Guard, and the DENR for participating and listening to the plight of the fisherfolk in an unprecedented Stakeholders’ Dialogue on Nov. 12, on the impact of oil drilling on their human rights. Since their constituents’ welfare is involved, it is rather unfortunate that the municipal government of Sibonga and Argao were visibly invisible in the peace-seeking dialogue. I hope they will explain to their suffering constituents the reason why. A peaceful week ahead for all of us! |
