Thursday, December 20, 2007 Editorials: Suit against oil exploration
ONE should not take it against sectors opposed to the oil exploration in Tañon Strait for resorting to another strategy, which is to seek an injunction with the Supreme Court to stop the drilling.
The strait is a protected seascape and any project that has the potential to destroy precious marine resources in the area should be subjected to the strictest scrutiny.
In a way, officials of the Department of Energy, Department of Environment and Natural Resources and officials of local government units should welcome the suit so matters can be clarified.
The timing of the move is even good considering that the drilling by a Japanese firm has started and its impact on the marine resource in the area can already be measured objectively.
This ensures that the debate will not remain on the level of the theoretical, which characterized much of the argument of the pros and the antis a few months ago.
Objectivity
Being objective is important considering the tendency of both sides to either whip up ghosts against the oil exploration or to bloat the advantages that can be derived once the project is implemented.
Some of the effects of the drilling are already observable: fishermen in the Aloguinsan-Pinamungajan areas can already prop up their loss of livelihood argument with data and environmentalists can detail the extent of the environmental damage, if ever.
Officials of concerned government agencies and local government units, meanwhile, can now support with studies on the initial progress of the work of the Japanese firm their earlier claims that the drilling will have minimal effect on the seascape.
Court’s help
The operational word in resolving the issue is objectivity, not subjectivism that often leads to emotionalism that usually muddles the thinking of protagonists in sensitive issues like environment protection.
That preserving environmental resources often conflicts with economic, or more specifically capitalist, goals is a compelling theory.
But that does not mean one should already close one’s eyes to the possibility that the two conflicting goals can still be reconciled and advance public interest in the process.
That is something that the court can hopefully help effect, if that is possible.
