Thursday, November 08, 2007 Guv blinks on Ordinance 176 By Marna H. Dagumboy
CITY OF SAN FERNANDO -- Pampanga Governor Eddie Panlilio has blinked on his earlier decision not to implement quarry Ordinance 176 and to contest its legality before the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the court.
Recently, Panlilio said he will question the controversial ordinance, which he earlier vetoed. His veto, however, was eventually overrode by the Provincial Board (PB).
He told Sun.Star that his office will implement Ordinance 176, which was eventually passed by the Provincial Board (PB) as Resolution 1022, as soon as the federation of quarry operators is established.
Under the quarry ordinance, federations of municipal quarry operators and a provincial federation of the groups must be organized.
The governor said he respects the ordinance and will implement it.
Earlier, Panlilio said Ordinance 176 will remove his gubernatorial powers and authority in monitoring and policy-making as regards the quarry industry in the province.
Vice Governor Joseller Guiao said the PB decided to override Panlilio's veto for the benefit of their constituents, specifically in areas where there are quarry operations.
Ordinance 176 was proposed by the Pampanga Mayors League (PML) for the equitable distribution of quarry shares by abolishing the P150 administrative fee being collected by the Provincial Government from the P300 per truckload of sand, which according to the legislative body is unlawful.
The new ordinance also increased the powers of the mayors in the quarry industry.
Last October 3, Panlilio vetoed the quarry ordinance upon encouragement by Kapampangan civil society groups.
Aside from removing his power and authority, Panlilio cited that new quarry scheme was enacted without mandatory public hearing and is contrary to the provisions of the Local Government Code (LGC), specifically Section 138, in relation to Section 153 which states that "the right to impose service fees and charges, administrative fee cannot be abolished."
The governor also claimed that the ordinance violates the principle on the separation of powers of a co-equal branch, the executive and the legislative; and that it also violates the principle on the "collection of the local taxes, fees, charges and other impositions shall in no case be let to any private person."
He also furthered that he disapproved the ordinance because it was “ill-conceived."
