Butane ban faces opposition

Mambaling residents say butane is much more cost-effective than liquefied petroleum gas

Councilor Dave Tumulak’s proposed measure has support of several agencies DOE 7 lawyer cites law that prohibits sale, distribution of petroleum, petroleum products without a license

THE move that seeks to prohibit the sale, manufacture and distribution of butane in Cebu City was opposed by some residents of Barangay Mambaling, Cebu City.

The measure, which was authored by Councilor Dave Tumulak, has the support of the Department of Energy (DOE) 7, Department of Health (DOH) 7, Bureau of Fire Protection (BFP) 7 and the Cebu City Transportation Office (CCTO).

Alejandro Cabelino, president of the Punta Princesa Manggahan Homeowners’ Association, said the use of butane for cooking saves them money.

During the public hearing of the proposed ordinance called for by the City Council yesterday, Cabelino said he has been using butane since 2014.

He said he consumes 21 butane canisters in a month, spending more than P260.

Not a fire hazard

Each canister, which has a capacity of 200 grams, costs P12.50, he said, unlike purchasing liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), which costs more than P1,000 monthly.

“We as consumers don’t agree with the ban. At least we can buy one canister at a time. It’s like buying a sachet of shampoo or toothpaste. It adds up to a lot of savings for us,” he said in Cebuano.

If the council worries about butane causing fires, Cabelino said a BFP report showed that no fire incident has been attributed to it since November 2015.

He said 98 percent of fire recorded is due to electrical misuse.

“We’re grateful for the council’s concern that they don’t want us to be fire victims but we’re asking its members to help those who can’t afford. You asked for our support during the last election, now it’s our turn,” he said in Cebuano.

Tumulak had filed his proposed legislation because of the rampant refilling of butanes with LPG.

He said butane cannisters are not suited to gas pressures emitted by LPG. The councilor expressed fear that the practice might cause explosions and fires.

BFP 7, in a one-page position paper they sent to the council, said they support the proposed ordinance as it will protect the public against the hazard brought about by the use of butanes.

Fines

DOE 7 lawyer Russ Mark Gamallo, who appeared before the legislative body, said their agency is also for the proposed ordinance’s approval.

He pointed out that Batas Pambansa 33 and a DOE circular issued in 2014 prohibits the sale and distribution of petroleum and petroleum products without a license.

He also said illegal possession and unregistered petroleum products are punishable by law.

As for DOH, its representative Engr. Mark Gerson they said they are in favor of the proposed measure as it is “substantially legal.”

CCTO, on the other hand, says the passage of the proposed measure will be for the safety and welfare of the constituents.

Based on Tumulak’s measure, if approved, violators will face an administrative fine of P3,000 for the first offense; P5,000 for the second offense; and P10,000 for the third offense.

Those found transporting illegal butanes will have their vehicles impounded in each instance but third-time offenders, particularly dealers, manufacturers and distributors, will have their business permits cancelled or revoked.