CONCRETE PLAN FOR LANDFILL’S SERVICE AREA SOUGHT

Cebu City Council approves a resolution charging P1 million to Pagcor funds to sanitize and deodorize the service area Last month, the City Council also approved a budget of P10 million for the recovery of the service area

What is really the Cebu City Gov- ernment’s plan for the five-hectare (ha.) service area in the Inayawan Sanitary Landfill?

The question was raised during last week’s City Council regular session before the approval of a resolution charging P1 million to the Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corp. funds to sanitize and deodorize the service area.

Councilor Eugenio Gabuya Jr., who drafted the resolution, said that one deodorizer costs P20 per cubic meter (cu. m.). The whole service area would need close to 130,000 cu. m., or around P2.4 million.

Gabuya said that for now, it would be wise to just allocate P1 million first to check the garbage situation and the effectivity of the chemicals.

This, though, is not the first budget allocation intended for the rehabilitation and recovery of the service area.

Last month, the council also approved a budget of P10 million for the recovery of the service area.

“The service area is supposed to be not a dumping area. But the situation now, the five has. service area is full of garbage. Were clearing it in preparation for the proposed material recovery facility (MRF) in accordance with Republic Act (RA) 9003, which mandates all local government units to install an MRF. That’s the direction,” said Gabuya.

Earlier this month, Gabuya, head of the committee on public services, proposed an ordinance establishing a centralized MRF in the service area.

Solid waste

He said that the establishment of the facility is pursuant to Section 32 of Republic Act (RA) 9003, or the Ecological Solid Waste Management Act.

RA 9003 provides that every barangay or cluster of barangays should allocate a certain parcel of land for the MRF.

But during the 18-minute discussion, Councilor Joel Garganera, former head of the committee on environment, raised concerns on the planned establishment of the facility inside the service area.

He lamented that this might be tantamount to dumping in the closed landfill.

Garganera added that this may circumvent the order of the Court of Appeals (CA), prohibiting all dumping activities in the landfill.

“How can we operate an MRF if there’s no dumping? I’m just confused. What was stipulated in the order of CA is the dumping, regardless of the activity,” he said.

“What was in the court’s order was the post-closure and rehabilitation plan. When we talk of an MRF, that’s operating the area. Right now, it’s still pending in the Supreme Court. CA had committed an error in closing the dump site for the landfill. I’m afraid that with this kind of activity, we may burn the ire of the court for not following the order,” he added.

Garganera asked Gabuya to coordinate with the Environmental Management Bureau (EMB) 7 on the plan to ensure that any planned activity in the landfill or the service area does not violate the CA order.

Gabuya, though, stood pat that the MRF will not dump trash as it is focused on segregation.

“I would say that don’t be afraid because all our actions are presented to the EMB and the court,” he said.

Councilors Philip Zafra, Joy Pesquera and Raymond Garcia abstained from voting on the approval of the resolution. /