Sound and fury
On the heels of the recent firecracker factory explosion in Sta. Maria Bulacan comes the announcement of President Rodrigo Duterte that he is considering a nationwide ban. Once again, the Davao City success story is to be the model for an entire nation: Christmas time is solemn time without noise from firecrackers.
Extreme measures. Last Thursday, Labor Secretary Silvestre Bello III directed the wholesale closure of all firecracker establishments in Bulacan, with a matching work stoppage order. In the Senate, Senator Sherwin Gatchalian has filed SB 1140, the proposed Firecrackers Prohibition Act which is essentially an absolute ban. At the DOH, an executive order (EO) is being prepared to further regulate the industry, to disallow the use of fireworks, pyrotechnics and firecrackers by the general public, limiting the same to trained professionals.
The tragic Sta Maria explosion has reignited the debate on whether to continue the regulation of the firecracker industry or to make the policy decision to ban the trade outright. This is an age old issue which was first addressed 50 years ago via a pre-martial law, 1966 EO of President Ferdinand Marcos that mandated an absolute ban. The latest issuance on the matter is a 1992 statute, Republic Act (RA) 7183 which is the landmark law that regulates the sale, manufacture, distribution and use of the same.
Prohibition vs. regulation. The argument against a ban has always been the likelihood of a retreat into smuggling or further unregulated, underground manufacture and proliferation. This was precisely the legislative intent of Congress when it enacted RA 7183 (by a unanimous vote in the Senate).
RA 7183 entrusts to the Philippine National Police the power: (1) to determine what constitutes prohibited firecrackers and pyrotechnic devices; (2) to license the sale, manufacture and distribution of what is non-prohibited; (3) to permit the importation of chemical and explosive ingredients; (4) to require monthly reporting from licensees; and (5) to issue implementing rules and regulations.
In addition to these statutory safeguards, there are also the independent regulatory bodies such as the Philippine Pyrotechnics Manufacture and Dealers Association and the Bulacan Pyrotechnics Regulation Board that impose voluntary controls on their members. As a final safety measure, local government units enforce area concentrated regulations, the premier example being Davao’s own 2002 city ordinance.
Notwithstanding the elaborate layers of regulation and the pronounced involvement of the PNP, the Sta. Maria blast leaves us feeling exposed and vulnerable, preceded as it was by another firecracker store explosion in Bocaue last October. Like Sta. Maria, Bocaue resulted in the death of two people and a host of serious injuries. Public approval of a total ban is, thus, expected to be high. For anti firecracker proponents, times like these are opportunities to hurl the litany of arguments against the beleaguered industry and the ineffective PNP.
Health. The most compelling argument mounted is health and safety. Exhibit A would be the recent deaths and injuries from the Bulacan blasts. But the finding in the Sta. Maria explosion is that the same was caused by the owners’ violation of the law’s rigid safety standards. With respect to injuries caused by the use of private firecrackers, the No. 1 culprit has been the piccolo. The piccolo, like the super lolo and goodbye Philippines, is a prohibited firecracker. And, finally, there is the “deviant” case of the no casualty zones – localities around the country where, despite the availability of firecrackers, virtually no one seems to get injured. Foremost among these locales are Quirino and Southern Leyte.
Environment. Another usual suspect is the pollutants released into the air by firecrackers’ deadly smoke. True, on New Year’s eve the city streets convert into combat zones with vision often impaired by the abundance of residual firecracker smoke. But this is actually nothing compared to the diesel engine pollutants from our vehicles. In fact, the clean air act does not even refer to firecrackers as points of origin. That honor belongs to industries, vehicles and stationary sources.
We are in agreement with the proposition that it is timely to revisit our policy on firecrackers. In fact, any time is a good time and we need not wait for tragedies to jolt us into vigilance. But lets take the effort to approach this sensibly - emotional responses do not always prove to be the best answer.
The use of firecrackers to celebrate the New Year and other important events is ingrained in our culture. From our Chinese descendants to the practices of our Rizal era forebears as immortalized in the Noli Me Tangere, this phenomenon is one that has not been easy to just eliminate, EJK style. During Martial Law when the EO 52 ban was strictly enforced, not even the threat of arrest could silence intrepid souls who would continue to defiantly get their fireworks fix on New Year’s Eve.
Middle ground. Absolute bans are not a panacea. The policy is in place and there is legislation, regulatory issuances, self- regulatory controls and local safeguards to make the firecracker business, which is a legitimate trade, a continuing viable industry. Outright prohibition will lead to an “explosion” of smuggled firecrackers and an underground, unregulated black market of even more dangerous products. This has been the experience in neighboring countries and the experience even during our own Martial Law days.
What is needed is more alert enforcement of the regulations in place. Surely, we cannot afford to keep absorbing all these self inflicted deaths and injuries in Bulacan and wherever private firecrackers are exploded. Sec. Bello’s closed factories will only reopen upon proof of compliance with safety standards. This is a good first step. A complementary solution would be to adopt the trend in neighboring ASEAN countries where private firecrackers are a thing of the past and community enjoyment is the new reality. This is essentially the content of the DOH proposed executive order.
The Presidents men are doing a good job in responding to this issue. Their actions show that, at least, there are people left doing the governing while other officials are incorrigibly at play.