Restrained
When Joseph Estrada assumed the presidency in 1998, among the promises he made was to rid the judiciary of “hoodlums in robes.”
Everybody knew what he was talking about. The plague of corruption did not spare our judicial system. Rulings could be bought. One could casually shop around for temporary restraining orders (TROs) to stall proceedings and delay projects. All the delays took a toll on the country’s economic development.
Many initiatives have been undertaken to restrict the availability of TROs – especially for those merely using this remedy as a dilatory tactic. The Build-Operate-Transfer Law, for instance, prohibits the use of TROs intended to delay projects or reduce their viability.
The matter of TROs was prominent once more in the case filed by the Metro Clark sanitary waste disposal business against the Bases Conversion and Development Authority (BCDA). Metro Clark invoked the Investor’s Lease Act to force BCDA to extend its operations after its original 25-year lease expired. The BCDA, for its part, underscored the fact that there was nothing in the original contract that guarantees Metro Clark an extension beyond its original lease period.
This case is of major interest in Central Luzon where over a hundred municipalities and corporations use the Metro Clark landfill to dump their waste. Transfer to an alternative dumpsite will be costlier for the LGUs. Furthermore, although Metro Clark was aware its contract with BCDA was about to end, the company continued negotiating new service contracts with local governments using their facility.
BCDA has plans for the area now used by the Metro Clark landfill. Among these plans are modern tourism facilities attracting huge investments in our economy. Reusing the area for activities with greater economic return will certainly be beneficial for our economic growth.
Metro Clark’s contract has expired. The projects for reuse of the land, negotiated by the BCDA, are ready to be implemented. The only possible cause for delay are the lawsuits filed by Metro Clark against the government agency. Since there is no legal basis in the original contract to support Metro Clark’s claims, the lawsuits are seen as mere
