Court of Appeals junks Tarlac Court’s Injunction vs BCDA, CDC

National

Court of Appeals junks Tarlac Court’s Injunction vs BCDA, CDC

The Bases Conversion and Development Authority (BCDA) has welcomed the decision of the Court of Appeals, which nullified a previous injunction issued by a Tarlac court that had barred the BCDA and Clark Development Corporation (CDC) from reclaiming the 100-hectare Kalangitan Sanitary Landfill in Capas, Tarlac.

The ruling supports the BCDA and CDC’s stance that the landfill’s operations in New Clark City can no longer continue, as its contract expired and is not eligible for renewal or extension.

BCDA President and CEO Joshua M. Bingcang expressed gratitude for the Court of Appeals’ decision: “The BCDA lauds the Court of Appeals for standing by what is right and upholding the rule of law. This decision brings the government a step closer to pursuing more high-impact projects in New Clark City, which will create jobs and spur economic opportunities for the communities in Tarlac, Pampanga, and surrounding provinces.”

In its 55-page decision, issued on February 13, 2025, the Court of Appeals granted the BCDA and CDC’s petition to overturn the Writ of Preliminary Injunction (WPI) issued by Presiding Judge Ronald Leo T. Haban of the Tarlac Regional Trial Court, Branch 66. The injunction had prevented the government from regaining possession of the landfill property.

The Court of Appeals ruled that the injunction should not have been granted, citing Metro Clark Waste Management Corporation’s (MCWMC) act of forum shopping when filing for the injunction. Additionally, the court highlighted that the Contract for Services between the CDC and MCWMC was a Build-Operate-Transfer (BOT) contract, classified as a national government project. As per Republic Act 8975, only the Supreme Court holds the authority to issue orders that could delay or prohibit national government projects, including those under the BOT scheme.

The court also found that the criteria for issuing a WPI were not met, noting that the Contract for Services did not contain any provision that could be interpreted as a lease agreement, as MCWMC had claimed, and that it had a fixed 25-year term.

In its ruling, the Court of Appeals concluded, “Hence, the questioned Orders issuing the TRO and WPI are void and of no force and effect.”

The BCDA reiterated that the contract concerning the Kalangitan landfill is valid only until October 5, 2024, and cannot be extended. The landfill’s business permit has also expired, and allowing it to continue operations would violate the law.