Paula Defensor Knack , Former Assistant Secretary for Lands and Legislative Affairs of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources Philippines; Chair of the Panel of Experts on Toxic and Hazardous Wastes in Former U.S. Military Bases by Executive Order of the President. Philippine Senate quotes report of Paula Defensor in Philippine Senate Committee Report No. 237. The Philippine Senate Committee Report No. 237 On Toxic Contamination in the former U.S. Bases in the Philippines (2000) ELEVENTH CONGRESS OF THE) REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES) Second Regular Session ) S E N A T E
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Paula Defensor Knack , Former Assistant Secretary for Lands and Legislative Affairs of
the Department of Environment and Natural Resources Philippines; Chair of the Panel of
Experts on Toxic and Hazardous Wastes in Former U.S. Military Bases by Executive
Order of the President.
Philippine Senate quotes report of Paula Defensor in Philippine Senate Committee
solvents and explosives, produced hazardous wastes, as well as those which involved
heavy engineering operations and sandblasting. It reported that landfills on site were
used for all kinds of wastes, including hazardous waste materials; that industrial waste
waters, untreated sewage and polluted storm water drains were all discharged to Subic
bay, mostly without treatment; and that very large volumes of fuel and oil were stored,
transferred and used around the site. The Mission report recommended further
sampling and analysis programs of near-surface and deeper soils, groundwater and
sediments in waterways and Subic Bay, costing around U.S. $600,000.00.
6. In 1994, due to the danger of being swamped by lava and mudflow from Mt.
Pinatubo, a village consisting of 1,072 families had to evacuate to the former Clark
Air base Communications Center (CABCOM) at Clark Field Air base. While in
CABCOM, the residents complained of unusual taste, smell and color of the water
coming from several shallow artisian wells. An unusually high occurrence of skin
diseases, miscarriages, stillbirths, birth defects, cancers, heart ailments and leukemia
was later observed among the residents. A community leader, Mandy Rivera,
monitored the health condition of 500 families and recorded 144 persons sick with
illnesses caused or aggravated by polluted water from the artesian wells. Seventy-six
of those monitored have already died./1
7. In 1993, after finding no legal barrier to the release of information to the Philippine
Government, the U.S. Department of Defense released documents which included
“Potential Restoration Sites on Board the U.S. Facility, Subic Bay”‟ (October 1992)
by the U.S. Navy, “Underground Storage Tank Inventory: Subic Bay, Philippines”
and “Environmental review of the Drawdown Activities at Clark Air Base, Republic of
the Philippines”, by Col. John J. Allen (September 1991). The U.S. Embassy released
additional information on the former bases in April 1994.
8. On August 13, 1994, a team composed of Paul Bloom, Ph.D., Alex Carlos, M.S.,
Jorge Emmanuel, Ph.D., and Theodore Schettler, M.D. released a report entitled, “An
Environmental and Health Impact Report on Known and Potentially Contaminated
Sites at Former U.S. Military Bases in the Philippines” based on incomplete U.S.
Department of Defense documentation provided by the U.S. State Department and the
team‟s site visits. The paper showed that based on incomplete U.S. Defense
Department reports, the former bases contain sites known to be contaminated by toxic
wastes that pose risk to human health, and recommended actions to be taken to initiate
a complete assessment of the toxic contamination and the clean-up process.
9. The Department of health released in 1995 the results of 32 well samples taken
inside and adjacent to Clark, five of which tested positive for oil and grease.
10. In 1996, A Canadian epidemiologist, Dr. Rosalie Bertell, conducted a health
survey of 761 families in 13 communities around Clark Field Air Force Base. In her
letter to President Fidel Ramos dated October 9, 1997, Dr. Bertell noted the
“startlingly high” level of kidney diseases and kidney problems reported in the area
which is “apparently connected with both water and air exposures.”
11. In November 1996, the Subic bay metropolitan Authority released the result of
Woodward-Clyde Environmental Baseline survey and Environmental Quality Survey
of Subic. The report stated, “the only areas where restrictions on development and
land use are recommended are the Subic Landfill, OSIR Basin Landfill, and the main
explosives Ordnance Disposal area at Camayan Point. Restrictions are recommended
at the landfills due to the evidence of hazardous wastes including asbestos in the Subic
landfill, and metal and fuel contaminated soils in the OSIR Basin Landfill.” With
regard to the level of concentration of certain hazardous wastes in the soils and
groundwater, the study stated that “(b)ased on the result of this preliminary survey,
the level of contamination detected in most of the sites investigated does not pose a
significant risk to human health and the environment if the land use of these areas
remain the same.”
On human health risks, the study stated that “(b)ased on the screening level risk
assessment, the concentrations of chemicals found in soils at 44 sites investigated in
the current study pose a negligible risk to health of the current non-residential
occupiers/users of the sites due to an identifiable exposure pathway, and the non-
residential land use of the area. There is also no evidence of potentially unacceptable
health risk to people living off-site. Any contaminant in the groundwater of SBF will
not migrate to Olongapo City since the groundwater flows towards Subic bay.”
The study indicated a list of seven specific contamination sites, remediation of which
is estimated to cost P175 to 250 million.
12. In September 1997, the Clark development Corporation released a summary of
Weston International Environmental baseline Study and Soil and Water Baseline
Study at Clark. The environmental baseline study identified eight sites with
contamination ranging from oil and petroleum lubricants, pesticides, PCB and lead.
“These are contaminants found elsewhere in places where you have aviation and
motorpool areas. Some water production wells registered levels of arsenic and dieldrin
above Philippine National Standards (PNS) but the quality of water being taken from
the taps pass the required national standards. The contaminated sites have been
covered with topsoil and have been restricted if they are not isolated areas. The
contaminated wells have been shut down and secured.”
13. In a letter dated November 20,997, The Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA)
Secretary Domingo Siazon proposed to U.S. State Secretary Madeleine Albright the
establishment of a joint Philippine-U.S. Task Force that will assess the degree of toxic
and hazardous waste contamination. Citing reports on surveys conducted by
international environmental contractors disclosing the existence of areas of
contamination in Subic Bay and Clark, he requested for assistance in the technical
evaluation of the baseline surveys conducted by Woodward-Clyde and Weston
International./2 Secretary Albight‟s April 8, 1998 reply to Secretary Siazon‟s letter
markedly failed to respond to the issue of toxic waste contamination or the proposal to
form a joint Philippine-U.S. Task Force. Secretary Siazon met U.S. Secretary Albight
during the visit of President Ramos to the U.S. in April 1998 and again raised the
issue of toxic hazardous waste.
14. On May 8, 1998, President Fidel V. Ramos created the Philippine Task Force on
toxic waste composed of representatives from the Department of Environment and
Natural Resources (DENR), Department of Health (DOH), Department of Science and
Technology (DOST), Philippine Nuclear Research Institute (PNRI), Clark
Development Authority (CDA) and Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority (SBMA).
15. On August 31, 1998, noting that toxic and hazardous wastes from the U.S.
military have been found “in significant quantity” in Subic Bay, Olongapo and Clark
Field, Pampanga, DENR Secretary Antonio Cerilles formally requested Foreign
Affairs Secretary Siazon to convey to the U.S. a “request for assistance for the
cleaning up and remediation of confirmed contaminated sites” in the former military
bases.
16. On April 13, 1999, toxic waste victims filed a complaint with the Commission on
Human Rights (CHR). After conducting an onsite investigation, the CHR Forensics
Officer reported that the residents medically examined manifested signs and
symptoms consistent with chemical exposure. Of those examined, 13 children aged
one to seven years old showed signs of birth defects and neurological disorder; four
females suffered spontaneous abortion and stillbirth, which can be attributed to
mercury exposure; and residents showed signs of central nervous system disorders,
kidney disorder and cyanosis (methemoglobin) which can be traced to nitrates
exposure. The laboratory analysis of water samples collected by the CHR team from
different deep wells sites at Clark Air Force Base Command revealed the presence of
mercury and nitrates.
17. On February 3, 1999, then the Chair of the Senate Environment Committee
Senator Loren Legarda-Leviste brought the issue of toxic contamination in the former
bases to the attention of U.S. Senator John Chafee, Chair of the U.S. Senate
Environment and Public Works Committee. Replying to Senator Legarda-Leviste in a
letter dated June 24, 1999, U.S. Deputy Undersecretary of Defense Sherry Goodman
stated hat the U.S. Government has no legal obligation to clean up the toxic waste in
the former U.S. bases in the Philippine. Undersecretary Goodman maintained that the
1947 Military bases Agreement, as amended, did not require the United States to
conduct any environmental restoration upon its termination and that the Philippine
government expressly agreed to waive any right to demand cleanup in return for the
United States‟ agreement not to seek compensation for improvements.
18. The Senate Joint Committees on Environment and Natural Resources, Health and
Demography, and Foreign relations conducted three committee hearings on Proposed
Senate Resolution Nos. 158, 162, 172, 281, 303, and 460 on July 21, July 30 and
September 15, 1999, and an executive session on October 14, 1999 for the purpose of
assessing the impact of toxic waste presence in Subic and Clark. Other concerns were
raised, such as the extent of contamination, the imminent danger to life, health and
well being of the residents therein, and the question of whether the U.S. is obliged to
clean up the former military bases.
19. On January 18, 200, President Joseph Estrada issued Executive Order No. 202
creating the Philippine Task Force on Hazardous Wastes in the former U.S. Military
Installations under the joint supervision of the Department of Foreign Affairs and
Environment and Natural Resources. Funded from the President‟s Contingent Fund in
the amount of P50,000,000.00, the Philippine Task Force (PTF) is tasked to perform
the following functions, to wit:
“1. Formulate plans of action in addressing the issue of hazardous wastes in the
former U.S. military installations.
“2. Ensure that studies are undertaken to assess the extent of hazardous waste
contamination and its effects on the environment and human health.
“3. Initiate and coordinate clean-up and environmental restoration efforts of
contaminated sites identified and assessed by Subic and Clark studies.
“4. Undertake immediate actions to address the identified environmental and health
concerns in Subic, Clark and other former military bases.
“5. Ensure long-term capacity building programs of technical transfer which focus
on contamination identification, contamination assessment, contamination clean up
and laboratory analysis at the former U.S. military installations.
“6. Secure the firm cooperation of U.S. agencies. the private sector and other entities
in harnessing and making available technical, administrative and financial resources
for effective implementation of the plans of action, programs, projects of the
PTF.
“7. Assist in the formulation and implementation of applicable government policies,
laws, rules and regulations in connection with the clean up of hazardous wastes in
former U.S. military installations.
“8. Coordinate the conduct of public information, education, communication
campaign on hazards and risks, if any, involved in the reuse of former U.S. military
installations in the Philippines and the need for contamination assessment and clean
up.
“9. Pursue other related functions which may be deemed necessary by the
President.”
II. ISSUES
The following are the factual and legal issues to be resolved by the Committees:
A. Whether or not the Philippines sustained environmental harm.
B. In case of any affirmative finding, what activities or operations within the military
bases caused the environmental harm? Which of the two States had effective control
of the activities or operations within the military bases that caused the environmental
harm?
C. In the event of a finding that the activities or operations of the United States within
the military bases caused the environmental harm:
(a) Can the U.S. be held liable under the 1947 Military Bases Agreement, as
amended?
(b) Can the U.S. be held liable under customary international law?
III. FINDINGS
A. WHETHER THE PHILIPPINES SUSTAINED SUBSTANTIAL
ENVIRONMENTAL HARM
i. U.S. General Accounting Office Report
That the Philippines sustained environmental harm cannot be denied by the U.S.
Government. While rejecting U.S. liability, a governmental agency of the U.S., the
General Accounting Office, reported that the Air Force and Navy officials had
identified significant environmental damage of Superfund/3 proportions at Subic and
Clark. The U.S. General Accounting Office report states:
“CONTAMINATED SITES HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AT BOTH BASES
“Although the services are not generally required to comply with U.S. standards at
overseas locations, some service regulations indicate that they are intended to apply
overseas. Environmental officers at both Clark and Subic Bay Naval Facility have
identified contaminated sites that would not be in compliance with U.S.
environmental standards. Their identification of contamination is based on
limited environmental surveys of Clark Air Base and Subic Bay Naval Facility.
No soil and water testing has been conducted in the contaminated areas; therefore, the extent of the damage is not known. According to one Air Force
official, testing alone would be very costly, and the cost of clean up and restoration
would be significantly greater. According to base officials, both Clark and Subic
Bay Naval Facility have common environmental problems with underground
storage tanks and fire-fighting training facilities that do not comply with U.S. standards. For example, the underground storage tanks lack leak detection
equipment, and fire-fighting facilities have no drainage systems. Instead, the
fuel and chemicals used in fire-fighting exercises seep directly into the soil and water table, and at the Navy facility, the overflow goes directly into Subic Bay.
“Navy environmental officials have identified the following sites at the Subic Naval
Base Facility that, in their opinion, represent significant environmental damage:
“The Subic Naval Base Facility does not have a complete sanitary sewer system
and treatment facility. Instead, sewage and waste waters from the naval base
and air station industrial complexes are discharged directly into Subic Bay.
Only 25 percent of the 5 million gallons of sewage generated daily is treated.
“Lead and other heavy metals from the ship repair facility’s sandblasting site
drain directly into the bay or are buried in the landfill. Neither procedure
complies with U.S. standards, which require that lead and heavy metals be
handled and disposed of as hazardous waste.
“The Subic Bay Navy Facility’s power plant contains unknown amounts of
polychorinated biphenyl (PCB) and emits untreated pollutants directly into the
air. No testing has been performed to analyze the content of emissions, but
officials stated that air emissions would not meet U.S. clean air standards.
“At the time of our review, the Air Force and Navy had no plans to clean up these
sites. However, the Navy plans to build a sewage treatment plant.” (Emphasis
supplied.)
The committee note that the information disclosed by the U.S. General Accounting
Report on contaminated sites was confirmed by separate reports, such as (a) the U.S.
Navy‟s “Potential Restoration Sites on Board the U.S. Facility, Subic Bay,” dated
October 1992, which identified 28 potentially contaminated sites in Subic and 28
potentially contaminated training areas and ranges utilized by naval forces; (b) the
“Subic Bay Environmental Risk Assessment and Investigation” conducted by the
WHO on Subic; (c) the “Environmental and Health Impact Report on Known and
Potentially Contaminated Sites at Former U.S. Military Bases in the Philippines” by a
team composed of Paul Bloom, Ph.D., Alex Carlos, M.S., Jorge Emmanuel, Ph.D.,
and Theodore Schettler, M.D.; and (d) the “Environmental Baseline Study/Soil and
Water Baseline Study” on Clark by Weston International. Even the Woodward-Clyde
International‟s “Environmental Baseline Study/Environmental Quality Study” on
Subic, whose conclusions was questioned by other experts, recommended remediation
in seven specific contaminated sites and further investigation and possible
investigation in 13 areas.
In 1993, the U.S. released Department of Defense documents to the Philippine
government identifying potential restoration sites at both sides. Basing its assessment
on the review of these documents, the Environmental and Health Impact Report on
Known and Potentially Contaminated Sites at Former U.S. Military Bases in the
Philippines written by a team composed of Paul Bloom, Jorge Emmanuel, et al.,
identified the known contaminated sites in Clark to include the Mechanical Room
Building 7509; Supply Storage Yard adjacent to the Defense Reutilization and
Marketing Office (DRMO); Clark Subic pipeline; Philrock Products Compound
Building 18; Asbestos landfill. The known contaminated sites in Subic included the
following: Public Works Center (Sanitary landfill; Power Plant Building 1800; Fleet
Mooring/Sandblasting Yard); U.S. Naval Station (Old dumpsite; Underground
sodium chromate, phenols, 2-butoxyethanol, butyl ether, hexylene glycol and
Stoddard solvent (a grade of petroleum distillates).
Clean-up Actions: Separator was apparently cleaned up in 1992 with the removal of
accumulated sludge, but no other corrective action taken
4. Cubi Power Plant
Sources: Reported spills and temporary storage of PCBs, used oils and 0solvents
Contaminants: Petroleum hydrocarbons, solvents and possibly PCBs
Clean-up Actions: Most, but not all, of spills were reportedly cleaned-up; no
documentation of the results of the clean-up activities
G. Other Areas
1. Defense reutilization and Marketing Office (DRMO) Yard
Sources: Reported spill incidents; hazardous waste was stored in an open yard
exposed to the elements causing deterioration of hazardous waste containers; storage
facility was cited for not conforming to standards
Contaminants: PCBs, acids, oil, solvents
Clean-up Actions: None
Notes: Cement slab remains where the DRMO building used to stand before it was
destroyed by Mt. Pinatubo ashfall. DRMO Yard is a flood plain and runoff drains
directly into adjacent bay. During a site visit, groundwater was measured
(approximately 3 feet below ground surface) in open boreholes in the yard. It is
probable that spill incidents especially in unpaved areas may have impacted the sandy
soils and the shallow groundwater.
CLARK AIR BASE
KNOWN CONTAMINATED SITES/6
1. Mechanical Room, Building 7509
Sources: Transformer in this building was involved in a fire that caused PCB
contamination of the transformer, walls, and ceilings in the transformer room.
Significant concentrations of PCB (338,001 ug/100cm2) were detected in wipe
samples.
Contaminants: PCB
2. Supply Storage Yard Adjacent to the DRMO
Sources: Leaking 55-gallon drums containing solvents, acids, surfactants, and
possibly paint wastes were observed two years ago in this area and many of the
containers were corroding.
Contaminants: Petroleum Hydrocarbons
3. Clark-Subic POL (Petroleum, oil and lubricants) pipeline
Sources: Spill incidents have been reported along the Clark-Subic POL pipeline by
the Pasig and Abacan River crossings
Contaminants: Petroleum hydrocarbons
Clean-up Action: None documented
4. Phil Rock Products Compound, Building 18
Sources: 110 gallons of hydrotor 400 oil (Petron) used as fuel spilled on October 13,
1990.
Contaminants: Petroleum hydrocarbons
Clean-up Actions: Contaminated soils were excavated and let dry under the sun. Soil
samples were taken but no results were included in the report. Information on the final
disposition of contaminated soils was not provided.
5. Asbestos Landfill
Sources:
project of the base hospital, the landfill was located in the of an antenna ray. The area
was divided into 50 square foot plots with concrete monuments placed at the corners
of each plot. Records regarding the location and amount of asbestos buried exist.
Contamination: Asbestos
Clean-up Action: None
Notwithstanding an assertion that the U.S. removed all containers of hazardous wastes
and materials in the former military bases/7, the Committee concur with the authors of
the Environmental and Health Impact Report that there is substantial environmental
contamination at both Clark and Subic. It is evident from a review of the documents
released by the U.S. Department of Defense that (1) the U.S. Government had
knowledge of the existence and location of known and potential contaminated
sites; and (2) despite such knowledge no comprehensive cleanup of the
contaminated sites was done by the U.S. Government.
The Committee agree with the authors of the report that the “contamination has
significant and urgent adverse ecological, human health, and economic implications
for the surrounding communities and x x x for the Philippines generally.” In the
absence of a thorough cleanup of the contaminated sites, it cannot be seriously refuted
that the Philippines sustained and continues to sustain substantial environmental
damage.
B. THE U.S. GOVERNMENT HAD EFFECTIVE CONTROL OVER THE
ACTIVITIES AND OPERATIONS WITHIN THE MILITARY BASES
Under Article III of the 1947 Military Bases Agreement, the U.S. had the “rights,
power and authority within the bases which are necessary for establishment, use,
operation and defense thereof or appropriate for the control thereof and all the rights,
power and authority within the limits of territorial waters and air space adjacent to, or
in the vicinity of, the bases which are necessary to provide access, or appropriate for
their control.” Such rights, power and authority, included, among others, the
following:
(a) to construct (including dredging and filling), operate, maintain, utilize, occupy,
garrison and control the bases;
(b) to improve and deepen the harbors, channels, entrances and anchorages, and to
construct or maintain necessary roads and bridges affording access to the bases;
(c) to control (including to prohibit) in so far as may be required for efficient
operation and safety of the bases, and within the limits of military necessity,
anchorages, moorings, landings, takeoffs, movements and operation of ships and
waterborne craft, aircraft, and other vehicles on water, in the air, or on land
comprising or in the vicinity of the bases;
(d) the right to acquire, as may be agreed between the two governments, such rights of
way, and to construct thereon, as may be required for military purposes, wire and
radio communications facilities, including submarine and subterranean cables, pie
lines and spur tracks from railroads to bases, and the right, as may be agreed upon
between the Governments to construct the necessary facilities;
(e) to construct, install, maintain and employ on any base any type of facilities,
weapons, substance, device, vessel or vehicle on or under the ground, in the air or on
or under the water that may be requisite or appropriate, including meteorological
systems, aerial and water navigational lights, radio and radar apparatus and electronic
devices, of any desired power, type or emission and frequency.
The U.S. agreed that in the exercise of these rights, power and authority, the powers
granted it will not be used “unreasonably.”
In January 1979, The “Arrangements Regarding Delineation of the United States
Facilities at Clark Air Base and Subic Naval Base; Powers and Responsibilities of the
Philippine Base Commanders and Related Powers and Responsibilities of the United
States Facility Commanders; and the Tabones Training Complex” was signed,
amending the 1947 Military Bases Agreement. While the 1979 amendment provided
that the powers and responsibilities of the Philippine base commanders and the U.S.
Facility commanders would be guided by full respect for Philippine sovereignty, it
also assured unhampered U.S. military operations involving its forces in the
Philippines. Thus, it was agreed, “the United States shall have the use of certain
facilities and areas within the bases and shall have effective command and control over such facilities and over United States personnel, employees, equipment
and material.”/8
Even as the United States reaffirmed that Philippine sovereignty extended over the
bases and that each base was under the command of a Philippine Base Commander,/9
certain areas were reserved for the exclusive use of the U.S. Armed Forces and the
U.S. Navy. For instance, a portion of Subic Bay waters was reserved for U.S. forces‟
use; and within the depicted reserved waters, the U.S. Commander was authorized to
control movement and operation of ships and waterborne craft and to perform other
activities that may be appropriate for the unhampered operation of U.S. forces.
Moreover, the Philippine government assured unhampered access to, egress from,
movement within and operational use of the water of Subic Bay by U.S. government
vessels and vessels chartered or engaged on behalf of the United States./10 It will be
noted that facilities and installations identified as potential sources of pollution, such
as the communication facilities at Clark, the Naval Supply Depot and the industrial
area at Subic, were part of the areas used for exclusive American use./11
From the foregoing, it cannot be denied that the United States exercised effective
control of the activities within the military bases.
C. THE ACTIVITIES CONDUCTED BY THE U.S. WITHIN THE
FORMER MILITARY BASES CAUSED ENVIRONMENTAL
HARM
Inasmuch as the U.S. had effective control of the territory and all the activities
conducted within the bases, the environmental harm within Subic and Clark can only
be attributed to the activities conducted by the U.S. within the bases.
Again, a review of the Department of Defense documents released by the United
States to the Philippine government would provide evidence that the U.S. carried out
activities, operations and practices within the military bases which caused
environmental harm. As stated, known contaminated sites in Subic Naval Base and
Clark Field Air Base were identified based on an analysis of the operations performed
by the U.S. forces at the military bases and on documented and reported history of
spills, dumping burying toxic materials and other improper practices, while potentially
contaminated sites were identified by examining the history of improper toxic waste
management practices, high chemical use and storage, generation of large quantities
of hazardous waste, or reported violations or non-conformance to hazardous materials
management standards./12
The U.S. General Accounting Report noted some of these improper practices and
deficiencies as follows: underground storage tanks had no leak detection equipment;
firefighting facilities lacked drainage systems; the Subic Bay Naval Facility‟s power
plant contained unknown amounts of polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) and emitted
untreated pollutants directly into the air; the Subic Bay Naval Facility had no
complete sanitary sewer system and treatment facility; and only 25 percent of the five
million gallons of sewage generated daily was treated. As a result, thereof, the fuel
and chemicals used in fire-fighting exercises seeped into the soil and water table, and
the overflow went directly into Subic Bay. Sewage and process waste water from the
naval base and air station industrial complexes were discharged directly into Subic
Bay, while lead and other metals from the ship repair facility‟s sandblasting site either
drained directly into the bay or were buried in the landfill./13
The U.S. General Accounting Office Report admitted that at the time of the review,
the U.S. Air Force and the U.S. Navy had no plans to clean up the contaminated sites.
From the foregoing, it is patent from the documents released by the U.S. Department
of Defense that (1) the United States had knowledge of or had the means of knowing
that its agents were carrying out such hazardous activities, operations and improper
waste management practices within the military bases under its effective control; and
that the U.S. had knowledge of or had the means of knowing that the activities
undertaken within the military bases involved appreciable or foreseeable risk of
causing environmental harm; and (3) lastly, that notwithstanding such knowledge, the
United States government had no visible plans of repairing or compensating for the
environmental harm.
D. WHETHER THE U.S. CAN BE HELD LIABLE UNDER THE 1947
MILITARY BASES AGREEMENT, AS AMENDED
The U.S., in the General Accounting report, does not deny the contamination of site
within the former bases, such as fire-fighting training facilities and underground
storage tanks. It denies, however, liability of environmental damage under the
Military Bases Agreement. This is evident from the letter dated June 24, 1999 written
by U.S. Deputy Undersecretary of Defense Sherri Goodman to Senator Legarda-
Leviste alleging that the United States Government has no legal obligation to clean up
the toxic waste in the former U.S. bases in the Philippines. The letter states:
“The United States used military installations in the Philippines under the1947
Military Bases Agreement. Neither that Agreement, nor major amendments to it,
required the United States to conduct any environmental restoration when the
Agreement terminated. Your government expressly agreed to waive any right to
demand cleanup in return for the agreement of the United States not to seek
compensation for the value of the substantial improvements we left behind. You can
find this language in the1988 Amendment. It reads as follows:
„The United States is not obliged to turn over the bases to the Philippines at the
expiration of this Agreement or the earlier relinquishment of any bases in the
condition in which they were at the time of their occupation, nor is the Philippine
obliged to make any compensation to the United States for the improvements in
the bases or for the non-removable buildings or structures left thereon, the right of
which shall revert to the Philippines upon the termination of this Agreement or the
earlier relinquishment by the United States of the bases where the buildings or
structures have been built.‟
“Nothing in international law alters the rights established by the Military Bases
Agreement. Consequently, the United States has no further obligation to undertake
restoration activities at its former installations in the Philippines. In the absence of
legal authority, our laws do not permit us to spend funds for the purposes you have
requested.”
Commenting on the letter of undersecretary Goodman, the Philippine Department of
Foreign Affairs stated in part:
“The Department of Foreign Affairs is aware of the U.S. Government‟s position that
it is under no legal obligation to clean-up suspected contaminated sites in the former
U.S. military bases of Subic and Clark. x x x
“Subsequent amendments made on Article XVII of the 1947 Military Bases
Agreement to mean that the Philippine Government “expressly agreed” to waive its
rights to the ownership, removal and disposition of improvement made by the United
States in the former U.S. military bases. The Philippine Government did not at any
time waive ant right to demand clean-up of the former U.S. bases in exchange for
improvements made by the U.S. Government in the premises of the former U.S.
bases. It must be noted that when the 1947 Military Bases Agreement was signed,
there was no knowledge or experience at the time of the adverse effects of hazardous
wastes on the life and health of humans.”/14
The pertinent provisions of the Agreement and the amendments thereto are as
follows:
Military Bases Agreement
1947
Manglapus-Schultz
Memorandum of
Agreement
October 17, 1988
ARTICLE XVIII
REMOVAL OF
IMPROVEMENTS
ARTICLE VII
OWNERSHIP AND
DISPOSITION OF
BUILDINGS, STRUCTURES
AND OTHER PROPERTY
1. It is mutually agreed that
the United States shall have
the right to remove or dispose
of any or all removable
improvements, equipment or
facilities located at or on any
base and paid for with funds
of the United States. No
export tax shall be charged on
any material or equipment so
removed from the
Philippines.
1. It is mutually agreed that
the United States shall have
the right to remove or dispose
of any or all removable
improvements, equipment or
facilities located at or on any
base paid for with funds of
the United States. No export
tax shall be charged on any
material or equipment so
removed from the
Philippines. The Government
of the Philippines shall have
the first option to acquire,
upon the mutually agreed
terms, such removable United
States Government property
within the bases as the United
States Government
determines to be excess
property available for
disposition in the Philippines.
1. All buildings and
structures which are erected
by the United States in the
bases shall be the property of
the United States and may be
removed by it before the
expiration of this Agreement
or the earlier relinquishment
of the base on which the
structures are situated. There
shall be no obligation on the
part of the Philippines or of
the United States to rebuild or
repair any destruction or
damage inflicted from any
cause whatsoever on any of
2. Non-removable buildings
and structures within the
bases, including essential
utility systems such as energy
and water production and
distribution systems and
heating and air conditioning
systems that are an integral
part of such buildings and
structures, are the property of
the Government of the
Philippines, and shall be so
registered. The United States
shall, however, have the right
to full use, in accordance
with this Agreement, of such
the said buildings or
structures owned or used by
the United States in the bases.
The United States is not
obliged to turn over the bases
in the condition in which they
were at the time of their
occupation, nor is the
Philippines obliged to make
any compensation to the
United States for the
improvements made in the
bases or for the buildings or
structures left thereon, all of
which shall become the
property of the Philippines
upon termination of the
Agreement or the earlier
relinquishment by the United
States of the bases where the
structure have been built.
non-removable buildings and
structures within the United
States Facilities at the bases
including the right to repair,
alter or, when necessary for
reasons of safety or new
construction, to demolish
them. There shall be no
obligation on the part of the
United States or of the
Philippines to rebuild or
repair any destruction or
damage inflicted from any
cause whatsoever on any of
the non-removable buildings
or structures used by the
United States in the bases.
The United States is not
obliged to turn over the bases
to the Philippines at the
expiration of this Agreement
or the earlier relinquishment
of any bases in the condition
in which they were at the time
of their occupation, nor is the
Philippines obliged to make
any compensation to the
United States of the bases
where the structures have
been built.
3. Upon the final termination
of the use by the Government
of the United States of the
Facilities or earlier
relinquishment, the United
States and the Republic of the
Philippines will take
appropriate measures as they
shall jointly determine to
ensure a
smooth transition with respect
to custody and control of the
Facilities and in order to
minimize any disruptive
effects of such termination.
The question, therefore, is whether this clause, “The United States is not obligated
to turn over the bases to the Philippines at the expiration of this Agreement or the
earlier relinquishment of any bases in the condition in which they were at the time
of their occupation.” can be interpreted to grant the United States blanket
authority to inflict significant blanket authority to inflict significant
environmental damage within or in the vicinity of the bases by wanton acts of
dumping contaminants, burying of toxic materials and other improper waste
management practices, thereby causing enormous health hazards to residents
within the area. Does Article XVIII of the Military Bases Agreement (on
Removal of Improvements), as amended by Article VII (on Ownership and
Disposition of Buildings, Structures and Other Property) of the Manglapus-
Schultz Memorandum of Agreement, give the United States the license to commit
acts of destruction of the environment or of tort in exchange for non-removable
buildings and structures?
The committee are not inclined to so hold, considering that under Article III of
the 1947 Military Bases Agreement, the United States agreed not to exercise its rights, power and authority “unreasonably.” As correctly noted in House
Resolution No. 75 adopted by the Philippine House of Representatives on September
21, 1999, the Agreement, like any other valid contracts, contemplated only reasonable
activities and that the indiscriminate and negligent disposal of toxic and hazardous
wastes in any area not safely meant therefor is an illegal and unreasonable
undertaking. Nothing in the 1947 Military Bases Agreement of the amendments
thereto authorized the United States to unduly pollute the territorial waters with
contaminants, destroy the environment by dumping toxic wastes within the bases
and endanger the lives of residents in the vicinity. The tortious act of inflicting
damage, whether to the environment or to the lives of the people of the
contracting State, could not have been authorized or contemplated under the
Military Bases Agreement or any of its amendments, or could toxic tort/15
injuring Filipino citizens have been sanctioned by the Philippines in exchange for
non-removable building or structures. To so interpret the Agreement would reduce
its provisions to an absurdity and violate a fundamental canon of statutory
construction that any interpretation of a provision that will lead to an absurdity or
irrationality should be avoided at all costs.
“The usual canons of statutory construction are employed in the interpretation of
treaties. Thus, to mention a few, specific provisions must be read in the light of the
whole instrument and especially of the purposes of the treaty. Words used to be given
their natural meaning unless a technical sense was intended, and, when they have
different meanings in the contracting states, should be interpreted in accordance with
the usage of the state where they are supposed to take effect. x x x At all events, an
interpretation that will lead to an absurdity is to be avoided and a more rational result
preferred.”/16
The Committees find the Philippine Department of Foreign Affairs‟ interpretation to
the effect that Article VII of the 1988 Manglapus-Schultz Memorandum of
Agreement amending Article XVIII of the 1947 Military Bases Agreement, refers to
the ownership and disposition of buildings, structures and improvements at the
expiration of the Agreement or the earlier relinquishment of the bases, more rational
and in keeping with the statutory construction rule that a specific provision must not
be taken in isolation but read in the light of the whole instrument, including the title of
the article to which it refers. Considering the undertaking of the United states to its
powers, rights and authority under the Agreement reasonable, the Committees also
hold that the provision quoted above does not bar the Philippines from protecting its
citizens who have suffered damage or injury as a result of toxic tort or wanton
contamination in Subic and Clark.
In any case, conflicts in the interpretation of treaties or international agreements may
be resolved by agreement of the parties themselves or by an international body./17 In
view of the differences in opinion by the United States and the Philippines in the
interpretation of Article VII on Ownership and Disposition of Buildings, Structures
and Other Property under the Manglapus-Schultz 1988 Memorandum of Agreement,
amending Article XVIII on Removal of Improvements under the 1947 Military Bases
Agreement, the Committees submit that the question whether the United States can be
held liable under the 1947 Military Bases Agreement and amendments thereto can
best be resolved by an international body.
E. WHETHER THE U.S. CAN BE HELD LIABLE UNDER CUSTOMARY
INTERNATIONAL LAW
As in the foregoing paragraph, an international body can best resolve the question
whether the United States can be held liable under customary international law.
Under generally accepted principles of international law, particularly the maxim
of sic utere jure tuo ut alienum non laedas,/18 the United States had the duty to
ensure that the activities conducted within the military bases and under its
effective control were carried out in such a manner as not to cause
environmental harm to the Philippines and its citizens. If The activities
conducted within the military bases and under the United States’ effective
control caused harm, then the United States has the corresponding duty to repair
or compensate such damage.
It is interesting to note the U.S. position that nothing in international law alters the
rights established by the Military Bases Agreement and that the United states has no
further obligation to undertake restoration activities at the former military bases. The
Committees take exception to this position, particularly in the light of the discussion
that the provision in the 1947 Military bases Agreement or its amendments thereto
granted the United Sates the right to pollute the territorial waters of the Philippines
with contaminants, dump toxic wastes and endanger the lives of the residents in the
vicinity. No article or section in the 1947 Military Bases Agreement or in its
amendments referred to any right or authority granted to the United States to
inflict damage to the environment or to commit toxic tort with impunity. In fact,
it was only the Supplementary Agreement Number Two to the 1991 Treaty of
Friendship, Cooperation and Security Between the Government of the Republic of
the Philippines and the Government of the United States of America: Agreement on
Installations and Military Operating Procedures, which the Philippine Senate
overwhelmingly rejected, that contained an article specifically referring to the
environment./19 The absence in the 1947 Military Bases Agreement or its
amendments of any provision on the environment bolsters the interpretation that
the clause, “The United states is not obliged to turn over the bases to the
Philippines at the expiration of this Agreement or the earlier relinquishment of any
bases in the condition in which they were at the time of their occupation,” referred
only to the ownership and disposition of buildings, structures and other
properties at the expiration of the Agreement and was not meant as a license for
the American forces to commit wrongful or negligent acts of environmental
destruction.
In the absence of any specific provision under the 1947 Military Bases Agreement, as
amended, granting the United States the right to dispose of hazardous or toxic wastes
in Subic and Clark as it pleases, the general principles of international law will apply.
And under the customary principle of international law, sic utere jure tuo ut alienum
non laedas, a State is responsible for environmental damage to another State. The
protection of the environment is a universal duty and the obligation to prevent
environmental damage is well established by custom./20
The principle of sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas which holds a State liable for
environmental damage to another evolved from landmark cases and arbitral decisions
in international law, such as the Trail Smelter Arbitration award/21 and the Corfu
Channel Case/22. In the Trail Smelter Arbitration case, the United States filed a claim
against Canada for air pollution-causing fumes coming from a privately owned
smelter plant in Trail, British Columbia. Applying the general principles of
international law, particularly the sic utere jure tuo principle, the Special Arbitral
Tribunal held that States are obliged to regulate activities with potentially harmful
effects to other States and that “no State has the right to use or permit the use of its
territory in such a manner as to cause injury by fumes in or to the territory of another
or the properties or persons therein, when the case is of serious consequences and the
injury is established by clear and convincing evidence.” After mandating regulatory
controls for Canada, the Tribunal held Canada liable for the air pollution caused by a
private company within its territory and to make reparations if any harm occurred in
the future even from wholly lawful activities.
In the Corfu Channel case, the Corfu Channel. located between Corfu Island and
Albania, was considered free of mines. The British Government claimed the right of
passage through the channel while the Albanian Government opined that the foreign
ships‟ passage required prior Albanian permission. In October 1946 two British
warships struck mines in the North Corfu Strait and were heavily damaged with
deaths and injuries among the naval personnel. Britain unilaterally undertook
minesweeping operations in the channel after the incident amid protests from Albania.
The United States Security Council in a resolution recommended that the parties
should refer the dispute to the International Court of Justice in accordance with the
provisions of the Statute of the Court, which resolution was accepted by both States.
In 1947, the United Kingdom unilaterally instituted proceedings before the
International Court of Justice, with protests from Albania against the unilateral British
application./23
Noting that it was improbable for Albania to have been unaware of the existence of
the minefield recently laid in its territorial waters, the International Court of Justice
declared that Albania was presumed to know of the minefield‟s existence and was
obliged to notify the ships of the imminent danger from the minefield. The Court then
held Albania liable under international law for the explosions and for the loss of
human lives based on the general and well-recognized principle that each State is
obliged “not to allow knowingly its territory to be used for acts contrary to the rights
of other states.”
The committees, moreover, note of the following discussion in the paper entitled,
Toxic Waste Contamination in Former U.S. Military Bases in the Philippines and the
Concept of Sate Responsibility for Damage to the Environment by Department of
Environment and Natural Resources Undersecretary Paula Defensor:
“The development of principles applicable to state responsibility for environmental
damage eventually led to a global conference to discuss matters relating to the present
state and future of the human environment. Thus came about the 1972 Stockholm
Conference and as a corollary, the Stockholm Declaration on the Human
Environment, the most significant provision of which is Principle 21, which states:
„States have, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the
principles of international law, the sovereign right to exploit their own natural
resources pursuant to their own environmental policies, and the responsibility to
ensure that activities within their jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to
the environment of other States or of areas beyond the limits of national
jurisdiction.‟
“In addition to Principle 21, there is also Principle 22 which provides that States
were to cooperate to further principles regarding liability and compensation to
victims of pollution and other environmental damage. It provides:
„States shall cooperate to develop further the international law regarding liability
and compensation for the victims of pollution and other environmental damage
caused by activities within the jurisdiction and control of such states to areas beyond
their jurisdiction.‟
“Principle 22 is a restatement of the judgement in the Trail Smelter case despite little
development in the concept of state responsibility for environmental damage in
international law. On account, however, of continued reference to and opinio juris on
Principle 21 in various fora and international documents, it is now commonly
accepted as representing customary international law.
Principle 21 of the Stockholm Declaration was later repeated and expanded during
the Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) in 1992 which adopted
a Declaration known as the Declaration of the UN Conference on Environment and
Development or the Rio Declaration. Principle 2 of the Rio Declaration provides:
„States have in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the principles
of international law, the sovereign right to exploit their own resources pursuant to
their own environmental and developmental policies, and the responsibility to
ensure that activities within their jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the
environment of other states or areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction.‟”
Again, the author reasoned:
“The protection of the doctrine of territorial integrity is the rationale behind the
acceptance in state practice of the principle of sic utere tuo, placing the acting state in
breach of duty under customary international law. The recognition of this principle in
the municipal law of states gives the necessary confirmation and evidence of the
juridical character of the principle involved. This principle is reiterated in current
applications of international law on the rights and duties of states with respect to state
territory. It has little bearing therefore that toxic waste contamination in the former
U.S. military bases was caused by the nature of activities conducted by the U.S.
military within the bases. It has been established that portions of those sites are no
longer reusable due to toxic waste contamination and worse, pose substantial and
imminent danger to human life and environment. Under customary international
law, the United States fell short of the standard of diligence which other states are expected from it. The degree of diligence varies with the circumstances, and
among the factors to be considered are the foreseeability of the risk and the means
available to the state. The basis of United States responsibility for the injurious
acts of its servicemen stationed in the former military bases is not complicity
with the perpetrators, but its failure to perform its international duty to prevent
the unlawful act, or failure to observe the diligence to abate the unlawful act.
The present state of international law admits of responsibility on the basis of
either fault or negligence on the part of the state. The state is liable if it failed to
take such measures as, under the circumstance, should normally have been
taken to prevent, redress or inflict punishment for the acts causing the damage.”/25 (Emphasis supplied)
Applying the generally accepted principles of international law, particularly of
sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas, one will note that there is sufficient basis for
a cause of action under international law against the United States. From a
review of the Department of Defense documents released by the United States
Government, the veracity of which the United States cannot deny, it is clear that
the Philippines sustained significant environmental damage at both Clark Field
Air Base and Subic Naval Base and that it is highly improbable for the U.S.
Government not to have knowledge of the existence of the contaminated sites in
the former military bases over which it had effective control and unhampered
access under the 1947 Military Bases Agreement, as amended. The records from
the U.S. Department of Defense will confirm that the United States had
knowledge or had means of knowing that its agents were carrying out hazardous
activities, operations and improper waste management practices within the
military bases, and that these activities, operations and practices involved
appreciable or foreseeable risk of causing environmental harm. It cannot be
argued that the principle of sic utere jure tuo will not apply because Subic and
Clark are part of the Philippine territory, for the reason that the U.S. military
bases were located in a portion of Philippine territory of which the United States
enjoyed exclusive and unimpeded use. It also cannot be disputed, again based on
the U.S. Department of Defense documents, that despite such knowledge, the
United States Government has not executed a thorough and comprehensive
cleanup of the known and potential contaminated sites in Subic and Clark. In
fact, reasoning that it is not obligated to turn over the bases in the
environmentally safe condition in which they were at the time of their
occupation, it continues to deny responsibility for cleanup operations
notwithstanding its knowledge of the toxic contamination as manifest in the U.S.
General Accounting Report.
IV. COMMITTEES’ CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
In summary, the Committee on Natural Resources, Health and Demography, and
Foreign Relations find that
xi. Based on the documents released by the U.S. Department of Defense, there is
substantial environmental contamination in the former Subic Bay Naval Base
and Clark Field Air Base;
xii. It is evident from the documents released by the U.S. Department of Defense
that the United States Government has knowledge of the existence and location
of known and potential contaminated sites in the former Subic bay Naval Base
and Clark Field Air base;
xiii. The hazardous activities, operations and improper waste management
practices engaged in by the United States Government within the military bases
under its effective control involved appreciable and foreseeable risk of causing
environmental harm;
xiv. The United States Government is presumed to know or had the means of
knowing that such hazardous activities, operations and improper waste
management practices were carried out by the U.S. forces within the military
bases over which it had effective control and unhampered access;
xv. The environmental damage caused in Subic and Clark was substantial and
had serious adverse ecological, human health and economic implications for the
residents within the area and for the Philippines in general.
xvi. The hazardous activities, operations and improper waste management
practices engaged in by the United States forces within the military bases caused
the environmental damage;
xviii. Inasmuch as the activities conducted within the military bases and under
the effective control of the U.S. caused substantial harm, the United States has
the corresponding duty to repair and compensate for such damage;
xix. Despite allegations to the effect that the matter of reparation and
compensation for toxic contamination is a purely moral question, there is
sufficient basis to submit to an international body the legal question concerning
the interpretation of Article VII of the 1988 Manglapus-Schultz
Memorandum of Agreement amending Article XVIII of the 1947 Military
Bases Agreement;
xx. Despite allegations to the effect that the matter of reparation and
compensation for toxic contamination is a purely moral question, there is
sufficient basis under customary international law for a cause of action against
the United States for failing to ensure that the activities conducted by the U.S.
forces within the former Subic Bay Naval Base and Clark Field Air Base were
carried out in such a manner as not to cause harm to the Philippines and its
citizens.
In view of the foregoing, the Committees respectfully recommend that the following
measures be taken:
By the Department of Foreign Affairs:
4. To negotiate with the United States Government, the remediation of the areas
affected with toxic waste contamination and to initiate preventive and curative
measures in order to suppress the rising number of victims of toxic waste
contamination in Clark and Subic at the expense of the former. It should be
negotiated along the lines of, or pursuant to, Principle 13 of the 1992 Rio
Declaration on Environment and Development, of which the United States is a
signatory, which provides that “States shall develop national law regarding liability
and compensation for the victims of pollution and other environmental damage.
States shall also cooperate in expeditious and more determined manner to develop
further international law regarding liability and compensation for adverse effects of
environmental damage caused by activities within their jurisdiction or control to
areas beyond their jurisdiction”;
5. To pursue, through diplomatic channels, the creation of a Joint R.P.-U.S. Task
Force that will conduct a thorough examination of the extent of toxic waste
contamination in Clark and Subic, determine the ill effects thereof to the inhabitants,
and implement the much-needed remediation over these areas at the expense of
the U.S. Government; and
6. In the event that the United States Government should refuse to effect a
remediation on the toxic wastes that the latter left in the former bases of Clark and
Subic, to recommend to the Chief executive the filing of a suit, in behalf of the
Republic of the Philippines, against the United States of America before the
International Court of Justice pursuant to the principles of customary international
law for failing to ensure that the activities conducted by the U.S. forces within the
former Subic Bay Naval Base and Clark Field Air Base were carried out in such a
manner as not to cause harm to the Philippines and its citizens, and for a judicious
and authoritative interpretation of Article VII of the 1988 Manglapus-Schultz
Memorandum of Agreement amending Article XVIII of the 1947 Military Bases
Agreement.
By the Department of Health:
6. To continue its efforts in protecting the people from the ill-effects of toxic waste
contamination in Clark and Subic;
7. To continue strengthening the capability of its regional hospital, particularly the
Jose Lingad Memorial, in managing, diagnosing, and treatment of patients with
illnesses that may be attributed to the toxic waste found in said areas;
8. To continue conducting a comprehensive health impact assessment and
epidemiological surveillance studies to validate and monitor the reported illnesses
among the residents in the vicinity;
9. To recommend to the Philippine Task Force on Hazardous Wastes, of which
DOH is a member, to close than the identified contaminated areas; and
10. To work closely with the Philippine Nuclear Research Institute to determine the
levels of radioactivity in the identified areas.
By the Department of Environment and Natural Resources:
5. To enforce thenceforth the provisions of Republic Act No.6969 otherwise known
as the “Toxic Substances and Hazardous Nuclear Wastes Control Act” to forestall
the repetition of similar subsequent toxic waste contamination throughout the
country;
6. To effect the treatment of wells in the affected areas through chlorination or other
scientific methods within or which may hereafter fall within the disposal of the
agency;
7. To continuously conduct analytic research and study on the toxic waste issue;
and
8. To study further the environmental impact assessment on the areas affected by the
waste contamination.
Finally, The Senate Committees on Environment and Natural Resources, Health and
Demography, and Foreign Relations most respectfully recommend to the Chief
Executive
4. Declare a state of environmental calamity in the specific areas affected with toxic
waste contamination and direct the relocation of persons still residing within these
areas;
5. Submit to an international body, in behalf of the Republic of the Philippines, the
question concerning the interpretation of Article VII of the 1988 Manglapus-Schultz
Memorandum of Agreement amending Article XVIII of the 1947 Military Bases
Agreement in view of the differences in opinion by the United States and the
Philippines, and the refusal of the United States to admit liability; and
6. In the event that the United States Government should refuse to affect a
remediation on the toxic wastes in the former Subic Naval Base and Clark Field Air
Base, to file a suit, in behalf of the Republic of the Philippines, against the United
States of America before the International Court of Justice pursuant to the principles
of customary international law for failing to ensure that the activities conducted by
the U.S. forces within the former military bases were carried out in such a manner as
not to cause harm to the Philippines and its citizens.
ENDNOTES
1/ List of Deceased CABCOM evacuees as monitored by Mandy Rivera from a community of
500 families
NAME AGE DATE OF DEATH ILLNESS
1. Alfonso Lapira 59 Jan. 2, 1996 Cancer
2. Aniceta Miranda July 13, 1999 Cancer
3. Dominga Valencis 77 July 5, 1997 Cancer
4. Emerenciana Abalos 78 Apr. 29, 1999 Cancer
5. Ernesto Licup Sept. 9, 1999 Cancer
6. Jesus Mendoza 21 March 4, 1999 Cancer
7. Michelle Lapira Jan. 2, 1999 Cancer
8. Narcisa Cortez 62 July 13, 1998 Cancer
9. Ponciano Ayson 71 Nov. 17, 1997 Cancer
10. Juan Cortez June 1999 Bone Cancer
11. Erlinda Baltazar 47 Dec. 1998 Ovarian Cancer
12. Victoria Morales 86 Dec. 1, 1998 Ovarian Cancer
13. Teofila Escoto Sept. 17, 1997 Cancer of the Uterus