Getting business into the realm of anti-government protests is a challenge, according to an Ayala business veteran.

He turned back the pages to the aftermath of the assassination of former Senator Ninoy Aquino, when the business sector coalesced to hold mass actions against the Marcos regime that had by then been in power for more than 20 years.

The Makati Business Club, which represented the business sector at the time, included among its members Jimmy Ongpin, who later became finance minister under President Cory Aquino. 

Ongpin, however, was then a key official of a company owned by Benjamin “Kokoy” Romualdez, a brother of First Lady Imelda Romualdez Marcos. 

“I mean, I couldn’t figure that out, he was making Kokoy rich at the same time,” the executive reminisced to Nosy Tarsee.

There was an anecdote that Ongpin found himself in an elevator with Romualdez when he was offered the opportunity to manage his business empire.

“Like I said, Jimmy Ongpin, the primary, you know, critic of Marcos, I mean, those are the incongruous realities. But he knew how to play the game,” the executive said.

Ongpin served as president and CEO of Benguet Corp. from the mid-1970s to the early 1980s. 

Kokoy Romualdez was the principal stockholder but this was concealed to avoid public scrutiny during the Marcos regime.

Ongpin later admitted in a 1986 The Washington Post interview that he suspected Kokoy’s involvement from the outset but accepted the job after assurances of non-interference in management. 

He occasionally faced requests for favors such as board appointments or training for Romualdez family members, which he refused.

Ongpin justified his tenure by noting that he generated profits for the company while keeping its operations independent of any undue influence.                   DT

Shell slapped with landmark suit

In a global first, 67 typhoon survivors from island communities in the Philippines affected by typhoon “Odette” in 2021 are suing the fossil fuel company, Shell, in British courts, demanding financial compensation for the losses and damage they experienced. 

It will be the first civil claim to directly link polluting companies to deaths and personal injuries in typhoon-prone nations. Other climate lawsuits have so far focused on future harms and risks.

The legal team representing the survivors delivered the letter before action to Shell, which is domiciled in London, on Wednesday, inviting the company to respond to the allegations. 

If no agreement is reached between the parties, the survivors will file a case before the UK High Court in December, according to UK publication The Guardian.

The claim alleges that Shell’s polluting business has contributed to anthropogenic climate change, which intensified the impact of the typhoon. 

Using domestic laws, it asserted that the firm violated the constitutional right of the claimants to a healthy environment and that it caused harm by failing to mitigate its emissions and by engaging in climate disinformation and the obfuscation of climate science. 

The case also seeks potential injunctive relief to prevent further violations of human rights.

According to the publication, leaked internal documents suggest Shell knew of the extensive negative impact of fossil fuel production and consumption at least 60 years ago but continued to expand and significantly profit from its business.

“The fact that they continued such acts despite knowing the harm they would cause, coupled with deliberately misinforming the public, can be considered acting contrary to certain provisions of Filipino law,” said Greg Lascelles, a partner at Hausfeld who leads the legal team.

A Shell spokesperson denied the allegation that the company had earlier knowledge of climate change. 

“The suggestion that Shell had unique knowledge about climate change is simply not true. The issue of climate change and how to tackle it has been part of public discussion and scientific research for decades,” Shell said in a statement.

The Filipino claimants, however, charged that despite Shell knowing the impact of increased emissions, it still expanded its fossil fuel operations, hid from the public what it knew, and actively undermined scientific consensus on the causes and effects of the climate crisis through its direct involvement in the fossil fuel industry and lobbying.

The “Odette” case stands out as a claim that draws from robust attribution science. Scientists from Imperial College London, the University of Sheffield and the Grantham Institute came out with a study that concluded that anthropogenic climate change had more than doubled the likelihood of extreme weather events like “Odette.”

The case is also supported by a pioneering report from the Philippines’ Commission on Human Rights, which conducted the world’s first investigation on the responsibility of 47 of the world’s largest oil, gas, and cement producers, including Shell, for human rights violations related to the climate crisis. 

In 2022, the commission concluded that polluters had a moral and legal obligation to address climate harms.

So far, no company has had to pay for losses and damage linked to the climate crisis.

As climate harms mount, courts are becoming the new battlefield for climate survivors seeking accountability, according to Tessa Khan, a climate change lawyer and executive director of Uplift, which supports the claimants.