CA junks Villar appeal vs Manila Bay project

MANILA, Philippines - The Court of Appeals (CA) has affirmed its earlier ruling dismissing the petition of Sen. Cynthia Villar seeking to stop a Manila Bay reclamation project that covers the coastlines of Las Piñas and Parañaque cities.

In a decision released Friday, the CA’s third division denied the lawmaker’s motion for reconsideration.

“After a careful assessment of the foregoing, we find the same to be a mere rehash of the issues and arguments raised in the petition and which have already been passed upon in our decision. Villar failed to raise new matters of substance in her motion which may warrant either modification or a reversal of the decision,” read the four-page resolution penned by Associate Justice Apolinario Bruselas.

Associate Justices Rebecca De Guia-Salvador and Samuel Gaerlan concurred in this ruling.

The CA reiterated that the threat of massive flooding “had been scientifically examined and determined to be non-existent to negligible at worst.”

In her appeal, Villar again argued that the proposed coastal bay project would cause massive environmental damage that could threaten the life, health and property in the two cities.

She said it would destroy Las Pinas Paranaque Critical Habitat and Ecotourism Area (LPPCHEA), a sanctuary to migratory bird species from as far as Siberia. 

According to the Wild Bird Club of the Philippines, the entire Metro Manila is host to 150 species of birds, 72 of which are found at LPPCHEA. LPPCHEA is the only bird sanctuary located in an urban setting. Because of its biodiversity, LPPCHEA was declared as a critical habitat in 2007 by Proclamation Nos. 1412 and 1412-A.

She added that the issuance of an Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC) for the proposed coastal bay project was not in accordance with applicable laws.

Likewise, Villar insisted that the public consultation that was supposedly conducted for the project failed to satisfy the strict requirements of the law.

However, the CA said it would only be wasting its time and resources if it would review Villar’s arguments anew.

“To discuss anew each and every assertion of petition, Villar will serve no other productive purpose other than to consume valuable court time and the parties equally significant time and resources,” the CA said.

The CA stood by its findings that Villar failed to present evidence that would show a “causal link” between the project and the “catastrophic environmental damage feared (by the petitioner).”

The CA also held that the “apprehensions” of Villar “had been disproven by objective, expert and scientific studies of reputable entities with vast international experience.”