SC sets oral arguments on Boracay reclamation project

MANILA, Philippines -  The Supreme Court (SC) issued yesterday its guidelines for the oral argument set next week on a petition seeking to stop a P1-billion reclamation project covering the 40-hectare coastline of the world renowned Boracay island and nearby Caticlan port in Aklan.

The SC issued an advisory setting the oral arguments on Sept. 13 at 2 p.m. at the new session hall of the new SC building in Padre Faura street in Manila.

On top of the issues to be tackled is whether the petition filed by Boracay Foundation Inc. (BFI) was premature since it purportedly failed to exhaust all administrative remedies before elevating the case to the high court.

The SC also wants to resolve whether the province of Aklan failed to perform a full environmental impact assessment as required by laws and regulations based on the scope and classification of the project.

Requirements under the pertinent laws and regulations covering the project would also be discussed by lawyers of both camps who are each given a maximum of 20 minutes to present their respective arguments.

Other issues in the oral argument would be: whether or not the reclamation of land bordering the strait between Caticlan and Boracay would adversely affect the ecological balance of the area and the famed white sand beaches of Boracay Island; if the Philippine Reclamation Authority (PRA) issued a Notice to Proceed for the reclamation project to Aklan; and whether there was proper, timely, and sufficient public consultation for the project, under sections 26 and 27 of the Local Government Code.

“The oral argument was ordered to enable the parties to the case to amplify their positions on the issue presented before the court,” SC spokesman Midas Marquez said.

The high court earlier issued a temporary environmental protection order (TEPO) enjoining the provincial capitol and other implementing agencies – represented by Gov. Carlito Marquez, PRA, and the Environmental Management Bureau of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources – from proceeding with the project.

The high court saw the need to issue the TEPO – a version of temporary restraining order for environmental cases – after finding the grounds submitted by petitioner meritorious. 

Petitioners, composed of over 60 resort, hotel, and restaurant owners as well as community organizations and environmental advocates, questioned in their petition last week the implementation of the project which started in December last year due to purported lack of a comprehensive environmental impact assessment and public hearings.