‘Reclaiming the people’s right to a balanced and healthful ecology’

(Speech delivered on Oct. 16, 2013 at the Senate)

(Conclusion)

That is what happened when the six-story Ruby Tower on Doroteo Jose and Teodora Alonzo streets in Sta. Cruz, Manila collapsed during an Intensity 7 earthquake on August 2, 1968 or 45 years ago. That was one of the biggest disasters in our lifetime—more than 600 tenants of the building died.

The Japan International Cooperation Agency or JICA has in fact released a study: the “2004 earthquake impact study for Metro Manila” where it cited that Metro Manila is overdue to experience a catastrophic magnitude 7.2 earthquake and the coastal areas would suffer the most, due to liquefaction (the reclaimed land reverts to a liquid state). It also emphasized that we are not ready for such an eventuality. The JICA study created 18 earthquake scenarios. Three of the scenarios — the West Valley Fault, the Manila Trench and the 1863 Manila Bay — could severely impact Metro Manila, based on the study.

The JICA study gives a somber and sobering worst-case scenario: 170,000 residential houses will collapse; 340,000 residential houses will be damaged; 34,000 people will die; 114,000 will be injured; fires will break out and burn approximately 1,710 hectares and could kill 18,000 or more people.

Going back to my point…this leads us to ask: bakit nga ba kailangan mag-reclaim in the first place? Why not develop the blighted areas of the metropolis instead? The amount to be used to reclaim, instead of destroying ecosystems and driving reclaimed lands to sell for sky high prices, could be used for inclusive development and urban renewal of Metro Manila. There are so many communities that need urgent attention and investment as far as development is concerned. 

Besides its socio-cultural and economic consequences, the environmental impact of reclamation projects begs for our attention. In regulating reclamation projects… issues of subsidence and liquefaction, habitat loss in multiple ecosystems, among others should be factored in as well. Can our current regulatory regimes protect us from these threats?

The Environmental Management Bureau or EMB of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) accepts vague promises from proponents, because they say the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) system is merely a planning tool, meant to ensure that the proponent does what it could. As such, proponents are not even required to say what they will do, only that they will take the “appropriate measures” to mitigate adverse impacts, never mind that the proponents cannot even show financial capacity to undertake the project much less what they promise in terms of mitigation.

As such, proponents get away with generalizations regarding the ecological and engineering safety and rely on experts whose fields are reclamation. Hence they are trained to defend reclamation and not to assess the impacts. And where will these experts be when the adverse impacts start to occur and affect us?

Let me emphasize here the importance of public consultation in a matter that in all intents and purposes is public interest. The common people or the community residents are the ones who will bear the brunt of the regulators’ mistakes. And when that time comes, the projects are well over completed. The people should be consulted when these are still in the drawing boards, in fact even before these are even conceptualized. They have a say because their very lives depend on the outcome of such projects.

I remember, I attended a hearing of the House Committee on Natural Resources in November last year regarding the proposed Alltech Coastal Bay reclamation project that we oppose, we found out that there is really no public dialogue regarding the projects. Some of the invited resource persons confirmed that they were not consulted at all. There was one incident, according to Mr. Alfonso Quinto (chairman of Unified Marketing and Services Cooperatives of Paranaque Fishermen Wharf), when they were called to attend a meeting but nothing was discussed. Ang sabi nila, pinaupo lang daw sila at pinakain, pagkatapos tapos na rin.

Who then gives the final go-signal for reclamation? The Philippine Reclamation Authority, which as it is, has a questionable legal basis. Reclamation should therefore be governed and regulated by an interagency authority. The reason citizens rely on the Environment Management Bureau (EMB) and its Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) system is because it is the only regulation that covers these types of development apart from the PRA.

Let us revisit how PRA came to be. The Public Estates Authority or PEA was established on February 4, 1977 by virtue of Presidential Decree No. 1084 enacted into law by President Marcos. PEA was created to provide a coordinated, economical and efficient administration of lands, especially reclaimed lands, belonging to, managed and/or operated by the government, with the object of maximizing their utilization and hastening their development consistent with the public interest.

Executive Order No. 525 issued on February 14, 1979 provides that “All reclamation projects shall be approved by the President upon recommendation of the PEA.

On October 26, 2004, President Arroyo issued Executive Order 380, which transformed PEA into the Philippine Reclamation Authority (PRA). The PRA shall perform all the powers and functions of the PEA relating to reclamation activities. On June 24, 2006, Pres. Arroyo issued Executive Order No. 543, whereby she delegated to PRA the power of the President to approve reclamation projects.

On February 25, 2011, the PRA Board of Directors approved the National Reclamation Plan (NRP) under PRA Board Resolution No. 4161 covering a total of 102 reclamation projects over a total area of 38,272 hectares within Manila Bay, Visayas, Mindanao and other locations.

PRA’s NRP and the multiple issues attached to reclamation have gained so much alarm from different sectors. In a People’s Summit on Reclamation held in October 2012 attended by experts from relevant fields, the resultant call for a moratorium on reclamation projects under the NRP was justified on the following grounds, among others:

The NRP threatens to affect an equivalent of one-tenth of our coastal and marine habitats. These reclamation projects could potentially translate to a loss of a value of nearly P30 billion per year in seagrass goods and ecosystems alone.

Land reclamation is noted by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization as an irreversible form of environmental degradation, thus running counter to the State’s guarantee to provide its citizens with a “healthful and balanced ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature” and “protect the rights of subsistence fishermen, especially of local communities.”

The PEA, created by statute by President Marcos was changed into the PRA by a mere Executive Order by President Arroyo. They do not have budgetary appropriations from Government and are, instead expected to earn from reclamations.

It is true and unfortunate that we treat reclamation as normal. As if destroying coasts and digging up sea beds are all par for the course, we have a reclamation authority who thinks only of which coastline to dump into next. There is no other agency with that mandate in the world, and the only other agencies with that word in their names, refer to the real kind of reclamation – the rehabilitation of degraded lands and renewal of blighted communities.

It might surprise us to know that Hong Kong, that poster island for reclamation, as small as it is, enacted a legal presumption against reclamation. Such presumption can only be overturned if an overriding public need for the reclamation is shown.

In 2004, the Court of Final Appeals in Hong Kong compressed that three-tiered test into one — the overriding public need test. It further elaborated on what this test requires: a need should only be regarded as overriding if it is a compelling and present need. The compelling need is far beyond “something nice to have, desirable, preferable or beneficial”.

In addition, where there is a reasonable alternative to reclamation, there is no overriding need for reclamation. All circumstances should be considered as to whether there is any reasonable alternative and they would include the economic, environmental and social implications of each alternative. We should, at the very least, have as stringent a standard. Considering that many areas in our cities are attended by urban blight, we should have an even stricter standard that compels the development first of these areas before any plans for reclamation.

Cost-benefit analyses and project alternatives, therefore, become an absolute necessity for any metropolis to consider if reclamation, with all its concurrent threats and dangers, should be the direction its development should go towards. Without these cost-benefit analyses, there are very real dangers that would beset the project.

Consider the country’s largest proposed reclamation project—the reclamation of 3,000 hectares of coastal area in the Municipality of Cordova in Cebu, which is if it will push through will be one of the largest land reclamation projects in Southeast Asia. There was study undertaken by Lourdes Montenegro from the University of San Carlos, Cebu City. The said research study was commissioned and published by the Singapore-based Economy and Environment Program for Southeast Asia (EEPSEA).

The study “found that the environmental and social costs of the project would exceed P3.3 billion”. It further cited that if the constructions costs and the economic benefits of the project would be taken into consideration, “the reclamation scheme would result in an economic cost to society of over P18.4 billion.”

The Cordova Reclamation Project was put on hold as some government approvals have been withdrawn. Environmental issues plague the project, such as its impact on migratory birds, damage from landfill quarrying, damage to corals (640 hectares of coral reef in the area would be affected by the reclamation) among others. And there is also the economic impact due to the loss of livelihood of fisherfolks in the area (the current aggregate net fishing income in the area is worth P29.9 million per year, the reclamation will remove half of the income.)

The conclusion of the study or the report on Cordova is that the reclamation project is not the way forward. It cited: “Overall, it is clear that the Cordova Reclamation Project, as it stand, is not an optimal development strategy.” One of the options seen is sustainable eco-tourism in the municipality.

The questionable government approval of reclamation projects has been a thorny issue. I am sure that most of us here are familiar with what was dubbed as “the grandmother of all scams”— the PEA-Amari deal.

In April 25, 1995, PEA entered into a Joint Venture Agreement (JVA) with AMARI, a private corporation, to develop the three reclaimed islands known as the “Freedom Islands” along the Las Pinas-Paranaque portions of Manila Bay, and includes the reclamation of additional substantial hectares of submerged areas surrounding these islands. By the way, the proposed reclamation area of PEA AMARI is the same reclamation area in Las Pinas–Paranaque that we are opposing at present.

 An investigation in aid of legislation by the Senate Blue Ribbon and the Senate Committee on Government Corporations and Public Enterprises ensued. While the said committees concluded that the JVA is illegal because the reclaimed lands that PEA seeks to transfer to AMARI under the JVA are lands of the public domain, which the government cannot alienate.

 The PEA-Amari deal became the life-long crusade of the late Atty. Frank Chavez (who passed away just last month). He was my legal counsel in the petition for writ of kalikasan against the same planned reclamation project, off Manila Bay, that will affect the Las Piñas-Paranaque Critical Habitat & Eco-tourism Area (the former PEA-Amari deal). As I mentioned earlier, we have elevated the petition to the Supreme Court just last week. Among the points that we are challenging is the fact that CA considered the Alltech Coastal Bay Project as a continuation of the PEA-AMARI Manila Coastal Bay project even when the latter never materialized. We question the validity of the issuance of the Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC).

To go back to PEA-Amari, Atty. Chavez then filed a Petition for Mandamus where he prayed that PEA publicly disclose the terms of any renegotiation of the JVA; assailed the sale to AMARI of lands of the public domain as a blatant violation of Section 3, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution, prohibiting the sale of alienable lands of the public domain to private corporations. He also asserted that he seeks to enjoin the loss of billions of pesos in properties of the State that are of public domain.

In their haste to get around the decision in Chavez vs PEA-Amari, which disallowed the transfer of ownership of reclaimed lands to private corporate interests, a consultant was hired with funds from the USAID. A document was submitted to NEDA which points to an old law, RA 1899, to justify reclamation by local governments.

RA 1899 says: SECTION 4. All lands reclaimed as herein provided, except such as may be necessary for wharves, piers and embankments, roads, parks and other public improvements, may be sold or leased under such rules and regulations as the municipality or chartered city may prescribe. If you notice here that the uses of the ‘reclaimed land’ is for public uses only! And therefore cannot be sold privately. However, the management of such lands can be done with the private sector through lease or joint venture as provided for under the LGC, being the LGUs as corporate entity.

They then rushed to have local governments stand in as proponents, and as a result, many aspects were overlooked. The first is that even after reclamation by private entities using the local governments as proponents, the lands will STILL not be available for private development. Chavez vs PEA-Amari will still prevail as to ownership of reclaimed lands, as lands of the public domain. Any land reclamation, regardless of who initiates it (i.e. PRA, private sector, LGU) is considered “unclassified public land” and therefore part of the public domain, which is now under the DENR. This was conveyed to us by Former DENR Undersecretary Elmer Mercado.

In fact, the Supreme Court also claimed in the Chavez case that the prohibition against private ownership of alienable lands of the public domain “was intended to diffuse equitably the ownership of alienable lands of the public domain among Filipinos, now numbering over 80 million strong.”

Private corporate reclamations whether done through the PRA or local governments, would have to show that this objective is reached. Experience has shown that the road to reclamation is littered with broken promises, non-inclusive development and the perpetuation of a consumerist and take-all-you-can development model that is not well suited to a world with a changing climate with an ever increasing population. The way to a developed economy is to make public lands productive and benefit a much broader base among the citizenry.

Actually, I have a related experience regarding this point, Las Piñas Congressman Mark Villar wrote to PRA General Manager Peter Abaya in September 2011 and requested if he could use the 100-square-meter, only 100 square meters, PRA property beside the Philippine Councilor’s League, Vice Mayor’s League Buildings and MMDA Transfer Station as the venue of his barangay-based livelihood center for women and out-of-school youth.

PRA’s Mr. Abaya replied and said the PRA cannot grant the free use of the lot, but offered that they could lease the property for at least 4% of the current appraised value of the property. To which, the Las Piñas City government replied that it is willing to lease the said property.

Muling sumagot ang PRA na hindi na raw pwede rentahan ang space dahil may iba daw silang plano para doon, specifically to build a perimeter fence for an ongoing condominium project. But we found out that PRA leased the space to Barangay Ilaya na ang itinayo sa naturang lugar ay isang peryahan. It still baffles us why PRA opted to give leasing priority to a peryahan rather than to a livelihood project that we felt would be more beneficial to more people.

The fact that we have created an agency devoted solely to reclamation, when it brings about such heavy adverse environmental consequences for everyone is against equitable and inclusive growth. In the meantime, large parts of the metropolis are undeveloped, badly developed or idle. Without the prospect of new land, we will be forced to make the latter better.

Alternatively, PRA can set their sights on inner cities and neglected areas for their development and economic goals, and this Honorable Congress could rename it, as the Philippine Redevelopment Authority. More importantly along with that name-change, revise its mandate.

We urge that Congress rethink the purposes, and revisit the powers of the Philippine Reclamation Authority or PRA.

If we cannot save the very ecosystems which provide our people their daily provisions and protect them from catastrophic natural disasters, we are basically denying our fellow Filipinos of their basic constitutional rights. It is time that we stop reclaiming lands. It is time for us to give back to our people their right to a balanced and healthful ecology.

To this end, Mr. President, this representation has filed Proposed Senate Resolution 294 to review the mandate of the PRA as a GOCC while directing the Senate Committee on Government Corporations and Public Enterprises to conduct the inquiry, in aid of legislation, for this, as was done in the past when this Chamber looked into the PEA-Amari deal.

Thank you, Mr. President.