Cynthia Villar vs reclamation
Reclamation Plan, how the projects under NRP were approved, and
(http://old.philstar.com:8080/opinion/2013/10/22/1247969/cynthia-villar-
vs-reclamation)
Senator Cynthia Villar has filed Senate Resolution 294 directing the Senate
Committee on Government Corporations and Public Enterprises to conduct
an inquiry, in aid of legislation, with the view to introduce reforms,
revisions and amendments in the mandate, powers and responsibilities of
the Philippine Reclamation Authority (PRA).
Villar calls attention to the government’s National Reclamation Plan (NRP),
made by PRA, which will involve 102 projects or 38,000 hectares all over
the country. Thirty eight of these reclamation projects encompassing 26,234
hectares, will be implemented in the Manila Bay area alone — or 70 per
cent of the entire NRP. This creates another Metro Manila along Manila
Bay, she said in her privilege speech delivered before her peers last week.
Villar has an ongoing petition (backed by the signatures of 315,849
residents of Las Pinas) vs. a Manila Bay reclamation project. which would
result in the reclamation of 635.14-hectares of Manila Bay, around the 175-
hectare Las Piñas-Parañaque Critical Habitat and Ecotourism Area or
LPPCHEA, which is a protected area by virtue of Proclamation Nos. 1412
and 1412-A and included in the Ramsar list of wetlands of international
importance, along with Tubbataha and the Palawan Underground River. The
said reclamation could affect 65 barangays in three cities (37 in Bacoor, 11
in Paranaque, and 17 in Las Pinas.
Villar elevated her petition to the Supreme Court to challenge the ruling of
the Court of Appeals, which favored the planned reclamation project in
Manila Bay.
Besides the 38 reclamation projects in Manila, there are other big
reclamation projects planned in Cebu, Antique, Iloilo, Bohol, Negros
Occidental, Aklan, Albay, Davao gulf, Leyte, and Cagayan.
Villar questions whether there was public consultation about the National
if environmental risks had been taken into consideration.
From the outset, this is a fight reminiscent of David and Goliath – of a
legislator and communities vs. Big Business who wants to reclaim big
portions of Manila Bay and other coastal areas in the country and convert
them to huge, profit-making enterprises.
The idea of new cities rising from the sea seems nice and compelling, but a
serious study of Senator Villar’s resolution makes us rethink our position.
Villar cited the damage rendered by reclamation projects on multiple
ecosystems, such as mangroves, sea grass, coral reefs and intertidal zones
and depletion of fish stocks. Also, scientists have declared the subsiding of
Manila Bay land due to reclamation.
She cited a Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) study which
said that Metro Manila is overdue to experience a catastrophic magnitude
of 7.2 earthquake and the coastal areas to suffer the most due to liquefaction
(the reclaimed land reverts to a liquid state).
The question is, who gives the final go-signal for reclamation? The
Philippine Reclamation Authority, which she said, has a questionable legal
basis.
The PRA was established on February 4, 1977 under President Marcos, to
provide a coordinated, economical and efficient administration of lands,
especially reclaimed lands, that belong to, are 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 Feb. 14, 1979, provides that all reclamation
projects shall be approved by the President upon the recommendation of
PRA.
But PRA was given tremendous powers when President Gloria Macapagal-
Arroyo issued Executive Order 380 on Oct. 26, transforming PEA into the
1
Philippine Reclamation Authority, and, on June 24, 2006, issued EO 543,
delegating to PRA the power of the President to approve reclamation
projects.
Subsequently, on Feb. 25, 2001, the PRA Board of Directors approved the
National Reclamation Plan 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, Villar said. In a People’s Summit held in
October 2012 attended by experts from relevant fields, a call was made for
a moratorium on reclamation projects under the NRP.
PRA’s NRP would result in the loss of one-tenth of our coastal and marine
habitats, a scientist reported to Villar. The reclamation projects could
potentially translate to a loss of value of nearly P30 billion per year in
seagrass and ecosystems alone.
Villar cited the “grandmother of all scams” — the PEA-AMARI deal , as a
basis for a change in PRA policies. The deal was signed April 25, 1995,
which allowed AMARI, a private corporation to develop the three reclaimed
islands known as the “Freedom Islands” along the Las Pinas-Parañaque
portion of Manila Bay and includes the reclamation of additional hectares of
submerged areas surrounding the islands.
Upon investigation in aid of legislation, the Senate Blue Ribbon and the
Senate Committee on Government Corporations and Public Enterprises
ruled that the joint venture was illegal because the reclaimed lands that
PEA sought to transfer to AMARI are lands of the public domain which the
government cannot alienate.
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, Villar said.
Villar asks, why 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.
Villar seeks SC help vs. CA ruling favoring Manila Bay
reclamation project
(http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/news/nation/330306/villar-seeks-sc-
help-vs-ca-ruling-favoring-manila-bay-reclamation-project/story/)
Sen. Cynthia Villar has once again brought to the Supreme Court her legal
battle against the planned P14-billion Manila Bay reclamation project in Las
Piñas and Parañaque cities.
On Thursday, Villar filed a petition asking the Supreme Court to review and
reverse the Court of Appeals decision denying the “writ of kalikasan” issued
against the controversial project.
In a petition for review on certiorari, Villar, wife of former and presidential
candidate Manny Villar, said the appellate court has “committed grave and
serious error” with its decision.
She asked the SC to render judgment in favor of the 315,849 residents of
Las Piñas City and to declare “null and void” the implementation of the
Alltech Coastal Bay Project for allegedly being violative of the
constitutional right to a balanced and healthy ecology.
In April 2012, the Supreme Court, in response to a petition from
Villar, issued a “writ of kalikasan” against the project and remanded the
case to the Court of Appeals for hearing.
The CA Third Division, however, junked Villar's petition in May 2013,
2
saying it failed to prove that the reclamation project would trigger massive
environmental damage. Villar filed a motion for reconsideration on May 29.
ECC
In her latest petition, Villar called on the SC to direct the Department of
Environmental and Natural Resources to cancel and revoke the
Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC) issued to Alltech for the
reclamation project.
She said the ECC was illegal and unlawful because the proponent did not
prepare any environmental impact statement despite the fact that it is the
appropriate Environmental Assessment (EIA) study.
Villar said the CA was wrong when it decided that Alltech Coastal Bay
Project is a continuation of the PEA-AMARI Manila Coastal Bay project
even when the latter has never entered actual operation phase, let alone seen
actual implementation works.
She said the meeting that was conducted supposedly as public consultations
fails to satisfy the express requirements of the law. She added meaningful
and informed public consultations constitute an important bedrock of the
environmental impact statement system.
“Public hearings are mandatory for the proposed reclamation projects. A
detailed statement of existing project alternatives is mandatory and
questions relating to financial and technical capabilities of proponent are
relevant to the issue relating to its environmental performance,” she said.
Ecotourism area
Villar also said the reclamation project impinges on the viability and
sustainability of Las Piñas-Parañaque Critical Habitat and Ecotourism Area
(LPPCHEA), known as the last bastion in Metro Manila.
The CA failed to make a distinction between flooding and flushing effects
of reclamation and the environmental effects it shall wreck upon
LPPCHEA, according to the senator.
LPPCHEA is a 175-hectare mangrove forest and marine habitat in Las
Piñas and Parañaque that serves as sanctuary for dozens of bird species,
including migratory birds from as far as Siberia. It is also a resting area for
the globally threatened Philippine duck and Chinese egret.
LPPCHEA was recently included in the Ramsar List of Wetlands of
International Importance, along with world-renowned Tubbataha Reefs
National Marine Park and the Puerto Princesa Subterranean River National
Park (Underground River), both found in the Philippines.
“The inclusion of LPPCHEA on the Ramsar List solidifies our stand to fight
for it against planned reclamation projects. For an international treaty
organization to recognize LPPCHEA’s global importance to biodiversity,
proves that the area is indeed a critical habitat and needs special protection
from threats, including reclamation,” Villar said.
The senator stressed the reclamation project shall cause environmental
damage of such magnitude as to prejudice the health or property of residents
the cities of Las Piñas and Parañaque.
She said that Alltech and its experts admitted that the reclamation project
shall aggravate flooding in the concerned areas and their proposed
mitigation measures to minimize the threat of aggravated flooding shall
impede the ecological functions of LPPCHEA as this will require giving up
4.35 hectares of the area.