Manila Bay: Sunset and the law

The opposition to the Manila Bay Reclamation is not so much about the sunset but more about environmental degradation and respect for the rule of law. (Read: Citizens rise against reclamation)

Proclamation No. 41 specifically designated Manila Bay as a national park and prohibited the settlement and sale of the area. Issued by then President Ramon Magsaysay in 1954, the law is clear as to its purpose, which is the preservation of the bay for future generations of Filipinos.

As a national park, Manila Bay deserves the full protection of the law from commercial and exploitative activities.  

In Republic v. Court of Appeals (G.R. Nos. 103882 and 105276, Nov 25, 1998), the Republic of the Philippines affirmed Manila Bay’s protected status when it argued before the Supreme Court that the Manila Bay is outside the commerce of man which could not be the proper subject of reclamation agreements.

Four years later in Chavez v. PEA-Amari (G.R. No. 133250, July 9, 2002), the Supreme Court emphasized in footnote no. 78 of the decision that “national parks” are inalienable natural resources of the State. Why the Philippine Reclamation Authority approved the reclamation is befuddling as it will be defended by the same set of lawyers that represented it before the Supreme Court in the earlier cases.

The Climate Change Act requires consideration of climate change impacts in project plans and specifications. The law is clear that government agencies and private corporations must consider climate change in every undertaking. This consideration is not the lip service type, but where the nitty-gritty of climate change is inputed in each phase of the project development. 

Cleaning up the bay

Has climate change been factored into this project? Obviously not. The plans are 1991 vintage and are still being updated as of the moment. Even if they are updated, we have yet to see an honest-to-goodness evaluation of sea level rise and global warming in the project plans and specifications. 

Clean air and clean water are also a concern. With more cars and more people in the area, there will be more pollution and traffic congestion. Thus, there is concern that a project of this magnitude will violate the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act. And let’s not forget that the Supreme Court has ordered government agencies to clean up Manila Bay. 

Thus, it is pertinent to ask, “Has our government complied with its obligation in cleaning up the waters of Manila Bay?”

The reclamation is also the subject of environmental assessments under the Environmental Impact Statement System (“EIS System”) of the Philippines. The EIS System requires project proponents to prepare an environmental impact statement for their projects. This statement should show the negative environmental impacts as well as alternatives to the project.

Most importantly, the statement must address the claims made by the highly-respected Dr. Kelvin Rodolfo that the reclamation of Manila Bay is ill-advised due to subsidence, liquefaction, and a possible new earthquake fault cutting across Manila Bay.

Contrary to claims by certain media outlets, the project proponents have not yet submitted any environmental impact statement to the Environmental Management Bureau (EMB) of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). This has already been confirmed by the Director of the EMB in TV and radio interviews.

Furthermore, during the public scoping last December, the EIA preparer of the proponents failed to show any official plan of the reclamation or development of the area. How can the people formulate an intelligent position when plans have yet to be firmed up and approved by government agencies? 

Right to aesthetics

The people also have the right to aesthetics. We may belittle this right, but it exists. And there are many laws protecting this right – Presidential Decree No. 1151 and Proclamation No. 2146 – not to mention tons of US cases enunciating the right of the people to protect things of beauty.  

Lastly, it must be emphasized that the State is duty-bound to protect our culture and heritage. This part of the Manila Bay is of huge historical significance. The site of numerous naval engagements, heroic battles of our ancestors, and commercial activities in early times, these historic events and personalities will soon be forgotten once Manila Bay is reclaimed.

Thus, the National Historical Commission has already issued resolutions designating the Manila Bay as a national historical landmark to remind all and sundry of the significance of Manila Bay in our nation’s history. 

It is a tragedy that our government officials are the ones promoting the elimination and extinction of our culture and heritage. While other countries have promulgated rules to protect their cultural identity, ours are taking great efforts to erase that identity. 

Instead of citing countries that have reclaimed their lands, we should instead look at the example of the Supreme Court of India and the legendary MC Mehta who exerted all efforts to protect the Taj Mahal from deterioration and decay. Indeed, there is value to be found in things of beauty.

Before the Philippines was known for the Underground River, we already had Manila Bay. No visit to our country will be complete without a view of the famous sunset of the bay. 

Now, they plan to take this all away. And they want to do this despite all the danger signs appearing on the horizon. And despite all the laws saying don’t touch this.

Are we, as a people, so dumb enough to allow this to happen? – Rappler.com

The author earned his Master of Laws in Energy and Environment, with distinction, from Tulane Law School in the United States. A graduate of the Ateneo Law School, he is the author of “ECC Basics” and “Environmental Law: Pollution Control.”