Villar appeals to companies to spare Manila Bay from reclamation

Sen. Cynthia Villar appealed to companies that have expressed interest in reclaiming Manila Bay to reconsider, given the adverse effects that reclamation would bring to the communities and the livelihood of more than 300,000 fishermen in the area.

“At first glance, development in Manila Bay looks like a lucrative business venture, but I appeal to companies interested in these reclamation projects to also consider the effects on the residents and fishermen depending on the bay for livelihood,” Villar said.

The Philippine Reclamation Authority (PRA) has approved a National Reclamation Plan that proposes to reclaim 26,000 hectares of Manila Bay.

Among the proposed reclamation projects are the P50.2-billion (660-hectare) “Future City” sought by SM Prime Holdings Inc. that will house government offices, as well as commercial and residential buildings, and the 148-ha. entertainment hub “Solar City” by the Manila Gold Coast Corp. that’s said to be twice the size of Luneta Park.

The San Miguel Group and San Jose Builders are also proposing a P338.8-billion public-private partnership project to reclaim part of Manila Bay to build an expressway, a commercial area, a coastal sea barrier, and a flood-control system.

Parañaque City Mayor Edwin Olivarez is also reviving the $13-billion Manila Bay international airport project. Under the plan, the proposed airport will make use of 157 hectares of Freedom Island.

Villar, a known advocate of environmental protection, said the reclamation of Manila Bay will destroy the Las Piñas- Parañaque Critical Habitat and Ecotourism Area (LPPCHEA), the Ramsar-listed Wetland of International Importance located south of Manila Bay.

“Instead of reclaiming Manila Bay, we should all support its restoration and rehabilitation and avoid massive flooding, which experts say could go up to 8 meters in Parañaque, Las Piñas and Cavite,” she added.

Villar said these adverse effects on the environment and on the safety of residents are the reasons she filed a petition for writ of kalikasan before the Supreme Court (SC) on March 16, 2012.

Villar pointed out that the Japan International Cooperation Agency (Jica), proposed Sangley Point in Cavite and beyond as a viable site of the airport and not Manila Bay.

The senator also cited the 2002 SC ruling that struck down the Public Estates Authority (PEA)-Amari deal as unconstitutional. The ruling stated that private companies cannot own reclaimed lands.

“Attracting tourists and investors should not be proposed at the expense of the Constitutionally-guaranteed rights of citizens for a safe and secure environment to live in,” she said.

LPPCHEA is a declared critical habitat and a protected area by virtue of Presidential Proclamation 1412 and 1412-A in 2007. It is the first critical habitat to be declared in the country. Covering around 175 ha. of wetlands, LPPCHEA consists of Freedom Island and Long Island.

In March 2013, the area was also listed as a Wetland of International Importance by the Ramsar Convention because of the critical role it plays in the survival of threatened and restricted-range bird species. It is the only wetland in Metro Manila and in an urban setting.

LPPCHEA’s 35-ha. mangrove forest is the thickest and most diverse within Manila Bay. There are at present 11 mangrove species growing in the area. It is the spawning ground of fishes in Manila Bay which gives livelihood to 300,000 poor fishermen and related livelihood.

As one of the signatories to the Ramsar Convention, the Philippines is mandated to protect the habitat.

“The reclamation of Manila Bay is dangerous, as it can also be seen as a violation of the SC’s continuing mandamus since 2008 directing the government to clean up Manila Bay. Reclamation, which will increase commercial activity, will pollute the water,” Villar said.

Villar also pointed out that Presidential Decree 705, or the Revised Forestry Code of the Philippines, prohibits the cutting of mangrove trees.