MEMORANDUM
TO: Atty. Sandra Joson
FROM:
DATE: February 04, 2021
RE: Save Manila Bay Coalition – Constitutionality and Validity of the Proposed Manila Bay
Reclamation Projects
QUESTION PRESENTED
In relation to the Supreme Court’s writ of continuing mandamus, does the Philippine
Reclamation Authority have the power to approve proposed Manila Bay reclamation projects?
BRIEF ANSWER
The Philippine Reclamation Authority does not have the power to approve the proposed
Manila Bay reclamation projects since there is no place for reclamation in the rehabilitation
program mentioned in the mandamus.
FACTS
Concerned Residents of Manila Bay filed a complaint before the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) in Imus, Cavite on January 19, 1999. The case alleged several government agencies of
neglecting their duties to abate the pollution of Manila Bay and therefore constitute to violation
of certain environmental laws. The Regional Trial Court ordered these agencies to clean up and
rehabilitate Manila Bay. The case was then raised to the Court of Appeals which sustained
RTC’s ruling. On August 12, 2008, the Supreme Court conducted oral arguments on the issue.
Upon hearing the arguments of the parties involved they issued a Writ of Continuing Mandamus
ordering 13 government agencies to clean up, rehabilitate, and preserve Manila Bay, and restore
and maintain its waters to SB level to make them fit for swimming, skin-diving, and other forms
of contact recreation.
Five years after the issuance of the mandamus, the Philippine Reclamation Authority
(PRA) entered into Memorandums of Understanding with local government units who have
jurisdiction over the proposed 1,440-hectare reclamation project along Manila Bay. The
proposed projects were a portion of the 38,000-hectare National Reclamation Plan (NRP), 70%
of which encompasses the coastal waters of Manila Bay. Environmentalists opposed these
reclamations due to the lethal risks it brings forth. On a position paper, Rodolfo (2013) discussed
the negative effects of reclamation to land subsidence, storm surges, and liquefaction. The client,
Save Manila Bay Coalition, also published a position paper identifying the detrimental effects of
reclamation projects and enumerating the livelihood, ecological, cultural, and business expenses
affiliated with the said reclamations.
In line with the increasing proposals for reclamation in the prospected shore of Manila
Bay, Executive Order No. 74 was signed on February 1, 2019. This order transfers PRA to the
Office of the President and delegates the power of the president to approve reclamation projects
to the PRA Governing Board. Formerly known as the Public Estates Authority, PRA will now be
the governing body coordinating economical and efficient reclamation of lands with the
objective to maximize their utilization and hasten their development consistent with the public
interest.
Lastly, less than a month after E.O. 74, Administrative Order No. 16 was signed to create
the Manila Bay Task Force. The administrative order seeks to expedite the rehabilitation and
restoration of the coastal and marine ecosystem of Manila Bay. The State adheres to comply with
the Supreme Court’s Writ of Continuing Mandamus to clean up, rehabilitate, and preserve
Manila Bay and Section 16, Article II of the Constitution, protecting the right of the people to a
balanced and healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature.
DISCUSSION
The Philippine Reclamation Authority does not have the power to approve reclamation
projects situated along the shores of Manila Bay due to the violation in the Writ of the
Continuing Mandamus issued by the Supreme Court in the case of MMDA v. Concerned
Residents of Manila Bay. This section will briefly explain the court’s mandate to each
government agency, relate the previous case to the complaint against ongoing reclamations, and
dispute all arguments that may be raised by the opposition.
By definition, a writ of mandamus is used to order a government agency to complete a
duty to uphold the law or to correct an abuse of discretion. In a writ of mandamus case, even
after the court has given directions, the matter is not disposed of. The issuance of this writ in an
environmental case directs any agency or instrumentality of the government or officer thereof to
perform an act or series of acts decreed by final judgment which shall remain effective until
judgment is fully satisfied. The condition “fit for swimming, skin-diving, and other forms of
contact recreation” remains to be unsatisfied, making the writ effective up to this day.
In Republic v. City of Parañaque (G.R. No. 191109, July 18, 2012), the issue was
whether or not the Trial Court erred in failing to consider that reclaimed lands are part of the
public domain. Under Section 2, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution, the foreshore and
submerged areas of Manila Bay are part of the "lands of the public domain, waters and other
natural resources" are consequently "owned by the State." As such, foreshore and submerged
areas "shall not be alienated," unless they are classified as "agricultural lands" of the public
domain. The mere reclamation of these areas by PEA does not convert these inalienable natural
resources of the State into alienable or disposable lands of the public domain. Similarly, the plan
to reclaim the shores of Manila Bay remains to be detestable since ownership of the land will be
withdrawn from the public domain.
The opposition may contend that by virtue of Executive Order No. 74, the Philippine
Reclamation Authority has the presidential power to approve reclamation projects. However,
Section 12 of its Implementing Rules and Regulations indicate that all reclamation projects or
components shall comply with the provision of the Constitution and all existing laws and
government rules and regulations on the disposition of reclaimed lands. This section inhibits
PRA’s authority to approve reclamation projects situated in Manila Bay due to the principle of
continuing mandamus. The mandamus is an existing law yet to be satisfied by the government
agencies involved.
Secondly, the economic benefits of the reclaimed land pose a strength to the opposition’s
argument. The reclamation projects will be spearheaded by property developers like Century
Peak Corporation, SM Prime Holdings Inc., Manila Goldcoast Development Corporation, and
many more. These developers build infrastructures, commercialize the area and provide jobs for
a lot of Filipinos. These reclamations would contradict the government’s movement to decongest
Metro Manila. Also, Manila Bay is protected by NHCP Resolution No. 19 S/ 2012. Strengthened
by RA 10066 and 10086, the National Historical Commission declares the Manila Bay and its
waterfront by Roxas Boulevard a "National Historical Landmark" protected by the National
Cultural Heritage Act of 2009. The act mandates that the bay “shall be maintained as close to
their appearance at the time the area was of most importance to Philippine history as determined
by the National Historical Institute.” Any reclamation of the area will constitute a violation of the
Republic Act.
According to former Presidential Spokesman and Chief Presidential Legal Counsel
Salvador S. Panelo, the government will benefit from the reclamation projects by a portion of
65%. This percentage contributes largely to the government’s revenue. Panelo reiterated that
these revenues will be used for the public’s best interests. On the contrary, reclamation of more
than 38,000 hectares in National Reclamation Plan will translate to a loss of the same amount of
seagrass, the spawning ground, and habitat of aquatic life, leading to an annual loss of 4.7 billion
invertebrates and 3.78 trillion fish. Yes, it will boost economic growth within the area,
unfortunately at the expense of ecological factors. Reclamation generates lethal geological
hazards, one of which is land subsidence. Reclamation will speed up the sinking of the land,
from the withdrawal of groundwater, or from the added weight of buildings or both. Even
without reclamation, continuing rapid and accelerating subsidence of the coastal lands bordering
the bay is worsening both floods and high-tide invasions. Reclaiming the land will aggravate
Metro Manila flooding and will put the billions-worth of flood-control projects to waste. Another
hazard it possesses is seismically-induced liquefaction, the fact that coastal areas are already
facing this danger, what more if reclaim land and extend the coastline. Reclaimed areas in
Manila Bay would not require an earthquake to occur nearby to suffer serious damage, like what
happened in 1969, structures that were built on river deposits near the mouth of the Pasig River
as well as Manila Bay were destroyed by the 7.3 magnitude earthquake. These reclamation
projects will not serve the best interest of our people. It is equally detrimental to the environment
and especially to those people who live along the coast. These geological hazards are in violation
of the State’s policy to “protect and advance the right of the people to a balanced and healthful
ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature”, as provided in Section 16, Article II
of the 1987. Constitution. The environmental costs far outweigh the projected economic benefits
from these reclamation projects.
CONCLUSION
On these facts, the court will probably arrive at a conclusion that the Philippine
Reclamation Authority does have the authority to approve reclamation projects but not within
Manila Bay. Their authority is subject to existing laws and the government has a clear directive
to rehabilitate and preserve Manila Bay through the writ of continuing mandamus issued by the
Supreme Court. Land reclamation directly contradicts that mandate.
REFERENCES
4 Manila Bay reclamation projects greenlighted. (2019). Retrieved from
https://manilastandard.net/news/national/312396/4-manila-bay-reclamation-projects-
greenlighted.html
Approved Reclamation Projects along Manila Bay. (2019). Retrieved from
https://www.bworldonline.com/approved-reclamation-projects-along-manila-bay/
Bajo, A. (2019). SM Prime gets reclamation project greenlight. Retrieved from
https://tribune.net.ph/index.php/2019/09/27/sm-prime-gets-reclamation-project-
greenlight/
Ciasco, F. (2019). Archdiocese of Manila opposes Manila Bay reclamation project. Retrieved
from https://mb.com.ph/2019/02/24/archdiocese-of-manila-opposes-manila-bay-
reclamation-project/
Corrales, N. (2013). Environmental groups oppose proposed Manila Bay reclamation project.
Retrieved from https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/529869/environmental-groups-oppose-
proposed-manila-bay-reclamation-project
Metropolitan Manila Development Authority v. Concerned Residents of Manila Bay, G.R. Nos.
171947 & 171948 (December 18, 2008)
Ranada, P. (2013). Cheat sheet: Manila Bay reclamation. Retrieved from
https://www.rappler.com/newsbreak/explainers/manila-bay-reclamation
Rivas, R. (2019). LIST: At least 6 Manila Bay reclamation projects to start soon. Retrieved from
https://www.rappler.com/business/list-manila-bay-reclamation-projects-starting-soon
Rodolfo, K. (2013). Why reclamation of nearshore Manila Bay is a very bad idea.
https://www.philstar.com/business/science-and-environment/2013/10/03/1240670/why-
reclamation-nearshore-manila-bay-very-bad-idea
Save Manila Bay Coalition. (2013, November 15). Position Paper of the Save Manila Bay
Coalition: Save Metro Manila! [Position Paper]
Senate of the Philippines. (2020, June 23). Villar to DENR: Bacoor reclamation project threatens
protected area, undermines Manila Bay rehabilitation project and will worsen flooding
[Press Release]. Retrieved from
http://legacy.senate.gov.ph/press_release/2020/0623_villar1.asp
Terrazola, V. (2020). Villar lauds Duterte on Manila Bay reclamation policy. Retrieved from
https://mb.com.ph/2020/06/15/villar-lauds-duterte-on-manila-bay-reclamation-policy/
