A matter of respect

When a spouse makes decisions without consulting an informed partner, expect an acrimonious relationship to ensue. Peace in the family becomes elusive when respect for the self and one another is thrown out the window by one or both partners.

The same discordant state exists when government excludes the people in the decision-making process. It is a blatant disregard and a violation of citizens’ rights to information and to participate in decision-making, as enshrined in our Constitution. Government agencies and officials are thus duty-bound to respect them.

The rationale for giving supremacy to the exercise of the right to access information and public participation was explained by the Supreme Court in the case of Province of Cotabato v. GRP (2008), thus:

“Access to information of general interest aids the people in democratic decision-making by giving them a better perspective of the vital issues confronting the nation so that they may be able to criticize and participate in the affairs of the government in a responsible, reasonable and effective manner. It is by ensuring an unfettered and uninhibited exchange of ideas among a well-informed public that a government remains responsive to the changes desired by the people.”

With strong substantive rights that are protected by no less than the fundamental law of the land, why are unsustainable projects such as coal power plant operation, offshore drilling in protected seascapes, mining, quarrying and coastal developments still allowed in the community, without consultation with or despite the stiff opposition of residents?

Why is a policy of exclusion still in place amid the dangers posed by climate change?

Our law requires national government agencies such as the DENR and the DOE “planning and implementation of any project or program that may cause pollution, climatic change, depletion of non-renewable resources, loss of crop land, rangeland, or forest cover, and extinction of animal or plant species” to consult  “with the local government units, nongovernmental organizations, and other sectors concerned.” They are required “to explain the goals and objectives of the project or program, its impact upon the people and the community in terms of environmental or ecological balance and the measures that will be undertaken to prevent or minimize the adverse effects thereof.”

The public consultation is not meant to be perfunctory and one-sided, where government will exclusively have the floor. The people have the right to and must ask questions and demand honest answers for them to make informed decisions that affect their families and the quality of their lives.

Projects done without public participation, transparency and sense of accountability stand out for their utter irrelevance to the needs of the times, which our nation simply can no longer afford. Climate change, true to scientific forecasts, has destroyed and will batter more  communities with frequent and more devastating floods, landslides, coastal erosion, sedimentation and displacement to the constituents.

The proposed joint reclamation project of Cebu Province and the Cordova municipality is one such irrelevant venture. Have the proponents even considered its tremendous impact on residents including fisherfolk and on wildlife? Sea grass, mangroves, migratory birds, wildlife habitats and consequently the entire marine ecosystem will be affected, not to mention the mountain that will be leveled off for the filling materials that the project requires.

We should learn from seminal studies conducted on the environmental costs of reclamation projects in Cordova such as the research done by Ms. Lourdes Montenegro and colleagues. The study may be accessed in this link:

https://www.docstoc.com/docs/6356400/The-Environmental-Costs-of-Coastal-Reclamation-in-Metro-Cebu-Philippines

Fisherfolk and environmental advocates are definitely opposing the reclamation project.  It does not even consider that Cebu is one of the seven provinces in the country that will be most affected by sea level rise due to global warming. The hundreds of millions of taxpayers’ money expended for the project will be wasted as nature will just reclaim the land. The funds are best spent for climate change mitigation and adaptation programs which LGUs have not even prioritized.

Local government units should always remember that they have the responsibility  to “promote health and safety [and] enhance the right of the people to a balanced ecology.” (Section 16, RA 7160).

Our local officials must seriously reexamine their role in protecting, prioritizing and respecting people’s rights to health, safety, welfare, healthy life support system and to be part of the decision-making process amid the climate crisis that we all face.

In this era of disasters and dislocation, it is imperative also for the DILG and the COA to look into the priorities and expenditures of the LGUs.  Section 17 (g) of the Code clearly requires that “Any fund or resource available for the use of local government units shall be first allocated for the provision of basic services or facilities enumerated in subsection (b) before applying the same for other purposes.” How many LGUs have strictly adhered to this provision?

Scarce resources are best spent for delivery of essential services, capacitating the people for disaster preparedness as the San Francisco municipality in Camotes Island has done, and the no-nonsense implementation of laws, especially on health, sanitation and environment.

What does it take for each of us to possess that deep sense of stewardship for our land, air and waters, so essential for our survival in this challenging millennium?

Imbuing the value called respect is crucial – before a child becomes a man or woman or a political leader.