Anti-reclamation fight going back to SC
The fate of the 635-hectare, P14-billion reclamation project on Manila Bay will soon be back in the hands of the Supreme Court.
After the Court of Appeals (CA) dismissed on Aug. 14 her motion for reconsideration for failing to raise new arguments against the project, Sen. Cynthia Villar on Wednesday said she would again elevate the case to the high tribunal.
Villar said her opposition to the reclamation project had been bolstered by the flooding experienced last week in the southern part of Metro Manila and nearby areas due to the southwest monsoon.
“The level of flooding that occurred in Las Piñas, Parañaque and Cavite even prior to reclamation, which placed the cities and the province in a state of calamity, is a clear indication that the flooding could only worsen after reclamation. Scientists and environmentalists have been issuing warnings against [the] destruction of coastal habitats. Why are we not taking heed of those?” she said in a statement.
“As I have pointed out even before, we will exhaust all legal means available in pursuing our petition. The next recourse is to elevate it to the Supreme Court,” Villar added.
On March 16, 2012, Villar asked the Supreme Court to issue a writ of kalikasan against the Las Piñas-Parañaque Coastal Bay reclamation project, saying it would endanger a 175-hectare wildlife sanctuary in the area and trigger floods in the two cities and Bacoor, Cavite.
Although the high court issued a writ the following month, it remanded to the CA her petition for an environmental protection order to stop respondents Alltech Contractors, Philippine Reclamation Authority and the local government units of Las Piñas, Parañaque and Bacoor, Cavite province, from pushing through with the project.
In April this year, the CA’s third division junked Villar’s petition, saying “no credible, competent and reliable evidence had been presented to support the allegations that the proposed coastal bay project would cause environmental damage.” This prompted her to file a motion for reconsideration the following month. Jaymee T. Gamil
