The Philippine Reclamation Authority is asking the City of Dumaguete to answer the three letters to the Department of Environment & Natural Resources over the illegal reclamation project covering Pantawan I, II and III.
Atty. Joseph Literal, PRA assistant general manager, told the members of the Sangguniang Panlunsod last Wednesday there is confusion surrounding the project along the Dumaguete coastline because there was an Environmental Compliance Certificate and a Certificate of Non-Coverage for the Pantawan projects but that it is now clear both conflicting documents were issued because there was no mention of a “reclamation”.
Literal said there is a procedure on how to correct or “regularize” these irregularities, especially because public funds have already been spent for these reclamations, which were undertaken despite a moratorium declared by the PRA.
“It was a violation on the side of the PRA, but it was authorized on the side of the City because there was an appropriation of public funds for it,” he clarified.
Literal said the PRA may take over the more than two hectare reclamation project located in Barangay 4 and Barangay Tinago. He said the City’s reclamation projects may be subject to an amnesty which will require that the reclaimed area be titled in the name of the PRA, and may later be awarded to the City of Dumaguete through a Presidential Proclamation once it is proclaimed as “alienable and disposable”.
He said the problem of PRA and the DENR’s Environmental Management Bureau is in the description of the project. While the project specifies “environmental enhancement”, it includes a 12-meter wide “pathway” that stretches more than 300 meters in length, covering more than one hectare. In PRA parlance, that is a reclamation, Literal explained.
The City Council revisited a discussion on the status of the Pantawan reclamation projects after Councilor Joe Kenneth Arbas revealed that the PRA actually issued a Cease and Desist Order that has been in effect since October 2019 — but which was kept from the legislative council.
“For the record, Atty. Manny Arbon, City Legal officer [that time], informed the Council about the CDO when it was already lifted. But he didn’t inform the Council anymore when the PRA re-issued the CDO in October 2019,” Councilor Arbas said.
Arbas raised concerns over the continued allocation of funds for the project despite the existence of the CDO. “We are worried about the serious consequences we may face in the event that a complaint is filed. We can only allocate funds for legal purposes.”
Records show that as early as March 18, 2019, the PRA had issued a CDO against the Pantawan project. While it was temporarily lifted on July 5 that year, the CDO was re-issued on Oct. 16, 2019, and remains in effect to this day.
Since the CDO was re-issued in October 2019, the City Council continued to appropriate funds, such as the P2 million allocation on Nov. 26, 2021; P4 million and P15 million on Jan. 1, 2022; and P40 million and P30 million in June 2022.
Despite repeated reminders from the PRA to halt the unauthorized reclamation activities, the City Engineer’s Office reportedly continued with the illegal activities under the instruction of the Office of the City Mayor, it was revealed during the session.
Several officials have weighed in on the legality of the reclamation. Engr. Leonides Caro, former City Planning & Development officer, noted that while the City had secured an ECC for Pantawan II on June 19, 2019, the permit was for the “rehabilitation/improvement of Rizal Boulevard” and did not initially include reclamation. She said the ECC was later amended on Feb. 4, 2020 to include the term “reclamation”.
Meanwhile, Atty. Unalee Monares, EMB chief of legal services, clarified that the DENR Bureau had issued an ECC for a 1.7-hectare project but was unaware that reclamation activities would be conducted. “In the Certificate of Non-Coverage we issued, we expressly stated that reclamation activities were not included,” he said, referring to Pantawan III.
A subsequent inspection revealed that the area had, in fact, undergone reclamation, leading to the current legal dispute.
In an effort to make things right, Councilor Karissa Tolentino-Maxino tried to expand the discussion to shoreline projects outside of Dumaguete so as “not to single out” the Pantawan reclamation, by showing photos of what looked like a reclamation activity in a property owned by the family of Councilor Arbas in Sibulan.
While the other Councilors tried to ask Vice Mayor Maisa Sagarbarria to rule Maxino’s topic as “out-of-order,” Arbas welcomed the question. He clarified that it’s not a reclamation project in his family’s property but a restoration activity to protect their titled property.
For his part, the Mayor said the City has been “fully-compliant” with DENR requirements.
“If they are environmental advocates, they should be content [with that]. Insofar as the City is concerned, that is shoreline protection.”
________________________________
Photo Caption: Atty. Unalee Monares, legal services chief of the Environmental Management Bureau, PENRO Viernov Grefalde, Philippine Reclamation Authority Asst. GM Atty. Joseph Literal, and CPDO consultant Engr. Leonides Caro discuss the status of the City’s reclamation projects before the City Council after it was learned that the PRA has an active Cease and Desist Order since 2019. (Videograb from Dgte Sangguniang Panglunsod)
