DAVAO CITY (MindaNews/July 8) – “Compromise, not confrontation, is the way forward” in the Samal Island-Davao City bridge project and “technical realignment of the bridge route remains a possibility,” Councilor Danny Dayanghirang said.
Speaking at the sidelines of the weekly session of the Sangguniang Panlungsod, Dayanghirang, who also heads the Finance, Ways and Means, and Appropriations Committee, said the potential suspension of the project following the issuance of a Writ of Kalikasan by the Supreme Court could be a major setback for both Davao City and Samal Island, not only in infrastructure development but also in financial terms, with taxpayers still paying interest and amortization despite construction delays.
“You can just imagine the economic loss, economic opportunity loss, on the part of the traders, on the part of businessmen, and on the part of the individual or group of person (for both cities). Of course, your time will run out lining up in ferry wharfs. So I suggest a win-win solution,” Dayanghirang told reporters Tuesday afternoon.
The P23-billion bridge, spanning 3.98 kilometers, links the Island Garden City of Samal and Davao City, and cuts travel time from the usual 20 minute barge ride to only five minutes via the bridge.
The benefits, however, come with great cost to taxpayers and the environment.
The project will add to the government’s growing foreign debt portfolio, as the terms of the multibillion-peso, China-funded infrastructure project show.
Davao-based marine biologist John Michael Lacson lamented the lack of transparency about the project’s environmental impact, on the extent of damage to coral reefs that are rich spawning grounds for many species, and the threat to the fish catch and incomes of fisherfolk in the area.
The present alignment of the bridge on the Samal side has fueled concerns about its impact on the 7,500-sq m coral reef system which is home to eight seagrass species, 118 species of corals and 73 fish species, and on the livelihood of the fisherfolk.
Writ of Kalikasan
During the session, Dayanghirang initially proposed a resolution expressing support of the City Council to continue SIDC project while “affirming compliance with environmental laws and sustainability commitments in the light of the Supreme Court’s issuance of the Writ of Kalikasan.”
On July 1, the Supreme Court en banc issued a Writ of Kalikasan against the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH), the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), the Samal Island Protected Landscape and Seascape Protected Area Management Board (PAMB), and the China Road and Bridge Corporation (CRBC), the respondents involved in the SIDC project amid allegations of potential irreversible environmental damage.
Petitioners Carmela Marie Santos, director of Ateneo de Davao University’s Ecoteneo; Mark Peñalver, executive director of Interfacing Development Interventions for Sustainability, Inc. (IDIS); Marvelous Dainty Camilo, former chair of Dyesabel Philippines, Inc; and the Sustainable Davao Movement, represented by Santos and Peñalver, argued that the SIDC Bridge construction would cause “actual, serious, and irreversible damage” to ecologically sensitive marine areas, specifically the Paradise Reef off Samal Island and the Hizon Marine Protected Area in Davao City.
But Councilor Diosdado Mahipus Jr., a lawyer, suggested that the City Council should just consider inviting DPWH and the Writ of Kalikasan petitioners.
“It might be prudent for us to just respect the judicial processes with regard to the particular subject matter. For example, we have penal provisions that prohibits us from writing letters to judges on matters that are being disposed in their capacity as judges,” Mahipus said during the session.
Mahipus added that Dayanghirang’s resolution may be subjudice or under judicial consideration and therefore prohibited from public discussion.
“I don’t know if it’s proper to discuss relevant matters that would perhaps affect the processes of the judiciary, and in the minds of the people, perhaps,” Mahipus said.
But Dayanghirang argued that he proposed the resolution “in the matter of legislation and for public interest.” He later agreed to just invite DPWH and “to see what the Council can do.”
Dayanghirang added they want the DPWH to give updates and to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the project – what makes the SIDC project different from the Davao City Coastal Road and other national bridge projects.
“The power of the City Council, under the Local Government Code, is to pass legislative matters that will benefit its inhabitants,” he said.
Asked about the road right-of-way issues involving the project, especially from private beach resort owners, Dayanghirang said expropriation with just compensation is a lawful and necessary tool when negotiations fail, but delays “should not be allowed” to stop the development indefinitely.
He stressed that compromise, not confrontation “is the way forward and that technical realignment of the bridge route remains a possibility.”
The petitioners for the Writ of Kalikasan said they are not against the bridge project but are pushing for a realignment on the Samal side to protect the corals.
Romeo Cabarde, Save Davao Movement convener and lawyer, said in a text message sent to media that they would welcome dialogue with the City Council, “but we remain vigilant—this invitation must not be used to discredit the petition or distract from the environmental violations we have raised before the Supreme Court.”
The Supreme Court mandated the respondents to submit a verified return on the petition within a non-extendible period of 10 days after service of the writ. The writ was issued on July 1
The high court also referred the prayer for a temporary environmental protection order (TEPO) to the Court of Appeals – Cagayan de Oro for action. (Ian Carl Espinosa/MindaNews)
0 Comments