NOW IT seems the controversy haunting the Samal Island-Davao City Connector Bridge Project is morphing into a “tit-for-tat” affair. The opposition – no, not to the bridge, but to its alignment – so they say, has gone up to the Supreme Court and has won in the initial round for their Petition for a Writ of Kalikasan.
Already, the Supreme Court has ordered the respondents to give their answer-justification why the issues petitioned by the opposition should not be granted. The respondents include the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH), the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) and the local governments of Davao City and the Island Garden City of Samal.
The petitioners include Carmela Marie Santos, former director of Ateneo de Davao University’s Ecoteneo; Mark Penalver, executive director of Interfacing Development Interventions for Sustainability, Inc. (IDIS); Marvelous Dainty Camilo, chairperson of Dyesabel Philippines, Inc.; and the Sustainable Davao Movement, also represented by Santos and Penalver.
Many are surprised why all the petitioners in the surface are representing organizations whose causes are mainly for the preservation of the environment in that area in its present state now, or possibly restoring its status during the past many years.
Nowhere from among the petitioners for the issuance of a writ of kalikasan can we find even a single business establishment when, in fact, they were the most vocal against the bridge alignment.
It is our take that perhaps the businesses opposing the bridge project will be able to gain sympathy if they show courage in manifesting their cause. After all, like every Filipino, they enjoy the Constitutionally-guaranteed right to protect their possessions much as they also enjoy the freedom to engage in business enterprises.
But as we said in an earlier piece in this column one’s right ends where another’s right begins. Yes, the property owners, the environmentalists have the rights – to keep possession of their properties or enterprises (for the former), and to advocate for the preservation of the environment (for the latter).
But then the people of Samal, the local governments of the island city and Davao City as well, have as much right to improve the quality of the lives of the population. The cities, too, especially Samal, have the right to seek development of their socio-economic condition.
And the government in general has the primary responsibility to make the islanders’ aspirations happen. But it appears that if there were efforts to fix the divergence of ideas among the opposition to the bridge and the officials of government agencies that are tasked to carry out the project implementation, these were possibly far from enough.
The bridge construction was started leaving the controverted issues unsettled. Thus, the opposition with the environmentalists as the most overt of them, eventually decided to seek redress of their grievances in the court – and at the highest level at that.
Not to be outdone, the strongest among the bridge project endorsers, the former mayor of IGaCoS, is urging the province of Davao del Norte where the city is a component, to sue the petitioners. The legal remedies sought by the bridge opponents, and the one contemplated by the proponent and prospective beneficiaries could further delay, if not even put the Samal Davao City bridge project in oblivion.
And even assuming that despite the delay that can be caused by the legal proceedings, the project can still be salvaged, there is no certainty as to the availability of the funds needed to construct the bridge. Let us remember that it is primarily funded by a loan from China. There is also no denying the fact that the relations between the Philippines and the fund provider country is deteriorating.
Moreover, the longer the delay, the value of the Philippine money is expected to reduce substantially. Therefore, there will be steep upward adjustment in the cost of the bridge construction. So the government will have to again go “fishing” to find money for the additional funding requirement of the Samal bridge. What then is next?
We can only hope that when the writ of kalikasan is deliberated further by the Supreme Court the parties involved will be prodded to come up with ideas on how to address the issues contained in the petition and with the SC as arbiter they can still come up with win-win solution to the controverted issues.
The opposing parties must admit that in attaining the desired interest, societal or personal, some sacrifices have to be made by both. And it is on this that they have to come to an agreement for the sake of the benefits of the greater number of people, especially in the island city and those who will be benefitted by the bridge one way or another.
