writ of kalikasan

INDEED, businessmen, from the big ones to the micro level, have the common man suffer in their efforts to maintain, if not increase, their profit earnings.

Let us just cite, as an example, bread products of a famous bakery that is franchised in almost all areas in the Philippines.

When the prices of flour increased steeply some months back, those in the bakery business, including the one we are citing as an example here, committed to the buying public that they would not hike their prices, especially for the Filipino favorite pan de sal and loaf bread.

However, they openly advised the public that they may reduce the size of the pan de sal and the loaf of bread. It was one commitment that was heartily accepted by the common man.

But what happened later and just recently, our family’s favorite product of the herein-referred nationwide bakery, not only steeply increased the prices of the two bread brands mentioned here, but the establishment chain also reduced the dimension of the loaf bread and the size of the pan de sal. Other than that, it altered the mixture of the flour and other ingredients, although its taste is somewhat maintained.

Then again, it is clear that what these businessmen are doing to maintain or increase their profit margin is always at the expense of the lowly consumers.

Indeed, we ordinary Filipinos are too unfortunate that we are always referred to as the reason for businesses like bakeries to complain of the skyrocketing prices of ingredients, yet it is we ordinary people who will shoulder the burden.

*******************************

The Supreme Court (SC) recently issued a writ of kalikasan in connection with a petition filed by certain environmentalist groups, resort businesses, and landowners who are against the alignment of the Island Garden City of Samal-Davao City Connector Bridge, the construction of which is now in full swing.

The writ does not necessarily mean an immediate stoppage of the construction. Rather, it orders the respondent government agencies like the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) and the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) and the local governments of IGaCos and Davao City to answer the claims of the petitioners that the bridge construction will destroy the environment and the marine habitat in the portion of the Pakiputan Channel where the bridge passes over.

Other than the environment, we are certain that there are other issues relative to the bridge alignment that may be included in the petition for the issuance of the writ of kalikasan.

Of course, if the respondents’ answer will not satisfy the members of the highest court, chances are, the SC will grant the petition of the environmentalists and landowners. The stop of the bridge construction may then be ordered until the issues are addressed fully.

However, the Supreme Court may order both the petitioners and the respondents to sit down and work on a compromise solution to the argued issues that the two opposing groups can agree on. And while this mechanic is being worked out, the construction of the Samal-Davao Connector Bridge may continue.

If no agreement is reached, then the likelihood is that either the SC will rule in favor of the petitioners or the concerned government agency respondents. If the resolution is to the advantage of the petitioners, then there is certainty of further delay of the project. And if this happens, there will be a major impact on the overall cost of the project as prices of construction materials are sure to escalate over time.

However, if the ruling favors the respondents, then construction will proceed, and the petitioners may not be given any reparations that they may want for their property, or what measures are adopted to address environmental issues may not be in accordance with what they desire.

Meanwhile, if the petitioners and the respondents come to terms and agree on measures that are put forward to address the issues they are most concerned about, the possibility is that gigantic development will be in place, more specifically in the island city.

Actually, this recent development of the Samal Island-Davao City bridge project reminds us of the saga of the construction of the Cebu-Cordova Link Express. It connects the Mactan Island, passing through the town of Cordova and the Cebu mainland. The 17-kilometer bridge, including its approaches, passes a large swampy area of natural mangrove.

The Pangilinan Group that won the contract for the project implementation did a good job of consulting all stakeholders in the area, including the environmentalists, the fishermen, and the residents in the vicinity of the bridge alignment.

It did not take the stakeholders long to decide on what to do to minimize the mangroves that will have to be destroyed and how these are to be replaced in other nearby areas. They also agreed to make the remaining mangrove forest into a well-maintained eco-destination for tourists as well as shield small fish ponds located in the swamps from winds and strong waves.

As a happy consequence, the bridge construction was on schedule, and all stakeholders became major supporters of the now iconic project.

We thought the SIDC project underwent a similar process. If it did and compromises were arrived at, there would have been no petition for a Writ of Kalikasan filed, and the project could have proceeded without much delay.

We can only wish that the same very worthy project can still be salvaged.

As we love to quote, “The measure of real development is when the beneficiaries far more exceed in number than the potential sufferers.” This one is from our visiting professor from the University of the Philippines (UP) when we took up an audit program on Master’s in Public Administration in mid mid-1980s at the University of Southeastern Philippines (USeP), a Dr. Mariano whose first name now escapes our memory after four decades.