LET’S SYNCHRONIZE MANILA BAY RECLAMATION, REHABILITATION AND FLOOD CONTROL

LET’S SYNCHRONIZE MANILA BAY RECLAMATION, REHABILITATION AND FLOOD CONTROL

Why is it that in this country, when we are clearly dealing with different parts of the same ecosystem, the government cannot seem to synchronize its efforts? Manila Bay is a perfect example. Here we have three interconnected concerns—reclamation, rehabilitation, and flood control. Yet each is being pursued in silos, as if they are unrelated.

This is not a new issue. In fact, it was left hanging when Secretary Maria Antonia Yulo-Loyzaga was replaced by Secretary Raphael Lotilla at the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). So now I ask: what is Secretary Lotilla going to do about this? I hope he sees the wisdom of synchronizing these three parts of the puzzle, because without harmony, none of them will succeed.

Take reclamation. The last we heard, President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. ordered the suspension of 22 reclamation projects in Manila Bay pending a “cumulative impact assessment.” Good move—but what’s the status now? Are they still suspended? If so, who exactly is reviewing them? And more importantly, what criteria will be used for approval? Which NGOs and government agencies (NGAs) are being consulted?

From where I sit, Manila Bay rehabilitation and Manila Bay reclamation are simply two sides of the same coin. If that’s true, why can’t their objectives be reconciled? Rehabilitation is driven by developmental goals—clean water, restored ecosystems, livable communities. Reclamation, on the other hand, is often driven by commercial interests—more land, more business opportunities, more profit.

Here’s my take: whenever commercial and developmental goals conflict, the latter should always prevail. Otherwise, we’ll end up with fancy business districts rising from dirty, flood-prone waters—a showcase of progress on the surface, but decay underneath.

I must also raise a thorny point about reclamation rights. Developers may not agree with me, but I firmly believe that government should retain perpetual ownership of all reclaimed land. Leasing, yes. Selling, no. If private developers want to build, let them build. They can own the structures, but not the land.

This is exactly how Ayala Corporation has played it in the Makati Central Business District. Ayala remains the perpetual owner of the land, while everyone else is merely a lessee. And yet, businesses thrive, and Ayala remains wealthy—not because it sold the land, but because it continues to earn from it in perpetuity.

Why can’t the government adopt this model? Imagine the state becoming richer from land leasing, instead of perpetually dependent on taxes to fund its operations. Citizens could even see reduced tax burdens, while the government gains a steady, renewable stream of income.

Better yet, the national government should help local governments adopt the same principle. LGUs could become long-term land developers, while they retain ownership of public lands and using private capital to fund development. If Ayala can do it, why can’t Quezon City, Manila, or Pasay?

Of course, this is hindsight, but the government should have done this with Fort Bonifacio properties. Instead, much of that land was sold outright, and now the value has multiplied many times over—for private hands. The state gained a one-time windfall but lost perpetual wealth.

It may be too late for Fort Bonifacio, but it is not too late for Manila Bay. Nor is it too late for future reclamations nationwide. The principle is simple: government retains perpetual ownership, private sector invests and develops, citizens benefit from better services and less tax pressure.

But all this must start with synchronization. Reclamation, rehabilitation, and flood control cannot be separated. They must be designed to work together. Otherwise, we’ll be like Rep. Marissa Magsino said during the appropriations hearing—confused and dizzy, wondering what should come first: clean water or more land.

In truth, both can coexist—but only if we plan wisely, enforce strictly, and prioritize the public good over private gain. Secretary Lotilla now can prove that the DENR can lead this balancing act. The question is: will he?

Ramon Ike V. Seneres, www.facebook.com/ike.seneres
iseneres@yahoo.com, senseneres.blogspot.com

11-01-2025