THE PROS AND CONS OF THE CAVITE–BATAAN INTERLINK BRIDGE ISSUE

THE PROS AND CONS OF THE CAVITE–BATAAN INTERLINK BRIDGE ISSUE

Without taking sides, let’s look at the Cavite–Bataan Interlink Bridge (CBIB) from both angles — the good and the bad — and let’s make one thing clear from the start: whichever side wins, the environment should not be the loser. Nor should national security or national pride.

Because what is the point of faster travel if we lose the rich marine life of Manila Bay? And what is the value of a modern bridge if it becomes a symbol of compromised sovereignty?

The Promise: A Bridge to Progress

On paper, the CBIB is a dream project — 32.15 kilometers long, connecting Mariveles in Bataan to Naic in Cavite, slashing travel time from five hours to just an hour and a half. It’s part of the government’s “Build Better More” program, envisioned to decongest Metro Manila and spread economic activity across Central Luzon and CALABARZON.

The Asian Development Bank and the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) have both backed it, calling it a “flagship climate-resilient” project. It promises jobs, trade, tourism, and smoother logistics between north and south Luzon. For many, it’s an engineering marvel in the making — a potential game changer for regional integration.

In short, it could become what the San Francisco Bay Bridge is to California — a vital link uniting economies and communities.

But as with any massive infrastructure project, there’s a flip side to the story.

The Concerns: What’s the Cost of Connectivity?

National Security and Sovereignty

One of the hottest issues surrounding the CBIB is the reported bid from the China Harbour Engineering Company (CHEC) — a subsidiary of the China Communications Construction Co. (CCCC), which has been sanctioned by the U.S. for its involvement in illegal reclamation and militarization activities in the West Philippine Sea.

Critics, including the Philippine Interisland Shipping Association (PISA) and several maritime groups, have warned that awarding such a strategic project to a company linked to a state-owned enterprise with a controversial record could pose serious risks.

The bridge’s alignment passes near key naval and coast guard facilities. Some security experts argue that giving access — even indirectly — to any entity with possible intelligence or logistical ties to a rival power could be unwise.

In other words, national security isn’t just about guns and bases. It’s also about who builds the infrastructure we rely on.

Environmental Consequences

The environmental stakes are just as high. The bridge will stretch across Manila Bay, one of the most delicate and heavily exploited marine ecosystems in the country. Scientists warn that construction could destroy coral reefs, disrupt fish migration, and alter tidal flows that affect mangrove forests and coastal biodiversity.

Some groups fear it could even threaten bird migration routes between Bataan and Cavite — routes that have existed for thousands of years.

Manila Bay is already struggling with pollution, sedimentation, and reclamation. Adding a massive bridge without strong environmental safeguards could push it beyond recovery.

Balancing Development and Duty

It’s easy to be dazzled by grand projects, but I believe that true progress is not measured by how fast we can drive across the bay — it’s by how well we can protect what sustains life beneath it.

The bridge, if pursued, must meet the highest standards of environmental governance. The Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) must ensure that a comprehensive Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is not just done, but strictly enforced. Independent scientific monitoring — possibly involving universities like UP Marine Science Institute — should be required at every stage of construction.

And on the issue of national security, the Department of National Defense (DND) and the National Security Council (NSC) must review all foreign participation in this and similar projects. Transparency is essential — the public deserves to know who is building our critical infrastructure and under what terms.

The Pros: What the Bridge Could Bring

To be fair, the project’s potential benefits are substantial:

• Reduced Travel Time: From 5 hours down to 1.5 — a major boost to logistics and tourism.
  
  

• Economic Growth: New trade corridors between Central Luzon and CALABARZON.
  
  

• Job Creation: Thousands of engineering, logistics, and construction jobs.
  
  

• Decongestion: Easing Metro Manila’s overburdened road network.
  
  

• Climate-Resilient Design: The bridge reportedly includes advanced monitoring and disaster-resistant systems.
  
  

If implemented responsibly, it could indeed become a symbol of Filipino innovation — a bridge that connects not just land, but lives.

The Cons: What We Could Lose

But let’s not ignore the trade-offs:

• Environmental Degradation: Irreversible damage to marine and coastal habitats.
  
  

• Displacement: Possible relocation of fisherfolk and coastal communities.
  
  

• Debt Burden: The ₱219-billion price tag could deepen foreign dependence.
  
  

• Security Exposure: Potential vulnerabilities if foreign-controlled contractors gain access.
  
  

My Take

As a systems thinker, I see this not just as an engineering issue, but as a test of national maturity. Can we build grand projects without sacrificing the environment? Can we pursue progress without compromising sovereignty?

Perhaps the answer lies in balance — transparency in contracts, accountability in execution, and ecological wisdom in design.

Maybe we could even turn this bridge into a model for “green engineering” — integrating marine sanctuaries beneath its span, or monitoring biodiversity as part of its legacy.

In the end, whether or not the Cavite–Bataan Interlink Bridge pushes through, let’s make sure that Manila Bay — and our national dignity — remain standing long after the last cable is hung.

Ramon Ike V. Seneres, www.facebook.com/ike.seneres

iseneres@yahoo.com, senseneres.blogspot.com 04-28-2026