RAY KRISTOFFER C. RAMIREZ Nat Res.

and Environmental Law

Rection Paper on Manila Bay Sanding Project

The present controversy stemmed from a mandamus case 1 decided by
the supreme court wherein the high court enjoined several government
agencies, departments, and instrumentalities must perform the task mandated
it by law.
Specifically, the said ruling obligated DENR to undertake a
rehabilitation, the fallo of the ruling is quoted herein:

“WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered ordering the

abovenamed defendant-government agencies to clean up,
rehabilitate, and preserve Manila Bay, and restore and
maintain its waters to SB level (Class B sea waters per Water
Classification Tables under DENR Administrative Order No. 34
[1990]) to make them fit for swimming, skin-diving, and other
forms of contact recreation.”

Clearly, it is the obligation of DENR and the other government agencies

was to clean up, rehabilitate, and preserve Manila Bay, and restore and
maintain its waters to proper levels. No mention was made of any other
mandated tasks.
A recent event that caught the of the media’s attention and the ire of the
public opinion is the dumping and placement of “white sand” or crushed
dolomite rocks from Cebu on top of a strip of beach with naturally occurring
black sand. The said act was supposedly beautifying the said strip of beach.
The author humbly submits that the introduction of the crushed
dolomite to cover the natural black sand is violative of pertinent laws and or
jurisprudence. In addition, ecologically and environmentally speaking, this
“face-lift” project of the DENR is tantamount to opening a can of worms.
Such act is a potential ecological disaster.
Section 4 of PD 1151 on Environmental Impact Statements provides:
“all agencies and instrumentalities of the national government, including
government-owned or controlled corporations, as well as private
corporations, firms and entities shall prepare, file and include in every
action, project or undertaking which significantly affects the quality of
the environment… XXX (a) the environmental impact of the proposed
action, project or undertaking” (Emphasis provided).
1
MMDA et. Al vs. Residents of Manila Bay, G.R. Nos. 171947-48, December 18, 2008.
 In addition, Section 4 of PD 1586 provides that: “No person,
partnership or corporation shall undertake or operate any such declared
environmentally critical project or area without first securing an
Environmental Compliance Certificate issued by the President or his duly
authorized representative.” (Emphasis and underscoring provided).
The Revised Procedural Manual of the Environmental Management
Board2 classifies “Areas set aside as aesthetic potential tourist spots” as an
Environmentally Critical Areas. Verily, the Manila bay area, with its long
history and significance falls within the said classification.
Also, clearly provided for in EMB Memorandum Circular 2014-005 3,
“proposed major expansion, rehabilitation and/or modification of existing
projects as well as resumption of projects that have stopped operations for a
prolonged period” are included in the PEISS coverage and will thus require
an Environmental Compliance Certificate.
However, DENR through Undersecretary Benny Antiporda, claimed in a
news article 4 that the dumping of the white sand in the Manila Bay is: “It is a
rehabilitation project, not a construction project. XXX It’s only a beach
nourishment [project] in which we’re beautifying it”. The Undersecretary also
claims that the “beach nourishment” project is not covered by the country’s
EIS system. (Emphases and underscoring provided).
In a nutshell, DENR is claiming that its actions in covering the naturally
occurring black sand of Manila Bay (which is an environmentally critical area)
with crushed dolomite exported from a foreign location is not covered by the
PEISS and does not require an Environmental Compliance Certificate
(ECC). That line of thinking is just absolutely reckless and ludicrous.
As clearly provided for in the aforementioned provisions of law, the
Manila Bay area is clearly an environmentally critical area and is absolutely
under the PEISS coverage. As such, the DENR obligated by law to get an
ECC. To get an ECC, one must prove that its prosed actions on a certain
covered area will not cause significant negative environmental impact. This is
done by submitting documents and scientific studies to the EMB to prove
2
Page 5, Revised Procedural Manual for DENR Administrative Order No. 30 Series of 2003
(DAO 03-30), http://eia.emb.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Revised-Procedural-
Manual-DAO-03-30.pdf;
3
Sec. 1.3, Memorandum Circular 2014-005- Guidelines on Coverage Screening and
Standardized Requirements Under the Philippine Environmental Impact System (PEISS)
amending relevant portions of MC 2007-002, Jul 7, 2014, http://eia.emb.gov.ph/wp-
content/uploads/2019/01/Revised-Guidelines_Threshold_MC-2014-005.pdf;
4
https://www.philstar.com/headlines/2020/09/04/2040084/no-environmental-impact-
study-needed-manila-beach-nourishment-denr.
that fact. DENR did not do this and instead claims it applied for a
Certification of Non-Coverage. Preposterous.
Not only is the act sanding act of the DENR illegal, it is also
scientifically inept. Ecologically speaking, the addition of the dolomite in the
Manila bay area could potentially cause a chemical imbalance through
leaching from the crushed dolomite into the natural sand and sea water.
Also, the said “white sand” would potentially be carrying invasive
microorganism species detrimental to the natural fauna and flora of Manila
Bay.
Therefore, it is clear as day that the dolomite dumping and land
scaping planned by the DENR on the Manila Bay did not follow the PEISS
procedure, is violative of pertinent laws and jurisprudence, and has no legal
leg to stand on.
In conclusion, the author opines that the “white sand” dumping of the
DENR should be stopped. It is illegal and it is an ecological disaster waiting
to happen. The high court’s mandate to DENR was to clean up,
rehabilitate, preserve, restore and maintain Manila Bay’s waters to the
appropriate cleanliness level. The high court did not mandate an
expensive and superfluous facelift of the beach area for beautification
purposes.