EVENT HORIZON A reclamation challenge continues to rework Manila Bay on this part seen from Manila and photographed on Feb. 21. A research launched on Wednesday mentioned the overall space being developed is now practically as large as Manila and Marikina cities. —NIÑO JESUS ORBETA
The Philippine Reclamation Authority (PRA) “lacks concern for the atmosphere and the rights of fisherfolk” as proven by its touch upon a petition earlier than the Supreme Court docket that seeks to discontinue all reclamation actions in Manila Bay, a fishers’ group mentioned on Monday.
The Pambansang Lakas ng Kilusang Mamalakaya ng Pilipinas (Pamalakaya) mentioned in a press release that its petition was based mostly on the “lived experiences” of fisherfolk who’re affected by reclamation and dredging actions within the bay.
The PRA earlier argued that Pamalakaya’s claims have been based mostly on “generalized fears and hypothetical eventualities that lack credible, science-based proof of precise or imminent environmental injury.”
“It appears that evidently officers of the PRA didn’t fastidiously research the contents of our petition, which comprehensively laid out our foundation for stopping the reclamation and dredging [activities],” mentioned Pamalakaya nationwide chair Fernando Hicap.
“Greater than the wonderful research of scientists and specialists, detailed in our petition are the lived experiences of fishers who endure every day the injury left behind by the reclamation and dredging in Manila Bay,” he added.
In December final yr, Pamalakaya and Kalikasan Individuals’s Community for the Setting requested the excessive courtroom to problem a writ of kalikasan and persevering with mandamus to nullify all reclamation permits and environmental compliance certificates of firms concerned in Manila Bay reclamation initiatives.
Pamalakaya mentioned the reclamation works have been “clearly unlawful and have brought about widespread injury to the atmosphere and the livelihoods of fishermen.”
However in a 46-page remark filed on Might 20, the PRA requested the excessive courtroom to dismiss the petition, saying the claims of environmental injury within the bay lacked proof.
It added that the teams “miserably failed to supply related information to assist their claims” relating to the “supposed opposed results” of the reclamation actions, including that the perceived harms have been “speculative, hypothetical and circumstantial (if not imaginary).” INQ