Quo warranto

While attention has been drawn to Boracay and its rehabilitation, let us not forget that there are 7,640 more islands and islets to be protected and preserved. Not to mention the rivers, the lakes and the bays around.

Unfortunately, many local government officials cannot be trusted as they continue to allow the exploitation of our natural resources.  Worse, they want to believe and make the public believe that their projects are necessary in order to save the envrionment. 

Moving on, just right here in the metro, we have problems with the filth that becomes Manila Bay.  Way back in 1999, a case was filed with the Regional Trial Court in Imus, Cavite by Atty. Oposa for the Manila Bay clean-up. The Office of the Solicitor General elevated the case to the Supreme Court citing that it was a “political question.”

In 2008, the Supreme Court ordered the immediate clean-up of Manila Bay in recognition of PD 1152 issued by then President Marcos in 1977 that states that it is the duty of government to clean-up when bodies of waters are polluted.

In 2009, the Supreme Court issued a landmark decision and ordered 13 government agencies led by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources to “clean up, rehabilitate, and preserve Manila Bay, restore and maintain its waters, make them fit for swimming, skin-diving, and other forms of contact recreation.”

Obviously, nothing happened. Pollution in Manila Bay has become so bad that today swimming is banned in the area. Manila Bay is the catchment area of the Pasig and Pampanga River Basins. Rivers and streams flow into the Pasig River which in turn flow into the bay.

The wastes from factories and houses are dumped into this system of rivers and streams, so that Manila Bay has become a big sewer.  What could even be 1,000 times worse than Boracay is the disposal of sewage to the Manila Bay and Laguna de Bay at least in the past 50 years.

Today, pollution, over-fishing, and loss of habitats are just a few of the issues threatening Manila Bay, according to the Partnerships in Environmental Management for the Seas of East Asia (PEMSEA). Its effects include the significant degradation of the involved ecosystems and biodiversity, which eventually affects those who are dependent on it.

In a study conducted in the clean-up of Manila Bay the following were cited: 1) Four million gallons or 16 million liters of raw untreated sewage were disposed to the Manila Bay; 2) One million units of fecal matter per cubic meter of water was also disposed; 3) Manila Bay can feed Metro Manila with enough fish if only we took good care of it.  Manila is 1,994 sq. kms or about 200,000 hectares. Metro Manila alone has 619,400 sq. kms. or 62 hectares. The figures show that the total area of Manila Bay is three times that of Metro Manila.

Another contributor to the hazards in the bay are the previous reclamation projects, according to Lia Alonzo from the Center for Environmental Concerns.  Alonzo also cited the flaws of DENR’s issuance of the environmental compliance certificate (ECC) under the Philippine Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) as one of the factors. As I mentioned before in my previous columns, the ECC is an issued document after a positive review that a project meets environmental laws and policies and certifying that the proposed project will not cause significant negative environmental impact. However, in practice, issuance of the said document favors the reclamation projects and its proponents.

When the Duterte administration took over the leadership of our nation, the President ordered the clean-up of Laguna de Bay of its thousands of fish pens that contributed to the pollution that flows down the Pasig River to Manila Bay. And thank God, early this year the government took one big step that hopefully may solve the age-old problem of pollution in the bay. The National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA) signed an agreement with the Netherlands, through its Ambassador Marion Derckx, for financial and technical assistance and for the hiring of consultants who will draft a Manila Bay Sustainable Development Master Plan within the next 30 months.

The Dutch, known for their knowledge and expertise in protecting water tributaries will give a grant of P75 million to add to the P250 million that the Philippine government will provide for the master plan.

The way man has polluted the bay is such a sacrilege. We must hope for the best and keep our faith that one day we will once again see the breathtaking beauty of Manila Bay.

*      *      *

Quo vadis, Quo warranto: My financial analyst friend, Benny Gonzalez said that when the Quo warranto case against CJ Sereno succeeds, the SALN mandated by the 1987 Constitution will get a new set of teeth which can terrorize and bite all civil servants and appointees. The following may be the possible scenarios: (1) More and more constitutional bodies and their agencies may include the submission of SALNs as a sine qua non for applicants at all levels; (2) Candidates and applicants with missing SALNs from their previous government positions can be immediately disqualified; (3) Only those with complete SALNs can be considered and accepted; (4) They can still be removed through Quo Warranto proceedings when it is established through his prequalification SALNs that he has hidden or unexplained wealth from the non-declaration of all his Salaries, Allowances and Bonuses; (5) The cutoff date and contents of the SALNs should be not more than one month from the assumption of the position of the elected or appointed official.

Another possiblity may be that the year-end or fiscal year dated SALNs will no longer be accepted to stand as Entry SALNs as these will be contrary to the Constitutional provision made to apply to the CJ resulting in a more cumbersome and expensive to file entry and exit SALNs.

The Supreme Court which will ax CJ Sereno, will endanger a large majority of the en banc subject to these new harsh realities by virtue of the COA findings in 2011 which concluded that of the total 2010 Salaries, Allowances and Bonuses of 11 Justices who responded, only 52.9% was reported as part of their respective SALNs. Therefore, the Solgen should file the appropriate cases immediately.

There are too many allusions being made with the Corona Impeachment Trial mostly to draw parallel conclusions about conviction: (1) the number of articles of impeachment and their specifics; (2) the number of SALNs filed and unfiled, the conclusions arrived at based on the analyses of what were filed; (3) the discovery of unreported items affecting increases/decreases in Networth (i.e., US$ accounts); and (4) the basis of each impeachment vote by the individual Senator/Judge.

Ideally, all these will be clarified frontend by the current impeachment court as a throwback for purposes of authoritatively describing similarities and distinguishing differences between the two cases. Without this exercise, wrong comparisons, opinions and comments made intentionally or otherwise will continue to abound as these have already proliferated. If this were not part of the Senate Impeachment Court preamble, the defense should at least be prepared to include these clarificatory points in their own opening statements.