Cebu Daily News’ continuing page one news on the shameless destruction of Boljoon’s cultural heritage, the Ili Rock, its pristine white sand and the lush seagrass by the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) opened the eyes of many to stop the appalling culture of impunity reigning in this land. No public consultation or prior Sanggunian resolution was obtained in this case.
Lawyer Edmund Villanueva is among those brave and determined constituents fighting the wanton desecration of Boljoon’s natural and cultural heritage. He distinctly remembers that day, while snorkeling not far from the shores, when he and his kids were privileged to see a rare sea turtle feeding in the lush sea grass meadow of Boljoon. He laments that such scene will not happen for a long time.
The unfathomable scooping of the white sand and dumping in their place limestones and boulders over the corals and sea grass in Talisay, Boljoon in Cebu spells disaster to the marine ecosystems and livelihoods of many. The illegal reclamation displaces fisherfolk, pushing them to fish farther but not too far as they have to be registered in the municipal waters of other LGUs.
Have the officials and the private contractor thought about the loss of economic activity from those “nanginhas” during low tide?
Reclamation cuts off the hearty gleaning activities of the residents, some if not most of whom depend on their harvest for their next meal.
Yet, we have tons of environmental laws, not to mention the highest law of the land, our Constitution itself, guaranteeing our rights to a healthy and balanced ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature. The Oposa ruling interprets the said right as the duty by all not to destroy the environment. Reclamation destroys fragile life support systems. It is never sustainable nor is it responsible. It is a concoction of the politicians in an era when sustainability and science were sidelined and when our protected environmental rights were not so expressly declared in the fundamental law of the land.
Even if not mentioned by the Constitution, then Associate and later on Chief Justice and Ramon Magsaysay awardee Hilario Davide, Jr., as ponente of the world-acclaimed Oposa ruling (GR No. 101993), speaking in behalf of the Supreme Court, declared that the right to a healthful and balanced ecology “belongs to a different category of rights altogether for it concerns nothing less than self-preservation and self-perpetuation…the advancement of which may even be said to predate all governments and constitutions.
As a matter of fact, these basic rights need not even be written in the Constitution for they are assumed to exist from the inception of humankind. If they are now explicitly mentioned in the fundamental charter, it is because of the well-founded fear of its framers that unless the rights to a balanced and healthful ecology and to health are mandated as state policies by the Constitution itself, thereby highlighting their continuing importance and imposing upon the state a solemn obligation to preserve the first and protect and advance the second, the day would not be too far when all else would be lost not only for the present generation, but also for those to come — generations which stand to inherit nothing but parched earth incapable of sustaining life.”
These words, written eleven years ago, sadly, still have to be appreciated and understood by those given the power and the concomitant responsibility to protect our rights, and not to impair the environment for the present and those of the future generation.
The Constitution and the Fisheries Code likewise declare in no uncertain terms the rights of the marginal fisherfolk to have the preferential access to their traditional fishing grounds. Reclamation displaces them and pushes them and their families to a severely deprived existence, and makes a mockery of their sacred rights. Surely, the poorest of the poor, some of whom earn a measly P1,500 a month urgently deserves the protection of the State.
It is also appalling that a desecration of our natural heritage is being done by a national agency, with the local authorities acting as if they have no power to stop it.
The principles of decentralization through devolution requires continuing coordination among national agencies, the local government units and the stakeholders.
Such condemnable disrespect by State agents of the duty to protect rights and nature is best illustrated by a fishefolk’s expression of grief:
“Wala gyod mi kahibaw unsa na ang nahitabo dire. Ilang gidan-okan og abog ang among baybayon. Lubog na kaayo ang dagat unya mag lisud nami og pagawas sa among mga baroto (We don’t know what’s going on. They dump limestone on our shoreline. The seawater is already murky and it’s difficult for us to get our boats to the sea)” Benjamn Felices, a 59-year-old fisherman, told CDN.
Other laws such as Clean Water Act, the National Cultural Heritage Act, the Climate Change and the Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Act and the Local Government Code provision requiring a national law and plebiscite when there is substantial alteration of territorial boundaries of LGUs, apart from prior approval of the NEDA Board for reclamation, were transgressed on the day the reckless destruction of the cultural and heritage sites of Boljoon was allowed to be done.
Desecrate not – surely, our children deserve a better tomorrow.