By JOSIAH DAVID QUISING
Bulatlat.com

“At the PRA, we uphold a firm commitment to environmental sustainability alongside our development goals.” This was the statement of the Philippine Reclamation Authority (PRA), posted on Facebook last April 19, 2025, in light of the issues it currently faces when it revealed its plans to develop the Las Piñas-Parañaque Wetland Park (LPPWP) – a national park protected by the Expanded National Integrated Protected Areas System (ENIPAS) Act and a designated Ramsar Site under the Convention on Wetlands of International Importance, otherwise known as the Ramsar Convention. In the same statement, PRA promised to respect both the ENIPAS Act and the Ramsar Convention while ironically affirming its ownership over the protected area. 

These promises were made amidst growing public backlash after the PRA recently drew flak for openly soliciting private investors to support its proposed development of the LPPWP. The heavily criticized post has since been deleted.

While the ecological consequences of reclaiming the LPPWP and relocating its mangroves for private development have been addressed by scientist group AGHAM through marine scientist Jerwin Baure in his April 24 article published by Bulatlat, significant policy gaps remain unexamined, gaps that empower the PRA and place the LPPWP at risk.

Good intentions, bad laws

The ecological importance of the LPPWP has been affirmed by multiple laws. Presidential Proclamation No. 1412 declared it a key biodiversity site and critical habitat, followed by its designation as a Wetland of International Importance under the Ramsar Convention—obligating the Philippines to protect its ecosystems, particularly its mangrove forests. In 2018, it was formally declared a national park under the ENIPAS Act, which, together with Article XII, Section 4 of the Constitution, ensures national parks are to be conserved and their boundaries changed only by law.

As a Ramsar site, the LPPWP also qualifies as a cultural property under the National Cultural Heritage Act (RA 11961), granting it priority protection from any government-led modifications or demolitions. Both the ENIPAS Act and the NCHA assign management of the park to the DENR.

Yet despite these protections, why does the LPPWP remain at risk?

In 2008, less than a year after PP 1412, Proclamation No. 1412-A authorized reclamation within the LPPWP as long as it would not disrupt its ecological functions. It also created the Manila Bay Critical Habitat Management Council and appointed the Philippine Reclamation Authority (PRA) as its vice chair. Executive Order No. 543 further empowered the PRA by transferring reclamation approval authority from the Office of the President directly to it.

The PRA’s dual role—as both vice chair of the management council and title owner of the LPPWP (under Special Patent No. 3517, 1988)—directly contradicts the ENIPAS Act and the NCHA, both of which place management under the DENR. This conflicting governance structure, combined with the allowance for reclamation, casts serious doubt on the sincerity of the presidential proclamations meant to safeguard the wetland park’s ecological integrity.

Villar v. Alltech Contractors, Inc, a dangerous precedent

This isn’t the first time that LPPWP has become the center of controversy. In 2012, attempts to develop LPPWP was questioned by Senator Cynthia Villar (then Representative for Las Piñas). Villar filed a petition for the issuance of a writ of kalikasan against Alltech Contractors Inc., PRA, and DENR for project proposals involving reclamation of several areas around LPPWP, citing obligations under the ENIPAS Act and the Ramsar Convention. 

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court ruled against the petition, reasoning that reclamation activities are not explicitly prohibited by both ENIPAS and Ramsar Convention. The 2021 Supreme Court ruling has since become a reference point for PRA in seeking to justify its development plans for LPPWP. 

A careful examination of the case however would show that the Court did not rule that all reclamation projects are automatically compatible with the conservation objectives of the ENIPAS Act or the Ramsar Convention. Rather, it pointed to the absence of an express statutory prohibition and the insufficiency of technical evidence submitted by the petitioners in that case to prove that the particular proposed reclamation project by Alltech Contractors would “impinge on the viability and sustainability” of the LPPWP. In other words, the ruling left open the core issue of whether reclamation and the relocation of mangroves, when their negative ecological impacts are properly demonstrated, would contravene the Philippines’ statutory and international obligations.

Mangrove relocation violates legal obligations to protect LPPWP 

Section 7 of the NIPAS Act and Section 4 of the ENIPAS Act require an act of Congress to disestablish or modify the boundaries of a protected area. Yet, reclamation and mangrove relocation proposals—altering both the physical boundaries and ecological functions of LPPWP—are being pursued through administrative means, bypassing this legal requirement and the constitutional mandate that national parks cannot be diminished except by law (1987 Constitution, Art. XII, Sec. 4).

Changes in the ecological character of LPPWP also risks its designation as a Wetland of International Importance. Under the Ramsar Convention, changes to a site’s ecological character must be reported immediately to the Ramsar Secretariat (Article 3.2). Boundary changes are allowed only for “urgent national interests” (Resolution IX.6, 2005). Approving development projects without clear proof of such interest not only endangers the wetland but also violates the Philippines’ international obligations.

Conclusion

The creation of contradicting laws between institutions with overarching responsibilities and objectives shows how private interests creep in the development of public policy, effectively making its implementation so confusing that the safeguards in the law virtually become ineffective. Recognizing LPPWP’s ecological importance and calling it a “protected area” without actually protecting it from exploitation and development aggression is plain lip service.  As climate disasters worsen, the judiciary, Congress, and regulatory agencies must shift from a passive interpretation of environmental law to an active guardianship role. (RVO)