LAST week, Toll Regulatory Board (TRB) Executive Director Alvin Carullo said that the agency had instructed San Miguel Corp. (SMC) to harmonize its project, the Pasig River Expressway (Parex), with the government’s Pasig River Esplanade initiative. Carullo also disclosed to reporters that SMC had missed an October deadline to submit final engineering drawings to the TRB.
Carullo was quoted as saying: “They (SMC) have not submitted [the final design] because it conflicts with the Pasig Esplanade of the DHSUD (Department of Human Settlements and Urban Development) … They have to harmonize the project.” There are so many compelling reasons for canceling Parex, and yet TRB chooses the path that serves the interest of the corporation.
More than 15 months have already passed since President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. signed Executive Order (EO) 35 constituting the Inter-Agency Council for the Pasig River Urban Development. In that EO signed on July 25, 2023, the rationale for rehabilitation and beautification of the Pasig River was unambiguous. It was about advancing “a balanced and healthful ecology in accordance with the rhythm and harmony of nature”; it was about restoring “the Pasig River to its historically pristine condition conducive to transport, recreation and tourism”; it was to recognize the river’s “immense historical and cultural significance,” and role as “a prominent landmark and tourist attraction.”
The EO also clarified that all concerned agencies would work together to “rehabilitate and restore the quality of life along the banks of the Pasig River” and “improve water quality, restore marine life and develop the banks of the Pasig River, its tributaries and surrounding communities.” The order specified that responsibility of the Inter-Agency Council would be the “full rehabilitation of the banks along the Pasig River … in order to provide alternative transportation, propel economic opportunities and boost tourism activities.” Furthermore, the Pasig River Urban Development Plan, “the blueprint for the rehabilitation of the banks along the Pasig River,” would have the end goal of “realizing its full potential for mixed-use development, transportation, recreation, tourism and sustainable human settlement, taking into consideration its historic and cultural value.”
During the Jan. 17, 2024 ceremonial opening of the showcase section of the proposed Pasig River Esplanade, Marcos described his administration’s vision for the Pasig: “A living river of multiple benefits for the multitude, featuring safe walkways and bikeways along its banks, a green corridor that will serve as lungs for our city’s needs, a string of parks for communities nearby … We envision civic spaces where our children will play, our seniors will relax, families will exercise, artists can showcase their talents and the creative can display their wares. We want it to be a permanent exhibit area of green technology that works — from solar lights to rain harvesting facilities — sustainable practices like urban gardens. We will also maximize this ready-to-use but underutilized maritime highway by deploying more ferry boats and stations, because, if you build them, the riders will come.”
Within this vision of the Pasig River, there is obviously no place for an ugly massive concrete structure that will ruin the vista irreparably and funnel traffic, noise, air pollution and heat from thousands of motor vehicles along the entire length of the waterway. (For this reason, Parex has never been mentioned in any of the speeches or official statements surrounding the Pasig River Urban Development Program). There is no universe in which a six-lane elevated expressway above the Pasig River can be compatible or harmonious with a Pasig River that is devoted to recreation, tourism, sustainable human settlement and the preservation of the river’s rich heritage and culture. This point has been repeatedly made in the media and in official communication to the TRB by scientists, academics, urban and transportation planners, and other experts, but it is apparent that these messages have been completely ignored by TRB officials.
Because Parex is obviously inconsistent with the plans of the administration for the Pasig River and because the project has been immersed in controversy and public opposition from day one, the TRB should have no hesitation to cancel the project (and rescind the Supplemental Toll Operations Agreement for Parex) for any infraction or failure to meet TRB requirements and deadlines. And yet, after SMC failed to meet the October 2024 deadline for the submission of the final engineering design, TRB did not close the door on the project, giving SMC yet another chance “to harmonize the project.”
This solicitous, almost subservient, response of TRB comes after a trail of many other serious violations by SMC related to Parex:
– SMC Infrastructure committed an outright violation of Presidential Decree 1586 establishing the environmental impact statement (EIS) system when it conducted a groundbreaking ceremony on Sept. 23, 2021, signaling the start of project implementation and construction prior to receiving an environmental compliance certificate.
– The draft Parex EIS submitted by SMC Infrastructure to the Environmental Management Bureau (EMB) was found to contain plagiarizations, a serious violation that should merit outright rejection of the document plus other penalties (e.g., suspension, blacklisting) for the offending party. (The plagiarism was reported to the EMB by Joven Jacolbia in a letter dated March 29, 2022, also copied to the TRB.)
– In the preparation of the project and in the required consultations with stakeholders, SMC Infrastructure failed to include the municipality of Taytay, Rizal, a directly affected town along the project’s alignment. The local government and affected communities of Taytay should have been informed from the very start regarding project details and consulted on its impacts. The failure of SMC Infrastructure to consult the Taytay local government and its residents was therefore a major defect in project preparation.
Each of these violations and deficiencies, as well as the current failure of the project proponent to meet a crucial deadline, gave TRB the opportunity to do the right thing: cancel the project agreement and prevent a very bad project from becoming a reality. But TRB chose to do nothing. Why is it championing the business interest of SMC instead of protecting the welfare and patrimony of the Filipino people?
Robert Y. Siy is a development economist, city and regional planner and public transport advocate. He is a co-convenor of the Move As One Coalition. He can be reached at [email protected] or followed on Twitter @RobertRsiy.
Be the first to comment