_2021_09_26_15_09_28.jpg&w=3840&q=100)
Dolomite Beach inquiry eyed amid Manila flooding
Bicol Saro party-list Rep. Terry Ridon made the call under his House Resolution 56, saying the Metropolitan Manila Development Authority (MMDA), through its Chairman Don Artes, identified the Manila Bay Dolomite Beach Project as a direct contributor to the persistent flooding in the City of Manila.
'Specifically, it (Manila Bay Dolomite Beach Project) caused the blockage of three major drainage outfalls—Faura, Remedios, and Estero de San Antonio Abad—forcing rainwater to be rerouted through a sewage treatment plant incapable of handling flood volumes during heavy rains,' Ridon said.
In addition, Ridon cited that the Manila Bay Dolomite Beach Project was never part of the then National Economic Development Authority (NEDA) -approved Manila Bay Rehabilitation Master Plan.
The artificial beach was built during the administration of former president Rodrigo Duterte in 2020, The 900-meter long and 60-meter wide beach was later closed for expansion which was completed in 2022.
'As such, it was never envisioned to protect Manila Bay's coastal resources nor to prevent coastal flooding, erosion, or pollution. It is a cosmetic project masquerading as rehabilitation, and has now proven harmful to flood mitigation efforts in Manila,' Ridon said.
The lawmaker said the inquiry will shed light on the following issues:
Whether the project was a necessary government expense to fulfill the Supreme Court's Writ of Continuing Mandamus on Manila Bay rehabilitation;
Whether it was subjected to a proper environmental impact study, especially with respect to flooding in the City of Manila;
Whether its implementation aggravated flooding in adjacent areas due to the obstruction of drainage outfalls;
Whether the ?389 million project cost was within standard pricing for comparable beach nourishment works;
Whether criminal and administrative liability attaches to government officials involved if the project is deemed unnecessary or irrelevant to the mandamus, implemented without a proper Environment Impact Assessment, grossly overpriced, or directly responsible for worsening Manila flooding.
'It is nothing but a criminal wastage of public funds—?389 million that could have been far better spent on sewage treatment plants and other engineering interventions grounded in science and sustainability. We will undertake a full congressional inquiry, determine criminal and administrative liability, and hold every government official directly involved in the origination, planning, and implementation of this project accountable,' Ridon said.
Back in June 2021, then President Duterte said the white sand in the Dolomite Beach Project needs to be replenished since the waves have wiped them out. — RF, GMA Integrated News
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
GMA Network
an hour ago
- GMA Network
Carpio: Senate should proceed with Sara impeachment trial if SC reverses decision
The Senate should automatically proceed with hearing the impeachment of Vice President Sara Duterte should the Supreme Court reverse its decision, retired Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio said over the weekend. According to Carpio, the proceedings should continue if the Supreme Court rules in favor of the House of Representatives regarding its motion for reconsideration. 'Wala nang botohan 'yan because balik tayo doon sa 'Is this Constitutional?' Sinabi ng Supreme Court ngayon, kung mag-reconsider sila, 'Yes, Constitutional,' so balik doon sa provision—The same shall constitute the Articles of Impeachment and trial by the Senate shall forthwith proceed,' he said in a report by Mav Gonzales on GMA's '24 Oras Weekend' on Sunday. (There's no more voting on that because we go back to the question 'Is this Constitutional?' The Supreme Court now says that if they reconsider, 'Yes, it is Constitutional,' so we return to the provision—The same shall constitute the Articles of Impeachment and trial by the Senate shall forthwith proceed.) This comes after the Supreme Court ruled that the Articles of Impeachment against Duterte were unconstitutional, and barred by the one-year rule. The Senate has since voted to transfer the Articles of Impeachment against Duterte to the archives, with 19 votes for the matter, four against, and one abstention. GMA Integrated News Research has found that a bill that was archived during the 15th Congress—involving the synchronized elections in the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM)—but was later revived and passed into law. The public is also now awaiting the SC decision on the motion for reconsideration filed by the House of Representatives, saying it should be allowed to perform its exclusive duty to prosecute an impeachable official, and the Senate's to try to the case. If the Supreme Court rules in favor of the House of Representatives, Carpio said there is no need for a Senator to file a motion to revive the Articles of Impeachment. 'Wala na. Of course, they will debate. Let's say, the majority will say 'No, we will not revive it,' akyat ang prosecution sa Supreme Court. Sasabihin nila, 'Dapat ba i-approve pa ito ng majority ng Senate bago mag-revive o sundin na lang natin 'yung specific command of the Constitution—trial by the Senate shall forthwith proceed. I think klaro naman 'yung Constitution,' he said. (That's it. Of course, they will debate. Let's say the majority says, 'No, we will not revive it,' the prosecution will elevate it to the Supreme Court. They will ask, 'Should this still be approved by the majority of the Senate before being revived, or should we just follow the specific command of the Constitution — trial by the Senate shall forthwith proceed.' I think the Constitution is clear.) Three impeachment complaints were filed against Duterte in December 2024, all of which were connected with the alleged misuse of confidential funds. The fourth impeachment complaint, endorsed by over one-third of lawmakers from the House of Representatives, was later on transmitted to the Senate. Duterte, for her part, entered a 'not guilty' plea in the verified impeachment complaint filed against her, which she called merely a 'scrap of paper.' — BM, GMA Integrated News
GMA Network
3 hours ago
- GMA Network
Constitution drafter: Impeachment complaints vs. VP Sara did not violate rules
One of the drafters of the 1987 Constitution over the weekend said the initiation of impeachment complaints against Vice President Sara Duterte did not violate the charter, as these were all filed on the same day and did not exceed the 'once a year' limit set by law. In a post on his Facebook account, former Supreme Court Justice and 1987 Constitution drafter Adolfo Azcuna said the Constitution indicates that impeachment complaints are limited to 'not more than once a year,' and not 'more than one a year.' Citing the Civil Code definition of a year as 365 days, this would mean that more than once a year would be equivalent to more than one day a year, as a day is the smallest unit of a year. 'Initiation proceedings all occurring WITHIN ONE DAY IN THE SPAN OF A YEAR DO NOT VIOLATE SEC 3, SUBSEC 5, ART XI OF THE CONSTITUTION,' Azcuna said in his post. 'The reason for this is the purpose of the once a year rule… It is to limit the amount of TIME taken away from official duties of both the official and the House of Representatives,' he added. Azcuna also noted that even with the new definition of initiating, the four complaints initiated on one session day—February 5, 2025—did not violate the 'more than once a year' rule. Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) national president Allan Panolong, meanwhile, said that the group is of the view that the provision means not more than one a year. 'Our position is that of the prevailing interpretation that not more than one a year. This is so to avoid unnecessary or harassment complaints against the impeachable officers,' he said in a statement aired in Ian Cruz's report on GMA's '24 Oras Weekend' on Sunday. Three impeachment complaints were filed against Duterte in December 2024, all of which were connected with the alleged misuse of confidential funds. The fourth impeachment complaint, endorsed by over one-third of lawmakers from the House of Representatives, was later on transmitted to the Senate. The Supreme Court then ruled unanimously to declare that the Articles of Impeachment against Duterte as unconstitutional and imposed a one-year ban, as it said these violate the right to due process. SC spokesperson Camille Ting noted, however, that the SC is not absolving Duterte from any of the charges against her, but any subsequent impeachment complaint may only be filed starting February 6, 2026. The decision is in relation to the petition filed by Duterte and lawyer Israelito Torreon, among others, seeking to declare the Articles of Impeachment against her null and void. The House of Representatives has since filed a motion for the SC to reverse its decision, saying it should be allowed to perform its exclusive duty to prosecute an impeachable official, and the Senate's to try to the case. Duterte, for her part, entered a 'not guilty' plea in the verified impeachment complaint filed against her, which she called merely a 'scrap of paper.'
GMA Network
a day ago
- GMA Network
House vows to abide by SC ruling on MR for Sara's impeachment
The House of Representatives will abide by the Supreme Court's decision should it rule against its motion for reconsideration (MR) on its decision to declare the Articles of Impeachment against Vice President Sara Duterte as unconstitutional. 'Hindi 'ho namin susuwayin 'yan, susundin namin 'yan. The House will not cause the constitutional crisis. The reason, the catalyst for the constitutional crisis will never be caused by the House,' House prosecution spokesperson Atty. Antonio Bucoy said at a news forum in Quezon City on Saturday. House Deputy Speaker Janette Garin, likewise, said the lower chamber will abide by the Supreme Court's ruling should it stand with its decision to declare Duterte's impeachment as unconstitutional. 'Definitely, kasi obligasyon namin sa taumbayan tutukan ang mga problema without bypassing accountability and working for whatever is in the interest of the general public,' Garin said. 'A constitutional crisis should not have a place in a… I think the Philippines is in the top 2 happiest people in the world, so talagang hindi siya dapat na mangyari,' she said. Voting 13-0, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously, deeming that the Articles of Impeachment are barred by the one-year rule under Article XI Section 3 paragraph 5 of the Constitution. Moreover, magistrates ruled that the articles violate the right to due process. In its appeal before the high tribunal, the House argued that the fourth impeachment complaint, signed off by 215 House members, is the only initiated impeachment case against the Vice President because it met the Constitutional requirement of the complaint being endorsed by at least one-third of the House members, which allowed the House to transmit the Articles of Impeachment straight to the Senate en route to the impeachment trial, bypassing Committee deliberations. ''Yung motion for reconsideration ay hindi ho para pagpuna, hindi po ito para itakwil. Ito ay para tawagin ang kanyang pansin upang magsumamo na bisitahin niyong muli ang inyong desisyon na sa palagay namin at inilahad namin sa aming motion for reconsideration ay mali mula letrang A hanggang letrang Z,' Bucoy said. 'Wait and see' Asked what the House's next course of action would be should the SC junk its MR, Garin said that 'hearing the legal luminaries in the House… klaro sa kanilang pananaw na talagang may basehan 'yung motion for reconsideration so we put it at that.' 'Let's wait and see what happens in the next months… I leave it to the members of the 20th Congress… Kasi sa ngayon lahat naguusap usap… These are things that we need to balance and we need to discuss…and come up with concrete statements,' Garin said. On the Senate's move to transfer to the archives the articles of impeachment against Duterte, Bucoy said, 'Hindi kami susuko na di porke't archived na ay susuko na kami.' 'Meron pang chance na dinggin pa kami. Sinabi nga ni Speaker: 'The House will not bow down.' Hindi ho kami sumusuko na sana maliwanagan ang Supreme Court at sana tumugon at sumunod ang Senado,' he said. Three motions for reconsideration have been filed with the SC against its ruling. The first was filed by some of the individuals behind the first impeachment complaint against Duterte, followed by the motion for reconsideration filed by the House of Representatives. The third motion was filed by the 1Sambayan coalition, including Carpio-Morales and Carpio, previously filed a motion for reconsideration with the SC on its ruling. They asked the SC to issue a status quo ante order and to set the case for oral arguments. —VAL, GMA Integrated News
