Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Judging from the news reports on the subject, the no-build zone
policy is opposed by fishermen- they need their boats near the sea
and as reported by Rappler.com, the fishermen need only to push
their boats across the sand to get to the shore a few meters away;
even the survivors themselves are opposed to the policy, as most of
them have their homes and other forms of livelihood within these
zones.
At first glance, the stated PARR policy seems reasonable, but
are not the areas set for livelihood or commercial purposes, which is
common practice in almost all areas in urban and rural areas in
Philippines, also used as dwellings by those who run these
establishments, thus, making them no-dwelling zones will add to the
hardship of the residents and businesspeople running these places
as they may have to incur expenses traveling to and from their
residences and their places of livelihood or business. These people
will, as a consequence of this policy, may have to incur twice the
expense now, rebuilding their businesses and livelihoods and finding
a shelter they can call their own. Can these people really afford it?
Isnt it that the usual way is one revives one business or livelihood
first and then if business is good, sets aside some funds to build
ones house.
How about those earlier-mentioned fishing industries or
tourism-oriented businesses, are they in the category of safe zones
or no-dwelling zones, what can they do and not do being part of
such zones? Can they expand their perimeters or there are certain
limitations as to what they can do within their boundaries? What
about if the business will shut down, will their status remain, and what
about if they expand, are there limits to what they can do?
Finally, who gets to have the final say on what these zones will
be, it is clear the PARR is only a recommendatory body, as its press
release also said, it will all be up to the Sanggunians or legislative
bodies of these areas, who will have the final say in this.
Perhaps to get a better sense of what kind of policy needs to be
established, one may need to go back to a similar policy but may not
be the same in intent the easement of public use in water bodies,
found in art. 51 of a Marcos-era Presidential Decree signed into law
in 1976, the Water Code of the Philippines, which reads :
Article 51. The banks of rivers and streams and the shores of the
seas and lakes throughout their entire length and within a zone of
three (3) meters in urban areas, twenty (20) meters in agricultural
areas and forty (40) meters in forest areas, along their margins are
subject to the easement of public use in the interest of recreation,
navigation, floatage, fishing and salvage. No person shall be allowed
to stay in this zone longer than what is necessary for recreation,
navigation, floatage, fishing or salvage or to build structures of any
kind.
This law talks about a legal entity called an easement, which,
according to a recent case decided by the Supreme Court (Pilar
Development Corporation v. Ramon Dumadag, et.al., G.R. No.
194336, March 13, 2013) on this, is an encumbrance imposed upon
an immovable for the benefit of another immovable belonging to a
different owner or for the benefit of a community. In other words, an
easement is an imposition or burden set on another property, which in
this case is to benefit the broader public or the community. This is
something that must be done by a property owner, to benefit the
public. At the outset, an area set aside for this kind of easement
cannot fence off an area to keep away the public as that area is for
everybody, for everybodys kind of purposes.
What the Water Code envisages is either a 3-meter (for urban
areas), 20-meter (in agricultural areas), or a 40-meter (in forest
areas) easements of public use, and as stated by the Code, in the
interest of recreation, navigation floatage, fishing and salvage. To
further elaborate what this easement for public use will entail, the
Code further says : no person shall be allowed to stay in this zone
longer than what is necessary for recreation, navigation, floatage,
fishing or salvage or to build structures of any kind.
The idea of a no-build zone is of a different kind, and as
gleaned from the statements of the DENR Secretary, it means what it
says, nothing will be built in these areas, but the reason is to prevent
further hazards from natural calamities such as earthquakes, and as
recent experience has made us realize, including storm surges. The
DENR has not elaborated what further uses of the area may be
possible in case nothing is built on it anymore, like what the Water
Code easements provide as discussed.
The Supreme Court case earlier cited however mentions a
DENR Administrative Order No. 99-21 which provides details on
these public easements. So, perhaps to clarify what can be done and
not be done in these no-build zones, perhaps a further administrative
issuance maybe necessary.
What the PARR has proposed needs to be further debated and
reflected upon, perhaps it may only call for the dusting-off and
application of old laws that may actually suit what the situation calls
for.
https://bitsinbits.wordpress.com/2014/03/15/understanding-parrs-nono-build-zone-policy-good-bad-or-what-and-who-will-have-the-finalsay/
The movement against no-build zone, no-dwell zone policy will
spread like wildfire. The people in the coastal communities will
continue to expose and oppose this highly unacceptable adventure of
the government to deny our fisherfolk the rights to livelihood and
decent communities.
By GERRY ALBERRT CORPUZ
Bulatlat.com
MANILA A national federation of small fisherfolk organizations has
pressed the Department of Environment and Natural Resources
(DENR) to dismantle all no-build zone markers it had installed since
last year and allow fishermen and other coastal villagers to return to
their fishing areas and communities.
In a press statement sent to media,, a copy of which was
emailed to Bulatlat.com, the progressive fisherfolk alliance
Pambansang Lakas ng Kilusang Mamamalakaya ng Pilipinas
(Pamalakaya) asked DENR Secretary Ramon Paje to remove all
temporary markers it constructed indicating the 40-meter no build
zone policy from the coastline of San Joaquin in Palo, Leyte up to
San Juanico Bridge in Tacloban City.
In the name of the collective interest and genuine sentiment of the
people of Tacloban and Eastern Visayas, we hereby order the office
of DENR Secretary Ramon Paje to remove the no-build zone markers
from Palo to San Juanico Bridge and allow the safe return of small
fishermen to their place of economic activity and abode, said
Pamalakaya vice chairperson Salvador France.
The Pamalakaya leader noted that the no-build zone currently
imposed by DENR covers some 35.88 kilometers from Palo to
you are already safe, Alfred Romualdez, the mayor of Tacloban, told
IRIN.
Elevation is a better measure of protection. You cannot build a
structure that will withstand a storm surge or tsunami - the only way is
up, he said.
Tacloban, a coastal city in the central Philippines, was
swallowed up by storm surges reported to be as high as six metres.
Most of the over 6,000 deaths caused by Haiyan occurred in
Tacloban.
A May 2014 inter-agency report shows that around 26,000
people remain in tents and evacuation centres, or with host families;
and 200,000 people face prolonged displacement, the report said, if
the areas where they lived previously are declared by the government
as being in no dwelling zones. The designation means structures
can be built but not inhabited, which is often in practice interpreted to
mean no-build zone.
Government officials and humanitarian workers are concerned
that compliance with the 40-metre no-build zone can have the dual
effect of convincing people at lower elevations that they are safe
when they are not, and limiting relocation options by designating
some safe areas as off-limits.
Non-strict application
We recommend that we do not strictly apply the no-build zone
[guideline]. It is impractical to implement, said Karen Jimeno, director
of communications for the Office of the Presidential Advisor for
Rehabilitation and Recovery (OPARR).
OPARR was a committee created by President Benigno
Simeon Aquino III to oversee all rehabilitation efforts after Haiyan.
Instead of the blanket 40-metre no-build zone, OPARR is
recommending that areas be classified as safe zones, unsafe
zones, or controlled zones.
Building in controlled zones, for example, will be permitted as
long as there are mitigating measures in that area such as
the lives of more than 6,000 people, injured nearly 30,000 people,
with almost 2,000 people still missing.
Philippine Daily Inquirer
By: Tarra Quismundo, June 4th, 2014 02:56 AM
MANILA, PhilippinesNearly seven months since tsunami-like
waves spawned by Super Typhoon Yolanda (international name:
Haiyan) swept away their loved ones and homes, some families in
disaster-stricken Tacloban City are back in the danger zone.
Philippine Red Cross chair Richard Gordon disclosed this on
Tuesday, citing a recent visit to Tacloban City where he saw newly
rebuilt houses on the coast of Barangay 69 (Anibong district).
Supposedly a no-build zone as designated under the governments
build back better program, makeshift houses are back in the section
of the city where Yolandas deadly storm surge pushed ships to
shore, indicating just how powerful the Nov. 8, 2013, monster storm
was.
ADVERTISEMENT
I have pictures. The roofs on the houses are all new, and they
are all beside the sea, Gordon said in a press briefing at the
Department of Foreign Affairs on Tuesday, where he spoke ahead of
the disaster risk reduction and management conference to be held in
Manila this week.
He could not say how many families have so far moved back to
the coastal barangay. Thats the area where big ships [were swept to
shore]. Theres no way to get those ships out anymore. Theyre
surrounded by new houses, the former senator said.
I asked them, Why are you building there? [They said,] We
will be relocated but that would be hard for us. I told them to take the
new lots and still keep their old lots [on the coast], but that they
should not live there. [I told them,] If you live here, it would be
dangerous, said Gordon, a longtime advocate of communities that
are resilient instead of reactive in the event of disasters.
There has to be somebody doing that to the public, reminding
them of the risks of living on the hazard zone, Gordon said.
No one to blame
I can say this because I have seen this in areas in Iloilo that
were hit by Typhoon Frank. There are resettlement houses that were
built there but theyre empty, because they were supposed to be for
fishermens families who didnt want to move, Gordon said.
This is not a criticism. This is just the reality of the situation, he said.
Gordon led the Red Cross in its relief, rescue and recovery
activities across the Visayas in the wake of the typhoon, largely
independent of the government in terms of funding.
Conclusion
It would be best if a new law would be enacted to clearly set
forth the parameter of such no build or no dwelling zone controversy,
to clearly define and prescribe the limit that would answer the
question and erase the doubts of those affected therein, in order that
it can be properly implemented. Laws existing are sufficient; the
problems boils down on how the law is being implemented by the
authorities and followed by the citizenry. Subject to just compensation
the Government can make use of its inherent power of eminent
domain if they so desire after all they have basis for such
expropriation. Communities living within the so declared no-build or
no-dwelling zone will be primary be affected, but since mostly
comprise of fisher folks, one way or another all we will be affected
surely the number of fisherman would decline since most probably
they would be relocated in an isolated place.
http://archive.sunstar.com.ph/breaking-news/2013/12/13/taclobanpasses-40-meter-no-build-zone-ordinance-318688
http://www.irinnews.org//report/100368/no-build-zones-confusiondelays-resettlement-of-haiyan-survivors#.VgIPVImwrqA