|
Sunday, October 02, 2005
Effort to identify municipal waters led to Cebu-Talisay feud over SRP
By Liberty A. Pinili
Sun.Star Staff Reporter
The dispute between Cebu City and Talisay over a portion of the South Reclamation Project (SRP) has raised several issues about territory and ownership.
How did the conflict begin?
Talisay’s claim that a portion of the SRP encroached into its territory first came up in 2003. The National Mapping and Resource Information Authority (Namria) had presented for validation, by different local government units in the province, the results of its delineation of municipal waters in Cebu.
The Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) had said it could not determine if a portion of the SRP is within Talisay City, after it conducted a relocation survey last year to find the municipal boundary marker nearest the coast between Cebu and Talisay.
The DENR then threw the ball back to the Namria, the only government agency mandated to delineate municipal waters in the country.
Here are the most frequently asked questions on municipal waters, now that they’ve become a cause of conflict among some local government units.
1. What are municipal waters?
Republic Act 8550 or the Philippine Fisheries Code of 1998 provides that the Municipality or City Government shall have jurisdiction over municipal waters.
The law defines municipal waters as all bodies of water within the territory of a municipality or city that have not been declared as protected areas.
For seas, municipal waters include the area “between two lines drawn perpendicular” to the general coastline of the town or city, from a point in the shore to 15 kilometers towards the sea.
2. How are municipal waters delineated or determined?
RA 8550 tasks Namria to delineate municipal waters in the country.
In 2001, then Environment Secretary Heherson Alvarez issued Administrative Order 17, providing guidelines on the delineation of municipal waters.
This administrative order (AO) was revoked in 2003 by then Environment Secretary Elisea Gozun, in compliance with an opinion of the Department of Justice (DOJ), that it is the Department of Agriculture (DA), not the DENR, that has the authority to issue guidelines to define municipal waters.
In January 2004, the DA issued Administrative Order 01, which contains the same guidelines as DENR AO 17.
The agriculture depart-ment’s AO 01, however, does not contain guidelines on the delineation of municipal waters for local government units that have islands.
3. Which set of guidelines was used in delineating the municipal waters of Cebu City and Talisay City?
In Namria’s reply to the opposition of Talisay City, prepared by City Administrator and Legal Officer Aurora Econg, the mapping authority revealed it used DENR AO 17.
DENR AO 17 was still in effect at the time of the delineation, in 2002.
But even when Namria conducted a technical survey upon the request of Talisay (to determine if a portion of the SRP falls within its territory) in January 2005, the mapping authority still used DENR AO 17 guidelines.
Why? Namria said it could not use DA AO 01 in its survey because Cebu City has an island, Kawit.
4. What are the methods used in delineating municipal waters?
Namria geodesy and geophysics division chief Enrique Macaspac told Sun.Star Cebu that there were three methods used in determining the boundaries of municipal waters: using normal baselines, which are applied for coastlines that are relatively even and simple and have no outlying or fringing islands, reefs, rocks or other abutting features; straight baselines, when the coastline is deeply indented or uneven, and; archipelagic baselines, when the concerned municipality or city has islands within its political jurisdiction.
5. Why did Namria’s technical survey in January 2005 report that only 2.087 hectares of the SRP is within Talisay’s jurisdiction, while the local government claimed 46 hectares and later 53.44 hectares?
In its reply to Talisay’s opposition to the January 2005 technical survey, Namria pointed out that it used municipal boundary marker (MBM) 30 as one of the bases of its survey, as this was the coastal terminal point agreed upon by Talisay and Cebu City.
Talisay’s claim of 46 hectares was based on the delineation procedure in 2002, which, in turn, used a coastal point that was discarded by Cebu City and Talisay.
6. Has the delineation of the municipal waters of Cebu City and Talisay City been finalized?
Namria said the finalization of the 2002 delineation was precluded by Talisay’s claim over SRP.
Macaspac said “if there are errors or disputes on the coastal terminal points and/or jurisdiction over island/s,” the local government units concerned must first resolve them.
Once opposing LGUs come up with an agreement, Namria revises the questioned maps and technical descriptions, and sends these to concerned parties.
(October 2, 2005 issue)
Write letter to the editor. Click here.
Join the Sun.Star message board. Click here. |
|
[return to top]
[home]
[network page]
|
LOCAL NEWS
BUSINESS
OPINION
SPORTS
LIFESTYLE
FEATURE
SUPERBALITA
WEEKEND
|
