During its session on Tuesday, Sept. 15, 2026, the Cebu City Council returned a fact-finding report on the 118-hectare Monterrazas development to the Technical Infrastructure Committee for further review.
The council refused to endorse the project's ongoing activities while unresolved technical and documentary issues remain, including flood management, rainwater storage calculations, and internal report inconsistencies.
Vice Mayor Tomas Osmeña challenged the storage capacity during discussions, estimating that a typhoon Ruping-scale storm could generate roughly 319,000 cubic meters of runoff over the property.
THE Cebu City Council has returned a fact-finding report on the Monterrazas development to the Technical Infrastructure Committee (TIC) for further review, refusing to endorse the project’s ongoing activities while critical technical and documentary issues remain unresolved. During its session on Tuesday, Sept. 15, 2026, the council voted to return the report along with official session minutes detailing councilors’ concerns regarding flood management, rainwater storage calculations and internal report inconsistencies.
The TIC cleared the 118-hectare Monterrazas de Cebu development to resume construction, ruling that its on-site flood infrastructure exceeds municipal safety standards.
Joint inspectors verified seven operational detention ponds holding 27,483 cubic meters of runoff — more than triple the mandatory 8,220-cubic-meter requirement. Investigators concluded the hillside project is not the primary cause of local flooding, identifying severe off-site issues instead: unmanaged runoff from older developments lacking retention ponds, public drainage pipes narrowing from 1,500 millimeters (mm) down to 450 mm and altered downstream waterways from an adjacent high-rise project.
The committee reported that halting a compliant development will not solve area flooding, urging city officials, barangay leaders and neighboring developers to re-engineer the shared mountain watershed jointly. Developer Mont Property Group welcomed the resolution and pledged continued cooperation on local mitigation efforts.
Rainwater capacity concerns
At the center of the council’s discussion was whether the development’s proposed drainage infrastructure can properly manage heavy rainfall. A rainwater detention facility is designed to store storm runoff temporarily and release it at a controlled rate, preventing sudden flooding in downstream areas.
The TIC report lists a required detention capacity of 26,701 cubic meters for the project, against a reported actual design capacity of about 62,710 cubic meters. However, Vice Mayor Tomas Osmeña challenged whether those volumes are sufficient based on extreme weather history. Using calculations from historical rainfall patterns, Osmeña estimated that a storm comparable to typhoon Ruping over the 118-hectare Monterrazas property could generate roughly 319,000 cubic meters of runoff — a figure substantially higher than both the required and reported capacities. While the council did not adopt Osmeña’s calculation as an official engineering finding, his presentation raised broader questions about how stored water would be discharged and what would happen if the facilities overflowed. Councilor Harry Eran also questioned which competent city office originally determined the baseline requirement of 26,701 cubic meters.
Report inconsistencies and gaps
Councilors pointed to significant logical and procedural gaps within the TIC document. Councilor Pablo Labra II noted an apparent contradiction: while the report recommends allowing existing Monterrazas projects to continue, it also explicitly states that the committee has not made a final determination on whether the development contributes to local flooding. The document further specifies that its findings should not be construed as an official permit, clearance, authorization or approval. Labra questioned how the council could allow work to proceed while technical evaluations remain incomplete.
Councilor Sisinio Andales described the report as too vague to support concrete executive action, noting that the committee’s findings were based on initial inspections and remained subject to future submissions.
“The council needed a clearer recommendation before taking further action,” he said.
Andales also highlighted clerical discrepancies in the paperwork, pointing out conflicting references to governing council resolutions — specifically between a resolution dated June 16 and references to Resolutions 17-4059-2026 and 17-4061-2026. Councilors also noted that the furnished copy of the TIC report did not indicate when its members signed the document.
Downstream flood risks
The debate brought renewed focus to potential downstream flooding and municipal liability. Councilor Franklyn Ong questioned the City’s potential responsibility should another major rainfall event cause severe flooding after the council acted on the report. Councilor Dave Tumulak urged that the report not be treated as an approval while further technical studies and agency submissions remain pending, proposing that the session’s recorded observations be formally transmitted to the Office of the Mayor.
The discussion also prompted calls to review citywide infrastructure standards. Councilor Mikel Rama noted that the issues raised during the session could warrant a broader review of the city ordinance governing rainwater conservation and catchment requirements, which the Office of the Building Official (OBO) is tasked with enforcing.
Next steps for review
Following a brief recess, the council unanimously approved a corollary motion by Rama, seconded by Ong, to send the report back to the TIC. Upon a proposal by Councilor Alvin Arcilla, the complete transcript of the council’s discussion will be attached so the committee has a full record of all concerns.
The TIC must now address the specific questions raised by the council. These include establishing the technical basis for the 26,701-cubic-meter requirement, evaluating the design and discharge plans of the detention facilities, clarifying the conflicting resolution numbers and re-evaluating its recommendation regarding ongoing construction. Until the committee completes its review, the council has not adopted the recommendation to allow the development’s activities to continue. / CAV