By Cardinal Pablo Virgilio David
What’s wrong with so-called “sanitary landfills” in the Philippines?
Almost everything.
To begin with, the sanitary landfill was conceived precisely to replace unsanitary dumpsites, which RA 9003 (Ecological Solid Waste Management Act) explicitly declares illegal.
A real sanitary landfill is designed with:
• impermeable liners (thick rubber sheets) to prevent leachate from contaminating soil and groundwater;
• strict controls so that only residual waste—what remains after proper segregation—ends up there.
Under ecologically sound solid waste management (ESWM), the principles are simple: segregate, compost, recycle.
But everything hinges on proper waste segregation. Without it, composting and recycling become impossible.
ESWM also presupposes disciplined collection systems:
• separate days for compostable biodegradables,
• separate days for recyclables,
• separate days for residual waste.
It also requires that toxic, industrial, and medical wastes be collected and treated separately.
But what happens in reality?
In most parts of the Philippines, everything is mixed together: biodegradables, recyclables, residuals, toxic waste, industrial waste, medical waste.
So what we call “sanitary landfills” are, in truth, unsanitary landfills—dignified dumpsites that fill up quickly precisely because they accept everything.
And that’s not even considering proper location for a sanitary landfill, which the law defines very clearly—but which is routinely violated because of corruption and the ease with which Environmental Compliance Certificates (ECCs) are secured.
Where else in the world would you find:
• fishponds converted into landfills, as in Navotas, whose leachate has poisoned almost all fishponds along Manila Bay, destroyed aquaculture in Navotas, Malabon, Obando, Hagonoy, Paombong, etc., and compromised food security?
• reclamation areas filled with unsegregated garbage?
At what point do we finally say that unsanitary landfills and reckless reclamation projects in Manila Bay are criminal acts?
We often boast that the Philippines has excellent environmental laws:
On Solid Waste
• Republic Act 9003
Ecological Solid Waste Management Act of 2000
On Air Quality
• Republic Act 8749
Philippine Clean Air Act of 1999
On Water Quality
• Republic Act 9275
Philippine Clean Water Act of 2004
On Hazardous & Toxic Wastes
• Republic Act 6969
Toxic Substances and Hazardous and Nuclear Wastes Control Act of 1990
On Environmental Impact & Compliance
• Presidential Decree 1586
Philippine Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) System
On Climate Change & Disaster Risk
• Republic Act 9729
Climate Change Act of 2009
• Republic Act 10121
Philippine Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Act of 2010
On Protected Areas & Biodiversity
• Republic Act 7586
National Integrated Protected Areas System (NIPAS) Act of 1992
• Republic Act 11038
Expanded Nipas Act of 2018
On Marine & Coastal Protection
• Republic Act 8550
Philippine Fisheries Code of 1998
• Republic Act 10654
Amending RA 8550 (IUU Fishing, stronger enforcement)
On Renewable Energy & Energy Transition
• Republic Act 9513
Renewable Energy Act of 2008
On Forests & Wildlife
• Republic Act 9175
Chainsaw Act of 2002
• Republic Act 9147
Wildlife Resources Conservation and Protection Act of 2001
The Philippines does not lack environmental laws. What it lacks is serious enforcement, political will, and ecological education.
The painful truth is this: hardly any local government unit is fully compliant.
Corruption in our country is not only moral. It is also material—leaking into our soil, our water, our food, and ultimately, our bodies.
The tragedy that happened in Cebu is not an isolated incident. It is a warning.
Until we learn what sanitary truly means—and enforce it with honesty and courage—the same tragedy is bound to happen again, anywhere in the country.