DAVAO CITY (MindaNews/July 13) – A marine biologist’s “conservative estimate” of the damage caused by the ongoing construction of the Samal-Davao bridge reveals that at least a fifth of the 7,500-square-meter Paradise Reef in Samal “is now dead.” Environmentalists anticipate further damage after the Court of Appeals (CA) in Cagayan de Oro denied a Temporary Environmental Protection Order (TEPO) on July 10 to halt the construction. Marine biologist John Michael Lacson stated that the CA denied the petition without allowing the petitioners to testify, despite evidence of “actual, serious, and irreversible damage” to coral reefs in Paradise Reef and Hizon Marine Protected Area. The 3.98-kilometer bridge, funded by a ₱23-billion loan from China and set for completion in 2028, aims to reduce travel time between Davao City and Samal Island from 20 minutes by ferry to five minutes by car. The Supreme Court issued a Writ of Kalikasan against involved government agencies and the China Road and Bridge Corporation (CRBC) but referred the TEPO request to the CA, which rejected it, citing potential disruption to the project and lack of demonstrated urgency. Lacson criticized the decision, warning it sets a precedent for unchecked environmental destruction. He estimated that 1,500 to 1,900 square meters of Paradise Reef are now dead, with CRBC tightening security around the construction site. Videos submitted as evidence show cement overflow covering staghorn corals. Environmentalists reported the destruction of 63 square meters of hard corals in June 2023, which expanded to 600 square meters by November. Lacson emphasized that the current bridge alignment should not have been approved, as it directly impacts protected marine areas, and alternative alignments were ignored. The petitioners, including Carmela Marie Santos of the Sustainable Davao Movement, stressed they are not against development but are defending the law and protecting biodiversity. Law professor Romeo Cabarde argued that the CA’s denial fails to uphold the constitutional mandate to protect the environment, noting undisputed evidence of harm. Despite the setback, petitioners continue to advocate for accountability and less destructive alternatives.
