An infrastructure-oriented thinktank blasted Malacanang’s new reclamation executive order which exempts from coverage all pending reclamation projects in Manila Bay. 

“Executive Order No. 74 covers only new reclamation applications which had not yet been covered by any contract between government and the private sector. This removes all pending Manila Bay reclamation projects from the ambit of the EO because all pending applications had already been subject, at the very least, to a Memorandum of Understanding between the local government unit and a private proponent.”

This was the statement of Terry Ridon, Infrawatch PH convenor and former member of the House Committee on Natural Resources.

EO contradicts Manila Bay rehabilitation

Ridon said exempting all pending Manila Bay applications from the EO contradicts government’s commitment to the rehabilitation of Manila Bay.

This condition entails a man’s incapability of attaining penile hard on during cheap levitra pills lovemaking. Therefore paying no attention towards these side effects can be get viagra from india risky. Announcing the launch of tadalafil india cialis the new technology, Dr. Sildenafil citrate is known as cialis viagra for women a vasodilator for creating erections known as Alprostadil.

“It is absurd, even unthinkable, to issue a new reclamation policy while exempting from its coverage the nation’s most controversial reclamation area. This only lends credence to lingering questions on the sincerity of government in rehabilitating Manila Bay.”

Covering pending projects does not impinge government obligations

Ridon, who is also an environment lawyer, said including pending reclamation projects in the EO’s coverage does not impinge on government’s contractual commitments to the private sector.

“It needs to be stated that most pending Manila Bay reclamation projects had not yet been green lighted by the NEDA, which is previous approving body for all reclamations. As such, government should not find its hands tied to any contractual obligations to the private sector.”

Ridon said the coverage cut-off should not be whether contracts had already been signed with a private proponent, but on whether final approval from the previous approving body – NEDA – had already been secured by reclamation proponents.