By Pilar Toribio

Throughout the pandemic, the Duterte administration has been met with condemnation for prioritizing policies and infrastructure projects that range from wasteful to anti-people over  the pandemic response. 

From the infamous Anti-Terrorism Act, to the Dolomite Beach efforts in Manila Bay, Filipinos continue to express their displeasure towards our current government’s refusal to address more pressing matters plaguing our society. On the other hand, greedy business tycoons take this opportunity to rise to the occasion and discover ways to make a quick profit amidst the chaos, even going as far as taking advantage of the marginalized or working with the government directly to silence more Filipinos. 

And now, the Duterte  administration has struck again with their recent approval of the Pasig River Expressway or PAREX Project—only this time, it will be shouldered and under the guidance of a private corporation that places profit over the planet and people.

On September 21, the San Miguel Corporation (SMC), Department of Transportation, Department of Public Works and Highways, Toll Regulatory Board (TRB), and Philippine National Construction Corporation (PNCC) announced they had officially greenlit the construction of a 19.37-km highway that would run along Pasig River and stretch all the way to C-6. The key proponents of the project are SMC president Ramon S. Ang and directors Ferdinand K. Constantino, Joseph P. Pineda, Bella O. Navarra, and Jacobo Tristan C. Zobel. 

The bridge will be a direct access point to many of Metro Manila’s key districts, such as Mandaluyong, Makati, Pasig, and Taguig. 

Construction is projected to start as early as 2022, once SMC gets a Notice to Proceed from the government. It is estimated that the project will cost a total of Php 95.4 Billion. 

Ends Justifying the Means? 

In an official statement, Ang publicly rejected concerns raised by protesters surrounding the potential consequences of the project, claiming that the suspension of PAREX would generally do more harm than good because of the service it would provide. 

“It will be a great disservice to millions of Filipinos who will benefit from the multiple benefits of this project, if a vocal, passionate, but perhaps misinformed sectors of society, will be swayed to inaction or the status quo,” he said. 

He added that he has had discussions with architect Jun Palafox to ensure the proper execution of the project. 

“There is no formal engagement with Arch. Palafox, but we have been in discussion, something that we have been very clear from the start that we want him to help us do PAREX right,” Ang said.

In another statement, he claimed that the main purpose of the PAREX is simply to make commutes “comfortable and affordable” due to the wide structure of the highway and strategic placement.

“We have announced the PAREX will be a hybrid expressway, accommodating multiple modes of transportation. Apart from accommodating motor vehicles, it will also feature a modern and efficient public transport system in the form of a Bus Rapid Transit that will run on both the Skyway and PAREX. This will enable faster, more reliable, safer, comfortable and affordable commutes to and from the northern, southern, eastern, and western areas of Metro Manila,” he said. 

In a bid to gain the trust of the people, Ang then announced that the project will undergo a Php 2 Billion cleanup in Pasig River, and the highway itself will now incorporate a bicycle line, a bus transit system, and pedestrian lanes. 

Future Consequences

Many environmental activists remain unsatisfied and continue to voice out their concerns regarding the approval of the project. 

The Move as One Coalition, for instance, has opposed PAREX as early as April 2021 after finding evidence that it would be detrimental to the environment. 

In a statement on Twitter, the group detailed the long-term effects PAREX would pose on the environment. For example, they mentioned that the completion of the project would interrupt attempts to reduce our country’s emissions in the future. Therefore, there would be an increase of greenhouse gases (GHG)—such as the carbon emissions produced by cars—in the country. Although the immediate effects would not be noticeable, it is predicted that the build up of GHG would cause millions of Filipinos, particularly those living within the Pasig area, to suffer from air-pollution related disease.

Greenpeace Philippines campaigner RJ Mallari said in a briefing that the river plays a vital role in Pasig. Therefore, if the multi-billion highway is completed, it would essentially prevent the river from being a “catch basin” and cause more flooding. Furthermore, the gases created by vehicles would increase ozone temperatures, thereby contributing to global warming. 

Those affected first would be living nearest to the river, but over time the pollution would spread to the entire Pasig area and soon the whole of Metro Manila, causing future generations to have more health problems and thus implement more rehabilitation efforts —like the ones we’re doing now—to fix our current generation’s mistakes. 

Jefferson Estela, the co-founder of the Youth Strike for Climate Philippines, also expressed his dissatisfaction with PAREX on a Facebook live.

He stated in a #NoToParex press conference organized by Move As One Coalition in Filipino, “We should not build a lot of roads, bridges and buildings. We need to build a better future for everyone, for our future, my future. That means taking care of the environment, homes and communities and combating climate change,”

Greenpeace even released an article centering on the PAREX issues, emphasizing the term “eco amnesia”. According to developmental psychologist Peter H. Kahn, this is a phenomenon wherein it suggests that children “construct rich and varied conceptions of values of the natural world, and they do so even in economically harsh urban settings.”

In other words, PAREX would place younger generations in a future surrounded by infrastructure alone. Children residing in cities affected by PAREX, especially those in Pasig,  would then barely have any exposure to a clean and sustainable environment; thus severing the connection they should have with nature and leading them to be environmentally ignorant.  

The “19.37-kilometer-long death sentence” 

Members of Advocates of Science and Technology for the People (AGHAM), a NGO advocacy group comprised of scientists, researchers, engineers, and science educators, also joined in the calls against the construction of PAREX, stressing that it could severely damage the already fragile urban ecosystem of not just Pasig, but the entire NCR as well. 

When SMC had also claimed the Pasig River to be “biologically dead”, meaning there were no important organisms found within the body water, AGHAM fired back by giving a detailed list on all the harmful effects of PAREX to disprove this. 

In a statement posted on their website the group said, “The river vicinity that could be a very good urban heat sink could be a further source of our cities’ heat. Complete or partial blocking of the natural sunlight will affect the remaining food chain of Pasig River. From the tiniest plankton to the remaining fish species and riparian vegetation, all organisms will be affected by the drastic alteration of the river’s illumination. The Pasig River Expressway is a 19.37-kilometer-long death sentence that will kill the hopes for a better Pasig River ecosystem.”

Soon after, more environmental groups such as Greenpeace Philippines and Youth Strike for Climate Philippines joined the calls against the construction of PAREX through peaceful gatherings and social media protests. The groups cited the detrimental effects the project would pose on the ecosystem of the Pasig River, especially after the long years of rehabilitation done. In fact, it was discovered by the DENR and the Ecosystems Research and Development Bureau that 7 species of fish (i.e Manila sea catfish, bighead carp and tilapia to name a few) and other aquatic vegetation was found growing around or residing within the river, which would be affected by the construction of PAREX. If these were all to be destroyed, it could cause irreversible damage to the ecosystem.

A Band-Aid Solution

Aside from the negative environmental impacts, renowned Filipino urban planner Paulo G. Alcazaren expressed his overall disapproval regarding the construction plans for PAREX. 

Because of the instantaneous backlash that occurred almost overnight, SMC announced that there would be beautification efforts that will be conducted at the same time as PAREX. The reason behind this is their “vision for a sustainable, inclusive, green, hybrid infrastructure that will benefit both people and the environment.”

However, as stated by Alcazaren, “[The beautification efforts are] like lipstick on a pig. It’s a fickle idea,”

The urban planner also voiced criticisms regarding the multiple last minute adjustments.

He said, “They’re saying the six lanes will now incorporate a BRT (bus rapid transit) lane and bike and pedestrian lanes, but the problem is, these skyways are tens of meters above [the ground]. To connect a pedestrian system from the banks of the river and connect the river on both sides, one would have to go on several flights and the equivalent of about five stories to get up there.”

He then proceeded to compare other countries who pushed through with similar ideas to PAREX, only to have been taken down because of their lack of efficiency. One such example he mentioned was the Cheonggyecheon expressway in Seoul, South Korea. In 2003, it was demolished since it barely improved traffic congestion and contaminated the river on which it was built. 

“In dozens of cities worldwide, they’re tearing down these skyways because these elevated expressways have been found as the ones that, in the course of certain cities, do not help in alleviating traffic congestion.”  Alcazaren said. 

For these reasons, he does not believe PAREX will have the fantastical outcome SMC targets it to have. The simple solution of combatting mass transport by building more roads only works in theory, but not when actually implemented.  

“Short-term decongestion,” as Alcazaren said “will happen as you open more roads, but induced demand will bring it back — more flow, more traffic, like hydraulics in a plumbing system. The more pipes you put in, the more water will look for those pipes and [they] will eventually fill up again.” 

Never Too Late?

Despite the pressure to implement PAREX, it did not discourage several advocates from initiating an online petition on Change.org. 

In the petition, the creators listed numerous reasons as to why PAREX should be abolished. Mainly because:

1. The construction of the highway gives priority to owners with private vehicles. Thus, restricting commuters from effectively using the expressway. Although SMC has made efforts to add a bus transit system, it seems their first concern are those who can afford to buy their own cars.  Therefore, in a legal perspective, it then violates the Philippines National Transport Policy. This is because states that all agencies MUST concentrate on building more public transport, pedestrians, and the like.
2. It will sever the rich history of the river. Future generations will no longer be able to recognize or appreciate the true beauty of what the Pasig River used to be, since it’ll be overshadowed and most likely heavily contaminated. 
3. PAREX will result in a lower life expectancy to those living nearby it. This would then cause Pasig to be relatively inhabitable, and a predicted total of Php 67 Billion in medical expenses will be spent by those who suffered from the noise, air, and water pollution. 
4. The approval of the project itself is a violation of the 1987 Philippine Constitution due to the fact it did not go through proper due process. None of the necessary documents were available for viewing prior to the official announcement of the start of construction for the highway, but were only accessible afterwards. 

As of writing, the site has garnered a total of 16,589 signatures, already more than halfway to reaching their goal of 25,000.

With the repercussions of PAREX being devastating not just to the Pasig River, but to Metro Manila as a whole, it is a must to halt the project. Regardless of what the SMC persists on, let us not remain bystanders and “hope for the best”. For there is no hope if we throw away another generation’s future, in exchange for a flawed development plan that does not take into account its irreversible environmental impacts.