‘Victory for Antique’s coast’ as court halts esplanade project

By Rjay Zuriaga Castor

Fisherfolk and environmental groups in Antique scored their first legal victory as the Regional Trial Court ordered a halt to the controversial esplanade–seawall project in Barangay Funda-Dalipe, San Jose de Buenavista.

In an order issued on December 12—two days after the filing of a joint complaint—the court granted a Temporary Environmental Protection Order (TEPO) against the 520-meter esplanade project, citing the need to prevent potential irreversible environmental harm.

“The court found that matters discussed therein are of extreme urgency, and there is a need to prevent a possible irreparable and irreversible injury to the plaintiffs and the environment if the construction […] is not temporarily stopped,” the order stated.

The complaint was filed by the Funda-Dalipe Fisher Folk Association (FDFFA), Dihon sa ’Raya Inc., and local resident Remy Muescan.

The order directed the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) and its contractor, J.E. Tico Construction Co. Inc., to cease all construction activities pending the resolution of the petition for continuing mandamus.

The temporary order will remain in effect until lifted by the court.

Also named as respondents in the case are the local government unit (LGU) of San Jose de Buenavista, the Environmental Management Bureau (EMB), and the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) Region 6.

In their 20-page complaint, the petitioners alleged that the project poses an irreversible threat to the environment—particularly to coastal ecosystems, marine biodiversity, and critical sea turtle nesting sites.

Environmental group Amlig Alliance Antique welcomed the court’s order, calling it a “victory for Antique’s coast.”

They added that the ruling could have implications beyond San Jose de Buenavista, as similar coastal infrastructure projects labeled as eco-tourism developments have proliferated across Antique and other parts of the country—often at high public cost and with limited regard for environmental regulations.

Should the court ultimately issue a full Environmental Protection Order, Amlig said it would set a powerful precedent affirming that no infrastructure project—regardless of political support or scale—stands above environmental law.

Amlig further said such a ruling could compel the review, abatement, and rehabilitation of similar illegal coastal encroachments nationwide, potentially reclaiming billions in public funds for genuine ecosystem restoration.

With the court set to conduct a summary hearing, the petitioners invoked the principle of intergenerational responsibility, citing the landmark Supreme Court ruling in Oposa v. Factoran to demand not only a halt to construction but full environmental rehabilitation.

This includes coral reef recovery, protection of sea turtle nesting grounds, and the formation of a multi-stakeholder monitoring committee to ensure future compliance.

In Oposa v. Factoran, the Supreme Court declared the right to a healthful ecology as self-executing and enforceable, emphasizing nature’s “rhythm and harmony” and the duty to preserve it for future generations.

Amlig also challenged Senator Loren Legarda to support the case, urging her to help reclaim mangroves from what they described as “corruption’s tide,” citing her past advocacy for nature-based solutions over concrete flood control.

“This is a moment to prove that environmental advocacy is not just rhetoric, but action—one that places mangroves over seawalls, ecosystems over contracts, and future generations over short-term gain,” the group added.