DAVAO CITY – The City Council of Davao raised concerns on Tuesday, July 8, about a possible economic and financial setback if the Samal Island–Davao City Connector Project is suspended due to the Supreme Court’s Writ of Kalikasan to the Department of Public Works and Highways.

Councilor Danilo Dayanghirang, chairman of the Committee on Finance, Ways and Means, and Appropriations, said that any delay in the P23-billion bridge project could significantly affect Davao City and the Island Garden City of Samal (Igacos).

“The potential suspension of the said project could be a major setback, not only in infrastructure development but also financially,” Dayanghirang said, adding that taxpayers would still sacrifice as they have to pay the interest and amortization even if it is delayed.

Dayanghirang emphasized that, beyond government finances, local businesses and citizens are poised to suffer losses due to prolonged reliance on the current ferry system. He added that the transportation cost will not be reduced even if the government allows the status quo to continue.

“You can just imagine the economic loss, economic opportunity loss on the part of traders, businessmen, and individuals or groups in both cities. The barge is still expensive. Your time will run out lining up at ferry wharfs. So, I suggest a humanized win-win solution,” the councilor said.

The 21st Davao City Council passed a resolution on Tuesday inviting the petitioners behind the Writ of Kalikasan and the DPWH to attend the regular session on July 15 to discuss the implications of the controversial project.

Dayanghirang of the third district introduced the resolution reaffirming the city council’s backing of the SIDC project while “affirming compliance with environmental laws and sustainability commitments” in light of the higher court’s issuance of the writ to DPWH on July 1.

He emphasized that the invitation does not intend to interfere with the court’s proceedings but seeks to serve the interest of transparency and public accountability. He said it aims to promote a dialogue and find a fair solution that balances development and environmental protection.

In a manifestation, Committee on Socialized Housing Projects chairman Councilor Diosdado Angelo Mahipus Jr. said the DPWH must be prepared to present updates on the project’s status and explain the possible consequences of the writ on its ongoing construction.

Mahipus cautioned against the city council acting on an actively litigated matter. “It might be prudent for us just to respect the judicial processes about the particular subject matter,” he said, invoking the sub judice rule, which discourages public discussion of ongoing court cases.

Mahipus recommended that the council invite representatives from the DPWH and the petitioners for an open discussion rather than pass a resolution that might interfere with judicial proceedings, which Dayanghirang agreed to.

The SIDC, a flagship infrastructure project that spans 3.98 kilometers connecting Samal to Davao City and expected to ease travel, has drawn sharp criticism from environmentalists and residents who warned of its potential impact on marine biodiversity and coastal communities.

The writ, issued en banc, was directed against the DPWH, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the Samal Island Protected Landscape and Seascape Protected Area Management Board, and the China Road and Bridge Corp.

These entities were named as respondents following allegations of potential “actual, serious, and irreversible damage” to marine ecosystems surrounding the construction site.

Environmental advocates Carmela Marie Santos of Ateneo de Davao University Ecoteneo, Mark Peñalver of Interfacing Development Interventions for Sustainability (IDIS), Marvelous Dainty Camilo of Dyesabel Philippines, and the Sustainable Davao Movement filed the petition, citing threats to ecologically sensitive areas such as Paradise Reef and the Hizon Marine Protected Area.

Addressing concerns on right-of-way issues raised by private beach resort owners, Dayanghirang noted that expropriation with just compensation remains a “lawful and necessary tool” when negotiations fail.

However, Dayanghirang emphasized that delays “should not be allowed to indefinitely stall development,” advocating for compromise and the possibility of a technical realignment of the bridge’s route to avoid sensitive marine areas.

While petitioners maintain they are not opposing the project per se, they urged an alignment shift on the Samal side to spare critical coral habitats.

Romeo Cabarde, a lawyer and convenor of the Save Davao Movement, responded positively to the city council’s invitation. He, however, emphasized that the invitation must not be used to discredit the petition or distract from the environmental violations raised before the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court has directed all respondents to submit a verified return within 10 days after receiving the writ. The High Court also referred the petitioners’ request for a Temporary Environmental Protection Order (TEPO) to the Court of Appeals in Cagayan de Oro City for further action.

Dayanghirang said the session may not resolve the legal issues surrounding the SIDC, but they are hoping the discussion will foster greater understanding and contribute to a solution that considers ecological sustainability and infrastructure development.