Questions continue to surround the billions being spent on flood-control projects, but another concern deserves serious attention: will reclamation projects in Manila Bay further aggravate flooding and traffic in already vulnerable Metro Manila?

Metro Manila is a low-lying coastal metropolis, and parts of it are steadily sinking because of land subsidence. Yet along Manila Bay, massive reclamation projects are being pursued or proposed.

From the waterfront facing The Manila Hotel and Rizal Park, extending southward toward the CCP Complex and the former Sofitel Philippine Plaza, and up to Cavite, hundreds to possibly thousands of hectares of new land are envisioned through major reclamation projects.

For those of us at The Manila Hotel, this is not a distant development. It is happening practically near our doorstep.

Roxas Boulevard and surrounding areas already experience flooding. What assurance can the government give us that reclamation, once fully developed, will not aggravate the flooding we already experience?

Has there been a comprehensive scientific study not merely for each project individually, but on their cumulative impact—showing how multiple large-scale reclamation will affect water movement, drainage, and flooding around Manila Bay?

In 2025, the DENR presented findings from a cumulative impact assessment involving the UP Marine Science Institute and the Marine Environment and Resources Foundation.

Former DENR Secretary Maria Antonia Yulo-Loyzaga said changes in the physical environment of Manila Bay would affect water circulation and the drainage of water from inland areas. She also said many reclamation proposals were not integrated into the flood-management plans of concerned local governments.

If further studies are necessary, they should be completed and made public. Before projects of such enormous scale proceed, the government must assure us, based on science, that reclamation will not obstruct the discharge of floodwaters into Manila Bay or worsen flooding during extreme rainfall.

I am particularly concerned about The Manila Hotel and its historic surroundings.

The Manila Hotel is 114 years old and officially recognized as a National Historical Landmark. Nearby are Rizal Park, the historic Army and Navy Club, Intramuros and Fort Santiago, and the historic districts of Ermita and Malate. These are not merely valuable pieces of real estate. They are part of our country’s history and identity.

Their protection should not be limited to preserving individual buildings. We must also consider their surroundings, accessibility, vulnerability to flooding, and the historical character of this part of Manila.

Then there is traffic.

If reclaimed land is eventually occupied by high-rise buildings, offices, hotels, commercial establishments, and residential communities, they will bring thousands of additional cars, buses, trucks, workers, residents, and visitors.

Where will all these vehicles pass?

Roxas Boulevard is already heavily congested, while many surrounding roads can no longer simply be widened. What transportation systems are being prepared for these reclaimed districts? Where will buses and trucks enter and exit? How will these developments connect to the existing road network? What will be the impact of transporting massive quantities of reclamation materials through Metro Manila roads?

These are not concerns raised only by critics. Former Secretary Yulo-Loyzaga identified traffic management as one of the gaps in reclamation proposals reviewed by the DENR. The agency also flagged issues involving water supply, electricity, and solid-waste management.

There should therefore be an honest-to-goodness cumulative traffic impact study. It is not enough to examine one project at a time when several developments could eventually pour additional vehicles onto the same Roxas Boulevard and neighboring streets.

Let me make one thing clear: reclamation per se may not be necessarily evil.

It may serve legitimate economic and public purposes when carefully planned, scientifically studied, and supported by adequate infrastructure.

But if land remains available outside congested Metro Manila, why not seriously consider those areas for more townships and new growth centers?

There, roads, mass transportation, drainage, utilities, housing, education, and commercial areas can be planned together from the beginning. Development could also bring investments, jobs, and economic opportunities beyond Metro Manila.

Why create more land from Manila Bay, an important part of our national heritage, beside an already congested and flood-prone metropolis when other areas remain available for development?

Before we permanently alter Manila Bay, the government owes the public clear and convincing answers: Will flooding get worse? What does science say? How will additional traffic be handled? And what safeguards will protect our historic landmarks and surrounding communities?

These questions must be answered before—not after—the consequences become irreversible. ([email protected])