By

Maria Dianne B. Rallon

Program Officer, CUSW

CUSW
 How we decide and
who gets to decide
often determines
what we decide

There are not enough jails, not enough policemen, not enough courts to enforce a
law not supported by the people. ~ Hubert H. Humphrey, 1965
 REPUBLIC ACT No. 9275
March 22, 2004
AN ACT PROVIDING FOR A COMPREHENSIVE WATER
QUALITY MANAGEMENT AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
Republic of the Philippines
Congress of the Philippines
Metro Manila
Twelfth Congress
Third Regular Session
NOW, CWA is 2 years old…
then what?
1) Chapter 2 Art. 1 Sec. 5. Water Quality Management Area
• NWRB designates water quality management areas and shall be
governed by a governing board composed of mayors and
governors, NGA representatives, duly registered NGO, water utility
sector, and business sector
• Creation of a multi-sectoral group in each WQMA
• Technical Secretariat for each WQMA

Comment: Has this been formed? If formed, can DENR furnish a

report. If not formed, what are the things to consider? What are
the difficulties encountered in the WQMA formation process? Has
NWRB designated the WQMAs?
…(Cont.) SALIENT OBSERVATIONS: Content - based

2) Chapter 2, Art. 1, Section 7. National Sewerage and Septage

Management Program
• As stipulated in the Act, ASAP
• March 22, 2005 was the deadline for the preparation of a national
program on sewerage and septage management program.
3) Chapter 2, Art. 1, Section 8. Domestic Sewage Collection,
Treatment, and Disposal.
• Within 5 years following the effectivity of the Act which means
timeframe is from March 22, 2004 – March 2009.
• Connecting the existing sewage line found in all subdivisions,
condominiums, commercial centers, hotels, sports and
recreational facilities, hospitals, market places, public buildings,
industrial complex and other similar establishments including
households to available sewerage system.
Comments: What has been done now that it is already 2006? #3 Will
all of us be alive and present here come to realize this in our
lifetime? Is their a blueprint already that would light up a hope for
all of us?
…(Cont.) SALIENT OBSERVATIONS: Content - based

11) Chapter 3, Section 19. Lead Agency (cont.)

• Annual Report in Congress on the Quality Status of Water Bodies
and other pertinent information.
Comments: Can DENR furnish copies of the reports other agencies
concerned?
• Devolution to the LGUs.
Comments: Is the devolution process clear and parameters identified
and oriented to both DENR and LGUs?
12) Chapter 3, Section 20. Role of LGUs
• Within 6 months after the establishment of the WQMA Action Plan
preparation of a compliance scheme.
13) Chapter 3, Section 22. Linkage Mechanism.
Comments: A venue which is feasible and doable at the current
timeframe to concretize R.A. 9275.
…(Cont.) SALIENT OBSERVATIONS: Content - based

4) Chapter 2, Art. 1, Section 9. National Water Quality Management

Fund
5) Chapter 2, Art. 1, Section 10. The Area Quality Management Fund
Comments: Are there mechanisms set up already with regard to its
implementation? If this is already implemented, can the tax-paying
public be informed and be shown transparently the fund
statements? If there is none, then who do you think can set up the
mechanisms to have these provisions implemented?
6) Chapter 2, Art. 1, Section 12. Categories of Industry Sector.
• Within 24 months after the effectivity of this Act.
• Timeframe: From March 22, 2004 – March 2006.
7) Chapter 2, Art. 2, Section 13. Wastewater Charge System
8) Chapter 2, Art. 2, Section 14.Discharge Permits
Comments: Presumed that DENR has this already long time ago and
updated since then.
…(Cont.) SALIENT OBSERVATIONS: Content - based

9) Chapter 2, Art. 3, Section 15. Financial Liability for Environmental

Rehabilitation
• Putting up of the environmental guarantee fund or EGF as part of
the environmental management plan attached to the ECC.
• EGF
10) Chapter 2, Art. 3, Section 17. Programmatic Environmental
Impact Assessment.
11) Chapter 3, Section 19. Lead Agency
• National Water Quality Status Report within 24 months after the
effectivity of the Act – March 22, 2004- March 2006
• Integrated Water Quality Management Framework: March 2007
• Ten Year Water Quality Management Area Action Plan: 2008 – 2015
• National Groundwater Vulnerability Map within 24 months after the
effectivity of this Act: March 22, 2004-March 2006
• Water Quality Guidelines within 12 months after the effectivity of
the Act: March 22, 2004-March 2005.
…(Cont.) SALIENT OBSERVATIONS: Content - based

11) Chapter 3, Section 19. Lead Agency (cont.)

• Effluent Standards every 5 years from the effectivity of this Act.
~ 2009
~ 2014
~ 2019
• Internationally-accepted Procedures for Sampling and Analysis of
Pollutants within 12 months from the effectivity of this Act: March
2005
• Categorization of point and non-point sources of water pollution –
18 months from the effectivity of this Act and every two years
thereafter:
~ July 2005
~ July 2007
~ July 2009
• Classification of groundwater resources within 12 months from
the effectivity of this Act: March 2005
…(Cont.) SALIENT OBSERVATIONS: Content - based

11) Chapter 5, Section 27. Non-compliance of LGUs with the WQMA

Action Plan subject to administrative sanctions.
12) Chapter 7, Section 31. Appropriations.
• Appropriation of PhP 100,000,000.00 for the initial implementation
of this Act.
Comments: Is this amount available and ready for use? How is this
appropriated nationwide? Do we have a roadmap already for this
Act?
13) Chapter 7, Section 33. Joint Congressional Oversight Committee.
• Five (5) Senators
• Five (5) Representatives
Comments: Are these people identified?What have they done to
oversee the implementation of this Act?
• Chairpersons
~ Senate: Committee on Environment
~ House of Representatives: Committee on Ecology
• Having the Philippine Clean Water Act of 2004 approved by the
President and with a final draft of the Implementing Rules and
Regulations of such Act, is absolutely a MILESTONE for us Filipinos.
•Proponents should adopt procedures to integrate EIA
with the planning process, not just to comply with
regulatory requirements, but more importantly so that
projects or programs are better sited and better
designed for environmental sustainability.

•As a basic principle, EIA should be used to enhance

planning and to guide decision-making.

• All aspects of the project environment should be

incorporated: the natural environment and the socio-
economic, political environment.
o Clear knowledge of the laws
o Enforcement of the laws by appropriate agencies
o Proper coordination of the agencies
o Development of an over-all management plan
o EIS should not be treated or viewed as only a process
of complying of permits but make it as a planning
mechanism to achieve success.
1. Institution and Laws
Questions:
• Who makes and enforces the rules for using the natural resources?
• What are the rules and the penalties for breaking them?
• Who resolves disputes?
2. Participation Rights and Participation
Questions:
• How can the public influence or contest the rules over natural resources?
• Who represents those who use or depend on natural resources when
decisions on these resources are made?
3. Authority Level
Questions:
• At what level or scale – local, regional, national, international – does the
authority over resources reside?
4. Accountability and Transparency
• How do those who control and manage natural resources answer for their
decisions, and to whom?
• How open to scrutiny is the decision-making process?
5. Property Rights and Tenure
• Who owns a natural resource or has the legal right to control it?
6. Markets and Financial Flows
• How do financial practices, economic policies, and market behavior influence
authority over natural resources?
7. Science and Risk
• How are ecological and social science incorporated into decisions on natural
resource use to reduce risks to people and ecosystems and identify new
opportunities?
Why Public Participation in environmental policy and
decision-making?
 To ensure that government agencies are acting in the public interest
 That environmental policies reflect public values
 Can also help offset any undue industry influence over the regulatory
system
 Improve the quality of decisions
 Resolving conflict among competing interests
 Building trust in institutions
 Educating and informing the public
 Beneficial because communities are often critical factors in the solutions to
local environmental problems like transportation or watershed protection.
1) Document review
2) Informational meetings
3) Environmental Impact Assessments
4) Public hearings
5) Advisory Committees
6) Public role in implementation
dtral