The garbage disposal problem may have created a “situation” at Cebu City Hall, which places Mayor Nestor Archival in a tight spot, facing the risk of being sued over possible violation of environmental law, which he has been known to champion.
Where and how will the City Government dispose of its garbage, estimated at 600 to 700 tons daily? The Binaliw landfill -- which used to accept only 150 to 450 tons, turning away the surplus to faraway sites like that in Aloguinsan town -- has been closed since its mountain of waste collapsed last January 8, 2026, killing 36 people and injuring 18 others.
Finding a dump site outside the city has been tough: local governments aren’t enthusiastic to host breeders of disease or the cost is too high because of distance in hauling.
Mayor Archival declared on May 6, 2026, an emergency over the problem of waste disposal. The proclamation at least would make available funds for the emergency amounting to a disaster.
Temporary Measures Slammed
Two developments that must have quickened the declaration of “solid waste emergency”:
- Uproar over the unpublicized reopening of Binaliw, allegedly without the knowledge of the City Council and the mayor. Operation resumed after DENR had lifted partially its cease-and-desist order. The mayor and the councilors were “blindsided,” a claim not refuted by DENR and Prime Integrated Waste Solutions, landfill operator. The mayor then ordered a halt to the partial operation but the over-all waste disposal operation suffers from the development, along with…
- … Intensified criticism of the use of a lot in or beside Pond A at South Road Properties (SRP). Mayor Archival has legal and factual support on the Binaliw reopening furor, but apparently has none to defend the use of Pond A, except that it is just a temporary, transfer site.
A Specific Rejection from DENR
Instead of evidence of legality, a specific rejection from DENR has resurfaced regarding the use of SRP as temporary dumping area. A January 15, 2026 letter from DENR Regional Director Ma. Victoria V. Abrera rejected the request of City Administrator Albert Tan for "temporary placement” of the city’s collected garbage at a site beside SRP’s Pond A. DENR said it cannot approve the city's request because of “mandatory requirements” under Section 25 of Republic Act 9003 or Ecological Solid Waste Management Act of 2000.
The “mandatory requirements” cited by DENR for its refusal: (1) proximity of SRP to water bodies, to prevent contamination and leachate seepage; (2) SRP is not zoned for waste handling; and (3) SRP space is not suitable “for even temporary waste storage.”
“Transfer” and “Temporary” Aspects
The “temporary-ra-bitaw” pitch was addressed, perhaps anticipated, by DENR. Even if allowed as a transfer station, under the same law, R.A. 9003, and the same section, “no waste shall be stored in such station beyond 24 hours.” The fact stands though on the use of SRP: It cannot legally be used, not even as a transfer site, for garbage. So the law’s 24-hour-removal provision does not apply here, although one wonders if the City Government has been complying with that requirement to support its claim of SRP being a transfer site.
Public Officials’ Risk
Public officials and employees are in danger of being sued. Administrative penalties include suspension or dismissal from service, depending upon the severity of the violation. Criminal and civil liabilities may arise for “willfully and grossly neglecting” government employees’ duties specified in the law. Dumping garbage at SRP, despite the prohibition by DENR, might be considered a major offense like “operating an open dumpsite,” which carries a fine of from P500,000 to P1 million and imprisonment of one to three years.
30-Day Notice to the Mayor
An interesting feature of the law, highlighting the ordinary citizen’s right to sue a public official over a crime against the environment, is the “citizen’s lawsuit.” The lawsuit requires a written notice against a public officer, the mayor, or any other official, for neglect of duty, 30 days before filing his complaint. Apparently, the purpose is to allow the said public official or government employee “to take corrective action.” Politicians tend to dismiss criticisms against them as political. Personal motive or political agenda of the complainant does not bar a “citizens’ lawsuit” under R.A. 9003.
