FOR THE LOVE OF BORACAY: The Island Says NO to Proposed Bridge
- 6 hours ago
- 8 min read
Formal opposition to SMHC’s unsolicited proposal by Malay Municipal Council, Aklan Provincial Government and key business groups
By Freida Dario-Santiago
The Sangguniang Bayan (SB) of Malay or the Malay Council formally passed SB Resolution No. 142, Series of 2026, its formal expression of the “strong objection” from the people of Malay to the Proposed Caticlan-Boracay Bridge Project by San Miguel Holdings Corp. (SMHC), following a unanimous vote during its 8th Regular Session on March 12, 2026.
Authored by SB Member Hope Christine Pagsuguiron, the resolution formalizes a united objection to the project, citing significant risks to Boracay’s ecology, local livelihoods and economic future.
Expressing grave concerns on social, economic and environmental grounds, the council flagged a lack of local public consultation and participation, in violation of the Local Government Code of 1991 (RA No. 7160). It also warns of potential irreversible environmental damage to the island’s beaches, including altered currents and sediment flow, destruction of coral reefs and seagrass beds, increased coastal erosion that could cause irreversible habitat loss, and pollution exceeding the island's capacity.
The potential human cost is equally severe. The project could displace 454 boatmen and 4,000 transport cooperative members, affecting an estimated 2,000 dependents. Economically, the loss of hundreds of millions in terminal fees and taxes would strip the province of vital funding for hospitals and social services.
This formal opposition follows the Malay Council's earlier decision to strike the bridge from the town's Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) and Annual Investment Plan (AIP).
Aklan Provincial Board Officially Rejects the Proposal
On October 8, 2025, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan (SP) or Aklan Provincial Board passed Resolution No. 193-2025, formally opposing the proposed 2.54-km bridge.
Expressing its “strong objection,” the resolution cites a lack of local endorsement and genuine public consultation with local government units and stakeholders by the proponents, Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) and San Miguel Holdings, and states that the bridge would be “inimical to the economic and social conditions” of the residents and could undermine the island’s identity as a protected destination.
The DPWH is the implementing agency, overseeing the Public-Private Partnership (PPP) process, technical design review and bidding.
Concerns for the infrastructure project center on the economic displacement of hundreds of boatmen, the draining of critical revenue streams, increased traffic and the potential disruption and irreparable damage to the marine ecosystem of one of the Philippines’ most iconic tourist destinations. “Infrastructure development must not come at the expense of long-term environmental damage,” the resolution asserted.
Lack of Social Acceptability
After the SP’s October 8 resolution, the fate of the ₱7.95-billion proposal remained in limbo until the latest development: the SB’s final action on March 12.
Copies were sent to the Office of the President, the DPWH, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), the Department of Tourism (DOT), the SP of Aklan, the SB of Malay and SMHC.
This distribution is a critical step in the legislative process, as it formally notifies national agencies of the project’s lack of local “social acceptability.”
Religious Leaders Say NO
In a Nov. 1, 2025, pastoral statement, the Diocese of Kalibo in Aklan expressed its opposition to the proposed bridge, citing environmental, economic and moral damage. The proposed bridge, it said, would “alter the unique character of Boracay,” removing the “island excitement” and exclusivity that defines it.
Archbishop Victor Bendico warned about “repeating the same mistakes” that led to the island’s temporary closure in 2018. “When Boracay was closed for rehabilitation, that taught us that limiting access is essential for ecological recovery and sustainable development. Beyond the environmental threat, such a project may also cause social imbalance and deepen existing inequalities,” the prelate said.
Business Stakeholder Groups Also Say NO
Stakeholder groups BFI and PCCI-Boracay also oppose the project, reflecting business sentiment.
BFI’s Resolution No. 006 reiterates “strong opposition,” citing environmental risks, lack of consultation and governance concerns. It warns of irreversible damage to Boracay’s ecosystem and tourism economy.
A key concern raised is the bridge’s potential ecological impact. “Boracay, renowned for its pristine beaches and delicate marine environment, could suffer irreversible damage from large-scale construction and increased human activity, jeopardizing the very foundation of its tourism-driven economy.”
BFI also cited a lack of substantial improvements at the Boracay International Airport, raising concerns about the proponent’s capacity to deliver a project of this magnitude.
Last February, the BFI sent separate letters to President Ferdinand Marcos, Jr. and to the Senate. The letters were written in light of the enacted 2026 General Appropriations Act (GAA). Under the 2026 GAA, the project is classified as a PPP, with funds allocated for preparatory costs such as right-of-way acquisition and related fees.
In its letter to the President, the BFI has formally urged the President to halt the proposed SMC-led Boracay Bridge Project, citing grave concerns that it will permanently damage the island’s environmental, cultural and economic integrity. BFI argued that the project threatens to undermine decades of ecological recovery and disregards the vital “ferry experience” previously recognized by the President as essential to the island's identity.
“This communication is not submitted lightly. It reflects grave concern that the project, if pursued, will permanently alter Boracay’s physical character, destabilize its communities, and undermine decades of environmental protection and sustainable-tourism efforts,” the letter says.
BFI concluded its appeal to the President with a direct call to action: “Mr. President, we respectfully but firmly urge your immediate and personal intervention: to halt any movement toward implementation. Projects of this magnitude, capable of permanently reshaping a national treasure, demand the highest standards of prudence, integrity, and public accountability.
We fear that the bridge project, if advanced without demonstrable necessity and overwhelming public consent, will irreversibly redefine what Boracay is.”
On February 16, 2026, the Philippine Chamber of Commerce and Industry-Boracay (PCCI-Boracay) released its position, strongly opposing the proposed Boracay Bridge.
“Our position is based primarily on serious economic considerations, including the long-term sustainability of Boracay’s tourism model and the direct and indirect costs that such a project would ultimately pass on to visitors. We are also guided by environmental, cultural, tourism, and island-identity concerns.”
Who has the last say?
Approval for the proposed Boracay bridge is not decided by a single office but requires a multi-agency process. Large infrastructure projects must undergo economic and technical evaluation and secure approval from the National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA) and the DENR (for an Environmental Compliance Certificate after a full environmental impact assessment and public consultations).
Endorsements and permits from local government units, particularly the Province of Aklan and the Municipality of Malay, are also required, without which the project cannot proceed. Failure to secure approval at any one of these stages can halt the project.
In other words, at this stage, the unsolicited proposal is legally prevented from moving forward and seems to be dead in the water.
Below is the typical approval chain for a large unsolicited PPP infrastructure project like the proposed Boracay bridge by SMC, based on the Public-Private Partnership Code of the Philippines (Republic Act 11966) and related government procedures.
Where the Project Stands Now
As of March 2026, the Caticlan-Boracay Bridge Project is at a critical legal and environmental crossroads. While the national government has allocated funds to advance it, local opposition in Malay and Aklan blocks required local approvals.
Under the Public-Private Partnership Code of the Philippines (Republic Act 11966) and the Local Government Code of 1991 (Republic Act 7160), large infrastructure projects proposed through unsolicited Public-Private Partnership (PPP) proposals, such as the proposed Boracay Bridge by SMC, cannot move forward without the approval of the concerned local government units.
Under the PPP Code (RA 11966) and Local Government Code of 1991 (RA 7160), LGU support is mandatory for large PPP infrastructure projects such as the proposed Boracay Bridge. Without it, the proposal cannot advance.
The law requires that local PPP projects be confirmed by the Local Development Council and approved by the local Sanggunian before progressing through the national PPP evaluation process. When a project affects more than one local government, coordination with and support from the provincial government are also required within the local development planning framework.
In the case of the proposed bridge, both the Malay SB (Resolution No. 142, Series of 2026) and the Aklan SP (Resolution No. 193-2025) have formally opposed the project, leaving it without the local government support required under Philippine PPP procedures and unable to advance beyond the local stage.
If a proposal lacks these endorsements, it is considered incomplete by national agencies or higher-level development councils (like the Regional Development Council), effectively stalling its progress.
The Bottomline
As of March 2026, the Caticlan-Boracay Bridge Project is procedurally alive but practically stalled.
While the national government has allocated funds to advance it, local opposition from Aklan and Malay authorities has effectively blocked the necessary provincial and environmental approvals.
The project also faces continued political, social and regulatory resistance from Boracay Island stakeholder groups, private sector groups including boat operator cooperatives, tour operators, the Boracay Ati Tribal Organization and religious and environmental groups, all highly mobilized against the proposal in its current form and rejecting the proposal in the strongest of terms.
Opinion
There is no denying that a bridge offers potential benefits, such as all-weather access for supplies, utilities, garbage disposal, and the most compelling selling point for residents and tourists: “to improve response times during disasters and medical emergencies.” But these problems do not require a bridge.
Emergency transport systems can be improved without building a bridge.
To quote SB Member Hope Pagsuguiron during a guesting in a recent episode of Kapihan sa Boracay on PCTV, “Tulay lang ba ang solusyon sa hospital needs? Marami pang solusyon.” (Is a bridge the only solution for hospital needs? There are many other solutions.)
“Boracay contributes billions in taxes to the national government, but our national tax allotment to Malay is only more than ₱240-million. This is a call to action to the DOH and to Pres. Marcos to put up a Level 2 hospital in Boracay because the island more than deserves it.”
And then there are the disadvantages, one of which is a toll fee that will be passed on to everyone: residents, workers and tourists, to recoup on SMC’s ₱8-billion investment.
Ask yourself: Does Boracay Island truly need a bridge or are we risking more than we stand to gain? And if something goes wrong, are we prepared to live with the consequences? A bridge, once built, cannot be undone.
As the Filipino saying goes, “Nasa huli ang pagsisisi.” Regret comes only when it is too late. If this project proves to be a mistake, we may find ourselves facing irreversible changes, left with nothing but regret for a Boracay that will never be the same.
One last thought: Years of construction will create an eyesore and disrupt the island experience, hardly a draw for visitors and something no giant tarpaulin can hide.
Boracay has had to struggle through intense tourism disruptions, such as the six-month island closure followed by the COVID-19 pandemic not long after. Are we ready for another potential upheaval?
For now, the municipal and provincial resolutions underscore the need to balance progress with long-term sustainability and the preservation of this living national treasure, the country’s crown jewel of Boracay Island, that has time and again put the Philippines on the map.
Boracay Sun News conducted a community pulse survey to gauge public sentiment on the proposed Boracay Bridge Project.
DISCLAIMER: Views expressed are solely the author’s and do not reflect the official position of Boracay Sun News. Neither the author nor the publisher assumes liability for errors, omissions, or any loss resulting from the use of this information, which is provided "as is" for informational purposes only.
Frequently Asked Questions
Q: Who has the final say?
A: No single authority. The project proceeds only with approvals from national agencies, environment regulators and LGUs.
Q: Is presidential backing enough?
A: No. Legal, environmental and regulatory requirements must still be met, particularly DENR approval.
Q: Why is DENR approval critical?
A: Boracay is classified as an environmentally critical area. An ECC is required after full impact assessment and public consultations.
Q: What is the role of NEDA?
A: For large and high-cost infrastructure projects, NEDA evaluates economic viability and alignment with national development plans.
Q: Do local governments have a say?
A: Yes. Aklan and Malay must issue endorsements, clearances and permits. Opposition can delay or halt the project.
Q: Can it still be stopped later?
A: Yes. Negative environmental findings, technical issues, or withdrawal of LGU support at any stage can stop or suspend it.
Q: Should there be public consultations?
A: Yes. They are mandatory under the environmental approval process and allow residents and stakeholders to raise concerns or objections.
Comments