Today, I attended a meeting where solid waste disposal finally took center stage. At one point, a lawyer asked me a direct question: If we are against the use of Binaliw as the city’s final disposal site, then where should Cebu put its waste?
I was a bit surprised—not because the question was hostile, but because it reflected a familiar assumption in our planning conversations: that an unsafe site somehow becomes acceptable simply because there is no immediate alternative.
My response was straightforward. If Binaliw is geologically unsafe, environmentally prohibited, or legally non-compliant, then it must be closed or phased out—even if there is no instant replacement yet. The absence of an alternative does not legalize a dangerous site. It only exposes the failure of long-term planning.
That exchange captures the heart of Cebu’s waste dilemma. We are repeatedly forced to choose between maintaining a risky status quo and confronting the harder task of planning properly. In truth, solid waste disposal is not merely an operational problem—it is a land-use problem. And unless it is clearly integrated into the city’s Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP), we will keep asking the same question every time a crisis occurs: If not here, then where?
Waste Is Not a Side Issue. It Is a Planning Constraint.
Every land-use decision produces waste. Higher density means more garbage. Commercial expansion means more packaging waste. Mixed-use zones mean round-the-clock waste generation.
Despite this, solid waste management in Cebu has often been treated as a sectoral concern, discussed in a separate plan, handled by a different office, and enforced at the barangay level—while the CLUP proceeds as if waste were invisible.
This separation is a fundamental planning error.
Under Philippine planning law, solid waste is not optional, operational, or secondary. It is a land-use issue that must be integrated into the CLUP itself.
What the Law Already Recognizes
Republic Act No. 9003, the Ecological Solid Waste Management Act, is explicit: solid waste management must be integrated into local development and land-use planning.
This is not theoretical. The Department of Human Settlements and Urban Development (DHSUD) enforces this principle every day.
A subdivision cannot be approved without:
- a Materials Recovery Facility (MRF),
- a waste management plan,
- and a clear disposal arrangement.
If DHSUD requires this level of scrutiny for a single subdivision, then it follows logically—and legally—that a city-wide CLUP must meet a higher standard, not a lower one.
Yet many CLUPs, including Cebu’s, expand urban development without clearly mapping:
- where MRFs will be located,
- where transfer and processing facilities will go,
- how buffer zones will be enforced,
- or how increased waste volumes will be safely handled.
The Inayawan Closure and the Illusion of Disposal
Cebu City once relied on the Inayawan Sanitary Landfill. That facility is now closed following environmental and legal challenges.
What replaced it is not a new landfill within the city—but dependence on external disposal arrangements.
There is nothing inherently wrong with regional disposal. In fact, for a dense island city like Cebu, regional solutions often make sense.
But here is the planning problem:
The CLUP does not clearly acknowledge or spatially integrate this dependency.
If waste is transported out of the city, the CLUP must still plan for:
- transfer stations,
- waste logistics corridors,
- processing and diversion facilities,
- environmental safeguards along the way.
Ignoring these realities does not make them disappear. It simply pushes them into unsafe locations.
Binaliw and the Cost of Planning Silence
The presence of waste-related facilities in upland barangays like Binaliw—and the landslide incidents associated with them—should be a wake-up call.
These are not isolated operational failures. They are predictable outcomes of weak land-use integration.
RA 9003 prohibits waste facilities in environmentally critical and geologically unstable areas. Cebu’s own studies identify upland zones as landslide-prone and ecologically sensitive.
When waste facilities end up there, it is not because the law is unclear. It is because the CLUP failed to make waste a binding spatial constraint.
Barangay Conflicts Are Symptoms, Not Causes
Recent disputes between barangays and City Hall over waste segregation and collection protocols highlight another consequence of poor integration.
Barangays are asked to enforce “no segregation, no collection” policies—but without:
- sufficient MRFs,
- zoning support,
- land reserved for facilities,
- or clear citywide spatial guidance.
This creates friction, confusion, and inconsistent enforcement. It also undermines public trust.
A CLUP that integrates waste properly does not leave barangays to improvise. It provides spatial clarity and institutional backing.
Regional Solutions Require Local Responsibility
Some argue that final disposal should be regional, not city-based. That may be true.
But regional scale does not excuse local planning.
Even if the landfill or waste-to-energy facility is outside Cebu City, the CLUP must still:
- prohibit unsafe siting within the city,
- reserve land for waste processing and transfer,
- link development intensity to waste system capacity,
- and protect watersheds and communities from downstream impacts.
Planning ends not at jurisdictional boundaries, but at impact pathways.
The Real Question the CLUP Must Answer
A credible CLUP must be able to answer this simple question:
As Cebu grows denser and more complex, where—and how—will its waste be safely managed?
If that answer is not visible on the zoning map, then the plan is incomplete.
Urban resilience is not built only with roads and buildings. It is built by managing what cities produce—especially what they discard.
Closing Thought
Garbage is not glamorous. It does not attract investors or ribbon cuttings. But it is one of the most honest indicators of whether a city’s planning is grounded in reality.
If waste management is mandatory at the subdivision level, it must be central at the city level.
Because in the end, a land-use plan that cannot account for its waste is not planning for sustainability—it is planning for crisis.
Real LexEcon 