Between Walls and Waves: Coastal Development Legal Gaps

1. Legal Framework and Reclamation Regulations

In the Philippines, coastal reclamation practices are regulated through a combination of national legislation and local policies. Key legal instruments such as Presidential Decree No. 1586, which established the Environmental Impact Statement System, and Republic Act No. 7160, known as the Local Government Code, provide the foundational regulatory framework for reclamation projects. Additionally, specialized institutions like the Philippine Reclamation Authority (PRA) hold authority to issue permits and enforce technical regulations governing reclamation activities. As a government-owned corporation, the Philippine Reclamation Authority (PRA) benefits from an exemption on real estate tax for all properties held under its name. Empowered by presidential delegation, PRA holds exclusive authority to approve reclamation projects nationwide. This mandate is succinctly captured in its corporate mission: “increasing our nation’s resources and accelerating its development for the benefit of future generations by creating new frontiers of land reclaimed from the sea”.(Book-of-Merampas-Laut 2025)

In executing its regulatory functions, PRA coordinates closely with the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), which issues the crucial Area Clearance to assess site suitability for reclamation. The legal framework governing these activities is anchored in the Philippine Constitution, complemented by the Local Government Code, Fisheries Code, Environmental Impact Statement System, and related executive regulations. Collectively, these statutes establish procedural safeguards encompassing location approval, stakeholder consultations, environmental impact assessments, and continuous monitoring throughout project implementation. Crucially, they are designed to prevent spatial conflicts with protected areas and to ensure the acquisition of free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC) from indigenous communities situated near proposed reclamation sites. Nevertheless, reports from PRA indicate persistent regulatory challenges that complicate the effective management of reclamation initiatives.

The Manila Bay reclamation project has drawn significant attention due to its scale, complexity, and the potential environmental and socio-economic impacts it poses on fishing communities and marine ecosystems.

The phenomenon of coastal fencing in several regions of Indonesia, such as Tangerang, poses a significant threat to the sustainability of marine resources and disrupts the livelihoods of traditional fishermen. These coastal barriers have been found to lack the required Spatial Utilization Activity Conformity Approval (PKKPRL) from the Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries (MMAF), adversely affecting 502 catfish farmers and 3,888 fishermen based on recent studies. These works primarily address agrarian law, maritime security, social justice, and economic resilience aspects. Building on these, the present study further examines the legal violations associated with coastal fencing incidents, particularly through the lens of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).(Saputra et al. 2025)

This incident may indicate the emergence of informal or extra-legal spatial demarcation mechanisms, whereby individuals or institutions—whether private or public—assert de facto control over marine and coastal spaces, outside the boundaries of legally prescribed processes. Such developments signal a potential erosion of the rule of law in spatial planning and threaten to undermine both community rights and environmental protections.

The transformation of Indonesia’s maritime regulatory system following the enactment of Law No. 11 of 2020 on Job Creation (commonly known as the Omnibus Law) marks a pivotal shift within the national legal framework, particularly concerning marine spatial planning, coastal governance, and the sustainable use of marine resources.(BPHN and KEMENKUMHAM RI 2021) Historically, Indonesia’s maritime law was characterized by a fragmented, sector-based model in which distinct legal regimes operated independently—such as Law No. 27 of 2007 in conjunction with Law No. 1 of 2014 on Coastal and Small Island Management, and Law No. 32 of 2014 on Marine Affairs. However, the enactment of the Omnibus Law has resulted in an overarching regulatory integration that centralizes marine spatial planning within a unified licensing and spatial governance regime.

From the perspective of national legal design, the integration of marine areas into terrestrial spatial planning reflects a paradigmatic shift from sectoral management toward territorial comprehensiveness. Amendments to Law No. 26 of 2007 on Spatial Planning—introduced through the Omnibus Law—mandate the formulation of a single provincial and municipal spatial plan that jointly encompasses both land and sea. This raises a fundamental legal question regarding the normative status of previously enacted marine zoning instruments, such as the Regional Marine Spatial Plan (RZWP3K) and the Strategic National Area Zoning Plan (RZ KSN), which were previously formulated as stand-alone legal documents. The Omnibus Law provides no clear transitional mechanism for converting these marine-specific plans into the unified spatial planning architecture now required under the revised legal regime, resulting in legal uncertainty and interpretative fragmentation.

Moreover, the shift from a sector-based licensing system to a risk-based approach—as formalized in Government Regulation No. 5 of 2021—has significantly altered the architecture of administrative law in the maritime sector. The new approach blurs the lines of authority between technical ministries, such as the Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries, and the integrated licensing regime administered via the Online Single Submission (OSS) system. From a national legal standpoint, this necessitates a redefinition of legal norms governing authorizations and monitoring responsibilities, as licensing is now conducted electronically and categorized by risk levels rather than location or resource type.

The enforcement regime has also undergone substantial normative changes. Previously, criminal sanctions were a primary tool for addressing violations in maritime and fisheries law. However, the post-Omnibus regime—particularly as implemented through Government Regulation No. 21 of 2021—emphasizes administrative penalties as the core enforcement mechanism. This reflects a normative shift toward the principle of ultimum remedium, whereby criminal sanctions are invoked only as a last resort when administrative measures fail or egregious violations occur. While theoretically aligned with modern environmental law principles, the practical implementation of this approach is hampered by the limited institutional capacity and uneven legal infrastructure required for consistent and effective administrative enforcement.

Structural inconsistencies among government regulations also present a serious challenge within the national legal framework. For instance, Article 14A of the amended Spatial Planning Law mandates the inclusion of Strategic Environmental Assessments (KLHS) in all spatial planning processes. However, this requirement is not harmonized with the procedures set forth in Government Regulation No. 46 of 2016, which governs the implementation of KLHS. Inconsistencies such as conflicting validation timelines—10 days under PP 21/2021 versus 20 days under PP 46/2016—create operational confusion and legal ambiguity in conducting environmental due diligence. These inconsistencies illustrate a lack of normative coherence within Indonesia’s regulatory hierarchy and underscore the need for regulatory streamlining.

Institutional coordination remains a persistent bottleneck in the implementation of the reformed legal framework. Under the previous legal regime, the Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries had sole authority over marine zoning. Post-reform, this authority must be reconciled with the Ministry of Agrarian Affairs and Spatial Planning/National Land Agency, which now leads the unified spatial planning process. Differences in bureaucratic culture, legal mandates, and administrative norms between these ministries have exacerbated coordination challenges, indicating that legal harmonization at the institutional level is essential but currently lacking in statutory clarity.

Technical challenges, particularly in the use of base maps for spatial planning, also affect legal certainty. Although the Geospatial Information Agency’s (BIG) topographic maps are designated as the standard reference, Government Regulation No. 21 of 2021 allows the use of alternative maps upon recommendation from BIG. This legal flexibility opens the door to interpretive discrepancies and potential spatial conflicts. A more prescriptive legal framework concerning geospatial standards is required to maintain consistency and prevent spatial disputes.

To address these multidimensional legal gaps, the national legal framework requires both regulatory and non-regulatory reforms. While foundational statutes—such as Law No. 32/2014, Law No. 27/2007, and Law No. 26/2007—remain substantively relevant, their implementing regulations (e.g., Government Regulations No. 8/2013, No. 15/2010, and No. 32/2019) need to be repealed or substantially revised. Government Regulation No. 21/2021, which serves as the central legal instrument for integrated spatial planning, requires amendments to clarify the integration of marine zoning into regional spatial plans, reinforce the role of Strategic National Area Plans (RZ KSN), and ensure synchronization with environmental assessment procedures.

Beyond legal reforms, non-regulatory initiatives—such as the formulation of a unified Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for spatial data collection and shoreline delineation—are also essential. Furthermore, the development of institutional capacity, particularly among administrative enforcement agencies, is critical for realizing the goals of a modernized legal framework.

In sum, Indonesia’s post-Omnibus national legal framework stands at a crossroads between regulatory modernization and normative complexity. Without a coherent and integrated approach to harmonizing laws, institutions, and implementation mechanisms, the intended benefits of reform risk being undermined. A comprehensive and systemic overhaul—combining legal clarity, regulatory consistency, and institutional strengthening—is thus imperative to ensure that this legal transformation yields a marine governance system that is legally sound, environmentally sustainable, and socially equitable.

To address these challenges, Indonesia must adopt a transformative management paradigm that prioritizes coastal communities and small-scale fishers as primary stewards of marine resources. Such an approach should emphasize social justice and ecological sustainability, in alignment with Article 33 of the 1945 Constitution, which mandates the management of natural resources for the collective welfare and long-term sustainability of coastal ecosystems.

Overall, both countries emphasize the importance of Environmental Impact Assessments (AMDAL in Indonesia and EIA in the Philippines), public participation, and inter-agency coordination as procedural prerequisites for reclamation projects. Nevertheless, in practice, the implementation of these principles often suffers from inconsistency, largely influenced by economic pressures and political interests that prioritize development over environmental and social safeguards.(Agustian 2021)

2. Implementation and Impacts of Reclamation on the Ground

The Manila Bay reclamation project was initiated with the goals of stimulating economic growth and enhancing urban aesthetics. However, it has sparked major controversies due to its adverse impacts on local fisherfolk communities and marine biodiversity. Many fishing communities have been displaced without adequate compensation, resulting in significant social and economic dislocation. Environmental organizations have reported substantial degradation of mangrove habitats and a marked decline in biodiversity. Despite obtaining formal governmental permits, the project’s social legitimacy remains heavily contested by civil society groups and scholars, highlighting a disconnect between formal legality and social acceptance.

In contrast, seawall constructions in various Indonesian coastal regions—such as the construction of the so-called "Sea Fence" in Tangerang exemplifies broader structural challenges in coastal governance, legal enforcement, and environmental justice. While the issue only gained national attention in early 2025, official documentation reveals that authorities had already been aware of the unauthorized structure as early as August 2024. A report submitted to the Provincial Marine and Fisheries Office prompted field inspections, which confirmed that the fence extended over seven kilometers. Subsequent coordination between the provincial office and the Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries exposed the absence of essential permits, including the Coastal and Small Islands Zoning Utilisation Permit (KKPRL), and highlighted that the project occupied designated capture fisheries and energy zones, thus violating existing spatial regulations.

The legitimacy of the project's stated environmental justification—namely, to mitigate coastal erosion—was called into question by academic studies. Beyond administrative irregularities, allegations of legal manipulation and land speculation emerged. The Agrarian Reform Consortium (KPA) highlighted how SHGB plots were fragmented into smaller units to bypass central oversight by exploiting procedural gaps at the district level. This tactic raises serious concerns, as prevailing regulations prohibit the issuance of SHGB titles over marine territory. Additionally, changes to local spatial planning may have enabled the issuance of Location Permits (PKKPR), suggesting potential abuse of regulatory authority.

The implications of the sea fence extend well beyond questions of legality. Environmentally, the structure has been criticized for altering natural water currents and contributing to sedimentation, which disrupts marine habitats and biodiversity. Socially, traditional fishers have reported that the barriers obstruct access to fishing grounds vital for their subsistence, effectively displacing them from their customary coastal zones. The absence of inclusive decision-making processes has fueled a sense of exclusion and disempowerment among local communities.

This lack of transparency and public participation has also given rise to suspicions of corruption, including the possible involvement of land cartels. The perception that the project disproportionately benefits private interests at the expense of public and ecological welfare has escalated the issue to a national level. Statements from high-ranking officials underscore the seriousness of the case, framing it as symptomatic of deeper institutional weaknesses.

In essence, the sea fence controversy underscores the conflict between investment-driven development models and the principles of environmental sustainability and community rights. It highlights the urgent need for comprehensive reforms in permitting systems, land governance, and legal accountability mechanisms—especially those that ensure meaningful participation by affected communities in decisions impacting their living spaces.

3. Comparative Analysis of Sustainability and Coastal Community Rights

When analyzed through the lens of sustainability principles, both the Manila Bay reclamation and Indonesia’s seawall projects exhibit significant shortcomings in ecological and social dimensions. Ecologically, these projects fail to adequately consider the long-term carrying capacity of coastal environments, focusing predominantly on short-term economic or protective outcomes. The widespread use of concrete structures, sand infill, and conversion of natural coastal zones disrupts ecological functions, leading to considerable environmental degradation.

Socially, reclamation projects tend to marginalize coastal communities, particularly traditional fisherfolk, by encroaching on their livelihoods and cultural spaces. In Manila Bay, over 20,000 fisher families have been directly affected by forced evictions and loss of sea access. Similarly, in Indonesia, coastal communities have been excluded from participatory decision-making in seawall development, despite their legal rights to natural resource governance and good governance principles advocating for inclusive management.(De Vries and Pinuji 2025)

From a legal standpoint, the Philippines has advanced further in applying environmental justice principles, exemplified by jurisprudence such as the landmark case Oposa v. Factoran, which recognized intergenerational rights to a healthy environment.(Jourdan 2010) Indonesia has also incorporated similar principles within its Environmental Protection and Management Law (UU PPLH), but enforcement remains weak, and legal protection for coastal communities is often inadequate in practice.

Deficiencies in law enforcement in both countries reflect power imbalances between the state, investors, and local communities. Governments tend to prioritize economic development agendas driven by private or foreign capital, often at the expense of marginalized groups, including local communities. This is particularly concerning in light of international human rights standards such as the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), which affirms the right of local communities to self-determination and to freely decide on matters concerning their lands, resources, and development. In many cases, development projects proceed without obtaining their free, prior, and informed consent, thereby violating these principles. Legal access for affected communities is further hindered by high litigation costs, procedural complexities, and limited access to legal aid, reducing the effectiveness of judicial recourse.(Marzuki, Heryansyah, and Hadi 2024)

Despite these challenges, there are promising opportunities for improvement. In the Philippines, active civil society involvement and media scrutiny have increased public oversight over reclamation projects, pushing for more transparent and accountable governance. In Indonesia, grassroots initiatives such as community-based ecological reclamation and mangrove green belts demonstrate more inclusive and sustainable approaches to coastal protection, integrating environmental restoration with local community empowerment. The findings confirm that the development in Indonesia emphasises the short term goal, by focusing on the economic and social aspects but ignores the environment aspect